Blair more willing than Bush to discuss Islam

"...will he [Blair]insist there that Muslims acknowledge that jihad terrorists are using the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit terrorists, and that they develop an effective plan to convince their fellow Muslims that the jihadist understanding of Islam is false and even heretical?"

King: I find this statement one of the more balanced views I've read herein. Kudos.

The next step here is to understand that there are movements within the Muslim community to do exactly this. In the meantime, it is absolutley crucial for non-Muslims to allow the process to move forward, and we do this be identifiying who the enemies are and are not, and then supporting those who share the same progressive ideals. Denouncing all of Islam aint the way.

'monitor mosques'??? How about seizing the mosques? Will the hooligans begin to take care of the mosques?

KingTwit, get lost.

"such as Muslim religious schools in Pakistan and other countries that have a violently anti-Western bias..."
--- from the article above

Blair's belief that one needs "religious schools in Pakistan" or in "other countries that have a violently anti-Western bias" demonstrates his continued confusion. As it happens, these particular bombers went to Pakistan, had contacts in Pakistan. But they needn't have. They need never have left the United Kingdom. They could have learned everything they needed to know, everything that formed their world-view, right from the Qur'an and the Hadith and the Sira (the latter two forming the Sunnah, which is, despite denials by some apologists, almost as important, and for some Muslims even more important in molding their thinking, than the Qur'an standing alone). By introducing that phrase "countries with an anti-Western bias" Blair makes it seem that somehow it is the foreign policy of those countries, you know -- like North Korea, say -- that is the problem. But the least hostile Muslim country (let us say, Iran under the Shah or Turkey 20 years ago), will remain populated by Muslims who, to the extent that they are Believers, and precisely to the degree that they accept the tenets, and reflect the attitudes, of Islam, will be hostile to the West.

Furthermore, the emphasis on the West -- "anti-Western bias" -- is also deceptive. It fails to include the great destruction wrought, and being wrought still, on non-Western cultures and peoples, beginning of course with the damage done to Hindu civilization, and the massacres of 60-70 million Hindus (see K. S. Lal) during the 250 years of Mughal (Muslim) rule.

Blair makes a fatal error in limiting the opposition to the West. Indeed, in so doing, he falls into a Muslim trap, for it is to the advantage of the apologists to make everyone fortget about Hindus in India, the Greco-Buddhist civilization of Afghanistan, the Hindus, Buddhists, Confucians of Malaysia and Indonesia (formerly the East Indies), and of course the constant pressure, persecution, and mass murder of non-Muslims, and even of non-Arab Muslims, in black Africa. Rice is now in the Sudan. Can't Blair keep in mind, as he utters his confusing and confused phrases, keep carefully in mind every example, at present and over 1350 years, of Muslim aggression that is based on the canonictal texts of Islam?

He should, if he decides to visit Berlusconi again in Sardinia (one hopes that Berlusconi will not be bandannaed like a crewmember for Long John Silver this year), take along a few books. I would suggest all four of Bat Ye'or's books, to start, but carefully not reading "Eurabia" until "The Dhimmi," "Islam and Dhimmitude," and "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" have been read -- and then, he should read Spencer's "Onward Muslim Soldiers" and "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance" and then Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim" and then -- and only then -- should he read, with close attention, as if it were to be on his A-levels, "Eurabia." And then, when it comes out, he has to read "The Legacy of Jihad." And he has to pay attention to the ex-Muslims in Britain and the United States, has to listen carefully to what they say -- Ibn Warraq, Ali Sina, Walid Shoebat, Nonie Darwish -- all come to mind.

He has to call up Ann Lambton in Durham -- the niece of Harold Macmillan's wife, she is over 90, but she certainly knew Persia, knows Islam. He has to call up J. B. Kelly. He has to have a meeting, face to face, with Bat Ye'or. Let all of this take place unpublicized, undisclosed. He needs above all to understand that England is crawling with apologists for Arabs and for Islam, and many of them remain, just as all the cliches tell us, in the Foreign Office (which oversees the BBC World Service). Those Arabists have made their part of the Foreign Office simultaneously a nest of ninnies, and a nest of vipers. A little denidification is in order.

And the same problem can be found in academic centers. The Saudis and other rich Arabs long ago set up bought-and-paid-for "Centres" of "Arab and Islamic studies" in such places as Exeter and Durham. As a consquence, the people there, the courses they give, the papers they present, are nearly worthless for the understanding of Islam. A particular den of iniquity, which bears a name that impresses some, is the whole Middle Eastern wing of St. Antony's College, Oxford (which also possesses a wing devoted to East European and Russian studies, and though the more impressionable in the latter -- such as T. G. Ash -- may accept the apologetics of the former, for the most part that East European/Russian section remains unaffected. For years that plump abbot, the complacent islamochristian Albert Hourani (no Fattal or Malik, he), dispensed his wisdom as he stacked the deck, and saw some of the most deplorable of his charges -- Rashid Khalidi, fresh from a stint in Beirut as a PLO propagandist -- acquire their D.Phils on the entirely predictable subjects ("Construction of 'Palestinian' Identity" stuff never fails), for entirely sympathetic senior professors. The tame Israeli there, jumping through the hoops he volunteers to construct for himself (why trouble his Muslim and Arab colleagues -- they have so many more important things to do) is one Avi Shlaim, of whom the less said the better, but if you really must know something about him, do consult Ephraim Karsh.

Needless to say, any hint that "the Arab world" actually contains a great many non-Arab and non-Muslim peoples gets short shrift at St. Antony's, where the spirits of the late Charles Malik and the late Antoine Fattal and the late Bishop Moubarac are nowhere to be found, nor is there even a whisper of the names of the great Orientalists whose work is being unearthed, rediscovered, and published -- to the great dismay of those apologists for Islam who, until now, have had such a well-paid and smooth ride, or perhaps climb, up the greasy pole of a thoroughly degraded academe.

Blair now sometimes deviates into sense. But if he studies -- a few weeks will do, and he will still have time for working on his tan.

Bush and Cheney are too cuddly with the Saudis. Bush's learning ability is doubtful, given the Koran speeches of Condi Rice "holy, holy holy" appeasement all the way.

The "tiny minority" of extremists is a fairytale: The hatred expressed by Mohammed Atta's father and the uncle of one of the London bombers after the initial 'shock-horror-denial' statements confirm everything we know:

"Strike terror in the hearts of the infidels" says the Koran, and a proper Muhammedan lives by the book.

Raid the mosques, intern them all! Mass deportations NOW!!

KingTolerance,

I hope that the Muslim world can get its act together and have some sort reformation, but I seriously doubt it because the foundations for warfare in this ideology run too deep in my opinion, the hate is too extreme.

You are where I was about two years ago. Perhaps I will keep my fingers crossed too, even though I have lost hope that this is going to work. Maybe Blair who is a passionate honest man could break through the walls of hate, he has morals and courage, but I am not sure that those with who he will engage will have their ears open to what he says or even the same moral courage to bring it to fruit.

I am even seeing signs from the left that they are begining to recognise Islam fundementalism as facism. Now that is progress.

JackTolerance: The next step here is to understand that there are movements within the Muslim community to do exactly this. In the meantime, it is absolutley crucial for non-Muslims to allow the process to move forward, and we do this be identifiying who the enemies are and are not, and then supporting those who share the same progressive ideals.

This strikes me as similar to asking local communists to help identify the real subversives in their midst. As someone who knows a fair few communists, I can say this seems a bit unlikely. What tie do muslims have in general that could be exploited to get them to help Western societies stop jihadism? And how can any of it be believed, since the debates inevitably go on in a foreign language? It's akin to a debate where at the end one side turns to you and says:

"Don't worry. All will be well now. We won."

"And who are you?"

"Why, the moderates, of course."

"And how do we know that?"

"Well, because we're telling you. Now stop being racist, or we'll sympathize with those who commit terror attacks. In the meantime, here's some pamphlets on islam. Won't you convert?"

Seems a poor solution to me.

Imam Geoff

Blair and Howard are on TV now, mumbling, trying to defend. Basically on the defensive, and do not know how to go on the offensive. I wish I could had your suggestions Hugh to them, and say read this and execute his recommendations and lead us.

It's utterly preposterous to make our self-defense & safety from Islamic terrorism dependant upon the theological debates of different types of Muslims.

We may welcome an ongoing process of Islamic reformation and transformation of their anti-modern and anti-liberal fundamentals; but that process should have NOTHING to do with our self-defense because of the following four reasons:

a) it will take too long -- several decades, at best, perhaps centuries, at worst;

b) it will take too long -- several decades, at best, perhaps centuries, at worst;

c) it will take too long -- several decades, at best, perhaps centuries, at worst;

and

d) it will take too long -- several decades, at best, perhaps centuries, at worst.

Blair could begin by telling his barrister wife not to take on any more pro-bono cases representing the interests of Hizb-ut-Tahir.

That would be a good start.

I forgot to mention my fifth reason:

e) it will take too long -- several decades, at best, perhaps centuries, at worst.

Letting the Muslims root out their own radicals (i.e., true believers of their texts) will only delay the ultimate confrontation. This is like a surgeon wiping the pus out of a wound, then sewing up the patient while leaving the infection untreated.

No matter how much the moderates can cool things down, the instruments of further indoctrination are left lying around. And jihad will continue and will have to be confronted again, perhaps under even worse circumstances.

Our leaders have probably already made the assessment as to whether we are RIGHT NOW strong enough to attack this problem defined as islam. Certainly, it has been a topic in the war colleges if they are not totally dhimmi.

The current assessment IMHO is that we are not ready, and that the only strategy open to us is to keep the pressure on, in "measured" degrees, and build up strength, economic, military, financial, technological, and (most importantly) social and political. Not easy, this World War.

King Taqiyyance,

I think all this "misinterpretation" of islam is the work of the jooooze

texan,

" The current assessment IMHO is that we are not ready"

But we are not ready only because we are not willing to fight this war in a non-PC way -- the way we WERE able to fight that other evil totalitarian enemy, the Axis Powers of Hitler, Mussolini and Japan.

Otherwise, we are quite ready to defeat this enemy and could do it in about two years tops -- if only we had the non-PC will.

"...will he [Blair]insist there that Muslims acknowledge that jihad terrorists are using the Qur'an and Sunnah to recruit terrorists, and that they develop an effective plan to convince their fellow Muslims that the jihadist understanding of Islam is false and even heretical?"

King: I find this statement one of the more balanced views I've read herein. Kudos.

_________________________________________________

That hit the nail on the head. Lets get down to business!!!

Hi Geoff,

I remember you telling me how you would support the nuking of Mecca if there was another terrorist outrage, do you still believe that???

I think I posted this somewhere but it seems more appropriate here.

There are two points that I wish to make.

1. It is misguided for us to solicit the help of muslims. Even if such a policy was outrageously successful, it would in fact lead to our strategic defeat.

Why?

We would have accepted the proposition that our security can only be attained by muslim generosity. That is, we would have accepted the status of a protected people - dhimmis.

We have to win this on our own - muslim help is not desirable in the broader strategic sense as it would be the acceptance of dhimmitude.

2. Let us consider the situation that all muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the koran. They will even praise this generation of muslims for having done what was necessary to protect islam.

As Hugh F points out, the greatest Intelligence failure in the WoT is not the lack of WMDs in Iraq but a mis-understanding of the nature of this war, what motivates the fighters of islam and how to stop the jihad.

Robert Stated: But that is the only possible good that could come of a conference like this: active efforts by Muslims to eradicate "extremism" within their own communities.

Robert, I do not agree. My post above explains why.

"1. It is misguided for us to solicit the help of muslims. Even if such a policy was outrageously successful, it would in fact lead to our strategic defeat.

Why?

We would have accepted the proposition that our security can only be attained by muslim generosity. That is, we would have accepted the status of a protected people - dhimmis."

________________________________________________

Excuse me sir, I think this guy has been brainwashed and could commit a terrible crime in the future.....actually forget it, if you listen to me, that would make you a "dhimmi" (?!?!?), forget about it.

That makes a lot of sense (sarcasm)

Has anyone noticed that this ia786 poster had said his goodbyes to JW/DW but immediately turned after the massacres of innocents in London. I have a feeling that he came here to gloat. It is a typical muslim thing. Note that muslims were passing around beheading videos on their mobiles.

There seems no limit to the evil that is islam.

----------------------------------------

There is a nice cartoon in the DT here

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=GLNABEKFTZ0FXQFIQMFSM5WAVCBQ0JVC?view=HOME&grid=P18&menuId=-1&menuItemId=-1&_requestid=9147

Islam does not recognise any difference between the kuffar, they are either zhimmi (under the Islamic state) or mu’ahhed (has covenant with a Muslim), or he is harbi and has no sanctity for his life or wealth.

There is no such thing as an ‘innocent’ kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims; do not say ‘innocent’ for the kafir, the most you can say for them is that they are ‘victims’. The Muslim however, is innocent even if he engages to fight and conquer the kafir, because he is fulfilling the shari’ah."

http://www.islamistwatch.org/main.html

It is a mistake to put our security in muslim hands. Either way, whether they are true to islam or true to the non-muslim state, it leads to dhimmification. In small steps maybe, but dhimmification all the same.

The next step here is to understand that there are movements within the Muslim community to do exactly this.

I would like to read more about these movements. Are they on the Internet?

DP111 --

I don't see why we can't do both:

1) Demand of the Muslim communities that they hunt down and root out and turn over their bad apples (and continue to do so into the indefinite future)

2) Continue to be wary and on our guard about Muslims and continue to pursue our own law enforcement for our self-defense.

We can do both. Whether we WILL do both depends upon whether our leaders and 5th column stop thinking like PC multiculturalist idiots.

Even if there are any "moderate" muslims, they will never risk life and limb to expose themselves. The so-called "moderates" are content to let the firebrands do the talking, and the firebrands tell it like it is. The only problem is that very few want to believe them, so they are labeled "radicals" and ignored.

Polls in the muslim world by the Pew, Roper and Gallup organizations have found that approximately 50% of all Muslims worldwide support or sympathize with bin Laden, his tactics and his objectives. Bin Laden and his supporters are not fringe radicals of Islam, they are the mainstream and moderates are the "fringe" of Islam.

The Qur'an, which every Muslim is obligated to accept as the literal world of God, is immutable. The immutability of Islam is addressed in 114 chapters of the Quran, 26 of which expound on jihad. Islam cannot be reformed; the Qur'an forbids it. The fact that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization should be blatantly obvious to everyone, even the most dedicated multiculturalists and moral relativists.

What choice do muslim leaders in Britain have but to play along with the government's plan to expunge the radical element? They will lie through their teeth to keep the heat away from their communities. Until WEstern governments learn that muslims can never be trusted under any circumstances and realize that lying comes as naturally to them as breathing, we are sitting ducks, easy targets for predatory, megalomaniac muslims.

As one arrogant young muslim so aptly stated: "We say one thing to you and another in our mosques, and there are no moderate muslims in the mosques. We all follow the teachings of the Qur'an." So the difference between a moderate muslim and a radical muslim is very slight; moderates are merely silent radicals---until they're behind the closed doors of the mosque or their homes.

"Let us consider the situation that all muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call to clean their communities of extremism. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the koran. They will even praise this generation of muslims for having done what was necessary to protect islam."
-- from a posting above

This, to me, is far more likely than any other outcome.It accords fully with the theory, and practice, of Islam over time and through space.

"The fact that Islam is incompatible with Western civilization should be blatantly obvious to everyone, even the most dedicated multiculturalists and moral relativists."

SHOULD be blatantly obvious -- however, multiculturalism is almost as immutable a dogma to the West now as is the Koran to Muslims.

I think Mr. Blair may be onto something important here. If he calls upon "moderates" to clean up islam and attacks continue, after a spell it will apparent to even the most dimwitted non-moslem that moderates cannot or will not control their sect and the next obvious step of governmental oversight will become more palatable to the general publc. The pattern of "attack/apologize" will be revealed as not being the two separate events that they appear to be, but rather an intricatly choreograghed, ingenious strategy to divide the target population into doves, who want to believe in the intrinsic goodness of their fellow man, and the hawks who want to strike back. The debate between these two opposing camps in the target population effectively immobilizes their defences allowing islamization to continue apace.
The British are liberal, and perhaps like the Americans a bit too careless of the dangers of multiculturalism, but they are not stupid. If I can figure this out, eventually they will too!

I like the way Howard stated that Islam was a religion of peace, he said it in a monotone way which indicated to me that he did not believe in what he was saying. Note the change in tone.

"And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation."

It was from the point of principles onwards. Watch the video. I watched it again, great stuff, they do get it but won't say so at this point. What do others think.

http://treyjackson.typepad.com/junction/2005/07/video_john_howa.html

ia786,

Come on, the so-called religion of Islam a murderous ideology, I have said it before and I will say it again, that there are moderate Muslims in spite of following Islam. If they followed Islam to the letter than 100% would be terrorists.

People on this site understand that simple truth, that some people have chosen not to says something about their humanity, not their following of Islam.

You only have to wonder at someone like you, who is obviously intelligent, but fails to resgister the evil in your religion.

Now I am very thankful that some incompetent did not mix the explosives properly, else another 50 odd people would have died. That they attacked around mid-day shows that they were as slothful as the person who mixed the explosives.

Anyway, last night I still said good evening to my Muslim neighbour and I will continue to do so, even if I despise his religion, I still see him as a person and that is the difference between this perverted religion and the majority of us in the West...

DP111 and Metaxy:

I never stated that we should depend on Muslim reform or solicit Muslim help. If you read carefully all of what I said above, you will find advocacy of a strong defensive posture combined with other measures to neutralize jihadists. Nor did I intend the above to be an exhaustive list.

I also wrote that Muslim moderates must "develop an effective plan to convince their fellow Muslims that the jihadist understanding of Islam is false and even heretical." Obviously this would be something to be welcomed, but as I have noted on many other occasions, there are many serious reasons to doubt whether it can be done at all. That fact, however, does not change the fact that such a plan would be the only worthwhile thing that could come from Blair's conference. Unfortunately, for many reasons, most of which I have explained here elsewhere, I do not think it will.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

SHOULD be blatantly obvious -- however, multiculturalism is almost as immutable a dogma to the West now as is the Koran to Muslims.

Posted by: metaxy at July 22, 2005 02:11 AM

The dogma of multiculturalism is not yet firmly entrenched in the U.S. except in a few large, liberal cities. It has permeated the ranks of the government, from the school systems to the Capitol, but is not universally accepted by the American people. To be a bonafide multiculturalist, one must also be a moral relativist and moral relativism does not yet prevail here. Most Americans are still religious to some extent and moral relativism is not a Christian concept, although some liberal churches lean in that direction.

After Islam, multiculturalism is the most inimical threat to Western Civilization. Its purpose is to destroy Western Civilization, and it is making great progress.