Lisa Duffy 2
Education

Ukip's "positive vision" for British Islam: ban all Muslim schools

 

Ukip has a Muslim problem, which is fine if they’re not particularly concerned about courting the Muslim vote, but not fine if it leads to the formulation of policies which are not only illiberal, but illegal.

Cambridge councillor Lisa Duffy is one of the contenders to replace Nigel Farage as leader of Ukip, and her solution to halt the spread of radical Islam is to close all Muslim schools –  a “total ban”, no less. Without counting how many British Islamists were actually educated in British Muslim schools (how many, exactly?), her “positive vision” for British Islam is uncompromising: “I will be calling for the Government to close British Islamic faith schools,” she told the Express, adding: “That doesn’t mean I am picking on British Islam..”

But, of course, that’s exactly what it means, for that’s exactly how it will be perceived, because that exactly what it is. You either close all schools of a religious foundation, which would be educationally equitable and religiously non-discriminatory; or you close all faith schools not of Judaeo-Christian foundation, which would be congruent with our national history and arguably more consistent with the inculcation of ‘British values’. But what you can’t do in a liberal democracy which enshrines the prohibition of religious discrimination in law, and which exalts freedom of religion as a human right and an attribute of enlightenment, is to prohibit adherents of Islam from establishing their taxpayer-funded schools while Christians, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists and Seventh Day Adventists are free to establish theirs.

And the ‘taxpayer-funded’ bit is important, because (presumably) Lisa Duffy isn’t proposing to close all private Muslim schools. Or is she? In her “total ban” enthusiasm to mitigate social conflict in an era of pluralism and cultural change, is she proposing to engender hostility in the realm of education by “picking on British Islam” in the private sphere as well as the public sphere? And what, exactly, does she mean by ‘British Islam’? Is it simply a kinder way of saying ‘British Muslims’; the -ism being an easier target than the people?

The English education system has always been characterised by its diversity and the involvement of various Christian denominations – in particular Anglican, Roman Catholic and Methodist. The 1993 Education Act took account of changing religious affiliations and ethnic diversity, opening the way for new state-supported grant-maintained schools to be established that reflect particular religious or philosophical beliefs. Existing faith-based private schools were able to apply to become re-established as grant-maintained schools.

The demand for more diversity in faith-based education was a natural consequence of immigration, mainly from India, Pakistan, Kenya and the Caribbean. British Muslims are diverse in their origins: the majority hail from Pakistan or Bangladesh, but significant numbers immigrated from India, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, Libya, Egypt and various other countries of the Middle East. There is no single ‘Muslim community’ in Britain, but a range of Muslim communities of different cultural backgrounds and diverse religious expression, established mainly in Birmingham, Blackburn, Bradford, Coventry, Dewsbury, Leicester, London and Manchester.

If Orthodox Jews are free to educate their children in accordance with their religious precepts, why shouldn’t Muslims? If Muslims are free to build their mosques and open their shops, why should they not also be free to establish their schools? How, exactly, does Lisa Duffy propose to prohibit Muslim parents from home-schooling their children, since that option might be far preferable to enforced attendance at the local ‘bog standard comprehensive”? How does Lisa Duffy propose to amend charity legislation to prohibit Islamic educational trusts? What, exactly, does she propose to do about the existing academy/free-school funding agreements between Muslim schools and the Secretary of State for Education? Is she proposing to tear up these contracts, spend years and £millions defending her policy against multiple justifiable legal challenges and judicial reviews?

The 1993 Education Act heralded an era of “choice and diversity” in the state education system in England and Wales. It was a quasi-market approach, designed to establish greater fairness by meeting religious demands and denominational need. With increasing choice and diversity come all manner of tensions, divisions and mutual exclusions, but you either believe that it is the primary role of parents to educate their children, facilitated by the state, or you believe that such a prerogative belongs to the state, and for parents to comply with the government’s essential mission. For a Ukip leadership contender to lean towards educational statism and the limiting of market choice represents a diminution of religious liberty and a control on the functioning of the market. What manner of independence is this putative leader of the UK Independence Party proposing? What sort of freedom is it which binds one group on the grounds of their religious belief?

Has Lisa Duffy not considered that the so-called ‘Trojan Horse‘ affair in Birmingham, in which certain robust Muslim governors and teachers were intent on imposing a particularly vigorous view of Islam on children, did not involve Muslim faith schools at all? Incremental Islamisation and the inculcation of extremism are rarely a result of overt faith declaration: they more often depend on strategies of subversion, occupation and gradual marginalisation. Lisa Duffy might do better to consider that it is precisely because so many Muslim schools are now financed by the taxpayer that the Secretary of State has every right to inspect, monitor, advise, direct or intervene to close when he or she considers it necessary to do so. Therein lies the best insurance against spiritual coercion and the spread of Islamism.

  • weirdvisions

    If Lisa Duffer, overt racist, is going to be the new face of UKIP then I have a large, decomposing haddock that needs to be put to good use across her chunky chops. I also have a voter’s X that can be put to good use elsewhere because if this is the tack that UKIP is going to take then I’m through with them.

    What the hell is UKIP doing with all this ridiculous infighting when it should be in the process of making sure that May keeps to her “Brexit means Brexit” promise?

    • agneau

      Unfortunately they have been handed the circle they can’t square by the “Brexit stage right” faction. May has set the remedial class of Fox & Johnson the task of making it work plus another pensioner whose name escapes me. They might as well have allowed us a vote on whether we should all be 2 inches taller – Brexit as they sold it can’t be achieved. The best you will get is another referendum on the compromise.

      • weirdvisions

        It’s certainly looking that way. Let’s hope we are both wrong.

        • David

          Leaving the EU is a process not an event, although it was precipitated of course by a single event, the referendum. However that result was itself the product of accumulated decades of experience which demonstrated just how anti-democratic the EU super state intended to become. The UK public squarely rejected all that.
          So untangling the web will take time and we need to get it right. Our negotiating team needs to do its homework thoroughly before its fires the starting gun. Shamefully the arrogant Cameron had, against the advice of his own civil servants, refused to do any preparatory work on this, incredible though that seems. We need to give time for the emotional people to calm down, here and on the continent; moreover we need to allow the German industrialists and Trades Unions and the French food producers to remind their political leaderships that exports to the UK are vital to their continuing success.
          History will judge May and our withdrawal not on how rapidly it was achieved, but on whether it was done well, true to the democratic instruction that the UK public delivered to the government. If the negotiations are dragged down by intransigence on the part of the EU we can always press the nuclear button and just leave using our own national powers – simply repealing the Act that took us into the Common Market. But we can keep that gun behind our backs for now. So fear not. Brexit will be Brexit. May is playing the long game.

          • Watchman

            Your naivety is touching. Theresa May has adequately demonstrated that she is full of hot air, being possibly the worst Conservative Home Secretary in living memory: her appalling record on immigration should have led to her dismissal but her boss was a master himself of saying much and doing little. She does not want to leave the EU and the long game will include impassioned speeches and cast iron promises but no action. Eventually, a new generation of voters, including more immigrants, will appear and she will suggest that they need to have a say. I am afraid, David, that we will be asked to vote until we get it right.

          • weirdvisions

            Perhaps they should look to the North? That’s Dr Richard North and his plan for Flexit.

      • chefofsinners

        Amazing, really. These politicians have spent years opposing the idea of an EU referendum. Now they want two.
        How blessed we are to have leaders so committed to democracy.

        • agneau

          Amen

        • hereward

          Three if we say OUT again . LOL .

    • David

      Do enjoy eating your haddock before you waste such good food. Lisa is, in terms of the leadership race, an outsider and has made a very bad political judgement, gambling that it will assist her, which it won’t.

    • Anton

      You can choose what you believe but not the colour of your skin. What evidence have you that she is a racist who wishes to base policy on the latter?

      • weirdvisions

        “her solution to halt the spread of radical Islam is to close all Muslim schools – a “total ban”, no less”

        She has singled out one particular demographic. What more evidence do you need?

        And the stupid woman thinks that will halt the spread of Islam?

        • Anton

          That’s not what I’m taking you up on. She has singled out Muslims. They come in all colours of skin. This is not racism.

          • weirdvisions

            Okay you have made your point clearer. Thank you for that. I agree with you. Which means that she’s merely stupid rather than racist and stupid.

          • bluedog

            And you?

          • weirdvisions

            You realy want me to answer that?

          • bluedog

            Thought about it. Prefer you don’t.

          • weirdvisions

            Then we’re both happy.

            :0)

  • hereward

    All true , but what is your answer to the Islamic takeover that is planned and happening ArchBish ? Turn the Christian cheek , keep our fingers crossed ?
    What ?

    • Martin

      The problem is that there’s a wide variety of Muslim and not all of them are violent. You can’t have a single policy.

      • Anton

        But sooner or later they are going to have to choose sides, aren’t they? For the culture their parents chose to come to, or for the culture their parents chose to leave behind.

        • Martin

          So would you apply that to Christians?

          • Anton

            The New Testament, in contrast, does not exhort Christians to take over by force where their message is not accepted freely. But where Christians have politicised their religion, I would consider it. There is historical precedent.

          • Martin

            Anton

            That doesn’t really matter, your asking a ‘secular’ state to judge between religions, and they aren’t going to look any more kindly on Christians who also condemn homosexuals. You’re opening the door to persecution.

          • Anton

            What I’m asking of a secular State is to reclassify Islam as a political movement.

          • Martin

            Anton

            And how would the secular state do that without doing it to Christianity?

          • Anton

            Either reclassify it as a subversive political movement, based on its activity; or be willing to read the quran, and contrast it with the New Testament if necessary. That might leave the CoE high and dry, but it is in an impossible position in a secular society and it is about time that this fact be accepted. For quite different reasons from Eustace, I agree with him about disestablishment. The reason I don’t bang that drum hard here is respect for the blog owner.

          • Martin

            Anton

            You’re still imagining that a secular state would treat Christians differently, they won’t. The state has no interest in the contents of the Bible or the Qur’an, they’d treat both alike.

          • Anton

            The State has every interest in not being blown up, and which faith in this land today is more likely to do that?

          • Martin

            Anton

            The state didn’t care in the past when both followers of Rome and Nonconformists had the law against them. It was only Rome that had the penchant for blowing up.

          • Anton

            Quite true, but that was the CoE wanting to maintain monopoly against the nonconformists and the authorities wanting to keep politicised Rome out; different reasons, and the CoE has negligible political power today.

          • Martin

            Anton

            And the state will view Christians with as much suspicion as they do Islam, and the cries of parity will be loud. Hadn’t you noticed that Christians were being arrested for preaching?

          • Anton

            I’m not underestimating your concerns. What we want is for Islam to be relabelled as a political organisation. I understand the “Yes, but”s, but if unfortunately some major atrocities have taken place then the climate will have changed.

        • Martin

          Anton

          You want them to give up their religion? Would you require that of Christians?

      • hereward

        A message from the peacelovers just for all us infidels .
        1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you
        are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah –
        whether you realize it or not – by making partners
        for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him,
        claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against
        His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all
        manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that
        we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for
        you and our enmity towards you.

        • A message from the Islamist militants who an international group of 120 Islamic scholars have concluded do not teach authentic Islam.

          http://www.lettertobaghdadi.com/

          Here’s the summary:

          1. It is forbidden in Islam to issue fatwas without all the necessary learning requirements. Even then fatwas must follow Islamic legal theory as defined in the Classical texts. It is also forbidden to cite a portion of a verse from the Qur’an—or part of a verse—to derive a ruling without looking at everything that the Qur’an and Hadith teach related to that matter. In other words, there are strict subjective and objective prerequisites for fatwas, and one cannot ‘cherry-pick’ Qur’anic verses for legal arguments without considering the entire Qur’an and Hadith.

          2. It is forbidden in Islam to issue legal rulings about anything without mastery of the Arabic language.

          3. It is forbidden in Islam to oversimplify Shari’ah matters and ignore established Islamic sciences.

          4. It is permissible in Islam [for scholars] to differ on any matter, except those fundamentals of religion that all Muslims must know.

          5. It is forbidden in Islam to ignore the reality of contemporary times when deriving legal rulings.

          6. It is forbidden in Islam to kill the innocent.

          7. It is forbidden in Islam to kill emissaries, ambassadors, and diplomats; hence it is forbidden to kill journalists and aid workers.

          8. Jihad in Islam is defensive war. It is not permissible without the right cause, the right purpose and without the right rules of conduct.

          9. It is forbidden in Islam to declare people non-Muslim unless he (or she) openly declares disbelief.

          10. It is forbidden in Islam to harm or mistreat—in any way—Christians or any ‘People of the Scripture’.

          11. It is obligatory to consider Yazidis as People of the Scripture.

          12. The re-introduction of slavery is forbidden in Islam. It was abolished by universal consensus.

          13. It is forbidden in Islam to force people to convert.

          14. It is forbidden in Islam to deny women their rights.

          15. It is forbidden in Islam to deny children their rights.

          16. It is forbidden in Islam to enact legal punishments (hudud) without following the correct procedures that ensure justice and mercy.

          17. It is forbidden in Islam to torture people.

          18. It is forbidden in Islam to disfigure the dead.

          19. It is forbidden in Islam to attribute evil acts to God.

          20. It is forbidden in Islam to destroy the graves and shrines of Prophets and Companions.

          21. Armed insurrection is forbidden in Islam for any reason other than clear disbelief by the ruler and not allowing people to pray.

          22. It is forbidden in Islam to declare a caliphate without consensus from all Muslims.

          23. Loyalty to one’s nation is permissible in Islam.

          24. After the death of the Prophet, Islam does not require anyone to emigrate anywhere.

          • Anton

            Jack, I think you mean “A message TO the Islamic militants…”

          • No … the message above was from the Jihadi who the scholars have criticised.

          • Anton

            Ah. Your comment “A message from…” was referring to the post to which it was your response, and not to what followed it in your post. You need to make this clear as it is most confusing.

          • No more confusing than piecing together the Quran …..

          • hereward
          • Rhoda

            So why are Christians persecuted in North Africa, the Middle East, and Northern Nigeria? Why is it that most converts in these areas are secret believers for fear of reprisals from their families or at risk of being imprisoned? Why are 8 out of the top ten most difficult places in the world to be a Christian in countries where Islam is the only permitted religion or the dominant religion (Iraq,Eritrea, Afghanistan, Syria, Pakistan,Somalia, Sudan, and Iran) ? The next 5 countries in the world watch list published by Open Doors are also all nations where Islam is dominant.
            Even in the UK people who wish to leave Islam and convert to Christianity often experience persecution, remember Nissar Hussain from Bradford?(http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/terrifying-video-shows-bradford-dad-attacked-by-pickaxe-thugs-for-converting-from-islam-to-christianity-1-7579804

          • Muslim break the laws of Islam, just as Christians break the commandments?

          • Anton

            Universally so, it seems. But do tell me what you consider as “mistreatment”, if you agree with point 10 of the letter that paying a protection racket penal tax, avoiding eye contact with Muslims and getting out of their way in the street, and not being allowed to build churches or mention their religion, is not mistreatment? Because that is what Islam says is appropriate for Ahl al-Kitab, People of the Book, Christians and Jews.

          • Anton

            Also, the letter insists that women have their rights in Islam. These include the right to be one of four wives of a man (Q4:3), the right to have your word taken half as seriously as a man’s (Sahih Bukhari 3/48/826, generalising Q2:282), the right to be beaten merely on suspicion of being rebellious (Q4:34) and the right to be instantly divorced.

        • Martin

          Hereward

          As I said, there’s a wide variety of Muslims, that’s one group.

    • David

      The “turn the other cheek” idea is widely misunderstood. It is not a recommendation to be a pacifist but to spurn, reject the social insult that striking across the cheek represents in many very different cultures. By saying don’t worry about such insults, Jesus, is recommending that we are strong enough not to be even concerned with such worldly insults. He was not advising pacifism. Time after time faith marches into battle to protect the weak and oppose evil.

  • Anton

    Is it UKIP that has a Muslim problem, or the UK?

  • Anton

    Your Grace assumes that Islam is purely a religion. It is also intrinsically political, and is committed to the politics of dominance. As a man’s religion is his business (which secularism understands) whereas politics is a public matter, nothing prevents secular society from viewing it as a political organisation. We could then decide whether it should be treated as a subversive political organisation – something the West understands how to deal with.

  • Sybaseguru

    Does Islam break the law? As a faith that teaches that anyone who is against Islam is to be killed, liberal views are irrelevant as ultimately they will be destroyed. Time and again we see the principal of allowing Islam freedoms that other faiths are not allowed, usually because they are backed by death threats. Our grandchildren will not thank us for our stupidity. We have laws that ban hate speech and threats of violence, we need to use them more actively and give Muslims the choice of accepting them, or going to a country where their beliefs are tolerated.

    • Dreadnaught

      There is no more specific evidence of hate speech than what is printed in the Koran and Hadiths – there is much that can be done once this is recognised.

  • len

    ‘The entire world’ has a problem with radical Islam.As some rightly say Islam is a political as well as a religious system .Mosques are springing up all over the place and outbreaks of violence seem to sometimes coincide with ‘Friday prayers ‘which make one wonder exactly what goes on in there?
    The aims and intentions of Islam need to be understood by the West before any sort of rational conclusion can be drawn as to how to respond to the ever growing violent face of Islam.
    For the secular West to see Islam as’ just another religion’ is an error as they are rapidly finding out.

  • Richard Hill

    The problem is one of ‘permission’. There is a greater or lesser evil part of most humans. We know from numerous examples through history that given religious/social ‘permission’ bad people will take the chance to do bad things. I cannot imagine that you could justify taxes being used to give grants to institutions that teach children that it is the direct word of God that “a man is permitted to beat his wife” etc.

  • The demand for more diversity in faith-based education was a natural consequence of immigration

    Another natural consequence of immigration is that the native British will become a minority before the end of the century. At that stage, they would still be the largest minority and able to hold onto power but, as things are, power will eventually slip away from them, most likely to the Muslim community.

    Is Your Grace able to assure us that a Muslim Britain would practise ‘freedom of religion as a human right and an attribute of enlightenment’ and that Christians, and all non-Muslims, would suffer no persecution? If not, it is high time to turn your thoughts to how best to defend the native British, Christian and atheist alike, against Islam.

  • David

    Islam is not just another religion. It’s founder designed it to dominate the world. It is a complete religious/political/legal/military and economic system for ordering society. If this is not countered it will dominate. But that is not going to happen as sufficient numbers of people now understand what it is about, and are no longer prepared to be passive. All over the EU populations are rejecting the liberal claim, which ignores all the evidence, that it is just another “Abrahamic faith”. That naive belief springs of course from the globalist all faiths and cultures are of equal value narrative, against which western populations are slowly turning, bit by bit. At last belief in the democratic nation state, patriotism, is returning and globalism being rejected.

    So what’s to be done ? Banning Muslim schools is a statist idea that will not appeal to most Ukip party members like myself. Lisa Duffy is very unlikely to become party leader. Her suggestion would be counterproductive, merely feeding a victim culture. So as a basic minimum we must ensure that all Muslims schools receive very thorough inspections by theologically aware government agents. Private evening schools also need monitoring.

    • Merchantman

      One should start by reclassifying Islam.

    • CliveM

      All of which may or may not be true. But the ‘world’ sees all religions as the same and anything we as Christians say will be viewed as special pleading at best, lying hypocrisy at worst.

      • David

        What you say may apply to the tiny minority of intolerant aggressive atheists, whose faith in the unprovable “there is no god” statement, blinds them to the practical differences between religions. But to apply this to the general population is to fall into the same trap as the elites, who have been brainwashed by cultural relativism. You are seriously underestimating the ability of the common man/woman to join up the dots.

        • bluedog

          Indeed. The ‘common sense’ of the masses is frequently a more reliable guide towards the truth than the latest intellectual fashion of the learned fools among the elites.

  • The Explorer

    1209. Albigensian Crusade to crush the Cathars. Capture of the town of Beziers. But which of the inhabitants are Cathars? Solution: “Kill them all, God will recognise his own.”

    Given the egalitarian assumptions of our society, if our society is serious about getting rid of Muslim schools then the price is getting rid of all other faith schools as well. The alternative is to concede that not all faiths are equal.

    • Anton

      That alternative is perfectly possible and is accomplished by looking at what their sacred writings say about how to live and how to treat nonbelievers.

      • The Explorer

        Who knows? Amalric might not have said it at all, or said it in the heat of the moment, regretted it afterwards and not recorded it. Certainly something odd happened to account for the scale of the massacre: perhaps North v South animosity was operating as well as Catholic v Cathar.

        Apocryphal or not, the statement perfectly expresses the principle underlying saturation bombing and its equivalents.

    • IanCad

      To the non-believer all religions are the same, and all held in the same contempt. Get rid of one, get rid of all.

  • Dreadnaught

    If a newly arrived group of Muslims who had never been on these shores at all, would we permit them to enter or establish any form of Islamic presence in the knowledge of what it has/is doing all over the world?

  • len

    I suppose the term ‘Muslim’ is just about as accurate as the term ‘Christian’.
    It seems some Muslims are prepared to make a stand for their own branch of Islam against their more violent cousins(much as Christians did)

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/muslim-scholars-islamic-state_n_5878038.html

    • Dominic Stockford

      ?
      The Koran has clear teachings, applicable to all muslims, exhorting violence. The Bible has no such thing.

      • Not according to the 120 scholars in the article Len has cited.

        • Anton

          Islam’s prophet led many raids that were not either defensive or due to the other party breaking its word. Do the 120 scholars think he was not a proper Muslim? (And a letter addressed to one man but released on the internet is not necessarily for his consumption alone; have you ever heard of taqiyya?)

          • “Taqiyya”, it seems to Jack, is becoming the standard answer from those hostile to Islam when they encounter something that contradicts their prejudices.

            Taqiya is a term referring to precautionary dissimulation or denial of religious belief and practice in the face of persecution. One is permitted to conceal their religion when facing persecution or compulsion. Jack believes Jewish people are also permitted to do something similar too.

          • Anton

            No, it is dissembling for the purpose of furthering Islam. Do you think that calling jihad defensive, when Islam’s prophet led many raids that were not either defensive or due to the other party breaking its word, could be taqiyya? How do you explain the frequent references to qatala, fighting with intent to kill, in the verses preaching jihad? Feel free to read as many Islamic scholars as you like but I am asking for *your* opinion.

          • My opinion is not what matters, is it? It is the understanding of Islamic scholars that count. Really, you are just laying your own preconceptions over the text.

          • Anton

            A fine way of avoiding the question!

          • Not can read the Torah, the Talmud and Leviticus and come to some erroneous conclusions about current Jewish beliefs and practices. Always best to consult a Jew about they believe, wouldn’t you agree?

          • Anton

            As I said, feel free to consult as many Islamic scholars and writings as you like, but my question remains: How do you, ie Jack, explain in the light of that letter the frequent references to qatala (fighting with intent to kill) in the verses preaching jihad? You are being terribly coy, you know…

          • You’ll need to cite the passages and place them in historical and sequential context and then consider the various Islamic understandings of them within the whole body of Islamic writings. You can do this? Good luck with it.

          • Anton

            But *you* cited the letter as authoritative. So by your own logic you are incompetent to decide that, aren’t you? And you still haven’t answered the question I asked you: How do you, ie Jack, explain in the light of that letter the frequent references to qatala (fighting with intent to kill) in the verses preaching jihad?

          • Again, the particular verses need to be placed in historical context and be considered within the whole of the Quran and Hadiths. One can’t cherry pick particular

          • Anton

            Am I to conclude that you are unable to explain in the light of that letter the frequent references to qatala (fighting with intent to kill) in the verses preaching jihad?

          • Jack can reflect on the letter’s content and give it proper consideration.

        • Dominic Stockford

          They obviously haven’t actually read the diktats of the Koran. They are clear to someone who reads what is written.

          Or maybe they are simply living by the other clear Koranic principle, which is that Muslims may, indeed ought, to lie if it is benefits the spread of Islam. Taqiyya.

          • Taqiya is simply trotted out to discredit any version of Islam that doesn’t fit one’s prejudice.

          • Dominic Stockford

            You need to talk to a few who have thrown off the shackles of Islam. They will make clear how real, and constant, Taqiyya really is.

  • chefofsinners

    Worrying. Post referendum and post Farage, UKIP is in danger of becoming a rabble without a cause.
    We need them to hold Theresa’s kitten-heels in the fire for the next few years.

    • IanCad

      EDL without the tattoos.

      • bluedog

        Why does Mrs May need a watch-dog? What she really thinks is slowing becoming apparent and one concludes that she is well to the right of, and far more nationalist, than Cameron.

  • bluedog

    Surprising to read that you are accepting cultural relativism by default, Your Grace. If one concedes that Islam presents an existential threat, it would seem important to devise a means of discriminating against its propagation. Communicant Sybaseguru points the way, and it does seem there is a contradiction in providing tax-payer financed support for a suite of beliefs that constitute an incitement to violence, and are therefore criminal. The non-Muslim tax-payer/voter, however inarticulate, is likely to identify the flaws in this proposition and vote against it. In a sense that inconsistency seems to be what Lisa Duffy is stumbling towards resolving. It comes as no surprise to find that after its instrumental role in Brexit, UKIP is now becoming a popular movement opposing Islam. Somebody had to do it, and UKIP is as good a vehicle as any.

    Going off at a slight tangent, and thinking in broad terms about Islam, it would seem that the Haj and its focus of the Kabaa in Mecca are the critical points of weakness in the whole Islamic edifice. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as keeper of the holy places of Islam, has both a very great responsibility and an opportunity to exert enormous leverage through its custody of this idolatrous pebble. It follows that if the Kingdom falls and chaos ensues, the Haj may not be able to proceed. That this should be the case would puncture the illusion of Islamic supremacy, causing a loss of face and a possible collapse in self-confidence. In summary, at this juncture one can argue we have a clear interest in the collapse of the Saudi regime as protector of the Haj.

    One offers these ideas on the basis that attack is the best means of defence, and that taking the fight to the heart of the enemy’s enterprise is always a good idea. One hopes that somewhere in the highest reaches of the West there are those who think along the same lines and who are doing something about it.

    • Anton

      Be careful what you wish for. If the House of Saud falls, what will replace it? The Saudis presently pay protection money to IS because IS reckons that, despite both being Sunni and Saudi Arabia being governed under sharia law, the Saudi royal family is unfit to govern the Islamic holy places.

      You might be right in another way, though. Mecca and Medina are the holy places of a religion that takes a view of the Creator which is arguably incompatible with their destruction. Who knows what wars lie ahead in the unhappy Middle East?

      • bluedog

        What would replace the House of Saud? Something worse. But worse for whom? That is the question. The House of Saud is tottering on two fronts, firstly they’re running out of sons sired by Ibn Saud and secondly they’re running out of money. It’s a perfect storm.

        • Anton

          The first problem isn’t a real problem; the convention is that the crown goes along a generation for as long as it can, then down a generation. This is longstanding and is well understood in the region; it is why an Ottoman sultan typically had his younger brothers killed upon acceding.

          The second problem is indeed a problem.

    • @ bluedog—Blunt Sheffield lad Paul Joseph Watson tackles the desert kingdom in his video ‘Saudi Arabia is a Cancer on the World’. Recommended.

      • bluedog

        Strident.

  • carl jacobs

    It would of course be easier to defend Europe from Islam if Europe had something to defend itself with. But all Europe possesses is the rotting husk of Secularism. It’s hard to fight a spiritual and ideological war when you possess no weapons.

    The elements of Western Liberalism are not inherently self-defending. If you let Islam become powerful, it will use your Liberal processes to establish a very Illiberal Islamic state, and that will be the last you ever see of your Liberalism. Truth does not necessarily win in the marketplace. If these principles are valuable, then they are worth defending. If you won’t breed and you won’t believe, you don’t have many options other than to oppress.

    It begs the question however. What will remain at the end?

    • Russia.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Maybe Hungary and Poland too.

    • bluedog

      Western Europe. The masses are on the brink of revolt and the current elites will lose control. Political ideas flow in two directions, top down and bottom up. Since WW2 we have endured the top down experience with the imposition of multi-culturalism and is logical consequence of third world immigration. Many of the third worlders with Christian cultural values are a success, but it is abundantly clear that Islam is different. This is where bottom up kicks in, and it just getting started. Brexit was just the first shoe to drop. Next year we see the French presidential elections where Islamic terror is doing more for Le Pen than any advertising campaign. She probably won’t get in but will support a sharp lurch to the right by a Sarkozy administration.

      • carl jacobs

        Your problem, Dog, is that Jack is making valid points left and right on this thread. Jack’s problem is that by standing on principle, he ends up sounding like a Left wing Israeli. This is not surprising since has steadfastly refuses to face the fact that there is no solution to the “Palestinian problem”. He insists by faith that there must be a solution because the alternative is too horrible to contemplate. Well, this is the same problem. You can’t coexist with Islam. You must dominate it.

        But … Jack is pointing out that you will likely destroy what you are attempting to protect in the process of protecting it. This is a terrible dilemma, and not one for which there is an obvious solution. Liberal democracies are vulnerable to entryism. How do you defeat that without sacrificing Liberal democracy in the process. I don’t know.

        I’ll say this though. Better Russia than Saudi Arabia.

        • bluedog

          Playing the devil’s advocate comes naturally to HJ!

          You say ‘But … Jack is pointing out that you will likely destroy what you are attempting to protect in the process of protecting it. ‘ This is an entirely valid point that you have made yourself on many occasions, and indeed so has this communicant. The next point to make is that many of those liberties now at risk are already being compromised by Islamism and Muslim settlement, it’s host. Go to the airport and look at the queues for security clearance. Look at the death threats, the attacks in the street on gays and girls who seem to be ‘uncovered meat’, the closure of pubs and bars. If you’re French, look at the numbers of public gatherings, celebrations and concerts now being cancelled for fear of a repeat of Nice. So it goes on, and the liberties are being stripped away as it is.

          In this context it becomes easy to say to a free people, we need to take action to restore our liberties and this is the path to that objective. If peaceful co-existence with a large Muslim population is impossible, separate the populations. Just as Christians are being driven out of the Middle East, increasingly European Christians will find themselves leaving Muslim dominated areas in Europe. A high degree of self-selection seems inevitable. If that doesn’t work, the European electorates will form governments that implement Plan B. Bottom up stuff.

          The French, with the largest Muslim population in Europe, are in the unfortunate position of facing the worst problem and have no option but to lead the way. It will be a matter of existential interest to see how they go about it.

          • carl jacobs

            Jack isn’t playing devil’s advocate. He’s a true believer. If however the Israelis ever acted on Jack’s ideals, they would all end up dead. Now Jack will respond to this by saying “No, we much just look harder for a better solution.” When you tell him that there isn’t a better solution, he will stick his fingers in his ears to avoid hearing. He refuses to accept this.

            Island must be dominated. Tje right way to do this is by means of a healthy culture that knows what it believes and reproduces that belief in its children. But Europe kicked that to the curb 40 years ago. Now it just believes it will have another drink.

          • Jack is not a huge fan of secular liberal democracy so removing the equal rights and human rights nonsense wouldn’t disturb him. Suppression of a belief system that genuinely threatens this country wouldn’t bother him either.

            However, before inflaming our 3 million Islam citizens – a sizable number to radicalise – we need to be absolutely sure Islam is incompatible with our values and that it is incapable of reforming. We also need to be sure we have a large enough army and police force to deal with the predictable consequences. That, or arm the general population.

            Plus, never mind reproducing the culture of the West in our young, actually reproducing the population and freeing us from a reliance on immigrants, might be a better idea. We didn’t encourage immigrants here from the Commonwealth out of the goodness of our hearts.

            As for the Middle East and Israel, if there is to be no two State solution then let’s cut the all the diplomatic bull shit and be honest. We all know the Israelis will never wear it, so why the pretence?

          • Here’s an idea, Carl.

            Muhammad reportedly said: “Do not prepare yourself for a journey except to three Mosques: Masjid al-Haram, the Mosque of Aqsa and my Mosque.”

            If we’re serious about eradicating Islam and it’s virulent strain of Wahhabism, then let’s “hit” it where it will hurt it’s confidence the most. We could repay ISIS in kind by a series of … er … “prejudicial visits” to:

            The Kaaba and Al-Masjid al-Haram (The Grand Mosque), in Mecca, Saudi Arabia;
            The Al-Masjid an-Nabawi in Medina, Saudi Arabia – a mosque originally built by the Muhammad; and
            The Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem.

            Just a thought. Ever seen what happens to wasps when one removes their nest? What chance the House of Saud will survive?

          • bluedog

            ‘We could repay ISIS in kind by a series of … er … “prejudicial visits” to:’

            Silly. Silly. Silly. We’re crusaders and we can’t be seen to turn the Kabaa to glass with a tactical nuclear weapon detonated at say, 5000′ above the Haj gathering. No. No No. That won’t do. We must work to bankrupt the Saudi state and when it implodes we can sit back and watch the various Islamic sects fight each other to a standstill as they vie to become the keepers of the holy places. Leading contenders would have to be the Turks, the Iranians and the Pakis who run the Saudi air force. You know as well as the rest of us that a western invasion or bombing of Saudi Arabia is something we would never live down. You worry about 3 million Muslim enemies in the UK? A prejudicial visit to Mecca would create instant havoc at home.

          • We could always blame it on the Inspector and his band of followers.

          • bluedog

            No HJ, you must take ownership of this, although one concedes the Inspector is a potential ‘stakeholder’.

          • An expedition of “Wild Geese”. It could be led by Carl Jacobs with support from the Inspector.

          • bluedog

            Carl is an airman and prefers to float above the grisly detail. Not sure the Inspector could cope with he stress. More reasons to let the whole thing collapse of its own accord, with every effort made to assist the demise short of military intervention.

  • preacher

    Firstly I would have to say that I feel the heading above is misleading ( Apologies to our host ). It’s not UKIP’s ” Positive Vision ” to halt the spread of militant Islam, but Lisa Duffy’s.
    Well people of all political persuasions & none have different opinions with regard to the solving of thorny issues, some good, some bad, some totally ridiculous. Consider for a moment the amusing character of ” ‘Til death us do part ” Alf Garnett, played by Warren Mitchell – he considers himself a true blue Conservative, but is really a racist hypocrite, It was humorous because it portrayed the laughable ignorance of a know it all, who really knew nothing. But no one would have made him tory party leader in a month of Sundays.
    What on Earth caused her to speak such rubbish & disqualify herself from any form of position in a future UKIP assembly ? Did she not think of the damage she could do if people thought she really represented official UKIP policy ?. There’s an old saying – ” If people think you are stupid don’t speak & confirm their suspicions were right “.
    If such a policy was true, it would have to be applied universally to ALL faith schools ! Those of us who are Christians have a God given duty to reach the lost with the gospel, we must be patient, tolerant & forthright but speak the truth where it’s needed. The government must set forth laws that protect the innocent but punish the guilty.
    We preach God’s mercy & salvation through the Cross of Christ to those that wish to receive it. The government formulates & dispenses justice.
    We are still in the process of cutting the ropes & casting off into a new future out of the shadow of the E.U – it will take time, patience & intelligent negotiations by our government ministers. Not the Lisa Duffys of any political hue.

    • Anton

      “If such a policy was true, it would have to be applied universally to ALL faith schools”

      Why? Do you believe that all religions are the same, despite the differences in their scriptures?

      • preacher

        Not at all Anton, as you well know. But as the World becomes more secular it will use any chance or excuse to tar all religions as myths & fairy tales so that mankind can do whatsoever he wants without any moral guidance to stand in the way.

        • Anton

          Well, as I keep saying when this subject comes up, Islam might usefully be categorised as a political movement.

          • preacher

            Agreed, but most if not all political movements are in the same situation, in that they all have a credo that defines what & who they believe in.

          • CliveM

            It wouldn’t work Anton. We live in a secular society, any arguments we make on this would simply be seen as special pleading or us trying to eliminate the opposition!

          • Anton

            Give it time, I fear.

  • Why stop there Ukip? Let’s radicalise all British Muslims. Ban the Koran, expel the Imams and close the Mosques.

    • TheJustCity

      For the adherents of a religion who, from all evidence, are a hairtrigger offence mechanism’s actuation away from radicalism, it would hardly require anything so grandiose. A few cartoons should do it.

      • Deliberately set out to offend and incite, you mean? That’s another tactic. Be best to close the religion down first.

        • Anton

          Let’s not confuse the response at the personal level and the political level.

          • Is there such a thing with Islam?

          • Anton

            I mean this. In personal interactions with Muslims, let us be courteous and not deliberately set out to offend. In determining a political response to Islam, robustness is the best policy.

          • What on earth is “robustness”?

          • Anton

            Stand up to it not less than it challenges us.

          • Dominic Stockford

            An eye for an eye? A life for a life?

            Would it not be better simply to say that Islam is incompatible with British life, and close it down?

          • But without a “robust” Christian faith inspiring our values and informing our actions this cannot happen. What chance of this in a democracy wedded to secular liberalism and believing in the autonomy of man?

          • Anton

            Modern secular democracy might discover some deeper roots when it is seriously challenged. Watch France.

          • Anton

            This clash has only just begun.

          • Dominic Stockford

            No – for a Muslim their life is a part of their faith, whereas for the Christian their faith is part of life..

          • Then the Muslims understand commitment to God, whereas Christians do not. And therein lies the real problem.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It is difficult to explain, and clearly I haven’t managed it. But it doesn’t mean that at all. It means that for a muslim their own individual life is merely a tiny part of a much bigger thing – that isn’t the position of Christianity where we are taught that each hair of our head is numbered & each individual is more important to God than we can ever understand.

    • Anton

      Enforcing current “hate speech” laws impartially across all faith communities would be a good start. And requiring halal meat to be labelled as such.

      • IanCad

        Scrapping current “Hate Speech” laws would be an even better start.

        • Anton

          Agreed. Incitement to violence was the crime we had before, and it was the right way.

    • IanCad

      I think they know not what they speak – those who would outlaw a religion.
      A liberal state such as ours has many and plenty of laws to act as a curb against the incitement of violence, or even, the overthrow of the established process of government.
      Very dangerous territory we are entering here.

      • It really rather depends on whether we believe the Islamist version of the Quran is correct or not. Is the Quran an intrinsically evil book incapable of permitting freedom of conscience and respecting religious freedom? Is Islam violent by its very nature or not?

        • Anton

          There is only one version of the quran. Let us read it for ourselves.

          • Are you are an Islamist scholar?

          • Anton

            Why would one need to be? Words have meanings and we have brains.

          • You think you’re capable of understanding centuries of Islamic scholarship by an uninformed reading of the Quran and its various accompanying Muslim texts? Christians and Jews can’t even agree on Hoy Scripture, let alone the religious books of another religion.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Two or three scholars of Islam that I have spoken too are all in agreement that the Koran is in fact “an intrinsically evil book incapable of permitting freedom of conscience and respecting religious freedom” and that Islam is violent by its very nature.

          • Christian converts?

          • len

            Evil is in the heart and all the book can do is release what is already in the heart . ‘Mein Kampf’, ‘The Prince,’etc and many more;
            http://listverse.com/2008/05/14/10-books-that-screwed-up-the-world/

          • Anton

            Yes I do. And I think you are too. Or are you another man who thinks that texts written long ago for farm workers (in ancient Israel) and desert nomads (in Arabia) require a small army of highly trained theologians and philosophers to make sense of? You have fallen for the politically correct claim that it is a “religious” text so supposedly only adherents can make sense of it, in contrast to the writings of ancient Roman historians, Josephus, etc.

          • Jack believes there are many different understandings of “Christianity” and many different interpretations of key scriptural texts. It’s the same with Islam and its religious books.

          • Anton

            “Interpretation” is required only when a verse is hard to understand and that is the exception rather than the rule.

          • Come off it. Just look at the wide differences within Christianity over key scriptural passages. One can only understand particular verses by having a grasp of the totality of the text.

          • Anton

            Just as I reply to naysayers about grasping the meaning of biblical texts, show me what is wrong with my view of relevant verses of the quran where they arise in these dialogues.

          • Jack wouldn’t be so presumptuous and neither should you.

          • Anton

            When a particular verse gets discussed, let’s see.

          • Care to start with your presumptions about Taqiyya? Not in the Quran but trotted out regularly against Muslims.

          • Anton

            Not in the quran? Muslims are permitted thereby to deny even Allah under duress (Q16:106). The deeply influential scholar al-Ghazali, who re-oriented Islam back from exploration of philosophy to the Quran in the 12th century, wrote: “If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying… When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory” (from Ihya ulum al-din, chapter titled: The extent to which lying is permissible).

          • So there is a verse justifying moral consequentialism in respect of lying to achieve an obligatory aim or if one is under duress. Are you telling me most people in the West don’t subscribe to this – especially in a situation of where one is threatened by an enemy?

          • Anton

            You enquired about my knowledge of the doctrine of taqiyya and I gave an answer. When someone who preaches violent jihad in the UK in their own language tells the BBC that Islam is a religion of peace, that would be an example. Your question is not phrased clearly.

    • IanCad

      I thought you were being sarcastic Jack, thus my earlier reply.
      The rumblings of intolerance are getting louder. Next stop – persecution.

      • There will then be a real confrontation as even scholars opposed to ISIS ideology say that the Quran teaches that armed insurrection is justified if they are prevented from praying. Persecution will play right into the hands of the Jahdists and radicalise all Muslims.

        • magnolia

          How about a special tax on Muslims that is then channelled back to those who pay the dhimmi tax in other countries? As and when those dhimmi taxes recede so would the gathered tax on Muslims/ mosques. Sounds fair, reasonable, and deeply concerned with the poor and the oppressed to me. It would also effect interesting and desirable change.

          • So you want to hold British citizens responsible for the actions of other nations? How would you justify this?

          • magnolia

            Conversely how do you justify subsidising Islamic schools and mosques in this country while other religious beliefs and none are penalised through taxation in majority Islamic countries while we do next to nothing to alleviate their suffering? How would we answer Jesus if he asked us what we were doing to right these wrongs and whether we were doing anything for our suffering brothers and sisters at all?

          • We can only act fairly in Britain and attempt to set an example for others. The rulers of nations treating their inhabitants unfairly will have to account for that.

          • magnolia

            How about two wrongs for once making a glorious right? I think that this is the most likely way to get the dhimmi tax consigned to the dust forever. It would actually be heard! No need to tax individuals, for you could tax the mosques. It would be a great incentive for them to campaign against this disgrace, and were they successful they would see the end of the tax, as a reward, and the world would be a happier place!

      • bluedog

        Managing the language is a key attribute of successful revolution and the subsequent re-ordering of society. Thought needs to be given as to how to do this in the context of countering Islam. Specifically, grossly illiberal practices need to be re-assigned with positive imagery.

  • pascal78

    This is Christendom. This is Christian country not an Islamic country. We severed links with Rome in the sixteenth century. This was bad for us but good for the devil. Now the results are abortion on demand, euthanasia, homosexual ‘marriage’ Child pornography, child murder by parents. Child murder by children. Sex abuse of and by children. It is sickening. How low can we get? What more abominations can we commit before we bring down the vengeance of heaven on us. Perhaps we will be scourged by militant Islam because we have left the way of the Lord. We will suffer for our sins and the sins of the politicians and the clergy who still buy into the latest valueless ethos. The punishment is yet to come. England may be annihilated. Europe may be decimated. Perhaps some Catholic states may survive such as Poland and Portugal. God forgive us for our sins.

    • carl jacobs

      We severed links with Rome in the sixteenth century. This was bad for us but good for the devil.

      Well, yes. Except for that whole “Rome was teaching a false Gospel” problem, it was a terrible decision. What were they thinking?

      Post Tenebras Lux.

      • It all worked out rather well, don’t you think? Just look around at how enlightened we are all now.

        • Anton

          Secularism is an abuse of the freedom of religion that began to be won at the Reformation.

          • Secularism is the inevitable consequence of the 5 Solae.

          • Anton

            Prove it.

          • How long do you have? Besides, Jack has no need to prove it. It is self evident. Tell people they are at liberty to believe whatever they want the Holy Spirit them informs from scripture and you’ve opened Pandora’s Box.

          • Anton

            Tell people that they are not at liberty to believe what they will and it is not genuine Christianity but something that enacts Inquisitions.

          • Then stop telling Muslims what they believe.

            People are at liberty to believe what they want. However, because a person believes something does not make it authentic Christianity.

            Any Revelation which God discloses to us will include details of the ongoing authority by which that Revelation is to be transmitted and implemented. The ultimate structure and authority of a Church, if it is to be taken seriously as something which can achieve God’s purpose despite human weaknesses, cannot be drawn from human imagination or fashioned through human debate and compromise. The mechanism of authority in a true Church must come from God Himself.

            A Catholic will inform you that it is Petrine power, carried on by the popes, that gives the Church of Christ an authority capable of settling questions of faith. When there is irreconcilable disagreement about the meaning of Scripture, we say that Revelation was consigned to the Church and that Scripture itself is first and foremost the Church’s book. Through her very embodiment of Apostolic Succession the authority of Christ Himself remains living and present, so that the Church may teach all nations to observe all that He has commanded, “even to the end of time” (Mt 28:20).

            You either accept or reject this Truth. It’s entirely up to you.

          • Anton

            Except it’s not entirely up to me, is it? If I tried rejecting it several hundred years ago I’d have been tortured and burnt by agents of your denomination. And I’m not telling Muslims what to believe. I’m telling others what Muslims claim to believe.

          • No, you are telling others what you believe Islam teaches and you are not qualified to do so.

            In the times you’re referring to heresy was essentially a secular offence on a par with treason. It was the State who executed heretics, not the Church.

          • Anton

            Utter hypocrisy. They were interrogated and tortured by churchmen then turned over to the authorities for burning, so that the church could say Ecclesia non novit sanguinem, the church has never known – ie, shed – blood. Good luck to them with that one at the pearly gates.

            “No, you are telling others what you believe Islam teaches and you are not qualified to do so.”

            Absurd, anybody can read a text written for ancient agriculturalists and desert nomads, given only the historical background.

            Do you think you have to be a Marxist to understand Marx?

          • Not hypocrisy – fact. In Catholicism, at least heresy is seen to exist. Not so easy in Protestantism with its reliance on individual interpretation. Mind you, that didn’t prevent Calvin from imposing the death penalty in the name of Christ. Or Cromwell from putting Catholics to the sword.
            Both Stalin and Mao claimed to be Marxists and yet had fundamental differences. And the writings of Marx are not given Divine and immutable status.

          • Anton

            Fact AND hypocrisy.

            I condemn Calvin for that too.

            In your final sentence you are giving all religious texts a special status. You should do that only for the texts of your own religion. You have accidentally fallen for part of the multifaith dogma.

          • And Cromwell?
            The religious writings of other faiths are given Divine and immutable status by them. Fact.

          • Anton

            Yes of course they are. But not by you as a Christian. You are fit to read them and form your own views of them, just as you are any other text.

            Don’t assume I don’t condemn some of Cromwell’s actions because I didn’t respond. It’s a big subject and I’m not going to fall into a diversion.

          • Of course Jack can form a view. However, if he simply goes looking for verses that appear to substantiate his preconceptions, then this is hardly objective. As Jack said, there are plenty of disturbing verses in the Old Testament if read out of context and separated from overall Judaism.

          • Anton

            What makes you think I seek verses that back up preconceptions about Islam? I took the trouble to educate myself. Instead of grumbling that I speak of the Islamic scriptures although not a Muslim, go thou and do likewise.

        • Royinsouthwest

          British achievements in the last four centuries were enormous and transformed the world.

          • Often accomplished through the subjugation of less powerful peoples and at a cost to their welfare. We were hardly acting altruistically. The sins of the Father, and all that.

    • Eustace

      Go to Belgium, a Catholic country that retained its links with Rome and still has a Catholic monarchy. What do you find? Abortion on demand, euthanasia, equal marriage, child pornography, child murder (remember the Dutroux case?), sexual abuse of and by children and of course by priests, and plenty of it.

      All this in a country that’s always been officially Catholic, with a king who even abdicated for a day rather than sign a law permitting abortion. None of that official state piety helped them one bit. Their society is just as secularised as Britain. Indeed with legal euthanasia that even lets parents euthanise their children, you could say things have gone a lot further in Belgium than they have in Britain.

      So much for the efficacity of Catholicism in saving the soul of a nation…

      • The Explorer

        What secularism can do to a nation (and from which Catholicism is unable to save it) doesn’t sound that attractive either. Perhaps it needs Islam to sort things out. As those calling for sharia law in Britain sum it up: “No drugs, no gays, no slags”.

        • Eustace

          By all means support sharia law in Britain. If you have to convert to Islam, it’ll be worth it to get rid of all the junkies and gays and sluts, won’t it?

          Good luck with that. No more ale and pork scratchings for you then.

          • The Explorer

            I said it in relation to Belgium. You were illustrating the social problems there.

  • pascal78

    I should add. Islam is not primarily a religion as we mistakenly think. It is a political parallel system introduced into our country. It is designed by any means possible fair or foul to establish its rule. It is a kingdom of this world. Its evil founder’s plan is to subjugate all peoples to its domination. Mosques must be closed as centres of sedition. Muslims must be marginalised or sent to an Islamic country. There certainly should not be tax payers funded Muslim schools. This is not an attack on religion. It is an attack on subversion and the degrading of our culture by an alien culture. A culture that degrades women and makes a mockery of God by presenting Him as some kind of heartless tyrant who must be obeyed in every little detail of a muslim’s life. There is no room for liberal thinking any more . . .

  • The Explorer

    Back in 1994, Prince Charles gave his blessing to the Finsbury Park Mosque. It represented faith, and faith is a good thing: or something along those lines. The sort of sentiments expressed by Lisa Duffy would probably not have been possible for a public figure then. There has been a sea change of opinion in twenty years or so.

    As it was, Abu Hamza was in post within two years, and Prince Charles has, I believe, stopped describing himself as a Defender of Faith. Lisa Duffy’s views may not be pleasant, or enforceable, but they do show a welcome awareness of threat compared with the climate of 1994.

    • They show a rather crude appreciation of the nature of the challenge.

      • The Explorer

        True. But my point is that they show awareness that there is a challenge. That, in my view, is an improvement on 1994.

        • Is it? The way a problem is defined offers “solutions”. We need an answer to failed multiculturalism that isn’t simply a attempt at artificial unity through stirring up hatred of others.

          • The Explorer

            Suppose there’s a fire in the room in the era before mobile phones. The phone line is down.The alarm has just been given. The best way of dealing with it may not yet be known. There may be erroneous suggestions. But you’re further forward than you were before you knew there was a problem.

          • The BNP were onto the “problem” back in the 1990’s.

          • The Explorer

            Let us hope that history will not prove them right.

          • There are such things as self fulfilling prophecies.

          • Anton

            They were not stoked in any way in France.

          • The Explorer

            Example, in the light of my analogy, of a self-fulfilling prophecy. The electrics in this room are faulty. If they are not rectified, there will a fire at some point in the future.

            What brings about the fire: the prophecy, or the problem it identifies?

          • No you’re right, one shouldn’t stir up hatred of others, but instead ignite the love for our own.

          • But without the love of God and the love of neighbour, what binds us together in the West, Marie? Self interest?

          • An awe of creation/nature, an appreciation of the value of life and strong roots HJ, not self interest. A monarchy and government that defends our faith and keeps us secure and strong.

            The amazing achievements of man throughout the centuries and a common desire to explore more and create better.

            Not necessarily love of neighbour but an understanding of all the differing cultures of the neighbours and an ability to command respect from them by using that knowledge with effective communication instead of the easy option of appeasing and giving in.

    • David

      Quite. Confronted with reality Prince Charles has reverted to the original title, Defender of the Faith. Give him credit for learning !

      • Old Nick

        Fidei Defensor could be either.

        • The Explorer

          It could be, and to clarify the ambiguity Charles, having run into trouble with wanting to call himself Defender of Faiths, announced on his 60th birthday that he wanted to be Defender of Faith rather than of The Faith. Now we’re back with The Faith again.

          • Old Nick

            I guess the plural would be Fiderum, but I must say I have never come across the form in the course of reading.

  • Inspector General

    UKIP finds itself in the same position as the British Army did in Germany in May 1945. The British Army of course did not pick a fight with the Soviets. That would have been mission creep as we call it today, as well as absolute madness. So why is the currently stilled army that is UKIP formulating policies BEYOND its remit? Shouldn’t it be watching the political establishment that loathes it, like a hawk!

    Brexit, not back sliding – and they will, you know, our damnable sneaky politicians, if they could….

    {GROWL!}

    • Royinsouthwest

      Actually Churchill did order the British chiefs of staff to draw up plans for a war with the Soviet Union in 1945. The chiefs of staff gave the plans the code name Operation Unthinkable which shows what they thought of the idea.

      Operation Unthinkable
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unthinkable

  • Inspector General

    Muslims, by virtue of being muslims, are incapable of integration in the West. It just isn’t going to happen and it’s ludicrous to think it might for types who want to continue being muslims. So, the only way forward is a form of mutually agreed apartheid. Separate development of the races, by full consent. One advantage of that is that the West won’t become tainted with Islamic influences, which your Inspector considers inhuman, inferior, worthless rot. They can keep their schools, and anyway, closing them isn’t going to solve anything. Here’s why…

    Saajid Badat, the Gloucester Shoe Bomber as he is known, is a Hafiz. One who can recite all of the Koran by heart. Not the kind of fellow you’d like to spend hours trapped in a broken lift with, what! This from Wiki: ”He attended St James Church of England primary school, and later won admission to The Crypt, a highly regarded grammar school in Gloucester. Teachers there describe him as mature and committed, and in 1997 he graduated with four A-levels. Badat’s [next] studies began at an Islamic college in Lancashire; from 1999 he attended a madrassa in Pakistan. Investigators believe he became radicalised there under the influence of Al-Qaeda sympathisers. It is believed he trained in Pakistan and possibly in neighbouring Afghanistan.”

    What soured his life was not so much an Islamic education which he didn’t get until adulthood, but access to that evil book of theirs. That’s what you need to restrict. That wicked thing should only be available chained up in a mosque. Nowhere else…

    • A tad simplistic, Inspector.

      • Inspector General

        Really?

        • Plenty of folk have read the Quran without becoming murderous fanatics.

          • Inspector General

            Plenty, but not all then…

          • There are a good few “Christians”, both present and past, who have been turned into murderous fanatics by exposure to false teachings too. Should we ban the Bible?

          • Inspector General

            Silly men sometimes resort to silly arguments, don’t you think?

          • They do indeed, Inspector.

          • The Explorer

            There is a case for banning the access of non-experts to the Bible in case they misinterpret it. Leave it to those who know. That certainly is the equivalent view in Islam towards the sacred texts.

            You then have the problem outlined in Steinbeck’s ‘The Pearl’. “It is in the books.” Is it? How do we know, if we are denied access to the books?

          • Mike Stallard

            Here are some bad things:
            1. Polygamy is perfectly permissible and good to all Islamic people. The Prophet himself had nine wives at the time of his death. Being virtually fatherless affects an awful lot of children.
            2. Since Islamic ways of life are encapsulated for ever in the shari’a, there isn’t a lot of stress on mutual love, understanding, tolerance and so on. In fact it could be argued that the opposite is the case.
            3. Because Islam is restrictive in diet, enjoyment, social life and even clothing, I personally get a raving urge to break all the laws at once! I wish I was alone in this. I am not. Many many Muslim men and women are of the same persuasion.

          • Are you a Muslim?
            Jack is not defending Islam or the Quran. Far from it. However, he just doesn’t believe the ISIS version is the only authentic understanding of it.

          • Anton

            For the avoidance of misunderstanding, I believe that ISIS gravely break injunctions in the quran in their treatment of other Muslims.

          • And people of other faiths?

          • Anton

            The quran differentiates between Jews/Christians and pagans; the point is that I am not claiming ISIS are 100% faithful Muslims.

          • So, do you agree its attitudes towards people of other faiths and none is inaccurate?

          • Anton

            What do you mean, “So”? I have not pronounced here on what the Islamic texts say about attitudes to Jews/Christians and pagans (which ISIS and many other Muslims generally take atheists to be, calling them idolaters). I am simply seeking to differentiate myself from those who say ISIS are 100% faithful to the quran, by giving an example of where they act at variance.

          • Inspector General

            Tomorrow, Jack will discuss the good parts in ‘Mein Kampf’

            All welcome…

          • There are no good parts in Mein Kamp, Inspector. It’s you who is attracted to Nazi views on race and the inherent superiority of white people.

          • Inspector General

            The Inspector a NAZI? You will be hearing from his lawyers tomorrow…

            Now, don’t try and evade. You are about to give us the good bits in the Koran, peace be upon you…

          • Tut … one doesn’t say “Peace be upon him” in respect of the Quran.

          • Inspector General

            You’re quite the Islamic apologist these days…

            It won’t save you from them, you do know that, don’t you…

          • Well, one doesn’t.

          • The Explorer

            All welcome, with certain exceptions. The exceptions are indicated in the work in question.

    • sarky

      Recently went to a bbq with some Muslim friends of my wife, had a few beers (yes beers) and came back with all my body parts intact. Crikey inspector, they must of been fake Muslims, because Muslims can’t integrate can they???????

      • Dreadnaught

        Barbie Not in Syria or Iraq then I take it.

        • sarky

          Nah….suffolk.

      • Inspector General

        The Inspector can barely conceal his relief that you survived the encounter, sarcastic thing. The point is this – if for every 1000 muslims subjected to the contents of the Koran, 999 are not turned into barking mad Islam enforcers, that still leaves 4000 murderous individuals in the UK, assuming an Islamic population of 4 million.

        You be careful in future – unbelieving infidel dog that you are, as your smiling guests might refer to you in conversation between themselves, in their own language, of course…

        • magnolia

          Interesting point about your i in a 1000. I think most here would agree that we need to find what it means to be “wise as serpents and gentle as doves”. It is remarkably easy to be so gullible that you let a Trojan horse in with full welcome to wound and maim and kill your neigh-bours (sorry, couldn’t resist), or so rough that many innocents get caught in the crossfire, and none gets converted to Christ. Any who can lead us to a creative balance are to be celebrated, but seem very sparse on the ground.

      • bluedog

        Apostates. Heretics. The swords of the warriors of true Islam will be washed in their blood.

        • sarky

          ‘You will pursue your enemies and they will fall by the sword before you’

          Leviticus 26:7

          • The Explorer

            More importantly, who are your enemies, and why?

          • bluedog

            Old Testament. Merely a historical record that enables a comparison with the teaching of Christ.

          • sarky

            Oh right, so you can easily dismiss the bible, but the quoran is set in stone????

          • bluedog

            My post doesn’t dismiss the Bible at all. My comment was consistent with the Christian belief that God’s Covenant with Abraham and the Jews was replaced by the teaching of Christ. When was Leviticus written? 1500 years BC? Or more?

            Note that the entire Koran was written in the knowledge of Christ’s teaching yet encourages a set of values that are the antithesis of Christianity. And yes, the Koran is set in stone. As the perfect word of Allah it cannot be changed. To change the perfect word of Allah is to become an apostate.

            Apostates. Heretics. The swords of the warriors of true Islam will be washed in their blood.

          • sarky

            So the bible isn’t set in stone???

            So which parts of the old testament are to be followed and which are not??
            Is creationism right?? The ten commandments ok??? Is eating shellfish and stoning women good or bad?? Or is the the new covenant just a cop out from the more unsavoury parts of your faith?

          • bluedog

            Heavens, this is getting tedious. You know the answers and if you don’t, look them up. There are more important things to do than to try and give you the Sunday school basics.

          • sarky

            Sorry if it’s to difficult for you. Maybe someone else can answer.

          • chefofsinners

            Hi Sarky
            Just in case you are genuinely in doubt about this stuff…
            The Old Testament divides into history, law, prophecy, wisdom and poetry.
            The law is superseded by grace, which means we follow the teachings of the New Testament on how to live our lives. In the NT many of the OT laws are repeated but not all. In so far as Christian states have ever existed, they have tried to base their laws on the NT and fill the gaps with OT laws to some degree. But the NT never envisages this. It’s a cobbled together position.
            As for the rest of the OT, I take the history to be true, as you know, while others are more selective.
            Prophecy, wisdom and poetry speak for themselves.

          • sarky

            Cobbled together position?

            Pretty mutch what I thought.

          • chefofsinners

            Yep – cobbled together. The New Testament does not encourage or envisage nations being run as Christian states and doesn’t give guidance on what the laws should be. Faith is a mater of choice, not coercion.
            However, since many nations have recognised Christian values as good and worthy foundations for their laws, they have had to fill in the gaps themselves. This has created some good outcomes, some bad, and plenty for non-Christians to complain about. Happy whingeing.

          • sarky

            Ooh where to start…..

          • “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

            Ephesians 6:12 NLT

          • sarky

            Could just as easily of come from the quran

  • jsampson45

    For some time UKIP has had a problem not so much with Islam as with some of its supporters. It is a big disappointment.

  • Darter Noster

    Most British Jihadists I recall reading about went to Church of England or secular state schools in the insipid, neutered, multi-culti, left wing atmosphere of the 70s, 80s and 90s. They came out of them totally rootless and believing the west to be evil, which for the educational establishment of the time must have seemed like job done.

  • Mike Stallard

    A question:
    Has anyone else tried popping into the nearby mosque?
    Shoes off!
    But if you are humble and ready to smile and admit your own faith in the first sentence, there is a nice warm greeting awaiting you.
    We British, especially at the height of Empire, depended on our Muslim subjects. They in return were honoured to fight in the British Army and to defend the motherland.
    It should be easy to restore relations.
    The Afghans, the Iraqis and the Sudanese were furious enemies, but Jordan, Oman, the Indian subcontinent and Malaya and Singapore were all loyal allies.

    • Inspector General

      One does believe the Lubyanka had a similar ‘drop in’ policy in the 1930s…

      • Mike Stallard

        Go on – see for yourself if it is like the Lubyanka!

    • Darter Noster

      But the Islam prevalent at the height of Empire in the 19th century is not the same as that which now dominates Al Qaeda, Isis and miscellaneous Sunni Jihadist groups. Islam has grown increasingly hard-core over the last 150 years, and especially over the last 50 years, as Saudi petro-dollars have exported and mainstreamed a ruthless and puritanical form of Islamic fascism. This Saudi Wahhabism has displaced a tapestry of local Islamic customs and interpretations, many of them much more liberal, and replaced it with a uniform radical fundamentalism. The West has aided and abetted this in a variety of ways, from promoting in Afghanistan in the 80s to allowing it to be accepted as authentic version of Islam, not cracking down on Wahhabist hate-preachers, and even giving the evil scumbags asylum when they were fleeing the Arab countries.

      • Anton

        It’s not only Saudi Wahhabism. In the 20th century Hassan al-Banna in Egypt, and Sayyid Abul ala Mawdudi in India/Pakistan, founded movements (respectively the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat Islamiya) which rejected colonialism and looked to historic Islam for a positive response to it. These have been and continue to be deeply influential.

        • Were they wrong to reject imperialism and colonialism? The Western powers thought they could carve the world up to serve their own commercial and financial interests. In some respects, the West is reaping what we’ve sowed.

          • Mike Stallard

            I have often wondered about this argument. Of course there was racism. But in the British Empire it did not take the form which it took in French or German colonialism. Even Dutch.
            I was there at the very end of the Empire and I remember that, in Ghana anyway in 1958, there was, actually very little racism at all. As to the end of the British Empire in Sierra Leone… Or Zimbabwe…Or Uganda…Or Nigeria…Or even India immediately after independence…
            And where we stayed on – UAE, Singapore, Hong Kong – I think the net result was actually rather impressive.
            I take the point though about Islam changing. I think myself that it has gone very much to the bad. We are a long way now from the nineteenth century romanticism over Muslim slave markets!

          • Anton

            I wasn’t meaning to discuss rights and wrongs there, Jack; just pointing out that there is more to the 20th century expansion of quranic Islam than Saudi-sponsored Wahhabism. Maududi and al-Banna deserve to be mentioned in the same breath.

          • As do the root causes.

  • blue2beak

    ‘but not fine if it leads to the formulation of policies which are not only illiberal, but illegal.’
    Do you understand how democracy works, Archbishop?

    If Duffy became head of UKIP, and UKIP won the next election and formed a government, presumably she’d make banning muslim schools perfectly legal via an act of parliament passed by her legions of UKIP MPs.
    Over the years elected politicians have made many illegal things legal – abortion, betting shops, commercial broadcasting, gay marriage, votes for women, homosexual activity etc .
    The reverse also applies, and elected politicians have made many legal things illegal – fox hunting, sex discrimination, racial discrimination, smoking in pubs etc
    Of course, Duffy won’t ever head a UKIP government and muslim schools will not be banned.
    But I see nothing wrong with a politician telling everyone what she’d like to do if she had an electoral mandate for her policies.
    That’s how politics works.

    • Inspector General

      Good point! Well done you…

  • pascal78

    Islam must be destroyed or else Islam will destroy us.

    • Good luck with that. There are 2 billion Muslims in the world – nearly a quarter of the world’s population.

      • pascal78

        I mean the perverted ideology not the people as such. The only institution that has all the means and weapons to do this is the Holy Catholic Church aided by Mary the Holy Mother of God.

        • sarky

          How exactly?

          • pascal78

            By prayer and Catholic action fortified by the Holy Sacraments. Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate is our leader. He will give us strength. Become a Catholic. Live in the full truth.
            God bless.
            P

          • sarky

            And back in the real world……

          • Royinsouthwest

            How did that work in North Africa after the Arab invasion in the 7th century? For that matter how did it work in Spain? It was force that drove the Moors out of Spain after seven centuries of Muslim rule.

        • chefofsinners

          Not a great track record so-far.

  • I’m warming to her.

    • chefofsinners

      … but they need a UKIP spokesman to say it for them?

      • No, I see where you are coming from, but that’s the whole point.

  • Tom A

    “But, of course, that’s exactly what it means, for that’s exactly how it will be perceived, because that exactly what it is”

    A bit of a clumsy sentence, if you don’t mind me saying so Your Grace; I suspect, not for lack of literary skill, but because you realise that what you’re saying is not true.

    “that’s exactly what it means, for that’s exactly how it will be perceived”

    That is the crux of the matter, is it now? It’s not what it is objectively, it’s how people feel about it. This is the most insidious line of thinking that has asserted itself over our society, and which we desperately need to stamp out.

    Already, we have many numerous laws that put the requirement for committing a crime as not objective evidence of having done so, but whether the victim “feels” a crime has been committed – to the extent that the latter outweighs the former, and even with objective evidence to show no offense was committed, if a victim feels offended, then the accused can be prosecuted.

    This can and has put many people in jail, with permanent criminal records. Perhaps by chance – although I have a sinking feeling that these things simply happen shockingly often – there was a recent example of this:

    http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/what-happened-when-i-was-charged-with-a-hate-crime/

    This is a sick perversion of what has been a very fair and just legal system, and I would ask Your Grace to consider it.

    Whilst I don’t necessarily agree with Lisa Duffy’s rather crass plans – and certainly do not think she’s fit to be the leader of UKIP – she does speak some truth in that there are things that have gone unchallenged, that we now must address, frankly, as well as politely and thoughtfully. The UK has a muslim problem – don’t take it from me, the former head of the equality watchdog, Trevor Phillips, has said as much and is now putting more and more weight behind this. We need to address this now, shirking from it will only make things far more difficult in the future.

  • len

    God gave us the solution (the only solution) to all the ills afflicting humanity. And this solution is only found through the Gospel of Jesus Christ .
    False religion offers’ solutions’ but these are all false paths which lead nowhere.
    So whatever we do that leaves out Christ is no lasting solution but ‘a plaster over a problem’ which sooner or later will fester up and become even more life threatening.

  • Stefan Allison

    While this article raises some good points regarding the practicalities and results of banning all Muslim schools I do think the position M(r)s Duffy takes is a consistent one. It is generally perceived that to be equal means that all religions should be treated the same. But why treat all religions equal when they are so very different? At least her policy recognises that the current extremism threat uniquely stems from Islam. it is actually fairer to limit freedom as narrowly as possible and make clear that it is only for the duration of a threat (which she does). After all some freedoms were suspended during WWII only to be reinstated as soon as the war was over. I do however, take issue with her definition of what constitutes as anti-Western values. Ms Duffy says “it is not acceptable for children’s minds to be filled with sexist ideas that women are not as significant as men, for instance; that homosexuality is sinful and should be criminalised; that sharia law is superior to British law; or that the Jews are engaged in a world-wide conspiracy against Muslims. I do not want extremist or anti-Western views to go unchallenged in any school.” To label teaching the sinfulness of homosexuality as anti-western could lead to Conservative Christian schools being deemed anti-western too. I am disappointed that, after she has spoken out against political correctness, has joined all the other parties in failing to distinquish between genuine homophobic behaviour and teaching the sinfulness of it.

  • DP111

    Creeping Sharia: The ISLAMIZATION of the WEST

  • dcomplex

    I suggest we call a crusade, Archbishop.