23 4 mins 15 yrs

"I ask him to bring a new spirit of urgency to the fight against the Zeus of Iran and his attempt to kidnap our freedoms; and by doing so, to show New Labour’s commitment to the true spirit of Europe – not just to an economic community, or to monetary union, but to European civilization itself."

The excerpt above is from a letter written by Salman Rushdie to Britain’s "The Guardian" newspaper on 14 February 1997. It was on this day, the eighth anniversary of the fatwa against him, that Salman Rushdie would castigate Europe’s politicians for cynically abandoning the ideals of free expression and human rights. In retrospect, Sir Salman Rushdie’s words would offer a veiled glimpse at the coming future of European and Western civilization. A civilization that would one day willingly subjugate itself to dhimmitude, all in the name of diversity and "religious tolerance".

You might have expected a strongly worded statement on the 14th of February from 10 Downing Street, perhaps even in response to Hamid Ansari’s declaration on Iranian State television that the "fatwa" calling for the death of Sir Salman Rushdie still stands, but this is not the courageous and proud Britain of the past, this is a nation now resigned to fatalism. Islamic fatalism.

It is hard to imagine that Sir Salman Rushdie could have possibly imagined that just eleven years later not only would the Archbishop of Canterbury be conceding that Britain’s acceptance of Islamic law was inevitable, but that Iran would be on the very verge of developing a deliverable nuclear weapon. Is there truly any hope for a civilization hopelessly consumed with a "pathological self-hatred", a self-hatred that has now become dangerously fused with both anti-rationalism and as the Archbishop has so demonstrated, an Islamic fatalism?

Britain’s latest disgrace is to unwittingly assist Islamic extremists in perpetuating their "us versus them" dichotomy by issuing special "Islamic bonds". What was wrong with the regular bonds you might ask? Well, the for Britain’s Islamic fundamentalists, the regular bonds are "unclean" by Islamic standards. Make no doubt about it, with the assistance of quislings like Rowan Williams and Chancellor Alistair Darling, Islam’s foot soldiers are busy with the task to ensure that Islam’s religious precepts are all being duly incorporated into civil law.

For a government hopelessly enamored with the concepts of diversity and multiculturalism, these sharia-compliant bonds are a naive and misguided way of tapping Middle-East money and building bridges with the Muslim community, but the reality is that this "banking apartheid" contributes not to economic prosperity, but only to racial and ethnic chauvinism. What Britain’s leaders lack is foresight, the foresight to see that that by rejecting their own principles and values and then bolstering Islamic self-assertion, chauvinism and values, they only substantiate the dualistic sociopolitical ideology professed by Islam’s hardcore fundamentalists. It is the relentless accommodation and appeasement of these fundamentalists that continues to embolden them.

When the day of maturity comes, and it will, these bonds will be repaid with English blood and not with sterling.


An American Expat in Southeast Asia

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

23 thoughts on “Britain’s Islamic Fatalism

  1. Lao,

    The last line in your post is the one all should reflect on. The price of dhimmitude will be paid in blood. If we fail to oppose the rise of Islam in our democracies then we will end up doing what Darling and Williams already have done – which is to SUBMIT. In my view these people are traitors on a monumental scale, selling out the centuries of civilisation to an Islamic horde which seek to return us to the dak ages. In this way, the battle for civilisation is lost.

  2. That didn’t last long. Here we go again.

    The bonds represent the greed (and strength) of City trading and the loss of sovereignty in most western states including your own for that same corporate greed. I’m so bored with hearing some American tell us all how crap we are when it is little different in your own back yard. You are makng the same mistakes with Cair. You allow the same Saudi influence. We have had American clerics here and American terrorists up in the Old Bailey to little or no fanfare back in the US. It’s easier that way to continue in the great Brit bashing session beloved of so many American bloggers who pretend it’s cos they care, trotting out the same tired old scripts. If it has "Britain Sucks" in the headline you guys are all over it. And you can count on enough to enjoy it. At one point this was all undiscussed by our media and a valid issue to uncover, now its there every day in our papers. Ours is trotted out for all to see yours remains the great unknown. Presumably that high profile cleric and terrorist got that way for no reason back your way and Saudi influence is benign. Yup of course.

  3. This better explains it. Perhaps we should call it Britain’s Opportunism and Middle Eastern Wealth.

    "Knowledge of Islamic, or "sukuk," bonds can help a banker win deal business even from global corporate issuers based outside the Muslim world.

    Along with the rapid rise of sovereign wealth funds, the sukuk market further illustrates how growing Mideast wealth is influencing the services and structure of Western financial institutions. For bankers, the ability to meet these clients’ unique needs and preferences represents an emerging career niche"

  4. Alison,

    Ok, so you dislike ‘foreigners’, i.e Americans, being so bold as to point out, or perhaps it should be ‘point up’, exactly same points that many of us here are making, surely the more voices we have, the better the message will be conveyed to those who make these disasterous decisions.

    They probably also think that if there is enough outcry here in the UK over dhimmitude, that it will help them to make the point ‘back home’, where, incidentaly, it is also a matter of concern.

    As with BO, only a friend will tell you that you have it! and the answer isn’t to shout ‘You too!’, but to get out the deoderant and to use it!.

  5. Ernest

    Why do we need anyone else to tell us what the msm tells us everyday?

    Sovereign wealth funds are a major issue in ALL western nations. I’ve posted on it so im nodding in agreement here. I simply avoided the Daily Mail headline. Maybe it’s because they don’t have tabloids in the US really.

    The issue is not pointing it out so much as working out how you tell the City which direction to go.

    Since when has any regular Joe been able to do that?

    When has the City ever done anything with Britains interests at heart?

    So regards "dhimmitude" (such a stupid stupid expression, try "greedy") selecting the right people for that accolade would be a good start.

    These would be the ones the Revered Right thinks do NO wrong.

  6. Well said Alison.

    "They probably also think that if there is enough outcry here in the UK over dhimmitude, that it will help them to make the point ‘back home’, where, incidentaly, it is also a matter of concern."

    Perhaps they don’t want to make the point back home Ernest, perhaps they don’t even see it. So let them look after their own back yard and put their own house in order before trying to put everything right in other peoples.

    I’m pretty tired of the Brit bashing too.

  7. Alison, Typhoo,

    I think we are all in agreement re the City and what little loyalty it has to the UK as a whole.

    Why you expect anything else is quite amusing. The City is an international trading floor, where trade is conducted from all points of the globe, and yes, that includes the Islamic parts. They should be free to do what they do best, i.e. trade, and in conch shells if they like…

    What is unacceptable from the British point of view, and as much so as Canterbury’s suggestion, is that the Governement creates special ‘sharia acceptable’ bonds to allow Islamic money to enter into our system to help with our ‘national debt’. It’s all rather hypocritical in the way that they ban smoking on health grounds, but are still happy to sell and tax the sale of tobacco.

    How long before such bonds will carry some extra conditions as to how they are used? Wouldn’t that be used as a backdoor way of influencing our politicians?

    If they wish to invest in the UK, then that’s OK, but to issue special bonds to encourage inward investment, by other means that what is already available, is pandering and conceding an Islamic foothold. Which is precisely the argument against Canterbury’s proposals.

    I do think however, that you are confusing the overweaning political pandering to Islam with the greedy opportunism that motivates the City.

    With the former we need all the help we can get, even from commentators in the US, where they do have a similar problem, and yes, they do have a similar bunch of ‘know nothings’, who refuse to see the dangers of allowing the insiduous spread of sharia into the West.

    So you see it as ‘Brit bashing’ – so what? I see a lot of Yank bashing here, – so what? are we not combating the same problem of pandering, or conceding ground to Islam?

    Re the City’s general lack of loyalty and ethics, just what do you expect? it is nothing new, – I didn’t coin the phrase ‘Barbarians at the gate’, they will always be there while such ‘anything goes’ behaviour is seen as acceptable, and as the low ethic content of modern life seems to be acceptable to all from the highest to the lowest, I doubt things will change much in the near future.

    As for a demand on their ‘loyalty’, – loyalty to what? just be thankful that they do business here – at least we do get some pecuniary benefit from that.

  8. Alison and Typhoo,

    If I am correct, your concerns seem to be focused on three main issues of contention.

    1) That I am an American.
    2) That "people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
    3) That the issue at hand is not all that serious.

    Well first off, yes I am an American citizen. I’m an American citizen who happens to live and work in Malaysia (one of your former colonies) and have so for the last twenty years. Over those years I have had a good many English friends and have developed an affinity for the British if I might say so.

    Under the circumstances I’m taken aback at how you can simply dismiss me as just another "American blogger". I’m just as critical if not more of the United States. Read through some of my postings on Condoleeza Rice and the rest of the State Department.

    The threat that we face is one that threatens all of Western civilization and not just America or Britain.

    And lastly, the threat. I suppose there are many in America and Britain who still have no idea of what we are up against. I on the other hand do. Having lived for so long in a Muslim country, I know first-hand what we are all up against and what we stand to lose if we are not vigilant.

    And so, having the experience that I have, I feel compelled to speak out and to share what I know with others and sound the clarion call. I never envisioned that I would be destined to suffer the curse of Cassandra for doing so.

  9. I notice that no one seems to have commented on the "unclean" nature of the non-Islamic bonds.

    Islamic ideology and thought can be summed up in this simple syllogism –

    Pigs are unclean.
    The British eat pigs.
    Therefore the British are unclean.

    Tell me, how does it make you feel to be labeled "unclean" and how far are you willing to bend over?

    Why would you willing contribute to this apartheid?

  10. Lao

    I know all that, thanks for sharing. I think we are all well qualified to speak about islamic issues given just how many threats and bombs have been visited on our shores.

    No the issue is with your myopic focus on a general issue that affects **the West**. I would say i was taken aback by that, but it is standard blog fodder for American bloggers.

    Along with the rapid rise of sovereign wealth funds, the sukuk market further illustrates how growing Mideast wealth is influencing the services and structure of **Western financial institutions** so why is that opportunism fatalism where Britain is concerned? Or does it follow that only Britain is interested in those funds?

    Seriously. The post could just as well be called Britain’s Islamic Opportunism. Where she leads the rest will follow.

    If you choose to take issue with Britain over a worldwide issue then I think it’s fair play to take issue with your approach back? But naturally that’s "anti american"!

    Unless you’ve previously mentioned that "English blood" is being spilled in Iraq and Afghanistan and i missed that post, I think it’s insulting to speak like that when British soldiers are already dying in Afghanistan.

  11. And why would you Lao?


    SINGAPORE — When Texas-based energy firm East Cameron Partners wanted to raise cash this year, it turned not to banks or the domestic bond market, but to the Middle East. The result was the first bond backed by U.S. assets that adheres to Islamic laws against paying or charging interest.

    "I had never heard of sukuk before," said Campbell Evans, the Houston company’s general manager, using the Arabic name for Islamic bonds. "I got a book (about it) and it seemed Byzantine. But at the end of the day, it worked for us."

    Islamic financing differs from conventional financing in its strict adherence to Shariah, or Islamic law, which calls for ethical and equitable financing, and bans speculation.

  12. In the same article apart from the billions of sovereign wealth funds, and China, using sukuk and massively altering the market that apparently is only "BRITAIN’s shame", there is little nugget:

    "Another catalyst for growth should be global standards for Shariah-compliant derivatives — financial products designed by investment banks to hedge the risk of Islamic debt. New York’s International Swaps and Derivatives Association and Bahrain’s International Islamic Financial Market are engaged in talks aimed at agreeing on such basic standards"

  13. Forgive me, but I really am not following you here.

    From the article I linked to in the original post.

    "Britain is to become the first Western nation to issue bonds approved by Muslim clerics in line with sharia law, which bans conventional loans involving interest payments as "sinful"."

    If a company or an individual wants to disgrace themselves then that is their problem. We are talking about a nation here.

    You asked:

    "…so why is that opportunism fatalism where Britain is concerned?"

    I think I explained that in the original post when I stated:

    "…but the reality is that this "banking apartheid" contributes not to economic prosperity, but only to racial and ethnic chauvinism. What Britain’s leaders lack is foresight, the foresight to see that that by rejecting their own principles and values and then bolstering Islamic self-assertion, chauvinism and values, they only substantiate the dualistic sociopolitical ideology professed by Islam’s hardcore fundamentalists…"

    Do you think that the so-called moderate Muslims around the world have issues with banks? They don’t. I happen to live in a Muslim majority country and can tell you first-hand that the majority of Muslims (more than 90%) don’t have any issues with banks and interest. The only Muslims who have issues with banks and interest are the hardcore fanatics, the ones we are at war with!

    In a nutshell, Britain is playing right into the hands of Islam’s hardcore fundamentalists.

  14. No, in a nutshell everyone is at it Lao but you are too honed in on Britain to be bothered to scratch away at the surface.

    Those "hardcore fanatics" are the old rich nations of Oman, Dubai, Saudi Arabia. The ones we ALL do business with. They are the ones driving this fashionable process alongside China. Some idiot may talk about cultural respect and how its all very fuzzy but that matters little. Its the money that’s doing the talking. Moderate muslims having issues or not with banks is neither here nor there. If the ones with cash to splash are calling the shots then everyone else plays ball. That’s the way it works. And Britain is no better or worse than America or any other western nation in that respect.

    To conveniently ignore what private companies do when they are as much a part of driving this process as anyone else undermines your overall problem about playing right into "their" hands.

  15. I think on reflection and from your post the issue is that you make out that this is new and unheard of, peculiar to our ‘fundamentalists’. When it’s not. Or that laughingly its "naive" (??) to tap into that massive market that already exists and has some serious muscle.

    Western and Asian companies and governments are increasingly using Islamic bonds to tap a well of surplus petrodollars in the Middle East. It transpires that in the next two to three years, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman are looking at more than $50 billion in infrastructure financing (which is also mentioned in your Daily Mail article). 30% of the $50 billion is likely to emerge as sukuk. Next year, China is expected to issue its first sukuk with a $200 million deal for a Chinese government-linked power company.

    And why allow your own companies to cash in on and contribute to this enormous, successful and growing market? Since they encourage its growth and importance your argument that only we are capitulating to terrorists, which is what you appear to be saying, is null and void. I posted on this a while back the shoulder shrugging when it comes to the private sector sell out of sovereignty.

    And apparently the German government was the first western country to undertake use of an Islamic bond back in 2004.

  16. LAO,
    thank you for the post.
    I have been reading up on this now and agree it falls under appeasement and leads bad places.
    you live in maylasia? I know it is the standard pratice there, can you give some examples learned through personal experience and observations please?

  17. Alison,

    I don’t think you quite understand the difference, between a commercial outfit borrowing money wherever it can, and the significance of a sovereign government borrowing from sources which may very well be detrimental to the national security of the borrower.

    Yes, sovereign investments are the flavour of the month – for commercial purposes, – but not to finance government debt, there are many far more tradional ways for them to raise the cash via Gilts etc, which are more under the control of the borrowing goverment.

    As I said earlier, how long before these ‘shariaised bonds’, get special conditions added to them, which would undoubtedly be hidden under a cloak of secrecy, and which would give the holders an entre to the government ‘by the back door’. An entirely unsatisfactory situation as I am sure you would agree…

  18. Ernest

    I do. But to me the issue with sovereignty and security, government and commercial outfits is all part of the same issue. It’s all opportunism at the end of the day pandering to the biggest bucks, there is little scrutiny anywhere. I no more trust the private sector or commercial world than i would anyone else. In the same way i don’t want Saudi and Qatar owning, influencing or operating here in the commercial world. I suspect many underhand dodgy deals are cut there also.

    Pandering to "terrorists" (debatable) as was suggested, is across the board. It’s part of a wider issue with sovereignty in the West and is in no way limted to the UK much less uniquely ‘our shame’. Nonsense.

    A recent US article was rather more honest about its own issues in this respect. I’ll link it later.

  19. Lao.

    Your post and comments seem perfectly straight forward to me.
    Alison’s writings start off well, but as they progress they wander off the point and become almost obfuscatory.
    As the harassed husband retorted: "It’s only my word against millions of yours".

  20. Alison,

    Pardon, but I didn’t mention terrorists – I did say pandering to Islam, which does have a different context…

  21. No you didn’t Ernest, Lao did…but then he does talk some weird crap at points so its unsurprising its not clear.

    Bernard: You sound like a school teacher.

Comments are closed.