Once Upon a Time in the West by Edward Cline
https://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2017/03/once-upon-time-in-west.html
Imagine my surprise when I learned that many British government buildings are being subsidized by Sharia finance, and therefore come under Sharia law. The Daily Mail ran this revealing story just after the London-Westminster Bridge attack. This is an instance of abject submission to Islam.
|
Will the Royal Coat of Arms give Way to the Islamic Crescent? |
Admiralty House is one of two more public buildings that are revealed today to operate under Islamic law following the revelations that government properties were quietly transferred to finance an Islamic bond scheme in 2014.
In addition to two Department of Health buildings and the Department of International Development property on Whitehall, the bond scheme also covers Admiralty House and an unidentified building at 4-26 Webber Street in Southwark, south London.
It takes the total number of government buildings that were transferred to fund the £200million Islamic finance scheme to five.
But no imbibing of alcohol will be allowed, per Sharia . Doubtless down the road, criticizing Islam will not be permitted or you’ll be fined or attacked. No pork products to be sold or consumed on the “new’ premises. No British beef will be served unless it’s halal.
Under the terms of the lease, the sale of alcohol is one of the activities banned on the premises because they must conform to Sharia law.
George Osborne announced the move in June 2014 as part of an effort to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance.
But critics said the scheme would waste money and could undermine Britain’s financial and legal systems by imposing Sharia law onto government premises.
Due to the Islamic bond scheme – known as Sukuk – the ownership of the leases on the five government buildings have been switched from British taxpayers to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.
The money raised will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned in Sharia law…..
Submission to Islam will be painless if you’re willing to lease your property (or the British taxpayers’ property) to the government per the “generous” terms established by wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks.
The money raised will be repayable from 2019. But instead of interest, bond-buyers will earn rental income from the Government offices because interest payments are banned in Sharia law.
Leave it to the British government to sell out its own citizens. And also to the Canadiangovernment to sell out its real citizens, not the “refugees” in whose name the Parliament there seems to legislate Specially targeted: “Islamphobic” speech.
|
Will the Maple Leaf be replaced with the Islamic Crescent? |
for, and against freedom of speech.
Politicians in Canada moved forward a motion, with a vote of 201 to 91, that gives Islam special protections under hate speech laws. (M103)
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is on board with the motion.
Liberals and New Democrats supported the measure, which basically tells a special committee to study how Canada might go about “eliminating” instances of “Islamophobia,” Life Site News reported. It also gives the government the authority to collect Islam-tied “hate crimes” data, and to analyze that data to see if additional government action is needed.
With the strong backing of Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government, Canada’s Parliament passed a motion this afternoon 201 to 91 that critics say singles out Islam for special protection….
Tabled by Muslim liberal MP Iqra Khalid, M-103 urges the federal government to “condemn Islamophobia” and to “develop a whole-of-government approach to reducing or eliminating systemic racism and religious discrimination including Islamophobia.”
The term “Islamophobia” is nowhere defined in the motion.
[See Elsa’s blogsite here for more precedents and ramifications.]
Most people, including those with an intimate knowledge and experience with Islam cannot reach the point of declaring that Islam – not “radical,” or “extremist” Islam – is thoroughly evil no matter how pacifically practiced, that is, if your typical Muslim doesn’t knife, or attack infidels or is satisfied with being a Muslim male cipher or just a baby-factory brood mare. On March 23rd, after the London attack, Tucker Carlson of Fox interviewed Ayan Hirsi Ali. He wanted to know what the murdering jihadists wanted. Ali answered with forthright honesty. She explained how the jihadist mentality works and why it works so well and so often.
“It doesn’t matter how nice the liberals are, how accommodating, how obliging they are,” the apostate said. “Whoever is in their way is their enemy.”
“We empower them because every time we appease and appease and appease, they see that as God’s hand – their perception of God – they see God’s hand making it easy for them to advance their agenda,” Ali said. “They don’t see that here is a decent, civilized society that is trying to understand them and give them time, and try to persuade them to put their weapons down. That is not how they see it.”
“That is wrong,” she said about efforts to assimilate Islamic immigrants. “That is seen as weak and you are inviting aggression if you do that.”
That is, it’s irrelevant how nice and accommodating liberals and other dhimmies are towards Islam and Muslims . Allah via Mohammad says to go out and slay or convert the non-believers. Period. It’s in the Koran. Nothing in the Koran is lost in translation.
Ali is an “apostate” because she not only criticized Islam before and after she left the Netherlands, and therefore has earned a non-expiratory death fatwa, but continues to speak out and write about the perils of Islam. Ali in her words reveals the pathological epistemology of Islam and its malevolent metaphysics. Islamic jihadists cannot “put their weapons down” – whether or not the weapons are SUVs or motorbikes or guns – because their malevolent world view is an embedded mania, and an integral ingredient of their character, instilled in them before they can even speak. Appeasing Islamic jihadists only invites more violence against the appeasers.
However, Hirsi Ali has written that Islam must be reformed to rescue it from the “extremists.” In a March 20th Wall Street Journal article, “Why Islam Needs a Reformation,” she wrote on the subject of Islamic violence:
Instead of letting Islam off the hook with bland clichés about the religion of peace, we in the West need to challenge and debate the very substance of Islamic thought and practice. We need to hold Islam accountable for the acts of its most violent adherents and to demand that it reform or disavow the key beliefs that are used to justify those acts.
As it turns out, the West has some experience with this sort of reformist project. It is precisely what took place in Judaism and Christianity over the centuries, as both traditions gradually consigned the violent passages of their own sacred texts to the past. Many parts of the Bible and the Talmud reflect patriarchal norms, and both also contain many stories of harsh human and divine retribution. As President Barack Obama said in remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast last month, “Remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ.”
Yet today, because their faiths went through a long, meaningful process of Reformation and Enlightenment, the vast majority of Jews and Christians have come to dismiss religious scripture that urges intolerance or violence. There are literalist fringes in both religions, but they are true fringes. Regrettably, in Islam, it is the other way around: It is those seeking religious reform who are the fringe element.
Any serious discussion of Islam must begin with its core creed, which is based on the Quran (the words said to have been revealed by the Angel Gabriel to the Prophet Muhammad) and the hadith (the accompanying works that detail Muhammad’s life and words). Despite some sectarian differences, this creed unites all Muslims. All, without exception, know by heart these words: “I bear witness that there is no God but Allah; and Muhammad is His messenger.” This is the Shahada, the Muslim profession of faith.
The Shahada might seem to be a declaration of belief no different from any other. But the reality is that the Shahada is both a religious and a political symbol.
Ali divides Muslims largely into two groups: those who believe in the Meccan method, and those who adhere to the Medina method. The Meccan method can be likened to Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses going from door to door in efforts of peaceful conversion and proselytization; the Medina method seeks to emulate Mohammad’s policy of “the sword is mightier than the word” of warfare and belligerence.
It is Medina Muslims who call Jews and Christians “pigs and monkeys.” It is Medina Muslims who prescribe death for the crime of apostasy, death by stoning for adultery and hanging for homosexuality. It is Medina Muslims who put women in burqas and beat them if they leave their homes alone or if they are improperly veiled.
With all due respect to Hirsi Ali, I think she is daydreaming when she writes:
The Medina Muslims pose a threat not just to non-Muslims. They also undermine the position of those Mecca Muslims attempting to lead a quiet life in their cultural cocoons throughout the Western world. But those under the greatest threat are the dissidents and reformers within Islam, who face ostracism and rejection, who must brave all manner of insults, who must deal with the death threats—or face death itself.
For the world at large, the only viable strategy for containing the threat posed by the Medina Muslims is to side with the dissidents and reformers and to help them to do two things: first, identify and repudiate those parts of Muhammad’s legacy that summon Muslims to intolerance and war, and second, persuade the great majority of believers—the Mecca Muslims—to accept this change.
Islam can’t be “reformed.” Why do westerners have a problem with grasping Islamist’: it is altruism and giving Islam and Muslims the benefit of the doubt because Islam is a “religion of peace.” See also my Bogeyman remarks. And also
|
At this rate, the Islamic Crescent will doubtless beat the Pacific Cross |
Ali as outlined what she thinks are the five crucial amendments for “reforming” Islam:
- Muhammad’s semi-divine status, along with the literalist reading of the Quran.
Muhammad should not be seen as infallible, let alone as a source of divine writ. He should be seen as a historical figure who united the Arab tribes in a pre-modern context that cannot be replicated in the 21st century. And although Islam maintains that the Quran is the literal word of Allah, it is, in historical reality, a book that was shaped by human hands. Large parts of the Quran simply reflect the tribal values of the 7th-century Arabian context from which it emerged. The Quran’s eternal spiritual values must be separated from the cultural accidents of the place and time of its birth. - The supremacy of life after death.
The appeal of martyrdom will fade only when Muslims assign a greater value to the rewards of this life than to those promised in the hereafter. - Shariah, the vast body of religious legislation.
Muslims should learn to put the dynamic, evolving laws made by human beings above those aspects of Shariah that are violent, intolerant or anachronistic. - The right of individual Muslims to enforce Islamic law.
There is no room in the modern world for religious police, vigilantes and politically empowered clerics. - The imperative to wage jihad, or holy war.
Islam must become a true religion of peace, which means rejecting the imposition of religion by the sword.
But “reforming” Islam by gutting it of its engine would leave Islam as kooky and whacky as Scientology or any California cult you care to name. What would be the point of such a “reformation” unless one wanted to preserve a mindset that claims that morality comes from an author who occupies the Kantian netherland of the evidentiary realm of improvability?
I note in “Islam: A Complete Way of Life” from May of 2026:
And what is a “religion?”
Every definition of it I found boiled down to the same basic parameters: the institutionalized worship of and reverence for a deity or supernatural being, with obedience to the deity’s wishes in variance with the severity of the creed. Some religions impinge on one’s daily life to some degree, or not at all. One’s “way of life” can include following divinely given golden rules, or none at all. But most religions allow one to set aside some quantum of mortality for oneself.
Islam does not. However, here are some excerpts from a handful of Islamic sites that emphasize a “complete way of life.”
From “Islam: A Complete Way of Life”:
Argument 2: One could out of sheer academic interest look at every aspect of life covered by Islam. Then one could develop alternative forms for each aspect and thereby have a theoretically complete way of life (assuming that Islam is indeed a complete way of life). However, the alternative way of life, although complete, would obviously be a humanly-inspired way of life. Again, being a complete way of life is not a sufficient condition for being divinely-inspired. The very concept of divine inspiration includes the concept of being a complete way of life.
This assumption holds that the concept of divine inspiration logically entails, or analytically includes, the concept of being a complete way of life. [Emphasis mine]
Assumption 3: If a way of life is not complete, then it is not divinely inspired.
It says that while one may have a “religion,” it does not mean that the “religion” is a “complete way of life.” It rejects the human element. Islam regards man-made law as pernicious.
From “Islam 101:”
The Shari‘ah thus prescribes directives for the regulation of our individual as well as collective lives. These directives affect such varied subjects as religious rituals, personal character, morals, habits, family relationships, social and economic affairs, administration, the rights and duties of citizens, the judicial system, the laws of war and peace and international relations. They tell us what is good and bad; what is beneficial and useful and what is injurious and harmful; what are the virtues which we have to cultivate and encourage and what are the evils which we have to suppress and guard against; what is the sphere of our voluntary, personal and social action and what are its limits; and, finally, what methods we can adopt to establish a dynamic order of society and what methods we should avoid. The Shari‘ah is a complete way of life and an all-embracing social order. [Emphasis mine]
Sharia law commands that its “complete way of life” be integrated with an “all-embracing social order.” Which means that Islam is totalitarian, from top to bottom. It embraces everything you do, say, or think.
So, I do not understand how someone like Hirsi Ali, who has experienced first-hand the brutal reality of Islam, and who has an intimate knowledge of its evil, can claim that Islam can be “rescued” from its violent practitioners, that is, its fundamentalists, unless she also is under the pernicious influence of Judeo-Christian ethics coupled with a psychological need to found morality on supernaturalism, on anything but unadulterated reason and individualism. Founding morality on the unquestioned received wisdom of altruism has indeed been a stumbling block for individuals and a culture looking for a way to effectively combat Islam.
Tommy Robinson, a British activist, excoriates Islam, the political establishment, and the MSM in the right terms for the responsibility behind the London attack. He is certainly not advocating a turning of the other cheek or simply putting up with terrorism as a “way of life” advocated by the Muslim mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, whose bogus “stiff upper lip” panacea against Islam is a prescription for the death of more Britons, and he knows it.
A symposium addresses this issue, and discusses key words: Altruism, Ethics, Civic Engagement, Key Persons, Leadership:
Ethics are commonly regarded as rules or standards of conduct which prescribe acceptable behavior by public leaders. They are often codified in law, however, they are viewed as something more intrinsic to human nature —a “moral compass” to guide one through daily choices of right and wrong. There are four theories concerning the source of ethics.
The Empirical theory holds that ethics are derived from human experience and conceived by general agreement.
The Rational theory considers each ethical decision to be unique; requiring the application of human powers of deduction to arrive at what is right or wrong.
Proponents of the Intuitive theory hold the view that ethics are not necessarily derived from experience or logic; instead, they believe that human beings naturally possess an understanding of right and wrong.
Finally, the Revelation theory sees ethics as coming from a higher power where religious teachings serve as the final arbiters of conduct…[Italics mine]
|
Coming to America? Shut your Mouth and your mind! Or The Magic Crescent will punish you! |
Revelation, and the philosophy of relativist ethics, can explain the utterly irrational statement that Islam had nothing to do with the London attack. As Pamela Geller observes:
Digby Jones is the former Minister of State for Trade and Investment in the UK. Here he is denying the ancient adage that one must know one’s enemy in order to defeat that enemy. The fact that Khalid Masood was a Muslim is only irrelevant if his Muslim identity had nothing to do with his motive for mounting the attack. But Jones doesn’t know whether it did or not; he is just assuming that it didn’t because to say otherwise would be politically inconvenient.,,,
The message the mayor has sent to London residents is fitting, said Digby Jones. “You’re safer in London than you’ve ever been,” he said. “If this turns out to be an act of Islamic terrorism, I think the fact that the man is a Muslim is utterly and completely irrelevant.”
Truth, evidence, Islamic utterances by a jihadist that reveal his motive, and the bloody carnage left in a jihadist’s wake, mean nothing to such people. Reality contradicts his assumptions, so reality must be discarded in the name of political correctness, which answers to a “higher authority” than reality.
Comments are closed.
