Sunday, 9 September 2007

Islam and the decadent West

One of the palliatives used by the Islamists to dull our senses is to claim that they don’t want to convert the decadent West by violence (even though the Koran specifically encourages this) but by our seeing for ourselves Islam’s moral superiority. Let’s look at how the Nordic countries, as the ultimate embodiment of Western decadence, compare with their Islamic counterparts.

Corruption: Every available source shows the Nordics as the least corrupt, while Islamic countries wallow, with their African counterparts, at the opposite end, mired in corruption at all levels.

Law and accountability: Nordic countries again top the scale here, while almost all Islamic countries are run by unaccountable despots who rule by decree, looting national resources for the benefit of their families and tribes. According to the Koran, a woman’s testimony is worth less than that of a camel while an infidel’s is worth nothing.

Helping the poor and needy: Nordic countries have virtually eliminated poverty for their citizens (apart from refugees from Muslim hell-holes who live on welfare there). They also, per capita, provide the most assistance to poor nations (a total waste, but that's another matter) and are always first to assist during natural disasters around the world. The comparison with the wealthy Gulf states could not be more invidious. As well as giving virtually nothing in foreign assistance (apart from financing Islamic extremists) they incurred international opprobrium by their inaction and unwillingness to help their Islamic brothers after the last tsunami.

Again, behind the glitz of these states, with their gleaming towers and 7 star hotels, lies a demi monde where many natives and all Asian labourers live in virtual destitution, exploited with no recouse, no public services, no rights, no security – as bad as any failed state.

Crime and violence: Despite draconian police powers, Islamic countries are extremely violent, especially within the family. Not surprising, as the Koran allows a husband to beat any of his four wives for not obliging if he fells like getting laid. Check my posts on Sweden to see how the majority of rapes there are committed by Muslim immigrants, who carry Islamic teachings to their logical conclusion.

Sexual morality: Ok, surely here the Muslims must have a case. But I don’t think so. Sure, Nordics flash the flesh and shag each other a lot, but it’s generally fully consensual. Women have full and equal rights. A wealthy Muslim can have four wives at any one time, like Osama bin Laden’s father, trading in the older ones when they get past it, and sending to Syria for nice 15 year old virgins as a replacements. (Remember Mohammed had a 6 year old ‘bride’). Thus wealthy Muslims can and do have a conveyor belt of sexual attractions, capable of satiating even the most jaded palate.

On the other hand, if a woman steps even slightly out of line, e.g. talking to a non-Muslim, she’ll literally get the bullet in an ‘honour’ killing, a delightful practice which now goes on in the West as police turn a culturally attuned blind eye. And, if the wealthy ones take multiple wives, what happens to the other horny men? Well, they don’t get a wife, it’s as simple as that. I've had well-educated Muslims try to convince me that there are orders of magnitude more women than men is Muslim societies. How can you argue with that?

So in conclusion, the Nordics have brought justice, social welfare and cohesion, honesty, rule of law, science and learning, tolerance and transparency to levels never before seen in history. Islamic societies are backward, corrupt, violent dictatorships and kleptocracies. And they have the nerve to try to convert us.

13 comments:

ERS said...

I.S., do you know that "honor" killings pre-date Islam by centuries? They are believed to have their origins in misinterpretations of pre-Islamic Arab tribal codes. So I think it is a little unfair to blame either Islam or the tribes for these hideous crimes. Something got horribly twisted along the way.

That said, it is that case that, of the 5,000+ "honor" killings committed per annum (the UN's estimate), the overwhelming majority of them occur in Arab/Muslim countries and in Arab/Muslim immigrant communities elsewhere. So there is an obvious correlation, but not causality. Some of these countries--Iraq, Pakistan, and Turkey among them--have recently overturned laws that offer leniency to the perpetrators. They are having problems with loopholes and enforcement and now "honor" suicides, but at least they are trying. Other countries, such as Jordan, still have laws on the books that benefit the killers. In Jordan, for example, there are three penal code articles on the books--Articles 97, 98, and 340--that allow the killers to get off with an average sentence of six months.

I recently conducted a nationwide attitude and opinion survey on "honor" killings in Jordan. One of the things I discovered is that approximately 20% of my representative sample believes Islam says that affronts to family "honor" must be dealt with through murder. Islam says no such thing but, obviously, there is room in the mosques for the imams to correct this widely-held misconception.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

P.S. Is that really you in the photograph on this page? :-)

SAVANT said...

That's very useful input Eileen - must buy your book.

Re my photo, before I answer, does my heavenly bod turn you on?

Manfred said...

Very good post. It seems the only think Islam is less decadant than the West is on clothing their women. Assuming you consider scantily clad females as decadent. I don't!

Anonymous said...

One correction to ERS's comment: She is correct in saying that the women/children are not meant to be murdered. However the thing that they are murdered for is often a capital crime in Islam. (e.g. committing adultery, changing their religion to run off with someone). So the Imams are unable to say that the women/children are not to be killed, rather they can only say that the family should not be the ones to do the killing.

Hubert said...

This is a good point, rebuts the rubbish that these things are 'non-Islamic'.

Anonymous said...

For anyone wishing to discuss honour killing with ex-Muslims and why it is tacitly sanctioned by Islam can go to this forum-

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/council-of-ex-muslims-of-britain/browse_thread/thread/56dd26eb6afdd4cc?hl=en-GB

Any multiculturalist lefties can also call the ex-Muslims racists, please do.

Curly wurly said...

How come you never see Muslims defend themselves on blogs? Ist it because they dont know how to, or can't read and write?

ERS said...

I.S., :-).

The World Bank looked at every single case of "honor" killing in Jordan for the year 1997. And, from post-mortem examinations on the bodies, it could be determined that a full 95% of them were still virgins. So they probably didn't do whatever it was they were accused of doing. They were just summarily executed, no burden of proof for the killers.

The Quran says there must be four eyewitnesses to sex between unmarried partners before the penalty can be administered. And it even goes on to say they must actually see the deed and be able to prove that a thread could not be passed between the bodies. I think we know that this would almost never happen. Some interpret this to mean that the Prophet, because he set the bar so high on proving illicit sex, actually was against mere humans punishing this act.

Anonymous said...

At ERS again...
No the reason he set the bar so high is because Aisha (his 6 year old wife) was caught having an affair with some guy. (Don't forget that Mo was 53 when he married the girl - maybe she wanted the company of a guy who hadn't lost all his teeth). Anyway, when the Muslims brought Aisha to Mohammed, saying she had had an affair, he suddenly had a revelation saying that 4 witnesses were required. As there were fewer than 4, she was spared.

And as a consequence, rape victims throughout the Islamic world pay the price - the reason being that in Islam, rape is not recognised as a crime, so the law regarding adultery is used to convict Rapists. The problem is that if a woman says "I've been raped" and does not have at least 4 male witnesses (or 8 female witnesses), she cannot successfully prosecute the rape case, but since she herself admitted to having sex, she is put to death. Thus in Pakistan the majority of women in jail or there because they were raped.
Also we see the case from Somalia where a woman was raped in front of 7 women, and she was stoned to death because she needed 8 female witnesses.



ERS, please stop reading Karen Armstrong - it is rotting your (tiny) mind.

Anonymous said...

A little more explanation of the Mohammed's "4 witnesses" revelation.
If one reads the Sirah Rasul Allah (the biography of Mohammed), one quickly realises that Mohammed makes up revelations to suit himself:
He gets 20% of whatever Muslims steal;
He gets to sleep with his adopted son's wife;
God tells his wives to "shut up" etc., etc.
There are 2 possibilities regarding his revelation which spared Aisha. Either he did it for himself (i.e. she was a good lay, and he didn't want to lose it).
Or he did it for her. (In a rare act of kindness).
In any case, both possibilities do highlight the fact that Mohammed did not think universally (i.e. that rules should apply to all people equally) when he made rules - rather he cynically exploited those around him.

ibn Warraq not said...

these are quotes from 'The Origins of the Koran' by ibn Warraq. they are meant to show a judaic influence in Islam. much of what you think you know about the Phrophet pbuh is likely to be a later invention.

"when it came into contact with and under the influence of Rabbinic Judaism—"that Islamic doctrine generally, and even the figure of Muhammad, were molded on Rabbinic Jewish prototypes."

"Elsewhere Wansbrough says, "[The] challenge to produce an identical or superior scripture (or portion thereof), expressed five times in the Quranic text can be explained only within a context of Jewish polemic."

"Much influenced by the Rabbinic accounts, the early Muslim community took Moses as an exemplum, and then a portrait of Muhammad emerged, but only gradually and in response to the needs of a religious community. This community was anxious to establish Muhammad’s credentials as a prophet on the Mosaic model;"

Institute for the Secularization of Islamic society.

Anonymous said...

Ibn Warraq - these are interesting excerpts, but I'm not sure of the point you're making.

topper said...

I have dealt a lot with Muslims and I can tell you they have a totally closed mind when it comes to anything related to religion. It's totally futile trying to engage in a reasnable discussion. My point being that they should not be in the west. Period.