How leftists pushed Muslims into ghettoes

It is ironic that people who emphasise Difference and Otherness (terms filtered down from Continental philosophy) within society, should bring about,‭ ‬intentionally or unintentionally,‭ ‬a multicultural ethic and agenda which denies Difference and Otherness‭ ‬within‭ ‬cultures or communities.‭ ‬Thus Muslims became nothing but Muslims.‭ ‬Being a Muslim became the full and complete identity of Muslims.‭ ‬For example,‭ ‬not many British Christians go around calling themselves‭ ‘‬Christians‭’ ‬or defining themselves exclusively in terms of their faith.
It is also ironic that many Leftists made a song and a dance about Thatcher’s well-known statement that‭ ‘‬there is no such thing as society‭’‬.‭ ‬Left-wing councillors and activists agreed.‭
There is no such thing as society.‭ ‬There are only societies‭ (‬or communities,‭ ‬or ethnic groups,‭ ‬etc.‭).

They never really emphasised or encouraged the interrelations between communities,‭ ‬or societies,‭ ‬only their Difference or Otherness from one another.‭ ‬Thus rather than individuals becoming‭ ‘‬atomised‭’ ‬or estranged from societies,‭ ‬cultures or societies became estranged from other societies.‭ ‬This became very much the case with the Muslim community and resulted,‭ ‬effectively,‭ ‬in its self-ghettoisation.‭ ‬The usual accusation that the state,‭ ‬or Society with a capital‭ ‘‬S‭’ (‬not societies‭)‬,‭ ‬or the imposition of Britishness,‭ ‬created ghettoes, was wrong.‭ ‬Muslims created their own ghettoes.‭ ‬And they were encouraged to do so by left-wing councils;‭ ‬or,‭ ‬at the least,‭ ‬the left-wing contingents of mixed councils,‭ ‬in order to further various political agendas.

From this emphasis on communities rather than community,‭ ‬or societies rather than societies,‭ ‬Muslim identity,‭ ‬rather than being found,‭ ‬discovered or emphasised,‭ ‬was really created in response to councils and to political policies.

Thus Leftists in effect de-politised Muslims and other communities and made them see themselves not as citizens but more exclusively as Muslims.‭ ‬Being ordinary British citizens was not what Leftists wanted from their Muslims.‭ ‬That was not radical enough.‭ ‬That was not destabilising enough.‭ ‬That would not rupture liberal capitalist democracy.

Communities Not Community

Many may think that the Muslim,‭ ‬Sikh and Hindu communities in Britain have always been divided due to their respective religions,‭ ‬histories and traditions.‭ ‬That is not so.‭ ‬The real divide between these three communities,‭ ‬or religions,‭ ‬only really set in during the‭ ‬1980s.‭ ‬Before then,‭ ‬from the immediate post-war period till the late‭ ‬1970s,‭ ‬Muslims,‭ ‬Sikhs and Hindus lived in the same areas,‭ ‬usually in the inner cities.‭ ‬The great tripartite division began because of multiculturalism,‭ ‬or multicultural policy.‭ ‬The three communities began to inhabit separate areas of cities and towns.‭ ‬The children began to go to different schools.‭ ‬Different institutions and community groups began to cater specifically for Muslims,‭ ‬or specifically for Sikhs,‭ ‬etc.‭ ‬Even youth clubs were demarcated according to religious or ethnic affiliation.‭ ‬That was the new reality of multiculturalism.‭ ‬Not different communities and different religions living together‭; ‬but different communities and religions living apart but within a cauldron of general multiculturalism‭; ‬which nevertheless stressed difference rather than commonality.‭ ‬In the Bradford Moor area of Bradford,‭ ‬for example,‭ ‬in the late seventies and very early‭ ‬80s,‭ ‬Sikhs lived next door to Muslims,‭ ‬who lived next door to Hindus.‭ ‬By the early‭ ‬1990s,‭ ‬the whole area was Muslim.‭ ‬The Sikhs and Hindus had gone elsewhere.

And once the bait had been laid down,‭ ‬it wasn’t long before there were strong demands for separate Muslim schools,‭ ‬the separation of‭ (‬Muslim‭) ‬girls and boys,‭ ‬demands for halal meat to be served at Muslim schools and also at non-Muslim schools,‭ ‬and so on.‭ ‬And once such separatism had been achieved,‭ ‬it was no wonder that Islamic militancy and even calls for jihad began to be heard in the streets of Bradford,‭ ‬Birmingham, Luton and elsewhere.

Muslims kill their fellow Muslim 'brothers' on a massive scale

*) Saudi Arabian radio ‘compared Nasser’s regime in Gaza to Hitler’s rule in occupied Europe in WW2'.

*) Saudi Arabia did not use unemployed Palestinian refugees to alleviate its labour shortage in the 1970s and early 1980s. Gave them to South Koreans and other Asians.

*) Kuwait, during the Gulf War, employed large numbers of Palestinians but denied them citizenship. Expelled 300,000 of them.

- Palestinian refugees in Lebanon didn't/don’t have social and civil rights and have very little access to public health or education facilities. They are ‘prohibited by law from working in more than 70 trades and professions’.

‘It is shameful that the Arab governments should prevent the Arab refugees from working in countries and shut the doors in their faces and imprison them in camps.’ - Musa Alami

*) PLO - expelled from Jordan by King Hussein - 1970

*) May 1985 - Muslim militiamen attacked the Shatila and Burg -el Barajneh Palestinian refugee camp. 635 were killed, 2,500 wounded.

- from 1985-88, Amal Shiite militiamen, allied with Syria, killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians in refugee camps. -

*) More Palestinians were killed by Palestinians in 1990 than were killed by Israeli soldiers.

- In 1991, 238 Palestinians (up from 156) died. More than triple the number who had died by Israelis. 1992 - 2000 Palestinians dead by fellows. More than double as killed by Israelis ‘including beheading, mutilation, cutting off ears and limbs and pouring acid on the victim’s face’ .

A Christian aside

Jerusalem - Under Jordan, Christians declined from 25,000 in 1949 to less than 13,000 in Jun 1967.

- 1955-1964 passed laws imposing strict government controls on Christians schools, restrictions on opening new schools, requirement for the Koran to be taught. In 1953 and 1965 laws abrogating the right of Christian religious and charitable institutions to acquire real estate in Jerusalem. 58 Jerusalem synagogues were ‘ravaged’.

*) ‘Since 1948 Arab leaders... have used the Palestine people for selfish political purposes. This is... criminal.’ - King Hussein

*)... above and beyond all this is the Sunni/Shia carnage in Iraq, which Muslims, as usual, blame on the West or specifically the US. Yes, that's right. The fact that Sunni Muslims have theological and political problems with Shia Muslims is the US's fault! Then's there's also inter-Muslim death in Afghanistan, the Sudan and virtually every place there are Muslims to fight amongst themselves.

Islam's contribution to Western civilisation?

‘Let me highlight a handful of Islam’s contributions to Western culture. The guitar. Cough syrup. The university. Algebra. Mocha coffee...’

- Irshad Manji, from her The Trouble With Islam Today

This is one of the most common and annoying mistakes you can find in defence of Islam.

How can Islam itself have contributed the guitar, cough syrup, algebra, etc. to ‘Western culture’? How can a religion, or the Koran, the hadiths, etc. have contributed these things? How can even the affects of Islam, the Koran, etc. have done so? It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that Islam, a religion primarily based on the Koran, could have had an hand in the invention of the guitar, algebra, cough syrup syrup, etc. Which passages in the Koran, or the hadiths, etc. helped contribute to the creation of algebra? Which passages helped inspire the invention of cough syrup? Again, this is plain silly!

What Manji must really mean is that people who happened to have been Muslim made these contributions to Western culture. Islam itself had absolutely nothing to do with it. I suppose we could say that Islam obliquely inspired these Muslims to invent these things. But the relation of cause and effects must have been very oblique indeed.

We can even say that these scientists, poets, inventors, mathematicians, etc., invented or created these things in spite of Islam, not because of it. Islam, on the whole, got in the way of their inventions or creations - it didn’t help or inspire them.

We can also say that these inventions and creations happened in spite of Islam, not because of it, because algebra, the guitar, cough syrup, etc. wouldn’t have been created or invented if it weren’t for the vitally important precedents which came from infidel or non-Muslim cultures. Even if Muslims were the inventors or creators of all these things, they wouldn’t have been the inventors or creators of any of them if it weren’t for the groundwork done by the infidels of ancient Greece, Rome, India, etc.

Above and beyond all that, some of the examples of ‘Islam’s contributions to Western culture’ are a bit suspect anyway. Apart from the fact that every one of these examples would have required infidel or non-Muslim antecedents to set the groundwork, it is unquestionably the case that algebra is not a Muslim invention anyway. Algebra goes back to the ancient Greeks. And it is also said that Diophantus (3rd century AD) was ‘the father of algebra’. He lived around 300 years before Islam even existed.

So perhaps all Manji meant is that Muslims, not Islam itself, added to the tradition and extent of algebra. Muslims, let alone Islam, certainly didn’t invent or discover it!

As for both the guitar and the university, it depends on how these words or concepts are defined. Guitar-like instruments date back to various ancient cultures - all of them pre-dating Islam by hundreds if not thousands of years (especially in ancient India and East Asia). Perhaps, in the end, Manji is only taking about the word ‘guitar’ itself. Yes, that word comes from an Andalusian Arabic source, but that doesn’t mean that Muslims, let alone Islam, invented the guitar.

Exactly the same kinds of thing can be said about Manji’s other examples of ‘contributions to Western culture’. Again, the idea that Islam itself, rather than people who happened to be Muslims (whom themselves were hugely indebted to non-Muslim culture and knowledge), invented or created any of these things is plainly ridiculous. Indeed to say that Islam contributed, or invented, or created, algebra or anything else is almost a grammatical or logical mistake.

Because of all that, the same criticism can be levelled at what Manji writes in the very next paragraph. She writes:

‘Innovation and the spirit of ijtihad went hand in glove. In the southern Spanish city of Cordoba, for example, a sexually spunky woman named Wallada organised literary salons where people analysed dreams, poetry and the Quran.’ (Manji, 65)

We can even rewrite that passage thus:

A woman, who just happened to be a Muslim, organised literary salons where people analysed dreams, poetry and the Quran.

A more germane point would be:

Did the Koran, etc., inspire or influence this ‘sexually spunky woman’ to ‘analyse’ itself? I very much doubt it!

All these things were done in spite of Islam, not because of Islam. Would we say that a serial killer, who believed in sleeping with everyone he met and in eating worms, was inspired or influenced by Islam simply because he did all these things as a Muslim? More to the point: was Islam to blame or responsible for his serial killing and his eating worms? Of course not. So why can’t we say the same about Muslims who invented the guitar, or cough syrup or who contributed to algebra? And in Manji’s other example, was Islam itself, or the Koran itself, responsable for this Cordoban woman’s spunkiness or her penchant for salon discussions about poetry, dreams, etc?

Jew-haters MPACUK want Muslims 'to become [even] more extreme’

It has been consistently shown that the rise of Judeophobia, or anti-Semitism, is far more of a problem than Islamophobia, which is largely a myth devised in order to aggrandise Muslims and Islamist groups. Not only that. Many of the people responsible for Judeophobia are exactly the same people who are crying about Islamophobia. That is, many of the hard-core Judeophobes are Islamists - and that includes this organisation itself - MPACUK! Even in this demand for sharia blasphemy law they manage to have a dig at Jews. MPACUK is obsessed by the Jews, as most Islamists are.

MPACUK claims that there have been ‘countless attacks’ by the EDL on Muslims and mosques. That's an obvious lie! MPACUK wants there to be a rise in attacks on Muslims so they can ignite Islamism and gain more Islamists for the cause of Islamisation; just as Osama bin Laden wanted the United States to attack Afghanistan after 9/11 and Hamas has wanted the Israeli army to attack civilians. (Every Muslim killed in all these cases will go straight to ‘paradise’.) MPACUK doesn’t want ‘community cohesion’. It wants Islamist rule and sharia law. It wants a tribal war so it can call all Muslims to arms. It wants Muslims ‘to become more extreme’, as it has said on this very website.

[Image right: MPACUK's aggressive monamaniac-about-Jews, Asghar Bukhan, talking about... not Jews this time, but Zionists.]

In any case, what does ‘ending Islamophobia’ actually mean? How can you end Islamophobia - even if it does exist? What does this extreme Islamist group, MPACUK, want the Government to do? Ban the EDL and other ‘far right’ groups? Make ‘hate crime’ legislation against ‘Islamophobia’ harsher than it already is? That is, do they effectively want sharia blasphemy law introduced in the UK in order to stop all criticism of Islam, Mohammed, the Koran and the behaviour of Muslims as Muslims?

In addition what ‘measures against the EDL’ does MPACUK want from the Government? Be honest. MPACUK is really talking about a complete ban and the introduction of stronger ‘hate crime’ law. That is, they are talking about the implementation of sharia blasphemy law, and other measures, to secure the egg-shell that is Islam from all attacks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The News Link:


http://www.mpacuk.org/story/080711/action-alert-lobby-your-mp-act-against-islamophobia.html

MAC & EDL: Plague on both their houses?

I'm afraid that all this stuff about the banning of Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) could very easily end in a ban for the EDL as well.

Comparing the EDL with MAC is ridiculous, in nearly all respects. For a start, the EDL has literally tens of thousands of supporters/members. (Many people sympathise with what the EDL says but still feel worried about all the negative media the EDL has received.) Muslims Against Crusades (MAC) is a group with probably less than a thousand adherents; and probably less than a hundred activists. The age range seems limited too in that most MAC are in their early 20s and late teens. The EDL may be overwhelmingly working class, but the age range really shows the EDL in a positive light. It has supporters in their teens, in their twenties and all the way up the over 60s. You never see such a varied age-level at Islamist (MAC) demos and protests.

The idea that ‘a plague should be cast on both their houses’, Nick Lowles/Searchlight’s motto, is very convenient and very wrong. Yes, there may be a clash between what the EDL says and what it sometimes does, but with MAC you don’t even get that. MAC believes in the forced creation of an Islamic state. It believes in the ‘universal Caliphate’. They sing the praises of known Islamic terrorists, such as bin Laden and many other. They propagate violent jihad whilst cleverly keeping on the right side of UK law - but only just!

I challenge people to find anything in the official literature of the EDL which encourages violence, fascism or racism. Of course this does not matter if you follow the ideologies of SWP/Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight because if you look though the prism of revolutionary Trotskyism or Communism, then the EDL are bound to come out of is as bogeymen. But the vast majority of people do not view the EDL through that Marxist prism. Thus the EDL is taken on what it says and does, not on ‘what it really means’ and what some hangers-on do without the sanction of the EDL leadership (or even of Regional Organisers).

Let’s leave interpretation, or conspiracy theories, to the far-left Searchlight/Hope Note Hate and UAF.

British Justice?

In May 2010 Tohseef Shah spray painted a British War Memorial with "islam will dominate osama is coming" he was fined £50 & walked free from court.

In November 2010, Emdadur Choudhury burned a Poppy during the 2mins silence. He too was given a fine, £50 and walked free from court.

Today, 2 men have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for spray painting a Poppy on a mosque.

Prince Charles embraces InterFaith - InterFaith = Islamic da'wah

[Left: the new religion, InterFaith, embraced by leftist and liberal Anglicans and Methodists, but not by Muslims. InterFaith - spaced-out. Above: Prince Charles on the look-out for a Brown Exotic he can take home with him and put in one of his thirty spare rooms.] -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prince Charles was in Morocco a bit back. How much interfaithing is there in that country I wonder? There is virtually no interfaithing in Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan, or in any other Islamic or Muslim country I know of. Admittedly, I am not that knowledgeable about Morocco. But what I have deduced is that Muslims do not need interfaith in Muslim or Islamic countries because Islam is already the established religion. In some cases it has been the established religion for over a thousand years. In most/all of these countries a Muslim must remain a Muslim on pain of death. Other religious groups, dhimmis, always have a second-class status in Muslim and Islamic countries. They are not even second-class citizens because they are often, or always, not citizens at all.

However, and that’s a big however, Islam is a minority religion in the UK and that’s why some (but not all) Muslims are keen to embrace InterFaith. Through InterFaith they can carry out Islamic da’wah (proselyting) without necessarily being seen to be doing da’wah. This way they can spread Islam, which is a prime imperative for virtually every Muslim, without people getting shirty about being proselytised at, as it were.

InterFaith is effectively a new religion. But it is not a new religion for Muslims. It is primarily a new religion for leftist and ‘social’ Anglicans and Methodists. By embracing InterFaith they can make many social and political points about the evil past of Christianity, its exploitation of other religious groups, etc.

They can also embrace a religion, Islam, that is strong and proud, just as their religion used to be strong and proud. They can also embrace what they take to be the ‘social’ aspects of Islam and tie them in to their own socialist, sometimes outright Marxist, agendas.

One other possibility is that these Anglicans and Methodists, who have converted to InterFaith, if not quite to Islam, can show us how pious they are towards other religion(s) (Islam) and how, effectively, they turn the other cheek on a massive scale. Such a massive scale that the twin embracing of InterFaith and Islam signals the ends of their own faith, Christianity. But as long as a religion remains. As long as Islam remains. That’s all that matters. After all, all religions, or at least the monotheistic ones, are, by definition, a good thing. Thus if Christianity disappears, as it appears to be doing, at least InterFaith will take over. And in no time at all Islam will take over InterFaith.]

Who says that ‘distorted Islam’ is distorted Islam? A royal ‘representative’ of the Christian faith in the United Kingdom. What gives him the credentials to distinguish distorted from traditional Islam?

I reckon that Prince Charles, having many Muslim friends, has been spoon-fed Islam, nice Islam, and he has gratefully swallowed what he has been fed. The aristocracy, and even the Royal Family, have always had a thing for the Brown Exotic - for Arab Muslims.

I assume Prince Charles means Islamism and militant Islam by ‘distorted Islam’. That’s a strange position to uphold. Yes, there have been periods of relative interfaith and tolerance in Islam. But that is not a chronological fact. That is, it’s not a case of Islam always being tolerant until the 20th century when the Islamists and militant Muslims took over. There have also been periods of militancy - and even proto-Islamism as well.

Indeed, Islam started off as a militant and expansionist religion with Islam’s warrior prophet and his endless campaigns to try an enforce Islam on surrounding civilisations and communities.

And brutal sharia, or Hudna, has also been a part of Islam from the very beginning.

So Prince Charles really should take off his rose-tinted spectacles and perhaps start listening to non-Muslims, and non-InterFaithers, on Islam. It will do him the world of good in term of more objectivity.

"It's the issue of stereotypes that is difficult. It's so easy to concentrate on the negative and not the positive."

The logic here is painfully simple. Negative portrayals, or critical portrayals, of Islam are ‘stereotypes’ (Leftists and Muslims call them ‘myths’). Similarly, PC says we shouldn’t ‘concentrate on the negative’. Instead we should concentrate exclusively on the positive. But isn’t that just as bad when it comes to a well-rounded view of Islam? Calling all criticism ‘stereotyping’ (or ‘Islamophobia’) is hardly a more truthful or objective approach to Islam. It is more akin to indoctrination, which most Muslims accept when it comes to Islam.

"But what I do is remind people of what we share in common."

Beware of the empty soundbite. What do we share with Islam, exactly? We are all ‘Abrahamic faiths’ for example? Well, this is a neat taqiyya trick on the part of Muslims because when you read the Koran, the Hadiths, etc., you will find that Muslims, historically, have hated Christians and Jews precisely because they were Abrahamic ‘brothers’.

Take the Jews. The fact that they rejected Mohammed, being Abrahamic brothers, made them even worse than the polytheists. They should have known better than reject ‘the seal of the prophets’. They should have recognised Mohammed for what he was.

Much the same is also true of Christians. The Jewish and Christian faiths, to all Muslims, were just moments in the journey towards Mohammed. They were not the final word on anything. They were stopping points. And the fact that these Abrahamic brothers don’t realise this, the final truth that is Islam, is an absolute disgrace for all Muslims. So much so that this disgrace, the disgrace that is Judaism and Christianity, is written deeply into Islam itself.

"I find a certain amount of ridicule has come my way but respecting other people's cultures is the only way to achieve unity through diversity."

‘Unity through diversity’? Does Prince Charles write the slogans for Birmingham City Council?

Part of the Islamic ‘golden age’ - the 12th century. It was a golden age in spite of Islam, not because of it. Everything that made it a golden age came from outside of Islam. None of it was internal. There were no ‘Islamic’ philosophers, scientists, poets, etc. There were philosophers, scientists, poets, etc. who happen to have been Muslim. That’s a massive difference. No matter how many mental gymnastics these Muslims had to carry out to square their philosophy, science or poetry with Islam, the fact would have remained that they were philosophers, scientists and poets in spite of Islam, not because of it.

In 859, that ‘Islamic’ or even ‘Muslim’ university would have been full of infidel material. Work from Greece, Rome, and even the infidel parts of the non-Western world. It would have also included Judaic and Christian material. As Bertrand Russell once said, Islamic civilisation at this point was hugely parasitic on the West and on Judaism and Christianity. In fact, because of the hardcore nature of true Islam, it couldn’t have been anything but parasitic.

Yes, at certain places and at certain times the Jews have been treated well in the Arab/Muslim world. In certain other times they have been treated abominably. Let’s say, again, that Muslims treated Jews well in spite of Islam, and treated them badly because of Islam.

Prince Charles chose Morocco. Compared to other Islamic or Muslim countries, Jews have had it fairly good at certain times in that country. However, in the 20th century there have been many bloody riots against Jews in which many people have died. The worst insult in Morocco is to be called ‘a Jew’. Because of this, Hitler has always been very popular in this country.But, despite all that, it’s almost as if Prince Charles has deliberately chosen one of the most ‘interfaith’ Muslim countries in the Arab world because, at least since the 1948 Jew-killing riots, Jews have been treated relatively well - relative to other Muslim/Arab countries, that is.