« The Spectator's Parliamentarian Awards | Main | Hodge reported to have attacked Tony Blair's "moral imperialism" »

Comments

I think it would be wise to have frequent discussions with Ann Cryer, MP for Keighley as well.....and possibly Frank Field

The comparison with Northern Ireland is very apt: both Labour and the Conservatives have consistently pandered to extremists and in the process destroyed the SDLP and the UUP. I would not want to bet on the chances of moderate Muslims getting the support they need.

The distinction between Islam and Islamism is useful

An excellent speech - thank you Tim for spotting and highlighting this. This is precisely the sort of thing that makes CH so vaulable. I was interested to see you bracket Michael Gove with Dominic Grieve though - is their "understanding of Islam in Britain" the same?

Michael McGovan makes a good point. If moderate voices are to prevail, they must be supported and fostered. The Northern Ireland example is a terrible warning.

What a wise speech. It avoids the hysterical tone and hype of some commentators on Islamism yet leaves us in no doubt about the true nature of the problem.

Editor - I fear you Dominic Grieve too much credit. He appears to have little understanding of the extremist ideology of groups like the MCB. People like Goodman and Gove draw the line in the proper place - between moderates and fundamentalists. Grieve seems to think that any Muslim who publicly opposes terrorist acts on UK soil is ok.

Hence we get Tory participation in far left/Islamist-organised jamborees like this:

http://www.bminitiative.net/BMI/EN/index.aspx

PS - Tamimi is UK rep for Hamas!

I agree with Paul Goodman (and George Orwell) that England is in a deep, deep sleep, with reference to many areas of policy. It needs to wake up before it is gone forever!

Mr Goodman is to be congratulated in articulating the fears of the majority concerning the rise and influence of "Islamism". The fact that his opinion is shared by such a small percentage of MP's is extraordinary. They are not sleeping, but wilfully evasive.
Islamism is a far greater danger to Britain than climate change. Islamism is a reality.
Climate change is a contested scientific theory, a theory readily adopted by bandwaggoning politicians and the Left – they are not interested in any counter argument.

We can expect the vote chasing Lib/Dims and those of similar opinions in Parliament to awake at any time, can’t we ?

So why are we allowing more Muslims to come to this country? Even if they're not already infected with Islamism when they arrive, they or their children may become so infected, and then they'd want to subordinate/kill us. Are we mad?

Ed

Isn't it about time you blocked the bile posted from Denis Cooper. It was bad enough reading his posts on the Maude/MEP thread yesterday. Let him post his rants to the UKIP website.

Ed

Isn't it about time you blocked the bile posted from Denis Cooper. It was bad enough reading his posts on the Maude/MEP thread yesterday. Let him post his rants to the UKIP website.
=========================

How dare you try and stamp upon another persons views you intolerable little cretin!, if you dont other peopels views then dont read them! - i say block those who try and get other people blocked for "Daring" to express their own opinions!

Perhaps "anon" could do us all a favour and play the ball not the man.....as well as having the balls to post under a real name?

I'd be grateful if we'd get back on thread. If folk want someone banned please email me and make a case - [email protected]com

Denis, the answer to your question must be "yes". What other explanation could there be?

It is centuries now since the disappearance of the Crusaders and Conquistadors and those who thought the spread of Christianity could be achieved by violence and war. No doubt there are some wacky sects somewhere who still believe this, but by and large this warped view of Christianity has disappeared. Why is the same not true of Islam ? I watched Paul Goodman's speech on BBC Parliament and thought it one of the best parliamentary
speeches I have ever heard.

"So why are we allowing more Muslims to come to this country? Even if they're not already infected with Islamism when they arrive, they or their children may become so infected, and then they'd want to subordinate/kill us. Are we mad?"

The whole point of this speech is to make a distinction between Islam the religion (the practice of which is anybody's right in a country with a long history of religious tolerance) and Islamism, an aggressive ideology. If we attack the former as if it is the latter we pretty much achieve the Islamists' aim of radicalising as many British Muslims as possible, further ing the ghettoisation they aim for.

A religiously tolerant society demands that everyone resists 16th Century-style religious intolerance and coercion while defending the rights of British citizens and residents to practice their religion freely.

I wonder what's happened to Nadim a very thoughtful muslim man who used to post regularly.If you read this Nadim I'd be very interested to hear what you think.

Agreed it was an excellent, thoughtful speech. So good, in fact that I pointed it out 10 hours before this page was put up! It's the last post on the Queen's Speech thread.

100,000 deaths a year from tobacco-related illness and ten thousand from alcohol-related deaths in Britain alone. Aren't we losing perspective here? The threat is to social cohesion, not physical danger. Despite 7/7, you're still vastly more likely to die "conventionally", in a car accident, a heart attack, or food poisoning. You're probably more likely to die from a lightning strike than a terrorist one.

Terrorism is nothing new to Europe, but the number of deaths has declined steadily over the last 50 years. Our intelligence agencies have ensured that despite the Al Qaeda threat, that's largely continuing. As for the extremes of risk: wrt WMD, we were at astronomically greater risk during the cold war. Reality has shown that terrorist WMD attacks have occured in the US and Japan from domestic nutjobs, but not foreign ones.

anon, your "rant" does not answer my question - why should we allow people to come to this country, if they hold a religious belief which can take on an extreme and violent form? Can you tell me how that is to the advantage of the rest of us?

The only problem is that the distinction between Islam and Islamism seems rather arbitrary. I doubt many are going to accept or understand such a distinction when it is based on nothing more than convenience.

anon, your "rant" does not answer my question - why should we allow people to come to this country, if they hold a religious belief which can take on an extreme and violent form? Can you tell me how that is to the advantage of the rest of us?

Posted by: Denis Cooper | November 17, 2006 at 15:07

***No he/she cant Denis, they have no answers, this is why he/she wants you and other people he/she doesnt agree with "blocked" and shut up, this is intolerance and extremism in its own right, whoever "anon" is they would fit in perfectly with the Teleban!.

re John Hustings @ 15:35

is Islam any more so than evangelical Christianity? The problem with Islamism is its political nature - the aim to impose Sharia on areas of the country, or force Muslims (many of whom would not want it) to adhere to a medieval interpretation of Islam. People are free to practice their religion however they want, but no-one should be allowed to impose that religion or its ideological hangers-on on others.

Terrorism is nothing new to Europe, but the number of deaths has declined steadily over the last 50 years. Our intelligence agencies have ensured that despite the Al Qaeda threat, that's largely continuing. As for the extremes of risk: wrt WMD, we were at astronomically greater risk during the cold war. Reality has shown that terrorist WMD attacks have occured in the US and Japan from domestic nutjobs, but not foreign ones.

Posted by: Andrew | November 17, 2006 at 14:51

Sleep on, Andrew and when you wake up get your facts right.

Which facts were wrong?

>>There are probably four Tory MPs who lead the parliamentary party's efforts to understand Islam in Britain - Dominic Grieve, Paul Goodman, Michael Gove and Damian Green (the 4Gs).<<

Who says? The only one of these four who is worth a light (a good deal more than a light as it happens) is Paul Goodman, and he is head and shoulders above most other Tory MPs.

Of the others Damian Green is a dripping wet. Dominic Grieve is a thundering oddball who said that he thought the London suicide bombings were “totally explicable in terms of the level of anger” of the Muslim community. I'm surprised he's still with us after that gaffe.

In contrast, Gove is the nearest thing to a UK Neocon. That's someone and something else we could well do without.

So, with the exception of the first-rate Goodman, we are truly all at sea.

Andrew -
Think deaths in 9/11 outweighed Oklahoma and other US domestic terrorism. In UK though the 3000 deaths from British born non-islamist terrorists between 1968 and 2005 far outweigh those from British born Islamists.

Yes we were at greater risk from WMDs in the past than today but tomorrow? Islamists are an ideology that doesn't hold back - not uniquely look at the Tamil Tigers - and so needs to be faced up to now. The spread of nuclear, chemical and biological knowledge and failed states presents a very real threat.

Where Mr Goodman is right is that we need to bolster the moderates by distancing ourselves from those who express unacceptable opinions - they are no more people the Government should be involving in policy discussions than are the BNP.

This government dangled the fruits of power and privilege in the faces of extremists in Northern Ireland to get them onto a non-violent path and had a measure of success but at a terrible cost to the centre nd moderation. I don't go along with equivalence beteeen the DUP & Sinn Fein - the latter are a terror organisation not just extremists - but the destruction of SDLP & UUP support by ill considered actions must not be repeated. We cannot afford the same on the mainland - Bradford divided between Islamist parties and the BNP isn't the future I want to see.

Andrew "The threat is to social cohesion, not physical danger".

A fair point, statistically speaking. But social cohesion is important. And if I may turn your logic on its head (a bit cheeky, I know), then you could say "Don't worry about gun crime, it's only a couple of dozen deaths a year" (or whatever the true figure is).

David Starkey had a perceptive article in the Sunday Times last week:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2449504,00.html

"Henry was wrong. Put religion back in its box"

He argues: "In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, without even pondering the consequences, we have imported a significant community amounting to about one in 25 of the population who are at a different stage of religious development.
Founded in the 7th century, Islam is 600 years younger than Christianity. In Islamic time, it is still AD 1400. They haven’t had a Reformation, let alone an Enlightenment. And they treat their religion with the same kind of passion that we did when we burnt heretics."

Of course "when we burnt heretics" doesn't mean that all or even many Christians were in favour of burning heretics in 1400, or at any earlier time, but it was only necessary for there to be enough fanatics who could make sure that it happened.

"Bradford divided between Islamist parties and the BNP isn't the future I want to see."

Quite. It's a plausible future though.

"re John Hustings @ 15:35

is Islam any more so than evangelical Christianity?"

Is Islam any more what? I'm sorry, I didn't understand the question. I wasn't talking about Christianity.

Ted: "This government dangled the fruits of power and privilege in the faces of extremists in Northern Ireland to get them onto a non-violent path and had a measure of success but at a terrible cost to the centre nd moderation."

I don't go along with this theory that Blair's considerable charm persuaded Sinn Fein into the peace process as I recall it the reason IRA/Sinn fein started looking at more peaceful options was the rise of protestant terror groups like the UDF allegedly colluding with the security services/army to circumvent due process. That in turn led Major to talk to them in secret which gave Blair the job of bringing them fully onboard.
Therefore if there is a lesson to be learned from Northern Ireland - and I am not advocating this for one second, not the least because I don't think it will work - it is that a group that is prepared to circumvent the legal system combined with collusion from the agents of the state can effectively move terrorists towards a more peaceful solution.
The problem is I think Blair does actually believe that it was all about his charm and strategy and has therefore tried to move that belief lock,stock and barrel to Islamist Terrorism.

"as I recall it the reason IRA/Sinn fein started looking at more peaceful options was the rise of protestant terror groups like the UDF allegedly colluding with the security services/army to circumvent due process."

I don't think it was just that. The security services had heavily infiltrated the IRA and their operations were being disrupted. Most importantly (IMO), in West Belfast moderate Irish Nationalists and Unionists had banded together to vote SDLP and Gerry Adams had lost his MP's seat and salary, a major blow which indicated Sinn Fein were threatened with electoral oblivion. They sought a new approach that would restore their fortunes, and obviously succeeded.

Why do so many people these days assume that normal life excludes conflict and struggle?

Western culture and Islam are natural enemies. The Crusadesrs knew this; Ferdinand and Isabella knew this; above all, the Muslims have always known this.

When will the sentimental liberals who control the west realise that they have been living in a fools' paradise? It's time for a more virile generation of politicians to grasp the nettle.

Denis Cooper 17.31. Yup, it had struck me that Islam is 700 years behind Christianity, but that's not much consolation is it "Oh, don't worry, it will all blow over in about six centuries' time"

Sean Fear, Ted; Bradford divided between Islamist parties and the BNP isn't the future that ANY of want to see.

However, it is surely only a matter of time before Islamists in Bethnal Green realise that they don't need George Galloway as a front man and can choose one of their own as an MP. A few miles up the road, there'll be a BNP backlash in Barking & Dagenham and so on.

I have seen this happen in real life at South Bank Uni, where students were white, Afro-Carribean and Pakistani in roughly equal measures. There had previously been no racial tensions at all - it was a University after all. In one particularly nasty set of Student Union elections (which were on a list basis) one sub-group decided to set up its own list - which had never happened before - and the other two groups hit back with their own lists, so in the end you had to vote for a purely white, purely Afro-Carribean or purely Asian list.

The postscript is, the list that got elected did an appalling job and were suspended 6 months later for fraud and theft.

Bob T:"Why do so many people these days assume that normal life excludes conflict and struggle?"

While we should all hope and work for harmony, Bob T is right that we should not make policy purely on the basis of wishful thinking.

At the moment the main parties are at least seized of the terrorist threat. But while it is very unpalatable, their thinking ought to include the possibility of the situation getting even worse. How would they handle a situation where they faced not a few thousand militants, but hundreds of thousands? Even more important, how do we prevent that situation ever arising?


voreas06

I didn't say it was charm - the Government offered to the IRA leadership the possibilities of power, the privileges of office and acceptance, attractive to a group that was as Simon Newman points out being weakened by intelligence led policing and infiltration.

They grasped the possibility and exploited Tony Blair & Mo Mowlem's inexperience, vanity and need for success. Perhaps also the remnants of Labours earlier policy supporting re-unification - NuLab still has a leadership candidate, however unlikely to win, who still supports this and the republicans.

Moderate Islam will be the key to a resolution, along with a moderate rest-of-Britain. If Moslems feel threatened by the likes of the BNP, they will band together.

If acts of terror are carried out by Moslem extremists, these will sicken moderate Moslems, and undermine part of the extremists' potential support base.

It will do more so if we in turn restrain any backlash and reduce the threat against moderate Moslems so we can take maximum advantage of their yearning for an end to violence. The forces pushing towards violence, must be met by those looking for peace. Moderate Moslems and moderate non-Moslems must be made the stronger force. It will as Paul Goodman says require political leadership and commitment to gradually unravel the threat.

the Rt Hon MP - should speak to Maulana Ibrahim Mogra (MCB)/Cllr Imtiaz Ameen (conservative) i.e. House of Islam/War etc there is more ...

During the time of the Prophet, muslims lived in a nearby Christian Country i.e Ethiopia, whilst fleeing persecution in Mecca, and lived within the laws of the land of Ethiopia, whilst free to practise their faith.

That is the example (sunnah/sharia)for UK or for that matter(any muslim living in a Christian/non muslim country) Muslims would be living in dar-al-Aman (correct translation)- Place of peace.

If they cannnot practice their faith within the laws of that land then they should do Hijra (migration) to another such place (sharia).

I wonder whether the greater danger is not so much direct terrorism and more the risk of an escalation of fear in which different groups become more isolated and defensive. This might lead on to unrest which itself could fuel the situation etc. I am interested in what others think. If Govts posture politically via look-tough laws could this make things worse?

Superb analysis. The islamist / islam distinction is vital. It is through the moderate (majority) islamic community that we have the best chance of isolating and dealing with the islamist threat to all of us: christian, moslem & others.

Good points M A Patel, we need to understand these factors, and the example you give is a very clear one of peace and mutual toleration of belief: so different from the divisive preaching of the radicals.

An interesting and well thought-out article! I agree with Deborah above that the distinction made between "Islam" and "Islamism" is a useful one. The concern I have is that the "Islamists" regard the more moderate and less "orthodox" as not being "true" Muslims at all and in fact part of the "kuffar" or unbelievers as they seem them. As other people have already stated you cannot compare this to the Troubles in Ireland where the IRA did not see themselves as devout Catholics and the rest of the Catholic community as "unbelievers" but were engaged in a purely political "struggle" to unite Ireland in what they ultimately wanted to be a state run along marxist lines. This is a genuinely religious conflict and difficult, if not impossible to resolve through reasoning.

"Even if they're not already infected with Islamism when they arrive, they or their children may become so infected, and then they'd want to subordinate/kill us. Are we mad?"

We certainly are mad.

As for those who advocate being 'tolerant', perhaps you should actually read the Koran and what it says about how to deal with the Kuffirs. Perhaps you should acquaint yourselves with the teachings of Mohammed. For those who honestly imagine that there can be peace in the world whilst Islamism holds such a sway over so many people, I can only urge you to go and read on the subject to disabuse yourselves of this ridiculous notion.

In the words of one prominent Imam, in a moment of honesty when describing the situation in the UK: "because of your democracy we will dominate you; and because of your tolerance we will destroy you".

There is a useful Dorling Kindersley book by Paul Lunde - Islam.
Faith . Culture . History.

I reccomend it for a full understanding of this world faith, starting in the 600's and actually built on WARFARE to promote and spread it's beliefs. Mecca was originally a PAGAN cult centre! to which the tribe of Quraysh made pilgrimage during stipulated months. Mohammed belonged to a clan of this, called Hashim, They were dissasisfied with this paganism, and used to go on meditation retreats in the caves of Mount Hira outside Mecca. He heard the voice of Jibra'il giving him the first verses of the Koran, told his wife Khadija, and started preaching. The pagan Meccans eventually started a battle between them and this new faith, and the rest is, as they say, history. Sadly, Islam is not built on peace, but WAR!!!!
We have to come to terms with this underlying philosophy, and work with it. Christianity has had more than its fair share of bloodshed as well, as has many beliefs. What is not me........

Thank you Annabel, just ordered it from Amazon!

Annabel

The Christian faith was built on the message of peace but in many cases (far too many) enforced by war & oppression. Islam was indeed a faith built in a time and place that involved conflict - indeed salafists view today as the equivalent of the Mecca & Medina of the Prophet's time where muslims needed the sword to defend and spread the word.

Their view of other muslim sects isn't too different from many re-born Christains view of say Catholics (I have read and heard many evangelical/baptists condemn RCs in terms that are close to hatred - Ian Paisley's view of my fellow communicants as followers of the Anti-Christ can seem mild by comparison.

But we must recognise they are as unrepresentative of the mass of muslims as the hate preachers of, say, Oklahoma are of the mass of Christians. Tapestry's posting at 22.53 is quite right in how a strategy needs to support moderates and weaken the extremists. Denis Cooper's though show how easy it is to stoke up "righteous ingignation" that divides and distances those we need to work with.

Ted, it's a matter of common sense. Even if, say, only one Muslim out of every thousand in this country is presently a potential recruit for terrorist activities - which could be the right order of magnitude, given that MI5 say that they're now watching 1600 - it's obvious that one thousandth of 3.2 million would be twice as many as one thousandth of the present 1.6 million, and that would be at least twice the problem for the security services. Conversely, when there were virtually no Muslims living in this country - within my lifetime - there was no possibility of home-grown Islamic terrorists being produced. In my view it's down to you to provide a convincing case why we should allow the numbers of Muslims in this country to increase through further immigration. If we really need to increase the number of citizens, which is itself very questionable, we can find plenty of people who do not follow this particular religion and who will not carry the same risk.

Denis
I grew up elsewhere (with their own terrorists) but since I first came to England in 1966 there have been few years without home grown terrorists - the Angry Brigade, the IRA, Animal Rights. We have British muslims - some are attracted to an extremist cult.

My objection to you conflating immigration and terrorism is that it distracts from the real problem and offers no solution to it. The issue is that minority that look to violence as an expression of faith. We need to cut them off from the rest of the muslim community, infiltrate them, harass them and drive them into submission. Attacking all muslims, constraining their rights creates an environment that lets the islamists flourish.

If we stopped all muslim immigration tomorrow it would not solve the problem. There are arguments for and against free migration and the policy we should adopt towards new immigrants but those are a separate issue.

Ted,

Why do you say that I'm "attacking all Muslims"? I've just offered the estimate that at present perhaps one in a thousand of the Muslims in this country may be a potential recruit for Islamic terrorism, which surely means that I think the other nine hundred and ninety-nine are not? On the other hand, among Christians that might be one in a million who converted to an extreme and violent form of Islam, therefore if it was true that we needed to recruit additional citizens why would it be so unreasonable to give preference to Christians over Muslims?

Nor have I suggested "constraining their rights". If they are British citizens they have the same rights as other British citizens, no more and no less, and I have not suggested and would not suggest that should be altered. If they aren't British citizens then they have no rights over our immigration policy, which should be determined by, and only by, the citizens of this country. However once again the plain fact is that whatever their merits as individuals Muslims as a religious group have so far proved to be among the least satisfactory if we want immigrants who will integrate into a secular society with a Judaeo-Christian tradition. Anybody who hasn't got his head stuck firmly in the sand can see that, and will ask why we should want to make the existing problems of ghettoisation even worse.

Denis

Sorry - bad grammar, I didn't mean to accuse you of attacking all muslims, but was trying to say that conflating problems can appear as such to muslims.

Allah does not exist, so we should not even be contemplating 'respecting' the rules that Muhammad told us his friend allah has given him. I will not follow rules made up by Muhammad's imaginary friend.

To me islam is not a religion but a cult, and the rise of radical islam is like the rise of the national socialist party in Germany. There are eerie similarities. Also with the national socialists the majority was not extremist, but the radicals were in control. So is it with islam.

Islam, like it's world war II ally national socialism, is an enemy of western values and freedoms, no matter how they try to dress their cult up.

It cannot be allowed that a socalled 'religion' gets any, even if it's a negligible, influence on the politics of state. Religion, even fake ones like islam, must be kept as far away from politics as possible.

The Muslims are strong.

Western liberals are weak.

As long as we talk endlessly about the rights of minorities, the so-called benefits of immigrants and so forth, we will show ourselves as sentimental liberals - NOT Conservatives - of a weakling disposition.

In other words, losers.

This is a war situation. Either you fight or you surrender, and if this nation has any chance of winning the war there can be no place for cowards and appeasers.

If the liberals prevail Britain and the rest of Western Europe will not only go under.

They will deserve annihilation.

My broadband connection has been down for two days and only just got back to it. Trawling fairly carefully through all the posts above, it seems to me that in describing 'warring religions in the past' i.e. Christianity, nobody has mentioned what is the crucial difference with this latest version of a warring cult, and that is that they are prepared to blow THEMSELVES up in order to make their 'statements', and that is NOT war in the established sense of two sides fighting each other. In the old religious wars, one religious cult would go off and fight another cult - until the IRA who didn't think twice about hitting on their own people as well (and still do). This latest cult couldn't care less about killing fellow Muslims and even fellow cultists - sounds more like nihilism really.

You are right Patsy. The bloodthirsty christians of old were only too happy to bump off a few heretics, non believers, and "wrong" sort of christians. We now call them martyrs, and have canonised many of them. It still boils down to "me" and "not me" and that is a human frailty. Who is not with me is against me, and that is how Islamists operate.
We have noticed the rise of fundamentalism from the east, since around 1995 I guess, and it has been increasing year on year. I have a feeling that a backlash may start in the next couple of years, a sense of limiting, of firming up on laws that affect fundamentalism.
It will be interesting to watch from the comparative safety of the UK.

A very interesting article, well argued and hard to disagree with its main points.

The distiction between Islam and Islamicism is very valid. However, an equal argument could be made between Christianity and Christianism. (Or Judaism and Radical Zionism). Fundamentalism, in all Religions, seems to me to equate to intolerance, which equates to hatred. We should never become so tolerant, however, that we tolerate intolerance.

Sadly, more people have died over the argument that 'My God is better than yours' than any other issue. Childish and pathetic. It equates to 'My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend'.

If you want to know how Islam will subjugate Europe, just google "Fallaci + Policy + Womb". It's the demographics, stupid!

To quote: http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=1124
She [the late Oriana Fallaci] reveals in shocking detail Islam’s long history of barbarism, which renders all the more horrifying its invasion and creeping conquest of Europe-not by arms but by its “Policy of the Womb.” Algerian President Boumedienne brazenly told the UN General Assembly in 1974: “One day millions of men will leave the southern hemisphere of this planet to burst into the northern one. But not as friends. Because they will burst in to conquer, and they will conquer by populating it with their children. Victory will come to us from the wombs of our women.” Islamic expansionism, says Fallaci, has always unfolded in the shadow of that strategy. The “Policy of the Womb” has ever supplemented the policy of the sword.

Today Europe is so steeped in pacifism that the threat of Arab terrorism is enough to cow its leaders. Besides, Europe has been inundated (and intimidated) by 35 million Muslims. “In every mosque of Europe the Friday prayer is accompanied by the exhortation with which the imam addresses the Muslim women: ‘Bear at least five children each couple’”-quite a number, adds Fallaci, if an immigrant has two wives. These immigrants despise their host countries. Their imams arrogantly demand that Europe remove public vestiges of Christianity; that Muslims alone teach Islamic studies; that Sharia law govern the people of the Koran; that Muslims without citizenship be allowed to vote!

Our politicians can talk all they like. Unless native British men and women choose to have children in larger numbers than the Muslim immigrants, instead of selfishly fornicating their lives away by following the media-driven quest for the perfect orgasm, subjgation and dhimmitude is as inevitable as night following day.

Jon White @ 03.09 - yes you are quite right, that is why I am drawn to Buddhism these days, not only do they consider that all living creatures have SOME rights, but they also believe in developing and controlling ONES OWN MIND NOT other people's, PLEASE NOTE fundementalists everywhere!!!!!!!!

Fallaci wrote the truth.

In Britain, and throughout Europe, we see the increasing Balkanisation of our nations as Islamic enclaves expand through a surging birthrate.

"Doughnuted" around these enclaves are frontline whites, increasingly turning to rightwing extremists such as the BNP and France's Front National. Intercultural strife will become the norm, rather than the exception.

Meanwhile all other ethnic groups within Europe are dwindling. The time when parts of Europe are forced to cave in to demands for Sharia Law in the Islamic enclaves cannot be far distant, and then, one by one, the nations will succumb completely.

I can't see any way that it can be avoided.

There is no greater time than this to assert the great need for true scholarship. Unfortunately, the large increase in reports written by non-scholars is ridiculing our intelligence and misforming our population.
As an academic, an unauhorised report carries no weight, so I ask, why is there an increase to publish reports from non-authorities? Our media and so called learned dignitaries cannot be that foolish that they cannot differentiate between true schoalrship and a tall story.
If you want to learn about a field, please report to the authorities not to anyone on the street.

"moderate, prosperous and integrated British Muslim" is the intention of the Rt Hon MP - .

But unfortunately as soon as muslims offer the 'hand of peace' and extended by a way forward with examples' which can be used to work towards the Rt Hon MP's aforementiond vision, out jump the 'backward - war party/ we can never have peace'/Did u Know ... blah , blah i.e. Sally/Annabel et all

Are U 'now' thinking what I'm thinking Sayeeda Warsi/Ali Meraj ... ?

Middle Anglend - don't u just lovem!

Was Salaam

Moderate muslim- The one that just takes the video of beheadings'
Get real, try living and hearing first hand what's said;
Problem will be solved when enough are here!
Then you can all become good little Dhimmis' exactly like the Arch-dhimmi of Canterbury!
George Bernaed Shaw Fabian...Could see islam ruling England within 100 years' that was in 1936!
Fabians work hard to bring the dream about.
MOSQUES MOSQUES..PLEASE God a few are built in your areas!
Riots in France, Denmark, Brussels, Germany violence and then you think you know muslims.
How many White boys are beaten by muslim gangs, white teens groomed in the North for sex?
Read Churchill's views on islam he knew his stuff!!
AL-TAQQYI....

The comments to this entry are closed.

#####here####

Categories

ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:
      Name:
      Email:
      Subscribe    
      Unsubscribe 

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker