The Threat of Islam, or What Some Might Call Mohammedism

I was over reading at Albion's Seedlings (an excellent and informative blog so far) and came across an article by Peter Saint-Andre. In it, he states the truth that "Islam is not a religion of peace. I know that Islam means submission -- submission to the arbitrary will of Allah in heaven, submission to the arbitrary edicts of authoritarian strongmen on earth. I know that the Koran enjoins Muslims to not make friends with those who do not believe in Allah, and even says to "seize them and kill them wherever you find them" (sura 4.89)."

It is really a well-written piece. He does not, in my opinion, focus enough attention on the actual behavior is Mohammed himself. And the trouble with that is that it lets Muslims off the hook. They can simply say that the militants are a cook fringe and really no different from Christian zealots. It's this sort of moral parity that allows Muslims to get away with their violent ideology.

As I pointed out in my response to Mr. Saint-Andre's article, there is no moral parity between Islam and Christianity (and I'm not saying that Mr. Saint-Andre said there was -- I was just using his article as a spring-board for my own point). To recognize any sort of moral parity between Islam and Christian ity is to aid Muslims in their assault upon the institutions and culture of the Anglerealm (also called the Anglosphere). There is no moral parity.

Mohammed taught submission to dogma and religious war against non-believers. This is the opposite of traditional English values found in the Anglerealm. The sooner we recognize Mohammed, and not misguided zealots, as the source of these attitudes, the sooner we, as a people can stand up and defend ourselves against the onslaught of Islam, or almost more properly, of Mohammedism.

* * *

†Ætheling's Response to Peter Saint-Andre's Article

The bigger problem with Islam is not the Koran. It is Mohammed. The Bible has some violent stuff in it. Most Christians can ignore this because Christ was not violent and never sought to prey upon other people.

Mohammed was very un-Christ-like. Under his leadership, the very first Muslim community in the world emigrated to a new community and was encouraged to survive not by charity, but by raiding desert caravans -- by stealing. I have not completed my studies of the life of Mohammed, yet, but this is just one example out of many of his malfeasance.

With the founder of the faith engaging in violent acts of robbery against other people, it is impossible for good and lawful members of the faith to argue against such behavior by other members. Christians can always point to Christ and say that he would not have condoned murder or vigilante-style summary execution. Muslims cannot say the same of Mohammed.

Muslims like to scream and point fingers at the violent Christians whenever someone is critical of Islam. In addition to it being the "you too" fallacy, it is also a false analogy. Scholars can always draw examples from Mohammed's life to show that Islam began as a violent faith. They cannot draw such examples from the life of Christ. And therein lies the fundamental difference. When you look at the Spanish Inquisition, you can make a valid argument that they were not true Christians, because Christ never once engaged in or even remotely encouraged such activity. When you look at militant Islamists, one cannot say they are not true Muslims when a prudent scholar can point to such behavior in Mohammed and his original followers.

We often hear of the great Christian Reformation, during which the Church cast off its violent past (though really, it was more of a violent middle period. The violent past fallacy is, I believe, a political construct to put Christianity on a similar moral level with Islam, which it is not). The Reformation was possible (or at least made easier), in my opinion, because a violent, totalitarian imposition of the Christian faith was incompatible with the recorded words of Christ.

In order for Islam to go through such a Reformation, it would be necessary to repudiate the actions of the faith's founder, Mohammed. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

There is some hope in men like Sheikh Abdulrahman al-Sudeis, who says "that [Islamic] scholars must preach moderation to confront militants, who were using 'misguided and void' interpretations to justify violence." But his message will not be able to take hold at a fundamental level until Mohammed's own violent acts are addressed by the faith at large.

Police Arrogance and Brutality -- Distinctly Un-English

One anomaly of the Anglerealm is the trust we traditionally have for our law enforcement officials. Consider cultural stereotypes such as Sheriff Andy Taylor of Mayberry (the Andy Griffith Show), or the classical Bobby on the Beat in London. These are generally nice, polite, helpful people who can be counted on when there's trouble.

Sadly, we are moving away from this stereotype. I myself, despite being acquainted with some law enforcement officers (LEOs), distrust the police to a very high degree.

The reason for my distrust comes from the types of un-English laws that are creeping into the United States Code. Traditionally, we only had to worry about being arrested if we had done something inherently wrong or created a public disturbance. These days, we never know when a LEO might arrest us -- or otherwise assault us.

A blog I just discovered called Sovereign Commentary recently posted a story about a school worker being assaulted by two homeland security officers, who apparently had no fear of reprisal because they did it in front of a parking lot full of eye-witnesses. The school worker's crime for which he was brutally assaulted was to ask them to move. Apparently, they were blocking a school bus loading zone, which is a violation of the law.

The English response to a request to vacate the premises when one has no authorization to be there is "oh, I'm terribly sorry, I'll move at once," not "I'm with DHS, now get your hands behind your back." These officers behaved as if they were working for Mexico or some other civil law country, not for the United States, which is, last time I checked, a common law country.

Englishmen Barred From Being Police in their Own Country

Hat tip to Modern Tribalist for alerting me to this story.

"The [Gloucestershire Police Force] claimed it was under pressure to achieve the government's target, set in 1999, to have 2.8% of Gloucestershire officers to be from ethnic minorities by 2009. The national target is 7%." This is how a British government agency justified acts of discrimination against the English people.

This is just one symptom of a larger problem that is happening throughout the English world -- the collective suicide of our people.

Greetings and Welcome

The purpose of this weblog is to raise consciousness about English culture and to encourage the strengthening of ties among all the states in the Anglosphere, or Anglerealm. Bear in mind that there are others who have far more time to devote to this than I, so I will attempt to restrict my posts to informative scholarly essays that the reader may rely upon in an academic fashion.