Sunday, 9 December 2018

From Compliance to Dominance: Islam and the Power of Numbers

"...and feel themselves subdued." Koran 9:29

One of the things that constantly bothers me is the effect of growing numbers of Muslims on the nature of my society. Is it going to become more and more like Muslim majority societies elsewhere in the world?

Some writers have pointed out that there appears to be a “Rule of Numbers”  with respect to the behavior of Muslims towards non-Muslims whereby a larger proportion of Muslims in relation to non-Muslims leads to increasing discrimination and violence against non-Muslims.

This to me seems like a very believable pattern, and one for which there is considerable evidence, but what could explain it in more detail?

One thing worth considering is the effect of situational factors on behavior.

In 1973 a very interesting social experiment was carried out at Stanford University under the direction of Prof. Edward Zimbardo.

A mock-up jail was constructed in the cellar of Stanford University Psychology Department in order to test the effects of prisoner and jailer roles on a set of students. Zimbardo expected the social roles given to each person to alter their behavior in ways independent of their disposition. That is to say, there are factors in any situation or social context which drive behavior regardless of an individual’s more persistent character traits.

A request was made for volunteers to participate in the experiment and all those who applied were subjected to various psychological tests to weed out anyone with a problematic disposition such as a history of drug abuse, violence, or other form of criminality.

Volunteers were assigned to the role of prisoner or jailer at random. Various ground rules were laid down, such as no violence, and a general instruction was given to the jailers to maintain order.
You can read in more detail about the experiment here.

These are the main points:

  • Dispositional factors were controlled by psychological tests and random assignment to jailer or prisoner
  • Participants quickly adopted behavior stereotypical of their roles
  • Jailers adopted authoritarian and aggressive behaviors; prisoners adopted submissive behaviors.
  • Over the duration of the experiment these relationships were accentuated
  • Prisoners became increasingly distressed and adopted “identification with the oppressor” attitudes; jailers became more ruthless and set out to humiliate prisoners
  • It was possible for certain individuals to “set the tone” for everyone else due to their more extreme behavior
  • The experiment strongly suggests that the context in which people find themselves and the relationships of power between them are major determinants of their behavior regardless of their basic disposition

This study provides us with some insight into the way people relate to other people when there are social structures of dominance and submission and how these structures affect their behavior. These factors are particularly relevant when we look at the role of non-Muslims in Muslim majority countries. Under Sharia there are clearly defined ways in which non-Muslims are designated as inferior to Muslims: they cannot testify against a Muslim in court; they cannot occupy a position of authority over Muslims; they cannot criticize Islam and they cannot proselytize their own religion; a Muslim cannot be punished for injury to a non-Muslim, etc.

But even without these formal structures there are informal, cultural patterns of thinking and behaving which are informed by a sense of superiority. Islam has a strong in-group / out-group mentality which underpins cohesiveness among Muslims and denigration of non-Muslims. This is a very common dynamic of in-group / out-group structures. Obedience and loyalty are the top priorities.

Raymond Ibrahim has been keeping an invaluable catalog of Muslim persecution of non-Muslims (warning: disturbing image on landing) in his monthly Bulletin of Muslim persecution. You can read the endless stream of anecdotes from around the world, but what emerges is very well summarized by Raymond Ibrahim when he says:

“Accordingly, whatever the anecdote of persecution, it typically fits under a specific theme, including hatred for churches and other Christian symbols; apostasy, blasphemy, and proselytism laws that criminalize and sometimes punish with death those who “offend” Islam; sexual abuse of Christian women; forced conversions to Islam; theft and plunder in lieu of jizya (financial tribute expected from non-Muslims); overall expectations for Christians to behave like cowed dhimmis, or third-class, “tolerated” citizens; and simple violence and murder. Sometimes it is a combination thereof.

Because these accounts of persecution span different ethnicities, languages, and locales—from Morocco in the West, to Indonesia in the East—it should be clear that one thing alone binds them: Islam—whether the strict application of Islamic Sharia law, or the supremacist culture born of it.”
I think it’s the last point that really concerns us here: the supremacist culture. What is a supremacist culture? It’s one that sets a group (the in-group, in this case Muslims) above all others (the out-groups, be they Hindus, Christians, Jews or more broadly non-Muslims) and renders certain forms of behavior acceptable towards these out-groups that is not acceptable towards members of the in-group.

It is a culture wherein in-group members are deemed to be superior to all out-group members simply by virtue of in-group membership. Loyalty to the group is of supreme importance and must override any consideration for non-members who are always to be despised. It undercuts empathy and concern for outsiders as fellow beings.

These social divisions and the attitudes that accompany them have close parallels to those studied in the Stanford Prison Experiment. The social context of any Sharia-compliant society, to whatever degree, confers upon Muslims a power advantage.

We see the fruits of these attitudes and beliefs in places like Pakistan where the dehumanisation and mistreatment of non-Muslims by Muslims is commonplace and goes largely unpunished. Take the example of Sunil Saleem, as reported in the March 2018 Bulletin of Muslim Persecution.

Sunil Saleem and his family were attacked by hospital staff in Lahore when they tried to intervene on behalf of his sister-in-law who was in severe pain from labor. The doctor, Dr Saira, called upon other hospital and security staff “to teach these Christians a lesson”. Sunil Saleem died as a result of this “lesson”.

Sunil Saleem after "the lesson"

Too many of the perpetrators of such crimes go unpunished in accordance with the supremacist culture of Islam. Such impunity emboldens aggressors considerably.

The Muslim behavior that we see at present in Western societies is the expression of the situational factors prevailing at this time. They are in a minority.  Now, we don’t know anything for certain; we know only probabilities. But if Muslims behave as they do in Pakistan, where they are a majority, what is the likelihood that they will increasingly behave this way in the West as their numbers increase thereby changing the context?

The power of numbers is a form of power, perhaps one of the greatest. Power tends to corrupt. Add to the situation a culture with an unbounded sense of its own superiority and you have exactly what we see in Pakistan – the abuse of non-Muslims; the abuse of power based on numerical superiority and discriminatory laws.

The behavior of Dr Saira and her staff arises in a context (situation) where she and her staff belong to the dominant group. There are few, if any, controls to restrain their reactions. The Christians are in a particularly vulnerable position.

Numbers change the context and the context changes behaviour. Non-Muslim behaviour becomes more submissive; Muslim behaviour becomes more domineering.

If Muslims gain more control over society, as their numbers will inevitably ensure that they do, why would it be in any Muslim’s interest to oppose this or to offer support to the infidels who are losing control?

Muslims have already learned that we will keep flattering and protecting their religion from criticism because we fear them. This conforms to the behavior expected of non-Muslims.

Even less fervent Muslims would surely maintain silence and feign support for the growing Islamisation? And surely the growing power of Islam would turn all towards greater conformity like a magnet changing the orientation of millions of needles?

Add to this the increasing sense of superiority and destiny with which Islam invests its members on account of worldly conquest and the social dynamics under the spotlight in the prison experiment are multiplied many times.

The current proportion of Muslims who are militant may become a greater proportion as the proportion of Muslims as a whole increases. It’s not even necessary for the majority of Muslims to actively engage in militancy; they only need to remain neutral towards those who are.

It is easy to see how dominant and submissive behavior once adopted (especially over the long term) generates further dominance and submission. The contempt felt towards the subordinate people is apt to stimulate further contempt and to reinforce in-group / out-group boundaries.

The power that numbers will bring will enable Muslims to change the social context in western societies in other ways that will enhance the inequality between them and non-Muslims. For example, criminalizing criticism of Islam, an agenda which is already well advanced, will raise Muslims above non-Muslims. The recent ECHR ruling against Elisabeth Sabaditisch-Wolf for “disparaging religious doctrines” demonstrates very clearly how Muslim numbers and the threat of violence can be used to sway legal judgments.

If Islam gains greater protection from criticism in western societies (as is happening right now), they will have established Sharia-compliant inequality between Muslims and non-Muslims. This will be the foundation of further inequality and have a drastic effect on the social context.

The question is: how do the compliant, multicultural Muslims of the West become the persecuting Muslims of places like Pakistan? The answer I think lies in the continuously shifting social context which, as Muslims become a larger proportion thereof, is continuously drifting in the direction of Islam and greater Islamic power.

I can only foresee the West slowly dropping to its knees in the face of this.

Sunday, 4 November 2018

Elisabeth and Asia

On 25th October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) reached a decision in respect of the case of Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff. They determined that protection under Article 10 (freedom of expression) did not apply in her case and thus upheld the judgement of the Austrian court that had convicted her for “denigrating religious beliefs”.

A good summary of the case can be found here. In brief, Elisabeth gave a series of lectures in 2009 in which she addressed the dangers of fundamentalist Islam. A left-leaning magazine, News, planted a journalist in the audience to make recordings of what was said. Having done this the magazine handed the recordings to the public prosecutor’s office as evidence of "hate speech" against Islam.

What Elisabeth actually said, in the context of a discussion about Muhammad’s marriage to six-year-old Aisha was this: "A 56-year-old and a six-year-old? What do we call it, if it is not pedophilia?"

The prosecution started by attempting to convict her of “hate speech”. Hate speech is defined in Section 283 of the Austrian criminal code as (using Google Translate which does not actually have Austrian), publicly expressing views which may lead to the scorn or disparagement in the eyes of the public towards a group on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, etc.  So, if you say something which is actually true but can cause such effects on public opinion you are guilty of hate speech.

The prosecution went up various blind alleys in their attempt to prevent such statements of fact but eventually the judgement handed down was “denigration of religious beliefs of a legally recognized religion”. They imposed a fine of €480 or an alternative prison sentence of 60 days. Thus, however, repulsive or immoral the behaviour, if it is sanctioned by a legally recognized religion you cannot criticise it or even say what it is.

Elisabeth took her case to the EHCR in the hope of a rectification. Their judgement is a catalogue of mangled reasoning which offends logic.

The court began by stating that religious groups could not expect to be exempt from criticism. But if comments went beyond critical denial, “and certainly where they were likely to incite religious
intolerance, might a State legitimately consider them to be incompatible with respect for the
freedom of thought, conscience and religion and take proportionate restrictive measures.”

It’s not clear to me whose “religious intolerance” they are talking about but given this comes up in the context of religious groups and their exposure to criticism it seems to imply the people whose religion is being criticised. That being the case, the logic flowing from this is clear enough: the more intolerant a religious group is of criticism of their beliefs the less they can be criticised.

I can't help wondering what sort of contradictions of religious beliefs would not incite religious intolerance.

The EHCR further observed that the subject of the case was of a “particularly sensitive nature” and the State of Austria was “in a better position to evaluate which statements were likely to disturb the religious peace in their country.”

This can mean nothing other than riots and mobs; the assassination of judges, politicians and so forth.

“The Court noted that the domestic courts comprehensively explained why they considered that the
applicant’s statements had been capable of arousing justified indignation; specifically, they had not
been made in an objective manner contributing to a debate of public interest (e.g. on child
marriage), but could only be understood as having been aimed at demonstrating that Muhammad
was not worthy of worship.” And this could not possibly be true of a man who married a six-year-old girl?

But this above all shows how corrupted the thought processes of these judges has become: It agreed with the domestic courts that Mrs S. must have been aware that her statements were partly based on untrue facts and apt to arouse indignation in others.

What, pray, are “untrue facts”? It’s a contradiction in terms. Either they are facts and therefore true or they are not facts and therefore untrue. This is the grovelling level of “thinking” that the penultimate court in Europe is reduced to by the fear of the Muslim mob.

And their summing up: Under these circumstances, and given the fact that Mrs S. made several incriminating statements, the Court considered that the Austrian courts did not overstep their wide margin of appreciation in the instant case when convicting Mrs S. of disparaging religious doctrines. Overall, there had been no violation of Article 10. (my italics).

It's a long time since disparaging religious doctrines was a punishable offence in Europe, but now that Islam has arrived it's all going to change.

In Pakistan this last week, following the acquittal of Asia Bibi on blasphemy charges, the mobs erupted in fury that someone who has already spent 8 years in prison in terrible conditions was not going to be hanged for expressing a legitimate Christian opinion about (you guessed it) Muhammad. (Are Muslims allowed to worship Muhammad or is that not idolatry?)

What she said, after a dispute with her Muslim co-workers who claimed that their drinking water had been contaminated because she had drunk from the same vessel was this: I think Jesus would see it differently from Muhammad, Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind. What did your Prophet Muhammad ever do to save mankind?

Under Sharia, interfaith dialogue is somewhat restricted to say the least. You can listen politely to the Muslim perspective but you can’t propose anything different or criticise Islam. So poor Asia ended up incarcerated on death row and fearing every day that she would be killed in prison or eventually executed.

But light appeared to break through the clouds of religious darkness when the Supreme Court of Pakistan acquitted her. One was greatly relieved but felt anxious of the aftermath.

And justly so. The judges were threatened with death and as fundamentalists brought the mobs onto the streets demanding her execution one wondered how the situation might be resolved. Could she be whisked out of the country by Navy Seals; would President Trump give them an ultimatum and get her out?

It was not to be. The acquittal is now to be reviewed due to the level of social disorder aroused. The mob has won.

Behold, how Islam turns Muslim hearts to stone.

The authorities have struck a deal with the mob leaders which involves starting proceedings to prevent Asia from leaving the country (thus making it easier for them to hunt her down and kill her).
The government will also allow protesters to mount a legal challenge to the Supreme Court’s decision to acquit her.

What we see in these two cases is essentially the same thing. Fear of the Muslim mob drives decision-making. The European judges with all their muddle-headed thinking and weasel words has succumbed to the same forces of religious intolerance as the Pakistanis.

The problem is extremely widespread. For example, 100,000 UK Muslims signed a petition demanding Asia’s execution.

The EHCR claims to be upholding tolerance but they are bowing to intolerance of the worst kind. In fact, by this judgement, the EHCR has undermined one of the key foundations of European life: freedom of speech. This will have far more serious consequences than even the "disturbance of religious peace"...if indeed you can describe sitting on a box of explosives as peace.

We know these forces of intolerance are growing with every Muslim born in the West and every Muslim migrant arriving. The power of numbers will enable them to impose their rules on the rest of us. These dark days are only the beginning.

Wednesday, 10 October 2018

Islamophobia is Altruistic

A phobia is an intense fear out of all proportion to the threat. Phobic people experience their fears in relation to themselves. They feel a direct threat from the phobic object or situation. They are not afraid for the welfare of others. They experience fear in an immediate and personal way. They may dread the sight of spiders or feel intense anxiety in open spaces.

An Islamophobe is someone who experiences a deep concern or dread regarding the negative impact of Islam on society as a whole and on behalf of people in the future. 

This dread is based on the abundant evidence of Islamic-inspired warfare and persecution throughout 1400 years of history; it is based on the pretty repulsive societies that are based on Islamic principles; it is based on the mountains of evidence of non-Muslim persecution in Muslim majority countries. It is not an immediate and personal sense of threat. It is not solely related to the individual who experiences the dread.

In this respect it is a completely different experience to a phobic reaction; it is as much concerned with the threat posed to others as to the self.

Islamophobia is therefore an altruistic concern not a personal one. It springs from concern for others. It has far more connection with love than hate.

Sunday, 12 August 2018

Boris and the Burka

It looks like Boris Johnson may face the Diversity Inquisition for his "insensitive" comments on the burka, more accurately known as the niqab, which is the one we see here.

If he does it will be another nail in the coffin for Britain's tradition of free speech, a tradition much finer than anything Islam has to offer.

Islam has a very ugly history of conquest, genocide, and enslavement, and unrelenting persecution of those with different beliefs.

None of this has ever been renounced nor is it likely to be since it is the inevitable outcome of Islam's core beliefs and the behavior of its prophet, Muhammad.

When I see a niqab-wearing woman (at least, I assume it's a woman), what I see is both a symbol of this history and the beliefs that inspired it and a statement of identification with and adherence to those beliefs and their consequences. The niqab suggests a strong adherence and identification; an unquestioning allegiance.

As I see it, the niqab is worn as a political weapon, not a religious observance.

This is why I am so averse to the sight of this garment.

There is another related feeling that I have towards the niqab. The garment is depersonalizing.

Persecution of others is often accompanied by an element of depersonalization (e.g. "the filthy kuffar"), and the depersonalizing experience triggered by the niqab makes me feel they are more capable of being persecutors. Psychological studies of anonymity have shown that people are far less inhibited when their identity is hidden and the evidence that Muslims persecute non-Muslims is overwhelming, see Raymond Ibrahim's Bulletin of Christian Persecution.

Wednesday, 23 August 2017

Double Standards in Response to Slavery

Admiral Lord Nelson

In the UK's Guardian an article has appeared called "Toppling Statues: Nelson's Column should be next", which seeks to set aside Nelson's brilliant achievements as an Admiral to defend Britain from invasion by Napoleon, and instead to embroil his memory in the current iconoclastic movement in the USA that seeks the removal of all historical figures who can be implicated in any way with slavery.

The argument goes that since Nelson was an obstacle to the abolition of slavery, this should be the sole criterion by which to judge his historical contribution. Nevermind that he fought bravely against another form of slavery, that of conquest by a foreign power.

Will this rule be applied to all those who owned, endorsed, or profited from slavery?

If so, there is one person in particular who should come under scrutiny. He owned slaves and advocated slavery. He encouraged his followers to make slaves of others and explicitly endorsed the sexual enslavement of women (“those whom your right hands possess”).

This person forbade images of himself to be created so there are no monuments erected in his image. However, there are monuments in his name springing up all over the world; monuments to a religion of slavery in which “Abdullah” (slave of Allah) is a common name. These monuments are called mosques.

Will the wrecking balls be visiting these monuments? I don't think so. Double standards in favour Islam are the contemporary hypocrisy.

See thereligionofpeace for a good summary of slavery in Islam. Here is a sample:

There is not, and never has been, an abolition movement in Islam.
Unlike the West, the Muslim world has yet to offer an apology for slavery.  The institution is ingrained in the Qur'an.  To admit that it is a mistake would be to admit the fallibility of the Qur'an and bring its divine origin into question.  Even today, Muslims act as if Islamic slavery was a favor done to the millions of unfortunate men, women and children who were forcibly uprooted from their native lands and sent to lives of sexual and menial servitude deep in the Islamic world. 
Ironically, the British Navy, where Nelson was such a significant figure, did an enormous amount to rid the world of slavery.

Saturday, 19 August 2017

Defeating Islam

Islam demands the complete colonization of the mind of the believer just as it demands the complete colonization of the world.

Muslims have developed the most logical theology they can from the scriptural sources of Islam and it is a theology of conquest and violence.

Many people fall into the trap of thinking that being opposed to Islam means that we are opposed to 1.5 billion Muslims. This has the effect of making the problem appear too enormous. They then try to pretend that there is a subset of Muslims that we should oppose - the radicals, the Salafists, the fundamentalists, the Wahhabists, the Deobandis, etc.

This conveys the message that Islam itself is undefeatable and should not even be taken on. But it is actually Islam itself that we should be trying to defeat. The whole thing is based on a very shaky claim to divine guidance and it is fundamentally immoral and unspiritual.

We won't defeat it on the level of its manifestations; it is a Hydra-headed monster that grows two heads for every one that is hacked off. Like Hercules in the legend we can only kill it slicing off and cauterizing its immortal head and then crushing the whole thing under a huge boulder. In the case of Islam that rock is the truth, the immortal head is Muhammad.

It is in the nature of Islam to colonize new areas then ethnically cleanse those areas until nothing but Islam remains. Likewise, it is the nature of certain plants to colonize new areas until nothing but that plant is left. In the latter case there are ecological counter-forces at work. Against Islam there is nothing but the truth that will prevail.

As Ayaan Hirsi Ali said, "Islam should be crushed." It is a mass delusion. Muslims would be well rid of it, just like the rest of us.

Slaying the Hydra

There is one thing that will put an end to Islam.

Islam is entirely of the ego. It subverts spiritual aspiration and bends it to the service of the ego; the persistent ego of Muhammad encoded in the scriptures; the collective ego of the Ummah in its claims of superiority and sheer numbers.

The ego is well-served by the dreams of conquest; the tribal loyalty; the persecution of non-Muslims; the projection of worldly appetites into a carnal afterlife.

There is one thing that will put an end to this, one boulder that will finally slay this Hydra-headed monster; and that is non-ego; an awakening of true spirituality that will shine a light too painful for the monster to bear upon its sham and hollow pretenses.