COUNTER-JIHAD: BEYOND THE EDL

How leftists pushed Muslims into ghettoes

2011-11-18T01:26:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-17T02:29:00.000-08:00

*) 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?

2011-11-16T02:53:00.001-08:00

‘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’

2011-11-14T23:19:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-11-12T00:33:00.000-08:00

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?

2011-11-08T00:47:00.000-08:00

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

2011-11-05T09:33:00.000-07:00

[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.

Anjem Choudary tells the truth about Islam

2011-11-02T01:04:00.000-07:00

Is Anjem Chaudary extreme or is he simply an honest Muslim?

He is both honest and extreme. He is extreme because he follows an extreme religion and he is honest because he tells non-Muslims the truth about Islam, the Koran, Muhammed, etc. What can be wrong with honesty and telling the truth abour your religion? He realises that round shapes cannot be squeezed into square-shaped holes, no matter how much Islamic taqiyya (lies, distortions, dissimulations, etc. used to further the cause of Islam) one uses to achieve that. He may simply realise that more and more non-Muslims, outside the far left, liberal left and the small world of Islamophiles, are realising that almost all Muslims use taqiyya when speaking about Islam to them.

[Left and right images: Before.... and after.]

Thus Chaudary's honesty about Islam may in the end be a smart move on his part. As a Muslim truth-teller, he may find himself becoming more and more important in the Muslim community. As it is today, he is better known in the non-Muslim world than he is to most of his fellow Muslims.

It is therefore a frightening thought that Anjem Chaudary is not, after all, an extreme Muslim, but a honest one. Or he is both extreme and honest. And that extremism is derived from Islam itself.

The EDL “stormed” an Ahmadiyya book stall in Cradley Heath, Birmingham

2011-10-27T22:15:00.000-07:00

It has been reported, in the Halesowen News, that a Muslim book stall, at Cradley Heath market, Birmingham, was ‘stormed’ by over 25 members of the English Defence League (on Saturday 15th October). The act was reported to have occurred in front of shoppers, many of whom were women and children, at the market at 2.30pm.

If the account is accurate, then I would say that it was a bad move on the EDL’s part. Whether or not it was organised by the EDL’s Regional Organisers in that area I don’t know. I would certainly say that the EDL’s national leadership would not endorse such actions if those actions were violent (or intended to be violent) in any way. So this action was wrong. However, it’s not quite obvious what the Halesowen News means by ‘attacked’ and ‘manhandled’. If there was non-defensive violence, then that was a foolish mistake.

It is said that Ahmadiyya Muslims pride themselves on their alternative - seemingly pacifist - approach to Islam. So pacifist, indeed, that Sunnis Muslims and other Islamic sects don’t even regard them as legitimate Muslims. (Sunni Muslims more or less think the same about Shia Muslims as well.) Indeed this Muslim antipathy towards the Ahmadiyya, from other Muslims, is so strong that they have been persecuted in certain Muslim states, such as in Pakistan and Iraq.
And even here in England, such as in Walsall relatively recently (see link), the Ahmadiyya have been harassed by other Muslims. (Perhaps the Halesowen News should also do a news piece on Muslim violence towards the Ahmadiyya.)

It’s a shame that the EDL didn’t choose the Islamist/salafist stall which is frequently placed on New Street - right in the heart of Birmingham’s city centre. This is an extreme Islamic group which espouses a ‘revolutionary’ Islam and the implementation of an Islamic theocratic state. They also champion violence, or ‘jihad’, as a means to further their cause. This places them at odds with the Ahmadiyya.

Link:
http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/9309878.Mindless_EDL_thugs_storm_Muslim_exhibition_in_Cradley_Heath_market/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/05/not-another-mosque-walsall-muslims-hate.html

France says ‘no’ to sharia blasphemy law

2011-10-26T09:38:00.000-07:00

When EDL supporters/members say that the state, or the police, is trying to implement sharia blasphemy law, under the assumption that all criticisms of Islam, or of Muslims as Muslims, are judged to ‘incite racial hatred’, then we have some support in France. A lawyer, named Renaud Bettcher, has said that prosecutors had attempted to introduce blasphemy law into France.
Prosecutors had been trying to convict Ernesto Rojas Abbate of ‘inciting racial hatred’. What did Abbate actually do? He posted footage of himself wearing a devil mask and tearing pages from the Islamic holy book setting it on fire and later urinating on it to extinguish the flames. He was arrested for these acts in October last year.

What was racist about them? Nothing. If anything, it was a brave - and perhaps a silly - piece of absurdist (bedroom) theatre. You could have called this piece of theatre anything... but ‘racist’. You may think it silly. Outrageous. ‘Insulting to the Koran’. But ‘racist’? No way!

The defendant’s lawyer himself said that Abbate’s theatrics were ‘willingly outrageous and deliberately provocative’. However, there was no ‘racist intent’ involved. More clearly, there was no evidence to suggest that Ernesto Abbate did what he did ‘to arouse feelings of hostility’ towards Muslims. However, Abbate’s theatrics were seen, by the French prosecutors and, indeed, by the English state, as ‘racist’. That is, they were ‘racist’ because

they were an attempt to arouse feelings of hostility towards Muslims.

But arousing feelings of hostility towards Muslims isn’t racist either. Unless we go one step further, which the French persecutors must have done in this case, and say that

any attempt or utterance intended to arouse feelings of hostility towards Muslims is racist in itself

regardless of the defender’s views on race generally and the fact that Muslims do not constitute a single race - or even any race at all.

We must remember that not only did the defendant’s lawyer say it was not a case of racism. He also argued that Ernesto didn’t have any malicious intent towards all Muslims. More importantly, this theatrical act should not have been the victim of blasphemy law, or sharia law, in that such a law does not even exist in France! Or, as the lawyer, Renaud Bettcher, put it:

‘In a secular and republican society, it is incomprehensible that my client was prosecuted. Blasphemy does not exist in France.’

Bon jovi!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The News Link:

http://www.thelocal.fr/1569/20111025/#

Labour Councillor wants Birmingham demonstration banned (official EDL post)

2011-10-25T20:41:00.000-07:00

- Official EDL post (by Pyrus)

On 22nd October, EDL Leader Tommy Robinson appeared on BBC Radio West Midlands to respond to Labour Councillor Waseem Zaffar, who has written to the Home Secretary asking her to ban the upcoming EDL demonstration in Birmingham.

[Image above: Waseem Zaffar, right, with Salma Yaqoob.]

In response to it being put to him that he was trying to suppress freedom of speech, Mr Zaffar replied, “This is not… [freedom of speech], this is inciting racial hatred.”

Well we’re sorry Mr Zaffar, but you’re wrong on both counts. If it were true – if we really were inciting hatred (let alone racial hatred) – then the BBC would have had a duty to challenge these hateful views.

So, why didn’t this happen? Well, either the BBC are purposefully protecting the EDL from criticism (which hardly seems likely!), or the EDL do not hold any views that are in need of challenging.

The real hateful views – views that do need challenging – are those spread by radical Islam. And Tommy gives us plenty of examples of those in this interview.

But Mr Zaffar has the nerve to claim that the EDL are no different to Islamic groups who preach hatred. What an offensive (and quite frankly prejudiced) claim!

It’s this sort of clouded thinking, this absent-mindedness, that is preventing British Muslims from taking effective steps to tackle the extremism that is rife in their community.

Anti-extremism is not extremism. Acting in defence of your country, and doing so with full respect for its laws and for the rights of individuals, is a million miles away from the behaviour exhibited by Islamic extremists.

Tommy has said many times that we are a symptom of Islamic extremism. If Mr Zaffar would like us to go away, then he should probably start considering how to better combat the radical Islamic views that can (and regularly do) result in violent extremism.

If he thinks that EDL supporters and radical Muslims are at all similar, then he’s not off to a good start.

To claim that EDL supporters are no different from the hate-filled fanatics who burned poppies on Armistice Day, or who burned the Stars & Stripes outside the US embassy on the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, is an insult to all of the tens of thousands of supporters of the EDL. But it is also an insult to all who believe that much more needs to be done to prevent hateful preaching from turning into violent acts of extremism, because if it is considered ‘extreme’ to dare criticise extremist ideology, then we really are in trouble.

EDL Link: http://englishdefenceleague.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counter-Jihad: Beyond the EDL addition (non-official):

Want to make the criticism of Islam a crime? Simple. Create a law which says that the criticism of Islam is actually racist ('in intent'). That doesn’t mean that the prosecutors need to simply assume that counter-jihadists/EDL are racist as well as being against Islam. No. It’s that the criticism of Islam is in itself, despite intent, racist. This way the people who criticise Islam, in any way, can be prosecuted for racism and then suitably punished. (Or banned, in the case of the Birmingham EDL demo.)

Indeed that’s even happening. Instead of saying that criticism of Islam ‘breaks sharia law’, which no non-Muslim leader would ever dare to say here in the UK, references have to be made to ‘racism’ instead. That way the state has a good way of silencing counter-Islamists - and I don’t just mean the supporters of the EDL. If criticism of Islam is deemed to be straightforwardly racist, then the state already has laws which can deal with these ‘crimes’. In the UK there are laws against racism and ‘discrimination’ which can be used on counter-jihadists.

The Case of Danny Parker

It is worth bearing mind here that an EDL supporter, Danny Parker, received an eight-month prison sentence for chanting ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’.

‘Converts must die.’ (The words of a Swedish imam.)

is not 'hate speech' (in Sweden, and also in the UK). Yet

‘Muslim bombers off our streets.’ (The words Danny Parker was punished for.)

is hate speech.

The former calls calls for murder whereas the latter speaks out against murder. Yet it was the latter which was classed as ‘hate speech’.

I am absolutely convinced that if a member of a right-wing group in Sweden, or any other European country, had called for Muslims - even ‘Muslim bombers’ - to be murdered, that he would have been immediately charged with ‘hate speech’. Yet this imam got off scot-free.

Why is all the violence and hatred of Islam is accepted - and even justified - by so many left-wingers and liberals? It’s because all that violence and hatred is part of a ‘personal faith’ (Islam) and this, miraculously, makes it OK. Such extraordinary dhimmitude!

Birmingham EDL demo: 'Whose streets? Our streets!'

2011-10-23T19:26:00.000-07:00

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/06/sparkbrook-birmingham-terror-base.html

‘Just back from the anti-'spy cameras’ pro-Islamist meeting’

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/07/just-back-from-anti-cctv-pro-islamist.html

‘West Midlands Police tries to teach the EDL a lesson’

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/07/west-midlands-police-tries-to-teach-edl.html

‘Video of the Rev Ray Gaston: Ban the EDL!'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/07/video-of-rev-ray-gaston-ban-edl.html

‘West Midlands Police and its hands-off-Muslims policy’

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/07/west-midlands-police-and-its-hands-off.html

‘The ‘spy cameras’ of Birmingham: leave the terrorists alone!'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/08/cctvs-of-brum-leave-birminghams.html

‘Birmingham’s Dr Naseem: Muslims didn’t do 9/11'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/09/birminghams-dr-naseem-muslims-didnt-do.html

‘The unholy alliance of Rev Ray Gaston and the West Midlands Police’

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/09/unholy-alliance-rev-ray-gaston-and-west.html

'Mistakes made over the Birmingham 'spy cameras'?

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/10/mistakes-made-over-birmingham.html

'Police on alert over possible terror bombings in Birmingham'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/11/police-on-alert-over-possible.html
'Birmingham schools targeted by Islamic extremists'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/11/birmingham-schools-targeted-by-islamic.html

'EDL protest against pro-Hamas stall in Birmingham'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/12/edl-protest-against-pro-hamas-stall-in.html

'A stranger in my own land [Birmingham]'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/01/stranger-in-my-own-land-birmingham.html

'Birmingham imam calls for Muslim jihad'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/01/birmingham-imam-calls-for-muslim.html

'Birmingham's Khalid Mahmood: an 'Asian MP'?'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/02/is-birminghams-khalid-mahmood-asian-mp.html

'EDL's Birmingham protest - 19th March, 2010'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/02/edl-birmingham-protest-19th-march-2011.html

'The EDL postpones its Birmingham demo'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/02/english-defence-league-postpone.html

'Secret filming at Muslim schools in Birmingham'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/02/secret-filming-at-muslim-schools-in.html

'Channel 4 puts Birmingham mosques back in the spotlight'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/02/channel-4-puts-birminghams-mosques-back.html

'Our day out at the Small Heath Islamist Conference [Birmingham]'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/03/our-day-out-at-small-heath-islamist.html

'Birmingham's Muslims are appeased over "spy cameras"'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/05/birminghams-muslims-are-appeased-over.html
'Birmingham Muslim 1 West Midlands Police 0'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/05/birmingham-muslims-1-west-midlands.html

'The New Street [Birmingham]Islamists'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/05/to-birmingham-mail-new-street-islamists.html
'Birmingham Embraces Diversity'

http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2011/07/birmingham-embraces-diversity.html

ZHC and an Egyptian court institute Facebook sharia

2011-10-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

A Cairo court has sentenced a man to three years imprisonment for postings on Facebook which were deemed, by the court, to be ‘in contempt of Islam’.

It hasn’t taken long for Egypt’s Islamists, post-'Arab spring’, to increase the process of Islamisation in that country. Anyone who believed that Egypt would suddenly, and miraculously, be turned into the Middle-Eastern version of Guardianista Islington must have either have been politically retarded or a victim of his own ideological self-deceit.
However, it could be the case that this isn’t a simple example of the increasing Islamification or of a stricter interpretation of sharia law. There may well be a political aspect to this case which is beyond straight Islamification. I say this because the Cairo court also accused Ayman Mansour of ‘inciting sectarianism’. The court also mentioned the fact that such a blasphemous crime also threatened Egypt’s ‘security’. This is clearly a reference to the volatile situation which exists between Christians (Copts) and Muslims in Egypt at the present time. Despite that, such references to ‘security’ and ‘sectarianism’ may just be subterfuge. In nearly all Islamic/Muslim states it is illegal to ‘show contempt for Islam’ regardless of the social or political consequences of such acts. (Unless showing contempt for Islam by definition has social and political consequences.) That is, the act of ‘contempt’ constitutes a simple case of blasphemy within the context of sharia law. However, those who belong to the newly ‘assertive ultraconservative Islamist trends’ may simply be sugar coating, or rationalising, something which is in fact solely a criticism of Islam and not therefore something political and therefore ‘dangerous’.

Indeed that’s even happening here at home. Instead of saying that criticism of Islam ‘breaks sharia law’, which no non-Muslim leader would ever dare to say here in the UK/US, references have to be made to ‘racism’ instead. That way the state has a good way of silencing counter-Islamists - and I don’t just mean the supporters of the EDL. If criticism of Islam is deemed to be straightforwardly racist, or a threat to the state’s ‘security’ (in the Egyptian case), then the state already has laws which can deal with these ‘crimes’. In the UK there are laws against racism and ‘discrimination’ which can be used on counter-jihadists. In Egypt, similarly, criticism of Islam is not just seen as blasphemy - it is also seen as something that can destabilise the state and increase ‘sectarianism’. In the end, though, all these cases may just be plain and simple examples of blasphemy as seen within the broader context of Islamic sharia law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/egyptian-sentenced-to-3-years-for-insulting-islam-in-his-facebook-postings/2011/10/22/gIQAKILU6L_story.html

The criticism of Islam is racist!

2011-10-22T10:28:00.001-07:00

Want to make the criticism of Islam a crime? Simple. Create a law which says that the criticism of Islam is actually racist (in intent). That doesn’t mean that the prosecutors need to simply assume that counter-jihadists are racist as well as being against Islam. No. It’s that the criticism of Islam is in itself, despite intent, racist. This way the people who criticise Islam, in any way, can be prosecuted for racism and then suitably punished.

This is actually what's being lobbied for at the U.S Justice Department by various... yes, you guessed it, Islamists; along with some obedient dhimmying in the background from what Americans call ‘progressives’ (i.e., Leftists) More precisely, these Islamist ‘advocates’ are stating that

‘US citizens’ criticism of Islam constitute racial discrimination’.

So there’s another political buzzword cooped by Islamists - ‘discrimination’. This means that Muslims are being discriminated against when someone - no matter who - says something - no matter what - critical about Islam or Muslims as Muslims. Of course, racism neatly coalesces with discrimination. Or, in this case, criticism of Islam neatly coalesces with both racism and discrimination.

This isn’t just my personal interpretation of what’s been going on at the Justice Department recently. The Islamists, along with their lawyers and legal representatives, are candid about what they want and how they see things. For example, Sahar Aziz, a female, Egyptian-American lawyer,
said that she knows that

‘civil rights lawyers [can] come up with a way to redefine criticism as discrimination’.

That’s from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Aziz goes on to say that the word

‘Muslim... has become racialized... I don’t accept this formalistic cop-out that this is all about religion’.

She’s right about that! The word ‘Muslim’ has become racialised by people like her and her Leftist friends! They themselves fuse criticism of Islam with racism and then they have the nerve to say that critics of Islam are racist. However, it’s their ideology and political definitions which will make critics of Islam turn out to also be racists. Thus the statement

Criticism of Islam is racist.

becomes an analytic proposition - true by definition. (If you accept the definitions, that is.)

I mentioned American ‘progressives’ earlier. What is it about Islamism, and Muslims generally, that appeals to these people? I’ll let a progressive (non-Islamist) Muslim, Zudhi Jasser, answer that:

‘The Islamist groups’ victimology feeds into the left’s propaganda that the Right is anti-minority and anti-Muslim, so there’s a mutual political benefit there.’

In other words, the progressives are using the Islamists and the Islamists are using the progressives. A case of mutual use. It is also cynical and profoundly wrong.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/21/progressives-islamists-huddle-at-justice-department/

The words “converts must die” aren’t hate speech in Sweden

2011-10-21T05:38:00.000-07:00

Sweden has just witnessed one of the worst and most extreme displays of dhimmitude that I've knowledge of. On Swedish radio (15th September), a Somali-born Swedish imam said that ‘converts [from Islam] must die’. That’s as near as you can possibly get to being a straightforward incitement to murder. (Just as the Ayatollah Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie was an explicit call for murder.)

Not only all that. The radio presenter ‘reminded’ the said imam that ‘they were in Sweden’; as opposed, I suppose, to Somalia or another Islamic state. That riposte didn’t change a thing in the imam’s mind. After all, Allah’s law - sharia law - is universal in jurisdiction. Thus the imam said that the ‘same rules apply’ even in Sweden.

The most depressing aspect of this, though, was the Swedish Chancellor’s response to this broadcast (as well as to a website’s transcription of the imam’s words). The Chancellor argued, or said, that it was ‘not hate speech’. That’s right. Not hate speech. The Chancellor’s reason for this judgement seems to have been that because the radio presenter of the programme (in which the imam uttered his hate speech) ‘protested against what the imam said immediately’, that somehow negated its hateful nature. What? How’s that? The presenter’s response, even if live, is irrelevant to the statement ‘converts must die’. This is a logical and even legal non sequitur. How can a challenge, even if immediate, stop the utterance from being, well, an example of hate speech? I don’t get it. Not only that. The radio presenter’s immediate response to the imam didn’t even inspire him to backtrack a little. Far from it. On being told that he lived in Sweden, the imam simply said that ‘the same rules apply here’. The arrogance of this man! The dhimmitude of the Swedish Chancellor.

The Case of Danny Parker

It is worth bearing mind here that an EDL supporter, Danny Parker, received an eight-month prison sentence for chanting ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’. Incredible!

‘Converts must die’

is not hate speech. Yet

‘Muslim bombers off our streets’

is hate speech.

The former calls calls for murder whereas the latter speaks out against murder. Yet it was the latter which was classed as ‘hate speech’.

I am absolutely convinced that if a member of a right-wing group in Sweden, or another European country, had called for Muslims - even ‘Muslim bombers’ - to be murdered, that he would have been immediately charged with ‘hate speech’. Yet this obnoxious imam got off scot-free.

It seems that apart from the immediate response of the radio presenter, the fact that the hate speech ‘was based on personal faith’, and that ‘the ceiling is pretty high when it comes to that kind of statement’, then that made the statement perfectly acceptable. At least this was what Marcus Agnull, of the Swedish Chancellor’s office, argued (or stated). This simply means that because the hate speech ‘converts must die’ are justified by - and faithful to - a ‘personal faith’, to Islam, then that makes the words OK. This shows us how simplistic many people’s views of religion, and therefore Islam, are. You can legally call for murder, but only if that call is in tandem with a ‘personal faith’ or religion. That will make the hate speech somehow legally acceptable. (Though does it stop it from being hate speech?)

So that’s why all the violence and hatred of Islam is accepted - and even justified - by so many leftists and liberals! It’s because all that violence and hatred is part of a ‘personal faith’ and this, miraculously, makes it OK. Such extraordinary dhimmitude!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.thelocal.se/36866/20111020/#

The Islamists' right to live by sharia law against the ambassador's right to free speech

2011-10-20T08:39:00.000-07:00

How perverse and how typically Islamist.

The Muslim students who attempted to stop the free speech of the Israeli Ambassador at the University of California, and thus our right to hear what he had to say, are declaring, in their blatantly hypocritical way, that they are the real victims of the denial of free speech.

There is a massive difference between the two cases, which these young Muslims, or their legal representatives, do not seem to have noticed.

The Israeli ambassador had a right to free speech.

His audience had the right to hear what he had to say.

The Muslim students, on the other hand, were using their free speech to oppose another expression of free speech.

This latter example of free speech can only be destructive or negative in nature.

If these Muslims ever had the power, a small taste of which they are no doubt getting in this case, there would be no free speech for anyone who was critical of Islam or Muslims and no real free speech for Muslims either. All Islamic/Muslim states have been - almost uniformally and for the last 1,000 years - against uncensored speech and against the uncensored written word.

Certain ‘freedoms’ have always been denied. No one has the right to scream ‘fire’ in a public area when there is no fire. Or at least the culprit would be prosecuted for such an action. Similarly, your freedom is limited to the extent you cannot punch me in the face - even if you have a reason for doing so. Similarly with these student Islamists. Their

right to drown out free speech

is overridden by the

right not to have one's opinions drowned out.

The first freedom, if it is a freedom, is completely negative and destructive. The second example is a positive and constructive example of the freedom of speech.

Why we should give these Islamist the ‘right’ to deny the free speech of the Israeli Ambassador I don’t know. But that’s how Islamists work. That’s what sharia law demands. Increasingly, Islamists are having more and more success in their attempts to Islamise non-Muslim cultures and societies. They must be defeated if true free speech is to be upheld.

Besides which, if these Islamist students were truly concerned about their own right to be heard, then they could have arranged their own meeting. This simply shows that it wasn’t their own freedom of speech that they were really concerned with. They were, in reality, simply hell-bent on stopping the Israeli ambassador from exercising his right and thus they were also attempting to deny the right of other Americans to hear what he had to say.

This is pure Islamism. So, in that sense, it should be no surprise. The sickening thing is, as usual, how these Islamist use and abuse democratic procedures, and civil rights jargon, to fight against democracy and against rights. The only rights an Islamist is truly concerned with are his or her right to be a Muslim and to live by sharia law. Once these basic or fundamental rights are established, then all other rights, outside sharia law, can go to hell. Which effectively means that all non-Muslims, such as the Israeli Ambassador, can go to hell too.

Because of these facts, these Islamists should not be be successful in this case.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/19/ap/business/main20122920.shtml

Who says the NYPD musn't monitor Muslim communties?

2011-10-19T23:27:00.001-07:00

A Washington Homeland Security Department lawyer is asking the federal government to investigate the New York Police Department’s surveillance of Muslim communities. Something similar recently occurred in my own city, Birmingham (in the UK). Here the police were severely reprimanded, by Muslims and left-wing activists, for putting up ‘spy cameras’ to monitor various Muslim areas in the city. The police were ritually scolded at various meetings and in the press and forced to take down the cameras. Around a year later, the other week, six Birmingham Muslims were arrested on suspected terror activities. Not only that. The CCTVs were put up because Birmingham had the highest concentration of Muslim terrorist suspects in the whole of England, surpassing that of even London. All the recent arrests were made where the CCTVs used to be! They are no longer there because of political pressure about the ‘surveillance of Muslim communities’.
There is a problem here. Firstly, was the NYPD, strictly speaking, ‘surveying Muslim communities’ in the first place? Weren’t they investigating particular Muslim groups and individuals within various Muslim communities? The problem is that the surveillance of particular Muslim groups and individuals will come across as the surveillance of ‘Muslim communities’. How can these rights activists and lawyers make this distinction? That is, if you investigate individual Muslims or Muslim groups you cannot help but also monitor Muslim communities in that such monitoring is bound to occur within Muslim communities. Or put it this way. Say that the NYPD monitored six individual Muslims for possible terrorist activities within the US. If only two of those six Muslims are eventually proven to by guilty of terror-related crimes, then it will still look as if the NYPD was investigating or monitoring ‘Muslim communities’. Again, these six Muslims were members of various Muslim communities. Thus, the monitoring of six Muslims, and the eventual prosecution of two Muslims, will seem to be - or actually will be - the same thing as monitoring or surveying Muslim communities.

But there is no way round this!

Every time the police monitors or surveys members of a community for terror-related activities, then, by definition, they will also be monitoring the communities to which these individual Muslim or Muslim groups belong. The police, therefore, are in some kind of bind.

The NYPD can’t be expected not to survey these individual Muslims even if they are members - sometimes respected members - of various Muslim communities. So the investigation into the NYPD’s activities may result, at least in theory, in the stopping of any surveillance of individual Muslims because such surveillance will also be seen as the surveillance of Muslim communities. And no one, not even left-wing rights activists and lawyers, can seriously argue that Muslim individual or groups should not be monitored. That would result in the suicide of New York.

To put this another way. The surveillance of ‘mosques, Islamic bookstores and student groups’ will also seem to be the monitoring of Muslim communities. Presumably terrorist suspects also visit and work in mosques, go to Islamic bookstores and join student group. However, the whole mosque, the entire bookshop or student group will seem to be monitored. There is no way around this as far as I can see. We cannot demand that the NYPD cease to investigate individual Muslims and groups simply because these terrorists suspects are also members of various ‘Muslim communities’ (as well as members of mosques, student groups, etc.). But if left-wing lawyers and rights activists put enough legal and political pressure on the NYPD, then this may end in no monitoring or surveillance of individual Muslims simply because they are also members of Muslim communities. And that in itself could easily end in Islamist terrorist outrages in New York. Do these lawyers and rights activists want that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.dailyrecord.com/article/B3/20111019/NJNEWS18/310190086/On-government-civil-rights-panel-a-call-to-inspect-NYPD?odyssey=modnewswelltextFRONTPAGEs

Muslim gangs exploit and abuse Sikh girls

2011-10-19T03:24:00.001-07:00

Compiled by Raj Singh

These are news stories in which Sikh and Hindu girls have been targeted by gangs of predominantly Pakistani-Muslim males in the UK: -

http://jerometaylor.independentminds.livejournal.com/622.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-437871/Police-protect-girls-forced-convert-Islam.html

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=38548&in_page_id=34

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1359683/Children-injured-in-school-rampage.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_midlands/6738455.stm

Please see the below link from the Sikh Helpline - which features recordings from the BBC Asian Network's Discussion and Debate Show (hosted by the presenter 'Nihal').This particular programme discussed the targeting of Sikh and Hindu girls by Muslim males and features a Sikh girl who told her own story about being targeted by a Muslim male - on 20th June 2007 :

http://www.sikhhelpline.com/cms/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=42

Please see the LAST TWO PARAGRAPHS of the Daily Mail's news article today - where a Sikh spokesman speaks out against Muslim sex gangs :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2033022/Teenager-lured-girls-house-gang-raped-Asian-gang-jailed-seven-years.html

Demons Need Demonising

2011-10-17T02:44:00.000-07:00

The platonic Media, with a capital 'M’, does not ‘demonise’ Muslims as Muslims. They demonise Choudary, Hizb ut-Tahrir and other loonies. Do Trots think that not even these Muslims should be demonised? The public are against you Trots. Especially the
'working people’ that you claim - or pretend - to represent.

Again, Trots, Islamists and IslamoTrots are the masters of demonisation. They demonise everyone who is not far leftist, Islamist or Muslim. They began by demonising the BNP. Then they demonised the EDL. If the climate is right, then they will get on to the right wing of the Tory Party. Then the centre of the Conservative Party. Then all of the Tory Party. Then it’ll be on to New Labour. Then...

And the worst cases of IslamoTrot demonisation are when they demonise other competing far-left groups, whom they despise more than they despise the ‘neo-cons’ and ‘Zionists’. This is a big fat bag of demonisations. So don’t talk to us about 'Muslims being demonised', when the far left demonises just about everyone, not just a single group.

And Respect once had the nerve to talk about the Nazi ‘demonisation of the Jews’. What nauseating audacity! Are there any groups in the world that are more responsible for the recent rise in anti-Semitism (Judeophobia), which is far worse than ‘Islamophobia’ at present, than the Islamist and IslamoTrot groups which Yaqoob supports? Many of her Islamist friends will be Holocaust deniers. Some of her far-leftist friends are also Holocaust deniers. After all, Chomsky says that 'Holocaust denial is not anti-Semitic'.

Not only all that. Think about what all that propaganda about Israel, ‘the Occupation’, ‘the Nakba’, and all the other shit has done to increase anti-Semitism in recent years. The rise in anti-Semitic attacks in the UK and Europe as a whole occurred while the Respect Party/SWP/UAF were out on the Birmingham streets marching and shouting about ‘Israeli crimes against the Palestinians’. That constant demonisation of the Israelis – the Jews – has had it desired effect and it has tapped into the already-existing and fanatical anti-Semitism that has been part of Islam for over one thousand years – ever since the Jews stuck their fingers up to the Prophet Mohammed and said that they would never follow him and his new religion.

There is very little genuine ‘Islamophobia’ either. Tariq Ramadan coined that term as a useful blunt instrument to silence and knock all critics of Islam, the Koran and Muslims. And my God it has been useful and very effective. Even different far left groups accuse each other of being ‘Islamophobic’. Thus we had the Respect Party accusing the SWP of being ‘Islamophobic’. We had groups within the SWP accusing each other of being ‘Islamophobic’. We had one man accusing everyone in the world apart from himself of being ‘Islamophobic’.

Thus the word has lost most of its efficacy. No one takes such accusations seriously any more. It has suffered the same fate as the words ‘racist’ and ‘fascist’

The Swiss say 'no' to Islamic supremacism

2011-10-12T04:13:00.000-07:00

Good old Switzerland! First they had the guts, and pride, to ban supremacist minarets. Then they banned the Islamist veil or burqa as well. I’m buying my passport today. (I hope they’re OK with non-Muslim immigrants. The English, on the whole, are very good with non-Muslim immigrants.)

This was a story of Muslim audacity beyond imagination. Of a cheek and arrogance that must never be assuaged. A group of Swiss Muslims are demanding that Switzerland abandon its current flag - a white cross on a red background. They’re claiming, or asserting, that it ‘violates the rights of the representatives of non-Christian confessions’. ‘Non-Christian’? They mean Muslim. The utter cheek of these people. The worst thing is how these Islamists and Muslims co-opt Western law to serve a religion that would destroy Western law. ‘Violate the rights of Muslims’? There are no rights for Muslims in Islamic/Muslim countries. But what’s worse than that is that non-Muslims in Muslim countries are often treated like shit - like the dhimmis they are. These dhimmis have to be thankful that Muslims are providing them with ‘protection’ from... yes, from other Muslims.

[Left: a much more acceptable flag? It's also a flag of Islamic war.]

Thankfully the Swiss are probably going to tell them to ‘**ck off’ - but in French or German. It does not matter if many Swiss have ‘broken off from the religion of their ancestors’. Switzerland still has a Christian history and culture. And such traditions still exist. Even an atheist or agnostic can happily accept that Christianity, along with its traditions and institutions, is a part of what or who they are. So when Muslims threaten the Swiss flag (for having a cross on it), they are threatening, or challenging, Swiss - or indeed Western - identity - the very thing multiculturalists defend like mad when it happens to be the identities of Muslims.

We can learn something from the Swiss. Why did the Swiss government take its stance against minarets? Because the Swiss live by democracy in one of its purest forms. A democracy in which there was a referendum to decide the ‘minaret issue’. Thus the people as a whole, rather than their representatives, put their foot down on supremacist minarets. 57.5 percent of the Swiss population was in favour of a ban. At the same time as this, the halal slaughter of animals was also banned (because of cruelty).

No doubt exactly the same bannings would occur in the UK when it comes to minarets and, perhaps, also when it comes to the burqa and other symbols of Islamic supremacism and separatism. But what do the people know about ‘the religion of peace’?

[Image right: was that cow ever consulted about that minaret?]

Yes, you guessed it. Islamic organisations, human rights activists and many European politicians expressed their outrage at this clear example of People Power. It seems that the people, as usual, were clearly ‘Islamophobic’ - or even ‘fascist’ - in their decision. However, the writer of this piece says that

‘unlike neighbouring France and Germany, the Swiss society is rather conservative.’

Why ‘conservative’? Why aren’t the Swiss simply suspicious - or even frightened - of supremacist Islam as well as being outraged by sharia law becoming a dual legal aspect of Swiss society? In other words, these politicians and legal activists seem to know, in their pious Islamophile ways, how the minds of their societies really work - in terribly ‘Islamophobic’ ways.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://english.pravda.ru/world/europe/12-10-2011/119306-switzerland-0/

Anglicans think that the West causes terrorism

2011-10-09T19:43:00.000-07:00

Why can’t ‘moderate’ Muslims bring themselves to unequivocally condemn Islamic terrorism? It is because they think that each and every terrorist outrage is a ‘justifiable response’ (or ‘understandable response’) to the crimes of ‘the West’ against ‘our Muslim brothers’ in other countries. But also take what an Anglican bishop said, at the Church’s General Synod, in response to 9/11 and the war in Iraq.
He said that it was

‘not terrorism but American foreign policy and expansionism that constitute the major threat to peace.’

In addition, at a clergy gathering on 9/11, one cleric was heard saying to another:

‘I hope Bush doesn’t retaliate. The West has brought this judgement on itself.’
- (Peter Mullen, ‘Farewell, Church of England?’, New Criterion, September 2005)

It seems that it is not only Islamists, the MAB and the SWP who use the phrase ‘the West’ in disparaging terms, so too does the Church of England. The thing is, it wasn’t ‘the West’ that died on 9/11. Over 3,000 innocent civilians did. (Apparently, about 300 Muslim Yemenis also died on that day, as well as many women and children.) In that sense, ‘the West’ is a brainless and soulless reification which nonetheless proves to be so useful (as does ‘capitalism’, etc.) to the Islamist, the terrorist, the MAB and the SWP. Just as it is easy to speak or theorise about an abstract entity (e.g. 'the West'), so too it is even easier to bomb it without too many – or any – feelings of guilt or remorse. That the Church of England speaks in these terms makes this reification all the more obnoxious.

What is ‘the West’? It is Mozart, the Houses of Parliament, Bertrand Russell, Plato, fast cars, Hollywood, Einstein, John Coltrane, Woody Allen, Beethoven, Newton, Aquinas, Socrates, Robert de Niro, the Beatles, football… as well as, yes, many, many things that aren’t so good. But that’s life. That’s reality. That’s the human condition. If only Islamists, Islamic terrorists and the ‘moderate’ Muslims at the MAB could accept this.

To the FBI - 'The truth won't set us free!'

2011-10-08T08:31:00.000-07:00

No one, literally speaking, ‘is at war with the Islamic religion’. You cannot be at war with an abstract entity or concept. That phrase doesn’t really make much sense and is not very helpful anyway. But the US is at war with literally millions of Muslims throughout the world. These Muslims fight for an ideology which also doubles up as a religion - it's called 'Islam'. They claim to be fighting for Allah against all his ‘evil enemies’. We are these evil enemies quite simply because we are ‘unbelievers’. That’s all it takes to be an enemy of Islam or Allah.
So what’s wrong with stating this blatantly-obvious truth? Well, it’s not a very politically-correct truth. Not very PC but still, nevertheless, true. And when truth gets in the way of political correctness, or Diversity or multiculturalism, then it will be sacrificed, as it is day after day after day when it comes to this ‘war with Islam’.

This is why the FBI has been severely reprimanded. Again, reprimanded for telling the truth in such a non-PC way. Thus the FBI, or these particular FBI, have been scolded by the PC thought police. It seems that phrases such as ‘civilizational Jihad’ are not acceptable. Yes, it is a war for Western civilisation against a dark-age barbarism - just don’t say this in front on the kids. They may pick up some dangerously non-PC ideas about Islam, Muslims and other such things.

This case is kind of self-referential. That is, the ‘civilians, juries, lawyers, media, academia and charities’ who threaten ‘our values’ are precisely the same people who have reprimanded the FBI for uttering such truths. Perhaps they don’t like being named and shamed. Again, the FBI should simply not have said that these fifth columnists want to

‘replace the America liberal and Judeo-Christian and Western liberal social, political and religious foundations with Islam’.

Do not speak of such an evil! After all, the President of the United States himself recently campaigned to defuse the idea that Islamoterrorism really does have something - a lot - to do with, well, Islam.

How does the American great and good view what the FBI has said about Islam or about so many Muslims? This writer says that what they said was ‘bigoted and counter-productive counter-terrorism training’. It didn’t stop there. A Jarret Brachman classified the FBI's work, in this instance, as ‘boneheaded’ as well as ‘hateful, paranoid and completely counter-productive’.

So the FBI is simply wrong - there aren’t millions upon millions of Muslims - distributed throughout the globe - who want to destroy the United States, along with the entire Western world and its traditions and ideas. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/islamophobia-beyond-fbi/all/1

Anjem Choudary says, 'Kill Obama!'

2011-10-07T04:00:00.000-07:00

Anjem Choudary, and his bunch of teenage acolytes (Muslims Against Crusades), have struck again. Indeed Angie goes out his way to strike again - he’s the George Galloway of Islam. Basically, he’s a political exhibitionist. Maybe just an exhibitionist. Full stop. He wants to get in the news. It’s all about getting in the news and on the front cover of the Daily Mail. You see, Angie Choudary is an honest Muslim. He does not need taqiyya. He is the exact opposite of taqiyya merchants like the Muslim Council of Britain, Lutfur Rahman, and, of course, Tariq Ramadan. They all portray Islam as something it’s not. Angie gives you Islam straight. The way it is. Not how it appears to an Islamophile conscience deep in Guardianista Islington - all fluffy and lovely.
Of course Muslims are ‘allowed’ to kill kuffar - or even Muslim - political leaders! Muslims have been assassinating leaders ever since the Assassins first spread their poison throughout the Islamic world over a thousand years ago. Of course the TAQIYYA merchants will not say that ‘killing’s OK’ to gullible Islamophiles. But, then again, they are never honest or truthful about Islam to the Islamophiles. They like their Islam to be watered down, perverted and made in the image of an Islington dinner party - all fluffy and nice.

So, the answer to the question

‘Is the assassination of President Obama legal?’

is ‘yes’. The Islamic answer is ‘yes’. Death and killing are part and parcel of Islam and they have been ever since the Prophet despatched hundreds at a time throughout his blood-soaked life. He was a killer. And you ‘imitate the Prophet’s example’ by killing too.

So those media outlets which have been surprised by this “shocking,” “idiotic” and “frightening” statement do not understand Islam. Or, actually, they only understand TAQIYYA Islam - especially designed for the Left and other gullible Islamophiles.

It says all that needs to be said about Islam that Obama has

‘murdered what are probably two of the most influential Muslim men in modern day history: Sheikh Usamah bin Laden and the U.S. citizen Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki’.

Or so Angem Choudary has it. Welcome to Islam.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The News Link:

http://www.christianpost.com/news/u-k-radical-islamic-group-is-assassination-of-obama-legal-57433/

Free Danny Parker/Criticism of Islam = 'hate crimes'/ 'racism'

2011-10-05T09:26:00.000-07:00

It’s pretty hard to get your head around the Danny Parker case. This country is not North Korea. It’s not Nazi Germany. It’s not Stalin’s Russia. So why has Danny Parker been sentenced to an incredible eight months for simply chanting ‘Muslim bombers off our streets!’? Is chanting illegal? No; not as far as I know. Is it illegal to be critical of Muslim bombers? No; not at all. So why has Danny Parker received a eight-month sentence for demonstrating against Islamic terrorists? Are we missing something? Which part of what he did was deemed illegal or even anti-social? It seems that the only thing left to prosecute someone for is incitement to riot or violence. But it doesn’t follow that the chant ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’ would automatically lead to trouble. Again, it must be something else which accounts for his severe sentence.

That something else must be racism (or ‘Islamophobia’).

The state, or the legal system, seems to have redefined what racism is. Now racism includes the criticism of religion, or Islam, and even the criticism of its believers, Muslims. This has effectively made the criticism of Islam, or of Muslims as Muslims, a racist act - an illegal act. Being critical of Islam, or even of Muslim bombers, has been turned into a racist - therefore illegal - act. What this basically means is that the British state, or the criminal justice system, has effectively used sharia blasphemy law to deal with Danny Parker; just as it has with Tommy Robinson and many other members of the EDL. (E.g. that guy in Carlisle who received a stiff sentence for burning the Koran.) What I mean by this is that the criticism of Islam in Muslim or Islamic countries is illegal because in these societies the state and religion, Islam, are effectively fused together (mosque and state). Thus to be critical of Islam, or guilty of blasphemy, is also to be critical of the state because in Islam, in many instances, the state is Islamic - the state represents Islam.

I have used the term ‘sharia blasphemy law’ because up until recently there were no laws which disallowed the criticism of religion or the criticism of believers as believers. Now, all of sudden, there is. Where have these new laws come from? They have basically come from Islam. In Islam it is illegal to criticise Islam, the Koran or Mohammed. All such criticisms would be classed as ‘blasphemy’ - its blasphemers are punished very severely for this crime (as they are in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, etc. today). As I said, that is partly accounted for by the fact that in Muslim or Islamic countries religion, that is Islam, is fused with the state. That is, the state is the main vehicle for the implementation of sharia law.

This is not to say, of course, that the legal authorities have classified these cases as ‘sharia law’ or that they are even aware of the reality they have brought about. But that’s what it is. The punishment of all criticisms of Islam, or of Muslims as Muslims, has to be some kind of blasphemy law, suitably reinterpreted - for secular/non-Muslim (UK) contexts - as ‘racism’ or ‘Islamophobia’.

What about the details? For a start, Danny Parker admitted to chanting ‘Muslim bombers off our streets’. Surely that should have accounted for something, legally speaking.

In any case, Parker went on an ID parade in which witnesses from the Barnsley Muslim Community Centre attempted to identify someone they had described as being 5ft tall, bald and of a stocky build. Danny is well over 6ft tall and well built. As you can imagine, these Barnsley Muslims didn’t pick him out.

What sort of person is Danny Parker? Legally speaking, Danny has never been in trouble before. As with his admitting to having chanted ‘Muslim bombers off our streets!’, you’d have thought that this would have accounted for something. It seems not.

Danny also runs his own business and has a mortgage to pay. While in prison, Danny will be separated from his young wife and his two young children. Needless to say, it’s going to be extremely difficult, both emotionally and financially, to come to terms with all this. This, quite honestly, is going to be devastating for the whole Parker family, not just for Danny himself.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Danny’s wife has also been required to cope with local newspapers inaccurately reporting what Mr Parker actually did as well as getting the relevant charges all wrong. The newspapers seem to have completely ignored his wife’s plea to accurately describe the event which led to Danny Parker’s arrest as well as to correctly account for the legal charges which were the basis of his punishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They have a petition organised: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/danny-parker/signatures
Support Pages: https://www.facebook.com/groups/274914265865966/ and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Danny-Parker/151028828325324?sk=wall

Lutfur Rahman, Tower Hamlet's Islamist, on the EDL

2011-10-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

I’ve never read so much nauseating hypocrisy in one go. Lutfur Rahman is a supreme hypocrite. He’s just about the most dangerous man in Tower Hamlets and beyond. He is an Islamist - through and through. He’s not of the Anjem Choudary variety of Muslim. He’s not honest and open like Choudary. Instead, being an Islamist, just like the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), the Muslim Brotherhood and even Hamas, he is prepared to use democratic secular law to ultimately destroy it. Thus he's also a taqiyya merchant. As an Islamist, he believes in creating an Islamic state - basically, a theocracy. Don’t be fooled by his participation in various democratic processes within Tower Hamlets and beyond. Hamas has also indulged in democratic forces from time to time. Indeed the Muslim Brotherhood has used and abused democratic procedures since the late 1920s. When not doing so, they were busy blowing Jews up and assassinating various political leaders. Lutfur Rahman is part of this breed of men - he is an Islamist.

Lutfur Rahman says he was

‘shocked to read recently that Adrian Tudway, the police's national co-ordinator for domestic extremism, said he had formed the view that the EDL was not extreme after reading its website.’

So Rahman is against ‘dialogue’ with the EDL. That’s strange; he believes in dialogue with Hamas, Hezbollah, and a whole host of extreme Islamists. People who have murdered more people in a single year than have been killed by the ‘far right’ of Europe since the Second World War. And that is still the case even if we factor in Anders Breivik’s recent massacre in Norway. Breivik’s crime was against the norm. Islamist violence and Islamoterrorism is our daily bread. Each and every day the Global Jihad has a body count which equals - or even surpasses - the body count in Norway.

Mr Tudway didn’t come to the conclusion that Rahman wanted - the total castigation and banning of the EDL. Rahman is, after all, an totalitarian Islamist at heart. Banning is nothing to him. It occurs every single day, in every single Muslim or Islamic state. More specifically, criticism of Islam, or 'Islamophobia’, is never allowed in the countries Rahman admires. To commit blasphemy in these countries is to bring about your own death. That’s probably what Rahman would want here in the UK in the future. Until then, he will just require the banning of the EDL and the punishment of its members for 'Islamophobia’ or 'hate crimes’.

Rahman also mentions the fact that Tower Hamlets was a Jewish neighbourhood in the 1930s - at the time of the Battle of Cable Street. How ironic. Lutfur Rahman is an Islamist. Virtually all Islamists are virulently anti-Semitic. Islamists like Rahman have done more to foster and encourage anti-Semitism than any other group on the planet, including the ‘far right’. And this has nothing to do with Zionism. The Muslim Brotherhood’s campaign of killing and bombing Jews began in the 1920s, twenty years before the foundation of Israel and forty years before the platonic Occupation. Not only that. Islamists like Rahman contributed their fair share to the mass persecution of Jews in the Muslim-Arab world which resulted in a refugee problem which far outnumbered the Palestinians who left Israel/Palestine in 1948. That was the kicking out of 850,000 Jews from various Muslim countries. However, it wasn’t a ‘crisis’ in the Palestinian refugee sense because Israel did its damned best to resettle all the Jews in Israel. The Palestinian refugees, on the other hand, were used by Islamists like Rahman to continue the eternal Islamic war against the Jews. The Palestinians were the open sore which Islamists and Muslim leaders used for publicity and propaganda purposes. The difference between the two cases is staggering and it tells you a lot about the mindset of Islamist leaders like Rahman.

The point is that in the 1930s, it would have been highly likely that Islamists like Rahman would have been on the side of Oswald Mosley, not on the side of the Jews of the East End of London. Have you heard about the close friendship between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin Husseini, and his soul mate, Adolf Hitler?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/02/far-right-tower-hamlets-racism

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Mentalist!

2011-10-03T09:27:00.000-07:00

Madmood Amaddinnerjacket is seriously mental. Most of the world knows that. Yet this man, or his country (Iran), may have a nuclear weapon in no time at all. Perhaps they’ve already got one and they’re waiting for an excuse - another ‘peace flotilla’ perhaps? - to use it on his beloved Israel.
This new piece is about yet another Ahmadinejad conspiracy theory - this time about 9/11. There are a lot of conspiracy theories floating around about 9/11. Most of them concern Jews/Zionists. ‘The Jews did it... again!’ Amaddinnerjacket also thinks the Jews, in conjunction with the Americans (but not the Freemasons this time), did it. No surprise there then. Admaddinnerjacket has conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories. He believes that the Zionists are spreading conspiracy theories around the world so they can take it over. His own conspiracy theory, though, is sacrosanct.

Why believe conspiracy theories? Because they make things a whole lot simpler. Because people like it simple. If lots of data can be taken care of by a single conspiracy theory, about a single individual or group, then that can only be a good thing. It makes things black and white. Just right for the politically retarded. Mono-causation is so much easier to digest than poly-causation. The Jews did it, you see?

The funny thing about this case is that Amaddinnerjacket is taking the limelight away from al-Qaeda. They did it. And they say that they did it. Then Amaddinnerjacket, as a Shia Muslim, comes along a spoils it for the Sunni Muslims of al-Qaeda.

We did it and we’re proud of our handiwork. For once, the Zionists didn’t do it! We did!

Al-Qaeda has characterised Amaddinnerjacket’s theory as being ‘ridiculous’. This is partly to do with the Shia/Sunni schism in Islamic politics and theology. This goes back to just after the death of the Proph Madmood. So it’s been going on for well over a thousand years. A lot of blood has been spilt aver this un-brotherly split.

But what’s worse than that is that al-Qaeda has accused Iran of being ‘a collaborator with the US when it suits it’. This shouldn’t be a surprise. Iran secretly helped the United States defeat the Taliban and various mujahideen before that. They’re Sunnis, you see. They also helped the US in the second war (2003) against Saddam Hussein. He too was a Sunni.

Thank God the Ummah is at war with itself. That’ll save us a bit of work.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15097317

Sharia in the USA

2011-10-02T08:30:00.001-07:00

Many people won’t know that some state courts already allow sharia law in reaching certain judgements (involving Muslims). However, an amendment to the law is going ahead which would effectively disallow sharia-law judgements in any state court.

There is a problem here. Muslim ‘civil rights’groups have argued that the amendment which forbids state courts from using sharia law are discriminatory towards Muslims. A federal appeals court is now hearing a case that challenges the legality of that amendment.

So here again we see Muslims demanding civil rights while all the time knowing there are virtually no such rights in any Muslim or Islamic country. Not only that. The very same Muslims who are fighting against the amendment are not supporters of civil rights in the abstract in any case. What you get, and get almost every day nowadays, are Muslims, mainly Islamists, fighting SPECIFICALLY FOR THE RIGHTS OF MUSLIMS TO BE MUSLIMS. Not for the rights of those people who just happen to be Muslims. If you understand. It is very one-dimensional. A fight for Muslims to have various and many civil rights - but only those rights which are laid down by Islam and which restrict Muslims’ behaviour as Muslims. Civil rights for gays, blacks, unionists, etc. mean nothing to them. They care only about the civil right to be a Muslim; or, in this case, the civil right to live by sharia law. Other rights can go to hell. This is all about the right of Muslims to be Muslims. Nothing more. Nothing less.

You have the same ‘civil rights’ issues with the burqa/jilbab; with halal meat in public institutions; with compulsory ‘prayer rooms’; etc. And now, the more general civil right which is the right of Muslims to live by sharia law. Now, that’s a ‘right’ which I’m not in favour of; just as I’m against the right to abuse children or the right to scream ‘fire’ in a public place (when there is no fire).

You cannot claim rights in the abstract. Every claim to a civil right has to be measured by its overall impact on the host communities. A Muslim right to sharia law would effectively obliterate all other non-Islamic rights. By accepting Islamic rights you are effectively renouncing all the rights people have fought for over the years (in the US and beyond).

So it’s no surprise that Islamists have claimed that the amendment institutes an ‘anti-Muslim bias into the Oklahoma Constitution’. Maybe it does. Just as I hope there would be an amendment outlawing mass sacrifice (in the Aztec style) or roller ball which used balls with blades.

The writer of this article offers a sort-of middle way to this problem. He writes:

“In my opinion, individuals in their private dealings may make those activities subject to Sharia law. Thus, two people could contract to have their sales agreement governed by Sharia.”

But even then we would still need to be careful. The slippery slope argument was almost invented for the implementation of sharia law in a non-Muslim country. As a Muslim, you cannot pick and choose which sharia laws you are to follow. As a Muslim you must accept all of them. Whether or not they can or cannot be implemented in a non-Muslim state is not the issue. Of course Muslims will often talk only about the innocuous examples of sharia law for the simple reason that they can quite easily be accepted.Thus they never talk about Hudud because they clearly know that, at this moment in time, they wouldn’t stance a chance of instituting such barbaric laws in the US. But that doesn’t mean that Muslim are against stoning or amputation. It just means that they must go one step at a time.

The slow-but-sure growth of Sharia law within kuffar states like the US. Do you like the sound of it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/opinion/display_columnist.htm?StoryID=126707

UAF Conference - October 15th

2011-10-02T02:01:00.000-07:00

On the 15th of October there’s going to be a ‘conference’ to Celebrate Diversity and Community Cohesion in London. Or, as the Trotskyist UAF puts it:

“The event, titled Celebrate diversity, defend multiculturalism, oppose Islamophobia and racism, is organised by UAF and One Society Many Cultures and sponsored by SERTUC.”

There’s no need to ‘defend multiculturalism’ in the abstract, as the UAF has it. There are only ‘attacks’ on certain aspects of it. This just shows you what absolutists these people are. Even a slight criticism of multiculturalism is deemed an attack on all aspects of it. This is the mindset of the Trotskyist UAF - a black and white world of what is and what isn’t politically allowable. The fact that UAF, and their Islamophile and Islamist friends, cannot take even the slightest criticism of the religion/ideology of multiculturalism, shows you what totalitarians these people really are.

There is little doubt that this conference is primarily a response to David Cameron’s warnings earlier this year, as well as at to the English Defence League’s very existence.

What did Cameron say? Just that mass immigration can cause problems and that multiculturalism must never become a mindless dogma. But multiculturalism is a mindless dogma to UAF and all the Leftist ‘guests’ at this conference. You are either for multicultural dogmas or against them. If you have ever read the tabloid Socialist Worker (the Trot’s version of the Sun), you’ll see that these Leftists always think in such absolutist terms.

These people don’t really ‘Celebrate Diversity’. They celebrate politically-correct examples of Diversity and attempt to ban, or make illegal, all the rest. UAF doesn’t Celebrate the EDL, the BNP, the Conservative Party, fox hunting, Christianity, football, opera, working-class culture, etc. No. They only support what they can derive political or revolutionary capital from. What they can use to bring about ‘political radicalisation’.

And what a list of ‘acts’ on the bill - full of Islamists, New Labourites, Muslims and Trotskyists. For example, Peter Hain MP (ex-Trot), Farooq Murad, Muslim Council of Britain (part of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas), Bob Lambert co-director European Muslim Research Centre, Dilowar Khan director, London Muslim Centre, Alaa’ Samarrai vice-president student affairs, Federation of Student Islamic Societies, Sabby Dhalu secretary One Society Many Cultures, Weyman Bennett joint secretary UAF, Martin Smith national co-ordinator, Love Music Hate Racism.

See you there!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The link:

http://uaf.org.uk/2011/09/speakers-and-supporters-announced-for-multiculturalism-conference/

Tommy Robinson - a three-year ban from the EDL?

2011-10-01T19:14:00.000-07:00

Whether Tommy Robinson is guilty or not, the potential three-year ban from all EDL demos and activities will be a big blow for both Tommy himself and the EDL as a whole. Up until now he’s been an effective leader with lots of strong support right through the EDL. (And he manages to do all this despite his allergy to computers and never going on Face Book.)

A three-year ban from all EDL demos and activities? I’ve never heard of a punishment like that. There is the length, firstly. Three years seems very severe for a head but, even if TB did do it, tonight alone there will be hundreds of such acts, and worse, across the country. Will all the guilty parties in these cases receive three-year bans from, say, the Conservative Party or the Labour Party? Let’s remind the law that the EDL is a legal organisation. Thus TR is being banned from a legal organisation. This is something very new and unique.

I wonder what Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty thinks about this? Oh! I forgot! They won’t give a damn because not only is TR the wrong colour - he’s right wing as well! They wouldn’t touch this case with a bargepole. Non-ethnic-minority patriots are not very important or fashionable nowadays. However, the EDL should get other expert legal minds on this. (I’ll chip in a quid.) Something stinks here and a good lawyer could sort it out in no time.

I was at that demo in Blackburn and I didn’t see TR headbutt anyone. He was on the stage surrounded by EDL stewards. The guy who kicked up the fuss was right next to me and he looked well pissed off. Again, I don’t see how - and when - a headbutt could have happened.

There’s a good chance that this punishment is political in nature. After all, a three-year ban may cause untold damage to the EDL... At least that will be what the authorities are hoping. What they don’t realise is that tens of thousands of EDL won’t suddenly wilt away overnight simply because TR has been banned from public speaking. Militant Islamism will still be a threat. Birmingham’s got a new share of Islamoterrorists to deal with. And mosques, radical and not-so-radical, are being built almost every week somewhere in the UK.

We still have to protect this country from the wilful neglect of our politicians and the concomitant Islamophilia-for-votes set-up which is largely responsible for the mess we’re in.

No surrender - with or without Tommy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The News Link:

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/National-News/EDL-leader-convicted-of-assault-327230.xnf?BodyFormat=2&

The Islamophile BBC/The Benefits of Being a Muslim

2011-09-29T21:13:00.000-07:00

The Islamophile BBC

The Mrs and Mizzes of the BBC have decided to use the "religiously neutral" Common Era and Before Common Era, rather than Anno Domini (the year of Our Lord) and Before Christ, for all their religious programmes (perhaps for non-religious programmes too).
The BBC is basically saying we should be a little bit ashamed or embarrassed about our culture and history but very positive about all other cultures. This is an inversion. Other cultures respect their own and criticise others. The BBC is attempting to be too pious for its own good. This is middle-class White Man’s Guilt writ large in the corridors and offices of politically-correct BBC Land.

Why is it incumbent on the BBC to ‘remain impartial’ (as the BBC itself puts it)? Is Al Jazeera impartial about Islam or its views? Is Iran’s Press TV impartial about Islam? Are any Islamic/Muslim sources of knowledge and information impartial? That’s because it is damn well hard to be impartial without making a fool of yourself. In any case, the BBC is so very PARTIAL that it has jettisoned symbols which go back over a thousand years. They have been very partial in their bowing down to the endless demands of Muslims.

True impartiality will happen when the BBC puts on a programme devoted to the criticism of Islam and the Proph Madmood. This has been done countless times in the case of the BBC and Christianity. But never about Islam or Madmood. That is typical BBC Islamophile partiality at its worst.

If we ‘offend’ people, then perhaps the problem is with the person or group that’s offended - or so easily offended. It shows us that this person or group is too uptight and on an endless lookout for offences and insults. But let’s not mince words here. We know we are talking about Muslims. I cannot recall, amongst dozens of cases, a case of a Hindi, Sikh, Jew or Buddhist being offended - certainly not offended by one of the BBC’s productions or publications.

Muslims are offended or insulted so much because Islam is an eggshell. It is so utterly fragile, and it hides so many blatant and nasty secrets, that anything critical would destroy it - at least destroy it in the case of people who are intellectually open and honest. After all, Islam has cushioned itself entirely from all or any criticism. That’s what sharia law’s for. That’s why apostates are killed and those who convert, or don’t convert, are persecuted and sometimes killed. That’s why Islam has survived so long and also why it has so many adherents.

The News Link:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8787311/BBC-drops-Anno-Domini-and-Before-Christ-to-avoid-offending-non-Christians.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Benefits of being a Muslim... in the UK

The massive scale of the Muslim abuse of our benefits system never ceases to amaze. Yet it shouldn’t do so because a barely-hidden hatred of our system, from its democracy to how our women dress, is rampant amongst many Muslims. That hatred of the kuffar state, which treats them so well, is actually engendered by its very weakness and inability to say no to any Muslim demand. Our system of relative freedom and plurality is being used and abused by a minority which essentially despises pluralism and democracy. Many Muslims have absolutely no respect for anything in our culture. Even the benefits which feed and clothe them are seen as the cowardly and weak moves of the kuffar enemy.

Beat the system. Destroy the system. Sharia is slowly on its way.

The actual figures are astonishing. Recent changes to the British welfare system have meant that Muslim men can now have up to five or more wives in one go. That’s no surprise. A Sunnah tale about the Proph Madmood has it that he 'serviced' nine of his wives in one evening. That’s a lot to live up to.

However, the way you can tell that Muslims are systematically taking the piss our of our benefits system, and much else besides, is that some of these Muslim males are from countries which don’t allow the having of multiple wives anyway. So they are taking advantage of a British system that doesn’t even replicate their countries of origin. This is like the burqa and jilbab which are worn by more young Muslim Westerners, often well-off students, than women in certain Arab or Muslim countries. Again, this too is a sartorial ‘fu** off’ to our system of ingrained dhimmitude and weakness. This means that the multiculturalist zealots have made the UK more Islamic than some Muslims countries - at least in some respects.

The enormity and sickness of this abuse is shown by the example of a street in a Yorkshire town in which all the residents are exclusively Pakistani women with children living on social security. This is nothing new. Way back, in Bradford, Muslim landlords and other Muslim ‘businessmen’ were renowned for abusing and using a system to which they had no loyalty or respect.

These people hate the society which mollycoddles them. It's that very mollycoddling that engenders the lack of respect. Muslims hate weakness - and so should we. Any sign of weakness from kuffar society, whether institutionalised political correctness, sharia law through the back door or state benefits, and Muslims jump on it. That’s why they often resort to outright terrorism because Western states have always one arm tied behind their backs when it comes to dealing with Islamoterrorists, whether that is the legal restrictions which emanate from Europe, or the tellings-off from Shami Chakrabarti’s Liberty.

The News Link:

http://www.hudson-ny.org/2462/muslim-polygamists-exploiting-british-welfare

The US and the Pakistani ISI/Islamic da'wah for Christians

2011-09-29T03:17:00.000-07:00

The US and Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)

This is incredible. This game the United States has been playing with Pakistan, or, more specifically with the Pakistani ISI, has been going on for decades. America has known that Inter-Services Intelligence has been backing, and probably funding, the Taliban, or ‘militants’ as this news piece has it, for over two decades, if not longer. But the game goes on.

The thing is that if the US Government puts too much pressure on the Pakistani President to put pressure on the ISI, then there may well be an Islamist coup, which would makes things a lot worse. Or, at the least, that’s the theory and that’s why there is this endless diplomatic game which only the clever people at the top truly understand. (Or at least that’s what they probably think.)

As for ISI itself. They no doubt support the militants in Afghanistan because they too don’t want an unstable Afghanistan run by various tribal warlords. (Not the it’s exactly stable now.) However, it is also the case that ideologically, as well as religiously, the ISI supports these militants, the Taliban. The ISI is, in other words, an Islamist intelligence service.

So what of the ISI? It has existed since the late 1940s and has always had a lot of power within Pakistan. It is essentially allied with the military. In essence, as the late prime Minister Benazir Bhutto put it, it is a ‘state within a state’. It is the Islamism at the heart of the Pakistani state.

The religious nature of the ISI should not be understated either. To put it simply. The intelligence service has been mightily impressed by what the various mujahedin, as well as the Taliban later, have managed to do in Afghanistan. As many people know, the mujahedin never stops showing off about its defeat of the Soviet army in 1989 and before. More specifically, the ISI is impressed by the mujahedin’s ultimate brag:

‘Hey, we defeated a superpower. This just shows the power of our ideology, the power of our faith, and we can do great things with it.’

So, again, the US knows that the ISI has strong connections with militant forces in Afghanistan. More relevantly, the ISI, and the Pakistani Government, know that the US knows that they have links with militants. So the dance goes on.

The News Link:

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/asia/Analysis-US-Empowered-Pakistan-Spy-Agency-130729078.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Islamic Da'wah for American (Christian) students

What’s happening here is the same as what happens at InterFaith meetings and events. That is, young students are being brainwashed into believing that Islam is a thoroughly clean and innocent faith - in every respect. They visit the mosques with their heads full of ‘myths’ or ‘misconceptions’about Islam. And then go home knowing the truth about Islam. And that truth is without stain. Even without shades of grey. Everything you know that is negative about Islam is a ‘myth’ or a ‘misconception’. They will be taught, therefore, only the nicey-nicey facts about Islam.

What a case of inverting previous possible bias! Why is being totally uncritical of Islam any better than being completely critical of it? Aren’t they both extremes?

Of course the Islamic Community of Des Plaines will welcome these potentially gullible Christian kids with open arms. How could they not? After all, Islam is proselytising faith. (They call it da’wah.) It is not only the duty of every Muslim to preach to the already converted or even to the non-religious. It also necessary to spread the truth of Islam to Christians, Buddhists, Hindus... even Jews. That why InterFaith meeting and events are popular with many Muslims. These events function as Islamic da’wah sessions; though nominally they are, of course, ‘inter-faith’

Terrance Jozwik, who runs these session for students, admits that he never broached the subject of Islamic terrorism or Islamic fundamentalism before 9/11. Now he does discuss these contentious issues. Problem is, like the good Muslim he isn’t, he’s a good dhimmi instead. He tells his students that all the vile and negative aspects portrayed in 'the media’ actually ‘have nothing to do with Islam’. Full stop. And these children will no doubt believe him. Perhaps only to be shocked into the truth later in life.

The imam, Farooqie, at the Islamic centre, obviously concurs with Jozwik. He predictably states:
“People follow the news and they think this is what Islam is, and that is not reality.”

Oh well! That’s that then. Islam has nothing to do with terrorism; or stoning; or genital mutilation; or wars of religious expansion; or death for apostasy; or misogyny; or forced conversion and all the rest. And Proph Madmood wasn’t a mass killer, paedophile and Jew-hater. Oh well again! So now we know.

The News Link:

http://glenview.patch.com/articles/religion-class-focuses-more-on-islam-after-911

Muslim Separatism in the UK/Why the BNP?

2011-09-28T20:25:00.000-07:00

Muslim Separatism in the UK

Use this article as a warning about the growing Islamification of the UK. Or, particularly in this case, the growing separatism many Muslims want and require in order to ‘live as proper Muslims’. This isn’t a case of a non-Muslim warning other non-Muslims about Islamification. This is a case of a Muslim telling his fellow Muslims what this Islamification involves and how it should be increased ever more. However, this piece was not meant as a warning because it is aimed primarily, as I said, at fellow Muslims.

First of all, who are we dealing with here? She quotes a survey which states the the ‘UK population of Muslims will almost double to 5.5 million people over the next twenty years’. And that, I believe, is definitely an underestimate. Anyhow. It is these 5.5 Muslims who will require, and no doubt demand, Islamic institutions to fulfil their needs as Muslims.

Let’s go through the list. This list shows us how separatist Muslims are and how this situation is going to increase rather than lessen:

Firstly, Islamic banks are discussed.
Then Islamic education.
After that we have ‘Islamic law firms’.
Then halal food stores.

This list excludes, of course, the many institutions which are specifically religious, such as mosques and other Islamic institutions.

As you can see, it is a list, incomplete, demanded by the UK’s separatist Muslims. More relevantly, through these institutions Muslim will affectively introduce sharia law through the back door, as it were. It will come to be that many Muslims are living sharia-compliant lifestyles in complete separation from British legal and political institutions, which is precisely what the Muslim separatists want.

So we have a kind of self-apartheid. Apartheid isn’t forced on Muslims, as with blacks in South Africa. They are forcing apartheid on themselves. They want to live separately and according to sharia law. This is no surprise because Islam is sharia law. And we already know that there are already numerous Islamoghettoes throughout the UK, from Blackburn to Luton and from London to Leicester. This Muslim self-apartheid has already taken hold in these areas.

That’s the irony of multiculturalism. It ends up with various tribes being at odds with each other and being alienated from one another. What multiculturalism and Increased Diversity mean is that a Christian school, for example such St Bede’s in Bradford, being turned into a school for Muslims. And that was after Muslims had already taken over the surrounding demographic and geographical area in which the school stands.

That is the reality of Diversity. What it means is that otherwise minority groups become the ‘hegemonic powers’. And they, in turn, enforce their own laws and values on those who happen to live in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The News Link: http://www.islamonline.net/cs/ContentServer/IslamOnline/IslamOnline/en/IOLArticle_C/1278409055595/1278406708816/IOLArticle_C
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why the BNP?

There is a very good article about a supporter of the BNP. It is very good because it doesn’t do what the self-styled ‘anti-fascists’ do. That is, it doesn’t insult all supporters of the Right or assume that they’re all ‘racist knuckle-draggers’. This is the latest snobbist fad amongst the middle-class members of Unite Against Fascism (UAF), Hope Not Hate, etc. Sharon is far from being a ‘thug’, ‘bigot’ or ‘knuckle-dragger’. She is a decent human being who decided that the biggest problems which face our country are being systematically ignored by virtually every politician we’ve got. She’s also Jewish. This means that her feelings about the rise of Islam and the European Super State are so strong that she’s willing to overlook the BNP’s past (present?).

I’m also surprised that this journalist was surprised about a BNP supporter actually being a fully-rounded rational person. So much for the ‘demonisation’ (a favourite word of the left) of all who do not swallow multicultural dogma and the Islamophile lies about Islam.

Sharon was in her mid-50s during this interview. The worst thing that happened to her was when a bunch of red fascists (‘anti-fascists’ - ‘Tomorrow’s fascists will be anti-fascists’ - Churchill) pulled up outside her home and started chanting abuse at her - and this was after she’d already lost many of her friends due to her membership of the BNP.

The main fault of current British politics is that no one can hold any views against mass immigration without being called an ‘Islamophobe’ or even a ‘fascist’. This writer knows that this is pure bullshit. In fact, many member of UAF, Hope Not Hate, etc. also know it is bullshit. The thing is. It’s bullshit which pays good dividends politically. It means that no critic of rampant immigration, Islam, or the dogmatism of PC, will ever get a decent - or any - hearing. Well over half of all Brits have been effectively denied a political platform. Millions of Brits have become victims of the Stalinist ‘no platform’ (UAF/SWP) policy of the left and also of the liberal elite.

The News Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15083475

Sharia law in the USA/What? Yet more 'myths' about Islam?

2011-09-28T09:41:00.000-07:00

Sharia Blasphemy Law in the US

One Islamic sharia law is the law against blasphemy. There is no law against blasphemy in the West. However, that hasn't stopped Muslims from attempting to foist sharia blasphemy law on non-Muslims.

In the UK, members of the EDL have been in imprisoned and heavily fined for breaking a now-unspoken sharia blasphemy law in this country. You simply cannot criticise Islam, the Koran or the Prophet Madmood without being punished, whether you live in Carlisle or Luton.

But in order to disguise the true nature of this law, Western Muslims must pretend that the perpetrator is doing something more than simply criticising Islam or the Koran. This is where ‘hate crimes’ come in.

In this South Florida case, a police officer has been accused of using ‘hateful language’ and saying ‘derogatory things’ about Islam. Apart from this being a free country, you’d have though that this was a simple case of free speech. However, because the police officer is a public servant, as they put it in England, then this Muslim believed he could milk the case, both politically and financially, for as much as he could get.

Enter the Council on American-Islamic Relation (CAIR). Now, considering the political nous and taqiyya of CAIR, I bet this case will go all the way. There will be money changing hands from non-Muslims to Muslims and the police officer will almost definitely be severely reprimanded, if not sacked.

CAIR continues to spread the disease of Islamism throughout American. Watch out!

News Link: http://www.wsvn.com/news/articles/local/21005489758174#ixzz1ZFJoHpBc
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What? Yet more 'myths' about Islam

‘Misconceptions’ [or ‘myths’] about Islam’ = anything critical of Islam

This is a by-definition rule which Muslims follow slavishly. That is, if someone says anything even slightly negative about Islam, the Koran or the Proph Madmood, then, by definition again, they believe ‘myths’ or ‘misconceptions’ about it. Muslims are so thoroughly brainwashed, often self-brainwashed, that they cannot even comprehend that non-Muslims are critical. The cleverer Muslims, however, may well know what the score is. Politically, they will still call our negative truths about Islam ‘misconceptions’ or ‘myths’ - that’s if they haven’t already classed the critic as an ‘Islamophobe’. The trick, as ever, is to silence all critics of Islam as every critic of Islam has been silenced (killed) throughout Islamic history in Muslim countries. Now it’s coming to a place near you!

One standard gambit is to say all the really bad things about Islam are really about various 'cultures' which just happened to be Muslim as well. This is stupid. Isn’t religion a culture or at least part of culture? Of course it is. So when they say that stoning, cliterodectomy or polygamy are really 'about culture', not Islam, you know that your being given a heavy dose of Islamic taqiyya. How can that culture/Islam binary opposition be pulled off when one considers that some of cultures have been Islamic/Muslim for over a thousand years! Try separating religion and culture after that amount of time.

And this is additionally a false distinction even non-historically. For a start, stoning, polygamy, jihad are all parts of the Koran or Islam. None of these barbarous aspects of Muslim countries are strictly cultural rather than Islam.

The trick is, though, to say that all the negative things are ‘cultural’; whereas Islam takes all the credit for the lovey-dovey things. Don’t buy this taqiyya!

News Link: http://dailyuw.com/news/2007/oct/29/msa-to-dispel-misconceptions-tonight-at-uw/?popup=true

Birmingham’s latest Islamoterrorists - bring back the ‘spy cameras’!

2011-09-27T05:23:00.000-07:00

You will have seen that a group of British-born men, from Birmingham, have been held in police custody. They are under suspicion of having attempted to commit ‘mass murder’ with suicide bombs here in the UK. The men appeared in court yesterday.
This was why the CCTVs (‘spy cameras’) were put up in Birmingham in the first place! Even the areas under observation are exactly the same ones which had CCTVs (for that limited period). Areas like Sparkbrook, home of the IslamoTrot Salma Yaqoob, and Washwood Heath.

So why were the CCTVs taken down? Because local Muslims MPs and leftists, such as the Rev Ray Gaston and Salma Yaqoob, along with Lord Nazir Ahmed, threatened ‘civil unrest’ (Ahmed’s actual words - see video) if the cameras weren’t immediately taken down. So not only do these people demand that the kuffar does the will of Muslims, but that they should do so even to the extent that it problematises the fight against terrorism.

This is why Muslims are so often ‘demonised’ by the platonic Media/Press. Because there’s so many things to demonise! The home-grown Islamoterror problem isn’t a ‘myth’ and it isn’t the ‘creation of the Islamophobic Media’. They are the creations of Islam and of our many Muslim ghettoes.

The British state must do everything it can to stop these potential mass murderers from carrying out their ‘Islamic duty’ by ‘killing for Allah’.

Even with all the restrictions placed on the police by Multiculturalism Incorporated, the police are still foiling these Islamoterrorist attacks. And that’s why there hasn’t been another mass killing since the London bombings of 2005 - not because these Muslims have stopped trying. (Palestine groupies and Muslims often tell us about the 'lack of proportionality' between Israelis and Palestinian deaths. What they don’t also tell you is that this is largely because 80% of the terrorist attacks against Israel are foiled by the secret services and the IDF.) The carnage from the British and Global jihad would be even larger than it is today if it wasn’t for the good work of our own anti-terror organisations.

Bring back the spy cameras so that we can stop any further acts of Islamic jihad on our streets. Do we want to end up in a hell-hole like Pakistan or Iraq? Defeat Islamoterrorism now - by any means possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2041834/Birmingham-terror-arrests-6-British-born-men-accused-mass-murder-plot.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lord Nazir Ahmed ranting against Birmingham's 'spy cameras':

‘Jews are a People of the Book.’ And...?

2011-09-26T05:58:00.001-07:00

‘If you read the Holy Quran Darren you would find Jews to be people of the Book.’

Yes the Jews and Christians are 'Peoples of the Book'. (That Book being the Muslims’ Koran.) But they're still hated and despised almost every time they are mentioned in that 'Book'. In fact they are hated more than the polytheists, idolaters, etc. (who are also often mentioned in the Koran), because they should have known better. They should have recognised that Muhammed was 'the seal of the prophets' precisely because they were 'the People of the Book'.

They should have also realised that the Koran was ‘the last and most perfect word’ of Allah (God).

But the Jews rejected him! And Muhammed, and many Muslims after him, have never forgiven the Jews for that. (Alongside the fact that they could never stomach the fact that Jews still lived in ‘Islamic lands’, or Dar al-Islam (the Abode of Islam). Thus, being 'the People of the book', rather than making Muslims respect them, has made them hate them more than they hated the 'polytheists', 'idolaters', 'pagans', etc. Again: they should have known better!

Muslims saying that Jews are 'people of the Book' is a piece of Islamic deceit - Islamic taqiyya. It is a gimmick to pretend to ignorant kuffar that Muslims aren't against Jews after all. It’s as if the bare statement

Jews and Christians are people of the Book.

actually comes with its own explanation or context.

‘Jews and Christians are people of the book’ and...?

It certainly doesn’t logically or conceptually imply:

i) Christians and Jews are the people of the Book therefore we respect them and love them.

It could imply:

ii) Jews are the people of the Book who severely crossed the Prophet, Muhammed, and therefore Allah Himself.

The second reading is far more accurate than the first one.

Once the kuffar actually reads the Koran, and studies Islamic history, it is crystal clear that the Jews deeply offended Muhammed and therefore they have been hated and persecuted ever since by Muslims.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Small Part of the Written Evidence:

‘We took vengeance on the Jews and drowned them all.’ (Koran - 43:52)

‘Why did you [the Jews] kill the prophets of Allah, if you are true believers?’ (2:92)

‘We forbade the Jews good things... because time after time they debarred others from the path of Allah; because they practice usury... and cheat others of their possessions.’ (4:158)

‘We offered the Jews Our guidance, but they preferred blindness to guidance. Therefore the thunderbolt of a humiliating scourge.’ (41:15)

‘Prophet,make war on the unbelievers and the hypocritical Jews and deal rigorously with them.’ (9:73)

‘Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends... Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number.’ (5:51)

Kuffarphobia on the Internet

2011-09-25T08:04:00.000-07:00

“What's the white lightning, burberry wearing, knuckle dragging culture?”

Thousands of young Muslims openly and graphically show their disrespect and hatred for non-Muslims every day on the InterNet. Take a look at Muslim Defence League site, the MPACUK website, the Sunni Forum, jihadist sites, as well as many other, more ‘respectable’, Islamic/Muslim sites. See the extreme levels of hatred towards all non-Muslims.All this is worlds away from the quaint InterFaith meeting or those community-cohesive camera shots outside the latest mosque. But this is a large chunk of reality. Sure, there may be a Lesbian Muslimah Collective in Vancouver or even a Train Spotters Baghdad Branch. Problem is, we cannot take a risk everything by assuming that these anomalies are reflective of what’s really going on. These examples are chosen by the Islamophile media precisely to kid us that everything’s really dandy in the Abode of War. If we bet on the Lesbian Muslimah Collective of Vancouver, or its like, then I’m afraid we’re going to get some massive shocks in the future. Perhaps Leftist enablers of Islam/Muslims, or dhimmis, should spend at least some time looking through Islamist and Muslim websites instead of spending all their time trawling through, say, EDL sites looking for racism and fascism.

The same is true of Leftists when they confront anyone who has anything negative to say about Islam or the behaviour of Muslims (as Muslims). Do they really think that every counter-jihadist in the UK likes White Lightning cider, wears Burberry, etc? Do they think that that’s even true of most EDL members? Or are these examples of far-left/Trotskyist snobbery just a convenient way to dismiss a movement which is asking legitimate questions about Islam and its 1000 years or more of Jihad? As well as questions about the many Islamists and militant Muslims who pollute our streets and, indeed, Facebook sites.

Thanks for being so honest with your hatred of English non-Muslims - except, of course, you will excuse those non-Muslim Leftists (usually middle-class students or professionals who are burdened down with White Guilt) who do your bidding and ignore every crime and misdeed of every Muslim, as well as of Islam itself.

Leftists will of course define racism as everything their opponents do and say. So, in their case at least, you simply cannot win. But for those who are genuinely against real racism (not the UAF/SWP/ etc., who use racism as a tool to further their middle-class revolution or to bring about 'radical' political change); there’s nothing to stop you being a good counter-jihadist.

And the websites and Facebook forums show us that very many non-Muslims aren’t that selective about their dismissal of - and arrogance towards - non-Muslims. In the post above, English non-Muslims were insulted. And then it was the turn of American non-Muslims. All American non-Muslims! Yet Leftist enablers of Islam often claim that the platonic "Media" is exaggerating the threat from Islam/Muslims and their hatred for the kuffar! The many comments you can read on the Internet simply prove that the 'Islamophobes’ are right after all!

Hamas & Suicide Bombing: the Choice of the Educated and Non-Oppressed

2011-09-24T10:49:00.001-07:00

The biggest lie (I won’t say ‘myth’ because that word is a far-left favourite) is that suicide bombings are a ‘cry of desperation’ against Israeli occupation and oppression. The thing is, Hamas knows that this is not true. It knows it is not true because it explicitly states that it wants to destroy the whole of Israel. Full stop. So when Israel pulls out of the West Bank, Gaza and anywhere else, Hamas still had its biggest job to do – the destruction of the whole of Israel. I suspect that many far leftists know that the occupation-then-violence relation should really be the violence-then-occupation one. However, the latter scenario doesn’t pay any political dividends for the far left.

Take the situation which occurred straight after Hamas’s election in 2006. After it, Israel ended its occupation of Gaza and removed all of its settlers, what did Hamas do? It immediately began firing rockets at the civilian centres of southern Israel. Not only that, its ‘brothers’, in the form of the Palestinian Authority, were also thrown out of Gaza. (More and more Muslim ‘brothers’ will die and be imprisoned the longer Hamas has power.)

The problem is that even if Israel permanently stays out of the West Bank, Gaza and wherever, this would be disastrous for Hamas. It would have the result that their fellow Palestinians would start to forget about the obligatory Holy War against the Jews and their sacred duty to destroy the whole of Israel. Not only that, media-savvy Hamas knows it would help lose the attention of all those pro-Palestinian Westerners if there weren’t enough Palestinian mothers crying for the camera. Thus it would be Fatah-time again.

And just as suicide bombings aren’t the result of occupation and increased Israeli violence, so Hamas’s increasing of assassinations of soldiers and civilians doesn’t correspond with increased mass demonstrations and revolt. For example, 1992 saw a real decline in the Intifada, yet it also saw an increase in Hamas’s assassinations of civilians and soldiers. Indeed it has been said that these increases in assassinations and suicide bombings occur precisely to egg on, as it were, the Israeli army's defensive and incursive actions, which would hopefully in turn regenerate the Intifada and reignite Western outrage against the Israelis. This reverse process has happened many times since Hamas’s inception in 1987.

Finally, and more up to date. We can safely say that Hamas is not happy with Palestinian statehood at the moment because if there were a Palestinian state with set boundaries, then this would effectively legitimise Israel's existence. Hamas wants to annihilate Israel. Full stop. That's why a 'limited' Palestine is anathema to them. The jihad must continue until all the areas, along with the rest of the Middle East, are Islamic.

UK InterFaith (or Da'wah): Nuke the Jews!

2011-09-23T09:53:00.000-07:00

[Left: the former Grand Mufti of Egypt, and lover of InterFaith love-ins (but only in the UK), sheik Sayyid Tantawi. He loved Jews when InterFaithing in the UK; but believed that they should be nuked when back home in Egypt. Top: the InterFaith dhimmis and/or Islamophiles at TFF swallowed all of Tantawi's taqiyya without even coming up for air.]

Muslims ‘believe in inter-faith dialogue’. They are ‘upholders’ of InterFaith. They ‘simply adore’ going to interfaith meetings. They want Community Cohesion and they think that we should all Embrace Diversity.

InterFaith meetings are a gateway to all these lovely things.

Take the case of Sayyid Tantawi. He wasn't an everyday Muslim. (The Muslim spokesman of the Dudley Muslim Association - who likes his little InterFaith meetings with the Bishop of Dudley, especially when the building of a new mosque was under threat as a result of EDL protests - is an everyday InterFaithing Muslim.) Tantawi was a bigwig Muslim. He was the sheikh of Al-Azhar Mosque in Egypt (He died in 2010 and was a former Grand Mufti of Egypt.) The Al-Azhar Mosque is ‘the most important centre of mainstream Islam in the Arab world’.

However, more relevant than Tantawi once holding these prestigious positions in the Muslim world, was his important position in the world of InterFaith. He was a patron of the UK-based Three Faiths Forum. This is basically an InterFaith jamboree for Muslims, Christians and, believe it or not, Jews. (No Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc. allowed! They aren’t ‘Abrahamic faiths’ or ‘people of the book’.)

So what kind of Muslim was Sayyid Tantawi? Let’s judge him by what sort of things he said (at least vis-a-vis this InterFaith business).

In April, 2002, the Middle East Media Research Institute translated one of Tantawi’s sermons. He said that the Jews are ‘the enemies of Allah, sons of pigs and apes’.

Earlier than that, at a 1999 conference on nuclear policy in Egypt, the sheik demanded that Muslims ‘acquire nuclear weapons’. He explained it thus:

‘If Israel has nuclear weapons it will be the first to be defeated because it lives in a world in which there is no fear of death.’

(Israel has had nuclear weapons for over thirty years and never used them. Some say that if Iran, or Hamas, or Hezbollah, etc. acquired any form of nuclear weapon, then they would use it almost immediately on Israel. Yet Leftists like Chomsky and the SWP still believe that Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons is one of ‘the biggest threats to world peace’!)

None of this is anti-Jew stuff is a surprise when it comes from a Arab or Iranian Muslim religious or political leader. Take the case of the predecessor of Ahmadinejad in Iran, Hashemi Rafsanjani. In 2001 he ‘speculated’ that

‘in a nuclear exchange with Israel his country might lose 15 million people, which would amount to a small ‘sacrifice’ from among the one billion Muslims worldwide in exchange for the lives of five million Israeli Jews.'

(As for Muslims ‘loving death more than life’. There are very many quotes from Muslims saying precisely this - and not all of them are from Hamas and Hezbollah.)

To get back to Tantawi. You would expect an Arab sheikh to say some pretty nasty things about the Jews (as above). However, you wouldn’t expect him to be honest about the reality of InterFaith .

In 1998, when the Israel/Palestine peace process seemed, on the surface, to be progressing, Tantawi was interviewed by Al-Jazeera. (That meant that he could be more honest about InterFaith, and everything Islamic, than had he been talking to the Guardian or the Birmingham Post.) Al-Jazeera asked him about his meeting with Israel’s chief rabbi. He was asked:

‘Is there any benefit to these kinds of meetings?’

Tantawi answered:

‘Of course. On the personal level, I attacked him and proved to him that Islam is the religion of truth... I think that whoever refuses to meet with the enemy in order to slap him in the face is a coward, as long as the meeting serves Islam.’

The ironic thing about all this is that a writer questioned the UK’s Three Faiths Forum about having such a bigot and, more relevantly, such a hypocrite (vis-a-vis InterFaith - though he wasn’t a hypocrite in the Al-Jazeera interview) as its patron. What was this InterFaith group’s response to that entirely legitimate question? It immediately cut off communication with the questioner. Full stop. Don’t rock the boat that is InterFaith (as well as Community Cohesion and Diversity, multiculturalism, etc. ), eh?

InterFaith is One Way to Spread Islam, Here are a Few Others

Everything said about InterFaith, both here and elsewhere, can also be said about most ‘anti-racist’ and ‘anti-fascist’ groups (such as Unite Against Fascism, Respect and the Socialist Workers Party here in the UK). They too are being used by Muslims to advance not just Islam, but also Islamism.

However, it’s not entirely one way (but it’s nearly so). Just as Trot groups attempt to ‘harness the revolutionary potential of Muslims’ (the SWP’s Chris Molyneux) to further the Trot revolution, so Methodist and Anglican InterFaithers are using, not Muslims, but InterFaith itself, to further their own theo-political agendas.

In addition, many other non-Trot and non-InterFaith ‘anti-racist’ groups are dominated by Muslims - which isn’t very multi-racial. Here again there is deceit. They are not fighting against racism at all. (Muslims do not constitute a race which can be an object of racism.) They are fighting for Islamism in the guise of fighting against racism. And since Islam is basically an Arab(ophile) religion, and many Muslim Arabs are themselves acutely racist (something many non-Arab Muslims attempt to emulate), this deceit about anti-racism shouldn’t be that much of a surprise.

Finally, what was firstly said about InterFaith, and then about ‘anti-racist’ groups, can now be applied to Human Rights groups and also about the language of human rights. Islamists use Human Rights groups (or are allowed to by Leftist human rights activists). Islamists even have the audacity to use the language of Western human rights in order to spread Islamism. (For example, Muslimahs, along with Unite Against Fascism/SWP, recently protested against the burqa ban with slogans obviously and blatantly stolen from rights groups and from Western feminists; such as ‘a women’s right to choose’, etc.) Clearly this is the case with those Human Rights groups, such as JUST West Yorkshire and Liberty, who seem to have a very special friendship with Islamists. (That is, all those 'rights groups’ which made a song and a dance about Guantanamo Bay and Moazzam Baig’s treatment there.)

Noise about the Jewish/Israeli settlements

2011-09-22T03:13:00.000-07:00

For a start, Jews have lived in Judea and Samaria - the West Bank - since ancient times.
Muslim Arabs first appeared in this area only in the 7th century AD. However, there was one short period in which there were no Jews in the West Bank. That was when Jordan ruled - or ‘occupied’ - the area from 1948 right up until the 1967 conflict, when Israel acquired the land as a result of a defensive war.

When Jordan ruled the West Bank, it went one step beyond an ‘apartheid state’ by simply prohibiting all Jews from living there entirely. This was an act of Muslim or Arab racism. Jordan wanted the West Bank to be Judenrein (‘free of Jews’), just as very many Palestinians today want the whole area of Palestine, as well as Israel itself, to be Judenrein.

So when Jews settled, or ‘occupied’, parts of the West Bank and Gaza (in recent history), many of them were simply moving back to places in which they, or their ancestors, had already lived. The real ‘usurpers’, or ‘colonialists’, then, were Jordan and Egypt. The West Bank and Gaza never legally belonged to Jordan and Egypt, even though they occupied these areas from 1948 to 1967 without much - or any! - fuss being made by either the United Nations (UN) or by any other international organisation.

As I said, Jews were banned from the West Bank between 1948 and 1967. However, they had not only lived in these areas previously, but in 1967 the West Bank and Gaza were occupied by Israel as a result of the 1967 war. Legally, it was just and proper that a non-aggressor state, which acquired land in a defensive war, was legally entitled to that land which was subsequently used as a ‘protective buffer’ between Israel and the former aggressors (Egypt and Jordan).Legally, then, Resolution 242 gave Israel the legal right to be in the West Bank.
Moreover, it also has the right to stay put, at least ‘until a just a lasting peace in the Middle East was achieved’. In other words, Israel could require, or demand, as a condition for any withdrawal of settlers, security measures which would help protect Israeli citizens and civilians. (Gaza became Judenrein, except on its borders, in 2005.)

In addition to all that, we hear a lot about the Palestinians’ ‘right of return’. We hear a lot less about the Israeli settlers’ ‘right to remain’. This right was demanded by those settlers who had already lived in the West Bank and Gaza for a long time (bar the racist Jordanian occupation of 1949-1967). Let’s remember, however, that not all settlements were post-1967 - or even post-1948. Some of the settlements go back to the 1920s and 1930s. After 1948, of course, these areas were overrun by Palestinians and many Jews were killed as a consequence of that.

2% Settlement Space

The mind-boggling fact is that despite all the noise about the settlements, and, indeed, the violence, settlement areas only account for around 2% of the West Bank. Not only that. Around 80% of settlers actually live in the suburbs of the big Israeli cities, such as Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

Again, the settlements account for around 2% of the West Bank. Despite that, Palestinian Muslims want all these areas to be completely Judenrein. This is either incredibly racist on the part of Palestinians or Judeophobic (take your pick - perhaps both). Could you imagine a Jewish or a Christian Western state (say, the UK) making itself, or part of itself (say, Islington), Muslimrein or Arabrein? It would be virtually impossible. The outcry from the Left and from liberals would be cacophonous. Yet this is what the Palestinians, and all their Western groupies, want not only in the West Bank, but also in the entire area - including Israel itself!

The truth is that Israel, as a matter of policy, does not take over private land for the creation of settlements. This means that no Palestinian private rights are overridden.

More importantly, no Arabs are displaced in the territories. This is the case because many, or most, of the settlements have been built near, but not in, Arab towns. No Palestinians have been forced to leave their homes.

In any case, most settlement-building occurs in areas which the Palestinians already accept will remain part of Israel in any future agreement.

So bearing in mind all these facts and situations, it is surprising how much noise there is about the settlements. It is not just the Palestinians, of course, who protest too much. International agencies have also got in on the act. For example, Rene Kosimik, of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), in hyperbolic mood, said (in 2001):

‘The installation of a population of the occupying power in occupied territory is considered an illegal move, it is a grave breach. In principle it is a war crime.’

Not surprisingly, the ICRC very quickly distanced itself from Kosimik’s melodramatic statement.
The Peace Process

But what of the settlements and their affect on the ‘peace process’? It is said, depending on the time of day, that the settlements are an obstacle to peace, just as ‘the right of return’ is; as well as the ‘wall’ and the ‘blockade’. Indeed, Israel’s’s very existence is seen, by many, to be an ‘obstacle to peace’.

So let’s unpack this a little.

Between 1949 and 1967, the West Bank was Judenrein. There was no peace.

In addition, the Israelis have often offered to freeze the creation of settlements or actually end their creation (as in Gaza) entirely in return for peace. This has never worked. In 1978, for example, the Israeli state froze settlement-building for three months hoping to get a good response from Palestinians and others. This didn’t help the peace process.

From 1967 to 1977 the Israelis established only a handful of defensive settlements in the territories. This still didn’t prompt the Arabs to contemplate a more peaceful solution to the problems in the Middle East.

In 2000, Prime Minister Barak offered to dismantle dozens of settlements. Yes, you guessed it. The Palestinians still refused to end the conflict.

I have just talked about settlement-freezing, and even the ending of settlement-building, not contributing one iota to peace. Now look at it from the other side. Between 1992 and 1996, the Jewish population in the territories grew by around 50%. However, this process didn’t stop the Palestinians from signing the Oslo accords in September 1993 or the Oslo 2 agreement in September 1995.

A poll of 2003 showed that a large number of Jewish settlers would be willing to abandon their homes if the Palestinians agreed to peace. The much-hated Ariel Sharon carried on in this manner. In April 2003, he said that Israel would be willing to make what he called ‘painful concessions’ vis-a-vis the settlements in return for peace with the Palestinians. He continued:

‘I know that we will have to part with some of these places. As a Jew this agonises me. But I have decided to make every effort to reach a settlement.’

Conclusion

So, despite everything that’s been said, I believe that the settlements simply provide Palestinians, and their Western enablers and groupies, with yet another excuse not to make peace with Israel.

If it were not the settlements it would be ‘the right of return’.
If it were not the right of return, it would be the ‘wall’.
If it were not the wall it would be the ‘blockade’.
And on and on until we get to the crux of the problem.
If if were not for ... it would be Israel’s very existence which blocked the peace process.

The Palestinians cannot make peace with a state they believe to be illegitimate and which, basically, they want to destroy. As it is often said, many Palestinians are far more angered by the existence of a ‘Jewish’ or ‘Zionist' state in their midst, than they are desirous of a state of their own. That is why Hamas, for one, is not keen at all on the Palestinian desire for statehood. After all, if the Palestinians were allowed to form a legitimate state, that would effectively be seen as a tacit acceptance of Israel’s very existence. And that would be anathema to Hamas, as it would be to the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza and beyond.

The State doesn't like Tommy Robinson

2011-09-21T09:50:00.000-07:00

"The leader of the EDL, Tommy Robinson, is prohibited by bail conditions from talking to, about, or having any contact with the EDL in the UK. Following charges of assulting someone at an EDL demonstration earlier this year he was given bail conditions that completely restrict his ability to campaign publicly about the creeping islamisation of England. So when he appeared (dressed as a Rabbi or at least a religious Jew) at a demonstration in Tower Hamlets he broke those conditions.

"The next day he walked into a police station in Luton and handed himself in. He was then jailed for a week."

By Brian of London

Were the Arab 'revolutions' Islamist in nature?

2011-09-20T11:03:00.001-07:00

Khalil El-Anani acknowledges that not all the participants in the recent Arab revolutions wanted ‘secular democracy’ - or indeed any kind of democracy. However, the Islamists still believed that democracy was a good means to achieve something which is intrinsically undemocratic - an Islamic state with the implementation of full sharia law. That is, democracy, or democratic procedures, are used in order to advance Islam or Islamism.

The ‘first wave of revolutions came from the upper crust of the middle class’. It was they, the ‘Arab elite’, who wanted ‘secular democracy’, not ‘the masses’ or the Islamists. But, again, we can still safely say that just about every participant in the Arab revolutions believed that democracy was the best means, at the time, of achieving an Islamic state or of obtaining real political power for the Islamists.

In other words, the revolutions always had an Islamic or Islamist current within them. So much so that ‘mosques were used as a mobilising ground for the masses’. In addition, ‘political rallies often started from mosques’. It is clear that the mosques were not just convenient places to meet and plan. They were also the places which provided the ideological and/or religious fire which was needed to fight the various revolutions. (As with the Iranian 'revolution' in 1979.)

The ‘Arab elite’, or leaders, always had a problem with the Islamists; especially in Egypt, but also in Tunisia, Libya and Syria. More precisely, ‘the despotic nature of the Arab regimes excluded the Islamists from the political scene’. El-Anani says that the Islamists were the ‘usual scapegoats’ of these ‘despotic regimes’. None of this points to the Islamists wanting democracy in any form. Indeed it doesn’t mean that the Islamists are against despotic regimes per se. What they were and are against are the wrong kinds of despotism, those of yesterday and today, not necessarily those of the future. Indeed, if you create an Islamic state, with full sharia law, it almost follows by definition such a state will be, to a degree at least, despotic in nature. Only this time it will be Islamic or Islamist despotism. It will also be a case that such Arab states will be unfriendly towards the Western nations and also fiercely belligerent towards Israel (of course).

Because of the Islamists’ ‘scapegoat role’, they have ‘kept a low profile during the revolutions’. They did so for 'tactical reasons’, according El-Anani. Another reason El-Anani offers is that the Islamists 'were aware that the West would react with alarm to their presence’. And I think it is easy to agree with El-Anani here. The West, on the whole, is 'alarmed’ by the Islamists and it is so for many good reasons.

Despite Islamist reticence, the Islamists were quickly on the scene when the Arab revolutions arrived. El-Anani tells us that ‘a dozen Islamist parties [have formed] in Egypt since the revolution, including Salafi and Sufi ones’. (I always believed that the Salafists were not strictly speaking Islamists in the sense that they are against partaking in any form of ‘man-created’ political process.)

In addition, these Arab societies have Islamised themselves, to varying degrees, without the Islamists holding absolute power in any of the Arab states. For example, there are ‘increased instances of women donning the niqab’; a ‘mounting popularity of independent preachers’; a ‘rising demand on Islamic schools’; and ‘the growing influence of religious-leaning television stations’. Finally, ‘many [youths] seem to parade their religiosity with the enthusiasm usually reserved for fashion’. (Perhaps that’s because it is a fashion. Why should religion be automatically exempt from fads?)

El-Anani doesn’t seem worried about the rise of Islamism in these Arab states. Far from it. However, he does hope that ‘the process of integration [in democracies] will alter not only their notions but also their methods’. It could do. But it very well may not!

It is no surprise, then, that El-Anani ends his article on a very positive note vis-a-vis the Islamists. He says that ‘we need to start working on the normalisation of ties between Islamists and Arab societies’. Otherwise ‘our whole quest for democracy could be stalled’. Now, is that wishing thinking or is it wishing thinking?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Link:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1064/op4.htm

Duke University Professor blames US for Islamoterrorism

2011-09-19T03:59:00.000-07:00

A Duke University imam and professor, Abdullah Antepli, has told reporters that the United States helped create the monster that is jihadism.

Professor Abdullah Antepli admits to nothing when it comes to Muslims and Islam. He literally says that jihadism is all America’s fault. He says that the

‘United States helped create the monster that is Jihadism with its support of the Mujaheddin during the Soviet War in Afghanistan’.
Firstly, many historians and political commentators have argued that the Afghanistan Mujaheddin, or a similar jihadist group, would have been born even without American help. Sure, it would have taken longer and been more difficult without American money and training; but jihadists would still have arisen anyway.

This is clear when one bears in mind that fact that Islamoterrorism dates back - at the very least - to the 1920s, with the Muslim Brotherhood’s terrorist and assassination campaign against various ‘enemies of Islam’. Palestine-related and -based terrorism also dates back to before the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Terrorist bombings and kidnappings date back to the mid-1960s, especially as regards the PLO and other Palestinian groups.

The other Islamist cliché which the Professor trots out is the US's ‘troubling relationships with dictators in the Muslim world’. I wonder if he includes the kosher Islamic states like Iran and/or the Sudan. That is, it isn’t dictatorships as such that Islamists and our Professor are against, but the wrong kind of dictatorship. More clearly, any dictatorship which is non-Islamist and friendly with the United States is a bad dictatorship. This will be a reference to states like Egypt and suchlike - the non-Islamist states. (Though not non-Islamist for long in the case of Egypt?)

He also, of course, excuses Islam itself for any responsibility for jihadism. He says:

‘The radicals are not the product of Islamic theology or Muslim societies.’

Really? Jihadism dates back to the very beginning of Islam. Indeed it dates back to the violent and expansionist behaviour of Muhammed himself, whether that was his conquests, his mass killings of Jews or his enforcement of Islam on various pre-existing civilisations and cultures. To say that Islam, or the Koran, has no responsibility is a plain lie. I’m convinced that most Muslims, especially this professor, know this to be true in their hearts. They know it; but it's still a heavy thing to admit. And that’s why they don’t admit it. Best blame America or the West as a whole. It’s always someone else’s fault. Muslims and Islam are never responsible for anything that is deemed to be bad or destructive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/129930058.html

Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller rationalises Jihad

2011-09-18T04:41:00.001-07:00

Former MI5 boss, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, has said that Britain’s involvement in the war in Iraq has galvanised support for al Qaeda among Muslims in the UK. She went on to say that Iraq has provided a battleground on which ‘jihad’ could be fought. She said that the Iraq War

‘increased the terrorist threat by convincing more people that Osama Bin Laden’s claim that Islam was under attack was correct.’

However, if the West were at war with Islam, why would it fight against the Taliban/al Qaeda in the Afghanistan mountains; but appease Muslims on the streets of London? Why would it ‘fight Islam’ in Iraq and yet allow Muslims against the Crusades (MAC) to burn the American flag - and wave the Islamic Black Flag of War - here at home?
If it were just a war against Islam, we could have won the war by now because our troops would just target all Muslims with massive air strikes and relentless carpet bombing. Instead, our forces go out their way not to kill or harm Muslim civilians. (This is also true, especially, of Israel, which could annihilate its enemies over night if it wanted to.)

What Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller must realise is that jihadists will always find some reasons - or excuses! - to do battle against and terrorise Western governments and peoples. If it weren’t Iraq it would be Afghanistan. If it weren’t Afghanistan, it would be Israel and Palestine. If it weren’t Israel and Palestine it would be Kashmir or even India itself.

Not just wars either. If it weren’t Kashmir it would be the banning of the burqa in Europe. If it weren’t the burqa ban it would be our not allowing Muslim districts to enforce their own law. If it weren’t sharia law it would be... Fill in the dots yourself.

So, yes, Manningham-Buller is in a sense correct. It is the case that ‘actions overseas have an impact at home’. But I would qualify that. It is the case that

Any action overseas, or in a Muslim state/area, could have an impact ‘at home’.

And if not abroad, domestic difficulties with Muslims at home would have impact, well, at home.

This is because Muslims require a reason - or excuse - for jihad in that somewhere in the Koran it sort of says that only defensive violence and killing are acceptable (as well as the opposite of this!). Problem is:

Any Western action can be seen as aggressive and any Muslim/Islamic action can be deemed ‘defensive’.

Muslims have always deemed themselves to be the victims of aggression. Islamic states even played that trump card when their massive Islamic empires were being created all over the place. In addition, every act of Islamic aggression has been given a rationale which has portrayed it as a truly defensive action. After all, the best form of defence is attack.

The other thing we must bear in mind here is that Muslims count any killings or murders carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq, after the ‘invasions’, as WESTERN-CAUSED deaths, even if in virtually all cases it has been a case of Muslims killing Muslims or Muslims terrorising fellow Muslims. This is what Hamas has done. Its various body-counts for the Intifada also included all the Muslims who were killed by their fellow Muslims. (In fact, more Palestinians have died as a result of the various intifadas than because of Israeli aggression.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.sussexexpress.co.uk/news/national/iraq_war_provided_arena_for_jihad_1_3019606

Koranic Contradictions

2011-09-18T01:25:00.000-07:00

Relevantly, the contradictions between the 'peaceful' passages and proclamations and those passages which contradict them, can be accounted for in terms of Mohammed’s Mecca and Medina periods. In the former period, Mohammed had little or no power and thus he preached tolerance and even peace. When he gained power, in Medina and elsewhere, he had no need for such things - for such perfect examples of Islamic taqiyya. It was then that the true Mohammed made his final and true face known: that of a warrior-killer and a proselytising Islamic expansionist/imperialist.

A Republican testifies to Parliament on Muslim 'radicalisation'

2011-09-15T10:22:00.000-07:00

An American Republican, Peter King, has testified before a British Parliamentary committee on Tuesday last. This New York Republican appeared before the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee. His reason for doing so was his knowledge of ‘Muslim-American radicalisation’.

Clearly, from what Peter King says, he has been a victim of what he calls ‘political correctness’. Let’s put that another way. Peter King has probably been accused of being an ‘Islamophobe’ and of promoting ‘Islamophobia’. In the Left/Liberal’s book, as well as the Islamist and just plain Muslim book, all criticisms of Islam and/or Muslim behaviour (Islam-determined behaviour), no matter how diplomatic or measured, are seen as ‘Islamophobic’. There is no half-way measure here. All critics of Islam are by definition - by Leftist/Liberal and Islamist definition - ‘Islamophobes’. If you don’t believe me, try this test. Approach a Leftist enabler of Islam, or indeed a Muslim, and ask him if he can give you some acceptable examples of Islam-criticism or maybe of criticisms of Muhammed’s life and character. I guarantee that they won’t be able to answer that question. Why? Because there aren’t any acceptable examples of Islam-criticism to Muslims and their Leftist enablers. (This shouldn’t be confused with Islamic interpretation, which occurs within Islam itself.)

No doubt part of Peter King’s problem has been his honesty about this ‘dangerous problem’. The problem that is Islam - or at the least, many parts of it.

Peter King believes that part of the problem is that many commentators and onlookers see al-Qaeda as an exotic group with exotic members. Not so. King warns us about ‘home-grown radicalisation’, which sometimes may be in cahoots with al-Qaeda, but sometimes may not be.

*) We here in the UK have a Government which has initiated its ‘Prevent’ strategy to combat Islamic extremism and ‘radicalisation’. Peter King has praised the work done in this area in the UK. He appears to hint that the UK hasn’t got as big a problem with political correctness as the US. This freedom from multiculturalist dogma, so to speak, puts both the state and its services in a better position than their equivalents in the US. However, as an Englishman, I think that Peter King shouldn’t assume that the UK is free from PC mind- and body-control. It isn’t!

*) King cites a recent Pew poll which tells us that 5% of Muslims have ‘a very or somewhat favourable view of Al Qaeda’. 5% may not seem that much. (But it only takes a single Islamoterrorist to kill en masse.) It is! There are 2.75 million Muslims in the US. Out of that number, only 440,000 Muslims have ‘a somewhat unfavourable view’ of al-Qaeda. That means, at least according to this Pew poll, that over a million Muslim Americans are not against al-Qaeda.

Peter King also notes that 7% out of 13% of American Muslims believe that ‘suicide bombing or other violence against civilians is sometimes justified’. Again, according to the arithmetic, that means that 357,500 Muslim Americans ‘believe killing civilians in the name of Islam is justified in some cases’.

*) Interestingly, Peter King is the first member of Congress to testify before a Parliamentary hearing in Britain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/63360.html

The United Nations (U.N.) Against Israel

2011-09-13T09:30:00.001-07:00

The United Nations doesn’t like Israel that much. That’s because it’s made up of a big gang of dictatorships and autocracies; many of which are Muslim/Islamic. Not surprisingly then, Israel was excluded from various UN bodies for fifty years. That was all the way up until May, 2000.

More particularly, Israel was the only UN member excluded from its various regional groupings. It should be part of the Asian grouping. However, Arab Muslim states have barred its membership. Due to that ban, Israel can’t sit on the Security Council or on other main UN bodies.

The Palestinian Liberation Organisation, on the other hand, was awarded a ‘permanent representative status’ by the General Assembly in 1975. The PLO even opened an office in Manhattan, New York. Later, in 1988, the PLO’s representative status was upgraded by the General Assembly, which designated it as ‘Palestine’.

What powers did the PLO have as a result of its place in the UN? Bizarrely, considering that the PLO was a terrorist group, it could then enter into discussions about peace processes when in the General Assembly, as well as draft resolutions on the Middle East generally.

In 1974, the General Assembly invited Yasser Arafat to address it. He did so with a gun holster attached to his hip. In his speech he referred to his carrying a gun and an olive branch.

Above all this, the UN established a special unit on Palestine which became part of the UN Secretariat.

Another Arab autocracy, or family fiefdom (at least until now), Syria, is also a member of the UN. More specifically, this sponsor of terrorism and practitioner of state torture and mass killings, began a two-year stint on the UN Security Council in 2002 and it even served as president of the body in June of that year.

Bearing in mind the UN’s penchant for Muslim autocracies and dictatorships, along with its liking for the PLO, it won’t be a surprise that many commentators have been very critical of the UN as a whole. Jean Kirkpatrick, a former UN Ambassador, wrote:

‘The UN has the image of a world organisation based on universal principles of justice and equality. In reality, when the chips are down, it is nothing other than the executive committee of Third World dictatorships.’

In other words, the UN does not concern itself much with grandiloquent rules and principles. What it does is represent the specific ideologies of its members and those states which support other UN members.

It is of course the UN’s attitude towards Israel which clearly shows us the truly political nature of UN members and even of the UN as a whole.

The UN is very concerned with Israel’s behaviour. It’s like an over-strict parent, or rather, more like an evil step dad.

The way the UN keeps its beady eyes on Israel is through its various investigative committees, special representatives and ‘rapporteurs’. These various guises of the UN have dealt with Israel more times than any other member-country.

For example, the Special representative of the Director-General of UNESCO visited Israel fifty-one times during 27 years of activity. That’s right. 51 times in 27 years. That’s almost twice a year for 27 years.

Now take the Commission on Human Rights at the UN. This may seem bizarre, but if you add up all the condemnations of the Commission it can be seen that, up until 2005, 26% of them referred to Israel alone. Place that startling fact alongside the parallel cases of, say, Syria and Libya. These dictatorships have never been criticised by the Commission on Human Rights. Never.

The Security Council too has been very selective when it comes to its condemnations. Whereas the Security Council has very frequently condemned Israel, it didn’t once criticise the PLO and it hasn’t done the same to the hundreds of thousands of Arab attacks on Israel.

Take also the UN’s ‘Emergency Special sessions’. Virtually every time there has been an Emergency session it has been about Israel. Put it this way. It was never convened over Bosnia, the mass carnage in Rwanda, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor (in which hundreds of thousands died), or China’s occupation of Tibet.

Perhaps the most blatant example of the UN’s extreme bias against Israel was the General Assembly approval of Resolution 3379, which characterised Zionism as a ‘form of racism’. This characterisation of Zionism seems strange when one realises that the UN never once used the word ‘anti-Semitism’ before November, 1998. That was when the UN was fifty years old.

You can conclude from all this that although the UN is officially ‘anti-racist’, it is not that bothered - or bothered at all - about anti-Semitism in the world. That is because so many UN members are either Muslim or Arab, many times they are both. For example, in 1983, the Libyan UN Representative, Ali Treiki, asked the following rhetorical question at the UN:

‘Is it not the Jews who are exploiting the American people and trying to debase them?’

Not wanting to be outdone by Libyan Muslims, the Saudi Arabian delegate, Marouf al-Dawalibi, stood before the 1984 UN Human Rights Commission and said:

‘The Talmud says that if a Jew does not drink every year the blood of a non-Jewish man, he will be damned for eternity.’

Seven years later than that, in 1991, it was Syria’s turn. The Syrian Ambassador to the UN made it plain that the Jews killed Christian children in order to use their blood to make matzos.

Now if someone were to say that all these libels are examples of ‘anti-Zionism’ rather than of anti-Semitism, he would have to be either extremely retarded or extremely duplicitous.

The UN Against the US and Israel

Not that Arab and/or Muslim states have had it all their own way.

The United States has always been a good friend of Israel, as everyone knows. However, it is certainly not the case that the US has supported Israel on every occasion, (for instance, with regard to the ‘Suez Crisis’.) In 1977, the US withdrew from the International Labor Organisation (ILO) for two years because of that organisation’s blatant anti-Israel position. Seven years later, in 1984, the US also withdrew from UNESCO, again, because of that organisation’s position on Israel. Finally, in 2001, the US joined Israel in boycotting the UN World Conference Against Racism when it came to realise that this conference didn’t seem to recognise anti-Semitism as a kind of racism. More than that. The boycotting nations realised that this ‘anti-racist’ conference was itself a hotbed of racism towards the Jews of Israel and elsewhere.

As I wrote earlier. The United States hasn’t supported Israel on every occasion. For example, in December 1990, the US condemned Israel for expelling four leaders of Hamas. They were expelled because of their roles in many terrorist outrages against both Jews and Arabs. This is where the blatant UN bias against Israel can be seen again. The resolution against Israel’s expelling of four Hamas terrorists did not even include a single word about Hamas and its terrorist record. (Just as the UN never criticised the PLO in earlier times.) Indeed things got worse than that for Israel. The Security Council called on the Geneva Convention to sort Israel out. This was the first time that the UN had invoked the Convention against a member-state.

The same kind of thing happened again in January, 1992, only this time 12 Palestinian terrorists were involved. Israel expelled 12 Palestinian terrorists and was then condemned by the US for doing so. Again, Palestinian terrorism against Israel, and others, did not seem to register on the UN’s radar.

However, in July 2002, the United States reversed its policy on these issues. It stated that it would veto any Security Council resolution that failed to mention, and also to condemn, Palestinian terrorism as well as to name Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade as the groups responsible for hundreds of terrorist attacks on Israel.

Searchlight & Angie Choudary's Big M.A.C.: Plague on both their houses

2011-09-12T08:50:00.000-07:00

So Nick Lowles’s Searchlight has a new strategy. Instead of only calling the English Defence League ‘extremist’, why not call a single Islamic group, such as Muslims Against Crusaders (MAChoudary), ‘extremists’ too?

Hope Not Hate, or Searchlight, or Nick Lowles, really think they are onto a winner with this 'plague on both your houses' gimmick. Their new mantra is that the EDL and Muslims Against Crusades are 'as bad as each other'.

But what about this Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Searchlight, the extremist Communist group, and Muslims Against Crusades? After all, the Communists or Stalinists of the Hope Not Hate type truly are extremists. Communists generally have been responsible for tens of millions of deaths over the last century.

Searchlight/Hope Not Hate is dedicated to a particular extreme Communist ideology. As an anarchist group once put it: the

'anti-racism aspect of Searchlight is just a means of getting across the extreme ideology of revolutionary socialism'.

So Searchlight has cleverly decided to say that ‘we have extremists on both sides’. That is, both the EDL and Muslims Against Crusaders are equally extreme. Thus if even the far-leftist Searchlight is willing to call at least one Muslim group ‘extreme’, then that must surely mean that more mainstream groups, such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and indeed Unite Against Fascism and Searchlight itself, must be not extreme – quite simply because they (Searchlight) have opposed a single extreme Muslim group.

Now, the only difference between these groups is that Muslims Against Crusades is more honest than the more formal groups. They more or less admit to wanting the deaths of British soldiers, full sharia law, etc. And, of course, they demonstrate in provocative ways.

The problem is that the MCB, MPACUK, Islam Forum Europe (IFE) and the MAB believe in many of the same things as Muslims Against Crusades. The only difference is that they don’t march under the headings of their organisations. Indeed how can we call the MCB and MAB ‘moderate’ when both groups support Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as the Islamification of Britain through the slow introduction of sharia law? If anything, these groups are worse than Muslims Against Crusades because they are more insidious, ubiquitous and powerful. The former is just a silly little fringe group.

The person who first said ‘we have extremists on both sides’, Sonia Gable, is the deputy editor of Searchlight, ex-National Front and the fourth wife of the Stalinist founder and current publisher of Searchlight, Gerry Gable.

The people who run UAF and Searchlight don’t believe in parliamentary democracy or freedom of speech. So which group, exactly, is truly extreme?

It is just too convenient that Searchlight is saying that both Muslims Against Crusaders and the EDL are extreme. Who wants lessons in extremism from Trots and Stalinists? Not me!

Searchlight’s ‘plague on both your houses’ is a complete gimmick anyway. Why has Nick Lowles only just discovered Muslim extremism? Why does he think that only Angie Choudary and Islam4UK are extreme (thus leaving out MPACUK, MAB, MCB, IFE, the Islamist thugs at Tower Hamlets, etc.)? And there is no comparison to be made anyway.

The Muslim extremists want a complete world-system of Sharia. The EDL is concerned primarily with the Islamisation of England.

Muslim extremists believe strongly in terrorism. The EDL doesn’t.

The EDL accepts and supports parliamentary democracy. Muslim extremists, and the SWP and Searchlight, don’t.

The list of differences is long.

Until very recently, a few months ago in fact, Nick Lowles and Searchlight never had a single bad word to say about any Islamists and Muslim extremists.

Now, all of sudden, they have. The previous policy of seeing and hearing only right-wing evil simply wasn’t working for Lowles and Searchlight. Pointing out exclusively right-wing wrongs was seen as hypocritical – as it was. And, as I said, it wasn’t working for them.

Then, all of a sudden, Lowles starting saying that some Muslims were indeed extreme as well!

But only some Muslims and Islamists. Lowles now focuses exclusively on the ‘mad’ Angie Choudary and his Muslims Against Crusades. That way, of course, Lowles can deny any hypocrisy, even though he is ignoring the many more extreme - and far more dangerous - Muslims and Islamists in the UK (e.g., MPACUK, MCB, MAB, Muslims4UK, the Tower Hamlets’ Islamic Mafia, etc.).

So we don’t buy Lowles' reworked hypocrisy.

It simply doesn’t wash, Nick. Try again.

Lowles has deigned to criticise the cartoon Muslim baddies - who are so obviously extreme.
What about the Tower-Hamlets-council-connected Islamic Forum Europe (IFE)? What about the Muslim Defence League? What about the British-based arm of Pakistan’s Jamaat e-Islami, the Respect Party? What about the countless Islamic ‘charities’ in the UK which have dealings with Islamic terrorist groups? And so on!

In the future, then, let’s hope we’ll have a little less nauseating hypocrisy from Nick Lowles and other Marxists on these issues.

‎9/11 and the Silence of Muslims

2011-09-11T05:10:00.000-07:00

Pumped up with his own Islamophile rhetoric, this writer tells us that

‘more than 50 Muslim groups united to show their condemnation of the terrorist attacks which occurred ten years ago today’.

Only 50 Muslim groups? That’s actually a very small number for the whole of the UK. There are more than 50 ‘Muslim groups’ in London alone; and this is to discount other British cities and towns.

In any case, have these Muslim groups actually/really

united to show the MEDIA their condemnation of terrorism?

Why would they do that? Well, many Muslim groups did the same after 9/11 itself, as well as after the London bombings. (No doubt something similar occurred after the Madrid Islamist massacre.) These explosions of pseudo-sympathy only seem to occur directly after terrible events like 9/11. The rest of the time Muslim groups stay largely silent about the everyday reality that is Islamoterrorism. In other words, at times like this many Muslims feel that they simply must make token condemnations of Islamoterrorism in order to keep the non-Muslim British media off their backs.

In addition, which Muslim groups have ‘come together’? Not the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Not the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Not the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK). Not the Respect Party. That is, none of the main political players in the Muslim community generally.

As for the Islamic Society of Britain, which is featured in this article. This group exists solely to teach non-Muslims about Islam. It is a society of Islamic da'wah - proselytising.

On a similar theme. How does this journalist know that ‘imams throughout Britain are giving special sermons’? There are thousands of mosques in the UK. Has this writer privileged access to all of them - even the East London Mosque?

The writer at least lets one cat out of the bag. He says that

‘the 9/11 attacks were counter-productive to the terrorists’ aims’.

This is a clear admittance that many Muslims may not like the means (terrorism, killing) Islamoterrorists use, but they do agree - or sympathise - with ‘the terrorists’ aims’. Which ‘aims’ are they? More to the point. Do these ‘moderates’ want to bring these aims/ends about without any kind of violence? Is one aim the installation of an Islamic state? Full sharia law? To pull all Western troops out of every Muslim country? The annihilation of Israel? Who knows?

The Imam of Leicester Central Mosque, Maulana Shahid Raza, has

‘reminded worshippers that terrorists had been quoting passages of the Quran out of context’.

That Muslim classic - out of context! How does he know that they’ve been quoted out of context? Does he have access to the true ‘context’? Can Raza defend his position, theologically, against the Islamists and the Islamoterrorists, many of whom no doubt have an equal - or even superior - education in Islamic theology? In any case, there is no centralising church or authority in Islam, so how would this Leicester imam support his view that every Islamoterrorist is in the wrong? He most certainly cannot. And who’s to say he’s not indulging in Islamic taqiyya anyway?

Here are some quotes from the Koran which Imam Raza would certainly like to place in their correct ‘context’:

‘Fight against unbelievers until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.’ (2:189)

And this:

‘When you meet unbelievers in the battlefield, strike off their heads.’ (47:3)

And:

‘Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends... Whosoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number.’ (5:51)

Yes, I’m pretty sure that this Leicester imam will find ‘cohesive contexts’ for these unequivocally ruthless passages in the Koran. But it would be him, and not the Islamoterrorists, who will be attempting to squeeze square shapes into round holes.

Good luck!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The news link:

http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16066078

UAF & the Daily Mail Hate the White Working Class

2011-09-10T23:19:00.000-07:00

UAF/SWP is the New Daily Mail

The far left has always hated the British working class. Once, the Fabians literally wanted to sterilise the entire working class. Then the Communists and Trotskyites wanted to change it through ‘struggle’ and revolution. The working class never swallowed the far leftist lies about the ‘vanguard of the working class’.

These middle-class far leftists despise the British working class. They pretend it’s just the EDL they despise. But there are well over 50,000 active supporters of the EDL. Is it really the case that every one of these is a ‘racist thug’, or a ‘fascist bigot’, or a ‘knuckle dragger’? Why don’t these UAF/SWP types admit they are snobs in that great English middle- class tradition? Just because they are far leftists with pony tails, died red hair, rucksacks, etc. doesn’t make them anyless snobbish than their parents, grandparents, etc. They are the same type of anti-working class scum who have redesigned the usual middle-class antipathy towards all things working class and given it ‘anti-racist’ or ‘anti-fascist’ clothing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Embrace the Brown Exotic

Why doesn’t the EDL Embrace Diversity? Why doesn’t it contribute to Community Cohesion? Why are they Racist Thugs?

If only they discussed these issues over numberless dinner parties and after consuming a few Guardian articles. That is: why isn’t the EDL like us? We care, ever so deeply. We love the Brown Exotic – and the Browner the deeper and the more exotica. Browns can do no bad.

We know that because the Racists once said that 'the Browns can do no good'. Simples. Eh?

Let us watch Babyshambles and catch the gleaming eyes of the lovely Martin Smith. We all love each other – but not the racists, fascists, football thugs, Tories, Zionists, neocons, neoliberals...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muslamic Ray Guns and All That

There’s also an epidemic spreading through Twitter Land at the moment. It’s being spread by loads of Leftist students, Leftist ex-students and, possibly but not likely, by some leftist non-students and even some non-Leftists. That epidemic is a profound political analysis of the EDL and what the movement stands for. This is it: the EDL are thick. That’s it! Nothing more. No analysis of Islamism, militant Muslims, the swamping of the English through immigration because it is ‘hideously white’ (according to one Guardian journalist).

So just as he taps into the Twitter fashion for calling the EDL ‘thick’; so he also uses the now- famous Muslamic Ray Guns video to prove that point - just as all the Tweeters are doing right now! Oh, by the way! Apart from the fact that the EDL guy in the video is clearly drunk, very young, and maybe even a little nervous, what’s funny about a Northern accent? It's a Northern accent, Howard, you know, people Up ‘t’ North speak that way. They don’t speak in the way they do in Leamington Spa or at university - unless they are students or middle class. So stop being such a racist and snob against Northerners and the white working class... But that’s OK nowadays, isn’t it?

Then he shows a clip of Tommy Robinson and I genuinely couldn’t see what the joke was. What was funny about the Tommy Robinson clip? I’m not forcing myself not to find it funny because he’s the leader of the EDL. Unless... unless the funny part of it was Tommy's being working class and speaking in a working class Luton accent! So that’s what’s funny about it! Outrageous! Really.

You Leftist haters of the EDL should get together with Daily Mail readers because they hate the white working class too. Oh. I forgot, Leftists are supposed to hate the Daily Mail and its readership. You seen, the theory is that the Daily Mail hates the white working class from its ‘right wing’ and ‘snobby’ perspective; whereas Howard, all those student Twitterers, UAF/SWP, etc. hate the white working class from a Leftist perspective. And they are not ‘snobby’ with it - at least not in the Hyacinth Bouquet way. Yes they are!

The Left, especially the Trot Left, is terribly and notoriously snobby about the white working class. That’s why they wanted to fundamentally transform it into a revolutionary class which thought differently, acted differently, dressed differently, and even had different social lives. And when the working class refused, point blank, to be the sacrificial fodder for a middle-class Trot revolution, then, as we all now know, they suddenly turned their attention to the Muslims! (But they too will fuck them off in time. However, as in Iran, Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, etc., hopefully British Islamists and Muslims will kill them and save us the bother.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The UAF/SWP Revolutionary Middle-Class Class

If class determines ideology, then class determines the ideology of Communists/Trots too. The Class of Communists represents a Vanguard or Elite Class, whether or not it attempts to ‘represent’ or ‘work for’ the working class. That very act of distinguishing themselves from the working class, as Marx acknowledges, sets the Communists up as effectively another class.

The Communist Vanguard Class was a subgroup of the Capitalist Class. Their economic underpinning was the same as that which underpinned the Middle Class. Thus, according to Marx’s own criteria, the economic reality which determined the Middle Class also determined the consciousness of its subgroup – the Communist Vanguard Class - even if that ideology was in fact at odds with the Capitalist Class. This being at odds with capitalism was itself determined by the socio-economic reality that was capitalism, which I think Marx would have accepted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The SWP’s Racist and Neo-Colonialist Posh Boys

There is a long tradition of Leftist (mainly Trotskyist but sometimes Communist) posh boys and girls condescending towards the Brown Exotic. (Prince Charles, who’s not a Trot, also indulges in this pastime with all things Islamic and Arabic; just as Richard Burton, another aristo in the 19th century, did.)

Since the SWP is big on ‘class analysis’, they can hardly fault me for my approach to the thoroughly middle-class, and often even upper middle-class, nature of the SWP/UAF - or, at the least, of its leaders and theorists over the years.

Since its birth, and into the next few decades, the Central Committee of the SWP was, if anything, more upper middle class, or even aristocratic, than middle class. It certainly wasn’t a good example of the plain and much-hated, by Trots, ‘petite bourgeoisie’.

In other words, many SWP leaders, both today and in the past, have been to public schools. Indeed two current leaders (i.e., members of the SWP Central Committee), Alex Callinicos and Charlie Kimber, have aristocratic backgrounds.

[Left: Lord Acton. Underneath: Alex Callinicos of the SWP. A descendant of Lord Acton. Private school in Zimbabwe. Balliol College, Oxford.]

Let’s start with Alex Callinicos of the SWP Central Committee. He’s a descendant, through his mother, of the 19th century Englishman, Lord Acton. His mother was the Hon. Aedgyth Bertha Milburg Mary Antonia Frances Lyon-Dalberg-Acton, herself the daughter of the 2nd Lord Acton, and grand daughter of Lord Acton, the historian. Callinicos himself was educated at a private school, St George's College, in Zimbabwe (colonialist style) and he then went to Balliol College, Oxford.

[Left: Sir Henry Kimber, 1st Baronet. Charlie Kimber, SWP Central Committe, is his descendent.]

Then there's ‘Charlie' Kimber, the new kid in the SWP Central Committee. Who's he related to? He’s related to Sir Henry Kimber, 1st Baronet.

Now for Chris Nineham. Also SWP Central Committee. He was educated at Westminster public school.

But, admittedly, it's not all about private schools and aristocratic backgrounds. The point is that this neo-colonial mindset has been passed on to all those SWP automatons who literally memorise the party line before they let themselves loose on the streets

We also have John Rees. I’m not sure if he’s yet another posh-boy Trot. (He’s ex-SWP, now Counterfire.) However, he’s certainly another neo-colonialist who’s so far up the arse of Islamism, Islamists and Arabs that he’s even been allowed to present ‘anti-Zionist’ historico-docs (on the Islam Channel) on how uniquely evil Israel is when compared to the sweetness and light of the Sudanese Jangaweed, the Pakistani Deobandi, and even the Taliban, al-Qaeda and Hamas.

If it not all SWP, it's certainly all posh neo-colonialism. Take two non-SWP lovers of the Brown Exotic, Seumas Milne and the ‘right wing' Peter Oborne.

[Left: Seumas Milne. Son of a BBC Director-General. Winchester College (a top public school). Balliol College, Oxford. (Was he there with Alex Callinicos?)]

Seumus Milne is formerly of the Guardian (though he still writes for it). He’s the younger son of the former BBC Director-General Alasdair Milne. This Stalinist attended Winchester College and read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Balliol College, Oxford . Seumas is more Stalinist/Communist than SWP-Trot. But he's still a very posh boy . He’s always writing in defence of Muslims. Then again, he has also written in defence of Stalinism, the IRA, Saddam Hussein, etc. Basically, he will defend any individual or group that doesn’t remind him too much of his privileged background and the people who crossed him as a kid or when he was growing up. He’ll defend anyone - or anything - non-Establishment in order to cleanse the Establishment within himself.

Then there’s Peter Oborne of the Daily Telegraph. He’s perhaps noticeable for being a ‘right-wing’ defender of all things Islamic and Muslim. But the important point is that he too, along with his new-found Leftist friends, is yet another Islamophile posh boy. He was educated at Sherborne boys' Public School and then Christ’s College, Cambridge. He too is a perfect neo-colonialist in the tradition, bizarrely enough, of the upper-class Trots of the SWP who also simply adore the Brown Exotic.

[Left: Sue Blackwell of Birmingham University. She has made it her life's work to care deeply for the Brown Exotic and Oppressed Palestinians and to ignore all the other people who suffer in the world.]

Finally, let’s take an Islamophile (or Dhimmi) who’s a ‘former member of the SWP’ but only a lowly university professor. Her name is Sue Blackwell. She’s the supreme anti-Zionist of the UK. She works at Birmingham University. I have included her because she graphically displays the hypocrisy and condescension of Trotskyists towards Muslims.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The late Chris 'From a Working-Class Background' Harman

It is the case that certain SWP leaders or theorists were indeed brought up in ‘working-class backgrounds' (there are a couple), as Wiki accounts (usually written by SWP) put it. However, a massive distinction needs to be made between those who were 'brought up in working-class families', and what these people actually are now and what they have been more or less since university days (if not before). The other thing is, I would argue, that this neo-colonialist SWP position and mindset has been passed onto even those SWP with ‘working-class backgrounds’; just as the SWP argue that ‘capitalist ideology’ is passed onto the working class.

The Guardian's David Miller on Far-Right Terrorism

2011-09-09T09:41:00.000-07:00

I wish that, every now and again, Guardian journalists would give us a definition of the word ‘Islamophobia’. This is very rarely done. It seems almost as if they think the word is as well understood as a word like, say, ‘conservatism’or ‘revolution’. Is it because a clear definition would give the game away, as it were? That is, it would be shown that

‘Islamophobia’ = any criticism of Islam or Muslim behaviour (as Muslims).

Take David Miller’s article, ‘Thinktanks must drop this cold war approach to Islamism’. He accuses ‘Conservative thinktanks [of] downplaying and even excusing... Islamophobic groups such as the EDL’. More concretely, he says that both the Policy Exchange and the Centre of Social Cohesion (CSC)of ‘underplaying’ these ‘Islamophobic currents’.

Not only is the word ‘Islamophobia’ rarely, if ever, defined, but David Miller also simply assumes that there has been a ‘rise of Islamophobia’ here in the UK and elsewhere. Again, no explanation or evidence is offered as to why he thinks this.

The most interesting aspect of David Miller’s article is its defence of Islamism (not just plain Islam). It would seem that Miller has gone one step further than most Leftist and liberal commentators in that he suggests that we should not only 'embrace’ Islam, but that we should do the same with Islamism too.

Embracing Islamism is a big step forward in the ‘fight against Islamophobia’. Miller doesn’t deny the deeply political nature of Islamism. How could he? That’s what Islamism is - political Islam. He explicitly says that groups had ‘risked repressing those engaged in legitimate political activity’. It’s a shame that ‘Islamism’ isn’t defined by Miller either.

What kind of Islamist ‘political activity’ is Miller referring to? Could he be referring to the Islamist political aim which is the creation of an Islamic state and therefore the total implementation of full sharia law? However, he does, sort of, define ‘Islamism’, but only in an extremely loose and unhelpful manner. He says that Islamists are simply ‘politically active Muslims’. That’s it! What is meant by ‘active’ and how, exactly, are the Islamists he defends ‘politically active’? It’s all OK to defend Islamism without specifics. But when you do define ‘Islamism’ you may well find that things aren’t automatically so innocuous or compatible with a parliamentary democratic system.

What David Miller demands is that counter-terrorism organisations spend more time on the ‘far right’ and on ‘Islamophobic’ groups. Thus Anders Breivik’s terrorist outrage in Norway has proved to be a godsend to people like David Miller and, indeed, to all the other Islamophile Guardianistas. How would they have argued their case if Breivik had not killed so many people? Every day, throughout the world, there are literally tens of jihadist attacks; either bombings or other kinds of killing. That tens of attacks EVERY DAY!

As for the ‘far right’, on the other hand, Breivik’s actions were the first of their kind, more or less, since Timothy McVeigh committed his massive crime in Oklahoma City in 1995. That's two large far-right terrorist attacks in around sixteen years. (That’s if Timothy McVeigh was, strictly speaking, a member of the far right.)

What about Islamoterrorism? I’ve already mentioned the daily killings of the jihadists worldwide. In Europe, we’ve had the London bombings, the Madrid bombing, and other fairly-small attacks around Europe; including a handful in Paris alone. And this is to disregard the large number of Islamoterrorist attacks which have been foiled by the police and security serves (as with Hamas and Israel) in England and beyond.

So it’s odd that David Miller should argue that it’s a bad thing that ‘conservative’ thinktanks, in ignoring ‘far-right’ terrorism and violence, must not ‘genuinely [be] interested in public safety and the health of the democratic system’. (This is a statement aimed at Policy Exchange and Douglas Murray’s Centre for Social Cohesion.) On the contrary, these organisations appear, to Miller, to ‘exaggerate the threat posed by “Islamists” (in inverted commas!), whereas far-right violence is ‘downplayed’.

Of course, the whole point of David Miller’s article is that this disjunct should be reversed: thinktanks, etc. should focus on the threats from the far right and ‘downplay’ the threats which exist from the Islamists.

It’s really that simple.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/aug/23/thinktanks-islamism-muslims-islamophobia

Andrew Brown’s (the Guardian) 'paranoid Islamophobes'

2011-09-08T10:49:00.000-07:00

Andrew Brown, in his article, frequently refers to the ‘conspiracists’ of the anti-jihad movement in Europe and the US. He claims that the EDL, Robert Spencer, amongst many others, are ‘conspiracists’. That is odd. Who is more conspiratorial than the radical Left - including Guardian writers and readers? It’s mightily hard for a Leftist nowadays to utter a single sentence without including the word ‘Zionist’ in it.
Indeed these people live in a deeply conspiratorial world which is run by ‘Zionists’, ‘the Zionist Lobby’, the 'Jewish neo-cons’ and whatnot. The Zionists run the media (which media? the Media), the White House and they've even got around to running the English Defence League. (They have offices in Luton.) What’s more, this very article, by the Guardian’s Andrew Brown, is deeply conspiratorial. This time, however, instead of 'conspiracies about Muslims', which Brown claims a host of counter-jihadists suffer from, this article contains clear examples of conspiracy theories about what he would claim are members of the ‘far right’ - and that’s every single critic of Islam or Muslim behaviour, no matter what he or she says and no matter how he/she says it. In fact, just criticising Muslims is any way, even Muslim terrorists, makes you a ‘paranoid’.

Brown’s list of paranoids is comprehensive and would probably include everyone to the right of Pol Pot. Here it is (these are just the ones he names): Bat Ye’or, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, Anders Gravers, Fjordman, the EDL, Douglas Murray, Damian Thompson, Geert Wilders, Paul Belien, Daniel Hannan and, of course, ‘Mad’ Melanie Phillips.

As I said: everyone and anyone who dares to criticise Islam and/or Muslim behaviour (as Muslims).

[Image right: conspiracy?]

On the subject of conspiracy theories. Andrew Brown mentions various ‘far right’ conspiracy theories. However, he just states and doesn’t criticise them (as if it is self-evident that they are true conspiracies).

Conspiracy Theory Number One: that ‘Europe is now as much under threat from a Muslim invasion as it was in 1683, when a Turkish army besieged Vienna’ (Gates of Vienna). Not a word of critique follows.

Conspiracy Theory Number Two: that ‘European elites have conspired against their people to hand the continent over to Muslims’ (Bat Ye’or). Not a word of critique follows.

Conspiracy Theory Number Three: that Europe is slowly being turned into ‘a Eurabian superstate, incorporating Muslim countries of north Africa and the Middle East in the European Union’ (Anders Gravers). Not a word of critique from Brown.

Conspiracy Theory Number Four: that Islam is not ‘a religion of peace’. Not a word of critique.

Conspiracy Theory Number Five: that ‘the British elite [has] deliberately encouraged immigration in order to break down traditional society’ (Melanie Phillips). Again, not a word of critique from Brown.

Not a word of critique occurs anywhere else in Andrew Brown’s article. All we have are Leftist soundbites or clichés, such as ‘hatred’, ‘paranoid’, ‘Islamophobic’, ‘co-conspiracist’ and so on.

Of all the ‘far right’ examples of ‘conspiracies’, you’d have thought that Andrew Brown would have at least have spent a tiny bit of time on theories four and five. No. Not a word. It is enough, for him, to simply accuse people of being ‘Islamophobes’ or ‘bigots’. That’s all you get. After all, Andrew Brown is more of a Guardianista than most - he actually works for that gloriously unbiased and objective newspaper.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/07/anders-breivik-hate-manifesto

Muslims save England from the rioters

2011-09-07T11:04:00.000-07:00

I found this extremely biased article, on the recent English riots, laughable. How someone, in this case a founder and head of the Police's Muslim Contact Unit, can make so much of the fact that Muslims, on two occasions, protected their own communities, I don't know. Now, if Muslims had protected all types of community, or a non-Muslim community, that would have been something to shout about. But the Muslims featured in this article didn't do that.
Of course Muslims protected their own communities during the riots. That's all Muslims seem to do when it comes to Islamic charities, Islam/Muslim-related volunteer work and even Muslim political groups. And the more Muslims protect their communities, the stronger they feel and the deeper their faith becomes. Conflict, of any type, enriches Islam and nourishes Muslims. Islam itself thrives on conflicts, which Muslims often classify as 'self-defence'. (In this article, too, Muslim victimhood is stressed as well as their defensive posture.)

The whole point of this article is to give one in the eye to all 'Islamophobic commentators'. That is, to anyone who dares to criticise Islam in anyway or to anyone who condemns Muslim behaviour. Again, how Lambert can make a case for general Islamophilia from such meagre evidence I don't know.

Robert Lambert, an academic and well-known hyperactive Islamophile, even quotes a Muslim student who says:

'When accused of terrorism we are Muslims. When killed by looters we become Asian.'

Well, for a start, when a Muslim kills someone FOR Islam or in the name of Islamic jihad, I bloody well hope that such people are classed as 'Muslims'. That's what they are! What descriptions would this Muslim student prefer?

Well, the second part of his statement explains that. The student says that 'looters' are classed as 'Asian' whereas terrorists are classed as 'Muslim'. But that's because most acts of terrorism are carried out by Muslims and it is woven into Islam itself. I also wish that Muslim pimpers, groomers, sex-gangs, drug-gangs were classified as 'Muslim', instead of 'Asian'. That would be a far more accurate description of the state of play today.

Two places of looting and rioting are featured in this article: Birmingham and Tower Hamlets. In the Tower Hamlets case, the Islamophilic academic Robert Lambert sees it as a good opportunity to sell us the benign nature of various extreme Islamist groups.

Firstly he tells us that 'volunteers' in the Tower Hamlets wore 'green fluorescent security vests marked “East London Mosque”'. He also tells us that members of the Islam Forum Europe did their best to defend their fellow Muslims. Finally, Lutfur Rahman, the Ayatollah of Tower Hamlets council, is praised for preventing looting (in some way).
Lambert, the unbiased reporter of this news piece, praised the East London Mosque and Islam Forum Europe again by mentioning their 'street skills in action in 2005'. He says that these Islamists 'dispatched Al Mujajiroun. But this had nothing to do with moderate Muslims dealing with extremist Muslims. Far from it. It was an instance of Muslim Brotherhood-type Islamists, who believe in using Western democracy in order to destroy Western democracy, dealing with militant Salafists/Wahhabites, who don't believe in polluting oneself with 'kuffar institutions' or kuffar democracy. Apart from those differences, there is very little difference between IFE and militants like Al Muhajiroun. That is, there are no differences which would matter or be relevant to non-Muslims on the outside.

Finally, I don't want to be a party-popper, but there was something about the killing of the 'three typically brave Muslims who were killed while defending their neighbourhood' the other week which doesn't seem to have been mentioned in most media reports. It is certainly not mentioned in this unashamed example of extreme Islamophilia.

There are stories going around Birmingham, and elsewhere, that the reason these three Muslims were killed was because the killers had formerly been attacked by Muslims - with rocks and much else. Thus the driver returned, seeking revenge, and ran over the three Muslims. Whether or not the driver recognised them, as their former attackers, I don't know.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEWS LINK:

http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/08/201181210928899563.html

Internet Jihad in Germany

2011-09-06T23:37:00.000-07:00

Security services have said that German-language Islamist propaganda is fuelling militancy among a small number of socially-alienated Muslim youths in Germany.

Islamism and militant Islam are casting their tentacles further and wider. The jihadists are not just big at the universities, as in the UK, but also, as in this German case, on the Internet and even on the streets.
This article calls these German Muslims 'ultra-conservative'. Yet this is a little strange because, in terms of Muslims in Europe, 'conservative' often means 'militant' or 'fundamentalist'. Thus this form of conservatism, unlike many others, attracts young Muslims in a big way. Indeed, as in England, it is often the older generations, the first-generation immigrants, who react against this so-called 'ultra-conservatism'.

Take this example. Virtually all female Muslims who wear the burqa and jilbab, in the UK, are under the age of thirty. Their 'piety' or 'Islamic identity' are a reaction against the distortions, pollutions and watering-downs of Islam which they believe the older generation of Muslims are responsible for. These young Muslims want their Islam stronger and purer. Many of their parents and grandparents don't.

It is not surprising that these overwhelmingly young Muslims should fix on the Internet as an effective means of doing-the-da'wah – proselytising, to you and me. More than that, they are also spreading the gospel of jihad and telling other Muslims that such a thing is of vital importance to 'true Islam'. Full stop.

As is often the case with the Internet, with its virtual worlds and even virtual personae, we now have Muslims who are in 'Internet functions' which are 'a kind of virtual group'. This abundance of Internet Jihad, of the violent not the 'spiritual' kind, means that the 'whole scene of jihadists in Germany' is 'more cohesive and assertive' than many of their non-virtual rivals.

Although in the UK most Islamists and militant Muslims are students and graduates, this is not the case in Germany. Take an Islamic 'preacher' by the name of Pierre Vogel. This man was once a professional boxer who is now exclusively boxing infidels instead. More relevantly, he has 'voiced strong objections to integrating Muslims in Germany'. Other 'urban riff-raff', in the words of Islamic studies expert Guido Steinberg, are attracted to the violence-loving Islamic scene. Not surprisingly, this Muslim riff-raff are particularly tuned into hard-core Salafism.

What we are talking about here are groups which are part of Germany's 4 million Muslims, most of whom are of Turkish origin.

As we know here in the UK, 'moderate' Muslims in Germany appear to have done bugger all about the extremists. After all, this riff-raff may well be objectionable, but they are still 'fellow Muslims'. This basically means that to many moderate Muslims, even objectionable Muslims are superior to all non-Muslims. This is what Islam itself teaches.

It has been said, however, that the moderates have at least tried. They have tried and failed. However, what exactly did they do to control these Muslim extremists? Probably nothing much. Like our own Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), it would have all been show for the media and for their gullible Leftist or liberal enablers.

Nothing's been done because nothing can be done by the soi-disant moderates. The extremists and Islamists are on much firmer ground theologically. Islam is indeed 'political in nature' and jihad is far from always being 'spiritual'. It can be, and often is, supremely violent and often sick. No wonder the pseudo-moderates always fail or rarely even try.

The most recent victims of the Religion of Peace in Germany were two US airmen. A Kosovo Albanian confessed to shooting these two men dead only a week ago. Online Islam, in this case, was the main cause of this bona-fide example of Islamic jihad.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The News Link:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/09/05/uk-germany-security-idUKTRE7842HS20110905

Tommy Robinson on hunger strike! Get on the case Chakrabarti!

2011-09-06T02:55:00.000-07:00

EDL's Tommy Robinson is on hunger strike. He has said that he is a “political prisoner of the state”, following his arrest after a EDL protest in Tower Hamlets on Saturday.
Tommy was remanded in custody at Luton Magistrates Court, on Monday, September 5, after appearing charged with breaching bail conditions imposed on him by Blackburn Magistrates Court, where he is due to go on trial on September 29.

It is clearly the case that Tommy Robinson has indeed become a political prisoner. There is no doubt about that. The very fact that he has been systematically prevented from engaging in any kind of political activity with the EDL clearly shows this.

The State needs to be reminded that the English Defence League is a legal political organisation, despite what the Guardian, New Statesman, Unite Against Fascism and Nick Lowles say and want. It can be readily accepted that if the EDL were an illegal political group, then such restrictions on freedoms, or bans, would be fully justifiable. Indeed, by definition, Tommy Robinson would have been stopped from attending any activities of a banned group. But, again, the EDL is not a banned or an illegal organisation.

*) Tommy Robinson has been the victim of police harassment almost from the very beginning of the EDL. I am tempted to say, in qualification, that it is not exactly the police as such, but the State/Government which has harassed TR through the police. (Although many current police chiefs are indeed fine Islamophiles and they exist deep within the mire of political correctness.)

Clearly, what the EDL is saying and doing is 'dangerous' and 'inflammatory'. But not because Muslims 'feel under threat' (it is non-Muslims who are under threat) or because of EDL violence and 'hooliganism'. The dangerous and inflammatory situations will simply arise because the truth being said about Islam will cause many Muslims to rebel, riot and even kill. We are in a situation in which Islam, and even Islamism (praised last week by the Guardian), are treated like eggshells. Such fragile entities cannot be talked about truthfully in public, let alone touched. Because when the broad mass of British non-Muslims begin to fully realise how dangerous Islam – not the EDL! - really is to the state, society and the kuffar generally, then pretty radical things must happen in order to register - and then act upon - that knowledge of true Islam (not InterFaith Islam for suckers!)

However, because large segments of our culture are Marxist in spirit, if not dogmatically so, and have definitely sucked political correctness deep into their lungs, very little, if anything, will be done in the near future. Then if you add to all that the fact many local councillors, and nearly all politicians, rely quite heavily on various Muslim block votes, then here again there will be little real chance of any change.

And that's why Tommy Robinson and others must keep up the pressure. Keep up the pressure until the State, and local councils, finally start to listen to, if not act upon, what millions of people are saying about the nature of Islam. This impasse is going to be overcome at some point – why not now?

The State cannot wait until we have another Kosovo/Bosnia, another Pakistan, another Iraq – even another Sweden or Norway.

Everywhere Islam is there is also trouble. Almost every contemporary conflict involves Muslims fighting or persecuting non-Muslims, whether they are Jews in the Middle East, Christians and Ahmadiyya in Pakistan and Iraq, or Buddhists in southern Thailand.

This situation is dramatic. But it won't go away simply by creating another fifty interfaith groups. It won't go away if we build yet more mosques. It won't go away if we build more Muslim prayer rooms in factories or hospitals or more Islamic toilets which don't face Mecca. No. The exact opposite will happen. The more we give Muslims, the more they will want. And then, again, the more they will want...

Islam, or the system that is sharia law, is a complete and total system which encompasses both the private and the public/political spheres. Accommodations on 'civil sharia law', such as marriage, will just be the beginning. After all, there is no hierarchy when it comes to the various and many sharia laws. Hudud, or amputation for theft, is just as important and relevant as are interest-free bank accounts for Muslims. The problem is that our leaders fail to realize the enormity of the problem. Indeed I suspect that at least a few of our leaders do realise the problem. However, what matters to them is their own political power and their short-term commitments.

Anti-jihad groups – Tommy Robinson too! - are determined to halt this slippery slope of appeasement and dhimmitude.

Free Tommy Robinson.

No surrender... ever!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note: I’ve often wondered about the legality of the police stopping someone having anything to do with a legal group. Has the EDL sought out legal help on this?

Also, it would be funny if the EDL secured the help of Liberty’s Shami ‘nickers’ Chakrabarti. She would say ‘no’. The only liberties/rights she cares about are the liberties/rights of Islamoterrorists and leftists (or minority groups she can politically exploit). Her refusal to help Tommy Robinson would simply show us that to her rights activism is simply revolution/radicalisation-through-rights activism. What about JUST West Yorkshire or the huge army of academics and legal people who suffer from monomania about Palestine? Where are they?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEWS LINK:

http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/local/edl_leader_on_hunger_strike_in_custody_1_3028437

We are all Tommy Robinson!

2011-09-06T00:49:00.000-07:00

An 'investigation' into 'Zionist hate-mongers'

2011-09-05T18:52:00.000-07:00

There has just been an 'investigation' into 'a catastrophic tragedy in the rotten US policies'. That catastrophic tragedy is, of course, Islamophobia. No; not the daily death toll which the Global Jihad clocks up everyday. Not the suicide bombs that blight the world and are now becoming more common in Europe as well as the US. No. Islamophobia; which is a totally misplaced fear of Islam, Islamism and militant Muslims. It is completely and utterly groundless. In fact, this report is basically telling us that Islamophobia is the direct result of 'Zionists' propagating their lies about Islam.
This is the sort of conspiracy theory you would have found in the Germany of the 1920s and 30s, as well as in Stalinist Russia in the 1950/60s.

Why aren't Muslims, and their far-leftist enablers, even just a little bit embarrassed by their infantile conspiracy theories about Jews? Do they really believe that they will convince anyone, bar students and racists, to think that the substitution of 'Zionists' for 'Jews' is a difference that makes a difference?

So here is yet another conspiracy theory – or is that a host of micro-conspiracies within one huge and overriding fear-of-Jews conspiracy?

These Liberal and Muslim 'anti-Zionists' have named the chief propagators of Islamophobia. They are:

1. Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy;
2. David Yerushalmi at the Society of Americans for National Existence;
3. Daniel Pipes at the Middle East Forum;
4. Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch and Stop Islamization of America and
5. Steven Emerson of the Investigative Project on Terrorism.

They have also named Walid Shoebat, who they describe as a 'blatant liar and a traitor to the Muslim community'. That is, if a former Muslim, or even a Muslim, says anything even slightly critical of Islam or of an Islamic organisation, he must automatically be a 'traitor' and therefore castigated or even killed (for 'apostasy'). This is largely because in Islam there is no separation between religion, or the Mosque, and the state - or even between Islam itself and social and political life. Thus if someone goes against Islam, he must also be going against Muslim states or communities. And that is why Muslims frequently use the word 'traitor' for any Muslim who dares to criticise Islam or even anything connected to Islam.

Oh Lord, protect us from this Conspiracy Theory Overkill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEWS LINK:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/196741.html

A long history of Jew-hatred in Palestine (2)

2011-09-05T10:13:00.000-07:00

The land of Palestine

Whilst it is true that many Arabs fought alongside the British, under the legendary T.E. Lawrence (‘Lawrence of Arabia’), so did many Jews, as Mitchell G Bard states: “Jews also fought against the Ottomans to liberate Palestine during the First World War, as did the Arabs.” (‘Middle East Conflict’, page 76.) The Arabs were far more numerous and so they formed the bulk of the forces against the Ottomans.
Palestinian leaders often claim today that the bond between Palestinians and their homeland is unbreakable and demand the right of all Palestinians to return to the homes they fled during the 1948 War of Independence and the Six day war in 1967. Yet here are some very revealing quotes about this so-called ‘unbreakable bond’.

“The British consul general, James Finn, wrote in 1857 that ‘the country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants’ and that its ‘greatest need is that of a body of population.’ Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, the great British cartographer, reached similar conclusions in 1881: ‘In Judea it is hardly an exaggeration to say that for miles there was no appearance of life or habitation.’ The Palestine Royal Commission quoted an account from 1913 saying that on the road from Gaza to the north, ‘no orange groves, orchards or vineyards were to be seen until one reached Yabna [a Jewish village]... [T]he western part towards the sea was almost a desert... The villages in this area were few and thinly populated.’” (Quoted from ‘The world turned upside down’ by Melanie Phillips, pages 57-8.)

Meanwhile in his book ‘Middle East Conflict’ Mitchell G Bard describes Palestine as it was for many centuries as a “sparsely populated, poorly cultivated, and widely expanse of eroded hills, sandy deserts, and malarial marshes” (page 61). And he quotes Mark Twain, who visited Palestine in 1867 and described it as

“a desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds... A desolation is here and not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action... There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.” (‘Middle East Conflict’ by Mitchell G Bard, page 61.)

Here is another quote from the memoirs of one early Jewish settler, Rachel Yannait Ben-Zvi, describing her arrival in Palestine in 1908 and the train journey she took from Jaffa to Jerusalem:

“Desolate stretches of uncultivated fields spread all the way to the horizon, up to the far off Samarian hills visible through a bluish haze. The sight of all the barren ground filled me with a kind of joy – joy that fate had kept the soil of Judea uninhabited and un-worked…. In my mind’s eye I saw it brought back to life by the hands of Jews returning from far away.” (Quoted by Ronald Sanders, replying to Yehoshua Porath’s criticisms of ‘From time immemorial’ by Joan Peters. My emphasis added.)

In 1918 Hussein bin Ali, sherif of Mecca, who led the Arabs during the fight against Ottoman rule alongside the British, stated that

“The resources of the country are still virgin soil and will be developed by the Jewish immigrants. One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years. At the same time, we have seen the Jews from foreign countries streaming into Palestine from Russia, Germany, Spain and America... The return of these exiles to their homeland will prove materially and spiritually an experimental school for their brethren who are with them in the fields, factories, trades, and in all things connected with toil and labour.” (‘Middle East Conflict’, pages 81. My emphasis above.)

Furthermore: “A British government handbook from 1920 noted, ‘The people west of Jordon are not Arabs, but only Arab-speaking. The bulk of the population are fellahin... In the Gaza district they are mostly of Egyptian origin; elsewhere they are of mixed race.’... Very few had been in Palestine before the Jews arrived; many Arabs moved into the area on the back of the prosperity brought by the returning Jews during the first half of the twentieth century.

Between 1922 and 1946, the Arab population of Palestine increased by 118 per cent. Franklin D Roosevelt said in 1939 that ‘Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period.’” (‘The world turned upside down’ by Melanie Phillips, page 59)

The fact is it was only after Jews migrated to Palestine in the early 20th century and through their hard work began to create farming and agricultural jobs that Arabs began to move to the area to take advantage of the employment prospects and the wages they could earn. Indeed the 1936 Peel Commission noted that the presence of Jews in Palestine had “resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living, and ample employment opportunities.” (‘Middle East Conflict’, page 94.)

And on the so-called ‘dispossession’ of the Palestinian Arabs we read,

“Far from appropriating Arab property, the Jews bought most of the land from the Arabs – mainly absentee landlords – as many Arab sources have testified, such as King Abdullah of Transjordon, who wrote that the Arabs were ‘as prodigal in selling their land as they were in useless wailing and weeping.’” (‘The world turned upside down’, page 61.)

And Mitchell G Bard adds:

“More than 90 per cent of the land Jews had purchased by 1936 had been bought from landowners, nearly 40 per cent whom lived in Egypt and Syria. Less than 8.7 per cent of the Jews’ land was purchased from the fellaheen (peasant farmers)... The Jews were paying outrageous prices to wealthy Arab landowners for small tracts of arid land... The Arabs who became ‘dispossessed’ were those who had willingly sold their land at exorbitant prices to Jewish buyers.” (‘Middle East Conflict’, page 93)

As can be seen the above quotes from completely separate and independent sources, spanning 1857 to 1936, the land of Palestine, a province of the Ottoman Empire since the early 16th century, had been badly neglected and remained a desert wasteland with the sparse population living in peasant-like conditions similar to those of medieval times. And as Arab leader Sherif Hussein pointedly remarked in 1918,

“One of the most amazing things until recent times was that the Palestinian used to leave his country, wandering over the high seas in every direction. His native soil could not retain a hold on him, though his ancestors had lived on it for 1,000 years.” (‘Middle East Conflict’ by Mitchell G Bard, pages 81.)

Moreover, it was only when the Jews began migrating to Palestine from the late 19th century onwards, fleeing the terrible pogroms of Eastern Europe, and started to develop the economy, irrigating the desert soil to develop farming and agriculture, that the Arabs began to flock to Palestine to take advantage of Jewish ingenuity and enterprise.

We’ve already seen the quote from Mitchell G Bard stating that “When Jews began to migrate to Palestine in large numbers in 1882, fewer than 250,000 Arabs lived there...” (‘Middle East Conflict’, page 70), and “estimates suggest the total population at the turn of the century was around 400,000” (see ‘Nazi Palestine’ by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cuppers, page 3). Now compare the figure of 250,000 Arabs with those from official sources for 1922 and 1931 given below.

When the British Mandate began in 1922 Census details were recorded, held firstly in 1922 and again in 1931. The 1922 figures are as follows:

Muslims: 589,177
Christians: 71,464
Jews: 83,790

And the total population is given at 752, 048.

While by the 1931 they were:

Muslims: 759,700
Christians: 88,907
Jews: 174,606

The total population of Palestine for 1931 is given at 1,033,314

Meanwhile by 1936 estimated figures are given thus:

Muslims: 883,446
Jews: 395,836

Total Population: 1,401, 794

The increase in the “Muslim”/Arab population between 1882 and 1942 can’t be put down to high birthrate alone and it seems clear that many were migrating to Palestine.

The latest, 2010 population figures for Israel is 7,746,000. Thus the land of Palestine was hardly ‘overpopulated’ in 1922, 1931 or 1936 or at any time during the British Mandate period (1922-48). The fact is there was plenty of land space for Palestinian Arabs, Christians and Jews alike. The only thing lacking was a willingness on the part of the Arabs to allow Jews to develop the land and make it a place worthy of the 20th century instead of a land that had changed little since the middle ages. As Husseini said himself: “We want no progress, no prosperity in Palestine”.

- By Spero Meliora

Nick Lowles (Hope Not Hate) is NOT against all terrorism

2011-09-05T03:32:00.000-07:00

A British campaign group, Searchlight, has told the incredibly unbiased Press TV (based in the Islamic Republic of Iran) that the the English Defence League is a “conveyor belt for potential terrorists,” warning the Home Office of threats posed by the group.

Nick Lowles, its leader and spokesman, has said that the

'revealed links between EDL and Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian Christian terrorist that killed 77 people in Oslo last month, should prompt officials to take a more decisive action against the far-right EDL.'
For a start, does anyone need to be lectured on extremism by a Communist, such as Nick Lowles, or by a Communist organisation, such as Searchlight? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

This man is not a expert on the EDL and he certainly isn't an expert on terrorism. In fact, up until Anders Breivik, this man had nothing to say about terrorism. Specifically, he had nothing to say about the Global Jihad or the danger Islamists pose to the UK. He was utterly silent about all these things.

And then, all of a sudden, he speaks about about 'the threat of terrorism'? Why now, Nick Lowles? I'll tell you why. He is only interested in 'far right terrorism'; the massive daily death toll from militant Islam in the world is of no concern to him. Indeed he rationalises and explains the dirty and bloody deeds of Islamoterrorists in a typically Leftist/Communist fashion.

So should anyone listen to this Communist? Well, if you're a communist or Trotskyist who likes his Islamoterrorism explained and rationalised in Leftist terms, and all 'right wing terrorism' described in utterly critical non-analytic terms, Nick Lowles is the man for you.

Nick Lowles is also keen on the apocalyptic turn of phrase. He says that 'the EDL presents the biggest threat to community cohesion'. That's strange because this Communist also once said, not that long ago (in fact less than three years ago), that the BNP 'is the biggest threat to community cohesion'. As the similar was said, by various Trotskyists and Communists, about the National Front and even about the Conservative Party. (The BNP and EDL's existence has taken some of the pressure of the 'far right of the Conservative Party', as it used to be called.)

I will listen to justifiable criticisms of the EDL by others, but not from a Communist or an 'anti-fascist'. You cannot trust a single word these revolutionaries say. They admit to 'lying for Justice'. So, within the Leftist soundbites about the EDL, there are bound to be many outright lies and simple distortions.

Do not trust Nick Lowles. Do not trust Searchlight and Hope Not Hate. They are all burdened down with revolutionary theory/ideology and pathetic Leftist soundbites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The news link:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/196000.html

German ex-rapper incites Islamist hate crimes

2011-09-05T01:05:00.001-07:00

Just as there are loads of killers and criminals in prison who are converting to the Religion of Killing, Islam, so too there are many macho and violent rappers succumbing to the appeal of Islam. However, the journey is more likely to be the other way – from macho rap to male-ruled Islam.
It this case we are talking about a German rapper, called Mr Cuspert (above), who has converted to the Salafi strain of Islam. (The most hardcore Islam you could ever hope to find.)

This man and his rants (raps) are so extreme that he's secured the interest of German security officials. These security officials have said that Cuspert is an

'influential figure who incites violence and unrest through inflammatory videos and fiery speeches that praise terrorists and attack the West'.

So, instead of rap about killing, say, a rival gang member or whatnot, this guy talks about killing infidels instead. Whichever way you slice it, the man is inciting violence. He is, in other words, inciting 'hate crimes' and is, in fact, a Hate Criminal.

These German security officials also said that the hate crimes of this man inspired the fatal shooting of two American airmen at the Frankfurt airport in March. The killer was inspired, more precisely, by a video of Cuspert's he had just seen.

So we must fight 'hate crime' in all its forms - even if it's Muslims who are committing them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NEWS LINK:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/world/europe/01jihadi.html?_r=1

Young Muslims are 'the most opposed to government'

2011-09-04T23:56:00.000-07:00

If you want a blueprint for Islamoterrorism, you don't need to go to the Muslim Council of Britain, the English Defence League or any other counter-jihadist group. Hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
This account of 'what it is like to be a Muslim in the UK' , by Omar Shahid, unintentionally lets various cats out of the bag. The Muslim writer tells of us the volatile mindset of young British Muslims. For example, he says that Muslim youth are

'the most opposed to government, arguably the most estranged and disenfranchised and possibly even the most pious sections of our society' .

Then he says that such young Muslims are 'estranged'. Of course they are! This man has already told us that these young Muslims are 'the most opposed to government', etc. Perhaps they are estranged from government, and British society , precisely because of their radical and militant Islam. That is, the government, and non-Muslim society in the UK, are not responsible for Islamic radicalisation and estrangement - Islam itself is. The writer has got the chicken and egg scenario the wrong way around. Muslims are having problems precisely because of their militancy. Their 'estrangement' is not the consequence of what the government and others do, it is a cause of it.

We may have to come to the conclusion that Islam itself, and Muslims as Muslims, are the culprits – at least in many cases. We must stop passing the buck and rationalising the behaviour and attitudes of Muslims. Muslims believe what they believe because of Islam, the Koran, etc., not because they are 'alienated' from non-Muslim society or, say, because of what the Israelis are doing in the Middle East.

I also wish the writer of this piece was more specific about what he calls 'Muslim identity'. That is, which aspects of Muslim identity are 'becoming increasingly more difficult for young Muslims to sustain', as he puts it. In addition, why do so many Muslims simply assume a binary opposition between Muslim identity and what they see as the uniform and omnipresent 'materialism and sensual pleasures' in the West? This is an arrogant Westernophobia which simply assumes that the West is everywhere and always materialistic and in obsessive pursuit of 'sensual pleasure'.

In a sense, the writer is giving the game away with his references to 'Muslim identity'. That is, he categorically states that sustaining a Muslim identity is hugely difficult in Western societies. Yet aren't Islamophiles and Muslims always trying to tell us that Islam is not alien to the West? You can't have it both ways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The news link:

http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2011/09/01/growing-up-as-a-young-muslim/

Lowles, Communist revolutionary, warns of EDL extremism

2011-09-03T10:08:00.001-07:00

A British campaign group, Searchlight, has told the incredibly unbiased Press TV (based in Iran) that the the English Defence League is a “conveyor belt for potential terrorists,” warning the Home Office of threats posed by the group.
Nick Lowles, its leader and spokesman, has said that the 'revealed links between EDL and Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian Christian terrorist that killed 77 people in Oslo last month, should prompt officials to take a more decisive action against the far-right EDL.'

For a start, does anyone need to be lectured on extremism by a Communist, such as Nick Lowles, or by a Communist organisation, such as Searchlight? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

This man is not a expert on the EDL and he certainly isn't an expert on terrorism. In fact up until Anders Breivik, this man had nothing to say about terrorism. Specifically, he had nothing to say about the Global Jihad or the danger Islamists pose to the UK. He was utterly silent about all these things.

And then, all of a sudden, he speaks about about 'the threat of terrorism'? Why now, Nick Lowles? I'll tell you why. He is only interested in 'far right terrorism'; the massive daily death toll from Islamism and militant Islam is of no concern to him. Indeed he rationalises and explains the dirty and bloody deeds of Islamoterrorists in a typically Leftist/Communist fashion.

So should anyone listen to this Communist? Well, if you're a communist or Trotskyist who likes his Islamoterrorism explained and rationalised in Leftist terms, and all 'right wing terrorism' described in utterly critical non-analytic terms, Nick Lowles is the man for you.

Nick Lowles is also keen on the apocalyptic turn of phrase. He says that 'the EDL presents the biggest threat to community cohesion'. That's strange because this Communist also once said, not that long ago (in fact less than three years ago), that the BNP 'is the biggest threat to community cohesion'. As the similar was said, by various Trotskyists and Communists, about the National Front and even about the Conservative Party. (The BNP and EDL's existence has taken some of the pressure of the 'far right wing of the Conservative Party, as it used to be called.)

I will listen to justifiable criticisms of the EDL by others, but not from a Communist or an 'anti-fascist'. You cannot trust a single word these revolutionaries say. They admit to 'lying for Justice'. So, within the Leftist soundbites about the EDL, there are bound to be many outright lies and simple distortions.

Do not trust Nick Lowles. Do not trust Searchlight and Hope Not Hate. They are all burdened down with revolutionary theory/ideology and pathetic Leftist soundbites.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the news link:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/196000.html

Tower Hamlets: History didn't 'repeat itself'

2011-09-03T08:39:00.000-07:00

Tower Hamlets 2011 did not result in 'history repeating itself' because history can't repeat itself. However, I suspect that the Muslim writer of this piece, Salman Farsi (image below), also knows this. Nevertheless, it will do wonders for the Islamist or Islamic cause to make associations between the EDL and Moseley's fascists because he knows, as we all do, that Trotskyists and Communists are absolutely obsessed with Cable Street and what happened there. More generally, because they are so obsessed with the rise of fascism/Nazism generally in the1930s, they see fascism rising left, right and centre.
But it's what can be called RED FASCISTS who are seeing fascism everywhere. That's because it's their job to see fascism everywhere.

Leftists used to scream about 'anti-Communist scaremongering' and fearing 'reds under the bed' – what about fascists or Nazis under the bed instead?

So another alternative would be the ISLAMIST UNDER THE BED. And it is these almost ISLAMOFASCIST Islamists who are in control of Tower Hamlets. That's why most EDL members demonstrated today.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The news link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/salman-farsi/history-banned-from-repea_b_945369.html

Islamic ex-rapper inspires hate crimes in Germany

2011-09-03T08:23:00.000-07:00

It this case we are talking about a German rapper, called Mr Cuspert (above), who has converted to the Salafi strain of Islam. (The most hardcore Islam you could ever hope for.)

This man and his rants (raps) are so extreme that he's secured the interest of German security officials. These security officials have said that Cuspert is an 'influential figure who incites violence and unrest through inflammatory videos and fiery speeches that praise terrorists and attack the West'. So, instead of rap about killing, say, a rival gang member or whatnot, this guy talks about killing infidels instead. Whichever way you slice it, the man is inciting violence. He is, in other words, inciting 'hate crimes' and is, in fact, a Hate Criminal.

These German security officials also said that the hate crimes of this man inspired the fatal shooting of two American airmen at the Frankfurt airport in March. The killer was inspired, more precisely, by a video of Cuspert's he had just seen.

So we must fight 'hate crime' in all its forms - even if it's Muslims who are committing them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The News link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/world/europe/01jihadi.html?_r=1

Why Tower Hamlets? (2)

2011-09-02T23:41:00.000-07:00

Lutfur Rahman is ratcheting up his campaign against free democratic expression. He has given the Metropolitan Police Commissioner until Monday to seek a Home Office ban on the English Defence League marching through London’s East End on September 3.

Lutfur Rahman’s Islamist instincts are kicking in fully now. His anti-democratic urges, and his push for the imposition of a sharia blasphemy law in the UK, show what this man wants. But is he following instructions from the Muslim Brotherhood, or perhaps from Islamic Forum Europe

or Yusef Quradawi? Who- or whatever he is following, it is clear that he would like the situation backed up legally. A situation in which it is virtually impossible to criticise Islam, Muslims as Muslims or any aspect of that religion. That is, the situation that is instantiated every day in all Muslim and Islamic states and which has been the norm in Islamic states for over a thousand years. A complete ban on all criticism of any aspect of Islam. Or, as Islamists/Leftists call it, a complete ban on ‘Islamophobia’.

(The Muslim Brotherhood has been using non-Muslim - secular! - democratic institutions and laws to fight the very states and societies which have given them those democratic rights and laws. It's called destroying the system from within, and the Muslim Brotherhood has been doing this since the 1920s.)

You can say that what Leftists claim Muslims are fighting for in Arab Muslim states, as part of the ‘Arab spring’ and onwards, is exactly what they are fighting against here in the UK - free political expression. Just as Liberty and Shami Chakrabarti always fight for the right of Islamic terrorists to have a cushy life in prison, and as she fights for their freedoms outside prison, so the Islamist leader of Tower Hamlets, Lutfur Rahman, is attempting to use the courts to halt what have been, up until the rise of Islamism in the UK, a firmly entrenched democratic right to march through the streets of the UK. That is how tightly Islamists like Lutfur Rahman, and his far-leftist enablers, have got this country by the balls.

In order to sell his anti-democratic Islamism (to those unfamiliar with its totalitarian instincts), he will have to dress it up in the language of Leftism and politically-correct multiculturalism. Thus Rahman goes into full cliché mode by saying that the EDL shouldn't be allowed to ‘divide our community’. One Leftist cliché is not enough for Rahman. He is also claiming to fight against ‘hatred and Racism’ (with a capital ‘R’). And all this from an Islamist whose Islamism would do more to fracture society and destroy freedoms than any other ideology I can think of. It also stirs up 'hatred’ and ‘division’ - hatred and division fostered by Islamism, not by racism and fascism. But does it matter which ideology, in this case Islamism, is stirring up racism and division? Is it only 'right wing’ groups of white people that can stir things up in society? It seems that that’s what the Leftist enablers of Islamism think.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News piece by the East London Advertiser, ‘Tower Hamlets mayor legal threat if Home Secretary doesn’t ban EDL march’, by Mike Brooke , August 19, 2011.

The Mayor of Tower Hamlets has given the Metropolitan Police Commissioner until Monday to seek a Home Office ban on the English Defence League marching through London’s East End on September 3.

Lutfur Rahman has thrown the gauntlet down and told the commissioner he will go to court unless an application is made.

“I will instruct lawyers on Monday to go to the High Court and seek injunctive relief if the Met Police fail to act,” he told a Town Hall news conference this-afternoon.

“We will not let the EDL or any other bunch of extremists divide our community.

“The EDL just wants images of our young people fighting on the streets to show that multi-cultural Britain doesn’t work—but we stand united in the East End against hatred and Racism.

“The authorities must act to ban the EDL.”

He is challenging Home Secretary Theresa May to use her powers to stop the EDL coming to Whitechapel on September 3 on the grounds of public safety.

He was backed at the news conference in his call for a ban by community and religious leaders who have come together under the United East End alliance.

“Fear and anxiety grows every day that passes without action from the police of Home Secretary,” the mayor added. “If no action is taken, we have no option but to protect our residents and take the police and Home Secretary to court.”

Tower Hamlets council’s legal department has written to the Acting Commissioner to demand they apply to the Home Secretary to ban the march under the Public Order Act, in the light of last week’s London riots.

Legal proceedings will begin, they warn, if there is no response by Monday or if the response is not in favour of a ban.

Why Tower Hamlets? (1)

2011-09-02T23:34:00.000-07:00

... and Leftists say that the Islamification of the UK is a 'myth'!

I always thought that 'Inter-Faith dialogue' was a one-way street - from non-Muslims to Muslims. The spiritual adviser to Lutfur Rahman, the new Tower Hamlets Ayatollah, makes this clear in this video. His name is Sheik Adel Al-Kalbani.

Christians have Dhimmi status in Muslim lands. Muslims have a special status in non-Muslim lands - in the UK!

Inter-faith deceit is just a vehicle for Muslims either to get what they want from non-Muslims or to use such meetings to proselytise on behalf of Islam.

Muslims will never accommodate themselves or their religion because Islam is the One True Faith. Full stop. No debate. No genuine InterFaith dialogue. Just Taqiyya. Deceit. Lies. Manipulation. As well as Anglican and Methodist gullibility and just pure, stupid, fluffy niceness.

As the interviewer says: Interfaith dialogue is 'dialogue for dialogue's sake'. It is just a front for most Muslims. For Methodists and Anglicans, InterFaith is their true, new faith. It is how they prove to us how fucking nice they are. What really matters to them is their own sense of supreme goodness and piety; which they prove by bending over backwards for Muslims. If the UK became an Islamic state, that wouldn't matter to them. That wouldn't impinge on their niceness (or gullibility!).

Why did the Labour Party and the rest ever have faith in these people when you can easily hear the truth from the horses' mouths – in this case, Lutfur Rahman’s ‘spiritual adviser’? (Just as is the case if you read Hamas’s 1987 charter!)

A long history of Jew hatred in Palestine (1)

2011-09-02T08:20:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Dimbleby, like many others on the Left, including many social democrat and so-called liberal elements (Lib Dems etc), claim that 19th century Zionists viewed Palestine as ‘a land without a people’, that Jews dispossessed the Palestinians and forced them to become refugees. The facts tell a completely different story.

Although Dimbleby claims his book is “neither a hymn to terrorism nor an apologia for the PLO” (Page 10) that is precisely what it is. Significantly Dimbleby fails to quote a single Israeli in his 254-page book and yet there are numerous quotes from interviews he conducted with Palestinians, including senior figures of the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO). And although they claim their aim is to establish ‘a secular, democratic state where Palestinians and Jews can live together in peace’, not once are these lies challenged.

Here is how Dimbleby puts it himself. “At the United Nations, Yasser Arafat stood before the world ‘bearing an olive branch and a freedom fighter’s gun’. He held out the vision of a secular, democratic state in which Jew and Arab could live together as equals in brotherhood.” (‘The Palestinians’, page 242.)

Compare this to the oft-repeated statement by Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas that not a single Jew shall be allowed to live in a future Palestinian state, a view that has wide support throughout the Middle East, and especially Fatah/PLO which he leads. The Jerusalem Post of August 2010 cited a quote by Abbas as follows: "I'm willing to agree to a third party that would supervise the agreement, such as NATO forces, but I would not agree to having Jews among the NATO forces, or that there will live among us even a single Israeli on Palestinian land,” he was quoted by WAFA, the official Palestinian news agency. (‘Beware Palestinian apartheid’, Jerusalem Post, 4 August 2010. My emphasis added.)

This attitude, it must be said, has been prevalent amongst Arabs for many, many years. Indeed this was first brought to the world’s attention in the 1920s by the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Muhammed Amin al-Husseini – fifty years before Dimbleby produced his book.
In 1941 Husseini fled to Nazi Germany and in an excellent internet essay by Bill Warner he tells how Adolf Hitler made him Prime Minister-in-exile of a pro-Nazi government in Palestine, adding that the Muslim community in Germany hailed him as “The Fuhrer of the Arab world.” Warner adds: “In his memoirs, Husseini wrote: ‘Our fundamental condition for cooperating with Germany was a free hand to eradicate every last Jew from Palestine and the Arab world. I asked Hitler for an explicit undertaking to allow us to solve the Jewish problem in a manner befitting our national and racial aspirations and according to the scientific methods innovated by Germany in the handling of the Jews. The answer I got was, ‘The Jews are yours.’” (My emphasis added.)

Hitler also granted Husseini radio time to broadcast anti-Semitic propaganda urging Arabs to rise up and “kill the Jews wherever you find them”. The following is typical of what Husseini said: “Arise, O sons of Arabia. Fight for your sacred rights. Slaughter Jews wherever you find them. Their spilled blood pleases Allah, our history and religion.”

Following the defeat of Hitler in 1945, Husseini fled Germany and lived for many years in Egypt where he was hailed a hero, something echoed by PLO leader Yassir Arafat when Husseini died in 1974.

Here’s a quote from the Palestine Facts internet essay ‘Who was the Grand Mufti, Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini?’: “Haj Amin al-Husseini eventually died in exile in 1974. He never returned to Jerusalem after his 1937 departure. His place as leader of the radical, nationalist Palestinian Arabs was taken by his nephew Mohammed Abdel-Raouf Arafat As Qudwa al-Husseini, better known as Yasser Arafat. In August 2002, Arafat gave an interview in which he referred to "our hero al-Husseini" as a symbol of Palestinian Arab resistance.”

By Spero Meliora – July 2011

The Leftist pro-Palestinian Stance is a Fad

2011-09-02T02:17:00.000-07:00

Every middle-class hardcore multiculturalist lives miles from the nearest Muslim ghetto. Then again, it's THEORY that matters to Leftists, not reality or inconvenient fact.

In most cases of Leftism, especially for student Leftists, is little more than a fad - a fashion. The monomania with the poor Palestinians is the best example of this. Israelis scratch the finger of an Oppressed Palestinian, and the European student Leftist simply forgets about the carnage in Darfur, the Sudan generally and the mass persecution of Christians in Iraq, Pakistan, etc. But it's 'white people who have the power', eh?