Islam Vs Western Countries

Kathleen Moore

I have in front of me an article, dated August 15th to Sept. 15th, 2011 in the AWAJ newspaper published in English — a small free newspaper distributed in Montreal, Quebec.

The author’s name is Dr. R. Raashed, M.A., Ph.D in law from Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia. Dr. Raashed is described as the Director of Islamic Information Services for Australia.

Dr. Raashed says:

“Muslim is an adjective of Islam. Hence there can be no Muslim without Islam. The bottom line is a Muslim can NEVER be a SECULAR.’ … (secularism) ‘represents a great challenge to the national identity of Muslims…”

It specifically discusses a recent secular alteration to the constitution of Bangladesh. Dr. Raashed says:

“The deliberate removal of ‘Trust in God’ from the constitution of Bangladesh, put the current Awami government in a head-on collision course with the Qur’An. Hence, the government is necessarily at an ideological WAR with the believers in this ‘Only Book that contains No Doubt’.”

 Dr. Raashed says, “No matter who devised it — now that such a MAJOR CRIME has been committed by the current government — it is an Islamic obligation on every serious believer to reverse it AT ANY COST. Come what may, the Qu’ran (Koran) will come out victorious. Removal of the accomplice government from office… is the first remedy.”

Now – if SECULARISM is “a MAJOR CRIME” for Muslims, and “a great challenge to the national identity of Muslims” (and I think we must understand “national” here to mean the body of the Muslim people, not merely a geographic territory where the PEOPLE itself is the resident NATION), then:

[a] how can Muslims comply and realistically be ASKED to comply with secular LAWS in any country?

Dr. Raashed also identifies secularism as atheism:

“Sec·u·lar·ism [sek-yuh-luh-riz-uhm], noun, is defined as:

1. secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith and worship.

2. the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the introduction of a religious element.”

[b] How can Muslims NOT view our secular governments as authors of CRIMES against Islam?

[c] How can they therefore NOT — by command of their religion – seek the overthrow of OUR governments by any means, whether overtly, or by stealth, when we foolishly invite them to reside on OUR OWN SOIL?

(As a case in point, Muslims are currently threatening the Royal Palace in UK.)

[d] There clearly can be no such thing as multiculturalism for Islam (there can be none for the West, either… let’s get real);

There can be NO SUCH THING as Muslim adherence to the laws of a non-Islamic government… period.

Muslims don’t acknowledge the authority of such governments. So why is the West deceiving itself that such a thing is possible? Are Western countries blind, deaf, dumb and suicidal?

There is NO REMOTE POSSIBILITY of mutual tolerance on the same soil.

While we are busy self-righteously tolerating THEM – perhaps to show them just how wonderful we are, so they will want to be just like us — they are busy planning to overthrow our governments because they necessarily (unless we’re idiots) see themselves in an ideological WAR with OUR Western culture.

What they have done in the United Kingdom in publicly calling for the overthrow of the royal Palace — as in Constitutional law — is described as HIGH TREASON — as any such threatened overthrow “compasses the death of the Sovereign.”

One, or the other has to go!

It’s either Islam or western culture/government. If on Western soil, the choice had better be Islam, and FAST… unless we want our little granddaughters growing up to wear the Burkha and trained to view their own ancestors as “infidels“.

Kathleen Moore
HABEAS CORPUS CANADA
The Official Legal Challenge
To North American Union

http://www.habeascorpuscanada.com

(My websites are being systematically hacked, including by my Denver-based registrar, domainsite.com, which took all my HCC domains off-line weeks ago. They’re refusing to restore them, although they are all paid up and in good standing. Here are two backups:)

Backup: http://habeascorpuscanada.50webs.com
Backup: http://habeascorpuscanada.webs.com

Plus a Blog exposing the Quebec “secession” scam: http://habeascorpuscanadacomments.blogspot.com

ALSO READ:

Muslim Violence in Canada

Raped in Oslo, Norway

Muslims in Stockholm (Sweden) 

Has DENMARK Learned A Lesson?

************************************

Austrian “Free Speech” Breakthrough

Something WRONG in Great Britain

European Islamization

Related articles

• The Dhimmi is Forbidden to Read the Koran (counterjihadreport.com)
• 70% of American Muslims Say Us Should Impose Sharia: Legalized Polygamy (gunnyg.wordpress.com)
• The Case for Banning Sharia Law in America (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)
• History of the Muslim Brotherhood Penetration of the U.S. Government (creepingsharia.wordpress.com)

Police Uniforms NOT Uniform

Traditional Toronto Police Uniform – 1990s (Female on left)

David Menzies
(via Creeping Sharia)

Whether it’s worn by a police officer, hockey player, usher, or soldier, surely the ostensible reason for donning a uniform is to have, well…. uniformity!?

But things are changing in regard to uniforms at that ever-sensitive “service” formerly known as the Toronto police force.

Indeed, the police have announced they’re going to accommodate Muslim policewomen who want to wear the hijab on duty.

[Related: Toronto Police "Losing Face"

British Police Self-Destructing]

Some might hail such a move as another shining example of “reasonable accommodation”. Others, count me among them — look upon this directive as another assault against our Canadian traditions.

Yet again, another public institution appears to be bowing to the tyranny of political correctness — bending over backwards to accommodate certain individuals, some of whom are quite unaccommodating of western values.

The question arises:  What’s driving this directive? Why is it important for the police to have hijab-wearing policewomen in the first place?

Photo: “British” Policewomen! 

Contrary to widespread popular belief, the Qur’an does not mandate Muslim women to wear the hijab.

In this regard, the apparel accommodation isn’t the same as allowing a Sikh to wear a turban.

 <<What Canadian city? (<click)

(I’d also argue there’s an historical reason for permitting Sikhs to wear turbans, given that Sikh military brigades have long been an integral part of the British Empire.) (ELN editor disagrees)

If anything, the hijab is a political statement and a symbol of fundamentalism.

In some cases, a woman wearing such a headscarf is being pressured by her family to do so (case in point, the dearly departed Aqsa Parvez.)

Either way, seeing such a garment as part of a police uniform is odd. Imagine if a citizen was to call the cops regarding a suspected “honour” killing in the neighbourhood and the policewoman who responds is decked out in a hijab? Would this not be unsettling?

Or a real honor killing: Multiple honor killings in Canada: “God’s curse on them for generations. May the devil … (expletive) on their graves … They betrayed Islam.”

Also, the police have surely put themselves in a sticky situation regarding haberdashery accommodation.

For example, if a female police officer demands that she be allowed to wear a niqab or a burqa, how could such a request possibly be denied, given the precedent that’s been set with the hijab?

Indeed, just how far do we take “reasonable accommodation” in the police department?

Do Muslim police officers reserve the right not to work with the Canine Unit, given that many Muslims consider dogs “unclean”?

Will ham sandwiches be banned from police stations due to dietary restrictions?

As well, is there not a profound double-standard at play here?

For example, here’s a scenario I’d find most amusing to observe: Imagine “Constable Duncan MacDonald,” who is of Scottish heritage, waltzes into the station tomorrow decked out in a ceremonial kilt, complete with sporran. How many nanoseconds would tick by before P.C. MacDonald is hauled before a supervisor and sternly disciplined?

Something is indeed rotten these days when it comes to sensitivity issues.

Consider the plight of Tarek Fatah. This moderate Muslim author has been subjected to written death threats from radical Muslims, yet the police have decided not to lay charges.

And, full disclosure: Last summer at Toronto’s Yonge Dundas Square, your correspondent was punched in the face by a hijab-wearing woman who objected to me taking pictures. Even though the assault was photographed and eye-witnessed… police declined to lay charges.

What’s wrong with this picture?  -Original Source-

ALSO:

ANTI-White Police Hiring (Canada)

Police Surrender to Diversity (Canada)

Wanted: LESS Qualified Police (U.S.A.)

Affirmative-Action Destroying Effectiveness