Interfaith Dialogue, Islamic-Style
Britain's leading Muslims say they are fighting extremism. When the press goes away, the reality is a bit different. Reporter Sara Hassan went undercover to get the real story -- as a follow-up to the original "Undercover Mosque," a show condemned for "damaging community relations" by West Midlands Police, who sought to prosecute the producers and Channel 4/UK under racial hatred laws.
Of course, Hassan's report finds that nothing, really, has changed. She writes in The Telegraph/UK of a vile and barbaric talk a Muslim woman preacher gave -- at Regent's Park Mosque in London, "widely considered the most important mosque in Britain":
Adulterers, she says, are to be stoned to death - and as for homosexuals, and women who "make themselves like a man, a woman like a man ... the punishment is kill, kill them, throw them from the highest place".These punishments, the preacher says, are to be implemented in a future Islamic state. "This is not to tell you to start killing people," she continues. "There must be a Muslim leader, when the Muslim army becomes stronger, when Islam has grown enough."
A young female student from the group interrupts her: the punishment should also be to stone the homosexuals to death, once they have been thrown from a high place.
These are teachings I never expected to hear inside Regent's Park Mosque, which is supposedly committed to interfaith dialogue and moderation, and was set up more than 60 years ago, to represent British Muslims to the Government. And many of those listening were teenage British girls or, even more disturbingly, young children.
...But although the circle does preach against terrorism and does not incite Muslims to break British laws, it teaches Muslims to "keep away" and segregate themselves from disbelievers: "Islam is keeping away from disbelief and from the disbelievers, the people who disbelieve."
Friendship with non-Muslims is discouraged because "loyalty is only to the Muslim, not to the kaffir [disbeliever]".
A woman who was friendly with a non-Muslim woman was heavily criticised: "It's part of Islam, of the correct belief, that you love those who love Allah and that you hate those who hate Allah."
Yeah, some of the Muslims talk a good game, but it's not like those Christian and Jewish interfaith exchanges. Correct me if your experience is different, but it seems that the Christian and Jewish leaders at interfaith events actually want to eliminate friction and increase understanding between the groups. As a post-Jewish atheist, I can attest that that's what the Jews say, anyway, even after all the Christians leave the room.
Meanwhile, here we have a Muslim view from Hassan's piece -- again, from the leading mosque in Britain:
Regent's Park Mosque has a major interfaith department, which arranges visits from the Government, the civil service, representatives of other religions and thousands of British school children a year.I watched as an interfaith group was brought in to meet the mosque's women's circle for a civilised exchange. But when the interfaith group wasn't there, the preacher attacked other faiths, and the very concept of interfaith dialogue.
One preacher said of Christians praying in a church: "What are these people doing in there, these things are so vile, what they say with their tongues is so vile and disgusting, it's an abomination." As for the concept of interfaith live-and-let-live: "This is false. It does not work. This concept is a lie, it is fake, and it is a farce."
Ugly, ugly stuff.
But, is there anything they can do in the U.K.? Without turning the place into a police state, that is. Or is it, as I suspect, too late? These Muslims are there, they're breeding and breeding hate, and converting others to the fold.
via JihadWatch
It's too late, and the reason why is written all over Sadly Pathetic. Over there I was told it would be outrageous to criticise an imam for saying homosexuals should be killed because American Muslims are a minority and in fear for their very lives. Because, you know, non-Muslim Americans have killed so many Muslims in the US...
So, like I said, too late. The west is doomed by the self-loathing of the hard-Left and our own guilt reflex. It kind of pisses me off because as a gay man I know my human rights will be among the first the hard-Left throw to the lions. The only sweetener is knowing they'll be devoured alive soon after and daydreaming about the look of horror on their faces as they realise what arseholes they've been all along.
GMan at September 1, 2008 1:28 AM
Basically, you are asking if anyone gives a shit.
Because in any free country, an effort will come in to try and move that freedom to something way more less free. It's the lesson of history.
And if the free and happy population does not stand up, not changing laws but standing up for freedom and societally saying to the haters that it won't be allowed...then the country will become what the most passionate folks (the haters) want it to be.
Ang at September 1, 2008 1:30 AM
American Muslims are a minority and in fear for their very lives.
You should see the hate rags they produce in Detroit. These newspapers are not online. From time to time, my father used to send them to me. If anybody's in or near Dearborn, I'd love to get some recent copies. I'll pay you back for them, including postage.
Amy Alkon at September 1, 2008 6:15 AM
The biggest problem is that it is hard to fight one shitty religion without setting a precedent to attack them all.
Germany doesn't have the limitless religious freedom we do, they COULD ban islam if they wished on the same basis they do scientology. We however, are pretty well stuck with it.
Robert at September 1, 2008 6:41 AM
Some dialogue...
Non-Muslim: I don't agree with your beliefs.
Muslim: I blow us both up.
Patrick at September 1, 2008 7:24 AM
The biggest problem is that it is hard to fight one shitty religion without setting a precedent to attack them all.
Posted by: Robert
So tell me Robert, lets assume we fight Islam on the flimsy premise that, oh, ... just off the top of my head, ... Islam openly endorses the violent overthrow of our government, and STRICTLY limit the premise to that. Can you rattle off all those other shitty religions that quickly become susceptible to such a precedent?
Ken at September 1, 2008 11:56 AM
Patrick, are you THE Patrick?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at September 1, 2008 12:03 PM
We had all this out with the Catholics in the UK about 400 years ago. Guy Fawkes & his pals tried to blow up Parliament, in the hope of putting a Catholic king on the throne. We are still reacting to this today - in a trivial way every year, on 5th November, by burning Guy Fawkes in effigy (not really significant, as most people don't know what they're celebrating; it's just an excuse for a party) - and more significantly in the Act of Settlement which prohibits the royal family from marrying Catholics, or something.
The reason is that Catholics' first allegiance is to the Pope, not to the nation they happen to be citizens of; or it would be if they followed the rules. But in practice, they don't follow the rules. Most Muslims don't follow all the rules either. They behave like ordinary people who happen to have a religion.
Some of Islam's rules, like many religions' rules, are quite horrific. Some are quite sensible. But Muslims are not the same as Islam; it is only the unbalanced ones who go for strict literal interpretation of sacred texts - whatever their religion happens to be.
Norman at September 1, 2008 2:37 PM
Some of Islam's rules, like many religions' rules, are quite horrific. Some are quite sensible. But Muslims are not the same as Islam; it is only the unbalanced ones who go for strict literal interpretation of sacred texts - whatever their religion happens to be.
Posted by: Norman
That's right Norman, we just need to worry about those "unbalanced ones" right? Would it surprise you to know that a Pew poll estimates there are some 183,000 American Muslims who support suicide bombings "in defense of Islam"? Check it out:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/may/24/20070524-083912-5122r/
Ken at September 1, 2008 6:32 PM
Ken - I've seen reports like this, though I have not studied the actual report you refer to. When I was young and Thatcher was elected Prime Minister in the UK, I was asked whether it would be a good idea to assassinate her, and I was not sure. If you ask predominantly young people a question like this, you will get hothead answers. I would query reports like this on two points: first, what data do they compare the results with? What do you get if you ask young people in general? Are Muslims significantly different? And second, just because people say these things, and even believe them, does not mean that there are 183,000 suicide bombers in the US. There's a gulf between thought and action. Unless you want to define categories of thought-crime, just having an opinion is not illegal.
But even if you disagree with me, what do you suggest doing, beyond worrying about it? All you're doing is expressing outrage. Clucking, as Crid would say.
Norman at September 2, 2008 12:30 AM
But even if you disagree with me, what do you suggest doing, beyond worrying about it?
Posted by: Norman
Well I was trying to pierce your darkness on the danger of Islam, so if that's clucking, then I am guilty. Yes I disagree with you, and there are mountains of evidence that muslims are significantly different. Do you subscribe to the existence of the global jihad?
The Western world needs to wake up to the threat of Islam. We are not dealing with a "great Abrahmic religion" hijacked by a teeny tiny band of murderous psychotics. We are dealing with a nefarious anti-Western ideology that has been at war with Westen civilization for some 1400 years. There are moderate muslims, but Islam is an immoderate ideology, an all encompassing belief system, masquerading as a religion.
What I suggest doing about it, besides trying to convince people of the danger, is try to raise the level of awareness to a degree that will at least get the government to remove the protection that Islam is undeservedly accorded as a "religion", and expose it for the viral threat that it is, every bit as dangerous, perhaps more so, than nazism and communism were.
Did you know that 80% of American mosques are Saudi funded? Do you know anything of the tenets of wahhabi Islam?
Check out http://jihadwatch.org/archives/2004/09/003311print.html
and
http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/
and we can talk some more.
Ken at September 2, 2008 5:28 PM
Wish these issues were being addressed in this political campaign instead of teen pregnancy. I don't have all the answers either -- though it seems obvious that we need some kind of clamp down on inciting to riot and I don't mean war protesters being corralled off to one side in NYC -- but, man, if you were running for president wouldn't that be something you should be looking at? How do the candidates stand on the issue?
Ran off to have a look-see (albeit a quick one). Of course, neither one is going to mention Islam specifically without following it up with extremist but I've got to admit McCain had the stronger statement of defense. However, he seems to want to couch that in terms of building up the military. No real steps in preventing needing to use the military. Obama is even worse. There's some nonsense (quoting my local paper from 2006!) about needing to breef up security at power plants. WTF!!?? I'm starting to get more and more suspicious of his Islamist ties which I initially discounted. Why is he so wishy-washy when it comes to protecting this country?
Of course, this was just a quick peek at both sides. Feel free to have it with more complete information. I'll be glad for the enlightening.
T's Grammy at September 3, 2008 9:05 AM
T's Grammy,
Although neither candidate totally "gets" the threat of Islam, you are right, Obama is even worse.
I think Amy has done an admirable job out here on her blog in sounding the warning gong on Islam.
I don't know if Amy has dissected the red herring of "Islamophobia".
Islamophobia is a term invented by Islam apologists to stifle legitimate criticism of Islam. These apologists are using this bogus term to portray people who voice valid concerns about Islam as being bigoted or racist. The apologists have actually already made great headway in the UN on this false front of victimhood, and Obama has fully signed on as a useful idiot.
Check this out:
http://greenspiece.blogspot.com/2008/06/dine-and-obama-perfect-storm.html
Ken at September 3, 2008 6:10 PM
The best solution would be to severely limit Muslim immigration into any Western country. Since they have no intention of living in the modern era, they can stay in their own countries and live in the Stone Age. I think a few countries are using this reason to keep them out, saying that they are unlikely to integrate into society. They seem very similar to the Puritans who originally moved to the US. They had complete religious freedom in Amsterdam, but hated the freedom that everyone else had and prefered to move to a place where they would have complete theocratic control.
Chrissy at September 6, 2008 9:11 AM
Leave a comment