Undercover Mosque vindicated

An update on these stories:

West Midlands Police and the Crown Prosecution Service have apologised for accusing the makers of a Channel 4 documentary of distortion.

The apology and the promise of £100,000 were made at the High Court on Thursday.

It follows comments made about a Dispatches programme, Undercover Mosque, which tackled claims of Islamic extremism in the West Midlands.

The police statement said the force was wrong to make the allegations.

[...]

The statement, released to the media after the High Court hearing by West Midlands Police, said they accepted there had been no evidence that Channel 4 or the documentary makers had "misled the audience or that the programme was likely to encourage or incite criminal activity".

It added that the Ofcom report showed the documentary had "accurately represented the material it had gathered and dealt with the subject matter responsibly and in context".

The police statement concluded: "We accept, without reservation, the conclusions of Ofcom and apologise to the programme makers for the damage and distress caused by our original press release."

So, if the police now accept that the programme was wholly accurate, what are we to make of the force's earlier claim that the programme makers - Hardcash Productions - were guilty of "completely distorting" what was said? Or, indeed, of their long-running vendetta against Hardcash, which included attempting to have them prosecuted for "inciting racial hatred", and, when this plan was frustrated, making an official complaint about the documentary to the communications regulator?
Presumably the police have not seen any new footage which might have explained their change of heart. As such, their original claim that the programme distorted what was said must surely be no more or less tenable than it was when they first made it. Why, then, have they now performed a complete U-turn, and accepted that it was untenable? I suspect that it is because they always knew that the accusations they were making were utterly unfounded, but that they hoped that, by making them, they could intimidate the programme makers, and anyone else who might be tempted to criticise Islam (or, indeed, any Muslims), into silence. As with so much else that the police do these days, their conduct in this matter really does beg the question, whose side are they on?

Whoever wins, we lose

Londoners really are spoilt for choice in the forthcoming mayoral elections. Who can differentiate between the three towering statesmen, those intellectual colossi and ornaments of public life, who have done us the honour of seeking our votes? Not me, that's for sure! To me, they all seem exactly the same. Consider the forthright and insightful approach that they've all taken to the question of Islam:

Boris Johnson was today forced to defend his stance on Islam, insisting he believed it was a "religion of peace".

What an original way of looking at it!

The Conservatives candidate for London mayor, Mr Johnson, has been criticised for an article he wrote in the wake of the 7/7 London terror attacks in 2005 claiming "Islam is the problem".

But in a televised debate today, Mr Johnson said the problem was extremists taking the words of the Koran out of context.

No trite platitudes from independent-minded Boris! He really does offer a fresh perspective. And isn't it impressive that he knows so much more about the correct context for Koranic verses than, you know, actual Muslims?

In fairness, Johnson did then follow up by suggesting that "there has certainly been too much uncounted and unfunded immigration into London". Which is correct. However, one might be inclined to take him rather more seriously on immigration, had he not repeatedly called for an amnesty for illegal immigrants. Note to Johnson: you do not reduce immigration by rewarding people for entering the country illegally.

But Johnson's genius was more than matched by the wisdom of the incumbent:

The current Mayor, Labour's Ken Livingstone, said London could be a "model for the world" in terms of its ethnic diversity.

But he was forced to justify his decision to share a platform with the controversial preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The cleric has described homosexuality as an "unnatural and evil practice" and said the Koran permitted wife-beating as "a possibility" in certain circumstances.

He's also expressed support for suicide bombers.

Mr Livingstone said: "He is a man who is prepared to say al Qaida is wrong and to be very strong in that condemnation."

However, I think that, on this occasion, the award for most idiotic candidate has to go to Brian Paddick, formerly Britain's most senior homosexual policeman, and also, we now discover, a renowned Islamic scholar:

Liberal Democrat candidate Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Metropolitan Police, said: "What I said in the immediate aftermath of July 7 was that the term Islamic terrorism, as far as I was concerned, is a contradiction in terms.

"In that there is nothing in the Koran to justify the murder of 52 innocent men, women and children."

First, that's patently untrue. There are plenty of verses in the Koran which could be, and are, used by practising Muslims (a category which does not include Brian Paddick), to justify the use of violence against non-Muslims. There are also plenty of Islamic scholars who are prepared to endorse such violence. On what basis, I wonder, does Paddick assert that his knowledge and understanding of Islam is greater than theirs?

Secondly, it it deeply disingenuous to suggest that when devout Muslims commit acts of terrorism, in the name of Islam, it should be called anything other than "Islamic terrorism". But presumably Paddick prefers Jacqui Smith's Newspeak definition of such atrocities as "anti-Islamic activity".

At a time when the majority of British people see Islam - not a "tiny minority of extremists", but the religion as a whole - as a threat to our country, the three leading contenders for the mayoralty of our capital city are bending over backwards, and performing all sorts of linguistic contortions, to avoid saying anything that might conceivably upset any Muslim. On the fortieth anniversary of Enoch Powell's great speech, when the nation is crying out for someone to take a similar stand against Islam, craven politicians of all parties are merely spouting meaningless platitudes about "religions of peace". This applies not only to the mayoral candidates, but to the overwhelming majority of politicians, and certainly to the senior figures in all three main parties. I have no idea whether Livingstone or Johnson will emerge victorious on polling day (at least it won't be Paddick, thank Heavens). But I can be sure of one thing: whoever wins, London and Britain will lose.

Undercover Mosque makers to sue police?

The documentary maker cleared by regulators of misleadingly editing a Channel 4 programme about extreme Islamic preachers is considering legal action.

David Henshaw, the managing director of Hardcash Productions which made the Dispatches film Undercover Mosque, said he was still "very, very angry".

With the backing of Channel 4 he hoped to launch a libel action against the West Midlands police and a Crown Prosecution Service lawyer who was quoted in a joint press release accusing Hardcash Productions of "completely distorting" what some of the preachers were saying. The media regulator dismissed the complaint saying it was a legitimate investigation.

"I really don't like the libel courts and believe in a world of free comment. I don't mind abuse, but Hardcash's reputation has been severely damaged and it was a good reputation," Henshaw said. "The Ofcom judgment is great and if anyone bothers to read it they'll realise this was a bloody good programme. But damage was done that day in August, huge damage."

The programme, which took nine months to make, went undercover in several mosques in the Midlands and showed examples of preachers calling for homosexuals to be killed, espousing male supremacy, condemning non-Muslims and predicting jihad.

Henshaw said: "A lot of these mosques were in terms of their public image very moderate and were apparently committed to inter-faith dialogue. Yet what was going on on a very regular basis was pretty uncompromising, hardline, antisemitic, homophobic, misogynist preaching."

Yes, that must have come as a huge surprise. Taqiyya, anyone?

As I wrote in last Sunday's post on this issue, it really is intolerable that the police (and the CPS) should be fighting the Islamists' propaganda battles for them, particularly when doing so involves traducing reputable film-makers. Hopefully the prospect of a damaging libel action might serve to show them the error of their ways.

West Midlands Police: Looking out for the Islamists

Police have been criticised for taking action against a television programme which exposed how some Islamic preachers use British mosques to spread a message of hatred and segregation.

Broadcasting watchdogs have cleared Channel 4 of wrongdoing over the controversial documentary about Muslim extremism.

The programme featured footage of preachers at a number of mosques, including one who praised the Taliban for murdering British soldiers.

West Midlands police rejected calls to take action against the preachers for stirring up racial hatred – and turned on the film-makers.

Three months ago, the police, backed by the Crown Prosecution Service, made a formal complaint to Ofcom, alleging that the way 50 hours of videotape had been edited was 'distorted'.

But The Mail on Sunday has been told Ofcom has backed Channel 4's claim that the film was fair and has criticised the police response.

Thinking about the actions of the police, who now seem to be firmly mired in the same morass of PC liberalism into which the rest of the public sector has already sunk, I was reminded of this quote, from the beginning of Enoch Powell's so-called "Rivers of Blood" speech:

Above all, people are disposed to mistake predicting troubles for causing troubles and even for desiring troubles: “If only,” they love to think, “if only people wouldn’t talk about it, it probably wouldn’t happen.”

Of course, we have, in the thirty-nine years since those words were spoken, gone beyond the situation Powell described. We now have a situation where problems are not just being predicted, but where they are happening, and where many of those in authority are so desperate to believe that there are no problems, that they fete the very people who are actually causing the problems (or who, indeed, are themselves the problem), while at the same time harassing and persecuting those who have the temerity to point the problems out. This would appear to be the case here: the police, confronted with a truth which, while correct in terms of being factually accurate, is not politically-correct, have chosen to take action, not against the Muslims who incited murder and terrorism, but against those who reported that they were doing so. After all, it would be so much nicer for everyone if Imams were not inciting murder in mosques, that it is simply not nice to point out that, actually, they are doing so. Because for the PC left, a designation which can now fairly be said to include at least the upper echelons of the police force, anything is better than to face the politically-incorrect, but factually accurate, truth.

Remember, "Islam is Peace"

Books calling for the beheading of lapsed Muslims, ordering women to remain indoors and forbidding interfaith marriage are being sold inside some of Britain’s leading mosques, according to research seen by The Times.

Some of the fundamentalist works were found at the bookshop in the London Central mosque in Regent’s Park, which is funded by the Saudi regime and is regularly visited by government ministers. Its director, Ahmad al-Dubayan, is also a Saudi diplomat and was among those greeting King Abdullah when he arrived in Britain last night for his official state visit.

Extremist literature, including passages supporting the stoning of adulterers and waging violent jihad, was also found on sale at many other mosques regarded as mainstream institutions.

Just because they support violence doesn't stop them being mainstream. This is Islam we're talking about, after all.

More than 80 books and pamphlets were collected during a year-long project in which researchers visited 100 mosques across Britain.

One book, Fatawa Islamiyah, which urges the execution of apostates, was found in bookshops at Regent’s Park mosque and at the huge East London mosque in Whitechapel. Muhammad Abdul Bari, the secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), is the chairman of the East London mosque.

The researchers said that they found further controversial works during visits to mosques in Manchester, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Oxford and High Wycombe.

The Times has learnt that five of the books that were acquired by researchers had been also found in searches during Scotland Yard antiterrorist investigations since 2001. About half of the books collected were in English – raising questions about the emphasis placed by the Government in combating extremism by training more English-speaking imams. The other publications were in Arabic or Urdu. The report, The Hijacking of British Islam, is published by the conservative Policy Exchange think-tank and was written by Denis MacEoin, a Fellow at Newcastle University and expert on Islamic issues.

The researchers found hardline material at a quarter of the 100 mosques visited during the project.

The report said: “On the one hand, the results were reassuring: in only a minority of institutions – approximately 25 per cent – was radical material found."

Well, call me an Islamophobic scaremonger (please do, I'll take it as a compliment!), but 25% of institutions seems like a rather worryingly significant minority to me. After all, just think how panicky the left gets over the BNP, an organisation which does not advocate killing anyone (except possibly convicted murderers and child abusers), and does not support the subjugation of women. From the anguished squawking you hear from the likes of al-Beeb and The Guardian, not to mention all three big parties, you'd think the SS were goose-stepping through Parliament Square every time the BNP win a council by-election in Blackburn or Calderdale. And yet the news that "only" one out of every four mosques is openly stocking such ripping reads as Women Who Deserve to Go to Hell ("1. The Grumbler … the woman who complains against her husband every now and then is one of Hell"), or Islamic Verdicts ( “And if he apostatises after that, his head should be chopped off, according to the Hadith: ‘Whoever changes his religion, kill him’”) is described as "reassuring". This, I think, tells you rather a lot about Islam.

Islamic radicalism in Britain's jails

Al-Qaeda prisoners in UK jails are being hardened instead of reformed, top Whitehall sources have told the BBC.

A major programme of radicalisation is underway in prisons, targeting vulnerable young men and preaching violent jihad, it has been claimed.

The BBC's Frank Gardner said sources claim Islamist convicts are undergoing the same process IRA members did at the Maze prison in Northern Ireland.

Ministers hope to tackle the problem by training prison imams, he added.

Frank Gardner, the BBC's security correspondent, said that senior Whitehall sources told him that convicted al-Qaeda inmates and their associates are using prison to build up networks and address books, making contacts with other prisoners who have supplied false documents and even weaponry.

Sources add that among 9,000 Muslim prisoners in England and Wales, a small hard core are devoted to recruiting other young men to extremism.

One government official said that they see prison as an extension of Jihad: if kept together they form a cell, but if dispersed they seek to spread their beliefs.

And despite this, the government reportedly wants to build Muslim-only prisons. Clearly, it is the opposite approach that needs to be taken: spread Muslim prisoners as thinly across the entire prison system as it is possible to do, so that they mix with other Muslims as little as possible (this would also have the benefit of limiting their ability to forcibly convert other prisoners, a practice that has been reported at some jails), keep those Muslims who have been convicted of terrorism offences in solitary confinement, and prevent other Muslims known to harbour extremist views from mixing with their coreligionists. I won't claim that this approach would completely eliminate the problems arising from Islamic radicalism in our prisons, but it would be a big improvement on the system as it is at the moment.

Hug a Jihadi

A GOVERNMENT minister believes that the answer to furthering the integration of the Muslim community into wider British society could be for them to share more coffee and biscuits with their white neighbours.

John Denham, the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills was addressing a meeting in Bournemouth organised by the Fabian Society on citizenship and integration.

Zareen Roohi Ahmed of the British Muslim Forum told the meeting that the problems often stemmed from a "massive Eurocentric" view and said she hoped that the government would be pushing for a "less Eurocentric culture".

Note to Ms Ahmed: Britain is a European country. Our culture is, and always has been, European. If you don't like that, then Heathrow is the busiest airport in the world, Gatwick is also pretty big, and I'm sure that at one of those you can find a nice cheap flight to the Islamic hellhole of your choice. But please have the courtesy to refrain from demanding the cultural deracination and Islamification of this country.

She explained: "Asians would say that the main barrier is a lack of trust, mistrust among young Asians and past supporters of the Labour Party who are feeling let down. In the recent past Labour has been more Islamaphobic than most of the other political parties.

"Indeed in Dudley, in the West Midlands where I was born Labour seems uncomfortable with Muslims and it recently abandoned its support to support the BNP instead. It has left that community feeling dejected. However, Gordon Brown's tone at the Labour Conference is encouraging and we hope to develop it."

Another issue she said was the life chances for young people and crime was a big issue.

She added: "We are not saying focus all your attention on the Muslim communities we are saying let's have targeted provision where there is a need. Do not Islamise everything as most issues are not related to the faith."

The government, she said, could show it wanted to help the community by improving access to services and letting Muslims know they should not feel isolated.

So, to sum up Ms Ahmed's argument: Muslims have lots of problems integrating, but they are to blame for absolutely none of these. Rather, these problems are caused by evil Islamophobes who make Muslims "feel isolated". The solution is to improve access to services. But only for Muslims, who are, of course, always the innocent victims of everyone else's wickedness. More fawning over Muslims by the government is also much-needed.

"We have to reassure Muslims they are not the problem. The issue of radical elements is as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society."

But, of course, Muslims are the problem. And the issue of "radical elements" is not "as much a problem for them as it is for the wider society". Rather, it is a far greater problem for them than for every other group in society. Because no one can seriously dispute that extremist views are far more common among Muslims than they are among the general population. 40% of Muslims in Britain want to see the widespread introduction of Sharia law, for example. 36% of UK-based Muslims aged 16 to 24 believe that Muslims who convert away from Islam should face the death penalty. Do you think that a comparable number of young Christians feel the same way? Equally, the majority of non-Muslims do not subscribe to unevidenced conspiracy theories: most Muslims do. And of course, the publication of a cartoon of most religious figures - no matter how offensive - does not commonly earn either the artist or the publishers death threats, nor does it incite rioting in the streets. The publication of a cartoon of Mohammed does. And then there are the terrorists - Muslims account for just 3% of the UK population, but, funnily enough, they seem to account for a rather higher proportion of terrorist offences.

I would suggest that it is precisely these things, together with the apparent refusal of many Muslims to make any real effort to integrate into the society into which they have come as immigrants, that cause problems for Muslims (and, indeed, for everyone else). If John Denham is serious about trying to get Muslims to integrate into British society, then it is going to require more than just telling everyone to have coffee and biscuits, and play nice. It is going to require Muslims to ditch their support for Sharia law, to stop being perpetually outraged and offended, to refrain from constantly demanding preferential treatment, to accept and abide by the native culture of this country, and to take action against the small but nonetheless far from negligible number of their coreligionists who are willing to use or support violence in order to further their politico-religious ends. Doing all of these things should make long-term peaceful coexistence between Muslims and non-Muslims possible. Whether all of this can be done is, however, far from certain.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

"We are in moral anarchy"

Her bizarre habit of supporting the odious Ken Clarke for Tory leader notwithstanding, Ann Widdecombe has always struck me as one of the few decent people left in parliament. And this view was not undermined by her comments in an interview in today's Daily Mail:

"It is the liberal dictatorship," says Widdecombe angrily. "Most of our social ills are down to loss of authority; in schools, by the police, in the home, in organised religion.

"There is a slow descent into anarchy. We are in moral anarchy. In some estates it is already there. To change things, you must start to restore authority to the police."

She says that the force should introduce "proportionality" - not sending six officers to arrest someone for making a politically incorrect comment, but instead targeting muggers.

She believes we live in an age in which the liberal tyranny cows people into silence. "People need to be free to say what we think.

"We must not accept this liberal tyranny which says that if you go against the orthodoxy, you will not only be ostracised but criminalised as well.

"We have to take on the three ugly sisters: the rights culture, the compensation culture and political correctness.

"We now have something we have never before had in this country, but is what the Soviets had - which is, that you can be punished by the law for disagreeing with the prevailing orthodoxy."

[...]

One reason that Widdecombe is at ease with herself, whatever her public image, is that she is true to her conscience.

She is at a loss to see how other Catholics, such as Cabinet minister Ruth Kelly and the soon-to-be-converted Tony Blair, can square their actions with their consciences.

"If I had been Ruth, I would have resigned over the Catholic gay adoption issue. And I don't understand Blair's actions and his faith," she says.

"There is no doubt he was a huge Catholic sympathiser. But he never once took a pro-life line on abortion.

"He also voted against exempting Christmas Day and Easter Day from Sunday trading regulations.

"And then his government introduced civil partnerships and forbade Catholic adoption agencies from making their own choices over gay adoption.

"If you are being received as a Catholic, as I was, you have to say that all the Church teaches is revealed truth. It is not a pick and mix religion."

She also accuses Blair of weakening Christianity in this country and thus allowing predatory fundamentalist faiths to enter. "The loss of Christian faith has coincided with the growth of a more predatory faith. We should stop confusing respecting the faith of others with surrendering our own."

I don't think there's a word she says here that I don't agree with, although I would say that if the police are to regain their lost authority, then they will have to work hard for it. The loss of trust in, and respect for, the police is something that has been brought about, not just by the incompetence of politicians, but by the actions of officers themselves, many of whom seem only too keen to side with criminals against the law-abiding public.

Miss Widdecombe's comments about Islam (at least, I assume that her talk of "a more predatory faith" was not an effort to expose the hitherto unknown threat posed by hardline Buddhists!) were also encouraging. Even if she did not go as far as I or many of the readers of this site would go in her condemnation of that religion, it is still nice to hear a politician from one of the big three parties come out with something that goes beyond "Islam is a wonderful Religion of Peace".

Of course, the real problem is that Ann Widdecombe is approaching sixty, and will be standing down from parliament at the next election, whereupon she will no doubt be replaced with some liberal Cameronite yes-man. It seems to me that almost all the members of the political elite who sometimes or often speak words of sense are of Miss Widdecombe's generation, or older (two examples that come to mind are Lord Tebbit (76) and Frank Field (65)), while the younger generations of politicians and commentators are almost all tied up in politically-correct liberalism. As the country continues to meander up a certain creek devoid of a paddle, the political elite looks set to move further and further into a liberal dreamworld.

Labour jumps back into bed with the MCB

Via Conservative Home, I read that, just one year after Ruth Kelly, in perhaps the one decent action of an otherwise worthless career, began taking steps towards sidelining the Muslim Council of Britain, her successor as communities secretary, the equally worthless Hazel Blears, has jumped right back into bed with the organisation. Apparently, a meeting between Blears and representatives of the MCB took place on August 8th, indicating that, with Blears replacing Kelly, the MCB is back in favour. That is, assuming that it was ever really out of favour; I would not be at all surprised to learn that the government only ever gave it the cold shoulder in order to maintain the pretence that it is "tough on extremism".

One aspect of the MCB's behaviour that has earned it particular criticism has been its decision to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day, on the rather spurious grounds that attention should be focused on a wider range of genocides than just the Holocaust. However, to my mind that is perhaps the least of the MCB's many flaws. A read through the archives of the sadly defunct MCB Watch blog should be sufficient to demonstrate why this organisation is utterly unfit to have any influence over the government. For example, this is an organisation which praised the leader of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, as a "renowned Islamic scholar", and which has also got kind words to say about the Caliphatist organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir. And, while Iqbal Sacranie, who once expressed the view that death was "too easy" a punishment for Salman Rushdie, no longer leads the MCB, Inayat Bunglawala remains firmly ensconced as the organisation's media secretary. Bunglawala, who believes the MSM to be "Zionist-controlled", and delights in listing those senior media figures who belong to what he charmingly terms "the Tribe of Judah", once praised Osama Bin Laden as a "freedom fighter", and has also been suspected of sending death threats to Charles Johnson, author of Little Green Footballs (when challenged over this, Bunglawala again blamed those pesky "Zionists").

These, then, are the people who, once again, have the ear of the government. People who peddle conspiracy theories and openly support terrorists. This, dear readers, is what dhimmitude feels like.

Ban the Koran?

Earlier in the week David wrote about the debate currently taking place in Germany as to whether Mein Kampf should continue to be banned. Now, I read that the Dutch politician Geert Wilders has precipitated a similar debate in his own country, after calling for a ban on the Koran, which he directly compared to Hitler's 'magnum opus'. Writing in the left-wing De Volkskrant newspaper, he said:

This book encourages murder and hatred, and therefore does not fit within our society. If Muslims want to participate in our society, they have to distance themselves from this Koran. I can see that would be too much to ask for, but we have to stop making concessions.

Predictably, the call for a ban has outraged Muslims, and their friends on the left. A lawyer and minor politician named Els Lucas has called for Wilders to be prosecuted for the ludicrous-sounding but apparently real crime of "insulting a section of the community", while De Volkskrant itself appeared to question Wilders' sanity. As the Dutch blogger Klein Verzet points out, the rhetoric now being employed by the left is similar to that which they formerly directed against Pim Fortuyn. And we all know what happened there...

So, should the Koran be banned? Personally, I think not. While I believe that a ban on the Koran would be more easily justified than a ban on Mein Kampf - after all, Mein Kampf is now only believed by a handful of sartorially-challenged lunatics, whereas the Koran is revered by a billion sartorially-challenged lunatics, many of whom are actively trying to destroy Western civilisation, rendering a ban on the Koran equivalent, not to banning Mein Kampf today, when it poses no threat, but to banning Mein Kampf at the height of World War Two - I think that the Koran is one of the great weapons against the Islamic threat, and banning it would prove counterproductive. After all, why would we want to deny people the chance to see the full, ugly reality of Islam, abundantly demonstrated in its holy book?

But Wilders is raising an important point, when he says that "we have to stop making concessions". As documented repeatedly on this blog and on others, Western governments seem to acquiesce to every demand that is made by a Muslim. Often, this results in the stifling of free speech. Threatening them with the banning of their holy book is rather a nice way of warning them that the ability to push others around with over-the-top demands cuts both ways. Maybe someone should try it here...

Originally posted at ATW.

Muslim Schools teach Caliphatism

In the Sunday Times, I came across the rather worrying revelation, that the Islamic Shaksiyahan Foundation, an organisation run by members of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, is itself running two schools in Britain - one in Haringey, North London, and the other in Slough. Hizb ut-Tahrir has as its primary aim the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, run according to the principles of Sharia law, and this is reflected in the curriculum at the two schools:

According to the Islamic Shaksiyah Foundation’s curriculum document, children aged 7-8 are taught “our rules and laws come from Allah” and asked to contrast Islam with “other belief systems where human beings make rules”. At age 9-10 children should be taught: “There must be one khali-fah [ruler of the caliphate].”

I'd also be interested to hear what their history syllabus is like, given that it's written by a woman named Themina Ahmed, whose previous writings include the following:

The world will, insha-Allah, witness the death of the criminal capitalist nation of America and all other [infidel] states when the army of jihad is unleashed upon them.

It really is quite worrying that we are allowing, not merely the formation within our country of Islamic schools, but the formation within our country of Islamic schools which teach support for two things, the caliphate and Sharia law, which stand in direct opposition to our traditional way of life. That a woman who apparently supports the violent destruction of Britain and other western nations is involved in a prominent role in formulating the school curriculum is also what some might just possibly regard as cause for concern. There is a debate, which has been ongoing for some time, about whether Hizb ut-Tahrir should be banned, and I would say that, regardless of whether or not Hizb is closed down, these schools (or, to phrase it more accurately, 'brainwashing centres') definitely should be.

Hugh Fitzgerald on demography

There's an interesting post by Hugh Fitzgerald at Dhimmi Watch, on the subject of the demographic war being waged by Muslims against the infidels. Of course, I doubt that there can be many people reading this blog who are unaware of the extremely high Muslim birth-rate in Britain, and in Western Europe as a whole, but Mr Fitzgerald also demonstrates that the tactic (and there can be no doubt that, at least for the imams in charge, it is a tactic, and a very successful one) of turning themselves into a majority by simply outbreeding rival religious or ethnic groups is one that Muslims are using across the world. Of course, once their numbers become sufficiently large, then the next step is incessant low-level violence against non-Muslims, something that we are already beginning to witness in France and Sweden, for example.

Another point that Mr Fitzgerald makes is that the bloated Western European welfare state means that we are actually supporting the vast families that so many Muslims have. It is bad enough that these people are living and breeding in our midst, ready to take over our country. But the fact that we are paying for them to do so really is sickening.

It is imperative that we prevent the Muslim population in Britain growing much further. If we do not, we risk ending up like the Christians of Lebanon, now an oppressed minority in a land which once was theirs. For this reason, I believe that we need to take drastic action to make the breeding up of big families less appealing to Muslims. And the best way to do that, is to hit them in their wallets. Specifically, I believe that Muslims should be denied access to the various social security payments upon which so many of them rely for financial support when raising their numerous children. They should not, for example, be entitled to child benefit payments: if they want to raise an invading army within our country, let them finance it themselves, if they can. Or let the much-vaunted Ummah pay for it. But leave the British taxpayer out of it. I imagine that if Muslims were made to suffer genuine financial hardship in consequence of their habit of breeding vast families, then they would be much less keen to do it, and the Muslim birth-rate would fall significantly.

A tale of two veils

One of these stories is amusing, the other less so.

The first falls into the category of "less so". Last week I wrote about Ian Murray, the Manchester magistrate who refused to sit on the case of a Zoobia Hussain, a female defendant who turned up wearing a niqab (that's the one which shows only the wearer's eyes), after which she, for no very good reason, threw a tantrum, claiming that it was the biggest human rights violation since, well, the last time a Muslim had their feelings slightly hurt. The latest update in this saga is that she has now issued a formal complaint, via her solicitor, which has triggered an automatic investigation into Mr Murray's conduct. The result of this should be of interest to us all.

The second story comes from Pakistan. Readers may have heard of the recent clashes between Pakistani police and Islamists outside the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad. Well, it seems that at the height of the battle, the leader of the terrorists, Abdul Aziz, displaying the same courage that is common to most Islamic leaders, attempted to escape, disguised in a niqab, and surrounded by similarly-attired women and girls. Sadly for Aziz, the women were stopped, and he was identified by his height and, apparently, his pot belly.

So, what can we learn from this? Well, first, that Abdul Aziz should probably lay off the Gulab jamun. Secondly, though, let's consider the link between these two cases. Abdul Aziz used the full veil in an attempt to disguise himself. In this he follows in the footsteps of, among others, John Simpson (who entered Taliban-controlled Afghanistan disguised in a niqab), and Mustaf Jama, the murderer of PC Sharon Beshenivsky, who fled the UK wearing his sister's niqab. These attempts, two of which were successful, to use the Islamic veil as a disguise demonstrate that the veil is, actually, a rather good way of hiding one's true identity. Which might go some way to demonstrating why defendants should not be allowed to turn up at court wearing them. After all, I couldn't enter a courtroom wearing a balaclava helmet, and that shows rather more of one's face than a niqab does.

British ex-Muslim group formed

Inspired by a similar movement in Germany, a Council of ex-Muslims of Britain is set to be launched on Thursday, according to the blog of the British-based Iranian activist, Maryam Namazie.

While I in no way support Miss Namazie's aggressively secularist and communist views, I nonetheless feel that an ex-Muslim association has the potential to make a quite substantial contribution to the struggle against Islam. It is estimated that there are 200,000 people living in Britain who have rejected Islam, for one reason or another, and it must be remembered that leaving Islam is totally unlike leaving, say, Christianity. Islamic law prescribes the death penalty for those who renounce Islam, and even in Britain, which is not yet a Sharia state, known apostates from Islam face violence and intimidation at the hands of their erstwhile coreligionists. An organisation dedicated to representing and supporting such people could, if well organised, encourage many more to publicly reject the poison that is Islam. In addition, it could serve to undermine the power of groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain, which derive much of their influence from appearing to represent every single person of Muslim heritage in the UK. This could only be a good thing.

Of course, whether the new Council of ex-Muslims will do any of this, or whether it will be a damp squib, is something that we shall have to wait to find out.

Muslims rise against British oppression - British oppressors don't notice

Via a comment at the Pub Philosopher's blog, I find a rare report on the much vaunted "Muslims rise against British Oppression" demonstration, at the New English Review. It seems that the protest was not quite the Earth-shattering show of Islamic strength that certain elements had hoped. Apparently a couple of hundred Muslims, and about fifty National Front members, shouted slogans at one another for a couple of hours, and then went home. Pickled Politics also has a report, as does Battle for Britain.

So, it seems the glorious Islamic revolution is not with us just yet. Nonetheless, we must not become complacent - the Islamic threat is still as real as ever, and it does not come from lone nutters like Anjem Choudhary, but from demographic change, and the slow transformation of our society into a Sharia state.

UCU Little Vichyists Update

Following on from last night's post on the subject, the BBC reports that academics of the University and Colleges Union have now officially voted, by a unanimous majority, to refuse to take any steps towards challenging Islamism on university campuses. The UCU's general secretary, Sally "Witch" Hunt, said:

Lecturers have a pivotal role in building trust. These proposals, if implemented, would make that all but impossible.

Universities must remain safe spaces for lecturers and students to discuss and debate all sorts of ideas, including those that some people may consider challenging, offensive and even extreme.

Hmm. It sounds like old Witch Hunt is a real libertarian defender of free speech. The kind of principled advocate for her position that one can really respect, even when that position is patently absurd.

But wait. Astonishingly, she isn't. Here's what she had to say when Nick Griffin was banned from speaking at Bath University:

It was the correct decision. Allowing the BNP to speak would have compromised the safety of students and staff and sent out a very worrying message about Bath University's commitment to diversity.

Okay. So on the one hand universities should allow free discussion of all views no matter how "challenging, offensive and even extreme" they might be. But on the other, the BNP should be prevented from speaking at universities because their views are seen as being, essentially, "challenging, offensive and even extreme" by Miss Hunt. It would appear that our great champion of free speech is in fact a bit of a hypocrite. Ultimately, as I wrote yesterday, the stance of the UCU simply suggests that, while they really, really hate the BNP, they have more than a sneaking sympathy for Islamic terrorists.

One down...

Race hate preacher Sheikh Abdullah al-Faisal, who influenced one of the 7 July bombers, has been deported from Britain, the home secretary said.

He left Gatwick for Jamaica at 1200 BST, accompanied by two police escorts and an immigration officer.

Al-Faisal, who is of Jamaican origin, lost his appeal against deportation.

He was jailed in 2003 for soliciting the murder of Jews and Hindus. London bomber Germaine Lindsay was "strongly influenced" by him, John Reid said.

In a statement on Friday, Mr Reid said he was pleased that al-Faisal, 43, had been removed and excluded from the UK.

He said: "We are committed to protecting the public and have made it clear that foreign nationals who abuse our hospitality and break our laws can expect to be deported after they have served a prison sentence.

"We will not tolerate those who seek to spread hate and fear in our communities."

Two words: Anjem Choudhary.

Anyway, Faisal's deportation is good news. But we shouldn't imagine that it will change a thing. The problems with Islam in this country are not limited, as is frequently alleged, to the misbehaviour of a "tiny minority of extremists". Rather, they are endemic features of the religion. But Faisal was one of the more evil and dangerous nutters, so it's good to see him go.

Muslim Emigration?

Many Muslims, fed up with what they see as Islamophobia, are upping sticks and heading for the Middle East.

At Nuzhat al-Sibassi's family home in south London, the contents are being packed away in boxes, ready to be shipped to the United Arab Emirates.

Mrs al-Sibassi was born in Britain to Pakistani parents, raised and educated here. She's worked as a senior hospital manager in the NHS, but is now moving with her family to the United Arab Emirates.

They won't be missed.

"Living here is not how it was. The politics and the environment has changed and people's perception of Muslims has changed dramatically. A number of incidents in UK over past 3-4 years have marred life for decent Muslims living here."

Mrs al-Sibassi is just one of a growing number of middle class Muslims who are leaving because they no longer feel comfortable living in the country of their birth.

Last year an ICM survey found that two-thirds of Muslims contemplated leaving Britain after the 7 July bombings in London. The regular flow of front-page headlines has placed Muslims under intense pressure to explain their faith and its place in British society.

Let's just pause to remember that 7/7 involved the murder of 52 people by a gang of Muslim terrorists. There has never been anywhere near such violence perpetrated against Muslims in the UK.

Personally, I'd be delighted to see mass Muslim emigration from the UK. Unfortunately, despite the spinning of the BBC, the fact remains that the Muslim population of the UK is given endless preferential treatment, that they are a group that wields an increasing, and increasingly malign, influence, and that their numbers are steadily increasing as well. But you won't hear the BBC comment on any of that.

Islamification Watch

A number of private corporations have already begun providing financial products specially designed to be compliant with Sharia law. Now, however, our government wants to do the same thing:

Muslims keen to comply with the financial strictures of religious Islamic law may be able to buy Premium Bonds for the first time after a government review announced yesterday.

Ed Balls, the Treasury Minister in charge of City affairs, wants all types of government-sponsored savings products to be accessible to those who adhere to Sharia.

The appropriately-named Balls is not just a treasury minister. He is also a key ally of Gordon Brown, and could perhaps be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Premium Bonds, a favourite among small savers for 50 years, will be among the National Savings products to be tested for suitability. All other National Savings accounts will also be examined.

Government bonds — so-called gilts — sold to individuals and big institutional investors will also come under the feasibility study. They may be where the biggest impact of any review is felt.

The Government will issue about £60 billion of gilts this year. The Treasury estimates that Islamic assets top £125 billion worldwide.

Financial products offered by the Government to ordinary Muslim investors present a challenge for National Savings, which provides safe and simple products ranging from Premium Bonds to savings accounts.

Premium Bonds will have to overcome two key difficulties: Sharia outlaws the payment of interest; and gambling runs contrary to strict Islamic tradition.

Nation states most commonly borrow through the issue of bonds. Several Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, Singapore (not actually a Muslim country, but a secular nation with Buddhists as the largest group, followed by Christians, and only then Muslims - FR) and the financial centres of Qatar and Dubai, issue a proportion of their national debt in Islamic bonds.

Most Islamic financial products work on the principle of investing in a fixed asset able to generate a rate of return, such as property that yields rent or an asset that can repay a larger capital sum on redemption. These avoid paying interest.

Pakistan has issued an Islamic bond linked to its motorway network, which generates income through road tolls.

The Treasury was unable to say how British bonds might be structured but, if it does find a way, Britain would be the first European state to issue financial products that are compliant with Islamic law.

Oh, great. Let's be the most Islamified nation in Europe.

As with so many instances of Islamification in this country, this is, of itself, rather innocuous. But it's the cumulative effect of so many surrenders that must be taken into account. This kind of surrender is in the same class as the increasing habit of serving all schoolchildren Halal meat, or pointing all graves towards Mecca. It doesn't necessarily mean Muslims are running the country, but it does mean that the Muslim position on these matters is becoming the default position, often without any debate at all. And that is the most insidious, and most dangerous, aspect of Islamification.

Riot Alert!

According to a report in the Sunday Times today, Muslims in France are threatening to riot if Nicolas Sarkozy is elected president of the country:

In the centre of the bleak 1970s council estate - where only 44 per cent of adults are employed - Koné Jaoussou, 28, was waiting with a friend, Zair Issa, 18, after voting for the Socialist candidate, Ségolène Royal.

"I just hopes she gets in because if Sarkozy wins, this place is going to explode again," he said. "There’ll be riots here in the suburbs all over France."

According to provisional results, Sarkozy has taken 30% of the first-round vote, and will go into a run-off with Segolene Royal, who got 25%. He must surely be the favourite, and the run-off is on May 6th, so I would advise readers to look out for more Muslim violence come May 7th.

Or, alternatively, if he loses, I would advise readers to remember that Royal is the candidate of dhimmitude, and to look out for an Islamic state in France, come 2010.