News Comment

-  A  Conservative Perspective on Current Affairs

| 'New' Labour Continues to Appease Islamists Abroad | Leading British Islamist asked to write Universities Report | Labour's Compromise with Islamist Agenda | Labour's Naivety over Lebanon Peace Deal |

Gordon Brown’s hypocrisy in condemning the archbishop’s sharia comments (posted 8th February 2008)

On Thursday Gordon Brown’s spokesman denounced Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams’ claim that the introduction of sharia to the UK was inevitable. However, Gordon Brown himself has been quitely seeking to appease certain aspects of the agenda of 'peaceful' islamist groups in the UK - including what amounts to a partial implemnation of sharia.

  At the 2006 Conservative Party conference some of us publicly exposed the way the Labour government has been deliberately appeasing aspects of the Islamist agenda in a vain hope of shoring up Labour’s share of the Muslim vote that collapsed at the last general election due to Blair’s ill conceived war in Iraq. Within days of the Conservative conference ending Jack Straw made his famous criticism of the Muslim veil, then other members of the Labour government spoke in more critical terms of the ideas of some Islamist led organisations in the UK. Many of us hoped …and it was only hope for the sake of the country …that at last New Labour had changed.

BUT.AS SOON AS GORDON BROWN WAS APPOINTED LEADER OF THE LABOUR PARTY  - AND A GENERAL ELECTION APPEARED IMMINENT…LABOUR UNDER GORDON BROWN AGAIN STARTED TO APPEASE PARTS OF THE AGENDA OF UK ISLAMIST GROUPS

Brown Labour’s appeasement of Islamism in the UK – including sharia

1.      June 2006 – a government sponsored report on the teaching of Islam in British universities was published. Now one may well ask exactly what the Labour government was doing asking a leading member of the Islamic Foundation – the UK’s largest overtly Islamist group -  to write this government sponsored report ON HIS OWN? Although we would have to say that it was Blair not Brown that commissioned this report. Amongst the reports most unacceptable recommendations was that non Muslims should be banned from teaching the main Islamic subjects in British universities! THE PRIME MINISTER THEN PUBLICLLY WELCOMED THIS REPORT  (admittedly the PM then was Blair but as Brown was already elected Labour Leader and Prime Minister in waiting – it must surely been with his agreement…). WHY?

2.      As soon as Brown was officially appointed as Prime Minister a few weeks later – his inner circle began whipping up talk of an imminent general election. Now at the last two general elections (2001,2005) the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) a Muslim umbrella organisation whose leadership was largely taken over by Islamists as soon as it was formed – issued a Muslim Vote Card – telling candidates of all parties to sign up to a range of Islamic issues – public funding Muslim schools, changes in UK foreign policy etc. The MCB claimed it could swing the vote in at least 20 constituencies – as the Muslim majority was greater than that of the sitting MP – who was almost always Labour. The MCB would tell Muslims to vote against candidates who did not sign up to enough of the MCB demands. A similar policy was operated in the 1997, 2001 and 2005 elections by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) a UK offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood. In the 2005 general election Labour’s share of the Muslim vote collapsed from its normally rock solid 85% down to around 70%. It lost safe Labour seats to the Lib-Dems like Rochdale (5,650 maj), Hornsey and Wood Green (10,600 maj)  – not to mention losing Bethnal Green and Bow (10,000 maj) to George Galloway – and nearly lost several other Labour seats.

          SO  DOES THE FOLLOWING REALLY SURPISE ANYONE……?

a)       On becoming Prime Minister in summer 2007 Gordon Brown immediately appointed David Milliband as the new Foreign Secretary – and almost the very first public statement Milliband made was to publicly praise Hamas – the Islamist terrorist group that is ideologically committed to the complete annihilation of the state of Israel – the ONLY state in the entire Middle East that even remotely resembles a liberal democracy.

b)      In September 2007 Ed Balls - Gordon Brown’s chief lieutenant, and newly promoted by Brown to be Secretary of state for families, children and schools - offered state funding to Islamic schools – again part of the Muslim Vote Card agenda (However, many ordinary Muslims recognise Islamic schools as part of the Islamist agenda and won’t send their children to them. For details on the ideology behind Islamic schools see my 2 page article in September’s The Difference Magazine – also available at www.martinparsons-parliament.org/speeches_and_articles.htm).

c)      Then to cap it all Des Browne, Labour’s part time Defence Secretary, told the Labour Party conference at the end of September 2007(remember Brown’s team had really seriously whipped up election fever now!) that we should negotiate with the Taliban! (Why exactly have 87 British soldiers given their lives and hundreds of others paid the ‘daily living sacrifice’ of the wounded and disabled?)

d)      Des Browne ALSO told the Labour Party Conference that the future government of Afghanistan MUST include Islamic law. Actually apart from during the Taliban era, Afghanistan has since the early twentieth century had a western style constitution – with sharia courts having a much more informal, non constitutional role. As former aid worker in Afghanistan  I KNOW that there are hundreds of thousands of people in the towns and cities of Afghanistan that DESPERATELY DON’T’ want government imposed Islamic law – they just want the Afghan constitution).

e)      THEN – in November 2007 Treasury minister Kitty Ussher (and let’s not suppose anything significant has ever happened at the treasury since Labour came to power in 1997 - without Gordon Brown’s explicit say so!) announced a 3 month consultation on the Treasury introducing Islamic sukkuk bonds that are compliant with sharia (now if we do that - we effectively create a whole area of government and economics that can ONLY be governed by Islamic lawyers and sharia courts – and guess what..? sharia forbids any non Muslim from sitting as a judge in a sharia court. Moreover, the commercial law aspects of sharia ALWAYS favour Muslims when there is any deal between Muslims and non Muslims. In fact this is a principle of sharia because sharia fundamentally assumes that Muslims – as the people in submission to Allah – must always govern non Muslims…).

f)        Then in February 2008 (yes only a week ago!) – the Department for Work and Pensions announced that where there was a ‘valid’ polygamous marriage it would pay extra benefits. Quite how a polygamous marriage in the UK could in any sense be ‘valid’ when bigamy is a criminal offence in the UK beats me…!

 SO Gordon Brown has been at it all along appeasing the agenda of ‘peaceful’ Islamist groups in the UK, who reject violence, but have stated they want to see a gradual move towards an Islamic state in Britain by means of a step by step alignment of British law with sharia.

 Now what’s that word for someone who criticises someone else for suggesting something that they are actually covertly doing themselves……

Perhaps the one useful thing that may come out of this whole sorry episode is that perhaps Brown might at last stop appeasing parts of the Islamist agenda and start standing up for the victims of Islamism – like the women who don’t want to be pressured into a divorce in a sharia court; like thousands of ordinary Muslims who don’t want to send their children to Islamic schools because they see them as part of the Islamist agenda (and who will face huge social pressure in the Muslim community for them to ‘conform’ when there is a state funded Islamic school in their neighbourhood); or the 3000+ former Muslims who have embraced Christianity in the UK – and face frequent intimidation and violence – actions ‘legitimated’ by the death penalty for apostasy in Islamic law; or like the 100,000’s of people in Afghanistan who desperately don’t want the formal constitutional reintroduction of the Islamic law that they suffered under during the Taliban era; or the millions of Christians living under sharia in countries like Pakistan and Northern Nigeria who are second class citizens, subjects to huge discrimination and who often warn their children not to talk about Christianity when Muslims try to talk to them ..as any criticism of Muhammad carries the automatic death penalty in sharia – and a Muslim’s witness is equal to that of TWO non Muslims under sharia; or the Bishop of Rochester – who currently faced death threats from Islamists in his native Pakistan and now faces similar death threats here (an issue on which Gordon Brown has been extraordinarily silent) because he is seen by Islamists as criticising Islam – which implies criticism of Muhammad – which is the most serious offence in Islamic law carrying the automatic death penalty.

   At least the archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t actually have the power to introduce aspects of sharia into the UK…

        Conservative MPs rightly condemned Rowan Williams for his extraordinarily ill judged, naïve and wrong headed comments. BUT we must also hold Gordon Brown to account for the way he is playing fast and loose with the Islamist agenda.

Muslim Public Affairs Committee (MPAC) calls on all Muslims to 'expose' the Muslims who worked for Policy Exchange in uncovering the extent of hate literature in UK mosques

'New' Labour under Gordon Brown and David Millband continues to appease Islamists abroad

When an Ipsos-MORI poll on 22nd July not only gave Labour a 6% lead over the Conservatives, but also highlighted that security issues are the issue that most concerns British people - isn't it time that Conservative opposition exposed Labour's continued appeasement of Islamist groups at home and overseas?

Gordon Brown's grave and serious persona during the recent terrorist arrests was what the public wanted during a time of crisis - and undoubtedly helping boost Labour's opinion poll ratings. However, the great British public should not be deceived - New Labour under Gordon Brown  and foreign secretary David Millband continues to appease Islamism just as much as Labour did under Tony Blair.

- In August last year Hezbollah - the radical Palestinian Islamist terrorist group founded, financed and equipped by Iran invaded a few miles into Northern Israel taking 2 Israeli soldiers captive. When Israel replied with a robust military response - the British government ended up calling for a ceasefire that effectively appeased Hezbollah's terrorist actions and backed a peace deal that had the effect of allowing Hezbollah to rearm.. One of the most prominent proponents in the Labour cabinet calling for that ceasefire was - the man who Brown has just promoted to be Foreign Secretary - David Millband. Iran watched

- Earlier this Iran having watched the British government's response to the actions of its proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon - did almost exactly the same with British sailors. Iran invaded a few miles into Iraqi waters and kidnapped British sailors.... should be be surprised?...and one could hardly call the Labour government's response to that sorry episode 'robust'..

- Then Gordon Brown chose to promote David Millband to be foreign secretary - knowing that he had pushed for a ceasing of Isreali action against Hezbollah terrorists.

-  Then, on being promoted to be foreign secretary almost the very first public statement David Millband made was to praise Hamas - the radical Islamist group that is now financed by Iran and is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood - an organisation ideologically and theologically committed to the total destruction of the state of Israel., the only country in the Middle East that even claims to be a liberal democracy ...

Appeasement is always a dangerous move - have we learnt nothing since the 1930's?

Labour government asks leading British Islamist to write report on how Islam should be taught in British Universities

This has to be one of the extraordinary examples of the Labour government's deliberate appeasement of Islamist organisations...

The Labour government commissioned a report on the teaching of Islam at British universities (Islam at Universities in England: meeting the needs and investing in the future) - sounds sensible enough. Well - until we learn that the person the government asked to write the report  - entirely on his own - was Dr Attaullah Siddiqui of the Islamic Foundation, which is the largest radical Islamist group in the UK. Although, not involved in terrorism - the Islamic Foundation shares the same long range goals as Islamic terrorists - the creation of an Islamic state in Britain with the imposition of Islamic law (shariah) on Muslims and non Muslims alike.

Dr Siddiqui's report - published in June was welcomed by the government, a welcome that was quite extraordinary given the main recommendations of Dr Siddiqui's report. This included:

- Only Muslims should be allowed to teach the core Islamic subjects in British universities - non Muslims should only be allowed to teach 'peripheral subjects' such as Islamic history.

- Islam should be taught solely from a devotional perspective (i.e. non critically).

- Universities should pay for Muslim chaplains - the report admits that Christian chaplains are not paid for by universities but funded by churches - but argues that it should be different for Muslim chaplains....

All of these are asking for special privileges for Islam and Muslims - that are not granted - and Dr Siiddiqui's report does NOT advocate granting to members of other religions.

Let's just be clear about where Dr Siddiqui is coming from here - he is a senior member of the Islamic Foundation, which draws its primary ideological inspiration from the writings of Sayyid Abdul A'la Mawdudi - the most important Islamist writer of the twentieth century in the Indian Sub continent and the ideological inspiration behind the creation of an Islamic state in Pakistan. The Leicester based Islamic Foundation is the primary translator into English and distributor of his works in the western world.

So, we really do need some pretty good good answers from the present Labour government - as to why they asked Dr Siddiqui of all people to write this report? why they asked him to write it on his own? and why - given its recommendations - they actually welcomed the report? Could this be something to do with trying to shore up Labour's share of the Muslim vote that haemorrhaged very significantly to the Lib-Dems at the 2005 election I'm open to hearing any other explanations - but I honestly can't think of any at the moment...!

For more on the Labour government's appeasement of Islamist groups - See Martin's speech in the Foreign Affairs debate at the 2006 Conservative Party Conference and articles on Islamism for Conservatism Magazine and The Difference magazine.

5 Years On From 9/11 Labour Compromises With Islamist Agenda

Five years on from 9/11 the British government has made much of its commitment to tackle terrorism at home and abroad. However, in the wake of police arresting British Muslims alleged to have been involved in a plot to blow up transatlantic airliners on a scale at least as big as 9/11, David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party broke the cross party consensus by declaring that he didn’t believe the government was “doing enough to fight Islamist extremists at home or to protect our security”. In the howls of protest that followed from Labour politicians – the dual reference of Mr Cameron’s remarks to “Islamist extremists” and “protecting our security” somehow got lost.

The twin threat is well illustrated by a meeting John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister and Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities had with leaders of a number of British Islamic organisations immediately after the arrests this august. Ruth Kelly admitted that there had been a series of  “sharp and challenging exchanges” during the meeting but nonetheless called it “very constructive and forward thinking”. Given the immediate aftermath of Britain’s security services having foiled what is alleged to have been the largest Islamist terror plot to have threatened Britain, exactly what were those “sharp and challenging exchanges” about? A perhaps surprising part of the answer is that Islamic organisations requested public holidays to mark Islamic festivals and for Islamic shariah law to apply to British Muslims in respect of family law – issues that most people would struggle to see as having anything to do with the alleged terror plot. Yet here were organisations claiming to represent British Muslims using even this time to press for a partial implementation of Islamic shariah law in Britain. Shortly after this, Ruth Kelly set up a commission to examine amongst other things whether Islamic festivals should become public holidays for everyone in the UK.

The meeting however highlights the conundrum that Labour faces in its relationship with Islamic organisations. It’s a conundrum that is somewhat similar to the one Labour faced with the trade unions more than a decade ago when Labour became ‘New Labour’. Put simply, Labour needed the support of the unions, but didn’t entirely agree with their agenda, so it ended up giving them some of what they wanted but not everything. In the same way, Labour now desperately needs the Muslim vote, yet at the last general election the 85% of the Muslim vote that normally goes rock solidly to Labour, haemorrhaged significantly, mainly to the Lib-Dems - principally because of Labour’s involvement in the war in Iraq. Labour casualties of this Muslim vote switch included the previously safe Labour seats of Rochdale and Hornsey and Wood Green, which were won by the Lib-Dems who had opposed the Iraq war, a factor which undoubtedly swayed large numbers of Muslim voters in these constituencies. While in Bethnal Green and Bow, a similar disillusionment with Labour by Muslim voters led to Oona King losing her 10,000 majority to George Galloway and his pro-Muslim Respect party. Even after the general election this haemorrhaging from Labour has continued, with 40 predominantly Muslim activists from Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett’s Derby South constituency defecting to the Lib-Dems in protest at the Labour government’s handling of the Lebanon crisis and being welcomed into the  Lib Dems by Sir Menzies Campbell.

In fact, British Islamic organisations have for some time been very aware of how easily they can use elections as a means of advancing their own Islamic agenda. In 1997, Iqbal Sacranie, then convenor of the UK Action Committee on Islamic Affairs (UKACIA) urged Muslim voters to extract specific promises from candidates in constituencies where Muslims could alter the balance of power. At the time UKACIA claimed that bloc voting by Muslims in around 20 seats could unseat the sitting MP, nearly all of them Labour MPs. While in the 2001 general election the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) launched a ‘Muslim VoteCard’ asking parliamentary candidates to sign up lock stock and barrel to the MCB agenda including opposition to the recent terrorism bill and support ‘for suffering Muslims in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Iraq’. The strategy was repeated in the 2005 general election with the MCB producing a pamphlet Electing to Deliver, which listed 10 issues on which Muslims were urged to confront parliamentary candidates, while the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) simply told Muslim voters which candidate they should vote for in their constituency.

It is therefore little wonder that the present Labour government is desperate to hold onto the Muslim vote. Few at Westminster regarded it as mere coincidence that immediately after the 2005 election, the newly elected Labour government announced its intention to bring in incitement to religious hatred legislation, widely regarded by Muslims as the Islamic blasphemy law they had been campaigning for since the Rushdie affair seventeen years earlier. Yet this approach, raises a question of immense importance, while the present government makes much of its fight against Islamist terrorism, is it at the same time letting the threat posed to British society by ‘peaceful’ Islamism slip under the radar?

Labour’s strategy for dealing with the threat from Islamist terrorism is essentially two fold. Firstly, beefing up security with a series of seemingly draconian measures – such as its proposal last year to allow police to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days; and secondly, using various pro-Muslim measure to placate the not unreasonable fears expressed by Islamic organisations that this could lead to many innocent Muslims being effectively imprisoned without trial.

However, the problem is that many of the Islamic organisations that the government now spends so much time talking to, are either Islamist organisations themselves or have a strong Islamist influence within them. One of the principal inspirations for Islamism in Britain is the writings of Sayyid Abdul A’la Mawdudi – widely regarded by Muslims from the Indian sub continent as the greatest Islamist writer of the twentieth century. Mawdudi’s influence is evident in bodies such as the UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), the Islamic Foundation, the Islamic Society of Britain and Young Muslims UK It has also had a significant influence in wider umbrella organisations such as the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The influence of Mawdudi on the MCB was clearly exposed in a BBC Panorama programme last year when the MCB’s then secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie was asked what he thought of Mawdudi – and could only reply in the most reverent and awed of tones. In fact, Mawdudi’s writings make it absolutely clear that Islam is a political ideology that is wholly incompatible with any other political system including democracy. Illustrative of this is Mawdudi’s book Jihad in Islam which has been translated into English by Khurshid Ahmed, former director of the Leicester based Islamic Foundation and published by the Birmingham based UK Islamic Mission. In the book, Mawdudi states that just as “a man who believes in communism could not order his life according to the principles of communism whilst living in Britain or America…likewise it is impossible for a Muslim to succeed in his aim of achieving the Islamic pattern of life under the authority of a non Islamic system of government”, and so Muslims “are compelled by the innate demands of their faith to strive for the elimination of the rule of an opposing ideology, and for the setting up of a government that follows the programme and policies of their own faith..” A statement which perhaps sheds a little more light on why the aftermath of the recent terror arrests saw the leaders of some of Britain’s Islamic organisations asking ministers for a partial introduction of Shariah law in the UK!

In fact, the main difference between radical Islamists who use violence and Islamists who adopt more peaceful means lies primarily in their methodology, rather the outcomes they are seeking to achieve. Both have the ultimate aim of achieving an Islamic state with shariah law applying to Muslims and non Muslims alike. The difference between those who engage in violent jihad and those engaged in a more peaceful political jihad is somewhat akin to what used to be the difference between communism and socialism. Communists wanted to achieve state ownership of all economic activity by means of a violent revolution, while socialists wanted to achieve it through the ballot box. In the same way, many Islamists and Islamist organisations in the Britain recognise that an Islamic state is not going to be achieved in Britain overnight. So, they have adopted a step by step approach of seeking to increasingly align British law with Islamic shariah law. This is done firstly by pushing legal test cases - as Shabina Begum did when, inspired by the radical British Islamist group Hezb ut Tahrir, she asked the courts to require Denbigh High School in Luton to allow her to wear Arabic Islamic dress, instead of the shalwar kameze uniform that the school had agreed with the local Muslim community; and secondly – by Islamic organisations pushing for greater alignment between parliamentary law and shariah. The Labour government frankly gave into the latter when, immediately after the 2005 general election where its share of the Muslim vote had begun to collapse, it announced proposals to introduce incitement to religious hatred legislation. These proposals were widely seen by Muslims as the blasphemy law that they had been campaigning for since the Rushdie affair seventeen years earlier and which is the single most important aspect of Islamic shariah law.

However, Labour’s record on tackling Islamism is somewhat worse than this. A series of confidential Home Office and Foreign Office papers leaked to The Sunday Times last year revealed exactly what the government’s strategy for dealing with the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain actually is. The papers were hugely significant as being internal government documents, no one could claim that they had been drafted to avoid groups like the BNP stirring up anti Muslim feeling The documents clearly indicate that the government assumes that the primary cause of Muslim extremism is socio-economic deprivation suffered by some inner city Muslim communities. Consequently, they proposed a package of measures aimed at promoting what they termed ‘mainstream Islam’ – these included promoting Islamic newspapers, radio and TV stations, providing subsidised training in Arabic and Islamic theology and engaging more with Islamic groups such as the Islamic Foundation, for whom a ministerial visit was planned. A proposal not without some significance as the Islamic Foundation is, in reality, one of the most clearly Islamist organisations in the UK, whose ethos strongly reflects that of Mawdudi. For those familiar with Islamic ideology, the most worrying part of the government papers was the assumption that the participation of young British Muslims in violent jihad was solely due to socio economic causes and had no historical root in Islam. In fact, violent jihad is rooted in the Islamic scriptures - although the vast majority of British Muslims who are deeply peaceful would be genuinely shocked to discover this. The Qur’an contains verses such as Q9:29 which urges Muslims to fight those who do not believe in Islam until they submit and pay the jizya  - the tax imposed on non Muslims in an Islamic state. While the Hadith, which together with the Qur’an constitutes the Islamic scriptures, contains an entire section on jihad, which in English translations runs to around 150 pages, predominantly referring to military jihad. In reality, most British Muslims have never read the entire Qur’an, let alone the Hadith, anymore than all but the most committed Christians have read the entire Bible. Moreover, some liberal Muslim academics such as the late Zaki Baidawi have sought to reinterpret jihad verses in a more peaceful way. Even so, it’s worth pondering exactly what might happen when young British Muslims studying Islamic studies on government subsidised courses – encounter these jihad verses for the first time. Let’s hope and pray to God that they come up with some peaceful interpretations.

   However, the basic problem remains - that Labour is deliberately appeasing some of the Islamist demands put forward by a number of British Islamic organisations - in order to try to hold onto the Muslim vote in some of its key marginal - and even safe seats. Now before, anyone on the Liberal-Left asks what's wrong with that - let's just spell out exactly what an Islamic state with shariah law means.

• Only Muslims are allowed to take part in government - non Muslims may be civil servants but no more.

• Only Muslims are allowed to vote for the head of state - who must be a Muslim.

• Non Muslim's are required to pay an additional taxation - which the Qur'an calls the jizya (Q9:29).

• The death penalty for any Muslim who decides to follow another religion, although members of other religions are  free to become Muslims ('religious freedom' is very much a one way street in Islamic law).

• The automatic death penalty for blasphemy against Muhammad - which can potentially mean any criticism of the Qur'an or even Islam. Blasphemy against Muhammad is the most serious offence in shariah law (which is why Muslims get so upset about any criticism of Muhammad and why British Islamic organisations campaigned so hard to persuade the government to bring in incitement to religious hatred legislation - which they saw as an Islamic blasphemy law).

• In a law court a Muslim's witness is equal to that of two non Muslims - this has led to Muslims settling scores by accusing Christians and others of blasphemy against Muhammad - even in what have until recently been relatively liberal islamic countries such as Pakistan.

• In a law court a man's word as a witness is equal to that of two women. This has horrendous consequences in situations such as rape - for which shariah requires four witnesses. If a woman who has been raped cannot produce the four witnesses - then she will be arrested and imprisoned for making false allegation....

These are not extreme case scenarios or only happen in  extreme fundamentalist countries - they are the traditional islamic teachings on shariah - which have remained unchanged for hundreds of years and form part of the traditional Islamic curriculum (the Dars-i-Nizami curriculum) which is taught in madrassas (Islamic theological schools) across the Indian sub continent as well as being imported to the UK.. This is what is likely to be taught as part of the subsidised courses in Islamic theology that the Labour government have proposed...

I have worked in two Islamic countries - Pakistan, which until fairly recently was a relatively more liberal Islamic state and in  Afghanistan, including during the mujahaddin and Taliban times. Although the level of persecution and discrimination against non Muslims differed between the two - in both Christians and other non Muslim minorities were victimised and often persecuted - including Christians being killed for their faith.  When I lived in Jalalabad, Afghanistan - the Taliban hanged an Afghan Christian living in a nearby village - simply because they found a Bible and some Christian books when they searched his house and he refused to renounce his Christian faith and return to Islam; Some of my own friends - both Afghan and expatriate faced a death sentence from the Taliban simply because someone else in the aid agency they worked for agreed to let local friends see a CD Rom about the life of Christ...Muslims suffered too, even before the Taliban times arrived religious leaders went round Jalalabad where I used to live, forcing people with sticks to go into the mosque to pray. Even in Pakistan, non Muslim minorities suffer victimisation and persecution. I have Pakistani friends who have personally experienced this. Last year Muslim police were bribed to arrest the wife of a friend who is a Pakistani Christian minister, the wife was stripped naked by police and severely beaten at the girls school where she was a teacher - both have now had to go into hiding. They can do nothing about this outrage, not merely because of the corruption, but because in Islamic law a woman's legal testimony has only half the value of a man's and a Christian's has only half the weight of a Muslim's...There are currently 10 Pakistani Christians awaiting trial charged with blasphemy against Muhammad - facing a mandatory death sentence if convicted. When President Musharraf proposed to 'reform' the blasphemy law in 2000, he backed down when threatened with a nationwide strike against his 'unislamic' proposal. There is also significant pressure placed on non Muslims to convert to Islam. In May 2006, the Minority Rights Commission of Pakistan concluded that there were 500-600 cases of forced conversions to Islam each year in Pakistan... I could go on with other examples, but this is something of what it is  like to live in an Islamic state...

No way can we appease the Islamist agenda in Britain...

Yet this is precisely what the Labour government has started to do, beginning with its incitement to religious hatred legislation, which most Islamic organisations understood as the Labour government finally giving them the Islamic blasphemy law they had been campaigning for, blasphemy against Muhammad being the single most serious offence in shariah (Islamic law).

Significantly, even though many Islamic organisations want to see a 'step by step' introduction of Islamic law in Britain, surveys suggest that 60% of British Muslims do not support this and even for many of those that do nominally support it, Islamic law is simply a vague romantic idea which they have never thought through the implications of - and how it would destroy the British society they cherish.

However, many of these Muslims, whilst deeply loyal to Britain do have legitimate concerns that do not in any way conflict with Britain as a free democratic society. These concerns are about such things as the importance of family life and marriage - which they see being destroyed by the active promotion of a range of alternative lifestyles by the present government. These are issues which are basic Conservative values - Social Conservatism. Responding to these issues is a legitimate way to win Muslim votes....

That's what the Conservative Party should be doing!

Contrast this with the policies being pursued by the present Labour government, policies which appease elements of the Islamist agenda, an agenda which seeks to destroy the free democratic society which is the very basis and most fundamental of British values.

Read Martin's article in the Speeches and articles section  Islamic Ideology, Muslims and British Politics

Blair and Beckett’s Naivety Over Lebanon Peace Deal

Despite claims by some western leaders, including UK foreign secretary Margaret Beckett that the passing of UN resolution 1701 created the possibility of a lasting peace in the Middle East – the signs are clearly otherwise.

Although the conflict started when Hezbollah made a military incursion into northern Israel and kidnapped two Israeli soldiers  - any negotiations resulting in the return of the kidnapped soldiers will not secure peace unless it deals with the underlying causes of the war that continue to smoulder:

After the ceasefire the Israeli government spoke in terms of having ‘unfinished business’ -  not exactly a ringing endorsement for Margaret Beckett's claim that resolution 1701 would bring a lasting peace settlement, but hardly surprising when you consider the following: 

• Hezbollah is committed as a ‘non negotiable’ to the destruction of the state of Israel.

• Hezbollah has still not been disarmed in accordance with UN resolution 1559 passed in 2004 and was in fact given a degree of legitimacy by being invited to join the Lebanese government, which it is still a part of.
• Far from disarming, Hezbollah has, for the last few years not only been deliberately targeting rockets at civilian areas of Israel, but has also been building up its arsenal of weapons acquired via Syria and Iran.
• Immediately after the recent ceasefire Hezbollah announced that it had no intention of disarming. As the newly enlarged UN peacekeeping force has no mandate to disarm Hezbollah – it looks extremely  unlikely that Hezbollah will be disarmed.
• Immediately after the ceasefire – Israeli special forces went into action – in a mission that the Israeli government claimed was triggered by Hezbollah restocking its supply of rockets.

• Islamic theology makes it clear that once an area has once been subject to an Islamic government – it is an act of ‘defensive jihad’ – to fight so that the area is again subject to an Islamic government i.e. Hezbollah (and indeed many Islamic organisations in the West) does not regard targeting rockets at Israeli civilians as an ‘offensive’ war, but as a ‘defensive’ war to reclaim Islamic sacred space. (NB This is also the reason that the 'Darfur' peace deal is also about to collapse - the Islamist Khartoum government sees it as a religious duty and an act of 'defensive jihad' to bring the predominantly non Muslim south of Sudan - where most of the population are either Christians or followers of African traditional religions - back under the Islamic law - which it had earlier imposed on them).
• Hezbollah believe their actions to be based on the Sunnah (i.e. the example of Muhammad). This includes the Treaty of Hudabiyah. This was a peace treaty which the Islamic army led by Muhammad signed with the pagan tribes who controlled Mecca - agreeing not to attack them. The treaty was used to gain a strategic advantage over the Meccan pagans, and acted as no more than a temporary ceasefire before the Islamic army captured Mecca less than two years later. The significance of Hudabiyah as a paradigm for radical Islamic groups can be seen in the way the Middle East peace process has unfolded  in the last years. It is reported that when the late Yasser Arafat, who was significantly more 'moderate' than either Hamas or Hezbollah, signed the peace accord – he was immediately surrounded by Arab journalists asking him ‘how can you do this – it’s a sell out’. Arafat simply replied ‘well brothers – let’s just say that this is Hudabiyah’ – end of questioning, the Arab journalists understood completely – while the West was left in blissful ignorance…
• The Hezbollah military incursion into Israel – which sparked the Lebanon war was undoubtedly approved in advance by both Syria and more importantly by Iran – which set up Hezbollah and finances it. Iran is particularly anxious at the moment both to deflect international attention from its nuclear programme and to be seen as the leader of the Islamic world – despite being a predominantly Shi’a country. President Ahmedinajad’s public declaration that Israel should be wiped off the map should be seen as part of this. The relative ‘success’ of the Lebanon war in achieving both of these objectives, makes it almost certain that Iran will continue to supply Hezbollah with rockets and in time approve further Hezbollah actions against Israel.

Whilst there may well be questions to be asked about some aspects of Israel’s military response – such as the use of cluster bombs – let us never forget that it was Hezbollah who committed war crimes by deliberately firing rockets from densely populated civilian areas of Lebanon, effectively using the local Lebanese population as human shields, and committed further war crimes by deliberately targeting the Israeli civilian population –  while Israel even compromised the effectiveness of its military operation by dropping leaflets on civilian areas Hezbollah was operating from to warn civilians of forthcoming bombing raids.

Margaret Beckett’s comments that UN resolution 1701 offered the prospect of a permanent peace in the Middle East  are hopelessly naïve. Hezbollah clearly see it as a temporary ceasefire in order to gain a strategic advantage – including restocking their supply of rockets from Iran and Syria.

Ironically – the clamour of the Liberal Left for western governments to ‘do something’ to stop the war in Lebanon – may actually cost more lives in the long term – both Lebanese and Israeli – than it has saved.

No one should be in any doubt that Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation committed to the destruction of a democratic government – indeed the entire state of Israel. Have the Liberal Left learnt nothing from history – appeasing terrorists and dictators – always costs more lives in the long run.

There can be no doubt that Margaret Beckett acted with the very best of intentions – she’s one of the most decent people in the Labour government – BUT naivety is dangerous – especially when dealing with evil people like Hezbollah terrorists. She may have brought a temporary ‘peace in our time’ with UN resolution 1701 – but temporary deals with such people can all too easily end in major wars where thousands, tens of thousands or even more innocent are people tragically killed…

Read Martin's comments on Islamic Extremism and Terrorism in National and International Security Section and his article  Islamic Ideology, Muslims and British Politics in the Speeches and articles section. 

Home Page | News Comment | Why I Am A Conservative | Social Justice | Environment, Rural, Farming & Fishing  | National and International Security | Overseas Aid | Economy | Speeches and Articles | Education |