Friday, 22 June 2007

Beyond Belief

In 1998 Nazir Ahmed was raised to the peerage as Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, becoming the first Muslim to enter the House of Lords. As such, one might hope that he would prove a model of Islamic integration into British society. However, the very opposite has proved true.

Lord Ahmed has most recently been demonstrating his extremist credentials in the row over the Rushdie knighthood. He had already accused Sir Salman of "having blood on his hands", as a result of his criticism of Islam, but today he really went over-the-top, saying:
This honour is given in recognition of services rendered to Great Britain. Salman Rushdie lives in New York. He is controversial man who has insulted Muslim people, Christians and the British. He does not deserve the honour.

Two weeks ago Tony Blair spoke about constructing bridges with Muslims. What hypocrisy.

What would one say if the Saudi or Afghan governments honoured the martyrs of the September 11 attacks on the United States?

There you have it: a Muslim member of the House of Lords lets the guard slip, and describes the 9/11 terrorists as "martyrs". How much closer to being an open enemy of the country can you get? Such a man really is unfit to have a peerage and should, I believe, be stripped of it forthwith. And preferably deported.

Hat-tip: LGF

Update: It has been pointed out to me that the original transcript of the interview, in the French newspaper Le Figaro appears to have Lord Ahmed describing the 9/11 terrorists as "des hommes morts", which would apparently translate as 'dead men' rather than 'martyrs'. In this case, I'm unsure why the Telegraph has translated it as 'martyrs', but if anyone with a reasonable command of French can offer an explanation, I would be much obliged.

In any event, I still consider Lord Ahmed a highly dubious character, and utterly unworthy of a peerage.


Blah Blah said...

Hey look it's moderate Islam!


*thin air*....

Michael said...

No, Ahmed didn't say that:

najistani said...

Lord Ahmed, and his Muslimah sister in Islam the virulently anti-British 'Lady' Uddin are both terrorist facilitators with a long pre-9/11 history of attempted intimidation of law-enforcement authorities and involvement in conspiracies to murder Salman Rushdie.

"TWO Labour Asian peers called yesterday for Salman Rushdie to be stripped of police protection....They said it was time Jack Straw, the Home Secretary, removed the round-the-clock Special Branch protection that Mr Rushdie still received, which is estimated to cost taxpayers up to £1 million a year. Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin, both Muslims, said the author of The Satanic Verses was hooked on publicity "whether it's with a model or saying his life is in danger" and the money would be better spent providing more police for everyone else.
Lord Ahmed said: "It is debatable whether Mr Rushdie should still receive protection, bearing in mind the amount of money he earns. Do we pay for all important people in private industry to receive police protection because they may be the target of criminals? And that is what Salman Rushdie is in, private industry."
His comments were endorsed by Lady Uddin who said Mr Rushdie was too ungrateful. She said: "Public money should be used for someone who is grateful. We should not pay for this protection when he has so little gratitude. It is a mockery of democracy."
Mr Rushdie, who is currently in London, said he was "furious" at the remarks, not least at claims that taxpayers were funding Special Branch protection when he was abroad as well as in London. He said that it was the police who insisted on protection in Britain,"


How these pedo-worshipping murderous vermin have managed to infiltrate themselves so far into the British political system is beyond my comprehension.

British National Party member said...

Did he originally say it in French or English? If in English, and the transcript is in French, then we dont know what he said.

Fulham Reactionary said...


Thanks for that. I suppose that Lord Ahmed and Lady Uddin count as moderates since they weren't actually calling for Rushdie to be killed, just facilitating those who were.

BNP Member:

I would assume the original interview was in English, subsequently translated into French by Le Figaro, in which case the question is whether the Telegraph has simply translated the French translation back into English, or whether they've got hold of an original English copy of the interview.

Of course, it could always be the case that the original interview was in French.