Sunday, November 12, 2006

Two Englishmen getting an excellent feel for the elephant

There's an old, old poem about the 6 blind men of Indostan who came face to face with an elephant and described its nature based on the part they were feeling at the time.

Now, my two friends Canker and Sir Henry Morgan at Reconquista are far from blind, but being decent sorts like many of us, they have been cautious, to a degree, to speculate on the nature of Islam based on a partial impression, but now, as they become more and more acquainted with the animal their impressions get more and more clear. Many of us are in exactly the same boat.
Where does tolerance end..and what, as a society, are we willing to tolerate?

Canker's excellent essay, Picking on Islam? discusses the acquittal of two British National Party members on charges of inciting racial hatred. ( For those who don't know, the British National Party is a National Socialist, anti-immigrant party without so much of the original National Socialists' anti-Semitism, but including much of their ideology in terms of economics. Think of them as somewhat Pat Buchanan like.)

Apparently one of them said in a speech that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" and that Muslims were turning Britain into a "multi-racial hell hole"....

I take it they were acquitted because the jury felt that even offensive speech was free speech provided it could be proven not to incite violence.

What Canker found interesting is the way British politicians like soon-to-be Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Home Secretary John Reid said that the existing hate speech laws need to be looked at and indeed may need to be `tightened' and that Muslims needed to be assured that there would be `consequences' for saying that Islam is evil or wicked.

And of course, Muslim Labour peer Lord Ahmed weighed in, stating that the government had not delivered on previous promises to the Muslim community on race hate laws, and that it was time for the government to start treating Muslims equally and not like "subjects of a colony." (!!)

Canker then goes on to relate this to speeches by the head of MI5, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller and outgoing PM Tony Blair on the extreme danger of homegrown terrorist plots in England, with MI5 knowing of 30 terror plots threatening the UK and keeping 1,600 individuals under surveillance.

He wonders whether the law-abiding Muslim majority in the UK is failing to recognize the growing problems with radical Islam, and whether the police are going to use the stronger laws and police powers to crack down on Islamic terrorists or to suppress free-speech?

The truth, of course, is that cracking down on racist hate speech does involve cracking down on Islam and Islamic terrorists. I could take you a half hour's drive from where I write this on any Friday you choose and show you a mosque where violent jihad against non-believers and the most obscene anti-Semitism and anti-Christian rhetoric is being openly taught and preached..because, in fact, it is an integral part of the Qu'ran and the Hadiths. I can likewise take you to a good many madrassahs(Islamic schools) where the same thing is being taught to tender minds on a daily basis...undoubtedly right in your neighborhood if you have a significant number of Muslims in your vicinity.

Is it possible for an Imam to preach a sermon without this baggage or a madrassah to teach Islam without referencing it? Of course it is. But a good many choose not to...or more accurately, hold the positions they hold because they have no inclination to avoid jihad speech. More on that later.

Lord Ahmed, like many Muslims more than likely would not consider this `hate speech' worthy on condemnation and prohibition by any government because of religious freedom and `civil liberties'. The irony of a Muslims seeking to deprive others of their freedom is simply astounding, the more so because it is fully embraced by the highest levels of the British government.

However, many ordinary Englishmen have a real good idea of what the elephant looks and smells like, and they want no part of it. Read the comments by `Yorkshire miner' below Canker's essay.

Or read this entry by Reconquista's Sir Henry Morgan entitled Have you a daughter?

In it, Sir Henry does something astounding; he correlates statistically the percentage of Muslims in different areas of London with the violent crime statistics in those areas. And, for the sake of simplicity, he focuses on one specific offence, rape and sex crimes. As Sir Henry said:

"Sex offences seemed a natural choice because all over the world there are reports of Muslims engaging in sex offences against non-Muslims (and other Muslims too, as it happens, where men have the cover of the Hudood Ordinances in Pakistan, or license from the government as in Sudan) out of all proportion to their numbers. Recent Australian events, and the scandal surrounding the Mufti of Australia were being talked about, I'’d recently been readingFjordman's work on rape in Scandinavia, we've’ all read the reports on rape in Pakistan and Darfur, the slums of France, the `“smileys'” inflicted in the Netherlands, the grooming of under-age girls in Bradford; and I was, anyway, looking for an offence-category that could not be linked to personal economic I chose that category: Sex Offences, partly for the above reasons, and partly because I believe it will strike an emotional chord with anyone likely to read this post. {..}

I haven'’t even looked at any other offence category in relation to this work. I did not keep looking at different categories until I found one to bash Muslims with. This was the first and so far only category I'’ve looked at. But as it turns out, I am going to bash the Muslims with it."

So what did Sir Henry find? He used various areas of London, starting with Havering, with the lowest proportion of Muslims of any borough in London and compared it with various other borughs of London up to the borough with the highest proportion of Muslims in London, with 36.4% Muslims: Tower Hamlets.

The charts for the various areas are available, including comparable trendlines.

What Sir Henry shows statistically is that the higher the percentage of Muslim population, the higher the incidence of sex offences and rape. What's more, it isn't linkable to the size of the population. Tower Hamlets, with much more than double the sex offences, has only 196,000 people to Havering'’s 225,000. What Tower Hamlets has more of, as Sir Henry puts it, is Muslims. The same is true across the curve in areas with a smaller percentage of Muslims living in them.

What's more, he uses the trendlines to speculate on two interesting areas: Is there a larger pattern of step-changes as Muslim proportions in a given area get even bigger?

And at what point does the percentage of Muslims equal Paris style intifada conditions? Is there a set point?

My answer, of course, is yes and no.

While generally speaking, my experience indicates that 10% seems to be the faultline, that by no means is always true. Belgium and Demark, both of whom experienced Islamic riots have Muslim populations well below that. The Hadiths have something to say about that tactically, as a matter of fact.

What is more certain than a given percentile of Muslims per se is the question of ideology. The violence Sir Henry speaks about in Britain and the violence we see elsewhere is the West is directly correlated, I think, to the tolerance given to jihad rhetoric and jihad fundraising and education. And frankly, that means the Saudis.

Here in the United States, I know a number of Muslims who are distraught over a phenomenon that has occurred in their neighborhoods, as well as world wide - the wholesale takeover of mosques and madrassahs by the Saudis, who have converted them into centers for preaching hardline wahabi jihad. The Saudis take advantage of their oil wealth and the freedom the West allows to build and fund the numerous mosques and madrassahs, and then use that leverage, maintained here in America by the wahabi-controlled Islamic Society of North America to provide the Imams, texts and teachers to promote their ideology. In this, they are aided and abetted by a number of politicians and influential figures who know that the Saudis have a reputation for being very generous to those who look after their interests. Both the first President Bush and President Clinton received 7 figure `gifts' for their presidential libraries upon retirement from their Arab friends, for example.

With that as a backdrop, is it any wonder that younger Muslims have become more radicalized? As Sir Henry says, those who have allowed this to happen and continue to hide the truth have much to answer for.

We're not at war with Islam, per se, but at war with jihad and those of its adherants who believe what Mohammed told them before he died in 632 CE - that they are to fight the unbelievers until they either kill them, get them to accept Islam or submit to Muslims and pay them tribute because they `feel themselves subdued.'

And that war should start on the home front.

The nature of this particular beast becomes clearer daily..

No comments: