Has Tony Blair woken up to the reality of the threat from ‘radical’ Islam?

In an interview with the BBC Blair said of ‘radical Islam’:

"There is the most enormous threat from the combination of this radical extreme movement and the fact that, if they could, they would use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.

"You can't take a risk with that happening."

Mr Blair said he agonised over how to respond to radical Islam and still had doubts that he was right.

These are really difficult issues, he said, but added: "This extremism is so deep that in the end they have to know that they're facing a stronger will than theirs."

So, Tony Blair has revealed that he sees ‘radical Islam’ as the ‘world’s greatest threat’. In ideological and practical security terms, I think that he is correct, but only half so. Only half so because he fails to own up to the fact that ‘radical Islam’ is nothing more than applied Islam. It seems to me that this failure in his understanding is linked to his own personal ‘faith’ position and his unwillingness, shared by millions, to either acknowledge or accept that Islam is in many respects very different to other religions: dangerously different.

Blair has for many years, particularly since he resigned his position of Prime Minister, been open about his profession of Christian faith. Whatever your personal thoughts on Blair as a man and a politician, I think that his longstanding Christianity and conversion to Catholicism are sincere. It is indeed from his personal adherence to Christianity and its doctrines of the power of forgiveness, turning the other cheek and standing up for the underdog, that many of his problems in comprehending Islam flow. For him, he mistakes what Islam ought to be for what it is, i.e. he thinks that like Christianity it should be intensely pluralistic, flexible and accommodating to changing social mores, whereas it is not.

Like most Christians (indeed followers of any religion or secular political dogma) Blair cherry-picks the elements of Christianity and Catholicism that he finds palatable whilst ignoring others, and thus for example supports contraception despite papal opposition to this practice and the doctrine of papal infallibility. In this case, Blair thinks he knows (as indeed he does) better than the Pope. Doctrinaire Muslims do not behave in such a way. For them, all they think they need to know about how to lead a moral life is contained in the Qur’an. The majority also accept the legitimacy of the Sunnah and the hadith, although not unsurprisingly there are slightly different takes upon the legitimacy and application of their various aspects. In essence however, all doctrinaire Muslims are unified in their belief of the veracity and universal applicability of the qur’anic message.

Blair’s failure to develop a logical and adequate strategy of containing and dealing with ‘radical’ Islam thus arose from his confused apprehension of Islamic ideology. Whilst being at the vanguard of military efforts to ‘defeat’ this menace in Afghanistan and allegedly in Iraq, Blair simultaneously encouraged and protected Islam in the United Kingdom through the promotion of multiculturalism and an open borders mass immigration policy. Under the aegis of multiculturalism the population of the UK was subjected to draconian ‘hate’ laws such as the 2006 ‘Racial and Religious Hatred Act’ which were consciously formulated to protect and privilege Islam; ‘faith’ schools were encouraged, entrenching pre-existing segregation by providing state funding for Muslim institutions where pupils wasted (and still do waste) time on memorising the Qur’an and absorbing its anti-scientific and anti-rational dogma; the national curriculum required the brainwashing of non-Muslim children into believing that Islam is a ‘religion of peace’, thus leaving them vulnerable to Muslim predation and proselytisation.

Due predominantly to the deliberate engineering of mass immigration to the UK, the Muslim population under Blair swelled rapidly, rising from an official 1.6 million in 2001 to 2.4 million by early 2009. So-called ‘refugees’ from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq also swelled this expansion. At the same time as he removed pressures from Muslim immigrants and the established Muslim population to integrate into the life of the host population through assimilation, he buttressed its sense of separation through privileging and incentivising Muslim identities, doling out state funding to specifically Muslim projects and so-called ‘community leaders’.

As they expanded, the established Muslim enclaves in Britain’s cities and towns grew increasingly separate, their sense of exclusivity bolstered by the ongoing revolution in telecommunications presaged by satellite television and reaching its apotheosis in the spread of domestic internet access. Coupled with increasingly cheap transcontinental flights and ongoing large-scale chain migration, these factors ensured that the Muslim population in the UK increasingly alienated itself from the host population and sensed a growing sense of solidarity with a transnational ummah rather than with fellow non-Muslim citizens.

To this combustible mix of legal, political, demographic, sociological and technological factors working in favour of Islamisation in the UK, Blair then added two wars against Muslim majority states. Unsurprisingly, the state-sponsored fifth-column – UK passport holders belonging to the Ummah – responded negatively to these wars. That they hated non-Muslims beforehand and saw themselves as superior to non-Muslim Britons was beyond dispute, but Blair not only did not recognise this, but seemingly chose to goad them with his foreign policy. Although a case could be made for some form of military action against Afghanistan upon the grounds of combating Islamism, none could be in the case of Iraq. Admittedly, having looked at the relevant UN resolutions I am of the opinion that the Iraq War that began in 2003 was technically legal, but whether or not it was the right thing to do is a matter for debate. Personally, I do not think that it was wise to become involved in that particular conflict, for it had nothing to do with fighting Islamism. If we had wished to do the latter, it would have made far more sense to attack Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Whilst being cognisant of the Islamist threat emanating from Afghanistan, Blair remained unwilling to acknowledge its deep roots within the UK’s hostile fifth-column. His domestic policies, as those of his successors, served only to further entrench and nurture doctrinaire Islam in the UK. It is doctrinaire Islam that must be dealt with, and we can only deal with it effectively if we abandon multiculturalism and implement the following measures in the UK: make Muslim faith schools illegal; repeal all ‘hate’ legislation relating to religion; ban the proselytisation of Islam as being inimical to the public good; ban Muslim charities; ban all further Muslim immigration, including the ‘right to family reunion’; ban the further construction of mosques and madrassahs; withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights; purge the curriculum of dhimmitude and encourage apostasy within the resident Muslim population. This package of measures will be popular and just.

Instead, Blair continues to adhere to a schizoid path that will bring unnecessary bloodshed to our country. A radical change in domestic policy would be more productive in combating Islamism than military intervention overseas. Only once we have secured our own territory can we hope to extend moral assistance to those seeking to rid themselves of Islamism.

Like most rational people, I would not be happy if the incumbent Iranian regime acquired nuclear weapons, but more to the point, the Pakistanis already have them. Pakistan is an existing threat, yet this is not clearly articulated in our mass media or by our political elite because of the large Pakistani presence within our shores. If any military action were to be employed against Iran, it would need to be of a very precise and measured type. The Iranian people should not suffer because of the folly of the incumbent regime. Given time, pressure will further build for reform in Iran, but if we were to launch an indiscriminate attack upon the country it would gravely undermine the position of reformist voices. We must not fall into this trap.

Although it is encouraging to see Blair describing Islamist ideology as “regressive, wicked and backward-looking” he needs to wake up to the fact that ‘radical’ Islam is nothing more than applied Islam. Once Blair and others like him have finally recognised what Islam is, then we will be able to get down to the business of dealing with this problem effectively and decisively. Ultimately, the resolution of this problem must be ideological, but for us to triumph our people must possess the necessary resolve, and this can only be acquired if we ditch the misguided political dogma of multiculturalism. This is something to which Blair remains deeply committed. He means well, but as the old proverb goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.