How would Mr. Ahmad explain this?Never, I feel, has a post's conclusions been so inevitable. This is my last, for the moment, on the issue.
To be fair to
Iftikhar Ahmad, of the London School of Islamics, from the Islamic point of view, it's more than reasonable that he defends his own community and their needs. He's hardly going to under-represent them and thus he's not doing any particular evil himself. If my job were to defend and promote British interests in Cairo, then it would be dereliction not to do that to the best of my ability and thus I'd need to find good arguments to support what I was doing.
The problem is that my little poll [with the limited sample size], the blog comments and the wider debate in the community does not support Mr. Ahmad's conclusions in the least and anomalies were pointed out in his claims by readers. He stated:
The Muslim schools follow National Curriculum along with Islamic studies and Islamic History based on The Holly Quran and Sunnah. There is no place for Comparative Religion and European Languages.
as against:
My suggestion is that in all state, independent and Christian based school special attention should be given to the teaching of Comparative Religion and Islam should be taught by qualified Muslim Teachers.
... and:
Muslim schools are working to try to create a bridge between communities.
as against:
There is no place for Comparative Religion and European Languages.
I don't know any indigenous Brit or American who swallows that line from the Muslims and the commenter added: "ROFL". As for:
State schools with monolingual teachers are not capable to teach English to bilingual Muslim children
... a commenter says:
Why do you expect english speaking indigenes to fund the teaching of other languages, when you already admit English will be the medium of instruction because it is an economic and social language for communication in the global village.
And by implication therefore, the languages you wish indigenes to pay for will never be of any practical use in a modern world, or, what did you call it..., oh yes, ...a world that has become a global village.
Surely you must realise that incompatible languages CREATE incompatible communities unable to communicate.
... and Mad Piper says:
If Iftikhar Ahmad is an example of a qualified Mohammedan teacher the students are in an even worse situation. His atrocious spelling, grammar, and logic make even my public schools look brilliant.
It's not the purpose of this post to bash Mr. Ahmad who had the decency to come in and put the Muslim point of view but even he must see the hostility from the indigenous population at the hidden agenda he represents and the lack of logic in the arguments for it being benign in terms of the indigenous culture.
Ubermouth was more forthright about this:
With all due respect, this is the typical Islamic propoganda one would expect in rationalizing YOUR culture ISOLATING your children to prevent western assimilation, and you know it.
Young Muslim children influenced by the western culture do not want to follow your culture and this is indicated by the many young girls who run away [not due to inadequate western schools] but to evade enforced,arranged Muslim teenage marriages.
You do NOT accept non Muslims to even teach in your schools so as to not 'tempt' and 'taint' your children with any western influences because the agenda is, as you admit, inflicting the laws and religion of Islam onto the whole unsuspecting planet.
How do YOU justify claiming your people are entitled to a Muslim education[state paid,no less] and cultural,religious identity protection[recognizing the value in all what that entails] when the Islam long term agenda is to deny us ours, GLOBALLY?
Dearieme added an anecdote:
A young acquaintance of mine chose an Islam option in his final year at Oxford. His tutor started by explaining that the Koran is the inerrant word of God and was not to be criticised. My young chum realised that "education" was not the mot juste for such tutorials.
Xlbrl concluded, quite rightly:
The Muslim bridge is not a device to connect two cultures, it is a device to invade it. What is more pathetic, were they to succeed, they would discover they had not even stolen a wealthy land, but only established their pauperized civilization in a different climate. Wealth is not a function of geography. And science has no place in Islam.
Winfred Mann comments on one of the Muslim claims:
“It will help them to develop Islamic Identity crucial for mental, emotional and personality development.”
Why do they need an Islamic Identity to live in Western Culture, which obviously allows for greater freedom?
Tiberius Gracchus, who usually takes a contrary position to whatever is stated in a post, at least conceded:
I think the comments from Mr Ahmad are pretty self refuting- I'm not sure I need to comment on those.
He does say, in defence of Muslim culture in general, which was not the point of the post, incidentally:
You should not caricature all Muslims as having the same view no more than anyone should caricature all Christians as David Duke. As to Muslims- I think we owe them rather a lot from mathematics and the preservation of Greek philosophy, to architecture and art.
If I could come in here and say that my greatest fear is that the agenda of the Muslim leadership who must feel all their birthdays have come at once, the way the Labour government has welcomed their separate community with open arms, this agenda is placing at risk the lives and wellbeing of the ordinary Muslim, e.g. the Pakistani shopkeepers who want no part of the politics and degradation they've escaped from and whose younger generation knows nothing and wants nothing of the oppressive Sharia Law. They need the protection of the government from:
1. the malcontents in the mosques;
2. the backlash of which even the educated commenters on this blog are a part. If these commenters feel this way, then how will all the ASBOs out there feel? How do the thugs on the streets feel?
I don't blame the Muslim leadership themselves - they are the enemy, after all and they're only being loyal to their agenda.
Fine.
I blame this treasonous government, so untouched by any feeling of loyalty to its own country that it would allow an EU monster to both subsume the very identity of the nation but also allow minority groups of proven socially aggressive and savage habits, as shown in this post, to dictate to it, the government ... which is, after all, only the servant of us, the people. The Muslim leadership dictate to the government who then dictate to us what should and shouldn't be in this country.
To hell with you both, I say and I use the word hell advisedly because that is the final resting place for this pernicious scheme for world domination and the Westminster Fifth Column which facilitates this. People who cry G-d is Great while murdering innocents are certainly not going to Heaven anyway, especially one with 72 virgins waiting and we all know where the Westminster pollies are going to end up.
Even enlightened Muslims can see what's going on. Nonie Darwish wrote in the Sunday Telegraph some time back [sorry there's no link]:
Is it any surprise that after decades of indoctrination in a culture of hate, people actually do hate? Arab society has created a system of relying on fear of a common enemy. It's a system that has brought them much-needed unity, cohesion and compliance in a region ravaged by tribal feuds, instability, violence, and selfish corruption.
So Arab leaders blame Jews and Christians rather than provide good schools, roads, hospitals, housing, jobs, or hope to their people.
For 30 years I lived inside this war zone of oppressive dictatorships and police states. Citizens competed to appease and glorify their dictators, but they looked the other way when Muslims tortured and terrorised other Muslims. I witnessed honour killings of girls, oppression of women, female genital mutilation, polygamy and its devastating effect on family relations.
All of this is destroying the Muslim faith from within. It's time for Arabs and Muslims to stand up for their families. We must stop allowing our leaders to use the West and Israel as an excuse to distract from their own failed leadership and their citizens' lack of freedoms. I
t's time to stop allowing Arab leaders to complain about cartoons while turning a blind eye to people who defame Islam by holding Korans in one hand while murdering innocent people with the other.
Muslims need jobs - not jihad.
To say that Islam is not Arabic in its very nature is to never have been at a Muslim prayer session. I have been and I'm not about to explain how. Arabic was the language used though the indigenous language was different. Therefore, all this talk of assimilation and crossing bridges is so much hogwash.
And exposing the scam is not hatred in the least but just as stated - exposure.
This country needs to protect the Muslim and any other citizen equally, as Mr. Ahmad intimated but to do that, the Muslim leadership needs to be identified and sent packing from this country or if that's not possible, it needs to be incarcerated because whether it falls within the race hatred category or it's said ever so nicely, the agenda is as clear as day and that agenda is both anathema and inimicable to western society.
Stephen Pollard, in the Sunday Telegraph, on February 19th, 2006, wrote:
The Sunday Telegraph's poll today, which shows that 40% of British Muslims want Sharia law to replace common law and statutes in parts of the country, is bad enough. But for the full impact, it should be read with the paper's interview with one of the leading experts on the subject, Patrick Sookhdeo.
Sookhdeo said:
“It's confirmation of what they believe to be a familiar pattern: if spokesmen for British Muslims threaten what they call 'adverse consequences' - violence to the rest of us - then the British Government will cave in. I think it is a very dangerous precedent.” “...
Look at what happened in the 1990s. The security services knew about Abu Hamza and the preachers like him. They knew that London was becoming the centre for Islamic terrorists. The police knew. The Government knew. Yet nothing was done. The whole approach towards Muslim militants was based on appeasement. 7/7 proved that that approach does not work - yet it is still being followed.
For example, there is a book, The Noble Koran: a New Rendering of its Meaning in English, which is openly available in Muslim bookshops. It calls for the killing of Jews and Christians, and it sets out a strategy for killing the infidels and for warfare against them.
The Government has done nothing whatever to interfere with the sale of that book. Why not? Government ministers have promised to punish religious hatred, to criminalise the glorification of terrorism, yet they do nothing about this book, which blatantly does both.”
It's more precisely zeroed in on in his next comment:
“...The trouble is that Tony Blair and other ministers see Islam through the prism of their own secular outlook. They simply do not realise how seriously Muslims take their religion. Islamic clerics regard themselves as locked in mortal combat with secularism.
He misses a certain point here and makes the same fundamental mistake most people do - Blair and Brown were and are
tools for another power. Cameron has not shown himself to be any different. He's not a Bilderberger but Osborne sure was. Westminster is riddled with them.
When a journalist noted, to Etienne Davignon, "all the recent presidents of the European Commission attended Bilderberg meetings before they were appointed." Davignon's response [was that] he and his colleagues were "excellent talent spotters."
Blair and Brown were not so much groomed but were seen as unprincipled,
lying, weak-willed people, given to vague blandishments and who would adopt and advance the globalist stance without objection, this stance requiring the breakdown of societies and of patriotism to a national identity.
Thus Blair and Brown were perfect Westminster material.
Therefore they are/were to be promoted, aided and abetted.
These are the men who have allowed the Muslim leadership unfettered right to dictate to this nation what will be and what will not be. So when the backlash comes, rather than beat down doors and slaughter Muslim families who go about their business just as the Jews were trying to do before
Kristallnacht, better to target the real villains - the traitorous Them, the mob at Westminster and the Muslim leadership in the Mosques.
The Mosques should never be vandalized and if that is done, then we're no better than those we attack. No, it is the malcontented plot hatchers inside those mosques, whose bemused smiles at the acquiescence of the lily-livered Labour government has enabled their agenda to accelerate beyond their wildest dreams - they are the ones to be rounded up and put on trial. Not with Sharia Law justice or justice the way it currently stands in these devalued times but through the old concept of British justice in a new form which actually represents justice in most people's minds, universal, particular to our nation and one which our people would accept as just.
At that trial, the MCB will be asked to comment on this, for example:
In 1980, the Islamic Council of Europe laid out their strategy for the future - and the fundamental rule was never dilute your presence. That is to say, do not integrate.
No, we're not doing it, we're really notIftekhar A. Hai, director of interfaith relations for United Muslims of America Interfaith Alliance, defended Islamic intrusion into the west thus:
“It is true that Mohammed used the concept of just wars as a last resort to establishing peace among the various tribes of Arabia. But the concept of just war (jihad) was backed up with love, compassion, mercy, forgiveness and reconciliation. Citing examples from the Koran to say that Mohammed was either more or less violent than other Biblical figures is meaningless and anachronistic. We live today by the standards of a modern civilized world; it is not fair to judge Mohammed, who lived 1420 years ago, by today's standards.”
Meaningless and anachronistic?
Judge for yourself. Read through that and see how anachronistic it is.
Muslims point to Surah 2:190-193 as proof that Islam teaches only defensive warfare but eschews offense. These verses admonish Muslims only to fight against those who oppress or persecute them and only until the offenders have stopped oppressing them.
However, the Qur'an also teaches Muslims to enter into exile in lands where Islam is not the dominant force, to pursue the adoption of Islam and to view any indigenous reaction to that as oppression and persecution against Islam, thereby requiring Jihad against these infidels:
"Those who believed, and adopted exile, and fought for the Faith, with their property and their persons, in the cause of Allah, as well as those who gave them asylum and aid- these are all friends and protectors, one of another.
As to those who believed but came not into exile, ye owe no duty of protection to them until they come into exile; but if they seek your aid in religion, it is your duty to help them, except against a people with whom ye have a treaty of mutual alliance.
And remember Allah seeth all that ye do. The Unbelievers are protectors, one of another: Unless ye do this, protect each other, there would be tumult and oppression on earth, and great mischief." (Surah 8:72-73)
In this passage, “adopted exile” is translated from the root form hjr, which has, as its primary meaning, the ideas of containment or confinement, and can carry the connotation of being quarantined or compartmentalised. The idea garnered from this verse seems to be as follows
:
Adopt exile in a foreign land, voluntarily confining yourself in a non-Muslim society. Eschew assimilation into the culture and way of life of the host country, and instead agitate for Islam. When opposition arises, join together and give aid and fight for Allah against the unbelievers, since unrighteous persecution has now arisen! Thus, defense changes to offense.
The Islamic philosopher and historian, Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406 AD), stated:
“In the Muslim community, the Holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the (Muslim) mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force. Therefore, caliphate and royal authority are united in (Islam), so that the person in charge can devote the available strength to both of them at the same.”
The standard defence is that these verses are now outdated and that Ibn Khaldun was a bit of a strange person. Therefore, the west has nothing to fear. Oh really? Where shall I start? Let's try this:
Al-Buti, a modern Muslim scholar, explains:
“The verse (9:5) does not leave any room in the mind to conjecture about what is called defensive war. This verse asserts that Holy War, which is demanded in Islamic law, is not defensive war (as the Western students of Islam understand it) because it could legitimately be an offensive war. That is the apex and most honorable of all Holy wars.”
Horse's mouth. Al Buti again:
“This is the concept which professional experts of thought attempt to conceal from the eyes of Muslims by claiming that anything that is related to a Holy war in Islamic law is only based on defensive warfare to repel an attack ...
It is no secret that the reason behind this deception is the great fear which dominates foreign countries (East and West alike) that the idea of Holy War for the cause of God would be revived in the hearts of Muslims, then certainly, the collapse of European culture will be accomplished.
The mindset of the European man has matured to embrace Islam as soon as he hears an honest message presented. How much more will it be accepted if this message is followed by a Holy War?”
Al-Amin likewise points to the Qur’an for the justification of offensive holy war:
"God had made it clear to us that (we should) call for acceptance of Islam first, then wage war. It is not admissible to wage war before extending the invitation to embrace Islam first, as the Qur’an says.
‘We verily sent our messenger with clear proofs and revealed to them the scripture and the balance, that mankind may observe right measure, and he revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and uses for mankind and that Allah (God) may know him who helps Him and his messengers—Allah is strong, Almighty"’ (Surah Iron 57:25).”
Need I go on for the full 72 pages of research?
There is a clear clash of cultures here,
a clash of civilizations in which a solution cannot be found. Those in our own community who preach tolerance of all things, no matter how bad they are, have glossed over this issue, nay, have misunderstood it and have been taken in by the softly-softly approach of the Islamic vanguard in western nations which even now is revealing itself in its open demands on the government.
FinallyThere is no one enemy. It is Them, it is the Muslim leadership, it is our own ASBOs and the new youth sub-culture, which in the 60s was for peace, man, turn on, tune in, drop out but now is considerably nastier but that is another post.
Anyone ever read any
William Burroughs? Try The Wild Boys.
The enemy is coming from different directions. This post is about one particular section of the inimicable forces arrayed against us. To wind up, Douglas Adams was quite apt when describing the planet of Krikkit and I think it is not irrelevant in the context of this discussion:
The people of Krikkit believed in "peace, justice, morality, culture, sport, family life and the obliteration of all other life forms."
Jihad is love? Possibly but love for whom? For our nation and our way of life?
