Britain's monstrous sleep of reason

Shy Guy

Liberal Democrat youth and equality spokeswoman Lynne Featherstone attacked the ‘biased’ survey, while National Union of Students (NUS) president Wes Streeting said it was a ‘reflection of the biases and prejudices of a right-wing think tank’ and not the views of Muslim students across Britain.

"Eleven o'clock and all is well!"

robert

Surprisingly, no sign of this report being dealt with by the BBC

Barry Larking

The findings are worrying but the media reaction to them is more so. The fact that Ms Phillips is commenting on the results of the survey will in these circles be taken as more proof of bias in the survey's intentions.

The answers to the survey's questions, however framed, are damning in themselves. After all, what is the question that results in the answer women are inferior to men in any circumstance? One crumb of comfort is that sizeable numbers of respondent students (of most likely Pakistani origin) are not supportive of extreme positions.

The findings of the CSC survey comes as no surprise to me since I encountered attitudes such as these (but not the threats to life) eighteen years ago when in conversation with a Islamic enthusiast in a northern English city.

Moslems arrived in Great Britain in numbers during a period when it was going through a period profound cultural and economic change, roughly the 1950s onwards. Whatever the many causes of these changes were, the transformation in British society has been profound and no one who lived through the period can deny this. Social attitudes changed and many issues previously disregarded became central to the cause of reform. This has had unintended consequences. The rise to centre stage of disability and minority rights in particular has played well for Moslems. Policies and initiatives designed to give equal treatment to disadvantaged groups have been exploited by inference.

For myself the question now is: How does one advance freedoms and rights to those who desire (by clear public utterance) to take those same freedoms and rights away from the rest of us?

Dr Ridley

Yes, what a shock that the BBC has ignored this. I'm sure if it had been Christians, or Americans, they would have ignored it too.... NOT!

Vile organisation.

Dave M

The Government has actively encouraged the spread of alternative values to Western democracy within this country for decades. The harsh reality is the Government will never get a grip and take steps to undo the mess they got us all into. My belief has always been that there will come a day when some major terrorist attack is carried out against the U.S., Israel, Russia or Europe by U.K. based Islamic extremists. Only at that point in time will the problem be addressed and, in the case of an attack against the U.S., you could see American troops on the streets of the U.K. as a response. Give it perhaps 15 more years and this is where we could wind up. Neither am I exaggerating. Anyone who has any doubts should bear in mind there are already hundreds of hard-core Jihadists fighting U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan and they apparently have Birmingham accents!! If you look at Melanie's analysis of the Londonistan phenomenon you will see London itself has connections to Jihadist terrorism all over the globe. Many Europeans call us a breeding ground for terrorists. So, my view has always been that the Americans will wind up sorting this mess out on our behalf if the growth of extremism within the country becomes a more direct threat. Incidentally, did anyone see Condi Rice's look of shock when she visited the U.K. some months ago and witnessed crowds of hard core muslims in the streets for herself? For once, Jack Sraw seemed embarrassed. What a mess we are now in!!

George

Why are you surprised that the NUS President is a clown? After all, Jack Straw was also NUS President.

wonderer

I hope Shy Guy or, failing him, Mr Hoskin, is not too shy or secretive to tell me how to use italics and other kinds of emphasis on this blog. I would find it useful.

Ron Todd

How many of the Muslims that support killing would be willing to do the killing themselves?

That is the attitude of students we can assume they are the smarter part of the Muslim population. How many of the less educated ones would be willing to kill.

Shy Guy

wonderer
July 28th, 2008 6:18pm:

I hope Shy Guy or, failing him, Mr Hoskin, is not too shy or secretive to tell me how to use italics and other kinds of emphasis on this blog. I would find it useful.

Not again! I've explained this before.

Here's the code for the above portion of this post, for example:

<blockquote>wonderer
July 28th, 2008 6:18pm:<br>
<i> I hope Shy Guy or, failing him, Mr Hoskin, is not too shy or secretive to tell me how to use italics and other kinds of emphasis on this blog. I would find it useful.</i></blockquote><br>
Not again! I've explained this before.

Ron

As Melanie keeps on saying, its the numbers we should be afraid of. If it was one Islamic Jihadists shouting,"Off with their heads." The British state wouldn't worry, but when there are potentially 30,000 bright acticulate Islamic Jihadists shouting the same instructions thats the time to worry. If a small proportion took to bombs and bullets to change British society to reflect their Islamic beliefs the British would in time have to accomodate them, in a similar manner that Irish Republican terrorists have been. Do the British have the stomach to fight Islamic Jihadists on home ground? Some how I don't think so.

Thinkster

Dave M: You are spot on. And I have it from very good sources that the US government, the military specifically, no longer trust the UK, in particular the security services. We are slowly being 'absorbed' by forces that lack loyalty to the ties that bind us. Slowly undoes it...

Alcuin

Agree with nearly all that has been said here. What worries me is where this is going. Life in this country is unlikely to get better over the next half-century, with oil running out, population pressure on food production, barmy soft Left politics, demographics and the belief of our security services that another attack on Britain like 7/7 is inevitable.

Put all that together and you have a recipe for almost inevitable conflict. At some point the forbearance of the British people in the face of incessant winging, demands for special treatment, threats, hate speech and disdain for everything Western will snap. Then there will be trouble the like of which this country has not seen in centuries. I hope I am wrong, but it seems to me that we are marching blindly straight toward a cliff, at an increasing pace.

How to stop it? One of our politicians has to stand up and say an emphatic NO (and don't ask again) to virtually every demand coming from Muslim leaders.

THX1138

Mel would be on the same side of the argument as muslim students in one area at least.

A poll taken in 2006 showed that less than 10% of muslims accepted the theory of evolution.

Kennybhoy

"That is the attitude of students we can assume they are the smarter part of the Muslim population. How many of the less educated ones would be willing to kill."

Ron,

Actually,intellectuals in general and academics in particular are a particularly vicious, bloodthirsty lot. Throughout the C20th support for extremism and violence was always greater among the student population than among "ordinary" folk.

Best Wishes,

Kenny

jerry

The one-third figure for extremist views is far worse than is portrayed here. Should the police find the need to crack down on this or that Muslim activity or group, those Muslims who stand marginally outside the "radical" group will move over to show solidarity. In addition, an aspect of Muslim extremism is its willingness to resort to force. A portion of those Muslims who oppose extremism in word and deed, do so to avoid conflict. If the "moderates" are not permitted to avoid taking sides, they will join the side most likely to "win." That side is Islam, since they cannot publicly admit to defeat and seem to win even when they lose. For example, the Yom Kippur War that pitted Israel against Egypt is celebrated as a victory by the Egyptians in spite of being an unprecedented loss. Another example, the Hizb'allah's "win" against Israel, was a massive defeat.

With family ties and religious myopia, the search for peace will always be subject to the absolute need for victory within the newly-arrived Muslim community. This will come as a terrible shock to the average Britain when push comes to shove.

George Steiner

Your Muslims have not much to worry about. The British have demonstrated their politically correct docility for some time now.

This is how it should be. The last time the Muslims did some major conquering, was shortly after Mohamed's death. Quite small arab armies have overcome numerically large forces. But these were declining powers.

Just like today.

Dave M

Yes, we agree on this Thinkster. The U.S. no longer shares delicate, intelligence information with the Brits, partly because the post Thatcher, Labour government exhibits strong ties with political Islam. It is seen as non supportive of the troops too. In Thatcher's time, there was a far closer bond on foreign policy. Another reason intelligence sharing has lessened is also due to basic blunders, such as M.O.D. personnel leaving laptops around e.t.c. Of course, it needs to be pointed out that vast numbers of Britons don't view Political Islam the same way as the Labour politicians and the B.B.C. There are millions of Britons who have had a proverbial gut-full of the whole situation and you can see this if you visit B.B.C. forums and read comments on the Sharia Law debacle. In fact, one of the reason New Labour is now being dumped I beieve has connections with its attempts at Islamisization of society. People whose ancestors struggled for the freedom of the female vote, equality, freedom of expression and secular society can no longer identify with any concept of introducing Sharia Law within the country or other forms of lunacy. The whole concept Labour is somehow behind a Sharia State is a sure vote killer. The key factor, though, is this. Perhaps some Britons themselves are willing to sleepwalk their way towards an Islamic State but let's wait and see what happens if London based Jihadists use the country as a platform to attack the U.S. I think we'll find U.S. troops will be over here like a shot or making damned sure out own security services deal with any potential threat.

Adam Marlborough

During my time as a student in
Birmingham I was threatened with arrest by the West Midlands Police.My alleged crime?It would seem that it was wrong of myself and a few of my fellow students to ask a group of Muslim students to stop chanting death to the Jews, kill all gays etc.
Not only were we harassed by the police, and had to deal with threats
of violence from the Muslim students, many of our ever so right on and socially aware fellow students seemed
very eager to brand us racist. Ironic really, as only a week earlier we had been involved in an anti facist rally! That day really opened my eyes, and its probably one of the reasons why i now read The Spectator rather than Resistance (an anarchist paper). Finally, if things were that bad on campus in 2000, I dread to think (though the report confirms my fears) how bad they are now.

field

DaveM -

Interesting post. Not sure I agree with it entirely but there you go. We seem quite good at disrupting Jihadist plots. I think a second 9-11 is more likely to come from somewhere like Pakistan with only incidental UK involvement.

However, thanks for the reminder about the Straw Man's absurd tour of Bradford with Condi. She must have drawn the conclusion there and then that Straw was completely off his head. That and Straw's naive failure with his Iran diplomacy (the futility of which was revealed once Ahmadinejad was elected) show he is unfit to be a PM.

Mohammed

so killing in the name of religion is bad but killing in the name of Crown & country is fine...

D Gray

The reason alot of these polls are taken is in the hope that one might show a massive majority of muslims who are against death via bomb blast and the subjigation of women.The problem is that with every passing day more and more muslims are thinking along the lines of the islamists.One day the idiots in the liberal ranks will have have to admit there is a problem.....but I suspect only after several bombs have gone off in the name of the religion of peace.Or should that be the religion of body pieces.

Adam B.

During my studies I attended three British universities, and encountered anti-Israel and even blatantly anti-Semitic activity, which flourished unhindered by the university hierarchies. At one university, the Jewish Society had to move its notice board to a less prominent location as it was constantly defaced with anti-Israel and Holocaust denying insults. The Jewish students seemed to accept this with a resigned shrug. I couldn't believe that in this day and age, Jewish students had to be meek and accept this sort of disgusting treatment. Hizb-ut Tahrir set up stalls with hateful material at the College gates, whilst anti-Israel propaganda videos, in Arabic and made in the Middle East, were shown in the JCR. It is sobering to think that one of the suicide bombers who murdered three people in “Mike’s Place” bar in Tel Aviv was an alumnus of the University of London. This was years before 7/7, yet the politicians didn't want to hear the warning bells. What the hell is going on?

Joe Strummer

The Muslims do not need to kill anyone as their Caliphate will come as a matter of course due to the long-standing disastrous and suicidal European immigration policies.

The demographics of this continent only re-affirm the fact that immigrant Muslims will easily outbreed the indigenous Europeans in the not too distant future. Maybe this is the reason for New Labour's softly-softly approach of "dhimmitude" and bending the British knee to their future overlords.?

phil

Mohammed
July 28th, 2008 11:09pm
"so killing in the name of religion is bad but killing in the name of Crown & country is fine.."

yes Mohhammed killing in the name OF RELIGION is more than bad it is disgusting!!!!!.serving your country legally is what happens in a civilised world -And when you meet your god I have no doubt he will deal with you on that basis .sadly it masy be too late for us

Roland

I too have come across unpleasant stuff in higher education, as a teacher rather than as a student - more, in the only case I encountered, in the form of an Aids-denying and homophobic display, which I successfully had removed with the immediate co-operation of the institution's authorities.

However, the hate and ignorance expressed here seems pretty unpalatable; no surprise of couse given the nature of many posts on this site. But the main points I want to make are these: first, Melanie Philip's article glosses over the finding that the vast majority of Muslim students asked did not express extremist views, and secondly, the question is surely more complex. People, especially young people perhaps, in a state of flux, culturally and in terms of identity, may be confused and hold conflicting views. They may be drawn superficially to extreme positions in words and posture; desires and attitudes which they do not hold at a deeper level. We're in a such a state of flux, and the expressions of extremism and anger can I believe be in fact the prelude to the next stage, which is one of greater understanding and mutual respect. I've seen generational change in the time I've lived in London, ina largely Muslim area; each generation more at ease with their sense of belonging.

I say this as a gay man, who should feel threatened by fundementalist Islam in this country, and who is horrified by its expression in countries like Iran; I believe passionately it should be challenged always, and try to add my small part in doing so - but this shouldn't come from a position of bigotry and hostility.What is the point of ratcheting up the mutual hatred and lack of dialogue?

I have to add one further thought, to the American readers of this blog; Melanie's views really are not an accurate representation of Britain today; you are being fed a wildly distorted picture. We have strains in working out how to manage change, but we'll get there, as we have with newly arrived communities in the past.

Tiberius

I too would like to say Dave M's post adds poignancy to the argument. Violence it will probably be.

On the general issue of Britain having the stomach to resist Islamocreep, we won't see any change until New Labour is out of office. The surrender has been accelerated by the general anaesthetizing of a bewildered public with lies spun as truth, and a McCarthyite pursuit of the political correctness creed.

There are enough signs that the Tories would improve matters (they would ban Hizb ut Tahrir, for example), but the media (the BBC in particular) has to be left in no doubt as to its responsibility in this area. Indeed if Peter Oborne's documentary showed anything, it is that the print media at least finds outrage in Islamocreep.

Useful Establishment appointments would be Bishop Nazir Ali as Archbishop, and William to succeed the Queen. Charles has shown himself unfit to head the realm. Then there is the judiciary - a job and a half for whoever gets the Justice Ministry in a Cameron Government - and the police. The MacPherson report should be damned for its perverse conclusion, and the police directed to be Force again, not a Service.

Barry Larking

"I've seen generational change in the time I've lived in London, ina largely Muslim area; each generation more at ease with their sense of belonging."

Roland.

This is not my experience. Thirty years ago the dress code for Moslems in my northern city was roughly smart English day wear and some flowing gowns for women and the occasional head scarf. Today loose fitting Pakistani-style clothes for men are not uncommon and all-over black garments with very narrow eyes slits for women are frequently to be seen. I first saw a figure (woman?) wearing this garment on the street twelve or thirteen years ago. Each 'phase' - your generation - seems to me by visual evidence to involve moving more steadily away from British modes, and this is being reflected in other ways such as Moslem only community events.

As I mentioned in my previous above, equality legislation has had the unintended consequence of advancing separation and this process in my sight began long before 2001, 2003 or 2005. I believe, alas, it will survive Bush, Brown and their likely successors.

Paul

I was interested in Adam Marlborough's comment concerning the West Midlands Police lack of action when it comes to Muslim extremism. This is the very same useless force who have done absolutely nothing over the conviction of the Preachers of Hate expose by C4. They think we will forget about it with the passage of time. That force is not fit for purpose and its high time we voted for our chief constables instead of having useless political appointees thrust upon us. Common sense is a rare commodity nowadays

Neil Saunders

Shock! Horror! So Muslims believe in Islam? Whatever next? - Dog bites man?

The real shock is that anyone who has been awake for the last twenty or thirty years should be in any way surprised by this. (Those still stirring from their dogmatic slumbers might care to thumb through the works of Oriana Fallaci, Bat Ye'or, Ed Husain, Ibn Warraq and dear Melanie herself - the prose equivalent of a bucket of water in the face.)

Those who are surprised by this are likely to be the same people who were shocked that "British" boys could be responsible for terrorist activities in Britain (falling easy prey to the multiculturalist (or "civic nationalist") dogma that states that a dog born in a stable is incontestably a horse).

Looks like those "nasty" nativist, nationalist types that the pseudo-liberal chatterati like to sneer at so much might just have been right all along.

David Stevens

Just when is this country going to wake up to the enemy within? Are these crass dimwitted left wing liberals so brainwashed by their own PC propaganda? And just what is it that most of our politicians don't understand about Islam and it's intrinsic beliefs and stated aims and objectives? Are they going to sleepwalk this country into it's domination by Islam. Is Melanie Phillips the only 'watchman' on the city walls sounding the alarm? A lone voice crying in the wilderness? A country going to the dogs, both literally and metaphorically speaking.

Neil Saunders

Mohammed: "so killing in the name of religion is bad but killing in the name of Crown & country is fine..."

Nation-states, Mohammed, unlike amorphous entities like religions, are bound by international laws and treaties (e.g. the Geneva Convention).

Killing is never "fine", but so long as there is warfare it must be conducted by identifiable combatants under clear rules of engagement.

stanley Jerusalem

Oh Roland, you sad little lamb. Just when you thought that all you had to do was be nice to people and smile and hold hands, along along comes a nasty man with a bottle of hydrogen peroxide and an evil glint in his eyes and he's not even black or asian! Talk about struthian! Blimey.
First David forgetting what the article was about and now you, singing " All things bright and beautiful" on the top of your voice.

Marwan

When is this mohammedan killing spree due?. I'm really tired of waiting. I suspect these belicose no-marks at Uni are really blathering an islamic version of the sort of extremist nonsense that appeals to students from way back into the last century. Yesterday's Che becomes Hookie tomorrow. I'm really disappointed that the Phillips/Steyn doomsday scenario is taking so long to play out. I thought the UK would have turned into the Balkans cica 1990 by now. We can only hope.

Dave M

Roland writes:
"Melanie's views really are not an accurate representation of Britain today;"
In a recent channel 4 documentary, her general outlook on the multicultural experiment was backed up by no other than Raggi Omar - a BBC journalist of Somali origen. In the program, Raggi essentially travelled the country and spoke to wide varities of people. What he found was wide sections of the immigrant population were reconnecting with their own ethnic identities and existing as isolated communities without any concept of Britishness or common identity. Even worse, Raggi found significant tensions and unease between immigrant groups themselves. Multiculturalism isn't working and would seem to be creating exactly the opposite set of cicumstances to the ideals that multiculturalism was intended to embody - i.e. mutual, cultural understanding and cohesion. As for the muslim population of Europe, the fact is a hugely significant majority of immigrants exist as autonomous, isolated, self-regulated communities that have stronger ties to Political Islam than democracy. The recent suburban riots in France and escalating violence against Jews is proof enough of the dangers we face. Roland, you also write: "I've seen generational change in the time I've lived in London, in a largely Muslim area; each generation more at ease with their sense of belonging." Comment: Were you there in London during the protests over Danish cartoons when hundreds of irate muslim radicals marched with banners that proclaimed, "Behead those who insult Islam!?" To my mind this is a far cry indeed from a generation at ease with a sense of belonging. To most people this was a hugely alarming sign of homegrown extremism and instability.

Roland

Barry Larkin - I understand the point you're making about what we see with our eyes - but I think the crucial words in your post are 'visual evidence' - I'm trying to suggest that the real truth may be more complex than the external signs.

Brian Moshe

While the poll is deeply worrying (not that it tells some of us anything we didn't already guess) some thought needs to be given to why we have such large concentrations of Muslims in British universities?

One of the things I don't think the poll makes clear is that many Muslim students at British universities are from abroad and have been deliberately targeted and recruited by certain universities because of the lucrative fees that Muslim students from most overseas countries bring to the university's coffers.

It is surely no coincidence that Brunei, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Malaysia and Singapore are prime recruiting grounds for students.

Additionally, anything to do with Middle Eastern Studies, Islamic Studies or general Arabic Studies is virtually always under Muslim or reliably sympathetic 'dhimmi' academic control.

This control doesn't just run to Western universities, it extends into military courses available in Britain for officers from the 'friendly' Muslim Middle East. When Saudi officers attend, for example, weapons systems training for naval or air personnel, the Saudis insist that no Jewish instructors lecture their guys.

The UK doesn't tell them where to go, instead it complies with such requests.

Strange isn't it, that some British universities give honorary doctorates to people like the ambassadors of rich Muslim states, but you never hear of such perks going to ambassadors of poor countries.

Three years ago there were reputedly about two dozen Iranian post-graduate students doing doctorates in nuclear physics. I wonder if that is still the picture?

Geoff M

Paul (@11.46am) writes "Common sense is a rare commodity nowadays"

As far as the Police and Local Authorities are concerned Common Sense has been replaced with Common Purpose, the apparently International Marxist inspired charity that seeks to set up cells within all important bodies to make society as they would like rather than bother with such trivias as democracy or accountability.

FinanceDoc

I'm trying to suggest that the real truth may be more complex than the external signs

Wake up call -- er, book recommendation for Roland:

http://www.amazon.com/While-Europe-Slept-Radical-Destroying/dp/0767920058/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1217350822&sr=8-1

non muslim

Mo.

If you want to justify murder in the name of the religion of peace firt prove that your religion is true.

Want to guess why I did not put my name and address at the top.

Herbert Thornton

I don't understand it. The situation is developing into one of mortal danger and people are complaining loudly and lucidly about it.

Yet no mainstream politician is in the slightest interested. Is it not obvious that the only politicians who have the will to confront it are those in the BNP?

Barry Larking

"Barry Larkin - I understand the point you're making about what we see with our eyes - but I think the crucial words in your post are 'visual evidence' - I'm trying to suggest that the real truth may be more complex than the external signs."

It most certainly is. Others here have decided to be aggressively rude to you and I have no desire to join them. I mentioned "visual evidence" to ensure people would know I speak from personal experience, not prejudice.

Thirty years ago I knew what we then called Asians as neighbours. Relations then were generally better, though daily racism towards them was astonishing and casual. Your point about generations is interesting from that perspective; despite the relative poverty of the community then it worked hard and was law abiding and anxious to be friendly. It was actually at an Asian friends house that I was introduced to the concept of jihad and sharia, but not yet 'kuffar'. His 'guest' was an educated, urbane but deeply committed Islamist, almost certainly some kind of activist. He browbeat me for half and hour, chiefly I believe to impress my friend with how these westerners and Christians could be defeated in argument by true believers. (My friend was embarrassed) This happened nearly seventeen years ago. The rest is, as they say, history.

I wish I had your optimism; indeed, I did once. But I now believe we are in a dark and difficult place and must recognise that fact.

wonderer

Shy Guy
July 28th, 2008 6:58pm
Thanks but I'm far too ungeekful to attempt anything like that. I'm not sure why you're surprised that the previous explanation wasn't picked up, as it would not be easy to trace from any search facility on the site.

M. Cook

Ah, for the good old days when Islam was just some novel community a long way away.
We will never fix this huge problem. It is like the cane toad introduced into Australia years ago. It didn't belong there, but now that they have brought it in its too late to stop it.
It was not imagined to be a problem or threat when it was a small community. But now? Well its too late.

Ann

"so killing in the name of religion is bad but killing in the name of Crown & country is fine..."

The above -note the poster's name - proves all by itself that Melanie is right.

Neil Saunders

To vary M. Cook's cane toad analogy with one from the Islamic world itself, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle!

Andy Cunningham

A little reminder about the "religion of peace".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F5aCUNE4Z8

Soreofhing

So Thinkster believes that the US no longer trusts Great Britain and the ties between our two countries are unwinding.
Well I hope so!
Who on Earth would want to be allied to a country that blindly and actively supports Israeli of land theft, authorises waterboarding, carries out Extraordinary Rendition (and the torture that it involves)and illegally holding foreigners without legal representation in Guantanamo.
Great Britain with Islamic people is by far the lesser of two evils.

Atom&Yves

@Soreofhing
July 30th, 2008 9:00pm

At least the US govt has not given in to islamist demands that we kiss their backsides and change our country to suit them. Being an anarchist, puts you in a very, very small minority of people. Thank goodness. I stand firmly behind indigenous Brit's, and their desire to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. You people need a serious _evolution.

THX1138

I was reminded with the arrest of Karadzic that in fact the religion doing most of the killing & brutalizing most recently in Europe was christianity & the victims were mostly muslim. Weren't the christians killing the muslims because ages ago the muslims had killed the christians because the christians had killed the muslims? AND so on forever. My head is spinning

All this killing now & forever in the past is always about religion, fighting over territory or resources might be the catalyst but the real hatred & the most intractable & brutal conflicts are between different man made religions.

Man made religion is the most evil curse to have befallen mankind the sooner we wake up & throw off the tyranny of the preists, the imans, the rabbis & all the other peddlers of lies & control the happier the human race will be.

Keith McQuiggan

THX1138: You should study some ancient history: the Greeks, Romans, etc. were constantly at war, but they never fought over religion. In fact, as soon as the Romans invaded another country they would offer tributes to that country's gods: to get them on their side. This is one of the great advantages of a polytheistic religion. Problems only begin when people start insisting that there is only one god, their god. Religion per se is not bad, just certain religions.

THX1138

Keith- hey you might be right but weren't Romans feeding christains to lions & I read a letter in the Times last week from a Jew complaining that Hadrian was worse to the Jews than Hitler.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article4374145.ece

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Yes, I'd say that Hadrian was our worst enemy. 'Palestine' was his invention. Having put down, with great difficulty and after a very bloody nose, the Jewish rebellion against Roman occupation, he took it into his head that changing the names of the Jewish territories of Yehuda (Judea), Shomron (Samaria)etc. in the Land of Israel to 'Palestine' (derived from 'Philistia', a narrow coastal strip formerly occupied by an extinct people, the Philistines)he would be able to break the ancient bond that exists between the Jewish people and our homeland. The same belief inspired him to rename the destroyed Jerusalem as 'Aelia Capitolina'. As witness the events of our present times, none of it worked (to the constant chagrin of people like patricia)!

Verity

Brian Moshe -I may have got your name wrong, having forgotten the spelling while inexplicably having to scroll up all the way to the top of the page to comment on the last comment on the bottom of the page, but "It is surely no coincidence that Brunei, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Malaysia and Singapore are prime recruiting grounds for students.?"

Not only is it not a coincidence! It's not even a fact!

Singapore is 96% Chinese. Students, because they are so damn' clever, choose between the United States, Britain and Oz.

And no, even countries that have a high percentage of Muslims are not "prime recruiting grounds". My God!

I can't be bothered further with upside down posting. You are terribly ignorant about Singapore, however and I would go further if I could be bothered to spend my life rapelling up and down this comments section. This is possbily the worst website in the world.

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Yes, it would be better if the place to post a comment could be accessed from the bottom of the page, by clicking on a link, rather than having to scroll back up to the top.

Brian Moshe

Veriy writes critically above with the following quotations from my earlier post:

[August 1st, 2008 3:13am]
[...] It is surely no coincidence that Brunei, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Malaysia and Singapore are prime recruiting grounds for students.?"

Verity says:
Not only is it not a coincidence! It's not even a fact!

Singapore is 96% Chinese. Students, because they are so damn' clever, choose between the United States, Britain and Oz.

And no, even countries that have a high percentage of Muslims are not "prime recruiting grounds". My God!

I can't be bothered further with upside down posting. You are terribly ignorant about Singapore, however and I would go further if I could be bothered to spend my life rapelling up and down this comments section."

@Verity:

Sorry to disagree you but I do know what I am talking about and for your information I am well aware that Singapore is predominately Chinese. I am aware of this because I've had the pleasure of visiting Singapore twice.

You obviously are not aware that British universities, particularly ones grappling with financial problems, are targeting students from the richer countries, some of which are indeed Muslim.

This is not because they are Muslims per se but because there are a lot of potential students in these countries who do not have the linguistic (and in some cases academic ability) to be able to choose between Britain, the USA and Australia as you suggest they all could.

A provincial university outside the top echelon will bend over backwards to recruit overseas fee-paying students. Some of them will be paid for by their governments, like those from Malaysia, some simply pay their own fees.

To my mind it is a legitimate worry that there are so many Muslim students at British universities. Going to university should be a challenging, broadening and fulfilling experience, but it is quite obvious from the findings of the poll that this thread is responding to, via Melanie's Diary entry above, that a frightening number of Muslim students at our universities are simply immune, both theologically and culturally, to the enlightenment most universities seek to imbue.

You may be a university student, or perhaps work in one (although your computing skills suggest otherwise), but what you clearly aren't is a Jewish student on a campus with a sizeable Muslim student presence.

Verity

Brian Moshe addresses me thusly: - "Sorry to disagree you but I do know what I am talking about and for your information I am well aware that Singapore is predominately Chinese. I am aware of this because I've had the pleasure of visiting Singapore twice."

Wow! Twice!

Singapore is, as I said, 96% Chinese. Another three per cent is divided among Malays (who are Muslims) and Indians (who are not) and the last one per cent is "other" - meaning, as a rule, half Caucasianor half something else.

That is not "predominantly" Chinese. That is Chinese with two small minority populations.

Why you would lump this Chinese country in with Saudi Arabia staggers the imagination. Why are you bringing Singapore into the Muslim equation at all - especially given that you have visited there TWICE! (When's your book coming out?) They have a smaller percentage of Muslims than Britain, for God's sake!

I think we are all aware the British univerities are wooing students from wherever they can find them, but in SEA, they are competing with two other strong contenders: Australia, which is immensely popular with wealthy Malaysians and Indonesians (and Thais, who are not Muslim, Singaporeans and Vietnamese, who are also not Muslim), as well as the students from Brunei as it's a much shorter plane ride from SEA and therefore easier for the kids to come home for holidays and breaks. I am guessing that most medical students in SEA go to Oz for their advanced specialisation degrees. Also, Singapore is now probably the equal of Oz for medical degrees.

If you ever visit Singapore for a staggering third time, may I suggest you take Emirates Airlines, one of the few airlines that still treats passengers as customers and not potential psychos? As does the world's premier airline, SQ.

Melanie's post was, as always, coolly lucid. Yours was a jumble of misinformation. why not point the finger where it belongs? Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and stop trying to drag in civilised innocent country.

The parlous state of British universities is weakness before radical islam and radical Trotskyism. As Ed Balls would say, "So weak!"

Verity

In addition, Brian Moshe tries to paint Singapore (pop.4.5m) as having young Muslim radicals who go to university in Britain. Of that four million, there are around 100,000 Muslims (of all ages and the encouragement of radical behaviour is rather discouraged in Singapore) probably around 15,000 of college student age, while weirdly ignoring the country - one hour's flight away - that has far and away the largest Muslim population in the world: Indonesia. Pop. 170m. (But panic not! Indonesia is not a home of radicalism. But if you were going to mention a smattering of Muslims in Singapore, it might have balanced things out to mention the country that has the largest Muslim population in the world, and a smattering of Chinese.)

If you had confined yourself, Brian Moshe, to talking about Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, I would have agreed with you.

Says Moshe: "You may be a university student, or perhaps work in one (although your computing skills suggest otherwise),".

No. I'm in the productive, wealth creating sector, where we find it prudent to know what we're talking about before giving our considered opinions on it.

If your reference to my computer skills is a comment on my saying I don't like rock climbing up and down the type face in order to make a comment, when most comments made refer to the last two or three posts and that therefore the comments box should be situated at the bottom of the column rather than the top, this would indicate desperation on your part to make a point. Any point.

Roland

Hmmm - for the actual truth behind Melanie's myth-spinning follow this link:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/31/religion.race

Verity

I am absolutely outraged that anyone would have the ignorance and the impertinence to lump Singapore and Malaysia (and, indeed, the Emirates) in with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - two of the most primitive societies in the world.

Ethan1956

Roland,

The key phrase in Bungawala's Guardian piece is when he says that, of course, "defending religion when it is attacked" is subject to wide interpretation. This is said in defense of the 28% of Muslim students who say that violence is justified if Islam is "attacked."

Yes, indeed. Does "attacked" mean, say, verbal criticism of treatment of women or criticism of honor kilings or criticism of a totalitarian lifestyle among the extremists or criticism of advocacy of violence, or criticism of vicious anti-semitism? Obviously it does mean that--only only has to looks at the violent reaction to the Danish Cartoons, of the violent reaction to Pope Benedict's criticism.

The latter events raise this question: the rights of free speech in liberal societies are based on the idea that everyone understands that one must *tolerate* speech one dislikes. But what if there is a large and increasingly aggressive group in society that will *not* tolerate speech it dislikes, but will instead resort to violence if, say, criticized--what then does the duty of government become? After all, government's main duty is to preserve the peace of society. Hence Muslim willingness to resort to violence "in defense of Islam" becomes a phenomenon leading to suppression of freedom of speech of non-Muslims in liberal societies, and indeed a weapon enforcing Muslim exceptionalism (and superiority) because extremist Muslims do not accept the social compact on freedom of speech, the compact that allows freedom of speech, and the answer from government is increasingly to suppress that speech rather than anger the Muslims.

As for "visual evidence" isn't all it's cracked up to be--I think you are whistling past the graveyard. The visual evidence that has been cited, especially about women in the full bourka, should take you aback. I teach in a university and a liberal Muslim girl said to me that the entire purpose of such outfits is (a) advertize aggressive Islamism, and (b) to prevent communication with non-Muslims. I think you need to recognize the likely political valence behind such outerware--and it is not a pretty one.

Verity

Why the hell do we have to scroll back and forth from the bottom of the page, where the last comment is, to the top? Wouldn't it be, uh, sane, to put the comments box at the bottom of the page under the last post?

Ethan 1956 writes: "I teach in a university and a liberal Muslim girl said to me that the entire purpose of such outfits is (a) advertize aggressive Islamism, and (b) to prevent communication with non-Muslims. I think you need to recognize the likely political valence behind such outerware--and it is not a pretty one."

Well, NSS! I have been posting this fact for around three years. One point of information which the British seem strangely frightened to acknowledge is, there is no requirement in Islam to wear this Hallowe'en fright outfit. None.

Let me repeat that: None.

Mohammad said that women should dress "modestly". Most religions have the same direction.

Mohammad also said the same for men,by the way. In other words, no matter how incendiary you think you are, cool it.

The women rigged out in this aggressive fright gear are so garbed for aggression.

It's not in their religion. Repeat, Mohammad never said a word about wearing desert tribal wear as a religious requirement. These aggressive lumps are breaking the law (you're not allowed to cover your face in a public place in Britain) and should be arrested and warned to desist.

Tell them to read their Koran and tell their ignorant imams, who need no qualifications, to read the Koran, if they are literate. It's a load of old rubbish and the "politically correct" also known as "cultural abasers" for some reason, should be arrested and sent to reeducation camps in Saudi Arabia. I would gladly chip in for the fare.

Frank Pulley

Verity

Heh,heh,heh! You're on form this morning; is that your time or ours btw (3.24am).

Concur entirely with your first para. can't understand why there is this inconsistency across the Speccie blogs. (Can't you sort it, Pete?)

As for your other paragraphs: as a Verity watcher (and searcher for, in the literal sense) I can confirm that you have indeed pointed it out with persistency, variety of phraseology and clarity for what I would have thought was more than four years on various blogs and have always agreed you when you have done so. However, I would ask a question: why should any of us infidels GAF about what Mo said, or didn't say? With the greatest respect, I fear that being choosey about his alleged utterances might give him some validity among us unclean of gullible disposition. As for the Islamic faithful, they can believe what they like as long as they don't try to impose their ludicrous superstitions and customs on us, particularly by bellicose methodology. Sorry to nitpick, but I sincerely believe that we're letting in the thin end of the wedge when we debate the comparisons of Muzzy mythology. None of their hot air flies my kite, reported or inscribed in stone (bit of a metaphor mix there, butchaknowwaddimeandontcher?).

Frank Pulley

Btw, how about using this thread for general 'open' musing while Melanie is away, so as not to interrupt the flow of good wishes and congrats. on her intermision thread. Just a thought.... we could bump up the comments to a grand or so before she returns and it would keep her seat warm (so to speak).

Pete Hoskin

Frank and Verity: I'll have a word with our tech people about the positioning of the comments box.

Verity

Frank P - Thank you as always for such articulate support. You will be getting tired of reading all this for the millionth time.

There are two issues, as you rightly point out:

1. Did Mohammad instruct women to wear niqabs, burqas, whatever?

2. If he did, so what?

Issue No 1: On this, he seems to have been quite sound. Dress modestly and don't go around flaunting your bits and causing problems.

Issue No 2 - Even if he had mandated these outfits, it wouldn't matter as covering your face in public in our society is against the law.

But my entire point is: This entire issue is a non-issue invented by aggressive girls and imams. Don't forget there are no qualifications for being an imam. You don't get authority from any religious body. You just say, "Poof! I'm an imam and open for business!"

Another thing to bear in mind is this: The Koran is, for some arcane reason, supposed to be read in Arabic. I guess it loses some of its magic ju-ju when read in translation. My point being, none of these aggressive bints read Arabic. They're accepting the word of some tinpot imam (which counts for absolutely nothing in British law) or they're making it up.

I say the latter.

Next time some bint says she has to wear Hallowe'en gear because it is commanded by Mo, ask her then if her mother or her grandmother are going to hell. Because the original immigrants did not wear these get-ups.

This aggression is a bid to gain dominance. Wearing desert tribal attire in public in Britain should be specifically outlawed, just so we all know where we are.

Again, both Turkey and Morocco have specifically banned the wearing of the niqab (that's the ghost outfit with just tiny holes cut out for eyes) in public. Turkey is discouraging the wearing of the hijab - that's just the headscarf - although they haven't outlawed it. Morocco is also discouraging the wearing of the hijab - to the point where no women may enter a public building - post office, school, town hall, etc - while wearing one.

Why is Britain squatting down like a submissive puppy and doing little wees before these malicious ghouls?

In France, they banned the hijab in schools. That goes for both pupils and teachers. Girls and women go into the school building with their hair uncovered. I haven't heard of any visitations from Mohammad or anyone, wreaking disaster. In fact, it's all settled down and everyone's fine with it.

Again, why is Britain frozen in a squatting position?

As we know, the destruction of Britain is on the One Worlder, Gramscian agenda. That's the destructive, vile, foul Tony Blair, Jack Straw, the females who are so indistinguishable - except for that little Blears tick - that I can never remember who's who - and The Guardian. Wow! What a bunch of role models, eh?

Verity

PS - I've never been to Pakistan and I intend to hold on to my record in this respect, but people who have been tell me the chador and the niqab are not at all common. In the big cities, like Islamabad, many women go around with no head covering at all. And this is in a hotbed of Islam with incendiary imams.

And I don't recall any demonstrations about Jordan's beautiful Queen Rania who doesn't wear even a lightweight veil.

I also have some thought about citizenship that I think I will post over on The Wall.

Brian Moshe

@ Verity

You suggest that next time I fly somewhere I fly Emirates because of their wonderful treatment of customers.

Can you tell us if Emirates offer passengers the option of kosher meals?

Verity

Brian Moshe - How the hell would I know? But they offer nice Champers.

Strange that you left Indonesia, with the largest Muslim population in the world (170m) off your list of extraordinary musings about Singapore and Malaysia - two of our closest allies in the fight against terrorism.

And in case anyone misapprehends, I do not mean to suggest that Indonesia is anything other than another good ally in the fight against fundamentalist terrorism. But Singapore and Malaysia are absolutely outstanding and your ill-informed, provincial musings would have offended anyone who knows anything about these countries. What a stream of malinformed drivel.

Brian Moshe

@ Verity

You recommended that next time I fly anywhere I fly Emirates. In your naive understanding Emirates is an airline I should use because it looks after its customers wonderfully well (and no doubts you're a fan of the Emirates themselves).

This is your recommendation based, I presume, on your satisfied use of flying this Muslim-owned airline. After all, you claim you always write from knowing what you're talking about.

My question to you - do Emirates passengers have the option of booking kosher meals - is a wholly legitimate one given that you recommend them.

If I fly BA or any non-Muslim owned long haul airline I can order kosher meals when I book. (Just as vegetarians, vegans and Muslims and can order appropriate meals in advance). As I would not fly on an airline that refused to cater for Jewish dietery requirements - and I would fully agree with a Muslim who didn't want to fly with an airline that refused to provide halal food - why do you attempt to trivialise my question?

If I didn't know if a particular airline could cater for Jewish or Muslim passengers on long haul I wouldn't recommend it.

You did not read what I originally wrote properly. I did not say anything about Singapore being a centre of Islamic radicalism. I said it is targeted by universities in Britain as a recruiting ground for students. In a following e I made clear that I wasn't saying that provincial universities target Muslims because they are Muslims, per se, but Muslim countries are a fertile recruiting ground.

Why do you castigate me for ignoring Indonesia (yes, I'm quite aware it's the most populous Islamic country)? I didn't mention it because I wasn't trying to summarise which Muslim countries are our friends and which aren't, for the simple reason that no Muslim country is our friend in the long run.

The report that inspired Melanie's Diary entry above mentions that there are 90,000 Muslim students at British universities. Which countries they come from is not going to alter the fact that thousands of them support murdering in the name in Islam.

You carry on flying the flag for your favourite Muslim countries but in the real world every Muslim country is simply part of the wider Muslim community.

As to your sarcastic comments about my having 'provincial musings' - I suppose you are some sort of 'metropolitan diva' are you?

Actually, when it comes to being a provincial muser (I love it!) I have homes in both England and the USA, which must be pretty provincial.

Verity

Brian Moshe - If an airline doesn't cater to your tastes, there are a hundred others to choose from. Why make an issue of Emirates? I recommended them as a very civilised airline to fly. I have absolutely no idea whether they serve your food on board and I don't care. It's a free market.

I'm afraid your figures are skewed. If British universities are "targetting" the very few Singaporean Muslims who go to them - maybe around 200 a year,if that?- they are wasting their energy. Of course, you've walked through Changi Airport four times - twice in and twice out - so you would probably be more familiar with the local mores than I am.

Tony Blair intentionally encouraged a virulent strain of militant Islam to take root in Britain. The first thing the new government should - and won't - do is reverse that Second, there should be the death penalty in Britain for terrorism or planning terrorist acts. You should save your energy for straightening out your own country before getting yourself involved in Asian countries you don't understand.

I'm off this thread.

Jeff

Should such studies be taken on face value or with some qualifications?

Three Cardiff University psychologists Gregory R. Maio ,Mark M. Bernard, Jochen E. Gebauer consider it is necessary to analyse what is being expressed to establish whether cultural estrangement arises from discrepancies between personal and societal values rather than from discrepancies in attitudes toward political or mundane objects. The relations between different types of value discrepancies, estrangement, subjective well-being, and need for uniqueness needs to be examined.

Ethan1958

Dear Jeff,

That's just blather. 28% of the respondents supported violence in the name of Islam "if it is attacked," and as the author of the Guardian piece inadvertently admitted, the definition of "attack" can be very wide indeed.

The key phrase in Bungawala's Guardian piece is when he says that, of course, "defending religion when it is attacked" is subject to wide interpretation. This is said in defense of the 28% of Muslim students who say that violence is justified if Islam is "attacked."

Yes, indeed. Does "attacked" mean, say, verbal criticism of treatment of women or criticism of honor kilings or criticism of a totalitarian lifestyle among the extremists or criticism of advocacy of violence, or criticism of vicious anti-semitism? Obviously it does mean that--one only has to looks at the violent reaction to the Danish Cartoons, of the violent reaction to Pope Benedict's criticism, or at the MURDER of Theo van Gogh by a Muslim who felt "insulted" by his criticism of Muslim treatment of women. And when someone wrote "Thou Shalt Not Kill" at the van Gogh murder site, the Dutch government ordered the slogan removed because "it might offend the Muslim community."

Well. The latter events raise this question: the rights of free speech in liberal societies are based on the idea that everyone understands that one must *tolerate* speech one dislikes. But what if there is a large and increasingly aggressive group in society that will *not* tolerate speech it dislikes, but will instead resort to violence if, say, criticized--what then does the duty of government become? After all, government's main duty is to preserve the peace of society.

Hence Muslim willingness to resort to violence "in defense of Islam" becomes a phenomenon leading to suppression of freedom of speech of non-Muslims in liberal societies, and indeed a weapon enforcing Muslim exceptionalism (and superiority) because extremist Muslims do not accept the social compact on freedom of speech, the compact that allows freedom of speech, and the answer from government is increasingly to suppress that speech rather than anger the Muslims.

That is increasingly true in Britain and in Canada. And in Holland in May, a Dutch cartoonist was ARRESTED by the Dutch police, and spent a night in jail, on grounds that he was suspected of sketching offensive drawings of Muslims for publication on the internet (i.e., on his own website). "We are led by [the anti-discrimination] law," said a spokesman for the Amsterdam Public Prosecutor's Office. He denies there was any attempt to squelch freedom of speech in order to avoid offending Muslims. Oh.

How much of this are you willing to put up with, Jeff?

Ben-Tsiyon (ha rishon)

Ethan1958, most of the British are willing to put up with anything and everything. Yes, they do a lot of grumbling and complaining, but that's all, and that's why the Caliphate will come !