« Bumper sticker fodder | Main | A Day To Remember »

Fool Brittania

One of the defining elements of Islamic law is an inherent double standard. There are distinctions drawn between Muslims and non-Muslims. There are special laws that apply only to the kafir, and not the faithful. The penalties for the kafir are much stricter. And the word of a kafir is essentially meaningless if it is contradicted by a Muslim.

There's a strict caste system in Islamic law. At the top are Islamic men. In the middle (I'm not quite certain how they rate against each other) are Muslim women and kafir men. And at the bottom, kafir women.

This is, of course, in stark contrast to Western law, where all are (in theory and, generally) equal before the law.

Which what makes what is happening in England equally tragic and infuriating. There Islamic law is creeping to general acceptance, and hardly anyone is complaining. Not even when the changes area actually dangerous.

One of the bigger dangers in health care is the passing of infections in hospitals. There's an old joke about how if you're not feeling well, stay away from hospitals -- they're full of sick people. There's a grain of truth to that, and hospitals around the world have gone on major cleanliness kicks. Hand sanitizers available all over the place, special sensors that go off when a health care worker doesn't wash thoroughly before leaving a rest room, intensive studies into how and when infections spread -- it's remarkable. Hospitals have discovered that they can make vast improvements in the health of their patients by such simple steps.

But in England, that isn't a concern. Hospitals realized that bare skin was easier to decontaminate than clothing, so they started requiring their workers to wear short sleeves. The logic: get the clothing up and away from where it might touch patients, and have the workers clean their hands and arms right up to their elbows to kill any germs that they might pick up from a patient. Simple solution, very elegant, very effective.

Unless you're a Muslim. Then the stricture that Muslim women must cover every possible inch of themselves at all times takes precedence. (This is based on the theory that all men are savage, uncontrolled beasts who can at any time be provoked into a lustful fury at the slightest glimpse of female skin. And since it's unreasonable to assume men should have any responsibility for their actions, it's the job of women to avoid offering even the slightest provocation lest they be assaulted -- which is, naturally, their fault and will result in the men being excused and the woman blamed for the attack, because the filthy whore asked for it by letting the man see her forearm or ankle or something. And since the filthy whore was asking for it, she's a fornicator and should be punished, even by death. The guy? He should be more careful to not be around such filthy whores.)

Anyway, back to the British hospitals. The thoroughly researched and documented theory seems to be that Allah will keep the germs from attaching themselves to the sleeves of Muslim women, protecting all -- even the dirty kafir -- from harm. It's only the kafir themselves -- because they lack faith in Allah -- who are at risk for spreading these germs. So they, obviously, should be subjected to the rules about sleeves and cleansing.

I can't wait for the first patient to shy away from a Muslim nurse or doctor who comes by, all clad up like a mummy. If they dare complain or even flinch, they will be running the risk of being charged with discrimination or even a hate crime. How dare they put their own lives ahead of properly expressing religious tolerance? What kind of idiot would put science ahead of the benevolence of Allah, even for us kafir?

Meanwhile, there's another exception being carved out in British law for Muslims -- this one a bit more common, but potentially even more dangerous. It's essentially legalizing assault and battery.

Ever been to a public protest? Ever gone out to some kind of gathering or rally, and gotten really worked up? Ever gotten so upset that you just have to lash out at the target of your ire, that you get so mad that you have to just throw something?

Well, if you do that in most civilized societies, you can expect to be arrested and/or get your ass kicked by the authorities. And to be perfectly honest, that's fair. Especially since the authorities are most often the target of those missiles.

But now in Britain, there's a new, legal "Get Out Of Jail, Free" card. All you have to do is obey two simple restrictions:

1) Limit your choice of missiles to shoes.

2) Shout "Allahu Ackbar!" or "Ulululululu!" as you hurl it.

That's it. Because the English decided that "throwing shoes" is a traditional Islamic form of expression, they have to respect that and allow themselves to be pummeled in footwear.

Even especially old, rank shoes.

Or steel-toed shoes.

Or stiletto heels. (Remember "Single White Female?" Jennifer Jason Leigh killed Judge Reinhold with one to the temple. It's not that fantastic.)

This is a warning we should take good note of. In the name of "respect" and "tolerance," the British are literally endangering the life and safety of people to cater to petty bigotries and superstitions of an increasingly-demanding minority -- that is getting used to getting its way through threats and intimidation.

This is not the British Empire of old. One of my favorite tales is from the days when India was a British colony. Certain groups had a despicable religous practice called "sati" -- requiring a widow to throw herself on her late husband's funeral pyre, immolating herself. General Sir James Napier, serving in India, was approached by a delegation of Hindus who beseeched him to lift the ban on the practice. General Napier's response has become the stuff of legend:

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

England could use some new General Sir James Napiers today, people who understand that "diversity" and "tolerance" do not trump common sense and the common good.

And so could we.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (24)

Amazing what you can 'accom... (Below threshold)

Amazing what you can 'accomplish' when you preach one-way tolerance.

Let me save the trolls some... (Below threshold)

Let me save the trolls some time.


"Hey, Bruce, check back in ... (Below threshold)

"Hey, Bruce, check back in on the main page around 5:00 Eastern tomorrow morning. You're getting your very own shout-out." - JT


The problem of Islamic cult... (Below threshold)

The problem of Islamic culture (as well as jihad) seeping into Western nations can not be addressed without mentioning Islamic immigration. The only way to limit (or end) Islamic cultural, political, religious influences, is to limit or end Muslim immigration. Only way, period. Everything else is fol de rol (blah, blah, blah...).

And I thought the bower in ... (Below threshold)

And I thought the bower in chief was submissive.. Holy cow!

This fits into the theory o... (Below threshold)

This fits into the theory of the "death phalanx" .. those events that happen when inexperienced Islamic soldiers hear a loud noise and go off and start shooting in all directions. The theory holds that if you are hit by a stray bullet, it is Allah's will.

Hmmm, if Allah already will... (Below threshold)

Hmmm, if Allah already willed for the Muslim to get sick, why do they still seek treatment? You would think Allah wouldn't be so quick to change his mind.

As far as the women wrapped like a mummy, that seems more to be a sign of the extremist than a mainline requirement. I always attributed it to one of two reaons. 1) Maybe the women are hideously ugly and they are hidden away as courtesy to the rest of us of 2) The Muslim men that require hiding all female flesh have such an inferiority complex that they can't stand the thought of someone deciding to take their women away from them.

This is an example of an at... (Below threshold)

This is an example of an attitude that I would call a cancer growing in the free world. It started many years ago and is only now beginning to seem suspicious to so many of us. I pray this "tolerance" will not become a stage 4 by the time we all begin to aggressively try to kill it.

England. They're about 20 -... (Below threshold)

England. They're about 20 - 30 years ahead of us; this is where we're headed.

The terrorist of muslim bac... (Below threshold)

The terrorist of muslim backround cause havoc around the world and countries/people bow to them? What the hell is going on? You would think people through out the world would unite against this extreme faith and yet so many are tripping over themselves to be tolerate. Well, the more tolerate (another over used word) these jerks become the less tolerate I am becoming. And guess what I don't give a damn. I don't have to like them, for what to please some asshole liberal??? (excuse my unlady like language, but this really burns me up)
Exempting them for health procedures because of their silly beliefs goes beyond the pale. Stuff like this is what sane people are protesting against. Maybe a little bit of intolerance is in order.... woo...I can hear the trolls now choking on their own spit.

There's a strict caste s... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

There's a strict caste system in Islamic law.


The caste system is not part of Islamic Law. Islamic Law states that all believers are equal in the eyes of God. The caste system has only been adopted by Muslims living in countries that are traditionally Hindu.

It should be noted that Christians living in India have also adopted the caste system, yet one would not make a general statement that Christianity is a caste based religion.




people who underst... (Below threshold)
people who understand that "diversity" and "tolerance" do not trump common sense and the common good.

'Tolerance' is too often used when the more appropriate word is 'pacifist'. Britain has, to coin a phrase, institutionalized pacifism.

I think the word you were l... (Below threshold)

I think the word you were looking for is "complacency".

The Brits have decided that society needs guidance from cradle to grave and as other 'cultures', and I use that term loosely, move in and not only keep but push theirs onto the society they've moved into you see this happening. Pervasively across the European continent it is happening and there isn't much push back in the countries where large numbers of Muslims have established enclaves, supported by the societies governments that they've moved into social services...from cradle to grave.

So sets the sun on the British Empire.

Tina, I used "caste" in the... (Below threshold)

Tina, I used "caste" in the generic sense, not a specific one, to describe how Islamic law has a rigid, stratified system for how various groups rank.

Let me make it up close and personal for you.

If a woman brings a charge of rape against a Muslim man in a Sharia court, she better have two Muslim men as witnesses to support her charge. Otherwise she has confessed to fornication, and is likely to be sentenced to death.

While you're chewing over that one, think about this angle: what kind of society would presume that if two upstanding men saw a man raping a woman, they would simply observe the instance so they can properly testify about it in court, and not intervene on behalf of the woman?

You wanna argue in defense of those kinds of cultural values? Be my guest. I'll pass.

I have no problem speaking "hatefully" about those practices, and denouncing their "tolerance" for even an instant.


If a woman brings a char... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

If a woman brings a charge of rape against a Muslim man in a Sharia court, she better have two Muslim men as witnesses to support her charge. Otherwise she has confessed to fornication, and is likely to be sentenced to death.

While you're chewing over that one, think about this angle: what kind of society would presume that if two upstanding men saw a man raping a woman, they would simply observe the instance so they can properly testify about it in court, and not intervene on behalf of the woman?


Sharia court does not require a woman rape victim to produce any witnesses. Do you really think if two upstanding men (Muslim) saw a man raping a woman, they would simply observe the instance so they can properly testify about it in court, and not intervene on behalf of the woman? If so, what makes you think this? Where are you getting your information from?

According to Islamic scholar, "Sheikh Ahmad Kutty"

In Islam, we are not allowed to tarnish the honor of anyone. One is required to produce four witnesses when making an allegation of adultery against another person; otherwise, one will be guilty of slandering.

A raped woman is a victim that must be treated with honor and kindness. She is not required to produce four witnesses to prove the crime done against her, nor is she punished for the crime done against her.

If a person makes an allegation of adultery against another person (male or female) he or she must produce four witnesses to support such an allegation; otherwise, he or she is guilty of slandering, which is a grave offense in Islam, for we are not to tarnish the honor of anyone.

A woman who has been raped cannot be asked to produce witnesses; her claim shall be accepted unless there are tangible grounds to prove otherwise. To insist that she provide witnesses is akin to inflicting further pain on her. If anyone refutes her claim of innocence, the onus is on him to provide evidence, and she may simply deny the claim by making a solemn oath, thus clearing herself in public. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, "The onus to provide evidence falls on the one who makes a claim, and the one who denies (the same) can absolve himself or herself by making a solemn oath to the contrary."


Tina, you are a useful dhim... (Below threshold)

Tina, you are a useful dhimmi. Why don't you read what islamic scholars who are writing FOR Muslims write about it...and how it is actually accused and punished according to sharia law..................instead of this guy who writes lies for dhimmi North Americans.

Tina - It seems li... (Below threshold)

Tina -

It seems like you're arguing that women and non-Muslims AREN'T usually second-class citizens and heavily restricted under Islam. (About the only place I can think of where they aren't are the more 'enlightened' areas like Indonesia and parts of Pakistan. Benazir Bhutto's kind of the exception that proves the rule. Women's place in the ME is definitely defined, and it ain't exactly a position of freedom of action.)

"Islamic Law states that all believers are equal in the eyes of God."

There's a world of difference between what's said and what's actually practiced. "People of The Book" are to be respected according to the Koran - yet Islam as it is practiced in the ME is spectacularly intolerant of any other religion.

As Sue said - what's put out for us ignorant Westerners and what's said inside the religion are two different things. Or google up 'honor killings' - you'll get an eyeful. (Of special note is the 2-day old baby killed by the grandmother in Turkey - seems the daughter besmirched the family name.)

Of course, there's always the cleric who's blaming the increased rash of earthquakes on immodest women...

But you know, this diversion over what Islam says or doesn't (entertaining as it may be) doesn't address the issue, which is that Muslims have set themselves apart from society - In the UK the rules that apply to the rest of society (even simple sanitation issues) don't apply to them. Last I saw, bacteria don't exactly pay attention to religion - and civil law should be the same for all, not allow one group rights that the other shouldn't have.

The idea of a nurse not paying attention to simple infection control measures because of her religion does not make me feel all warm and happy about the cleanliness of the UK hospitals. There is tolerance, and then there is stupidity. This is heavily tilting towards the latter, in my opinion. (Of course, my wife's a nurse so I might be slightly biased...)

Tina"Islamic Law s... (Below threshold)
retired military:


"Islamic Law states that all believers are equal in the eyes of God."

I will gladly argue your case for you as soon as you show me thousands of men in burqas.

In brief, Tina, you're abso... (Below threshold)

In brief, Tina, you're absolutely about how Islam is supposed to operate -- in theory. We're talking about how it's being done in the real world.

Ask any scientist -- reality always trumps theory.


I try to keep telling peopl... (Below threshold)

I try to keep telling people that, Jay - but they seem to keep thinking if just the proper theories are used, then everything will come out right.

And in science and engineering, those theories have been honed through decades and centuries of practice. What doesn't explain the observed reality is quickly discarded.

Political theories, though (and I'm including Islam's shari'a based legalisms in that) are much harder to disprove. There's always someone going "Well, they didn't do it RIGHT! WE can do it right, because WE are (smarter, more cunning, more ruthless, care more, care less, taste better, are better looking, can control the media better, can control the people better, believe more intensely in the cause - pick any three) than they were.

And millions die while the law of unintended consequences reigns. The Ukrainian famine. China's 'Great Leap Forward'. North Korea's ongoing humanitarian crisis. All it takes are the 'proper theories' and everyone will live happily ever after, with everything they want, and nobody will ever have to work. It says so, right there on the friggin' LABEL.

Of course, in small print - "Results not guaranteed. Discontinue if mass death or economic catastrophe occurs. May cause unforeseen side effects like stagnation, disaffected allies, internal rebellion, and fiscal flaccidity."

But hey, who really cares about the fine print, or possible side effects, when the LABEL looks so totally awesome!

As reality always trumps theory, the law of unintended consequences is ALWAYS ready to take advantage of those who believe that theory is more important than reality or results.

Excellent analogy, JLawson.... (Below threshold)

Excellent analogy, JLawson.

Is throwing a shoe OK if it... (Below threshold)

Is throwing a shoe OK if it contains a bomb?


(Once "great" Britain) coul... (Below threshold)

(Once "great" Britain) could use a (Jimmy Napiers or two) today. (Men) who understand that "diversity" and "tolerance" do not trump common sense and the Common Good.

Too bad none such survives in the Europeons' Neo-Soviet's squalidly fasciSSocialist offshore satellite state - once called "Britain."

All such men have long ago fled the sunk ship, have emigrated -- and are nowadays called Australians or Americans and/or are Israelis.

In brief, Tina, you're a... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

In brief, Tina, you're absolutely about how Islam is supposed to operate -- in theory. We're talking about how it's being done in the real world.

Jay, societies in which the general population has very little opportunity of upward mobility tend to repress womens rights; this holds true regardless of what the dominant religion of a country may be. I believe the lack of rights for women in many Islamic countries is due more to lack of upward mobility as opposed to religion. Religion (all religions, including Christianity) are often used as a justification for repressing women rights. Just because religion may be used to justify discrimination doe not mean that religion is the main cause of discrimination. Religion can play a role though, especially in a country in which there is no separation of church and state.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy