U.K. moves toward “broader definition of extremism,” including the advocacy of Sharia law

There is progress here in the recognition that putatively non-violent “extremist” groups are dealing in the same poison as openly violent ones, and both share the same supremacist, totalitarian agenda to impose Sharia, to destroy and erase Western civil society, culture, and values, and to subjugate women and all non-Muslims.

The purpose of jihad in all its forms is the imposition of Sharia law, which would be equally intolerable by whichever means it were to be achieved. “PM wins row with Nick Clegg over crackdown on Muslim extremists,” from the Guardian, June 4 (thanks to Gerard):

David Cameron will emerge as the victor from a bitter cabinet battle over multiculturalism this week as the government unveils a hardline approach to tackling Islamist extremism.

Home Office sources say that Cameron has quashed Nick Clegg’s argument for a more tolerant attitude to Muslim groups by insisting on a strategy centred upon the notion that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

The shift in approach will be outlined when the government’s counter-terrorism strategy is unveiled by the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday. Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to “reflect British mainstream values”.

A Home Office source said: “There will be a direct challenge to these [non-violent] groups.”

The Prevent review has been delayed for five months because of disagreements within the coalition cabinet. In his view that engaging with non-violent extremists can be used as a bulwark against violent extremists, Clegg has been joined by the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, the Tory chairman, Baroness Warsi, and others including Charles Farr, the head of the office of security and extremism. They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.

All they would be combating is violence, not “extremism,” echoing the uselessness of a war on “terror.” Clegg appears to have been taken in by a deliberate shell game designed to keep the ideology out of consideration.

Warsi, who sits on the cabinet subcommittee dealing with integration, is understood to disagree strongly with the new direction of Prevent but has been dissuaded from publicly criticising the strategy.

Among those supporting the prime minister on a crackdown on Muslim groups was the education secretary, Michael Gove, and Lord Carlile, who is in charge of the Prevent review.

Ostensibly the strategy echoes Cameron’s contentious speech to an international counter-terrorism conference in Munich last February when he suggested that “state multiculturalism” had failed.

That moment finally came after a decade of the Labour Party’s quiet, but deliberate campaign to transform Britain into a “truly multicultural society.”

During the speech the Tory leader categorised those who espoused an ideology of Islamic extremism alongside those who supported violence. He said: “Move along the spectrum, and you find people who may reject violence, but who accept various parts of the extremist world view, including real hostility towards western democracy and liberal values.”

A Home Office source said: “When a prime minister states something so unequivocally, it is unlikely they will be allowed to deviate from that.”…

U.K.: Home Secretary warns universities have been "complacent" about jihadist indoctrination
What could possibly go wrong? U.K. to release scores of "high risk extremists"
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint

Comments

  1. says

    But the problem remains

    Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call, under the threat of expulsion, to clean up their communities of extremism. They even went further and made 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, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. 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(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK or the West, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

  2. says

    Still a very positive step and in the right direction, but I hope the government watches what is going on and not fall for the Taqqiya.

  3. says

    There is a TVO video in the archive where a CAIR-canada member was crusading for Shariah Law in canada and she claimed that it was unfair to think that Shariah would not be successful in xcanada just because it has never worked in any islamic/Muslim run area in 1400 years.
    Dr.Sheema khan from CAIR was actually appointed to sit on a Board in canada that was equal to the ACLU for monitoring Rights and equality in canada,this gave me a real laugh until I thouth it through and saw how this was Taqqiyah to sneak in the foundation for a islamic State in canada and then to make canada fully islmic once the numbers gave Muslims the power to take over Government and abolish the Courts and Charter of Rights.
    BTW
    Ever since CAIR was tied to terrorism funding via the HLF trial that exposed a Hamas link….Dr.Sheema Khan has jumped ship with CAIR and now pushes her Book and tries to distance herself from her crusade for Shariah Law in canada and her employment at CAIR during the Terrorism funding .
    Truely amazing that Mark Styen and Ezra Levant get hounded and attacked by a Human Rights Commission for repeating things said or displayed by Muslims outside of canada….BUT when a Muslim from CAIR had ties to Hamas and terrorism funding that they have yet to denouce, the RCMP and Government ignore this as if it’s a Bigotry of Lower-Expectations to accept that Muslims will never be able to live by the same Moral and Legal codes as non-Muslims.

    So when the Jihad suicide-bombers slaughter 1000’s on civilians in canada we will here how they wern’t True-Muslims, but if they are caught before the slaughter it is “racial-profiling” and “islamophobic” to accuse any Muslim of not being a True peaceful follower of Muhammed and Islam.
    BTW
    The new female at CAIR-canada that is the mouth-piece for them is now excusing-away the honour killings of Muslim females by the banner of “Domestic violence” as if Shariah Law had nothing to do with the vast majority of murders to muslim females by muslim males….sure….evrey cultural and faith has this problem so lets group all the males in canada as responsible for what Muslim males do.
    But that would mean that 3’500’000’000 males on earth must approve of pedophilia just because muhammed did when he raped a 9 year old girl whe nhe was in his 50’s .

  4. says

    The sad thing about the Al Guardian story is the comments from the lefty/liberals.

    They clearly either do not know or do not remember what happened the last time (in Iran in 1979) when the left/liberals sided with the islamists.

  5. says

    let’s hope Cameron step up into becoming increasingly Churchillian as a real Conservative, in finally saving the UK, from the iron grip of evil Islamic-Western Left Nazis! And to stop listening to his fake hero, Caliph Hussein Obama, the suspected Muslim Brotherhood Trojan horse!

  6. says

    This is a real start… But it is only a start.
    One of the next steps could be to truely seperate state and religion by law in such a way that anyone in government must be free of any religious connections and/or affiliations, and that all laws, bills etc should be considered in the light of what longterm implications these would have on preservation of westeren values, culture and lifestyle. This would not take away anybodys freedom to pratice any form of belief system in the private or puplic sphere but would help safeguard all of us against any religius organisation seeking to gain and exercise political influence. There would alo be a urgent need for the goverment to clearly define westeren values if they have not already done so since the islamic organisations most certantly will be aggressively testing these laws in the UK courts and EU as soon as they take effect.

  7. says

    banning shariah law from government i dont really care im ok with that

    but banning people from supporting shariah law is a act of war against the muslim

    and if it comes down to that there will be war
    and i will be standing with my muslim brothers fighting the government

  8. says

    Mieux vaut tard que jamis!

    And nomadk98, be careful what you wish for; you may be very disappointed with Islamic heaven.

  9. says

    My guess is that the UK’s expanded definitions of “extremism” will be used to punish Christians who call homosexuality sinful and refuse to countenance homosexual marriage while the courts and enforcement agencies will remain as craven as ever towards Muslim extremism.

  10. says

    It’s a start but it’s not good enough. They must ban any further muslim immigration and deport and or repatriate any muslim who even thinks or whispers anything that could be considered seditious. And they could also re-install all the cameras that are necessary to monitor the colonists in their conclaves. That’s what I would call a significant and strong beginning.

  11. says

    @ nomodo98….It’s YOUR “religion”hmmmmm political ideology that is attacking everyone regardless of gender or age. Are you so brainwashed that you cannot see that islam is the problem, NOT the solution? Islam’s doctrines are committed to converting, subduing or killing all non-muslims/ kuffar so that islam may rule through brutal sharia law. How can you defend a violent , murdering, raping & pillaging aggressor ? Oh , I forgot you’re a “muslim”.
    Well prepare yourself for the backlash, because it’s coming and we will NOT tolerate the imposition of your brutal political ideology on our cultured and compassionate values. Mark my words.

  12. says

    Supplementary:

    “Theresa May and Michael Gove at war over crackdown on home-grown terror”

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394384/Theresa-May-Michael-Gove-war-crackdown-home-grown-terror.html#ixzz1ORTnreuD

    Let’s see if anything of practical consequence comes from this to reduce the real Islamic threat to British people from jihad and from sharia.

    No doubt PM Cameron will allow himself to be politically guided and duped in all this by Islamic interests.

    A crucial missing element from this ‘policy’ is a ban on Islamic immigration into Britain; instead Cameron advocates further such immigration from Turkey (supported by Cameron for E.U. entry) and from North Africa, wrongly assuming that such Islamic immigrants are politically benign.

  13. says

    “They argue it is crucial to maintain a distinction between violent and non-violent extremism and that it is necessary to engage rather than alienate.”

    But if you deport them it saves you the trouble of haveing to engage them.

    They should choose to engage rather then alienate only if their police, military and intelligence services are incapable of handling thugs and extremists.

    Social and economic alienation should still be sticks used against those who wish to refuse to become a part of the nation in which they choose to live.

  14. says

    Interesting to watch “Downton Abbey” and see what the British swapped for the multicultural, sharia-pushing, crowded mess they have now.
    There seemed to be plenty of “diversity” in the Abbey; diversity of character, if not skin colour.

  15. says

    Finally some good news in the counter-Islamic revolution and it’s a step in the right direction.

    Once the UK/Europe earnestly starts fighting back against Islam and Sharia Law, we’ll see muslims become even more aggressive and begin their true jihad. That in turn will trigger the expulsion of muslims from Europe, as has happened before in history.

    Of course it won’t happen overnight, it’ll be a painfully slow process, but so long as they don’t cower again for fear of being ‘islamophobic’ or racist, then eventually the West will shake off this plague like a dog getting rid of fleas.

    The only thing I hope for, once the West gets rid of Islam (and I’m almost certain it will), is that they don’t forget about the other countries living daily with this constant menace, like Iran, India, Egypt and many other places and help them to eliminate Islam also.

    In fact Islam should not be allowed to exist anywhere in the world-it is antithetical to all the values we hold dear like equality for women/gays/minorities, freedom of speech/expression/assembly/worship, democracy, human rights, etc. Islam is a fascist totalitarian, supremacist ideology very much like Nazism, the only real difference being they have a god.

    I think once our stealth-muslim president is ousted in 2012 and replaced with a true patriot (republican), America will very likely take the lead again in this civilizational war.

  16. says

    @ nomado98

    As long as you support islam you support the murders of true innocents, women & children. Your “religion” calls for the murder of non-muslims if they reject islam. Your “religion” only considers muslims to be innocent, all others are fair game. If you support islam, you support the murders of women & children, or innocent civilians.

    It is your choice to defend islam but have you really made an informed choice or just been brainwashed into your family’s choice just like their conquered ancestors?

  17. says

    Duh! Remember the IRA’s “Officials” and “Provos”? Same thing. UK muslim leaders are working for the destruction of the UK, in preparation for creation of a caliphate province. To be a muslim in the West is to be inherently treasonous.

  18. says

    nomad098‘s comments, if genuine, show yet another example of a “Muslim” who has little or no faith in “religion” as such, but is nonetheless willing to defend and even fight for Islam due to the benefits to him in maintaining Islam, and the costs to him resulting from a weakened Islam. An “Islam” devoid of sharia–with jihad being an aspect of sharia–is a weak and empty shell; it would dwindle to insignificance within a few generations. nomad098 can’t let that happen.

    nomad098’s comments also illustrate the difference between the modern western concept of a religion, and the Islamic concept of deen. A deen is, among other things, a system of obedience that involves group loyalty. An aspect of the Islamic deen is the notion of loyalty and enmity
    http://salafiyyah-jadeedah.tripod.com/wala_wal_bara/Alee_Imran.htm

    nomad098 has thoroughly identified himself with the ummah and the Islamic deen. In my opinion, someone like nomad098 is possibly a traitor (he would only have to commit some act in line with what he is talking about in his above comments). He supports sharia and is willing to fight for it. He is therefore dangerous and, if he lives in a Western country, truly has no business living there.

  19. says

    I think that copies of the following items that recently appeared here at jihadwatch, should be sent to the Prime Minister of the UK, and to the Home Secretary Theresa May, and to Michael Gove, and to Lord Carlile, and to MP Patrick Mercer (who, in the past, has shown glimmerings of resistance to Islam).

    The open statements of two different Mohammedan gang bosses – aka ‘clerics’ – as to what they deem it entirely desirable for their fellow Mohammedans to do to non-Muslims, should they (the Mohammedans) have the opportunity.

    Slave raiding, forced conversion, and the imposition of an out-and-out mafia-style protection racket.

    Here is cleric # 1, proposing that the custom of the razzia be reinstated, and that Muslims should go a-raiding, to take the kuffar women and children as slaves, and sell them for profit. He’s positively rhapsodising over the vision he’s conjuring up, of jihad raiders with their ‘bag’ of Infidel women and children who can be sold, and how much money could be made (presumably from selling the captives to other Muslims).

    http://frontpagemag.com/2011/05/23/solving-poverty-the-islamic-way/?utm_source=FrontPage+Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=38639add4c-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN

    ‘Solving Poverty ” The Islamic Way’

    ‘A well known Islamic leader in Egypt by the name of Abu Ishak Al Huweini, who often appears on Egyptian TV, has recently said the following in Arabic and I have translated it into English:

    “We are at a time of Jihad; Jihad for the sake of Allah is a pleasure, a true pleasure. Mohammed’s followers used to compete to do it.

    “The reason we are poor now is because we have abandoned jihad.

    “If only we can conduct a jihadist invasion at least once a year or if possible twice or three times, then many people on Earth would become Muslims.

    {In your dreams, you b*st*rd! I suggest you take a plane to Beijing or Shanghai and attempt your little jihad razzia there, mate. You’ll finish up as a smear on the pavement; or more likely they’ll take you apart and use you for spare parts. – dda}.

    “And if anyone prevents our dawa or stands in our way, then we must kill them or take as hostage and confiscate their wealth, women and children.

    “Such battles will fill the pockets of the Mujahid who can return home with 3 or 4 slaves, 3 or 4 women and 3 or 4 children.

    {Observe, everyone, that to this evil creep, this thoroughly Quranically-minded Mohammedan, the women and children of non-Muslims are merely objects, things, like goats or sheep, to be seized, to be used, to be abused, to be sold for profit – HIS profit, the Muslims’ profit. This is the mind of a sociopath, devoid of empathy and imagination. Islam has eaten his soul. – dda}.

    “This can be a profitable business if you multiply each head by 300 or 400 dirham.

    “This can be like financial shelter whereby a jihadist, in time of financial need, can always sell one of these heads (meaning slavery).

    “No one can make that much money in one deal (from hard work) even if a Muslim goes to the West to work or do trade. In time of need, that is a good resource for profit.”

    And now here is Egyptian cleric #2, expounding on the process of ‘inviting’ people to join the Mob. If they don’t join the gang, you ‘invite’ them to pay the jizya, or ‘protection’ money; and if they refuse that, you attack them with a view to killing or enslaving them and taking all their stuff.

    http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/06/egyptian-cleric-we-ask-non-muslims-to-convert-but-if-they-dont-convert-or-pay-jizya-we-fight-them.html

    “Egyptian cleric: We ask non-Muslims to convert, but if they don’t convert or pay jizya, we fight them”

    http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5337.htm

    ‘Egyptian Cleric Mazen Al-Sarsawi: We Ask a Person Nicely to Convert, But If He Refuses and Does Not Pay the Jizya Tax, We Fight Him’.

    Following are excerpts from a religious program featuring Egyptian cleric Mazen Al-Sarsawi, which aired on Nour Al-Khaleejiah TV on January 3, 2011….’.

    First, we ask a person nicely to convert. If he does – it’s over. When the mujahideen fight a country, they say to its people: ‘Convert to Islam. That’s our only demand. We don’t want anything else from you – we don’t want your money or your country. All we want is for you to enter Paradise with us.’ Is there anything more lofty than this? […]

    “Do they kill the infidels if they refuse to convert? No, they don’t. The Muslims say to them: ‘Let’s remain friends. You pay us the jizya poll tax, and we will make sure you are safe. We could easily fight you and take over your country, so you are better off paying the jizya, and we will protect you.’ […]

    {That is not MY definition of ‘friendship’…paying some evil bastard a lot of money so that he may graciously deign not to rob me of everything I own including my virtue and my life and my children…SPIT. – dda}.

    “It is said: ‘If they refuse to pay, seek Allah’s help and fight them.’ You tell them to convert – they refuse. You tell them to pay the jizya – they refuse. That means they have evil intentions. Fine, we will fight them.”

    This thug needs his backside kicked, from here to kingdom come.

    And so do all the other thugs who think exactly as he does.

    This ain’t a religion, unless one wants to define the Mafia or the Triads as a religion. At bottom, when one gets right down to the nitty gritty, it’s nothing more than a jumped-up outlaw gang, an organised crime ‘family’.

  20. says

    nomado98 is probably very young. That means he can fall on either side when he grows up. Apparently humanism is at work within him and the collectivist reflex is challenged by humanism. I find that a positive sign. Naturally, in an ideal world we would not have tens of millions of these undemocratic people within our democratic societies. But nomado98: I think you are smart and fair and will see the problems inherent in your philosophy. I would not tell my family of my doubts unless sharia law has been completely banned from democratic societies. Because only then are YOU safe. And we too.

    The moment Cameron abolishes sharia courts is the moments I believed him. Till then he is a liar.

  21. says

    I will vote for any politician who seriously promises:

    1. to rid my country of any trace of Sharia law
    2. to rid my country of any one who proposes Sharia law for my country
    3. to silence (through threat of imprisonment or fines) any one who proposes Sharia law, even if that person is a native of the country
    4. any of the above

  22. says

    This is half a cup of deterrence. And the definition of “extremists” or “extremism” can include individuals and organizations who advocate genuine freedom: individual rights, the sanctity of property and privacy, and the rule of (objective) law. So, the question is: Who will fill the cup to the brim?

    “Central to the Prevent strategy is a broader definition of extremism that will be extended beyond groups condoning violence to those considered non-violent but whose views, such as the advocacy of sharia law, fail to “reflect British mainstream values'”.

    What are those “mainstream values”? What are “Western civil society, culture, and values”? Aren’t all these half-erased in Britain already? What JH reports here seems like a gaggle of politicians groping their way through a pea-soup fog trying not to step off the Thames embankment into the river. There are “non-violent” means of “extremism” and “non-violent” means of “extremism.” Isn’t Sharia already a fact in Britain? Does the government intend to delegitimize all those Muslim courts? Will it defend freedom of speech, or jail more Koran burners? Will it apprehend and prosecute honor-killers, and Muslim rape gangs? Will it deport Muslim clerics who call for violent and non-violent jihad? Will it remove Muslim clerics and rank-and-file from the welfare rolls, especially those with multiple wives? If the government and the press are afraid to identify Muslims, and use the euphemism of “Asians,” what is the point of this exercise?

    Nothing of what is described in this article strikes me as a serious offensive against the Islamic conquest of Britain. It looks pitiful and futile, and “Prevent” can be turned against anyone advocating genuine freedom and an end to dhimmitude.

  23. says

    Anything that Warsi supports is anti-British. The last thing Camoron wants, or needs, is Warsi on his side. So, David – anything that Warsi and her fellow conspirators want – go against it, and you will be supporting heritage, ethnic Brits!

  24. says

    The Trojan horse of Islam is not only in the U.K but in every European country,in Africa,the Russias,Australia and of course America and Canada,so the sooner we all wake up to this creeping Allah cancer the better our survival will be,start mass deportations now before there is blood on the streets.

  25. says

    Kudo to David Cameron for succeeding in this important first step in pushing back the tide of Islamization. Not easy, but absolutely necessary.

  26. says

    the path towards the truth for the ardent dhimmi is a slow and painful one ,its taken nearly ten years for a uk government to face this reality and i kind of miss the lame excuses they had been spouting up to now ,but perhaps in another ten years theyll get a handle on it

  27. says

    Once the Islamic situation in Europe gets bad enough, there will for sure be a strong defensive reaction. The problem is that for most people there, it isn’t ‘bad enough’ yet. The true threat of Sharia to western values is still overwhelmed by a well-meant desire for tolerance, racial equality and harmony.

    Most contributors to this discussion have a greater understanding of the consequences of Islamic infiltration, and the need to be pro-active. By the time ‘bad enough’ arrives, it may be too late.

    Unfortunately, to be pro-active at this point risks being perceived as racist, as with Geert Wilders. If Cameron, or any European leader, pushes too hard, the results could be counter-productive. It’s frustrating to watch, but it’s a game of psychological diplomacy that has to be played out in its own time. Cameron’s stance is admirable, if not as strong as many of us would like. I just hope the voters get the message before the situation becomes irreversible.

  28. says

    U.K. moves toward “broader definition of extremism,” including the advocacy of Sharia law

    There is progress here in the recognition that putatively non-violent “extremist” groups are dealing in the same poison as openly violent ones, and both share the same supremacist, totalitarian agenda to impose Sharia, to destroy and erase Western civil society, culture, and values, and to subjugate women and all non-Muslims.

    The purpose of jihad in all its forms is the imposition of Sharia law, which would be equally intolerable by whichever means it were to be achieved.
    …………………………..

    *Thank you*, Marisol.

    A lot of people do not seem to understand”and this is true even of some staunch anti-Jihadists”that violent Jihad *is not an end in itself*.

    Oh, sure”many Muslims love terrifying and murdering Infidels, but this is just a plus. The end game”*always* with Islam”is the imposition of Shari’ah law, both on the faithful and on the dhimmi Infidels.

    Violent Jihad is just a tool”along with “lawfare”; the money weapon; Da’wa; Taqiyya and other forms of obfuscation; demographics (immigration and breeding; the exploitation of handy existing Infidel laws, customs, ideals, and problems; and whatever else Muslims can find.

    Violent Jihad is a perfectly horrifying tool, but no more than one of many.

  29. says

    Nomado98, it makes me angry to realise that Mohammed and all those who converted into Islam in the past, so also your ancestors, all demanded and were allowed to choose their own religion and thus loyalties.

    But now your relatives won’t let you???

  30. says

    This is, indeed, a step in the right direction.

    I read all the comments following the Guardian story. Although there were the usual PCMC comments, there were also quite a few defending this measure. One of the best, I thought, was from bigjoey88, commenting in response to a typical kneejerk Leftist remark “What about Christian extremists?”:

    Is that the best response you can come up with?

    Whenever there appears to be a common sense and majority backed decision made by the government, the usual CIF response is “what about this?” or “what about that?”.

    This kind of predictable whataboutery only goes to show you don’t actually have a reasoned response to the decision that’s been made, but you immediately disagree with it because you have an inherent hatred for the Tories.

    As far as I’m aware Christian extremism in Great Britain (not the UK & Ireland) is almost a complete irrelevance and so rare no one ever hears it discussed.

    Yet you bring it up for what reason exactly?

    To try and say marginal Muslim groups are being sidelined and treated differently? No shit sherlock Muslim extremist is 1000 times the problem Christian extremist will ever be in Great Britain.

    Bravo bigjoey88! Great new term “predictable whataboutery.”

    And bravo David Cameron!

  31. says

    “…that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress…”

    Arguably a variation of this is happening in Egypt where the Islamists are taking over from the more secualr despots. Very different circumstances that you’re describing but same end result.

    This is why Israel should never trust any treaty it signs with Muslimes. Of course it is my opinion that those on the right in Israel understand this even if their actions – actions driven by political and international pressures – do not always support this reality.

  32. says

    DP111 is right – that Muslims will just become Trojan horse occupants in UK until they’ve reached critical mass. Then watch UK become another Malaysia.

  33. says

    Holding up the white flag of surrender most likely, coward. Muslims have no honour, and can only feed their bloodlust by killing unarmed women or children or beheading innocent people with their hands tied behind their backs. The only thing you’re good at is doing nothing and living off the hard work of others, like a leech.

  34. says

    “i will be standing with my muslim brothers fighting the government”

    And you will fall with them. Regardless of treasonous govts the people of the West will step up to the mark and slap islam back to the desert where it belongs.

  35. says

    @nomad098: banning shariah law from government i dont really care im ok with that
    but banning people from supporting shariah law is a act of war against the muslim

    The greater significance here is “banning Sharia law”, which includes those who are proponents of Sharia law. Now, think about it. If you are a proponent of Sharia, are you not an advocate of Sharia? And if an advocate, are you not in violation of “banning” Sharia law? So in advocating Sharia, you are opposing the government’s mandate to “banning Sharia law”. Why should we care about you? You are one of them, regardless of whether or not you are a “good” Muslim. What ever personal “god” you worship has nothing to do with the issue.

    Tough luck, you chose wrong side. You lose. Sharia will be banned, and with it will be those who advocate Sharia. Not in Britain, not anywhere in the western Free World will such a slave driven, pseudo-religious legalism ideology ever take root and flourish. It would be an “act of war ” if it were allowed. Go ahead, cross the line. No Sharia. None.

  36. says

    It is seditious to encourage the replacement of the UK’s system of parliamentary democracy (such as it is – we’re increasingly getting rid of the ‘democracy’ bit and outsourcing the ‘parliamentary’ bit to Europe) with sharia law. Anyone who either acts towards that end or incites others to do so ought to be punished.

  37. says

    nomado98 wrote:

    banning shariah law from government i dont really care im ok with that

    but banning people from supporting shariah law is a act of war against the muslim

    and if it comes down to that there will be war
    and i will be standing with my muslim brothers fighting the government

    i aint religious muslim
    so most likly ill go to hell, only god knows
    so this has nothing to do with heaven
    its about loyalty to islam
    i was born muslim and i will die muslim no matter what
    and when our religion is attacked, we have to protect it
    ………………………….

    Fascinating. Even though this Muslim believes that his feral and unforgiving deity is likely going to send him to hell, he is all too eager to die to impose Shari’ah.

    No paradise for him”but he is willing to die to ensure that women and children and Infidels and minority-sect Muslims are mistreated, that non-Muslims are oppressed and receive unequal justice, that women and girls are forced into marriage”even as pre-pubescent children, that petty thieves have their hands and feet amputated, that anyone can be imprisoned or killed if accused of “blasphemy”, that rape victims can be caned or stoned to death, and that no one”ever”is allowed to leave Islam alive.

    He wants to visit *hell on earth* to the innocent, and to do so in the name of the same bloody “god” he believes has damned himself.

    **I can imagine no darker vision than this**.

  38. says

    i aint religious muslim
    so most likly ill go to hell, only god knows
    so this has nothing to do with heaven
    its about loyalty to islam
    i was born muslim and i will die muslim no matter what
    and when our religion is attacked, we have to protect it

  39. says

    David Cameron is the Conservative leader who once described the anti-EU UK Independence Party as “the BNP in striped suits” – because they were threatening to take votes away from his party… He also said that he would consider banning the English Defence League.

    And now he says “multiculturism has failed” and says he wants to ban Sharia law… In other words, WORDS… their effect any different from those of Obama?

    Cameron is no Churchillian – he is an opportunist who will do (or rather, say) anything to gain power. Including (probably) selling his own grandma.

  40. says

    Why defend Islam nomad? Tell me what about it is worth your trouble to defend it? What would the world lose if no one practiced Islam anymore?

  41. says

    i defend islam because i am loyal to islam

    @ when*pigs*fly
    i do not support muslims who attack innocent civilians

    they should attack soldier and people in government

  42. says

    In my experience, I see that no matter how much a Muslim retains his logic for everyday purposes, the brainwashing about being “special” and that Mohammed was the “perfect man” and that Islam is always under attack and needs to be defended – it stays like a bad rash.
    They think they are clean and we are dirty. Maybe it’s as simple as that. But they are told that from day one and believe it. And I have seen their streets, their bathrooms, etc, and they have seen mine. But they still believe it.

  43. says

    I think you’re right PJG on the matter of the streets and about Downton Abbey also. As far I could tell, bad character was well distributed among the various classes at Downton as one would expect in a normal society.

    Recently a social scientist published a book titled The Believing Brain in which he claims that belief precedes the reasons for belief. I have not read the book but heard the author, Michael Shermer on one of the local radio programs discussing his work. If his thesis is true, it would seem that Islam is a particularly strong virus. It is impossible to justify any of the beliefs with reason alone. There really must be something to the notion that Islam disorders the mind somehow.

  44. says

    Nomado98 surely you can do better than that. I understand that you are loyal to Islam, but the question is, why? If you say that you are afraid of what other Muslims may say or do if you would leave Islam, I could understand your point. I still don’t see what makes Islam compelling. Again, why defend it, particularly if you are not religious.

  45. says

    i might not be religious but my family is religious
    and from young age i have been taught to be loyal to islam no matter what
    thats why i am loyal to islam

  46. says

    OK Nomado, maybe I can see your dilemma, maybe I’m all wrong. I’m not really assuming that I know what you are about. It seems that if you would leave Islam, perhaps to seek God in your own way, or to pursue some other inquiry without Islam, you would be betraying your family. Defending Islam, as you see it, is nearly the same thing as defending your family. The bonds of family can be very strong, but an open mind can be stronger. Do you ever wonder that the gap between your lack of religious fervor and your regard for your family may eventually become too wide? That is to say, do you foresee that you may one day be trapped? That your feeling for your your family could come into great conflict with a religion is that is simply not tenable?

    Though I am not a Southerner, I spent a good deal of time in the South and occasionally would meet a long-time local or two who would defend a certain view of people from other races; whites who defended bigoted ideas about blacks, and blacks who would say that had they had “two hundred years” of reasons for disliking whites. The most disconcerting thing about these views was how they would say, “Well it was just the way I was raised.” But people can and do throw off the bad ideas given to them by their families and familial bonds remain nevertheless. What’s to say that you couldn’t throw off Islam too?

  47. says

    nomad, you say you are not religious but your family is; do they know you are not religious? Your loyalty to islam must extend beyond filial piety if you are willing to go to war with your own government over shariah. Since shariah is a form of religious law, it is in direct conflict with the secular government/law of the U.K., which applies to all citizens, including muslims. If you are willing to fight for shariah because your friends and family consider it integral to the practice of islam, how would you feel if you won the battle and found yourself living under the strictures of islamic law? Whether you are ‘religious’ or not, you would be required to go to a mosque five times a day for prayers and pretend that you are a true believer and go through the motions of submission to allah. Could you do that? If you couldn’t, you would be considered an apostate and you know what they do to apostates in islam.

    Why should the U.K. allow a separate legal system for one group of its citizens? When your ‘friends and family’ voluntarily emigrated to the U.K., they knew that it was not governed by shariah. They willingly became citizens of the U.K. and agreed to honor its laws, so what right do they have to demand shariah when it is antithetical to British law? Why didn’t they stay in their native country if all they wanted to do was import its culture, religion, language, and customs to the U.K.and replicate home-sweet-home in a foreign land? Don’t you think the indigenous British people have a right to preserve their heritage, culture, customs, and legal system, or did multiculturalism rob them of that privilege?

    I cannot be certain because I don’t know you but I think you are more ‘religious’ than you realize. You established your loyalties—-islam, family, tribe. You have no loyalty to your country; I guess it’s just a convenient place to reside as long as the government continues to appease muslims. You are the quintessential muslim citizen of the West.

  48. says

    i like you, you seem like a nice person
    but i will never betray islam
    because if i do then i betray my family and friends

  49. says

    I know others like you, nomad. And I know you said you don’t “support” the killing of non-Muslims, but it is not always so simple. In many Muslim countries, men can be recruited into the army to kill, whether they like it or not, and are punished if they refuse.
    If we are your brothers ans sisters, just like your Muslim brothers and sisters, then I can’t see what actually makes you a “Muslim”.
    If your government told you you MUST join the army and commit “jihad” would you do it? Or would you take the punishment, which might mean your family has to support you financially and emotionally as a kind of disgraced apostate?
    As a “loser”?

  50. says

    nomad098,

    Here is a dilemma. You say that you do not favor government enforcement of Sharia law, but you will fight against any attempt to forbid Sharia law.

    I assume that you mean that you do not wish the government to enforce Sharia law on people who do not wish to follow Sharia, but you want to be free to practice Islam individually. And, you will fight for the right to practice Islam individually.

    Let me know if this is what you mean.

    There are two things to consider.

    One, is that part of Sharia law mandates that the government enforce Sharia law. You cannot follow Sharia law as it is defined without favoring that the government enforce Islamic principles.

    Another thing to consider is that nobody is advocating that you cannot practice Islam individually. You can eat Halal meat, go to the mosque, pray five times a day if you can find a place, and keep your home anyway you wish.

    Your right to practice an Islamic life is not threatened.

    Let me know if you have a problem or disagree with this concept.

    There are some areas of potential conflict. If the government is smart, it will not allow anybody to immigrate who is in favor of the government enforcing Sharia law. It is not intelligent for a culture to import people opposed to the foundation principles of the culture. Further, the government would not allow individual parents or relatives to force Sharia on their children. The parents would not be legally able to force their children to marry someone, or even to stay Muslim.

    So, once again. You would be able to maintain your own Islamic religious practices. You would not be able to enforce it on your children, once they reach a certain age. And, if you worked to get the government to enforce Sharia law on unwilling victims, you would be viewed with great suspicion.

    Is that a situation you can live with and be happy with?

  51. says

    And we are betraying our country, civilization and culture by letting you and your dysfunctional family stay here in the West. We were free for so long because we kept Islam and other undesirable cults out.

  52. says

    I concur with your assessment of our Mohammedan visitor who is so eager to get up on his hind legs and ‘defend Islam’ by actions up to and including *attacking the representatives of our duly elected governments*. (I assume this means that he approves of Roshonara Chaudry’s treacherous stabbing of MP Stephen Timms, and that he sees nothing wrong with the intentions of those Mohammedan mobsters in Canada who plotted to attack the Parliament of Canada and hold its members hostage and cut off the Prime Minister’s head; and of those Muslims in Australia who plotted to attack an Australian army base; and of those other Muslims in Australia who plotted to behead the then Prime Minister John Howard; and that he sees nothing wrong in the actions of the gang of Mohammedan mobsters who in Trinidad and Tobago actually *did* barge into the Parliament building, and took it over, and held government ministers hostage, and murdered some of them).

    If it were up to me, our Mohammedan visitor would be out on his ear, back to whatever part of dar al Islam he or his forebears came from, where he can be up to his neck in Islam all day long, surrounded by all the other members of the Ummah, or Mohammedan Mob.

    And may the real God – who is not ‘allah’ the Arab god of blood and war – have mercy on his soul.

  53. says

    And we are betraying our country. civilization and culture by letting you and your dysfunctional family stay here in the West. We were free for so long because we kept Islam and other undesirable cults out.

  54. says

    No! An adult person has the right to choose his/ her religion or no religion.

    It is your parents, family, friends and community who betray you when they deny you this right.

    They also indicate that their religion is not purely chosen for its merits, but that it is in effect a burden parents, family, friends and community force on their loved ones, with love-blackmail.

  55. says

    ”My guess is that the UK’s expanded definitions of “extremism” will be used to punish Christians who call homosexuality sinful and refuse to countenance homosexual marriage while the courts and enforcement agencies will remain as craven as ever towards Muslim extremism.”

    Why is homosexuality sinful ? Why shouldn’t two people of the same sex who love each other, be able to affirm their love and committment publicly ?

    ”Frankly, even if I weren’t a “Bible-thumper”, I’d still have some deep-seated personal reasons for disliking at least male homosexuality and finding it utterly disgusting.” ( from a previous thread – Jan)

    Kepha, can you provide any Biblical citations from the NT that specifically condemn homosexuality ?

    You are of course entitled to your personal feelings of disgust for male homosexuality, but does this refer only to the physical mechanics of male homosexuality, or do you also find disgusting the idea that two men could romantically *love* one another ?

    Also, you say ‘at least male homosexuality’ ; implying you don’t have the same visceral disgust for lesbianism – why is that ? Is it because the physical mechanics don’t offend you ? Do you find it disgusting that two women could romantically *love* one another ?

    I am curious as to what (apart from biblical authority, and *I* haven’t found anything specific in the Bible that condemns homosexuality) you find so reprehensible in homosexuality. Do you believe homosexuals are born, or made ? If born, then it’s surely illogical to blame them, if *made*, then surely they must have had an inclination that way already.

    Since you find homosexuality so disgusting and reprehensible, are you at heart sympathetic to the islamic punishment for it ?

    ”And, I cannot help but notice that the same Western elites that are oh-so-solicitous for public acceptance of homosexuality are the same ones who are giving away the proverbial farm to Islam.”previous thread – Jan )

    Can you provide proof as to who these elites are ?

    Please don’t think I am having a go at you personally – I just don’t understand this antipathy to homosexuality, either from fundamentalist Christians such as yourself, or from islamists. Who, exactly, do homosexuals hurt ? I would contend, no-one. Have you ever tried to imagine what it would be like to be born with a physical and emotional attraction to one’s own sex ? And to be told by people like you that one is an evil, disgusting pervert, etc., and one’s natural emotions should be crushed and ripped out ?

    People can’t help their sexuality, and I see no reason why they should be ashamed of it, or feel obliged to hide it. Nor why they should hide the love they may feel for a person of their own sex.

    I have said before in reply to those on this forum who object to the ‘bible-thumpers’, that I would rather live under a Christian theocracy (if there was no other choice!)than an islamic one, as at least the Christian’s wouldn’t hang gays, or stone women, etc. etc. I presume you would like a Christian theocracy ? If so, what laws would you pass re homosexuality ?

  56. says

    …perhaps in another ten years theyll get a handle on it.

    I hope it won’t take another ten years for the British government to do something about the threat from Islam, because by then the abbreviation U.K. will mean, “Under the Koran.” Time is short.