Saturday, 1 August 2015

Migrants & Sharia


It strikes me that a suitable way to deal with the migrants at Calais is the use honeypot lorries that are easy to get into; once they fill, get them across to the UK and decant the migrants into paddy wagons for immediate deportation back to their countries of origin.

Since they are coming across half of Europe to get to the UK, any genuine refugees are contravening the law that says they must seek asylum in the first EU country they arrive in, which is invariably a Mediterranean one. This suggests those ending up in Calais are not genuine refugees but economic migrants. Given they are almost 100% Muslim it's also strange that no Muslim country on their journey is considered an adequate refuge (which doesn't say much for Muslim countries).

Allowing immigration by swathes of Muslims will store up problems for the future. Islam can be a very dangerous political doctrine (it's not just a religion; if it were it wouldn't be so dangerous), as it governs every aspect of the life of the believer. It was born out of war and strife (Islam has been fighting the infidel for most of its existence) and we already have radicals calling for sharia law in parts of the UK where Muslims are dominant, and indeed already goes on 'under the counter'. In Germany it's even worse and a shadow sharia justice system operates. The innocuous sounding Assembly of Muslim Jurists of America has actually issued fatwas condoning marital rape (fatwa 2982), justifying FGM (fatwa 1639), death for apostasy and forbidding obtaining citizenship of a non-Muslim country.

There is no escaping the fact that sharia is antithetical to the western concept of justice;
  • Its firmly - and fatally - anchored in dogmatic, 7th century jurisprudence,
  • Its standards of evidence fall well below those prevalent in western jurisprudence - the value of evidence is weighted according to who you are - male/female, Muslim/non-Muslim. It's predicated on the unshakable assumption that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims and equality before the law is nonexistent.
  • It disallows freedom of conscience (and indeed freedom of expression) and proscribes homosexuality, 
  • It has no concept of fundamental human rights as we understand them, and 
  • The punishments are barbaric. 
Additionally, due to the lack of focus on evidence, justice under sharia is easily subverted and used for settling scores - we have seen many cases of this in Islamic paradises. Imagine if we still had 7th century laws and were not allowed to change them because they were allegedly mandated by God. Trial by ordeal would be a good one to watch at the Old Bailey.

Attempts have been made by 'moderate' Muslims (a misnomer, if we equate moderation with liberalisation) to modernise sharia in Muslim countries, but all, with the sole exception of Turkey, have failed - although even Turkey seems to be peddling backwards now and the conservatives are in the ascendancy.

When your laws are based on a 7th century book supposedly being the immutable word of God and you are a fervent believer (and most Muslims are devout, if nothing else), then attempts at making sharia more acceptable in the 21st century are bound to fail in the long term, as change would be de facto blasphemy - Islam is not, after all, democratic. While many Muslims (depending on their country of residence) are willing to say Sharia is open to interpretation in the modern era, there are always radical imams in the wings who say not and act as elastic bands to draw the faithful back to a literal interpretation by merely pointing to the relevant words of the Koran and questioning the believer's devoutness (with all the dire consequences that entails).

In a 2008 poll, 40% of UK Muslims were in favour of sharia in the UK. I would be willing to place a bet that this percentage has probably increased in the intervening 7 years, as has the percentage of Muslims. There's no denying that British and American foreign policy has in all probability contributed to this. However, as we know from 20th century experience in Europe, a small number of fanatics can find the means to control the more moderate, silent majority.

A survey of US mosques found 81% of those mosques surveyed moderately or strongly supported violent jihad in favour of the imposition of sharia. To quote from the report:

"Violence-positive materials were found in a very large majority (81%) of the 100 mosques surveyed.  Violence-positive materials were more likely to be found in mosques whose communal prayer practices, imams, and adult male worshipers exhibited greater indicia of Sharia-adherent behaviors than were their less Sharia-adherent counterparts.  Moreover, the mosques that contained violence-positive materials were many times more likely than mosques that did not contain violence-positive materials to engage in several behaviors that promoted violence and violent jihad."

The problem with the militants calling for sharia in the West is that they use the West's cherished freedom of speech argument to rant against the West, yet Islam itself does has no truck with freedom of speech and suppresses it whenever in a position of power. Classic jujitsu ; "Use the enemy's weakness as your strength." The only possible countermeasure is to withdraw the right to freedom of speech from those whose professed faith would deny freedom of speech to others. The militants could hardly say they were not Muslim, as that itself would be blasphemy and punishable by death. Checkmate!

The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is nothing more than an attempt to disarm critics of Islamic states' human rights records. It pays lip service to the UDHR, but crucially, only insofar as it is compatible with sharia, of which most western readers are ignorant. It's nothing more than blatant weasel words.

What I've said may seem like a thin end of the wedge or slippery slope argument, but it's estimated there are currently in excess of 60m displaced Muslims looking for a home, and Britain is portrayed, whether correctly or not, as a land flowing with milk, honey and state handouts, which is why migrants travel across Europe to reach here.

We also have a habit, through human rights legislation, of giving refuge to militant imams who are under a threat of death in their homeland for promoting insurrection against secularised governments.

These migrants are coming from the fervently devout and semi-literate Muslim countries where the overwhelming majority favour a literal interpretation of the Koran. The goal of most Muslims around the world is a world Caliphate of Islam; where they may differ is the means by which that is to be achieved - through the democratic overwhelming of the ballot box (once again using the jujitsu principle), or by the more gruesome means favoured by ISIS and their barbaric ilk.

The only saving grace is that when militant Muslims are not busy fighting the West, they invariably tend to turn on each other for a variety of reasons. However, that can't be relied on to save us from totalitarianism by stealth.

Radical Islam is a strange term to use - so-called Muslim radicals are actually staunch conservatives with not one ounce of radicalism in their blood. Radical Islam must be, by definition, non-traditional or reformed Islam, which is a long way off, if ever, and ironically can only ever materialise within the West through the auspices of those Muslims who have been born into and grown up in a western culture - if the Islamists don't get to them first. It's unrealistic to expect a Muslim reformation to be supported by those Muslims who cling to eastern culture and wear eastern clothing in the streets of Britain. If we wan to keep Britain's British culture, regardless of racial or ethnic mix, then multiculturalism has to be an enemy of the state.

Here is an interesting article from The Gurniad by a British Muslim about moderate Muslims.


12 comments:

  1. A bit of a lengthy rant for you. Couldn't one make a case for saying that the very essence of British culture is, and always has been, its multiculturalism. Which means that British Culture is an enemy of the state ..... maybe.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alan,

      Look at the problems when the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the Zulu allowed unlimited immigration.

      Huge ghettos of white people...

      Delete
    2. Alan,

      Look at the problems when the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the Zulu allowed unlimited immigration.

      Huge ghettos of white people...

      Delete
    3. Alan,

      Look at the problems when the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the Zulu allowed unlimited immigration.

      Huge ghettos of white people...

      Delete
  2. Good post!

    As you say, I think we (the secular West) have a real and present danger in the cult of Islamism; even moderate Muslims agree. Much as it pains liberals to admit, it has everything to do with Islam since Islam is where Islamism draws it's authority from. Christianity went through these unreasonable, supremacist and barbaric adolescent stages too and was been worn down by the grindstone of 500 years of secular, philosophical and scientific progress; Islam is by definition 600 years behind Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Some of it was whited out by mistake - now corrected.

      Delete
  3. Phil van Bergen! I object to the racist phrase that you have used in the first paragraph being that of a "paddy wagons".

    Furthermore here you are with a foreign name and You being the son of an immigrant being derogatory about other immigrants....... who the fuck are you to criticise ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ask the Native Americans, the Aborigines and the various tribes of South Africa about immigrants and the effect they had.

      When my family migrated to the UK, we embraced the British way of life fully - which was not hard to do (I hated sitting around in clogs, eating edam and smoking pot anyway).

      Delete
    2. PS - http://www.paddywagontours.com/

      Delete
  4. I think "racist" is the most overused and undermined term of the decade - it seems to be used ad-hoc these days as a distraction tactic by people wishing to avoid dealing with the argument (ad-hominem style)

    As for "paddy wagon" TBH I didn't notice it nor do I know the origin or meaning of the term; but I can see how some might be offended; although there seems to be many possible origins of the term and not all of them are to do with Irish people. Anyway there are only 3 or 4 actual human “races” and in these islands we’re all the same one i.e. Caucasian, consequently, I’d put it on a par with joking about Australians being convicts, or English being football hooligans (a cultural thing, not a racial thing). Then again, talking about Islam (or religion generally for that matter) seems to offend a great many people too; discussing difficult issues will, almost by definition it seems offend some people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Steve - for the radical left, calling someone racist is the new black.

      Delete
    2. LOL

      I think this has been true about the left for a long time now; often goes with "fascist" or "sexist" as a way of silencing views that aren't agreed with (without the effort of actually winning an argument).

      It's scary how word meanings evolve over time (sick=good etc.), I even noticed my kids calling each other "racist" (as a joke), it's become such a throw-away term it has moved into the realm of humour in some quarters..

      Delete