What, "Help the police?" Surely You Jest!

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Jul 11, 2006 at 18:59

BS"D

"A worrisome number of Muslims would not help the police if they suspected a fellow Muslim was planning a terrorist attack, ranging in different surveys from 5% to 14% to 18%. "

Heck, even when they ARE the police they not only don't help, but do everything they can to thwart them.

In fact, I would say that 100% of devout Muslims wouldn't sell out another Muslim, no matter how evil he was, unless they could justify it through Islam, ...which they can't, because, as "radical" cleric Omar Bakri relates, "...he would not report a potential bomber to the police, claiming Islam "forbids" him."

But, not to worry, because... "He said he would stop any potential attack himself, with the help of his 'Muslim brothers'." Whew! For a moment there I was almost worried.

[ASIDE: Gee, I wonder why he and his "Muslim Brothers" have been so pathetically ineffective in preventing attacks remimiscent of those they only "theoretically" advocate in their sermons? You know, I'll bet they all feel just so awful about that, poor savages.]

And the rest of the data, such as it is, inspires even less hope that they will heed Tony Blair's plea for the extremists to, "...root out extremism'," especially with Home Secretary David Blunkett trumpeting, "we are sensitive to their [Muslim] points of view." from the chorus.

...so sensitive, in fact, that he and his ilk would silence any and all criticism of Islamic 'excesses' by legislating against it as a "hate crime," thereby insulating Islamic malevolence from rational scrutiny.

They would thereby make it difficult for us to discover Winston Churcill's view of the world's fastest growing 'religion of peace.'
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. "

...nor would we be able to strive to understand how John Quincy Adams could say what he said about Islam, AND it's "prophet."
"He [Muhammad] poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)…"

Even Churchill's grandson, who because he is reasonably faithful to his grandfather's vision, would have to be censored.
"...today a new challenge — another ism — confronts us, and that is the challenge of Islamic fundamentalism. Extremist Islam has declared war on the rest of the world, as evidenced by their ruthless attacks across the globe — overwhelmingly targeted at innocent civilians." (BTW: The term "innocent civilians" is an Islamic oxymoron, in case you didn't yet know that.)

As to the rest of what these surveys uncover, any one item is more than enough for concern. Taken together, they are a clarion call for immediate action. But we don't act! Why? Perhaps it is because we rely on an at best shakey short term strategy, having been as yet unable to come up with any real long term solution?

Anyway, I would assert that their real "thinking" is in fact far worse than those polls show, because only the most brazen killer is going to tell you he wants to murder you. The "hero" can't walk up to a real villian and ask, "Pardon me sir, but are you by chance a vicious criminal?" and expect an honest answer The fact that so many DO admit to that, relative to native Brits that is¹, should bother us a LOT! And the fact of their silence WHENEVER the treachery of their co-religionists is exposed should bother us even more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

^1. Yes, I am making an assumption here, because I'm not aware of any polls designed to determine how native Brits would respond. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that their preference for violence would be substantively lower. And, if I might, I would like to suggest someone conduct such studies (if they haven't already) in order that a true measure of Islam's deviance from the norm can be assessed. I think that what we have now might be made all the more interpretable if we had that data for comparison.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".