Writing in Human Events, Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer observes that, “[t]hree years after the July 7, 2005, jihad terror attacks in London, the jihad in Britain is stronger than ever. It is not proceeding by means of more terrorism, but by stealth and by the preemptive surrender of all too many British officials.” He explains:  

The stealth jihad is a deeply-rooted, well-funded and wide-ranging effort to impose Islamic law, Sharia, upon the non-Muslim populations of Western countries.  In England, and in America, it sometimes takes the form of an effort to win acceptance for Sharia law by portraying it as a matter of “civil rights” and multicultural “diversity.”

This effort got a tremendous shot in the arm in Britain last Thursday, when the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, said in an address at the London Muslim Centre that … “There is no reason why principles of sharia, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation or other forms of alternative dispute resolution.” … 

In his address Lord Phillips praised the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who famously said last February that it was “inevitable” that Sharia would come to Britain.  

Daily Mail (London) columnist Melanie Phillips calls these developments “sleepwalking into Islamisation”: 

Britain still doesn’t grasp that it is facing a pincer attack from both terrorism and cultural infiltration and usurpation. 

The former is understood; the latter is generally not acknowledged or is even denied, and those who call attention to it are pilloried as either ‘ Islamophobes’ or alarmists who have taken up residence on Planet Paranoia. 

Certainly, the police and security service have been foiling plot after plot and are bringing to court a steady stream of Islamist radicals  -  an improvement without doubt from two years ago. And so, particularly within the British elite, people think that things are broadly under control. 

They fail to realise that the attempt to take over our culture is even more deadly to this society than terrorism. They are simply blind to the ruthless way in which the Islamists are exploiting our chronic muddle of well-meaning tolerance and political correctness (backed up by the threat of more violence) to put Islam on a special  -  indeed, unique  -  footing within Britain.  

As a result, the steady Islamisation of British public life is either being ignored or even tacitly encouraged by a political, security and judicial establishment that is failing to identify the stealthy and mind-bending game that is being played. … 

Islamism will be repulsed only if Britain once again regains the confidence of its own culture, heritage and traditions. And these are based on Christianity. … 

The Islamists launched their jihad against the West because they perceived it was so weak and confused it would not possess the wherewithal to defend itself. When it comes to Britain, they never spoke a truer word.  

Three recent examples of what Phillips is railing against:

† American evangelists Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham, who were handing out Bible tracts in Birmingham, were stopped by a Muslim Police Community Support Officer – a government employee – and threatened with arrest and violence to their persons: 

“He said we were in a Muslim area and were not allowed to spread our Christian message,” one of the preachers said. “He said we were committing a hate crime by telling the youths to leave Islam and said that he was going to take us to the police station.” The officer threatened, “If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned.”  

Keep in mind that England has an official church – the Church of England – meaning that Christianity is the established faith of the land. Well, now there are Muslim pockets throughout the nation – “no-go areas” – where spreading the gospel is apparently a “hate crime.”

† A gang of Muslim thugs beating up a vicar while screaming “F*****g priest!” and smashing the windows of an East London church while shouting “This should not be a church. This should be a mosque” is not a hate crime. 

† Two school students at Alsager High School, near Stoke-on-Trent, given detention for refusing to kneel and pray to Allah during a religious studies class – the class had already been shown an educational film on how Muslims pray. Outraged parents complained that “forcing their children to take part in the exercise … was a breach of their human rights,” reports the Daily Mail: 

One parent, Sharon Luinen, said: “This isn’t right, it’s taking things too far. 

“I understand that they have to learn about other religions. I can live with that but it is taking it a step too far to be punished because they wouldn’t join in Muslim prayer. 

“Making them pray to Allah, who isn’t who they worship, is wrong and what got me is that they were told they were being disrespectful.” … 

The grandfather of one of the pupils in the class said: “[I]f Muslims were asked to go to church on Sunday and take Holy Communion there would be war.” 

For his part, the school’s headmaster David Black released a statement: “Educating children in the beliefs of different faith is part of the diversity curriculum on the basis that knowledge is essential to understanding. We accept that such teaching is to be conducted with some sense of sensitivity.” 

The question is, sensitivity to whom?

Matthew Parris, a columnist for The Times (London) warns:  

Unless we face up honestly to the incompatibilities between aspects of the ways of life of some (not all) Muslim groups in Britain, and the British mainstream culture, we shall find ourselves babbling about racism when the issue has less to do with race than with culture. …

The key paragraph in Lord Phillips’s speech is this: “A point that the Archbishop was making was that it was possible for individuals voluntarily to conduct their lives in accordance with Sharia principles without this being in conflict with the rights guaranteed by our law. … 

It is by no means certain that a group of individuals may voluntarily conduct themselves according to Sharia without breaking English law. It depends what Sharia says. … Without a clear account of what Sharia demands, Lord Phillips cannot know.  

Decoded, Dr Williams is saying that in a multicultural society it is fine for people within a culture to agree not to exercise certain rights, even if English law would allow them to. … 

Neither the Archbishop nor Lord Phillips do any service to public policy by seeming to encourage a recourse to religious rulebooks that runs against the modern British grain.  

Parris notes that Lord Phillips began his speech by describing how his maternal grandparents – Sephardic Jews – eloped in 1903 and fled Alexandria, Egypt, for Britain where they could “enjoy freedom,” adding: “How fortunate that the attitudes they were escaping did not pursue them here with ‘voluntary’ codes.”  

In Spencer’s opinion, Lord Phillips, Archbishop Williams, the religious instruction teacher and others of their ilk are “useful idiots” in the “stealth jihad agenda to implement Sharia” who “have no idea of the larger implications of their actions.”  

Lest anyone on this side of the Big Pond feel smug after reading example after example of how the British are willingly imposing dhimmitude on themselves, consider that in May an American soldier in Baghdad who used a Koran for target practice was not only disciplined, but senior officer Major General Jeffery Hammond groveled before tribal leaders:  

“I come before you here seeking your forgiveness. In the most humble manner, I look in your eyes today and I say please forgive me and my soldiers.” 

The commander also read a letter of apology by the shooter, and another military official kissed a Koran and presented it to the tribal leaders, according to CNN. 

Naturally, the Association of Muslim Scholars wasted no time condemning the shooting of the Koran as “a hideous act against the book of almighty God and the Constitution of the nation and the source of its glory and dignity.” But The Stiletto does not recall this or any other Muslim group protesting when pages from the Holy Bible were used as toilet paper during the 40-day siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002 by Palestinian gunmen.   

Columnist Diana West, for one, is aghast. Not at the “desecration” of the Koran – but at the “submission to the Koran … even at the expense of the soldier’s Constitutional rights.” for which she blames our Commander-in-Chief, George (“we are not at war with Islam”) Bush: 

Last time I looked, kissing Korans wasn’t a Yankee custom – unless dhimmitude now counts as one. … 

Imagine if, during the Allied occupation of post-Nazi Germany, a GI had been discovered using “Mein Kampf” for target practice. Would Gen. George S. Patton have kissed a new copy of the Nazi bible as he presented it to a cadre of former Nazis? … 

Not likely. Difference is, of course, the anti-Semitism and imperialistic supremacism contained within “Mein Kampf” were recognized and treated as an existential threat to the rest of the Western world. In the so-called war on terror, however, our primary strategy is directed at masking or ignoring the overall anti-infidelism and imperialistic supremacism contained within the Koran.  

And columnist Suzanne Fields frets that the politically correct, multicultural textbooks used in schools from coast to coast may have created an entire generation of young voters who are “incapable of identifying the terrorists, or understanding the radical theology driving them to kill innocents in the name of Allah”: 

The textbooks make no distinctions between societies with law founded on separation of church and state and Muslim governments founded on primitive theology. There’s no understanding of the differences between Sharia, or a religious code, and Western law derived from the consent of the governed. Distinctions between democracy and the totalitarian regimes of most Islamic countries go unremarked and unappreciated. … 

The American Textbook Council, an independent research organization, examined the errors and political biases in American history textbooks for public junior high and high schools, and published a report called “Islam in the Classroom.” The results are terrifying. It demonstrates how editors and teachers are duped by Islamist organizations that persuaded publishers to weave misinformation – and disinformation – into the textbooks, exploiting ignorance, naivete and bias in the name of diversity and political correctness. Many of these texts spin an uncritical view of radical Islam, spiced with anti-Western criticism.    

“In the case of Islamic activism, theological aims are often concealed in familiar, appealing civic language,” the council reports. “Few publishers or editors understand history textbooks for what they are: instruments of civic education that have among their responsibilities the obligation to alert the young to threats to American ideals and security.”  

Spencer thinks it may already be too late for England to save itself from “shariacreep.” The hour grows late for America as well. 

By the way: An op-ed published by The Times explores the obverse question – when shouldn’t Islamofascists be accorded the same rights as citizens:  

Does one betray or does one defend Western values by allowing those committed to destroying them to be exposed to practices that are anti-Western?  

In other words, is there a place for Sharia in Western jurisprudence? Or for torture, bugging, rendition and military tribunals for extremists or even for both British human rights and anti-terror legislation, whose provisions appear to be in conflict? … 

John Wadham, legal director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, was quoted in these pages last October as saying that everyone has a claim to protection under the UK’s human rights laws. Apparently abolishing more than 1,000 years of English common law and the Roman civil law that obtains in Scotland – both of which sharply distinguish between the rights of natives and of strangers – Wadham implied that, regardless of whether British citizens or not, and regardless of agenda or behaviour, every human being must be allowed to enforce an access to British rights. … 

Contrary to the fashionable and prevailing view, it can be also be argued that excluding Muslim suspects from Western rights (say at Guantanamo Bay) does not per se compromise Western standards of legality. Western legalism and liberalism were formulated in a different world, and experience has proved (especially in Britain) that attempts to integrate minority cultures into our rights-based system create clashes.  

Author Harry Cummins thinks there is nothing wrong with Western governments insisting on Western laws and mores in some situations but not in others. That’s the same game the jihadists are playing: They want to exert control wherever they live via Sharia law, regardless of its precepts and practices being at odds with their host country’s laws, but also want to be accorded full constitutional rights whenever it suits them. And in the U.K., the U.S. and too many other Western countries, they are winning this game in a shutout.

Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog, chosen an Official Honoree in the Political Blogs category by the judges of the 12th Annual Webby Awards (the Oscars of the online universe) along with CNN Political Ticker, Swampland (Time magazine) and The Caucus (The New York Times).

Be Sociable, Share!