Ok, we try again to explain the nature of the conflict between Islam and the west.
It is so hard to explain the real nature of the conflict between Islam and the Western world as the liberal sensibilities of the elite render the issue too fraught with potential allegations of discrimination. Any critical comment about Islam is thus stifled to the point where western values are set aside in a desperate attempt to avoid perceptions of racism. When criminals use Islam to justify their criminality be it terrorism or sexual abuse of children the only acceptable response for the brainwashed western liberal is “it is nothing to do with Islam”. But of course it is and at the same time, it doesn’t have to be. We have seen the effects of the liberal establishment ignoring abuse because of fear of being labelled Islamaphobic and whilst it is pathetic the costs to the vulnerable are real. So we will explain our position again.
Firstly the Koran is a book that prescribes a lifestyle which is at best hostile to some western behaviours, for example, homosexuality and sexual freedom for women and at worst is brutal in its treatment of transgressors. But the Old Testament and certain parts of the New Testament suggest that the Bible has pretty much the same values. So like a loaded gun, the books themselves are neutral. They both contain authority and prescribe and proscribe behaviours. What makes the books, like the loaded gun, dangerous is the mind of the person who uses the book or wields the gun.
In the case of the West, the mindset of the European and those countries that were influenced by the West experienced firstly enlightened thinking in the 16th and 17th century and then capitalism and finally industrialisation. These phenomenal changes took received wisdom and put it into a historical dustbin. The idea began that people had economic rights, the right to contract to choose and consent which eventually took on a social character and arising from this we have liberal and freethinking democratic people who can put the tenets of their faith into a liberal framework. This framework recognises the rights of others. The tension with Islam is that too many observant Muslims can’t do this or won’t do it, believing that people have obligations to behave as willed by God. Thus women, Jewish people and Gay people have rights or perhaps no rights that are prescribed and may be not of their choosing.
The issue of terrorism, therefore, is not just about criminal acts of terror, it has to be put into a broader theological context. The question all people of faith should be asked is this, “are you personally able to accept the right of others to have a lifestyle that they want to have, be that a Gay lifestyle or to be sexually liberated as a woman or to believe in a faith other than your faith”. A question like this should be asked of all people who profess faith and hold public office (not just Tim Farron) to confirm that the liberating effects of Western culture has left its imprint on them and they are not colluding with or encouraging discrimination of any kind and perhaps inadvertently fueling crime in the name of religion.