Pipes: "Unremarked by most Westerners, Islam’s presence has started to change their way of life"

Sikhs in France who are a tiny community of about fifteen thousand hard working people have also been hit by the hijab ban with Sikh boys not allowed to wear their turbans to school.

Unremarked by most Westerners, Islam’s presence has started to change their way of life.

Unremarked by the chattering classes and by politicians, perhaps. However, listen to your average London cabbie and you will get a different story.

I'm not a fan of religious arbitration, but it seems that it was working reasonably well in Ontario for Orthodox Jews and other religions, so it is irritating that this decision had to be made because of Muslims. Though this is never spelt out, legislators know that Islam has an agenda not shared by other religions.

It is a cliché, but the elephant in the room is that Islam is uniquely threatening. What is different but harmless with other religions, for example, arranged marriages, faith schools, provocative 'art' becomes dangerous when Islam comes into play. Everybody knows this otherwise they wouldn't change the rules or policy, but nobody will say it. Those PC types at Tate Britain almost slipped up when they talked about some 'art' offending Muslims in particular, but they didn't go on to say why, though they know full well.

Islam is political in a way that other religions are not. Give Muslims an inch and they take a mile, in a way that other believers do not. These are two sides of the same coin: jihad.

Unremarked by most Westerners, Islam’s presence has started to change their way of life.

I speak about this everyday to anyone within earshot. People are interested, but helpless. They want to look on the bright side and have no idea how to solve the problem, OR they aren't willing to do that which is necessary.

that just about sums it up epg

Unremarked? Here's some remarks for you...

Americans and other westerners are just too nice.
They dont want to believe bad stuff about religions, and are shocked at scandals and abusive behavior by some churches and priests.
Someone who has found God, just does not act like that. But often they do. Sometimes it's one person, but just as often it's policy, like the inquisitions or jihad. So Americans, being brainwashed about 'religions', make every kind of accomodation to the religious, without actuallly knowing the tenents of most religions.
There may be some merit to the idea of God, but the religions that spring up around it are not God, and can be dangerous or even lethal.
The problem is with the word "religion'. The notion is that 'religion is good'. Since this is obviously not always the case, not all religions are equal. The dictionary gives no list of beliefs, the US, IRS, does not require any particular beliefs, other than the basic one of recognising a supreme being, and sometimes not even that. The word 'religion' is unreliable because it has been so twisted out of shape.
Just because Islam is a 'religion', does not mean
that it is equal, it does not mean that it should be coddled or appeased or even tolerated.
" A bad tree cant produce good fruit", or so it was said. Islam is a bad tree because it produces far more grizzly killers than it does saints. It creates more chaos than cosmos. Yet it is a 'religion', and we must bow to its holyness. This is a struggle between the forces of life (our God is the 'living' God), and the forces of death, led by Allah, the god of death.
They have said it themselves...'You love life, we love death'. Not every organisation that calls itself a 'religion' is holy. The word 'religion' is a trap, styfles action, and brings on appeasement. In my opinion, Islam is not a religion because Allah is not God, not 'the' supreme being. If a religion has no supreme being, what is it?
We may not be able to remove the word 'religion' from Islam, but we can publicize its negative impact. Some people here are already doing that.As Islam asserts itself, more and more people will start paying attention and appeasements will slow down or stop. But, untill the beast is brought under control, some adjustments are necessary...

There was an interesting article in the Saturday, Sept. 24 edition of the Globe & Mail by John Alamang, who was interviewing a French professor, Patrick Weil, currently teaching in Ontario, about France's ban on the hijab and related subjects.

Weil observed that with respect to France's Muslim minority, "tolerance doesn't bring about harmony" or something to that effect. He made particular note of the fact that the ban applies only in elementary and secondary schools so that impressionable young females can't be coerced into wearing the hijab by the usual suspects -- that is why these minor curbs on freedom are reasonable.

Contrast this POV from the land of equality, fraternity and liberty to the UK where Ms. Booth-Blair played the human rights card to give a teenaged girl's brothers the right to pressure their sister into wearing a tent in public.

As a Torontonian whose place of work is very near the US consulate, I am keenly aware of the footprints being left on my city and way of life, but I am torn over the decision to no longer recognize religious tribunals as Alternate Dispute Resolution venues as under the Arbitration Act, unhappy litigants have the assurance that rulings that run contrary to Ontario law will not be enforced. This might have provided a curb on what is going on without any restraint now, and, of course, the Beit Dins, etc., that were apparently, functioning well, have been tossed out with the bathwater.

One might also add to the list the tedious security measures ALL Westerners are now subjected to in order to not offend the Muslim minority -- Muslims are the only legitimate target of these anti-terror security measures after all, yet we have ALL been forced to submit with patience and humility as grandma and junior have their various crannies and cavities surveyed...

Also, one might mention the impending curtailments of free speech in the West in order to supply governments with needed tools to crack down on Muslim hate mongers who have come to our lands to abuse our culture, our customs, and our laws... These malevolent Muslim complainers and agitators habitually abuse and manipulate our finely crafted and magnificent systems, and threaten their very existence. First we curtail our own rights in order to have some hope of countering their malignant promulgation of Islam... Second, we are beginning to recognize that once Muslims achieve a sufficient momentum in our lands, they are willing to push even further, as we see in Canada and Australia to foment more 'sharia-friendly' laws and regulations....

It is truly sickening to see how little Muslims contribute, and how much Muslims cost...

Clearly it isn't worth having them hear, and if most Muslims are to be believed, it is hardly tolerable for them to exist in the West, as it is the apotheosis of Muslim oppression and Islamophobia --

Freudian slip -- I am so accustomed to witnessing Muslims close their ears to all entreaties for them to reform their so-called religion that I said above "it isn't worth having them hear" rather than "it isn't worth having them here..."

Clearly having them here, and hoping that they are capable of hearing are both complete wastes of time....

Said differently, IT'S TIME FOR THEM TO LEAVE!

epg,

"Solving the problem" is the million dollar question, the answer for which eludes even our most vaunted specialists.

Do we discriminate with our immigration policies, targeting Muslims for exclusion? This would certainly help prevent the spectre currently haunting Europe...that of creeping Islamization.

But it will also offend Muslims of every philosophical persausion and thus retard or perhaps render impossible the already faint prospect of reformation within Islam. The faith is theologically inocculated from the virus of reform as is. Muhammad was shrewd in that regard, proclaiming himself the "seal" of the prophets. The only hope is for an evolutionary (or perhaps revolutionary) transformation in the way Muslims view their place in the world.

What I've been hammering home over the years is that the current obsequious validation of Islam in our broader political discourse is an blatant impediment to the maturation of the discourse within the ummah. Robert is absolutely correct in his assessment that political correctness only ties the hands (tongues, actually) of true Muslim moderates and reformers.

What I'm getting at is that no one seems to know precisely how to vanquish this 7th century construct masquerading as a modern religion. But pretending it's something it's not (a religion of peace) in the hopes that it will become so --- this is definitley NOT the answer. Sadly, it is what our elite - in the media, academia and the political class - have chosen to do.

I'm still waiting for a Spencer, a Warraq or someone else to come up with a silver bullet. But historical processes have their own timetable and momentum. This is bigger than any one man or concept.

Fertility is the one long-term facet that is inescapable. If Muslims are the ones populating the earth of the future, it stands to reason Islam has healthy prospects for global dominance.

Interested:

Re: "I'm not a fan of religious arbitration, but it seems that it was working reasonably well in Ontario for Orthodox Jews and other religions"

It came as a surprise to me that faith based arbitration was rarely used in Ontario. Lynda Hurst in the Toronto Star wrote an interesting article a couple of weeks ago on this issue - some quotes:

"Contrary to government comments in past media reports and current statements by Jewish and Muslim activists, no known Christian church has made use of Ontario's 1991 Arbitration Act to settle marital breakdown or child custody disputes.

"I've consulted fairly widely and no one is aware of any such thing," says lawyer Janet Buckingham of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. "Of course, churches mediate and counsel if people request it, but arbitrating legal matters? No."

The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Toronto agrees (annulments are purely a church matter). It, like the fellowship, would like the myth put to rest."

"Though attention centred mainly on the sharia battle, the guardians of the beit din, or rabbinical court, were also and ever in the mix. Their powers of persuasion were clearly evident in the report released last December, after months of consultation, by former New Democrat attorney-general Marion Boyd. Hasidic Jews had been using the arbitration act for 13 years without problems, she was told. Why should they forfeit it because of the sharia brouhaha?

It now emerges, however, that this too was a distortion. Only a handful of domestic cases ever come before the local beit din which generally deals with business disputes; two last year, to be precise."

See:

Distortions and Red Herrings

Lynda Hurst
Sep. 17, 2005
Toronto Star

Johnb, thanks for the info. In my book, these tribunals being little used equates to the system working very well.

Waterdragon52 - you make a good point about official tribunals perhaps acting as a curb on unofficial ones. Generally, however, I think this argument is outweighed by the 'camel's nose under the tent' argument that someone made on another thread. Having their demands met does not generally seem to satisfy Muslims, but to whet their appetite for more.

Cornelius, I've wrestled with this sentence, but thrown in the towel:

What I've been hammering home over the years is that the current obsequious validation of Islam in our broader political discourse is an blatant impediment to the maturation of the discourse within the ummah.

You may need a heavier hammer to hit the nail on this head!

Cornelius-
I wouldn't risk your country (or mine) on the faint hope that Muslims will eventually reform their religion. The more Muslims you let in, the less pressure there will be for change, as they will be operating from a position of strength, not weakness.

Being "persona non grata" in western countries might even serve as a catalyst for thoughtful members of the ROP.

We are all taking an awful chance on a "might happen".

Interested,

Objection sustained. Should have read "...political discourse is A blatent impediment...."

Grammatical error notwithstanding, it is an unecessarily cumbersome sentence. Someday, I hope to acquire functional writing skills.

Treehugger,

You could very well be right. But I'm concerned about both the ethical implications of blatant discrimination as well as the strategic cost in terms of Muslim "hearts-and-minds." Sam Harris and many others feel that the fate of civilization will be decided within the ummah itself; policies that discriminate against Muslims can only contribute to those arguing against assimilation into the host culture.

My idea is to considerably slow the flow of Muslim immigration without resorting to blatant discrimination by a) across the board restrictions and/or b) immigration quotas designed to increase diversity among the immigrant population by bringing into Europe larger numbers of Latin Americans, Hindu Indians and East Asians; no one can argue against the instrinsic value of enhancing "diversity" since the word itself has been adopted by the multicultural left as the fountain of all that is good and moral in the world.

Cornelius - so what you're saying is that pandering to Muslims stops them putting their own house in order? And that annoying them will make them worse?

The problem is, though, that we seem to be damned if we do and damned if we don't. Give in to Muslim demands and they become aggressive and more demanding. Refuse Muslim demands and they become aggressive, more demanding and violent.

But I may have misunderstood what you were saying:-)

Cornelius-

Westerners fall into a common error with the term discrimination.

To discriminate means, from Websters,
to 'distinguish between".

Now, our problem is to "distinguish between"
"moderate muslims" and potential jihadis.

How can we do that? There is no fail safe test that I am aware of. Muslims themselves are choosing not to cooperate in this effort.

Why should WE worry about their "hearts and minds" when THEY won't even condescend to alleviate serious security concerns caused by their presence?

You can't be reasonable with the unreasonable.

Under these circumstances, I believe that we must be "discriminating" or "careful and fastitidious in selection". Letting significant numbers of Muslims migrate to western lands at any time in the future is a serious mistake.

Let's concentrate on minority groups in Muslim lands that understand full well the TRUE meaning of "discrimination".

Putting in the same place the nuns and the hijab, is a show of the west silliness.

Treehugger and Interested,

You've both made excellent points:

Interested: "Give in to Muslim demands and they become aggressive and more demanding. Refuse Muslim demands and they become aggressive, more demanding and violent."

There is no question that this is the prevailing pattern of Muslim behavior.

Treehugger: "Letting significant numbers of Muslims migrate to western lands at any time in the future is a serious mistake."

Regardless of formalities, appearances and diplomatic niceties (or the lack thereof), this statement is absolutely true.

But I submit that there is a point of departure. Some of the Hindu nationalists here advocate pre-emptive, wholesale genocide to save the non-Muslim world. I'm certain neither of you would share such a sentiment.

I'm just suggesting that - unless and/or until the civilizational schism becomes so acute as to mandate wholesale wartime measures, we can find a way to mitigate the problem of Muslim immigration creatively...in a way that won't drive those Muslims in our camp or sitting on the fence into the arms of extremists.

It's a difficult thing, calling for subtlety and nuance amid the passions of cultural antagonism. All I can say is that almost everyone here in JW/DW seems eager to write off all Muslims as a lost cause...excepting King Tolerance, who has this myopic assumption that if a Muslim is not engaged in terrorism, he's not an enemy.

One of my litmus tests for example, is if a Muslim woman wears the hijab. If she does, I don't care how wonderful a person she is, I have a prejudicial attitude towards her. If she doesn't, I'm willing to give her every chance to prove to me that she is broad-minded and enlightened.

I just ask you guys to think for a minute as if you were the Prez of the USA or the PM of Britain. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and advocate extreme measures. But when you have responsibility for all citizens - Muslims included, invariably you have to take a comprehensive look before you sign off on something.

Folks, I'm an advocate of both religious profiling and curbing Muslim immigration. But I can be honest and say that I'm slightly uncomfortable with both positions. Does that make me soft on Islam? Fuck no! It just means that my love for individual freedom is such that I am somewhat conflicted in the expressed remedies for dealing with the problem of Islamic encroachment in the West. Ideally, the problem of Muslim immigration can be dealt with in a manner that precludes overt discrimination...(until Bush gets serious about protecting our borders, the point is moot anyway).

Islam is antithetical to human freedom. So is religious discrimination. I come down on the side of security. But I do so gingerly, with a degree of reluctance.

Cornelius-

No, of course I don't support wholesale slaughter. I also have some trouble leaving folks like the blogger at the "Religious Policeman" or the Iraq the Model site stuck in muslim land.

However, if muslims can't understand our security concerns and be willing to cooperate fully, whose side are they really on, after all?

There has been enough non-action on the part of Muslims in the US, along with folks like the "rumpled academic" and the LA Jihadis, the Freedom House report, etc., to make me seriously doubt their allegiance to this country.

Also, the more muslims that come here, the less free the rest of us will be. For example, who gets checked in the airport line? Grandma, probably, NOT the three young men of middle eastern appearance. Censorship is being imposed on radio talk show hosts, etc by CAIR. There are routine "probes" on US airlines and at US hospitals by middle eastern males, which cost how much to investigate and follow up? The UK is proposing to monitor ALL cell phone and internet traffic. Why? Because of an aggressive muslim presence combined with muslim terrorism. Will this get better if we increase our muslim population? I seriously doubt it.

If they succeed with a major attack on the US, such as has been threatened by Zarqawi, we will have both dead citizens and martial law. Will our civil liberties ever be curtailed then!

Again, this will have happened because of the presence of muslims in our home countries.
The price we pay and the risk we take to let them come here is simply not worth it.

It's up to them, Cornelius. In my book, they have to prove that they can play nicely with others before they are welcome here. So far, they are failing that test. Badly.

"who gets checked in the airport line? Grandma, probably, NOT the three young men of middle eastern appearance."

Notice in the new Jodie Foster movie about hijackers, the director cast young actors who look like Muslim men to play the token innocents wrongfully accused. How did the director know what type of physiognomies to cast to make his point? Well, could it have been the last few hundred photos of various terrorists and terrorist suspects we have seen? We need people like this director to be screening passengers at airports and other public places... except for the fact that he's a PC Leftist and would likely refuse.

Interested:

That's why my gut reaction to Sharia was, "No!" Back in 1991, my family law teacher told our class that the Marriage Act would only ever apply to the wedding of "a man and a woman". Now we are told to have no fear of polygamy being recognized in law, yet, I understand that it is being "tolerated" in parts of Europe as something the Eurabians are resigned to under the banner of "tolerance".

So, yeah, I'm sorry to see the Beit Dins losing out in this, but also somewhat relieved that Sharia hasn't received a similar seal of approval.

Noting all of this, there's nothing to prevent rabbis or imams from getting duly certified as mediators and arbitrating disputes under the Arbitration Act, and that would be appropriate.

Pipes: "Unremarked by most Westerners, Islam’s presence has started to change their way of life"

Mr. Pipes should visit Jihadwatch; we remark on how Islam is ruining our past (through revisionist history), our present (in ways too numerous to mention but the looming threat of terrorism heads the list), and our future (the darkest days lie ahead, when the clash of civilizations culminates in civil wars around the globe.)

The only way we can effect the drastic changes necessary to expunge fascist Islam from our midst is to generate a massive grassroots movement within America. We're all working on this and I believe that we are making progress, but we're a long way from recruiting the number of informed Americans necessary to force Congress to act.

I believe that circumstances beyond our control will eventually come into play to expedite our mission, but at a great cost in lives and destruction. And there is no guarantee that even another catastrophic terror attack will generate the impetus to scrutinize the deleterious influence of Islam and muslims.

When circumstances dictate that political correctness is less important than survival; that reality is what you see and not what you want to see; that multiculturalism is the destruction of one superior culture to promote and advance incongruous, inferior cultures; and that all people and cultures are not homogenous; maybe we can straighten out the mess that the arrogant, elitist intelligentsia have recklessly concocted, using us as human guniea pigs and inflicting immeasurable damage on Western civilization.

The deranged social engineers who persist in their crazed efforts to create a socialist, borderless world with a central government, a "world community", are motiviated by either insanity or infinitesimal greed and lust for power. Unfortunately, many of these dangerous nihilists reside in Washington, D.C. and make the laws in this country. Their ultimate goal is to destroy America as we know it, and they are slowly but surely succeeding.

Very, very well composed Susan.

Just wanted to expand upon one thought...

An evolution towards planetary unity and an umbrella-type of world government is not necessarily a bad thing. I think all truly enlightened people define themselves as individuals first...tribe, nation, religion should (though often don't) come after. The day we can transcend our many parochial differences is the day that world peace may finally drift from the utopian to the real.

It's the TYPE of super-structure that will eventually govern Planet Earth that is so problematic. The possibilities range from a free association of soverign states to a bureaucratic monstrosity along the lines of the EU...all the way to the dreaded Khilifah.

The models being promulgated by the UN, the Trilateral Commission and socialists of all persausions must be deconstructed and illegitimized. But come that one fine day far into the future when the proponents of individual liberty finally triumph over collectivism and the data-base, it makes pefect sense to prepare for an international super-structure that UNIVERSALIZES OUR OWN VALUES.

Cornelius, the thought of a one world government is simply inconceivable to me. I'm afraid I can't think "outside of the box" on that one.

I don't know about you, but it is important to me to have an identity beyond being a member of humanity. Nationality means something to me; it partially defines who and what I am and despite current world opinion, I am very proud to be an American. Of course we are all individuals, but our psyches are influenced by our culture and our culture is defined by our nationality.

I love my country, my freedom, and the countless advantages and opportunities that can only be found in America. I have lived in Europe and travelled extensively. The world is a beautiful place but America is special, and I feel very hostile toward people who come here to abuse and exploit it. People who have no respect for our customs, traditions, government and culture do not belong here. American citizenship is a privilege, not a right.

The disparities of Islamic culture are too divergent to reconcile. Islamic culture is repugnant and it breeds hostility, which leads to violence. So not only is it offensive, it is deadly. This would be irrelevant if muslims had not invaded my country. I could ignore them from afar and pray for their eventual enlightenment. They could wallow in their retrograde cesspits of misery and corruption, live their miserable lives by the rule of Sharia; perform their perfuntory, mindless rituals day in and day out; beat their wives; force their female children into incestuous unions with first cousins or uncles thirty years their senior; murder their daughters, wives, and nieces for dishonoring the family name; and beget a dozen hapless offspring to repeat the endless cycle of desolation, all the while brimming with smug delusions of superiority, and it wouldn't bother me a bit. But to have this incongruous anomaly supplanted in my back yard is a bit difficult to digest.

Certain segments of humanity are simply not capable of coexisting with the mainstream. It is unfair and cruel to forcibly impose them on civilized societies. Fourteen hundred years of endless bloody conflicts do not portend friendly muslim neighbors.

Susan,

1) As an American, I share your sentiments completely. America is not just a place, it is an ideal - albeit one that is under siege by the culture of the Left.

Soltzenietzen once commented as he was lamenting the triumph of the EU in Eastern Europe that "nations are the patrimony of mankind." I subscribe to this strongly. The nation-state should be seen as another important source of the diversity that our culture seems to venerate to the point of caricature.

I'm not for a minute advocating the abolition of the nation-state, now or in the future. I'm simply suggesting that planetary unity is the inevitable future of human evolution. Massive undertakings such as space colonization will necessitate planet-wide efforts to marshall our human, technical and financial resources...(assuming planet earth survives the 'civilization war' and the proliferation of WMDs).

The super-structure that I envision will be an umbrella that will serve as an incredibly weak version of a federal government...designed primarily for planetary exploration and defense, arbitrating disputes between nation-states, etc.

I understand how the thought might seem so repellent to you, given the current state of affairs in the world and the utter failure of the UN as an institution. Believe me, mine is a very LONG-TERM vision.

2) I too am repulsed by the ever-increasing number of Muslims in the city I reside in. But I do make distinctions.

For example, I met a young Pakistani woman in a bar the other night...as far as I'm concerned, she was as American as apple pie. So I caution that we're mistaken in making sweeping generalizations that include even nominal, Westernized Muslims as we struggle against the "cesspits of misery and corruption" (an incredibly apt characterization) that define the Muslim world.

"Islamic Society of Fire Department Personnel"

Is there nothing that these animals won't Islamicize?!

Being a Moslem is a crime. One of the crimes Sedition. Another is Conspiracy to Overthrow the U.S. Governmenet. The third crime is Child Abuse, given that these animals teach reverence of the Sunnah, and ol' Mo was a pedophile and danged proud of it!