Monday, April 2, 2012



http://www.tehelka.com/story_main52.asp?filename=Ws300312Opinion.asp


Ten Years On, Still The “Internal Outsider”

A decade later, the leading light who presided over the pogrom against a community is still the arbiter of Gujarat’s destiny, says Abdul Khaliq


Photo: Shailendra Pandey
Writing in late 2002, a well-known political commentator observed that Narendra Modi’s star which “shone illogically” for a while would soon fade away. He went on to assert that “the larger Hinduism, lost temporarily in the darkness and din of Gujarat, will have reasserted itself”. There were others like him who believed that with the cessation of violence, fear would subside and once again our multiculturalism and pluralism would come to the fore. They had faith that revulsion at the horrendous, fiendish deeds committed in Gujarat in 2002 would get transfigured into a determination never to allow such unmitigated evil to surface again. They willed themselves to hope that the forces of communalism would be obliterated in Gandhiji’s Gujarat.
It hasn’t quite panned out that way. Ten years on, the leading light who presided over the pogrom against a community is still the arbiter of Gujarat’s destiny. On the tenth anniversary of the Godhra train carnage and subsequent holocaust, Narendra Modi, belligerent as ever, lashed out at the “Gujarat bashers” who, in his warped perception, were leaving no stone unturned to disrupt the peace, communal harmony and brotherhood being witnessed in the State. Unconcerned with the truth, he berated them for “trying to poison society and inject disharmony between communities.” He rounded off his diatribe with the most blatant lie: “The State has laid a stronger foundation for unity and brotherhood that has helped it gain inherent strength to reach new heights of development and progress”.
Paradoxically, those whom Modi described as “Gujarat bashers” are actually the very people who have been working against all odds for justice for the victims, for recognising minorities as equal citizens. Their only crime is that they refuse to allow Modi and his ilk to forget the dark underbelly of unpunished crimes, of injustice, of discrimination. Modi and his loyalists are against anybody defending the human rights of a troubled, besieged community.
Apologists for the events of 2002 refer to what happened in Gujarat as a communal riot. A riot would essentially imply that members of both communities actively participated in the mayhem that followed the Godhra train burning. But what actually happened was a fascist pogrom, a genocide involving a predator and a victim. It is bone- chilling to think that lakhs of people were abettors of cold-blooded murder and destruction of property. There is now no violence but the overpowering atmosphere of distrust, of hate, of prejudice hangs like a black cloud over Gujarat.
The world has witnessed varying responses to mass murder and genocide. The Nuremberg trials (1945-49) investigated and punished crimes against the military, political and economic leadership of Nazi Germany and delivered the most severe penalties against those responsible for genocide and war. In stark contrast, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (1995-96) in South Africa was a restorative justice body that emphasised on reconciliation, and granted amnesty to many of the perpetrators of the horrors of apartheid. However, the underlying philosophy for setting up these bodies was essentially the same—to acknowledge that what happened was horrendous and that such horrors should never be repeated. In the words of Desmond Tutu, Chairman of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, “We needed to look the beast in the eye, so that the past wouldn’t hold us hostage anymore.” Germany and South Africa have moved on, the dreadful period now a chapter in the history books.
Gujarat continues to live in a chamber of horrors, unable to exorcise the ghosts of 2002. This is because there has been neither retributive justice nor any form of reconciliation. Gujarat is unique in that the ruling establishment has, for the last 10 years, obstructed justice at every turn. To begin with, in hundreds of cases, the Gujarat Police, by refusing to file FIRs, prevented the cases from reaching the judiciary. Due to brazen subversion of the criminal justice system by the police and State appointed public prosecutors, the Supreme Court had to step in and order the transfer of certain cases outside the State and the reopening of more than 2000 cases. But despite the Apex Court’s noble efforts, justice continues to evade the victims of 2002. The delivery of justice has been painfully slow, with only a few convictions in the last 10 years. Most galling is the fact that the perpetrators of the most bestial and sadistic deeds remain free. The names that readily come to mind are Babu Bajrangi who claims to have split open a pregnant woman and destroyed the foetus; Dhimanth Bhatt, the Chief Auditor of MS University, Baroda; Ashok Mocha who lead a mob that set fire to the houses of 40 Muslim families in Shahpur area.
The ubiquitous TV cameras captured hundreds like them who had participated in the mayhem but they roam free, like ordinary men in the street. One is reminded of Hannah Arendt’s description of Adolf Eichmann’s deportment and demeanour during his trial, which she termed “the banality of evil.” Gujarat today has more than its fair share of human beings who fit this description.
Let alone the colossal failure of the justice delivery system on account of which the guilty have not been punished, there is also no attempt at reconciliation between the two communities. Prior to 2002, the discrimination and hatred towards the Muslims was covert. There was the pretence of civility, the veneer of civilised interaction. Even that’s gone and the gloves are now off. The hate and the discrimination are now in-your-face. Today, the Muslims of Gujarat are socially, politically and economically marginalised. A fascist middle class is leading the assault with their insidious, toxic right-wing thinking. Every institution of governance has been infiltrated by the adherents of the Hindu rashtra concept. Even sections of Dalits and adivasis have joined hands with their one-time oppressors in this first experiment in the laboratory of Hindu Rashtra. More than ever before, the Muslim in Gujarat is viewed as “the other.” Clarence Darrow, the humanist who fought relentlessly for the rights of blacks in America, had famously observed that no matter what laws we pass, unless people are kind and decent and human to one another, there can be no peaceful co-existence or liberty. In the ultimate analysis, “peace and freedom come from human beings rather than from laws and institutions.” Sadly, Gujarat today has little of brotherhood or the “Indian spirit”.
Marginalising the Muslim and creating a permanent rift between communities is barely disguised State policy in Gujarat. The State Government has enacted a law preventing distress sale of property in areas dominated by another community, clearly with the intention of isolating and segregating Muslims in ghettos. The State Government has refused to implement the Central scheme of scholarships for Muslims on grounds that it did not subscribe to special privileges for religious minorities. Muslims are under-represented in every sector, more disadvantaged than the Dalits. There are fewer number of mixed schools than in 2002. Juhapara, which is the largest Muslim ghetto in Ahmedabad, is not provided with the civic amenities available in other colonies.
The State has refused to rebuild around 400 dargahs and mosques that were destroyed in 2002. Compensation paid to those who lost everything in that period of madness is a mere pittance. Modi knows that keeping alive his image as a Muslim baiter enhances his popularity in a deeply polarised society. The problems of Muslims have to be seen through this prism of alienation.
Gujarat today is seen as the powerhouse of economic development, a model for others to follow. The Vikas Purush is the darling of the corporate world which is ever willing to barter its soul for filthy lucre. What is little known but a strong reason for the adulation is the punitive anti-labour laws in place which sanction the hiring and firing of employees at will. It is also a fact that government land is being leased to corporates for a song. Of course, there is no denying that there is tremendous economic development so who cares that it is not equitable and inclusive.
The tweets of the CEO of Gujarat are an exercise in unabashed self-adulation. Sample this: “The history of the world is the history of a few men who had faith in themselves.” He is now clearly eyeing the top post in the land, hence the change in tactics. The Sadbhawana yatras, the talk of peaceful co-existence and brotherhood are aimed at camouflaging his real persona of a ruthless, Right-wing pracharak. He knows that the policy of polarisation of communities which is so successful in Gujarat will not work on the national stage. Had the Mahatma been alive today, he might have gently reminded Modi that fraternity and brotherhood, like non-violence, “is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart and it must be an inseparable part of our being.”
Disinformation, half-truths and double speak dominate the public space in Gujarat today. There is also black comedy on display. DG Vanzara, the police officer who is in Sabarmati jail in connection with fake encounter killings, who was the hatchet man of the powers that be and lined his pockets as recompense, has not only recently completed his PG diploma in “Value Education and Spirituality,” but has also written two books on spiritualism and humanity, which have become best sellers. In Modi’s Gujarat, you don’t have to practice what you preach!
Many have wondered whether a change in political dispensation in Gujarat will bring back tolerance, peaceful co-existence and pluralism. The sad fact is that the alternative—the Congress followers of secularism i.e. quite simply a cloak of convenience. Time and again, it has been guilty of playing footsie with “soft Hindutva.” Moreover, under UPA-II, the intelligence agencies continued to unjustly identify a community with terrorism, leading to untold harassment and illegal arrests. The Bharatiya Janata Party cannot be trusted but the Congress is no better.
Gujarat badly needs another Mahatma.
The author, a former civil servant, is Secretary General of the Lok Janshakti Party.
He can be contacted at
akhaliq2007@gmail.com

SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend

Friday, March 30, 2012

ISLAMIC BOOK CONTROVERSY IN TORONTO By Sheharyar Shaikh

ISLAMIC BOOK CONTROVERSY IN TORONTO

By Sheharyar Shaikh

A non-Muslim acquaintance recently sent me a photograph of her friend who was holding the Toronto Sun newspaper in his hand with the recent headline: “Is beating women allowed?” (or something to that effect) in reference to a marriage guidebook penned by the late Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, an Indian scholar of Islam.  The book is available in Canada much to the horror of the Canadian public. I have not yet read the 160-page book “A Gift for the Muslim Couple” by Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and I doubt that the editorial and reporting team at Sun Media has either.  Regardless, the Sun Media is generating much fear and paranoia for what seems to be cheap publicity points. Sensationalist articles and television shows targeting the Muslim community are mainstream in the U.K. and U.S. Unhindered, this wave seems to be rising now in Canada.

Tarek Fatah of course wants the bookstore owner charged under the law. This is not unexpected of Fatah who has made a lifelong career out of stabbing his own community. Strangely he becomes bitterly resentful (as he did on March 1, 2012, at University of Toronto when he isn’t awarded the honor he feels he deserves from his “racist” circus masters in return for vilifying Muslims. What does he think? Fatah, you are nothing more than a cheap condom for the Michael Corens, Jonathan Kays, Ezra Levants and others out there to screw over this community and then flushing it down the toilet. If they begrudgingly bear you on the same panel as themselves, its not for your rugged good looks, but the damage they can inflict on the Muslims using your small brain and a big mouth.  Alas, Fatah’s daughter Natasha showed way better understanding than him of the way the game works when she remarked: “...when people you thought were good and decent, reveal their racism, and you find out your offence isn’t worth their time because you’re just another Paki.”

I do however blame the self-appointed Muslim community leadership, which began either mindlessly condemning Thanvi’s book in unison or has remained pathetically silent about the issue. Where is the Imam Council? Where is Ali Hindy? Where are the champions of faith who are foremost in their dawah efforts? Their silence is deafening.

I for one believe that the criticism of the Muslim community based on this book is unfair for the following reasons:

A Guide for the Muslim Couple was written in the 19th century.  Its author, A. A. Thanvi, was born in 1863 and died in 1943.  It is unfair to use this book to assert the Muslim male’s alleged contempt for women.  It is from before the time women could vote, work freely, get into professional colleges, own full property rights and be legally protected against spousal violence in the west.  If invoking this 19th century book is allowed to thrash Canadian Muslims today, then critics should be allowed to cite works from that same era to make the case for Western males’ contempt for women as well.  And if the mere presence of this book in the 21st century counted a crime, what then should we say to the world that sees the Western woman objectified, sexualized, and humiliated in bondage and sadomasochistic videos, criminally accessible to 5-year olds on the net, in the name of entertainment by the 20 billion-dollar porn industry here at home?  What about the continuing violence committed against women in society at present? In none of the stinging reviews was there as much as a peep about violence perpetrated against women committed overwhelmingly by non-Muslim (white) males. Was protecting Muslim women the Toronto Sun’s real agenda or was it to brushstroke the Canadian Muslim community in a negative light?

For example, NOW (National Organization of Women) tells us that on an average of 3 women are killed in the US every day, one-third of whom are killed by intimate partners. NCIPC cites that 4.8 million American women suffer bodily attacks and rapes from their partners every year – that’s 600 women per day. The Justice Dept informs us that one in five American college women will be raped at some point during their college years. College is preparation for the real world I suppose.
Is Canada much different? Afraid not. Women continue to outnumber men nine to one as victims of assault by a partner and are 3 times as likely to be killed by their partners as are men. According to the Canadian report Assessing Violence Against Women 74% of female killings occur at the hands of ex-husbands. Remember all this goes beyond fixing employment and income disparity and maternity leave disputes; it’s about letting women live in our society.

Under the current situation, it appears amazingly hypocritical to accuse the Muslim community of a “particularly sinister” kind of misogyny using a little known couple’s guide, all the while ignoring an ocean of a problem around us. It reeks of anti-Muslimism, nothing else.

And just when we may hold Eric Brazau, the shady man who broke the story in the Toronto Sun about Thanvi’s book, as some bleeding-heart friend of Muslim women, an impression he never fails to make as a “gentlemanly” guest on radio shows, be aware that this seven-time convicted violent offender has been criminally charged in the past for reportedly riding his bike in public alongside a hijabi lady and continually harassing her by calling her a terrorist and telling her to go back to Afghanistan. Toronto Sun itself broke the story in the past when it was newsworthy, but deliberately made no mention of it this time. Yesterday’s scum becomes today’s crusader for Muslim women rights. Incredible.

To make things clear on our end: Islam, like all pre-modern religions, does not, I repeat, does not stand for equality of spouses in a conjugal relationship. Man has a role in the family as a protector, provider and a moral leader, which is distinctly different from the one God awards to the woman. This is the truth. To the Muslim leadership that denies it, I say, shame on you for telling people lies! You know well that men have a responsibility to be the captain of the ship, to be the moral guardians first and foremost who will be held responsible before God for the moral direction of the family institution in society – which today is in shambles. Although Islam is certainly not “oppressive” to women, it does require wives first and foremost with guarding the household in their husbands’ absence. Chauvinistic? Unfair? Exploitative? Perhaps. But this is what we are commanded, and if we turn back we hurt none but ourselves.

Moreover, if Thanvi’s theological book hurts public sensibilities so much, then let the detractors be brave and shout words of protest against all theological works – without singling out Islam or Muslim men. Would the “ethically-appalled” Eric Brazau, who broke the story of Thanvi’s book to Toronto Sun, saying: “I thought that it is incredible that this kind of thing can be found in Canada”, make similar raids into Jewish and Christian bookstores with a similar agenda? I don’t think so. Think about this: I have five copies of the same one book that gives women a status way lower than this Muslim book ever could; it’s called the Bible.  And guess what?  It’s way more popular in the homes and bookstores.

According to the Bible woman is the source of all sin, the cause of global death (Ecc. 25:13), the source of all wickedness (Ecc. 42:13), can be shameless like a dog (Ecc. 26:25), is of a sinister nature (Ecc. 7:26) is a recipient of special punishment from God (Gen. 2:15), brings shame when she opens her mouth in church (1 Cor. 14:35), becomes unclean to touch during periods/childbirth (Lev. 15:19), must be ruled by man (3:16) (1 Corinth 11:3), must submit to husbands in everything  (Ephesians 5:22-24), must learn to shut her mouth and be fully obedient (1 Tim 2:11) should wear a sign on her head of her husband’s authority at all times  (1 Corinthians 11:7-9) etc. This of course does not include centuries of Bible-inspired literature along the same vein that is still freely published and adorns the shelves of any corner bookshop. I would not burn the bibles in a pyre in protest because not only is it unIslamic but it would be provocative to those who deeply regard it as God’s word. However would a “selfless champion of women” like Brazau or the local useful idiot Tarek Fatah take on the Holy Bible for its misogynistic content, its influence and consequently demand its ban as they’d like for Thanvi’s book? We have to wonder.

Would they take on the Hindu scripture Manusmriti, a distilled version of the Hindu Vedas out of the mouth of Lord Brahma, which orders wives to worship their husbands like gods? Or that a woman unaccepting of a man’s sexual advances may be raped? (Brihadaranyaka 6.4.6 and 6.4.7) or the Rig Veda which calls women lacking intellect and enjoining widow-burning in words:  “Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned.” (Rig Veda X.18.7)  – all as being indirectly responsible for 16 ‘dowry murders’ and unknown number of female infanticides occurring in India ever day? 50 million women in India are mysteriously missing according to one UN report.

Similarly, when orthodox Jewish men in western countries get up in the morning and thank God every day for not making them a woman but a man (in a prayer called Amidah), or bar women from becoming rabbis, teaching the Torah or praying in a synagogue here in the West would these pro-feminist activists take to the streets in protest against that? If the situation called for it I know I would hold discussions with religious elders of all faiths to try to come to a common understanding. This is a positive approach. Dialogue, not incitement.

Lastly, for any criticism to be valid, it must be fair and balanced.  The Toronto Sun review focuses only on the things in the book unacceptable in western culture for the purposes of cheap sensationalism. Study proper book reviews in academic journals and you will note that they do not try to deceive the reader by showing only one side, but give a balanced perspective of what the author is trying to say.  For example, in the Toronto Sun’s report, it states: “In the book’s opening pages, it is written that `it might be necessary to restrain her with strength or even to threaten her.’”  There must be a context to this which the critic conveniently ignores.  Any man would restrain a woman "with strength" and words if the situation called for it and would expect the same from her.

As far as the founder of Islam, the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), is concerned, he gave the Muslims the best advice when he said: The best of you are those who are the best in conduct toward their wives. His wife Ayesha testifies that the Prophet was never seen to hit a servant, woman or an animal.  His example is what we Muslims are to emulate at all times.

We Muslims are also enjoined to lend an ear to criticism. Some criticism however is simply unfair and amounts to propaganda and hate-incitement against one target community by giving the audience an incomplete or a distorted picture. The Toronto Sun review article on Thanvi's work A Guide for Muslim Couple is guilty of casting suspicion of misogyny and wife abuse singly on the Canadian Muslim community with no mention or regard for the era of the book’s authorship, misogynistic works of other faiths, presenting a distorted, one-sided impression of the book, and failing to mention female abuse as a serious issue confronting society at all levels.  This is an example of journalism run by a vile agenda against the Muslim Community.

Sheharyar Shaikh is the former President of North American Muslim Foundation.  He is specializing in contemporary Islamic thought and modernity

www.namf.ca

North American Muslim Foundation was established in 1975 as Federally Registered charitable foundation dedicated to helping the community for a better tomorrow.







Click here to Reply or Forward
1 delete

Thursday, March 29, 2012

How Islam became a scapegoat for the problems of immigrationm - By Ed West - THE TELEGRAPH, UK

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100147680/how-islam-became-a-scapegoat-for-the-problems-of-immigration/

Ed West

Ed West is a journalist and social commentator who specialises in politics, religion and low culture. He is @edwestonline on Twitter.

How Islam became a scapegoat for the problems of immigration

By Religion Last updated: March 28th, 2012

1270 Comments Comment on this article
 
Woman in a burqa Not in fact the enemy

Something I wrote last week about Islam caused a bit of a stir, with one conservative blogger wondering if I had been threatened with beheading. The great Mark Steyn even wrote: “I’m sad to see the usually perceptive Ed West of the London Telegraph planting his flag on this wobbling blancmange.” Considering I am Mark Steyn’s biggest fan in the whole wide world, complete with a wall covered with pictures of him and a tattoo of his face on my chest, that’s left me with some mixed feelings.

And yet I still believe that Islam has become something of a scapegoat for the problems associated with mass immigration, and here’s why.

Conservatism is all about protecting the community from radical change; that is why conservatives tend to oppose large-scale immigration, which alters the social fabric in a huge way.

Yet from the 1960s to the 1990s, both in Britain and the US, conservatives lost this argument, despite overwhelming public support. They lost because they lost the intellectual justification for group solidarity or “parochial altruism” against post-war radical universalism, to the extent that normal human feelings were redefined as forms of mental illness. Defeat. Until Islam came along, allowing conservatives to make arguments using language that liberals would permit.

Mass immigration brings enormous social costs, most of which are borne by the working classes, who in England have been shafted by an experiment in which they had no say and which was instigated by people far richer and more privileged than them. People are, understandably, uneasy about it.

But although many of the more intelligent people behind some “anti-jihad” groups are genuinely horrified by certain Islamic attitudes to women, homosexuality or Jews, to suggest that most people go on English Defence League marches for these reasons strikes me as absurd. Most people oppose large-scale immigration from countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh and Somalia not because of Islam but because the newcomers are alien to them and their arrival disrupts their neighbourhood and life. These are understandable human feelings, but people are unable to articulate them without committing a thought crime.

So instead the problems of mass immigration are blamed on Islam, including the problems associated with immigrants themselves.

Take Mohammed Merah, the Toulouse killer; before becoming an Islamist he had a long, long record of juvenile crime, with 15 convictions behind him. He discovered religion while in prison, just like many British Islamists, such as shoebomber Richard Reid; many others became radicalised through gang involvement and crime, such as Germaine Lindsay. These were not ordinary young men corrupted by the Prophet Mohammed.

Islamism is political; it attracts angry, extreme, violent young men from the immigrant underclass who find others willing to justify their thirst for violence, by using holy texts. Merah’s justification – “you killed my brothers, I kill you” – are not words of faith but naked tribalism.

Conservatism’s obsession with Islam is partly a reaction to multiculturalism, which holds that all religions are basically the same. This is untrue, as anyone with even a middling understanding of history can appreciate: the current moral order that emerged from the West, the world of the Enlightenment, the UN and human rights, stems from Christianity. No other religion could have produced it – not Islam, Hinduism or Buddhism, because none have Christianity’s concept of the individual. Christianity is essentially a union of Hellenic and Hebrew civilisations, the greatest marriage that ever took place.

Islam, in contrast, lacks not just Western concepts of the individual but also Christianity's historic separation of the state and religion. 

There is also no doubt that Islam has a very ambiguous attitude to violence in its name.

The religion desperately needs reform, but it is not incapable of it, and huge numbers of Muslims happily set aside the more unpalatable passages of their holy texts, just as Jews and Christians do. For middle-class British Muslims the popular idea that they practise some sort of political-religious death cult must strike them as bizarre, so removed from the actual practice of their religion.
The problem is not Islam, but the movement of peoples across the world, and the conflict this produces. One estimate suggests that although Islamic terrorists around the world typically fit no profile, in terms of age and education, 80 per cent are immigrants or the sons of immigrants. The problem with mass immigration is not Islam, but mass immigration, which creates the ghettos from where sectarianism thrives.

The huge movements of recent years have made Islam and Christianity an anchor of identity to people in Europe. The EDL are essentially a Christianist group, but the sentiments behind sectarianism and nationalism are the same. One cannot blame sectarianism on religion any more than one can blame nationalism on language – it just is. (It’s not as if the Shankill butchers were forever discussing Calvin and Luther on their nights out.)

Besides which, many of the “Islamic” customs which people object to have little or nothing to do with Islam. Forced marriages are a south Asian custom, one that radical Islamists oppose for being too Hindu. Honour killings have been a custom in many Christian cultures (the first in recent European history was carried out by a Palestinian Christian), but Christians no longer practise this barbarity for the same reason that British Hindus don’t – because they are urban, sophisticated, wealthy and educated. Many Pakistanis from rural Mirpur are not. But it's rather impolite to criticise a national culture; easier just to say “Islam”.

Of course religions plays a part – Middle Eastern and south Asian Christians assimilate far easier, but you can’t blame Islam for all dysfunctional cultural characteristics. Many west Africans have brought over religious and cultural practices that are as awful as anything from Pakistan, but because they’re Christians this attracts less attention here.

Islamophobia is a very dubious term because it is used to describe both legitimate criticism of a religion, and anti-Muslim hostility. But that’s not to say that sectarianism does not exist; the irony is that it has become acceptable partly because conservatives have been unable to articulate decent and legitimate opposition to mass immigration in the first place.

As Christopher Caldwell once put it: “Islam is a magnificent religion that has also been, at times over the centuries, a glorious and generous culture. But, all cant to the contrary, it is in no sense Europe’s religion and in no sense Europe’s culture.”

The problem has been in trying to make it Europe’s. But if anyone thinks mass immigration would have been fine had it not been for a man living in seventh-century Arabia, they're as much of a utopian as any liberal.
Share


Facebook
165
Twitter
39
LinkedIn
7

1303 comments
Add a comment
Comment with a Telegraph account
Login | Register with the Telegraph
Alternatively...
Comment with one of your accounts

Showing 1-25 of 1303 comments

Real-time updating is enabled. (Pause)
  • Curious conflation of two different things by Ed West.
    Uncontrolled mass immigration of any groups causes its own problems for pragmatic, numerical reasons alone. But that is a wholly distinct issue and discussion as compared to the *culture* of a particular bloc of immigrants; one which in its most authentic and 'vibrant' form, undermines and militates against its own liberals. This simple fact cannot be overstated.

  • Sorry, Ed, I have to disagree with you on this subject.  The problem with immigration stems from one aspect only - failure to integrate.  By integration I mean that those newcomers should do everything possible to blend in with the society they have just joined.  And, when looked at from this angle, it is obvious that Islam proves more problematic than other faiths or cultures.  People in western countries baulk at the covering up of women when their menfolk dress like the rest of us.  Consider places of worship.  There are synagogues all over Britain, but how many people are aware of them?  They are discreet.  Their worshippers are discreet (except for tiny groups of Orthodox Jews, who I group in with fundamental Islamists as sources of friction.  Now look at local mosques and their followers.  Many now have radical preachers who foment discord and hatred towards the very society which has absorbed them and in many cases, houses, feeds and clothes them.  Compare the average Muslim family to the average Hindi family.  The latter mix more freely with ordinary British folk and inter-marriage is much more common.  They want to speak English and encourage their children to work hard at school.  It's exactly the same here in France.  Children whose families hail from India are hard-working, pleasant and respectful.  Those who hail from the Magreb are often chippy, resentful, sullen and lazy and many consider Arabic to be the superior language of the world and are amazed when told that it would do them more good to improve their English!  This lack of integration is what causes the distrust and fear among indigenous peoples.  It is inexcusable and you shouldn't be trying to defend it.

  • ChooseJesus
    14 minutes ago
    'The religion desperately needs reform, but it is not incapable of it, and huge numbers of Muslims happily set aside the more unpalatable passages of their holy texts, just as Jews and Christians do. '. Ed, don't you know that if you remove anything from Koran you become an infidel! So what you suppose isn't possible. And for us Christians we didn't set aside any passage. We are just not blindly believing what the priests or bishops are saying. Because we can read Bible in our own mother tongue. Where as in Koran if you want to have the real meaning you have to read it in that period's Arabic.

  • AntonyUK1
    15 minutes ago
    There is a undeniable need for a government that will proscribe Islam in this country. The situation is dire. There is no way that the aims, goals, and intents of those who push Islam into our Christian-based society and culture can ever be moderated or accommodated. It is akin to trying to meld and accept a totally alien culture from some planet deep in space.  There is NOTHING about this politicised and anti Western ideology that can be seen as anything other than a hideous threat and enemy. Strong words - yes. Necessary - Absolutely they are - despite what the fool Livingstone says. I mean, Livingstone. I wouldn't trust him a single inch. He is no friend of Britain.

  • Islam has changed during the last 20 years, into a intolerant and violant, even towards Muslims who are perceived as 'bad Muslims'.
    It's all due to Gulf petro dollars in promoting this phenomena. 20 years ago in East London, hardly any Muslim girl used to wear hijab and even rarer, the niqab the face mask, amongst the young. Now almost all Muslim girls and women wear hijab in East London and the steady rise of young educated women, wearing the niqab has exploded. Who has been this funding campaign?

  • Oh dear, Ed. Islam a scapegoat?  Well done - you're helping to reinforce the already heightened sense of grievance Muslims have - and this in spite of the Establishment bending over backwards to make them feel "included" all at the expense of the indigenous citizens of this country.
    You show how out of touch you are when you say that Muslims happily set aside those parts of their religion that are unpalatable. Do they, indeed? Muslims, if they are "true" Muslims, must follow their koran to the letter, and that includes making war on unbelievers. They don't have to physically harm them, but physical harm can be done as a means to an end - and that end is to make the West Muslim.

    When will people like you - who are influential in that their articles are read by many, realise that it's we non-Muslim Brits who are the scapegoats? We have to suffer our what's left of our indigenous culture being eroded daily by the steady onslaught of Islamic practices, intimidating dress, and the sheer inconvenience of having people in our midst who go out of their way to undermine what we stand for, all aided and abetted by  happy clappy, celebrate diversity at all costs idiots.

    You should have thought carefully before you wrote this. If you open your eyes and look around you you'll realise how Islam and its adherents have adversely affected the good that immigration can do. Islam and Muslims add to the dynamic of this country in a negative way, unlike other immigrants. What's more they're not shy about cynically taking on board the "democratic" practices that help them: money from the State, and the laxity of our immigration laws.

    Another example is the way they use their mosques as a symbol of triumphalism and domination of the area around where they're built.  Once a mosque goes up - and many of its neighbours are only aware of it after planning permission has been granted - all the things that go with Islamic practice comes with it - illegal parking, and the attendant abuse given when neighbours make them aware of it, the noise and the inconvenience of crowded residential streets when they arrive to pray five times a day. This often leads the non-Muslim neighbours to move away, and so the scene is set for Muslim only areas.  It can be stopped by writing letters of objection to the council. All it takes is keeping an eye on the online weekly planning lists on the councils' planning sites.

    So, Ed, and others - wake up and smell the coffee, will you? As I said earlier - it's people like us, non-Muslim, aware of how our own right to self-determination is being undermined, who are the scapegoats.

  • I think Ed might be sectrely converted, or in Love with a Muslim girl.
    As a liberal Muslim myself, I have seen how Militant and intolerant Islam has become not only a threat to a liberal society but also has creatied rifts and transformed the once peaceful Muslim community who arrived from Asia in 70s and 60s, at that time Muslim immigrants were not obsessed with their religon, as now, have been brainwashed and targetted by Arab revivalist of Islam, with their petro dollars.
    Look at other immigrants; Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese no problems there. Ed should know better.

  • As your prophet said :
    " Preach peace when we are weak , but when we are strong make war "
    The once peaceful Muslim immigrants in the 60s and 70s were peaceful because there were not sufficient numbers of them to make trouble .

  • As I mentioned, the Islam they practiced at that time, was peaceful and no where near as violant and intolerant as now. In fact many muslims were beaten by racist thugs and still they were restrained.
    You got to kick out those fanatics and their supporters, but Britain is dumb.

  • Ed, when you're in a hole, it's generally better to stop digging.

  • The majority of muslims did not choose to be muslim but were born into it and are kept there by the barbaric laws on apostasy for which the penalty for a muslim leaving Islam is death .
    Mohammed himself said : "If a man leave his religion ( Islam) KILL HIM" How can that be ' re-interpreted ' to mean something benign?
    Ex- muslims are some of the bravest and courageous people on the planet .Rejecting Islam means that their lives are forever in danger .
    One can understand why less courageous , spineless muslims ,   trapped within their evil cult , are envious and bitter seeing the freedoms and happiness of  non- muslims want to lash out at us and make us suffer as they do .

  • Dr Stephen Oppenheimer on the Origins of the British.
    http://www.youtube.com/results...

  • The question that is never answered is 'long term, how does Britain and British culture benefit from mass immigration'?
    There appears to be only one unspoken answer- to lower employment costs. This scape-goating of one section of society is wrong. Blame the people who are letting them in without explanation.

  • I think EdWest needs to get out more.Perhaps he could take a trip to Holland and talk to Geert Wilders about the problems the Dutch have with  Islamic  immigrants.

    And then he could come home and read up on Islam . Rifling through the pages of-Salam Rushdies"Satanic  Verses" would be
    a good start.
    Clearly the B.B.C and related left-wing  , pro-Muslim propaganda machines have influenced his thinking.Sad to see an apparently intelligent human being swallow their garbage wholesale ,without the slightest attempt at critical thought.


  • PatriotRG
    5 minutes ago
    i don't think we should wait that long

  • The unfortunate thing about this issue is that only 10% of the British population will openly subscribe to the views almost exclusively expressed in this blog.

    The others are:

    1)      Too afraid to say anything
    2)      In denial – head in the sand
    3)      Too thick to understand
    4)      Are programmed not to be “racist” – and to worship foreigners
    5)      Too lazy to understand
    6)      Live in areas away from immigrant populations – at the moment!
    7)      Already converted to Islam
    8)      Guardian Readers or fans of the BBC

    So everyone may as well save their breath because nothing will ever happen and the country will eventually become Moslem.  Enjoy.

  • This country has seen pogroms before. How many would like to see another now? You can ask the audience, phone a friend or go 50/50. All vote now....

  • When was the last pogrom in England?
    Was it less than 400 years ago?
    Or was it in the twelve hundreds?
    How often have we recieved refugees from pogroms this last 400 years?

  • "Many west Africans have brought over religious and cultural practices that are as awful as anything from Pakistan, but because they’re Christians this attracts less attention here."
    No Ed - theres firstly only been a few witchcraft killings, and secondly they only affect their own community.
    People get riled when their own community is facing racism: grooming cases against white girls is one of them. Black crime too which is out of proportion with their representation in the population.
    Very much agree large scale immigration of any kind is the problem. But people are annoyed with you for not noting that Islam has written in its constitution to convert areas to Sharia that it moves into. Its like a disease which doesn't recognise borders.

  • bundamba
    Today 11:08 AM
    Totally agree with you regarding muslims bobsmyth.

  • You always have to look for root causes.
    The trouble is, the root cause is often obscure while the symptoms are obvious - otherwise they wouldn't be symptoms!
    Foolish people (which includes all of the Left-wing plus - it seems - Mr West) look to the symptoms and not the cause.
    The root cause of our troubles with immigrants is fairly simple.
    People are different. If skin colour can be different, if races can be susceptible to different medical conditions, isn't it certain that something  as complex as the brain will differ also?
    The problem with immigrants from outside Europe is simple. They are different to us.
    The other problem is our instinct to fight. This seems to be common to all races and as basic to our human condition as two arms and two legs. People will fight over practically anything - the football team they support or even - and I have seen this - over which beer is best.
    But despite this we have engineered a situation where people with totally different values and understanding of what life is and life is for, are living cheek by jowl. And all the time - deep down - raring for a fight.
    And people are surprised that there is no integration, no coming together, no peace and no harmony. Instead there is tension, hatred and barely suppressed aggression.
    The anti-racists are fools, cretins and deadbeats of the worst kind.
    They have subjected the people of this country to centuries - perhaps eternal - conflict. This is not a continuation of the history of human kind - fighting alien people living miles away; but fighting - by one means or another - with the people next door, in our schools, in our hospitals.
    We (well not me, but the cretins who rule over us) have created not utopia but dystopia and eternal civil war. It will never end.
    Anyone who is not a racist (genuinely not racist and not just bending to our anti-democratic, no free speech mad-house we live in now) is a fool.
    Pakistan is like Pakistan because it is populated by Pakistanis. If anyone can tell me another reason why Pakistan is like Pakistan I would be pleased to hear it. Unfortunately, the more Pakistanis we have living in Britain the mor
...

[Message clipped]  View entire message