The extremist Islamists Muslim Brotherhood invented the word ‘Islamophobia’ in order to make criticism of Islam subject to the charge of racism. Western media fell for it; Muslims and the Far Left use it as a political cosh.
This is all clearly understood by sane people that have seen the alliance[1] of Far Right Islam and the Far Left (noteably Corbyn and his followers).
So, it was a surprise to hear today that @TalkTv‘s @PeterCardwell say that Lee Anderson was racist in his comments on Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London.
What’s more, the exchange between Peter Cardwell and Kevin O’Sullivan, where Peter ignored Kevin’s question about why it should be considered racist. [I’ll check the transcript if the item goes online, but the gist follows].
- K: Why is what he said racist?
- P: Because it is. He wouldn’t say it about any other group. [Doesn’t mean it’s racist]
- P: Because what he said was racist. [It wasn’t. I’ll explain why below.]
And so it went on, with Kevin asking why it was racist and Peter sidestepping any answer, pretty much as Rishi Sunak has … “It’s racist and wrong because I say it is.” … with a hidden meaning … “We can’t afford to go inflaming Islamists any further.”
This is the sort of evasion Peter engaged in. These two clowns couldn’t say it was racist. Peter did. But none of them could explain why it was wrong, Islamophobic, or racist.
One of Peter’s points was that Khan himself was under threat from Islamists, because he made statements supporting homosexuality. That’s irrelevant. Anyone that follows Islam will know that Islamists are such a mad lot they they have no trouble persecuting eachother for being the wrong type of Muslim.
Personally, I suspect Anderson was wrong .. in that it was probably incorrect. But it wasn’t racist. Was it Islamophobic? No .. there’s no such thing as an irrational fear (phobia) with regard to Islam, and critics of Islam are far from suffering a phobia, as ex-Muslim critics of Islam are extremely brave, and any fears they have are justified and rational.
So, let’s look at Islam and race.
Islam is actually a non-racists ideology. There are Mulsims of many ‘races’, including many white British Muslims, some of which joined ISIS. The converts seem to be easily radicalised – perhaps because it takes disenfranchised broken people to fall for the Islamic nonesense. So, Islam is not a race, and you cannot be racist against Islam (you can be racist towards Muslims, but it’s not regarding their religion in such cases, it’s regarding their race).
Peter’s conflation of race with the criticism of a Muslim Mayor is precisely the woke nonsense that Peter is often reporting about and criticising.
There are many ex-Muslims from traditional ‘Muslim lands‘(an apartheid term often used by Muslims, because despite Islam being non-racist, it is an apartheid ideology[2]). The plight of ex-Muslims is ignored totally by Western media, including Peter Cardwell …
Eid Mubarak, As-salamu alaykum to all my Muslim friends (that’s the extent of my Arabic, I’m afraid…)
https://twitter.com/petercardwell/status/622451371380506624
Pastor McConnell who said “Islam is a doctrine spawned in Hell” had “no intention of causing any offence or insulting any…Muslim.”
https://twitter.com/petercardwell/status/474855047096852481
Only two tweets that mention Muslims, none that mention ex-Muslims. Very little on Islam, though obviously a few condemning Hamas recently. As far as Peter’s tweets go, he’s not an expert on Islam. Pity, because plenty of ex-Muslims[3] are experts, having been Islamists[4] themselves. Not sure Peter is qualified to say whether speaking out against an Islamist Mayor is racist or not.
And, on his second tweet, so what if it offends Muslims? Hold on, scratch that. We SHOULD be prepared to offend Muslims. Why? Here’s why. Any oppressive ideology that suppresses criticism requires all the more criticism. Any oppressive ideology that resorts to violent mob rule should be seriously criticised. Any oppressive ideology that uses being offended as a threatening tool to avoid criticism should be loudly offended. What sort of cowardly journalism is Peter endorsing in that tweet, and in his racim charges in the Talk TV interview? He has witnessed this week politicians being intimidates with, let’s not shirk away from acknowledging this, the threat of violence by Islamic activists. The Mayor of London has used the Islamophobia Racism card so often it does amount to Islamism – the politicisation of Islam, in this case Islam’s tendency to make Muslims hypersensitive about their distasteful ideology.
So, what did Lee Anderson say that Peter thinks he was racist?
I don’t actually believe that the Islamists have got control of our country, but what I do believe is they’ve got control of Khan and they’ve got control of London, and they’ve got control of Starmer as well.
These are categorically not racist because it has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the nature of Islam, the influence of Islamists (which includes most Muslims since Islam is a political ideology by design), and the extent to which Sadiq Khan is influenced by them.
Here’s a comment by Khan on rooting out Islamic extremists.
Majority of Muslims ‘have met an extremist’, says Sadiq Khan: Labour MP calls on communities to root out ‘cancer’ and tells of his fears his daughters may be recruited by Isis.
Daily Mail
So, I think Peter’s point is mistaken in that Peter conflates Islamists and Islamic extremists – you have to understand that Islam is already a political ideology (Islamism means political Islam). You don’t have to be an Islamic extremist to be an Islamist. You can be a fairly lefty leaning Mayor of London and still be an Islamists – someone who wants to further the idology of Islam. The boundary between Islam, Islamism and Islamic extremism is blurred, with much overlap.
1 – Alliance – Far Right Islam – Far Left
The alliance of the Far Right Islam and the Far Left has history. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 was successful not only because of the Western support for the Mullah’s and Ayatollah Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini in particular, but because of massive efforst by Marxists in Iran. In 1979 the USSR was still a Cold War enemy of the West and Marxism was perceived to be the bigger threat.
The revolution that substituted the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi with Islam and Khomeini is credited in part to the spread of the Shi’a version of the Islamic revival. It resisted westernization and saw Ayatollah Khomeini as following in the footsteps of the Shi’a Imam Husayn ibn Ali, with the Shah playing the role of Husayn’s foe, the hated tyrant Yazid I.[45] Other factors include the underestimation of Khomeini’s Islamist movement by both the Shah’s reign—who considered them a minor threat compared to the Marxists and Islamic socialists[46][47][48]—and by the secularist opponents of the government—who thought the Khomeinists could be sidelined.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Revolution
As in most revolutions, the antagonists are not reliable allies, and so many Marxists died at the hands of the Mullahs.
The first book here covers some aspects of the alliance and the revolution. The second gives a British perspective to the alliance. In particular, thoroughly decent Kenan Malik came qcross one of his old Marxist pals while covering the Bradford riots (Asian, mostly Muslims, against the loathsome far right groups BNP and NF), only to find that this guy was now a full-on Islamist.
2 – Apartheid Islam
There are many claims that Israel is an apartheid state. This is simply not true. Muslims, Christians, Druze and other minorities are full citizens with equal rights.
Not so much under Islam. Islam is very clear on this, and many Muslims will tell you, that ‘Muslim lands’, where Islami claw rules, Muslims are not only running the show, but because they follow Sharia, the Islamic system of jurosprudence, everyone falls under it. Well, you might think, if everyone falls under it, isn’t that an equitable system?
No, it’s not. Submitting to Islamic law is required of Muslims. And Muslims will brag about how they allow minority religions to govern themselves (and they use this to support their argument that Muslims should have their own laws in the West). This is a lie. What it actually means is that minorities are allowed some freedom to practice, but under very harsh conditions. Non-Muslims cannot be significant members of state, cannot be officers in the armed forces (they might allow for cannon fodder). Non-Muslims cannot preach their religion or attempt to convert Muslims (though Muslims are free to do that in the West), and anyone do0ing so is at risk of death – the Quran includes “causing mischief in the land” passages, for which beheading is a genuine option. Atheism is punishable by death in Saudi. Apostates should be killed, as should blasphemers – and look to Asia Bibi in Pakistan for how seriously Islamic mobs take that ‘crime’. Then of course there’s the status of Dhimmi – supposedly people living in an Islamic satte with ‘legal protection’ … oh, yes, a Mafia style protection that turns out to be protection from irate Muslim mobs, at least officially. And, while Muslim men can marry non-Muslim wiomen, Muslim women cannot marry non-Muslim men.
In many Muslim states they beat Muslim women to death, stone them, kill apostates, hang gay Muslims, … if you think non-Muslim Dhimmi is a protected status you’re a fool.
No. Islam is an apartheid system, just not one based on race … at least not officially, though there’s terrible racism towards other Muslims that visit or work in Arab Muslim states.
Victims of Islam’s apartheid … Bangladesh atheist blogger, Pakistani Chrtistian … Scottish Muslim … Iranian gay Muslim … Bradford convert to Christianity, … Afghan pious Muslim girls falsely accused of damaging the Quran.
3 – Ex-Muslims
Here are a few worth following for their insights into Islam. If only western media would listen to them. They don’t all agree with each other, but htey all support freedom of expression … and of course oppose death for apostasy. It would be helpful if journalists and the UK government paid more attention to these people than groups like MEND, MAMA, CMB, etc. … where are you on this Peter? The oppressed ex-Muslims need a voice in the media.
Maryam Namazie – Persian Iranian ex-Muslim. Communist. Believes in ‘Open Doors’ … until you quiz her on extremists, “Of course with checks.” I disagree with Maryam on some issues. However, significantly she had a talk shut down at a UK university byt the university’s Islamic Society (Islamists) .. and instead of backing ehr freedom of speech the Student Union backed the Islamists. Not averse to getting her kit off an protests for Feminists against Islamism, she obviously gets it in the neck, figuratively, from the right.
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain – A British organisation for ex-Muslims, run by Maryam Namazie.
Sarah Haider – In Washington DC
Masih Alinejad – Another Persian – A lot of Iranians oppose Islam, the ‘Arab religion’ – she started #WhiteWednesdays to support the women of Iran who removed their hijabs – and were attackc, imprisoned and tortured, killed by the Islamic morality police.
Imtiaz Shams – British Bangladeshi. Here he is on the complacency of the West with regard to Islam – pay attention Peter. Here is From Faith to Faithless, the Humanist UK group that helps people that have difficulty leaving religion (not just Islam) because they are shunned, ostracised, or even face violence. Imtiaz has had interviews with ex-Muslims. You can learn from their experiences – and this interview reveals the way Islamists take advantage of people with problems by ‘love bombing’ and offering ‘Disney Islam’, without mentioning the ‘footnotes’, … and the affect of ‘white guilt’. … and, take note Peter, “conflating skin colour with an ideology is bigoted”. Lee Anderson wasn NOT being racist towrads Khan, he opposes Khan’s political religious ideology.
Sohail Ahmed – He’s an Ex-Salafi and here he is on On Leaving Islam. He was very close to being drawn into Islamic extremism.
4 – Islam, Islamism, Terrorism
There has been a tendency to distinguish between Islam’s ‘decent Muslims’ and Islamism’s political activists, and Islamic Terrorists. There’s much overlap, so much so that during the rise of ISIS many ‘decent Muslims’ upped sticks from Western countries, joined ISIS, indulged directly in the barbarism (Islamic State ‘Beatles’), or witnessed it without flinching (Shamima Begum said herself she though little of seeing heads in baskets).
So, it shouldn’t be surprising to Peter that Khan is termed an Islamist – he has Islamic political leanings, even if somewhat liberal, though we can’t possibly say how genuine he is in that regard. Now, you might think this view conspiratorial, but we can go into the whole “Lying for Islam” issue that many ex-Muslims will tell you about. The weaker part of Lying For Islam is that Islam is a religion of peace, when it definitely is not. There are peaceful Muslims who practice Islam peacefully (at least until offended), but Islam is far from peaceful.
Many ‘Liberal Muslims’ will skirt around the issues with Islam’s natural tendency to incite extremism. It’s not too difficult to draw the out of Muslims what they really think. Bear in mind the status of Islam, Mohammed, Allah and the Quran to the nicest of devout Muslims – put on such a pedestal that to even criticse them is blasphemy, and blasphemy requires the death penalty.
Here’s how a typical conversation goes:
- Non-Muslim: Islam is a terrible religion as it includes death for apostasy.
- Decent Muslim: The Quran preaches tolerance and freedom of religion. You are not forced to become a Muslim.
- NM: Yes, if you submit to Islam’s domination. But to leave Islam carries the death penalty.
- DM: Only in a Caliphate.
- NM: No, the death penalty is prescribed as a legal punishment in several Islamic states, and they are not caliphates. And, we know from experience that Muslim families often take the law into their own hands and kill apostate family members.
- DM: No, you’ve got it all wrong. You don’t understand Islam.
- Muslim religious Leader: … Actually, it is death for apostates.
- DM: well, … I suppose, … they are treasonous criminals after all.
I’ve had such conversations. Don’t take my word for it.
Those Muslims that are genuinely liberal, but still consider themselves Muslims, can often find themselves in a spot of bother. Take long time crier of “Racist!” and “Islamophobe!”, the delightful Saira Khan. Take a look at her Wiki page. Doesn’t make much of her religious views – but you get a hint of it on the Talk page. What it fails to point out are the traumatic experiences saira has had as a British Muslim … not at the hands of ‘far right white racist Islamophobes’, but from “my own community [Newspeak for Muslims]”. Not to worry, she told us all about it on Loose Women, as documented here:
Saira has not shared the details of who caused her such anguish that she felt she could no longer be part of the ‘Muslim community’, but as far as I’m aware there were no threats from extremists. This is more likely pressure from other ‘Nice Muslims’ – why do I think that? Because that’s how Islam operates – as you can see from the outrage whenever some one burns a Quran or otherwise insults the religion, so many ‘Nice Muslims’ take it so seriously it doesn’t take much to form an outraged mob. In places like Pakistan this is quite normal (Saira speaks of her fear of being raped at the celebration of the birth of the prophet Mohammed, in Pakistan, while reporting for the BBC)
The ‘Muslim community’ can become very dangerous very quickly. Even for Islamists!
Ramblings 