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