Be careful of Islam! It will take over by stealth!

Islam is an insidious religion. It is inclined to take power oh so quietly, oh so surely, oh so gradually, so quietly, gradually and surely that ordinary folk are often unaware of what is happening. In short, it pushes out the boundaries here and the boundaries there, demanding this concession and that one, until, unbeknownst to you and me, it has entrapped us, its enemy! And make no mistake about it, we are its enemy, for we are non-believers, infidel, kufar, the unworthy, the unclean, those who have submitted neither to Allah’s injunctions nor his messenger’s.

You see: Muslims belong to Dar ul Islam, or the House of Peace. We belong to Dar ul Harb, or the House of War. To a Muslim, we infidels are fair game!

It is troubling indeed that those leading us know so little about Islam, and understand still less about it. In fairness, to the mind of a Westerner, the religion can be enigmatic and therefore difficult to comprehend, since it goes against all we stand for: tolerance, fairness to all, inclusiveness, openness, compassion, understanding. Islam is neither tolerant nor fair nor inclusive nor open nor compassionate nor understanding.

Indeed, Islam is the converse of all these: It is intolerant of non-believers, unfair to them, exclusive and closed in its approach (try entering their world as an infidel!), not compassionate to people who do not submit to the will of Allah, and not understanding of anything other than the Islamic way of life.

Yet these people demand all of these qualities from us. They demand concession after concession to their eccentric way of life. And Westerners usually give in, bringing us all further down the road to dhimmitude, further down the road to a life under Islam which will be for us, nothing other than second class life, a life of servitude!

I was alerted yesterday by Always On Watch (whose weblog, incidentally is excellent, and well worth visiting) to a very disturbing article in The Scotsman, written by Hilary Duncanson, entitled Islamic group urges Catholic school to move to Muslim faith about a Roman Catholic primary school in Glasgow.

AN ISLAMIC campaign group has called for a Catholic primary school to be based on the Muslim faith.

The Campaign for Muslim Schools said 90 per cent of pupils at St Albert's Primary, in the Pollokshields area of Glasgow, are Muslim, yet children are having to take part in Catholic rituals like saying the Lord's Prayer and attending mass.

Osama Saeed, co-ordinator of the alliance of Glasgow's main mosques and Muslim organisations, said he could see no reason why the main faith of the school should not change.

He said: "Clearly the parents of that area find a faith school, even if it is of another denomination, preferable to a secular one. But surely it should be possible for them to have one that is relevant to their own faith.

"To move towards this would be a fantastic example of good faith - in more ways than one - on the part of the Church."
The call came just days after Scotland's most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien, sparked controversy by stating that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country". A spokesman for the Catholic Church in Scotland was not available for comment tonight.

This is the sort of thing I mean. Muslims will push out the boundaries all the time. Always pushing, pushing, pushing, fighting, fighting, fighting, struggling, struggling, struggling in the cause of Allah and his messenger.

Haven’t you noticed one thing, though? How little these people give away. In fact, they give nothing away: They make no concessions to us at all, anywhere or anytime. Why don't Muslims make concessions to us? That would be a fantastic example of good faith. We could start by building a few churches and Christian schools in Saudi Arabia. And we could throw in a few Christian propagation centres for good measure! Now that would be a fantastic example of good will! But they won't make any such concessions, since doing so is proscribed by their religion.

Western politicians and businessmen, in their haste to obtain oil at reasonable prices (whatever they are), and in their haste to make a fast buck wherever they can, have traditionally paid little heed – indeed, one could legitimately say no heed – to the state of health of our civilization. And now cancer has already set in, and the West is beginning to look decidedly cachectic as a result!

Reciprocity – that’s the principle we should have been operating on! That means to say, on a principle of give and take. You can come to my country and build a mosque if we can come to yours and build a church. You can come to our country and build an Islamic school if we can come to yours and build a Christian one. But no, operating on such a principle would have jeopardized our leaders' chances of obtaining oil on the cheap and making a fast buck on the quick!

This story in The Scotsman shows just how brazen these people have become! If the Scots give in to this request, then they deserve all they’ve got coming to them. It is to be hoped that the Scots will show some spunk here; it is to be hoped that the Scots will tell them a firm NO!

If we don’t start stiffening our resolve to stop the onward advance of Islam here in the West, then we have a bleak future ahead of us. We will be well on the road to serfdom, well on the road to dhimmitude. Indeed. Many would assert that we are already on that road!

One thing is for sure: As things stand, the future looks bloody, the future looks blood red, and the future looks Islamic, the future looks Islamic green.

It would seem that the clash of civilizations of which Huntingdon wrote is well under way now. Why? Because we have allowed this thing to get out of hand. We have allowed too many Muslims into the West, seemingly ignorant of the fact that they are people who do not assimilate into the culture of the host country. Ever! It is not in their nature to assimilate; rather, it is their nature to snuff out the culture of the host country only to supplant it with a more backward culture: Islamic culture. And why is it backward? Because it's a culture which doesn't tolerate diversity, doesn't tolerate the equality of women (Prophet Muhammad said that women are inferior to men!), doesn't tolerate gays (indeed, it's a culture which is profoundly homophobic!), doesn't tolerate adultery (adultresses are stoned to death!), doesn't tolerate people enjoying a drink of alcohol, doesn't tolerate freedom of speech or freedom of worship, and doesn't tolerate the eating of pork. And it doesn't tolerate much else besides. Moreover, it prescribes everything, and proscribes everything else! Furthermore, punishment in Islamic nations does not fit the crime. That, in itself, is backward!

Cardinal Keith O'Brien deserves our respect for having the courage to say what should have been said long ago when he said that Scotland's core faith was Christianity and that other faiths should recognise they were "living in Scotland as a Christian country".

This is the way to do it. Bravo, Cardinal Keith O’Brien! Bravo!

©Mark Alexander

Fulla: A cool kinda gal for a kinda hot Middle East!

So Barbie's been given the go-by! Middle Easterners now favour the more decent and certainly far less raunchy gal called Fulla! Fulla's the coverup gal for the little girls of the Islamic world. Playing with Fulla will catch 'em while they're still young. It's much easier to indoctrinate the young than it is the old. It's also much easier to make girls grow up to know their place in society that way. Fulla will always be dressed traditionally. She will wear the abayah, or sometimes when she is feeling more daring, just the headscarf! She will never reveal an arm or a leg; so definitely no sunbathing for her! At the moment, she even comes with her own pink prayer rug. Pink!

Fulla is to be honest and loving and caring, and she is to respect her father and her mother. Wow! Doesn't that sound rather more Christian to you?

Anyway, they want to start making good little submissive Muslimahs while they're still young enough to be malleable. It's much easier to knock them into shape when they're very young than to end up with a child that has been used to playing with the raunchy Barbie, and then try and teach her that Barbie characterizes the wicked ways of the West. After all: No good Muslimah would want to end up looking like her, and nor would she like to behave like her either. Isn't Barbie the cheap little tart with a boyfriend called Ken?

By the way: There are no plans for Fulla to have a boyfriend!

Read all about it, and take a look at the raunchy Fulla HERE.

©Mark Alexander

The mad mullahs of Tehran and the even madder president!

The Times today asks the question whether the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world. Why ask such a question? The man clearly is!

The article goes on to say that it is ”thin reassurance for the West that Iranian clerics are the bulwark against Ahmadinejad’s excesses.” Too right!

Islam is a religion like no other, and for many reasons. One reason is that it is rare in any religion for ‘clerics’ to call for people to take up arms against others. Indeed, religion, as we understand religion to be, should be the very opposite of this: Religion should call for people to love one another, to tolerate one another’s frailties and weaknesses, to bring compassion into the world, something which is sadly lacking, and it should be merciful. In short, religion should bring harmony where there is discord, love where there is hatred.

Not so Islam!

The religious leaders in Islam preach unadulterated hatred of the infidel, or kafir, and even greater hatred of the Jew. Indeed, it is no exaggeration to say that, in general, Muslims are the greatest anti-Semites of all.

Only recently, Ahmadinejad, someone with ideas on the Jews similar to the vast majority of Muslims, has called for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map. He has also said that he hopes that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would die quickly. (Are we, perhaps, to be relieved that he hasn’t wished the poor man a lingering death?) Ahmadinejad has also said that the Holocaust was a myth! The President of Iran is also determined that Iran should keep its nuclear research.

And this is what they call a religion!

Can you imagine the Archbishop of Canterbury in the Church of England, or perhaps a bishop of a diocese calling for uranium to be enriched? Can you imagine such a person denying that the Holocaust took place? Can you imagine such a person calling for the Jewish state to be wiped off the face of the map? Can you imagine such a person saying that he hopes that Ariel Sharon will die quickly? Or can you imagine a priest saying that he thought that Hitler had been sent to this earth to annihilate the Jews, as Abu Hamza al Masri has said?

It would be unthinkable, wouldn’t it?

Further, imagine what the reaction of the congregation would be if such utterances were made! There would be shock and horror and consternation and indignation, and open hostility to the cleric. Not so in the mosque, however. Such utterances are often met with joy and glee!

To listen to some blood-curdling speeches in mosques, click HERE! After listening to these, you should be left in no doubt at all.

Reading about the proceedings in The Old Bailey on the Abu Hamza case, and reading the utterances of our leaders, one must come to the conclusion that many of our lawyers and seemingly all of our politicians believe that Islam can be tamed, tamed to fit in with our liberal, tolerant, pluralistic ideas.

Alas, I have news for them! Islam is neither liberal nor tolerant nor pluralistic; on the contrary, it is illiberal and intolerant and given to ethnic cleansing! (Even Prophet Muhammad wanted the Arabian Peninsula cleansed of infidels!) This is the Islamic motto: You embrace Islam, or else at worst you will be killed or punished, and at best you will live a second class existence as a dhimmi, paying higher taxes and denied the enjoyment of the privileges that life has to offer!

The fact is that the mullahs are indeed mad, sometimes even rabid! President Ahmadinejad is even madder and more rabid still! But we will be mad, too, if we don’t wake up to the reality which is staring us in the face!

How many innocent people are going to have to die before we all come to realize this one fact: Islam cannot be tamed. It has never been tamed in 1400 years. Islam cannot be tamed because of its very nature. Islam must be defeated, vanquished, subdued. This is our only hope if we wish to continue as a civilization.

©Mark Alexander

More on the prosecution of Abu Hamza

The Times has reported on the trial at The Old Bailey in London of Abu Hamza al Masri.

The article, entitled 'Hate-filled bigot encouraged followers to kill non-Muslims', written by Sean O'Neill, starts with the prosecution stating that Hamza, the radical imam, has twisted Islam to produce a creed of violence and intolerance.

This is further evidence, if indeed evidence were needed, that Westerners, even at their most educated, cannot get to grips with the fact that Islam is a creed of violence and intolerance!

You'd think that people would start getting it by now. God knows there is enough evidence out there to show us all that this is so. But no, Westerners are determined to stay in a state of denial.

For as long as this state continues, we are actually fighting this war on two fronts: The front of jihad and the front of our own ignorance!

If only these people would take the trouble to read at least some of the Qur'an.

©Mark Alexander

Abu Hamza fools the prosecutor

Abu Hamza al-Masri told his followers it was their religious duty to kill non-Muslims. Should the prosecutor at the Old Bailey have been surprised?

The prosecutor said:

No religion condones the murder or killing of innocent men, women or children or the dissemination of hatred and bigotry...The prosecution's case in a sentence is that the defendant, Sheik Abu Hamza, was preaching murder and hatred in these talks. You will hear the tapes and we will hear that the defendant, Sheik Abu Hamza, encouraged his listeners, whether they were an audience at a private meeting or a congregation at the mosque, to believe that it was part of a religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, God, and as part of the religious duty to fight in the cause of Allah, it was part of the religious duty to kill.

This was not a trial against Islam, said the prosecutor, and added that it wasn't a trial against its holy book, the Koran, either; he said the case had been brought because of what the defendant said.

What the prosecution say is that it is quite clear that no religion condones the murder or killing of innocent men, women or children or the dissemination of hatred and bigotry. Mr Perry told jurors that in his position Mr Abu Hamza should have been preaching tolerance and mutual co-existence but in fact he preached intolerance, bigotry and hatred. In the course of one lecture he accused the Jews of being blasphemous, traitors and dirty. This, because of the treachery, because of their blasphemy and filth, was why Hitler was sent into the world, Mr Perry said. Mr Abu Hamza had also said Jews controlled the West and should be removed from the earth, Mr Perry said.

This aspect of his teaching also represents the offences of inciting racial hatred, he added. (Source: BBC)

Mr Perry! Are we to assume from this that you do not consider Islam to be a religion? Or are you, as I suspect, making the same mistake that so many other Westerners make - the mistake that people like Abu Hamza are distorting the real message of Islam?

Mr Perry! I've got something to tell you! Welcome to the world of Islam!

©Mark Alexander

My apologies

I am sorry that the Christmas decorations are still up on Librabunda.com. I am experiencing a software incompatibility at the moment; so I am still unable to update the website. Rest assured that it will be updated as soon as possible.

Mark

This phony war

What a funny kind of war this is! We are told we’re engaged in a ‘war on terror’; indeed, the whole of the West is supposed to be engaged in this war. But we’re all engaged in a war which has never been properly defined. That’s why it’s a vague war, with vague objectives. Has a war ever been so fought in history, fought with such ill-defined objectives?

Let’s take the first rule of engagement in any war: defining the enemy precisely. We haven't done this, so can we really expect to win this war?

The West is truly in denial! In denial over who our enemy is, in denial over our enemy’s true nature, in denial over our enemy’s objectives, in denial over our enemy’s history of aggression and expansion, in denial over our enemy’s ultimate goal: to Islamize the world.

Oh dear! I have already committed a grave error! I forgot. We are not supposed to say that Islam is the enemy, are we? Osama bin Laden has distorted the true loving nature of Islam, hasn’t he? Or so the official line goes. Bush and Blair, among others, tell us that Islam is a ‘religion of love’, Islam is a ‘religion of peace’. After all, Bush and Blair should know better than Osama bin Laden what Islam is all about, shouldn’t they? They are infidels, and infidels know Islam better!

The fact is that Islam is not, and never has been a religion of love or peace. If there's any love in Islam, then it's only for other believers. There's certainly no love for the infidel. Our leaders should therefore stop spreading misinformation about Islam’s true nature. There is enough ignorance out there about the true nature of Islam; indeed, people are woefully ignorant on this most important of subjects. It helps not one jot to confuse them even more.

If our leaders, perhaps for reasons of diplomacy, find themselves unable to utter the truth, then they should say nothing at all. If political correctness is the problem, then they should ignore it.

In fact, it is hard to conceive how they expect to win this war. The top brass are making money hand over fist from the Middle East, so nobody wishes to upset the sensibilities of the Middle Eastern potentates. Let’s be realistic here for a moment. It isn’t so much because our leaders are so terribly polite that they don't wish to upset sensibilities. It’s really more because too many people at the top are making a killing from oil and gas and armaments. Contracts and deals are signed for billions and billions of dollars all the time. Who wants to give up these lucrative deals to save the West? If Islam starts getting too strong here, they, after all, won’t be around to face the music. They’ll be out of it all, basking in the sun somewhere and living the life of Riley.

It will be people like you and me who will have to face the consequences, for it will be people like you and me who will have to alter our lives significantly to fit in with the strictures of Islam. The super rich have always been able to buy their privacy, and shield themselves from the unpleasantness of life.

Surely this is the true reason why nobody is prepared to define this war properly. This is the true reason why we are seeing the West lose the moral high ground. We cannot take the moral high ground, after all, when we are prostituting ourselves to the world of Islam like this.

Do you really think that Muslims cannot see what’s going on? Do you really think that OBL cannot see this, too? Believe me, he can. Moreover, he sees this as part of the weakness of the West. He sees this as the West's Achilles heel. He also knows that Westerners cannot or will not do without anything. He knows that Westerners want all their comforts. This, he feels, puts the Islamic world in a strong position – in a strong position to dictate the terms, in a strong position to push for the growth of Islam here. He knows that no Western politician is going to have the courage to put a stop to this process. He realizes full well that Westerners want the oil and the gas and the aerospace contracts, and then some: they want the inward investment that oil-rich Arabs can provide. That’s one reason why we see companies being bought out, and mosques, schools, and propagation centres being built. Building these, after all is said and done, provide good business for the construction companies.

Imagine if the same tack had been taken by Churchill during World War II! Do you really think we’d have won the war against Nazism?

Churchill knew what it meant to wage war, and he knew what it took to win one. He knew that the enemy had to be clearly defined, and he also knew that war had to be total or it shouldn’t be waged at all. None of this half-hearted nonsense for him! He knew that waging war involved sacrifice, sacrifice on the part of all, and sacrifice until victory was achieved.

What are Westerners sacrificing in the name of ultimate victory in this war? Absolutely nothing! Life goes on just as normal for all, except, perhaps, for the inconveniences of queues and searches at airports.

Take the recent phone-tapping ‘scandal’ in the States! Nobody wants his phone to be tapped, of course; but this sort of thing went on all the time during the Second World War. Many rights had to be temporarily suspended or relinquished in the name of ultimate victory over the foe. The media was controlled, too. The BBC, for example, was not allowed to tell the public all. Information was censored. People today, however, are unwilling to make any of these sacrifices. This is why it is questionable whether this strategy can ever lead to ultimate victory.

Sad though it is to have to say it, but we have gone badly wrong in this war. And this is why this war has something phony, something surreal about it. People seem unconvinced of the need for the war, because the nature of the enemy hasn’t been explained to them, and they haven’t been shown what life will be like for us all if we do not succeed. Moreover, sacrifices haven’t been demanded of the people. But then how could all this have been done when our leaders are acting as apologists for our enemy?

The way we are waging this war, it will go on forever and a day. We shall have to be eternally vigilant, vigilant of the forces out there wishing to destroy our free way of life. And what about the cost of this eternal vigilance?

I would suggest that we get back to the drawing board and start re-defining this war. We need to identify the enemy, start understanding the enemy’s motives, and thwarting the enemy’s every move to destroy us and bring Islam to the West.

The world has been here before, you know. This scenario is nothing new. The way it manifests itself might be new, because the world we live in is now high-tech and geographically far less limited. But Islam remains the same as it ever was: proselytizing, expansive, and determined to dominate, determined to rule the world. It will never change. So we had better start learning lessons from history. He who ignores the lessons of history is destined to repeat the same mistakes. He also makes himself very vulnerable.

The fact of the matter is this: the West is Islam’s prey. It always has been, and always will be. That’s why we need to start waging a real ‘war’ against our enemy: a 'war' against the growth of Islam in the West. For with the unrelenting growth of Islam here, the nature of the West will change dramatically in the years to come. No phony war will not put a stop to this! War, to be effective, has to be real, or it shouldn’t be waged at all.

©Mark Alexander

What would Churchill have made of the threat of Islam?

This article by Ben Macintyre published in The Times last summer is worth reading again.

Politicians today display a cowardly approach to the problem posed by Islam. Churchill would certainly have not.

How do you think Winny would have reacted?

Mark Alexander

"Gays are immoral"

So says the UK's top Muslim, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, the recently-knighted head of the Muslim Council of Britain. "Homosexuality is immoral and spreads disease, and civil partnerships are damaging society", he says.

So much for the BBC's assertion that Islam is compatible with a modern democracy!

Many people have problems with homosexuality, not only Muslims; but most people today, even if they disagree with the homosexual lifestyle and civil partnerships for them, do not deny the right of gays to exist and their right to lead their lives as they see fit. Muslims, by contrast, with their mediaeval ideas do not. Many a Muslim would have them killed.

It was predictable that I found no reference to this outpouring on the BBC website. Is this part of their whitewashing of Islam, too? Or are they scratching their heads there trying to think up a creative way of reporting this backward opinion.

This will not be the first time for me to assert that Islam is totally and utterly incompatible with a modern liberal democracy; indeed, I have asserted this many, many times, and I shall go on asserting it, since it is totally and utterly incompatible with our system. Churchill also asserted it.

Sir Iqbal says that homosexuality "is not acceptable". Perhaps, in that case, he might think of relocating to a more mediaeval culture where such people are not tolerated, and perhaps even killed.

The funny thing about Islam's great problem with homosexuality is this: There are many gays in Saudi Arabia in particular, and in the Gulf in general! In fact, when I worked there, I found it to be a ubiqitous 'deviance'! A deviance that many a Muslim turned a blind eye to, I was told on good authority. The only crime there, I was informed, was to get caught in flagrante delicto! Separating men when at their friskiest from attractive women is nothing if not a recipe for the promotion of homosexuality!

More evidence, perhaps, that Islam breeds hypocrisy. The reason for this is simple: If a religion places so many burdens on its followers and metes out such harsh punishments for not observing the rules, people are left with no choice but to break the rules, but pretend that they are living by them. This, in most people's book, is known as hypocrisy!

Now that we have heard the honest thoughts of a high-up British Muslim pontificating on the evils of homosexuality, how long will it be before we hear such a person speaking against the rôle of women in Western society, and unmarried mothers and other 'deviants' in our evil Western societies?

Be sure of one thing: This is just the beginning! Brace yourselves for more backward thoughts from backward Muslims.

©Mark Alexander

Churchill's incisive take on Islam:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine‹must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science‹the science against which it had vainly struggled‹the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." Source: WinstonChurchill.og

Mark Alexander

Should this be the rôle of public-service broadcasting? Or this?

The BBC has been doing its thing again! It's been whitewashing Islam! Par for the course, you might say. Yes, but isn't it nauseating to observe its use of taxpayers' money for the propagation of Islam?

It certainly doesn't use tax pounds to propagate Christianity, or, for that matter, any other religion. But it finds it absolutely necessary to use tax pounds to whitewash the fastest-growing religion in the West today: Islam. It also finds it necessary not only to whitewash it, but to help it to grow here in the West.

Were the BBC to be fair and balanced about it, were it to point out the positive and negative aspects of Islam, then it might be more palatable. But it doesn't: It always casts Islam in a positive light. The negative aspects of the religion are ignored. This is why this exercise comes over to me, and probably many other people, as an exercise in propaganda!

I understand that there is probably a noble objective underlying their strategy: Presumably, they wish to inform the public of the positive aspects of a religion which has taken a bashing since 9/11 in order to foster social harmony. A lofty ideal to be sure. In doing this, though, they have become its defender; further, they are actually numbing the public of the dangers which are inherent in this religion, particularly the danger of world domination, which, after all, is a stated goal of all good Muslims.

They also ignore history in propagating this faith. Each and every country in which Islam has been allowed to put down roots, it has eventually come to dominate and take over. We ignore the lessons of history at our peril!

The BBC is essentially a very liberal organization: It fosters equality of opportunity for women, gays, and other minority groups. But were Islam to become dominant in the United Kingdom, there would be no such equal opportunities. Islam abhors the gay lifestyle, and can hardly be thought of as a religion which fosters equality of opportunity for women. Indeed, were Islam ever to become that strong in the UK, then women would be forced back into the home!

So surely there's an irreconcilable conflict here. This is one circle which cannot be squared!

If the BBC thinks that, in the long-run, it is going to be strong enough to stand up to the might of Islam and maintain equal opportunities for these groups, then it is making a grave error of judgment. Do they really think that such appeasement will dumb down the aspirations of Muslims to turn the West into an extension of the Middle East, with all its backwardness, all its pro-Arab supremacy, pro-male domination, anti-Semitism, and anti-infidel stance.

Where does the BBC really stand on honour killings, on the beheadings of criminals in public squares, on amputations for theft, on the lapidation of women for adultery, on the prohibition of the Bible and all other sacred texts in countries such as Saudi Arabia, and on the ethnic cleansing of the Arabian Peninsula?

Given the BBC's reticence to cast aspersions on these barbaric practises, are we to assume that they give their consent to them?

©Mark Alexander

Happy New Year!

I would like to take this opportunity to wish all my visitors a VERY HAPPY NEW YEAR. May 2006 be a peaceful year for us all!

©Mark Alexander

The 'Iron Veil' comes into existence!

In my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age, I suggested that an iron veil might be our only protection against the onslaught of Islam on Western values and our Western, liberal-democratic way of life. Some thought I was proposing a solution that could never be in our politically-correct, multicultural world.

However, only this morning, I read an article in The Times that such an 'iron veil' is already coming into existence! It has been reported that India is erecting one on its very long border with Bangladesh. (To read the article, please click on the heading above.)

The Indians have a great deal of experience with Islam. Far more experience with the religion than the vast majority of Westerners. Our Western political and business leaders have, in recent years, struck many commercial deals with the nouveau riche princes, princelings and sheikhs of the Middle East, so now they think they know it all, know all there is to know about their new-found Muslim 'friends'. To them, 'the deal' is all important; they pay only lip service to the furtherance of our civilization. As long as they can strike a few oil and gas deals, with a goodly few aerospace deals thrown in, they think that all will be well. Ladies and gentlemen! Our problems with Islam are only just beginning!

Before the Western liberal press start villifying the Indians for a erecting a barrier to rival the Great Wall of China in order to "keep out Islamic militants, thwart cross-border smuggling and stop human trafficking" as they have the Israelis for erecting a far smaller one, we need to take a long, hard look at the Indians' long experience of difficulties with the Islamic world. We are mere novices at this game of survival!

©Mark Alexander

With thanks to my guest writer, Eleanor:

On being an 'infidel' under Islam

Look What's Happening to Christians, Christian Holy Sites, and Other non-Muslims Under Islam.

As is slavery, persecution of non-Muslims is not relegated to the past. Christians are being persecuted, maimed, raped and murdered, as are other non-Muslims. Their religious sites are being sacked, razed and new mosques are built over the ruins as Muslims then deny their religious relevance and significance. Read it all.

©Eleanor

Western music banned on TV in Iran

Ahmadinejad is going for what he must consider to be the root of all evil there in Iran: Western music. So he is banning Western music on state-run TV!

What does this man think he is going to achieve with such ridiculous legislation? Does he really think that one can make people become more moral? Is it really immoral anyway to enjoy music? Doesn't Ahmedinnejad realize that there is no virtue in enforced virtue?

Some weeks ago he denied the Holocaust! Then he called for Israel to be wiped off the map! After that, he called for Israel to be moved to somewhere else, to Europe for example.

Is this Iranian President of the opinion that he is practising the art of statecraft? If he is, then he is delusional in the extreme!

This man is a menace to Iran, and a menace to the rest of the world.

©Mark Alexander

Further to requests to re-publish this essay, I have decided to re-publish it today:

Islam: The enemy of democracy and freedom!

Until 9/11, the western world was largely ignorant of the religion of Islam, of its goals, of its aspirations. Indeed, even since 9/11, most people, and that includes our politicians, would not score very highly in a test of their knowledge on the subject. It should be obvious to all thinking people that our politicians are actually unaware, dare I say blind, to the dangers that Islam will increasingly cause us. It is truly a case of the blind leading the blind! That means to say, uninformed and unthinking politicians leading an ill-informed electorate. But folks, this is what we have right now. The same can hardly be said of Muslims in the Islamic world, though; for their knowledge of Christianity far surpasses - even though much of their knowledge is quite distorted - any knowledge of Islam by the man in the street in the West.

As the old saying goes, knowledge is power. But what we often don't hear uttered is its converse: Ignorance is weakness!

The West is far weaker than it need be because of this ignorance of Islam, since Islam is our greatest enemy. The greatest enemy since Nazism and communism. I'll give you some good reasons why this is so. And none of them - absolutely none of them - are based on hatred!

Islam is the enemy of the West for a plethora of good, solid reasons, and if we wish to survive as a civilization, we are going to have to bite the bullet and deal, head on, with the issues these reasons raise. Let us begin...

First and foremost, we are dealing with a religion which does not recognize any separation of politics and religion, any separation of the political from the spiritual. For Muslims, life is one coherent whole: the political and spiritual both meld into one. This has always been so, and always will be. No re-classification of the religion into two separate parts is possible because of Islam's very nature.

In Islam, all power rests with Allah, the god of Muslims. The Qur'an, their holy book, is always taken literally. Those words are considered to be the actual words of Allah. Therefore, none of these words can be changed, for to change any of them would be tantamount to tampering with Allah's words. This would be a grave sin in their eyes.

For the same reason that the words contained in the Qur'an cannot be changed, they cannot, therefore, be re-interpreted either. So do not hold your breath for any kind of reformation in this religion, because it ain't gonna happen!

In Islam, all power rests with Allah, and it filters down via his vice-gerents on earth to the people. Hence the great desire among Muslims to restore the caliphate. Contrast this with the Western model of government!

In the West, the ideal political system is democracy. In democracy, all power rests with the people, and they exercise that power at the polls. In a democracy, all power filters in the opposite direction from Islam. In democracy it filters up; in Islam, down! Herein lies the greatest barrier to the miscibility of the two worlds: the western world and the Islamic world!

Without digressing too much here, I should like to add that this is the main reason why George W Bush and Blair's venture into Iraq to bring democracy there was a grave error of judgment. How can one bring democracy to a region of the world where the people who inhabit that region believe that all power rests with Allah, and where they believe that Allah has prescribed their way of life for them for then, for now, and for all time?

I would suggest that where such a dichotomy exists, the most sensible and prudent thing to do would be for us to lead our lives as we see fit, and for those people to be allowed to live their lives as they see fit. That way, there would be hope of some peace in this world.

But this is not what we have done. We have done the very opposite of this: We have entered the Middle East in the hope - the vain hope in my opinion - of bringing our way of doing things, our way of life, to them; furthermore, we have allowed millions and millions of Muslims into the West - and at the very time when Christianity, the religion which underpins the West, is greatly weakened anyway - which will only give us headaches for the years ahead. Why? Because Muslims who immigrate bring their hopes and dreams and aspirations with them of establishing Islam everywhere on earth. To Islamize the world is the main aspiration of the Muslim; and we have seen these past weeks, the manifestation of aggression in its cause in France. For what happened in France was in no small part because of the Muslim's desire to establish Allah's caliphate here on earth. These were the first rumblings, the first roar of the lion! Expect more of this in the future, as Islam grows stronger and stronger.

Muslims, by and large, do not respect non-Muslims. How can they? Their religion does not allow them to do so. Their religion preaches that Muslims are superior to non-Muslims; indeed, they use the derogatory term infidel for us. This word to some Westerners might simply mean that they call us infidels because we are people who do not subscribe to their faith. This, after all, would be quite logical, since to us it simply means not fidele, or not true to the faith. But this does not completely describe what Muslims mean by this term. To Muslims, to be called an infidel is an insult indeed! It has connotations of inferiority, backwardness, and even uncleanness!

You see, Muslims believe that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for all time. They call it ad deen al kamal, the perfect religion. People, in their eyes, who have not yet submitted to the will of Allah, are in a state of pre-Islamic chaos, a state known to them as Jahiliyyah! To Muslims, all Muslims, the whole world is classified in two parts: that part of the world which has submitted, and is therefore in the Islamic state, known as Dar al Islam, and that part of the world which has yet to submit, and is therefore in a pre-Islamic, chaotic, jahiliyyic state, known as Dar al Harb, or the House of War!

The House of War is the part of the world which has yet to be taken over, and must at some point be taken over in the future. We, I am sorry to inform you, are in the House of War. So we can expect anything at anytime.

Some people would ask why we were able to go for quite a long time without problems with Muslims. The answer to that is a simple one indeed. First of all, there were relatively few Muslims living in the West, so the ones that did live here were not powerful. Secondly, Muslims living in the Islamic world were, for the most part and for many years, poor by anyone's standards. This all changed with the Oil Embargo of the 70s - a time when the price of oil on the world markets soared. As a result of this, the Islamic world became rich and empowered. Money is power; and it talks loudly! In recent years we have seen evidence aplenty of Islam being on the move. I tell you now: If we do not find a way of clipping its wings here in the West, we shall lose our democracy, and we shall be in deep, deep trouble.

So the trouble we will have with Muslims will not come only from without, but in the future we can expect trouble from the Muslims within. The millions of Muslims living here in the West will not integrate, because it is not in their worldview to do so. It is also forbidden them by their very own Prophet Himself, the Prophet Muhammad. He forbade Muslims even to befriend infidels. He also exhorted them to kill us. And he certainly told them that they should live separate lives, and dress and behave differently, so that they could easily tell themselves apart.

No Western politician is going to be able to change these facts. For facts they are indeed. Moreover, as Islam will grow here, their numbers will become greater and greater, and they will be able to use our democratic system to outvote us and introduce their form of government based as it is on their beloved Shariah, or quranic laws! How do you propose we shall be able to stop them? We shall be outnumbered, and as the outcome of democratic elections depends on the number of votes cast, we shall be able to do nothing about it! This time will come quicker than we might think, because so few babies are being born to infidel families.

The only thing left for people to do, will be to fight. Inevitably, at some point, civil war will ensue. If the political process fails people, then this will be all that will be left for them: civil war, guerre civile, Bürgerkrieg, call it what you will.

But one thing I can assure you, no politicians' sweet talk, posturing, or manœvring, will get us out of this one without conflict at some point in the future.

You see, one of the biggest problems for the West is its devotion to the concept of freedom of religion. This is a lofty concept and ideal indeed; but this devotion blinds people to one important reality: Islam is not just a religion, but a political system also. Indeed, it is more of a political system than anything else, and it is, in addition, a political system diametrically opposed to our own. It abhorrs freedom of choice, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of anything that we so cherish! The only thing one is free to do in Islam is become a Muslim, and submit to the will of Allah!

These two systems are totally immiscible, and unfortunately, we have imported this immiscibility right into the heart of the West! To our own great disadvantage, and to the disadvantage of our long term peace and security. What, I ask you, will the Americans do when the ever growing Muslim population in America starts wanting to tinker with the Americans' beloved Constitution? When Muslims will see their way clear to supplant the Constitution with Shariah law?

Questions like these are the ones we should be grappling with NOW. To wait until the time comes would be foolish indeed.

Wake up to the harsh realities of life in the twenty-first century! We've got some collective thinking to do if we wish to save ourselves from darkness! Perhaps we shall, indeed, be forced to think about having to re-classify Islam as a political system first and foremost, a political system immiscible with our own, and one whose advance needs to be forestalled. This may be one of our only sensible alternatives. Since to give complete, unhampered freedom to Islam to grow here in the West is tantamount to digging our own graves!

©Mark Alexander

Shut this stupid man up, once and for all!

Ahmedinejad has been at it again, denying the Holocaust. It's high time the international community shut this idiot up, once and for all time!

We will all suffer greatly because of this man. Do something about it now, before it's too late!

©Mark Alexander

Jesus: The Prince of Peace!

Of what is Muhammad the prince?

©Mark Alexander

What are we to make of it all?



Bush looked sweet, I have to say! Then he converted, it seems:



Photos courtesy of PoliticalHumor.About.com

©Mark Alexander

More riots in Sydney

Recent violence in France, where, night after night, French cities burned is now being followed by violence in Sydney. The second night of violence brought very ugly scenes to Cronulla Beach.

The violence has been fired by racism, racism against the people of Middle Eastern origin by the white population, and racism against the white population by the Muslim immigrants who, refusing to integrate, continue to treat white, bikini-clad women on the beaches with contempt. Clearly, we have here a clash of two very different cultures: the one is backward and mediæval; the other is progressive and modern.

Neither culture is necessarily right. But they are different. One has to ask the question: When are the politicians going to wake up and realize that their attempt at multiculturalism is a failure? The mixing of people of different ethnic backgrounds need not, in and of itself, be disastrous, as long as those being mixed share the same goals and aspirations. But that is not we have here. What we have here is something quite different: the one culture is fearful of the other outbreeding them and supplanting an altogether more restrictive way of life on them; the other is determined to conquer and supplant the culture of the infidel . The Aussies, of all people, won't stand for this, though. Politicians! Dream on!

The following photos, courtesy of The Telegraph, especially the one with the words Aussie Pride inscribed in the sand, say it all.



In a perfect world, we should all love one another. But in the real world it isn't quite like that, and there are various reasons why it isn't. One of the most important of them is this: Politicians, in their experimentation with multiculturalism, have not insisted that the Muslim immigrants blend in and adopt the ways of the infidel, and nor would the Muslims ever do that! Were politicians to have done so, far fewer Muslims would have come to the West, for Muslims have no intention ever of blending in. Moreover, the indigenous population of any country will not stand idly by while their culture is being changed before their very eyes; and nor should they be expected to do so.

If racial harmony is the goal, it would be far better for each very different culture to have its space to survive and thrive: the one here; the other there. In the long run, that is the way to achieve peace in the world. And peace is a goal for which we should all strive.

©Mark Alexander

With thanks to my guest writer, Eleanor:

Some Things Never Change

Islam needs, no requires protection. Protection from what and from whom? Well, from us and from all that would critique or even question the tenets of Islam or the behaviors of Muslims.

Diana West - Censorship in the name of religion

Some things never change. As we see in Afghanistan -- and, increasingly, elsewhere -- this fundamental tenet of Islamic society is one of them. And it is on this point that the West and Islam are struggling to come to terms. For example, the Islamic furor over a dozen Muhammad cartoons published in a Danish newspaper --and Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen's refusal to meddle with his country's freedom of speech -- continues to rise up the food chain, from death threats and street riots, to ambassadorial protests, to heads-of-state deliberations at the December OIC meeting in Mecca. Turkish prime minister Recep Erdogan's reaction not only sums up the official Islamic response, but is also highly significant given Turkey's bid to become the European Union bridge between the West and Islam. On a recent trip to Denmark, as recounted in the Internet edition of the Turkish newspaper "Zaman," Mr. Erdogan addressed the Muhammad-cartoon issue, saying, "Freedoms have limits, what is sacred should be respected." As columnist Mustafa Unal put it, Mr. Erdogan "indicated that respect toward what is considered sacred is more important than the freedom of expression." This is a major point of culture clash -- or would be, if the West cared to defend its freedoms. Which is a big "if." Meanwhile, Denmark's "Berlingske Tidende," via the blogger Fjordman (Fjordman.Blogspot), reports that the 56 countries of the OIC have now written the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to "help contain this encroachment on Islam, so the situation won't get out of control." Let's translate. "Encroachment on Islam" equals criticism of Islam -- aka "blasphemy" in Islamic quarters. "The situation" equals freedom of speech. "Out of control" equals criticism of Islam as an exercise of freedom of speech. In response, the U.N. human rights commissioner, Louise Arbour, emphasized her "regret" over "any statement or act that could express a lack of respect for the religion of others." Which sounds like the Danes are in U.N.-trouble. But what about the statements or acts -- from censorship to death sentences -- of the religion that encroach on the rights of others?

That's a question no one dares to ask.

Why does no one dare to ask? The recent all-out month-long riots by French and other European "youth" that are continuing on a smaller scale and those that are starting on the be aches of Australia demonstrate a "lack of respect" coming from the other side, an encroachment on the rights of non-Muslims, but to point this out would be an "encroachment on Islam," a an affront that no Muslim will permit. We disregard their devotion to Islam and to each other, the Ummah, at our peril.

©Eleanor

Battle on a Sydney beach augurs badly for the future of the West


(Photo: Courtesy of The Times)

Yesterday, running battles errupted on Cronulla Beach in a southern suburb of Sydney, one of Australia's most popular beaches, after weeks of tension following an attack on two lifeguards by Lebanese youths. The battles which took place were said to be motivated by a mob mentality. As is to be expected, racial slurs were chanted. Furious locals waved Australian flags, wielded beer bottles, and shouted anti-Middle Eastern slogans. Two girls of Middle Eastern appearance were pushed to the ground and pelted with bottles! Read the whole story here.

When are the politicians going to wake up and realize that maybe, just maybe, they have made a mistake in allowing so many immigrants into the West who not only do not wish to assimilate but wish to supplant liberal democratic laws with Shariah and who wish to turn Dar ul Harb into Dar ul Islam?

Middle class politicians might well lie down and play dead, the working classes won't, for they care far less about not hurting the feelings of others when it comes to survival. Yestderday's rioters in Sydney have shown us that it isn't political correctness they're into but political clarity!

Such beach battles, of course, are regrettable indeed, but mobs play by different rules. Such battles will only increase if the underlying causes of such insurrections are not dealt with. Oil and water simply do not mix!

©Mark Alexander

Is this the shape of things to come for Britain?



(Source: DanielPipes.org)

©Mark Alexander

And the President calls himself a Christian!

Yet another year, yet another Christmas, yet another bland card - the President's 'Christmas' card.

He calls himself a born again Christian; yet he cannot find it within himself to send a real Christmas card. Shame on him, and shame on Laura for not helping him make the right choice! Shame on the White House for not stopping the insanity, too! For insane is what it surely is!

This President, of all presidents, should know what it means to be a Christian, especially at Christmas. He has seen the light, or so he says. But he won't stand by his convictions. This is regrettable indeed; in fact, it is spineless!

This is Christmastide. He should wish his compatriots a VERY MERRY CHRISTMAS, and nothing less.

He has just gone down in my estimation. Big time! Maybe he's afraid of the ACLU (the American Civil Liberties Union). If this is the case, then it makes matters only worse. Maybe the President ought to see this image:







(With thanks to Nordic_Smile)

I can think of nothing positive to say about this ludicrous situation. The only thing left for me to say is: Shame! Shame! Shame!

©Mark Alexander

They chose David Cameron when they should have found Goliath!

The criteria used for the selection of the new Tory leader shows just how out of touch the Conservatives really are. In selecting David Cameron, they have opted for form over substance.

Do these people not realize that the greatest danger facing the UK today is the growth of Islam from within, and the ever-growing menace of Islam from without?

What does this man know and understand about the 'real' Islam? He has been in politics for a mere four years. He has been known to call himslef a media tart! We don't need a "media tart" to lead us; rather, we need a person with gravitas, a Goliath. How much gravitas, and how much of Goliath, does this man display?

Moreover, he has just appointed Boris Johnson, the current editor (now resigned) of The Spectator as a shadow cabinet minister. As educated and as clever as this man surely is, he is of Turkish descent (despite his blond hair), and is therefore very pro Turkish membership of the EU.

With Islam growing fast in the West, the last thing we need is for Turkey to allowed in to the Union. Allowing Turkey in will not avoid a clash of civilizations, as naïve politicians think; rather, it will bring the clash right into the heart of Europe. Civil war will surely ensue.

History shows us that Islam has never been able to live side by side with Christianity; instead, it gobbles it up!

©Mark Alexander

The ridiculously naïve Archbishop of Canterbury!

In his usually excellent and insightful way, Charles Moore's opinion piece in today's Telegraph entitled But, Archbishop, this is the bleak mid-winter for many Christians, shows us just how weak and misty-eyed the current Archbishop actually is.

This Archbishop has a mission which he seems not to know about; so let me tell him what it is. His mission should be to fill the pews in the ever-emptying churches here in the United Kingdom. To do this, he needs to evangelize!

Earlier Archbishops might well have had other missions in times when the churches were packed to capacity. This Archbishop has no other mission more important than this one. The Church, if he didn't know it, is in crisis. He needs to do something about it - and quickly!

Interfaith services are useless and meaningless. You cannot negotiate with Muslims, for they are totally unwilling to compromise. Syncretism will not work either. The message of Christianity is either correct, or it is not. If the Archbishop believes it not to be, then he has no business being in the position he is.

Dr Rowan Williams, The Archbishop, is said to be extremely intellectual. This is no time to sit back and intellectualize. There's a job to be done. He should get on with it.

©Mark Alexander

When are our schools going to stop denying our children access to their heritage?

Each Christmas more and more stories are brought to our attention about school children being denied the pleasure of celebrating Christmas, the second most important time in the Christian calendar. It is surpassed in importance only by Easter.

When I was a school child, I, like almost all others, used to so look forward to all the school festivities: the carol services; the Nativity plays; the lessons about Christmas; and, of course, talking incessantly about the upcoming holidays.

Now, it seems that many children here in the West are denied these pleasures. Not only this, but as a result, they are denied access to knowledge about their own heritage and culture. This is a disgrace that should be stopped forthwith!

Any society which denies its own heritage, and any culture which feels it has to apologize for itself, will find that it will not last much longer. Such a culture will soon end up in the dustbin of history!

It is quite ridiculous to teach our children about Eid when they know so little about Christmas.

In celebrating Christmas, we are celebrating the birth of Jesus, the Saviour of Christians. Can anything save Easter be more important for the education of our young?

Read this story from today's Telegraph. It's enough to make anyone feel sick in the stomach! The article is entitled, There is no room for Christmas at multi-faith school. The head teacher of this school should be sacked without further ado!

©Mark Alexander

Time to shut up the Iranian President!

Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran, has recently provoked anger in the international community by denying that the Holocaust took place, and called for the Jewish state to be removed to Europe!

This man is clearly off his trolley! Isn't it quite amazing that such primitive people can rise to the heady position of president?

First of all, how can any sane person deny that the Holocaust took place? This, like Jesus' crucifixion, is a historical and proven fact. To deny that the Holocaust took place is like denying that grass is green! How stupid would that be?

Secondly, to suggest that Israel be removed to Europe is absurd! Such a suggestion could only come from someone who is losing his marbles.

Isn't it time that the world shut this man up once and for all?

Read the whole story here.

Our German-speaking visitors can read about it in an article in the prestigious Swiss newspaper, die Neue Zürcher Zeitung, entitled, Ahmedinejad im Kreuzfeuer seiner Verbündeten.

In English or German, the story is equally absurd. It's high time that something be done about this menace to the peace and security of the world.

©Mark Alexander

The democratization of the Middle East

The policy of bringing democracy to the Middle East, the dream of the President, is in tatters. Please read this.

It doesn't look like a very successful policy to me! In the years since 9/11, rather than bring democracy to the Middle East, we have helped to spread Islamism there!

Isn't it about time the President changed curse? Oops! Shouldn't that be course?

©Mark Alexander

Muslim leaders warn of 'crisis'!

That's got to be a joke! Warn of crisis? The crisis has long been upon us!

Islam is the religion of moderation. It rejects extremism and isolation. There is a need to confront deviant ideology where it appears, including in school curricula. Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance, - a statement by the Organisation of the Islamic Conference.

That's got to be another joke! Islam a religion of tolerance? Since when? Islam is the most intolerant religion around. Islam rejects isolation? Since when? It fosters it! There's a need to confront deviant ideology! Since when? From the standpoint of other world religions, Islam IS deviant ideology! Islam is the religion of diversity and tolerance! Since when? Muslims kill people who don't agree with them; and in a most gruesome manner to boot!

©Mark Alexander

The Free Dictionary

To make life easier for my many visitors, I have placed a link to The Free Dictionary on the right hand column. With thanks to JudahQ for the idea for this link.

I hope and trust that this will make it easier for you should you ever come across a word on this website which you do not know. This, by the way, happens to us all. It will be especially useful for our visitors who are non-native speakers.

©Mark Alexander

Will France be the first to fall?

In my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age, I stated - long before the recent riots, I hasten to add - that the future looks bleak for France. With events unfolding one can discern the gravity of the rapidly changing political scene there. Only today, the BBC, not known for its radical ideas, published this article entitled, Islam tests French secularism, which is enough to send shivers down any Westerner's spine.

I fear that the French are not going to be up to coping with this ever-increasing force from within. Demographics are going against the French: too many Muslim immigrants; too many babies being born to Muslim families; too few babies being born to the indigenous French. Added to this, recent French history shows us that the French are not given to putting up much of a fight; they seem to prefer to walk away from one instead!

Be assured of this: France will not remain the France we know without one! For this reason, we can only ask the question: Will France be the first European nation to fall?

©Mark Alexander

To judge a political system look at the hallmarks. Hallmarks matter!

The ideal state to all practising Muslims is one based on quranic law, the Shariah; the ideal state to most Westerners is one based on liberal democracy. The hallmarks of both systems of governance are totally different. It is these different hallmarks which render the two political systems totally and utterly immiscible.

Quranic law is believed by the faithful to derive directly from three sources: the Qur'an, the Muslims' holy book (the first source of jurisprudence); the Sunnah, or the way Prophet Muhammad lived his life; and Ahadith, or the sayings of the Prophet, stating what the Prophet approved. The first two sources are indispensable, and no Muslim is able to practise Islam without reference to them.

It goes without saying that quranic law is prescriptive and rigid in the extreme. Furthermore, according to Muslims, quranic laws are valid for all time. There is little scope for revision in them. Punishments that were stated 1400 hundred years ago are to be the same today. Islamic principles and practises are therefore immutable.

Nothing is too great or too small for the Islamic state to interfere in. The state then decrees actions to be haram (forbidden by Allah), or halal (allowed by Allah). Naturally, all those things that Allah is said to have forbidden become matters of illegaility in a country governed by Shariah law. The personal judgment of the judge, or qaddi, plays little part in the interpretation of laws based on the Shariah: The judge is there not so much to interpret the rigid laws, but to ensure that they be abided by, and that sentences and punishments be meted out according to Shariah law.

All power in an Islamic political system rests with Allah, and filters down through his vice-gerents here on earth. Quite naturally, such political systems are utterly dogmatic. Parliamentary aids to deliberation and negotiation are dispensed with; so the whole system soon resembles a dictatorship. There is no room for party politics in a political system based on quranic law. This is surely one of the main reasons why we have seen very little development of democracy throughout the centuries in countries dominated by Islamic culture. This is really no co-incidence. In fact, even where there are more political parties than one, they can only vie with each other to pass this law based on Islam, or that one. Creative political thought and creative interpretation of policies have little or no place in such societies.

In these societies, forces are soon at work to coerce the people to abide by Allah's laws. This goes for the private sphere as well as the public one. One is told how to live one's life, and one has to abide by these rules and regulations, or risk the consequences, which we all know can be grave indeed.

It goes without saying that in such political systems, television, the Internet, newspapers, journals and magazines are all heavily censored, as are films and videos. The state will decide what the people are allowed to have exposure to. Of course anything that is considered to be in any way subversive to the Islamic state is brutally suppressed.

This goes, too, for morality. Quranic law naturally also interferes with people's morals. This is why we hear of women being stoned to death for adultery, people's hands and feet being cut off for theft, and people being lashed for the drinking of illicit alcohol.

Basically, all things which go against the Qur'an or the Sunnah are declared illegal. The hallmarks of the Islamic way are therefore rigidity, censorship, state interference in private lives, ruthlessness in the application of quranic laws, coercion, intolerance, and fear of falling foul of these Draconian laws. The objectives of an Islamic government are in no way limited; of course, such a government ends up being oppressive.

Contrast this scenario with the liberal democratic way. In our system, laws are passed through parliament as a response to needs. As circumstances and the mores of the public change, so do the laws governing the land. We see a very clear example of this in laws governing homosexuality. Even in my lifetime, homosexuality in the United Kingdom has gone from being a jailable offence to one totally tolerated. Indeed, the UK government has recently passed legislation to enable homosexual couples to marry. Laws governing divorce, too, have changed dramatically in my lifetime. Now, divorce is no longer viewed with great disapproval, and couples seeking one find one very quick and easy to obtain.

In a liberal democracy, all power filters up from beneath, from the ordinary people who vote at the polls. The leader is allowed to govern by virtue of the people's choice. G. H. Sabine, in his excellent book, A History of Political Theory described the hallmarks of a liberal democracy today. He had this to say:

The liberal assumption ... is that government can more reasonably be made a matter of continuous consultation, discussion, and negotiation, with frank acceptance of the fact that a state has to content itself with limited objectives and the employment of limited means. It depends on assuming that, though a human community depends on agreement, one useful form of agreement is just agreement to differ. It depends also on assuming that, given intelligence and good will, a concensus can be reached which provides enough agreement to support collective action, and that the latter can be reasonably effective without being oppressive. It makes the generally empirical assumption that open discussion is after all the best test of an idea, and it has therefore candidly to accept the conclusion that politics is intrinsically controversial and its precedures partisan. For entirely legitimate interests even the most homogeneous society in fact often conflict, and again, empiricism leans toward the position of the Common Law, that letting each side state its own case, even at the cost of bias or a degree of mendacity, is after all the best way of getting at the truth or reaching a fair decision. From this liberal point of view a government is first and foremost a set of institutions designed to regularize public reflection and discussion, and the weighing of contrary claims to the end of evolving a workable policy. A government is undoubtedly an organization of power, and Bentham was quite right when he said that law exists to make people do what they would not do without it. But power exerted after a rational weighing of claims is morally different from naked force, and it may well be more intelligent. For human wisdom consists less in certainty than in a built-in corrigibility. ... They [the members of government] presume on the part of government a fair recognition that it acts on a consensus that is almost never complete, and that in acting on the will of the majority, it has still to keep a decent regard for the minorities it does not represent. They presume that government will give to minorities the right to organize and propagandize , that minorities will observe the line between opposition and subversion, and that both sides will observe self-restraint in contaminating the sources of public information. The system requires sincere acceptance of that fact that no party's tenure of power ought to be perpetual, that an organized opposition is a necessary part of a liberal government, and that only legitimate methods may be used to keep it out of power. It requires a set of constitutional institutions to support, and as far as possible to enforce, this kind of political morality. And above all it requires a community with a strong sense of its own solidarity and concern for the public interest, with a generally educated population, and probably with a degree of experience in working the required institutions.

It is clear to see that the hallmarks of a liberal democracy contrast very sharply with those of a political system based on quranic law; moreover, the immiscibility of the two systems of governance should be obvious to all.

©Mark Alexander

Something for our German-speaking visitors

This so-called 'war on terror' does have its light-hearted side. Saddam Hussein does not wish to appear before the court. The reason: He doesn't have anything decent to wear! Another reason: He can neither smoke nor walk about! Lesen Sie den Artikel hier.

Poor darling! The trials and tribulations of being on trial!

©Mark Alexander

Curiouser and curiouser!

The Telegraph today tells us that, according to Ayman al-Zawahri, Osama bin Laden is still alive and leading a holy war against the West. But I thought we were merely fighting a war against terror!

It's a strange, curious kind of a war, isn't it, when the two sides that are at war define the war so totally differently? Indeed, it's very curious!

I tell you what is also very curious, and, as time passes, is getting curiouser and curiouser: That nobody has been able to find OBL. Now that really is curious!

Do you mean to tell me that if all the stops were pulled out, as we are assured they have been, that Osama bin Laden could not be found? What is also very curious is that President Bush and his political brother this side of the Atlantic never seem to mention his name anymore. It's enough to make one wonder whether they are doing this to please their Saudi oil masters: the kings, the princes, the princelings, and sheikhs of the oil-rich desert sands! Has some kind of accommodation been reached, I wonder?

Don't tell me that nobody in Saudi Arabia knows where he is! Family ties there in Saudi are very, very strong. There's no way that OBL isn't contacting his mother, or brothers, or sisters. Of course he is. So why aren't our so-called friends, the al-Sauds, making them spill the beans?

With technology as advanced as it is today, and with all the secret service agencies at the governments' disposal, it seems very curious to me that he has not yet been found. Moreover, the more time that passes, the curiouser the whole thing is becoming!

©Mark Alexander

Stop Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern potentates propagating Islam in the West!

It has recently been announced that a giant mosque may be built in London to celebrate the Olympic games in 2012. It will be large enough to accommodate 40,000 worshippers! But more than this: the massive edifice will probably be able to accommodate no fewer than 70,000 people in all. In actual fact, only ten thousand fewer than the Olympic stadium itself! It will become the Muslim centre for the Muslim competitors in the Games, will include a garden, school library, and accommodation for the visiting worshippers, and will be called the London Markaz, or al markaz ul london. Naturally, such a grand mosque and Islamic centre will overshadow all Christian cathedrals in the UK by far. The largest cathedral in the UK, Liverpool's Anglican cathedral, can accommodate a mere three thousand worshippers!

If Newham council goes ahead and accepts the application for the mosque, which I have no doubt it will given the present climate of political correctness and multiculturalism, then this will surely be a huge insult to our Queen, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, who is Defender of the Faith, the Christian faith, the Anglican Church. That the authorities are even entertaining such a request shows just how far down the road to Dhimmitude we are here in the UK! Moreover, this centre will mean that, outside of Makkah, London will become the mecca of Islam in the West, with all that this will mean.

We must be crazy! In Saudi Arabia there is no church in sight! And nor will there be one, either!

Why, oh why, are we behaving with these people in such a fawning manner? Have we lost all our self-respect? Are we willing to sell out for that oil they have? Isn't there another way? In point of fact, there is, but the will has to be there to start the ball rolling. With people at the top making a killing from oil, it is doubtful that much will change in the foreseeable future.

Then we have all those so-called faith schools which Tony Blair has been encouraging around the country. That's a grave error of judgment on his part. If anything will encourage the growth of Islam in the West, such schools will, if anything will enourage the development of a parallel society in the UK, such schools will, if anything will encourage suspicion between the different faith groups, such schools will. Whyever are we allowing Muslims to build these centres of Islamic education? They will be madrasahs in all but name!

Simply because Islam fosters strong family values does not mean that they share the same values as we have. Indeed, they do not. All our leaders need to do is inform themselves of the values of the Muslim community. That their values are very much at variance with our own stands out a mile! So how can we hope to foster peace and harmony in the West in future when we are in the processing of tearing ourselves apart?

We are very busy sowing the seeds of discontent in our communities. In allowing the building of colossal mosques for the faithful and numerous Islamic schools for the young of the Ummah, we are doing nothing other than placing our own freedoms and peaceful communities on the roulette table, allowing the chips, so to speak, to fall where they may!

I'd bet you dollars to doughnuts that by far the majority of the electorate are horrified by what's going on in Britain today apropos of the funding of Islamic propagation in the country. Much of this money is coming from Saudi Arabia - a country which, as we all know, is home to a particularly pernicious brand of Islam known as Wahhabism. We should not be surprised, therefore, if we will end up with a society as narrow as the society of the desert Kingdom. What else can we expect to happen?

On top of the problem of Saudi oil, we, in the UK, will soon have the problem of the growing influence of Kuwait, too; since by the year 2007, 20% of our natural gas supplies will be coming from that country. We are dig, dig, digging our own hole! And it won't be very comfortable for us when that hole is completed. We shall find that our freedoms have vanished, and all that we have come to hold so dear.

Of this I am sure: The vast majority of the people of the United Kingdom do not wish to Islamize the country. Furthermore, I believe it is true to say the same for Europeans, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders. They don't wish to see their countries Islamized, either. But what are our leaders doing to stop this process? On the one hand they talk readily of fostering democracy in the Middle East, but at the same time, they pay little heed of democracy at home. In fact, they are busy losing it for us! They speak with forked tongue!

It should be obvious to all that our current policies are not working. If we continue to implement current policies, then the day when the Saudis and the other Middle Eastern potentates will become our lords and masters will continue to approach very quickly. Then we shall all become abd's: abdul Saudi, abdul Kuwait, abdul this, and abdul that! We are fools to ourselves! Have we really gone to the trouble and expense, in human loss as well as financial, to defeat communism and Nazism only to be defeated by a political ideology with a religious dimension emanating from the desert? Is civilization as we know it heading for the abyss? Is western civilization to be no more? Is our wonderful civilization ready for the dustbin of history? Is it set to become effete?

Remember this: At very least, we should work on the basis of reciprocity. Mention the words 'reciprocal arrangements' for the building of mosques and schools to the Saudis, and we shall soon see how quickly they'll back off!

Ladies and gentlemen, wake up and smell the rat before it is too late!

©Mark Alexander

Keep Turkey Out of Europe!
Don't tell me that Turkey belongs in Europe! If you're in any doubt about it yourself, read this from the BBC! Turkey doesn't even have a free press. This in itself is proof, if indeed proof were needed, that Turkey does NOT belong in our democratic Europe. We can remain friends with our Turkish neighbours without getting into bed with them! Turkish culture is Islamic; European culture is Judeo-Christian. Therein lies the BIG difference!

©Mark Alexander

Religion or politics? Prophet or politician?

Islam recognizes no separation of religion and politics. Islam does not recognize the secular aspects of life, either. Indeed, as I have said before, Arabic, the language of Islam, has no word for 'secular'. The word generally used in its place is 'profane', which to us, of course, has a totally different meaning. 'Secular' means not religious or sacred, whereas 'profane' means having contempt for God or holy and sacred things. From a philological point of view, this is very interesting, since it tells us much of the mindset of the Muslim. If he cannot make a distinction between the two, then is there any wonder why he views the secular West with contempt?

But there is more: Because Islam recognizes no separation between the religious and the political, it means that each and everything a person does becomes a potential act for Allah, one which pleases Him, or one which displeases Him. The whole of life becomes Allah-centric.

When a Westerner thinks of a religion, he usually thinks of a personal belief system, a belief system which moves the spirit and guides one to prayer, generally in one's private life, though coming together at certain times of week, month or year, as the case may be.

This is not what a Muslim understands by the term religion, or deen, sometimes written din. A Muslim understands far more by the word. Religion is a public affair every bit as much as it is a private one. Moreover, as a Muslim, one is encouraged to think about Allah and His prophet all one's waking day, invoking His name and His prophet's name, and blessing him at all times. Prophet Muhammad for a Muslim is a love-object: Muslims are required to love their prophet with all their hearts and with all their minds and with every fibre of their being!

This might sound all well and good to some outsiders. I have heard people say that these people seem to be much more devout than we are. But, at this point, I should like to add a caveat. This manner of being is one of the main reasons why Islam breeds such a lot of fanaticism in Muslims. Far more fanaticism than is bred in Christians, for example. The reason why is easy to explain: The Christian usually makes a big separation between the religious and the secular; so he is not focussed on the one thing for 24 hours a day. Focussing on religion 24/7 has the habit of making people fanatical; indeed, focussing on anything 24/7 is likely to make someone fanatical about anything, since a fanatic, by definition, is a person who is unreasonably enthusiastic and zealous about something, usually politics or religion, and is one who finds it difficult to change the subject! Muslims do, indeed, find it difficult to change the subject!

As we all know, Islam is growing in the West at breakneck speed. Liberals should be particularly troubled by this development. Ironically, they don't seem to be troubled at all! Indeed, many liberals seem to jump to the defence of Islam in the West. I can assure you now: Muslims and liberals make strange bedfellows!

Has anyone noticed how quickly liberals make an exit when 'uncomfortable' topics apropos of Islam are raised? At first, they jump to the Muslim's defence, but if they feel they are losing the argument, they depart very swiftly indeed. Probably, of course, because they know that YOU are telling the truth, and they know that THEY are losing the argument!

Because of the liberal approach to this intractable problem of Islam, we have a 'war' to fight on two fronts at one and the same time: on the liberal front, and on the Islamic front! Liberals often tend to view the world through rose-tinted spectacles; this is particularly so when it comes to the thorny problem of Islam! They hate it when you say that Islam is as much politics as it is religion, and get very mad if one suggests that Islam might be more politics than religion!

The fact, however, remains that we are not going to solve this problem which we are faced with unless we can face the facts! And the fact is that Islam is predominantly politics. Why! Even the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini said so himself. (Please see an earlier post of mine some days ago.)

Not only is Islam predominantly politics; but it is predominantly politics of a particular kind - a totalitarian kind! (Again, please see an earlier posting of mine some days ago.) Though Islam does not propound communism, it resembles communism in more ways that one could imagine. Hegel's philosophy put forward the theory that nations vie with each other for supremacy, and that nations were effective units of social history. Hegelianism was nationalistic, conservative, and counter-revolutionary. Karl Marx took away from Hegelianism these distinctive qualities as a political theory, and transformed it into a very powerful type of revolutionary radicalism. As G. H. Sabine tells us in his very erudite book, A History of Political Theory, Marx replaced the struggle of nations with the struggle à la Hegel, with the struggle of social classes.

Interestingly, the word 'struggle' is very much part of Islam. In Arabic, the verb 'to struggle', is jahada, from which the noun Jihad derives. We all know what the jihadis are struggling for: the Islamization of the world. They struggle to turn the 'House of War', or Dar ul Harb, that part of the world peopled by infidels, into the 'House of Islam', or Dar ul Islam, that part of the world peopled by Muslims. We are facing the Jihad now, as we all know; and this Jihad is set to continue for quite a long time to come, because this is all part and parcel of the revolutionary nature of Islam.

Hegel saw the struggle between nations; Marx, the struggle between the social classes. Islam, however, sees the struggle between religions - Islam versus the rest. Marxism bred fanaticism; Islam breeds it too.

Of course, many of you might think that communism was without a deity. Yes, I agree. But don't be fooled! The fact that communism had no deity in no way means that there isn't much else in common between these two types of political ideologies. Marxism empowered the working classes, or proletariat; Islam empowers the believers, or Muslims. It empowers them to take over the world, and legitimizes their doing so in the name of Allah.

Marx saw capitalism as a stage in the development of social and economic history which preceded the domination of the world by communism. Muhammad saw the chaos of the pre-Islamic world - al Jahiliyyah - as a stage in the development of the social and economic history prior to world domination by Islam.

In actual fact, Muhammad was a very skillful politician. A skillful politician and a skillful philosopher to boot. We tend not to think of him in this way. We should. Especially if we wish to safeguard our beloved liberal democracy. We shall never be able to keep Islam at bay if we continue to think of Islam only as a religion, and Muhammad only as a prophet. The political dimension of Islam is colossal. As, indeed, is the economic dimension of this juggernaut. For with the implementation of Islamic laws come strict economic principles. Our businessmen and capitalists should become well-aware of this. Islamic economics is not capitalism. Capitalism would not survive in tact if Islam were ever to rule the West. Capitalism would be replaced with the Islamic economic model. There are, indeed, some similarities; but there are also some great differences between these two economic models.

In the same way as communism came to dominate the life of the Russians of the Soviet Union, Islam will come to dominate us if we do not find a way of stemming the tide of the Islamization of the West. It will come to dominate each and every aspect of life, too.

For people who have been brought up in a free society, this is hard to imagine, especially if they have never been exposed to life in Islamic countries. But come to dominate all aspects of life it most surely will if we do not put a stop to this now. Indeed, it could easily become an unstoppable force, a force which will overwhelm us.

Nothing is too great or too small for Islam to regulate. For everything in life there is a rule, an Islamic rule, a rule which states the correct Islamic way of doing things. Islamic rules leave no stone unturned. Muhammad left Muslims rules for their toilet, for their eating, for their dressing, for their interactions with others, believers and non-believers alike, and, of course, for how to share their wealth after their death. Nothing at all is too great or too small for Islam to provide the answer. This, of course, is one of the reasons why Islam stifles original thought: Who needs to think when everything is either prescribed or proscribed?

By definition, a totalitarian government is one which suppresses all opposition, often with force, and is one which controls many or all aspects of citizens' lives. It is total governance.

Marxism controlled all aspects of people's lives, as did Nazism. Islam will do the same!

For Hegel the mechanism of progress was warfare between nations; for Marx it was antagonism between social classes. Both men regarded the course of history as rationally necessary , a pattern of stages unfolding according to a logical plan and advancing toward a predetermined goal. The majestic march of human civilization invites men to cooperate and to serve. Both philosophies were powerful incitements to action and most effective forms of moral exhortation. While Hegel appealed to national patriotism, Marx appealed to the fidelity of workers to their fellow workers. In both cases the appeal was quite different from the individualism of liberal political philosophies. It was addressed to loyalty rather than to self-interest, to duties rather than to rights, and it offered no reward except the hope that one's private life would gain meaning through service to a cause greater than oneself. (Source: G. H. Sabine: A History of Political Theory)

For Muhammad, the mechanism of progress was warfare and struggle between religions. It can be said that he also regarded the course of history as a pattern of stages unfolding to a plan advancing toward a predetermined goal: the goal of the complete Islamization of the entire world. Muhammad's majestic plan of human civilization also invites men to cooperate and serve: to cooperate and serve Allah, His prophet, and the great cause of the Islamization of the world. Muhammad's philosophy is also a powerful incitement to action, and is, of course, an effective form of moral exhortation. Muhammad appealed to Islamic patriotism. He tore down the frontiers between nations, and taught that there is only one world in reality: the Islamic world! Muhammad appealed to the loyalty and fidelity of the Muslim fraternity, stressing duties rather than rights, and offering no reward except the vain hope of eternal life in Paradise!

©Mark Alexander

Another interesting post from my guest writer, Eleanor:

We DO Live in Interesting Times

Sometimes it's good to see a hard-hitting, though disturbing, report that sets you back on your heels. Naivete and idealism have brought down many, but these coupled with ignorance of the ways of Islam are surefire way for us to lose everything as many millions have done over the centuries.

Author Robert Dreyfuss offers us a disturbing view of what he believes 'staying the course' in Iraq really means:

What President George W Bush has wrought in Iraq is just the latest in a long string of US efforts to make common cause with the Islamic right. But like the Sorcerer's Apprentice, whose naive and inexperienced use of magic blows up in his face, American efforts to play with the forces of political Islam have proved to be dangerous, volatile and often uncontrollable.

The problem goes far beyond the Shi'ites in Iraq. In the Sunni parts of the country, the power of Islamism is growing, too - and by this I do not mean the forces associated with al-Qaeda. but the radical-right Muslim Brotherhood, represented there by the Iraqi Islamic Party, and other manifestations of the Salafi and Wahhabi-style religious right.

In Egypt, Syria and elsewhere, the radical religious right is also gaining strength. Meanwhile; sometimes deliberately, sometimes by sheer ignorance and incompetence, the Bush administration is encouraging the spread of political Islam. Were the US to "stay the course," not only Iraq but much of the rest of the Middle East could fall to the Islamic right.

Does this mean that al-Qaeda-style fanatics will take power? No. Whether in the form of Iraq's Shi'ite theocrats or the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood in Syria and Egypt, the Islamic right cannot be compared to al-Qaeda. Yet, just as the US Christian right has its abortion clinic bombers, just as the Israeli Jewish right spawned the assassin of Yitzhak Rabin and settler-extremists who kill dozens at Muslim holy sites, the Islamic right provides ideological support and theological justification for more extreme (and, yes, terrorist) offspring.

Even the Muslim Brotherhood, an organization with a long history of violence, which once maintained a covert "secret apparatus" and a paramilitary arm, has not convincingly renounced its past, nor demonstrated that it sees democracy as anything more than a tool it can use to seize power.

Shi'ite "Islamofascists" rule Iraq The case of Iraq could not be clearer. In 2002, as Vice President Dick Cheney pushed the White House and the Pentagon inexorably toward war, it was increasingly obvious to experienced Iraq hands that post-Saddam Hussein Iraq would be ruled by its restive Shi'ite majority. It was no less obvious that the dominant force within that Shi'ite majority would be the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI, and a parallel force associated with al-Dawa (The Islamic Call), a 45-year-old Shi'ite underground terrorist party.

From the mid-1990s on, and especially after 2001, the US provided overt and covert assistance to these organizations as part of the effort to force regime change in Iraq. Like Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, with which both worked closely and which had offices in Tehran, SCIRI and Dawa were based in Iran. SCIRI, in fact, was founded in 1982 by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and its paramilitary arm, the Badr Brigade, was trained and armed by Iran's Revolutionary Guards. Certainly, to the Bush
administration, SCIRI and Dawa were known quantities.

The idealistic belief that the spread of democracy could solve all the world's ills has led us on this, perhaps, a fool's errand. Experienced Muslim 'hands', accustomed Islam's swallowing of cultures and whole civilizations were waiting in the wings for such an opening for to implement the practiced machinations that have been perfected for over a millennium.

Read the rest for other examples. I weep for our collective future.

©Eleanor