♫ How do you solve a problem like shariah ♪

So, how does a libertarian or classic liberal deal with a problem in which a group of people of a certain religion who have been invited or have the right to settle in our country, yet some of these people will not integrate, demand that we fit in with them, blow up our transport network and send themselves abroad to be trained to fight or to attack us or our troops?

Basically how do we deal with a group of people who cannot or will not play by the rules? For that is the problem we have with Islam and some Muslims who choose to follow the as written package of it rather than the more moderate watered down version which basically makes them the same as the rest of us (more or less)


The religion of peace?

How do we deal with a fascistic totalitarian creed dressed up as a religion who believes it’s prophet was a man worth emulating and their confused holy book unchangeable?

Qur’an (2:191-193) – “And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]…and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah.” There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to these verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of “persecution” (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until “religion is for Allah.” The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.

Qur’an (2:244) – “Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things.”

Qur’an (2:216) – “Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.” Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.

Qur’an (3:56) – “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”

Qur’an (3:151) – “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority”. This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be ‘joining companions to Allah’).

Qur’an (4:74) – “Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward.” The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today’s suicide bombers.

Doesn’t make for pleasant reading does it? Yet Muslims are obliged to follow these dictates, any who don’t according to the “fanatics” aren’t real Muslims.

Libertarians and classic liberals believe that people have the right to make their own choices and not to violently force your choice on anyone else. Yet here we have a belief system that preaches holy war, is out breeding the native population somewhat, who get special treatment from our weak government and who demand their own laws and dietary requirements are forced upon us rather than adapt to our ways.

Can Islam (in its fundamental form) co-exist with liberty? I don’t think it can, it’s a creed of conquest, Jihad if you will and takes various forms from actual fighting to simply out breeding your opponents. By about 2050 there should be enough Muslims in the UK to form a political party and win elections. They’ve already managed it in Tower Hamlets where the majority of the council are Islamics and it’s mayor Lutfur Rahman seemingly encourage separation from the rest of the City. The number of attacks on gays, women dressing western style and graffiti on posters that have women wearing bikinis has gone up since Rahman took charge.

So how do we who value our freedom deal with a religion that doesn’t value our freedom and continues to grow?

Consider the words of Churchill…

If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

Because if we can’t come up with a solution, the final option other than giving up and converting is a certainty, Islam will permit nothing less than we convert or pay protection money and give up all freedoms save what it allows, which isn’t much. Take a look at the Copts in Egypt if you want an example of a minority religion living in an Islamic country.

Sometimes freedoms have to be fought for or we lose them, I think perhaps it’s time to fight before we go into the long night.

62 comments for “♫ How do you solve a problem like shariah ♪

  1. john in cheshire
    June 4, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    I think all muslims must be expelled from our country. No other option works, in either the long or short-term, for the good of our indigenous population.

  2. Paul
    June 4, 2011 at 2:27 pm

    You just need to strangle extremist Islam by, well, not paying, condoning or encouraging their behaviour. No more mosques can be built – there are enough already.

    I think it probably could be done, but it will take a hell of a lot of work to reverse the effect that our cultural vandals have had on our country.

    Chucking out scum of any nationality that violate our laws is a given.

    Ethnic cleansing isn’t the answer but the longer these issues aren’t talked about, the more likely that extremists will rise to power. All that’s happened is that a) there isn’t the depth of anger/feeling and b) there isn’t anyone with the sheer charisma to lead an extremist movement. The British aren’t stupid though; they’ll only stand for so much. At the moment, that feeling is repressed and is mainly muttered discontent but poke someone in the back enough…

    • June 5, 2011 at 5:54 am

      “The British aren’t stupid though; they’ll only stand for so much.”

      That ‘so much’ seems to be a hell of a lot, though!

  3. Lord T
    June 4, 2011 at 2:30 pm

    There is no problem with sharia law.

    The problem is our justice system not following UK law and our pathetic justice system actually not prosecuting any illegal activity by peoplefollowing sharia law.

    The principle of sharia law is also used in the UK. Just not to the same level. For example some firms fine employees for breaking internal rules such as speeding and remove the right to drive on site for repeat offenders. That is essentially sharia law. The difference of course is sharia law is used as a replacement for UK law when it should be UK law taking precendence.

    • June 4, 2011 at 2:42 pm

      Actually, it doesn’t – what is happening is that it is used for arbitration and under English law, people can use mediation services. Therefore, a Sharia court ruling on, say, a divorce is perfectly fine providing all parties engage voluntarily (whether they actually do or not is another matter).

      The problem is when we see hate speech laws that stifle free expression and with it, robust criticism. I’m perfectly happy for the people in the picture to hold up banners like that just so long as people who say similar things about Islam can do so with equal impunity.

      • Jeremy Poynton
        June 4, 2011 at 2:51 pm


        • June 4, 2011 at 3:25 pm

          I presume this was a hiccup. There is an edit facility 😉

      • Jeremy Poynton
        June 4, 2011 at 2:53 pm

        Which they can’t, of course, as they will be prosecuted for hate crimes. The fact is that we have been told we have to fit in with the demands of an utterly alien religion, whilst members of that utterly alien religion do not have to make any concessions to the country that has taken them in.


        • June 4, 2011 at 3:22 pm

          And there is the problem. We shouldn’t have to fit in at all. Nor should there be any concessions. The law should make no provision either for or against religion. People should be free to practice what they like within the confines of their own homes and churches. Beyond that, nothing.

      • Lord T
        June 4, 2011 at 7:17 pm

        Even if all parties agree if it breaks UK law then it is illegal.

        I don’t want some guy going to a sharia court after sex with a nine year old and getting fined £50 and two hail Allahs.

        That is what I means by it is already used in principle but the difference is we don’t override UK law.

        I’m more than happy if two neighbours decide to go to a sharia court to argue about one getting drunk while at work. I’m happy if they give him a fine or make him work for free. I’m even happy if they imprison him providing he does not complain. But they cannot execute him even if he does agree that is against our law which has priority.

        • June 5, 2011 at 11:46 am

          Eh? There must be logic here somewhere but I’m so dense, I can’t see it.

          • Lord T
            June 5, 2011 at 5:35 pm

            It look like I am the dense one.

            I amd saying that UK law takes precedence.

            Where UK law does not apply, if two people want to settle a dispute using sharia law then let them. however, if that settlement breaks UK law then whoever did that should be prosecuted.

            However, as a while sharia law is abhorent and based on an archaic system that desperatly needs updating to at least the 13th century as a start then on up to at least the 17th century. A massive leapand a complete culture change.

            Everyone in the UK should conform to UK law. Although it seems the only ones that do are us. Politicians, spit, criminals (but I repeat myself), muslims, feminists and greens seem to get away with breaking the law. This needs to stop.

        • June 5, 2011 at 1:34 pm

          Sharia can only work under UK law for civil matters, much like the Beth Din. Criminal law still applies and takes precedence over any localised system.

          I do think, though that we shouldn’t fall into the language trap. When we talk about “honour killings” for example, we enable it. There is not such thing as an honour killing, let’s be honest and call it what it is; murder – and vigorously prosecute as for any other murder.

          • Lord T
            June 5, 2011 at 5:30 pm

            Exactly. That is what I meant although clearly from the comments I’m too dense to explain it properly.

  4. Sue
    June 4, 2011 at 2:38 pm

    I agree with John, if they’re not willing to live by our rules, they can bugger off. They may have been born in the UK but their families must come from somewhere. We just revoke their citizenship and wave goodbye at the airport. Those that remain and wish to integrate and call themselves British will breathe a sigh of relief, as they are no doubt suffering abuse because of these morons and we can start to work together to live in peace and harmony.

    Sharia has no place in the UK, we have our own laws.

    • Voyager
      June 4, 2011 at 4:14 pm

      So if you break any law (after all that is a perfect example of ‘not willing to live by our rules’) you think you should be deported to wherever your particular DNA sequence suggests your ancestors hailed from?

      • Sue
        June 4, 2011 at 4:41 pm

        No, we should just carry on and let these (newly imported) people do and say what they like, even though they offend our soldiers, their families and the majority of Britons. Many of whom I may add have left our soldiers to fight their wars for them in their godforsaken countries while they hide out in the UK and live on our benefit system.

        Lets all embrace Sharia, force the indigenous women into a veil and a burka, treat them like second class citizens, murder them when they cause dishonour to their families and really give the gays a good bashing.

        We could welcome terror onto our streets, give foreign criminals a free rein to steal, rape and generally cause tribal wars within our communities, create some nice little no-go areas in the places we grew up in as children, just to keep the righteous, the immigrants and liberals in our society happy like you!

        The primary functions of a government is to enforce the law and protect the people. None of which this government or you seem to advocate.

        The stupidity of some people never cease to amaze me.

        • Loki
          June 4, 2011 at 8:55 pm

          Well said Sue.

        • June 5, 2011 at 5:57 am

          “The stupidity of some people never cease to amaze me.”

          I’ve given up being amazed… 😮

        • Mintee
          June 5, 2011 at 11:05 am

          The stupidity of some people never ceases to amaze me either, but mostly they are the rantings of astonishingly ignorant fuckwits […] on the internet.

          • June 5, 2011 at 11:19 am

            As admin, I’ve edited out the ad hominem in Mintee’s comment. He can choose to delete or leave it as it is. Please note our comments policy.

        • Zaphod
          June 5, 2011 at 11:42 pm

          Voyager makes an excellent point.
          In response, Sue attacks a straw man.

  5. June 4, 2011 at 2:47 pm

    It’s not a homeogeneous group. The Bible says “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” and James I made it the platform of a lethal pogrom against them – apparently that’s how the job of the Witch-Finder General came about. Yet Christians today aren’t burning witches in this country, even though the Bible verse still stands. There’s lots of reasonable Muslims. The zealots are oftren young men without a respectable position in society, so as with our old 60s/70s student revolutionaries it’s really about a quick way to power and respeck.

    • Loki
      June 4, 2011 at 8:56 pm

      Not all Germans’ were Nazis! It only takes good men (and women) to do nothing……

    • CDM
      June 4, 2011 at 10:41 pm

      “The Bible” is composed of the Old and New Testament. The Christian part is the New Testament. The Jewish part is the Old Testament.
      When you quote something from “The Bible” please quote which chapter and verse and book it comes from.
      The Koran and Hadith have over 60% of it devoted to how to deal with people not muslim, most of it by conquering, killing, terrorising, or taxing (see Political Islam for more analysis).
      There is no comparable volume of killing and hate text in any of the holy books of any other religion.

  6. June 4, 2011 at 3:00 pm

    Copts: Oh, yes, do indeed look at the Copts: native Egyptians, the direct descendants of the Ancient Egyptians, who are being murdered daily and their buildings (not just their churches) razed, by Islamist mobs.

    Ah yes, the Copts, whose Christian religion was established in Egypt half a millennium before the forcible introduction to the country of Islam by an invading Arab army of conquering iconoclasts which deliberately destroyed most of Egypt’s pre-Christian antiquities, Taleban-style, because they were – hm – un-Islamic. Only burial beneath the desert saved most of the antiquities we see now and it’s a badly kept secret that millions of Muslim Egyptians do not give a fig for them because they are… fill in the rest yourself.

    Ah, Abidos, Piramesu, Karnack…

    Salisbury Cathedral, anyone? Worcester? Hereford? York Minster?

    • David
      June 4, 2011 at 7:24 pm

      A truly frightening, and yet completely possible, prospect if we carry on this trajectory.

    • June 5, 2011 at 11:48 am

      Completely agreed.

  7. June 4, 2011 at 3:07 pm

    One of the best titles for a blog post evah. Props and doffing of Akubra, Quiet Man. I’m still chuckling. As to the question:

    So, how does a libertarian or classic liberal deal with a problem in which a group of people of a certain religion who have been invited or have the right to settle in our country, yet some of these people will not integrate, demand that we fit in with them, blow up our transport network and send themselves abroad to be trained to fight or to attack us or our troops?

    Surely a libertarian or classic liberal would not deal with them as a group at all but as individuals. Those that do not integrate or demand we change or blow up transport and so on must be dealt with differently from those who just get on quietly with their own lives, or even those who in fact do integrate but just happen to worship a different god (or worship the same one differently – take your pick). The latter are in no more need of being ‘dealt with’ than the indigenous population, the former must be treated the same as the indigenous population who go bad.

    • June 4, 2011 at 3:13 pm

      The problem is telling them apart, moderate or fundamentalist, within the Islamic religion there is an obligation to shield other Muslims from non Muslims. That’s why the Swedish bomber despite being (supposedly) expelled from his Mosque carried on regardless despite the fact his Imam knew there was a problem.

      • June 4, 2011 at 4:40 pm

        I’ve heard that but I’m not sure. I saw something somewhere recently around the time Bin Liner was sinking to the bottom of an undisclosed location in the Indian Ocean that the Taliban were prepared to dob him in to the Yanks if Dubya provided something rather more than assertion that it was him wot dunnit, honest guv’nor. In my personal experience I’ve known a muslim give evidence against another for an internal theft matter. Maybe he thought that being a thief meant the other guy wasn’t a very good muslim anyway, but the impression I got was that he was just an honest bloke.

        In any case, can we not say the same thing about fundamentalist Christians? There are the ones who just get on with their lives and happen to leave Sunday mornings free for some god time, but there are also the deluded ones who lead their followers to waste their life savings before a Rapture that doesn’t happen, and more than a few who are dishonest and fleece their followers, or who actually have sex with or even rape them. And there are also the occasional complete whack jobs who prepare for the end of the world by stocking up on guns and plastic explosive, presumably in case the world doesn’t end on schedule and they’re called upon to get the ball rolling. The various Christian communities and communions have, for a religion of love, more than their fair share of pederasts, crims and psychos, just as the religion of peace has more than it’s fair share of what I like to think of as martyrholics. We often can’t tell them apart from those who just go and sing All Things Bright And Beautiful on Sunday mornings either.

        What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. The choice is to be pro-active and criminalise religion – and with the possible exception of Buddhism I can’t think of any that has any more right to an exception than any of the others – or to be reactive and deal with all criminal behaviour on an ad hoc basis and as committed by the individuals involved. Actually there really isn’t a choice since, as the Elizabethan experience with Catholics teaches us, banned religions do not in fact go – they just go underground.

        • June 4, 2011 at 4:55 pm

          When fundamentalist Christians fly planes into buildings, blow up tube trains and buses, drive cars with gas canisters wrapped with nails and explosives into airport entrances, blow up disco’s, restaurants, run grooming gangs for underage girls, (dis)honour kill young girls for wanting basic freedoms, throw acid into the faces of women not wearing a veil, who view the way western women dress as an advert for rape…
          You might have a point. Until then you’re comparing chalk and cheese. No, I’m not saying all Muslims are like that, just enough of them to make for very uncomfortable residents and their own communities seem unable or unwilling to out them.
          Until that happens, we have a very serious problem on our hands that isn’t improving with time.

        • June 5, 2011 at 11:51 am

          In any case, can we not say the same thing about fundamentalist Christians? There are the ones who just get on with their lives and happen to leave Sunday mornings free for some god time, but there are also the deluded ones who lead their followers to waste their life savings

          Absolutely. Post on this this evening.

    • June 5, 2011 at 5:58 am

      “Surely a libertarian or classic liberal would not deal with them as a group at all but as individuals.”

      Spot on! That goes for every other issue of ‘identity politics’.

  8. Mad Morgan
    June 4, 2011 at 3:44 pm


    There is no such thing as “moderate Islam” or “extremist Islam”. There is only Islam.

  9. June 4, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    “Can Islam (in its fundamental form) co-exist with liberty?”


    What to do about it? Apply commonsense and the criminal law. Who cares why people beat their wives and children, mutilate little girls, murder them for marrying the wrong people, plan or carry out terrorist attacks, cheat the immigration or benefit system etc, a crime is a crime is a crime.

  10. WitteringWitney
    June 4, 2011 at 4:04 pm

    I have to agree with jic and Sue. This is our country and those wishing to come here, whether to visit or live, need to do a tad of research prior to so doing.

    If they find they don’t like it here then they should bugger off – and if they won’t bugger off, they should be forcibly buggered off! That is one simple immigration policy which would solve all the problems of multiculturalism!

    • Paul
      June 4, 2011 at 4:14 pm

      If they find they don’t like it here then they should bugger off – and if they won’t bugger off, they should be forcibly buggered off!

      And what of those that were born here, or those that were born here have had kids that were born here?

      • June 4, 2011 at 4:46 pm

        Whilst I agree that WfW’s solution isn’t ideal, I’ve yet to see your solution for a liberal states dealings with an illiberal and organised movement that is intolerant to anything other than its own and does not play well with dissenters.

        • June 4, 2011 at 5:00 pm

          See Mark Wadsworth’s comment above 😉

          • June 4, 2011 at 5:06 pm

            Oh I’ll grant you that would work, save only that for some reason or other, the law isn’t being applied and every day it isn’t applied the worse the problem gets. Sooner or later if the law is applied do you think Islam will meekly obey it?
            Well, they might, I have my doubts though.

      • David
        June 4, 2011 at 7:26 pm

        They abide by our laws and fit in or go elsewhere – to a country that is more suited to their sensibilities.

    • June 5, 2011 at 11:52 am

      This is our country and those wishing to come here, whether to visit or live, need to do a tad of research prior to so doing.

      Yes and 2nd generation and 3rd still need to be bound by our heritage and values and don’t give me that bollox that it can’t be defined. Of course it can be defined.

      • PPS
        June 6, 2011 at 5:43 pm

        Please define it.

  11. Matt
    June 4, 2011 at 4:59 pm

    If you have not already done so do have a look at Sam Solomon being interviewed by Ezra Levant. It is on you tube. fairly chilling.

  12. DP111
    June 4, 2011 at 5:58 pm

    With immigration, family reunification, illegal immigration, and a high birth rate, Muslims will eventually control the legislature, and then can set sharia as the law of the land. If ever Islam gained power in the West, then everything that is the West will be destroyed.

    There is no doubt that once the Muslim population in any country is large enough, Muslims are required to institute sharia, and they will do so. Therefore the distinction between ‘moderate’ or ‘radical’ Muslims is totally meaningless in this context. It also follows that all Muslims, including peaceful ones are an existential threat.

  13. Damo
    June 4, 2011 at 6:15 pm

    ‘out breeding the native population somewhat, who get special treatment from our weak government and who demand their own laws and dietary requirements are forced upon us rather than adapt to our ways.’

    And the problem here is not the fanatics pre se but the government kotowing to the fanatics.

    If these fanatics had to stand on their own two feet without government assistance and pandering to them, they wouldn’t last pissing time.

    • Paul
      June 4, 2011 at 8:35 pm

      If these fanatics had to stand on their own two feet without government assistance and pandering to them, they wouldn’t last pissing time

      I bet it’s like that when a lot of them go back to Pakistan or whatever country is their ancestral home – they probably feel completely alien in that country and shit themselves if they had to live under such conditions but they feel free bellowing for bigotry like Sharia law and preferential treatment in the confines of Britain and its freedom.

      • June 5, 2011 at 6:01 am

        Look at how many have recently gone back – usually for arranged marriages and ‘business’ deals – and come to grief. Often at the hands (or AK-47s) of relatives!

  14. Ian F4
    June 5, 2011 at 12:52 am

    Churchill was more specific about Islam, from “The River War” (1899 edition):

    “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

  15. ivan
    June 5, 2011 at 12:56 am

    Why not treat them in the same way Saudi treats all non muslim workers – step the slightest out of line and you’re out – you follow their laws or else. No exceptions that I could see when I worked there – western wives had to have their husbands with them to go shopping and so on. No Christian churches – the Filipino workers on the site used a container as a church – how they got bibles in I’ll never know because everyone had their luggage searched and all ‘inappropriate’ literature was taken and burnt.

    As for those in the UK at the moment – a big clamp down is necessary – those that commit crimes are treated with the same, or greater, severity than the white British – commit another crime, double the normal sentence and forcible return to country of origin at the end of it. Those that won’t conform – pack them into an RAF transport and return them their own country (personally I’d like to see them kicked out at 1000 feet with more than half of the politicians with them).

    • Humph
      June 13, 2011 at 2:29 pm

      You’re not seriously suggesting you would want the UK to emulate KSA? People know what KSA is like, and you choose to live and work there with this knowledge. Personally I’d never consider going there for these very reasons.

      The UK has obviously gone too far in trying to show the wiorld how ‘tolerant’ we can be, but to act like the Saudis? Fuck that.

  16. June 5, 2011 at 6:03 am

    All the above suggestions are fine and dandy. But before anyone even thinks to fixing the Muslim issue, there’s a far more important issue to be fixed. And that’s the EU issue.

    Because, like it or not, they run our country now. Not our own government.

    And with the EU admitting more and more Muslim countries…

    Well, I think we can all see where it’s going, can’t we?

    • June 5, 2011 at 11:55 am

      Julia, I’m the last one to disagree with you on that, with my Albion Alliance past and my constant anti-Them posts and yet this issue of Islam/Sharia is still an equal issue to confront. Methinks we need to divide our attention between the two.

      • DP111
        June 5, 2011 at 2:58 pm

        I agree with you James. The EU threatens our political survival as an independent nation, but it can be changed when and if we decide. Islam OTH threatens our whole culture and civilisation. Once Islam takes root, that will be the end. It will be very difficult to reverse an Islamic takeover as that will happen when Muslims are a near majority.

        The trouble in trying to reverse Islamisation is that Islam is a dual faced creed. It switches from extreme aggressive to victim mode in a flash. Thus any action against Islam will immediately give rise to a victim mode response. If they did that we have to be very careful.

        Let us consider the hypothetical situation that ALL Muslims at present living in the West, accepted the call, under the threat of expulsion, to clean up their communities of extremism . They even went further and made changes in their teachings of the Koran and the jihad. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, the government, the MSM, and elsewhere. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever-increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of Muslims will simply revoke any changes(Taqqiya is advocated for Muslims when under stress), and return to the traditions of the unchanging and unchangeable Koran i.e., the canonical texts of Islam that cannot be changed, but only protected when under duress. That future generation of Muslims in the UK or the West, will even praise this generation of Muslims for having done what was necessary to protect Islam.

  17. June 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    This video recorded at a conference in Turkey last week is by a local libertarian. He sees a smaller state as the answer to many cultural conflicts:


  18. fake
    June 6, 2011 at 10:05 am


    Looking at the numbers now, whilst muslims may dominate some small areas in cities like London or Birmingham, as a % of the population they are a very small minority.

    I do wonder if we simply stop mass immigration (absolutly NO unskilled workers from outside the EU, and a cap on EU immigration, we effectivly stop muslim immigration.

    Then stop all the goverment translation services, and if they stop chucking money at minorities.

    Would they start to integrate, after all if you look at the numbers then their is no risk of them outbreeding us by 2050 or 2100 or maybe even 2200 (currently what 3-4% of the population?).

    I think part of the issue is the mass immigration allows plenty of the backwater muslims into the country, the ones that have not grown up here and call themselves more “pure” muslims. The ones that more readily preach for jihad and all that bollox as where they came from it’s still part of their everday lives.

    People want to identify with thier culture, think if you where british living in pakistan, with a steady influx of british immigrants, who would you be taking examples from? No new immigrants, and you would steadily become more “pakistani”, it’s how people work, we are pack animals.

    I went to a school that had a large “brown” population (but not a majority). Many friends where muslims, and to me seemed fairly normal. Now more immigration into that area has tipped the balance the other way, and it’s telling how attitudes have changed.

    Mass immigration also allows them to increasing create their own little communities, because their is a steady influx of people that are not british, that barely if at all speak english, and so RELY on their closed communities.

    I’m yet to be convinced that if we fully stop immigration from outside the EU, those that are here will become increasingly more “british” as they live and work here, and are at present to small a majority for this to not happen.

  19. fake
    June 6, 2011 at 10:07 am

    (also would say that I think EU immigration is bad, but for different reasons, hence why in the post above I did not call it to be stopped)

  20. PPS
    June 6, 2011 at 5:18 pm

    Orphans 4 Liberty sometimes

  21. LJ Hills
    June 20, 2011 at 8:29 pm

    Bending over backwards to accommodate multiculturalism, combined with the welfare state, is more of a problem than Islamism. The democratic state is made up of individuals not groups: therefore anyone hiding their identity in hijab or a burqa should be presumed to have criminal intent; the language of this country is English – if you cannot speak it, you have no right to nationality or translators when using services; this is a secular state whose services are paid for by the working- no djizyah to subsidise large unemployed families; the burden of genetic disease to the NHS is growing – no cousin marriage without genetic screening; no marriage partners from abroad who do not speak English and who have not attained 25 years of age; no public funding for religious schools; a more determined protection for the individuals who apostasise, are homosexual or females threatened by their families, funded by a tax on mosques. I think those whose wished to stay exceeded their desire to preserve the customs of their village forefathers, would be encouraged to adapt and assimilate, and those, who found these requirements intolerable, would remove themselves to somewhere more congenial.

Comments are closed.