Vincent J. Curtis
17
Nov 14
On July 13, 2011, columnist Mark Steyn wrote a piece entitled “How Unclean Was My Valley", which concerned the use
of a high school gymnasium for Friday worship services by the
school’s Muslim students. Steyn
observed, among other things, that such services were contrary to School Board
policy which forbade religion services being conducted on school property and
on school time.
In
passing, Steyn remarked upon a difference between famous Canadian author Pierre
Berton, and his less famous son, Paul.
At the time, Berton fils was
publisher of the London Free Press and
was noted by Steyn for his Islamophilia.
Since
then, the younger Berton has moved on to bigger and better things and became
the publisher of the Hamilton Spectator. His noted Islamophilic ways must continue, as
it was disclosed in a guest opinion column that a public forum and discussion
would be held in the Spectator’s
auditorium by none other than the Muslim Association of Hamilton.
I
regarded this as a somewhat alarming development. I served on the Hamilton Public Library Board
from 1996-1999. In that period, the
Muslims Student’s Association of McMaster University applied to make use of the
main library’s auditorium, ostensibly for an exposition of Islamic
culture. The recommendation was to turn
down the request, as the previous year an exposition similarly described turned
into a rather obnoxious effort at proselytizing Islam. The actual event was dishonestly not as described in the
application for use by the MSA.
On
the Board at the time was a rather elderly member of Pakistani origin and a
Muslim himself. When he heard of the
application he immediately became fearful.
He asked that it be recorded in the minutes that was not present for the
vote on that agenda item. Afterwards I
asked him what the problem was. He
informed me of the then just developing Islamic supremacist movement in Canada
and he said the MSA was a manifestation of that movement. As a Muslim, he would have been a particular
target of their wrath if they became aware that he was complicit in the
thwarting of their aims. He would not
support them, and he would not be known to have opposed them either. He regarded them as dangerous to him.
Upon
reading the fact that the Spectator
would host a Muslim-oriented event, I sent the editor something like the
following:
The Spectator is going to have its hands full when it hosts
the open discussion and forum planned early next year by the Muslim Association
of Hamilton. Mentioned at the end of the article written by Dr. Raza
Khan, the forum will be an up close and personal encounter with Islamic
supremacism, and with Islamic proselytization.
There is no difference in aim between Islamic supremacism and Islamic extremism
or radicalism. What is notable about Islamic extremism or radicalism is
the use of violence to achieve the end of Islamic supremacism. Groups
like the Muslim Brotherhood are supremacists that are not violent, while al
Qaeda and ISIS are supremacists that employ violence. Each of those groups
aim at the imposition of Sharia law; they simply use different means.
Since Dr. Khan was born and raised in Hamilton, there is no justification on
the basis of culture for the jarring turns of reason he employed in his
article. These turns of reason bear the hallmarks of a Muslim Brotherhood
spin piece that are used to beguile westerners who don’t want to be troubled
with harsh truths. He will not advocate violence, but he will justify
anything that advances the cause of Islam.
You can see that in his article. He seems to condemn the violence of
ISIS, Boko Haram, and al Qaeda but then excuses their violence as a natural
response to the violence suffered by Muslims at the hands of westerners and the
Israelis. The people who have called the Muslim Association of Hamilton
concerning the murder of Cpl Nathan Cirillo have done so not to condemn or
threaten as one would expect but, apparently, to seek understanding and to pay
homage to Muslims and Islam.
His condemnation of ISIS, Boko Haram, and al Qaeda seems significant, but only
to the uninitiated. Unless the condemnation of ISIS, Boko Haram, and al
Qaeda was for heresy and for fraudulently misrepresenting Islam, the
‘condemnation’ is empty of meaning to Muslims. This ‘condemnation’ was a
turn for westerners, and is a well-understood tactic in the world of Islam for
which there are specific terms of art. He could be condemning them for
bad table manners.
One also needs to understand who is ‘innocent’ in the eyes
of a Muslim fundamentalist. To every
Muslim, and apostate is not innocent, despite the injunction against no
compulsion in religion. To Muslims in
general, infidels are not innocent. To
all Muslims, between an infidel and a Muslim, the Muslim is the innocent party. When you see a Muslim fundamentalist
employing the term ‘innocent’, bear in mind what that term means to a Muslim not to a westerner.
The conversation Dr. Khan says he wishes to have will consist of a one-way talk
of proselytization, for the meaning of Islam is “to submit” and a Muslim is one
“submitting.” Since he is a Muslim and the western interlocutor is not,
it is the interlocutor who has to submit.
Islamic supremacism is all about the imposition of Sharia law, even in Canada.
So long as the Muslim community remains weak in Canadian society, we have
no fear of violence from them here. We should however be under no
illusions. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is
quintessentially a statement of western values, and Sharia law is utterly in conflict
with those values. Islamic supremacism, which seeks to impose Sharia law,
should not be tolerated by those who value the rights and freedoms enshrined in
the Charter.
-30-
Meanwhile,
an old passage written by Winston S. Churchill in The River War has been making the rounds:
"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
paralyzes 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 proselytizing 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 (Islam) has vainly
struggled,
the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient
Rome.”
Churchill’s
quotes were taken from the volume: Sir Winston Churchill; “The River War”,
first edition, Volume II, pages 248-250, published by Longmans, Green &
Company, 1899.
This
passage occurs in the first edition, which consisted of a two volume set of
nearly 1000 pages. The book was revised,
edited and shortened for a one volume version that was originally published in
1902, and the above passage did not make it into the revised version. The book was revised to make the book more of
a history and so as not to bore the reader with Churchillian philosophizing.
