How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.I wouldn't change a word.
Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.
From Winston Churchill, "The River War" (his account of the Sudanese campaign) (1899)
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
STEYN ON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM
A bit tardy, but two weeks ago in the Telegraph (U.K.) columnist Mark Steyn quoted Winston Churchill's assessment of Islam a century ago:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Winston Churchill failed as most leaders to today to recognise what the Islamic movement. They also fail to recognise that the bible is very similar to Islam particualrly regards women and their social position. It's just that many Muslims follow their relegion and belive in where as the majority of Christians do not. Was Winston Churchill so civilaized when he orderd the dropping of mustard gas on the Kurds in Northern Iraq in the 1920's. He explained to the house of commons how he could save the british tax player £15m a year buy using chemical weapons on Jurds rather than send in troops. Does he sound familar? Don't get me wrong Churchill as the right man to lead our country through WWII, but as a peace time leader he had no place.
Post a Comment