Why Muslims Are Necessarily Fundamentalists

There is an incompatibility between Islam and the ideas which are fundamental to Western civilization.

There are logical contradictions between the principles at the basis of Islam and the West. One cannot resolve logical contradictions, they cannot be solved in the way that problems can. You simply cannot square a circle.

It’s got nothing to do with terrorists, or fundamentalists, fanatics, or Islamic radicals of various sorts.

I’m here talking about mainstream Islam and the fact that it is in serious, direct and open contradiction with principles which are at the core of Western civilization and form the very basis on which all our Western world is erected.

I am not talking about issues like the treatment of women. Islam’s treatment of women is only one aspect, one application of the much more general problem of Islam’s incompatibility with Western principles which I am about to discuss.

There are several elements in Islam which conflict with and contradict Western core principles. Here I'm outlining one of them.

All Muslims believe (and they must believe, I mean it’s not open to interpretation or dispute) that the Koran is the actual word of God. They think God himself dictated it word by word to Mohammed.

Christians think that the Bible was written by human beings: that leaves a lot open to different interpretations and variations in opinion, and it leaves a lot of room for mistakes.

But for Muslims, none of this tolerance and flexibility is possible. Every true Muslim must believe in the complete, literal truth of every word of the Koran.

So, basically, every Muslim is a fundamentalist. That old, tiresome, repeated ad nauseam distinction between Islamic fundamentalists and the “benign” majority of mainstream Muslims is much less important than it is constantly portrayed to be.

This fact in itself, that all Muslims believe in the literal truth of the Koran (no word of the book can actually be disputed) “invites trouble”, opens the gate to all the flood of problems that we have continuously witnessed in the history of Islam. It is a veritable Pandora’s box.

The funny thing is that Muslims themselves have used this argument in order to justify their own intransigence and intolerance, for instance when they try to justify the fatwa against Salman Rushdie.

And I want to remind that, when in Muslim communities living in Britain there were episodes of public burnings of Rushdie’s The Satanic Verses in the streets, it wasn’t a minority of fundamentalists who were doing and justifying the burnings. On the contrary, it was the Muslims’ majority.

Whenever I watch a TV debate or interview involving Muslims, hardly ever I see the interviewer or participant in the debate ask a Muslim person (supposedly a member of the tolerant Muslim majority who has no problems with Western values) what s/he thinks of the fatwa against Rushdie. That question, and especially its answer, obviously would immediately show an unbridgeable gulf between the supposed “tolerant Muslim” and the rest of us, and would expose this construct of the “tolerant Muslim” for what it is: a myth.

To clarify a possible misunderstanding, I am not here talking about personality traits: I don’t mean “tolerant” in the sense of nice, decent, pleasant, likeable person. I’m sure that there will be many Muslim individuals who fit the latter description. But their “tolerance”, or rather lack of it, is nothing to do with their personal characteristics: it’s not a matter of personal choice. They have no choice. If they are Muslim, they must think that the Koran was indeed written by God through Mohammed’s hand, and therefore it necessarily follows that they cannot tolerate a work like The Satanic Verses: to them it will be tantamount to blasphemy, an insult to God himself.

Photo by George Daley

We Cannot Protect British Culture without Christianity

If we want to protect and preserve British traditional culture and values, we cannot do it without Christianity. Not only has Christianity been part of them since time immemorial but also they couldn't continue their existence without it.

An anecdote. I was in Steyning, in Sussex, in the Downs, not far from the sea. Our car had broken down. It's a beautiful village (or perhaps a small town now) in the South-East of England, the constituency that my party Liberty GB has chosen for the 2014 Euro Elections. Without enrichers in sight - except for one very kind black bloke who offered to help -, it looked like England may have been pre-enrichment. Very well preserved, with lovely Tudor houses, quaint, there was a building covered in Union Jacks and portraits of the Queen, you've got the idea. Every time we asked the locals for directions to the centre of the village, they directed us to the church.

The question about atheism and religion is simple. Individuals can be atheist, societies cannot. Atheists can be upright, moral individuals. But most people who follow the idea of a Godless world end up behaving in unethical ways, like irresponsibly having children out of wedlock they cannot provide for; treating their sexual life as a drug or alcohol (which they may also be addicted to); repeatedly having late-term abortions which more and more resemble infanticides; becoming addicted to consumerism and material things - kindly called "shopaholics" - to fill their empty lives and ending up with debts they cannot repay; neglecting their elderly parents; putting other people's and their own health at risk with promiscuous heterosexual or homosexual sex; and committing crimes. These people may not necessarily call themselves "atheist", but they have abandoned a moral system which for them would in the past have been dependent on the idea of God.

Think of this. If prisons, punishments and the penal system were abolished tomorrow, there are people who would continue to act more or less in the same way as before. But do you really believe that all members of society would?

There are many who, either because of limited intelligence or other factors - emotional, for example - don't live an ethical life without something guiding them from the outside (a condition that the Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant called "heteronomy").

You may ask: what about those atheists who are behaving morally?

There is a risk in that too. A risk of erosion. The majority of atheists or agnostics among us have parents who believed in God, or grandparents, and so on. We have been educated in a Christian or Jewish way which has influenced our outlook, even if this can go back a few generations. But over time those values will become more and more diluted in people and therefore in the education they impart to their children. Gradually, maybe slowly, they will weaken or even disappear.

British culture has its roots in Christianity. It is its breeding ground.

Christianity has a solid rational basis. It has been studied and systematised by philosophers, first in the Middle Ages with the Patristic and Scholastic movements. It has incorporated Aristotelian logic. People like Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens who tell you otherwise are zoologists or journalists, not philosophers of religion, not even philosophers of science. They have no in-depth knowledge or understanding of this subject. If we lose Christianity, we end up believing in all sorts of superstitions, as it's already happening with the increase in the number of people who believe in astrology, spiritualism, all sorts of cults, New Age doctrines, "alternative" medicine, and so on.

And also, let's not forget that reason has its limits. It is rational to understand that reason is not everything.

No society has ever been without religion. If we lose Christianity, we will fall prey to other, much worse, religions or pseudo-religions, like, um, let me think, Islam for instance.

The State of UK Immigration Debate in 2005

I've just found something I had written in February 2005, at a time when questioning government's immigration policies in the UK was no longer considered downright racist like in, say, the 1990s, but not yet mainstream political discourse at it has become now. I publish it here because it shows the road we've travelled.

---------------------------------------

In January 2005, the UK television channel ITV showed a program, called Vote For Me!, described as a political reality show, in which some so-called members of the general public, all with passionate political views, contested to get a public phone vote. The winner of Vote For Me! moved forward to the opportunity of standing for parliament.

There was also a panel of 3 judges and a studio audience, but they didn't actually affect the vote in the end.

At the time the ITV website said: “But that was what Vote For Me! was about: giving real people with real issues a voice. But more than that, Vote For Me! gave you, the people, the chance to choose a representative. A person who could honestly claim to be: 'The People's Choice'.”

That was the blurb: the reality was quite different, in that the program tried in every way to influence the result, and in the end it was rumoured that ITV was not happy at all with it, to the point of regretting having made the show.

The winner was a Rodney Hylton-Potts (pictured above), somebody whose views you can easily call politically incorrect.

Listen to what he said in interviews after his victory:

“All three judges urged viewers to vote me off. The show started as being light-hearted. But as it progressed it changed. In fact, it changed following my mention of a policy of nil immigration. At that point, it turned into a different animal.”

In fact, after having watched that, in the face of escalating insults from the panel "judges" and continuous booing and jeering from the TV studio audience, Rodney Hylton-Potts obtained such an astounding victory from the public at home, which almost looked like an opinion poll result, I decided to look for myself at what the British public actually thought of current immigration policies.

What I found supports, confirms and vindicates Hylton-Potts ideas.

For example, this article in The Guardian of January 19, 2004, with the headline “Four out of 10 whites do not want black neighbour, poll shows”. The article says:

Four out of 10 white people do not want an Asian or black Briton as their neighbour, according to a survey published this week. The opinion poll found rocketing concern about immigration and asylum.

The Mori survey for Prospect magazine found that 39% of those asked would prefer to live in an area only with people from the same ethnic background. Forty-one per cent of whites and 26% of ethnic minority people surveyed wanted the races to live separately. Over half of all ethnic groups wanted to live in diverse areas.

Bobby Duffy, research director at Mori, said: "We have overestimated the progress we have made in race and immigration issues. I'm surprised about such a high finding as people are usually reticent because they worry about being judged by the interviewer, so this finding is worrying."

The poll shows that the issue of race and immigration has risen up the list of people's concerns, and is now the third most important, ahead of crime, defence and the economy. The issue is ranked the most important by 29%, behind education on 33% and the NHS on 41%. Ten years ago the figure was below 10%.

If the Mori research director mentioned in the article is worried about those results, what about the next?

A YouGov/Economist survey in December 2004 gave the following results.

Of the people polled, 74% agree with the statement "Too many immigrants are coming to Britain."

Asked about the problems caused by immigration - and remember, this is important, that it was a one-answer question, so people could only choose one among some possible answers - 53% think that immigrants are putting too much pressure on public services, and as many as 25% (one quarter) think that immigration is upsetting the racial balance in the country.

To the question "Do you think people in your neighbourhood would approve or disapprove if more people from each of the following groups moved to your area?", the majority of people answered "Disapprove" when the group in question was Black Africans (43%), Iraqis (64%), Pakistanis (56%), West Indians (41%). The majority answered "Not mind" when the group in question was Australians (63%) and Polish (50%).

Some people might rush to say: racist.

But this is a too hasty and harsh judgement of public opinion.

Look at this interesting result: the only other group was Romanians and, although last time I checked these are white, the majority said: "Disapprove" (48%).

So, something else is at work here.

Could it be that common people have a better instinct than politicians, the media, and the intellectual elite?

And it's the same all over Western Europe.

From The Scotsman of 27 May 2004:

A new opinion poll which sampled opinion across ten countries found the majority of people in Britain are supportive of religious tolerance - but still believe that immigration has damaged the country.

The research triggered a mixture of disbelief and concern from mainstream political parties yesterday, amid fears that asylum is becoming a growing issue ahead of the 10 June European Parliament elections.

Ipsos, a Paris-based polling firm, found 60 per cent believing that immigrants were a bad influence on Britain - the highest proportion of all countries surveyed.

France, where the far-right National Front came second in the presidential election two years ago, emerged as one of the more moderate countries in the study with only 53 per cent arguing that migrants made the country worse.

But seven out of ten in France said that religious diversity within a country is to be welcomed, and three-quarters said that immigrants arrive to take the jobs which native Frenchmen refuse to do.

The same split reaction - welcoming religious pluralism but fearing that immigration has been harmful overall - also characterised Spain, Germany and Italy.

Ipsos, which conducted the poll with the Associated Press, admitted that its findings contradict widespread feeling that Britain - with its long history of migration and colonisation - is more relaxed about multiculturalism.

For that last statement, read: we thought that we had done a much better job at brainwashing the British public than we actually, demonstrably have.

And, finally, consider this: pollsters, namely the professionals in the field, think that polls, particularly online polls, are likely to produce more liberal responses than in the electorate as a whole.

Liberty GB: UK's Best Party for Geert Wilders' European Coalition

When we at Liberty GB first heard that the leader of the PVV Geert Wilders is looking to form an alliance with like-minded parties in Europe to fight next year's European elections, our immediate thought was that we are the right party to represent Britain in that alliance.

The party Liberty GB is very new, as it was formed in March of this year. The Executive Council comprises Chairman Paul Weston, Party Nominating Officer George Whale, Culture Officer Jack Buckby, Policy Officer Stephen Evans, Associate Matthew Roberts, IT Officer and Treasurer, and me as Press Officer.

Liberty GB is a patriotic, counter-jihad party for Christian and Western civilisation, freedoms, animal welfare, capitalism, progress in ideas and society.

It arose from the need to fill a vacuum that existed in British politics between the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and parties like the British National Party (BNP) with a reputation of anti-Semitism and racism.

The country's three main parties - Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats - are clearly creating, rather than solving, the problems facing Britain, but they are not the only ones to appease Islam and compromise about immigration, having recently been joined in those endeavours by UKIP, despite its initial promise of real conservatism.

An example of UKIP's concessions regarding the debate over immigration is an interview that in late July party leader Nigel Farage gave to the most Leftist mainstream paper in Britain, The Guardian. In it Farage castigates the late Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch Powell for his famous "Rivers of Blood" speech of 1968.

Powell was prescient in warning his countrymen about the serious dangers of mass immigration from the Third World, which had then only started and had not yet reached the astronomical levels of later decades. He said:

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant-descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre...

For these dangerous and divisive elements the legislation proposed in the Race Relations Bill is the very pabulum they need to flourish. Here is the means of showing that the immigrant communities can organise to consolidate their members, to agitate and campaign against their fellow citizens, and to overawe and dominate the rest with the legal weapons which the ignorant and the ill-informed have provided. As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood."

His predictions were correct in every respect: the indigeonous population has indeed been overwhelmed by huge numbers of immigrants and subjugated by the politically correct race-relations industry. The last sentence, which gave the speech its name, is a reference to the Latin poet Virgil’s epic poem Aeneid.

But, rather than applauding Powell and blaming his opponents, in the interview Farage blamed the parliamentarian for the opposition his speech encountered, siding with the Left who strumentalised the metaphorical, indeed poetic, part of the speech - the one containing the word "blood" - to make the whole thing appear like the utterances of a violent fanatic who wanted, rather than predicted, blood:

He [Farage] said: "The Powell speech was a disaster. Everybody ran scared of discussing this for decades. Now, I think what Ukip has done is to help make immigration a sensible, moderate, realistic, mainstream debate."

UKIP's previous policy to put an end to the age of "mass uncontrolled immigration" through a 5-year-freeze on immigration and a cap of 50,000 people per annum on future immigration, which is the party's main selling point, is under review, with a possible increase in the cap.

The disappointment with the UKIP felt by many supporters could explain its sharp decline in opinion polls, already evident in June and now even more pronounced. It was supported by 18% of respondents in May, 12% in June and now just 7%.

Islam, one of the major problems facing Britain and Europe today, indeed in many ways the most important problem, since it is a question of our own survival, receives so little attention from UKIP that a search for the term "Islam" on its website produces only 6 results. In some of them Islam is mentioned in the context of foreign policy, like the possible British intervention in the Syrian war or how to interact with "moderate Muslim states". In 5 cases out of those 6, the word "Islam" is accompanied by the qualifying adjective "extreme", "extremist" or "fundamentalist", and in the 6th is part of the phrase "puritanical and intolerant strain of Wahhabi Islam".

No results for "halal" on the UKIP's site.

On ritual slaughter this was the policy in the 2010 General Election Party Manifesto:

UKIP believes that the UK should examine the pros and cons of proposals to insist on pre-stunning through a Royal Commission. The Commission should study examples from Denmark, New Zealand and others and evaluate whether the religious exemptions which cause suffering to animals should be repealed or not, or whether a requirement for pre-stunning be introduced.

Contrast that with what Liberty GB is saying and doing.

We have an extensive plan of action on how to limit immigration and on how to deal with Islam.

We think that the distinction between Islam and "extreme" Islam is spurious, because Islam, wanting world domination and global imposition of its law with any means, is intrinsically extreme. It is also fundamentalist because it preaches that the Quran was written by Allah and dictated to Muhammad through the Archangel Gabriel, so, being directly the word of God and not - like the Bible - written by men, must necessarily be taken literally.

We know that Islam is not a religion but a political ideology worse than fascism and communism, and that it is wrongly and unjustly protected by freedom of religion.

Indeed the Liberty GB website has devoted many articles to exposing Islam, including essays which criticise historical revisionism of the Crusades and the imaginary contributions of Islam to science and mathematics that inhabit Obama's mind.

Unlike UKIP, we are well aware of the no-go areas, of the whole communities that live by Sharia law, of how mosques disrupt neighbourhoods and are a hotbed of militancy, in short of the many forms taken by stealth jihad in our countries.

Of all these, none is more dangerous and insidious than halal meat, which is why Liberty GB has made it the target of a particular campaign. Halal is Islam's Trojan horse to penetrate and conquer our lands. It is the first giant step of our Islamisation.

In a similar way in which magazines, for example, introduce to the reader and explore a wide topic by focusing on particular individuals affected by it, it is easier for people to concentrate their attention and energy on a specific issue like halal, through which all of Islam in the West can be targeted, rather than tackling the whole subject of Islam. Besides, halal is arguably the most detested aspect of our Islamisation.

In addition, Halal in Britain and in the West generally, being a multi-billion-pound industry, empowers Muslims economically and there is ample evidence that it finances jihad and terrorism all over the world.

A ban on ritual slaughter is part of our manifesto.

We think, like Wilders, that Christians are our allies.

We stand for Christianity as an ethical as well as a theological system, therefore accepting that there can be, as the great Oriana Fallaci declared herself, “atheist Christians” or “agnostic Christians”.

We exist not just to attract people, but also to change them in order to change the status quo. We won’t change anything if we don’t change what people think. This is the cultural battle that the Left has fought and won until now, and that we know we must fight in order to win.

We don’t want to do what UKIP has recently been doing. We don’t blindly follow public opinion, we change it, and this is our unique selling proposition.

Decades of socio-communist propaganda have resulted in many people having very confused ideas about Christianity, about which they only know or believe they know bad things.

Jesus Christ declared all men to be equal. Both the doctrine and the history of Christianity vouch for its solid egalitarian, anti-discriminatory stance. When we say that we are Christian, ethically even if not necessarily theologically, we are implicitly saying that we are anti-racist without even having to say it explicitly. It was Christians who abolished slavery first in the Roman Empire and then in the 19th-century United States. No other religious group has ever done that. It has been Christians, today as in the past, who have gone to all the most inhospitable corners of the globe to help the poor of all races for nothing in return.

I'll conclude with this comment on the current first place of the PVV in the Dutch opinion polls, which I find particularly true and useful for us:

A smart party primes voters for the realization that it was right all along. A stupid party “evolves” and tosses aside its positions and becomes discredited and indistinguishable from the ruling party.

Ignorance of Islam Is No Excuse

The unfortunate article published on The Telegraph "Islam is way more English than the EDL" is a classical example of the most myopic and ignorant journalism. The author, Tim Stanley, has no idea of what Islam is, and yet insists in writing about Islam.

Just read this:

By contrast, most Muslims cling on to values that were once definitively English and that we could do with rediscovering. Islam instructs its followers to cherish their families, to venerate women [by beating and stoning them], to treat strangers kindly [by beheading them], to obey the law of any country they are in (yes, yes, it really does) [by imposing sharia law everywhere by hook or by crook], and to give generously. One recent poll found that British Muslims donate more money to charity than any other religious group.

Pity he doesn't know that the Quran prescribes to believers only charity for other Muslims, not infidels.

He is also unacquainted with the fact that one eighth of Muslim charity - zakat - must go, according to Islamic law, to jihadists fighting in Allah's cause: terrorists, killers of Christians in the Middle East, Hamas, al-Qaeda-linked groups and other such nice company.

The Muslim website Mission Islam clarifies it:

Zakat can be given in the path of Allah. By this is meant to finance a Jihad effort in the path of Allah, not for Jihad for other reasons. The fighter (mujahid) will be given as salary what will be enough for him. If he needs to buy arms or some other supplies related to the war effort, Zakat money should be used provided the effort is to raise the banner of Islam.

Which explains why one of the world’s largest and most influential Islamic charities, the Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW), much loved by clueless Prince Charles and given tens of millions of dollars by the European Union, the United Nations and Western governments, is, according to an extensive amount of evidence gathered and recently published by the Gatestone Institute, “an extremist organization with a pro-terror agenda":

IRW’s accounts show that it has partnered with a number of organizations linked to terrorism and that some of charity’s trustees are personally affiliated with extreme Islamist groups that have connections to terror.

These include Hamas, al-Qaeda, terrorists in Chechnya, and other terror and Muslim Brotherhood groups in various parts of the world.

But Tim is adamant that Islam represents traditional English values worth rediscovering. What he writes next makes you think of a borderline case of a person living in a parallel universe:

Much is written about the need for Muslims to integrate better into English society, although I'm sure 99 per cent of them already do [they integrate even better into English prisons]. But I hope they retain as much of their religious identity as possible – it is vastly superior to the materialist, secular mess that they're being compelled to become a part of. [I'm really curious to know who compels them: it must be the invisible man, because I've never seen such a person or persons.]

...But its [sic] precisely because I'm a traditionalist that I look at Islam and see much to admire – ordered, sensitive to the sacred, civilised.

I suppose that it's because Islam is so civilised that Muslim countries are among the poorest, most violent, most illiterate, inhumane, politically unstable and backward countries in the world, and the people living there can't wait to leave those places to come and inhabit our materialist mess.

Halal: A Taste of Terror

First published on FrontPage Magazine.

By Enza Ferreri


“Beware! Halal food funds terrorists.” Stickers with this slogan were sold in July by a candidate of the Australian political party One Nation, and condemned by the country’s Multicultural Affairs Minister Glen Elmes as “offensive, grotesque and designed to inflame hatred.” He added: “People are encouraged to put the stickers on food products in supermarkets, which isn’t just racial discrimination, it’s also vandalism.”

What the sticker says, though, is apparently taking place in the USA and Canada where Campbell’s Soup and other companies have paid the Hamas-linked Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) for their halal certification, in France, where it is claimed that 60% of halal food is controlled by organizations belonging to the Muslim Brotherhood and the so-called “halal tax” is the organization’s main source of funding. In the UK, major supermarket chain Morrisons is not only indirectly but even directly giving money to the Islamic National Zakat Foundation. I’ll explain what that is about in a minute.

“Ritual slaughter” is the slaughter of animals for food following religious prescriptions. The Muslim method to produce halal (“lawful” or “permissible”) meat consists of cutting fully conscious animals’ throat while the name of Allah is uttered and letting them bleed to death. The Jewish method of producing kosher meat shares with the Muslim one the fact that the animal is not stunned before being killed.

Laws of Western countries generally require that animals are stunned to render them unconscious before slaughter, but allow exceptions for both Jewish and Muslim ritual slaughter.
Government advisory bodies, like the Farm Animal Welfare Council and the British Veterinary Association in the UK, have produced reports and made declarations saying that ritual slaughter causes ”intolerable cruelty” and have repeatedly demanded that it be banned.

The Muslim Council of Britain claims that most halal meat comes from stunned animals, but in reality a very low voltage is used in their electrocution, resulting in inadequate stunning.

This makes it objectionable to most non-Muslims on animal welfare grounds. Christians and others – Sikhs in Britain currently have an anti-halal petition – also consider the utterance of Allah’s name at the moment of slaughter as idolatry.

And a major concern is that halal meat is just no longer for Muslim consumption, but is sold to “infidels” in ever greater quantity the world over.

To get an idea of the extent of this phenomenon, one of the most influential halal certification bodies, the Halal Food Authority, now estimates that a staggering 25% of the entire UK meat market is halal. But Muslims are about 5% of the UK population, therefore there is as much as 5 times more halal meat than Muslims.

In Britain halal meat is routinely served and sold to non-Muslims who don’t even know that they’re eating it, let alone want to do so. Schools, hospitals, hundreds of restaurants and pubs, sporting venues like Wembley football stadium and Ascot race course, all the main supermarkets chains – none excluded – fast-food and pizza chains have been drawn into what commercially must look like a win-win situation for them: Muslims complain and demand halal, non-Muslims don’t complain, adapt and tolerate. Especially if they’re not informed and food is not properly labelled.

In dhimmi Britain, when pork or other non-halal food is accidentally discovered in school menus, as recently happened, it causes a fervor, hits headlines, the food is immediately removed and the responsible sacked, but it’s nearly impossible to have halal meat – which non-Muslims don’t want – removed from schools or at least not served to unbelievers. In an increasing number of schools halal is the only meat served. Is the only way to ban halal food in schools to “contaminate” it with pork, as someone suggested?

What’s happening with halal is that we are experiencing for the first time in the West Islamization on a large scale. Great numbers of people are forced to live according to Sharia law whether they like it or not, which is the essence of Islam and its supremacist nature.

Christian Concern reported the words of the Operation Nehemiah Halal Campaign, run by the Barnabas Fund:

There is an open campaign by Islamic food agencies to integrate halal into the mainstream market and to extend it to non-Muslims. The World Halal Forum held its annual conference in London earlier this month (November), and has identified the UK as a pilot project for halal in Europe…

The spread of halal is often part of the commitment to Islamic mission (dawa) and the Islamisation of non-Muslim societies. The imposition of sharia practices on non-Muslims may be interpreted as an act of Islamic supremacy.”

That it is a question of supremacy and economic profit and not religious compliance is shown by the fact that Islam specifically exempts its faithful from the obligation to eat halal food if none is available:

He hath only forbidden you dead meat, and blood, and the flesh of swine, and that on which any other name hath been invoked besides that of Allah. But if one is forced by necessity, without wilful disobedience, nor transgressing due limits,- then is he guiltless. For Allah is Oft-forgiving Most Merciful. Quran (002:173)

Every time you drive around London you are subjected to the sight of myriad halal signs, a constant reminder of the transformation of Britain into an Islamic country. You can even measure this process of Islamization by the number of halal signs that you see multiply in the same streets and areas.

If women in the hijab and burka are the visible representation of Muslim presence in the West, halal signs are the visible symbol of Muslim supremacism taking hold of it – at least women who veil themselves don’t impose their dress code on others.

We are witnessing a Muslim takeover of an increasing share of the food industry and other industries, with consequences on the job market of Britain, a nation with a high level of unemployment, especially among the young. Halal products include not just meat, but also a long list of goods containing slaughterhouse by-products like gelatin and collagen, which are ingredients in many various foodstuffs – from Easter eggs to cat food – cosmetics, toiletries, pharmaceuticals, and other products.

It is a multi-billion dollars industry, and growing.

All halal products require certification by a Muslim agency, which the agency is paid for.
The principle of “zakat” in Islamic law makes it obligatory for all Muslims to give 2.5% of their income to charity – only in aid of their coreligionists, of course. Zakat has to be distributed among 8 categories of recipients, one of which is the jihadists fighting in Allah’s cause. From Mission Islam:

Zakat can be given in the path of Allah. By this is meant to finance a Jihad effort in the path of Allah, not for Jihad for other reasons. The fighter (mujahid) will be given as salary what will be enough for him. If he needs to buy arms or some other supplies related to the war effort, Zakat money should be used provided the effort is to raise the banner of Islam.

According to Islamic law, it would not be permissible, or “halal,” for Islamic organizations providing halal certification not to pay zakat, which under Islamic law is obligatory for all Muslims, on the fees they charge.

Therefore, whenever you buy one of the many halal-certified products increasingly found in our Western countries, even without your knowledge and against your will, you are indirectly contributing to Islamic terrorists, killers of Christians in the Middle East, al-Qaeda-linked groups and so on. Buy halal and you fund jihad against Israel.

Many Islamic “charities” have known links to terrorism and Islamic extremism. In early July the Gatestone Institute published a report documenting the many links discovered between the Islamic Relief Worldwide charity, with headquarters in the UK, and terror groupswith an anti-Western agenda. Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) consists of a “family of fifteen aid agencies” which “aim to alleviate the suffering of the world’s poorest people.” What looks like an innocuous — indeed philanthropic — charity is, according to this report, “an extremist organization with a pro-terror agenda… [which] has worked with a significant number of organizations linked to terrorism.” Western governments, the United Nations and the European Union should be more careful about whom they donate their money to, since they all gave tens of millions of dollars to IRW, whose most important branches include Islamic Relief UK and Islamic Relief USA. The report says:

IRW’s accounts show that it has partnered with a number of organizations linked to terrorism and that some of charity’s trustees are personally affiliated with extreme Islamist groups that have connections to terror.

Those organizations and groups, over the years, have included Hamas and Hamas-related bodies like Al Wafa and Al Tzalah; terrorists in Chechnya; al-Qaeda; the Yemeni Al-Eslah organization, a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood; terrorist and Muslim Brotherhood groups operating in various European countries; and many more.

What makes IRW, which is one of the world’s largest and most influential Islamic charities, more dangerous is that it has acquired legitimacy among Western politicians and public figures. Even heir to the British throne Prince Charles has expressed support and appeared at IRW events. But there has been very little scrutiny of IRW and its branches.

In sum, although halal is on its surface an animal cruelty concern, it is also a crucial area of conflict between the West and those who want to force Islam, literally, down our throats. It also empowers Muslims culturally, ideologically, politically and, last but not least, economically, in a terrifying way.

Egalitarians Want Us All Poor or Dead

I remember that Paola Cavalieri, the editor of the Italian journal Etica e Animali, once said to me: "If human beings have privileges at the expense of nonhuman animal suffering, it would be best if none of them existed: at least we would all be equal".

There is a deep truth in that: egalitarianism, taken to its extreme consequences, would lead to total destruction of all sentient life. Being dead is the only state in which we are all equal. Life is diversity itself.

I was reminded of that when I heard on the radio a discussion about zero-hours contracts, under which an employee must be available for work as needed, will only be paid for the hours worked, and has no guaranteed hours each month.

The recent concerns expressed arise from the emerging of new figures indicating that there could be as many as four times more people than previously thought in zero-hours jobs. The research suggests a million people could be working under them.

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development surveyed 1,000 firms and found that up to 4% of the UK workforce were on such contracts.

Zero-hours contracts are on the rise, and is predicted that they will continue to increase, because employers more and more try to find cost-effective ways to meet short-term staffing needs.

Fast-food, catering, hotel, shop-assistant jobs are the most common occupations under these contracts, and also some NHS jobs.

Business Secretary Vince Cable is now concerned that, he said, there is "some exploitation" of staff on these contracts, and he started a review into the state of zero-hours contracts.

A ban on this hiring method is unlikely because many workers actually prefer it, like flexible hours and want to work only occasionally, around existing commitments, but we may see the usual government meddling, restrictions and regulations.

But why on earth should anyone want to force businesses to employ on a regular contract people they don't need or more people they can afford?

This can only lead to potential employers being increasingly wary of hiring, and to a rise in unemployment.

Don't they see that overregulating and interfering is a recipe for more destructive economic outcomes? The labour market must be subject to the same economic (not political) laws of the market as everything else. This is the only way that a modern society can be productive: call it capitalism if you like. The alternative, socialism, makes everybody poor.

But maybe that's what egalitarians really want. As Paola Cavalieri, they prefer everybody to have nothing, which is the only sure way to erase all income disparities.