And I do mean uproar! From both sides of the debate about the recent vote by the Swiss to ban Muslim minarets – or “bayonets,” as they’ve been styled – we are hearing loud noises, howls on the one hand and cheers on the other. The internet buzz seems to be a resounding “HEAR, HEAR, Switzerland!,”* while the “dignified” politicos and organizations such as the Vatican and Muslim and left-wing groups are squawking about “discrimination,” “racism” and “Islamophobia.” Right-wingers hope this self-preserving move on the part of the Swiss will inspire many more to prevent the Islamization of Europe and other parts of the world. As the Guardian UK reports:
…far right leaders in Europe applauded the Swiss vote and called for parallel prohibitions in other countries.
“The flag of a courageous Switzerland which wants to remain Christian is flying over a near-Islamised Europe,” said Mario Borghezio, an MEP from Italy’s anti-immigrant Northern League.
In the Netherlands, the anti-Muslim Freedom party of Geert Wilders, which is steadily growing in popularity, called for a similar vote for the Dutch. “It’s the first time that people in Europe have stood up to a form of Islamisation,” it declared.
The “right-wing” group Stop the Islamization of Europe is organizing a rally on December 13, 2009 to prevent more mosque building in the United Kingdom, while a ban on all mosque building in non-Muslim lands is being called for around the internet.
Tit for tat!
Concerning the Swiss minaret ban, Former Muslim United founder Nonie Darwish issued a statement lauding the move, remarking:
…many Muslim groups are denouncing the ban as oppression to freedom of religion. However, such Muslim groups will be more credible if they first denounced the oppression of religious minorities in Muslim countries who make it illegal to practice any religion other than Islam. Muslim groups who claim that they are oppressed in Europe should be the first to stand up and yell “not in the name of my religion” when Churches are burned in Muslim countries. But instead all we hear from Muslim groups is “I am a victim” and “I am offended” while the blood of non-Muslims is being shed in the name of Sharia….
In this regard, an article discussing how many of the Muslims in Switzerland are Turks and how they will be hurt by the ban also highlights how churches all over Turkey are being closed. Why? For want of worshippers, of course, because like much of the Muslim world EU-candidate Turkey has made itself extremely inhospitable to non-Muslims of all stripes. Why not, then, insist that a moratorium be put on mosque-building in non-Muslim lands until the Muslim countries stop persecuting non-Muslims in their countries? How about a reverse flood of immigration by non-Muslims into Muslim lands?
“Intolerant” of diversity?
Instead of revealing the Swiss’s “intolerance” of other cultures, the ban actually demonstrates their concern for all those who would be oppressed, persecuted or annihilated under Islamic domination, as reflected in many Muslim countries. As Brigitte Gabriel’s Act for America organization states:
The effect of the Swiss vote could be summarized as follows: “We are going to protect diversity and freedom of religion by no longer surrendering to Islamist intolerance of diversity and freedom of religion.”
Under Islamic or sharia law, women, children, gays and non-Muslims suffer tremendous inequality. Preventing Islamization, therefore, represents a step in the protection of these diverse groups.
Rivers of crocodile tears
In its article on the Swiss ban, the Guardian UK presents the opposite view, relating:
Muslim leaders from around the world, senior church figures, European politicians and human rights experts have deplored Switzerland’s decision to ban the building of minarets.
The polarising verdict in a Swiss referendum held yesterday raised fundamental questions about discrimination and freedom of religion, with the Swiss government itself doubtful over whether the popular vote could be translated into national law, as required by the country’s system of direct democracy.
“Scandalous,” said the French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, while Babacar Ba, a senior official of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, warned of an “upsurge in Islamophobia” in Europe.
The BBC also reports upon the “moral outrage” over the ban:
The Vatican on Monday endorsed a statement by the conference of Swiss Bishops criticising the vote for heightening “the problems of cohabitation between religions and cultures”.
Egypt’s Grand Mufti Ali Gomaa described the ban as an insult to the feelings of the Muslim community in Switzerland and elsewhere.
Sunday’s surprise result also prompted dismay from secular leaders in Europe….
Amnesty International said the vote violated freedom of religion and would probably be overturned by the Swiss supreme court or the European Court of Human Rights.
So many crocodile tears! Is the pope given free reign to build Catholic churches and cathedrals in Muslim nations? Is Egypt’s Grand Mufti concerned about the destruction of the ancient Christian Coptic community in his country? Are secularists protected and freethought and atheism fostered in Dar al-Islam? Does Amnesty International have anything to say about the native populations that are ultimately destroyed wherever Islam gets a serious foothold? How about the treatment of non-Muslims, women, gays, et al., in the Muslim world? Any concern at all?
Islamophobia versus Infidelophobia
Naturally, the word “Islamophobia” is being thrown around like the cheap shot that it is. Why isn’t there anything like “Buddhismophobia?” or “Hinduismophobia?” Perhaps, because, Buddhists and Hindus don’t go around the world attempting to usurp the native populations? The degree of “Islamophobia” is commensurate with the degree of aggression on the part of Muslims, period.
The bottom line is that when the Saudi kingdom and the rest of the Muslim world stops being Infidelophobic, perhaps the non-Muslims will respond in like kind. But not until then. Of course, that would mean vetting the Koran of the numerous infidel-hating passages, so no one is holding their breath.
Fear of the “religion of peace?!”
One of the arguments against the ban, as proferred by the Swiss foreign minister, Micheline Calmy-Rey, – a clear candidate for dhimwit of the month – has been that there will be violent backlash, i.e., terrorist acts, against the Swiss. As Calmy-Rey remarks:
“Provocation risks triggering other provocation and risks inflaming extremism.”
In other words, if we don’t appease Islamic sensibilities, Muslim fanatics will start blowing up things and murdering people. Just give the schoolyard bully his money so that he will go away and attack somebody else instead! As Sir Winston Churchill said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”
But, why oh why, should we be worried about people who follow the peaceful religion of Islam? Isn’t it just mindless Islamophobia to suggest that members of the religion of peace will become violent? It’s just crazy people hijacking the peaceful faith!
Where are the Western leaders?
Many citizens of non-Muslim countries have asked, where are our political leaders while our lands are being yielded to hordes of non-assimilating immigrants? If author Bat Ye’or is correct about the deliberate plot of Eurabia, the political leaders are not only aware of the danger, they are bringing it about on purpose. They have been bought off by Saudi oil money and have made agreements much as was done by Pagan leaders in the face of a Christian onslaught centuries ago, or the African tribal leaders who sold their own people into slavery. In the planned Islamic global caliphate, the non-Muslim leaders will be allowed to rule as dhimmi puppets – as they seem to be already.
For a variety of reasons including national security, the world desperately need to get off the oil standard and to stop giving trillion$ to the Saudis and other Muslim oil-producing nations, such as Iran. It may be too late, however, as the Islamists have gotten their hooks into many other businesses, and with sharia banking being pushed everywhere, they will continue to reap from practically any transaction.
Remember the Golden Rule: He who owns the gold, rules. So, why not boycott products from Muslim nations, like they are always doing with those who reject Islamization or who “insult” Islam?
* New (informal) statistics regarding the Swiss ban showing overwhelming support for restricted Islamization in Europe:
* France: 49,000 readers at Le Figaro, by a 73-27 percent margin, would vote to ban new minarets in their country. 24,000 readers at L’Express agreed by an 86-12 percent margin, with 2 percent undecided. A leading columnist, Ivan Rioufol of Le Figaro, wrote an article titled “Homage to the Resistance of the Swiss People.” President Nicolas Sarkozy was quoted as saying that “the people, in Switzerland as in France, don’t want their country to change, that it be denatured. They want to keep their identity.”
* Germany: 29.000 readers at Der Spiegel voted 76-21 percent, with 2 percent undecided, to ban minarets in Germany. 17,000 readers of Die Welt voted 82-16 in favor of “Yes, I feel cramped by minarets” over “No, freedom of religion is constrained.”
* Spain: 14,000 readers of 20 Minutos voted 93-6 percent in favor of the statement “Good, we must curb Islamization’s growing presence” and against “Bad, it is an obstacle to the integration of immigrants.” 35,000 readers of El Mondo replied 80-20 percent that they support a Swiss-like banning of minarets.
Sources & Further Reading
Swiss ban on minarets draws widespread condemnation
Vatican and Muslims condemn Swiss minaret ban vote
Former Muslims United Applauds Swiss Referendum Victory banning Minarets, ‘the Bayonets of Islam’
Minaret ban ‘a security risk’ – Swiss minister
Islam is not a race
‘Death to Islamophobes!’
Swiss Minarets and European Islam