The cost of monitoring Muslims in the U.K.

The cost includes putting non-Muslim agents -- or paying Muslims who may not always be, and who very often may not be, reliable -- to monitor nearly two million people.

The thousands (by now) of mosques, the madrasas, the coffee shops, the curry-shops, the convenience stores, the very monica-ali streets, reeking of Rawalpindi in the midst of John of Gaunt's once-sceptered isle (the scepter being quite different from the decapitatory knives of today), have to be patrolled, not only for the usual crime, but for the Islam-promoted schemes and plots, of which are so many.

There are, at the moment, about 2,000 groups or individuals that are apparently being watched. What does that take, in round-the-clock manpower? How many policemen or security agents are left for the task of protecting British citizens from ordinary crimes, when so much time and money must go into the monitoring of Muslims?

That monitoring is made necessary because of the ideology of Islam, which inculcates several basic ideas. The first is that the only real division of humanity that counts -- and how it counts! -- is that between Muslim and non-Muslim, that is, between Believer and Infidel. And Islam further inculcates the idea that all Muslims have a duty to further, through "struggle" or Jihad, the aims of Islam. And the aims of Islam are essentially not otherworldly but very much of this world: to remove all obstacles to the spread of Islam (the Constitution of the United States, for example, is such an obstacle), and then the dominance of Islam, everywhere.

Islam inculcates a view of a world that is divided in two (leaving out the nearly-insignificant, hardly-existing, lands of transient "truce," or Dar al-Sulh), between Dar al-Islam, the lands where Islam dominates and Muslims rule, and Dar al-Harb, the Land, or Domain, or House, of War, where Islam does not yet dominate and Muslims do not yet rule. Between the two Houses, between Infidels and Believers, a permanent state of war exists and must exist, until the whole world belongs to Allah and to his people. This is not a fabrication made up by those who for some unaccountable reason have it in for Islam. This is Islamic doctrine. It is not the less Islamic doctrine if your smiling Muslim co-worker earnestly, with a great show of sincerity, attempts to deny this doctrine or at least professes amazement and puzzlement when you attempt to ask him about it, as if he simply had no idea.

Every single apostate has testified to what Muslims discuss freely, and of which they are certainly well aware, when they think no Infidels are around to overhear. Again and again they stress the well-practiced mendacity of Muslims. Should we disbelieve Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Wafa Sultan, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and all the other "defectors" from the Army of Islam? Can't we tell that they are sturdily and bravely telling the truth in what they speak and what they write? Can't we see the obvious meretriciousness not only of the CAIR and mcb people, but of those Muslims, groups or individuals, who attempt to deny that what is in the Qur'an, the Hadith, the Sira, exists? Or if it exists, they would have us believe that it cannot possibly mean what of course they know perfectly well that it means.

Some, admittedly, may fail to admit this not out of deep and sinister malevolence, but only out of embarrassment. But even if it is only out of embarrassment, one has to ask: why do you still call yourself a Muslim, why do you remain loyal to a Total Belief-System that indeed does inculcate such things, even if you, personally, are at least indifferent to, and possibly opposed to, the most dangerous and disturbing and worst of what Islam teaches? What is the hold of this on you? Why do you insist on not openly telling the truth about it? Why are you yourself not a defector from the Army of Islam? Why do you not even recognize -- this to Pakistanis and Iranians and other non-Arabs -- that at some point in the past, your Hindu or Jain or Buddhist or Zoroastrian ancestors were forcibly, not willingly, converted to Islam because they hoped to avoid the status, to which as non-Muslims was the very best they could hope for, of dhimmi, which meant permanent humiliation, degradation, and physical insecurity?

The texts of Islam are immutable. What Islam inculcates remains, to be found, always and forever, in those texts. No matter what selective or bowdlerized version the British or the French or other governments, in government-funded mosques, think they can present and so mold the minds of Muslims to accept a sanitized Islam, the real texts will always be there, always available to the Believers. Large-scale integration of those whose creed is not only alien but also permanently and deeply hostile to all non-Muslims, simply is not possible for any Infidel nation-state. Those who put their faith in such policies of integration are foolish, building on sand, evading reality. That reality will have to be confronted, and confronted soon, while there is still time. The steady degradation and greatly rising expense for Infidels has not yet reached, as it soon will, nightmarish proportions.

Think right now only of that: the sheer expense of Muslims living in large numbers in Infidel lands.
There is the expense, for Infidels, of paying for all the benefits -- the free health care, and free education, and free or nearly-free subsidized housing, even the generous family allowances -- that Muslims all over Western Europe receive, and take advantage of in fiddling ways that are not to be believed.
And think what those huge Muslim families -- huger by far than those of the indigenous Infidels, or even of the other, non-Muslim immigrants -- and the burden they place on Infidel taxpayers. Think, for example, of the expense those huge families have caused the National Health Service in Great Britain -- think of the obstetricians, the gynecologists, and of course the translators who so often must be paid. And think of the much higher incidence of serious congenital illnesses among Muslims, because of their insistence on marrying, so often, relatives, illnesses that must be expensively treated. And that rampant and even fanatical endogamy reflects the general mistrust of others that is observable among Muslims, who growing up in a faith full of acts of aggression and deception, helps mold men of similar inclinations or worries.

And the monitoring of Muslims, the agents, the tapping of phones, the huge payments to informants (who may themselves be merely getting on the Infidel payroll, and not really offering anything of value), the enormous costs of securing airports, train and bus stations, planes and railroads and busses, schools, government offices, symbols of authority, churches and synagogues and Hindu temples, the residential dwelling-places of important officials who may have earned a special hostility, and all the rest -- it adds up.

I have heard different calculations for the cost of each Muslim in a non-Muslim land. One person has suggested a figure of $100,000 annually; another has suggested a figure of $250,000 annually. Take your own pencils and paper. Find out what your government spends, in monitoring Muslims and in guarding non-Muslim sites, in giving Muslims health care (used disproportionately) and education (used sparingly, but often the education of fellow non-Muslim students is disrupted by the atmosphere created), and housing, and all the rest.

Go ahead. Figure it out.

Now ask yourself a few questions. Here's one to start with: how many non-Muslims in Great Britain are now routinely being denied procedures that might save their lives -- new but expensive cancer treatments, or open-heart surgery -- because the NHS "doesn't have the money"? And ask why it "doesn't have the money" and how long you think you, or others, should be expected to quietly endure, as you have endured, this situation?