Wednesday, 11 March 2015

The fallacy of Islamic human rights

Photo: Femen Sweden

The statement by the Arab League that "Sharia (Law) protects human rights" is one of the most ridiculous staements that I have ever heard. We're talking about a religious system that puts men above women (whose statements are worth only half of that of men), sanctions the killing of gays and apostates and treats us "Kufir as second class citizens unless you are Jewish in which case third class would be lucky or a Yazadi where you'd end up being murdered or sold into slavery.

That's the reality of "Sharia Law". The most unequal and brutal imposition of some desert Prophets imaginary friend possible.

Take this report about the death of an eight year old bride in Yemen:

An eight year-old child bride died in Yemen on her wedding night after suffering internal injuries due to sexual trauma. Human rights organizations are calling for the arrest of her husband, who was five times her age.

Al Nahar, Lebanon, reported that the death occurred in the tribal area of Hardh in northwestern Yemen, which borders Saudi Arabia. This brings even more attention to the already existing issue of forced child marriages in the Middle East.

This atrocity happened in 2013 and still goes on today because attempts to abolish it are apparently "un-Islamic"

But of course the religion of peace misery is beyond criticism and extremists in our communities are trying hard to censor those who speak out against their medieval theology. Their supporters exist across the political spectrum.

We know about Cage and the far-left Counterfire alliance but the Tories have their problems to.

Take Baroness Warsi, the "acceptable face of British Islam" (sic) as she joins a parliamentary meeting to launch a Muslim Manifesto. Sharia Watch reports:
...the manifesto demands that the British government act in accordance with the wishes of Muslim communities, above all other considerations. Some points of note are these:
Defend the right to a Muslim way of life, including halal meat; religious clothing; circumcision; and flexible working to accommodate Ramadan and festival observance.” 
What this means is that arguments against the burka/niqab, the halal meat industry, and circumcision (does this mean male and female?) should be ignored, and such practices defended by our politicians.
On a more sinister note:
"Introduce more robust legislation to curb media hate campaigns against Muslims." 
The media must be controlled – free speech and democratic press freedom must be destroyed.
“Guarantee the Muslim community the opportunity to evolve independently of government social engineering programmes.”
What does this mean? That “the Muslim community” should be exempt from certain social policies? To live “independently” of the law? 
“Acknowledge that the holy scripture of Muslims (the Qur’an) does not endorse terrorism and the murder of innocents.”
Only positive depictions of the Quran should be permitted, irrespective of truth or opinion. Free debate on Quranic text should be prevented.
In other words Muslims can say & do as they wish. We cannot criticise or prevent them from doing so.

Quite clear.

As if that wasn't bad enough the totally misleadingly named Islamic Human Rights Campaign has launched it's own campaign against what it says is the "demonising of Islam".

In a statement issued by the organisation they say: is unacceptable to label as ‘extremist’ numerous normative Islamic opinions on a variety of issues, founded on the Quran and Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), implying there is a link between them and violence, using such labels as an excuse to silence speakers.

Really. Even a cursory read through the Koran throws up some charming thoughts from the desert prophet. Hamas use it to justify their killing of all Jews in their founding statement. ISIS use the Koran to justify their use of slavery (sanctioned by this "prophet" apparently) and mass murder of non-beleivers if they don't pay a special tax.

Or their faces don't fit.

Problem is that both this Muslim Manifesto and Statement entirely miss the point.

Ideas do not have rights. Only people do.

These followers of an imaginary "god" think they have the right to impose their beliefs on us.

The need to stand up against religious bigotry has never been greater.

"Islam" does not have rights. It's just a set of punitive ideas concocted in a cave some 1400 years ago by a man who went on to be a warlord and imposed Islam in an imperial war of aggression which occupied lands that were inhabited by others and now claimed to be "historic Muslim lands.

ISIS includes Spain.

Yet when Jews lay claim to their historic homeland of Israel the anti-imperialists cry foul and support the imperialism of the religion of peace war, ignoring any history that does not fit their outlook and lines up with those who seek to take our freedom.

Western democracy must be defended. It is worth saving.

The alternative is barbarism.

No comments:

Post a Comment