Sunday, 23 August 2009

Lucy James - The Islamic Apologists

By Sir Percival

I was prompted to write this after reading an article in the Guardian by Lucy James titled “The BNP will lose the argument” and the connected report called “In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda."

Given my opinion that it is highly unlikely that the BNP would lose the argument in a fair contest given that the political establishment have not had to properly ague their corner against a nationalist view point before, having relied on lies, violence and suppression until now, and the BNP have had their arguments honed during decades in the cold hard arena of reality,  I thought I’d take a look.

The article itself was frankly somewhat disappointing being more of the same old same old, but maybe I expected too much. For example after stating that “there needs to be a greater focus on intellectually undermining it (the BNP) through a systematic deconstruction of its arguments” James goes on to say that “the British MEPs' recent shunning of Nick Griffin and Andrew Brons in the European parliament is certainly a step in the right direction”. Well this strikes me as neither intellectual nor particularly de-constructionist (it’s a bit like having a boxing match having first banned your opponent) but maybe that’s what she intends.

Elsewhere she says “the BNP's arguments are easily undermined using proper statistics and historical and textual evidence” but her trivialisation of Asian on White violence (historical and textual evidence) and deliberate subterfuge in her article with using “proper statistics” makes me think that this process is not so much about reasoned argument, but more to do with the fact that violence against the BNP is not working and increased propaganda probably leading to further restrictive legislation is needed to keep the locals under control.

The Guardian article is in fact is a sales job for a rather more detailed document by the same author called “In Defence of British Muslims: A response to BNP racist propaganda.” Lucy James is research fellow at the Quilliam Foundation, the organisation under whose name the document is published.

Interestingly the document is endorsed by labour MP Jon Cruddas, tory Patrick Mercer (chair of the counter-terrorism parliamentary sub-committee) and Liberal Democrat Fiyaz Mughal (advisor on interfaith, preventing radicalisation and extremism.) The document is very likely to form the basis for the “intellectual” counter attack by the liberal elite on the BNP, and is worthy of some consideration.

The core of the document centres on what they call “The BNP’s accusations” which they have divided into 10 points. In each case there is an attempt to provide arguments that either play down the accusation or deny it completely.

1.    Islamification of Europe

They cast doubt on the actual number of muslims in the UK and in Europe at present and projections for the future, underestimating Germany’s population of muslims by at least a million and that of the UK by at least 500,000.

The overwhelming evidence that there will be an explosive growth in numbers of muslims is totally ignored. For example the recent Daily Telegraph investigation showing that 20% of Europe will be muslim by 2050 and Britain, Spain and Holland will have an even higher proportion of Muslims in a shorter amount of time, and  Egyptian Islamic Preacher 'Amr Khaled boasting that within 20 Years, Muslims Will Be Majority in Europe”. This boast is often repeated by Islamic preachers and the like, with the obvious reason that they at least believe it to be true.

Furthermore they attempt to show that muslims have been part of the original fabric of Europe for many centuries, quoting the Balkans (which given the history of that tormented region is an appalling example) and Spain. What this has to do with Britain the author does not make clear. Whilst it would be foolish to deny the existence of muslims in Britain in earlier centuries they were exceptionally small in number and consisted mainly of British converts.

I think this is part of a growing trend to re write our history to match the liberal elite’s propaganda which needs to be robustly challenged.

2.    Religion of immigration

They claim what countless Islamic scholars say, namely that it is the duty of muslims to spread their religion as widely as possible and migration for the sake if islam is encouraged, is untrue.

Doubters would do well to read the book Al-Hijra: The Islamic doctrine of Immigration

3.    Incompatible with secular democracy

This is a list of countries with a muslim population of 90% or more which can be taken as representative of how an Islamic society works in practice: Mauritania, Somalia, Western Sahara, Maldives, Afghanistan, Turkey, Yemen, Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Iran, Comoros, Iraq, Libya, Jordan, Pakistan, Senegal, Djibouti, Azerbaijan, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Tajikistan, Gambia, Mali, Kosovo and Egypt.

Whilst not all the countries are as bad as each other this list contains some of the countries with the worst human rights records in the world and at best a very flawed democracy. As far as I know only Turkey is secular.  In most of those countries practising a religion other than islam is all but impossible. How can they possibly seriously tell us that islam is compatible with secular democracy when the overwhelming evidence of islam in practice shows us that it isn’t?

4.    Terrorism

Their claim is that a few jihadists are not representative of the majority of muslims. Further they cite a survey of muslim opinion claiming that “only”  9% of muslims support terrorism (that would still mean about 250,000 in Britain), and that muslim clerics regularly condemn terrorism.   

Apart from the ETA bombings in Spain, I can’t recall a recent terrorist act that was NOT associated with islam.  And I can’t recall a clear and unconditional condemnation of terrorism from any of the countries listed in point three. Indeed many of them are identified as supporters of terrorism. Again the actual practice of islam in the most populous Islamic countries shows their contempt for human life and their barbaric nature.

Further the claim that “only” 9% support terrorism is highly dubious. This survey showed support for violence amongst young muslim students at 32% which would put the figure nearer to 800,000 in Britain if extended to the muslim population as a whole. What is also important is the fact that this is the next generation of leaders and opinion makers in the Islamic community. Figures are similar or higher in other Western European countries. 

5.    No freedom of speech

They may try to claim that the murder of Theo Van Gogh was committed by an extremist not representative of the Islamic community as a whole, but the fatwa on Salman Rushdie was widely supported by muslims, as was the ban on Geert Wilders last year. Lord Achmed’s threat to put 10,000 muslims on the street if Wilders was allowed to speak is proof if proof were needed of their inability to accept free speech. And Ahmed is considered a moderate muslim. The protests against the Danish cartoons were certainly not the actions of a minority. Islam as a whole is deeply uncomfortable with freedom of speech.

6.    Second class status of women

Of all the things they try to show, that women have an equal status in islam is patently the most absurd.

The few examples they give of Islamic feminists are massively outweighed by the evidence to the contrary. Indeed the efforts of the muslim feminist movement only serve to confirm the second class status of women. The second class status of women as practiced by Islamic countries from the faintly amusing ban on women drivers in Saudi Arabia to the barbaric law in Afghanistan allowing men to deny their wives food if they refuse sex  can leave no one in any doubt.

7. Crime and punishment

So many words to say so little. That extreme punishments are only meted out in SOME Islamic countries and not ALL is apparently proof of Islamic moderation. They talk vaguely of human rights in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Indonesia. They say nothing of the fact that the testimony of women is worth less than that of a man, or even worthless.  And nothing of the rule of law.

8.    Persecution of non Muslims

Do they not understand the meaning of dhimmi?
The dhimmi is a distinctly subjugated second class non-citizen almost slave who is subjected to dictatorial deprivation of any legal and human rights since he is a non-Muslim permanent resident in a Muslim state.

9.    No belief in scientific enquiry
This is what their own report says: “Admittedly, compared to these medieval scholars, some present day Muslims particularly in the Arab world have an insufficient understanding of modern science”. (However they must have some knowledge otherwise they couldn’t make suicide vests and enriched uranium.)

10.  Muslims cause social problems: rape and drug cases

The paper focuses on the claims by the BNP of muslim grooming of young girls and Asian Involvement in the hard drugs trade. These claims can be substantiated. The drugs issue here and here for example. Grooming here and here.

In covering the subjects above they have noticeably avoided some vital issues. The Islamic age of “consent”, female genital mutilation, halal slaughter, sharia law and the building of mosques for example. Also the continuous pressure from muslim groups for special treatment in pretty well every sector of public life particularly health and education. These are very much issues important to the majority of muslims, and also important to the indigenous British population as they all erode our traditions and culture.

The other issue that they studiously avoid is that even though there are now “only” officially 2.5 million muslims in Britain they fail to point out that these are largely concentrated in London, the West Midlands, Greater Manchester and West Yorkshire.  These concentrations allow them to act as ethnic owners of large areas of our cities where they feel free to impose their own culture, which is very much alien to that of the host country. Imagine what will happen when that 2.5 million becomes 5 or 10 or even more.

Their reference to UAF, HnH and Searchlight on page 9 gives the lie to their alleged intellectualism. Any group that praises these organisations is not interested in the democratic process.

The report, despite its attempt at detail falls into the trap of desperately over simplifying BNP policy and representing that as fact. The BNP has to my knowledge never accused ALL muslims of being wicked and certainly recognises that not ALL muslims are criminal. However the report assumes this in its basis. It also states that British muslims are not responsible for the practice of islam in Islamic countries, although it fails to say why they should act any differently than their comrades when living in the West. The fact is, is that they will. They will continue the traditions and culture of the homeland, because there is absolutely no reason for them to do otherwise.

The reports main object is to take Nick Griffin MEP up on his 2002 challenge when he said:
“If you are confident that I am utterly wrong, that Sheikh Abu Hamza is totally wrong, and you are utterly right then what is the problem? Let us on air and demolish us. Not by talking over us but by letting us make fools of ourselves, let us state our case and then tear it to shreds, but let us state our case and it will be more effective”
As suggested in my second sentence, I regard it as unlikely that the BNP argument could be ripped to shreds, and after having digested their report I have not changed my opinion. But that surly is not their intention. They have no intention of allowing the BNP to debate the issues in a free and fair debate because they know they will be slaughtered.  The BNP is gaining ground politically and this is a sad attempt to undermine the democratic process by getting the establishment to spout the same old rubbish in a way that sounds plausible to the unthinking or uncaring. 

It will not and cannot work. Expect further anti-free speech legislation. Expect more violence. 

One last point before I go. One of the most telling points of the whole report is ironically not in the main body, but part of the introduction (page 7).
“Gordon Brown, for example, called for ‘British jobs for British workers’ in January 2009, and ‘local homes for local people’ in July 2009— policies that ring of far-right rhetoric and which, according to various sources, may be illegal on the basis of discrimination"
How far have we fallen when that is potentially illegal?

.Technorati Tags: , ,