We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

What if other people started acting like muslim activists?

I have often marvelled at how people in government and business are even willing to give muslim activists with profoundly illiberal views the time of day, particularly when you consider that such activists are a minority within a minority in the western world. Yet I suppose the reason is not too hard to figure out: it all comes down to violence.

The great majority of muslim activists do not engage in violence. They may say vile things and take monstrous positions on issues at the top of their voices but they never actually put the boot in literally, let alone throw a Molotov or strap on a bomb. However they are all too quick to say things like “well I would never do something terrible like blow myself up on a bus but there are others who feel so strongly about this…”

And so people start kowtowing to the ‘spokesmen’ and ‘activists’ because a deniable lunatic fringe within a larger community which tolerates them threatens (and indeed engages in) violence.

It does make me wonder what might happen if people who oppose the intolerance and gross disregard for civil liberties that seems so deeply rooted in modern Muslim cultures started adopting the same approach. Just asking.

171 comments to What if other people started acting like muslim activists?

  • Cathal O' Coplain

    The great majority of muslim activists do not engage in violence. They may say vile things and take monstrous positions on issues at the top of their voices but they never actually put the boot in literally …

    Well, I suppose you could say the same about Hamas supporters or Likudnites or old-school communists or Nazis.

    At any rate, Perry, you err when you speak of a ‘lunatic fringe’ in the Muslim community. The Islamists are not the lunatic fringe — they are the Muslims who take the Koran seriously, who follow the precepts of the book with the squiggly writing. They are acting out Allah’s holy will in their endeavours to enslave us — with a bit of help from the US neocons who are driving the entire Muslim world into the Islamists’ hands.

    But you are right about the kowtowing. Instead of grovelling, we should be applying the law of the land.

    The law of the land places two restrictions on free speech:

    (a) libel and calumny

    (b) sedition.

    Islam is sedition. Sedition is against the law.
    Though I suppose it’s too late to enforce it — and doing so might upset Sean Gabb and other freespeechniks.

  • Perry,

    “It does make me wonder what might happen …. “

    You might end up with a revolution.

    “It’s been a long time since we had one in this country…”

    PG

  • B's Freak

    You mean like grabbing the corpse of some business owner’s grandmother or mother in an efort to shut the business down? Wasn’t all that unsuccessful as I recall.

  • How come it is May already? I seem to have slept through April.

  • Perry,

    The answer is easy: The establishment would come down on you like a ton of bricks.

  • Pavel

    Cathal,

    Islamists are not the lunatic fringe. The whole Islam is.

  • Verity

    It would be nice to believe that the “vast majority” of Muslims are moderate, but Islam is a religion, or cult, of conquest. If you believe that you are reading the exact words that Allah dictated to Mohammad, then you believe that Allah has commanded that the entire world be Islamic. This is unequivocal. A Muslim cannot disagree with this because it is the direct word of god and therefore is not, as is the Bible, open to interpretation.

    This means there can be no accommodation with Islam. This is the elephant in the living room. Any Muslim who believes the Koran, and they all do as it is pumped into them five times a day from birth, believes the West must fall to Islam.

    Most of them aren’t hot-headed enough to run round the streets shrieking this out, but it is nevertheless integral to their religion. This is why they have never truly integrated as other immigrants have. This is why third generation Muslims are going to training camps and learning how to make explosives.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Cathal, dunno why you feel it was necessary to have a swipe at Sean Gabb. I cannot speak directly for Sean — whom I have known for 20+ years, but I imagine he would say something like this:

    Sedition laws are instruments of tyranny. If you start to claim that people holding a particular religious/political/whatever view are “seditious”, that puts unlimited power in the hands of a state.

    Think about it: this blog and others like it are pretty “seditious”, with their references to the “state is not your friend” and the like. Sedition laws are resented by liberals for good reason.

  • Bombadil

    I agree with Johnathan.

    The way to dry up a swamp of wacko extremists is to expose their bullshit to light and air. Let them publish their rantings for everyone to see.

    If you bury them, or force them underground via “sedition” laws, you cause them to grow.

  • toolkien

    Kow-towing to any violent, irrational fringe is sort of like the beaten wife who doesn’t want to make her husband angry. She even convinces herself it is her fault he goes into a rage “Well, I DID file my nails, and I know he doesn’t like it, so getting beaten to a pulp was my own fault, I had it coming…”.

    Being sensitive to others’ feelings is all well and fine, in an urbane, sophisticated environment, differences can be discussed. With intolerant, deaf thugs, there is no such thing. There are only a couple of ways to deal with the rabidly superstitious, ignore them, if you can, or put one between their eyes if you can’t. Certainly don’t go at it half-assed, fight your own necessary fights, don’t fight other peoples’ fights for them, and if fighting is necessary, prosecute it to its end, not the Korean, Viet-namese, or, currently, the Iraqi method. Fighting to draw, punching flacidly for a decade, or letting them “melt away” aren’t ways to fight a war.

    And it doesn’t take a majority to effect revolution or create the new order. All that is necessary is ~30% active, 35% passive and indifferent, and 35% who may be opposed, but not so polar so as to resist the radicals.

  • Eurostatistician

    Pavel, Verity:

    Spot on, both of you. The man to read is Lawrence Auster, whose website View From The Right is one of the best on the net.

    His book The Path to National Suicide is also now available on line.

  • With regards to Muslim activists (and lefties), I’m not sure if you’ve seen the pictures of the anti-Condi protests over the weekend:

    Blackburn (Link)

    Liverpool (Link)

  • Verity

    Excellent American writier Bruce Bawer has just had published, “While Europe Slept”. He is an American who moved to Sweden with his gay partner several years ago and has watched increasing pace of dhimmitude in Europe with dismay.

  • Cathal O'Coplain

    Johnathan,

    Sean Gabb is a highly intelligent man, probably one of the most articulate libertarians in the UK.

    I had a swipe at him because he seems to fall for the ‘slippery slope’ argument that if you prohibit free speech in any particular domain we will all eventually end up in a Bolshevist totalitarian state, or something like that. Perhaps I’m doing him an injustice but that’s what he sounds like to me.

    The problem in the West isn’t ‘free speech’.

    Free speech in respect of Islam is a matter of expediency and nothing else: if criminalising Islam would work, I would do so tomorrow — lock them up, throw them out etc. etc.

    Of course it probably wouldn’t work — as I said, we would probably find some libertarians siding with the enemy.

  • Verity

    Bruce Bawer is a working writer and translator, but he also runs an excellent, rational, very well written blog. I commend you to visit it. (Link)

  • Well, this was exactly the Sinn Fein/IRA tactic, and it worked for them too. The IRA killed Ross McWhirter on his own doorstep in 1975 for standing up to them. Sinn Fein used this dual-track strategy to get themselves into government.

  • nic

    People here are making the mistake of believing the spokesman of the Islamists. Yes, if you read the Koran LITTERALLY, it justifies some very heinous things. And the Islamists add just one more premise:

    -The Koran MUST be interpreted litterally.

    And admittedly, there are a number of Muslims who hold fast to that fundamentalist. But it is a mistake to think of that as the majority view. It is just a view held strictly by a small minority and that currently has rhetorical and institutional strength within Muslim communities. I imagine many other go along with it partly out of fear but mostly because they haven’t been offered any alternative way of living a pious life. And merely wanting to live a good religious life does not equate to fundamentalism.

    And if everyone starts saying that Islam is necessarily fundamentalist and either signs up to it, or starts prejudicely burning their bridges with the religion, then you have handed over a huge set of ideologies to the enemy! You have said to the Islamists “you’re right, your version of Islam is the only version of Islam” and this is a perfect way to hand over 1.2 billion people to the enemies’ ranks.

    That is not the answer at all. You must combine words with a blow.

  • Verity

    nic – I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

  • Mike Lorrey

    Muslims say they are moderates, but that is no different from 90% of the population believing they are middle class, or middle of the road, etc. It is the classic argument of the extremist attempting to move the middle to claim he or she is a moderate, the only relationship to reality is that all but one extremist knows other extremists who are more extreme than they are, so therefore they must be moderate.

    “Islam” doesn’t mean “Peace”, it means “Submit”. They peace they argue for is the peace the slave enjoys once he has submitted to the chains and the lash.

    Now, if one of us used the tactics they are using, we’d be racists, white supremacists, imperialist dogs, etc. It is culturally impossible for someone of any color other than white (and western) to be ‘racist’.

  • Verity

    Perry knows from his own experience that what he suggests in not possible. He was at the Rally for Freedom of Expression and saw the heavy police presence to keep their eye on a scant 300 – mainly white – people.

    Two weeks previously, the Islamics had rampaged through London with banners promising “the real” holocaust and telling us to wait for our 9/11, one of them dressed as a suicide bomber and the police reprimanded a white man who tried to stick up for his country.

    At the Freedom of Expression rally, someone who looks like a Pakistani told the police he “felt threatened” because one person was carrying a placard with a Motoon on it – and the man carrying the placard was charged. He wasn’t shouting anything incendiary. He was simply peacefully attenting a rally carrying a cartoon.

    So Perry, there isn’t a chance in hell that indigenous Brits and other immigrant groups could parade through the streets of London shouting threatening slogans against Islam and carrying threatening banners. Not a chanced in hell. You no longer have that freedom.

  • Verity

    A fun thing to do would be, get a bunch of like-minded black Brits to hold a rally with banners saying, “Down with Islam” and “Muslims go home!” “For a Muslim-free Britain!” and see what the police did.

    It would be like the proverbial act of putting a chameleon on a plaid. They would go mad. Ha ha ha ha ha!

  • nic

    “nic – I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about”

    Verity I am talking about this- “This means there can be no accommodation with Islam. This is the elephant in the living room. Any Muslim who believes the Koran, and they all do as it is pumped into them five times a day from birth, believes the West must fall to Islam.”

    I am saying that I reject your argument. All religions change and they can certainly be altered to be moderate and non-litteral in their interpretations. The very fact that some individuals can stand up and say “I am a gay muslim” shows Islam is not immune to progress.

    The way to do this is to stop speaking to the self-professed “moderates” who masquerade as representatives for all Muslims and start speaking to the real moderates, the ones that are proud to be both Western and Muslim, the ones that respect secular values even if they are religious. And they are out there because I have met them.

  • Millie Woods

    Nic, I don’t know what experience of Muslims you have had but with my limited contacts with the upper echelons of the Islamic world I’ve decided based on my anecdotal experience that they are a very weird and delusional lot.
    Examples – As a teacher at the Universite de MontrealIi occasionally had young Islamic men in my classes. They used to try flattery and cajolery to get out of assignments presuming that since I was female and a dhimmi I would simply fold and fall prey to their non-existent charms. I used to look super sincere when I listened to their appeals and watch their triumphant expressions before letting them know in the sweetest possible manner that they were full of it and I wasn’t going to budge from the rules. Now, however, after the slaughter of innocent female students by a deranged Islamic at the university, I wonder how close I came to nasty retaliation.
    The other incidents occurred when I was at graduate school at the University of Michigan and lived on the student housing estate. There were a lot of middle eastern families there with young children. The pre school boys were already little thugs who used to bash cars in the parking lot and throw toddlers off their riding toys and run off with them. When complaints were made against the families, the sisters were always thumped and smacked while the nasty little boys remained untouched and continued in their delinguency. Is it any wonder that they are terminal basket cases when the so-called creme de la creme behaves in this fashion?

  • Eurostatistician

    So Perry, there isn’t a chance in hell that indigenous Brits and other immigrant groups could parade through the streets of London shouting threatening slogans against Islam …

    If the present trend continues, there won’t be a chance in hell that anybody employed by the British public sector will dare open her mouth on the cognitive dimension of the nature-nurture debate.

    The Frank Ellis scandal is a litmus test — like the sacking of Chris Brand some years ago.

    And how did Samizdata react to the persecution of Frank Ellis?

    At least one leading contributor said (more or less) that Frank deserved to be sacked because his (scientifically uncontested) views on race and IQ upset “the taxpayer” — some kind of collective entity, it would appear.

    Like Frank Ellis, many of us are de facto civil servants (I am one of them) — through no fault of our own except that we have to earn a living somewhere. I am a moderate Euroskeptic. Should I keep my mouth shut because I would upset “the taxpayer” if I were to open it?

    I know most of you guys are libertarians, as I am myself in many ways — I am one of the anti-democratic, immigration-hostile and traditionalist variant of the species.

    But I wouldn’t expect many of you to defend my freedom of speech very passionately (nor that of Verity’s, whom I can read between the lines).

  • Verity

    Nic – thanks for the clarification.

    What you are ignoring is the very important point that, unlike the Torah and the Bible, in which the prophets preached and brought word from god, Islam purports to be the exact word of god. Direct. No intermediary. The literal word of god. So Islam cannot be interpreted because god couldn’t have said anything that was not correct.

    This is the big hurdle. This is why, unless some brilliant Muslim can find a very clever out-clause, Islam cannot even have a Reformation, because the word of god is immutable and forever.

    The other immutable factor is, god has commanded that the world become Dar as-Salaam. In fact, this is an intrinsic, deeply embedded part of their belief system. We in the West are all apostates because we left Islam (did you know you were born a Muslim, but left?). Apostates either have to be brought back in or killed. When the sly Iqbal Sacranie says he regrets the death of innocent lives on London Transport, he has his mental fingers crossed behind his back, because actually, unless you are a Muslim, you cannot be innocent. That is kitman. Saying something, but leaving out the essential clause. Deception by omission.

  • nic

    Well I am not talking about the Upper Echelons but just normal Muslims living in the Western world. And my anecdotal experience there is mixed, just like when I meet any other ethnic group. I see a large difference between what Muslim representatives are saying on the net, on the radio and on the TV and what the majority of them are actually doing, which in the case of Londoners, is living their lives.

    It sounds like you had some unfortunate experiences. Were these upper echelons from Saudi Arabia, or something? Because I can imagine the spoilt rich kids that could afford a Western education might well turn out to be the worst, and not at all a fair way to judge the whole Islamic world, let alone those that have had a proper taste of Western society.

  • nic

    Verity- I see your point. But I just don’t buy it when people (especially Islamists) say Islam isn’t muteable like the others. I think it is. And of course, fundamentalists are inventing reasons for not re-intepreting the scripture and many of them sound quite plausible.

    But the Torah was once given much more direct interpretation than it is now, and it was meant to be directly divinely inspired. All it needs is a realisation amongst the Islamic clergy that whatever its inspiration, the Koran is clearly a historical document. I happen to be optimistic that that may happen, as it has already happened in a minority of cases.

    We have historical evidence for this too. At the height of the Caliphate, Sharia law was interpreted quite, hypocritically of course, liberally:
    http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/feature/?id=110008181

  • Verity

    Eurstatician – Hey, wait a minute! What “between the lines”? I don’t do innuendo. One minute people are complaining that I’m too direct and the next minute I’m accused of ‘between the lines’ subtlety.

  • Verity

    Nic – With respect, that you think Islam and the Koran are mutable is neither here nor there because you don’t know enough about it. Your moderate and sophisticated and humourous Islamic acquaintances will go a certain way along the road with you, but I assure you that as some point, you are going to hit the wall – the wall of “But”. Nodding, agree, agree, agree, agree … But.

    The Torah and the Bible are malleable to some extent in that they can be intepreted because the word came from prophets, not God himself. Human words can be reinterpreted within the context of the times. The word of god, which is what the Koran purports to be, is permanent, for all time. To them, that it was 1500 years ago in a different era when it was impossible to foresee how the world would develop is irrelevant. Christianity and Judaism have had their reforms through the ages, but Islam cannot be reformed.

    This is an immense barrier. And they believe that everyone was born Muslim and we left the faith, causing great offence to their god. That is why, when some attention-seeker converts to Islam he is termed “a revert”.

    These are all critical, huge barriers and they cannot be talked away, Nic.

  • Nick M

    Eurostatician,
    This is the second time you’ve mentioned Dr Ellis. Do you know him? My girlfriend studied under him in Leeds.

    nic,
    just like when I meet any other ethnic group But muslims are not an ethnic group. They are not born muslim as an African is born African or a Japanese is born Japanese. They are indoctrinated into, or choose to follow a certain path. This is very important because the “moderate” MCB is forever agitating to have “islamophobia” categorised as a “hate crime” on the same level as racism.

    All this stuff about “they’re only extreme if they take the Koran literally” is guff. Central to being a muslim is accepting that the Koran is the absolute and final word of God. No ifs, buts or Reformations.

    Since the Reformation and the horrendous slaughter that caused in Europe, the West has moved decisively away from state religions. Islam has no such concept. There is no seperation between law (of all forms), government, business, clothing, morality, warfare or religion. Islam is a complete prescription for life. The only way muslims can feel happy is if they get the full nine yards. They’ll tolerate (according to the Koran, at least, practice is another thing) dhimmis who worship in their own ways but live under Sharia law and pay punitive taxes for the privilege (that’s in the Koran or Hadith – dhimmis pay extra tax or get slaughtered).

    The fact that much of the Koran is based upon Mo’s own circumstances in trying to lead an (initially under-subscribed) insurrection in a harsh desert environment 1400 years ago is conveniently forgotten. This is the one true religion for all people of all times. Yes, Adam was the first prophet of Islam.

  • Nick M

    Verity got in there before me on the “absolute word of God” stuff. Nice to see she is, as ever, on the side of the angels.

  • Bombadil

    Verity, NickM, you know from previous comment threads that I largely agree with you that Islam represents a continuing threat to the West.

    Do you advocate outlawing Islam and/or the practice of Islam in the west? It seems to me that the theological basis of Islamic hatred doesn’t really matter as much as the behaviour which it spawns, and I am therefore very much in favor of stepping on the necks of anyone who commits violence, rioting, etc.

    I am not, however, in favor of unilaterally and universally restricting the practice of Islam in the west. Are we in disagreement on that point?

  • nic

    I feel that everything you two are saying could equally be said of all of Christianity 600 years ago, Judaism 2000 years ago, and Evangelism today. The Islamists put up a good facade of “no-not-never-gonnahappenism” when really their own beliefs are themselves a change from traditional Islam. But the incidence of gay muslims is an obvious and total counter example.

    And yes, I have come across that nod nod nod thing some muslims do – but at political debates, not amongst my friends. These friends are men and women who will drink alcohol, have sex outside of marriage (even outside of relationships) and date as is usual in Western society. And they are still part of the Muslim community! Within the Islamic community, there are many more diverse beliefs and lifestyles than you guys are allowing into your minds. The problem is the stranglehold the extremists have on the rest of the community and their official channels to the media.

    Of course, these community representatives want to pretend the West and Islam are incompatible. Imagine what would happen if we actually started talking to each other rather than complaining about the way each other behave on the bus. It would break down any power and authority they have. And by pretending that you know that all Muslims are fundamentally the same, you are wilfully handing over that power to the extremists.

  • Richard Easbey

    Anybody else see anything sort of prophetic in “The Camp of the Saints” now? Or is it just me?

  • Nick M

    I feel that everything you two are saying could equally be said of all of Christianity 600 years ago, Judaism 2000 years ago, and Evangelism today.

    It’s not 2000 years ago, it’s not 600 years ago. It’s the 21st Century. Just because leeches were the best doctors could manage 600 years ago doesn’t mean you’d want your doctor to use them today! nic, if they’re drinking and dating they’re not muslims anymore than I am. They might have muslim antecedants but I probably have Viking antecedants and I have never burnt a village down on the East Coast of England.

    I don’t like evangelists of the TBN type. But, they don’t have armed militias on the street, they don’t call for beheadings and rape. They don’t hijack planes or blow up tube-trains. Big difference.

    Sometimes, you can talk to people with different views and get somewhere. It happened in the Cold War but Islam and the West are totally different. The paradigms are incommensurable. This would be fine if we could agree to live and let live, but we can’t. Since before the conqueest of Al-Andalus Islam has craved “The Great Lands” (Europe). You would too, if you lived in a flea-bitten desert.

    Bombadil, I’ll get onto you later. Don’t worry. Doen’t time flow differently in the Old Forest anyhow?

  • Moriarty

    I don’t think it’s fear of violence that causes most of the government and media to take the so-called ‘muslim spokesmen’ seriously, it’s becaue they’re much, much more frightened of doing something that could get them called racist or politically incorrect in some way.

    So what you end up with are measures that don’t just target the likely suspects (that would be racial profiling!) but measures that target everyone, ID cards, random searches, and very broadly used anti terrorism laws – as many people as possible charged for the important reason of making sure that the statistics don’t show that any particular group is being singled out.

  • I think the last paragraph of Perry’s post is the most salient:

    It does make me wonder what might happen if people who oppose the intolerance and gross disregard for civil liberties that seems so deeply rooted in modern Muslim cultures started adopting the same approach. Just asking.

    The biggest mistake indeed is in allowing Muslim advocates of violence (whether perpetrators or not) to set the terms of the discussion. Case in point, why is this thread solely concerned with the first part of Perry’s remarks, about the violent aspects of Muslim culture, with nary a mention of his very interesting suggestion that an overlooked point of engagement isn’t Muslim violence, but the even more pervasive cultural and governmental disregard for civil rights?

  • nic

    “It’s not 2000 years ago, it’s not 600 years ago. It’s the 21st Century.”

    That is completely irrelevant to the argument. The point is Islam can change and it is changing. Don’t fall for the Islamist line that Islam won’t change. Who are you to say that people drinking alcohol aren’t muslim? You have decided from the basis of accepting the fundamentalist memes. And that is going to unnecessary conflict.

    People having sex outside of marriage can still consider themselves Christrians today. Believe me, I know the president of a student Catholic society and he is definitely screwing the girl he is dating at the moment! Soon, Islam will be exactly like that too. Removed from its origins, and ready to take up a function as just another belief system to pick and choose in free societies.

  • Nick M

    Do you advocate outlawing Islam and/or the practice of Islam in the west?

    Oh Bombadil, you got me right where it hurts. I can’t say I’d ban it. I believe in freedom, even if it”s the freedom to be stupid. I would put a total stop to the fostering of “ethnic/religous communities” by the state, whether it is building community centres or allowing religous state schools. If you don’t want your daughters mixing with (non-muslims, maybe even boys) then this country clearly isn’t for you.

    My government would not “acknowledge the hurt” whenever someone published something muzzie didn’t like. I think a governmental (at all levels) approach which was more along the lines of “put up, shut up or you know the way to Heathrow” would work wonders. I was in the pub earlier and the landlady and a few of her cronies were saying it was a disgrace that in the neighbouring (partly, not mainly, partly muslim, suburb or Rusholme) the Christmas lights are now called “festive lights”.

    No wonder they think they can defeat us if some “community leader” can have a chat with a council and overturn our most ancienct traditions… We need to be far more robust and confident in our culture.

    If we are more robust we might rapidly find that muslims will de-muslimify and merge with the rest of the UK population as millenias worth of other immigrants to these isles have.

    And no more cosy chats with Sir Iqbal Sacranie.

  • Nick M

    nic, you’re deluded. Even if you’re right (which you’re not) I’m not prepared to wait 600 years for an Islamic reformation and all the blood on the streets that would cause.

  • Nick M

    Moriaty,
    Good point. Being a “racist” is one step above being a “peado” as far as society goes. Which is why I keep on harping on about the distinction between Islam and race.

  • Bombadil

    NickM: sounds like we are in agreement right down the line, at least on this issue.

    Islam sucks. Suppressing religious stupidity sucks. Let people be offended if they are the offendable type, and let them be stupid 6th century buttheads as long as they obey the law.

  • nic

    Deluded? Or have I just bothered to talk to some real muslims and actually get to know them rather than just whimpering at the scary shouty brown people on the TV?

    Behind every screaming extremist, there are 10 moderates that are just too nervous to tell them to shut up. For the moment.

  • Verity

    First, I think Tony Blair is scared shitless. Not for Britain. For himself. He knows they can get him if they are determined, so he bends, crawls, begs, flatters, forms Islamic Advisory Panels with as many nutjobs as Iqbal Sleazy prescribes. When Britain suffers a terrorist attack, Tony gets on TV and reassures “the Muslim community” that they won’t be attacked. Not one word of comfort and leadership to the indigenous people who have made this country great and admired for over a thousand years and who have suffered an outrageous attack on their own soil. Tony Blair is a craven coward with a streak of vivid yellow down his back.

    Hillary Johnson, I think we have discussed the British government’s total disregard for civil rights until we’re blue in the face. I do not know there is anything to be said that has not already been said on Samizdata and other libertarian blogs. The British government has the whip hand and has its jackboot on the British neck. This is because the British allowed it to happen in a swirl of do-goodery and multiculturalism. They didn’t want it to happen, they sensed that it is wrong and dangerous, but they didn’t know how to stop it. If they spoke out, Blair’s strongmen went after them.

    Bombadil’s question about whether Islam should be outlawed is moot. There isn’t a chance. And there is no will on the part of Tony ‘n’ Jack ‘n’ Frank Dobson, whose son is a “revert”, ‘n’ Tessa et al. They’re scared, too.

    If a strong person got into office – get up off the floor from laughing at once! – I would suggest an insistence that Islam be reformed big time, whether they like it or not, or be reclassified as a cult. One or the other. Take it or leave it.

  • Bombadil

    Behind every screaming extremist, there are 10 moderates that are just too nervous to tell them to shut up. For the moment.

    I don’t give a damn. When they get tired of having non-muslims assume that they agree with the screamin’ jihadis, they will speak up for themselves. In the meantime I am going to go by what I see and hear, not by what I assume some silent fearful majority thinks.

    Bombadil’s question about whether Islam should be outlawed is moot. There isn’t a chance. And there is no will on the part of Tony ‘n’ Jack ‘n’ Frank Dobson, whose son is a “revert”, ‘n’ Tessa et al. They’re scared, too.

    No, Verity, it isnt. I agree that Islam will not be abolished, but when we discuss what is to be done it is helpful to know whether the abolition of Islam is being advocated.

    I am glad that there is no will among the current crop of elected toadies to outlaw Islam, frankly. I just wish there was some will to evenly enforce the law.

  • refugee

    I can’t help but to wonder how we Second Amendment faithful would fair if a few hot-headed fanatics started killing off selected tyrannical politicians and law-enforcement jackboots.

    I’m betting there’d be slack given at all.

  • refugee

    “No slack”.

    Firearms advocates would be given NO slack.

    Gah.

  • nic

    Abolishing Islam now? By what? the state?

    This is ridiculous. This is just Statism coming from the other end of the spectrum.

  • Nick M

    nic,

    Deluded? Or have I just bothered to talk to some real muslims and actually get to know them rather than just whimpering at the scary shouty brown people on the TV?

    I’ve spoken to a hell of a lot of muslims. In the last ten years I’ve lived in Nottingham, Stepney, Leeds and Manchester.

    That “brown people” thing really pisses me off. You seem to think that Asian origin = Muslim. Islam is a a belief system. And a very unpleasant one at that. Please go away and play dhimmi with your Islamo-Superfriends. You’ll praying to a rock in Mecca in no time, with your sorry ass in the direction of Big Mo’s tickling stick.

    You sad deluded fool.

  • Bombadil

    Abolishing Islam now? By what? the state?

    This is ridiculous. This is just Statism coming from the other end of the spectrum.

    Huh? Or to put it another way … huh??

    Who is abolishing Islam now?

  • nic

    “That “brown people” thing really pisses me off. You seem to think that Asian origin = Muslim. Islam is a a belief system. And a very unpleasant one at that. Please go away and play dhimmi with your Islamo-Superfriends. You’ll praying to a rock in Mecca in no time, with your sorry ass in the direction of Big Mo’s tickling stick.”

    Well I think you are using that all important distinction between race and religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

    Accuse me of being a dhimmi if you want, but I am one of the few hundred who attended the freedom of speech rally and cheered the raising of the Danish cartoons, and then again was at the march on April Fools against the government’s protest exclusion zone around parliament. I am a libertarian and I have shown that in public. My choice to associate with muslims without offending them is merely my right, not my duty.

  • Verity

    Bombadil – although I agree with much of what you have written, I think I may disagree with you about the legal position of Islam. It is a warrior cult formed for conquest. Even the “four wives and you can screw your servant girls” deal was to breed sons for warriors.

    I actually think it would be helpful for the Islamics to understand that we have it in our power to outlaw their religion and it would therefore benefit them to STFU and get out of our faces.

    If we had a PM with any cojones – that lets out Tony and Dave – she would get a law passed insisting on the reformation of Islam, like it or not. Reform or be declared a cult.

    The Americans had the guts to outlaw bigamy among Mormons although it was a prime tenet of their religion. The message was, reform or cease to exist. They agreed to reform. (I know extreme forms of Mormonism are still still practised in some remote areas of Utah, but Utah is a huge, huge and underpopulated state and the United States is immense.) Quelle surprise. It’s amazing how people can adjust when the scimitar’s at their neck, isn’t it Omar?

    For religious people in Britain, our holy day is Sunday, or for Jews, who have contributed to our society and over-and-above earned their place in our esteem and national fabric, Saturday. Those are the days available for praying for working people, by and large. Not Fridays, Mohammad, so live with that. And not five times a day at work or school. It is not the British tradition and we’re not changing our traditions to accommodate newcomers who have yet to earn their place. So far they’re in debit.

    Yeah. Dream on. Frankly, 2m immigrants in a population of 60m. They certainly have a freaky control over the politicians. I wonder why. Could it be the politicians are using them as tools to control the population? Oh, surely not!

  • Nick M

    Well I think you are using that all important distinction between race and religion as an excuse for your bigotry.

    Ah, but it is important isn’t it?

    I object to the physical effects (like bombs) that certain belief systems result in. If you think that makes me a racist, you’re even more of an idiot than I thought you were.

    Can you dress yourself?

  • nic

    Ah typical collectivist and statist arguments creeping in now, along with a couple of ad hominem insults.

    You don’t like terrorists so your answer is to blame Muslims and Islam generally? Should we blame Christians because of the few Christians with the balls to actually go out and kill abortion doctors?

    You have created a target of 1.2 billion (or 2 million in the UK) out of actions committed by a handful of extremists. When really, we should be fighting and punishing IslamISTS while trying to win over the rest of the “Islamic” world to our secular way of thinking. Most of them are probably dying (literally) for a bit of rational government by now.

  • Bombadil

    For religious people in Britain, our holy day is Sunday, or for Jews, who have contributed to our society and over-and-above earned their place in our esteem and national fabric, Saturday. Those are the days available for praying for working people, by and large. Not Fridays, Mohammad, so live with that. And not five times a day at work or school. It is not the British tradition and we’re not changing our traditions to accommodate newcomers who have yet to earn their place. So far they’re in debit.

    Verity, you seem frustrated, and its hard to blame you for that. Islam has shown itself to be violent over and over again.

    Islamic terrorists blow up planes and trains and automobiles. The response? Steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any connection between Islam and terrorism – keep searching granny’s knitting just as diligently as Achmed’s backpack.

    Islamic crowds run riot through the street in reaction to some cartoons, burning embassies and murdering people and calling for the “death of europe”. The response? Refuse to publish the cartoons, talk about a UN resolution banning images offensive to Islam, arrest counter-protestors who carry a copy of one of the cartoons.

    Islam is clearly a problem. If you think that a few bad apples are spoiling an enormous barrel, good for you. The apples are still spoiled.

    But I think its important to recognize the principles that make our civilization better than theirs. One of those is that we don’t ban religion. What are you going to do, make it against the law to pray on Friday? We are better than that, Verity, and we can kick their asses without having to do such things.

    For a start, we can stop being such mincing wimps. We can recognize a simple truth of human nature: weakness provokes violence. It just does. So lets make sure the muzzies understand that their tantrums will be met with a rather severe spanking. Lets make sure that everyone understands that there is no right not to be offended – the easily offended need to grow some thicker skin. Finally, if they follow the rules upon which our civilization is built they can enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy – but they have to follow the rules whether Mohammad would like them or not.

  • Bombadil

    You don’t like terrorists so your answer is to blame Muslims and Islam generally? Should we blame Christians because of the few Christians with the balls to actually go out and kill abortion doctors?

    This ground has been covered here before. When Christian hate groups bomb abortion clinics, the condemnation is loud and widespread.

    I remember waiting for almost two years for a condemnation of the 9/11 attacks that did not contain a weasly equivocation about Israel within it.

    Simple question for you: a fatwa was issued from Iran calling for the death of the Danish cartoonists. Were any counter-fatwas issued?

    Unlike a couple of the other commenters on this forum, I do not believe that all Muslims are radical … but I don’t care about the ones who aren’t until they stand up, speak up, and close up their pocketbooks to organizations like Hamas. Until that fine day arrives, I will see the Islamic world as speaking with one voice because only one Islamic voice is raised … and that voice is shrieking for death and mayhem.

    If Muslims want to present a different side of themselves, I absolutely invite them to do so – but the obligation is on them to do it, not on me to go sniffing around in every dark corner of the local mosque looking for moderation.

  • nic

    “But I think its important to recognize the principles that make our civilization better than theirs. One of those is that we don’t ban religion. What are you going to do, make it against the law to pray on Friday? We are better than that, Verity, and we can kick their asses without having to do such things.

    For a start, we can stop being such mincing wimps. We can recognize a simple truth of human nature: weakness provokes violence. It just does. So lets make sure the muzzies understand that their tantrums will be met with a rather severe spanking. Lets make sure that everyone understands that there is no right not to be offended – the easily offended need to grow some thicker skin. Finally, if they follow the rules upon which our civilization is built they can enjoy the same freedoms we enjoy – but they have to follow the rules whether Mohammad would like them or not.”

    Now that I can all agree with. So long as the “spanking” does not extend to collective punishments. Of course, we must maintain the right to criticise religion, just as they have the right to practice it.

  • nic

    “If Muslims want to present a different side of themselves, I absolutely invite them to do so – but the obligation is on them to do it, not on me to go sniffing around in every dark corner of the local mosque looking for moderation.”

    Ideally, I would agree with you. But under these circumstances, that is like expecting a battered wife to rat on her abusive husband while he is standing there. Under these circumstances, it would be more charitable of us to keep our eyes open. And meanwhile stop inviting the abusive husbands round for tea and blasphemy law introductions.

  • Bombadil

    Now that I can all agree with. So long as the “spanking” does not extend to collective punishments. Of course, we must maintain the right to criticise religion, just as they have the right to practice it.

    So long as the prohibition on “collective punishments” does not extend to requiring us to pretend that young male muslims do not represent a greater security risk than elderly female nuns, and therefore prevent us from subjecting said muslim males to greater scrutiny at places where such scrutiny is needed; i.e. airports, train stations, etc.

  • nic

    “So long as the prohibition on “collective punishments” does not extend to requiring us to pretend that young male muslims do not represent a greater security risk than elderly female nuns, and therefore prevent us from subjecting said muslim males to greater scrutiny at places where such scrutiny is needed; i.e. airports, train stations, etc.”

    Its a deal.

  • Nick M

    Bombadil,
    nic ain’t worth it mate. He lives under a bridge and is after Billiy Goat Gruff.

  • Verity

    This one-up-manship over how many Muslims one knows is ridiculous. You can think you know someone, yet not know them at all (that’s why we have divorce courts), depending on how sly they are. Muslims are good at this because of their god-approved taqqya and kitman methods.

    On the other hand, we have nothing to go by but our own experience, so in a sense, this logic is legitimate.

    I do think that Islam is a poison which has seeped into the fabric of Britain and Europe, affecting around 450m people whose ancestors built up Britain and Europe and made them a desirable destination to people whose ancestors got left w-a-a-a-y behind. Maybe because their religion didn’t approve of new ideas and advancement of the human race, whereas ours do? Food for thought.

    I too get fed up with politically correct people trying to grab the high ground by conflating my distaste for Islam with “shouty brown people” as though the problem was the colour of the adherents of Islams’ skin. I believe I’m right when I say Albanians are white? But if you can shout loud enough and ascribe it to skin colour, you can shriek “Racist!” Like it’s a supply of hot oil to pour over the parapets. But the left is serious and it’s always on the march.

    It’s all smoke and mirrors. Tony Blair. The French. The Swedes. Only Britain and Sweden have surrendered. Chirac and Jack Laing banned the hijab in school, which was a brilliant move. Some German states won’t let women wear the hijab as teachers in classrooms or if they work in public services, like town halls. As we know, the Danes are nowhere close to surrender. The Dutch are turning around guided by the stunning bravery of Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders.

    But why should defying Islam in Europe be described as “stunning bravery”? Yet it is.

  • permanent expat

    It has crossed my mind that commenter ‘nic’ might himself be a devout reader of the book with the squiggly writing.
    There should be no place in the SECULAR Septic Isle for those who will not obey the Law of the Land.
    Islamists have stated quite clearly that they would like us dead………..discuss & write what you will, the message is clear.
    There is no ‘moderate’ Islam; only Islam. The so-described ‘moderates’ are the simply following A.H.Clough’s ‘The Latest Decalogue’ : “Thou shalt not kill; but needst not strive officiously to keep alive.” Fear not, they’ll all join in happily when the time for our conversion arrives.
    Oh, I almost forgot………..Tick tick tick………

  • nic

    “It has crossed my mind that commenter ‘nic’ might himself be a devout reader of the book with the squiggly writing.”

    You got me bang to rights there expat. I am a devout one.

    Although, I must admit I never heard of the typeface of “Anarchy, State & Utopia” being described as “squiggly” before.

  • Nick M

    Oh, nic is such a creature from Scandinavian folklore.

  • Verity

    Bombadil – I believe exactly one Christian group bombed an abortion clinic. One. I’m sure they were arrested, tried and sentenced according to the law.

    nic – a handful of extremists. No. Not. Why are you such an apologist for these violent, ignorant people? Are you one of them? I suspect you are.

    nic again – When really, we should be fighting and punishing IslamISTS while trying to win over the rest of the “Islamic” world to our secular way of thinking. Oh, gosh, like … trying to get them to see their religion is bonkers with some cozy arguments over a cup of Fair Trade coffee?

    That
    was the problem! That’s what caused all this violence and loss of thousands of innocent lives! We didn’t sit around and discuss enough!

    One half of the human race is not only discounted, but has her genitalia mutilated (this lasts forever; it’s not like the scars heal and she feels just like before) but her ability to form a relationship and partnership for life with the one man who fathers their children is a no-starter because he’s allowed loads of sexual partners to get more kids to fight for Islam (on welfare). Once her sexual organ is removed, she won’t be able to judge the inadequate “husband” bonking her for more sons. This is common practice is Britain and Europe today, chaps.

    In other words the woman gets zero out of the deal. She doesn’t get a sexual encounter. She doesn’t get a man who loves her and discusses the future of their children with her – because he has lots of children by several women in the household. He doesn’t talk about their future because he has lots of futures. She has no sexual satisfaction, or even arousal.

    Western men also think this is a nightmare scenario, but Muslims think it’s the bees’ knees. This goes on in Britain. But the police have been warned to be “sensitive” and take their police shoes off before entering an Islamic home. [The only home that may have a suicide bomber in it.] Have they been warned to be “sensitive” about entering Hindu homes? Jewish homes? Why do I doubt it? How about instructions for entering a Buddhist home?

    Could the difference be that those adhering to those religions intelligently accept the law of the land they are in as a matter of course?

  • permanent expat

    Could ‘nic’ be Nozick?…………Not sure if that qualifies as flattery; probably not.
    65 comments on this thread should not blind us to the clear & present danger which threatens our freedom & very existence.

  • Verity

    The above posts were posted way prior to mine, but I hadn’t seen them. I believe Nic’s a Muslim.

  • Nick M

    Verity,
    And more to the point not a single anti-abortion Christian group failed to condemn in the strongest and most definite way the actions of the clinic bombers. There was no wriggling or “try seeing it from our point of view”.

    You should let up on FGM. It’s not strictly an Islamic practice and is not common outside of Africa or Africans living elsewhere. This is one abomination that Islam is only tangentially involved in. If you want a stick to beat muzzie with over their treatment of women you don’t need to use that, there’s a forest all around you…

    You raise an interesting point. What makes a religous, ethnic, cultural, whatever group assimilate successfully into a Western society. I suspect the answer is that Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs etc are motivated by much the same things as motivates most of the people in the host nation – they want better lives for themselves and their families.

    Islam’s need to conquer by force needs willing foot-soldiers. These are best recruited by the imams from a comunity that they keep deliberately marginalised and poor.

  • Nick M

    As I said before, I don’t think nic’s a muzzie, but he’s on his hands and knees and Allah’s got the lube out…

  • nic

    Hehe. Fabulous. I have rejected a few of your arguments on empirical grounds. Therefore, I must be one of THEM!

  • Nick M

    empirical grounds
    That’s science pal. And I really don’t think that’s your forte. Stick to student union politics. I think you’ve got a talent for it.

  • Verity

    Nick M FGM (sorry about all the capitals- it’s not an acrostic) you are wrong. It’s a tribal desert deal.

    Re Nic on his hands and knees, there was a pretend billboard in El Lay that said: KY Jelly – We haven’t been able to think of another use, either.

  • Patrick

    Hey, can anyone see the elephant? It is just a little leap across the channel, running around threatening and engaging in violence to overturn a lawfullly passed and enacted law.

    It is working, by the way.

    I think I’ll blow up the Minister for the Environment tomorrow. Maybe the UN’s offices here the day after that.

  • Chris Harper

    Whether the Muslim in the street is a potential suicide bomber or not is a moot point.

    Most Irish Catholics I know don’t support the tactics of the IRA. They don’t support shootings, kidnapping or armed robbery as a means of achieving a united Ireland. HOWEVER, they do in the main support the aims of the IRA; they want to see a united Ireland, or at least they want to see the British out.

    So with the Muslim in the street. The attitude is no to suicide bombings, but yes to the ultimate victory of the House of Submition.

  • Verity

    Oh, yes. The old equivalency game.

  • Midwesterner

    nic, hope you’re enjoying this. Maybe you’ll get promoted to Imam, or even Ayatollah, next. I’m personally getting a kick out of having a bunch of atheists and agnostics lecturing on the inner thoughts feelings and motivations of religious fundamentalists.

    Kinda like having socialists tell us about libertarians’ true thoughts, feelings and motivations.

    While I agree with alot of what you say, nic, I have to disagree with your plan for two reasons. One, we don’t have the time. Pakistan and it’s likely first target India, Iran and its likely first target Israel, all have or soon will have nukes. I just have serious doubts that there is time to winnow the wheat from the rat turds.

    The other thing to keep in mind, while fundamentalist New Testament Christianity does believe the Bible is the infallible word of God, it is a religion of turning the other cheek, not casting the first stone, ‘forgiving those who trespass against us’ and so on ad infinitum. The same fundamentalist fervor that is found in Christians who adhere to that creed is also found in Muslims who adhere to a much different creed. I personally don’t think a ‘reformed’ Muslim movement will be possible. Once they reject the idea of the infallibility of the Koran, that religion falls apart.

    Remove the weapon of violence from the Islamists, and those who might be moderate will often just leave Islam. Some might practice a ‘reformed’ faith, but within two more generations, I think the moderate religion would dissappear. It relies too strongly on violence for its endurance.

    Since we appear to be stuck with this hideous concept of ‘hate’ crimes, (a curious liberal concession that hate is worse than greed) then Muslim on Muslim (or on ex-Muslim) crime should be hammered with every imaginable weapon in the hate crime arsenal. Sentences should be at the extreme upper limit. This is the only way Muslims will ever be permitted to moderate their opinions at all.

  • Chris Harper

    Whether the Muslim in the street is a potential suicide bomber or not is a moot point.

    Most Irish Catholics I know don’t support the tactics of the IRA. They don’t support shootings, kidnapping or armed robbery as a means of achieving a united Ireland. HOWEVER, they do in the main support the aims of the IRA; they want to see a united Ireland, or at least they want to see the British out.

    So with the Muslim in the street. The attitude is no to suicide bombings, but yes to the ultimate victory of the House of Submition.

  • This will chill your bones.
    However, the story has a happy ending.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Eurostatistitian,I read the link you put up and it appears to be a white supremacist site. Wow, what a surprise!

    The reason — for the umpteenth bloody time — that I took a dim view of the Leeds lecturer, Frank Ellis, is that because he was a man earning a living from the wallets of the taxpayer, it was not a straightforward free speech issue. The man is a professional. He has obligations towards his students made possible by the position he is in. If a man believes certain groups, such as women, are intellectually inferior, then it is a fair question to ask whether he is a fair judge of their academic ability.

    If Ellis was working in the private sector, then I think the matter should be matter left to whatever contract he has with his customers. It does get a bit more complex with those who live off the taxpayer, as Eurostatistian does. If Eurostat were to use his job as a platform to spread certain views, then his superiors would be wise to take a hard view on the matter, and rightly so. My private sector employer holds me to certain standards, to which I agreed when I signed my contract.

    Take another line: if a blogger slagged off his own employer and colleagues, that person should be sacked unless he or she has explicit freedom in a contract to write a blog.

  • Eurostatistician

    Richard Easbey writes:

    Anybody else see anything sort of prophetic in “The Camp of the Saints” now? Or is it just me?

    Richard, you can be pretty certain that nobody at Samizdata has ever even heard of Raspail’s novel, let alone read it.

    Johnathan,

    If you believe ‘View from the Right’ to be white supremacist, your definition is obviously pretty broad — no doubt including Verity and a couple of other commenters in the vicinity.

    Anti-immigrationist = white supremacist = NeoNazi = Holocaust.

    Or how to win an argument without arguing.

    Godwin point reached. Finito.

    If you’re not careful I’ll never, ever bother commenting in Samizdata again.

  • Julian Taylor

    you can be pretty certain that nobody at Samizdata has ever even heard of Raspail’s novel, let alone read it.

    With respect I think you would have to go a very long way to find the diversity of literacy and interests that you will find among Samizdata’s contributors and commentators. As for reading that truly awful piece of recycled toilet tissue that Raspail passed off as a ‘novel’ I was required to read it in the early 80’s, as course reading at Sandhurst for the comprehension of all political views and idealogies, one aspect of which was run by the admirable John Keegan. I found nothing even remotely original or interesting about the novel, apart from the title and the copyright notice. It had a rather limp plot about Hindi migration to France being the cause of the destruction of the West by ‘Third World Subversion’ as I recall, presumably a thinly veiled substitution for Mexicans migrating to the USA as their ‘rightful occupation of the USA’ , reinforced by the fact that Raspail was published by John Tanton – another paranoid delusionist obsessed with the notion that Mexicans are coming to kill all Americans in their sleep.

    You are, of course, correct though. Samizdata readers should not read such bilge but rather should save those vital braincells for writers who actually provide intellectual stimulation.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    If you’re not careful I’ll never, ever bother commenting in Samizdata again.

    Go on, make my day.

    I looked at that book you cited, and it is pretty clear what the undercurrents of the man’s views are (paranoia about immigration from non-white places,). I am not going to say that the guy is an outright bigot, to be fair.

    I have had it with the likes of you prattling on about “mass sterlisation”, genetics, or whatever. It is pretty bloody obvious what your agenda is, and it is not about the liberty and dignity of the individual. So if you feel unwelcome at this blog, then we must be doing something right.

  • nic

    Midwesterner-

    Blow up Iran’s nuclear capacity by all means. I don’t trust their government either. But at the same time remember that there are good people in Iran and as individualists, we have a duty to protect them even while we protect ourselves.

    “Since we appear to be stuck with this hideous concept of ‘hate’ crimes, (a curious liberal concession that hate is worse than greed) then Muslim on Muslim (or on ex-Muslim) crime should be hammered with every imaginable weapon in the hate crime arsenal. Sentences should be at the extreme upper limit. This is the only way Muslims will ever be permitted to moderate their opinions at all.”

    Well I am not sure thats the ONLY way but I agree with the strategy. I think you would be surprised how much a religion changes to cope with a new situation. Remember the role that religion played in European feudal power structures, and then remember how that role receded but was then re-constituted differently under capitalism (with “the same” religions producing completely different ideologies).

    Personally, I think religious belief falls about as soon as you start applying “If p then q” during discussions but that doesn’t mean that others don’t find ways of holding onto their beliefs. And as long as they don’t violate the rights of others, that is their right to believe it.

    “If you’re not careful I’ll never, ever bother commenting in Samizdata again.” -Eurostat

    If only:)

  • It is amusing to see how fast moral equivalency comes up in a discussion of Islam and their aims. Just because Christians have done some pretty bad stuff in their past (not the Crusades to the Middle East as that was defensive), and they for sure have, they its ok for Islam to blow the crap out of anyone they don’t like.

    This just does not make any sense; especially since Islam has been behaving this way since its inception.

    The message of Islam is and never has been peace. If you say that you have never read the Koran or any related writings. The message of Christ (as opposed to the Catholic Church) was peaceful. I find whenever someone goes on about the Bible being violent they quote the Old Testament not the New one.

    One of the reasons I am not a Christian is the Christians socialist-lite turn-the-other-cheek attitude irritates the hell out of me…never more so than now when we face the threat of militant Islam.

  • David

    It’s also amusing how often the pinhead apologists for the ROP come up with allegations of racism because Moslems are brown skinned. Their arguments are so facile they have to retreat behind the race issue (even though as has been so frequently shown this is NOT a race issue at all as Moslems come in all colours).

    Over the years I have found that almost exclusively those that easily throw accusations of racism about are wrong in the accusation and in fact are the true racists themselves, with their bigtory towards western liberal society (and by that they mean white people).

    They throw the racist accusation and deem that any further argument is impossible. Of course their approach is not only dishonest it is intellectually indefensible, shoddy and lazy – (pretty much like their entire world view IMHO). Well, from what I’ve seen of this forum, your feeble accusations carry no water and most certainly are not argument stoppers, rather they dismantle your own argument completely show how weak your position really is.

  • Julian Taylor

    I find whenever someone goes on about the Bible being violent they quote the Old Testament not the New one.

    This is quite the point that many now make about Islam, that it is a religion truly in dire need of its own ‘New Testament’.

  • nic

    David-

    My attack on the prejudice of some people here is quite specific and it is something that has not been answered succesfully. My contention is that some individuals on here know about terrorism and have had a few personal bad experiences with Muslims. Their attitude has been to throw them all into one category and shut down the critical faculties that they would usually afford to every other set of people. In other words, they have stopped judging people as individuals and have started using the memes of identity politics.

    It is an easy mistake to make, because Muslim “representatives” are quite eager to give the impression that they are one huge impenetrable bloc. They want the politics of group identity to triumph as well because that is how they will maintain their own personal hegemony over the Muslim community and control its output to the West.

    However, it is a mistake that people here are making all too easily for people who I thought were interested in critically rational debate. The “shouty brown people” comment is merely to say that many people on here are just fine with looking at what the Mainstream Media is happy to show us; 2 types of Muslim:

    1 – the violent extremist in the street

    2 – the smiling bigot with the knighthood

    All I am saying is that there is much more to people nominally identified with the “Muslim community” than those representatives, and everyone deserves to be judged individually. Those that choose to deny that and go along with the block collective idea are, I hope unwittingly, falling into racist (or at the very least, prejudicial) beliefs.

    The reply to this contention that I have made is accusations that I am also a Muslim! Which I think just about proves my point.

  • Midwesterner

    nic, once again I agree pretty much with your assessment. But I think the winnowing process is, of necessity, an Islamic one.

    We do, however, owe absolute protection of the laws to all Muslims. As long as Muslim on Muslim violence in our societies is considered to be a Muslim problem, we’re making matters much worse and speeding our own demise.

    No part of Sharia must not be tolerated in our nations that is not fully in compliance with our existing legal structure and stricture. Islamic thought (or any other) is incapable of diverging if one side is permitted to use violence or even the threat of violence on any who would disagree.

  • Midwesterner


    No part of Sharia must not be tolerated in our nations … ”

    Oops. Hope you know what I meant.

    “No part of Sharia can be tolerated…”

  • Verity

    In the case of Britain, I think Blair’s been using the Muslims to destabilise society, which is why he does nothing and why he kowtows to them – plus a great fear for his own person.

    There is no one in Parliament today brave enough – well, William Hague and Davis, probably – to whip these people back down. Immigrants throughout the history of mankind – I refer to all immigrants everywhere – have always set themselves the immediate task of fitting in to their new, chosen country and building their lives. Most of them turn into contributors, workers, wealth creators. Hurrah!

    Only one group comes in with an attitude of contempt for the host society and immediately sets up 90,000 Islamic councils, councils of mosques, Muslim parliaments blah blah blah to set about conquering the host society and bringing it down to their own level. And that’s pretty primitive.

    Look at CAIR in the United States – an apologist group for violence and intimidation through the courts. Now they’ve managed to get Hamtramk, which is on the edge of Dearborne, MI, to allow them to broadcas their calls to the obscenity they call their prayers five times a day over LOUDSPEAKERS beginning at 5:30 a.m. So the Christian people of Hamtramk are awoken each morning by calls to worship an alien, violent, ignorant diety in a foreign language. The Islamics argued it was no different from church bells. They always find these peculiar arguments that actually are so embedded in our culture and history, there is no arguing with it, and us it against us. And our leaders are too weak to say them nay. Of course, in the US, they argued it was their constitutional right. When people objected, they came back with, “America is all about diversity”. Again, can’t argue. Again, another victory for the religion of garbage.

    They want Islamic holidays to be recognised in schools. In the US, they were going around schools persuading them to have Islamic weeks. In California, parents have taken the schoolboard to court for allowing an Islamic fortnight during which fourth graders – fourth graders! had to take Islamic names and learn some Islamic prayers, give up something for the month of their stupid ramadan, etc. The parents lost the first case, but they are bringing another one and I think they are going to win this one. Dhimmiwatch’s Robert Spencer has been asked to be an expert witness this time around.

    Given their breeding rate, my own feeling is people are sleepwalking into the caliphate. The argument that we need them to work to produce income for pensions is a lie, as most of them don’t work and are net takers of money. Few of the women work because they are at home raising huge broods of children. So that’s fifty percent of them right there. Then you’ve got all the first generation who are on government pensions and many in government housing. It’s a lie that we need them.

    I just feel at least a half a million of them – maybe more – would be happier back in the Nation of Islam where they won’t have to put so much energy into changing everything to suit their god.

    Nic, you’re either a Muslim or a dhimmi.

  • nic

    I agree.

    Although I think there is an issue that should be examined. Our society has a mixed jurisdiction over children; partly state duties of protection, partly rights of families and communities over children. This is an ambiguity which multiculturalists (and muslims especially) have exploited in an attempt to introduce localised laws and localised community education systems. I am not quite sure how best to deal with this, although clearly we can begin by enforcing the rights of people to opt out of strict Muslim communities if they so wish to.

  • nic

    uhhh.. that agreement was aimed at Midwesterner

  • Nick M

    nic,
    Why should Islam exist at all. It is barbaric and backward and I’m struggling to think of one good thing about it. Islam “moderate” enough not to be the grit in the optrex wouldn’t be Islam at all.

    Why defend it?

    Verity,
    I think fourth graders should be taught about Islam. They should be taught the lies, betrayals and slaughter which were the birth pains of this “great religion”. They should be taught that this great prophet screwed children the same age as they are. They should be told that it is only a religion of peace if everyone submits to it. There is nothing controversial in these teachings – it’s all the same stuff as they churn out at madrassas the world over. Muslims should applaud the truth of their faith being brought to the kufr?

    Trouble is the kids would have nightmares.

  • Eurostatistician

    Nick M Writes:

    Why should Islam exist at all. It is barbaric and backward and I’m struggling to think of one good thing about it.

    The tragedy is that Islam is a Darwinian success story (as Verity has indirectly pointed out).

    Here’s a fascinating passage that gets to the crux of the matter. It’s the abstract of an article entitled “The Fertility Paradox: Gender Roles, Fertility and Cultural Evolution” (not on the Net, unfortunately). The authors (Mackey and Immerman) make the following argument:

    “A sea-change in gender-roles occurred in Europe and North America during the latter half of the twentieth century. This resulted from increased options for women to direct their own life histories, including greater educational and employment opportunities and the ability to exercise reproductive choice. This new philosophy of gender egalitarianism is in direct contrast to the older tradition of gender complementarity that still survives in many other cultures despite technological modernization. The greater freedom of women in gender egalitarian societies has nevertheless created a paradox: gender egalitarian societies are likely to be replaced by gender complimentary societies. This is because the increased autonomy and freedom of women is accompanied by a declining birthrate, and societies that practice gender equality must therefore be inevitably replaced by the surplus population from societies that restrict the activities of women to childbearing, and maintain a competitively higher birthrate. The authors suggest that no current community has managed to solve this paradox.”

    Any ideas, folks, as to how to solve this paradox?

    P.S.

    OK Johnathan, I’m back but honest honest this just might be the last time.

    I forgive you for your sins. Dominus vobiscum!

    Amen

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Over the years I have found that almost exclusively those that easily throw accusations of racism about are wrong in the accusation and in fact are the true racists themselves, with their bigtory towards western liberal society (and by that they mean white people).

    Well, David, I have found that most people, like some commenters here in recent months, who use such tell-tale words such as “mass sterilisation”, race “realism”, genetic “realism”, “degeneracy” or “pollution” are in fact, racists. Samizdata has had a gut-load of people who start off by making such remarks in an otherwise harmless-looking comment and over the weeks, they get bolder and bolder, until the mask slips. It happened a few weeks ago when a regular commenter — Euan Gray — was viciously attacked for having married a woman of a different race. Racism is all too alive and well, and it is disgusting.

    As Verity often rightly points out, race and culture are different. Islam is a religion, a body of ideas, and has nothing to do with the colour of skin or their hair. It has also nothing to do with genetic makeup, etc. And yet it is all too obvious that some folk do conflate the two, and it is important for a libertarian blog like this to make it clear as crystal that it has no truck with racism, which is, as Ayn Rand once nicely put it, a primitive form of collectivism.

    If there is one thing I despise more than racism, it is racists blubbering about what a hard time they have on this blog. Racists are not welcome here, and would be well advised to sod off.

  • Nick M

    Eurostatician,

    How about mass sterilization? That’s usually your solution. Or perhaps bringing back the Lebensborn? Or perhaps they’ll breed themselves into a Malthusian population crash?

    I picture you in a wing-collar. “Eurostatician – providing late 19th Century solutions for the 21st”.

  • Ric,
    If there are 1.2 billion muslims and the majority are mderates,then it is in no way analogous to a battered wife standing up to an abusive husband. Communities have a duty to control their miscreants,so far the 1.19999999999 billion don’t seem to have stood up to be counted.

  • Eurostatistician

    Julian, you describe Raspail’s novel as a “truly awful piece of recycled toilet tissue”.

    I’ve read it both in French and English, and I confess it does lose quite a bit in translation. But it is a prophetic piece of work, nevertheless. The French original was actually quite well received, and it was published by Robert Laffont — as far as I know a prestigious publishing house.

    Now read this article published in Le Figaro and tell us what you think of it (though remember I might never return — never ever. You have been warned!!!)

    I forgive you.

    May Jesus love you.

  • Johnathan Pearce

    I confess it does lose quite a bit in translation.

    I bet it does.

    BTW, nice debunking there, Julian.

  • Julian Taylor

    As Lee Harvey Oswald said, “I aim to please”. :)

  • nic

    “nic,
    Why should Islam exist at all. It is barbaric and backward and I’m struggling to think of one good thing about it. Islam “moderate” enough not to be the grit in the optrex wouldn’t be Islam at all.

    Why defend it?”

    Because I am a liberal. I will defend people’s right to live their lives in whatever way they please so long as they do no force their views on others.

    I see a lot of self-identified muslims not trying to force their beliefs on others. Therefore, I reject the notion that Islam is inconsistent with liberalism, only the breed of Islam that extremists and their apologists hold.

    The media like showing off that sort of Islam because it seems so exotic and cool… like trenchcoats and sun glasses! And the racists love hearing about it because they think it confirms their own prejudices and suddenly they are allowed to slur people and categorise them just like they always wanted to before.

    All that I ask, is that we judge people as individuals.

  • Midwesterner

    Oh my. I hate to admit that the EuroObstetrician may have brought in a valid point. But he quoted somebody who said –

    “This is because the increased autonomy and freedom of women is accompanied by a declining birthrate,”

    Exactly. In hindsight, obvious even. The correlation that many of us have seen between wealth and low population growth rates is not strictly one of wealth. It is the autonomy, independence and ultimately, workplace participation of women in the society.

    This, all by itself, explains the apparent anomalies of Saudi Arabia (wealth and increasing population), and Russian (poverty and decreasing population).

    One more overwhelming reason for protecting and preserving everyones rights to life liberty and property.

  • Eurostatistician

    Johnathan writes:

    It happened a few weeks ago when a regular commenter — Euan Gray — was viciously attacked for having married a woman of a different race. Racism is all too alive and well, and it is disgusting.

    Sure, everybody who even glances sideways at population genetics is a ‘racist’ and would never dream of marrying anybody other than an English rose.

    Well, Eurostatistician married an Anatolian woman, his good friend Chris Brand (a leading British psychometrician and author of ‘The g factor’) married a Chinese woman.

    As Julian says, Racism is all too alive and well, and it is disgusting.

  • Verity

    Nick M – You misunderstood my post. This course in Islam for kids in a California school district, about which the parents were not consulted, was taught by a team of Islamics who had the children adopt Muslim names, and they had to recite Muslim prayers! (This is extremely dangerous, because as all prayers are in Arabic [this is how stupid the Islamics are; they pray in a language most of them don't understand. Du-uh.] Meaning, the children could have inadvertently pledged themselves to Islam, and once pledged to Islam, sweetie, you are in. For life. Or you are an apostate. Given how sly Muslims are, it is not inconceivable that they had these children recite a phrase in Arabic declaring themselves to be Muslims.)

    And fasting, and lovely Muslim food (halal, barf) and how a Muslim home operates. Oh and they had to wear Muslim outfits. No wonder their parents had a collective heart attack. Anyway, all that shit.

    The parents, who are suing the schoolboard, lost their case on a technicality the first time round, but I believe their chances for a win this time are rated much higher. You absolutely cannot be too careful round this wily garbage. They are sly. They cheat in the name of allah. They lie in the name of allah. It’s actually OK for them to swear a total lie on the koran, as long as they’re only lying to infidels. As far as I am concerned, they are an evolutionary throwback and they have no place in advanced, enlightened Western civilisation. There is no Western country where their presence has been a plus. They always start bringing things down the minute they’re off the plane (invented by us). And driven off from the airport (invented by us) in a car (invented by us). And then go about trying to pull our civilisation down around our ears.

  • nic

    “Communities have a duty to control their miscreants,so far the 1.19999999999 billion don’t seem to have stood up to be counted.”

    I love the practice of self-regulating consentually associated communities. But you cannot punish everyone in a community just because it fails to regulate itself properly. That is collective punishment, and what it comes down to on an individual level is punishing some individuals for crimes committed by others. Which is the very essence of injustice.

  • Midwesterner

    nic,

    I think we part ways substantially on this point.

    “Therefore, I reject the notion that Islam is inconsistent with liberalism,”

    Islam is fundamentally inconsistent with liberalism. It would require a major rewrite of the whole belief system. Or, as Julian Taylor said –

    “This is quite the point that many now make about Islam, that it is a religion truly in dire need of its own ‘New Testament’.”

  • Verity

    Nic – your high degree of self-regard – nay, superiority – more libertarian than thou – a mahatama, in fact – blinds you to what is in front of your face. Islamics are vicious and destructive and are working to take over our societies and turn them into Dark Ages hell holes, just like back home.

  • nic

    Midwesterner-

    Our only point of difference is on the re-write. We both agree that Islam (as practiced outside the West) must be adapted to be consistent with liberalism. I merely think the re-write might be easier to do and more forthcoming than people think. Of course, if we give an inch to extremists, they will take a mile. But if you make it quite clear what sort of beliefs and practices are acceptable under a liberal rule of law, then I am pretty sure you will find adaptations emerging pretty damn quickly!

    In the end, they have the same brains as us. And they can tell that societies that can build aeroplanes must have something going for them. They will be partly co-erced, but mostly bribed into accepting the justice and efficiency of Western society.

    Of course, that won’t happen unless we stick to our marks and actually keep our own values. The problem is that on the left we are seeing people using the memes of multiculturalism and anti-colonialism to excuse injustice, and we have racists on the right (some of them commenting here) gearing up towards justifying another genocide.

    If we fall on either side, we will lose our own values.

  • nic
    “Because I am a liberal. I will defend people’s right to live their lives in whatever way they please so long as they do no force their views on others.”

    Bu that is exactly what Islam is doing,do you understand the concept of reciprocity? Everyone has to obey islamic customs and mores in islamic countries,muslims are insisting that this be the case here.
    Christianity is being attack wherever there is a large muslim community,people are being slaughtered because they don’t comply with some interpretation of islamic law.

    “But you cannot punish everyone in a community just because it fails to regulate itself properly. That is collective punishment, and what it comes down to on an individual level is punishing some individuals for crimes committed by others. Which is the very essence of injustice.”

    Bu that is what is being done to us,and you completely,probably wilfully ignore the point,that your vast majority of muslims are not standing up and condemning the worldwide orgy or slaughter.Your liberality does not seem to extend to your erstwhile countrymen.
    Now that,is injustice.

  • nic

    “Nic – your high degree of self-regard – nay, superiority – more libertarian than thou – a mahatama, in fact – blinds you to what is in front of your face. Islamics are vicious and destructive and are working to take over our societies and turn them into Dark Ages hell holes, just like back home.”

    So one moment, I am a muslim, the next I am a dhimmi, and now I am just more libertarian than thou? Well at least my standing is improving ;)

    Maybe at some point you could stop trying to attach a label to me and actually engage with my arguments.

  • Verity

    Now here is Nic using the lefty trick of using the word “racists” as a key for shutting down the debate and locking the door.

    Please name the “racists” here and justify your reasons for calling them “racists”. Not forgetting that Islam is not a race. Neither is Pakistani. Pakistanis are members of the Aryan race, as are we. It is the aggression of a primitive and malign religion that we are discussing here, not race.

    “gearing up towards justifying another genocide.” WHAT? Even if you mistakenly believe that Pakistani is a race, who here has suggested mass slaughter or even internment in camps? My god, you lefties do reach in your greed to feel morally superior to everyone else.

  • Verity

    nic – I said you were either a Muslim or a dhimmi. We understand that you have hordes of exquisitely mannered, highly educated, successful – doubtless inordinately good-looking – Muslim friends, but have you ever lived in a Muslim country?

  • nic

    Verity- read some of Eurostats comments again. Admittedly, most of the tell-tale ones aren’t on this thread.

    As for you, you aren’t racist, but merely being unnecessarily prejudiced towards a large group of individuals, which amounts functionally to the same thing. You are using “Muslim” as a group term to attack a vastly diverse set of individuals. Your examples of Islamic largesse are all examples of institutional fuckwittery.

    For the case of the schools in california I would be as likely to blame the school governors for their stupidity of letting a bunch of extremists near the children in their care, as much as these representatives from the Islamic community for having the gall to come in and give the children Arabic names and have them recite prayers. The point is, they don’t represent all muslims! And you are falling for the collectivist trap by assuming that they are acting for them all.

  • Midwesterner

    nic, re your comment at 4:05P

    “And they can tell that societies that can build aeroplanes must have something going for them.”

    This is a very dangerous value presumption. The total irrelevance of western society’s accomplishments is incomprehensible to most people on this site. Coming from a devout and devoted Evangelical fundamentalist family, I can tell you that our technological accomplishments are meaningless in debate with a true believer. I personally have near relatives who chose to live their entire adult lives in poverty and discomfort in order to better serve God.

    When debating a person who’s greatest values are ‘not of this earth’, pointing out our accomplishments is utterly irrelevant wasted effort.

  • nic

    Midwesterner –

    If the aeroplanes don’t get them, the digital camera-phones will! But most importantly, the opportunity to practice their faith in peace will be what cinches it. It is not safe to be a Shia in Saudi Arabia, or a Sunni in Iran, but you can be either as a citizen of Israel! Even if they don’t see the material advantages of the West as attractive (which most of them will come round to anyway), they will see the advantages for their safety of having peace and freedom on Earth.

    And that is what the West can deliver.

  • Verity

    ” … unnecessarily prejudiced towards a large group of individuals, which amounts functionally to the same thing.”

    Do not have the impertinence to tell me that my rational judgement, based on facts, is “unnecessary prejudice”. And then you add that my judgement that Islam is dangerous and destructive to our societies amounts to the same thing as racism. You couldn’t bear to be told that Pakistanis are Aryan, like us, could you? It just ruined everything for you, didn’t it? You couldn’t stand it that the charge of “racism” was defused in your hands.

    Then you go on to add about my posts, “Your examples of Islamic largesse are all examples of institutional fuckwittery.”

    Isn’t it a little early to be drinking? What does this sentence mean. What examples of “Islamic largesse” (meaning generosity) have I referred to? What? I mean, what? And they’re examples of “institutional fuckwittery”. What institute do I belong to that promotes fuckwittery and how are you defining fuckwittery? Did you think if you were dismissive enough with your empty blether, I would be intimidated and give up?

    Your statements above border on the lunatic – even when judged by the standards of the hard left/totalitarian/politically correct brigade. They have no relation either to reality or the meanings of words.

    Islam isn’t a race, you have been forced to acknowledge by the more worldly people writing on this blog, but that doesn’t matter because if one judges it important to see the unjustifiable influence of Islamics in our society lessened, that is the same as racism anyway!!

    You, nic, are a nutjob.

  • Bruce

    Purusant to this interesting conversation, I urge to read the SF writer Dan Simmons’ new reflection on our upcoming dhimmitude at

    http://www.dansimmons.com/news/message.htm.

    Alarming and all too likely.

  • nic

    “Isn’t it a little early to be drinking? What does this sentence mean. What examples of “Islamic largesse” (meaning generosity) have I referred to? What? I mean, what? And they’re examples of “institutional fuckwittery”. What institute do I belong to that promotes fuckwittery and how are you defining fuckwittery? Did you think if you were dismissive enough with your empty blether, I would be intimidated and give up?”

    Sorry… allow me to explain what I meant because I should have made it clearer. The “largesse” I was referring to was the opportunity afforded to some Muslim groups by willing governments to propagandize their cause to the West (often done through universities and schools). Hence, “institutional fuckwittery”: it is institutions such as schools and universities imposing a multicultural agenda from above. These policies are bad and they need to stop, on that we both agree.

    I am just rejecting the idea that this shows that ALL muslims are engaging in these activities.

    The rest of your argument, however, seems to be descending back into attempts to label me. I have now been muslim, dhimmi, libertarian, lefty, lunatic and nutjob. And all because I reject labels and have insisted on treating people as individuals first and foremost.

    I wonder what I’ll be next time ;)

  • Midwesterner

    nic, I think you have not, perhaps, intimately encountered a fundamentalist mind. A fundamentalist of any religion is one who adheres to the basic tenets. This almost always includes a literal interpretation of their respective scriptures.

    There is no literal interpretation of the Koran that is compatible with western freedoms. What you are proposing would be the equivalent of a total reform. An Islamic New Testament. This is definitely something for Muslims to work out. All we can do is protect ‘heretics’ right to practice a modified version. Or to quit the religion entirely.

    True believers have no desire for piece and freedom on earth when they think it may jeopardize their eternity. I’m very serious when I say we have nothing to offer a true believer.

  • nic

    Midwesterner-

    I think we are just using different definitions for true believers. But maybe, there aren’t quite as many “true believers” by your definition in the Islamic world as you think there are. What I think there are is a lot of ill-educated people that are quite easily lead by whatever local authority has them in their grasp. The mistake of multiculturalism has been to invite these authorities to come into the west and start propagandising to their flock that they perceive they are losing.

    If we were to put a stop to this communitarian response to diversity, we may find the majority of muslims adapting their faith a lot more readily than they are at this moment.

    And of course, a major part of that strategy must be to protect apostates and heretics from the faith because that is part of process of moderating the faith. Fundamentally, it is a crude faith that is being transplanted from one part of the world to another. No religion has ever had to adapt quite as quickly as Islam has. Christianity, Judaism, even Hinduism was allowed to adapt as societies developed, slowly changing their role and function. Islam needs to do the same. All I am saying is that it is possible.

  • Verity

    nic – Because you want it to be true doesn’t make it true. I asked you whether you had ever lived in an Islamic country. You didn’t answer. What you are failing to take on board is, this belief system is drilled into them five times a day from birth. You think not every Islamic takes it seriously? This tells me you know little about the religion.

    Here is a tip for you: Everyone is born a Muslim because that is the natural order of the universe. In the West, we fall away from Islam, committing a huge crime against Allah. We become non-human and can only regain our human status by “reverting” (there are no converts in Islam; only “reverts”).

    Allah has commanded that the entire world be Dar-es-Salaam. End of story. You naively believe everything you’re told by your Islamic friends. You do not understand taqqya and kitman. You are talking about things you simply do not understand because they are outside your experience, and you want to apply your experience nevertheless, but it’s not relevant.

    Midwesterner, for example, made a good point about fundamentalists.

  • nic

    Well I guess we will just have to see how much of that bollox they really do believe. Our disagreement is over experience and which of ours is the more realistic representation of all muslims. I just happen to find my experience is highly variable, which is usually how these things turn out to be.

    And I have never lived in an Islamic country. My experience is amongst friends and colleagues. I am aware of the fundamentalist type as well, but obviously no significant friendship has ever blossomed from conversations with them.

  • nic
    “For the case of the schools in california I would be as likely to blame the school governors for their stupidity of letting a bunch of extremists near the children in their care, as much as these representatives from the Islamic community for having the gall to come in and give the children Arabic names and have them recite prayers. The point is, they don’t represent all muslims! And you are falling for the collectivist trap by assuming that they are acting for them all.”
    Again you avoid the issue,where is the voice of all the moderates.

    BTW,The major strategy should be to protect ourselves,this “crude faith” as you put it demands that we change.

  • Midwesterner

    nic, re your comment at 05:36 PM

    “maybe, there aren’t quite as many “true believers” by your definition in the Islamic world as you think there are.”

    I hope you are right. But there is a dynamic at work that you may need to factor into ideas concerning our international relations with Islamic states.

    The non ‘true believers’ are almost by definition, people in doubt. The true believers, by literal definition, have no doubts at all. When push comes to shove in these states, doubters always cave to those who are without doubt. Especially in the face of threatened and actual violence.

    We, in matters of our security and safety, need to deal with nations, not individuals. And those nations will in all practical ways continue to be functionally ‘true believers’ until the actual true believers are just a small fraction of the population.

    I share your concern for what is often euphemistically called ‘collateral damage’ to those who would change Islam from within Islamic states. But our first priority has to be to preserve our own freedom.

    I don’t know what to say except it’s not a pretty future and we need to assure the survival of individualism. And of ourselves.

  • nic

    Ron – and we will say in no uncertain terms that we have no duty to abide by the laws of this crude faith, or any faith at all for that matter. That is why I am an active campaigning liberal.

  • Verity

    nic – All Muslims are fundamentalists. Do not be fooled by your friends, who will be your friends as long as you don’t cross Islam or diss Islam. And they will turn on you without the slightest pang of conscience, because you are a non-believer and therefore not a full human being. (No one who has fallen away from Islam is a full human being. By virtue of not being a Muslim, that means you have fallen away from the faith.) It was very obvious to me that you had never lived in an Islamic country. You are judging these people with Western eyes because that is your only experience.

    I have talked about taqqya and kitman. Here is what a person who escaped from Islam, an apostate says: “There is an Islamic teaching called taqiyya. Taqiyya means deception or concealing and disguising one’s beliefs and intentions to fool the adversary. According to Muhammad all forbidden things become permissible if they are to be used for the advancement of Islam. So Muslims can lie, steal, murder and rape with complete clear conscience because they are convinced of doing the right thing.” To read the whole thing: (Link) Hat tip, USS Neverdock.

    And under the “Here we go again” category, here are Muslims in the US using the US Constitution to try to get special Islamic enclaves approved. (Link) Scroll down to “Muslims challenge US Constitution”. These people flipping don’t stop. They wear everyone down inch by inch because they are so insanely focused.

  • nic

    Midwesterner – I think we are agreed both on what has to be done, and, for the most part, on how it is be done. I guess I am slightly more optimistic of an early success IF we can shake off the shackles of multiculturalism quickly enough.

  • Verity

    Ron Brick and nic – “For the case of the schools in california I would be as likely to blame the school governors for their stupidity of letting a bunch of extremists near the children in their care, as much as these representatives from the Islamic community for having the gall to come in and give the children Arabic names and have them recite prayers. “

    Erm, yes. It is the school governors who are being sued by the parents. This time Robert Spencer is coming in as an expert witness on behalf of the parents.

  • nic

    “Erm, yes. It is the school governors who are being sued by the parents.”

    And a good thing too because it is obviously the policy was beyond any sense. Next time, those governors would have been bringing porn stars into sex ed and encouraging the children to have safe sex orgies as part of a practical lesson!

  • Verity,

    If it weren’t for you, I would have abandoned Samizdata long ago. You are a class above most of the other commenters, or at least those commenters who believe that Islam has some saving grace.

    Keep on socking it to them! Perhaps some will see the light.

    Islam = Islamism

    Islamophobia = a badge of honour

    Amazing that they haven’t thrown you out long ago, though.

  • Nick M

    This thread is so dead. It seems mainly to be about indulging that malignant inadequate “nic” who seems to enjoy arguing with the big boys and girls. I’m sure the imam will give him a sound thrashing when he finds out who he’s been playing with.

  • Mike Lorrey

    In response to Bombadil’s question about “banning Islam in the West”, I would say that IMHO devout muslims who become citizens in nations that have a constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, are swearing false oaths, act in bad faith, and therefore cannot become citizens without specifically swearing to a codicil that they renounce the Islamic assumptions of religious control of the state and society. Anyone promoting the imposition of Sharia is committing sedition and treason, and anyone who does so should be subject to the stripping of citizenship and deportation as punishment.

  • Mike Lorrey

    “There is an Islamic teaching called taqiyya. Taqiyya means deception or concealing and disguising one’s beliefs and intentions to fool the adversary. According to Muhammad all forbidden things become permissible if they are to be used for the advancement of Islam. So Muslims can lie, steal, murder and rape with complete clear conscience because they are convinced of doing the right thing.”

    Sounds like the Scientology policy of Fair Play in action. Must be where L Ron got that ghastly idea.

  • Verity

    Well, Mike Lorrey, they’re busy, busy, busy as always, and they are trying to force the US to allow Islamic enclaves where their revolting shariah can be practised so they can “uphold and enforce greater compliance to Islamic law”.

    They didn’t know the United States doesn’t operate on shariah law before they came? That means they are too stupid to be a functioning member of society and should be deported as a burden on the state. They also cause normal people to have headaches.

    Referring to one such “informal” development in Baltimore, John Yahya Cason, director of the Islamic Education and Community Development Initiative, a Baltimore-based Muslim advocacy group, “there was no community in the U.S. that showed the totality of the essential components of Muslim social, economic, and political structure.”

    One question, asshole: So fucking what?

  • pete

    Those who kowtow to Islam are the same people who refused to acknowledge the evils of the communism and still believe that regimes such as Cuba are wonderful. These people are disatisfied with their lives, and need to convince themselves they live in a culture which is worse than most others, leading them to idealise far distant lands where things are in fact much worse than they are here.

  • Bobadil

    Anyone promoting the imposition of Sharia is committing sedition and treason, and anyone who does so should be subject to the stripping of citizenship and deportation as punishment.

    Depends on how they promote it.

    I find myself in the odd and unfamiliar position of arguing for Islam, in a sense. I think Islamists should be as free as anyone else to exercise their rights of advocacy. In other words, they can say whatever they like, write their congresscritter, etc. as long as they leave the long knives at home.

    But when their advocacy is given impetus by the threat that some faction of their movement will start putting bombs on busses, they become obligated to differentiate themselves – and quickly, in no uncertain terms. If they fail to do so, I have no problem with running them out of town on a rail.

    While I acknowledge the threat that Islam poses to us, and while I think that organizations like CAIR are reprehensible in the extreme, I still stand short of desiring special loyalty tests or requirements for muslims. I still want to harshly punish the act and not the belief.

    I am not an apologist for islamic terror, nor for the ugliness that is Islam; I am an advocate of the survival of western classical liberalism and the institutions that nourish it.

  • Midwesterner

    Fundamentalist Islam and the US Constitution are totally incompatible. They positively cannot exist together.

    There is no need to ‘ban Islam’. The US Constitution quite effectively bans Islam as we know it.

    All that is necessary is to fully enforce all of the protections the Constitution grants for everyone. At all times. In all places.

    The reason why it is so difficult for big brother left and right enders to admit this, is that they are each in their own pet ways, also among the primary usurpers of liberty. If we begin to fully enforce the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, most intrusive right wing and left wing regulations and programs would be the first to fall.

    Their solution is, of course, to layer on more regulations that specifically exempt their own projects.

  • Verity

    Then, Midwesterner, why does America not enforce the Constitution? Because the left has colonised it.

    These Islamics are like locusts. The descend on a country in their hundreds of thousands and begin munching. Tiny, tiny bites by tiny, tiny bites and you suddenly have scorched earth where there used to be liberty. In Britain, we have had freedom of speech removed under fear that British people would voice their opinions of the religion of faith. One of the underpinnings of our great legal system, eaten out from under us by the munching locusts.

    Mr Bush’s immigration policy, to accommodate Mexico, had better be very, very, very, very carefully written or Muslims will fly in by the millions and the United States will be black with burkas.

  • Midwesterner

    I’m not sure what you mean by ‘colonised’, but for this statement –

    “The descend on a country in their hundreds of thousands and begin munching. Tiny, tiny bites by tiny, tiny bites and you suddenly have scorched earth where there used to be liberty.”

    I would also attribute that to big brother socialism and hard right law and orderism.

    It really is a great unspoken conspiracy of people who find the Constitution to be inconvenient to their ends.

  • Midwesterner

    “Mr Bush’s immigration policy, to accommodate Mexico, had better be very, very, very, very carefully written or Muslims will fly in by the millions and the United States will be black with burkas.”

    I’m glad you put that thought out there. I don’t think that possibility has hit too many radar screens yet.

  • Verity

    The left has spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to subvert the Constitution and get it re-interpreted is what I mean by “the left has colonised it”.

    “They descend on a country in their hundreds of thousands and begin munching. Tiny, tiny bites by tiny, tiny bites and you suddenly have scorched earth where there used to be liberty.”

    In the paragraph above, I was referring to Muslims landing in other people’s countries and beginning a programme of munching away at that country’s traditional liberties. Getting our liberties shut down because they don’t suit their shariah law.

    In France, President Chirac and Jack Laing have stood firm about enforcing the no hijabs on school property law and it works at school, no question. But girls – some of them Catholic girls – are being beaten up and set fire to in the banlieus for having the impertinence to go out of the house without wearing a headscarf. In other words, indigenous girls who are unlucky enough to be living in slums alongside the Muslims are having shariah law applied to them because the Muslims have colonised the banlieus.

    Two days ago, a group of German schoolgirls were beaten up in one of the banlieus surrounding Paris for having the temerity to enter these people’s territory – in other words, walk by – without wearing headscarves. The Magrebi girls joined the boys in beating up these young German girls. The Muslims girls said they were dressed like bitches (meaning just normal clothes but not kitted out in black bin liners).

    In the United States, as I noted a few posts above, they are trying to find some way of getting official shariah law “enclaves” where they can administer their shariah over American laws. They never, never, never let up. That is why I said the descend on communities and begin munching, like locusts. As I said above, the poor people in Hamtramk, MI have Islamic calls to prayer broadcast from mosques, over loudspeakers, five times a day starting at 5:30 a.m. Munch, munch, munch, eating traditional Western liberties bite by bite. And they are indefatigable.

  • Midwesterner

    There can never, MUST never, be any territorial concessions of constitutional supremacy. No enclave, however formed, can be granted immunity from the constitution.

    No force, violence, intimidation, blackmail, threats or extortion of any kind can ever be permitted between any two people under US jurisidiction.

    Any politician who equivocates even slightly on this must be hounded and humiliated into defeat. Anyone who would lead this nation from the White House or Capital Hill must clearly convince us of both the will and the determination necessary to uphold the oath of office.

    “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

  • I just got here and have been reading the comments to this post. Some are excellent and rightly convey that the danger we in the West face is Islam, and not simply Islamism. Islam itself is the problem.

    By the way, Muslims want us to live in “Dar al-Islam,” not “Dar es Salaam” (which I believe is a city in Tanzania).

  • And, believe me, Dar al-Islam is even worse than Dar es Salaam.

  • Verity

    It’s the same word. Meaning Land of Believers – or to spell it yet a third way, Land of Hell. The official name of Brunei is Brunei Dar-es-Salaam. Meaning not only is the entire population Islamic, but so is the Sultan who rules it. A friend of mine booked a seat on Air Brunei for a business trip from Singapore and was so shocked to find he couldn’t get a drink on board that he couldn’t stop talking about it for days.

    Some Islamic airlines serve booze, though. Once, flying out of Damascus, I was on Syrian Arab Airlines. I was warned to turn up early by someone who was so intense about it that I took him seriously. Good job I’d been warned, because suddenly we were boarding – one and a half hours before take-off. There were only about six of us who had turned up this early. Anyway, once they’d got this tiny band of us boarded, we simply took off. Tough on all the folks who had tickets for that flight. Once we were airborne, I asked for a whisky and soda and they brought me a bottle of Black Label, a glass, a bucket of ice and a bottle of soda.

  • To book-end this post:

    Salaam means “peace.” So, Dar es Salaam means “house of peace.”

    Islam, on the other hand, means “submission,” and Dar al-Islam therefore means “house of submission.”

    The words are cognates, but they mean different things entirely.

    Shalom.

  • Verity,

    My last comment posted before I saw yours. Yes, many say that “Islam” means “peace.” Well, if it does, it’s a slave’s peace.

    I’ll gladly submit to God .. but not the Koran, thank you very much.

  • Verity

    Unless you’re an Arabic scholar, I can’t accept that they mean different things entirely. Islam means submission, but in their minds, submission actually means to be bathed in peace. And shalom, which is essentially the same word, if I’m not wrong, to you, too.

  • My only “no booze” tale doesn’t involve a Muslim land, but like your friend, I’ve never stopped talking about it. When I asked a Disney World worker where I could get a beer while my family was waiting on a very, very long line for Pirates of the Caribbean or something, the young man said to me, “We don’t serve alcohol in the Magic Kingdom.”

    Welcome to Dar al-Mickey.

  • Why, yes I am a Semitic language expert. Actually, salaam (Arabic), shalom (Hebrew), and shlama (Aramaic) all come from “Shlomo.” Shlomo Shoenberg was a Jewish boxer from Brooklyn circa 1919 who was known for his lighting fast roundhouse. No opponent ever got past the second round with sock’em Shlomo. He was deadly in the ring. Thus, the period of time after Shlomo’s knock-out punch (when the quiet prayers for the victim were whispered by the fans and even by pious Shlomo himself) soon became known as the “Peace of Shlomo,” or later just “Shlomo.”

  • Verity

    Sorry, Nomennoven, our posts crossed again.

    Yes, yes, of course it’s a slave’s peace! It’s submission!

  • As has been mentioned several times on this thread and is pointed out repeatedly by Mark Steyn, demographics are the key to Islam’s success.

    If you want to discover when your country will succumb to Sharia Law, the Australian Libertarian Society (scroll down about 7 articles) has produced a handy calculator. Simply enter in estimated fertility rates and immigration assumptions, and bingo, pinpoint Sharia Law to the year.

    By my calculations, the UK will become majority Muslim in 2115

  • Verity

    They gave their country away without a whimper. Why?

    All those millions of lives sacrificed in two world wars. So our beloved country could be handed to primitives without an argument, never mind a fight. Why?

    Primitives whose practices would have been alien to our ancestors 20,000 years ago, never mind 1500 years ago.

    This will be the greatest triumph of the left. Everything else the left essayed failed eventually. But then the left dreamed up political correctness and self-censorship of free speech in democracies. How awful that they should finally triumph.

    How deeply distressing.

  • permanent expat

    Talk, talk, talk…………………..tick tick tick tick……

  • permanent expat

    There is a mortal enemy among us.

    “Well now, of course it all depends what you mean by ‘mortal’ & what if, maybe, the philosophical implications of ‘mortal’ fail to stand up to the empirical hypotheses as defined in Prof. Ludwig Scatterscheisse’s seminal work ( Get off your Stupid Arses ) [Idgit & Idgit, 5pp, One & sixpence] Etc. etc….”

    MORTAL: Unrelenting, fighting to the death…..Geddit?

  • tom

    There is an interesting section in a book by Samuel P.Huntington, ” The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.”

    One theory the author seems to be suggesting is that many Muslim countries have undergone or are going through a “youth bulge” (high number of people in their teens and twenties). This youth bulge is peaking in some Muslim countries, and declining in others, but it does have a significant impact on the region, and on the immigration to the West.

    And I quote, “young people are the protagnists of protest, instability, reform, and revolution.” He gives examples of revolutions and movements in history that have happened, and were often accompanied by large increase in youth. Some of these movements were positive, and others were not.

    It’s not surprising then, that large number of youth can be recruited by Islamic organizations, and high population growth, unemployment, and economic stagnation promotes Muslim migration to the West. However, high population growth, “religious revival”, “cultural movement” will not last forever, and will fade into history. Without going into too much detail, high population growth in Muslim states will also undergo a decline (one graph in the book shows decline/stabilization of youth proportion of the populations in many Muslim regions by around 2010 onwards).

    I don’t want to seem like I’m promoting the book, but I thought this sections had a lot of insight, and some of the ideas and analysis were ones that I haven’t heard before…

  • Verity: I have flown Royal Brunei – not enough leg room. And Brunei itself was the most boring place I have ever visited. An utterly neutered culture. No vibrancy to speak of.

    A polite request, too, Verity; would you mind posting under another name for a couple of weeks? On compassionate grounds. A certain so-and-so said this:

    Verity – If it weren’t for you, I would have abandoned Samizdata long ago.

    I’m hoping your apparent absence will fool this particularly patronising, tedious windbag into scurrying off to find some other folk to look down his pointy nose at. Not only is this individual a pedantic know-it-all twerp, he’s also frequently incorrect about the subjects he pontificates about. Appalling.

  • Nick M

    James Waterton,

    Nice to see there are more Eurostatician-sceptics out there. Can you imagine him being in the seat next to you on that flight to Brunei?

  • Verity

    James Waterton, my friend who mistakenly took that flight from Singapore to Brunei was also an Aussie. You can imagine how distressed he was not to be able to get a drink. I don’t think you can get a drink in boring Brunei, either, can you? Or maybe in the luxury hotels, if you show a non-Muslim passport.

    Yours sincerely,
    Rupert

  • The Wobbly Guy

    In Brunei, you can get alcohol through the black market with the right connections. I had a colleague for a short while who worked in Brunei for a time, as both a teacher and the marketing manager for their national football team(wrote a book on that using the alias of Stanley Park; a true scouser).

    He told me it was hell, and the place was just messed up. If not for their oil, they would be worse than a third world country.

    TWG

  • Verity,

    Taqqiya is prospective, like the Kol Nidre. The Catholic’s Confession is retrospective. But only Confession is done in remorse and humility and is not a potential licence for or glorification of deceit. Morally and intellectually, we are not the least of the peoples of the Abrahamic faiths. Strange, then, that we are the only one apologising for our existence and are quite unable to mount a defence of our culture or our lands.

  • Re. Brunei and alcohol – you can take a small amount of beer or spirits through customs if you’re a visitor. Big deal. What are you going to do with this booze? Drink it in your hotel room alone? Grog’s not available to buy legally anywhere, I believe, and you certainly couldn’t take the stuff you’ve brought in from OS to a restaurant. It’s all really conducive to a social atmosphere and nightlife… a one night stopover was too much.

    Other than that, visit Brunei!

  • Johnathan Pearce

    Guessedworker, you were banned from this site over a year ago. Or are you, Matt OHalloran, Luniversal, and Eurostat the same person?

    I think the editors here need to start taking a firm line.

  • I took a Royal Brunei flight home from Singapore once, via Dubai.

    On the Sing-Dubai leg, I had the foresight to check the onboard policy and was able to bring on and consume beer (but not spirits). When I cracked open my tin of Guinness, all the weatherbeaten “oilies” turned in unison. The collective look of astonishment and then envy was a sight to behold!

  • John Rippengal

    My last visit to Brunei was in the days of the old Seri Begawan – father of the present sultan. Bit of a cowboy town then and no problem about booze. there was only one grotty hotel in Bandar Seri Begawan and that was regularly visited by Singapore prostitutes – the Flying Fifties. Fifty bucks to get laid and they used to come hammering on the door any time of the day or night. Suppose you could consider them the good old days?????

  • Verity

    Tim C says – “I had the foresight to check the onboard policy and was able to bring on and consume beer”.

    Then why didn’t you have the foresight to book a seat on a civilised airline?

  • Verity – it was very civilised in many ways, far more civilised than any American airline I have experienced (American, NW, United), or BA for that matter. Efficient, pleasant check-in. Brand new planes. Tasteful decor. Very good service from well trained and courteous staff. Added to that it was about 25% cheaper as it only flew on Thursdays, which suited me fine on that occasion. Otherwise it would be CX or SG. I’ll only fly Virgin premier or upper, as cattle class is full of…cattle and “…I am the only free man on this plane!”

  • Verity

    I don’t know why you didn’t fly CX or SG to start with. Tasteful decor, charming and very good looking flight attendants, beautiful uniforms….

  • Most of you here ar ignorant about the real truth. Learn more about Islam before speaking all lies.

  • Most of you here ar ignorant about the real truth. Learn more about Islam before speaking all lies

    How do you know? I know quite a lot about Islam and the more I learned about it, the less I liked it. Just because I disagree with you that does not make me ‘ignorant’. If I was ignorant of the reality of Islam, I might not dislike it so much.