(Edward Said, practising his bowling for
the Palestinian cricket team.)
When will all this bowing to ‘Islamic sensitivities’ come to end? When we live in a sharia-based society? When we submit to an Islamic state?
Of course Muslims start with the small things. Then they will argue for the bigger things. They would and will not demand full sharia, compulsory jihad service or a mosque for every thousand Muslims at first. But this is not Muslim moderation. It is Muslim common sense. Why ask for the big things when you know they will be rejected? Why demand large-scale changes when such demands may work against the spread of Islam in the longer term?
So instead Muslims demand various small things knowing that many small separate concessions and accommodations will soon add up to a single big set (when given enough time).
One day I woke up to view the multicultural world and saw a sharia-governed world instead. Multicultural society had become an Islamic society.
This man did not see this coming because all he saw, from day to day, were the small accommodations or concessions to Muslims. Things like single-sex swimming baths, halal meat, more mosques, Muslim organisations and community leaders gaining more power and influence, non-Muslims women being forced to wear the hijab in Muslim areas or in Islamic buildings, etc. Bugger this! Here’s a longer list of accommodations and concessions. (Skip past the red if it gets a bit boring.):
*) Sell land at discount prices for building mosques or other Islamic institutions (Dudley!!).
*) Ban Hindus and Jews from a jury hearing a criminal case against an Islamist in Great Britain.
*) Allow a prisoner the unheard-of right to avoid strip-searches in New York State.
*) Let students in public (i.e., taxpayer-funded) schools use empty classrooms for prayers in New Jersey.
*) Permit public schools and public airwaves to be used to convert non-Muslims.
*) Recognize polygamous marriages for tax purposes in the United Kingdom.
*) Set aside women-only bathing at a municipal swimming pool in France or use taxpayer funds for Muslim women-only swimming times in Washington State.
*) Arrange for women-only classes at a taxpayer-supported university.
*) Blame women for being the victims of rape by Muslim men in Norway.
*) Develop a special hijab for female Muslim employees of a leading home furnishing company, sporting the corporate logo.
*) Ban the use of piggybanks - the symbol of frugality in their advertising by two major British banks.
*) Establish panels, councils, or advisory boards uniquely for Muslims.
*) Authorize Muslim-only neighbourhoods or events.
*) Apply the "Rushdie rules" accepting Islamist intimidation and silencing critics of Islam.
*) Punish anti-Islamic views through the application of criminal charges, as has occurred to critics of Islam in Australia and Canada.
*) Prohibit families from sending pork or pork by-products or "Any matter containing religious materials contrary to Islamic faith" to U.S. military personnel serving in the Middle East.
*) Require that female American soldiers in Saudi Arabia wear U.S. government-issued abayas.
*) Secure a charter from the New York City Department of Education to open an Arabic-themed public school.
*) Lead Muslim students in prayer at a public San Diego elementary school.
*) Allow women in Ohio, California, and New York to have their drivers license photos taken with hijabs on.
*) Designate the port of Rotterdam as compliant with Sharia law.
*) Construct Islamic toilets at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland.
*) Construct prayer facilities in public bathrooms at the University of Michigans Dearborn campus.
*) Appoint a "special envoy" of the United States government to the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).
*) Compel teachers and students to don Muslim garb to mark the end of Ramadan.
*) Forward plans to dig up portions of an historic London cemetery to make space for a "multi-faith" graveyard.
*) Allow cab drivers in Vancouver, B.C. to refuse certified guide dogs for reasons of religious conviction.
*) Admonish doctors and nurses in Scotland to refrain from eating in front of their Muslim patients and colleagues during the month of Ramadan.
*) Propose that people of all faiths refer to God as Allah to "create more dialogue."
*) Match couples through arranged marriages on a public television dating show.
*) Allow Muslim sex offenders in Great Britain to opt out of a prison treatment program because it is "against Islamic teachings to discuss your offence to anyone."
The throwing of shoes sounds a little inconsequential and of course silly. But it is one of very many small accommodations or concessions to Muslims. It is also a another symbolic victory. This victory is what matters to Muslims even if the concession itself is not that important. It is the victory that is important. The more Islamic victories the better; even the victory of being allowed to throw your shoes at the infidel.
Scotland Yard doesn’t seem to be worried about this accommodation or concession. After all, it hasn’t worried about all the other accommodations or concessions. And we still aren’t living in a sharia-governed society. So what’s there to worry about?
More importantly, however, the police want to bring about more ‘community cohesion’. They want us to ‘embrace diversity’. They also want us to ‘embrace cohesion’ and create ‘community diversity’. Or at least the big knobs in the police do. The ones at the top. The ones who admire Tony Blair and the religion of Political Correctness. The ones who don’t want to upset PC MPs and PC councillors. Police leaders like Chris Sims of the West Midlands Police who wrote an article against the English Defence League and told us how nice Unite Against Fascism is. Or the ones who say such things to further their careers or keep themselves in their jobs. They must also be frightened of New Labour keeping an eye on their levels of political correctness.
This latest accommodation/concession is actually the end result of a series of trials of more than 70 Muslim demonstrators who were charged with violent disorder after last year’s Gaza protests outside the Israeli embassy in London.
It’s only shoes. They can’t hurt anyone. It is only symbolic after all.
Perhaps the next accommodation/concession, or victory, for Muslims will be their being allowed to lob stones and rocks instead. After all, these were demos against Israel. And Muslims love to throw stones at the evil Israeli state. Why not? Stones don’t kill.
Hamas moved on from stones to bombs and guns. There is only a small amount of damage a Muslim can do with a single pair of shoes – although they could of course stock up on shoes or borrow someone else’s.
Perhaps after rocks and stones we will have an intermediary between rocks and Hamas's bombs. What about criminal damage - like smashing windows? After all, Muslims need to vent their anger towards the Israelis. And why not? The Israeli state in the outlaw state. So you can understand that a little criminal damage is but a tiny protest against a state that is far worse than Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Russia.
… What about small bits of arson?....
One Muslim, Aquib Salim, an IT student at Queen Mary's College, London University, was involved in a throwing accident. He threw a stick… Hang on a minute. A stick, not a shoe? Yes, a stick. So what about a small petrol bomb or a bag of iron objects? Don’t be fascist or Islamophobic about this. These are the freedoms of Muslims we are talking about.
Even the Judge in this case was nicely accommodating. His name: Judge Denniss. He said that the shoe-throwing was a ‘symbolic act’, not a ‘criminal act of violence’. You see judges a very different nowadays. In the old days the Left had an image of them as being aging reactionary bigots from public schools. Now they are PC, but often still from public schools. They, as much as anyone else, believe that we should ‘embrace diversity’ and attempt to create ‘community cohesion’. And you can’t do these things if you send Muslims to prison for throwing shoes, or sticks, or rocks, or petrol bombs…
Why shoes? Shoes are regarded as ‘ritually unclean’ in the Islamic world. And if the Islamic world regards shoes as ritually unclean, and therefore throw-able, then shoes are ritually unclean, and therefore throw-able. Dogs are seen in this way too in Islamic society. Perhaps dogs should be banned from Muslim areas. (Are brand-new shoes seen as ritually unclean?)
Actually, even though the ritually unclean bit is part of Islamic custom, the throwing bit is largely a recent phenomenon. Remember the Iraqi journalist who threw a shoe at President Bush for getting rid of the psychotic mass killer Saddam Hussein? He was jailed for three years in Iraq. Three years is a lot longer than the non-sentence the British Muslim got. In fact it is three years longer. So whereas Muntadhar al-Zaidi is seen as a hero; the British shoe-thrower may not be seen that way.
I mentioned the slippery slope from shoes to rocks to petrol bombs to real bombs. I was a too quick. Muslim demonstrators didn’t just pelt shoes at Downing Street recently (because of the Government not being in favour of the annihilation of the state of Israel), they lobbed ski-boots and clogs. What about Iron Man’s boots? Would they count?
Was this, then, a ‘victory for multiculturalism’? I think it was more a victory for Muslims. Full stop. More than that. It was a victory for biculturalism not multiculturalism. For Muslims against the rest. The ethnic minorities who are now actually a part of ‘the rest’ don’t get their way as often as Muslims do. Indeed they don’t even demand as much as Muslims do. They do not see themselves as a special category which should receive special accommodation from the state and from local councils. It is the Muslim self-created ghetto-isation that is partly responsible for this unquenchable thirst for accommodation and concession. And what is accommodated or conceded is not usually part of the British landscape. The more separate Muslims become, the more they will demand. The more they will both expect and demand. These demands will of course become more aggressive and much more frequent.