You are here

Spectator

  • Summary: 

    The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

    In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

    ...

    There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    18/10/2019
    Summary: 

    The Birmingham school protests have turned into one of those totemic issues: tolerant Britain vs backward religious people

  • Summary: 

    In fact, Washington state’s source for its proclamations about Islam is rather peculiar. The infographic cites “Swedish Nomad,” a  published by a “Professional Travel Blogger and Photographer from Sweden.” He is also very much a non-Muslim.

    Relying on non-Muslims to explain “true Islam” to the world on behalf of Muslims everywhere is enormously helpful to the non-violent Islamists. These  may spout hatred behind closed doors, but they too offer these infographic-themed platitudes in front of the cameras. This distances them from the jihadists and legitimizes them as examples of “true Islam.”

    By denying the diversity of Islamic thought and speaking only of a dichotomy featuring true Muslims on one side and ISIS on the other, politicians and government officials homogenize Islam, making it impossible to separate moderate Muslim partners from the dangerous Islamist networks that operate lawfully within the “true Islam” of Western Muslim communities. This obfuscates counter-extremism and counter-terror work and hurts efforts by Muslim reformists to challenge Islamist influence within their own communities.

  • Summary: 

    I only wish that Atwood would tell her fans that she is not writing, primarily at least, about the way that Trump’s America could go in the future, but about how things are right now for females in repressive Islamic societies. We are so blessed compared to them. To don a red dress and white bonnet, to pretend their suffering is ours, to talk of tyranny, is the most appalling moral vanity.

    Imagine a country where women have no jobs, no rights and are valued only for their reproductive success. Imagine a country where girls aren’t taught to read in case they get ideas. Imagine a country where boys eat lunch while girls have to wait. Imagine women having to cover themselves head to toe in case men get ideas.

    Sadly, we don’t have to imagine. There are millions of handmaids. The nightmare of Gilead is right here.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    07/09/2019
    Summary: 

    Would-be censors also advance the seemingly innocuous requirement to publish more than one opinion in any given story. This is an iniquitous imposition. When covering racial attacks on Muslim retailers, it would have had me asking ‘how many opinions, exactly?’ — and whether I would seriously be expected to interview any members of the English Defence League who would seek to justify those attacks.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    07/09/2019
    Summary: 

    For months, Ipso has been working on a new project: an ‘informal working group’ to guide journalists on what should and shouldn’t be said about Islam and Muslims. Drafts of this guidance have been leaked to Policy Exchange by someone concerned about where it might lead, and it is examined in a new study by the thinktank called Eroding the Free Press. I can disclose it here for the first time.

    ...

  • Author(s):

    Summary: 

    Watching the recent footage of Islamic State gang members haggling over the price of captured Christian women in a makeshift slave market — one of them wants a 15-year-old with green eyes, another wants to exchange a girl for a gun — I was reminded that Islamists are at least consistent in their hateful worldview and in a way uniquely honest. Even a terror gang as vile as the IRA tried to keep a lid on the rapes and paedophilia going on within its rancid ranks. But when Amnesty International first claimed in September that Isis were enslaving and abusing ‘hundreds, if not thousands’ of Yazidi women and children, it only took the group a few weeks to admit to the practice in their English language magazine, Dabiq, and breezily post videos of themselves doing just that.

    Yet there are still a considerable number of people on the left making excuses for them — mostly at the Guardian, the house magazine of ‘the silly led by the sinister’, as the sainted Christopher Hitchens called the Not In My Name marchers. And with Isis so frank about its own foulness, I’ve come to the conclusion that certain strange types are so sympathetic to Islamism not despite the way it treats women — but, at least partly, because of it.

  • Summary: 

    Boris Johnson says it is time to reassert British values in the face of extremist Islam.

    Supporters of the war have retorted that Iraq cannot be said to be a whole and sufficient explanation for the existence of suicidal Islamic cells in the West, and they, too, have a point. The threat from Islamicist nutters preceded 9/11; they bombed the Paris Métro in the 1990s; and it is evident that the threat to British lives pre-dates the Iraq war, when you think that roughly the same number of Britons died in the World Trade Center as died in last week’s bombings. In other words, the Iraq war did not create the problem of murderous Islamic fundamentalists, though the war has unquestionably sharpened the resentments felt by such people in this country, and given them a new pretext. The Iraq war did not introduce the poison into our bloodstream but, yes, the war did help to potentiate that poison. And whatever the defenders of the war may say, it has not solved the problem of Islamic terror, or even come close to providing the beginnings of a solution. You can’t claim to be draining the swamp in the Middle East when the mosquitoes are breeding quite happily in Yorkshire.

    The question is what action we take now to solve the problem in our own country, and what language we should use to describe such action. The first step, as we swaddle London and Yorkshire with Police/Do Not Cross tape, is to ban the phrase ‘war on terror’, as repeatedly used by G.W. Bush, most recently on 7 July in Edinburgh, with Blair nodding beside him. There is nothing wrong in principle in waging war on an abstract noun; the British navy successfully waged a war on slavery, by which they meant a war on slavers. But if we continue to say that we are engaged in a war with these people, then we concede several points to the enemy, and set up a series of odious false equivalences.

  • Country: 
    Nigeria
    News Date: 
    28/06/2019
    Summary: 

    Nigeria’s government has belatedly woken up to the dangers posed by the almajiri system, aware that it also puts children at risk from other criminal influences: street gangs, sex abusers and slave traders. Yet little real progress has been made. Nigeria’s previous president, Goodluck Jonathan, pledged hundreds of new schools for the almajiri, noting that many had become ‘cannon fodder’ for the terrorists. However, many of the new facilities have either crumbled into disrepair or have never been properly used.

  • Country: 
    United Kingdom (UK)
    News Date: 
    22/06/2019
    Summary: 

    But that is not the half of it. Peterborough’s postal vote was far above the normal percentage (and almost 10,000 strong) and heavily utilised in the city’s most Muslim area. There are stories of imams filling in voter slips for worshippers and local non-Labour Muslims have complained of intimidation. Labour is also accused of buying votes at ten quid a go. If this were not a problem associated with Muslim community leaders and activists then I suspect it would be front-page news.

  • Summary: 

    The inconvenient truth is that a fervent commitment to Islam led those benighted savages to murder Christians in Sri Lanka and that a sizeable proportion of Muslims worldwide are not entirely averse to such despicable actions. You cannot quite separate Islam from the horrors carried out in its name, no matter how well intentioned you may be. Nor, for that matter, can you separate Islam from the appalling treatment of women, gays, apostates and Christians in states which call themselves Islamic. Islam, as it is practised today, is in general neither peaceable nor tolerant and it seems to me absurd to pretend that it is.

  • Country: 
    Malaysia
    News Date: 
    25/01/2019
    Summary: 

    It was comforting at least to see the Labour deputy leader, Tom Watson, take a firm stand against the Malaysian government for its decision to ban Israeli paralympic swimmers from taking part in a Paralympic Games qualifying tournament in the country. Watson said the tournament should be removed from the grasp of the Malaysians and held elsewhere. I would go further and suggest that the UK team refuse to compete in the next Paralympic Games unless all countries are afforded a fair chance to qualify.

    ...

  • Summary: 

    So what was brave Steve’s response to this? What was his trenchant embrace of blasphemy in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo and in defiance of Islamic fundamentalists? Well obviously, it was to have a really good go at Christianity. There followed a characteristically unpleasant series of cartoons lampooning God the Father – I don’t even want to go there – and the Pope, with a savage little skit on Francis for not taking the whole freedom of expression thing sufficiently seriously. As for similarly disobliging depictions of Mohammed? Yes, I looked for those in vain, though brave Steve did take a very hard line on Isis individuals decapitating infidels.

    So the considered response of a prominent liberal cartoonist to the murder of cartoonists for alleged blasphemy and disrespecting Islam, was to go for Christianity, lampooning both God the Father and God the son. Plus the Pope. Yes, that’s just about where we’re at when it comes to blasphemy in an age of unbelief. Rather a hit and miss affair, wouldn’t you say?

  • Summary: 

    Unwittingly, perhaps, the ECHR has brought us to something of an impasse in this ruling. For the hadith are – next to the Qur’an – the most important foundational texts of Islam. And they state, repeatedly and without caveat, that the founder of Islam had sex with a girl of nine, who he had married when she was six. Mohammed was 53 at this time.

    Today we would call this paedophilia, and would have no difficulty in identifying it as such. Of course most of us would also remember that in the past different norms existed and we should try to understand their context. But deciding that nothing critical might be said of such a person or set of actions is a problem isn’t it? And an exceedingly bad precedent to set.

  • Summary: 

    In 2011 Baroness Warsi, the then Conservative Party chairman, said that Islamophobia has “passed the dinner-table test” in polite British society. I agree with her, but what she omitted to mention, and what we Muslims must now admit, is that anti-Semitism passed the dinner-table test in polite British Muslim society long ago.

    Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman where this article  and the political director of the Huffington Post UK, 

  • Summary: 

    A truly bizarre thing happened yesterday: Boris Johnson was branded an Islamophobe and a bigot for writing in defence of Muslim women who wear the niqab....He’s been slammed everywhere as a racist, a borderline fascist, a poundshop Mussolini who if he ever gets to No10 will declare war on Muslims and other minorities. What is the basis to these shrill and wilful misinterpretations of what he said? Because alongside defending women’s freedom to wear the niqab and burqa, he expressed distaste for these garments. And, as we now know, you’re not allowed to say anything even remotely critical about Islam or its practices these days.

    ...

    The rash reaction to Boris’s comments, the depiction of him as a hard-right tyrant, confirms that it is now tantamount to thoughtcrime to say anything critical about Islam. To make any kind of moral judgement about Islamic practices, to question its beliefs or its prophets or its garments, is to run the risk of being branded an ‘Islamophobe’, a racist, a fascist.

  • Summary: 

    Where’s the concern for Labour MP Sarah Champion? Where are the leftists demanding that this female MP stop being harassed merely for expressing her views? Where are the tweets drawing attention to Ms Champion’s plight — the fact that she now  an actual security team because people who hate her political views want to physically harm her? In this post-Jo Cox era, I thought we were all meant to have the backs of elected politicians who are under threat from extremists. And yet when it comes to Champion — just such an elected politician — people seem to be looking the other way.

  • Summary: 

    Life has changed in Dewsbury and Bradford. We've let people there down – but not in the way the bien pensants tell you.

    ...

    The delusions persist. Locals cannot understand how Savile Town has bred a suicide bomber, because Islam is a peaceable religion, isn’t it? But it is true that we have let down the people of Savile Town — and Bradford. Let down the original inhabitants, most importantly. And let down the incomers by allowing community leaders to replicate the political, social and religious culture of Pakistan.

  • Summary: 

     I was kicked out of the party a year or so back for having suggested that the rising tide of anti–Semitism within Labour was a consequence of its growing Muslim membership and also the radical, white, pro-Palestinian far left (which of course now runs the party). We know why the Muslims are anti-Jewish — it’s all there in Muhammad’s hadiths and in the Quran. But how have the whiteys got themselves transformed into racist bigots?

  • Summary: 

    The future of modern Britain looks set to be an unusually complicated affair. Take just one piece of news that came out of the trial of Darren Osborne over recent days. According to relatives of the Finsbury Park attacker, the first trigger towards his radicalisation was watching the BBC drama Three Girls about the Rochdale grooming gangs. Evidence suggests that this drama put him on the path to deciding to hire a van and drive it into a group of Muslims in Finsbury Park a few weeks later, murdering 51-year old Makram Ali. Now of course the BBC’s drama department should not be held responsible for the death of Mr Ali. Though I would love to see a real debate on Newsnight or the like in which the BBC questioned its own apparent role in this terrible business. But just how much more complicated can things get?

    Admin: The only complicating factor is the denial of the role of islam-sharia in jihad, .

  • Summary: 

    Honeyford complained of the damage done by the multicultural ‘experts’, whose sole aim seemed to be ghettoisation. He recounted his efforts to explain to parents that it was in fact against the law to take their children out of school for weeks on end during term time. As a result of these efforts, Muslim activists packed a meeting in his school in order to make loud and threatening protests. Honeyford wrote from a spirit of genuine concern for children whom he was trying to protect — girls who were being forced into marriage, boys who came to school already exhausted from their lessons in the madrasah, children who were being brought up to believe that they were living in an alien place to which they did not belong and to which they owed neither loyalty nor gratitude.

  • Summary: 

    Nonetheless, Khan believes that doing away with the laws would only lead to more violence. ‘I would never get rid of blasphemy legislation,’ he said. ‘You know why? Because I would open the way for lynching mobs. If you accuse anyone of blasphemy, the other person has a right to prove that he’s innocent. But if you take that out, you will have, in villages, some mullah from a mosque instigating people.

    ‘It’s happened to us. In Chitral [a district of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa], suddenly [at] this one mosque, this guy claimed that someone had committed blasphemy and he riled the crowd up, and they were going to lynch him and the police saved him. So I think that it is a form of protection for people.’

  • Summary: 

    There is nothing irrational about fears associated with aspects of Islam.

    Among the most purely dishonest expressions in modern politics (eclipsing even ‘Social justice’) is ‘Islamophobia’. A phobia – the word comes from an ancient Greek term meaning more-or-less ‘panic’ – is a haunting, disabling, panic-inducing, and above all irrational, terror of something generally considered harmless. Cats, clowns, enclosed spaces and the number 13 are among a myriad of such objects. ‘Islamophobia’ is not a phobia at all, though survivors of Islamic terror may feel a fear of Muslims that is perfectly understandable, as survivors of Auschwitz fear SS uniforms. It is not a phobia to criticise Islam’s oppression of women, the literally countless terrorist activities all over the world, or the huge, ongoing massacres of Christians in the third world. Recently a girls’ school in an Islamic country caught fire. The religious police pushed the fleeing girls back into the flames because they were improperly dressed. Is it irrational, or ‘phobic’ to criticise a religion, or a sect, that allows or encourages such things?

  • Summary: 

    The narrative we are expected to buy into is that terrorism is nothing to do with Islam and, further, that it is a state of mind imposed upon young and ‘vulnerable’ Muslim men and women by an outside agency — a foreign agency and an agency which, again, has nothing to do with Islam. This is the process of ‘radicalisation’ we keep hearing about and I have never bought into it, having a certain respect for the concept of free will. And, I would contend, a rather less generous view of Islam’s worldwide beneficence and pacific nature than the one we are all enjoined to take.

    And yet here we have a young man taken into the kindly, if somewhat wrinkled, bosom of an English couple who, it may emerge, still ended up trying to terrorise people in the name of his weary God. If the Joneses had been a Muslim family, then the press and the police would be demanding to know what they knew of this process of radicalisation, and what they had done to counter it. But there is nothing to be done. The religion itself sets its people apart from the rest and, in all too many cases, this apartness leads to a hatred. Radicalisation is nothing to do with it.

  • Summary: 

    Islam in Britain is dominated by a very specific, and rather illiberal, version of the faith — one that, if anything, seems to be becoming more conservative over time.

  • Summary: 

    And still more and more ‘cats’[Muslims} pour into Europe and into the UK. The grooming has been occasioned because we made this mess for ourselves and have neither the political inclination nor the will to call a halt. And because our politicians are terrified they might be called ‘racist’ if they grasp the nettle. And so we live in a bizarre state of denial. Here’s my bet — Mohammed Khan wins his case.

  • Summary: 

    It is all part of a much bigger pattern. Elsewhere, I have recently  the strange British and European sickness whereby we don’t really have the societal fortitude to deal with (or even address) problems such as the organised gang-rape of children and console ourselves by attacking anyone willing to acknowledge the truth. We attack the response to the problem because we lack the societal fortitude to address the problem. You have to stand back to recognise the full consequence of such societal sickness. Imagine if Shah, Corbyn and their eggers-on among the Twittering classes were able to summon up even a quarter of the rage they reserved for Kavanagh and Champion, and saved it instead for the rapists who  their initials on girls they regard as ‘chattel’

  • Summary: 

    The London Bridge attackers wanted us to be in no doubt about their motivation. ‘This is for Allah,’ they shouted, as they slashed and stabbed their victims. When they could, they slit people’s throats — just as Isis executioners in Syria, claiming obedience to a command in the Quran ‘to strike off the heads of unbelievers’, had slit the throats of western hostages. Shot by police marksmen, the three men were hailed by supporters of Isis as ‘martyrs’.

    ....

    When, for instance, in her speech after the London Bridge attacks, Theresa May decried as a perversion of Islam any notion that it might be incompatible with Western concepts of human rights, she had things precisely the wrong way round. Classically, Muslims have believed that no human rights exist except for those that have been prescribed by God. In the Quran, it is taken for granted that the only way to know how to live well is by means of a divine revelation. Naturally, the Quran casts itself as the ultimate source of these revelations.Anyone who does not submit to the god revealed in its pages is, then, by definition, inferior to those who do. This is all the more so because, according to one of Mohammed’s most quoted sayings, every newborn is naturally Muslim. ‘Then his two parents make him a Jew, a Christian, a Zoroastrian.’ Non Muslims, in other words, are effectively apostates. This is why, should they subsequently convert to Islam, they are termed by many Muslims ‘reverts’. It is also why, for a millennium and more, Islamic states actively discriminated against them. A Quranic injunction decreed that Jews and Christians pay a humiliating tax, the jizya, in exchange for the right to practise their respective religions. Those defined as mushrikun — ‘idolaters’ — were denied the right to practise their religion at all.

  • Summary: 

    The introduction of a madrassa curriculum at a secular state school in Birmingham and talk of Christian pupils at risk of ‘cultural isolation’ seem to have come as a revelation to non-Muslim Britain. They should not have. Islam in Britain is dominated by a very specific, and rather illiberal, version of the faith — one that, if anything, seems to be becoming more conservative over time.

    As the Muslim population became more established, one might have assumed that a westernised form of Islam would have come to dominate Britain’s mosques. According to a database of British Islam, however, only two out of 1,700 mosques in Britain follow modernist interpretations of the Koran. It’s not the same elsewhere in the West. In a 2011 survey of Islam in the United States, 56 per cent of mosques described themselves as following an interpretation of Islam adapted to modern circumstances. This has not happened in Britain.

  • Summary: 

    But what Holland at no point mentioned was why he had not gone to film in another city which – mistakenly or otherwise – is far more important in Islam: Mecca. The reason is that Holland is not a Muslim and so is not only unable to film in Mecca but also is not allowed to go there.

    .....

    ‘The British Muslim community will not allow Channel 4 to distort our faith and our history.’

    Is that a threat? It doesn’t seem a very moderate way of responding to an interesting programme. He concludes:

    ‘The Ramadhan Foundation calls on Channel 4 to apologise for this programme, withdraw it from online viewing and also order an immediate inquiry into why this was allowed to be broadcast. How many Muslims Scholars, community leaders were given a copy of this programme before transmission? Whether historic facts in relation to Islam were verified by the presenter and who his sources were.’

    Gosh! Did Channel 4 know that they had to pass their programmes by ‘community leaders’? Who will censor programmes for the rest of us?

  • Summary: 

    As I have said quite a few times before, it is simply wrong to say that Islam and Christianity have much the same view of war and peace. Judging from its founding texts, Christianity is a pacifist religion, for its founder rejected violence. Islam’s founder was a warlord.

    As I have also said quite a few times before, the real issue is not violence or terrorism but theocracy. Islamist violence stems from anger that Islam’s theocratic potential is being thwarted. Again, it is Christianity that is different: its founding texts reject theocracy.  For many centuries this was obscured, but then it was gradually understood and put into practice – which entailed the invention of modern politics, as I explain in my new book God Created Humanism.

  • Summary: 

    Last July, after the truck attack in Nice, the French Prime Minister Manuel Valls declared that France ‘must learn to live with terrorism’. He was fairly heavily criticised for saying this. As was the present Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when he said last September that terror attacks these days are just ‘part and parcel of living in a big city’. In a sense Khan and Valls are correct. Terror is indeed something that the residents of London, Paris, Antwerp and many other cities are going to have to learn to live with. In the same way that the residents of Istanbul, Beirut and Islamabad have had to learn to live with the same.

    Yet why it might be that London, Paris and Antwerp are having to accustom themselves to the security status of Istanbul, Beirut and Islamabad is a question that nobody in any position of power seems keen to ask.

    Admin: What our politicians won't admit and even writers like Douglas Murray have to be wary about is saying jihad is part and parcel of Islamic doctrines. It was a large part of Muhammad's life and the way that Islam was established in the first place.

  • Summary: 

    I was raised as an observant Muslim in a British family. Women, I was taught, determine their own conduct — including their ‘veiling’. We’d cover our hair only if we freely chose to do so. That’s why I’m baffled by the notion that all good Muslim women should cover their hair or face. My entire family are puzzled by it too, as are millions like us. Not until recent years has the idea taken root that Muslim women are obliged by their faith to wear a veil.

    It’s a sign, I think, not of assertive Islam, but of what happens when Islamists are tolerated by a western culture that’s absurdly anxious to avoid offence. This strange, unwitting collaboration between liberals and extremists has been going on for years. But at last there are signs that it is ending.

  • Summary: 

    Various papers who made the mistake of trusting ‘Hope Not Hate’ have now had to un-publish their stories or print corrections. Perhaps they won’t trust the group again. Anyhow – to return to the point at the top – I’m afraid I won’t be available to give out this week’s lottery numbers or announce in advance the winners of the Boxing Day racing. Calling this stuff doesn’t require any mystical abilities. It simply requires an averagely observant person to notice what is going on time and again before our eyes. It really doesn’t require much. But it is our civilisation’s tragedy that the people in charge of our future can’t even rouse themselves to this task.

  • Summary: 

    The appeasers, apologists and ‘useful idiots’ have been out in force over the festive season, busily lighting candles,  ‘Ich Bin Ein Berliner’ and proclaiming that the murderous attack on the Christmas market had nothing to do either with Islam or mass immigration. Thinking of them prompted me to pluck from my shelf one of my favourite books, a slim tome entitled ‘Ourselves and Germany’, written in the winter of 1937 by the Marquess of Londonderry. Otherwise known as Charles Stewart Henry Vane-Tempest-Stewart, or ‘Charley’ to his pals, the Marquess could neither write well nor read men well, but his book is nonetheless riveting. It’s a timeless reminder of where an educated man’s moral cowardice and intellectual stupidity can lead.

  • Summary: 

    Terror attacks in Germany are becoming remarkably unremarkable. So when a bomb went off in the German city of Essen, near Düsseldorf – and killed nobody – it barely registered. The three teenagers who detonated the device were all members of a Whatsapp group called ‘Supporters of the Islamic Caliphate’, so their intentions seemed pretty clear: they wanted to wage war against the infidels of the West.

    But their target – a Sikh temple – was striking. While initial reports suggested there was ‘no indication’ of a terrorist incident, any Sikh reading the news would have understood the motive, just as any Jew or Christian would have understood precisely why Islamic extremists target synagogues or churches. It was a religiously motivated attack, designed to remind Germany’s Sikh community that they should also be fearful.

Subscribe to Spectator