What have we learned since the horrors perpetrated in Paris recently to the cries of “Alahu akbar”?
1. The public debate on Islam, outside the counter jihad internet sites, is conducted in almost perfect ignorance of the teachings of Islam. For instance, how many people who know all about Leviticus and the Westboro Baptist Church and who trot them out ad nauseum as proof of equivalence between Islam and Christianity, even know that Islamic scriptures consist of more than the Koran? In fact there is also the Sunnah, the actions of Mohammed the perfect man, as detailed in the Hadiths (traditions) and the Sira (biographies).
Unfortunately his actions included ordering the assassination of several people who satirized him so the killers at the offices of Charlie Hebdo were only following his example. Try pointing that out in the comments columns of the papers and you will very quickly be “moderated”. I know, I have tried.
2. The public are not yet serious about the reality of global jihad and its roots in Islamic teachings. Millions of people took to the streets with signs proclaiming “Je suis Charlie” but they are not remotely Charlie. If they were they would have carried copies of the offending cartoons. As it was they were merely displaying their consciences at absolutely no risk to themselves. It was on a par with the self-indulgent (and quickly forgotten) “BringBackOurGirls” hashtags.
I’m afraid it is going to take several more such atrocities in Western countries before the awful truth finally dawns.
3. The media generally are still too scared to print the cartoons and too ashamed to admit that they are scared. Instead they equivocate with “We must stand up for the freedom of speech, but….” formulations. If all the big media outlets cannot bring themselves to do the brave thing the next best thing would be to print blank cartoons with “We are afraid” printed in them. No one would blame them. We are all afraid, but what a step forward it would be to own up to it.
As it is, it seems the media defend the right to free speech as long as no one exercises it.
4. The Guardian in particular is in an awkward position, having for so long given succour to the Far-Left/Islamist axis and their fellow travellers.
Fair play to them though, in this article they have printed the front page cartoon of the first post-massacre edition of Charie Hebdo, but rather small and half way down the column as though hoping that no one would notice it.
On the other hand, they have given one of Britain’s foremost Islamist organisations, the Muslim Association of Britain, the chance to talk their doubletalk. Omer el-Hamdoon, president of the MAB, said “Causing offence “just for the purpose of offending” was not freedom of speech”.
Omer, we have to tell you that causing offence, even “just for the purpose of offending” very definitely is freedom of speech. If you cannot understand that then you are in the wrong place.
Also, the Guardian gives this warning in bold type at the beginning of the article:
“Warning: this article contains the image of the magazine cover, which some may find offensive.”
Is this not rather odd? The Guardian never gives such warnings before the articles it prints which cause offence to Christians. There can only be two reasons for the difference. Firstly, Islam is the Guardian’s favourite totalitarian religious ideology and secondly, they know that Islam does not turn the other cheek.
5. The stance of Charlie Hebdo itself, or the Charlie Hebdo survivors, seems puzzling. The cartoon in question shows Mohammed holding a “Je suis Charlie” sign with a tear rolling down his cheek. Above are the words “All is forgiven”. What does it mean? Who is forgiving who and for what?
I have seen several interpretations, mostly seeing subtle ironies in it which escape me. For instance Charlie Hebdo are mocking the disparate groups of people who now claim to to be Charlie, including Mohammed crying crocodile tears for dead Kafirs.
Sadly the official version from the Charlie Hebdo journalist quoted in the Guardian article above shows no such bite:
“We feel that we have to forgive what happened. I think those who have been killed, if they would have been able to have a coffee today with the terrorists and just talk to ask them why have they done this … We feel at the Charlie Hebdo team that we need to forgive….Everyone must think about this forgiveness.”
Why this rush to forgiveness? Charlie Hebdo is not a Christian magazine, but even Christians are not obliged to forgive prior to repentance. Are the jihadis likely to be impressed by unasked for forgiveness or, for that matter, people waving outsize pencils? No they are not. They will see it as mere weakness from a people rushing to conciliate rather than confront their enemy, and will move on to the next atrocity and the next until we start to take seriously what they are telling us.
6. Lastly, is it not bleakly comical to see our politicians using the “March for unity” to pose as defenders of free speech, they who have been suppressing it for years to keep a lid on increasing resentment at mass Muslim immigration? I don’t know how things are in your country but in Britain today, due to the de facto blasphemy law masquerading as hate speech legislation, it is possible to go to jail for burning or tearing up your own property provided it has 7th century hate speech printed on it.
Their pose is as phoney as the photo op showing them apparently marching in solidarity with the people:
Fortunately there was someone on hand to take a wide angle photograph from above: