The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Once Upon a Time in the West

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 Canadian
government 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:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.”
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.

Previous

The Bogeyman of Islam

Next

Adventures in the Surveillance State

1 Comment

  1. Edward Cline

    A correspondent remarked about Hirsi Ali's comments about waiting until Islam acquired some manners:

    Well, we do not have "time". We do not have "centuries". We do not even have decades. Even if such a "reformation" is theoretically possible — by what is now a "fringe element" which is ostracized and rejected, as Hirsi Ali acknowledges — Islam cannot be defanged in time to avoid either a violent clash of civilization versus Islamic savagery or a slower descent into a new Dark Age with much of the world under its control.

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén