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.

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

Saturday, 5 November 2011

Prince Charles embraces InterFaith - InterFaith = Islamic da'wah





[Left: the new religion, InterFaith, embraced by leftist and liberal Anglicans and Methodists, but not by Muslims. InterFaith - spaced-out. Above: Prince Charles on the look-out for a Brown Exotic he can take home with him and put in one of his thirty spare rooms.] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Prince Charles was in Morocco a bit back. How much interfaithing is there in that country I wonder? There is virtually no interfaithing in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan, or in any other Islamic or Muslim country I know of. Admittedly, I am not that knowledgeable about Morocco. But what I have deduced is that Muslims do not need interfaith in Muslim or Islamic countries because Islam is already the established religion. In some cases it has been the established religion for over a thousand years. In most/all of these countries a Muslim must remain a Muslim on pain of death. Other religious groups, dhimmis, always have a second-class status in Muslim and Islamic countries. They are not even second-class citizens because they are often, or always, not citizens at all.

However, and that’s a big however, Islam is a minority religion in the UK and that’s why some (but not all) Muslims are keen to embrace InterFaith. Through InterFaith they can carry out Islamic da’wah (proselyting) without necessarily being seen to be doing da’wah. This way they can spread Islam, which is a prime imperative for virtually every Muslim, without people getting shirty about being proselytised at, as it were.

InterFaith is effectively a new religion. But it is not a new religion for Muslims. It is primarily a new religion for leftist and ‘social’ Anglicans and Methodists. By embracing InterFaith they can make many social and political points about the evil past of Christianity, its exploitation of other religious groups, etc.

They can also embrace a religion, Islam, that is strong and proud, just as their religion used to be strong and proud. They can also embrace what they take to be the ‘social’ aspects of Islam and tie them in to their own socialist, sometimes outright Marxist, agendas.

One other possibility is that these Anglicans and Methodists, who have converted to InterFaith, if not quite to Islam, can show us how pious they are towards other religion(s) (Islam) and how, effectively, they turn the other cheek on a massive scale. Such a massive scale that the twin embracing of InterFaith and Islam signals the ends of their own faith, Christianity. But as long as a religion remains. As long as Islam remains. That’s all that matters. After all, all religions, or at least the monotheistic ones, are, by definition, a good thing. Thus if Christianity disappears, as it appears to be doing, at least InterFaith will take over. And in no time at all Islam will take over InterFaith.]

Who says that ‘distorted Islam’ is distorted Islam? A royal ‘representative’ of the Christian faith in the United Kingdom. What gives him the credentials to distinguish distorted from traditional Islam?

I reckon that Prince Charles, having many Muslim friends, has been spoon-fed Islam, nice Islam, and he has gratefully swallowed what he has been fed. The aristocracy, and even the Royal Family, have always had a thing for the Brown Exotic - for Arab Muslims.

I assume Prince Charles means Islamism and militant Islam by ‘distorted Islam’. That’s a strange position to uphold. Yes, there have been periods of relative interfaith and tolerance in Islam. But that is not a chronological fact. That is, it’s not a case of Islam always being tolerant until the 20th century when the Islamists and militant Muslims took over. There have also been periods of militancy - and even proto-Islamism as well.

Indeed, Islam started off as a militant and expansionist religion with Islam’s warrior prophet and his endless campaigns to try an enforce Islam on surrounding civilisations and communities.

And brutal sharia, or Hudna, has also been a part of Islam from the very beginning.

So Prince Charles really should take off his rose-tinted spectacles and perhaps start listening to non-Muslims, and non-InterFaithers, on Islam. It will do him the world of good in term of more objectivity.

"It's the issue of stereotypes that is difficult. It's so easy to concentrate on the negative and not the positive."

The logic here is painfully simple. Negative portrayals, or critical portrayals, of Islam are ‘stereotypes’ (Leftists and Muslims call them ‘myths’). Similarly, PC says we shouldn’t ‘concentrate on the negative’. Instead we should concentrate exclusively on the positive. But isn’t that just as bad when it comes to a well-rounded view of Islam? Calling all criticism ‘stereotyping’ (or ‘Islamophobia’) is hardly a more truthful or objective approach to Islam. It is more akin to indoctrination, which most Muslims accept when it comes to Islam.

"But what I do is remind people of what we share in common."

Beware of the empty soundbite. What do we share with Islam, exactly? We are all ‘Abrahamic faiths’ for example? Well, this is a neat taqiyya trick on the part of Muslims because when you read the Koran, the Hadiths, etc., you will find that Muslims, historically, have hated Christians and Jews precisely because they were Abrahamic ‘brothers’.

Take the Jews. The fact that they rejected Mohammed, being Abrahamic brothers, made them even worse than the polytheists. They should have known better than reject ‘the seal of the prophets’. They should have recognised Mohammed for what he was.

Much the same is also true of Christians. The Jewish and Christian faiths, to all Muslims, were just moments in the journey towards Mohammed. They were not the final word on anything. They were stopping points. And the fact that these Abrahamic brothers don’t realise this, the final truth that is Islam, is an absolute disgrace for all Muslims. So much so that this disgrace, the disgrace that is Judaism and Christianity, is written deeply into Islam itself.

"I find a certain amount of ridicule has come my way but respecting other people's cultures is the only way to achieve unity through diversity."

‘Unity through diversity’? Does Prince Charles write the slogans for Birmingham City Council?

Part of the Islamic ‘golden age’ - the 12th century. It was a golden age in spite of Islam, not because of it. Everything that made it a golden age came from outside of Islam. None of it was internal. There were no ‘Islamic’ philosophers, scientists, poets, etc. There were philosophers, scientists, poets, etc. who happen to have been Muslim. That’s a massive difference. No matter how many mental gymnastics these Muslims had to carry out to square their philosophy, science or poetry with Islam, the fact would have remained that they were philosophers, scientists and poets in spite of Islam, not because of it.

In 859, that ‘Islamic’ or even ‘Muslim’ university would have been full of infidel material. Work from Greece, Rome, and even the infidel parts of the non-Western world. It would have also included Judaic and Christian material. As Bertrand Russell once said, Islamic civilisation at this point was hugely parasitic on the West and on Judaism and Christianity. In fact, because of the hardcore nature of true Islam, it couldn’t have been anything but parasitic.

Yes, at certain places and at certain times the Jews have been treated well in the Arab/Muslim world. In certain other times they have been treated abominably. Let’s say, again, that Muslims treated Jews well in spite of Islam, and treated them badly because of Islam.

Prince Charles chose Morocco. Compared to other Islamic or Muslim countries, Jews have had it fairly good at certain times in that country. However, in the 20th century there have been many bloody riots against Jews in which many people have died. The worst insult in Morocco is to be called ‘a Jew’. Because of this, Hitler has always been very popular in this country.But, despite all that, it’s almost as if Prince Charles has deliberately chosen one of the most ‘interfaith’ Muslim countries in the Arab world because, at least since the 1948 Jew-killing riots, Jews have been treated relatively well - relative to other Muslim/Arab countries, that is.

No comments:

Post a Comment