Harry’s Place

Halfway down the article I started thinking about a supposed pact between the Govt and Islamic terrorists, supposedly brokered through MCB whereby the UK turned a blind eye to certain things and made things easier for UK Muslims and in return we wouldn’t be bombed.

I seem to remember it was an article in The Sunday Times and was about the time that Londonistan came out so maybe it was something Mel wrote.

Then I read
There is a line of thinking that is popular in parts of officialdom, and policywonkery, that Muslims are at any time, only minutes away from exploding, that their natural leadership is Al Qaeda, and that only last best hope - at home as well as abroad - is to make Jamaat-e-Islami, Hezbollah, and the Muslim Brotherhood our best friends, in the hope that they’ll persuade Muslims to explode outside the United Kingdom only. This perspective is popular among some Foreign and Commonwealth Office types, who have a colonial mindset, and who naturally look for ‘headmen’ with whom they can do deals. It is also popular among white middle class and middle aged people who, quite frankly, don’t know that many Muslims socially, other than people who present themselves as “the leadership”. And “the leadership” in this country largely consists of a minority of ideologues aligned with Jamaat and the MB.

And I realised such a policy does seem to exist. It might explain a tougher UK stance against Israel, like West Bank Goods labelling.

The problem is that I don’t think there are any real moderate Muslim community leaders. They tend to lead by radical rabble rousing and promising no let up against Israel.

In the back of my head I see “H” Blocks and Internment Camps!

we were a generation behind the struggle to keep Stalinists out of progressive, democratic and liberal politics.

You wouldn’t have been if you had paid attention instead of dismissing that the Right said about CND and its like.

So make sure you have America Alone and Londonistan on your Winterval reading lists, comrades :)

The second reason is that the democratic Left has lost its moral compass on Islamism, just as it did on Stalinism. If you were to show most people active on the Left, political writing that talked about the Norse-Celtic-Anglo-Saxon Racial Folk Community, and that referenced Mein Kampf, they’d quickly and correctly identify it as the product of a fascist movement, and avoid it like the plague. If you show them political writing that longs for the time that the Ummah will rise and create a glorious Caliphate and praises Abdullah Azzam and Anwar Al Awaki how many of them will recognise the writer as a supporter of jihadist politics? How many will appreciate what that means, or even be concerned about it? If you pointed out that a writer was an activist with Islamic Forum Europe, and therefore aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami, how many people would regard that as a problem?

That is correct, but there is a slight difference.

Hitler is generally seen as uniquely evil. Mao, Stalin, Lenin and other deeply unpleasant figures of “the left” are, for whatever reason, rarely held up as an epitome in the same way as Hitler, despite their crimes being arguably as great if not greater. I would argue that this isn’t because of ignorance. People know that Stalin and Mao were responsible for millions of deaths. But I suppose the thinking is that those deaths were somehow for the sake of a “greater good”, or some other nonsense. That there was a rather twisted virtue to their actions that makes their mass murder rather less awful than that of the Nazis. I think that is why contemporary apologists for Nazism and Stalinism would be treated differently.

The “blind spot” regarding jihadism, however, has I think arisen for slightly different reasons. Either out of complete ignorance of these characters and what they stand for, or out of a bien-pensant fear of being seen as racist for condemning someone who has got brown skin, or most likely a combination of both.

But this is a great post.

This is akin to employing a known poisoner to work in your kitchen.

Wasn’t it one Mockbul Ali, squeaky clean and of the Foreign Office, who said that Yusuf al-Qaradawi was a moderate and should be allowed into this country? And didn’t Blair’s government believe him initially? Has this stupid government learned nothing at all?

Maven, there may well be moderate Muslims - indeed I know and work with quite a few who I would define as moderate when I think about it - but none of them could be community leaders precisely because they are moderate and would not have the support of the likes of the MCB.

Unfortunately, the requirement to do the equivalent of believing at least fifteen impossible things before breakfast as well as being firmly discouraged from engaging fully with all variations of faith outside one’s own, predispose towards gullibility and to being led by the nose by whoever shouts the loudest and with the most authority, however off-the-wall their pronouncements.

And this stupid government has fallen for it again.

Maven, there may well be moderate Muslims - indeed I know and work with quite a few who I would define as moderate when I think about it - but none of them could be community leaders precisely because they are moderate and would not have the support of the likes of the MCB.

It seems to me that to become a Muslim Community leader you have to be associated with some radical international group with Arab/Wahabbi funding. You have to be a Jihadist puppet. Why should they bother.

The third and final reason is, perhaps, the most worrying part of the story. Strong social and political bonds have now been formed between prominent Islamists and members of the police, the civil service, and progressive Left wing campaigning groups. Those connections give them a certain degree of immunity from criticism.

Whenever there is an anti-terrorism raid we have some police forces telling Muslim community leaders first and then we have the statement “The police and community leaders are working to reassure the community” We know what that means. I’d like the police to come and reassure MY community that they are vigilant about terrorism and those who are on its fringes.

This ‘re-assurance’ and pre-raid information is the equivalent of telling that community “well, you have a right to be spooked by anti-terror activity. So we will will go softly., We PROMISE No Dogs”

Its a sort of victory and exercising an obligation where none should exist. Aren’t we to be treated equally?

David T might enjoy this.

I’m starting to wonder how long David T can go on writing about you governments cute little friends before he ends up dead in an alley.

Mitnaged: “This is akin to employing a known poisoner to work in your kitchen.” What a classic line–says it all, really.

Maven: On target as usual. As I said in a confrontation a few years ago with a government official mewling about the “human rights” of thugs, pimps, and murderers here in New Orleans in defending the Police and Housing authorities efforts: “What about MY “Human rights?!” What about MY right not to be accosted, mugged, etc. Where is MY protection–especially as types like ME are paying the freight!

The entire situation is totally disgusting. What it boils down to is the looking-for-keys-lost-in-the-dark-alley-under-the-streetlamp–because-the-light-is-so-much-better-there syndrome. So much easier to mollify the bad guys and ignore the victims because the victims (potential or actual) are easily controlled/ignored and the authorities have neither the will nor the ability to do the heavy lifting necessary to confront the real problem.

John Little: What an excellent article! Thanks for the link.

Agreed, that is a fascinating article.

My statement about victims should have read: “potential or actual–or dead” Dead people are the most easily ignored of all–it’s the obstreperous live and kicking (watch those shins!) villains that are such a bother to deal with….

There will always be extremists of the sort that firebombed Gibson Square and there is little we can do about them. The real problem is that their actions are given a spurious legitimacy by liberals who proclaim it morally unacceptable to give offence, and are terrified at the thought that one could or should give offence in this fashion. The lesson of the Rushdie Affair that has never been learnt is that liberals have made their own monsters. It is the liberal fear of giving offence that has helped create a culture in which people take offence so easily.

An excellent point.

Hitler is generally seen as uniquely evil. Mao, Stalin, Lenin and other deeply unpleasant figures of “the left” are, for whatever reason, rarely held up as an epitome in the same way as Hitler, despite their crimes being arguably as great if not greater.

Hitler is seen as uniquely evil because he was responsible for the single most evil crime in human history. Simple as that.

Well sometimes I do fear that David T and his comrades - I’m one - are whistling in the wind, but we may be wrong. Time will tell.

Readers may be interested in Azad Ali’s take on the Walthamstow jihadi crew.

You can see clips from their “martyrdom videos” here.

For Azad Ali, the mixed verdicts, including some convictions for conspiracy to murder, were an occasion to mock the authorities:

So who is barmy? Well none other than our politicians who can’t, it seems, let go of the war on terror mantra. Rather than admit that they messed this whole thing up by being the poodle of America, they would make all of us suffer and waste perhaps another £10m! And I thought we were in a recession?

Yes, some horrible men are convicted for conspiracy to murder and others will be tried again, best shout “poodle” and insult the CPS, eh?

Police officers should only deal with this man if he is a suspect, or someone who can “help with enquiries”, which is of course a good deed that he appears ideologically entirely indisposed to do.

If the CSIS does keep him on as president of its Islamic Society, score one for jihad and nil for Britain.

Mark T, I disagree. This idea that liberals made the Islamist masses is cultural solipsism. Islamists exist in their own cultural milieu. If they cared so much what a bunch of secular white men thought they wouldn’t be Islamists.

I know it’s a scary thought, but THEY DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK. YOU don’t matter. Thanks.

Josh, I don’t think that was, precisely, Malik’s point. I certainly don’t think he is arguing that liberal attitudes towards causing offence have ‘made the Islamists’.

Rather I think what he is suggesting is that an environment has been created in which Islamists believe that they can make gains by being outraged. They see that certain sectors of liberal society are willing to back down, to give way, in the face of their anger, in a way that might not have happened in the past. And this serves to encourage them.

That is, I think, what Malik says when liberals have created their own monsters.

Hitler is seen as uniquely evil because he was responsible for the single most evil crime in human history. Simple as that.

Well, that’s a comfortingly blinkered view.

Yeah the holocaust may be singular in European history, but even with my limited knowledge of history I know there have been other genocides and mass slaughters, some perhaps lost in time as well.

I have been told that in china sometimes a province has been sacrificed to famine what food it has shipped elsewhere. In the middle east, I see signs that a past genocide is being covered up, possibly for fear that if modern Muslims thought their ancestors were more brutal than themselves they’d feel it was their duty to revive the past more authentically, piling up mountains of hindu skulls.

The lesson of the Rushdie Affair that has never been learnt is that liberals have made their own monsters. It is the liberal fear of giving offence that has helped create a culture in which people take offence so easily.

Can I point out that the Rushdie Affair happened under Thatcher? And that some of the lack of support he received came from the Right as well, to whom he appeared as some arrogant immigrant? He used to call Thatcher “Mrs Torture”. A lot of the reaction to his fate was some glee that he, the lefty liberal complaining of illiberal policies, was getting a bit what he deserved and having to receive protection from a state that he had criticised.

Rushdie went into hiding in February.

“He disappeared in the dead of winter,
Which was one in the eye to Harold Pinter.”

When it comes to Rushdie, British liberals had an important chance to speak up against his would-be murderers when Mohammed Ijaz ul-Haq appeared as a speaker at this year’s “Global Peace and Unity” (GPU) event in London.

When Rushdie was knighted, ul-Haq had this to say to his country’s National Assembly, in his capacity as Pakistan’s religious affairs minister:

“If somebody has to attack by strapping bombs to his body to protect the honour of the Prophet then it is justified”

And:

“If someone blows himself up he will consider himself justified. How can we fight terrorism when those who commit blasphemy are rewarded by the West?”

This blog was one of very few places where any voices were raised against ul-Haq’s London visit.

For his part, Stephen Timms, a Labour MP, had only silly sweetness to offer to the GPU audience, if this Saudi press report is to be believed. (The report may not be accurate, but as far as I know Timms has not yet released a transcript of his GPU speech, despite repeated requests from interested parties, which is interesting in itself.)

Malik has a point, indeed a painful and topical one, which is relevant to this thread.

Oh, Azad Ali was at the GPU too, as was the CSIS.

Timms has not yet released a transcript of his GPU speech, despite repeated requests from interested parties, which is interesting in itself.)

And my repeated requests to Nick Clegg’s advisors for a transcript of his speech at GPU or an explanation as to why it has not been released, have been met with pleasantries and studiously avoiding responding to that aspect of my communication.

“If the CSIS does keep him on as president of its Islamic Society, score one for jihad and nil for Britain.”

And this sets the current score to what? I lost count when it became painfully obvious that the Labour government was a bunch of craven appeasers who are working toward making sure they keep some sort of power when the House of Abdallah takes over from the House of Windsor.

Okay, relax now lads, take a few walks around the block, go on holiday, or something other than write paranoid silliness.

But somehow, this disgusting, evil man was mistaken by perfectly nice, middle of the road, liberal people for a comrade.

Stalinists and communists ain’t nice? I got to agree. Never been one myself, unlike members of the Labour Party (quite high ranking ones) and the founder of this blog. Some people change, some just end up old codgers. Poor old David wants to continue fighting the cold war, there is red under every bed; failing that, there are dastardly Muslims in the Civil Service to vent about!

Working the system, gaining respectability, getting the great and the good to vouch for them, allows these groups to leverage their credibility and trustworthiness.

Yes, Ali does have a rather impressive CV. He did all that as some sort of mole, as part of a conspiracy to undermine the system?

I grant you, it does sound rather exciting, James Bond allure, indeed.

As I said before, the problem with this sort of game is that the pool of ‘acceptable Muslims’ (as defined by critics like David T) gets ever smaller and the chances of dialogue grow ever dimmer. You will be left with just your little band growing ever more suspicious of the world!

Hitler is seen as uniquely evil because he was responsible for the single most evil crime in human history.

In the 20th century, Mao trumps him in terms of numbers, but carried out over a longer period and with different methods. Gruesome business, comparing dictators.

I am with David on the Sharia law malarkey though, that is rather rum.

You wouldn’t have been if you had paid attention instead of dismissing that the Right said about CND and its like.

Of course, the Right, Margaret Thatcher etc, would never smear CND as part of the general pie fight of politics. Oh, no no no. Pure as the driven snow they were.

Don’t worry: Members of CND, the trade unions, and the National Council for Civil Liberties, such as Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt, were not put under surveillance which breached human rights law, privacy and civil liberties, and Harman and Hewitt did not win their cases, and this did not lead to changes in the law, because you know, nobody in the Thatcher government did anything wrong, and Thatcher never lied.

You see this is the problem with folk at HP, sometimes. They have all this rage against Muslims and the left, but would I trust them on civil liberties? Not on your nelly.

They have all this rage against Muslims and the left, but would I trust them on civil liberties? Not on your nelly.

I don’t support the civil liberty to actively work toward overthrow of a system that generally guarantees the civil liberties of all.

I mean, the system is not perfect, but does that mean I should ally with Fascist Islamists and their useful idiots who want to install a system that Conan the Barbarian would be proud of? Should I support their right to work toward their goal?

Or should I call them out for treason?

Treason? The treason laws are rarely used in the UK, even for folk who could possibly fall under it. David T has his own rather strained interpretation of the Ali article; I am not sure everyone shares it.

Treason laws are used rarely in Western nations in general - and usually require a large burden of proof. I know that in the US, it requires a confession of assistance to the enemies of the state.

However, the fact the BNP’s fascism is treated as beyond the pale, and Islamist fascism is treated with kid gloves is bothersome. I love the UK, and it deserves a government and bureaucracy far better than the one it has been saddled with.

Not only must i, a non muslim, not hurt the feelings of a muslem in this multicultural society, b

Not only must i, a non muslim, not hurt the feelings of a muslem in this multicultural society, b

Good post, David. It’s getting increasingly difficult for me to tolerate the teachings of the Qur’an.

Actually, its a great article. And thank you to the many posters who have posted very interesting and informative links.

Do tell Benjamin, specifically what kind of deals and arrangements you’d like to see Western democratic governments strike with spokespersons for Jamaat e Islami, the Ikhwan and its front groups on behalf of all Muslim citizens?

I’m afraid my Ben is out at choir practice right now Mr LBNAZ but he did once tell me that the kind of deal he would like is the same as the one TE Lawrence made when he was captured by the Turks: 44 lashings a day on his pink little buttocks.

“Just as, in the past, Stalinists infiltrated progressive organisations with the intention of subverting or destroying them, those aligned with Jamaat-e-Islami and the Muslim Brotherhood are doing precisely the same. They’ve been doing it for at least a decade. Their feet are firmly under the table. ” – David T.

A critical point well made. Ufortunately, the authorities do have to speak to communities. In one I know something about I was reliably informed (by a passionate multi-culturalist) that an election for a seat on a community forum resulted in all the household votes of Moslem families being collected by car and filled in by an Islamic activist.

“The problem is that I don’t think there are any real moderate Muslim community leaders. ” – Maven.

Writing from the other side of the politcial spectrum, neither do I. But the fault is entirely ours. I remember how everyone in this northern city wore western clothing, especially suits and ties. Pakistanis were routinely abused and seemed a small and disadvantaged community, frightened and welcoming by turns. Now Islamic clothing is commonplace, particularly the all-over black apparel and a sense of assertiveness evident.

“It is also popular among white middle class and middle aged people who, quite frankly, don’t know that many Muslims socially, other than people who present themselves as “the leadership”. And “the leadership” in this country largely consists of a minority of ideologues aligned with Jamaat and the MB.” – David T.

c.f. my comment above. I have lived in a district where a quarter of the residents were Moslems. Numerous street posters and stickers commonly promoted “Planet Islam”, ‘jihad’ and the struggle against the ‘kuffars’, disconcerting terms which meant little to me at that time. Mr Major had just been elected to form a government. No one outside the Labour Party had heard of Blair, and Clinton was unknown here. This has been a long time coming. It easily preceeded the First Gulf War or Islamist terror actions in Africa or the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre.

A troubling but good post. Clearly this is appeasement filtered through white guilt. Essentially it comes about because people in the UK have few realistic day to day fears. Also we now throw away thousands of tons of food daily; when you can deal so insousciently with the details of life, then what is the problem exactly? seems to be the response. For the great majority life is still comfortable and a resultant indolence and refusal to take people seriously has bedevilled British public life for decades, centuries perhaps. There is also a conceit in the Establishment that by having troublemakers inside government circles they will be tamed; afterall, there are a bus load of former firebrand trades unionists on whom this manouvre was completely successful.

It is already too late to point out to correspondents on HP that these appeasement policies are standardised across the political spectrum and not just some problem of socialism. I remind everyone to look at the public staements of Dame Pauline Neville-Jones on the need to address the issues ‘angry young Moslems’ have with British Foriegn policy and her verbal promise for an “in coming (sic) government” to look at these policies which I interpret to mean: “Where we can we will ditch friends and allies and long standing beliefs, for which we have fought and died, so a few children of Pakistanis descent can feel less angry.” But I could be accused of being unfair. (Melanie Phillips has not respended either, strangely.) Perhaps Dame Pauline will put me straight?

‘We are a generation behind in this struggle, as we were a generation behind the struggle to keep Stalinists out of progressive, democratic and liberal politics.’

Don’t make me laugh.

Do your readers know how you came about the name ‘Harry’s Place’?

How your founder was a hardline Communist (CPGB) Party Stalinist who took the penname Harry Steele in honour of Harry Pollit, former leader of the CPGB and ‘Man of Steel’ Joe Stalin.

Harry’s former comrades discuss his Stalinist past here

http://www.network54.com/Forum/393207/message/1123144865/The+two+%26quot%3Bharry%27s%26quot%3B

Of course Harry has since swung to the Muslim-hating far right as many Stalinsts do.

As for ‘traitor’, traitor to what? Queen and Country, The British Empire? Better that, than being a class-traitor.

Better that, than being a class-traitor.

How apt.

But the worst of all is to be a religious traitor, whether your religion is Islam or totalitarian leftism.

Excellent article from David.

Sadly, however, we get this nonsense yet again:

progressive Left wing campaigning groups

NO! They are NOT ‘progressive’. They are SOI-DISANT ‘progressive’. Not the same thing at all. They are mostly totalitarian and reactionary. They are no more ‘progressive’ than the totalitarian ‘Green’ party, or indeed supporters of the USSR in the 1960s were ‘progressive’.

indolence and refusal to take people seriously has bedevilled British public life for decades, centuries perhaps

Absolutely. There is a culture of intellectual laziness, ignorance and cowardice, one of turning a blind eye to inconvenient truths, plus one of betraying natural allies and appeasing natural enemies, epitomised by the FCO more perfectly than anywhere else.

Maven and Mitnaged: spot on.

The stuff about intelligence and operations being vetted is shocking.

And I agree with your prognosis.

Ali is a National Council member of Liberty

Is there any reason to support Liberty? I keep feeling I should but then they keep on doing really stupid, counter-productive things.

Of course Harry has since swung to the Muslim-hating far right as many Stalinsts do.

Seamus Milne?

I do think that there’s a lot in that.

I think you must have huge contempt for Muslims, either to think that they support jihadism, or to want to empower jihadists as their “representatives”.

benjamin - Storm in a teacup, chaps.

SOMETHING IS HAPPENING, REG, SOMETHING IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING!!!

resistor - As for ‘traitor’, traitor to what? Queen and Country, The British Empire? Better that, than being a class-traitor.

Given that religion is used by the ruling class to oppress the working class, in what way is privileging religious interests over class interests not being a class traitor?

I think you must have huge contempt for Muslims, either to think that they support jihadism

Well, of course. No Muslim has ever supported jihadism. Jihadism is a myth invented by non-Muslims to throw at Muslims.

What exactly are you on? I suggest you lay off, as it’s addling your brain.

You see this is the problem with folk at HP, sometimes. They have all this rage against Muslims and the left, but would I trust them on civil liberties? Not on your nelly

The sort of comprehensive smear one would expect from this idiot.

Practically speaking, are there any prominent Muslim “spokespeople” that could do a good job as this sort of liason? I.e. are there people with liberal credentials *and* mainstream Muslim support in the UK? Or would such a Muslim spokesperson be rejected as an “Uncle Tom” or “Zionist stooge” by a majority of UK Muslims?

“The sort of comprehensive smear one would expect from this idiot.”

I would suggest:

“The sort of smear one would expect from this comprehensive idiot”

But the sentiment remains the same. Benji multiple posts saying how wrong everyone is. Perhaps each article on HP could come with a ‘Hong Kong Benjamin doesn’t agree with this post’ rider.

Then we can be spared his crap in the comments threads…

Excellent work again DavidT. Perhaps we could have Shami Chakrawhatsername on to comment on the ‘Liberty’ angle. Or perhaps she is too busy preparing for her weekly slot on Question Time/News24/5Live.

The question of the legitimacy of Muslim representation in the UK has been discussed repeatedly here (and elsewhere). It seems to me to be a self evident truth that Muslims who are moderate, mainstream, middle or the road, anti-jihadist etc. and are interested in politics, will like anybody else in the UK join one of the mainstream parties. Why should they confine themselves to communal politics? On the other hand if you’re a jihadist or Islamist then communal politics is your natural, perhaps only, place to establish support and a base.

While secular and moderate Muslims are involved in the broad current of British life extremists and fanatics are able to dominate and take over Muslim communal institutions.

Perhaps we would all be better off if the Govt stopped dealing with all community groups and instead dealt with us all as individual citizens. Viva Le Republic!.

David, while I agree it’s shocking the degree to which officialdom has had the wool pulled over its eyes by Islamists etc, I think you’re missing a trick by trying to address it head-on: you need to meet triangulation with triangulation.

I mentioned on the previous post that Azad’s remarks re the nature of Islam were not altogether inaccurate and refusal to accept that we’re not “all the same really” was a form of blinkers in itself and just as bad as dealing with the wrong folk - there are certain characteristics to Islam that will inevitably create friction within our culture, like it or not.

My point about triangulation is that we’re never going to “win” by trying to engage with the “right” Muslims, because this will always be fraught with entryism etc. Instead we need to acknowledge that we live in a changed society and adjust our structure accordingly: write a constitution separating religion and the state, guaranteeing freedom of speech, equality etc. Hardly radical, a bunch of Brits with immigration and religious issues penned the same over 200 years ago…

THIS is what HP should be championing. Not that I disagree with your posts but they’re all about the problem - what we need are solutions, and fast.

A very good and informative posting.

The similarities between stalinist infiltration in gov’t and those of islamists are undendiable.

I just can’t understand why politicians and high level bureaucrats are unable to see these clerical fascists for the sinister people they are.

They meet up with islamists on a regular basis, they grace them with close and frequent access to centres of power, and they even provide financial subsidies for their organisations, but yet don’t seem to even do basic background checks on them.

Are the pols and mandarins really that daft, or just cowardly?

Both, John. And some are insane, in hoping to gain an electoral advantage for this (I say insane, in the same way that someone sawing through the branch on which they are sitting is insane).

sorry, from this, not for this.

write a constitution separating religion and the state, guaranteeing freedom of speech, equality etc

Ah hah! Someone has the right idea.

David T, I really enjoy and appreciate the quality and content of the articles on Harry’s Place, whether I agree with the opinions in them or not. The really excellent aspect is that contributors really are free to speak their minds, unlike at a certain other place, and the only limits are those imposed by law.

Bloo, I agree with you. Whereas I appreciate the fact that David T tries to make us aware of what is going on, there are precious few solutions to Islamism on these pages. How do you begin to engage with people who resolutely do not want to hear you, have no apprehension whatsoever that their views may possibly be offensive to you, or that they may be wrong to hold them?

My belief is akin to that of Prof Moshe Sharon - that it’s pointless and a huge mistake to approach Islamists and their fellow travellers from a western, pluralistic mindset. There is no conception of the “live and let live” aspect of pluralism in extremist Islam. I would add that it is equally pointless to expend all our energies in trying to “understand” them rather than counter their extremeness and its effects on our lives.

But how?

John P writes, “I just can’t understand why politicians and high level bureaucrats are unable to see these clerical fascists for the sinister people they are.”

Perhaps because they don’t want to? Perhaps because, being politicians, they are used to the sort of double-talk Islamists use and think that they can out-think them? Of course they can’t because they can never see the agenda under the agenda under the agenda).

There’s also the sense of menace associated with the “clerical fascists” as you call them - said politicians would rather cave in than be threatened by an Islamist backlash.

There is also the misguided contribution to “multiculturalism” by the loony Left (which in effect means that we cannot challenge Islamist excesses without howls of public protest - look at what happened to Bishop Nazir Ali - and which leaves moderate Muslims hung out to dry).

No, it will be a slow process of education by the likes of us here to bring home again and again the damage to democracy by allowing Islamism to gain any hold - to use the “big truth” in the same way as Goebbels used his “big lie” - and be prepared to back it up with evidence until eventually we get heard.

I would begin with the absolutely bonkers invitation, some time ago, from Clare Short to Hizb-ut-Tahrir to take tea with her at the House of Commons, the seat of British democracy. What did she think she would achieve by giving this bunch of charmless and sinister Islamists house room? Was she so thick as not to realise that if the likes of HuT ever got the power it wants the first thing to disappear would be parliamentary process?

Some readers of this blog might be interested in my new book on Stalinism.

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/excerpts.html

I am sorry for this non-profit advertising.

L.K.

Was she so thick as not to realise that if the likes of HuT ever got the power it wants the first thing to disappear would be parliamentary process?

Without a doubt, yes. If there is one loser who epitomises the one-digit IQ British politician, it’s Clare Thick as Two Short Planks.

Or would such a Muslim spokesperson be rejected as an “Uncle Tom” or “Zionist stooge” by a majority of UK Muslims?

Spot on! If any Muslim with a platform dare tell Muslims to shape up and stop moaning they will appear the next day at MPAC UK being slated and abused.

“Spot on! If any Muslim with a platform dare tell Muslims to shape up and stop moaning they will appear the next day at MPAC UK being slated and abused.”

Yes. And given the interdependence of Muslims within their communities, doubtless where they didn’t fear actual harm they would fear ostracism and being shamed.

David T, what do you think that we on Harry’s Place might be able do to give peace-loving and peace-wanting Muslims a voice?

I know that there is Annaqed, at

http://www.annaqed.com/en/content/default.aspx?cid=151

And FaithFreedom at

http://www.news.faithfreedom.org/index.php

MITNAGED,

“My belief is akin to that of Prof Moshe Sharon - that it’s pointless and a huge mistake to approach Islamists and their fellow travellers from a western, pluralistic mindset.”

How does one approach things from an eastern mono-listic mindset?

Mitnaged I agree with most of what you say above, but I would argue that Islamists do indeed know that their views are abhorrent to us but they blame us for not understanding them and not being like them.

They seem not to have a theory of mind, which means that, emotionally, they are stuck at the stage where they cannot hypothesise or imagine.

As you know, a theory of mind is essential for anyone to be able to understand the world of another person and why people do what they do, whether one agrees with them or not. Neither have they the capacity to mentalise. This is defined by Fonagy as the capacity to create mental representations of themselves and others that allow them to reflect on their own and others’ mental states. This capacity is essential for healthy adult mental functioning and provides a basis for affect regulation, impulse control and empathy.

Lacking that, they are handicapped are they not? They are impulse driven, cannot reflect or reason with themselves, feel raw emotion but cannot situation themselves in relation to it and therefore project blame outwards. Being this they are easy prey for fascist clerics, who themselves have just enough capability to mentalise so as to be able to manipulate them.

Say What?

Tell me you couldnt do better than those sites? Those sites arent for Muslim people at all, of any stripe. You should know better.

They are for ex-Muslims and/or for people whose heads are not in too much of a knot about thinking whether their prophet allows them to be as free as they want to be. The excellent writer and psychologist Wafa Sultan began Annaqed - you must remember her, she took on a mysogynistic Islamist cleric and wiped the floor with him on Al-Jazeera. She is a Muslim.

Are you going to read Ali Sina’s book about Muhammad?

Larkers:

“c.f. my comment above. I have lived in a district where a quarter of the residents were Moslems. Numerous street posters and stickers commonly promoted “Planet Islam”, ‘jihad’ and the struggle against the ‘kuffars’, disconcerting terms which meant little to me at that time. Mr Major had just been elected to form a government. No one outside the Labour Party had heard of Blair, and Clinton was unknown here. This has been a long time coming. It easily preceeded the First Gulf War or Islamist terror actions in Africa or the first attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre.”

I was living in the Oldham area during the Thatcher period. It was already happening then. There were certain parts of the town I would avoid even driving through. I had a Nigerian christian friend who left the area because his son was attacked. The hostility started a long time ago.

Also, Maven has commented that it is difficult to find a single true reformer among British islamic leaders, and any progressives who try to start a popular movement will be reviled as stooges. I fully agree with that assessment.

Our senior politicians, of all stripes, can not be unaware of this. At cabinet level they are briefed by the intelligence services. Their main preoccupation seems to be to keep the lid on this mess.

“Our senior politicians, of all stripes, can not be unaware of this. At cabinet level they are briefed by the intelligence services. Their main preoccupation seems to be to keep the lid on this mess.”

Agreed, Monty. The primary plan seems to be to suppress as much discontent as possible among the majority, on the relatively simple basis that dealing with a large, angry population is beyond their abilities. By allowing the problem-makers – whatever their brand of misogyny or implacable faith – to flourish while telling the rest of us to calm down or else, the powers that be hope to get by long enough to draw their pensions.

The future is of increasing less concern to our Great Helmsman and his fellow Navigators. If you can scrape up enough money you might be able to flee what is left behind. Sorry about the rest of you, but you can appreciate we are powerless. So do try to be good and not rock the boat until we have our life jackets on.

The primary plan seems to be to suppress as much discontent as possible among the majority, on the relatively simple basis that dealing with a large, angry population is beyond their abilities.

It is certainly not beyond their capabilities. The problem is that they don’t -want- to. They simply don’t care about the future because they are selfish prats who have never had to think about others. Chav culture grows not from the ground up. It’s from the top down. What happened to the Brits that once were confident enough to rule the world?

It’s like being on an airliner, and watching the aircrew tightening their parachutes as they prepare to bail out. Simple really.

They were only telling us there was nothing wrong with the engines, so we wouldn’t panic and block the aisle.

Great essay, but you’re a bit late to the party, aren’t you?
There are many who noticed all this years ago.

Once upon a time a few years ago, Hizb-ut-Tahrir used to have a regular street stall in Green Street, E13. It was politely, but very firmly made clear to them that they were not welcome. They went away. The polite but very firm people were all Muslims.

And of course Muslims who are interested in UK politics will join political parties. No less a figure than Dr Maleha Lodhi, the previous High Commissioner of Pakistan to the UK frequently said so (sub-text: don’t waste your time with “Respect”) and wrote an article in the “Yorkshire Post”.

Islamist sectarian fringe groups are a persistent problem; not a big problem. Those parallels with trotstkyists again………

Black Voter - “..How does one approach things from an eastern mono-listic mindset?..”

I really don’t know, but I can think of someone who might - Inayat Bunglawala. However, I wouldn’t place too much store on his advice if I were you - he’s the sort of brainless weasel who could have an argument with himself and lose.

What a load of consipiring rubbish. You guys need to take your head out of the sand and stop thinking your in “spooks” (bbc drama) everyone talks about a global conspiracy against the west from the extremists. But all i see is the west propogating hate against the muslims, arabs, palestinans, iraqis etc. The western media has filled the hearts of the western people with hate and anger and fear so they (the government(s)) can get their way by clapming down on the fear of “we dont know what everyone is doing all the time” - “We have to watch every single move of the public” this big brother society we are heading towards frightens me.

I my self have muslim friends and they are far from what is being demonised about them. Also i know people who are members of MCB and affiliates of Azad and just because they have similarities to other organisations across the world doesnt make them the same.

To this day has there been anyone from MCB and Co who have blown them selves up and promoted terrorism? No is the answer.

By the continual demonisation of these organisations and moderate muslims it will only push them to feel margainalised and they will be push into to a corner with no option but to fight back.

Is the west not fueling the greatest terrorist nation to date “Israel” who butcher muslims, christians and even westerns (reporters). They are a nuclear power and have been put in that region illegally according to the UN charter?? but we choose to forget or do we pick and choose what we like?

How can peace be achieve in the middle east with israeli soldiers firing guns and dropping bombs and they meet a resistance of children throwing stones? where is the justice in this world? We need to see the bigger picture, the media is poluting our minds into demonising and hating the muslim community in the west and i fear like what the jews suffered in nazi germany will befall the musilm in the west. Muslims will have to wear badges they will become second class citizens all in the name of combating terror.