Friday, October 30, 2009

No More Concessions Without Concessions in Return

In the following guest-essay, a reader named Robert Stansfield offers a suggested strategy for dealing with the ever-growing demands for accommodation by Muslims in the West.

Hijab is a human right

No More Concessions Without Concessions in Return
by Robert Stansfield

Muslims in the West are constantly making demands for freedom: freedom to build mosques, freedom to wear the burka and hijab, freedom to practice Sharia law. They generally present these demands as basic rights owed to them by the countries in which they live. And Western liberals — even those opposed to the Islamic agenda — are hard-pressed to rebuff them.

This is due to a faulty conceptualization of the issue. A new approach must be adopted. Let’s call it “Linkage”. The idea is simple: Muslims have no rights in Western lands as long as non-Muslims are being persecuted in Muslim lands.

Some simple examples:

1. No more mosques in the West, until there is a church in Mecca.
2. No freedom to wear Muslim clothing in the West, until all women have the freedom to wear whatever they want in Mecca.
3. No more funding of Islamic education and proselytizing in the West, until all faiths are free to establish schools, libraries and missions in Mecca.
4. No foot baths for Muslims, until there are holy water dispensers for Christians in Mecca.


We all know what’s going on in Mecca. Christians, Jews and other faiths are barred entry in a form of Islamic apartheid.

In Mecca, churches are illegal. The Bible and the cross are illegal. Priests are illegal. Preaching Christianity and other faiths is punishable by imprisonment, torture and death. Converting to Christianity or another faith is punishable by imprisonment, torture and death. In short, the heartland of Islam is one of the most appalling hellholes of religious intolerance in the world today.

Yet Muslims have the gall to demand footbaths and other frivolous perks in our lands. The hypocrisy reeks like a sewer. It’s obscene, and even the most unconcerned layman can immediately perceive the unfairness. Muslims are only concerned for freedom when they are on the receiving end.

This is my proposal: We in the anti-Jihad movement should adopt the principle of “Linkage” as a war cry. We should repeat it like a broken record. Advocate it relentlessly on blogs and in street demonstrations. Distribute flyers. Pressure politicians. Run television ads. Make it into T-shirts and hats and coffee mugs. Glue posters to walls with really stubborn glue. DEMAND fairness!

The principle of linkage is already making inroads. Last year, the Russians demanded a quid pro quo from the Saudis:
- - - - - - - - -
A Saudi Mosque in Moscow in Exchange for a Russian Church in Mecca?

The king of Saudi Arabia has announced that he is ready to support the construction of a mosque and Islamic cultural center in Moscow, a city with only four mosques for its more than two million Muslims. In response and probably to block this, Orthodox Christians in Russia have called for opening a church in Saudi Arabia.


After the Saudi offer was reported, three Russian Orthodox groups — the Moscow section of the Union of Orthodox Citizens, the Radonezh Society, and the Byzantine Club — released an open letter to Saudi King Abdullah suggesting that there should be another mosque in Moscow only after a Russian Orthodox church was opened in Mecca.

Jean-Louis Cardinal Toran, the head of the Papal Council on Inter-religious Dialogue, agrees:

If Muslims consider it correct to have a large and beautiful mosque in Rome, then it is equally correct for Christians to have a church in Riyadh.

Alison Ruoff, a prominent evangelical member of the Church of England’s General Synod, has applied linkage:

Mrs Ruoff, a former magistrate, said in an interview with London’s Premier Christian Radio that no more mosques should be built in Britain until all persecution of Christians in Muslim nations had ceased.

The British writer Adrian Morgan raises the same point:

Yet when one sees the number of mosques being erected in Britain, often with money from Saudi Arabia, I wonder why no Far Left individual raises the question of hypocrisy. Saudi Arabia funds the export of Islam around the world (even to Nepal), yet prevents any Bibles from being brought into their kingdom. No churches are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, and migrant workers who hold unofficial Christian services have been jailed.

Similarly in Pakistan, Christians are a minority group, yet they are persecuted mercilessly. In Malaysia, no one is allowed to leave Islam and Buddhists, Hindus and Christians are legally defined as second-class citizens, and yet Malaysia regards itself as upholding a “civilizational” form of Islam.

The principle of linkage is gaining momentum. With the help of everyone in the Counterjihad community, we can broaden it into an avalanche.



History Snark said...

Nicely put. I'm totally on board!!

PersonOfTheBook said...

Brilliant! Of course it would never happen, and the Saudi's response to the question, by turning it into a question of what each country's law states, kind of forces us therefore to enact the same xenophobic laws that Saudi has, and I can't see us stooping to that level just to solve the problem.

I'm in!!! Spreading the idea!

Unknown said...

There's no need to mimic the laws of Saudi Arabia, or be xenophobic.

Complete freedom will remain, as always, for all faiths which accept and protect religious freedom. And Islam too will be perfectly welcome to build mosques and proselytize in the West, once it guarantees similar freedoms to other faiths in Mecca, Riyahd etc.

It's probably better to look at it like a free trade issue. If a country is dumping its religion into other countries while prohibiting the entry of other religions into its own country, then sanctions and punitive tariffs must be applied to break down those unfair barriers. The restrictions on muslims under such sanctions would not be absolute. For example, the moratorium on mosque building can be lifted at any time by allowing free building of churches in Mecca.

Zenster said...

While I prefer the less-well-known term "reciprocity" (instead of "linkage"), this is a policy that I've been advocating for many years.

Western people tend to misinterpret freedom as a concept without qualifiers or contingencies. Freedom of speech has its appropriate limits (e.g., shouting "fire" in a crowded theater), just as many other constitutional rights do as well. Such limits extend into the religious world on an equal basis. While the Church of Satan may be an officially recognized "religion", it's predictable desire to perform human sacrifice still violates the law and is not legally permitted. Such is the case with shari'a law's traditions of stoning people or administering lashes and their prohibition in Western society represents the way that humane juridicial penalty prevails over Islam's barbarous doctrinally-based theocratic code.

There is no good reason why Western traditions regarding freedom of religion should be required to tolerate abject inequity on the part of those faiths that are allowed to participate in this particular liberty.

While Robert Stansfield's quartet of "simple examples" is germane and entirely on the mark, it omits the ultimate deal-breaker of them all:


This is the overarching and penultimate aspect of Islam that simply cannot be tolerated in any civilized society or culture.

Theocracy is the root and branch of Islam's poisonous fruit. Mosques, concealing apparel, indoctrinating madrassas and superfluous public foot baths are all mere pendants that dangle from the hem of Islam's theocratic pseudo-religious robes. Muslims swaddle their intolerant and savage political ideology in ostensibly pious trappings so that they may march under the false colors of a putatively legitimate religion.

This is what Western people and their political leadership must begin to understand and finally abandon in favor of recognizing those honest religions that do not seek political ascendancy.

Again, theocracy of any color or flavor is abhorent and contrary to every best tradition of human liberty and freedom. Most all of the world's genuine religions have learned and understand this one basic precept. They have largely abandoned all pretense of ruling the world in favor of voluntary adoption by adherents plus the tax-exempt status and legal shelter that such a legal position confers.

Islam, in almost every sense, defies and rejects much of the foregoing schematic that outlines every basic aspect of separation between church and state.


This is the core aspect of theocracy and it must serve as the pivot-point of how people determine the acceptability of ANY "faith" that seeks to insinuate itself into regular Western life.

Islam desires every single negative potential with respect to the points I have made above. There is no compelling reason why sane people should vote for anything but the abolition of Islam's current practice and its expansion until such a time whereby the majority of Muslims determine that some sort of more moral attitude is appropriate.

Until that time, even a seemingly marginal assessment, like that of Robert Stansfield, must remain in force. Be it "linkage" or actual reciprocity, such matching of terms between the Muslim world and the West must be accounted for in exacting terms.

PersonOfTheBook said...

Good comments. But how to alert sleeping Troy that there is already a wooden horse inside the walls?

At this stage there is so much inertia, so few have awakened to the insidious changes which are manifesting in for example Sweden, France, UK, and Holland, even Montreal. In UK the police are instructed to allow public incitement for sharia death penalties. In Ireland it is illegal to speak out against Islam. It is remarkable to Britons that Geert Wilders has been allowed to speak in the UK, as if he is some neo-Nazi crackpot! His own government is having him up on criminal charges, and yet he just makes sense in wanting to prevent his culture to be morphed into something unrecognizable by unchecked islamization. He is not 'far-right' by any means, and yet so many think that he's an 'islamophobe', a totally contrived term calculated to negate the concerns of the speaker, and which tries to frame him as delusional, suffering from a 'phobia'.

We need a sea change of awareness to fight totalitarian ideologies. Liberalism has so anaesthetized the universities, media and mainstream governments that they abhor the idea of resisting ANYTHING, like an organism with no immune system. Even theocracy seems to be an acceptable addition, adding colour and variety to our multi-culture.

How best to awaken our countrymen so they can develop the will to resist Islamic theocracy? I fear that it will get much worse before it gets better.

The problem is, it does not take a majority to entrench something like shari'a law. UK already has allowed 100 shari'a courts. It won't be long before it will be too late to stop the phenomenon.

I feel like I am one of a precious few Paul Reveres. Will anyone listen? And act?

WAKE UP said...

Muslim women who advocate for the burqa are merely classic examples of Stockholm Syndrome i.e identifying with their oppressors. There is nothing can be done aboutit except to ship them all OUT OF THE WEST.

WAKE UP said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Francis W. Porretto said...

This is exactly the sort of response we need to Islamic evangelism. But...given the Saudis' propensity toward mega-structures, let's demand cathedrals. Nothing smaller than Saint Patrick's will do.

thll said...

If the bluff is called, who will build churches in Mecca? Who will attend them?

Unknown said...

A practical first step would be to allow church building for the million or so Roman Catholic Filipinos living in Saudi Arabia. I'm sure that the church would be happy to provide the necessary funds. Another step would be to eliminate the Saudi religious hate laws, and allow people of all faiths to enter Mecca.

Saudi funding for Islamic centers and other missionary facilities should only be allowed on a quid pro quo basis where the Saudis allow similar facilities from Christians, Hare Krishnas, Jews, atheists, Soka Gakkai and other religions in their country.

Also, simply building one church in Mecca would not be enough to lift the sanctions. It would be a very welcome gesture of good will, of course, and could be fairly rewarded by permission to construct one mosque. The Saudis would have to fully implement all aspects of religious freedom before they were free to proselytize without restriction as they do now.

sdf said...

thll said:
If the bluff is called, who will build churches in Mecca? Who will attend them?

My answer:
Oh, there would be many organisations rushing there. For example, we pentacostals would build dozens of churches there quickly after it is allowed.

thll said...

sdf, perhaps - but who will fill the pews?

Unknown said...

"who will fill the pews?"

That's not important. The existence of a church and cross in Mecca would itself be a monumental victory over Islamic hate and intolerance. It would have more than enough value, even as just a symbol.

For the time, we should focus on the important point:

Relentlessly disseminating and applying the principle of linkage, until everyone knows it and uses it like a reflex.

"NO MORE MOSQUES IN WESTERN LANDS, UNTIL THERE IS A CHURCH IN MECCA" needs to be spoken, broadcast, printed, stamped, scribbled and painted everywhere, like graffiti.

NEVER, EVER allow a muslim to demand rights or freedoms in the west, without immediately demanding that those same rights and freedoms be provided to non-muslims in muslim lands.

Anonymous said...

Great article and certainly a great strategy. And, of course, leave it to the Russians to not only have come up with this strategy, but also implemented it.

Wizzard of Aus said...

What would really be helpful in doing this is a list of desired social outcomes for implementation in Saudi Arabia, with the name of the "secular" legislation that prevents it. Even those who are aware of the situation and religious principles (e.g. Dhimmi, jizya etc) have a hard time when told in debate that their arguments are biased as "Dhimmi" (/whatever) is ancient and no longer enforced". If there was a simple list of legislative statements that showed this to be false or evidence to refute such a statement, such linkage/reciprocity could be argued for more effectively, without the accusation of islamophobia/ racism/ bigotry.

Please note, that this is not about arguments with Muslims. this is for arguments with non-muslims who persist in statements that legal principles embedded in religious texts have no more merit in the middle east than the abrahamaic law would have in the courts.

Findalis said...

If Muslims want concessions, then they must allow Jews and Christians to live in their nations without paying the jizya.

Anonymous said...

"In Mecca, churches are illegal. The Bible and the cross are illegal. Priests are illegal."

You forgot. Non-believers are illegal as well.


Unknown said...

Personally I think framing it as a religious fight b/t Islam and Jedeo-Christanity is a non-starter.

I see the need for more secular/agnostic research centers which advocate tolerance and humanity.

We need to move away from a religiously fervent society and towards a society dedicated to the common good of mankind. We need to give people the opportunity to be productive members of society without fear of a religious biased war.

PersonOfTheBook said...

dnifdoog, you have a point.

I understand both sides of the secular/religious coin.

Many secular scientific types, and many mainstream folks choke on the idea of the existence of an intelligence greater than themselves that cannot be detected by our 5 narrow senses and our limited intelligence. The narrative is something like: "We are all just whirling molecules, self-replicating gene machines, so stop deluding yourself by looking for meaning besides your own enjoyment. By the way, altruism is an artefact of social evolution, and therefore is pragmatic and functional. That's about the depth of existence, nothing more to see here."

To the secularist, the idea of religion evokes fear of proselytizers at our front door and elicits righteously arrogant ridicule. Look at anti-Christian 'art' exhibits in the West these days.

That attitude damages us, and here's why:

A totally secular society is laudable and well-meaning but is simplistic and utopian. We are saddled with the paradox of being human with our logic vs. our inborn need for the infinite (which seems to manifest as 'religion').

I will explain in the next post...

PersonOfTheBook said...

#1. We NEED Christianity in Western civilization. It is in us. Whether or not we are religious in the traditional sense, it is a fact that each of us is a product of the moral and legal codes which were shaped by the sophisticated and compassionate teachings as pioneered by Christianity, of which Judaism was a precursor. We are products of a Judeo-Christian heritage whether we like it or not.

My point: Here is an illuminating parable (paraphrased for this post) from Don Richardson's Secrets of Islam (which by the way is excellent and everyone should read it):

A farmer has some goats, some chickens, and a mongoose. He loves the goats and chickens, because he gets milk, cheese, wool, meat, eggs - all kinds of benefits from them. He is not so sure about the mongoose though - it's not overly friendly, it annoyingly skulks around the yard and the hen-house roof, and sometimes it steals an egg too.

One day he kills the mongoose, since it has no perceived value to him. However, now the pythons start to get closer, and they start to steal ALL the eggs, and once the eggs are gone, they start to eat the chickens. Once the chickens are gone, even the goats start to disappear as they too become prey to the pythons.

When the farmer has nothing left it finally dawns on him that the value of his annoying mongoose was his protection against the previously-invisible python.

Christianity is the mongoose, and is like our society's immune system, so maybe it is OK to honour that and not be too quick to throw all sense of traditional mysticism away. Totalitarian Islamic systems like Shari'a law, Wahabbism , etc. in all its draconian glory is the python which replaces the mongoose.

Liberalism and secularism may be logical and well-meaning in its intent, but I wouldn't put so much faith in human nature that I would believe that it couldn't evolve into some kind of new-age religion eventually, Lord-of-the Flies style. That deep human subconscious is full of surprises.

Please bookmark and read The Religion of Peace. It's updated many times a day and always has new articles of interest

If you still think that all religions are equally evil, this site has good articles for your learning.

You might think that the Crusades and Inquisition negate the value of Christianity, and while these aberrations were nothing to be proud of, firstly they were manifestations of FALSE Christianity while Islamic violence is indeed TRUE Islam.

Secondly, the Old Testament Bible does not call for violence in our time, unlike the Koran. That's why the newspapers are not filled with reports of murderous Christian or Jewish terrorism.

Also, as TheReligionOfPeace states, more are killed each year in the name of Islam than in all the 350 years of the Crusades. So we must keep proper perspective. We shouldn't believe those who would dupe us into believing that all religions are evil, and that religion has no purpose in modern society.

#2. Joseph Campbell once mentioned that the word "religion" is from Latin "re" and "ligio"... re-connection... stepping back one level and being aware of THAT WHICH CONNECTS US.

And THAT is religion!

Secularists and traditionally-religious people I am sure can agree on that point.

XYBØRG said...

Outstanding article. We need a cathedral the size of Rome's St. Peter's right smack-bang in the middle of Mecca - and another one in Medinah - before we permit a single mosque to be erected anywhere on Christian soil.