How to save Islam from the Islamists

It's time for Muslims to take a stand. Egypt may be showing the way

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

The terror attack in Paris last week represents Islamism’s most explicit declaration of war on free society. Non-Muslims were slaughtered in a non-Muslim country to avenge a so-called crime against a blasphemy law that is not even Islamic — but merely Islamist. If there’s any blasphemy here, it’s that of Islamism itself against my religion, Islam.

At last, on New Year’s Day, the president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, did what no other leader of the Muslim world has done to date: he named Islam’s real enemy. In a gathering of religious clerics at Cairo’s ancient Al Azhar University, he called for the rescue of Islam from ‘ideology’. His speech was given little coverage in the western press, but it is worth repeating at some length.

‘We are in need of a religious revolution,’ he said. ‘You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move because the Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands.’ It is inconceivable, he said, that ‘this thinking — and I am not saying religion — should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.’ The remedy, said al-Sisi, was for Islam to recognise and talk about its mutant strain. ‘Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people,’ he said. ‘We need a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam,’ rather than ‘relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years’.

Sisi’s speech is significant because the Islamic world has precious little record of leaders discussing Muslims’ collective responsibility for the toxic ideologies within our midst. President Sisi’s candour has shone light upon the most critical issue of our time: the urgent need for the Muslim world to denounce Islamism as the imposter and explain the real meaning of the Quran.

I’m a British Muslim who has lived in Saudi Arabia and worked as a doctor in Pakistan — and I have seen how any discussion about Islam is increasingly dangerous in these places. In nations gripped by Islamist ideology, it’s deemed ‘Islamophobic’ to be critical of Islam in any way. Even in the West, critical discussion is becoming difficult. The United Nations has passed several resolutions giving Islamophobia the status of a crime under international law.

So it’s not enough simply to say, as so many did last week, that the Islamists will never win. In several important arenas, they are winning already. Their idea of blasphemy is particularly potent: Shahbaz Bhatti, a Pakistani government minister, was executed by Muslim ‘defenders of the faith’ after his brave criticism of Pakistan’s inhumane (and explicitly Islamist) blasphemy laws. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, was assassinated on the same grounds. The French journalists were killed to establish a de facto blasphemy law in Europe by sending out a message: if you publish certain cartoons, you put your life — and that of your staff — at risk.

The jihadists’ other objective, of course, is to speak for the Muslim world and advance the idea of a clash of civilisations. This is going fairly well, if opinion polls are to be believed — more or less half of those in Britain, Spain, France and the United States say they believe that Islam is not compatible with the West. And this is why Muslims cannot rely on presidents and prime ministers to denounce terrorism — the public will be persuaded not by what political leaders say, but what we Muslims say.

To assert that this Islamism is un-Islamic is not a kneejerk response to its atrocities but the only conclusion that can be drawn after serious consideration of its principles. The Damascene Muslim scholar, Bassam Tibi, identifies six tenets of Islamism. The first is seeking a new world order through a new dictatorial global ‘caliphate’. (It matters little that the word ‘dawla’ — Islam as state — appears nowhere in the 80,000-word document that we accept as the revealed Quran.) Next is the establishment of Islamism within democracies — Islamists are keen to stand for election, but once they get into power they want to shut the democratic gate behind them.

The third principle is positioning Jews as Islam’s chief enemy, thereby making anti-Semitism central (as Hamas’s founding charter attests). Then comes the perversion of classical jihad into terrorist jihadism — with which the world has become all too familiar.

The fifth tenet is sharia law — not sharia as described by the Quran, but a concocted version used to impose a form of totalitarian rule which is without historical precedent. As we see, particularly in Iran and Pakistan, mercy has no place within Islamists’ version of sharia.

In his searing study of the subject, the British lawyer Sadakat Kadri makes the critical observation that ‘pitiless punishment’, while lacking in Islam itself, has found a comfortable home in much of the Islamist world. Judges have been ‘required to punish but forbidden to forgive’, meaning stonings, amputations and floggings. Medieval barbarity has become a modern-day reality across much of the modern Muslim world — except that such punishment was unusual even in medieval times. Kadri notes that in five centuries of documented Ottoman legal history, there is only one record of a stoning to death.

When they are not exacting pitiless punishment, Islamists are busy with the sixth tenet: their concept of purity and authenticity. Any challenge to Islamism is, to them, de facto evidence of an un-Islamic behaviour. As Professor Tibi puts it, this is what makes Islamism ‘a totalitarian ideology poised to create a totalitarian state’ on a par with Nazism and Leninism. ‘Given that Muslims constitute more than a quarter of humanity,’ he concludes, the tension ‘between civil Islam and Islamist totalitarianism matters to everyone’.

This tension has been building for years. It has broken out into war in Pakistan, as I saw for myself while travelling with the rangers of the Frontier Corps in Waziristan. I saw Pakistani Muslims — civilians and military — de-radicalise and rehabilitate former child jihadists who had been indoctrinated with Taleban ideology. Pakistani soldiers had no trouble understanding the concept of a jihadist or accepting that the Taleban’s creed is a heresy of our great faith. I saw children greet the military convoy, knowing who had pushed back their Islamist oppressors.

Last month’s massacre of 132 children in Peshwar was a shocking reminder to the Muslim world that Islamism is not just directed at westerners. It’s also a reminder of why the animus against Islamism is rising — holding out the prospect of real reform. The Muslim Brotherhood’s hold on Egypt did not last long, and the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq is giving the whole region a growing sense of what unbridled Islamism actually looks like. Crucially, the jihadis are losing the argument. Ten years ago, a Pew poll found that 41 per cent of Pakistani Muslims said that suicide bombings were sometimes justified. Now, it’s down to 3 per cent.

This is what President Sisi was getting at: this is the moment for the Islamic world to expose Islamism — but loosening its hold upon our faith falls upon those Muslims who value pluralism and pursue a civilised, enlightened Islam. The reformation many are calling for isn’t needed of Islam, but rather of Muslims — and specifically of Muslim leadership.

Similarly, western powers can no longer overlook the very major distinctions between authentic Islam and the jihadist imposter. Failing to call Islamism by its name (a failure of which Barack Obama is, alas, guilty) guarantees defeat. The idea of a war between general Islam and the West is exactly the outcome Islamists seek. Failing to name Islamism out of political correctness, fear or stupidity is the ultimate Islamophobic act. What is seen, often sincerely, as a desire not to offend has only allowed Islamists to thrive within our democracies as they plot their extinction.

So we must name the beast, and do so with conviction. This is not just about weeding out a jihadi menace from Birmingham schools, but about giving millions of Muslims the chance for a peaceful coexistence with the rest of humanity. And it’s about persuading non-Muslims that the Islamists are wrong — that such coexistence is possible.

Muslims are reminded by the Quran that to each people is sent ‘a Law’ and ‘a Way’ and that Muslims should not judge people of other faiths in the light of their own. Instead, the People of the Book must judge themselves by their own revealed texts (‘unto you your religion, and unto me my religion’) as we worship the same God. The Quran teaches that Moses and Aaron are to be revered for their courage in the face of merciless rule. The Torah and the Gospel are to be honoured.

And it is a biblical exhortation — let there be light! — that sums up what President Sisi was saying in Cairo, and what many Muslim reformers are saying now. From the Pakistani badlands to the banlieues of Paris, notice must be served to the Islamists: Muslims — that is to say, real Muslims — are coming for you.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

Qanta Ahmed is a British Muslim based in New York, and the author of In the Land of Invisible Women, about her experiences working as a doctor in Saudi Arabia.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Rik

    A brave well written article from an author living in the USA where the concept of moderate Islam is well rooted,unhappily only a couple out of 1700 mosques in the UK preach moderate Islam,the most common voice of Islam we hear here are the violent ranting of the likes of Choudary

    • John Croston

      Anyone who preaches “moderate Islam” is just peddling deceit. Islam is Islam and it is not in any way “moderate.” Allah (in the Koran) justifies wife-beating, crucifixion and the lopping off of hands and feet. There is nothing “moderate” about that – and no Muslim would ever admit that Allah was wrong.

    • sebastian2

      Choudary hints at war. He should know that all engaged in battle believe there’s something, somewhere with their name on it. In Choudary’s case – a custard pie. Or …………… maybe something more metallic and pointy?

  • Parvez_ahmed

    A brave article.

    I still feel that it does not get into the root of the problem which afflicts Islam. The problem is taking the text of Koran and Hadith as final words on everything. Till a sizable bumber of Muslims rebel and become atheists, I see little hope for the world.

    It is only the rebel iconoclast who can spread the word that

    a) Islam is at best one of the many religions in the world. It has its shortcomings and there can be no compulsion of apostasy or blasphemy to follow it.

    b) Frankly why should non Muslims be stopped from drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammad, even though the Prophet banned them?

    c) The hard part. MOhammad’s own life was like that of a warlord running a desert kingdom. Osama bin Laden, Hafis saed and Baghdadi just tried to live the same life of dispensing justice, having a private army and killing kafirs. MUSLIMS NEED TO SEE that IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE 21ST CENTURY

    • Ivan Ewan

      a) de-canonising the hadith might solve this problem because al-Bukhari is responsible

      b) de-canonising the hadith might solve this problem as well, since the stories of killing critics hark from these

      c) de-canonising the hadith might solve this problem because they describe Mo’s life as such

      • Muslims need to decanonise the Koran.

        • Ivan Ewan

          And I thought I was guilty of wishful thinking.

          • Richard Baranov

            I agree. But I fail to see why his remark is on moderation. There seems to be no rational for how the Spectator moderates. What is offensive about his remark?

          • Mc

            It may be that the Spectator automatically removes comments that are flagged by readers because it doesn’t want to go to the trouble / cost of reading every flagged comment.

          • Ivan Ewan

            I’ve been assured that the Spectator moderation random number generator is highly accurate.

          • rightrightright

            The Koran has recently been subjected to scholarly examination and criticism, much as the Bible was treated in the 19th and 20th centuries. Whether these re-assessments and conclusions will filter through to the largely illiterate Muslim world or not, we cannot know yet.

      • Parvez_ahmed

        True! Decanonising the Hadiths can be the first of many such steps.

    • The Masked Marvel

      b) Frankly why should non Muslims be stopped from drawing pictures of Prophet Mohammad, even though the Prophet banned them?

      Thank you! Yes. This is where the debate is now. It began as prohibiting harsh criticism and satire, and has now expanded to forbidding non-Muslims from showing an innocent, non-critical, non-insulting image.

      As Ms. Ahmed said this only encourages the anger and fears of creeping Islamification that the media and politicians claim to want to prevent.

      Also, people need to be reminded that there is no single, true way to interpret any of it. No single person or group should be allowed to dictate what is an is not acceptable or forbidden. Yet again, the media and politicians cede this power to the most extreme noisemakers, which only makes things worse.

    • Rawdata

      Brave is an understatement.

      The truth is often painful.

  • Arthur Ascii

    This article needs to be shared and read widely. If you have a social media account, share it. Muslims in the UK and across Europe need to read it.

  • WTF

    I totally concur and its a welcome breath of fresh air that I had already picked up from the Egyptian president words a week ago or so.

    I’d venture to say that all of us non Muslims with uncompromising views about Islamic Terrorism & Jihad don’t want to see a full blown war against Islamic fanatics as many innocent people will die in the ensuing blood bath and I suspect it would be Muslims who suffer the worst. The author of this piece has rightly identified the only solution to fix this current problem to avoid an all out war lies with the clerics & western leaders.

    Previously, many clerics have been the catalyst for terrorism and need to be removed from office by the Muslim people whether through incompetence or deliberately radicalizing young Muslims. As the writer has clearly pointed out, its up to the moderate clerics to interpret Islam and its teachings in a modern compassionate way that doesn’t preach violence against non believers or even their own to eradicate this violence in the name of religion.

    On our side, its up to the electorate to ‘teach’ our leaders at the ballot box that their policies towards Muslims has just made a bad situation far worse by playing that political correctness, diversity & multicultural divisive game. Leaders like Blair, Cameron, Obama and other countries in the EU like Sweden, instead of cracking down hard on hate clerics and hate venders within the Muslim communities have given them free rein to do and say whatever they like, Anjem Chowdary being the perfect example. In California, to graduate you are forced to take a course in Islam despite not being of that faith, in Birmingham & Tower Hamlets, extremist Muslims are in control and force feed hate into the schools curriculum and all with the consent if not blind encouragement of the countries leaders.

    For France, I hope there’s some good that will come out of last weeks atrocity and politicians and Muslim clerics can each address the problems that exist with extremist Islam. In the UK, Farages broadside on FoxNews could very well help in the UK and force Cameron and others to re-think their capitulation policies towards Islam militancy and maybe get the MCB get off their back side and actually remove UK extremist clerics.

    What ever happens next, as Cameron said about out of control journalists, we are certainly at the ‘last chance salon’ with regard to solving this cancer in western society and western politicians have to get it right just as much as moderate clerics must take charge. Up till now, its been pitiful, ineffective and play acting to political correctness by the likes of Cameron and if he and others fail us, a bloodbath will certainly happen.

  • Daz K

    A splendid piece.

    It is now surely time, that the peaceful majority of Muslims we hear so much about take control, remove these zealots, demagogues, bigots, fascists and reactionaries from their lofty position and embrace modernity.

    This requires bravery and some soul searching. But many of the cultures currently gripped by this ideology (the Persians, the Arabs, the Egyptians) have in the past been centres of endeavour and great thought, and they can be once again.

    Good luck, as a liberal secularist, you have my full support ma’am!

    • Point is at home it is up to our legal system and our government to address radicals and no one else but they won’t because it’s not pc to naysay Islam and that suits radicals down to the ground..liberal secularists are the ones who brought this on the west…one aid to overcoming this inaction may be to think that it is not racist to clamp down on Muslim citizens who indulge in terrorist activity as Islam does not indicate any race it is a faith just like Judaism and Christianity …imagine if you want to integrate anyone into a society with no culture or religion or specific identity! That doesn’t only alienate natives

      • Daz K

        Liberal secularists did not ‘bring’ this to the West, how can you write such drivel?

        Go and look up true liberal secularists like Maajid Nawaz, Nick Cohen, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris and you will see that comment is utter nonsense.

        What you are getting confused with is the left-wing apologists for Islam who ignore that they are sticking up for the far-right of Islam in order to attack the native far-right. People such as Owen Jones.

        • Liberal secularists are responsible for the mass immigration and imposing of multiculture which no traditional conservative could allow as rational people could have foreseen the consequences and now we live them ..now when you talk about far right I have a feeling you might be confused …just because one is devoutly religious does not mean one is automatically right wing especially if you talk about different parts of the world..look at Pope francis he certainly is not right wing…naturally because he comes from a part of the world where revolution and Marxism rises time and again

          • Daz K

            I don’t have a clue what point you are trying to make, and I don’t think you do neither.

            You seem to misunderstand the term secularism if you think secularists have allowed religious privilege to prevail, that is exactly what secularism is against. And at no point have I said all religious are right wing. I said the Islamists leftist apologists defend are themselves the religious far right, just like the fascists of the 30’s were a spin off of the Catholic right.

            And by-and-large most other communities float along pretty well in the UK, the Indian Hindu and Sikh communities, Afro-Carribean, Chinese, Jewish, but these people do not make over zealous demands on our free society. We have issues with Islam and it’s more political bent yes, and there is an element of the liberal-left that has placated the bigotry of lower expectations, but to blame secularists clearly demonstrates your utter misunderstanding.

          • I don’t think I do misunderstand what secularism is but it certainly has gone a long way towards erasing our identity and then you have liberals who introduced multiculture and mass immigration dividing people into smaller groups desperately hanging on to their values and distrusting other groups…but fascism was popularised by a certain Austrian and Italian duo who funnily enough were both left wing socialist nationalists…but secularists are part of the problem multiculture another …who actually wants this?

          • Daz K

            “desperately hanging on to their values and distrusting other groups”

            Oh the irony!!!!

          • Irony or not is that a healthy situation? Imagine if a conservative leader and prime minister chirps publicly that British identity is out of date and has no place in modern Britain …sounds like clegg…I’d say what’s wrong with British values and identity? Are we expected to just wait for the next Islamic attack or turn our heads when we see Isis flags in London ? What about ghettos or child abuse in the north? Jolly good lets pretend it didn’t happen and that one and all are lovely compatible free society supporters regardless of where they come from …well with multi culture there’s no need to even learn English

          • Daz K

            I have no idea what point you are attempting to make, and what’s worrying, I don’t think you do either.

            Why are you yelling at me about ISIS flags and child abuse. I know this, I condemn the silence about them, I debate with apologists all the time.

            Stop attempting to frame me as this imaginary opponent you have created.

          • Daz I never lost sight of my point and you framed yourself along with others of your liberal secular ilk how can you feign surprise at perpetual Islamic attacks and abuse cases and still preach far left idealism that nobody wants? and which has caused the troubles now seen across Europe

          • Daz K

            You are making up a person to argue against in order to spout your own bigotries.

            Go and read my Disqus comment history if you think I am ‘surprised’ by Islamist attacks or a ‘far-left’ idealist.

          • Ok I will have a look but you mentioned 3 things from the start here that I disliked i.e. Modernity secularism and liberality…all cloudy light terms which are generally associated with the British far left and politically correct media

          • Daz K

            Ha, what an incredibly ridiculous comment.

            Would you prefer I said ‘backwardness, religious privilege and oppression?’

            All of these things aren’t ‘leftist’ ideals anyway, they are the ideals of many democracies globally.

          • That all depends on your definition and understanding of the terms…for example backwardness that’s open to interpretation by agenda don’t you think

          • Daz K

            Not really no

          • What about constantly imposing forms of far left policy/government even though they always fail despite numerous historical examples is that backwardness?

          • arctic_front

            I think there would be a big sea-change in the UK if the clerics that spew anti-western hate were prosecuted vigorously and often…. followed by swift deportation of the cleric and his entire family, for the same kinds of hate speech Britons get prosecuted for. Additional benefits as a spin-off would be lowering the welfare rolls of all the second and third wives w/ their broods. Enough is enough. I sincerely hope Farange gets the balance of power in your next Parliament.

            Maybe you could deport Clegg and Cameron too?

          • Rawdata

            Dream on……

          • Rawdata

            clegg is OE for key?

    • Gareth Mailer

      ‘The peaceful majority’?

      66% of Muslims believe religious law is more important than the law of the land in which they reside.

      42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified.

      40% of Muslims want Sharia Law introduced in the UK.

      68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of British people who insult Islam.

      My sources? The Telegraph, CBS news and Pew research.

    • ItwasBlairwotdunnit

      In a week full of horror and discord, this is one of the most positive pieces that I have read.

  • From the Pakistani badlands to the banlieues of Paris, notice must be served to the Islamists: Muslims — that is to say, real Muslims — are coming for you.

    Indeed yet let’s remember that Muslims are killing Muslims in increasing numbers too: the percent you give for Pakistanis approving of suicide bombings is very encouraging.

  • jack

    These would be the first baby steps to reformation, but ideally you need to break the idea of belief in Islam being mandatory, and to give people unfortunate enough to be born into it, assistance and support to disbelieve its propaganda and the freedom to reject all its teachings.

    • Why would you disbelieve all its teachings? Modernise maybe but you might be shocked to know that community and spirituality is important to all walks of life

    • Rawdata

      Islam declares war on all infidels and then is inflamed when the infidels try to defend themselves……for 1045 years.

  • Mister Rible

    Islam as a brand is dead in the west, and beyond.
    Buddhists, Sikhs, Jews, Christians and Hindus, all have a general dislike and mistrust towards Islam, and its’ violent psychotic followers.
    Our dhimmified politicians and our repugnant media still try to shove it down our thrusts, but it’s done. People do not want it.
    Europe’s future is bleak: what to do with all these millions and millions of potentially violent and dangerous people? Europeans will revolt I believe. Pegida is only the beginning, yet nobody is listening, not our dear leaders, who filled up our houses with vipers, and not our cowardly media, that had been regurgitating the same exact taqiyya since 9/11.

    The only way I can see SAVING EUROPE (not saving Islam), is by starting to close down mosques. Only leave liberal mosques open, monitor what’s going on inside. This way they will all leave and maybe go back to Cesspitistan.

    The other option is civil war.

    • John Croston

      A liberal mosque would be one that did not teach Islam or quote from the Koran. It could not exist. So safer to close them all.

    • scampy

      What about referendum asking if muslim immigrants should be returned to countries of origin?

      • Mister Rible

        they would never dare, because we all know the outcome

      • Tom M

        And what would you do with those who were born in the UK?

        • Neil Saunders

          What about cuckoos born in other birds’ nests?

          • Richard Baranov

            That is a grim lesson. Cuckoos kill the fledglings of the host bird.

        • justejudexultionis

          We would send them back to the desert too!

    • I think we should be honest and make arrangements for those Muslims that want to live in an Islamic society (which is the enormous majority) to leave and move to Muslim countries. We can offer cash incentives. It is a peaceful solution. Unfortunately, anyone who knows the slightest bit about Islam knows that it has a universal belief in its superiority, and that Muslims across the UK are instructed to engage in activities to take over the country – either overtly through politics, or covertly through demographics (having as many children as possible until they are the majority). These last points are not hypothetical – they are taken from the words of Muslims themselves. As just example of real evidence, watch what happened to Darcus Howe (famous anti-racist campaigner) when he went to Birmingham and London: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUODVXIIKwQ. If Darcus Howe can’t handle it, there’s a problem.

      • rodger the dodger

        “…Muslims that want to live in an Islamic society (which is the enormous majority) to leave and move to Muslim countries.”

        You do not understand the doctrinal concept of ‘Hijra’ – muslims emigrating from muslim lands to non-muslim lands in order to spread Islam, just like their prophet Mo did, Mecca > Medina. That’s how it works. That’s the whole point of being here.

        • sebastian2

          Escaping from one only to replicate it somewhere else, I fear. They cannot escape from “themselves”.

    • Tom M

      Wishful thinking I’m afraid. We in the West have democracies that guarantees (in principle at least) freedom of speech and expression. That includes religion.
      It is inconceivable for a Western Government to consider targetting one particular religion. As in free speech freedom of religion is not negotiable either.
      If these recent attacks had been perpetrated by any other group than a religion it would have been declared a terrorist organisation. This little problem is why no democratic government has any practical response to the problem other than the we-must-stop-these-young-men-becoming-radicalised mantra.
      If there is an answer it has to come from the Muslim communities themselves otherwise it will descend into civil war.

      • Mister Rible

        okay, so enjoy islamization I guess

        by 2040, 55% of Europe will be islamic, and we all know what happens to minorities in muslim countries

        you think it’ll get that far?

        • rodger the dodger

          Not going to happen. You may be surprised by what does in the next 15 years. It’s certainly going to get much worse before it gets better, though. They haven’t declared ‘offensive’ jihad yet (according to doctrine, everything thus far has been ‘defensive’ jihad), which I anticipate next year. Then there really will be Islamic terrorism in Europe.

          The reaction will come, but it will take many more deaths. Remember, it took Europeans 400 years to respond to Islam originally, so this is nothing new. This time, it will be much sooner, though.

      • LarryInIowa

        We enforced a Denazification of Germany after WWII. Why would a Deislamification be any different?

        • Tom M

          Because it’s a religion. We, riightly, insist that freedom of speech is not negotiable. The other side of that coin is in a free democracy like ours freedom of religion is also non negotiable.
          We can describe and declare a political party as illegal (like the IRA) but not a religion.

          • LarryInIowa

            Islam is also a political and social system that, like the Nazis, demands absolute authority and the elimination of all other systems. They are less tolerant and more ruthless than the Nazis. That they claim a divine sanction for everything they do makes them even more dangerous than the Nazis. If the Nazis has claimed divine inspiration for what they did would that have required the Allies to allow them to continue after WWII? Are we required to allow an existential threat to remain and grow in our midst? Does our tradition of freedom of religion require us to commit societal suicide?

          • Tom M

            Nothing would please me more than seeing the end of this cariacature of a religion but just think of this headline for a moment. “Britian delclares Islam a terrorist organisation and starts to intern its more dangerous members”.
            Do you really think that would stand up in world opinion? What do you think the reaction would be from no less than our own liberal left voting public?

          • LarryInIowa

            Should a country commit suicide just so foreigners will have a good opinion of them? As for the liberals, since when do they support religion?

          • Tom M

            Suicide or not either you are for freedoms, and that includes freedom of religion as well as free speech, or you are not.
            They can’t cherry-pick which parts of free speech applies to them and everybody else cannot cherry-pick the parts of freedom of religion that they (that includes me) don’t like.
            Find a way to deal with it.
            As a suggestion tell the great majority of peace loving Muslims (I’m told they exist and are in the majority) to get of their back-sides and have their clerics proclaim loudly on television, in massed marches to Parliament, with presentations from their leaders to the public that these things are not in their name. Get them to go a lot further than a few limp wristed announcements that they don’t agree with atrocities. Otherwise we are heading for civil war.

          • LarryInIowa

            Nonsense squared.

          • Tom M

            Good afternoon Larry. Just so you know where I stand on Islam. I’ve read the Koran. To me it reads like a comic book. Except that it isn’t funny.
            I think their cultural ideas are repulsive and I do not believe they are the religion of peace. I sincerely believe that the “peace loving majority of Muslims” don’t exist. I believe the average Muslim thinks the fanatics are right but probably went a bit too far in the case of Charlie Hebdo.
            Now to your points. I see the benefits of an open democracy where freedom of speech and expression is allowed. History teaches us what happens when you allow governments to start to remove these rights. The effects of that would be worse than what we have because everybody suffers. I don’t want to give that up and certainly not for a fanatical religious sect.
            If Islam was not a religion it would have been branded a terrorist organisation years ago. But it is and that is the democratic catch 22. No Western Government can condemn outright a religion and still claim to be a democracy. Governments can only tackle the extremists of a religion.
            To tackle this problem all Western Governments would have to have a concerted approach. Can you imagine trying to get an international agreement that Islam must be eradicated?
            Islam isn’t going to go away. Even if you go head to head with it (where?) it will appear somewhere else as it is not an identifiable army in the time honoured fashion.
            The only solution is to get Islam to alter itself as the Egyptian President suggested.
            Unfortunately the recent attempt by Eric Pickles, UK home secretary, to impress upon the imams of the UK that they might have a resonsibility here met with the usual negative reply claiming Islamophobia.
            The only other likelyhood is a civil war. You chose which country it would start in, I see one or two gearing up.

          • arctic_front

            Unfortunately, Tom, The vast majority of even the peaceful Muslims believe every word they are being taught in the mosques and in their religious schools. Even those against acting out violently, would prefer to stand with their radical Muslim brothers against us than the other way around. Consider them the Islamist’s 5th column. They are in no way our allies.

            It’s time we declare the entire religion a ‘clear and present danger’ to our western society and impose the same limits on their activities as they do to Christians, Jews or Hindu’s in those Muslim countries. Fair is fair, correct? Another option is to make them all sign a pledge of societal responsibility for their actions, on threat of immediate deportation, UK citizen or not, back to the country of cultural origin. Put all immigrants feet to the flame. Assimilate or leave. Multiculturalism is a sad and utterly FAILED experiment everywhere it is practiced.

      • rightrightright

        Islam should be re-classified as a political ideology, which it is, and be confronted with the same rough and tumble, abuse and accusation that other political bodies face. The religious part of Islam is little more than the burkha concealing Sharia law in all its horror.

    • Neil Saunders

      And civil war is what is going to happen.

      • kittydeer

        Led by pasty Dave, dozy Clegg, moronic May and the badger over at Labour HQ. I think not

        • Brogan75

          Led by? Led against.

    • Bruce Long

      Perhaps civil war is what someone wants. Someone withmore money and power than you? They could achieve that by financing the march of Islam to foment trouble. You are right. It is unambiguously a doctrinal, dialogical and physical bully and a nasty one. They know that.

    • Vlad_the_Inhaler

      Do not call it civil war because that implies these people are Europeans and have leave to remain after any unpleasantness. They don’t, get shot of them, all of them.

  • sebastian2

    You cannot be a muslim selectively – though you may, sort of, claim to be (and for the sake of a quiet life we’ll humour you). You either believe islam to be perfect and infallible – a core islamic conviction – or you don’t. It’s either true or it ain’t. You cannot wriggle out of or blur these stark alternatives by “interpretation” arguments. Or, as Tariq Ramadan tries to do and fails, with arguments of “context”. Islam is what it is.

    You can only believe mohammedism to be peaceful and beautiful – the RoP and the “real” islam – if you believe the many incitements to violence that are in the revealed texts to be the false islam. But this is impossible because islam is, well … “perfect”. It cannot be refutably irrefutable.

    As such, you must either take it or leave it. I suggest you leave it.

    • edithgrove

      Well the church of England has done just that for several centuries, so lets not stamp out the light too soon.

      • sebastian2

        But, with respect, islam has avoided doing that for several centuries. They’re stamping out their own light, in my view. The C of E no longer knows what it believes. Islam believes without wanting to know.

    • John Croston

      The followers of a religion that justifies murder, crucifixion, mutilation, slavery and wife-beating – and calls for endless war against everybody else – cannot keep on insisting that it is a Religion of Peace without being laughed at.
      And their insistence that Mohammad – who kept and dealt in slaves, had sex with a nine year old, massacred defenceless prisoners, had people who mocked him assassinated and called for the execution of gays, adulterers, blasphemers and apostates – is “Perfect” and the ultimate role model is actually quite scary.

      • sebastian2

        I think out of the two, the “Perfection” fallacy is worse than the “Peaceful” fallacy, and the “Peaceful” fallacy is bad enough. That we should be expected to defer to either, is truly mind-boggling.

        • John Croston

          I am not in the least religious but the idea that Jesus and Mohammad were both “prophets of Islam” seems ludicrous. They are quite obviously polar opposites. I can’t see JC would have approved of Mo’s massacres of defenceless prisoners, can you? And as for torturing someone by building a fire on his chest…well, that’s not really JC’s style, is it?

          • Ivan Ewan

            A Nigerian woman once “explained” to me that Jesus was just “shy”, which is presumeably why he didn’t go around ordering mass slaughter and destruction.

          • Ambientereal

            No way, Jesus was not shy, he was peaceful and convinced of the power of love. He was also so incredible clever, that he found simple solutions to problems that lasted already many centuries in the Jewish world. On top of it he was pragmatic. He found practical solutions. For instance, the ten commandments issued or received by Moses are (besides being God´s words) very practical coexistence rules that allow a peaceful life for the people in the communities at that time. Then he recovered the original meaning of them and translated this knowledge to his followers in simple words and parabels (for instance “Sabbath is for the man….”, “the ones free from sin throw the first stones” “giveth God what is of God ……”) He was basically a Philosopher and a good teacher but communicated a lot to the masses following him and was a very good CEO of his group. Also absolutely not shy.

          • Rawdata

            Irregardless of the 4 gospels.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Yeah, well the usual Islamic tripe comes into play there, doesn’t it. “The gospel is corrupted”, blah blah blah… pay no attention to the djinn behind the curtain….

          • Ambientereal

            We must understand that islam is a “design religion” structured to a very well defined purpose. That purpose is solely the gathering of power, what at that time meant to conquer other nations and slavering their people because land and man force was the ground of power (not the technology as it is now). This religion wanted to win the Christians over, that is why Jesus was included.

          • sebastian2

            Apart from the fact that if true and that one in “faith” was also the other in “faith”, that would make mohammed a Christian, wouldn’t it? This, of course, is ridiculous. To all but mohammedans grasping at straws, they are clearly not the same at all.

          • Rawdata

            The entirety of JC’s teachings can be easily read in an afternoon. Find one quote that says all powerful God needs mere humans to kill for Him.

    • little islander

      After so much white-wash, he was practically scraping at the barrel’s bottom, he will be keeping it, thank you very much.

    • Robert Werdine

      Well, Sebastian, you are certainly right. As a Muslim, I choose to “take it” rather than leave it. One can believe that the Qur’an is divine revelation without insisting that every Muslim must kneel before your own interpretation. To do so is an ISLAMIST position and not a normative Muslim one. Those who do so should definitely “leave it.” Indeed, I wish they would.

      There are no “incitements” to violence in the Qur’an. The global phenomenon of Islamist terror is a crisis occurring within the Islamic faith, but I think it is as well to keep in mind that all of the verses of the Qur’an that enjoin or allow fighting are purely in the context of self defense.

      However, this has never posed much of an obstacle to Shi’ite or Salafist extremists, who pick and choose which verses they will obey through an interpretive perversity known as “abrogation”—actually a legitimate device used in the finer points of some Islamic law, but much abused by thug jihadists and their clerical apologists (Read: Yousef Qaradawi, Anjim Choudary) to give the Islamic stamp of approval to acts of wanton murder, murder/suicide, and aggression, as well as forcible conversions against non-Muslims and Muslims who reject their violently puritanical practices and beliefs. All such acts are forbidden by the Qur’an. And it is the Qur’an that is the highest authority in Islam; the Hadith and the Sunnah are secondary.

      All of the verses of the Qur’an that enjoin fighting must be read holistically and in relation to one another and surrounding verses. All proscribe qital (fighting) except in cases of self-defense or persecution. This becomes clearer when the verses are read in the context of 2:190-193, 4:89-90, 22:39-41, and 60:8-9. Even Sura 9:5, the infamous “Verse of the Sword” is limited to fighting the mushrikin (the Quraysh pagans of Arabia) only if they violate their treaties with the Muslims and attack them. The same applies to 9:29, another Islamist/jihadist/terrorist favorite.

      As Muhammad Asad, one of the foremost scholars of the Qur’an has written of verse 9:29,

      “In accordance with the fundamental principle – observed throughout my interpretation of the Qur’an – that all of its statements and ordinances are mutually complementary and cannot, therefore, be correctly understood unless they are considered as parts of one integral whole, this verse, too must be read in the context of the clear-cut Qur’anic rule that war is permitted only in self-defence.”

      So, we should indeed shun all PC attempts to denude Islam from Islamic or Islamist terrorism. I’m all for that. People should speak plainly and clearly about the fact that ISIL and Hamas are terrorists who draw their ideologies from Islamic sources such as the Qur’an and the Hadith. That is the truth. It is no less true, however, that their borrowings are selective, self-serving, and distorting.

      Also, Qur’an Suras 2:256 and 109:2—6 confirm absolute freedom of worship, and forbid forcible conversions:

      “There shall be no compulsion in religion: the right way is now distinct from the wrong way. Anyone who denounces the devil and believes in GOD has grasped the strongest bond; one that never breaks. GOD is Hearer, Omniscient.” (2:256)

      “I do not worship what you worship. Nor do you worshipwhat I worship. Nor will I ever worship what you worship. Nor will you ever worship what I worship. To you is your religion, and to me is my religion.” (109:2-6)

      Also, Sura 5:48 confirms that all faiths who worship God must do so in their own way:

      “For each of you, we have decreed laws and different rites. Had GOD willed, He could have made you one congregation. But He thus puts you to the test through the revelations He has given each of you. You shall compete in righteousness. To GOD is your final destiny—all of you—then He will inform you of everything you had disputed.”

      Sura 5:69 confirms that all Christians and Jews who obey their scriptures and live righteous lives will go to heaven:

      “Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the converts, and the Christians; any of them who (1) believe in GOD and (2) believe in the Last Day, and (3) lead a righteous life, have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve.”

      This is confirmed in Sura 2:62, 3:199, and 22:17.

      Suicide is proscribed by Sura 4:29-30:

      Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancor and injustice, soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. (Chapter 4 Verse 29–30)

      Thus, when Hasan al-Banna, founder of the Muslim B-hood excoriated his fellow Muslims’ “love of life” over martyrdom in the service of jihad, which he praised as “the art of death,” he was running roughshod over traditional, orthodox Islamic doctrine, which forbid murder, suicide, or dying while fighting an unjust war. The same goes for those who enact forcible conversions, or persecute or kill apostates.

      Since radical Islamists violate and run roughshod over ALL of these fundamental tenets of the Qur’an, I suggest they leave the Muslim faith. We can do without them, I assure you.

  • doctorseraphicus

    Good article.

  • Michael H Kenyon

    Good piece and provides a bit of hope, which is welcome. A lot of the violence in the Islamic world is a reflection of the failed states and poor governance therein, which leads to rationalised tribal violence and brigandage, on top of the civil war funded by the bigger Islamic nations. Medieval London was not great, either.

    • little islander

      You are wrong, Mr Kenyon, But as excuses go, it’s as good as the next one. As for Medieval London, are you suggesting then that the Londoners went on to kill the locals like the American Indians and create the British Empire?

      • Michael H Kenyon

        Thanks for the faint praise. I understand why many see the current wave of Islamicism as homicidal mania and brutality, and see this as an ongoing problem, and don’t especially disagree. But I try to have a historical perspective. The Middle East (and other Muslim countries) were actually far more culturally diverse and (for them) liberal up to the relatively recent past. It was the adopting the methods and rhetoric of 1960s radicalism by Wahabi/ Salafist Islamicists (‘political Islam’), funded by fundamentalist Gulf states which has contributed to the problem. (No wonder lefists like them.) In a very real way you could see the current Islamicist problem as the equivalent of the Soviet-subsidised communist and ‘radical’ states and movements that were ongoing until the fall of the USSR, and are now mostly melted away. Trouble is, by the time wealthy Gulf States lose their oil wealth, the only version of Islam out there might be the political, fundamentalist type. Once freed of the Police State, “Communist” countries often lost the ideology. If this follows, the Middle East may have a substantial number of persons who will reject fundamentalist Islam as soon as the jackboot/ sandal is taken off their neck.

        • arctic_front

          Mr. K:
          Have you spent any time reading the Koran? I highly doubt that the passages therein were only recently added since the 60’s. The killing and subjugation of the non-muslims goes back many centuries. What has changed since the 60’s is the petro-wealth that supplies the funds to carry it out. Western countries and their respective foreign policies are often used by the Islamist’s and their western liberal apologists to make excuses for an ideology of conquest and domination as old as Mohammed himself. There is nothing new about jihad, muslims murdering their neighbours, or invading them.

  • No mention of the failure of multiculture in our societies then ..integration is the more important issue but also thinking that these terrorist attacks give people courage to voice opinion on non compatible cultures that they have been quiet about for decades for fear of left wing vilification and political correctness..it is not only terrorist attack that puts people off ..but multi culture creates as many have said ghettos and multiple worlds distrusting and resentful of the others that surround…so British identity and nationalism needs to be erased to stop wars elsewhere and to promote tolerance then what do we do about smaller scale but more numerous disputes at home? Re-education Mao style?

  • Jean-Baptiste Poquelin

    A bit free and easy. There are “nice” bits in the quran, true, if you go for that sort of thing. But there are plenty of “bad” bits too. Those will never go away. And they are ostensibly the word of god channeled through the mouth of muhammed. The word of god.

    So, so-called “real” Muslims, as you put it, are the ones who are, ironically, not the real Muslims. You’re treating the quran like a buffet, piling your plate with flowery phrases, leaving behind the smitey ones. A non-violent Muslim is better than a violent one, sure, but you cannot argue that islamists are somehow getting the wrong message or distorting. There is an irony in the notion that real or good Muslims are precisely those who take their religion the least seriously.

    I would also point out that while the quran is fundamental to the Muslim faith, there are also the hadith and the surah, very important primary documents. And these abound in ethically horrible passages and sentiments. The “fake” Muslims find ample justifications here for their atrocious acts, and always will as long as they exist.

    One last thing I would point out. All Muslims, whatever their beliefs or various interpretations of islam’s holy texts, by definition believe that a killer and a paedophile was the chosen one of some supernatural entity that wants us to worship it. In and of itself, I think that is incredibly stupid and dangerous.

  • NickG

    my religion, Islam.

    Why would you want to be part of a religion founded by a psychotic, genocidal, peodophilic seventh century warlord, whose adherents are, to this day, causing strife all over the world. I’m genuinely flummoxed, what’s the attraction?

    Surely there are far more wholesome, neighbourly creeds to follow if you feel the need for supernaturalism.

    • Rawdata

      Clearly you have studied the life of Mohamed and exposed the obvious conflicts.

      I have been asked “If one can prove the God does not exist.” I now say that one can prove that our lives are meaningless.

      Rules? What rules?

  • Ivan Ewan

    The discussions in the comments have been ideologically crude – there’s a “let’s get rid of all religion” crowd – and on the other hand, technically pedantic – about the story of this poet and its status in the opinion of various imams.

    Let’s get to the point. What would it take, realistically and without bias, to come up with a tolerable Islam which can be widely accepted as plausibly authentic?

    I’m going to ignore the fact that I think Islam is all dangerous rubbish, to point out that there are Muslims who regard the hadiths and other post-Koran writings as apocryphal. The most important development here is that we kick out sahih al-Bukhari, which is responsible for most of the tenets of Islamism, and also prescribes assassination for apostates.

    On theological grounds – if Sisi’s clerics did the groundwork, would declaring the hadiths unreliable be a plausible defanging of Islamism?

  • zanzamander

    Qanta Ahmed, I do not want to insult you or your intelligence, so please don’t do it to me.

    The founder of the Islamic faith was not a nice man. He manufactured Islam because he believed that the “people of the book” had corrupted the word of god. He formed Islam to replace all other religions that came before his creation and supplanted himself as the only and the last prophet. He may have done this to gain power, wealth and maybe even suffered from illusions of grandeur, who knows.

    Those nice verses in Koran: each people is sent ‘a Law’ and ‘a Way’ and that Muslims should not judge people of other faiths in the light of their own, the respect for the Torah and the Gospel was nothing short of political maneuvering in order to gull the then Christians and Jews into a false sense of security. Many who rejected his teachings were taken in as slaves or killed.

    Nowhere in the Islamic world do we see tolerance towards people of other faiths, women or anything that we perceive as free, equal or just. Now there may be pockets of moderation, but that may have come about because of absence of any real threats from followers of other faiths or indeed by the foot of military might on the throat of democracy.

    I admire your work in the Israel/Palestine matters, but please don’t try to wash away the words and deeds of the founder of your faith as misunderstanding or misinterpretations by Islamists.

    It takes years to become a scholar in Islamic theology. These imams and scholars have spent their entire lives learning these texts by heart. One would indeed be deluding ones self to think that, knowing the history of Islam, it is all just a misunderstanding.

    So please, forgive me if I don’t agree with you.

  • Socrates

    A good article.
    But I am becoming increasingly agitated with terrorism being given a “wrapper” of religion. It’s almost like we are pussyfooting around criminals, arsonists, murderers etc purely because they purport to speak for a religion. Imagine a wave of terrorist atrocities around the world being conducted by people of Chinese origin, or African origin, or of English origin for that matter. Does the whole planet go through a wave of appeasement because the crimes are committed in the name of ethnicity. Heaven help us all if it did!
    I realise that I may not have articulated this very well, but what I am trying to say is that the Quran, or Blair, or Bush, or anything else for that matter is NOT justifiable as a rationale for such crimes. This is a real threat to our planet just as much as climate change. Surgical measures needed.

    • Jenny_Tells

      “just as much as climate change” – nice one, Socrates. Loved it.

      • Transponder

        I didn’t: it makes a spoof of the whole statement! Which was problematic to begin with.

        p.s. Climate change is a natural fact. It happened before there were humans, never mind humans with technology. And no warming for about 19 years now!

    • Neil Saunders

      You chose the wrong monicker; try “Dumbo” instead.

      • Socrates

        I won’t forget that!

    • Transponder

      Thank god Socrates was a better thinker than you.


      • Socrates


  • Rafael24

    Qanta, it doesn’t help that the brave Muslims you describe get killed.

  • beenzrgud

    Hope al-Sisi has decent security, he’s going to need it. These so called Islamists have their own imams spewing their ideology and I doubt they’re going to change tack any time soon regardless of what al-Sisi says. The only thing that is going to stop them is a bullet in the head, and the sooner the better.

  • Peter Stroud

    Mr Ahmed is a very brave man. But it is good that attempts are being made to rescue Moslems from the fanatical Islamists, but it will be a struggle. It is up to government to start the ball rolling here in the UK, by clamping down on any excesses found in Moslem schools. Also attempts to involve Sharia law anywhere in the UK should be severely dealt with. And, criminal acts, such as female mutilation must be rigorously investigated by our police.

  • JSC

    Good article.

    “It’s also a reminder of why the animus against Islamism is rising”

    The problem I see with trying to draw a distinction between Islam and Islamism is that for all intents and purposes, Mohammed was himself an Islamist.

    “…Muslims should not judge people of other faiths in the light of their own. Instead, the People of the Book must judge themselves by their own revealed texts (‘unto you your religion, and unto me my religion’) as we worship the same God.”

    So what does Islam have to say about how to treat atheists or polytheists? It’s words to those are not so kind…

    • little islander

      But it’s a ‘good article’, you say?

    • sebastian2

      “Mohammed was himself an Islamist.” This is a shrewd observation and thanks for making it. You are correct. Mohammedans wouldn’t agree but they don’t study their own texts with the reasoned, impartial analysis and objective scrutiny we do. To insist that the “prophet” was the perfect man of sublime character and a model for all (men – not women) is bonkers and bordering on the idolatrous.

  • Ambientereal

    In the picture we read “Hezbollah condemns islamic extremism” but in another serious publication of 01-15-2015 we read “Nasrallah (says): Hezbollah prepared for war deep into Israel, beyond the Galilee”. It is only another proof of the islam “way of lies”.

  • teepee

    Rather than waste time deflecting criticism by inventing ‘Islamist’ bogeymen, it would be better to accept the simple truth that it’s not possible to make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.

  • Ambientereal

    I would state the problem in another form. I would pose it as “how to save muslim people from islam” because it is not islam what must be saved but the people who are entangled in it and find no way out say because of lack of ways or lack of decision.

  • JEK68

    You can’t claim that what they do is un-Islamic by using the Quran without acknowledging all the crazy stuff if does condone, and is practised, without a ‘Jesus’ figure to point to as a relatively peaceful counterweight.
    What is needed is a criticism of and reforming of the foundational texts of Islam, how to do that, I don’t know, but you can’t seriously pretend the Quran is fine in its current form or common interpretation.

  • GenJackRipper

    We can’t and they wouldn’t listen anyway.

    Let’s send all the sunnis back to where they came from, isolate them and only deal with the moderate shi’ites and alawites.

  • Gareth Mailer

    It has, for me, become absolutely pointless commenting on The Spectator. They are just as bad as The MSM outlets in their rhetoric and the disingenuous lip service they pay to ‘je suis Charlie’, all the while conveniently blocking all contrary opinion on this topic in their comments sections.

    I created a legitimate post about a certain group in society, full of legitimate statistics from pew research, the Telegraph, CBS news etc., and it has been ‘pending’ for three days. This same comment has been deleted twice by the Telegraph, and when I challenged the Guardian on the lip service they were paying to je suis Charlie by posting the same comment, they not only deleted my post – a post which received 27 upvotes in 7 minutes – they deleted my account.

    For what? All I did was post a bunch of legitimate statistics about a group in society (I would use the M word, but every time I type it I get sent into moderation and my comment is never approved) and the manner in which that group is incompatible with mainstream society.

    The BBC does exactly the same thing every day, only it directs its focus on shaming, belittling and demonising masculinity.

    I get it. They are corporate entities and they are well within their rights to publish whatever the deem worthy of publication on their respective websites. But please don’t trot out the disingenuous line that you believe there is ‘no right to not be offended’, or ‘everyone has the right to be heard.’

    It’s patently not the case and in fact the vast majority of the MSM aren’t just attempting to propagate this non-existent right into existence, they are enforcing it.

    • Blindsideflanker

      I posted a historical time line of Islamic conquests , nothing more, no comment, just dates when states succumbed to the Islamic conquest. It got censored.

      • Gareth Mailer

        The whole ‘there is no right to not be offended’ is just a bunch of nonsense, the MSM are controlling the narrative on this topic – like they do with everything else – and censoring all contrary opinion. The MSM is enforcing people’s right to be offended and at every available opportunity.

        How often has the ‘far-right’ been invoked by the BBC in the last few days? A BBC correspondent questioned someone earlier today and she actually asked the question: ‘what do you say to those who say the cartoonists brought it upon themselves?’

        NOBODY is saying that (at least not rational, right-minded people), she is saying that. SHE is controlling the narrative.

        If you checked out the feedback on The BBC ‘Have Your Say’ post the other day, the vast majority of it was anything but sympathetic towards ‘the I word’, yet this sentiment is never expressed within the confines of the narrative.

        Even last night’s documentary on Channel 4, ‘angry, w***e and proud’, was a blatant attempt to conflate all opposition to ‘the I word’ with far’right extremism and violence.

        The narrative is disgusting.

        • Blindsideflanker

          “If you checked out the feedback on The BBC ‘Have Your Say'”

          That is just tokenism to allow the BBC to claim that they reflect peoples views, and make people think the BBC cares about what they think , when it isn’t anything of the sort.

          Just as an exercise I totalled up the questions people posted on a ‘Have your say’ that they wanted the BBC to ask Gordon Brown. Two questions had a very clear lead, they were in the thousands, while the rest were in the low hundreds , and the two issues people wanted Gordon Brown to answer were pensions and the West Lothian Question. Neither were reflected in the BBC’s questions put to Brown.

          • sullen idealist

            The BBC is not interested in what “people ” think. To the BBC, the “people”= lumpen proletariat and need to be corralled and kept in check so the classes deemed requiring preferential treatment can be allowed to prosper. Check out the Weekend BBC programme from 10 January 2015, it is an astonishing 1 hr panel discussion, 3 womwn, that is so so so concerned with the rising tide of right wing nationalism eg PEGIDA and UKIP. The BBC , essentially, talks to itself.

          • Blindsideflanker

            True, and to see that you have to look no further then the Marr interview of the Green leader this morning.

          • styants64

            I will have you know that the BBC writes to me every year and asks for errrrrrr a hundred and forty two quid tv licence tax.

      • John Croston

        I had a list of towns deleted. Just a list of towns with no other comment whatsoever. OK, it was quite a long list…and it started with Rotherham.

    • Gareth Mailer

      For anyone who wants to read my original post, see here: http://thecitizenact.tumblr.com/post/107784084737/too-controversial-for-the-telegraph-the-msm-is

      I can’t get this published on The MSM websites, you can judge for yourself how ‘inappropriate’ it is.

      • The Masked Marvel

        At least young Master Payne has had second thoughts about blocking the use of that acronym. One small victory for common sense.

      • global city

        as I mentioned the other day, I had three deleted on the trot and they had nothing controversial or derogatory at all.

        • Gareth Mailer

          The electorate at large needs to gather around the manipulation of the narrative in mainstream society by those who want to further their own self-serving interests, or political ideals.

          I can see, decades from now, citizen journalism being the only viable alternative for those who wish to be informed.

          • vanLomborg

            You mean to say the narrative that the juifs were now for some reason unexplained the prime target? You are right, the BBC and the rest of the mean streaming press is indeed peddling that narrative – you tell me if the claims can be backed up by events or whether that is one big narrative to influence the Israeli behaviour currently ‘discussed’ in The Hague.

      • AJ

        Try doing something like this, here’s your original post, its a good one. True and accurate

        60% of Mooslims would reject homosexuals as friends.

        66% of Maslims believe that religious law is more important than the law of the land in which they live.

        45% of Mislims think Jews can’t be trusted.

        75% of Mongslims believe there’s only one legitimate interpretation of the Koran.

        45% of Mlslims believe Western Civilisation is out to destroy Islam.


        The survey was conducted across six European countries and solicited responses from 9,000 Mu]=slims.

        35% of young Mus==-lims in Britain believe suicide bombings are justified.

        42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bimbings are justified.

        22% of young Mpslims in Germany believe suicide bimbings are justified.

        29% of young Mouseslims in Spain believe suicide bombings are justified.


        40% of Mouseslims want Shiaria Law introduced in the UK.

        20% of British Mouseslims (520,000 people) sympathise with 7/7 bombers.


        An alternative survey suggests as many as 25% of British Mouseuslims sympathise with the 7/7 bombers.

        28% of British Mouseslims hope the UK will become a religious fundamentalist Isluuumic state.

        78% of British Mouseslims support punishment for those who publish cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed.

        62% of British Mouseslims believe free speech shouldn’t be protected when it offends religious groups.

        68% of British Mouseslims support the arrest and prosecution of British people who insult Islam.


        I do enjoy watching as the sensible in western society squabble with the apologists over just how much condemnation is the appropriate amount. I’m sure the Islooamic terrorists will be quaking in their boots at the thought of all the carefully concocted condemnation of their actions (or lack thereof).

        Add to this 17,000 forced marriages every year in the UK, 6,000 cases of FGM, calls for the imposition of Shiaria law in London boroughs, Lee Rigby, Paris, Ottawa, Sydney, 7/7, 9/11, rocket attacks against out police forces, Shiaria courts taking precedence over the rule of law etc….

        …moooulticulturalism, you say?

        What happens when – not if – the current 2.6 million Mouseslim population becomes a majority? Many predict this will happen as soon as 2050. Soon enough parties will come to the fore, so too will leaders, and the calls for the imposition of Shiaria Law will get ever stronger. What then? How do we tackle this within the confines of ‘moooulticulturalism’?

    • beenzrgud

      As soon as you see that your comment is waiting to be approved you can safely assume it will never see the light of day. If the Speccie was honest it would change the message to ‘I’m sorry but we decided we didn’t like what you had to say and so have thrown it in the bin’

      • Gareth Mailer

        Yeah, looks like it.

        In fairness, I wouldn’t mind if I was using excessive expletives, inciting hatred, or anything of the sort. The fact is, I wasn’t. I was posting legitimate statistics about a minority group in society, a minority group I can’t even reference, and in the same fashion the BBC does on a daily basis in its efforts to demonise masculinity i.e. ‘1 in 10 men have seen prost**utes’, or their disproportionate coverage on rape, sexual assault and paedophilia (in relation to the number of incidents which actually occur).

        The UK has become a narrative driven society.

        • beenzrgud

          I wouldn’t mind if they all stated that what they published was what they felt was safe to publish. Let’s face it nobody likes the idea that they may be getting a visit from a maniac tooled up with an AK47. It would also let us all know exactly how much our media is being effected by fear of retribution, as well as the inbuilt biases that a lot of these organisations seem to have.
          As you have stated it is hypocritical to feign allegiance to Charlie Hebdo whilst at the same time cowering in fear.

        • beenzrgud

          I’ve just read your OP. As you say lots of statistics that make for uncomfortable reading. I don’t really find any of them surprising, it’s what a lot of people suspected all along. I’d have to agree that the UK, along with a lot of other countries, has become a narrative driven society. Your statistics don’t fit the narrative therefore don’t see the light of day. When the dogdoo eventually hits the fan I just hope all the morons behind the current narrative are made to face the music.

        • Anti_Femastasis

          >The UK has become a narrative driven society.

          The pic shows why:

    • global city

      Yes…it is happening so regularly and consistently targeting the same sort of content that it is becoming quite sinister.

      Why are they limiting debate so severely?

      Who is determining the parameters of debate which is allowed?

    • justejudexultionis

      I’m afraid liberal multiculturalist mouthpieces such as the DT, Guardian, Times etc. are determined to prove that Islam is indeed a ‘religion of peace’ when it is clearly no such thing. The vast majority of Muslims, globally and in this country, are profoundly bigoted, despising both freedom and the sanctity of human life itself.

      You should take it as a compliment: they are clearly frightened of you.

    • Brogan75

      But why wasting your time posting all stats when you have this self-explanatory video?

    • GraveDave

      Even in the West, critical discussion is becoming difficult. The United Nations has passed several resolutions giving Islamophobia the status of a crime under international law

    • wudyermucuss

      The BBC solved the tiresome debate problem by simply shutting down their message boards.

      The Telegraph seems to offer less and less comments sections after certain articles.

      The groaniad is simply naked censored propaganda.

    • JSC

      I read your link below and it mirrors something similar I’ve said before: that the MSM mantra that intolerant extremists are a minority is not born by the facts. Liberal, tolerant Muslims are the minority with regards to womens/gay rights, tolerance of non-Muslims (particularly Jews, atheists and polytheists), the rejection of violence for religious ends, and the MSM is whitewashing the views of the majority with the views of a minority it finds more palatable.

    • John Andrews

      Why don’t you stop commenting then?

    • Hogspace

      There is only one way for muslims to save themselves
      Islam isn’t a few “Coconuts” in the UK, as they slur each other, it is the muslim dominated countries around the world. Mauritania, NE Nigeria, Libya, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Syria, Iran, Saudi, Jordan, Qatar, Yemen, Sudan Indonesia. In these we see that mainstream “moderate” Islam is defined by gender apartheid, misogyny, homophobia, apostasy laws, repression and state sanctioned murder. Mass murder in fact.
      This website of the trapped victims of ISIS in Raqqa gives testament to “Radical Islam” http://www.raqqa-sl.com/en/?p=286 however the horrors you see there will be repeated in several of the above countries, just with a little more State pomp and circumstance before murder takes place.

    • q-pantagruel

      Similar to yourself, I do not make inflammatory comments or use expletives or incite anything etc.

      Yesterday I posted a reply to The Spectator (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/01/why-are-the-mcb-complaining-about-pickless-letter-to-mosques/) that was immediately flagged as awaiting approval and shortly thereafter disappeared. I tried reposting it having made a minor amendment which didn’t affect the meaning – same result. I then broke the reply into 3 separate posts (replying to myself) and this time the same content went through without a problem. Is someone actually looking at these – or is there some dumb algorithm that you sometimes fall afoul of if you use certain words in certain combinations? The moderation (i.e. censorship) makes no sense if the actual meaning of the posts is what is at issue. Far more objectionable posts than yours (or mine) are allowed – why? Simply because the poster obfuscates certain words by using false characters such as spelling Islam as Isl@m? If censoring ideas is what the “moderators” are trying to achieve (rather than just words), this mechanism is actually failing rather badly.

      Regardless of the mechanisms behind Disqus comment moderation, your comments re: the MSM, BBC and the narrative driven agenda are nonetheless true in my opinion.

    • John

      Sometimes it’s due to weirdly censored words, like “h*ll” or “s*x”. Try throwing a few asterisks in there and you might have more luck. It won’t be your statistics or comments themselves. You can find all sorts of nutty stuff in these comments, not least white-power drivel, anti-Semitism, people thinking the Tories or Labour or the Lib Dems or UKIP or the Greens or anyone else in Westminster is worth voting for. edit: you sound like a whiny b*tch btw.

    • greggf

      Franklmy Gareth I’m surproised you’re surprised at the response of the MSM to your survey details. You must be aware of the
      New Swedish Law That Criminalizes Anti-immigration Internet Speech, something which the y believe should or expect will arive here soon. So moderaryti,ng your post is sort of anticipating what harriet will introduce after the next election.

  • Blindsideflanker

    Saudi Arabia came about with the support of Wahabbi religious warriors in the 17th century.

    Pakistan came about because Jinnah wanted an Islamic based state for Muslims.

    Qanta Ahmed says that fundamentalism is a recent phenomena, but it isn’t it has always been there.

    • John Croston

      Of course it’s always been there. Mohammad himself was an Islamic fundamentalist. And as he is reported to have boasted “I have become victorious by terror” we should not be surprised when his followers emulate his violent behaviour and cut off heads.

    • Bonkim

      There have been Caliphates all through history.

  • gautam

    President Al-Sisi of Egypt at Al-Azhar University, the most prestigious and ancient centre of Islamic learning, made a startling speech on December 28th 2014 also broadcast on Channel 1 of Egyptian TV. A substantial extract available on video ( http://www.memri.org/clip/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/4704.htm ) .

    “We spoke earlier about the importance of religious doctrine. I would like to reiterate that we are not doing enough with regard to true religious discourse. The problem has never been with our faith . Perhaps the problem lies in ideology (fikr) and this ideology is sanctified with us. I am talking about religious discourse that is in keeping with its times”

    ‘I am addressing the religious scholars and clerics. We must take a long, hard look at the current situation. I have talked about this several times in the past. We must take a long, hard look at the situation we are in. It is inconceivable that the ideology we sanctify should make our Umma a source of concern, danger, killing, and destruction all over the world. It is inconceivable that this ideology. . . .I am referring not to ‘religion’ (deen) ,but to ‘ideology’(fikr)—the body of ideas and texts that we have sanctified in the course of centuries, to the point that challenging them has become very difficult. . . .”

    “It has reached the point that [this ideology] is hostile to the entire world. Is it conceivable that 1.6 billion [Muslims] would kill the world’s population of seven billion, so that they could live [on their own]? This is inconceivable.

    I say these things here, at Al-Azhar, before religious clerics and scholars. May Allah bear witness on Judgment Day to the truth of your intentions, regarding what I say to you today. You cannot see things clearly when you are locked [in this ideology]. You must emerge from it and look from outside, in order to get closer to a truly enlightened ideology. You must oppose it with resolve. Let me say it again: We need to revolutionize our religion. . .”


    “Honorable Imam [the Grand Sheik of Al-Azhar], you bear responsibility before Allah. The world in its entirety awaits your words, because the Islamic nation is being torn apart, destroyed, and is heading to perdition. We ourselves are bringing it to perdition.”

    • little islander

      Right. So ‘startling’ that less than 2 weeks later……..

      • gautam

        Well, as they say Rome was not built in a day and Islam is not going to be reformed in a fortnight!

        • little islander

          Right again. It will get worse before it gets better. None of us will get to see the end of this, are we? That’s your promise? Very well done, sir.

          • Bonkim

            Islam has lived and multiplied in its dark-ages shell of ignirant submission. No hope it will change – only hope is to develop effective means of stopping it destroying others around.

    • Bonkim

      All religion is bunk – don’t waste time explaining Islam or any other.

  • Guest

    was it not an “explicit declaration of war on free society” when they slaughtered Jewish french people just for being Jews? Why is it only *now* that people are waking up and acknowledging the threat?

    • Bonkim

      They ? just one gun-man in the Jewish supermarket.

      • Mister Rible

        and how many thousands all over europe applauding him on twitter?

        tens? hundreds? not enough?

        • Bonkim

          Don’t know, don’t care – the threat has been recognized and the authorities beefed up the safeguards. You cannot avoid a risk-free life ever.

        • rightrightright

          and the large majority of Muslim school children who refused to acknowledge or respect the minute silence for the slaughtered. To their number you can add their families.

  • justsomeone

    People in the Muslim world are very fond of Jihad and its terror when it’s aimed at Westerners. When the Islamists murder Muslims for not being ‘Muslim enough’ they lose much of their appetite for it. But unfortunately, swaths of the Muslim world – including the Muslim world in Europe – support Jihad and Islamism so long as its restricted to attacking non-Muslims.
    I can’t judge whether this article’s writer is right or not but this type of analysis is something the Muslims need very badly.
    For now however, mass Muslim immigration has to come to a halt.
    When and if this writer’s suggestions are overwhelmingly adopted, we can have limited immigration from Muslim countries to the West. Not before.

  • Gareth Mailer

    ‘The peaceful majority’?

    66% of Muslims believe religious law is more important than the law of the land in which they reside.

    42% of young Muslims in France believe suicide bombings are justified.

    40% of Muslims want Sharia Law introduced in the UK.

    68% of British Muslims support the arrest and prosecution of British people who insult Islam.

    My sources? The Telegraph, CBS news and Pew research.

    You can read the full list of statistics, from reputable surveys, here: http://thecitizenact.tumblr.com/post/107784084737/too-controversial-for-the-telegraph-the-msm-is

    (I can’t post in full, The Spectator blocks it time and time again).

    • Bonkim

      The reason is simple – Islam is an universal brotherhood that is trans-national. It dreams of an earth filled with Muslims – no place for any other beliefs – who would not want to submit to the one and only Allah?

      Then again the Christian message of the Bible is not much different – only the Christians that believe in the one true Jah will inherit the earth and live for ever.

      • Transponder

        Islam makes people unhappy if not mentally ill and mandates warfare and deception as a way of life. I see no meaningful correspondence with the Christianity of our times.

        • Bonkim

          Yes – keep away.

      • sebastian2

        “Jah”? You’re a Rasta, surely. Selassi I – Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah!
        Peace! Stay cool.

  • Bonkim

    Watch it Quinta the Fatwa-Merchants would be on your trail soon.

  • Dan W Taliaferro

    This author is courageous and to be admired, but I fear her task is almost impossible. The beliefs of Islamists are well supported by either the Quran or the Hadiths, especially that Hadith Muslims judge most reliable, Al Bukhari’s. Countess Muslim religious leaders preach Islamist intolerance and violence–a quick study of MEMRI proves this. Polls further establish that anywhere from 1/3 to 1/2 of Muslims worldwide support Islamist intolerance and violence.

    Essentially, this author is asking for a complete reformation of Islam not unlike the Protestant Reformation in Christianity. Perhaps, like Christianity, the several types of Islam could divide into two denominations, with the largest one renouncing the doctrines incompatible with Western society. Yet that would necessarily mean a complete disavowal of the Hadiths–all of them. As noted, this is well nigh impossible.

    No offense to Europeans, but history has proven them to be the most warlike people to ever exist and for centuries they have been exemplary at killing one another. SInce WWII, Europe has largely been at peace, but can it last? Several nations in Europe will, within 30 to 40 years, face a complete reconsideration of what being a European means: will all food publicly sold be halal, will calls to prayer blare over PA systems from minarets throughout the day, will separate Sharia courts judge legal disputes involving Muslims, will freedom of speech and religion be abridged to accommodate Muslim religious beliefs, will women be forced to wear burkas or at least head scarves or veils, will salacious advertising, books, movies and magazines be curtailed, will destroying or criticizing the Quran become a criminal offense (is it already in Britain?), will public school religious classes teaching Islam become mandatory?

    My guess is that Islam reforms, or ultimately it will be solved by violence against it or submission to it. Either way, I look for the 21st Century to be rife with domestic violence in all nations with significant Muslim minorities. It will not be pretty.

  • Aloysius Palestrina

    The fundies will always have a leg up against the moderates.

    We can not forget that this is religion we are talking about. Not a theory on ethics or a blog on social behavior.

    It is religion, “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.”. If you call yourself a Muslim you promote yourself as a believer of the Koran. The texts in the Koran are not fluid. You can choose to ignore parts of the texts you don’t like but then you are not a true believer.

    To say I am a Christian is to say I believe there is a superhuman controlling power that wrote down words in a book instructing us how to live. It doesn’t mean “I like crosses and old churches”.

    This is EXACTLY the problem with religion and has ALWAYS been the problem. It is NOT up to interpretation. Any look at history shows you thousands of years of priests and believers killing people who went against their so called gods. This is PRECISELY because they believe their “book” is the ultimate truth to the universe. If you ACTUALLY believed your book was the ultimate truth and there were some people trying to discredit that book you would fight to the death over it. And we STILL see that behavior today.

    There is absolutely no reason to call yourself a christian or a muslim or whatever. No well thinking person who calls himself religious actually believes that the books are the ultimate truth. You can still read the books, do the rituals, be inspired, be amazed, everything, without promoting yourself as “I truly believe book A is the ultimate truth to the universe”. Because THAT is where it goes all wrong. When one guy says “My book is the ultimate truth” and then another comes and says “no my book is the ultimate truth”,
    REMEMBER, this is not just preference, it is not “this is my favorite book”, this is about books that CLAIM to be the ULTIMATE truth.

  • tigerlily

    ‘Let there be light’ was an ‘exhortation’?!

  • tigerlily

    Ok so there seems to be a tiny trickle of moderates now being allowed to voice their stance against Islamism in the press and now we need a lot more. Shame it took so long. Was it just that the press were not interested in these people before?

  • Neil Saunders

    The old “Islamism” v. Islam trick. In other words, Taqiyya.

  • MrJones

    Importing millions of people from the bottom of the economic pile over there leads to them sitting at the bottom of the economic pile over here getting all bitter and resentful. There will be no solution to the problem until the political class understands what a terrible idea that was.

  • justejudexultionis

    The rise of atheism, the women’s movement, multiculturalism and so-called ‘tolerance’ is cutting this country off from its historical Judeo-Christian culture and preventing proper resistance to the Islamicisation of our society. The fact is we don’t want Islam in the UK. This is a historically Christian country and if our liberties are to continue then that is what it must remain.

    • Bonkim

      You better petition the Pope to initiate the next Crusade.

      • justejudexultionis

        No crusade necessary. Just a reasonable expulsion of the Islamic death cult from Europe.

        • Bonkim

          You have no idea what Christianity is – just a demagogue.

  • Brogan75

    Vienna 1683

    • justejudexultionis


  • Jody Taylor

    Gareth, I have exactly the same trouble on “The Guardian”; they moderate my comments (because I’m not Left wing) and others can use the most profane language imaginable and get away with it – just as long as they tow the party line. It’s useful to remember the huge bias being perpetrated by each ‘news’ organisation and that they’re all doing this. So much for ‘I am Charlie”!! LOL

  • Transponder

    Speaking of freedom, the American thinkers Harry V. Jaffa and Walter Berns have both just died. They were wonderful people and terrifically knowledgeable and they were torchbearers of Western philosophy — which is to say, philosophy — in our era.

    Richard Brookhiser at National Review Online assesses Jaffa, in their Corner blog:

    Harry wrote the most incendiary lines of convention oratory since the Cross of Gold speech for Barry Goldwater’s acceptance speech at the Cow Palace [a San Francisco arena] in 1964. “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.” It rings and sings; it expresses a powerful thought; I have used it for mic tests whenever I am in a TV or radio studio. But at that time and place, it did its little bit to hold Goldwater to six states.

  • Transponder

    Headline: ‘Hezbollah condemns Islamic extremists’.

    It would be hilarious if the various and many victims of Hezbollah were not crying out from their graves.

    What will tomorrow’s headline be? ‘Satan disapproves of cruelty and says that lessons must be learned’.

  • Viralvector

    When an organization believes their belief system is infallible, how can a constructive conversation even can start.

  • Jen Kim

    I think we all know whose side Obama is on.

  • Melisa cole

    I want to use this medium to thank Dr shiva for helping me to get back my husband after he left me and the kids for 5 months to suffer.When he left,he told me that he dont love me again and he has found another woman which he loved.I cry everyday because i love him so much and i decide to go the net for help when i saw a lady’s post of how Dr Shiva help help to get her husband back who divorced her and i just say to myself let me give this Dr shiva on (reunitingexspell2@gmail.com) a try and indeed he is wonderful he help me to get my husband back within 2days and my husband return to me and promise to love me forever and beg me for the pain he cost me. I will forever be greatful to you Dr Shiva and i will not stop to publish your name on the internet for people to see because you are so great.You can email him at reunitingexspell@yahoo.com and he will also save your marriage.

    • TNT

      Can Dr Shiva help people to desist from worshipping the life and legacy of a 7th century Arabian warlord and instead make them embrace the 21st century and all of its more wholesome delights? This is exciting!

  • Perseus Slade

    It`s time to leave Islam to the terrorists.

  • Mark Leavenworth

    The Quran is just a book. Beautiful Arabic prose, but there were many like it at the time. Mohammed married into a wealthy family at a young age…he was not illiterate, he was an elite Meccan trying to preserve an empire that was being invaded by monotheism. Muslims worship three gods: the Quran, ‘Islam’, and Muhammed. The Quran is not perfect. There were several versions at the time it was codified. Many verses are even out of order. God is perfect. Muhammed was not perfect, the Quran is not perfect, Muslims are not perfect, and Islam is not perfect. Time to join the rest of the world, people.

  • Mark Leavenworth

    God is perfect. Muslims are not perfect. Muhammed was not perfect. The Quran is not perfect. Islam is not perfect.

  • itbeso

    It is more how to save Muslims from Islam. When or indeed if you rid Islam of the violence of the Islamist you are still left with a raft of other extremist beliefs and behaviours at the core of (normative) Islam.

  • Liberanos

    Imagine being in a club which you didn’t ask to join, which behaves in a manner that makes you ashamed and embarrassed and which will kill or disfigure you if you leave.

  • wudyermucuss

    But Islamism is nothing to do with Islam.

    Haven’t you heard?

  • Parvez_ahmed

    If Islam has to be rescued from Islamists then we need to press the following accelerators

    a) ALL countries need to make sure that Sharia does NOT creep in even 1 millimetre into their judicial systems

    b) Exclusive Mosque run schools need full monitoring and their trashy history books pitting Muslims against rest through trashy concocted of Islamic superiority need banning

    c) Gender equality in property distribution as well as women’s rights be scrutinsed in Muslim houses

    And encouraging Muslims to look into some of their own secular phases– like Turkey under Ataturk, India under Akbar, Afghanistan under Daud, Iran under Mossadegh,

    Even the most violent region of the world– AfPak was quiet when Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan mobilised Muslims under Gandhi.

    • Parvez_ahmed

      I hate to write this. But internet is an anonymous forum and the other half of me wants to get rid of this!

      Well as a male rich Muslim you are highly privileged! So even though part of me rebels against irrationality then another part says why not? This really explains why Muslim societies expand violently as well as dont reform easily

      At the cost of betraying my own let me say this

      a) As a male Muslim I get almost double the share of parental property compared to my sister

      b) As a male Muslim I can keep four wives or even more. They wont cry. I get my sexual needs fulfilled. In fact they are at my beck and call and will always be obedient. Which man does not dream of threesomes always?

      c)If I see an unbeliever and am violent to him, my religion will back me to the end.

      Now if you find this strange… then the rational part of me also does.

      Another part says…let it be… enjoy the river…!

      • Jblogg

        As a reasonably well off Christian male I would agree with you that you have a good deal.
        But do you believe in a god?

        • sullen idealist

          for the islamopithecene males , islam is the most perfect excuse, a get out of jail card … Parvez arhemd is a loathsoame creep

  • joe_publik

    The article on Critical Thinking by Ed West is also interesting in this regard (this edition, this page). Essentially, asking awkard questions is no longer allowed or is severely curtailed. Let me see if this observation is allowed.

    Gareth Mailer lists a set of statistics with which I more or less agree. Helen of Troy notes: “Islam makes people unhappy if not mentally ill”. In the Ummah, worldwide, some 40% or more of marriages are consanguineal. In Bradford the number is closer to 70%. This is fact. We all know that cousin marriage leads to a higher than average incidence of physical and mental illness. This is fact and royal breeding alone over the centuries is testament to it. Hapsburgs anyone!

    Muslims have been inter-breeding for one and a half millenia. Might not this simple observation alone explain, to at least a significant degree, the reason for our current, indeed historical, problems. Perhaps the good lady Doctor Ahmed might care to comment.

  • Terence Hale

    “How to save Islam from the Islamists”. In my apartment I have in my literary the Quran as the Bible both books of God, I very often ask myself is it two Gods or one. The Quran, a set of rules for a particular part of the world based on history, climate and environment. Problems seem to occur when we mix them.

  • Mr_Ominous

    The only question for the natives of non-Muslim countries should be how do they avert the eventual Islamisation of their countries? Saving Islam is irrelevant since it really can’t be saved and especially not by non-Muslim people. Western civilisation has to preserve itself and its own culture and societies that means ridding itself of Islam completely.

  • John Andrews

    There is a special need for the argument of this post to be made over and over again by Muslim political leaders, religious leaders and other leaders http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamic_terrorist_attacks

  • cartimandua

    We could start by closing any Mosque in the UK where women do not have equal access to the main hall.
    That would be all but 2 of them.

    • justsomeone

      And all Churches where women don’t have an equal chance of becoming priests?
      Your suggestion is silly.
      Let’s not allow the Pope to visit until the Church has a female Pope. Ah, wait, until the Pope is a female lesbian?
      How about we ensure that teachers in schools with large numbers of Muslims are not allowed to show any kind of support for any Jihadist group anywhere and are not allowed to show sympathy with those who say that one simply isn’t allowed to draw caricatures of Mohammed. Let’s not allow any teacher (or preacher for that matter) to say that Jews and Christians are the sons of pigs and apes or that our women are sluts.
      Let’s take steps to increase our birthrate.

      • cartimandua

        Women are treated worse than goats all over the Muslim world and the trauma is passed on down through the next generation.
        And no we do NOT want an even higher population. we import far too much food now than is ever safe.
        Our population should be 17 to 27 million for this land mass.

  • Dogsnob

    But we’re still faced with a Europe being flooded with people who hate Europe and want to reshape it into something I don’t want for my children and theirs. Does that even figure?

  • Bruce Long

    Look. All devout Muslims believe the same doctrine. The statements in it about killing blasphemers (anyone that denies the prophet and Allah or criticises doctrines about them as nonsense, to start with. i.e. almost any atheist speaking their mind at all), adulterers (people who exercise their personal free will and decide to sleep with someone other than their partner for some reason. Live with it. Oh – you can’t? Your problem), and unbelievers.

    Moderate Muslims need to stop insulting everyone’s intelligence and focus on cutting the bad apple verses out of the Koran – rather than cutting the bad apples out of Islam. The latter will always have licence to do what they do until the former is properly dealt with.

    I used to think that moderate Islamists were not the same as their radical counterparts and that they decried the behaviour of the latter. But with the amount of clear and unequivocal argument and exposition of the problem with the doctrines and explanation that they are obviously the root of the problem, I have changed my mind.

    Now I think that it looks like moderate Muslims are actually happy that their radical counterparts do the dirty work. Otherwise they would have listened to reason about the filthy doctrines that they support – DIRECTLY.

    Atheists and non believers DO NOT OWE YOU RESPECT OR DEFERENCE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE FAITH OR ARE RELIGIOUS. You owe us an apology for saying that we should die because we don’t believe or because we exercise our natural right to criticise what we think is nonsense and oppressive.

    Is that clear Jamesian Pragmatist and devout faithist? Answer: Yes – it is very clear.

  • C. Gee

    Why do reformists not have the courage of their beliefs and leave the unreformed religions to the orthodox, the fundamentalists, the believers in the literal word of God? After all, upon whose authority do reformists “interpret” that text? They could claim to be prophets, and no doubt would attract a following. Cults are plentiful. But why cling to the old God, and insist that the religion is being reclaimed, or cleansed, or revealed in its true form?

    Even if the worst excesses practiced under Sharia law were to be proved to be cultural accretions, not doctrinal mandates, it would take a strong, secular authority to break the culture, as reformist (Westernized Muslims) have no authority or power to institute their Islam universally or control the fundamentalist masses. Only Western nations’ police forces enforcing their secular laws upon religious communities can “reform” the Islamic culture within its borders. When Muslims living in the West are prosecuted for any practice which breaks the law, it will not matter whether their Islam is the real religion or not. Muslims abiding be the law of the land, not Sharia, are by definition “assimilated”. They can fulfill all essential Muslim duties: pray (but not in public streets), visit Mecca (but not fight abroad for ISIS), give charity (but not to terror groups), fast at Ramadan. At that point Islam will be as secularized as Reform Judaism and modern Christianity, especially Anglicanism. Of course, they will be regarded as apostates, but one hopes that the state’s security forces will be sufficient to protect these Muslims along with the rest of its civilians.

  • John Croston

    More Muslims in the West means more danger and less freedom for non-Muslims. There is an obvious answer to this problem. We must work towards persuading Muslims to go where they fit in – and that’s Muslim countries.

  • Perseus Slade

    Islam has nothing to do with Islam.
    Glad we cleared that up.
    What`s a contradiction between friends?

  • Jblogg

    I must have missed the terminology explained. So is it now:
    Islamist = extermist
    Islamic = moderate
    Is this universally accepted?
    What is don’t believe in the supernatural but culturally Muslim and want to get married in a mosque, eat pork and have a few beers?

  • brianOO7

    I can accept (in the absence of an in-depth understanding of Islam) that Islamism may be to ‘real’ Islam what fascism and marxism are to western civilization — their bastard children that must be destroyed or put to sleep, at least. The problem for the West in its confrontation with Islam goes deeper, however. What are we in the West to make of an increasing Islamization (whether of the Islamic or Islamist variety) of our societies? Are we to regard it with equanimity even as the Islamic world both extends its reach, as in Africa, and eradicates its own Christian, Jewish and other communities? What does it mean for our western freedoms and rights? Where in the ‘real’ Islam do we find protection from blasphemy laws and freedom of speech and conscience, when these exist virtually nowhere in the Islamic (not Islamist) world? And, perhaps more worrryingly, how does the West protect itself from its own craven leadership that has already rendered the New York Times and Oxford University Press, to name but two, as de facto sharia publishers, and Duke university as a de facto Islamic university, just for starters? I’m afraid the challenges are greater than the good doctor diagnoses, and the remedies far more problematic, for both us and them.

  • David Harding

    “In his searing study of the subject, the British lawyer Sadakat Kadri makes the critical observation that ‘pitiless punishment’, while lacking in Islam itself, has found a comfortable home in much of the Islamist world.”
    What kind of Taquia is this? Just read the Hadiths to see that “pitiless punishment” is the norm within all of Islam’s teaching, and that is exactly why it has reappeared in today’s Islam.
    Really very poor editorial gatekeeping to let tripe like this come through.

  • Kasperlos

    One of the central problems with Islam is that it is the state. Its current practise is wholly incompatible with the Western Tradition, the Ages of Reason and Englightment. What took the West centuries to form is at times violently and stealthly being deconstructed with the submission of elected and unelected ‘leaders’ in the West. The passivity to this peril is simply a function of the Frankfurt School and a macro level Stockholm Syndrome experiment foisted upon the guillable by the liberal Marxist cultural elite in academia from their tax- funded ivory towers. It’s worked brilliantly. It seems as though many in the West can’t wait to have the chains put on them and bow eastwards.

  • John Steadman

    Why bother saving Islam or any other religion? Would the world be such a bad – or worse – place if ancient myth and nonsense was given the boot?

  • shrek

    Islamism is how mainstream Islam was practiced till around 3-4
    centuries ago and how it was founded/conceived in the 6th
    century. The concept of forcible conversion, kaffir or the non believer,
    anti-idolatry is how Islam actually spread. One just needs to look at
    what Mahmud of ghazni did to Indian temples. Most rulers barring Akbar
    and maybe Jahangir were not tolerant of Indian holy practices at the time.

    moderate Muslim is a Muslim who has given up the divisive and violent
    part of its teachings and practices i.e Islamism. In the eyes of the extremists
    though , the moderates aren’t practicing the proper form of
    Islam and thus not “proper Muslims” (as per the literal interpretation
    of the Quran). Which is why they seem to have no qualms about killing other Muslims which the Quran expressly forbids.

  • dasumara

    It’s a sad way to feel….but i hope i don’t have grandchildren.

  • cestusdei

    The problem is that this “authentic” Islam seems to be practiced by less then 1% of Muslims while the rest practice the distorted version.

  • Ross

    Wouldn’t it be much easier to just stop believing in old Bedouin fairy tales?

  • Terry Field

    The argument in this article has a problem.
    Islam can be applied as a method for optimising the traction of dynamic social change.
    There are descriptions of the nature of jihad, for example, that are acted out differently when muslims find themselves in different conditions of power and representation in society. The actions of ISIS are justified by those ISIS people by reference to the Koran. SImilarly for the small minorities in European societies, who also refer to the Koran to support a different social approach.
    The approach changes as there is a change in the place of the muslim community, from tiny minority to absolute majority.
    There seems therefore to be no ‘radical’ or ‘islamist’ compared to ‘moderate’ musims. There are only muslims.
    The convenience of Western politicians to isolate ‘islamists’ from ‘Muslims’ is a construct; designed to stop the assumed ‘lynch mobs’.
    Truth is more important.
    The West says it values truth above all else, and it uses science ruthlessly to find truth. That is a noble objective; it sits poorly against the actions and statements of politicians in addressing the realities of key contemporary events.

    • justsomeone

      Egypt is an excellent example of a Muslim country which rejects Islamism, contradicting your argument.

      Consider Bosnia or Kazakhstan.
      There are people there who like Jihad but despite Muslims being an absolute majority there, they have fewer Islamists than we do.

      Of course, in our infinite wisdom we imported massive numbers of Muslims from countries where aggressive Islam is common.
      What you’re really asking is whether Islamism is endemic to Muslim populations. Well, it is to our Muslim population.

      • Terry Field

        Your point about the wasp like nature of British imports is correct, but there is no such thing as ‘Islamism’ – just Islam. The nature of peoples varies across he globe, but I think the real issue is the difference the Holy Koran requires of Jihad in states with differing power and population proportion enjoyed by the particular local Muslim population.

        • justsomeone

          There’s also the matter of how devout various populations are.
          Clearly, the population of Kazakhstan doesn’t go to the mosque to the extent Arab/Turks/Pakistanis do. So there are a number of issues that play a part. Read Hirsi Ali’s book. She describes how the way in which people followed Islam changed during her lifetime.

          • Terry Field

            Thanks – I will seek the book out. I suggest you look at a book titled ‘meetings with remarkable Muslims by Barnaby Rogerson and Rose Baring
            It is a delightful read, sowing the wonderful variety of muslims. one penny at Amazon.co.uk!!!!!!

          • justsomeone

            By the way, are you familiar with Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s story?

          • Terry Field

            Only indirectly; a friend has done some editing and translation. Apart from that, not really.

          • justsomeone

            Oh, well you’ll definitely find it interesting.

  • ouldbob

    Funny, I typed this comment and it disappeared. Try again.
    When, some years ago, we had a series of incidents of Pakistani youths intimidating and threatening local non Pakistani citizens, I asked an elder of their community who was also a friend, to resolve the matter. (My wife is Pakistani). I made the point that it was better coming from inside the Pak community than from the non-Pak. Within two days it had stopped and has not recurred in the last thirty years. My point is that the elders of their community should be constrained to address all the nonsense which is arising and stop it, before it comes to beatings, burnings and murder

  • ouldbob

    I have looked at several of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons. Not impressed: felt that I needed a bath in disinfectant afterwards. Fortunately, I am not forced to read them. I suggest that Muslims who are offended should refrain from reading them. After all, if I tell you that if you put your hand into the fire you will get burned – and you then put your hand in the fire – then you and you alone are responsible for whatever happens to you. You cannot blame the fire.

  • Carter Lee

    “real Muslims — are coming for you.”

    Not likely.

  • hepworth

    Moslem-Islamist, the difference? There is none.

  • weejonnie

    A very brave article considering what happened to Abu ‘Afak and ‘Asma’ bint Marwan.

  • uberwest

    However moderate muslims are or become, it won’t change the nature of the man they revere.

  • Todd

    According this article, Islamic refers to normal mainstream Islam, and Islamist refers to a politicized, radical, totalitarian ideology. Good thing we’ve decided to use words that are so easy to distinguish from each other!

    Use of the term “Islamist” muddles and thereby exacerbates the problem of violent attacks perpetrated by adherents of the ideology it refers to, which is exactly what those adherents clearly want! They want it to be as difficult as possible to talk about the problem, and they want to be associated with mainstream Islam, so they made up a word that sounds just like Islamic.

    And, unbelievably, journalists like the one who wrote this article are helping them out by following along and using their stupid made-up word!

    Journalists have a choice, and should never use that word.

  • UncleTits

    Indigenous Brits want neither “Islam” or its impatient close-relative “Islamism” in our country. Demographic trends mean that immigration control is no longer sufficient to avoid future civil war with Muslims. The removal of incentives and a repatriation program will be required.

  • Jean-Baptiste Poquelin

    Who will “save” islam from the “moderates”?

  • The antithesis to Islamism is secularism, not moderate Islam.

    • sebastian2

      Interesting how the “real” muslims as they call themselves (ie non-islamists) always seem better off in the West.

  • Robbins Mitchell

    Why in pluperfect hell should Islam be “saved” at all?

    • sebastian2

      Particularly as it seems so intent on destroying itself. Let’s leave it to get on with it – but well away from the rest of us.

  • q-pantagruel

    Enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws is not just the province of Islamists but is a key component of standard Islam which is the Sharia. The Sharia, as any true Muslim will tell you, is the core of Islam. The word blasphemy is actually not used in the doctrines of the Sharia. The word used in the Sharia is apostasy which incorporates acts that we would consider blasphemy plus much more and that is definitely Islamic. The following Sharia doctrine from Reliance of the Traveller lists the myriad possible ways that one can be guilty of Islamic apostasy laws. If you lose the plot in the middle, be sure to look at the last line. It’s a corker.

    c2.5 The unlawful (haram) is what the Lawgiver strictly forbids. Someone who commits an unlawful act deserves punishment, while one who refrains from it out of obedience to the command of Allah is rewarded. (n: Scholars distinguish between three levels of the unlawful:
    (1) minor sins (saghira, pl. sagha’ir), which may be forgiven from prayer to prayer, from one Friday prayer (jumu’a) to another, and so forth, as in mentioned in hadith;
    (2) enormities (kabira, pl. kaba’ir), those which appear by name in the Koran or hadith as the subject of an explicit threat, prescribed legal penalty, or curse, as listed below at book p;
    (3) and unbelief (kufr), sins which put one beyond the pale of Islam (as discussed at o8.7) and necessitate stating the Testification of Faith (Shahada) to reenter it.
    Repentance (def: p77) is obligatory for all three (al-Zawajir ‘an iqtiraf al-kaba’ir (y49), 1.5-9).)

    o8.7 (O: Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:
    (1) to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;
    (2) to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;
    (3) to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:))), for these latter do not entail unbelief;
    (4) to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
    (5) to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
    (6) to be sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
    (7) to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
    (8) to mockingly say, “I don’t know what faith is”;
    (9) to reply to someone who says, “There is no power or strength save through Allah”; “Your saying `There’s no power or strength, etc,’ won’t save you from hunger”;
    (10) for a tyrant, after an oppressed person says, “This is through the decree of Allah,” to reply, “I act without the decree of Allah”;
    (11) to say that a Muslim is an unbeliever (kafir) (dis: w47) in words that are uninterpretable as merely meaning he is an ingrate towards Allah for divinely given blessings (n: in Arabic, also “kafir”);
    (12) when someone asks to be taught the Testification of Faith (Ar. Shahada, the words, “La ilaha ill Allahu Muhammadun rasulu Llah” (There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah)), and a Muslim refuses to teach him it;
    (13) to describe a Muslim or someone who wants to become a Muslim in terms of unbelief (kufr);
    (14) to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: b7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);
    (15) to hold that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent; (n: `Ala’ al-din’ Abidin adds the following:
    (16) to revile the religion of Islam;
    (17) to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;
    (18) to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;
    (19) to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;
    (20) or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet’s message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala’iyya (y4), 423-24).)

    There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.

    That last line is the killer for me. As if the previous list was not exhaustive enough, plenty of scope is allowed for practically ANYTHING to be classified as apostasy. Charlie Hebdo never had a chance.

    • sebastian2

      This is a very interesting post. Has Rowan Williams read this I wonder? Like others perhaps, I’m not convinced by the islam-islamist distinction.

  • Tim Gilling

    Good and brave(?) article.

  • global city

    This headline, according to our ‘elites’, should real ‘How to save Islam from the White Devils….or ordinary people just waiting for a backlash or for their inner fascist to come back out after all those years we have crushed the devil in them’
    I know it’s a bit long, but it is an accurate interpretation of how the elites feel about the rest of us.


  • sebastian2

    “Frankly, all of us have a responsibility to try to confront this radicalisation”, said Cameron commenting on Pickles’ letter. Quite so. “Then”, some might ask, “why not write to everybody? ‘All of us’. Why single out the mosques?”

    A fair question deserves a fair answer. It’s because mohammedism and the mosques are the problem …….. “Frankly”. Pickles’ letter was aimed at the main culprits. Beneath the inclusive language of “all of us” lay a particular reproach.

  • sebastian2

    On the strength of this lady’s description, sensible people would conclude that mohammed was an islamist enforcing a man-made ideology (not a revealed religion) using threats (of hellish punishment), persuasion (the “divinity” of his commands), bribery (the promise and distribution of loot and slaves – him having the first pick – and paradise) and murder (say no more). He was no Abou Ben Adhem.

  • andHarry

    I am a fundamentalist Christian, and were I to write in promotion/defence of Jesus Christ it would, of necessity, hinge on his words which would be quoted liberally throughout. While the columnist here is not a fundamentalist Muslim, nevertheless, without a single quote from the Koran, I have no idea what a good Muslim interpretation should include, or, more importantly, leave out. Weak.

  • Forest Black

    Where’s Biden hidin’? Wasn’t he supposed to be some sort of Middle East expert?

  • There is not such thing as Islamism. There is only Islam and it is the problem. http://loganswarning.com/2015/01/07/associated-press-media-failure-alert-another-lying-imam-exposed/

  • NickG


    How to save Islam from the Islamists

    Just not interested, I and I posit many of us, are interested in saving the rest of us, and what remaining social capital we have, from Islam/ Muslims/ Islamists/ Muslimsists and Mohammedans.