You are here

Misled and Misleading - Western Leaders' Response to the Charlie Hebdo Murders

Misled and Misleading - Western Leaders' Response to the Charlie Hebdo Murders

Tags:

Misled and Misleading - Western Leaders' Response to the Charlie Hebdo Murders

Edward Spalton – A Personal View January 2015

Edward Spalton is Hon. Secretary of the Campaign for an Independent Britain

(Mr Spalton is now Chairman of CIB however this article represents his personal views)

 

Seen from the Left

I have read your article and cannot understand why anyone should take exception to it. CIB should be in favour of free speech and should not be intimidated by the politically correct appeasement of Islam which appears to be the policy of HMG and most political parties. The admission of Turkey to the EU would considerably increase the number and influence of Muslims in Europe and HMG has confirmed its support for Turkey's admission to the EU.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon

Seen from the Right

.Your piece entitled “Western Leaders' Response to the Charlie Hebdo Murders” is really excellent. I consider it useful to differentiate between Islam and Islamism...We have to fight Islamism as an ideology. I differentiate similarly between human rights and human rightism, homosexuality and homosexualism, environmental protection and environmentalism. One of my long term “enemy” is Peter Sutherland...I know that his views are absolutely wrong...his Independent Labour formulation “that immigration was vital to economic growth and should also be increased by the EU to undermine national homogeneity”. This is pure evil.

Vaclav Klaus - Former President of the Czech Republic

 

 

Press and television pictures showed Western politicians, leading a huge demonstration in Paris against the brutal murders of the journalists of Charlie Hebdo . But the news pictures were misleading: the heads of state and government were in a little group of their own, proceeding down a side street which had been cleared for the purpose and were surrounded by a phalanx of security guards. The impression given to the public by editing the pictures was quite false and something of a parable for the whole Western response – deceitful and in a dead end.

Whilst nobody doubts the sincerity of their abhorrence for the killings, sincerity in other matters was conspicuously absent. Charlie Hebdo is a grubby, unpleasant, satirical publication which makes a speciality of really offensive cartoons and articles about Christianity as much as Islam. Mr Cameron said that he shares its values! Yet the plain fact that the killings were done by Muslims was everywhere glossed over and minimised. The killers, we were told again and again, did not represent “true Islam” or even Islam at all.

Muslims are very touchy about the slightest criticism of their prophet, whose conduct is held up as a model for future generations. The precepts and narratives from the Kuran and other holy writings, the Hadith and Sunna, are accepted as authentic and authoritative as a godly example and as precedents for all time . In them, the following is related.(*1)

When Muhammad was setting up the first Islamic state in Medina, from which the conquest of Arabia was launched, the inhabitants were given the choice of conversion, expulsion or death.

In largely pre-literate Arabia, the poets were the satirists of the day. One of them, a woman, had annoyed the prophet with her verses against him and his religion. Like Henry II, Muhammad exclaimed “Will no one rid me of the daughter of Marwan?”

One of his henchmen, Umayr, duly did so, stabbing Asma bint Marwan to death as she was nursing her youngest child. The prophet praised the killer. The following day the rest of the family converted to Islam.

So the behaviour of the murderers in Paris was entirely within the deepest core tradition of Islam and indeed following the example of the prophet himself. Now of course, just as some Christians are keener than others, so are some Muslims - although the fruits of their keenness will differ. The situation was clarified during Geert Wilders ' trial in 2010 for allegedly inciting hatred against Muslims, of which he was acquitted.

Wilders called an eminent Arabist, a Professor Hans Jansen, as a defence witness. His testimony was so explosive that the judge, who had insisted on the prosecution, actually tried to nobble the witness by engineering a meeting at a private dinner party before he was due to testify .

This became known and the bench of judges hearing the case was dismissed and a new one appointed. The second panel of judges would not allow Professor Jansen to testify in person but his written evidence was read into the record(*2).

Simply summarised, it was this. There is not and never can be any such thing as “moderate Islam” because the faith is defined for all time by its scriptures which are unalterable. There are, of course, very many moderate Muslims – that is Muslims who are not fully observant of all the commandments of the faith. Professor Jansen estimated that some 20% of Muslims take every scriptural command and example literally and seriously. Around 60% have varying degrees of observance and some 20% maintain a façade of outward conformity for fear of consequences. The penalty for apostasy from Islam is death. Although that is rarely meted out in Europe, the social consequences are extreme and former Muslims have to conceal their identities.

So, among the many millions of Muslims in Britain and Europe it is likely that one in five would wholeheartedly endorse the murders of the French journalists – certainly a very large number even if the percentage is overestimated tenfold. Our leaders blandly deny this, even telling us that Islam is a religion of peace. It is an assertion made in the face of thirteen centuries of evidence and many present examples to the contrary.

It seems they have to maintain the falsehood because of fears about community relations. What was their motivation to bring about the present situation?

One clue emerged in 2012 when Peter Sutherland gave evidence to the House of Lords committee on migration. (*3). Sutherland, a former EU Commissioner, former head of the World Trade Organisation, non executive Chairman of Goldman Sachs and head of the UN Global Forum on Migration and Development, said that immigration was vital to economic growth and should also be increased by the EU to “undermine national homogeneity”. People are seen firstly as mere units of production and consumption. Moving them about the world may help firms like Goldman Sachs, for instance, by pushing down wages. Secondly they are seen as “change agents”, undermining the national identity and cohesion of EU member states. Collections of “communities” within a country can be played off against each other and manipulated more easily than a people united by history and culture.

The CIA discovered that the zealots of Islam could be channelled to defeat the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and encouraged the recruitment of “holy warriors” from all over the Islamic World. Some were later sent to fight in former Yugoslavia.

All European governments must have known that admitting large numbers of their co-religionists could only bring similar problems here. The Labour government deliberately speeded up the process, which Mr. Cameron has done nothing to reverse.

In their determination to weaken and dissolve the nation state whilst empowering the EU, it seems that our leaders decided that the unappeasable, unassimilable, totalitarian, politico-religious creed of Islam was the most potent solvent. Perhaps the latest atrocity will persuade them of the error of their ways.

(*1) Trifkovic “The Sword of the Prophet” (2002) ISBN 1-928653-11-1 p. 39 available from Amazon UK

(*2) For Prof Jansen's evidence, see 

(*3) The BBC report is at