British liberal politicians say the fact that the Westminster Bridge attacker was Muslim is “completely irrelevant.”
This guy, former U.K. trade minister Digby Jones, and other UK liberals, insist that the killer’s Muslim identity had nothing to do with his motive for the attack.
Jones et alia don’t know for sure if it did or didn’t, they are saying that because it is politically correct.
Khalid Masood’s background suggests they are grievously misguided.
As Andrew C. McCarthy writes in the National Review: “Masood was known as Adrian Elms (his stepfather’s surname) until converting to Islam when he was about 40. Prior to that point, while fathering three children with his wife, he had several arrests, some for violent attacks.
During at least one of the resulting stints in prison, like many inmates, he began indoctrination into Islam. Between 2004 and 2005 came the critical transition: the formal conversion, marriage to a Muslim woman, and relocation to Saudi Arabia.
For five years, Masood was immersed in the kingdom’s Wahhabism — fundamentalist Islam rooted in scriptural literalism. He became an English language-teacher working for the Saudi government.
Masood returned to England from Jeddah about seven years ago. By the time of Wednesday’s attack on Westminster Bridge, he had gravitated to Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.
There is diversity in Islam, including millions of Muslims who adhere only to its spiritual elements or see themselves as more culturally than doctrinally Islamic. But when we speak of Islam, as opposed to Muslims, we are not speaking about a mere religious belief system. We are talking about a competing civilization — that is very much how Islam self-identifies. It has its own history, principles, values, mores, and legal system.
Islam is anti-Western. Like the conversion of Masood, the conversion of Birmingham has been a function of this defining Islamic attribute. Individual Muslims may assimilate, but Islam doesn’t do assimilation. Islam does not melt into the melting pot. Islam, as Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna proclaimed, is content with nothing less than political, cultural, and civilizational dominance.
The fact is that before ISIS and al-Qaeda and the Khomeini revolution and Hezbollah and the Blind Sheikh and the Brotherhood and Khalid Masood, there was the single thing that unites them all — Islam.
Western political and opinion elites remain willfully blind to this. In their minds, and therefore ingrained in the media’s coverage, is the notion that a Muslim community is just like any other community. Same with the mosque — it is just a “house of worship,” no different from a church, a safe harbor from worldly concerns and hostilities.
Islam, however, does not separate mosque from state; the mosque is every bit as much a center for sharia indoctrination, assimilation resistance and anti-Western politics as it is a prayer venue. The movement doesn’t want cohabitation. It wants conquest. It starts with assimilation-resistant enclaves that nurture sharia supremacism today and thereby breed the jihadists of tomorrow. This week, it took the campaign to Westminster Bridge.”