Monday, 10 December 2007

More Islamic Apostasy

Following on from the story of the imam who tried to kill his daughter after she converted from Islam to Christianity, the Sunday Telegraph has published an interesting article on the subject of British-based Islamic apostates, and the threat they face from their erstwhile coreligionists. The whole thing is worth reading, as yet another illustration of the utter barbarity of Islam, but two points in particular are worth noting. First: is not only extreme Muslim families that believe it is their religious duty to threaten, and even kill, members who renounce the religion.

"My father could not be described as an extremist," insists Sofia [an Islamic convert to Christianity], who is now 31. "We read the Koran and prayed regularly together, but he never insisted on my wearing Islamic dress and he was quite happy that I went to the local comprehensive, which was all girls, but not by any means dominated by Muslims."

Her parents were, in other words, the kind of people who politicians idealise as "the moderate Muslim majority" - devout, but apparently not totally in hock to Sharia ideology, and willing to mix with non-Muslims, to at least some extent. Yet when they discovered that their daughter had converted to Christianity, they beat and intimidated her, and then disowned her and threw her out of their house. Of course, had they been part of the "tiny minority of extremists", they might have reacted really badly!

One point to note is that they did not at any point try to kill her, or threaten to do so. Quite probably, they were not among the significant minority of Muslims who advocate the death penalty for apostasy. But even so, their views on this were clearly utterly different from those held in the West. From this, it follows that simply because a Muslim does not support the death penalty for apostasy (or, indeed, any other of the most extreme manifestations of Sharia law), we cannot necessarily infer that their views are "moderate", by our standards. We know that 36% of Muslims aged 16 to 24 support the death penalty in cases like this. What we don't know, is what, precisely, the other 64% believe.

The second point worth noting is that, while the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala did, to his credit, condemn threats against British-based Islamic apostates as "awful and quite wrong", he refused to condemn the seven Islamic states whose laws mandate the death penalty for apostasy. This was, he said, "a matter for those states". I can't help wondering whether the basis of this apparent discrepancy is that Bunglawala shares the view of the author of the Islamics blog, that the execution of apostates is justified, or even required, in Muslim countries, but not in non-Muslim countries. If so, then we have yet another reason not to want Muslims to ever become a majority in Britain.

Indeed, whatever Inayat Bunglawala may think, the attitudes of Muslims in general are clearly utterly incompatible with the values of the West. Sooner or later, on this issue as on so many others, one side is going to have to give way...


Alex.a said...

Your write, "....the attitudes of Muslims in general are clearly utterly incompatible with the values of the West. Sooner or later, on this issue as on so many others, one side is going to have to give way..."

The logic of our predicament (in relation to Muslim atavism) points to your inescapable conclusion.

However, every policy supported by the media and the lefty/liberal intelligentsia (supposed to address this issue) invloves either a reversal of reality, or an elaborate dance around the problem.

muzzylogic said...

Indeed, whatever Inayat Bunglawala may think,

"May say" -- what he thinks is different. Like Trevor Phillips yapping about the need to end multi-culti, he's not sincere, just buying time for his side to get stronger.

the attitudes of Muslims in general are clearly utterly incompatible with the values of the West. Sooner or later, on this issue as on so many others, one side is going to have to give way...

True, but some of the values of the West are incompatible with the some of the other values of the West. Colour-blindness, anti-racism, "equality" and the rest of the Marxist subversion are incompatible with the West's very survival.

muzzylogic said...

FR -- You might be interested in the Younge One's scintillating logic at the super, soar-away Grauniad:

Then there was the late gay Dutch anti-immigration activist, Pim Fortuyn. "I have gay friends who have been beaten up by young Moroccans in Rotterdam," he said. "In Rotterdam we have third-generation Moroccans who still don't speak Dutch, oppress women and won't live by our values." There was, it seems, no gay-bashing or sexism in Rotterdam before the Moroccans came.,,2225005,00.html

You see? It doesn't matter how badly Muslims behave now and in the future, because Europeans weren't perfect before Muslims arrived. I doubt he applies this logic to European colonialism.

Homophobic Horse said...

Ignore Younge ones tendentious rubbish.. No I have to reply, the implication is that Morrocans are particularly 'intolerant' and in liberal Rotterdam. If Gary Younge believes gay bashing is a bad thing (and he probably does), wouldn't it be wise government policy to not increase the possibility of gay bashing occuring with a wise immigration policy?

But here's some real red meat you lot:

Simone de Beauvoir (Cultural Marxist and extra-empirical Utopianist)

[On the elimination of the "category of the oppressed"]

Simone de Beauvoir: "Neither the aged nor women, nor anyone by virtue of their race, class, ethnicity or religion would find themselves rendered inessential.”

By 'rendered inessential', they mean alienated in the Hegelian sense. This will only really ring a bell if you have read the Philosophy of History.

Sorry to skip off topic, but do you know who else subcribes to this belief system? George Bush.

From a speech taken in 2002: "Tonight's Iftaar also sends a message to all Americans: our nation is waging a war on a radical network of terrorists, not on a religion and not on a civilization. If we wage this war to defend our principles, we must live up to those principles, ourselves. And one of the deepest commitments of America is tolerance. No one should be treated unkindly because of the color of their skin


No one should be unfairly judged by appearance or ethnic background, or religious faith. We must uphold these values of progress and pluralism and tolerance."

Even if the content of someones creed can have a remarkable effect on "the content of their character" by which we shall judge them. But Bush denies this and galavants around the world trying to build the sociological structures of advanced democracy with military force.

This means even George Bush has been taken in by Cultural Marxism. Not that anybody will ever realise because they themselves have been possessed with the Hegelian geist. After all, it is the spirit of the age, the war on terror is our generational struggle etc.

Alex.A said...

If everyone is possessed by the Zeitgeist, then critical detachment becomes impossible.

The truth seems to be that George Bush and his merry neocons think in American clich├ęs about democracy, and are incapable of impartially examining their own assumptions.

Homophobic Horse said...

You're damn right there Mr alex.

Here's another of my remarkable copy pastas:

From the Naked Communist (Cleon Skousen)
Noted in U.S. Congressional Record on January 10, 1963

Current Communist Goals:
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)

16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations.

19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."

23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture."

38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].

39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.

najistani said...

Citizen Warrior's article The Terrifying Brilliance of the Islamic Memeplex (don't let the title put you off ) is one of the clearest and best analyses I have ever read on Islamic psychology and the roots of Muslim aggression. Definitely required reading for all counter-jihadists.

For further articles on Islam as a meme, see

Islam as the rabies of religions and the Islameme.


Anonymous said...

Most of the Western Muslim establishment is comprised of Islamist groups claiming to be moderates. True moderate Muslims reject Islamic supremacy and Sharia; embrace religious equality and democracy.

What is a moderate Muslim? According to a dictionary, a moderate is a person who is opposed to radical or extreme views or measures, especially in politics or religion. Yet, majority of the public seem to be struggling with the definition of a moderate Muslim. Perhaps we can make this task easier by defining a radical Muslim and then defining the moderate as an opposite of the radical.

Muslims Against Sharia compiled a list of issues that differentiate moderate Muslims from Islamic radicals. Hopefully you can help us grow this list. 2008/01/what-is-moderate-muslim.html

Poll: Who is a moderate Muslim? 2008/01/poll-who-is-moderate-muslim.html