When the Archbishop of Canterbury assured everyone a week or two ago that that the establishment of sharia law in Britian was “unavoidable,” there were howls of protest (there was also a standing ovation for the Primate of All England in the General Synod, but that, after all, was the Church of England bleating). But why the howls? After all, it was only a day or two later that it was announced that the British government planned to issue “sharia compliant” Islamic bonds “to pay for Gordon Brown’s public-spending programme by raising money from the Middle East.” “The scheme,” a story in the Mail on Sunday reported, would “mark one of the most significant economic advances of sharia law in the non-Muslim world. It will lead to the ownership of Government buildings and other assets currently belonging to British taxpayers being switched wholesale to wealthy Middle-Eastern businessmen and banks.” Well, nobody really liked those buildings anyway.
Over at NRO, Andrew McCarthy has some breaking news from the London Times on another front in the progress of soft jihad. “Knorbert the piglet,” The Times reports, “has been dropped as the mascot of Fortis Bank after it decided to stop giving piggy banks to children for fear of offending Muslims.”
That’s the new mantra, you know: “for fear of offending Muslims.” We don’t give away piggy banks (to say nothing of other “pig related items”) “for fear of offending Muslims.” We don’t draw cartoons of Mohammad “for fear of offending Muslims.” We mustn’t publish articles pointing out the demographic disparity between the Muslims of Canada and Europe and other parts of the population “for fear of offending Muslims.” We mustn’t even publish books saying critical things about “Saudis and terrorists” “for fear of offending Muslims.”
It’s all part of the campaign of soft jihad. Traditional jihad is waged with scimitars and their contemporary equivalents, e.g., stolen Boeing 767s, which make handy instruments of mass homicide. Soft jihad is a quieter affair: it uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible but, on the contrary, to undermine that freedom and pave the way for self-righteous, theocratic intolerance. Soft jihad is patient. It can add and multiply as well as Mark Steyn can (and here). It, too, sees the demographic writing on the wall and is content to wait a few years to occupy the West’s real estate–it’s so much easier, when you come right down to it, than blowing the stuff up and then finding yourself with a massive clean-up and rebuilding bill. Just sit tight and watch the infidels tie themselves into knots making excuses for you while, elsewhere in their lives, they embrace barrenness as an “environmentally friendly” alternative to Genesis 1:28.
Speaking as a right-wing, knuckle-dragging Eurocentric infidel, however, I feel it incumbent on me to point out that where traditional jihad is probably best dealt with by talented chaps like General Petraeus, soft jihad might often be more effectively countered by quieter crusades. Clever readers will doubtless have many fertile ideas to contribute to the fulfillment of what I hope will become the West’s new Quiet Crusade to make the World Safe for Christendom (remember that?). Here’s a modest proposal to get the ball rolling. It was suggested to me by another story from the London Times today. Under a headline shouting “Muslims shocked to learn that crisps contain alcohol” is the illuminating news that that Walkers snacks “contain traces of alcohol” and that eating them is therefore prohibited by Islam.
Shuja Shafi, who chairs the food standards committee of the Muslim Council of Britain, said that he intended to investigate. “Certainly we would find it very offensive to have eaten food with alcohol.”
Is that so? Well, here’s my modest proposal, which I offer to British Food and Beverage industry free and for nothing: start putting a bit of alcohol in everything edible or potable. There are, of course, other reasons for wishing to increase one’s usual consumption of alcohol, but here is a patriotic imperative to guide you: what if you went into Harrod’s food hall or your local grocery shop and every item had at least some trace amount of alcohol (or, alternatively, pork residue)? I understand that there might be certain logistical difficulties, but if the EU can effectively police the system of mensuration used in its jurisdiction, if it can prohibit certain types of bananas because they deviate too markedly from the perpendicular, then surely they can employ the vast apparatus of their bureaucracy to assure that a drop of alcohol or a dollop of bacon fat is added to any food stuff sold in Britain.
It’s only a start, I realize, but from a tiny acorn the might oak does grow.
Update: A kind reader notes that Harrod’s is owned by “a Mohammedan.” Yes, yes, it is owned by Mohamed al-Fayed, father of Dodi, the (last) boyfriend of Diana, Princess of Wales, the royal adulteress, aficionado of high colonics, and friend of Sir Elton John. I singled out Harrod’s for that very reason! Even that august establishment, you see, would be subject to my tincture of alcohol, smidgeon of bacon fat rule, just as it is now subject (e.g.) to the no curved bananas rule and other laws of the land.
PJM Home
The New Criterion
The Rape of the Masters: How Political Correctness Sabotages Art
Lives of the Mind: The Use and Abuse of Intelligence from Hegel to Wodehouse
Art’s Prospect: The Challenge of Tradition in an Age of Celebrity
Experiments Against Reality: The Fate of Culture in the Postmodern Age
Tenured Radicals, NEW, EXPANDED EDITION FALL 2008! How Politics has Corrupted our Higher Education
Counterpoints: 25 Years of The New Criterion on Culture and the Arts
The Long March: How the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s Changed America
Against the Idols of the Age
Lengthened Shadows: America and Its Institutions in the Twenty-First Century
The Survival of Culture: Permanent Values in a Virtual Age
Physics and Politics, by Walter Bagehot, edited with an
Introduction by Roger Kimball
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. Jordynne Olivia Lobo:Dear Mr. Kimball,
“[W]hat if you went into Harrod’s food hall or your local grocery shop and every item had at least some trace amount of alcohol (or, alternatively, pork residue)?”
Did you overlook that Harrod’s fell some years ago to the soft jihad, that it’s owned by a Mohammedan?
Feb 23, 2008 - 1:35 pm 2. Allison:Roger,
The pork residue proposal sounds a little unfair to observant Jews in Great Britain, who have never promoted jihad, hard or soft. (Funny how no one ever worried the piggy banks would offend them..)
Feb 24, 2008 - 5:26 am 3. Binks, WebElf:freemarksteyn.com has Mark Steyn & Ezra Levant news.
Feb 24, 2008 - 8:04 am 4. Mr. Zug:Dear Mr. K:
Allison’s point should be very well taken. And the Jewish people have been in the UK for much longer than muslims, not to memtion that the Jewish people have already contributed more to the establishment of the UK as a great power of Western Civ than mulsims ever will.
Would greatly appreciate a more serious suggeston from you for turning back the tide of muslim aggression on the UK in particular and the West in general.
Thank you.
Feb 24, 2008 - 12:51 pm 5. Bob Smith:I agree we need a soft jihad. But I feel it needs to get right to the point.
Everyone, from the PM, and president on down needs to just say the truth about Islam. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Islam is a death cult. Islam wrongly believes a 7th century child pedophile was a messenger of God. Islam is a outright lie created by Mohammad.
The sooner Muslims get the word (and it can only come from non-Muslim societies) the sooner Islam will have its long overdue reformation.
Feb 24, 2008 - 2:30 pm 6. Ronald Wagner:It is important not to allow any sort of political correctness affect freedom of speech, production of products, or mind numbing of any kind.
We are already being affected by liberal media bias in many ways. We need to really think how advertising, corporations, all levels of government publicity, and media change our way of living. Some are:
Feb 25, 2008 - 3:40 am 7. Classical Values:1. Taxation and fees in general, and on specific products, such as petrol.Keeping all but the rich out of centre city with new fees.
2. BBC or the equivalent in other nations.
3. Media self censorship and dumbing down of news.
4. What is taught to our children in schools, and universities.
6. Supporting of illegal aliens.
Add the many other ways you can think of.
Hard core modest proposal
Looking at the ongoing campaign he calls “soft jihad,” (which “uses and abuses the language and the principles of democratic liberalism not to secure the institutions and attitudes that make freedom possible but, on the contrary, to undermine that free…
Feb 25, 2008 - 6:14 am 8. Bill:Might I suggest:
“For your protection, personnel handling and preparing the food served in this establishment make regular use of alcohol-based hand sanitizers.”
Feb 25, 2008 - 7:06 am 9. Nancy Hyden Woodward:Caving in to anything that might/would offend Muslims living in Great Britain is pure insanity.
Those who promote it need to revisit your early history (I am in the U.S. where our principles of freedom are based on that very event).
Yes, I could spell it how for you right now, but I think some of you need to do a little research.
Feb 25, 2008 - 8:05 am 10. Joy:Hint: Go back a few centuries.
I work in a large department store and every day there are more and more Muslims shopping there. Their goal is to take over our country.
Feb 25, 2008 - 9:03 am 11. Bill Nabor:http://usawakeup.org/mission.htm
Read this. It sure keeps me awake at night.
Now maybe I sould buy a large piggy bank to set near the cash register and a piggy pin to wear on my sweater.
Forget the hand sanitizers, wrong kind of alcohol (isopropyl, not ethanol), at least for most brands. Nice try, though.
Feb 25, 2008 - 9:12 am 12. John in Michigan, USA:@Bill Nabor: “wrong kind of alcohol (isopropyl, not ethanol)”
You are of course, correct, these are different alcohols. But, I wonder, would it really matter to the fanatics and these touchy-feely regulators?
Feb 25, 2008 - 12:56 pm 13. Lydia:Great post, Roger!
Actually, some Muslims evidently don’t “get” the fact that they are different kinds of alcohol, and there have been reports (which I don’t have time to look up again tonight) of refusal by Muslim visitors to use alcohol-based hand sanitizer when entering British hospital wards. These hand sanitation things are set up to try to prevent the spread of antibiotic-resistant staff infections in the hospital, but they didn’t enforce them against the Muslims. Who, of course, probably weren’t quite _so_ stupid as sincerely to believe the sanitizers were forbidden by their religion but were just looking for another chance to push the envelope.
Feb 25, 2008 - 7:37 pm 14. Bill Nabor:John in Michigan and Lydia have turned my rather lame and sick attempt at humor into something much more serious: When does religious dogma, taken to absurd lengths, cease to be sanctioned by God and began to do real harm to both the believer and to society in general?
Most religious food proscriptions originated in the dim past from perfectly sane observations. For example, the ban on the consumption of pork by Jews and Moslems almost certainly arose from the observation that many ancient people who ate pork died rather horribly (from trichinosis). Not knowing the cause, what could these people suppose except that God was punishing them for eating something He didn’t want them to? The ban on pork undoubtedly saved the lives of thousands of Jews and Moslems and was, therefore, quite beneficial. Since then, however, God had vouchsafed us the revelation of the cause of the sickness and we can now produce pork that is safe and nutritious. The sane conclusion is that He has released us from the proscription and, therefore, the continued insistence on dogma is superannuated and harmful.
The bad effects of the consumption of alcohol (ethanol) is still obvious. Without a doubt, the proscription of its consumption is still saving thousands of Muslims and is a good thing. Until, that is, it is taken to absurd lengths by ignorant religious fanatics. How in heaven’s name can the consumption of a frickin’ French fry offend God when the alcohol therein can only be detected by the most sophisticated GC-mass spec laboratory analysis? Certainly God can’t object to us eating food contaminated by the inevitable few skin cells sloughed off the hand of the cook on the basis of His ban on cannibalism! Such attitudes on the part of fanatical Muslims can only be, as Lydia suggests, a manifestation of a desire for political power having nothing to do with religion.
If our society insists on altering its ways so as not to offend, then it is time for non-Muslims to announce, in no uncertain terms, that WE are offended by people who refuse to wash their hands. WE are offended by being refused taxi service by Muslim drivers in Minneapolis if we happen to be carrying a bottle of scotch as a hostess gift to the people we are visiting. WE are offended because our children are refused a piggy bank to encourage saving. WE are offended at being blown to bits for any reason whatsoever. WE are offended if our fiancée is killed by his or her parents because we are not Muslim. What say you, Western Societies, what are you going to do to avoid offending US? Or are you so bigoted that we don’t count?
Feb 26, 2008 - 11:35 am 15. Lloyd Hansen:I propose that the EU ban all traditional sugars (white and brown cane sugars, corn syrup, etc.) and demand that all sweetened products use sugar alcohols (xylotol, sorbitol, erythritol, etc.) because they have half the number of carbohydrates than traditional sugars which will help Europeans keep their weight down. It’s like banning transfat in that it will help people stay thin and healthy(wink, wink).
I’m sure our muslim friends and neighbors will appreciate our concern for their health. Oh, it’s against their religion? That’s ok, we can stock our stores with molasses. That’s not against anyone’s religion is it?
Feb 26, 2008 - 2:07 pm 16. Roger’s Rules » The Ostrich Effect, or Whose Side is the State Department On?:[...] efforts not to do or say anything of “offend Muslims,” radical Muslims are busy extending the list of things they are offended by while also seeking new ways to insinuate elements of Sharia law into [...]
May 4, 2008 - 5:48 am 17. Roger’s Rules » Watch where you’re going! Or, plumbing and the progress of soft jihad:[...] in arms because a certain brand of crisp was processed with alcohol, I offered, free of charge, a pragmatic intervention to tame the progress of jihad, soft, hard, and flaccid: “Start putting a bit of alcohol in [...]
Sep 25, 2008 - 1:45 am