Ground Zero Mosque: Another Moment of Truth for the Open Society

maddy1

the Cordoba Initiative seems to indicate this. (A word about the word Cordoba - it wasn't chosen to celebrate the conquest of Spain but, I rather think, to acknowledge that there was a moment in Spain in which Jew and Christian and Mohameddan

Yes! I really understand your point, you know. You do not seem to understand some of your bloggers, however! The point about Cordoba is like the AWG., debate never ending. A lot of people do however think the "Cordoba Concept" is an incorrect, fluffy historical, piece a bit like the one stating that Saladin and Curthouse slept together, drinking sherbert when they were not fighting each other. Pax mongolicus also created a safe silk route but we would hardly celebrate this would we? Further more my helpful suggestion that the UN. should lobby for multi faith halls in SA. was deleted? Why not build, a multi faith Jerusalam, on the shift sands of Arabia I might ask?

Gaw

Well said, Alex.

It's puzzling. Why are all these people against the mosque so fearful (even hysterical)? Why do they lack such confidence in this country?

And why do they not believe the evidence of their own eyes with regard to muslims? For every TV report on some Islamist idiots most people surely have dozens of peaceful, even friendly, interactions with muslims: personally, I'm thinking of a friend of Bangladeshi origin who does a lot of (non-religious) voluntary work, the head-scarfed girls at the nursery who look after many of the younger local children, the nice Turkish brothers who run the corner shop that's open all hours, and the cheery take-away owner who does such fantastic curries. Why is such hate and fear on display with regard to these people, at least nominally?

Alienating ordinary muslims (or ordinary people who happen to be muslim) is not just unfair (fairness, another British principle being binned) but a huge blunder. It's probably the only way the Islamists are going to be able to make any real progress in this country.

So well done you mosque opponents! You're compounding a lack of support for the British principles of tolerance and fairness with a monumental blunder. In you, the Islamists are fortunate in their enemies.

Chairman of Selectors

Massie, it's not so much the content that bothers me, it's the insistent nature of your blogs. You are by far the most prolific blogger and yet by far the most tedious. Have you nothing else to do? You are in dire need of some more freelance work methinks. I'll ask around.

DavidDP

Well said, Alex. But I fear your points will fall on wilfully deaf ears.

Nonetheless, these are welcome sentiments, and it is good to have a proper right wing, liberal, intelligent blogger here at the Coffee House, rather than a simple reactionary.

Rhoda Klapp

The 'mosque' plan is legal, but provocative. Decent people would build it elsewhere. By pushing, they are getting the reaction they probably wanted.

And while Islam is an unreformed, unenlightened faith, I have doubts about its ability to co-exist in the open society I don't remember asking for. This debate deserves to be staged, but not in the context of NY planning disputes. And it might help if people were more easily able to state their concerns without some idiot coming off with all the rhetorical tricks learned in school debating where the results does not matter in order to win, not resolve the actual issues.

Why does DavidDP class Massie as a right-wing blogger. Evidence?

ed lancey

I've more or less given up reading the blogs here because every time I have a look you have churned out some more empty-headed drivel.

Cuffleyburgers

Tediously expressed but regrettably basically correct blog.

EC

"Diversity need not be a threat, though diversity cannot work unless all are equal under the law."

A very good point Alex, and one with which I totally agree. Unfortunately not everybody is equal under Sharia law. eg. Women. The are dozens of Sharia courts operating in the UK handing down judgements with apparently full legal backing.

Is the legalised discrimination against women by religious courts what you call "diversity?" You say that there should be one law for all so shouldn't the legal backing of Sharia courts be scrapped - in the name of equality if not diversity?

One law for all. I'd say that is non negotiable.

Derek Pasquill

There is an incommensurable here which no amount of discussion will resolve.

DavidDP

"Evidence?"

Alex is always forthright in defence of individual freedoms and liberty, as he displays here.

Sarah AB

Excellent article - it is indeed important not to treat Muslims as a monolithic bloc - to do so is both unfair and (as you demonstrate very effectively) counterproductive.

AndyinBrum

How many times, It's not a cocking Mosque, it's a room put aside for prayers

Tiberius

To put it simply, it is rather direspectful to the people who died in the two planes and in the twin towers, to put a place of religious worship near to the site where all those murders were carried out by individuals who claimed to represent said religion.

It's nothing to do with Bush, Blair, dhimmis or even the wishes of Muslims who don't wish to commit mass murder.

Mycroft

'Why does DavidDP class Massie as a right-wing blogger. Evidence?' Oh dear, does one have to pass some sort of a test to be put in a pigeon-hole? To get a licence to practise as a certified head-banger?

Frank P

In light of overwhelming evidence, how can anybody believe anything other than that the placement of the proposed mosque in that location is anything other than a numero uno gesture of Islamist triumphalism and a signal to the rest of the Muslim world that the New Caliphate is not only achievable but imminent.

If Mark Steyn didn't convince you with 'America Alone' then read 'Muslim Mafia' by
former Agent of the Air Force of Special Investigations P.David Gaubatz and his journalist collaborator Paul Sperry.

http://www.amazon.com/Muslim-Mafia-Underworld-Conspiring-Islamize/dp/1935071106

I wouldn't recommend it for its literary quality and its authors don't appear to have Steyn's sense of humour, but the facts contained about the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Muslim Brotherhood of which CAIR is just a faction, are there in documentary form and from the horses mouths.

Unless the November elections start to claw back the losses incurred from the fall-out of America's appalling folly in electing Barak Hussein Obama as the Trojan Horse POTUS, then prepare for Dhimmitude, because the peremptory rumblings of the crumbling edifices of Western Culture and US hegemony will reach a crescendo as they collapse: a result of both the subterranean burrowing and the above ground bulldozing by the Muslim machinery of propaganda, violence, atrocity and vandalism, operting in conjunction with the most determined resurgence of International Communism since the Cold War (allegedy) receded. Why are so many of us in denial - and I don't mean those taking a swim during their sojourn to Luxor.

Our only hope is that militant Islam is almost as disorganised and factional as the Keystone Cops that comprise our Law Enforcement Agencies, Security Services and Homeland Security entities in the non-Muslim world (if there is such a world any more). And the Reds will continue, one hopes, to destroy themselves as a result of their own ludicrous ideology. But as always they will destroy millions as, once again, they fail.
Wake up, FFS!

Steve

I feel sorry for you Alex. It must be so frustrating having readers who are completely stupid compared to you. Only the readers who agree with you come anywhere close to your towering intellect.

mairt

Andyin Brum
Think you made a mistake mate!

The project calls for a 13-story community center including a mosque, performing art center, gym, swimming pool and other public spaces.

Steve E.

Very interesting discussion, but for those who feel that radical Islamists will continue their assaults on Western values until the Caliphate is restored have obviously not been paying attention to events in Iraq over the past five years. The Caliphate was indeed restored, only to be rejected by the Iraqi people.

http://talismangate.blogspot.com/2008/07/jihadist-caliphate-fails.html

Rhoda Klapp

Mycroft: "'Why does DavidDP class Massie as a right-wing blogger. Evidence?' Oh dear, does one have to pass some sort of a test to be put in a pigeon-hole? To get a licence to practise as a certified head-banger?"

No, you see, when you make an unsubstantiated assertion, one may be asked to sohw evidence. It's not compulsory, and one may easily follow it up with another unsubstantiated assertion, as DavidDP does. It's OK. I just think of DavidDP as being somewhat to the left (of me, at least) so if Alex represents the acceptable face of the right wing to him, I wonder what that entails.

I do not see the mosque thing as a left/right issue. I see it as a decency/sensitivity issue. I'd far rather handle the Islam issue as a whole, without getting bogged down in detail like this, or indeed debating rhetoric, my team vs your team.

Mike Woodman

Mohammad (amongst many other reprehensible acts) participated in the massacre of 800 Jews of the Banu Qurayza tribe, when they had surrended to him and his forces. In today's parlance this constitutes a war crime. It is very difficult to predict how those who model their behaviour on this man will conduct themselves - especially if or when they are numerically superior.

David Preiser

The families of the 30 people from my street who were murdered at Ground Zero have slightly different opinion than yours, Alex.

While everyone can grasp the simple concept of freedom of religion, you are being disingenuous in your description of the Cordoba Project itself.

It's false to say that this is all about a mere "prayer room inside a community centre", and that it's not close enough to Ground Zero to merit a complaint. I'm not sure if you're just unaware of what it's about, or are in denial, or eager to scold people whom you feel are ignorant and intellectually inferior.

First of all, to those of us who actually live here and among the families of the victims, "Ground Zero" refers to the larger area surrounding where the Towers stood, including a "couple blocks" away, as the entire neighborhood was covered in debris for weeks afterwards. It all felt like the epicenter. From the perspective of those whose lives this would actually affect, this "community centre" practically overlooks the big hole.

The bigger problem with the way you present the Cordoba Project is that it's a Muslim community center, intended to celebrate the religion which created Ground Zero. It is not analogous to a Jewish Community Center or YMCA because neither of those promote a religion to the larger community, and it's simply dishonest to make such a comparison. It was never intended to be a multi-faith anything, never intended to do anything except to celebrate Islam. Only after all the objections did the people in charge start muttering about possibly having a gesture towards multi-faith outreach. And they weren't even going to put any kind of memorial to the victims until after the fuss reached a peak.

Furthermore, your choice of the term "prayer room" was also intended to sanitize what is actually going to be a mosque, a real center of worship. It's a false description on your part, intended to create an impression to support your argument.

Lastly, most people who object to your post will find it very upsetting is your dishonest description of the idea behind the name, "Cordoba", which is the number one reason people think this will be a Victory Mosque. Did you forget that the original mosque in Cordoba was built on top of the ruins of a church destroyed by the conquering Muslims? Did you forget that it was very important because it was the center of Islamic power in the West, and was the third largest mosque in the Muslim World? Are we supposed to pretend now that Muslims suddenly do not have the historical memory and predilection to celebrate certain names and dates? You're asking us to forget an awful lot of things in order to go along with this idea of agni innocenti building a humble prayer room.

Unless you can offer proof of your contention that the mosque in Cordoba was built to celebrate some kind of multi-faith harmony, the rest of your post, with its disingenuous and sanitizing language, holds no weight.

I would personally defend the idea of a house of Muslim worship being built on that spot, as freedom of worship is sacrosanct in the US. But I do object to a larger community center with the express purpose of promoting the religion that caused 9/11 and is named after an extremely significant mosque in Muslim history. You can play your games with Sufi versus Wahabbi, and knock down any number of straw men all you like.

michael

Men and women died indisciminately side by side at ground zero, why should'nt they be able to prey side by side at ground zero... build a church.

yank

Well, the mosque is being built on private property, and since the shiny-eyed progressive Blumenthal, the millionaire Wall Street shark who financed and bought himself his office, is supporting this, it will undoubtedly go through.

Yes, the site was chosen as a statement. Unspoken to be sure, but a statement nonetheless. What exactly is being stated? Well, we all can argue what it is, but since it's unspoken, we'll have to review its financiers and supporters, for any formal evidence. CAIR and the Saudis are not trustworthy, and are not honest brokers by any stetch. Neither has proven themselves honorable. Neither collectively fits within a tolerant and open society. They seek advantage within it.

And it will go through, because they've chosen their target wisely. They have both the law and an autocratically progressive administration behind them, and the money to push it through.

Of course it's insensitive. That's the whole point of CAIR... to make the insensitive the norm. We Americans don't need or want a "Council on American Islamic Relations", any more than we need or want one with any other religious group. We need and want every religious group to meld themselves into this great melting pot. Part of that will be to respect the sensitivities of the whole... not just your chosen subset as an exclusive. It will be up to your subset to manage that melding... the whole of subsets has managed to do so fairly well to this point... without creating subset carveouts, as seems to be occurring in the UK and Canada with Sharia and other perversions of the law.

And that would be fundamentally British Common Law, in case the point's not clear. I'd hope you lot would know a thing or 2 about that, and the dangers inherent in perverting it.

Baron

Alex, you should view the project as an act of symbolism, and not of utility. Symbols are a short-hand for ideas, and ideas are what changes societies.

In itself, the mosque’s fine, there’s indeed nothing wrong with the provision of a place for the followers of Allah to pray. However, why locating it so near the place that bears the memory of the evil of the few who belong to that faith? Even accepting that the motives behind the mosque are genuinely not those of the sword of the creed, it still feels insensitive, almost tactless.

the decision whether to erect the thing or not should have been left to the relatives of the victims. They were the ones who suffered the loss.

also, when you or perhaps DavidDP, Gaw, Sarah AB (or anyone else batting for you) have a minute please do tell those of us on the other team how do you see the square peg of the Koran teaching slotting into the round hole of secularism?

Derek

Um...

"In a move which has also enraged animal welfare groups, only meat from animals killed and prepared using Islamic teaching will be allowed at 52 primaries in Harrow.

Critics say the plan puts the needs of Muslim children before those of other faiths, while parents say they have not been consulted over the scheme."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300589/Parents-fury-town-hall-plans-halal-menus-schools.html#ixzz0vjtsbQem

Ronnie

Whether the proposed siting of the mosque is intended as a provocation or not, the extreme likelyhood that it will be taken as such, by a large number of people, is surely reason enough to think twice about allowing it. Two blocks is close enough to anticipate it being burned to the ground not long after its completion, if it ever is completed.

Will the mosque being there show the terrorists they cannot win? On this occassion I think not because the religious symbolism at play here is very much on their side. I believe that should be understood, if nothing else. Has anyone propsed building a new church close to the 9/11 site? No, so in this sense we are on the back foot as defending our own religion is not one of our strengths.

Much of what Alex says is right but his case is damaged by the choice of such an emotive focus for the debate. Few will listen and many will respond irrationally.

Conservative Cabbie

Alex

I agree with you that there is an unsavoury paranoia about Islam, both here and in the US but I think your views are blinding you to the issue at hand, Cordoba House. Most of the complaints about the project are not that the Mosque shouldn't be built, it just shouldn't be built there. Most complaints are reasonable in nature (I agree with you however that Gingrich goes over the top). But there's nothing wrong with asking a section of society to "refudiate" the building of a mosque - that's the nature of democracy.

The intolerance and limited understanding is no different to the way that certain bloggers and the media approach the tea-party or the christian right in America. You obviously read Andrew Sullivan and his daily attacks on the christianist right. Where is the difference between his intolerance for a section of society and what you are criticising here.

The sooner that we all stop treating Islam as a special case (defenders and critics alike) the better off we'll all be.

Noa

Alex

You quote my previous post;

"..It will be seen in the world for the symbol of what it really is; a victory for resurgent Islam and a defeat for the Christian West..".

And I have no doubt you include me in that class of 'serious people' you don't actually take seriously and take some pains to refute, which is well enough.

But I think you miss my point. your reasoning is all very well and I even found points of commonality. However, in the muslim world, especially the very many parts of it which consider themselves to be in ideological conflict with the West; the new mosque (your headline, not mine, inaccurate or otherwise), will be construed and seen by the common man, woman and child as a major defeat of the West and a further triumph by radical Islam. What you and I see as tolerance is seen eleswhere as capitulation.

Do you remember the Palastinians cheering in the streets of Gaza as the twin towers imploded?
I certainly remember the many Pakistani and Bangladeshi youths at my daughter's high school in the north west cheering as the news of the attacks was broadcast in the hall, particularly at the prospect of 50 to 100,000 dead.

But western liberals on both sides of the Atlantic can and will chose to ignore this divergent cultural inconvenience from those nice curry shop owners, regardless of the new realities emerging around them.

Dave Weeden

Splendid, Alex. One of the things I like about New York is its diversity, and one of the best things about the US (as an ideal, if not always in practice) is its religious tolerance. There have been Muslims in the US for a long time now.

Really, some of the objections almost come down to "It's the fault of Muslims that we can't be bothered to see that there are fundamental and important schisms in Islam."

To paraphrase Glenn Beck, "You know how else wanted restrictions on religion?" Godwin violation, sorry.

russell

Er...Alex...you're surprised that there are xenophobes reading the Spectator???? It's ground zero for Sir Bufton Tufton types who know that the fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up 'em. Great pieces though.

Noa Zrk

For an alternative US view to Blomberg and Massie see:

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/08/05/no-mosque

Alex Messia

If only - if only! - other people possessed my resolution, my ability to see everything as it really is. If only others could be as tolerant and multicultural as I am (from the safety of my ethnically pristine Scottish border town). If only we could rid ourselves of those nasty racist bigots who fail to share my love of all humanity (excepting the English, naturally). Well, then, diversitopia would be ours ...

Frank P

Noa Zrk

Good link, thanks. The AMERICAN spectator is a good magazine, isn't it? Great commentary,too.

T1Brit

You will probably live to see what is coming. The fear of Islam is valid for the simple reason that it is spreading - that the demographics predict a muslim majority in many European countries within a few decades - that the moderate muslims will be eclipsed by the triumphalist Saudi-backed Wahhabists - that once a tipping point has been reached, the peacfull character of Islam in the west will drop like a veil - that there will be aggressive demands for Sharia - that it will result in a real struggle to decide the future of the western countries - that it will be horrible, and bloody - and that it could have been prevented - but was not.
All your brilliant analysis will fade into the golden peacefull past - all the people who saw what was happening, that you labelled as fools or bigots will be trapped, just like you, in the terrible situation that we will face.
You will be able to see your error - but by then you will be old, and it will be your children and ours, who will pay the price for your foolish vanity.

Noa Zrk

Wotcha Frank P

Yes. It's a good site. Pleasently untainted by the much of the faux liberalism and the genuinely genteel unreality of its UK namesake.
When will the twins realise theres money in pandering to a real conservative audience! And American republicanism enshrines many conservative values.
ps for those who haven't seen him I've been having my daily dose of anti-PC, rudely healthy Pat Condell. The white man's thinking radical. larf with him at
http://www.patcondell.net/

Verity

T1Brit - Personally, I am with Simon de Montfort.

Yank no, it's not "insensitive". It is a deliberate affront. They've been building giant mosques on sensitive land ever since they began their assault on civilisation back in the 800s AD. Usually, they try to replace a church or cathedral or something else iconic of that civilisation. And build it bigger. With higher minarets.

They're at it again.

And I don´'t know about the ground they´ve bought to raise their grotesque giant in London for the Olympics, but it will, for sure, have some significance. And the socialists who sold it to them will have been in a collaborative frame of mind.

Verity

Yank - Check.

MairT

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-ground-zero-mosque-developer-muslim-brotherhood-roots-radical-dreams/?singlepage=true

Might be of some interest

Verity

Thanks for the pointer, Frank P, but to my simple-minded amazement, neither of my informed posts, positing a contrary position has been put up.

Yours, Baffled

Verity

Noah - Thanks for the very fine Pat Condell link. He sounds like an Ozzie. Bracing fellow!

Verity

The gloriously free and unmoderated Samizdata.net has reposted Alex Massie's post and runs every response.

Not only no censorship, but you will discover a wonderful, free and intelligent blog whose owner, Perry de Havilland, doesn't presume to judge your posts.

PS - He also likes guns.

revolution

You must be happy that these peace loving muslims have introduced genital mutilation, acid throwing, honour killing and the burka to christian Britain

revolution

If a referendum were held in any western country on stopping muslim immigration there would be a resounding yes vote?
These people cannot integrate and do not want to integrate?
Probably France would have a leader with the guts but not Britain?

Sarah AB

Baron - these people try to square the circle!

http://www.bmsd.org.uk/

Please note that I do understand people's instinctive feelings about this project and I do acknowledge that some legitimate concerns have been raised (the name, the funding, although I haven't gone into these in detail). But I still feel that AM makes the case for (or at least not against) the mosque extremely well. And I think ultimately that case trumps the other one, for me. The criticisms mostly seem to focus on Islam as a religion, treating it as a monolithic bloc - unlike the perfectly legitimate and specific objections made, say, in Gilligan's Dispatches programme.

Pot Head

I'm surprised about the Pat Condell love in on this thread, he's a far more militant atheist than Dawkin ever was, and you all seem to hate him.

Take a look at what Condell has to say about catholics:

http://is.gd/e5APy

or this on aggressive atheism :

http://is.gd/e5AWF

He hates all religions equally, catholics just as much as muslims.

Roy Smith

The more these dissemblers of western life and culture have to say the bigger the hole they dig for themselves. The more they write on the subject the more it becomes obvious they lack simple common sense. They imagine themselves above everybody and their intellect unquestionable. The unfortunate part about such arrogance; they will not be around when their pet theories prove to to be devastating and grossly unfounded.
Previous post unpublished.

Smeg

There are clearly people around who'd be wilfully oblivious to the islamist agenda even if it reared up and bit them in their private parts. Self -delusion is a wonderful anaesthetic.

Ganpat Ram

GAW asks why anyone should fear:

..".a friend of Bangladeshi origin who does a lot of (non-religious) voluntary work, the head-scarfed girls at the nursery who look after many of the younger local children, the nice Turkish brothers who run the corner shop that's open all hours, and the cheery take-away owner who does such fantastic curries. Why is such hate and fear on display with regard to these people, at least nominally?"

Well it's because people wonder if, when all these chaps become a very powerful minority in Britain, the country's freedom to criticise Islam will be gone.

Any thoughts on that Gaw? Will there be such serious rioting that criticism of Islam will become taboo?

Ganpat Ram

How about demanding sternly that Muslim countries be just as tolerant as New York?

Is that too much?

How about demanding toughly from MUSLIMS the freedom they ask of us? Is that not TRUE respect for Isalm?

Even my suggestion for this reciprocity has been censored, already, here.

ndm

Verity gushes:

-- The gloriously free and unmoderated Samizdata.net has reposted Alex Massie's post and runs every response.

Perhaps The Spectator has given Samizdata.net permission to repost Alex Massie's post but if not then the wonderfully free and unmoderated Samizdata.net has stolen Alex Massie's excellent post.

-- Not only no censorship, but you will discover a wonderful, free and intelligent blog whose owner, Perry de Havilland, doesn't presume to judge your posts.

It is easy to have a free blog if you don't pay for content and and easy to have an intelligent blog if you repost articles written by someone like Alex Massie who puts some thought and effort into his posts.

Sam Westrop

http://www.instmed.org/imed/2010/08/in-defence-of-a-ground-zero-mosque.html

"It is of course insulting to build a symbol of a religion used to massacre innocent people at the site of the massacre itself, but in the West we must be allow ourselves to be offended, because the alternative is the sacrifice of our existence as a free people.

I do not actively encourage building a mosque near Ground Zero. It perhaps will cause anger and unrest. However, there is not one part of me that believes that the deliberate prevention of building a mosque is at all conducive to the survival of the West and the survival of our ideas of liberty, equal rights and democracy.

How wonderful it would be if the mosque became a champion of secular democracy and moderate Islam? Or perhaps included a large memorial to the victims of September 11th? Or perhaps a plaque outside with text condemning fundamentalist Islam and Islamism?"

Frank P

russell

The ‘Tufton Bufton’ cliché was a Private Eye catchphrase in the salad days of Foot, Booker, Ingrams and Rushton and even then was a bit rich, coming from them – all issue of the Great and the Good and educated accordingly. But at least their humour was true satire and produced some of the best investigative reporting around - even in those days of good journalistic sleuths. The supposed TB slight is now used mainly by labourite twats who regard anyone who dresses less than forty-five degrees to the left as reactionary.

The ‘Tufton Bufton’ who inspired the phrase was in fact Tufton Beamish, Tory MP for Lewes, who inherited that seat from his father (similarly named). The son eventually became Baron Chelwood. I knew him quite well. Among other disparate adventures after a life in crime of the Metrollups, my wife and I bought pub next to Lord Chelwood’s estate and ran it as 'mine hosts'. He was one of the regulars of the pub. Nice man, brilliant raconteur and had a curriculum vitae that, like his father’s before him, makes the current generation of so called Tory MPs look like the wet wankers that they are.

In his dotage he made a habit of nicking our Beamish Stout bar towels. His wife, a yankee lass, upset my missus one day by storming into the kitchen and had a go at one of the cooks, a girl whose father worked on the estate, very rudely complaining that the Moussaka was not to her liking. She was unceremonious ejected by mine hostess and barred for life. Tufton arrived as usual the next day, unperturbed, and when I diplomatically broached the subject, offering to negotiate with my wife over the sanction imposed on his missus, he said, “No! Good thing, too! Now I can get some peace at least when I’m here.”
Perhaps you should take a look at both Tufton’s illustrious careers before you dishonour their names as an insult. If you do, you may discover things that surprise you (aside from a Military Cross); for instance he was by no means regarded as ‘right winger’, was an Arabist and a strong environmentalist. Sadly, he lost an avenue of very precious and ancient trees on his estate during the Hurricane of 1987 and it broke his heart, probably contributing to his premature death in 1989. The hurricane almost contributed to mine, too, it blew half our fucking roof off. I could write a book about the chaos that ensued in our neck of the wood for several weeks after the Hurricane of ’87.

Tufton II's daughter, Claudia Beamish, was the Scottish Labour Party Candidate in the last General Election, who was beaten David Mundell, now the only Tory MP in Scotland.

Her father would have been proud of her.

Simone

Alex Messia:
"If only others could be as tolerant and multicultural as I am (from the safety of my ethnically pristine Scottish border town)."

I was thinking exactly the same.
How tiresome it is to be preached at and scolded and patronized by someone who doesn't have the slightest clue about diversity.
If we all had Alex's home address and background, we could be holier-than-thou too.

Augustus

Actively promoting a non-democratic political and social system in our society is called subversion. This is an offence. Why should we tolerate Sharia preachers and activists binding individuals in a community with specific customs and obligations? Such a concept has absolutely no validity. Either you are a citizen, or you are not, all the rest is irrelevant.

ndm

Augustus writes:

-- Either you are a citizen, or you are not, all the rest is irrelevant.

Precisely.

So why should one group of citizens (Muslims) be denied the rights given to other groups of citizens? The subversion here is by those who would deny Americans the right to build a cultural center in Manhattan BECAUSE they are Muslims. Given the First Amendement and related US laws this is about as anti-American as one can get. The subversives are the likes of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Tim Pawlenty, the ADL, and whoever else would deny the right of American citizens to build a cultural center because of their religion.

Beefeater

Sam Westrop:

Let's see how liberty, equal rights and democracy, not to mention diversity and moderation, play out in the community center. I await the swimming pool rules. I expect lots of gay and lesbian Jewish New Yorkers wearing speedo swimsuits will want to avail themselves of the pool facility. And what splendid moderate Muslim art will be exhibited in the art gallery? Fingers crossed for those marvelous ceramic tiles with ornate knot patterns and bold, expressive calligraphy. And I look forward to attending some outreach classes on how the Koran anticipated the theory of relativity and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which all the moderate Muslims I've read claim is the case. What about a lecture series on jihad as an inner struggle and tips about how to break fast sensibly? Yep. Cordova House is going to offer a valuable contribution to the rich cultural life of New York City.

Alexandrovich

ndm: so, you would be perfectly happy for a statue of Lady Thatcher to be erected at Orgreave would you? Do tell.

Simone

ndm:
"The subversion here is by those who would deny Americans the right to build a cultural center in Manhattan BECAUSE they are Muslims. Given the First Amendement and related US laws this is about as anti-American as one can get."

Is it also American to be insensitive towards the bereaved? It seems that free speech and individual rights come above everything in America. The American Constitution may say that is fine to build this symbol close to three thousand graves, but common decency, compassion and concern for the welfare of others are more civilized values in my opinion.

SJW

One of the subtlest and most articulate arguments in favour of capitulation that I have read.

When I see a million Muslim march of Not in my namers, after the next outrage, I may reconsider my opinion.

When I see a million Muslim march of Not In My Namers, I'll reconsider.

Augustus

"Why should one group of citizens be denied the rights given to other groups of citizens."

Precisely.

Why should one group of citizens classify and rank human beings according to their religious beliefs or their gender, and declare parts of humanity impure and inferior? This amounts to an unacceptable system of religious sexism, racism, and xenophobia, which attempts, even here in our Western free world, to govern individual and collective behaviours under the threat of spiritual or physical punishment on behalf purely of a religious belief. And under a set of rules which themselves violate fundamental and constitutional freedoms and the human dignity of citizens by even exhorting them to abjure their inalienable rights in favour of a degrading life of servitude.

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

The 1st amendment only prevents federal government from stopping the free practice of religion, it certainly does not stop private citizens like Palin and Gingrich from having their say. The National review was quite explicit in stating that it didn't want to see government action on this matter but only appealed to workers and businesses to boycott the building of the mosque. Palin's appeal was to other muslims.

I don't think you understand the nature of the 1st amendment, perhaps you should go and read it again.

ndm

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- The 1st amendment only prevents federal government from stopping the free practice of religion, it certainly does not stop private citizens like Palin and Gingrich from having their say.

It certainly does not stop Palin and Gingrich having their say. However, since they would certainly not be complaining about the creation of a Christian cultural center in Lower Manhattan it is entirely appropriate that we condemn their attack on the First Amendment rights of American citizens to practice freely their religion. There is a word for the distinction they would make - and it is bigotry.

Even more dubiously, Conservative Cabbie continues:

-- I don't think you understand the nature of the 1st amendment, perhaps you should go and read it again.

On my bedside table I keep three copies of the Bill of Rights (kindly supplied by the ACLU in handy bookmark form). I suspect I read the 1st Amendment more often than the typical reader of The Spectator.

ndm

Augustus asks:

-- Why should one group of citizens classify and rank human beings according to their religious beliefs or their gender, and declare parts of humanity impure and inferior?

They should not. However, throughout history, giving privilege to the faithful has been the central idea of all religions - indeed that is the purpose of religion.

Pretending to be clever in his implicit attack on Islam, Augustus appears to not notice that the rest of his post is more pertinently applicable to the conflation of politics and religion which currently infests the Republican Party. Christianism is and always will be a greater threat to the West than Islam.

ndm

Simone writes:

-- Is it also American to be insensitive towards the bereaved? It seems that free speech and individual rights come above everything in America. The American Constitution may say that is fine to build this symbol close to three thousand graves, but common decency, compassion and concern for the welfare of others are more civilized values in my opinion.

It is certainly not American to be insensitive towards the bereaved. However, the America in whose name they died is an America which is founded on its constitution. It is a betrayal of the American for which they died to discriminate against the constitutional rights of people who had absolutely nothing to do with the attack merely because they share a religion with the attackers. We do not show sensitivity to the victims when we ourselves attack the foundation of America.

If there is any insensitivity towards the bereaved it is in the construction of massive commercial buildings at Ground Zero.

Noa Zrk

Here's an interesting personal account of what can happen when Islam meets the open society that is western democracy.

Of course it will never happen in New York or Kelso so ndm and Massie can just treat it as the fairy tale it so obviously is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qqb3p3bgHrw

ndm

Alexandrovich writes:

-- ndm: so, you would be perfectly happy for a statue of Lady Thatcher to be erected at Orgreave would you? Do tell.

This is an oblique not a parallel.

The Battle of Orgreave was between miners and the state led by Margaret Thatcher. She was obviously deeply involved in the miners strike. There are one billion Muslims in the World - about one-sixth of its population. It is ludicrous to hold all of them responsible for the sins of a microscopic number of them. Consequently, if the plan were to erect a statue of Osama bin-Laden in Ground Zero then the Thatcher parallel might be appropriate. However, that is nothing like the plan - which is for a Muslim cultural center blocks away in a dense urban area.

ndm

Just as it is classic anti-Semitism to hold all Jews responsible for the sins of a few so it is classic Islamophobia to hold all Muslims responsible for the sins of a few. Islamophobia is a far greater threat to the West of today than is Islam because those who prosletize Islamophobia rehearse the same lies the West listened to all too comfortably seventy years ago. They just changed the name of the focus of their hate.

ndm

In 1993, President Clinton sent the following letter of apology and a $20,000 check to American citizens interned during World War II because they were ethnically Japanese:

-- Over 50 years ago, the United States Government unjustly interned, evacuated, or relocated you and many other Japanese Americans. Today, on behalf of your fellow Americans, I offer a sincere apology to you for the actions that unfairly denied Japanese Americans and their families fundamental liberties during World War II.

-- In passing the Civil Liberties Act of 1988, we acknowledged the wrongs of the past and offered redress to thow who endured such grave injustice. In retrospect, we understand that the nation's actions were rooted deeply in racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a lack of political leadership. We must learn from the past and dedicate ourselves as a nation to renewing the spirit of equality and our love of freedom. Together, we can guarantee a future with liberty and justice for all. You and your family have my best wishes for the future. (my emphasis)

The emphasized portion accurately describes the attitide of much of the American right to the building of this center - prejudice, hysteria and a lack of political leadership. Senior Republicans like Pawlenty and Palin disgrace themselves and the party they represent when they foment prejudice and hysteria in attacking the building of the cultural center. The one politician who deserves genuine credit is Mayor Bloomberg who was right to defend its construction.

Conservative Cabbie

ndm

"it is entirely appropriate that we condemn their attack on the First Amendment rights of American citizens to practice freely their religion."

And yet I've never heard you condemn the boycotts of Fox - an attack on the 1st amendment rights to a free press. You can't have it both ways.

The bill of Rights is not an enabler of rights, it is a protector against government curbing a person's natural right ("Congress shall make no law"). As private citizens, Palin and Gingrich are entitled to say what they like - they are incapable of infringing anyone elses rights under the first amendment because they are NOT federal government.

But following your logic, if there comments about the mosque are an attack on first amendment rights to freely practice one's religion, your attack on them is an attack on their first amendment rights to freedom of speech. No?

Rhoda Klapp

"If there is any insensitivity towards the bereaved it is in the construction of massive commercial buildings at Ground Zero."

Will you not afford the worshippers of Mammon the same courtesty you want to extend to Islamists of dubious intent?

ndm

Rhoda Klapp writes:

-- Will you not afford the worshippers of Mammon the same courtesty you want to extend to Islamists of dubious intent?

There is nothing to indicate that anyone involved with the Cordoba House project is an "Islamist of dubious intent."

The "worshippers of Mammon" have enough rooms for prayer in Lower Manhattan without needing to desecrate the actual site of Ground Zero. I believe it should be a memorial. In fact, I read that many companies will avoid locating to the buildings because they might be targets for future attacks - and that the primary tenants will actually be Government offices.

daniel maris

Not that it will make any difference to the professional apologists here who apply themselves with such zeal to finding
excuses for appalling behaviour, this is what Tarek Fatah - a Muslim, not some bigoted Brit or far right paranoid - says about the matter in the Ottawa Citizen:

"When we try to understand the reasoning behind building a mosque at the epicentre of the worst-ever attack on the U.S., we wonder why its proponents don't build a monument to those who died in the attack?

New York currently boasts at least 30 mosques so it's not as if there is pressing need to find space for worshippers. The fact we Muslims know the idea behind the Ground Zero mosque is meant to be a deliberate provocation to thumb our noses at the infidel. The proposal has been made in bad faith..."

Noa Zrk

"in retrospect, we understand that the nation's actions were rooted deeply in racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a lack of political leadership".
Why is it one wonders, that politicians find it so easy to apologise for the things they didn't do and impossible to be honest about the evils they did?

One trusts that, in carrying this Democratic sentiment to its logical conclusion, the current President will honour it by returning this sacred land to the descendants of its original owners, the Manhattoes, who received somewhat less than $20,000 for their land.

Their claim would have more justification than than the latest tranche in the "wilderness of human flesh" that arrived in America from Europe, Africa and now the middle east.

ndm

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- And yet I've never heard you condemn the boycotts of Fox - an attack on the 1st amendment rights to a free press. You can't have it both ways.

You have never heard me condemning many things - so this line of argument is worthless. As it is I don't seem to remember Democratic politicians falling over themselves trying to prevent Fox News from broadcasting anything. There is no move to limit the First Amendment rights of Fox News. From a personal perspective I have both print and online subscriptions to the Wall Street Journal - published by News Corporation the parent of Fox News.

Conservative Cabbie then brings up yet again the First Amendment:

-- As private citizens, Palin and Gingrich are entitled to say what they like - they are incapable of infringing anyone elses rights under the first amendment because they are NOT federal government.

I find this view unsurprising because a few posts earlier I had written that the:

-- [First Amendment] certainly does not stop Palin and Gingrich having their say.

Conservative Cabbie seems to be arguing with someone but not me.

The Muslim community has a First Amendment right to practice its religion. Period. Critics have a First Amendment right to criticize this practice - and I have a First Amendment right to condemn their bigotry.

Pot Head

We shouldn't let Catholics built a church within two blocks of a school. After all priests are child abusers, aren't they?

ndm

daniel maris writes:

-- Not that it will make any difference to the professional apologists here who apply themselves with such zeal to finding
excuses for appalling behaviour

The "professional apologists" here are those Islamophobic bigots who would accuese all Muslims of the crimes of a few.

Simone

ndm:
"The Muslim community has a First Amendment right to practice its religion. Period. Critics have a First Amendment right to criticize this practice - and I have a First Amendment right to condemn their bigotry."

Does The Hallowed First Amendment allow you to condemn these Muslims for their insensitivity, their lack of respect for the dead, and their dismissive attitude towards those who lost loved ones?
Or does your condemnation only go in one direction?

By the way, the Imam involved appears to be anything but moderate. He won't, for instance, condemn Hamas or Hezbollah for acts of terrorism. That's the sort of "cross-cultural understanding" that he will be promoting from this building.

Simone

ndm:
"Just as it is classic anti-Semitism to hold all Jews responsible for the sins of a few so it is classic Islamophobia to hold all Muslims responsible for the sins of a few."

I think you're saying: "Stop criticizing Islam or I will call you all racists."

In Britain, we've moved on from this now.
You can't stop debate in this way anymore.

Rhoda Klapp

They are 'of dubious intent' only because I and many others have doubts about their intent. I think they are being provocative. Maybe you don't.

Purely on a clarification of the first amendment, does it actually mean anybody is free to practice any religion real or contrived no matter what its teachings? They don't let Mormons have their polygamy, do they? They won't allow, say, ritual murder.

No, I do not conflate such repugnant practices with Islam. But there must be limits to what is allowed to me because my god says so, no? I'm not sure where that leaves the first amendment wrt religion. No doubt there is case law.

Hadrian

I have twice posted responses to this article that may be utterly opposed to its sentiments yet were reasoned and respectful. That they have been edited out says a whole lot about the kind of 'open society' we can expect from Alex and his cronies. To say I am livid at the glarin irony is to put it mildly.

daniel maris

ndm -

And what about non-Muslims in Islamic countries? Do they have right to practise their religion? Do you favour the construction of Christian churches in Mecca? Will you be happy to welcome back the Jews to Arabia as some recompense for their expulsion under Islam?

daniel maris

So ndm, is it wrong to fear a movement that wants to reduce you to a second class citizen who has to pay a discriminatory tax? No - not some invention of an Islamophobe. It is set out in the Koran (Sura 9:29) and is accepted as how non-Muslims should be treated by all Islamic authorities.

Beefeater

ndm:

"Just as it is classic anti-Semitism to hold all Jews responsible for the sins of a few so it is classic Islamophobia to hold all Muslims responsible for the sins of a few."

I do enjoy your confident solecisms.

"Classic" antisemitism holds every Jew responsible for sins no Jew committed.

"Classic" Islamophobia is the violent backlash against some - not all - Muslims (and a turban-wearing sikh mistaken for a Muslim) after 9/11 perpetrated by a few - very, very few - Americans, and the shit-for-brains who committed the worst of it was drunk at the time and remorseful afterwards.

ndm

In using the phrase "Hallowed Firth Amendment" Simone mocks the American Consittution - and then she has the chutzpah to to boast "In Britain, we've moved on from this now. You can't stop debate in this way anymore."

I have now posted several times that Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, et al.. have a First Amendment right to say what they want and I have a First Amendment right to call them bigots. And since I am posting this from the United States of America they can stick the middle fingers of their left hands up their arse for all I care because I have the right to tell them where to shove it. I realise that things are somewhat different in Britain but I don't give a rat's arse. (I do so love the word 'arse,' it is so much more visceral than 'ass' - perhaps it is that rolling Scottish r.)

I realise and understand that if you live in a country where a party and those who support it routinely mock a constitution then people may take a less than serious view of it. But I happen to live in a country where many people take their consitutional rights someewhat seriously and there are organizations such as the ACLU which defend those rights.

Inadvisedly, Simone continues:

-- By the way, the Imam involved appears to be anything but moderate. He won't, for instance, condemn Hamas or Hezbollah for acts of terrorism. That's the sort of "cross-cultural understanding" that he will be promoting from this building.

I can assure Simone that she does not want to get into an argument with me about the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it is an argument she is certain to lose. The Western appeasement of the Israeli opprsesion of the Palestinian people has been the greatest moral failure of the West since its appeasement of the Nazi occupation of Europe. It is a moral betrayal that the Spectator appears unwilling to condemn while remaining willing to publish those who support the Greater Isreal that is the greatest Nazi ideology in the World today.

ndm

daniel maris writes (in toto):

-- So ndm, is it wrong to fear a movement that wants to reduce you to a second class citizen who has to pay a discriminatory tax? No - not some invention of an Islamophobe. It is set out in the Koran (Sura 9:29) and is accepted as how non-Muslims should be treated by all Islamic authorities.

Daniel Maris has more chance of getting reamed up the arse by a random Muslim than I have of paying some tax based on Sura 2:29. The idea is so ridiculous that I can't even be bothered looking it up even though it would probably be fun reading it. (I'm laughing so hard that I can barely type.)

So, Daniel, if some Muslim boy ever takes you up the arse send Alex Massie an email because he knows my email and I WILL send the IRS $10 free and gratis. Still laughing - although I don't know if that would count as a winning argument at the Oxford Union. (Funny as shit - this Radcliffe and Maconie show just gets better and better [Tuesdays if you're interested])

ndm

Rhoda Klapp writes:

- Purely on a clarification of the first amendment, does it actually mean anybody is free to practice any religion real or contrived no matter what its teachings?

i don't know the answer to this - and I think it is a very genuine complaint. Time magasine this week had a cover photograph of a young woman who had her nose and ears cut off because she violated some religious edict. Time obviously intended us to view this as horrific. Yet Time magazine would never have us view as horrific, even though it clearly is, the involuntary cirumcision of young boys because that is a religious practice viewed as acceptable in the United States of America even though it is no less barbaric than the punishment suffered by the unfortunate young lady featured by Time magazine.

daniel maris

Why are ndm's disgusting posts not being censored? - Talking in threatening tones to me and no doubt others of "arse reaming" as a substitute for argument? That's not acceptable civilised discourse.

The point I am making is a perfectly serious one. No doubt ndm would a few years back have laughed dismissively had I said that Islam would destroy or censor great works of art -and yet we saw the Taliban destroy ancient statues of Buddha.

No doubt a few years back he would have guffawed at the idea of British authors being hunted down by believers in Islam - until Rushdie and others were targetted.

No doubt ndm would back in 2000 have thought the notion of Jihadists launching a war directly on America, scoring a direct hit on New York was the height of right-wing, swivel-eyed paranoia.

And now he is dismissing what I say, despite the fact he must know (unless he is being dishonest) that this is EXACTLY what is taught in all the great centres of Islamic learning. This is what constitutes a core belief of followers of Islam - that Islam should rule the whole planet and that non-Muslims shoudl subject themselves to Muslim rule and pay the discriminatory tax.

Ndm knows it. He tries to dodge the implications by talking of statistical chances. Well I don't think there's any chance of me paying it either...I believe long before Islam is able to get to that position, non-Muslims (let's not forget the billion plus Hindus and the billion plus non-Muslim Chinese) will have woken up to the game being played.

But that is hardly the point. The point is this: is it legitimate to fear a movement that has that sort of policy at its heart?

Augustus

(Terrible)"Christianism is and always will be a greater threat to the West than Islam."
- ndm: 7/10,6.19pm

Pardon?

"The mosques are our barracks, minarets our
bayonets, domes our helmets, the believers our soldiers."
- (Moderate) Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan
of secular Turkey.

He wasn't joking, he meant it. He knows what the prime objective is of Islam: Global conflict, and the New York community centre, or any other mosque anywhere, are just symptoms of a great plague inflicted upon human consciousness.

As we see and hear of Christian doctors savagely slaughtered in Afghanistan, World Cup fans viciously blown up in Uganda, The rabid hatred of Jews in Israel, the jihad against the Buddhists in Thailand, the holy war against the Catholics in the Philippines, jihad against the Hindus and Sikhs in India, and of course the incineration of thousands of office workers in New York, one has to ask: Is all this hatred and violence because of us, or is it
anything to do with the 'religion of peace',
Islam?

ndm

daniel maris writes:

-- So ndm, is it wrong to fear a movement that wants to reduce you to a second class citizen who has to pay a discriminatory tax? No - not some invention of an Islamophobe. It is set out in the Koran (Sura 9:29) and is accepted as how non-Muslims should be treated by all Islamic authorities.

I, quite appropriately, mocked his ridiculous fear yet he finds my mockery "disgusting."

What I find disgusting are those who intend to decieve when writing bigotry. There is no possibility that either Britain or the United States will ever implement a tax BECAUSE "it is set out in the Koran." It is not going to happen. For someone living in the West to assert this and to proclaim a fear of it is malicious and mendacious.

However, the West has a fairly recent history of its citizens ganging up on the "other" and dimishing their rights as citizens merely because they are the "other." It is the terrible consequence of that history the West must fear - not false assertions about Western citizens being reduced to second-class and being forced to pay Islamic taxes.

Conservative Cabbie

Rhoda, ndm, Verity and anyone else who might be interested.

Just to let you know, my blog is back up and running if you are interested. Same place - www.conservativecabbie.com.

I hope the mods and/or Alex are ok with this message. If not, please feel free to delete.

Richard of Moscow

Mr Massie, this part stands out above all the others:

"A word about the word Cordoba - it wasn't chosen to celebrate the conquest of Spain but, I rather think, to acknowledge that there was a moment in Spain in which Jew and Christian and Mohameddan could live together in, by the standards of the age, unusual harmony"

1. You rather think? So you have no idea. Furthermore, David Preiser posted a detailed rebuttal of this, and it would be interesting to read your reply.

2. Why do you call Moslems "Mohameddans"? - Do you not (rather) think that's a bit ignorant? Rightly or wrongly, some Moslems find this term offensive, and I assume you're not in favour of anything which is insensitive and causes offence.

Simone

ndm:
"I can assure Simone that she does not want to get into an argument with me about the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict because it is an argument she is certain to lose."

I'm not asking for a an argument about the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
We're talking about the building in New York. I assumed you were defending it on the grounds that it's stated purpose was to promote cross-cultural understanding. So I pointed out that the Imam involved is far from moderate.
Anyway, from the tone of your other posts, I can see that your real reason for defending the building is based on politics and your own prejudices, and that it has precious little to do with your love for the Constitution and the First Amendment.

daniel maris

Well obviously ndm is not going to answer my question about whether is valid to fear a movement that has at its heart the policy of making you a second class citizen.

So I am rather glad that rather than attempt to play ping pong with him, Augustus came in with a steamroller and squashed his (her?) argument flat. Brilliant Augustus.

I don't suppose we'll here Mr. Massie address any of these very legitimate points.

And wonder what he will make of the article in the Sunday Times by TV journalist Z Malik who was brought up in an unremarkable Muslim home in Bradford. She states quite clearly that her parents impressed upon her that she was a Muslim first and a Pakistani second...she was those things before she was ever a Briton or an Englishwoman. Of course she was able to move away from Islam as practised in the North of England because she got into medialand via University - good on her I say - but she is the exception. Most Muslim girls if they go to uni go to a local one and stay in the home or attend under the watchful eye of cousins and other relatives.

Massie's naive assumptions about Islam really don't have any credibility.

ndm

Simone writes:

-- I assumed you were defending it on the grounds that it's stated purpose was to promote cross-cultural understanding. So I pointed out that the Imam involved is far from moderate.

My suppport for the building has nothing whatsoever with its use in promoting "cross-cultural understanding." My support is based on the idea that American citizens have a right to practice their religion wherever they want and that we should not punish all Muslims for the crimes of a few

Simone continues:

-- I can see that your real reason for defending the building is based on politics and your own prejudices, and that it has precious little to do with your love for the Constitution and the First Amendment.

My support is apolitical - although I understand why someone who believes the political system in America to be categorized by Islamophobic bigotry might think it to be political.

ndm

daniel maris writes:

-- Well obviously ndm is not going to answer my question about whether is valid to fear a movement that has at its heart the policy of making you a second class citizen.

I would have thought it perfectly clear by now that there is no prospect of Islam becoming sufficiently powerful in the West that non-believers will become second-class citizens. Consequently, there is no reason to fear such an idea. Indeed, the reality demonstrated by the attacks on the Muslim Center in Lower Manhattan is precisely the opposite - that Muslims are treated as second-class citizens.

We should reserve our fear for the consequences of the attacks on an enlightened West from those who would replace liberty with bigotry. The racism and bigotry which drives an increasingly powerful European ultra-right it is a far greater threat than anything written in the Koran because the ultra-right is far closer to the machinery of Government than doctrinaire supporters of the Koran ever will be.

HairyNoddy

ndm: I'd be interested to see if you have tried any of your arguments against the likes of Anjem Choudary.

daniel maris

ndm -

Well as I said, you clearly have no intention of answering the question. You offer instead a statistical observation
which is the same as saying something is valid or invalid.

You are side-stepping. You neither confirm nor deny that at all the main Islamic centres of learning it is taught that non-Muslims should be treated as second class citizens under Islamic tutelage. You neither agree nor disagree that it is valid to fear a movement which has such beliefs at its core.

I think I would also clarify what I said before...I don't think I will ever end up paying this discriminatory tax. What I fear in more real terms is the capacity for Islam to create a culture of civil conflict (as it does in Thailand, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and throughout the Middle East).

We haven't yet seen the full effect in this country of having areas of our great cities where Muslims are in a near majority. We, or our children, will be seeing those effects more clearly over the next two or three decades.

Of course if you've got some Hebridean bolthole to flee to, in an independent Scottish state with a narrow border to defend, things might look a wee bit rosier.

ndm

HairyNoddy asks:

-- ndm: I'd be interested to see if you have tried any of your arguments against the likes of Anjem Choudary.

Since I had to look this character up on the Internet I think it safe to say that I am not afraid of him. If he gains government office or otherwise gains the ear of political power then I will start to get really worried about the future of Britain. But that is not ever going to happen.

However, the pondering of HairyNoddy is presumably yet another attempt to conflate the views of one Islamic extremist with those of the millions of Muslims who do not share those views.

Hadrian

I find it both telling and yet incredible that the gutter language and downright offensiveness ( in every sense of that term) can get posted on here yet clearly some of us are being censored for daring to oppose Mr Massie's olympian wisdom.
Frankly if the Spectator operates at such a level it doesn't deserve to be regarded as a magazine for serious debate.

Julia Stein

If this "prayer room" is not a mosque, and this building is meant to build bridges, will people of other religions be able to use it? Will women be able to walk into the room and sit where they like?

If not, and it really is a "prayer room" for Muslims alone, will they have "prayer rooms" in this huge building for other faiths? If not, why not?

Also, if the multiculturalism now in place in the UK is so wonderful, why do Jewish schools, synagogues and other institutions have to have so much special security, and why are people who are recognizably Jewish being attacked on your streets?

I would like to believe in the Britain you describe, but I find it very difficult.

HairyNoddy

Have you ever asserted your view of islam against any islamist like Choudary in the manner which you are doing here now?

Simone

ndm:
"The racism and bigotry which drives an increasingly powerful European ultra-right it is a far greater threat than anything written in the Koran because the ultra-right is far closer to the machinery of Government than doctrinaire supporters of the Koran ever will be."

Actually, the Muslim vote in Britain is huge. Extremists already have a lot of influence in at least one council in London.
Their vote is also influential in a General Election, and this influence will only increase.

russell

@ Frank P. Thanks for the Sir Bufton Tufton info. Fantastic stuff. Was like something out of De Bernières' Notwithstanding.

Hadrian

Let's just say Islam has a lot of questions to answer before it can be regarded as the Religion of Peace it is claimed to be.
And Massie's latest piece is correct in identifying the sensitivity issue as one major objection to the Ground Zero proposals. As I have tried to point out in previous censored posts! It's a bit like the IRA being commemorated at the sites of some of its victims.
However the character of both Mohammed himself and his most zealous followers needs intense scrutiny as well. It seems very obvious to a lot of us that as an ideology it turns too readily to the sword, even amongst its own variant followers.
We do well to regard it with the utmost suspicion. General demographics and further accretions to the E.U. with accompanying waves of immigration make this a very real threat, not some minor phobia.

Frank P

russell

"...was like something out of De Bernieres 'Notwithstanding' ".

Indeed! And now that you remind me, one of the characters, Obadiah Oak, described in that excellent and quirky account, was also one of my regulars, though of course by then operating under the non de plume of Alan Scott-Blair.

Remember Obadiah? [ ..And of course Obadiah Oak, the village's literal and proverbial last peasant, who "exudes the aromas of wet leather and horse manure, costive dogs, turnips, rainwater and cabbage water, sausages, verdigris, woollen socks, Leicester cheese, fish guts, fraying curtains, mice under the stairs, mud on the carpet and woodlice behind the pipes].

Ahhh ... happier days! Unfortunately the old inn is no more. Last time I passed by it had been converted into solicitors' offices or some such and one of my erstwhile young staff members, was running the Pub up the road which had once been the competitor. Every cloud has a silver lining and every hurricane clears the way for new growth. Just as my ashes will pre-empt the conflagration that this hellish doctrine called Islam will provoke ere long. And there will be no 72 virgins awaiting for yours truly, thank God. Can anybody tell me why 72, btw?

Frank P

Sri - nom de plum, not non de plume!

Hadrian

One has to find NDM's defence of Islam as at best cack-handed and resting on nothing other than: 'There are too few of them so we needn't be scared, they can never take over.' Hardly a ringing endorsement of Mohammed's ideology! And it's a bit like saying there'll never be many convinced Nazis so we might as well tolerate them in the name of pluralism. That way madness and oppression lie. The levers of power can fall all too easily into the hands of an elite minority who have single mindedly sought it over the more lethargic majority. Many British laws today, imposed by liberal elites, would get swept off the Statute Book if Swiss style referenda were to be implemented.
Too many on the Left seem to want to believe in a fairy-land of a sanitised, 'nice' Islam and are purblind to its many authentic and oppressive and cruel practices.