Once again, when we or any non-Muslims say something like this, we're racists, xenophobes, Islamophobes, and so forth. The Quilliam Foundation is not without its issues (especially with regard to its co-director Ed Husain), but it will be interesting to see what response this report generates without the usual charges of Islamophobia to be issued as a red herring. Still, a robust and meaningful response is all too likely wishful thinking until proven otherwise.
"Mainstream Islamic organisations 'share al-Qaeda ideology'," by Duncan Gardham for the Telegraph, August 5 (thanks to Twostellas):
The report, sent to the government's Office for Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT), was not intended for publication but has now been leaked on the internet.
Entitled "Preventing terrorism, where next for Britain?" it says the ideology of non-violent Islamists is "broadly the same as that of violent Islamists" adding "they disagree only on tactics."
A little something we like to call Stealth Jihad.
It produces a list of those it believes are "non-violent Islamists" and adds: "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."
The document adds that if the government engages with such groups "it risks empowering proponents of the ideology, if not the methodology, that is behind terrorism."
Quilliam argues that the government needs to move beyond tackling those who advocate violent extremism to target those that espouse similar but non-violent views.
Their views are thought to hold sway as the Coalition conducts a major review of the government's Prevent counter-terrorism strategy.
A Home Office spokesman said the report had not been solicited but added: "We believe the Prevent programme isn't working as effectively as it could and want a strategy that is effective and properly focused - that is why we are reviewing it."
The list sent to the OSCT includes a unit within Scotland Yard called the Muslim Contact Unit and another independent group designed to improve the relationship between the police and the Muslim community called the Muslim Safety Forum.
It also includes the Muslim Council of Britain, one of the main groups representing Muslims in Britain, and its rival the Muslim Association of Britain.
Other groups on the list are the Islamic Human Rights Commission, the Federation of Student Islamic Societies and the Cordoba Foundation.
Quilliam also singles out the Islam Channel, a satellite TV channel which has been the subject of one of their reports.
Among the mosques identified are Finsbury Park mosque in North London, formerly run by the extremist preacher Abu Hamza but now under new management, along with East London Mosque and Birmingham Central mosque.
Politicians described as "Islamist backed" include Salma Yaqoob, leader of the Respect Party, and the former Respect MP George Galloway....
"..but it will be interesting to see what response this report generates without the usual charges of Islamophobia.." or ...Islamonausea!
(video)
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/04/are-you-islamophobe.html
A bit off-topic, but I hope this is useful.
There is a special on FOX News tonight on honor killing, focusing on the Amina and Sarah Said case, and featuring Ayaan Hirsi Ali. It's airing at 10pm ET, and will probably be rerun several times.
Good to see them covering this.
Do you think the US State Department or Department of Defense will take this into account the next time they ask CAIR for advice on how to deal with Muslims? nahhh. Too obvious.
If we define good Christians, and good Jews as those who adhere to the teachings of the Gospel and the Bible respectively, then good Moslems are those who follow the teachings of the Quran. Now if the teachings of the Quran call for violence against non-Moslems, then “good” Moslems have no choice but to become terrorists. The following are only few of the Quranic verses that call for violence against non-Moslems: Al Baqara 2(244), Al-Nisa’4(76,77,84,89), Al-Anfal 8(12,39), Al-Tawba 9:(5,14,29), 9(88,112,123), 47(4). All call to fight non-Moslems until all religion is that of Allah, or fight in Allah’s cause (Jihad), or to kill them wherever you find them until they pay Gezya submissively, which is a specially designed humiliating tax used only against non-Moslems. These verses are also augmented by many similar instructions in the Hadiths like: In Bukhari V4B53N386: “We are ordered to fight you until you submit to Islam or pay Gezya with submission”, or in Muslim, C9B1N31: “I have been commanded to fight people until they say no God but Allah, and Mohammad is his only messenger”. It is no wonder that many Islamic militant organizations were specifically established to implement the verses that call for violence against the non-Moslems like: Muslim militants, Muslim terrorists, Islamic terrorists, Islamic radicals, Al-Jihad, Islamic militants, Islamic fanatics, Al-Qaeda, and Taliban. No other religion has so many organizations that call for violence against the other as Islam, which explains the frequent Moslem attacks on non-Moslems everywhere in the world.
The 1982 Mecca Islamic summit Conference confirmed the above when they declared that Jihad is a duty of all Moslems where ever they are.
Most Moslem apologists do not quote the above verses, but rather use few verses that were “inspired” much earlier like Al-Baqara (2:256), Al-Kahf (18:29) and Al-Kafirun (109:6), which call for tolerance of other religions. These are the few verses that the Moslem apologists keep pumping into the ears of the Western audience, while ignoring the other verses that call for violence giving the impression that the Quranic verses do not encourage anything except peaceful coexistence with non-Moslems! The fact remains though, that these verses that call for peaceful coexistence were “inspired” much earlier when the Moslems were weak and few, but as they became stronger these verses of tolerance were later abrogated by the above verses that call for violence, as many Islamic prominent scholars and historians can confirm, like Al- Suyuti and Al-Qurtubi. This should explain the declarations of many of al-Qaeda leaders like Abu Misab al-Zarqawi in Iraq who confirmed that “we are only obeying the Quranic verses that demand the practice of violence against non-Moslems, and that verses for violence have abrogated all verses that call for tolerance”. This attitude explains all those unprovoked attacks against non-Moslems all over the world or even against Moslems that oppose violence. It should further explain the burning of churches in many countries in the world, like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria and others. Most non speaking Arabic Moslems are not told the truth about violence; actually they are deceived in many instances when it comes to translation of the Quran, especially when the Quran contradicts simple science, history and general logic. They are taught that Islam is the religion of peace and mercy and nothing is unveiled about the so many verses that call for violence against the other. In science for instance, look up Al-Azhar website or the Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs (the highest Moslem authority on earth) website the Quranic Arabic verse 23:14, then look at the English translation right under it, to find out that the “many creators” stated in the original Arabic verse is translated to the “one unique creator”, as it would be very embarrassing to tell the truth! A Moslem cannot with all honesty deny the existence of these verses that call for violence, as anyone can verify their existence in the Quran. If asked what could a Moslem say in defending “the peaceful Nature” of the Quran with the presence of violent Quranic verses? Could he say that he will only follow those abrogated verses that call for tolerance? Will he say: “Trust me I have no intention to implement those verses that call for violence”, as some Moslems might claim! Should the world peace and security depend on the mood of a Moslem? What happens if he later changes his mind? Do people accept the presence of racist clauses in the “democratic” constitution. because the government promised not to implement them? Would such a step bring peace and security to those concerned, or should the government delete these verses from the constitution?
Does this mean that all Moslems are terrorists? Of course not as most of them abhor and condemn publicly all perpetrated violence against non-Moslems, but with their entire adherence to the daily prayers notwithstanding, they are not considered good Moslems, because they are not practicing all the obvious instructions of the Quran. Strangely they do not support the removal of these verses that call for violence, because they would not dare to venture into changing the “words of God”. The Quran says that all verses in the Quran will remain intact until the end of times. What could be done?
All Moslems, including myself (an ex-Moslem), that oppose violence even if it was emphasized repeatedly in the Quran have the immediate and urgent duty to demand from all Islamic authorities, especially in Saudi Arabia, Al-Azhar in Egypt and from all future international Islamic conferences to espouse firmly a resolution that abrogate in effect all Quranic verses that call for violence and consider them as historical needed contingencies of the past and no longer valid for the present. It takes a lot of courage to do that since the Islamic authority will become a target for most Moslems who are programmed to resist any change. Many Moslems have the means to discredit, fight and even demand death for anyone that call for such a change, which means again that the problem is not with Moslems but with Islam itself. No one can accuse me of being a racist, because I am an ex-Moslem, but we all have to admit that Islamic violence will remain active until the verses in the Quran that call for violence are totally abrogated.
We all have to admit that Islamic violence will remain active until the verses in the Quran that call for violence are totally abrogated.
...............
Very true, Seif Turki—and, as the Qur'an is considered the uncreated word of Allah, there is now no possible mechanism for this.
Glad you were able to turn away from Islam. I'm sure many people here would be interested in hearing your story.
I sure wish you could convince the pentagon, the president, the news media, the armed forces, and the useful idiots in academia of the facts you presented in your comment. Those who purport to lead and defend this country have chosen to willfully deny the obvious facts, as if denial will transform the bitter and dangerous truth into something more palatable. Sooner or later, the truth must be faced and addressed and the longer we wait, the harder it will be.
Our leaders became gutless cowards when they signed us up for diversity and multiculturalism without our consent or approval. The self-censorship of political correctness has turned us into wimps who either worship at the altar of relativism and believe in nothing or resort to whispered conversations and unexpressed frustration at the absolute asininity of today's culture of victimhood, identity politics, special interest minority groups, unexpressed truths, denial of reality, and the ubiquitous cries of 'my feelings were hurt'. It has truly reached the point of total absurdity.
I grew up in the most 'diverse' nation on earth with fellow Americans whose parents or grandparents might have come from China, Japan, Europe, Africa, South America, Mexico, or anywhere. So I was puzzled when I first heard politicians, pundits, and college professors lecturing Americans on the necessity and virtues of 'diversity' and I remember thinking to myself, how could we get any more diverse? Then it began to sink in; 'diversity' meant much more than people of all ethnicities, nationalities, religions, races. It meant that everyone except white heterosexuals were in a special class, a 'minority', and therefore entitled to special considerations and privileges. I have watched my country in slow decline ever since the fascination or obsession with 'diversity' began and now we have another special minority group to contend with---muslims. White people comprise less than 10% of the global population so tell me, who is really a 'minority'?
We have lies, damned lies, and Statistics.
For what they are worth some new non-official statistics have just been presented to the Danish public by a liberal think-tank.
They show us that the average ethnic Dane cost the community One Fifth of what it takes to maintain a non-western immigrant.
Western immigrants cost nothing: au contraire, they give to the community.
Also from the Telegraph in London
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/7929660/Our-dangerous-dalliance-with-radical-Islam.html
From the Mail on Saturday
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1301003/Special-investigation-How-predatory-gangs-force-middle-class-girls-sex-trade.html
The shame about the Daily Mail story is that they continue to use the word "ASIAN" as opposed to "moslem"
The writer is SUE REID
Please use the Feedback form to correct them
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/feedback.html
If possible can you also mention the "Sikh 4 a week" event which moslems use to pretend they are Sikhs at the week long college Freshers week to convert Sikh girls to islam.
http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&q=sikh+4+a+week&aq=0&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=sikh+4&gs_rfai=&fp=a53e9ae07f1cc2a8
Why do I suspect that sometime in the coming week, the British government will repudiate the findings of the OSCT report?
This report is more than enough for the UK govt to realise what they are up against where islam is concerned.
Provided they want to realise it.
Most politicians are happy to believe all the ours-is-a-peaceful-religion nonsense that comes from the muslim community.
Read the full report online:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/34834977/Secret-Quilliam-Memo-to-government
Or, download the PDF:
http://www.pentagramz.info/quilliam.pdf
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I am sure I speak for others when I say I look forward to hearing more from you in the future.
betcha
Thanks for providing the link, Dave. This is the sort of thing that JIhad Watch ought to be posting and analysing - not news clippings relating to it and other important reports. Funny, if you look at what Husain has written in this report - and consider its influence on government - that Robert Spencer doesn't try to accommodate this with his accusation that Husain is a taqiyya-monger. An inconsistent position just skimmed over.
Dlp-- point taken. And there may well be a followup posting to this, so please don't take us to be willfully playing fast and loose with this.
That said, I -- and I posted this, not Robert -- did not overlook the matter of Ed Husain and the trustworthiness of the Quilliam Foundation. In my opening paragraph above, I provided a link to prior coverage and stated:
Our position is not inconsistent, but rather, we report on the inconsistencies involving Quilliam that warrant a certain amount of reservation.
The global jihad goal is to make the whole world subject to Sharia law. Sharia law already claims worldwide jurisdiction (with enforcement by numbers and jihad), gives privilege to Muslims and allows favor over and plunder, subjugation, slavery,and even murdering of non-Muslims. This jihad is being done more violently in oil-rich countries of Africa, where Arab Muslims are engaged in genocide and (their historically-aligned) slavery of Blacks. It is being done more subversively in more technologically unified countries. It has been said that terrorism is just the tactic. Well, so is President Obama's Islamic (Sharia-friendly) socialistic changes to our government's agencies. So is "birth tourism." So is financial jihad of buying up all distressed properties caused by oil price hikes, etc., etc., etc.