There’s nothing edgy about ‘honour killings’

I can’t believe this needs to be said, but the choices of the Festival of Dangerous Ideas suggests it does.

Uthman Badar, spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia, will be speaking at the Festival on the topic “Honour killings are morally justified”.

How clever.

It has been many years since FODI has shown any desire to live up to its name. Their existences hinge on the flow of government grants, directly or indirectly through the units that make up the art establishment. It’s not here to disrupt the status quo. It is here because, as a Facebook friend snarked, “the whole idea of a Festival of Dangerous Ideas [is to be] some white–person wankery for inner–city latte drinkers to indulge themselves in a trip to the opera house and [provoke] the special feeling of belonging to that special part of society that attends ‘cultural’ events.

So whilst I am openly impressed that FODI has actually gone and proposed a dangerous idea in that context, as far as dangerous ideas go this is quite safe… which is what makes it so dangerous.

It is dangerous in the first instance because the material is justifying murder. Violence is generally accepted as dangerous.

For anyone who, say, might like to think of themselves as culturally enlightened, the barest of philosophical forays will lead you to the subjectivity of morality and/or its experience by the individual.

Armed with this, it is totally conceivable that people who commit what we call “honour killings” have reasons for doing so. It’s a scary rejoinder to the idea of monstrosity as other and seemingly perfect for a crowd seeking “danger”.

This makes it a safe bet. It’s destined to light up blogs like this, and papers and talkback tomorrow, and possibly the 6pm news from earlier this evening. Helen Dale – who has lit up the local media a few times, including this week – called the decision to give Badar a platform “the intellectual equivalent of streaking”, which is so right not just because it’s flashy, insubstantive, and guaranteed to get your eyeballs on the dangly bits, but also because it isn’t novel.

We know that attention will be paid because we have had these debates before. We have had these debates before because there are millions of people who believe murder is a prurient respond to the exercise of certain kinds of autonomy – but they’re other, safely ‘over there’, and the unbridled, uncritical acceptance of the other is how the worst sort of unthinking leftist gets their counter-cultural jollies.

It will be controversial. Why millions of people would hold values so far removed from our own always will be.

And thus we have Badar at FODI, surrounded by the latte elite, who have already started falling over themselves to demonstrate their open-mindedness by paying to listen to a man who fronts the national arm of an organisation that opposes the close-mindedness of a Western liberalism that would go back to stoning women if the culture wasn’t so close-minded.

If an open-mind is worth keeping on this issue this is still not a justification for FODI’s decision. The point of keeping an open mind is to think, judge, and close it eventually. If it never closes it is no great feat of mind, but the simple abrogation of critical thought. FODI is, by choosing to give this violent idea a platform, abrogating that responsibility in the name of whoring themselves out for attention. This is not an act without consequences; what we say in public sends a powerful message about (are you ready for this?) what is is acceptable to say and do in public.

They’re not concerned about that, nor are they actually concerned about whether we should kill slutty sluts for slutting. They’re concerned about how they can leverage Uthman Badar and the Hizb ut-Tahrir brand and the white guilt that creates the cultural relativism that baby leftists are injected with when they submit their first protest poster for assessment, in service of painting the Festival and it’s supporters as open-minded, critically engaged and edgy, and getting the attention that gets them paid. With taxpayer dollars.

If open engagement is what we desire there’s an endless supply of literature on the subject that could be privately consumed. Somehow I don’t think that’s what Hizb ut-Tahrir wants.

That is what I find the most dangerous – it’s lovely to have organisations like FODI that self-consciously hike their skirts and whore their stages in the pretence of glorying in liberalism while trying to undermine it. These ideas don’t deserve to be paraded on a platform as flimsy as amusement. There is no honour in giving a microphone to a man who doesn’t want to give the microphone back, when he will use it to promote a ban on microphones.

FODI sets its own agenda. They made a considered choice to offer the stage to a lobbyist for Islamototalitarianism to promote the murder of (mostly) women.

If FODI wants to truly be provocative, there are orthodoxies far better challenged than the secular, liberal, individualist democracy that permits people – including women – to pursue the free thought that allows them to consider and reject the killing women who exercise autonomy could be totally sweet.

FODI has the right to offer the PR flak for totalitarian organisation a space on its platform, and its secular “cultural establishment” type audience is mature enough to consider the idea without accepting it (the way the Murdoch-media-swilling general publicans apparently cannot, no doubt). Minds aren’t likely to slip out from under the warm, prosperous blanket of liberalism for the rock hard reality of whatever backwards logic makes it okay to kill for a contorted derivative of honour. 

Free speech has a sharp edge

 Free speech is just that, even though it can be a
double-edged sword. That’s how democracy works.

The Sydney Morning Herald has published an article from
guest author, Uthman Badar, spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir , an Islamist group
banned in most Muslim countries. As scores of Fairfax journalists swell the
lines at CentreLink, their comments about “guest” author fees would be
interesting, especially given the following:

‘Uprising
in the Muslim World’ Khilafah Conference 2011 in Sydney on July 3, 2011. About
1,000 Australian Muslims attended the conference hosted by the controversial
Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir which called for the creation of a global
caliphate or Islamic government. 

In his address, spokesman Uthman Badar said, “Australian
troops fighting in Afghanistan are "fair game" and Muslims "have
an obligation" to target them.”

Asked directly if he condoned the killing of Australian
troops in Afghanistan, Mr Badar replied: “If you are occupying someone else's
land those victimised people have the right to resist.” He also refused to
condemn tactics such as suicide bombing as long as "innocent
non-combatants" were not targeted.

Hizb ut-Tahrir claims to be the largest Islamic political
party on earth, operating in 40 countries, is enjoying growing influence in our
region with a series of Indonesian events in the last month drawing 150,000
people.

GC.Ed.

Read the article:www.smh.com.au

Islam in Australia

Imgres-1

Allan Essery writes about Islam in Australia. His grasp of
the subject offers a comprehensive view of a merging problem. These words in
his final paragraph poses the question we should all be asking ourselves, “Is
that what you want?”

Saturday’s Muslim riot in Sydney has created a level of
anger among Australians that is rarely brought to the surface with such
ferocity.  While Australian citizens vent their anger the Muslim community
is busy creating the illusion that firstly, the rioters were a small number of
tear away young Muslims and children not attached to any particular Muslim
group and secondly, that those Australian citizens and politicians making
comment via various avenues are only a handful of racists promoting a message
of hate against Muslims and it was our fault anyway.

The Islamic spokesmen refuse to acknowledge that the rioters
were not a disconnected gang of wayward young men but were in fact an organized
group that used the confected offence at a video about Mohammad as an excuse to
create mayhem and violence.

One Islamic spokesman, Samir Dandan, who just happens to be
the leader of the Lebanese Muslim Association, (young Lebanese have been
identified as the majority of the protagonists at Saturday’s riot) says that
the rioters who caused criminal acts on Saturday should not be locked up under
Australian laws, but instead should be re-educated more intensely by mainstream
Muslim groups so as not to “drive them more underground and give them a little
bit more oxygen”.

So now we get to the crux of the disciplinary aspect, and
that is to allow Muslims to exercise their own form of law and deal with
offenders in isolation from Australian mainstream law and order.  Rings
alarm bells about Sharia Law, does it not?

Dandan called for restraint from the media and politicians
saying, “Unfortunately, some outlets have used the opportunity to inflame
community tensions through sensationalist and unbalanced reporting.”  What
is unbalanced about reporting that a Muslim group had conducted a violent
rampage in the centre of Sydney requiring riot police, dogs, and pepper spray
to restore public order.

Dandan went on to say that the photos and footage of the
unauthorized protest show mostly young men and children participating and
holding up signs such as “Behead all those who insult the prophet” and ”Obama
Obama we love Osama”. Really!!?  Does this man think we are all
stupid?  What I saw was a couple of hundred Muslim men with Islamic headbands,
waving the Islamic black flag, using children to carry their obscene posters
promoting murder.

We hear a lot from Dandan and Waleed Aly about the ‘Moderate
Muslims’ who don’t agree with the ‘fundamentalists’ within the Islamic
movement. He is quick to put the blame at the feet of Westerners, but there is
no mention of the majority of moderates who do little, if anything, to pull the
fundamentalists into line.

That will not happen because it is not in their best
interest to do so. The reason? They would become subject to the same
violence, murder, and intimidation that the extremists aim at the ‘Infidels’.
Radical butchers turning on their own is already a fact of life for
Muslims.  That is unfortunate because moderate Muslims would be welcomed
with open arms if they were able to shake of the shackles of their extremist
element and made a little more effort to accept and join the generally easy
going Australia way of life while still being able to practice a moderate form
of Islam.

What Dandan didn’t refer to is that this group had been
stirred up by one Sheik Feiz Mohammed, his group of hardcore Islamists ‘Ahlus
Sunnah wal Jamaah’ and the self-styled Islamic Brotherhood Worldwide. 
This charming little group was behind the text messages circulated late on Friday
night bringing forward the protest and catching the police off guard.  Was
this by design because the police had been leaked information that the protest
was to be held on the Sunday?

The extremist, Sheik Feiz Mohammed teaches, “A victim of
rape every minute somewhere in the world. Why?  No one to blame but
herself.  She displayed her beauty to the entire world.  Strapless,
backless, sleeveless, and nothing but satanic skirts, slit skirts, translucent
blouses, miniskirts, tight jeans; all this to tease man and appeal to his
carnal nature.”  Does this mean that Muslim men can’t see a woman with
bare shoulders, or arms, or in a mini skirt without believing that it gives
them right to rape her?

Another of his edicts goes like this, “We want to have
children and offer them as soldiers defending Islam. Teach them this;
there is nothing more beloved to me than wanting to die as a mujahid (holy
warrior).  Put in their soft, tender hearts the zeal of jihad and a love
of martyrdom”.  Yet another of this zealots raving was, “Jews are pigs
that will be killed at the end of the world.” Freiz once said. “Kaffir (meaning
non-Muslim) is the worst word ever written, a sign of infidelity, disbelief,
filth, a sign of dirt.” Is it any wonder that Dandan and his Islamic Council don’t
mention the repulsive and sickening Sheik Feiz Mohammed, because it would rip
the claim of a ‘peaceful religion’ from under them.

The Australian government is aware of this radical, but they
appear to have done nothing about him. Why?

Another practicing Muslim to speak on behalf of the
protesters was Monash University academic Waleed Aly who ran the familiar
Muslim line that, when a small minority becomes violent, it is not entirely
their own fault.  Excuse me?  Not their fault that they go on a violent
rampage?

Yesterday he mildly criticized the demonstrators but then
went on to refer to the plight of a “humiliated people” who are angry about
“the West’s disrespect for Islam”.  Well Aly should try this on for size;
though they deny it, Islam teaches its followers that they should kill
“infidels” (Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews and other non-Muslims) and this
man has the audacity to talk of Westerners disrespecting Islam?

Last year, Aly made a similar point about al-Qaeda’s attacks
on the US during the 9/11 attacked on the World Trade Centre. Aly produced a
Sun-Herald article on the 10th anniversary of the attack and commented, “It is
worth considering how we got sucked into contributing to the process.” Pretty
good, eh?  Even though the attacks occurred before the US invasions of
Iraq and Afghanistan the US contributed to the World Trade Centre attack upon
itself.  That would sit well with the conspiracy theorists who say the CIA
did it and one has to wonder if those theorists are not Islamics.

According to Aly, Tony Abbott contributed to last Saturday’s
riots because “The Opposition Leader embraces a reactionary form of
monoculturalism.” So instead of blaming the Islamics for the Sydney riots, we
should lay the blame squarely at the feet of Tony Abbott.  Really?

I bet the Labor government will be delighted to do that and
their Minister for Multicultural Affairs, Kate Lundy, has done just that
already, in addition to criticizing South Australian Senator Cory Bernardi for
his anti-Islam stand.

It would now appear that she refuses to see the truth about
multiculturalism and Islam.  She is also quick to brand anyone with an
opposing view as racists, completely disregarding that the public are not
personally angry with Egyptians, Lebanese, Libyan’s or Indonesians, who are
members of a race, but with Islam’s religious/political ideology and that is
not race.

Aly had an ally in the NSW Ethnic Affairs Commission
spokesman, Paolo Totaro, who claims, “If we have children in the streets
calling for beheadings, the fault is not of Multiculturalism, but of those –
all of us – who have not taught, in enough depth, the democratic values of
multiculturalism.”  So the blame for arbitrary beheadings and other
murderous acts throughout the world by Muslim zealots is our fault.

Does this public servant really believe what he is
saying?  If so we are all in a lot of trouble, but then most, if not all,
thinking people will deduce from the foregoing that there is a substantial
amount of very disjointed logic being applied that shifts the blame from Islam
to the rest of us who, according to Totaro, haven’t taught Muslins properly.

Only a handful of the Muslim leadership in Australia
condemned Saturday’s riots.  Many haven’t and you would have to ask
why.  Regardless of the reaction of the Muslim leaders to the violence the
whole unsavoury event is more evidence that multiculturalism in Australia has
failed as it has all over the world because Muslims don’t want democracy to
work as it is at odds with their ideology and their intent to turn the whole
world into an Islamic Caliphate. Labor, Green and some Liberal politicians, and
politically correct loonies are just too absorbed in their own foolish notions
to learn the lessons of Europe and the UK. 

The former Prime Minister of Singapore Lee Kuan Yu hit the
nail on the head when he said, “We were moving along nicely until the surge of
Islam”,  “Of all the people on earth it is only the Muslims that can’t be
integrated” or words to that effect.

Multiculturalism is a divisive ideology at best and has
caused trouble wherever it has been introduced.  The idea that individual
groups can be allowed to exist in any country in isolation of other groups and
all doing their own thing, and acting in accordance with their own laws is a
recipe for failure, be they ethnic or religious groups.

Germany, Holland, Belgium, United Kingdom, France, Spain,
Italy, Greece and the Scandinavian countries can’t all be wrong when they say
that multiculturalism has failed and has been the cause of so much discord and
strife and all because Muslims refuse to be integrated.

The question for the Australian people is, do you want in
this country a religious/political ideological group who refuse to integrate
and live in accord with the established culture; who demand changes to our way
of life because it is offensive to their ideology; who demand segregation from
the mainstream Australian way of life; who demand an introduction of Sharia Law
and the right to administer that law separate from our established laws; who
demand special services such as Muslim Only public toilets and Muslim prayer
room at all public locations; who have among them an extremist element that
resorts to murder, violence and intimidation and have a stated aim of turning
this country into an Islamic state under Sharia Law; who have among them
leaders (Imams) that preach jihad and the overthrow of ‘Infidels” and who
practice the butchery that is female circumcision upon children as young as 6
years of age?

Is that what you want?  If so, you are welcome to it
because if we do not make a stand now that is similar to the stand being taken
in Europe it will become a reality. 

Alan is an ex-RAAF officer retired from active duty. He
was a flight instructor and charter pilot. He also writes on matters political and
is a staunch battler for ex-service superannuants. He is also rumoured to be a
savvy fossicker for the yellow stuff.

 

UP GOES THE BLACK FLAG

Jimmccrudden

Jim McCrudden dares to write about the murder of US Amassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens like no other about the wave of Islamist insanity now spreading like a lethal virus against Western interests in some 20 countries. All of it driven by a perceived insult to the prophet Mahammad in a Youtube clip.

Four days ago, on September 11, the 11th anniversary of the
Twin Towers massacre, Egyptian Muslims attacked the US embassy in Cairo; the
Marine defenders were ordered to withdraw and hide, and Islam’s ancient black
flag – the one used when they began the conquest in the Middle East and Europe
– was hoisted in place of the torn down and desecrated US flag.

Murdered-us-ambasador-to-Libya
Simultaneously, Libyan Muslims attacked and set fire to the US Embassy in Libya
murdering at least four men including the ambassador who was dragged through
the streets—that’s him above, his name is Chris Stevens—and burnt the place to
the ground. Stevens apparently died in Benghazi hospital of smoke inhalation. A news report made by the Libyan
Free Press reported that Ambassador Stevens was raped before he was killed.
In each case the murderers claimed they were offended by a movie made in
America. The offence, of course, is a convenient bullshit masquerade. Certainly
they were offended by a movie they had never seen but only heard about, but the
attacks were co-ordinated to take place on September 11th for obvious reasons.
There was also an attack on the US embassy in Yemen.

 The US response was swift.

Obama-pisses-himself Urine running down their legs, they came out and condemned, not the attackers,
but makers of the movie about Mohammed and mewed pitifully that everybody
should respect other people’s religions.
In other words, ignoring this terror campaign against its embassy, the murder
of its staff and the desecration of the American flag the formal response was
to apologise for the right to free speech inherent in the US constitution.
The statement read was, “The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the
continuing efforts by misguided individuals [the movie makers] to hurt the
religious feelings of Muslims—as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all
religions. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right
of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.”
While bleating about the “religious feelings of Muslims,” the U.S. embassy in
Egypt had nothing to say about the fact that, immediately before the Embassy
was attacked, a Christian man in Egypt stood on trial for “insulting”
Islam—even as a throng of Muslims besieged the court-house, interrupting the
hearing and calling for the man’s death. Appeasing thin skins is more important
than speaking up for those whose lives are at stake—not just Christian
Egyptians, but now U.S. employees—over issues of freedom of speech, not to
mention terrorism.
Despite the fact that there had been widely publicised long standing threats to
the U.S. embassy well before any movies demanding it be burnt to the ground,
culminating with the destruction of the American flag—Victoria Nuland, the U.S.
State Department’s SpokesIdiot, speaking in response to this latest attack,
said that “none of this suggests that there are hostile feelings for the U.S.
in Egypt.” No, of course not.
The US Attorney General has asked for an investigation. The Libyans have
replied saying it isn’t easy – there were so many there, it was all mixed up,
the light was uncertain, a lot of people were just watching; many were looking
the other way….
None of this is surprising—not the attacks on the U.S. embassies, not the
murders, and certainly not the U.S. government’s head up their arse response.
This event explains the situation in a way Blind Freddy understands: the more
you appease, the more contempt you earn from those you appease, and the more
demands will be made of you.
Today, far from being respected as a super-power, the U.S. is increasingly seen
as a subdued, contemptuous crawler—who must say “how high?” whenever commanded,
“jump!”
Thanks to Obama. He did it single-handed.

UPDATE. There have been counter demonstrations in Libya, by
Libyans, supporting the US. They condemn the film, but they also condemn the
attack on the embassy.

Jim McCrudden is a retired lawyer, a scholar of Dickens, Shakespeare and many others. He lives on the NSW South Coast and has keen interest in politics.

Doing Karzai’s dirty work

Thursday-crocker

The shrill cry of “Alu Akbar” (God is great) might well have been the last words our three soldiers heard before Afghan National Army Sergeant Hekmatullah opened fire slaughtering his mentors at a base in Oruzgan province recently.  That amounts to 45 foreign troops murdered this year in what is now called, “green-on-blue” attacks. A Taliban spokesman said they did not know the Afghan soldier.

Prime Minister Gillard said, “We cannot allow even the most grievous of losses to change our strategy. In my view, that wouldn't be appropriately honouring the men we have lost. In my view that would be letting our nation down. We went there for a purpose and we will see that purpose through.” Other defence “experts” contend that an immediate withdrawal from Afghanistan would effectively give victory to the Taliban.

 There is no doubt that a decade against ragged insurgents has wrought major improvement to the Afghan society. Schools, hospitals, communications, and a free voting system are a few rights that Westerners take for granted. This is good given the untabulated invoice in bright red where billions of dollars have been poured into a habitat where few mortals would think habitable.

That concept of “victory” to the Taliban should we withdraw, however, is hypothetical, I suggest. I find little on which to agree with the Greens, but with this I am sympathetic. “We should honour the bravery and sacrifices of our soldiers by bringing them home as swiftly and safely as possible,” said Christine Milne.

Not one year ago a rogue Afghan soldier attacked 10 Australian soldiers killing four in northern Kandahar before being shot dead. President Hamid Karzai gave his customary nod of feigned condolence. That was repeated last week before he arrogantly launched into a tirade of accusations against Australian forces for not informing his officials before the operation of hunting down the murderous sergeant Hekmatullah. Minister Smith says this is rubbish.

That “green on blue” attacks are increasing; that nobody knows who the attackers will be are until shot in the back; that military deaths figures for this year in Afghanistan confirm that no Afghan soldiers have been killed; that deals between the Taliban and sectors of the Afghan army are commonplace, informing Karzai’s officials on operational matters would be tantamount to a death wish. More so considering the recent discovery that some Afghan soldiers capitulate under Taliban threats to kill their families.

According to Western practice, President Karzai is beholden to too many factions to be trusted. Dealing, double-dealing, crossing and double-crossing is Kasbah norm. Power and position are not synonymous with natural justice. WikiLeaks:President Karzai pardoned five border policemen who were caught with 124 kilograms of heroin in their border police vehicle. The policemen, who have come to be known as the Zahir Five, were tried, convicted and sentenced to terms of 16 to 18 years each at the Central Narcotics Tribunal. But President Karzai pardoned all five of them on the grounds that they were distantly related to two individuals who had been martyred during the civil war.

Ahmad Wali Karzai, the president’s brother, before his assassination, was being investigated by the US about $12 million American aid cash. Also included in that investigation was another brother Mahmood Karzai. The Karzai family and dodgy dealings appear to be mutual.

Paramount here is the morale of our forces in Afghanistan; it is at an all time low. Camaraderie and mateship, that great Aussie ethos born unto diggers in the trenches of Gallipoli and later on the Western front has been severely shaken. That faith where your life rests in the hands of your mate is no longer comfortable with the inclusion of insurgents in disguise.

Even if security does find a way to identify infiltrating insurgents they will never detect the insanity of a Sharia driven mind until it explodes. Future Australian led missions that include Afghan Army personnel will be at risk. The Canadians are now working in close pairs when working among Afghans; it’s called “guardian angel” system.

It is more than enough for our troops on deadly missions to detect any movement at any distance, potential roadside bombs, anti-personnel mines and invisible snipers without wondering if his “student” is “safe” or lingering to murder his mentor from behind. This distraction may well prove fatal. Stress of that nature is sure to increase psychological problems like Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

Suicide bombers lured by promises of vestal virgins in exchange for Moslem martyrdom is a daily event somewhere in the world. There are approximately 36-armed conflicts globally, 27 of which involve Islam as either a supporter, an aggressor or the cause. And, Islam is “the religion of peace” its followers would have us believe.

It appears that our serving personnel, and families of the fallen are one in agreement that good is being done in Afghanistan and withdrawal now would be a waste. I can only hope that when the Coalition does cease operations, and the sand fleas, and the camels, and the poppy crops return, that those involved still feel that way. Will the Taliban be satisfied?

Thought for the week: War does not determine who is right—only who is left.  ~Bertrand Russell

 

 

Creeping Sharia, Yet Again

Bill-MuehlenbergBill Muehlenberg 

Hot on the heels of my public debate with a leading Muslim last week, plenty more examples of what I warned about in my talk are coming to light. Indeed, there are far too many to choose from, so let me just highlight three examples of how the religion of peace is not quite living up to its own PR.

The first two examples come out of the UK. The first has to do with the very worrying trend of a rise in ‘honour’ crimes. As the Guardian reported this week, women are experiencing a big rise in attacks associated with honour killings and retaliation.

The article begins this way:

“The number of women and girls in the UK suffering violence and intimidation at the hands of their families or communities is increasing rapidly, according to figures revealing the nationwide scale of ‘honour’ abuse for the first time.

“Statistics obtained under the Freedom of Information Act about such violence – which can include threats, abduction, acid attacks, beatings, forced marriage, mutilation and murder – show that in the 12 police force areas for which comparable data was available, reports went up by 47% in just a year.

“The figures, shared with the Guardian by the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation (Ikwro), also reveal that a small number of forces – including four in Scotland – are still not collecting data on how often such violence occurs.

“The 39 police forces that gave Ikwro figures recorded 2,823 incidents in 2010. Ikwro estimates that another 500 crimes in which police were involved were committed in the 13 force areas that did not provide data. But this is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg, campaigners say, as so many incidents go unreported because of victims’ fears of recriminations.”

The article also contains the story of one such poor woman:

“When I was 16 my mum came into my room one day and said I had to get married to my cousin in Pakistan. I was horrified: I wanted to go to college and get a job, and I didn’t even know him, how could I marry him? But when I said no, my mum slapped me across the face.

“After that I wasn’t allowed out. My family treated me with disgust, as if I had shamed them. My father, mother, even my young brother, beat me on a daily basis. My body was covered in bruises. I wasn’t given any food for days on end, and I tried to take an overdose on several occasions. I just used to sit on my bed from morning to night. Prison would have been a better place.

“After around a month, they let me go out to the doctor. Terrified, I sat in the toilet and called a solicitors’ firm. I’ve not seen my family since that day. A wonderful solicitor got me a place at a refuge and a forced marriage protection order. But I’m still constantly paranoid: I’m always looking over my shoulder. I’ve lost everything. And I’m scared of what will happen if they find me.”

Now unless I have missed something, such honour crimes were never a problem in the UK before. But with the arrival of so many Muslim immigrants, it is becoming a very real problem indeed. And while I cannot enter into detail here, both the Koran and the hadith make it quite clear that such honour killings are an integral part of Islamic ideology.

A second case of creeping sharia and stealth jihad in the UK also took place quite recently. As reported in The Daily Telegraph, a “Christian worker loses her job after being ‘targeted’ by Islamic extremists”. The story opens this way:

A Christian worker has launched a landmark legal action after she lost her job when she blew the whistle on what she says was a campaign of ‘race hate’ by fundamentalist Muslims. Nohad Halawi, who worked at Heathrow Airport, is suing her former employers for unfair dismissal, claiming that she and other Christian staff at the airport were victims of systematic harassment because of their religion.

She claims that she was told that she would go to Hell for her religion, that Jews were responsible for the September 11th terror attacks, and that a friend was reduced to tears having been bullied for wearing a cross. Mrs Halawi, who came to Britain from Lebanon in 1977, worked in the duty-free section as a perfume saleswoman of the airport for 13 years but was dismissed in July.

As I and others have documented, this is not at all uncommon in the UK and in many parts of the West. Special rights and privileges being given to Muslims are resulting in Christians increasingly being penalised by the law, and losing their jobs and their rights.

Instead of real integration where everyone is treated equally, we have instead segregation and apartheid, where some are more equal than others. And of course this is all one way traffic. Christians in Muslim-majority nations never experience such preferential treatment – quite the opposite.

Lastly, a story of an Australian unlucky enough to be in Saudi Arabia. The sad tale goes this way:

The Federal Government will ‘urgently’ seek leniency after a Shepparton man was sentenced to a year in jail and 500 lashes in Saudi Arabia for religious offences.

Father-of-five Mansor Almaribe, 45, was charged with blasphemy last month while participating in the Hajj, a pilgrimage to Mecca. The Shiite Muslim was initially sentenced to two years in jail and 500 lashes but then reduced the sentence to one year and 500 lashes.

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade today said the Australian ambassador had been in touch with Saudi authorities and was providing consular assistance to Mr Almaribe’s family. ‘The Ambassador will urgently pursue avenues for leniency with relevant authorities,’ a spokeswoman said. Mr Almaribe faced the death penalty after he was accused of insulting the companions of the prophet Muhammad under the country’s blasphemy laws.

Ah, the religion of peace strikes again. The truth is, there is no freedom of religion in Islam, and there is no freedom of conscience. The only freedom is one-directional: people are free to convert to Islam, but they most definitely are not free to leave Islam. The penalty for such “apostasy” is death.

Islam is a political ideology and a totalitarian religion, which brooks no dissent, questioning or difference of opinion. Those who dare to question The Prophet or the Koran are regarded as traitors who must be silenced. Islam will never be compatible with Western freedoms and democracy

As Mark Gabriel, former lecturer of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt recently wrote, “The war today is between seventh-century Islamic culture and twenty-first-century modern culture. These cultures are incompatible. They cannot coexist because the values of one violate the values of the other.”

Bill Muehlenberg is a Melbourne based author who lectures part time in ethics, theology and philosophy. He has an interactive blogsite called CultureWatch