It's quite hilarious really: a Guardian article about election fraud throughout the UK lists all the places in which such fraud has been a serious problem. 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 people 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 The Guardian 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.
“West Yorkshire police, whose officers serve Bradford where former councillors have been imprisoned for electoral fraud, said they had received 21 allegations of electoral irregularities.
“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.”More broadly, the Electoral Commission has identified 16 “high risk” areas across the country: areas where there is a high-risk of electoral malpractice. Now take in the cities and towns cited by the Electoral Commission: e.g., Blackburn, Bradford, Oldham, Burnley, etc. (All cities and towns in the UK with large Muslim populations.)
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.
In this most recent example of Bangladeshi -- or Muslim -- politics in Tower Hamlets, the Council has been accused of breaking its election pledge to stop "enthusiastic campaigners" from standing outside polling stations. That is, the Council has continued its undemocratic, if not criminal, activities. More to the point, John Williams, the Returning Officer in the area, said what the Muslims of Tower Hamlets are doing is "intimidating for people".
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.), the Guardian 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 is ignoring it in this case (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? The Guardian itself exploits issues and events every single day it publishes. That's politics, mate.
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 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 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, drug-pushing, 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. 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 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.
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 a “progressive” newspaper like The Guardian. On the other hand, if you want ideological purity, self-righteousness, and Leftist indoctrination, then The Guardian’s your rag.
You see all it takes to place yourself on an intellectual, moral and political pedestal (above the plebs beneath) is simply to become a progressive/Leftist. No independence of mind is really required: just the very act of becoming or being a 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”.)
Notes on American Thinker Comments:
1) "[UKIP] want tax reform no more immigration and want to get rid of the mad muzzies ASAP."
I'm afraid you're wrong about UKIP. I'm not saying I'm against UKIP; but you've got its policies wrong.
UKIP doesn't believe in "no more immigration". And it has no specific policies on Muslim immigration.
Personally, I'm not against immigration at all. It depends on the immigrants in question and the numbers.
What I am against is the mass immigration (2000-2010: over 3 million immigrants) that was a Leftist (Labour Party) experiment on the British people of Stalinist proportions. A way of "rubbing the faces of the British in diversity". The Labour Party claimed it wanted to do it to "the Right". Nonetheless, some of the leading lights of the Labour Party are posh elitists (Fabians or ex-Trotskyists/communists) who often fuse "the Right" and "the British" in their minds.
Mass immigration was also the way the Labour Party secured itself literally millions of guaranteed votes. For example, virtually all adult male Muslims vote (the ones who do vote) for the Labour Party.
I do believe in a total end to Muslim immigration. Future demographics tell us that this is necessary for survival; and so do current realities.