Tory Muslims' report defends Iran's nuclear ambitions and offers comfort to extremists

The Telegraph highlights a number of recommendations from a recent report on security by the Conservative Muslim Forum.  Having had a chance to look at the report (that appears to have been written last month) I fear that The Telegraph's report is an accurate summary.  I've also discovered other troubling recommendations.

The Forum, chaired by Lord Mohamed Sheikh, enobled in 2005 by Michael Howard, offers comfort to Iran and its ambition for nuclear weapons: "Given Iran's position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes."  Let us never forget that Iran's President has spoken of wiping Israel off the face of the map.  Last year Iran hosted a conference that gave comfort to Holocaust-deniers.  There can be no equivalence between Israel and Iran.  Although not without fault, Israel is a democratic nation - besieged by totalitarian states.  Iran is a sponsor of global terror.  It is a great shame that the CMF could not have begun to made this clear.

The Forum rejects Dame Pauline Neville-Jones' suggestion that “foreign preachers and scholars advocating the rejection of the institutions and values of democracy” should be denied entry into Britain".  The Forum suggests that "If a political party wishes to campaign, constitutionally, for the abolition of democracy in the UK and its replacement by a totalitarian system, why should it not be free to do so?"

The CMF then criticises David Cameron's support for 'Zionism'.  On 12th June the Conservative leader, asked if he was a Zionist, said:

“If what you mean by Zionist, someone who believes that the Jews have a right to a homeland in Israel and a right to their country then yes I am a Zionist and I’m proud of the fact that Conservative politicians down the ages have played a huge role in helping to bring this about” and “There is something deep in our Party’s DNA that believes in Israel, the right of Israel to exist, the right of Israel to defend itself and that a deal should only happen if it means that Israel is really allowed to have peace within secure borders and real guarantees about its future”.

Nothing wrong with that but the CMF is displeased.  "Pro-zionist statements only damage relationships with Muslims nationally and internationally," the Forum concludes.

The Forum concludes that "the Muslim Council of Britain is well-respected by many Muslims and non-Muslims" and encourages the Conservative Party to recognise that.  Paul Goodman is just one of many Conservative MPs who worry about the MCB's tolerance of extremist attitudes, including its unwillingness to support Holocaust Memorial Day.

The report then defends Yusuf al-Qaradawi - a Muslim scholar who has made unacceptable remarks about homosexuals.  Conservatives have rightly criticised Ken Livingstone for having rolled out the red carpet for al-Qaradawi when he visited London.  It is deeply troubling to learn of a group within the Conservative Party giving comfort to this extremist.

4.45pm update: LGF has now picked this up and is quite depressed about the state of Britain, as has "Islamophobia Watch" which has a rather revealing tongue-in-cheek headline: Conservative Muslims back Ahmadinejad shock!

Comments

[HF]

Does it not also echo the need for this overall co-ordinator of these disparate groups that Donal Blaney recommended?

Who in CCHQ owns the job of overseeing what they do?

[Common Sense]

This is really worrying. Who on earth sanctioned this group of nutters to use the Conservative label?

[Tony Makara]

Every nation has the right to develop the most effective form of defence. Deterrence is the greatest weapon.

In theory therefore every nation should be allowed to develop a nuclear capacity as George Orwell once said, as that is the best guarantor of peace. However such a theory falls flat on its face when applied to fundamentalist religious states, because such states are not driven by the logic of the real world. Their world-view is shaped by the abstract contradictions and often wild interpretations of faith. Therefore the west is right to try and stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons to such states.

Nontheless it would be a mistake to use force against such states, diplomacy with incentive must be the approach, as has happened with north Korea.

[simon]

Oh dear...Anyone who advocates Iran having nuclear weapons is bonkers. I have no problem whatsoever with Iran having nuclear power stations btw. But here we go, a 'minority' party clique created to show that we are 'INCLUSIVE' and 'UNDERSTANDING' goes on to create some embarrasment for the rest of us. Why oh why was the CMF report not ripped up infront of the cameras by a party rep? Oh, silly me- to do that would mean 'ALIENATING' the Muslim faction. Can't have that can we... Well, in-fact- yes we can. What has the CMF got to come up with next before somebody says cut out the crackpot statements. I'm not for all these internal party groups anyway. What next- Conservative over 50's forum? Conservative radical gardeners forum? Conservative short-persons forum?

[Jonathan Powell]

Nontheless it would be a mistake to use force against such states, diplomacy with incentive must be the approach, as has happened with north Korea.

Yeah, because N. Korea would never cheat on an agreement--except when they did (i.e., the agreement reached under Clinton in 1994). And I believe they have been transferring their technology to Syria, hence the recent Israeli strike.

When dealing with states like N. Korea and Iran you have to be prepared to use force otherwise they'll just take the Mickey.

[Andrew Lilico]

OK.

- Iran can't have nuclear weapons. Eventually we may have to attack them to prevent it. There is (as things stand in terms of the orientation and stability of the governments) no parity whatever between a nuclear-armed Iran and a nuclear-armed Israel.

- I have no problem with Muslims campaigning for a Caliphate and the end of democracy, any more than I have a problem with Communists or Absolute Monarchists campaigning for the same, or with BNP supporters campaigning for compulsory "repatriation". We should not ban people from arguing for this, or ban people advocating such a platform from standing for election. The trick has to be to have constitutional blockages (such as a Constituitional Monarchy) that make it impossible for such policies to be enacted.

- Muslims believe that homosexuality is wrong. That's just the way it is. Many of them think (wrongly in my opinion) that homosexuality is a disease. They are entitled to hold their views (potty or otherwise), just as other people are entitled to believe that men from Atlantis built the pyramids.

The British government's position has, for many decades, been to be a critical friend of Israel. This will remain our policy under Cameron. That is completely clear and correct.

[Patriot]

Tsk tsk Simon - why do you use the possibility of a Conservative over 50's forum as humour?

Some 24 million members of the UK population are over 50, compared to around
4 million muslims.

As a voting block the over 50's tend to have specific identifiable interests, needs and concerns; they are considered a highly valued and attractive market sector by most responsible agencies - I would have thought that a Conservative over 50's forum would be a very shrewd move given that it would be representing upwards of 24 million potential voters........ Wouldn't you?

[simon]

patriot@11:07- it was not humour. I was actually making the point that having 'sub-organisations' WITHIN the Party creates division and aren't really that helpful. I thought you would have been more upset over the 'radical gardeners' bit. Try and get out a bit more.

[Tony Makara]

Jonathan Powell, yes, of course force could be an option as an absolute last resort when every other single avenue has been exhausted and a clear and present danger actually exists. Nontheless I prefer to see the diplomatic route used as a military option might seem like a quick-fix but can have dire consequences in the long run as events in Iraq have demonstrated.

Its all very well for us to call for military action from the comfort of our armchairs but military action requires real people having to lay their life on the line. Jonathan, would you yourself be prepared to go to the front line and fight against Iran?

Its all too easy for politicians to divorce themselves from the reality of violent conflict. The Jews have a saying and it goes "Before you start something, always think where it might end" and I think those are very wise words. Caution and compromise may take longer but are the best course.

[George Hinton]

The usual apologies and support from the apologists.

Israel has the bomb because it is surrounded by belligerents dedicated to its destruction.

Iran wants the bomb as it wishes to become the power broker in the Middle East/Arabian Gulf, and to eliminate Israel.

Israel is content to secure its borders and co-exist.

Iran wishes to subsume the immediate area into a Greater Persian Empire, seize control of oil and revenues, re-create the caliphate and export its pernicious religion.

The only similarity that Israel and Iran share, is that they are monotheistic, with the religious bodies enjoying considerable influence.

The CMF clearly demonstrates that it is not in touch with the indiginous population. It's views and opinions are that of aliens, representing a political stance that is at variance with our own parliamentary system, and representative of monotheistic dictatorships.

Who on earth allowed this lot to be created and have a voice. Their views are poisonous and divisive and a clear demonstration of the failure of multi-culturism and the results of failing to make incomers Adopt, Adapt and Assimilate.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Why is it perfectly OK for there to be many muslim states in the world? Why is it supposedly alright to believe or work for an extension of muslim states in the world? But why is it spparently wrong for there to be a Jewish state? HYPOCRISY!

[Patriot]

@Posted by: simon | October 19, 2007 at 11:16

""I thought you would have been more upset over the 'radical gardeners' bit. Try and get out a bit more.""

No offence meant or taken old friend. Life's too short.

Peace

[englandism]

Meanwhile, Tony Blair has popped up and suggested that Islamic extremism is akin to the rise of fascism and explicitly cleared the way for an attack on Iran.

Meanwhile, Martin Amis has allegedly suggested that the response to Islamic extremism needs to ratchet up a few gears and the reaction at the Grauniad was a call for global and perpetual war against the West or at least the consequence for any Muslim dissing.

Dangerous times.

Is there a Conservative organisation for disgruntled Englishmen?

[Lee Rotherham]

It seems that we have moved from Norman Tebbit's "cricket test" to a "nuclear bomb test".

[Malcolm Dunn]

This report at best is trite. Looking at the details of it I'm suprised that these people really call themselves Conservatives.
Apart from their views on Iran what possible benefit to Britain is there in encouraging Turkey into the EU?

[Moral minority]

Michael Howard has a lot to answer for. His profligacy as Leader cost the Party its permanent home. He wasted tens of millions on the 2004 European and 2005 General election campaigns. Smith Square had to be sold to pay off the debts that resulted. It was Howard who championed the Conservative Muslim Forum and proposed its Chairman for a Peerage.

The defence of an anti-gay Muslim scholar is no surprise either. Sayeeda Warsi, the unelected Shadow Cabinet for Community Cohesion (sic), was excoriated by the gay press for her anti-gay remarks when she was the PPC for Dewsbury.

However, let us not forget that Boris Johnson wrote an article in Telegraph, just over a year ago, proposing that Iran should have nuclear weapons to balance the threat of Isarel. This report merely echoes our London Mayoral candidate's views. I await Boris's next foreign policy gaffe with trepidation. He is a risky choice as our candidate, especially in Finchley and Golders Green.

David Cameron should close down the Conservative Muslim Forum or at least withdraw its status as an official Party Group. He should sack Sayeeda Warsi and appoint an MP to replace her, e.g. Adam Afriye or Shailesh Vara. It is disgraceful that so many of our talented new intake were passed over in favour of Miss Warsi who remains a loose cannon waiting to go off at any time.

[Jomo]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

[Libertoryan]

The likes of Sayeeda Warsi are a disgrace to the party and their opinions, particularly regarding homosexuality and civil rights would not be tolerated had they been said by a white male. Fantastic isn't it that the Blair political correctness fever is rife in the ranks of the opposition party! Also, any party that stands up for democracy should support Israel.

[anon]

COMMENT OVERWRITTEN BY THE EDITOR.

NOONE SUGGESTED DEPORTING ALL MUSLIMS ON THIS THREAD, "ANON". YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO BE INFLAMMATORY RATHER THAN DEAL WITH GENUINE CONCERNS.

[anon]

So does this mean that everybody in the conservative Party supports Gay rights. Of course not!
We all have different opinions, views and stances, which is what makes us a better party, and our policies more representative.

I must confess, some people posting on this website, would have all muslims expelled from the party. It is these people that our party should be ashamed of.

[Jonathan Powell]

I prefer to see the diplomatic route used as a military option might seem like a quick-fix but can have dire consequences in the long run as events in Iraq have demonstrated.

It's too early to judge the long-run consequences of taking military action in Iraq, but it seems to me that inaction--or equivalently ineffectual diplomacy--can also have dire long-run consequences. If Clinton had been tougher with N. Korea they may not have nukes today. If we had taken out Saddam in 1991 we would have been spared the problems of recent years. If the US had invaded Afghanistan when al Qaida made it their home 9/11 may have been averted. Then of course there was that famous diplomat Neville Chamberlain...

Its all very well for us to call for military action from the comfort of our armchairs but military action requires real people having to lay their life on the line. Jonathan, would you yourself be prepared to go to the front line and fight against Iran?

I don't think an invasion of Iran would be prudent, but I would certainly be prepared to fly over their territory and drop a few bombs on their nuclear facilities and Revolutionary Guard units. If we allow Iran to destroy Israel and dominate the Middle East sooner or later they will come after us.

[Paul Oakley]

It's no bad thing in itself to seek to expand the ideological tent of Conservatism. However, on the issue of Israel there really is no middle ground. Our party will never turn its back on that country and if the authors of this report cannot accept this then they should resign their membership.

[david]

Can't wait to see Mealnie Phillips deal with this one.

[Atiq Malik]

Let us never forget that Zionists has wiped Palestine off the face of the map and Palestinians are not responsible for Holocaust.

[Simon Newman]

I've no doubt that the CMF is expressing the views of most Muslims, but that doesn't mean they should be party policy of course.

As far as Israel goes, most Muslims don't like it and would prefer it didn't exist. I, along with the Editor, am of the opposite opinion, but there's no point expecting opinions to change on this.

Re "if a political party wishes to campaign, constitutionally, for the abolition of democracy in the UK and its replacement by a totalitarian system, why should it not be free to do so?" - liberals have long assumed there is just such a right - I heard a Today program presenter say exactly the same thing. Thanks to our Parliamentary system and the foolish Diceyan 'Supremacy of Parliament' doctrine, in theory you only need a bare parliamentary majority to abolish democracy & liberty here permanently.

Personally I believe our liberties - the liberties of the British people in general, and of Englishmen in particular - are inalienable; no one has the moral right to take them away, and that includes Parliament. Since our liberties are now seriously under threat for the first time in over 300 years it might be worth having a written Constitution to make this clear.

[PS]

Sounds like Galloway's bunch!

[tired and emotional]

Let's not forget that Palestine has never been on the map. Or that the Grand mufti of Jerusalem allied himself with Hitler and only asked that he, and his supporters, be allowed to deal with the Jew 'problem;.

[George Hinton]

I think you will find.... Atiq Malik @14:16,
that Palestine has not been wiped off the face of the map. Palestine disintegrated as a result of the assault on Israel by neighbouring countries, including Syria.

Palestine as an entity was created out of the Versailles Treaty and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918/1919 and the division into Franco-British zones of influence and control.

The Arab world has long held the solution to Palestine and the Palestinians. But it has always suited their purpose to leave the issue as a supporating sore and constant irritant. Regrettably many Arab leaders see the Palestinians as involuntary martyrs to be exploited.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

Posted by: George Hinton | October 19, 2007 at 11:36

Bang on George - great comment.

Another part quote from a differnt commenter:

"Its all too easy for politicians to divorce themselves from the reality of violent conflict. The Jews have a saying and it goes "Before you start something, always think where it might end" and I think those are very wise words. Caution and compromise may take longer but are the best course".

Oddly enough, in the case of Iran, it will probably be the Jews that will realise (I am sure they have already) that "caution and compromise may take longer", but will not necessarily ensure the survival and safety of Israel from those that tell us that, "You love life, but we love death" - true, I am afraid, for some fundamental Islamists.

All our politicos should be reading the works of Robert Spencer

[Alexander]

Let us never forget that Zionists has wiped Palestine off the face of the map and Palestinians are not responsible for Holocaust.

But if Israel has wiped Palestine off the face of the earth, where are all the mass graves? The death camps? The millions dead? Or to put it another way, it's a funny sort of genocide when the number of Palestinians has actually gone up since 1948. Drop the hyperbole and allow Israel to exist and maybe - just maybe - life will improve for everyone there.

[Yogi]

It is a sad reflection of the political leadership of Britain. It was the Labour Party, which originally started the Black and Asian sections in order to garner the vote of the ethinc minorities. In fact from the fifties through the seventies, Labour was the de facto home of the ethnic minorities.

We as a party have through the years resisted the formation of block within blocks (other than on an ideological basis like the Bow Group etc).An earlier attempt to form an Asian section in the Conservative party was met with horror and people were pursuaded against doing so.

I remember the slogan of teh seventies and eighties, 'Labour says you are Black and we say you are British'. Gradually, the ethnic minorities began to resent Labour's patronising attitude which took them for granted and through their aspirations began to drift towards the Conservatives.

If we are an inclusive party, tehre is no need for such ethnic minority groups and those who use the nmae of the conservative party to gain a platform.

It was also a mistake to have over promoted Sayeeda Warsi. There is already Shailesh Vara who as an MP could have handled the Ethnic matters with grace and dignity.

[Treacle]

Once we started dealing in interest groups rather than people within the Party we were always destined to end up here.

In our eagerness to welcome members of ethnic minories on board we have forgotten the basic test - do they hold conservative views? Since we seem unwilling to expound what our views are it is little wonder that people who are clearly a million miles from being Conservative have joined us, thinking that they have found a home.

So lets restate - it is not ok to work for the establishment of a caliphate or any other form of dictatorship in this country- it is High Treason - until recently punishable by death (and still should be)

This group, along with all the other tree hugging and politcally correct forums and think tanks we seem plagued with should have no special remit to speak on behalf of the Party or to use our label as a way of drawing attention to their views.

Individuals matter, special treatment for different groups within our party is racist, sexist, ageist and above all stupid.

Tear up the report and close them down

[englandism]

It's like being back at the Guardian here.

@Atiq Malik

I should try blaming British imperialism for the map making in that particular region when you tire of global Zionist conspiracies.

BTW My grandfather was at Belsen in the immediate aftermath as part of the Allied re-education program. There was a lot of denial around then too.

[Ay Up]

Don't they have to have recognition by the party to use the word Conservative?

That recognition should now be rescinded, or at least those behind the current set-up "asked" to leave.

[David C]

Britain has a fifth column, now it appears the Conservative party has one as well

[Concerned American Conservative]

Good luck Britain. Last Anglo to leave, please turn off the lights.

[Andy Gill]

If Mr Cameron wants my vote he will have to distance himself and the party from this report.

There is no room in the Conservatives for supporters of Ahmedinejad's genocidal ambitions, and extremists like al-Qaradawi. I suggest the authors of the report join the Respect party. They would find plenty of like-minded anti-Zionists and terrorist sympathisers there.

[Jomo]

Surly Britain's foreign policy must be based on Britain's interests.

Nuclear proliferation is in no-one interests. Iran does not need nuclear power and it has used this smokescreen to pursue its goal of regional dominance. The events in Karachi yesterday illustate the extremists' commitment to equal rights, diversity and democracy.

The balkinisation of this country and the pursuit of group rights should not be supported by the Conservative party no matter how popular it is with the liberal elite.

[David Lindsay]

Why bother nuking Israel? The most common name for newborn baby boys even within the pre-1967 borders is now Muhammad. The retention of the Law of Return has resulted in the emergence of neo-Nazi gangs among the huge number of pork suasage-munching Russians of extremely tenuous Jewishness.

Meanwhile, over half of Israeli Jews are Sephardic, i.e., linguistically and culturally Arab. The more-or-less secular Zionist Ashkenazi elite cannot even be bothered to reproduce, so that the only Ashkenazim worth speaking of will soon be the ultra-Orthodox, who do not even do military service.

In 20, never mind 30, years' time, and without anyone's having dropped a bomb, Israel will either have repealed the Law of Return and reverted to an integral part of a wider Levantine Arab society with its de facto capital at Damascus (and with a self-contained ultra-Orthodox Jewish minority, but no change there), or she will have retained the Law of Return and been taken over by Russian Nazis (and what will then become of the Jews there?).

I know which I prefer, if the choice has to be made. Which it does.

[Morton Doodslag]

Letter from a concerned Yank:

I only hope we're wise enough in America to avoid the catastrophe the UK finds itself in with Muslims. Some on the right have imagined that these fascists share "family values" with them, and make the grave mistake that "conservative" Muslims are similar to "conservative" Westerners. NOTHING could be further from the truth. Just read the first paragraph of the "Conservative Muslim Forum's" report where they parasitize the traditional planks of conservative Tories:

"The Conservative Party's values and policies reflect the values and beliefs of the Muslim community in the United Kingdom. Belief in enterprise, in the sense of community, in the family and in the value of hard work are just some of those shared values. "

This is a clever masquerade. They then state:

"We encourage regular consultations between the Conservative
Party and the Conservative Muslim Forum on issues and policies relevant to Britain’s Muslim communities. "

This sounds like a threat to me. Clearly the Muslims hold themselves apart from those same Tories with whom they wish to convey "shared values", and they also hold themselves apart and separate from the larger British civilization which they have insinuated themselves into.

But back to that first part of their "report:"

They do not state, for it would be folly to do so, that "Belief in enterprise" is largely viewed by Muslims in the "ummah" as a value only to the extent that such belief forwards their Islamist agenda.

Nor do they reveal that their "sense of community" is strictly limited to their Islamic "ummah", that is, the exclusive community of Muslims which must exclude "infidels".

Also, "[belief] in the family and in the value of hard work are just some of those shared values", only pertains to the extent that such things forward the goal of securing Islam on British shores, that they further the spread of Islam on British shores, and that they maintain this beachhead for the sake of Islam's eventual triumph on British shores.

As yet the self-deluded conservatives in America who buy this tripe are a severe minority -- and our Muslim population is blessedly much much smaller than your own.

Not to lecture, but you must by now be aware that Britain has an existential problem with the Muslims in your midst. They have penetrated every stratum of your society and now hold positions of tremendous influence in politics, industry, and most especially in your media aparatus. They are protected by your hard won rights and are mercilessly exploiting those rights to subvert them and replace them with Islamic laws. They also fully exploit your social commitment to an insane Political Correctness -- which is a cancer eating you from within and disallowing a reasoned informed debate to proceed on the subject. You have drunk so deeply from the poisoned chalice of self-loathing, bought so fully the Marxist constructs about the evils of former colonialism, and the entrenched racism of the Native Brit that you are stymied when the sinister Muslim trots out his craven labels of "racist!" and "Islamophobe" ane "extreme right wing" to squelch your righteous anger at their conquest of you!

I hope with all fervency that you wake up from your slumbers. Begin NOW to repudiate the seracen dagger aimed at your very heart!

MD

[Cinnamon]

At least the mask is off now and you can see these Islamists for what they really are -- everything but conservatives. The amazing thing is that they brazenly published this islamist manifesto, thinking that the Conservatives would champion this.

[Matt MacDonald]

Why exactly are these people given any recognition by the Conservative party? Why doesn't David Cameron just hurry up and join Labour already, his true party?

[Alexander]

Good luck Britain. Last Anglo to leave, please turn off the lights.

The Americans who all seem to think that Britain is doomed every time Islamist extremism (or indeed, a reluctance by many Muslims to condemn their co-religionists) rears its ugly head aren't helping. Why not come to Britain and see what it's actually like before making more of the same apocalyptic predictions?

Then again, you're probably too scared to come over to 'Eurabia' in the first place - and that's what the terrorists want, for you to live in fear.

[hellosnackbar]

Which dimwit consertive party wonk created a muslim section?
From extensive reading of websites promoting the pathology that is islam(world domination, negation of free speech,theocratic control of all aspects of western life etc.)
How could anyone of a libetarian outlook possibly have common cause with a crazy cult?
If wooing the votes of madmen is the reason;
then it will all end in tears.

[Andrew Lilico]

Lots of wacky comments here! Of *course* it's perfectly legitimate to try to encourage Muslims to feel that the Conservative Party is a good thing for them to join and vote for! How many of those ranting above would object to the principle of a Christian Conservative Forum? Why shouldn't we suggest that there is a very natural way to be a Muslim and think of oneself as a Conservative!?

The Party has rightly tried very hard to reach out to Muslims. Unfortunately this current report conforms to a few unfortunate negative Islamist stereotypes. There should surely be nothing to stop a British Conservative Muslim from believing that the State of Israel should be defended, or that Iran should not be permitted to have nuclear weapons - indeed, I am certain that there are many many British Conservative Muslims who believe precisely these things.

I have not the slightest problem with us seeking to find a place for Muslims in the Party. But I don't believe that we serve our cause in that regard by pandering to what should be wacky fringe Muslim opinions - *that* is how belief in a nuclear-armed Iran should be amongst Conservatives, not something so mainstream that it is advocated in quasi-official Party reports!

[Concerned American Conservative]

Alexander,

Having traveled extensively in Britain - from Troon to Swindon, from Edinburgh to London and many points in-between, I am quite aware of the immigration pressures that home grown Brits are being put under. When an immigrant culture uses the laws and rights of its new home to subjugate the aboriginal populous and their culture and nothing is done about it by the aborigines then one has to wonder if all hope is lost. You tell me that by stating the obvious – that Britain is being subjugated by the Muslim culture, doesn’t help matters, then maybe all hope for the land of my ancestors is lost.

I realize that Britain (just like America) has a lot of issues, being ruled by acts of Parliament rather than a constitution is one of them but I hope and pray that Brits across the political spectrum, from the BNP to the Greens realize that they are playing with fire when they start to bring Islam into the fold.

[tom]

But there is no moderate muslim. The direct command in the quran, chapter 8 verse 55 is "all non muslims are lower than animals for they reject islam (submission)"

There will NEVER be a moderate islam because it could not be centered around the quran. The only way out is to outlaw islam, outlaw conversion (like ALL muslim states do).

The only way to avoid a massacre is to do this NOW. There is not a single location on this earth were even 10% muslim population has not lead to massive civil unrest and massacres.

But history ... don't worry right ? "We know better":

[Morton Doodslag]

To Alexander -- I don't fear to come to Britain -- and do periodically -- perhaps this allows me to see what you cannot. I'd liken my experience to visiting a family with children whom I see regularly but somewhat rarely. While that family cannot directly perceive the growth of their children, I on the other hand am amazed at the changes since they are seen in an abrupt stop motion manner. "The last time I saw you, you were only this high!"

Well --I have witnessed first hand the growth of shrouded women on your streets, the menacing beady glares of beanied Muslim men with beards on London's streets -- something I never saw 20-30 years ago. As you gradually make each concession to them -- as you minimally cede your territory and your rights -- as they, in slow motion fashion, gradually and subtly erode your neighborhoods, drive "infidels" before them, and secure new footholds for Islam -- the pace is probably impossible for you to perceive.

Is your skepticism regarding "Eurabia" well founded, or a defensive denial of your predicament? Only time will tell. But objective signs don't auger well. Do you deny that 25% of your native Muslims openly support violent Jihad if Islam is perceived as being "under attack", and that nearly the entirety of Muslims in Britain feel Islam IS on the defensive in the UK? Draw your own conclusions about the threat this may indicate. But know also that the stakes are extremely serious if you calculate incorrectly!

Minimizing this problem simply exacerbates it. And the Muslims have calculated that their position is unassailable. Why do you think they're becoming more openly triumphal in your own back yard? They are convinced there's nothing you can do now about their conquest. What I'm suggesting to my friends in Britain is that YOU CAN do something about Islamic predation in the UK -- the time is NOW -- but some day in the future it will definitely be too late. Why wait??? Islam must be repudiated everywhere.

[Katheryn]

"...I have no problem with Muslims campaigning for a Caliphate and the end of democracy, any more than I have a problem with Communists or Absolute Monarchists campaigning for the same, or with BNP supporters campaigning for compulsory "repatriation". We should not ban people from arguing for this, or ban people advocating such a platform from standing for election..."

***

Of course not. This is not a freedom of expression issue. It is an immigration issue, ie. do we allow foreigners to immigrate who espouse these views?

Do we allow a subculture to grow in our midst, implanted by foreign entities with goals of cultural expansionism? Do we submit to increasing demands to surrender to their supremicist religious ideology?

I fear for my daughter's future in such a world.

[Judas Was Paid]

We must be mad. Literally mad . . .