Know your enemy, October 2009 edition.

This is absolutely breathtaking, reading as this guy circles back to make the point that Muslims want to conquer the entire world. What’s amazing is that he does this in the context of telling an interviewer that the UK’s policies aimed at curbing radicalism in and fostering better integration of the “Muslim” population there are so appalling. I quote:

‘We should be clear, "Prevent" is not a policy that will detect and deter future bombers. It is an ideological agenda built on the false premise that the more Islamic a person is, and the more politicized, the more chance they have of becoming a security threat. This may sound utterly ridiculous, but that is actually the strategy.

Earlier this year, a leak to the Guardian newspaper exposed that the government's definition of "extremism" which should raise suspicions includes belief in the implementation of sharia or Khilafah/Caliphate - anywhere in the world; belief that it is legitimate for the Muslims of Palestine, Iraq or Afghanistan to resist occupation; and belief that homosexuality is a sin. So you can see its real aim is to start a coercive assimilation of Muslims - "converting" them to Western values, and subduing them to the will of the state.’


Well yes, I rather think that IS the aim of the policy! Read the first highlighted section and consider the “falseness” of that premise. I’d say he’s pretty much defined the prime candidates for jihad, but I’m profiling, aren’t I? Interesting how it looks from the other side, and if anyone thinks that there aren’t people who think like this (Islam will cover the world, universal Caliphate, etc.) I hold Dr. Abdul Wahid up as an example.

There’s another bit further on:

MA: Even mainstream British politicians have declared "multiculturalism" to be as good as dead; how will this impact British Muslims at local and national levels?

AW: I think the demise of the policy of "multiculturalism" has made it easier to vilify Islam. Things can be written and said about Islam and Muslims that could never be said of other races or religions. The net result is that more of the wider society, who are fed this diet of lies and misinformation, view Muslims as a suspect community or with hostility.

I would have to ask why anyone would go out of their way to be concerned about Muslims, as opposed to any other particular religious group; that is, if I didn’t already know. The Hindus don’t have plans to take over the world, ditto the Buddhists, Sikhs, Taoists, Zoroastrians, etc. The Christians are largely past that, at least as a group, and the last I checked none of these groups riot and run amok en masse every time someone says something they don’t like.

Multiculturalism as official policy is an absolute disaster, as it says that everything is as good as everything else. The moral-relativists out there might not see the problem with this but I do. There has to be a hard centre that people can look to for continuity, a base for civil society. The constitution of that centre can vary by time and place (culture, etc.), but people have to know there are standards, and what they are.

Assimilation is best for domestic stability, but integration works quite adequately too. I like the food options, etc. that a diverse population brings, and I don’t care if there’s a temple or a mosque down the road any more than a church, as long as it’s there for the same purposes. I will not stand for our Common Law being changed by people from vastly different legal traditions, and Rule of Law (another cornerstone of civil society) can have only one set of rules for EVERYONE. Sure sharia has that too, but I don’t want to live under it, so it can stay where it is; anyone who wants so badly to live under it can live in those places.

The death of Multiculturalism is the only chance that the UK has to survive in any recognizable form, and at some point a decision will have to be made in a lot of other places too. There are rumblings in much of Europe that people are fed up with being forced to kowtow to the Islamists, but I’m not sure they’ll manage to stabilize things.

Time will tell, as always, but the above interview gives the informed a good idea of what the stakes are. For reference, consider living under witch-burning Puritan fundamentalists in the 16th Century. That would be a progressive regime by comparison with the Abdul Wahids of the world taking over.