This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Monday, 12 November 2012

‘We were let down by care system: illegal immigrant told former girlfriend to watch as he killed her sister and friend'

The Bradford Telegraph & Argus reported today that a “sadistic” asylum seeker, Ahmed Otak from Afghanistan , “forced his former girlfriend [from Wakefield] to witness him stabbing his sister and her friend to death after she refused to take him back”.

Ahmed Otak was jailed for a minimum of 34 years. The judge concluded that he was a “practised liar” who had “repaid the generosity of the UK” by killing two of its citizens.

*) There were two reasons why I din’t really want to comment on this case. One: I didn’t want to intrude on the grief of the relations of the people who died. Two: it could be construed as my making ‘political capital’ out of a personal and sad case.

However, it’s got to be said that all political comment intrudes on at least something personal. (Despite that, I won’t use the victims’ names.) In addition, every comment on any issue like this is bound to be deemed to be making ‘political capital’ out of it. Those who talk about ‘political capital’ usually mean that the writer is using the ‘capital’ for the wrong political reasons. Making use of political capital for the right political reasons would, of course, be OK. (No individual, whether right or left, Conservative or Labour, will ever refrain completely from using political capital; even if he denigrates such a use in his political enemies.)

It wasn’t until I read the fact that the Afghan asylum-seeker had threatened to throw acid in the face of his girlfriend that I decided to comment.

It seems that throwing acid into the faces of people is a common pastime in Afghanistan (+ Pakistan). More than that. It’s always a case of throwing acid into the faces of women that’s a common pastime in Afghanistan (+ Pakistan). Defenders of Muslims, and asylum seekers, often say that X or Y ‘occurs in all cultures’. Maybe. What about throwing acid specifically and exclusively into the faces of women? Sure, it might have happened a couple of times per decade even here in the UK. But I bet there are cultures in which it’s never happened - and I’m talking about modern/contemporary cultures here. In Afghanistan (+ Pakistan), on the other hand, it happens almost every day.

Afghanistan is a Muslim country. It’s been a Muslim country for around a thousand years. The fact that the ‘modern state' itself was not created until 1709 has no particular bearing on this issue because I’m talking primarily about the Afghani people, not the state or even the nation as such. (Islam first arrived in Afghanistan in 642AD - around 1,300 years ago.) Thus, the bogus leftist or liberal distinction between religion/Islam and culture doesn’t work in this case. How can such a distinction be made when a people has been Muslim for over a thousand years? All their behaviours and beliefs will therefore reflect, to a smaller or greater extent, Islam. Apart from that. Islam is a cultural phenomenon in the first place. (This Islam/culture distinction is an odd one for leftists, particularly,  to make given their Marxist/materialist position on religion and reality.)

There is a very strong chance that Ahmed Otak threatened this obscene act for religious reasons. After all, when acid is thrown into the face of women in Afghanistan it’s done for Islamic reasons. That could be that the woman or girl is attempting to get herself educated; which is unIslamic. Or not wearing the burka; which is unIslamic. Or, in this case, when a woman is not loyal or obedient to her husband; or, in this case, her boyfriend (it happened in the UK after all), she deserves to have acid thrown in her face.

Of course the Islam/culture distinction can be helpful to leftists and liberals. But, as I said, throwing acid into unIslamic women’s faces is Islamic; even if Muslim men haven’t always used acid. (British Muslims often dress like Muhammed, but  they always seem to draw the line when it comes to footwear. That is, they wear Nike trainers or whatever.)

*) As for Ahmed Otak being an asylum-seeker itself. It seems that his asylum bid was rejected but that he was still allowed to stay on ‘humanitarian grounds’ - regardless of the fact that the authorities knew that he had lied about his age and no doubt also about his situation in Afghanistan.

These humanitarian grounds were possibly partly based on the fact that he lied about his situation in Afghanistan because he, say, wanted to live off UK benefits and date Western girls. In actual fact, for the pro-asylum-seeker fundamentalist or zealot, every asylum-seeker is a humanitarian case who must be allowed to stay on humanitarian grounds; especially if they are Muslim or black/brown.

No comments:

Post a Comment