| FrontPageMag.com | Articles By Robert Spencer | Articles By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Robert Spencer Bio |  |
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
As many as one in 11 British Muslims agree with and proactively support terrorism, a Government adviser [himself a Muslim] has warned police.Haras Rafiq also told officers at Scotland Yard that up to 20 per cent of the Muslim population ' sympathise' with militants, while stopping short of being prepared to 'blow themselves up.' -- from this article
Of course this number is a guess, but it is not a guess to call it the absolute minimum. I suspect it is a gross underestimate. But in any case it is not the only question to be asked. Other questions to be asked include:
1) Do those 10 out of 11 British Muslims who do not "proactively support terrorism" actively denounce it? Do they work with the police? Are they eager to do whatever they can to protect their fellow (though Infidel) citizens? Are they going all out to work against, on every occasion, that "1 out of every 11" who are not true-blue citizens?
2) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" believe that all obstacles to the spread of Islam, including the legal and political institutions created over many centuries by the non-Muslims, the Infidels, of what is now Great Britain, should be dismantled, and that Islam, by right, should dominate everywhere, and Muslims, by right, should everywhere rule, as they do now in Dar al-Islam? Or do those people who identify themselves as Muslims in fact simply not believe the main tenets of Islam, and the worldview that divides us all into two categories: Believers and Infidels?
3) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" do so in other ways -- for example, by lending moral and financial support to those who do "proactively support terrorism," and would, if necessary, refuse to report on them, and even help them to escape?
4) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" know perfectly well what passages in the Qur'an, what stories in the Hadith, what details in the life of Muhammad, so obviously can be appealed to, and are appealed to, by those who are enrolled in the army of those who "proactively support terrorism"?
5) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" are actively monitoring the mosques, and especially taking note, or even recording, the khutbas (the sermons at Friday Prayers), and reporting anything that smacks of encouraging hatred toward Infidels -- Christians, Jews, Hindus -- and toward the institutions of the Infidel nation-state, including Parliament, the army, the judiciary?
6) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" have decided to actively encourage their children to understand the hostility, even murderous hatred, toward Infidels that is explicit in many passages in the Qur'an and Hadith, and in the life of that Perfect Man, Muhammad? How many have encouraged their children, not by ignoring but by confronting and denouncing, such passages, to be able -- just -- to fit into the society which has, without much thought, welcomed them into its midst, or allowed them to settle deep behind what Muslims are taught to regard as enemy lines?
7) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" know perfectly well the real numbers and are alarmed, say, when the British government depends on "experts" such as Haras Rafiq -- who wildly understate, and almost comically limit, their discussion of aspects of the matter to the problem of terrorism?
8) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" dare to face up to the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam, and begin to tell something like the truth about it, to themselves, to their children, to their fellow Muslims, and above all to the Infidels to whom they owe a great deal -- for being allowed to settle in a well-run polity, a polity that recognizes the individual and his rights, that unlike Islam is not a collectivist faith, a Total System, but that allows them to breathe, mentally and morally, in ways that neither they nor their children could possibly do in the lands of Dar al-Islam from which they came?
9) How many Muslims are willing to describe for the sake of Infidels the actual talk that goes on about those Infidels among Muslims -- in madrasas, mosques, or in shops and on the street and of course inside houses -- when everyone thinks no Infidel is present? Then some begin to tell the disturbing home truths that those who have been born and raised in Muslim societies know perfectly well about. Every defector from Islam knows them also. These people are the best of the best among those who have been born into Islam through no fault of their own, those unassailable witnesses, from Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina to Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan. They have testified, are testifying, will continue to testify. And they are being joined, every minute, by the very best people born into Islam, who can no longer stand it, even if they may continue to call themselves, say, "cultural Muslims" -- when in fact they are what I have long described as "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims.
10) How many of those "10 out of 11 British Muslims" who do not "proactively support terrorism" have tried to do everything they can, in thought, word, and deed, to recognize, and to alert the British public -- or do they feel no loyalty to the Infidels of Great Britain? -- about the other instruments or weapons of Jihad? How many would say, as one Muslim writer in the U.S. did the other day, that he, and other Muslims, ought by rights to be deported -- and that in order to save the United States, even though he himself was no threat, as he recognized the naivete of Americans and also the magnitude of the threat, he too would be willing to be asked to leave ? This was a most telling admission. And, of course, he is exactly the kind of truth-teller who should be allowed, even encouraged, to stay.
There are ten.
Add to the list all you want.
Posted by Hugh at August 3, 2007 8:37 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
And how many of those nominally peaceful Muslims only oppose suicide bombing because most of the victims nowadays are Muslims? And if the pollster asked for approval of using rockets or mortars against Infidels, would they approve of that? I bet they would, yes indeedy.
Posted by: jewdog![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at August 3, 2007 8:53 PM
Awww, c'mon Hugh:
You REALLY expect an HONEST answer to those from those "10 of 11"??? LOL
(/sarc rhetorical)
at August 3, 2007 9:08 PM
Yea another "fact finding " poll.
You are probably more accurate with the 10 out of 11.And as long as they support Islam in it's current form in any manner,11 out of 11.
Posted by: Dar al-harb at August 3, 2007 9:33 PM
I think a far more accurate way to determine Muslim views would be to make up a survey consisting of passages from the Koran and adieth that call for the persecution and killing of Infidels.
Ask the simple question, do you agree with this statement, Yes or No, next to each passage"
See what you get.
Posted by: rational at August 3, 2007 9:46 PM
americans, be prepared to sacrifice your children, in another world war because of, yet again, european stupidity.
Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at August 3, 2007 9:51 PM
How many of those 'others' Muslim denounce Jihad as a policy of 'dominating and not be dominated', in word and deed, against the non-Muslim world? How many denounce it, even those who claim to support peace and all of us getting along? My experience is that the answer is virtually none. They are programmed to see us as a land to be dominated by their Allah, so Jihad to achieve this end, even under the guise of 'peace', is programmed into them, that they must dominate us with their Mohamedan ideal of a world ruled by their Ulema and its Sharia. They cannot help themselves, they mumble it in their sleep, or upon waking, or while smiling solicitously at the infidels, especially at their women for 'bedroom' conquest, those women who think those Moslem men are such nice guys (until they get slapped around, as their prophet ordered), and then even defend their subordinate roles to men as right (until they get slapped around, or have their children taken away to be raised as 'good' Muslims), and the Jihad continues, even in the bedroom. How many of those who do not support suicide bombing denounce Jihad? Almost none. They are Muslims, and as Mohammed's minions, they are the cursed.
Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at August 3, 2007 10:08 PM
Apologies for a quasi on-topic flashback and vent regarding those 11 of 11 types:
12AUG06- Less than a year ago in Michigan
Tuscola County prosecutors filed terrorism-related charges Saturday against three men who they say bought dozens of cell phones Friday in Caro in a globally coordinated plot involving the Mackinac Bridge.
They charged brothers Adham Abdelhamid Othman, 21, and Louai Abdelhamied Othman, 23, along with their cousin, Maruan Awad Muhareb, 18, with identical counts of collecting material to support terrorist acts and surveillance of a vulnerable target with intent to commit terrorism.
A bridge in Oklahoma fell down a few years ago after a barge slammed into it. A bridge in Florida fell down in a windstorm. A 1928 bridge in West Virginia fell down in 1967 due to a fatigue crack that could not be inspected (sister bridges were closed immediately due to non-redundant design). The Tacoma Narrows bridge in Washington State failed because the designers did not take into account wind resonance and the thing started whipping in the wind before it collapsed.
The video of the Minneapolis collapse shows a relatively new bridge on a quiet evening with a loading of mostly light commuter cars. People much smarter than the NTSB spokesman will be looking very carefully at the metal in the location of the initial failure. It is entirely possible that there were corrosion issues or that some ship had run into the structure in its history. Maybe there was a design problem that resulted in a fatigue crack that wasn’t caught in the 2006 inspection(?), that propagated to the point of failure. Maybe the Mississippi had undermined the bridge footings and caused stresses that concentrated in the area of the failure.
It is also possible that the examiners will find a man-made cut; the kind that someone could make in a few minutes with the right equipment. Maybe they will find evidence of some induced corrosion. If they find a clean cut or induced corrosion, the examiners will know that there was sabotage. In the mean time, great days for bridge engineers and road contractors because this is $190 billion in government contracts. You can’t be too safe. And who would want to scare the public about terrorism when we’re trying to push through immigration reform.
Right now the media and government are busy hanging a dead bridge designer and the Minnesota maintenance crews before anybody knows the first thing about what happened. Not one mention of the three Muslim youth prosecuted for executing a globally coordinated plot to take down the Mackinac bridge, just to the east, less than one year ago. That would be unfair.
Conspiracy theorizingly yours;
at August 3, 2007 11:03 PM
OK, pez, any one of your theories could be correct. But sometimes shit just happens. Sometimes bridges fall down and no terrorist needs to involved. Sometimes engineers and structure scientists and inspectors get things wrong.
Not every disaster is necessarily a terrorist induced disaster. Paranoia may be healthy in today's world but sometimes good healthy paranoia may blind us to the simple fact that a bridge is a man-made structure and therefore is only as good as the designer thought he/she was.
Let's not leap to conclusions here. Leave it to the forensic engineers and let's have their findings before attributing this crap to some agency other that fate and stupidity.
Posted by: OliverPCamford at August 4, 2007 12:19 AM
I think it is beyond dispute that ALL Muslims owe their first allegiance to the Ummah and only then to their adopted country if at all even if they are second or third generation. That being the case there is no logic at all in allowing further Muslim immigration in to ANY country as they are by their own definition not to be trusted to put the welfare of their hosts above their own narrow Islamic interests. Interests which are normally diametrically opposed to the host countries interests. This is apart from their pre-disposition to not only perpetrate acts of terrorism but also to fund it and otherwise support it by withholding information and providing safe haven for terrorists etc.
Posted by: Realist at August 4, 2007 12:55 AM
I don't believe moslems are responsible for this bridge collapsing after so many years if neglect.. In fact i am surprised this hasn't happened much more often..
WHY are we spending GAZILLIONS abroad when we SHOULD be fixing OUR OWN HOUSE..??!!!
Screw iraQ!!! If we have CONTROL of our borders and we know who is coming in and out of here..
WHY do we have to worry about "fighting them over here if we don'd fight them over there".. / What a CROCK-a-Shyte!!
Both Hitler and Napoleon sought to fight them "over there" [meaning Moscow - for those who need the reminder]
Napoleon got out of it relatively easily but I can tell you that Germany definitely ended up "fighting them over here".
A good solid border with full control over whoi goes in and out serves a whole lot better than wasting all of this money on these fools who sit on HUGE oil reserves, ie. Wealth!
Does anyone think they're going to help US out.. or send us andy free oil or money once they are doing better??!!
Posted by: Allahfanculo at August 4, 2007 3:12 AM
More on topic: 1 in 11 English Muslims equates to all males between the ages of 19 and 37.
Less on topic: Fox’s Special Report spent 6 minutes on the fact that 60% of bridge failures are caused by riverbed scour (probably true, but slow failures). One small detail; the entire Minneapolis bridge spanned the river without any supports in the riverbed.
at August 4, 2007 3:41 AM
Visitors to this website should be aware, if they are not already aware, that a pan-European rally to 'Stop the Islamification of Europe' will be held outside the European Parliament building in Brussels
on the afternoon of Tuesday 11th September from 1pm.
Your participation and support will help the growing resistance to the onward spread of Islam across the continent.
Further information from "sioe.wordpress.com"
Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at August 4, 2007 4:13 AM
Re the 'Stop the Islamification of Europe' rally outside the European Parliament building in Brussels on the afternoon of Tuesday 11th September from 1pm.
A cheap flight can be purchased for Brussels out of Stanstead on Ryanair for less than £2 return + taxes. Book early to avoid disappointment!
I am making my own arrangements.
at August 4, 2007 6:19 AM
Also, ask them if they think the suicide bombers are in paradise with their virgins or down in the other place.
Posted by: Elephant at August 4, 2007 6:32 AM
On topic: Recently BBC Newsnight devoted a whole programme on islam. They had a line up of usual suspects of so called "moderate muslims". The other 10 in this ridiculous statement by Haras Rafiq. And you know what, every last one blamed British and US foreign policies for the worldwide radicalisation of muslims.
There is no "moderate muslim". Muslims may differ n methodology, but their aims of ultimate conquest of islam over the kafur are the same. There may be muslims who oppose blatant use of terrorism to achieve these goals, but they will nonetheless, spring to the defence of the terrorist like a shot.
We must understand the motive of Mr Hara's warning. What he is really saying to the British government is: look there are so many muslims who feel alienated and oppressed, and it is your fault - change your ways, support muslims in palestine, kashmir, pakistan and elesewhere in order to stop muslims in the Britain being radicalised.
In other words, heed to our demands or you will be responsible for muslims blowing up innocent civilinas at airport terminals and tube stations.
He need not fear, our Gordon and Jacquie Smith will see to it that no muslim sensibilities are violated during their watch.
at August 4, 2007 6:36 AM
Never forget that their Quran teaches them TO LIE when living among infidels and deny their true beliefs. Adjust numbers accordingly. My experience is that 25% of Muslims in U.S. support terrorism, or at least apologize for it and if things went really badly for U.S. or Britain and 'well' for radical Islam, most would be swept up in apocalyptic frenzy of it all and betray their infidel neighbors.
In Iraq or Michigan we will never ever 'win hearts and minds' - at best we can occasionally bribe them to lie on paper. (Olmert's 'pledges' from released terrorists not to resume terrorism being most insane recent example).
at August 4, 2007 9:40 AM
Observance of Islam should be a felony crime. Until that is the case, there shall be no peace; until then, there can only be piece.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at August 4, 2007 9:59 AM
"Also, ask them if they think the suicide bombers are in paradise with their virgins or down in the other place."
Posted by: Elephant
I think that's an excellent point.
I'm so grateful for the internet. I have this mental image of Robert Spencer, Hugh Fitzgerald, et al., cranking a mimeograph machine to get the anti-jihad news out, and then secret agents hurriedly distributing copies to the underground movement. (All in very glamorous 1940s-style clothes, of course.)
Posted by: Josephine at August 4, 2007 4:41 PM
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)