Revealed: UK’s First Official Sharia Courts

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

Rulings issued by a network of five sharia courts are enforceable with the full power of the judicial system, through the county courts or High Court.

Previously, the rulings of sharia courts in Britain could not be enforced, and depended on voluntary compliance among Muslims.

It has now emerged that sharia courts with these powers have been set up in London, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Two more courts are being planned for Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siddiqi, whose Muslim Arbitration Tribunal runs the courts, said he had taken advantage of a clause in the Arbitration Act 1996.

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

- – - - – - – - -

Siddiqi said: “We realised that under the Arbitration Act we can make rulings which can be enforced by county and high courts. The act allows disputes to be resolved using alternatives like tribunals. This method is called alternative dispute resolution, which for Muslims is what the sharia courts are.”

The disclosure that Muslim courts have legal powers in Britain comes seven months after Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, was pilloried for suggesting that the establishment of sharia in the future “seems unavoidable” in Britain.

In July, the head of the judiciary, the lord chief justice, Lord Phillips, further stoked controversy when he said that sharia could be used to settle marital and financial disputes.

In fact, Muslim tribunal courts started passing sharia judgments in August 2007. They have dealt with more than 100 cases that range from Muslim divorce and inheritance to nuisance neighbours.

It has also emerged that tribunal courts have settled six cases of domestic violence between married couples, working in tandem with the police investigations.

Siddiqi said he expected the courts to handle a greater number of “smaller” criminal cases in coming years as more Muslim clients approach them. “All we are doing is regulating community affairs in these cases,” said Siddiqi, chairman of the governing council of the tribunal.

Jewish Beth Din courts operate under the same provision in the Arbitration Act and resolve civil cases, ranging from divorce to business disputes. They have existed in Britain for more than 100 years, and previously operated under a precursor to the act.

Politicians and church leaders expressed concerns that this could mark the beginnings of a “parallel legal system” based on sharia for some British Muslims.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, said: “If it is true that these tribunals are passing binding decisions in the areas of family and criminal law, I would like to know which courts are enforcing them because I would consider such action unlawful. British law is absolute and must remain so.”

Douglas Murray, the director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, said: “I think it’s appalling. I don’t think arbitration that is done by sharia should ever be endorsed or enforced by the British state.”

There are concerns that women who agree to go to tribunal courts are getting worse deals because Islamic law favours men.

Siddiqi said that in a recent inheritance dispute handled by the court in Nuneaton, the estate of a Midlands man was divided between three daughters and two sons.

The judges on the panel gave the sons twice as much as the daughters, in accordance with sharia. Had the family gone to a normal British court, the daughters would have got equal amounts.

In the six cases of domestic violence, Siddiqi said the judges ordered the husbands to take anger management classes and mentoring from community elders. There was no further punishment.

In each case, the women subsequently withdrew the complaints they had lodged with the police and the police stopped their investigations.

Siddiqi said that in the domestic violence cases, the advantage was that marriages were saved and couples given a second chance.

Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “The MCB supports these tribunals. If the Jewish courts are allowed to flourish, so must the sharia ones.”

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/10/sharia-courts-in-uk.html#readfurther

Four students at the University of Westminster want the UK’s state
schools to recognize that the hijab is not hostile.

This message may get tougher to deliver because current research has renewed
debate over the threat that Islamic political views pose at British universities.

The four Westminster students, two of them Muslim, are all studying for masters
degrees in public relations.

They have created a campaign which encourages all primary and secondary state
schools to permit their Muslim female students to wear the hijab or headscarf.

Wearing the hijab “doesn’t pose any threat to [anyone's] life,” said Karim Hacine,
one of two Muslim students working on the campaign. “It’s not something related to
bombings [or] fundamentalist groups. It’s just a religious symbol for the Muslim females.”

Research and Debate

Dr. June Edmunds of Cambridge University wrote in The Guardian’s
Comment is Free that interviews she did with Muslim students at British
universities suggest that fears of Islamic extremism on UK campuses is overblown.

Her findings contradicted research which the Centre for Social Cohesion
published in June.

That report said 32% of the 1400 students it polled believed killing in the
name of religion is justifiable.

But, professor Anthony Glees, wrote on The Guardian’s Mortarboard Blog
that Edmunds’ evidence was not reliable because she only conducted 26
student interviews, eight of which were not in person.

Edmunds responded to Glees that her research was solid because she
used more than just the 26 student interviews. She said she also utilized
a focus group, face to face interviews with Muslim youth organizations
and the work of other researchers.

Changing Perceptions

The Westminster students admit that trying to change the UK school
uniform while addressing perceptions of radical Islam in Britain is difficult.

According to the students, many citizens on the street declined answering
basic research questions asking what they knew about the hijab.

Others acted apologetic when they did answer the students said.

“[The hijab] remains sensitive and controversial at the same time,”
Karim Hacine said.

Also, according to Hacine, many people who did answer questions
about the hijab mistook it forthe niqab, the veil which covers the face,
worn by some Muslim women.

British Muslims

The Muslim Council of Britain reports on its website that different
agencies and publications say there are between 1.5 and 1.8 million
Muslims living in the UK.

The council’s site also provides figures that calculate about half of
these Muslims are born in the UK.

“They consider themselves as being Muslim and British,” says
Erab Fuqaha, the other Muslim student working on this campaign.
“It is very important for them to be accepted by their own community.”

Both the Centre for Social Cohesion’s report and Edmunds’ research
seem to show that many Muslim students want the same kind of tolerance
in the UK that Fuqaha does.

” The British, they are so proud of having this multicultural atmosphere,”
Fuqaha said. “If you really claim that you are a multicultural country then
you have to accept all different religions.”

But she thinks that before she can change school attire she will have
to change some perceptions.

Saxat från ett blogginlägg jag hittade på den amerikanska bloggen Islam In Action:

“Even though Sharia loving Muslims are openly calling for the conquest of the UK, some insane non-Muslims have actually started using the Sharia Courts to resolve their disputes. Talk about playing right into the enemies hand.”

UK: Non-Muslims Using Sharia Courts, Islam In Action

Så länge besluten grundar sig i den engelska lagen är det rätt att shariadomstolar löser icke-muslimers rättstvister i civila och kommersiella mål, säger Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action. Det finns redan många alternativa forum för skiljedomar och system för att lösa tvister.

Talesmannen för the Muslim Council of Britain, Inayat Bunglawala, anser att shariadomstolarna gärna får döma icke-muslimer enligt sharia, så länge det inte strider mot det brittiska rättsväsendet, och att det handlar om att parterna frivilligt sökt sig till shariadomstolen.

Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) lägger tyngdpunkten på muntliga överenskommelser, något det brittiska rättväsendet inte gör.

MAT planerar att tredubbla antalet domstolar genom att placera dem i 10 brittiska städer och kommer att utöka nätverket ytterligare genom att fungera som ett rådgivande organ till dussintals andra islamiska domstolar, med avsikten att uppnå nationell enighet om domar och förfaranden.

“LONDON – An increasing number of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters.

A report in The Times has quoted the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) as saying that five per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.

Anti-Sharia campaigners, who claim that the Islamic system is radical and biased against women, expressed alarm at the news.”

More Brit non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes, Breaking News 24/7

.

Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, Sayeeda Warsis hemsida

Från hennes pressida:

Brittiska myndigheter ska hålla sig borta från muslimer,

“Commenting on the Government’s announcement of the creation of a board of Muslim theologians and citizenship lessons in mosques for young Muslims, Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion, Baroness Warsi, said:

Any initiative which creates improved community relations by assisting British citizens in strengthening their British identity is to be welcomed. However, my worry is that the independence of this board may already be compromised because it has become part of yet another Government initiative, which may result in its effectiveness and legitimacy being questioned.”

Warsi: Government involvement may compromise Muslim board

Warsi: Pround to be named most powerful British Muslim Woman

.

Brittisk ärkebiskop vill erkänna sharia, SR från 2008

85 shariadomstolar i Storbritannien, Världen idag

Comment at end

21st July, 2009

The Times has also learnt that the MAT is planning to triple the number of its courts by setting up in ten new British cities by the end of the year. It will expand its network further by acting as an advisory body to dozens of other Islamic courts, with the intention of achieving national consensus over rulings and procedures.

Non-Muslims turning to Sharia courts to resolve civil disputes (Times)

Sheikh Suhaib Hasan, of the Islamic Sharia Council, says problems such as knife crime would be resolved if Britain implemented Islamic penal codes. (source Times, 21st July 2009)

Increasing numbers of non-Muslims are turning to Sharia courts to resolve commercial disputes and other civil matters, The Times has learnt.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) said that 5 per cent of its cases involved non-Muslims who were using the courts because they were less cumbersome and more informal than the English legal system.

Freed Chedie, a spokesman for Sheikh Faiz-ul-Aqtab Siqqiqi, a barrister who set up the tribunal, said: “We put weight on oral agreements, whereas the British courts do not.”

In a case last month a non-Muslim Briton took his Muslim business partner to the tribunal to sort out a dispute over the profits in their car fleet company. “The non-Muslim claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the pair,” said Mr Chedie. “The tribunal found that because of certain things the Muslim man did, that agreement had existed. The non-Muslim was awarded £48,000.”

He said that the tribunal had adjudicated on at least 20 cases involving non-Muslims so far this year. The rulings of the tribunal are legally binding, provided that both parties agree to that condition at the beginning of any hearing.

Anti-Sharia campaigners, who claim that the Islamic system is radical and biased against women, expressed alarm at the news. Denis MacEoin, who wrote a recent report for the think-tank Civitas examining the spread of Sharia in Britain, said that MAT’s claims about non-Muslim clients “raises all sorts of questions”.

He added: “You really need to ask why. What advantages could that possibly have for them going to an Islamic court? Any [Sharia] court is going to be implementing aspects of a law that runs contrary to British law, because of the way it treats women for example.”

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said that organisations should be free to conduct arbitration under Sharia, provided that it did not infringe British law and was a voluntary process.

Baroness Warsi, the Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion and Social Action, who is Muslim, said that there were many forums for arbitration and alternative dispute resolution in Britain. “There is no problem with that, as long as it is always subject to English law,” she said.

The Times has also learnt that the MAT is planning to triple the number of its courts by setting up in ten new British cities by the end of the year. It will expand its network further by acting as an advisory body to dozens of other Islamic courts, with the intention of achieving national consensus over rulings and procedures.

Although Sharia courts have been operating in the civil jurisdiction since the early 1980s, they have been doing so only in the shadows and in an ad-hoc fashion. The Civitas report estimated that there were 85 Sharia councils in Britain.

As such, if the MAT was successful in bringing a number of the existing councils into line with its own courts, it would in effect create Britain’s largest national co-operative of tribunals.

Mr Chedie said that the plan would legitimise Sharia because all the courts under its umbrella would be “consistent in their rulings”. The MAT, which has legal legitimacy under the Arbitration Act 1996, already operates in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and Nuneaton, Warwickshire. At its annual conference in October it will decide its ten new locations, which are likely to include Leeds, Luton, Blackburn, Stoke and Glasgow.

The tribunal is inviting 24 Sharia councils to attend the conference so that it can train them on procedures and rulings in an attempt to achieve national consistency. Most Sharia courts deal only with divorce and family disputes but the MAT also rules on commercial matters and mediates over forced marriages and domestic violence.

Mr Chedie said: “We would train most of the imams so that a lady in Glasgow would receive the same form of service as a lady in London. Sharia councils are already falling into line under us. There is hysterial and inherent prejudice against Sharia, but the overwhelming opinion of the judiciary is that English law and Sharia are compatible. It is only people at the right end of the political spectrum who are scaremongering.” Mr Chedie argued that the legitimacy of the MAT was further enhanced because non-Muslims had started to use it for arbitration.

Mr MacEoin said he was sceptical that the MAT could achieve unity because there were several different schools of thought when it came to Islamic law. He added that the Muslim community was already deeply divided over ideology.

Hat tip for this story to RIP British Legal System

[Cross-posted at Harry's Place.]

Perhaps better legal minds than mine can explain how this came to pass.  On 12 March 2009, during a broadcast of Question Time, Charles Moore, a former editor of the Daily Telegraph, suggested that the senior-leadership of the Muslim Council of Britain considered the killing of British soldiers to be a “good” and even “Islamic” act to follow.

Moore’s remarks start at 2 min 56 sec.

This had followed a political protest in which a pro-victory gaggle of Dr. Moreau’s grotesques by the name of Followers of Ahl Us-Sunah Wal-Jamaa’ah – but which newspapers such as the Guardian insisted on describing as “anti-war” and plain-old “Muslims” – had harangued a home-coming parade by the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton.

The leader of this group is Anjem Choudrey, pictured here during his heady student days.

Although it is an al-Muhajiroun front-group, it was on this backdrop which Moore made his comments.  Any functioning democracy or healthy political debate requires discussion events such as Question Time which allows ideas and statements to be bandied about, and challenged if needs be.

We are no longer living with only a handful of media outlets – newspapers or broadcasters – owned by one or two barons, and where a maligned individual has little recourse to set a record straight.  For a start, “record” is an out-of-date analogy, and there are also blogs and foreign state-owned broadcasters advertising on London buses.

The Secretary General of the MCB, Muhammad Abdul Bari, for instance, has been reported as stating that homosexuality is incompatible with his religion.  He, like everyone else in this society, should be free to hold socially and religiously conservative views as long as he does not seek to impose them on the wider society.

I find the MCB’s erstwhile prolonged boycott of Holocaust Memorial Day extremely distasteful, and their rationalization based on misconceptions or outright falsehoods, but I accepted it through gritted teeth.

I mean, it is not as if he invited to the East London Mosque a big cheese in Jamlaat-e-Islami, is it? This is a Bangladeshi religio-political party of which senior members were intimately involved in the 1971 East Pakistan Civil War in which upwards of two millions Hindu and Muslim peasants and dissidents were killed.

Abdul Bari’s defence appeared to rest on he had condemned attacks on British service personnel on an occassion two years previously.  As far as I can tell, this was based on the the words he offered to the Independent in 2007:

Our troops are doing an unenviable job. It is unacceptable and appalling to hear of them being attacked and I am very sorry for their families. We appear to have learnt very little from our history of interfering in other countries, and I believe, history in turn, will not look very kindly at our recent actions.

That this underpined Abdul Bari’s argument was implicitly confirmed by a press-release from representing solicitors, Carter and Ruck; and explicitly confirmed in paragraph five of a press release from the BBC.

Thus, after between four and six years of British service personnel being killed by insurgents and violent extremists, and two years after 52 Londoners were murdered by self-immolatory terrorists, what Abdul Bari said was “history will not look very kindly at our recent actions”. Did he clarify this statement at any point?

In 2006, whilst still in favour with Government departments, Kaa sound/lookalike MCB-spokesman Inayat Bunglawala had responded to online questions on the Muslim Discussion Forum concerning ‘mixed messages’ from the MCB-leadership with regards to support for violent extremism. He explicitly stated that no pleasure should be taken in targetting of British service personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan:

British Muslims should in my view work with other sections of our society to ensure that British troops are brought back from both Iraq and Afghanistan without delay. It would be wrong to take any pleasure in the deaths of combatants in those conflicts, whether British, Iraqi or Afghani.

At another point, however, he was reported as stating:

I don’t agree that there is anything ambiguous about the MCB’s position on suicide bombings. We have pepeatedly made it clear that we utterly condemn the deliberate killing of all civilians whether they are Muslims or non-Muslims, and whether it is carried out in the UK or anywhere else in the world.

Does the same extend to not targetting service personnel and other decreed combatants, or is this simply to be considered an onerous task not to be revelled in?

Further discussion of alleged links between big cheeses in the MCB and violent extremism, notably Jamlaat-e-Islami in Bangladesh and beyond, can be found here.

Although Moore mentioned no individual by name, Abdul Bari took it as reference to himself and sued.  The presiding judge accepted the following argument from Abdul Bari’s solicitor:

[...] although Dr Bari was not actually mentioned by name, the “leadership” of the MCB was referred to, by implication referring to him in his capacity as leader and chief spokesman of the MCB.

Mr Tudor said the BBC accepted that these allegations were untrue – in fact, in 2007, Dr Bari said publicly that the killing of British troops in Iraq was unacceptable.

The BBC has agreed to pay Abdul Bari £45,000 in damages plus legal costs.  Abdul Bari has stated his intention to donate they money to charity.  Bear in mind, the MCB is a registered charity.

Anyone with a passing interest in libel writs in the English courts should be entirely unsurprised to hear the presiding judge’s name. He is not pictured here.

What is also puzzling me is that other senior members of the MCB *are* considered to be supportive of the targeting of British service personnel: notably the current Deputy Secretary General, Daud Abdullah.  A few days before the broadcast of Question Time, the Observer had reported that Abdullah and other senior British Islamists (including Chief Imam Shaykh Abdul Qayyum of the ELM) had signed what has become known as the Istanbul Declaration.

As reported, the Declartion implored the “Islamic Nation” to oppose by any means thought necessary all individuals deemed supportive of the “Zionist enemy” (cf. Israel). At the time of signing, foreign political leaders, including the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown had suggested providing peacekeeping Naval forces to monitor arms-smuggling between Gaza and Egypt.

An open letter from the then Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Hazel Blears was subsequently published in the Guardian in which she stated that no further dealings would be conducted by the British Government with the MCB until it distanced itself from Abdullah’s remarks and he resigned.

In a response, also published in the Guardian, Abdullah called her remarks a “misguided and ill-advised attempt to exercise control” and stated his intention to remain in position; with the apparent backing of the rest of the MCB leadership. Subsequently, he announced his intention to sue Blears, in respect of her office, should she not retract her letter and issue an apology by 15 April 2009.

A letter from the Treasury Solicitors, acting on behalf of Blears, to Abdullah’s solicitors revealed their willingness to continue with such a course of action. It closed with the statement, “It follows, of course, that your offer of settlement is rejected”. No further reports of attempts to pursue a libel case by Abdullah or the MCB have been heard. 

So, my question is, even if Moore’s statement to be have been considered a reference to Abdul Bari, why was it considered libelous considering:

• The MCB’s continued tactit toleration of its Deputy Secretary General following his endorsement of the Istanbul Declaration;
• A lacklustre response from the Secretary General of the MCB when asked to condemn attacks on British service personnel;
• Apparently contradictory statements, in response to internal concerns about support for violent extremism within the MCB, from another senior MCB member regarding violent extremism in which a distinction between civilians and military targets was seemingly drawn;
• Existing concerns of links between senior MCB members and the violent extremism of Jamlaat-e-Islami?

UPDATE – In 2004, Eric the Unred linked to the response of Abdul Bari to questions about the jihadists of Fallujah.

Update: From 4:25 into this BBC interview:

Roger Bolton “You’ve called the assault on Fallujah barbaric. Wasn’t its occupation by Iraqi militants and foreign fighters, using civilians as shields, also barbaric?”

Abdul Bari “Well we have to see what happened in the beginning, as mentioned by some of your, some of the people you interviewed, and I think agreed by the international community, that the occupation of Iraq was illegal. So, if people of Iraq come up and want to fight against the occupation army, we know that, we also mentioned somewhere, we know that there could be some people from outside Iraq that are coming and that is because the main reason that the occupation happened.”

Roger Bolton “Do you think therefore that armed resistance of the sort we are seeing in Fallujah is legitimate? You would support the fighters who are ranged against American and British troops?”

Abdul Bari “Well, people of Iraq have to decide, because the war has been imposed on them.”

Roger Bolton “I’m sorry sir, I was asking if you, not the people in Iraq, do you therefore think it is legitimate for people to fight against the American and British troops in Iraq?”

Abdul Bari “Well, it’s for the people of Iraq to decide.”

Roger Bolton “But it certainly could be legitimate, you’re not telling them it’s wrong.”

Abdul Bari “Well, what we are saying is that the occupation of Iraq itself was wrong”

Ska BBC behöva betala skadestånd för något som muslimer skryter om ständigt och jämt? För något som de flesta är medvetna om är sant?

De muslimer som gick ut och hotade och skrek åt ett brittiskt militärt firande för en tid sedan, fick de hånfulla muslimerna betala skadestånd?

Det är tydligen alltid yttrandefrihet som gäller då muslimer öppnar munnen.

“I programmet Question Time, som sänds i BBC1, frågade en man i publiken panelen om de demonstrationer som anordnats av muslimer mot brittiska truppers närvaro i Afghanistan och Irak borde förbjudas.

Som svar på frågan svarade Charles Moore att Muslim Council of Britain flera gånger har uppmanats att fördöma kidnappning av brittiska soldater, men vägrat. Han sade vidare att ledarna för Muslim Council of Britain verkar tycka att kidnappning och dödandet av brittiska soldater är bra.

Även om Muhammed Abdul Bari, ordförande för Muslim Council of Britain, inte nämndes vid namn ansåg domstolen att talet om “ledarna” syftade på Bari. BBC har gått med på att be Bari om ursäkt och betala 45 000 pund, ungefär 574 000 kronor, i skadestånd.”

BBC betalar skadestånd till muslimsk ledare, tidningen Journalisten

.

Från mars i år:

Brittiska familjer får inte sörja sina döda i fred, utan muslimer i Storbritannien hoppar på dem och minnet av de soldater som dött i strider i Irak.

“Calls for crackdown on parade Muslim extremists,” by Thomas Harding for the Telegraph, March 11:

Politicians and families of dead soldiers have united in urging the Government to crack down on the outlawed al Muhajiroun organisation after British soldiers were abused by Muslim protestors in Luton.

The outcry over soldiers in uniform being verbally attacked has continued after a Muslim preacher who was formerly the member of a now illegal group accused them of being “cowards” and “brutal murderers”.

Internet sites have been swamped with families horrified at the men of 2nd Bn The Royal Anglians being confronted with placards that branded them as killers, rapists and terrorists.

The small group of demonstrators in Luton are thought to have links with al-Muhajiroun an organisation that has been outlawed by the Government.”

Brits call for crackdown on Muslims abusing returning soldiers, Jihad Watch

Familjer till brittiska soldater påhoppade av muslimer, Varjager

I recently read Muslim ‘leaders’ are calling on Muslims to turn out and vote on June 4th.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment in that I want everyone to go out and vote regardless of whether they will vote for the party that I stand for I have major issues with the words “Muslim Leaders”.

Yes I do, excuse me, but in my day a leader is elected not placed, especially in Britain. So who voted for these Muslim ‘leaders’?

I certainly didn’t. I wasn’t asked whether I wanted somebody a million miles away from my perspective on things to speak for me.

Now you’re probably asking me what my problem is. Well I’ll tell you what. These so called leaders of Islam or Muslims; namely the Muslim Council of Great Britain tend to be pure piss artists intent on having more foot in mouth cases then a British cow farm back in 2001.

Ouch, did I really make a reference to a farm which may just have some pigs in it and be talking about Islam? Gawd I’m really going for it now.

The Muslim Council of Britain; infamous for splendidly ridiculous comments and statements such as believing that any defamation of Muhammad’s character should be illegal under the proposed law banning incitement to religious hatred.

Since when did criticism equate to hatred?!

Another stupid remark by the MCB was in 2005 when Sacranie, who was the secretary general back then, wrote to the then home secretary, saying the “MCB would not attend the commemoration of the liberation of Auschwitz because it was not racially inclusive and does not commemorate the victims of other genocides.”

Please read that statement again. He is accusing the commemoration event of not being racially inclusive; what more did he want, the MCB were invited! Ah read on with his statement and you’ll see he wanted the commemoration on the liberation of Auschwitz to include other genocides.

Surely the name of the commemoration event ‘Auschwitz’ gives away the fact that it is specifically for the genocide that happened there.

Martin Bright, a journalist who has worked for the BBC hits the nail directly on the head with his statement that; “anybody that represents itself as speaking for the Muslim community must demonstrate that is entirely non-sectarian and non-factional. The MCB has consistently failed in this area and the Government should consider cutting all ties until it has thoroughly reformed itself.”

I completely agree with Martin Bright here. I’ll expand his point with my concern that the government are leaning far too much on the MCB to the extent that only one small portion of Muslims are being listened to.

In my opinion, the Muslim Council of Britain have done more to give Muslims in Great Britain a hard time than any other organisation and well done to them.

I spoke to Ed Husain of the Quilliam Foundation and Talat Ahmed of the Muslim Council of Britain following the British National Party’s win of 2 seats to the European Parliament. Listen to the interview on IOL Radio right here.

Is the BBC running scared of Islam? VOTE here

Comment at end

30th May, 2009

BBC IDIOTS-IDIOTS-IDIOTS! PRIZE BBC IDIOTS!

If you still need proof that Muslims in this country are treated differently (better) from others OR that Britain is the libel capital of the world OR that we have COMPLETELY lost the (moral) plot, this is it.

The former editor of the Telegraph Charles Moore made some comments on the BBC’s Question Time which upset some Muslims. So? Some Muslims make comments that upset me, regularly. But the BBC in all its dhimmified glory has offered to hand over to the poor insulted group/individual £30,000 in reparation for THEIR hurt feelings.

Where’s MY £30,000?

Would that be the same Muslim Council of Britain with whom the government broke ties recently over the Gaza remarks of the council’s deputy secretary-general, Daud Abdullah?

‘He [Abdullah] defended signing the statement, saying: “It made no specific mention of attacks on British troops. The statement does say if foreign troops enter Gaza’s territorial waters, it is the duty of Muslims to resist, as it would be seen as assisting the siege.”‘

Oh yes, so it is.

And is this the same Muslim Council of Britain which boycotted National Holocaust Day over Israel’s action in Gaza?

Oh, yes, but of course.

And the same MCB whose deputy leader, Daud Abdullah endorsed by signature: “a pro-Hamas declaration that appeared to call for violence against Jews and Israel and condone attacks on British troops.”

The very same.

So let me get this straight. No-one was mentioned by name on Question Time and yet someone has been offered £30,000! If not someone then an organisation. When was any other organisation ever awarded cash for hurt feelings by the BBC?

And, secondly, the legal experts on Question Time saw NO reason not to broadcast the words of Mr Moore, so they were broadcast.

Are the BBC’s legal experts REALLY up to this job?

What a stupid bl***y broadcasting organisation. And WE pay their licence fee.

What a stupid bl***y country!

There is nothing for it. When my fellow patriotic countrymen, proud of our troops and our erstwhile “freedom of speech” are EVER upset by Muslim remarks, they MUST complain. They must complain bitterly. They must complain EVERY time. They must complain LOUDLY.

At least SOMEONE is standing up against extremist Muslims – WHO? – Moderate Muslims. WHY? - ”because the Police won’t”. Self-interested act?  Maybe. But it’s better than nothing. And doing nothing is the shameful alternative.

RELATED

• ‘Freethinker’ – BBC offers to pay up and apologises to posturing Muslim group
• Cranmer “incensed”
• ‘Lambeth Walk’ on this & 3 other related tales  - ’Muslim microscosm in Britain’.

Daily Mail article:

BBC offers £30,000 and an apology for Question Time ’slur’ on Islamic leaders over anti-war protest

By Paul Revoir and Abul Taher
Last updated at 10:51 PM on 29th May 2009

The BBC has offered to pay £30,000 and apologise to the Muslim Council of Britain after airing claims that it encourages the killing of British troops.

Charles Mooore, former Telegraph editor "slurred" Muslims. What a load of ********

The Corporation caved in after a panellist on the Question Time TV programme accused the country’s most influential Muslim organisation of failing to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The broadcaster was threatened with legal action over comments by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore during a debate about Islamic protests which marred a soldiers’ homecoming parade in Luton.

Mr Moore blamed the MCB’s leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that it thought it was a ‘good thing’ to kill troops.

Faced with the threat of a writ, the BBC made an offer of ‘amends’ and an apology on the Question Time website. But this has been rejected and the MCB is demanding an apology on air.

The Corporation’s decision to pay out will raise eyebrows in Whitehall, where ministers have refused to settle a similar defamation claim over a letter written by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

A BBC insider said the move has also angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.

The BBC has offered to pay £30,000 and apologise to the Muslim Council of Britain after airing claims that it encourages the killing of British troops.

The Corporation caved in after a panellist on the Question Time TV programme accused the country’s most influential Muslim organisation of failing to condemn attacks on soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The broadcaster was threatened with legal action over comments by former Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore during a debate about Islamic protests which marred a soldiers’ homecoming parade in Luton.

Mr Moore blamed the MCB’s leadership for its apparent reluctance to condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers overseas. He went on to claim that it thought it was a ‘good thing’ to kill troops.

Faced with the threat of a writ, the BBC made an offer of ‘amends’ and an apology on the Question Time website. But this has been rejected and the MCB is demanding an apology on air.

The Corporation’s decision to pay out will raise eyebrows in Whitehall, where ministers have refused to settle a similar defamation claim over a letter written by Communities Secretary Hazel Blears.

A BBC insider said the move has also angered Mr Moore, who was not consulted over the legal response to the complaint or even informed that an offer to settle had been made.

Question Time is recorded an hour before broadcast specifically so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels.

No legal worries were expressed over Mr Moore’s remarks, which were seen as provocative but not defamatory.

Above: Apology for one and not the other: Charles Moore’s words compared to Hazel Blears’s letter

The row dates back to March 12 when Mr Moore appeared on the BBC1 show.

The panel was debating protests by a group of Islamic extremists during a homecoming parade by the Royal Anglian Regiment in Luton two days earlier.

Muslim extremists heckled the troops and waved placards which read 'Butchers of Basra' and 'British Government: Terrorist Government'. Did WE sue them for our hurt feelings? Did the troops? Of course not.

All the panellists condemned the protesters, but political biographer Mr Moore took the opportunity to attack the MCB.

He said: ‘The Muslim Council of Britain, which is the umbrella organisation for all Muslim groups in this country, I’ve gone to them many times, and I said will you condemn the killing and kidnapping of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they won’t.

‘But there is a bigger, another step that they take, they say it is actually a good thing, even an Islamic thing, to kill or kidnap British soldiers.’

The MCB’s leadership described Mr Moore’s claims as a ‘total lie’.

Last night secretary general Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari said: ‘These kinds of statements are very damaging, and we received many complaints from our Muslim supporters who said they were extremely offended by the comments.

‘In fact when a British man called Ken Bigley was kidnapped in Iraq, we sent envoys there to plead for his release. This is accusing us of encouraging terrorism abroad.’

The MCB engaged costly libel lawyers Carter-Ruck, who wrote a formal letter of complaint.

Question Time, chaired by David Dimbleby (above), is recorded an hour before broadcast so that legal advisers can check its content for possible libels

Last night it emerged that the BBC decided to offer to settle amid fears that the Corporation had libelled Dr Abdul Bari even though he was not mentioned by name.

A BBC spokesman said: ‘Question Time always has lively and wide-ranging debate. On occasion this results in unfairness to individuals who aren’t there to put their point of view and this is one of those occasions.’

The separate row between the MCB’s deputy secretary general Dr Daud Abdullah and Miss Blears centres on a document relating to the recent conflict in Gaza which was signed by Dr Abdullah.

In March, Miss Blears interpreted the document as justifying attacks on the Royal Navy and wrote to The Guardian to explain her concerns.

A solicitor’s letter was sent on behalf of Dr Daud Abdullah demanding she pay £75,000 by last month or face full legal proceedings. But she refused to do so and no further correspondence has been received.

• If there IS about to be a leadership contest, and she survives long enough, watch Ms Blears stock rise for her firm stance on The Muslim Council of Britain.
• ‘LabourList’ blog on the Silence, and Lack of Leadership of Brown.
• Former Deputy PM John Prescott at “Go Fourth” lays into the (Tory) press.

Ryan Mauro has written an interesting article, entitled “The Three Types of Jihadists.”   Mauro labels the first group “total jihadists.”  Their use terrorism to force America to alter its foreign policy, which will in turn change the balance of power in the Middle East in their favour.  The second group is “near enemy jihadists.”  They latch on to regional conflicts, and use nationalistic claims to advance an Islamist agenda.  “Practical jihadists” are the third group.  They favour what Robert Spencer has called a “stealth jihad.”  Embedding themselves in dar al-harb, they maintain a respectable facade, while working to advance the Islamic “faith” in all its guises.  As Mauro says, we’re not asking for much if all we demand from Muslims living in our own countries is that they disagree with the tactics employed by Al Qaeda for us to consider them “moderates or even “allies” (i.e. eligible for government handouts).  If our politicians fail to understand that these different groups can have similar goals, but choose to go about their business in a different manner, then the consequences of that intellectual failure could affect the West for many years to come.

Read Ryan Mauro’s article here.

And all in the name of ‘protecting’ us, the British people. We’re so lucky to have Jacqui Smith looking after us the way she does. . . aren’t we?

The Home Office has just released the names of sixteen of the twenty two people barred from entering the United Kingdom in the five months to March this year. Those concerned have been excluded at the behest of the Home Secretary on the grounds that they express views which stir up hatred.

Half of the banned hate-fosterers are Islamic extremists, but also included are neo-Nazi Erich Gliebe, Jewish extremist Mike Guzovsky, ex-Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard Stephen ‘Don’ Black, Baptist pastor and anti-gay preacher Fred Waldron Phelps and his daughter Shirley Phelps-Roper, American radio host Michael Savage (Michael Weiner) whose controversial views on Islam, rape, autism, and immigration have caused great offence in the USA (apparently), and last but certainly not least skinhead Russian serial killers Artur Ryno and Pavel Skachevsky.

Hamas MP Yunis Al-Astal, together with Abdullah Qadri Al Ahdal, Samir Al Quntar, Wadgy Abd El Hamied Mohamed Ghoneim, Safwat Hijazi, Nasr Javed, Abdul Ali Musa, and Amir Siddique complete the line-up.

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said the ‘government should not act against people – whatever their views – unless they have broken the law. . .  We should not be in the business of policing people’s minds.’ Now, I can honestly say, hand on heart that I very rarely agree with anything the MCB says – they do after all seem to have a selective attitude towards free speech, as Dutch MP and outspoken critic of Islam Geert Wilders can testify – but in this instance I concur with them wholeheartedly.

I’m all for banning convicted terrorists, paedophiles, serial killers and the like, but the idea of refusing someone entry on the grounds that they may say something we (or as is more likely the government) don’t like is beyond reason. Contemptible as the views held by some people may be, and offensive as many decent folk may find them it shouldn’t mean they’re banned from coming here.

The British populace isn’t so gullible that it’ll be swayed into extremism by the words of a few nutters. Aside from the obvious issue of turning the excluded ones into martyrs, most people would have never heard of those concerned had they not been banned from entering the country. Whilst a very gifted orator can unquestionably turn the opinion of fence-sitters in their favour, the days when they needed to stand on a table at the front of a beer hall in order to reach their audience are long gone. People who want to listen to extremists and preachers of hate will just do so via the internet.

I do support the idea of banning Jacqui Smith from re-entering the UK the next time she leaves it, though. . . .

Comment at end

25th April, 2009

“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.”

WHICH “Islamic Nation”? The one they hope Britain will soon be? Or the worldwide Caliphate? Both, I imagine. 

Lambeth Walk often has very interesting and well-researched posts. So, in my why-re-invent-the-wheel mode, and with the blog owner’s permission, I have pasted this one below, on the  The Muslim Council of Britain:

In light of the statement which the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) issued yesterday calling Britain’s treatment of 11 Pakistani terror suspects ‘dishonourable’, I thought it might be interesting to examine this group in a little more detail.

What is this organisation’s agenda, and is it honourable?

On 25th March the Mail reported that Communities Secretary Hazel Blears had severed ties with the Muslim Council of Britain after its deputy leader made comments supporting violence against the Royal Navy if it should be involved in patrolling the coastline of Gaza to prevent arms smuggling. Dr Daud Abdullah also signed a public declaration of support for Hamas:

He was one of 90 Muslim leaders around the globe who signed the controversial ‘Istanbul declaration’.

It said: ‘The obligation of the Islamic Nation [is] to regard the sending of foreign warships into Muslim waters, claiming to control the borders and prevent the smuggling of arms to Gaza, as a declaration of war, a new occupation, sinful aggression. This must be rejected and fought by all means and ways.’

“The obligation of the Islamic Nation to regard everyone standing with the Zionist entity, whether countries, institutions or individuals, as providing a substantial contribution to the crimes and brutality of this entity; the position towards him is the same as towards this usurping entity.”

It is understood that Abdullah was repeatedly called upon to distance himself and the organisation from these remarks. He chose instead to launch a lawsuit, accusing Blears of ‘crude bullying’, and insisting that the document he signed does not call for attacks on Jews or any Western military forces.

He has demanded a ’substantial’ payout from the government if it wishes to avoid court. All legal costs and any damages awarded will, naturally, by picked up by the taxpayer.

How did the rest of the MCB react to this furore? Sadly, rather predictably:

The MCB, which has received substantial Whitehall grants, refused to condemn its deputy secretary-general and accused Mrs Blears of ‘high-handed and condescending action’.

Of course. So, the battle lines have been drawn, and everyone has made it very clear which side they stand on – as if we didn’t already know.

In defence of Hazel Blears, Hamas is a terrorist organisation whose founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and she is right to be concerned by Abdullah’s endorsement and deny the MCB public funds.

To give you some idea of the toxicity of the waste in which we are currently wading, no less a paragon of virtue than Yvonne Ridley stepped forward to defend Abdullah. This is the same Yvonne Ridley who put the lack of WiFi service, internet cafes and the low tolerance of the regimes in North Africa down to ‘Zionist influences’.

Here is what Ridley wrote in an imaginary letter to Blears:

“I have just come from Gaza – a place from where you could learn a great deal about community initiatives. A place where the democratically elected government would be swept into power if there was a snap election tomorrow.

“I, like millions of ordinary people across the world support the Palestinian peoples’ right to vote for whoever they want in their elections therefore I support their right to vote for Hamas.

“Having seen what Hamas has achieved on the ground, I have no qualms in signing any document which supports Hamas.

“And believing fully in international law, I support their right in defending themselves against attacks – the fourth largest army in the world which is tooled up by the British Government has no qualms about killing and maiming the women and children of Gaza.

“What I do not support Hazel are the evil actions of Gaza’s neighbours Israel who deployed banned weapons in Gaza on a civilian population during a 22-day war. We now know,20from the mouths of the soldiers who served in the Israeli military, what most of us already suspected, that war crimes have been committed.

“Hazel, do you really endorse, support and give your unconditional loyalty to a country which deploys its weapons on women and children? Do you really support Israel’s bombing of UN buildings, mosques and schools in the war?

Now that I’ve got that off my chest, I will resist the temptation to write to the Prime Minister Gordon Brown urging him to sack Hazel Blears for her unconditional support of the Israeli child killers and war criminals.

But what I will do is recommend that he invites the Mayor of Gaza, Rafiq Mikki, to London to tell us exactly how he has brought crime down in Gaza 80% since Hamas took over in The Strip? How recycling in Gaza, where nothing is wasted because of the medieval siege, has turned the city into a world-beater in environmental terms.

There are no unruly, drunken kids hanging around street corners in Gaza and the only ASBO that should be issued is on the obnoxious neighbours in Israel.

Well, that’s quite an endorsement – after reading that diatribe, who could doubt that Dr Abdullah is as pure as the driven snow? Can’t say much about the company he keeps though…

Of course, Blears isn’t allowed to tell the MCB who they can and can’t employ – despite the fact they have received hundreds of thousands of pounds of public money. What is OK, however, is for Muslims to tell the government exactly who can and who can’t enter this country.

Just some of their funding arrangements are as follows:

The Charity Commission records show that the Charitable Foundation received an income of £139,391 for the year 2006-2007; but that the accounts for this period are overdue as at September 2008.
The MCB has applied and gained finance for projects devoted to the development of Muslim communities in Britain. [12] The MCB received £150,000 of public money from the Government for a number of specific projects. These were: the MCB leadership development programme; the MCB leadership mentoring programme; MCB direct, a web portal for information on Islam and Muslims; a British citizenship programme, and the British Muslim Equality Programme. .[13]
In 2006 the MCB won a grant of £300,000 from the UK Department for International Development (DFID). According to a DFID press release, projects will include (subject to final arrangements) producing teaching materials for Muslim schools and madrasahs and a website focusing on work to reduce poverty and links between Muslim communities in the UK and those in Nigeria, Bangladesh and India.[14]

But then, the MCB has always been a controversial organisation. Between 2001 and 2007 it refused to send representatives to Holocaust Memorial Day events ‘in protest at the ongoing genocide of Muslims’. It called for the day to be replaced by ‘Genocide Memorial Day’, but balked at the idea of the Armenian Genocide being included in the commemorations.

When it voted to end the boycott, one leading British Muslim said:

Anas al-Tikriti: “rather than a mere remembrance of victims of one of the most heinous crimes in history”, Holocaust Memorial Day has “become a political event” which “glorifies the state of Israel, turning a collective blind eye to the immeasurable suffering of Palestinians at the hands of Israelis every single day.”[26]

The organisation was also prominent in urging the UK government to pass ‘religious defamation’ laws, and also to get a clause banning ‘the glorification of terror’ taken out of the Terrorism Act. they insisted that such a clause ‘unfairly targeted Muslims and stifled legitimate debate’.

They have been responsible for several controversial campaigns; ‘Islam is Peace’ was an advertising campaign which aimed to “break down barriers of suspicion and division, challenge stereotypes, combat prejudice, and offer an opportunity for strengthening the values of respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence.”[6]

They also ran a ‘books for schools’ campaign, with the stated aim of providing ‘high quality Islamic resources for mainstream primary schools’.[7] and a ‘Mosque 100′ campaign which aims to build more mosques in areas with high Muslim populations, and maintain existing ones properly.

During the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons crisis, the MCB issued the following statement: “the emergence of an increasingly xenophobic tone being adopted towards Muslims in parts of the Western media” and argued that: “We should not allow our valued freedoms in Europe to be abused by those deliberately seeking to provoke hatred and division between communities”.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, they have urged the British government to sever ties with Israel and take a ‘neutral’ position in the Israeli-Arab conflict:

On 3 March 2008, the MCB criticised the Foreign Secretary David Milliband’s response to Israel’s killing of over 100 Palestinians in Gaza as “blatantly one-sided”, and said: “If we are serious about wanting peace, we must act as honest brokers, not partisan bystanders.”[22]

The journalist Melanie Phillips criticised the MCB, calling it “an extremist body, much influenced by the work of the Islamist ideologue Syed al Maududi“.

As an umbrella movement for many other Muslim organisations, she argued that many of these were more extreme, and that the MCB’s appearance of moderation was a pretence. She also attacked a “cheerful” remark by Bari where he stated that the aims of the MCB were the Islamisation of Britain, and arranged marriages for all.[27]

I think that before the MCB is allowed to give any more lectures on honour, everything presented here should be made known to the wider public.

These people are extremists in suits (exactly the same phrase they use about the BNP), and it is time this became more widely known. This organisation is trying to transform Britain and its values through stealth, and we, the ordinary people of Britain, are expected to pay for the privilege.

As the MCB is now trying to find ‘the Muslim leaders of tomorrow’, the question must be asked: Are they fit for purpose? Do we want younger Muslims with aspirations drinking from this poisoned well – is it simply naive to feel it could be otherwise?

They should certainly receive no more public funding, and I hope any sane judge will throw Abdullah’s lawsuit in the dustbin where it belongs.

Even by its own lamentable standards the Mail has made a bit of a twat of itself today.

Yes, it’s the Ross/Brand circus all over again after the news that OFCOM has fined the BBC £150 000 – that’s about one MP’s expenses for those wanting a quick currency conversion.

Make Ross pay: As BBC is fined record £150,000 over sick stunt, MPs demand £6m-a-year star and Russell Brand foot bill

Two points worth raising here.

MPs?

Well, only just…as one Lib Dem Don Foster (who he?) chips in (they’ve always got something to say about everything, haven’t they?) and Labour’s Gerald Kaufman is prised out of cryogenic storage to speak his brains – file between fish fingers and hash browns.

So, yes, that’s certainly MPs in the plural but hardly the swell of parliamentary opinion that the headline infers.

The other point concerns the woman in this affair – Sach’s granddaughter.

Interesting choice of photograph of her the Mail has made for this ’story’…stockings, suspenders, etc.

So, whilst the comments column below is full of a bukkake-like outspewing of moral froth and puritanical self-righteousness the actual story is illustrated with a picture whose only purpose seems to be to titillate the readership.

Weren’t there any photographs of Ms Baillie in slightly more clothes?

And where does that place the Mail in its attempts to lay claim to any moral high ground in this whole affair?

It portrays Ms Baillie as the injured party yet shows her in her underwear in a pose clearly intended to be provocative.

It’s confused and confusing to say the least and takes me into places I’d rather not go with regard to the twisted psyches of some Mail readers – not to mention their journalistic pimps.

One last thing…

Hazel ‘eee I’m just a simple Northern lass wi’ me flatcap on me head and a whippet in my briefs’ Blears appeared on the BBC’s Question Time program last week and also joined in the Ross/Brand debate saying that they should pay the fine, so that’s one MP the Mail missed, bringing the number of MPs actually calling for this to happen to a grand total of 3:

The BBC is funded by all of us as licence-payers, so actually, are we having to pay the fine?  Then I thought maybe Jonathan Ross and Russell Brand should pay it… that might be quite a good idea.

However, I’m sure that Hazel ‘eee I’ve gone upmarket and now I keep me coal in the bath at me second home and pass me some more whippet and black pudding flavour crisps’ Blears has something slightly more pressing to think about right now.

Jag läste artikeln What Britain can teach the West about dealing with Islamism. Författaren menar att England gjort framsteg i kampen emot vad denne kallas ”islamism” p.g.a. tre saker:

Att England hindrade Ibrahim Moussawi, Hizbollahs propagandachef, från att komma in i landet för att delta på en konferens vid University of London School of Oriental and African Studies.

Att England kapade banden till Muslim Council of Britain, då de vägrade ta avstånd och kritisera Daud Abdullah, som skrivit under en deklaration från Istanbul som uppmanade till utplåning av Israel, fortsatt jihad i Afghanistan och Irak, samt attacker mot brittiska armén.

Och slutligen sa inrikesministern Jacqui Smith att temat är att fokusera på att bekämpa islamismen och uppmanade muslimer att inte stödjda våld mot systemet utan istället stödja “delade värderingar”; demokrati, lagar, kvinnors rättigheter m.m. Hon sammanfattade med

“We should all stand up for our shared values and not concede the floor to those who dismiss them.”

Det är självfallet positivt att England lyckas göra något emot islamiseringen och de ageranden som beskrivs i artikeln är på så sätt positiva. Problemet är bara det att dessa åtgärder är i sammanhanget ganska betydelselösa eftersom det är närmast punktinsatser – nålstick – i en situation som kräver mycket vidare och bredare åtgärder.

Att “bekämpa islamism” och samtidigt babbla om att “uppmana muslimer” att stödja “gemensamma värderingar” såsom demokrati etc, är bara att skjuta sig själv i foten. Då utgår man från att problemet är en liten klick muslimer, vilket borgar för en fortsatt utveckling av muslimsk massinvandring. Det i sin tur leder till att England (eller vilket land det nu handlar om) kommer bli allt mer muslimskt.

Jag ser också en fara i att ha en övertro på att försöka “uppmana muslimer att ta avstånd från våldet”. Självklart vore det bra med en större opposition från muslimerna rörande det våld de genererar – men problemet är att våldet inte är det enda problemet, även om det givetvis är påtagligt. Det krävs en medvetenhet om det som kallas “laglig islamism” och islamisering, vilket mycket väl kan ska utan våld. Faran ligger alltså i att tro att bara för att muslimer opponerar sig emot våld, så är man säker. Så är inte fallet. Islamiseringen av samhället har sina rötter i den demografiska aspekten, där ökad andel av muslimer oundvikligen leder till ett mer muslimsk samhälle. Ett land utgörs av dess befolkning. Och jag motsätter mig en islamisering oavsett om det sker med våld eller inte.

Tyvärr antyder artikeln bara att England inte fattat problemet, eller hur man löser det. Genom att “punktmarkera” vissa specifika saker, såsom att hindra en viss person från att komma in i landet, eller att “uppmana” muslimer att sköta sig, och tro att man gör framsteg, gör man sig själv en s.k. björntjänst. Man ser inte skogen för alla träd ungefär.

England kommer aldrig lösa sina problem, om de inte tar ett helhetsgrepp angående den muslimska immigrationen, samt den muslimska population som växer 10 ggr snabbare än övriga befolkningen i England.