On their knees in the Temple

Darren

Melanie, this one is bang one target: "Moreover, given the line-up I somehow don't think that the argument for the robust defence of western civilisation will be on prominent display at this event."

The guys who'd stand up and make a strong case for who we are, seldom get an invitation. Definition of "Dialogue" from the progressive dictionary - Endless talk with likeminded people with graduate degrees.

john doe

Indeed the rot is setting in. This relentless infiltration of Islamic ideology into British institutions can and will only lead to eventual bloody civil strife when the population...and yes there is such a group left as the British people, albeit tranquilised by media trivia, alcohol and shopping....realises that its very soul is being betrayed and sold out to totalitarianism in another form by a treasonous and corrupt elite that greedily abases itself before the filthy lucre that has accumulated in Arab hands during the last 30 years. The power resides where the cash flows and it flows abundantly in the Arab oil producing states while Western banks crumble under the burden of irresponsible lending, itself an outcome of the decadence of Western society. This decadence is mortally dangerous and it may be too late to recover in the face of the ruthless confidence and self belief of the Islamic world.

M Clyde

I agree. But maybe they're trying to be provocative?

An Naim is an interesting man. Can't say the same for the others.

He was the student and biographer of the Sudanese scholar and liberal reformer Mohammed Taha who was executed in Sudan in 1984, after which An Naim fled to the US.

He believes that Islamic sharia can't be accommodated to the UNDHR (1948) a fact which must be confronted head on. Others, like the snake, Ramadan, believe there are 'common values' and 'harmonisation' is possible. An Naim is under no such delusions.

He has proposed what I think is a unique solution to the international problem of jihadi theology.

He proposes that the suras revealed during the Meccan period, 610-622, when Mohammed was weak, lived in a multicultural society, and had to get along with Jewish, Christian, and pagan neighbours, be given preference over the later Medinan suras, 622-632, when Mohammed was a powerful war leader of a Muslim-majority society.

Needless to say, the Meccan suras are peaceable and tolerant; the Medinan ones spew hate against non-Muslims, especially Jews.

His suggestion reverses the traditional order of abrogation in favour of the later Medinan suras.

In other words, he seems to be trying to effect, through legal reform, a counter-jihad.

Jonny Mac

I see Dr Welchman is from SOAS. Not much criticism of any aspect of Islam going to be coming from her, then. And I agree - why allow Temple Church to be used for this purpose? In what sense does such a "discussion" tally with the values of that church? They wouldn't allow a BNP-linked discussion there; there is inevitably some element of the church authorities condoning the discussion being held. Baffling and disturbing.

Frank Pulley

Melanie I think your question is answered in one of the many Front Page Magazine interviews with Bill Warner:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=77D37794-BF74-4BD5-9AD4-D8736FDC82BB

wherein he discusses dhimmitude (h/t Jack R in commentary on your "Open Society ... thread).

Extract: "As the Islamic conquest rolled over the kafirs, the dhimmi was the perfect tool of subjugation. After Islam conquered a country, for instance Egypt, the Muslims were the top dogs in the politics, but the Christians could keep their religion. However, they had to live without legal protection or civil rights. All public space was Islamic. The dhimmi could be insulted, abused and had no recourse. They had to pay the jizya tax. The dhimmi were cattle on the Islamic ranch, but could attend their church or synagogue.

FP: What happened to the dhimmis under these conditions?

Warner: The insults, humiliations and taxes wore the dhimmis down. What happened over time was that the dhimmis converted to Islam. It was easier to avoid all this pain and become a Muslim.

In the 20th century, Islam became so weak that the full dhimmi status was dropped. But if you meet and talk to Christians from the Middle East today, you will find that the centuries of dhimmitude have produced, in many cases, a personality similar to an abused wife. It is very sad to see how subjugated a personality can become.

There is another kind of dhimmi—kafirs who become apologists for Islam, fear and defer to it. So we have two types of dhimmi—the subjugated dhimmi who is under the political power of Islam and the apologist dhimmi who seeks Islamic favor."

Read it all. The whole interview is very revealing and probably explains the attitude of the Inner Temple. Fear - and failure to 'know thine enemy'.

But then you yourself occasionally talk of 'moderate Muslims'. In the context of Warner's assertions, to the leaders of Islam and its believers, moderate Muslims are apostates, surely? Perhaps the lure of Western freedoms laced with accessible hedonism will prevail in the end, but not if the leaders of our judiciary give forth the signals emitted by them and the 'Archdhimmi' of Canterbury. They must surely shore up visions of a new world Caliphate on the horizon and it's not too far from reality IMHO.

I don't know the pedigree of Bill Warner but he does seem to 'get it'. The MSM are not to keen on the word 'dhimmi' I can't remember ever hearing it on any TV broadcasts. You have constantly referred to the phenomenon both on your previous blog since October 2003 and on your current site. But I'll bet that outside the blogosphere very few people understand what it means.

Jenny

The demolition job on the cornerstone began with Dr Rowan Williams and now here come the rest. In piecemeal fashion the legal system will be shattered irrevocably - just like eveything else in our culture.

Rupert Murdoch, whose prescient comments are often borne out later on, said at the Atlantic Council in Washington this week (I'm quoting the nom de plume 'Ephraim Hardcastle' column of 24/04/2008) "that Europe no longer has 'the political will or social culture' to defend itself".

Our children's futures will be like those of the Christian dhimmis living on the rubbish heaps in Egypt - if they're lucky.

Verity

Jenny - Yes, indeed. But the islamics are not conquering Europe with manpower or technology, but taqya and kitman and the compliance of lazy indigenous people who think they're just throwing the islamics a bone and they'll be content.

The Muslim Council needs to be disbanded right now, even as I type. It's a toxic fifth column outfit that is actually keeping muslims back from doing what they, as immigrants to a totally different culture, should do - integrate. Intentionally, of course.

I don't know what Blair and Brown thought they were going to gain by cosying up to the "immigrant" aliens - probably an unending stream of cash for the rest of their lives - and our contempt means nothing to them, but unless David Cameron can get his head round this issue - and I will guarantee 100% that he cannot - because he is insular and stupid - Britain and Europe and done for.

Fortunately, we have the United States, Canada and Mexico in N America accounting for 650m people. Central and S America account for around 500m. Oz and NZ around another 30m.

So the defeat of Britain and Europe will not be the end of civilisation. Just the end of communism.

Viva Maria!

<<< The Muslim Council needs to be disbanded right now, even as I type. It's a toxic fifth column outfit that is actually keeping muslims back from doing what they, as immigrants to a totally different culture, should do - integrate. Intentionally, of course.>>>

Hear! Hear!, Verity.

john

And why is Islam Channel, sustained by the Muslim Brotherhood sill allowed to broadcast its poisonous anti-Jewish untruths.

Gordon Neil

Well said Mellanie. Christians and secularists across the muslim world suffer the yoke of laws inspired by islam. Why would therefore a christian church or even a secular legal establishment be involved with sponsoring and promoting this programme of lectures. The Temple's clergy and elements of our legal establishment are either mad or bad, I'm just not sure which !

Spike

Thanks again Melanie. Always spot-on. As for Murdoch: " .... Europe no longer has 'the political will or social culture' to defend itself".
I can't think of anyone else who has done more to undermine the political will and social culture in Britain than dear old Mr M.

Anan

"Moreover, given the line-up I somehow don't think that the argument for the robust defence of western civilisation will be on prominent display at this event."

Personally, I think this is an unfair appraisal of the perception of most Muslims and the majority of Western-Muslim scholars towards the west because they value and cherish the freedom they wouldn't otherwise enjoy in so called Muslim countries.

Anyway, as more and more native Brits convert to Islam, willingly, I wonder what the tone will take henceforth when it would appear the 'immmigrants' can no longer be blamed for the cliched clash of civilizations.

Cheers!

field

Melanie - Are you going to join the Anti-Jihad Resistance?

http://www.antijihadresistance.com/

I think we need some coherence in the worldwide effort to resist the Jihadists and their allies.

Ann

Cliche, eh? That's the usual phrase when you can't deal with the factual argument. Cliches can be true, and this one certainly is. Or perhaps the shrill demands to introduce Sharia law into British law are not an aspect of a clash of civilisations? Give me strength ...

Ysabel Howard

Take that bunch of scantily clad teens in the back of the bus. They are raucous, unruly - and half-naked. Wander round TopShop sometime. This is about more than western civilization, important as western civilization is. Previous societies conquered by Islam were hierarchical, authoritarian and notably lacking in scantily clad teens in the backs of buses. It is my estimation that this war, if war there must be, will be fought by women since men apparently lack the b****. We have more - everything - to lose. The arguments against women in combat are necessarily derived from wars at one remove, on a foreign field. They do not apply to women fighting in our home-towns for our very right to be regarded as free adult human beings. Other prime targets of Islamism, Jews, gays, are minorities. We are not a minority.

field

"Personally, I think this is an unfair appraisal of the perception of most Muslims and the majority of Western-Muslim scholars towards the west because they value and cherish the freedom they wouldn't otherwise enjoy in so called Muslim countries."

Anan - Regarding this, if they value and cherish freedom, why did they condemn Rushdie, burn his book and try and get him killed via an Iranian Fatwa?
Why do they not speak up against attacks on the Danish cartoonists? Why they not defend Geery Wilders' right to comment on Islam and the Koran?

Verity

Field - Because they'r dhimmis. They believe they are taking a lofty, rational approach, but they are dhimmis.

What makes a person want to be a dhimmi? I think it is sheer intellectual arrogance. A belief that "I'm above all these little people's concerns and I can stand back in my intellectual grandeur and see the big picture."

But they can't.

Shy Guy

Verity
April 27th, 2008 3:21pm

What makes a person want to be a dhimmi?

I can think of two possible answers:

1) The instinct of survival.

2) Being a political candidate attempting to win over a Muslim constituency.

Commondog

Ysabel.

I do like the idea of this bus.

field

Shy Guy introduces a valid point.

The Muslim vote punches well above its weight because it often is in effect a bloc vote. Candidates trying to overturn a majority of 5,000 are always going to pay attention to a bloc vote of 5,000.

So, although I remain committed to democracy, I can see that it certainly allows scope for minority Muslims to have a disproportionate influence.

The only way to guard against that influence is to build constitutional defences against Shariah.

Verity

Shy Guy, why should the natives, who conquered 1/3rd of the world and then gave it back without much fuss, have to have "the instinct of survival" in their own ancient land of freedom of speech and minimum laws?

Who ceded these rights on our behalf? Cui bono?