Jihad Watch's Hugh Fitzgerald comments on the Al-Massari case and other elements of contemporary Western dhimmitude:
Those who despise the manmade law of Infidels are nonetheless prepared to use every scrap of those laws, every bit of the individual rights guaranteed by Infidels, to remain in Infidel lands -- so as to work in every way possible to undermine and overturn those laws, and the society that gave birth to those laws, and the social and political understandings that formed, and have in turn been continuously formed by that very society. In the same way, Muslims in the West will take full advantage of all the pieties about "pluralism" but work toward extinguishing such pluralism, as they have over 1350 years everywhere that Muslims rule and dominate.One has only to look at Turkey, where 50% of the population was non-Muslim in Constantinople in 1914, and is now about 1%. Similar, though not quite as dramatic, changes have come about -- mostly through mass murder of non-Muslims, accompanied or followed by persecution -- in the country as a whole. In Alexandria, where the Italian poet Ungaretti and the Greek poet Seferis were born, nothing remains -- just as nothing remains in Cairo of the Jewish, Greek, Armenian, Italian, and other non-Muslim populations whose families had lived in Egypt for generations (and sometimes for far longer). Their goods were simply seized by the Egyptian government under Nasser, leaving many penniless. This treatment forced them to leave.
In Pakistan (formerly West Pakistan) in 1947 15% of the population was Hindu; now it is 1.6%. In Bangladesh (formerly East Pakistan) the non-Muslim population has been reduced in the same period from 35% to 8%. This has happened everywhere that Muslims have ruled over non-Muslims.
But everywhere in the Infidel lands into which Muslims have been heedlessly allowed to penetrate and to settle, they have taken advantage of everything -- the laws, the entitlement programs -- and exploited them to the fullest, while never once dropping their loyalty to Islam or their lack of feeling for Infidels or the Infidel nation-state from which they receive benefits. They offer nothing in return save "We are here. This is our country. We are not leaving." Or, as a Muslim in Dearborn, Michigan said recently on the occasion of the dedication of the grand new mosque there: "We want people to know we're here, and they should get used to it." That is not exactly an expression of loyalty, but rather something else, something to the effect that: "You can't get rid of us, no matter what. We will use every single one of your so-called rights against you. We are here. This land, like others, belongs to Allah. It is only a matter of time."How much will just the single case against this one primitive subversive and enemy, al-Massari, cost the British taxpayers? Will it be half-a-million pounds in legal folderol? Will it be a million pounds? And how many such cases need to be brought? And how much is the monitoring of mosques going to cost? The monitoring of Islamic schools? Of Islamic meeting-places? How much money, and how much effort, and how much tolerance, must Infidels show for this unique group -- unique because neither the Buddhists from Vietnam, nor the Chinese, nor the Hindu immigrants, nor those from the Caribbean or Latin America, refuse to integrate as a matter of ideology, or inculcate hatred for the indigenous people and their culture, their laws, their history, their attitudes. No, this is not an "immigrant" problem. It is a Muslim problem.
This is not a "British" problem with Muslim immigrants, because Muslim immigrants everywhere in Europe -- in France and Spain, in Belgium and Italy, in Sweden and Denmark and Germany -- show remarkable similarities in their inability, their refusal, to "integrate." How can they, after all, given what Islam teaches them to think about non-Muslims? How? This is a problem that cannot be wished away, contrary to the fond assumptions of those who put their hopes on classes in language and civics, and who think that good jobs will make a difference. All of that will only help Muslims more fully root themselves and more capably conduct Da'wa among the marginal and vulnerable Infidels, and more efficiently spread propaganda among the other Infidels to keep them from taking the obvious defensive measures that, were they properly informed about Islam, its theory and history, they would take.
So tell us again -- how much is this al-Massari, who has lived undisturbed for 11 years in the United Kingdom -- going to cost in trying to evict him from his squatting, and claiming squatters' rights, Muslim rights, to the lands, the countries, of those unworthy Infidels. How much?
Thanks for this article...
It brings up two HUGE points..
1. Muslims once they come over to another country immidiatly begin to demand benifits.
2. Once established they then begin to re-populate the area (and if trends continue) soon will become over 10% of the population.
The question then is ...
What is a country to do ?
Deny them all benifits? Cant do that ...
Kick them out ? Cant do that either.
Deny them the benifits ? Cant do that..
Give in to their demands? That is what canada is considering....
This is sick because 10% of the population can effectivly control ALL the NON Muslims..
And they have stated "Islam is not here to be compatible with other religions, BUT TO BECOME DOMINATE!!!"
This really scares me.
Because the alternative is to begin getting rid of the muslims..
But do americans want this to go this far?
We may have too but i DONT LIKE IT..
Nice pickle were in...
Excellent article -- The next time someone suggests to you that Muslims "enrich" our society and our culture in America -- ask "Exactly how?"
Muslims cost us dearly -- and the price is going up -- How much did 9/11 and it's aftermath cost us? One trillion? Two trillion? Let's just say one trillion for arguments sake... Even if you accept the wildly inflated numbers forwarded by Islamist megaphones such as C.A.I.R. of 7,000,000 Muslims in America, the cost PER CAPITA for each Muslim head is a staggering $142,857 to the American tax payer!!! Could anyone doubt that if NO MUSLIMS were allowed to darken our doorstep, 9/11 would never have happened? It's axiomatic that NO MUSLIMS = NO ISLAMIC TERRORISM! The costs associated with allowing Muslims in America becomes even more jaw dropping if you accept the more accurate estimates that there are 2-3 million Muslims in America. Then the cost per capita is between $330,000 and $500,000!!! THAT'S PER MUSLIM HEAD -- FOR EVERY MAN WOMAN AND CHILD --
I welcome every other creed and race who wishes to come to American shores to live the American dream and honor our magnificent Constitution -- but My God -- when are we going to face the hard facts that many MANY (most?) Muslims don't wish to live the American dream as we see it -- they wish to impose their Islamic nightmare on the world, and that includes US!!
Muslim invaders have committed genocide in one infidel nation after another, century after century, as Robert has pointed out. Now, how long will it be before Muslim immigrants initiate similar genocidal progroms in the western nations?
Could genocidal pogroms against infidels be the true agenda of al-Qaeda infiltration of the west?
Benjamin Netanyahu once stated that Islamic terror networks are delivery systems for weapons of mass destruction. It's easy to see what the mosques are up to.
I have posted along similar lines since 9/11, on LGF and here as well.
'oh, what tangled web we weave when first we set out to lie and deceive'. The MSM and our politicians have been doing just that, spinning their lies about RoP islam, and now it is catching up with us all.
It is not the problem but a way out of the mess of our own making, that is now required. A way out that can be practically implemented, is fair and humane, as well as acceptable to a significant majority of the population. The case made, must also be sufficiently strong enough to withstand attacks on it from the MSM over a prolonged period of time, as it will take the same amount of time, if not longer, to resolve the issue, as it took for the problem to manifest itself.
It is not the Bakris, Hamzas etal, that are the problem. These individuals, like the instruments in a car, tell us about the state of the car but are not the prime movers. Bakri etal are just symptoms of the state we are in. Deporting these individuals may make the government look good, but that is it. What it will do is to hide the problem, till it becomes of such magnitude that it cannot be dealt with anyway but war.
This has been my fear over 20 years, that continuation on this path will lead to a civil war in Europe. European civil wars are no joke, WWI and WWII are examples. A civil war is bad enough but one involving religion as well as race, will be the worst type of civil war. In such a war, it will be winner takes all. Horror of Horrors.
This Jihad is going to get worse with each passing day. And with that, our freedoms will become increasingly threatened or stifled. I do not think our societies, geared as they are to free and open thought, can continue with an ever-increasing 5th column assault on it. If this assault is not brought to a halt soon, then free society will start to perish. It may not be evident immediately, but perish it will in the fullness of time, caught between the Jihadi attacks on one side, and the states response to it, on the other.
Our civilisation is dying right at this moment, as freedoms we have fought for and taken for granted, are slowly being strangled in the name of security. Oh what a price to pay for the web of lies.
This is an opportune moment to re-read this article from Ali Sena
A short history of Islam and its impact on your life.
http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/sina40721.htm
firstly, re the above article - i strongly object to being referred to as an "infidel", which is how i presume the writer is refering to all non muslims. i am not an infidel, i am a christian.
as for alexandria and cairo "there is nothing left" - utter rubbish. christians remain there - this despite years of western-silence-sponsored aggression by the local muslim population. indeed in cairo you will find st marks centre, hq for pope shenoudas coptic church. are these people just being left for dead? they probably are, after all theyre only another set of consumers to the neo-liberal masters of globalization (sure, we can fix all their problems by giving them a right good dose of our wonderful "free" market economy) well i mean, what else are we doing?
as for pakistan, all the talk is of a hindu minority, greatly reduced (no mention of a similar mass exit of muslims from india at the same time in louis mountbattens infamous partition). in any event there is no mention of pakistans growing christian population, now an estimated 3 million, also the ahmadiyya community and other minorities. what pressure is being brought to bear on president musharraf as to their dire situation?
not that i dislike musharraf, in fact i like a lot of what he says and does. he certainly put tony blair in his place after the london bombings by pointing out that the very people who had openly threatened his life were being allowed to operate in the uk with impunity
no mention is made of the palestinian christian community (20% of palestinians in 1948) now largely removed from the region. the west did zilch (as far as i know) to help these people, being too taken up with the jew-muslim conflict.
what were are forgetting in the west is that our culture/civilisation is grounded in christianity.
the trouble is weve turned our backs on it, and replaced it with a load of shite. it interesting to hear that the pope was concerned with the "rechristianisation of europe" when he was in cologne. how vital that will be if we are to resist islam!
dp111, you say that our civilisation is dying. sorry pal it died years ago. the muslims have a whole code for life to export (blasphemous anathema as it is to me) - but what have we got? guns and warplanes, coca cola, sexy trainers, scotch whisky and designer clothes(created at very little expense somewhere in the majority world). oh and britney spears. lets not forget about her, what a babe.
Embedded in the core teachings of Islam is a geo-political ideology that justifies deceitful, aggressive tactics for the subversion of non-Muslim societies to achieve the desired end: the rule of Islamic law. This is an indisputable fact.
Another indisputable fact: The United States, and many other non-Muslim societies, are under the constant threat of murderous attacks by Islamic groups and individuals who seek to advance these geo-political aims.
Well, policy-makers, connect the dots please. These facts are indisptuable; the only matter left to dispute is what we are going to do to defend ourselves.
freddie:
the biggest problem the Christian population had vis a vis Israel/Palestine is the fact that most of their leaders fell in with Arafat & Co. Put that together with the willful blindness too many Christian churches have exhibited vis a vis the shameful conduct of the Palestinians since Oslo, blaming Israel for the violence, which was in fact very masterfully orchestrated by the Islamist Arafat who did everything he could to sabotage a political solution as he wants all the Jews and other non-Muslims out of holy Muslim territory, and the indigeneous Christian population got totally screwed.
Hugh Fitzgerald's purpose in referring to non-Muslims as "infidels" was not because he sympathizes with the Muslim point of view but quite the opposite -- to remind us of the contempt they hold the rest of the world in -- the very underpinnings of jihad. How can you rationalize a plan to dominate the world unless you can denegrate the people you would subjegate?
You yourself have referred to Israel as an apostate nation because that's consistent with your religious beliefs and feel no compunction in doing so, yet are surprised that it might rub someone else (me) the wrong way. But apostate is a relative term. To a Muslim, everyone else, including certain flavours of Muslim, are apostates and infidels. And, of course, Jews divided the world into Jews and Gentiles.
And that's the problem -- dividing humanity on the basis of how they relate to G_d opens the floodgates to all sorts of abuse. And for such diviseness to reach the heights that it has in Islam isn't surprising. How can you justify the establishment of a new faith and successfully recruit followers without dismissing all that came before as false?
No good can come of having all these Muslims in the West! No good at all! They're from another planet! Period!
"i strongly object to being referred to as an "infidel"
-- from a posting above
As far as Muslims are concerned, you are an Infidel. When writing about Islam, where one is referring to all non-Muslims, it is both convenient, and telling (as another poster notes) to use that word "Infidel" so as to give those Infidel readers a sense of that essential division, as Muslims see it, between Believers and Unbelievers, or Infidels.
"as for alexandria and cairo "there is nothing left" - utter rubbish. christians remain there - this despite years of western-silence-sponsored aggression by the local muslim population. indeed in cairo you will find st marks centre, hq for pope shenoudas coptic church. are these people just being left for dead"
-- from the same posting above
You have wilfully misread. I wrote that nothing remains of the Greek, Jewish, Italian, Armenian, and other groups who lived in Alexandria and Cairo, and thanks to Nasser and Co., had all their property confiscated and had to leave. The mention of Seferis and Ungaretti was to hint at the likely size of that population, which in some cases had been in Egypt for a long time - Jews, of course, had been there for a few thousand years (see that Cairo Geniza, and Goitein's "A Mediterranean Community"). I did not say, I did not imply, that there were no longer Coptic Christians. Why would I? Why would anyone think I had?
There are a number of other points raised by the same poster. When I mention the decline in the HIndu population of (West) Pakistan, that is to make a point. And that point is: everywhere that Muslims rule, the indigenous or nearly-indigenous non-Muslims sooner or later are subject to conditions that leads to a decline in their population. Hindus have been persecuted in both Pakistan and Bangladesh; naturally they have been leaving. And the circumstances of their lives do not encourage the kind of security that would cause their population to stabilize or increase. It is irrelevant to the point I was making that those who are disenchanted with Islam may have turned to Christianity in Pakistan. That's a good thing, but it was not part of the point I was trying to make. It is the same with the Ahmadiyya population.
The poster's response, which appears to be addressed to, and concerned only with, Christians as if only they count, and only they can conceivably challenge Islam, is not something I agree with, and for which so far there is little evidence. Many of the most articulate critics of Islam have been atheists --Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Bat Ye'or, and others. Until the current Pope came along, one noticed that organized Christianity, the World Council of Churches and the Vatican both, seemed not only not aware of the menace of Islam, but positively enthusiastic about interfaith dialogue and suchlike time-wasting and misleading, and even dangerous (if Infidels continue to be lulled and misled) pursuits. The Vatican is now changing, but the World Council of Churches, and certainly some of its constituent churches in the United States, sill seem exercised by the supposed misdeeds of that Mighty Empire (about the size of Connecticut) of Israel.
I like the word "Infidel." It is useful in a hundred sundry ways. And think of the book--buying public in France and Italy that will snap up any book with the words "Infedelta" or "Infidelite" in the title which will promise something that of course it won't deliver -- but possibly leave them hot and bothered in another sense.
yes water, i did refer to "apostate" israel, and no it does not concur with my beliefs. i was wrong to use the word. apostasy implies wilfully turning away from something you have already signed up to, but israel as a nation has always rejected christ and therefore the word "apostate" does not apply. sadly it does apply to a few people calling themselves christians these days.
i do not blame israel for the violence, its just that i dont happen to think that israel is without blame in certain matters, which ive already spoken of. (and if i come across any other such matters, i will also speak of them) what is deplorable is that i should therefore be considered anti-semite in certain quarters or judeophobic as i believe the new word is
btw i read you sticking up for me against that guy who says his bullshit detectors always going off everytime im around. actually given the rubbish ive seen him talk, im surprised the batterys not dead. i have heard of pat robertson, but im not sure his is my kind of church. unless im mistaken hes very right wing, a fully paid up neo-conman
hugh - in fact you have misquoted yourself. you clearly refered to "jewish, greek, armenian, italian and other NON MUSLIM populations" why would anyone think you were not including egyptian christians?
as for being concerned only with christians, well you saw yourself that i mentioned other minorities, and it is certainly not the case that for me only christians count. it certainly does seem to me that for western governments, and the west in general, they do not count. that is why ill keep harping on about them
freddiethefreeloadingtroll-
I don't believe a word you write.
I sense you to be a closet jihadist.
Your rhetorical style is the same taqiyya I've encountered from "I'm a Christian!" ("atheist!" etc.) poseurs on pro-Islamicist websites everywhere.
Take off the mask.
Just tell the truth.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
I trust my instincts, not your tangling-itself-up-in-its-own-subtle-mess-of-internal- contradictions and 'golly gee, what's he talkin' about?' brand of tap-dancing.
Something smells wrong in your lingo.
Otherwise, how did you find this sight, being such an 'innocent' you never heard of the word "troll"?
(Or couldn't figure it out in a second, or Google it, if you have the intelligence to get on the web and track such an anti-jihadist site down?)
It rings phony.
When I listed various kinds of non-Muslims, I was listing those of a certain kind -- those deemed to be (however wrongly) non-Egyptians, and hence not only to have their property seized with impunity, but they themselves encouraged or forced to leave. The Copts, though non-Muslim and subject to persecution (for the Egyptian legal system is "modelled" on the Sharia which means all sorts of outrages are committed against the Copts, the original Egyptians as opposed to the descendants of the Arab invaders), are not part of that list.
Incidentally, capitalization is next to godliness. This was well known to the Fathers of the Church.
freddie:
Although I'm no expert on Pat Robertson, or all of Christianity's denominations, you will have to tell me a little more about your church for my edification.
In case you miss it on some of the other threads, here's a URL from frontpagemag.com that will link you to an interview with Brigette Gabriel, the Lebanese Christian woman I have told you about. It's her account of the "civil war" in Lebanon and what was really going on. It's not a particularly long read and may also give you a broader picture of what's going on right now to the Christians in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Although many of the leaders of the various Christian denominations there are anti-Israeli and, consequently chummy with the Palestinian Authority, the bulk of the population has suffered greatly during the dysfunction of the Intifada.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19016
BigSleep:
It rings phony
Most things about freddy flearider are phony, but his Jew-loathing is most authentic.
Please have a look at the thread where he clashes with Terminator and myself “the protocols of the elders of BBC” and you will know everything about that anti-Semitic creep who snatches at every occasion to drop a stinking insinuation, a poisonous, mendacious allegation against Israel. That what makes him tick.
Everything else, especially incessantly trumpeting his Christianity and perfunctory, mechanical anti-Islamic jingle is only a crude camouflage - a pretext for delivering his poison.
He would sneak into any blog and join any thread if it will give him a chance to disgorge his anti-jewish venom. I wouldn’t be surprised if after leaving his droppings on this blog he adorns a wall of a public toilet with his malice. What a creep…
Muslims cost us plenty and in return they offer next to nothing.
Quote:as for pakistan, all the talk is of a hindu minority, greatly reduced (no mention of a similar mass exit of muslims from india at the same time in louis mountbattens infamous partition).
Pal look here. During partition, abt 7-12 million Hindus-Sikhs came to India (rest of the Pakistani Hindus were slaughtered or converted o'course), 6-8 million Muzzies went to Pakistan. But you fail to mention that majority of subcontinents Muslims choose to stay in India (they'd gone to Pakistan if they'd liked but financial considerations take precedence over everything). Today India has 150 million Muslims (even more than Punk-i-stan). While Hindus in Pakistan are minuscle. My grandfather was of thoose Hindus who wanted to stay in Pakistan thinking that his Muslim neighbours wont harm him. But he was wrong, he was kicked on to those trains of Death. The talk is not about Hindus in Pakistan, but rather world media focuses on Christians in Pakistan (not that i dont sympathise with Christians). Most of the jihad coverage worldwide is partisan. Who cares if 60 million Hindus died. Who craes about Buddhists in southern Thailand. Look at sites like LGF where an article merits coverage when Christians or Joos are killed. Hugh is the only person i've encountered who stands by Hindus. But again being a Pat Robertson and his 700 Club supporter, no doubt your prejudice against Hindus is gonna b strong.
P.S As for the 3 million Christian statistic, i strongly doubt it. Pakistan hasnt conducted a national census since 1981.
I have two questions:
1. How despotic is Islam? Is it incapable of supporting a free society? According to Freedom House, no, it is not incapable. On the other hand, Freedom House's own reports say that of some 50 Muslim-majority countries in the world, only 1 or two (not counting Afghanistan and Iraq) are in the category 'free'. Some are 'partly free,' and the great majority are 'unfree.' (Freedom House is non-partisan and studies every country's conditions in terms of civil and political rights, and tabulates the results into numerical scores that lead to a three-tier (free, partly free, not free) and a more nuanced seven-tier rating system.) In any event, this evidence suggests but does not prove that Islam makes freedom unlikely but not impossible.
2. If Islam is as politically despotic as it appears to be in its essence, what will the West do about the growth of Muslim population? Freedom of religion and non-discrimination on account of religion are so deeply worked into the laws of the United States (thank God they are), that it seems Islam will only be confronted if there is a fairly huge disaster, and maybe not even then.
According to Freedom House, of some 50 Muslim-majority countries, only 1 or 2 can be categorized as 'free' in terms of civil and political rights. Most are in the 'unfree' category, and a smaller group in the 'partly free' category.
This suggests but does not prove that Islam, where it holds sway, makes freedom unlikely, but not impossible.
If Islam is in a large part of its essence a despotic political movement and a totalitarian cult, what can the West do? Freedom of religion and from discrimination on the basis of religion are so enshrined in the legal bloodstream of the United States (thank goodness) that any legal action against Islam and Islamic immigration seems unlikely, unless perhaps a nuke goes off -- and maybe not even then.
I don't mind multiculturalism except when it permits a totalitarian cult into my social life. If Europe needs to import young people from elsewhere to sustain its living standards and support its aging population, import Hindus, Christian Africans, Chinese Buddhists, etc. Europe can be as multicultural as it wants without importing a totalitarian cult.
According to Freedom House, of some 50 Muslim-majority countries, only 1 or 2 can be categorized as 'free' in terms of civil and political rights. Most are in the 'unfree' category, and a smaller group in the 'partly free' category.
This suggests but does not prove that Islam, where it holds sway, makes freedom unlikely, but not impossible.
If Islam is in a large part of its essence a despotic political movement and a totalitarian cult, what can the West do? Freedom of religion and from discrimination on the basis of religion are so enshrined in the legal bloodstream of the United States (thank goodness) that any legal action against Islam and Islamic immigration seems unlikely, unless perhaps a nuke goes off -- and maybe not even then.
I don't mind multiculturalism except when it permits a totalitarian cult into my social life. If Europe needs to import young people from elsewhere to sustain its living standards and support its aging population, import Hindus, Christian Africans, Chinese Buddhists, etc. Europe can be as multicultural as it wants without importing a totalitarian cult.
According to Freedom House, of some 50 Muslim-majority countries, only 1 or 2 can be categorized as 'free' in terms of civil and political rights. Most are in the 'unfree' category, and a smaller group in the 'partly free' category.
This suggests but does not prove that Islam, where it holds sway, makes freedom unlikely, but not impossible.
If Islam is in a large part of its essence a despotic political movement and a totalitarian cult, what can the West do? Freedom of religion and from discrimination on the basis of religion are so enshrined in the legal bloodstream of the United States (thank goodness) that any legal action against Islam and Islamic immigration seems unlikely, unless perhaps a nuke goes off -- and maybe not even then.
I don't mind multiculturalism except when it permits a totalitarian cult into my social life. If Europe needs to import young people from elsewhere to sustain its living standards and support its aging population, import Hindus, Christian Africans, Chinese Buddhists, etc. Europe can be as multicultural as it wants without importing a totalitarian cult.
According to Freedom House, of some 50 Muslim-majority countries, only 1 or 2 can be categorized as 'free' in terms of civil and political rights. Most are in the 'unfree' category, and a smaller group in the 'partly free' category.
This suggests but does not prove that Islam, where it holds sway, makes freedom unlikely, but not impossible.
If Islam is in a large part of its essence a despotic political movement and a totalitarian cult, what can the West do? Freedom of religion and from discrimination on the basis of religion are so enshrined in the legal bloodstream of the United States (thank goodness) that any legal action against Islam and Islamic immigration seems unlikely, unless perhaps a nuke goes off -- and maybe not even then.
I don't mind multiculturalism except when it permits a totalitarian cult into my social life. If Europe needs to import young people from elsewhere to sustain its living standards and support its aging population, import Hindus, Christian Africans, Chinese Buddhists, etc. Europe can be as multicultural as it wants without importing a totalitarian cult.
According to Freedom House, of some 50 Muslim-majority countries, only 1 or 2 can be categorized as 'free' in terms of civil and political rights. Most are in the 'unfree' category, and a smaller group in the 'partly free' category.
This suggests but does not prove that Islam, where it holds sway, makes freedom unlikely, but not impossible.
If Islam is in a large part of its essence a despotic political movement and a totalitarian cult, what can the West do? Freedom of religion and from discrimination on the basis of religion are so enshrined in the legal bloodstream of the United States (thank goodness) that any legal action against Islam and Islamic immigration seems unlikely, unless perhaps a nuke goes off -- and maybe not even then.
I don't mind multiculturalism except when it permits a totalitarian cult into my social life. If Europe needs to import young people from elsewhere to sustain its living standards and support its aging population, import Hindus, Christian Africans, Chinese Buddhists, etc. Europe can be as multicultural as it wants without importing a totalitarian cult.
Once again...Fitzgerald knocks it out of the park.
It is time CAIR and the Saudi Funded Madrasas get dissolved and then we "evict" some Jihadist/Sharia propaganda artists.
freddiefreeloader but what have we got? guns and warplanes, coca cola, sexy trainers, scotch whisky and designer clothes(created at very little expense somewhere in the majority world). oh and britney spears. lets not forget about her, what a babe.
That is what uneducated and ignorant islamists see in us, but surely that is not all that you see in Western civilisation.
Hugh posted This is not a "British" problem with Muslim immigrants, because Muslim immigrants everywhere in Europe -- in France and Spain, in Belgium and Italy, in Sweden and Denmark and Germany -- show remarkable similarities in their inability, their refusal, to "integrate." How can they, after all, given what Islam teaches them to think about non-Muslims? How?
And I ask, why should they? Why should they want to change a winning strategy, particularly when it so well suited to the conquest of the liberal and democratic West.
We need to formulate a policy that gives them an incentive to change. So far, no such strategy exists on our side. A strategy that is strong yet morally and ethically right, as well as humane. Tough but doable.
Throwing out the Bakris etc is akin to ripping out the hazard warning lights in your car because you do not like the message.
The West is obsessed by the concept of religious freedom and tolerance. This is all well and good; except, that is, when it comes to Islam!
We continue to think of Islam as a religion, whereas, in actual fact, it is more political than spiritual. In essence, it is a grand political ideology. It seems that if Hitler had had the common sense to clothe his hideous political ideology in a deity, then perhaps he could have brought the West to its knees. This is exactly what Muhammad has done with his pernicious political ideology!
It is high time that Westerners come to realise that we are dealing with a grand political movement hell-bent on toppling capitalism (Muslims have their own economic system) and toppling democracy (democracy and Islam, whatever Bush and Blair keep on insisting, are mutually incompatible goals).
Were people to come to the realisation that we are dealing with a political movement, not a religion in the true sense of the word, then perhaps, just perhaps, they would start being more prepared to take action to stop the cancer spreading from within!
The first thing we need to do is to start to make life uncomfortable for these people. We need to monitor their preachings in the mosques. We need to stop encouraging their immigration by cutting welfare for them. We need to prohibit da'wa, their proselytising. And then some. But this would be a start.
What Blair & Co have proposed, i.e. kicking out the preachers of hatred, is a start. That's true. But in itself it is by far not enough.
When these people multiply in the West, as they surely will in large numbers, then it will become impossible to police them all, and it will become impossible to stop them taking our democracy away from us. We can see what is happening in Iraq right now. Give these people half a chance and they use their 'freedom' to introduce Shariah law.
If things continue as they are now, then we, and our children, have a very bleak future ahead.
It's time to take the kid gloves off. This is time for action.
Mark posted#: We continue to think of Islam as a religion, whereas, in actual fact, it is more political than spiritual. In essence, it is a grand political ideology. It seems that if Hitler had had the common sense to clothe his hideous political ideology in a deity, then perhaps he could have brought the West to its knees.
Good post.
I would add that in WWII we had the likes of Churchill, who could see a totalitarian ideology a mile away. Cloaking it in religious garb would not have fooled him.
--------------------
I have maintained for at least two decades that allowing muslims will lead to terrorism and eventually the loss of freedoms that we take for granted. There is a direct link between jihadi terrorism and the number of muslims in a nation.
The malignancy itself defines the remedy, as must be obvious. In the first instance, deporting illegal aliens, particularly muslims, then following it by deporting those who advocate terrorism, will deplete the islamic base in the West to a sufficient degree, that it is unable to facillitate jihadism in the West as easily. Second, it will demoralise the islamic base, such that a number of muslims will leave of their own accord either physically or spiritually, as they see no future for their goals in the West.
Then an insistence that the rules that dedine a liberal secular democracy have to be adhered to. For instance
1. The electrically amplified calls of the mezzuen are an invasion of the public square, as well as an affront to other faiths.
2. Wearing clothes that signify the oppression of women is a symbol of acceptance of slavery as legitimate in the West. Totally unacceptable.
3. Teaching islam in public schools is not acceptable, as the texts violate several cherished values of the West.
4. Limit muslim immigration including students.
5. Limit interaction with the islamic world to the purely commercial, and that only which is in our interest.
One can debate, remove or add to these, as one desires.
The basic impulse of Islam is to expand into Infidel territory. The territory is not just physical but spiritual and intellectual. Unable to do so, it will collapse quite quickly in historic terms, and thus release the 1.2 billion souls in its enslavement. What more can one ask for.
One compliment deserves another! Your posting, too, DP111, was excellent. I'd like to respond to it...
Yes, during WWII we did indeed have Churchill. It's a Churchillian figure in politics that we need today. Alas, there isn't one on the horizon.
I agree with you 100% that Churchill wouldn't have been fooled even if Naziism had been clothed in a deity. I stated what I did rather tongue in cheek.
You make some very pertinent points in your posting, and I find myself agreeing with them.
Like you, I have maintained for two decades - that's when I became acutely aware of the growing danger of Islam, and never refrained from informing people either (in those days, however, my words were inclined to fall on deaf ears) - that the influx of Muslim immigrants and the growing strength and influence of Islam in the West would lead to a shrinking of our freedoms. This is already happening under our very noses. Take, for example, Blair's insistence, even after the 7/7 terrorist outrage(s) in London, on taking away our freedom to criticise another's religion. And this is happening with barely a whimper from the people. I mean: How docile can people be?!
Fortunately, so far, I have not been subjected to electrically-amplified calls to prayer by the local muezzin; but were I to be, I should find them offensive in the extreme.
Regarding the wearing of abbayahs and burqhas by Muslim women, I, too, find them offensive, for, as you say, they signify the oppression of women - something which the West has fought rather successfully until the manace of Islam started rearing its ugly head here. Moreover, for women to cover themselves up in this fashion is not only offensive to Western sensibilities, it is dangerous to boot! How do we know what is lurking underneath those billowing covers?
Teaching Islam in public schools is, as you rightly point out, unacceptable for the reasons you state. Not only this, it is subversive, too. It exposes our children at a tender age to an ideology they just don't have the tools to be able to make any meaningful sense of.
Blair's insistence on funding Islamic schools is an outrage. It can only lead to a divided society. I don't know what that man is thinking about! Would Saudi Arabia fund Christian schools? I think we all know the answer to that question!
I have argued for reciprocity in our dealings with Islamic governments for years. People seem not to understand the concept. What's sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander!
I have seen first-hand the sucking up that goes on between Western firms and Middle Eastern governments. One of our greatest problems is that too many people are making too much money from contracts with the Middle East. And to secure these orders, a blind eye is turned. Moreover, one needs to ask oneself how many politicians are lining their own pockets with kickbacks and backhanders from rich Arabs/Muslims. This has been going on for far too long.
Western businessmen and politicians do not have our best interests at heart; rather, they have one main goal: to fill their own bank accounts! With this sort of thing going on, we shall never be able to get a handle on this growing problem with Islam.
I have called for the dropping of an 'iron veil' between them and us. We need to see the re-birth of the cold war, but this time with Islam and not communism. Then we shall be able to starve the Islamic world of the oxygen it needs to survive.
I don't pretend that such a move would be easy; but, as they say: No gain without pain!
Without our assistance, without our goods and services, without our technical know-how, their system would grind to a halt, and fast! After all, people can't eat oil, and they can't live on dates and goat's milk forever! They produce little else!
Western governments underestimate the importance of the West to Arab lands. Furthermore, if their oil is that important to us, then maybe we should start thinking about going in there and seizing the oil fields!
The time for fawning is well and truly over. Our own survival should be more important than anything and everything else!
ZZZZZZZZZ....
so, sleep, youve been on "pro-islamicist sites EVERYWHERE"?
just cant stay away from it can you?
just got to get your daily fix
gorging yourself at the antichrist trough of blasphemy
only today i got an email from barnabas fund, giving all the verses from the quran promoting murder and violence. i had to force myself to read the evil.
thats the difference between you and me - you just love it dont you
btw ive had this computer now for about 3 weeks so i dont know everything about it, certainly not about the computer speak of people such as yourself. i have heard the word "troll" before but it was apparent it meant something else when used in a filthy mouth such as yours.
as thomas is so obviously just your little poodle, i will not dignify his utter filth with a response
mark - how right of you to point up blairs proposed removal of our freedom of speech. i wonder what they will deem to be "criticism of another religion" and what the penalty will be if one is deemed to be guilty. incidentally as i understand it, clarke has said that the thing will be forced through by hook or by crook. it will be an anti-fox hunting job
blair could be laying the foundation stone for a very sorry future
By the way, when I say that I haven't been exposed to electrically-amplified calls to prayer as yet, I mean that I haven't been exposed to them in the UK as yet. I have heard them aplenty in the Middle East, and mournful and unappealing to the ears and senses they sound, too!
Freddiefreeloader: Why people are not kicking up more of a fuss against the outrage of taking away our freedom to criticise religion, especially Islam, is beyond my comprehension. Blair is indeed laying the foundation for a very sorry future for us all! But then he's got little to worry about, has he? He's buying/building himself a house in Barbados!
By the way, another OUTRAGE is Blair's insistence, at the behest of Bush, of course, to allow Turkey into the EU. What easier way can you think of for Islam to triumph in Europe than that? Again, not as much as a whimper from the people! Incredible! Quite incredible!
water - yes that is quite a read you provided for me. btw you did something i must also learn to do, namely stick up a website so that others can just click on it to read it. ill find out from my mate
vikrant - i do not know who pat robertson is. he is just a name to me. as for the 700 club, it sounds like a weekly prize draw competition to me.
i am not prejudiced against hindus, but of course i am opposed to hinduism. i do care about the ruthless killing of hindus, the buddhists in south thailand, as indeed i do about suffering christians in buddhist sri lanka and at the hands of hindus in india.
i am also aware of the appalling abuse, murder etc committed by christians over the past 2000 yrs all over the world. i am increasingly aware that most (obviously i dont know any percentage) abuse nowadays is committed in muslim lands by muslims
i am not aware of the world media focus on christians in pakistan, perhaps because im a christian and would like to see more focus on it.
hugh - i am not concerned by what the so called fathers of the church had to say. most of them were basket cases as far as i can make out. it was all their nonsense which led to all the problems in the church
freddie: i'm not prejudiced against hinduism but i'm opposed to hindusim.
What?
Could u specify the "sufferings" of Christians at Hindu-Buddhists. Surely opposing Chritian prosleytization cant b considered an injustice. I'm sick of telling ppl arnd here that they've fallen for Vatican propoganda. The so-called "massacre" against Christians boils down to just one incident 6 years back. The guys behind it r on death row.
Mark posted:I have called for the dropping of an 'iron veil' between them and us. We need to see the re-birth of the cold war, but this time with Islam and not communism. Then we shall be able to starve the Islamic world of the oxygen it needs to survive.
Oh yes. I have written along similar lines before and so have to agree. Hugh and Laurence Auster at VFR will likely agree with you, but I will let them state their case.
There is no need for a physical war that will take a huge toll in lives and treasure. Left to its own resources and a burgeoning population to feed, collapse of islam is inevitable. That is what happened to the communist bloc. Besides, as we have the power, a war with islam will lead to tens of millions of casualties, with muslims the main sufferers. As a human being, I find this distasteful, as we so clearly outmatch them in all aspects of war except barbaric methods of war. We do not need to go that way at all. It will also crush all hope. Hope is important to the evolution of human culture, and a religious war will put paid to that on both sides. When islam collapses, former muslims will be our friends just as East Europeans are now. A war will destroy all hope for the forseeable future.
-----------------------------------
One change to the points that need to be enforced in the defence of Freedom
2. 2. Wearing clothes that signify the oppression of women is a symbol of acceptance of slavery as legitimate in the West. Totally unacceptable.
The secular reason is that such clothes defeat the purpose of security cameras.
Some further thoughts
Another issue that stirs me is the issue of apostates of islam. Every hour of every day, people such as Ali Sena and Ibn Warraq, are in fear for their lives. This is absolutely unacceptable, specially so, as they are living in the West. They have to hide who and what they are, just because they excercised the right to choose in what they believe. In effect they are clad in a metaphorical Burqa. Muslims who wish to leave islam, just as muslim women, have no Free choice.
6. The freedom to choose is a right. Fatwas that demand that a person be killed for leaving islam are just not acceptable. It is an attack on Freedom and that is the most serious crime in the West.
7. Mosques that advocate subversion, viz, that shariia be set up in the West, should be shut down and the site have a compulsory purchase order invoked on it. The mosque leaders to be deported.
8. Mosques found to have seditious literature cannot hide behind Freedom of expression. Freedom does not mean the right to destroy Freedom. Same presciption as in #7.
9. Weapons or other such material found in mosques require a more forthright response then in #7. Weapons imply a willingness to wage war in physical terms. Guess what our response would be if Churchill was running the show.
-------------------------------
I'm off to the pub. Need to enjoy life a bit. Islam is such an idiotic ideology to waste time over but unfortunately we have been compelled to it.
"Need to enjoy life a bit. Islam is such an idiotic ideology to waste time over but unfortunately we have been compelled to it."
-- from a posting above
Yessiree bob. So dull, so stupid. It takes an effort. One wants to be out playing with the other boys and girls, and then this brain-damaging duty calls.
"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.
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 proselytizing 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 civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."
-- Winston Churchill
vikrant - what an absolutely shocking entry! so opposing the preaching of the gospel cant be considered an injustice???
pal look here (to quote your own sad, patronising words) - if you stop the preaching of the gospel, you stop free speech - its as simple as that. full stop . end of story. no further discussion necessary.
what muslims/hindus/buddhists do not realise or dont want to realise is that they can come to the west and have free range to preach and practise their faith. i have a buddhist meditation centre just round the corner from me.
they may get abused and attacked, but at least the law of the land is on their side
and yet they deny that christians do not have that right in the lands they come from
as for specifics, check out barnabas fund, click news archives click india.
also you might like to consider the brutal sadistic attack on students of beersheba bible college at the hands of rashtriya swayamsevak sangh. at least the police have taken action in that one
as for oppression in sri lanka, consider foursquare gospel church in horana, kalutara district - the church being kicked out and suppressed by a buddhist mob with the collusion of the police, and forbidden to relocate elswhere. this took place earlier this month. would this be anything to do with the proposed legislation in sri lanka to forbid conversion to another religion? - sounds like sharia to me!
as for "vatican propaganda" what can you tell me about that?
"surely opposing christian proseletisation cant be considered an injustice" you said. have you read un declaration of human rights, articles 18, 19, 20? (oops sorry - forgot all you people hate the un)
you are indeed proposing exactly what we would find in a sharia state
incidentally you misquoted me i did not say "im not prejudiced against hinduism, but im opposed to hinduism"
i said "im not prejudiced against hindus, but im opposed to hinduism"
if you cannot see the difference then you have not understood anything about the west
DP111:
That is what uneducated and ignorant islamists see in us, but surely that is not all that you see in Western civilisation.
Oh yes, he does. And no, he doesn’t.
It all depends what best suits a character that this poseur is playing presently and what posturing he fancies tonight. The guy is a colossal phony, an actor who throws fake tantrums of indignation when he is not emitting ridiculous “intellectual” noises, or telling imbecilic lies. VERY MUCH like Kink Troll. In fact I have a feeling that Fredy Flearider and Kink Troll is one and the same creature.
Again, the only authentic thing about Flearider is his Jew-loathing which he has amply exhibited before. All the rest is about him is sham, bogus and pretense. What a creep…
In fact I have a feeling that Fredy Flearider and Kink Troll is one and the same creature.
And have you noticed that viking5 has gone very quiet lately?
And have you noticed that viking5 has gone very quiet lately?
Well, now, when you say it...
Do you think what I think?
It will soon be time to remove some of these unnecessary posters who are, as noted above by others, very likely deliberately intent on diverting attention and causing division. This website is not a democracy. It is not even Democracy on the March. Nor is it Hyde Park Corner. All opinions are not created equal. We won't defend to the death your right to utter nonsense. Sorry, if you need moral support you can ring up Mr. Voltaire, whose own views on Mahomet were so hostile that Muslim students in France refuse to read his works when they appear on the syllabus of the Minisry of Education. Perhaps he can help you.
Freddie i said opposing proselytisation not banning. If ur gonna go to a cntry full of Hindus and target them for intense & coercive campaign of conversion. Your bound to create a ruckus there. What angers Vatican is that Hindu organisation are involved in massive reconversion process. Hinduism does not actively proselytise save for the Hare Krishnas who arent considered Hindu anyways. Then again i'm NOT Indian, I'm a Briton of Indian origin. I classify my self as a Nastika (Atheist in Hindu philosophy), my intrest in religion is minimal. I tend to view Hinduism as a cultural phenomenon rather than a religion. My family has seen the bestial side of Islam far closely than many posters here may have. To tone down ur rhetroic here m8.
"It will soon be time to remove some of these unnecessary posters who are..."
...nuisance-posters like King Toller-schwanz, freeloader and all the other ali-asses this coffee-filter drippin' troll uses to annoy people who make informed comments on this site...
Allabubu snackbar has a place in hell where trolls are being roasted. Get in the queue, KT...
"It will soon be time to remove some of these unnecessary posters who are..."
...nuisance-posters like King Toller-schwanz, freeloader and all the other ali-asses this coffee-filter drippin' troll uses to annoy people who make informed comments on this site...
Allabubu snackbar has a place in hell where trolls are being roasted. Get in the queue, KT...
thomas if ive told imbecilic lies, kindly point them out to me
Hey, peace out people!
Freddie isn’t a Muslim.
Freddie:
Last year I came to this website and I was annoyed at what I saw as an attempt by right wing American nationalists to somehow hijack this debate. So I too started posting antagonistic messages here and I too was called a troll (even a Jihadist! – ha!) Anyway, over the months I mellowed somewhat and began to see JW/DW’s more sterling qualities. Look Freddie, if you’re offended because you want news and views that are soft on Islam, you’ve got 99% of the world’s media at your slavish service. Do you come here to pick up another point of view, or just to brawl?
If a bomb goes off anywhere in Europe, the BBC etc. immediately find a bunch of Muslims to say that Islam is all about peace – and that basically is the end of the debate. At best they might find an (honest) Muslim hot head who will say we deserved it, but there’s no intellectual counter-argument against Islam.
Jihad Watch (warts n’all) IS an excellent and somewhat rare source of alternative information. Now, perhaps you don’t agree with some of it, but then again, is it right to simply take a hammer to it?
Damn it Freddie, what do you want? If you want “let’s all hug a Jihadist” just switch on any TV or radio station – why hang around here?
Hugh’s right, this is one of the very few places where you can get an alternative point of view, and despite its awkward Americanisms – it is special. It does piss me off that people like you (KT etc.) see it as some kind of duty to whip them into shape so they end up sounding like what? …….. The BBC? Please Freddie, give us a break.
The world media is really stacked in favour of Islam. Please allow me to give you a personal example. My wife comes from a sparsely populated, densely forested Christian Indian state called Meghalaya, which borders Bangladesh. Bangladeshi criminals cross the border and go to the state capital, Shillong, to steal cars. Their modus operandi is to innocently take a taxi ride, kill the driver somewhere quiet and then take the vehicle back over the border. Why do they bother crossing the border you may ask? The answer is because they don’t want to kill a fellow Muslim. Now, these crimes are not reported outside Meghalaya. Now let me ask you, if a group of “Christians” hijacked a taxi in New York, Sydney, London (or even New Delhi) and killed the poor driver simply because he was a Muslim it would make global headlines. The Muzzies would be out rioting. But a Christian gets killed and nobody gives a damn. So here’s a media site that does give a damn when a Christian gets slaughtered by Muslims. So it’s “biased” – yeah, so what! It has to be and thank God it is. God bless and support them. It’s a dirty job but somebody has to do it.
Freddie. You know your Bible and you do make anti-Islamic statements. I don’t think you’re all bad, but brother, please, stop treating us like a bunch of Fascists (or whatever). I don’t know what you want…. a million more Muslims in the UK? Do you want to buy into all this new British cultural self-loathing? Fine, that’s your business – so leave us with ours. However if you want to avail us of some of your much vaunted humility and patience, stick around and read material that government and global corporate mass media would prefer you avoided.
Timbo:
You know that we love you now, right? : - D
Timbo... i always took u for an Indian Christian...
Are you an Indian Christian or ur Indian connection is ur Mizo wife??
timbo - you are right about this site. ive hardly been off it since i discovered it it is packed with information there are also loads of links to related sites. ive seen things on it previously totally unknown to me
no im certainly not into hugging jihadists, my own point of view re islam is 100% against.
i didnt know about meghalaya. your description of christian taxi drivers getting killed because they wont kill fellow muslims sounds a bit like palestinian muslims using a christian house from which to attack israeli soldiers, because they dont want their own houses damaged or destroyed by the return fire
DP111:
Left to its own resources and a burgeoning population to feed, collapse of islam is inevitable. That is what happened to the communist bloc. ….. When islam collapses, former muslims will be our friends just as East Europeans are now.
DP111 I don’t really think the comparison is accurate.
The people of ex communist bloc hated communism, but after decades of most brutal terror had to succumb to it. They were beaten to submission, but the overwhelming majority rejected communism totally and always.
The east european masses were always our friends and looked to the West for deliverance from the nightmare. Once that political system based on totalitarian ideology collapsed they regained their own old world - they did not have to be introduced into new and alien reality at the expense of what they have always cherished and believed in.
Not so with Islam. While the ex-East block masses cursed communism and wanted it dead the Moslem masses don’t reject Islam. Islam is their most powerful, relevant and magnificent source of identity. There is a seamless unity of Islam and Moslems.
Moslems are earnest and dedicated carriers, supporters, defenders of and believers in Islam, whereas the east bloc masses, including most of the communists, did not believe a word of the communist gospel.
Collapse of communism was a true liberation; political, economic, but also very much spiritual - the triumph of, what people saw as their good over alien evil.
After the collapse of the Communism, the people of the east Europe did not become our friends, as you say, because they have ALWAYS been our friends. We were their allies. They never wanted to convert us to communism the way the Moslems, even those born and raised in the West, want us to convert to Islam, they hoped we will deliver them from the Leninist nightmare.
Just as like almost anyone in this website I am very much for West’s maximum possible separation from Islam, but I can’t see that this would necessarily lead to its collapse the way the communism collapsed. The separation would certainly cause a lot of problems in the Moslem world, political violence, economic catastrophe and so forth, but it will not immediately threaten islam as such.
And it is not only because the Moslem world has always been full of political violence, oppression and economic misery. Rather because Islam is indeed a religion and not only as Mark suggests and you seem to accept that “ Islam… in actual fact, it is more political than spiritual. In essence, it is a grand political ideology.”
Well, not in “in essence”.
In fact, believing so is what lead you to believe in the parallel between the situation we are facing vis a vis islam now and we faced vis a vis communist bloc then.
I think it is an error to discard Islam as basically political, or ideological system of oppression and not “real” religion. It absolutely is a religion and a powerful one too. It is spiritual and transcendental because it bases all its moral and intellectual claims on faith in eternal supreme being who is the author of all existence, truth, justice and redemption. How palatable to our Judeo-Christian tastes and beliefs is the Moslem religion is a different matter, of course, but the fact is that to 1.5 billion Moslems Islam is most precious and exalted thing.
Few Moslems harbour illusions about Islam’s material inferiority to the West, but even fewer doubt its spiritual superiority. For a true believer, or a good Moslem, it is spiritual that is infinitely more important than material. They believe in the truth of their Islamic yoke as earnestly as the east European disbelieved the communist one.
I think that the deepest craving of man is spiritual, or transcendental as only these things can give meaning to existence. The past few centuries of our history gave us, beside enormous material progress, abundance of “pain killers” which effectively dull these existential cravings and enable quite comfortable life without religion. But to Moslems who are deeply spiritual people, such life is deeply repugnant.
We may isolate Islamic world and confine moslems to the endless misery of their planet but I don’t believe the “collapse” of Islam can be achieved the way the collapse of communism was.
These are totally different things.
Hey CGW, some of our old posts have ended up on an Indian website "Sulekha, the biggest and most popular online community and social/professional networking hub for Indians in the world." (along with Hugh, Suzan's, alasux, apostate Islam - etc. etc.)
http://websearch.sulekha.com/news/ThreadComment.aspx?cid=548784
Vikrant, thanks for your interest. Although we must a tad careful as we can't use this place to chat (as pleasant as that may be). Very briefly, (since you ask) I am from an Australian/British Anglo Saxon background. My wife is from the Christian Khasi tribe. I lived in India for about 18 months total. I had an interesting time there, I was in a few films, I've been on Indian TV a few times and had a book published in Calcutta re the city's British history.
I hope that answers your question about my Indian connection.
thomas h posted DP111, I don’t really think the comparison is accurate.
Thomas, the thread is getting a bit old but I hope you see it and respond.
You are quite right - the comparison is not accurate. There are two reasons that the comparison is not truly valid at this moment in time.
In the sixties and seventies when oil money had yet to make an impact on muslim societies, there was ferment in these societies, as to how to make themselves modern and succesful. This was the time that most Arab nations flirted with socialism. Baathism - an invention of a Christian Arab, became one of the driving forces in the ME. At the time, I was conscious of the openness of Arabs to even religious pluralism of sorts.
The second factor, is the West allowing an escape hole for the burgeoning populations of Arab/muslim nations.
Both these factors have in recent times, mitigated the deleterious effects of islamic tenets on muslim nations, and prevented them from seeking alternatives to the failure that is endemic in islamic ideology. It is for these reasons that islam is making a comeback, borne up on the tidal wave of oil money and unrestricted immigration to the West.
My argument, and I believe Hugh and Laurence Auster at VFR, both hold fairly similar views, requires that islamic societies bare the consequences of islamism, just as the Soviet bloc had to for Marxist dogma. The Cold war was fought on that basis. This war, which goes under the ridiculous name of WoT, should also be fought with a fairly similar doctrine of containment.
It will of course take time for the effects to manifest themselves, just as it took nearly 50 years to undo Marxism. The advantages of this doctrine are, that we do not have to live in fear of being blown up, or our own system of liberal democracy corrupted to ameliorate the sensitivities of muslims in the West.
If islam is reformed (which means it won't be islam anymore), we win big. If it does'nt reform, we still win. Either way, we win.
Look forward to your response. I hope Hugh makes an input as well.
thomas h
What struck me about freddiefreeloader's view of Western civilisation was, that it is virtually the view held by islamists.
I really do not think it is fair to comment any further, but would like freddiefreeloader himself, to explain this rather curious convergence.
dp111 - the belief that western civilisation is going rapidly/has gone down the tubes is a view shared by very many people right across the spectrum. the fact (if you say so) that islamists share this view is hardly a "curious convergence".
after all they can switch on their tellies, read the papers and see with their own eyes whats happening on the street as well as anyone else
i sincerely hope that you were not suggesting that my solution to the problems of western civilisation is islamist
in my first entry in this thread, i said what was vitally needed - the rechristianisation of europe is that islamist?
thomas.h:
"...because Islam is indeed a religion and not only as Mark suggests and you seem to accept that “ Islam… in actual fact, it is more political than spiritual. In essence, it is a grand political ideology.”
Thomas, it seems that you have misunderstood what I have written. Maybe, what I wrote wasn't as clear as I thought. Please let me explain...
I am not suggesting that Islam is not a religion. Of course, it is. But it is not a religion as we in the West have come to understand and tolerate religions. Further, what I am suggesting is that we in the West are treating it purely as a religion whereas, in actual fact, it has a very BIG political dimension, too. We should reconsider our commitment to 'religious freedom and tolerance' when a religion such as Islam is threatening us from within. Because, whether we like to admit it or not, Islam is overwhelmingly political in its aims.
DP111,
As said before I completely agree with you about the necessity of limiting our interaction with Islam to the absolute minimum, specifically by preventing its demographic growth in the West.
Like you, I believe that the only way Islam may, but doesn’t necessarily have to, evolve is being confronted with and having to bear alone the consequences of its defectiveness – you’d probably agree with me if I refer to it as civilizational cold turkey.
Where we differ is our perception of the nature of, or category to which our adversaries (communism and islam) respectively belong and that difference makes us to view differently the outcomes of Islam’s containment. Where you believe in inevitability of collapse of Islam (once it is contained) I am somewhat less certain in such outcome.
Your view of Islam as primarily an ideology, very much like communism, is precisely the reason you believe it must collapse when contained - exactly as communism did. But for me, islam’s religious, cultural and historical dimension is much more essential in determining its future. Islam is nourished by a the hope and faith of billion Moslems, while communism was rejected by millions of Europeans.
What we have now is indeed a clash of civilizations - not clash of ideologies. And these clashes are governed by completely different and not so well understood dynamics - very different from the dynamics governing clashes between states, nations and ideologies.
Another thing is that we have lost the perception of ourselves as Christian civilization. Christianity is for us a private and not terribly important matter. We automatically project that perception on other civilization and assume that, given enough time and under sufficient pressure, they too can drop their religious mooring and “become like us”. Well, given enough time anything may, or rather must, change, but in case of islam it will not be 50 or so years as the case was with communism. I think it may take centuries. Moslems don’t make Islam. It is the other way round.
A thought just occurred to me that if he west for some reason suddenly retrieved its religious vigor and zest – its unabashedly Christian identity it might actually trigger a revolution within Islam. I think so because it will change moslem’s view of the West as a spiritual desert which they may feel called to save from the death of nihilism to the life of Islam. Rather they may see Cristianity as spiritually their peer while materially their superior. It might be a most powerful stimulus for change.
And one more thing: what is “WoT”?
Mark, I have just discovered your comment to my comment. I see what you mean now. It seems I have misunderstood you. But please let me read more closely again. I may have something to add.
cheers,
freddiefreeloader:
Thanks for the response. I feel though that the idea of Western civilisation as evidenced in the tabloid press or celebrity TV, and seen by all, is just what it is, just so much glitzy mass entertainment. One should not mistake it as the sum of all there is.
thomas h and Mark:
Its good you looked in to this thread. Most would have gone off to pastures new.
WoT - War on terror. This is what Pres Bush as called this war, and which you more aptly term as a civilisational war.
First I would say that what happens to islam, once it is contained within dar ul islam, whether it reforms or not, is not really my business. That is an internal matter for muslims. What is of greater concern to me, is what the presence of muslims here, is doing to us in the West.
To name just a few
1. Loss of freedoms that we have taken for granted.
2. Freedom of expression, that quintessential of values that define our civilisation, is under threat.
3. The acceptance of socially unacceptable norms of islamic culture. This morally corrupts the West.
I accept your proposition that if the West Christianised itself, it will not present a spiritual vacuum to islam, and thus islam's impetus to dawa will be curtailed just a little. I do not think though, that this is the right approach.
First, we are what we are, and the "post-Christian" civilisation that we have now, can be considered a "natural" evolution. We may re-Christainise but we have to do so from our own needs and not forced on us. What you are proposing is that we re-Christianise just to counter the islamic threat, ie we re-visit our past, is not right. As far as I'm concerned, that is an admission of the failure of liberal and secular civilisation, as well as a loss of nerve.
A containment policy however recognises that muslims are not quite ready to join the liberal and tolerant club of democratic nations. The time may come when they can, but not as of now.
Islam is a religion by name but in practice, in the strictest definition of that term, it is more a political ideology then a religion. There is virtually no philosophy in islam that identifies it as a religion, though its adherents do think of it as a religion. So be it, and we will accept it as it stands.
Now the greatest merit in islam the religion, is Jihad. It is the Jihadis who have the highest merit in the islamic paradise. That is the basic impulse of islam. And it is in this impulse of Jihad in islam, its strongest and most fiercesome weapon, that I see a weakness in islam. A containment similar to that of the Cold war, will make it very difficult for Jihad to be conducted against the Infidel. Unable to do a fundamental requirement of islam and gain paradise, and faced with social and economic paralysis, muslims will be forced to reform islam. If they do not, they will languish even further behind the rest of the world and pose a even lesser threat. If they do reform islam, then fine, it is good for all, primarily muslims. But either way, we are insured. My first concern, is that the rest of the world is not dragged back to the Middle ages of any kind or type.
We will have to do this type of debate for real, soon enough, and with all sorts of people. We need to be able to answer calmly and rationally to any questions that come up. All this helps greatly. Thanks.
DP111,
We will have to do this type of debate for real, soon enough, and with all sorts of people. We need to be able to answer calmly and rationally to any questions that come up.
Very true. With all sorts of people. And not only to answer and explain, but also to ask and allow for the chance of reassessment of our own thinking. And one can learn a lot from all sorts of people even those one can not agree with - providing they are honest.
Another thing, I didn’t really propose “christianization of the west” as an “approach”. It was a side remark, a reflection on an effect it may, or may not, have on Islam ONCE it is contained. Not “just to counter the Islamic thread” as you understood it.
The part of your letter (about our “post-christian”civilization) indicates beliefs on your part which I probably don’t share. But that is a completely different subject which we may debate when an apposite thread presents itself.
Cheers,