The otherwise tolerant British do indeed have their limits! The veil stretches it to breaking point. The Muslim community would be wise not to push the British too far. There could be a backlash. That we have given these people a home when they might otherwise be living in far less salubrious surroundings is not something that they should overlook in arrogance.
If Muslims wonder why so many ordinary folk feel uncomfortable in their presence, then they need to start doing a spot of introspection. Muslims are past masters in putting the blame for their woes on others, expecially 'infidels'. In this regard, they are indeed arrogant, and, dare I say it, rather immature. If a normal person is disliked by someone else, then he will sit down and analyze whether he is doing something wrong. Not so the Muslim!
In the leader in today's Telegraph, it is suggested that there is a process of Arabisation of British Muslims going on. There is; and there is one simple answer as to why. It is going on because Islam is Arabo-centric. Having to toleratw this Arabisation is the price we pay for having so many Muslims in our midst. Take the Arabisation out of Islam, and what does one have left? Islam is nothing if not Arabo-centric. It was born in the heat of the desert. It is tribal in nature and Bedouin in outlook. Its propensity to savagery stems from there. As does its treatment of women.
©Mark Alexander
THE TELEGRAPH: Shahid Malik, the Labour MP for Dewsbury, spoke for almost the entire nation yesterday when he told Aisha Azmi – the Muslim teaching assistant suspended for wearing a veil – "to just let this thing go". An employment tribunal has rightly rejected Mrs Azmi's case for unfair dismissal, though – absurdly – it has awarded her damages for "victimisation" by her local council. Now is indeed the time for her to drop the matter, though, needless to say, she intends to take her case to a "higher court". (Radical Muslims in Britain are quick to explore legal avenues that are not open to Christians in the countries they admire.)Mark Alexander
Mrs Azmi's unreasonable demands, coupled with Jack Straw's bold comments about the intimidating aspects of the full-face veil, have forced the British public to think carefully about the presence of Muslim ghettos and Islamic fundamentalists in our society. A clear conclusion has emerged. As a nation, we feel that our tolerance is being stretched to the limit. The veil stretches our tolerance to its limits
8 comments:
Beakerkin:
The problem is the far left has gone to insane lengths to appease the Muslim minority.
Yes, it has. But not only the far left, unfortunately. The centre of politics appeases them too, as does the right. Look at how much appeasing your president is doing! He will not have anything untoward said about the "religion of peace"! What is that if not appeasement?
The US is a diferent animal entirely and I will see if I can find the clip of Hillary Clinton talking negatively about the school of Jihad. The USA has a first Amendment protection and talk radio that can be brutal.
The book Londonistan talks about the appeasement by the Church in the UK. Progressive dispensationalism is viewed by the vast majority of Christians as apostasy or theological anti-semitism.
The Muslim community would be wise not to push the British too far. There could be a backlash....If Muslims wonder why so many ordinary folk feel uncomfortable in their presence, then they need to start doing a spot of introspection.
They certainly need to do some introspection. But Muslims seem to have a mindset of victimology, which excuses them from being accountable--in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.
Beak mentioned The US is a diferent animal entirely...
To a certain extent, yes. However, Islam is Arab-centric. And Muslims here in the States may not be assimilating as much as is first thought. For example, the real-estate section of today's WaPo discusses how paying interest is not in keeping with the tenets of Islam.
I'm still waiting to see an article about the Muslim aversion to carrying auto insurance. Many people are unaware of that particular Muslim custom.
Beakerkin:
You say that the US is a "different animal" altogether. Maybe. But I think that the US is far more vulnerable to Islam than you realize.
Always:
I'm still waiting to see an article about the Muslim aversion to carrying auto insurance. Many people are unaware of that particular Muslim custom.
It's coming! Believe me it's coming! Just wait a little while longer.
Mark - The U.S. is in a vulnerable position. Our immigrant history assumes that all immigrants will eventually assimilate. Those paying attention have noticed that some Muslims and many others are not interested in assimilation and are waiting for the appropriate moment to make their move.
They remain loyal to another ideology or home country.
In the meantime, immigration (or migration) and natural increase will eventually give them poltical clout.
Mark
Our right to speak is enshrined in the First Amendment. The big media elites and Universities are being margainalized. The alphabet channels are losing viewersip and even Fox is drifting leftwards.
The only media that is growing is talk radio as it is ratings and proffit driven. The old channels are trimming staff and news will no longer be spared cuts.
The Conservatives are fighting back and there will be a backlash.
People forget that the very same people who were obsessed with betraying our country in the 70's
cripled President Nixon. Yet the ashes of Watergate created the soil for Reaganism.
We may be in the wilderness for four years. As far as Muslim immigration the number of Hispanics, Hindus, Chinese and minorities fleeing Islam will ensure that the percentage of Muslims remains low.
Moreover, we will be hit again and
the reaction will be brutal. One can see the limits of the far left
in the CT Senate race. Do note that Hillary is not as stupid as John " Gomer" Kerry. She will move to the right and try and govern from the left. However, she has zero chance in a match up with Rudy
Guiliani and may even lose New York.
Mark,
When I said I'm still waiting to see an article about the Muslim aversion to carrying auto insurance. Many people are unaware of that particular Muslim custom, I was referring to something in the msm--in particular, some nasty case where some impoverished Muslim maims someone who is not insured to enough limits.
I have the feeling that accidents such as I've just mentioned have already happened but that the insurance of the injured party picked up the costs.
Many Muslims here in the States are quite wealthy--but not all. The wealthy ones can afford to pay the costs to any they have injured in car accidents. But what about the ones who aren't wealthy enough?
Some years ago, there was a huge scandal here in Virginia when an uninsured diplomat seriously injured a child who was in a crosswalk. I don't recall now from which country that diplomat hailed, but I remember that he was sent back to his country of origin. Meanwhile, the family of the child was left to pay horrendous medical bills. We've also had a few cases of the driving-age children of some diplomats being involved in serious traffic accidents which hurt, maimed, or killed others.
The cases of which I'm speaking get next-to-zero coverage in the news!
Post a Comment