Tony Blair on the Islamist Threat

Mark Durie is a theologian, human rights activist, pastor of an Anglican church, and an Associate Fellow at the Middle Eastern Forum. He has published many articles and books on the language and culture of the Acehnese, Christian-Muslim relations and religious freedom. A graduate of the Australian National University and the Australian College of Theology, he has held visiting appointments at the University of Leiden, MIT, UCLA and Stanford, and was elected a Fellow of the Australian Academy of the Humanities in 1992.


ipeITony Blair delivered a major speech on April 23 entitled, “Why the Middle East Matters”. In summary, he argued that the Middle East, far from being a “vast unfathomable mess” is deep in the throes of a multi-faceted struggle between a specific religious ideology on the one hand, and those who want to embrace the modern world on the other.  Furthermore, the West, blinded up until now as to the religious nature of the conflict, must take sides: it should support those who stand on the side of open-minded pluralistic societies, and combat those who wish to create intolerant theocracies.

In his speech Blair makes a whole series of substantial points:

He states that a ‘defining challenge of our time’ is a religious ideology which he calls ‘Islamist’, although he is not comfortable with this label because he prefers to distance himself from any implication that this ideology can be equated with Islam itself. He worries that “you can appear to elide those who support the Islamist ideology with all Muslims.”

He considers Islamism to be a global movement, whose diverse manifestations are produced by common ideological roots.

He rejects Western non-religious explanations for the problems caused by Islamist ideology, including the preference of “Western commentators” to attribute the manifestations of Islamism to “disparate” causes which have nothing to do with religion.  Likewise he implies that the protracted conflict over Israel-Palestine is not the cause of this ideology, but rather the converse is the case: dealing with the wider impact of Islamist ideology could help solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

According to Blair, what distinguishes violent terrorists from seemingly non-violent Islamists – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – is simply “a difference of view as to how to achieve the goals of Islamism”, so attempts to draw a distinction between political Islamist movements and radical terrorist groups are mistaken.  Blair considers that the religious ideology of certain groups like the Brotherhood, which may appear to be law-abiding, “inevitably creates the soil” in which religio-political violence is nurtured.

He considers “Islamism” to be a major threat everywhere in the world, including increasingly within Western nations. The “challenge” of Islamism is “growing” and “spreading across the world” and it is “the biggest threat to global security of the early 21st Century.”

Because of the seriousness of the threat of this religio-political ideology,  Blair argues that the West should vigorously support just about anybody whose interests lie in opposing Islamists, from General Sisi in Egypt to President Putin in Russia. He finds it to be an absurd irony that Western governments form intimate alliances with nations whose educational and civic institutions promote this ideology: an obvious example of this would be the US – Saudi alliance.

In all this, one might be forgiven for thinking that Blair sounds a lot like Geert Wilders, except that, as he takes pains to emphasize, he emphatically rejects equating Islamism with Islam. Tony Blair and Geert Wilders agree that there is a serious religious ideological challenge facing the world, but they disagree on whether that challenge is Islam itself.My Blair’s speech is aimed at people who do not wish to be thought of as anti-Musilm, but who need to be awakened to the religious nature of the Islamist challenge. He is keen to assure his intended audience that if they adopt his thesis they would not be guilty of conflating those who support radical Jihadi violence with all Muslims.Two key assumptions underpin Blair’s dissociation of Islamism the religio-political ideology from Islam the religion.

First, Blair presupposes that Islamism is not “the proper teaching of Islam”. It may, he concedes, be “an interpretation”, but it is a false one, a “perversion” of the religion, which “distorts and warps Islam’s true message.”  He offers two arguments to support this theological insight.One is that there are pious Muslims who agree with him: “Many of those totally opposed to the Islamist ideology are absolutely devout Muslims.”

This is a fallacious argument. It is akin to asserting that Catholic belief in the infallibility of the Pope cannot be Christian merely because there are absolutely devout protestant Christians who totally oppose this dogma.  The fact that there are pious Muslims who reject Islamism is not a credible argument that Islamism is an invalid interpretation of Islam.

Blair’s other argument in support of his belief that Islamism is a perversion of Islam is an allegation that Christians used to hold similarly abhorrent theologies: “There used to be such interpretations of Christianity which took us years to eradicate from our mainstream politics.”  This is a self-deprecating variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy, in which another’s argument is attacked by accusing them of hypocrisy. Here Blair rhetorically directs the ad hominem attack against himself and his culture. In essence, he is saying “It would hypocritical of us to regard Islamist ideology as genuinely Islamic, because (we) Christians used to support similarly pernicious theologies in the past (although we do not do so today).”

This logic is equally fallacious: observations about the history of Christian theology, valid or not, prove nothing about what is or is not a valid form of Islam.

Blair’s second key assumption is a widely-held view about the root cause of “the challenge”. The fundamental issue, he argues, is people of faith who believe they and only they are right and do not accept the validity of other views. Such people believe that “there is one proper religion and one proper view of it, and that this view should, exclusively, determine the nature of society and the political economy.” “It is not about a competing view of how society or politics should be governed within a common space where you accept other views are equally valid. It is exclusivist in nature.”

Hilary Clinton has expressed a very similar understanding of extremist religionists, who “define religion in such a way that if you do not believe what they want you to believe, then what you are doing is not practicing religion, because there is only one definition of religion.”

Such views about religion may reflect the secularist Zeitgeist, but they offer a very weak explanation for the challenge of radical Islam.  The problem is not that Islamists believe they and only they are right.  The problem is all the rest of what they believe.Consider this: Tony Blair himself believes his goal is valid, true and worth fighting for, namely a tolerant, open, democratic society, and the Islamists’ goal of a sharia society is invalid.  He does believe that his view should determine the nature of society.  Likewise many religious groups believe that they follow the one true religion, including the Catholic Church, which Tony Blair formally joined in 2007: Mother Theresa of Calcutta certainly did not consider alternative religious views equally valid to Catholic dogma.  But none of this certainty of belief implies that Tony Blair or Catholics in general are disposed to become terrorists, cut hands off thieves or kill apostates.

Blair’s argument manifests the paradox of tolerance. His vision of a good society is one in which people must respect the views of others as “equally valid”. At the same time he argues that we should disallow and combat Islamism because it is “perverse”. He is asking for Islamism not to be tolerated because it is intolerant.If Blair’s explanation for Islamist nastiness is flawed, what then is the explanation? This takes us back to Islam itself.  Does Blair’s position on Islam hold water?

Blair’s arguments for his positive view of Islam are weak. The validity of Islamism does not rest or fall on whether there are pious Muslims who accept or reject it, nor on whether Christians have advocating equally perverse theologies in the past.  In the end, Islam as a religion – all mainstream Muslim scholars would agree – is based upon the teachings of the Sunna (the example and teaching of Muhammad) and the Koran. Islam’s religious validity in the eyes of its followers stands and falls on how well it can be justified from those authorities.There are at least three respects in which Islamist ideologies claim strong support from Islam – that is, from the Koran and Muhammad.

One is the intolerance and violence in the Islamic canon.  The Koran states “Kill them / the polytheists wherever you can find them (Sura 9:5, 2:191). Muhammad, according to Islamic tradition, said “I have been sent with a sword in my hand to command people to worship Allah and associate no partners with him. I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me …” He also said to his followers in Medina, “Kill any Jew who falls into your power.” Following in Muhammad’s footsteps, one of Muhammad’s most revered companions and successors as leader of the Muslim community, the Caliph Umar, called upon the armies of Islam to fight non-Muslims until they surrender or convert, saying “If they refuse this, it is the sword without leniency.”

It will not do, in the face of many such statements found in the Koran and the traditions of Muhammad, to throw one’s hands up in the air and say there are also bad verses in the Bible.  If Jesus Christ had said such things as Muhammad did, Christianity’s political theology would look very different today and medieval Christian Holy War theology – developed initially in response to the Islamic jihad – would have come into being as part of the birth-pangs of the religion, just as the doctrine of the Islamic jihad did in the history of Islam.

Islamist apologists find it relatively easy to win young Muslims over to their cause precisely because they have strong arguments at their disposal from the Koran and  Muhammad’s example and teaching.  Their threatening ideology is growing in influence because it is so readily supported by substantial religious foundations.  Islamism may not be the only interpretation of Islam, but by any objective measure, it is open for Muslims to hold it, given what what is in their canon.

Blair makes a telling over-generalisation when he states that Islamist ideology is an export from the Middle East.  Another important source has been the Indian sub-continent.  Today Pakistanis today are among the most dynamic apologists for Islamism. Abul A’la Maududi, an Indian (later Pakistani) Islamic teacher and founder of Jamaat-e-Islami was writing powerful texts to radicalise Muslims more than 70 years ago – including his tract Jihad in Islam (first published in 1927). His works remain in widespread use as tools of radicalization by Islamist organisations. Maududi’s theological vision was driven, not by Middle Eastern influences or Saudi petrodollars, but by his life-long study of the Koran and the example of Muhammad.  The spiritual DNA of Maududi’s Islamist theology was derived from the Islamic canon itself.

The second point to understand about Islamist ideologies is that the conflation of politics and religion, which is one of Blair’s main objections to Islamism, has always been accepted as normative by the mainstream of Islamic theology.  It is orthodox Islam.  As Bernard Lewis pointed out, the separation of church and state has been derided by most Muslim thinkers since the origins of Islam:  “Separation of church and state was derided in the past by Muslims when they said this is a Christian remedy for a Christian disease. It doesn’t apply to us or to our world.”

The third point about Islamist ideologies is that their vision of a closed society in which non-Muslims are second-class participants is in lock-step with the conservative mainstream of Islamic thought.  Here again Bernard Lewis:  “It is only very recently that some defenders of Islam began to assert that their society in the past accorded equal status to non-Muslims. No such claim is made by spokesmen for resurgent Islam, and historically there is no doubt that they are right. Traditional Islamic societies neither accorded such equality nor pretended that they were so doing. Indeed, in the old order, this would have been regarded not as a merit but as a dereliction of duty. How could one accord the same treatment to those who follow the true faith and those who willfully reject it? This would be a theological as well as a logical absurdity.” (The Jews of Islam, Princeton University Press, 1987, p.4).

Tony Blair is right to call the world to engage with and reject radical Islamist ideology. This is a defining global challenge of our time.  He is also correct to affirm that this ideology is religious.  But he is profoundly mistaken to characterize it as un-Islamic.  The fallacious arguments he puts forward for distinguishing Islam from Islamism are nothing but flimsy rhetoric.  The hard evidence against separating Islamism from Islam is clear, the sentiments of some pious Muslims non-withstanding.

Islamism is a valid interpretation of Islam, not in the sense that it is the only ‘correct’ or ‘true’ one, but because its core tenets find ready and obvious support in the Islamic canon, and they align with core principles of 1400 years of Islamic theology.  (To make this observation is not the same thing as saying that all pious Muslims are Islamists!)

Blair is right to call for the West to combat “radical Islam”, but the reason why “radical” is a correct term to use for this ideology is that radical means “of the root,” and Islamist ideas are deeply rooted in Islam itself. Islamism is a radical form of Islam. This explains why the radicalization project has been advancing with such force all over the world.

In order to combat radical Islamic views we do need to have a frank and open dialogue about the dynamics of radicalization. Blair is concerned about the damage being caused by denial about Islamism, but he indulges in his own form of blinkered thinking, which is just as unhelpful.  He was right to identify Islamist ideology as the soil in which violent jihadi ideologies “inevitably” take root, but fails to identity mainstream Islam itself as the soil in which Islamism develops. In reality the Islamist movement is but the tip of the iceberg of the Islamic movement, a deeper and broader revival of Islam across the whole Muslim world.

When countering radical Islamic ideologies, Western leaders should refrain from putting themselves forward as experts on theology, who are somehow competent to rule on whether a particular interpretation of Islam is valid or “perverse”. There is something ridiculous about secular politicians ruling on which manifestations of Islam are to be judged theologically correct. As Taliban Cleric Abu Qutada once said, “I am astonished by President Bush when he claims there is nothing in the Quran that justifies jihad violence in the name of Islam. Is he some kind of Islamic scholar? Has he ever actually read the Quran?”

Ritual displays of respect for Islam should not be naively used as sugar to coat the pill of opposition to the objectionable beliefs and behaviour of some Muslims. Leaders need to be absolutely clear about what values they stand for, and insist on these values. They should not need to express a theological opinion about what is or is not valid Islam in order to challenge the anti-semitism of Palestinian school textbooks, the denial of basic religious rights to non-Muslim guest workers in Saudi Arabia, incitement against Christians in Egypt, the promotion of female genital mutilation in the name of Islam in the Maldives, or the UK practice of taking child brides.

In this post-secular world, our leaders need to “do God” with less naivety.  They need to grasp that the inner pressure they feel to manifest respect for Islam whenever they object to some of its manifestations is itself a symptom of the ideology of dominance which powers the Islamist agenda.  They should resist the pressure to mount an apology for Islam.  The mullahs can do that.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Beeinparis

    Thank you, Mark Durie, one couldn’t put it any better. One could suspect that the blindness we see in official statements by our leaders is but an attempt at appeasement. One could also suspect that they know better, that they’re familiar with the true nature of Islam and not just Islamism, but would be very careful to let this genie out of the bottle.
    The reason being that the Muslim segment within our Western societies is now so strong and well representated that any more to-the-point identification of Islam will stirr unrest and widespread clashes in the streets of Europe and elsewhere in the West.

    • Mark Durie

      Many are afraid that if Islam is the problem there can be no solution. That terrifies them. So they do all they can to avoid engaging with the evidence that Islam is the problem.

      • PhillipGaley

        Just so long as the evidences of a criminal ideology at work are unknown—or yet known but ignored—but rather, some mere ostensible appearances are granted in favor of religiosity, just so long must the problem which Islam is remain in affect because, it cannot be identified.

        The Moslem, accepting that, when he dies, at that moment he is to beg a lifetime of forgiveness of the allah persona, but having no confidence beforehand what sin or caprice might be controlling for Allah, so that, by what appearance of logic is Islam a faith-based religion?

        And although much more could be adverted to, is Islam composed in doctrines which may be inquired into, . . . and given unique application to the individual? Or, is Islam rather, constructed and applied through force?

        If The Word of G0D is immutable, if He closes a door and no man can open it, if He opens a door and no man is able to close it, if the False Prophet will be cast into the Lake of Fire, as reads the prophecy, why then, here’s hoping that, those who have to do with FrontPage magazine will not be hindermost to wake up and “get light on” Islam in the actuality of the thing, . . .

      • beeinparis

        Exactly. The solution would have been to disallow Islamic mass migration into our cultures in the first place, their book banned for ‘inciting hatred’. Hitler’s Mein Kampf was. The facts about Islam have been known for a long time and accessible to all, especially our studied intelligentsia. And Blair is one of those who let it all happen in Britain. Too late now, the enemy is among us .. and growing.

        • Coastliner

          Growing, appeased / concessions – emboldened – appeased / concessions – emboldened etc…. Drip drip drip…….

      • Coastliner

        Burying heads in the sand is all the establishment can do. Nothing is going to change – it can only get worse – until a point at which it will get very, very ugly indeed. Eventually – the problem will have to be faced.

  • Greg Hamilton

    It’s always a joy to read the lucidity of Mark Durie, even when the subject matter is so dark. Another factor in the obfuscation and evasion that secular leaders demonstrate is the conditioning of dhimmitude. Islam, with all its terrifying attributes, sets up a dynamic in which those outside it seek to mollify and appease it. Such an abusive climate, which Islam always creates, sets up the dynamics of dhimmitude.

    We are developing a relationship with Islam and Muslims where we seek to avoid offence and confrontation with them. Unwelcome truths must kept in the shadows and messages coded to avoid outrage and possible attack. Because an offence committed by one can result in the murder and maiming of others totally unconnected we are setting up systems of self-policing (both legal and informal) to prevent offence to the ‘Muslim Community’. Hence the widespread tendency to behave like cowering dhimmis.

    • dad1927

      The noose will grow ever tighter, like a python. That is the path of suicide. Its like saying I will leave the cancer alone. It won’t kill me right away.

      • Lanna

        Yes, The Cancer grows, dominates, and destroys anything that is good!

        • Coastliner

          And it is mastating at a frightening pace throughout the west.

    • Porkys2istan

      That constant threat of violence for any ‘offense’ is what first woke me up to the islamic threat. Mainstream news anchors and comedians won’t show a picture of Mohammad but will gladly mock EVERY other religion, ideology, or belief. I know that if I ever write a book about islam or draw a cartoon of Mohammad that I will have to wear body armour and conceal carry a gun (which is nearly impossible in my state) for the rest of my life, like Salmon Rushdie.

      That’s what sickens me the most. Even the ones that won’t actually shoot you will GLADLY help those that would. If a muslim works for the government or the police they will leak your home address, and the home addresses of your friends and family members knowing full well that they are HELPING OTHER MUSLIMS TO FIND AND KILL YOU.

      That constant threat of violence is why I will NEVER trust a muslim. I don’t want to live next to people that I might have to shoot someday because I exercised my free speech rights. I don’t want ‘THEM’ in my city, my state, my country or my continent. I don’t even want them in my hemisphere.

      There’s NO other religion, race, or culture that I can say that about.

  • dad1927

    Let him repeat what Churchill said, and lets see him jailed for it. At that point, maybe someone will deal with the hordes of savages building up.

    • Coastliner

      Don’t hold your breath. Nobody in the establishment will do anything about this nightmare because they are terrified of upsetting the evil regime that is Saudi Arabia and their petro dollars.

  • jewdog

    Yes, Mark, politicians should avoid theology and concentrate on what they do best: lying, cheating and stealing.

    • Coastliner

      And destroying whole countries in the space of 10 years as Blair and his followers have destroyed Britain – a curse be upon every last one of them.

  • high treason

    Blair was the traitor who let the Muslims in in the first place for their votes. He did not give a damn about destroying British culture-all he cared about was POWER.

    • Suzanne

      Sadly, there seems to be some truth to this. Blair was part of the left who wanted to fundamentally change the European demographics of their once great country.

      • Coastliner

        Treasonous – every last one of them.

    • Hellosnackbar

      Perhaps after contemplating his absurd behaviour with respect to the Muslim immigrant morons, he’s confessed his sin?(after turning Catholic)
      The problem with believing in sky fairies is that respect for other fairy believers must have moral sympathy?
      This is not a factor within the supremacist ,totalitarian faecal dogma of Islam!

      • Coastliner

        ‘Faecal dogma’ – I like that expression!!! Sums the whole cult up perfectly!

  • Joe The Gentile

    Tony Blair is most of the way to Jihad reality. He hesitates to take the final step which is facing the FACTS of JIHAD. There can be many reasons for this but one of the biggest ones may be just that the news is bad. But we all need to know the facts of Jihad, if we are to survive as a civilization.

    THE FACTS OF JIHAD
    ==================
    1. Muslims are INSTRUCTED in their most holy book, the Quran, to HATE non-Muslims, and to OVERTHROW them politically (when ready), and to SEVERELY OPPRESS them with Sharia law.
    2. Jihad is UNIQUE to Islam among major religions. There is NO significant sect of any other major religion that has anything like Jihad in its teachings.
    3. There is NO significant sect of Islam that renounces Jihad.
    4. MODERATE muslims OFFER NO SAFETY to non-Muslims from Jihad. They never have and never shall. If they oppose Jihad when the time comes, they will be killed.
    5. Taqiyya, DECEIVING non-Muslims about the nature of Islam and otherwise, is part of Jihad.

    • Joe The Gentile

      I could add:

      6. There are NO STANDING passages in the Quran which are tolerant towards non-Muslims. All of these have been ABROGATED.

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Joe the Gentile AKBAR!

  • mark

    In other words, blair falls for the muslims perhaps oldest lie in the west, its not the real islam when it is what permeats their mainstream teaching books, quran, hadith and sira.

    The man is still ignorant of what islam is and still a traitor

    • Michael Copeland

      “Not the real Islam” lets him off the hook. If he admits it is not this made-up “Islamism” then it has to be only Islam, and he was a main instigator of inflicting it on Britain. This was done without any mandate, against countless objections, and with an eye to swelling the numbers of Labour voters “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

  • Michael Copeland

    “Unfortunately we seem blind”, said Tony Blair. Yes, Mr. Blair: it is what
    happens to us when we have had the wool pulled over our eyes. Those devout
    observant muslim advisers have deliberately obstructed our vision – everybody’s
    - including the Government, the press, the BBC, and all the public. They have devoutly and observantly employed taqiyya, Islam’s authorised lying.

    “Understand that lying is not wrong in itself.
    If a lie is the only way to achieve a good result [for Islam], it is permitted.”

    Al Ghazali (1059-1111), one of Islam’s most important theologians.
    (http://gatesofvienna.net/2014/04/elisabeths-voice-the-final-push-to-the-echr)

    Lying for Islam is approved: it is a way of being devout.

    • danhoch

      This must be what Obama uses; he probably took the Lying 101 course over and over until he had the book memorized…he and Blair…two peas in a pod…I’m sure later in life, Obama like Blair will say that it was a mistake allowing the islamists in the country…too late…the damage is being done..

  • gfmucci

    Too bad Blair doesn’t recognize the rest of the missing truth: That Islam and Islamism is one and the same. There may be some Muslims that don’t go along with the full agenda, being nominal, cultural, apostate, or whatever semi-Muslim, but those who sincerely practice their Islamic faith represent every subversive, intolerant, supremacist, terrorist doctrine of historical Islam that Blair attributes only to “Islamists.”

    • Coastliner

      Absolutely – those that would be considered ‘moderate’ by western standards would certainly be considered apostates by more ‘devout’ followers of the cult.

  • sunland

    So now, after all the years we foreigners have watched the gradual demise of the UK by Labour’s vote-buying open borders/immigration policies, Tony Blair suddenly comes out and admits Islam is a problem. Years too late and perhaps irreversible. I suppose Blair has to stay relevant somehow, despite his party wrecking the social cohesion and economic fabric of the good old UK. Concomitantly, England once a great and proud nation, now run by Brussels dictators who, like the insistent immigrants, want to get their grubby hands on English businesses and in particular, UK Treasury coffers. Tony Blair should be advocating three things: close the borders, end the divisive and troublesome multi-culturalism, separate from Brussels and prioritise the wellbeing of indigenous Britains.

    • nicky

      Perhaps hes trying to cover his back for when hes eventually tried for treason. Maybe the courts will show some leniency.

    • liberalism is a mental illness

      Well said.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    He states that a ‘defining challenge of our time’ is a religious ideology which he calls ‘Islamist’,

    He’s wrong! Islam is not a religion, as the so-called religion requires the total, complete, and unconditional submission to the “will of Allah” under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy of all Muslims as its first and foremost prerequisite.

    Thus, unlike in faith based religions, if a Muslim speaks out against Islam or otherwise openly refuses to abide by his or her holy obligations as set forth under Islam, such as waging jihad in one form or another in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, that Muslim is guilty of blasphemy and condemned to death. Likewise, if a Muslim apostatizes from Islam, that Muslim is also guilty of apostasy and condemned to death. As blasphemy and apostasy are the twin curses of Islam that is used judiciously to control the minds and lives of the Muslim masses.

    Furthermore, what is the “will of Allah” that all Muslims must totally, completely, and unconditionally submit to under the penalty of death for blasphemy and apostasy? In essence, it is Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law. Hence, more than anything else, Islam is a very rabid form of totalitarianism as opposed to being a faith based religion.

    Meanwhile, what faith-based religions similar to Islam also automatically condemns blasphemers and apostates to death? The answer is none of them, which is why they are considered to be faith based religions.

    although he is not comfortable with this label because he prefers to distance himself from any implication that this ideology can be equated with Islam itself.

    There is only one true Islam because there can only be one true Islam, as the Koran is considered by Muslims to be the direct verbatim text of Allah as delivered to Muhammad by the arch angel Gabriel. Thus, as such it is perfectly just and absolutely perfect. Therefore, any mere mortal man perceived as changing even just one word of it would instantly be killed for having the audacity.

    Moreover, the sole fundamental purpose of mainstream orthodox Islam (the only kind) is the subjugation into Islamic totalitarianism of all religions and all infidels through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    In other words, Blair is still a gullible useful idiot infidel of enormous proportions.

    He worries that “you can appear to elide those who support the Islamist ideology with all Muslims.”

    I hate to continue raining on Blair’s unhinged parade, but all Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another, either violent jihadists (a tiny minority) or non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists (the vast overwhelming majority). Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates, in which case they must be executed per the texts and tenets of Islam. Thus, the millions of Muslims that flooded the UK under his government are jihadists.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Likewise he implies that the protracted conflict over Israel-Palestine is not the cause of this ideology, but rather the converse is the case: dealing with the wider impact of Islamist ideology could help solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

    The so-called Arab/Israeli Conflict is not a conflict at all, but a jihad (holy war) instead waged against the Jewish infidels in Israel primarily through the so-called Palestinians, which are the proxies of the greater Islamic totalitarian world. The purpose of the perpetual jihad is to make Islam supreme in Israel and at the same time to render the Jewish infidels into Islamic totalitarianism, i.e., harsh and degrading dhimmitude.

    Furthermore, the jihad being waged against the Jewish infidels in Israel is not substantially different from the jihad being waged against the Hindu infidels in India, the jihad being waged against the Buddhist infidels in Thailand, the jihad being waged against the Orthodox Christian infidels in Chechnya, the jihad being waged against the Christian and animist infidels in Sudan, and on and on again around the world ad nauseum.

    In other words, the Islamic totalitarian world’s jihad is being waged violently and non-violently against all infidels collectively throughout the world, as the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation all religions and all infidels into Islamic totalitarianism through both violent and non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad and the eventual imposition of Sharia, i.e., Islamic totalitarian law, to ultimately make Islam supreme throughout the world.

    Thus, given the sole fundamental purpose of Islam is the subjugation of all infidels, solving Israel’s jihad problem individually is absolutely impossible, unless it involves the entire collective infidel world acting together in unison to defeat the totalitarian scourge of Islam, and in that regard we have only two viable options:

    Option one would involve the entire infidel world acting collectively to destroy Islam utterly by killing all Muslims in the world. However, that would be a very violent and very bloody solution. Option two would again involve the entire infidel world acting collectively to render the Islamic totalitarian world into total abject poverty so that Muslims would be incapable of waging jihad and then isolating them until such time as Islam as a force ceases to exist any longer. This would be a less violent and less bloody solution relative to option one.

  • wileyvet

    Excellent article and great posts everyone. Islam, after the Hijra to Medina, became an Arab political movement, and extremely violent. Muhammad was a tyrant that was fanatical in his administration of “Allah’s” will.Though Muslims may evoke the name of Allah, it is really Muhammad they venerate. It is his conduct and character they emulate which makes for a good Muslim. Unfortunately what makes for a good Muslim makes for a despicable human being. No part of the triad, Allah, Muhammad, and the Koran can be separated. You simply cannot be a Muslim and not accept the Koran in toto. If one does they fail to follow Muhammad. Without him their is no Islam. Which begs the question how can there be a moderate Muslim? You are either a Muslim or an apostate.

    • luke101

      Couldn’t have said it better!

  • ObamaYoMoma

    According to Blair, what distinguishes violent terrorists from seemingly non-violent Islamists – such as the Muslim Brotherhood – is simply “a difference of view as to how to achieve the goals of Islamism”, so attempts to draw a distinction between political Islamist movements and radical terrorist groups are mistaken.

    Actually, Muslims wage both violent and non-violent jihad (holy war) as opposed to terrorism, as jihad in stark contrast to terrorism is always and only waged strictly by Muslims alone, is always and only in the cause of Allah to ultimately make Islam supreme, and manifests by any and all means necessary, both violent and non-violent

    Meanwhile, terrorism, on the other hand, is universally perpetrated by all societies and cultures, is perpetrated for a myriad of different political causes and reasons, and is always and only violent.

    Of course, violent forms of jihad are virtually indistinguishable from terrorism. Nevertheless, in stark contrast to terrorism, violent jihad is perpetrated only by Muslims alone and always and only in the cause of Allah to make Islam supreme.

    Thus, when clueless people erroneously mislabel Muslims as somehow being terrorists what they are doing is conflating jihad as somehow being terrorism, but the two diverse manifestations are really very different, separate, and distinct manifestations altogether and perpetrated for altogether very different reasons.

    Furthermore, because terrorism as opposed to jihad is always and only violent, non-violent manifestations of jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world with all of its excess baggage, because it isn’t violent, is able to manifests today totally without opposition.

    As a matter of fact, non-violent forms of jihad relative to violent forms of jihad manifests today astronomically far more prevalently. Indeed, mass Muslim immigration to the infidel world with all of its excess baggage is in reality non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad for the nefarious purposes of mass Muslim infiltration and eventual demographic conquest. Yet, it isn’t opposed because the infidel world has been conditioned to conflate jihad as being terrorism, and because terrorism is always and only violent, mass Muslim immigration, which manifests non-violently, isn’t perceived as being a threat.

  • luke101

    “The fact that there are pious Muslims who reject Islamism is not a
    credible argument that Islamism is an invalid interpretation of Islam.”…..
    ———————————————————————————————
    Or , to put it more simply, just because some muslims do not become violent when exposed to this virulent aggressive ideology, does not absolve the ideology itself, which is counter to every civilizational belief we have fought so hard to build since the Magna Carta. It is evil.

  • Dajjal

    Please source the following quotes: I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me …” He also
    said to his followers in Medina, “Kill any Jew who falls into your
    power.” Following in Muhammad’s footsteps, one of Muhammad’s most
    revered companions and successors as leader of the Muslim community, the
    Caliph Umar, called upon the armies of Islam to fight non-Muslims until
    they surrender or convert, saying “If they refuse this, it is the sword
    without leniency.”

    • Mark Durie

      Hi Dajjal.
      1. The hadith “I have been sent with a sword in my hand to command people to worship Allah and associate no partners with
      him. I command you to belittle and subjugate those who disobey me, for those who look alike are of the same.” is cited by Ibn in Ahkam Ahl al-Dhimmah by Ibn Qayyim (ed. Subhi al-Salih, Vol. 2, p.742). This is cited by Ibn Qayyim to support the practice of imposing discriminating clothing upon dhimmas. Ibn Kathir’s commentary on Sura 9:29 expresses a similar view: “Paying Jizya is a sign of Kufr and disgrace
      Allah said, ‘until they pay the Jizyah’, if they do not choose to
      embrace Islam, ‘with willing submission’, in defeat and subservience,
      ‘and feel themselves subdued.’ disgraced, humiliated and
      belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people
      of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are
      miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”
      2. The command “Kill any Jew who falls into your power” is in Ibn Ishaq’s Sirat Rasul Allah. You can google the phrase for the references. A similar hadith is in Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 13, Number 2996.
      3. The citation from Caliph ‘Umar is from Tabari’s history: al-Tabari, The Battle of al-Qadisiyyah and the Conquest of Syria and Palestine. The History of al-Tabari, vol. 12, p.167. Similar traditions are commanding offering three choices to infidels are found in the Sahih Muslim and the Sahih Bukhari.

      • Dajjal

        Thank you, Mark, that information is much appreciated.

  • robin

    The good news is that Muslims are a religion of intolerant bigots. . the bad news is coming with their swords … Hey Christians the lions are ready!

  • Ross

    An amazingly insightful piece appeared in one of the most lefty UK news media recently, actually focused on the Boko Haram murder gangs, but questioning why so many journos are skipping the essential message. http://rossrightangle.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/absolutely-bloody-brilliant-and-hes-a-left-lib/

  • http://lifeisbeautifulallthetime.blogspot.com/ Moishe3rd

    The only problem with your argument, Mr. Durie, is that Islam does not kill people. People kill people. And, in this case, Arabs and Muslims are mainly slaughtering each other and have been for the last plus 100 years in the Name of their particular Flavor of god or secular philosophies.
    Just as did Christian Europeans by the tens of millions 500 years ago during their so called “Reformation.”
    Just as did the Jews of the Second Temple era by the hundreds of thousands 2000 years ago during Josephus’ “Wars of the Jews.”
    The actual Reformation of Judaism into the relatively peaceful and dynamic religion that it is today began 2,000 years ago when the Kingdom of Israel obliterated itself under the Roman Destruction.
    The gradual Reformation of Christianity into the spiritual dynamic religion that it is today began when Christian Europeans fled their suicidal “Reformation” and established new ways of looking at their religion in America.
    Unfortunately, both the European Christians and the Jews in the Kingdom of Israel nearly obliterated their worlds in their “Reformations.”

    What is happening today IS the Muslim “Reformation.”
    The task of theologians and activists such as yourself ought to be to discover how Muslims might make it through this insane period of history without destroying our world as did both the Christians and Jews of their time.