The more talk about jihad the better. Westerners need to hear what these guys are saying. We need to identify the extremists, and than send them on there way.

Posted by: crosshairs at September 29, 2005 1:23 PM

The Mohammedan concept of "freedom" is simply to be free to advance Islam by any means, in the Dar al'harb.

Everything standing in the way of spreading the faith is 'oppressing muslims', which 'enrages muslims' who then have no choice other then to go on violent jihad and to become 'martyrs' for the cause.

Infidel: Take note:

You have been warned, you have been 'invited to revert to Islam'- you are now guilty of making 'mischief in the land'- that will force the believers to wait for you, to lie in ambush, in 'every stratagem of war, and to 'smite at your neck' and to "kill the disbelievers until all religion is for Allah" -

got it?

Yes, perhaps a few of us here on JW/DW do, but the majority in Europe and America wallows in cloud -cuckoo-land.

It's a struggle. Like Jihad... "the infidels anti-jihad-jihad..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 29, 2005 1:44 PM

because muslims do not integrate into infidel societies and are instructed not to take infidels as friends, islam guarantees alienation of the muslim in any society. such alienation is also known as antisocial behavior.
in my view, simply becoming a muslim guarantees "seriously antisocial behavior" towards non-muslims.
good job by ofcom in identifying predictably muslim behavior and banning such language over the airwaves.
this is another example of britain trying to defend itself against sedition and subversion, and the muslims taking the opposite side.
why not ban islam and all mosques on the same basis and cut the problem off at it's source? in fact, why not ban muslims from coming into the country unless they have renounced islam? sounds wise to me.
after all, we are all what we believe and islam believes in the invalidation of constitutional democracy and the overthrow of "man's laws" in favor of allah's sharia law.
we can go even further and ban islam in islamic countries and then we will really be getting somewhere. put the islamic genie back in it's bottle by occupying islamic lands and banning islam in those lands.
then islam will never threaten freedom again.

Posted by: listen to realanswers.net at September 29, 2005 2:12 PM

What languages do they broadcast in? When I twiddle my dial I find many non English "Asian" stations. Now I know that a lot of these will be perfectly proper stations catering for Indian Hindus and Sikhs
But some won't be.
How do we monitor them?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 29, 2005 2:52 PM

Granny W - Zico, or some of his friends, might know. I bet lots of those stations are called Asian, and perhaps include some nominal Muslims, but are essentially Hindu and Sikh operations.

When I lived south of the river (horror of horrors) I used to go with my Pakistani friends - barely Muslim at all - to an 'Asian festival' on Streatham Common. Bangra music, colourful clothes, spicy food - it was really good fun. At the time I never thought about who was Hindu or Sikh and who was Muslim. I suppose the main difference was that Musim women wore the Shalwar Khamiz with a headscarf and Hindu women had a red dot, but I don't remember noticing even that.

Looking back it seems very innocent. I suppose the kind of Muslims who were out and about mixing with Hindus and Sikhs didn't seem to be the ones to worry about. Even then, though, there was an austere bearded type handing out dodgy leaflets for some fundamentalist outfit that people just laughed off as 'nutters' like the 'Tottenham Ayatollah'.

Sorry to ramble - my point is that Muslims have been subsumed under the category 'Asians' and rendered harmless and colourful. Maybe many Muslims are. But the real Islam, as opposed to the Islam-lite that such people practise, is always there, waiting for each generation to re-discover, for example in response to Iraq, or Afganistan, or some other perceived grievance.

Posted by: Interested at September 29, 2005 3:16 PM

No one should be allowed to promote war on Infidels, or inculcate hostility, as a religious duty, toward Infidels -- and within the lands still controlled by those same hapless Infidels, coming to their senses quite slowly, and not nearly in the numbers needed, at least not yet -- as a matter of self-protection any such promotion or inculcating should be banned. No discussion. No negotiation. No room for hints and glints. No banning only of this or that program, or this or that program director -- but cancellation of the broadcast license. Without appeal. This is a war of self-defense. Nothing else need be understood. And no explanations are due those who know perfectly well what it is Islam teaches, its tenets, its attitudes, its atmospherics. There are many Muslims who see no need for taqiyya-and-tu-quoque, and who tell the truth about what Islam teaches, and are unembarrassed. And then there are the defectors from Islam, such as those who post at www.faithfreedom.org, who are even more helpful in letting non-Muslims know what Islam teaches, what attitudes it necessarily fosters, and the various ways that Muslims hide or camouflage or misstate those teachings when they feel it necessary for the cause of Islam.

Pull those licenses, whenever possible. It willnot be hard. It will be hard, on the other hand, for any Muslim station not to mention Jihad, not to allude to the need to spread Islam, not to the need to make demands for this and that on Infidels -- and with threats, implied or express, throughout. There is no reason for Lord Haw-Haws to move to Berlin or Beirut these days; they can do their broadcasting from Birmingham, or Brixton, or Broadstairs. Well, let them try -- and then shut down the stations, confiscate whatever property or assets they possess, and move on. Step by step, the governments of the Western world have three tasks:

1) Diminish OPEC oil revenues, which inevitably are used to buy weapons as well as to fund mosques, madrasas, propaganda, and Western hirelinggs (ex-diplomats, intelligence agents, businessmen, professors of Middle Eastern or Islamic studies) and thus further the Jihad everywhere.

2) Stop all Muslim migration, and do whatever can be done to make Infidel lands Muslim-hostile rather than Muslim-friendly, and consider other measures that may be necessary to reduce Muslim numbers, and hence Muslim power (especially with venal politicians), including emulation of measures undertaken by the Czechs with the Sudeten Germans after World War II, a measure that at the time, and now, seems not only justified, but in the circumstances, just.

3) Limit the power of Muslims to use Western technology to distribute the message of Islam. Why are Western satellites making possible Al Jazeera? Why are Western countries permitting Muslim stations to broadcast, without more, to Muslims living within Western lands, when such broadcasts inevitably cause some to behave, and many to think, in ways that are inimical to the wellbeing of the indigenous Infidels, their laws, customs, mores, and understandings?

It is this last that can be dealt with if stations are monitored -- and no doubt there are many Infidels who will be happy to work as volunteers, in the same spirit as people volunteered to be air-raid wardens in London during the Blitz, to help protect their country from what is a long-term and mortal threat.

Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 3:18 PM

The Muslim radio stations are not shy about spreading the message of jihad, but we infidels are too shy to even use the word "Muslim":

Sony has shelved a light-hearted comedy movie starring Albert Brooks because it contains the word "Muslim" in the title, and they are concerned about how the Muslim world would react to that.

Studio Sees No Humor in 'Muslim'

Posted by: special_guest at September 29, 2005 4:14 PM

Interested

Nothing harmless and colourful about Tahir Mohammed (see link below). This story has it all - the devout Muslim (note the beard) who can't drink alcohol so hits the pipe instead. The illiterate wife brought over from rural India (Gurjurat?) to churn out babies (two already in the first two years of marriage). Everything paid for by the state.

http://www.sheffieldtoday.net/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=58&ArticleID=1203212

Stop all Muslim migration, says Hugh. I agree (other than a limited number of independently wealthy). But when the 'Muslim vote' can be bought for the right price, which party's going to risk marginal seats by clamping down on it? Even if doing nothing further undermines the integration they know is necessary for social cohesion?

Jack Straw would have to find himself another constituency pretty sharpish that's for sure.

Posted by: Effractor at September 29, 2005 4:22 PM

"the main difference was that Musim women wore the Shalwar Khamiz with a headscarf and Hindu women had a red dot"
-- from a posting by Interested above

"Shalwar kameez" always sounds like an exotic desert -- one of those things with pistachio dust in it, or cardamom, that end the quasi-exotic meal at Chutney Mary's, or for the oldest of way-behind-the-time old fogies, at Veeraswamy's. The headscarf or hijab once seen as merely a curiosity may now by Infidels be felt, not without reason, as representating something menacing, and the bindi, once seen by non-Hindus as a little strange, can now be understood not merely as a red dot signifying shakti, "Shakti, shakti, shakti" as the son of a St. Louis furrier might put it), but as reassuring. The same might be said about the 17th-century black garb of Hasidim worn in the middle of a 20th century city; once perhaps slightly off-putting, now a welcome and soothing sight. For it now signifies that at least in this or that city, Hasidim are unafraid to appear, and this bespeaks, for all Infidels, a good sign. Canaries in the closet, are bindi-ed Hindu women and Hasidic men. If, and only if, they feel completely secure in public, throughout the Western world, will other Infidels, will all Infidels, be secure.

Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 5:01 PM

Granny

I will ask my friends about this and get back to you.

Interested

If you ever go to one of those 'Asian' carnivals they have in the summertime, 90% of the music, dance, colour and festivity will be by Indians, Hindu and Sikh, who like to celebrate the artistic side of their culture - bhangra music is mostly a Sikh thing. The artists on stage are Indian, and all the happy smiling faces you see are Indians - whose culture and religion promotes music and dance - or Pakistanis who have managed to escape the claustrophobia of their houses for a day and the grumpy ones you saw - well you know who they are.

My Sikh friend says that Pakistani women love Sikh guys because they are cool and associated with bhangra music - which causes severe heartburn and probably more alienation and disaffection in the grumpy men - the roots of this crisis are deep and related to the impotence of the modern Muslim man and his fear of the freedom and terrified horror of the emancipation of Pakistani women in Britain (which Indian men are facilitating, undercover, by all accounts)

Posted by: Zico at September 29, 2005 5:10 PM

The same might be said about the 17th-century black garb of Hasidim worn in the middle of a 20th century city; once perhaps slightly off-putting, now a welcome and soothing sight

I agree - I always feel happy when I see a Hassidic gentleman for some reason and always make a point of nodding my head and smiling at them when we pass in the street. I feel the same way about Sikh men in turbans - especially the elderly types you see a lot of in West London/Middlesex (I met a Burma veteran in Sheperds Bush once - and checked the VJ Day celebrations on the BBC a few days after the London suicide bombs in July - and saw a line of Sikh soldiers with their medals with their wispy white beards and regal turbans marching down the Mall) - strangely reassuring.

Posted by: Zico at September 29, 2005 5:17 PM

Sorry far too drunk for a critiqué but "Somehow I have missed that little factoid."

and

"How extreme! How intolerant! How positively nasty of the British authorities!"

Had me in stitches. I wonder if Mr Spencer is as tall as Mr Cleese?

Posted by: DrunkenBlogger at September 29, 2005 5:39 PM

Zico - you're probably be right about most of the colour/fun etc coming from the Hindus and Sikhs. It was pre-September 11 when I last went to one of these things and I was pig-ignorant, so to speak. But the Muslims I was with and their sisters and their cousins and their aunts were all enjoying themselves too.

I went to a couple of their weddings and 'Mendhis' - 'hen nights' with henna tattos and bangra music. But of course none of this is Islamic at all, quite the opposite. It would be very unpleasant if this family were to go the whole hog with the real Islam rather than the fiction that they think is Islam.

Hugh - if you mean the restaurant in Piccadilly, it's Veeraswamy's again now, or at least it was when I went a couple of years ago. But a foodie friend who knows it from the old days assured me that it had gone down hill.

Posted by: Interested at September 29, 2005 5:52 PM

Hello, Drunkenblogger - see the Brits are all clubbing together on this thread, with Robert and Hugh as honorary Brits on account of their sense of humour.

Posted by: Interested at September 29, 2005 5:56 PM

Ofcom had "set of rules for Muslims and another for the rest."...
Yes, I too was under the impression it was the other way round, Muslims have a set of rules for Muslims and another for the rest. Here in Australia, consumers of the print media have been treated with bucketloads of drivel about proposed anti-terrorism laws "targetting innocent Muslims." Maybe we need another law; aiding and abetting jihad by giving undue print space to Islam apologists.

Posted by: islamophobic pride at September 29, 2005 6:59 PM

Interested -- yes, near Half Moon Street I recall -- if memory is willing to serve even with my self-enforced no-tipping, or rather no-tipping-off, policy (for I could cheat, and google my way to the address). The very name "Veeraswamy's" is to me as old-fashioned as spelling Russian names ending in "v" with a final "ff" -- Anton Chekhoff, Nabokoff-Sirine, that sort of thing. A Hobson-Jobson kind of name, with views of Hill Towns in the mental background. Old, and once-chic-- thes dansants, the Cafe Royale, a borrowed flat in The Albany.

Zico notes that "I feel the same way about Sikh men in turbans." Who would not immediately relax catching sight of those assuring turbans at Heathrow?

Posted by: Hugh at September 29, 2005 8:42 PM

"We've briefed our staff to scan the callers in phone-ins. For example, they've been told to cut [off] anybody who promotes terrorism," Anwar said.

Whhhhaaatwhatwhat? Well, why would British Muslims talk about terrorism on a Muslim show? I thought there was none of that in islam! And during Ramadan, even.

Silly Wahhabits.

Prophet Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at September 29, 2005 9:19 PM