Mohamed Hassan’s plaintive conclusion to his series on
Muslims as public enemy should draw independent thinkers, even those ignorant
of the moral and existential gulf between Islam and Western nations, to the
realisation that Muslims set themselves apart from the country, those of the
West, that is, that they live in.
People who are aware of Islam’s inviolable precepts and its
permissible mores will take a lot more from it.
Hassan’s use of grievance runs as a plangent theme throughout, yet he
ignores its source, the effect of Islam’s inherent and indiscriminate violence
on secular societies, and its moral supremacism.
“War is deceit.” Muhammad
Christianity’s
“Thou shalt not bear false witness”
imbues Western morality without demur.
The requirements of human interaction require bending this rule for the
sake of getting on without hurting feelings, but in its religious form it is
unqualified. Islam is different, because
it is in a preordained and perpetual war with the non-Islamic world. Islam permits, demands, even, a variety of
mendacious processes, including taqiyya,
muruna, kitman, tawriya, hifz-al
sirr, and talbis. These are primarily reserved for non-Muslims,
the ‘kuffar’, to whom Muslims are under no obligation to tell the
truth. In extremis, and for the
requirement of the defence of Islam, they can even be used against other
Muslims.
Hassan opens
this episode with Ahmed Zaoui proclaiming his membership of New Zealand’s Human
Rights Foundation, and its website does indeed give him a desultory, almost
reluctant, credit. Here is a man with
convictions in Algeria, France and Belgium. He was an MP for a party described
as, “. . . not pluralistic at all. In reality it
was a completely fascist party” and one which indicated a crackdown on women’s
independence, non-Islamist thinking, and homosexuals. Yet wording elsewhere on the website describes
him as “a passionate advocate for peace through democracy in Algeria” and him being
a victim of ‘Algeria’s military regime.’ HRF gives an FAQ on his application for
refugee status which in itself should give a disinterested observer pause for
thought. For example, “As a former
French colony, Algeria’s leaders enjoy close links with the secret services of
France and Belgium, the two European countries in which Zaoui was convicted.” It seems Zaoui’s HRF does not have these
nations’ best interests at heart, and implies HRF as having an ideological bias
against our own government’s attempts at safeguarding New Zealand’s security.
One specific grievance Hassan illustrates is
interviewee ‘Adam’s’ complaint about being held up at airports. This ignores three things. Firstly, the escalation in airport security
is a direct result of Muslims attacking aircraft or using them to attack buildings. Secondly, Muslims are the greatest single and
identifiable threat to aircraft security.
Thirdly, the irresolvable global instability regarding Islamic state and
non-state actors renders this threat a continuous potentiality. While I share his annoyance at the
impositions of airport security, there is clear justification, notwithstanding
the denials, of profiling Muslims rather than Westerners. Nonetheless, we all have to suffer from the
intransigent officiousness of security staff who are given no discretion and
have manifestly poor judgement on what constitutes a threat. The lesson in Islamic awareness we experience
at airport departure gates is a quotidian reminder of Islam’s belligerent goal.
Radio New Zealand’s position on resurgent
Islam is at best ambiguous, at worst complicit.
The freedom it grants Hassan to project his views, and its extreme
reluctance to consider alternative world views on the subject, favour the
latter. It seems unlikely that all RNZ’s
journalists – and for that matter, its production and management team – are, down
to the last individual, completely ignorant of the existential threat Islam
presents to the Judeo-Christian Greco-Roman world’s Weltanschauung, but the
voice of contrarians, such as it might be, is rigidly suppressed. I feel sure that the reasons for this go
above and beyond RNZ’s control.
One can only speculate on how the opinion
that Islam is a religion like any other, and that its adherents are victims of
unjust prejudice, can take unexamined root through the chain of command from
the government and its quangos down, that results in Hassan’s self-serving
documentaries.
One journalist – Karl du Fresne – has timorously
raised issues about Muslim migrant attitudes but in doing so make clear he does
not understand Islam. Thus the field is
left open and unchallenged to Muslims and Islam’s supporters such as Donna
Mojab, Tayyaba Khan, Anjum Rahman, Ahmed Zaoui, Golnaz Bassam-Tabar, Mava Moayyed, Eva Bradley, Mona Alfadli and so many others, to dissimulate about Islam and and its
adherents in direct contradiction to objective news reports and analysis.
Nobody is defending the core
civilisational values that have led New Zealand to its global leading position.
This raises a much deeper
issue that crosses ideological boundaries and leads to the intersectionality of
the victimhood of ordinary people that Trump, Brexit, and Europe’s sundry nationalist
parties are exploiting – the management of the discourse of defeat. This is far too complex to go into here, and
for those who fail to understand Islam, explaining it would be a lost cause.
But RNZ plays no small part
in its role in New Zealand.
No comments:
Post a Comment