Dangerous naivety
The New Republic has published an article by Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank which claims that al Qaeda is unravelling because former supporters are turning against it, and that as a result Muslim moderates are on the march against the jihadis. While there is undoubtedly some truth in their argument, in that – as we can see in Iraq – the mass killings of Muslims by al Qaeda are clearly turning increasing numbers of Muslims against it, the authors’ apparent naivety and ignorance have nevertheless led them to some dangerously wrong conclusions, particularly in their analysis of what is happening in Britain.
They have fallen into the trap of believing that the only extremists are al Qaeda and others who support terrorism in Britain. They thus extol as moderates those who oppose al Qaeda and terrorism in Britain. But this view – which is shared by many in British security circles, alas -- presents an entirely false and indeed lethal dichotomy. For there are Islamists who oppose al Qaeda and terrorist action in the UK as a tactical mistake but nevertheless subscribe to the same strategic goal – to restore the medieval Caliphate, overturn British and western society and institute the rule of Islam instead.
This is because there are two arms to the jihadi pincer: terrorist attack and cultural attack; and the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamists use either or both depending on circumstances and upon differing strategic points of view between groups under the same jihadi umbrella. There are also some who, after the London Tube and bus bombings, the subsequent Islamic terrorist trials and the resulting hardening of public opinion, decided to moderate their previously hard-line position and profess reformist opinions as a tactic to lull the British into lowering their guard.
None of this appears to have occurred to the authors of this article. They have instead listened uncritically and uninformedly to certain individuals in Britain’s security establishment who so lamentably fail to grasp the nature and extent of the jihad, as well as to manipulative Islamists who have played the authors (along with that security establishment) like fish on a line. As a result they make gross errors of judgment in hailing certain individuals as moderate when they are anything but. For example, they write:
Kamal el Helbawy, the Muslim Brotherhood leader who helped bring in moderates at the Finsbury Park mosque in London...
This shows a truly lamentable ignorance. After the removal of the notorious abu Hamza from Finsbury Park, the police did not broker the arrival of a moderate regime at the mosque. They brokered instead a new administration dominated by the Muslim Association of Britain, the British arm of the Muslim Brotherhood whose aim is to Islamise Britain and the west, and whose chief spokesman is Dr Azzam Tammimi, the Hamas acolyte who has publicly supported human bomb terrorism in Israel. As for Kamal el Helbawy, who the authors clearly think is the acme of moderation, he is the main Brotherhood man in Britain and Europe -- and thus central to the whole strategy of indoctrination and radicalisation of Britain’s Muslims and the demoralisation with menaces of the indigenous community, which is putting this country at such risk. Because it’s not just terrorism that creates the danger – it’s the ideas that drive the terror.
In the House of Commons in 2003 the MP Louise Ellman said:
It is time that the spotlight fell on the Muslim Association of Britain, particularly the key figures, such as Azzam Tamimi, Kamal el Helbawy, Anas Al-Tikriti and Mohammed Sawalha. All of them are connected to the terrorist organisation Hamas. The Muslim Association of Britain itself is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood -- an extremist fundamentalist organization founded in Egypt in 1928, and the spiritual ideologue of all Islamic terror organizations. It is militantly antisemitic and always has been.
Yet the NR authors present the MAB as the antidote to the jihad!
Then there is Usama Hassan, an imam at the Masjid-al-Tawhid mosque in Leyton, east London, a former jihadi who is now openly critical of al Qaeda and therefore, in the authors’ star-struck eyes, a born-again moderate. Certainly, Hassan has drawn considerable fire from other Muslims for taking positions such as opposing the death penalty for apostasy, and has gone out of his way to present a reformist approach to Islam. However, questions remain.
For a start, both the mosque and its senior imam, Hassan’s own father Sheikh Suhaib Hassan, featured in the Chanel Four Dispatches investigation into radical mosques. As this article reported, the programme recorded him
predicting the establishment of an Islamic state under Sharia law and detailing some of the extreme punishments, such as flogging of drunkards, that would be carried out in such a state. Shaykh Hassan says, however, that his remarks were taken out of context, and that he has never said Sharia law would be appropriate for Britain.
Two weeks ago, Dispatches won an unprecedented libel action against the police and crown prosecutors who had falsely accused the programme of selective editing and distortion.
Then there is this rather troubling letter written by Usama Hassan. In response to his Muslim critics who accuse him of selling out, he says:
...I, of course, support a just Caliphate based on the Prophetic model...
He also attempts to refute his critics’ claim that he wants to separate Islam from secular government, saying he supports the position taken by Mustafa Ceric, the Grand Mufti of Bosnia. This surely should also cause concern. For Ceric himself is a dissembler who is keen to tell westerners what they want to hear – that Muslims present no threat to the west -- and who believes accordingly that Muslims living in the west should do nothing to alienate the indigenous society, but should impose sharia by a process akin to the Trotskyite long march through the institutions.
That is indeed what is happening in Britain. It’s why Tariq Ramadan is so lionised here; it’s why Brotherhood radicals are acting as government advisers on combating Islamic radicalism; it’s why the police are tied up in such lethal knots. The idea that the Muslim Brotherhood is a counter-radicalisation movement is simply ludicrous. But it is one that the British establishment -- whose knowledge of Islam appears to consist largely of the sanitised vapidities of the likes of Karen Armstrong and John Esposito -- have eagerly embraced. And now this absurd article in New Republic is spreading the confusion yet further across the Atlantic too.
Previous
Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Alex Massie | Coffee House | Faith Based
Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (43)
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Popular Blog Posts
Search this blog
Melanie Phillips is a Daily Mail columnist. She also writes for the Jewish Chronicle and is a panellist on BBC Radio Four's Moral Maze. Her most recent book is 'The World Turned Upside Down: The Global Battle over God, Truth and Power', published by Encounter.
For a complete set of Melanie's articles click here
Melanie Phillips blog archive
sponsored links
JEWELLERY: C.N.A RUFF LTD
Are you making the right impression?
THE PRESENT FINDER
1,700 Unusual Christmas Presents Request Catalogue 01935 815 195 Quote SPEC10 for 10% discount www.presentfinder.co.uk
OLIVE BRANCH FLORISTS
Pimilco based Florist with online ordering Web: www.olivebranch.net Tel: 020 7630 1868 Fax: 020 7233 8844
Apollo Magazine | Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2012 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
Roslyn Pine
May 28th, 2008 1:22amThe term "moderate" is meaningless unless accurately defined within a context.It is clear, however,that the difference between the "moderates" such as Fatah, and extremists eg.Hamas, is that the former disguise their true agenda (for Western audiences) with emollient language, whereas
the latter are open as to their aims .Often, as in the aforementioned, their goals are the identical. Perhaps the authors would like to comment as to why a survey of young, British-born Muslims revealed that some 30% admitted to approving the death penalty for apostasy. There must be many more who hold that view without admitting it openly.
field
May 28th, 2008 1:25amGood analysis.
We do need to understand how subversive even a peaceable version of Islam is to our democracy. Islam is based on a radically different world view. It lays claim - like all totalitarian movements - the whole of man. It is explicit in claiming superiority for its system of law. It holds up one man - Mohammed - as a perfect moral exemplar (that might not be so problematic were he a Buddha or a Jesus or a Moses - but he manifestly wasn't).
The only Islam we can be comfortable with is one that places the stress on personal spiritual development, that explicitly accepts our democracy and our laws, and which places Islamic ideology in a historical context, so as to "deactivate" it.
elixelx
May 28th, 2008 6:55amAl Qaeda is a pissant neophyte organisation compared to the real terrorists--Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Hamas...
One didn't have to carry a card to be a Communist any more than being a terrorist requires the kissing of Bin Laden's nether "ring"!
So, yes, while it MAY be correct to say that Al-Qaeda MAY be finished the only result of saying so WILL be that many WILL believe that terrorism is finished!
Let's not let the fear, the anger, the resistance fall away just because one bogeyman is no longer extant.
This War is against Islamofascism and Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda are just one brigade, albeit now-neutered, in the enemy army.
RIP Osama; you're next Mahmoud!
Alcuin
May 28th, 2008 7:13amAn article in today's Telegraph describes the problem of large Muslim groups in Cambridge jail. There is likely to be a similar problem in other jails, where Muslim criminals will become jihadis, will learn that intimidation works, and that our authorities are too scared of accusations of Islamophobia to do the right thing.
As our economy falters, as the price of oil and food rises and with it the funds supporting the jihadi message, social unrest can only increase. I cannot see how we can avoid the sort of explosion that hit the French bainlieus, and that even the feared CRS were reluctant to control. Of course, such open conflict is just what the jihadis want, as they know how much we fear it. Our authorities are playing with fire.
Paul
May 28th, 2008 8:02amThe weakness of our own Government has allowed this situation to grow in the first place. Remember the admission here of so many known Algerian terrorists whilst the French authorities were tearing their hair out.We cant even use the words islamic and terrorist in the same breath or sentence. What will the police do about C4's preachers of hate? Nothing.
There is only one way to tackle terrorism and that is head on. We are pussy footing our way to the everlasting bonfire.
Water
May 28th, 2008 8:02amRoslyn Pine could you possibly provide a link to that survey please. Many thanks.
nadeem afzal
May 28th, 2008 9:17amummm usama hassan is also a member of city circle aninfluential group of professional muslims seeking to build community relations and the new quilliam foundation (which I thought she would support??).....oh dear mel clutching at the straws again!!!!!!
joe
May 28th, 2008 9:44amYes, you're exactly right Melanie. Peter Bergen, who has studied these questions for years and who has actually interviewed Bin Laden is clearly ignorant and misguided. The question I have is why do you waste your time writing these blogs instead of offering your services to the state. You clearly know more about terrorism and counter-terrorism than these so-called experts, just like you know more about issues such as MMR and drug abuse than the so-called scientists. The world needs you and your talents.
Shy Guy
May 28th, 2008 10:12amSee this Observer article: Bishop warns that Muslims who convert risk being killed.
Water
May 28th, 2008 10:19amThanks Shy Guy.
Water
May 28th, 2008 10:25amShy Guy by chance could you tell me how to insert links, highlight and italicise please. Thanks again.
Shy Guy
May 28th, 2008 10:46amWater, I discuss using HTML for linking in one of my later posts here.
Water
May 28th, 2008 10:52amGreat stuff thanks.
nadeem afzal
May 28th, 2008 11:14amof course she is right she is always right, she right that palestinians do not exist, that palestine has never existed, she is right to say that muslims are all bad as each toher I mean there si no such thing as a moderate muslim and she is right when she quotes from robert spencer and daniel pipes I mean they are always right.....
wow I am so blind to think that I doubted you oh great one...
in fact my fellow melsims (play on the word muslims you like it) I think we should get a petition going to get MEl a CBE at the very least and Nobel proze for her work on these "evil" muslims
what do you think my fellow melsims???
Shy Guy
May 28th, 2008 11:33amI also hate it when facts get in the way.
patricia
May 28th, 2008 2:03pmThe UK academic boycot against Israeli academics was justified on the following grounds:
- IDF regular torture of all Palestinian detainees (B'Tselem and Hamoked, 2007)
- The Palestinian education structure has been destroyed, Israel having bombed all the infrastructure and consistently preventing mobility among Palestinian academics.
- Israel regularly deports academics who critice its treatment of the Palestinian population, an act described by the Israeli Association for Civil Rights as outrageous.
UK academics should be congratulated for a principled stand at Israel's catalogue of horrors. For Palestinians to have a chance of academic freedom or any other kind of freedom, Israel has to change, which it will only do if pressure is put upon it
Ravi
May 28th, 2008 2:07pmof course she is right she is always right, she right that palestinians do not exist, that palestine has never existed, Palestine as a country has never existed. It was the name of a region populated by Arabs and Jews which was divided up into countries by the Mandate for Palestine 1922. There has never been any people called Palestinians who are a separate people from Jews. Yes, you can live in a place known as Palestine but that applies equally to the Arabs who became Jordanianas, Syrians and Lebanese as Palestine was sectioned into legal political entities.
Ellen
May 28th, 2008 2:11pmOh dear, Nadeem, unable to refute anything in the above post, you just made up a whole load of allegations instead.
What’s this nonsense: ‘she is right to say that muslims are all bad as each toher’
Please provide chapter and verse on this as I have never seen or heard Melanie Phillips say any such thing.
Ellen
May 28th, 2008 3:04pmYou’re on the wrong thread, Patricia.
Oh yes, Patricia, and how many Islamic countries practice torture, not even on people intent on genocide, but on ordinary, domestic criminals?
Let's start in Turkey and work our way eastwards, shall we? "Islamic human rights", it's just another of those oxymorons used to batter the West when it suits the jihadists and their useful idiots, but as we see from the examples from so many Islamic cultures, human rights won't be any part of the Caliphate.
And how many of these countries have their academics boycotted by Britain?
Ian C
May 28th, 2008 5:52pmNo mention of Usamma Hasan onthe Quilliam Foundation web site Nadeem Afzal. Could you provide evidence to support your claim of his moderation?
nadeem afzal
May 28th, 2008 6:07pmhttp://www.quilliamfoundation.org/index.php/component/content/article/142
click on the link to the video...
also michael gove is on the list as one of their advisors...this point was made made from this forum on city circle.
http://www.thecitycircle.com/blog2.php?cann_id=617
Azzam Tamimi
May 28th, 2008 6:42pmMelanie Philips has one criterion by which to judge who is good and who is bad, or who is moderate and whose not. Any opponent or critic of Israel is an extremist. It is not British interest or human interest that motivates her but Zionist interest. Therefore, most of the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world are bad extremist people simply because they support the Palestinians against their Zionist oppressors.
Roslyn Pine
May 28th, 2008 7:53pmWater,here is one link of many that you requested:-http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080408205930AAgixXg
Patricia, if Israel is the brutal catalogue of horrors you say it is, how come that there is an abundance of human rights monitors and organisations there, unlike in any of the totalitarian Arab states that surround it?
And how is it that when it was mooted by Olmert that the satellite Arab villages surrounding Jerusalem be under the jurisdiction of a future Palestinian state, there was a furious outcry against it,the mukhtar of one saying that he preferred the rule of law in Israel to the lawlessness of the PA?
Furthermore, what explanation do you have for the truly surreal phenomenon of (Muslim)Darfurian refugees from the genocidal Islamist regime in Sudan,spurning the other 56 Muslim countries to trek more than 1000 miles to seek refuge in the world's only Jewish state,risking their lives on the way?
People like you who have a problem with Israel/Jews (because they make the most of the little they have and refuse to play to the gallery as the eternal victims) and who pour out their vitriol behind a pseudonym in such a cowardly manner, are beneath contempt.
Adela Kostea,USA
May 29th, 2008 3:30amAs hard as the brits tried to avoid armed conflict with the germans,in the end they had to dig deep within and find the courage and strenght to face a ruthless enemy...
Even harder are the brits trying now to avoid conflict with political islam,but in the end they will have to bite the bullit and fight for their national survival.
The diference this time is that the greedy lying politicians have already surrendered,the degenerate and cowardly media has already sided with the muslims and the barbarians have been allowed inside the gates by the millions.
No matter how you look at it the brits will have two choices:stand up and fight or be enslaved by a barbaric,ruthless invader.
Logdon
May 29th, 2008 9:09amThe odious Tamimi responds and obviously is rattled that anyone dare critisise his masterplan of a Caliphate. Over in the Guardian Cif page Tariq Ramadam is waffling away in similar vein.These superannuated agitators exist in the comfort zone of a liberal West and allowed to rant away as to how oppressive we are. The hypocrisy is stupendous yet these 'Holy men genius's' will never admit the paradox. Cake and eating it? You bet!
Nick Kaplan
May 29th, 2008 2:30pmPatricia, to criticise Israel for human-rights abuses in an attempt to justify your support for Islamic states and the destruction of Israel is an act of the most obscene stupidity and moral perversity. Israeli citizens are the most free citizens in the entire middle east and the only ones to enjoy democracy, the right to free speech, the right to a fair trial, the rule of law, property rights and many other rights reasonable westerner’s hold dear. Of course it’s foreign policy is not perfect, but it is hardly in a perfect situation surrounded by hostile Arab sates many of whom advocate its total destruction. Citizens of Islamic states, presumably of the sort you would like Israel to be replaced with, are subject to the most brutal tyranny at the hand of corrupt rulers motivated by an evil religion that has not been reformed since its creation. If it’s human rights abuses you’re looking for look not to Israel, but to the very thing you want to replace it with.
John Morrison
May 29th, 2008 4:54pmProfessional "victims".
YA
May 29th, 2008 7:24pmI am surprised that my (very moderate) reply to Tamimi wasn't posted..
So I try to dissect his message again:
First of all, he supports his preaching by intimidation by numbers (1.2 millions muslims).
Second, he tries to force those selected for dhimmitude (Britain, Europe) to betray those selected for annihilation (Jews, Israel), in exchange for victor's mercy.
Third, he uses Middle Eastern - you see moderators, not I****ic, not A***ic, no-no - mythology to reaffirm automatic vilification of Israel - "Zionist oppression".
Last one is another demagogue's classic - he tries to discredit Melanie by attaching her to the same "Zionist" scarecrow.
Actually it is not so difficult to see through this S***.
They are both quite boring, "patricia", as an effigy of I****ism, and Tamimi, as its evil clown.
Armed just with this eeeh.. soft brown stuff, how are they planning to succeed?
Alexandrovich
May 29th, 2008 8:11pmSo, 'Patricia' is obviously a pseudonym is it? So what's Roslyn Pine, a furniture polish?
Nick Kaplan: speaking as a Jew, I find "...obscene stupidity and moral perversity" arrogant in the extreme. I must have missed Patricia advocating the destruction of Israel, please direct me to the appropriate post.
YA: your posts are worse than useless, doing our cause much harm by confirming a section of the community's predjudices.
Usama Hasan
May 30th, 2008 3:45amMelanie: In the letter that you found "troubling," I referred to my BBC Hardtalk interview for an explanation of the kind of Caliphate I would support: a "United States of Islam" that would make much political and economic sense, much like the USA or the EU. And there would be a democratically-elected caliph, with the caliphate at peace with Israel, the US and the EU, and India and China for that matter. A distant dream at the moment, sure, but no harm in dreaming!
Helen
May 30th, 2008 10:21amAnd would the dhimmis get a vote?
Tommy
May 30th, 2008 11:29am“Would the dhimmis get a vote?”
Does The Koran preach taqiyaa?
nadeem afzal
May 30th, 2008 1:09pmtaqiyya and dhimmi wow you guys are so smart where you get these terms from Robert Spencer school of Islam....or I know Daniel Pipes school of Orientalism.......which one is it and when can I apply????????
some comments regarding dhimmis-
The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) emphasized the duties of Muslims toward dhimmis, threatening anyone who violates them with the wrath and punishment of Allah. The Prophet is reported to have said, "He who hurts a dhimmi hurts me, and he who hurts me annoys Allah" (At-Tabarani).
"On the Day of Judgment, I will dispute with anyone who oppresses a person from among the People of the Covenant, or infringes upon his right, or puts a responsibility on him which is beyond his strength, or takes something from him against his will" (Abu Dawud).
oh wait got more aswell.....
"This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.' Sir Thomas W. Arnold, (Call to Islam)
muslims also pay tax aswell it is called zakat they are not exempt from it!!!!
deary me, mel philips talk about falling standards in education maybe she should start at home first....reading books by robert spencer and then taking the verses out of context is not critical reasoning.
nadeem afzal
May 30th, 2008 1:35pmno the Qu'ran does not preach taqqiya,
these concept is/was developed by the shii'tes
John
May 30th, 2008 3:29pmnadeem, some facts regarding dhimmis, particularly those Christian dhimmis who are forced to live on the rubbish heaps in Egypt and whose children are sometimes stolen with Muslim authorities not fussed about it all (do they know something?).
This is a test run version of how the Caliphate will operate and how us dhimmis will be treated, so we know what\'s in store.
Don\'t you worry about us reading up on Islam either.
It\'s all I read about these days and I\'m going to make sure as many people as possible know what submitting to it means.
nadeem afzal
May 30th, 2008 4:41pmJohn- I have no dubt you will be reading..................................so will we
Pericles
May 30th, 2008 5:11pmif you wanna read books I mean real books not some airy fairy claptrap here are two books-
manufacturing consent- noam chomsky
and.......
A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn
oooo if you can forgive their "liberal" stance of course......do not want to be accused of subjectivity!!!!
"Mom, the pakis are here!!!!" east is east
Commondog
May 30th, 2008 5:52pmAzzam Tamimi.
Therefore, most of the 1.2 billion Muslims around the world are bad extremist people simply because they (here) support the Palestinians against their Zionist oppressors.
If you had put the word 'unquestioningly' in my brackets, then I think your case would be stronger.
Roslyn Pine
May 30th, 2008 8:12pmAzzam Tamimi excoriates Melanie for implying, as he sees it, that anyone who "criticises" Israel is an extremist.
A quick look on Youtube, and there is the self- same Tamimi, in Trafalgar Square in full ranting mode, screaming that "This cancer (referring to Israel) must be eradicated from the body of humanity". (There are other examples of his moderation).Or how about the views of the "moderate" Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi (friend of Ken Livingstone) whose book "Fatwa on Palestine" has just been translated into English in which he says, inter alia,that "every Jew in the world is an enemy"?
When Tamimi writes that "most of the 1.2 billion Muslims in the world support the Palestinians against the Zionist oppressors",isn't it because they have been indoctrinated since birth to hate the Jews and Infidels?
Oppression is familiar to them because there is hardly an Arab country where Jews were not brutally oppressed some time or other in their history, culminating in their expulsion and ethnic cleansing from lands they lived in for more than 1000 years.(Some 750,000 of them in 1948.) No compensation for them or right of return,so that Arabia is now Judenrein.
If the Palestinians are so oppressed, as Tamimi would have us believe, why then are they desperate to remain under Israeli jurisdiction in any future settlement, and why do Darfurian refugees seek sanctuary in Israel as opposed to the Muslim lands with their co-religionists? Still no answers to that question!
Probably because they see that in Gaza under Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood of which Tamimi is a member) there is the law of the jungle and where the judicial process may mean being thrown from the roofs of tall buildings, hands and feet tied together, as happened recently to their Fatah "brothers".
If Tamimi were honest, he would concede thet there are 1.2 billion Muslims in 57 countries in huge areas of land because Islam was spread by violent conquest over centuries.
It is an ongoing process in Nigeria, Kashmir, Southern Sudan and the Phillipines and in other places to. As Tamimi once said on the BBC ---we don't care about having another Islamic state--we just don't want a Jewish state!
Hannan Ashrawi revealed their mindset when she admitted that "We are an all or none people".
Quite. All for them but nothing for the other.
It is their utter rejection of the principle of the self- determination of the Jewish people in their tiny sliver of land, their ancient homeland, that is the sole obstacle to peace.
Steven T Colbair
May 31st, 2008 1:50pm"If Tamimi were honest, he would concede thet there are 1.2 billion Muslims in 57 countries in huge areas of land because Islam was spread by violent conquest over centuries..."
as opposed to christianity?????
but now you gonna say "yeah but islam is a fascist religion christianity is a nice religion non of this jihadi stuff....."
Roslyn you are a legend wow please tell me where you have studied islam and can I study also at the same institute..........
oh no wait you have studied it from Robert Spencer ....or oh I know is it Bernard Lewis no no I have got it's ibn warraq.........no wrong again is it from ayaan hirsi ali
oh come one roslyn tell me please oh I got it you studied it from Melanie Philips wow Mel I love wuv you.
Melanie Philips are you ever wrong????
Laura
May 31st, 2008 9:03pmCan you tell me how many Christian suicide bombers you've seen lately, Steven?
The difference, Steven, is that Christianity reformed itself, something people like you wilfully ignore when defending Islam.
Mike Woodman
June 2nd, 2008 1:31pmSteven Colbair: do you prefer to get your Islam with a nice dose of taqiyya?
field
June 4th, 2008 12:27amnadeem afzal
May 30th, 2008 1:09pm
taqiyya and dhimmi wow you guys are so smart where you get these terms from Robert Spencer school of Islam....or I know Daniel Pipes school of Orientalism.......which one is it and when can I apply????????
NADEEM -
Are you saying that these terms are not used by Muslims?
A dhimmi ([ðimi]; Arabic: ذمي, collectively: أهل الذمة, ahl al-dhimma, the people of the dhimma or pact of protection,