Share |

Tuesday 15 June 2010

Barking: 'Muslims Against Crusades' Incite Anger

Looking like a group of extras who have walked off of the set of the 1968 film Planet of the Apes, a bunch of Muslims naming themselves Muslims Against Crusades today turned up in Barking to hurl insults at soldiers from the Royal Anglian Regiment as they marched through the borough in a homecoming parade. Their aim of course was to arouse the ire of the British public, and this they succeeded in doing. They had already offered a primer in souring the public mood through their recent fly-posting of posters promoting their demonstration on a local war memorial.

Some EDL members were on hand to shower the protesters with beer and unflattering epithets. The bearded black-flag wavers then scurried away to seek police protection which was promptly provided. It was just such a protest in Luton last year that precipitated the formation of the EDL, and although once again the number of simian-brained Islamists was comparatively small in number (circa 40), the anti-British Islamo-supremacist sentiments to which they give voice are all too widespread amongst concentrations of Muslim population in the UK.

Is this a race issue? No, of course not. Is Communism a race? No. Is Nazism a race? No. Is Christianity a race? No. Is Islam a race? No. Moreover, you can see amongst the protesters one of the worst kinds of Islamic extremist: the indigenous convert (ginger beard) who freely chose to reject his country and civilisation. Islam is a particularly unpleasant ideology which should be no more immune to criticism than any other.

Unsurprisingly, the London Evening Post described the EDL and other unnamed groups who opposed the protest as ‘far-right’ (sic). Then again, the journalist who composed the piece is named Rashid Razaq, so you would hardly expect such a man to be objective would you? Typically, his piece was accompanied by the photograph below which shows some angry white people, rather than the other pictures which I have borrowed from the Shield Wall blog. Razaq’s piece of course sought to portray the protesters and the counter-protesters as being morally equivalent in their respective ‘extremisms’. To whom did he accord the last word in his piece? Any guesses? Here it is:
Muslim councillor Manzour Hussain said: “Muslims Against Crusades do not represent the vast majority of law abiding, peaceful Muslim members of our society who respect Britain's armed forces. They certainly do not represent the views of the Muslim community of Barking and Dagenham.”
That’s right, they never do represent Muslims or Islam do they? Just as Mohammed’s slaving, genocide, torture, rape and paedophilia don’t inform Islam (so they tell us, although they never actually deny that these things took place), even though all Muslims state that he is the paragon of all humanity and for eternity beyond any criticism. The truth is this: those Muslims who practise their faith and actually believe in it, rather than those unfortunates who happen to have been born into it and are not permitted either to leave it or refute it, tell us whatever is expedient to further their agenda. Granted, Muslims Against Crusades don’t represent “law abiding, peaceful Muslim[s]”, but they do represent those who subscribe to the words of the Qur’an and the deeds of Mohammed.

Video Footage of Demonstrators (courtesy of The Iconoclast, New English Review)


  1. Makes me want to throw up...I am a tolerant person, and provided no-one is hurt, believe anyone should follow any religion they see fit (or indeed not)...but sadly, the bad thing about a democracy, is idiots like these (and their far-right opponents)are allowed to vent their bullsh*t anyway they please

  2. Islam is dual faced ideology. In practice this means that one group of Muslims will wage violent Jihad, while another part proclaims that Islam is a peaceful religion and the violent Jihadis do not represent Islam.

    As it is impossible to differentiate the two, as the groups are interchangeable at a moments notice, what this does in practice is to make it impossible for the victims of Islamic Jihad to retaliate, for fear of hurting the peaceful Muslim group.

    What needs top be understood is that both groups are operate in tandem, each supporting the other, and both interchangeable from moderate to radical at a moments notice. This is apparent from the Muslim engineers or doctors before the become suicide bombers. The reverse is also true of the violent Jihadi - when he gets caught, he immediately becomes a peaceful moderate, who admits temporary insanity or admits that his understanding of Islam was wrong. In either case, it is not just to get a lenient sentence but also mainly to absolve Islam from the atrocity.


  3. DP111, your analysis of the manner in which Islam works is spot on. Islam has its good cop/bad cop approach, or, drawing a political comparison Menshevik (gradualist)/Bolshevik (revolutionary) methods of effecting a complete social transformation.

    Those Muslims who actually believe in their religion, rather than being nominal Muslims who happened to have been born into it, all see their religion/ideology/social system as superior to any other and wish to work towards its establishment by whatever means prove workable. Whether a practising Muslim becomes a violent jihadi or a gradualist reformist is very much down to a matter of individual temperament. This does of course make it very difficult to alert our fellow non-believers as to what is going on and how the Islamic memeplex operates.

  4. Hello Anonymous number 1. Yes, Islamist nutcases demonstrating on our streets and calling for our subjugation isn't a pleasant sight to behold. Please however do not fall into the trap of accusing those of us who actively contest this process of Islamisation as being "far-right" (sic). This is what the media would have you believe, but if you look at the NUJ guidelines for publishing stories relating to racial and religious minorities you will understand why they deliberately use such language to distort the issues. I am not "far-right" and neither is the counterjihad movement. Geert Wilders is a classical European libertarian and in no way "far-right". Please stop using this inappropriate terminology.

    Try reading a wide range of posts from around the blogosphere on such topics to gain a clearer picture of what is going on, as we are not beholden to the NUJ rules. Also read George Orwell's essay (it's quite short) entitled 'What is Fascism?' for there you will find the considered thoughts of a wise man who understood how that term (with which we can now bracket "far-right") was used to stigmatise a completely unrelated array of political positions which certain interest groups within society wished to stigmatise. So it is today. Please google for his article and read it. It's enlightening.

  5. "Please however do not fall into the trap of accusing those of us who actively contest this process of Islamisation as being "far-right" (sic)."

    Well said. Time to get off the fence, Anon1.

  6. Thanks for your words of support Blue Heeler. Anonymous 1's attitude is all-too prevalent here in the UK at the moment, particularly amongst those who are ostensibly educated.

  7. Carpe Diem, thanks for leaving a comment. I'm glad that you approve of this blog's content. I must apologise, but when I tried to publish your comment something odd happened and it disappeared. Please feel free to post again.


Comments that call for or threaten violence will not be published. Anyone is entitled to criticise the arguments presented here, or to highlight what they believe to be factual error(s); ad hominem attacks do not constitute comment or debate. Although at times others' points of view may be exasperating, please attempt to be civil in your responses. If you wish to communicate with me confidentially, please preface your comment with "Not for publication". This is why all comments are moderated.