Friday, 20 December 2013
Revenge is so sweet for us all, especially for Jews, Christians and Muslims.
Am I as evil and as much beyond the pale as Anjem Choudary, in writing the following?
It is very hard for only one side to be expected to show no revenge, esp when there has been twelve years of killings, violence and aggression against that one side. Yet this was what John Humphrys was expecting of Anjem Choudary, the founder of Al-Muhajiroun, whom he repeatedly demanded should condemn the killing of Lee Rigby. For centuries, both Muslims and Christians have never been noted for condemning acts of violence. Rather, they have been at the centre of promoting aggression, killing, murder and violence. All the children of Abraham - Jews, Christians and Muslims are still at it. And the Christian nations and their individual adherents have been the worst. Last century was a particularly heinous and horrendous example.
This morning’s interview was similar to so many conducted by BBC journalists of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness in the 1970s, 80s and 90s. I think it was the case that in all those interviews, not once did Adams or McGuinness condemn even one individual on their side for his violence that Humphrys and co were insisting that they should. They themselves, like Anjem Choudary, were careful to take no part in violence but eventually, Adams and McGuinness argued the case for ballot, never bullet. Consequently, it was they and not the men of violence who eventually won the day with their major contribution to the Good Friday peace agreement of 1998 that brought a huge lessening of the violence in N Ireland.
It is unreasonably for us to expect Choudary to condemn violence when our side never does, either (except for the violence of our enemies and other nations like Russia). In fact, we are the worse offenders in doing domination, aggression and violence! Doing it is far worse. And of that, we are particularly adept! To condemn violence and then to carry on doing it, is particularly reprehensible and hypocritical.
It could, in fact, be seen that the two Michaels were fulfilling the very words of Scripture, the very words of Christ, no less - “those who take the sword will die by the sword.” They killed a killer and then wanted the police to kill them in fair return. “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”, as one Michael said on camera to explain why he did it - and, quoting Holy Scripture. This time, the police failed to kill their man.
We had one man of violence killing another man of violence in a war that our side brought to Muslim lands and a third man of violence is expected to condemn someone on his side who killed. Only a man of non-violence, as I am, can honourably condemn the Woolwich killing without being accused of being a hypocrite.
We have to be very careful not to excuse our own killing because we are on the side of right, of good, on the side of God and on the side of law. We act as though al Qaeada, the Taliban and al Shabab are most definitely not and killing them is fair game. Our side are the heroes, the Muslim fighters are evil and must be wiped off the face of the map. No wonder, the very occasional, maverick Muslim gets so angry at his brethren being killed that he gets his own back on their killers - like Lee Rigby. And, with the international nature of British society, we rub shoulders with Muslims every day of the week who many not like what is being done in their name. Hence, Lee Rigby was an easy target.
John Humphrys and Lord Carlisle were particularly aghast/offended at Choudary being opposed to democracy. How on earth can any reasonable, sensible, sane person be against democracy? Yet, I am no longer voting for any of the war parties for I see that as being unethical and encouraging them in their aggressive foreign policy around the globe. Does that make me as equally reprehensible as Choudary is to them? I have to trot along to the polling station and put an ‘X’ against, ‘Re-open nominations’ or ‘None of above’ or ‘Abstain’.