The glorification of the hijab

In Western society these days, you see the hijab praised as a symbol of modesty.  It can also be a fashion symbol, and certainly, it can be attractive. The hijab frames the face, and makes the wearer look a little exotic, a little special, even more beautiful.

It takes little searching to find images of beautiful women wearing hijabs.  I even saw an image of a  beautiful woman, eyes heavily made up, wearing a niquab, ie the face is  covered, only the eyes visible.




I saw an item on TV of how more women with hijabs were taking part in professional sport.  I have seen a poor little school girl, arms and legs covered with dark fabric,  a hijab, and the normal school uniform on top.  She looked quite silly.

Those in power seem to be trying to normalise the hijab.  Politicians try and include a woman in hijab standing close, assuming it will convey how wonderfully tolerant they are.  News items like to include a girl or woman wearing a hijab, whether or not it is relevant to the story. Even most of the advertisements we see on TV manage to include a woman in a hijab.  They are trying to make it normal and accepted.

I have even heard people refer to the hijab or even full veiling, as 'empowering.' 


Ilham Omar, American politician, says that it means 'power, liberation, beauty and resistance.'







After the attack on a New Zealand mosque,  their Prime Minister, Jacinta Ardern, chose to wear a hijab as a symbol of solidarity, 'to bring people together,' she was saying.




And she encouraged other New Zealand girls and women to do the same. 











There is even a World Hijab Day, supposedly to foster understanding and tolerance for those Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab.  It was started in 2013, so this year, 2019, was its 6th year.  Some schools encouraged their female pupils to take part, and there were Muslim volunteers who showed the girls a selection of hijabs they could model.  Probably most of the girls thought it fun.


BUT WHAT EXACTLY ARE WE SAYING HERE?

The hijab is not a fashion accessory. It is not the practical wearing of a headscarf on windy days.

No.  The hijab is a statement that women are inferior to men, and must conceal themselves in order not to tempt the poor, pure men into temptation.

In some cultures, they go further.  After the Iranian revolution, the women were forced to wear the chador,  and in Afganistan, when the Taliban took over, they forced women to envelop themselves in  a burqa.  Even in places like Indonesia, women are under pressure to cover more of their bodies.


The most extreme form of covering is dreadfully restrictive, until the women looks like a parcel, a non-person.

This sort of garment is a real limitation on freedom.  She cannot even see clearly, so trying to cross a road is hazardous - if, that is, she has the freedom to leave the house.  In many Islamic cultures, women are slaves in all but name.



So wearing a hijab might make you feel good, virtuous maybe, demonstrating to the world what a wonderfully tolerant person you are? 

But it is not virtuous to wave chains at those slaves who have no choice.

Women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and other Arabic countries, can be beaten, or even imprisoned and tortured if they defy the strict dress code.

It is happening and it is happening now.

Beating women in Afghanistan

Now, a rational person might think that instead of forcing women to look like parcels in order not to tempt men into sexual indiscretion, it might be better to ensure the men learn self control,  and if they do commit sexual crimes because they were 'tempted,' throw the men in prison, not the women.  Because while the hijab is not particularly confining, the more extreme forms of veiling are akin to carrying your prison around with you. It is a wicked thing.

And lastly, the hijab is a symbol, not just of the oppression of women, but a symbol of an ideology that declares that non-believers should be put to death.

There are numerous verses in the Koran that say just that.

DO NOT WEAR THE HIJAB.  Do not encourage those who would put women in chains. 

And for those who call themselves 'feminists,' and yet tolerate this rot, then you had best stop calling yourself a feminist because you are no such thing!

Milo Yiannopoulos, Pamela Geller, free speech campaigners

Free speech is vitally important. It is enshrined in the American Constitution, and it is assumed as a right in all other civilised countries, whether it is part of their constitution or their Bill of Rights, or merely by custom over generations.

And yet, free speech is threatened. If it was not threatened, no-one would riot to close down events that didn't suit their view of the world, social media platforms would stick to deleting pornography and incitement to violence  rather than targeting unfashionable opinion. Facts would not be categorised as 'hate speech.'

 Milo Yiannopoulos is a flamboyant gay man, witty, entertaining, and sometimes outrageous, though in my opinion, not nearly as outrageous as is commonly claimed.  Milo's talks have provoked riots, the mere mention of his name can have some fuming because of  his 'hateful' opinions. And they will condone violence against him and against his supporters. 

He wrote a book, but his prospective publisher was worried about repercussions. They cancelled his contract.

Rioting because Milo Yiannopoulos was to speak.

He published anyway. Most of what Milo Yiannopoulos has to say is serious, rational, and pure good sense - that it is vital to overturn the extreme Leftist culture that now reigns in politics, entertainment and in education.







There were a few things I didn't like about his book - the use of some pretty vile profanity, for instance, and the assertion that 'ugly' should be cured with surgery.  But I remember that that particular one was in relation to the very loud 'feminists' he comes in contact with - the sort of 'feminism' that has nothing to do with the perfectly sensible variety we knew in the 60s and 70s. And I have seen on social media some gross specimens! Not that they were physically ugly so much - few of us are beautiful - but these ones seemed to want to display themselves as physically ugly as they could possibly manage, and in as few clothes as possible. So I can forgive him for that one - maybe.

Milo loves to be flashy. 

But then he'd say something that would make me break out in laughter. For instance, he related an incident when he was dressed up as a clown,  'I didn't mind about the clown costume because I still looked sexy as fuck.'


Milo is vain and he is funny. He is incredibly entertaining, but that is only one aspect. He is also very well read, and highly intelligent. I have seen him tie a Muslim activist into knots, because it so quickly became clear that he knew the religion of Islam, while the declared Muslim (Western, female) had very little idea.

For sheer entertainment, I would give this book 5 stars (out of 5) 


So why do they try and silence Milo?  He says: 'It isn't my outrageous behavior, my mockery of ideologies considered sacrosanct in America today, or even my addiction to uncomfortable truths. The establishment's real fear is that this book will affect readers, especially young people. In particular, they fear that the young people at the epicenter of political correctness in America's universities with begin to question the ideologies foisted upon them...'



Milo speaks out against Islam, among other things.  Since Islam declares that the punishment for being homosexual is death, it is no wonder that he despises the religion. But this is one reason that Milo is so heavily criticised  - we are not supposed to speak ill of Islam.  It is Sharia Law, the barbaric law handed down to devout Muslims from the 8th Century - that any criticism of Islam is forbidden. 

And yet European countries are now trying to enforce that law for them. How very, very sad.

Another advocate for free speech is Pamela Geller, who has been trying to shed a light on the facts of Islam ever since the Twin Towers were brought down by Jihadists in 2001.

And then they wanted to put an enormous mosque on the site instead. Some claimed it would be a symbol of unity or peace or something like that. Pamela saw it is as more like a symbol of  triumph.  Thousands agreed, and the proposal was eventually quashed.

But that was when her activism really began.

And ever since,  people have been trying to stop her talking. She points out, again and again, that you cannot call facts 'hate speech.' It makes no difference. Facts are routinely called 'hate speech.'

Her recent book is called 'Fatwa,'  as a Fatwa has been called against her. She sees routine death threats made against her, and at least once, there was a serious attempt to carry out the threat. 

In her book 'Fatwa,'  she describes her efforts to open people's eyes to the reality of Islamic teaching, and she describes the determined efforts to close her mouth. There were even efforts made to thwart her attempts to provide safety to young women threatened with 'honour killing' because they committed such 'crimes' as talking to an unrelated man, appearing in Western dress, or wanting to leave Islam. In Islam, of course, the prescribed punishment for  'apostasy' is death. 




Pamela uses direct quotes from the Koran to illustrate her points. And yet, because she is pointing out the actual teachings of the Koran, she is labelled bigot, racist, etc.  Facts should never be suppressed. How can one address a problem if one cannot describe that problem? 


Here we are in 2017, and yet many European nations plus Canada, Australia and Britain, are caving in to demands from Muslims in a misguided attempt to keep the peace. Pamela says that Islam is at war with civilisation, and the politically correct Leftists are in collusion with them, whether or not they understand what they are doing. She calls them 'craven quizlings.'

On page 60, she says 'Who would have imagined that twelve years after 9/11, patriots and freedom lovers dedicated to opposing the ideology behind those attacks on the homeland (and over 21,000 deadly Islamic attacks worldwide since) would be demonized, dehumanized, and the object of a campaign to get us banned from an allied nation. It could only be the result of insanity or ... defeat.' 

There was a terrorist attack in London. The advice from police was for people to run and hide. Pamela says:  'Running and hiding is no strategy in war. Operation Fetal Position is a recipe for disaster.' (Page 127) 

For speaking out, Pamela Geller finds herself the recipient of some truly dreadful threats, often on social media and usually blandly ignored, while her own posts are routinely taken down. This, for instance, that a Muslim posted pictures of her next to bloodied dismembered bodies along with threats too gross for me to say.  And yet that facebook page was not taken down. 

She says, (page 189)  'This is ultimately not about me; it is whether America will stand for freedom or surrender. I don't want to die, but I will not live as a slave.' 

But it seems that so many people would rather live in fear of repercussions by Muslims than to stand up to their threats. They refuse to even hear when people point out what the threat is. They would rather silence people like Pamela Geller than look at what is real. 

An excerpt from Pamela's book -  'All my work is in defense of the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, the equality of rights of all people before the law, and individual rights. The claim that I operate a hate group is a vicious smear and eerily evokes the circumstances that preceded the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s.' 


It's a strange world. On the news today, it speaks of the Christmas season being particularly dangerous as a season for terrorism. There is talk of new loudspeakers in cities so that they can sound an alarm when there is a terrorist attack, a heavy police presence is now routine at major events, and heavy bollards are being erected in places where crowds gather in order to protect against a terrorist deciding to deliberately drive into them.  And yet there is no mention of just who these 'terrorists' are, and what they might be murdering for.

Bollards erected in the hope of preventing an Islamic terrorist attack.

Milo Yiannopoulos and Pamela Geller are freedom fighters. They are fighting for the right to tell it as it is.  And they are telling us to open our eyes, particularly about the dangers posed by the spreading influence of Islam.

In certain circles, the penalty for being homosexual
is to be thrown from a tall building

As a gay man, Milo could be threatened with execution, as other gay men have been,  while Pamela is subject to a Fatwa.











Our government, our educational system, our politicians, would rather preach nonsense such that 'Islam is a religion of peace.'  One only has to read the Koran and the other Islamic 'holy' books to know how false is such a claim.

Both these books are worth reading.  Milo's book is entertaining, as well as informative, while Pamela's book goes into detail about the numerous times she has spoken out, and by one method or other,  has been silenced.  This part of the book becomes a little tedious to read, and yet the sheer repetition rams home her point that freedom of speech is under enormous threat. 

Pamela Geller - 'The foundation of my work is individual rights and equality for all before the law. These are the foundational principles of our constitutional republic.  That is now considered controversial. Truth is the new hate speech. Truth is going to be criminalized.'     

Both books can be found online. Many bookshops will probably not stock them - further proof of the threat to freedom of speech. 

Islam is winning

Islam is winning.

Islam wants to make the whole world part of its ‘Ummah.’ In other words, all of us to become Muslims.  The Koran commands it. Muhammad, when he first decided he was having revelations from Allah, tried to persuade people to follow him,  and when persuasion didn't work very well, he used treachery and murder instead. The more followers he managed, the bigger army he had at his command. He used his army to make himself rich, give his ‘soldiers’ plenty of booty to share, including of course, slaves, and the more he was able to force Islam onto his neighbours.

Those we now call Islamists are active in following his example. Mostly, they use modern tactics such as demanding concessions that no other religion would think of demanding, by using the absurdities of modern-day political correctness, and by depicting themselves as victims of Islamophobia at the slightest excuse, sometimes a manufactured excuse.

And they use terrorism. 'We will not be beaten,' people say whenever there is a new terrorist outrage. 'They may have guns but we have flowers.'  And,  'We will not allow them to make us afraid.'

No?  In Turin, Italy, 4th June, 2017, one and a half thousand people were hurt stampeding from a bang, possibly from a fire-cracker.  People might try and convince themselves that terror is not winning, but when so many people can be hurt because of an imaginary bomb, then it is clearly winning.

It is winning in many, many ways.

Each time some commentator speaks of the issue of terrorism without using the words 'Islam,'  'Muslim'  or even 'Islamist,'  then it is a win for Islam. The Australian ABC is laughable for its avoidance of any hint that Islam might have something to do with terrorism, even though almost every terrorist attack in the last fifteen years has been by Muslims in pursuit of its Islamist agenda.

They win each time a terrorism 'expert' pretends that Islamist terrorism has nothing to do with Islam. Waleed Aly, TV presenter and Muslim did a lengthy report on terrorism, and blamed it on everything else but Islam. (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/andrew-bolt/waleed-aly-on-terrorism-no-mention-of-islam/news-story/33a81d0c970b2f796ddf3c203e23877e)

They win when ordinary people hesitate to use the word 'Muslim' when it is obviously a Muslim. There was a ludicrous example in regard to the second London Bridge attack (June 3^rd, 2017) - a witness saw one of the perpetrators with his knife, he was shouting 'This is for Allah,'  and yet the witness 'couldn't say' whether he was a Muslim. I guess he thought that if he said it was a Muslim, then he would be 'racist.'  But if he was that close, he was lucky not to have had the knife slashing at his throat, and that is a lot more serious than simply being called a stupid word.

Each time a blogger gets criticised for telling it like it is, that is also a win for the Islamists. Some facebook accounts are repeatedly closed down because they speak of Islam - not 'hate speech,'  nothing that actually threatens Muslims for being Muslims, but merely for explaining the facts of the religion. 

Each time that schools bow to pressure and make special concessions to Muslims, it is a win for Islam and a defeat of Western values of civilisation. Some schools are now making their students learn about Islam, except that they only learn the dressed up version, not the facts. There was one school that had a 'Hijab Day.'  Hijabs are a sign of the subjugation of women. They have no place in schools or anywhere else.

Islam wins every time some asinine popstar says something like all we need is love and understanding and terrorists will no longer be terrorists. Such blatant idealism, such willful blindness, only delays the day we see the enemy and finally start to fight. 

Islam wins when those who calls themselves 'feminist' refuse to call them out on their misogyny.  Some have worn hijabs and called it feminist!  Anne Aly, Labor MP and former ABC personality, called it 'the most feminist religion.'  (March, 2017)  It states in the Koran that  a woman is worth half of a man, and that a husband should beat a wife from whom he fears disobedience. In the most Islamic of states they cover her in a black shroud as if she was not a person at all. Feminist? Baloney.

Islam wins when eyes are deliberately turned away from Islamic practices such as the forced marriage of underage girls.  It especially wins when a truly awful Islamic practice, female genital mutilation, is defended.  Germaine Greer!  She was once a highly respected feminist.  Now she equates FGM with voluntary cosmetic surgery.  It is a very different thing, lady!  Ask Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  (http://triggeralert.blogspot.com.au/2011/01/germaine-greer-on-male-female-genital.html) 

Indonesia, once regarded as a 'moderate' Islamic nation. A Christian politician was charged with blasphemy because he ventured to say that it was not a Koranic command that Muslims could only vote for Muslims. That was a very big and very significant win for Islam.  Ahok (aka Basuki Tjahaja Purnama) is now serving a two year prison term for blasphemy.  (http://www.smh.com.au/world/jailing-of-jakarta-governor-ahok-puts-focus-back-on-indonesian-blasphemy-laws-20170512-gw3f40.html) 

Islam wins when European nations pass laws that outlaw criticism of Islam. That is a particularly sinister development. 

Islam wins when formerly modernising countries turn more and more to the severe form of Islam. Look at pictures of countries such as Iran and Afghanistan in the 1960s, and look at them now. Pity the poor women now enveloped in black. In Saudi Arabia, a woman is not permitted outside the house without the escort of a male guardian.

Islam wins when atheist bloggers are executed, and it wins when, in more and more areas, the brutality of Sharia Law is embraced.

Islam wins when Muslim communities succeed in making their area a 'No go'  area for others, including police. There are said to be more and more 'no go'  areas throughout Europe. There should be none.

And it wins when an occasional blogger - like myself - wonders about possible repercussions before pressing 'publish.'   

****************

Learn about Islam. It is important.

Suggested books:

1.  Bill Warner, PHD, translation of the Koran and the Hadith, books about Islam. From Amazon: 'Bill Warner holds a PhD in physics and mathematics. He has been a university professor, businessman, and applied research physicist.

Warner had a life-long interest in religions, including Islam, and their effects on history and civilizations. After the 9/11 New York jihad attacks, he began working on making the Islamic political doctrine, which impacts non-Muslims, available to the average person. 

https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=bill+warner%2C+koran

2. Ayaan Hirsi Ali knows Islam as few others know it. She has written several books, every single one of them a learning experience for the reader.

3. 'The Story of Mohammad'   

            Harry Richardson.  

Based on the Hadith, one of the 'Holy' books of Islam, this is the story of Muhammad's life. Richardson puts it in order, and makes it easy to understand while never deviating from what is accepted as truth by Muslims.  

This book is truly an eye-opener.

Who are these 'feminists?' It is time for some outrage.

Every self-respecting woman is a feminist.  

But who exactly are these 'feminists' who are always being outraged by bikini'd girls in an advertisement, or a cricketer choosing the wrong time to ask out a woman, or any other minor perceived 'sexism' by a male? 


They are currently being called cowards because they refuse to stand up for female victims of Islam. But just who are they?


I certainly didn't elect them. I've been a feminist even before I knew the word. I was one of those who spoke up for women's rights in the 60s and 70s. Every thinking woman wants equal rights. Every thinking woman is therefore a feminist. 


So who do the media go to when they want a 'feminist' quote or a 'feminist' reaction? It's not me, and whoever they are, it is not representative of me. 


I want a few names. I want to ask them just why they are refusing to be at all outraged at the outrageous things that are happening in the world, while pretending outrage at the miniscule and innocuous.

The Islamic hatred of women became more widely appreciated on New Years Eve day, 2016, when there were mass attacks by 'refugees'  (illegal immigrants, mistakenly welcomed)  on women in Cologne, Germany.  Over the nest few days, slowly, it was reported that several other cities had the same planned attacks by exactly the same sort of people. Other countries, as well.  


There was a cover-up, orders from above.  Even now, I saw a report that videos of the attacks are being systematically wiped from social media.  The authorities appear to be far more concerned with preventing what they refer to as 'Islamophobia' than they are with protecting their own women or even simply reporting the facts.  Problems are never solved if they are not acknowledged as problems. 

The Genocide of Christians.

This Christmas, I would like to remember those Christians wickedly persecuted in the Middle East. A genocide is going on, routinely ignored by those Western leaders who choose instead to trumpet that 'Islam is a religion of peace.' Not just Christians are victims there, of course, but Jews, whom the Muslims are taught to hate and want to kill, atheists, though I doubt if anyone in that whole area would be willing to admit to being an atheist, and the Yasidis, subject to constant attack, but luckily with the courage to fight back. Even ones the Islamists consider insufficiently devout or not devout in the right sort of Muslim way, are killed. Children are massacred.

I think of the victims of Islam in our own reasonably civilised countries as well - the women forced to cover up as if they are not people at all, and especially the ones who are so brain-washed that they think it their own idea. It is not. Making a woman into a mere parcel is an assault on women's rights everywhere.

I think of the children of Islam, too many of whom are subject to the rite of female circumcision, indicative of that strain of sick sexuality that runs through Muslim cultures. If it was not there, they would not consider a bare ankle a provocation, and rape would not be so prevalent.

I think of girls forced into marriage too early, and to men they may not like, and I think of those who are not sufficiently docile, and who wind up killed by members of their own families - 'Honour' killings, as if there was any sort of honour in murder.

And I think of Muslims who would think all of this a foul thing to say. Because if they dare not to believe, then Allah will take an awful vengeance on them. The Koran is full of threats of a dreadful hell for unbelievers. It is its most common message. Muslims are not permitted to think about their religion, and especially not to criticise any aspect of it.

I would like to deliver some good news for religious people everywhere. Hell is a man-made concept. It does not exist. And since it does not exist, you can live free, free of this ghastly threat.

For many of us, Christmas is a joyful occasion, a secular event, no longer religious in spite of its 'true meaning.' There were midwinter celebrations before Christianity, but now it is Christmas, and no matter what you choose to believe, it is for enjoying.

So cast aside the teachings that lead to killings and guilt and fear. Live free and enjoy your Christmas.

Islamism and its dire consequences for civilisation

PLEASE EXCUSE:  The odd spacing and changes of font size are the result of BlogSpot being uncooperative today. I have been unable to fix it. 

ISIS and all the other Islamist groups - They are enjoying unprecedented success, converts are flocking to them, and even in long-standing Islamic states, the more fundamental (and women-repressing) factions are gaining ever more influence.

 

And they are brutal, not merely the terrorist groups such as ISIS,  but the Islamic nations that are usually accorded the respect that any nation is granted.  But they are not civilized in the way that a Western country is civilized. 
 
Iran:  Typical is the story of Ghoncheh Ghavami, a British woman with Iranian citizenship who was sentenced to a year in prison for attending a men's volleyball game.  Iran was progressive in the 60s and 70s, but then reverted to brutality under the Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979.  Any progress back towards civilisation since then has been minimal.

Nigeria:  The Islamist group, Boko Haram, led by Abubakar Shekau, denied the Nigerian government’s claimed peace deal, and says that the schoolgirls abducted in April this year have been married off. They ‘converted to Islam,’ he said.  Well, so would I 'convert' if the alternative was multiple rape and then death.   Shekau said he was not interested in peace, but promised ‘war, striking and killing with gun.’

Pakistan  Another terrorist bomb this morning. (3rd November, 2014)   'Credit' has been claimed by two separate Islamist groups.

And do you remember Malala Yousafzai,  shot by the Taliban for encouraging girls to seek education?  After she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year, she received vile threats. 

"Characters like Malala should know that we are not deterred by propaganda of [non-believers]. We have prepared sharp and shiny knives for the enemy of Islam," tweeted spokesman Ehsanullah Ehsan. 

http://www.galaxyreporter.com/2014/10/malala-getting-threats-from-taliban.html

 

Religious police beating a woman.

   Afghanistan:   When the Taliban took charge in the 1990s, they forced women into burqas, a covering so severe they cannot even see properly. Trying to cross a road, for instance, would have to be a nightmare.

Even worse, women were not permitted to work or even to go out without a male escort. Remember the marches that widows staged at the time? They only wanted to eat, and to eat, they needed to work. 'We are not political;  we are hungry.'

 

So what happened to them?  I presume some starved, others were maybe taken in by relatives, and probably some arrested, never to be seen again.

The Taliban were forced back, but now that the US has left Afghanistan, it is only a matter of time before they return and take control. Again, women will be beaten for imagined transgressions against 'morality.'  Muslim men have always had a strange idea of morality, especially that it only applies to women.   

 

2002 Bali Bombing

Indonesia, 2002:  A Bali nightclub was bombed. It killed  202 people, most of them Westerners.  The culprits were apprehended, not very quickly, imprisoned, though not for as long as warranted, a few even executed, but others allowed to continue their recruitment activities while still in prison. It is almost as if the Indonesian government really doesn’t mind if a few hundred Westerners get killed now and then.  





Amrozi smiles, Indonesian Policeman smiles.

Even while in prison, the bombers were treated more as heroes than as despicable criminals.     More information on this site:  http://www.fugly-bali.org/bombing.html

 referring to Amrozi -

'We would like to remind you of his smiles, seen here after his capture, and the smiles he gave in the court room. We would like to remind you of the thumbs up he gave in the court room when they handed down his death sentence. He has absolutely no remorse for any of the people he murdered or maimed. We would like to remind you of the attitude of the police who arrested and questioned him. How they shook his hand in front of the cameras, the same way an important person is greeted. We would like to remind you of the smiles of the police officers, who were very happy at the media attention but clearly uncaring about Amrozi's crimes against humanity.'


Meantime, Australia gave Indonesia money to improve their hospitals, and with them, pretended that the unfortunate incident was a mere aberration.

Saudi Arabia:  On March 11, 2002, a fire at a girls' school in Mecca killed fifteen people, all young girls. They were hindered from leaving because the little girls were not sufficiently covered. I guess the poor vulnerable Muslim men might have been unreasonably tempted by the sight of school girls running from a fire.

In Saudi Arabia, the death penalty is not reserved for offences that civilised people regard as serious, but can be imposed for adultery, ‘false prophecy,’ blasphemy, and apostasy. Apostasy is when a person who was Muslim decides to be Muslim no more. 

Saudi Arabia is not the only country that would punish this 'crime' with death. It is a major reason why Islam is such a powerful religion. 

A second reason is that religious schools 'teach' by having the children repeatedly chant passages from the Koran in at attempt to learn as much as possible by rote. This is a way of making sure they don't think too much about the content. It is brainwashing.

The third reason is that the Koran features such frequent and such dreadful threats of  eternal punishment in Hell that people are reluctant to decide it is nonsense - just in case it is not.  

22:19 - 'Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their belly. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.'
35:16 - 'As for the unbelievers, the fire of Hell awaits them. Death shall not deliver them, nor shall its torment ever be eased for them.'
76:1 - 'For the unbelievers We have prepared chains and fetters, and a blazing Fire.'
4:56  Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in fire. No sooner will their skins be consumed than We shall give them other skins, so that they may truly taste the scourge. Surely God is mighty and wise.

Quotes from the Quran taken from 'The Koran' translated with notes by N. J. Dawood, Penguin Books, 2006 edition.

Every now and then, I hear that 'Islam is a religion of peace.' But I've recently read through the Koran -  research for a recent book.  I do not recall much about 'peace.'  The most notable aspect are the repeated threats of terrible punishment for 'unbelievers.'

 
In Western countries, most of us were scarcely aware of the clash between Sunnis and Shiites. I only discovered that it was happening in our own Sydney suburbs when I went looking – one would never have known from the news on TV or even from newspapers,  (maybe if one read very, very thoroughly?)   

http://www.theglobalmail.org/feature/the-clash-within-civilisations-how-the-sunni-shiite-divide-cleaves-the-middle-east/349/



The scene after the shooting

Today, (3rd November, 2014)  a Shiite preacher was shot by a Sunni Islamist. In Sydney, outside his mosque. That it was even stated is something new.  It appears that the Sunni/Shiite conflict is no longer to be covered up in the media - maybe they thought it might be construed as racism.  I suspect that we are quite often denied certain news for this reason.

Many of the current religious wars started as clashes between Sunni and Shiites, but now ISIS, among others, is killing everybody - Christians, pagans,  other Sunnis.   See this site for an article about their killing of Sunni tribesmen - http://edition.cnn.com/2014/11/01/world/isis-threat/  -  'Public executions and mass graves: ISIS targets Sunni tribe in Iraq.'

 

Is this the beginning of the end of civilization as we know it? For the civilized world, is it that our policies of tolerance and 'multiculturalism' are going to mean the end of tolerance and multiculturalism?

Maybe it's time for intolerance. We should not tolerate erosion of our freedoms and we should not tolerate those men and (a few) women who are trying to destroy our way of life. We should not tolerate curbs on our freedom of speech, curbs that are scorned by those who preach hatred of us and our freedoms.

  We cannot allow fanatics to throw away civilization and take us back to the 12th Century - a new Dark Age.   

  

Western civilization has given us a great deal. We live peacefully, and in the main, prosperous lives. Ours are the countries that refugees strive to enter - peaceful countries, free countries, countries with a good standard of living. 

 Muslim countries, on the other hand, are the ones who are responsible for so many of the refugees. Islam is most certainly not a peaceful religion.

 

 

    

 We have been very generous in taking in refugees. We have promoted tolerance and we have adopted the policy of multiculturalism - tolerating and even encouraging new immigrants to maintain the culture of their old countries, even turning a blind eye to things we find distasteful, such as the forced marriage of young girls. 

Many new immigrants have peacefully assimilated and become valuable citizens. Too many have not. They have taken, but not given.  They have assumed all the rights of their new country, but refused to assume the responsibilities.  And too many have brought their old conflicts with them.

 

 The Islamist threat is a real threat. It should not to be dismissed as exaggerated or unimportant because it is somewhere else far away, and it certainly should not be dismissed as 'racism.'   There are Christian fanatics as well, maybe fanatics from other religions, but they are not the threat that Islam has become. It is no longer good enough to pretend it is not happening. This is serious.  

 

Peace.  I hope it continues.

And to those who would kill for Allah and to bring an end to the freedoms of a civilised world,  I would remind you of a clause in the Koran:

 

'He that fights for God's cause fights for himself. God needs no man's help.'