Friday, 13 March 2015

Anti-Muslim Racism?


Many Muslims don't like the legal fact that Sikhs and Jews are deemed to constitute distinct racial groups; though Muslims aren't.

The prime reason that Muslim activists and lawyers are unhappy with this situation is that they would like to turn the critics of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims – not as members of an ethnic group) into people who would treated as racists by the legal system.

TheCommission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (set up in 1997) saw this“anomaly” (as Muslim activists put it) this way:

It has been established through case law that members of two world faiths, Judaism and Sikhism, are fully protected under the Race Relations Act 1976, since they are considered to belong to distinct ethnic groups.”

This is clearly problematic for Muslims.

Thus the Commission immediately went on to say that that it is “a serious anomaly that no such protection exists for members of other faiths”.

This is the conundrum that Muslims find themselves in:

i) On the one hand, Muslims continuously stress the “universal nature of Islam” and the fact that “Muslims come from all races”. (Or, as the Commission itself put it: “Muslims (as also Christians) would emphatically not wish to be seen as belonging to a single ethnic group.”)
ii) Yet on the other hand, if Muslims were seen to constitute a single race, that would most certainly confer upon Muslims many legal - and therefore social and political - advantages. (Such as making Islam and Muslims beyond criticism - legally speaking.)
Some of these anomalies are precisely that – anomalies.

For example, the lawyer Nadeem Malik claims (in the book British Muslims between Assimilation and Segregation) that one tribunal stated that

Sikhs are geographically defined by originating from a particular place in India and that they are bound by their culture as well as their religion”.

So if that's true about Sikhs, then, according to Nadeem Malik, it's also true about Mirpuris from Kashmir. That is, the Mirpuris “have a particular language, geographic heritage, ancestral links, common culture and religious values”. It's also true “with regard to Pushtuns from Pakistan”. Yet, unlike Sikhs, “it has been found that Mirpuris from Kashmir are not a racial group”.

The illogicality of the argument here - especially from a lawyer - is blatant.

Only a tiny a minority of the world's Muslims come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan. (Not even all British Muslims come from these areas.) Sikhs, on the whole, can trace their heritage to specific parts of India. There will of course be a tiny number of Sikhs who won't be able to do so. Nonetheless, compared to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan, the comparison completely breaks down – and Nadeem Malik must know that. The only argument Malik can uphold is that Mirpuris and Pashtuns constitute racial/ethnic groups and that they also happen to be Muslims. Though what has that to do with the legal status of all Muslims (asMuslims) in the UK?

The obvious answer to all this is to fully separate racial/ethnic groups from religious groups. Nonetheless, it seems that many Muslims - including Malik himself - aren't happy with that conclusion.


Because, as I said, Muslims would benefit enormously from being seen as a single racial group.

Of course this racialisation of Muslims is clearly ridiculous. (Isn't this what racists are supposed to be doing – racialisingMuslims?) Muslims themselves, when coming at this issue from the perspective of “Islamic universalism”, agree. Indeed the ridiculous nature of this racialisation of Muslims is noted by Malik himself – if only indirectly. He cites a finding of the House of Lords which

stated that a person could fall into a particular racial group by birth or by adopting and following the customs of the group”.

Yes; you read that correctly. If a white person were to become a Sikh, he would be deemed - by the Lords and the law generally - to have suddenly fallen under another racial group. And it seems that many Muslims would also want this to apply to white, brown, black, etc. Muslims too.

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

The Niqab & Burka: Islamist Uniforms

The niqab, burka and, to a lesser extent, the hijab are utterly symbolic items of dress. Despite what people think, even in the Arab world (as well as in Iran) the burka and niqab didn't start being widely worn until the late 1970s. In the UK itself, it's a very recent phenomenon. The burka and niqab only began to be worn in the late 1990s or early 2000s – and often much later than that.

The niqab is a symbol of Islamism and of self-conscious difference. It's a symbol of the Muslim woman's complete separation from non-Muslim society. In other words, the wearing of it is a political and religious statement.

In Islam, politics and religion are already fused. It can even be argued that all believing and practising Muslims are Islamists in the sense that Islam itself – not Islamism – happily fuses religion and politics and has done continuously since the time of Muhammed.

Women who wear the niqab most certainly fuse Islam with politics – with totalitarian politics.
Considering the blatantly political nature of the niqab, it's interesting to recall that Muslim women began to wear the niqab – mainly under Hamas direction – in the West Bank during the 2001 intifada. In addition, all the female candidates in the elections which brought Hamas to power in 2006 wore niqabs. As one would expect, the longer Hamas's harsh rule has continued, the more women have worn the niqab.

The strange thing (at least it may seem strange to some Western non-Muslims) is that the niqab is actually banned in some Muslim countries because they too recognise the political implications of allowing people to wear it. They realise that it is a statement of Islamist intent. Consequently, the niqab has been banned in Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Turkey (though often only when the Muslim woman is working as a public servant). In Syria, for example, 1200 niqab-wearing teachers were transferred to administrative duties in the summer of 2010. However, possibly under Islamist and Sunni pressure against the Shia-Alawite-Baathist regime, this position was apparently reversed when it was reported in April 2011 that teachers would again be allowed to wear the niqab.

Just as non-Islamist Muslim states ban the niqab, so Islamist and Wahhabi states legally enforce its wearing. This again stresses the political nature of the niqab.

For example, in Saudi Arabia women are required to wear the niqab; or at least they are so required in the main cities (e.g., Mecca, Medina and Taif).

In the case of Iran, the Shah (pre-1979) banned all Islamic dress or at least all head-coverings. The clerics, of course, were very much against this because they deemed it obligatory (in Islam) that women cover their hair and faces. Needless to say, after the 'Islamic Revolution' of 1979, the niqab came into fashion.

The Niqab & the Burka

Muslims will make the pedantic point that non-Muslims often mean niqab when they say 'burka'.

There is indeed a very small difference between the two. The burka is literally like a prison in which the Muslim woman is caged. You can't even see her eyes. With the niqab, on the other hand, Muslim men are kind enough to allow Muslim women to show their eyes (“the niqab liberates Muslim women”). In point of fact, however, one translation of the Arabic niqāb is actually 'mask'.

Another way of distinguishing the niqab from the burka is that Western Islamists tend to wear the niqab; whereas Muslims in tribal countries (such as Afghanistan) wear the burka. The other thing is that the burka is said, by Muslims, to cover the entire body; though this isn't true of the niqab. Yet those Muslims in the West who wear the niqab also wear a full Islamic uniform (what better way in there to describe it?) which similarly covers the entire body.

Islamic Justifications for Wearing the Niqab & Burka

Although I said that the wearing of the niqab is a new phenomenon in the West (as well as in most of the Muslim world), there are still lots of Koranic and Islamic backings for the covering of the hair and face; if not specifically for wearing the niqab or burka. So this doesn't mean that there wasn't “Islamic dress” before or that hair and faces weren't covered in Muslim countries. Again, the niqab is a very specific (indeed political) Islamic dress.

In the Hanafi (Sunni) and Hanbali (Sunni) schools it is obligatory (wajib) for a woman to cover her face and indeed her entire body. The Salafis (Sunni) also believe that a woman should cover her entire body other than her eyes and hands.

The Sunni Muslim position is fully understandable when you consider various Koranic and Islamic texts.

For example, the wives of Muhammad covered themselves when in the presence of other men.

Muslims also cite this passage in support of the hijab, burka and niqab:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known (as respectable women) so as not to be annoyed."
Some Muslims, however, claim that the above doesn't say anything about covering the face itself. Nonetheless, there are tens of passages in the hadith which say precisely that.

For example, in Bukhari 6:60:282, Sunnan Abu Dawud, it reads:
"Narrated Aisha: The woman is to bring down her Jilbāb from over her head and [then place it] upon her face."
There's also this passage (1:1833):

"Narrated Aisha: ... each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces."

Finally, Asma bint Abi Bakr (a “companion of the Prophet”) says:
"We are used to cover our faces from the men, and cut our hair before that in Ihrām [for Hajj]."


In terms of the political fuss that has been made about the niqab and burka (as well as their deeply political nature), it can safely be said that rather than Muslims not wanting the niqab or burka to be banned, this is precisely what they do want. Or, more correctly, through the wearing of these clothes, and the resulting political uproar, Muslims – or at least Islamists – can both assert their identity and challenge the secular state.

Take just one of many examples of this.

Sultaana Freeman, in 2003, sued the state of Florida for the right to wear a niqab for her driver's licence photo. She lost the case. Nonetheless, she gained the concession of making sure that the photographer was female. That was just one more victory for Islamism and possibly (depending on how you view the difference) for Islam itself.

Finally, even if the banning of niqab and burka does raise issues of freedom and personal rights, we still mustn't forget the utterly political nature of these garments. In fact they are the exact equivalents of swastika armbands or hammer-and-sickle badges.

Sunday, 25 January 2015

Eric Pickles MP Distrusts the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)


In response to the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris, the British Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Eric Pickles MP, wrote a letter to various Muslim “community leaders”, mosques and imams pleading for their help in dealing with Islamic extremism in the UK.

Within that letter, the following words can be found:

We must show... these men of hate have no place in our mosques or any place of worship, and that they do not speak for Muslims in Britain or anywhere in the world.”

(The word “we” is used in the above because the letter was co-written by Lord Tariq Ahmad of Wimbledon, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State.)

Eric Pickles didn't send this letter to the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

In response to not receiving this letter, the MCB itself wrote its own letter to Mr Pickles: 'Letter to the Secretary of State'.

The MCB is Part of the Problem

The ironic thing is that the MCB is part of the problem (as the Telegraphimplies later). And the MCB writing this letter to Eric Pickles demonstrates that very well.

It seems that it wasn't good enough that Eric Pickles sent his letter“to Imams and leaders around the country” because he didn't also send it to the MCB.

The MCB said that “as one of the largest Muslim umbrella bodies in this country, we did not receive this letter”. Perhaps that's because Mr Pickles also knows that the MCB is part of the problem. After all, the MCB has been officially rejected by both the Labour Party and the Conservative Party in the past. (The British Prime Minister himself, David Cameron, rejected the “hard-line”MCB as long ago as 2007.)

The UK's Telegraph neatly sums up the problem with its own title for its article on this letter: 'Britain's Muslims are only being asked to help'.

TheTelegraph states:

All Mr Pickles was proposing was that those who have a leadership role among Muslims should recognise that there is a serious issue they need to address. To deny its existence or muddy the waters with protestations of offended amour propre is to miss the point entirely.”

And not only is the MCB miffed that it didn't receive Eric Pickles' letter (which it's against anyway), it even tacitly accuses Mr Pickles of contributing to the “heightened tension” between Muslims and non-Muslims.

As ever, the MCB puts the cart before the horse.

There isn't heightened tension with Muslims because of this letter (or because of any other statements about Muslims and Islam). There's heightened tension because of the Charlie Hebdo killings, jihad throughout the word, the Muslim grooming-gangs, the dozens of foiled Islamic terrorist attacks in the UK, 7/7, the Islamisation of certain British schools, etc.

The thing is that Muslim communities – on the whole - are already divided from non-Muslim communities. The terrorist acts in Paris are a consequence - not a cause - of that division.

Throughout the Muslim world numerous Muslims have also condoned and even praised the terror attacks in Paris. In fact millions of Muslims have done so. And even in the UK thousands of Muslims have expressed their support for the Paris killers on Facebook, Twitter and on the Internet generally.

So when the MCB says that “Muslims from all backgrounds have stood united in condemnation at these horrific crimes”, it's not telling you the whole story.

Challenge Terrorism?

The MCB also says that it does

take issue with the implication that extremism takes place at mosques, and that Muslims have not done enough to challenge the terrorism that took place in our name”.

Well, it's a firmly established fact that extremist words and actions have taken place at many mosques in the UK. Such facts and investigations have appeared in the Times,the Independent, the Telegraph, the Daily Mail, the Daily Express, the Mirror, BBC 1, Channel 4, ITV, Radio 4, etc. So the MCB must know that this is the case. Sure, it has never been demonstrated that every single mosque in the UK is a home of extremism because that probably couldn't be demonstrated even in principle. (It probably isn't the case either.)

One, not every mosque is under scrutiny. Two, the definition of“extremism” will of course be contested – by the MCB (amongst others) – in any case.

The other point is that it's conclusively the case that Muslims - on the whole - have “not done enough to challenge” terrorism and Islamic extremism. This too has received coverage all over the place. And this must also be known to the MCB itself. But, as with the extremism in mosques case, it will be hard to demonstrate that the majority of Muslims haven't done enough.


The MCB says that it “reject[s] suggestions that Muslims must go out of their way to prove their loyalty to this country of ours”.
No one is asking Muslims to “prove” anything. Indeed what does this use of the word “prove” (by the MCB) so much as mean? All that's being asked is that Muslims are “loyal to this country of ours” (as the MCB also puts it); not that Muslims prove that loyalty.
Indeed why is that Muslim loyalty is so often questioned? Not because it's not proven by Muslims; but because it's rarely even displayed or shown (outside media photoshoots and interfaith events). In fact the exact opposite is all too often the case.



1) The MCB doesn't help it's cause when it states what amount to blatant lies or things which, quite simply, don't make any sense at all.

For example, in the MCB's letter to Eric Pickles it says that “British values are indeed Islamic values”. (Though, to be fair, this is an exact quote from the Eric Pickles letter!) Now that is simply staggering! Not only is it a soundbite – it's also blatantly false. And it's false for a multitude of reasons.

However, just take this obvious point.

If“British values are indeed Islamic values”, then there would be no reason for anyone to become a Muslim simply because British values are already Islamic values.

It would also mean something even more obviously false: that British and Islamic values don't conflict in any way whatsoever!

2) The MCB's letter to Eric Pickles also contains an advertisement for Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama organisation, which was discovered to have misused tax-payers money and made false claims about supposed attacks against Muslims. (Fiyaz Mughal himself has failed in the courts on three different occasions.) It also states that “the thugs of the English Defence League and Britain First is just as much an affront to British values as the teachings of preachers of hate”.

3) On a technical point, note this piece of deceit from the MCB on the issue of its own democratic status. (You get the feeling that almost every sentence the MCB utters either contains an outright lie or a piece of dissimulation/deceit.)

After again saying that it is mightily peeved off about not being sent Eric Pickle's letter (which it's against anyway), the MCB tells us why that is so. It is so primarily because the MCB sees itself as “the largest democratically-elected and representative Muslim organisation”.

That sounds impressive, doesn't it?

Firstly, it sounds as if the Muslims as a whole have somehow “elected” the MCB or its leaders. They most certainly have not! Chose any adult British Muslim at random and you will soon discover that. They will either deny it or even say that they don't know much – or anything- about the MCB.

So what the MCB means by “democratically-elected” is that those already within the MCB vote for its leaders and representatives. That means that every Muslim in the UK outside the MCB doesn't vote for the leaders or representatives of the MCB. So, in that sense, the MCB is democratic – if it is democratic - in the same way the local branch of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) is democratic.

4)The reason why MCB announcements and statements are so damned vacuous, full of soundbites and lies is that if they ever did go into detail about the subject at hand it would let many cats would out of various bags. That's why it relies exclusively on capsule posts and statements: anything more than that would give the Islamist game away.

We're talking about a Islamic organisation which sells itself as the most important Islamic organisation in the UK, yet the average length of its website posts is something like 400 words - usually less. It's website is little more than an advertising stand for selling Islam to gullible kuffar. And it's because of that that there is never any detail on its website. In other words, the MCB knows that most of its readers are probably non-Muslim.

Take the phrase “seek to divide us” (as in the MCB's “terrorists seek to divide us”). This is a phrase that all sorts of groups use: from UAF, to Hope Not Hate to Labour councillors. In fact the phrase is used all the times by such groups. In other words, it's a soundbite. And because it's a soundbite, it, in most occasions, has virtually zero content. People use it because they have heard other people use it. And that's certainly the case with the MCB.

Exactly the same is true of the MCB's use of the word “cohesion” (as in“our common objective to seek unity and cohesion between communities”). At least here we don't have the ever-present“community cohesion” that Leftists and Muslims utter as if they have Tourette Syndrome.

All these MCB soundbites would be fair enough if it were from an advertising firm for a brand of chocolate drink. But, instead, the MCB is an Islamic organisation. Indeed it's an advertising firm for Islam!

Thursday, 15 January 2015

The Charlie Hebdo Killings Explain Islam's Long History


The Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris – as well as all the other recent acts of violence against “blasphemers” in Europe, the United States and Canada – show us something very important about the long shelf-life of Islam. It shows that Islam has sustained itself through such violence.

Think about it.

For hundreds of years at a stretch, Islamic societies – as well as all those Muslims within them - would have experienced almost zero critical views of Islam. And when rare criticisms did escape from that void, the critic would have almost immediately been either killed or imprisoned.

And we're not talking about the 8th century here; or the 12 or 15th century. This is true of the Muslim world right up until today. Think of what happens in Pakistan/Saudi Arabia (Sunni) and Iran (Shia) when it comes to blasphemy and apostasy.

Indeed we can also bring all this bang up to date and apply it to the entire non-Muslim world.

For example, one of the largest United Nations (UN) institutions is the Organisationof Islamic Cooperation (OIC); which includes an incredible 56/57 Muslim states. (It has permanent delegations to both the UN and European Union.)

For the last 46 or so years (since 1969) it has been systematically attempting to get all non-Muslim countries (i.e. the entire world) to implement sharia blasphemy law. But, of course, the OIC doesn't call it sharia blasphemy law. That would be silly and politically counterproductive. It speaks, instead, of 'hate crimes', 'human rights', 'racism' and 'disrespect'. That is, the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has rather cleverly co-opted the language of the West.

(This is an article by the OIC telling us about its long-running attempt to impose sharia blasphemy law on the United States and how it has tried to use the services of various notables – such as Hilary Clinton – in order to do so.)

Islam's Long Shelf-life

This Islamic tradition which demands death for apostasy – as well as punishment for blasphemy (or “hate speech”/“racism” as it's now called) – started with Mohammed himself. In 1,400 years, every apostate and blasphemer was either killed or imprisoned.

In Islamic or Muslim countries/empires, it was impossible to criticise Islam, Muhammed or the Koran in any way whatsoever. Sharia law made sure of that. Yes, there were indeed debates within Islam on interpretation, etc., though certainly no debates about Islam itself.Islam has lasted for so long because of these overreactions to all and every criticism (or ‘offence’/‘insult’/'mockery'). That’s why Islam survived. Death for apostasy also helped it survive and spread.

So even a train-spotters' religion would survive and prosper if all criticism - or ‘insults’ - were forbidden on pain of death. The Train Spotting Religion would also survive if all apostates had their heads chopped off.

Islam's One Billion Muslims?

So why are there so many Muslims?

Muslims often tell us that there are over one billion Muslims in the world. (They usually state this in response to any criticism of Islam.)

This is a roundabout way of saying:

How can a religion with so many adherents be false or intrinsically violent?

Well, how could communism have been wrong/false when at its height it had millions of adherents (say, in the 1940s and before)? And what about Nazism? At its peak (say, the mid-1930s) there were tens of millions of Nazis and fascists in Europe and beyond. (Though both communism and Nazism relied on their own political versions of death for apostasy and blasphemy law.)

Numbers on their own prove neither truth nor goodness.

And then there's the demographic fact that Islam was simply passed on from generation to generation. This means that in Muslim societies -which also outlaw all criticism of Islam and stipulate death for apostasy - the numbers of Muslims would (by definition) increase from generation to generation. It could never have been any other way. In a sense, there was bound to be a billion Muslims on this planet at some point for simple reasons of demographics and the outlawing of all internal criticism of Islam.

We can also add to all the Islamic tradition of forced conversion and dhimmitude which were the result of Islamic expansionism and imperialism.

What we also have, then, is the lineal progeny of Islam through generations and generations of Muslim families. Millions of Muslim families that never considered – not even for one moment - the possibility of not being Muslim or changing their faith.

Now tell me that one billion Muslims says that much about either the truth or morality of Islam.


Islam has survived with the utterly necessary help of relentless violence. And that violence has now come to Europe and America.

It fact it arrived in Europe some time ago. (If we discount the historical Muslim invasions which predated the Crusades.)

Muslims have rioted in Malmö, Paris, Copenhagen, Oslo, Stockholm and in many other European cities. They have also rioted in the UK cities and towns of Bradford, Oldham, Keighley, Rochdale, Blackburn, etc. They rioted and killed over Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoons of Muhammed. They assassinated Theo van Gogh and have threatened to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Gert Wilders and Salman Rushdie. They have bombed the streets of London, Paris and Madrid. They have demanded that sharia blasphemy laws be implemented in the UK to deal with all criticisms of Mohammed, the Koran and Islam itself. And no doubt they will eventually riot and kill over these issues in the future.

So when Muslims and Western Islamophiles tell you about Islam's long history and the“billion Muslims”, remind them of the Islamic traditions of death for apostasy and the violence against all critics of Islam.

Remind them of the Charlie Hebdo killings too.

Sunday, 11 January 2015



According to the UK's Muslim Defence League (MDL), the murdered cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo - all 12of them - “provoked a reaction”.

No doubt the MDL also believes that Pim Fortuyn, Theo van Gogh, Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoonists, Asia Bibi in Pakistan - and so on endlessly - also provoked such an Islamic reaction.

To put it simply, the MDL is explicitly condoning and justifying the massacre in Paris; just as it has justified and condoned many other Islamic terror attacks.

Blasphemy Against Islam

The MDL also uses the childish word “bully”. Apparently, Charlie Hebdo bullied Islam, the Prophet Muhammed and Muslims generally.

Basically, whoever criticises Islam or Muhammed in any way *whatsoever* deserves to die because he's a “bully” or a “mocker”. More correctly, he's a blasphemer and sharia law punishes blasphemy in the Muslim world today; as it has done for the last 1,400 years. And now blasphemers against Islam are being punished in Europe and America too.

Islam is at war with the entire non-Muslim world; as it is has been for well over a thousand years.

So what do those who are seen as “moderate Muslims” think of all this?Officially-moderate Muslims – at least most of them - condemn Islamic violence on the BBC, in The Guardianand at the Church of Interfaith because they know that's required of them. Not to do so would result in immediate political suicide. However, the vast majority of Muslims (including nearly all of the so-called “moderates”) believe in vengeance or punishment for blasphemy against Islam.

Blasphemy, in sharia law, is punishable by death; or, at the very least, by some other form of sharia punishment(either imprisonment or stoning). So what the Muslim Defence League is saying shouldn't be a surprise to any non-Muslim – it's abiding by Islam and by sharia law.

The MDL even uses a word Muslims always use in these contexts: “mock”.It was used about Salman Rushdie, the Danish cartoons, Asia Bibi in Pakistan and in countless other cases. Fiyaz Mughal (of Tell Mama), Mo Ansar and Mehdi Hasan have also used it about the critics of Islam. It's a staple Muslim word which is used to refer to literally all criticisms of Islam; not only to comedic representations of Muhammed (as with Charlie Hebdo).

Fair enough, Fiyaz Mughal, Mo Ansar, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Mehdi Hasan, etc. haven't called for the death of the Charlie Hebdo and Danish cartoonists, Salmon Rushdie, etc.; though they have called for some kind of punishment of these people. They have also called for worldwide legal/political action to stop blasphemy against Islam (though they often call it “racism”, “bigotry”, etc.).

Indeed even the communist-run Hope Note Hate called Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists “counter-jihadists” and “Muslim haters” who were“asking for it” (see Nope, Note Hope's piece here).

The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB)

But let's forget about the MDL because some non-Muslims may see it as a fringe group. Instead let's take the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

The MCB's website spends most of its time distancing itself from the latest act of Islamic terror. However, it does to by rationalising, justifying and explaining these acts in various roundabout (duplicitous) ways. In other words, if you scrape away the Leftist and multi-cult jargon and soundbites, it doesn't really have a problem with most Islamic terror at all.

This is all the MCB could manage on the Charlie Hebdo killings:

The Muslim Council of Britain condemns this attack. Whomsoever the attackers are, and whatever the cause may be, nothing justified the taking of life.”

This is shorter than the piece (around 150 words) on the Peshawar massacre, which included the following words:

While it is very hard to find the words to respond to the tragedy before us, I can only quote a verse from the Quran in which it says:‘Whosoever kills a human being [“except for villainy and mischief in the land”], it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind’.”

At least this time the MCB doesn't use the usual Muslim adjective“innocent” (as in “innocent life”); as it did in the Peshawar massacre piece. And that's because Islamic terrorists - and millions of Muslims worldwide - don't count the victims of Islamic terror asinnocent. Therefore the killings are justified. In fact they are all examples of the Koranic “villainy in the land” (as are the Hebdo killings).

The ironic thing is that on the day of the Islamic massacre in Paris, the MCB published an articled entitled “Confront terrorism by backing freedom”.

Now don't make any mistakes here. This is typical Muslim Brotherhood doublespeak. The MCB isn't talking about the freedom to publish cartoons of Muhammed and the freedom to criticise Islam. It is unequivocally against all that and has called for legal/political action to be taken against blasphemy.

The MCB is talking about freedom for Muslims. It is only talking about freedom for Muslims. It is calling for the freedom Muslims require to Islamise more of the UK. That freedom, ironically enough, involves limiting the freedom of non-Muslims to criticise Islam! That's what 'freedom' means to the MCB and to many Muslims. It is a one-sided and utterly hypocritical use of the word.

Basically, the MCB is in one breath calling for less freedom to criticise Islam; and in the next breath it's calling for more freedom for Islamists and Muslims generally. It is also calling for freedom from what it calls “knee-jerk and ill-thought-through considerations” against Islamism and Islamic terrorism.

In other words, the MCB is calling on the kuffarto commit suicide! Either that, or to “submit to Allah”.


In the secular West most people call the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo satire and criticism; not “bullying” or “mocking”.

The word “mockery” belongs to the 7th-century. It can be found, of course, in the Koran. It belongs to Islam.

These are also the words of someone (in the MDL) who's at war with the West– just like the killers in Paris. These are the words of a man who's also at war with secularism, democracy, free speech and who knows what else.

Basically, the MDL is at war with you!

Your very existence - as a non-Muslim with a free mind - is “mockery”.You are the Koran's “villainy in the land”.

Finally, after the MDL's sick diatribe against blasphemous kuffar, it has the audacity to ask: “you feel for the bully now?”

That is a warning from the MDL.

It's an explicit statement that more European and American mockers or blasphemers will be murdered by Muslims in the future. More kuffarwill be targetted for blasphemy and for much else.

We should heed that warning.

And so should our governments.

Wednesday, 7 January 2015

The Muslim Council of Britain on the Peshawar Massacre


The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) seems to spend almost its entire time publishing apologies for Islamic slaughter, killing, terrorism, violence, misogyny, sexual-grooming gangs, and so on. And it usually does so with Islamic taqiyya: lies, prevarications, evasiveness, equivocations, ambiguity, deceit, dishonesty, obfuscation, deception, dissembling and dissimulation (all used to advance and/or protect Islam).
Predictably, in the aftermath of the Islamic slaughter in Peshawar, the MCB has given its own response to the event in a very short piece entitled, 'A Massacre of Children: An Ummah in Shock'. And equally predictably, it quotes the one quote that Muslims always use in such circumstances.
Basically, you hear this passage all the time at Interfaith meetings, in the Guardian, on the BBC, etc. Try Googling the phrase and you'll get literally dozens of links; almost all will be from Muslim or interfaith groups.
This is a passage from the Koran which even many non-Muslims will recognize. The MCB version goes:
“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

This quote is a perfect and despicable example of Islamic taqiyya and it is so for many reasons.
What surprises me, however, is that -- after the deceitful nature of this passage has been demonstrated so many times and in so many different places -- Muslims and Islamophiles are still using it. The MCB, for example, must think its non-Muslim supporters/readers are either stupid or even (fellow) liars.
This following is the MCB's lead-up to its citation:
“While it is very hard to find the words to respond to the tragedy before us, I can only quote a verse from the Koran in which it says...”

And then we have the passage itself:
“Whosoever kills a human being, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whosoever saves the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind.”

(The passage is verse 32 of sura/chapter 5.)
Virtually no religion or ideology believes or accepts what is purported to be the meaning of that Koranic statement. In order to fully accept it, the religion or ideology concerned would have to be fully pacifist in nature (e.g., Jainism or Quakerism); which makes its use by Muslims all the more ironic or even somewhat sick.
This passage -- at least within a MCB and indeed Islamic context -- is at best meaningless (a mere soundbite) and at worse a piece of gross deceit.
The relevant point is that the MCB has cynically removed the middle clause knowing full well that it more or less negates the surrounding clauses. After all, the erased central clause isn't long: it's a mere ten words in length. This, I suggest, is classic Islamic taqiyya or deceit. And no Islamic organization does that better than the Muslim Council of Britain.
Here's the passage in full:
“… We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be for murder or spreading mischief in the land [my italics] – it would be as if he slew the whole people.”

Immediately after that, we have:
“And if anyone saved a life, it would be as he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them our messengers with clear signs, yet even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.”

It can be seen that the opening clause is also always deleted by Muslims when they quote it at non-Muslims. That is, for a while I didn’t even know -- because of the deliberate misquotations from Muslims (or their use of Kitman) -- that the passage begins with the clause: “We [i.e., Allah] ordained for the Children of Israel...” That is followed by: “.... that if anyone slew a person...”.

So not only is this supposedly peaceful -- or even pacifist -- passage not aimed at Muslims in the first place (it was aimed at Jews), on only a tiny bit of analysis it can be seen not to be very peaceful or positive in the first place!

(This well-used passage is from Jewish scripture (Mishnah, Sanhedrin: 4:5) anyway. It was stolen from Jewish sources by Muhammad and his immediate followers (something they often did).
In addition, the passage doesn't appear to have been abrogated like so many other “peaceful verses” in that book. Perhaps this is so precisely because of the surgically removed central clause.
Here’s another equally-positive translation used by Muslim:
“That whosoever killed a human being, it shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind.”

The actual version (again) is:
“That whosoever killed a human being, except as punishment for murder or other villainy [sometimes ‘mischief’] in the land, shall be deemed as though he had killed all mankind…”

This, of course, prompts the question: What would be deemed as “villainy” by Muslims?
What about what the Taliban has claimed about the Pakistani Army and others?

Anyway, here’s a list of what has been -- and still is -- classed as “villainy in the land” by millions of Muslims:

apostasy, churches, the possession of Bibles, homosexuality, preaching a religion other than Islam, all criticism of Islam, Muhammad, the Koran, not going to the mosque, sex outside marriage, atheism, Zionism, Judaism, Christianity, materialist philosophies and political views, secularism… basically anything non-Islamic and certainly everything anti-Islamic.

Let’s not mess about here.
Millions of Muslims today believe the very existence of people who aren't Muslims -- or lands that aren't Islamic -- are examples of “villainy in the land”.