DEMOCRACY: The Trojan Horse of Islamization, Part 3
By FFI Contributing Editor Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
Political Rivalry:
It has been mentioned in the previous article that that in 711, Moors, after the Umayyad conquest of Hispania, occupied large parts of the Iberian Peninsula establishing the Al-Andalus (Moorish Spain). But the Islamic caliphate had not actually targeted Spain for conquest, but the political divisions and rivalry within the Visigothic kingdom created an opportunity that Tariq and his army exploited successfully. Or in other words, the political rivalry among the Visigoths culminated into the Islamic slavery of Spain that lasted for nearly 700 years, up to 1492.
It was also mentioned that In India, there was bitter rivalry between Prithwiraj Chauhan, the Emperor of Delhi, and Jaichand, the king of Kannauj. This rivalry led Jaichand to invite Muhammad Ghori to invade Delhi. Jaichand is said to have provided active support to the Muslim army. Ultimately Prithwiraj was defeated and killed by the army of Muhammad Ghori and the incident initiated Muslim rule in India that lasted for more than 700 years.
We may add another example in this context. In the 18th century, the Hindus of Bengal, to get rid of the tyrannical Muslim ruler Nawab Siraj-ud-daula, entered into a conspiracy with Lord Clive, the then Governor General of British East India Company and according to this conspiracy the British army won the decisive battle at Plassey in 1757 and thus initiated the British slavery in India that lasted for nearly 200 years, up to August 15, 1947.
The above incidents show, how disastrous it could be to invite foreign enemies in solving internal rivalry and selfishness between the rulers or kings of the middle-age. It is a matter of serious concern that same curse of intense rivalry and bitterness has now appeared among the political parties in the democratic world. In the middle ages, this enmity and rivalry ended up in bloody battles that have now been replaced by the battle of ballots. In those days, the rival kings sought military help even from the enemies of the nation today, the hostile political parties are appeasing the enemies of the nation for their votes. Or more pointedly, they are appeasing the Muslim voters for their votes.
Political enmity and Muslim appeasement:
In this context, we may cite the example of the UK. Here, the rival political parties are Labour Party and the Conservative Party. It is seen around the world that, Leftists are more sympathetic to the Muslims and according to this trend, the Labour had a sweet relation with the immigrant Muslims. But that sweet relation turned sour when the Labour Government sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. This development led the Labour MP Gerald Hain on May 12, 2008, to say, “Labour needs to change tack on foreign policy to win back voters who deserted the party over the Iraq war. …. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims had been lost to Labour as a result of the worsening situation in Iraq. … We must win back Muslim voters.”
As a result, “Labour is steadily losing support among ordinary Britons, including some alienated sections of the working class. They so heartily despise, as people are increasingly starting to realise what they are about. It is sheer desperation, an unscrupulous attempt to cling onto power whatever the price may be. And without a doubt the Islamic scum will demand a heavy price for the support this despicable government so desperately needs”, says a political analyst.
This development has prompted the Conservatives to start wooing the Muslim voters in a big way to get their votes. So, the political analyst David Sapsted wrote on April 17, 2010, “The Muslim votes would be a crucial element when both the Labour and Conservative parties are fighting a close battle to get an overall majority in the 646-seat parliament.” How shamelessly the present Conservative Government has submitted to the Muslim demands has been reflected in an instruction issued by the Bedfordshire Police, on December 12, 2010, regarding how to deal with the terrorists and dangerous criminals. (For detail, see “Highly Deplorable Religious Discrimination in the UK” [1]) It is really surprising that Great Britain, considered to one of the pioneers for establishing democracy based on individual equality and freedom, can indulge in such a biased and religiously discriminatory policy. This directly contradicts the very foundation Parliamentary Democracy. It is to be noted here that the political parties have to depend on the voters and their votes to stay in power in a democratic country. But such a need does not arise in a totalitarian state, like Communist China or Saudi Arabia.
Muslim appeasement in other democratic countries:
France is another democratic country in Europe. Here, it is not possible for single political party to win election and form the government. “French politics are characterised by two politically opposed groupings: one left-wing, centred around the French Socialist Party, and the other right-wing, centred previously around the Rassemblement pour la République (RPR) and now its successor the Union for a Popular Movement (UMP). The executive branch is currently composed mostly of the UMP.” The rivalry between these two groups has given rise to naked appeasement of the Muslim voters. Recently Ali Khalaf in his article “France: Most Islam Friendly Kafir Country” has nicely narrated the present French Government’s shocking plight in appeasing the Muslims. [2]
India is a democratic country where Muslims constitute about 15% of the total population. In the political scenario of India, there a few national political parties like the National Congress, the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPIM) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), and there are many regional parties. All these political parties are openly appeasing the Muslims, by whatever means they can, to grab their votes. In the state of West Bengal (WB), the Left Front (a coalition of the leftist parties led by CPIM) came to power with the help of the Muslim votes and stayed in power for past 30 years with the support of the Muslims. But at present the regional party, the Trinamool Congress, led by Mamata Banerji, has succeeded to win over the Muslims through more attractive and lucrative promises. So, in the last Parliamentary Election held in 2009, the CPIM led coalition suffered a setback. Most of the people of the state have already started to believe that in the coming Assembly Election, to be held in April or May, 2011, Muslim votes would go for the Trinamool Congress and Mamata Banerji would be the next Chief Minister of the state.
The ultimate result of Muslim appeasement:
The question naturally arises – Can we equate today’s Muslim appeasement with inviting foreign Muslim enemies by the discontent Visigoths or Jaichand of Kannause, driven by intense rivalry and selfishness. The reply is – “Yes”. In those days, inviting foreign Muslim powers led to Islamic slavery and, in a similar manner, today’s Muslim appeasement would led to the same conclusion – slavery of the Muslims. Today’s politicians, due to their inadequate understanding of Muslim psyche, or knowing everything well and just to fool and mislead the non-Muslim population of the country, are propagating the notion that the Muslim immigrants are just like any other immigrant group of other religious faith. They also propagate the wrong notion that, like the immigrants of other religious groups, Muslim also finally integrate them with the indigenous people and adopt their culture.
So, Labour MP Barry Gardner, while commenting on the Muslims of the Wembly area of London, said, “But I say that those people are British. They are proud to be British. They are proud to be a part of this society. And I am proud to represent the most multicultural borough in this country and indeed in Europe. We have more than hundred and sixty different first languages spoken in our borough and hundred and thirty different first languages spoken in our schools. We are proud of that and we are proud of the fact that by the time our children reach to go to secondary schools, that they are achieving above the national average at the key stage two. Every single one of these schools in Britain. These children are our future.” But the stern reality is that, the Muslim children, after gaining age, will turn the UK into an Islamic UK by simple majority.
Muslim psyche studied by a Danish Psychologist:
Recently, Nicholai Sennels, a Danish psychologist, has made a highly laudable research on Islamic psyche and published his results in his article “Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences”. [3] Being a psychologist, Sennels have more than a hundred Muslim clients and this has provided him an excellent opportunity to study and observe minds of the Muslim immigrants in Denmark. According to him, most of the immigrant Muslims are criminals and says, “We should stop talking about “criminal foreigners” and start using the more precise term, “criminal Muslims. … A serious discussion about the relationship between the Muslim culture and criminal, antisocial behavior is, indeed, very much needed.” He is also writing a book “Among Criminal Muslims: A Psychologist’s Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality”.
Nicholai Sennels
He says, “After having consulted with 150 young Muslim clients in therapy and 100 Danish clients (who, on average, shared the same age and social background as their Muslim inmates), my findings were that the “Muslims’ cultural and religious experiences played a central role in their psychological development and criminal behavior or Criminal foreigners”. He also says, “According to official statistics from Danmarks Statistik, all non-Muslim groups of immigrants are less criminal than the ethnic Danes. Even after adjusting, according to educational and economic levels, all Muslim groups are more criminal than any other ethnic group. Seven out of 10, in the youth prison, where I worked, were Muslim.”
He says that the Muslims, as a community, are angry and often express their anger. In this regard, he says, “In the Muslim culture, aggressive behavior, especially threats, are generally seen to be accepted, and even expected as a way of handling conflicts and social discrepancies. If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not “she” (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak. In the eyes of civilized people, it looks immature and childish when people try to use threatening behavior. “The Islamic expression of “holy anger” is therefore completely contradictory to any Western society”, he says.
Muslims displaying their anger (probably after a good Jum'a prayer!)
Sennels have found another important difference between the Westerners and the Muslim immigrants and says, “Westerners feel that their lives are mainly influenced by inner forces – ourselves. But Muslims have something else. They have strict external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior (as ordained by Allah in the Koran). They have a God that decides their life’s course. “Inshallah” follows every statement about future plans; if God wants it to happen. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community every Friday. These clerics dictate political views.”
Is it possible for the Muslims to integrate in Western society:
It has been mentioned earlier that the Muslim appeasing politicians, either due to their inadequate understanding of Islam or to mislead the common people, propagate the idea that Islam is a religion of peace and in the long run, Muslims will integrate them with the Western way of life. But, perhaps, this is impossible. From the very childhood, they are trained to hate whatever is un-Islamic. They learn to hate non-Muslim people as kafirs, and to hate their culture and social customs. As soon as they set their foot in a non-Muslim country, Their Islamic teachings tell them, “You are entering a kafir country or a land of your enemies. You must not take any of them as a friend. It is a dar-ul-harb and you have to conquer this country for Islam and turn it into a dar-ul-Islam. So, it is next to impossible to make them loyal to the host country and adapt them to its society.
While commenting on this aspect of the immigrant Muslims, Sennels writes, “European, Australian and North American politicians have spent trillions of Euros and Dollars in trying to avoid the apparently unavoidable; the failed integration of Muslims. Money has been spent on voluntary offers that our badly integrated foreigners can use if they want. They do sometimes try, but it very seldom works. What we have to understand is that we are dealing with people who grew up in cultures with an “outer – locus of control.” Self reflection and self responsibility have much less importance to them.”
“We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies, with groups of roaming criminal Muslims overloading of our welfare system and the growing justified fear that non-Muslims have of violence. The consequences should be so strict that it would be preferable for any anti-social Muslim to go back to a Muslim country, where they can understand, and can be understood by their own culture. … We should not permit the destruction of our cities by lawless parallel societies – Muslim gangs in Melbourne. … From my experiences with the 150 Muslims I have had in therapy, only a handful felt themselves to be Danish. Most saw themselves as Somalis, Turks, Moroccans, Pakistanis, and Iraqis who now live in Denmark. Almost none of them saw themselves as an integrated part of the Danish society”, Sennels adds.
It has been mentioned that the British Labour MP Barry Gardner, when speaking in the House of Commons, said that the children of the immigrants will feel proud to be a British citizens. It could be true for the immigrants of other religious groups but not for the Muslims. While commenting on this aspect, Sennels says, “This was a real shock to me. Many of my Muslim clients were second or even third generation immigrants, but, still they did not feel Danish. Actually it seemed that many of them were even more religious and hateful towards non-Muslims than their first generation immigrant parents.”
“A French survey in Le Figaro showed that only 14 percent of the country’s estimated five million Muslims see themselves as ‘more French than Muslim’. …Only 12 percent of Muslims living in Germany see themselves as more German than Muslim. … A Danish survey published by the pro-Muslim pro-democratic organization Democratic Muslims led by the Danish PM and Muslim Naser Khader showed that, “Only 14 percent of Muslims living in Denmark could identify themselves as democratic and Danish”, Sennels adds.
It becomes evident from the above discussions that the Muslim immigrants in the European countries will never assimilate them with the European society and are determined to retain their Muslim identity. They are not loyal to the host country and, on the contrary, they are trying their best to conquer it for Islam by over populating the indigenous Christians through rapid breeding. So, a united effort of all the political parties of all the affected countries is the need of the hour to frustrate their design to turn Europe into an Islamic continent.
********************
[2] http://www.faithfreedom.org/articles/op-ed/france-most-islam-friendly-kafir-country/
Posted by Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari
on January 7 2011. Filed under Op-Ed.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
A very well written article!! This should be published in a newspaper column for publicity!
For once I find myself in something close to agreement with the good Doctor.
He correctly identifies the end results of appeasement as applied to Muslims and the persistent problem of the lack of integration of (most) Muslims within Western Countries.
Using the example of the UK he also notes that both political parties are wooing "the Muslim vote". This tends to undermine his implicit assertion that it is left wing parties that do the wooing (though as a caveat I must add that even the UK's conservative party is probably to the left of the US Republicans).
I cannot disagree with Bramachari's analysis of the problems brought to the West by mass Muslim immigration, nor with his implication that this may lead to the collapse of European society due to the range of concommittant pressures he notes.
However, I would remind readers that the title of this piece is "DEMOCRACY: The Trojan Horse of Islamization".
In previous pieces I stated that that Brahmachari had failed to make his case and in this piece he adds nothing to his case, indeed the historical examples of "in-fighting" that led to Muslim expansion are all examples in which the conquered states were Kingdoms in which the Kings had (near) absolute power and thus the ability to decide policy unilaterally (and capriciously), whereas as Brahmchari himself says (later in the piece) "It is to be noted here that the political parties have to depend on the voters and their votes to stay in power in a democratic country. But such a need does not arise in a totalitarian state, like Communist China or Saudi Arabia. " which surely implies that democratic states have greater checks and balances on the use/abuse of power than totalitarian ones.
His final example is even more odd in that the "conspiracy" between Clive and the Benjali Muslims led to the DESTRUCTION of an Islamic state.
Indeed, in his last paragraph in this piece Brahmachari states: "a united effort of all the political parties of all the affected countries is the need of the hour to frustrate their design to turn Europe into an Islamic continent."
This, surely, implies a process based in democracy.
Thus on the one hand Brahmachari is calling democracy a "Trojan horse" – which is, let me remind you, something that appears beneficial yet which is in fact damaging/destructive – yet on the other calling for all democratic parties to unit in opposition to continued Muslim immigration and demands.
Thus I maintain that nothing he has written so far has supported, never mind proved, the view inherent in the title of this series.
—-
I will also point out that, as has been widely reported in the European press, Angela Merkel of Germany has said that "multiculturalism has failed" and that Sarkozi of France has introduced as (partial) Burkha ban.
In the UK in the latter days of the previous Labour administration the emphasis was begining to shift from the dialogue of multi-culturalism to "social-cohesion" (inherently implicit in which is the notion of a single, poly-ethnic society), whether this approach will continue under the new(ish) CON-DEM alliance is, as yet, unclear.
Thus I would contend that the democracies of Europe (including the UK) are starting to see that action of some sort needs to be taken and are taking tentative steps to address the issues, the question is whether this will be carried through, and/or whether in fact it will prove to be a case of "too little, too late".
do you ever see muslims protest or yell in the west allah akbar when they are alone and not in a group?
cowardice is rife in islam.
Great article. If Muslims don't want to become part of western society and they cause trouble, then send them back to the Islamic sh*thole they came from.
Following Mo's footsteps, Pakistani men grooming British girls for sex
London, Jan 5 : Following the footsteps of Mo Pakistani-origin men in Britain are grooming white girls aged between 11 and 16 for sex with Asian men, a media report said Wednesday.
Police and social services were silent on the exploitation because of fear that it would be termed a racial issue, The Daily Mail reported.
Researchers from University College London’s Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science said the victims were “typically white girls” while “most central offenders are Pakistani”.
The offenders were not viewed as paedophiles but had picked the girls because of their “malleability”.
The report, however, concluded that “race is a delicate issue” that should be handled sensitively “but not brushed under the carpet”.
It said the grooming usually began with older groups of men befriending girls aged 11 to 16 they meet on the street.
The victim was initially treated as a girlfriend and showered with gifts and attention.
But the relationship quickly becomes more “sinister” as the abuser plies the child with drinks and drugs before effectively pimping her out to friends and associates.
The worst cases involve girls being moved around the country to be repeatedly abused.
However, charities working with police to help victims of sexual abuse have publicly denied there was a link between ethnicity and the grooming.
A police officer at West Mercia called for an end to the “damaging taboo” connecting grooming with race.
“These girls are being passed around and used as meat. To stop this type of crime, you need to start everyone talking about it but everyone’s been too scared to address the ethnicity factor,” Chief Inspector Alan Edwards said.
“No one wants to stand up and say that Pakistani guys in some parts of the country are recruiting young white girls and passing them around their relatives for sex, but we need to stop being worried about the racial complication,” he said.
In 17 court cases since 1997 where men were prosecuted, 53 of the 56 people found guilty were Asian, 50 of them Muslim, while just three were white, according to The Times.
Five Asian men were jailed in November 2010 for 32 years for sexual offences against girls aged between 12 and 16 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.
Judge Peter Kelson said the men were “sexual predators”.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of Lancashire-based Ramadhan Foundation, a charity working for harmony, said: “I think the police are overcautious because they are afraid of being branded racist.”
–IANS
Dr Brahmachari writes
"In the 18th century, the Hindus of Bengal, to get rid of the tyrannical Muslim ruler Nawab Siraj-ud-daula, entered into a conspiracy with Lord Clive, the then Governor General of British East India Company and according to this conspiracy the British army won the decisive battle at Plassey in 1757 and thus initiated the British slavery in India that lasted for nearly 200 years, up to August 15, 1947."
In this connection, the truth is that Siraj-ud-daula was the Nawob of Bengal ..It was his Army-General Meer -Jaafer who coniived withLord Clive to get Siraj-ud- Daula defeated – thus culminating into sowing the seeds of British Rule in India. Indeed that was a sort of blessing in disguise.. for, it also culminated into the beginning of the end of Islamic rule in India.. Had it not been so, India would have continued under autocratic totalitarian Muslim rule till today.
It is a different matter that Britishers also were benign rulers. They resorted to Divide and Rule policy.. They even inflicted the ghastly vivisection ( partition) of India on communal lines as they found it impossible to continue to rule over India after the end of second world war…
So what is the moral of the story? ..Everyone is opportunistic.. whether democratic rulers or totalitarian rulers.. Opportunism, if anything, has less of a chance of success in a Democracy (which has so many checks and balances), than in a totalitarian regime..
Look at China, ..There too the islamic fundamentalists are trying hard to inflict jihadist style incursions into chinese society, but they are not succeeding, because, communist regime, itself handles them summarily – On an average 20 to 22 persons are executed everyday in China after a summary trial lasting barely one week.. Democratic countries cannot do that..
The big question is what can be done by democratic societies to counter overt and sometimes covert and peaceful jihad being waged silently through the centuries. Will anything be done?
In the last post there is a typo-error, the sentence regarding the "benignness" or otherwise of British rule should actually read
…."It is a different matter that Britishers also were NO benign rulers"………….
Idiotic US to pour more money into that terrorist state of crooks who take money from US & fight WITH Jihadis & Al Qaeda.
. WASHINGTON: The Washington Post has reported that the Obama administration has decided to increase military, intelligence and financial support for Pakistan and intensify U.S. efforts to foster regional peace.
Officials told the newspaper that the decision was made in last month's White House Afghanistan war review and will be delivered by Vice President Joe Biden when he travels to Pakistan next week for meetings with military chief Gen. Ashfaq Kayani and other top government leaders.
The decision to intensify support for Pakistan marks the administration's effort to call the bluff of Pakistani officials who have routinely complained that the United States doesn't understand Pakistan's security priorities or give enough support.
@ Raj Puducode…… That is because it is USA that needs Pakistan more than Pak needs USA…US needs Pak more than the other way round, because, USa needs its bases in PAK for its operations in Afghanistan and perhaps for future operations against Iran..
Observant 19 writes: "They even inflicted the ghastly vivisection ( partition) of India on communal lines as they found it impossible to continue to rule over India after the end of second world war…"
That's not really true. neither the British, Ghandi nor Nehru wanted partition. Instead it was the Muslim league under M.A.Jinnah who were insistent on the Muslims having their own "Pure land" (Pakistan) in which to live.
As late as 1946 the British government was still seeking a compromise that would have resulted in a unified India, but both Nehru and Jinnah ended up opposing it; the former because the power structures were too decentralised (which was probably true and could easily have led to secession) and the latter because there was no fully independant Muslim state.
It is worthy of note that in 1946 Jinnah called for "direct action" against the then-intended plans.
What his intentions were cannot (strictly) be determined of course (though -but for an idiot- which Jinnah demonstrably was not, the consequences of his statement would be obvious), but his followers and the Umma took it as a call to riot and general mayhem – which duly followed.
Thus Jinnah, the Muslim league and the use of violence put tremendous pressure on all parties to accept partition as an alternative to civil war.
The final "Mountbatten Plan" was derived since Jinnah and the Muslim league would by now accept nothing less their own separate "pure land" and as such was (to use a phrase) "making the best of a bad job" in a situation were he was out of realistic options.