In their Gallup survey published under the hubristic titleÂ Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think, Obama adviser Dalia Mogahed and Saudi-funded dhimmi pseudo-academic John EspositoÂ cooked their data to increase the number of Muslim “moderates,” counting as “moderate” Muslims who wanted Sharia rule, hated America, supported jihad-martyrdom suicide bombing, and opposed equality of rights for women.Â Mogahed also defended Sharia on a British TV show hosted by the jihadist group Hizb ut-Tahrir, saying it amounted to “gender justice.”
“Obama adviser says politics roused Muslim anger towards US,”
by Habib Toumi forÂ Gulf News, January 18 (thanks to JW): full article below the fold>>>
Keep repeating the lies until it rings true:
The very concept of “Islamophobia” was invented by Islamic supremacists in order to claim victim status for Muslims and deflect attention away from the global jihad and Islamic supremacism. If self-proclaimed moderate Muslims really wants to cure “Islamophobia,” here is an easy way. They can:
1. Focus their indignation on Muslims committing violent acts in the name of Islam, not on non-Muslims reporting on those acts.
2. Renounce definitively, sincerely, honestly, and in deeds, not just in comforting words, not just “terrorism,” but any intention to replace the U.S. Constitution (or the constitutions of any non-Muslim state) with Sharia even by peaceful means. In line with this, clarify what is meant by their condemnations of the killing of innocent people by stating unequivocally that American and Israeli civilians are innocent people, teaching accordingly in mosques and Islamic schools, and behaving in accord with these new teachings.
3. Teach, again sincerely and honestly, in transparent and inspectable ways in mosques and Islamic schools, the imperative of Muslims coexisting peacefully as equals with non-Muslims on an indefinite basis, and act accordingly.
4. Begin comprehensive international programs in mosques all over the world to teach sincerely against the ideas of violent jihad and Islamic supremacism.
5. Actively and honestly work with Western law enforcement officials to identify and apprehend jihadists within Western Muslim communities.
If Muslims do those five things, voila! People like me will no longer suffer from the illness of “Islamophobia”!
“Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: ‘Islamophobia is on the rise,’” by Rick Chandler forÂ NBC Sports, January 19:
Muslim minister says Britain “less tolerant, prejudice against Islam acceptable”
On the other side of the pond Wailing Warsi is making identical noises. If we weren’t constantly told to treat Â Muslims as individuals rather than Â a monolithic block, one could almost get the idea that they have an agenda:
The minister without portfolio also warns that describing Muslims as either “moderate” or “extremist” fosters growing prejudice.
Concerns over allegedly Islamophobic attitudes in Britain’s news media are long standing. A 2008 analysis of nearly 1,000 news stories by the Cardiff School of Journalism, in Wales, found that two-thirds of all stories covering British Muslim focused on Muslims as either a threat, a problem or both. Â (Associated Press)
Quite a dilemma for the dhimmified Brits: Non-muslims the world over are terrorized and murdered by muslims, and she pretends she can’t comprehend why we are worried and poo poos our concerns….
Norman Tebbit Â tells her to STFU:
Obama Advisor Mogahed:
Manama: Politics, not religious differences, have roused Muslim anger towards the US, said Dalia Mogahed, US President Barack Obama’s Adviser on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the White House Office.”We discovered that those who viewed the root cause of Muslim-West tensions to be political were more likely to see the conflict as avoidable. Those who viewed it as religious were more likely to see it as unavoidable,” she said.
“However, we also found that religiosity in the Muslim community works to the advantage of engagement,” Dalia, who is also Executive Director of the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center (ADGC) for Muslim Studies, said in a lecture on “Measuring the State of Muslim-West Relations,” held in Kuwait by the Advocate for Westerners-Arab Relations (Aware) Centre on Monday evening.
Thus in Mogahed’s world, if you see the cause of the tensions between the West and the Islamic world as religious, then you will more likely see that conflict as inevitable, but that will work to “the advantage of engagement.” So apparently she thinks it is a good thing for people to see the conflict as caused by religion, although she actually thinks it is caused by politics.
And in the background of this gobbledegook is the fact that in the Islamic world, the distinction between politics and religion is purely artificial.
She based her statement on findings and recommendations of a research conducted by ADGC.The focus of her lecture was on attitudes by Muslims and Westerners toward interactions between their societies, highlighting new dimensions of the Muslim-West relationship.
“The theme of this lecture was highlighted by President Obama in his inaugural address and later in his famous speech in Cairo in early June 2009. His Cairo speech was received by a standing ovation, as optimism and hope filled up the room. As where have we gone from there, this is the question now,” Egyptian-born Dalia said, quoted by Kuwait News Agency (Kuna).
Middle East and North Africa (Mena) peoples placed the highest importance on Muslim-West relations, and have shown the greatest degree of change in attitudes since Obama took office, she said, basing her statement on findings and recommendations of a research by ADGC.
“However, in 2010, Obama’s approval rating decreased in several countries in this region. Building on our finding that showing respect for Islam was an important component of improving Muslim-West relations, we found that this meant not only Westerners refraining from desecrating religious symbols, but also demonstrating fairness in Western government policies,” she said.
Note that once again it is entirely the responsibility of the West to mend fences with Muslims. There is no hint of any possibility that Muslims might need to adjust their behavior in any way. In Obama and Mogahed’s world, it’s all our fault, at all times, in all particular situations.
Compared with residents in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, Dalia said those living in the Mena region place the highest level of importance on Muslim-West relations.”In 2009, 61 per cent of Mena residents – compared with 52 per cent of those living in Asia and 49 per cent of those in sub-Saharan Africa – said the quality of the interaction between the Muslim and Western worlds is important to them. In addition, Mena residents are the most likely to believe majority Muslim communities are committed to improving interactions with Western societies.”
However, Dalia, citing research findings, said “when asked whether the West is committed to improving relations with the majority Muslim societies, minorities of residents in these three regions believe the West is committed.”
It is taken for granted that majority Muslim societies are committed to improving relations with the West, despite zero evidence to substantiate that.
Between 2008 and 2009, approval of US leadership remained flat in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, but it increased from 12 to 32 per cent in Mena, Dalia said.In answer to who is looking for improved relations, she said that across countries, individuals are classified as either “Ready” or “Not Ready” for Muslim-West engagement.
“Overall, Ready individuals perceive their own side (either Western or majority Muslim society) as committed to greater contact with the other. They are positive about greater interaction and believe conflict is avoidable. Not Ready individuals are doubtful of their communities’ commitment and respect for the other side. They also reject greater interaction and view a Muslim-West conflict as inevitable.”
As a key finding, Dalia said the most meaningful action to display respect for Islam revolves around religious symbols, as 72 per cent of Muslims say abstaining from desecrating Islam’s holy book and religious symbols would be very meaningful to them….
In other words, curtail the freedom of speech and adopt Sharia restrictions regarding speech about Islam, and we’ll be making progress…..
Had Baroness Warsi sought my advice, I would have counselled her not to makeÂ the speech which has been trailed in The Daily Telegraph today.
I would have told her that the Muslim faith was not discussed over the dinner tables of England, nor in the saloon bars, before large numbers of Muslims came here to our country. Then I would have told her to go to our Christian churches and listen to what was said about her religion and those who practise it, then to the Mosques to hear what is said in some of them about the Christian faith and those who practise it (or about Buddhists, Jews, or even those who have no faith at all).
After that, I would say, she might consider who is in need of her homilies on prejudice.
Until then a period of silence from the Baroness might not come amiss.
There was some interesting debate in the comments on my blog post of Monday, but I suppose that I should deal with the less agreeable posts first. Clearly I do not know what times defector has contributed to the life of this country: perhaps he is a former editor of the Times, or perhaps a distinguished scientist or doctor, or a man who has run a major business, but clearly he must be a man of very great achievements and distinction that he can despise Churchill as “an anachronism”, and “a drunken delusional fool”, thrown out of office by the collective wisdom of the British people. A bit odd, that, as they threw him back into office six years later. What is more, he regards simply listing the statistics of votes gained by Thatcher and by Cameron as “selective”, but he does not say which relevant statistics contradict mine. He did of course quote “swings”, but there can be a swing to party A simply because party B has suffered a larger loss of support than party A.
Had Cameron received the same level of support as Thatcher (or indeed at his first election, Major), he would have had a very comfortable majority.
It was a fair point to make that both Germany and Japan also suffered heavy casualties (as indeed did the Soviet Union), but certainly our casualties were disproportionately heavy amongst our natural leaders, whether in the Army or RAF, where the grammar schools contributed so many aircrew and half of all those in Bomber CommandÂ were lostÂ .
It was fabianshavenosolutions and Damocles who asked why I am critical of the Government’s proposals on Parliamentary constituency boundaries. There are several problems.Â First by imposing a limit of only 5 per cent above or below the electoral quota apart from two special cases, the Bill would rob the Boundary Commission of too much discretion and force it to put together bit of communities which little in common to achieve the target. Absurdly, part of the Isle of Wight would be linked with part of Hampshire. Secondly, unless the size of the payroll vote is limited there would be too few backbenchers on the government side. In other words the 1922 Committee would have no bite at all.
I would prefer that the Boundary Commission retained its traditional discretion in creating constituencies which are fair, but acknowledge local circumstances.
On the issue of multiculturalism and Islam I am grateful to simonez for his remarks but I have to ask roger murray clark just where he found me “advising capitulation” to Islam.
It is always nice to find myself in agreement with darkseid, as on the EU Bill, but I think he has misunderstood AVG. He would be able to express his first, second or more preferences. However if no candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the vote, it is the bottom candidate’s supporters whose second preference votes are allocated to the other candidates and so on until someone gets 50 per cent. So it is the second preference votes of the Loony Party candidate’s voters, or those ofÂ the No To Tesco candidate, which may tip the balance, not normally those of the supporters ofÂ serious candidates. I noticed that darkseid had missed seeing me in that long night sitting in the Lords. I am afraid that I was at home with my wife whose health has not be good, but had I been there I would not have fed the trolls like Bedwetter of Brussels.
I thought Bella’s quite long post on Thatcher and Cameron well worth a read, but I have to disappoint pogleswoodsman, who hoped she might contribute to our blogs. I fear she in not well enough to take that on and I am sorry, bersher, I could not give her views on things today, or on Enoch Powell.
All I would say about Powell is that I too regret his anti Americanism. I think much of it came from his belief that it was an American policy objective to push the UK into the EU.Â It is plain silly to think that his “rivers of blood” speech, an expression he did not use, was the outpourings of an exhibitionist seeking attention. So far as Ian Macleod’s views are concerned, I would say that the two men were friends and both slightly outsiders. Macleod was not a Left-winger.Â His first and only Budget included a cut of two and a half pence (five old pence) in the standard rate of tax.
Why did the Tories lose support in Scotland, asked assegai, and he was well answered by Laveen Ladharam. At some time I might write more about that but this blog post is already too long.
Lastly, I was sorry that rogermurrayclark thinks we don’t make anything or own anything in Britain. We make more cars than in the past. We have firms like JCB and Rolls Royce Aero Engines. Come off it. My apologies to suboptimal planet for misreading him, and I agree with flyinthesky that backbench Tories do not like be sworn at and treated by the Prime Minister as naughty children. On day he will need their support and that is not the way to earn it.