|
"Take
Heed" Ministries
|
|
Cecil Andrews, PO BOX 13, Ballynahinch, BT24 8AL, Northern Ireland. Telephone/Fax 028 9756 5511. E-MAIL - takeheed@aol.com WEBSITE - http://www.takeheed.net |
Churchill and Islam
For a secular newspaper, the
Belfast Telegraph published quite a remarkable article in its edition of Friday
20th February 2009. This link will take you to the article
and there you can also read various
comments submitted by readers of the article.
I am also now going to reproduce
the text of the article just in case for any reason at a future date it might
be removed from the newspaper’s website.
Cecil Andrews
– ‘Take Heed’ Ministries - 27th February 2009
This was
the text of the article –
to stand against Islamic
extremists
By Kevin Myers
Friday, 20 February
2009
It's been a good few days for Islamicists. In Europe, an
elected MEP, Geert Wilders, has been banned from Britain by the Home Secretary
Jacqui Smith.
He had been invited to show his anti-Islamic film ‘Fitna'
to MPs in the House of Commons. Since the ban, I've had the exquisite pleasure
of witnessing various “British” Muslims on television welcome the ban, meanwhile
hastening to add that they had not seen the film. Well, naturally.
The egregious Smith justified the ban on the grounds that
Mr Wilders' presence in Britain “would threaten community harmony and therefore,
public security in the UK”. In other words, if Muslims in Britain don't
like something going on in the House of Commons, there will — according
to the Home Secretary herself — be violence which will threaten the lives
and welfare of British people.
So, what do British leaders do when confronted by such blackmail?
Do? Why, they back down, of course! Never mind for a moment that on the
London stage you can have Christ sodomised, or the Virgin Mary turned into
a whore, as has happened in recent theatrical productions. How is such anti-Christian
blasphemy acceptable? Because it is not insulting to Christians? Or because
Christians, once insulted, do not take violently to the streets, in the
way of “angry Muslims” (as the estimable Ian O'Doherty asked the other day:
“is there any other kind?”).
So what would the wretched Smith creature have done to the
author of the following words, had he tried to enter the United Kingdom?
“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, but the influence of the religion paralyses
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 proselytising 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 civilisation of modern
Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
The author of those sentiments (which were rediscovered
by Mark Steyn) was none other than Winston Churchill, who penned them precisely
110 years ago, during his account of ‘The River War' against the Mahdi,
written in early 1899.
How enchanted — but perhaps not surprised — Churchill would
have been to learn that a century and a decade later, western troops — including
a large body of Irish soldiers — would be trying to curtail the ravages
of the neo-Mahdist terrorists of the Janjaweed. Churchill had gone almost
directly to the Sudan from north-west India, where he had been serving with
the Malakand Field Force against Islamicist insurgents.
So in an almost sublime coincidence, we learnt this week
that what is now the Malakand District of Pakistan is to introduce Sharia
law as state law.
Some 30,000 sq km, and five million people, will effectively
become an autonomous Islamic republic within the secular- governed state
of Pakistan. This is in return for merely a 10-day ceasefire in the terrorist
campaign by Pakistan's Taliban in the Swat valley, in the course of which
through an informal Taliban enforcement of Sharia law, “executions” and
floggings have become commonplace.
In other words, in exchange for only a temporary ceasefire
— what you might call their Sudetenland moment — Taliban have effectively
taken a legal foothold in Pakistan: and no election, no police force, no
popular demonstrations — (ha!) — will henceforth remove them. Thus the old
despotic refrain: one-man, one-vote, one-election.
‘The Times of India' predicts this capitulation will be
replicated in other regions of Pakistan's North West Frontier Provinces.
“And then,” it notes grimly, “it's a leap to Islamabad.”
Quite so: and Islamabad not merely has the Bomb, but it
also has four flights a week to Bradford Airport, none of whose passengers
seem ever to be treated in the way that Geert Wilders MEP was at Heathrow.
Islamabad's airport is (for the time being, anyway) named after Benazir
Bhutto, who was, of course, murdered by al-Qa'ida/Taliban just over a year
ago; and it was her husband, now president, Asif Zardari, who abjectly authorised
the Malakand deal.
So who says that violence doesn't pay? In the course of
a week, Shariah law imposed on Malakand and a Christian MEP banned in Britain.
Thus the irreducible ratchet-effect, with no going back, either way.