Europe's Stunning Arrogance: "Muslim Menace", European Supremacists


07 Feb 2012

By Sahib Mustaqim Bleher

Whilst the European is mainly making the news for its strenuous efforts of cancelling even the pretence of democracy to preserve the interest (pun intended) of the bankers, they have not entirely taken their eyes off the "Muslim menace" within their midst, maybe because the Islamic faith remains the last and final obstacle in the secularists dream of technocratic government unhindered by conscience or reference to divine commandments. As I am preparing for a talk at Greenwich Islamic Centre (my "Greenwich Mean Talk") on Friday, 9 December, about whether Fortress Europe will ever accept full Muslim integration, I am stumbling across yet another article on the BBC News website giving publicity to the Dutch campaign for outlawing Jewish and Islamic slaughter methods. If it wasn't for the Jews fighting their corner, we Muslims would already be on a hiding to nowhere, but luckily they have picked holes in the argument of the so-called scientific and humane method of stunning animals prior to slaughter as well as the associated terminology. Dutch chief rabbi Benjamin Jacobs is quoted as taking issue with the term "ritual slaughter", saying that "it's not dancing around a cow". "In my opinion", he says, "stunning is torture. Just because it can't say 'moo' or move anymore, it's very nice for the human eye, but the animal is alive and the scientists don't actually know if it's suffering or not."

Well, the "scientists" do know, but don't want you to: In my article The halal slaughter controversy I have quoted and provided a translation of a study performed by veterinary scientists in Hanover, Germany, in 1978, comparing the Jewish shechita method of slaughter (identical to the Muslim halal method) and the captive bolt stunning method. The results were clear-cut: Cows and sheep dispatched using the shechita/halal method were fully unconscious quicker and suffered less pain, measured by EEG, than those stunned prior to slaughter. For sheep slaughtered using the Jewish/Muslim method, a zero brain activity line was recorded after a maximum of 14 seconds, whereas for sheep slaughtered using pre-stunning, brain activity responding to pain stimuli could still be observed until 200 seconds from the animal having been stunned. So, in the worst case scenario, sheep slaughtered Islamically suffer and feel pain a whole 186 seconds less than those subjected to captive bolt stunning. For those who have been brainwashed into believing that animals slaughtered Islamically suffer unduly, I highly recommend a demonstration video produced by a Muslim small holding in Texas.

These results are, of course, not palatable to animal rights campaigners whose real agenda is to deter people from eating meat altogether, using the "barbaric" Islamic slaughter as a welcome weapon in their arsenal of tricks. In past discussions I had with them, they tend to dismiss the German scientific study as outdated, but when asked to commission a new study, they argue that this would not be ethical since animals would be subjected to pain in the process. Hence, due to this circle never potentially being squared, and Jewish and Islamic slaughter only affecting less than one percent of all animals slaughtered for food, they happily acquiescence into the other ninety-nine plus percent of animals suffering a good two to three minutes longer than those mercifully killed the Jewish or Muslim way.

The minute numbers involved and the large hysteria created by everything presented in the media as the Islamic threat are in themselves telling. There are a dozen Muslim women wearing the full niqab in France, yet the French parliament sees the need to pass a specific law outlawing this attire in public places and prosecute a woman for her defiance. Here in Britain, the Daily Mail has run a whole series of articles about unsuspecting British consumers being served "halal" meat, for example from New Zealand, conveniently forgetting to mention that such meat is about as halal as the proverbial halal or kosher pork chop (or the so-called Islamic mortgage, for this matter), since all meat in New Zealand is by law stunned prior to slaughter. At the Commonwealth Business Forum in Perth, British prime minister David Cameron had the nerve to suggest the giving of foreign aid by Britain should be tied to a commitment to accept homosexuality as a basic human right, a suggestion flatly rejected by African nations. The attack against Muslim, (orthodox) Jewish and (traditional) Christian values coming out of the corridors of power of the European super state and its constituent emasculated nation states is of a purely political nature.

Comparisons with the Spanish inquisition are not entirely inappropriate. The difference is one of scale rather than mindset. And Europe no longer wants to be Christian, but secular, a goal pursued with equal passion and fanaticism. Nobody is suggesting that Jews and Muslims ought to convert, confess and eat pork as a sign of the sincerity of having mended their ways or else they would be expelled or culled. In today's Europe Jews may remain Jews, provided they subscribe to the secular Zionist Israel project, and Muslims may remain Muslims, provided they abrogate the Qur'an as being no longer above human-made law, denounce the heretic idea of an Islamic state, pay lip-service to democracy as the best thing since sliced bread (as long as they don't demand popular rule for themselves), become vegetarian or eat only stunned meat, and concede that homosexuality is an entirely acceptable lifestyle for everybody but maybe themselves. Europe is willing to tolerate Muslims as long as they are moderate, non-Islamic and non-interfering. If not, they are radicals, potential terrorists, and must be monitored, locked up or sent "back home", where they can then be assassinated, preferably by remote control drone strike.

So far, our self-appointed leaders have made a good job of compliance on our behalf. They are apologetic and accommodating. They are grateful for being tolerated and receiving the occasional grant or other state funding. They try to outdo each other with ingenious arguments how Islam must evolve and its traditional sources be re-interpreted. They happily approve a "halal" seal for stunned meat now making up the majority of alleged halal produce in the UK. Thankfully, they have not yet managed to delivery us, the Muslim public, wholesale to the altar of Europe, which is why they vehemently object for genuinely halal meat to carry the added label "Derived from animals that have not been stunned prior to slaughter." And the popular (democratic) mood is expressed by the increasing presence of outlets approved by the Halal Monitoring Committee, who only approve non-stunned meat.

If there are enough Muslims to stem the tide of the commercialisation and emasculation of Islam, the rest of the European public may one day thank us for it. The public is suspicious of Europe whose structure is not democratic and has already blessed us with plenty of unnecessary bureaucracy of the type previously only seen in the Soviet Union of yesteryear. The centre of power has shifted to being more remote and less approachable. Make no mistake: Secular Europe (or European secularists) want total control. On the back of the excuse of the Muslim threat of terrorism they are introducing laws aimed to be used to control their own, increasingly disenfranchised, populations. As a contrast to heavy-handed policing of demonstrations, they let rioters run wild without much police interference to spread fear, a proven recipe to make people surrender their freedom to the state. Airport security serve the same purpose, frightening, harassing and controlling a compliant public: Never mind the idiocy of liquid explosives carried in hand luggage: if it is perfectly save to let planes land at European airports arriving from destinations where liquids are not controlled, why do Europeans have to have to surrender their water and coke bottles when they go abroad?

If our leadership hadn't sold us out and we weren't so trusting of them (and possibly ignorant of true Islam, including its animal welfare provisions), then maybe we could start to fill the political vacuum and provide much needed leadership at a time where the people rise up against the slavery brought unto them by fraudulent fractional reserve banking (The People against the Banks), and it could no longer be said of the "Occupy Wall Street" and "Occupy the City" movements that they lack a programme and an ideology. Until then, we will continue to be stunned by the arrogance of our self-appointed masters and remain the "scum of the sea" as in the prophetic warning: "You shall be numerous, but you will be like the foam of the sea, and Allah will take the fear of you away from your enemies and will place weakness into your hearts.". Until then, let them re-interpret Islam for us and reshape the Middle East and the rest of the world to their liking. An Islam, in which Allah is stripped of His sovereignty, is not going to impress anybody, even if it is momentarily still tolerable to European supremacists.

 

  EsinIslam.Com

Add Comments




Comments & Debates :-: التعليقات والمحاورات







:-: Go Home :-: Go Top :-: