BRITAIN’S UNHOLY ALLIANCE: British Leftists Join Forces with Islamofascists Who Promote Global Shariah Law
|
by Richard Poe Thursday, August 4, 2005 7:23 am Eastern Time |
Archives 19 Comments |
The left’s infatuation with radical Islam, described in David Horowitz’s book Unholy Alliance, is truly a global phenomenon. In England, the Socialist Workers Party has united with the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) to launch something called the Stop the War Coalition. The MAB promotes the establishment of a Shariah-based theocracy (hat tip, Melanie Phillips). Regarding British leftists, Anthony Browne of the London Times writes:
“They may not want a global theocracy, but they are like the West’s apologists for the Soviet Union – useful idiots. … The support of Islamic fascism spans Britain’s Left. The wacko Socialist Workers Party joined forces with the Muslim Association of Britain, the democracy-despising, Shariah-law-wanting group, to form the Stop the War Coalition. The former Labour MP George Galloway created the Respect Party with the support of the MAB, and won a seat in Parliament by cultivating Muslim resentment.
“When I revealed on these pages last year both the fascist views of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, and the fact that he was being welcomed to Britain by Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, it caused a storm that has still to abate. Mr Livingtone claims that Sheikh al-Qaradawi is a moderate – which he is, in the same way that Mussolini was.
“The BBC and The Guardian regularly give space to MAB to promote sanitised versions of its Islamist views. John Ware, one of the BBC’s most-respected reporters, spent years trying to make a programme on Islamic fundamentalism in Britain, but was repeatedly blocked by senior editors who feared it was too sensitive. Last month it emerged that The Guardian employed a journalist, Dilpazier Aslam, who is a member of the Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group that wants a global theocracy… The Guardian used Dilpazier Aslam to report not just on the London bombings, but on Shabina Begum, the Luton schoolgirl who, advised by Hizb ut-Tahrir, won a court case allowing her to wear head-to-toe fundamentalist Islamic clothes.
“The tale illustrates Britain’s naivety in many ways. Hizb ut-Tahrir is still legal, despite being banned in many European and Muslim countries, and despite President Musharraf of Pakistan pleading with Britain to ban it after it plotted to assassinate him. The useful idiots of the Left insisted that Ms Begum’s victory was a victory over Islamophobia, but even the Muslim Parliament of Britain gave warning that it was a `victory for fundamentalism’, bringing Shariah law one step closer.”
Browne notes that Britain’s population is now 3 percent Muslim.
by Richard Poe
August 4, 2005 07:23 AM ET
Cross-posted from MoonbatCentral.com 08.04.05
Comments
19 Responses to “BRITAIN’S UNHOLY ALLIANCE: British Leftists Join Forces with Islamofascists Who Promote Global Shariah Law”Trackbacks
Check out what others are saying about this post...“Islamophobia” is an interesting word, but it implies a fear of all things Muslim: just the kind of tag leftists want to put on the Right.
But I don’t think Islamophobia describes the feelings of any person commenting within this website. I would say flat-out “hatred of Islam” pretty much describes how we feel.
As for the British, they are, for the most part, weak and senseless like most of Europe. France is in bed with the UN and other terrorist organizations, as is Russia (although I don’t think Russia technically constitutes Europe, does it?) and many other countries. Let them do what they will. If there aren’t enough people in their country concerned enough about the way things are going to make a change, to hell with them. I’ve got enough to worry about struggling against the Leftists of America.
RightWinger writes: “I don’t think Islamophobia describes the feelings of any person commenting within this website. I would say flat-out `hatred of Islam’ pretty much describes how we feel.”
Be wary, RightWinger, of speaking for everyone on this Web site. Many people here, including me, do not share your “hatred of Islam.”
In undertaking a business as dreadful as war, it seems that some people need to fan the fires of hatred in order to motivate themselves. This may be unavoidable. But it does not hold true for everyone.
I oppose the Islamists and regard them as mortal foes, but I do not hate them.
Islam is a terrorist organization. Those who appease them, pander to them, and lavish them with effusive praise are textbook dhimmis. These dhimmis seek to make their servitude to the terrorist organization pleasurable by demonstrating contempt for the opponents and victims of islam.
These “useful idiots” are actors dressed up as politicans and diplomats pretending to be independent thinkers to better advance the legitimacy of the terrorist organization. By doing this they receive gifts of money and women from islam, which they usually mistaken for genuine acceptance and affection by the terrorist organization.
In truth, the terrorist organization despises them and looks forward to the day when they are no longer needed so they can either kill or enslave these “idiots”. The “idiots” are somehow unable to see through this, or foolishly think the terrorists will give them some sort of “intelligentsia” status once they are empowered.
Of course, this is why they are called “idiots”, as the time of their usefullness will only last as long as the mission to take power is completed. Their will be no “intelligencia” awaiting the “idiot”, only a stone shower or a beheading courtesy of the terrorist organization the “idiot” himself helped bring to power in the first place.
Thus, it is the job of the terrorist fighters to not only crush the islamic menace, but also to defeat the “idiots” who are unconciously serving to bring about their own destruction.
Essentially, it is the “idiocy” which enables the islam, for without the “idiot” the terrorists cannot succeed. They have a symbiotic relationship in a sense, where the “idiot” gains the reward of temporary prominence while the terrorist gains the protection and cover they require to achieve power.
It’s the Black Widow relationship, really, for as soon as the “useful idiot” male spider is no longer needed anymore by the bloodthirsty female he is killed immediately.
We who know better must save these idiots from themselves before they get us all killed.
MZ
Forgive me for being so assertive, Richard. I must correct you however, for I feel I have done an inadequate job of explaining myself.
When I say “hatred of Islam”, I mean hatred of the religious cult of Islam. I did not say “I hate Muslims”, because saying I hate Muslims would be a blanket statement, including both the evil and the innocent who follow the religion.
Also, as a firm believer in Christianity, I always felt it was a matter of hating the sin, but caring for the soul of the sinner who has gone astray. And those who follow Islam have gone astray, not only in a relative religious perspective (i.e. my religious beliefs lead me to think that Islam is evil, while their beliefs lead them to the conclusion that Christianity is evil) but in an absolute moral perspective as well, for theirs is a religion that promotes hatred and death as a way of life.
Again, I must stress that I hate the Islamic religion. I do feel genuine pity for those who have been seduced by its sometimes tempting lies, and I hope that those who follow Islam, aware or unaware of its true hateful nature, will see the light and change their ways. I hate the religion, not its followers.
And I apologize for passing judgment when I said that “flat-out `hatred of Islam’ pretty much describes how we feel.” I only supposed that among men and women (fellow patriots, let me say) who love life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that the teachings of Islam would be in direct defiance to their sentiments.
I hope this helps to clarify my point, and thank you for pointing out the obvious inadequacies of my writings.
RightWinger writes: “…as a firm believer in Christianity, I always felt it was a matter of hating the sin, but caring for the soul of the sinner who has gone astray. And those who follow Islam have gone astray…”
Thanks for the clarification. Let me offer a corresponding clarification, in case it is needed.
I am not preaching a soft line against our enemies. When I call the Islamists my “mortal foes,” I mean that they are my foes unto death. Those among our own people who betray us to the Islamists and collaborate with them on the sly are also my mortal foes.
The fact that we are engaged today in a life-or-death struggle with the Unholy Alliance does not preclude the possibility, however, of making peace with them at some future date. Unlike Mad Zionist, I do not advocate the eradication of the Muslim faith by legal edict, either at home or abroad.
As I have written before on these threads, radical Islam – and perhaps Islam itself – cannot withstand the institution of freedom of religion and freedom of speech in the countries where it is most deeply rooted. Denied the means of physical coercion and censorship, the Islamists will lose their flock. The nations of the Middle East and North Africa will revert to the religion they held before the Muslim conquest, which was Christianity – precisely as Russia reverted to Eastern Orthodoxy after the fall of Communism.
At that point, we will face the next phase of the War – the vanquishing of the left. As with Islam, I do not believe the left can withstand an encounter with the Bill of Rights. They thrive in this country today only because they have neutralized the Bill of Rights through their control of the media, the judiciary and other elite sectors of society.
Leftist infiltrators must be identified and driven from positions of power. Those who are actively seditious should be banished from the country, just as our Founding Fathers drove out the loyalists after the Revolution.
I fully agree with you, Richard. While I hate the religion of Islam, and feel that it must eventually be thrown by the wayside, I feel that it should be through the free will of those who will throw it off. I believe all but the fanatics who follow the true, violent core of Islam would throw off the fetters of Islam once free thought and freedom of religion were injected into their societies. Those fanatics who would not throw off the religion are the same terrorist combatants whom we fight today.
I also agree that the left is the enemy, and that we should fight against their agendas with vigor. I do not see a resolution to either of these two connected struggles in your lifetime or mine, however, and therefore we must spread the word and help form the rising thinkers and leaders of tomorrow with the right stuff so that they may eventually win in the struggle to reclaim the world for decent, peaceful, free-thinking people.
‘ I believe all but the fanatics who follow the true, violent core of Islam would throw off the fetters of Islam once free thought and freedom of religion were injected into their societies’
If one looks at muslim societies in the west exactly that doesn’t happen. They feel frightened by the freedom and go back into a rigid but safe (for them) belief system.
For muslim it is their ‘culture’ they don’t get rid of it by only exposing them to free thought. It is the castle of the weak, who fear their own thoughts and insights.
Simply exposing them to freedom doesn’t do much, one has to destroy their castle and flush them out. At lot of curious people are hiding in that fortress.
Wahhabism is radicalizing the muslim youth. It steals them from the emigrant-parents and gives them an identity. Muslims youth (by far not all of them) takes this as a kind of protest the wealthyness and values of the west, which neither they nor their parents have produced. They are allowed to participate but under the understanding to assimilate and give up their muslim identity rooting in backwards countries. The strong make the transformation into good western citizens (as most of the immigrant parents did) the weak one look for strength which is outside not inside. Then they can feel superior because it is stated so in the Quran.
That is the strength to beat up a wife because she ‘disobeys’ instead of finding the strength inside to deal with a marital problem in a more troublesome but human way.
To become a jerk and feel superior is easier than to deal with the reality of their lifes circumstances and difficulties. They prefer the dreamworld of Islam, of 72 virgins, of Islamsuperiority, of the wrong which is right in Islam, a simple made worldview, promises of Mohammad etc. They gradually learn to shed their rest of humanity until they become Muslim (as described in the Quran).
At that point they have the mentality of a gangmember (as Orangeduck described it).
It seems at that state, the left sees something familiar in them and gangs up with them. At least they have a common enemy.
The left should remember what happened to the Tudeh party in Iran and how Khomeini dealt with them. The gang realition between Marx and Mohammad endet with the slaughter of Marx. There isn’t much of Tudeh today in present Iran.
But Iran tries to do the opposite. With Ahmedinejad, the hero of the bluecollar Muslim, the Mullahs try to attract the poor to their belief. Make it more leftiest. It for sure won’t work either because there isn’t much money to work with.
The connection of the left and the mullahs is laughable. On the one hand they are for gayrights, feminism, antiwar, antireligious (leftism is materialism) on the other hand they support people who kill gays, lesbians, make war all the time and kill people whose religion is dubios.
It looks, that the disease is the same just the symptons are different.
Werner writes: “If one looks at muslim societies in the west exactly that doesn’t happen. They feel frightened by the freedom and go back into a rigid but safe (for them) belief system.”
Simply because Muslims live in the West, we should not assume that they are free to make their own decisions. Even in the West, Muslims fear physical violence from fanatical elements within their own religion. Remember what happened to Salman Rushdie.
There are three ways to help Muslims in the West – or at least Muslims in America – to free themselves from the threat of violence from other Muslims:
These three measures, if undertaken by strong political leaders, will not only eliminate the problem of Muslim-against-Muslim violence, but will solve many other social problems as well.
Unfortunately, these measures will be opposed not only by leftists, but also by certain types of radical secularists who fear that the Christian majority in America is plotting an armed revolution in order to establish a Calvinist theocracy.
We had a couple of people like that posting on this blog for a few months, until I finally showed them the door.
Many people who call themselves “libertarians,” “rational individualists” and so forth are noticeably AWOL from the struggle for the restoration of gun rights in America. I suspect that their apathy toward gun rights arises at least partly from their fear and hatred of Christians. They fear an armed populace, because most of the US population is Christian.
In the final analysis, these self-styled “rationalists” may prove a more formidable threat to our liberty than the leftists and Islamists combined, because the radical secularists masquerade as conservatives and undermine our movement from within.
Richard says: “Unlike Mad Zionist, I do not advocate the eradication of the Islamic faith by legal edict, either at home or abroad.”
Like both you and RightWinger I hate the sin but not the sinner. The point of disagreement is in our opinion of islam. I insist the only answer is to criminalize the religion itself as it is simply an ideology of terrorism, while you feel it can remain intact and somehow be either reformed or die a voluntary death.
I think you both are a bit more optimistic than I, but our thinking is essentially the same.
-MZ
Though you must remember, MZ, that the true muslim loves to be made a martyr, and by crminalizing their cultic beiefs you make them suffer even more. And they love to suffer for the cause of Allah.
I agree, getting rid of Islam would be difficult, but we cannot make thoughts and opinions of a certain variety illegal. If we start doing that, we become more like them. As Americans, we must hold ourselves to a higher standards.
That being said, our thinking is otherwise much the same. I agree with alot of what you say, MZ, and I continue to look in on your blog. Keep up the good work, and keep up the faith (so to speak).
Rightwinger, no answer to islam is easy, but lets look at what we find loathsome and criminal about this ideology and prosecute it legally.
The most important areas of criminality involve the tenets of Sharia Law, D’himmitude and Jihad. These are unquestionably criminal actions and anyone who is found to be inciting, organizing and rallying others to these actions is guilty of racketeering; guilty of organizing crime; guilty of sedition and treason.
Those who proliferate these illegal activities must be sent to prison. It is a matter of fact that anyone who is a “moderate” moslem should be all for these measures as it strips the religion of its inherent violence.
Currently, terrorism is islam and islam is terorism. The two are indistinguishable and both prey on our desire to be open and accepting. I draw the line when that acceptance jeopardizes my family’s safety. Islam must be stripped of its tenets which are violent and abusive before I will give in to tolerating its practice.
I am guessing you don’t entirely disagree with this viewpoint, am I right?
-MZ
The winning of the G.W.O.T. will take on many forms over the years to come.
This is just one of them
Do not even waste my time trying to convince me, sell me if you will, that in any way whatsoever, allowing the preaching of Islamic serial killing safeguards my freedom of speech.
These psychopaths rely on that kind of addled brained, “sophophisticated-advanced-thinking!”
P.S. Italy outlawed the wearing of burkas, which may, or may not be a good thing! An ugly women can be an act of terror, if you “axed” me!–Bada Bing!
“P.S. Italy outlawed the wearing of burkas, which may, or may not be a good thing! An ugly women can be an act of terror, if you “axed�? me!—Bada Bing!”
I tot’ly agrees wit’ yooz and wit It’ly. Bada-burka!
-MZ
Just updated!
MZ
What I wanted to say was, that muslim got back to the law whereas Jesus tried to free us from that and put values instead of it.
Muslim got an exact description what to do in a certain case. That is like a robot. In situation x you have to do y.
In comparison what Jesus did with the woman who was sentenced to death because of adultery (Is that still jewish law?) was that he put the people on an exercise to see themselves and go by what they saw. That means for him understanding overrides the law, or values of humanity override the law.
Islam reversed that by giving detailed instruction when a woman has to be sentenced to death for adultery up to which size of stones are to be used to kill her (not immediately but let her suffer before she dies).
With Islam we go back before Jesus that means, (wrong) law over humanity.
Jewish law propably still requieres woman to be chaste or face harsh punishment. The christian church still said (Paulus) that women have to be silent in church. (Paulus did the very opposite in his mission where he put a lot of women in charge of the fledgling christian communities). Nowaday nobody wants to go back to that kind of christendom (I don’t know, or am I wrong?). That means that Jesus’ approach became the better one, the one we use today.
I know that a lot of people say that the american constitution is built on christian values. I would disagree with that. As the overwhelming majority of the underwriters were Freemasons and as such the constitution is built on their (secular) values: Liberty, equality, fraternity.
We should not trade any of the human values for any religion which is opposing that.
greetings
Werner
Werner writes,
“I know that a lot of people say that the american constitution is built on christian values. I would disagree with that. As the overwhelming majority of the underwriters were Freemasons and as such the constitution is built on their (secular) values: Liberty, equality, fraternity.”
Calling Rightminded! Calling Rightminded! Someone beep his arse, he’s probably making an Italian sandwich long about now!
“Here I come to save the day, that means that Rightminded is on his way!
The Constitution of the United States was drafted so as to be in accordance with the Scriptures, to be the legal foundation of a republican form of government based on that model which God had ordained for the children of Israel. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the national seal be a portrayal of “the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night.” Much of the Constitution and our American common law and organic law is also derived from the principles of the Magna Carta, which expressly forbade monarchial tyranny
“Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian.” – United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist–Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights (remember Madison thought we did not need them), for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? “The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth,” Mason said.
James McHenry was a member of the Continental Congress, a state legislator, a soldier, and a signer of the Constitution…as well as the president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. McHenry stated:
Neither…let it be overlooked, that public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.
The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also signed the Constitution, and served as a delegate to the national Constitutional Convention and an author of the Constitution of South Caroline. Pinckney was a statesman, soldier, planter, a brigadier general and a candidate for President and Vice-President. Like the rest of the signers of the Constitution, he too recognized the Sovereignty of God:
“Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Saviour Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land.”
And, for those who fear this sort of Law breeds intolerance or disrespect for others, Patrick Henry boldly declared:
It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.
Now, I’ll fly back to my samage!–SARAH, YOU LITTLE BRAT, WHERE IS IT!
You’ve said it better than I could have ever hoped to, RightMinded! I appreciate what you have written and I thank you for sharing it. It is vey important that we know where we came from so that we can know where we are going. I wish we had more men like the Founders around today!
Of course, if the same Founders came back to life today, the left would bash them too, I’m sure.
“They’re religious zealots who tried to form a nation on the notion of a killer God! As we can clearly tell, they didn’t create successful government. If they had, why, Hillary and her village would be in the White House right now, redistributing the wealth of the hard-workers of this country and banning any kind of common-sense or self-defense! We don’t need their kind! If they are elected to office again, we should move to Canada in protest!”
Werner says: “Jewish law propably still requires woman to be chaste or face harsh punishment (for committing adultery).”
Werner, Jewish Law is not taken from the written text of the Torah directly, as that is a
fundamentalism which is antithetical to Judaism. Judaism is practiced instead by the Oral Law, or Halacha, which is the devine explanation revealed to the Jews at Sinai when the Torah was given.
Therefore, here is the Jewish Lawregarding adultery:
26. Adultery – Sotah
If a woman is deliberately unfaithful to her husband she becomes forbidden to him and he must divorce her, as it says “Her first husband… cannot take her again to be his wife after she has been defiled”1,a; and she is also forbidden to marry the man with whom she was unfaithful.
Hope that helps!
-MZ
thanks rightwinger!
please excuse the susurration, but I have ordered the uss rightminded to go to silent running.
actually, i had that particular tomahawk that was fired at werner, armed with the “christians most certainly did found this nation warhead,” ready to launch since the bob meyer wars. i have been lurking, and waiting for the most necessary time to launch.
silo 4 is armed with the “separation of church and state my itallian !@# warhead!–LOOK SHARP LADS!–shooooooo!
p.s. did you hear about the russian sub that got caught on a fishing net? good lord, if we only knew it was that easy, we could have saved a fortune in defense spending. none the less I hope their boys the best, and no harm comes to them!