We can begin with the agreement that the terrorist attack that London suffered in March of 2017 was horrific. We should also be able to agree that some form of Islamic beliefs were involved. At that point, however, the analysis falls apart because political correctness prevents a plain and open discussion of the Islamic faith.
The problem is best illustrated by the refusal of many politicians to use the phrase, “Islamic terrorism.” To her credit, Prime Minster May comes close, but in so doing she is splitting hairs in order to avoid speaking plainly about the problem that lies at the root of the tragedy her nation just suffered.
Following her statement in the House of Commons on Thursday morning Theresa May was asked by Conservative MP Michael Tomlinson whether she agreed that the term was inappropriate
He asked her: “It is reported that what happened yesterday was an act of ‘Islamic terror’.
“Will the Prime Minister agree with me that what happened was not Islamic, just as the murder of Airey Neave was not Christian, and that in fact both are perversions of religion?”
Ms May replied that she believed it was not right to use the term, suggesting that such ideology was “perversion”.
“I absolutely agree, and it is wrong to describe this as ‘Islamic terrorism’,” she said.
“It is ‘Islamist terrorism’, it is a perversion of a great faith.”
What started this was a remark by a member of May’s cabinet referring to the attack as “Islamic terrorism.” Apparently fearing where that could go, she effectively corrected her colleague by redefining the tragedy as one of “Islamist terrorism.”
In making her statement Ms May appeared to correct her Defence Secretary Michael Fallon, who this morning said there was a working assumption that the attack was linked to “Islamic terrorism”.
“It was no accident that this attack was on Westminster, because it is at Westminster that we debate differences, very sharp differences, very freely and respectfully between us, and this kind of Islamic terrorism doesn’t respect those differences, so it is no accident that there was an attack here,” he had said in a statement.
The part that causes all this discomfort for politicians and hair-splitting over what words mean is the fact that both terms, “Islamist” and “Islamic” contain at their root not “Buddhism,” “Judaism,” or “Christian,” but “Islam.”
The awful question is whether there are teachings within the writing sacred to Muslims that permit or promote violence in order to spread the faith or in dealings with non-Muslims. If there are, the faith itself becomes dangerous. If not, then those who engage in such violence must rightly be shunned by the rest of Islam.
In order to prevent an upheaval, riot, or civil war, that question has to be answered publicly in the negative whether that answer is true or not. In other words, rational, reasoned evaluation of the relevant Muslim texts must be avoided because of a political imperative.
Such a situation terminates any search for the truth. In its place, words will be modified or invented in order to avoid that search and the problems it would create. Hence, the depressing conclusion is that in the current environment, the problem will not be solved.
Source: The Independent
You mean a spade is not a spade anymore. Wonder what Winston Churchill would say?
Did you miss something