Scotland Yard is flummoxed. The Metropolitan Police, despite vast resources and some of the world’s best detectives are completely stumped. They have been forced to admit that they ‘may never know what motivated’ Khalid Masood to murder four people and attack Parliament.
If only there were clues as to why a Muslim convert who had lived in Saudia Arabia, stronghold of violently extremist Wahhabi Islamic teaching, who became radicalised in prison, and who copied Islamic terrorist methods used in continental Europe, would murder infidels and attack the seat of democracy. It’s a mystery.
Fortunately, as TV has taught us, there are gifted amateurs who can help the police. These armchair detectives have pursued a previously untapped new line of enquiry – the Christian Connection.
Massoud Shadjareh, chair of Islamic Human Rights Commission, and Miss Marple fantasist, argues that Adrian Elms was a violent Christian before he became a Muslim terrorist. This cry was taken up by other part-time detectives like one time Conservative MP Louise Mensch, one of Dave’s Dollies.
The evidence for his Christian commitment seems incontrovertible: his Mum went to church, his name was Adrian and that’s a saint’s name. Case closed, this has nothing to do with Islam.
Islam teaches, ‘once a Muslim always a Muslim’, a lesson apostates have to be taught. It also works the other way; when a convert to Islam does something heinous then ‘once a Christian always a Christian’.
If a child born into an atheistic family were to convert to Christianity then commit an act of terrorism, would the Morse wannabes deduce he was an atheist terrorist or a Christian terrorist?
The Christian might respond with ‘But we don’t see professing Christians killing in the name of Jesus’. Big mistake. You have just kicked over the wasps nest. Progressive armchair detectives will swarm out with shrill cries of, ‘What about Ireland. Catholics and Protestants used terrorist tactics. That’s Christian terrorism.’
You will try reason and explain. There was a religious dimension but it was not a religious conflict. The Provisional IRA may have drawn its support mainly from the Catholic population but their ideology owed more to Karl Marx than Thomas Aquinas. We can be fairly sure Protestant Loyalists spent very little time poring over the works of John Calvin or John Wesley before going out to plant bombs.
One side sought an end to British rule in Ireland and a unified island, the other sought the maintenance of the status quo. One side wanted a republic, the other a constitutional monarchy. Nobody wanted to establish a theocracy.
The Provos talked to any evil dictatorship willing to sell arms, but were focused on fighting one government in one place. Although it had more than its fair share of psychopaths and fantasists, the IRA did not have a worldwide plan for a Catholic Caliphate. Unfortunately, although equating the IRA with ISIS is a mark of abject stupidity, those with an agenda pursue the idiocy.
Silencing progressive apologists on one aspect doesn’t mean a win, they switch fronts. ‘What about the Inquisition, it was hideously violent’. It is an article of faith that the Inquisition murdered people by the tens of thousands, usually burning them alive after torturing them mercilessly, because they got the wrong number of angels dancing on a pin. Given the state of education today it is hardly surprising such views gain currency.
Just about every civilisation had laws against heresy. Amongst other things, Socrates was forced to drink hemlock for ‘mocking the gods’. Plato, Socrates’ most famous pupil, argued that one of a magistrate’s duties is to punish all blasphemers and unbelievers. But then, we’ve all reacted that way to some teachers.
Up until the 12th century, supposed Christian heretics were tried before the local lord. Having little training in jurisprudence or theology, his decision could be based on hearsay, dislike of the accused’s smell or a bad case of indigestion. Accusations were often brought to settle scores, and judgements reached on the flimsiest of evidence. In this the working of pre-12th century Western civil law was similar to the working of 21st century blasphemy laws in Pakistan.
The Inquisition was introduced as a work of mercy, to bring justice to the process. As a resulted most defendants were acquitted or received suspended sentences. Most found guilty were allowed to do penance and integrate themselves back into society.
In its day, the now notorious Spanish Inquisition was considered one of the best run courts in Europe. Its jails were so humane that criminals in state custody were known purposely to blaspheme in order to be placed in the custody of the Inquisition. They stood a better chance of survival.
It is true that inquisitors would occasionally resort to torture to extract information. However, the rest of Europe at this time was no stranger to hideous physical cruelty. In England you could be executed for damaging shrubs in public gardens. Returning to Germany from banishment could result in having your eyes gouged out. In France, disembowelment for sheep stealing was considered fair and just, at least by the guy who owned the sheep.
Despite this, it was in the Inquisitions that torture was used least. Historian Henry Kamen says, ‘We find that comparing the Inquisition, merely in Spain with other tribunals, that the Inquisition used torture less than other tribunals’.
A 2010 German study involving 45,000 youngsters found that while increasing faith made Christian youth less violent, increasing religious fervour made Muslim youth more violent. Adrian Elms was a violent man with a Christian other. But it was Muslim convert Khalid Masood who murdered four people and attacked Parliament in a manner unhappily common for Muslim terrorists.
Despite what armchair detectives say there simply is no Christian equivalent to today’s Islamic terrorism. It only exists in the minds of progressive apologists who, knowingly or not, act as the propaganda arm of global jihad.
(Image: Shakespearesmonkey)
