"Christians...85% of Kenya's population..."

What the hell happened, and this applies to the West as well, of the concept of "majority rules".

Isn't it the crux of a democracy that people vote, and the majority wins. Isn't that the whole point of a democracy, insuring that the majority isn't controlled by a minority?

If Kenyan Christians are 85% of the population, they should just stick to their guns, so to speak. If not, welcome to the slippery slope and the spiraling "crash and burn".

Posted by: t-ham at August 31, 2005 10:58 AM

Sooooo...Christians make up 85% of the population.

A referendum is set for November.

But the government is upset because the Christian churches might mobilise against it. Not because the muslim mosques are pushing for it.

Okay.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at August 31, 2005 11:06 AM

Muslims are 15 percent of the population of Kenya.

Yet they insist on putting shariah law into effect.

Now muslims are 10 percent in France, and 2.5 percent in Britain.

What will happen when they reach 15 percent in Europe?

Posted by: Voltaire at August 31, 2005 11:46 AM

To The Citizens Of Kenya,

I call upon each and every non moslem in Kenya to:
1) Vote no in the upcoming referendum. This is your chance to ebb the tide of the global Jihad.
2) Insist that any part of the muslim minority who won't abide by the referendums result emigrate to a country they are comfortable with.
3) Be prepared to crush the inevitable rebellion that will take place following a no vote.
4) Demand the resignation of Non Muslim MPs who have colluded with the Islamists in drafting this constitution. They are not competent to hold office.
5) As a front line state facing Arab/Islamic expansionism, insist that your government seek the aide of other countries in staving off this threat.

Posted by: William The Crusader at August 31, 2005 11:51 AM

William The Crusader posted: Be prepared to crush the inevitable rebellion that will take place following a no vote.

And then take appropriate measures such that a rebellion of this sort does not occurr again once the muslim population reaches critical mass.

There seems to be no end to the idiocy of the muslim mass.

Posted by: DP111 at August 31, 2005 11:56 AM

I find this completely astonishing.

85% and still we are offering to forgo equality for all under the rule of law?

Who are the morons who drafted this piece of shit constitution?

Any further web references to this subject would be gratefully received.

Posted by: Anthony at August 31, 2005 12:18 PM

Most Christian churches are strong in Africa. The Anglican church is growing to the extend that new dioceses are forming almost annually (based on size of population, not acreage covered). I believe the Catholic and non conformist churches to also be thriving. If The Kenya Church keeps this up they will be doing good for the whole world not just Kenya.

Give them prayer support, and any practical support it comes your way to give. They will need it.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at August 31, 2005 12:18 PM

just sent an email of the original article to my local muslim newspaper in glasgow, the "iwitness", asking them if this is the road theyre going to go down in scotland

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 31, 2005 12:36 PM

btw granny you are right - if africa is not the battleground then i dont know where is.

trouble is what is the west doing there? not looking after the interests of non muslims, but looking after the interests of various western money making schemes.

the imf and world bank are the ones in charge of africa what are they doing about all this

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at August 31, 2005 12:53 PM

For the past forty years the Western world has done little to support Christians in black Africa.

During the Biafran War, a war that resulted from Muslim attacks and mass killings of Christians in the Muslim north, a war that was intended to defend those largely Ibo Christians from what Col. Ojukwu called, in his Ahiara Declaration, a "jihad," not a single Western country save for Israel would recognize Biafra.

Meanwhile, Muslims gave diplomatic and other aid to the north. Egyptian pilots wantonly bombed Ibo villages, killing thousands for the fun of it. It was a cause in the Muslim world. It was not a cause in the non-Muslim world.

Perhaps some Western governments did not wish to interrupt the flow of oil from Nigeria. But had a state of Biafra been declared, it would have been self-sufficient, with all the oil located in the south, and the industrious southerners would not have wasted oil income on the armaments that the Muslim-dominated governments have done.

That was the first great betrayal by the Western world.

The second was in the Sudan, where for 20 years a slow-moving genocide, consisting of outright killing, and of deliberate starvation, has caused the deaths of close to 2 million black Africans, both Christian and animist. In the last year or two, the Arab supremacist ideology within Islam has impeleld the Arabs to launch attacks, and the same kind of starvation methods, even on fellow, but non-Arab, Muslims.

There are others -- the Muslim aggression that can be seen all over East and West Africa, with Saudi money and mosques and preachers pouring in, and the attacks on the Ismaili sect (regarded as "too moderate") by these Wahhabi imports, while nothing is done to even recongize the problem, as if it were purely a matter of religion and not of political menace.

Several Arab states openly enslave blacks -- Mali, Mauritania, Niger -- and others do so a bit more discreetly.

While the Americans should leave Iraq, this does not mean they should cease to employ military power where it makes sense.

It makes sense in the Sudan, where the mass killings and mass dislocations in Darfur continue, virtually without anything being done except a great deal of ostentatious clucking in assorted corridors.

How many American troops and planes would it take to seize all of southern Sudan and Darfur to boot, and after the pictures showing smiling black faces (in marked contrast to the sullen Iraqis) are shown all over the world, what will the U.N., what will the Arab League, do? Demand that the Arab government has a divine right to continue killing black Africans? Won't look good. Not at all.

And in seizing that territory, in grabbing it back from dar al-Islam, and holding it until such time as its inhabitants can hold a referendum on independnece from the north, the American government, and the Europeans who will support it, and the African Christians who will applaud it, will all be on the same side, and all will know that they have done something singificant in pushing back the aggressive forces of Jihad (a century ago the Arabs, far less present then in what was then the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, did not control the vast swath of territory that is now called the Sudan)and in openly, publicly, for all Muslims and non-Muslims to see, shown that Islam is not always and everywhere, despite the OPEC money, on the march -- and can be contained, and even pushed back.

There is no contradiction in urging a withdrawal from Iraq and a very small deployment of a few thousand troops (with airpower) into the southern Sudan. The first is a misallocation of resources to promote an unattainable goal, and a goal that does not promote the weakening of Islam (while American withdrawal from Iraq would do so). The second would be an intelligent and frugal application of resources that should be applied when and where -- but only when and where -- it makes sense, and can garner, and keep, support.

Posted by: Hugh at August 31, 2005 2:23 PM

Either clause one of article 10, or clause three of article 179 has to go.

Clause three of article 179 of the proposed constitution provides for traditional and Sharia courts, while at the same time the first clause of article 10 stipulates separation between the state and religion.

Here's a question or three:

*Is the Sharia law proposal intended only for Kenya's Muslim population, or does that looney 15% of the nation's population expect Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims as well?

*How will Kenya's Muslim population respond when they are told that non-Muslims cannot, and will not be subjected to Muslim law?

*How will they respond when they are told that Muslims themselves cannot, and will not be subjected to Muslim law?

Posted by: PRCS at August 31, 2005 2:29 PM

Like all of my fellow commenters, I'm just as stunned about the Kenyan Muslims comprising a tiny 15% of the country's population and yet demanding that the remaining 85% submit to them.

But. But. But.

A strikingly similar process, albeit in a more veiled form, is unfolding in Europe right now. Under the pretence of 'respect for minorities', the European Muslims demand more and more Christians to submit to the will of the 'true believers', and these demands take a vast variety of forms, as DhimmiWatch has been demonstrating over all these years.

Either it is the silencing of critics of Islam like Orianna Falacci, Theo van Gogh or Ayaan Hirsi Ali or demands to fund even more mosques and hate schools with the taxpayers' money, the goal is one: to restore the so-called 'glory of Islam' and to expand its domain into Europe, where it once had a major foothold.

This isn't just my personal deduction. This view has been voiced by the respected imam Mohammad ibn Abdel Rahman al-Arifi and sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in the exact same wording just a few months ago, and you can verify it here: http://www.acage.org/news/?day=04172005&id=0006. Clearly, as soon as Muslims become even a tiny majority in Europe, we are going to see the Lebanese scenario all over again, only this time there will be many more victims than 75,000.

-----------------------------
dolphin, CAGE co-founder.
http://www.acage.org

Posted by: dolphin at August 31, 2005 6:13 PM

Shariia is coming. The attrempts to bring it in via the backdoor are alreadt there.

Nigeria and now Kenya are just tyhe latesty examples. It will happen here in the West as well. The West is NOT going to be an exception. This is divine law we are talking about, not just something dreamed up by an epileptic nomad.

Posted by: DP111 at August 31, 2005 7:44 PM

Yet another African country slides into the pit of Islam. I hope they fight back and do a reverse Sudan on the Sharia'h monsters/

Posted by: Dumbo at August 31, 2005 11:37 PM

So 15 per cent of Kenyans are Muslim? Is this inclusive of the huge number of Somalis in that country or nor? It would be interesting to know.

Posted by: Effractor at September 1, 2005 4:50 AM

Dolphin

Britain is in the vanguard of that process. See the article below:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/09/01/nimm01.xml

You can substitute Asian for Muslim obviously.

Posted by: Effractor at September 1, 2005 5:04 AM

Hugh said
'While the Americans should leave Iraq, this does not mean they should cease to employ military power where it makes sense'
I am surprised at one so versed in historical events that he has not seen the futility of waging war of the conventional kind against the ideological weaponry being employed by the Islamists.
Just how does he quantify the validity of the use of military power in a sovereign state 'where it makes sense'?
Whose version of 'sensibility' is being employed here?
I believed that the threat of WMD was real. It was as real as Saddams's desire to be the new 'Nebuchanezzar' in leading a united arabia minus the state of Israel.
It was sensible therfore to eliminate Saddam. It was not sensible to enter a crackpot country without evaluating the possibility that the residents were mainly ignorant tribalists brainwashed by a bloody religion.
Do the same in Sudan and you open another wound for the maggots to fester in.
Islam needs to be fought by the attrition of its financial oxygen.
A Boycot of all aid to muslim countries.
A Ban on all muslim immigration to the West.
Repatriation/Banishment of any persons aligned with radical Islam whether born in the West or not.
It is not worth a single drop of any Western service man or woman to engage in a war in any Muslim land.
As for their oil... let them drink it.

Posted by: Sir Cumfrence at September 1, 2005 12:28 PM

One of the disadvantages of the US and Britain engaging in wars in muslim lands, is that it causes large scale immigration of muslims from those lands to the US or Britain.

That in my opinion, is the very worst collateral damage there is.

Posted by: DP111 at September 1, 2005 8:46 PM