Sunday, July 30, 2006

Sharia law determines UK housing policy

Many Muslims in the West say they would prefer to replace their secular governments with an Islamic one, run according to Sharia Law. One group advocating this, Hizb ut Tahrir, has declared: ‘All Muslims in the world already want to live in a Caliphate, under Sharia law… It will be a huge state, a very powerful state. Even now you are all afraid of us - America, Israel, you in the UK too.’ One may understand why the Home Secretary is moving towards outlawing the group in the UK.

Yet its aims are already being achieved as British culture adapts to accommodate the demands. There was no real concern when UK banks adjusted their financial dealings to accommodate Sharia constraints, but it is a significant shift when houses and prisons are being built in accordance with Qur’anic demands, and therefore specifically to accommodate Muslims who constitute just 3% of the population. Hizb ut Tahrir explains why this must be attained: ‘Allah gives an answer to every possible question: how to deal with friends and neighbours, how to bring up children, even how to use the toilet - it's all in the Koran.’

And it is the Islamic toilet policy that is affecting British prisons and housing. Prisons are remodelling their toilets in order that they face away from Mecca, after complains from some inmates that they are forced to sit sideways. As Mohammed said: ‘If you go to defecate, do not face the Qiblah nor turn your back toward it. Instead, you should turn to your left side or your right side.’ One prison officer responded: ‘If we weren’t paying for it as taxpayers, I’d laugh my socks off.’

While it may be a concern that prison toilets are being conformed to the demands of the Sharia at the expense of the British taxpayer, it is even more significant that new housing is being constructed with up to seven bedrooms, to accommodate large family visitations, bathrooms that face away from Mecca, and kitchens that comply with halal demands.

According to Hizb ut Tahrir, an Islamic super-state will be created through evolution, not revolution. Such apparently trivial examples indicate that this is more a question of when, not if.


Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Hello Cranmer. Best wishes.

You wrote ...

"One may understand why the British Home Secretary has outlawed the group in the UK."

Can you please verify that alleged ban for me?

The last I heard, an outlawing had indeed been suggested by Tony Blair, but then Sir Ian Blair complained (circa June 2006, I think) requesting they not be banned.

Furthermore, as Hizb ut Tahrir's policy is to infiltrate its members into organs of government, industry, and the media ... to what extent do you think Hizb ut Tahrir has already penetrated the BBC, and the Home Office (e.g., Immigration)???

30 July 2006 at 12:14  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Mission Impossible,

You are very welcome to this blog. Your contributions are intelligent and erudite, and this is much to his taste.

His Grace had viewed this:

The tense on this post has now been adjusted accordingly. Thank you for your precision.

Cranmer does not believe this group has the intelligence or subtlety to infiltrate the aforementioned institutions. Other religions are far more effective at placing their representatives in the highest echelons of government and the media...

30 July 2006 at 12:32  
Blogger Croydonian said...

H-U-T are not exactly being guarded about their aims:

"It also aims to bring back the Islamic guidance for mankind and to lead the Ummah into a struggle with Kufr, its systems and its thoughts so that Islam encapsulates the world".

30 July 2006 at 12:54  
Blogger Mercian Crusader said...


Another excellent posting on a subject it is difficult to raise without being branded a racist. I think those that shout racist loudest will be the first to complain when ideals they have been defending curtail their own freedoms.

Enough rambling and to my point. There is a book called 'While Europe Slept: How radical Islam is destroing the west from within' by Bruce Bawer. I have read this book and found it both enlightening and shocking. I would encourage people to read this book to better understand why intergration is not working and why so many want sharia.

Western Governments need to wake up and look at the problems this bending over backwards to appease is causing. After all hasn't the Pope just said 'enough is enough' after years of failed dialogues and not getting any concessions from the Islamic faith on a whole raft of subjects?

30 July 2006 at 12:59  
Anonymous old red socks said...

"Other religions are far more effective at placing their representatives in the highest echelons of government and the media..."

Would His Grace be minded to elaborate on what appears to a puzzling construction? I doubt he is refering to the Jewish faith, bearing in mind his other most laudible pronouncements. And the Church of Rome, about which Cranmer is understandibly, if misguidely, somewhat jaundiced, is surely not a "religion".

Resolving any confusion would instill a certain serenity.

30 July 2006 at 13:09  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Excellent post Cranmer, and it's disturbing to see this development in the UK.

I think Old Red Socks ought to check out The Tablet, who have named the top 100 must influential Catholics in the UK. Cranmer's probably referring to this, but why isn't Catholicism a religion? It is in Ulster!!

30 July 2006 at 13:40  
Anonymous Old Red Socks said...

Ulster Man,

Isn't that rather the problem on both sides of your religious divide? I would have expected a more rigorous use of words on a site that is indeed renowned throught Chistendom for its insight, intelligence and erudition.

30 July 2006 at 14:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

According to Muslims and anti-Semites, the Jews are pretty powerful:

And a Christian group has noticed too:

30 July 2006 at 15:05  
Anonymous Rick said...

The £3 million project has been developed by Manchester Methodist Housing Association.

So that's what the Methodists are up to ! There was an item on BBC Radio about this - it mentioned a Jewish Village where the homes had two kitchens - one for meat and one for diary - to conform to kosher rules.

Frankly, so long as these are not funded by taxpayers' money or housing benefit they can build what they want.

30 July 2006 at 15:58  
Anonymous Rick said...

Well anonymous if you read this 1912 tome

The Life and Religion of Mohammed
Menezes, J.L.

which is very well-written you will find that The Koran was written by a Jew....simply because Mohammed was a functional illiterate

30 July 2006 at 16:01  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Cranmer - WHERE do you dig this stuff up? I agree with you, but it's a bit obsessive!

Frankly, so long as these are not funded by taxpayers' money or housing benefit they can build what they want

Rick - the changes to prison loos ARE funded by the taxpayer! If I ever go to prison, I will be denied my liberty to shit in the direction of Mecca. Prisons should be sensitive to secular sensitivities as well as the Mohammadans.

30 July 2006 at 16:14  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

So coem on cranmer, what is your solution to all this?
I have made my solution very plain,throw them all out , what do you propose?

30 July 2006 at 16:22  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

On the subject of prison lavatories, a friend of mine ( currently in prison) has told me that apart from annoying everybody with the lovely curries they get everyday , the muslims keep him and evrybody awake washing and chanting at all hours of the day, pious drug dealers and rapists to aman.

30 July 2006 at 16:28  
Blogger Croydonian said...

I have heard tales of prisons conversions of convenience as the halal food is so much better than the slop everyone else gets.

30 July 2006 at 17:58  
Anonymous Rick said...

Rick - the changes to prison loos ARE funded by the taxpayer! If I ever go to prison, I will be denied my liberty to shit in the direction of Mecca. Prisons should be sensitive to secular sensitivities as well as the Mohammadans.

So they are building lavatories in place of slopping out.........I bet it is only in Belmarsh where they also spent £750k on a mosque.

Frankly I just want them to go back to burying them in lime in the prison yard

30 July 2006 at 18:14  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Apart from starry eyed Westerners converting to Islam, whilst employed by the Aramco Oil Company, in Saudi Arabia during the 1980s ... or lusty chaps determined to marry that curvaceous Malaysian girl with little sexual history ... I doubt if anyone has ever wholeheartedly converted to Islam for positive reasons.

There (nearly) always seems to be a negative cause: bullied, coerced, intimidated, threatened, persecuted. "Join us and you will be freed from all of these pains."

Or they are pulled in by a recruiting agent -- the definition of which is any muslim who feigns friendship with you. A-ha! Suspect their motives immediately! It's a recruitment drive.

Classic Cult strategies, all.

I expect Cat Stevens only really converted because he could no longer face the incessant attention of lustful, white female groupies. It was his face-saving escape chute, nothing more.

As for the toilet issue ... some Dhimmi-ish British inventiveness is required here. How about a rotating toilet??? Big bowl on a bed of ball bearings (rust proof of course). That'd do the trick, eh?

That way they can all take turns to r**dy well face whichever way their respective backsides worked best.

Toilets I used in Arabia were usually in such a mess there was not much room to negotiate which direction you would do a Number-2 in. I had to face some odd directions -- I must have turned my a**e to Mecca, when in Saudi, at least once.

Come to think of it, in all my nine years in the Middle East I have never once heard anyone worry about which direction the bog faced, or which way they sat on it. Funny that! Which leads me to the obvious conclusion.

Are we (I mean our trembling, feminized, Dhimmi authorities) having our collective strings pulled here? Perhaps Muslims do have a warped sense of humour after all.

And the joke is on us. This whole toilet thing is a fabrication, designed to send us scurrying off in the direction of appeasement. They are treating us like women, and our authorities (the faggots who unfortunately represent us) are happy to dress up like one.

30 July 2006 at 18:33  
Blogger wonkotsane said...

I used to work for NatWest Debt Recovery and I had a letter once from a debtor saying he had converted to Islam and asking that we write off the interest and charges as they were against his religion. I told him to go forth and multiply.

30 July 2006 at 20:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Interesting site

30 July 2006 at 22:08  
Anonymous DavidG said...

Mission - you might be right. It seems that the directions of toilets might only be relevant in mosques. By demanding their 'rights' in prisons and houses, they're just getting more and more concessions out of government, and asserting their religion. We're being taken for a ride.

31 July 2006 at 09:13  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 July 2006 at 09:51  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Mr. anonymous ... I have visited the URL you provided:

I agree, it is interesting, and appears a positive development. But, I can't help thinking it is just another representation of American, "can-do," wishful thinking. As the eminent writer and commentator Theordore Dalrymple has cogently demonstrated, if you attempt to reform Islam in order to defang it, you will end up destroying it anyway.

Therefore, to expect an Islamic Reformation, along the lines of Christianity, is to live in cloud cuckoo land.

Allow me to suggest a link to something of more lasting value.

The article is entitled: Jihad, Apocalypse, and Anti-Semitism

31 July 2006 at 10:01  
Anonymous Amo said...

Another tirade of division and dissent. I haven't heard of any Muslims demanding non-Mecca-facing toilets, no rioting for this right, no campaigns in the media. It is an invention of those who want to stir up hatred for Islam, and create problems for Muslims.

There is no point writing lengthy paragraphs demanding the return of public flogging. This is not only uncivilised, it is illegal under EU law, like capital punishment. Barbaric public humiliations should be outlawed all over the world.

31 July 2006 at 10:02  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

davidg ... we most certainly are. Let us consider a rational explanation: hotels right across the Middle East.

Over the years, I have spent many nights in International Hotels in the Arab world, hotels that are frequented in their thousands, by Muslim guests of all nationalities. Rooms are never alloted on a religious basis.

They are commonly constructed in a courtyard theme (imagine if you will, a square 'C' format, as its plan view).

Considering all rooms are constructed to the same basic plan, then the directions hotel room toilets face, in most hotels, will be many. Some will inevitably face the general direction of Mecca (at least within a few degrees of the compass). When you consider the front-facing and rear-facing aspects of each toilet pan position, then this is especially so.

Most Muslims would probably laugh at the suggestion they have to be cognizant of which way they cr*p every time they sit down to relieve themselves. It is patently absurd.

No doubt, there will be many puritanical Immams who would take great, self-conscious care along these lines, but they are Wahhabi / Salafi muslims not ordinary muslims.

We are being taken for a ride. The native British people responsible for acquiescing to this request -- which was only made in order to score a psychological blow (i.e., psy-war ops) -- should be removed from their posts at the earliest opportunity, and replaced by people who are not so easily intimidated by people wearing funny hats and medieval cloaks.

31 July 2006 at 10:11  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

amo ... you wrote: Barbaric public humiliations should be outlawed all over the world.

Indeed they should. In which case, would you like to explain your position on the weekly be-headings doled out by Sharia Courts in Saudi Arabia (and most freqently to foreign Muslims) in Riyhad, the capital city of your faith??

Every Friday the executioner swings his sword, correct?

After all, Saudi Arabia is the shining beacon of your Cult; whose ruler is the "Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques."

Or, are words of critism from non-Muslims of your imperious Cult beginning to get right through to your bone marrow??

Don't you think apostasy would be your wisest course of action?

31 July 2006 at 10:23  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

If you cant take a dump while your bottom faces mecca, then surely it would be an even greater sin to have one in mecca when on the Haj?
Whered do Muslim stand on the issue of breaking wind in the general direction of Mecca if that is a sin do they carry a compass with them to ensure that they do not?

31 July 2006 at 13:17  
Blogger Professor D.C. Warmington said...

Gentlemen --

A valuable contribution on this fascinating subject has been made here.

I quote the opening lines:

Ah, toilets. The basis of our entire culture. I found this article about toilet activism astonishing - who would've thought such political conundrums could be caused by the old Kidderminster? Even more remarkable is the linked article about designing toilets compatible with Islam:

Islam prohibits facing the Qiblah while defecating. The Prophet said "if you go to defecate, do not face the Qiblah nor turn your back toward it.

Well Mr. Prophet, I'll see your Qu'ran and I'll raise you some science. Facing the Qiblah means facing Mecca, which is in Saudi Arabia. This means that there is a spot on the spherical Earth exactly diametrically opposite Mecca (somewhere in French Polynesia, I believe) at which every direction faces Mecca. In fact at this point, you are both facing mecca and turning your back toward it, so Allah has you coming and going. Maybe there's already a sign there - "Dump here, burn in hell."

Much more follows.

31 July 2006 at 14:09  
Anonymous Amo said...

As I said, Mission Inpossible, outlawed all over the world. Not all Muslims are primitive, backward, cultic, or whatever other insults you want to throw at us. We realise religions have historical foundations and need to adapt. You'll be disappionted that I agree with much of what you have to say. The difference between us is that I can communicate politely and respectfully.

31 July 2006 at 16:00  
Blogger Thomas Fuller said...

Come off it, Amo, there's a good chap. The point of His Grace's post is that Muslims are exploiting the liberal tendencies of the ruling class in Britain with a view to establishing sharia law here.

No doubt there are plenty of moderate Muslims, as you say, who keep their heads down and just want to live in peace: but they'd better start speaking up, and vociferously, and apologize for the filthy manners of their co-religionists.

I have never once been consulted as to whether I wish to live in a multicultural society (whatever that's supposed to be). It has been forced upon me.

Now I'm a fairly mild fellow by nature, and would never be nasty to any individual because of his creed or the colour of his skin; indeed I would defend him from attack. But when it comes to having my homeland, the country of my birth, hijacked by a bunch of intolerant lunatics who classify me as an infidel who should be put to the sword, and when it comes to these selfsame lunatics filching the taxes which should be used for the care of the old and infirm of said country, then I become very angry. I start to wonder what all these foreigners are doing in my country, and I start to wonder why, if they hate it here so much, they all don't just pack up and bugger off.

But of course, they don't hate it here. They just hate the indigenous people. They despise them, too, as weaklings. And that, I believe, is the point of this thread.

31 July 2006 at 16:32  
Blogger Croydonian said...


In so far as it is, as a culturally Anglican agnostic /atheist, any of my business, I would regard adaptation of Islam to the current times as being something to be welcomed.

However, it seems to me that whereas the Reformation in this continent had as a core principle that of getting back to the written word and stripping away that which had been added by Rome over the centuries, any Islamic reformation would have to be concerned with moving away from that which has been written rather than back to it.

Clearly there are many strands of Islamic opinion that are a good deal less stern that those of Ayatollah Khamenei, the Taliban and the Wahhabists, but influence does seem likely to follow the money, and any reformation that starts from outside the Arabian Peninsula would seem destined to be criticised as inauthentic / compromised at best, and downright heretical at worst.

31 July 2006 at 16:53  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

amo, it is clear you have decided to put your faith in superstition, because that, next to worshipping the disgusting Mohammed character, is all Islam is about.

I tell you for the third time ... Islam is NOT a religion. It is a Cult, predicated on Arabic imperialism, and financed by murder, rape, and pillage. The history books confirm this.

FACT: Since its inception, Islam has attacked more peoples and places than any other race or creed, often simultaneously.

I am amazed you cannot understand and accept these facts. What is it that you are hiding from my friend? Islam is an emotional crutch, more suited to retards, and it is time you grew up and dispensed with it.

I have observed Muslims in seven different Islamic countries (eight if I include the Southern Philippines). They all share the same sickness; you can see it in their eyes, and behaviour, and attitudes.

Earlier, I asked you specific questions regarding the ritual slaughter, in public places, of people found guilty by Shariah Courts in Saudi Arabia. You have decided not to respond. Why?

If you indeed think your faith is so wonderful and superior to everyone elses then an answer should be easy for you. Right?

If you cannot or will not answer those questions "politely and respectfully" then I say to you there is nothing in your belief system I can respect or be polite about. Comprendi?

And the only solution for the good of future generations is to work towards the total destruction of Islam and all its holy places. Ground them to dust.

I have no desire to harm Muslims, but your faith has to be eradicated. Even ex-Muslims have recognized this need, though perhaps not so harshly.

Islam has nothing to offer the world except mind-numbing conformity and mass ignorance.

Can I make it any clearer to you?

God, is not on your side. He is setting you up for annihilation.

If you are too weak a person, then send me your Immam, it is about time I dealt with one of your leaders. I will show you how empty and full of trash they are.

31 July 2006 at 17:46  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

croydonian, I understand where you are coming from (to quote the vernacular) but any attempt at an intelligent assessment is destined to be drowned out by the emotional temperatures, which are deliberately being stoked by Iran, the Palestinians, Saudi Arabia (as usual), and the diaspora of Immams and Mullahs now living amongst us.

Surely, you don't need to believe in God to run a law abiding and civilized country. There are a few Buddhist nations who are doing far better than us.

One of the things that irritates me most about Islam's presence in Britain and Europe is that they have gotten in the way of us sorting out the great liberalizing project that has turned our culture into an ugly and crass theatre. Giving equal political representation to women has been our greatest error. A wise man predicted back in the 1970s that feminism (and our tolerance of it) would bring chaos. And it has, in ways that are not always obvious.

Perhaps you would enjoy reading Peter Hitchen's (c. 2001 I think) book: The Abolition of Britain (if you haven't read it already)?

The last thing we centrists and conservatives need, right now, is another desert cult going through an extended adolescance, at our expense.

I really want to get a crack at the Peter Mandleson's and Helena Kennedy's of this world, and the great E.U. & U.N. Totalitarian, world government 'thing.'

I am truly sick to the back teeth of these Muslim primitives clogging up our bandwidth with their insane, medieval obsessions. Perhaps we all are by now; or at least, we all will be soon.

31 July 2006 at 18:07  
Blogger Croydonian said...

MI - Yup, I've read it. Not bad at all.

Amo seems to be a rather more thoughtful and sophisticated representative of Islam than some we've seen here, and I think it would be of interest to read his thoughts on a possible reform and / or modernising of it.

31 July 2006 at 18:46  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Amo,

You are very welcome to Cranmer's blog. Your contributions are thoughtful, and Cranmer looks forward to much intelligent erudition. As this develops, could you please explain the extent to which 'secular law' should override 'religious law'. You indicate that public executions and floggings should cease, yet these are prescribed ordained in the Qur'an. How can the latter be subsumed to the former?

Mr Aubrey de Tocquaine,

Cranmer was delighted by your recent entry, especially:

This means that there is a spot on the spherical Earth exactly diametrically opposite Mecca (somewhere in French Polynesia, I believe) at which every direction faces Mecca. In fact at this point, you are both facing mecca and turning your back toward it, so Allah has you coming and going. Maybe there's already a sign there - "Dump here, burn in hell."

It is not often His Grace laughs out loud, but this (and the cooler weather) lifted his spirits immeasurably.

31 July 2006 at 20:51  
Blogger Professor D.C. Warmington said...

Your Grace --

You are very kind, but the words are not mine. I am not quite sure how I stumbled upon that Web page, but it was a happy coincidence and I am glad it gave rise to arch-episcopal mirth. I too prefer the cooler weather, as do my vegetables; but that is another story.

I remain

Yours sincerely, &c.

A. de T.

31 July 2006 at 21:38  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 July 2006 at 22:29  
Anonymous Amo said...

Thanks you for the welcome Cranmer. This is an interesting blog becausae it digs deeper into the issues. Croydonian is right that a 'reformation' in Islam could not be the same as the Christian one. But it could begin with a consequence of that reformation, and that was the beginning of intelligent textual analysis and criticism. This is a painful process even for some Christians (like looking at the contradictions in the Bible, or authorship of some of the books), but if the Quran underwent some of this, subjected to a modern critical approach, much of the religion could be placed well and truly in a historical context, and permit development relevant for the modern era.

Unlike the Mission Impossible narrow-minded approach, there are some admirable qualities in Islam, and it is possible to emphasise love rather than barbarism, just as it is possible in Christianity to focus on a God of love rather than 'an eye for an eye'. The Sufi approach has traditionally taken this line.

1 August 2006 at 08:50  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

amo ...

On the issue of Islamic toilets, you wrote: It is an invention of those who want to stir up hatred for Islam, and create problems for Muslims. What makes you so sure 'amo'? You cannot countenance any accurate critique of your Cult. It has been said many times, Muslims are obsessed with conspiracy theories both against them, and their faith.

It has already been conclusively demonstrated: Islam and Communism have a great deal in common. About which, Theordore Dalrymple, in his article (City Journal, 4th June 2006) entitled: The search for a moderate Islam may be Futile, wrote these illuminating words:

+++ Quote: +++

But the fact that many Muslims are not fanatics is not as comforting as some might think. Consider, by way of illustration, Eric Hobsbawm, the famous, much feted, and unrepentantly Marxist historian. No one would feel personally threatened by him at a social gathering, where he would be amusing, polite, charming, and accomplished; if you had him to dinner, you wouldn’t have to count the spoons afterward, even though he theoretically opposes the idea of private wealth. In short, there would be no reason to suspect that he was about to commit a common crime against you. In this sense, he is what one might call a moderate Marxist.

But Hobsbawm has stated quite openly that, had the Soviet Union managed to create a functioning and prosperous socialist society, 20 million deaths would have been a worthwhile price to pay; and since he didn’t recognize, even partially, that the Soviet Union was not in fact on the path to such a society until many years after it had murdered 20 million of its people (if not more), it is fair to assume that, if things had turned out another way in his own country, Hobsbawm would have applauded, justified, and perhaps even instigated the murders of the very people to whom he was now, under the current dispensation, being amusing, charming, and polite. In other words, what saved Hobsbawm from committing utter evil was not his own scruples or ratiocination, and certainly not the doctrine he espoused, but the force of historical circumstance. His current moderation would have counted for nothing if world events had been different.

+++ Endquote +++

On the true nature and original intent of Islam, the historian, Professor Efraim Karsh, has not minced his words.

The originality of Karsh’s interpretation is its underlying assumption that Islam was, from the very beginning, a pretext for personal and dynastic political ambition, from the razzias against the Meccan caravans and the expulsion of Jewish tribes from Medina, to the siege of Vienna a millennium later in 1529, and Hamas today.

Contrary to its universalistic pretensions, Karsh argues, Islam has never succeeded in eliminating political power struggles within the Muslim world, where, on the contrary, such struggles have always been murderous.

Meanwhile, at the Washington Institute, Graham Fuller has defined an Islamist in these terms:

Islamism is an ideology with a much broader reach than radical terrorists have. An Islamist is anyone who believes, and actively attempts to implement, the notion that the Qur'an and the tradition of the Hadith should be used to help guide the way societies and governments are run.

So ... are you, 'amo', an Islamist??

Dalrymple's article concluded: The fundamental question is whether Islam as a private faith would still be Islam, or whether such privatization would spell its doom. I think it would spell its doom. In this sense, I am an Islamic fundamentalist. The choice is between all and nothing.

In your second post you wrote: The difference between us is that I can communicate politely and respectfully. What can one say? Let me try. Mr. 'amo', you should avoid making public judgements about your own presumed virtues. I might also add, you could grow up and get yourself a tad thicker skin in the process. Otherwise, I can admit to respecting your willingness to offer something to this debate and blog. Not knowing how old you are, I might be expecting too much when I wait for more knowledgeable & detailed responses from you, to reasonable questions. My apologies if I have incorrectly assumed you had studied and thus understood your faith before joining it. Perhaps I will inspire you to open your eyes and mind at last?

In your third post, you wrote: Unlike the Mission Impossible narrow-minded approach, there are some admirable qualities in Islam. Ignoring your tendency to make carping personal references in your posts, whilst steadfastly avoiding ethical questions put to you, I think one-Billion Chinese would readily conclude it is those who steadfastedly seek spiritual enlightenment from an artificial faith that celebrates the life of an imposter, murderer, liar, and paedophile who are the narrow-minded ones.

I have already been fully exposed to Islam. I have even travelled to the edge of Medina. I have talked religion, face-to-face with many Wahhabis, and I have also read many Suras from the Qu'ran; copies of which I have on my hard-drive. I don't believe such actions qualify as "narrow mindedness."

Perhaps your and your brethrens' definition of a narrow-mind is anyone who dares to criticise cogently, and to demonstrate that on a cost-benefit analysis basis, Islam's flaws greatly outweigh its benefits. The biggest test of this is to observe how Islam treats non-Muslims, not just now, but throughout its history. The concept of Dhimmitude is absolute proof of Islamic insincerity and hegemony.

Croydonian's allusion to Islam being "welcome", flows (I must presume) from his observations that it can turn habitual criminals into relatively disciplined fellows. Islam has always appealed first to the criminal fraternity ... a kind of salvation. Islam forgives all prior sins, even that of multiple murder, rape, bestiality, etc.: this constitutes another attractive, yet cynical, "signing-on benefit."

Those English football supporters travelling overseas who caused violent trouble were always in the minority, yet the country's reputation has had to pay a price because of that minority. The majority of law-abiding English supports have had to pay the price for their unruly minority also.

And so it is with Islam. The majority will have to face the fact that they will be made to pay for the intransigences of their unruly and belligerent minority.

Reform if you can; I wish you well in your efforts. But don't try to change Britain in the process.

Is Islam a benign force? The facts suggest not, and issuing an endless stream of palliatives will never mask reality. Take this next, eye-opening development for an example.

Western intelligence agencies have discovered a twenty-year old document revealing a top-secret plan developed by the oldest Islamist organization with one of the most extensive terror networks in the world to launch a program of "cultural invasion" and eventual conquest of the West.

No doubt you are thinking "conspiracy theory" 'amo', because Muslims are constitutionally wedded to conspiracy theories. You sign up to these when you utter the words: There is no God but ... blah, blah, blah.

Such a document was recovered in a raid by Swiss authorities in November 2001, two months after the horror of 9/11. Since that time information about this document, known in counter-terrorism circles as The Project, and discussion regarding its content has (until recently) been limited to the top-secret world of Western intelligence communities.

Only through the work of an intrepid Swiss journalist, Sylvain Besson of Le Temps, and his book published in October 2005 in France, La conquête de l'Occident: Le projet secret des Islamistes (The Conquest of the West: The Islamists' Secret Project), has information regarding The Project finally been made public. One Western official cited by Besson has described The Project as "a totalitarian ideology of infiltration which represents, in the end, the greatest danger for European societies."

I must assume, based on the comments posted thus far, Mr. 'amo', that it is only I who truly understands the Islamic threat here.

As for the Sufi's, they already constitute a persecuted Sect within Islam and are a very long way away from its mainstream. Incidently, the Whirling Dirvishes form part of the Sufi order.

1 August 2006 at 10:52  
Blogger Croydonian said...


Re this: "Croydonian's allusion to Islam being "welcome", flows (I must presume) from his observations that it can turn habitual criminals into relatively disciplined fellows", I would say 'not quite'.

I wrote 'In so far as it is, as a culturally Anglican agnostic /atheist, any of my business, I would regard adaptation of Islam to the current times as being something to be welcomed'. Meaning that reform in Islam would be potentially a good thing.

1 August 2006 at 11:06  
Anonymous Amo said...

Again, Mission Impossible, you say much that I can agree with. Sufis are indeed a 'persecuted sect' just as the Protestants were 600 years ago as Cranmer knows. If you could open your eyes, you might see the possibility that Islam is 700 years behind Christianity, in foundation and development. 700 years ago the Christians were murdering and pillaging 'in the name of God', and fighting holy war. In an age of theological upheaval, a small sect call Protestants were persecuted, but they grew, and went on to dominate the world through the expansion of the British Empire. Sufis may not have an empire, but they are more in tune with a UN expression of faith than the extremist interpretations you keep referring to. It might possibly be that Islam is undergoing its reformation, but the Christian one was not bloodless, and as repugnant as it might appear to you, there are many dimensions of Islam that speak of devotion to God with love, peace and tolerance. But you avoid the parallels in your scriptures of 'an eye for an eye'. Judaism developed. Christianity developed. Both caused much bloodshed. It is hypocritical to expect that Islam could adapt without momentous upheaval.

1 August 2006 at 11:08  
Anonymous Rick said...

700 years ago the Christians were murdering and pillaging 'in the name of God', and fighting holy war.

Really ? And I thought they went to observe barbarian hordes from the Hejaz raping and pillaging in the name of Allah as they rampaged and murdered across Christian Egypt, Syria, and all the lands between as far as Bulgaria.

1 August 2006 at 11:17  
Blogger Croydonian said...

Fairness compels me to note that the Deutscher Ritterorden in the Baltic region did things much like that characterised by Amo.

1 August 2006 at 11:59  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Croydonian. My apologies. Thank you for interpretative clarification.

1 August 2006 at 13:42  
Anonymous Amo said...

Thank you Croydonian, but Mission Impossible prefers to live in his black and white world. The solution to the development of Islam lies in education and an historical and textual criticism approach which would compare it with contemporary documents and other versions of history. Much of what has become Islamic practice would then be set in context, leaving the more 'eternal' truths to predominate. This will take time, but then the Christian reformation went on for centuries (and some might say is still going on).

1 August 2006 at 13:47  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

amo ... one way out of this impasse would be to regard the jettisoning of multiculturalism in both London and Brussels as an urgent imperative.

That way we can racially isolate those forces that are actually stoking the fires of wrath ... namely ... Arab imperialism and Persian barbarianism.

Furthermore, I understand the Hashemite Kings are the rightful keepers of the two Holy Mosques, not the corrupt and American sponsored, House of Saud. A transfer to whom should now be argued for vigorously.

Meanwhile, back in England, a blanket moritorium on mosque construction should be implemented forthwith, and kept at least until your much touted "Islamic Reformation" is well underway.

Islam's bogus claim to Jerusalem should also be dropped and eradicated from the reformed Islamic jurisprudence.

Arab and North African immigration into Europe should also be ended because of their inherent cultural incompatibility.

1 August 2006 at 14:01  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...


According to Dr. Habira, a British Council Fellow and an ex-Muslim (i.e., apostate):

Moderate Islam is more deadly because while the terrorists are clear enemies, the moderates make inroads into 'infidel’ lands, and deceive the host cultures until the terrorists can do the dirty work.

1 August 2006 at 14:08  
Blogger Croydonian said...

The Hashemites certainly think so, click here.

Meandering a touch, I would not be at all surprised if there is a revolt / civil war in Saudia Arabia before too long.

1 August 2006 at 14:20  
Blogger phone cam foolery said...

All good news Croydonian.
Water filters, shotguns ,ammo and dried foods,all should be priorities.

1 August 2006 at 16:07  
Anonymous Rick said...

My Lord Archbishop did not contribute to the biography of His Grace by Diarmid MacCulloch.............I wondered if there were any comments he had on this seminal work on his temporal existence ?

3 August 2006 at 07:49  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rick,

Off topic, but His Grace will indulge...

Cranmer considers Diarmaid MacCulloch to be one of the finest writers on church history, if not the foremost, of the last century. He is able to narrate with a style accessible to both scholar and layman, and made my life sound much more interesting than it appeared to me at the time. Similarly his work on Edward VI - 'The Boy King' - and his magnificent work on Reformation politics - 'Reformation: Europe's House Divided'. Cranmer cannot recommend these works too highly.

Of course, I could not contribute to Dr MacCulloch's authoritative work on me because its publication preceded my return. I was, however, present in spirit.

3 August 2006 at 08:59  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Timeline: 19 August 2006.

Source: The Independent

Headline: PM forced to shelve Islamist group ban
By Nigel Morris
Published: 18 July 2006

The Government has shelved moves to outlaw the radical Islamist group, Hizb ut-Tahrir, nearly a year after the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, made it a key part of his 12-point anti-terror plan.

It backed off after warnings from police, intelligence chiefs and civil liberties groups that a ban could backfire by forcing a non-violent group underground.

Full article by subscription only: The Independent


Mission Impossible Agents are pleased to have vindicated. It was our belief all along New Labour's move towards a HuT ban was a sham.

19 August 2006 at 12:02  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older