Acknowledging when things have become unmanageable is in itself movement in a direction away from denial.
Which is why we must be honest when we note that Islam is often used as an excuse to perpetrate violence.
“Strike terror in the hearts of the unbelievers” is not an excuse. Its the motive.
On Saturday, News Corp reported on Australia’s most secure jail. It shone alarming light inside Goulburn’s Supermax prison and the masses of Muslim inmates who bow to Mecca from behind bars.
Here, the Australian taxpayer funds convicted radical terrorists. Special diets are happily catered for in the delightfully agreeable, five star Hotel Du Terrorisme.
“The Muslims are entrenched in here only because they are here, they act no different in here or anywhere else,” serial killer Ivan Milat, one of few non-Muslim inmates at the jail, told news.com.au in exclusive letters.
This is at the heart of our problem with Islam, but most are too scared to acknowledge it.
Australia is not an Islamic country. Why are these people allowed to segregate, even behind bars? When did we start running PC prisons?
We’ve heard this time and time again, here and overseas.
In December, The Daily Telegraph reported NSW prisons have “become terrorist breeding grounds because the state government has dragged its feet on de-radicalisation programs.”
It took six years to introduce a program to target terrorists — not wandering freely on our streets, but secured in our jails. Shocking systematic failure.
Why? Because the PC brigade has decreed it is unacceptable to question someone’s beliefs. Of course it’s not all Muslims, but these inmates have already been found guilty of attacking Australian values and way of life. Doesn’t their privilege end there?
Who says “not all Muslims?” All Muslims, without exemption, are commanded to wage war on unbelievers until they say ‘there is no god but allah and Muhammad is his prophet’. It is time to take Islam seriously. Their privilege should have never been granted in the first place.
If a mass murderer confesses a specific book has inspired their actions, do you let them sleep with it under their pillow to fuel their mania? Much as we loathe the overused word “trigger”, perhaps it is never as relevant as in the context of terrorism.
In the UK, Prime Minister Theresa May told MPs Muslim convert Khalid Masood had previously been investigated over links to extremism before he wrecked havoc at Westminster. Who is running the monopoly on the words, “Go to jail: Go directly to jail…”?
Interpreted? As if? Islam is not a matter of interpretation. Islam has to be taken straight up.
Islamic imam Feizel Chothia was given space to worship at a Perth Anglican Church — a generous gesture indeed for a man who has reportedly published a Facebook post justifying killing former Muslims and is the author of a book on sex in Islam in which he writes, “Islam prescribes capital punishment for Homosexuals. While such punishment may seem cruel, they have been instituted to maintain the purity of society and to keep it clean of perverted elements…”
Is condoning murder not a direct attack on our law?
It is. Our judiciary condones it. So does our political clown gallery.
Can we stop twisting ourselves in agonising knots over how much Islam we should tolerate?
We are not twisting us in knots, we submit, gradually.
Can we stop debating specifics and merrily accepting people who make outrageously untrue statements such as “Islam is the most feminist religion”?
When I first studied Islam, the same vetting process applied as when I considered feminism. Read, digest, and reject because neither leads a path to harmony in society. As a set of beliefs, extreme Islamism is not acceptable.
Corrine Barraclough has not studied Islam at all, otherwise she would know that there is no such thing as “extreme Islamism”. There is only Islam, that’s it.
The intent of a secular society is not to go weak at the knees, face Mecca, and pander to extremism.
If the goal is living in harmony without enforcing specific beliefs, isn’t it entirely illogical to embrace beliefs that challenge the very existence of secular society? Therefore, can’t we exclude players who advocate bad practice?
Let’s go back to basics: isn’t the entire concept of “Jihad” dark, twisted, and morally at odds with a peaceful society?
Look at the treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has dared to speak out about what she describes as the “apologetic attitude” some liberals have toward connecting the religion with Islamic terrorism, and has since cancelled her tour to Australia citing security concerns.
Look at France’s Charlie Hebdo attack following Anti-Islam editorial.
Then look at outspoken filmmaker Theo van Gogh who was shot dead by a 26-year old Muslim in the street.
And consider Bill Leak being forced to move house in flight of retribution.
When people are muzzled, blocked from joining the dots or discussing clearly visible links, society doesn’t move forward. We slam on the brakes, shove fingers in our ears, and ensure we fail in finding solutions.
We do not make progress; rather, we seal our own fate.