The Centre For Social Cohesion

In Fiona's defence she was explaining why Christians in the Middle East and North Africa accepted Islam. Compared to Christianity and its contortions over the Trinity and Christology and the sectarian and political violence that accompanied such theological debates, Islam's theology and still is simpler.

Its political vision was much better developed than the Church's at that time which was about to engage in a long Church/State struggle with few plaudits on either side.

And yes, in terms of valuing marriage as the norm was much more straight forward than promoting celibacy as the ideal, a decision that is still convulsing the Catholic Church.

If one wants to be taken seriously one has to get one's facts right and give credit where credit it due.

And yes, I do subscribe to the 'how dare they?' reaction. I think what many Muslims do in this country is the height of bad manners. If you don't like your hosts find somewhere else to live.

I meant to add with regards to the accessibility of Islam, this is not a view shared by any muslims I know. Granted they are not Islamic scholars, but most comment along the lines that they have studied the Qur'an and Haditha all their lives and are still somewhat confused about a great many issues. This is in part because of the practice of abbrogation regarding the sura which are actually arranged not in chronological terms but by length. This is confusing because we do not easily know which are Medina verses and which are Meccan and there are so many important conradictions in the Qur'an. The distinction is also important because Mohammed's views regarding how he viewed the 'People of the Book' for example changed dramatically between these periods of his life. Also, the Haditha are required to make sense of other contradictory chapters and verses. So, I do not agree with Fiona re Islam being easily accessible, and neither would most of my muslim friends.

Alastair, I am so glad you took the time to write this post, as I truly despaired when I read Fiona's assessment of Islam regarding its 'simplicity' in terms of theological accessibility; its lack of factions; its clarity regarding how to be a 'good citizen', and its 'wholesome' attitude to sexuality. I don't mean to be rude, but I could barely believe what I was reading.
First off, the factions in Islam began literally over Mohammed's deathbed, with the result that cousins and other family members split the faith into what are now recognised as Shia and Suni, and this was predominantly relating to differing views regarding who should inherit Mohammed's mantle and how the movement should be developed and moved on. As we know, the differences regarding interpretation have continued and have resulted in factions within factions and ever increasing varitions that pit moslem against moslem, and which are used to excuse the sometimes wanton slaughter of each other. Perhaps Fiona doesn't realise that the Qur'an facilitates any member of any faction considering any member of any other faction an apostate or infidel and therefore worthy of rapid dispatch. These factions and how members of each treated each other was even in evidence in Spain in the 8th C.
Secondly, there is little to commend Islam regarding Fiona's assertion that it teaches its followers how to be 'good citizens'. Perhaps Fiona has taken sura such as those that are often qouted out of context by muslims themsleves, ie 'there is no compulsion in religion' to be an indication of tolerance and good citizenship. In that case all those that believe this at face value need to research the three options available to non-muslims in conqured/overwhelmed lands, and take a look at dhimmitude, the jyzziah and their implementation.
Regarding sexuality in Islam. I'm afrad there are many ex mulsims who regularly testify to the fact that it endorses a completely mysoginistic, barbaric and bigoted approach to women, as well as others. One doesn't need to listen to them though, just read the Qur'an and haditha, and oh, don't forget to check out Shariah law. In Fiona's defence, sexuality and sex and the laws surrounding each are certainly unambigious. Women are 'deficient'; their testimony is worth half that of any man's, whether that woman be a nuclear physicist or a housewife; they can only ever inherit less than their male family members; they are the property of one man or another until their dying day; they are required to have four male witnesses to rape; they are often stoned or hung in fact if they are rape victims because they are conveniently classified as 'adulterers' or wanton women. The list is endless, and its all in the Qur'an and ahadith for anyone who cares to remove their PC rose tinted specks and read.
If anything should have set the alarm bells ringing for the cultural marxists that have infested this counrtry, it should have been the cartoon 'demonstrations' in which the deaths of all who 'insult' Islam was demanded, and the C4 Dispatches programme 'Undercover Mosque', where we were treated to an example of what some of our Imams are encouraging their followers in this country to do to the homosexuals amongst us, and to us kuffars in general. Now, I appreciate we cannot tar all muslims with the same brush, and we can argue that these were a few Islamist Imams who are extreme. However, what I found distressing and deeply worrying was that not one single member of the congregations featured stood up and challenged such disgusting and vile appeals to racism and hatred agaisnt the very people that live along side them. No-one even stood up and left the mosque in disgust.
In conclusion, I don't find anything in Fiona's view of Islam to be remotely accurate, in terms of Islamic theology, past practice, or current practice. Perhaps she will show this post and yours to her Islamic scholar friend and obtain some clarifiation.

If Fiona Bacon consults history she will observe that Islam is not as she describes it.
"Clear and easy to understand theology"!We are all slaves to Allah.Go for world domination by stealth and the sword.
"Not riven by sects"!Let's start with Shia and Sunni and the rivers of blood which flow in the strife between these two sects in Iraq today.Historically there have been dozens of Muslim sects put to the sword in the course of Islam's bloody internecine progress.
"How to operate as a good citizen". There are iron laws in Islam which bind the practitioners to a primitive faith with death sentences,mutilation and flogging as regular sanctions.
"A wholesome attitude to sexuality".Fiona Bacon gets worse by the paragraph.In lands dominated by Islam a little girl can be deprived of her clitoris to abate her libido in later life.Muslim ladies with a roving eye are regularly buried up to their necks in sand and publicly stoned to death,though apparently the size of the missiles is in some societies limited.Fathers and uncles of Muslim persuasion regularly murder daughters and nieces if the latter will not conform to the family choice of husband.Here our politically corrupt media call this "honour killing".
When Sharia law comes to Britain, and as Col.Gaddafi has recently predicted "Europe will become Moslem in three decades" what will become of our homosexual community, our legions of sexually profligate teenagers and all of us who naturally and in line with our own ethnic habits contravene what Allah has laid down as the Law?
Fiona, my dear girl, pause and think!

If Fiona Bacon consults history she will observe that Islam is not as she describes it.
"Clear and easy to understand theology"!We are all slaves to Allah.Go for world domination by stealth and the sword.
"Not riven by sects"!Let's start with Shia and Sunni and the rivers of blood which flow in the strife between these two sects in Iraq today.Historically there have been dozens of Muslim sects put to the sword in the course of Islam's bloody internecine progress.
"How to operate as a good citizen". There are iron laws in Islam which bind the practitioners to a primitive faith with death sentences,mutilation and flogging as regular sanctions.
"A wholesome attitude to sexuality".Fiona Bacon gets worse by the paragraph.In lands dominated by Islam a little girl can be deprived of her clitoris to abate her libido in later life.Muslim ladies with a roving eye are regularly buried up to their necks in sand and publicly stoned to death,though apparently the size of the missiles is in some societies limited.Fathers and uncles of Muslim persuasion regularly murder daughters and nieces if the latter will not conform to the family choice of husband.Here our politically corrupt media call this "honour killing".
When Sharia law comes to Britain, and as Col.Gaddafi has recently predicted "Europe will become Moslem in three decades" what will become of our homosexual community, our legions of sexually profligate teenagers and all of us who naturally and in line with our own ethnic habits contravene what Allah has laid down as the Law?
Fiona, my dear girl, pause and think!

I agree with Anjelica about the infection of Wahabbi doctrines in this country. I know an Islamic scholar, a Malaysian theologian at the University of Oxford, who told me he was shocked at the amount of Wahabbi literature freely circulating in mosques in this country. In Malaysia, apparently such material is banned. The English-speaking youth feel out of touch with the peasant/village Islam of their parents and rightly wish to have an Islam that is relevant to them in the modern world. The jihadists and Wahabbis exploit this - and use basic strategies, such as, for example, using English as a medium of communication. Whereas some of the mosques still import imams who speak languages such as Urdu, or in Germany, Turkish, who are perceived as completely irrelevant by the modern youth -(if indeed they can even understand them).
The other point to bear in mind is the psychology of all fundamentalisms - and this is equally true of the American Christian type as of the Islamic type, ( and why in a sense, they are perfect matches for one another) - which is that psychologically it comes from a position of low self-esteem : "I feel bad about myself - therefore I will boost myself up by espousing a tradition of righteousness (ie Christianity or Islam)- because I do this, I am right (and therefore good)and you are wrong (and therefore bad). I split the world into 'good' and 'bad' - people like me are 'good' - the others are 'bad'. This is a distortion of both Christian and Islamic teachings, (the fatwas condemning jihadist attacks are of course not publicised in the West) but it is the psychological reality of these people. And you cannot persuade them to change their mind by rational argument. The Wahabbi nettle is a strange plant to be growing on British soil, but until it is uprooted and dealt with, I believe these attacks will continue.

I think all the fuss about a few criminal nutcases with gas bottles from B&Q and some petrol is exaggerated. Far more people die on Britain's roads than are killed by so-called "terrorists", and the police seem to be on to them, anyway. The chances of being involved in a criminal attack seem infinitesimally small for the vast majority of people in Britain. Just don't use this latest wave as an excuse for ID cards and similar totalitarian legislation. Thank goodness Tony Blair and John Reid have gone so that we can move the hysteria down a notch or two, as Gordon Brown and Jacqui Smith have done.

Paul - "how many Islamist suicide bombings were there in Britain before the invasion of Iraq? And why is Britain being singled out for attack, alongside the US, by Islamist terror groups?"

Richard Reid (the shoe-bomber) tried to blow up a plane in 2002 - before Iraq.

There have been over 15 attempted Jihadist bombings in Britain since 1999 - before Iraq and 9/11.

Jihadists tried to blow up planes over the Atlantic in the mid-90's - before Iraq and 9/11.

Mohammed Sidique Khan (7/7) and Omar Sheikh (who killed Daniel Pearl) were radicalised in 1999 and 1993 respectvely - before Iraq and 9/11.

Bin Laden declared Jihad on the West in the early 90's - not just Britain and US.

Spain had attempted jihadist attack before, during and after the Iraq war (when they pulled troops out).

Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Holland, France, Canada, Germany, Italy, etc all have had thwarted jihadist attacks. They don't have troops in Iraq.

As have Algeria, Nigeria, Somalia, India, Pakistan, Morocco, Tunisia, Indonesia, Thailand...the list goes on.

The fact that you try and reduce it to Britain and US 'Neocon' policy is ahistorical and ignorant.

The people who got us into 'this mess' are not Neocons or even the UK and US governments. The people who are responsible are those who declared war on Western liberal democracy and who's stated goal is the restoration of the Islamic Caliphate and the imposition of Sharia law on all non-muslims.

When people try to kill 'infidels' because of Danish cartoons, Salman Rushdie novels, Dutch documentaries, Papal speeches and 'slags' in nightclubs - then I think blaming Iraq is crude and ignorant reductionist nonsense.

Actually, if we look at the historical spread of Islam over formerly Christian areas of the Middle East, we can see that Islam offered some very clear advantages:
1. A clear and easy to understand theology - not riven by sects with bitter theological disagreements
2. an understanding that it is OK to be 'in the world' and a detailed exposition of how to operate as a good citizen in that world
3. a more wholeseome attitude towards sexuality: does not regard celibacy or monasticism as preferable, and sex as somehow sinful

I think it is entirely possible to have a 'how dare they' response (ie an emotional response) and at the same time also have a reasoned, thinking response. Presumably this is what Parris is trying to do. Whether his analysis is correct or not is another matter. But conjuring up stereotypes of violent Islamic hordes is hardly helpful in the present situation - France also has large numbers of Muslims, and there is a lot of racism there too, yet they don't seem to have this problem at the moment - so why us? Why not France? It on this question that careful analysis is needed.

Paul - Islamic terror in one form or another is taking place throughout the world and in countries that have had nothing to do with the WOT, and that do not have foreign policies that can be used to excuse their behaviour. Britain's foreign policy may have exacerbated to some degree the radicals in this country, but has also undoubtedly been used as a convenient excuse to increase their activity. I beleive it was only a matter of time before our own radicals decided we had done something as a nation to move us into the realms of Dar al Harb, be it due to refusing planning for a new mosque or through excercising our right to free speech and a free press regarding criticising or even lampooning Islam in some way. This country has been infected with Wahabbi ideology and money for some time, and we have sat idly by and watched our universities become recruiting grounds for the extremists, whilst at the same time brainwashing our students to become guilt-ridden revisionists of history as well as strangers to current truths by extreme and absurdly politcally correct lecturers. There is a pattern to how Islam operates globally and historically in order to take nations whether that be by stealth, the sword, or a combination of both. If you read the Quran and Haditha you will see why, and you can see it occuring globabaly right now. Of course there are many muslims who are not inspired by the polical aspects of Islam, but their inactivity and lack of qualified condemnations (usually) unfortunatey renders them almost irrelevant in the WOT. We have seen time and time again throughout history how dangerous minority groups, if not vigourously opposed, can triumph.
On another note, thank goodness Douglas Murray was on the QT panel or all would have been lost. It never fails to amaze me how PC cultural marxists think it acceptable form to shout down any opposing views from what I assume they feel is the moral highground. It is anti-democratic behaviour of the worst kind from the very people who on the other hand defend the rights of all sorts of low lifes to have their say, and can even consider dialogue with terrorist organisations. Have they read the Hamas Charter? I doubt it. Well done Douglas Murray, I don't know how you kept your cool (particularly with DM) but you were the only one who talked any sense imo depite the panelists attempts to silence/ridicule you.

If the current wave of terrorist attacks is not caused by our foreign policy, can someone answer these two questions: how many Islamist suicide bombings were there in Britain before the invasion of Iraq? And why is Britain being singled out for attack, alongside the US, by Islamist terror groups? The neo-conservative right (and I include Tony Blair in that grouping) has got us into this mess and is therefore in no position to offer advice on getting out of it.

If the current wave of terrorist attacks is not caused by our foreign policy, can someone answer these two questions: how many Islamist suicide bombings were there in Britain before the invasion of Iraq? And why is Britain being singled out for attack, alongside the US, by Islamist terror groups? The neo-conservative right (and I include Tony Blair in that grouping) has got us into this mess and is therefore no position to offer advice on getting out of it.

Actually I was impressed by the fact that Douglas clearly had a measure of support for his views. What shocked me was the inclusion of Davina Macoll on the panel - she demonstrated a level of ignorance that was frightening....but no doubt she was there to represent the BBCs conception of "yoof"...

I would just like to express thanks to Douglas Murray, for being the only voice on Question Time to stand up and speak truthfully about 'Hamas', and their murderous intentions.
What was worrying was that the student audience seemed to be carried away on a left wing liberalism, which, if representative of todays UK students, shows a disturbing decline which could reap the whirlwind for the UK in the near future, if they dont get real, and know their history.
At least Douglas was able to reprove the audience and silence them for their insipid support of Hamas, and their Jew hatred.
Thanks Douglas.

Colin Mitchell

Well said Douglas Murray.
The dire threat of Islamic Jihad is not the result of a misbegotten war and it will certainly not recede with our withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.
To attribute the Islamist war against the West to our foreign policy is emblematic of the self-loathing mindset of our "liberal" left Establishment, Matthew Parris being a polished exhibitor of this morbid tendency.
No one of objective attitude acquainted with the history of Islam can fail to recognise the aggressive dynamic of that politico-religious movement from its inception in the 7th C.Vast areas of the world from Spain to the Hindu Kush have been at one time or another under Islamic control and the current pulsation of Muslim aggression can leave us in no doubt that they intend world domination achieved by violence or superior breeding rates.
It is the legions of Ken Livingstones and his treacherous like that we have most to fear in these dangerous times.