WEEKEND EDITION – Christian Leaders Increasingly Request Tolerance For Islamic Terrorists, Call on Media To Accept Censorship and Suppress Facts

Addressing a group of journalists at a Reuteres Newsmaker event in London in June, retired Anglican Bishop Desmond Tutu called on the media to tone down its harsh language when reporting on mass murders and grisly beheadings committed by the Muslim terrorists and faithful. He also likened the bloody history of Muslims to a bloody history for Christians, and showed that he is either ignorance of Islamic teachings, or complacent with them, by declaring: “Fundamentally there is no faith that I know that propagates violence that says it’s a good thing to oppress anybody.”[i] Normally such remarks as these would be categorized as absurd displays of senility beneath assessment, but Tutu’s particular affiliation provides a fair prospect for establishing his motive for complacency, and aids in explaining why so many share a fallacious reasoning along the line of characterizing Islam as religion of peace.

For many, as can be easily understood, this line is the result of political necessity. Both Europe and America are being overrun with Muslim immigrants who have no desire to assimilate, and respective indigenous populations are aborting their own children almost faster than the immigrants are reproducing. Because non-assimilating Muslims abide in the culturally retarded Muslim structure which breeds poverty in the 21^st century, it is easy for disenfranchised immigrants and their progeny to fall prey to the easy explanation and solution for their plight found in the message of Jihadi. Very much like that of Communism, the message Muslims are given is that they won’t be happy until everyone becomes a poor starving Muslim; then the world will have justice and peace.

Political leaders can anticipate the changing political landscape, and the violent threat arising in their respective sates and unions. For a picture of what that looks like a few years from now, in more and more places, look at France and England.

This is why placation and appeasement efforts have taken on the creative form of attempting to modify Muslim thinking and behavior by backwashing Islamic theology and rebroadcasting it as an admonishment by Mohammed for god-fearing people to seek peace. Politically, it is a brilliant move in the application of historical revisionism aimed at the source of the problem: Islamic theology. That Islamic theology is the core problem is a discovery that many religious leaders have also made, and today this realization is made even easier to see because of collaborating evidence from hostile forces.

A former member of the British Jihadi Network, Hassan Butt recently exposed the error of media and naive pundits assigning as the cause of Muslim terrorism to any grievances, real or imagined, including poverty and injustice; and not ascribing it to Islamic theology. In an article he wrote for the Daily Mail in July, Butt noted that these euphemistic characterizations were met with great joy in Muslim terrorist cells as “they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.”[ii] Butt went on to say that if there was any hope for Muslims to coexist and live peacefully “Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims.”[iii]

If some in the ranks of politics and religion, whose vocation is to understand human motives, can determine that Islamic theology propagates violence, why do some religious leaders completely fail, like Tutu, to diagnose the problem and prescribe the remedy? For religious leaders like Tutu, the illusion of a peaceful Islam exists much for the same reason Bishop Tutu exists.

A very large portion of Muslims fit into the same category as Tutu; they do not practice the religions that they confess. They are the milder cultural adherents who have in large part assimilated, especially in counties like America, and are not following to the letter their sacred texts. Throughout the world, they have even have formed differing sects.

For Islam, there are the more peaceful Shiites who are often prayed upon by the orthodox Sunnis Muslims. A similar comparison can be made to explain Tutu. While Tutu confesses to be a Christian, he actually practices Anglicanism, to the degree that he is an Anglican Archbishop, retired. To understand how far from the Christian text this sect has strayed, one need only look at the fracturing taking place in the Anglican Church as the Christians within that sect continue to splinter away from the Anglican Church the deeper into apostasy it sinks.

It might be said, then, that moderate Islam has a form of Mohammedanism without exercising the terror therein, and Anglicanism has a form of godliness while denying the power thereof.

This would help to explain why Tutu could make broad brush comparisons of the two and insist: “We Christians ought to get off our high horse and learn to be a great deal more humble, when you look at our history, the bloody things that we did in the name of religion.”[iv] Tutu made this statement in reference to the history of fighting between so called Protestants and Catholics in Northern Ireland. Conspicuously absent from his comparison was mention of the Crusades, but this would have hit too close the parent sect from which Tutu’s sect initially, if only partially, split from; and to which it still retains many loyalties: the Roman Catholic Church. The Crusaders had the ignominious duty of converting Protestants to Catholicism under hideous torture, and on pain of death; with oaths tendered, in part, by swearing allegiance to the other false prophet, the sitting Pope.

Refining Tutu’s vagaries further is made easier by correct division and classification. The division of the Catholic Church away from the Christian scared text resulted in a history of violence and terror, and the division of moderate assimilating cultural Muslims away from their sacred writings fosters the appearance of a peaceful religion.

To classify the essence of each of these religions, which have remained static, or central; it can be stated that Bible-believing Christians adhere to the one true religion of peace, that gospel from a text that makes peace between God and sinful man, and that Koran-believing Mohammedans remain in the religion of violence, that message stemming from the letter of their text on how to spread Islam by separating Muslim converts out, and then executing everyone else. This brings the missing clarity to Tutu’s comparison: it is of Catholics Crusaders, a product of following edicts of the Pope, and Muslims Terrorist, a product of following edicts of Mohammed. While it is easy enough to see the that root of all these evils is found in the following of two false prophets, it is also easy to understand that for those who remain deluded by one or the other, two wrongs must make a right.

Endnotes:

[i] Anne Thomas, “Tutu Urges Media to Be More Careful When Covering Religion,”

The Christian Post, June 28, 2007.

[ii] Hassan Butt, “I was a fanatic…I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist,”

The Daily Mail, July 2, 2007.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Thomas, “Tutu Urges Media to Be More Careful When Covering Religion”.