London's vibrant diversity

Police were appealing for witnesses today following the attempted murder of a man who was doused in petrol and set on fire in east London.

The 20-year-old, who is fighting for his life in hospital, was torched as he sat in his car in Forest Gate.

It is believed the Hindi [sic] victim, who suffered 65 per cent burns in the attack, was targeted because he was dating a Muslim girlfriend.

He had just parked his car, a green Honda Prelude, in St George’s Road when he was approached by the suspect or suspects and had petrol poured over him before being set alight.

[...]

Two men aged 20 and 21 have been arrested on suspicion of attempted murder and released on bail.

While this report tells us that the victim was a Hindu, and his girlfriend a Muslim, no details are provided regarding the religious affiliation of his attackers. They could be literally anyone...

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Priest bashing of the day

A SECOND priest has been beaten up in his own churchyard in the space of just eight weeks in London’s East End — this time over an argument about a football.

The Rector of St Matthew’s in Bethnal Green, The Rev Kevin Scully, was attacked on Tuesday afternoon by three drunken youths who had returned to take their revenge for a row three days before.

He had taken their ball last Saturday after he saw them using a cross on the church as a basketball hoop.

He has been taunted with religious and racist abuse in the past, but believes the beating was more alcohol-fuelled than anything more sinister.

The attack follows the vicious assault on Canon Michael Ainsworth at St George-in-the-East church in Shadwell in March [see here - FR].

But although that attack was treated as a ‘faith hate’ crime, police consider the latest incident as simple assault.

Fr Scully, 45, who was left with two black eyes, cuts and bruises, told the Advertiser: “I’m still a bit shaken up.

“It came out of an incident where some teenagers were using the front of the church as a basketball hoop.

“I took their ball and told them to leave—but they came back on Tuesday, drunk, to demand their ball back and attacked me.”

He recalled: “One of them was instigating the violence.

“I thought the other two were going to stop it, but in the end they joined in.

“Even a passer-by who saw what was going on and tried to intervene got a kicking too."

[...]

Mr Scully, however, insists it was not a ‘policing’ problem, but a ‘community’ problem.

“These are someone’s sons, someone’s brothers,” he said. “These people are known in the community.”

“There is a certain racial and religious element to this,” adds.

“I have been and was taunted religiously — and that is a worrying aspect of it.

“But I would not make that a ‘flag of convenience.’

“These are drunken yobs and that is the shame of it.

“They could probably have a very bright future ahead of them if they only did something about it.”

Police are investigating the assault and say they are looking for three Asian youths, all aged about 16.

Now, there clearly was a "history" between Fr Scully and the three attackers. This does not, of course, excuse their behavior, but it does suggest that they were not motivated solely by Christianophobia or Kuffarphobia.
However, the actions of the three "youths" in this case are, I think, indicative of a certain attitude among Bethnal Green's Muslims, which allows the area's Christian minority to be treated in a manner that would not be tolerated in respect of fellow members of the Ummah. For example, can you imagine that, had these three young men had a similar altercation with an imam, they would have felt such little compunction about going back a few days later and beating the shit out of him? Indeed, would they even have rowed with an imam in the first place? Certainly, I doubt that they would have treated a mosque with the same disrespect that they apparently accorded to St Matthew's Church.
Maybe they didn't attack Fr Scully because he was a white Christian, but it is highly probable that they felt that, being a white Christian, Fr Scully was a more socially acceptable target for violence than he might otherwise have been. In any event, the fact that Fr Scully had been "taunted with religious and racist abuse in the past", taken together with the attack on Canon Michael Ainsworth back in March, serves to demonstrate that there clearly is a problem with Christianophobic violence in the East End, with young Muslim men emerging as the principal (indeed, the sole) culprits. Now there's a surprise!

Hat-tip: Laban Tall

"Stop being a crusader"

A British citizen who converted to Christianity from Islam and then complained to police when locals threatened to burn his house down was told by officers to “stop being a crusader”, according to a new report.

Nissar Hussein, 43, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, who was born and raised in Britain, converted from Islam to Christianity with his wife, Qubra, in 1996. The report says that he was subjected to a number of attacks and, after being told that his house would be burnt down if he did not repent and return to Islam, reported the threat to the police. It says he was told that such threats were rarely carried out and the police officer told him to “stop being a crusader and move to another place”. A few days later the unoccupied house next door was set on fire.

Christian Solidarity Worldwide, a British human rights organisation whose president is the former Cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, is calling on the UN and the international community to take action against nations and communities that punish apostasy.

Its report, No Place to Call Home, claims that apostates from Islam are subject to “gross and wideranging human rights abuses”. It adds that in countries such as Britain, with large Muslim populations in a Westernised culture, the demand to maintain a Muslim identity is intense. “When identities are precarious, their enforcement will take an aggressive form.”

As, indeed, it does in many overwhelmingly Muslim nations, where such identities are presumably not quite so "precarious"!

If the allegations in this report are accurate - and there is no reason to suppose that they are not - then the conduct of the police really was disgusting. Not only did they fail to take action against the people making the threats of violence (a response which, given their track record, is hardly surprising), but they treated the victim as if he himself were at fault. Moreover, in condemning Mr Hussein for having the temerity to live as a Christian in a neighbourhood full of Muslims, and expect not to have his house firebombed (!), the police used terminology straight out of the Islamist lexicon, condemning him for "being a crusader". Still, given that the police tried to have the makers of the documentary "Undercover Mosque" prosecuted for accurately reporting extremist comments by Muslim preachers, we shouldn't be too shocked by their response to Mr Hussein's complaint. Although I do wonder what it is about Muslims that leads the police to treat them in so favourable a manner!

More generally, the treatment meted out to Mr Hussein, and other Islamic apostates, by their erstwhile coreligionists serves to demonstrate the complete incompatibility of Western and Islamic culture. It is quite some time since I last heard of anyone being threatened with death for converting away from Christianity, and I don't recall ever meeting anyone who favoured executing apostate Christians. By contrast, 36% of young Muslims in Britain believe that converting away from Islam is an act meriting the death penalty. As I have noted before, the threats and attacks that Nissar Hussein endured were far from unique.

Getting to know Islam

This story is a few days old now, but it is still worthy of notice:

A primary school in Amsterdam wished to provide its pupils with an understanding for other cultures. But during a visit to a mosque, the children were told they were dogs.

Developing an understanding of other cultures, and being called a dog, are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

With a view to developing understanding and respect for other cultures among children, primary school De Horizon regularly organises outings to various religious organisations. The chairman of the El Mouchidine mosque told the children from group 7 (aged 10) and their chaperones however that non-Muslims are dogs.

Muslims have quite a wide range of such dehumanising insults to throw at the infidels. For example, London's King Fahd Academy teaches children that Christians are pigs, and Jews apes.

In a letter to the children's parents, the school expresses its regret at the incident: "We are shocked that during the guided tour, the mosque's chairman told the children and chaperoning parents that non believers were dogs. We consider this statement as unacceptable since we allow our children to partake in this project to develop respect for freedom of religious choice".

In the meantime, the school's management has addressed the mosque on the undesirable behaviour of the chairman. Both parties will say nothing further on the matter. "We will resolve the matter amongst ourselves and I have no inclination whatsoever to discuss the matter with the media", as newspaper De Telegraaf quoted the school's spokesperson Mariet ten Berge. "We have been to the mosque before and it always went well".

I can't imagine quite how the school is going to broach the matter to the mosque authorities! "Could you please maintain a veneer of respectability, and keep your more bigoted views to yourself next time; we don't want the children getting the right idea about Islam", perhaps? Or maybe the grovelling "We're deeply sorry that some of the children took your honoured chairman's remarks out of context - it won't happen again", will be more to the taste of the school's management?

Angry parents had sent the letter on to De Telegraaf but were reportedly rapped on the knuckles by the school's management. "The school wishes to play this down. That is precisely the problem", as one mother commented.

In this story, and the school's response to it, you have a microcosm of the general attitude of the authorities to Islam, and those who expose the wrongdoing of its followers. A Muslim does something wrong, and every effort is made to hush it up, "resolving the matter amongst ourselves". Meanwhile, those who do no more than publicise the misdeeds of the Muslim are themselves denounced, or at least "rapped on the knuckles", for having the nerve to criticise the Poor Oppressed Victims. I'm rather surprised that the parents in question have not, as yet, been accused of "Islamophobia"!

I wonder whether the school is planning to continue sending children to visit this mosque? Certainly, this report contains nothing approaching an indication to the contrary, and the school's desire to deal with the matter privately, and to downplay any criticism of the mosque authorities, suggests that they hope for rapprochement, and the continuance of this mutually beneficial relationship.

Oh well, at least the children got a more balanced look at Islam than they would have done from simply listening to some dhimmi schoolmistress repeating platitudes about "Religions of Peace".

Postscript: A comment at Dhimmi Watch, where I first saw this story, quotes the following news report (I have no idea what the source was, since no link is given), in which the mosque chairman seeks to explain his statement:

According to a press release by Mohamed Guennoun, chairman of the El Mouhahidine [sic] mosque, the report above is based on erroneous information. He had never called unbelievers dogs and he rejects such statements.

[…]

When one 12 year old asked if Muslims are obligated to go to the mosque he had answered: No that is not obligatory. But there are those among us - those who think extremely - who think that if you as a Muslim don't go to the mosque five times a day to pray then you're really an unbeliever and not more than a dog.

Guennoun stresses that he was speaking of the extremists. He doesn't belong to that group and he rejects their way of thinking.

All the children, however, seem to have got the impression that he was calling them dogs. Bloody Islamophobes!

Fitna removed

Oh well, free speech was good while it lasted. Both versions of Geert Wilders' film have been removed from LiveLeak, and replaced with the following message:

The Removal of "Fitna": Official Liveleak Statement

Following threats to our staff of a very serious nature, and some ill informed comments from certain members of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members, Liveleak has been left with no other choice but to remove Fitna from our servers.

This is a sad day for freedom of speech on the net but we have to place the safety and well being of our staff above all else. We would like to thank the thousands of people from all backgrounds and religions, who gave us their support. They realised LiveLeak.com is a vehicle for many opinions and not just for the support of one.

Perhaps there is still hope that this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s culture.

We stood for what we believe in, the ability to be heard, but in the end the price was too high.

I'm not sure what the "ill informed comments from certain members of the British media that could directly affect the safety of some staff members" were. But I think that we can all guess where the threats of violence came from. A "Religion of Peace" indeed!

I don't blame LiveLeak for taking the film down: if they felt that there was a real risk of violence ensuing then they clearly have a duty not to compromise the safety of their staff. Indeed, they deserve praise for showing Fitna in the first place, when so many other media organisations were doing all they could to prevent the film from being seen. I do not, however, share their hope that "this situation may produce a discussion that could benefit and educate all of us as to how we can accept one another’s culture". I for one have no intention of accepting Islam, and see absolutely no reason why I should.

But what this really demonstrates is the extent to which it has become virtually impossible, in European countries, to criticise or challenge Islam. To do so is, as has been demonstrated time and again, to put one's very life at risk. Surely the speed with which LiveLeak has been forced to remove the film should serve to demonstrate that Islam is not like other religions, but is a threat to all the values of Western Civilisation.

Fitna released

Geert Wilders' anti-Islam film, Fitna, is finally out, after months of delays, and, well, to say that it's "gone viral" would, I think, be something of an understatement. Having been released earlier today, the Dutch-language version is, at the time of writing, pushing two million views, while the English-language version is at just over 1.1million views. To put this in context, when I wrote about the film over at ATW about an hour ago, the Dutch-language version was at 1.6million views, and the English-language version at 780,000. So that's roughly 700,000 viewers in the last hour alone! It's certainly one in the eye for all those - and there were many - who had hoped to ensure that this film never saw the light of day!

I've written more about the film itself in my ATW post, which can be read here, but, since the film's the main thing, here it is (please note that, as is made clear at the start of the film, some of the images used are pretty explicit):

Courage and spinelessness

In its first session since last week's general elections, the new Iranian parliament is expected to discuss a law that will condemn to death anyone who decides to leave the Muslim faith and convert to other religions.

The parliament, also known as the Majlis, will debate the new law which has been presented by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under the proposed law, anyone who is born to Muslim parents and decides to convert to another faith, will face the death penalty.

But...I heard Islam was a Religion of Peace. Where is the moderate, tolerant Islam we keep hearing about?

Currently converts, particularly those who have decided to leave the Muslim faith for Evangelical churches, are arrested and then released after some years of detention.

Ah, there it is.

According to unofficial sources, in the past five years, one million Iranians, particularly young people and women, have abandoned Islam and joined Evangelical churches.

This phenomenon has surprised even the missionaries who carry out their activities in secret in Iran.

An Evangelical priest and former Muslim in Iran told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the conversions were "interesting, enthusiastic but very dangerous".

"The high number of conversions is the reason that the government has decided to make the repression of Christians official with this new law," said the priest on condition of anonymity.

"Often we get to know about a new community that has been formed, after a lot of time, given that the people gather in homes to pray and often with rituals that they invent without any real spiritual guide," he told AKI.

"We find ourselves facing what is more than a conversion to the Christian faith," he said. "It's a mass exodus from Islam."

The total population of Iran is roughly 70 million, of whom 98% are Muslims, of one kind or another (at least officially). Clearly, the conversion of one million people, or 1.4% of the total population, is not going to have an immediate Earth-shattering impact upon the religious make-up of Iran. But it is significant, taking place over a period of just five years, and in the face of such severe persecution of those who do convert. Certainly, it must be worrying the Mullahs, if they want to start executing Christian converts!

But what really struck me about this story related not so much to the future religious direction of Iran, as to the contrast between the courage of these Iranian Christians, and the spinelessness displayed by so many of our own "Christian leaders". In Iran, these brave people are putting their freedom, and, potentially, their lives, at risk in order to reject Islam and embrace Christianity. Meanwhile in Britain, the Canon Chancellor of Blackburn Cathedral expresses his gratitude for Ramadan, the Bishop of Oxford describes plans to broadcast the Adhan - the Islamic call to prayer - over the city as "enjoyable community diversity", and congregations dwindle as churches close and reopen as mosques.

Hat-tip: Gates of Vienna

Racist Britain

As any fule (or, which is much the same thing, any good liberal) kno, racism is inherent in British society. Non-whites, we are given to believe, are at constant risk from the massed ranks of barbaric natives, who are just itching to tear them limb-from-limb in an orgy of genocidal bloodlust. Muslims, goes the traditional media narrative, are particularly at risk, and "Islamophobia" is now reaching record levels. Even such fair and impartial representations of Muslims and natives as "White Girl" can do nothing to stem the tide of hatred and bigotry. Knowing all this, it will come as no surprise to anyone to hear of two more horrendous racist attacks.

First up, a race hate incident:

A TERRIFIED pensioner and her grandson had a lucky escape when a gang of yobs threw a brick and a wrench through their window.

Around 15 youths shouted rascist abuse and attacked 74-year-old Jean Mills’ home in Victoria Walk, Chadderton, after threatening to burn it down.

The ordeal happened when her 13-year-old grandson, who she does not want to name, was sitting on the garden wall with a friend at around 8.45pm on Sunday.

They were called “white b*******”. The gang chased them into the house and threatened to torch it.

Half of the thugs stayed at the front of the house and threw a brick and a wrench through a window.

The others went to the back of the house where they kicked in the back door, smashing another window.

Around £400 of damage was caused and Mrs Mills said: “I was very shaken and my grandson was frightened because apparently two of them go to the same school as him.”

Her grandson, who lives with her, has been chased several times by the gang which the family says has been causing havoc in the area.

On Friday Mrs Mills asked them to stop destroying plants in her garden. A neighbour had a fence kicked down and a car was scratched

Her daughter, Janet Mills, said: “The wrench could have hit my mother or my nephew.

“It seems there’s a gang going round causing havoc. People are being confronted by these youths. The fact is if you are white you are going to be in trouble. That’s not good for Chadderton.”

A police spokesman said the gang was made up of white and Asian youths, and that no allegation of racism had been made.

Hmm, even if the gang was made of "white and Asian [sic] youths", that does not prevent it being a racist incident. At least, it didn't when the Stephen Lawrence memorial was vandalised by a black man...

Second, religious hatred. "Islamophobia", no doubt?

PARISHIONERS were in shock this week after thugs attacked a leading East End clergyman in the grounds of his church.

Two youths described by police as Asian attacked Canon Michael Ainsworth at St George-in-the-East Church in Shadwell, Scotland Yard confirmed this evening (Friday).

Police are treating the attack on the 57-year-old clergyman as an alleged 'faith hate' crime.

So, not Islamophobia then (except in the sense that attacks by Muslim terrorists are now designated as "anti-Islamic actions" - in that sense, this was clearly an instance of extreme Islamophobia). Rather, a Christianophobic attack, carried out by "Asians" - a favourite euphemism for 'Muslims'.

Of course, these cases don't fit the liberal paradigm of whites/Christians as oppressors and bigots, and Pakistanis/Muslims as poor oppressed victims. But then, as I have said time and time again, the majority of racist crimes don't fit that model - for a start, most race crime is directed against whites. The cases highlighted above provide further evidence that the hackneyed image of white racists going out "Paki-bashing" is a complete inversion of reality, and that it is, in fact, the "Asians" themselves who have a disproportionate propensity to indulge in racist and sectarian violence.

Hat-tips: Green Arrow (first case) and David Vance (second case)

More Islamic Apostasy

Following on from the story of the imam who tried to kill his daughter after she converted from Islam to Christianity, the Sunday Telegraph has published an interesting article on the subject of British-based Islamic apostates, and the threat they face from their erstwhile coreligionists. The whole thing is worth reading, as yet another illustration of the utter barbarity of Islam, but two points in particular are worth noting. First:

...it is not only extreme Muslim families that believe it is their religious duty to threaten, and even kill, members who renounce the religion.

"My father could not be described as an extremist," insists Sofia [an Islamic convert to Christianity], who is now 31. "We read the Koran and prayed regularly together, but he never insisted on my wearing Islamic dress and he was quite happy that I went to the local comprehensive, which was all girls, but not by any means dominated by Muslims."

Her parents were, in other words, the kind of people who politicians idealise as "the moderate Muslim majority" - devout, but apparently not totally in hock to Sharia ideology, and willing to mix with non-Muslims, to at least some extent. Yet when they discovered that their daughter had converted to Christianity, they beat and intimidated her, and then disowned her and threw her out of their house. Of course, had they been part of the "tiny minority of extremists", they might have reacted really badly!

One point to note is that they did not at any point try to kill her, or threaten to do so. Quite probably, they were not among the significant minority of Muslims who advocate the death penalty for apostasy. But even so, their views on this were clearly utterly different from those held in the West. From this, it follows that simply because a Muslim does not support the death penalty for apostasy (or, indeed, any other of the most extreme manifestations of Sharia law), we cannot necessarily infer that their views are "moderate", by our standards. We know that 36% of Muslims aged 16 to 24 support the death penalty in cases like this. What we don't know, is what, precisely, the other 64% believe.

The second point worth noting is that, while the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala did, to his credit, condemn threats against British-based Islamic apostates as "awful and quite wrong", he refused to condemn the seven Islamic states whose laws mandate the death penalty for apostasy. This was, he said, "a matter for those states". I can't help wondering whether the basis of this apparent discrepancy is that Bunglawala shares the view of the author of the Islamics blog, that the execution of apostates is justified, or even required, in Muslim countries, but not in non-Muslim countries. If so, then we have yet another reason not to want Muslims to ever become a majority in Britain.

Indeed, whatever Inayat Bunglawala may think, the attitudes of Muslims in general are clearly utterly incompatible with the values of the West. Sooner or later, on this issue as on so many others, one side is going to have to give way...

"Following Islam to the word"

The daughter of a British imam is living under police protection after receiving death threats from her father for converting to Christianity.

The 31-year-old, whose father is the leader of a mosque in Lancashire, has moved house an astonishing 45 times after relatives pledged to hunt her down and kill her.

The British-born university graduate, who uses the pseudonym Hannah for her own safety, said she renounced the Muslim faith to escape being forced into an arranged marriage when she was 16.

She has been in hiding for more than a decade but called in police only a few months ago after receiving a text message from her brother.

In it, he said he would not be held responsible for his actions if she failed to return to Islam.

Officers have agreed to offer her protection in case of an attempt on her life.

[...]

"I know the Koran says anyone who goes away from Islam should be killed as an apostate, so in some ways my family are following the Koran. They are following Islam to the word."

[...]

Hannah was born in Lancashire to Pakistani parents who raised her and her siblings as strict Sunni Muslims.

She prayed and read the Koran, wore traditional Muslim clothes and was sent to a madrassa, a religious Muslim school.

She ran away from home at 16 after overhearing her father organising her arranged marriage.

Hannah was taken in by a religious education teacher and decided to convert to the Christian faith.

Although unhappy, her parents tolerated their daughter's dismissal-of Islam as a "teenage phase".

But when she opted to get baptised, while studying at Manchester University, her family were incensed and the death threats began.

Her father arrived at her home with 40 men and threatened to kill her for betraying Islam.

"I saw my uncle and around 40 men storming up the street clutching axes, hammers, knives and bits of wood," she said.

"My dad was shouting through the letter box, "I'm going to kill you", while the others smashed on the window and beat the door.

"They were shouting, 'We're going to kill you' and 'Traitor'.

"It was terrifying. I was convinced I was going to either die, but suddenly after about ten minutes the noise stopped and the men suddenly went away."

The immediate response of liberals, when confronted with appalling cases like this, is half-hearted condemnation, combined with the commonly-heard refrain that this is the work of a "tiny minority of extremists". Which is a very reassuring explanation, marred only by the fact that it is patently untrue. Earlier this year a survey carried out on behalf of the think-tank Policy Exchange revealed that 36% of Muslims in Britain between the ages of sixteen and twenty-four supported the death penalty for apostasy. Not a majority, but a very significant minority, akin to the percentage of the general population who voted Labour at the last general election. Among older Muslims, support for the execution of apostates was lower (which is hardly encouraging, since it means that Muslims are becoming more, not less, extreme with each passing generation), but still 19% of Muslims over fifty-five advocated it. To keep up the general election analogy, that's on a par with the Lib Dems.

As regards the specific facts of this case, I would add that the father here is not a marginalised, extreme figure. Rather, he is an imam - a leader of his community. Neither was he lacking for supporters within his community: when he went to his daughter's house and threatened to kill her, he brought forty men with him - a far from negligible number, especially when drawn from only one local community. And those men didn't just support the death penalty for apostates - they were prepared to assist in carrying it out.

Nor is this the first case of its kind in Britain. Back in 2005, The Times published an article by Anthony Browne, which documented several other cases of attacks and threats made against ex-Muslims, by members of their own communities and, in some cases, their own families. It is probable that we will, sooner rather than later, see a resident of this country killed for converting away from Islam. And clearly, the fact that this has not happened already, cannot be attributed to any lack of effort or willingness to do the deed on the part of the far-from-tiny minority of extremists.

Some are more equal than others

In the wake of the recent conviction of the self-styled "Lyrical Terrorist", Samina Malik, the Muslim Council of Britain's Inayat Bunglawala has penned a characteristically rambling piece, entitled "An attack on liberty", at the Guardian's Comment is Free site. After ranting for some time on various stock Muslim grievances, he concludes by saying that "a foolish young woman who did not harm anyone now faces a maximum 10-year term in prison for what can only be described as a thought crime".

Now, some might say that possessing terrorist propaganda and joining an organisation, Jihad Way, which aimed to disseminate such propaganda and to support al-Qaeda goes some way beyond mere "thought crime". Personally, I would definitely say that organisations such as Jihad Way ought to be illegal, although I don't really think that she should be punished for her (admittedly appalling) poetry, or for downloading offensive material from the internet. In any event, I fail to see why Samina Malik should be prosecuted, while the likes of Anjem Choudhary are left free to incite murder in peace. So, to some extent I do actually agree with Inayat Bunglawala, and I am certainly glad to see that he is taking a stance against thought crime, an issue which greatly concerns me, and about which I have written on numerous occasions.

But hang on a minute! This Inayat Bunglawala, this champion of free speech, this enemy of the criminalisation of thoughts, surely he cannot be the same Inayat Bunglawala who, in 2005, wrote in favour of the introduction of laws creating a new crime of "incitement to religious hatred"? He must be a different Bunglawala from the one who then said that:

We believe stirring up hatred against people simply because of their religious beliefs or lack of them should be regarded as a social evil...We understand the concerns about free speech, but we think that they are totally misplaced.

And he can't possibly be the same Bunglawala who last year supported plans to widen the scope of the laws against "inciting racial hatred", following the acquittals of Nick Griffin and Mark Collett. No, because anyone who felt that Nick Griffin should go to prison for saying that Islam was a "wicked, vicious faith" (which statement, I would point out, does not contain any explicit or implicit threat, nor any reference to individual Muslims), but that punishing Samina Malik for writing such delightful couplets as "Kafirs your time will come soon/and no one will save you from your doom" and "For the living martyrs are awakening/and Kuffars world soon to be shaking" is "an attack on liberty", would be a complete hypocrite.

Postscript: To be fair to Bunglawala, he's not the only person displaying a distinct hypocrisy over this. Following Malik's conviction, Martin Sullivan, of the Islamophobia Watch blog, quoted approvingly from both Bunglawala's article, and Boyd Tonkin's rather better written piece on the same theme. Yet in the past he too has repeatedly come out in favour of restricting the free speech of people like the BNP.

Fascist thugs threaten SIOE demonstrators

Last week, I alerted readers to the demo that Stop the Islamisation of Europe plans to hold in London on October 26th. Well, it seems that some Muslim contributors to the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK's forums have also got wind of the demonstration, and one of them started a comments thread on the subject.

Some of the comments are perfectly harmless, albeit utterly delusional. One commenter even compares Muslims who oppose SIOE to Burmese monks who marched to oppose the military junta ruling their country. Because, of course, opposing the SIOE demonstrators carries with it the risk of being rounded up and imprisoned or killed, doesn't it? Various other commenters accuse SIOE of being fascists and racists.

But among these generally harmless examples of common or garden Islamic lunacy, are some somewhat less peaceable offerings. Consider, for example, this comment, from "venceremos":

...these racist Islamophobes should either be banned from marching or challenged.

They must not be allowed the opportunity to hide behind the freedom of speech to spread their vile poison.

By which he means, they must not be allowed the opportunity to exercise free speech.

If they can get away with marching in London this time, they'll be back --cowards that they are-- in larger numbers the next time.

London Jews learned that in the 'thirties and confronted Moseley's [sic] thugs in Cable Street in 1936. The Nazis were given a good duffing-up and never reared their ugly heads in Britain again.

This new generation of white supremacists are no different. You either stamp them out or they'll spread like an uncontrolled virus.

So, once again we see the lie that anyone who opposes Islam is a "white supremacist" and a "Nazi" blackshirt. At the same time, Muslims are equivalent, not only to Burmese monks, but also to Cable Street Jews. One wonders whether there has ever been an oppressed group to whom Muslims will not compare themselves? Other than the many groups who have been oppressed by Muslims, of course.

However, of rather greater importance is the fact that this thug appears to be advocating violence against peaceful demonstrators. Possibly even lethal violence: I'd be interested to know what it was, precisely, that he meant by "stamp them out".

Since this comment has been allowed to remain on the MPACUK forum, can we assume that it is endorsed by this Islamic organisation? After all, even the most ardent advocates of online free speech tend to draw the line at threats of violence.

Certainly, it seems that at least some of the MPACUK forum's other commenters agreed with "venceremos". Not one of them condemned him for the threat of violence, and at least one other commenter, "IbnTamiyya", agreed with him:

Yes brtoher [sic]! These people need to be taight [sic] a lesson.

We should take a lesson from the [inappropriate language]and sort these kuffars ourselves. The british government and police will not do it for us as they agree with everything these [inappropriate language]say and do.

This post had been edited by a forum moderator, to remove the "inappropriate language". What that inappropriate language was, I don't know. In the context, I'd imagine that the first instance contained some form of derogatory reference to Jews, but I really can't guess at what the second "inappropriate" phrase might have been. I also note, that while the moderator was quick to remove "inappropriate language", he did nothing to restrict or oppose the expression of views supporting violence against peaceful protesters. Nor did he deem the obviously threatening phrase "sort these kuffars" to be inappropriate. Again I ask, does MPACUK endorse threats of this nature?

As I mentioned above, the commenters at MPACUK repeatedly denounced the supporters of SIOE as being fascists and Nazis. However, I would say, that while there is an abundance of fascism on display in the comments quoted, absolutely none of it is coming from SIOE. On the contrary, it is coming from Muslim commenters, who, rather like the Burmese junta, wish to violently suppress the exercise of free speech by those who oppose them. It is because of people like these, that it is imperative that we do all that we can to resist the Islamification of Britain.

Pope Rage

Coming in 5-4-3-2-1...

The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.

It's nice to see the Pope addressing these issues - issues which "moderate" Muslim leaders in this country tend to want to sweep under the carpet. The appalling treatment of Christians (and, indeed, all non-Muslims) in the Islamic world emphasises the utter pettiness of those - Muslim or otherwise - who cry "Islamophobia" over such things as village fetes, pet food factories, and of course, cartoons. And more cartoons. And more cartoons. And...well, you get the picture (as it were). Perhaps those who are so quick to complain at the slightest criticism or mockery of Islam should pay heed to the Pope's words, and consider that their religion might not be so reviled by so many if its followers accorded the same rights to Christians that Christian countries accord to them. But, measured reflection has never really been the Mohammedans' strong suit. Screaming, whinging, seething, lynching, burning, threatening, and bombing is more their style, and there's a good chance that we shall see them display their talents in at least some of these areas over the next week or so.

Hat-tip: LGF

Islamic Tolerance at work

Despite a series of initiatives aimed at generating foreign tourism, the Saudi Arabian government continues to bar Jews and Christians from bringing items such as Bibles, crucifixes and Stars of David into the country and is threatening to confiscate them on sight, The Jerusalem Post has learned.

"A number of items are not allowed to be brought into the kingdom due to religious reasons and local regulations," declares the Web site of Saudi Arabian Airlines, the country's national carrier.

After informing would-be visitors that items such as narcotics, firearms and pornography may not be transported into the country, the Web site adds: "Items and articles belonging to religions other than Islam are also prohibited. These may include Bibles, crucifixes, statues, carvings, items with religious symbols such as the Star of David, and others."

As Neal Boortz said, "where's the outrage"? After all, Muslims are quick enough to throw tantrums when peaceful objections are raised to the building of an enormous mosque in our capital city; they must be absolutely seething with rage over this. I mean, they must be. Because the only other explanation would be that they're a bunch of hypocrites, and that couldn't possibly be true, could it?

Hat-tip: LGF

Quote of the Day

"Islam does not allow suicide attacks but it would be justified in the case of a blasphemer, who is worthy of death."

Chaudhry Mohammed Afzal Sahi, Speaker of the Punjab Provincial Assembly, on Sir Salman Rushdie.

Remember, it's the Religion of Peace.

Update: A picture of my "Angry Muslims of the Day", busily burning a Cross of St George outside Regents Park Mosque, can be found at ATW.

Anti-Semitism Rises: No one is responsible

In a speech in the House of Lords, Lord Moser has said that anti-Semitic attitudes in Britain are now at their highest level since the 1930s. His Lordship expressed a particular concern about the levels of anti-Semitism found in British universities, as well he might, given the recent actions of the Universities and Colleges Union.

Lots of people seem willing to talk about how terrible anti-Semitism is, and how we must oppose it, and a few people are even willing to link anti-Semitism to anti-Zionism. But no one seems willing to come out and say that a certain group in particular seems predisposed towards anti-Semitic attitudes and behaviour, and that this group is fuelling the national rise in anti-Semitism. And no, it's not the Methodists.

Birmingham: Forced Conversion to Islam

A TEENAGE Sikh girl was today being guarded by police amid claims she had been forced to convert to Islam.

An armed gang smashed their way into a house in Erdington last month and threatened the occupants, apparently in search of the girl.

She was reported missing from her family home in West Bromwich a few days earlier.

They are concerned that the girl, understood to be a student at Sutton Coldfield college, could have been forced to switch religion, it was reported.

This would not be the only instance of criminal thugs forcibly converting other young people to Islam. I am reminded in particular of the activities of the "Muslim Boys" gang in South London, whose favoured party tricks include conversion at gunpoint (although, of course, their activities are as nothing when set against the villainy of those wicked Catholic gangs).

Of course, if the girl has been converted, then, in the eyes of Islam, and of the thugs who did this, she is now to be considered a Muslim, whether the conversion was consensual or not. As such, she will presumably risk the usual punishment for apostacy, should she continue to live as a Sikh.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Tony Blair hears about Islamic moderation, and favoured methods of wife-beating

I see that the Blessed Tony has begun his crusade (if one can still use that particular word) to bring the world's Christians, Jews, and Muslims together in one great embrace. As well as announcing a £1million increase in funding for Islamic studies in UK universities (jizya, anyone?), Blair is hosting a conference of leading "moderate" Muslims, at Cambridge University. No Motoons will be on display...

As usual, of course, what passes for "moderate" among Muslims is roughly the same as that which passes for "psychotic loon" among anyone else. The list of participants at the conference includes, for example Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt. As well as expressing his support for Hezbollah, Gomaa also has some interestingly moderate views on the proper treatment of women:

...when Allah permitted wife-beating, He permitted it to the other side of culture, which considers it as one of the means to preserve the family, and as one of the means to preserve stability.

Another of Blair's new moderate friends is Hamza Yusuf, aka Hamza Yusuf Hanson. As Stephen Schwartz, himself a convert to Islam, has written:

Before 9/11, Hanson, a convert to Islam, was known for his high-pitched, hysterical rhetoric in denouncing America...two days before 9/11, Hanson hollered in Los Angeles, “This country (America) unfortunately has a great, a great tribulation coming to it. And much of it is already here, yet people are too illiterate to read the writing on the wall.”

In another pearl of Hansonian wisdom, the Islamist extremist side of his multiple personality babbled freely at a 1996 convention of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a paramilitary front for Pakistani jihadists. There Hanson described America as “a country that has little to be proud of in its past and less to be proud of in the present. I am a citizen of this country not by choice but by birth. I reside in this country not by choice but by conviction in attempting to spread the message of Islam in this country. I became Muslim in part because I did not believe in the false gods of this society whether we call them Jesus or democracy or the Bill of Rights or any other element of this society that is held sacrosanct by the ill-informed peoples that make up this charade of a society… [F]undamentals of Islam are being compromised… [C]onvention resolutions are meaningless Masonic exersises (sic) devised by men who desire to engage people in forums that would insure nothing changes… [T]here should be no voting or debate… [W]e have no room for ayes or nays.”

The rest of the participants seem to be a mix of dhimmis (with David Cameron, that great champion of Muslim family values, featuring prominently), and a few Muslims who may actually warrant the label "moderate" (in the sense that they don't appear to be actively siding with the enemy).

And what will this conference achieve? Absolutely nothing. Gomaa and Hamza Yusuf Hanson will repeat their well-worn taqiya party trick, and play the role of nice, friendly moderates. Other Muslims present, who genuinely don't want to kill or dominate everyone, will talk and talk - all to absolutely no effect, since they can wield nowhere near the same influence as Gomaa or Hanson. Dhimmi academics will pontificate, and the hot air will make the conference hall feel like a sauna. And at the end of it all, the situation will be exactly the same as it was before, except that the Muslims may have managed to wring a few more privileges out of the government.

"Don't insult Mohammed", says Jesuit

Christians must distance themselves from anyone or anything that insults Islam's prophet Mohammed and should come to a greater appreciation of his role in bringing millions of people to recognize the one God, said a German Jesuit scholar.

But Christians cannot share Muslims' recognition of Mohammed as the last and greatest prophet, said Father Christian Troll, a professor of Islam and of Muslim-Christian relations at the Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany.

Islamophobe!

Writing in La Civilta Cattolica (Catholic Civilization), a Jesuit magazine reviewed by the Vatican prior to publication, Father Troll was responding to a question asked by many Muslims: "We Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet and we venerate him. Why don't you Christians accept Mohammed as a prophet in the same way?"

Or, to rephrase that question, "why don't you Christians convert to Islam?"

While Christians cannot share Muslims' faith in Mohammed as the last and greatest prophet, "Christians must decisively distance themselves from every insult against Mohammed and, in addition, must try to recognize and appreciate his exceptional historic personality, his role as founder of Islam and the extraordinary place he occupies in the faith, piety and religious thought of Muslims," Father Troll said.

True respect for Muslims and for their faith, he said, requires Christians to "investigate that which in the life and teaching of Mohammed is acceptable or even exemplary and admirable for Christians, but also those aspects of his life and teaching that, from the point of view of Christian faith, would seem problematic and unacceptable."

Okay, the second bit is easy. He was a mass-murdering paedophile, after all. Not so sure what in Mohammed's life was "acceptable or even exemplary and admirable", and Fr Troll doesn't appear to make any effort to give any guidance on this point.

Actually, though, I don't feel the need to insult Mohammed. Not in the sense of making offensive things up, anyway, or even merely exaggerating his many known defects. All I need to do is say what is written down for all to see in the Koran and the Hadith. There's enough written about Mohammed in there to earn the author a libel action if he'd written it about anyone else.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Ruth Kelly's Bright Idea

Mosques are being urged to provide citizenship lessons for the thousands of youngsters they see daily.

About 100,000 UK youngsters attend Islamic religious schools attached to mosques - madrasas - every day.

A horrifyingly high number.

A new curriculum aims to tackle extremism and counter messages about perceived clashes between Islam and British culture.

"Perceived clashes". Because there are no real differences between Sharia culture and the British way of life, and saying that there are is just racism, okay?

It was drawn up by a group of mosques in Bradford and is being backed by the Communities Secretary Ruth Kelly.

It comes after an independent study into radicalism in local communities by academics at Durham University suggested a "step change" in traditional religious leadership was needed to tackle radicalism.

Ms Kelly said: "We cannot afford to allow our young people to be intimidated and influenced by extremist messages.

"Madrasas have a pivotal role to play in winning hearts and minds and supporting young people to reject the messages of extremist groups.

"This project ensures that young Muslim students learn the true teachings of Islam and encourages them to play an active role in their local communities and as citizens."

I hadn't realised Ms Kelly was an expert on "the true teachings of Islam". Clearly she is, and I must crave forgiveness for my ignorance. Although I do wonder which true teachings she was referring to? Sura 5.51 ("take not the Jews and the Christians for friends"), perhaps? Or maybe the infamous Sura 9.29 ("fight against [Jews and Christians] until they pay the tribute readily")? Or was it Bukhari 4.52.177 ("the Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews")?

The citizenship course itself, created by the Bradford Council for Mosques (BCFM) and known as the Nasiha project, aims to show that the spirit and teachings of the Koran are rooted in respect and tolerance.

It has been developed to promote community cohesion and help small communities be resilient to the small minority of extremists who promote violence and hate in the name of Islam.

While any plan to try and teach Muslims to behave like civilised people is worth encouraging, one suspects that, given the fact that many imams are proponents, not opponents, of violence and hate, setting them to teach children to be good citizens is not likely to have the desired effect.