THE WORLD ACCORDING TO CHARLIE

The awful realization of the magnitude of the Muslim enemy we face has been a bitter pill to swallow. There still exists, somewhere deep inside so many of us, a residual reluctance to believe the evidence of our eyes and ears. For all that I have written on this subject, it is no easier for me than it may be for anyone else to finally and reluctantly accept the undeniable fact that it truly is all Islam, all Muslims who have defined themselves as our enemies. As shocking as it is, the bloodthirsty message on that Anjem Choudry video, and all of the bloody messages of the Omar Bakris and the Ayman al-Zawahiris of the Muslim world of hate resonate throughout the universal ummah. They draw more ardent supporters every day. Muslims the world over have hitched their wagons to the fiery star of jihad and are reveling in its blazing glory. Muslims throughout Britain and throughout all of Europe and Scandinavia are feeling the pride of Victorious Islam swelling in their breasts. They sense our weaknesses and they can visualize their ultimate victory; a victory which, just until a few years ago, would have seemed all but impossible. To defeat the West: a myth, a daydream, a fairytale told by old Muslim men to their innocent and gullible young children.

But it is we, the kafirs, who are the innocent and gullible young children. And that tiny part of us that still holds out some small hope, that still shies away from condemning a whole religion for the actions of a few is that same part of us that has had such difficulty grasping the fundamental fact of Evil. A whole people, a whole religion, we tell ourselves, cannot be infected with this deadly malady. Surely this must be an exaggeration or a misinterpretation. But then we open our eyes and open our ears and the evil is still there, still unfathomable, still irrational, even absurd; but nonetheless, still there.

It is a hard road to truth. It is especially difficult for those of us who have been raised in the openness and freedom of the Judeo/Christian West to conceive of this level of magnitude of pure evil. We keep looking for an out, an explanation, for anything that will help us to get our minds around this monstrous idea. But then, we listen to them speak and we hear their words and we watch as the evil spills out and permeates the room. And suddenly, there is no more room for doubt or misinterpretation.

The truth is terrible in its simplicity. It is all Islam. All Muslims. Friendly Muslims, smiling Muslims, young or old Muslims, male and female Muslims, and, yes, all those so-called moderate Muslims, too. All Muslims believe in the Koran and the Koran calls for conquest or extermination of the infidel. Any other interpretation of these simple glaring facts is subterfuge and obfuscation. We must face the truth and find the courage to protect ourselves, or we will most surely lose this monumental war. -

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

…complicated the tax system…

…dumbed down the education system…

…demoralised the health system.

…and bankrupted the pension system.

It's …

…made promises that no-one believes…

…passed powers to a European Union that nobody trusts…

…and set up Regional Assemblies that nobody wants - and nobody ever voted for.

Why are we in the B.N.P.

I joined this party because I love my country. I love our character. I love our people, our history, our role in the world. This is the only party that understands and is proud of what we've been and who we are.

I joined this party because I believe in freedom. We are the only party believing that if you give people freedom and responsibility, they will grow stronger and society will grow stronger.

I joined this party because I believe in aspiration. This party, the B.N.P, is the only party that wants everybody to be a somebody, a doer not a done-for.

That's the spirit we have to recapture. I want people to feel good about being a B.N.P,member and activist again.

Education

Aspiration is enabled by education.

How cruelly it is disabled by Labour today.

When one fifth of children leave primary school unable to write properly.

When one million school children play truant each year.

And when the very essence of aspiration - social mobility - is going backward in this country.

There are far fewer children from state schools going to our best universities. And it's getting worse.

What have Labour done?

Created an exam system where sixteen per cent means a pass.

Where parents of children in failing schools have no redress and no way out.

And we're now a country where "failure" is called "deferred success".

The Government introduced the National Literacy strategy. It's a good idea - in fact it was Gillian Shephard's idea.

But why can't children be taught to read with synthetic phonics, a method that works?

Treating every child as if they're the same fails the child who's struggling and the child who's not.

So why can't we have streaming and setting to help all children reach their potential?

We've got to win the great debate about education in this country.

To give choice to parents. Freedom to schools. And to fight for high standards.

We must cast away the progressive theories and the all must have prizes culture that's done so much damage to so many children for so long.

And we must win the battle over education for another vital reason.

Parents with disabled children have to fight for everything.

Just imagine what it's like when the special school that gives their child the love they need, the care they need, the therapy they need, and yes, the education they need…

…when that special school is threatened with closure.

I've seen it, and it breaks my heart.

Labour's idea of compassion is to put every child in the same class in the same school - and call it equality and inclusion.

But I say that's not compassion … it's heartless, it's gutless, and it's got to stop.

That's why a B.N.P,  government will save special schools.

Everyone knows that education, like our other public services, desperately needs radical reform.

And who's the man standing in the way? Gordon Brown, the great roadblock.

Everyone knows that our economy needs lower and simpler taxes.

Who's standing in the way? The great tax riser and complicator, Gordon Brown.

Everyone knows that business need deregulation to compete with China and India.

Who's standing in the way? The great regulator and controller, Gordon Brown.

How are we going to stop him?.

There's only one group of people who can stop him - and that is we in this room.

There's one thing Gordon Brown fears more than anything else…and that's the

…B.N.P that has the courage to change.

So let's give him the fright of his life.

There are some people who say "all we've got to do is wait for the economy to hit the rocks, for Gordon Brown to be more left wing  All we need is one more heave."

I think that's a pathetic way for a great party to behave.

One more heave means one more defeat.

I don't want to hang around and wait till something turns up - do you?

Some say "hit Labour harder, and the electorate will come to their senses."

I say that's rubbish. People know that Labour have failed. They want to know how we will succeed.

I don't want to let them down - do you?

Some say that we should move to the right.

I say that will turn us into a fringe party, never able to challenge for government again.

I don't want to let that happen to this party - do you?

We don't just need new policies or presentation or organisation or even having a young, passionate, energetic leader…though come to think of it that might not be such a bad idea!

We've got to recognise that

We have to change and modernise our culture and attitudes and identity.

When I say change, I'm not talking about some slick re-branding exercise.

What I'm talking about is fundamental change, so that when we fight the next election street by street, house by house, flat by flat…

…we have a message that is relevant to people's lives today, that shows we're comfortable with modern Britain, and that we believe our best days lie ahead.

I want to be able to say to the mum who's thinking "how will I pay for Christmas" and worrying how to get the kids to school…

…yes, we want to leave more money in your pocket, but we know the value of good public transport too.

So we'll share - that's right we'll share - the fruits of economic growth between tax reduction and public services.

To the people living in our inner cities , grappling with the problems caused by family breakdown, poor housing, and low aspirations…

We know we have a shared responsibility; that we're all in this together; that there is such a thing as society - it's just not the same thing as the state.

…so we should now say to the voluntary sector leaders whose solutions are working where the state is failing, we'll set up Social Action Zones where we set you free to turn neighbourhoods around.

To the family trying to keep their heads above water to provide for their kids and to give them the time they need, we'll say…

…yes, we believe in the family because the most important thing in the world is that children are brought up in a stable, loving home.

So we'll help you with childcare. We'll make sure the benefit system helps all families get together and stay together. And we'll support marriage because it's a great institution - so we'll back it through the tax system.

To the new parent who worries about the air her kids will breathe, the state of the parks where they'll play and the food that they put in their mouths, we'll say…

…yes, the B.N.P understands that the quality of life matters, as well as the quantity of money.

To the young student whose horizons are broader than these shores, broader than Europe, we'll say…

…yes, the B.N.P wants Britain to be a proud, self confident, outward looking country that engages ethically and enthusiastically with the wider world.

That's what I mean by change.

We've got to change our culture so we look, feel, think and behave like a completely new organisation.

Young People - Politics

By changing our culture we can change politics too.

When I meet young people they tell me how sick they are of the whole political system.

The shouting, finger-pointing, backbiting and point-scoring in the House of Commons.

That's all got to go.

I want young people to see politics not as a waste of time but as a way to change the world.

I want every young person in this country with ideas and talent and energy says yes!...

…I want to make a difference, I've got something to offer, I will get involved.

New generation

So let's build together a new generation of B.N.P member's

Let's switch a new generation on to B.N.P, ideas.

Let's dream a new generation of B.N.P, dreams.

There is a new generation of social entrepreneurs tackling this country's most profound social problems.

There is a new generation of business men and women who are taking on the world, creating the wealth and opportunity for our future.

We can lead that new generation.

We can be that new generation.

Changing our Party to change our country. It will be an incredible journey.

I want you to come with me.

We'll be tested. And challenged.

But we'll never give up. We'll never turn back.

So let the message go out from this meeting

…a Modern Compassionate B.N.P is right for our times, right for our party - and right for our country.

If we go for it…

If we seize it…

If we fight for it with every ounce of passion, vigour and energy from now until the next election…

…nothing and no one can stop us."

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

Communism, very broadly speaking, is a political ideal where all are equal and there are no leaders. It has been tried many times in the past and there are a handful of countries which claim to practise true Communism but in reality, it is very difficult to achieve this Utopian society.

George Orwell’s Animal Farm is a fictional exploration of Communism, based on the Russian revolution of the early 20th century and shows how power almost always corrupts the ideal.

Less extreme left wing views include the UK’s Labour party and the USA’s Democrats. The NHS system was set up in pursuit of left wing ideals – free healthcare for all is a prime example of social equality in action. Modern left wing parties are more geared towards achieving a diverse society with inclusion for all.

Right WingRight wing parties and individuals are, as you would expect, the polar opposite of left wing. Right wing parties are often thought of as capitalists. They are also traditionalists in their outlook and the way they like things to be done. 

This can obviously pose problems for modern right wing groups, such as in terms of equal opportunities for all, regardless of gender or race and so most modern and progressive right wing parties hold centrist or even slightly left of centre views on these issues.

As the main aim of right wing parties, the rights of the individual are held in high esteem. These come first, over and above the rights of society as a whole, which is clearly at odds with left wing politics.

Just like left wing though, right wing politics can be taken to extremes and for most people, especially in Europe, the terms used to describe very far right parties hold a sinister and very dark connotation. It must be stressed that these parties and individuals are on the extreme right, far removed from most right wing parties.

On the extreme right is fascism, that political ideal which can be partially blamed for the Second World War. The term is generally no longer used to describe political ideals but basically means a society where the state rules all, and the society is bound together by a common ideal, often, but not always, based on race. These days, being described as a fascist is usually an insult.

CentreThere are also parties and individuals which occupy the centre political ground. In modern times in the UK, this can be said to include the UK’s three main parties most of the time, especially Labour and Conservative. They may sometimes sit slightly left and right of centre, but for the most part, they converge in the middle on many issues to appeal to the widest number of people as possible. 

The political spectrum can be thought of a sliding scale. No-one’s views can be pegged to the left or right or any one part of it all of the time. Most people will move along this scale during their lives and depending on the issue being debated. Extreme politics are always something to be wary of, as people with such extreme views can often not tolerate others.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

"Islam is a Religion of Peace"
"Muhammad is a man of Peace"
"The Qur'an is a book of Peace"

How can we know if these statements are true?

We frequently hear from politicians in the public sphere and individual Muslims and Islamic organisations, that Islam is "a religion of peace", that it is "tolerant of other faiths and beliefs" and that it is "in favour of democracy, equal rights and freedom of speech."

The media reports the connection between certain Islamic groups and violence, terrorism, and inequality for women. But it also claims that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, lawabiding and that there is nothing in Islam that is against the values of British society.

In public debate and media language, the distinction has emerged between "radical' and "moderate' Islam. Adherents of the former are called "fundamentalist' and "Islamist', while the latter, the moderates, are said to represent mainstream, true Islam. How can we begin to understand these distinctions and how do we know how many British Muslims are represented in each of them?

A 2001 survey revealed how Muslims in Britain viewed themselves:

15% said they were radical in that they followed a literal understanding of the Qur'an and the example of Muhammad. 70% described themselves as nominal - that is, they followed Islamic traditions and their cultural adaptations. 15% saw themselves as liberal - they were happy to follow the West and assimilate fully into British culture.

What is the situation today?

The Sunday Telegraph on 19 February 2006 carried a YouGov survey report that revealed:

40% of British Muslims identified with Islamic radicalism.

This was post 7/7, and, for whatever reason, shows that radicalismis on the increase in Britain. It may be that new immigrants are swelling the numbers of radical Islam, but it is certainly true that many British Muslims are being won over to a more Islamist position. It is reasonable to conclude that between 2001 and 2006 converts to the "radical cause' came from the group previously identified as nominal. Liberal Muslims are perhaps less inclined towards radicalism, as they have, for all intents and purposes, broken with all traditional forms of Islam. If this is the case, then it shows that today, as in the past, moderate Muslims find it hard to withstand pressure from those who are intent on a more literal approach to Islam.

To grapple with these issues it is necessary to understand the Qur'an's teaching and the practice of Muhammad in relation to a number of issues of concern to those who wish to uphold Western British society: jihad, democracy, freedom of religion and speech, the equality of women, and sharia.

The assertion that Islam is a "religion of peace' draws us, in particular, to the teaching of Islam on violent jihad. It is said by many Muslim apologists that the word "Islam' itself means "peace'. However, it is widely accepted that this is misreading of the Arabic word, and that "Islam' means "surrender'. If there is any connection with "peace' here, it is that "peace' which comes from total surrender and slave-like servitude to an absolute deity as expressed in the Qur'an and Islamic traditions. The peace of Islam, therefore, is the peace and protection afforded to those who convert to Islam or in the case of Jews and Christians, those who accept a humiliating, second-class status in an Islamic society known as Dhimmitude.

The Qur'an

According to former professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Mark Gabriel, "There are at least 114 verses in the Qur'an that speak of love, peace and forgiveness, especially in the Surah titled "The Heifer'"(Surah 2:62, 109).' But Gabriel goes on to explain that in the light of the later verse found in Surah 9:5 (the "sword verse'), these former "tolerant' verses have been abrogated or annulled. This is according to the Islamic teaching of naskh in which the later revelations of the Qur'an cancelled out the former verses wherever thereis a contradiction. (Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel)

It is commonly understood that the earlier Meccan Surahs are more tolerant, corresponding to the earlier phase of Muhammad's life when his teaching focussed mainly on purely religious issues such as belief in one God and the rejection of pagan idolatry. He hoped to persuade Jews to accept him as the prophet of monotheism in line with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament, and for the Christians to accept him as the apostle of God, somewhat analogous to the apostles of the New Testament.

However, there was resistance from both groups who clearly saw that Muhammad's teaching was at odds in major respects with the Scriptures as theyknew and understood them - not least, the final and absolute authority Muhammad claimed for himself. The Medinan Surahs become more and more strident, imposing social, political and military imperatives on the Muslim community, until finally, the Qur'an became replete with teaching of hate, destruction, death and servitude to all who resisted Islam, either on the battlefield or in their personal faith. A well-respected authority on Islam, himself a radical, Sheikh Muhammad Ezzat Darwazei, counts between 500 and 700 jihad verses in the Qur'an. It is important to remember that these "sword verses' abrogate earlier verses apparently advocating peace and tolerance. The nature of this violent teaching can be seen by the following sample:

The Medinan sword verse:

Surah 9:5 " But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush..."

Sword verse against Christians and Jews:

Surah 9:29 "...Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden ... until they pay tribute..."

Methodology of sword verses:

Surah 47:4 " When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them..."

Surah 8:38-39 " Unbelievers ... And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail Justice and faith in Allah."

Recompense for those who die in Jihad:

Surah 4:74 "Let those who fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory, Soon shall we give him a reward of great value."

Surah 47:4-6 "...But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost... and admit them to Paradise."

Muhammad's example

The life of Muhammad is sacred to Muslims who are expected to follow his example in all things. An examination of Muhammad himself shows that not only did he believe in violence but personally practiced it. During his life Muhammad sanctioned 29 actual battles and planned 39 others. He also sanctioned deaths of Jews, Christians and those who criticised or opposed him.
When one reads such Quranic advocacy of violence and death to pagans, Christians and Jews, and the offer of spiritual reward to those who carry such things out, one understands the strength of the radicals who only need to appeal to such texts, as well as the example of Muhammad himself, to pursue and impose "true Islam'.

No compulsion in religion?

What are we to make of the violent teaching found in the Qur'an in the light of the oft-quoted Surah 2:256, "There is no compulsion in religion'?

As has been mentioned, we must ask whether this verse is considered mansukh (abrogated). But, even if that is denied by some Muslim apologists, the context of the verse shows that it does not promise freedom to non-Muslims, but only a measure of tolerance for a time. The following verse reads, "Allah is the Protector of those who have faith" and begs the question concerning how to treat those who reject Allah. Since they don't have Allah's protection, it is argued that these unbelievers do not deserve protection from Islam.

Does moderate Islam exist?

This question does not address the individual Muslim, as it is patently clear that many Muslims do not wish to acknowledge openly or to follow these "sword texts' and that many Muslims in Britain, and across the world, are peaceful and law-abiding. But the issue is: does a correct understanding of the Qur'an and the example of Muhammad as we know it ultimately require that all Muslims believe and support such teaching?

Responses to "sword' passages

When individual Muslims are questioned about the "violence' in the teaching of the Qur'an and in the example of Muhammad himself they usually respond in one of the following ways: Affirmation: As we have seen, we could expect 40% of British Muslims to affirm all or some Quranic teaching on violence. Denial: Some out of ignorance, wishful thinking, or deceit, deny that these verses are actually in the Qur'an.

Interpretation: Some teach that these verses were historical, situational and geographical, only applying to 7th century Arabia and proximate nations.

The key question is: What is the basis for a moderate interpretation of these verses advocating and commanding violence against non-Muslims?

Islamic tradition

Some deny that the "sword verses' ever had any place in historic, mainstream Islam, and that centuries of Islamic tradition and authoritative teaching proves that this is the case. They claim that Western ignorance and prejudice perpetuates misinterpretation of these texts. But, these same people do not seem to be able to provide any convincing evidence of this "vast body of Muslim opinion' within mainstream and historic Islamic tradition.
Islamic reformation
Some seek to reform Islam from within, trying to find a more acceptable and modern approach to it in keeping with Western ideals of freedom and tolerance. But the difficulty here is one of authority. Who has the authority to reject Quranic texts or reinterpret them? Surely to do so would be to deny the very basis of Islam and thus be a denial of Islam itself.

Moderate Islam and Sufism

Sufism is often cited as an example of moderate Islam. Sufism is characterised by "inner piety' and, as "a religion of the heart', is said not to advocate violence or political extremism. However, while it is true that Sufis draw their beliefs and inspiration from Mohammad himself, Sufi mysticism, with its quest for union with the divine, is regarded by its critics either as fundamentally un-Islamic or a sectarian departure from the purity of Islam. This is borne out by the fact that Sufis only officially comprise 3-4% of modern day Islam, although it is claimed that their influence is considerable both among Sunnis and Shi'ites.

Ruth Kelly recently gave support to the moderation of Sufism when she rejected the hitherto welcome role of the Muslim Council of Britain as the official voice of Islam in Britain. She was the main speaker at the launch of the Sufi Muslim Council in the House of Commons on 19th July 2006. But the problem is that Sufis do not and cannot speak for Islam in general. It is more influential as a religious tendency within Islam than it is as an official representative of Islam itself.

The Sufi Muslim Council claims that 80% of British Muslims are from a Sufi tradition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1824131,00.html ). That claim is hard to reconcile with the YouGov findings that 40% of British Muslims are sympathetic to Islamist ideals. The contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways. First, Sufism is not, in the final analysis, capable of asserting its "moderation' on the rest of Islam. Or, second, Sufism is not essentially moderate after all. The history of Sufi groups, such as of Naqshbandi, Qadiri and Sanusyia, reveals clear signs of a lack of moderation.

The future of "moderate Islam'

The problem with finding and promoting moderation within Islam is that the most "natural' reading of Islamic texts, as well as much influential historical interpretation of these, provides fuel for the radicals. Considerable fear is generated by the radicals who threaten many would-be moderates with the charge of apostasy and its harsh consequences which, very often, means death. Muslim solidarity, a strong force in its own right, is exploited by radicals who point to social injustice, the plight of the Palestinians, racism and the cultural estrangement of Muslims, in a bid to radicalise their fellow Muslims. This is how British Muslim youth are being successfully recruited to Islamism in colleges and universities, as a former radical, Ed Husain shows in his autobiography The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left.

Perhaps the real issue in all this is not discussion about "moderate' or "radical' Muslims, but the nature of Islam itself. Until this is explored and addressed, it seems the situation is not set to improve. That there are many moderate Muslims, there can be no doubt, but as to the existence of historical, mainstream moderate Islam - where's the evidence?

• Sam Solomon "A Proposed Charter of Muslim Understanding"

• Sam Solomon - Progress for Western Liberal Democracies and their Muslim Communities?

• Sam Solomon - The Mosque Exposed

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this

The England that we cherished has disappeared. We can only raise our glasses to the memory of a once great country whose spirit has been broken by her own rulers, its fabric torn apart by social revolution.

The words of that stirring wartime song There'll Always Be An England have acquired a tragic poignancy. For there is no longer a real England--not the England that was once renowned for its gentleness and humour, its decency and sense of history, its rich language and inspiring landscape.

The country of Shakespeare echoes to the babble of a thousand foreign tongues. The land of Elgar is held hostage by the thud of the rapper's boom-box. The stiff upper lip has been replaced by the wail of victimhood. A land that used to be known for its lack of crime is now scourged by gang violence, shootings and stabbings.

The English traits of modesty and moderation have been lost to a tidal wave of extremism, terrorism, obscenity and cruelty. Our political system, once the least corrupt in the world, is riddled with ballot-box fraud. A national sense of belonging has given way to mutual distrust.

But in recent years my attachment to England has faded. My sense of connection, so powerful 20 years ago, has become frayed. I increasingly feel as if I am living in a foreign land, having nothing in common with large numbers of my fellow citizens--not even a language or a shared set of values.

When I go to parts of London, Manchester or Birmingham I am struck by a sense of being in the Third World, with all its attendant chaos and tension. This is not the England that I once loved.

Yet I am told by Government and civic institutions that I am not allowed to harbour such dangerous sentiments. Instead, I should be overjoyed at the changing face of our country. In the twisted logic of the modern British state, my devotion to England--the reason I settled here--is a cause for suspicion. I should be embracing cultural diversity, not clinging to an England that is being systematically demolished.

To me this is a morally reprehensible argument. If you genuinely love something then it is grotesque to be asked to celebrate its demise.

Before the end of this decade the majority of London's residents will be from non-white ethnic groups. Other cities will soon follow. On even a conservative estimate, the indigenous population of England will be in a minority before the end of this century. And the pace of change is being accelerated by the ruthlessly enforced official ideology of cultural diversity, which holds that any manifestation of traditional patriotism is akin to racism.

Full of loathing for their own country, Left-wingers recognised that they could not bring about their revolution by economic means after the downfall of communism. So instead they have cynically used mass immigration as a battering ram against old England--turning this once proud nation into little more than a landmass full of conflicting minorities.

|  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this