How enlightened, how marvelously diverse, to appoint a fox to guard the henhouse. "'Hardcore' Islamist gets top anti-terror post at Home Office," by Martin Bright for TheJC.com, November 5 (thanks to Kris):
A "hardcore" Islamist has been given a key Home Office job to tackle terrorism and divert fellow Muslims from the path of violence.The appointment of Asim Hafeez as head of intervention at the Office of Security and Counter-Terrorism has caused serious concern among more moderate Muslim advisers across Whitehall. It is seen as a sign of a shift in the government's policy on radical Islam away from engagement with more moderate groups. There is a sharp divide of opinion within government about whether ministers should engage with Muslims at risk of radicalisation or concentrate on forging links with moderates.
Mr Hafeez was described by one fellow adviser as "hardcore Salafi". Salafism is a strictly puritanical branch of Islam, often associated with Saudi Arabia. It does not promote violence, but does urge the creation of an Islamic state....
Oh, is that all!
The UK government have already destroyed our country with mass immigration which they are now trying to justify since a government whistle-blower revealed that it was Labour's policy all along to create a diverse society by social engineering strategies. Asim Hafeez should do well in the Home Office with all the Muslim appeasers, Marxists and nation saboteurs. The British people however will not succumb to Islamism without a fight and opposition to Muslims is growing at a rapid rate thanks mainly due to unacceptable numbers of casualties in Afghanistan and widely reported incidents such as the Fort Hood massacre.
As soon as the Muslims in the UK decide they are strong enough...they will begin attacking...it is their plan...
Sorry but the evidence needs to be more robust than this if we are to claim with credibility that Hafeez is a "hardcore Islamist". Are we just to take the word of an unnamed adviser or a journalist? If so, why this adviser - whose name we know not - and why this journalist? It seems that JW is keen to support any claim of Islamist subversion without checking the facts and evidence. This can only be damaging to JW's reputation, surely.
The people of Britain better quit letting history ignoramuses run their govt. and start studying Islam's history of 1400 years of horror to see what's in store for them if they don't reverse mass Muslim immigration. Tell them about the free site by the Historyscoper at http://go.to/islamhistory
dip
I understand your point, that we don't want to appear like we are frothing at the mouth in regards to espousing solutions to the problem of Islamization. I've been in non-stop debates since Friday on youtube ... and yes you do have to be gentle to get people to listen to you, in order to hear you out. I would like to say though, that making Islam illegal in reference to combating Islamization does have historical merit, both in eastern, and western European history. I'd referance Bulgaria, and Spain off the top of my head. From a logical perspective banning Islam should be on the plate in regards to a solution, if only due to it being an effective, and proven method historically. In addition devout Muslims by the letter of Islamic law are not allowed to live in countries where they can not practice openly, and freely, thus this can be used to our advantage. It might sound irrational, but this approach is not without merrit, just saying.
Sorry for the possible confusion, but the above statement was in regards to a statement on dip's profile.
This is why I left Britain...
Last time England denied there was a threat from Nazism it cost them their empire. What will be left this time around?
ethoman
Firstly, you don't address the very basic point: the lack of evidence for Hafeez being a "hardcore Islamist" - and instead the eager willingness to accept this proposition - does not do JW's reputation for impartiality and its credibility any good whatsoever. If we are to take Islamist subversion seriously - and I think we should - then we need more robust grounds on which to launch a counter-offensive. Robert is doing the cause a great injustice by forfeiting a critical eye on claims which incriminate Muslims for the sake of highlighting the perils of Islam.
Secondly, your notion to ban Islam is pure nonsense. From a liberal, human rights point of view - which you ought to take if you are against the jihad - it smacks of authoritarianism, and from a political point of view it is totally unworkable. I think you lack the slightest idea of how politics actually works.
Grateful to hear more on Hafeez from Robert or anyone else. Because I value building a proper case before we make judgement.