The Muslim community alienates itself. There is nothing to stop people in the ghettoes of Bradford, the East End, Birmingham, Burnley etc from integrating into our remarkably tolerant and accommodating society just as other have and continue to do so.

They do not wish to do so. Then they whine about the disempowerment such a position causes, like its the fault of others: like for Muslims, everything is always, constantly, invariably, the fault of others. Hardly surprising then, worldwide Islam is a failed project if it lacks the capacity for self reflection, adaptation, and honest self criticism.

Why?

The ideological and historic heart of Islam, exemplified by its leader Mohammed, would be condemned today much as we condemn Hitler. Massacring people because they disagree with a mumbo jumbo theology, as Mohammed did with the Banu Qurayza tribe, does not go down well in 2009. Muslims do not update this and make it acceptable, because they cannot: it dates back to a barbaric 1400 AD era and the only response we ever see from them is denial and getting hysterically “insulted” if anyone raises these subjects.

And “ignorance”? So can you show me any evidence, whatsoever, for the existence of imaginary “Allah”? And if you can, its 1400 years overdue.

The religion is wholly and thoroughly vile, when you look at how it started and what it was about.

If there are more acceptable manifestations of Muslim society – which of course there are – that testifies to the influence and dilution of the modern evolving world, not to the heart and basis of Islam.

Indeed it would. Oh, let it be!!!

“This term is a fabricated and question-begging linguistic manoeuvre designed to present the protection of religious sensibilities as a civil liberty issue.”

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2006/10/the_islamophobi.html

It is a silly and nonsenical term originally coined to be the islamist version of anti-semitism, except that islam isn’t a ‘race’ or a people the way Jews are.

With the Daud Abdullah challenge, there is a cause celebre in the making and whatever the outcome, Blears can no longer be a minister for ‘cohesion’

Clive quotes this from the Salaam blog. The final note of the piece is intended to sound ominous. It is left dangling in the air. Whatever could it mean?

I think that Hazel Blears and her attitude will do more for the cohesion of British society than cleaving to the dictates and agenda of Islamists ever will.

‘Cohesion’ is also one of those words that needs to be dissected and examined in the context of Islamist politics. It is one of these decent words, a word that is noble and good in its intent, that has become a cover word for selfish agendas and double-speak.

Prejudice against individual Muslims is prejudice to be condemned. Critical scrutiny and intellectual and social scrutiny of the precepts of Islam and Islamist ideology is not any kind of phobia.

Until this is understood by everyone, and repeatedly explained to reactionaries who want to make the confrontation of an enunciated ideology a form of racism, we are not going to advance, and worst of all, Islamists are going to continue to wallow in mental ghettoes and retard the progress of British society.

When the worn-out term “islamophobe” is the only defense a Muslim can muster to counter your arguments, you just know you’ve won.

From what I can glean D. Abdullah is an American, so I’m wondering why he isn’t sent back to the U.S.