Britain: Where non-Muslim honesty is worse than Muslim rape

I haven't seen too much of the response to Nigel Farage's recent remarks to the effect that remaining in the EU could lead to mass sex attacks by immigrant men like those seen Cologne and elsewhere in Germany in recent months. But no matter, since I've read of Shami Chakbrabarti's response, and I'm confident that it's a good representation of the party line among all the other footsoldiers of spineless virtue-signalling in politics, the media, and commentariat with regard to Farage's honesty.

To re-cap, here's what Farage actually said:

"The nuclear bomb this time would be about Cologne", referring, of course, to the wave of organised sexual assaults, rapes, and robberies carried out by mostly North African immigrants targeting hundreds of German women in Cologne on New Year's Eve last year. Attacks, which, it's worth remembering, were at first buried by law enforcement, mainstream media, and politicians, and would have remained so but for social media, and right-wing media platforms like Breitbart.

Farage added: "There are some very big cultural issues", and when asked if similar mass sex attacks could occur in the UK, he replied, "It depends if they get EU passports. It depends if we vote for Brexit or not. It is an issue."

According to Chakrabarti, Farage's comments "can only be designed to stir up disharmony, disunity, possibly even racial hatred".

Weird. Called me old fashioned but I reckon acts of mass rape, sexual assault, and torture of European women by foreigners - almost always Muslims, by the way - are liable to "stir up disharmony, disunity and racial hatred" more so than some politician daring to make reference to them having actually happened after the fact.

In fact, I reckon said acts of mass rape, sexual assault, and torture against European women by almost entirely Muslim foreigners are in fact evidence of racial and religious hatred on the part of the Muslim influx.

Oh, and top of that, I reckon we ought to be very cautious as to how much "unity" or "harmony" we can ever expect to achieve with the ongoing influx of large numbers of people raised in a religion which tells its followers that all non-believers are filthy, immoral, deceitful, and essentially a living, breathing "fuck you" to (their) God, that to adopt their ways or to be friends with them is forbidden, and that, as Muslims, their most important duty and highest possible cause in life is to conquer and subjugate the non-believers and impose the all-encompassing legal, social, and political blueprint of their totalitarian religion over all peoples everywhere, by demographic, political, and military means. That's one of the many lessons we should have learned by now, several decades into Western Europe's great left-wing experiment with Muslim mass immigration.

But there you go. I'm just a right-wing Islamophobe, so I would say all that.

Chakrabarti, speaking on LBC radio, continued:

"It's a classic racist trope, used by racists all over the world, to suggest that women are at risk from marauding hoards of people from another religion or race."

Erm, well. Here's the thing Shami: It's already been proven true, and continues to be proven true all over Britain, and all over Western Europe. Wherever one looks across Western Europe, one will see that Muslim men, almost regardless of their ethnic or racial origin, are far more likely to commit sex crimes than the indigenous peoples.

This goes a very long way to explaining why Sweden, where, in 1975 there were only 421 rapes reported from a population of 8,208,442, is now second only to Lesotho for the number of rapes per 100,000 people, with 6620 rapes from a population of 9,743,087 in 2014.

It also, of course, directly explains the spate of acts of mass sexual assault seen in Cologne and other German cities on New Year's Eve, the recent sexual assaults at a music festival in Darmstadt, in connection with which Pakistani asylum seekers were arrested, and the endless reports of acts of rape in public leisure facilities and such like across the country, and in others affected by the migrant influx. Of course, it also explains the epidemic of grooming, sexual abuse, and torture of non-Muslim girls (mainly white for the obvious that they're the majority, but also Sikh and Hindu girls quite often) by predominantly Pakistani and Kashmiri Muslim men in towns and cities all across the UK. Note here that in many cases, the perpetrators will be the sons or grandsons of the people who actually came here from those places, living as they usually do in their own self-established Muslim enclaves.

Below is a list, up to date as of April this year, of towns and cities in which Muslim men have been convicted of grooming offences against non-Muslim children. Rotherham is merely the most high profile case to date, and given the police and authorities' well-documented aversion to investigating or prosecuting the crimes of Muslims, I'd confidently bet my life and yours on this list being, at absolute most, the tip of the iceberg. Where there are Pakistani/Kashmiri Muslims in Britain, there is sexual abuse and torture of non-Muslim children:

Blackburn
Bradford
Bristol
Burton
Chesham
Derby
Ipswich
Keighley
Leeds
Leicester
London
Manchester
Middlesbrough
Nelson
Oldham
Peterborough
Preston
Rochdale
Sheffield
Skipton
Slough
Telford

So tell us, Shami: is it still a "racist trope" if it demonstrably true?

Shami went on:

"It's been used throughout history and I never thought that this particular Brexit debate would reach this particular depth." 

And that, folks, is where we are. Apparently, anything even vaguely resembling honesty about the fact that more Muslims equals more sex crime is a new "depth" of depravity. Remember, vastly disproportionate levels of grooming, rape, sexual assault, and torture of non-Muslim girls and women by Muslim men is not the problem. The problem is talking about the fact that it happens.

That's how far we are from properly addressing the Islam problem in our countries.

BELATED: Saint George was not a Turk, a Syrian, or a "migrant", and here's why it matters

Another Saint George's Day, and another deluge of tweets from ignorant, virtue-signalling multiculti revisionist piss stains - witting and unwitting alike - about how England's patron saint was "Turkish" or "Syrian" (or both), and a "migrant". After all, it's so deliciously ironic when the only people who want to celebrate Saint George's Day are obviously just vulgar racists who hate Turks, Syrians, migrants, refugees, or anyone else from beyond the white cliffs of Dover.

You know the kind of people I'm talking about. They're the kind of people who believe that the Paris attacks last November do not demonstrate a need for tighter controls on the influx of Muslims into Europe, because the attackers were mostly French or Belgian "born and bred", just as French or Belgian as Gérard Depardieu or Jean-Claude Van Damme, and therefore indicate that the problem of jihad is "home grown". They're the kind of people who believe that the Islamic State cannot possibly be Muslims or represent Islam, because Nadiya Hussain who won the Bake Off is a Muslim, and she's lovely. They're the kind of people who gather in a big, imaginary circle on social media in the wake of the latest Islamic atrocity on Western soil and metaphorically pull each other off while tweeting things like #terrorismhasnoreligion and "do we blame ALL Christians for the Westboro Baptist Church?!" (i.e. 38 fucking fruits with placards; nary an assault rifle, a suicide vest or a hijacked 767 in sight). And they're the kind of people who spontaneously ejaculate at the apparently Kathy Burke-esque Britishness of a Bangladeshi woman from Manchester who undertook hijra to the Caliphate with her five children to be with her husband, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, only to return after deciding that it wasn't "wasn't (her) cup of tea", as though she represents some sort of triumph of multiculturalism and Muslim integration.

Well. Time, belatedly, for me to set a few things straight. Get yourselves comfy, because here is the truth about Saint George according to the most reliable accounts and scholarship pertaining to his own life, and the truth about the wider context, according to fucking reality.

Saint George was not Turkish. 

Modern Turkey is less than a century old, and is a successor to the Ottoman Empire which was established in the wake of the invasion and colonisation of Anatolia by Turkic peoples and Mongols. Once upon a time, what we today think of as Turkey (Anatolia) was inhabited largely by ethnic Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds. It still is, but the vast majority of those from the former two groups were assimilated under Ottoman rule. The Kurds largely retain a distinct identity ethnice and cultural identity, perhaps because many were already Muslims, and also because they mainly inhabit(ed) relatively remote mountainous areas.

Saint George was not "Syrian". 

There may well have been a region named Syria in the third and fourth centuries A.D., and Saint George may well have been born or lived there, but bar geography, it bears very little relation to the majority Muslim, culturally and linguistically Arab nation state of the same name which was carved out as a result of the Sykes-Picot agreement between the British and the French after World War I. There were no Muslims there then because there was no Islam, and there likely weren't too many Arabs around because they were mostly still confined to the Arabian deserts. There was also a region called Britain back then, but we haven't got a lot in common with the fucking Druids, have we?

Saint George was not a "migrant". 

However convenient it may be for virtue-signalling lemmings to pretend otherwise, Saint George was not a "migrant" in any sense of the term that anyone would understand in conventional usage, and certainly not in the sense that the mostly Muslim millions currently flooding into Europe are migrants. He was a soldier in the Roman army, and the son of an officer in that army. Moving from one part of said empire to another at any time in his life no more makes him a "migrant" than someone from the Royal Corps of Signals being sent to the Falkland Islands for six months makes them a "migrant".

Saint George was fucking Greek. 

He was Greek. His parents were Greeks. The clue lies in the fact that his name was fucking Georgios. Hint fucking hint. Ethnic Greeks existed in cultural, linguistic, and religious terms in the time of Saint George in a form which we today would recognise as pretty similar to contemporary Greeks. But nothing remotely resembling the modern nation states of Turkey or Syria, or indeed contemporary Turkish or Syrian ethno-religious identities, existed in any sense at that time.

Most importantly of all, Saint George was a Christian, and, if the hagiography is to be believed, was tortured and decapitated at the order of the Roman emperor Diocletian for steadfastly refusing to abandon Christianity.

Why does that matter?

Well, for my money, here's why: Christians are currently the victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide across Syria and Iraq today at the hands of Islamic supremacists. That's why it matters.

So the day of remembrance for a Christian martyr is a good time to ask why the historically Christian nation of the United Kingdom is not bending over backwards to offer refuge and a second chance at life to the oppressed and long-suffering Christians and other religious minorities of the Middle East.

And no. I'm not a believing Christian. In everything but name and baptism (Anglican), I'm irreligious. But I'd like to see our leaders direct our good will and our humanity toward people who don't turn up with the mentality of colonisers and theocratic supremacists for a fucking change, rather than fucking virtue-signalling our way right up to the gates of demography's big halal abattoir.

Share this post now, but more importantly, bookmark it, remember it, and share it in the run-up to Saint George's Day 2017 and beyond. Or, for that matter, any time you see someone repeating ideologically motivated misinformation about England's patron saint.

Done.

Eight Thoughts on What British Muslims Really Think

If you're reading this, it's likely that you've either watched the Channel 4 investigation 'What British Muslims Really Think' which aired on Wednesday evening in the UK, or are at least aware of some of its findings, which have come as quite a shock to many people. If you haven't, or are not, it'd be worth reading some of the responses to the findings of the survey before reading this, just so you're aware of some of the headline outcomes. 

I won't go over too many of those here, as it's all been covered elsewhere. I also have no comment to make on any of the nit-picking, hysterical accusations of "bigotry", "Islamophobia" or "hate", the general cry-arsing, or outright denial of statistical reality that have emanated from the usual quarters in the wake of the survey and documentary, other than to say that I find none of it remotely surprising.

Instead, what follows is a fairly off-the-cuff, and hopefully relatively concise summary of some of my own reactions to the results of the investigation, some thoughts on what was lacking, and some further questions I would like to have seen asked as part of the survey.

• I'll get the one major negative out of the way first, which is this: I thought the clips showing a reconstruction of the type of face-to-face interview used for the survey conducted by ICM in the programme were ham-fisted, cringeworthy, and potentially unhelpful to the sensible message Trevor Phillips is - belatedly - trying to communicate. For those who haven't seen the documentary, the reconstruction clips featured a female interviewer in her 40s, who, though she looked kindly enough, was clad rather ominously/mournfully (you choose) all in black with a scarf draped loosely over head, and a distinctly shifty looking Asian male interviewee in his late 20s/early 30s, whose demeanour and answers were often more than a little sinister. Add to that the notably bleak, colourless lighting and treatment used, and a particularly depressing-looking setting acting as the interview's subject's home, and it all seemed way over the top to my eye. Is there really any need to try to drive the message home so clumsily and with such melodrama when many of the findings were obviously going to be alarming enough to most viewers anyway? I can't say I've seen any comment on it from detractors, but I'd be surprised if none picked up on it, and in my view, it amounts to putting ammunition right into the hands of the Islam apologists, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, who wish to deflect from the worrying results of the survey, and to question the agenda of those behind it.

• I said I wouldn't really comment too much upon the findings themselves, but this one is so telling it bears repeating: only 34% of Muslims interviewed would notify the authorities if they suspected someone was involved with terrorism. I don't think there's anything I really need to add to that, other than to state the obvious in saying that, if the survey is at least reasonably accurate, it suggests that around two thirds of all Muslims would not report someone they suspected of being involved in terrorism to the authorities.

• Many findings of the survey were being discussed in the media and social media in the days before the resulting documentary was actually broadcast, but two which received relatively little attention were that 78% of the Muslims surveyed felt the media should have no right to show depictions of Muhammad, while 87% said that no one should have the right to "make fun" of Muhammad. The issue here, to me, is that, in a diverse society, Muslims really need to be asking why some in the media and among non-Muslims generally may feel the need to defy the (mainly Sunni) Islamic taboo against depicting Muhammad, and especially, to critique, satirise or mock his claims, and reputed actions and words in his own life. After all, it is the example of Muhammad (at least according to the most trusted sources in Sunni scholarship) which is followed for the most part pretty faithfully by the jihadis whose acts of war, mass murder, and occasional genocide claim several thousand lives a month around the world, including on our doorstep in Western Europe. Add to this the precedents set by the Sunnah (the example of Muhammad as recorded in the Sirat [biographies] and Hadiths [examples of the words and deeds of Muhammad ostensibly handed down by word-of-mouth through generations, then compiled by scholars]) for sexual slavery, child marriage, and the killing of critics, apostates, blasphemers, homosexuals and adulterers, which shape the penal codes of dozens of Muslim-majority nations to varying degrees, and are thus directly responsible for countless state and non-state executions and acts of violence, torture, child abuse, and rape, and it shouldn't be difficult to see why anyone would feel the need to critique or satirise Muhammad. Had Muhammad been some kind of egalitarian arch pacifist, and his followers sandal-wearing, non-judgmental, pacifist vegans, I'd have some sympathy with the hurt feelings arising from the rare instances in which anyone is brave enough to satirise or ridicule the guy. But that could not be further from the truth. To be blunt, Muslims need to just accept all that and fucking suck up whatever questioning or mockery that results from it. And if they don't like it? Well, tough shit. Ours is - or at least ought to be - a free country.

• It may not have been practical from the point of view of time or clarity - especially assuming a relatively uninformed audience - to break up the answers to the survey questions according to the sect (e.g. Sunni, Shia, Ahmadiyya), and branch/school/order (e.g. Deobandi, Barelvi, Wahhabi/Salafi [Sunni], Twelver, Sevener, Zaidi, Ismaili [Shia]) of the interview subjects, but it certainly should have been recorded. I suspect that doing so would have produced some telling patterns and variations in responses to many of the questions, and could also have acted as a way of identifying the branches/schools/orders among which literalist ideas and Islamist sympathies are most prevalent, and which thus present the biggest problems. In particular, I would have been quite interested to know how non-Ismaili Shias responded, in light of the fact that while Shia fiqh (jurisprudence) is largely pretty similar to that of Sunni tradition, in my own admittedly limited experience, Shias often seem to be a little less dogmatic and fanatical, and certainly far less militant and triumphalist than Sunnis. Ismailis, for the record, like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who featured in the documentary, are particularly liberal and relaxed as a whole, and Isma'ilism today is really more of an off-shoot of Islam than part of the orthodoxy. For similar reasons, but perhaps too controversially for those who commissioned the survey and produced the documentary, I would like to have seen the results broken up according to the ethnic/national origin of the interviewees (e.g. Pakistani, Kashmiri, Gujarati, Bangladeshi, Somali, Kurdish, 'reverts' of any non-Muslim religious background etc.), and also by how long they or their families' have been in the UK.

• Given the findings of the survey - shocking to many, clearly, but utterly predictable to those of us who have been paying attention and assessing developments honestly and independently - the documentary really should have discussed the implications of ongoing large-scale immigration from Muslim nations, and the high birth rate among Muslims in Britain. After all, while the negative consequences of Muslim immigration to date - the ghettoisation and colonisation of whole areas of our towns and cities, the mostly Pakistani/Kashmiri epidemic of organised grooming and rape of non-Muslim children, 7/7, Trojan Horse, the murder of Lee Rigby, and the countless foiled terror plots and security threats we live with every day - have been awful enough, the real threat lies in the fact that the Muslim population is growing rapidly, which means both that a great deal more of the above is almost guaranteed in the coming years, and that there is the very real prospect of Muslims eventually coming to dominate our political life and institutions. In light of all that, and given the attention the survey results and the documentary garnered, overlooking the issues of immigration and birth rate was a big opportunity missed.

• One of many things that simply isn't understood by the wider public where the threat of Islam is concerned is the fact that the biggest problem with the religion is arguably the hostility and contempt it encourages its followers to feel toward non-Muslims, and indeed toward any Muslim who abandons the religion. In light of this, I would like to have seen parents who participated in the survey asked how they would feel about any of their children being in a relationship with or marrying a non-Muslim (a breakdown of this according to the gender of the child, and the particular religion or lack thereof of the person they dated/married would also have been interesting), how they'd feel if any of their children were gay, or indeed, how they would feel if any of their children abandoned Islam (i.e. apostasised).

• The issue of apostasy seemed to be overlooked in general, as did the issue of the marriage of under-aged girls. The former in particular really ought to have been addressed, especially since previous reports in this area have yielded some truly alarming results, notably the 2006 Policy Exchange survey in which 36% of Muslims aged 16-24 agreed that Muslims who abandon Islam should be executed.

• My last point is undoubtedly the hardest to assess, but relates to what in my opinion may just be the most important issue of all, particularly as Muslims grow in number, and thus, political and social influence in the coming decades in Britain and Western Europe: Namely, if we see the often Islamist, or at least Islamism-friendly Muslim political lobbying groups gain power and successes in the decades ahead as the Muslim demographic share grows, with whom would most of the roughly 60-80% of Muslims who don't appear to have a conclusively Islamist or staunchly literalist world-view side? Their increasingly influential Islamic supremacist co-religionists, or the rest of us? It's a vitally important question, and having seen Britain's Muslim communities collectively show such scant willingness to compromise, introspect, or empathise with the concerns of wider society to date, my gut instinct is to fear the worst...

Responses to Hsiao-Hung Pai's interview with Tommy Robinson

Hsiao-Hung Pai is an author originally from Taiwan. She has been based in the UK since 1991, and her latest book, Angry White People: Coming Face-to-Face with the British Far Right, is released a week today. 

Former EDL leader and current PEGIDA co-leader Tommy Robinson features extensively in the book, and a 30-minute excerpt from an interview between the two recorded by Robinson surfaced on YouTube in January. I put myself through this in full yesterday, and ended up writing down the majority of what Pai had to say due to sheer exasperation at her ignorance and delusion, with the intention of adding my own reactions to the typically well-informed and well-argued responses from Robinson. 

Pai otherwise seems like she might be a pleasant and reasonable enough person, but she's a prime example of how profoundly ignorant of Islam and its woes so many supposedly 'right-thinking' people are, and resorts to so many of the most feeble, easily dismissed, and at times laughable counter-arguments of ill-informed Islam apologists. Hopefully some of what follows here will be of use to anyone who encounters similar apologist drivel, whether it be on social media or in the real world. It's pretty drawn-out, but that's mainly due to the sheer volume of quite frankly daft things Pai came out with over the course of the 30-minute clip, and the absolutely colossal quantities of evidence available to comprehensively debunk such responses.  

The video in question can be watched here. If you've got the time to spare and it's your kind of thing, it's probably worth listening to for a typically accomplished set of rebuttals from Robinson, whose knowledge and intelligence are consistently underestimated by privileged media types of both genders and all ethnic and religious backgrounds, many of them with Oxbridge degrees, but barely half the intellect, and a fraction of the knowledge of Islam and Muslims, of the working-class white oik from Luton. After all, what could anyone possibly learn from a bloke who speaks unspeakable truths in a provincial accent while wearing half of Stone Island's autumn/winter collection?

"Are you saying those criminals represent the whole (refugee) population? They don't represent everybody!"

Football hooligans didn't represent all matchgoers in the 1970s and 1980s. They represented a minority. So presumably, by by Hsiao-Hung Pai's logic it was a draconian measure and a waste of public money to tighten security and policing at and around football stadia on matchdays.

However, there was no such minority to speak of among cricket fans. Hence, the policing was nothing like as stringent or aggressive at major cricket matches as it was at football matches, and I suspect this remains the case. And with good reason.

Those form the present influx of mostly Muslim refugees and economic migrants into Europe, and members of the existing Muslim communities here are far more prone to crime of a variety of types than the non-Muslim majority, but most egregiously, and as most explicitly demonstrated recently, especially prone to all manner of sex crimes. They do not have to  be 100%, 50%, or even 20% sex offenders to merit greater scrutiny, or indeed measures against their entry or ongoing residence into Europe. The mere fact that they have a dramatically disproportionate likelihood of committing such crimes - and there is a litany of statistical evidence from across Western Europe to support this statement - is enough to merit counter-measures. Otherwise, by your logic, Hsiao, the football hooliganism that led to numerous fatal incidents at matches across England and Europe in the 1980s would have been allowed to get worse and worse, because after all, the hooligans weren't representative of everybody at football matches.

"But there's criminals in every community! ... I have a lot of experience with Chinese refugees!"

I wonder how many turned out to be involved in the grooming, trafficking, and sexual abuse of non-Chinese girls, insurance fraud, postal vote fraud, benefit fraud, terrorism offences, or suicide attacks. All of which are either disproportionately common among - or pretty much unique to - Muslims in Britain.

Come to that, when was the last time anyone heard of a plague of rape, violence, fraud, or terrorism from within the Chinese community in the West?

Right, yea.

Different immigrant groups have fared and continued to fare drastically differently from one another in the West. Pay any attention and many of the underlying reasons are usually pretty obvious if one discards left-wing taboos and removes the blindfold of cultural relativism.

The composition of the large Muslim population of Western Europe is roughly as follows: About two thirds Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and Indian in the UK, predominantly North African in France (Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian etc.), predominantly North African and Turkish in Belgium and the Netherlands, predominantly Turkish in Germany, and a pretty broad mix of Pakistanis, Iranians, Bosnians, Kosovans, Somalis, Turks, Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghans in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. So in terms of ethnic and racial origin, it's extremely diverse. Yet, notwithstanding the odd exception, the social, criminal, and integration issues seen across these very diverse populations are remarkably similar from one European nation to the next, whether it be exceptionally high levels of imprisonment, rape, unemployment and benefit dependency, involvement in terrorism, and so on.

What's the common denominator?

"To be honest with you, I'm not interested in religion"

Well that's tough luck, because the people striving by both violent and non-violent means for a world in which you convert to Islam or are executed (I'm assuming Hsiao isn't a Christian or a Jew), and treated as an item of reproductive livestock even if you do convert, are very interested in it.

I'm not that interested in how AIDS spreads or exactly how it kills people, but if I were working with needles or in the sex industry, I'd at least make sure I knew everything there is to know about how to minimise the risk of getting it.

In three words: know your enemy.

"I'm actually atheist. I don't believe in god. But I believe in peoples' right to religion"

And to get an idea of how much the people Tommy Robinson is campaigning against respect anyone's "right to religion" (or their right to be free of it), just take a look at how non-Muslims are treated in their countries of origin like Pakistan or Bangladesh. 

Look at the decline of the non-Muslim populations in those countries since their establishment as nations whose state religion is Islam. Look at the murder of seven atheist and secularist writers and publishers in Bangladesh since 2013. 

Look at the "blasphemy" charges routinely brought against non-Muslims in Pakistan, including Asia Bibi, a Christian woman currently awaiting execution by hanging having been charged with blasphemy in November 2010 following a dispute which arose after she was seen drinking from a metal cup also used by Muslims at a well. No, really. Water apartheid is a thing in Pakistan, because non-Muslims are "unclean".

You may also wish to note the mass protests and "revenge" bomb attacks across Pakistan following the execution of Mumtaz Qadri last week for murdering a politician who criticised the death sentence handed to Asia Bibi. Qadri was a security guard for Punjab state governor Salman Taseer, who called for clemency for the Christian woman. Qadri's reaction to this was to shoot Taseer 27 times in January 2011. In 2014, a Sunni mosque named in Qadri's honour was completed in Pakistan's capital, Islamabad.

Most disturbingly of all, you should note the widespread mourning for Qadri among high-profile, influential Muslims in the UK, which reads almost like a who's who of so-called "moderate" Muslims and government funded imams.

Or you might wish to read about the blasphemy lynch mobs which rise up fairly regularly in Pakistan to slaughter Christians, Sikhs, Hindus, and members of the Ahmadi Muslim minority. Here, here, here, and here.

All that, Hsiao, should hopefully give you some idea of the kind of religious "freedom" we would enjoy should the people Tommy Robinson challenges fulfill their ambitions of conquering Europe in the name of Islam, whether via violent jihad, demographic jihad, or a mixture of both. Be under no illusions about the fact that many Muslims are trying to do this, or the fact large minorities of Muslims actively support them (more of that soon), and that almost none of the rest are likely to have any interest in challenging them should they continue to make headway.

"Well I don't understand Buddhism either"

And I would suggest you have no need to concern yourself with it for as long as Buddhists aren't committing acts of mass murder, rape and enslavement across the world on a daily basis as part of a struggle to subject humanity in its entirety to every last whim of Buddhist doctrine, and for as long as Buddhists are not a rapidly growing, colonially minded, self-ghettoising minority in the West with unfortunate habits such as the mass rape of non-Buddhist schoolgirls, calling for the murder of homosexuals and those who leave or even criticise Buddhism, being among the least economically productive and most fraudulent, corrupt groups in society, and making women dress from head to toe in black and never leave the house without the permission of their father or husband.

"Well there are Buddhists killing people too"

The Rohingya in Myanmar. Yes. Occasionally it gets mentioned along with events in the Central African Republic as though it constitutes some sort of counter-balance to the theatres of rape, enslavement, mass murder, and genocide in the name of Islam we see in Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippines, to name a few.

Funnily enough, one rarely hears of Buddhists carrying out atrocities anywhere else, and Buddhists do not revere as their infallible example a tyrannical, slave-trading warlord who committed countless acts of rape, assassination, war, and even genocide. On the contrary, Buddhists in general are noted as particularly peaceable bunch by and large. 

Without wishing to paint with too broad a brush, this rather begs the question as to what led up to the violence of recent years in Myanmar. Some cursory reading reveals that it stems from the southerly migration of the Rohingya into Buddhist territory in the 1800s, and that the Rohingya have played their own part in inter-communal tensions and violence over the decades. In addition, it's worth noting the political backdrop: Myanmar is still governed by the remnants of an authoritarian, ethno-nationalist military dictatorship. That in itself is not evidence of some universal article of Buddhist faith in the manner in which the occurrence of jihadi atrocities from the Philippines to San Bernardino is where Islam is concerned.

"But it's not about what is said in the book! ... Interpretation evolves, just like the Bible!"

Except that in mainstream Islam, it really is about what is said in the book, and interpretation really doesn't evolve a great deal. Islam in its orthodox form has written into it certain do's and don'ts which militate pretty decisively against innovation, independent reasoning, and even mere evolution of interpretation. The Qur'an is the final, timeless, inerrant, never altered command of Allah, infallible down to the last comma, and cannot be challenged. Muhammad is the very best of Allah's creation, and the finest example for all people to emulate in all times. And in mainstream, majority Islam, that's pretty much it. Wife-beating, beheadings, rape, slavery, genocide and all.

That's largely why every notable attempt at some kind of moderation over the centuries, whether it be the rationalist Mu'tazilites in 9th century Baghdad, ill-fated reformist theologians in 1980s Sudan, or anything else in the intervening 1100 years or so, has ended in failure, and often, murderous suppression.

Christianity on the other hand has an Old Testament which is largely superseded by the New Testament and its much more benign, compassionate message centred around the teachings of Jesus Christ, a man who had a dozen committed followers at the time of his execution, and whose most violent recorded act involving causing a bit of a commotion at a corrupt market in a temple. 

In both respects, Islam could hardly differ more drastically, with its self-proclaimed prophet a man who, according to the most trusted accounts in Islamic scholarly tradition, in the final decade of his life went from being something of a joke figure with 150 or so followers to ruling more or less the entire Arabian peninsula. Along the way, he led or ordered a hundred or so military expeditions and raids, owned and traded slaves, ordered massacres of whole tribes of men, ordered the assassination of numerous personal detractors, and had multiple wives, one of whom was nine years old at the time of the union being consummated. 

In addition to the night-and-day contrast between the examples of Christ and Muhammad, the tradition of abrogation in Islamic scholarship is, in its practical consequences, almost diametrically at odds with the manner in which the more compassionate, pacific New Testament supersedes the fire and brimstone of the Old Testament in Christian tradition. Put simply, where a chronologically earlier ayah of the Qur'an from the more benign Meccan period appears to be at odds with an ayah from the later, more bellicose Medinan period, the latter ayah has precedence over the former, effectively cancelling it out.

For the sake of clarity, the Medinan period was the final decade of Muhammad's life, in which he and his followers undertook hijra (migration) from Mecca to Yathrib, which later became Medina (simply 'the City' in Arabic), and the Muslims conquered much of the Arabian peninsula through countless acts of war, terror, and plunder.

Very few Christians or Jews left today care or even know about the harsher commands of Leviticus and Deuteronomy in the Old Testament. Almost none at all follow them personally, let alone seek to ensure that all others do so under the threat of violence, enslavement, or death. 

Muslims, on the other hand? Well, as I said earlier, we have hundreds of thousands of jihadis, if not more, seeking to do just that with Islamic law in Nigeria, Mali, Somalia, Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the Philippines, not to mention all the sovereign states where some form of Islamic law is imposed with varying degrees of severity, or indeed all the "non-violent" Islamist groups the world over like the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and so on.

"(On the deeds of Muhammad) That is a very particular time so long ago!"

And as should be clear by now, this does not matter in the slightest to most devout Muslims. Muhammad is the ultimate example for all times and places in his every word and action, end of story. And don't ever question any of it, because to question it would be an act of blasphemy and disbelief.

"Moderates" may seek to contextualise some of the more unpleasant among the reputed deeds of Muhammad when challenged, but most of them aren't doing a great deal to halt or challenge the daily atrocities committed across the globe by those seeking to emulate Muhammad's ostensible example and implement Islamic law. Nor are they doing much to challenge or counter-act the metastasis of Islamist and jihadi ideology, or the ever more regular Muslim demands for non-Muslim acquiescence to the norms and desires of Muslims across the Western world, whether they relate to the suppression freedom of belief and expression where Islam is concerned, the withdrawal of food and drink considered "haram", gender segregation, or women's dress. 

No. For the most part, said "moderates" do not direct their ire at those committing acts of mass rape, mass murder, and genocide, nor at those beheading "sorcerers" and throwing homosexuals off roofs, and certainly not at those calling for such executions, or mourning the death of a man who murdered a politician for the act of questioning a Christian woman's death sentence for insulting Islam. 

The majority of said "moderates" prefer instead to rail against the following: 

• "Islamophobia" (it's appalling and downright racist how touchy many of these non-Muslims are about terror attacks, mass rape of their women, violent misogyny and homophobia, and the colonisation of their towns and cities after all).

• "Foreign policy" (conveniently ignoring the fact that the arch nemeses of the Ummah - the US and the UK - are among the most generous providers of aid to Muslim nations, and that many of these economically and politically dysfunctional nations would quickly be in even worse trouble were this aid withdrawn).

• The treachery and "apostasy" of progressive, secularist Muslims like Maajid Nawaz, Dr Tej Hargey, Asra Nomani, Irshad Manji, and Raheel Raza, who of course are nothing but stooges and "house Muslims" for the neo-conservative, Zionist conspiracy. 

In short, priorities can tell us rather a lot.


"Christians are the same! Many Christians are the same, they don't question the Bible!"


Think we've done this one Hsiao. Most don't even know what the worst bits of it say, let alone follow it. And those who do aren't really waging holy war in conflict zones across the world to impose Biblical law upon whole societies, or using entryist tactics and migration to agitate for it. A lot of Muslims don't follow the Qur'an or Islamic law too rigidly either thankfully, but it doesn't take a majority of literalists for us to be faced with an existential long-term threat.

"There's other factors too, not just religion, why people become radicalised"

Yet curiously, all the "radicalised" people committing beheadings in the streets and in homeware stores, flying airliners into skyscrapers, detonating themselves on buses and trains, or massacring schoolchildren, university students, and shoppers, and taking girls and women as sex slaves have one thing in common: they're Muslims.

"Yea I don't know (about Islam), because I'm not interested"

Again, I think we've covered this already. I'm not particularly interested in big cats, but if I found out I was going to be parachuted out of a helicopter somewhere over southern Africa in close proximity to them next week, I'd make fucking sure I learned everything I could between now and then about the best ways to avoid being caught and eaten by the buggers.

"I really think (Muslims) are much more liberal than you think"

And I suspect you may be rather shocked when I tell you about the polls which indicate the following:

• That 78% of Muslims in Britain wanted those responsible for the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons in 2005 to be prosecuted

• that 68% want anyone who "insults Islam" to face prosecution

• that 37% of those aged between 16 and 24 in Britain would prefer to live under the Shari'ah

• that 36% of those aged between 16 and 24 in Britain believe that Muslims who abandon Islam should be executed

• that 13% of Muslims in the same age group "admire" Al-Qaeda

• that one third of Muslim students in British universities favour the idea of a global Caliphate 

• that 24% believe that the four men identified as the 7/7 bombers were not in fact responsible for the attacks

• that 45% believe the 9/11 attacks were in fact a US-Israeli conspiracy

• that 37% see British Jews as a "legitimate target as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East"

• that 46% believe British Jews "are in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics"

• that 28% hope Britain will one day become an Islamic state

• and finally, that 100% - yes 100% according to one survey of 500 Muslims in Britain - found homosexuality to be "morally unacceptable".

"I don't understand how you can blame everything on one religion. It doesn't make any sense"

It makes perfect sense when, as I've already said, the only people committing beheadings in the streets and in homeware stores, flying airliners into skyscrapers, detonating themselves on buses and trains, or massacring schoolchildren, university students, and shoppers, or taking girls and women as sex slaves in the name of their religion with any kind of regularity all happen to be Muslims.

"You know what? When I met Anjem Choudary, I was very surprised by how liberal he looked"

What was it that looked so "liberal"? The taqiyah he often has on his head, the fist-sized Salafi beard with its trimmed moustache? The full-length Islamic jubba he typically wears? 

Yea, that's exactly the kind of look I associate with the most ardent campaigners for transgender rights and the liberalisation of laws relating to prostitution too.

"He (Anjem Choudary) is not a hate preacher. I don't think he is!"

I'm curious in that case as to what term you would use to describe someone who advocates the imposition of Islamic law upon humanity in its entirety, which, in its truest form, would necessarily entail the persecution of the 90% or so of the world's population who are not heterosexual, practicing Sunni Muslim men, and the slaughter of anyone who resists, leaves or blasphemes against Islam, or is found guilty of homosexual acts or adultery.

"A lot of that (the murder of Lee Rigby) was not just to do with religion. Religion is the tool. But a lot of it was to do with foreign policies"

Yes, that's right. In fact, here are the words spoken by Michael Adebolajo himself as he stood feet from the nearly decapitated body of Lee Rigby with a bloodied meat cleaver in his left hand:

"The only reason we have killed this man today, is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers. And this British soldier is one, he is an eye for eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you, until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the Shari'ah in Muslim lands? Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather you lot are extreme! You are the ones, when you drop a bomb, do you think it picks one person? Or rather, your bomb wipes out a whole family? This is the reality. (Inaudible) if I saw your mother today with a buggy, I would help her up the stairs, this is my nature. But we are forced by the Qur'an in Surah At-Tawbah, through many, many ayat throughout the Qur'an, that we must fight them as they fight us, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to witness this today. But in our lands, our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your governments! They don't care about you! Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street? When we start bussin' our guns, do you think your politicians are gonna die? No it's gonna be the average guy, like you. And your children. So get rid of them! Tell them to bring our troops back, so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace, that's all I have to say. Ameen. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad, Sallahahu 'Alaihi wa Sallam."


"Muslims" 

"We swear by the almighty Allah" 

"the Shari'ah" 

"Muslim lands" 

"we are forced by the Qur'an in Surah At-Tawbah, through many many ayat throughout the Qur'an, that we must fight"

"our lands" 

"our women" 

"Ameen. Allah's peace and blessings be upon Muhammad."

... But obviously, it wasn't just "religion" that compelled two Nigerians born and raised in Christian families in London to run over and hack an off-duty British Army soldier to death, nearly beheading him in the process, with one citing as their motive the British government's military interventions in "our" "Muslim" lands, and their obligation to Allah as set out in the Qur'an to "fight them as they fight us". Their conversion to Islam was probably just coincidental to the whole episode.

My recollection may be sketchy, but I definitely can't think of any other cases of Nigerians from Christian backgrounds butchering people in the street in broad daylight in protest against some matter of "foreign policy".

"But people don't have to follow it! (responding to mention of Qur'an, 4:34, which advises husbands to beat disobedient wives if all else fails)"

But hundreds of millions of people do, and are, so it's a problem. Any questions?

"I'm sure if you read the Bible from beginning to end, there must be something that isn't right for the modern age"

"Are you saying in the Christian Bible, there is nothing that is outdated and backward?"

Yea we've done this one. Very, very few Christians take any of the worst and most outdated bits seriously and follow them these days, in fact most probably haven't even read them. And there are barely any at all out there committing atrocities in a bid to force people to follow those particular Biblical commands.

"I have to find out before I can say Anjem Choudary is what the media tell me"


To his credit, Choudary is pretty good at telling us exactly what he is and what he stands for in his own words. That's actually rare among high-profile Muslims, and, to be honest, quite refreshing. All you need to do is listen to him.


And that's more or less everything Hsiao-Hung Pai said that I was moved to write down and address.

Some Responses to Maryam Namazie Talking to Sam Harris

Like many of us on Twitter whom I would term 'Islamo-realists', I awaited the promised discussion between Sam Harris and Maryam Namazie with great interest. 

My Twitter account was still locked when the resulting podcast went live (on the face of it, as innocent as Twitter mistakenly thinking my account had been taken over by a bot), but I listened, and like just about everyone else whose reaction I've noted, found it a pretty trying two hours. So much so that I was moved from my habitual laziness to actually start taking some notes, more or less on the spot, which addressed some of the more transparently stupid among Namazie's comments. Those notes follow below.

Like most far-left idealists, Namazie clearly has a very difficult relationship with reality, and particularly, with the passage from ideas (e.g. I oppose Islam and Islamism) to reality (e.g. but unlimited immigration of Muslims is a moral obligation for the West and presents no major problems or long-term threat to the things that make the West the best place in which to live). 

I haven't listened back to the podcast (after all, who would put themselves through that a second time), so if any of the quotes from Namazie which form sub-headings below do not exhibit verbatim accuracy, I trust that they nevertheless remain faithful to the basic thrust of her argument, and feel free to correct me if they do not. Once again, the responses below are basically just a delayed publication of notes which came more or less from the top of my head as I momentarily stopped the podcast to type my thoughts in response to some of the things she said. I'm more or less shooting from the hip, so accept my apology if at times what follows is not quite as coherent as it could be. I may also have neglected the opportunity to address one or two other 'highlights' from Namazie's performance, but these were the ones which most stood out to me. Anyway, here goes...

"What's wrong with young men?"

Which gender is responsible for the vast majority of all crime and violence in every society in the world? And which age bracket of that gender in particular?

Exactly.

Now imagine the consequences of admitting - unvetted - vast swathes of young men, scattered among them covert jihadis intending to carry out atrocities, and with large proportions of the overall mass poorly educated, with limited grasp of the local language(s), limited skills and employability, and, in many cases, attitudes to women, sexuality, individual liberty and freedom of belief which are contemptful of and aggressively at odds with those of Western societies.

That's what's wrong with young men in general, and, sadly, a large proportion of young Muslim men, many of whom are arriving with limited education and employability. And that's without addressing how open the migration policies of nations like Germany are to abuse by jihadis seeking to wage guerrilla war on the non-Muslim world from within, forming sleeper cells and then slaughtering civilians in the hundreds.

"There are liberals in the smallest villages in Iran and Afghanistan and there are bigots and theocrats in the largest cities in America and Europe"

But in what proportions in comparison to one another? This is akin to saying that there are people who have survived skydives despite their parachutes failing to properly deploy, and there are people who have died after falling while attempting to fix the roof of their shed. True, but utterly meaningless and disingenuous. 

The level of bigotry and religious supremacism among Muslims is far, far higher than among any group of Westerners, just as the risk of death if one's parachute does not properly deploy during a skydive is far greater than if one falls off the shed roof.

"Among these refugees are our allies"

But again, in what proportion relative to those whose values are antithetical to liberal, secular society? Let's look at Muslims in Britain, one of many Western nations with a large and rapidly growing Muslim population. To the extent that liberal, reformist Muslims in Britain prompt a response from Muslims here as a whole, it is one of almost blanket hatred and suspicion. Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation being the obvious example. One need look only at what happened within 48 hours of a "moderate" imam announcing that he had joined Quilliam last month.

This, along with the fact that 78% of Muslims in Britain polled supported prosecution of those who produced cartoons of Muhammad for the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten while 68% supported blanket prosecution of anyone who "insult Islam", the thousands who have repeatedly protested over cartoons of Muhammad while none protested in remotely comparable numbers against jihadi atrocities after 7/7, for example, does not augur at all well for a future in which high birth rate plus high immigration is to projected to see the Muslim percentage of the population continue to at least double decade-on-decade. 

What happens as that starts influence society, institutions, and the ballot box accordingly? Events in ghettoised Muslim enclaves to date give us some clue, and it's very ugly. I could use a link here, but to really cover it, I'd need to include about twenty. I imagine most readers will be fully aware of the kind of things I'm talking about (no-go areas like Molenbeek in Brussels and parts of towns and cities across Britain, 'Shari'ah patrols', Lutfur Rahman's election in Tower Hamlets, Trojan Horse etc.)

Ultimately, this is simply a terrible argument from Namazie. It's like insisting that a person drink a solution which is 59% stagnant water and 40% poison because the remaining 1% has medicinal benefits. If there were a way to effectively vet all ex-Muslims/atheist Muslims fleeing the Muslim world, and for that matter all the persecuted Yezidis, Christians and so on, I'd literally be honoured to welcome them into my home and do anything I could to help them establish new, prosperous lives for themselves here in the West, and the government should be bending over backwards to help these people specifically. But letting unvetted masses flood into Europe - the majority among whom it's safe to imagine either dislike or actively despise such people - is the worst possible outcome both for them and for us.

"The borders are so closed. There is such a fortress up there, that for every one person that enters, there are hundreds of thousands who are not able to"

This really isn't too different to saying something like this:

A man has an AK47 and three 30-round magazines of ammunition. Only a third of the 90 rounds are live rounds, the remainder being blanks. The live rounds are distributed randomly through the three magazines. The man fires all 90 rounds at me from a distances of 50 metres, while I am confined to an enclosed space of ten metres by ten metres. I try to evade the bullets by moving constantly in the ten-metre square. Only 15 of the rounds are accurate, and only four of those which are accurate are live rounds which hit me.

Unfortunately, this nevertheless means I have been shot four times. Four live rounds are embedded and fragmented in my flesh and my organs, and I'm gravely wounded.

But hey, no bother, because for every live round that hit the target, there are 86 which missed! It could have been so much worse!

Note: the one-in-three ratio of blank rounds to live rounds is no accident: various polling indicates that a good third or so of Muslim communities in the West are genuinely poisonous in their views. A summer 2015 poll showed 35% of Syrian refugees had a favourable view of Jabhat al-Nusra, Al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, while numerous polls indicate 30-40% of Muslims in Britain would like to see Shari'ah imposed and/or are supportive of the idea of a global Caliphate.

As a final thought, the admission coming out of Germany that around 600,000 or so of the 1.1 million refugees who arrived there last year have now effectively gone 'missing' rather gives the lie to Namazie's claims of a "fortress".