Islamist extremism UK

Churchill Understood the Wahhabist Threat…….

I believe that many of today’s leaders should devote some of their time and read the writings and memoirs of some of our greatest western leaders.

Here is a portion via PowerLine of what Winston Churchill had to say about the “Mohammedan faith”:

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property-either as a child, a wife, or a concubine-must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. 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 paralyzes the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proseltyzing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science-the science against which it had vainly struggled-the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.

I do believe that Winston Churchill would have taken a much different approach to the war against Islamist extremism. Churchill was obviously not afflicted with any of the moral relativism that passes for “sage wisdom” in this present age. I dare say that any politician who dared to mouth the same kind of sentiment expressed by Churchill, would have hell to pay for.

Here is what Winston Churchill had to say about the Islamist Wahhabist sect:

A large number of Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahhabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars. The Wahhabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahhabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahhabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina.

I believe that Churchill had a keen eye not only for facts alone, but was able to capture in essence, the entire mindset behind this brutal barbaric religious sect. Truth be told, we need more Churchills in this day and age if the battle against Islamism is ever to be won. When these “new Churchills” are repeating verbatim Winston’s famous quote in Washington, London, Paris and Helsinki: “we will never surrender”, then I can safely say that the war is all but over. *L* KGS

6 Responses

  1. When and why we don’t speak about Mohammedanism anymore but Islamism?

  2. Good point. In Denmark, the use of the word has become taboo, even to the point of becoming politically incorrect.

    This is an emmense conundrum for all of who are interested in stemming the influence of the Islamists as well as defeating of the their violent coreligionists.

    Due to the present multicultural/moral relativist age, the mere mention of someone’s religion as being highly problematic for the modern age, brings screams form the left that you’re being “phobic” against that particular group.

    That many of this group show every sign of using the West’s moral democratic systems as a vehicle to place its belief system above all others, being above approach, is akin to how the Soviets acted against all dissent and therefor Orwellian.

    Thought crime is next.

  3. “the mere mention of someone’s religion as being highly problematic for the modern age, brings screams form the left that you’re being “phobic” against that particular group.”

    Unless they are Jewish, when the cries tend to come more from the right! 😉

    Churchill is an interesting character, but he was very much of his class and age. Despite being a strong supporter of Israel, his descriptions of Jews supporting bolshevism and previous revolutionary ideals, the “international jews”, played right along classic European anti-semitic stereotypes, whilst in the same stories lauding those who are “national jews”. Basically he says the Jews are fine as long as they agree with me. Re-reading the essay now is fascinating because it sounds so much like much of the modern western discourse on Islam.

  4. That’s one way of looking at it. According to the IHT, the article which was “ghost written” for Churchill was rejected by the same man for publication. So I assume that he didn’t agree with everything it contained.

    http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/11/news/winston.php

    Besides, I’ll take action over words any day, his stumping for a Jewish homeland as well as his kind words about Jews in other publications make this essay trivial in comparison.

    While it’s tempting for some to try and draw comparisons between the discourse on Jews in the 30’s-40’s and on present day Islam/Muslims, such attempts lack historical perspective and overlook the “present day” protected status that the Islamic faith has, by the lack of critical discourse in any of Europe’s international bodies vis-a-vis the Arab League/Muslim world.

    Compared to Jews throughout history, Muslims living in the west today face nothing in comparison. It is the lack of constructive criticism (for example here in Finland) that is the hallmark of any meaningful official public discourse that takes place, especially in Europe.

    Highlighting the violent words and provocations of Islam’s prophet, Mohamed, as well as his anti-democratic belief system that is an inspiration to hundreds of millions of Muslims the world over, can be in no way compared to ancient Christian (and Muslim) anti-Jew attitudes that used this ethnic/religious group as a reliable “scape goat” when times got tough.

    I’ll be the first in line to defend any Muslim individual from being attacked solely due to his/her being a Muslim. It’s what the person stands for that is important, if the default position is taken that Islam is totally unassailable, above any or all criticism, then I am at serious odds with that type of thinking.

    No Toby, modern day constructive criticisms of Islam are in no way comparable to the anti-Semitical tripe Jews have had to endure throughout their history.

  5. One more note, anti-Semitic bantor is not limited to the fascists and other national socialists, it has unfortunately found a home in the mainstream tradtional Left.

    How many more times does it need to be said by big name Lefties that “Jews run US politics” and that “US soldiers are dying for Israel”, before you understand the Left has most certainly an anti-Semitic wing.

  6. Being progressive does not afford the individual an automatic immunization from the deadly virus of anti-Semitism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *