Outrageous Letter

Submitted by John R (United States), Aug 30, 2006 at 17:55

Two days after British authorities broke up an alleged plot to blow up multiple aircraft over the Atlantic Ocean, the "moderate" Muslim establishment in Britain published an aggressive open letter to Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Ok, what do they want? Did they express concern over lives that could have been lost. Did they pounce upon every opportunity to condemn the failed, subversive attempt. What are their concerns? They care for the British?

It suggested that Mr. Blair could better fight terrorism if he recognized that the current British government policy, especially on "the debacle of Iraq," provides "ammunition to extremists." The letter writers demanded that the prime minister change his foreign policy to "make us all safer." One prominent signatory, the Labour member of Parliament Sadiq Khan, added that Mr. Blair's reluctance to criticize Israel increased the pool of people whom terrorists can recruit.

Amazing. A bunch of dissidents, partial to their fellow Muslims, their kindred souls, extolling anarchist terror. The perpetual fervid criticism of Israel. They actually support Hezbollah over the Israelis. They do not even want to condemn the terrorist acts, the letter does not even metronymically flow between condemnation and slamming of the British government, doesn't it?. Seems like they find the terrorists irreproachable while the British are not.

In other words, Islamists working within the system exploited the thwarted Islamist terror plot to pressure the British government to implement their joint wishes and reverse British policy in the Middle East. Lawful Islamists shamelessly leveraged the near death of thousands to forward their agenda.

You call this moderate Islam? What is so moderate about it? It's the usual disquieting, illogical, grotesque Islamic kitsch .

Despite its reported fears of Muslim street unrest, the Blair government heatedly rejected the letter. Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett called it "the gravest possible error." The Foreign Office minister Kim Howells dismissed it as "facile." Home Secretary John Reid deemed it a "dreadful misjudgment" to think that the "foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity." Transport Secretary Douglas Alexander rejected the letter as "dangerous and foolish."

The terrorists and these "moderate Muslims" virtually differ in one thing: one is violent, the other is not. They have the same undercoat: Islam. Basically they are of the same pedigree in that they have the same beliefs in multitudinous nonsense and are sympathetic to each other. If one is not so, then one does not believe or follow his own faith, Islam.

Undaunted, the "moderate" Muslim establishment pushed even harder on the domestic front. In an August 14 meeting with high government representatives, including the deputy prime minister, it made two further demands: that a pair of Islamic religious festivals become official holidays and that Islamic laws pertaining to marriage and family life be applied in Britain. A Muslim present at the meeting later warned the government against any plans to profile airport passengers, lest this step radicalize Muslim youths further.

Muslim youths getting radical. I mean this actually means Muslim youths getting violent because they already believe in radicalism. Which is what I have been saying: Muslims believe in radicalism. They just differ among themselves, one can say, in that one is violent, the other is not, but could be. Islamic law applied to Britain? It's explicatory. They believe in radicalism, mixing religion and the government, actually you know, if they could they would gamely demand the British to have an Islamic form of government. They just couldn't ask for everything right now, so they ask for one Islamic law, and one Islamic law then come another Islamic law....

And here's another reconsideration: While I maintain that the future of Europe – whether continuing in its historic Christian identity or becoming an adjunct of Muslim North Africa – is still an open question, the behavior of the British public, that weakest link in the Western chain, suggests that it, at least, may be too confused to resist its Londonistan destiny.

Here I do not think so. I do not think the British would fall for and Islamic form of government. What they have been expressing is just a product of democracy, disagreeing with their government, much the same as there are people in democratic countries disagreeing with their government policies. In this case, these Muslims are helping in turning more British against British foreign policy, but to a point, after which the British public will marginalize it. The British will not go all the way to lose their identity to Islam, I think. There's a limit. The British are not patsies. They will not fall for a dystopian society.

John R.

---

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".