PDA

View Full Version : The shadow cast by a mega-mosque



Ray
25 Sep 06,, 19:17
The shadow cast by a mega-mosque
By Philip Johnston
(Filed: 25/09/2006)

Comment on this story Read comments

When Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for "daring" to visit a Muslim area, the Home Secretary bridled, as did many others, at his suggestion that part of London was off limits for a British minister of the Crown.

There was nowhere in this country from which anyone should be excluded, Mr Reid said; nowhere that could be called exclusively Muslim. He was speaking just a couple of Tube stops from West Ham, close to the site for the 2012 Olympic stadium, where a huge row is about to erupt over plans to construct a mosque. However, this is not any old mosque built to serve the local community. It will be the largest place of worship in Europe, a gigantic three-storey Islamic centre, with schools and other facilities, able to hold at least 40,000 worshippers and up to 70,000 if necessary.

It will be called the London Markaz and it is intended to be a significant Islamic landmark whose prominence and stature will be enhanced by its proximity to the Olympic site. When television viewers around the world see aerial views of the stadium during the opening ceremony in six years' time, the most prominent religious building in the camera shot will not be one of the city's iconic churches that have shaped the nation's history, such as St Paul's Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, but the mega-mosque.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;jsessionid=O1C2HU2ITIIRTQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQ YIV0?xml=/opinion/2006/09/25/do2502.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2006/09/25/ixopinion.html


This Abu Izzadeen must be a lunatic to dare beard a lion in his den!

It is audacious and very imbecelic to tell a Minister of the Crown that part of England is out of bounds to him. Imagine the length of audacity and gall that these migrants can afford to display. It is all because of the soft state that the UK is.

At least the saving grace is that the Ahmediyas Moslems, who are not considered Moslems by the Sunis and Shias, have blended with the ethos of the country of their adoption. Then, why shouldn't other Moslems? And why show a red rag to the bull? Why be odious and challenge the non Moslem British and the native white British, when there is no provocation as such to do so?

I have always said that the Tablighi Jamaat, a missionary organisation that says it is non-political and peaceful is NOT peaceful. They are beehive of terrorists. I have also appended an analysis in this very forum.

It is suggested that the Markaz complex will become the "Muslim quarter" for the Olympics, acting as a hub for Islamic competitors and spectators, something that is surely contrary to the spirit of the Games, which are meant to bring people together, not keep them apart.

When will the British stand up and be counted amongst the men and not as liberal do gooder and beckon their eclipse?

glyn
25 Sep 06,, 20:49
[QUOTE=Ray;271342]

When will the British stand up and be counted amongst the men and not as liberal do gooder and beckon their eclipse?

It is a serious problem, and our present government is to blame for many of the misfortunes befalling us at present, not least unrestrained immigration, and the lengthy and tortuous processes necessary to deport asylum seekers even when it has been proved that they are bogus and in no danger from their homelands as they have falsely claimed. The fact that monies are available from the National Lottery to pay for high powered lawyers to fight their cases for them is a national disgrace. The biggest danger that I can see is that this government by its actions is the biggest recruiting agency for the British National Party. I think it is almost inevitable that some of these will be in the House of Commons after the next election. And then, gentle reader, things will start to turn ugly. Lord help us then.

Bill
25 Sep 06,, 20:57
[QUOTE=Ray;271342]

When will the British stand up and be counted amongst the men and not as liberal do gooder and beckon their eclipse?

It is a serious problem, and our present government is to blame for many of the misfortunes befalling us at present, not least unrestrained immigration, and the lengthy and tortuous processes necessary to deport asylum seekers even when it has been proved that they are bogus and in no danger from their homelands as they have falsely claimed. The fact that monies are available from the National Lottery to pay for high powered lawyers to fight their cases for them is a national disgrace. The biggest danger that I can see is that this government by its actions is the biggest recruiting agency for the British National Party. I think it is almost inevitable that some of these will be in the House of Commons after the next election. And then, gentle reader, things will start to turn ugly. Lord help us then.
Much as we may disagree on other topics(not the least of which is what is a proper manly color for written text), i TOTALLY agree with you here.

And i've been saying so consistently for a couple years now.

Bluesman
25 Sep 06,, 21:06
We all know in our hearts what's coming.

It is inevitable.




The Apathy of Defeat
Mark Steyn - Monday,25 September 2006


Five years after the (a) all too predictable blowback to U.S. foreign policy born of decades of poverty and desperation or (b) controlled explosion by Bush-Cheney-Halliburton-Zionist agents (delete according to taste), I get a lot of mail on the lines of: C'mon, man, cut to the chase--are we gonna win or lose?

Well, let me come at that in an evasive non-chase-cutting manner and circle around to it very gradually. I gave a speech in Sydney last month and among the audience was a lady called Pauline Hanson. A decade ago, Miss Hanson exploded onto the political scene Down Under on an explicitly nativist platform, forming the One Nation Party and arguing that Australia was "in danger of being swamped by Asians." She was mocked mercilessly as a former fish'n'chip shop owner, a 14-year-old school-leaver, an old slapper of dubious romantic attachments, etc. On the last point, I must say, having seen her in a little black number on the TV show Dancing with the Stars, I thought she was a fine-looking woman, an impression confirmed when she stood up to ask her question.

Nonetheless, her question was a little overwrought. After some remarks about "grave concern for Australia," flag-burning, immigrants who "do not want to assimilate," and "a push for multiculturalism," she ended with: "This is not just happening in Australia. We see it happening worldwide, as you said, in the western societies. I want to ask you who's doing it, why is it happening?"

Now I don't happen to agree with all the "swamped by Asians" stuff. An ability to prioritize is essential in politics and, simply as a practical matter, there's no point in our present struggle in making enemies of large numbers of potential allies. So I took refuge in a big philosophical answer, and said I thought it all went back to the battlefields of the Somme. The ruling classes of the great powers believed they had lost their moral authority in the First World War and, although they rallied sufficiently to defeat Nazism and fascism and eventually communism, they never truly recovered their cultural confidence.

There's always been a market for self-loathing in free societies: after all, the most effectively anti-western idea of all was itself an invention of the West, cooked up by Karl Marx while sitting in the Reading Room of the British Library. The obvious defect in communism is that it's decrepit and joyless and therefore of limited appeal. Fascism, likewise, had many takers in those parts of the cultural West that were politically deficient--i.e., continental Europe--but it had minimal support in the heart of the political West--i.e., the English-speaking world. So the counter-tribalists came up with something subtler and suppler than communism and fascism--the slipperiest ism of all. The great strength of "multiculturalism" is not that it's an argument against the West but that it short-circuits the possibility of argument. If there's no difference between English Common Law and native healing circles and Tamil Tiger fundraisers and gay marriage and sharia, then what's to discuss? Even to want to debate the merits is to find oneself on the wrong side--for, if the core belief of multiculturalism is that there's nothing to discuss and everything's equally nice and fluffy, then to favour honest argument puts you, by definition, on the extremist side.

I'm sure most of my colleagues at the Western Standard have found themselves in this situation on call-in shows or at public meetings. You point out, for example, that there are very few "free" Muslim societies. And your questioner retorts: "Well, that's just your opinion." And so you pull up a few facts about GDP per capita, freedom of religion, life expectancy, women's rights, etc. And she says: "Well, you're just imposing your values on them." And you realize that the great advantage of cultural relativism is that it renders argument impossible. There is no longer enough agreed reality. It's like playing tennis with an opponent who thinks your ace is a social construct.

To be sure, there are still those who are beyond the pale. Indeed, in a culture of boundless tolerance, there are all kinds of things we won't tolerate. Hating Jews, for example, is strictly verboten. Well, it's verboten if you're an elderly white male of German extraction, like Reni Sentana-Ries (formerly Reinhard Gustav Mueller) of Edmonton. Herr Sentana-Ries was sentenced to 16 months in jail by the Court of Queen's Bench for anti-Semitic screeds on his widely unread website in which he referred to Jews as "subhuman" "debauched" "demons."

On the other hand, if you're not an elderly white male of German extraction, if you're a large crowd of persons of, ahem, non-German extraction and you march through downtown Calgary with placards reading "DEATH TO THE JEWS," nobody prosecutes you. If you're the A-list imams at the Grand Mosque of Stockholm and you sell cassettes referring to Jews as "the brothers of pigs and apes" and urging believers to go out and kill them, Sweden's chancellor of justice, Goran Lambertz, says no problem, these are just the routine designations "used by one side in an ongoing and far-reaching conflict where calls to arms and insults are part of the everyday climate in the rhetoric that surrounds this conflict"--i.e., threatening to kill Jew pigs is just part of the vibrant multicultural tapestry. The president of Iran, like the hapless Herr Sentana-Ries, is also a Holocaust denier and one with rather more advanced plans for resuming implementation of the final solution. But he gets photo ops with the UN secretary-general and EU officials.

In other words, Jew-hating isn't the problem, only Jew-hating by certain narrowly defined types of Jew-haters. Even white men can get away with Jew-hating these days--not the old-school neo-Nazi white-supremacist jackboots-a-go-go Jew-hating, but certainly the new school of Jews-are-today's-Nazis disproportionate ambulance-targeting neo-apartheid Jew-hating.

The Fuehrer isn't coming out of retirement and, even if he does, there aren't enough Jews left in Europe to man a decent genocide. And it seems oddly apposite that the more we fetishize an extinct enemy the more Jews in Britain and Australia and even Montreal are targeted by the new Jew-haters. The question is: what other than Hitler is our society prepared to make a moral judgment over? Bernard Lewis, the West's pre-eminent scholar of Islam, worked for British intelligence through the grimmest hours of the Second World War. "In 1940, we knew who we were, we knew who the enemy was, we knew the dangers and the issues," he told The Wall Street Journal a few months ago. "It is different today. We don't know who we are, we don't know the issues, and we still do not understand the nature of the enemy."

That first is the most important: it's not just that "we don't know who we are" but that cultural relativism strips the question of its basic legitimacy. In Britain, they used to say that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the sort of line it's easy to mock as a lot of Victorian hooey. But it contains an important truth. This present conflict will be won (if at all) in the kindergarten classes of America's grade schools, and Canada's, and Britain's and Europe's. Because the resolve necessary to win a war can't be put on and taken off like a suit of armour. It has to be bred in the bone, and sustained by the broader institutions of society. And the typical western education, even when it's not telling you that your country's principal legacy is racism and oppression, teaches history in a vacuum--random facts, a few approved figures, but no overarching heroic narrative. And, if the past isn't worth defending, why should the future be?

Which brings me back to where we came in: are we gonna win or lose? I'd say right now the best bet for much of the world is a slow ongoing incremental defeat, the kind most folks don't notice until it's too late. That's to say, in 20 years' time many relatively pleasant parts of the planet are going to be a lot less pleasant. That doesn't mean "Islamofascism" or "radical Islam" or even just plain "Islam" is going to win. But it's interesting that big-shot analysts in Moscow and Beijing have concluded that, just as Hizb'allah is a useful proxy for Iran, so the broader jihad can be a useful (if unwitting) proxy for Russia and China. I doubt that will work out too well for them in the long run, but they're not wrong to conclude that a civilization's overwhelming military dominance, economic dominance and technological dominance count for naught if it's ideologically insecure. The issue is self-defence. If you're a genuine cultural relativist--if you really believe our society is no better or worse than any other--you're about to get the opportunity not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk. Good luck.

thunderous
26 Sep 06,, 03:35
These guys in the UK are getting out of control. If the Brits are not careful they are going to have major problems as time progresses. However, having read all the comments on a recent BBC "have your say" item, where most Brits blame America in general and Bush in particular, I think they do not quite grasp the seriousness of the problem.

A huge mosque not a man maketh - the humanity you teach is what counts.

YellowFever
26 Sep 06,, 08:18
These guys in the UK are getting out of control. If the Brits are not careful they are going to have major problems as time progresses. However, having read all the comments on a recent BBC "have your say" item, where most Brits blame America in general and Bush in particular, I think they do not quite grasp the seriousness of the problem.

A huge mosque not a man maketh - the humanity you teach is what counts.

Don't kid yourself thounderous.

While what glyn said was depressing as hell, it's also a stance not that different from what the US government took.

The "blame America in general and Bush in particular" crowd is alive and well in the states as well.

If we in the states can't get our acts together and get totally behind this, what makes you think even our close allies will?

Ray
26 Sep 06,, 08:30
Glyn, Pub Father, The Chap and other Englishmen incognito on the WAB,

Hear the clarion cry before it is too late.


To the barricades Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more;
Or close the wall up with our English dead.
In peace there's nothing so becomes a man
As modest stillness and humility;
But when the blast of war blows in our ears,
Then imitate the action of the tiger:
Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood,
Disguise fair nature with hard-favour'd rage;
Then lend the eye a terrible aspect;
Let it pry through the portage of the head
Like the brass cannon: let the brow o'erwhelm it
As fearfully as doth a galled rock O'erhang and jutty his confounded base,
Swill'd with the wild and wasteful ocean.
Now set the teeth and stretch the nostril wide;
Hold hard the breath, and bend up every spirit
To his full height.
On, on, you noblest English,
Whose blood is fet from fathers of war-proof-
Fathers that like so many Alexanders
Have in these parts from morn till even fought,
And sheath'd their swords for lack of argument.
Dishonour not your mothers; now attest That those whom you call'd fathers did beget you.
Be copy now to men of grosser blood,
And teach them how to war.
And you, good yeomen,
Whose limbs were made in England, show us here
The mettle of your pasture; let us swear
That you are worth your breeding- which I doubt not;
For there is none of you so mean and base
That hath not noble lustre in your eyes.
I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,
Straining upon the start.
The game's afoot:
Follow your spirit; and upon this charge
Cry 'God for Harry, England, and Saint George!'

gilgamesh
27 Sep 06,, 13:09
They(govt) will let in hordes of characters least likely to integrate into British society, and in the name of halting excess Asian immigration, will not allow qualified Indian doctors to look for jobs. But EU(read Polish/Romanian/Bulgarian doctors) are preffered, I guess for their english language skills? Pfffft...:rolleyes:

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 13:52
[QUOTE=Bluesman;271388]We all know in our hearts what's coming.

It is inevitable.


It is sad. But is it entirely true? We must retain some optimism otherwise when the 'inevitable' occurs we could all sink into barbarism. In other words, is the cure worse than the disease? What can be done? What can WE do?

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 14:07
They(govt) will let in hordes of characters least likely to integrate into British society, and in the name of halting excess Asian immigration, will not allow qualified Indian doctors to look for jobs. But EU(read Polish/Romanian/Bulgarian doctors) are preffered, I guess for their english language skills? Pfffft...:rolleyes:


There is more than a grain of truth in what you say, gilgamesh, but at present we are trying to limit the number of citizens from the 2 newest members of the EU from pouring in. There is a limit (many indigenous people think it has long been exceeded) this small island can sensibly absorb whilst keeping its own culture and national identity. This is widely perceived as being under threat. Perhaps we are guilty of letting too many people in, without insisting that they conform to our laws and values. Other countries have been much more careful than we in controlling who comes in, and much more vigorous in getting rid of those that fail to comply with the host country's rules. Consequently whatever action is taken by the EU or the UK is bound to affect others.

Tronic
27 Sep 06,, 15:07
how long until we see the Islamic Great Britain???

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 15:20
how long until we see the Islamic Great Britain???

I can only say "Don't hold your breath" as I think it will never happen.

Archer
27 Sep 06,, 15:34
Why do you post in blue sir, it hurts my eyes!

Archer
27 Sep 06,, 15:42
Hope that wasnt rude! Just ribbing! :)

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 15:42
Why do you post in blue sir, it hurts my eyes!

Really? Then I am sorry, and shall cease and desist at once! I used a different colour for text as I do not have an atavar or anything else on the forum, and it was to quickly enable me to find my stuff.
BTW I sent you a pm a little while ago.

Archer
27 Sep 06,, 15:43
I can only say "Don't hold your breath" as I think it will never happen.

The UKs Islamic population iirc is at the 7% level. I daresay, you gentlemen have cut it exceedingly fine, but still an ok deal. Once it crosses the twenty % level, prepare to have your own politicians bend over backward to placate the most insane amongst the Muslim community and kowtow to their every whim.

Archer
27 Sep 06,, 15:45
Really? Then I am sorry, and shall cease and desist at once! I used a different colour for text as I do not have an atavar or anything else on the forum, and it was to quickly enable me to find my stuff.
BTW I sent you a pm a little while ago.

No apologies required sir. I posted, then cringed at how it came across! :rolleyes:
My apologies instead!
Its just that blue is hard to read on the forum background or just so unusual that it makes me twist my eyes a wee bit harder!

Tronic
27 Sep 06,, 16:56
I can only say "Don't hold your breath" as I think it will never happen.
why not??? When 7% of the population is already trying to overshadow the original English culture, what will happen when that percentage increases???

gilgamesh
27 Sep 06,, 17:14
I can only say "Don't hold your breath" as I think it will never happen.


Maybe not an Islamic Republic, but France is a good example for Britain, where things could go.

gilgamesh
27 Sep 06,, 17:17
There is more than a grain of truth in what you say, gilgamesh, but at present we are trying to limit the number of citizens from the 2 newest members of the EU from pouring in. There is a limit (many indigenous people think it has long been exceeded) this small island can sensibly absorb whilst keeping its own culture and national identity. This is widely perceived as being under threat. Perhaps we are guilty of letting too many people in, without insisting that they conform to our laws and values. Other countries have been much more careful than we in controlling who comes in, and much more vigorous in getting rid of those that fail to comply with the host country's rules. Consequently whatever action is taken by the EU or the UK is bound to affect others.



That being said, numbers per se are not the problem. Its the quality of integration into the mainstream as you also mention.

kams
27 Sep 06,, 20:15
Maybe not an Islamic Republic, but France is a good example for Britain, where things could go.

If I am not mistaken, French Muslims are prodominantely from Africa. As I recall they were rioting for due to the horrid living conditions of the ghettos they were forced in to. Is there a Jihadi style unrest amongst French Muslims?

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 21:31
If I am not mistaken, French Muslims are prodominantely from Africa. As I recall they were rioting for due to the horrid living conditions of the ghettos they were forced in to. Is there a Jihadi style unrest amongst French Muslims?



Hmm. Rather emotive choice of phrase 'horrid living conditions of the ghetto they were forced into'. Their wish to live in a community that is recognisably muslim, and the fact that there are many illegal residents helped to make the area overcrowded and horrid enough to become a ghetto. Who then is to blame? I do know that the unrest went on for days, and the gendarmes had to work long and hard to prevent it from becoming a no-go area.

kams
27 Sep 06,, 21:44
Hmm. Rather emotive choice of phrase 'horrid living conditions of the ghetto they were forced into'. Their wish to live in a community that is recognisably muslim, and the fact that there are many illegal residents helped to make the area overcrowded and horrid enough to become a ghetto. Who then is to blame? I do know that the unrest went on for days, and the gendarmes had to work long and hard to prevent it from becoming a no-go area.

Err That was poor choice of words by me. I apologise. I did not mean to imply that French Govt. is deliberately puting them in to ghettos.

The point I was trying to make is, French Muslim unrest is due to the economic conditions of these legal/illegal immigrants rather than any religeous jihadi belief. Thats the impression I got from watching couple of documentaries on TV (Can't remember the Channel though). Am I mistaken?

glyn
27 Sep 06,, 22:08
Err That was poor choice of words by me. I apologise. I did not mean to imply that French Govt. is deliberately puting them in to ghettos.

The point I was trying to make is, French Muslim unrest is due to the economic conditions of these legal/illegal immigrants rather than any religeous jihadi belief. Thats the impression I got from watching couple of documentaries on TV (Can't remember the Channel though). Am I mistaken?

I rather think you are right. I don't recall any blood-curdling threats being raised against Infidels either - which would certainly be the case if it had been religious based.

PubFather
27 Sep 06,, 22:11
why not??? When 7% of the population is already trying to overshadow the original English culture, what will happen when that percentage increases???
As I've posted elsewhere - the UK census 2001 reports 2.8% Muslim population in the UK, nowhere near 7%



I rather think you are right. I don't recall any blood-curdling threats being raised against Infidels either - which would certainly be the case if it had been religious based.
Thats my understanding of events in France as well, and they were not limited solely to Muslims either. The French love a good riot...

Parihaka
27 Sep 06,, 23:57
As I've posted elsewhere - the UK census 2001 reports 2.8% Muslim population in the UK, nowhere near 7%



Thats my understanding of events in France as well, and they were not limited solely to Muslims either. The French love a good riot...

Burning cars is how they keep warm isn't it?