Be it David Cameron, Barack Obama or Pope Francis, when mentioning Islam prominent leaders feel the need to genuflect and pay homage by saying “Islam is a religion of peace”.
You’ve probably heard it a hundred times. But saying something over and over again does not make it true. In fact, the proclamation that Islam is somehow a peaceful religion usually comes after news hits of yet another act of Islam-inspired violence.
ISIS beheads a Western journalist, “Islam is a religion of peace”.
Al Qaeda blows up a marketplace, “Islam is a religion of peace”.
Islamists call for the killing of non-Muslims, “Islam is a religion of peace”.
Aside from the absurdity of the notion that the Islamic ideology does anything other than spawn death and destruction everywhere it exists, the very fact that these prominent leaders feel the need to qualify Islam as inherently good begs questioning. Why speak to the nature of Islam at all? What need is there to tell people about the righteousness of Islam? We don’t speak about Hinduism or Judaism or Christianity as being “religions of peace”, so why Islam?
It is even more interesting because many of the people who proclaim Islam’s peaceful nature are actually atheists themselves, many being virulently anti-religion leftists and Socialists. Why do so many of those who despise religion make such an effort to defend Islam’s sacred honor?
In the 1940’s, Jewish militants in the British Mandate of Palestine routinely attacked and killed British politicians and soldiers in an effort to wrest control of the region and establish an independent Jewish state. Many of these militant Jewish attacks carried out by the Stern Gang and Irgun were exceptionally violent and included assassinations and bombings. No effort on the part of prominent figures in Britain was made to proclaim Judaism a “religion of peace” while these attacks were taking place, rather quite the opposite. Unlike Islamic terrorists whose motives are clearly rooted in Quranic incitement to violence, attacks by Jewish insurgents were political in nature. Even with this distinction, no effort was made by British authorities to make clear that these attacks had nothing to do with Judaism.
Likewise in Northern Ireland during the Troubles. As the IRA carried out attacks across Northern Ireland and Britain, there were no British politicians proclaiming loudly from the pulpit that Catholicism is a religion of peace. Can you imagine an Omagh police commissioner speaking to the media about how peaceful Catholics are while .50 calibre gunfire rang out in the distance? It is unthinkable. Yet today, it is routine to see leaders and prominent people speak of Islam as a peaceful religion, even in the wake of Islam-inspired attacks. Some even suggest we should not call the Islamic State “Islamic” because Islam means peace, and therefore ISIS cannot be Islamic.
Just recently a cafe in Sydney, Australia was taken over at gunpoint by a Muslim wielding an ISIS flag. Two hostages and the terrorist were killed as police raided the cafe. And what was the popular reaction? In the now-common modus of feigned caring, the Twitter hashtag #illridewithyou has rocketed to popularity. In response to the Islamic attack, supposedly concerned Australians have sprung to the defense of…Muslims. Fearing an anti-Muslim backlash, people have volunteered to “ride with” Muslims on public transportation and defend them if they are harassed.
The absurdity comes in abundance. Islam is not a religion of peace, but even if it was, why do so many people, including the media and our leaders, feel the need to defend it whenever Islam’s adherents commit acts of violence? It is as if they are reminding us not to believe our eyes. THEY will supply the reality about Islam to us- it is not for us to determine good from evil. When a violent religion like Islam is called peaceful and truly peaceful religions like Hinduism, Judaism and Christianity are not, you know that the words of our leaders aren’t worth the paper they are printed on.
The government perspective is always the police perspective, and the police perspective is that trouble is always bad and quiet is always good. Makes sense, normally… But what if there actually needs to be trouble? What if an enemy is physically threatening us and we need to actually combat that enemy in the streets? In that case, if the police come running in to stop the “trouble”, and that trouble is defending the country, then the “Police perspective” becomes counter-productive and maybe even lethal. The end result is that the Militant Muslims always seem to “get away with it” each time they commit an atrocity because the Western authorities are always there to keep anyone from getting mad at them and maybe dissuading them from doing it again. As long as nobody does anything, it’s OK, and there’s no “trouble”. And, of course, we always have to just sit there and take it…
I’m getting quite sick of the BS misnomer referring to Islam as ‘The Religion Of Peace’, by these obvious lackeys, lapdogs, and sycophants of Islam in the political class, academia, and their minions in the MSM . It reminds me of the Nazi propaganda masters mantra “a lie told big enough and often enough becomes the truth”.
Islam as the religion of peace is as daft as suggesting that the German concentration camp runners were peaceful people of exemplary morality !
Notice that during the times when the governments didn’t try to say that the religions of Judaism and Catholicism are religions of peace was a time when the schools taught the facts of history and the nations were openly religions with religion being talked about freely. Now the schools teach propaganda and all religions but Islam are under attack so the meme that Islam is a religion of peace can be easily spread and believed.
People who can think for themselves are becoming rarer and rarer due to the modern educational system.
My boilerplate: Imagine how violent Islam would be if it wasn’t the Religion of Peace.
There are lies and there’s Orwell doublespeak. The latter is really scary.