So this is Shariah Law? Glamorous martyrdom? EU PR gaffes. And EU immigration policy

1. So this is Shariah Law?

Firstly excuse the spelling of Shariah if you think it should be spelt differently (without the "h"? With an apostrophe?). I will take what I find on the Internet and recently there has been a tendency to spell it thus.

A few weeks ago, after a western hostage had been dutifully beheaded by a thug with an East London accent, I heard a comment from one of Anjem Choudary's mates (henchmen?) along the lines of "Muslims need to live under the Shariah" usw usw.

Most of us living in the rest of the world who are not Muslims might be interested to know what is different in this respect from what we know ourselves (my experiences are based principally upon western culture, with some knowledge of how things are done in Thailand - NB).

So now we have a template as to what apparently is involved and what is allowed. From IS/ISIS/ISIL - Shariah Law in action:

1. Bank robbery. Rob a bank in Frankfurt, Milwaukee, even Tokyo and Bangkok, and you have committed a criminal offence. And can expect to be punished accordingly.
One of the reasons why IS/ISIS/ISIL is capable of expensive recruitment (unemployed in Europe? We can offer you all this filthy lucre to fight for and with us!), and can purchase more weapons to go with those that they have taken from the disintegrating Syrian and Iraqi armed forces, is the fact that they looted the central bank in Mosul. Read the following

 http://www.businessinsider.com/430m-looted-from-mosuls-central-bank-2014-6

This money belongs to someone else. I may not like capitalism all that much, but stealing from a bank to fund other causes is still illegal in most societies (if you stole it to save the habitats of the tiger or the mountain gorilla for example - a worthy cause if there ever was one - it would still, unfortunately, be illegal). Any intention of giving it back? I haven't heard of any. Any criticism of this from their apologists (Choudary's henchmen, or Michael the jihadist from Gladbeck usw)? I haven't heard any. I therefore assume that under Shariah Law this is legal?

2. Kidnapping. The Western hostages are obvious examples. There are though plenty of local citizens who have also been taken away and gained far less publicity from the (Western) media. The objective is usually to gain a substantial ransom to be used for the same purpose as given above (purchase of weapons usw). Try this in Europe? Example: in the Netherlands in 1983 the chairman of the Heineken Brewing Company was kidnapped. And held for a ransom of 35 million Guilders (app. €16 million). The ransom was paid, the criminals were caught and jailed. As yet I have heard of nobody within IS/ISIS/ISIL or among its apologists condemning this practice or stating that it is an illegal activity. All is apparently fair in love and war and Shariah Law.

3. Cold-blooded murder. In Germany if you are a Salafist you are allowed (surprisingly) to practise your faith and preach the undertaking of any activities that might appear dangerous in the extreme to the community at large, provided that you do not carry these activities out to the detriment of that same community. The same applies (freedom of belief, freedom of speech) in most Western countries, and for that matter in Thailand - in a primarily Buddhist country you can practise Christianity or Islam, or proclaim yourself to be an atheist. I also believe that this applies in Japan.
Try practising freedom of belief/freedom of speech in IS/ISIS/ISIL controlled Iraq/Syria. Thousands of people have been executed (using the most primitive, barbaric methods possible) for this very act. Essentially this is cold-blooded murder. As was the execution of the two American journalists and two British aid workers whose only crime was to carry the wrong passport.

4. Rape. Anyone anywhere where I have been has a "lowest of the low" attitude when it comes to dealing with rapists (apart from a few American conservative commentators who think that the victims were asking for it, but that is an exceptionally small number of idiots). The widespread rape of Yazidi women by IS/ISIS/ISIL "warriors" has been investigated and widely reported. As the Yazidis are simply regarded as "infidels", rape is apparently not to be condemned. Really???? This is Shariah Law? Again?
As I would personally suggest that ANY rapist whatsoever (a strong male forcing himself upon an unwilling woman who does not have the strength to resist) should be jailed for life no matter what the circumstances, and I can even see an argument for castration of the rapist (provided you are sure that you did not get the wrong man) .....

5. Murdering people allegedly for adultery. Strange that you can murder or rape someone for being an infidel, but that any woman who has been allegedly unfaithful to her husband can be stoned to death? Not according to Shariah Law apparently. See the recent video that IS/ISIS/ISIL have issued. They have obviously grown tired of showing foreigners being beheaded so one of the latest thrillers for its desperately sick viewing public is a young woman being stoned to death. Her father, incidentally, was one of the people throwing the stones. No greater love has a father for his child?

6. Enslavement. Apparently it is possible, instead of crucifying or beheading your unfortunate opponents (or raping, or after raping, "infidel" women) it is possible to sell them as slaves.
All those in the Western world who have been wringing their hands over the activities of the slavers in the establishment of empires around the globe have obviously been following the wrong religion. Obviously Shariah Law is what we needed for a clear conscience.

I accept that some people in the "Muslim World" may be upset by this section. Nonetheless it is down to you to prove me wrong, to prove that IS/ISIS/ISIL is a criminal organisation and that its apologists don't know what they are talking about. And quickly!

Meanwhile on the evidence available, I would suggest that we stick with civil law and not subscribe to this load of pre-medieval BS! For the good of the community at large and not to satisfy the whims of a few criminal fanatics!

2. Glamorous martyrdom


I was reading a story this week about one poor unfortunate young man who was persuaded to go to  fight in Syria, where he could die a glamorous martyr's death. Glamorous BS!!!! 

Wars are dirty - all wars are dirty, and this one even more so than most. Dying in a war by taking a bullet between the eyes .... Yes, but it does not always happen like that.

Let us assume that you are billeted somewhere close to a war zone. An old building serving as momentary HQ with rudimentary facilities, tacky uncomfortable beds, but a place where you can stay before and after undertaking all the activities described in the first part of this article. 

One of your number is so proud of what you are doing, he even sticks an IS/ISIS/ISIL flag on the roof. Which is noted by reconnaissance from the US coalition forces. 

So you have just put your copy of the Koran on the bedside table after checking that you got all the activities described in the first section of this piece correct (particularly the rape of the infidel women), when you hear a noise overhead.

It couldn't be a Saudi or a Jordanian bomber, surely?

You are sitting up in bed, scarcely 2 seconds have passed, and suddenly there is a loud bang and a massive crash of parts of the building around you. If you had been lying down your head might have been crushed by a lump of concrete. So quick, so smooth - a true martyr's death.

Nope. Instead it has landed in such a way that it has inflicted a solid glancing blow beneath your neck and has shattered vertebrae in your back. You have fallen back on the bed, you want to shout out in pain, but your vocal chords seem totally numbed. You want to move your arms, your legs, but due to the damage in your spinal cord, they will not move. You are paralysed. The pain is horrific and all that seems capable of movement - your eyebrows.

Nobody comes to offer help. There is shouting and screaming all round, and the smell of blood and death. All round.

It takes all of 189 minutes. You cannot stand the pain, the end cannot come soon enough, but it will not come. And the atmosphere deteriorates by the second.

And after more than 3 hours of suffering and paralysis, your last throes start to appear, and suddenly you have the horrible realisation that there is no sign of Allah, the 72 virgins are not appearing before you - all there is total darkness for the last seconds, and then all awareness fades away into void.

Yep, very glamorous, eh?   

Maybe a digression at this point, but still relevant. Assume one of these young men with European passports has gone to fight for IS/ISIS/ISIL and expects to die a martyr's death, but instead suffers only serious injury (loss of limbs, permanent paralysis usw), who should pay for any medical treatment required by the aforesaid individual? And as a German taxpayer can I withhold any contribution to such, as I am opposed to helping in these circumstances!

3. EU PR gaffes

OK, matters nearer home.

I am still, for the moment, a British passport holder (update January 14th, 2022 - still the case but since become a naturalised German citizen on January 2nd, 2019, and hence a dual national, invariably I use my German passport). No big deal, nationality is not important to me (and if I ever get kidnapped by Islamic thugs, I hope that they will take note of that - that said I also think that Islam is a load of superstitious nonsense, though if you want to practise it peacefully, please do so).

Anyway, as many of you will know I am committed to the European Union, and I personally do not wish to see the UK leave.

You would seriously think that some of the leading members of the EU Commission would think the same and avoid diplomatic tiffs with the UK.

Nope. This week we have had two unseemly incidents which will give the Europhobes and their silly friends in the UK media even more unneeded ammunition.

Apparently the UK has been presented with a bill for millions of Euro. How it ever got this far .... Somewhere has goofed. Seriously!!!! This could not have been dealt with far more gradually? Far earlier? And far more diplomatically????

One of the major noises that you hear from the Europhobes is that the EU is far too expensive. OK, try arguing against that argument at the moment! How to lose an argument without trying? For supporters of the EU like myself this is really frustrating, and it makes you extremely angry!

And then there was the spat over Cameron's immigration proposals. José Manuel Barroso, the shortly to retire Head of the European Commission, made some loud and very critical noises about the proposals. Meanwhile Angela Merkel threatened to veto them.

All well and good, I do not know exactly what is in Cameron's proposals, but for once I find myself sympathising with him (we are strange allies, but anyway).

The UK is not a member of the Schengen Agreement. I do not see why the EU should have any say in British immigration policy. You cannot get into the UK without a great deal of hassle, and the neo-Fascist fringe spreads many hateful (and very probably inaccurate) rumours about illegal immigration, so it should not be surprising if Cameron has to take a tough stand - if only for local consumption.

The fact remains though that this definitely looks like the EU unnecessarily interfering in a member's internal affairs. Which just damages its mediocre reputation there even further. Which brings me to ....

4. EU immigration policy   


This results from an email interchange yesterday with a friend now based in the Netherlands.

Copied directly from the mail that I sent him are my views on immigration requirements for the EU (from outside, not internally) at the moment and there are also some pertinent comments about the problems that will be faced for those people who have moved from the UK to other EU countries and potential problems they will face if the UK does leave (as, SADLY, it almost inevitably will!).

Please read and consider (I shall make no further comments for now):

 "I can actually see, in purely economic terms, an argument for having a complete moratorium on immigration to the EU from outside for say 5 years. And yes, that does include the USA! Unemployment across the EU is over 11%, there is plenty of room to offer any opportunities as internal immigration, and the talent should be there and available. When the economy starts to improve this can be re-examined. Exceptions could be made for marriage (but not arranged marriages). And there could be other considerations.

As for what happens to those of us who have moved - this really is going to be an issue to address - the most notable instances aren't the 115,000 of us in Germany, it is going to be pensioners who have retired to Spain for the warmer climate. If they are in the same situation that I am, they would find that as non-EU citizens their pensions would be taxed which is not currently the case, and the UK part would cease to be indexed-linked. A double whammy if there ever was one.

Worth also noting is the fact that there are nearly 3 times as many Germans living in the UK as UK residents in Germany .... Prepare for a polite version of ethnic cleansing from the UK?".  

Postscript (January 12th, 2022): the number of British citizens living in Germany has now been reduced to 91,000 from the 115,000 given above. At the same time this may be counterbalanced by the more than 36,000 British nationals (such as myself) who have become naturalised German citizens since the idiot xenophobes in the UK pushed Brexit through.

Meanwhile Michael, the jihadist from Gladbeck, followed the way of quite a few of the European morons who thought that the Islamic State would be some sort of paradise (the ultimately absurd delusion, right?) - including at least one of Shamima Begum's friends, Sally Jones, Samra Kesinovic,  Sabina Selimovic et al - by dying in a far-off place in unpleasant circumstances.

As for those asking. Shamima Begum, her husband (Yago Riedijk, a Dutch convert to Islam who must be some type of moron) and anyone other Europeans being held by the SDF in Syria, should be handed over to the Iraqi or Syrian authorities and put on trial according to the law of the land.

Rather like drug smugglers in Singapore are tried and punished there, so all these individuals should be tried according to the legal procedures of where their activities took place, judged whether their actions were illegal or not, and punished accordingly or released. 

Would you want a foreign national committing a crime in your country and then being able to run off home where the legal system might take a different view of how criminal the event was?

The French, in particular, have got this right! At the last count there were 11 individuals with French nationality on Death Row in Iraq for criminal activities involving ISIS/ISIL/IS. What were they doing there in Iraq in the first place? And don't tell me that they were tourists. And given how ISIS/ISIL/IS dealt with individuals who broke their "laws", they can surely not complain!

Pacifism, Salafists, Jihadis and Takfiris, moderate Muslims, and understanding the Kurds

1. Pacifism

Apart from those hell-bent upon being warriors (and quite a few such people currently in the Middle East and the Ukraine, and maybe Nigeria and the Congo fit that description), for most people on the planet the concept of living in peace sounds a great idea.

We could then also get on with resolving the economic issues that affect us all - thankfully war is not a feature of the lives of many at the moment, particularly in Europe.

The problem remains though that the concept of war is never far away (in Europe again, check the several thousand young men with European passports who have headed off to fight in Syria - one wishes that if they are going to do that they would go to fight for the Kurds against IS/ISIS/ISIL and not the reverse as seems to be case).

I recall several conversations with committed pacifists over the years. My view is that we would all prefer pacifism over all the alternatives, but you have to live in the real world and that is not possible. When met with scepticism (the usual response), I would produce my pet question:

"So what do you do when Hitler's tanks are standing outside your front door?".

This is actually a bit late - summat should have been done much earlier. Hitler's tanks are outside the front door? Not much can be done now ....

Ask the people of Raqqa, which apparently was one of the most liberal cities in Syria before the brutes of IS/ISIS/ISIL arrived and turned it into their stronghold - the sort of place which even the Taliban would find severe.

There has to be a way of resisting Fascism - be it standard European Fascism or the Islamic Fascism emanating from the likes of IS/ISIS/ISIL (and check out the parallels between Hitlerian Fascism and the structures & practices of IS/ISIS/ISIL - including a sort of Islamic Gestapo).

Simple non-cooperation and hoping that they will go away will, sadly, not work. All the time anyway. We can admire what Gandhi and Aung San Suu Kyi achieved, but resistance like that to what is on offer from the extreme Fascistic forces to be faced out there will simply be swept aside - violently and without the slightest consideration for your opinions.

2. Salafists, Jihadis and Takfiris

I was informed the other day that my criticism of Salafists was maybe unfair, and I should instead be referring to Takfiris. The latter should be mentioned in this context for the dehumanised brutes that they are, but I am still not convinced that I am wrong about the Salafists either.

I came across this excellent article the other day and it is well worth reading for those who want a guide to what is happening in the Middle East and the groups involved.

http://www.el-baghdadi.com/index.php/articles/129-analysis-of-islamistjihadist-fears-in-syria

As this was written in January 2013, I am not sure whether the author would now acknowledge that events have changed. What happened to the Yazidi communities in Iraq, for example, makes it sound that there are indeed Takfiris in Iraq and Syria. His Twitter comment in 2012 on what could happen - with Syria becoming a magnet  for jihadis - was though frighteningly and uncannily accurate.

3. Moderate Muslims

Apparently there was a very noisy debate on American television in the last couple of weeks in which the actor Ben Affleck took comedian (and anti-religious atheist), Bill Maher and writer (and atheist intellectual), Sam Harris to task over the latter's contention that Islam is inherently oppressive, and pointed out that the majority of Muslims are moderates and not extremists.

For what seemed a loud debate (apparently), there seems to be a shortfall in the argument here. It can be argued that both are actually correct. Looking at Germany where I live, there some 3 to 4 million Muslims, of whom only 6,000 are followers of Salafist thinking and some 400 - 600 (out of 3 to 4 million, work out the percentage) are fighting for Jihad for IS/ISIS/ISIL (and then see also my previous article where I pointed out the comment from one journalist here that many have gone more in search of adventure and have received substantial financial incentives to do so, which for unemployed young men with few prospects must also be a factor).

Logically this must mean that the majority here are moderates - in fact the voices of opposition to IS/ISIS/ISIL from many leading figures in the Muslim community (including various imams in the mosques here) have made this opposition very clear. Islam, they insist, is a religion of peace.

Then there is the flip side of the coin. In the past couple of weeks there are the cases of a young man who was sent back to Turkey (he is 22 and has not lived there since he was 2) by a Bavarian court as too dangerous to be allowed to stay here (including threats to kill his own parents if they did not adopt the more radical form of Islam) and that of a white German convert who this week threatened to kill Angela Merkel, and announced that "we" have been waiting for this moment for 1400 years (he will be in his 30s at most, so it isn't possible for him to have been waiting for 1400 years, but anyway ....), and Muslims in Germany, Austria and Switzerland should head off to Syria to fight for IS/ISIS/ISIL.

The point about these last two cases is that they are getting their information from the Koran - literalist, violent and dominant (as Sam Harris would point out). This is not the religion of peace but of unadulterated violence in the form of jihad. The majority of Muslims may not see this, but the book in question already allows for this. Harris's comments about polls upon support for putting people to death for apostasy in countries like Indonesia and Pakistan should also be taken into account here.

In other words, the picture is confused. I have personally no doubt (and I met several German Muslims of both genders on a course which I was attending in 2010-2011) that the vast majority are moderate - but sometimes the less attractive, uncivilised, brutalised side of the belief system is exposed. And needs to be contained.

It is also worth noting that many of the victims of IS/ISIS/ISIL in Syria and Iraq are themselves Muslims. And in fact Sunni Muslims (Sunnis killing Shias, and vice versa (to a lesser extent) has an unfortunate historical context, but Sunnis killing Sunnis?). As is the case with the Kurds ....

4. Understanding the Kurds

The Kurds have been agitating for an independent homeland for many years. They have been spread over a number of countries across the Middle East (Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran notably) for many years.

They are not Arabs nor Turks. They have some relationship to the Iranians but are not that friendly with them. It is to be noted though that, as stated above, that they are Sunni Muslims. As there are four schools of belief within Sunni Islam, it would take someone with more expertise than myself to explain the differences between the type of Sunni Islam practised by the Kurds and how it differs from that practised by IS/ISIS/ISIL, but you can be fairly certain that the differences are substantial.

IS/ISIS/ISIL have been rampaging through Iraq and Syria killing anyone who falls foul of their definition of Islam, and quite why one set of Sunni Muslims is currently engaged in virtually a war to the death with another set of Sunni Muslims in and around the city of Kobane ..... That would need greater expertise than I can offer. Any contribution to understanding this situation better will be appreciated.

Postscript (January 12th, 2022): unfortunately the above link no longer works. Which is a shame as lucid explanations of this kind are not easy to find elsewhere.

On holy warriors and non-words

I have this German news channel available on the new computer - I didn't ask for it, it was just there when I bought it, and it occasionally it flashes up intros to some interesting and informative articles.

Yesterday it produced the four-word header (accompanied by the usual grotesque image of some idiot in military fatigues) "Belgien will Gotteskrieger stoppen".

Translation? Not actually as easy as you might think. "Belgium wants to stop" .... that bit is easy.

"Gotteskrieger"? Literally "warriors (or fighters) for God". Sounds like the Christian missionaries who head off to Asia to persuade Buddhists that Christianity is the true path to follow (IMHO if owt it should be the other way round, but anyway ....). Can't be that surely - why the cretin in the military fatigues? For example?

So .... where's the moronic jihadist Islamic connection? 

"Gotteskrieger" is actually a word that has appeared in German in recent years - this is not a word with a longstanding history. Let me quote the ever-reliable Wikipedia (cough, splutter!):

"Mit Gotteskrieger werden Menschen bezeichnet, die Kriege oder allgemein Waffengewalt befürworten, um den Einfluss ihrer Religion auszubauen, zu festigen oder zu verteidigen"

Translation (I should charge you for this, but I am feeling generous today!):

"The word Gotteskrieger refers to people who support war or the general use of armed force in order to expand, consolidate or defend the influence of their religion".

In other words dangerous maniacs/morons/cretins who believe in enforcing people to submit to their silly superstitious beliefs by (very) violent means.

You would think that the Belgians would actually be glad to get rid of these people, provided that they never came back (alive anyway). Of course at the same time you do not want to encourage people to leave if they are going to involve themselves abroad in activities such as kidnapping, rape and murder (including the beheading of anyone who works for a charity organisation committed to helping people). Assuming, that is, that they are not going to start conducting such activities at home (and that, I am afraid, is probably only a matter of time - some moron speaking German with a Sächsisch accent was encouraging this on the Internet 'tother day).

Anyway back to Gotteskrieger.

The common usage of the word started, apparently, during the Afghan War (the recent one, not those that the British managed to lose in the 19th century). 

I spent a bit of time trying to find an English equivalent. The recommended translation is "holy war". I actually do not like it - not as a concept, which is an accurate description, but as the word "Gott" ("God") is missing in English.

In German there is the obvious criticism - there is a word missing. It maybe takes an atheist to notice it, but in a land with a large number of them that should not be a problem. So the next line is for any Gotteskrieger reading this:

THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!

Repeat:

 THERE IS NO GOD!!!!!

There are plenty of other articles on this blog where I go into the issues regarding the issue of a God ("was that thunder? ****, it must be Thor riding his chariot again ...."). Go and read them. Then go and read Diderot, D'Holbach, Bertrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, Michel Onfray usw .... (These are only books? So is the Koran - a 1500-year-old volume of myths and murderous methodology from a time when the world knew little science and had little understanding of humanity. We have moved on since that time. You haven't?). 

So if you go off and kidnap, rape and murder people as a Gotteskrieger, then you are delusional. The actual word for you is Straftäter!  New words like Gotteskrieger we do not need! (For non-German speakers "Straftäter" means "criminal"). 

If the word must exist we could place something like "sog." in front of it ("sogenannt" - "so-called" in English - with the appropriate adjectival ending), but for the vicious delusional maniacs who fit this term, that gives them too much credit. Really it needs a word like the equivalent of "alleged". Or "delusional" or "self-delusional" or "cretinous, self-delusional". I found loads of German possibilities - a native German would probably be able to find "le mot juste" and maybe construct one of those wonderful German compound nouns which could find its way eventually into Duden ....

And on the subject of compound nouns I came across "Unwort" this week. "Wort" in German means "word", "un" as in English indicates a negative. So my immediately translation for it was "non-word", although www.linguee.de, which I use quite frequently, suggested alternatives such as "misnomer" and "bad word". 

This is usually a word that has risen into public usage despite its seemingly previous non-existence and is questioned by the academics who watch over the progress of the language to prevent (or at least criticise) the arrival of such words into the language when they are apparently not needed. I am not sure whether they also object to the awful habit that they have here of just stealing the English equivalent - it would be better if they did.

Anyway they even have a jury which selects summat called the "Unwort des Jahres" (the non-word of the year). This has been selected each year since 1991. Gotteskrieger won the award in 2001. Merited, I would suggest.

Whether Unwörter should be stopped, on the other hand, I would question. Languages evolve. They have done so since language first appeared and will continue to do so. The classical Latin that I learned at school (from about 2,000 years ago - read Livy, Ovid and the like) had become a substantially different language in the Middle Ages when it was still in use. Foreign influences play a part, popular usage does also.

Between my student days in France in 1969-70 and my working there on and off between 1989 and 1993, there were obvious differences in the colloquial everyday French spoken, and even "Le Monde" seemed to have changed in its style. Languages often become richer due to the greater number of alternatives available, and German (with its ability to form compound nouns) has loads of interesting possibilities. And encourages bright, intelligent minds to experiment with concepts.

So really it is a question of the logic in place as to whether the word really deserves to be a word or a non-word - but Gotteskrieger is inexact and inaccurate in my opinion, and could easily be seen as a non-word for which a better alternative should be forthcoming. All suggestions welcome! 

Declaring a country's religious leanings

Several Muslims (usually (extreme) fundamentalists) have in recent times started talking about "Muslim countries" or "Muslim lands" - as in "The West should stop interfering in Muslim countries/lands" usw (corollary phrase - "and if you do we reserve the right to behead you, even (or especially!) if you are only there trying to help people in need).

Fine.

There are two sides to that coin.

Try Thailand. Thailand is theoretically a secular country with a massive Buddhist majority. 84% of the population are practising Buddhists. Assume Thailand imposed a law calling itself a "Buddhist country" - essentially outlawing the right to religious dissent, obliging the believers of other faiths to follow the creed at the risk of penalties (however severe).

Thailand's second biggest religious grouping comprises Muslims, mainly in the South of the country. What would they think of such an imposition? Would they like it? Would they like the idea of being forced to believe summat else or be executed for their faith (well, I suppose that they would hence become martyrs ....)?

Buddhism has the immense advantage over the jihadist version of Islam (not the Islam practised by most of its adherents or encouraged by its leading teachers, I would add) in that it believes in persuasion not force and finding the answers in yourself with the guidance of the teachings of the Buddha - not enforcement of a set of rules by people who think that they can impose regulations no matter how severe and how severely! Peace and understanding are the principal tools of Buddhist teaching, not imposition. Anything else is bad karma and needs to be discouraged.

Europe in turn could also look to its traditions and European countries could declare themselves "Christian" countries. Spain could bring back the inquisition (including the torture of non-believers), Portugal could bring back the auto-da-fe, the UK could reintroduce the burning of heretics at the stake. Muslims of course are heretics by the definition involved here, so prepare yourself for 3,000,000 pyres to be built to deal with the problem! I am not sure why my usual calm, quiet, unexcitable, intellectual personality is suddenly excited at the prospect of Anjem Choudary being burned at the stake, but anyway ......

Of course being an atheist I would have problems myself with this (though given the time it would take to deal with all the Muslims first, we would probably get leave while they dealt with the real problem). Staying in Germany would probably anyway make sense - some 40-odd percent of people here are atheists and agnostics, so there is strength in numbers. And again there are some 4 million Muslims to deal with first (starting with the 6,000 or so Salafists).

And the mention of Germany as a Christian country recalls the religious wars in the 17th century when Catholics and Protestants proved that "loving your neighbour" was definitely not a principle to follow if they were members of the other belief system!

The best answer to all this, of course, is live and let live. An end to this nonsense about "Muslim countries" and the like ("Christian countries", "Jewish countries", "Buddhist countries" would be just as bad - you just never seem to hear much about such!), an end to "apostasy" being a criminal offence anywhere in the world, the right of all individuals to dissent.

Some hope, particularly when you see what is happening in Syria at the moment - but that should be an objective to achieve, everywhere in the world in the 21st century. Die Zeiten des Mittelalters sind vorbei! ("The Middle Ages have gone" - nearest translation I can come up with!).

The impact of foreign wars, and a quick look at the history of Iraq and Syria

On Tuesday this week, at approximately 10 o'clock in the evening, a fight broke out between approximately 400 Kurds and some 400 Salafist Islamists. Many armed with knives. 2 people on either side were seriously injured.

There is war going on in Syria in which the militant IS/ISIL/ISIS movement is gradually taking over large areas of the country, and slaughtering or enslaving anyone who gets in their way. For the past few days the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobane has been under siege by these armed militants and it is only a matter of time before it falls (despite Western and allied Arab efforts to bomb the Hades out of the attackers - it will actually probably be easier to do so that once the IS/ISIL/ISIS attack has succeeded, but anyway this does nothing for the Kurds).

The fight described at the start of this piece did not occur in Syria, or anywhere near Kobane. It occurred in Hamburg - Germany - thousands of kilometres away from Kobane. You have to feel sorry for the Kurds. They did not invite the attack from the IS/ISIL/ISIS movement in Syria, and the fact that their expatriates are angry is more than understandable. And the Salafists neither deserve sympathy from people outside their community nor should expect any.

Even so, civil disorder by groups from the immigrant community, no matter how worthy their cause, cannot be encouraged. Given the Salafists and how unpopular they are with other communities here, it can only be a matter of time before other groups join in and the matter gets out of control.

The Salafists are dangerous people pushing an extremist agenda, and there needs to be tighter regulations regarding their activities - if there were a remote uninhabited island somewhere on the planet where they could go to practise their hideous, murderous creed, then they could be encouraged to leave. But armed struggle against them on the streets is not the answer.

Meanwhile back to Syria (and Iraq).

When looking at the Syrian/Iraqi situation, you often get the impression that both countries must have been cobbled together the same way the former Yugoslavia was at the Treaty of Versailles. Hence the internal friction (understatement of the week - see what is happening to the Syrian Kurds above).

Wrong.

That the current states of Syria and Iraq (and Lebanon and Jordan for that matter) were members of the Ottoman Empire for some 400 years - historical fact.

That the Eastern end of the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1917 following choosing the wrong side in the First World War - historical fact.

So what happened then?

There is a danger for anyone trying to learn 100 years of history of anywhere in the world in 3-4 days (especially when you have other work to do), but that is pretty much what I have been doing over the past few days. My strengths on matters to do with history lie principally with continental Europe, so gathering detailed knowledge of events in the Middle East will require far more time.

Simply put though the following seems to be pretty much the state of affairs and I apologise for any inaccuracies.

The Arabs, shrewdly assisted and guided by the British officer, T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia), played a substantive role in helping the allies defeat the Ottoman Empire in the First World War. They (and Lawrence) expected that their reward would be independence.

As the British and French Empires had already concluded (in secrecy) an agreement called the Sykes-Picot pact which would divide the area up between them, they would be disappointed, and the attendance of the Arab delegation (with Lawrence among them) at the postwar conferences in Paris and San Remo (Italy) changed little in the distribution of parcels to the two empires concerned. The British got Iraq, Transjordan and Palestine, while Syria and Lebanon were given to the French.

The mandates of these territories to the British and French were confirmed by the newly formed (US-less) League of Nations, and that, despite brief uprisings in both Iraq and Syria, little happened to change this.

The Pan-Arab concepts in vogue though would not go away.

Iraq was eventually to be given its independence by the UK in 1932 (though the terms of the arrangement were ridiculously biased towards satisfying British commercial interests) under the monarchy of Faisal I, the son of the Grand Sharif of Mecca and a close acquaintance of T.E.Lawrence. Faisal had originally been foreseen as the King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria, before the French drove him out, and he originally served as monarch in Iraq under the British from 1921.  

Syria in turn was to become independent from France in 1946.

Both Iraq and Syria experienced very unstable political situations for quite some time - Syria experienced several coups d'état in the first 10 years of its existence, while the overthrow of the monarchy in Iraq in 1958 (in a coup) led in turn to a coup in 1963 against the leader of the 1958 coup.

Eventually two dictators, Saddam Hussein in Iraq (in 1968) and Hafeez-al-Assad in Syria (in 1970) gained power (yet again in both cases via a coup d'état) finally and held it for a long time.

The factors driving these changes though seem to have several points in common - principally that the military held power, and the common citizenry were subject to them. The arguments most often came down to nationalism against Pan-Arabism, and which side to take during the Cold War (Communism was to be a significant player in both countries, and Qassim's being close to the Communists may have been a reason for the 1963 coup, for example. There are suggestions of CIA involvement in his overthrow).

Religious political parties or religion driven military-political movements (like IS/ISIL/ISIS is now)? Almost unheard of until the Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Syria in the early 1980s. Despite the majority of its population being Sunni Muslim, Syria's concerns seemed to be based upon creation of a nation state founded upon secular principles. Even at the start of the Syrian Civil War, this did not appear to be in question.

In Iraq, Saddam was known to crack down (yes, we know how Saddam used to crack down as well!) on any religiously based extremist group as they were a threat to his power - Sunni or Shia alike. That he was a Sunni running a country which had a principally Shia Muslim population did cause tensions, but it is also obvious that Sunni extremism (in the form of Al Qaeda) was also discouraged.

Brutal, yes. And nationalist and secular.

Religion and politics in Iraq seem to be mainly the product of democratisation, and the result of the polarisation of the people following the war. That Sunni Muslims in Iraq though would find more in common with Syrian Sunni Muslims than with other Iraqis seems to be a recent development, and even then there is a question of how stable their relationship would remain. It is impossible to know in the current circumstances just how much support is due to commitment, and how much is due to enforcement and fear.

I read one report last week which suggested that there are hundreds of different militia groups in Syria, and they change their allegiances with disturbing frequency. So clear-cut divisions (government supporters, "moderate" Sunnis and the extremist groups) are not easily defined.

Former General David Petraeus is optimistic that with skilful diplomatic handling the crisis in Iraq can be brought to a successful conclusion once the Sunni tribal leadership is more seriously involved in the future policy direction in the country.

I wish that I could share his optimism. Many of the fighters in Northern Iraq are not even Iraqis any more. They are foreign Islamic mercenaries or Syrians who have crossed over the old borders and no longer recognise them.

As for Syria, the situation looks bleak. The West remains divided upon how to approach it (and Turkey suddenly found itself being asked (and was thoroughly miffed at the suggestion) to provide the boots on the ground that the West will not supply. Killing 23 IS/ISIS/ISIL fighters in Kobane by air in past 24 hours has hardly slowed their progress - and they are armed to the teeth with superior weaponry). Meanwhile the West wants to have no business with Assad ....

So somewhere among the hundreds of militia groups need to be found trusted "moderates" who will first remove IS/ISIL/ISIS (good luck with that - I hope that they will, but I do  not expect it) and then go on to pursue Assad. Hope springs eternal.

And hope, and practical assistance and training and financial support, and trust and more trust .....

I cannot but expect that there will be more incidents like there were in Hamburg the other night. I am also still expecting some of the radicalised moron fringe who support IS/ISIL/ISIS to return to Europe and start carrying out the sort of criminal practices which they have learned while away (and these are, incidentally, war crimes, not just civilian crimes) and the misery of the Syria people will go unabated (with an ever-increasing number of refugees) well into the next decade.

And the jihadist executions (cold blooded murder) of people from Western countries who have gone to provide help to those in need will also continue, with considerable publicity and a wringing of hands all round (when you are into murdering aid workers, it indicates your moral worth - on a scale of 1 to 10, you score 0, or even minus 1! This is jihadist Islam for you, folks!).

And if we had a United Nations organisation capable of doing what it was originally designed to do? Well, we can go on dreaming. Summat needs to be done, nowt effective will be - seemingly as is ever the case when urgency is required!

Postscript (January 9th, 2022): well thankfully my punditry proved totally wrong and Kobane turned out to be the turning point of the war - at least where ISIS/ISIL/IS were involved. Their defeat at Kobane led to the Kurds being the heroes of the war. Before being abandoned by the US and the West in general to the whims of the Turks.

It is time that the situation of the Kurds in the Middle East was resolved - peacefully and without further conflict. Expecting the West or the UN to do summat useful in this regard? I do not expect too much!

Coming soon to a neighbourhood near you - IS/ISIL/ISIS

One of the things which strikes you about IS/ISIL/ISIS is its propensity to change its name in the original Arabic and hence its English translation and the names reflect its growing ambitions (or maybe delusions of grandeur might be a better expression).

It started as ISIS - Islamic State in Iraq and Syria - which reflected the current reality, its involvement in trying to take over those parts of those two countries which would satisfy its original ambitions. This may not, in terms of some Arab sentiment, be too convenient a name in that it reflects the existence of the states of Iraq and Syria which the more militant may not wish to see continue (more on this in a later article).

So it became ISIL - Islamic State in the Levant. The Levant is almost a mystical name of an area in the Eastern Mediterranean which has imprecise borders, but this definition (found on the Website http://www.bibarch.com/archaeologicalSites/index.htm) may give you an idea.

The word Levant  (Le·VANT) is the name applied to the geographical region, defined by natural frontiers, encompassing the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea from roughly the Isthmus of Suez to the Taurus Mountains, including present-day Israel, Lebanon, western Jordan, the Sinai in Egypt, and that part of Syria defined by the Orontes Valley and the region of Aleppo. It is a more or less heterogeneous region, encompassing an area of about 75,000 square miles, divided into specific areas of diverse ecological and environmental character surprisingly similar to that of southern California.

Read into this that the ambitions of the organisation had spread. At this point we are talking about adding several other parts of the Middle East. The eradication of Israel is one objective, but this has always been a rallying cry among Islamic organisations - Hezbollah, a Shia fundamental organisation with whom IS/ISIL/ISIS would want absolutely no dealings, have the same philosophy in this regard.

ISIL then becomes IS - the Islamic State. Read enough about its current ambitions, and you will understand that when it has finished off occupying the parts of Iraq and Syria that it wants (and has murdered, raped and enslaved thousands of people in the process), and has taken over Jordan and Israel et al (including the murder and rape and enslavement of thousands, maybe millions more people), it has a commitment to global jihad. Among places named are Spain - which way back in history was occupied by Muslims (well a large chunk of it at least).

Ambitions could even spread to countries never previously occupied by Muslims but which these days have a substantial "Muslim" population - the UK, France, Germany usw. Did I mention Australia? OK add Australia to the list. See also later.

Not quite sure who issued the call, but following the decision of the Western powers (and more than a few neighbouring Arab states) to see if air power could do permanent damage to IS (it worked in Serbia and Bosnia - don't expect it to fulfil any more than damage limitation here though), an IS spokesman (invariably a man - women can work under IS (unlike under the Taliban) but only as "morality police" - ensuring that the dress and non-perfume code rules are enforced!), told members of its Western mercenaries (best word I can find to be polite - idiots/cretins/morons/extremely vicious, murderous, brainless thugs, though accurate words for them, might be deemed impolite!) to go back to their countries and use the same methods to bring these countries to heel. 

This, I think, involves the imposition of Sharia Law - as currently being imposed in Syria this allows for kidnapping, rape, murder, beheadings usw. Women must under no circumstances reveal an ear to the world (that is positively evil), but kidnap, rape, murder .... fine! As an atheist, I have no particular interest in finding out whether this version of Sharia Law is actually what it is supposed to be (even the Saudis have turned pale beyond belief due to the extremities being perpetrated in the name of Sharia Law in Syria, so that rather sums it up), but it is worth pointing out for once and for all that law is, and should be, the product of the will of the people, not an imposition upon them.

Germany currently has a population of some 82 million people. 4 million of them are Muslims, but only the Salafists (somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 apparently) are all that taken with the prospect of this extreme version of Sharia Law being imposed. Among their number are two white German converts who get far too much publicity as it is and their names will not be mentioned here as they are best ignored. See also under idiots/cretins/morons, if not yet extremely vicious, murderous, brainless thugs (well brainless possibly). 

I read one article last week that suggested that in fact many of the young men with German passports who have gone to Syria did not actually go for religious reasons at all, but rather for "adventure" (well, ignore the two or three who have committed suicide for the cause - that must require commitment, not just a spirit of adventure). 

Many are second (or more likely third) generation descendants of immigrants who came to do dirty, unpleasant, badly paid labouring jobs - often involving working anti-social hours. Those jobs have disappeared for the most part (winged their way to China where the above description applies - just add "very" in front of the phrase  "badly paid"), and these young people have difficulty in finding jobs. But they like to party, and (shock, horror) drink  beer, and they see glossy adverts on the Internet offering financial incentives and a chance to fulfil their needs for adventure ....

Digression - which suggests that another reason for resolving the European financial crisis sooner rather than later is to provide enough jobs which people can do - end of digression!

There are apparently a number of people have fallen for this phoney advertising, are disillusioned, and want to come back but have problems doing so. From reports it seems that there are 30 or so UK nationals who would come back if they were not afraid of facing terrorist charges, or during debriefing would be expected to name names of other UK nationals who need catching and locking up.

There is though a growing movement to prevent people coming back from the Islamic State at all. The British Conservative party seems to be very insistent upon this. While I can see where they are coming from with this (do we want to find out about kidnapping and beheadings by returning jihadists in Bletchley or Bradford, or in Bochum or Bonn for that matter?), enforcement is going to be extremely difficult. 

And then there is the question as to what exactly happens to several thousand radicalised murderous young thugs (with already too much blood on their hands, and hopefully upon their consciences - if they  have any). Wandering round the world, wherever they can get to (try Southern Russia for starters?). Very dangerous, very unpleasant, and needing to be locked up for the rest of their lives in my opinion! Certainly not undertaking a world terrorist tour!

If, may the non-existent deity protect us from this (or alternatively - please mighty Thor, please strike these infidels down with your thunderbolts!), they do return, they had better realise, or be forced to realise, that we have laws here which state extremely clearly that kidnapping, rape, cold-blooded murder and beheading people are criminal acts, and will be punished. We do not support this evil bunch of guidelines which comprise, or masquerade as, Sharia Law, and the people are massively opposed to its imposition!!!!

Getting this into the thick skulls of the idiots/cretins/morons/extremely vicious, murderous, brainless thugs involved may not be easy, but soft touches we must not be. Stamping down very hard on the slightest sign of extremist conduct is going to be essential.