You mean like this….?


Anyhow — responding to the Louis Smith drunken video, the same Mohammed Shafiq was quoted in the Sun saying of Smith: “I think he should apologise immediately. Our faith is not to be mocked, our faith is to be celebrated and I think people will be offended.” Shafiq does not explain why his faith should not be mocked. Nor does he seem to know anything about the right of free people in free countries to do or say whatever we like about Islam or any other faith whenever we feel like it. There is nothing special about Islam that means it cannot be mocked. In fact, it would be a very good thing (both for Muslims and everyone else) if it were mocked rather more. But there in that sentence is the implicit threat again. Less blatant than the threat against Maajid Nawaz, but very close indeed to the line used by the Walthamstow imam and the extremists who defend Mumtaz Qadri.


H/T: Steen@Snaphanen

”My main message for the audience was to keep in mind that freedom has never been particularly popular. Most people prefer their security and comforts to freedom and although history shows that although everyone benefits from being free, it has always been a small minority who actually pursue and protect the cause. I suppose one has to wrestle whatever comfort one can from that. It was a terrible thing to see the security now needed in Denmark, as elsewhere, for people who are simply asserting their right to write and draw what they want, even – shock horror – things that might be mildly critical of the founder of one religion. That a journalist or historian should need bodyguards in 21st century in an indictment on our continent. But still, surveying the room on Saturday I think we’ve got enough people. A few Danes, a few Swedes and Norwegians. A few Americans and a couple of Brits might be all that is needed. Perhaps by the 15th anniversary things will be better. Last Laughs in Europe

More here.


Any time you here a conference on international law, peace, justice with Israel in the sentence, it’s guaranteed to be an anti-Israel hate-fest.

This is no debate but a rally of hate aimed at Israel

EARLIER this month we once again saw what hotbeds of extremism and hatred some of our university campuses have become.

Southampton university

ALAMYTaxpayers are funding this repulsive outpouring of anti-Semitism

The fact that Mohammed Emwazi (aka “Jihadi John”) had been a student at Westminster university could have surprised no one.

Nor could the discovery that on the very night Emwazi was unmasked his university was due to host a radical preacher who preaches the most hardline versions of sharia.

In the same week as a new video revealed commonplace anti-Jewish hatred on Britain’s streets, the Cambridge University Union Society once again chose to debate the motion “Israel is a rogue state”.

The Cambridge Union – the oldest in the country – enjoys debating that motion more than any other. It is a fixture in its termly schedules.

And once again last week the students of Cambridge decided to hold Israel guilty among the nations. Needless to say there is no record of Cambridge students debating whether Pakistan (created in the same year as Israel) is a rogue state. Despite there being far more reasons to do so.

Nor does the Cambridge Union annually denigrate any of Israel’s neighbours in the Middle East. During last week’s Cambridge debate the notorious anti-Israeli activist and discredited academic Norman Finkelstein explained to the students that Israel is worse than North Korea.

The students agreed with him. Next month the University of Southampton will become the latest university to fix its position on this bandwagon of hate.

More here


Only socialite/media influenced Christian names are supposed to be a factor in the name bump to the top of the charts, when it comes to Mohamed, well, now it’s, 

If we were confident about most of the people involved going overwhelmingly the proud to-be-British way, then we would discuss it. But we aren’t, so we don’t.

Last week the news arrived that the most popular name given to boys in the UK in 2014 was “Mohammed.” The reactions and non-reactions to this story betrayed the deep unease and denial that are now part of the debate around Islam in modern Britain.

We have of course been here before. For some years now, there have been stories of “Mohammed” creeping up the list of most popular names in the UK. And each time the reaction has been similar.


The most popular name given to boys in the UK in 2014 was Mohammed. “So what?” Nothing to see here, please move on… (Image source: BBC video screenshot)

Because despite the obvious concern and cultural disorientation of the gentleman in the BBC audience who asked the question, this is not a story to which the answer should be “So what?” The story does mean something. And our apparent national desire to shift the story does not change that fact. We do not evade knowledge in any other situation.

When “George,” for instance, heads back to the top of the list of baby names in the UK, endless commentary is given over in the newspapers to how the choice of name bestowed upon their firstborn by the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge trickled down and influenced the baby name choices of other British parents. This was the situation when Prince William himself was Christened, when his brother was Christened and it is the same every year when this story comes around. The way in which people are named each year shows an ebb and flow of fashion and events. It reveals underlying trends of considerable interest to the British public. The one exception, it now seems — the one time when everyone seems to think we should say, “Nothing to see here, please move on” — is if the most popular boy’s name in the country is Mohammed.

I doubt if anybody in Britain actually believes that all these little Mohammeds are going to grow into Conservative cabinet ministers who are proud to be British, like Sajid Javid. If they did, then they would all be saying so proudly. But we have had a lot of Mohammeds go wrong in Britain in recent years. There have been bombers, and beheaders and fighters and more. And the name is not entirely connected, in the minds of any news-observant person, solely with peacefulness. We also know that at best, many of these Mohammeds will experience a considerable struggle over their religious and cultural identities. How many go which way is anybody’s guess. Nobody could possibly say. But my own feeling is that if we were confident about most of the people involved going overwhelmingly the proud-to-be-British way, then we would discuss it. But we aren’t, so we don’t.

Finally, of course, there is the matter of who they are named after. I tread — I am well aware — on tricky ground. But let us put it this way. Although “Mohammed” is a name that many cultural Muslims bestow on their firstborn son and sometimes more, it is also apparent that the role model is — how might one say this — not entirely to be emulated. People called “Jesus,” as some people in Latin American countries (awkwardly to some of our ears) are, have been named after someone who, even if you do not think he was the son of God, was certainly one of the nicest people of all time. But Mohammed seems to have been more of a mixed bag, was he not?

More here.


What is far more important is that the obsessions and blind spots of Baroness Warsi are the obsessions and blind spots being taught to a generation.

Moral equivalence must be one of the overriding curses of our age. Even those who are capable of making moral judgements now often find it easier to make equivalences between sides than to study facts and work out who may be or right or wrong. So whenever any conflict breaks out, much of the world can be relied on – from the United Nations downwards (or upwards) – to call for a cessation of the “cycle of violence.” In Britain last week, there was an especially flamboyant example of this trend, courtesy of the noble Baroness Warsi.

This is the woman who was promoted by Conservative party leader David Cameron seven years ago; once the Conservative party became the party of government in 2010, she became the first Muslim woman to attend Cabinet in Britain. She could have done an immense amount of good in that role. She could have led reformist trends within the Muslim communities in the UK. She could have acted as a demonstration that Muslims can be loyal British citizens without side clannish, religious or sectional interests overriding other interests. Instead she turned out to be a force of extraordinary regression, and someone who turned out to bang some very predictable drums.

This summer, when Israel was forced once again to engage in a highly targeted air and ground operation against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, the British government held fairly firm in support of our ally, Israel, in doing what it needed to do to a terrorist group that was kidnapping and murdering teenagers and heavily rocketing Israel.

But Baroness Warsi – who had only ever reached Cabinet because of David Cameron’s personal championing – resigned in protest. She claimed in her resignation that Britain’s ongoing support for Israel was morally indefensible.

More here.



Cognitive dissonance.

lord ahmed jihad for food



No such thing as ”just a bit of sharia”.

Not only that, they (the supporters of it) simply can’t be trusted to adhere to the strict guidelines laid down by the state.

The movement of Sharia principles into — and over — Family Law is just one example. Other cases cover a huge variety of areas. There is, for instance, the UK government’s perpetual desire — whether Labour or Conservative — to make Britain a center for Islamic Sharia finance. This includes the issuing by the British government — the first in a non-Muslim country — of Sharia-compliant bonds [sukuk]. All these financial decisions, and the decisions on the probity of investments, will be made by a team of Islamic scholars. Whether their idea of reputable investment is what the average UK citizen regards as being reputable investment we shall have to see. But by pushing people towards investing with them, the British government is supporting the growth of investment in Sharia funds and thus strengthening such funds and the people who promote them.

hand for sharia



Remember, ‘Islamic human rights’ (sharia) comes at the expense of real human rights for all others.


There's lots of competition for the coveted title of 'Islamophobe of the Year'; but I am hopeful of victory. (JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)

There’s lots of competition for the coveted title of ‘Islamophobe of the Year’; but I am hopeful of victory. (JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)

I have been honoured to receive a number of awards in my career. Yet one which I have especially yearned for has so far eluded me. Now it seems finally within my grasp.

Since I began writing I have dearly hoped to catch the eye of the judges for the ‘Islamophobe of the Year’ title. There are a number of reasons. Firstly because one of its earliest recipients was Polly Toynbee. Anything that Polly wins is something I covet.

Secondly, I have always desired the award because the term ‘Islamophobia’ itself is so fantastical and ridiculous. Winning an award with it in the title would be like waking up to discover I had been given a prize by the Queen of Wonderland.

And thirdly – perhaps indeed the main impetus – is that this award is given by the ‘Islamic Human Rights Commission’ (IHRC). This hilariously misnamed body has been a force behind many key human rights advances of recent years, such as the annual ‘Al-Quds day march’ where Hezbollah supporters and others march through the centre of London calling for the destruction of the Jewish state.

More here.



Douglas, please stop using the ‘islamism’ nonsense, it’s fundamentalist Islam (basic Islam 101) we’re forced to confront, not the made up label of ‘Islamism’. Time to come 180 degrees on that terminology once and for all.

NOTE: It would be like Churchill claiming ”Nazism the enemy, moderate Nazis the solution.”

Charles Moore has it just right on Woolwich

51 comments 15 June 2013 18:51
Image: GettyImage: Getty

There is a terrific piece in today’s Telegraph by Charles Moore which I very much recommend. It is titled ‘Woolwich outrage: we are too weak to face up to the extremism in our midst’.

In the piece Moore rightly criticises our societal inability to deal with Islamism. In particular he criticises the switch of attention which took place immediately after the murder of Drummer Rigby thanks to bogus claims of an ‘anti-Muslim backlash’. Moore also addresses the follow-up fib that a threat equal to the jihadis – or even the primary threat to our society – comes from the English Defence League.

Incidentally, I saw that, whilst over for the G8 meeting, last night David Cameron had a joint press conference with the first minister and deputy first minister of Northern Ireland. Watching him standing beside Martin McGuinness, I wondered if Mr Cameron has any plans for another of those ‘we will never compromise or give in to terror’ speeches which he gives so well?

More here. H/T Fjordman



Douglas Murray with Mohammed Ansar on Radicalisation

Published on Jun 7, 2013

07.06.2013Douglas Murray was on BBC Radio Wales discussing radicalisation with Mohammed Ansar. The same Mohammed Ansar that regularly retweets and legitimises groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, while complaining that Islam is associated with extremism. Not to mention predicting a Holocaust in Britain against Muslims virtually every day, while appearing on radio shows to lecture people about the need for calm and rational discussion after atrocities such as the Woolwich attack.

H/T> EDL Buck



The only ongoing civil war is the traditional one between the Sunni and Shiites.

Douglas would be wise to heed the words Sheik Yer’Mami, there are only a few, a minuscule handful of honest Muslims who believes something to be amiss with their own holy texts. The rest, whether they fully, halfheartedly, or not at all, believe in the words of Mohamed, are willful drones not daring to make a stand, thereby becoming by default, a part of the problem as a whole.

NOTE: One more nail into the coffin of ”Islamic reform”. Knowing full well how the Christian reformation produced our modern societies, Muslims will reject reform or an enlightenment on the Christian scale, because they know where it will lead.

Murray and Choudary

Douglas Murray sadly confused

by SHEIKYERMAMI on MAY 24, 2013

Douglas Murray has written many brilliant pieces and to date I have always seen him as a great ally in this struggle, but this article here is absolute tosh.

There is a no “civil war underway” in Islam; the believers are united as one when they  stand against the kafir.

“The vast majority of Muslims in Britain read it in the latter way which is why – contrary to the opinions of Nick Griffin et al – most Muslims noticeably do not go around chopping peoples’ heads off”.

Absolute gibberish. There is the law of ‘durura’, which means the ends justify the means. Muslims are required to do whatever necessary to achieve dominance, to conquer; and Muslims  know the infidels still have the upper hand. But we have already seen the police on the run from the Muselmanic mobs, so that will take care of itself once they have the numbers.

As for “interpreting” Islam, Douglas truly lost the plot. Islam is not to be “interpreted”, especially not by the kuffar.

Islam is to be taken straight up, undiluted. And those who don’t partake in jihad are hypocrites, and theirs is “painful doom”.

No country has ever survived  Mohammedan invasion without being fundamentally transformed.

more here.



What about Turkey?

I thoroughly enjoyed his comparison of Europe with Turkey in the debate about colonialism. Turkey is never once brought to book for its colonial past, no case is ever made for it being transformed by non-Turkish peoples to compensate for its colonial past (that lasted far longer than by Europe), let alone for its genocide of the Armenians. Only Europe is the focus.

The only point Murray was weak on, was the claim that European colonialism exploited the developing world, meaning, that the wealth of nations went only one way, towards Europe. However, the facts speak otherwise, so I add the video segment of a talk Milton Friedman gave in the 70’s dealing exactly on that subject.

H/T: Kitman



Now only if they get the OIC to recant on its repeated denial of the same phenomenon.

Lord Ahmed in the slammer



Niceties dictate a ‘gentle push’, reality dictates a slamming shut while a serious rethinking takes place to formulate exactly what kind of immigration policies are sensible ones. That said, Douglas Murray speaks for me 100%. Also, anyone describing us, as being ‘anti-immigration’ for espousing the exact same rights the West recognizes for the rest of the world, says more about them, the accusers, than about any of us.

NOTE: Douglas Murray Archive: speaking at an IQ2 Greece event, in favour of the motion ‘Europe Should Shut the Door on Immigration