So our charming band of bearded friends over at the Religion of Peace and Tolerance have been at it again, this time in Sydney.
In a move that, if we hadn’t heard quite a few similar stories over the years, would astonish the casual observer, the leader of global Islamist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, Burhan Hanif, told his equally shaving equipment-phobe fellows that democracy is “haram” (forbidden) for muslims and that Australian muslims shouldn’t follow the law in the country in which they live.
Only sharia law (please google it or open any newspaper any day of the week to read about the honour killings, stonings, persecution of infidels, meddling in people’s most minute daily lives and general insatiable bloodthirst set out in the book if you still don’t know what sharia law is) is suitable for muslims said Hanif, remarking that “no humans had the right to make laws.”
That would sound almost good; freedom-loving, like, if it hadn’t been coming from a guy who thinks it’s okay to bury your daughter alive because she has talked to a boy.
What, Hanif didn’t say that? But by saying only sharia law should be allowed, he fully endorses daughter-burying, sister-killing, female genital mutilation and more. Islam isn’t something from which you can pick and choose – it is what it is. It’s wholesale.
I can’t believe the Western media is still harping on about “moderate islam” and “moderate muslims” when the muzzies themselves repeatedly and clearly have stated there is no such thing. The “moderate islam” illusion is just wishful thinking from people who stick their heads in the sand, hoping that on the day of reckoning they will be beheaded last. Wherever the muslims assemble in any numbers, they become more radical, not less, as witnessed recently in Indonesia, Malaysia and countless African countries.
I did mention that this conference took place in Sydney, right? Sydney, Australia, where Â all the 500 participants at the conference have chosen to live, for god knows what reason, seeing how “unclean” and terrible that country is, how unsuitable for the chosen ones.
God knows what reason – or maybe I know what reason. For being muslim, they also have the duty to go out and make the whole world submit to islam, that’s right. That’s why they sacrifice themselves, going to hardship postings like Australia, Germany and France, away from the comforts of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the lovely Saudi Arabia, that paragon of well – and correctly functioning society.
I’m not in favour of “banning” this and “forbidding” that. But it does seem like people like Hanif are actually the enemy of the countries in which they have settled. Because you don’t for a moment think that when they’ve got the segregation and “one law for muslims only” thing they’re angling for, that they will stop at that? They have been saying one thing and one thing only from the 6th century AD:
That the whole world must be islamic, ruled by sharia law.
This is no secret. Who do so many refuse to believe it?
So when the result of free speech and not banning this and that is that an enemy of a country clearly states within that country that he wants to dismantle that country’s laws and crush it from within, then I’m starting to have a problem with it. And don’t give me the: “I will fight to the death for your right to say it” crap that the muslims never waste any time in invoking. Because they never had any intention of letting anyone else disagree with their views in the first place.
They will fight you to the death if you use your right to say it, though. That’s almost the same.
Oh, look what I just discovered while looking for something else: