Mustard grievances of the day:
Muslims everywhere have grown uneasy. …
LONDON – At a time when Europe is beating to the tune of far-rightists, its capitals entranced by the aggressive and often openly racist narrative pouring from groups such as the Pegida movement in Germany, the Front National in France or again the UKip in Britain, Muslims everywhere have grown uneasy. …
More on the pan-muslim unease and the associated victim baggage at OnIslam By Catherine Shakdam & Mullah, pbuh
The future must not belong to…. law needed against blasphemers:
Prof Ishaq asked the government to table a resolution in the United Nations for legislation of a law against blasphemers. He said that those who dare to make caricatures should be punished and all the Muslim countries should take a solid stance against blasphemy. …
More on the blasphemous false prophet, conspirackies against evil islam, and other muslim baggage at The News thanks to Mullah, pbuh
Death to blasphemers!
FAISALABAD: The Shan-e-Hazrat Conference that was held at Faisalabad Press Club on Friday demanded the government to table a Resolution in the United Nations for legislation of a law under which those who commit blasphemy by publishing caricatures of the last Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) be awarded severe punishment.
The Conference also urged the heads of all Muslim states to forge unity and also enact a legislation for death sentence for blasphemers. … Muhammad Arif Dogar
A Closer Look at the “Muslim Manifesto” for the U.K.
Here I take a more holistic look on the issue. Those familiar with the “Cairo declaration on human rights in Islam” will know that whilst a superficial reading of it would lead to nothing objectionable, a deeper reading, including article 25: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the only source of reference for the explanation or clarification of any of the articles of this Declaration”, will be aware how this one clause negates many others in practice.
Thus the OIC declaration was less than the sum of its parts.
Consequently, I intend to consider the “Muslim manifesto” from how the various parts interact together.
Further, whilst we often hear variations on the theme that “Islam is a religion of peace (and love)”, the actions of a host of Islamic Terrorist groups around the world which appeal extensively to the scriptural canon of Islam to show that their actions are Islamic demonstrate that the “peace and love” interpretation of Islam is not the only one.
I shall consider each point in turn by quoting it then commenting:
– – – – –
The document reads:
Draft Muslim Manifesto 2015 for U.K. election
The Institute for Muslim Community Development suggests the following points in no particular order for a Muslim Manifesto [in 2015]. Note where the suffering of the British Muslim community and its demands mirror those of other communities we would fully support them in achieving their rights.
We would ask our parliamentary friends to:
1. Defend the right to a Muslim way of life, including halal meat; religious clothing; circumcision; and flexible working to accommodate Ramadan and festival observance.
In other words this is a call to have British life assimilate to Islam by all employers being required to provide on-site facilities for prayer and ritual washing. This is also an appeal for Sharia, since this is part of the “rights” of a Muslim. This is the “tail wagging the dog” – i.e. Islamic supremacism.
2. Oppose all forms of hate crime, including Muslim-hate, Anti-Semitism and all other types of racism, whilst also promoting and enhancing community safety.
Here Muslim double standards must be acknowledged as must the twisted definition of “hate crime” in the U.K. Muslims regard as “hate-crime” any “defamation” of “Allah, his prophet, his book and his religion” to the point that some codes of Sharia mandate the death penalty for such an offence. “Defamation” is defined in Sharia as “saying something a Mussalman would not like” even if true. In the U.K a “hate incident” is defined as one “which any person” anywhere finds “hateful”. Thus this item is a demand for the legal silencing of all Islam critics (in Islamic parlance “Islamophobes”) inc. Yours Truly. It might be asked what about the hate-speech in the Koran that promotes (e.g.) anti-Semitism (which gives an ironic cast to part of this item). According to Muslims this is covered under “religious freedom” aka the “Muslim way of life” – see item 1. Thus this is yet another attempt at a Blasphemy Law to protect only Islam. See also #7.
3. Promote good relations, understanding and cooperation between all of the UK’s communities.
In other words, act as an apologist for Muslims/Islam. Part of the Muslim drive for British non-Muslims to accept Dhimmi status “willingly, knowing themselves subdued”. This demand interacts with #4, 6-9,10,13,17,18 – this one delimits the “understanding and cooperation” to be forthcoming from Muslims, 19-22, 24-28 and 30 to increase “understanding [of and] cooperation” with Muslim demands.
4. Support efforts to accurately remember Muslim and non-Muslim histories including oppressive and genocidal actions against Muslim peoples by British and European peoples.
Note the emphasis here on “genocidal actions against Muslim peoples by British and European peoples”. The irony in the face of the real genocide of Christians in the Arab world is huge. Neither the British nor Europeans have carried out true genocides (the intent to extinguish a distinct genetic group) against Muslims, whereas the converse is not true – e.g. the Armenian genocide, or the African tribal genocides via slavery. These genocides, it seems, should be glossed over, or at least de-emphasised.
5. Commit to ethical British foreign policies that uphold the human rights of all peoples.
Note there is no mention of equality here. Islamic “human rights” as per the Cairo declaration mean different things depending on whether you are Muslim or non-Muslim, male or female. Thus this item may be understood to be a requirement for the support of the discriminatory Sharia and Dhimmi systems.
6. Affirm the importance of faith schools within the overall provision.
Again this sounds fairly innocuous – until we remember the “Trojan horse” incident and several others where “extremist” (i.e. orthodox) ideology was being taught. If such an affirmation is given, this would imply acceptance of British schools becoming “Madrassahs” teaching Wahhabist/Salafist Islam.
7. Support the provision of religiously and culturally sensitive youth and social care services.
Curiously, this has already been done in Rotherham, Oxford and twenty two other British cities where “cultural sensitivity” allowed “Asian” (i.e. Muslim) child-sex grooming gangs to operate with impunity. But perhaps I am misunderstanding this one.
Implicit in this is the silencing of free-speech as culturally insensitive, a back-door approach to a Blasphemy law as per #2.
8. Promote a more just and sustainable future in the UK and abroad; supporting efforts to tackle poverty, environmental degradation including climate change, human rights abuses and the misuse of arms.
“Justice” in Islam is defined as what obtains under full Sharia, thus “human rights abuses” really means any divergence from Sharia. Islam also teaches that it is wrong for non-Muslims to oppose colonisation and take-over by Muslims, hence “misuse of arms” could include fighting against IS, Boko Haram, Al-Shabaab, etc.
9. Celebrate and support Muslim heritage and cultural institutions.
This appears to be an attempt to leverage the relatively minor contributions of Muslims to British culture and heritage into an Obamaesque view that (somehow) Islam and Muslims were crucial to this self-same development. It is a supremacist view.
10. Eliminate the root causes of institutional discrimination against Muslims and introduce tougher legislation to prevent it.
In other words, turn a blind eye to the facts that of all the communities in Britain only Muslims: generate terrorists, demand special dispensations and facilities etc. “Tougher legislation [to] eliminate … discrimination against Muslims” actually means “set up strong positive discrimination” in favour of Muslims, thus this demand is for special treatment for Muslims – supremacism.
11. Significantly reduce poverty in Muslim communities.
Part of this may be by so-called “positive discrimination” as per #10, either in terms of who gets jobs or else in terms of where investment goes. Another view would be “give Muslims extra benefits” – i.e. pay more Jizya for the privilege of supporting large Muslim families.
12. Reduce higher than average unemployment in Muslim communities.
Again doing this would require the oxymoron of “positive discrimination” for Muslims, no matter how unemployable they were. Discussed in #10.
13. Reverse rising criminalisation of Muslim youth.
Note the manifesto says “criminalisation” not “criminality”. Implicit then is either that Muslim youth is being unjustly criminalised or that Muslim youth crimes (from terrorism on down?) should be overlooked. This latter fits with the Islamic doctrine of Sitr (“veil”) by which the sins and crimes of Muslims should be veiled (i.e. covered up) to avoid bringing shame on the Umma.
14. Boost secular educational attainment of Muslims in Britain.
Yet again the British are told that Muslims require special treatment over and above what every other group or communities gets. Overall, Muslims are the least educated in the Country, but there is no hint that maybe Muslims children should study hard in secular schools rather than spending time becoming “Hafis Koran”. Supremacy, positive discrimination and Jizya. Alternatively, is this supposed to mean that grade boundaries should be lowered for Muslims because they are Muslims? Positive discrimination, thus supremacism, again and it would make a mockery of British education.
15. Significantly improve health and well-being in Muslim communities.
Yet again the British are told that Muslims require special treatment over and above the NHS we all have. This is supremacism and treating British non-Muslims as second-class citizens in their own Country – Dhimmitude.
16. Provide assurance and evidence that foreign funding is not causing/promoting violent extremism in the UK.
An impossibility. It will always be possible to assert that something the U.K. is doing is “causing/promoting violent extremism” given that Islamic terrorists always make such justifications, no matter how far-fetched This then becomes a method to justify Islamic terror in the U.K. and/or a means to hamstring foreign policy and aid.
17. Introduce more robust legislation to curb media hate campaigns against Muslims.
Basically a re-tread of point 2. “curb[ing] media hate campaigns against Muslims” means making it illegal for the press to print stories that reflect badly on Islam or individual Muslims. Another attempt at a blasphemy law by the back door and the formalisation of “Sitr”.
18. Guarantee the Muslim community the opportunity to evolve independently of government social engineering programmes.
Setting aside the canard the the British government is involved in “social engineering” – it isn’t except perhaps inadvertently, this really means that the Muslims want their society to be insular and separate from the rest of British society, with no integration, accommodation or compromise with that society. We’ve now seen demands that British society change greatly by Islamising itself and that Muslim society must be allowed to remain unchanged. Utter hypocrisy. Note how this largely curtails the “understanding and cooperation” (#3) to be expected from Muslims.
19. Acknowledge that the holy scripture of Muslims (the Qur’an) does not endorse terrorism and the murder of innocents.
This is cleverly worded. “Innocents” in Islam can only mean Muslims. Therefore in this view no non-Muslim is an innocent and if Muslims kill them they are only visiting Allah’s just punishment for the sin of being a non-Muslim on them. From a non-Muslim perspective this means “lie to benefit Islam”. In other words politicians are expected to undertake Taqiyah for Islam. Ironically, they (nearly) all do anyway, so why the demand?
20. Acknowledge and celebrate Muslim contributions to knowledge and civilization including European civilisation.
A part re-tread of 9. Here we are expected to “acknowledge” the 10% of Greco-Roman knowledge that wasn’t destroyed and the stolen contributions of India etc. as deriving from Islam. Personally, I’d be happy to acknowledge this contribution on a realistic basis. Secondly, we are to be required to “celebrate” these contributions. Something we seldom actually do with non-Muslim contributions which form the vast majority. This then aims to make a “mountain out of a mole-hill”, thus it aiming at supremacism.
21. Support all reasonable measures not to view Muslims with suspicion and through a security perspective.
In short: ignore the fact that of all the communities in the U.K. only the Muslims breed terrorists. Britain prevents at least one 9/11 or 7/7 type attack per year. Surely we should be suspicious of a group that determined to kill the rest of us! But no. Muslims must only be viewed positively. Sitr, Taqiyah, Dhimmitude, supremacy. This one runs nearly the whole gamut for everything to which Muslims believe themselves entitled – unlike anyone else.
22. Encourage enquiry into the effects of oversexualisation of public spaces upon young people.
Another innocuous sounding demand with unpleasant possible consequences. Given that Muslim clerics have called for all females, including infants, to burkha up to prevent rape, this could be used to move British society towards Islamic dress codes and/or as justification of rape of “uncovered meat” as a Muslim cleric called non-burkha’d women.
23. Support the introduction of more rigorous and analytical religious education in all British schools that takes a balanced and critical approach to all the major world religions.
Given the vehemence, not to mention violence, with which Muslims react to criticism of Islam, I can’t help but think that this is really intended to introduce Islamic religious education by the back-door which would mean presenting a white-washed form of Islam (except in Muslim-majority schools, see below #24) coupled to criticism of all other religions. The demand for criticism of Islam to be ruled illegal has already been made in several # points above.
24. Provide more holistic and relevant curricula in schools with a high proportion of Muslims[sic] pupils.
In short, provide an Islamic education, with all its bigotry, discriminatory attitudes etc. In practice this would result in a supremacist attitude, especially towards any non-Muslim pupils. And what is a “high proportion”? Give that the Muslim population overall is <5%, any school with >5% Muslim pupils could be deemed one with a “high proportion” of Muslim pupils. Thus a large number of schools could be expected to offer an Islamic education even where Muslim pupils were in a minority.
25. Support a holistic improvement of faith school education and stop the current securitization agenda.
A “holistic improvement” will come about if more money is provided. Thus the first clause is a demand for Muslim schools to get special treatment over and above other schools, remember only Muslims are “the faithful”. Second, if security concerns are to be stopped, we can assume that this means that the teaching of “extremist” ideology must be allowed and, perhaps, recruitment for terrorist groups permitted. All that would be needed would be the removal of state-oversight which is deemed part of the “securitization” (not that that’s a word in British English) agenda. Thus Muslim schools must be allowed a totally free hand to teach whatever they want.
26. Support greater development of the Muslim arts and cultural sector to nurture more mainstream Muslim cultural leaders and role models.
First we need to define who and what is “mainstream”. Is Qaradawi mainstream? How about al-Baghdadi? Islamic “extremists” certainly believe, and on what is written in the Islamic canon, that they are mainstream – if by this we mean that they represent “real Islam”. Essentially this is a meaningless demand given that Muslims can’t decide what is and is not Islamic. To be fair, it is possibly positive, but that would be to assume that what non-Muslims think of as “nice, kind” Muslims are the mainstream and not the various Islamist groups from the Muslim Brotherhood on.
27. Allow Muslims greater access to decision-making processes in the security services.
Were this not so serious, it would be laughable. Muslims are the ones who pose most of the security risks. The only effect this would have would be to facilitate Islamic terror within Britain and/or overseas and also to prevent effective monitoring of all those “wonderful Muslim boys” who suddenly turn terrorist.
28. Recognise Muslims have a distinct ‘way of life’ (deen) which opposes any understanding of religion or faith as separate from other aspects of life.
For “distinct” read “separate”. In other words, Muslims must be free to fully implement Sharia law within their own communities – including Hudud punishments, killing apostates etc. one presumes. Full Sharia law is the only system which accepts no separation between religion and other aspects of life – such as law. Note the impact of this on #3 above.
29. Withdraw all economic, military and other support for oppressive governments in Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
Again deceptive. Who is “oppressive” and to whom? Assad is the current whipping boy, yet before the current insurrection, Syria was one of two (maybe three) Countries in the Mid.East where Christians and other non-Muslims were actually safe.
Part of IS’s propaganda to Muslims is that Muslim states are ruled by “oppressors” who (for example) don’t permit the full implementation of Sharia law. In this view all non-Muslim Countries are “oppressive” for exactly the same reason and Islam regards anything that prevents it’s full practice, which includes Sharia law, as “oppressive”. Thus this could be understood as a demand that we withdraw support from all governments opposed to hard-line “Islamist” models, including our own.
30. Promote the positive shared Abrahamic history of Moorish, Christian and Jewish culture in Europe.
A call based on a false assumption. It is only Islam that demands that Jews and Christians consent to the “Abrahamic” nature of Islam. Note also that it must be a “positive history”, this then means the negative aspects such as the pogroms, massacres etc. carried out by Muslims are to be overlooked, whereas according to demand #4, those of non-Muslims are specifically not to be overlooked. This is a purely supremacist demand linked to the demand that Islam is never criticised.
31. Highlight and promote the Muslim Diaspora’s contribution to the British economy.
Again we have to “big-up” the Muslim contribution and be oh-so-grateful for everything that Muslims do, did, or indeed, may have done. Again a demand that Muslims are treated in a specially positive way.
32. Encourage the development of a 21st century Muslim ideological narrative conducive to living peacefully in the West whilst remaining true to the values of Islam.
This is fact is a possibility. Islam has within it the doctrines of “Tayseer” (ease) and “Darura” (necessity). These doctrines can be used to make it easier for Muslims to live in non-Islamic Countries. The problem is that such doctrines only set aside Islamic demands until such time as they can be implemented. Nevertheless, this is the most positive of all their recommendations.
33. Oppose all unfair exploitation of resources owned by Muslim and non-Muslim countries.
The Koran teaches that all the world’s resources belong to Allah and thus to the Muslims because they are “the faithful”. In this view all usage of resources by non-Muslims (unless under the control and at the whim of Muslims) is “unfair exploitation”.
Although at first reading a lot of this “manifesto” sounds reasonable to someone who reads it solely from a western viewpoint, almost all the demands have negative connotations for non-Muslims when considered in the light of Islamic teaching.
In several cases the full impact of one statement is only seen in the light of another after interpreting it “Islamically”, which is in and of itself deceptive for a predominantly non-Muslim audience.
That this is so should be no surprise, the OIC declaration on Human Rights in Islam uses the same technique to at once assert and then deny human rights by subordinating them to Sharia.
Taken holistically this manifesto supports an Islamist agenda that would accelerate the Islamisation of Britain were it adopted.
I find it impossible to believe that a Muslim organisation is unaware of the Islamist agenda here and consequently I find that this document is an exercise in Taqiyah aimed at fooling ignorant Kafirs into supporting Islamist aims and agendas.
A second use may to be to increase the “mendacious grievance mongering” of sections of the Muslim population. After all, if such ‘reasonable’ demands aren’t met that must surely prove what a racist, Islamophobic bunch of bigots Brits are. This in turn is used to “radicalise” Muslims (though reading the Koran in a language you understand can do the trick too).
As Louis Palme states, the manifesto is a mix of “Anti-free speech, Blame-shifting, Blasphemy Law [calls], Dhimmitude, Forced respect, Indoctrination, Jizyah, Sharia, Superiority and Taqiyah.” to just take his heads.
Whilst he and I disagree occasionally over the impact of this or that clause my aim has been to show the underlying reasoning that substantiates these views.