Wednesday, April 22, 2015

Don't Vote: Allah Says Not To

Michael L.

don't voteI want to thank our friend, k, from the United Kingdom, for alerting me to this story in a private email.

Apparently some of the more Sharia-minded Muslims, in protest of democracy and the coming elections next month, are putting up signage in British cities demanding:
Don't Vote. 
None have the right to legislate except Allah.
The full text beneath reads:
Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah and decides what is permissible or impermissible for mankind, based solely on their whims and desires.  This leads to a decayed and degraded society where crime and immorality becomes widespread and injustice becomes the norm.  Islam is the only real, working solution for the UK.  It is a comprehensive system of governance where the laws of Allah are implemented and justice is observed.
No one doubts that Sharia is comprehensive.  In fact, that is precisely the problem.  It is a tad too comprehensive.  Furthermore, I do not know that chopping off body parts, as a matter of punitive law, is something that people of good will can reasonably disagree upon.

The Daily Mail tells us:
Posters telling Muslims not to vote in the election were plastered across an area of Cardiff yesterday.

They read: 'Democracy is a system whereby man violates the right of Allah.'

Posters were stuck on lampposts and bus stops across the Grangetown suburb telling the Muslim electorate: 'Islam is the only real workable solution for the UK'.

Cardiff Council have begun removing the posters, dubbed 'chilling' and 'threatening' by locals.  
And once again the unspoken tension between the multicultural ideal and the ideal of universal human rights reveals its wrenched face.

Those more influenced by the noble ideal of multiculturalism will tend to shrug this kind of thing off.  Yes, a small percentage of "extremist" Muslim immigrants into Europe wish to transpose al-Sharia upon the UK and the continent.  So what?  The fact is that the great majority of Arab-Muslim immigrants into European countries are involved in no such efforts.  They just want to live their lives, raise their kids, make a few bucks and, like the rest of us, be left the hell alone to pursue their own interests.


If this were a few years ago I would have left it at that.  But it is not a few years ago.  In recent years we have witnessed the rise of political Islam, which is a pernicious, violent, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Gay, and anti-feminist political movement throughout the Middle East.  This movement - in its current iteration as derived from Obama's ballyhooed "Arab Spring" - has given us the Islamic State (IS) or ISIS or ISIL, or whatever you want to call this heinous thing, but whatever you call it these people represent the most brutal and savage political organization that I have seen in my lifetime.

I mean, really, burying children alive??

What kind of moral monsters commit such acts and in the name of the deity, no less?

So, yes, we need to stand up against the rise of al-Sharia, like we would need to stand up against the rise of any fascist ideology that seeks the widespread murder and oppression and persecution of the despised and inferior other.

And if you think that the Islamic State does not actually represent significant trends in Islamic jurisprudence - and therefore does not in any way represent juridical Islam - have you checked the Saudi justice system lately?

The great irony of the anti-Jewish / anti-Christian / anti-Western / anti-Israel / pro-Palestinian / pro-BDS movement is that they claim to stand for universal human rights, but the fact is that they could not care less about universal human rights or social justice or civil liberties or whatever banners they fly above their heads.

If they honestly cared about social justice they would stand against political Islam.

They do not.

The tragedy of the muddle-headed western-left, in terms of this issue, is that because they allow BDS into their institutions, they thereby undermine their very ideological reason-to-be and, in doing so, chase away Jewish support and frustrate the possibility for reform within Islam.

When the western-left opposes apostates like Ayaan Hirsi Ali they oppose reform within Islam.

This is a mistake.


  1. When the western-left opposes people like Aayan Hirsi Ali they oppose reform within Islam.

    They not only oppose her, they denounce her.
    They turned their backs on her when she was looking for a 'political home'. In doing so, they turned their backs on everything they are supposed to believe in. Everything they are supposed to believe in.

    They are beyond hypocrisy.

    1. The rejection of Aayan Hirsi Ali, a thoroughly liberal minded individual, by the progressive left serves as tragically unfortunate proof that a good deal of the left is now illiberal and trending heavily toward the totalitarian.
      I think that much of the left doesn't even see the inherent contradiction between the multiculti ideal and universal human rights the same way they don't see their participation in anti-Semitism. The human being has a great capacity for holding contradictory ideas simultaneously.

  2. It's not only that they won't stand against political Islam; it's that they support it.

    It is the greatest moral failure of our times.
    And leaves them exposed for what they are.

    Mike, you are kind in calling them 'muddle- headed'. I would not let them off that lightly.
    I think the western, progressive - left have become - across the board - the embodiment of everything they once claimed to oppose.
    Not just on political Islam, and on Israel / Palestine, and Jews, but on almost all issues. I come back to the point, that I think you and I might have a difference of opinion on, that their behaviour on these issues is a feature, not a bug.

    I will, if you give the opportunity, come back to this because I believe it has to be examined.
    I know that that might not be a popular viewpoint. But I think it has validity.

    1. I think that you should revisit it, k, because I need you to clarify so that I can understand you better.

      When you initially said that anti-Semitism is "a feature, not a bug," it immediately put me to mind of Wisse.

      Wisse agrees that anti-Semitism is a feature, and not a bug, because it serves political purposes.

      In post-WWI Germany it gave the young men, returned from the fight, someone to blame. The stab in the back. Nefarious, Jewish, money-grubbing whatever... and that is why they lost that war, or so many of them told themselves.

      And that is why Jews throughout Europe paid the ultimate price.

      I would definitely argue that Arab-Muslim anti-Semitism is at least as vicious today as was German anti-Semitism in the 1930s.

      In fact, I would argue that it is significantly worse due to the religious element.

    2. Mike,
      Yes. I agree entirely that anti-Semitism is a feature, not a bug. Absolutely!

      I think what I am trying to get at, is that while anti-Semitism will always be with us and that that is very important to discuss, there is something else which is important to explore.
      Both you and I ( and others on this blog) have been people who have been politically aligned for much/all of our lives
      on the left. You have said, as I have, that you now find yourself without a political home. You no longer feel able to vote for the Democratic party. I no longer feel able to give my vote to the British Labour party. Much of that is specifically to do with the way in which we have observed the western- left ( progressives) growing obsessional hatred for Israel, and their anti-Semitism.
      And, of course, their decision to support, enable, and align themselves with political Islam. And all that implies.

      As I have said before, anti- Semitism is a phenomenon that haunts the world.
      Nothing lessens that truth.
      However, what I have come to observe since being more and more uncomfortable with the way in which, for example, the left treats Israel, and the Israel / Palestine conflict, is that there is so much that is similar with the way they behave with other issues. I think this stems from endemic problems within some of the base ideology that informs their thinking, and, also, with the changes that have occurred within the history of the twentieth century and how they have responded to them.
      These are not superficial similarities. And they are similarities which are deeply concerning for the health of the contemporary left.
      What I think is right, is that you are no longer a Democrat, but still remain a self- identifying 'liberal'. Within the tribal political landscape of the US, that is entirely understandable. There is, and has been, a lot that is wrong with right- wing politics in America. That is true in the UK.
      My view, is that 'liberalism' has, in itself, become extremely alarming, and unpleasant. And is often, when examined, the opposite of what it claims to be. This can be seen in a whole range of behaviours. And is becoming more self-evident.
      I think it is enormously important to be able to examine this subject.

      I could try to explain via email, if that would be easier.

    3. I see that Jeff raised some related points in his above comment.

    4. Mike,
      Apologies for being unclear. Have just read that back.

      When I said "What I think is right..."
      I meant "right" as in accurate , not "right" as in proper.

    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. I saw the phrase you mentioned "child molesting psychopath", and was thinking you were talking about mohammad

  4. This is off topic, but every day I make a habit of going through Ian's list of links to articles and this morning a piece caught my eye entitled, So, Just What is a 'Palestinian,' Anyways

    So I am reading along at some blog that I was unfamiliar with, but the piece, itself, seemed vaguely familiar.

    And then it dawned on me.

    No, shit, dummy. It should seem familiar.

    You wrote it!

    1. Welcome to the ranks of the plagiarized, Mike!

      My first such incident actually just happened last month on the Streetsblog site, during their 'Parking Madness' series, where an anonymous commenter posted a comment I'd left a few days earlier, in which I analyzed downtown Camden, NJ's transit potential, changing only two or thee words from my original comment, but nonetheless maintaining the same paragraph structure and 99.9% of the same words in the same place, etc etc.

      Will never understand why people do this...

    2. I take it as a compliment.

      He did, you should know, link back to the TOI piece, but he should have attributed.

      It's no big deal. It was just weird to find myself reading one of my own pieces without me knowing it was mine for a few sentences in. I like that piece, actually, and I wrote it almost a year ago for my TOI blog.

    3. Well, there goes my idea of a blog called Israel Jives. Dang! ;)

    4. A similar thing happened to me this past week when I clicked a link and quickly began reading an article. About half way through I thought "this guy sounds just like Michael Lumish!" I scrolled to the top. It was you. You're really getting around.

    5. The death threats are the most fun.

  5. If they don't vote, so what? Where's the downside?

  6. This reminds me.
    Electing Edward Miliband as PM will be a disaster for Israel and the Jews.
    The only way a Jew can get elected to a leadership office anywhere in Europe, including in particular the UK, is if he is an antisemite. This has always been the case. Nothing has changed.
    Miliband certainly qualifies.
    I seriously hope the Brits understand this.

  7. geoffff,

    I seriously hope the Brits understand this.

    The statistics are showing that a considerable number of British Jews do understand that. (Not enough - and many don't care.) However, even if many British Jews do not vote for the Labour party, it is unlikely that that will affect the outcome of the election. There are a few 'swing' seats in London where the 'Jewish vote' could make a difference, but they are looking very close in the polls.
    The demographics in the UK mean that Jews are increasingly irrelevant as a voting group.
    The Labour party is courting Jewish votes assiduously in those particular seats. However, it is uninterested in courting the Jewish vote in a national sense. It doesn't need it.

    It is looking like the next British prime minister will be Ed Miliband. Most likely, as leader of a minority Labour government. Probably supported in some way - informally, with demands - by the SNP. The SNP are extremely anti-Israel. Their leader has shared platforms with Hamas representatives. The SNP are very pro- Palestinian. The probable outcome of the election will result in the most anti- Israel / pro- Palestinian political parties having power. Ed Miliband has already stated in a recent interview that he is aware of the present US administration's change of direction on Israel. And that, as prime minister, he will join the Obama administration in their objectives.

    You are right to suggest it is a dangerous situation.