UK pro-Mulsim

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Three years after the London Tube and bus bombings, it is alarming beyond measure to record that Britain is even now sleepwalking into Islamisation. Some people will think this is mere hyperbole. However, that's the problem. Britain still doesn't grasp that it is facing a pincer attack from both terrorism and cultural infiltration and usurpation.

The former is understood; the latter is generally not acknowledged or is even denied, and those who call attention to it are pilloried as either ' Islamophobes' or alarmists who have taken up residence on Planet Paranoia.

Certainly, the police and security service have been foiling plot after plot and are bringing to court a steady stream of Islamist radicals - an improvement without doubt from two years ago. And so, particularly within the British elite, people think that things are broadly under control.

They fail to realise that the attempt to take over our culture is even more deadly to this society than terrorism. They are simply blind to the ruthless way in which the Islamists are exploiting our chronic muddle of well-meaning tolerance and political correctness (backed up by the threat of more violence) to put Islam on a special - indeed, unique - footing within Britain.

As a result, the steady Islamisation of British public life is either being ignored or even tacitly encouraged by a political, security and judicial establishment that is failing to identify the stealthy and mind-bending game that is being played.

The official counter-radicalisation programme illustrates the problem. The Government wants to tackle radicalisation within Britain's Muslim community by winning hearts and minds within that community. Its strategy is based on isolating the extremists and encouraging the moderates.

The problem, however, is that it doesn't understand what Muslim extremism is. Believing that Islamic terrorism is motivated by an ideology which has 'hijacked' and distorted Islam, it will not acknowledge the extremism within mainstream Islam itself.

The reason so many older British Muslims are traditionally moderate is that they were brought up in the Asian subcontinent under a tamed form of Islam, deriving from centuries of colonial rule, which glossed over much of the teaching of the religion.

The Government believes that Islamic radicalism can be countered by teaching authentic Islam to Muslims. But since Islamic radicalism is based upon those very authentic religious precepts, this will undoubtedly have the effect of radicalising people who otherwise would never have thought in this way.

The Mosques and Imams National Advisory Board (MINAB) was set up to put into effect the Government's aim of ensuring moderation in the mosques. This was always unlikely, given that members of Islamist groupings were on the steering committee. Although MINAB's chairman, Manazir Ahsan, presents himself as a reformer, he is the director of the

Islamic Foundation, which follows the writings of Maulana Maududi - who preached an end to the sovereignty and supremacy of unbelievers who should be made to live in a state of subordination to Islam.

Similarly, Dr Ataullah Siddiqui, the Government's chief adviser on Islamic Studies, is a senior member of the Islamic Foundation. A report he wrote for the Government last year, Islam at Universities in England, which was publicly welcomed by the Prime Minister, urged that among other special privileges for Muslims, they should be allowed to teach Islamic subjects in British universities and that non-Muslims should be banned from doing so.

In any event, the universities are steadily being Islamised, with academic objectivity in the teaching of Islam and Middle East studies being set aside in favour of indoctrination and propaganda.

A report by Professor Anthony Glees due to be published in the autumn will argue that extremist ideas are being spread by Islamic study centres linked to British universities and backed by multimillion-pound donations from Saudi Arabia and Muslim organisations.

He says: 'Britain's universities will have to generate two national cultures: one non-Muslim and largely secular, the other Muslim. We will have two identities, two sets of allegiance and two legal and political systems. This must, by the Government's own logic, hugely increase the risk of terrorism.'
Abu Qatada making a televised appeal from HM Prison Belmarsh

Abu Qatada making a televised appeal from HM Prison Belmarsh. Qatada, He was granted bail with a 22-hour curfew by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, the Home Office said.

Even more terrifying is the increasing Islamisation of the police. It has been reported that up to eight police officers and civilian staff working in the Metropolitan Police and other forces are suspected of links to extremist groups, including Al Qaeda, with some even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.
One suspected jihadist officer working in the South East has been allowed to keep his job despite being caught circulating internet images of beheadings and roadside bombings in Iraq.

No less disturbing is the fact that the police are intentionally bringing Islamists into the force in the utterly misguided belief (shared by many in the security service) that they can help counter Islamic radicalism.

Commander Robert Lambert, who until this year ran the Metropolitan Police Muslim Contact Unit, observed that terrorism could not be fought by contact with moderate Muslims but through partnerships with Salafists (Sunni extremists who believe in Islamic supremacy over the secular state) - one of whom was actually an officer in his own police department.

Commander Lambert believed that this would enable the police to understand the way extremists thought before they committed any acts of terror.

But it surely goes without saying that an officer who is committed to the overthrow of the West, and its replacement by an Islamic society poses a security risk of the first order. For a police counter-terrorism specialist to be promoting this situation beggars belief.

Deeply alarmed sources have furthermore told me that, in the overriding concern by police forces to hire more ethnic minority officers, they have junked vetting criteria - particularly when it comes to hiring Police Community Support Officers, who after two years can become fully fledged police officers with no further vetting required. The result, say these sources, is that the security of police operations is potentially compromised.

Moreover, there have been disturbing examples of the police protecting Islamic extremism. In 2007, the Channel Four Dispatches programme uncovered evidence of incitement to murder of homosexuals, the killing of British soldiers and hatred of 'unbelievers' going on below the official radar in ostensibly respectable British mosques.

But instead of prosecuting such fanatics, the West Midlands Police first tried to prosecute the programme makers and then accused them of selective editing and distortion and undermining community cohesion - a libel for which the police and the Crown Prosecution Service were subsequently forced to apologise.

A report by the Centre for Social Cohesion on honour killings and similar violence revealed that several women's groups, particularly in the Midlands and northern England, say they are often reluctant to go to the police with women who have run away from home to escape violence, because they cannot trust Asian police officers not to betray the girls to their abusing families.

In February, Christian evangelists Arthur Cunningham and Joseph Abraham were handing out Bible extracts in Alum Rock, Birmingham. They were stopped by a Muslim Police Community Support Officer, threatened with arrest if they carried on preaching in 'a Muslim area', and warned that they might get beaten up if they came back.

Source

[drDAK]

Just another example of why religion does not belong in government.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 7/9/08 11:31 PM, drDAK wrote: Just another example of why religion does not belong in government.

to true

[Callojero777]

Sounds like someone is trying to pull the wool over my eyes!

[Christopherr]

Their obsession with appeasement is ridiculous.

The government is saying they want to incorporate aspects of Sharia into their laws, which is stupid. What aspects? The one where a man can divorce a wife by saying, "I divorce thee, I divorce thee, I divorce thee," or maybe the one where a man can kill his daughter for disgracing the family?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Christopherr wrote: " or maybe the one where a man can kill his daughter for disgracing the family?

No, don't be silly, it's the one where a woman is given lashes for being raped.

[Christopherr]

At 7/10/08 01:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: No, don't be silly, it's the one where a woman is given lashes for being raped.

Or the one where a thief gets his hand cut off publicly?

Possibly the one that renders man's best friend too unclean to keep?

Or maybe the one that allows flogging for any sort of alcohol consumption?

Maybe the one where a teen can be beat to death for simply holding hands with another teen?

[Tri-Nitro-Toluene]

At 7/10/08 01:25 AM, Christopherr wrote: Their obsession with appeasement is ridiculous.

The government is saying they want to incorporate aspects of Sharia into their laws,

Source, the only 'aspects of Sharia law' that anyone has been talking about incorporating are the ones where the state legally recognises thigns such as Muslim marriage ceremonies which aren't currently accepted as a legal marriage ( meaning the couple has to go through a civil wedding as well). and that wasn't even the government. it was the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So yeah, unless I've missed something big time, show a source for this claim or you are talking out of your ass. If the Government were planning to incorporate Sharia law as you seem to think it is then the Conservatives would be having a field day with it. They haven't even mentioned it to my knowledge. And seeing as the Tories consist of some very right wing anti immigration people ( same description cna go for some of their supporters) you can bet they'd have pulled the government out on it.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 7/10/08 01:33 AM, Christopherr wrote:
Maybe the one where a teen can be beat to death for simply holding hands with another teen?

a girl was hung in Iran for PDA in public with a guy

[lapis]

Seriously, your entire first post was comprised of something you copied from another website so all you had to do was write the topic title. You only had to correctly enter 13 CHARACTERS into the 'new topic' message box and you even managed to FAIL when attempting to complete that simple task.

Fuck off.

[catman03]

At 7/9/08 11:31 PM, drDAK wrote: Just another example of why religion does not belong in government.

Precisely. Regardless of what people may say there's nothing inherently wrong or stupid about Islam, or about spreading Islam. Or at least no more so then there is with Christianity or Judaism. The main problem is not that the U.K. are becoming "Islamized" but rather that the religion is entering into the government, which is bad regardless of what religion it is. There are hundreds of arguments, plus common sense, for the seperation of religion and government. The alarming part of this story is not the spread of Islam but the spread through the government. The idea of leaving the Muslims who are "infiltrating" the U.K. but rather going after the violent radicals IS the right idea. The problem is that the religion (from what the first-poster says, at least) appears to be effecting the law.

[Gunter45]

I don't care what the situation is.

If you change your laws to make special provisions for a group of people simply to appease them, you're treading on fragile ground.

[Imperator]

At 7/10/08 12:38 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: a girl was hung in Iran for PDA in public with a guy

Write one full paragraph of thoughts on the Politics forum. I dare ya. Write one full paragraph of words that are entirely your own and not copipasta'd from somewhere else.

I double dare ya.

say what one more goddamn time!

I agree with Lapis. Fuck off.

[ThePretenders]

Hey, Dante! Labour is bending over to Muslims.

[Christopherr]

At 7/10/08 05:23 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't care what the situation is.

If you change your laws to make special provisions for a group of people simply to appease them, you're treading on fragile ground.

Especially when the particular group of people will just grow more demanding. If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to ask for a glass of milk.

I mean, they start talking about recognizing their marriages, and now the issue of dogs being unclean is coming up.

[Brick-top]

At 7/9/08 11:32 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 7/9/08 11:31 PM, drDAK wrote: Just another example of why religion does not belong in government.

to true

True? It should be a fucking priority that Religion and Government should be kept as far away as possible.

[ThePretenders]

At 7/10/08 07:13 PM, Brick-top wrote:

At 7/9/08 11:32 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote:

At 7/9/08 11:31 PM, drDAK wrote: Just another example of why religion does not belong in government.

to true

True? It should be a fucking priority that Religion and Government should be kept as far away as possible.

While we at it, we should disestablish the Church of England, kick the bishops out of the Lords and end faith schools because they are divisive and discriminatory.

[Mr-Pope]

At 7/10/08 05:23 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't care what the situation is.

If you change your laws to make special provisions for a group of people simply to appease them, you're treading on fragile ground.

What change in laws would these be, specifically?

[Brick-top]

At 7/10/08 07:16 PM, ThePretenders wrote: While we at it, we should disestablish the Church of England, kick the bishops out of the Lords and end faith schools because they are divisive and discriminatory.

No I wouldn't care about that either way becuase it wouldn't apply to me yet Religious influence on the government does.

[Gunter45]

At 7/10/08 07:54 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: What change in laws would these be, specifically?

It's mainly in reference to the discussion of incorporating Sharia law, not what has happened yet.

[Leap]

At 7/10/08 05:23 PM, Gunter45 wrote: I don't care what the situation is.

If you change your laws to make special provisions for a group of people simply to appease them, you're treading on fragile ground.

I agree with you 100%, Do we have specific laws for Christians or Jews? It's true that we do have a few specific provisions for certain religious suitations in British law but as far as I can tell these were all suitations where the law changed and a group of people who had been cruising along quite nicley had to have a lottel accomadation when the law changed, NOT special pridvilages. The biggest one i can think of is where a Sikh doesn't have to wear a crash helmet on moterbikes/mopeds under 50cc

[AniMetal]

Another reason why the states are better.

I kid, I kid.

But in all seriousness, mixing religion with the government is like rap and metal holding each others hands all at the same concert.

[Angry-Hatter]

Yeah! Kill the muslims! They're all out to GET you.

FEAR the muslims, or you could be NEXT!

Daily Mail = Daily Fail.

[The-evil-bucket]

Islam does not fundamentally advocate terrorism. Oh my! What's that! Islam isn't the root of violence?! Can it be? Is it possible for a religion different from yours to not be an evil core of destruction?!

No! Folly! Intolerance is the only way to protect from those dangerous outsiders. Maybe we should just consider the 1.5 billion Muslims enemies of the state. Immigration should be stopped. Muslim authors shall be shut down! We'll export all the Muslims to third world countries. That is the only way to purify ourselves. We shall not let our perfect culture be fouled by these beasts. We shan't even consider them people, but merely slaves! They shouldn't be taught to read, only to serve their perfect masters.

Did I say Muslim? I'm sorry, I meant Jews/Blacks/Prisoners of War/Immigrants/Gays.

[SmilezRoyale]

There's something about this that reminds me of Star Wars, knights of the old republic.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalori an_Wars#Division_within_the_Jedi_Order

the UK may very well have to give into the darkside if it wants to survive this.

[The-evil-bucket]

At 7/16/08 09:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: There's something about this that reminds me of Star Wars, knights of the old republic.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Mandalori an_Wars#Division_within_the_Jedi_Order

the UK may very well have to give into the darkside if it wants to survive this.

"Survive". It's going to survive. It won't be it's perfect all powerful Christian Aryan ideal Utopian nation, but it'll survive. Maybe if we put all the Muslims into prison camps, we can start damage control.

[SmilezRoyale]

I smell a troll...

[SolInvictus]

At 7/10/08 04:10 AM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: Source, the only 'aspects of Sharia law' that anyone has been talking about incorporating are ...the state legally recognises thigns such as Muslim marriage ceremonies which aren't currently accepted as a legal marriage .... and that wasn't even the government. it was the Archbishop of Canterbury.

why the hell didn't the thread end here?

[The-evil-bucket]

At 7/17/08 08:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why the hell didn't the thread end here?

Because there's still more to discuss?

[SolInvictus]

At 7/17/08 08:40 PM, The-evil-bucket wrote:

At 7/17/08 08:32 PM, SolInvictus wrote: why the hell didn't the thread end here?

Because there's still more to discuss?

if this topic were about appeasement, then yes there would be but since Dante enjoys posting news that has nothing to do with actual events and doesn't build on said news, there isn't much.