| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
"John Reid should not come to a Muslim area, we do not want to see him." So evidently Abu Izzadeen does not accept British sovereignty over East London.
"Barracked" is the Queen's English for "jeered" or "heckled." "Reid barracked during speech to Muslims," from the Times Online, with thanks to Churchill:
The Home Secretary was barracked by a protester as he tried to address a hand-picked audience of Muslims in East London today in which he called on parents to monitor their children for signs of brainwashing by extremists.John Reid was midway through a speech in which he urged Muslims to do more to root out potential terrorists when he was interrupted by a man identified as Abu Izzadeen.
Mr Izzadeen, a well-known Islamic extremist who has been investigated over remarks about the July 7 suicide attacks, brought a young boy with him into the meeting and said his aim was to disrupt John Reid’s speech.
He shouted down the Home Secretary, calling him a tyrant and yelling: "How dare you come to a Muslim area when you have arrested so many Muslims in this area."
Mr Izzadeen, a Muslim convert also known as Omar Brookes is said to be a former spokesman for the radical Islamic group al-Ghurabaa, an offshoot of al-Muhajiroun - both of which are now banned in the UK.
He came to public prominence last year after refusing to condemn the 7/7 London bombings, instead, describing the attacks as "Mujahidin activity" which would make people "wake up and smell the coffee".
That's sedition. It ought to be identified as such.
"I am furious I am absolutely furious - John Reid should not come to a Muslim area, we do not want to see him. John Reid, Tony Blair and George Bush’s crusade can all go to hell," he said today during Mr Reid’s speech."You all know as Muslims that we are treated as second class citizens," he shouted to the crowd. "How many Muslims have been arrested?"
How outraged this must make him, since he believes that it is the dhimmis who ought to be treated as second-class citizens, not Muslims. But seriously, he displays admirable chutzpah in praising the 7/7 bombers and then complaining that Muslims are being arrested.
Still shouting, Mr Izzadeen was ushered from the hall by a number of police officers and continued to address journalists outside as Mr Reid picked up the thread of his remarks. Minutes later though, a second protester again interrupted, shouting: "Enemy of Islam" and holding up placards reading, "John Reid Go To Hell" and "John Reid. You will pay."
Now there's a helpful sign of good will from the British Muslim community.
The Home Secretary had been expecting a tricky reception, and in a sign of the tension surrounding his visit, the precise location of today's meeting, in Leyton, East London, not far from the scene of the botched police raid in Forest Gate and the arrest of several suspects in connection with last month's alleged plot to blow up transatlantic airliners, had been kept secret.Mr Reid defined the Government's campaign against terrorism as a contest of values rather than a battle of religions or ideologies, and he said that mainstream Islam shared a host of common values with rest of British society.
Anjem Choudary disagrees. See below.
He said that the values shared by Britain's Muslim community and the rest of the country were "deep and enduring and worth fighting for", adding that terrorists were not Muslims "in the true sense of the word".
Is that really for him to say? Isn't it for Muslims in Britain to prove by their actions? But we're still waiting for that.
He went on: "They are militants who seek to achieve their aims through the forces of terror and violence. They cloak their language in the rhetoric of Islamic teachings, but they behave in ways that contradict the very principles of the Islamic faith."They believe that the West is evil and that all modern values are corrupting to Muslims, when in fact, it is they who are wicked and ruthless and they who are corrupting young Muslim minds.
Urging parents to be on the lookout, he said: "There is no nice way of saying this. These fanatics are looking to groom and brainwash children, including your children, for suicide bombings. Grooming them to kill themselves in order to murder others."...
Among others protesting today was Anjem Choudary, who objected to the insinuation that Muslim children may be brainwashed.
He said: "Muslims do not need British values. We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day. It is very rich for you to come here and say we need to monitor our children when your Government is murdering people in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"Muslims do not need British values. We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day." This is a call to replace British law with Sharia. If British officials have no problem with that, they should indeed not resist terrorism and non-violent efforts directed toward impose Sharia. But if they don't want to see Britain become an Islamic state, then they see such statements as seditious.
One of the older local residents attending the speech at Leyton Youth Centre was 55-year-old Shankat Khan, who welcomed the fact that Mr Reid had made the visit but said that it was very narrow to suggest that it was just Muslim children who were being targeted."What about the British parents? What about the Afro-Caribbean parents? We are as worried as other parents are but we need to be part of a wider society," he said....
What about British and Afro-Caribbean parents? Where are the British and Afro-Caribbean terrorists?
Responding to the Home Secretary's article in The Sun, the editor of the Muslim News said Mr Reid's comments were "worse than looking for reds under the bed", a reference to anti-communist witchhunts in America during the 1950s."The Home Secretary is generating a new climate of fear against Muslims, by not only suggesting they are all potential terrorists, but appears to be also trying to divide Muslims families," said Ahmed J Versi.
I wonder if Mr. Versi would be so kind as to provide us with a reliable way to distingish Muslims who are potential terrorists from those who are not.
Commenting on Mr Reid’s words, Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney General, said: "While John Reid’s remarks are relevant, he is in danger of repeating what the Prime Minister has already said; that Muslim extremism is a problem for the Muslim community. He needs to realise that it is a problem for all of us."..."The Government has not shown itself able or willing to do the grinding, difficult work of eradicating the root causes of this problem."
And of course, Muslims themselves have no responsibility whatsoever to do any work on this problem. It's all up to the government.
Posted by Robert at September 20, 2006 12:40 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Anjem Choudary who lives on welfare and whose wife and children rake in $3200/month in welfare.
Posted by: Voyager![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 20, 2006 1:01 PM
Is this the same person?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G99_wqfPLXI&NR
Posted by: Celsius at September 20, 2006 1:17 PM
Are there parts of London where non-Muslims are afraid to venture? Are there neighborhoods that have become "no-go" zones for the Metropolitan Police?
Posted by: MP at September 20, 2006 1:20 PM
He shouted down the Home Secretary, calling him a tyrant and yelling: "How dare you come to a Muslim area when you have arrested so many Muslims in this area."
Religion of Boundless Chutzpah.
Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers, in the Mishnah) say: "[He who says, What is] yours is mine, [what is] mine is mine, that is a wicked man".
Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 20, 2006 1:27 PM
So the Home Secretary of the UK has no right to go to a region of the UK which has a Muslim community.
Well here it is, East London and other regions of the UK that have majority of Muslims will become a Kashmir or Kosovo - which I have known for a long time unless we do what is necessary.
Posted by: DP111 at September 20, 2006 1:29 PM
An ITV journalist interviewed Izzadeen outside the meeting and gave him some stick but I can’t find the interview on the net.
Anyway the ITV man suggested that if Izzadeen is incapable of voicing his concerns in a democratic way he should leave the country. Izzadeen responded that he was born in Britain, but the journalist countered that if he didn’t like it here he could still leave.
At the end of the interview Izzadeen started banging on about how Allah made everything and the Queen didn’t own this country. Finally he said that Islam and Democracy are incompatible and that they would change this society.
I’ll keep trying to find the interview.
Posted by: Mert at September 20, 2006 1:35 PM
MP
This is what was aid by the most senior police officer in the UK
Following the speech, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said it was "extraordinarily difficult" to clamp down on Islamic extremism without offending large groups of Muslims.
If everyone started to get offended, policing will become impossible.
But then in the UK, policing in the accepted meaning of the word, is virtually over. Some commentators in the Daily Mail were quite certain that no one would notice if the police were disbanded
Posted by: DP111 at September 20, 2006 1:36 PM
It is very rich for you to come here
Took the words right out of my mouth, Anjem.
WSW
Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at September 20, 2006 1:44 PM
Thanks DP111. It sounds like you guys are between a rock and hard place. Unable to legally defend yourselves, and burdened with a police force which has become part of the problem instead of part of the solution. I've had the opportunity to cross the pond several times a few decades back, have British ancestry, and like and admire many of the Brits I've met. Good luck to you.
Posted by: MP at September 20, 2006 1:48 PM
If this meeting was for an invited audience at a secret location, I wonder how the hecklers came to hear about it? Did they perhaps get a tip-off from one or more of the invited 'moderates'?
Posted by: Silvester at September 20, 2006 1:48 PM
"The Home Secretary had been expecting a tricky reception, and in a sign of the tension surrounding his visit, the precise location of today's meeting, in Leyton, East London, . . . had been kept secret."
So the Home Secretary is frightened of showing his face openly in our own capital city? Sounds like Belfast in the days when the IRA had the whip hand.
Posted by: JFGR at September 20, 2006 1:58 PM
If you mean the rock as in Anjem Choudary and his fellow scum and the hard place being the government then I agree that the government is a hard place.
But the so called rock is telling the British public that they will throw away their institutions and show their arses to these so called fighters because it is Allah’s will. That is just not going to happen.
And if the pressure continues to mount against us then it’s likely we will vote out the hard place and replace it with people who get what we want done.
I wonder if these idiots are so brave that they are going to take down the British way of life. Then why are they not in Afghanistan fighting for the cause? They are like clerics promoting death while they avoid it. They are cowardly scum and nothing more.
Posted by: Mert at September 20, 2006 2:20 PM
well in a recent survey in the midlands of england, the greatest fear moslem mothers had was that one of their children would become a suicide bomber.
it is interesting all the bull from the mouths of the men you can hear on the bbc radio news listenagains that were broadcast saying how well they bring up their children and how offended they are.
oh well. moslems lie to the public again.
Mind you, judging by the numbers of dysfuncional moslem kids around, the fathers don't even know their children, so maybe they were not lying to us - merely deceiving themselves.
i mean no one gets offended when parents are urged by the government to teach their children how to cross a road!
Posted by: exposesithlords at September 20, 2006 2:36 PM
"John Reid should not come to a Muslim area" - since when was any part of the UK a Muslim area???
They'll jihad if we criticise Islam, or make any comment on it, but they're getting away with sheer agression and violence towards us.
It's time we in the UK adopted the polics of Australia and told them if they don't like it, they can get out!
They're racist, abusive, ignorant and obnoxious. Yet, none will be arrested and imprisoned for any length of time - the UK only imprisons Christians handing out leaflets which quote from the Bible...
I think we should expel them ASAP, before it's much too late!
Posted by: Jerusalem Posts at September 20, 2006 2:41 PM
Mr. Izadeen's logic is classical! Ranting about how many Moslems had been arrested in a Moslem neighborhood.
Duh!
Perhaps the Latinos in America should rise up because most Latino prison inmates were arrested in Latino neighborhoods.
Furthermore, I bet that if one were to study the statistics of American prison inmates, a large percentage would claim to be "Christian." Isn't this enough for the Christian people in the U.S. to realize that we are second-class citizens? What is this satanic plot that has placed so many Christian men behind bars?
I'm finally beginning to see the light!!!!
-(Not)
at September 20, 2006 2:43 PM
Guests, like fish, begin to smell after three days in the house.
Mo-foes like these lot smell up London. They are not guests of Her Majesty or her people.
Posted by: A_Plague_on_Both_Houses at September 20, 2006 3:24 PM
By: Shachi Rairikar
September 14, 2006
(The author is a Chartered Accountant working in a software company in Indore, M.P., India and manage www.indpride.com)
Pope Benedict XVI has stepped into the controversy over Islam and violence by citing historic Christian commentary on holy war and forced conversion. He quoted from a book recounting a conversation between a 14th century Byzantine Christian Emperor and an educated Persian on the truths of Christianity and Islam wherein the former says to the latter “show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The Pope said, “Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.” Earlier, he had told at a gathering in Assisi, Italy, of Christian, Muslim and Jewish representatives that no one can “use the motive of religious difference as a reason or pretext for bellicose behavior toward other human beings.”
While what the Pope had to say about religion, violence and Islam is undeniably correct factually and historically, the same charges can be leveled against Christianity as well. Since the times of Constantinople, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, the history of the spread of Christianity is as much violent, at times even more inhuman, as Islam.
The intolerance of Islam is preceded by an intolerant Christianity. In many ways Islam seems to have executed a model for expansion through conversion created and successfully implemented by Christian predecessors. The concept of “heathen” and “pagan”, having pejorative connotations comparable to “infidel” and “kafir” in Islam, originated with Christianity. Early Christianity was against learning and burned books and schools, a model that early Islam also followed. The great university and library of Alexandria was only one of the many centers of learning in the ancient world that was destroyed by Christian fanaticism, which appears to be similar to the destruction of many universities and libraries like Nalanda by Islamic fanaticism. In the early centuries of Christian rule numerous pagan temples were destroyed or replaced by churches, their beautiful statues were broken and trampled upon as unholy idols, just like the destruction of Hindu temples and construction of mosques in their place by Islamic invaders in the middle ages. Like Jihad, the Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom, usually sanctioned by the Pope.
Before the birth of secularism, in the Christian world Church regulated every aspect of life and imposed its conservative views on the society with severe and inhuman punishments for the defaulters. In Europe, millions were brutally tortured and executed on the charges of witchcraft, allegedly being possessed by Satan, in the middle ages. The Catholic Church was opposed to scientific discoveries that did not agree with the religious scriptures. Inquisitions were established, with the approval or authority of the Pope, from time to time for securing religious and doctrinal unity through conversion, and often through persecution, of alleged heretics.
Towards the end of the 15th Century, when Portugal and Spain were at loggerheads as to who should claim suzerainty and where, the Pope was invited to give a ruling. According to the Treaty of Tordesillas signed in June 1494, it was agreed that everything beyond the meridian of longitude passing 370 leagues west of Cape Verde Islands was to be exploited by Spain. The world to the east of the "Pope"s Line" went to Portugal. The Papal Bull thus allocated the two halves of the world to Spain and Portugal, which henceforward became the base of the missionary enterprise in the Americas and Asia, respectively.
When the Spaniards newly arrived in America in 1492, they took the natives to be devils and for about forty years it was legal to hunt down the natives like animals. It was only in 1530 that the Pope relented and declared that American Indians were human! The declaration seems to have emanated from the Catholic Church’s eagerness to label the native Indians as worthy of conversion. Spaniards tore down Indian temples, destroyed Indian idols and often built Christian churches with the stones from destroyed temples. In trying to destroy paganism the Spaniards wiped out the historical records and ancient almanacs of the Indians. The Spaniards intentionally humiliated the priests of native religions to discredit them. Infectious diseases like smallpox, influenza, measles and typhus, brought to the continent by the immigrants and at times deliberately propagated to weaken the native civilizations’ ability to resist the invaders, combined with cruel systems of forced labour for enslaved natives, decimated the American population.
After Vasco da Gama discovered the sea route to the East in 1497-1499, the Portuguese, desperate to control the spice trade from India, conquered Goa. Soon after the Portuguese soldiers came the priests. This Catholic Clergy from Portugal was prepared to go to any length to spread their faith. They force-fed Goan converts beef and pork, forced them to change their life-styles and declared that the converts could never return to Hinduism. The Portuguese Viceroy in Goa was empowered to destroy all Hindu temples, leaving not a single one of them in any of the islands of Goa, and to confiscate the estates of all these temples for the maintenance of the churches which are to be erected in place of these hateful temples. Within decades of their occupation, the Portuguese had destroyed, according to their own records, hundreds of temples --all important Christian Orders taking part in this pious work.
St. Francis Xavier, after whom many schools and colleges are named in our country, came to India with the firm resolve of uprooting paganism from the soil of India and planting Christianity in its place. He wrote back home, “When I have finished baptising the people, I order them to destroy the huts in which they keep their idols; and I have them break the statues of their idols into tiny pieces, since they are now Christians. I could never come to an end describing to you the great consolation which fills my soul when I see idols being destroyed by the hands of those who had been idolaters,” (from The Letters and Instructions of Francis Xavier, 1993, pp 117-8).
Religious fatvas are not restricted to Islam alone. A religious fatva was issued by Christian rulers of Goa prohibiting Hindu rites, rituals and ceremonies related to marriage and death. Fasting on ekadashi and lunar eclipse was prohibited. Fasting could be done according to the Christian principles. Hindu men were not allowed to wear dhoti and women were not allowed to wear choli.
Like the Muslim rulers who imposed Jaziya, a tax for the infidels which the converts were exempted from, the Christian regime in Goa exempted the converts to Christianity from land taxes.
“The fathers of the Church forbade the Hindus under terrible penalties the use of their own sacred books, and prevented them from all exercise of their religion. They destroyed their temples, and so harassed and interfered with the people that they abandoned the city in large numbers, refusing to remain any longer in a place where they had no liberty, and were liable to imprisonment, torture and death if they worshipped after their own fashion the gods of their fathers.” wrote Sasetti, who was in India from 1578 to 1588. (source: Forgotten Empire (Vijayanagar) - By Robert Sewell p. 211).
Even in the present times, when on the one hand India is facing horrendous Islamic separatism and terrorism, on the other hand we have clear evidence of international Christian organizations backing terrorism and separatist movements in the north-east. The demand for “Nagaland for Christ”, a separate Christian state, gets its inspiration directly from the Church. A detailed study of the entire history of Christian missionary activities in the tribal areas, especially the north-east, clearly reveals a systematic ethnic cleansing of Hindu and Buddhist tribals.
The African experience with Christianity is no different. Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a South African cleric and activist who rose to worldwide fame during the 1980s as an opponent of apartheid, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984 has said, “It was Christians, you know, not Pagans, (Heathens) who were responsible for the Holocaust. It was Christians, not Pagans, who lynched people here in the South, who burned people at the stake, frequently in the name of this Jesus Christ.”
Given their history of intolerance and oppression and their continued zeal to convert the heathens or infidels at any cost, Christianity and Islam appear to be the two sides of the same coin. There is no point in one criticizing the other or assuming superiority over the other. The Church sponsored terrorism in the tribal areas and the American crusade in Iraq are as deplorable as Islamic terrorism and Jihad. In this respect, India takes pride in the fact that none of the Indian religions namely, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, ever preached exclusiveness or seek converts through violence. With the mottos “Sarve Bhavantu Sukhinah” (May all be happy) and “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (The earth is one family) at its heart, the Indic civilization, from times immemorial, has been guided by the doctrine “Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti” (There is only one truth, only men describe it in different ways).
Shachi Rairikar
Posted by: bezgin at September 20, 2006 3:26 PM
Thank you Robert for posting this for me.
The infidel world if finally waking up.
The struggle will now enter a new phase. Violence will escalate as Muslims really start to show thier true colours.
This is like the start of the world awakening to Nazism. Only the Nazis are numbering in thier millions inside our territories and there is no hope for internment with that quantity.
The solution is only a reformation of Islam and it will be worse than the violent reformation of Christianity as in that period Nukes did not exist.
We will all pay a bloody price for Islams reformation - if it ever occurs...
Posted by: Churchill1939 at September 20, 2006 3:36 PM
bezgin,
I worry about people who bring up the actions of long dead men to somehow justify murder in the present day.
Posted by: Mert at September 20, 2006 4:03 PM
The above long piece is written by a hindu nationalist living in india, who somehow feels superior to the diatribe christianity/islam.
Should we remind him the treatment of women in hindu's system?
Whoever lives in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
Posted by: FedUp at September 20, 2006 4:15 PM
Mert,
You are right. But what's more worrisome is that some people use one or two crimes to spot the whole muslims.
Since we can't blame today's christians of yesterday's mistakes, we can't blame the innocent muslims for the mistakes of few.
I hope you to re-read my previous post. Apparently you don't understand.
Posted by: bezgin at September 20, 2006 4:18 PM
"Since we can't blame today's christians of yesterday's mistakes, we can't blame the innocent muslims for the mistakes of few."
perhaps you are a newbie here but the GIGAbytes of pages and pages of this site is enough of a proof that it's not "a few".
It's the muslims in thailand, somalia, egypy, mauritania, indonesia, pakistan, afghanistan, iraq, palestine, iran, european countries, western countries and the list goes on
In every one of those places muslims have a grudge against somebody, buddist, animists, christians, zoroastrians, agnostics/atheists, jews.
It's not by any standards "A FEW". Get over it.
Posted by: FedUp at September 20, 2006 4:29 PM
[q]One of the older local residents attending the speech at Leyton Youth Centre was 55-year-old Shankat Khan, who welcomed the fact that Mr Reid had made the visit but said that it was very narrow to suggest that it was just Muslim children who were being targeted.[/q]
See how the older "integrated" moslems plant the seeds? This is jihad in nascent form. Look around in the USA, you can see it everywhere the moslem gathers. This can literally go on for decades until they feel comfortable enough to chop off some heads.
Not a single one of them can be trusted. Not even the "reformers". Islam is pure, black, and deadly. Evil.
I would suggest that the British people do something before they take your land for allah.
Posted by: mtriviso at September 20, 2006 4:43 PM
The great university and library of Alexandria was only one of the many centers of learning in the ancient world that was destroyed by Christian fanaticism
Chartered Accountants make terrible historians - but in the case above I should watch your balance sheet too:
The Great Library at Alexandria was destroyed during Muslim conquest in 642 AD or thereafter.
Still he managed to miss out the massacres of Muslims bu Hinudus during Patition in 1947 and since...........
Posted by: Voyager at September 20, 2006 4:47 PM
MP
Some Muslim areas the North of England are no-go areas for whites. The west of Bradford in Yorkshire certainly is for non-Muslims and the gossip is that access to the area for the Police is problematic. Things became so bad in Oldham Lancashire about five years ago that the police were allowed to go public about it. The BBC's “Today” carried carefully worded report that the ”Asians” were setting up no-go areas in the town. There was a dreadful fuss, reporters rushed to the town, decided it was all a matter of social deprivation and the authority has been given millions to improve community relations.
I have heard it reported - and this is completely unconfirmed - that part to the improvement has been to put notices up around the “Asian” areas warning white people not to proceed further.
As it happens sometime in the late Nineties the British authorities spent two years trying to boot a troublesome Mullah out of Oldham. They gave up because he was defended by every civil rights group and lawyer in the land who claimed the real reason they wanted to get rid of him was to punish him for refusing to spy for the security services.
I do feel genuine sympathy for the police because the pressure on them is intense. About four years ago an “investigative reporter” joined the police for 18 months and managed to trap a dozen of his “colleagues” into making racist statements. The MSM threw up its hands about the appalling levels of racism in the police and they were all fired. Interestingly they were nearly all traffic policeman picking on mainly Asian drivers who got their fines back and a letter of apology – even though they were guilty. I say interestingly because it is common knowledge that “Asians” regard motoring law with the same cheerful indifference they apply to other infidel laws. It never occurred to our liberals that the racist Police might be targeting a group who needed to be brought into line with everybody else.
Off thread but like a laugh? Last week the police pulled over an Iraqi refugee only to find he was blind and his friend had been banned from driving was giving him instructions. The Court fined him and ORDERED HIM TO TAKE A DRIVING TEST!
at September 20, 2006 4:49 PM
Still he managed to miss out the massacres of Muslims by Hindus during Partition in 1947 and sinceat places like Gujarat..........
Posted by: Voyager at September 20, 2006 4:51 PM
MP
Some Muslim areas the North of England are no-go areas for whites. The west of Bradford in Yorkshire certainly is for non-Muslims and the gossip is that access to the area for the Police is problematic
Do elaborate on your sources - this is fascinating
Posted by: Voyager at September 20, 2006 4:53 PM
I think a lot of people miss the point when they start comparing Christianity's bloody history to that of islam in the context of the Pope's speech. I don't think any Christian today would deny that blood has been spilt in the name of his religion.
The difference between Christianity and Islam today, however, is that we have 'owned up' to our sins, whereas Islam still wallows in blood after 1400 years.
Furthermore, and this has often been said but bears repeating, when Christians do violence in Christ's name they are going against their religion. The same cannot be said for Muslims.
Posted by: Silvester at September 20, 2006 4:54 PM
Ok bezgin,
You show me the reaction of the Muslim community to the London bombs and explain how I was supposed to see that as a condemnation of violence?
Anjem Choudary and is ilk are persuading the Muslim community that they are under threat. That man is spotting Islam’s copy book but you are not pressuring for him to be jailed?
In reality the majority is crying out for the Muslim community to denounce violence.
CAIR and the MCB could lead the way.
Posted by: Mert at September 20, 2006 4:54 PM
Still shouting, Mr Izzadeen was ushered from the hall by a number of police officers and continued to address journalists outside as Mr Reid picked up the thread of his remarks. Minutes later though, a second protester again interrupted, shouting: "Enemy of Islam" and holding up placards reading, "John Reid Go To Hell" and "John Reid. You will pay."
Hmmm, that's interesting, did this second protestor just happened to have these two handy placards on his person, or did he have to rush out to the local placard shop? Seems Reid would have would have been "placarded" no matter what he said.
Posted by: Tziona at September 20, 2006 5:32 PM
Voyager
Ref
"Some Muslim areas the North of England are no-go areas for whites"
TOO DANGEROUS TO POST I AM AFRAID
Start by looking up "Oldham Lancashire" in 2001 on the web and search around.
at September 20, 2006 6:29 PM
"Muslims do not need British values. We believe Islam is superior, we believe Islam will be implemented one day."
This statement, implying overthrow of the government, ought to be grounds for deportation/exile whether the one speeking is a visa-holder or a citizen.
"John Reid should not come to a Muslim area, we do not want to see him." "How many Muslims have been arrested?"
John Reid should not be in the UK, a British area—how many Brits have been arrested while he is Home Secretary?
"How many Muslims have been arrested?" Obviously, at the time the question was poised, one too few.
Posted by: St. David, King of Georgia at September 20, 2006 7:32 PM
The Home Secretary was barracked by a protester as he tried to address a hand-picked audience of Muslims in East London today...
What. Now the Marxists in London are rummaging through a barrel of rotten tomatoes looking for a pile of least-rotten tomatoes? This endless search for Unicorns has become such a rotten affair, the English should move this star-crossed treasure hunt to Denmark.
... in which he called on parents to monitor their children for signs of brainwashing by extremists.
What. So now the Moslem parents are to dial 9-1-1 everytime the kid picks up the Koran or a Hadith? Not reasonable. An infringement on the rights of religious freedom.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 20, 2006 7:51 PM
MP asked:
"Are there parts of London where non-Muslims are afraid to venture? Are there neighborhoods that have become "no-go" zones for the Metropolitan Police?"
Yes, but the media cover that fact up and we are not allowed to say it. A few years ago there was a little debate on the matter and they all got stuck in some ridiculous word play around: whether it was ALL the Mulsim who enforced it, apparently if it wasn't (and obviously it wasn't ALL who enforced it)then you couldn't mention it - never understood that argument myself, seemed merely a means to silence; other popular one was whether these areas were 'no go' or 'won't go'and I won't bore you with the stupidity of that one.
Here is a 76 year old man who got attacked for straying, looking at his battered face the debate on the word play looks like it's missing the point:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1294021.stm
at September 20, 2006 8:06 PM
Bezgin said that for Islam and Christianity:
"There is no point in one criticizing the other"
No point? We just allow terrorism? We just allow suppresssion of women? We just allow the anti Semitism? We just let the jihad run? We just allow sharia? Are you mad?
Must we go through the whole story about the fact that Christianity has undergone a Reformation? Must we go through the whole analysis of the texts again (i.e. the differences between the Bible and koran such as prescriptive violence)? Must we do the whole truth about the history again? And, even IF Christianity's past were as bad a Islam's (which is not the case), of what relevance is that to whether Christians can criticise Islam today? What about non Christians, would you allow them free speech to criticise? Are you mad?
I would much prefer to live under Christianity than Islam.
Your post was long and pretentious, but also irrational.
Posted by: EnglishBlondie at September 20, 2006 8:17 PM
Celsius:
sorry, just read your question, yep, I've had a look and the video is the lovely Izzadeen.
at September 20, 2006 11:56 PM
Mr Izadeen should be arrested and charged with sedition or treason. He should be deported to Pakistan with a ban placed on his passport never to return to the UK.
The same should happen to every single one of these terrorist supporters. If they demonstrate in front of Catholic and other Christian churces, if they burn effigies of the Pope, or of Tony Blair, or George Bush, they should be arrested, charged and put on the first available aircraft out of the country.
If they make statements such as "Islam is the law of the land" or "Islam is superior", then they should be arrested and returned to their country of origin.
These people are a menace to all western societies. The only way to deal with them is to send them back to their own country. There should be a ban on immigration from any Muslim country where Sharia has been imposed, except if the immigrant is Christian or Jewish, or an atheist.
We have all been "tolerant" for too long. We have been "politically correct" for too long. This fear of saying that the people causing trouble are the Muslims is absolute crap in my opinion.
In the past the Brits were rather ruthless when it came to crushing their opponents, especially the Scots. It is time that the Brits remembered their own past, and they made the decision that they have been tolerant for too long and that all of this nonsense stops right now.
The behavior of these dogs is the very reason why the Crusades and the Inquisitions were necessary. There was so much anarchy in Europe caused by Cathars and others, that action was necessary. The Cathars were not crushed by the Church, but by the French government of the time!!
Posted by: Maggie4Life at September 21, 2006 12:01 AM
"How dare you come to a Muslim area when you have arrested so many Muslims in this area."
So many? Most apparently, too few ..
Posted by: Daisytoo at September 21, 2006 12:16 AM
bezgin,
Are you familiar with the term Moonbat? Moonbatism is a condition caused when one is held so tightly in the grip of moral relativism that one's thinking becomes distorted and one's moral compass is completely awry. Moonbats tend to cluster together in fear of, among other things, truth and progress. For Moonbats, Objective Truth is impossible .. all is Subjective and therefore, meaningless. Moonbats would like to rule the world, but think it's not nice to admit this and so they project that quality onto more mature others.
Examples of some famous Moonbats:
Hugo Chavez
Mohammed (the Prophet, or any one of several million named after same)
Amidhinjad
Sean Penn
Allah
and the Mother of all Moonbats: Ms. Cindy Sheehan.
Hope you find this helpful.
Posted by: Daisytoo at September 21, 2006 12:33 AM
Maggie,
Mr. Izadeen was born in Great Britain.
Where would you deport him to?
Shouldn't he be arrested, charged, and subjected to the British legal system?
Posted by: PRCS at September 21, 2006 1:35 AM
Ref
"Some Muslim areas the North of England are no-go areas for whites"
TOO DANGEROUS TO POST I AM AFRAID
Well since I know Bradford and you are factually incorrect - I shall asume you are from Oldham
at September 21, 2006 1:38 AM
Worth reading: Melanie Phillip's recent diary entry: A Straw in the Western Wind.
May Sept. 2006 go down in history as the month during which the west (Pope Benedict, John Reid, John Howard, Cardinal George Pell, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury) drew the line in the dirt and challenged westophobic Muslims to grow up and act as though they really are espousing a religion that is morally and intellectually superior to all others.
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1332
Posted by: waterdragon52 at September 21, 2006 9:43 AM
I live in the North of England, Wakefield is approximately 9 miles south of Leeds. As for there being no-go areas, in Wakefield an area called Agbrigg is largely populated by the Muslim community, but it is only a no-go area because I have no desire to go there.
Parts of Leeds are very dubious, but this is mainly due to the Afro-Carribian Crack trade.
Dewsbury however frequently has race riots, that never get reported by the BBC.
Suprisingly, the most often depicted no-go area in London (the East End), is really rather cosmipolitan.
at September 21, 2006 11:14 AM
Bezgin, your claim that the concepts of "heathen" and "pagan" originated with the Christian Faith. The concept is the same. Heathen is an Anglo-saxon word that refers to someone from the coutry-side; Pagan is a Latin word that means the same thing. They referred to uneducated peasants. The Romans refered to Christians as "perverts" and "cannibals." The designation "genmtile" is also from the Latin and refers to those of the "gens" - again the "folks."
For weal or woe, religious and ethnic and political groups have always used designations for those outside of their group. And often these designations took an a pejorative connotation.
In general one does not find Christian clergymen calling for the slaughter of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, pagans, etc. in this day and age.
Stick around to Jihadwatch and you might learn a thing or two.
at September 21, 2006 11:25 AM
Thanks EnglishBlondie and others for your answers
Posted by: MP at September 21, 2006 12:00 PM
Waterdragon, thanks for that link. Much obliged.
Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at September 21, 2006 12:09 PM
Voyager
Fair enough - my source in Bradford was a conversation with an "official" over there who should have known what he was talking about. But could I ask if you are thinking of too large an area? I know one no-go area this side of the Pennines of only 15 streets that straddle a main road. During the day you can walk down the main road, no problem but at night "youths" stop you and ask what you are doing in "their" area.
Posted by: Fred at September 21, 2006 1:25 PM
Remember how Trevor Brooks who goes under the name of Abu Izzadeen was treated when he insulted, heckled, barracked and threatened Dr Reid.
Compare his treatment with that of Walter Wolfgang last year who shouted "rubbish" at then foreign secretary Jack Straw before he was sacked for giving unfair favour to his Muslim constituents.
Brooks is a Muslim convert with a bad mouth and he is full of threats, the policeman and security in the room were clearly unable to do anything and looked afraid of Mr Brooks.
Walter Wolfgang, a Holocaust survivor in his 80s was roughly handled by Tony Blair's goons and handed over to the police where he was held under the terrorism act.
Trevor Brooks/Izzadeen is seen by the government as less of a terrorist than an old Jewish gentleman who disagrees with the government's policies.
at September 21, 2006 5:42 PM
It's all Bush-Blair isn't it. Get rid of them and their greed for oil and it will all be ok. Light an incense stick and play whale music and slowly drift into denial.
Even treacherous un-gorgeous George Galloway seemed to think that all the Islamic violence was due to the first Gulf War of 1991-1991. I take it he does not read history books.
For the record my first major disenchantment with Islam was after Lockerbie in 1988, and nothing that has happened since then has made me reassess my conclusion on its demonic nature.
I despair for England sometimes. Short of beheadings on webcam at The Guardian, or the death of the royals, or an atom bomb going off at a footie match, I wonder what will it take to actually make the wider world realise that Islam is the ENEMY. Answers on a postcard please
Posted by: Koranophobe at September 21, 2006 9:57 PM
Actually I'd consider the death of the Royals a favour to Britain, but that's by the by.
However, I agree with your general sentiment. When is this country going to wake up and smell the proverbial coffee? How much more of this flagrant abuse of our values and freedom are we going to tolerate?
I myself am a member of an ethnic minority who was born and raised in Britain. I'm not what you would call "patriotic", I despise the BNP and consider myself leftist or liberal on most issues. But the muslim community has demonstrated time after time that it is not prepared to assimilate into Western society, and indeed shows signs of becoming even more insular.
We must take action NOW before the situation becomes a whole lot worse. Every time a "kafir" criticises islam we see hordes of these parasites on our streets waving placards. When are we, we as in Westerners, going to take to the streets ourselves and demand that these religious bigots extricate themselves from our societies?
at September 22, 2006 4:16 AM
At least we get it straight from the horses mouth. Muslims are ungovernable and don't want to abide by the laws of the land. On the other hand, they're not too proud to stretch their paws out for state benefits off the infidel.
Posted by: londongirl at September 22, 2006 4:30 AM
When the Pope quotes from a text about the violence of Islam - how do they react? Violently, of course. Just goes to prove his point really.
Posted by: londongirl at September 22, 2006 4:32 AM
"Sir Ian [chief of the Metropolitan Police] was speaking on the first anniversary of the 7 July [London] bombings, carried out by FOUR MEN FROM YORKSHIRE." (BBC website).
A new variant on the "Asian men" euphemism. Yes, those tykes, they've never thought much of Londoners.
Posted by: JFGR at September 22, 2006 6:34 AM
Bezgin -
Oh, here we go again, with the tired old comparison of Christians and Muslims. Give it a rest already.
Who are the ones rioting and firebombing, kidnapping people, murdering people? Please.
I don't have the patience to put up with nonsense like this anymore.
Posted by: Mo at September 22, 2006 3:20 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)