Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The West and its Inevitable Surrender to Islam

The West and its Inevitable Surrender to Islam

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Muslims as well as the authorities are again crying foul over discrimination. Last week there were two incidents in this regard. In the first, a Muslim-American woman has sued Southwest airlines alleging she was discriminated against as she was wearing an Islamic head covering. In the second, Ohio officials decided to remove all pork products from prison menus.

On the first case, the justification provided by Southwest airlines was that the crew found it uncomfortable flying with a lady wearing a head covering. This justification was that the safety concerns of the other passengers had to be taken into consideration. in the second case, in response to a lawsuit by Muslim inmates,   Ohio joined California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts among states that don’t serve pork in prisons.

Like any individual, the woman in the first case has the right to practice his or her religion. But in a secular society religion is a personal matter and the apprehensions of the society has to be respected by one and all. The arguments by the women and the advocates of radical Islam that she was discriminated against on religious grounds for practicing Islam is not credible, as she was not following other prescriptions of Islamic law.  For example, she was not escorted by a close male relative, as instructed by the stringent laws of Islam.

Let us not forget that a great many burqa clad suicide bombers have exploded themselves killing many innocents. The final judgment of the court in the case of a woman flying with her face covered with a hijab remains to be determined, but based on past examples the courts are likely to find in favor of the airline.

In the second example, Ohio officials removed all food products containing pork from the menu in prisons in response to a lawsuit by Muslim inmates, an issue already resolved in California, Florida, Maryland and Massachusetts by not serving pork in prisons.

If media reports are to be believed, the Muslim inmates did not even invoke the term ‘Pork’ at all. They just demanded that they should be served halal food as per the guidelines of Islamic law. With the fact that the Jewish inmates are served kosher food, the plea of the Muslim inmates for halal food is reasonable. But here, the officials went one step beyond what was requested and  took away all pork containing food products from the menu, putting non Muslim inmates and non Jewish inmates in an uncomfortable position, just to establish that the state is a defender of secular, liberal and egalitarian values.

The west has already started surrendering to Islam and is prepared for surrender forever. For a clearer example, in the UK authorities decided that all the graves in a multi-faith cemetery should be directed towards Mecca in respect of the Muslim religious sentiments. Even in this case, in the name of respect towards Islam, Islam was imposed on the believers of all religions.

Here lies the kernel of the issue and the gravity of the menace awaiting west. Besides being a tiny minority, the rational and irrational demands of Muslims are given disproportional consideration and the state responds with extra privileges for Muslims at the cost of others. In the name of multiculturalism, the British airlines prohibited Christian crew members from wearing the holy cross, but at the same time Muslim crew members were allowed to disclose their religious identity including the right to be dressed on duty in traditional Islamic style. Agreed there are measures in the opposite direction as well, as France banned display of all religious icons in public. But in a free society such measures elicit sharp criticism of the government.

It seems as if the self proclaimed proponents of multiculturalism, secularism and liberalism are digging their own grave in favor of an Islamic Caliphate, the Ummah or a Eurabia.   From the Muslim demands and from the subsequent state rewards, we can only reach a very catastrophic conclusion. Given the Islamic strategy of the past, we have to conclude that when Muslims claim discrimination in a society where they are not so predominant, they secure extra privileges from the dominant population, and there will come a time in future when Muslims become dominant in those society. At that time in future, the same agitators we see todaywill impose the most inhumane, illogical and irrational discrimination on the current majority, rebuilding society on the model seen from Saudi Arabia to Iran to Pakistan to almost the entire Islamic world.

Powered by

About Dileep Yogi

  • Glenn Contrarian

    You’re forgetting the importance of oil, for without oil, the Middle East would be just another backwater.

    Furthermore, you’re ignoring the march of history, which has always been towards the liberal, towards human rights. Of course the world has backslid many times, and other times almost ossified in its progress, but the world now is more liberal than it has ever been…and it will continue to do so as long as we have mass communications and the internet.

    And all of this has a real effect on every religion – including Islam. That’s why Saudi Arabia finally gave women the right to vote this last week.

  • Frank Courser

    Well said Glenn, It is a global society we live in today and communication and fast and cheap transportation has helped to bring that about. It is very true that while we adopt and tolerate many customs other other cultures our customs are in turn being adopted. This brings about better understanding and tolerance of the diverse world we in! Something that should be embraced,not rejected.

  • Aaron Hussain

    The criticism of Muslims asking to accomodate their religious practices is valid however it is unreasonable. Muslims in the two cases presented (traveling women wearing islamic attire and Muslim inmates asking for acceptable food) logically should not bear any extra burden on government officials or authority. It was the prison’s choice to stop serving pork, because it was easy for them, not because the inmates asked for an irregular request. As for the Muslim woman who was traveling, your bringing up the fact that she was not traveling with a male escort has not bearing on the fact that her requests should be accommodated for. For example, a lost toddler who is hungry should not be denied the request for food just because he/she is in public without proper supervision.

    If pork is removed from the lunch menu at the state prison, that does not place a burden on non-Muslims, because in a state or county jail, you dont expect the variety of a 5-star hotel/restaurant (its jail, the same place where “jackmack” is being served). As long as inmates get their nutrition for the day, it’s fine for them. As for the traveler, we all know that she did not pose any kind of threat.

    If logic and reasoning is used in the minds of citizens around the world, religious tolerance will be increased towards everyone.

  • Aaron Hussain

    Correction:

    Excuse me for calling the argument in the blog “valid” since validity cannot be attributed to an argument that does not follow logic.

  • Clavos

    If logic and reasoning is used in the minds of citizens around the world, religious tolerance will be increased towards everyone.

    Except for those of us who see all religions as bogus…

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Aaron –

    There are those of us who are American who strongly condemn what our corporate-driven foreign policy has caused in the Middle East over the generations, at least as far back as the Bush family bankrolling the House of Saud long before WWII. And we weren’t the only ones – England was just as meddlesome.

    But your logic leaves something to be desired, specifically that a Muslim’s desire not to eat a certain food does NOT mean that it should be denied to non-Muslims.

    For instance, in the Philippines, most restaurants serve something called “dinaguan” – blood pudding. The eating of blood is specifically prohibited in the Bible (but the Catholic teachings twist the words of the Bible in order to allow it). I will not order dinaguan nor touch it, and neither will anyone else who belongs to the Church of which I am a member (btw – we are not trinitarians. Like Muslims and Jews, we believe that only God is God, and that Jesus was only a Man and not God)

    BUT as offensive as dinaguan is, we do not agitate for removing it from the menus of those who do not see how wrong it is in the eyes of God. Why? There’s a verse wherein Apostle Paul states that he can judge those within the Church, but not those outside the Church. For those who are not Christian (though they claim to be), we are not to judge them – such is the sole province of God.

    Respect each other’s beliefs, absolutely! But do not force your beliefs on others by agitating for the powers that be to take away something that has been part of their menu and culture for many, many centuries.

  • guest

    Author does not cite his sources when he says a muslim woman can not travel without a male relative-that is untrue. There is no Quran prohibition for a woman to travel alone. There is a debate on allowing a woman to travel for more than 3 days alone-but this flight was only for a couple of hours.

    Therefore, Dileep you are nothing more than a liar!

  • eee

    Dileep states a woman covering her face and wearing a head scarf-this woman was not covering her face. In fact the head scarf she is wearing is more like a dupatta. Dileep, I know you are Indian. Many Indian women including Hindus wear dupattas to cover their hair. I have seen it on many occasions. This practice is nothing new or to the contrary of what you are used to. Yet, you seem quite opposed to a woman covering her hair. In Rajasthan, Hindu woman cover their faces to and even wear burqa like dresses-which you fail to mention.

    When you say Muslims will take over and commit inhumane acts-Im sure you must not be refering to the hindu rig veda
    ??? ??????????? ??????????????? ??????? ????????? |
    ???????.??????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????????? || (RV 10.18.7)
    Which literally calls for a widow to be killed…at least that won’t happen!

  • eee

    the question marks refer to the verse in hindi, which i guess this comment section does not understand.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    “guest” –

    Whatever the Qur’an says, in Saudi Arabia a woman is not allowed to drive a car and is not allowed to go anywhere alone. In this respect, the fact that Saudi Arabia’s laws go far beyond what is in the Qur’an is no different from American law going far beyond what Jesus taught in the Bible – for instance, Jesus did NOT advocate the death penalty. He did the opposite, in fact.

  • http://blogcritics.org/writers/dr-dreadful/ Dr Dreadful

    An abysmally written article that demolishes half of its own argument and provides no citations except for a link to the website of a corporation whose name it can’t even get right despite the brand being known around the world should be taken with a large and unhealthy helping of salt.

    In the case of the Southwest Airlines incident, the pilots were idiots but, as Mr Yogi himself comments, the courts are likely to rule in favour of the scaremongerers, as they do in virtually every air paranoia-related case. That hardly seems like “surrendering to Islam” to me.

    And the actual facts of that case are that a flight attendant wigged out after mistakenly thinking she’d heard the woman say “it’s a go” (i.e. the hijacking will proceed as planned) when what she actually said was “I’ve got to go” (i.e. to the bathroom). Again, idiotic as it was, acting as though everyone wearing a headscarf is a terrorist is hardly a symptom of submitting to Islam.

    The Ohio prison system’s decision to remove pork from its menus is pragmatic. Since the meat Jews and Muslims eat isn’t supposed to even come into contact with non-kosher and non-halal food during preparation, it’s cheaper to respect religious practices by simply not serving pork than to have three separate kitchens in every prison.

    In the British Airways case, the airline has a policy regarding jewellery which the employee’s wearing of a cross infringed. It is not a tenet of the Christian faith that one must wear or display religious symbols. It is a tenet of certain other faiths, such as Islam and Sikhism, that certain clothing must be worn. Therefore, as the industrial tribunal quite correctly ruled, the employee’s religious freedom was not being curtailed by BA’s actions, nor was she being discriminated against because of her Christianity.

    So to sum up, the first incident Mr Yogi cites is a terrible example to put forward in support of his argument, since it disproves it instead; and the actions of the alleged kowtowers in the other two were entirely sound. To prove his case, he would have to have shown that Ohio and BA were acting irrationally, which they were clearly not.