Yes. You heard right. A peace conference. But peace, in Islam, is not what we take it to be. Peace is only achieved when the whole world 'submits to Allah'. Until that time, there will be war. Thus the peace conference’s primary aim is to make more and more people, both Muslims and non-Muslims, submit to Allah. Then, and only then, will there be peace. That is what is meant by an (Islamic) peace conference. To think this has anything to do with any other kinds of peace is the height of naivety.
In response to the banning of Dr Naik, the MCB has acted predictably. We have heard its warnings – its threats! – many times before:
i) Ban the Satanic Verses otherwise there will be ‘serious damage to community cohesion in our country’.
ii) Ban the Danish cartoons of Mohammed or there will be ‘serious damage to community cohesion in our country’
iii) Bring in more ‘hate laws’ or there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
iv) Let them build the super-mosque in Dudley otherwise there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
v) If you ban the burka there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
vi) If you do not allow halal meat here there will be ‘serious damage done to community cohesion in our country’.
vii) If you do not allow sharia law here there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'. viii) If you prosecute these Muslims there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
ix) If you decide to use ‘spy cameras’ in Muslim communities there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
x) If you don’t ban Geert Wilders from the UK there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
xi) If you don’t bow down to every Muslim warning and threat, then there will be 'serious damage done to community cohesion in our country'.
Let’s not mess around here. What does ‘serious damage’ actually mean? It means riots, violence, demonstrations and even acts of terror. This is what the MCB is threatening. It is not warning us. It is not even prophesying events. It is hoping that these things will happen. It is encouraging these things to happen. That’s how the MCB’s collective mind works:
If you don’t do X, Y and Z, the ‘Muslim community’ will do A, B and C.
And the MCB has many times been true to its word.
Why are Muslims so susceptible to violence and ‘serious damage’? Is it something about their unique ‘oppression’ or something about their religion – Islam? I would say the latter. It is also something about their ultimate exemplar – Mohammed. He was a warrior, a Jew-hater and a mass killer. Fancy having such a person as the greatest exemplar of the whole religion.
The thing about the MCB’s accusation of the ‘double standards’ of not also banning Geert Wilders is that he has never explicitly, or even implicitly, encouraged violence, as Dr Naik most certainly has. Encouraging terrorism is very different from criticising the Koran and Islam generally – even if such words can lead to violence against Muslims. You cannot base legislation on flimsy prophesy. Dr Naik is a defender and rationaliser of jihad. Geert Wilders is a critic of Islam and the Koran. These two things are very different. Dr Naik is a ‘bigot’ about all non-Muslims and every Jew on earth - as he encourages all Muslims to be. Geert Wilders is not even a ‘bigot’, as the MCB suggests, about all Muslims, only about radical Muslims and the Koran itself. Can you really be a ‘bigot’ when the subjects of your bigotry are extremists and a very violent and obsessive religious book? In any case, how on earth will an Islamist ‘bigot’ encourage ‘community cohesion’? The mind boggles at such surreal claims from the MCB.
I’m not entirely sure either how Dr Naik’s visit to the UK will ‘promote understanding between communities’ considering what he has actually said about ‘non-believers’, Jews and just about all non-Muslims. Anyway. This is what the MCB thinks. There is no surprise there. Of course, when Dr Naik was reported to have said that ‘all Muslims should be terrorists’ he came out with a classic piece of taqiyya – it was ‘taken out of context’. Isn’t it strange that the positive things Muslims say, and are reported to have said, are never said to to have been ‘taken out of context’. If he had said, ‘Love thy non-Muslim neighbour’, and was reported to have said that, you can be guaranteed that he would not have claimed to have been ‘taken out of context’. It’s the same with quotes from the Koran. When a non-Muslim quotes the passage, ‘Cut off the finger tips of your enemies’, that will be said to have been taken out of context. However, when non-Muslims quote the oft-used, ‘To kill one man is like killing the whole of mankind’, no Muslim ever says that that is taken out of context. This is especially strange because the middle clause of that sentence from the Koran is always surgically and strategically removed by Muslims because it actually reads like this in full:
‘To kill one man, except for villainy in the land, is like killing the whole of mankind.’
What games Muslims play with us!
As for Dr Naik ‘dispelling the myths surrounding’ Islam. That is simply a euphemism for dispelling all the negative things which are said about Islam and the Koran. By definition - by Islamic definition -
negative views about Islam = based on ‘myths’ about Islam
positive views about Islam = based on true accounts of Islam
The logic of this is painfully simple.