The Whole World Belongs to Allah
Gee, I’m sorry I missed that show.
On Monday, the BBC program Newsnight gathered several Muslims, among them Anjem Choudary, who had organized that demonstration…He verbally abused the other speakers, denouncing one highly intelligent and personable woman, a Conservative candidate at the last election, as an unbeliever because her head was uncovered, and a man because he was clean-shaven. No, of course England didn’t belong to the English, Choudary insisted, or to any human inhabitants, “It belongs to Allah, the whole world belongs to Allah.” He prayed for “the domination of Islam” (“hopefully peacefully”) and looked forward to the day when “the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street.”
Yeah. Can’t wait. Can’t wait to live in a world where I’m not allowed to have my head uncovered, and where I have to take orders from thugs like that. Just cannot wait.
Apart from the demands of multiculturalism and “sensitivity,” there is a factor of which Americans may not be aware: The Labor Party in general and some MPs in particular, Cabinet ministers among them, are gravely concerned about the Muslim vote…Last Friday, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said that he supported free speech – you always know what the next conjunction is going to be – “but there is not an obligation to insult or to be unduly inflammatory.” This was a fine case of non sequitur meets category mistake…
So good-bye secularism and women’s rights on account of the Muslim vote. Spiffy.
This totalitarian ideology has undoubtedly managed to fool many politicians in the UK and other European conuntries by masquerading as a religion. However, its efforts to become established as a political force that is awarded special and unique protections from scrutiny or criticisms within democratic systems in which the deliberate removal of such protections is a fundamental and defining feature are, in fact, serially failing. Hence, the resort to what totalitarianism knows best: violence against the people on the streets.
Choudry is a buffoon, but in a way he is quite honest about what he wants. Tariq Ramadan on the other hand, appears quite civil and reasonable and his veiled mafia-type threats as to what will happen if we do not give more respect to muslims (whatever the hell that means)can easily pass unnnoticed.
I would start out by saying that if Choudry wants to take the fight to the streets, then I will be out there to defeat him on those terms. What worries me is that in the meanwhile, the likes of Ramadan have weaseled their way into persuading parliament to curtail our freedoms in the way Choudry wants anyway.
I end up seeing that it is Ramadan that I ought to take out. He is the more dangerous.
At the time of writing the show is still available here (don’t know for how long):-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=newsnight
I could make very little sense of what Ramadan was talking about on the subject of democracy from about 28:00.00
It sounded like democracy Jim, but not as we know it.
That was the one really big mistake the great “atheist” totalitarian movements made: they didn’t declare themselves to be – literally – religions. No one could ever outlaw them if they’d done that – it’d be offensive.
bluejewel – It’s still there.
Choudry – “If I go to the jungle, I’m not going to live like the animals.”
Go, on, give him a white skin and a thick Afrikaan accent. It would work.
“Go, on, give him a white skin and a thick Afrikaan accent. It would work.” LOL, yes, the idea of that working for him certainly works for me!
I’m still struggling with the Ramadan bit where his body language takes up the leaning forward, palms outstretched ‘would I lie to you?’ posture.
As far as I can make out, he seems to be saying that on one hand the west needs to adopt measures to make sure that muslims are not subjected to situation where they might offended, and on the other, muslims need to recognise ‘common values’.
What does that mean? That the west needs to clamp down on free speech a bit, then muslims would recognise that as a common value? I bet they would!
Listdn carefully when Choudry speaks for the first time: talking about the “covenant of security” that Muslims live under in the UK, he rejects Paxman’s question why the crowd is inciting murder against people in “this country” by saying that the people in question are not “in this country”.
So: they were indeed inciting murder even according to one of their supporters
bluejewel “I’m still struggling with the Ramadan bit..”
So am I. What IS he saying ? How would he translate it to, say, an intelligent cab driver ? (steady at the back, it’s a noble profession. Ask any alcoholic who’s got home oblivious.)