The Bear

The issue here is the influence of Deobandi in Britain and Europe.

Now that IS a can of worms.

Since as was the case with Abu Hamza who was allowed to preach hate until the US stepped in, Riyadh ul Haq has also been left to continue his filth speech.

The question then arises why.

Since decisions to prosecute in Britain are taken by the CPS and “public interest” as well as “cultural sensitivity” form part of the decision making process the question then arises who is providing guidance on these issues.

The answer is of course the Government, and more importantly the advisors they involve who in the case of Muslim issues are predominantly Muslims.

You can be sure that those advisors include a number of individuals with an agenda that has everything to do with the continued progressing towards the Islamification of our country, and nothing to do with maintaining a fair decent just and ethnically integrated society

'K, let’s just “ do a catch up” on the Deobandi.

Dar ul-Uloom Deoband got its name from the movement started up in Deoband in India in the mid nineteenth century by a group of ulema in which one Qasim Nanautawi played a key role. His background and activities lmakes for interesting reading to say the least.

In effect (and in fact, even today) it is an offshoot of the Wahhabis, the Deoband were passionately anti-British because of the British presence in India, and that hatred remains still today.

It is also why the effective spiritual control over so much of British Islam is actually provided by the Saudi Arabian Wahhabis, a chilling thought in itself for those who know anything about the Ultra Orthodox sect.

Now for some independent evidence to uphold my statements regarding the role and nature of the Deobandi influence in Britain today.

Let’s start with The Times, a credible source.

“Almost half of Britain’s mosques are under the control of a hardline Islamic sect whose leading preacher loathes Western values and has called on Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah, an investigation by The Times has found.

Hardline takeover of British mosques -Times Online



“the question is whether aggressive battle is by itself commendable or not”. “If it is, why should the Muslims stop simply because territorial expansion in these days is regarded as bad? And if it is not commendable, but deplorable, why did Islam not stop it in the past?”
He answers his own question thus: “Even in those days . . . aggressive jihads were waged . . . because it was truly commendable for establishing the grandeur of the religion of Allah.”
These words are not the product of a radical extremist. They come from the pen of one of the most acclaimed scholars in the Deobandi tradition.

Our followers ‘must live in peace until strong enough to wage jihad’ -Times Online



Then a more biased source, but dealing here in facts rather than opinion

“One of the principle doctrines of the Deobandi ideology is that it is a Muslim's duty to wage war (Jihad) upon the enemies of Muslims, wherever they may be. National borders are inconsequential, and a student's loyalty should be to Allah before the country in which he lives.”

And …

“[i]London’s Times and the Daily Mail newspapers carried the alarming news that followers of the Deobandi doctrine have taken over almost half of Britain's mosques.

In Lancashire in the north of England, out of 75 mosques in Blackburn, Bolton, Preston, Oldham and Burnley, 59 of these are now run by Deobandi clerics.

There are 26 Islamic seminaries in Britain – which produce 80% of homegrown clerics for mosques – and of these 17 are run by Deobandis.

A police report claims that of the 1,350 mosques in Britain, more than 600 of these are now run by Deobandis. In London, about 170 mosques are said to be run by Deobandis.[/i[“

Family Security Matters Archive



Believe me, there is a whole lot more to support this.

I do agree that geopolitical factors did indeed provide a fertile ground for the re-emergence of The Taliban, certainly the US involvement of them in its war-by-proxy with the USSR was a key factor as you point out in what you wrote regarding the use of them by the US, but here again, this is a bit of a red herring since the key issue here is the role that the Deobandi take in Britain today.

Islam co-exists with little fuss until it is in a position to flex its ideological muscles and start to make demands just as took place in Britain up to the late ‘90’s

It then starts demands though the devout and activists that must be Jihad towards total conversion of the lands in which it present into a part of Dar ul-Islam.

There term, as you are no doubt well aware of relates to those lands in which Islam rules, or at least subjugates others, or can exist as Dar ul-Islam communities, in fact colonies that grow and link up until ……

It may at some stage be worth examining the meaning. scope, and origin of “Dar ul-Islam”, of its counterpart “Dar ul-Haarb”, the origins of the names, and the various states that exist between the two.


Islam is an ideology, Muslims are people caught up to varying degrees by that ideology.

People are to varying degrees and for various reasons pliant, Islam is not.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

Mikeuk

Bear!

It's time to reject Islamophobia and embrace diversity.

Surely they taught you that on your MBA course?

brian pearson

Mike. You can try and get people to embrace it. You can teach it in our schools. You can even enforce it legally but ultimately people by and large don't want it. What you will end up with is even more animosity between the very people you are trying to bring together.

The Bear

The two things to never bring together are Islam and Western society.

The two are fundamentally incompatible.

I really do believe that the only way forward now in Britain is some form of partition in the way that India was partitioned into India and Pakistan since any alternatives carry an unacceptable cost.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

kernow

Never a truer word spoken!

g hall

equating war with Jihad is incorrect rather like equating war with Crusade

If all religions believe that we are all created by a God then surely to destroy that God's creation is to destroy God ?

back to SimCity

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
TANSTAAFL TANJ

kernow

What was possible with India, is impossible for Britain, due to size of Country. Islam has never been the Religion of the Indigenous British people and I hope never will be.

The Bear

Islam is a religion of death.

Not the usual usual about “some religion of peace, look at what gets done in its name”

Instead the concentration on the “afterlife” above all else, even to a greater extent than Christianity which it plagurised with “The Last Day” and all that entails.

Islam is about obeying the law as pick and mixed from Christian and Jewish (and other) sources as well as the bits invented by Mohammed in order to get into The Gardens of Paradise where all the things prohibited on earth are there in abundance for the True Believers who have “walked the walk”.

Life on earth for people who believe in this way is a bit of a pain. It’s full of dangers of being diverted from The one True Way and any opportunity to get a “go at once to Paradise and pick up a golden key” is just too good to pass by.

To get some idea of the philosophy, the history of it as a concept as well as what’s involved and some of the background consider the events surrounding the Battle of Qadisiyya.

In order to get his point across one Khalid ibn Al-Walid, leader of the Islamic force sent a message from his own spiritual leader, Abu Bakr, to his Persian counterpart saying

"You and your people should convert to Islam, and then you will be safe. If you don't be aware that I have come with an army of men that love death in the way that you love life."

It’s a thing that to this day regularly appears at Friday Night Prayers as part of the rabble rousing that takes place in so many Deobandi aligned Mosques, in newspaper articles, and even in school books to get the message about loving death in the name of Allah to the kids.

To further emphasise this perception of life and how it differs from our own an article recently written by one Abdallah Al-Naggar in an Egyptian newspaper reads when translated as

"The believers in Allah rightly do not dread their enemies and do not fear making jihad, because they see jihad as a profitable bargain, selling their lives to Allah and so entrance to Paradise.

Their enemies protect their own lives, as criminals do.

Allah has already said about them: 'You will find that they are the people who protect their life more than anyone else.'...

The believers do not fear the enemy in the struggle and do not protect their lives.

Allah has promised them one of two good things, victory or martyrdom....

Yet their enemies protect their lives like a miser protects his money. They do not give their easily, they do not enter into battles seeking martyrdom, they do not act in order to get martyrdom.

That is the secret of the believers' victory over their enemies though the believers are few and the polytheists many, with advanced weaponry and equipment."

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

The Bear

The issue is that the “indigenous British People” have now become a thing of the past, especially the indigenous English people, and it’s primarily an English problem we face.

Today the population, especially in the case of England, is fractured.

The land that makes up England is now the land that has several nations existing on it, with one that is incompatible with the rest and that is what will have to be addressed in some way because it isn’t going to go away.

We can have a multi-ethnic English population with no significant problems, but what we can’t have is a multi-cultural population since we use the word culture when we really mean nationality.

On that basis our options are three.

• Submit and join the other nation. Not for me, and not for many.

• Bloody civil war and expulsion of the “other” nation. No thanks. We wouldn’t even win.

• Partition and establish secure borders. It would probably mean loosing much of the Midlands but we would retain part of England.

I really can’t see any others.

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

kernow

Do you honestly thing by giving them the Midlands that would appease them? Like the old saying , "Give an inch and they'll take a yard"!