Hal G.P. Colebatch in The American Spectator makes a number of important observations about self-proclaimed moderate Muslims in Britain:
Ali Miraj is a young British Muslim who may go places in the British Conservative Party. He has been twice endorsed by the Conservatives to contest Parliamentary elections and is a board member of the Conservative Party Policy Review on International and National Security. He has written an article in the conservative Daily Telegraph in the immediate aftermath of the airliner bombing plot, headlined: "Muslim anger must be recognized." He says a recent poll indicates more than 100,000 of 1.6 million Muslims in Britain see nothing wrong with terrorism against Britain such as the 7/7 train bombings (some others put the number higher).He continues that in many mosques up and down the country,
We are constantly reminded that there is a perpetual battle between the righteous (Muslims) and the "kuffar" (non-believers). You will find no "love thy neighbor" sermons of the kind I heard as a child at an Anglican primary school.In addition to this, anti-Jewish sentiment appears to be hard-wired into a number of Muslims I meet. At the last general election, I remember being told by some of Watford's taxi drivers, slurping the froth from their pints of lager, that they could not vote for me as the leader of my party, Michael Howard, was a Jew.
He then got down to what might be seen as the nitty-gritty:
But it is the foreign policy pursued by the US and Britain, not deprivation or a clash of values, in my view, that is the principal catalyst of radicalization. A leaked Home Office report on relations with the Muslim community from 2004 itself recognized the 'perception of double standards in British foreign policy.'Tony Blair argues that Muslims have a "false sense of grievance" towards the West. He is wrong. The overwhelming majority of Muslims find themselves on a continuum ranging from "deeply upset" to "extremely angry."
The sense of frustration at the injustice faced by Muslims across the world as a consequence of the foreign policies of the West (principally the US) is palpable. Mr. Blair's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire in response to the current war in Lebanon only reinforces the view held by more than half of British Muslims that the war on terror is a war on Islam ...
So, surprise! Surprise! Islamic terrorism is the West's fault. In Britain it is also, it seems, Tony Blair's fault for being insufficiently opposed to Israel. Mr. Miraj continues: "There is no doubt that all British Muslims, not just their self-proclaimed leaders, must to do more to combat intolerance in their midst. That task is made more difficult when, despite all the mass protests against the war in Iraq, the Government is seen not to have listened."
There is a great deal more of value in this article. Read it all.
Those 100,000 proponents of terrorism should be rounded up and shipped back to Arabia, Persia and SE Asia - UK & US leadership is weak on these animals - harsher position was taken against others (Japanese Americans/WWII) for simliar threats.
Even if 'The overwhelming majority of Muslims find themselves on a continuum ranging from "deeply upset" to "extremely angry." ' it is still a false sense of grievance. Is it not?
OT New Item:
New Jihad group claims responsibility for kidnapping Fox News reporter and cameraman. Demands that the US release Muslim prisoners, or else:
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/23/D8JM55701.html
and
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/APNEWSALERT?SITE=7219&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2006-08-23-09-28-03
Phrases such as "get rid of" do not quite meet the case. There is no "getting rid of" Islam. There is recognizing what its tenets are, what its immutable canonical texts are, and why the talk about "Muslim moderates" is so misleading, sometimes deliberately so, and so confusing, often deliberately so. Many things can be done to limit the threat from those who believe in Islam, and who, in so believing, accept that division of the world into two hostile camps, the Dar al-Islam, and Dar al-Harb.
Several things can be done, and must continue to be done. The first is to make sure that no Muslim state, whether or not some official met with Mohammad Atta in Prague or someone else somewhere elese, acquires, or retains, the kinds of weapons referred to as weapons of mass destruction. The second is to limit, to halt and then reverse, the Muslim presence in the Bilad al-kufr, the Lands of the Infidels, and not to be swayed by the obvious fact that at least a few of those Muslim immigrants -- 5%? 1%? -- are swell fellows, true-blue, and would never do us harm. We cannot make policy based on the appearance, here and there, of the Muslim-for-identification-purposes-only Muslim, such as, say, Fouad Ajami (remarkably silent on the biggest subject of all, the subject of Islam). It is a matter of probabilities and weighing of the severity of the risk. That calculus leads to the conclusion that it would be better not to let in 100 people in the expectancy and hope that five or ten or even fifteey would turn out just fine. That is not the kind of risk we can take. Sorry. No can do. So immigration by Muslims must be halted, and efforts made to whittle down the numbers in the West, starting by expelling those who are in the West illegally, and continuing, by rewriting the terms of naturalization oaths to include a clear statement of loyalty to the legal and political instutitions of the nation-state, and to be willing to strip of citizenship anyone demonstrated to have committed perjury at the time of that oath-taking, or later on, to have demonstrated an abandonment of that necessary pledge. Campaigns of Da'wa must not only be vigilantly monitored, as the government of Singapore so cleverly does, but not only monitored -- also counteracted by campaigns that target the same populations (prisoners, for example) but with Christianity or some other faith, and those efforts should be accompanied by efforts to show up aspects of Islam -- its legitimizing of slavery, its Arab supremacist ideology, its prohibition on so much music and art, its inshallah-fatalism that inhibits economic development, its encouragement of the habit of mental submission and, too, of submission to the Ruler or the Regime.
And then there is something else Infidels can do, aside from encouraging the identity of interest among Infidels everywhere, to limit and the power, and the presence, of the bearers and sowers of the ideology of Islam in the world, those who call themselves Muslims. By not helping Muslims by giving them aid of all sorts, by leaving them as much as possible to the solitary confinement of their own countries, their own lords of local misrule, we will be helping to create, in the Muslim lands, the conditions which, over time, will force Muslims themselves -- the very keenest at first, and then some of the others -- to recognize that the source for the political, economic, social, intellectual, and moral failures of Muslim polities and peoples can be located in Islam itself.
That effort can start right now, and does not need the understanding or support of those who everywhere presunme to protect and instruct us and who, almost everywhere, have turned out to be far behind so many of those who are not in the government, and appalled at the displays of obstinat idiocy, not least by President Bush in his stupid insistence on keeping American soldiers bogged down in tarbaby Iraq, doing exactly the wrong thing -- trying to prevent, trying to heal, trying to solve, sectarina and ethnic divisions which, if identified and exploited correctly, can only weaken, through dividing and demoralizing, those in the camp of Islam.
I'm afraid that the West is having trouble understanding what's going on. I think that it is an objective fact that Western government policies do anger Muslims. That seems to lead many people, including very smart people (like Michael Scheuer, who writes excellent pieces for Jamestown.org that see the symptoms clearly but substantially misdiagnose the disease), to conclude that Islamic anger could be placated by change in Western policy.
But Islamic anger is sui generis, innate to the self conception of Islam as supreme and unchallengeable, and it will always find something to be angry at. Even if the whole world were Islamized, it would then turn inward and tear itself to shreds. Which is the deep wisdom of the policy advocated by JW leaders Spencer and Fitzgerald.
Assalamau-Laikum all,
Ha Ha Haaa, I love this guy Ali Miraj. He looks to be saying all the right things..he recognises the Kafur as "Kafur"...so in that sense his Islamic credentials are solid.
But as you can see ...he HAS made the transition to wuslim.....a very valuable member to the Islamic society...the British society if you will.
Here is one muslim that the Kafur will vote in (I just love that irony...don't you).
He will say loudly that it is the foreign policy that is responsible for the troubles you face....and the public will believe him.
When they may find out your version of the "truth", it'll be too late.
In my mind there is no doubt that Ali is a muslim first and British ..way down the line somewhere.
He will be a "miraj" too....smoke, mirrors, Islam, foreign policy it is all the same.
So thank you again the British...for the service and dedication that you given to the mussalman.
In much the same way as the British took over India...without much damage to the infrastructure....THIS has to be the model, this must be the strategy for muslims moving forward.
Muslims can be too dumb for their own good and of little use to Allah too....praying is not enough, think.
Let us progress to Islam...with virtually no damage to the infrastructure.
Today a couple of MPS, councilliors,... within a couple of decades....more than 40% of MPs must be muslim...and then subtle pressures on home policy, foreign policy...to be looked upon favourably for Islam/muslims/wuslims.
When there is sufficient numbers...the prime-minister will be muslim....laws will then be drafted & put forward to look more and more like sharia...and with a majority in parliment ...who can stop these laws going through.
All done through peace....Inshallah, this is the model, this is the strategy. ......tonite I will recite a special prayer for the British peoples for their help and for Ali too..things are starting to look up.
Naseem, you blew your cover big time.
Hmmmmm...muslim anger must be recognized.
Ok. We know you're mad. You were brought up that way. Don't blame us for it. You don't have to be here in our civilized countries. You can blame your mom, you can blame your dad, you can blame your sexy eyed goat. The one thing you tend not to blame is your cult.
If you people had ANY sense/logic at ALL, you would see it is your cult. It's not us, it's not our miniskirts or our culture...
IT'S i s l a m!!
Get real and get over it. Leave us alone.
Forget this "Not all Muslims are terrorist" BS. 99.99999% of ALL Terrorist are Muslim. It is only the level of terrorism that differs within the Muslim community. DON'T TRUST ANY MUSLIM!!!!
Assalamau Laikum AIG,
Your tacit admission of "Of course we can't "get rid" of islam" is heartening indeed.
It sends to me a VERY strong message that even a hard nosed Kafur like you KNOWS that Islam is there to stay.
Ofcourse you will get NO reciprocal message from Islam.
Even you have agreed then that Islam will dominate...only Islam will stay the course...this day is getting better by the minute...shuck riya (thank you).
Assalamau Laikum AIG,
Your tacit admission of "Of course we can't "get rid" of islam" is heartening indeed.
It sends to me a VERY strong message that even a hard nosed Kafur like you KNOWS that Islam is there to stay.
Ofcourse you will get NO reciprocal message from Islam.
Even you have agreed then that Islam will dominate...only Islam will stay the course...this day is getting better by the minute...shuck riya (thank you).
Mr. Mirage's argument (repeated ad nauseum by other Islamic apologists) that Britain's foreign policy is to blame is a grotesque lie. Had it not been for the pretexts of the Palestinian crisis and the Iraq war, the Islamic world simply would have found some other reason to be enraged at the West and to launch this agression, or it would have simply gone ahead with it anyway, since the Allah has given his commandment to conquer the whole world for Islam. MANY other peoples have had grievances against others throughout history, but I know of no other group anywhere! that has ever! produced this kind of long-term campaign of terrorism against innocent third parties - i.e. civilians in foreign countries - because of their resentment. During the civil wars and repression in Central America in the 1980's (and even for generations before that), to cite just one of many examples, the anti-government and anti-American insurgencies in those countries confined their hostilities to their governments they were trying to defeat and the military forces of those governments. They never attacked or threatened Washington or New York, or blew up planes, busses or buildings anywhere in America.
Other examples are the holocaust and the Armenian genocide. The Jews never carried out a terrorist campaign against Germany, nor the Armenians against Turkey. This stuff only comes out of Islam. Why? Because at present the Koran and its interpretation and everything that comes out of it is a closed, rigid system of circular reasoning, totally sufficient with itself. And because the Islamic world, including the minds of so many of its people, parts of which had acquired a bit of sophistication by the 1960s and '70s but now regressin, is almost completely uncivilized, almost everywhere a backward stinking cesspool. The Palestinian refugee crisis could have long ago been resolved if other Arab nations had been willing to help these people. (And what can we say of the recent actions of Hizbollah in holding people hostage so that Israel's bombs would fall on them and they could then shame the world into comdemning Israeli "crimes"). Besides, there were no existing institutions or traditions in the Middle East at the time of the British mandate over Palestine upon which they could have made a better decision about how to draw up borders between states, because concepts like the territorial sovereignty of the nation-state, the guarentees of international law, and the self-determination of peoples simply did not exist in Islamic jurisprudence. In Islamic polity there had only ever been the rule of the strongest, and the imperative that the Umma must prevail everywhere, so displacement of populations as a result of war could be tolerated as long as the victor was Muslim. The closest thing to a notion of national sovereinty that Islamic thought had been able to devise was the Turkish "millet" system - little more than a system of tribal control of towns and villages based on religious identity (Christian, Muslim or Jew). Yet the West had been constantly been drawn into war against this backward power by the agression of one party or another in the Islamic world from the time of the Arab conquests of the Middle East, North Africa and Spain until the Battle of Lepanto in 1571 and Vienna in 1683 so what else could the West do?
What is really at the root of the Muslim world's resentment of the role of the Western powers in the Middle East, including the position of Israel, is that they just can not come to terms with the fact that after resisting the Islamic attempts to overrun Europe and impose Islam on it, then struggling for centuries to gain victory against this threat, the West finally got the upper hand in the struggle - a fight the West did not ask for. (Even the much maligned Crusades began, at least, as part of Europe's defensive wars against Islam in order to support the Middle East's beleagured Christians and the Byzantine Empire - again, Christian - and I can't help but think that the memory of the debilitating episodes of Islamic raiding and occupation and ransacking of European cities - including Naples and Rome - during the 8th and 9th centuries also influenced opinion in the West. Spain, remember, was under Islamic occupation and the rest of Europe had barely escaped this at the Battle of Tours in 792). Had the West succumbed to this agression, and Europe had become Islamized, the whole world would almost certainly be in the conditon Afghanistan finds itself in.
To the undying resentment of the Umma, Europe prevailed, built an enlightened society, and succeeded. The Muslim world, on the contrary, fragmented, concentrated on continuning to strangle its non-Muslim populations to death, and stagnated. In other words: "How dare you surpass us superior Muslims!" And so the blame us, rather than putting the blame where it belongs - on themselves!
I do not live in Britain, so I can do nothing more than provide my comment on these realities but if I were a Briton, I'd start screaming long and hard to expose and drown out the lies that Mirage and other Muslims are spouting about all this - as I'm doing in my own community. But I say to Britain, "Don't let them get away with it"!
How typical. Blame everybody else but the real reason, Islam's basic intolerance and imperalism. And take advantage of the average Infidel's ignorance of Islam's basic tenets. This guy is a Conservative? Yeah, right.
Hugh also hits the nail on the head as usual. So called moderate Muslims are no more than deceivers and supporters of Jihad who do so with lies, misinformation and crying racism. Islam will always be angry that it does not control the world and Infidels have the unmitigated gall to want to remain Infidels. And given the barbaric way they treat each other, even a complete Islamic victory won't bring peace. Islam is the Religion of Nazis, and Mohammed is it's Fuehrer.
"Of course we can't "get rid" of islam"
Posted by: Naseem at August 23, 2006 10:35 AM
As I've said to you in other threads, Naseem - if that is really your name - we can, and we will.
Read the above - and my posts elsewhere - to find out why.
The news was actually better than that. Pakistan had already lost the 4 Test series 2-0, but was in a position to posssibly win this 4th match, despite a good fightback from England on day 4 of 5. Regardless of what they thought of the ump's decision, they could have accepted the different ball, and continued playing. Instead, when play resumed, their players refused to take to the field. As per cricket laws, when that happens, the other team wins by default. That's what happened in this case, and England walked away with a match that may have probably have ended in a draw.
I hadn't read the news about demonstrations in Pakistan, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did. As it is, Pakistan has had a notorious history in cricket, from the old days, when they had home umpires who cheated. I won't hijack this thread further on cricket, but for those interested in everything that's been going on, and who follow the game, you can find out about this entire series below
http://usa.cricinfo.com/db/ARCHIVE/2006/PAK_IN_ENG/
Congratulations to England - you made my week.
One more thing - this forfeiture of the game in test cricket by Pakistan was the first time in Test Cricket history that it happened.
Pakistan is on borrowed time - one way or the other. Taliban or India or U.S.
It won't last.
"That calculus leads to the conclusion that it would be better not to let in 100 people in the expectancy and hope that five or ten or even fifteey would turn out just fine." -- Hugh's post.
Even if that ratio were reversed -- which is what the vast majority of PC-gassed Westerners believe (and that majority would consider Hugh's calculus to be shrill and "Islamophobic" -- even if it were to let in 100 in the expectancy that only five or ten might plot to mass-murder thousands -- that too should not be tolerated, for the simple reason that we cannot tell which of the 95 or 90 are harmless, and which of the 5 or 10 are deadly.
infidel pride:
One more thing - this forfeiture of the game in test cricket by Pakistan was the first time in Test Cricket history that it happened.
Imran Khan described Australian umpire Darrell Hair a "mini Hitler" during the ball tampering controversy.
Well, I briefly tuned into CNN the other day and saw the headline " Australia hails umpire Darrell Hair" The MSM is getting more deranged by the day.
It's only a real threat if immigration and overbreeding of muslims in the west continues.
Solution: stop muslim immigration. Don't pay people to have large families, but help more westerners make the decision to have a (small) family at all.
And if muslims still choose to overbreed in their own countries: make it absolutely clear that this will not oblige the west to support their overpopulation through aid. They can choose to have smaller, better educated families, or large impoverished ones.
I've always felt this about all places where people have huge families and then whine about needing aid.
Westerners have long recognised that, in environmental terms, the world is overpopulated. Many people have thus decided to have small, or no, families. Our governments however, believe that we must maintain or increase the populations of our countries and have totally undermined the sensible decision of many individuals by importing large numbers of people who want to further strain the environment by overbreeding.
I wonder why it is that these groups get PERMITS to operate these places where they teach such fundamentally violent behaviors.
I have written several times to Garden Grove where I grew up asking "WHY are you allowing this mosque to operate? I grew up here, my mother was the President of the Women's Civic Club! Now, you are growing world class terrorists! Why are you giving traitors a permit to push their social revolt?"