* Get your vomit bag: when it Â suits them they wanna be Joozzz
Muslims feel like ‘Jews of Europe’
* Â Shahid Malik: the face of monkeys & pigs?
Minister’s shock warning on rise of anti-Islamic prejudice
* Mr Malik said that many British Muslims now felt like ‘aliens in their own country’…in whose own country?
Malik, answer this:Â
I wonder: are these the same Muslims who are always quick to point out that they are Muslims first and British citizens second?
By Cahal Milmo, Chief Reporter/Â The Independent
Friday, 4 July 2008
Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.
* Â Not only has Shahid been voted minister; he can also actually complain about “racism.” Don’t worry, Shahid: you’re still in good, dhimmi hands. Just don’t be tempted to live up to the Arabic meaning of your nameâ€”“martyr”â€”especially in the uniquely Muslim sense.
Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.
Mr Malik made clear that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust but warned that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country”. He said he himself had been the target of a string of racist incidents, including the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station.
“I think most people would agree that if you ask Muslims today what do they feel like, they feel like the Jews of Europe,” he said. “I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost â€“ and still is in some parts â€“ to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.
“Somehow there’s a message out there that it’s OK to target people as long as it’s Muslims. And you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will turn a blind eye.”
The claims are made in an interview to be broadcast on Monday in a Channel 4 Dispatches programme to coincide with the third anniversary of the London bombings of 7 July.
A poll to accompany the documentary highlights the growing polarisation of opinion among Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims, who say they have suffered a marked increase in hostility since the London bombings.
The ICM survey found that 51 per cent of Britons blame Islam to some degree for the 2005 attacks while more than a quarter of Muslims now believe Islamic values are not compatible with British values. While 90 per cent of Muslims said they felt attached to Britain, eight out of 10 said they felt there was more religious prejudice against their faith since the July bombings.
The Dispatches film, “It Shouldn’t Happen to a Muslim”, presented by the writer and broadcaster Peter Oborne, examines claims that negative attitudes to Muslims have become legitimised by think-tanks and newspaper commentators, who use language that is now being parroted by the far right.
Mr Malik, who narrowly escaped serious injury when a car was driven at him at a petrol station in his home town of Burnley in 2002, said he regularly receives anti-Muslim hate mail at his constituency office in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, which has the highest BNP vote in the country and was home to Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the suicide attackers who killed 52 people in London in 2005.
The MP said the negative portrayal of Muslims in the media, including a story run by several national newspapers in December last year wrongly stating that staff in the Dewsbury and District Hospital had been ordered to turn the beds of Muslim patients towards Mecca five times a day, was a key example of how his co-religionists were being alienated from the mainstream.
He said: “It’s almost as if you don’t have to check your facts when it comes to certain people, and you can just run with those stories. It makes Muslims feel like aliens in their own country. At a time when we want to engage with Muslims, actually the opposite happens.”
The Dispatches programme also speaks to Andy Hayman, the former Metropolitan Police Assistant Commissioner who was Britain’s most senior anti-terrorism officer until he resigned last December. Mr Hayman, who was criticised for failing to tell senior Scotland Yard officers that an innocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes, had been shot dead after being mistaken for a suicide bomber, is asked why he thinks it is important to engage with Muslims expressing extreme views.
Mr Hayman said: “Because we’re tackling head on the people that we feel are at the heartbeat of this whole complex agenda. Not to have a dialogue with them would seem that we are apprehensive, we’re scared, we’re frightened… So even if it’s appeasement in some quarters, that is still a conversation that is not being had and needs to be had.”
Mr Malik’s comments were backed by Simon Woolley, a member of the Government’s task force on race equality, and co-founder of Operation Black Vote. He said: “On an almost daily basis, there is rampant Islamophobia in this country, the effect of which is not for our Muslim community to get closer to a sense of Britishness but to feel further away from a feeling of belonging in British society.”*
Comment by Hugh Fitzgerald
“The 40-year-old [Shahid Malik, the UK’s first Muslim minister, and MP for Dewsbury, West Yorkshire] said he had himself been the target of a string of racist incidents, including hate mail, the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a petrol station.”
— from the article above
Did Mr. Malik give to the police the “hate mail” he claims to have received? Did he report the “firebombing of his family car”? Did he report the claimed “attept to run him down at a petrol station”? If he did, and if the police investigated, what were the results of their investigation?
There have been so many false claims, made in this country by Muslims determined to prove — CAIR urges them on — that they are being subject to abuse, including several cases of claimed arson that turned out to be Muslims themselves, burning down their stores for insurance money, that this sort of thing, the sort of claims piled on by the egregious Malik above, are sure to raise a skeptical eyebrow, and should.
Meanwhile, of course, the British press is full of stories of attacks by those primly described as “Asians” (but they are not Hindus, they are not Chinese, they are always Muslims, usually from Pakistan) on non-Muslims — the beating to death of a man who dared ask boys to stop swearing loudly in front of a woman on a bus, for example, that I’m sure a British visitor to this site could supply a dozen, or a hundred, stories of the daily horror that has, despite the propaganda by the government and the media to disguise or hide what the large-scale presence of Muslims has meant, has at long last forced so many, who did not want to recognize the meaning and therefore the menace of Islam, the ideology of Islam, the texts and tenets of Islam that, if accepted, naturally give rise to the attitudes, and then to the behavior, of Muslims toward non-Muslims, not only in Great Britain, and not only in every other country of Western Europe — where, uniquely, it is the Muslim immigrants who present a permanent problem that no other immigrant presents, in its scope, and in that very permanence.
Posted by: HughÂ Â atÂ July 5, 2008 9:09 AM
Muslims are not “the new Jews.”
In Western Europe all of the non-Muslims, both the indigenes and other, non-Muslim immigrants, are “the new Jews,” though, it must also be added, it is especially, for the moment, Jews in Western Europe who are “the new Jews.”
For the most powerful current carriers of antisemitism in Europe are Muslims – 50% of the antisemitic attacks in Western Europe have been attributed to Muslims, who make up less than 5% of the population. and of course Arabs, from Rashid Ali in Iraq, who staged a pro-Nazi coup, to Anwar Sadat, who was jailed by the British for his pro-Nazi plotting (while Nasser’s brother-in-law distinguished himself after the war by publishing an Arabic edition of “Mein Kampf”), to the Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husseini, who met with Hitler, expressed his enthusiasm for the Endlosung and, what’s more, helped raise an S.S. brigade of Bosnian Muslims.
It is Muslims not only in Great Britain, but in every country of Western Europe in which they have been allowed to settle, because of the ignorance, negligence, and simple-minded belief that “everyone is essentially the same and wants the same thing” of the political and media elites. The people pay first for that madness; the elites will pay later on. Those Muslims do not accept the legal and political institutions of the countries — far more advanced and better-run, in every respect, than the Muslim lands they come from, lands whose failures, political, economic, social, moral, and intellectual, are a direct result of Islam itself. No, they come, essentially fleeing that Muslim disarray and misrule, but unlike those who fled the Nazis, or the Communists, they are not grateful, and what’s more, they bring with them, undeclared, in their mental baggage, the very thing that was the main cause of the failures of their own societies, with their despotisms, and their inshallah-fatalism, and their encouragement of mistreatment of women and all non-Muslims, and everything else that makes Islam, in practice, what it is, and what we Infidels, though we may not quite understand the relationship of Islam to the behavior and attitudes of Muslims, yet recognize as the hideous mess it all is.
In Great Britain, as in every other country of Western Europe, it is the Muslim immigrants alone — not any others — who pose a problem that is permanent, that will not go away, no matter how much tender solicitousness is shown them, no matter how much money is thrown their way, or how much bending-over-backwards to accommodate the most outrageous demands, or if not to accommodate them, at least not to treat them openly as outrageous, when everywhere, those demands are made, and keep being made. They range from special hours at public pools so that men and women may not be together, or that even non-Muslim men may not contaminate a pool when Muslim men are swimming, to demands for prayer-rooms at airports, at taxi tetes, in schools, at workplaces. They include demands for special treatment, that is, for Muslim workers (time off for prayers, or not being required to touch certain products, or not having to do this, or do that), and Muslim students. They include attempts, successful in some places, to rewrite textbooks so that the history of Islam is not merely sanitized, but turned into an appealing and glorious tale, while the history of Christianity becomes one of monstrously exaggerating, and misstating, the history of the limited-in-time-and-space-and-goals Crusades, and when it comes to Jews, in ignoring or limiting the study of what has come, a bit too glibly I’m afraid, to be called “the Holocaust.”(Muslim students in France have refused to study this subject, just as they refuse to study the history of France itself, claiming it is of no importance to them — mere Jahiliyya).
The point out these claims — you can supply your own list, an ever-growing list — is that even where the authorities sometimes come to their senses, and deny those Muslim demands, the demands will never end, because Islam and non–Islam are not compatible, in the Muslim view, and the ideal of Shari’a flatly contradicts not only the American Constitution, but all of the major principles and achievements, including the rights of individuals to free speech and freedom of conscience, of advanced Western democracies. Look at Muslim attempts to limit any critical discussion or comments on Islam. Several translators of Salman Rushdie were attacked; at least one was killed. Theo van Gogh was killed. A member of the Dutch Parliament, Geert Wilders, and an Italian journalist, Magdi Allam, and the celebrated apostates Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Wafa Sultan, are all living with Muslim death threats, threats that require them to change their lives, and for some of them, to live in permanent hiding, under permanent armed guard. The entire population of Denmark was threatened with death if the government of that country did not violate the most solemn right, the right to free expression, and punish those who had drawn, and those who had published, some cartoons of Muhammad. The entire Muslim world threatened to boycott Danish goods, as they have Dutch goods because of the appearance of a fifteen-minute film, made by Geert Wilders, that save for a single question that he added, consists entirely of excerpts from the Qur’an and the Hadith, with not a word changed for effect, over accompanying videos from news stories showing Muslim behavior that corresponds to, and was no doubt prompted by, those very texts — and hundreds of others just like them.
It is disgusting for Muslims, who have made it their mission in the Middle East to destroy Israel, and to kill, or expel, or reduce to the status of permanent dhimmis any Jews who remain, and who in the countries of Western Europe have been the main carriers and promoters of antisemitism, and also have been quick to exploit the pre-existing antisemitism to further their misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel and Israel’s attempts to merely defend itself from a malevolent, inexhaustibly vicious and cruel enemy.
There is no other an immigrant population — not Hindus, not Chinese Christians or Confucians, not Vietnamese Buddhists, not non-Muslim (or casually syncretistic) black Africans, not Andean Indians, not Siberian Tunguz from the frozen North nor Aborigines from the sun-baked South — that poses the same problem, one that cannot be remedied or diminished, as the immigrants who are Believers in Islam, members of the “Umma” to which, they are taught, they must owe their sole loyalty.
Some, a very few, those who call themselves “Muslims” but merely mean by this that they are not going to openly identify themselves as apostates but reject the ideology of Islam, and have no intention of attempting now or ever to change Infidel institutions, or to be hostile to Infidels, may — but only “may” (because we never know when awareness of that “identity” may spur an embrace, a return, to what Islam inculcates), not represent a threat themselves. Nonetheless, and this is unpleasant to state but true, even those who may be the “moderate” Muslims of the only kind of “moderation” that could conceivably be of value to Infidels — that is, those who exhibit a real and deep rejection of the tenets of Islam that support Islamic supremacism, and, therefore, support mistreatment of Infidels — can nonetheless, by their very existence, that is by swelling the ranks of those who, in democratic societies, are assigned to the category of Muslims, may by that fact increase the power of the real Muslims by helping them, those real Muslims, exaggerate their numbers and therefore their ability to make pusillanimous politicians, the kind unwilling to see Islam as the permanent threat it is to the laws and customs of an advanced society, to art, and to science, and to individual autonomy, but all too willing to bend to the dictates of those who are perceived to vote as a bloc, to promote the goals of Islam.
And if Muslims all over the countries of Western Europe are a menace to the Infidels among whom they have settled in a way that no other group of immigrants has been, and do not cease to be a menace in the second or third generations but, rather, become ever-more militant (as has been seen in Germany, in France, in Great Britain), it is also true that Muslims have for decades enjoyed great favor in official circles. See, for example, Exhibit #1 in Great Britain, which is not The Guardian nor papers like it but, rather, the BBC, especially the BBC World Service. The BBC employs a very large group of Arab and Muslim staff members, and of non-Muslims who have, for ideological reasons — antisemitism or leftist political views, or both — been willing collaborators in the effort to present the Muslim view of things, above all in the misrepresentation of the Jihad against Israel). This bias had its effect. And elsewhere in the British press, and radio, and television, the apologists for Islam (who ordinarily overlap with the anti-Israel brigade) have been much in evidence, as they have in other countries of Western Europe.
The failure of Israel, and of its supporters to recognize this, has of course contributed to the steady blackening, over the past few decades, of Israel’s image. That has had consequences for Israel, obviously, but has also helped to confuse the understanding of those Infidels who, having been steadily misinformed about the Arab and Muslim Jihad against Israel (so that it has been accepted as a “nationalist cause” by these soi-disant “Palestinians” rather than what it not only is, but always has been and always will be, an attempt to deny a non-Muslim people a state of their own, whatever its size, and whatever its inoffensiveness or even repeated demonstrated willingness to aid the economic well-being of its neighbors, as if that would somehow overcome what even successive Israeli governments did not realize cannot be overcome in such a way, not now, and not ever.
Every single country in Western Europe, whether it be ruled by the Common Law (Great Britain) or by Civil Codes, whether it have a long tradition of enshrining easygoing Tolerance as a kind of state religion (The Netherlands, Denmark), or possibly have become so solicitous of human rights because of a keen awareness of a fascist or quasi-fascist past (Germany, Spain, even Italy), has had the same problem, differing only in intensity and scale, but in nothing else, with its Muslim population. Muslims who believe in Islam do not and cannot accept the political and legal institutions of non-Muslims. It is not what Islam teaches. It is not what Muhammad, uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil, prescribed long ago — and what he prescribed long ago, 1350 years ago, remains valid for all time and for all places.
Surely the people of Europe, despite their governments, and despite the Esdrujula Explanation — the timidity and stupidity and rigidity and cupidity of their ruling elites — have to act on this now, and not later. Either they will preserve their own ways, their own superior ways, their free and skeptical inquiry, their modes of artistic expression, either they will preserve, and protect, and defend, all of the material and spiritual achievements of their own civilization, against those who have only contempt and even hatred for that civilization (without knowing quite why, but knowing in some cases only that, as “Muslims,” they must have such contempt, must act on such hatred), that is, they will defend the civilizational legacy that they have so far done so little to deserve, or they will not. And if they do, they are going to have to recognize that the main threat is not “qitaal” or open warfare, but the slow and steady stillicide that drop-by-drop of Muslim demands, based on an unopposed and growing Muslim presence, that works away at, eats away at the foundations of Europe.
It is demographic conquest by Muslims that can undo Western Europe. It is only by halting all Muslim migration, cutting off the use, by rich Arabs abroad, of the Money Weapon that helps deepen the Muslim presence, as it pays for mosques, and madrasas, and communal institutions to strengthen Muslim power, and of course, especially among powerful former diplomats, and journalists, and academics (in some cases buying up whole departments, or setting up whole “centers” of Islamic or Middle Eastern Studies), or gaining the cooperation, and more, of corruptible members of the intelligence agencies, the armies, and the police forces, of Western Europe. The governments of Western Europe have to cut off all such aid, or at least do as best they can, and not make the mistake of themselves supporting, with government funds, mosques or indeed any Muslim institutions, in the vain hope that a tame imam or ten or a hundred will make a difference, when it is the immutable texts of Islam itself, and the hold they have over the minds of men, that are the problem. And campaigns of Da’wa must be checked, by banning them if possible, and if not, then by monitoring them vigilantly, and attempting to immunize, in advance, the populations — such as black prisoners — who are most frequently targeted by Muslims for such campaigns. All those who can be identified as economically or psychically marginal are likely to be especially susceptible to the siren song of Islam; such groups and people should, as a matter of national security, be identified, and campaigns specifically tailored to such groups should be instituted. For example, black ministers might be employed to describe to prisoners what the role of slavery is in Islam, and of the length and nature of the Arab slave trade (which began sooner, and ended — where it did end â€“ much later, than did the Atlantic slave trade), which was particularly cruel and violent (with young black boys castrated in the jungle, and then taken by slave coffle and dhow to the slave markets of Islam, with scarcely 10% surviving the journey). The slave trade in the Persian Gulf was ended by the Royal Navy. The slave trade in North Africa was ended by the French. There never was, there never could be, a Muslim William Wilberforce. And even today, blacks are enslaved by Arabs in West Africa and in the Sudan and, many believe, slavery still continues, hidden from Western view, in the Arabian Peninsula. Remember, in 1962, when under Western pressure Saudi Arabia officially ended slavery, there were still hundreds of thousands of black slaves in Saudi Arabia.
Another point of purchase to render people less susceptible to Da’wa is to show how almost all forms of music are banned in Islam (there is no Islamic religious music, for example, no Bach, and no Muslim equivalent of gospel music). Note how the Islamic rebels in Algeria murder the singers of Rai, or how in Afghanistan the Taliban killed the traditional wedding-singers, or of how Muslims, such as those in Hamas blow up or smash music stores in Gaza. This is the kind of thing that helps make an impression.
But are the governments of Western Europe prepared, as yet, to see Islam, to see the spread of Islam, and the growth of a Muslim population, as the security threat it is, or will they remain frightened of the implications of that recognition?
It’s still hard to say, but there are signs of sanity breaking out. The evidence mounts up, and up, and up. The texts of the Qur’an, the Hadith, the Sira are there. Muslim defenders never mention those texts, stay far away from what those texts inculcate, prefer always and everywhere the strategies of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque (which google).
To sum up, as has been done a hundred times before, with the exact same sentence:
“The large-scale presence of Muslims in the countries of Western Europe has led to a situation, for the indigenous Infidels, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would be the case without such a large-scale presence.”
Though long, that oft-repeated sentence is meant to be lapidary. But the stone on which it is meant to be inscribed is that which should hang in public places all over Europe, or in the mental equivalent of such public places, so that something effective will at long last be done — implacably, relentlessly.
There is another sort of stone, however, on which the same lapidary sentence might be written, and then read, in quite another spirit, a spirit of triumphalism, by not Infidels but by Muslims, at some future date. For as a famous writer once began a novel, there is “plenty of space on a gravestone, bound in moss” to “contain” — well, to contain all sorts of things, including that would-be lapidary sentence above.
One hopes that such a sentence would not have to be placed on the tombstone of Western civilization, a civilization that could be undone by the initial indifference and ignorance and negligence of its political and media elites, and then further undone by the failure of the governments and peoples involved to do what they need to do, coute que coute, in order to defend and protect their own civilizational legacy, out of stupidity, or timidity, or cupidity, or rigidity, or some, or all, of this mnemonically-sdrujula’ed list.
Numbers, “mere numbers,” alas, do count. Demography turns out be a very large part of Destiny.
Posted by: HughÂ Â atÂ July 5, 2008 10:15 AM
Muslims are attacking Jews all over Europe. They are the new Nazis, not the old Jews.
They feel victimized? Yep. They’ve been playing that fiddle in Germany for a while now..
..all the while some of their brethren choose to beat up Jewish school children, desecrate Jewish gravesites and stab people wearing kippa right on the streets in full daylight.
moslem hubris is never-ending in its depravity.
* Â Quote of the day:
“When Christians kill Muslims, it’s the Crusades. When Jews kill Muslims it’s murder, and when Muslims kill Muslims, it’s like talking about the weather. Nobody really cares about it”
The pol would have a true point and not merely a piece of overblown rhetoric if in Europe Muslims are being rounded up to extermination camps, otherwise the comment is another example of asinine agitprop.
The malevolent, malcontent malik also adds this gem of chutzpah. “this has the negative effects of segregating society and undermining efforts to deal with extremism and terrorism.”
Truly amazing all the Imams efforts and the OICs program to make sure that Muslims in the west do not assimilate to their society and pols such as Maliks manufacturing victimhood for their clients are not part of any problem. Instead it is the imaginary extermination camps and invisible race laws that cause the Muslims to feel as if they are being denied their birthright of superiority over the dhimmi Europeons.
Thanks for the oppurtunity for a laugh this morning Malik.