COLUMN: Lilley – Confrronting reality with radical Islam

- July 13th, 2012

Why not confront Muslim extremism?

by Brian Lilley

I know this has happened to you. You’ve been watching a newscast and there is a story about a terrorist plot being busted. You hear all about the plot, you know how many people were arrested, what they were generally attempting to do, but there is something the police seem to be avoiding.

The M word or the I word.

You know what I mean.

Police bust an Islamic terror cell, people that plan to blow up a building or shoot others in the name of Islam, and yet police will not say the words Muslim, Islam or any variant thereof. Even when the people arrested have clearly stated their goal is to carry out an attack in the name of Islam, police will not use the M word or the I word.

A document issued by the RCMP may help you understand why this happens. It’s called Words Make Worlds and it details how the Mounties are supposed to talk about Islam.

This booklet has a chapter on jihad, but it’s not the jihad you and I have come to know – the kind where people claim they will wage a holy war. No, this booklet is all about how jihad is an internal struggle “striving in the path of God.”

I’m disturbed any time government or a government agency tries to define religion, but that is what is happening here.

The document also makes a defence of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Islamist group that now controls much of Egypt. During his campaign for the Egyptian presidency, Mohammed Morsi, a man closely tied to the Brotherhood, told a crowd, “The Qur’an is our constitution. The Prophet Mohammed is our leader. Jihad is our path and death for the sake of Allah is our most lofty aspiration.”

That doesn’t sound like a peaceful striving in the path of God to me. And it doesn’t show the Brotherhood as the benign group the Mounties want you to think they are.

The document goes on to tell the Mounties never to link Islam and terrorism. “Terms like ‘Islamic terrorism,’ ‘Islamist terrorism,’ ‘Jihadism’ and ‘Islamofascism’ succeed only in conflating terrorism with mainstream Islam, thereby casting all Muslims as terrorists or potential terrorists.”

What a load of crap.

Since 9/11 when Islamic terrorist scum blew up the Twin Towers, crashed a plane into the Pentagon and were foiled in sending another one to Washington, people in the West have been bending over backwards to say, “Well, of course not all Muslims are terrorists.”

It is the statement everyone needs to make before talking about the problem of Islamic terrorism.

A friend told me that this document was no big deal, just a dust collector that real cops won’t pay attention to. I wish that were the case.

Back in the summer of 2010, four men were arrested and charged with terror-related activities, including claims they were planning a bombing and were attempting to send money to support terrorist activities in Afghanistan. A quick review of the statements made, the press releases issued at the time shows police never used the M word or the I word once.

These men were accused of terrorist activities, activities they planned to carry out in the name of their religion and our national police force was too afraid to name the evil for what it was.

They still are and that should frighten you. If police cannot name the evil they are facing, how can they confront it?

Categories: Politics

Subscribe to the post

4 comments

  1. Constantin says:

    One insidious aspect of refusing to define or name your enemy is a manyfold amplification of the resulting terror. It is one thing to know that X is trying to kill you and another to be told that “someone” is trying to kill you. In the first case you know your enemy and know when you need to be vigilant and when you can relax. In the second you have to be vigilant all the time and your suspicion will imprint on everything you do.
    Another aspect is that protecting Muslim “sensitivities” is an actual barrier to identifying a need for introspection and involvement from within the faith. Radical Islamism receives a lot of funding and appears to have the active support of less than 10% of the World Muslim population. What is particularly disturbing and indeed ominous is the lack of oposition within the Muslim world to the acts of terrorism. Indeed, the only public Muslim demonstration against extremism was related to a bombing of a hotel in a Muslim country where guests to a Muslim marriage died in the carnage.
    This is why it is absolutely critical to publicly denounce Islamicism and Islamic Extremism without hesitation and at every oportunity.
    I believe that animated by politically correct “concerns”, the RCMP is making a horrible mistake. Short of a devastating war, only building up internal oposition to Islamic extremism within the Muslim community will put an end to Islamic terrorism. This politically correct “sensitivity” is a step towards preventing that positive outcome and stems from a misguided idea that being criticized has no constructive value and can only generate resentment. Everything is upside down in the politically correct world of the liberals.
    In addition, it is a false premise that publicly condemning Jihadism and any form of Islamic extremism is equivalent to casting all Muslims as extremists. If it is true that most Muslims consider Jihad an internal struggle that has nothing to do with terrorism, they should denounce those among themselves who misuse the term and give it a bad name and a horrific history in the wider world. Instead, the misguided Mountie policy is the equivalent of trying to erase the traces of a crime being committed from the eyes of some of its victims. The first victims of such a policy are those Muslims who would stand for peaceful coexistence and would opose this increasingly worrisome phenomenon.
    I hope that the RCMP will hear us and change this profoundly misguided and indeed dangerous policy.

  2. Greg says:

    As a person without a religion, I hope the future does have just Buddhism as a religion. Remember that the governments and those at the top don’t want a caring and thinking populace. They also want to easily indoctrinate people. Buddhism doesn’t allow for that. Buddhism should be the world’s supreme and only faith. It promotes peace, inclusion, love for all humanity, no war and wanting to ensure future generations have a better life. It is not a warmongering faith full of double standards like the monotheistic faiths.

    That is the reason why the Buddhist religion is better.

    The monotheistic religions have nothing to teach any religion. Buddhism is way better and a true pure good religion.

    Remember that the people who are the so-called faithful ones want a secret WW3 scenario. What do you think attacking Syria and / or Iran will cause.

    Thank you.

  3. Alain says:

    Greg, how exactly will being Buddhist save us, or anyone, from the goal and objective of Islamism? Being a Buddhist I am well aware of the Muslim violence in Thailand and other Buddhist countries, because for the Islamists there can be no tolerance of any other religion or belief system.

    I do agree that we should stay out of Syria and also think we should have stayed out of Libya. For Afghanistan I think we should have withdrawn once we had destroyed the enemy’s base.

  4. Tom says:

    In the UK, of course we have a similar reticence in the media and in statements by police spokespersons. There’s been a plague of rape/child abduction/sex trafficking cases in recent years. The perpetrators are characteristically labelled as “asian men”, much to the chagrin of Sikhs and Hindus.

    The tell is provided by the journalist’s personal jihad in reconciling politically correct obfuscation with their training mantra – ‘who, what, where, when and why’. The “who” requires them to list names of those charged with offences. In a recent case Mohamed Sheikh, Surin Uddin, Ali Hamza, and Abdul Hammed. The “where” requires them to list home districts. In recent cases Sparkhill and Tower Hamlets, recognized by all UK citizens as English “Zones Urbaines Sensibles”.

Comments are closed.