Useful Idiots

The phrase "useful idiots", supposedly Lenin's, refers to Westerners duped into saying good things about bad regimes. Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin used the term "polyezniy idiot" or "useful idiot" to describe sympathizers in the West who blindly supported Communist leaders.

It is in our nature as a civilised society to prefer peace to war. This can lead to the kind of appeasement we all remember from the time of Neville Chamberlain, who thought he could do a deal with Hitler. Today, appeasers are once again protecting Islam, presumably on the assumption that because it is a monotheistic religion it is somehow equivalent to Christianity, and telling us that we can dialogue with "moderate" Muslims. The "useful idiots" which include many of our high ranking church leaders, appear not to have read the Koran and do not realise, as explained frequently by Rev. Mark Durie, Vicar of St. Mary's Anglican Church, Caulfield Victoria, who is a scholar of Islam and reads Arabic, that Islam is not only a religion but also a totalitarian political ideology.

And yes, there are moderate Muslims. Those who don't kill infidels, who don't steal from unbelievers, who don't treat women as slaves. However, they are not very vocal in condemning those who do, and even if only l0% of the l.6 billion Muslims in the world are extremists or potential terrorists, that is a huge security and financial burden for civilized countries.

What may be excusable in church leaders who are so embattled against the forces of secularism that in the interests of ecumenism they seek to find allies among other faiths, is not excusable in political leaders or organisations such as the National Civic Council, the organisation founded by the late Bob Santamaria. The NCC has a very honourable record in fighting communism in the unions and, through the Democratic Labor Party, in keeping out of office the Labor Party while it was under marxist influence. This makes all the more inexplicable its current stance that Islam is a benign religion and that the Islamic terrorism in France is primarily due to the failures of the French government over decades to deal with the requirements of their North African immigrants.

Patrick J. Byrne, Vice President of the National Civic Council, has written an article implying the problems arise from the mistreatment of Muslims by the French authorities and by the 'extreme right': "FRENCH POLITICS AND ISLAM: Kepel scathing of French elites, Salafists and far-right Islamophobes", News Weekly, January 30, 2016. Byrne quotes extensively from Gilles Kepel, described as an "acclaimed
authority on political Islam". Kepel's academic authority is based on his studies of Arab, Middle East and African Islamic societies, and he has focused in particular on the fundamentalist phenomenon, showing that "since the 1970s fundamentalism has been a crucial force throughout the world and across religions-among Protestants, Catholics, and Jews as well as Muslims. Fundamentalism is to a large extent a negative reaction to modernity, which it views as an external corruption that must be eradicated in order to return to an earlier age of religious purity".

The big difference is that the 1970s and subsequent fundamentalism of Protestants, Catholics and Jews are all non-violent, unlike
the fundamentalism of Islam. Furthermore, Kepel does not seem familiar with Islam in Asia, i.e. in Pakistan, Aceh, and Brunei where non-Muslims and Muslims of the "wrong" sect are persecuted by mainstream Muslims and not just by terrorists.

However, what is most troubling about Kepel's analysis - and Byrne's acceptance of it - is that he ascribes "victim" status to the Muslims in France
who have failed to integrate and live in disadvantaged ghettos. While the National Civic Council has been perceptive in rejecting the "victim
status" claimed by feminists and homosexuals, Byrne seems to accept Kepel's conclusion that the plight of Muslims in the banlieue, the outer suburbs of major cities in France, is somehow the fault of successive French governments because they did not accede to the "legitimate" demands of Muslim immigrants from North Africa.

What is not mentioned is that other categories of immigrants, such as refugees from Vietnam, or Jews after WW2, many of whom arrived in France with little more than a suitcase of old clothes, did not make demands of French governments but got on with the basics of living, i.e. working in whatever jobs were available, educating their children and gradually moving up the economic ladder. Kepel and Byrne need to analyse what stops Muslims from following this pattern, e.g. the stultifying doctrines of Islam and the denial of basic rights to half their communities, Muslim females.

Islam is different. We have many Buddhists in Australia. So far they have not indulged in an act of terrorism. Nor have the Jews, Presbyterians, or
Mormons. In fact, worldwide there are almost no acts of terrorism performed by non-Muslims. Lebanese have been migrating to Australia for decades. About half are Christian, half Muslim. Not a single outstanding act of terrorism or gang rape by Christian Lebanese. We can't say that for the Muslims. Yes, they are different.

France, as a colonising power, has problems of integration. After Algeria gained its independence, another 350,000 to 700,000 Algerians migrated to France. France was good enough to allow these migrants to enter. Some of its former colonies have become part of France - if you want to see
discrimination, France will disappoint. Try Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or Aceh. Or any Muslim country. But not if you are a Jew. That could be fatal.

Kepel claims that an opportunity was lost in 2005 after riots and the burning of thousands of cars following the accidental deaths of two teenagers who hid from police in a power station. What? Two fugitives died accidentally, and thousands of cars burned? Civilised people do not burn thousands of cars.

So it is no coincidence that far-right figures – like Marine Le Pen of the French National Front and U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump – are
soaring in popularity. They have not caused Islamic radicalism, their vote has risen because of it. Kepel explains that both the far right and ISIS want to create a society divided into two distinct groups. On one side are Muslims who are victims of a relentless "Islamophobia", and the other the extreme right typified by Donald Trump who has called for a halt in Muslim immigration until proper security checks can be established.

Yet, given the danger from militant Islam, who could object to the desire to have some safeguards against the infiltration of potential terrorists under the guise of "refugees" or "asylum seekers"? Ordinary citizens do not live with the same safety as political and church leaders - the former have bodyguards and the latter have security devices at their places of work and residence.

Kepel rejoices that terrorists in Paris and San Bernardino, USA, "have made what appears to be a strategic error because they have not succeeded in mobilising widespread Muslim support". But where is the error? The local Muslims know the landscape, and since they are still a small minority, they are smart enough to bide their time, moving incrementally for the acceptance of sharia, just as they do in Australia.

The constant accusation that the problems of Muslims are created by "Islamophobia" indicates an acceptance that Islam is somehow equivalent to Christianity, and that if we get to know Muslims, they will like us and become friendly, and not burn cars or rape white girls so often.

This is the NOT the approach taken by the Americans at Pearl Harbor. President Roosevelt could have simply said that the US had been attacked by a few planes from the Imperial Japanese Navy. These pilots were out of line, and just wait until the Emperor hears about it. They will be severely disciplined.

No. We are at war with Islam. And Islam with us. There are many roadblocks to peaceful negotiation. Islam expects Muslims to lie to non-believers (taqiyya). Peace treaties are really breathing spaces where Muslims re-arm and get ready to continue their conquest. Ask Israel.

There is the argument that Islam needs a reformation, just like Christianity. The task is formidable. Islamic supremacists will have to give up their sex-slaves, their four wives, their easy divorce (for men, that is), and much of the Qur'an. Here are some of the verses:

2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them.

3:28 Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.

3:85 Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.

5:33 Maim and crucify the infidels if hey criticise Islam.

8:12 Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur'an.

8:60 Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels.

8:65 The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.

9:5 When opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you find them.

9:30 The Jews and Christians are perverts, fight them.

9:123 Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood.

22:19 Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water, melt their skin and bellies.

47:4 Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you can catch them.

Islamists will argue we are misinterpreting these verses and taking them out of context. We must learn to recognise the sound of taqiyya.

To reform Islam, one must remove Muhammad, whose life encompassed murder, incitement to murder, deceit, slavery, sex with prepubescent girls and many other activities rejected by Christianity. For Muslims to distance themselves from Muhammad it really requires them to reject Islam. That is, they become apostates.

Our society tends to tolerate all who behave peacefully. Islam tolerates nothing. It intrudes into every part of life. It regulates eating (try ordering a bacon sandwich in Riyadh). It regulates work-breaks, foot-baths, food regulations, the killing of animals, slavery, and tells everyone whom they can befriend. Even the height of houses. While their numbers are small, Muslims try changing regulations where they think they can get away with it. As they increase, so do their demands.

News Weekly does not seem to acknowledge the real Islam, but instead presents us with a Potemkin Islam in which the members are victims, and quite misunderstood. There is no mention of the unprovoked attacks made by 'asylum seekers', who have introduced taharrush gamea to Western Europe. In this activity, Muslims surround a girl whose offence is attempting to walk along a road in a European city. The outer members ensure that no one interferes, while the inner circle gropes the girl, removing her clothing. This is what they do in the Middle East, which might be called Harassment Central. No girl is safe in the Middle East. And now, in Western Europe. The open-door policy of German Chancellor Angela Merkel towards "asylum seekers" may result in the cultural disintegration of Europe and it is strange that the National Civic Council is not apprehensive about that.

After the Second War, millions of migrants came to North America and Australia. They did not look for handouts for multiple wives, but instead got to work and built this country. The thought of Italian and Greek no-go areas is ludicrous. Not so for Islam. Italians, Greeks, Vietnamese, Hindus and Sikhs did not refer to Australian girls as 'uncovered meat'.

Neither Byrne nor Kepel mention Islam's infamous blasphemy laws, under which several Christians and Muslims are on death row in Pakistan. It is deeply saddening that Pat Byrne even removed from the News Weekly website articles critical of these blasphemy laws and of Islam, articles by Cardinal George Pell, Rev. Mark Durie, Bill Muehlenberg, Babette Francis and many others. What excuse does he offer for deleting an article about Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who has been in death row in Pakistan for over five years, on spurious charges of blasphemy? If she renounced her faith and converted to Islam, she would be immediately released, garlanded with roses and have a triumphal procession in the streets of Pakistan, but she has been steadfast in her witness to Christ. Kepel does not mention that the (presumably "moderate") 57-Members of the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation is trying to impose, through the United Nations, blasphemy laws on all the 193 Member countries of the UN.

It is my view that Islam cannot be reformed. But Muslims can. Many decent Muslims, on finally getting to read the Qur'an, realised that the criticism by Christians is absolutely valid. However, the real problem is not getting Muslims to read the Qur'an. It's getting our political and religious leaders to read it. It's easy to tell those who have not read it. They say things like 'Islam is a religion of peace' which is ludicrous as the Sunni and Shia factions of Islam have been at war with each other since the 7th century. And no, their wars and killings were not caused by Islamophobia, George W. Bush, or Israel.

The mantra that "Islam is a religion of peace" is a betrayal of the Christians who are daily murdered, tortured and otherwise persecuted. In the villages of Pakistan, Christian girls are routinely kidnapped, forcibly converted to Islam and forcibly "married". The parents have little redress. Not a single Christian country persecutes or kills Muslims. If anything, western Governments give Muslims free accommodation, food, clothing and other care. How many Muslim "refugees" have been accepted by Saudi Arabia?

It is bad enough when the Greens ignore the plight of persecuted Christians but it is incomprehensible when the National Civic Council censors articles about Christian victims and publishes articles implying the cruelty of Islam is the fault of mistaken policies by western governments. The Australian's cartoonist Bill Leak had it right when he depicted a severed head on a psychiatrist's couch with the doctor askingthe sad-looking head: "I'm sensing a certain level of Islamophobia - do you want to talk about it?" (The Australian, 28/1/16).

Yes, we do want to talk about it - a full scale debate in our federal Parliament on Islam would be a good start.