It shows hatred, religious bigotry, jihad,
and a coming violent revolution against Britain,
being preached at some mainstream British mosques.
and sex with children.
They call for the killing of homosexuals.
They call for the beating, jailing and killing
of people who do not say their prayers
to a being called "Allah"
(which they believe exists).
Congratulations to Channel 4 for doing this important service,
and congratulations to their awesomely brave undercover reporter,
who is presumably an actually moderate Muslim.
Britain needs to get serious about this issue.
Britain cannot simply stand by as these preachers breed the next generation of
These preachers have no business living in the West,
and should be jailed or deported.
Almost every Briton agrees with me.
Stories of British ex-Muslims. BBC Newsnight, Nov 2013.
The ideal future for Britain is not one in which immigrants cling to their ancestors' beliefs,
but rather one in which immigrants become more British,
which will involve large numbers of them losing their faith,
and the remaining believers being tolerant of that.
"the ideal for British social cohesion would be for lots of Muslims (and Hindus and Sikhs) to become atheists, agnostics or very wishy-washy Anglicans."
16 percent of British Muslims support the "cause" of the London bombers.
These people should not be living in the West.
If they do not believe in freedom, they should not live in the free world.
They should leave.
That is, 40 percent of British Muslims want to end our western liberties.
They just want to do it peacefully.
If ever they are in the majority, they will end British freedom.
The poll shows 41 percent of British Muslims don't want sharia law.
And of course they may win the argument,
as, over time, British Muslims finally come to understand and appreciate
what a free society is.
Still, 40 percent in favour is an appalling number.
It is a strong argument for restricting Islamic immigration
until current Muslims integrate better.
no one who believes in sharia law should be allowed into the West.
37 percent of young British Muslims want Sharia law in Britain.
36 percent of young British Muslims think apostates should be killed.
13 percent of young British Muslims said they "admired" Al Qaeda.
The stats for older British Muslims are much better.
Maybe the young will ditch their fascist views as they grow up.
Or maybe, disturbingly,
the young show what the British Muslims of the future will look like.
The author of the survey above is the fantastic young Muslim woman
(British-born daughter of Pakistani immigrants).
discussed the survey
that is now gone
Brilliantly, she declines to blame it all on "Iraq" or "Israel"
or some other mythical root cause.
Instead, she blames it on
and the patronising left-liberal habit of treating immigrants
as members of groups and tribes,
rather than as individuals and freethinking citizens.
This has helped alienate young British Muslims from British society,
and forced them to look for an alternative identity.
Brilliantly, she points out that the alternative to multiculturalism,
that is, a proposed unifying culture of Britain,
does not have to be an exclusivist, ethnic, monocultural Anglo-Saxon tribalism,
nor does it have to be just a bland, valueless, greedy consumer society.
Rather the unifying culture of Britain
should be the universal values of the western Enlightenment.
This is what every British immigrant can and should sign up to.
Munira Mirza really speaks my language.
I, and people like me, understand the values to promote
to get immigrants to integrate into the West.
The liberal left don't.
Their values will lead to tribalism, alienation, bigotry, racism,
ethnic conflict, and in the long-term
possibly even civil war.
Munira Mirza is now an advisor to the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson.
40 percent support the introduction of sharia for British Muslims.
33 percent support a worldwide Islamic caliphate based on sharia.
"England is a cesspit. England is the breeding ground of fundamentalist Muslims."
- Shocking words from
winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature,
angry at the radicalisation of the Nigerian
Flight 253 bomber
while he was a student in Britain.
Reported 3 Feb 2010.
Image from here.
He may exaggerate, but what is the world coming to when foreign intellectuals complain about the jihad
being exported from England?
(He's not the only one.)
In 1989 Iqbal Sacranie
said about the threats against
"Death, perhaps, is a bit too easy for him?
His mind must be tormented for the rest of his life
unless he asks for forgiveness to Almighty Allah."
thinks Rushdie's book
should be illegal.
Instead of his usual kid gloves treatment,
the "moderate" Iqbal Sacranie gets a proper grilling
as he tries to dodge question after question.
Transcript - the weasel words of Iqbal Sacranie
tries to avoid condemning Hamas,
tries to avoid condemning some of the MCB's extremist affiliates,
and tries to avoid condemning the preaching
that the War on Terror is a War on Islam. (*)
(*) The War on Terror is, of course, a War on Islamism,
but that is something all moderate Muslims should support.
on the Rushdie case.
He supported killing Rushdie for speech when he was young:
"on February 14 1989, when the Iranian Islamic leader, Imam Khomeini delivered his fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie's death, I was truly elated
It seems crazy now, but I really did believe that some committee of learned elders should vet all books before they could be sold to the public.".
But he has grown up a bit since:
"I will readily acknowledge that we were wrong to have called for the book to be banned
Our detractors had been right. The freedom to offend is a necessary freedom.".
Good for him.
I'd like to see him condemn blasphemy laws in Islamic countries too
(not just in Britain).
Inayat Bunglawala, Dec 2007,
refuses to condemn
Islamic states that impose
the death penalty for apostasy.
"He did not do so, merely commenting that "it was a matter for those states"."
"The MCB should issue a public statement which makes it absolutely clear that apostates have a right to change or abandon their faith, both in this country and abroad, publicly or privately, and to proselytise freely: and that their apostasy may be countered only by persuasion.
If the MCB wants to demonstrate that they have a role to play in the mainstream of public life, then it would be sensible for them to make their institutional position on this issue absolutely clear."
on the Muslim Council of Britain
and the death penalty for apostasy.
As Harry's Place says:
"credit where credit is due".
Could the annoying Bunglawala
turn out to be an Islamic reformer?
It may be a false dawn,
but on the other hand Islam may change slowly for the better this century. People do change their minds.
On the other hand:
writes for the website of
There is no explanation for why
"a supposedly liberal political commentator is writing uncritical articles on the website of a leading fascist."
They pretend to be in favour of free speech:
"Libraries remain sources of information through which debate and ideas are shaped on a range of issues.
The removal of books by these sorts of authors simply plays into the hands of those on the right who seek to censor and limit free speech. Given the unique role our libraries play, such a move would be unfortunate and would impact on the wonderful diversity of books that our libraries currently have on offer."
Jihad Watch, December 4, 2010, replies:
"Here, "diversity" serves the cause of Islam. How about when it doesn't? How about a little Geert Wilders on the shelves? A little something from Kurt Westergaard? Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Wafa Sultan? One could go on and on."
For some reason,
feels the need to print these religious fanatics
- just because they are fundamentalist Muslims.
It would not print them if they were fundamentalist Christians.
Azzam Tamimi declares his support for Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas.
The disgusting freaks of
Tamimi calls for the elimination of Israel.
"anybody in the world, with faith or without faith,
must come together in order to eradicate this cancer from the body of humanity.
Do you know why Tony Blair, George Bush, and all the members of this camp are so worried?
They are worried because they know the world can see clearly today that Israel is a menace,
is a threat to humanity. They can no longer fool anybody and
they are worried that
this spoiled baby of theirs is about to be thrown out of this human body of ours.
It is just a matter of time.
This black chapter in the history of humanity will eventually come to an end"
of Azzam Tamimi in the speech above
with Azzam Tamimi pretending to be moderate with a credulous NPR host.
"MPAC's world view is simple. We are at War.
MPAC believes every Muslim man woman and child is a target in that War.
And we believe that it is FARD
upon every capable Adult to defend the Ummah.
We also adopt the position that every Muslim who does not participate in that war
is committing a crime against those they allow to be murdered, raped and persecuted
and against his or her Lord.
Whether or not the failing to take part in Jihad to protect the Ummah leads
one into hypocrisy and out of the fold of Islam is something we have not found the answer too.
When innocent people are murdered one has no option but to act with time or money
to fight the Jihad. This is beyond any reasonable doubt to any thinking man
Those ACTIVE Muslims who will give their time to the Jihad,
or their money, are few in number, and no single organisation can take these enemies on.
The few willing to fight are poor, under funded, man power starved Muslim organisations
and they cannot compete. There is a capability Gap between the enemy and us.
A Gap that must be bridged if we have any hope of protecting ourselves."
"The enemy even when in the open is immune from any counter action by the Muslims,
such is the deep coma these institutions have put us in.
This can be seen no more clearly then in the case of powerful members of Parliament backing Israel.
These men are comfortable, they know that the thousands of Muslims that elected them
are so ignorant and comatose that they can attack Muslims without
any form of action or challenge by the Muslims and their institutions.
This is a fact, and can proven by the election of
the Vice Chairman of the friends of Israel
by 15000 Muslim zombies
eight years in a row.
Not one Muslim has taken it upon himself to remove him.
This highlights more then any other the Zombie like state we are in."
What does "remove him" mean?
This sounds like a threat against an MP.
If MPAC are making threats like this, they should be made an illegal organisation.
The Islamic "Human Rights" Commission (IHRC)
complains about just about any criticism of Islam
If they supposedly believe in "Human Rights", shouldn't they believe in the
right to free speech to criticise any religion or political ideology?
After all, I am an atheist and a neo-conservative who believes in human rights,
and I firmly believe in the right of anyone to criticise atheism or neo-conservatism.
on the Islamic "Human Rights" Commission and their 2014 Islamophobia Awards.
"I hope I do win. As a Khomeinist organisation the IHRC may wish to celebrate by hanging me from a crane, as is customary in Iran."
On the Rushdie knighthood, Lord Ahmed
is quoted as
"Actually I was appalled to hear that Salman Rushdie had been given [a] knighthood, particularly when this man has been very divisive.
This man - as you can see - not only provoked violence around the world because of his writings, but there were many people that were killed around the world and honouring the man who has blood on his hands, sort of because of what he did, honouring him I think is going a bit too far."
If this is an accurate quote, then Lord Ahmed should be expelled from the Labour Party.
How dare he blame the victim of violence for the violence?
Why doesn't he blame the medieval savages that actually carried out the violence?
Reformed ex-Islamist Ed Husain says:
"Geert Wilders is undoubtedly an ill-informed, hate-driven bigot with many unpleasant views but he is not directly inciting violence. As a result, unlike in the case of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, I do not support the decision to ban him from the UK. By threatening parliament with a mob, Lord Ahmed is contributing to the negative portrayal of Muslims and their religion."
Lord Ahmed made
in an interview on Pakistani TV in April 2012.
These were reported in English in the UK media in March 2013.
He was suspended by the Labour Party.
They attack Britain's lukewarm "support" for Israel:
"the type of unqualified support given to Israel by the current Government is not conducive to British national interests as this could damage Britain's relationships with 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide
An incoming Conservative Administration should accept that pro-zionist attitude will not bode well with many. Pro-zionist statements would only damage relationship with Muslims nationally and internationally.".
"Irrespective of one's views of theocracy, the current Iranian regime was established by a popular revolution, ... and has a significant measure of domestic support. ... hostility to Iran is not in Britain's national interest.
Furthermore, Iran has many legitimate security concerns, being surrounded by, what is to them, potentially hostile powers. Instead of joining the United States in demonising Iran, Britain should assist Iran in addressing these legitimate security concerns"
On preachers of hate like
"We disagree with the suggestion that "foreign preachers and scholars advocating the rejection of the institutions and values of democracy" should be denied entry into Britain.
While we may disagree with many views of
we feel it is inaccurate for the Policy Group to question his status as a leading Islamic scholar.
Yusuf al-Qaradawi is considered a leading scholar by other many Muslims, including Muslim scholars."
On Iran's desire for nuclear weapons:
"Given Iran's position in the Middle East, facing a nuclear-armed Israel, Iran appears to have legitimate reasons for seeking nuclear weapons for defensive purposes."
What are these weirdos doing in the Conservative party?
Shouldn't they be in a party more suited to them,
such as Respect?
Baroness Warsi, 20 Jan 2011, condemns "Islamophobia" in Britain with no proper attempt to define it.
With only a token nod to Islamic violence,
she says "Islamophobia" is bigotry:
"Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.
Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate - even commendable - thing.
You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.
But of course, Islamophobia should be seen as totally abhorrent".
It is not clear that fear of Islam is irrational
when so many Muslims openly threaten our freedom with talk of sharia law.
Yes, it is not liberal Muslims like Warsi who do this.
But she should direct her speech at them, and not at infidels who, quite understandably, fear them.
Islam is the only religion that behaves like this (says it wants to force us to live under religious law).
And it is the only religion that bombs us.
If people fear Islam, it is Islam's fault.
After all, people don't fear Hinduism or Buddhism.
Most British people support freedom of religion.
They just don't like a religion that issues threats and violence.
points out that most people had (quite rightly) no interest in Islam until recently:
"the Muslim faith was not discussed over the dinner tables of England, nor in the saloon bars, before large numbers of Muslims came here to our country".
Islam has nothing intellectually to contribute to the world.
So it would be nice to ignore it, the way we ignore Hinduism and Buddhism.
But we are forced to pay attention to it,
because of the behaviour of Muslims.
No wonder people are hostile to it.
Hostility towards annoying religions is only to be expected.
A comment asks:
"Has prejudice against Scientology
or evangelical Christian sects "passed the dinner-table test"?
I rather think it has, and they haven't even bombed us yet.
So no idea why she's surprised people aren't falling over themselves gushing about how great Islam is."
In her speech
who supports the jihad.
Maher quotes Nawaz:
"Anyone worried about what I'm saying should get involved in the debate. You are allowed to dissent, that is a right."
"But is that a right in Islam, to dissent?"
"Course it is. Why do you think there's so many schools of thought?
Why do you think there's .."
"Well it wasn't a right for Salman Rushdie."
"See that Salman Rushdie was there to provoke, insult,
and he did it intentionally right. I'm not .."
"But, should you die for that?"
"No, what I mean like, you know, that was ...
You know it's easy for you to say things kind of in black and white. But it's more complex than that.
There's actually, there's emotions and passions and philosophy involved, and all that stuff.
And then .."
"You know, all you got to say is it's wrong for someone to have to suffer a death threat for writing a book."
"Well hang on .."
"But, apparently, it's more complicated than that."
"Well it is, because .. I mean, Western .."
"But, you want that protection for yourself."
"I think these debates are ... I'm willing to discuss them in terms of facts and not fictions."
"But you don't see there's
a fundamental hypocrisy for you asking for the right to dissent and somebody else getting a death threat."
"No, because my dissent is to stop the madness."
What a creepy hypocrite.
Bill Maher's takedown of Aki Nawaz
comes about 80 percent of the way through
Click to play
part 1 and
One point is lost in the discussion about the lack of moderate Muslim groups
in Britain, and it is this.
Moderate British Muslims, who support British society,
are far more likely to want to join mainstream British organisations,
rather than set up their own separate Muslim sectarian group.
Muslim groups are likely to be inherently extremist, tribal, insular,
religiously conservative, non-moderate,
or otherwise unpleasant.
They will almost by definition
attract those who are alienated from British society.
Whereas the many British Muslims who are well integrated and successful
will have little interest in joining some whining tribal grievance group.
Muslim groups do not (and never will) represent British Muslims.
Nick Spencer, 22 Feb 2010, is baffled at British Muslims' refusal to have the beliefs he thinks they should have:
He thinks they should all oppose the Iraq and Afghan wars
(he probably thinks all Muslims in
opposed the wars),
and so he thinks they should all oppose Labour.
He is baffled at Muslims' continuing support for Labour.
He actually openly defends identity politics.
On the concept that Muslims might be individuals, he is incredulous:
"it would mean that attempts to court the Muslim vote, or even engage with the Muslim community, are misguided.
That might make psephological
sense but intuitively it seems wrong. The shift from ethnic to religious identity politics over the last two decades cannot have been one big mistake."
Oh no. It could not possibly be a mistake.
As Harry's Place
Spencer nearly develops a clue,
but then the darkness comes over again.
Spencer illustrates clearly how the right treats people as individuals,
whereas the left treats them as members of pre-defined collectives.
So the left cannot just treat me as an individual, but points out that I am
a white man (who therefore should not criticise Obama),
a westerner (who therefore should not criticise Muslims),
or am I an Irishman (and therefore a victim myself), and so on.
The left has a lot of trouble with
anyone who breaks out of their pre-defined role.
Ex-jihadis describe how left-wing Britain failed to integrate them:
"From the right, there was the brutal nativist cry of "Go back where you came from!" But from the left, there was its mirror-image: a gooey multicultural sense that immigrants didn't want liberal democratic values and should be exempted from them. Again and again, they described how at school they were treated as "the funny foreign child", and told to "explain their customs" to the class. It patronised them into alienation.
"Nobody ever said - you're equal to us, you're one of us, and we'll hold you to the same standards," says Husain. "Nobody had the courage to stand up for liberal democracy without qualms. When people like us at [Newham] College were holding events against women and against gay people, where were our college principals and teachers, challenging us?"
Without an identity, they created their own. It was fierce and pure and violent, and it admitted no doubt."
calls Ed Husain "a British neocon pinup boy".
But as a neo-con myself, I can see clear water between Husain and me.
He is still trying to defend Islam, after all.
Stop supporting Bin Laden, 26 November 2007,
where Ed Husain bashes parts of the counterjihad,
and still defends Mohammed as a moral guide.
The problem is Quilliam are ultimately
not willing to question the moral character of Mohammed.
What is needed is a new movement that will do that
(while still being Muslim, not atheist).
Quilliam attacks Israel:
Quilliam attacks Israel, Dec 2008, during the Gaza War:
"The UK Government cannot seek to win hearts and minds across Muslim communities
while failing to stop Israel from murdering Palestinians en masse."
Spencer and Geller
go too far in saying that Quilliam
"came out in favor of the "Palestinian" jihad against Israel
and the ending of Israeli defensive operations."
Quilliam did not come out in favour of terror.
But they should really shut up about Israel and stick to fighting Islamic extremism.
The worst thing I've seen about Quilliam:
2008 "About Us" page
They have since
replaced it with a new
"About Us" page,
and they don't seem to promote any of
Ali Gomaa's repellent ideas.
But maybe Quilliam aren't as good as I thought.
Islamist influenced groups, mosques and media outlets
These are a selection of the various groups and institutions active in the UK which are broadly sympathetic to Islamism.
Whilst only a small proportion will agree with al-Qaeda's tactics, many will agree with their overall goal of creating a single 'Islamic state' which would bring together all Muslims around the world under a single government and then impose on them a single interpretation of sharia as state law.
Local and central government should be wary of
engagement with these groups
as it risks empowering proponents of the ideology, if not the methodology, that is behind terrorism.
"we oppose banning non-violent extremists ... yet we see no reason why tax payers should subsidise them. It is in this context that we wish to raise awareness around Islamism."
the Al Qaeda hate preacher,
was granted asylum in the UK in 1994.
He began preaching hatred and killing from the UK,
and inspired the 9/11 attacks.
He was first arrested in 2001.
The UK spent years trying to deport the bastard,
but the legal system kept blocking it.
deserve to be deported?
In 2009, Al-Qaeda jihadis
kidnapped and beheaded
utterly innocent British tourist
to try to force Britain to release
That tells you all you need to know about Abu Qatada.
Finally, Abu Qatada was deported to Jordan, July 2013. This stain on England is removed.
Britain is becoming less hospitable
to the fascist enemies of Britain
British jihadis arrested and jailed:
Al-Muhajiroun disbanded in the face of an impending ban.
Its successors Al-Ghurabaa
and Muslims Against Crusades
for glorification of terrorism.
Their members were jailed for 4 to 6 years for the
Abu Izzadeen was
jailed for 4 and a half years
for inciting terrorism.
jihad gang has been jailed for life.
transatlantic aircraft plot
Revolution Muslim / Islam4UK
was jailed for 5 years.
Other jihadis expelled from Britain:
Omar Bakri Muhammad fled Britain to Lebanon in 2005,
and is banned from returning.
was extradited to France in 2005.
was deported to Jamaica in 2007.
Abu Hamza was extradited to the US in 2012.
Adel Abdel Bari
was extradited to the US in 2012.
Abu Qatada was deported to Jordan in 2013.
was extradited to the US in 2013.
The (very catchy)
by British fascists
and the "Soul Salah Crew".
Great fun, but seriously,
everyone involved in this video should be expelled, not just from Britain, but from the West entirely.
Almost every Briton agrees with me.
Islamofascists march for sharia in London, June 2010.
All these people should be deported.
This kind of thing is almost as unpleasant as outright jihadism:
British Muslim rapper
says all Islamic terror attacks were "inside jobs".
Including 9/11, 7/7, Boston and Woolwich.
This passive-aggressive bullshit is a way for Islamic extremists
to avoid condemning Islamic terror
while subtly threatening Westerners.
Asim Qureshi of CAGE supports jihad around the world:
"When we see the example of our brothers and sisters fighting in Chechnya, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Afghanistan, then we know where the example lies. When we see Hezbollah defeating the armies of Israel, we know where the solution is and where the victory lies.
We know that it is incumbent upon all of us, to support the jihad of our brothers and sisters in these countries when they are facing the oppression of the West."
I am blocked by these jihadi apologists
I never even interacted with them!
will be defeated, humiliated, and thrown in the dustbin of history
in the next few decades.
The West has seen off far greater threats
than some know-nothing medieval religious revival.
The defeat of Islamism
will be a great day, above all, for
Muslims in the West, who will no longer be feared as a possible
Over the next century,
Islam in the West will mutate in the same way Christianity did.
It will become far more tolerant and more diverse.
As with Christianity, traditionalists will still exist,
but they will no longer threaten violence.
As with Christianity, Islamic and post-Islamic scholars will arise
who question the existence of Allah,
the origin of the Quran,
the morality of Muhammad
and even his existence.
Millions of Muslims will become secular, apostates and atheists.
In the end,
the idea of the West,
the idea of reason, curiosity and human freedom,
will prove stronger than either Christianity or Islam, or any religion.
Wonderful anti-Islamist demo, Oct 2009, from
British Muslims for Secular Democracy.
"Free Speech Will Dominate The World."
"Liberal Democracy Will Rule The World. Freedom Is Here To Stay."
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.