Majorityrights Central > Category: Islam & Islamification

The standing advice provided by the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office for British travellers to Saudi Arabia includes the following:-

Saudi Arabia is a Muslim country in which Islamic law is strictly enforced.  Islamic codes of behaviour and dress are also enforced rigorously.  You should respect them fully.

Homosexual behaviour and adultery are illegal and can carry the death penalty.

The penalties for the possession of, or trade in, alcohol are severe.  Both result in prison sentences.  ... You should not arrive in Saudi Arabia under the influence of alcohol: the consequences could be serious.

... The Saudi legal system differs in many ways from the UK.  Suspects can be held without charge and those detained have in the past not been allowed legal representation.  The Saudi authorities have detained witnesses and victims of crimes.  If you require consular assistance our staff will seek to visit you as soon as they are aware of the case.  However, in some instances they have not been permitted to do so immediately or have had limits applied to access once granted.  We have raised our concern about reports of mistreatment of some suspects during their detention.

Nowhere does the FO specifically state that Western men and women will be punished if they are caught dancing with one another in private.  That, in the event, might turn out to have been something of an oversight:-

Saudi court sentences foreigners for drinking, dancing at mixed gender party

A Saudi Arabian court has convicted and sentenced 20 foreigners to receive lashes and spend several months in prison for attending a party where alcoholic drinks were served and men and women danced, a Saudi newspaper reported Sunday.

The kingdom’s religious police arrested 433 foreigners, including more than 240 women, for attending the “impudent” party in Jiddah, the state-guided newspaper Okaz reported. It did not identify the foreigners, give their nationalities or say when the party took place.

Judge Saud al-Boushi sentenced the 20 to three to four month in prison and ordered them to receive an unspecified number of lashes. They have the right to appeal, the newspaper said.

The prosecutor general charged the 20 with “drinking, arranging for impudent party, mixed dancing and shooting a video for the party,” Okaz said.

READ MORE...

The Dutch government agreed today on:-

a total ban on the wearing of burqas and other Muslim face veils in public, justifying the move on security grounds.

Immigration Minister Rita Verdonk will now draw up legislation which will result in the Netherlands, once one of Europe’s most easy-going nations, imposing some of the continent’s toughest laws against concealing the face.

“The cabinet finds it undesirable that garments covering the face—including the burqa—should be worn in public in view of public order, (and) the security and protection of fellow citizens,” the Dutch Justice Ministry said in a statement.

Well, is this a step towards saving Holland or sealing its fate?

The answer varies according to which you place uppermost: Dutch national interest or Dutch ethnic interest.  Those who like the novelty of forcing Moslems to stay on Dutch terms or go wear their burqas someplace else should listen closely to the Mayor of Amsterdam:-

Job Cohen, the Labour mayor of Amsterdam, said he opposed burqas in schools and public buildings, and said women wearing one who failed to get a job should not expect welfare benefits.

“From the perspective of integration and communication, it is obviously very bad because you can’t see each other so the fewer the better,” he told foreign journalists.  “But actually hardly anybody wears one ...  The fuss is much bigger than the number of people concerned.”

It’s easy to be tough about a palliative.  Dutch national interest is the interest of the polital and cultural elite.  They want a successful integration.  They do NOT want - and will not get - a tented city of defeated burqa-wearers at the Algerian Airlines check-in.  But they will get the support of all those Dutch indigenes who believe Geert Wilders to be a “far-right politician”, and wouldn’t know their ethnic interest from a well fattened goat.

A burqa ban is a politically shrewd strategy from a mainstream liberal perspective.

The latest controversy over Danish cartoonry - young Danish People’s Party activists filmed drawing the Prophet for a laugh - has had the anticipated result.  Danish politicians have rushed around trying to apologise for their, of course, appallingly racist and completely unrepresentative, un-Danish young countrymen ... Moslems all over have been making the obligatory noises.

Actually, there’s a little more to it than that.  Film of the the youth camp was shot by one Martin Rosengaard Knudsen and duly, obediently, lovingly aired on Danish TV.  Knudsen, who doesn’t sound like a very nice liberal, had posed as a Party member for months with the specific aim of causing trouble.  The cartoon drawing was a bit of light-hearted fun at a summer camp organised last August for young Party activists.  But it gave Knudsen his golden chance.

The cartoons were brought to the world’s attention only because a lying little spy had a camera and made it so.  At whom, then, should those always inflammable Moslems be outraged?  Knudsen?  Danish TV?

Erm ... no contest.  The kids, obviously.  And Denmark.  And the kufr everywhere, probably.

And it’s the same with Denmark’s stunningly cowardly and unsteadfast politicians.  If in doubt, always suck up to the Moslem.

You can view Knudsen’s very silly footage here.

I can’t tell you how much I hope this one never catches on here.

Is it too early to draw the lesson from the affair of the Danish cartoons that liberal democracy and Islam cannot peacefully coexist - and therefore won’t?  You will not be at all surprised to learn that I, a denizen of the heinously radical right, don’t think it is.  But I also think that many others - most of us rightists, actually - will in due course be happy to agree.

It is, you see, natural for the peoples of the West to seek to maintain their customs and, indeed, their sovereignty in their own lands.  It is in the nature of Islam to seek dominance over everyone and everything.  Something’s gotta give, as they say.  But Islam will not in any way moderate itself to accommodate  Western hegemony.  No “moderates”, not even Abdullah Badawi, Malaysia’s prime minister and a man recognised as a leader of “moderate Islam”, is really suggesting that it should.  Ergo, the accomodation must come from the West.

That would be a significant step towards dhimmification in the view of a lot of folks on the Conservative, libertarian and nationalist right.  But that’s the point.  The liberal-left has a completely different view, namely that its ultimate interest is the protection of the MultiCult, the society it has created in the image of “Man as free individual”.  If all that enriching, celebrated diversity falls apart in its hands ... if all the years of effort dedicated to the destruction of that dark, limited, backward thing, the racial nation state ... if all that goes to waste, then a new chaos will descend.  Hated nationhood will awaken from its long, helpful slumber.  The future, which should have been individualist, free and racially egalitarian, will become completely, perhaps tragically unpredictable.  Think how intolerably unfair that would be to the poor left.  So damned near yet so far.

READ MORE...

A meeting in ghastly, characterless Birmingham of 300 offended people with itchy beards - rumoured to be all males - has produced a demand for changes to the Race Relations Act and the Press Complaints Commission code.  Specifically, the newly-formed Muslim Action Committee wants the same right in law to be offended as infrequently, apparently, as Sikhs and Jews.  And this is notwithstanding the fact that only last week Parliament neutered Charles Clarke’s guileless attempt at this sort of thing.

To demonstrate the monumental capacity these, of course, vibrant scholars have to get offended, effendi, they are organising a march in ghastly, non-white London on February 18th.  Let’s hope they get themselves a decent signmaker this time.  Between 20,000 and 50,000 marchers are expected to attend, almost all of them offended.  But some may be very angry indeed.  Some may even be ballistic.

I can’t help but wonder if non-European Caucasians aren’t altogether too excitable for boring old, unexciting Britain.  If they just don’t get free speech at all - and they don’t - maybe there’s a better, more sandy place where they can practise their humourlessness and dedication to outrage as much as they like.  Five times a day even.  Ten, twenty, I don’t mind.

From The Times:-

Tony Blair suffered a humiliating blow to his authority tonight as the Government slumped to a shock double defeat over its plans to combat religious hatred.

And, in further embarrassment for the Prime Minister, it emerged later that he did not vote in the second division - which the Government lost by just one vote.

The results, after a sizeable Labour backbench revolt, were greeted by loud cheers from the Tory benches and cries of “resign!”.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke quickly announced the Government was bowing to the Commons’ will and the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill would go for Royal Assent to become law as it stood.

“The Government accepts the decision of the House this evening. We are
delighted the Bill is going to its Royal Assent and delighted we have a Bill which deals with incitement against religious hatred,” he said, to Tory jeers.

Mr Blair suffered his first ever Commons defeat only two months ago when MPs voted down plans for a 90-day detention period under the Terrorism Bill and opted for 28 days instead.

Peers inflicted a series of defeats on the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in a bid to safeguard freedom of speech with an amendment restricting the new offence of inciting religious hatred
to threatening words and behaviour rather than a wider definition also covering insults and abuse.

They also required the offence to be intentional and specified that criticism,
insult, abuse and ridicule of religion, belief or religious practice would not be an offence.

Ministers urged the Commons today to reject the Lords’ amendments and back instead a Government compromise. Home Office Minister Paul Goggins insisted only those intending to “stir up hatred” would be caught under the Government’s plans.

But in the first test of strength, MPs voted by 288 to 278, majority 10, to back the Lords. Mr Blair was recorded as voting with the Government line in this division, while 27 Labour backbenchers rebelled and at least two dozen others did not vote.

In the second vote, MPs voted by 283 votes to 282, majority one, to back the Lords.

Yesterday I reported on a riot by young Muslim men at a public swimming pool in Melbourne. It seems that such men are keen to frequent places where they can observe young Western women bathing.

But what about Muslim girls? Do they bathe? The answer is yes. In fact, there is an Australian swimwear company, Ahiida, which makes garments,

aimed at today’s modern Muslim girl. We are constantly striving to develop our collection with new colours, designs and fabrics that focus on today’s society.

Here are two examples of their swimwear styles: the Modest-fit Design and the Slim-fit Design.

Most Westerners seeing these outfits will be struck with a sense of the culturally alien. Even those of us who like to see women dress modestly will struggle to understand the mentality behind such designs.

Perhaps it can be explained by the influence of polygamy in Islamic societies. If you have several wives, it might be more difficult to be confident of their fidelity.

Whatever the reason, it seems to me that a clash of cultures is inevitable when you mix together Islamic and Western populations. Those Muslim boys at Oak Park are getting powerfully mixed messages when they see their sisters decked out in Ahiida gear and the Australian girls at the pool in bikinis.