PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


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, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Sunday, 30 January 2011

What is the Islamic Forum of Europe?





Islamic/Muslim Victimhood

You would hardly have expected Muslims and Islamists not to have criticised last years Channel 4 Dispatches programme on the IFE. Muslims are not known for lying down and taking it. Andrew Gilligan, who wrote and presented the programme, was surprised that the Islamic Forum of Europe wrote out its criticisms of the programme in advance – before it had seen the programme. I’m not surprised at this either. I understand Islam and Taqiyya. I understand its phoney pose of victimhood – victimhood which is actually always actually a pretext for attack.

If there are over two million Muslims in the UK, and it is the duty of all Muslims to protect their faith from ‘insult’ and ‘offence’, then it is not a surprise either that more than 1,000 viewers complained about the Channel 4 documentary on ‘Britain’s Islamic Republic’. In fact I am surprised there weren't more complaints than that.

None of this matters when it comes to defending Islam - which is an absolute imperative for all Muslims. Galloway, the honorary Muslim and Arabophile, admitted he hadn’t seen the documentary. That didn’t stop him from saying that it was ‘a dirty little programme’.

The same kind of thing happened with the Satanic Verses. Muslims rioted and killed without actually having read the damn book. The same happened with the Mohammed cartoons. Muslims rioted and killed without having seen the cartoons. And the same was true about the Koran-down-the-toilet affair. Muslims rioted and killed even though the story was made up. (Some of the Danish cartoons were also created by the Islamists themselves – the worst ones!)

Do you get the feeling that all these ‘offences’ and ‘insults’ to Islam are just excuses to riot and kill? Excuses needed to show the infidel the power of Muslims and Islam itself? Aren’t the riots and the killings which follow these so-called ‘insults’ and ‘offences’ also the way many Islamists and Muslims prove their Islamic credentials to their fellow Muslims? Isn’t death and riot almost a necessary aspect of Islam and the lives of many Muslims? If not, why do Muslims kill and riot more than any other religious or even political group? Has it got something to do with Islam itself? Of course not! Islam is ‘the religion of peace’. And we know that it is the religion of peace because Muslims tell us that it is the religion of peace. And why should we doubt a religion that kills so many people every single day? Why should we doubt a religion that has been expansionist, war-like and imperialist for 1,300 years? No reason at all.

So do not doubt the Muslim penchant for denying the obvious and the actual. Do not doubt their use of Taqiyya to do so. Thus you should not doubt that the Islamic Forum of Europe wrote the following before it had even seen the Dispatches documentary:

‘I write to express my disgust and disappointment at Channel 4’s wholly inaccurate and defamatory accusations… The documentary is Islamophobic in nature… uses emotive and provocative language… is part of a series of organised, vindictive and orchestrated witch-hunts.’

All that a whole week before the actual programme was aired!

The proselytisers, or da’wah merchants, indulge in a fantastic display of Taqiyya when it comes to any criticism of the IFE. They portray each and every criticism of it as a criticism of Islam itself! How convenient. Thus if it is a genuine attack on Islam, not only the IFE, the consequential riots and even killings may well be justified.

Some Islam-friendly kuffurs have predictably said that the IFE is not genuinely or truly Islamic. Yes, that old chestnut. When Muslims are honest, or when they kill or bomb, then automatically to the Dhimmi, they must not be true or genuine Muslims. Real Muslims only do nice things, after all. Isn’t Islam ‘the Religion of Peace’?
The problem is that I think that the members of IFE are genuine and real Muslims. I think that its Islam is genuine and real Islam. (Or as much as any single organisation can be.) It is that fact that is frightening. The extremists are the genuine and real Muslims. The extremists in the IFE are real and genuine Muslims. The sooner non-Muslims, from leftists to pious Methodist interfaithers, realise this - the better. Or are they going to leave the whole damn business until it is too late, just as Neville Chamberlain nearly did all those years back?

The main subject of the documentary’s investigation was the infiltration and subversion of New Labour by IFE Islamists. Specifically, Jim Fitzpatrick, MP, accused the IFE of infiltrating his party. Why did he think that? Well, one reason he thought that was the 110% growth in Labour members in the area over only two years. Thus the IFE had been doing the business of telling Muslims to vote Labour because although Labour is still kuffur, it is nicer to Muslims than all the other mainstream parties. But apart from the unprecedented increase in Labour members during this short period, people also realised that some Labour members had the same names as people who are in - or linked to - the IFE.

The Nature of the Beast

What do we know about IFE? We know that it hates democracy because democracy is at odds with Islam, and, more specifically, at odds with Shari’ah law. Because of our society’s divergence from Islam, the IFE believes that its

‘very infrastructure… its institutions, its culture, its political order and its creed…[must be taken] from ignorance to Islam’.

Pretty strong stuff! There’s more. The IFE goes on to say that it

‘strives for the establishment of a global society, the Khilafah… comprised of individuals who live by the principles of… the Shari’ah.’

Again, the IFE doesn’t like the West much. It doesn’t have much time for English values and traditions either. Why is that? Because

it is this continent… which has a moral and spiritual vacuum.’

Perhaps we are not killing enough people or blowing enough people up for Christianity and our ‘secular religions’. Perhaps we don’t riot and foam at the mouth enough. No we don’t! Muslims beat us at all these ‘moral and spiritual’ things. Thank God!

So what would the IFE’s alternative Islamic society actually be like? The following will give you an idea. In this Islamic society we would be ‘protected’ from

‘all types of haram… music, TV, and free mixing with women in that which is not necessary.’

Sounds like one hell of a party! Clearly the writer must simply assume that no Muslim ‘sisters’ will be reading his words because you can’t advise Muslimahs not to ‘freely mix with women’ can you?

Lots of Muslims will try to convince us that Sharia and democracy, or Islam and democracy, are compatible. The IFE doesn’t bother with such Taqiyya and kuffur-talk in this respect. It lays its cards on the table and clearly states that

Democracy, if it means at the expense of not implementing the sharia, of course no one agrees with that.’

At least that’s what the IFE’s ‘community affairs coordinator’, Azad Ali, said.

So it is absolutely no surprise that the supremely oily Taqiyya-technician, and moderate-who’s-not-really-a-moderate, Inayat Bunglawala (of the Muslim Council of Britain), should say that the IFE (yet more moderates-who-aren’t-moderates) are normal Muslim moderates who simply wanted a bit more ‘democratic engagement’ with the infidel. Wow! Inayat’s Taqiyya – bullshit! – is really beginning to annoy me! What about you?

Islam Da’wah (Proselytising)

Da’wah is of vital importance in Islam. Da’wah is proselytising on behalf of the faith – Islam. Every Muslim must do it. Every Muslim must convert as many non-Muslims as possible to Islam. Thus it is no surprise that the IFE should also stress da’wah. Indeed it can be said that the IFE is da’wah in institutional form. That is its prime purpose. The IFE itself says:

‘Our goal is not simply to invite people and give da’wah. Our goal is to create the True Believer, to then mobilise those believers into an organised force for change who will carry out da’wah, hisbah [the enforcement of Sharia and Islamic law generally] and jihad. This will lead to social change and iqamatud-Deen [an Islamic social, economic and political order].’

How explicit and extreme do you want your Muslims to be? And these people characterise themselves as ‘moderate’. Worse than that. Non-Muslims, from leftists to pious liberals, characterise them as ‘moderate’. God! Do these people need to be blown to pieces or have their hands chopped off before they realise the Islamic reality which is before them?

1 comment:

  1. I suppose the violence espoused by many Muslims is down to the violence Muhammed was prepared to embrace after he succumbed to the temptation to be venerated. I wrote this when I had the time to write things like this:

    http://draughtyoldfentales.blogspot.com/2009/09/burqa.html

    ReplyDelete