Saturday, August 29, 2009

What '1 Malaysia' really means

Since Malaysia had its sixth Prime Minister installed into power earlier this year, the government has been pushing a new slogan... "1 Malaysia". The slogan refers to the (allegedly) harmonious society that Malaysia has got, all races and religions living together peacefully and all that. Well, Malaysia really has a polyglot of tribes, not races. And the tribe known by various names-- the Malays, Bumiputras, Melayu, etc.--make no mistake, this tribe is the one in charge.

And if you want an idea of what sort of tensions continue to fester right under the surface of that harmonious society, have a look at this video. It shows how some Malays feel about plans to build a new Hindu temple in their neighbourhood:

Lugging around and spitting on the severed head of a cow, an animal that Hindus consider sacred, is a particularly nice touch, don't you think?

If you watch the video, you'll see that there's plenty of Islamic supremacy on display, but absolutely no sign of law enforcement. This is in spite of the fact that all public gatherings in the country are, in theory, not allowed without a police permit. In fact, the protesters can be seen proceeding down what must be a usually busy thoroughfare with nary a sign of traffic. Perhaps the police were being helpful by blocking off traffic for Allah's demonstrators to march, yes?

So while a group of Hindu activists in Malaysia gets prompt attention from riot police, for some reason, a group of Malays shouting 'Allahu akbar' warrants decidedly different treatment. Anybody wondering why that is?

The government is promising an investigation, but watch what they do, not what they say.

Therefore, let us remember what '1 Malaysia' really means:

1 Malaysia = Islamic Supremacy

Thursday, August 27, 2009

Malaysia takes the next step down the ladder

By ladder, I mean the ever-present Ladder of Islamification. Read on...

Malaysia's latest step down the ladder has placed the country in the news again, and as usual, for all the wrong reasons. In this case, a female Muslim had the misfortune to be caught by the religious police for the monstrous crime of drinking alcohol--in this case, a beer. No word on what the brand of beer was, but I digress and of course, this matters not to the Righteous Enforcers of Allah. The woman was duly tried and convicted in one of those Kangaroo Courts that pass as Islamic Religious Courts. Her punishment was to be caned; and the woman had the temerity to specifically request a public caning, at that, thus placing Malaysia's Muslim rulers in a public-relations quandary.

Since the story broke in the international media, there has been much hand-wringing here in Malaysia. Not so much about the correctness or justice of the sentence. Not about the repulsive idea of criminalizing the act of adults drinking alcohol, nor about the existence of religious police or religious courts with sweeping powers. Of course not, dear reader, as no Malaysian would dare question such barbarisms, at least publicly. What DOES concern Malaysian pundits is the perceived damage that this (as usual) Islamic miscarriage of justice does to Malaysia's purported moderate image overseas.

The embarrassed government authorities have punted this case into next month, delaying the carrying out of the sentence by 30 days, using the just-commenced 'holy' month of Ramadan as the pretext. This buys them a bit of time to figure out how to placate the outraged infidel nations and the devout Muslims locally and elsewhere. Of course, such a balancing act is ultimately impossible, as the norms of western, i.e. free societies are totally at odds with the values of Islam, and the values enshrined in the totalitarian code of Syariah (Sharia).

With devout Muslim political parties and interest groups holding increasing sway in the ruling and 'opposition' coalitions, this case is a harbinger of the future.

Sunday, August 23, 2009

Saturday, August 22, 2009

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

A few samples of Quranic contradictions

Recently emailed to us by a recovering (i.e. former) Muslim, to highlight some egregious errors from a document all Muslims claim to be a 'miracle'. Too bad the 'miracle' didn't come with fact checking and copy editing.

The following Quranic ayats are taken mostly from the Quran translation of Maulana A. Yousuf Ali and Maulana Muhiuddin Khan:

How many days did it take to create the Heavens and the Earth?

Quran-7:54: Your guardian-Lord is Allah who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran-10:3: Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran- 11:7: He it is Who created the heavens and earth in Six Days

Quran-25:29: He Who created the heavens and earth and all that is between, in Six Days

The above verses clearly state that Allah (God) created the heavens and the Earth in 6 days. But the verses below state

Quran-41:9 : Is it that ye deny Him who created the earth in Two Days?

Quran-41:10: He set on the (earth) Mountains standing firm high above it, and bestowed blessing on the earth, and measured therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in FOUR DAYS...

Quran-41:12: So He completed them (heavens) as seven firmaments in Two days and …

Now do the math: 2 (for earth) + 4 (for nourishment) + 2 (for heavens) = 8 days; and not 6 days.

You can see similar mistakes in the verses: Quran-4:11, 4:12, and 4: 176 in inheritance law. In these verses one can see the total property after adding all distributed parts adds up more than the available property, i.e., the totals become more than 1 which are: 1.125 and 1.25. How come? A gross mathematical error, is it not?

Allah’s Days Equal to 1000 Years or 50,000 Years?

Quran-22:47: A day in the sight of the Lord is like a thousand years of your reckoning.

Quran-32:5: To Him, on a Day, the space whereof will be a thousand years of your reckoning

Quran-70:4: The angels and the spirit ascend unto him in a day the measure whereof is fifty thousand years.

So, which one is it? Is the day of Allah equal to 1,000 earth years or 50,000 earth years?

Creation of the Heavens and the Earth

Which one was created first? As you will see in the verses below, Allah at one time says that Earth was created first and another time he says that the Heavens were created first.

Quran-2:29: It is He who hath created for you all things that are on Earth; THEN He turned to the Heavens and made them into seven firmaments (Skies)….

Quran- 79:27-30: Are you the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built ? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; and He has made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morning thereof. And after that, He spread (flattened) the earth

Now, does it match modern science? Do you believe that, Earth was created first, and after that, God created Heaven? Does modern science tell us that? Or that there are SEVEN firmaments (layers)? Modern science tells us that, actually there is no such thing as a firmament or any roof over us, it is only space with no known boundary at all. These verses simply reinforce the ancient idea of a ROOF over us which is called the SKY! How funny!

Which one is correct?

Quran-2:256: There is no Compulsion in religion...


Quran-9:29: Fight those who do not profess the true faith (Islam) till they pay the polltax (jiziya) with the hand of humility.

Quran-9:5: Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them and take them captive, and besiege them and prepare for them each ambush...

Quran-47:4: When you meet the unbelievers in the Jihad strike off their heads...

Quran-2:191: And slay (kill) them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

Quran-8: 65: O Apostle! Rouse the believers to the fight…(against) unbelievers.

Very often apologetics claim that, Islam is a religion of peace and there is no compulsion. Yet, punishment of an apostate in Islam is, of course, the death penalty.

Monday, August 17, 2009

We Kept Shouting Louder And Louder And All We Heard Was Our Own Echo

An innocent girl appeared on TV some days ago. She looked scared and shaken. Many people accused her and still accuse her of lying. They say, "she wants attention". They accuse her of being brainwashed. Instead of feeling sympathy for her and trying to protect her like they would do in case a 17 year old was in danger, they throw baseless accusations at her. Why? What is it that she did that was so evil that it was proof enough for the mainstream media and everyday individuals to decisively conclude that she was lying? Her biggest sin and crime: She claimed that she was from a Muslim background, she had converted to Christianity and because of the teaching of Islam, her father threatened to kill her.

Her story surfaced on the blogs and ABC News. "Is she for real?" Was the question. Instead of trying to see whether she was in real danger or not, people tried to discredit what she was saying and they did that so many times that now she has disappeared from the news altogether. There are no further updates. We don't know what happened to her excpet that there's a court hearing on August 21.

It is true that she has been attacked. But she has been attacked not because of anything wrong that she said. No one took what she said and examined it against Islamic scriptures. She has been attacked because she said something about Islam that people don't want to hear. "Islam is a religion of peace", we hear, "what she claims is impossible". "A father can never actually kill his child...its an empty threat that she is blowing out of proportion"--is she really? When Cassius Clay converted to "Nation Of Islam", he didn't claim his parents were threatening to kill him. When Cat Stevens converted to Islam, he didn't claim that either. Take any example out there of people that convert into Islam and you won't find anyone being threatened like this. Why is it that only people that leave Islam are threatened? Is it a fabrication? Are all ex-Muslims lying? Does everyone really hate Islam so much as to create lies upon lies just like these Muslims claim? Or is Islam really getting a free pass here? Doesn't it sound like we have already accepted the Dhimmi status without actually raising the white flag?

Why do I care about this girl who is being treated in America exactly like she'd be treated in Saudi Arabia? Do I know her personally to vouch for what she is saying? Do I even know her full name? No. I care about her because 5 years ago, these were the fears I had to deal with. I had to think where to run and how to escape if my parents found out about who I was. Did I think back then that my parents were just evil people out to kill anything and everything in their way? No, I knew well enough that they loved me and I don't doubt that even today. Just like I don't doubt that their love for Islam is far greater than anything else in this world, including their children. And that is what Rifqa knows to be true about her parents. She knows her parents love her but she also knows that her parents love Islam more--they can't be Muslims if they didn't. However, I have to ask this question. Are my and Rifqa's fears based on anything real? Has it ever happened before that parents have killed their children for Islam or is it only a figment of my and Rifqa's imagination as the media seems to assume? I will write breifly about two such cases. Lets see:

  1. A Saudi father cuts his daughter's tongue off and then burns her to death for converting to Christianity. Her crime? She converted to Christianity. Did this happen in 640 AD? Is this a story of a serial killer that kills for fun? Was the father mentally (and medically) deranged? The answer to all those questions is NO. The father loved his daughter but he loved Islam more. Read the whole story here.

  2. A Jordanian man stabs his daughter 5 times and then smashes her skull with a large rock. Her crime? Her husband and her converted to Christianity. Again, it didn't happen in 640 AD nor is it a story of a serial killer nor was the father mentally (medically) deranged. Again, the father loved his daughter but he loved Islam more. Read the whole story here.

Before accusing Rifqa of lying through her teeth, people should have investigated a little. People that criticized should have realized that Islam, just like anything else in the world, is not above critcism.

If the readers read the two stories mentioned above with open minds then they might want to know the answer to the following questions: What is it that makes a parent take their own child's life? What makes the parents have the courage to lift up their hand and end the life they started in the first place? Mohammed once said, "None of you will have faith till he loves me more than his father, his children and all mankind" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 14). While its true that Jesus said something to that effect as well, he never said this, "Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57). Neither would one be able to find the Christian version of, "Allah's Apostle said, 'The blood of a Muslim who confesses that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that I am His Apostle, cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims." (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17). It is no secret that Mohammed was able to gain support in Medina through words like these. It is no secret that even early on Mohammed was able to turn fathers against children, siblings against one another and tribe members against their tribal brethren.

There is a popular tradition about Abu Bakr, Mohammed's most loyal follower, best friend and the first caliph of Islam. He was the closest to Mohammed. He loved Mohammed with all his heart. Ayesha, Mohammed's child bride, was his daughter. If anyone other than Mohammed would know Islam, it would be Abu Bakr. A dialogue took palce between Abu Bakr and his then "infidel" son in a well known story: "'O Father, at Badr, you were twice under my sword, but my love for you held my hand back.' To this, Abu Bakr replied, 'Son, if I had you only once under my sword, you would have been no more.'" (Encyclopedia of Islam, Page 192). Abu Bakr was known as "Siddiq" which means "truthful". He was known as a moderate man who was even merciful to his enemies. The quote above is this moderate Muslim's words. When people call someone a moderate Muslim and then try to present that as proof that this guy is a peaceful person who just wants to live peacefully with the rest of humanity, to us "apostates" that doesn't make any difference. A Muslim is a Muslim. Call him moderate or fundamentalist, it doesn't matter. Now, I've presented examples from the hadiths that show Muslims would, should and can kill "infidels", but is there anything similar in the Quran?

"What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road. They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them." This quotation is from the Quran's Sura 4, verses 88-89. Read it without the special notes in parentheses, for these are additions by interpreters. It is little wonder then that the whole of Sunni Islamic world, which is comprised of over 85% of the Muslim world, is unanimous on the punishment of apostates--that they should be killed. The scholars only differ on whether to kill the apostates when they make it public or even when only a couple of people know about it.

After reading all that, I would ask another question: Why are people so loyal to Mohammed? It wasn't just his friends that would raise their sword at one word from Mohammed, it is all his followers. This calls for another article altogether, or maybe a book. However, in short, there are many reasons for this loyalty, however, one of the biggest reasons is fear and love of Mohammed. This love (or fear) is not baseless. Allah adorns Mohammed with praise verse after verse. We read, "Say:(O Muhammad)! “If you do love Allah, follow me: Allah will love you and forgive you your sins, for Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful.” (Sura 3, verse 31). Again Allah informs us that, "Verily in the messenger of Allah ye have a good example for him who looketh unto Allah and the Last Day, and remembereth Allah much." Yes, the Quran tells you that if you want to go to paradise then do what Mohammed did and said. And what Mohammed did and said is recorded in his bioigraphy and the hadiths, some of which I have quoted above.

But would anyone love Mohammed so much as to be able to kill their own children? What is it that drives a human being to do that? What is it that gives him that power? When the Quran tells you to not have pity at all, no compassion whatsoever when you're punishing an adulterer or an adulteress with a 100 lashes (Sura 24, verse 2), how much more are you prone to not have any compassion when someone insults the god of Islam by leaving his religion and announcing it publicly? However, still its hard to believe that a parent would kill their child but is that how Islam views it? "O ye who believe! Choose not your fathers nor your brethren for friends if they take pleasure in disbelief rather than faith. Whoso of you taketh them for friends, such are wrong-doers." (Sura 9, verse 23). Mohammed made sure every step of the way that the people that followed him were loyal to him and only him. He made sure that none of the tribal connections or blood relations were going to come in the way. He was very successful in that as we see in the history of Islam. It was tribesmen attacking their own tribes, parents attacking children, brothers attacking brothers. For Mohammed to be successful, this had to be instilled in the minds of Muslims. Only Muslims are your friends and everyone else is your enemy. To a Muslim, you're either a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Family values are secondary, Mohammed comes first. All family bond are broken once you leave Islam.

I have tried here to show why it is easy for a Muslim parent to "pull the trigger" and kill their child. This post is way too brief for a topic like this. Islam is not just a religion that teaches you spirituality. Islam controls every aspect of your life. You don't just go to the mosque and pray 5 times a day, but you live and breathe Islam. Whatever you do, Allah and Mohammed come first. You are a Muslim before you become a child, sibling or a parent. You are a slave of Allah before you become a human. When Rifqa cries on camera and says, "you guys won't understand", I know what she means. I can try to write a 100 posts about why Rifqa is so scared but you would never know the actual depth of Islam until you actually experience it yourself. I hope you never do, but it is nearly impossible to comprehend how strong the clutches of Islam are. I said "nearly impossible", however, not "completely impossible". Finally, I just want to close this post with another terrifying reminder to ALL OF US from the Quran: "There is for you an excellent example (to follow) in Abraham and those with him, when they said to their people: 'We are clear of you and of whatever ye worship besides Allah: we have rejected you, and there has arisen, between us and you, enmity and hatred forever,- unless you believe in Allah and Him alone." (Sura 60, verse 4).

Sunday, August 16, 2009

Let us be grateful

Let us be grateful... grateful for what blessings and gifts that we do have in this life. Let us not linger on what we lack, but rather focus on what the vast majority of those reading this do have:

SHELTER-- a roof over our heads; a clean, dry, and reasonably safe place to call home

FOOD-- regular meals to fill our bellies, satiate us, and to provide the fuel we need to keep going

EDUCATION-- the ability to read this, to know the wider world and to even further our knowledge of the universe

GOOD HEALTH--the ability to function normally, walk, talk and otherwise take care of ourselves

WEALTH-- having some money in a bank account, our ability to purchase goods and services, the ability to travel, even outside of our homelands, and the ability to own or have access to a computer and the Internet

LOVED ONES--people near us, or people far away, family and friends who care for us, love us and provide us with affection and support

If you have any or all of these things, rejoice and be grateful. Hundreds of millions on our small planet lack these essentials...not because they deserve such paucity and poverty, not because they are lazy. But most often because of where they were born. And for no other reason.

Think about this the next time you are tempted to wallow in your own self pity, before you tell yourself 'what a horrible life I have!' Your life is anything but!

Let us not take for granted that which we have.


Tuesday, August 11, 2009

In the Footsteps Of The Prophet

Defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi has alleged that several male and female protesters held behind bars have been savagely raped, according to a document obtained by AFP on Monday.

"A number of detainees have said that some female detainees have been raped savagely. Young boys held in detention have also been savagely raped," Karroubi said in a letter to powerful cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

"The young boys are suffering from depression and serious physical and mental damage since their rapes."

Iran hit back on Monday at Western criticism of the mass trials of election protesters, saying it would strongly resist such "foreign intervention" in its domestic affairs.

Iran has put around 110 people in the dock over the protests unleashed since the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in June, including a French woman lecturer and two local employees of the British and French embassies.

Britain, France and the European Union have condemned what Washington has branded "show trials."

Iranian foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said the Western criticism was "illegal and surprising," and said statements by the embassy employees in court smacked of foreign meddling.

"The comments made by Iranians working here is an example of foreign intervention in Iran's domestic affairs. We will strongly stand against any intervention," he said, the IRNA news agency reported.

This story so far has been reported here, here and here.

Monday, August 10, 2009

HRW Bowing Down to the King

A delegation from Human Rights Watch was recently in Saudi Arabia. To investigate the mistreatment of women under Saudi Law? To campaign for the rights of homosexuals, subject to the death penalty in Saudi Arabia? To protest the lack of religious freedom in the Saudi Kingdom? To issue a report on Saudi political prisoners?

No, no, no, and no. The delegation arrived to raise money from wealthy Saudis by highlighting HRW's demonization of Israel. An HRW spokesperson, Sarah Leah Whitson, highlighted HRW's battles with "pro-Israel pressure groups in the US, the European Union and the United Nations." (Was Ms. Whitson required to wear a burkha, or are exceptions made for visiting anti-Israel "human rights" activists"? Driving a car, no doubt, was out of the question.)

Apparently, Ms. Whitson found no time to criticize Saudi Arabia's abysmal human rights record. But never fear, HRW "recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers.

There is nothing wrong with a human rights organization worrying about maltreatment of domestic workers. But there is something wrong when a human rights organization goes to one of the worst countries in the world for human rights to raise money to wage lawfare against Israel, and says not a word during the trip about the status of human rights in that country. In fact, it's a virtual certainty that everyone in Whitson's audience employs domestic servants, giving her a perfect, untaken opportunity to boast about HRW's work in improving the servants' status. But Whitson wasn't raising money for human rights, she was raising money for HRW's propaganda campaign against Israel.

Someone who claims to have worked for HRW wrote to me, "I can tell you that the people on the research and policy side of the organization have little, if any, contacts with people on the donor side." If that's true, apparently this is yet another exception HRW makes for Israel: Ms. Whitson, who gave the presentation to potential Saudi donors, is director of HRW's Middle East and North Africa

Also, as a Nathan Wagner comments at Opinio Juris: "Surely there is a moral difference between raising funds in free nations through appeals to ideals of universal human rights and raising money in repressive nations through appeals highlighting pressure brought against their enemies. [Moreover], the former type of fundraising does not imperil the organization's mission, but fundraising Bernstein highlights does, since any significant reliance on such funds will necessarily mute criticism of the repressive government."

Finally, some would defend HRW by pointing it that it has criticized Saudi Arabia's human rights record rather severely in the past. The point of my post, though, is not that HRW is pro-Saudi, but that it is maniacally anti-Israel. The most recent manifestation is that its officers see nothing unseemly about raising funds among the elite of one of the most totalitarian nations on earth, with a pitch about how the money is needed to fight "pro-Israel forces," without the felt need to discuss any of the Saudis' manifold human rights violations, and without apparent concern that becoming dependent on funds emanating from a brutal dictatorship leaves you vulnerable to that brutal dictatorship later cutting off the flow of funds, if you don't "behave."

David Bernstein, Wall Street Journal.

Sunday, August 09, 2009

Never Forget!

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
The Declaration of Independence

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.
Thomas Paine

I Am Not Sorry For This

Here is a man who was born in an obscure village, the child of a peasant woman. He grew up in another village. He worked in a carpenter shop until He was thirty. Then for three years He was an itinerant preacher.

He never owned a home. He never wrote a book. He never held an office. He never had a family. He never went to college. He never put His foot inside a big city. He never traveled two hundred miles from the place He was born. He never did one of the things that usually accompany greatness. He had no credentials but Himself.

While still a young man, the tide of popular opinion turned against him. His friends ran away. One of them denied Him. He was turned over to His enemies. He went through the mockery of a trial. He was nailed upon a cross between two thieves. While He was dying His executioners gambled for the only piece of property He had on earth – His coat. When He was dead, He was laid in a borrowed grave through the pity of a friend.

Nineteen long centuries have come and gone, and today He is a centerpiece of the human race and leader of the column of progress.

I am far within the mark when I say that all the armies that ever marched, all the navies that were ever built; all the parliaments that ever sat and all the kings that ever reigned, put together, have not affected the life of man upon this earth as powerfully as has that one solitary life.

James Allen Francis

That is the man I call my God and my Lord. I am not sorry for that and I never will be. I am not sorry I posted these words on this blog. I am not sorry I might have offended some of our readers. I am not sorry that I don't follow the 21st century crowd of "cool" people that adhere to Buddhism or New Age way of thinking or Agnosticism. I respectfully disagree with all those ideas and ways of life and once again, I am not sorry for that.

Today when I read about foot baths being installed on some university campuses in America for Muslims, who are respected as devout followers of "god", Buddhism being preached through movies, Hindus being portrayed as wise men and women--it breaks my heart, not because of the way these religions and "ways" are portrayed but because on those same media, Christians are ridiculed, Christ is made fun of, Christians are portrayed as dumb, thick skulled morons that don't know their right from their left. Yes, it breaks my heart.

So many centuries have past since Christ walked the earth. People that have decided to be against Him still hate Him as they did 2000 years ago. But I am not one of those people that try very hard to please others. I am not going to apologize for my faith in Christ, not to Leftists, not to Atheists, Agnostics, Buddhists, Jews or, and yes, I am saying this loud and clear here, not even to Muslims.

Many might have forgotten this but the reason that I am even able to say what I just said in the last few paragraphs is because of the western civilization rooted in Judeo-Christian values. And again, I am not sorry for repeating this fact!

Saturday, August 08, 2009

A Rude Awakening

At last, the mainstream media are beginning to recognise that Europeans have a dark, bleak future. Bat Ye’or has written much about Eurabia, warning us all of impending danger. I have written The Dawning of a New Dark Age. Many others have written, too, and have warned. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch springs immediately to mind.

Alas, the powers that be, hitherto, have been unwilling to take the tough measures necessary to stop this trend of increasing Islamisation. Not only that, they have made matters far worse than they need be by allowing mass immigration from mainly Muslim countries, and giving in to Muslims’ demands at every turn so as to appease the Muslim voters and garner more votes for their party. This is particularly true of the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. Again, we see the leftist, socialist agenda kicking in to destroy our way of life.

Working women have little time to have babies, and when they do have them, it is usually late in life, allowing time for one or two babies at most.

In our warped Western way of life, these days a woman being able to climb the career ladder is far more important for society than a woman who elects to stay home and be a full-time, caring mother. The result of these mistaken choices are beginning to become plain to see: We are losing our Judeo-Christian civilisation to the Islamic world. What Muslims once failed to do by force, they are now doing by silent invasion; and Westerners are sitting back and allowing this to happen.

A civilisation which is unprepared to fight for what it believes in is destined to perish; and perish Western civilisation will unless this whole process is kicked into reverse. The process can be reversed. But the will has to be there. The will and the determination.

Surely people can by now see what life will be like for us and our children when Islam becomes dominant. Women will become second class citizens. Gays will be executed. Apostasy will be punishable by death. Christians and Jews will be given dhimmi status, i.e. will become protected citizens in return for the price of a punitive tax called the jizyah. Adherents to all other religions, i.e. those who are not ‘People of the Book’, will not be tolerated.

Sharia law will be introduced, and henceforward, the whole gamut of harsh punishments for transgressions, minor and major, will be utilised: stonings for adultery, beheadings for crime, amputations for theft. Of course, because of the changing mentality of the people, honour-killings for women who bring shame on the family will become ever more commonplace.

What many Westerners fail to understand is this: There is no such thing as Islam-lite. Islam remains as Islam always was: unchanging and unchangeable; strict and harsh; supremacist and domineering.

We, all of us, have tough decisions to make about our children’s future. Do we want to leave a world behind for them which will enable them to live as we have been able to live: in freedom and security, free from religious harassment? Or do we want to cast all fate to the wind and let the chips fall for them where they may?

It is to be hoped that we will all opt for the former; after all, it’s the only sensible, responsible option.

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

There Is No God but God?

Wednesday, August 05, 2009