Simon Jenkins Fait Son Petit Taqiyya: It’s Not Islam, It’s "Cultural"

Simon Jenkins turns out to be — I’m not surprised — a Defender of the Faith. It’s not Islam. It’s not “religious.” It’s a “cultural” response, and it really has to do with the Middle East. No mention of Qur’anic texts, and how they are received. No mention of the Hadith, or of exactly what Muhammad said about those who mocked him, and what his followers did, with his approval, to those who mocked him. That’s something the simon-jenkinses of this world don’t want you to look into and find out about, because the worldview of the simon-jenkinses of this world requires you not to become educated on the subject of Islam. It would blow up everything Simon Jenkins stands for. So of course he deplores, as everyone does, as if that were all that mattered, but wants to make clear that no larger conclusions  should be drawn, that each individual murderous attack is to remain unique in the minds of observers. They are not to connect any dots, for there should be no dots to connect, they are not to regard with undue alarm what is happening in Europe because of the Muslims in their midst, they must not think of any of these as more than pesky incidents, each to be taken in stride. For if we were to get truly alarmed, to begin to understand how these attacks, and many more to come, are part of what is meant by Jihad, and that the goals of Jihad are shared by all Muslims who take Islam seriously, and that the fact that not all of them participate directly in the use of violence as their chosen instrument of Jihad, we must allow them to wage Jihad through all the other many instruments — including demographic conquest, and undermining Infidel laws and customs and economic well-being and sense of physical security — that can more effectively be employed, at this point, from within the lands, behind the very borders which Muslims are taught to regard as enemy lines.

The key to what Simon Jenkins wishes you to think is It is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror, and leave the perpetrator devoid of further satisfaction. That is the only way to “defeat terrorism.”

His meretriciousness, in dealing with an event he could not allow himself to pass over in silence but had to make sure he treated in a way that left Islam untarnished and focussed on what has been done to make Muslims unhappy (and therefore explains, with an explanation that justifies, not just the Paris attack but many tens of thousands more of such attacks, all over the world, some succeeding, and some aborted or thwarted), is on full display here. Don’t forget this piece; the attempt to deflect attention from the ideology of Islam, the texts of Islam, to mere “terrorism” is emblematic of the ways of this wicked man, the son, I’ve learned, of a clergyman, and in his free time the head of the National Trust. Think of it –the head of the National Trust, in a nation whose survival he is apparently less concerned with than in defending the mortal enemies of its laws and customs, its literature and art, its religion and its skepticism about religion, that is Muslims who take Qur’an and Hadith and the example of Muhammad to heart, and a man who gives every sign of having earned, from the people of the United Kingdom, their well-informed mistrust.