Martyr with a Machine-Gun: How Liberal Piety Facilitates Muslim Pathology

If you pour dirty water into clean water, what happens? It’s remarkable: by a process too subtle for knuckle-dragging racists to understand, the dirty water becomes clean. In fact, the more dirty water you pour, the better the process works. Hence the slogan recently adopted by Greenpeace for the sparkling waters of the Lake District: “REFUSE WELCOME!”

I’m talking nonsense, of course. Greenpeace would never support the dumping of filth into beautiful lakes like Windermere and Ullswater. Greenpeace is full of liberals and liberals don’t believe in polluting healthy ecosystems. Instead, they believe in polluting healthy societies. Here’s a list of pathologies that liberals have wrung their hands over in recent years: mass murder, rape-gangs, dead cartoonists, honour killings, female genital mutilation and grope-festivals. Cousin-marriage and exotic diseases should be on the list too, but although they’re definitely serious problems, liberals prefer to ignore their existence.

Death to Blasphemers

Ignored or lamented, these pathologies only exist in the modern West because of mass immigration. And it wasn’t hard to foresee that Third-World immigrants would bring the Third World with them. It’s as though liberals have pumped oil into a flourishing lake and then discovered, with horror and consternation, that the lake is now polluted and dying. This particularly applies to the question of free speech. The Charlie Hebdo massacre was a deeply traumatic event for the Guardian and its readers. How could such a thing happen in the land of Voltaire?

But it should have come as no surprise. To paraphrase H.P. Lovecraft: the most risible thing in the world is the inability of the Guardian to correlate its own contents. Back in 2011, the paper reported on a shocking crime in Pakistan. The governor of Punjab province, Salmaan Taseer, had “advocated reform of Pakistan’s controversial blasphemy laws” and taken up the cause of “Asia Bibi, a poor Christian woman … sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the prophet Muhammad.” Taseer was promptly machine-gunned to death by one of his own bodyguards, a devout Muslim called Mumtaz Qadri, who then submitted calmly to arrest and prosecution.

Qadri’s actions made him a hero to huge numbers of Pakistanis. He was hailed as a worthy successor to Ghazi (“Hero”) Ilm-Deen, a widely venerated Muslim saint who stabbed a Hindu blasphemer to death in 1929. Lawyers showered Qadri with rose-petals when he appeared at court. He was found guilty of murder and sentenced to death, whereupon the presiding judge had to flee the country. A few months after Taseer’s assassination, devout Muslims were at it again. Shahbaz Bhatti, the Christian minister for minority rights, had also advocated reform of the blasphemy laws. He was ambushed by members of the Taliban and assassinated exactly as he himself had foreseen he would be.

Reforming the human race

So let’s summarize the situation. In 2011, the Guardian reported that Muslims in Pakistan had machine-gunned two politicians to defend the honour of the prophet Muhammad. In 2015, the Guardian was horrified to discover that Muslims in Paris were capable of machine-gunning cartoonists for the same reason. Who could have foreseen that Muslims in Paris might behave like Muslims in Pakistan? It’s almost as though they don’t believe in free speech.

As I said, the Guardian is incapable of correlating its own contents. But in fact it’s worse than that. Liberals haven’t imported Third-World pathologies through simple stupidity. There is a wilful element to the harm they’ve done. When Mumtaz Qadri was finally executed earlier this year, the Guardian published this pious editorial:

An all-male crowd mourns Mumtaz Qadri, Hero and Martyr

The murder of Salman Taseer was in a literal sense a crime against humanity even if in a legal sense it was just another of the innumerable murders that have disfigured Pakistan in recent decades. He was the governor of the Punjab, who was killed by one of his own bodyguards, Mumtaz Qadri, because he had denounced the dreadful blasphemy laws that have been successively rewritten, widened, and made more stringent under Islamising governments since 1980 so that now people can be executed merely for “using derogatory words in respect of the Holy Prophet”.

On Monday [29th February 2016], Qadri was hanged in conditions of secrecy. On Tuesday, vast crowds attended his funeral to demonstrate their support for this murderer’s crime. Nor was this support confined to Pakistan. One of the largest mosques in Birmingham said special prayers for Qadri, describing him as “a martyr”, as did influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury. These have been strongly and rightly criticised by other British Muslims, and no doubt represent a minority view, but it is disappointing that there are still some imams who have learned little about mutual tolerance in the 25 years since the Rushdie affair, however much mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on. …

It is not just the terrifying levels of intimidation that operate in Pakistan that keeps the law in place, but widespread democratic support. This looks like a reversal of all the great hopes of the closing decades of the 20th century and it is, but it is not an irreversible trend. … [W]e can do better, and we must. Human dignity demands the right to question, to be mistaken, and even sometimes laugh about beliefs. Only on the basis of that kind of equality extended to all can we make a more just world. (The Guardian view on religious intolerance: a sin against freedom, 3rd March 2016)

That is a typical piece of liberal posturing and dishonesty. Who is this “we” who can and must do better? Presumably it’s the human race, so the Guardian is claiming the ability to reform humanity via its editorial column. It’s posturing to feed its readers’ narcissism, nothing more. It’s also being dishonest about the true nature of Islam. Note how it says supporters of Qadri in Britain “no doubt represent a minority view,” but is “disappointed” that “some imams … have learned little about mutual tolerance,” despite the way “mainstream majority Muslim views have moved on” since the Salman Rushdie affair. How does the Guardian know that Qadri supporters are in a minority and that mainstream Muslim views have “moved on”?

Piety in the Sky

It doesn’t know: it merely has pious assumptions. And is it really a cause for celebration if very sizable minorities of Muslims have such beliefs? Like the 35% of young Muslims in Britain and 42% in France who are willing to tell pollsters that they support suicide bombings according to a Pew poll (presumably a low estimate).

But why should we expect a well-staffed newspaper like the Guardian to investigate Muslim organizations and find out what their opinions are? That would be both time-consuming and dangerous, because the Guardian might not get the answers it wanted. As all liberal journalists know, it’s far better to assume the best about a vulnerable minority than to uncover the worst.

A Pakistani Muslim salutes Ghazi (“Hero”) Mumtaz Qadri

In other words, the Guardian is wilfully blind about the extent of Muslim intolerance and totalitarianism. According to its own report, the murderer Mumtaz Qadri has been acclaimed as a “martyr” by “one of the largest mosques in Birmingham” and by “influential preachers in Bradford and Dewsbury.” If that is a “minority view,” where is the condemnation from the “mainstream”? Why are pro-Qadri mosques not being condemned and boycotted by anti-Qadri mosques? Why did the moderate Muslim majority not take to the streets to condemn both Qadri’s original crime and their misguided co-religionists who regard Qadri as a martyr?

Well, waiting for moderate Muslims to demonstrate in favour of free speech is a lot like waiting for Godot. Moderate Muslims are very relaxed about killing in Muhammad’s name. The death of Salmaan Taseer proved that in 2011 and so does the death of Asad Shah in 2016. He was a Muslim shopkeeper in Scotland who used his Facebook page to promote inter-faith harmony with the following message: “Good Friday and a very Happy Easter, especially to my beloved Christian nation.” For saying that, he was stabbed and stamped to death by a hate-filled bigot who had travelled hundreds of miles from England with no other purpose.

Missing Ingredient

Has Dr Richard Stone, Jewish high priest in the martyr-cult of Black Stephen Lawrence, hastened to Glasgow to begin work on a new martyr-cult? Have Britain’s liberals been writing and talking non-stop about the murder and the toxic ideology that inspired it? Oddly enough, they haven’t. You see, the murder of Asad Shah had all the necessary ingredients for a martyr-cult and a media frenzy except one: he wasn’t murdered by a White. In fact, he was an Ahmadi Muslim murdered by a Sunni Muslim. As I pointed out in “Moderate Extremism,” Sunnis regard Ahmadis as heretics and persecute them whenever they have the power to do so. And guess what? A month before, an imam at Scotland’s “biggest mosque,” Glasgow Central, expressed his “pain” at the execution of Mumtaz Qadri, called him a “true Muslim,” and pronounced a blessing on him.

Britain has strict laws against the “glorification of terrorism,” but none of the numerous Muslims glorifying Qadri here have been arrested and questioned by the police. But the police did arrest and question a White man who sent a tweet about “confronting” a Muslim woman after the vibrancy in Brussels. He isn’t being prosecuted, but the arrest will have done its job of intimidating other White thought-criminals. Meanwhile, liberals in Scotland have responded to Asad Shah’s murder in their usual fashion: with gusts of hot air and conspicuous displays of narcissism:

Aamer Anwar, the human rights lawyer and one of Scotland’s most prominent advocates for reform within the Muslim community, said faith leaders needed to “step up” and speak out publicly against all forms of religious sectarianism.

Anwar said: “In a city like Glasgow, we have known for too long what hate crime and sectarianism means. We do not want to see the importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK. It is extremely important for Asad Shah’s family to know that their brothers and sisters in the Sunni community will not tolerate this.” …

 

More than 400 people, including Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, attended a candlelit vigil on Friday night organised by two local women — one Muslim and one Christian — and publicised on social media with the hashtag #thisisnotwhoweare. Speaking at the event, members of Shah’s family called for Glaswegians to stand side by side. Another gathering to lay flowers outside Shah’s shop, organised by local teenagers, attracted a further 200 people on Saturday, despite heavy rain. … (Prominent Muslims call for unity after Glasgow shopkeeper’s killing, The Guardian, 27th March 2016)

So Aamer Anwar doesn’t want the “importing of sectarian bigotry and hatred from Pakistan to the UK.” In other words, he thinks the Britain can import Pakistanis without importing Pakistani culture. He’s a dangerous idiot. Unfortunately, so are Britain’s Ahmadi Muslims. They’re happy to take advantage of Britain’s religious freedom, but they don’t oppose mass immigration by the Sunni Muslims who hate them. And when they talk about “root[ing] out extremism in all its forms,” they undoubtedly include White nationalism and race realism. Ahmadi Muslims aren’t good for Britain either. I don’t like the way they are persecuted, but I don’t think the West has any responsibility to offer them asylum.

Sleazy Keith Vaz

All immigration from non-White nations is bad for the West, whatever colour the immigrants are and whatever religion they practise. The Chinese have higher average IQs than Whites, but Chinese culture is corrupt and authoritarian. The sleazy Labour MP Keith Vaz, Islamophile and friend of the late Greville Janner, is a Christian. So is the Eritrean “asylum-seeker” who committed a “horrific” double-rape in Liverpool in 2015.

Non-Whites do not belong in White nations and should return whence they came. Even liberals are starting to realize this. The New Statesman, which is rather like the Guardian on steroids, has called Angela Merkel “compassionate” but “reckless” for opening Germany’s borders. It’s a reluctant admission with big implications. The thaw has begun and the flood that will sweep liberals from power is getting nearer by the day.