Saturday, 23 February 2008

Anti-Islamic counter-attack

Daniel Pipes has some strange views, not least his desire to have the US nuke various countries that don’t find his favour. Even his friends sometimes treat him like the rest of us would the mad aunt in the attic.

However, he runs a very effective organization that keeps an eye on the progress of Islam in the West. Just like Robert Spencer keeps an eye on the jihadists, Daniel covers the, in my view more dangerous, creeping extension of dhimmis status to the (for now at least) non-Islamic world.

In a recent letter he shows how the constant probing of our defenses can be repelled if we unite in opposition. The ongoing refusal of taxi-drivers (especially Somalis – the worst immigrants) is a case in point.

He tracked various news accounts of Muslim cabbies rudely rejecting blind would-be passengers, yelling at them, "No dog, No dog, Get out, get out"; "Get that dog out of here"; and "No dogs, no dogs." The blind find themselves rejected, humiliated, abandoned, insulted, or even injured, left in the rain, dropped in the middle of nowhere, made late for an appointment, or caused to miss a flight.

These include (see image) Australia's Human Rights Commissioner, who has been thrown out of taxis on a number of occasions! And I have no doubt that if anyone said a word to these these savages they'd run squealing to said Commissioner.

Islamist organizations initially responded to this problem by supporting anti-canine cabbies. The Council for Islamic American Relations(CAIR) pointed out how Muslims generally regard dog saliva as unclean. We got the explanation "the saliva of dogs invalidates the ritual purity needed for prayer. People from the Middle East especially … have been indoctrinated with a kind of fear of dogs" and justified a driver rejecting a guide dog on the grounds that he "has a genuine fear and he acted in good faith. He acted in accordance with his religious beliefs."

However, when the police and the courts are called in, the legal rights of the blind to their basic needs and their dignity almost always trump the Muslim dislike for dogs. The Muslim proprietor or driver invariably finds himself admonished, fined, re-educated, warned, or even jailed. The judge who found a cabby's behavior to be "a total disgrace" spoke for many.

CAIR, realizing that its approach had failed in the courts of both law and of public opinion, suddenly and nimbly switched sides. The new CAIR position is that "Islam allows for dogs to be used by the visually impaired."

Really. So why all the fuss then?

Pipes correctly points out that CAIR's capitulation contains an important lesson: When Westerners broadly agree on rejecting a specific Islamic law or tradition and unite against it, Western Islamists must adjust to the majority's will. If you'd like to get a flavour of some more of the treats from Islam that we'd need to guard against, check this post.

He concludes with words of great wisdom and practicality: “ If Westerners stick together, the Shari‘a is doomed. If we do not, we are doomed”.

Quite so, Daniel.


Anonymous said...

Hello. You might wanna check this out ...

SAVANT said...

Thanks for the commnet. I've responded in the following post.