Fundamentalism

The source-betrayer Andrew Gilligan has a bleat in today's Telegraph about a post on the Islamist Forum of Europe, part of which reads:

Of course I am still convinced that participation is correct, but my contention is that it should be on our terms, and not on terms set by others. Why allow ourselves to be boxed in by “rules” that are clearly designed to destroy us in this world and the hereafter? These rules are underpinned by the notion of secularism that is followed by immorality and basic deconstruction of the pillars of what a good society should be based on, according to God. This is manifested in almost every Western government’s foreign policy in the guise of spreading democracy. If only they would spread freedom!

Pausing only to note that the British Trade Union Congress once loftily declared that it supported democracy as long as it produced results that were 'moving in the correct direction', we must ask ourselves what is objectionable about the quoted passage?

If you believe that the Qu'ran, or the Bible, is the eternally valid word of God, then if you follow its precepts you are, respectively, a Muslim or a Christian.

If you do not believe that the Qu'ran or the Bible is the eternally valid word of God, then you have no business describing yourself as a Muslim or a Christian, because your religion is built on the sand of what you find expedient or convenient to believe.

I have no problem with Muslims using political means to persuade others that their conservative vision of the world is compelling. After all, the 'progressives' have been doing just that throughout my lifetime, with the social consequences we see all around us.

I also have no problem with killing as many Jihadists as is necessary to persuade them of the folly of seeking to impose their beliefs by force.