What were they thinking?

Advertisements

Parliamentarians duped over Islamophobia part 2

In Nov 2018 the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) published their report Islamophobia Defined. This was the definition they came up with:

     “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness
      or perceived Muslimness.”

There are many shortcomings both in the definition itself and the process of arriving at it, as pointed out in a previous blog post. This post will look in more detail at two aspects (my highlighting in bold type throughout):

1. The confused and confusing relation between religion (but only one religion) and race.

2. The unavoidably subjective distinctions which will have to be made by those in a position to apply the definition in practice, between free speech and “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness”.

1. Religion and Race

In chapter 2 of the report we see how definitions of Islamophobia evolved from the original Runnymede Trust definition of 1997:

     ”…a useful shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear or
      dislike all or most Muslims.”

to their 2017 update in which they baldly stated that:

     “Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism.”

In 2018, as we have seen, the APPG declared that:

     “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism….”

At the start of chapter 3 the group say this of their contributors:

     “The contributors – academics, activists, NGOs, think tanks, experts and practitioners – tend to
      agree that the term Islamophobia is the most appropriate one, as it encompasses a variety of
      manifestations and practices that can comfortably be localised within what is generally
      understood as anti-Muslim racism.”

I contend that Islamophobia certainly is not generally understood as anti-Muslim racism but only by Muslim activists and certain academics within the field. Here is a small but very representative selection of their contributions to the inquiry:

On p29 Dr Imran Awan and Dr Irene Zempi say Islamophobia is:

     ”…motivated by institutional, ideological, political and religious hostility that transcends
      into structural and cultural racism
which targets the symbols and markers of a being a
      Muslim.”

On p30 Akeela Ahmed MBE points out:

     ”…the ‘structural nature of Islamophobia’ – which concerns “every aspect of a British Muslim
      person’s life” such as education, employment and representation in the Criminal Justice System
      – and the ‘intersectional nature of Islamophobia’ – which concerns its intersection with
      racism and sexism – would not to be captured if we were to understand and define
      Islamophobia solely as religious hate crime.”

On p39 Dr Omar Khan of the Runnymede Trust explains that:

     “Islamophobia is positioned within a social and cultural space that homogenises Muslims and
      places them at disadvantage vis-à-vis society, on the basis of their belonging to a specific group
      perceived to carry certain characteristics. The process is known as ‘racialisation’ and, as
      Massoumi, Miller, Mills, and Aked argue: “Racialisation describes process by which certain groups
      become signified as ‘races’ within specific social contexts. European colonisation relied on
      pseudo-scientific theories of races to categorise people into different racial hierarchies, today we
      rely on more culturalist explanations. Muslim appearances, behaviours and assumed
      practices are taken as a sign of inferiority – this is the process of racialisation. If ‘race’ is a
      fiction created when certain ethnic heritage or cultural practices attach to social
      advantage or disadvantage, it is hard to see religious identity as ontologically distinct from
      ‘race’. For good reason then, racialisation is increasingly used to explain Islamophobia as a
      form of racism.”

On p41 Professor Kallis declares that:

     “Race is not about phenotype, race exists first and foremost in the eyes of the racist. Race
      is a group that is defined by the person that makes a generalisation.”

and
      “It is the racist who creates the race”.

What this boils down to is the claim that A looks like B therefore A is B (or a kind of B). This is plain bad logic to anyone but academics who beguile themselves with ten dollar words. If a person disparages groups because of their culture rather than their race then their attitude should properly be called “culturalism”, or perhaps the snappier “culturism”, not “racism” or the hybrid “cultural racism”. One can see why people seeking enhanced victim status on account of one form of discrimination might want to link it to the gold standard of discriminations, racism, but it only works if you can persuade enough people to believe something which is simply not true.

To spread the idea wider, is discrimination against gay people racist? Why not? To paraphrase one of the statements above:

     “Gay appearances, behaviours and assumed practices are taken as a sign of inferiority
      – this is the process of racialisation. If ‘race’ is a fiction created when certain ethnic
      heritage or cultural practices attach to social advantage or disadvantage, it is hard to see
      sexual identity as ontologically distinct from ‘race’. For good reason then, racialisation
      is increasingly used to explain homophobia as a form of racism.”

It works just as well, or badly, doesn’t it?

Here is another aspect to all this. No other racially heterogeneous group attempts to claim that discrimination against themselves is racist, not even other religions. When Christians are persecuted in Nigeria, Egypt or Pakistan – or derided in Britain – they never make this claim. The fact that Muslims do makes one suspect something less than straightforward is going on. The phobes among us will see this inquiry as merely another example of what Muslims do best, claiming victim status in order to gain special treatment and therefore political advantage, summed up in the Arabic saying “Show a victim’s face and you will take over”. It is exactly what Mohammed did in Medina when he fled there as a “refugee”, after all. The extraordinary thing is how the APPG members lapped it up, although perhaps not quite so extraordinary when you consider that the majority of them are Muslims themselves.

Also, Muslims should be careful what they ascribe to others because it can be turned back on them and their religion. For instance, it is surely beyond doubt that Allah is a hateful religious bigot. How else can you describe a being who refers to those who don’t believe in him as “the vilest of creatures” and who boasts throughout the Koran of the hideous tortures they will suffer once he gets his hands on them? Clearly, according to this new concept of “cultural racism”, he must now also be a racist.

Which brings us on to:

2. The unavoidably subjective distinctions which will have to be made by those in a position to apply the definition in practice, between free speech and “a type of racism that targets expressions of Muslimness”.

On p11 of the Executive summary the APPG tell us:

     “…the aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been motivated by,
      nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion. Evidence read
      and heard by the group clearly delineated between the desirability of criticism, debate and free
      discussion of Islam as a religion – by Muslims and non-Muslim participants in the inquiry
      – and the victimisation of Muslims through the targeting of expressions of Muslimness to deny or
      impair their fundamental freedoms and human rights.”

So that’s okay then, I can criticise Islam, presumably including its god, as long as I do not target Muslims’ expressions of Muslimness.

Except that on p35 they endorse these views from two of their contributors:

      “Ali and Witham further their concern about the boundaries between Islamophobia and free
      speech by arguing that “there is no ‘good faith’ criticism of Islam”. Central in their argument is
      the concept of inseparability of race and religion, whereby an attack on the religion cannot
      be separated from an attack on the race
because both concepts are constructs adopted “as a
      means of categorising colonial subjects”. As such, the recourse to the notion of free speech
      and a supposed right to criticise Islam results in nothing more than another subtle form of
      anti-Muslim racism, whereby the criticism humiliates, marginalises, and stigmatises
      Muslims.
One, real life example of this concerns the issue of ‘grooming gangs’: “Participants
      reported being told that ‘Mohammed is a paedophile’, for instance. This comment does
      not,in a strictly grammatical sense, have the victim themselves as subject, but is rather an
      example of the ‘criticism of Islam’ as it is actually articulated and experienced. Yet, clearly,
      it is aimed at (and can achieve) harm to individual Muslims, and is not rooted in any
      meaningful theological debate but rather in a racist attempt to ‘other’ Muslims in general
,
      associating them with the crime our society sees as most abhorrent of all.”

and on p57 of the Conclusion they describe calling Mohammed a paedophile (along with several other arguably factual statements about Islam and Muslims) as a “symbol associated with classic Islamophobia”.

I maintain that the characters of both Allah and Mohammed are central to the theological debate about the truth or falsity of the religion of Islam. In my view Allah’s all too human character flaws make him an unlikely candidate for the position of Creator of the Universe. Likewise Mohammed’s rap sheet, including much more than paedophilia, is an indication of his untrustworthiness as the sole witness to the supposed Creator’s revelation.

But the APPG appear to regard making such claims as unavoidably directed at Muslims and therefore Islamophobic. I wonder what criticisms I can make of Islam that are not trumped by concern for the sensibilities of Muslims.

At best, the verdict on such criticisms will depend on the judgment of the individuals in authority armed with this definition. If it becomes officially accepted, and some councils have already accepted it, your fate, if you dare to express an opinion about Islam, will depend on the subjective interpretation of any social workers, teachers, policemen, employers etc you have dealings with.

At worst, despite the APPG’s protestations about free speech, we could find ourselves subject to official sanctions, and their enforcers, against any criticism of Islam. There is a word for such an arrangement…Sharia.

Parliamentarians duped over Islamophobia part 1

I have long thought that Islamophobia is a word in search of a thing, merely a thought-paralysing device to discourage people from criticising or even investigating Islam. That being so this is an apt definition:

     “Islamophobia is the state of knowing more than one should about Islam”.

The word should have died of embarrassment long ago, but it hasn’t. In fact it has gone from strength to strength and now the great and good of the land have taken the trouble to produce a new substantive definition:

     “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of
      Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

It appeared in the All Party Parliamentary Group on British Muslims (APPG) Nov 2018 report
Islamophobia Defined.

One important question not addressed in it is why does Islam need its own special word when Hinduism and Sikhism do not?

Since the major populations in Britain of adherents of the three faiths originate from the same region (India/Pakistan) would it not be reasonable to ask whether the undoubted ill feeling which exists towards Islam and Muslims, but not towards Hinduism and Hindus or Sikhism and Sikhs, has something to do with Islam and Muslims?

Another question is if Islamophobia really exists and deserves examining then why not its obvious counterpart Kafirphobia?

Considering the many hateful sentiments about non-Muslims expressed by Mohammed himself in the Koran, and how seriously devout Muslims take his example, perhaps it might have been worth considering the possibility that prejudice is far from a one way street. For one example, in 2012 Lord Nazir Ahmed, a member of the APPG himself, blamed a Jewish conspiracy for a driving conviction in Britain. For another, here is the account of the racism encountered in the Muslim community of Glasgow by a half Scottish half Pakistani girl, and the racism she did not encounter after she left and lived among indigenous Glaswegians.

The really shocking thing about the report though is that after publication it soon became clear that it had been heavily influenced, even largely taken over, by Islamist activists and their allies seeking always to put Muslims in the position of victims of a hostile British society. As we shall see, the parliamentarians of the APPG were either duped or complicit in the process.

But to start at the beginning:

The APPG introduce themselves (p4)

     “The Group was established to highlight the aspirations and challenges facing British
      Muslims; to celebrate the contributions of Muslim communities to Britain and to
      investigate prejudice, discrimination and hatred against Muslims in the UK.”

So they declare their position at the outset. The existence of prejudice and hatred against Muslims is accepted uncritically with no thought given to the possibility of prejudice and hatred on the part of Muslims against non-Muslims. Some people are of the opinion that the former is largely a response to the latter.

Executive Summary (p9)

The group reassure us that:

     “…the aim of establishing a working definition of Islamophobia has neither been
      motivated by, nor is intended to curtail, free speech or criticism of Islam as a religion.
      Evidence read and heard by the group clearly delineated between the desirability of
      criticism, debate and free discussion of Islam as a religion – by Muslims and
      non-Muslim participants in the inquiry – and the victimisation of Muslims through the
      targeting of expressions of Muslimness to deny or impair their fundamental freedoms
      and human rights.”

Here we run straight into a major problem with the APPG’s definition, the concept of Muslimness. The problem of defining one abstraction, Islamophobia, is solved by referring it to another, novel, abstraction. But Muslimness is defined nowhere in the report, only supposed examples of it are given such as skin colour, clothing, dietary rules and the “radical otherness of so-called Muslim practices” including FGM, forced marriage, veiling, electoral fraud, the imposition of shariah law and child sexual exploitation (p46).

This is a sorry list which does nothing to clarify matters. Where are the main objections to Islam, its supremacism and jihad? Clearly a new consultation process and report will be necessary sometime in the future to define Muslimness.

Even if we accept a common-sense idea of Muslimness, like those we use for Englishness or Jewishness – adequate for everyday but not for legal or educational purposes – there is still the massive problem of Islamic duality. Islam comes in two distinct forms, the Islam of Mecca and the Islam of Medina, shown graphically here.

In Mecca Mohammed, while not exactly friendly to non-Muslims, left the violent retribution for unbelief up to Allah. In Medina he became a political and military figure who took matters into his own hands and imposed Allah’s will on his neighbours by warfare. Both were expressions of Muslimness in their time and both find their supporters today. Most people couldn’t care less what Muslims eat or wear but do care about jihad which they see on their streets every few weeks in some new atrocity or other. So, can the APPG tell us, is jihad an expression of Muslimness or not? To do that they would need to go deeply into the theology of Islam and even then would not be able to agree, echoing the arguments raging within and without Islam around the globe.

Chapter 2 Arriving At A Working Definition (p23)

Chapter 2 takes us through the evolving definitions of Islamophobia from the famous 1997 version of the Runnymede Trust through to the APPG one.

Before we visit some of them I have to ask, do MP’s use terms like “intersectional” or “essentialist tropes” or “othering” or “Orientalism” which are scattered throughout the heart of the report, chapters 2 and 3? No they do not. These terms are almost exclusively used by postmodernist whatever-studies zealots and professional Islamophobia hunters such as Dr Chris Allen of Leicester University’s Center for Hate Studies.

This made me wonder, did the APPG members actually write those chapters or did they outsource them to someone “more suitable”? That is how they read both in the language used and the contributors chosen. We will see later how my suspicions were confirmed.

Here is a selection, from the report, of past definitions, starting with the Runnymede Trust one from their Islamophobia: A Challenge for Us All (1997):

     ”…a useful shorthand way of referring to dread or hatred of Islam – and, therefore, to fear
      or dislike all or most Muslims.”

A fairly modest start, confining itself just to Islam and Muslims.

The Council of Europe report, Islamophobia and its consequences on Young People (2005) added racism, discrimination and human rights to the mix:

     ”…the fear of or prejudiced viewpoint towards Islam, Muslims and matters pertaining to
      them…[taking] the shape of daily forms of racism and discrimination or more violent
      forms, Islamophobia is a violation of human rights.”

The UN Special Rapporteur on Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (2007) added baseless hostility, unequal treatment, victimhood and exclusion:

     ”…a baseless hostility and fear vis-à-vis Islam, and as a result, a fear of, and aversion
      towards, all Muslims or the majority of them. [Islamophobia] also refers to the practical
      consequences of this hostility in terms of discrimination, prejudices, and unequal
      treatment of which Muslims (individuals and communities) are victims and their exclusion
      from major political and social spheres”.

The 2008 report from the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation’s Observatory on Islamophobia went with most of the above plus intolerance and stereotyping:

     ”…an irrational or very powerful fear or dislike of Islam and the feeling as if the Muslims
      are under siege and attack. Islamophobia however goes much beyond this and
      incorporates racial hatred, intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and stereotyping. The
      phenomenon of Islamophobia in its essence is a religion-based resentment.”

The writer of Chapter 2 commented:

      “This definition introduces the intersectional nature of Islamophobia by incorporating
      ‘racial hatred’ as a defining feature of anti-Muslim hostility.”

From our point of view it is worth noting that in 1990 the OIC produced the Cairo Declaration which effectively reduces Human Rights to Sharia Rights (see Article 24, “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah”). It is well known that Sharia epitomises intolerance, prejudice, discrimination and religion-based resentment…but only of non-Muslims so that’s ok.

In 2017 The Runnymede Trust revisited the issue with their “Islamophobia: Still A Challenge for Us All” report and baldly stated:

     “Islamophobia is anti-Muslim racism.”

And, to remind ourselves, in 2018 the APPG added the novel term Muslimness:

     “Islamophobia is rooted in racism and is a type of racism that targets expressions of
      Muslimness or perceived Muslimness.”

How has something about Islam and Muslims morphed into something about racism and Muslimness? Why does this definition make no mention of either Islam or fear of any kind, let alone the irrational kind, that the word “phobia” usually refers to?

What we have here is definition inflation, and it is possible because the word has no real meaning beyond what the definer wishes it to mean. The stripes on a tiger are limited by reality. The stripes on a unicorn are limited only by the imagination of the believer in unicorns. One thing we can be sure of is that this is not the end of the story. No doubt some Hate Studies scholar or Islamist activist will be tacking something new and unpleasant onto it within a year or two. How about fascism? No one likes fascism do they? Be my guest. I don’t even ask for a credit.

Here is one last point about the definition. Islamophobia “is a type of racism”. That’s a bit vague isn’t it? What type of racism do they mean? In fact they are talking about cultural racism. It crops up throughout the report like essentialist tropes but I suspect the APPG are a bit coy about presenting such an obvious oxymoron to the general public. They might start wondering whether the Emperor is fully clothed.

In the wonderful world of postmodernism, where words can mean whatever you want them to mean, the term makes perfect sense. Most ordinary people think racism has to involve race but that is just because they are too thick to appreciate the higher understanding. Here you go…all explained on p41:

     ”Race is not about phenotype, race exists first and foremost in the eyes of the racist.
      Race is a group that is defined by the person that makes a generalisation.”

That is why thinking poorly of scholars of Islamophobia is racist.

Chapter 3 Our Findings (p27)

I will refrain from going into the contents of chapter 3 in detail. It is there in the link above for those with a taste for the intellectual equivalent of bog snorkelling. Suffice it to say that it consists of wall to wall grievance-airing by Muslim activist groups and their academic supporters. The only counterview comes in the form of a quote by Douglas Murray, an example of what not to think, to the effect that “the fear of Islam is not irrational but in fact, ‘supremely rational’, because Islam can be both violent and extremist”.

At this point I asked myself, who set the agenda here, who selected the contributors and actually wrote the report, in particular chapters 2 and 3? Checking the Acknowledgements section I found that the group gave thanks to the secretariat with particular mention of Dr Antonio Perra. Who he? This article shows him to be one of those hard left academics who hate everything about Britain, a clear Britophobe in fact.

Not only that but he was until recently a member of MEND, a group described by the Henry Jackson Society as Islamists posing as civil Libertarians. He is just the kind of person who adds fuel to my Islamophobic fantasy of an alliance between the Left and Islam designed to undermine Western civilisation.

Andrew Gilligan adds details both about Dr Perra and about a particular member of the secretariat:

     “One of the APPG’s secretariat, Muhbeen Hussain, is from Rotherham, where in 2015 he
      organised the local Muslim community to boycott the police for their ‘Islamophobic’
      behaviour after the child-sex grooming scandal.”

At this point I thought it no longer necessary to engage with the report on its own terms. It is clearly discredited by its associations. We now know who set the agenda but who put Perra and Hussain in place? Could it have been Baroness Warsi who has always got along fine with MEND? Just asking.

The APPG group have clearly been duped at best by a determined and underhand attempt to portray British Muslims as eternal victims of their host country, thereby driving a wedge between the two. That is an Islamist goal and the APPG have aided it with their nonsensical new definition of Islamophobia.

A merry Christmas, one and all

The festive season has officially kicked off with the now traditional attack on a Christmas Market, this time in Strasbourg. Allah will be pleased, and remember all you other lone wolves….there are only 13 slaughtering days to Christmas.

For the rest of us, why not set the tone with this new style Christmas tree, made of Berlin Wall quality concrete and deployed at reputable Christmas Markets across Germany? Guaranteed not to shed needles, it will last for years and should stop a fully loaded eight wheeler:

When it comes to choosing presents that show you really care, what could be better than this stylish yet practical range of accessories for that trip to Oxford Street for the New Year sales? A military grade stab vest, an acid proof visor and an anti-slash scarf discreetly reinforced with carbon fibre wire:

          

Here’s my present list. What’s yours?

For those who haven’t noticed what is happening all around them – a bomb at the end of their street. Nothing messy, just enough to wake them up:

…and for those who know there’s a problem but read nothing, say nothing and do nothing – this item of casual wear:

For those who do their damnedest to rouse Britain to action while maintaining all the while that it is finished – a dead horse and a big stick. Be gentle, I think I saw an ear twitch:

                          

For those Guardian feminists who go on about the toxic masculinity of Western men while ignoring the source of the world’s greatest misogyny – an empowering hijab. Get used to it, they may not be optional forever:

For you who believes in the caring, sharing Mohammed of the Covenant with the Monks of Mt Sinai – the cache of government bonds I have discovered in your name. I’ll just need a small deposit to cover the administrative fees:

For academics who believe that there is such a thing as racism without race, that Islamism started in the 1920’s, that Muslims are blowing us up because of ontological insecurity, and who don’t understand that Islamophobia is a word in search of a thing – tenure at the University of Laputa. May they never descend to bother us again:

For those who appreciate the fine art of seeing what you want to see, and not seeing what you don’t want to see – this hagiography by Karen Armstrong, who refers to Safiyah as merely a war widow (with explanatory subtitle):

For Palestinian children – a cute toy AK-47 inscribed with the message “This machine kills Jooooooz”, and for ISIS children a fluffy teddy bear to practise on (knife included):

          

For our deluded Pope – a book by one of his priests who isn’t:

For those whose default reacton is “We’re just as bad” – a nos quoque kit with one line explanations of the Crusades, the Inquisition, Leviticus, the Ku Klux Klan, the Lord’s Resistance Army, the Westboro Baptist Church, Timothy McVeigh and the British Empire. Handy in any discussion with racists and fascists:

      

For Moderate Muslims – a Moderate Koran. With all the vicious stuff taken out….more of a pamphlet really:

And for Allah – a son and heir, and an invisible friend. It must have been tough growing up with no family. If only he had brothers and sisters, he would have had to learn to share (in his case, the universe):


courtesy Fun with Muhammad

World’s 100 greatest bloodbaths…but no Jihad

In his book Atrocitology (aka The Big Bad Book of Horrible Things in other editions) Matthew White lists the 100 bloodiest episodes of human history. Although not a professional historian his list, with accompanying information and classifications, has been welcomed by many academics. Steven Pinker referenced it in his The Better Angels of Our Nature to argue that humankind is getting less violent.

Top of White’s list is World War II with 55,000,000 deaths. The 8th century An Lushan Revolt in China comes 4th with 36,000,000. Pinker took into account the relative world population in earlier times by giving mid 20th century equivalents. The weighted death tolls moved the An Lushan Revolt up to 1st place with 429,000,000 while World War II dropped to 9th place.

As another example, White places the Middle East Slave Trade (7th-19th centuries) in 9th place with 19,000,000 deaths and the Atlantic Slave Trade (15th-19th centuries) in 10th place with 18,000,000. After applying Pinker’s weighting the Middle East Slave Trade moved up to 3rd place with 132,000,000 and the Atlantic Slave Trade moved up to 8th place with 83,000,000.

Atrocitology is a fascinating read but there is one thing missing…the real number 1, which doesn’t appear in the top 100 at all! I know, it’s a shock. Let me try and approach the matter obliquely.

Number 30 on White’s list is the Crusades with 3,000,000 deaths. Several campaigns were launched over a period of 200 years yet he classifies them as an analytically and functionally coherent group; not a sequence of distinct events but a succession of waves of new recruits fighting the same long war. That seems a reasonable view because the Crusades were started as a response to a call to war issued in 1095 by a religious leader, Pope Urban II, and they had in common the religiously motivated aim of taking control of a particular piece of real estate, the Holy Land, from their Muslim rulers.

Here is a map of all the battles fought during the Crusades:

In contrast, here is a map of all the battles fought between Muslims (attacking) and Christians and others (defending) in the preceding 450 years (historians consider the Crusades to be a defensive, or counter-offensive, response to this onslaught):

I was shocked to find so many battles fought between Muslims pushing west and then north into Europe, and Christians defending their lands (and then counter-attacking in the early stages of the Reconquista of Spain). So I asked a professor of history who confirmed that they really happened.

Are the campaigns fought over 450 years a sequence of distinct events or a succession of waves of new recruits fighting the same long war? The military expansion of Islam also started as a response to a call to war by a religious leader, Mohammed (speaking for Allah), in the 620’s. The Muslim invasions also had in common the religious aim of taking control of a particular piece of real estate from their non-Muslim rulers. It just happens to be rather larger than that fought over in the Crusades, namely Dar al-Harb (the house of war), all of the world not yet brought within Dar al-Islam (the house of Islam).

It is an unfamiliar comparison to most people simply because of the difference of scale in both time and space, but the principle is the same for both. Over 200 years the different waves of Crusaders took control of (and lost) Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli, Jerusalem and Acre. Over 450 years waves of Muslim armies took control of Jerusalem, Cairo, the whole of North Africa and Spain. If one campaign can be grouped together as the Crusades then I can see no reason why the other should not be grouped together as Jihad.

Look at it this way. Everyone recognises Meteor Crater in Arizona as just that, a meteor crater. That is because we are looking from the outside and it is small enough (1 km across) and well enough defined to afford us a clear view of the whole thing. The citizens of Nordlingen in Germany, on the other hand, had no idea they were living inside a meteor crater until modern science showed that the 24 km wide depression in which Nordlingen sits is just such. The Nordlinger Reis crater is less obvious but it is every bit as much a crater as its more famous cousin.

Likewise, to us the Crusades are clearly a long but coherent military campaign, but Jihad is less obviously so. Firstly, its spatial extent is so much greater, in fact it has no boundary since the world is round. Secondly, its temporal extent is also unclear since it is still continuing today, 1400 years after its inception. On both counts we are living within the crater of Jihad and, unable to see the rim, do not recognise it for what it is.

Defining our terms

Firstly, The Maliki manual of Islamic Law, the Risala, defines the word “jihad” as “a technical term for the Muslim fighting the unbelievers who have no treaty with the intention of elevating the word of Allah or presenting Islam”. The Risala provides a succinct explanation of Jihad in Chapter 30: On Jihad, including important features such as the different kinds of obligation; presenting the triple choice of conversion, paying the jizya, or war; rules of engagement; and the distribution of booty. One thing missing is an explanation of the Dhimma, the agreement of protection (as in protection racket) which entailed humiliating conditions for conquered non-Muslims, including the jizya tax, in return for which they were permitted to a) practise their ancestral faith and b) remain alive.

Secondly, this is how the Encyclopaedia of Islam characterises Jihad:

“The spread of Islam by arms is a religious duty upon Muslims in general…Jihad must continue to be done until the whole world is under the rule of Islam…Islam must completely be made over before the doctrine of jihad [warfare to spread Islam] can be eliminated.”

Thirdly, the Islamic historian Bernard Lewis adds this:

“The basis of the obligation of jihad is the universality of the Muslim revelation. God’s words and God’s message is for all mankind; it is the duty of those who have accepted them to strive (jihada) unceasingly to convert or at least subjugate those who have not. This obligation is without limit of time or space. It must continue until the whole world has either accepted the Islamic faith or submitted to the power of the Islamic state.”

Note the phrase “without limit of time and space”, making clear the scope of Jihad. It could accurately be referred to as “Eternal and Global Jihad” but let’s just stick with “Jihad” for the sake of brevity.

The scriptural basis for Jihad

This is verse 48:28 of the Koran, showing Allah’s frankly supremacist attitude towards other religions:

“He it is Who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the true religion that He may make it prevail over all the religions; and Allah is enough for a witness.”

And this is verse 9:29, which is the clearest expression of what Allah expects his followers to do about it:

“Fight those who believe not in God nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by God and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.”

It is the source of the famous triple choice traditionally presented to unfortunate infidels who happened to be next on the map: Convert, Submit and pay the jizya, or War. There are those who maintain that 9:29 and the other Jihad verses, conveniently highlighted in mauve here, refer only to the infidels Mohammed happened to be fighting at the time he produced the revelations. That would be a plausible claim if Mohammed had called a halt to his Jihad at the borders of Arabia before he died. But he didn’t. Mohammed’s last act was to send Jihad international by ordering an attack on Byzantine Syria. His surviving companions, who presumably understood his intentions, immediately set about subduing rebelling tribes in Arabia and then attacked their neighbours to East and West. What we can definitely say is that the Muslim warriors who took Islam to the infidel after Mohammed’s death clearly subscribed to the “universal” rather than the “contextual” view of Jihad.

And remember, they did not issue ultimatums in the name of this or that empire, but always in the name of Islam. As White points out in his chapter Religious Killing, “…if the parties declare religious motives, we should at least consider the possibility that they are telling the truth”.

Two early Jihadists make their motivations clear

Less than 10 years after Mohammed’s death in 632 Al-Nu’man ibn Muqarrin, a representative of the encroaching Muslim army, made the Persian emperor, Yazdegerd III, an offer he should have accepted:

“We are therefore inviting you to embrace our religion. This is a religion which approves of all that is good and rejects all that is evil. If you refuse our invitation, you must pay the poll tax [ie jizya]. This is a bad thing, but not as bad as the alternative; if you refuse, it will be war.”

In the 680’s, after conquering Christians living in North West Africa, the invading general Uqba ibn Nafi reached the Atlantic coast. He rode his horse out onto the beach and into the waves, declaring:

“Great God! If my course were not stopped by this sea, I would still go on, to the unknown kingdoms of the West, preaching the unity of thy holy name, and putting to the sword the rebellious nations who worship any other Gods than thee.”

Both the examples above are taken from Robert Spencer’s indispensable The History of Jihad.

What was the extent of Jihad?

Here is the video from which the pictures above were taken, showing Jihad in the West and the Middle East, not just up until the Crusades but throughout 13 centuries, starting with Mohammed’s wars to bring Arabia under Islam and ending with the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924.

And there was just as much Jihad carried out to the East, some say to much more deadly effect in India, and all the way to China.

What would the death toll be for all this historic Jihad? Various estimates for the total number of victims of Jihad exist, such as this one on Bill Warner’s site Political Islam:

120,000,000 Africans
60,000,000 Christians
80,000,000 Hindus
10,000,000 Buddhists

For our purposes I think we should discount the figure of 120,000,000 Africans. It comprises slaves taken plus collateral losses in transportation, and dependents left behind to starve. Slavery is definitely connected to Jihad because taking slaves as booty from Jihad raids is sanctioned in Islamic Law, but it cannot count as Jihad itself because the Middle East slave trade was not conducted in order to convert slaves but merely to profit from them.

So that would give us an estimate of 150,000,000 deaths due to Jihad. It is only an estimate, made up from estimates. The fact is that no one really knows the correct figure so suppose, for the sake of argument, we halve that number to 75,000,000. Since the total for World War II stands at 55,000,000 Jihad immediately shoots to number 1. Applying Steven Pinker’s weighting would surely also push Jihad above the 8th century An Lushan Revolt with 36,000,000 (unweighted) deaths since the first great Jihad conquests took place in the 7th and 8th centuries and the invasion of India started around 1000 AD (with less weighted increments ever since).

Not joining up the dots

Why does Matthew White not include a chapter on Jihad or even have an entry for it in the index? Presumably because it never occurred to him that it forms a coherent whole just as much as the Crusades do. Nor does he detect Jihad in particular atrocious episodes of history. For instance he denies the Muslim invasion of India a place in his list because it is “too long and sporadic to count as a single event”. His dismissal is arbitrary. If he understood what Jihad is he would recognise that it doesn’t matter how long and sporadic the long war is. Allah has plenty of time.

Also, although he gives Aurangzeb a chapter, White does not see his wars against the Hindus and Sikhs as Jihad, even though he touches on the humiliating conditions of the Dhimma Aurangzeb imposed on Hindus, and the temples he had destroyed and replaced with mosques. Puzzlingly, White identifies the dividing line in these conflicts as being between Muslims and Hindus but does not classify Aurangzeb’s wars as religious yet in the preceding chapter about Cromwell’s invasion of Ireland he identifies the dividing line as being between the English and the Irish but does classify it as religious.

White is not alone in this unseeing of the thread of Jihad which connects apparently unconnected conflicts in the Old World over 1400 years, and now around the whole world. It is a cultural pathology currently affecting the great majority of people in the West. Until a hundred years ago the West (aka Cristendom in those days) knew Islam as its implacable enemy. Mystifyingly, over the last 50 years or so, a great amnesia has fallen upon the population.

Why did that happen? It is not as though Jihad has disappeared. In fact it has come roaring back after 150 years of relative quiescence under European colonialism (here is a list of 35 recent or current conflicts “fought as Jihad”). We can only speculate on the reasons, but invariably our attention is diverted away from the one thing that the endless litany of atrocities on our streets share in common. Academics tell us that Muslims are attacking us because of poverty or Western foreign policy or othering or ontological insecurity or a host of other things. A current favourite is mental illness which is routinely diagnosed in the mainstream media immediately after a devout Muslim stabs a policeman, shouting “Allahu akbar”.

What would happen if Matthew White accepted the reality of Jihad “without limit of time or space”? That would put him in opposition to the message, promoted by governments and spread by the mainstream media, that there is no such thing as global Jihad, only lone wolves, criminals and “extremists” adhering to an aberrant interpretation of Islam. I suspect that in the eyes of establishment academics he would immediately be demoted from “amateur historian” to “dissident historian” and the calls would dry up. They have careers to protect and, given the spirit of the age, who would wish to be seen associating with “the vilest of creatures”, Islamophobes? He would also likely attract the attention of CAIR, the lawfare specialists who try to kid the world that “jihad” means making new friends and going to the gym. And of course there are those who take this kind of thing personally…

Even putting those disincentives aside, I do not expect that he will accept my argument regarding Jihad and rearrange his list. Nevertheless I will ask him and report back if he replies [he didn’t].

At the moment it is only dissident scholars – Robert Spencer, Bill Warner, Ibn Warraq, Andrew Bostom, Mark Durie etc – who point out the obvious. Wouldn’t it be a great step forward if mainstream scholars started to investigate 1400 years of correlation to see if there might be some causation there too? Estimates of the death toll of Jihad might be firmed up and find a respectable place in academia alongside those for the victims of the Holocaust, Mao, Stalin etc.

Danusha Goska has actually proposed a museum of the victims of Jihad, along the lines of the Holocaust Museum and similar. It would not only commemorate the dead but act as a centre for academic research for the purpose of educating the general public, academics, journalists and our purblind leaders. Why hasn’t this been done already? I expect for the same reason that Matthew White hasn’t included Jihad in his list, because so very few people have joined up the dots and realised what they spell.

The Cairo Declaration

There are many ways to differentiate between the two sides currently playing out the Clash of Civilisations which has been going on for 1400 years but which has taken on new and more insidious forms in recent times.

One very telling one is to compare the Western and Islamic attitudes to human rights, as represented by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights with its Islamic equivalent the 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam which was produced by the OIC (Organisation of the Islamic Conference since renamed the Organisation of Islamic Co-operation).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

I am sure that few Westerners would argue with the selection of rights presented in the UDHR. Nor would I. Most of them should apply in any society which calls itself civilised.

Nevertheless I have to admit to feeling more than a little queasy about them because I do not recognise specifically human rights as rights at all, but merely wishes disguised by impressive sounding words like “fundamental” and “inalienable”. It has always seemed to me that most religions consist of the suggestion that people could be a bit nicer to each other, wrapped up in mumbo jumbo to to hide its obviousness. So it is with the modern secular religion of human rights.

As far as I can see, all rights are conferred on humans by other humans whether formally as in legal rights or informally as in customary rights. The kind which philosophers claim are inherent in humans simply by dint of being human are, I’m sorry to say, only imaginary rights. That’s the trouble with letting philosophers get involved with things like this, they tend to confuse their concepts with actual things – it’s called reification.

But don’t take my word for it. Here is Jeremy Bentham letting rip about Human Rights’ not too distant ancestor Natural Rights:

Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and imprescriptible [in our modern terms “inalienable”] rights, rhetorical nonsense, — nonsense upon stilts.”

As an example, Article 26 states that everyone has the right to education. Well, no they don’t unless someone else – their parents, their tribe or the state – is prepared to provide it. Likewise with Article 24 which states that everyone has the right to paid holidays.

The idea that humans pop into the world with a list of entitlements which were only discovered 200 years ago after 200,000 years of going unnoticed is….well, see above.

There are problems with believing in things which do not exist. For one thing they can get out of hand. The number of stripes on a zebra are limited by reality. The number of stripes on a unicorn are limited only by the imagination of the believer in unicorns. Thus rapists can now avoid deportation because of their human right to a family life or because of their human right not to be subjected to human rights deficiencies in their homeland.

All that explains why I would feel more comfortable if it was called the Universal Declaration of Human Aspirations. That said, it was clearly written by people with their hearts in the right place. Three things we can say about it are that it is:

1) Universal in that it is intended to apply to every human being regardless of race, sex, religion etc.

2) Benign in its intentions.

3) Honest since (putting aside the well meaning self-deception about the nature of rights) there is no intent to deceive the reader with hidden or deceptive content.

Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam

Firstly, we notice that the title does not include the word “Universal”. That is quite accurate since in Islam different categories of humans qualify for markedly different rights. However it does use the phrase “in Islam” which implies that the conception of human rights presented here applies only within Islam, ie only to Muslims, with no implications for non-Muslims. We will see that this is not the case.

Secondly, Article 24, as shown in the picture above, is of crucial significance because it underlies the whole Declaration:

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

We should bear this in mind when examining selected excerpts from the Declaration. The excerpts are in italics with my highlights in bold like this, followed by comments in standard text.

PREAMBLE

“Reaffirming the civilizing and historical role of the Islamic Ummah which Allah made as the best community….”

This comes from Koran 3:110:
“Ye are the best community sent forth unto mankind….”

The authors of the Declaration were too polite to include the matching verse regarding unbelievers (8:55):
“The vilest of moving creatures with Allah are those who disbelieve….”

“Believing that fundamental rights and freedoms according to Islam are an integral part of the Islamic religion and that no one shall have the right as a matter of principle to abolish them either in whole or in part or to violate or ignore them in as much as they are binding divine commands….”

This prepares us for the reality that the Cairo Declaration is more about proscriptions than rights. Note that this also applies to non-Muslims since the crucial section starts “no one shall have the right….” rather than “no Muslim shall have the right….”.

ARTICLE 1

“All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah….”

One thing the Cairo Declaration is not is universal. Rights for Muslims, non-Muslims, men and women are markedly different. The only universality in the Declaration is that which we find here in Article 1, that of universal subordination to Allah. That does not mean just Muslims but Hindus, Buddhists, Rastafarians, Atheists…and you too, Kafir. And it’s not optional.

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities,
without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion, political affiliation, social status or other considerations.”

Did the authors of the Declaration think no one would notice these bare faced lies?

Islam was founded on discrimination based on religion….Muslim good, infidel bad. Being a non-Muslim in Medina around 630 AD was a very bad idea, as it still is in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc today.

The same goes for discrimination based on sex….unless “basic human dignity” is characterised by near total domination by father then husband, and lesser legal rights over property, marriage, divorce, children, her own body and testimony in court.

ARTICLE 5

“Men and women have the right to marriage, and no restrictions stemming from race, colour or nationality shall prevent them from exercising this right.”

That’s nice but where is “religion” in that list? Nowhere, because in Islamic law (effectively equivalent to Sharia) Muslim men are allowed to marry non-Muslim women whereas Muslim women are not allowed to marry non-Muslim men. Since the children in Muslim families have always automatically taken the religion of the father the Muslim population in any mixed society will always grow at the expense of the non-Muslim population.

ARTICLE 6

“Woman is equal to man in human dignity….”

See above.

ARTICLE 9

“The State shall ensure the availability of ways and means to acquire education and shall guarantee its diversity in the interest of the society so as to enable man to be acquainted with the religion of Islam.”

Sounds fine to start with doesn’t it, until it becomes clear what the point of the education is. And, of course, it is not just Muslims who are to become acquainted with Islam but “man”. Islam has always been a proselytising religion….by fair means (dawah) or foul (jihad).

ARTICLE 10

“Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism.”

This of course means to change his Muslim religion to another religion or atheism.

ARTICLE 11

“Human beings are born free, and no one has the right to enslave, humiliate, oppress or exploit them, and there can be no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty.”

Human beings are of course not born free into Islam. They are immediately slaves of Allah. That’s how he refers to his followers throughout the Koran. The popular name “Abdul” means “slave of Allah”. All that is recognised in the phrase “no subjugation but to Allah the Almighty”. The problem comes when humans take on subjugating duties on his behalf. Just as an example, what is likely to happen when a Muslim decides to reject Allah?

Come to think of it, aren’t the authors of the Declaration accusing Mohammed of being a human rights abuser? He certainly enslaved the women and children of the Banu Qurayza tribe (after executing the men) and the protection racket he instituted, known as jizyah, was specifically intended to humiliate, oppress and exploit subjugated non-Muslims:

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture – [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled.” (Koran 9:29)

ARTICLE 19

“All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled.”

But plenty of distinctions between Muslims and non-Muslims and between men and women.

“There shall be no crime or punishment except as provided for in the Shari’ah.”

This is interesting, and shows the predominance in the OIC of Saudi Arabia which really does adhere to Article 19. Only they and a few other countries do so. The majority of Muslim countries retained large parts of the European Colonists’ legal systems and yet they endorsed the Declaration. Can it be that all the 45 OIC signatory countries have a hankering for the old ways?

Article 22

“Everyone shall have the right to express his opinion freely in such manner as would not be contrary to the principles of the Shari’ah.”

In other words everyone is free to express any opinion as long as it does not criticise Allah, Mohammed or Islam. And remember the Sharia applies to you too.

“Everyone shall have the right to advocate what is right, and propagate what is good, and warn against what is wrong and evil according to the norms of Islamic Shari’ah.”

But you see, jihad is good according to Sharia and freedom of conscience is wrong.

In any case, this is a toned down version of the Sharia based duty to “command the right and forbid the wrong” which goes a good deal further than mere advocating and warning. According to The Reliance of the Traveller, a handy guide to Islamic Law, sanctions against wrong-doing (which can be applied vigilante style) range from “explaining” to “force of arms”.

“Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate sanctities and the dignity of Prophets, undermine moral and ethical Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm society or weaken its faith.”

As with so many of the above articles this is not a right but a proscription. That’s Islam for you but, you know what, the same authoritarian mindset can be found in our own Western controllers of information today who shadow ban and close the accounts of offenders against prevailing left/liberal orthodoxies. Just change a few words….

“Information is a vital necessity to society. It may not be exploited or misused in such a way as may violate politically correct sanctities and the dignity of favoured identity groups, undermine globalist Values or disintegrate, corrupt or harm the Left’s cultural dominance or weaken the faith of the indoctrinated.”

ARTICLE 24

“All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.”

Here we come to the nub of the matter. Throughout the Declaration we routinely find curtailments of what Westerners would regard as rights, as though the UDHR has been laid on the Procrustean bed of Sharia and found to be too long, which means too generous, too fair, too free. What the Cairo Declaration presents is not Human Rights at all but Sharia Rights – miserable, hobbling facsimiles of the originals.

Bad enough for those primarily affected, Muslims, but non-Muslims should be aware that Sharia has a place for them too, and it’s not a good place. In Sharia there is only one true religion and it is entitled to dominate all the others, which in effect means Muslims dominating infidels. Saps in the West cannot imagine that this is the reality of Islam but if they dared to examine how non-Muslims are treated in Muslim majority countries around the world they would understand. As it is, with demographic changes in the West showing no sign of doing anything but accelerating, they will soon enough have the chance to experience it for themselves.

ARTICLE 25

“The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration.”

Islamic Sharia is invoked throughout the Declaration so you would need to know what it consists of before you can understand what the Declaration means. No source for the Islamic Sharia is referenced in the Declaration so anyone accepting it is buying a pig in a poke.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get a straight answer to the question “Where can I find the Sharia?” from any imam. It appears to consist in a massive, scattered collection of fatwas and legal rulings. Fortunately there are a few manuals of Islamic Law which have been translated into English and give the enquiring infidel a key to the Declaration. They all have things to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims which give the lie to many claims made in the Declaration, for instance the statement in Article 1 that:

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion…”

This is what the Hanafi manual of Islamic Law, the Hedaya (Book 9 p.140) has to say about discrimination against non-Muslims on the basis of religion:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

So how does the Cairo Declaration shape up on the 3 criteria above? It is:

1) Universal regarding the subordination of all humans to Allah but not so much for humans themselves.

2) Benign for Muslim males at least. Again not so much for anyone else.

3) Honest about the fact that that Islamic human rights equals Sharia but dishonest in kidding us about equal respect for non-Muslims and women, and dishonest in hiding from the reader what Sharia actually entails.

While Muslims routinely play Western human rights for all they are worth in that branch of jihad known as “lawfare”, the OIC have made it clear here what human rights we can expect when they are in a position to dictate them. We should be grateful to them at least for the warning.

A Proposal regarding Islamic Supremacism and Islamic Supremacists

NB This is a continuation of a discussion on the Gates of Vienna site about whether Islamisation can be rolled back without eroding civil liberties.

In 622 AD Mohammed and his followers arrived in Medina as refugees, supposedly fleeing religious persecution. He quickly established himself there by means of criminality (caravan raiding), violence (assassination) then open warfare (jihad) and within eight years he controlled the entire Mecca/Medina area having either converted, exiled, enslaved or slaughtered all the local population.

When we observe the growing control by Muslim immigrants of no-go zones across Europe and the effect on local populations of escalating levels of criminality, violence and jihadist attacks, it is clear that the perpetrators are simply following the example of Mohammed…today Rinkeby, tomorrow Malmo, in due course Sweden. Clear to those of us who have enquired into the teachings and history of Islam at least. For those who have not done so it is a mystery. As an example, just recently there were co-ordinated carbecues in several Swedish towns accounting for around a hundred Saabs and Volvos. The prime minister, Stefan Löfven, responded by saying “I’m getting pissed off – really! My question to these people is what the hell are you doing?”

Some time in the not too distant future one or more of the European countries which so foolishly opened their borders to mass Muslim immigration will have to decide whether they will throw off such wilful ignorance and do what is necessary to survive, or just go under. Most likely the first will be Sweden but the rest of us are not that far behind.

Who do we turn to for guidance in these absurd times? Clearly not our mainstream political leaders. They have turned against us and care more for their utopian dreams than the protection of their people. The same goes for mainstream journalists, academics and religious leaders.

But amongst all the froth they produce, assuring us that we are all the same and we can all get along fine if we just make a bit of effort, one dissenting message from a religious man to the inhabitants of Europe stands out as starkly realistic. That man is Amel Shimoun Nona, exiled Chaldean Catholic Archbishop of Mosul:

“Please, try to understand us. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home”.

I believe this to be undeniably true. Democracy was never designed to cope with a sizeable, determined contingent of people who are intent on its destruction, using its liberties against it. At some point we will have to accept that it is necessary to suspend or limit our non-discriminatory ideals with regard to one particular ideology and its adherents, and discriminate against it and them as though our civilisation depended on it….because it does.

Agree with me or disagree, but that is the assumption the following Proposal is based on. So now we just have to sort out the details. First of all, what is the ideology in question and who are its adherents?

“What a dumb question” you may say, “obviously we are talking about Islam and Muslims”. True, but is that the whole of Islam and all Muslims? Many people think so. The view that the problem we face comes from an undifferentiated Islam and all Muslims is clearly put here by the author of the Hesperado blog in his farewell post.

I suggest that we can slice things quite a bit finer than that though and save ourselves some trouble. Or we could if there was the political will, but that deficit applies to all proposed solutions…at the current time.

I would hope that we can agree there are parts of Islam which present no more of a threat to us than Sikhism or Hinduism – all of the five pillars in fact; the declaration of faith, prayer, compulsory charity ie Zakat (apart from the proportion which Islamic Law stipulates must go to support jihad), fasting and the pilgrimage to Mecca.

So what is it about Islam which is such a danger and what should we call it? Is it Sharia or jihad or political Islam or Islamism or fundamentalism or any of the other similar terms? They all point to aspects of that which threatens us, and overlap to some extent, but I suggest the crucial element can best be identified as Islamic supremacism.

This definition by the Citizen Warrior site sums it up precisely:

“ISLAMIC SUPREMACISM is the belief that Islam is superior to other religions, cultures, and governmental systems, and the belief that Islam’s superiority entitles Muslims to dominate, control, and rule non-Muslims”.

I deplore the fact that Islamic texts justify the cruel oppression by Muslims of other Muslims, particularly females, but if it wasn’t for the implicit or explicit call for the subjugation of non-Muslims then I could happily ignore Islam, as I did until five years ago.

“So the Muslims we really need to worry about are those who can be designated Islamic supremacists?” That’s right. I don’t give a damn which foot Muslims enter the toilet with or even that their bugaboo god reckons to torture me forever for not believing in him. But I do object to those Muslims who think I should be under their control since they are Allah’s representatives on Earth. I have to regard them as my enemy, as they apparently regard me as Allah’s.

“Ah yes, but how to tell them apart from the others?” More of that later.

How should we respond to Islamic supremacism and what is currently its central project, the Islamisation of the West? There is no shortage of suggestions to be found on counterjihad sites about how to deal with the problem. Putting aside those involving pitchforks or nuclear weapons, I am concerned to try to identify one which seems to hold out the best chance of being effective while doing the least damage to our system of governance built on democracy, liberty, individuals’ rights and the rule of law.

It may be that there is no such solution and that we are headed ineluctably towards subjugation or civil war. But there is surely nothing to lose in attempting to sketch out a possible last ditch plan to deal with the problem democratically (or somewhat democratically) before armed militias confront each other on the streets.

Looking at the proposed solutions to be found on the internet we can see that they tend to fall into two camps, those involving the ideology of Islam and those involving its adherents, Muslims. [My brief comments on some of the solutions look like this]

Examples of solutions based on Islam itself:

1. We recently saw a petition from a collection of French notables, including an actor and an ex-president, demanding that verses of the Koran “calling for the murder and punishment of Jews, Christians and disbelievers” should be removed on the grounds that they are obsolete. Not surprisingly al-Azhar university, the guardian of Sunni orthodoxy, replied “Not bleeding likely” or words to that effect.

2. Geert Wilders has simply called for the Koran to be banned in the Netherlands. [How are you then going to show people just how awful it is?]

3. I myself, not entirely seriously, proposed a joint venture with Her Majesty’s Government to publish and distribute a Moderate Koran, that is one with the Medina suras removed.

4. In a novel twist on this approach the Pakistani scholar Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri had the cheek to slip additional notes into his translation of the eternal, uncreated book making all the jihad verses explicitly defensive and then used it as the basis for his fatwa condemning all terrorism as un-Islamic. As an example this is what he did to the infamous verse 9:29:

“(O Muslims!) Wage (also a defensive) war against those of the People of the Book (who infringed the peace treaty signed with you, and despite being in exile, provided full support to the disbelieving Meccan invaders who imposed the battle of al-Ahzab [the Confederates] on Medina, and have continued every possible conspiracy against you even now). They do not have faith in Allah and the Last Day…etc”.

Examples of solutions based on Muslims:

1. The author of the Hesperado blog mentioned above always maintained that nothing short of the deportation of all Muslims from western countries could save the West. [But he would never address the practicalities]

2. The commentator El Ingles here, here and here thinks the solution, or a large part of the solution, for Britain would be to deport all Pakistanis. [Why settle for a religious war when you can have a race war too?]

3. One of the policies of the now defunct political party Liberty GB was to prohibit Muslims from holding public office. [Taxation without representation didn’t turn out well for us last time, did it?]

4. We sometimes hear calls for legal or geographic partition in Europe. [They would only be beachheads, wouldn’t they?]

There is however a third group combining both Islam and Muslims:

1. In 2006 Sam Solomon, an ex-Muslim scholar, wrote a Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding which was endorsed by the current leader of UKIP, Gerard Batten. It detailed which parts of Islamic teachings should be rejected by Muslims living in the West, and groups claiming to represent Muslims were asked to sign it. As far as I am aware there have been no takers so far.

2. In Australia Harry Richardson has produced a Declaration of Peaceful Intent for individual Muslims to sign and has suggested that it could form the basis of a statutory declaration, giving it some legal force. [Needs refining – as it stands even a genuinely quietist Muslim would be likely to object to the phrase “unprovoked violence” believing that the Koran sanctions only provoked, ie defensive, violence]

3. Daniel Pipes proposed in-depth interviewing to, as he says, smoke out Islamists and produced 93 questions to ask based on Islamic beliefs and practices. [Who could be more of an Islamist than Mohammed?]

4. Newt Gingrich proposed the deportation of any Muslims who believe in Sharia. [Far too broad brush – Sharia includes how Muslims should wash their hands]

My Proposal falls into this third group.

The law of the land, properly enforced, should be sufficient to deal with the various unlovely, but not necessarily supremacist, features of Islam such as polygyny, forced and underage marriages, FGM, honour killings, vigilantism, punishment for apostasy and blasphemy etc.

Common sense policies on immigration, welfare and ejecting illegal immigrants would also help with community relations. Likewise insisting on Friday sermons being given in the language of the host country and banning foreign funding of mosques.

But European governments should also accept that an uncertain percentage of their Muslim populations subscribe to the world view of Islamic supremacism which presents a mortal threat to western civilisation. Those governments should therefore make it clear which beliefs and actions are acceptable and which are necessarily seditious, with the understanding that offending individuals must be removed one way or another from the host society and offending institutions closed down. That is my Proposal in a nutshell.

Offenders should be interned until such time as they can be returned to their ancestral homelands or any other country willing to take them. There are 57 OIC member states. Perhaps some of them would be amenable to financial or other inducements. If not, we should ask ourselves whether it is likely to be cheaper in the long run to intern committed Islamic supremacists or to allow them free movement in a continent full of high value jihad targets.

You might ask whether it is physically possible to isolate a large number of such people in crowded European countries. Well, to take just two examples, the British Isles comprise 6,000 islands (yes, who knew?) and Sweden has plenty of unspoilt tundra in the North.

Here are some examples of those unacceptable attitudes and actions:

Anyone believing that jihad is still required from Muslims, and not just a dead letter from 7th century Arabia would necessarily qualify as an Islamic supremacist.

That would include any imam using the Hilali Khan translation of the Koran. Here is verse 8:60 making the issue very clear:

“And make ready against them all you can of power, including steeds of war (tanks, planes, missiles, artillery, etc.) to threaten the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others besides whom, you may not know but whom Allah does know…etc”

The mosques or other Islamic institutions using it would qualify as centres of Islamic supremacism. Since the Hilali Khan translation (aka the Wahhabi Koran) is widely distributed in the West courtesy of Saudi funding, that means a lot of imams to be removed and a lot of mosques to be closed down. Those resisting such closures will have revealed themselves as supporters of the ideology in question and will also qualify for removal.

The same goes for mosques where the faithful pray for victory over the kuffar, apparently a not uncommon practice. Here is that nice Cat Stephens singing about it (at 2:00). He’s definitely one!

The Muslim Brotherhood is the primary font of Islamic supremacism in the world today. Its founder, Hassan Al-Banna, gave the organisation its ideological stamp when he said:

“It is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet“.

It has spawned most of the well known jihadist groups around the world and has infiltrated western countries using a plethora of front organisations. It, and they, should be proscribed and their supporters removed. This, of course, goes for the many other Islamic supremacist groups which spring from other sources, such as Hizb ut-Tahrir or those organisations in the West taking their inspiration from the Pakistani scholar Abul Ala Maududi. Here he is making his position clear in his seminal book Jihad in Islam:

“Islam wishes to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it….Islam requires the earth—not just a portion, but the whole planet….”

What business does anyone holding such an ideological position have in non-Muslim European countries? Answer…none. And why would anyone own that book in the first place? Even now it is a crime in western countries to possess documents “likely to encourage or aid terrorism”. Jihad in Islam, and a great many similar books, could sensibly be added to the list.

Of course there are parts of Sharia which explicitly mandate Islamic supremacism. A well-thumbed Section O of the Shafi’i manual of Islamic Law, The Reliance of the Traveller would be highly suggestive of supremacist sympathies.

Attempts to take over symbolic public spaces such as Speakers Corner would also count since they have nothing to do with pluralistic engagement and everything to do with Islamic triumphalism. Blocking the traffic by praying in the street falls into the same category. Likewise expressions of contempt for non-Muslims, the vilest of creatures, such as anti-semitism or attacks on churches.

Successful attempts to impose Sharia on the indigenous population such as the exclusive provision of halal meat in hospitals, schools or prisons should be rescinded along with the de facto blasphemy law enshrined in hate speech legislation. But in truth you can’t blame Muslims for trying it on. The blame lies with the non-Muslim authorities who think they are being nice and decent rather than just weak.

If Sharia councils (not courts) are to survive they should be officially registered and closely monitored to be sure they are not going beyond their brief of providing guidance in family matters, and on a truly voluntary basis.

The niqab and burqa are not just a fashion statement or an expression of piety. They are a studied insult to western values and a declaration of permanent separation. As such they are likely precursors to Islamic supremacism. An Algerian apostate has related how those who eventually instigated the bloody civil war in Algeria in the 90’s started their campaign of differentiation and acquisition of power by first controlling the dress of their women before then going on to attempt to control everyone.

Islam is the Religion of Control – of the universe by Allah, of the Ummah by Mohammed, of women by men, and if given the chance, of infidels by Muslims. If we wish to survive as free societies we have to deny them that chance.

The above are just examples of supremacist attitudes and actions. No doubt an international committee, composed of people who understand the threat, could produce a comprehensive list and Muslims could be asked to sign a declaration rejecting them. Those refusing would save us the trouble of further investigation. As an added benefit, no doubt some useful-idiot SJW types would “convert” and refuse to sign out of solidarity with oppressed Muslims. Excellent – we should take them at their word.

Not surprisingly objections have been raised to this approach:

1. How to get the Proposal adopted and implemented.

Solutions to the problem of Islamisation are routinely proposed among the counterjihad community and are often met with the very reasonable objection “It’s no good just telling us what needs to be done. How do we get from here to there?”

The good news regarding the above Proposal is that we need do nothing at all. The conditions which may eventually induce the populace to support such decisive measures, and therefore governments to implement them, are being brought about as we speak. Not by us but by those Muslims closely following the example of Mohammed, enthusiastically demonstrating how incompatible they are with European civilisation. With greater numbers of Muslims come greater levels of criminality, jihad and actions which show the desire to dominate rather than to co-exist as equals. This pairing is automatic and invariable and so these conditions must only increase over time.

For the long-suffering indigenous Europeans the elastic is being stretched a little tauter with every stabbing to the cry of “Allahu akbar”, every rape of a kaffir girl, every desecration of a church and every small anti-social act toward the host population. It may of course just snap with us meekly accepting our subjugation or perhaps it will reach its limit and spring back, much to the surprise of those who have never heard the saying “Good fences make good neighbours”.

2. Is it even possible to implement without triggering the civil war we wish to avoid?

It all depends on the numbers. Attempting to deport all Muslims from Britain, or even just all Pakistanis, would almost certainly trigger civil war or something like it. There are (officially) about 4 million Muslims in Britain and the majority of those are of Pakistani descent.

Whatever the total, it would be an awful lot of people to round up and deport considering that the UK now has an army of only 60,000 soldiers, 10% of whom are considered unfit for duty. Factoring in an unknown number of non-Muslim allies who wish to see western civilisation brought down at any cost and true believers in the “poor Muslims persecuted by the evil West” myth, I suggest that the ensuing conflict would immediately go unofficial with militias fighting it out on the streets.

On the other hand, how many Islamic supremacists are there in Britain? Nobody knows. Estimates vary from a tiny minority, sometimes quantified as something like 0.001%, to all of them. Polls show variable figures, sometimes indicating percentages as high as 30% to 50%. At a guess, I would not be surprised to see Daniel Pipes’ finger-in-the-air figure of 10% to 15% borne out (he calls them Islamists).

There is only one way to find out, by making laws proscribing certain expressed attitudes and actions, and seeing who breaks them. If it turns out to be a tiny minority then there would be very little problem, in fact we could expect the great majority of Muslims to be glad to see the back of the trouble makers giving their religion a bad name. If it turns out to be 10% to 15% that would be manageable. If it turns out to be the opposite, 85% to 90%, then we have a problem but, as with any problem, it is at least a step in the right direction to know the real extent.

3. What might be the effects of this removal of Islamic supremacists?

Think of this Proposal as a gardener might. Applying a selective weedkiller will remove the ragwort in a lawn leaving the grass unharmed, even encouraged. Of course ragwort will always find its way back, requiring repeat applications, but that’s life.

The first application would remove the largest, most obvious clumps of noxious weed such as all those Muslim Brothers insidiously working to undermine our civilisation. Subsequent applications would account for ever decreasing hauls.

Let’s assume that this Proposal works and the first few applications remove most of the Islamic supremacists in our midst and a good many mosques are closed down. What would a Muslim community with the noxious weed of Islamic supremacism largely removed look like?

It seems reasonable to assume that those who wish to control non-Muslims are the same people who maintain such an effective control over other Muslims. Perhaps, with the coercive element gone, the remaining Muslims will give up the endless compulsion to dominate, and a truly moderate Islam will emerge, a quietist strain of Islam whose adherents really can get along with everyone else. Perhaps female Muslims will take control of their own fertility, join most other social groups in having no more children than they really want, and thereby put an end to the demographic trend which is the biggest threat of all to western societies.

Or perhaps we will discover that it is precisely the coercion which keeps Islam alive. Yusuf al-Qaradawi, effectively chaplain to the Muslim Brotherhood, once admitted that without capital punishment for apostasy Islam would have died out long ago. Perhaps when Muslims realise that they can leave Islam with impunity they will do so in numbers, leaving only a small remainder of non-threatening Muslims. This would take us back to the same happy condition which existed in Britain fifty years ago when Muslims dressed like the rest of us and words like “jihad”, “Allahu” and ”akbar” were never heard.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to find out?

4. There is no time, it’s too late.

The short answer is if it is too late for this Proposal then it is also too late for any others and we must reconcile ourselves to civil war or subjugation.

The long answer is as follows.

This is a quote from the discussion on the Gates of Vienna site mentioned at the top:

”….such policies should have been implemented a decade or so ago. We discussed similar things here back in those days, and the basic conclusion was that they needed to happen very soon, within a few years at most, or it would be too late….Well, those few years have come and gone, and nothing has changed. Or rather, things got worse….”

If events always took place in an orderly, linear way then it is true because things have got worse and if nothing happens it will be too late. But great changes generally do not occur like that. Actions lead to reactions; the pendulum swings too far in one direction and then swings back, sometimes catastrophically.

In the case of western acceptance of Islam the pendulum has been moving in only one direction for the last 20 or 30 years but now it is slowing drastically. Nationalist parties are not just springing up all over Europe but threaten to become the largest single party even in places like Sweden. Next stop is an outright majority, after which unthinkable things become not only thinkable but doable.

We see Brexit about to significantly weaken the EU’s power and finances, the Visegrad four defying Brussels, Italy turning back migrants and even France and Germany rowing back on Schengen. Surely these things, along with increasingly negative experiences with immigrants, herald the end of the EU, the prime mover of the pro-Islam pendulum, even though it may take a non-immigration issue such as a financial crisis in Italy to kick it off.

When the EU does implode it won’t be an orderly process but a sudden, dramatic collapse unpredicted by all the talking heads just as was the case with the end of communist rule in Eastern Europe in 1989 and the global financial crisis of 2007. The above events lead me to believe that it is not correct to say that it’s too late, rather only that things are coming to a head.

5. Civil and Human rights.

The lessening of civil rights for any section of society must cause pain to any civilised person but there is an obvious precedent. In time of war civil rights are always severely, but temporarily, restricted for the sake of security. In the Second World War Germans were interned in Britain and likewise Japanese in the US.

We just have to accept that we are also in a war – the war to make Islam supreme in the world. It has been going on for nearly 1400 years with a partial break of about 150 years thanks to European colonisation after which hostilities resumed as normal. And now the enemy is within the gates, hiding among co-religionists who are not, or appear not to be, our enemy. If we do not identify and remove our enemies ”even at the cost of contradicting our principles” there will only be one of two outcomes, subjugation or civil war.

As for human rights, this is an area in which we are subject to dangerous assymetry on two fronts.

The first is that of the European Court of Human Rights which routinely puts the rights of enemies of member states before their citizens’ right to protection. Hopefully it will implode along with the EU and save us the trouble of extricating ourselves from it.

The second is that of mainstream Muslim attitudes to human rights themselves. While Muslims routinely play western human rights for all they are worth the Islamic view of human rights is markedly different and clearly expressed in the OIC’s 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam.

The Declaration starts with this assertion:

Article 1 All human beings form one family whose members are united by their subordination to Allah…

and ends with this clarification:

Article 24 All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Shari’ah.

In fact Islamic Sharia is invoked throughout the Declaration so you would need to know what it consists of before you can understand what the Declaration means. No source for the Islamic Sharia is referenced in the Declaration so anyone taking it seriously is buying a pig in a poke. Fortunately there are a few Manuals of Islamic Law (largely synonymous with Islamic Sharia) which have been translated into English and give the enquiring infidel a key to the Declaration. They all have things to say about relations between Muslims and non-Muslims which give the lie to many claims made in the Declaration, for instance the statement in Article 1 that:

“All men are equal in terms of basic human dignity and basic obligations and responsibilities, without any discrimination on the basis of race, colour, language, belief, sex, religion…”

This is what the Hanafi manual of Islamic Law, the Hedaya (Book 9 p.140) has to say about discrimination against non-Muslims on the basis of religion:

“War must be carried on against the infidels, at all times, by some party of the Mussulmans. The sacred injunction concerning war is sufficiently observed when it is carried on by any one party or tribe of the Mussulmans; and it is then no longer of any force with respect to the rest. It is established as a divine ordinance, by the word of God, who has said, in the Koran ‘SLAY THE INFIDELS’; and also by a saying of the prophet, ‘war is permanently established until the day of judgment’.”

That being the case, is it not beyond question that extending every benefit of universal human rights to those who offer in return the very far from universal rights under Sharia is nothing short of suicidal in our current situation?

As a closing note, may I reiterate that the Proposal above is not put forward as something to be acted upon now but only to be borne in mind until such time as a critical mass of Europeans realise that the coming struggle for dominance is a question of “us or them” and start to look for solutions short of outright civil war.