Secular Muslims open letter to ‘Stop Islamisation of Europe’


by Sunny
22nd November, 2009 at 12:19 am    

bmsd’s letter to “Stop the Islamisation of Europe”.

—————
Dear Mr [Stephen] Gash,
We are a group of Muslim democrats who are committed to the values that define the British state,
including legal and constitutional equality for all, equal rights for women and minorities, and religious
freedom, including the right to be free of faith.

We take such pride in these virtues that we actively seek to defend them against any individual, political
group or organised religious outfit which seeks to impose their religious beliefs upon others (thereby
infringing the right of all people to practice any religion or to be free of any religion).

As an attendee at our counter-demonstration against Al-Muhajiroun on 31st October 2009, you would have
seen for yourself how we thwarted their attempts to portray themselves as representatives of the British
Muslim community. Not only did they abandon their “March for Sharia” at the last minute, but we were
joined by pro-democracy activists of all faiths and none, and from a wide range of backgrounds (including
the English Democrats). This was hailed by both Muslims and non-Muslims as a victory for freedom and
democracy.
We have come to know about your proposed demonstration outside Harrow Mosque on 13th December
2009, opposing the building of the mosque extension. According to your letter to the Harrow Times on
your website – which appears not to have been published in the paper as yet – you believe that, “Muslims
are attempting to make Islam the dominant theocratic-political system across the world and are actively
eradicating democracy, non-Islamic cultures and all other religions.”

To counter this assertion, we would like to point out that just like the majority of law-abiding British
Muslims and non-Muslims, we too are extremely concerned about the rise of extremism and political Islam
in Britain, which has been used to justify or demand non-democratic practices. On this issue, I am sure
your organisation and ours share a common concern and would like to see a halt to the spread of these.
We acknowledge that in the past several mosques and madrassahs have been involved in anti-democratic
activities and extremism, through the political and religious leanings of their management and patrons.

This undermines the confidence of the peace-loving British public and results in fragmented communities.
It is clear that mosques and madrassahs should not be used as a vehicle for hate-preaching and spreading
discord within society. In this vein, we would like to point out that just because Muslims attend certain
mosques out of pure necessity, this does not mean that they subscribe to the views of the mosque
committees and management. More likely, it signifies that they have no other choice and are not
organised enough to be able to challenge such community leadership.

We also maintain that the vast majority of British Muslims are law-abiding citizens who are happy with
secular democracy and do not wish to Islamicise Britain or Europe. We would like to fight for the rights of
ordinary British Muslims to practice their religion, free of any coercion by organised hard-line groups who
follow a particular brand of Islam based on rigid interpretations of Islamic teachings. By demonstrating
outside a mosque under the banner, “Stop the Islamisation of Europe,” ordinary peace-loving British
Muslims end up feeling threatened and have begun to believe that their fundamental right to practice
their religion is being curtailed. In any case, Harrow is an exemplar of good community relations, facilitated
by strong communication and co-operation between different faith communities and various agencies such
as the police and the local council. Our Director Tehmina Kazi can testify to this, as she has lived in Harrow
for over 20 years. Individuals affiliated with Harrow Central Mosque joined our counter-protest against Al
Muhajiroun and their leading members wholeheartedly support the merits of secular democracy alongside
bmsd.”

Your campaign is also fuelling the notion that somehow organisations such as SIOE are against all Muslims
and the religion Islam in itself. This is being used by the extremist elements within Muslim communities
to enhance their recruitment.

We therefore urge you to call off your protest and start open dialogue with British Muslims for Secular
Democracy and other pro-democracy groups, so that we could jointly work together in reducing the
spread of fascism and extremism from our communities.

We look forward to your response.
———————–

The main thing to point is that Gash and Stop Islamisation of Europe is against all Muslims. When I dedated with him at the earlier rally against Anjem Choudhary, he admitted he thought all Muslims were extremists and the ones demonstrating against Choudhary were liars.

Will show you folks the video soon.

Shaaz Mahboob also has a related article on CIF. Apparently Gash has posted some loony comments underneath.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: British Identity,Islamists






123 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Secular Muslims open letter to 'Stop Islamisation of Europe' http://bit.ly/4WEzH6


  2. Naadir Jeewa

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Secular Muslims open letter to 'Stop Islamisation of Europe' http://bit.ly/4WEzH6


  3. Willis L. Miller

    Pickled Politics » Secular Muslims open letter to 'Stop … http://bit.ly/08bSO17




  1. Binky — on 21st November, 2009 at 8:02 pm  

    We need have no fears for the future of Europe now that EU foreign policy is in such safe and capable hands:

    http://bnp.org.uk/2009/11/catherine-ashton-fore

    WARNING: tainted and ungoodthinkful source!

    If need be, I'm sure she can lick Gash! [Amerikan readers need NOT snigger!]

  2. Chris Baldwin — on 22nd November, 2009 at 7:07 am  

    It's good to take the moral high road and all, but I suspect that BMSD will find that it's useless trying to reason with these people.

  3. sticky — on 22nd November, 2009 at 8:10 am  

    “Apparently Gash has posted some loony comments underneath.”

    This has also been picked up by Standpoint – an unlikely source i know, but they lay into gash:

    http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2466

  4. Naadir Jeewa — on 22nd November, 2009 at 9:27 am  

    All the more unlikelier coming from Hitchens the Younger

  5. Shamit — on 22nd November, 2009 at 10:07 am  

    The new so called unelected President of Europe is also hell bent on ensuring judeo-christian beliefs are dominant in Europe and hence he is against Turkey joining Europe.

  6. DK — on 22nd November, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    Very encouraging and well-written!

  7. Binky — on 22nd November, 2009 at 7:20 pm  

    Does anyone is BMSD engage in SMBD or BDSM ?

    Is Max Moseley involved?

  8. persephone — on 23rd November, 2009 at 2:08 am  

    This is a good move and hopefully more will continue to outweigh the voice of Al-Muhajiroun

  9. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:12 am  

    Quote: “This is a good move and hopefully more will continue to outweigh the voice of Al-Muhajiroun”
    In other words let's make sure the Mecca Muslims win the day, sooth the Kuffar, and then the Medina Muslims can assert Islam's authority once and for all, as in other parts of the world.

  10. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:48 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    and then the Medina Muslims can assert Islam's authority once and for all, as in other parts of the world.

    They didn't, especially in the Indian subcontinent. And your claim that “there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim”, or indeed that anyone presenting themselves as such is practising “taqiyya” or “kitman”, is factually and historically completely false.

    Some reading material for you: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127 , followed by http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149 .

    Incidentally, for the record I am a Sikh, and therefore you cannot accuse me of practising taqiyya or kitman. I have absolutely no vested interest whatsoever in “furthering Islam”.

    And before you attempt to accuse me of “whitewashing the history of Muslims in India”, I suggest you also read the following recent comment by me in its entirety after you read the two-part article above: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6587#co

  11. Binky of Arabia — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:51 am  

    Spelling lesson follows:

    Makkah and Madinah are the spellings used by the Saudi Ministry of Information.

    This has nowt to do with sucking up to r*gh**ds, t*w*lh**ds, h*nky h**ds, d*n* c**ns, or c*m*l j*ck*ys, just getting our speling rite!

  12. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:14 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    Just out of curiosity how many members does SOIE actually have?

  13. persephone — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:19 am  

    Are you here for a debate or just to put your words (& motives) in my mouth?

    If you have something coherent to say no one is stopping you. Otherwise it appears as if you do not have a strong or rational argument that can stand up of its own accord.

  14. persephone — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:26 am  

    I went on the SIOE website & noticed their official slogan is:

    “Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense!”

    and the explanation that follows that standard bearing slogan is:

    “The first part is self-explanatory, but why was it included? Well this was to separate racism from the second part of the motto which refers to Islamophobia.”

    Akin to the BNP who would rather not be labelled as racists so have replaced the word race with identity to be more electable. There seems to be a lot of hang ups about the use of the word racist by those who claim their ideas & actions are not racist.

  15. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:31 am  

    Membership is about 3,200 and considerably more than the Muslim Council of Britain, I suspect, which has a PO Box as its contact address the last time I looked.

    Anyway, I'm not convinced that membership is the best way forward as data are about as secure as the Pope would be in a Taliban training camp.

  16. faisalg — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:49 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    3200!? Really? Snakes alive, literally!
    And how many of those are you proposing to mobilise for the Harrow Central Mosque demo?

  17. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:16 am  

    This letter we received from BMSD called for dialogue between us and them. Yet, the comment by PP at the end of its article above described my comments in CIF's article as “loony”. So, not much hope for meaningful debate there, then.

    BTW, Bill Baker turned up at the One Law for All rally on Saturday with colleagues carrying English flags. Maryam Namazie immediately started barking “racist” at Bill and his pals, allegedly. It would appear that Maryam thinks it's OK for her and her supporters to carry Iranian flags in England, but for English people to carry their own flag in their own country is beyond the Pale, even when they come to support Maryam's cause. I find that to be grossly insulting.

    None of my comments broke CIF's guidelines. Even for the Guardian, it was bad form to publish an article naming me, only to censor my explanations as to why I don't accept the notion of moderate Muslims. CIF provided no explanation to me as to why the comments were censored. Maybe the mod's name is Mohammed?

    We consider Harrow mosque's claims that no sharia courts would be held in the new, monstrous edifice masquerading as a place of worship, to be first order “loony”. Are we really expected to believe that no kind of sharia arbitration will take place in Harrow mosque? Such arbitration may reasonably be considered to be a sharia court. Anyone can see that in sharia, so-called religious clerics are prosecutor, judge and jury, in such matters. Did no sharia arbitration occur in Harrow's old mosque?

    Reportedly, around 80% of mosques are unregistered in England, but carry out Muslim weddings nevertheless. Such weddings have no legal standing in English law, thereby removing women's rights as wives under English law. The BMSD was noticeable by its absence when this figure was published.

    BMSD said precisely nothing when SIOE demonstrated outside Lambeth Palace on 11th September 2008, in protest aagainst the Archbishop of Canterbury's observation that sharia law was inevitable in England, nor did John Denham (who described Harrow protestors as “fascists”). Christians did not rampage through London's streets at SIOE's audacity to demonstrate outside the official residence of the head of the Anglican Church. Nor did Christians riot after after 100 Muslims heckled and barracked Christians going to Mass in Westminster Cathedral at the time of the Pope's quoting of an ancient text about Mohammed. The BMSD was too busy twiddling its thumbs and whistling to demonstrate against those particular “extreme” Muslims.

    However, now its bluff has been called, BMSD has the audacity to ask SIOE to call of its Harrow demo and to “enter into dialogue”.

    BMSD would be better employed demonstrating on 13th December outside Walthamstowe mosque that has been “radicalised” for the past 20 years and from which Muslims set out to bomb planes.

    Arrests of alleged Muslim clerics in Manchester have been made, reportedly, on alleged terrorist charges. Manchester is where St John's church was converted into a mosque and the Christian graves surrounding it unceremoniously bulldozed, as can be seen on Youtube.

    BMSD would be better employed stopping further churches being converted into mosques and Christian graves desecrated than opposing SIOE on 13th December. It would be better employed going to Manchester and sorting out the mosque there, then going to every mosque in England de-”radicalising” each and every one.

    However, Taqiyya is the order of the day, and crocodile tears are to be shed. The “fight for freedom” has to be waged against SIOE which has the nerve to demand no more mosques be built until the hate-preaching is stopped in existing mosques.

    The English Defence League is campaigning against Islamist extremists and believes moderate Muslims exist, so BMSD would be better talking to them. However, as UAF has called the EDL Nazis, it would be very dangerous for BMSD to queer its pitch as it would be guilty of Nazism by association in UAF's eyes and John Denham would call BMSD “fascists”.

  18. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:20 am  

    Stephen Gash, Yes, I suspect you are right, although the MCB claims to be an umbrella organisation rather that a direct membership organisation. I feel your organisation has rather painted itself into a corner though. By taking such a fundamentalist line yourselves, you are rather breaking Churchills' maxim of 'to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.'

  19. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:25 am  

    @ Jai Quote: “Incidentally, for the record I am a Sikh, and therefore you cannot accuse me of practising taqiyya or kitman. I have absolutely no vested interest whatsoever in “furthering Islam”. “
    Perhaps you could explain what Sikhs are and why the Sikh movement was started.

  20. Faisal G — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:27 am  

    Stephen Gash

    Like I said here:

    However, the overriding point that has to be made is that the vast majority of people who attend and use HCM do so not because they explicitly support these Islamist organisations, but simply because the mosque is their local facility.

    We are obliged to oppose any group which plans a demonstration which intends to obstruct and harass ordinary Muslims on their way to pray. And which is why we oppose Stop Islamisation of Europe.

  21. Faisal G — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:28 am  

    By the way PP editors, the usability of the comments box you've implemented here sucks.

  22. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:30 am  

    Stephen,

    Just to be clear, the above was in reply to your post starting:

    “Membership is about 3,200 and ….”

  23. Rumbold — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:35 am  

    Heh Faisal.

  24. Rumbold — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:41 am  

    Oops. That comment was directed at an earlier one.

    Faisal:

    The comments system is going to be tested for another week or so. Then Sunny will see.

  25. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:52 am  

    @ Shamit Firstly, if Rompuy is “hell bent on ensuring judeo-christian beliefs are dominant in Europe ” then arguably that is yet another argument for England getting out of the EU. There is precious little reason for staying in, but that argument is for another time.

    “and hence he is against Turkey joining Europe.” The mythical-moderates in Turkey voted Erdogan into power. This was after he had been imprisoned for reading an Islamic poem with verses saying “The domes of the mosques are our helmets, the minarets our bayonets, the mosques our barracks and Muslims our soldiers”.

    So we now know how “moderate” Turkish Muslims really are. Even if they vote him out, the threat will always remain, so I for one do not want Turkey in the EU. Religious clerics all over the Muslim world openly preach about Islam's takeover of the West. Such preaching can be seen on MemriTV. Of course, pointing this out and mentioning MemriTV was just too much for the CIF mods who deleted my comments.

    About half of Turks don't want to join the EU and believe Turkey's destiny is with the Muslim world. This would make the situation for Armenians and Assyrians even worse. Armenians, Assyrians and Copts are those ignored by the BBC because they are persecuted by “moderate” Muslims. The BBC is compelled to concentrate on the Israeli v Palestinian conflict, especially as it can then distort its reporting to constantly put Israeli Jews in a bad light.

  26. Faisal G — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:02 am  

    Stephen Gash

    If you plan to go ahead and mobilise your 3,200 supporters in front of Harrow Central Mosque on Dec 13 to harass and onbstruct Muslims going to their prayers, then you can expect a very peaceful, very intelligent and very sophisticated counter-demo from we at the BMSD. Just to show you how secular Muslims for Liberal Democracy do it.

    Since you're on record as being a Karadzic supporter, it is the least we can do.

  27. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:16 am  

    If Shaaz Mahboob is so concerned about free-speech and dialogue, then he should persuade the Guardian mods to restore my comments. He can always provide a disclaimer. Otherwise he could ask for permission for my comments to be forwarded to him and he can post them unedited on BMSD's website.

    Or he can ask them to be sent to Pickled Politics who can then post them and we we can discuss the loniness of them.

    Non-Muslims unfamiliar with the reasons SIOE started up and why we do not accept there are any moderate Muslims may start educating themselves by listening to what ex-Muslims have to say about Islam on this video, Islam: What the West needs to know” on Google videos

    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=islam%3

    One explanation of how we consider Islamisation is to be achieved may be seen on this video, “What Islam is not”

    http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=islam%3

    An authenticated document about how Islamic hubris is to be achieved is this one, The Project by the Muslim Brotherhood

    http://sioe.wordpress.com/the-project-%e2%80%93

  28. Faisal G — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:19 am  

    Stephen Gash

    Is there any chance, do you think, that you might lay off the cut and paste pedal for a bit and engage in some dialogue?

  29. Shamit — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:54 am  

    Stephen

    I fail to see how you can extrapolate views/actions of some Muslims and castigate a whole religion. For the record, I am a Hindu (which I don't think is really a religion) and I have been called many terms by loony Muslims. And I think most organised religion is bollocks.

    Just because some hindus burnt entire Muslim communities in Gujarat and tore down the Babri Masjid do not mean that all Hindus are blood thirsty and lack humanity and compassion. Therefore, if I apply the same logic to Islam and its followers then you do come across as a loony tune.

    Based on many personal experiences around the globe (and I did travel a bit) I find your version of truth to be very perverted. Your tone on this particular thread could have come from Anjem Choudhary if you just replace the words Muslim with infidels or kaffirs.

    Spewing biased hatred with limited knowledge and understanding has always been the hallmark of lesser men who are undoubtedly proven wrong in due course of history. And, unfortunately you seem to fall in that category.

    Don't depend on other loonies to support your own loony theories – and a little piece of advice on this blog if you wish to persuade anyone it is best done through reason and not by promotiong hatred towards any community. That kind of behaviour usually really pisses us off and the perpetrator is considered a fool. We tolerate fools for a little while after that we tend to become a bit unkind.

    Now, if you have reasonable arguments rather than just idiotic ranting please lets debate them. And for example don't start quoting how Koran says this or that – remember all verses of the Old Testament do not really reflect a kind and just God. And the less is said about the Catholic Church and its concern for humanity the better – as you all know they are not the best examples to cite when it comes to compassion, loving thy neighbour etc etc.

    See out here all of us have done some reading and so this audience is probably not the best place for you to peddle your theories. Have you tried the BNP website or the Stormfront — they have a lot of idiots who tend to fall for this crap.

    Hope you see the light of reason – i know its hard but try anyways. It just might do you some good.

  30. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:56 am  

    I mention Bill Baker, by the way, because he was the one who organised a demo outside Harrow mosque against sharia courts, only to cancel it later because mosque leaders convinced him no sharia courts would be held in the mosque.

    It was that piece of Taqiyya that convinced me that this year's SIOE 9/11 demo should be held outside of Harrow mosque. It was going to be outside of a mosque this year anyway, but not necessarily Harrow's.

    I had never met Bill Baker and only knew of him through Facebook. He asked me several times to call off the Harrow mosque demo. I met him for the first time (well at least to my knowledge and memory) at the anti-Islam4UK demo in Piccadilly. I don't think he was at the counter-Al Quds demo, but I may be wrong.

    As I said in my post above, he went in support of One Law for All rally on Saturday, only to be met with a hail of abuse from Maryam Namazie, I was told. This merely for carrying an English flag. I met him again yesterday at a commemoration for soldiers killed in action organised by March for England.

    I am accused of being “extreme” and “loony” for not accepting there are moderate Muslims. At Sunday's commemoration Bill once again asked me to call off the 13th December Harrow demo, and said that BMSD had asked him to speak to me to that end.

    My point is, if I am to be abused for my uncompromising views on Muslims, based upon the evidence I see and hear, then the same abuse should be hurled by BMSD at Maryam Namazie for her branding all English patriots as racist and for barking that the Cross of St George is racist, like some kind of mad dog.

    If I am to be accused of driving “moderate” Muslims to extremism, by the same token Maryam Namazie can be accused of driving ordinary English people to the BNP.

    I have stood against the BNP and what it stands for in several elections, but the UAF still endeavours to link SIOE and me to the BNP. After all the lies and abuse written about me, why should I now accept any invitation to talk, by BMSD, politicians who associate themselves with the thuggish UAF, or politicians like John Denham who brand me a fascist?

    If I am so uncompromising now, it is because of the lying deceitful media, especially the BBC which is a disgrace to broadcasting let alone publicly funded broadcasting, politicians, the UAF and Muslims, especially those of the BMSD persuasion who have kept silent until the EDL started, and SIOE did its Harrow mosque demo on 11th September.

    All meaningful dialogue has been stifled. Geert Wilders was banned from this country even though he denounces violence and says there are moderate Muslims. He is being taken to court for his movie Fitna, if I'm not mistaken. However, Muslim clerics have come to Britain as guests of politicians who have preached jihad and called Jews and Christians “apes and pigs”.

    Those asking for debate on Islam and its place, or lack of, in Western democracy have been effectively silenced. Now the inevitable has happened the debate-stranglers are calling for debate. However, this has only happened after unsuccessful attempts to ban SIOE's December demo.

    What exactly are people afraid of regarding the 13th December demo? Islam is a religion of peace afterall.

  31. Shamit — on 23rd November, 2009 at 6:57 am  

    I am with Faisal on the comments system – why can't I edit my comments — aaarrrrrggghhhhhh

  32. Shamit — on 23rd November, 2009 at 7:09 am  

    Stephen

    What makes you think any reasonable British citizen irrespective of their colour, creed or religion supports the Government on letting in the hook or similar preachers who preach hatred? I don't think there are many takers for their views and I am off the opinion all those who were not born in this country and preach hatred should be stopped at the borders.

    And if they have happened to con the home office in getting citizenship, it should be revoked by the Home Secretary and legally it can be done.

    And, St. George's Cross is not racist — some racist elements have tried to claim it as their own just like they try to use the armed forces.

    Again most people here are reasonable and the arguments you are making are not for this audience as I have made clear. I am also perplexed at your lack of understanding on holding the rally in front of the mosque. Harrow is cosmopolitan and people get on with each other and most people in Harrow actually love this country.

    So by holding this demo there you are actually trying to create disturbance by bringing in people from outside the community and create disharmony. So therefore, while I respect your right to hold a demonstration – you do not have the right to go and create problems where there are none. So who is the troublemaker?

    The ones who are just going into pray or the losers trying to cause trouble. I think the latter.

    Once again use reason and logic.

  33. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 7:19 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    Perhaps you could explain what Sikhs are and why the Sikh movement was started.

    Perhaps it would be better if you went first. Please explain to us what you think Sikhs are and why the “Sikh movement” (as you put it) was started by Guru Nanak.

  34. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 7:31 am  

    And it would definitely be worth your while to read through all 3 of those URL links I previously supplied, Stephen.

    Especially if you wish to get an accurate understanding of the history of Muslims in the subcontinent, most of all in the regions where there has been the greatest interaction with huge numbers of people from other religious backgrounds. Bear in mind that, percentage-wise, the largest number of Muslims reside in the Indian subcontinent as a whole, not the Middle East.

  35. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2009 at 7:40 am  

    Stephen,

    Where would you place yourself on the political spectrum? Your dispute, such as it is with the BNP, seems to me to be that they are not right wing enough. You, yourself have stood for election have you not? Would you be the same Stephen Gash that stood in Sedgefield as an English Democrat in 2007 and got 177 votes?

    What a strange little site this turns out to be:

    http://sioeengland.blogspot.com/

    The third comment down says goodbye to SIOE and hello to England Anti Jihad, where the following two paragraphs are a very odd form of disclaimer:

    This is left to people themselves to organise. Obviously trusting your buddies and not shooting your mouths off are essential. Small-cells working alone is how Jihadists work. Anti-Jihadists must do the same.

    SIOE is not responsible for anti-Jihad activities, but this site will point to where Jihad is happening in England.

    I find that kind of thing a tad worrying, to be honest…

  36. Shamit — on 23rd November, 2009 at 8:03 am  

    Jai

    First sorry mate forgot to drop you the confirmation email about the other matter we were discussing – would do it asap.

    Second how come all these extremists without reason end up on PP? I am tired of debating idiots.

    ******************************************
    Douglas – I am not worried because the British public is far fairer and have far more understanding of the issues and have a greater sense of right and wrong than the media and extremists give them credit for.

  37. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 9:10 am  

    I actually typed these replies. Now maybe you might engage in some dialogue.

  38. Faisal G — on 23rd November, 2009 at 9:35 am  

    Stephen

    I have been trying to get some dialogue but it seems you're big on the polemics but rather short on engagement. Not to mention common sense.

  39. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 9:54 am  

    Patronisation is obviously your strongpoint Shamit.

    You wrote “I fail to see how you can extrapolate views/actions of some Muslims and castigate a whole religion.”

    Well, that is simply because Islam is preached in every mosque and people come out of those mosques intent on kiling the kuffar.

    I've provided links. The usual ploy is to attack the messenger, by discrediting the source. However, sources on http://thereligionofpeace.com and http://www.memritv.org/ are bone fide news reports, so attacking them seems to be self-denial of the truth.

    I understand exactly why people criticise me on the moderate Muslims issue, but the fact is, so-called moderate Muslims fail to stop the “radicalisation” of Muslim countries and the relentless persecution of minorities like the Copts. Popcorn-passing moderates seem to show up in thousands at the hanging of homosexuals in Iran.

    I don't know if leaving Hinduism is a capital offence, but it certainly is in Islam.

    I look at places blissfully free of Islam, of which there are few, then I look at the hells-on-earth like Saudi Arabia and Iran. I remember how Iranians said to me how they “never saw it coming” and how they thought “it would never happen in Iran”.

    Well, many of us see it happening here, and it is Muslims who are to blame, together with their conniving sycophantic politicians such as Ken Livingstone.

    Muslim countries are becoming more bound to sharia, which is what they were before colonisation. Arguably, it was Western colonisation and Attaturks secularisation that reversed and delayed wholesale sharia in Muslim countries, but that is a whole new debate.

    Muslims are persecuting non-Muslims across the world. They take offence at absolutely anything and people end up dying. Pseudointellectual arguments about the supposed merits of Islam and moderate Muslims fly in the face of the actuality.

    People trusted moderate Muslims in other countries like Ethiopia and the Lebanon and they have paid the price.

    Bizarrely, we are told that moderate Muslims are somehow different in Western countries when the opposite is flagrantly the case. Excuses are then made about Muslims being disaffected, which is why they cause mayhem all over Europe. One of the most risible excuses is that they object to British foreign policy. Firstly, this is no excuse to wage jihad. Nobody would make excuses for BNP members commiting violence because they objected to the British Government's immigration policy.
    Back in January, Muslims protested about the Gaza bombings and a signicant proportion, about 200, rampaged through the streets. Where the hell were the so-called moderates?
    However, one tosser brandishes a Nazi salute at an EDL demo and the whole organisation is branded as Nazi. I don't see any moderate Muslims whining about generalisations there.
    It was Muslims who ran amock last time in Harrow, not SIOE supporters. BMSD should be making sure that the “radicals” don't show up. They crowed about Islam4UK not showing up at their last planned march and claimed credit for it. Let's see some more of that instead of asking SIOE not to demonstrate and BMSD showing.up to demonstrate against SIOE.
    Hypocrisy is a Muslim strongpoint, obviously, but of course it isn't hypocrisy to Muslims, provided they get their way.
    Undeniably, our own politicians are responsible for stoking up resentment. Sandwell council is a typical case where they banned a St George's Day event because it attracted “extremists”. No concerns about “generalisations” there then. However, nobody seems to care that potential jihadi bombers turn up to Eid celebrations. It is near certain that the Muslim London bombers had a good time at previous Eid events, but no do-gooding councillor banned those events after 7/7.
    BMSD should be doing something to halt the flagrant hypocrisy from our politicians and public sectors instead of “fighting for freedom” by showing up against SIOE.
    The reason BMSD does not do this is because it is happy with encroaching sharia and the adoption of Islamic practices at the expense of other traditions.

  40. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 10:15 am  

    I've heard from Harrow residents that there were objections to the mosque, but these were overridden. A mosque has just been refused planning permission in Letchworth. It would be interesting to find out how many mosques have been refused, when and where?

    A mosque was chosen because the demonstration was about not having more mosques built while hatred is still being taught in existing mosques.

    Quite honestly, I'm fed up with going over the same old ground.

    Personally, I think Muslims should be grateful that the only reponses to jihad and encroaching sharia have been a few legal protests. Compare this to the Satanic Verses fatwa, and the Mohammed cartoons. Where was BMSD when maw-frothing Muslims went on the rampage again.

    Meanwhile, across the Muslim world “Muslims, make war on the kuffar who dwell around you” is being taught in mosques, with no attempt at “putting it into context” by the Muslim “scholars”. It is being taught in British mosques too, and no doubt it will be taught in the new Harrow mosque, just as it was in the old Harrow mosque.

    However, it is encumbent upon me to “use reason and logic” apparently. I consider my reason and logic is flawless where Islam and Muslims are concerned. In fact my Islamophobia is the height of common sense, just as it is with every other Islamophobe.

  41. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 10:19 am  

    No, I insist. You first. Please explain the origins of Sikhism and the reasons for it.

  42. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:28 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    No, I insist. You first. Please explain the origins of Sikhism and the reasons for it.

    You should already know the answers to both questions without needing me to explain them to you. Since you've decided to start participating on this website and you flagged up the fact that I mentioned I'm not a Muslim myself (which can be confirmed by this website's editorial team and most long-term commenters), it's incumbent on you to detail your own grasp of the subject. Therefore, please explain your own understanding of the matter, in your own words.

    I've already given you a starting point in terms of the fact that Sikhism started with Guru Nanak. Take it from there: What is your understanding of his reasons for founding Sikhism ?

    Incidentally, I also discussed his final successor Guru Gobind Singh in the third URL link I provided earlier.

    In the meantime, since you've made the following statements…..

    my uncompromising views on Muslims, based upon the evidence I see and hear,

    I consider my reason and logic is flawless where Islam and Muslims are concerned.

    …..along with the faulty assertion below, in relation to the Muslim population of India prior to colonisation:

    Muslim countries are becoming more bound to sharia, which is what they were before colonisation.

    …..then it raises further questions about why you appear to be disregarding the considerable amount of information to the contrary presented here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127 , here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149 and here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6587#co… , bearing in mind the fact that it involves about a thousand years of history in a part of the world which contains more Muslims than anywhere else and where this is the accepted narrative not only amongst mainstream Muslims in the specific areas discussed in those links but also Sikhs and Hindus, based on historical records from (and the cultural impact on) all three groups and, in the case of Delhi, more recently also extensive European and (particularly) specifically British records from the past few centuries.

    I trust you have read all the information discussed in those links, Stephen ?

    And, consequently, you are familiar with – for example — Nizamuddin Auliya, Baba Farid, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Mian Mir, the Mughal emperor Akbar, the Mughal Prince Dara Shukoh, Bulleh Shah, Heer and Ranjha, the Sikh Gurus, the final Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II, Mirza Ghalib, the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and his nephew Rahat Fateh Ali Khan ?

  43. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:31 am  

    First sorry mate forgot to drop you the confirmation email about the other matter we were discussing – would do it asap.

    Don't worry Shamit, get back to me about that whenever you have some spare time.

  44. Ravi Naik — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:37 am  

    I consider my reason and logic is flawless where Islam and Muslims are concerned. In fact my Islamophobia is the height of common sense, just as it is with every other Islamophobe.

    Don't flatter yourself. Your logic is flawed, and stems from faulty generalisation. Like Christianity, there is not one single interpretation. It is not surprising that bigots would give credibility to extremists, and choose to generalise a whole group of people based on the actions and words of a few.

  45. Jai — on 23rd November, 2009 at 8:19 pm  

    Stephen Gash,

    No, I insist. You first. Please explain the origins of Sikhism and the reasons for it.

    You should already know the answers to both questions without needing me to explain them to you. Since you’ve decided to start participating on this website and you flagged up the fact that I mentioned I’m not a Muslim myself (which can be confirmed by this website’s editorial team and most long-term commenters), it’s incumbent on you to detail your own grasp of the subject. Therefore, please explain your own understanding of the matter, in your own words.

    I’ve already given you a starting point in terms of the fact that Sikhism started with Guru Nanak. Take it from there: What is your understanding of his reasons for founding Sikhism ?

    Incidentally, I also discussed his final successor Guru Gobind Singh in the third URL link I provided earlier.

    In the meantime, since you’ve made the following statements…..

    my uncompromising views on Muslims, based upon the evidence I see and hear,

    I consider my reason and logic is flawless where Islam and Muslims are concerned.

    …..along with the faulty assertion below, in relation to the Muslim population of India prior to colonisation:

    Muslim countries are becoming more bound to sharia, which is what they were before colonisation.

    …..then it raises further questions about why you appear to be disregarding the considerable amount of information to the contrary presented here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127 , here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149 and here http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6587#comment-23615989 , bearing in mind the fact that it involves about a thousand years of history in a part of the world which contains more Muslims than anywhere else and where this is the accepted narrative not only amongst mainstream Muslims in the specific areas discussed in those links but also Sikhs and Hindus, based on historical records from (and the cultural impact on) all three groups and, in the case of Delhi, more recently also extensive European and (particularly) specifically British records from the past few centuries.

    I trust you have read all the information discussed in those links, Stephen ?

    And, consequently, you are familiar with –- for example — Nizamuddin Auliya, Baba Farid, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Mian Mir, the Mughal emperor Akbar, the Mughal Prince Dara Shukoh, Bulleh Shah, Heer and Ranjha, the Sikh Gurus, the final Mughal emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar II, Mirza Ghalib, the late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and his nephew Rahat Fateh Ali Khan ?

  46. Federico Lister — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

    Poor old Gash expresses himself like a hysterical toddler – S'not fair! boo hoo hoo!
    I guess it all stems from the bullying he received at school for being named “gash”.

  47. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:13 pm  

    Jai

    Quote: “Since you've decided to start participating on this website and you flagged up the fact that I mentioned I'm not a Muslim myself “
    Pardon? You say you are a Sikh and I flagged it? That doesn't make sense. Was your post declaring you are a Sikh supposed to be a secret declaration then?
    Anyway, it is not imcumbent on me to explain Sikhism when you are clearly the one making a big deal out of it and linking it to your comments.
    It's a simple question to a Sikh. What is Sikhism and why did it start?
    If you don't want to answer it, fine, but don't start batting a blog ball around pointlessly.
    The only reason I am commenting here is because I am named in the post.

  48. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:22 pm  

    We can descend into a pseudointellectual argument about Islam, but we won't. There is one form of Islam that is transcending all others, a theocratic despotism. Just as communism ended up as an oligarchical despotism wherever it plagued.
    Ask the Hindus in Malaysia (please don't tell me you're a Hindu, even if you are).

  49. Federico Lister — on 23rd November, 2009 at 3:32 pm  

    You admitted here : http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/2466 that “Let's be clear, I *personally* do not believe in religious freedom. ”

    That rather saws through the branch you are sitting on.

    If you don't believe in religious freedom you have no basis to criticize Islamic persecutions.

  50. Ravi Naik — on 23rd November, 2009 at 4:05 pm  

    There is one form of Islam that is transcending all others, a theocratic despotism.

    So, you believe that Britain by not banning Islam and its practice, will eventually turn into a country ruled by despot Islamic leaders? Nice display of common-sense.

    And is not tyranny and pettiness to want to restrict people's beliefs? Who do you think you are? And you really show what Islamophobia is: an irrational fear of Islam, and complete distrust of our secular society and the freedom of every individual to practice their faith (or lack of).

  51. Shamit Ghosh — on 23rd November, 2009 at 5:03 pm  

    Stephen -

    I share with you one thing that it is unacceptable that we cannot be critical of any part of the Koran or the Prophet Mohammed And that is sheer bollocks. It is sad f that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has now a clause which says we do not have the freedom of expression to criticise Islam. That is simply disgusting.

    And, I thought the outrage about the cartoons were despicable as we mock and question Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna and every other possible religious leader and we do not hear calls of death to the infidel.

    But, where you go wrong is when you tarnish the entire Muslim population to be completely mad and bonkers as most Muslims live in the modern world where they take words and teachings of the Koran in the 21st century context. And we have many contributors here who feel that way — including Faisal.

    What about those Muslim officers and soldiers in the British and US Army fighting in Afghanistan and/or Iraq? What about security services officers who have foiled plots to blow us all up? And you want me to question their loyalty to the british state or even humanity? Sorry Stephen – I wouldn't and as I said earlier lesser men would do it.

    What about those Muslim doctors who have worked in Britain far longer than I have been born and who despise the idiotic loonies and don't hesitate to question teachings they disagree with.Just like many our Muslim friends here on this blog do. And I respect them all and I have learnt a hell of a lot from many of them.

    What gives you the fucking right to insult these people and brand them extremist and killers? That is sheer stupidity and bigotry – so I don't care if you find my writing patronising. You are wrong and your ignorance is dangerous for our society.

    What about those kids who were killed in fires in gujarat – their only fault they were born Muslim. Replace Muslim with Jews and you get Hitler.

    We fought against them – didn't we? We did win a huge ideological battle against Communism and i am confident we as a secular liberal democratic society win the battle against extremists who use Islam as an excuse to commit heinous acts.

  52. douglas clark — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:02 pm  

    Stephen Gash,

    Could you point me to some link where the UDHR has been altered? I am aware of the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam and so on, but a direct challenge to the UDHR?

  53. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:14 pm  

    Frankly, I don't understand your answer. I don't believe in religious freedom, so I can't criticise Islam persecutions.
    Nope. I don't get it. Are you saying that Muslims are free to persecute and I have no right to criticise them because I don't believe in religious freedom?

  54. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:32 pm  

    We fought a cold war against communists, not communism, and nobody went around blathering about communistophobia. We didn't want communism and we were prepared to fight communists to ensure we were not sujugated. There were draconian rules stopping communists from attaining certain jobs. We did not permit unfettered immigration from communist countries.
    Islam is even worse than communism, yet we are abused for criticising Islam and Muslims. Why? I bracket Muslims with communists. Communist leaders described fellow left-wingers here in Britain as “useful idiots”. Communists want to take over the world and so do Muslims.
    I would stop immigration from Muslim countries now, and I would ban all things sharia because I don't want Islam to take over England because there is nothing meritorious about it. There is nothing meritorious about how Muslims behave once they achieve power.
    You may dislike what I say, but the facts are there for those who wish to see them.
    As I say we can indulge in pseudointellectual debate, and make moral relativisms, but I don't want to.
    People here did not want communism, we more or less kept it out, so communists infested and corrupted the Labour Party, then corrupted the country, as communists do.
    I don't believe in religious freedom so I have no problem with restricting people's faith. Christianity was bottled up, but for some reason Islam is to be given a free rein. Well I don't want it to be given a free rein, because as the evidence irrefutably shows, Muslims behave horribly when they attain power.
    Nobody has a greater distrust of our secular democracy than the politicians presently in power. They are the true Islamophobes giving way to Muslim demands constantly.
    Why is it the media censor news about Muslim atrocities, but get all huffy-puffy about Israel? When was the last time you heard anything on the news about Papua New Guinea for example? Islamophobia is rife, and it isn't irrational.
    Anyway we explain on our site about Islamophobia, moderate Muslims etc.

  55. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:43 pm  

    I have the fucking right because I don't live in a Muslim country. If I lived in a Muslim country I wouldn't have the fucking right which is why I don't want to live in a Muslim country, which is why I want Islamisation not only stopped, but reversed, in my country.

    I have the fucking right because BMSD and other self-styled moderate Muslims are and always have been useless in stopping so-called radicals. BMSD has been and will be useless. It has appeared out of nowhere because non-Muslims have at last started fearlessly objecting. If SIOE and other groups disappeared then so would BMSD and Islamisation would continue as before.

    I have the fucking right because Geert Wilders, Salman Rushdie, Wafa Sultan, Walid Shoebat etc etc etc are all under death threats. Salman Rushdie was under a fatwa from another country with people in this country willing to carry out that fatwa. Moderate Muslims went A fucking WOL.

    That's why I have the fucking right.

  56. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:48 pm  

    Google is a good way to find things out.

    Anyway this might be a start http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=30567 as a way to finding out the situation

  57. Stephen Gash — on 23rd November, 2009 at 11:56 pm  

    Salman Rushdie didn't cost the UK £10 million for armed protection, moderate Muslims did.

    Moderate Muslims have done nothing to stop Islamisation because they want Islam to be the dominant force here.

    If I'd had my way, when the IRA were bombing England, I would have made the BBC go around every Irish pub and community centre shoving microphones up Irish people's noses asking “What do you think about that bomb killing two little kids in Warrington then?” The Irish residents in England would soon have stopped the bombings.

    I'm doing the same to so-called moderates. As I said to Sunny, Islam, Taqiyya, fatwas, “radicals” etc are all problems for Muslims to solve, not non-Muslims.

  58. Ravi Naik — on 24th November, 2009 at 3:22 am  

    We fought a cold war against communists, not communism, and nobody went around blathering about communistophobia.

    So, you are unaware of the McCarthy trials. I think it is worth looking at history to give us clues about what happens when people like you take control.

    We did not permit unfettered immigration from communist countries.

    I think you got things wrong again. Communist countries did not allow people to emigrate.

    You may dislike what I say, but the facts are there for those who wish to see them

    Actually, let's talk about facts. If everything you say is true – that there are no moderate Muslims and that they want to take over – we would see Islamic countries invading non-Muslim countries, and Britain would be in a civil war where Muslims all over the country are revolting. Is this what you see? I believe so, because unlike most of us, you do not live in a reality-based world.

    We do live in a peaceful country, and you want to disturb the harmony by going to protest in a place where people practice their faith. And let me say that you are a coward, because you choose to protest and intimidate a group of people who have done nothing wrong, instead of going against people like Anjem Choudhary,

    The fact that you want to restrict people's faith and beliefs makes you no better than Islamists, communist and fascist regime. You are an utter disgrace. And I hope people respond to you in the way you deserve: by simply ignoring you.

  59. Jai — on 24th November, 2009 at 3:28 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    Pardon? You say you are a Sikh and I flagged it? That doesn't make sense. Was your post declaring you are a Sikh supposed to be a secret declaration then?

    My post briefly mentioned that I am not a Muslim and that I therefore have no vested interest in “furthering Islam”, either via 'taqiyya' or 'kitmat' or any other methods. And it wasn't the point of the majority of the post's contents either, although I note that you are still refusing to respond to the rest of it.

    It's a simple question to a Sikh. What is Sikhism and why did it start?

    It's completely irrelevant to this discussion. It is, however, interesting to see that you are still attempting to divert the discussion. Unless you think that I am practising 'taqiyya' by pretending not to be a Muslim and am disguising myself as a Sikh. I have no doubt that this website's editorial team and its long-term regular commenters would find the notion to be quite amusing.

    This is the third time I am having to mention this, but once again, have you read the following two-part article http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127 and http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149 , along with the following post about Guru Gobind Singh http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6587#co… ?

    Are you familiar with all the people and events discussed in those links, and whose most influential figures I listed again at the end of my previous post ? You should be, if you are going to claim to be basing your assertions on “flawless logic” and an informed opinion where the last thousand years of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent are concerned.

  60. Ravi Naik — on 24th November, 2009 at 3:35 am  

    Your arguments are as twisted as this word you invented… Internazislam. Though I think you would have more impact with Internazicomzionislamofascist.

  61. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 4:12 am  

    Stephen, Thanks for the link. You do know that the resolution is non binding on the UN itself? Although I do think that the United Nations Commission on Human Rights would be better served with some robust free speech. I might get a chance to look into this a bit deeper, later.

  62. Shamit — on 24th November, 2009 at 4:20 am  

    Stephen -

    You seem to answer every query or debatable points by highlighting extremist example and as I said we have provided many instances of moderate Muslims who are no less if not more patriotic than anyone of us. Your assertion is wrong and you have once again failed to support your theories with any substantial evidence. People in harrow told me does not really count in that category.

    Also, could you please respond to the questions that people have put forth starting with Jai's request for you to read up on some of the material that he provided links to as well as answer his queries.

  63. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 7:53 am  

    Stephen Green, I tend to agree with Shamit on your general approach. It is quite annoying to see people I consider internet chums being attacked by you as inveterate liars. It is also quite wrong of you to say that the Muslims I know and the Muslims that I have discussed stuff with here are really a fifth column. You are, I think, completely mistaken about the degree of militancy that exists in the Muslim community. I also think that you use extremist examples to try to make it. Do I approve of lads from Leeds blowing people up? Of course not. Do I approve of a couple of doctors trying to blow up my local airport? Of course not. Equally, I do not have a car and I share public transport with Muslims on a daily basis. Y'know, Muslims that I don't actually know. I genuinely think I'm more likely to be attacked by a hoodie or a drunk than a jihadist. And you know what? I don't worry about any of it. Let the security services and the police sort it all out. Your mission seems very very overblown to me, and the complete lack of a willingness to discuss things with people very un-English.

    A huge number of Muslims are invested in this country, they have mortgages, they have jobs and prospects and family here. They have, as Johan Hari says elsewhere on this site local British regional accents. Many have been here for three or more generations.

    I would tend to agree with Kenan Malik that communalism was not the best way forward for race relations in this country, post 7/7. But you are taking a failed strategy, communalism and turbocharging into into tribalism and assuming you are to the chieftan of the largest clan. And that then you would act in a completely undemocratic and frankly medieval way to solve the issues that we all have with these extremists. You would sir, have been right at home in the court of King Edward the First.

    You do not represent me, and I doubt your movement will ever really get any traction.

  64. Reza — on 24th November, 2009 at 8:27 am  

    Open letter to Stephen Gash

    You might just remember me.

    A few years ago, shortly before your Westminster demonstration, I telephoned you and offered to pay bus or train fares for anyone who wanted to take part in your demo, but couldn’t afford to.

    I told you that I felt that there was a vacuum in British politics for a non-racist, one-nation, anti-multicultural, anti-Islamification movement. You told me about the English Democrats.

    I also offered to call my ancestral compatriot, Maryam Namazie of the “One Law For All – No Sharia” campaign to see whether her organisation would support your demo.

    You told me that you didn’t think they would, and my subsequent call to her vindicated your view. I remember she told me that you were “racists like the BNP”, and refused to be moved from that opinion.

    However, I subsequently discovered Namazie is a Communist and antireligious zealot who loathes the ancient Judeo-Christian heritage of this country just as much as Islam.

    I have a lot of respect for your objectives.

    However, I agree with some of the commentators here that it is unhelpful to condemn all Muslims as extremists.

    I agree that Islam itself is a vile and extremist ideology. However, many Muslims pick and choose the bits of Islam they wish to follow, as well as reinterpreting the particularly nasty texts in a way that feels more palatable within a modern, liberal Western democracy.

    You should take a leaf out of Geert Wilders’ book, and ensure that your criticism is always aimed at the ideology, and not at the people.

    I do understand your frustration. What is a ‘moderate’ Muslim?

    One that doesn’t wish to blow us up? One that renounces killing homosexuals and apostates? One that has no wish to operate sharia law in this country? One that supports liberal Western Democracy, equality of women, tolerance of homosexuals?

    So many types of Muslim, so many definitions of “moderate”.

    The answer Stephen, is that we, as a nation define what is and what is not ‘moderate’.

    For example, a ‘moderate’ Muslim must renounce terrorism. They must renounce hudud punishments from occurring anywhere in the world. They must renounce Sharia law. They must support Western liberal democracy. They must absolutely support the right of Muslims to change their religion to another faith or none, without harassment or punishment. They must accept equality between the sexes and the right for someone to be homosexual without persecution, here or anywhere.

    And they must declare that they have no wish to ‘Islamify’ this country through demographic change.

    That list is not exhaustive. It’s a few ideas off the top of my head.

    Anyone who wishes to practice their religion in accordance with that definition of ‘moderate’ will be tolerated. Those who don’t accept that definition should expect being treated the same as anyone who follows an ‘intolerable’ ideology. BNP members. Communists. Fascists.

    The most important thing Stephen, is to define what we mean by ‘moderate’.

    Because, like you, I fear that once we do define this, we’ll find that a frighteningly high number of Muslims living here are anything but ‘moderate’.

    I think that Wilders is handling this issue very well. You should take a leaf out of his book.

  65. Jai — on 24th November, 2009 at 9:35 am  

    For readers who are new to this thread or this website as a whole, over a period of several months “Reza” has been consistently caught out using & promoting specifically BNP-related terminology and propaganda verbatim, with increasing frequency, most recently throughout this thread last week: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6574#di

    Including the following outburst on a previous occasion, directed at Asians en masse (not specifically at Muslims, regardless of the “moderate” veneer he is attempting to adopt in his post above):

    So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

    (Source: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6505#co… ).

    Amongst other faux pas, he has also accused other commenters on this blog of repeatedly calling him a Nazi (with these incidents allegedly starting soon after he began participating here), along with accusing people of making offensive remarks about his parents. He claims that he explicitly “remembers” these incidents. However, a full search of Pickled Politics' archives reveals that none of these alleged incidents ever actually happened. As detailed in the first URL link supplied at the start of this comment, “Reza” has refused to provide an explanation in response to repeated questions as to whether he was deliberately lying when making these accusations or whether he genuinely “remembers” non-existent events.

    I trust that this clarifies the true attitudes and modus operandi of the individual who has posted the comment immediately preceding this one.

  66. Don — on 24th November, 2009 at 9:52 am  

    Reza,

    You contacted Maryam Namazie and subsequently discovered she was a communist? That's a lack of basic research before trying to engage with someone. And anti-religious zealot? Well, secularist certainly.

    Who on earth did you think you were calling? I find it unbelevable that someone could attempt to engage politically with Maryam Namazie and urge a course of action upon her without knowing she was a marxist secularist.

    And if all 'moderate' Muslims who don't want theocracy are really fibbing and biding their time, what was going on on the streets of Iran recently? An elaborate ruse?

  67. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 10:00 am  

    [This is the briefer version of the post that just disappeared into the black hole that is the new comments system.]

    Reza, how fucking cozy is your relationship with Stephen Gash? Is Sunny running a mutual admiration society for racists?

    Anyone who wishes to practice their religion in accordance with that definition of ‘moderate’ will be tolerated. Those who don’t accept that definition should expect being treated the same as anyone who follows an ‘intolerable’ ideology. BNP members. Communists. Fascists.

    For that is what you two idiots actually want, isn't it? Prescription of any sort of thought whatsoever than isn't what rattles around in your own brains pretending to be synapses?

    Would that be right?

    You'd actually like to have a race war, wouldn't you? Stephen Gash is a bit more honest about it, but you'd like it too, wouldn't you Reza? You could be the Mata Hari of modern times….

  68. Don — on 24th November, 2009 at 10:35 am  

    Reza (again),

    For example, a ‘moderate’ Muslim must renounce terrorism. They must renounce hudud punishments from occurring anywhere in the world. They must renounce Sharia law. They must support Western liberal democracy. They must absolutely support the right of Muslims to change their religion to another faith or none, without harassment or punishment. They must accept equality between the sexes and the right for someone to be homosexual without persecution, here or anywhere.

    And they must declare that they have no wish to ‘Islamify’ this country through demographic change.

    That list is not exhaustive. It’s a few ideas off the top of my head.

    Anyone who wishes to practice their religion in accordance with that definition of ‘moderate’ will be tolerated. Those who don’t accept that definition should expect being treated the same as anyone who follows an ‘intolerable’ ideology. BNP members. Communists. Fascists.

    This is juvenile stuff. To be a moderate one must renounce terrorism? Fair enough, what definition shall we use? For myself I tend to go along with something along the lines of 'Killing or injuring for political reasons someone who is not directly involved in an armed conflict.' If you put on a uniform, pick up a gun or authorise explosions in populated areas then, even if you deem yourself to be on the side of the angels, you have put yourself into play.

    Renounce hudud punishments anywhere in the world? Yeah, I can see that, they are barbaric. But I note that when such punishments were recently applied to a paedophile in (I think) Iran middle England was cheering enthusiastically. So are you not applying higher standards to muslims than to the 'chop off his willy' crew at the Mail?

    Renounce Sharia Law.? Well, as an atheist I think all religious interference in the rule of law is pernicious and sharia most pernicious of all, largely as it can be defined in almost any way the dominant group chooses. But where it is no more than, as it is often claimed to be and sometimes is, an arbitration service voluntarily entered into then banning it is unjust unless similar services are also banned. You can go to Winnie the Witch to settle your domestics as long as both sides are genuinely freely and willingly choosing it. And as long as the law of the land is the ultimate trump card.

    They must support western liberal democracy? I'm very keen on liberal democracy (in fact I'm a Liberal Democrat), but that does entail recognising that other viewpoints are not there to be crushed beneath our organically produced FairTrade heel. You can be a green anarchist or a absolute monarchist in this country, I would think you had made a wrong choice but you don't get to tell people 'You must believe…' and still claim either liberal or democratic values. (You do seem to rather fuzzy on democracy.)

    They must accept equality between the sexes and the right for someone to be homosexual without persecution, here or anywhere.? Anyone who doesn't is off my christmas card list, but would you extend that requirement to non-muslims too? After all, these are the areas where some muslim and some christian sects seem to get along splendidly. We have legislation in place to deal with acts which are misogynistic and homophobic. taking them much further is getting into thought crime territory. How would you police it?

    And they must declare that they have no wish to ‘Islamify’ this country through demographic change.

    That's a breeding reference, right?

    And if they do all this they will be tolerated. How generous. and if not?


    Those who don’t accept that definition should expect being treated the same as anyone who follows an ‘intolerable’ ideology. BNP members. Communists. Fascists.

    Oh, you mean like citizens with full rights? That's ok then. You had me worried for a moment.

  69. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 10:52 am  

    Sunny Hundal,

    “Well.”

    Hooks up cloak a bit like Garrow.

    “I agree with the liberty of thought, I defend, even those that have the temerity to disagree with me. I would defend to the last atomic bomb,or bomblet the last piece of sense from the opposition

    It is Mr Hundal, Judge of this Parish, to determine whether or not the opposition has made their case. That there is an irrefutable case that contrary arguements, lack of facts, facts that weren't, should be enough.

    But is is not, apparently.

    Whilst your good advocate – me – would bear, personally, the bodies of Stephen Gash and Reza up to some sort of random planetry plane, I find myself confounded. For the owner, the titulalr God of this web site allows no such anger.

    What are we to make of such magnificence?

    Fuck if I know.

    [I believe in free spech, I am just finding it a bit tiring to meet the energies of those that don't!]

    Rumbold is better on this than I am..

  70. Ravi Naik — on 24th November, 2009 at 11:04 am  

    The answer Stephen, is that we, as a nation define what is and what is not ‘moderate’.
    For example, a ‘moderate’ Muslim must renounce terrorism. They must renounce hudud punishments from occurring anywhere in the world. They must renounce Sharia law. They must support Western liberal democracy.

    I love the irony of extremists trying to create a litmus test to find moderate Muslims. Stephen, for instance, said he doesn't believe in freedom of religion, which is one of the tenants of a true liberal democracy. And Reza…

    And they must declare that they have no wish to ‘Islamify’ this country through demographic change.

    That's a breeding reference, right?

    Yes. Reza is preoccupied with non-white breeding:

    So that’s your answer isn’t it? Race replacement. Only when the indigenous British become a minority can your bitter, revenge-motivated Utopia come to pass. Then you’ll get even. For colonialism. For the fact that the culture and values of your parents or grandparents weren’t the ones that created this advanced society. For the fact that this country is a far better place to live than the backward sh*t-holes most of your ancestors hail from. For all the sins of ‘whitey’. You’ll get even.

    But Reza and Stephen are the ambassadors of moderate western liberal values, you see.

  71. Rumbold — on 24th November, 2009 at 11:20 am  

    Douglas:

    I'm not sure I understand what you are asking. You are great though.

  72. Don — on 24th November, 2009 at 11:21 am  

    ??

  73. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 11:52 am  

    I wish Georgina Hendry to admit that she was wrong to ban me from CiF. That, indeed her heroine, a fellow Guardian Guardianist femisnist icon, does talk crap. That would be Madeliene Bunting, And that folk should not, ever, be banned for talking truth to power. I am a tad annoyed about that.

  74. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 12:21 pm  

    Which is what, obviously, the mad and crazy Georgina Hendry did.

    You've got to love her.

    Denialism is us!

    Shucks!

  75. Reza — on 24th November, 2009 at 12:34 pm  

    The seventh circle of hell is reserved for moral relativists.

  76. Reza — on 24th November, 2009 at 12:36 pm  

    [Yet again shakes head at sheer twattery of these posts]

  77. Refresh — on 24th November, 2009 at 12:38 pm  

    Crumbs!

    Douglas, how the heck did you get banned on CiF?

    It wasn't one of your late night interventions was it?

    BTW I've never understood why people took a dislike to M Bunting. She has a point of view which she puts across cogently and politely. What did you say?

  78. katynewton — on 24th November, 2009 at 1:16 pm  

    I strongly dislike any suggestion that all Muslims are in some way sleeping agents of Islamism unless, er, they declare that they aren't. It's ridiculously offensive. I find it as offensive as the suggestion that Jews can't be trusted in a position of power because (*wiggly fingers*) Their Loyalties Lie Elsewhere. These are lies born out of ignorance and fear peddled, unfortunately, by those who should know better. We should not tolerate this sort of stupidity.

    I personally assume that any Muslim I meet is not a terrorist, and do you know what? So far I think I've probably been right.

  79. Johnny — on 24th November, 2009 at 1:23 pm  

    Stephen Gash. Never was a surname more appropriate.

  80. Refresh — on 24th November, 2009 at 1:39 pm  

    BMDS: having drawn out the fascists – what next?

  81. Don — on 24th November, 2009 at 2:01 pm  

    But that is the one with the sea view and the en-suite. Hint, don't go near the buffet in the fourth circle.

    Do you see yourself in a particular circle, or are you bound for a better place? Looking over the circles (and I think you made that one up) I'm really not sure where I'd fit. The ball is still in spin, as it is for all of us.

  82. federicolister — on 24th November, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    Ha ha ha. Reza – you've been well and truly busted. Time to leave this site or adopt a new trolling ID!

  83. douglas clark — on 24th November, 2009 at 9:22 pm  

    Refresh,

    Err….

    I think I said she was a queen with no clothes, an intellectual nonentity or summat like that. A case of someone with beliefs and a lack of an ability to engage with those that disagreed with her. T'was a shame that she was a she, for that let Georgina play an ace high. I was being sexist.

    Madaleine Bunting was a journalist. She, and Georgina and CiF, hadn't a clue what the internet is about.

    It is about challenging others on what they say. It is about finding yourself challenged on what you say. (I do not agree with Stephen Gash, I do not agree with Reza but would my disagreement merit censorship? Well, no, it shouldn't.) I think, with all my being, that Madeleine Bunting was wrong on what she had to say at the time. I said so in forthright terms. Their up their arses journalists, took exception to someone like me saying something like that. Banned.

    Well, fuck that.

    I was banned, and as far as I know, she is still writing shit.

    The case for the defence rests, Refresh….

    'Late night' or not, I stand by what I said, in the context I said it.

  84. Binky — on 24th November, 2009 at 10:22 pm  

    Reza is right – as usual or for once, according to taste – about moral relativism.

    At its worst it takes the form of:

    “Yes, we know that these wogs do some pretty ghastly things to one another and they certainly have some VERY rum ideas but they don't know any betters, the poor dears, and anyway if we say anything out loud we'll be accused of racism by all goodthinkful people and our careers will come to a sudden stop …”

    This is a specialised form of Social Worker Thinking, of course. The usual kind of SWT is:

    “These boys wouldn't have such a bad criminal record if the police didn't keep arresting them”
    [This appeared as a 'deathless true quotation' in the new Statesman years before it became an Al Qaeda propaganda organ.]

    I used to admire people like Namazie. Onviously she's a True Utopian with no map to lead her to the True Utopia of her dreams.

    Actually, I remember crying bitterly when Auntie Vera told me that there was no such place as Nutwood and that Rupert Bear and Algy and so on didn't really exist; this was probably because I had pre-adolescent sexual fantasies about the Chinese Conjurer's assistant and, to a lesser, extent, the Girl Guides who kept popping up in Nutwood.

  85. Jai — on 25th November, 2009 at 2:32 am  

    “Reza”,

    Do you deny making the statement I quoted at the start of my previous post ?

    Do you deny the fact that, during the course of your participation on this website, you have used terms such as “race replacement”, “assimilable”, “unassimilable”, “host nation”, “client state”, “parasite”, “multi-culti”, “alien minority culture”, and “alien minority religion” ?

    Do you deny the fact that you have accused commenters of repeatedly calling you a “Nazi” and that you have claimed that these alleged incidents started soon after you begin participating on this website ?

    Do you deny the fact that you have accused commenters of deliberately making offensive remarks about your parents and that you have claimed to “remember” these alleged incidents ?

    Do you deny the fact that a full search of this website's archives confirms that, in reality, none of the alleged incidents referred to in the previous two questions ever occurred ?

    Do you deny the fact that you have repeatedly refused to provide an answer in response to repeated questions as to whether you were deliberately lying when making the aforementioned two allegations or whether you genuinely “remember” these incidents which never actually occurred ?

  86. douglas clark — on 25th November, 2009 at 2:49 am  

    Binky, or Bill Corr,

    Do you really think that anyone that posts regularily on here is a complete utter nutcase?

    Do you see me, or Jai or Shamit or Rumbold or anyone else that posts here regularily as likely to be converted by your bile?

    I think you are wasting both your own time and ours.

  87. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2009 at 3:06 am  

    The seventh circle of hell is reserved for moral relativists.

    What distinguishes a moderate from an extremist is the idea that they do not hold the absolute truth, and are comfortable with those that share different values. If everyone was a moderate then we will all live in peace, because you would respect other people's beliefs even if they aren't yours. Extremists abhor moral relativism because they can't stand people who do not think (or dress, or are) like themselves.

  88. douglas clark — on 25th November, 2009 at 3:34 am  

    Ravi,

    Couldn't agree more.

  89. Reza — on 25th November, 2009 at 3:34 am  

    katy

    “I strongly dislike any suggestion that all Muslims are in some way sleeping agents of Islamism unless, er, they declare that they aren't. “

    Of course all Muslims aren't “sleeping agents of Islamism”. Of course they are not all extremists. I’d be the first to say that the vast majority of Muslims both here and overseas are peaceful and law-abiding people.

    The issue is not Muslims, but Islam.

    To help you understand, I’ll use a bit of moral equivalence, as I know how much people here like that debating form.

    Let’s talk about BNP members. Most of them tell us they’re not racists. Yet our society constantly asks them whether or not they’re racists. It tries to catch them out with probing questions. PP did it reasonably well a little while ago.

    Why? Because we know deep down that the ideology they follow IS fundamentally racist.

    Therefore, rational people understand that the more BNP members we have in our society, the more racist that society will become.

    Isn’t that common sense?

    Islam is also an ideology. A deeply unpleasant, uncompromising, intolerant, supremacist and expansionist ideology.

    Whatever Muslims individually believe. At a fundamental level there is no such thing as ‘moderate’ Islam.

    As the Turkish Prime Minister, R T Erdogan stated on the term ‘moderate Islam’: “These descriptions are very ugly, it is offensive and an insult to our religion. There is no moderate or immoderate Islam. Islam is Islam and that’s it.”

    I once wrote to Shaykh Ibrahim Mogra of the MCB, one of the so-called ‘moderate Muslim’ organizations. I asked him whether he would renounce the killing or punishment of Muslims who change their religion both here and throughout the world. He didn’t respond. He couldn’t. The killing of ‘apostates’ is a fundamental part of Islam, supported by both the Qur’an and the hadith.

    Tariq Ramadan, the ‘great modern Islamist thinker’ and darling of the multicuturalists, has asked for a “moratorium” on Hudud penalties (prescribed Islamic penalties such as corporal punishment, stoning and beheading for such ‘crimes’ as sex outside of marriage and apostasy). Not a ban. A “moratorium”.

    Ramadan, like many of the ‘scholars’ I’ve spoken to believe that hudud penalties are absolutely right. However, they should only be applied in a ‘true’ Islamic state.

    Imagine, if a KKK supporter asked for a “moratorium” on lynching black men. Would that make him a ‘moderate’?

    Of course not.

    One of the problems we have dealing with Islam is that it is a ‘religion’. And you should respect others’ religion, right? But no, we have some vile religious ideologies, such as the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa that believe that black skin is the “Mark of Cain”. I can’t imagine anyone being expected to ‘tolerate’ the views of the followers of that religion.

    No, the main problem we have is that the majority of Muslims are ‘brown’.

    And we mustn’t criticize the beliefs or attitudes of ‘brown’ people must we? Because that would be ‘racists’.

    Katy, like most non-Muslims, you are utterly ignorant of Islam. You’re under the impression that it is fundamentally ‘moderate’. That so-called “extremists” are twisting Islam in some way.

    The opposite is the truth. Most Muslims are ‘moderate’. Islam is extremist. The more devout a Muslim becomes, the more “extreme” he or she will be.

    Therefore Katy, you shouldn’t “dislike” my suggestion.

    What I propose is that people like you define what is and is not ‘moderate’.

    For example, a Muslim that believes that in an ideal world homosexuals should be executed by having a wall pushed over on them is not a ‘moderate’ in my mind. Even if he or she believes that whilst Britain remains a non-Islamic country, they should obey it’s laws and not kill gays, he or she is still a vile creature in my mind. And I suggest the minds of the majority of non-Muslims.

    You are naïve. You cannot imagine the types of views many Muslims here have. Just because they don’t act on them makes them no less intolerable.

    I’ve posted link after link here to opinion polls demonstrating the disgusting views held by staggeringly high numbers of British Muslims. If you want, I’ll provide the links once more.

    Those views are not the fault of those Muslims. They are the inevitable result of the ideology they follow.

    Follow the logic. The more Muslims we have in this country, the more Islam we’ll have. The more Islam we have the less free our society will become.

    Look at the world. Look at any Muslim majority country. Look at the Muslim ‘communities’ throughout Europe.

    Now imagine a graph. The horizontal axis is “Proportion of Muslims”. The vertical axis is “Oppressive Shithole”. Now draw a straight line.

    You’ll willfully disregard rationality to disagree with me. But just how much irrationality is necessary for you don’t doubt your own eyes.

  90. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2009 at 4:51 am  

    Reza,

    Let's debunk this once and for all, shall we? You state the following as a fact, and we all agree with this.

    Of course they are not all extremists. I’d be the first to say that the vast majority of Muslims both here and overseas are peaceful and law-abiding people.

    Now let's analyse the following:

    The issue is not Muslims, but Islam.

    But if there are no Muslims, would Islam be a problem? You are actually saying, people are absolutely fine: peaceful and law-abiding, but their beliefs are very dangerous. Just like a racist who says he loves black people, but he hates the idea of living next to them – Islamophobes say they have no problems with Muslims because they are peaceful, they just hate their religion which presumably makes them terrorists.

    The problem, which affects ALL ideologies and religions is fundamentalism, which is the belief that you hold the absolute Truth, and that you want to subjugate others with your beliefs through force or intimidation. There is really no difference if you are atheist, Christian or a Muslim. And if you bothered to look at your History books, you would know that.

  91. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2009 at 5:40 am  

    Ramadan, like many of the ‘scholars’ I’ve spoken to believe that hudud penalties are absolutely right. However, they should only be applied in a ‘true’ Islamic state.

    I see what you are saying. We would not want the West – specially the US – to be influenced by Islamic law, and start applying the death penalty.

  92. Reza — on 25th November, 2009 at 5:42 am  

    Ravi

    Muslims can choose to what extent they follow Islam. The danger is, that the more they follow it, the more 'extreme' they will become. The 'default' position of mainstream Islam is already vey extreme when compared to other 'world religions'.

    For example, all the major schools of Islamic Jurisprudence state that the appropriate punishment for a Muslim who changes their religion is death. Christian fundamentalists may say that homosexuality is a sin, that gays are evil, that they will burn in hell, but only in Islam is there any significant support for violent punishment in THIS life.

    I get irritated when people conflate ‘extremism’ with strapping on bombs and blowing up people in the country you’re living in. I won’t bother boring you with the details, but that is actually against Islam. The ‘extremism’ I’m talking about concerns the views and values among large sections of Muslims everywhere and most relevantly to those Muslims living here.

    Views like these:

    “A poll conducted by the Policy Exchange last year suggested that over a third of young British Muslims believe that the death penalty should apply for apostasy.”

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7355515.stm

    Ravi, it is only right that we should be suspicious of the views of BNP members. Society has a duty to discover what they really believe. No one in their right minds would suggest that their views should be “celebrated” or “accepted” by our society.

    The so-called ‘extremist’ Muslims make up a minority of Muslims in this country. But that minority is a significant one.

    When you look at the views and values of Muslims throughout the world, when you observe the types of societies Muslim majorities create, it is completely reasonable to ask, “if the Muslim population of Britain continues to grow, will be have more or less of those ‘extremist’ attitudes”.

    And to ignore that inevitably, the answer can only be “yes”, demonstrates a level of denial that is staggeringly stupid.

  93. Binky — on 25th November, 2009 at 5:48 am  

    What bile, O Douglas Clark?

    Compared to some around here wot i could name, I am a soft-spoken moderating influence.

    Hoping for a Communist Utopia or a Caliphate or the sort of country that exists in the nicer kind of propaganda posters or is to been seen illustrated by the Jehovah's Witnesses is unrealistic so I have a special sad sort of pitying contempt for people like Namazie and a bitter loathing for the likes of Tariq Radadan because – as you observe – I am obliged by circumstances to make my living in a Muslim country* and have a deep detestation for anyone who would hope to drag Switzerland down to the level of Sind or Nejd.

    But I try to write with a cheery light touch. Unlike some.

    * Most of the Muslims with whom I have dealings on an everyday bases are totally reasonable people, but then I don't try to convert them or vice versa. Even those with immense beards and bruised foreheads are decent enough people.

  94. Reza — on 25th November, 2009 at 6:16 am  

    “* Most of the Muslims with whom I have dealings on an everyday bases are totally reasonable people, but then I don't try to convert them or vice versa. Even those with immense beards and bruised foreheads are decent enough people.”

    I feel exactly the same when I (pretend) to visit my (pretend) relatives in Iran a couple of times each year.

    However, that doesn't mean I would welcome the idea of huge numbers of Iranian Muslims packing their bags and moving to the leafy and very 'English' suburb where I live.

    Not unless I had any desire for my neighbourhood to start resembling Iran.

    I’m fascinated by and have a lot of respect for many foreign cultures. I’ve been lucky enough to have travelled extensively and experienced many first-hand.

    I have no problem ‘celebrating’ Islam. I simply want to do so in it’s rightful homelands. Iran. The Arabian Peninsula. Egypt.

    Just not here.

  95. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2009 at 6:39 am  

    I have no problem ‘celebrating’ Islam. I simply want to do so in it’s rightful homelands. Iran. The Arabian Peninsula. Egypt. Just not here.

    So, religion should be only practised in their homelands? Please indulge me, what religion can we celebrate in England?

  96. Jai — on 25th November, 2009 at 7:01 am  

    I have no problem ‘celebrating’ Islam. I simply want to do so in it’s rightful homelands. Iran. The Arabian Peninsula. Egypt.

    Islam's “homeland” is the Arabian Peninsula, not Egypt and certainly not Iran.

    And we're still waiting for an answer to the questions posed to “Reza” in my previous post (here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co… ). I see that “Reza” is still avoiding them.

  97. Reza — on 25th November, 2009 at 7:20 am  

    I'm not avoiding your questions Jai. I'm avoiding you. You contribute nothing to the debate with your paranoid theories.

  98. Ravi Naik — on 25th November, 2009 at 7:23 am  

    Reza, if your English neighbourhood decided that one Iranian is too many… would you respect their decision and sell your house, and move to a neighbourhood where people have a mindset that is opposite to yours?

  99. donuthingeparty — on 25th November, 2009 at 7:43 am  

    *Froth froth*
    The SECRET behind muslims is that the METEORITE inside the KABAAH in MECCA is SECRETLY a mind control ROCK. Anyone who walks around it SEVEN times will instantly be MIND CONTROLLED by the THERIANS from the planet MAKOSI IV and READY TO KILL at a moment's notice. The THERIANS want us all to BLOW EACH OTHER UP so they can take our PLANET.

    This is a FACT.

    *Dies of apoplexy*

  100. Jai — on 25th November, 2009 at 7:55 am  

    I'm not avoiding your questions Jai. I'm avoiding you. You contribute nothing to the debate with your paranoid theories.

    “Reza”, I have quoted you directly and have provided URL links to your statements wherever applicable. These are not “theories” — they are examples of quoting your exact words, extracted from electronically archived comments which you have posted on this blog yourself.

    Again, do you deny making any of the statements listed here: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6595#co… ?

    And do you deny the fact that you have made false claims about other commenters having repeatedly called you a Nazi “soon after you begain participating on this website” along with false claims about other commenters having insulted your parents, that none of these incidents actually occurred, and that you have subsequently refused to clarify whether you were deliberately lying when making these allegations or you genuinely do “remember” non-existent incidents ?

    Yes or No ?

  101. Shamit — on 25th November, 2009 at 9:20 am  

    Reza -

    On this thread as well as many times before, I have argued that the Old Testament provides similar punishments for simple transgressions. It condones killing someone for working on the Sabaath – allows parents to sell their children in servitude.

    And world over fanatics have used religion and culture to justify their heinous acts. Killing in the name of God is not a monopoly of those who follow Islam – it is a widely used excuse and been so for centuries.

    In your admission, most muslims are moderate and have no extremist tendencies. Why is it so different from Hindus or Christians or jews? Most of us do not follow the literal meaning of our religious texts or follow our cultural norms blindly – we choose what we think is right.

    And Muslims are no different. Then why pick and choose Islam only? There is no logical reason except for that some idiotic fanatics are using selective understanding of Islam and brainwashing people.

    The lack freedom to even study different subjects let alone develop critical thinking is such an alien concept to many Muslim children globally. No hope, no aspiration – that usually equates to fertile ground for extremist recruiters. And they catch them young.

    So does the religion have anything to do with this? Or is it some twisted fucks are using the lack of hope and basic human dignity to further their own whacko fanatic agenda.

  102. douglas clark — on 25th November, 2009 at 9:25 am  

    Reza,

    Which is it?

    As a bye-stander in all of this, I'd like to know?

    If you started to attack Scottish folk, whether they were Muslim or not, then you'd get pasted in the face, or summat. For they are our Muslims, not your Muslims, and we will vote for them, whether or not they are Muslims, but because they represent political parties that are not racist, nor in favour of some sort of 'Ummah'

  103. Stephen Gash — on 25th November, 2009 at 11:32 am  
  104. douglas clark — on 25th November, 2009 at 1:46 pm  

    Stephen Gash,

    Funnily enough, I intend to walk the pavements delivering leaflets on behalf of this chap.

    http://www.osamasaeed.org/

  105. Jai — on 26th November, 2009 at 3:38 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    I see that you are still viewing this website but have refused to respond to my previous questions. Be advised that this current thread has a fairly influential readership and your ongoing deliberate avoidance of the matter is being noticed in numerous quarters.

    Once again, it is imperative that you read the following:

    “Muslims, Modernity and the West: The Great Deception”:
    Part 1: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6127
    Part 2: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6149

    Guru Gobind Singh and his stance towards Muslims: http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6587#co

    I trust that your new SIOE article “No moderate Muslims” is not based on the false premise that, for example, the Sufi singer Rahat Fateh Ali Khan (who recently held a series of extremely successful concerts in conjunction with the Birmingham Symphony Orchestra at several major venues in Britain, including the Royal Festival Hall in London) and his world-famous late uncle Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan have acted as deliberate or unwitting vehicles for “taqiyya” and “kitman”.

    Bear in mind the fact that both of these individuals, along with a number of their historical role models, are far more respected and influential amongst huge numbers of South Asians worldwide (not just Muslims but also people from multiple other backgrounds) than extremist fanatics like Anjem Choudary, Al Muhajiroun, or Hizb ut-Tahrir.

    I also trust that you are not making the same allegation of “taqiyya” and “kitman” in relation to, for example, the Sikh Gurus – especially Guru Gobind Singh – or individuals such as Bulleh Shah, Nizamuddin Auliya, Baba Farid, Lal Shahbaz Qalandar, Mian Mir, the Mughal Emperors Akbar, Shah Jahan and Bahadur Shah Zafar II, the Mughal Prince Dara Shukoh, or Mirza Ghalib.

    If your ongoing attitude of “there are no moderate Muslims” (and the associated SIOE article) is based on an agenda to promote this as “the truth about Muslims” despite actually being fully aware of all the matters discussed above, then it raises extremely disturbing questions about your own motivations and the reasons that you are deliberately ignoring the vast amount of authenticated factual and historical information with contradicts the premise you are attempting to promote, especially in relation to Muslims associated with the Indian subcontinent.

    However, if your stance has been based on the fact that you did not previously know about the matters discussed above, then it would be worthwhile for you to take some time out and thoroughly familiarise yourself with the considerable amount of information provided there.

  106. Jai — on 26th November, 2009 at 3:41 am  

    (continued)

    Stephen Gash,

    Further to my previous comment above, I’ll make it even easier for you, and refer you to William Dalrymple as another source of credible information, as Mr Dalrymple is an internationally renowned British historian who is widely regarded as one of the West’s leading authorities on the history of Muslims in the Indian subcontinent.

    You should read his books White Mughals and The Last Mughal. Both are easily available via retailers such as Waterstones and Amazon; I think you’ll find the first book in particular to be enlightening. His works are based on hundreds of authenticated Indian and British historical references. (I also provided some extracts from The Last Mughal in Part 1 of my article mentioned above). Presumably you would agree that neither Mr Dalrymple nor the historical British authorities involved in overseas trading activities and various colonial enterprises would have been practising “taqiyya” or “kitman”.

    Mr Dalrymple also has his own website which contains links to dozens of published articles he has written. See: http://www.williamdalrymple.uk.com/Pages/Links…. . I suggest you take some time out to read through them, if you are indeed as serious about wishing to base your opinions on Muslims on informed facts and “flawless logic” as you claim.

    I recommend you start with the following :

    - http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,85648
    - http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts

  107. alf — on 29th November, 2009 at 2:58 am  

    DEFEND HARROW’S DIVERSE & UNITED COMMUNITY
    “Stop the Islamisation of Europe” and the
    “English Defence League” a group of racist
    football hooligans with links to the fascist
    BNP are threatening to invade Harrow on
    Sunday December 13th to demonstrate
    against the Harrow Central Mosque. We
    cannot stand by and let these racists attack
    any section of our community. An injury
    to one is an injury to all.

    Islamophobia – bigotry against Muslims – is
    as unacceptable as any other form of
    racism. Its aim is to divide us by making
    scapegoats of one community as the Nazis
    did with the Jews in the 1930s. Today they
    threaten the mosque, tomorrow it could be a
    synagogue, temple or church. Today they
    threaten Muslims, tomorrow it could be
    Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, blacks, gays, travellers
    or any other minority.

    Fascists have been beaten before by
    people standing united against them: at
    Cable Street in the 1930s, Lewisham in the
    1970s and in Derbyshire this Summer where
    black and white, young and old, Hindu,
    Christian, Muslim and Jew, gay and straight
    all came together to oppose the BNP’s
    fascist rally. In September we made it clear
    that these thugs are not welcome in
    Harrow. Now we must make Harrow a
    No-Go Zone for Nazis.

    Please sign the statement of support for Harrow Central Mosque
    Join the demonstration on Sunday December 13th
    We are black, white, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh and Jew
    Assemble 12 noon Sunday December 13th on the wide pavement
    outside Harrow Civic Centre opposite the Central Mosque
    Called by UAF Brent & Harrow ● uafbrentandharrow@googlemail.com and National UAF:
    unite@ucu.org.uk ● http://www.uaf.org.uk ● PO Box 36871 London WC1X 9XT ● 020 7801 2782 there are

  108. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 4:41 pm  

    Yes Reza I remember you well.

    Our explanation of our view on moderate Muslims is there for all to read by clicking the tab on the SIOE site.

    I'm not especially bothered about what Muslims say, I care about what they do and don't do. What they do when in control is unimpressively uncivilised.

    If moderate Muslims cannot halt sharia and the sickening hubris of the so-called “radicals” then they are useless.

    We are not prepared to see their uselessness bring about the Islamisation of Europe. They have had their chance and signally failed. Twenty years Walthamstowe mosque was “radicalised” which equates to the utter uselessness of self-styled moderates.

    Half of mosques in England (we think all) are reportedly radicalised, so we are not prepared to leave it to moderate-Muslims to solve the problems inherent in Islam.

    We'll trust ourselves thanks. We are villified for our hard stance, but there are plenty of other organisations yacking about moderate Muslims. It hasn't helped those concerned with promoting the notion of moderate Muslims has it? Salman Rushdie, Geert Wilders, Wafa Sultan etc etc.

    Moderate Muslims have brought criticism on themselves and they are not trusted by non-Muslims who have bothered to find out what is happening in the world.

    I fail to see why mosque -”radicalisation” is my fault, or why I should be branded a fascist for pointing out whose fault it is. I don't trust the Harrow mosque leaders, pure and simple. I've explained why and we will be posting further reasons on the SIOE site.

  109. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 4:58 pm  

    So Douglas, you have lost the argument. An accusation of racism is the deathrattle of a lost argument.

    I am openly an English nationalist. However, anyone in the English nationalist movement will tell you where I stand on race and it isn't where you seek to stand me. I don't support the Anglo-Saxon notion of Englishness.

    I am heartily disliked by the BNP, NF and Stormfront. I say what I mean and I mean what I say.

    If you want to clutch the straw of racist accusations then float off and drown.

    When was the last time you stood against the BNP in elections?

    I have a heart filled with hatred for totalitarian regimes. Islam is the nastiest form of totalitarianism and I hate it even more than communism and Nazism. These regimes are are indisputably murderous and all require their practitioners in order to function.

    It is no surprise that both communists and Nazis train with jihadists. The former because they hate the West and the latter because they hate Jews.

    If you and others (like Maryam Namazie) can't get your heads around the fact that we despise Islam and vehemently oppose its proponents, regardless of their races, then you have the problem, not we.

  110. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:19 pm  

    I've explained I am neither moderate nor liberal.

    Free speech to me means freedom to criticise government, religion, individuals, ideas, in other words the freedom to be sceptical.

    I believe people should be able to have monogamous marriage, including gays, but I disapprove of promiscuity and hanging around public bogs for a bang.

    I believe in democracy. I don't believe in mass migration as it is a symptom of failure. I don't believe in violence as a first resort as the UAF and Antifa do (being stinking commies).

    I believe in mixed economies and the protection of skills. I am not a free-marketeer nor a globalist.

    I don't believe in moderate Muslims any more than I believe in moderate Nazis or commies.

    I don't want any more immigration from Muslim countries. England is 50,000 square miles in area and the most populated country in Europe. I don't want England to be in the UK or the EU because both of those organisations want to bust up England and are hellbent on destroying English culture and traditions, for no good reason.

    I'm accused here of not answering questions when I have. I'm accused of cutting and pasting, when I type my answers. However, nobody answers my questions such as “Is stoning a woman to death for being raped, left wing or right wing?”

    The Guardian censored many of my comments which was disgraceful, after having named me in an article. I don't usually use profane language in comments unless it is used against me.

    Nobody has answered my accusations about moderate Muslims allowing (surreptitiously encouraging) mosques to be radicalised. This is because they are not radicalised they are teaching Islam, just as does every mosque in the Middle East, Pakistan and every single Muslim country.

    I am not extreme, I am just more knowledgable than most non-Muslims. I'm also far less of a hypocrite than most posting here and certainly less of a hypocrite than those corrupting parliament.

  111. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:26 pm  

    And your name is Johnny. The intellect of your argument leaves alot to be desired er Johnny. Perhaps it's best flushed down the bog after use, but that is ecologically unfriendly, so it's the bin for you Johnny, you ribbed tickler you.

  112. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:35 pm  

    Because of what is happening in Muslim countries. Because of what is taught in mosques. Because ex-Muslims are the most vociferous in their opposition to Islam (that is Muslims).

    We can go round in circles if you want. Demanding I read articles that support the notion of moderate Muslims is akin to saying Islam is a religion of peace. You expect me to wonder off nodding my head in sage agreement while the evidence of what is happening around the world shows the exact opposite.

    Time for a bit of moral relativism, don't you think?

  113. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:50 pm  

    Bethany Hughes is also a historian of renown supposedly, but said words to the effect “Spaniards enthusiastically gave up their lands to Muslims”.

    Regarding your other references, history is constantly re-written. One person who has been expunged from the historical record is Henri Pirenne who translated Arab Muslims texts which described the wonder of the Muslims at the magnificent cities of Spain when they arrived.

    Historians have their own agendas every bit as much as I do and every bit as the Taqiyya merchants in the mosques do.

    Modern history would have us believe that Islam was full of marvellous science and knowledge. Where did it all go wrong? Benazir Bhutto blamed the Crusades, but they never reached the heart of Islam, Mecca, nor Iran nor Pakistan. Some historians blame Arabic writing for Islam's lapse in science. If this is to be believed then it is pointless teaching Arabs science today because the writing isn't up to it.

    Any excuse is made for the loss of the mythical “Golden Age” except of course the obvious one that Muslims were to blame (some might say Islam).

    Hindus tell me the Taj Mahal is in fact a Hindu temple that was converted into a mausoleum.

    I'm more concerned with today and what is happening now, and that is the Islamisation of my country and continent. I want to stop it.

    It will be stopped.

  114. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 5:56 pm  

    Anti-Islamism is a truly multicultural activity because Muslims persecute all other cultures in their endeavour to make an Islamic monoculture.

    Some Muslims actively kill and maim to plough the furrow for the monoculture. Others sit around munching popcorn while homosexuals dangle from cranes and women are stoned to death, muttering “Allah u akbar” and “Oooh, I'm pleased I'm not one of those radicals. It looks very tiring”.

  115. Stephen Gash — on 30th November, 2009 at 6:01 pm  

    “See that women there, wasn't she one of those caterwailing UAFs? Oooh that brick got her right in the chops. I sometimes wish I was a radical when I see a good shot like that. I bet she wished she'd worn that burkha, like she was told, now”.

    Nope. I don't trust 'em any more than I do the Tories.

  116. Zionist Rent Boys — on 30th November, 2009 at 9:10 pm  

    It is churlish to make one simple point but it needs to be made:

    How is it that some people are able to spend so much of their lives in crank political agitation instead of having to go out to work?

    How is it done?

  117. alf — on 30th November, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    DEFEND HARROW’S DIVERSE & UNITED COMMUNITY
    “Stop the Islamisation of Europe” and the
    “English Defence League” a group of racist
    football hooligans with links to the fascist
    BNP are threatening to invade Harrow on
    Sunday December 13th to demonstrate
    against the Harrow Central Mosque. We
    cannot stand by and let these racists attack
    any section of our community. An injury
    to one is an injury to all.

    Islamophobia – bigotry against Muslims – is
    as unacceptable as any other form of
    racism. Its aim is to divide us by making
    scapegoats of one community as the Nazis
    did with the Jews in the 1930s. Today they
    threaten the mosque, tomorrow it could be a
    synagogue, temple or church. Today they
    threaten Muslims, tomorrow it could be
    Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, blacks, gays, travellers
    or any other minority.

    Fascists have been beaten before by
    people standing united against them: at
    Cable Street in the 1930s, Lewisham in the
    1970s and in Derbyshire this Summer where
    black and white, young and old, Hindu,
    Christian, Muslim and Jew, gay and straight
    all came together to oppose the BNP’s
    fascist rally. In September we made it clear
    that these thugs are not welcome in
    Harrow. Now we must make Harrow a
    No-Go Zone for Nazis.

    Please sign the statement of support for Harrow Central Mosque
    Join the demonstration on Sunday December 13th
    We are black, white, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh and Jew
    Assemble 12 noon Sunday December 13th on the wide pavement
    outside Harrow Civic Centre opposite the Central Mosque
    Called by UAF Brent & Harrow ● uafbrentandharrow@googlemail.com and National UAF:
    unite@ucu.org.uk ● http://www.uaf.org.uk ● PO Box 36871 London WC1X 9XT ● 020 7801 2782 there are many, many more of us th

  118. alf — on 30th November, 2009 at 9:46 pm  

    We wish to bring to your readers attention that the community of Brent, and Wembley, is a peaceful, harmonious and united multi- cultural and multi-religious community. We totally abhor and condemn the racist and Islamaphobic statement put out by members of the fascist BNP from South Wales in their on line video.

    The diversity of the Borough has enriched us all, with people from all backgrounds playing an important and essential contribution to all our daily lives as workers in various sectors delivering key public services, providing employment opportunities for many and supporting others throughout our communities.

    Brent is proud of its long traditions of welcoming those who escaped from the horrors of Nazism and the Concentration Camps in the 30’s and 40’s. We recognize the important contribution to our NHS and public transport services by members of the Afro-Carribean communities. We are proud that we provided a place of safety for the Ugandan and Kenyan Asians and later on for many others escaping the ravages of war and destruction in Dharfur, Somalia and elsewhere.

    The BNP fascists seek a scapegoat to blame others for the problems arising from the present day economic crises . Do not blame the weak and innocent. We say blame those who caused the crises not those who are its victims.

    To seek a mythical Wembley of pure white aryians is nonsense. Wembley, like Brent, has a long standing record of Jews, Muslims, Hindhus, Christians, Buddhists, Gays, Women, trade unionists, young and old people playing a key part in our Borough, and long may it do so.

    We will not allow the fascists and racists to divide us and they will be opposed where ever they are. That is why we will stand together with our Muslim brothers and sisters at Harrow Central Mosque on Dec 13th in solidarity with all against racism. We urge your readers to join us there and show their abhorrence at this latest insult to our community.

    Brent and Harrow Unite Against Fascism

  119. Jai — on 4th December, 2009 at 5:41 am  

    Stephen Gash,

    Hindus tell me the Taj Mahal is in fact a Hindu temple that was converted into a mausoleum.

    There are over 800 million Hindus in the world, the vast majority of them in India itself. Based on spurious alleged evidence which actually has no credibility amongst respected mainstream Indian academics, a very tiny fraction of them believe what you have stated. Perhaps you are unaware that the rest of the global Hindu population does not, and within India, the type of Hindus you are referring to are ridiculed as a laughing stock and a lunatic fringe group by the majority of that country's Hindu population.

    I am not extreme, I am just more knowledgable than most non-Muslims.

    Perhaps you should read the following very recent article. Bear in mind that the description of events isn't “Muslim propaganda” or a politically-correct “whitewashing & rewriting of history to appease Muslims” — this is the established 300-year-old Sikh narrative, and you are welcome to check the article's contents with the Sikh authorities at the Akal Takht in Amritsar if you believe any of it has been distorted or embellished.

    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/6688

    Are you claiming that you are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslims than Guru Gobind Singh was ?

  120. Jai — on 4th December, 2009 at 5:57 am  

    One more point, in addition to my previous reply above:

    Regarding your other references, history is constantly re-written. Historians have their own agendas every bit as much as I do and every bit as the Taqiyya merchants in the mosques do.

    I am just more knowledgable than most non-Muslims

    Are you also claiming that you are more knowledgeable about Islam and Muslims in relation to the Indian subcontinent than William Dalrymple is ?

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.