Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 25 November 2015

Is it time to regulate Islam in Britain?

Back in the 1970s Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey enthusiastically backed PIE, a paedophile organisation, in lobbying for their right to abuse children. It was a phenomenon of its time; everyone had a right to everything, and keen young lawyers like Harman were there to promote them. There's no suggestion she favoured nonces over dope smokers, squatters or town centre Onanists. 

Back in July I wrote a post that stands well, entitled "Islam is a religion of violence, but most Moslems are peaceful". I reproduce it below. 

The point is, if Islam is a religion of violence, which it is, why should we permit the violent bits to be promulgated any more than we permit the promotion of paedophilia? If we regulate and classify sexual images and sexual stimulation, should we not also regulate and classify the Koran and its verses? Can it be right that a book that contains 160 or 170 or 180 verses encouraging Muslims to violence remains legal and unregulated?

If this seems radical, imagine looking back in 40 years time and viewing those who defend the unedited Koran's legality today in the same way we now view those defenders of paedophilia in the 1970s. 

I've no concrete proposals, just that we should think about our continuing acceptance of a text that justifies the most horrendous crimes and violence. Should publishing or possessing a Koran that contains the 160 violent verses be made illegal in the UK? Or should we leave the Koran alone and just ban the Salafist Sunni Muslims from practice in the UK in the same way as Catholics were banned up to the 1870s and Scientologists are banned in some countries today? Or as true Liberals, should we not regulate anything at all, including the paedophiles?

Islam is a religion of violence, but most Moslems are peaceful 
 In the post below I wrote that the BBC were right to reject the PM's call for a change of name for ISIS but for the wrong reasons. The Tories were also right to pick up on the Nazi meme - the duty of the State broadcaster to the national interest overides any aesthetic desire for 'impartiality'.  

It is a paradox that we have to accept that Islam is a religion of violence, bigotry and intolerance but that the vast, overwhelming majority of Moslems are peaceful. Thank you, Greg. And why is it that the combined intellects of the Conservative Party, the SNP and the BBC are unable to understand a matter so simple that the Speccie can explain it in a handful of words? 

It has been the Speccie's Douglas Murray who has fearlessly done most to disabuse the nation of the nonsense of Islam as a 'religion of peace'. And it's the Speccie this morning that states clearly
To say that Islamic State has nothing to do with Islam is like saying Stalin’s Soviet Union had nothing to do with socialism, or the Inquisition had nothing to do with Catholicism. Islamic State has nothing to do with most varieties of Islam, just as Stalinism had nothing to do with most varieties of socialism, but Islamic State has everything to do with Salafist Sunni Islam, which has spread its ultra-puritan, ultra-reactionary literalist interpretation of the myths of early Islam across the world.

As the historian of the ancient world Tom Holland put it, when Islamic State fighters smash the statues of ‘pagan’ gods, they are following the example of the Prophet, who cleared the pagans from Mecca. When they proclaim themselves the shock troops of a would-be global empire, they are merely following the imperial pretensions of the early Islamic armies. When they execute prisoners of war, impose discriminatory taxes on Christians, and take the women of defeated opponents as slaves, they are doing nothing that the first Muslims did not do. As Holland neatly put it,
Such behaviour is certainly not synonymous with Islam; but if not Islamic, then it is hard to know what else it is.
So let's stop pretending that Islam is something it isn't. We're really grown-up enough to be able to handle this paradox; for Christians, it's 'hate Islam, love Moslems', and atheists and agnostics can condemn us both.
(NB This post has been checked for legality under the terms of s29(j) of the 2006 Racial and Religious hatred Act "Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.")


APL said...

"or should we leave the Koran alone and just ban the Salafist Sunni Muslims from practice in the UK in the same way as Catholics were banned up to the 1870s"

Why just the Salafist Sunni faction. Ban the whole lot. Islam is an ideology that seeks the destruction of the other.

It is incompatible with our civilisation.

Cuffleyburgers said...

Hello Radders. I think it would be absurd to ban the Koran. To the kind of weak minded saddoes who are likely to be inspired by some ancient, probably scarcely readable text (if it's anything like the bible) to acts of violent suicide, then banning it is only going to make matters worse.

My view is that the best cure for radical islam in the UK is: ridicule, a proper humanist education for all children to offset the rantings of dodgy immams (which I suspect are in a minority), an intensive campaign to infiltrate mosques in order to infiltrate mosques in order to identify said dodgy immams and bring them down by means for example of accusations (fake or not) of child abuse and paedofilia with young boys.

An offshore processing centre is required for all asylum applications to the uk and and immigrants with no papers go there until their identity and refugee status are established after which they are allowed in or sent back. At any time while there they can apply to leave to return to their home country, the idea being that if its a fairly crap wet cold place they likely will do. How about Gruinard island?

Weekend Yachtsman said...

" imagine looking back in 40 years time" a time when the Christian religion could legally be practiced in Britain, when women could leave their homes without male relatives to chaperone them, and when there was an alternative to Sharia Law.

Fortunately I'll be gone by then, but I fear for my grandchildren, particularly my grand-daughters.

Anonymous said...

I am inclined to the idea that the real problem is democracy.

I would rather we had a set of inalienable rights...

Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition.

Right to keep and bear arms in order to maintain a well regulated militia.

No quartering of soldiers.

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures.

Right to due process of law, freedom from self-incrimination, double jeopardy.

Rights of accused persons, e.g., right to a speedy and public trial.

Right of trial by jury in civil cases.

Freedom from excessive bail, cruel and unusual punishments.

Other rights of the people.

Powers reserved to the counties.

Yes, I realise that this is just a copy of the summary of those rights that are part of the US Bill of Rights, but they are a good protection from enemy and government alike, and there is a right of remedy built in.

Some of the so-called rights that are currently practised are rights that I would do away with... The right to limited liability for one... People who want to invent, build, sell, something novel should only have the right to go it alone, or partner with some colleagues... Limited liability enables a whole new right, which is not within the realms of human possibility... namely, the right to immortality, and the right to fail at other people's expense or loss. This is a right that has been assumed through the co-ercement of weak government.

Those that wish to govern, should only be accepted if they are prepared to put their life on the line, like a king, or like the head of a powerful (usually rich ) family. The day that a government, loses the will or ability to defend the nation, They should surely not be accepted.

Democracy, allows the weak to pretend to rule over the strong... In our current system we are led by some of the weakest and least able of people, who are bullied by the government institutions and the corporations, and the religious zealots, and voted into office simply because of the name of the immortal corporation that they sell for.

In other words, my ideal would not to ban any of those things discussed above, but ban the things which enable powerful (yet weak) people to force others to put up with their weirdness... Weirdnesses come and go, but we should not be forced to weaken ourselves for the sake of those weird folk. As Harriet Harman and her like have proved, what seemed acceptable to a young (hot) lawyer, before she grew into a stupid old haggish politician, would never have been accepted under any circumstances, ever... despite her campaigning, but she had a right to campaign. As a stupid old hag, she has been able to inflict real damage, under the flag of democracy.

Government should be there to do no more than defend those rights, so rather, not to ban whole groups of people just because they have a set of weird ideas, but if they threaten the rights as laid out above, then government should be able to act.

This is a little musing over a croissant or two, so it is a bit garbled, but I reckon that the aims of the US "founding fathers" were good, they just became corrupted through federation... The nations of the southern states, and the "native" Americans just didn't see it coming, until it was too late, and the nations became a giant immortal corporation.

Dean Ditchbank said...

That's a good idea. Publishing or possessing a copy of the Koran with 160 violent versus should become a crime in the UK. Let's start with that.
If we don't make a start, and that means identifying the unique threat to us that is Islam, our leaders will have gone over to the other side and our civil society will no longer have the power to defend itself.
The first lesson is that Islam is not like anything else. It is not just an example of religion in general. It's chief distinguishing feature is that it hates us and wants to destroy us. Until that truth is embodied in law, and law that is enforced, we the British are just another culture on the point of vanishing - and the same is true for the French, Germans and all other Europeans.
So let's get lobbying for Radder's Law

Anonymous said...

I think ridicule is the way to go, if the BBC can do it for UKIP they can certainly do it for Islam. At the very least we can stop giving respect to the doctrine that is destroying our way of life.

There should be no Islam faith schools and attempting to indoctrinate children in this cult should be considered to be child abuse.

Every schoolchild should be provided with a copy of this.

We need a thirty year programme to eliminate Islam in the UK and make the Koran a book for historians only.

Anonymous said...

However, what we will get will be the regulation of all religions. You see it would be so islamophobic just to pick on one religion. Don't we all know that all religions are just different ways to god? So if one religion needs regulating, they all must. It's for their own good? Anyway, won't someone think of the children? They must be protected from indoctrination (unless of course it is in the principles of international socialism which is OK because it's not a religion).

Or, Weekend Yachtsman +1

James Higham said...

Time? You win the prize for understatement of the year, Radders.

Ed P said...

Anon @14:31 raises a valid point.

Banning all religions would leave us subject to the horrors of socialism (which is a godless religion), with all its appalling consequences.
Just take a look at the state-"educated" drones our schools are churning out and imagine, if you can bear it, the resulting mindless dystopia.
So maybe, whether you're religious or not, supporting the gentle, tolerant version of Christianity we're used to in Britain is considerably better than the alternatives.

DeeDee99 said...

There are also some violent passages in the Old Testament; but the vast majority of us accept that they were written for a different time and are not appropriate in the modern world.

Some Muslims have not accepted that the Koran's violent passages referred to the dim and distant past and are not appropriate for today.

Sadly, you can't ban them. Banning books doesn't work. You have to educate people. And that's where it has all gone badly wrong. We have allowed preachers of hate and violence to "educate" Muslims in their faith. We shouldn't ban the Koran, we should ban Saudi-sponsored preachers. Every single one of them should be barred from British mosques and packed off back to Riyadh.

Sackerson said...

I think the way forward is in influencing interpretation rather than Bowdlerising. The Bible has parts that should also make us squirm, e.g. Exodus 22:

"18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" - King James I had a merry time on that - and among the 613 Mitzvot commandments:

!611.Always to remember what Amalek did (Deut. 25:17) (CCA76).
612.That the evil done to us by Amalek shall not be forgotten (Deut. 25:19) (CCN194).
613.To destroy the seed of Amalek (Deut. 25:19) (CCA77)."

Some say the Amalekites were indeed exterminated and so these injunctions are now redundant; others say the Armenians are Amalek-descended (see

Fact is, most people are selective about their religious practices and if society in general is running smoothly they don't concern themselves with the bloody bits. Education and open (liberal in the best sense) discussion are needed - evil festers where the like-minded gather and develop their groupthink and ideological drift. That goes for our homegrown WBRI-classified soi-disant-patriotic Jew-and-Muslim-haters, too.

G. Tingey said...

Thank you too.
Time for islam to be regulated as the RC church was once regulated here is a possible model?
Remember that the Gunpowder Plot was unmasked by a catholic ( Lord Monteagle IIRC )

I note that Paddy Ashdown was asking ( "Today" programme" ) earlier this week why are we crawling up the Saudis arsehole - & answer from Camoron came there none.

Christianity is incompatible with civilisation, as well, if civilisation includes real, material scientific progress & knowledge.
It is just that most christians, like most muslims are harmless idiots.

Stop talking bollocks. The christian religion is practiced in my local parish church ( from which I escaped ) every week & in the loonie happy-clappy US-backed fundie insane-house & in .... you get the idea.

Astoudingly, I agree with you, except, you should have set the clock to OUR Bill of Rights, 1688/89, actually.

Book-banning? NO, that is simple stupidity.

I think ridicule is the way to go, if the BBC can do it for UKIP they can certainly do it for Islam.
This morning the "Today" programme skewered MacDonnel (Shadow Chancellor) beautifully, asking him "if quoting from the work of a mass murderer was actually a good idea?"

Unfortunately, there are quite a few christians who do not "accept that they were written for a different time" - think NornIron or almost anywhere in the USA.
Oh dear.

Your last paragraph hits the nail squarely.