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.
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!
No comments:
Post a Comment