What's new

The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism

What do you think you're proving here, T-Rex, other than the fact that Zionists are such a tolerant lot we even tolerate those who wish to dismantle the State? What happens to groups or individuals who demonstrate in favor of integration with India in Pakistan and Bangladesh?

You have produced the usual zionazi hogwash. The picture I posted tells everything, if you don't want to see or hear that's your problem. You and your likes are as tolerant as Hitler was. Here's another picture of that tolerance:
Mohammed-Al-Dura-1.jpg


They were shot dead on their way to the boy's school by the 'very tolerant' zionazis like you.
 
You have produced the usual zionazi hogwash. The picture I posted tells everything, if you don't want to see or hear that's your problem. You and your likes are as tolerant as Hitler was. Here's another picture of that tolerance:
View attachment 248162

They were shot dead on their way to the boy's school by the 'very tolerant' zionazis like you.
That's the al-Dura Pallywood blood libel: link. All trash. But you really want to BELIEVE in it, don't you?
 
Yeah, truth looks like trash to the trash of this world.
I didn't call you "trash", T-Rex. You need not despair - just embrace the truth and change your mind, rather than get all hyped up on baseless hatreds.
 
http://www.economist.com/news/brita...ng-deal-new-breed-fundamentalist-battle-ideas

Islamist extremism
The battle of ideas
Britain is struggling to deal with a new breed of fundamentalist

20150815_BRD001_0.jpg



BY THE time a video of a British man beheading an American journalist on behalf of Islamic State (IS) surfaced in August 2014, Britons had for three years been travelling overseas to join the terrorist group. They have gone mostly to Syria and Iraq; once there, they have not lingered on the sidelines. Instead they have become suicide-bombers, executioners and, perhaps most valuably to their handlers, propagandists. The British government estimates that around 700 Britons have gone to wage jihad as members of IS.

Britain is producing a new kind of terrorist. Those who left its shores to fight for the Taliban in Afghanistan after September 11th 2001 were overwhelmingly male, mostly 25-35 and motivated by fellow-feeling for Muslim civilians killed abroad, according to Hanif Qadir, who runs an anti-radicalisation youth programme in east London. Many did “humanitarian” work, away from the front lines.

Since then, and especially in the past seven months, the typical age of the British jihadist has dropped, to around 14-25. Women make up about 10% of the group. Some are white, some previously Christian or atheist. And the class of 2012-15 is more troubled—mental-health problems and criminal records are common—as well as less devout than previous generations. A pair of 22-year-olds from Birmingham bought a copy of “The Koran for Dummies” before leaving Britain to fight for IS last year (they were arrested on their return after failing to delete jihadist snaps from their camera).

The demographic change is a result of IS’s powerful brand, which appeals to those looking for something big to do with their lives, says Alyas Karmani, a Bradford imam. Britain’s 3m Muslims are not overwhelmed by opportunities: 46% of them live in the most deprived 10% of local authorities in England.

The internet makes it easier than ever for recruiters to seek out the most vulnerable. Al Qaeda is said to have tried to hack into American mental-health records to find potential recruits. In 2015, IS can address them directly via social media. Twitter hashtags and YouTube clips edited into Hollywood-style sequences spread its message to second-generation immigrants who feel more westernised than the square elders in the mosque, but not westernised enough to integrate fully. Mr Karmani suggests that for some, jihad may have “something to do with sexual frustration. Maybe guns are penis extensions.”

Alarms and siren songs

Once a person is persuaded by IS’s rhetoric, violence is only a short step away, says Haras Rafiq, head of the Quilliam Foundation, a think-tank. “Put me in a room with ten Islamists and I could turn one of them into a terrorist,” he says.

Soon after being returned to office in May, David Cameron announced plans to stop the spread of this ideology. Proposed new “extremism disruption orders” would allow the government to restrict the activities of people and organisations deemed to be “promoting hatred”, loosely defined. On June 19th the prime minister said he would impose tighter restrictions on foreign broadcasters, using the speech to frame extremist rhetoric as a “gateway” to terrorism.

The approach faces a problem of definition. In his speech Mr Cameron condemned as “extreme” a sweep of unpleasant practices that had little to do with blowing things up, including forced marriage, female genital mutilation and the oppression of women in general. “No more turning a blind eye on the false basis of cultural sensitivities,” he vowed.

Critics said this was confusingly broad. A particular worry, says Mr Qadir, is that the approach will alienate conservative Muslims, who may not be too hot on gender equality but are useful allies in dissuading would-be jihadists. A plan to prosecute universities if they allow extremist speakers on campus drew predictable complaints from lecturers—but also from Eliza Manningham-Buller, a former head of MI5, the domestic security service, who worried that it could drive non-violent extremists towards more sinister groups.

A second idea is to encourage the public—and especially, it is implied, moderate Muslims—to challenge extremist rhetoric. This is harder than it sounds. Many discussions on the merits of jihad take place not in public but in the online echo-chamber. And it may be that Mr Cameron’s desire to combine vigorous public debate with the outright banning of certain types of message is liable to be misunderstood. A few days after his speech, “Homegrown”, a play exploring young Britons’ motives for joining IS, was cancelled, amid talk of pressure from local authorities. (The director blamed a “landscape of fear”; the theatre that was due to stage the play says it just wasn’t very good.) Mr Cameron has dubbed his strategy a “battle of ideas”; some see it as a battle against them.

A third approach is to seek out those who are susceptible to IS’s siren song and attempt to steer them away. “Prevent”, a counter-terrorism initiative set up by the Labour government in 2007, requires schools to identify vulnerable pupils. It doesn’t always work: Mr Karmani recalls a sixth-former who dropped out of school after being “deemed an extremist” by his teachers (he had simply expressed disagreement with British foreign policy, Mr Karmani says).

Charlie Edwards of the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank, says that potential jihadists are too varied a bunch to be easily identified by particular risk factors. But he argues that such analysis may be helpful in tracking where violence may come from next. Communities that produce terrorists tend to be less integrated. One idea floated by Mr Cameron is to tinker with the way social housing is allocated, to prevent segregation. It might be simpler to stop state-funded schools from selecting pupils on the basis of religion, which he has no plans to do.

In this business tools are limited, and rather blunt. It may be easier to characterise Britain’s new cohort of terrorists; it is as hard as ever to stop them.

From the print edition: Britain
 
47971255.cached.jpg

Rebecca Reid/AFP/Getty


Maajid Nawaz

08.08.1510:00 PM ET
The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism
Anti-extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz embodies grievances that liberals claim to care about. So why is he being viciously attacked by them?

The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Islam is a religion like any other. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.

But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are not expected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault.

It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know,self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived.

Finally, on July 20 the British Prime Minister David Cameron mustered the political will to deliver a comprehensive speech setting out the UK’s approach to tackling the long rising tide of theocratic extremism in our communities. At last, Cameron named and shamed the Islamist ideology as a major factor behind the rise of such extremism. As founding chairman of Quilliam—an organization that seeks to challenge Islamism though civic debate across political divides—I was proud to have played a role in advising Downing Street on some of the core messages for this speech. I did this despite my being a Liberal, and not a member of the Prime Minster’s Conservative party. I did this because extremism affects our national, not just party-political, interests.

The Guardian, it seems, was not happy. Rather than react by providing much beleaguered feminist, gay or ex-Muslims with a crucial platform—as one would expect from a progressive newspaper—they featured a doting interview with the UK front-leader for the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) complaining about the Prime Minster’s speech. HT wishes to resurrect a theocratic caliphate, in which—according to its draft constitution available online—they would execute “apostates.” They also believe in ISIS-style medieval punishments, such as stoning, amputations, punishing homosexuals, and approving of slavery in principle. I should know, for 13 years I was on the leadership of this group, serving five of those years as a political prisoner on its behalf in Egypt.

But this is not new for the Guardian. As the UK media industry magazine Private Eye later noted, over the years the paper has provided column space to supporters of al-Qaida, including Bin-Laden himself. On 23 February this year, the paper published a column by the leader of HT’s Australian branch, Uthman Badar, in which he makes it clear that though HT does not support ISIS, “neither will we condemn them,” for to do such a thing would be “morally repugnant.” Indeed, 10 years ago the Guardian even had a member of HT on its staff as a trainee journalist. Dilpazier Aslam’s affiliation was exposed on the blogosphere after he wrote an equivocating piece on the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Amidst public outrage, the paper was forced to pay him £30,000 as severance, probably to avoid a hearing at which editors may have had to admit that they knew about his HT affiliations all along. Like the Daily Mail of old, which to its eternal shame appeased the rise of Nazism, the Guardian is blinded by its infantilizing approach to minority communities, promoting the most regressive of theocrats, simply to “stick it to the man.”

And while the regressive-left have taken this approach with Islamist extremists, they have been simultaneously marginalizing that great political inconvenience, liberal Muslims. On July 21, a day after the Prime Minister’s speech, the Guardian G2 magazine’s commissioning editor Nosheen Iqbal wrote a glowing email to my office requesting an interview in order to discuss my “consistently dedicated work to combat extremism” and to build on the “momentum” of the Prime Minister’s speech so as to “flag up the crucial work being done behind the scenes.” Keen to engage the audience most hostile to liberal Muslims in the past, I was struck by the change of tone in this request, and felt that an opportunity to repair ties was at hand, so I agreed to the interview.

What I hadn’t seen was this same editor’s tweet, only a week prior, in which she made her dislike of me crystal clear. The resulting piece—conducted by David Shariatmadari—was nothing short of a character assassination. I have since responded in full to this hatchet job on my public Facebook page. Suffice to mention here that the article relied on no less than three anonymous hostile quotes, among countless other petty jibes and omissions of my actual answers. In fact, the piece was so bad that it appears to have violated the Guardian’s own editorial code on anonymized quotes. As was pointed out in the comment section, the Guardian reader’s editor has a policy on anonymous sources: they should “use anonymous sources sparingly (and)—except in exceptional circumstances—avoid anonymous pejorative quotes….the use of anonymous quotes is widespread within newspapers and is…particularly insidious when used to snipe at public figures in profiles.

Other journalists and bloggers responded to the Guardian with advice, criticism,incredulity, scolding, and even a lesson in recent history. But it was mockery that proved to be the Guardian’s Achilles’ heel. By focusing on my personality, fluency, dress and beverage tastes—instead of my ideas and “crucial work” — the paper opened itself up to attack by a cleverly put together and popular satirical and irreverent piece. Satire has been a sanctuary historically monopolized by progressives, originally used as a discreet tool against Western religious fundamentalism. Of course, an authentic Muslim should not dress well, speak lucidly nor drink, of all things, a skinny flat white coffee. The real Muslim is scruffy. A credible Muslim can only be inarticulate, someone who requires an intermediary to ‘explain’ their anger, invariably through the prism of leftist ideological dogma. And if a Muslim does speaks for themselves, they must only do so when full of rage, obviously.

How patronizing.

As another blogger accurately noted in response, the problem begins when journalists and others seek out “community representatives,” or “credible Muslim voices” to fit into convenient boxes. This relies on so many assumptions that it is hard to know where to begin. Not all Muslims wish to express themselves in public through a communal religious identity. Identities are multiple, and some may wish to speak instead just as citizens in their professional capacity, through their political party, or their neighborhood body. Those Muslim who do speak through their communal religious identity are not homogenous. This particularly holds true because majoritarian Islam has no organized clergy, and no pope. The question of religious “representation” becomes particularly difficult to achieve as a result. And in its most extreme sense it is undesirable anyway, leading logically to nothing but ISIS-style bloodshed and theocracy. Muslim “credibility” is just as flimsy an idea to pursue doggedly. In fact, this is nothing but a variant of the African-American “not black enough” theme. Who decides whose “Muslim experience” is real, and whose is not? Is the credible Muslim only he who dresses in Arab robes, eats spicy food and drinks cava? And yet we then worry about profiling?

The great irony is that, unlike many of today’s champagne socialists and shisha-jihadists my entire life has been a prototype of their archetypal aggrieved Muslim. Unlike the Guardian’s private school, Oxbridge-educated journalist David Shariatmadari, I am a state school-educated Muslim and racial minority. I have been stabbed at by neo-Nazis, falsely arrested at gunpoint by Essex police, expelled from college, divorced, estranged from my child, and tortured in Egyptian prison, and mandatorily profiled. I’ve had my DNA forcibly taken at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 Laws, which deprive terror suspects of the right to silence at UK ports of entry and exit, among much else. I’ve been blacklisted from other countries. I am every grievance regressive leftists traditionally harp on. Yet their first-world bourgeois brains seem to malfunction because I refuse to spew theocratic hate, or fit their little “angry Muslim” box. Yet they talk to me about privilege, and non-fat lattes?

There is a natural fear among Europe’s left, that challenging Islamist extremism can only aid Europe’s far-right. But the alternative to this fear must not be to instead empower theocratic fascism. There is a way to both challenge those who want to impose islam, and those who wish to ban Islam. It has not escaped me, nor other liberal Muslims, that while challenging Islamist extremism we must remain attentive to protecting our civil liberties. We are born of this struggle, after all. Over the years I have opposed past UK government ministers on ethnic and religious profiling, opposed Obama's targeted killings and drone strikes and opposed Senator King in the UK Parliament over his obfuscation and justification for torture. I have been cited by the UK PM for my view that though Islamist extremism must be openly challenged, non-terrorist Islamists should not be banned unless they directly incite violence. I have spoken out against extraordinary rendition and detention without charge of terror suspects. I have supported my political party, the Liberal Democrats, in backing a call to end Schedule 7. It is due to this very same concern for civil liberties that I vehemently oppose Islamist extremism and call for liberal reform within our Muslim communities, for our Muslim communities. We believe civil liberties cut both ways, for and upon minority communities, and it is due to this same passion for human rights that my organization Quilliam put out this anti-ISIS video only a day after the Guardian’s unfortunate sting. We chose to let our work speak for itself.

But if the regressive-left has its way, why worry about medieval punishments conducted in Islam’s name, such as the lashing of Saudi bloggers like Raif Badawi? Let us not be Uncle Toms, after all. Israel is the real enemy. Keep it real, man.

Highly accurate article

Haha article is very accurate since I know some of those leftistd that this article talks about. The thing is their ideology is driven by popularity and displaying some imaginary struggle to score some points. Unfortunately most of the leftist champions I know are from the best universities in the UK. I wonder what causes this. As for minorities like the hijab wearing feminists :lol: and muslims who talk about freedom of religion, freedom of speech, they are simply taking advantage of stupidity and naivety of white leftists. The good sign is that the portion of leftists seem to be on the decline.

Both Leftists & Islamists need to be wiped out from the face of the earth
 
47971255.cached.jpg

Rebecca Reid/AFP/Getty


Maajid Nawaz

08.08.1510:00 PM ET
The British Left’s Hypocritical Embrace of Islamism
Anti-extremist campaigner Maajid Nawaz embodies grievances that liberals claim to care about. So why is he being viciously attacked by them?

The desire to impose religion over society is otherwise known as theocracy. Being veterans of the struggle to push back against fundamentalist Christians, American liberals are well acquainted with the pitfalls of the neoconservative flirtation with the religious-right. How ironic, then, that in Europe it is those on the left—led by the Guardian—who flirt with religious theocrats. For in the UK, our theocrats are brown, from minority communities, and are overwhelmingly Muslim.

Islam is a religion like any other. Islamism is an ideology that seeks to impose any version of Islam over society. When expressed through violence, I call it jihadism. It is obvious to an American liberal that Christian fundamentalism must be made to respect personal choice. Likewise, it is as plain as the light of day to me—a Pakistani-British liberal Muslim—that any desire to impose any version of Islam over anyone anywhere, ever, is a fundamental violation of our basic civil liberties. But Islamism has been rising in the UK for decades. Over the years, in survey after survey, attitudes have reflected a worrying trend. A quarter of British Muslims sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo shootings. 0% have expressed tolerance for homosexuality. A third have claimed that killing for religion can be justified, while 36% have thought apostates should be killed. 40% have wanted the introduction of sharia as law in the UK and 33% have expressed a desire to see the return of a worldwide theocratic Caliphate. Is it any wonder then, that from this milieu up to 1,000 British Muslims have joined ISIS, which is more than joined the Army reserves. In a case that has come to symbolize the extent of the problem, an entire family of 12 recently migrated to the Islamic State. By any reasonable assessment, something has gone badly wrong in Britain.

But for those who I have come to call Europe’s regressive-left how could Islamist tyranny—such as burying women neck deep in the ground and stoning them to death—possibly be anything other than an authentic expression of Muslim rage at Western colonial hegemony? For don’t you know Muslims are angry? So angry, in fact, that they wish to enslave indigenous Yazidi women for sex, throw Syrian gays off tall buildings and burn people alive? All because… Israel. For Europe’s regressive-left—which is fast penetrating U.S. circles too—Muslims are not expected to be civilized. And Muslim upstarts who dare to challenge this theocratic fascism are nothing but an inconvenience to an uncannily Weimar-like populism that screams simplistically: It is all the West’s fault.

It is my fellow Muslims who suffer most from this patronizing, self-pity inspiring mollycoddling. And just as American Muslims, with some reason, fear becoming targeted by right-wing anti-Muslim prejudice, British Muslims are being spoon-fed regressive-left sedatives, encouraging a perpetual state of victimhood in order to score their petty ideological points against “the West.” In the name of cultural diversity, aspiration is being stifled, expectations have been tempered and because Muslims have their own culture don't you know,self-segregation and ghettoization have thrived.

Finally, on July 20 the British Prime Minister David Cameron mustered the political will to deliver a comprehensive speech setting out the UK’s approach to tackling the long rising tide of theocratic extremism in our communities. At last, Cameron named and shamed the Islamist ideology as a major factor behind the rise of such extremism. As founding chairman of Quilliam—an organization that seeks to challenge Islamism though civic debate across political divides—I was proud to have played a role in advising Downing Street on some of the core messages for this speech. I did this despite my being a Liberal, and not a member of the Prime Minster’s Conservative party. I did this because extremism affects our national, not just party-political, interests.

The Guardian, it seems, was not happy. Rather than react by providing much beleaguered feminist, gay or ex-Muslims with a crucial platform—as one would expect from a progressive newspaper—they featured a doting interview with the UK front-leader for the Islamist extremist group Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT) complaining about the Prime Minster’s speech. HT wishes to resurrect a theocratic caliphate, in which—according to its draft constitution available online—they would execute “apostates.” They also believe in ISIS-style medieval punishments, such as stoning, amputations, punishing homosexuals, and approving of slavery in principle. I should know, for 13 years I was on the leadership of this group, serving five of those years as a political prisoner on its behalf in Egypt.

But this is not new for the Guardian. As the UK media industry magazine Private Eye later noted, over the years the paper has provided column space to supporters of al-Qaida, including Bin-Laden himself. On 23 February this year, the paper published a column by the leader of HT’s Australian branch, Uthman Badar, in which he makes it clear that though HT does not support ISIS, “neither will we condemn them,” for to do such a thing would be “morally repugnant.” Indeed, 10 years ago the Guardian even had a member of HT on its staff as a trainee journalist. Dilpazier Aslam’s affiliation was exposed on the blogosphere after he wrote an equivocating piece on the 7/7 terrorist attacks in London. Amidst public outrage, the paper was forced to pay him £30,000 as severance, probably to avoid a hearing at which editors may have had to admit that they knew about his HT affiliations all along. Like the Daily Mail of old, which to its eternal shame appeased the rise of Nazism, the Guardian is blinded by its infantilizing approach to minority communities, promoting the most regressive of theocrats, simply to “stick it to the man.”

And while the regressive-left have taken this approach with Islamist extremists, they have been simultaneously marginalizing that great political inconvenience, liberal Muslims. On July 21, a day after the Prime Minister’s speech, the Guardian G2 magazine’s commissioning editor Nosheen Iqbal wrote a glowing email to my office requesting an interview in order to discuss my “consistently dedicated work to combat extremism” and to build on the “momentum” of the Prime Minister’s speech so as to “flag up the crucial work being done behind the scenes.” Keen to engage the audience most hostile to liberal Muslims in the past, I was struck by the change of tone in this request, and felt that an opportunity to repair ties was at hand, so I agreed to the interview.

What I hadn’t seen was this same editor’s tweet, only a week prior, in which she made her dislike of me crystal clear. The resulting piece—conducted by David Shariatmadari—was nothing short of a character assassination. I have since responded in full to this hatchet job on my public Facebook page. Suffice to mention here that the article relied on no less than three anonymous hostile quotes, among countless other petty jibes and omissions of my actual answers. In fact, the piece was so bad that it appears to have violated the Guardian’s own editorial code on anonymized quotes. As was pointed out in the comment section, the Guardian reader’s editor has a policy on anonymous sources: they should “use anonymous sources sparingly (and)—except in exceptional circumstances—avoid anonymous pejorative quotes….the use of anonymous quotes is widespread within newspapers and is…particularly insidious when used to snipe at public figures in profiles.

Other journalists and bloggers responded to the Guardian with advice, criticism,incredulity, scolding, and even a lesson in recent history. But it was mockery that proved to be the Guardian’s Achilles’ heel. By focusing on my personality, fluency, dress and beverage tastes—instead of my ideas and “crucial work” — the paper opened itself up to attack by a cleverly put together and popular satirical and irreverent piece. Satire has been a sanctuary historically monopolized by progressives, originally used as a discreet tool against Western religious fundamentalism. Of course, an authentic Muslim should not dress well, speak lucidly nor drink, of all things, a skinny flat white coffee. The real Muslim is scruffy. A credible Muslim can only be inarticulate, someone who requires an intermediary to ‘explain’ their anger, invariably through the prism of leftist ideological dogma. And if a Muslim does speaks for themselves, they must only do so when full of rage, obviously.

How patronizing.

As another blogger accurately noted in response, the problem begins when journalists and others seek out “community representatives,” or “credible Muslim voices” to fit into convenient boxes. This relies on so many assumptions that it is hard to know where to begin. Not all Muslims wish to express themselves in public through a communal religious identity. Identities are multiple, and some may wish to speak instead just as citizens in their professional capacity, through their political party, or their neighborhood body. Those Muslim who do speak through their communal religious identity are not homogenous. This particularly holds true because majoritarian Islam has no organized clergy, and no pope. The question of religious “representation” becomes particularly difficult to achieve as a result. And in its most extreme sense it is undesirable anyway, leading logically to nothing but ISIS-style bloodshed and theocracy. Muslim “credibility” is just as flimsy an idea to pursue doggedly. In fact, this is nothing but a variant of the African-American “not black enough” theme. Who decides whose “Muslim experience” is real, and whose is not? Is the credible Muslim only he who dresses in Arab robes, eats spicy food and drinks cava? And yet we then worry about profiling?

The great irony is that, unlike many of today’s champagne socialists and shisha-jihadists my entire life has been a prototype of their archetypal aggrieved Muslim. Unlike the Guardian’s private school, Oxbridge-educated journalist David Shariatmadari, I am a state school-educated Muslim and racial minority. I have been stabbed at by neo-Nazis, falsely arrested at gunpoint by Essex police, expelled from college, divorced, estranged from my child, and tortured in Egyptian prison, and mandatorily profiled. I’ve had my DNA forcibly taken at Heathrow Airport under Schedule 7 Laws, which deprive terror suspects of the right to silence at UK ports of entry and exit, among much else. I’ve been blacklisted from other countries. I am every grievance regressive leftists traditionally harp on. Yet their first-world bourgeois brains seem to malfunction because I refuse to spew theocratic hate, or fit their little “angry Muslim” box. Yet they talk to me about privilege, and non-fat lattes?

There is a natural fear among Europe’s left, that challenging Islamist extremism can only aid Europe’s far-right. But the alternative to this fear must not be to instead empower theocratic fascism. There is a way to both challenge those who want to impose islam, and those who wish to ban Islam. It has not escaped me, nor other liberal Muslims, that while challenging Islamist extremism we must remain attentive to protecting our civil liberties. We are born of this struggle, after all. Over the years I have opposed past UK government ministers on ethnic and religious profiling, opposed Obama's targeted killings and drone strikes and opposed Senator King in the UK Parliament over his obfuscation and justification for torture. I have been cited by the UK PM for my view that though Islamist extremism must be openly challenged, non-terrorist Islamists should not be banned unless they directly incite violence. I have spoken out against extraordinary rendition and detention without charge of terror suspects. I have supported my political party, the Liberal Democrats, in backing a call to end Schedule 7. It is due to this very same concern for civil liberties that I vehemently oppose Islamist extremism and call for liberal reform within our Muslim communities, for our Muslim communities. We believe civil liberties cut both ways, for and upon minority communities, and it is due to this same passion for human rights that my organization Quilliam put out this anti-ISIS video only a day after the Guardian’s unfortunate sting. We chose to let our work speak for itself.

But if the regressive-left has its way, why worry about medieval punishments conducted in Islam’s name, such as the lashing of Saudi bloggers like Raif Badawi? Let us not be Uncle Toms, after all. Israel is the real enemy. Keep it real, man.
The European left is supported by powerful Zionist/Jewish organizations who push for open border policy in EU countries:


Highly accurate article



Both Leftists & Islamists need to be wiped out from the face of the earth
Don't forget to add the Zionist/Jewish organizations who fund the leftists and push for open immigration in EU countries.
 
The European left is supported by powerful Zionist/Jewish organizations who push for open border policy in EU countries
I doubt this rabbi has any connection to mainstream Zionist organizations and I doubt his opinion is widely held. The rest is your supposition, part of your approach of blaming "Zionists/Jews" for all the world's problems.

Meanwhile the mighty rob citizens blind. Same as the magician enticing you to look at his pretty female assistant rather than what his hands are doing.
 
I didn't call you "trash", T-Rex. You need not despair - just embrace the truth and change your mind, rather than get all hyped up on baseless hatreds.

Did I claim you called me trash? Like all zionazi terrorists you twist the truth and at times you call it 'trash' when it reveals your dirty face. Hatred is what is taught day and night in the zionazi land, you learned it from the nazis and use it against the Palestinians.
 
I doubt this rabbi has any connection to mainstream Zionist organizations and I doubt his opinion is widely held. The rest is your supposition, part of your approach of blaming "Zionists/Jews" for all the world's problems.

Meanwhile the mighty rob citizens blind. Same as the magician enticing you to look at his pretty female assistant rather than what his hands are doing.

Why are you bothering yourself arguing with someone you know you cant change his views?

Everyboody knows that to these islamist extremists nothing is ever their own fault. Have you EVER seen an islamists extremist kill or behead an infidel or his own brother thn blame himself??? lool obviously not, He will blame the west or someone else for that. its always infidels,zionists, atheist chinese, evil West/U.S etc who are to blame for all their problems, killing themselves/others and issues in this world. They are never wrong. But all non muslims are wrong. There are quite a few islamo members on here who hold such. Views. There is vothng anybody can do to change their mind.
Funny thing is they eill rather die in boats to immigrate to the kafir west, than live in their own holy islamic caliphate, :rofl: i just pity them sometimes because they are not only hypocrites but very confused.. :coffee:
 
Why are you bothering yourself arguing with someone you know you cant change his views?

Everyboody knows that to these islamist extremists nothing is ever their own fault. Have you EVER seen an islamists extremist kill or behead an infidel or his own brother thn blame himself??? lool obviously not, He will blame the west or someone else for that. its always infidels,zionists, atheist chinese, evil West/U.S etc who are to blame for all their problems, killing themselves/others and issues in this world. They are never wrong. But all non muslims are wrong. There are quite a few islamo members on here who hold such. Views. There is vothng anybody can do to change their mind.
Funny thing is they eill rather die in boats to immigrate to the kafir west, than live in their own holy islamic caliphate, :rofl: i just pity them sometimes because they are not only hypocrites but very confused.. :coffee:

I don't understand why these 'Islamist extremists' don't understand that what Hitler did to the Jews was their faults.
 
Back
Top Bottom