Harry's Place

Disturbing post, thanks David T.

No surprise, really – but depressing all the same.

David T: your’re on the money yet again. What more can I say.

The government first of all needs to stop referring to Islam as a religion of peace or claiming that Al Queda or whoever have “misunderstood the religion”. It isn’t the business of government ministers to interpret the holy texts of religions for us.

Then they need to make clear the following:-

(a) We will not tolerate attempts to subvert our constitution and supplant our laws with undemocratic Shariah.

(b) We will deport any non British citizen or dual nationality citizens who engage in active subversion of our constitution.

(c) We expect all religious groups to respect our constitution and meet certain minimum standards as citizens.

(d) We do not accept it is healthy or wise for religious or ethnic groups to close themselves off from the wider community.

(e) We will (in England) actively promote the use of English as a first language.

(f) We will not be seeking to engage with subversive groups and will make no special efforts to engage with the Muslim faith as such. Muslims will be treated the same as other groups.

(g) Any further attempts to illegally suppress legitimate free speech in this country will be met with the full force of the law.

(h) All future immigrants to the country must demonstrate active suport for our values including broad gender equality, tolerance and free speech.

Field,

I agree with your post and think your guidelines for the future are also a wise path for our government to follow.

“(d) We do not accept it is healthy or wise for religious or ethnic groups to close themselves off from the wider community.”

This is the only point I feel requires a little more explanation. What exactly is your definition of a group closing itself off?

I’ll give you an example of something – not necessarily directly on point – which is sad more than worrying.

I live in an area with a lot of Haredim. I was just helping my wife take stuff in from the car, when a 14 year old Haredi kid stopped me. There was a taxi outside my house, and he asked me whether the taxi was mine.

I said, no, I didn’t drive a taxi.

But, I added, Prince Philip did.

Who? he said

Prince Philip, I said slightly louder.

Who is he, he answered.

“The husband of the Queen”.

Oh, he said, and I wasn’t sure he’d actually heard of the Queen either.

personally, I don’t blame him.

David T

I assume he must have heard of the Queen, a prayer is recited in Shuls for her every Shabbos and on festivals. HaModia, and the Jewish Tribune mention the Queen regularly. And every year several Haredi schools visit at least one member of the Royal family.

Not knowing the name of Prince Phillip is something that might be more common.

There is a chance he was a bit dim too. (The boy, not Prince Phillip)

Well I didn’t know Prince P drove a taxi- I just looked it up. Maybe you should have said Stephen Fry.

slightly off topic, but he’s not exactly the only youngster with a poor grasp of people and events:

“A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1577511/Winston-Churchill-didn%27t-really-exist%2C-say-teens.html

With regard to the GPU, as has been reported here before, event speaker Yasir Qadhi and his comrades at MuslimMatters.org have repeatedly used their web site to campaign publicly for Ali Al-Timimi.

Please note that they are also campaigning openly for Aafia Siddiqui.

Qadhi, fellow GPU speaker and MuslimMatters writer Tawfique Chowdhury, and their ally Mohammed Alshareef, author of “Why The Jews Were Cursed” and another GPU speaker, should be considered for banning from the UK.

Instead, the British government has decided to lend legitimacy to their propaganda operations.

Well done, HMG.

Excellent post, David, with which I totally agree. It’s as if our government were to use the Socialist Workers Student Society as an intermediary for dealing with ’socialist’ Britons, or the BNP as an intermediary for dealing with ‘patriotic’ Britons.

These are sorry times indeed when our government undermines the integration of British Muslims by empowering and legitimising radicals in this way.

This is the speaker line-up for the FOSIS-backed conference at the University of Nottingham on 1 November:

Dr Azzam Tamimi
Dr Ghada Ageel
Dr Salman H. Abu Sitta
Dr Nur Masalha
Prof. Illan Pappe
Baroness Jenny Tonge
Dr Arafat Shoukri

I imagine almost all these names are familiar to many HP readers.

For those who do not know Mr Abu Sitta, this is what he calls the Nakba:

the “largest, longest operation of planned ethnic cleansing in history”

This is how he describes Gaza:

”I call it the new Auschwitz”

This is his verdict on Oslo:

”the biggest political hoax in Palestinian history”

Here.

FOSIS is all about anger, division and hatred, not “understanding”.

Once again, well done, HMG.

Wes Streeting has earned his spurs fighting Islamism. I know. I’ve done it with him.

Which makes it all the more important to listen to what he has to say: http://www.fosis.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=339:fosis-a-nus-criticises-report-by-centre-for-social-cohesion&catid=21:press-releases&Itemid=116

I think a good place to start would be to establish a Ministry of Religious affairs to monitor and regulate the activities of all religious groups. Yes, I am well aware that this sounds like a very ‘Soviet’ practice, but I fail to see why all sorts of other forms of social organisation – sports, the arts, trade unions, charities etc etc – should be subject to government oversight and regulation, while religion is not. It is remarkable the extent to which a not insignificant form of social organisation – religion – is exempt from legal norms.

Wes Streeting has earned his spurs fighting Islamism. I know. I’ve done it with him.

I see. So instead of challenging FOSIS for giving kooks like Azzam Tamimi a platform and microphone, Streeting chooses to attack the Centre for Social Cohesion.

I think it’s unfair to damn the whole government over this. There is plenty of evidence that different departments – and even different people within the same department – have very different opinions about this. The point is that there is no cross-departmental consistency.

I would love to hear from DIUS how FOSIS promoting Tamimi as a suitable speaker fits with their adviceon dealing with extremist speakers on campus:

Institutions should establish clear institutional policies on external speakers. An institution must take reasonable steps to ensure that an external speaker is not like to promote or advocate violent extremism and that the university is able to make sure what is said falls within the law. Universities and colleges should consider sharing information with each other on speakers of concern, those who are deemed inappropriate to speak on campus, or those who are involved in any form of extremist activity leading to or promoting violence.

It’s not as if Tamimi’s position on suicide bombing is not well known.

Yossi UK:

“I assume he must have heard of the Queen, a prayer is recited in Shuls for her every Shabbos and on festivals.”

United Synagogue shuls, yes. Haredi shuls no – at least not the ones I’ve been to. Lubavitcher shtiebels do not.

I take your point Dave Rich. It is fair as far as it goes. But, really, at the moment it is not that far, is it?

Whatever happened to “joined-up thinking”?

Higher up, intelligent and effective leadership is obviously lacking. There, at the very heart of HMG as a whole, the failure is massive and inexcusable.

Anyway, here’s an educational video for the DIUS.

the nature of the politics of Islamism

Two fallacies in one phrase. First, Islamism is not an Islamic concept, it is a Western one – a facile attempt to give a get-out to “moderate” Muslims by pretending that real Islam is not intolerant, totalitarian, misogynist and violent. Second, Islam is 90% politics, so a phrase “politics of Islamism” is tautological.

Apart from that quibble, I agree with the article (and Field’s charter). Until our government can stand up unequivocally for Western values, it will continue to flail about trying to appease crocodiles.

Nick – it might be more appropriate to establish an Islamic Special Branch, i.e. a branch of Scotland Yard dedicated to dealing with Islamic threats. The current Special Branch was originally called the Irish Special Branch, and targeted on the IRA. Actually, I expect that such a police division exists, but no one dare call it by such a name. What does that say about our cultural cringe?

The The Centre For Social Cohesion report can be viewed here.

Meir,

Bobov, Vizhnitz certainly do, I can’t be certain about others, and those that don’t are negligent, as it is a clear halacha in the Gemara.

Yossi –

Well I don’t mean not having their own views on morality which may differ from the majority or wishing to worship together.

However, I think the government should be doing everything to encourage minority groups to interact with other groups in society.

Schools are an obvious issue. I don’t think myself that government should be funding exclusive religious schools. I wouldn’t rule out perhaps (needs to be looked at) INCLUSIVE religious schools e.g. perhaps if there was a rule that such schools needed to attract at least 30% of people who were not from the religious group controlling the school. That might be acceptable – but it could be open to abuse.

Not really on the subject but it cheered me up to read about this:

“The head of the Muhammediya (Islamic Movement) in Indonesia – the world’s most populous Muslim state, with which Israel has no diplomatic relations – signed a medical cooperation agreement in Tel Aviv on Thursday with representatives of Magen David Adom and the American-Israel Joint Distribution Committee.”

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1225199610626

Field,

I agree that there should be an encouragement by the government to create better links between communities, and also to foster a common national identity for all citizens, but as you can imagine, and I believe we have debated this before, I am a supporter of the existing religious school system.

I don’t think that the Government should nationalise religion, or foster a common national identity.

I do think it would be a plus, though, if the level of self loathing among parts of the intellectual mainstream were turned down a notch or two.

“Who? he said”

Although I get the point, I’m not sure knowing the name of the Queen’s husband is the best example of critical cultural knowledge. Besides, there are probably plenty of knowledgeable football fans that would take pity on David T for his lack of enthusiasm in this area. David T’s lack of knowledge on certain Jewish matters would probably make a lot of haredim sad too. Who cares?

Well, David T….I told you so. I told you so.

Yossi –

Whilst I have never supported exclusive religious schools, the issue would be relatively unimportant if we had retained the demographics of the pre-war era. But we haven’t. Demographics changes everything. With 25% of primary school children not having English as a first language – an indication of just how big the change has been – exclusive religious schooling becomes a real threat to our cohesion as a society.

What’s wrong with fostering a national Identity? I see nothing wrong with taking pride in your nation’s successes while acknowledging areas in need of improvement.

“The first is that we should stop treating British people as if they were members of a confessional group, stop trying to mediate the State’s relationship with them through self appointed, and often very politically extreme religious and “community leaders””

I see your point. But what it needs, is a Government that’s capable of knowing when the best thing to do, is to do nothing. And the next step is to undo much of what they have already done.

I support the agenda proposed by Field, but in almost every case, all they need to do is ensure that existing legislation is applied to all of us, without any consideration of faith or race.

David T – part of the problem is, I imagine, down to Whitehall’s consultation processes. I worked in Whitehall for a few years, and took part in a number of consultation exercises. In every case, the process is the same. If it feels dialogue is necessary on any topic, be it Muslim issues or new business regulations, the Dept tasked with the issue will seek out the groups that it believes are best able to represent the stakeholders involved. Civil servants will be tasked with identifying these groups.

In the case of business regulation, for example, it was always the usual suspects – CBI, TUC, Federation of Small Businesses, British Chambers of Commerce and so on. There may have been other groups better placed to give a view on a particular topic, but these were the leading stakeholders and so they were always the first invited, and their voices carried the most weight.

Now look at Islamic issues. If the Home Office, or DIUS, or any other Dept feels that “something must be done”, it needs a group to consult with. What groups can be identified as the main players? That’s right – the same usual suspects: the MCB, the MAB, or, in the case of students, FOSIS. So the Dept goes with these groups because these are either the highest profile, or, in the case of FOSIS, the only group that can be identified in that particular field.

Therein lies the problem for British Muslims. It is no good for the moderate majority to say that these groups do not represent them. Sure there have been individuals speaking out, and media campaigns denouncing extremism. But unless British Muslims begin to organise themselves and develop truly moderate representative groups, with can gain large scale support, then they will continue to be “represented” by the extremists who dominate the likes of the MCB and FOSIS.

Sorry Joseph, but if British muslims are truly moderate, they don’t need any special representation at all. They all have a vote. They all have an MP. They all have the same civil rights, and responsibilities, as everyone else.

And if they are truly moderate, then they never needed or wanted the special treatment they already get, such as Inheritance Tax advantages, and Sharia Law.

Do you most students in the FOSIS know about the links to the Jamaat e Islami and Azzam Tamimi?
I doubt it.
Even if if they do, then we have an MP who admits to owing his seat to the former and promotes the latter.

Could you clarify your comment, tim? What are you suggesting?

Personally, I do think it is disgraceful that a child aged 14 years or so would not know who Prince Philip is.

A few weeks ago, I met a charming five year old boy who knew his times tables up to eleven and that would include the “difficult” ones such as 7×8. I was mighty impressed.

Irrespective of all other matters, if someone lives in the UK and benefit from the freedom that this country offers, they should have the decency to have an understanding about the Royal family and its history. (Clearly if the boy in question is retarded then that is a valid excuse. If, as I suspect is more likely, he may never have been taught about the Royal family – then there is little excuse.)

Monty’s got it right. If there isn’t a problem then there isn’t a problem.

If Islam is a religion of peace and the vast majority of Muslims are committed British citizens who value democracy, free speech and tolerance, then what is there to worry about?

If there IS a problem, it’s not going to be solved by all this ambivalent “engagement” with dodgy spokesmen.

It’s going to be solved by using all our powers to support our democratic freedoms. Not by pandering to people who believe in Shariah.

Amen, David T,. amen. But Morgoth is right, all too many people–no need to name names–have been suicidially naive
about this whole subject for far too long. Rather late in the day, but better late than never…..hopefully. The problem is, once recognized for the mortal danger that this movement represents, will society at large have the courage to gird up its loins for the already present struggle and the stamina to stay the course against a movement that, unless every copy of the Koran on earth is destroyed, will always have on hand the seeds with which to germinate the poison in the distant future no matter how successful present-day efforts are to tamp it down.

virgil xenophon unless every copy of the Koran on earth is destroyed,

Golly.

Wouldn’t help too much though. A lot of Muslims know it by rote.

As many Jews know the Talmud by heart. You should walk by some yeshivot in Petach Tikva near the car park next to the shuk on a Friday morning to witness and hear this abomination in practice.

By kids 6 to 14 years old.

Still. The graduates from this establishment will not be looking for ways to destroy civilization and instantiate a Caliphate.

Just for ways to get their hands on more of my tax money.

Perhaps if the ‘holy teachings’ were driven into proverbial exile and ridiculed on a daily basis the way the Christian Church has been? Would the Qur’an thumpers finally shut the fuck up?

“As many Jews know the Talmud by heart. You should walk by some yeshivot in Petach Tikva near the car park next to the shuk on a Friday morning to witness and hear this abomination in practice.

By kids 6 to 14 years old”

Unlike the Koran there is no tradition in Judaism for children or anyone to memorise the Talmud, just as well really, as the Talmud is a colossal work, which takes 7 years to read, one page a day.

Children of 6 years of age, generaly do not even learn Talmud in any depth, and certainly don’t memorise it. They tend to learn Tanach, and even then don’t usually memorise it.

There is a well developed custom in many schools for kids to learn Mishnayos, in a competitive way, and some learn several thousands, this is the frum Jewish version of a spelling bee.

Personally I feel anyone who succeeds in memorising our scriptures (very rare indeed) is deserving of praise.

Mickey, I agree that all people in this country should have a good knowlege of the main members of the Royal family. Most Jews, born in the UK do. As I have said, most Jewish schools have some school outing to Buckingham Palace, and many have arranged visits with members of the Royal family, and I remember during the Jubilee celebrations, there was a lot of learning about the Royals, and visits to see the Queen on her walkabouts, the kids excitedly holding cards with the blessing to make on seeing a non-Jewish monarch (Blessed are you….., who has given of His glory to flesh and blood.)

Was the boy in question English? Has he been abroad for many years? Does he have educational issues? How many non-Jewish 14 year olds know Prince Phillips name?

To all Jews on HP, Gut Shabbos/Shabat Shalom, and to all Non-Jews on HP, have a happy and healthy weekend.

“Irrespective of all other matters, if someone lives in the UK and benefit from the freedom that this country offers, they should have the decency to have an understanding about the Royal family and its history.”

I had no idea you people still gave a shit about this stuff! Sorry!

Shmuel:

You say:

I had no idea you people still gave a shit about [the Royal family and its history]! Sorry!

Would an American 14 year old have heard of Christopher Columbus, Abraham Lincoln and George Washington? Would they know how many states there are in the USA? Would they at least be able to hum along to The Star Spangled Banner even if they did not know all the words?

Quite basic things important to the history of the country that you reside in should be known about by someone of the age of fourteen. Six years ago it was the Queen’s golden jubilee and the cause of massive celebrations on our glorious island. A fourteen year old would have been eight at the time – He really would have had to be living in his own world to miss the union flags flying on the streets. As YossiUK notes, schools he was aware of arranged visits to Buckingham Palace – but even if they did not – I would hazard a guess that an eight year old at the time would have known who the Queen was, that her husband was Prince Philip and that her eldest son and heir was Prince Charles. But in any event, even if they did not, by the age of fourteen they should know these things.

I dunno, I take it as a hopeful sign that a kid didn’t know who the prince Consort s. I demand more ignorance on Royal matters.

Six years ago it was the Queen’s golden jubilee and the cause of massive celebrations on our glorious island. A fourteen year old would have been eight at the time – He really would have had to be living in his own world to miss the union flags flying on the streets.

I was 23 at the time and I don’t remember it being such a big deal. Although it was apparently on my birthday weekend and the World Cup was on, so it is possible that I missed the whole thing in a drunken haze.

Science, Math and English. That’s all a kid needs to survive today. To really survive though, the kid should know other stuff as well.

@David T

The problem is the banal media friendly politics of the PR age in which New Labour politicians don’t want to say anything ‘nasty’ that might offend but at the same time are quite prepared to make statements about the burka just to please the non Muslim voting majority too.

New Labour consists mostly of craven time servers but the problem is also precisely one of their progressive Utopianism, that they really know what’s in the best interests of the entire human race and that if all Muslims had equal access to consumerism and progress across the world the’d somehow be so happy and the nasty ones would become nice people like us.

The government and those who know Islamism is a threat in radicalising opinion and providing a sympathetic support base for those who think terror might be a last option against politicians who won’t listen ( ie do what politicised religious ‘community’ demands ) need to challenge the ideology and the untruth behing Islamist propaganda.

In a real democracy, politicians and journalists would do so but neither the Islamists nor New Labour want that because it would mean accepting that both foreign policy AND a militant ideology of hatred and what Nietzsche called ‘resentiment’ is behind the terror threat.

For Islamists its all foreign policy that Britain has carried out since the eighteenth century and gaining momentum after the First World War with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and for New Labour and militant secular progressives it is since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 kick started the revival of fundamentalism globally as a rival.

In fact, it isn’t an issue of either-or and the origin of the terror threat is primarily political with militant political religions merely ‘upping the ante’ over what are geopolitical conflicts over oil and gas and even water.

That plus undoubted decadence and material profligacy in the West and the incorporation of the Western revolutionary tradition into Islamic politics makes for a potentially explosive brew.

RESPECT, as I have said before, is not quite as absurd as it seems for both Leninism and Islamism share a similar psychopathological worldview and similar ideas on tactics, propaganda and how to radicalise people. This will outlive RESPECT as a mere political formation.

The coming economic recession is predicted is now happening. We will see an upsurge of this form of militancy.

I think knowing the name of the current queen’s husband is more like knowing the rules of cricket, the words of a Smith’s song, and enjoying the taste of roast beef. A lack of interest in any of these areas in a personal matter and irrelevant to actively participating in England as a liberal, secular democracy. I think that any “sadness” or “disgrace” one feels over another’s lack of knowledge in any of these areas says more about the first person than the other.

And didn’t the 7/7 bombers know this sort of thing anyway? They were very well integrated into English “culture.” How many of them knew Prince Philip’s name I wonder?

Same thing over here.

And there is a very precise and concise way of describing these ‘policies’: treason.

For years I,ve been anticipating the gradual surrender of hard-won liberties and rights on the altar of islamist appeasement.

We’re beginning to see that happen as Islamists shoe-horn sharia into the legal systeme under the rubrique of multiculturalisml diversity and ‘tolerance’.

Sharia is a backward, pagan ‘law’ code drawn up by illiterate tribal savages with no notions of natural law or proportionality.

The discussion and consideration if incorporating the such sheer idiocy into Britian’s legal systme would once have been the subject of a hilarious Monty Python episode, but it has now become reality, and is anything BUT funny.

Cowardly, atheist boomer brats selling our culture down the river on the hopes the worst of the violence and repression won’t happen until they’re dead.

All western gov’ts are so mesmerised by high finance, international trade, free-trade, globalisation and supranational bloks of all sorts that they’ve simply lost the plot, no longer ‘hear’ their consituency, and so have become traiters.

What else can you call a group of individuals who are actively working to overturn our entire culture?

The 60s just keep on giving, don’t they?

David, I have to agree with you, but I never had faith in any government’s capability to deal with Islamism here. They are all of them too afraid of backlash to take the necessary steps to police it properly and to act on extremism when they know it is operating. After all, there is barely a reaction when, for example, a Christian evangelist was warned that he would be arrested unless he moved on for preaching in a Muslim area in the West Midlands, and yet we are often told that we should be more accommodating even of the extreme insults directed at other faiths by Islam.

This state of affairs is not helped at all by the skilled way Islamism has of hypnotising the powers-that-be in Britain into believing that it is not a threat and even into believing that we ourselves are responsible for whatever outrages perpetrated against us, such as 7/7. It almost beggars believe that the report commissioned by the government post-7/7 openly stated that it happened because we did not take British Muslims’ concerns seriously enough.

It should go without saying that this sort of emotional blackmail should be called out for what it is, and stamped upon vigorously, since it feeds into the sense of belligerent self-pity played upon by Muslim leaders, rather than bought into wholesale as this government did.

More disturbing is that the various government departments and initiatives are so easily fascinated by the alleged peaceful nature of Islam put out by these people – when all the time, as in the case of Bunglawala of the MCB, they are often open in their disrespect of other citizens in this country and in demanding special treatment as Muslims. Bunglawala himself is a supporter of Qutb and has made no secret of the fact that he wants a Caliphate in Britain. His boss, Dr Bari, has also made no secret of his wish that British people should adopt more Muslim ways.

The most recent and worst example of such open contempt was by the hoodwinking of Clare Short (though perhaps I am too kind to her) into giving a tea party for Hizb-ut-Tahrir at the Commons, the very symbol of the democracy which, if they gained any power at all, they would seek to overthrow! Add to that insult the other one – after 7/7 Blair promised to ban Hizb-ut-Tahrir but its malevolent influence is growing on university campuses in Britain.

Why has these government numpties taken so long to cotton onto this? Have they been so paralysed by the PC twaddle resorted to by the very people who would impose their will on us if they could?

Joseph is quite correct above in saying that if the government wants to make policy which affects a particular group or groups in the community, the first thing it does is seeks out their perceived leaders. It is the same for amateur sports clubs, for heritage groups, indeed for any community group even a national organisation the NFU, the BMA – to be allowed to talk to the government to inform on policy decision you have to be the national representatives of an ngb (national governing body).

Where ngbs don’t exist then the self appointed lobbyists/groups step in to fill the gap. We can see it with Muslims but there are plenty of other examples. In many cases these self styled representative groups consist of no more than a handful of people with a fancy title for their group – something I imagine applies to these islamic “Human Rights Commissions” groupuscules for ever springing up.

Or in any areas, the NFU for example does not represent more than what 40% of farmers but it is still the body the government negotiates with when deciding policy which will apply to farmers . The recent debacle over junior doctors came from a cosy stitch up between the government and the BMA which clearly was not representing the junior doctors interests in any way.

The newspapers also give these groups more credence than they deserve when they are in fact only speaking for a small number of people.

But how do you stop it? The civil servants charged with making policy are determined (probably incentivised) to carry out consultations and this is the easy way to do it and claim their findings have credibility.

A little more equality under the law and a little less tolerance of intolerance required by HMG and other state structures.

We will not tolerate attempts to subvert our constitution and supplant our laws with undemocratic Shariah

You appear to have got carried away by your grandiloquence, Field. What does all that ’subverting of our constitution’ actually mean in terms of offences in statute or common law? It is wholly within the gift of our Parliament and legal system to decide whether or not to accept Sharia as a means of settling some civil cases. If this country purports to be a ‘liberal democracy’ then there can be no objection to Muslims arguing for for it, provided that they do it in a peaceful way.

We expect all religious groups to respect our constitution and meet certain minimum standards as citizens

Don’t we do that already? It’s called the law of the land.

We do not accept it is healthy or wise for religious or ethnic groups to close themselves off from the wider community

So other than pious exhortations from the pulpit of the Home Office, how did you image that this lack of acceptance might be communicated to clannish religious or ethnic groups?

We will (in England) actively promote the use of English as a first language

You won’t get the Welsh Assembly to comply.

It is wholly within the gift of our Parliament and legal system to decide whether or not to accept Sharia as a means of settling some civil cases. If this country purports to be a ‘liberal democracy’ then there can be no objection to Muslims arguing for for it, provided that they do it in a peaceful way.

You really don’t have a clue.

Since the scales fell off my eyes, I have believed that what I call the “few bad apples” view of Islam, and the endless discussions about the difference between Islam and Islamism, the “this is Islam – that’s not real Islam, THIS is real Islam, and so on”, are red herrings. Attempts at verbal definitions are ultimately of no use here. Actions speak loudest, and an ostensive definition is most reliable. If someone asked me what Islam is, then I would just point to what Muslims do and have done in the world at large. Namely, that wherever Muslims form a critical mass, they will attempt to arrogate power to themselves and treat non-Muslims with, to put it at its mildest, varying degrees of institutional discrimination. If they can, they establish what is euphimistically known as a “Muslim country”, where discrimination against non-Muslims can be not only institutionalised but legalised as well. Even when Muslims are present in small, even tiny, numbers in proportion to the population at large, my impression is that their cultural mores have an overall disruptive effect on societies. I can see no benefits that have accrued in my country from Islam specifically. The actions of governments of non-Muslim majority countries in general seem to be predicated on the belief that (keeping one’s fingers crossed) the leopard will change its spots. I don’t see any reason to believe that it will. I’m sure you all know Shaw’s dictum: “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself”. That’s Islam. Unfortunately, the last bit goes “Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man”. In this case, the inverse applies.

The news that Barclays has just sold a very large stake of itself to Quatar and Abu Dhabi suggests one reason why this Government is ’soft’ on Islamiacism. I know that those ’sand-bank’ states are not the most evangelical in the Islamic world, but there are other wealthy states. Remember how the investigation into the arms deal with Saudi Arabia was quashed. As I wrote a few days ago, I was at the Global Peace and Unity Rally last weekend and my impression was that really it is staged for consumption abroad. To be able to say, ‘A massive rally of Moslems was held in London and heard speeches from x,y and z…’, thus bolstering the position of affiliates in foreign countries. However, having said that, I am sure the Islamiacists in this country would not be adverse to having a share of political power and tax receipts.

I asked my 12-year old daughter, Delphina, if she knew who Prince Philip was. After wondering aloud for a few minutes she hazarded a guess. I am not surprised. The Royal Family are not spoken about much nowadays. Wasn#t there some sort of meeting a few years ago where it was decided that only the major ones would figure in the news, and this was related to a shake-up in the Civil List. Prince Phillip is well into his eighties nowadays, and I am not sure how active he is. So, I don’t think your example was a terribly good one. Perhaps you should have asked him about Prince William or Russell Brand.

I think there is a deeper problem as well. America spends lots of time and effort on reminding its inhabitants of its history. I do wonder that as the demography of America changes ie it becomes less Anglo, how the founding myths will be treated. In Britain, and especially England however, we are always decrying our history. Apologising for colonialism, christianising, miliatarism etc. Always dwelling on the negative.

Shmuel says:

I think knowing the name of the current queen’s husband is more like knowing the rules of cricket, the words of a Smith’s song, and enjoying the taste of roast beef.

Maybe, for an ignorant American that is the case.

You poor fools. Your government is giving in to an ideology of hate and violence and willingly trading your lives and your freedoms for cheap promises of a peaceful co-existence with Islam — and so many of you smile and do nothing.

Yes, Muslims are a monolithic bloc. ALL of them accept the Quran as the word of their god and it tells them to fight, kill and subdue non-Muslims. ALL Muslims say “Praise be unto him” after Mohammad’s name and consider him to be a great moral example, even as Islam’s own sacred traditions (the Hadith) tells us that he raided dozens of caravans, attacked and plundered peaceful villages dozens of times, murdered adversaries and even old women, enslaved men women and children, tortured enemies, let his men rape captives and even beat his own wife. Figure out, if you can, what this means. Muslims, ALL of them, follow a religion that teaches hate, violence and discrimination against non-Muslims. Read the Quran if you have any doubts about this.

The only difference between the violent radicals and the peaceful moderates is that the radicals are honest while the moderates make excuses and pretend the radicals are not real Muslims. At best the so-called moderates are ignorant or in denial, at worst they are dishonest. Your leaders and so-called elites want so much to believe that Muslims, or at least some Muslims, are peaceful that will have an orgasim everytime some Islamic leader says “Islam means peace” in spite of all evidence to the contrary. This makes them feel good because they are being nice and nothing, not even your lives and freedoms, are more important that these people feeling good about themselves.

I have extensive experience with Muslims and I have not found one yet that is honest about the vile verses in the Quran and the many evil acts of their dear prophet.
http://www.kactuzkid.com/lies.html

What I have found when trying to debate these serious issues is an endless list of excuses that range from creative to pathetic. It is very difficult to have a serious discussion of Islamic history and doctrine if 1. You cannot say anything that offends them, and 2. they respond with meaningless excuses such as “you don’t understand” “you are racist” “It is the culture” ”
They are not real Muslims” “bad translation” etc…

Understand that you cannot change Islam and Muslims. The radicals have no problem with violence and the moderates will say it is not really Islamic — and so nothing changes. In this way the moderates protect and support the radicals.

Bad times are coming.

Jay kactuz

David T,

Silence.

Mrs Ben accurately informs us of how this process of government dispensation (in terms of policy, and the distribution of Government benefits) happens.

X of theX why this is allowed to happen;

‘It is wholly within the gift of our Parliament and legal system to decide whether or not to accept Sharia as a means of settling some civil cases. If this country purports to be a ‘liberal democracy’ then there can be no objection to Muslims arguing for for it, provided that they do it in a peaceful way.’

And so many of the commenters who think that they are wholly opposed to this political/constitutional mechanism of ‘community participation’ by the stowing of privileges on community ‘representatives’ demonstrate their culpability and collusion with a royalist model of prerogative powers, enobling some subjects, to better rule the majority lesser subjects; in their witterings about deference to the Royal family as a mark of, not citizenship but a craven subject status.

It was not ever thus.

The powers of Royal patronage, which have been increasingly transferred not to parliament (the sovereign law maker being the democratically elected commons) but to the executive were considerably reduced by the triumph of municipal pride and local governance that the Victorian period oversaw, which was the bedrock not an addendum to the universal franchise.

Can members of this society really not see the withering of democracy and the advance of a retrograde system of patronage, of local accountability and democratic participation that has been lost with the ever increasing attrition of local government practiced by decades of Central Government?

The idea that communities may organise to express their interests is not an undemocratic one but they once could have done that and found political expression of their demands and a balancing of their claims with the needs of others within the structure of local democracy.

It is certainly not within the gift of ‘parliament’ (in reality the executive) or the Judiciary or the servants of the democratically elected government the civil servants to sidestep the democratic requirement that their actions be subject to democratic challenge.

The idea that society should, must it now appears in order to be recognised as a legitimate constituency, be self-organising into communal groups that compete fractiously with each other for central government attention, patronage and the provision of power and permission, licence and concessions into independent, social and political pillars, is deeply reactionary.

This atomising of society into social groups based upon associations of trade or profession, or confessional affiliation is absolutely that of the pre-modern, pre-enlightenment social order.

We really do have an advancing neo-feudalism where it is the pre-modern notion of guilds and religious sects that is seen as the means by which government (an increasingly arms length one in terms of responsibility) advance at the expense of a civil society based upon enlightenment universalist principles of reason and democratic participation.

i wish neither to live in a Britain returned to a pre-modern monarchical concept of a unified society (which was anything but) or to live in a ‘liberal’ society of unlimited and tolerant diversity (which will be anything but).

Whatever happened to the parliamentary democracy (a constitutional monarchy) that I was born into?

Whatever happened to the citizens of this society who had some awareness of how its institutions of democracy had been slowly crafted and fought for through the struggle of centuries?

Whatever happened to the majority of citizens who once seemed to share a political culture that would defend, and knew how to defend this shared political culture?

‘

It should be remembered that the presentation by Muslims of Islam to kufr is predicated upon deceit and Muslims are excused from telling the truth to kufr. Indeed this way of being with kufr, al-takeyya, is sanctioned because their prophet used it and anything done by their prophet is made holy. mohammed often lied and instructed his followers to do the same. He rationalized that the prospect of success in missions to extend Islam’s influence overrode Allah’s initial prohibitions against lying.

Most Muslims are familiar with the principles of Islam that will justify lying in situations where they sense the need to do so. Among these are:

* War is deception.
* The necessities justify the forbidden.
* If faced by two evils, choose the lesser of the two.

These principles are derived from passages found in the Quran and the Hadith. One of Mohammed’s daughters, Umm Kalthoum, testified that she had never heard the Apostle of Allah condone lying except in these three situations:

1. For reconciliation among people.
2. In war.
3. Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.

One passage from the Hadith quotes Mohammed as saying: “The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies except those uttered to help bring reconciliation between Muslims.”

Another says, “Aba Kahl, reconcile among people.”(Meaning: even through lying.)

The following quote demonstrates the broadness of situations in which the prophet permitted lying. “The sons of Adam are accountable for all lies with these exceptions: During war because war is deception, to reconcile among two quarreling men, and for a man to appease his wife.”

“Takeyya”, means “to prevent,” or guard against. According to Sura 3:28 in the Koran, a Muslim can pretend to befriend infidels (in violation of the teachings of Islam) and display adherence with their unbelief to prevent them from harming him.

Under the concept of Takeyya and short of killing another human being, if under the threat of force, it is legitimate for Muslims to act contrary to their faith. The following actions are acceptable:

* Drink wine, abandon prayers, and skip fasting during Ramadan.
* Renounce belief in Allah.
* Kneel in homage to a deity other than Allah.
* Utter insincere oaths.

Bluntly stated, Islam permits Muslims to lie any time that they perceive that their own well-being, or that of Islam, is threatened.

In the sphere of international politics, the question is: Can Muslim countries be trusted to keep their end of the agreements that they sign with non-Muslim nations? It is a known Islamic practice, that when Muslims are weak they can agree with most anything. Once they become strong, then they negate what they formerly vowed.

The principle of sanctioning lying for the cause of Islam bears grave implications in matters relating to the spread of the religion of Islam in the West. Muslim activists employ deceptive tactics in their attempts to polish Islam’s image and make it more attractive to prospective converts. They carefully try to avoid, obscure, and omit mentioning any of the negative Islamic texts and teachings.

An example of Islamic deception is that Muslim activists always quote the passages of the Quran from the early part of Mohammed’s ministry while living in Mecca. These texts are peaceful and exemplify tolerance towards those that are not followers of Islam. All the while, they are fully aware that most of these passages were abrogated (cancelled and replaced) by passages that came after he migrated to Medina. The replacement verses reflect prejudice, intolerance, and endorse violence upon unbelievers.

It is very important therefore to understand that Muslim leaders can use this loop-hole in their religion to absolve them from any permanent commitment. It is also important to know that what Muslim activists say to spread Islam may not always be the whole truth. When dealing with Muslims what they say is not the issue. The real issue is what they actually mean in their hearts.

The following was posted to Arutz Sheva on 14/6/04, and written by William Welty:

“..Included in the list of practices encouraged and permitted under the Muslim doctrine of Al-Takeyya are lying under penalty of perjury in testimony before the United States Congress, lying or making distorted statements to the media such as claiming that Islam is a religion of peace, and deceiving fellow Muslims when the one lying has deemed them to be apostates….

” Allah, who rose to the top of the pantheon of 360 gods worshipped at the Ka’abah in Mecca, is a master of deceit. He expects his followers to lie for him.

“And the lie is different at every level.

“The implications of this truth are significant, especially with respect to any attempt to bring peace to the Muslim-Israeli conflict. Government leaders who ignore how the fundamental principle of Al-Takeyya is commonly employed to declare a Hudna will never be prepared for the inevitable collapse of their plans to implement their Road Maps to peace in the Middle East…

“A Hudna is a cease-fire. But when called within the context of Al-Takeyya, Islam’s theology of military deception, it really amounts to a time-out to reload during a period of temporary weakness on the part of the follower of Islam. In short, when Muslims are weak, they’re admonished by the Qur’an and the Hadith to negotiate a peace treaty, or Hudna. When they’re back on their military feet, so to speak, then they can break the treaty and go back to war…”

Finally, Prof Moshe Sharon, who lectures in Islamic History at the Hebrew University hit the nail squarely on the head in 2004 when he wrote among other things about the western tendency to view Islam and its effects in western terms, rather than in the terms Islam itself uses about itself. That, I believe, is the essential and most costly mistake this government has made:

“… The Language of Islam

You see, so much is covered by politically correct language that, in fact, the truth has been lost. For example, when we speak about Islam in the west, we try to use our own language and terminology. We speak about Islam in terms of democracy and fundamentalism, in terms of parliamentarism and all kinds of terms, which we take from our own dictionary. One of my professors and one of the greatest orientalists in the world says that doing this is like a cricket reporter describing a cricket game in baseball terms. We cannot use for one culture or civilization the language of another. For Islam, you’ve got to use the language of Islam….

see: http://www.freeman.org/m_online/feb04/sharon.htm

“Maybe, for an ignorant American that is the case.”

Haha. Yeah, stereotyping is bad!

God save the Queen.

“I was just helping my wife take stuff in from the car, when a 14 year old Haredi kid stopped me. There was a taxi outside my house, and he asked me whether the taxi was mine. I said, no, I didn’t drive a taxi. But, I added, Prince Philip did.

Who? he said”

What the buggering hell is a Haredi?

Can someone tell me what role Philip plays in British democracy? I’m ignorant.
(I’m American after all.)

So much good, valid commentary here, Serendipity, Mettaculture,
Jay Kactuz,Trofim and Sue R–all hitting upon various overlapping aspects of the problem oh so well with like sentiments/analysis.

In regards to the Koran’s sanctioning of lying and the fact that Moslems often mean the opposite of what they say, I am reminded of a 1990 sci-fi action thriller entitled: “I Come In Peace” (Here in the US–I believe it was released world wide as “Dark Angel”) wherein an Alien drug dealer in human form set down on Earth to extract chemicals from human brains to be used
by Galactic “uppers” says to his victims just prior to severing their heads: “I come in Peace!”

How DARE these low lifes offer us a “covenant of security”? Law-abiding citizens of any country do not need to declare such things.

And this stupid government heard that and let it pass instead of arresting the whole boiling of them or slinging them out????

What would they do if Jews or Hindus or Sikhs or Buddhists or Zoroastrians graciously said that they would not attack targets in Britain because they had offered us a covenant of security? Their feet wouldn’t touch the ground on their way to the chokey.

Thinking further upon my movie metaphor, it seems that the analogy is almost totally congruent in depicting the effects Moslems have on western societies. In the movie, the Alien drug dealer shoots his victims full of dope (heroin) in order to stimulate endorphin production in their brains, which he extracts after slicing off their heads with a boomerang-like vibrating disk. It seems to me that the Moslems do the same–they feed the West the opium of “Peace” and sweet reason which produces endorphin-like reactions of suicidal naivete which the Moslems then harvest in the coin of influence and power via the severing of the loci of logical thought (the head) from western societies and governments.

SayWhat??, the “covenant of security” notion provides proof, if any were needed, of the narcissism inherent in Islamist approaches to life among kufr. In effect, the sub-text is passive-aggressive – “We won’t attack you if you don’t attack or insult us” – and this feeds into the “poor me” paranoia evidenced so often by these groups and lived out by Islam in general.

In other words, the people who use it expect to be attacked and in fact will probably say and engage in activities which will bring down opprobrium on them. However, by conjuring up the idea that they are honourable really, and are abiding by a covenant of security which no people but they are parties to, they are, in fact “getting their retaliation in first.”

Thus, we are threatened that any criticism of their behaviour, any arrests on suspicion of terrorist activity or sympathy with it may well cause them to rescind that “promise” they made and that they would then be given carte blanche to attack us.

That is pernicious and sick and very, very manipulative.

As you say, why has this government fallen into their trap?

field @ 30 October 2008, 7:22 pm

“(a) We will not tolerate attempts to subvert our constitution and supplant our laws with undemocratic Shariah.

(b) We will deport any non British citizen or dual nationality citizens who engage in active subversion of our constitution.

(c) We expect all religious groups to respect our constitution”

A: What do you mean by “our constitution”? Is it the 25 Articles of the Treaty of Union, effective 1 May 1707? Or is it the subjective opinion of some expert or other of your choice?

A: Many of our laws are undemocratic, in the sense that they have been around before the first 1-adult-1 vote election in 1950 or even before the first election when a majority of adults had a vote in 1919.

B: So you want it to be legal to deport British citizens if they have another citizenship?

C: are you trying to stop the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster from occaisionally calling for the repeal of Article II of the Treaty of Union “all Papists, and Persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from, and for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the imperial Crown of Great-Britain”?

Apologies for using the word papist. I was quoting.

How do we outsmart them then?

Mitnaged: “SayWhat??, the “covenant of security” notion provides proof, if any were needed, of the narcissism inherent in Islamist approaches to life among kufr.”

It also reflects the islamic traditional protection racket- a form of extortion going back to the earliest days of islam, which continues to this day.

But there is no need to start ploughing through the archives of islamic jurisprudence, dhimmi regulations or the devshirme system. It is surely enough to know that when someone makes a point of telling you that he is under contract not to murder you, ultimately he will murder you.

How DARE these low lifes offer us a “covenant of security”? Law-abiding citizens of any country do not need to declare such things.

That’s a good point, I mean I don’t get to offer a covenant of security. I had always considered the C. of S. a failure, stupid, bad politics etc, but it was actually much worse; an actual criminal conspiracy.

Goodness what a load of putrid bigotry has been deposited on this thread.

Some of you really should write to the Pentagon and NATO to warn them. In Iraq and Afghanistan their forces are fighting and dying alongside Muslims, and OMG Muslims are liars!

And there are Muslim soldiers in those western forces too, how terrible!

Shame on you.

Monty, quite. It’s rather like telling someone not to think of green elephants..

Sue R, we have an uphill struggle whilst this numpty government and the opposition parties are still hypnotised into believing every word these people tell them. I guess that we just have to peg away at it, pointing up loudly whenever infamies like the Global Unity Event and Campus Salaam are allowed to be overrun by the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir and the Muslim Brotherhood and flagging up the hypocrisy of government and opposition when they pay lip service to combating extremism and, like the al-takeyya of Islam, behave exactly the opposite.

Inundate MPs with letters of complaint about the Global Unity Event. Ask your MP what he/she thinks about members of his/her party getting up alongside Jew- and kufr-haters and what he/she plans to do about this. Say that you want your complaint relayed to the government ministers responsible for overseeing these events.

Alan Ji: “..B: So you want it to be legal to deport British citizens if they have another citizenship?..”

That is not what was said. If a person came to live here, took out citizenship and then actively engaged in undermining this country, either by terrorism or crime, then, yes, deport him/her to the original country of origin.

Anjem (Motormouth) Choudary is, however, British born and a charmless purveyor of everything we have been discussing here. He organised with the demonstrations against the Danish Embassy, and was merely fined!

But he gets to stay here although he has no loyalty to the country of his birth – his loyalty is principally to the Muslim ummah and he makes no secret of that fact. He and his family benefit to the tune of over £25,000 per year from social security.

Choudary, was taped lecturing a secret meeting in west London in March 2008. On it he urges his Islamic followers to persuade would-be terrorists to sign up for killing campaigns.

He describes non-Muslims as “the enemy” and tells his sympathisers they should brainwash at least ten Britons a month into becoming al-Qaeda supporters. He also urges his clan to preach that:

FIGHTING jihad against Western society is an obligation.

BRITISH Muslims should travel abroad to fight our troops.

TERRORIST wannabes should “put fear into the hearts” of non-Muslims in the UK and spread al-Qaeda messages.

Choudary’s lecture tour was launched with the aim of teaching Islamic extremist recruiting teams how to win new members and brainwash them into backing the mass-murdering terror group.

Ask your MP why this …… is still at large.

Omar Bakri Mohammed, on the other hand, quickly fled Britain when threatened with arrest leaving his family behind to sponge off us. He ran to Lebanon but quickly bleated that he wanted to come back, on compassionate grounds, once the Lebanon-Israel war started. Thankfully the government had more sense than compassion on that occasion at least.

habibi, what say those of us who are aware that al-takeyya is an obligation under sharia law, allow ourselves to feel ashamed only when those who deliberately lie to us and fool our far-too-easily conned government into believing them show us that they feel ashamed of themselves.

After all, fair’s fair, isn’t it?

Habibi… This “putrid bigotry”, as you call it, is people expressing their opinion about a problem we face. You may not like it, but just calling others bigots, racists, islamophobes, facists, or whatever dones not solve the problem (if you believe there is a problem).

I assume you are a Muslim. Fine. So please tell me how you feel about the following:

1. The Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. Want verses? Do you think we are lower than animals because we don’t believe? That is from al-anfal, the spoils of war, the Quran, Sura 8 (why is there a chapter about loot in a book that claims to be about peace? Just asking.). The Quran says things like … Strike off their (infidel’s) heads. Strike off their finger-tips (Sura 8:12-13), “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (4:89), “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (9:123), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them; fight them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” (9:5) Do you think it moral that Muslims are to fight us and subdue us? Do you think there should be a hunting season on Non-Muslims (after the sacred months… except if there is a treaty — and does not having a treaty make it right to attack and kill people?) If we were not “people of the book,” just plain vanilla pagans, the Quran says to slaughter us (Make war on non-Muslims until idolatry shall cease and Islam reigns supreme” 2:193). Is this OK with you? Anything wrong here? Why does the Quran say fighting is good for Muslims? Why does the Quran say that Islam is all about killing and being killed (9:111) Remember, the Quran says that it is a clear book” 12:1, free of doubt. 2:1, and easy to understand and in your own tongue. 44:58. These are direct commands by Allah to attack, kill and conquer. Here, read Sahih Muslim, Book 19 for an idea of what the traditions say.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4345
The funny thing is if you press a Muslim to explain these verses they will usually tell you that you need to understand the “context” and “original intent” — which is another way of saying that the Quran is poorly written and confusing (in spite of what it claims).
2. In all Islamic societies non-Muslims are discriminated against. They are not free to practice their faiths. Muslims in the West do nothing, say nothing. They obviously concur to this persecution.
3. According to the hadith (Islam’s traditions) written by friends and followers of the Mohammad (not his enenies), Islam’s great prophet personally led 26 plus raids, sent out dozens more, attacked caravans and villages, plundered, murdered his opponents, tortured, enslaved men women and children and let his men rape. Oh yes, he even beat his favorite child bride (Unless “He hit me and caused me pain” means something else). Yet Muslims consider this man a great moral example to follow. As I said before, figure out what that means. See link above. Here is another link for you. It is somebody saying “I am made victorious with terror”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220
Gosh, who would say something like that?
4.The Quran is also full of special permissions and exceptions for Mohammad. Extra wives, to put away wives, 20% of all loot, permission to burn orchards when making war, permission to destroy mosques (yes!), not to keep his word of honor, etc… When Mohammad had a problem, Allah would come through with a new revelation to Mohammad to solve Mohammad’s personal and marital problems (and keep his wives in line). While on the subject, I would like you to explain how words like these don’t bother Muslims: a. “Verily those who swear allegiance to you Muhammad, indeed swear their allegiance to Allah” – 48:10, and b. “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah” – 4:80). Muslims make a big deal about the terrible sin of associating “partners” to Allah, but words like these clearly indicate a state of shared identity A = B. In the Quran we find the formula “Allah and his messenger” hundreds of times. Any reading indicates that Mohammad is more than a mere mortal, so much that he can almost be understood to be a junior partner to Allah. Doesn’t this bother you? By the way, Mary the mother of Jesus (the only women mentioned by name in the Quran) is not and never was considered to be part of the trinity in Christian tradition. Did all-wise Allah not know this? This con job (for lack of a better term) got so bad that at one point his child-bride Aisha (the one he wacked) even snears “Your god is quick to do your bidding.” Don’t Muslims find this just a little suspicious?
6. Muslim values are not Western values. I refer to the cartoon controversy and other issues. They want to end our freedom of speech (with the help of Multiculturalists and PC-officials). Without freedom of speech and conscience there can be no democracy. There is no separation of state and mosque so infidels are by definition third class citizens (after women). Under sharia, according to the Quran, non-Muslims doing “mischief” can be brutally tortured and killed. What kind of diety would use such a vague, ambiguous sloppy term such as “mischief”? Allah would!
7. Muslims always blame everything on something else. They say it is a “small group” that has “hijacked” the religion. Other common excuses are racism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, the Jews, Bush, the Crusades, the Vatican, Hollywood, lack of education, no jobs, different values insecurity, the suffering of the Palestinian people, that non-Muslims “don’t understand,” bad translations, it is cultural, and so on. The excuses never end.

I have written enough, far more than I intended. Habibi, you are probably a good example of a good and moderate Muslim, yet you look at current events and see no fundamental problem with Islam. Muslims kill, oppress and threaten violence and you say we are bigots. You look at Islam’s sacred scriptures and the life of Mohammad and see nothing but goodness and justice, when in fact the pages are filled with blood, pain and hate. You make excuses and more excuses. You have one standard for Islam and another for everything else. This is why the future will not be nice. This is why Islam never changes. This is why the hate and violence continues.

I will end this. Yes there are good nice kind sweet Muslims. The problem is if you sit down and start reading their scriptures they immediately pull out their list of excuses
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html
or find some place to go or something else to do. Actually, I don’t blame them. It is very hard to look a person in the face and say X was a good man when reading a story about X approving the actions of one of his men who cut open the belly of a pregnant woman for criticizing X. So what does a Muslim do? He tries to silence you. Muslims always try to silence anybody that says things they don’t want to hear. They may use political force (hate speech laws), silly name-calling (bigot, racist, etc…) or even violence.

I have tried to talk about these things with Muslims, but I have never found a single Muslim that is honest about these problems. This is why I say the the future will not be nice. This, I fear, is why Muslims cannot be trusted to stand up for you or your rights.

Kactuz

One of your best pieces to date DT.

Shame it took you this long to realise how misguided the government is. But then I remeber you also tried your hand at a dialoge with “moderate” Islamists like Osama Saeed.

Islamists have to be confronted everywhere and at all times. They offer nothing to a liberal democratic society.

Islamists have to be confronted everywhere and at all times. They offer nothing to a liberal democratic society.

Can’t improve on that. Stupid shit needs to be confronted immediately.

Habibi… This “putrid bigotry”, as you call it, is people expressing their opinion about a problem we face. You may not like it, but just calling others bigots, racists, islamophobes, facists, or whatever does not solve the problem (if you believe there is a problem).
I assume you are a Muslim. Fine. So please tell me how you feel about the following:
1. The Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. Want verses? Do you think we are lower than animals because we don’t believe? That is from al-anfal, the spoils of war, the Quran, Sura 8 (why is there a chapter about loot in a book that claims to be about peace? Just asking.). The Quran says things like … Strike off their (infidel’s) heads. Strike off their finger-tips (Sura 8:12-13), “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (4:89), “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (9:123), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them; fight them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] and take to prayer and render the alms levy, allow them to go their way.” (9:5) Do you think it moral that Muslims are to fight us and subdue us? Do you think there should be a hunting season on Non-Muslims (after the sacred months… except if there is a treaty — and does not having a treaty make it right to attack and kill people?) If we were not “people of the book,” just plain vanilla pagans, the Quran says to slaughter us (Make war on non-Muslims until idolatry shall cease and Islam reigns supreme” 2:193). Is this OK with you? Anything wrong here? Why does the Quran say fighting is good for Muslims? Why does the Quran say that Islam is all about killing and being killed (9:111) Remember, the Quran says that it is a clear book” 12:1, free of doubt. 2:1, and easy to understand and in your own tongue. 44:58. These are direct commands by Allah to attack, kill and conquer. Here, read Sahih Muslim, Book 19 for an idea of what the traditions say.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4345
The funny thing is if you press a Muslim to explain these verses they will usually tell you that you need to understand the “context” and “original intent” — which is another way of saying that the Quran is poorly written and confusing (in spite of what it claims).
2. In all Islamic societies non-Muslims are discriminated against. They are not free to practice their faiths. Muslims in the West do nothing, say nothing. They obviously concur to this persecution.
3. According to the hadith (Islam’s traditions) written by friends and followers of the Mohammad (not his enenies), Islam’s great prophet personally led 26 plus raids, sent out dozens more, attacked caravans and villages, plundered, murdered his opponents, tortured, enslaved men women and children and let his men rape. Oh yes, he even beat his favorite child bride (Unless “He hit me and caused me pain” means something else). Yet Muslims consider this man a great moral example to follow. As I said before, figure out what that means. See link above. Here is another link for you. It is somebody saying “I am made victorious with terror”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220
Gosh, who would say something like that?
4.The Quran is also full of special permissions and exceptions for Mohammad. Extra wives, to put away wives, 20% of all loot, permission to burn orchards when making war, permission to destroy mosques (yes!), not to keep his word of honor, etc… When Mohammad had a problem, Allah would come through with a new revelation to Mohammad to solve Mohammad’s personal and marital problems (and keep his wives in line). While on the subject, I would like you to explain why words like these don’t bother Muslims: a. “Verily those who swear allegiance to you Muhammad, indeed swear their allegiance to Allah” – 48:10, and b. “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah” – 4:80). Muslims make a big deal about the terrible sin of associating “partners” to Allah, but words like these clearly indicate a state of shared identity A = B. In the Quran we find the formula “Allah and his messenger” hundreds of times. Any reading indicates that Mohammad is more than a mere mortal, so much that he can almost be understood to be a junior partner to Allah. Doesn’t this bother you? By the way, Mary the mother of Jesus (the only women mentioned by name in the Quran) is not and never was considered to be part of the trinity in Christian tradition. Did all-wise Allah not know this? This con job (for lack of a better term) got so bad that at one point his child-bride Aisha (the one he wacked) even snears “Your god is quick to do your bidding.” Don’t Muslims find this just a little suspicious?
6. Muslim values are not Western values. I refer to the cartoon controversy and other issues. They want to end our freedom of speech (with the help of Multiculturalists and PC-officials). Without freedom of speech and conscience there can be no democracy. There is no separation of state and mosque so infidels are by definition third class citizens (after women). Under sharia, according to the Quran, non-Muslims doing “mischief” can be brutally tortured and killed. What kind of diety would use such a vague, ambiguous sloppy term such as “mischief”? Allah would!
7. Muslims always blame everything on something else. They say it is a “small group” that has “hijacked” the religion. Other common excuses are racism, colonialism, imperialism, capitalism, the Jews, Bush, the Crusades, the Vatican, Hollywood, lack of education, no jobs, different values insecurity, the suffering of the Palestinian people, that non-Muslims “don’t understand,” bad translations, it is cultural, and so on. The excuses never end.
I have written enough, far more than I intended. Habibi, you are probably a good example of a good and moderate Muslim, yet you look at current events and see no fundamental problem with Islam. Muslims kill, oppress and threaten violence and you say we are bigots. You look at Islam’s sacred scriptures and the life of Mohammad and see nothing but goodness and justice, when in fact the pages are filled with blood, pain and hate. You make excuses and more excuses. You have one standard for Islam and another for everything else. This is why the future will not be nice. This is why Islam never changes. This is why the hate and violence continues.
I will end this. Yes there are good nice kind sweet Muslims. The problem is if you sit down and start reading their scriptures they immediately pull out their list of excuses
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html
or find some place to go or something else to do. Actually, I don’t blame them. It is very hard to look a person in the face and say X was a good man when reading a story about X approving the actions of one of his men who cut open the belly of a pregnant woman for criticizing X. So what does a Muslim do? He tries to silence you. Muslims always try to silence anybody that says things they don’t want to hear. They may use political force (hate speech laws), silly name-calling (bigot, racist, etc…) or even violence.
I have tried to talk about these things with Muslims, but I have never found a single Muslim that is honest about these problems. This is why I say the the future will not be nice. This, I fear, is why Muslims cannot be trusted to stand up for you or your rights.
Kactuz

Getting back on topic, one measure of the politics of FOSIS is the organisation’s position on al-Qaradawi. When he was banned from the UK, it expressed “severe disappointment”.

And added these words:

He has been firm and forthright in his condemnation of terrorist actions across the world.

“Across the world”? This is an ugly lie.

Why is the government working with an organisation that strongly opposes initiatives against extremists and resorts to lies in the extremists’ defence?

“Why is the government working with an organisation that strongly opposes initiatives against extremists and resorts to lies in the extremists’ defence?”

No good asking the government that question. If you could demonstrate a significant level of popular support, the government would be chasing after you.

You will no doubt have noticed, that the extremists can get all manner of funding, concessions, and attention from the government, and thrive on that.
If you got one percent of that, your community would denounce you as some sort of government stooge. A sell out. It would be toxic.

You need to build up a critical mass of popular support, through the power of your arguments. If you want to do that, you have my absolute support and encouragement. I want you to win the battle of ideas. I want you to come out on top.

But unless you face up to the fact that you will have to fight the prevailing mindset, you can’t get there from here.

David T

“The first is that we should stop treating British people as if they were members of a confessional group, stop trying to mediate the State’s relationship with them through self appointed, and often very politically extreme religious and “community leaders”, and appreciate that true multiculturalism is something different than what Amartya Sen calls “plural monoculturalism”.”

Hilarious. This from a zionist supporter of the Jewish state

Virgil Xenophon

“In regards to the Koran’s sanctioning of lying and the fact that Moslems often mean the opposite of what they say, I am reminded of a 1990 sci-fi action thriller entitled: “I Come In Peace””

And Im reminded of anti-semitic slurs that Judaism sanctions lying to Gentiles

“FOSIS is all about anger, division and hatred, not “understanding”.”

Thank God for HP which does none of these things

Monty

“Sorry Joseph, but if British muslims are truly moderate, they don’t need any special representation at all. They all have a vote. They all have an MP. They all have the same civil rights, and responsibilities, as everyone else.”

They dont need eruvs. They dont need Beth Dins. They dont need Boards of Deputies.

Alan Ji –

If you’re under 18 I’ll excuse your juvenile debating points. But if not –

“A: What do you mean by “our constitution”? Is it the 25 Articles of the Treaty of Union, effective 1 May 1707? Or is it the subjective opinion of some expert or other of your choice?”

So you are saying we don’t have a constitution? This sort of legalistic attempt to change the subject is futile.

Our constitution is a reality. Its fundamentals have both an objective and subjective aspect. At the heart of our constitution are regular elections, election of representatives, equal citizenship, laws made by parliament, freedom of speech and opinion, a fair system of justice without cruel punishment and an impartial civil service and police.

The ideologues of Islam opposes every single one of these principles.

“A: Many of our laws are undemocratic, in the sense that they have been around before the first 1-adult-1 vote election in 1950 or even before the first election when a majority of adults had a vote in 1919.”

Yes, that’s a very effective debating point – for the sixth form debating society. This however is a grown up debate about the future of our country. “Democracy” is shorthand for a very complex form of social interaction.

“B: So you want it to be legal to deport British citizens if they have another citizenship?”

Of course. Whereas you want to retain within our borders citizens of another country who are intent on destroying our constitution. If they can go somewhere else, let them go – and make them go.

“C: are you trying to stop the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster from occaisionally calling for the repeal of Article II of the Treaty of Union “all Papists, and Persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from, and for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the imperial Crown of Great-Britain”?”

I am happy to see the Cardinal locked up if he wants to revert to Catholic policies of a former age and destroy democracy, replacing it with authoritarian rule of kings and popes. However, the Catholic Church has abandoned such policies – which gives me hope that one day the bulk of Islam will also give up on trying to destroy democracy.

The generally accepted definition of “slurs,” HPBNP, is the attributing of negative characteristics to someone or some group
of people that unfairly apply and have no basis in fact. This definition certainly fits those charges you mention which have historically been bandied about concerning the Jews, but unfortunately for the Moslems, such charges are backed up by evidence that is all there in cold hard plain Koranic script–written by their own hand.

Habibi… This “putrid bigotry”, as you call it, is people expressing their opinion about a problem. I assume you are a Muslim, so consider this:
1. The Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. Do you think we are lower than animals? That is from al-anfal, the spoils of war, Sura 8 (why is there a chapter about loot in a book that claims to be about peace?). The Quran says things like … Strike off their (infidel’s) heads. Strike off their finger-tips (Sura 8:12-13), “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (4:89), “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (9:123), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them; fight them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] … allow them to go their way.” (9:5) Do you think it moral that Muslims are told to fight and subdue us? Do you think there should be a hunting season on Non-Muslims (after the sacred months… except if there is a treaty — and does not having a treaty make it right to attack people?) If we were not “people of the book,” just plain vanilla pagans, the Quran says to slaughter us (Make war on non-Muslims until idolatry shall cease and Islam reigns supreme” 2:193). Is this OK? Why does the Quran say fighting is good for Muslims? Why does it say that Islam is about killing and being killed (9:111). These are direct commands by Allah to attack, kill and conquer. Here, read Sahih Muslim, Book 19 for an idea of what the traditions say.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4345
The funny thing is if you press a Muslim to explain these verses they will tell you that you need to understand the “context” and “original intent” – which means the Quran is poorly written and confusing (although the Quran says that it is a clear 12:1, free of doubt. 2:1, and easy to understand 44:58).
2. In all Islamic societies non-Muslims are discriminated against. They are not free to practice their faiths. Muslims in the West do nothing, say nothing. They obviously concur to this persecution.
3. According to Islam’s traditions written by friends and followers of the Mohammad (not enemies), Islam’s prophet personally led 26+ raids, sent out dozens more, attacked caravans, plundered villages, murdered opponents, tortured, enslaved men women and children and let his men rape. He even beat his favorite wife. Yet Muslims consider him a great moral example. As I said, figure out what that means. See link above. Here is another link about somebody saying “I am made victorious with terror”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220
Who would say something like that?
4. The Quran is full of special permissions and exceptions for Mohammad. Extra wives, to put away wives, 20% of all loot, permission to burn orchards when making war, permission to destroy mosques (9:107, 110) , not to keep his word of honor, etc. When Mohammad had a personal or marital problem, Allah would conveniently provide a new revelation to solve it. This con job (for lack of a better term) got so bad that his child-bride Aisha even sneers “Your god is quick to do your bidding.” Don’t Muslims find this a little suspicious? While on the subject, I would like you to explain this: a. “Verily those who swear allegiance to you Muhammad, indeed swear their allegiance to Allah” – 48:10, and b. “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah” – 4:80). Muslims make a big deal about the terrible sin of associating “partners” to Allah, but words like these clearly indicate a state of shared identity A = B. In the Quran we find the formula “Allah and his messenger” hundreds of times. Any reading indicates that Mohammad is more than a mere mortal, so much that he can be considered a junior partner to Allah. Doesn’t this bother Muslims?
5. Muslim values are not Western values. I refer to the cartoon controversy and other issues. They want to end our freedom of speech (with the help of Multiculturalists and PC-officials). Without freedom of speech and conscience there can be no democracy. There is no separation of state and mosque so infidels are by definition third class citizens (after women). Under sharia according to the Quran, people doing “mischief” can be brutally tortured and killed (5.33). What kind of deity would use such a vague, ambiguous term such as “mischief”? Allah would!
6. Muslims always blame everything on something else. They say its a “small group” that has “hijacked” the religion. Other common excuses are racism, imperialism, capitalism, Jews, Bush, Crusades, Vatican, Hollywood, lack of education, suffering of the Palestinian people, translations, culture, etc. The excuses never end.

Habibi, you are a good example of a moderate Muslim. You look at current events and see no fundamental problem with Islam. Muslims kill, oppress and threaten violence and you say we are bigots. You look at Islam’s sacred scriptures and the life of Mohammad and see goodness, when in fact the pages are filled with blood, pain and hate. This is why the future will not be nice. This is why Islam never changes. This is why the hate and violence continue.

Yes there are nice Muslims. The problem is when debating their beliefs they immediately pull out a list of excuses
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html
or find some place to go or something else to do. I dont blame them. It is hard to look a person in the face and say X was a good man when reading about X letting one of his men cut open the belly of a pregnant woman for criticizing X.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

So what does a Muslim do? Well, they try to silence anybody that says things they don’t want to hear.

Muslims are not honest about these problems and so cannot be trusted to stand up for human rights. The problem is Islam, not just Islamism.

Kactuz

field @ 1 November 2008, 2:45 am

You and I are agreed about the importance of “regular elections, election of representatives, equal citizenship, laws made by parliament, freedom of speech and opinion, a fair system of justice without cruel punishment and an impartial civil service and police.”

In most countries that practice legality and democracy, these things are written into a Constitution. Indeed, in the USA, they have been developed by referring to the Constitution. That is not the case in the UK. Some are Acts of Parliament, others merely custom and practice.

There is lots of history of people wanting to “uphold the constitution” who were against those principles. It is very easy to meet people who think the Hanoverian succession is in a late Eighteenth century Act of (the English) Parliament, rather than Article II of the Treaty of Union.

The Treaty of Union is the nearest the UK has to a constitution for two reasons
1) it is the founding document of a new state
2) it overrides earlier laws, as it says in Article XXV “all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom, so far as they are contrary to, or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles, or any of them, shall, from and after the Union, cease, and become void”.

Far from being juvenile, I am following the line of argument of Thomas Paine against Edmund Burke. Can’t find Paine’s book to give you a quote at the moment. I conclude that your idea of “our constitution” is as I have criticised. The subjective opinions of experts would include people as distinguished as Peter Hennessey and Vernon Bogdanor, not to mention the famous work of fiction by Walter Bagehot.

Finally, you can’t uphold legality by deporting anyone from a country they are a citizen of. You have to deal with people breaking the law by enforcing the law. The wife and children of Omar Bakri Mohammed are British and have every right to live here. My opinion that she should be encouraged to earn her living has nothing to do with his behaviour.

I was in my local Homebase one sunday not that long ago and Ron Wood was in front of me wearing a Hard Rock Cafe leather jacket and buying a tin of paint (this was before his latest “troubles”). The store musak was playing “Bye Bye Love” – an old Everly Brothers tune. I was singing along – I am a big fan of early 60s music – and murmured to the till assistant, a callow white youth of about 18, “That’s one of my favourite Everly Brothers songs”. I was not surprised by his blank expression. I added, thinking to engage him, “did you notice that was Ron Wood you just served?”. Blank Expression. “One of the Rolling Stones?” “Who are the Rolling Stones?”.

Alan Ji: You need to get out more.

With regard to the points I made earlier, I see that the Western Governments are pressing the Middle Easten Governments (sorry I can’t be more specific, Ceefax is the soul of brevity) to cntribute more to the International Monetary Fund. No doubt if they do, and let’s face it they have to put their lovely lolly somewhere, then certain political concessions will be wrested from the West. We will see a ot more of the advance of Islam into the West. Where that will leave terrorism, I don’t know but it should be noticed that the barest of excuses seems to suffice for waging ‘jihad’.

Alan Ji –

You are wrong – seriously wrong – on a number of points.

Firstly, founding constitutions are only a small part of the story. Just because the US has a written constitution is not quite as fundamental difference as you might think. The US constitution resides as much in the decisions of the Supreme Court as it does in the commendably brief constitution itself.

Secondly, it is wrong to identify constitutions with legal documents. The constitution is just as much a sociological and psychological phenomenon as it is a legal one. What really matters about the US and UK constitutions is the extent to which the rules are internalised and acted on in individual behaviour. We have all seen with recent postal voting scandals what happens when these rules aren’t internalised.

Thirdly the crucial subjective judgments are not those of eminent constitutional experts but those of the mass of people. It was the lack of emotional attachment to the Weimar Constitution among the mass of people that undermined it more than any actual legal defects.

Fourth, constitutions are always works in progress, always evolving. The attempt to tie them down to a particular date and time as you seem to be trying to do is futile. The Representation of the People Acts are far more important parts of our constitution than the Treaty of Union.

Lastly when did I say that Bakri’s wife should be deported? I would have to see some evidence of her subverting the constitution before I argued for that. But if there was such evidence e.g. in the form of relevant criminal convictions or verified statements then I would certainly argue she should be removed from our midst assuming she is the citizen of another country.

HPBNP “..They dont need eruvs. They dont need Beth Dins. They dont need Boards of Deputies…”

You are ignorant and not comparing like with like, but then I suspect you are not capable of understanding the deeper aspects of this

Try to take this on board (I shall write it in bite-size pieces):

1) Eruvim (plural of eruv), Batei Din (plural of Beth Din) and Boards of Deputies are a choice of certain Jewish communities which DO NOT SEEK TO IMPOSE JEWISH WILL ON ANYONE, even on other Jews. Jewish communities tend to fund themselves by and large, and British Jews consider themselves loyal citizens of the UK.

2) Conversely, nearly every Islamist demand from this stupid government of ours is based upon an exaggerated sense of entitlement and the rumbling threat of acting out if they don’t get their way. ISLAM SEEKS TO IMPOSE ITSELF ON EVERY OTHER CULTURE AND FAITH WITH WHICH IT COMES INTO CONTACT.

Gettit??

You forgot:
BY FORCE, IF LYING, THREATS ETC DON’T SUFFICE.

But the dim apologists and useful fools won’t get it …

I lost faith in this government years ago. I cannot imagine why it took David quite so long.

Hilarious. This from a zionist supporter of the Jewish state

You never did see an antisemite you didn’t like, did you, lying shit?

Say what?

The Beth Din courts do seek to impose their will on non-Jews. If you become an apostate – a non-Jew – after marriage they still want to you to bow to the will of the courts and submit to their jurisdiction. The iniquity of this legislation is that it actually requires an apostates to submit to the judgment of the Beth Din courts, if the (UK law) court so requires.

The issue of whether or not Judaism like Islam wishes to impose its will on others is a red herring. There are plenty of religions which don’t wish to impose their will in the nakedly contemptuous way that Islam seeks to do, but that does not mean we are obliged to accept their autonomous jurisidiction over matters of family life. There are plenty of non-domineering polygamous faiths which I see no reason to humour in this way.

The worst aspect of the Beth Din courts though is that it has driven a coach and horses through the barrier between religion and our laws. In this day and age it is simply not possible to try and make a legal distinction between Judaism and Islam just because you like one and don’t like the other (do you think that would be allowed by human rights legislation?). Our legal system requires us to pretend that all religions are of equal value – which is why the Beth Din concession is so constitutionally dangerous as we can now see. The only way forward is swift repeal of the unwarranted concession.

Many of our laws are undemocratic, in the sense that they have been around before the first 1-adult-1 vote election in 1950 or even before the first election when a majority of adults had a vote in 1919.

Which part of ’subvert’ and ‘respect’ are you struggling with? You can respect the law and yet campaign lawfully for the repeal of a particular law (Islam does have a serious problem with this concept, which is why it should be countered in a western democracy).
Just to clarify: ‘campaign lawfully’ does not encompass threats of terrorism, which should result in any individual doing so being bunged up for 10 years – the law is there, it’s just that this government of clowns, lunatics, halfwits, cowards, gangsters and illiterates doesn’t apply it.

I see that Field has imported his mendacious and ignorant antisemitism from the Spectator blog.

field, they don’t threaten to kill you though, do they?

Judaism is a benign influence in this country (although there are exceptions such as Naturei Karta). Batei Din are compelled by Jewish law to accept the rulings of the courts of the land in which Jews choose to live. There are shortcomings, of course – such as the circumstances of the so-called “chained” women (locked into marriage with men who will not divorce them), but, again, a Jewish woman who resorts to the secular courts to get justice for herself does not go in fear of her life. What do you think might happen to a Muslim woman who, say, took her husband to court because he beat her or otherwise abused her and to whom the male dominated sharia courts could offer no protection?

The Beth Din courts have no more driven a coach and horses through the religion and state interface than have the sharia “courts” which this government says don’t exist.

And if the government should withdraw recognition to Batei Din then how on earth could they withdraw recognition, equally fairly, from sharia courts if they are not supposed to exist?

And Im reminded of anti-semitic slurs that Judaism sanctions lying to Gentiles

The koran clearly sanctions lying, and since islam IS a lie, it is constantly in need of new ones to cover up those that came before.

It has no solid kernal of truth because its founder was an imposter.

The islamic world is a gigantic gas-bag that produces nothing, invents nothing, creates nothing, and which has no science or technology to speak of.

And islam’s adherents are actually deluded enough to think they’re *leading* humanity.

The islamic world is so useless and backward, it can’t even feed itself, relies on handouts from non-muslims, the very people it considers ‘inferior’, and this despite the fact it squats on some of the world’s best farmland.

You just don’t get dumber than that.

It is imploding under the weight of its own crass stupidity.

The squalid, screaming brat needs a good spanking.

“…In this day and age it is simply not possible to try and make a legal distinction between Judaism and Islam just because you like one and don’t like the other (do you think that would be allowed by human rights legislation?)…”

Have you actually tried?

Thought not.

And as for human rights legislation, this seems heavily weighted in favour of professional Islamist victims rather than simply being fair and impartial. Said Islamists inveigh against our allegedly morally bankrupt democracy and yet don’t hesitate to adopt its freedoms when it suits them and to do so against those who they perceive to be threatening their power base.

Serendipity:

1. I do believe that religions can be differentially assessed and, yes, I value modern Judaism greatly above modern Islam (not clear that the ancient forms were morally that different actually). However, my personal opinion is not going to impress a High Court judge I can assure you – who in any case is very likely to be Muslim within the next couple of decades.

2. I am not arguing for the interpretation of human rights legislation our judges have imposed on us, I am simply stating it as a fact of our cultural life.

It seems like Nearly Oxfordian has imported his wild, unwarranted and
underhand assertions from the Melanie Phillips blog.

To be opposed to official legal sanction for Beth Din courts to become involved in our divorce proceedings is not the same thing as being anti-semitic, as any fule know.

And just because you lost an argument over the plain meaning of the leglislation (which I am happy to reproduce here) doesn’t give you licence to throw around slurs of racism.

Field is lying – what a surprise. I didn’t post at MP. I didn’t, therefore, ‘lose’ any argument. Also, the spelling is ‘fool’, you sad illiterate.

not clear that the ancient forms were morally that different actually

Well, if you are ignorant about Talmudic law, for example, you really don’t need to advertise that fact.

My apologies, Nearly O – you must have been making your wild, unwarranted and underhand assertions on this forum then: big difference that :-)

As any fule kno (I shouldn’t have kept the “w”), fule is the way Molesworth, a schoolboy character derived from a series of humorous pieces in the 1950s in Punch magazine spells fool, not I.

Somewhat ancient now though I see the phrase occasionally. It’s featured on Wikipedia and there is a song of that title (or nearly so) by Deep Purple.

It’s a humorous way of saying: any idiot can understand this.

When I said “ancient” I meant ancient: pre-Talmudic.

Nearly O, likes to call people he disagrees with either an idiot or an antisemite. It’s not clear to me that he knows anything else.

Well, Shmuel, since you are reading-challenged, I won’t bother to explain to you why I call idiots ‘idiots’ and antisemites ‘antisemites’. Don’t try to follow this: your head might explode.

Field thinks that the Talmud is not ‘ancient’. Only 2000 years old, of course … that’s nothing to antisemites when in full mouth-flecked flow.

Habibi… This “putrid bigotry”, as you call it, is people expressing their opinion about a problem. I assume you are a Muslim, so consider this:
1. The Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. Do you think we are lower than animals? That is from al-anfal, the spoils of war, Sura 8 (why is there a chapter about loot in a book that claims to be about peace?). The Quran says things like … Strike off their (infidel’s) heads. Strike off their finger-tips (Sura 8:12-13), “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (4:89), “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (9:123), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them; fight them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] … allow them to go their way.” (9:5) Do you think it moral that Muslims are told to fight and subdue us? Do you think there should be a hunting season on Non-Muslims (after the sacred months… except if there is a treaty — and does not having a treaty make it right to attack people?) If we are not “people of the book,” just plain vanilla pagans, the Quran says to slaughter us (Make war on non-Muslims until idolatry cease and Islam reigns supreme” 2:193). Is this OK? Why does the Quran say fighting is good for Muslims? Why does it say that Islam is about killing and being killed (9:111). These are direct commands by Allah to attack, kill and conquer. Here, read Sahih Muslim, Book 19 for an idea of what the traditions say.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4345
The funny thing is if you press a Muslim to explain these verses they will tell you that you need to understand the “context” and “original intent” – which means the Quran is poorly written and confusing (although the Quran says it is a clear 12:1, free of doubt. 2:1, easy to understand 44:58).
2. In all Islamic societies non-Muslims are discriminated against. They are not free to practice their faiths. Muslims in the West do nothing, say nothing. They obviously concur to this persecution.
3. According to Islam’s traditions written by friends and followers of the Mohammad (not enemies), Islam’s prophet personally led 26+ raids, sent out dozens more, attacked caravans, plundered villages, murdered opponents, tortured, enslaved men women and children and let his men rape. He even beat his favorite wife. Yet Muslims consider him a great moral example. As I said, figure out what that means. See link above. Here is another link about somebody saying “I am made victorious with terror”
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/052.sbt.html#004.052.220
Who would say that?
4. The Quran is full of special permissions and exceptions for Mohammad. Extra wives, to put away wives, 20% of all loot, permission to burn orchards when making war, permission to destroy mosques (9:107, 110), not to keep his word of honour, etc. When Mohammad had a personal or marital problem, Allah would conveniently provide a new revelation to solve it. This con job (for lack of a better term) got so bad that his child-bride Aisha even sneers “Your god is quick to do your bidding.” Don’t Muslims find this a little suspicious? While on the subject, I would like you to explain this: a. “Verily those who swear allegiance to you Muhammad, indeed swear their allegiance to Allah” – 48:10, and b. “He who obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah” – 4:80). Muslims make a big deal about the terrible sin of associating “partners” to Allah, but words like these clearly indicate a state of shared identity A = B. In the Quran we find the formula “Allah and his messenger” hundreds of times. Any reading indicates that Mohammad is more than a mere mortal, so much that he can be considered a partner to Allah. Doesn’t this bother Muslims?
5. Muslim values are not Western values. I refer to the cartoon controversy and other issues. They want to end our freedom of speech (with the help of Multiculturalists and PC-officials). Without freedom of speech and conscience there can be no democracy. There is no separation of state and mosque so infidels are by definition third class citizens (after women). Under Sharia according to the Quran, people doing “mischief” can be brutally tortured and killed (5.33). What kind of deity would use such a vague, ambiguous term such as “mischief”? Allah would!
6. Muslims always blame everything on something else. They say its a “small group” that has “hijacked” the religion. Other common excuses are racism, imperialism, Jews, Bush, Crusades, Vatican, Hollywood, lack of education, suffering of the Palestinian people, translations, culture, etc. The excuses never end.

Habibi, you are a good example of a moderate Muslim. You look at current events and see no fundamental problem with Islam. Muslims kill, oppress and threaten violence and you say we are bigots. You look at Islam’s sacred scriptures and the life of Mohammad and see goodness, when in fact the pages are filled with blood, pain and hate. This is why the future will not be nice. This is why Islam never changes. This is why the hate and violence continue.

Yes there are nice Muslims. The problem is when debating their beliefs they immediately pull out a list of excuses
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html
or find some place to go or something else to do. I dont blame them. It is hard to look a person in the face and say X was a good man when reading about X letting one of his men cut open the belly of a pregnant woman for criticizing X.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

So what does a Muslim do? Well, they try to silence anybody that says things they don’t want to hear.

Muslims are not honest about these problems and so cannot be trusted to stand up for human rights. The problem is Islam, not just Islamism.

Kactuz

“Field thinks that the Talmud is not ‘ancient’”

O if you knew *anything* about Judaism, you would know that the “ancient” period is considered historically distinct from the “rabbinic” talmudic period as a matter of scholarly convention. You are embarrassing yourself.

field @ 1 November 2008, 11:18 am

You and I are never going to agree about what a constution is.

and the reason is that I’m arguing in the tradition of Thomas Paine and (I think that) you are arguing in the tradition of Edmund Burke. I’ll find Paine’s book so that I can quote the next time this subject comes up.

Some other posters are confusing Democracy with Legality. Two examples to illustrate the difference:
1) During the whole Apartheid period, South African Courts were independent of the Government.
2) After the former Baathist regime of Iraq invaded conqured and annexed a small, rich neighbour, various countries took part in a counter-attack to restore the independence of Kuwait. I was just as much in favour of that as Margaret Thatcher was, but her description of Kuwait beforehand as “democracy” could hardly have been more wrong.

Alan Ji: Is it ok if I come to your house and steal all your possessions because the definition of theft predates the universal franchise?

Mrs Ben, Muslims are taught that their main loyalty is to the ummah, the world-wide community of Islam, rather than to anything un-Islamic.

I have little doubt that there are many Muslims who are appalled at the the activities of the MCB and the Muslim Brotherhood, and HuT, but they are frozen and immobile in the face of the koranic injunction:

“Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution (prevention), that ye may Guard yourselves from them (prevent them from harming you.) But Allah cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to Allah. Surah 3: 28″

The untrustworthiness of kufr is deliberately stoked up by many Muslim leaders and it feeds into the “poor me” sense of paranoia that no people but Muslims can be trusted.

Therefore even if a Muslim is disgusted by the behaviour of his co-religionists it is very difficult for him to stand up against them. By so doing he is breaking a Koranic injunction and may also come to harm. The wider community construes this as agreement and the closing of ranks.

Our government must try its utmost to access these people and encourage them to make their voices heard. We all know them and work with them and in some cases would count them among our friends.

Habibi… This “putrid bigotry”, as you call it, is people expressing their opinion about a problem. I assume you are a Muslim, so consider this:
1. The Quran is full of hate and violence against non-Muslims. Do you think we are lower than animals? That is from al-anfal, the spoils of war, Sura 8 – why is there a chapter about loot in a book that claims to be about peace? The Quran says things like … Strike off their (infidel’s) heads. Strike off their finger-tips (Sura 8:12-13), “Seize them and put them to death wherever you find them.” (4:89), “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you.” (9:123), “When the sacred months are over, slay the idolaters wherever you find them; fight them; besiege them; and lie in ambush everywhere for them. If they repent [convert to Islam] … allow them to go their way” (9:5).Do you think there should be a hunting season on Non-Muslims (after the sacred months… except if there is a treaty — and does not having a treaty make it right to attack people?) If we are not “people of the book,” just plain vanilla pagans, the Quran says to slaughter us (Make war on non-Muslims until idolatry cease and Islam reigns supreme” 2:193). Is this OK? Why does it say that Islam is about killing and being killed (9:111). These are direct commands by Allah to attack, kill and conquer. Here, read Sahih Muslim, Book 19 for an idea of what the traditions say.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4345
The funny thing is if you press a Muslim to explain these verses they will tell you that you need to understand the “context” and “original intent” – which means the Quran is poorly written and confusing (although the Quran says its clear 12:1, free of doubt. 2:1, easy to understand 44:58).

Habibi, you are a good example of a moderate Muslim. You look at current events and see no fundamental problem with Islam. Muslims kill, oppress and threaten violence and you say we are bigots. You look at Islam’s sacred scriptures and the life of Mohammad and see goodness, when in fact the pages are filled with blood, pain and hate

Yes there are nice Muslims. The problem is when debating their beliefs they immediately pull out a list of excuses
http://www.kactuzkid.com/blame.html
or find some place to go or something else to do. I dont blame them. It is hard to look a person in the face and say X was a good man when reading about X letting one of his men cut open the belly of a pregnant woman for criticizing X.
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/abudawud/038.sat.html#038.4348

So what does a Muslim do? They try to silence anybody that says things they don’t want to hear. That is why Islam never changes. That is why the hate and violence continue.

Muslims are not honest about these problems and so cannot be trusted to stand up for human rights. The problem is Islam, not just Islamism.

Kactuz

Serendipidity –

A very wise and pertinent post from you.

I recall once overhearing a 10 or 11 year old Asian boy explaining to another uncomprehending Asian boy (probably a Hindu) that they couldn’t be proper friends because he (the latter) was not a Muslim. It was quite matter of fact and not meant in a hurtful way.

As you suggest the current policy of appeasing bodies ruled by the ideologues of Islam is completely wrong. We need to encourage those Muslims who are committed to a truly pluralistic society.

I was reasonably encouraged by the stand of the Sufi Muslim Council which certainly was unambiguous in its condemnation of terrorism and extremism. They could be the sort of body that could effect change within Islam in the UK.

It’s much better if Muslims adopt religious beliefs and practices which are compatible with democracy than if they somehow try and ignore precepts and practice which continue to inform part of their religion.

They need to interpret out of existence those passages (and unfortunately there are quite a few) which are problematic (just as Christians have done).

Shmuel, you are a very sad little prat. I am Jewish, and know quite a lot about Judaism. I was referring to Field’s ignorant mishmash. But if you want to keep him company, feel free – idiots flock together as a matter of natural affinity.

I do have to say, being neither Jewish nor Muslim, that the Muslim posters here who point out that if elements of the Jewish faith can have special legal privileges then so should Muslims, do have a case. British Jews trying to prove they alone are a special case don’t sound very convinving to me.

Either every religion can claim special case exemptions for elements of its beliefs, or none can. I am for the latter, the separation of church and state (as in France) and NO special exemptions for ANY religion.

May the Force be with you all

Mrs Ben

Don’t buy Field’s distortions. The two cases – Sharia and Beth Din – are different in many ways, as already pointed out by people with not quite so many axes to grind as Field (for the sake of full disclosure: I am an atheist, so would no more wish to use a Beth Din than I would wish to apply to the courts of Fiji to settle a dispute with the Inland Revenue). But comparing the two as simply weasely.

is …

Don’t buy Nearly O’s dissembling.

The legislation brings the two together. There is provision for Beth Din Courts involvement in the regs (now activated) but also, in the same regs, provision for involvement of courts of other religions (i.e. including the Shariah courts of Islam) – not yet activated although clearly the Lord Chief Justice and the Archbishop of Canterbury want them activated asap.

Don’t blame me for putting the two together: blame parliament.

As for Nearly O’s offensive comments directed at Shmuel I think any fair minded observers will see that he is making ad hominem attacks because he is failing to make a persuasive case.

I see that Nearly O is making ad hominem attacks because he is failing to make a persuasive case.

Yet again.

Field, did they never teach you reading and writing? The personal attack came from Shmuel. You are a fitting pair – one stupid, the other an antisemitic liar.

The so-called ‘Fair Minded Observer’ is obviously a dumb screen name for Field himself – the 2 comments are identical. Field thinks everyone is as stupid as he is.

I see that Nearly O is entirely wrong on a point of fact.

Yet again.

By so doing he is breaking a Koranic injunction and may also come to harm. The wider community construes this as agreement and the closing of ranks.

Here in Canada, the moderate Muslims have recieved death threats for speaking up.

In fact, even their children were threatened.

Islam bullies its adherents into submission. From the moment Mohammed died, The Arabian Penisula went into open, violent revolt against Islam.

When the tyrant died his ‘followers’ attempted to bolt and it took several years of intense bloodshed, on the part of mohammed’s immediate successor, to put that revolt down.

An ideology so rooted in violence and so dependant on violence for its maintenance and legitimacy, is only capable of understaning and respecting violence.

If you look at Islam’s history you’ll see that Muslims will only sit up straight and listen following a massive military defeat on the part of their adversaries.

The Battle of Tours, The Second Seige of Constantinople and The Siege of Vienna were all resounding victories against Islam and were ALL followed by long periods of peace.

And quiet.

Quote: “I was reasonably encouraged by the stand of the Sufi Muslim Council which certainly was unambiguous in its condemnation of terrorism and extremism”

Wink.wink. But did they reject the verses in the Quran that command violence against non-MUslims? Did they condemn the evil acts of Mohammad (ie, the raids and attacks on non-muslims, the plundering of villages, murders, torture, enslavement, rape of women captives, etc.) as described in their own traditions (ahadith)?

No and no.

I don’t believe they are sincere. Muslims cannot be trusted. It is that simple.

Kactuz

“I am Jewish”

And I am officially prejudiced. I assumed you were not a Jew because of your stupidity (and ignorance of Judaism).

jay kactuz quotes me:

“I was reasonably encouraged by the stand of the Sufi Muslim Council which certainly was unambiguous in its condemnation of terrorism and extremism”

And writes in comment:

Wink.wink. But did they reject the verses in the Quran that command violence against non-MUslims? Did they condemn the evil acts of Mohammad (ie, the raids and attacks on non-muslims, the plundering of villages, murders, torture, enslavement, rape of women captives, etc.) as described in their own traditions (ahadith)?

No and no.

I don’t believe they are sincere. Muslims cannot be trusted. It is that simple.

MY COMMENT:

True. But I think that is asking too much.

Do Jews condemn the mass murder of the Canaanites? No. And they get very upset if you bring it up.

Do Liberal Christians like it if you bring up the strictures of Jesus and the Apostles against people having sex outside marriage, against gays, divorcees? No. Do they condemn those verses? No.

Do Right Wing Christians like it if you point to the communistic organisation of the early Church and ask why they don’t follow that example? No. Do they condemn the verses? No.

But, point is, most of these people are at peace, sort of, with democracy.

That’s all we are looking for really. An accommodation.

Sue R @ 2 November 2008, 9:12 am

“Alan Ji: Is it ok if I come to your house and steal all your possessions because the definition of theft predates the universal franchise?”

Not at all. But if I had a sheep and you stole it I would not think that transportation to the colonies or hanging was a proprotionate punishment.

As I write they are discussing Magna Carta on Radio 4. In my copy there is a clause that says no man shall be convicted on a woman’s evidence, unless the charge is murdering her husband. I approve of that one being disposed of.

My Ladybird Book of Legal History tells me that every so often the archaic laws on the statute book are removed. I forget the technical term for it, but onfe of the lawyers who post here can no doubt oblige. Actually, I would love to be transported to somewhere warm and sunny for a minor offence. I’m thinking of getting up a campaign to bring back transportation.

My parents, who are both in their eighties, in fact my Dad is 90, were burgled in the summer. My Mother was very upset as lots of old family heirlooms were taken, not particularly valuable in themselves but sentimental. The robbers also threw all their belongings around the house. As you can imagine, my Mum was upset and she declared to me, ‘They should chop their hands off when they catch them!’. I thought this was rather amusing and I asked her if she wanted to see the introduction of sharia law. So, I reckon there is probably more support than you think for hanging sheep rustlers.

Sue R, your description of your mothers reaction to being robbed is interesting and provides, I think, a rationale for the disturbing increase in extremism among young Muslims.

Many are disaffected and receive no guidance about how best to deal with this from their parents, who are themselves confused about where they are situated. This is not comfortable emotionally.

Along comes the likes of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which smells out and targets that uncertainty in much the same way as do cult recruiters, exaggerates it at first and then seems to provide the complete answer to it. A young Muslim who has hitherto felt all at sea sinks into the spurious certainty offered by their extremism, of a place to belong. These people are Muslims and Muslims are enjoined, after all, to befriend each other.

How can we combat this? Can we force people to feel as if they belong to the wider community if their religion enjoins them to stay apart from it?

Perhaps one way is to bring home to them the cost of staying apart, that they cannot have it both ways, that they cannot claim the benefits of belonging to a democracy if they play no active part in it, no matter how loudly they may shout and stamp their feet.

Another is not to tippy toe around them when they do that.

Field,

You are absolutely right! There is nothing worse than double standards – a problem we see so often today in so many areas and aspects of life. You, sir, are too kind and look for the best in people. That is a compliment.

In my case, I don’t see jews (or most Western liberals and conservatives) as a direct threat. Yes, they are smart, yes they control a disproportionate share of GNP, etc… but the West has lived with them (poorly, most of the time) for 2000 years.

Islam is a whole different creature. It is something that has happened in the last generation. On top of everything, cirumstances have conspired to make a bad situation worse. Massive immigration of Muslims to the West is a new phenomena that has only occurred in the last generation. Prior to the 1960s when immigrants came from Muslim countries, it was mostly Christians escaping the evils and discrimination they suffered under Islam and Sharia.

Understand also that the rules have changed – 100 years ago a family would move and they had to integrate. Now with multiculturalism, welfare and technology, this is different. A group can live, work, worship and even hate, and live side by side with another group. When people praise past immigration (as in the US or Australia) they are talking about a world that no longer exists. It is like the generals planning for the last war. Things have changed, but the politicians and intellectuals don’t know it.

Welfare now makes immigrants independent of work and responsibility. Multiculturalism makes them immune from OFFICIAL criticism and discourages integration. Political correctness means that and their behavior cannot be criticized. Modern technology means they can live in the West like they never left home (and even eat their favorite Pakistani dishes or watch their favorite Imam in Old Arabia on TV telling them to hate the infidels). It is a whole new world. The effects of globalism, new communication technology and mass migrations are so many and so deep that they are beyond any individual’s understanding. This is a dangerous mixture one day and it will explode. Boom.

Like him or not, a generation ago Enoch Powell saw this coming and our leaders don’t give a damn about the consequences. He was called a bigot and racist, but he was right about the problems that we now see.

On a personal note, I have never been threatened by jews. Sadly I cannot say that about the followers of the so-called “religion of peace.” I have no doubt that if Muslims were in a position of power over non-Muslims, many of us would be oppressed or worse. I am sure this old man would be dead.

I have taken time to learn about Islam; I have taken time to ask Muslims hard questions about their faith, and so I can therefore say with absolute certainty that no Muslim, no matter how kind, sweet or moderate, is honest about the hate and violence that is found in the Quran and ahadith.

Take care and lets see what happens. It is an interesting time to live.

Kactuz

Sue R: You and I will be doing a comedy act soon.

If I owned a sheep, I expect that my property rights in it would be protected by insurance, a bit like when my wife’s previous car was stolen.

I’m sorry to hear about your elderly parents burglary. Their home is a different matter, because they are upset and angry by the break in and the importance to them of items that don’t have a market value to others. I once wasn’t best pleased by the off-hand attitude of a man who didn’t want to repair my cheap watch; the last present my grandmother gave me.

A few days ago you told me to get out more. My Saturday: local shopping, driving to a tube station I’ve never got out of before, 2 tube trains, annual meeeting of infuential campoaing and research group, 1 tube and one train ride, football match, bus ride to car, drive “little sister substitute” and her six year old nephew home from his first football match because his mum doesn’t want him to go to the fireworks, drive to a different friends house, walk to municipal fireworks in the rain, excellent display, walk back to friends house, party and more fireworks, chat to freinds sister who has come to collect her, go home and fall asleep. Out of the house continously for about 15 hours!

John P “..If you look at Islam’s history you’ll see that Muslims will only sit up straight and listen following a massive military defeat on the part of their adversaries..”

You have reminded me of Prof Moshe Sharon’s seminal address about the agenda of Islam, see:

http://www.betar.co.uk/articles/betar1072264293.php