About

Twenty odd years ago, on a trip to Egypt, I thought I really ought to get an idea of the religion and so took an introduction to Islam with me. After two or three chapters of “You must do this, you mustn’t do that” I was taken aback to learn that those who do not comply can expect to drink molten metal in Hell for eternity. I thought “This Allah guy is a sadistic bully, just like most of the rulers in these parts. I wonder if there’s a connection” and left the book in a Cairo hotel room.

Several years later I heard that Muslim immigration into Europe was resulting in sizeable communities in various countries. I thought “That’s odd. Surely everyone knows that for a devout Muslim his religious identity will trump any loyalty to whatever country he lives in”.

After 1997 Tony Blair started to allow unprecedented levels of Muslim immigration while simultaneously waging war on their co-religionists in far off dusty lands. I thought “That’s a peculiar thing to do”.

In 2005 four British born Muslims blew themselves up on the London transport system, killing 52 people, citing religious and political motivations. I was angry about it but was elsewhere, and otherwise engaged, and I went back to sleep.

In 2013 two British born Muslims butchered a British soldier on the streets of London. I started to inquire into the religion of peace and was horrified at the cruelty I found, and the venom towards non-Muslims (See “30 things I can’t help noticing about Islam” and “A Short Story”). Mohammed was clearly a monster, more akin to Hitler than Jesus or the Buddha. If he came back today he would surely be shipped of to The Hague to face charges of robbery, assassination, rape, enslavement and genocide. Surely no one could love him apart from those indoctrinated in childhood or those lost souls who crave certainty at any price.

I decided that this time I would not be going back to sleep again and started to notice what had changed in Britain over the last twenty years:

– The Muslim rape gangs given ample justification in the Koran and Hadiths for sex slavery of non-Muslim women (and girls), and overlooked by the authorities for fear of being called racist.
– The thousands of cases of genital mutilation of Muslim (and other African) girls which had resulted in exactly zero prosecutions.
– The “honour” killings of girls who have become too westernized for their family’s taste. Was ever a word more misused?
– The Muslim enclaves which grow up around mosques, with indigenous inhabitants being “encouraged” to sell their houses for a pittance and leave the area.
– The halal meat, the production of which has reversed decades of progress in animal welfare and which has been fed to schoolchildren without their parents’ knowledge and appears unlabelled in supermarkets.
– The endless whining and playing the victim to gain advantage.
– The hate speech legislation which seems only to protect Muslims from everyone else and not everyone else from Muslims.
– The Saudi funded mosques in which, whenever investigative reporters looked, they found quite different things being said out front and in the back rooms.
– The niqabs and even, horror of horrors, burqas used as a provocation and a means of separating Muslims from the rest of society.
– The sharia courts which, although voluntary in theory, routinely discriminate against women and have been found to issue rulings in contravention of British law.
– The gradual de facto acceptance of sharia in British law and public life as exampled by the Law Society providing guidance on discriminatory wills [NB since withdrawn after the widespread outcry], and special bank accounts, student loans and city financial instruments to accommodate sharia.
– The massive over-representation of Muslims on benefits and in prison.
– The death threats which invariably issue from somewhere in the Muslim community whenever Islam is criticised or confronted, resulting in a very sensible self-censorship in public life (particularly from comedians who are quite brave about ridiculing Christianity).

All this is a huge affront to a host nation which extended tolerance to incoming Muslims, often refugees, and which has so often been repaid with disrespect and disdain.

Equally offensive to me, as someone who had never voted anything other than Labour or Liberal Democrat, is the betrayal of liberal values by the liberal left. They call themselves progressives yet bizarrely protect the most regressive outlooks on women, homosexuals and religious freedom from proper scrutiny. I am coming to believe there is something of “Fifty shades of Grey” in the relationship between the liberal left and Islam (See “The Guardian doing the right thing – eventually”).

Also, there are the desperate attempts by our leaders to tell us after each atrocity that “This has nothing to do with Islam”. This is terribly wrong-headed (See “Islamism or Islam?”). The trouble is that we can all read what Allah told Mohammed about slaying the kuffar and we can all hear when the perpetraters quote verses of the Koran. The only questions are how many more atrocities will it take before our leaders’ stance is no longer sustainable and how will the people of Britain react when they realise they have been deceived?

Anyway, why this blog? Well, I hope to alert you to what I see as the danger of Islam to all that is not Islam. It seems clear to me that this has been the case for the greater part of Islam’s history and so it is again now, as we see in the conflicts on most of Islamdom’s borders. I suggest that what we see around the world today is not a new “Islamist” phenomenon but merely an Islamic resurgence following the release of Islam from a hundred and fifty years of colonial containment.

If, on the other hand, you can persuade me that there is nothing to worry about then so much the better. In that case I would be massively grateful to you since, as things stand, I foresee only increasing conflict from Nigeria to the Phillipines to the Caucasus, and eventually to Europe.

By the way, the original intention was only to post those items, finishing with “Islamism or Islam?”, attempting to justify the claims on the home page.  As you’ll see the wretched things keep coming. I can only apologise but I just seem to have got into the habit now.

Advertisements

16 thoughts on “About

  1. Roger

    Good blog – thank you. Isn’t the betrayal of the ordinary man quite extraordinary? I wonder what the real story is – whenever something happens like this, which makes no sense at all, we may be sure that it really does make sense, and that the real reason has been omitted, and that real reason is something that won’t bear examination. The crazy policies towards France in the reign of Charles II were the result of French bribery. I wonder who has been bribed in our day? And with what?

    Reply
  2. Andrea Hardwick

    Just discovered your blog and am impressed by the intellect and knowledge base. I am learning more and more about Islamisation and spending as much time as I can in rebuttals on Youtube videos. Is it okay to utilise your quotes with a reference/web link to your corresponding webpage?

    Reply
    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      Please do. Glad to see more people joining the struggle every day (and I notice how much to the fore Australia is). Best wishes in your efforts on Youtube.

      Reply
  3. rhw

    Very well defended. I applaud your courageous efforts to highlight the evil we are facing. Where I live, in Scotland, I can see church after church and other municipal buildings being turned into mosques and so called community centres. Our way of life is under threat if we cannot counter the spread of this contaigen. Let’s not get started on the Halal slaughter issue which a previous poster mentioned rolled back 20 years of animal welfare reform.

    Keep up the good work

    Reply
  4. No Fear

    I have three Qurans two books on Sharia and digital copies of Bukhari and Sahih Muslim.
    I think that Islam is a supremacist political ideology thinly disguised as a religion.
    There is an esoteric side to most religions but I am talking about the exoteric Islam. I understand about the gnostic esoteric side of Islam but most muslims do not understand that stuff just as most Jews and Christians do not understand the Kabbalah etc. It’s all very nice for Sufis to have the gnosis but if their text book is also used as a violent political manifesto then, to be honest, I think the world could do without the book.

    Love your site.

    Reply
    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      Thanks. It’s so sad that the Islamic Human Rights Commission don’t have a spot in their Islamophobia Awards for up and coming blogs. A nomination would mean so much.

      Reply
      1. Koenraad Strom Schildknecht

        This is fantastic. Nice work, ECAW!!

        Thanks to the Internet, a TON of Muslims are converting to Christianity. Perhaps, they have accepted this Quranic nonsense at the threat of bodily harm; others, simple familial ties and customs.

        It is a very difficult decision for a Muslim to leave the faith–for obvious reasons–the least, of which, is being ostracized. There is a significant cultural cost for acknowledging it’s false.

        However, make no mistake, the whole premise of Islam is false. Neither Ishmael nor Abraham ever went to Mecca. It didn’t even exist in 1500 BC! Historians all know this. They just don’t want to cause rifts. Muhammed applied ingenious but a fabricated syncretism to conflate his father’s pagan god, Hubal, with the true GOD of Abraham.

        Reply
  5. Adam Scheurer

    This is hilarious! You flipped through three chapters of an introductory booklet on Islam, did some online research and you think you can judge the whole religion based on that?

    A religion esp. it’s core book(s) are always open to multiple interpretations.

    It’s crucial that a religion and it’s principles are to be understood as understood by it’s foremost authorities who expounded on it’s principles, beliefs, and law. In the case of Islam, they are muslim legal philosophers and theorists like founders of the canonical schools of thought, Averroes, Algazel [aka al-Ghazali] et al in my opinion.

    E.g. “– The Muslim rape gangs given ample justification in the Koran and Hadiths for sex slavery of non-Muslim women (and girls), …”

    How did you ascertain whether those verses and Hadiths which are supposedly justifications are really justifications? How did you deduce the rules pertaining to textual interpretation and extrapolation of laws from the primary sources of Islam?

    Then there is the issue of understanding the underlying meanings of the primary texts, their application and the inevitable disagreement that arise amongst scholars due to their being divergent from one another in conceptualization and application of the principles of deduction.

    For instance, the infamous wife-beating issue in islam i.e. The relevant Koranic verse, is amongst the favorite topics anti-islamists, which you would find them regurgitating quite often; yet many early exegetes and arab philologists considered the word contained therein actually alluded to separation from one-another, a position they validated and established from a linguistic point of view.

    Another thing to consider is there a so many factions amongst muslims, each with their own ways of understanding things. Take a close look at how different groups and factions reacted after woolwitch and see how they vary from one another.

    By the same token, If a muslim comes to me and say that hinduism (or any other faith for that matter) is gruesome because so-and-so Vedic hymn says such-and-such, I’ll just point to his ignorance of that tradition and be done.

    I hope you re-consider your approach toward Islam. Why not try to understand and then critique instead?

    I’ll finish with a beautiful excerpt from Susan Haack,

    “A genuine inquirer aims to find out the truth of some question, whatever the color of that truth…. A pseudo-inquirer seeks to make a case for the truth of some proposition(s) determined in advance. There are two kinds of pseudo-inquirer, the sham and the fake. A sham reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to make a case for some immovably-held preconceived conviction. A fake reasoner is concerned, not to find out how things really are, but to advance himself by making a case for some proposition to the truth-value of which he is indifferent.

    Neither sham nor fake inquiry is really inquiry; but we need to get beyond this tautology to understand what is wrong with sham and fake reasoning. The sham inquirer tries to make a case for the truth of a proposition his commitment to which is already evidence- and argument-proof.”

    Thanks and sorry for the typos.

    Reply
    1. ECAW's blog Post author

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      This is hilarious! You flipped through three chapters of an introductory booklet on Islam, did some online research and you think you can judge the whole religion based on that?

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      You misrepresent me:

      1. It should have been obvious that the book I left in Cairo formed no part of the research I undertook twenty years later. It merely provided an initial, ugly impression of Islam.

      2. Yes, I did some online research, actually quite a lot, and I have a high opinion of the internet. It is like the best libraries in the world rolled into one at your fingertips (as long as you use your common sense and search for original sources). For instance, it enables me to check out in five minutes some obscure verse quoted by an apologist and ascertain whether they are using it honestly or deceptively.

      3. I do not think I can judge a whole religion based on my research, nor have I any interest in doing so. I was only concerned to establish to the best of my ability whether Islam is a present danger to me, my family and my country. That centres on the question of whether the core teachings to be found in the Koran and the Sunnah mandated supremacism when they were written and whether they still do today.

      The answers I found were yes to both. Here is your man al-Ghazali on jihad:

      “One must go on jihad (i.e. razzias or raids) at least once a year … one may use a catapult against them when they are in a fortress, even if among them are women and children. One may set fire to them and/or drown them. … If a person of the ahl al-kitab [i.e. People of the Book] is enslaved, his marriage is revoked. … One may cut down their trees. … One must destroy their useless books. The Mujahid may take as booty whatever they decide … they may steal as much food as they need…”

      It doesn’t sound as though he thought Islamic supremacism had a time limit does it?

      However, the reasons for my conclusions are not to be found in the summary of the About section but in the first 15 posts (after which they tend to become somewhat more polemical).

      Let me list the reasons that make me think that hostility in Islam is difficult to avoid:

      The instructions of Allah.
      The actions of Mohammed.
      The actions of his early successors.
      The nearly 1400 years of Muslim hostility to all their neighbours save for a brief spell of constraint under European colonisation.
      The supremacism without limit of time or space expressed by various mediaeval scholars and enshrined in the various schools of jurisprudence.
      The paucity of benign sentiments towards non-Muslims in all the above.
      The global jihad we can see currently happening all around us.
      The habitual deceitfulness of Islamic apologists in the media (why lie if there is nothing to hide?)

      I go into these in some detail in the posts, particularly the last point. See here for details:

      https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/13/deceptiveness-mehdi-hasan/

      These apologists are of course only following al-Ghazali who said:

      “Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible.”

      And what aim could be more praiseworthy than advancing the cause of Islam?

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      A religion esp. it’s core book(s) are always open to multiple interpretations.
      It’s crucial that a religion and it’s principles are to be understood as understood by it’s foremost authorities who expounded on it’s principles, beliefs, and law. In the case of Islam, they are muslim legal philosophers and theorists like founders of the canonical schools of thought, Averroes, Algazel [aka al-Ghazali] et al in my opinion.

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      I disagree with you here. The very last people I would trust to explain a religion to me would be its priestly or scholarly classes who of course are starting from a very different position to a sceptic. But even then I find the likes of al-Ghazali, ibn Kathir and ibn Khaldun appear to share my view of Islamic supremacism. See here:

      https://ecawblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/14/who-says-islam-is-supremacist-2/

      Even if I thought it worth my while to explore the scriptures in exhaustive detail it would never be enough. I don’t intend to tell my grandchildren “Sorry, I never got round to doing anything about it because there was always one more commentary to consider”.

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      E.g. “– The Muslim rape gangs given ample justification in the Koran and Hadiths for sex slavery of non-Muslim women (and girls), …”

      How did you ascertain whether those verses and Hadiths which are supposedly justifications are really justifications? How did you deduce the rules pertaining to textual interpretation and extrapolation of laws from the primary sources of Islam?
      Then there is the issue of understanding the underlying meanings of the primary texts, their application and the inevitable disagreement that arise amongst scholars due to their being divergent from one another in conceptualization and application of the principles of deduction.

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      Sorry but this is just balls. It’s not me who needs to deduce the rules pertaining to textual interpretation on the the matter of sex-slavery of non-Muslim women. It’s the Pakistani men of Rotherham and the imams they grew up listening to. If the clear statements in the Koran about the inferiority of women in general, the inferiority of non-Muslims and the permissability of sex-slavery of infidel women can be defused by textual interpretation then the imams haven’t been doing a very good job.

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      For instance, the infamous wife-beating issue in islam i.e. The relevant Koranic verse, is amongst the favorite topics anti-islamists, which you would find them regurgitating quite often; yet many early exegetes and arab philologists considered the word contained therein actually alluded to separation from one-another, a position they validated and established from a linguistic point of view.

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      When the interpretations of these (unnamed) exegetes and philologists find their way into the various translations which Muslims take as, well, gospel let me know.

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      Another thing to consider is there a[re] so many factions amongst muslims, each with their own ways of understanding things. Take a close look at how different groups and factions reacted after woolwitch and see how they vary from one another.

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      Indeed, there are many factions amongst Muslims but I do not have the time or leisure to examine them all in detail. Nor do I think it necessary or helpful. In these times when the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir, both of which make no secret of their intention to replace our democracy with their theocracy by whatever means necessary, are given free rein in Britain and the flag over Westminster Abbey flies at half mast for the death of the king of Saudi Arabia where Christianity is forbidden, then I would say we have more pressing things to attend to.

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      By the same token, If a muslim comes to me and say that hinduism (or any other faith for that matter) is gruesome because so-and-so Vedic hymn says such-and-such, I’ll just point to his ignorance of that tradition and be done.

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      The difference between violent passages in Islamic scriptures and Christian or Hindu scriptures is that the former are prescriptive whereas the latter are not. When massacres of non-Hindus and non-Christians are being carried out daily to the cry of “Om” or “Hallelujah” I will consider the point.

      ——————- Adam Scheurer —————————————————————-
      I hope you re-consider your approach toward Islam. Why not try to understand and then critique instead?

      ——————- ECAW’s response
      I have tried to understand Islam, or more particularly, Islam’s threat to the West, and feel compelled to try to raise the alarm as best I can.

      I lay my facts and reasoning out openly for anyone to examine and challenge, a courtesy I never see reciprocated by the other side. I have done this in good faith, which is why I decline your implied invitation to pop myself into one of Susan Haack’s categories.

      Let me end with a challenge. I have found and quoted many authoritative sources which back up my claims about continuing Islamic supremacism. Can you produce some equally authoritative sources to justify the idea that the obligation to wage jihad to spread Islam throughout the world ceased to be valid some time in the past?

      Reply
      1. ECAW's blog Post author

        This is an example of how the opposition debate. The commenter Adam Scheurer attempted, in a rather condescending manner, to lighten my darkness and I took the trouble to try to answer all his points. He could have pointed out my errors or he could have said “Gee, I see you’ve got a point there” but no, he just disappeared even though I emailed him. It’s quite frustrating but I guess people like him do not expect to have to back up their assertions because they rarely talk to anyone who disagrees with them.

        So the challenge at the end of my reply goes unmet. Shame – a convincing response would make me feel more sanguine about the prospect of harmonious co-existence in the long run. If anyone else out there can produce something to answer it I would be most grateful.

        Reply
    2. Dominik

      Adam Scheurer, how about instead (or at least together with) all intellectual speculations that don’t have a lot to do with real life, we permit ourselves to use the good ol’ common sense and allow to judge the tree by its fruit?

      Reply
  6. philipsmeeton

    I agree with you entirely about the threat that Islam poses to all freedom loving people. It is a dreadful brutal tyranny. I comment on 4freedoms.com

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s