It’s quite hilarious really: a Guardian (Britain’s leading “progressive” newspaper) article about election fraud throughout the UKlists all the places in which such fraud has been a serious problem. Virtually all those places have large Muslim populations. The problem is that The Guardian, of course, never once mentions that fact. After all, facts and realities are secondary (or even dangerous) to International Socialists (or “progressives”). Obscure theories and righteous causes, on the other hand, are primary. And if facts get in the way – then such Leftists simply reject them because the (self)righteous cause (underwritten by ideology) demands that they should do so.
Or, as Michele Foucault once put it: “[The Left is] obliged to stand behind… facts that are totally beyond credibility.”
So what, exactly, did TheGuardian say? The following:
“Officers in Manchester, Bradford, London and Birmingham have begun inquiries after receiving complaints about ‘ghost’ voters, false statements by candidates and multiple attempts to vote by a single person.
“As well as Birmingham and Bradford, they include Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley Calderdale, Coventry, Derby, Hyndburn, Kirklees, Oldham, Pendle, Peterborough, Slough, Tower Hamlets, Walsall and Woking.
“Police across the UK have been asked to investigate more than 50 allegations of electoral fraud related to Thursday’s elections in areas previously identified as vulnerable to vote-rigging, new figures show.”
The very mention of Bradford, for example, should give the game away. But, if anything, some of those other towns and boroughs cited have a higher proportion of (mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi) Muslims than Bradford (e.g., Oldham, Tower Hamlets, etc.).
However, the usual suspect, Tower Hamlets, really clinches the deal here. It seems that this London fiefdom cannot keep itself out of trouble. It comes with the Muslim territory.
Things must be bad in Tower Hamlets if a Green Party activist (at the risk of being classed as a “racist”, “Islamophobe” or a “fascist’) had this to say, to Breitbart in London, about the often-called Islamic Republic of Tower Hamlets:
“ A lot of the voters can’t read and have no idea who they are voting for, that’s why people are out telling them what to do… the Bengalis in Tower Hamlets.. spend their lives living next to a crack den on one side and with the local Islamist downstairs. Something needs to be done.”
So rather make the obvious point that this is largely a Muslim problem (as with sexual grooming-gangs, female genital mutilation, “honour killings”, domestic terrorism, etc.), TheGuardian chooses to have a go at the UK Independence Party (UKIP) instead. It says that
“Ukip have sought to exploit electoral fraud allegations in Oldham… by lampooning postal vote fraud in an election leaflet”.
Yes, it seems that the very act of acknowledging the truth is also to “exploit” the truth. Well, at least in this instance The Guardian can’t exploit the truth because it’s ignoring it (as it often does when it comes to matters both Muslim and Islamic). And since when has any political group or party not “exploited” political issues? TheGuardian itself exploits issues and events every single day it publishes. That’s politics, mate. Except that TheGuardian has different critical standards for “far right” (i.e., conservative, right-wing or patriotic) groups like UKIP than it does for for Muslim individuals and groups. And that’s because The Guardian is racist. (You can forget the “inverted” or “positive” prefix.)
Much of the political and electoral fraud and corruption above is standard practice in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Thus Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims are importing political corruption – alongside sharia, FGM, honour killings, terrorism, etc. – into the UK.
In other words, the most corrupt councils in the UK are the ones with the most Pakistani and/or Bangladeshi Muslims.
Basically, because there’s nothing about council corruption and electoral fraud in the Koran, and certainly nothing about corrupting kuffar councils, then many Muslims don’t think that what they’re doing is wrong.
Let me explain.
There’s not really any such thing as a Muslim literalist because Islam itself is – or it must be – literalist. Part of that literalism is Islam’s rule-fixation. And what follows from that is: if’s it’s not in the Koran or hadith, then a Muslim doesn’t really know what to do (from a moral or political perspective). And that may sometimes mean that he will do exactly what he wants to do (i.e., as long as it doesn’t contravene Islamic teachings).
And because Islam is so rule-fixated, there’s no such thing as moral or religious reasoning. All there we have is following rules.
There’s a big problem (from a non-Muslim perspective) with this rule-fixation in Islam. For example, Abdul Wahid Hamid says that the
“basic principles in Islam is that every act or transaction is allowed unless it is prohibited”.
This means that if necrophilia, or pedophilia, etc. is not explicitly “prohibited” in the Koran, the sunnah and the hadith, then it’s “allowed”.
That’s primarily why so many Muslims are criminals. For example, there’s a massively disproportionate number of Muslims in our prisons. And they’re not there because they’re “poorer” or more “oppressed” than any other section of UK society. In the corrupt Muslim councils cases, none of the criminals are either poor or oppressed.
This is not a problem for Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Judaism because there have been traditions within these religions which have elaborated and extended their doctrines and rules. Muslims, on the other hand, explicitly state that this is not the case with Islam. Muslims say that “it’s all there in the Qur’an”: the “unalterable and complete word of Allah”. And even though there’s also the sunnah and hadith, Muslims still claim that it’s still all there in the Koran.
This is the source of the primary Muslim/Islamic criticism of Christianity, Judaism, etc: such religions have various “deviant traditions and theologies”; not a “single source of truth” (as is the case with Islam). Or, as Abdul Hamid Hamid puts it:
“The Qur’an has been preserved just as it was revealed. It will continue to be the human being’s only source of authentic guidance to truth and his abiding link with Reality.”
To continue on the theme of Islam’s fixation with rules.
Take the example of Salafists, and many other Muslims, who sleep on their left sides simply because Muhammad slept on his left side.
Why are Muslims scared of dogs? (Actually, not really scared – more dismissive.) Because Muhammad didn’t like dogs. (Although Muslims cite contradictory stories about Muhammad’s attitude to dogs.) Why do Muslims wear Arabic clothes in modern-day Birmingham or Bradford? Because that’s what Muhammad wore. What about beards? Ditto.
There’s also a recommendation (for Muslim males) to part one’s hair from left to right, rather than vice versa. Actually, that’s a joke recommendation! But I hope you’ve got the message by now.
All this has completely disregarded the equally problematic converse of all the above:
In Islam, every act or transaction is allowed if it is accepted or extolled in the Koran.
In other words, the Koran doesn’t really give Muslims a moral system beyond that which was relevant and appropriate in 7th century Arabia. That means that many Muslims are either in the dark in modern Western society or they feel that they can effectively do what they want; just as long as it doesn’t contravene Islamic teachings or the Koran.
Finally, if you want the truth (or even just genuine debate) on the subject of Muslim electoral fraud or Muslim council corruption (or anything to do with Islam or Muslims), then don’t read TheGuardian. On the other hand, if you want ideological purity, self-righteousness and Leftist indoctrination, then TheGuardian’s your rag.
And because most Guardianistas completely lack any skills of self-criticism and self-analysis, they can’t even contemplate the possibility – let alone the reality – that TheGuardian is the exact Leftist equivalent of the Daily Mail. You see all it takes to place yourself on an intellectual, moral and political pedestal (above the plebs beneath) is simply to become a Guardianista (or a “progressive”). No independence of mind is really required: just the very act of becoming or being a Guardianista/progressive. And this process is, in fact, very much like that of embracing a superior religion.
The Muslim Demographics of the Cities/Towns Mentioned in the Reports:
Blackburn: 11.45% Pakistani (2001)
Burnley: 6.6% Muslim (2001)
Calderdale: 6.8% Pakistani (2011)
Derby: 5.9% Pakistani (2011)
Hyndburn: 7% Pakistani (2011)
Kirklees: 10.1% Muslim (2001)
Oldham: 25% Muslim (2001)
Pendle: 13.1% Pakistani (2001)
Peterborough: 9.4% Muslim (2011)
Slough: 17.7% Pakistani (2011)
Tower Hamlets: 32% Bangladeshi, 34% Muslim (2011)
Walsall: 25% Muslim (2001)
Woking: 6.7% Muslim (2004)
(Some surveys only supply ethnic, not religious, demographics: hence the fluctuation between “Pakistani” and “Muslim”.)