Thinking in public about anything that matters.

Category: Multiculturalism (Page 1 of 2)

More information on the “Sharia lashing”.

It is now believed that unpaid debts, not alcohol consumption, was the reason for the lashing.


Man accused of sharia law assault called bin Laden ‘soldier of God’

“A MUSLIM man who once called Osama bin Laden a ”soldier of God” participated in a brutal flogging of a man to impose his religious beliefs and his standing in the Islamic community, police have alleged in court…”


“Muslim groups condemned the attack, saying it was misguided if motivated by sharia law. Kuranda Seyit, the executive director of the Forum on Australia’s Islamic Relations, said it condemned criminal actions in the name of religion.

” ‘Anyone who takes the law into their own hands will be dealt with by the Australian judicial system,” he said. ”If these men did what is alleged, then they have no understanding of sharia and should be discouraged.’ ”

Well, that’s good to hear.   I do think that Muslims are supposed to abide by the laws of the non-Muslim lands that they are living in.  (But I also think they are supposed to try to get the laws changed as much as possible to coincide with Sharia, at the very least for their own community.)

But whether this crime of lashing was committed as retribution for not paying debts, or as a Sharia punishment for breaking the Islamic rule against drinking (which I consider to be the more evil of the two motivations), it is a bizarre  and serious criminal assault, and it sounds like the police are taking it seriously, as they should.

Why do I consider the religious motivation to be the more evil possibility?  Because it is a violation of the victim’s rights for having made a personal decision that harms no one.  Non-payment of debts is at least a violation of one’s ethical obligations and *is* harmful to one’s creditor.   But there are legal ways to collect, and physical attack is not an option.

It’s also possible that the lashing was motivated by the combination of the unpaid debts and the fact that the guy had a few drinks with friends.  Finding out that he’s out drinking like a kafir (and spending money on sin instead of saving money to pay his debts) might have been the ‘straw that broke the camels back’.  Or maybe the guy is a drunk and behaves badly when drinking.   As Prodos suggested to me yesterday, maybe while he was drinking he felt up somebody’s Muslim sister.

Anyhow, time will tell us more…

Follow-up story from February, 2013

Report This Post

Sharia Law Lashing

I am extremely interested to see what happens with this case – how the legal system deals with it, how local Muslims respond to it.

A recent convert to Islam (whose name allegedly is “Christian”,  funnily enough), woke in his bedroom to find four Muslim men from his Mosque standing over him, and they proceeded to hold him down and lash him with an electrical cord for about  half-an-hour.

One article says that “Representatives of Sydney’s Muslim community have condemned the attack.”  But it doesn’t say who those representatives were or what they said about it.

This is the kind of thing that is alarming those Australians who worry about making any kind of concessions to Sharia law in the West.  At present, some Muslims are asking for parts of Sharia to be allowed for Muslims in  non-Muslim countries, such as parts of Sharia family law and Sharia finance.  Some countries already allow this.

I need to do more research on the subject.  But I’m leery of making concessions to Sharia.  Proceed with caution.

It’s a worry that these four Muslim fellas felt free to mete out this punishment.  I wonder if they’ve done this before to Muslims born to the religion, who would be less likely to rat on them to the police because of family pressures?

I am aware that not all Muslims in the modern world want to live under Sharia (but from what I’ve read of the primary books of Islam, that’s not very Muslim of them).  What is likely to happen if your non-Muslim society has a growing number of the Sharia-upholding Muslims coming to live?   People who believe they SHOULD be living under Sharia, and who are willing and ready to take Sharia law into their own hands and defy the law of the non-Muslim land for the sake of Allah?  How long will they tolerate not being able to live under Allah’s laws?  And will they just go home to a Sharia land, or keep trying to change things in the land of the kafir, bit by bit?  If they don’t get their way, what will they do?

In the case at hand, will the law actually prosecute the four who flogged the newbie against his will?   If so, will the radical Muslims use it as a test case to push for ‘multicultural’  and ‘tolerant’ bending of Australian law in this matter?  Will the four – including the middle-aged man – get leniency because of the religious beliefs involved?  Or will they be treated like any Australian who broke into someone’s house, held him down, and beat him with an electrical cord?

And if they are treated just like any other Australian, what will other Muslim radicals do?   Will there be a publicly-viewable schism between the Sharia Muslims and their Westernized brethren over this case?

Below are my two sources for the lashing story.

Man charged over ‘sharia law’ lashing

Men charged over Sharia law lashing

Follow-up story, February 2013

Report This Post

Aliens Attack Canada!

Canada. It’s that big country north of the USA. Famous for maple syrup, ice hockey, and saying “Eh?”

And now it may well become famous fordestroying the freedoms of speech and press by persecuting the politically incorrect.

But fear not! Sometimes saviors come from the most unexpected places! Look up in the sky! It’s a bird! It’s a plane!


Report This Post

Open Letter to Londonistan

I’m posting below an e-mail I sent to Tony Blair regarding a mosque plannedfor the 2012 London Olympics site. I’m sending similar e-mails and letters to other appropriate people, organizations, and London newspapers.

To read background on this issue before readingmy Blair e-mail, go here:

Ken’s Mega-Mosque will Encourage Extremism

and here:

Mega-Mosque Plans Could Make London “Muslim Capital of Europe”

My note:

Dear Mr. Blair,

I have just been reading about a huge mosque that is expected to be built in London with the backing of a radical Muslim group, the Tabligh-i-Jamaat.

According to the article, written by two Muslims, Irfan al-Alawi and Stephen Suleyman Schwartz, the Tabligh is an Islamic Separatist movement, and John Walker Lindh (American Taliban combatant) and two men involved in the London July 7 bombing have been associated with that group. Tabligh preachers reportedly have been crucial in the radicalization of the Pakistani military and intelligence services.

The article states: “The aim of the Tabligh is to unify and segregate “pure” Muslims from their neighbors.” I have little doubt this mosque will be used to radicalize Muslim youth in London and to prepare them to do their duty to bring the West under submission to their “pure” form of Islam.

It was also suggested that this mosque is likely to get some government funding. That would be a travesty, and would be a signal to the whole world that England is surrendering to the mentality that wants to destroy it and the rest of the non-Muslim world (not to mention the destruction of the part of the *Muslim* world that isn’t “pure”).

A huge, dazzling Mosque complex, built next to the site of the 2012 Olympic games, which includes residences, a library, and more, built by a radical sect that discriminates against all other Muslim sects, will tell the world that England is rapidly becoming a dhimmi state. The fact that Lord Mayor Ken Livingstone is welcoming with open arms this monument to overbearing Islamism shouts the message: “England is ripe for submission to Islam;come and hold your basket out, and England will drop right in with the next breeze!”

My English friends here in Australia (I’m an American) have been talking despondently as if the UK is already lost.

I wonder what Winston Churchill would say.

Sincere best wishes,
Sydney Kendall

Report This Post


This might be a minor point, but it’s been bugging me. Silly, I suppose. But I keep reading and hearing this same dumb thing in various places: to speak against Islam is “racism”. If you are anti-Islam you are “racist”. And now the latest: the debate in Britain about the Islamic face veil for women could spark “race riots”.

Do people who use the “race” terms so carelessly believe that only one race can be Muslim? Can’t Caucasians be Muslims? (Er… wait. I seem to remember from when I was a kid looking through the World Book Encyclopedia that Arabs and a lot of other dark-skinned people were classified as Caucasian… Oh, well, not really important I guess… although, words and concepts should count for something, don’t you think?)

There are all kinds of Asians who are Muslims, including Indian Muslims. And I believe Indonesia is the most populous Muslim country in the world. Indonesians are certainly not Arabs. There are American blacks who are Muslims – and whites as well.

Yes, I have long been under the impression that Islam is a RELIGION, and that anybody could join, regardless of race. So how come if Muslims riot it’s a “race” riot?

Racism is a specific concept, but the term is now used not to identify an actual, irrational approach to judging people, but as an intimidation tactic. If you disagree with a policy Continue reading

Report This Post

Robert Tracinski

Ah-HA! I was just wishing that a recent article published in TIA Daily, which is an e-mail magazine by subscription, was available to the public online for free because I think it should be widely read. And guess what! The author of the article, Robert Tracinski (who is also the editor of TIA Daily), is allowing a few of his articles to be published online for free, and that article is one of them!

Please read The Suicide Bomb Morality.

Also, please have a look at this one: Publish or Perish: The Lessons of the Cartoon Jihad.

And thank you, Rob, for offering some ofyour eye-opening articles to the world at large!

Report This Post

Stifling Debate at NYU

So the Objectivist Club at New York University has had a panel discussion about the Danish cartoons. Trouble is, as part of the discussion, they were going to display the cartoons so that everyone could see what they were talking about.

NYU’s administration didn’t like that.

Go here: Censors Win at NYU to read all bout it.

Now, I believe a university should have the right to set campus rules, even dumb ones. But whether they have the right or not, it’s counter to the vital purposes of education to squash first-hand viewing of images under discussion, simply because some members of the community feel offended by them.

Yes, I know, some of those offended parties can be troublemakers. But here’s the thing: intellectual and moral debate in itself can be – often is – offensive to some party or other. If you are going to give in to those who threaten trouble, then Continue reading

Report This Post

« Older posts

© 2021 Sydney Kendall Says

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

Report This Blog