PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Thursday, 1 April 2010

'Allah does not love aggressors'

There are plenty of positive quotes which Muslims, moderate and extremist alike, will quote to their heart’s content at non-Muslims. For example, it is said that those who engage in jihad should not attack first (Koran 2:190). Why? Because

‘Allah does not love aggressors.’

So this is all about ‘defence’, apparently. Only defensive ‘attacks’ or defensive defences are allowed in the Koran and in Islam generally. But what is meant here by ‘defence’ or ‘defences’?
What is taken to be a defensive attack?

Considering the consternation the war in Iraq has generated amongst virtually all Muslims, then perhaps any attack, any bomb, any act of violence, in any part of the world, can be construed as defensive. In fact they have been taken in such a way in literally thousands of cases.

What about the ‘attack’ of Salman Rushdie on Islam and the Prophet? Did that inspire ‘defensive’ violence? It did inspire much ‘defensive’ violence and many killings. More to the point, many millions of ‘moderate’ Muslims have simply failed to criticise the ‘fatwa’ against Rushdie. Quite simply because it is acceptable to kill those who commit such crimes against Islam or the Prophet. And millions upon millions of others have also committed such grievous crimes against Islam and are doing so today. All of them deserve to die by a thousand fatwas.

So what about suicidal terrorism? Critics say that the Koran contains only a single line against such a thing:

‘Do not destroy yourself.’ (4:29)

The problem is, of course, that there are many, many other passages that can ‘abrogate’ such a passage. Such passages have indeed abrogated this well-known line. And let us not forget that in many parts of the Muslim world suicide bombs are called ‘sacred explosions’.

It is strange, then, that much is made of such a line by many ‘moderate’ Muslims, in the West, when their fellow Muslims seem to disagree with them on a massive scale. For example:

i) 43% of Jordanians believe in Islamic terrorism
ii) 82% of Lebanese believe in Islamic terrorism.
iii) 58% of Bangladeshis believe in Islamic terrorism.
iv) 38% of Pakistanis believe in Islamic terrorism.
What about ‘moderate’ and ‘Western’ Turkey? –

v) 20% of Turks believe in Islamic terrorism.

What does all this mean in terms of numbers? In the above list alone we would have more than 200 million supporters of Islamic terrorism.
There is a very good reason for suicide bombings (if one is a Muslim).

After an act of ‘martyrdom’ a Muslim goes straight to Paradise. That is, Allah will not judge one’s previous misdeeds - no matter how foul and pernicious one’s misdeeds were.

So what happens to 'martyrs' anyway once they have carried out their bombings? They are
‘attended by boys graced with eternal youth…kingdom blissful and glorious… arrayed in
garments of fine green silk and rich brocade, and adorned with bracelets of silver.’ (Koran, 76:15)

*) Stats 2002 -

http://people-press.org/

1 comment: