Winston Churchill on Islam

[Arthur Efsake]

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

 

Well said, Mr Churchill.

[Rhumsaa]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/not-his-finest-hour-the-dark-side-of-winston-churchill-2118317.html

[pongo]

Sir Winston Churchill 's family feared he might convert to Islam

[pongo]

I haven't read the book which Rhumsaa has linked to a review of. But I read the reviews when it came out. The impression I got was that a contrarian academic was looking to generate deliberate controversy and sales by rubbishing Churchill's well deserved good reputation. Or perhaps a publicist had chosen to put out press releases focusing on specifically controversial sections.

[Rhumsaa]

I haven't read the book which Rhumsaa has linked to a review of. But I read the reviews when it came out. The impression I got was that a contrarian academic was looking to generate deliberate controversy and sales by rubbishing Churchill's well deserved good reputation. Or perhaps a publicist had chosen to put out press releases focusing on specifically controversial sections.

 

I haven't read the book either in fairness

 

But at the end of the day the guy was born in the 1870's - he's going to have some views that are not particularly acceptable 130 years later

[notwell]

He isn't a million miles away with some of what he said.

[war baby]

He's spot on with most of it. When did he write it?

[ballaughbiker]

Around the turn of the previous century

[Lxxx]

Taking the despicable Waahabism out of the equation, which is a new variant dreamed up by the Western powers who put the House of Saud into power. Is it really a threat to the west? Really?

[ballaughbiker]

Depends what you mean by threat. Only those somewhat challenged genuinely believe that they will meet their end (nearly said maker then...) because of a UK terrorist act. You have much more chance of dying driving in your car on the way to work this morning or with a medical condition if you are towards the older end of the spectrum.

 

Whilst the nutters are only a tiny percentage of the definable group, many more rational people are much more concerned by the potential slow muslimisation of society over say the next 50 years. There is zero evidence of that here and in many parts of the UK atm unless you really go looking but that does not mean to say it is non-existent.

 

As to how much of a threat to the west generally that is remains to be seen but best keep an open mind on it, I'd say. One aspect is definite in my mind. The more liberal we are and the more accepting of entirely different cultures we become, any threat there really is has the potential to end in a sub-optimal society for all.

[pongo]

many more rational people are much more concerned by the potential slow muslimisation of society over say the next 50 years.

Maybe better functioning - but still definitely on the nutty-paranoid spectrum.

 

The more liberal we are and the more accepting of entirely different cultures we become, any threat there really is has the potential to end in a sub-optimal society for all.

Liberalism exists in contrast to everything which is illiberal. It's our liberal values and freedoms which terrorism potentially threatens. Whether or not society is "sub-optimal" is entirely subjective. Was it ever "optimal"?

[ballaughbiker]

 

 

Maybe better functioning - but still definitely on the nutty-paranoid spectrum.

Depends, they might well be. However try telling someone who has seen the place they were born change nearly beyond recognition that they are anywhere in the nutty-paranoid spectrum because they aren't ecstatic about the change. To use another entirely unrelated example, are some patriotic Manx in a parallel nutty-paranoid spectrum should they not exactly like the way the Isle of Man has gone for completely different reasons?

 

 

 

It's our liberal values and freedoms which terrorism potentially threatens

Indeed but I hoped to have broadened this out to include issues of than terrorism.

 

 

 

Was it ever "optimal"?

Of course not but accepting that pretext doesn't then preclude the possibility of it becoming increasingly sub-optimal for the majority having pandered to a minority. Many will have issues with those at either end of the liberal-illiberal spectrum.

[quilp]

Taking the despicable Waahabism out of the equation, which is a new variant dreamed up by the Western powers who put the House of Saud into power. Is it really a threat to the west? Really?

 

Oh really? Wahhabism ''dreamed up by the Western powers who put the house of Saud into power ...''

 

Muhammad ibn Abd al-wahhab created the austere and puritanical sect of Wahhabism in the middle of the 18th century so its origins began way back then.

 

Facts, not nonsense hyperbole, please ...

[pongo]

 

Was it ever "optimal"?

Of course not but accepting that pretext

In what sense is this a pretext?

[rmanx]

 

Taking the despicable Waahabism out of the equation, which is a new variant dreamed up by the Western powers who put the House of Saud into power. Is it really a threat to the west? Really?

 

Oh really? Wahhabism ''dreamed up by the Western powers who put the house of Saud into power ...''

 

Muhammad ibn Abd al-wahhab created the austere and puritanical sect of Wahhabism in the middle of the 18th century so its origins began way back then.

 

Facts, not nonsense hyperbole, please ...

 

 

While you are partial correct, the British did have a hand in spreading this vile corruption of Islam.