The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Philosophy Now, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here

Saturday, 10 April 2010

Cameron Says 'No' To the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

(The Conservative Party will not hold face-to-burka talks with the Muslim Council of Britain.)

It is good news that the Conservative Party will cut its ties with the Muslim Council of Britain if it is elected.

Well, that’s one good reason to vote Conservative.

Let’s not forget here that New Labour actually helped create this Islamist organisation. Not even Muslims are happy with it because it is a synthetic organisation specifically Government-created to be the conduit between Muslims and the state. But most of the MCB’s leaders didn’t really represent anyone except the Muslim Brotherhood, of which it is a part.

However, New Labour did once cut (close?) links with the MCB before. Only to retie those links. Why? There is a mountain of evidence that tells us that the MCB is not a ‘moderate’ organisation. Sure, it is not as Islamist as the Muslim Association of Britain, who’s leader, Azzam Tammini, simply adores the killer-group and death-cult Hamas. That is because we now have this:

MCB = good Muslim cop
MAB = bad Muslim cop

Yes, you guessed it; the MAB is part of the Muslim Brotherhood as well. So how can the MCB have genuine and real doctrinal and political differences with the Islamist MAB?

The Conservative leader, David Cameron, has said that his party ‘won’t do formal things’ with the MCB. This is largely a reaction to the Deputy Secretary of the MCB, Daud Abdullah, who supports Hamas’ terror campaign. (The Hamas campaign is designed to taunt the Israelis into doing something outrageous in front of Western anti-Zionist journalists and cameramen. A dead Palestinian child always does the world of good for Hamas’s cause – which is the annihilation of Israel.)

Abdullah’s position on Palestine is a strange reason to cut links over. Cameron will have to understand that the very many Muslims here in Britain support the killing machine Hamas. There is one particular distinction politicians need to understand. That is, many Muslims believe in terrorism against the Israelis but not terrorism at home. They couldn’t believe in that; could they? Muslims would hardly get away with saying that they think that terrorism on their own soil is legitimate. That would result in political suicide. And many Muslims are far too clever for that. Let the official loonies, the Bad Muslim Cops, like Islam4UK and Hizb ut-Tahrir, hint at the legitimacy of home-grown terrorism. Many of the Good Muslim Cops believe that too. Of course they do not say it. Well, they don’t say it to the Birmingham Mail or on Question Time. Whether they say it in private or not, I will leave it to the reader to decide.

In any case, what exactly is it that Cameron means by the phrase ‘we won’t do formal things’ with the MCB? Not formal things? Private things instead? Like those secret meetings with the IRA in the 1970s and 80s? These non-formal things may well be just as dangerous and anti-British as any direct formal links with the MCB. My advice is:

Don’t give the Islamists, or any offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood like the MCB and the MAB, the oxygen of legitimacy.

Tell that group to get it house in order. And not just for kafir consumption; but in reality. Until that day, which won’t come, keep away from the MCB. After all, having formal, and even informal, links with the MCB is little better than having links with Class War or Permanent Revolution.

Cameron spoke about ‘other representative bodies’ other than the MCB. Which other ‘representative bodies’? We’ve already seen that the MAB is, if anything, more extreme and Islamist than the MCB. What about the Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPACUK)? That group has a history of anti-Semitism and encouraging Muslim block voting. Its logic is simple: vote only for Muslims MPs. This explains why many Muslims vote Labour – because Labour has Muslim and Asian MPs. Thus the Conservative’s ‘first Muslim MP’, according to Cameron, can only be a positive thing in the tribal politics of Islam.

What are ‘community leaders’ anyway? Do Christians, Hindus, golfers, etc. have community leaders? Were these Muslim ‘community leaders’ voted in by Muslims (or anyone else)? Of course they weren’t. They are soi-disant community leaders. In a sense, they vote themselves in, as South American dictators used to do. And isn’t having a self-contained ‘community’ itself a divisive thing? Don’t they encourage the atomisation, not the pluralism, of society? Don’t they emphasise the sense of separateness which Muslims already feel? Indeed don’t these community leaders encourage this sense of distance from the kafir precisely because this is what Islam demands? True pluralism, true interaction with other non-Muslims cultures and communities, would either water down the faith of Muslims or contaminate it. Every Western style or idea is a direct or indirect threat to Islam itself – and thus a threat to each and every Muslim in the UK. The biggest threat to pluralism are these Muslim community leaders themselves because they help build the self-imposed Muslim ghettoes that every non-Muslim (except the Trots and Respect) is against. Even if they dare not say so.

No comments:

Post a Comment