Race Relations had 42 hits this month. Of these, the majority were once again from the US and UK, although this month Canada, Slovakia and Argentina get special mentions.
As always, the most interesting part of this month's stats are the searches that led people to find the site. Easily the most searched-for keyword of late has been "anjem". I'm not sure what these people were looking for, but I'd assume that in searching for this they ended up finding this post, in which I linked to a video of British jihadist Anjem Choudary justifying terrorist attacks against innocent civilians. I also continue to be amazed by the amount of people who get here by searching for Muhammad's "raisin-head" quote. I had no idea it was that well-known.
One of the more bizarre search strings was "do radical muslims killed women", and one chap even got here by searching for "islam is vile". Not sure what that led him to since I have never said that here, but whatever it was I hope he enjoyed it.
And on a related note, I'd like to once again thank everyone who has visited the site and attempted to contribute. It is appreciated. I hope you will all come back again some time.
Also, I'll be gone again until the New Year, and will begin posting again in 2008. Happy New Year for the 1st, everyone, and make yourselves a resolution not to be racist or Islamophobic...
Friday 28 December 2007
Extras
So did you catch the "Extras" Christmas special last night?
Excellent, wasn't it?
Extras has never at any point been as funny as The Office. In terms of laughs, series one was the best. Series two was a little disappointing. It had its funny moments, but Gervais and Merchant lowered their standards somewhat, producing a series of pretty unrealistic, somewhat unlikely situations and reducing the character of Maggie to someone whose only purpose was to say the wrong thing at the wrong time and get Andy in trouble. And this after she was supposed to have grown up at the end of series one.
The special was really more drama than comedy, with high emotional stakes, but there were some funny moments - and the drama was excellently written and acted. And at the end of it all, there was a real message there. Andy's climactic speech on the nature of celebrity and the media was brilliantly written and acted by Ricky Gervais - I actually found myself getting quite emotional as he was speaking it! Those who put Gervais down should check out his acting here, as well as in the final scene of the second series of The Office in which a tearful David Brent begs not to be made redundant.
Overall, Extras has never reached the heights of The Office at its best - but what else has? Series one was the funniest, series two was the weakest - and the special was the most dramatic work Gervais and Merchant have done to date. No one should doubt their abilities as heavyweight television writers. Five stars.
Excellent, wasn't it?
Extras has never at any point been as funny as The Office. In terms of laughs, series one was the best. Series two was a little disappointing. It had its funny moments, but Gervais and Merchant lowered their standards somewhat, producing a series of pretty unrealistic, somewhat unlikely situations and reducing the character of Maggie to someone whose only purpose was to say the wrong thing at the wrong time and get Andy in trouble. And this after she was supposed to have grown up at the end of series one.
The special was really more drama than comedy, with high emotional stakes, but there were some funny moments - and the drama was excellently written and acted. And at the end of it all, there was a real message there. Andy's climactic speech on the nature of celebrity and the media was brilliantly written and acted by Ricky Gervais - I actually found myself getting quite emotional as he was speaking it! Those who put Gervais down should check out his acting here, as well as in the final scene of the second series of The Office in which a tearful David Brent begs not to be made redundant.
Overall, Extras has never reached the heights of The Office at its best - but what else has? Series one was the funniest, series two was the weakest - and the special was the most dramatic work Gervais and Merchant have done to date. No one should doubt their abilities as heavyweight television writers. Five stars.
Thursday 27 December 2007
Debating With Dhimmis Part II
The following is a reproduction of a recent exchange I had online, debating with your typical liberal PC Islamic apologist. I thought I'd post it as an example of the kind of thing I have to put up with when I attempt to educate people on Islam, and the typical responses I give. Also, it is noteworthy that this kind of level of "debate" really is what your average Western dhimmi goes in for.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote: What I meant was...
all your posts on concerning Islam
should be considered 'racist'.
My reply: Really? And what race is Islam again?
How convenient.
I see. And yet those "experts in the field", some of the greatest scholars and jurists in the history of Islam, seem to have come to the conclusion that Islam is teaching Muslims hatred and violence, as I have demonstrated many times with quotes from great Islamic thinkers. And in the modern day, influential clerics and imams seem also to have got the impression that Islam is violent: Omar Rahman, a lecturer at Islam's highest spiritual learning centre, Cairo's Al-Azhar University, once said: "Listen, my brother: there is a whole sura [chapter of the Qur'an] called 'The Spoils of War'; there is no Sura of Peace. Jihad and killing is the head of Islam. If you take it out, you cut off the head of Islam." Rahman later went on to mastermind the 1993 World Trade Centre bombing.
Did you catch that? That quote insinuating that violence was integral to Islam was not made by a "racist" - a highly educated Muslim said that; a Muslim who was teaching other Muslims about Islam - and who went on to be a terrorist. How does that happen?
And with this we get to the real crux of the thing: I am not a Qur'anic scholar. I have never claimed to be. And I don't interpret ANY passage of the Qur'an or Islamic tradition for myself. I only ever report on how jihadists use this material to justify violence, and how traditional Islamic scholars - not just "extremists" - interpret this same material. And according to you, doing that makes me hateful. It's amazing how many people today will accuse someone who reports on another person's hatred of being hateful themselves. It's the PC way to deal with uncomfortable ideas.
No, it's really not, because I have never said that Muslims are not human and should not be treated equally. In fact, I've actually said in the past: "I believe in the dignity and equality of rights of all people, and will continue to oppose the elements of Islam which contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights". How hateful!
No. But someone must have stolen your spine.
-----------------------------------------------------
Quote: What I meant was...
all your posts on concerning Islam
should be considered 'racist'.
My reply: Really? And what race is Islam again?
Quote:
| I must say... you sure did a lot of research. Now I could do research of my own to refute your ridiculous claims, but frankly... I'm lazy. |
Quote:
| I am just gonna say this... The words of the Prophet... The verses of the Quran... The words of the Prophet's companions... cannot be interpreted by just anyone. Only experts in the fields of Islamic studies and Arabic Literature are qualified to do so. |
Did you catch that? That quote insinuating that violence was integral to Islam was not made by a "racist" - a highly educated Muslim said that; a Muslim who was teaching other Muslims about Islam - and who went on to be a terrorist. How does that happen?
And with this we get to the real crux of the thing: I am not a Qur'anic scholar. I have never claimed to be. And I don't interpret ANY passage of the Qur'an or Islamic tradition for myself. I only ever report on how jihadists use this material to justify violence, and how traditional Islamic scholars - not just "extremists" - interpret this same material. And according to you, doing that makes me hateful. It's amazing how many people today will accuse someone who reports on another person's hatred of being hateful themselves. It's the PC way to deal with uncomfortable ideas.
Quote:
| It's like trying to explain to a KKK member that Blacks are humans too and should be treated as such. |
Quote:
| What happened to you? Seriously. Did a Muslim kid steal your lollipop when you were young? |
Islam 101
OTHER OPPRESSIONS
“Allah's Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” (Sahih Bukhari v.9, b.83, no.37)
We have seen that if you are a woman or a non-Muslim, you are going to have an uncomfortable time (to say the least) under sharia. But if you're a Muslim male, it's entirely different, right?
Not quite. While Muslim men enjoy many luxuries under Islamic law, sharia still holds plenty of seventh-century barbarisms in store for anyone who breaks its rules, and others who misbehave are also likely to find themselves in trouble. Islam matches, and maybe even exceeds, the brutal punishments laid out in the Old Testament of the Bible – the main difference being that Islam has never evolved away from these harsh rulings, and they are still part of Islamic law today, for any Muslim authority to legitimately enforce if they so choose.
Perhaps the most notorious and well-known of the Qur'an's over-the-top punishments is the penalty of amputation for theft: “As for the thief, both male and female, cut off their hands. It is the reward of their own deeds, an exemplary punishment from Allah. Allah is Mighty, Wise.” (Qur'an 5:38) This prohibition, however, does not seem to have been absolute, as Muhammad encouraged the taking of booty from his enemies after raids and battles on numerous occasions, and the Qur'an even directs that one-fifth of all war spoils should be donated to Allah and his charitable works (8:41).
Islam also mandates death penalties for a variety of offenses, one of the most striking being for apostasy – leaving Islam. Numerous hadith traditions have Muhammad recorded as saying simply, “Whoever changes his Islamic religion, then kill him.” (Bukhari v.9, b.88, no.6922, and others). Umdat al-Salik says that “when a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostasizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed”. Many radical Muslims take this law very seriously, and it has even been implemented in the new Afghanistan, which – backed by Coalition forces – is supposed to be a flowering democracy: Abdul Rahman, a convert to Christianity, was arrested and put on trial for his life there in 2006, only to later be released due to international pressure.
Homosexuals are also to be put to death, in line with Muhammad's sayings: “If a man who is not married is seized committing sodomy, he will be stoned to death” (Abu Dawud, b.38, no.4448); “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him” (quoted in Umdat al-Salik). There are currently several convicted homosexuals awaiting execution in Iran.
Sharia also punishes adultery with death by stoning. Apologists for Islam are quick to point out that while Islamic law may indeed command this, the punishment is not mandated in the Qur'an, which says only that adulterers should be given a hundred lashes (24:2), and that therefore the law can be easily reformed. However, in one hadith tradition caliph Umar explains that the Qur'an did originally contain a verse calling for the stoning of adulterers, but it was somehow inadvertently dropped (Bukhari v.8, b.86, no.6830). Also, Muhammad himself enforced the stoning punishment, as on one occasion when he came across some Jews who had convicted a couple of adultery. Muhammad asked them what their prescribed punishment was for such a crime. Ever since the destruction of the Temple Mount in 70 CE, the Jews had moved away from barbarous capital punishments, and the group that Muhammad encountered attempted to dissemble, claiming that the punishment the Torah prescribed for adultery was lashes only. However, Muhammad called them out on this and scolded them for ignoring their scriptures, before ordering that the couple be stoned anyway (Bukhari v.4, b.61, no.3635). Convicted adulterers are still feeling the sting of those stones in the Islamic world today.
When British teacher Gillian Gibbons was recently arrested in Sudan for allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Muhammad, many Westerners were surprised at the anger and death threats that came her way from Sudanese Muslims. Left unexplored in the mainstream media were the roots of this farce, going back to the time of Muhammad, who ordered the assassinations of people who wrote “insulting” poems about him. To this day, some Islamic legal schools still teach that non-Muslims in Islamic countries who “mention something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet . . . or Islam” can face one of four fates: death, enslavement, ransoming in exchange for money or release without paying anything, depending on the will of the person in charge. It is unanimously agreed among all the schools that if a Muslim insults Muhammad they should be put to death.
Islam is also very clear in condoning slavery. Muhammad owned dozens of slaves and did not at all disapprove of the practice. He even gave Muslims permission to have sex with slave girls they owned: “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (Qur'an 4:24) Islamic tradition records numerous unsavoury incidents in which Muhammad gave his men permission to rape women they had captured in battle, e.g: “We got female captives in the war booty and we used to do coitus interruptus with them. So we asked Allah's Apostle about it and he said, 'Do you really do that?' repeating the question thrice, 'There is no soul that is destined to exist but will come into existence, till the Day of Resurrection.'” (Bukhari v.7, b.62, no.137) In other words, you can have as much sex as you like with your captives; the women won't get pregnant if Allah doesn't want them to. The Prophet also did it himself, “marrying” the wife of a Jewish leader whom he had just ordered beheaded after the siege of Khaybar. It is not recorded whether she consented, but it seems unlikely that she would marry and have sex with a man who had that same day murdered her husband.
Slavery has been a constant throughout Islamic history, particularly trading among non-Muslim slaves. Muslim forces would launch regular raids on non-Muslim lands specifically to acquire slaves, particularly from Greece and India, and would then sell them off for trading in other parts of the Islamic world. These slaves often also faced pressure to convert to Islam. One English captive from the eighteenth century recounted how he finally gave in to this pressure after his Muslim captors resorted to torture, setting him on fire on multiple occasions.
There is even evidence that some Western Muslims still keep slaves today. In 2006 a Saudi man in the US was found guilty of keeping a woman as a slave. The following month an Egyptian couple living in California were convicted of keeping a ten year old girl as a slave. And in early 2007 an attaché of the Kuwaiti embassy in Washington and his wife were charged with keeping three Christians in slave-like conditions.
But how is this any different to Christianity? The Bible, like the Qur'an, takes slavery for granted, never condemning it, and the Old Testament even contains regulations about selling your daughters as slaves.
And yet there has been opposition to slavery within the Christian world as far back as the Dark Ages. St Isidore of Seville declared that "God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman". Charlemagne and other Christian leaders also opposed it. In the 1500s, the Catholic missionary and bishop Bartolomé de Las Casas was instrumental in enacting a Spanish law forbidding the enslavement of the Indians. Furthermore, the end of slavery has its roots in Christian principles, as pioneering abolitionists such as Clarkson, Wilberforce, and Garrison were motivated by their deep Christian faith, and the Biblical assumption of the dignity and equality of all who are redeemed in Christ. Even Abraham Lincoln was compelled to help the families of slaves by appealing to Christian principles, including the Golden Rule of Jesus: Treat others as you wish to be treated.
This is not the case with Islam. Islamic slavery lasted longer and brought suffering to more people than did Christian slavery. It is estimated that the transatlantic slave trade, which operated between the sixteenth and nineteenth centuries, involved 10.5 million people, while the Islamic slave trade lasted from the seventh century to the nineteenth and involved 17 million people.
There was no abolitionist movement within Islam. When slavery did end, it was through British military force. Slavery is still openly practised in Sudan, and only ended in several Islamic countries (through Western pressure) very recently. And there is evidence that it is underhandedly practised in a good deal of other countries, such as Niger, which only abolished slavery in 2004 but where the laws are largely ignored and as many as a million people remain in bondage.
There are, of course, brave anti-slavery campaigners in the Muslim world, but they are finding it hard going because of the support for it in the Qur'an and Muhammad's (the Perfect Man's) example.
With all this oppression mandated in Islamic law, you may find yourself wanting to stay indoors and relax with a bit of self-expression or appreciation of the arts. But alas, this is forbidden also. Muhammad banned musical instruments: “Allah Mighty and Majestic sent me as a guidance and mercy to believers and commanded me to do away with musical instruments, flutes, strings, crucifixes, and the affair of the pre-Islamic period of ignorance. On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress. Song makes hypocrisy grow in the heart as water does herbage.” (quoted in Umdat al-Salik) No doubt this would have been on the mind of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he famously uttered, “Music is treason to our nation and to our youth.” Muhammad also prohibited representational art: “Angels do not enter a house wherein there is a dog or some images (or pictures, etc) of living creatures (a human being or an animal etc).” (Bukhari v.4, b.59, no.3225)
And don't even think about sitting down and chilling out with a glass of wine, for alcohol is an “abomination, of Satan's handwork” (Qur'an 5:90).
It seems that Islam, in its traditional form, really doesn't allow you to do an awful lot, even if you're an astute believer. Of course, many Muslims do not subscribe to many of their religion's harshest ideals, and most Muslim countries are not enforcing full sharia law. But this system is precisely what Islamic supremacists want to impose on the rest of the world – by violence, if necessary. It is a system which is discriminatory and barbaric, and it stifles - maybe even denies - freedom of thought and expression. Which is why those of us in the West who value our freedom need to be aware of what it is we are defending ourselves against, if we are ever to summon up the will to prevent it from coming to pass.
For, as we shall see, Islam and liberal democracy do not go hand in hand.
Israel: Saying "Muhammad Is Dead" Is Racist
Israeli football club Betar Jerusalem is being punished for its fans' "racist" chants against Sakhnin. The fans supposedly chanted "Muhammad is dead".
Yep, racism. How can the Sakhnin team live with themselves now, carrying all that hurt?
Yep, racism. How can the Sakhnin team live with themselves now, carrying all that hurt?
Friday 21 December 2007
An Apology and A Merry Christmas
I'm at a different computer today, and so had to sign in, rather than just opening up Blogger and finding myself already signed in, as usually happens at home. And so I opened up the main page and found that I have had a bunch of unmoderated comments which I have failed to publish. I could have sworn I turned comment moderation off already; in any case I've done so again and now all the worthy comments (barring the adverts) are published on the site, and hopefully in future all comments will be published automatically (even adverts). In the mean time, I just want to apologise to everyone who attempted to post a comment here and found that it never got published and I never responded to it. It won't happen again, I hope.
But as I'm not at home and only have temporary access to a computer, I'm also going to take this opportunity to say that I won't be posting again until after Christmas. I've got some busy days ahead, limited Internet access, and won't have the time. In any case, thanks to all who have read (and commented on) the blog this year, and I hope you will keep coming back in 2008.
Merry Christmas. I would say "ho ho ho!" but that's banned, along with the n-word. :)
But as I'm not at home and only have temporary access to a computer, I'm also going to take this opportunity to say that I won't be posting again until after Christmas. I've got some busy days ahead, limited Internet access, and won't have the time. In any case, thanks to all who have read (and commented on) the blog this year, and I hope you will keep coming back in 2008.
Merry Christmas. I would say "ho ho ho!" but that's banned, along with the n-word. :)
The Lunatics Are Taking Over The Asylum
The findings from the Count Me In 2007 census ethnicity data shows that African people in Britain are over three times more likely to be admitted and detained as inpatients in mental health and learning disability services than the UK’s ethnic majority. The report acknowledges that a whole slew of factors are responsible for this - one of them, of course, being racism, which it seems to concentrate an inordinate amount of time on, although it presents no evidence to show that this is a factor at all. Indeed, it can't.
Anti-African racism in the UK health services...hmmm, that must be why we employ so many of them as doctors.
Anti-African racism in the UK health services...hmmm, that must be why we employ so many of them as doctors.
Thursday 20 December 2007
Cyp-Riot
Cypriot society is deeply racist towards non-locals, according to a survey of migrants, repatriates and Pontians.
Now, given the recent farce of the Israel "anti-Arab" racism survey, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about the methodology of this one. For starters, just because "Sixty-three per cent of those asked reported suffering from discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis", that doesn't mean they actually WERE suffering from any discrimination and prejudice, as has been shown numerous times by the innocuous claims of "racism" we see from immigrants over here.
Now, given the recent farce of the Israel "anti-Arab" racism survey, forgive me if I'm a little skeptical about the methodology of this one. For starters, just because "Sixty-three per cent of those asked reported suffering from discrimination and prejudice on a daily basis", that doesn't mean they actually WERE suffering from any discrimination and prejudice, as has been shown numerous times by the innocuous claims of "racism" we see from immigrants over here.
Wednesday 19 December 2007
Let's Not Be Racist About Racism
At Family Security Matters there is an excellent article by Gabriel Garnica on what racism is - and what isn't. Here's an extract:
Be sure to read it all.
"The biggest tragedy in this society is that instead of combating racism and all form of prejudice in general and from any who exhibits it, we spend an inordinate amount of time defining prejudice by the standards and measures of political correctness. Given this distortion, we find that it is acceptable to exhibit prejudice against Whites, Christians, conservatives, the rich, the successful, the patriotic and all members of any non-White group who likewise exhibit these characteristics.
Do the same thing against non-Whites, Muslims, liberals, the poor, the marginalized, those who blame America for everything and any Whites who champion these characteristics and you are a hateful criminal out to impose your views and likely to destroy our society as we know it.
Be sure to read it all.
Monday 17 December 2007
Round-up
1. Wesley Snipes has slammed the media for portraying him as a "bad guy" after he was charged with tax fraud, claiming he is a victim of racism. I've covered this one before.
2. An excellent piece by black writer Elbert Lewis Jr, in which he chastises the poor and uneducated in the black community for mostly bringing their condition upon themselves and then playing the race card because it's the easy option. Racist! Oh, wait...
2. An excellent piece by black writer Elbert Lewis Jr, in which he chastises the poor and uneducated in the black community for mostly bringing their condition upon themselves and then playing the race card because it's the easy option. Racist! Oh, wait...
Thursday 13 December 2007
Master of Eurabia
Remember that back in June Muhammad was second only to Jack as the most popular boys' name in Britain?
Well, looks like it's just about to take the top spot.
Eurabia here we come.
Well, looks like it's just about to take the top spot.
Eurabia here we come.
Islam 101
ISLAM OPPRESSES RELIGIOUS MINORITIES
“[T]he taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.”
(Jalaloddin As-Suyuti, 1445-1505 AD)
“[T]he taker sits and the dhimmi stands with his head bowed and his back bent. The jizya is placed in the balance and the taker seizes his beard and hits his chin.”
(Jalaloddin As-Suyuti, 1445-1505 AD)
In my first series of articles, I made brief reference to the system of the dhimma, which institutionalises discrimination and oppression against non-Muslims in Muslim lands. But what does this entail in practice?
Dhimmis are non-Muslims (particularly the People of the Book: Jews and Christians) living under Islamic rule. Islamic law dictates that while dhimmis are free to practise their own religions in an Islamic state, they are only allowed to do so under severely restrictive conditions which emphasise their second-class status at every turn and are designed to make sure the dhimmis “feel themselves subdued”, as per Qur'an 9:29:
“[Dhimmis] are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar); are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum" [the traditional Muslim greeting “peace be with you”]; must keep to the side of the street; may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed; are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, [or] to ring church bells or display crosses, recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays; and are forbidden to build new churches.” (Umdat al-Salik)
Furthermore, “If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.”
The “non-Muslim poll tax”, of course, is the jizya, also referred to in Qur'an 9:29. This was the cornerstone of the dhimmi system, and provided the main source of income for many Islamic empires throughout history. Some have erroneously compared the jizya to zakat, a Muslim charity tax, claiming that while dhimmis paid the jizya, Muslims paid zakat. Unfortunately for such apologists, though, the only similarity between the two is that they are both taxes. Zakat was usually 2.5% of a Muslim's annual earnings and was enforced loosely and with certain concessions available, with the money going to the poor and needy in the Muslim community. By contrast, the jizya was often set so high that dhimmis could not afford to pay it; it was collected by force and the funds went directly towards financing the Islamic state.
The jizya was also, historically, a good way of continuing the institutionalised humiliation of the dhimmis. It was often collected as part of a demeaning and belittling ceremony in which the Muslim tax official would hit the dhimmi over the head as he placed the money on the scales. The thirteenth-century jurist an-Nawawi directed that “the infidel who wishes to pay his poll tax must be treated with disdain by the collector; the collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks.”
Likewise, many Islamic scholars expressed the view that dhimmis should be made to feel inferior, with Ibn Kathir declaring that the dhimmis must be “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of Dhimmah or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated.”
It was largely because of the jizya that several prosperous non-Muslim populations were whittled down to tiny, despised minorities. Because of this unbearable tax, many dhimmis chose to convert to Islam in the hope that their lives would be improved. As a result, some religious demographics virtually vanished from the face of the Earth. For example, the Assyrian Christians, who were once all over Central Asia and the Middle East, are now largely confined to Iraq, where they face continuous persecution from Muslim radicals. Similarly Zoroastrianism, once the dominant religion in Persia, is now virtually non-existent except as a tiny minority in Iran.
Islamic apologists often point out that Islamic law forbids forced conversion, based on the Qur'an: “Let there be no compulsion in religion” (2:256). By mentioning this, they hope to make the case that early Islam's violent expansion was against the principles of the religion. But while this verse is in any case open to some interpretation, it is also beside the point. By and large, Islam did not spread by Muslims forcing non-Muslims to convert (although this did often happen). What spread by the sword was the hegemony of the Islamic legal system, which institutionalised discrimination against non-Muslims in the form of the dhimma. Subsequently, being a dhimmi was such an oppressive and horrible way to live that many dhimmis chose to convert. So the religion was not forced on them, but at the same time it was their only path to a livable existence.
Apologists have also been known to dredge up instances in which certain caliphs or Islamic rulers relaxed the dhimmi laws, or even cases where Jews and Christians achieved things of importance, or rose to levels of high authority, while living in Muslim lands. However, this hardly speaks volumes for Islamic tolerance. If the oppressions were sometimes lifted, it was not because Islam moved away from them. In fact, the dhimmi laws were still on the books, ready to be reinforced at any time, and often when they were relaxed Muslims would riot and rebel, complaining of a “breach of sharia”. Certainly, the dhimma was enforced by Muslim rulers throughout history more often than it was not.
Others even go as far as to suggest that even if non-Muslims were oppressed in the Middle Ages, this is nothing compared to how medieval Christians treated Jews. And it is true that Christianity has a history shamefully mired by anti-Semitism. Many popes forced oppressions on the Jews which were very similar to those inflicted on dhimmis. However, there is nothing in Christian tradition which mandates the subjugation of Jews, and many popes also relaxed or abolished these laws. There may have been much anti-Semitism in Christianity's past, but it is not as constant as in Islamic history. And in any case, Christian oppression of Jews was usually not as harsh as dhimmitude. For example, while the dhimma forbids Jews from publicly celebrating their religious festivals, Gregory X decreed in 1272 that Jews under his “protection” could do so, and he also opted for a form of fairness in not allowing Jews and Christians to testify against each other – whereas sharia law allows a Muslim to testify against a dhimmi, but a dhimmi cannot testify against a Muslim.
Modern jihadists are open and unreserved about their desire to see sharia law implemented in the West, and this would undoubtedly include the re-institution of the dhimma. Numerous clerics and scholars, such as Sheik Marzouq Salem al-Ghamdi in a sermon at a mosque in Mecca in 2002, have called for the dhimma to be re-instated. If the jihadists or their non-violent sympathisers were to get their way, non-Muslims would be discriminated against as part of judicial law. This is one reason why all non-Muslims, no matter their faith or lack thereof – and indeed, all Muslims of good will, also – should do their utmost to ensure that this intolerant system is never allowed to take root in the West.
Unfortunately, too many remain indifferent.
Next time: If you're a Muslim male, you're free from oppression under sharia, right? Wrong.
Good Jews!
At the beginning of the week I posted a link to a new survey which found that anti-Arab racism has skyrocketed among Israeli Jews. I expressed my disappointment in the Israelis that this was the case.
Well, looks like I spoke too soon, for here is the response from Jewish Press, exposing the far-Left leanings and biases behind the group that carried out the survey, and the highly flawed findings of the report.
Good Jews!
Well, looks like I spoke too soon, for here is the response from Jewish Press, exposing the far-Left leanings and biases behind the group that carried out the survey, and the highly flawed findings of the report.
Good Jews!
Wednesday 12 December 2007
Peer Criticises Muslim "Hotheads"
Muslim peer Baroness Warsi has hit out at Muslim "hardliners and hotheads" who use Islam to argue against voting and equal rights for women.
It is good to see a Muslim who is actually speaking out against the hardliners, rather and continually against "Islamophobes" who point out that these hardliners exist. It's also good to see her saying that Muslims should stop trying to claim the victim status and become more active in society.
I have problems with a couple of her comments, though.
"I've got a clear message to the hardliners and hotheads who claim to speak for British Muslims. When you say that voting is un-Islamic, you're wrong."
If this is the case, then one wonders why Islamic-based societies have always been so stringently un-democratic.
"When you say that women should not have access to education or employment; that women's equality is un-Islamic; or that women should not adopt leadership positions like politics, you're wrong, wrong, wrong."
In that case, Miss Warsi needs to explain just what is meant by the Qur'anic passages that say women are inferior to men and must be ruled by them (4:34), that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's (2:282), that a daughter's inheritance is half that of a son's (4:11), and other such decrees which seem to deny women equality of rights with men. Would Warsi be willing to explain how hardliners have misunderstood these passages? If so, she needs to do so because plenty of Muslims around the world seem to take these passages quite seriously.
"Islam was "unambiguous" in its rejection of forced marriages,"
Depends what you mean by "forced marriages". Muhammad, the Perfect Man in Islamic theology, allowed his soldiers to take the widows of their opponents as war booty after various battles. The Prophet himself married a young girl whose husband he had just ordered beheaded after the siege of Khaybar. So obviously Islam isn't quite "unambiguous" on the matter at all.
On the other hand, there is one more beacon of hope:
It is good to see a Muslim who is actually speaking out against the hardliners, rather and continually against "Islamophobes" who point out that these hardliners exist. It's also good to see her saying that Muslims should stop trying to claim the victim status and become more active in society.
I have problems with a couple of her comments, though.
"I've got a clear message to the hardliners and hotheads who claim to speak for British Muslims. When you say that voting is un-Islamic, you're wrong."
If this is the case, then one wonders why Islamic-based societies have always been so stringently un-democratic.
"When you say that women should not have access to education or employment; that women's equality is un-Islamic; or that women should not adopt leadership positions like politics, you're wrong, wrong, wrong."
In that case, Miss Warsi needs to explain just what is meant by the Qur'anic passages that say women are inferior to men and must be ruled by them (4:34), that a woman's testimony is worth half that of a man's (2:282), that a daughter's inheritance is half that of a son's (4:11), and other such decrees which seem to deny women equality of rights with men. Would Warsi be willing to explain how hardliners have misunderstood these passages? If so, she needs to do so because plenty of Muslims around the world seem to take these passages quite seriously.
"Islam was "unambiguous" in its rejection of forced marriages,"
Depends what you mean by "forced marriages". Muhammad, the Perfect Man in Islamic theology, allowed his soldiers to take the widows of their opponents as war booty after various battles. The Prophet himself married a young girl whose husband he had just ordered beheaded after the siege of Khaybar. So obviously Islam isn't quite "unambiguous" on the matter at all.
On the other hand, there is one more beacon of hope:
"She called on all members of the Muslim community to help in the fight against terrorism.
"We must accept that we're in all in this together - but Muslims have an added responsibility to defeat extremism, because extremism is claimed in the name of Islam," Baroness Warsi said."
Islamophobe!
Seriously, it is nice to see a Muslim actually acknowledging that it may be the Muslim community's RESPONSIBILITY to eradicate radicalism from within their own ranks, just as I have been saying for ages now, much to the constant criticism of dhimmis everywhere, who unfathomably find this totally unreasonable. How Baroness Warsi plans to do this, she doesn't say, but it is more than we have heard other "moderate" Muslims in Britain say for years.
Monday 10 December 2007
Bad Jews
A new survey has found that a large number of Jews have prejudices against Arabs. In a report, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said expression of anti-Arab views had doubled, and racist incidents had increased by 26%. In another poll, almost 75% of Jewish youths said Arabs were less intelligent and less clean than Jews.
Given what has been done to the Jews by the Arabs over the centuries, one may say that they have a right to feel suspicious or uncomfortable with the Arabs. But there's no excuse for this. I'm disappointed; I thought the Israelis were better than this.
Given what has been done to the Jews by the Arabs over the centuries, one may say that they have a right to feel suspicious or uncomfortable with the Arabs. But there's no excuse for this. I'm disappointed; I thought the Israelis were better than this.
Friday 7 December 2007
Suffer The Little Children
This is a strictly off-topic post...but in a way it is related to racism. The partner of political correctness and multi-culturalism is the Health And Safety Fascist Brigade. In many ways this mollycoddling nanny state attitude is very similar to racial political correctness, and is usually espoused by the same sorts of people.
And in the latest elf n' safety farce, we hear that pantomime performers have been banned from throwing sweets into the audience in case they hit children on the head.
As Richard Littlejohn is wont to say: You couldn't make it up.
And in the latest elf n' safety farce, we hear that pantomime performers have been banned from throwing sweets into the audience in case they hit children on the head.
As Richard Littlejohn is wont to say: You couldn't make it up.
Thursday 6 December 2007
Debating With Dhimmis
I've recently had a couple of online debates with liberal apologists about Islam, and its status as NOT a Religion of Peace. And it's amazing how many different kinds of apologists there are. Sometimes, these dhimmis will actually regress through the various different stages of apologism as the debate progresses. I have noticed this pattern:
- They start out by insisting that Islam is a Religion of Peace
- When you show them, through passages from the Qur'an, sunna and fiqh, that it isn't, they begin making excuses for the material you present
- When they can no longer defend Islam, they switch to firing verses of the Bible at you and wittering on about the Crusades
- When you ask them to point out a passage in the Bible which calls on all Christians to wage war against non-believers, or to cite a case in which Christians have used specific Bible verses to justify massive holy war, they are unable to do so
- When you call them out on all of the above, they call you names and falsely accuse you of every hideous crime known to man
But what surprised me most about these debates was that so many people found the idea that Muslims should be responsible for preventing the jihad of their co-religionists to be completely unreasonable. I was accused of wanting to round all Muslims up in "re-education camps" until they say exactly what I want to hear, and of thinking that all Muslims are inherently "bad" until I come along and mould them to my desires. All of which is ridiculous, of course. I ask only that Muslims work out ways to convince other Muslims that Islam is a Religion of Peace - in the face of mountains of Islamic tradition and law which says the opposite - rather than expending all their efforts trying to tell ME that. This is my opinion on what I think could be done to end Islamic radicalism. And while I come up with these ideas, hopeless dhimmis slam them down for no reason, while not coming up with any solutions of their own. It's enough to make you want to scream.
And why are they so obstinate? The answer is simply multi-culturalism - the idea that if Whitey calls on Brownie Muslims to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of the community, he is being arrogant, biased and bigoted. The desperation in these dhimmis' replies became increasingly clear as they backpeddled and moved the goalposts to suit their increasingly transparent worldviews. It would be sad if it wasn't so infuriating.
I also encountered several Muslims who stated flatly that Islam was a Religion of Peace without saying one single thing to contradict the evidence I presented to show that it wasn't. In the past one actually accused me of making violent Qur'an passages up. And yet the morally and intellectually snobbish leftists think that I should accept these people as true moderates. No mention is made by them of how plain denial by Muslims of what their religion teaches will prevent other Muslims from thinking it's telling them to be violent. No answers at all. Only blindness.
I finished my debate with them by saying, "I hope you enjoy paying the jizya." I really wish I was being sarcastic.
- They start out by insisting that Islam is a Religion of Peace
- When you show them, through passages from the Qur'an, sunna and fiqh, that it isn't, they begin making excuses for the material you present
- When they can no longer defend Islam, they switch to firing verses of the Bible at you and wittering on about the Crusades
- When you ask them to point out a passage in the Bible which calls on all Christians to wage war against non-believers, or to cite a case in which Christians have used specific Bible verses to justify massive holy war, they are unable to do so
- When you call them out on all of the above, they call you names and falsely accuse you of every hideous crime known to man
But what surprised me most about these debates was that so many people found the idea that Muslims should be responsible for preventing the jihad of their co-religionists to be completely unreasonable. I was accused of wanting to round all Muslims up in "re-education camps" until they say exactly what I want to hear, and of thinking that all Muslims are inherently "bad" until I come along and mould them to my desires. All of which is ridiculous, of course. I ask only that Muslims work out ways to convince other Muslims that Islam is a Religion of Peace - in the face of mountains of Islamic tradition and law which says the opposite - rather than expending all their efforts trying to tell ME that. This is my opinion on what I think could be done to end Islamic radicalism. And while I come up with these ideas, hopeless dhimmis slam them down for no reason, while not coming up with any solutions of their own. It's enough to make you want to scream.
And why are they so obstinate? The answer is simply multi-culturalism - the idea that if Whitey calls on Brownie Muslims to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of the community, he is being arrogant, biased and bigoted. The desperation in these dhimmis' replies became increasingly clear as they backpeddled and moved the goalposts to suit their increasingly transparent worldviews. It would be sad if it wasn't so infuriating.
I also encountered several Muslims who stated flatly that Islam was a Religion of Peace without saying one single thing to contradict the evidence I presented to show that it wasn't. In the past one actually accused me of making violent Qur'an passages up. And yet the morally and intellectually snobbish leftists think that I should accept these people as true moderates. No mention is made by them of how plain denial by Muslims of what their religion teaches will prevent other Muslims from thinking it's telling them to be violent. No answers at all. Only blindness.
I finished my debate with them by saying, "I hope you enjoy paying the jizya." I really wish I was being sarcastic.
Wednesday 5 December 2007
Load & Reload
You're gonna love this one:
"The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.Mohammed Hamid, who is charged with overseeing a two-year radicalisation programme to prepare London-based Muslim youths for jihad, was described as a “cockney comic” by a BBC producer.
The BBC paid for Mr Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari and Mousa Brown to go on a paintballing trip at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent, in February 2005. The men, accused of terrorism training, were filmed for a BBC programme called Don’t Panic, I’m Islamic, screened in June 2005."
Sarkozy Condemns Racism
French President Nicolas Sarkozy has enunciated the importance of fighting against racism, Islamophobia and anti-Semitism, speaking to business people in Algiers on Monday.
And yet, if you listen to some liberals, Sarkozy actually embodies all of these things himself. This is based, most likely, on the fact that he's a conservative, so therefore he must be a bigot - that's liberal rationality and tolerance for ya.
And yet, if you listen to some liberals, Sarkozy actually embodies all of these things himself. This is based, most likely, on the fact that he's a conservative, so therefore he must be a bigot - that's liberal rationality and tolerance for ya.
Thursday 29 November 2007
Monthly Stats
Race Relations had 49 unique hits this month: that's about 1.6 per day. Of these, most were again either from the UK or US, with the latter still leading the way in the overall hit count - although Portugal seems to have made a surge this month, also.
Of these, most were using Windows XP and browsing with Mozilla Firefox.
Three people found me this month by searching for Bukhari, vol. 9, book 88, no.6922 - which, as any good student of Islam knows, is the hadith tradition in which Muhammad says: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him". Typing the above reference into Google will lead you, on the first page, to this article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which I cited that particular tradition. I also got discovered by two more searches for Muhammad's "raisin-head" quote, and once more by a search for the BNP. Sigh...
Of these, most were using Windows XP and browsing with Mozilla Firefox.
Three people found me this month by searching for Bukhari, vol. 9, book 88, no.6922 - which, as any good student of Islam knows, is the hadith tradition in which Muhammad says: "Whoever changes his Islamic religion, kill him". Typing the above reference into Google will lead you, on the first page, to this article about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, in which I cited that particular tradition. I also got discovered by two more searches for Muhammad's "raisin-head" quote, and once more by a search for the BNP. Sigh...
Muhammad Bear on eBay
As the British teacher in Sudan is jailed for two weeks for naming a teddy bear Muhammad, some humourous fellow is selling "Muhammad Bear" on eBay. Love the notes from the seller.
Round-up
1. Singer Morrissey has been quoted in NME as saying Britain has undergone an "immigration explosion". The article adds that he wouldn't return to live in Britain because "the gates are flooded". But the singer denies the words are his and his management is calling the story "defamatory".
I'm not bothered whether Morrissey did or did not really say this (although it sounds like him). What bothers me is that these words really aren't all that offensive or provocative (in fact, they are *gasp* true), and yet people are still complaining about the insensitivity of them. Not only has there been an "immigration explosion" in this country, but there has also been a conscious effort by the Left to close down debate. Neither is good.
2. A school canceled its stage performance of Agatha Christie’s “Ten Little Indians” after an NAACP official objected to the novel’s original title, ditched by publishers six decades ago - "Ten Little Niggers".
Yes, the production has indeed been canceled because it was racist 65 years ago. But the kids wouldn't know that. And the title was deliberately changed because of its offensive nature. And yet some oversensitive moron still thinks it's offensive. PC culture MUST DIE.
3. A Belgian woman of Congolese origin recently set herself on fire in the centre of Luxembourg City, Belgium, to protest against racism.
Now why didn't I think of that?
Wednesday 28 November 2007
Surprised?
Do I really need to comment on the British teacher in Sudan charged with insulting Islam after allowing her class to name a teddy bear Muhammad?
Stop Honour Killing
I see that my recent Islam 101 article on the oppression of women in Muslim countries has been linked by the blog Stop Honour Killing. Follow the link and check it out; it's a worthy and important cause.
Tuesday 27 November 2007
Round-up
1. A good article about "liberal racism"...read it for more details of exactly what this is, as there's more to it than it sounds.
2. The decision to yank a teen soccer player from a match because she was wearing a religious head scarf has outraged a Calgary Muslim leader. Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said Safaa Menhem should be permitted on the field wearing a hijab.
There is a great quote attributed to the 19th century British General Sir Charles James Napier. When questioned about his tough stance towards the Hindu custom of burning widows at the stake during the funerals of their husbands, Napier said: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Amen.
2. The decision to yank a teen soccer player from a match because she was wearing a religious head scarf has outraged a Calgary Muslim leader. Syed Soharwardy, president of the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada, said Safaa Menhem should be permitted on the field wearing a hijab.
"I don't buy it because a person could also pull a shirt and choke a person. This is not a safety issue. It is just a racist and discriminatory decision against Muslims," Soharwardy said. "Her rights should be respected -- this is her free choice."
Firstly, it is beyond repetition now that Islam is not a race. And secondly...them's da rules. I'm sure the girl was well aware of them before she played the game. It has nothing to do with Muslims; it has to do with health and safety and was not conceived specifically with headscarves in mind. It may be her "free choice" to wear one while playing football - but it is also the free choice of the authorities to then enforce the rules they have set up and ban her from playing.There is a great quote attributed to the 19th century British General Sir Charles James Napier. When questioned about his tough stance towards the Hindu custom of burning widows at the stake during the funerals of their husbands, Napier said: "You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
Amen.
Monday 26 November 2007
Leftists Hate Freedom
I see that the Oxford seminar on freedom of speech featuring guest speakers Nick Griffin and David Irving was delayed after loony leftists stormed the debate chamber and tried to protest.
Liberals don't understand freedom of speech. As a consequence, they despise it. Contrary to their bigoted rants, this talk was NOT about whether the views of these men are legitimate or not (and I don't think they are, either); it was about the freedom for people to say what they like without fear of persecution. But leftists have never supported that - they slam the "bigotry" of these people while themselves engaging in complete intolerance and closing down of views they disagree with.
Liberals don't understand freedom of speech. As a consequence, they despise it. Contrary to their bigoted rants, this talk was NOT about whether the views of these men are legitimate or not (and I don't think they are, either); it was about the freedom for people to say what they like without fear of persecution. But leftists have never supported that - they slam the "bigotry" of these people while themselves engaging in complete intolerance and closing down of views they disagree with.
Islam 101
ISLAM OPPRESSES WOMEN
"I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women" (narrated by Aisha: Bukhari, v.7, b.72, no. 715)
If jihadists ruled the world, perhaps the largest demographic to suffer would be women - that is half the Earth's population oppressed in a single stroke.
It is common today to hear Muslim spokesmen and apologists claim that while women are far more oppressed in Islamic countries than in the West, this oppression has little to nothing to do with Islam or the example of the Prophet. Others even go as far as to claim that Muhammad was a historical pioneer in women's rights. But how true is this? Did Muhammad really sanction misogyny and oppression of women? We shall look now at a number of human rights abuses committed against women in the Islamic world, and examine whether they really are consistent with Islam's core teachings.
Polygamy
The Qur'an is very clear in giving Muslim men the right to marry up to four women at one time, and also to have sex with slave girls: "Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice." (4:3)
Meanwhile, if a man is unsatisfied with his wife or wives, Islamic law says that he can divorce them simply by saying "I divorce you". Yet sometimes a man may divorce from his wife in a fit of rage and then want to take her back. This is permissible, but only a maximum of three times. Once the heartbroken woman has been divorced three times, the man cannot take her back a fourth time until she has married and slept at least once with another man. This has led to the phenomenon of "temporary husbands", where some randy Muslim male will "marry" the woman for the night so she can go back to her old husband.
All this is not some ancient custom or confined only to the Middle East. Muslim immigrants are bringing these practices to the West with them. It has been estimated that there are as many as four thousand polygamous families in Britain. Earlier this year it was revealed that Muslim immigrants who engaged in polygamy in Britain would be allowed to claim extra benefits - even though polygamy is illegal in this country.
Polygamy and temporary marriage reduce women to little more than commodities, and reinforce the idea that men and women are not equal partners, but rather women are something a man may accumulate as he wishes.
Child marriage
The Qur'an takes child marriage for granted. Take, for example, this passage, which explains the waiting period required to determine if a woman is pregnant before divorcing her: "Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same)" (65:4, emphasis added). Note that last part: here Allah is taking for granted a situation whereby a prepubescent girl is not only married, but is being divorced by her husband.
This may be because, infamously, Muhammad himself was no stranger to child marriage; he married his favourite wife, Aisha, before she hit puberty: "[The Prophet] married 'Aisha when she was a girl of six years of age, and he consummated that marriage when she was nine years old." (Bukhari v.5, b.58, no. 234, and others).
Because Muhammad is seen in Islam as the ultimate model of human behaviour (Qur'an 33:21), his example on this matter is still imitated by Muslims today. Iranian law allows girls to be married at the age of nine. The Ayatollah Khomeini married a girl of ten when he was twenty-eight. UNICEF reports that more than half the girls in Afghanistan and Bangladesh are married before they reach the age of eighteen. Researchers in refugee camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, as well other countries, have found over half the girls married by age thirteen. Even in Britain, imams have been caught praising the virtues of imitating the Prophet in this matter, as shown in a recent documentary broadcast on Channel 4.
Wife-beating
The Qur'an explicitly sanctions the beating of one's wife if she is disobedient: "Men are in charge of women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and scourge them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High, Exalted, Great." (Qur'an 4:34) Note also at the beginning of the passage the suggestion that women are inferior to men and must be ruled by them.
As with so many things, this not solely an extremist view. In 1984 Sheik Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is highly respected and influential in the Muslim world today, used this verse to justify wife-beating. In Pakistan, over 90% of women have been beaten or otherwise physically abused by their husbands - often for offenses on the order of cooking an unsatisfactory meal or giving birth to a female child. In other Muslim countries there are also alarmingly high levels of domestic abuse. Earlier this year, the President of Al-Azhar University in Cairo - the highest spiritual authority in Sunni Islam - reaffirmed the value and necessity for wife-beating according to this passage.
Covering up
For some reason, many people in the West seem to have assumed that the burqa was invented by the Taliban or some other such radical Muslim group. But in fact, it was also mandated by Muhammad: "Asma, daughter of Abu Bakr, entered upon the Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) wearing thin clothes. The Apostle of Allah (peace be upon him) turned his attention from her. He said: 'O Asma, when a woman reaches the age of menstruation, it does not suit her that she displays her parts of body except this and this,' and he pointed to her face and hands." (Abu Dawud b.32, no.4092)
While this symbol of Islamic oppression is not strictly followed in all parts of the world, in some areas women have been brutalised and even killed for not adhering to it. One infamous example took place in Mecca in 2002. Fifteen girls died in a fire at their school when the Saudi religious police refused to let them out of the building, because in the female-only environment of the school they had shed their concealing outer garments. The muttawa preferred that the girls die rather than show themselves to men in public, and even battled with emergency services who were trying to open the doors.
Rape laws
One of the most appalling Islamic abuses of women concerns rape, and is a direct result of Muhammad's own behaviour.
Islamic tradition tells how Aisha was once accused of adultery. Muhammad was outraged by the accusations and refused to believe that they could be true (which they probably weren't, in any case). Eventually he received a new revelation from Allah which absolved Aisha of all guilt and scolded the accusers for failing to bring forward four witnesses to testify to the crime: "Why did they not produce four witnesses? Since they produce not witnesses, they verily are liars in the sight of Allah." (24:13)
Indeed, Islam discriminates against women by stating that their testimony is worth half that of a man's: "And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not (at hand) then a man and two women, of such as ye approve as witnesses, so that if the one erreth (through forgetfulness) the other will remember." (2:282). The Islamic legal manual Umdat al-Salik says women can only testify in "cases involving property, or transactions dealing with property, such as sales". Otherwise only men can testify.
The consequence of this is that it is virtually impossible to prove rape in Islamic countries. As long as the man denies the charges and there are no witnesses, he gets off scot-free because the victim's account is inadmissible. Even worse, if a woman makes an accusation of rape but cannot prove it with appropriate testimony, she may be incriminated on charges of adultery. This accounts for the fact that up to 75% of women in jail in Pakistan are there because they were the victims of rape. In Nigeria women have also been sentenced to death for being raped.
So are there any malpractices which aren't sanctioned by Islam? Well, yes, actually there are a couple:
Genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation, or circumcision, is designed to reduce a woman's sexual drive so that she will be less likely to commit adultery. There is little to nothing in Islamic tradition to justify this horrific and painful act, and it is also practised outside of Islam, but in any case it is still disturbingly common in an Islamic context, and is supported by some Islamic authorities. Umdat al-Salik says that circumcision is required "for both men and women". Muhammad Sayyed Tantawi, the grand imam of Al-Azhar University, says that female circumcision is "a laudable practise that [does] honour to women".
Honour killing
Honour killings are extremely common in the Islamic world. Women are killed by their own families for being raped or for being seen in public with a man who was not related to them, because they are viewed as having brought shame to the family or having compromised its honour. Justification for this in Islamic texts is scant, and once again it is not solely an Islamic custom; yet it could be said that these actions are the result of a culture that concentrates far more on shame and honour than on individual responsibility - and Islam has in many ways fostered this culture in many of its followers.
The bottom line
The fact is that adhering to Qur'anic literalism will inevitably result in more and more women suffering - whether it be by physical abuses or the heartbreak of multiple instantaneous divorces, they will suffer. As long as men continue to read the Qur'an and take it literally, women will be at risk. And given that the current global jihad network does indeed take the Qur'an very seriously, we should all hope that they never succeed in their mission to impose this system on us. In the mean time, we should give sober consideration to the suffering women are already going through in lands where such laws and behaviour hold sway.
Next time: What Islamic law mandates for dhimmis - that's most of you unless you convert with haste
Friday 23 November 2007
The N-Word..."No"
Renault has withdrawn an ad over fears that its use of the term "the N-word" could cause offence.
The car manufacturer decided to withdraw the ad after the Advertising Standards Authority received two complaints from members of the public who felt that the term carried racist connotations. Even though the ASA decided not to investigate the ad, which appeared in newspapers, Renault chose to withdraw it. The print ad was to promote a limited period during which Renault dealers promised not to use the word "no" to customers.
Yes, "the N-word" has racist connotations...but who gives a flying ****? I'll tell you who: politically correct wet liberal types who get a fantastic ego trip when showing their superior sense of morality by complaining about something which clearly isn't meant to be racist or offensive in any way. Whoever those two people were who complained about the ad...I pity you.
Thursday 22 November 2007
Happy Thanksgiving
To any American readers I just want to say, Happy Thanksgiving from across the pond. Today is the day to think of all the great things your great country has achieved over the years, and all the good that it has yet to achieve. And perhaps, in these times, it is also a time to think about what you have that is worth defending from the threat of Islamic jihad that seeks to take it away.
Happy holidays from a Limey who is proud to be a friend and ally of the United States of America.
Happy holidays from a Limey who is proud to be a friend and ally of the United States of America.
Wednesday 21 November 2007
England 2; Croatia 3
So there we have it, then. England defeated once more and failing to qualify for Euro 2008.
And what is the sole cause of this? Simple: gutlessness. All round, from top to bottom, gutlessness. Our gutless FA made the easy decision after Sven left by appointing a gutless manager, and he is residing over a bunch of gutless players who mostly do not have the bottle to take games like this by the scruff of the neck.
There are exceptions to the latter, of course. Wayne Rooney, had he been playing, would have played his heart out. And David Beckham, when he came on, was the only one who looked bothered. He actually RAN to take corners only a couple of minutes into the second half. Because he WANTED to achieve something. The rest couldn't have cared less.
And as for the manager: his own gutlessness was clear in the overly negative, counter-productive system he played from the outset. When he did grow the balls to do something at half-time, he brought on the right players - but took off the excellent Gareth Barry instead of the hopeless and non-existent Frank Lampard, whose converted penalty hardly makes his contribution worth anything more. And his inclusion of Lampard at all was laughable, given that everyone knows by now that he and Gerrard simply can't play together, and Barry and Gerrard had already proven to be a respectable partnership.
The FA, of course, should be ashamed of their own role in all this. They took the most convenient route in appointing McClaren after Eriksson left, when there were other managers available, proven World Cup winners, in the running. They scared Scolari off with unreasonable demands, and even recently had the chance to get Jose Mourinho in. But Mourinho didn't want the job if we failed to qualify, so the chance is now gone.
It goes without saying that they should sack McClaren immediately, but the problem is that there is no one to replace him with. Mourinho no longer wants it, and the only to other managers capable of the job - Wenger and Ferguson - are obviously not even in contention. The bottom line: they should have sacked McClaren weeks ago and appointed Mourinho to get us to the finals. But they would never do that, because they're cowards.
England didn't deserve to go through. And the blame can be placed at every level of the hierarchy.
And what is the sole cause of this? Simple: gutlessness. All round, from top to bottom, gutlessness. Our gutless FA made the easy decision after Sven left by appointing a gutless manager, and he is residing over a bunch of gutless players who mostly do not have the bottle to take games like this by the scruff of the neck.
There are exceptions to the latter, of course. Wayne Rooney, had he been playing, would have played his heart out. And David Beckham, when he came on, was the only one who looked bothered. He actually RAN to take corners only a couple of minutes into the second half. Because he WANTED to achieve something. The rest couldn't have cared less.
And as for the manager: his own gutlessness was clear in the overly negative, counter-productive system he played from the outset. When he did grow the balls to do something at half-time, he brought on the right players - but took off the excellent Gareth Barry instead of the hopeless and non-existent Frank Lampard, whose converted penalty hardly makes his contribution worth anything more. And his inclusion of Lampard at all was laughable, given that everyone knows by now that he and Gerrard simply can't play together, and Barry and Gerrard had already proven to be a respectable partnership.
The FA, of course, should be ashamed of their own role in all this. They took the most convenient route in appointing McClaren after Eriksson left, when there were other managers available, proven World Cup winners, in the running. They scared Scolari off with unreasonable demands, and even recently had the chance to get Jose Mourinho in. But Mourinho didn't want the job if we failed to qualify, so the chance is now gone.
It goes without saying that they should sack McClaren immediately, but the problem is that there is no one to replace him with. Mourinho no longer wants it, and the only to other managers capable of the job - Wenger and Ferguson - are obviously not even in contention. The bottom line: they should have sacked McClaren weeks ago and appointed Mourinho to get us to the finals. But they would never do that, because they're cowards.
England didn't deserve to go through. And the blame can be placed at every level of the hierarchy.
Round-up
1. A US college is pulling out all the stops with a full-scale discussion on racism after a white couple showed up at a campus party last week in black face. According to information supplied by the college, a Smith student and a male friend attended a theme party Friday night dressed as singer Whitney Houston and her husband Bobby Brown, who are black. The theme of the party was celebrity rehabilitation. Houston has done several stints in rehabilitation facilities for substance abuse problems. According to accounts, some party-goers were offended that the couple was in black face. The Smith student left the party and has since apologized for her actions.
Obviously this is not racist and those who were "offended" by this need to grow up, get a new hobby and stop being such losers. How does one portray Whitney Houston without actually making herself LOOK like Whitney Houston through "blacking up" her face? That some people found this offensive is ridiculous and shows how far PC culture has infiltrated Western society. It must die.
2. For ACTUAL racism, however, check this out: Highly offensive racial content attacking Aborigines who live in the Perth suburb of Maddington has appeared on the online encyclopedia website Wikipedia.
Obviously this is not racist and those who were "offended" by this need to grow up, get a new hobby and stop being such losers. How does one portray Whitney Houston without actually making herself LOOK like Whitney Houston through "blacking up" her face? That some people found this offensive is ridiculous and shows how far PC culture has infiltrated Western society. It must die.
2. For ACTUAL racism, however, check this out: Highly offensive racial content attacking Aborigines who live in the Perth suburb of Maddington has appeared on the online encyclopedia website Wikipedia.
The racist material has been been entered under the suburb of "Maddington.'' The entry refers to Aboriginal people as "vermin of the earth'’ "who smell and use their centrelink payments to drink at the skate park."
Monday 19 November 2007
Victim Status More Apt For...Jews
Check out this table at the website of the FBI.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, blacks were the victims of the most hate-related offenses in 2006. But second to them comes...the Jews. And I think we can guess which group many of the perpetrators of those crimes belonged to...
Anti-Islamic offenses just happen to be bottom of this particular table. So next time you hear some taqiyya-practising Muslim spokesman whinging about "Islamophobia" and the persecution Muslims face in the West, just bear this table in mind.
Also note that anti-white offenses were the third most common, with more offenses committed against them than against homosexuals. And yet we never hear from our gutless media about these particular hate crimes.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, blacks were the victims of the most hate-related offenses in 2006. But second to them comes...the Jews. And I think we can guess which group many of the perpetrators of those crimes belonged to...
Anti-Islamic offenses just happen to be bottom of this particular table. So next time you hear some taqiyya-practising Muslim spokesman whinging about "Islamophobia" and the persecution Muslims face in the West, just bear this table in mind.
Also note that anti-white offenses were the third most common, with more offenses committed against them than against homosexuals. And yet we never hear from our gutless media about these particular hate crimes.
Coming Next Week!
Hopefully those who read the "Islam 101" articles I wrote a while back - exposing the elements within Islam that promote and encourage violence - found them to be interesting and informative.
Well, get ready, because there's a new series coming very soon! Beginning next week, I'll be posting four new articles detailing the oppression that Islamic sharia law mandates for various groups of people - women, non-Muslims, etc. It's essentially a look at what the world would be like if jihadists were victorious in their efforts, and they instituted Islamic law everywhere in the world.
Note, however, that I probably won't be able to get the articles out weekly like I did last time. But I will try to crank them out as quickly as possible.
Tune in next Monday to read the first part: "Islam Oppresses Women".
Well, get ready, because there's a new series coming very soon! Beginning next week, I'll be posting four new articles detailing the oppression that Islamic sharia law mandates for various groups of people - women, non-Muslims, etc. It's essentially a look at what the world would be like if jihadists were victorious in their efforts, and they instituted Islamic law everywhere in the world.
Note, however, that I probably won't be able to get the articles out weekly like I did last time. But I will try to crank them out as quickly as possible.
Tune in next Monday to read the first part: "Islam Oppresses Women".
ConAir
This was the only reasonably interesting racism story I could find today, and it is in fact a non-story, but there you go.
Airline Comair has hit back at the South African department of labour, after an allegation in the media that Comair did not hire black cabin crew because they cannot swim.
Joint Chief Executive office (CEO) of Comair Erik Venter says the allegations are not only blatantly false but also defamatory.
He says the airline has over 850 black staff representing more than half of the staff personnel. Venter says Comair was in fact the first airline to hire black cabin crew over 30 years ago.
He says Comair is the only airline to run a swimming training programme for cabin crew recruits. The ability to swim and as well as life-saving skills are mandated as safety requirements by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Airline Comair has hit back at the South African department of labour, after an allegation in the media that Comair did not hire black cabin crew because they cannot swim.
Joint Chief Executive office (CEO) of Comair Erik Venter says the allegations are not only blatantly false but also defamatory.
He says the airline has over 850 black staff representing more than half of the staff personnel. Venter says Comair was in fact the first airline to hire black cabin crew over 30 years ago.
He says Comair is the only airline to run a swimming training programme for cabin crew recruits. The ability to swim and as well as life-saving skills are mandated as safety requirements by the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA).
Friday 16 November 2007
Chutzpah Alert
An illegal immigrant has demanded to be flown home after saying he was fed up with British people - because they are "rude and unfriendly".
Aside from his comments themselves, I find it amusing (well, not really) that the government needs an illegal immigrant to demand to fly him home for them to actually take such action in the first place. However, while I'm not usually a fan of caving in to the demands of illegals, I think I can make an exception in this case.
Aside from his comments themselves, I find it amusing (well, not really) that the government needs an illegal immigrant to demand to fly him home for them to actually take such action in the first place. However, while I'm not usually a fan of caving in to the demands of illegals, I think I can make an exception in this case.
Thursday 15 November 2007
"Blacks Are Responsible For Their Own Condition"
A US opinion poll purportedly shows that blacks are blaming the poor within their own community for their lack of economic advance, rather than racism and discrimination.
It seems to me that the poll could have been conducted in a better fashion with more options given and less ambiguous answers, but even so I am inclined out of the goodness of my heart to take this as an encouraging sign that black people are becoming more willing to take responsibility for the fortunes of their community rather than playing the race card all the time. I shall give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
It seems to me that the poll could have been conducted in a better fashion with more options given and less ambiguous answers, but even so I am inclined out of the goodness of my heart to take this as an encouraging sign that black people are becoming more willing to take responsibility for the fortunes of their community rather than playing the race card all the time. I shall give them the benefit of the doubt for now.
Wednesday 14 November 2007
MCB: "Mealy-Mouthed Scum"
This is another brilliant rant by ex-Catholic atheist Pat Condell, in which he takes the Muslim Council of Britain to task for claiming that the British government fosters anti-Muslim sentiment. Condell has in the past issued a number of videos launching scathing attacks on Islamic hardliners, as well as on people of other religions who just refuse to listen to reason. As usual, this is a belter; Condell has a way of wording things which is eloquent yet ferociously cutting to the people he is addressing; he puts things we're all thinking into words in a way we would never be capable of doing. Fantastic stuff:
Monday 12 November 2007
Thursday 8 November 2007
Zionist Death Booty
This is brilliant.
The Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida carried a story this week about IDF tactics that surpassed all previous accusations of supposed Israeli deviousness - poisoned candies, hormone-laced gum, poisoned wells, magnetized belts - in its bizarreness.
According to an Al-Hayat Al-Jadida front page report, the IDF has turned to using armed, female strippers in its war on upstanding Palestinian boys. The newspaper reports that when the Arab rock-throwing begins, IDF soldiers run for cover. Then, the story continues, after some time of hiding, an Israeli woman stands up on top of a barricade and begins to perform an alluring strip tease. Innocent Arab teenage boys, distracted from the business of rioting, are enticed to approach, when, according to the newspaper, the woman - an IDF soldier - shoots them with a pistol she had hidden in her underwear.
The Palestinian Authority newspaper Al-Hayat Al-Jadida carried a story this week about IDF tactics that surpassed all previous accusations of supposed Israeli deviousness - poisoned candies, hormone-laced gum, poisoned wells, magnetized belts - in its bizarreness.
According to an Al-Hayat Al-Jadida front page report, the IDF has turned to using armed, female strippers in its war on upstanding Palestinian boys. The newspaper reports that when the Arab rock-throwing begins, IDF soldiers run for cover. Then, the story continues, after some time of hiding, an Israeli woman stands up on top of a barricade and begins to perform an alluring strip tease. Innocent Arab teenage boys, distracted from the business of rioting, are enticed to approach, when, according to the newspaper, the woman - an IDF soldier - shoots them with a pistol she had hidden in her underwear.
Wednesday 7 November 2007
Round-up
1. Racism Is Underlying Cause of War On Terror
You won't believe the demented rhetoric of this one. It reads like Osama bin Laden's own talking points. Once again the writer, Chris Elliot, confuses Islam with an entire race of people, probably the Arabs. That's racist. And this line is classic:
The fact is that only about 10 percent or 15 percent of Muslims could be described as fundamentalists, that is to say, desirous of Islamic law in the nations in which they live.
Yes, you see that right. Elliot is apparently satisfied in the knowledge that there are absolutely no more than 150 million Islamic "fundamentalists" in the world today.
2. I assume this is a joke, a spoof. Even if it isn't; it's extremely funny to me.
You won't believe the demented rhetoric of this one. It reads like Osama bin Laden's own talking points. Once again the writer, Chris Elliot, confuses Islam with an entire race of people, probably the Arabs. That's racist. And this line is classic:
The fact is that only about 10 percent or 15 percent of Muslims could be described as fundamentalists, that is to say, desirous of Islamic law in the nations in which they live.
Yes, you see that right. Elliot is apparently satisfied in the knowledge that there are absolutely no more than 150 million Islamic "fundamentalists" in the world today.
2. I assume this is a joke, a spoof. Even if it isn't; it's extremely funny to me.
Monday 5 November 2007
Lost In Translation
The distributor of a new translation of the Qur'an has been arrested in Afghanistan after complaints from religious scholars that the new edition was un-Islamic, and misinterprets verses about alcohol, begging, homosexuality and adultery.
Unsurprisngly, the BBC doesn't actually mention HOW these verses were misrepresented; I think it wants the reader to assume that the translator made these passages more "radical" than they really are. I mean, let's take a passage like 24:2, for example: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment." I'm sure these scholars are outraged that he made that more extreme than it really is...
Then again, given that these passages are ALREADY extreme, and given the angry comparisons to Salman Rushdie, I'd say it's actually far more likely that the reason this man has been arrested is because he made the Qur'an TOO SOFT on such matters.
Unsurprisngly, the BBC doesn't actually mention HOW these verses were misrepresented; I think it wants the reader to assume that the translator made these passages more "radical" than they really are. I mean, let's take a passage like 24:2, for example: "The woman and the man guilty of adultery or fornication,- flog each of them with a hundred stripes: Let not compassion move you in their case, in a matter prescribed by Allah, if ye believe in Allah and the Last Day: and let a party of the Believers witness their punishment." I'm sure these scholars are outraged that he made that more extreme than it really is...
Then again, given that these passages are ALREADY extreme, and given the angry comparisons to Salman Rushdie, I'd say it's actually far more likely that the reason this man has been arrested is because he made the Qur'an TOO SOFT on such matters.
Round-up
1. Employers across Northern Ireland are being urged to stamp out racism in the workplace. About 13,000 packs containing posters, stickers and leaflets carrying the anti-racism message have been sent out to workplaces.
See, this is my problem with initiatives such as this one: How much is it going to cost to send all these packs out? And what benefit are we likely to see from it? Virtually none, as far as I'm concerned. Do you really think a racist is going to open a passage that says "Stop being racist" and suddenly change his ways? It's like expecting a terrorist to stop what he's doing because you tell him it's bad. No attempt is being made to actually look at the underlying causes of racism and prevent those, and to examine the legitimate concerns people might have about immigration and so on. These kinds of costly campaigns simply won't get us anywhere.
2. In the Pathetic Racial Controversy of the Week, a prospective Conservative MP has withdrawn his candidacy after a race row followed comments he made praising Enoch Powell's controversial "Rivers of Blood" speech. Nigel Hastilow wrote in a newspaper column that Mr Powell's warnings about uncontrolled immigration were right.
Now ain't this just pathetic? Neither Powell nor Hastilow said anything racist; they only voiced concerns about uncontrolled immigration - that topic that the Left refuse to talk about rationally without using smear words like "racist". It is a truly sad day when a man has to forgo his ambitions because of the PC crowd. I HATE political correctness.
3. And speaking of political correctness, here is a short letter about racism to the Fayette Observer. Particularly poignant to me is the last line:
Sadly, it is politically correct to say, “I’m black and I’m proud.” but quite politically incorrect to say, “I’m white and I’m proud.” That, in itself, is all that is needed for me to condemn political correctness.
See, this is my problem with initiatives such as this one: How much is it going to cost to send all these packs out? And what benefit are we likely to see from it? Virtually none, as far as I'm concerned. Do you really think a racist is going to open a passage that says "Stop being racist" and suddenly change his ways? It's like expecting a terrorist to stop what he's doing because you tell him it's bad. No attempt is being made to actually look at the underlying causes of racism and prevent those, and to examine the legitimate concerns people might have about immigration and so on. These kinds of costly campaigns simply won't get us anywhere.
2. In the Pathetic Racial Controversy of the Week, a prospective Conservative MP has withdrawn his candidacy after a race row followed comments he made praising Enoch Powell's controversial "Rivers of Blood" speech. Nigel Hastilow wrote in a newspaper column that Mr Powell's warnings about uncontrolled immigration were right.
Now ain't this just pathetic? Neither Powell nor Hastilow said anything racist; they only voiced concerns about uncontrolled immigration - that topic that the Left refuse to talk about rationally without using smear words like "racist". It is a truly sad day when a man has to forgo his ambitions because of the PC crowd. I HATE political correctness.
3. And speaking of political correctness, here is a short letter about racism to the Fayette Observer. Particularly poignant to me is the last line:
Sadly, it is politically correct to say, “I’m black and I’m proud.” but quite politically incorrect to say, “I’m white and I’m proud.” That, in itself, is all that is needed for me to condemn political correctness.
Friday 2 November 2007
Don't Call It Racism
Earlier this year residents of the small Quebec town of Hérouxville declared that immigrants were welcome there regardless of their race, colour of skin, language spoken, sexual orientation or religion. When they added, however, that newcomers who came to live there should also be prepared to accept certain basic standards reflecting the traditions and culture of the townsfolk, they were branded as xenophobes and racists.
This article about the controversy is a generally good and well-balanced one; give it a read.
This article about the controversy is a generally good and well-balanced one; give it a read.
Thursday 1 November 2007
The Force is Strong In This One...
Brilliant: as the Saudi King arrived in Britain, a marching band greeting him with the famous Darth Vader theme tune from Star Wars:
Also check out the assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain refusing to condemn Saudi-funded books which call for the violent punishment of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Do we trust the MCB as "moderate"?
Note also the constant referral to Wahabbism as the lone form of "extremism" within Islam. But in fact, the Wahabbis did not invent Islamic violence and oppression. Al Qaeda, for example, are not Wahabbis, and the same Qur'anic teachings were being used to justify atrocities long before Wahabbism even existed.
(P.S. Sorry about the underlining...Blogger seriously sucks. It put it there by itself and I can't get rid of it. There are so many flaws in the Blogger posting system it's untrue.)
Also check out the assistant Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain refusing to condemn Saudi-funded books which call for the violent punishment of homosexuals and the oppression of women. Do we trust the MCB as "moderate"?
Note also the constant referral to Wahabbism as the lone form of "extremism" within Islam. But in fact, the Wahabbis did not invent Islamic violence and oppression. Al Qaeda, for example, are not Wahabbis, and the same Qur'anic teachings were being used to justify atrocities long before Wahabbism even existed.
(P.S. Sorry about the underlining...Blogger seriously sucks. It put it there by itself and I can't get rid of it. There are so many flaws in the Blogger posting system it's untrue.)
Wednesday 31 October 2007
Monthly Stats
At the beginning of the month I subscribed to a free web service which provides you with statistics for your website or blog: number of visitors, their locations, etc.
So here's a round-up of this month's stats:
Race Relations had a total of 73 unique visitors this month; that's an average of about 2 1/3 a day. Of these, the vast majority of users lived in either the US (which was top) or the UK (second place), but I also had visitors from Europe, Israel, and even a couple of Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Wonder what they made of it. The assassins are probably at my doorstep as I write. Happy Halloween!
They used a number of different web browsers, but most of them were using Windows XP to run those browsers.
Perhaps most interesting of all is the Google searches that led people to discover this site. There was a lot of interest in Islam that brought people here, and one of the odder text search strings that led people to find Race Relations was "authority hegemony hanafi cairo". I wonder what they were intending to find, but in any case I imagine it would have led them to my article about Islamic law. There was another strange one that two separate people got here by searching for: "watch X2". I imagine that would have led them to "Raw Watch X2", but what on earth were they looking for in the first place? A way to watch X-Men 2 online, perhaps?
There were also four people who got here by searching for "Islamispeace". Wonder whether they got what they expected.
What is most disconcerting is the fact that four people also found me by searching for the BNP. I can remember a few instances where they have been mentioned here, but I can't help but wonder how many of those who searched for them were hoping to find support for them when they clicked the link to this site.
Oh well, it is clear enough, I think, that I do not support the BNP, and I'm just going to take this moment to say to anyone who has visited Race Relations in the past month: you are welcome to come back again, and even comment!
So here's a round-up of this month's stats:
Race Relations had a total of 73 unique visitors this month; that's an average of about 2 1/3 a day. Of these, the vast majority of users lived in either the US (which was top) or the UK (second place), but I also had visitors from Europe, Israel, and even a couple of Muslim countries: Saudi Arabia and Indonesia. Wonder what they made of it. The assassins are probably at my doorstep as I write. Happy Halloween!
They used a number of different web browsers, but most of them were using Windows XP to run those browsers.
Perhaps most interesting of all is the Google searches that led people to discover this site. There was a lot of interest in Islam that brought people here, and one of the odder text search strings that led people to find Race Relations was "authority hegemony hanafi cairo". I wonder what they were intending to find, but in any case I imagine it would have led them to my article about Islamic law. There was another strange one that two separate people got here by searching for: "watch X2". I imagine that would have led them to "Raw Watch X2", but what on earth were they looking for in the first place? A way to watch X-Men 2 online, perhaps?
There were also four people who got here by searching for "Islamispeace". Wonder whether they got what they expected.
What is most disconcerting is the fact that four people also found me by searching for the BNP. I can remember a few instances where they have been mentioned here, but I can't help but wonder how many of those who searched for them were hoping to find support for them when they clicked the link to this site.
Oh well, it is clear enough, I think, that I do not support the BNP, and I'm just going to take this moment to say to anyone who has visited Race Relations in the past month: you are welcome to come back again, and even comment!
Migrant Heaven UK
I see that half of the new jobs which have been created since Labour came to power in 1997 have been given to foreign immigrants.
But if you are concerned about this or think it's at all symptomatic of a government that wants to destroy every vestige of Britishness here, you're a racist, I bet.
But if you are concerned about this or think it's at all symptomatic of a government that wants to destroy every vestige of Britishness here, you're a racist, I bet.
Lions And So On...
BBC Radio 2 host Sarah Kennedy is in trouble for claiming on-air that she almost ran over a black man the other night, and what saved him was the fact that he yawned which allowed her to realise he was there.
My verdict: Not racist.
She's been in trouble for racial quips before, too. In 2000 she was forced to apologise for saying that Africans were good at running because they were used to being chased by lions. I love this quip; it's hilarious!
Except not to the fascist PC brigade, obviously.
And wait a minute, what's the Mail doing publishing a story like this? I thought they were meant to be racist and hateful themselves...
My verdict: Not racist.
She's been in trouble for racial quips before, too. In 2000 she was forced to apologise for saying that Africans were good at running because they were used to being chased by lions. I love this quip; it's hilarious!
Except not to the fascist PC brigade, obviously.
And wait a minute, what's the Mail doing publishing a story like this? I thought they were meant to be racist and hateful themselves...
Tuesday 30 October 2007
Round-up
Two Loony Left opinion pieces today, both expressing the same self-aggrandising self-righteousness that we have come to expect from politically correct liberals.
1. This one goes over the whole recent "are black people less intelligent than white people" debate in the same trite, factually and intellectually bankrupt way we have come to expect from its predecessors.
2. And this one is written by a University of California student and is a straight smear piece against David Horowitz, the organiser of the recent Islamo-Fascism Awareness week in American college campuses. The author makes the same tired cliched arguments but can't quite get around to explaining why Horowitz is wrong.
1. This one goes over the whole recent "are black people less intelligent than white people" debate in the same trite, factually and intellectually bankrupt way we have come to expect from its predecessors.
2. And this one is written by a University of California student and is a straight smear piece against David Horowitz, the organiser of the recent Islamo-Fascism Awareness week in American college campuses. The author makes the same tired cliched arguments but can't quite get around to explaining why Horowitz is wrong.
Monday 29 October 2007
Schools Told To Root Out "Institutional Racism"
Schools must root out institutional racism before they can succeed in carrying out a new legal duty to promote community cohesion, a senior adviser to the Government warned today.
Sir Keith Ajegbo, the author of a report on an inquiry into how to promote British values in schools, spoke out about the "shocking statistic" that black Afro-Caribbean boys were three times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than white youngsters.
Of course, it couldn't possibly be that more black Afro-Caribbean boys are excluded because they are simply naughtier children. To suggest such a thing is inexcusable to some. Well guess what: if I suggest such a thing, it does not mean I am a racist or that I hate black people. I am simply interested in the truth. The same goes for school headmasters who exclude black boys. The same "shocking statistics" also often show that Chinese and Japanese students do the best of all races at school. If school authorities are racist, why would this be the case? Why wouldn't white people be at the top with all other races languishing far below?
Logic has never been the PC Left's strong suit.
Sir Keith Ajegbo, the author of a report on an inquiry into how to promote British values in schools, spoke out about the "shocking statistic" that black Afro-Caribbean boys were three times more likely to be permanently excluded from school than white youngsters.
Of course, it couldn't possibly be that more black Afro-Caribbean boys are excluded because they are simply naughtier children. To suggest such a thing is inexcusable to some. Well guess what: if I suggest such a thing, it does not mean I am a racist or that I hate black people. I am simply interested in the truth. The same goes for school headmasters who exclude black boys. The same "shocking statistics" also often show that Chinese and Japanese students do the best of all races at school. If school authorities are racist, why would this be the case? Why wouldn't white people be at the top with all other races languishing far below?
Logic has never been the PC Left's strong suit.
Thursday 25 October 2007
Round-up
1. This article says it's racism if you are against Muslim women voting while wearing the burqa. Fine. So it's misogynistic if you want them to wear the burqa. And what race is Islam again?
2. Administrators at an Iowa high school pulled copies of a student newspaper earlier this week after complaints arose about a racism survey in the paper, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. In a story on the paper's Web site on Wednesday, the Press-Citizen reported that City High School principal Mark Hanson removed copies of the Little Hawk newspaper's Oct. 19 edition. It included a survey finding that 13 percent of students polled viewed blacks unfavorably and two percent viewed whites unfavorably, the Press-Citizen said.
"He said there have been a growing number of black students at the school in recent years, a trend that has caused tension among some students."
Now I wonder: what are the demographics of this? Which group is causing the majority of the problems? Is it really just "whites vs. blacks"? What about Asians? Is there any tension going on between minorities? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
2. Administrators at an Iowa high school pulled copies of a student newspaper earlier this week after complaints arose about a racism survey in the paper, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. In a story on the paper's Web site on Wednesday, the Press-Citizen reported that City High School principal Mark Hanson removed copies of the Little Hawk newspaper's Oct. 19 edition. It included a survey finding that 13 percent of students polled viewed blacks unfavorably and two percent viewed whites unfavorably, the Press-Citizen said.
"He said there have been a growing number of black students at the school in recent years, a trend that has caused tension among some students."
Now I wonder: what are the demographics of this? Which group is causing the majority of the problems? Is it really just "whites vs. blacks"? What about Asians? Is there any tension going on between minorities? Does anyone know? Does anyone care?
Wednesday 24 October 2007
Round-up
1. Uganda: Racism is Why Obama's Losing to Clinton - Yep, that's the headline of this cliched hit piece. Also check out the references to the Iraq operation as a "slaughter", "illegal war" and "state terrorism", as well as the completely unfounded assumptions about what the American public feel about Barack Obama.
2. UEFA's flagship club competition, the UEFA Champions League, this week provides a high-profile platform for the Action Week being staged by the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network. At matches both last night and tonight, announcements are being made over stadium public address systems; captains are wearing Unite Against Racism armbands; Unite Against Racism logos are appearing on stadium screens; and children escorting players on to the pitch are wearing Unite Against Racism t-shirts. In addition, clubs are distributing the FARE Action Week poster, which is being made available in all stadiums. These and other activities will put over the message that everyone in football - players, fans, referees, coaches, governing bodies and media - has to take a stand against racism and join the fight.
This is all well and good. But what do they actually plan to DO to prevent racism? Because some kids wearing T-shirts isn't going to make a jot of difference to anyone.
2. UEFA's flagship club competition, the UEFA Champions League, this week provides a high-profile platform for the Action Week being staged by the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network. At matches both last night and tonight, announcements are being made over stadium public address systems; captains are wearing Unite Against Racism armbands; Unite Against Racism logos are appearing on stadium screens; and children escorting players on to the pitch are wearing Unite Against Racism t-shirts. In addition, clubs are distributing the FARE Action Week poster, which is being made available in all stadiums. These and other activities will put over the message that everyone in football - players, fans, referees, coaches, governing bodies and media - has to take a stand against racism and join the fight.
This is all well and good. But what do they actually plan to DO to prevent racism? Because some kids wearing T-shirts isn't going to make a jot of difference to anyone.
Tuesday 23 October 2007
"Racist" Party Wins Swiss Election!
"The right-wing Swiss People's Party has won the most votes ever recorded in a general election in Switzerland after mounting a virulent anti-foreigner campaign widely denounced as racist."
I guess the majority of Swiss nationals are racist, then. Oh dear.
I guess the majority of Swiss nationals are racist, then. Oh dear.
Monday 22 October 2007
Concern...
An anti-racism campaigner reacted with concern to a suggestion that police should increase stop-and-searches of youngsters to halt the wave of teenage murders.
Keith Jarrett, president of the National Black Police Association, says there should be increased use of the controversial policing strategy across all communities.
However, Milena Buyum, coordinator of the National Assembly Against Racism, said the tactic disproportionately affected the black community. "It risks alienating black communities further, and is not a very effective way of catching people who are likely to commit offences," she said.
I think you'll find it IS an effective way, as they are the ones committing the majority of the crime. There is no reason why black communities should be alienated. Do they want their community to be under less scrutiny? Then they should actively work to cut out the reason why anyone would be scrutinising in the first place.Sunday 21 October 2007
Search The Ones Committing The Crime
One of Britain's leading black police officers is to demand that more people from ethnic minorities must be stopped and searched if the fight against inner-city gun and knife crime is to succeed.
Good. It is amazing that a black man has to be the first one to say this in the first place. When dealing with a crime, you deal with those who are actually committing it - in this case, black youths are responsible for most gun crime. The same goes for Islamic terrorism, as well, of course.
Good. It is amazing that a black man has to be the first one to say this in the first place. When dealing with a crime, you deal with those who are actually committing it - in this case, black youths are responsible for most gun crime. The same goes for Islamic terrorism, as well, of course.
Saturday 20 October 2007
It's Racist To Prevent Crime
Did you read the other day that a police crackdown on cannabis factories run by Vietnamese drug barons has been scrapped after officers were warned their actions might be racist?
Amazing, isn't it? The police are no longer allowed to arrest people who are committing crime. Political correctness is the REAL crime.
Amazing, isn't it? The police are no longer allowed to arrest people who are committing crime. Political correctness is the REAL crime.
Friday 19 October 2007
The Vatican Response (Plus: Anjem Choudary Bonus Clip)
Remember that rather disingenuous letter to the Vatican by 138 Muslim scholars last week? Well, the Vatican have now replied.
The Vatican praised a "novel" Muslim call for dialogue but said real theological debate with them was difficult as they saw the Koran as the literal word of God and would not discuss it in depth.
"The fact that Muslims can build mosques in Europe while many Islamic states limit or ban church building cannot be ignored, [Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran] said."
This is due to the Islamic dhimmi laws, which specifically prohibit the building of new Christian churches in Muslim lands - among a number of other discriminations.
Of course, Reuters gets some fashionable but unfounded assumptions into the text:
"The appeal last week by 138 scholars representing a large majority of Islamic views invited Christian leaders to a dialogue based on their common belief that love of God and neighbor is the cornerstone of their religions.
The Vatican praised a "novel" Muslim call for dialogue but said real theological debate with them was difficult as they saw the Koran as the literal word of God and would not discuss it in depth.
"The fact that Muslims can build mosques in Europe while many Islamic states limit or ban church building cannot be ignored, [Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran] said."
This is due to the Islamic dhimmi laws, which specifically prohibit the building of new Christian churches in Muslim lands - among a number of other discriminations.
Of course, Reuters gets some fashionable but unfounded assumptions into the text:
"The appeal last week by 138 scholars representing a large majority of Islamic views invited Christian leaders to a dialogue based on their common belief that love of God and neighbor is the cornerstone of their religions.
It was unprecedented because Islam has no central authority to speak for all believers, especially not the silent minority that does not agree with radicals whose preaching of jihad and rejection of other faiths often dominates the headlines."
And while we are on the subject of Islam, here is a free video. It's an old one, coming from November 2006, but it's a good one nevertheless. In it, British jihadist Anjem Choudary explains on BBC television that British non-combatants are considered legitimate targets for suicide attacks because they are not Muslim, and therefore are not innocent as they have committed a "crime against God". How do "moderate" Muslims refute these claims on Islamic grounds? And for that matter, why haven't they even tried?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)