Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat, has sunk even lower than Tony Blair the Islamophile. At a speech recently, Hughes said:
“To Allah belongs the Kingdoms of the heaven and the earth, and you will see each other humbled to their knees.”
We can give Simon Hughes the benefit of the doubt and say that by ‘Allah’ he simply meant God. After all, many people say that Allah and God are the same entity. However, why the hell would Hughes choose ‘Allah’ rather than ‘God’ unless he was speaking to Muslims and trying to gain their votes and their respect? Oh, he was speaking to Muslims at the time.
Hughes seems to have referred specifically to the Islamic belief in the End Times when all sins will be weighed in the balance. More precisely, he talked about the Final Days by saying that ‘all the kingdoms’ will be ‘humbled to their knees’. So not only was Hughes being ‘respectful’ to Muslims as a Christian, he was effectively becoming a Muslim - if only for ten minutes, the length of his speech. This is not surprising because a Respect supporter, the Reverend Ray Gaston, ‘lived for a year as a Muslim’ and thus became a Muslim for a year. Rev Gaston lived that way to gain acceptance from Muslims, whereas Hughes probably said what he said to gain Muslim votes.
Not only did Hughes embrace Islam, if only for ten minutes, and state the Islamic prophesy of the End Days, he even seems to go in for a bit of Islamic jihad as well. Thus, after saying ‘sisters and brothers’ when addressing the Muslim audience, Hughes said:
“Every country of the world is your country.”
I can’t really offer a positive interpretation of that sentence; so I won’t. What else could Hughes have meant? Unless he just meant:
Every country of the word must not stop Muslims immigrants and visitors from entry.
I doubt that he meant that. He meant what Muslims mean by ‘every country of the world is our country’. Muslims already believe this because ‘the whole world belongs to Allah’. Thus the world belongs to Islam and therefore to Muslims. The places and countries that are Islamic are collectively known in Arabic as Dar al-Islam – ‘the Abode of Islam’. But not all the world belongs to Islam or Muslims. These other countries and places make up the Dar al-Harb – ‘the Abode of War’. So it is quite remarkable that a secularist and Christian should be championing Jihad and thus the increase in the size of Dar a-Islam. Thus Hughes is calling for the death of Christianity and of himself if he were to fail to embrace Islam. If he didn’t exactly mean this, he should have said so. In addition, he should know what the consequences are of what he believes. If he was only soft-soaping his potential Muslim voters, they he probably did not analyse his position and statement enough. In other words, he only cared about the effect of his words on his Muslim voters and him personally. Thus Hughes is either very naïve or very cynical (perhaps both).
Hughes also licked Muslim arse a bit more by saying how great it was that Barack Obama (because he is a Muslim) was elected. The implication is that now Obama will create ‘a new attitude from America towards the Islamic world’. Thus Hughes sees Obama positively. Hughes thinks that Obama will also have positive effects on Muslim-non-Muslim relations. (Again, is this is because he thinks Obama is a Muslim?)
Hughes also championed transnational interfaithing. He thinks that Christians and Muslims must ‘collaborate across the continents’. They would be transnational interfaith meetings, as it were. This would be achieved, Hughes thinks, only by ending ‘nationalism’ (as he puts it). That is, the ending of the nation state as we know it. And guess what. This is precisely what many Muslims hope for too. More relevantly, this is precisely what Islamists want. There is a whole Islamic literature against the evil that is nationalism. Again, the only way nationalism can be destroyed is by ‘collaboration’ across the world between Muslims and Christians. The problem is that this defeat of nationalism may well turn out to be an Islamic or Muslim defeat of nationalism. And when that is done, the Umma and the Caliphate will be complete – that is, they will be ‘universal’.
I presume, however, that Hughes, as a Christian, would not want to live under a universal Muslim setup or Caliphate. However, the problem with Hughes’s argument against nationalism, and his support and embracing of all things Islamic, is that these positions will help the creation of a Caliphate even if Hughes hasn’t exactly worked this out for himself. He may still build is own funeral pyre. And it will be his Muslim friends who will set light to it.
Perhaps Hughes, being an MP, only sees things in short term. Thus it is hardly surprising that he doesn’t look any further than the next election, whereas the consequences of his naïve Islamophilia will come to pass in probably no less that twenty years, and then only in certain states or countries. Hughes may not be alive when these huge cases of Islamisation actually come to be.