What Islam Is and What To Do about It

The following only reflects my position and not necessarily that of my party Liberty GB.

Islam has been distorted by Western politicians and media to such an extreme point that this doctrine is almost completely the opposite of what is being described as.

It is not a “religion of peace”: it is a non-religion of war.

It is not a religion in the sense that we in the West understand, through the experience of our own religion: Christianity. It doesn’t make human beings better, but worse.

Whereas Christianity establishes a separation of powers between church and state, Islam is a political ideology. Men’s laws are imperfect and should be rejected. Only God-given law, Sharia, should rule the state. Notice that “law” here doesn’t mean “moral law”, but the country’s legislation. Sharia has to be enforced with all available means, peaceful or violent, democratic or totalitarian.

Islam’s holy scriptures say - and real Muslims believe - that the world will be a much better place for human beings to live in if Islam and its law govern the whole planet. Under Islam’s domination, there will be justice, equality and all the good things that communists have also promised humanity. And in both cases (Islam and communism), followers are prepared to cause mayhem and slaughter to attain this utopian “paradise on earth”.

Peace will be achieved when Islam reigns supreme, having fought many bloody wars and conquered the world: there will be peace only when there are no more enemies of Islam. Hence the profound misnomer “religion of peace”. This is what Muslims actually mean when they use that description for their religion, knowing fully well that the overwhelming majority of Westerners will understand it in a very different sense. Islam's "peace" is similar to the pax romana, the peace existing in the Roman Empire when all populations had been conquered.

That this is the reality of Islam is confirmed by the Quran, the various reports of Islam’s prophet Muhammad’s teachings, deeds and sayings called “hadith”, and Islamic jurisprudence - the interpretation (ijtihad) of the Quran and sunna by Islamic jurists (Ulema) and implemented by the rulings (Fatwa) of jurists on questions presented to them.

It is also confirmed by the exceptionally violent history of Islam in its 1,400 years of existence, as well as today’s breaking news both in Britain and worldwide.

In these circumstances, it is suicidal for Western countries, including Britain, to ignore what Islam is and to do nothing about its spread.

The British political class is (or pretends to be) ignorant of Islam and has no idea of (or is too afraid of losing votes to put into practice) what needs to be done.

A good approach would be a strategy based on the “zero tolerance” policy of Republican Mayor Rudolph Giuliani in New York, which in a few years achieved such an astonishing reduction in crime in delinquency-ridden New York as to be called “one of the most remarkable stories in the history of urban crime” by University of California law professor Franklin Zimring.

No offence, however insignificant, was tolerated any more, starting from graffiti and broken windows, as doing so would give the offenders the wrong signal - a weak reaction from the authorities - and therefore encourage them to go on to more serious offences.

The “zero tolerance” policy, in addition to its effectiveness, has also the advantage of allowing graduality, by starting from small infractions against current British laws and thus giving us the possibility of warning Muslims that further and more serious offences will not be tolerated. At the moment, Muslims are allowed to break the British law in innumerable ways. All we need to do, at the beginning, is just to enforce the established law.

We should combine severity with graduality. At first we have to introduce measures that simply require the application of laws already existing.

Examples of these are the law prohibiting polygamy, at present widely disregarded, with the UK authorities turning a blind eye to its violations among the Muslim population. More than that: polygamy is now de facto part of British legislation due to a change in the inheritance law which lets multiple wives inherit from their husband.

Another way of creating a parallel legal world for the benefit of Muslims-only was a loophole introduced by the previous Labour government to allow Muslims to take out a sharia-compliant property mortgage without paying interest or stamp duty, which makes it cheaper for them and has been exploited by non-Muslims who discovered it, causing a minor uproar.

Again, female genital mutilation is an Islamic practice against British jurisprudence that only very recently has started being prosecuted.

A further good example is halal meat. This is meat from animals slaughtered according to the Islamic ritual which, like the Jewish one, does not permit the proper stunning of animals before slaughter. British legislation imposes pre-stunning to make animals unconscious and prevent (or at least minimise) their suffering.

But both Muslims and Jews are exempt from legal requirements to stun animals prior to slaughter.

In this case too we should send a clear signal that existing British laws must be respected and no exceptions will be admitted. We should close those loopholes.

Just upholding present regulations will go a long way to contain the Islamic problem.

The measures that only demand the application of current laws should be chronologically followed by more advanced measures, requiring the introduction of new legislation to deal with any issues specifically caused by the vast immigration of Muslims, as they increase in number, vociferousness and intolerance.