Crime in skyrocketing in London and the native population is growing restive as Pakistani Muslims grow ever more aggressive and Sharia increasingly looks to be Britain’s future, but don’t be alarmed: British authorities are on the job. In fact, they’re addressing their society’s real problems, such as an RAF cadet who recently delivered himself of the opinion that Islam posed a security threat to the Sceptered Isle. Nothing to worry about: the wretched fellow was duly removed from the officer training course in which he had been enrolled, and an investigation has been launched.
The message came through loud and clear: Those Britons who dare to wonder if bringing in large numbers of jihadis and Sharia supremacists might not have been the best idea are going to be hunted down and punished to the full extent of the law.
The Daily Mail reported Saturday that the RAF cadet, little suspecting that he was about to be derailed from his career path, was suspended “after he said Islam poses the greatest security threat to the UK while taking part in a training exercise.”
You see, you just can’t say that. All those terrorists brandishing Qur’ans and screaming “Allahu akbar,” they have nothing, nothing whatsoever, to do with Islam. Retired rear admiral Chris Parry explained it all for us, noting that “if this cadet had answered ‘the far-Right’ I doubt he would have been suspended.”
And there you have it. In America, the Biden regime insisted repeatedly that “white supremacists” constituted the biggest terror threat the nation faced; many people continued to believe that right up until it was revealed that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) was handsomely remunerating those “white supremacists” so as to buttress claims that they constituted any kind of threat at all. Anyone who disagreed risked ending up on the same SPLC’s hit list of “hate group leaders.”
In Britain, the situation is similar: it would have been perfectly acceptable for this poor RAF cadet to say that his fellow Britons who opposed Islamization were the greatest threat the nation faced. Instead, he suggested that the real threat was the Islamization itself, and so he is out of the RAF today.
The cadet’s impermissible opinion “led to him being kicked off the officer-training course, pending an investigation,” and the RAF even “launched a probe into the young cadet’s remarks at RAF Cranwell, where the next generation of officers are trained.”
Parry thought all this was overkill, although he did admit that the government had a point about the poor devil’s wrongthink: “Clearly,” Parry said magisterially, “Islamic extremism is the issue and not Islam, but how are young people expected to develop critical thinking around these complex issues if they are shut down in this way?”
It would have been refreshing if Parry had explained what he thinks is the difference between “Islam” and “Islamic extremism,” but no such luck. Instead, he just treated us to a bit more of what his colleagues and the entire British establishment would consider correct thinking: “We know,” he said, “that Islam is not a threat, rather it is extremist elements, and this appears to have been a missed opportunity to discuss that for fear of causing offence.”
No one present appears to have asked Parry if he could actually show from mainstream Islamic theological sources the difference between Islam and “Islamic extremism.” Unfortunately, Parry would be hard-pressed to name a sect or school of Islamic jurisprudence that is not political, supremacist, expansionist, and violent, or a Muslim-majority country that has implemented a vision of Islam that allows for non-Muslims to be granted rights equal to those granted to Muslims.
Related: A Jihadi Stabs a Soldier for Allah, and Doctors Come Up With a Remarkable Cure for What Ails Him
And this is no accident. Parry could not do these things because what he considers to be “Islamic extremism” is actually mainstream Islam. Majid Khadduri, an internationally renowned Iraqi scholar of Islamic law, explains that “the Islamic state, whose principal function was to put God’s law into practice, sought to establish Islam as the dominant reigning ideology over the entire world. … The jihad was therefore employed as an instrument for both the universalization of religion and the establishment of an imperial world state.” Khadduri was talking about mainstream Islam, not “Islamic extremism.”
Likewise, in his 1994 book The Methodology of Ijtihad, Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, an assistant professor on the faculty of Sharia and Law of the International Islamic University in Islamabad, quotes the twelfth century Maliki jurist Ibn Rushd: “The primary goal of the Muslim community, in the eyes of its jurists, is to spread the word of Allah through jihad.” Once again, Nyazee, and Ibn Rushd, were talking about mainstream Islam, not “Islamic extremism.”
In Britain today, however, it is forbidden to point that out. And as the Muslim community gains more power, it will be ever more risky to enunciate unpopular truths there. One man will not be in the RAF because he dared to do so. Are Britons safer as a result?
