In some areas, we have evidence that once they have gone and the high-profile policing of the event has occurred, there's fertile ground for those groups who would come in to encourage people to have this reality - this is the way white Western society sees us1He also claimed that [The following is not a direct quote by him but only as reported in the Daily Mail]
And that's a potential recruiting carrot for people and that's what some of these radicalisers look for - they look for the vulnerability, for the hook to pull people through and when the EDL have been and done what they've done, they perversely leave that behind.1
there is evidence that violence or damage towards Muslim property associated with the protests encourages extremist retaliation afterwards2The English Defence League (EDL) was formed last year after Islamists protested against British soldiers returning from tour of duty, calling them “murderers” and “rapists.”3
They have carried out numerous anti-extremism demonstrations, some of which have
often turned violent with clashes breaking out not so much between the EDL and Islamists, but with the left-wing group Unite Against Fascism (of which Prime Minister David Cameron is a supporter).3Nick Lowles, from the anti-racist group Searchlight told the Guardian that
"For the [Muslims Against Crusades] the presence and activities of the EDL prove how white British society is the enemy. For the EDL the Islamist extremists are proof of the violent nature of Islam. They are two sides of the same coin of hate."4In reply to Larkin, EDL leader Tommy Robinson sarcastically said that they could not have been responsible for all of 9-11, 7-7 attacks on London, the 17,000 terror attacks since 9-11 and “1,400 years of history, where Islam's been at war with non-Islam.”1,3
He explained that,
The root cause of the problem is the Koran, it's Islam and no one has got the balls to admit it and say it and talk about it. We will.3
The problem is when someone takes a 7th century book and tries to implement it in its barbaric way.3 [Emphasis and hyperlinks added]
Sources: 1. BBC, 2. Daily Mail (U.K.), 3. International Business Times 4. The Guradian (U.K.)
Analysis: Larkin engaged in the now well know 'blame game' and used 'race card' - "this is the way white Western society sees us" - and 'victim card' - "violence or damage towards Muslim property" - as an excuse for terrorism. He also made a 'blame the victim' argument by blaming victims of terrorism speaking out in protest and calling for action as causing terrorism.
Non-Muslim White Britain can not however use the exact same reasoning and use the race card - 'this is the way Muslim Arabs, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and Indians sees us' - or - victim card -'brutal and sadistic terrorism against civilians, including women and children' to justify even mere protests.
This shows that Muslims can be angry and aggrieved for even minor issues, but non-Muslim victims can not feel the same way for deadly major issues like the murder of civilians by terrorists. It is a typical double standard that privileges Islamic supremacists and deny non-Muslims the same rights.
It is good to see that Robinson seems to have recognized the 'isolation' or limited 'context' strategy that tries to portray each cases of terror on it's own and isolated in a narrow limited micro-context, like the protests. He made an excellent counter reply by showing the 1,400 year long trend of Islam in the macro-context.
The problem of Islamic terrorisms is not isolated or related to this or that particular issue. Instead, it is part of a bigger picture. Out-of-context and localized explanations fail to consider this fact.
As it had been argued before in a previous article here, such explanations can be challenged at the micro level. But they can also be challenged by showing macro-level trend where there will be violence and conflict but for different reasons.
Race and the West can be eliminated to show that terrorism exists even then. The clashes in Nigeria have nothing to do with race as both the Christians and Muslims there are Blacks. The persecution of Christians in Egypt, Iraq, Pakistan or Indonesia by Muslims have nothing to do with the White race or the West. It is also the same for Muslim on Muslim violence all over the world as well.
In the 'victim-card' case, Christians victims in those countries mentioned before are suffering from daily violence, discrimination or terrorism from Muslims. Yet they do not become radicalized or extreme and join terror groups – since there are none to join.
This shows the fallacy of the 'race card' and the 'victim card' explanations.
Take away race and you will still see Muslims fighting other Muslims or non-Muslims of the same race. Look at non-Muslims victims of Muslim persecution and you won't see them using it as an excuse for terrorism like the Muslims do.
This quote by Walter Rodgers from a previous article posted here illustrates the point clearly.
Bernard Lewis, the renowned Princeton scholar of Islam, has called attention to the Arab tendency to play “the blame game.”[Emphasis added]As for Lowles, he made the tired old 'moral equivalence' argument that equates the victim with the perpetrator. It is an improvement on 'blame-the-victim' argument from Larkin but is still false.
He notes Arabs traditionally blamed the Mongols, the Ottoman Turks, the colonial powers, and now the Jews and the Americans for everything that has gone awry
Even if EDL and their opposition are the same as he claims, the Islamic extremists started it all and caused the formation of EDL. He confuses cause with effect. The effect will disappear once the cause of it is eliminated.
If there was no Islamic extremism, there would be no EDL. But if there was no EDL, there would still be Islamic extremism. It was already there before the formation of EDL and it exists in other places where there is no EDL.
Finally, if Larkin is concerned about violence at demonstrations, he should also focus his attention on the left wing pro-Islamic extremists who contribute to it. And of course even if the protests were entirely peaceful, there would still be Islamic extremism as he well knows.
Larkin may modify his argument and say that EDL and other anti-Islamic extremists do not cause extremism but make the situation worse.
But even then, free speech and the right to protest should not be sacrificed to appease extremists. Instead, Muslims should learn and accept that in a free and open society, people have the right to challenge and criticize them. There is no place for Sharia blasphemy death penalty laws or hypersensitivity that gets offended by everything and quickly turns to terrorism.
PS: There is no need to agree with EDL's actions for the arguments made here to be valid. Even if EDL was wrong, the arguments here against excuses for terrorism would still hold.
Related story: EDL Leister protest, stones bricks thrown at them, Rabbi will join next protest
Similar stories:
ISLAM 101: A must read article by Bob Siegel refuting tired old politically correct myths about Islam - Share it!
(Bad) Muslim psychology: The blame game
Deadly dysfunctional Muslim culture, past, present, future, and why democracy and modernization fail
No comments:
Post a Comment