Enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla under threat by Islamic radicals

Enclaves of Ceuta and Melilla under threat by Islamic radicals
By h.b.
Sun, 05 Nov 2006, 10:38

 
One of those detained in connection with the Moroccan Islamic Combat Group being transferred by National Police in Madrid – Photo EFE

El Pais newspaper reported on Sunday that the Spanish North African Encalves of Ceuta and Melilla were now objectives for the Islamic Holy War or Jihad.Intelligence services are describing the information they now have as the most worrying since 2004, with a fundamental group distributing a statement which describes the two cities as being occupied. It was also placed on a radical webpage from a cybercafé in Algeria.

Meanwhile, police have attested two alleged members of the GICM – The Moroccan Islamic Combat Group in Melilla in connection with the bomb attack on the Casa de España in Casablanca in May 2003 in which 41 people lost their lives.

The arrested men are 43 year old Belgium, although born in Morocco, Ali Aarras, and 31 year old Nordin El Behri Hamed Mohande from Melilla.
The second was released from custody on Sunday after questioning.

Ramsey Clark, you are a mockery!

WHY LIBERALS CAN’T BE HYPOCRITES

WHY LIBERALS CAN’T BE HYPOCRITES [Michael Novak]

In order to be a hypocrite, you have to hold to standards higher than your own behavior. Standards in whose light you are, by your own choice, a sinner, in need of repentance and change of life.

The first prayer at the Catholic Mass is the “I confess to Almighty God that I have sinned…” As altar boys, we used to say, “Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa” – Through my own fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.

Someone wrote a few years back that now that socialism is dead as an economic system, the center of liberal values has migrated to sex and gender. Being a liberal means having a right to do anything that you want sexually anywhere, anytime, and with anybody. Thus, there is no way for liberals to be hypocritical about sex. Except by being chaste.

World War Is Upon Us — I’m coming closer to this opinion daily

World War Is Upon Us

Friday, November 03, 2006 12:49 PM

                                                                                   The Star of David
Thailand will be going under Sharia law. Somalia will be suffering under the Janjaweed until they have total control. Indonesia is under Sharia. Turkey is moving away from secularism and towards Sharia. Europe is being held hostage to the Islamic immigrants it took in. World War is at the door. If we do not open it, it will knock the door down anyway.  Call me whatever you want to. Label me a hatemongering, xenophobic, racist. I DON”T CARE! Islam is violent and evil. It will continue to be spread by the sword just as it began. I am an infidel in the eyes of these people and they wish to kill me and mine. The butchering, raping, pillaging, and plundering that is occurring in the world today is all at the behest of Mohammed and his fake god allah.

Allah is satan and Mohammed is his spawn. If there is a 12th Imam in hiding, awaiting that special moment, my bet is that it is one of Lucifer’s buddy’s. In reality I think the whole idea is another one of the Islamic lies written to keep the ignorant in control. Imam, if you can see this, I SPIT ON YOU! Unlike radio personalities or writers that are trying to keep an audience, I will not compromise my belief or faith. I do not care if my Islamic neighbor hates me. I do not care if some nutjob cleric issues a fatwa. I am sick and tired of this ilk getting their way because of the faithless and secularist cowards that wish to commit suicide as opposed to fight.

Allah is not my god. It was not the God of Adam, Abraham, Moses, Isaac, and Israel. It was not the God that sent Jesus to sacrifice himself on my behalf. It is not the God that helped found and grow this nation by leading our forefathers. Allah is evil incarnate, if there is such a being after all. Mohammed was an epileptic pedophile with a megalomaniac bent. Allah was probably one of his visions during a seizure. If there is an Allah it is a murderous being that takes sick pleasure out of watching humans destroy themselves. The Koran offers nothing to eliminate this but convert, infidels are not humans.

Here’s one for you, Islamists are not human. They’re ignorant, murderous, psychopaths with a sinful taste for death and destruction. They go around raping, beheading, blowing themselves up for what?! What gain do they expect? So the Democrats win and pull out, how does this change the fact that the murderous scum are still just that? Maybe we need the war to come here. Maybe the cowards will be forced to realize that they were deathly wrong. Maybe Ted Kennedy, Noam Chomsky and their fellow socialists can be the first victims of the Islamic revolt. Our revolution started in Massachusetts, maybe the second one can start there too.

I’m tired of the cowards. I’m sick of Islamists and their double speak and the morons that believe them. The Islamic problem is NOT Israel, Not the US, NOT a hijacked religion. The problem with Islam IS Islam.

The War is here. Who’s got the courage to fight it?

http://bigasrants.townhall.com/

UN criticizes Saddam Hussein’s death penalty

Top news: 5 November 2006, Sunday.

The European Union has welcomed the guilty verdict announced in the trial against Saddam Hussein, but said the former Iraqi leader should not be killed.

In a statement issued by Finland, which currently holds the EU presidency, the EU said it opposed capital punishment in all cases and under all circumstances, DW reported.

The United States has called the guilty verdict a good day for Iraqis and evidence of an independent judiciary in Iraq. Earlier on Sunday, Saddam Hussein and two co-defendants were sentenced to death for crimes against humanity.

The charges stemmed from the killing of 148 Shiite Muslims in the village of Dujail in 1982.

UN criticizes Saddam Hussein’s death penalty

UN criticizes Saddam Hussein’s death penalty



The UN on Sunday criticized the decision to sentence Saddam Hussein to death, calling upon local authorities to refuse the to hang the ex-leader.

UN Human Rights Commission head Louise Arbour said that the “appeal process is reliable and a vital part of the fair judicial procedure.” Army Radio reported. She said that “the results of the appeal will what they will be,” and Arbour expressed hope that the Iraqi government would suspend its death sentence.

53 Al Qaeda militants, 14 others killed across Iraq

53 Al Qaeda militants, 14 others killed across Iraq

* Curfew in Baghdad for Saddam verdict

BAGHDAD: Iraqi police commandos killed 53 suspected Al Qaeda militants in a fierce gunbattle on the southern outskirts of Baghdad on Saturday, said an Interior Ministry spokesman, while 14 people were killed in violence across the country.

“This afternoon we received intelligence reports that gunmen were endangering the security of the region,” said Brigadier General Abdel Karim Khalaf, referring to the Baghdad suburb of Tuwaitha. “They are Al-Qaeda.”

“The national police had a severe fight with them and as a result of these clashes, they killed 53 terrorists, arrested 16, burned 40 cars and seized many weapons,” he said.

A US military spokeswoman said there had been a clash and that American liaison officers were on the scene following the fighting, but she could not immediately confirm either details of the fight or the casualty toll.

Iraq also braced itself on Saturday for a violent backlash from Saddam Hussein’s remaining supporters if, as expected, the ousted leader is sentenced to death in his trial for crimes against humanity.

National Security Adviser Muwaffaq Al-Rubaie said a curfew would be in force on Sunday in Baghdad and the flashpoint provinces of Diyala and Salaheddin, which contains the deposed dictator’s hometown of Tikrit, on the verdict day.

State television said all pedestrian and road traffic would be banned indefinitely from 6am on Sunday and the international airport shut, before the televised trial hearing begins.

Iraq has also cancelled all military leave and put its armed forces on alert to prevent violence before or after Sunday’s ruling.

“All military personnel are on alert. Leave has been cancelled and we are on alert for any possible emergency. Those on leave should report to their units,” said defence ministry spokesman Major General Ibrahim Shaker.

Baghdad, which is already reeling under a brutal campaign of insurgent and sectarian violence, will be virtually sealed off on Sunday.

Iraqi authorities fear that Sunni Arab supporters of the ousted president will carry out attacks against the dominant Shia community.

Meanwhile on Saturday, a car bomb exploded in the Sadr City suburb of mainly Shia east Baghdad, said a security official as violence in and around the Iraqi capital killed at least eight people in a series of gun and bomb attacks.

Five members of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani’s security detail were killed in a roadside bomb attack on Friday in northern Iraq, a source from his party said.

Shia militia are the main suspects for a rocket attack on Saturday, which wounded four Russians and killed an Iraqi colleague working for the Basra Electricity Company.

British military spokesman Major Charlie Burbridge said mortars or rockets had been fired at a nearby British base, but had fallen short and hit the power plant. Police said one Iraqi worker was killed.

Military bases in Basra and elsewhere in southern Iraq regularly come under rocket and mortar attack from Shiite militias connected to political and tribal factions in the city.

A gunbattle also erupted in Baghdad during the early hours of Saturday as US and Iraq forces raided the Shiite bastion of Sadr City and detained three suspects.

The US military said the raid was aimed at capturing a leader and member of a group that had killed “innocent Iraqi citizens and security forces”.

There were no casualties among the joint force, it added, but gave no details on whether any militants or civilians had been hurt. Separately, one civilian was killed and seven were wounded on Saturday when a bicycle bomb exploded at a petrol station in the town of Suweira, while three corpses were also retrieved from the nearby Tigris River. afp

Home | National

Whose obsession?

I’ve just been watching the Fox News special called ‘Obsession‘, which is about the threat of ‘radical Islam.’ To tell you the truth, it was too revolting to watch all the way through, but I watched it in part, as much as I could stomach.

The thing I noticed, and which I fully expected, was that throughout, the ‘talking heads,’ the pundits, like Steve Emerson and Daniel Pipes, were very careful to use the PC construction, ‘radical Islam’ or ‘Islamists’, rather than speaking of Islam itself; the point being, of course, that it is just a ‘minority of extremists’, aka ‘Islamists’ who are the threat.

Some of the footage of the various Moslem TV programs and the rabble-rousing speeches by the mullahs and sheiks, was absolutely chilling. There was absolute cold evil in their eyes, the tone of their voices, and of course, most importantly, the words they were speaking. And it’s clear that to them, there are no ‘good Americans’, no decent infidels. They see the world in stark black and white, and they, in their twisted minds, see themselves as ‘good’ and us as ‘evil.’ They don’t trouble themselves with any niceties such as saying that ‘there is only a tiny minority of extremists’ in America who are their enemies; no, they say that America, all of it, is the cause of all evil and trouble.

This is all, of course, not news to anybody who pays attention to recent events in the world and who is semi-educated about Islam; it may, however, open the eyes of some of the more somnolent people who don’t bother themselves to keep up with world events, or who are satisfied with the PC view of the news as fed to us by the old media. I do hope that some people in that category were truly shocked by watching ‘Obsession’ and that they will realize the profound threat we are under, all of us in the West.

There has recently been quite a controversy, although seemingly a contrived one, about the administration’s use of the term ‘Islamofascists’; the quibblers say that the ‘fascist’ part of the term may be an inaccurate usage. That’s as may be, but to me, the problem with the word is, that like the made-up term ‘Islamist /Islamism’, or ‘radical Islam’, it is a way of splitting hairs. It is a way of drawing a distinction which is one of those ‘distinctions without a difference.’ All of the above terms imply that there is an aberrant or mutant form of Islam which is militant, and which preaches violence. And it’s distinguished, supposedly, from generic Islam, or ‘real’ Islam, which is that fabled ‘Religion of Peace’, which has ‘benevolence at its heart’, as Condi Rice said. This may be a convincing line of argument for those who haven’t taken a look at the Koran, or at an honest history book. Simply reading history books shows us that there were what are now termed ‘Islamofascists’ before there was such a thing denoted as ‘fascism.’ And a cursory reading of the Koran shows beyond any doubt that Islam is a violent religion, suffused with incitements to violence, saturated in the idea of killing and butchering the infidel in some instances, subjugating and enslaving him when killing is not prescribed. The Koran as well as the Hadiths, the sayings of Mohammed, are chockfull of violent and hateful rhetoric and dogma.
The fact is, Islam, unlike Christianity, does not posit the existence of a merciful God whose grace gives us a way to salvation; the only sure ‘salvation’ for a Moslem is via martyrdom, via killing infidels and martyring oneself in the process.
And the fact is, jihad is enjoined on all believers. And yes, we have been told that ‘jihad’ merely means ‘inner struggle’, but we also know that there is an Islamic practice called ‘taqiyya’, deceiving and lying to the infidel. So their explaining away the idea of jihad is not terribly convincing.

Still, the official line on Islam is that it is a mild, peaceful religion which is merely misinterpreted by a ‘tiny minority.’ Now the problem remains: how on earth do we infidels discern who is part of that dangerous ‘tiny minority’ who want to kill us, and destroy our country, and the ‘good Moslems’, the peaceful, law-abiding ones? If they present a meek and mild demeanor, does that guarantee they are benign? There have been countless incidents of Moslems who have been law-abiding people until they strap on a bomb belt and kill people, or until they hijack a plane or get into a car and mow down strangers, or get a gun and start shooting at random infidels. It’s happened. Someone, perhaps Robert Spencer, wryly coined the term ‘sudden jihadi syndrome’ for the people who, out of the blue, commit murder and mayhem, and in some cases, martyr themselves in doing so. There is no certain way to predict who among us will suddenly turn murderous in the name of ‘allah.’

As another example of the difficulty of discerning the harmless from the dangerous is the presence of some prominent Moslems who are ‘on our side.’ In the ‘Obsession’ documentary, they were represented by Nonie Darwish and Walid Shoebat, among others. These people are always cited as proof positive that most Moslems are decent, law-abiding people, just like us. They are held up as examples of how Moslems can be exemplary citizens, who assimilate to America or the West.
Many people who seem absolutely desperate to be PC and to appear ‘tolerant’ eagerly seize on the fact that such friendly Moslems exist, and cling to these people to convince themselves, perhaps, that Moslems are basically just like us, and that these Moslems are simply being corrupted by a few evil pied pipers like Abu Hamza, the hook-handed mullah living in the UK, and others like him.

It’s well to remember, on this subject, what the late Oriana Fallaci said:

There is not good Islam or bad Islam. There is just Islam. And Islam is the Qur’an. And the Qur’an is the Mein Kampf of this movement. The Qur’an demands the annihilation or subjugation of the other, and wants to substitute totalitarianism for democracy. Read it over, that Mein Kampf. In whatever version, you will find that all the evil that the sons of Allah commit against themselves and against others is in it.”

Nevertheless, despite the evident threat of Islam, it is obviously all-important to a lot of Americans to show that they are not ‘prejudiced’ against Islam. Even the tough-talking, ex-military pundit Ralph Peters has written a few diatribes defending ‘good’ Islam and lambasting ‘Islamophobes and bigots.’ This idea that we must lean over backwards in order to be ‘fair’ and tolerant has been beaten into our heads for decades now, to the point that we have started to deny the plain evidence of our senses and of common sense itself. We force ourselves to ignore many egregious acts by Moslems and focus on the few rare exceptions, like Nonie Darwish, like Walid Shoebat, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and the few others who have denounced the religion of their birth. But the fact is, they are anomalous within Islam; they are not typical, nor should we try to convince ourselves they are. To do so is dangerous self-delusion.

I will go further, and say something which no one seems willing to say: the presence of the few ‘good Moslems’ like Darwish, Shoebat, Ali, or whoever, makes us more vulnerable to the terrorists. The presence of those ‘law-abiding’ peaceful Moslems, that friendly Moslem neighbor or co-worker, enables the presence of the terrorists among us. Now, I am not saying they knowingly enable terror; not at all, but their presence does. The presence of the good, law-abiding Moslem enables us to say, ‘see, they really are just like us, and we can’t condemn them all. Maybe we can bring democracy to the Islamic world after all, and surely they can assimilate to the West. ‘ And thus we close our eyes to the threat of the Abu Hamzas or whoever else is among us fomenting terror. We pretend they don’t exist, or we turn a blind eye to them because of the benign Moslems we respect.

The terrorists surely know this; they know they can effectively hide among the law-abiding Moslems. The presence of large enclaves of Moslems in the West, made up of mostly unthreatening people, provides cover and camouflage for the bad guys. The good guys are essentially the sugar coating on the poison pill of terrorism.

Still, we focus on that sugar coating and deny the harmful ingredients inside the pill.

I am certain that during World War II, there were many decent, law-abiding Germans and Japanese people, yet I don’t think our government insisted that we ignore the threat of the Axis powers because they had good citizens in their midst. Thank goodness we didn’t have the politically correct albatross around our necks then, as we do now. The wartime propaganda was no doubt harsh and tended to caricature (or to ‘demonize’, as the leftists like to say) the enemy. Had we wrung our hands and said, ”but, but the Germans and the Japanese are mostly good, law-abiding people, and their governments have been hijacked by Nazis and ‘extremists’,” no; we recognized a mortal threat and acted on it. There is no way to declare war on just part of a population, when there is no way to distinguish who is dangerous and who is not. One has to act on the presumption that all may be dangerous. Unfair? Probably, but life is not fair. And it would have been unfair to ourselves to be so squeamish that we could not act effectively to win the war as quickly as possible.

Nowadays, we are a different people than our parents and grandparents. ‘The past is another country’, and in the new country that has taken the place of vanished America, we can’t act to protect ourselves by deporting or repatriating people. Niceness and tolerance trump survival. So we accept mass immigration from terrorist-sympathizing countries, with the implicit calculus that we will accept a certain number of terrorists for the sake of being open to the ‘majority’ of law-abiding Moslems. The same bizarre logic is at work with the illegal invasion: the government has all but said that yes, there are and will be a certain number of criminals entering: murderers, rapists, thieves, molesters — but never fear; it’s only a minority of them. The majority are ‘hard-working folks’ so we have to take a few bad apples in order to get those ‘good-hearted folks’ so beloved of our President. And if those bad apples among the Mohammedans or the Mexicans happen to kill or maim Americans, well, that’s just the luck of the draw, and what’s a few thousand lives here and there, as long as we are diverse and tolerant? And if we give up some basic freedoms and conveniences so as to protect our safety while still welcoming the threat among us, then that’s just the price we pay for this wonderful diversity.

I wonder if the title ‘Obsession’ might just as easily describe our current regime’s obsession with ‘tolerance, inclusion and diversity’? What other word describes the willingness to court death and destruction in the name of some goal, if not the word ‘obsession’? We in the West are as obsessed as the Moslems are, in our own way: our obsessive ‘niceness’ and passivity provides the perfect complement to their need to conquer and subjugate. Obsession indeed.

The ‘Obsession’ special ended with the mandatory politically correct disclaimer, spoken by E.D. Hill. I knew it was coming all along; still, I had to groan when she intoned those familiar words, something like ‘We must remember, the majority of our Muslim citizens are peaceful and law-abiding people.’

I mean, what’s up with that disclaimer? Do our elites in the media and government think so little of us that they believe we will take up torches and head towards the nearest mosque, after watching ‘Obsession’? Even though they have just succeeded in showing us just how malevolent Islam can be, we are not supposed to take it to heart. And the implicit message is: ‘yes, Islam is a scary belief system that seriously unhinges many of its followers, who become rabid killers, but don’t fret about it; there’s not a blessed thing you can do anyway. Have a nice day.
Oh, and don’t forget: celebrate diversity, because it’s our strength.’

The Caring Culture vs. the Warrior Culture

The Caring Culture vs. the Warrior Culture
November 5th, 2006

The Democrats have a problem with America’s warrior culture, and consequently, with our military. And yet, honesty compels me to say that such hostility and scorn does not explain all of the Democratic left’s attitude to our troops, present and veterans. There are some with outright contempt, who loathe the military, but there are many Democrats who are better than this.

Watching a wide range of talking heads the last few days on the various news shows, it became clear that some Democrats at least were genuinely hurt and confused by the implications drawn and accusations made that they did not care about and support the troops.

In fact, many Democrats do care, deeply, and do support those troops, with sincerity. The divide is in how they do so.

For just one example and all other flaws and lunacies of his policy prescriptions aside, I believe that Rep. John Murtha, in his own genuine way, cares intensely about our soldiers. His well known and numerous trips to VA hospitals over the years are, in my mind, more than just a political ploy.

There is a clash of cultures at work in this, between the historic Democratic culture of ‘caring’, and those who value the ‘warrior culture’ of our military. Both sides care, but express that care with very different methods.

One can hardly find a Democrat anywhere who, when addressing the topic of support for our troops, does not immediately go to the subject of Veteran’s medical benefits, followed shortly by education and retraining programs. When it comes to addressing actual combat, the Democrats again almost invariably go to a lack of body armor or a shortage of up-armored Humvees and the like.The better of the Democratic left (and they are better than the condescending-to-hostile left from Kerry to numerous KosKids) look at the military and the veterans the military produces as another demographic constituency.

Like any other needy Democrat constituency, military and veterans need their help and care, naturally delivered through the offices of a paternalistic government. The warrior culture of the military rightfully views itself as the protector and defender of citizens, politicians and the state itself.  The enormous gap between those two conceptions offers a profound clash of cultures

There was an oddity during the months long hi-tempo media onslaught about the troops not having enough body armor. One could find on the Milblogs and a very few news outlets complaints from soldiers in combat about being weigfhed down by  too much body armor. The professional military folks understood that, as it was in the days of the armored knights, there is a tradeoff between defensive armor and aggressive mobility. Sacrificing either to the other may at times and places get you dead.

If one only listened to the media and the Democrats, one had the impression that the military were all crying out to be totally encased in body protection, even should they then have moved like Robocop.The familiar Democrat solution of spend more was obvious implicit solution.

I have no way of knowing if the following story, passed around the Net some months ago, is apocryphal. I suspect it is. Too many details vary from one telling to another. Yet even if it is apocryphal, the reception it got among both Vets and active duty personnel is illustrative of my point.

Supposedly a woman embedded reporter was interviewing a Marine sniper. She asked him what it felt like, when he had a man in his sights, and pulled the trigger, and killed the man.

The Marine supposedly replied, matter-of-factly,

“Recoil, Ma’am.”

Here, the humor to troops and vets derives form the failure of the reporter to “get it” about combat. I am all but certain that reporters have their own jokes about troops. Such is the way of profound culture clashes.

The better Democrats know that at times we must commit troops to combat, but always see it is a failure of some sort, not the lesser and more acceptable of two evils it often can be.

I posit that this disjunction sets up an internal conflict for them. Even if the better Democrats understand that victory is a priority, that priority will always be in competition with another: caring. The shooting will no sooner start than they will want to get the troops out of there, because they care! They don’t want to see anyone suffer!

Yet the warrior culture, when that shooting starts, sees the priority clearly and simply as: we fight to win.

Democrats will shout to the rooftops for more armor to protect the troops, but far fewer Democrats have historically supported a military expenditure for a more lethal weapons system of any kind. The warriors know there are two ways of protecting yourself: armored defense or an aggressive attack that eliminates the threat.

Being warriors, they prefer the latter.

If one were to get all information on the War in Iraq only from the MSM, you could be forgiven for thinking the sum of coalition strategy is for the troops to hide in walled-in Green Zones or in fenced compounds, from which every now and then they venture out on patrols. In which they frequently get ambushed and blown up.

There is hardly a hint that almost every movement of our troops every day is a part of some operation, great or small, that seeks to take the fight to the enemy, drawing him out, knowing full well that when we do so, we may lose some. The better Democrats cannot shake the idea that any time we have taken casualties, it is somehow a military failure. Bill Clinton’s Kosovo Campaign is celebrated in the media as a victory primarilly because the ‘high altitude only’ bombing gave us zero casualties.

That the better Democrats have this attitude should be worrisome. Any Democratic administration will become incapable of fighting any war to victory if the harder left is only confronted by those who just think it is a failure to have to fight, and no causalties should be taken.

The troops want the nation to support their commitment to victory. They do not aspire to the status of needy client, they want to be victorious warriors and commit their very lives to it.

Toward the end of the horrifically brutal Civil War, Lincoln gave his Second Inaugural speech, and ended it,

“With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan—to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace, among ourselves, and with all nations.”

Note the prioritizing implicit in the order:

1. Finish the work (the war) we are in.

2. Then bind the nation’s wounds. 

3. Then care for the veterans and the widows and the orphans.

All of this points out why the Kerry kerfluffle may have a bigger impact Tuesday than many realize. Since the Foley imbroglio, the speculation has been that some or even much of the ‘Christian right’ of the Republican base, evangelicals and conservative Catholics, may sit it out in disgust, seeing a betrayal of their moral values by Republicans.

But as demographic groups, these two have had a significantly higher rate of membership in the military than the public at large. They honor their warriors as warriors, not as victims or charity cases, understanding that we have our freedoms because hard men and women are and have been willing to do hard things for our freedom’s sake.

Kerry’s reminder of how their family members in the military may fare under the Democrats will be powerful inan election that is now said to be a battle of turnout.

Denis Keohane is an occasional contributor to American Thinker.

Denis Keohane

Bishop attacks ‘victim’ Muslims

Bishop attacks ‘victim’ Muslims

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali dares to challenge the manipulative public stance of Muslims in the UK. By Christopher Morgan in the TimesOnline, with thanks to Jeffrey Imm:

THE Church of England’s only Asian bishop, whose father converted from Islam, has criticised many Muslims for their “dual psychology”, in which they desire both “victimhood and domination”.In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands.

Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq,” said Nazir-Ali.

“Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made.”

The failure to counter such beliefs meant that radical Islam had flourished in Britain, spread by extremist imams indoctrinating children for up to four hours a day, he said.

Nazir-Ali added that rigorous checks, from which the government had retreated in face of Muslims’ protests, should be imposed to ensure that arriving clerics were committed to the British way of life.

Characteristic British values have developed from the Christian faith and its vision of personal and common good,” said the bishop in an interview with The Sunday Times.

“After they were clarified by the enlightenment they became the bedrock of our modern political life. These values need to be recovered to help us to inculcate the virtues of generosity, loyalty, moderation and love.”

Nazir-Ali, who was born in Pakistan and whose father converted from Islam to Catholicism, said radical Islam was being taught in mosque schools across Britain. “While radical teaching may not be happening everywhere, its presence is felt across the country. It affects all Muslims,” he said.

“The two main causes of the present situation [rising extremism] are fundamentalist imams and material on the internet.” He proposed to filter out imams who might whip up extremism: “They must be vetted for appropriate qualifications, they must have a reasonable knowledge of the English language and they must take part in a recognised process of learning about British life and culture.”

The government, after lobbying from Muslim groups, retreated from proposals to toughen entry requirements put forward by David Blunkett, the former home secretary, two years ago. Plans to require foreign clerics to sit a test on British civic values a year after arriving were cancelled along with the introduction of a requirement to speak English to conversational level….

Nazir-Ali, 57, was born a Catholic in Karachi, converted to Protestantism and was received into the Church of Pakistan at 20. He settled in Britain in the 1980s and became the youngest bishop in the world at 35.

Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said his comments were not “very helpful for community relationships”.

Right. Nazir-Ali should kowtow like a good dhimmi.