The silent war

Since the brutal hacking in London a couple of weeks ago by a group of Muslims who logically concluded that their ideology encouraged the barbaric enforcement of Mohammad’s ideals, London has seen the beginning of another round of battles in an, as yet, unnamed and unrecognised war.

Yesterday, in what appears to be a violent response, an Islamic centre in London was burnt to the ground. This is by no means an isolated incident, either.

I wrote yesterday that this type of reactionary violence was inevitable.

Some non-Muslims, seeing the threat posed by Islam, are going to take the law into their own hands. Some citizens, recognising the failure of their government to protect its citizens, will act without waiting for their government.

Now, I am not saying that this reaction is good, or welcome. But it is not unexpected.

And while the immediate blame lies with the perpetrators of violence, the actual root cause of an anti-Islamic reaction rests on the shoulders of the government that has allowed its nations culture and values to come under attack.

It is likely that this round of violence will continue for a while and then ebb off. Until the next flare-up.

But what must be recognised is that in the long run, this violence will get worse and more frequent.

There will be a silent, running war between the Islamic community and the non-Islamic community. If you don’t believe that, then you are betting that history never repeats.

That is not a bet I’m willing to take.

What do you think?

Author: Bernard Gaynor

Bernard Gaynor is a married father of nine children. He has a background in military intelligence, Arabic language and culture and is an outspoken advocate of conservative and family values.

Share This Post On


  1. Sorry, I left one statement a bit unfinished above when I was suggesting that many, if not most, of the religions of the world are similar. Does it really matter if you call your deity God, Allah, Mother Earth or Steve? Aren’t they basically all suggesting that there is a divine being who created us and all of nature, and who has handed down rules (all remarkably similar) by which to live? And aren’t those rules also based on common sense ways a society should live by if it isn’t going to self-destruct? Aren’t the petty differences between them basically irrelevant when you look at the big picture?

    Post a Reply
    • The name we give God is not important. What is important is that we live by the order and will He has for us. And the difference in the order outlined by Islam and Christianity is huge. For example, in Islam, it is permitted to force people into the religion. In Catholicism, it is not. Islamic martyrs are people who have taken the lives of others. Christian martyrs are those who have given their own life freely for their faith. And then within the Christian denominations there are also big difference. Anglicans can divorce – Catholics cannot. Like Webboy said above both can’t be right. And I agree with his logic that both can both be wrong as well. But until someone can prove to me that Jesus did not rise from the dead and establish the Catholic Church, I will continue to uphold that faith. The story of His life is beautiful, deeper than can possibly be fathomed and sends a clear signal that God loves, God conquers death. But it also shows that the price of sin is death as well. We need to choose which death we want – the one on the cross, dying to the world to rise again, or the death rejecting the cross and God’s love for us.

      Post a Reply
      • I appreciate your comments, thank you, Bernard.

        I do question your assertion that Catholicism doesn’t try to force people into their faith. Perhaps it’s rarer these days, but there’s a history of persecution of non-believers that you can’t deny, surely.

        The Muslims I know have never tried to push their views on me, despite the fact that they, as you do, sincerely believe that I’m damned to eternal hell for not sharing their/your views. The most any of the most devout have done is to try and share “The Word” with me because they care about me enough to not want me to burn in hell. I think they’re lovely to care enough to do that, even if I don’t agree with them. Some of them have even gotten quite pushy with me over it, which can get irritating, but when I remember that they’re mostly doing it out of caring then I can forgive them right back ;-P

        Whether or not I (for example) believe in the Catholic God, the Anglican God, Mohammed or Allah or Buddah or Steve is surely a small thing compared to the way in which I choose to live my life. I choose to not hurt others, to be the best I can be, to raise my children to be caring, contributing members of society and so forth. Does your God really think I’m worthy of hell just because I’d rather go to a large field, look up into the sky and thank the powers that be for all I have rather than going into a Catholic church, lighting a candle, sipping some wine and eating some stale crackers? Don’t you think that a God who is truly all-powerful, all-knowing and all-seeing would be above such trivialities? I thought we were made in His image and not the other way around. God should not be limited to the human tendency for trivialisation, he/she/it should be far, far above such things.

        (must give credit to LM Montgomery and Anne of Green Gables for the reference to going into a big field thing)

        I’m divorced, yes, but in the eyes of your Church I wasn’t ever actually properly married, as it wasn’t overseen in a church by a priest, so therefore my marriage is invalid and my children are bastards. My children are respectful, intelligent, funny, caring humans and I’m terribly proud of them, as is their father.

        Why are your rules on marriage, children, divorce, sexual-orientation etc. so exclusive? Why is it not possible that there are other, moral, good people who live decent law-abiding lives, who don’t share your faith?

        The Catholic church is in the middle of a PR crisis due to the millions of instances of child abuse that have gone on by priests. How do you live with that in your mind? If a good, God-fearing Catholic can be fallible to the point of sexually abusing children, isn’t it possible that other people are decent, moral humans without being Catholic?

  2. I think people of all faiths need to pull their heads in. Religion is frankly nothing more than a tinkling contest. Every religious person believes their deity is the one and only, and many routinely bash (verbally or otherwise) members of different faiths to theirs. None of us are perfect, and as far as a higher power is concerned, everyone can’t be right, and are more than likely all wrong.

    Post a Reply
    • Hello webboy42. I think you have said one very important thing in your comment. When it comes to religion, they can’t all be right. Logically, they can either all be wrong, or alternatively, only one can be right. Therefore, it is up to each individual to learn the truth. And truth is not based on feeling, emotion or subjective views. It is fact. The truth is that the founder of Islam produced no miracles to support his claims and taught that objective evils are God’s will – like killing innocents. It is easy to see that this religion is not ‘right’. Alternatively, the founder of Christianity prophesied His death and resurrection and taught a beautiful religion. Now, we can either reject the well documented historical evidence of this miracle, or we can look into it further. It’s up to each of us. (By the way – your logical conclusion about religion in general also applies to the various Christian denominations – either they are all wrong, or only one is right).

      Post a Reply
      • Bernard, and this really is a genuine question here, do you not think that webboy has a valid point regarding religion? In many ways aren’t the different faiths of the world remarkably similar and just differ on a few minor points? Whether it’s Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Wicca, isn’t the main tenet, no matter how it is worded, of all of them relating to how we treat others, and that, basically, we should treat others as we would like to be treated? As I’ve said in my previous posts on here there are obvious extremists of many faiths who take the word of their book of choice as very literal, yet those are the minority. I am truly puzzled by your take on Catholicism, for example. You seem very focussed on the eye-for-an-eye side of the Old Testament teachings and so much less so on the New Testament ideas of forgiveness and tolerance. If you could find the time to explain this to me I’d be very interested in hearing it. I grew up in a society of quite devout Anglicans and Catholics, and while they all tried to live by the 10 Commandments of the Old Testament, most also took into account the teachings of Jesus to temper the black-and-white views of the O.T. with a little humanity and compassion. Perhaps I’m misreading you, but I see very little compassion and tolerance in your posts. Care to explain?

      • Thanks for your question Tara. I am not focused on the OT. I’m focused on Catholicism and that is based on Christ. It is based on truth. I am intolerant of things that are not truthful. But I am not intolerant of people. I, like the rest of us, am imperfect. So, for example, I wish the people I have criticised on this page all the best. I mean that in all sincerity. To wish someone all the best means you want what is good for them. As a follower of the Catholic faith, I uphold its teaching that homosexual activity will result in damnation. So if I didn’t wish the best for these people I would not say a thing about them. Additionally, I also wish the best for society. And that means defending against evil and standing up for what is good and wholesome. I don’t deliberately offend but I understand people who are not interested in morality will be offended. I can’t help that. Their actions offend me too. Perhaps I could be more compassionate – I do think about this. But at the end of the day, there are plenty of people who will offer compassion and that will blur the light of truth. I would rather hear and say the truth than be nice. Finally, I do reject your suggestion that religions are basically the same. They are not.

      • I’m sorry Tara, but you’re wrong about all religions being basically the same. I am amazed at the number of people who say that with utter conviction without knowing anything about Islam except what they are told by muslims who by they way are divinely mandated to lie in order to propagate their religion. Have you read the Koran? The Hadith?
        You have three choices as a non-believer under Islam:
        1. Convert
        2. Be subjugated under the rule of Islam, pay the “jizziya” (a burdensome tax for non-believers only) and live as a citizen with no rights whatsoever (a “dhimmi”)
        3. Be killed

        Christians in Syria are being offered these choices today. This is not rhetorical; it is a direct command from Allah and as such cannot be ignored.
        The aim of Islam for 1400 years has been to dominate the world. It is the only “religion” in the world that doesn’t have a basic tenet comparable to the golden rule, namely to treat others as you would have them treat you.

      • To be fair, Natalie, I didn’t suggest that all religions are the same “with utter conviction”, it was raised as a question. Religions clearly differ in many ways, and yet it seems that so many of them seem to share a common basis, or common morality.

        It really was more of a question as I’m interested to read how others see it.

  3. Agreed. Our cowardly and gutless political leaders will have blood on their hands should things like this escalate. Are they actually stupid enough to think that by ignoring the problem that it is going to going to go away?

    Post a Reply

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Pin It on Pinterest