More dhimmitude at the highest levels of the British government. "British Foreign Office Under Fire for Engaging With Radical Muslims," from CNSNews.com, with thanks to Nicolei:
London (CNSNews.com) - The British government has drawn too close to the radical international Islamic movement, a prominent think tank here has charged.Drawing on previously confidential documents, the conservative Policy Exchange said at a press conference the British Foreign Office has decided to "engage with" extremist Islamic figures in the Middle East.
Martin Bright, who authored a report for the think tank, cited official papers he said had been provided by an anonymous source showing that the foreign office considered talking to groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood to be necessary if reform was to take place in the region.
In a position paper circulated last summer, two Foreign Office consultants argued that G8 governments had to enter dialogue with these movements -- which call for the creation of an Islamic state -- if the West was to avoid a "clash of civilizations."
"If we are serious about reform in the Middle East, we must do business with those who are struggling to relate their faith [to] the world as it is," wrote authors Richard Murphy and Basil Eastwood.
In May, the British government revealed that it had since September 2001 been in contact with members of the Muslim Brotherhood who sit in the Egyptian Parliament, and also with representatives of the same organization based in Jordan, Kuwait and Lebanon.
Bright said this policy had also led to the government letting two controversial figures into the country within the last year.
On July 14 2005, a week after the terrorist attacks on London, a Foreign Office advisor on Islamic affairs, Mockbul Ali, wrote that the Home Office -- which handles visas -- should let Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, visit the United Kingdom.
An Egyptian-born scholar based in Qatar, Qaradawi has controversially written in praise of Palestinian suicide bombers and urged Muslims to fight against U.S. forces in Iraq.
Ali argued that Qaradawi had also condemned the London bombings and that he was a popular figure whose views were shared by many Muslims in Britain.
"We certainly do not agree with Qaradawi's views on Israel and Iraq, but we have to recognize that they are not unusual or even exceptional amongst Muslims. In fact it is correct to say that these are views shared by a majority of Muslims in the Middle East and the UK," Ali wrote.
"To act against Qaradawi would alienate significant and influential members of the global Muslim community."
Ali also approved the visit last September of Delwar Hossain Sayeedi, a Bangladeshi lawmaker who reputedly preaches violence against the West.
Ali said that while Sayeedi might be regarded as "very conservative," he also had a large following and could be regarded as "mainstream."...
Haras Rafiq, a member of a taskforce on extremism set up by the Home Office after the 7/7 bombings and comprising scholars, imams and community representatives, said Wednesday he was frustrated by the government's tendency to talk solely to a small number of Islamic groups, most of whom were heavily religious.
"I'm afraid of my children becoming radicalized," he said. "I'm not the only one."
Haras, you have every reason to be afraid of that.
The diplomat's job is to talk--whether to negotiate surrender, impress the other guy with strength, or just keep things on an even keel between those with cool or friendly relations. The problem faced by al states not committed to all-out war on the whole Islamic world is that their diplomats will, sooner or later, have to talk with the Islamic world's unsavory people--especially since the Islamic world has an unmatched talent for throwing its unsavory people to the fore.
What is wrong with Britain? The two answers are moral relativism and multi-culturalism. The two dogmas are the cornerstones of the destruction and devaluation of traditional English culture. Somehow I have the feeling that when Christianity was stronger and Britian had a coherent culture and pride in its history, I doubt that the government would be groveling to people like this. The whole sale destrucion and devaluation of traditional culture has left a vaccumm which predatory Islam seeks to fill. People with no identity and no history have no future. When the British where stripped of this, a once great nation was set out for conquest. One does not have a Christian to see that the destruction of Western Christianity was not a good thing. The West has been made to hate itself and self hate always has evil and destructive consequences.
The self loathing post-modern, post-Christian West is the weaker side in this war, our technological superioty not withstanding. Islam for all its many ills, knows to which end it lives and moves and that in the end is a crucial difference.Sadly the same cannot be confidently said about the West. The Modern Westerner has little or nothing to live or die for save for collecting trinkets and trash and having a good time. In a realm like that the idea of standing up for your country or culture is absurd,sacrifice is absurd in cultural of narcissitic self indulgence the path of least resistance is the one of highest value and so dhimmitude it will be for these lost creatures.This kind of people only care about there careers and there little world of comforts and the rewards demand short sided dhmmitude so why not. Why would it be any other way. Anti-dhimmitude is costly to ambitions and comforts so why bother? And besides since grammer school we all know how big of racist, swine we are.Lord have mercy!!
Kepha:
There's a big difference between "talking" as, say, John Bolton would, with such persons and "gormlessly consorting" with them. It seems that most "dips" have Arabist tendencies, possibly because their palms have been well-greased with petro-dollars (think the well-named Allistair Crooke).
"To act against Qaradawi would alienate significant and influential members of the global Muslim community."
That is certainly not our problem, Mr. musulman.
The problem is yours and yours alone.
You figure it out because we are not going to do it for you.
Your children, if 'moderate or radicalized' are not our concern, we care about our children and we need less Islam, not more...
Do something about it, Mr. Musulman, assassinate Quaradwi, speak up, do whatever you feel you need to do, but do it and don't wait for us because won't...
Islam is the sworn enemy of Western civilization, and Western governments are actively helping Islam, so shouldn't they be charged with treason (and possibly executed)? I think they should.
SLIGHTLY OT
BBC bans the word "dhimmi"
and thereby prove that they really are a bunch of servile dhimmis!
the twisted circular logic of political correctness gone insane.
archduke, Dhimmi Watch already reported it, and you should read your link more carefully, because it says the following:
"On reflection, though, it's clear that the word "dhimmi" can be used in the modern sense in a non-abusive way, so we've decided that it should not now be blocked. The list of blocked words is a moving object - words and meanings do change from time to time - so we'll monitor how the debate goes."
They've actually lifted the ban.
Google "Alistair Crook," the British agent who not only dealt with Hamas, but became a great Hamas supporter and booster. He is now a "consultant" offering his services to the highest bidders -- no doubt many from the Jazirat al-arab neck of the woods, in London.
He should be investigated. He should be charged. He should be imprisoned for aiding and abetting terrorist groups. He and a whole bunch of people who have been toiling in those same vineyards, for many decades, recycling those "petrodollars," writing articles and signing petitions and "advising" the British government on how best to appease the Arabs, the PLO, the Palestine Authority, and of course Saudi Arabia.
Even if you do not comprehend what this has done to Israel's position, or do not care one whit, you might ask yourself what the misunderstanding of the war against Israel -- a Lesser Jihad -- aided by such people, which in turns helps to delay the day of recognition of what Islam is all about, has done to Great Britain and to Western Europe? For had that understanding of the refusal to accept Israel's existence (today the supposed differences between Abbas's PLO and Meshaal's Hamas are merely over the instruments to be employed in, and the time-frame needed for the successful conclusion of, that Lesser Jihad.
And had the Alistair Crooks of this world been exposed for what they are, long ago, that might have made it easier for the government and people of Great Britain to realize what would be the inevitable result of Muslim immigration into their midst -- as the peoples of Western Europe have all been discovering, to their great confusion, and mental and moral desarroi.
Finally, had the Alistair Crookes and the Foreign Office Arabists, those who are simply venal, those who think the Arabs are fine fellows (Laurentian nonsense never dies) in the manner of John Bagot Glubb (Glubb Pasha), and who have never come to grips with how that romantic noble-bedouin-and-vastness-of-the-Arabian-sky stuff is actually preventing an intelligent defense of one's own, far superior culture (for god's sake, Charles Johnston, the former British Ambassador to Jordan, married to Tatiana Bagration, even he, were he alive, would sensing the threat to European civlization, and of course to the high poetry of Pushkin, whom he translated, would have abandoned any of what might have remained of a pro-Arab bias based on that highly representative man, the "plucky little king" Hussein of Jordan.
This pro-Arab stuff has to stop. England, and the entire West, and the entire Infidel world, is being threatened. The usual crew of admirers of the Arabs, of Western hirelings of the Arabs, overlapping or supplemented by the irreducible proportion of the English rulng class that reflects a kind of acceptable antisemitism that is completely unacceptable, had either get with the program, or be driven from power just the way, in 1939-41, those who had formerly been apologists for Nazi Germany, those in any way associated with the Cliveden Set or Moseley, were disgraced and driven out.
Start with that "consultant" Alistair Crook. Why has he not been charged? Why has he not been the subject of investigative journalists? Who are his clients? Who gives him money? With whom does he associate? And what about all those others, those whom you can find by googling "Jihad Watch" and "financial dhimmitude"? All over the capitals of the West, those who are hirelings of Arabs and Muslims, now and in the past, need to be investigated and exposed, for one good reason.
And that reason is: the money will not stop. OPEC Arab and Muslim countries have, since 1973, taken in $10 trillion dollars. It is the largest transfer of wealth in human history. Hundreds of billions of that has gone into spreading Islam, into the various instruments of Jihad. The Arabs are not stupid. They support magazines sent free to libraries (see Andrew Kilgore). They support phony organizations whose very names are intended to wrap themselves in the local flag: see Eugene Bird, and the Council for the National Interest. They acquire public-relations advisers: see Fred Dutton, former Kennedy apparatchik, who was the first to sign up, decades ago, with the Saudis. See Orvis Communications. See, see, see.
Find them out. Write stories about them. See what Arab money has been doing, because it is going to continue to do it in the future.
Don't give a damn, you say, about Israel or about France or Italy, England or Spain, Germany or Denmark, Sweden or Norway, or for that matter India or Thailand or the Philippines or Singapore? Don't care?
Well, then, do you care about a sensible energy policy to head off possibly permanent, irreversible environmental damage? Does that concern you? Because if it does, remember that the same paid or volunteer agents of the Arabs, of the rich Arabs, whose wealth comes from fossil fuels, will also work to prevent measures being taken to diminish the reliance on such fuels. It has been happening all along. Why do you think there has never been a serious energy tax in this country, a tax on gasoline, a tax on the use of oil? Is it really just "Big Oil" or is it the Saudi lobby?
Start turning over some rocks. Lest we get to a point where we really do turn out to be "kuffar" -- ungrateful ones. Ungrateful to those who created, and left us our civilizational legacy. And ungrateful to whatever it was (as prayers are uttered by some To Whom It May Concern) that left us this, our giddy, lovable, vulnerable globe.
Ali said that while Sayeedi might be regarded as "very conservative," he also had a large following and could be regarded as "mainstream."...
By that standard Attila the Hun and Genghiz Khan were mainstream figures too. And no doubt better human beings that your average jihadi.
For there to be a "clash of Civilizations" you need two Civilizations.
So far, we have one, under attack by the anti-Civilizational movement of retrograde, anti-intellectual, anti-freedom, theocratic, terroristic Islam.
You have to define your terms, as diplomats, or you get nowhere.
The only "talk" that needs to be going on is:
-stop the terror, or die.
Maybe not diplomatic, but survival demands more than the "Dance of the Suicidal Pussyfooters".
A Tango into the Abyss that these types of delusional functionaries seem to prefer over existence itself.
OT - There was an interesting segment on the FOX news talk show DaySide yesterday. It covered the protests of African-American ministers against a mosque being built in their neighborhood.The minister interviewed said Islam is a dangerous religion that his group does not want in their neighborhood.To refute the minister there was a smooth talking spokesman from CAIR who noted that the governor of the state had distanced himself from the ministers. The minister being interviewed correctly noted that the governor was just being a politician. The audience listened attentively I did not detect sympathy for the Muslims.
Jesus Christ Supercop -> i stand corrected.
i guess i couldnt see the "not" through all the BBC waffle.
"On reflection, though, it's clear that the word "dhimmi" can be used in the modern sense in a non-abusive way..." -- the BBC website.
And what would that "non-abusive way" be for the BBC, exactly? Something like this perhaps? --
Muslim tax collector: Pay your jizyah!
Person of the Book: One moment, please.
Muslim tax collector: [assistant gives Person of the Book a couple of whipsmacks across the back] Pay your jizhah NOW!
Person of the Book: Yes, Massa! Here, Massa!
Muslim tax collector: [smiling] Good Dhimmi!
One of the Muslim working groups, set up, immediately after 7/7, to find ways of counteracting radical Islam among young men advised that a 'roadshow' of imams and scholars should tour the country and talk to them. Qadawi, in particular, was to be included among their number to win over the trust of these young potential terrorists. The tour doesn't seem to have gone beyond 'suggestion noted by the government' stage at the moment
Other speakers who, more out of ignorance than anything else, are regarded as moderating influences by the govt are listed at the following (would you believe)"Islamic pluralism" site:
http://www.islamicpluralism.org/articles/2006a/radicalroadshow.htm
Here's my take on the matter.
To be accurate "Modern usage" here should mean not someone who is subject to the pact but someone who, for whatever reason, acts as if he were.
I can't think this is what the BBC would wish to imply, which raises the question, "What do they - or rather whoever came up with that ruling - mean?
Whoever handed down that ruling is probably, in a vague and unthought-out way, looking for some "middle ground". I suggest it s no more clearly thought out than that.
The moderators will, of course, be capable of discerning what is beyond the pale and what isn't or the BBC wouldn't have employed them, would it? .. would it?
In practice it would probably mean it would be OK for someone who is excessively accomodating to "Islamic extremists" to have the label pinned on them but not OK for someone who is appropriately welcoming to "mainstream" (*cough*) Islamic opinion to be labelled as such.
From the POV of the MSM that is reasonable. But it looks more than a little inadequate and misconceived beside the high-level textual criticism and historical analysis one encounters here.
OT - There was an interesting segment on the
FOX news talk show DaySide yesterday. It covered the protests of African-American ministers against a mosque being built in their neighborhood.The minister interviewed said Islam is a dangerous religion that his group does not want in their neighborhood.To refute the minister there was a smooth talking spokesman from CAIR who noted that the governor of the state had distanced himself from the ministers. The minister being interviewed correctly noted that the governor was just being a politician. The audience listened attentively I did not detect sympathy for the Muslims.
Posted by: Roxane at July 13, 2006 01:03 PM
I was trying to find the article, but I remember reading it (I didn't see it on Fox). A woman in the neighborhood said she didn't have a problem with it. She said that the kids need religion and it didn't matter if that religion was islam. I was going to post the comment here, but can't locate it at this moment. If someone else saw it, maybe they can refresh my aging memory.
OT - There was an interesting segment on the
FOX news talk show DaySide yesterday. It covered the protests of African-American ministers against a mosque being built in their neighborhood.The minister interviewed said Islam is a dangerous religion that his group does not want in their neighborhood.To refute the minister there was a smooth talking spokesman from CAIR who noted that the governor of the state had distanced himself from the ministers. The minister being interviewed correctly noted that the governor was just being a politician. The audience listened attentively I did not detect sympathy for the Muslims.
Posted by: Roxane at July 13, 2006 01:03 PM
I was trying to find the article, but I remember reading it (I didn't see it on Fox). A woman in the neighborhood said she didn't have a problem with it. She said that the kids need religion and it didn't matter if that religion was islam. I was going to post the comment here, but can't locate it at this moment. If someone else saw it, maybe they can refresh my aging memory.
Now I know why some comments are posted twice. Not understanding the lag time, we click the Post button again. The result is a double post. I'll try and have more patience, which is fast running out for muslims the world over.
With no more Commies to turncoat to, these Cambridge and Oxford alums had to have somebody to whom they could sell England out.
May I introduce you to Islam?
Person of the Book: Yes, Massa! Here, Massa!
TV, I am deeply offended and humiliated by that little piece o’ Sambo Comedy you just posted. Apologize immediately; as I type these words I eye the phone to pick up and dial 1-888-HEY-HOOP.
Man, when you see him brandishing joe post on Tim Russert then you’ll be sorry, especially when a small army of scowling Mujahadeen come to kick joe antennas in all crumpled like.
Turkey purges sexist dictionary proverbs
Ummah News Links
The government said that they will never talk to terrorists... Their word means nothing, they will probably say that they are not doing deals with Al Qaeda, when at this moment the foreign office is probably doing just that.