Baroness Warsi’s Speech (20.01.11)- A Critique

· Islam, People
Authors

Baroness Warsi’s Speech (20.01.11) – A Critique

This critique attempts to examine the flaws in Baroness Warsi’s presentation and her concept of Islam, Islamophobia, Extremist Muslim, Moderate Muslim, in Britain from her Muslim Point of view.


Baroness Sayeeda Warsi delivers 2011 University of Leicester Sir Sigmund Sternberg Lecture

Baroness Sayeeda Warsi*- 2011

The Speech

She Said:

Back in September I made a speech about faith at the Bishops Conference.

It was the first time that a Cabinet Minister had spoken so frankly about faith for many years.

I think it’s fair to say that the speech caused a bit of a stir in some quarters.

The New Humanist Magazine ran a poll of their readers which ranked me the fifth most dangerous enemy of reason last year.

I was about to think that actually, I hadn’t done too badly, when I discovered that the Koran-burning Pastor, Terry Jones, came one place below me!

But overall I believe the impact of the speech was really positive.

And the main thing I discovered by doing the speech was that there is a large, untapped appetite for a more mature discussion of faith in this country.

I sensed that people were fed up of the patronising, superficial way faith is discussed in certain quarters, including the media…

….and that sadly there has been a rise in a sloppy kind of religious illiteracy.

So it was important to take stock of where Britain is with faith.

And I am delighted to be here today to build on what I said.

Your University is helping to raise the whole standard of faith-based debate in this country.

And I know that some fantastic people have given the Sternberg lecture before me.

Professor Hans Kung has spoken about his idea of the “global ethic” and the common values of the main religions…

…Lord Carey has talked about the relationship between Islam and The West, and why the idea of a clash of civilisations can become a self-fulfilling prophecy…

…and Cardinal Cormac O’Connor has explored the current global position of Christianity.

But I want to start my speech today by paying tribute to Sir Sigmund Sternberg.

Although he has connections with the Labour Party, I hope he won’t mind if I say that his life seems to me to be the epitome of the Big Society.

Since coming to Britain as a European Jew in the 1920s, he has spent his life helping to strengthen communities.

For me, as a Rotarian, a big part of that was what he did in the 1990s…

…when he re-established Rotary Clubs in Eastern Europe after the collapse of Communism.

But from the point of view of my subject today, it is his work with faith communities which is truly inspiring.

From helping to resolve a row at Auschwitz over a Catholic convent…

…to organising the first ever papal visit to a synagogue…

…to establishing the Three Faiths Forum with Reverend Marcus Braybrooke and Dr Badawi….

…Sir Sigmund has shown just how much one person can do to promote a richer, more tolerant, and a more integrated society.

And that brings me to the theme of my lecture today.

BIGOTRY AGAINST FAITH

In my last speech I made the evidential case for faith in our country.

I showed that contrary to popular belief, faith in this country is certainly not fading away;

I explained that faith inspires many people to do good things which help build a bigger society;

And I announced that the aim of this government is to help not hinder faith communities in the good things that they do.

Today, I want to make a related argument.

I want to make the case against the rising tide of anti-religious bigotry.

In particular, I want to say three things:

First, I want to highlight what I mean by this rising religious illiteracy and condemn the bigotry which it feeds.

Second, I want to explain why I feel these problems are happening.

And third, I want to set out how we can start to deal with it.

In other words, in my last speech, I said that this government does God.

This time, I’m saying we get God.

What I mean by that is we understand faith.

I am not saying that people can’t be anti-religion.

What I am opposed to is the rise of unreasonable, unfounded, irrational bigotry.

Where religion itself becomes a loaded word…

…where free discussion is drowned out by a sensationalist media…

…and where there simply is no room for fair-minded debate.

Now some will be surprised to hear me using the language of reason to defend an essentially spiritual phenomenon – namely individual faith.

Others will say that it’s ok to be irrational about religion…

…because religion itself is not open to rational debate.

I don’t accept that.

Faith and Reason go hand in hand.

This is a point the Pope has made consistently over the last few years.

All through the Bible, there is a close relationship between faith and reason.

Perhaps the most telling are the opening words of the Gospel of John.

“In the beginning was the Word…

…and the Word was with God….

…and the Word was God”.

“The Word was God”

So, at the very heart of Christian faith, we find that Reason and God’s Grace go hand in hand.

And as the Pope made clear when visiting a mosque in Amman last year, this isn’t unique to the Christian religion, but to all the main religions.

“As believers in the one God, we know that human reason is itself God’s gift and that it soars to its highest plane when suffused with the light of God’s truth.”

“In fact, when human reason humbly allows itself to be purified by faith, it is far from weakened; rather it is strengthened to resist presumption and to reach beyond its own limitations.”

The point is just as religion shouldn’t fear reason, so reason shouldn’t be denied to faith.

But my worry is that is exactly what is happening right now.

Controversial stories are inflated by the media…

…detracting from serious faith-based debate…

…and leaving us with a situation where instead of philosophy, we’re fed anti-faith phobias.

One telling example of this occurred in 2005, when Ruth Kelly was made Education Secretary.

Now of course, it’s reasonable to scrutinise that appointment and have a discussion about whether Ruth Kelly was up to the job.

But what was it really right that her faith formed such a big part of that inquiry?

And was the appropriate language about her Catholicism used?
At its extreme, this kind of bigotry descends into absurd caricatures.

Where all Catholicism becomes “dodgy Priests in Ireland”.

Judaism becomes “murky international financiers”.

Sikhism suddenly seems to be all about a play in Birmingham.

And Evangelical Christianity is seen as anti-Abortion activists rather than campaigners like William Wilberforce.

For some faiths, these kind of characterisations have increasingly become mainstream.

Today, I want to touch on the way my own faith, Islam, is perceived.

Let me say right away to British Muslims that I acknowledge that there is a minority of people that try to justify their criminal conduct and activity by suggesting that it is sanctioned by their faith.

It is a problem that we must confront and defeat.

But that problem should not lead to unfounded suspicions of all Muslims.

Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.

Let me give one example which is very personal to here:

It was reported several years ago that students at Leicester University persuaded their union cafeteria to ban pork and go exclusively halal.

The trouble was, that turned out not to be the whole story.

In fact, as I understand, it the Student Union decided that one out of the 26 cafes on campus should serve halal food.

And when you consider that there are a large number of Muslim students at Leicester, that makes sound financial sense!

For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing.

You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.

Take this from Polly Toynbee:

“I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it”.

Or this speech title from Rod Liddle:

“Islamophobia? Count me in”.

But of course, Islamophobia should be seen as totally abhorrent – just like homophobia or Judeophobia – because any phobia is by definition the opposite of a philosophy.

A phobia is an irrational fear.

It takes on a life of its own and no longer needs to be justified.

And all this filters through.

The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice.

So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist”…

…when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…

…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”.

And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.

WHY IS THIS HAPPENING?

So why is this happening?

We’ve got to start by understanding where this bigotry comes from.

We must learn the lessons of history.

Now I strongly believe that the British story of integration is a positive story.

You need to delve deep into the Dark Ages to find a time when the state was under the exclusive control of one tribe or ethnicity.

Instead, for centuries, our state has represented a set of common laws governing a diverse set of tribes, faiths and ethnicities.

The same can be said about the USA.

America prides herself on being a haven of immigrants, where you can be proudly Irish or Italian or Christian or Muslim – and still American.

As it says on the Great Seal of the United States: e pluribus unum.

This idea of unity from diversity runs through our own history.

It has helped to forge the values of pluralism, tolerance and diversity which define our society.

This gives us our moral authority to criticise, challenge and condemn those nations which far too often do not grant their religious minorities dignity, respect and equality.

But the British battle against bigotry will always be an ongoing battle.

And sadly, at no point does it totally disappear.

So Disraeli did become the first Jewish Prime Minister – but the cartoonists still drew him as an East-End bag-man.

Oswald Mosley’s Fascists never became a mainstream party – but the newspapers at the time were still littered with Anti-Semitism.

And now a Muslim woman is a member of a British Cabinet – but a British citizen today can still be attacked for merely wearing a headscarf as part of her religious observance.

Why is bigotry so resilient?

A big part of the problem is the intellectual challenge of reconciling religious and national identities.

If you look back at our history, you see that we have had particular trouble when it comes to this issue.

Again and again, we found it hard to believe that non-Protestants could be loyal to our country.

The debates on Catholic Emancipation in the 1820s are a fantastic case study.

Yes, a big part of the argument against letting Catholics into Parliament was old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigotry.

Up and down the country, the mob cried: “No Papacy”.

But the interesting thing was the intellectual argument which lies behind the rioting.

Deep down, it all boiled down to this:

Whether a Catholic, whose ultimate allegiance was thought to be to the Papacy, could still be a loyal servant of the British Monarchy.

The problem with Catholicism, as the Protestant establishment saw it, was that it transcended British sovereignty…

…ultimate loyalty wasn’t to the King of Britain but to the Papacy…

…which meant being Catholic and British were two irreconcilable identities.

It was only after Catholic Emancipation passed through Parliament…

…and after we began to break with the medieval European tradition of absolute religious conformity…

….that these problems began to disappear.

But fast forward two centuries, and there is still a sense of suspicion towards those subjects whose ultimate loyalty is presumed to lie with a supranational religion…

….or to an extra-terrestrial divinity.

Just think about anti-Muslim bigotry.

One of the most frequent arguments made against Islam in Britain is the idea that all British Muslims want to overturn British sovereignty and obey a transnational, Islamic authority.

Let me repeat again: extremists are a minority of a minority.

But from this flows a steady drip of suspicion and sense of sedition…

…all feeding the rise of a wider Islamophobia.

ISLAMOPHOBIA

Obviously, I find the rise of Islamophobia particularly worrying.

As a Muslim, I’ve had to live with it for many years.

But I strongly believe that my problem is really our problem….

….because of the danger it poses to the whole of our society.

Ultimately, Islamophobia challenges our basic British identity.

One of the most important aspects of our identity is our belief in equality before the law.

But deep, entrenched anti-Muslim bigotry challenges that tradition…

…because it implies that one section of society is less deserving of our protection than the rest.

I commend those who understand and condemn the cancer of Islamophobia…

….whether that be John Denham, Seumus Milne, Peter Oborne, or the Metropolitan Police…

I know that there is also a perverted line of argument which says that Muslims have only got themselves to blame for this hatred.

After all, they’re the ones who blow up tubes and aeroplanes….

….so treating them differently is actually ok.

But think about it for one second, and you see that this argument is self-defeating.

The deeper Islamophobia seeps into our culture, the easier becomes the task of the extremist recruiting sergeant.

Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law…

…they also should face social rejection and alienation across society….

…and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims….

…or divide our society on the basis of faith.

So what I am saying is this:

At all times, we should be working to drain the pool of people where extremists fish.

The other worrying argument that also forms a basis for justifying Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is the idea that Islam is a particularly violent creed…

….and therefore that an irrational reaction to it is somehow appropriate.

This line of argument takes place at many levels.

At one level, policy professionals push hard against Islam by focussing on a fraction of what makes up the Islamic faith.

And at another level, fascist literature used by the BNP circulates sections of Quranic text out of context.

But anyone who is familiar with the main religions can find phrases which aren’t appropriate to modern life in the ancient texts of these religions.

“An eye for an eye”, is the advice from Exodus.

“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife…both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”, is what it says in Leviticus.

And “The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death”, is what Deuteronomy says.

I could go on….

…and I will.

Some of you here might be fans of the “West Wing”.

This exchange between the Catholic President, Bartlet and a bigoted TV presenter seems relevant here.

President Bartlet:
I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an abomination.

TV Presenter:
I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

President Bartlet:
Yes it does. Leviticus 18:22….I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I have you here.

I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleared the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff Leo McGarry insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?

Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?”

Do you see, Ladies and Gentlemen, you couldn’t make the point more clearly?

These texts from the Old Testament could so easily be manipulated to cause mischief, and indeed have been manipulated in the past.

But being religious means making choices and understanding the central values of your faith.

It also means considering the context in which that faith was formed.

To be an adherent, one must also be a historian.

This is a point the late Benazir Bhutto, the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim country once put particularly well when speaking of teachings in the Quran:

“In an age when no country, no system, no community gave women any rights, in a society where the birth of a baby girl was regarded as a curse, where women were considered chattel, Islam treated women as individuals”.

WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT IT?

So now that we have traced the rise of religious illiteracy, and explained why this is happening, the question now is what can we do about it?

The answers fall into three categories.

(1) First and foremost, we need political leadership.

Government has got to show that it gets it.

And Andrew Stunnell, the Minister for Integration, has already taken a strong lead.

Not only are we ramping up the fight against all phobias – including homophobia and gender inequality…

…but we are also building on the positive steps taken since the APPG Anti-Semitism inquiry…

….and responding to the concerns of the British Jewish community in a focussed and concerted way.

…like giving funds for Jewish State Schools to improve their security…

…beginning to tackle anti-Semitism on the internet…

… and supporting the Holocaust Education Trusts “Lessons from Aushwitz” project.

At all times, this government is thinking hard about the challenge of stamping out hatred and bigotry…

…and looking at what lessons we can apply from the past, particularly from our work on tackling Anti-Semitism…

…to deal with the new challenges of today.

But in addition to this, we also need to do something else.

We need to think harder about the language we use.

And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”.

This is something I’ve been thinking about a lot.

It’s not a big leap of imagination to predict where the talk of “moderate” Muslims leads:

In the factory, where they’ve just hired a Muslim worker, the boss says to his employees: “not to worry, he’s only fairly Muslim”.

In the school, the kids say “the family next door are Muslim but they’re not too bad”.

And in the road, as a woman walks past wearing a Burkha, the passers-by think: “that woman’s either oppressed or making a political statement”.

So we need to stop talking about moderate Muslims, and instead talk about British Muslims.

And when it comes to extremism, we should be absolutely clear:

These people are extremists, plain and simple, because their behaviour has detached them from the thought process within their religion.

(2) Second, we need a response from society.

It doesn’t take rocket science to know what that means.

“Love thy Neighbour” may be a cliché, but it’s a cliche’ because it’s eternally relevant.

Ultimately, that’s the test for everyone in society:

“Do I do enough to make my neighbour feel part of the wider community?”

“Would I be comfortable if my neighbour heard what I said about him?”

“Do I treat my neighbour the way I want to be treated myself?”

Simple questions we need to ask.

As I go around the country I hear many British Muslims raising a number of concerns with me….

… so let me take this opportunity to address the British Muslim community directly…

… if, like me, you feel that anti-Muslim hatred is widespread and rising…

…start to make a difference by doing three things:

First, in his New Year message the Prime Minister asked: how we were allowing the radicalisation of some young British Muslims?

He stated very clearly that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims detest this extremism but they must help to find the answers, together.

Here’s what that means:

Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.

Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.

And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.

Second, British Muslims need to learn from and build on the work done throughout history by other communities.

I want to refer particularly to the British Jewish Community and the work done by the Community Security Trust.

Week after week, the CST works with the police and the Jewish community to collect data and details of anti-Semitism in Britain…

….helping to defeat those bigots who say that British anti-Semitism no longer exists.

British Muslims should learn from them.

There is an urgent need for a data collection project.

The first step in addressing the problem is to measure the scale of it.

And I hope that this project will support the work of the newly formed All Party Parliamentary Group on Islamophobia, chaired by Kris Hopkins MP.

(3) Third, and above all, British Muslims needs to remember that with rights come responsibilities.

That means no burying our heads in the sand and denying the problem…

…but standing up and doing something about it.

The reason I came into politics is because I felt my country can be better.

I want more Muslims to do that same thing and help ease the relationship between their country and their faith.

CONCLUSION

Finally, I want to finish with the third response to religious illiteracy.

If we really are going to combat bigotry against religion, faith leaders have to show greater leadership.

This is also your fight – and you need to take the lead.

In Germany, there’s already been a good example of the kind of cross-faith coalition we need.

Archbishop Robert Zollitsch spoke out warning against Europe’s rising Islamophobia last year.

And in America, in response to the ugly debate about Park 51, the Jewish Reform movement joined with other faith and advocacy groups in to take stronger steps to protect religious freedom today.

What we need now is for more faith leaders, and more faith communities, to stand up and speak out in defence of faith.

And not just to defend faith, but to explain it properly as well.

Faith leaders need to explain their religion – in a way that people of all faiths and no faiths can understand.

I had the privilege of raising this issue with the Pope when he was over here…

…and whilst he asked me to build on my speech at the Bishops’ Conference, I asked him to use his unique position to create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens.

If we do all these three things, together, as government, as society, as people of faith, then we can come a little closer to defeating anti-faith bigotry…

…and building a more open, inclusive and, frankly, a more grown-up society.

ENDS

Critique:


WARSI:

“I am not saying that people can’t be anti-religion.
What I am opposed to is the rise of unreasonable, unfounded, irrational bigotry.
Where religion itself becomes a loaded word…
…where free discussion is drowned out by a sensationalist media…
…and where there simply is no room for fair-minded debate.
Now some will be surprised to hear me using the language of reason to defend an essentially spiritual phenomenon – namely individual faith.
Others will say that it’s ok to be irrational about religion…
…because religion itself is not open to rational debate.
I don’t accept that.
Faith and Reason go hand in hand.”


COMMENT:
Warsi is either disingenuous or deceptive here about “unreasonable, unfounded, irrational bigotry.”  She is exceeding clever in using the English language to mislead. Is she implying that any views of Islam by non-Muslims must be bigotry even if they stick to Islamic and Quranic text? It seems that Warsi is bigoted with her views of non-Muslims discussing Islam and without quoting any examples. She is slurring  and suggesting that the British are bigots. She never suggested that some Muslims might have a bigoted view of the British/westerner? It was all one sided.

Is Warsi suggesting that religion (Islam) is open to rational debate, and that Faith and Reason go hand in hand? This strongly suggests that Warsi does not comprehend the Islamic faith having grown up in Dar al Harb, England. The Quran is the literal word of Allah and as such it cannot be doubted nor challenged. Any challenge to the Word of Allah is blasphemy and the penalty for that is death. Hence, the Wisdom of Allah or the verses in the Quran may not be debated upon. From this conclusion, I must suspect Warsi’s real knowledge and understanding of the philosophy of Islam and the meanings of  Islam as accepted by the majority of orthodox Islamists.
“Faith and reason go hand in hand” applies in Christianity but not in Islam. Islam means “total submission to the Will of Allah and his commands in the Quran. There is no room in Islam for reason or questions.
WARSI:

 “Today, I want to touch on the way my own faith, Islam, is perceived.

Let me say right away to British Muslims that I acknowledge that there is a minority of people that try to justify their criminal conduct and activity by suggesting that it is sanctioned by their faith.
It is a problem that we must confront and defeat.
But that problem should not lead to unfounded suspicions of all Muslims.
Indeed, it seems to me that Islamophobia has now crossed the threshold of middle class respectability.  …..

For far too many people, Islamophobia is seen as a legitimate – even commendable – thing.
You could even say that Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test.
Take this from Polly Toynbee:
“I am an Islamophobe, and proud of it”.
Or this speech title from Rod Liddle:
“Islamophobia? Count me in”.
But of course, Islamophobia should be seen as totally abhorrent – just like homophobia or Judeophobia – because any phobia is by definition the opposite of a philosophy.
A phobia is an irrational fear.
It takes on a life of its own and no longer needs to be justified.
And all this filters through.
The drip feeding of fear fuels a rising tide of prejudice.
So when people get on the tube and see a bearded Muslim, they think “terrorist”…
…when they hear “Halal” they think “that sounds like contaminated food”…
…and when they walk past a woman wearing a veil, they think automatically “that woman’s oppressed”.
And what’s particularly worrying is that this can lead down the slippery slope to violence.”

COMMENT:
Here Warsi openly admits, “that there is a minority of people (Muslims) that try to justify their criminal conduct and activity by suggesting that it is sanctioned by their faith (Islam.) It is a (serious) problem that we (Muslims) must confront and defeat. But the problem should not lead to unfounded suspicions of all Muslims.”
Either Warsi is practising Taqiyya or dissimulations or she is actually innocent of true Islamic doctrines, is hard to tell but she is really juggling with her words. Here are some of the statistics I have:

Almost 25% of the Muslims believe that the atrocities of “London’s Underground Bombings on 7/7” were justified. In additions another survey shows that 12% Muslims believe that Jihadist Martyrdom was justified. [6],[7].
32% British Muslims believe Jews are legitimate targets, and 30% British Muslims believe that Israel have no right to exist. 7% British Muslims believe that suicide bombings in Britain are justified. [8]

From the above data, whether we accept that 25% British Muslims believe 7/7 was justified as the minority Muslims, or the 12% British Muslims who believe that Islamic Martyrdom is justified, or the 7% British Muslims who believe that suicide bombings in Britain is justified as that minority, these amount to a huge number because Britain today has over 3 million Muslims and  and 7% amounts to 210,000 Jihadist martyrs outnumbering our anti-terrorist squads by a factor of 10.

These statistics are a survey of Muslims themselves, and not conjured. This is not Islamophobia, these are facts that  are cause for serious concern. The threat of Islamic Jihad is more real than the threat of internal subversion from Nazism or Communism. And the cause of the fear is caused by the Muslim population themselves by their aggressive demonstrations and their abusive and hostile placards and verbal threats from Muslim Imams and orthodox Muslims like Anjem Choudary and others. It is these demonstrations and violence of the Muslim people demonstrated by 9/11, 7/7, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bali, Bombay Pakistan and so on that has brought disrepute upon Muslims worldwide, and here is Warsi attempting to place the blame on bigoted, Islamophobic westerners. This must be true Taqiyya, or dissimulation.

So, little wonder that toynbee, or Liddle or any others show their gisgust and contempt at an ideology that accepts the hospitality of a host nation and then seeks to over throw it from within. Orthodox Muslims have brought it upon themselves by their arrogant and defiant mannerisms. Little have we ever heard of such words as Hinduphobia, or Buddhistphobia, or Taoistphobia, or Tamilphobia, of Polishphobia, or Afriphobia. Orlthodox Islam has brought this malady upon Muslims because of their aggressive and dominant ideology. Yet I have never observed any Muslims ever attempt to correct the perception that, “you do not mess around with Muslims.” It is similar to the Afghan reputation that they pride themselves of, “Afghans are the Most Feared of All Warriors.” You cannot have your cake and eat it, if Muslims want the reputation that they are fearless warriors, i,e., “death is more precious than life”  then do not suddenly try to portray Islam as a religion of Peace.

Warsi:”Just think about anti-Muslim bigotry.
One of the most frequent arguments made against Islam in Britain is the idea that all British Muslims want to overturn British sovereignty and obey a transnational, Islamic authority.
Let me repeat again: extremists are a minority of a minority.
But from this flows a steady drip of suspicion and sense of sedition…
…all feeding the rise of a wider Islamophobia.

ISLAMOPHOBIA
Obviously, I find the rise of Islamophobia particularly worrying.
As a Muslim, I’ve had to live with it for many years.
But I strongly believe that my problem is really our problem….
….because of the danger it poses to the whole of our society.
Ultimately, Islamophobia challenges our basic British identity.
One of the most important aspects of our identity is our belief in equality before the law.
But deep, entrenched anti-Muslim bigotry challenges that tradition…
…because it implies that one section of society is less deserving of our protection than the rest.
I commend those who understand and condemn the cancer of Islamophobia…
….whether that be John Denham, Seumus Milne, Peter Oborne, or the Metropolitan Police…

I know that there is also a perverted line of argument which says that Muslims have only got themselves to blame for this hatred.
After all, they’re the ones who blow up tubes and aeroplanes….
….so treating them differently is actually ok.
But think about it for one second, and you see that this argument is self-defeating.
The deeper Islamophobia seeps into our culture, the easier becomes the task of the extremist recruiting sergeant.
Those who commit criminal acts of terrorism in our country need to be dealt with not just by the full force of the law…
…they also should face social rejection and alienation across society….
…and their acts must not be used as an opportunity to tar all Muslims….
…or divide our society on the basis of faith.
So what I am saying is this:
At all times, we should be working to drain the pool of people where extremists fish.
The other worrying argument that also forms a basis for justifying Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hatred is the idea that Islam is a particularly violent creed…
….and therefore that an irrational reaction to it is somehow appropriate.
This line of argument takes place at many levels.
At one level, policy professionals push hard against Islam by focussing on a fraction of what makes up the Islamic faith.
And at another level, fascist literature used by the BNP circulates sections of Quranic text out of context.
But anyone who is familiar with the main religions can find phrases which aren’t appropriate to modern life in the ancient texts of these religions.

“An eye for an eye”, is the advice from Exodus.
“If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife…both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death”, is what it says in Leviticus.
And “The false prophets or dreamers who try to lead you astray must be put to death”, is what Deuteronomy says.”

I reiterate Warsi:

One of the most frequent arguments made against Islam in Britain is the idea that all British Muslims want to overturn British sovereignty and obey a transnational, Islamic authority.
Let me repeat again: extremists are a minority of a minority.
But from this flows a steady drip of suspicion and sense of sedition…
…all feeding the rise of a wider Islamophobia.”

Warsi must live in an ivory tower. This is what one British Muslim Parliamentarian said,
Labour Party MP Shahid Malik has predicted the total Islamification of Britain and a Muslim prime minister, “Allah willing”, within the next thirty years.” Shahid Malik video
Shahid Malik also said,
“It seems Shahid Malik MP has been doing a bit of rabble-rousing.  Here’s a transcript of his words …

“I’m proud of the achievements of the muslims of this country since 1997

In 1997 we got our first muslim MP
In 2001 we had two muslim MP’s
In 2005 we had four muslim MP’s
Inshallah In 2009 – hesitation- 10 we’ll have eight muslim MP’s
In 2014 we’ll have sixteen muslim MP’s

At This Rate The Whole Parliament Will Be MuslimParliament

How are we to take this, Warsi? In addition here are some poll results that Warsi has probably not had time to read because she is so busy studying the Quran:

30% British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia Law than British Law.

29 % British Muslims would aggressively defend Islam from internet and external theats, real or imagined. 9% British Muslims are hard core Islamists in their views.

3% British Muslims were pro-freedom of Speech.

30% British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia Law than British Law.

29 % British Muslims would aggressively defend Islam from internet and external theats, real or imagined. 9% British Muslims are hard core Islamists in their views.

3% British Muslims were pro-freedom of Speech.

(Survey Nov 15-21,2004)

Agree that despite free speech, British who insult of criticize Islam should face criminal prosecution, 58%.

Agree that new laws required that incitement to religious hatred a criminal offence, 81%.

Schools and workplaces should accommodate Muslim prayer times, 88%.

Back Sharia courts to settle civil cases among Muslims, 61%.

(Update Sept 22, 2005)

Do not condemn London Bombs, 4%

See a conflict of loyalties to ‘ummah’ and to Britain, 27%

Do not think extremist organizations should be shut down 52%

Would not inform police of a Muslim planning an attack, 18%

(Update Feb7, 2006)

Agree that Muslim community boycott Holocaust Memorial day, 56%

Believe Jews in Britain are legitimate targets, 37%.

Agree Israel has no right to exist, 30%.

Agree suicide bombings in Israel justified, 21% among 18-24year old

Agree suicide bombing against civilians in Britain justified, 12% among 18-24 year old.

British Muslim poll:Policy Exchange [11]

Think of myself first as a Muslim than a Briton, 81%

Think of myself first as a Briton than a Muslim, 7%.

Think there is a growing sense of Islamic identity among British Muslims, 77%.

Think the sense of Islamic identity in Britain is a good thing, 86%

Were sympathetic to the French youths who rioted in the late 2005, 75%.

Favour Iran acquiring the Nuclear weapons, 40%.

(Update Aug 7, 2006 1000 Muslims polled.)

Wish to see Britain an Islamic state 28%.

Prefer to live under Sharia Law 30%

Punish publishers of the Danish cartoons 78%

Arrest and prosecute British people who insult Islam 68%

Jewish Holocaust did not happen or has been exaggerated 19%

9/11 was an American and Israel conspiracy 45%

Princess Diana was killed to stop her marrying a Muslim, 36%

Agree July 2005 transport bombings were justified, 31 % of young Muslims agreed

Can understand why British Muslims want to be martyrs 13%

(Update Jan29,2007 survey of over 18 year old Muslims)

I feel more in common with Muslims in other countries that I do with non-Muslims in Britain, 31%.

If I could choose I’d prefer to live under Sharia Law than British Law in Britain, 28%.

I admire organisations like Al Qaeda that are prepared to fight against the West, 7%. [11]

These are opinions from Muslims  NOT VIEWS OF ISLAMOPHOBES. It is views such as these that concern the British public. Should not have cause concern? And if we discuss these threats we are then labelled Islamophobic. So this is why people like Toynbee accept being identified as an Islamophobe.The statistics speak for themselves. And this justifies my calling Baroness Warsi ignorant of the real state of affairs among her own Muslim communities. She does not know what she is talking about.Warsi says, “The deeper Islamophobia seeps into our culture, the easier becomes the task of the extremist recruiting sergeant.” Now she dissimulates and blames Islamophobia (western rejection of violence) as “the recruiting sergeant.” How utterly disingenuous or deceitful for saying this as a Muslim for she knows what is contained in the Quran, the commands of Allah that cannot be denied and the chief “recruiting sergeant” for Islam:
Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”Noble Qur’an:2:190 Footnote: “Jihad is holy fighting in Allah’s Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshipped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfil this duty, dies as a hypocrite.”

There are 164 Jihad Holy War Verses in the Koran. That is how important Jihad is to Islam.

WARSI

This is a point the late Benazir Bhutto, the first female Prime Minister of a Muslim country once put particularly well when speaking of teachings in the Quran:

“In an age when no country, no system, no community gave women any rights, in a society where the birth of a baby girl was regarded as a curse, where women were considered chattel, Islam treated women as individuals”.

COMMENT:
 This statement is very ambiguous and misleading,
“Islam treated women as individuals.”
Does Warsi mean, that Pakistan (a Muslim nation) has treated her (Bhutto) as an individual and elected her as president? But it could easily have been interpreted that “Islam treated woman as individuals (equally)”By no means has Islam altered her attitudes towards women or these Quranic verses must be lies:

Qur’an 33:51 “You may have whomever you desire; there is no blame.”
Tabari VIII:187 “The [sixty-two-year old] Messenger of Allah married Mulaykah. She was young and beautiful. One of the Prophet’s wives came to her and said, ‘Are you not ashamed to marry a man who killed your father during the day he conquered Mecca?” She therefore took refuge from him.”
Qur’an 66:1 “O Prophet! Why forbid yourself that which Allah has made lawful to you? You seek to please your consorts.”
Bukhari:V5B59N524 “The Muslims said among themselves, ‘Will Safiyah be one of the Prophet’s wives or just a lady captive and one of his possessions?'”
Ishaq:593 “From the captives of Hunayn, Allah’s Messenger gave [his son-in-law] Ali a slave girl called Baytab and he gave [future Caliph] Uthman a slave girl called Zaynab and [future Caliph] Umar another.”
Bukhari:V3B48N826 “The Prophet said, ‘Isn’t the witness of a woman equal to half of that of a man?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is because of the deficiency of a woman’s mind.'”
Ishaq:584 “Tell the men with you who have wives: never trust a woman.”
Ishaq:185 “In hell I saw women hanging by their breasts. They had fathered bastards.”
Tabari IX:113 “Allah permits you to shut them in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Qur’an.”
Tabari I:280 “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”

According to the Quran, women do not have a very high statue in Islam. The Warsi remark was misleading especially to anyone not familiar with Islamic Holy texts.
WARSI:

(1) First and foremost, we need political leadership.
Government has got to show that it gets it.
And Andrew Stunnell, the Minister for Integration, has already taken a strong lead.
Not only are we ramping up the fight against all phobias – including homophobia and gender inequality…

We need to think harder about the language we use.
And we should be careful about language around religious “moderates”.
So we need to stop talking about moderate Muslims, and instead talk about British Muslims.And when it comes to extremism, we should be absolutely clear:
These people are extremists, plain and simple, because their behaviour has detached them from the thought process within their religion.
 COMMENT:
I agree here that “the government must show that it gets it.” But perhaps not in the same way that Warsi meant. The Government must learn intimately what Islam is about. On the subject of phobias I have covered it earlier.
I also agree that the term “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron because as far as I can ascertain from Islamic sources, there is only one class of Muslim, and that all Muslims are equal, worshipping one Allah, using one Quran, and following the 5 pillars of Islam. All Muslims must accept the Quran as the literal word of Allah without deviation or exception. Those who do not fall within this remit are “cultural Muslims” or “non-Muslims.” All so called “moderate Muslims” are Muslims, and so are all “extremist or fundamental Muslims” are also Muslims because they follow the total scriptures of the Quran and have not in any way abused or violated or corrupted any of the commands of the Quran, so how can they be a different Muslim?Unfortunately, western political correctness, and appeasement to Muslims, so as not to tar all of them as orthodox or fundamental, or extremist Muslims coined the term, “moderate Muslim.” While attempting to brand the orthodox Muslim who has accepted all of the Quranic verses as the world of Allah including the 164 verses referring to Islamic Jihad, as “Islamic terrorists” to give face to the other Muslims. But they are in reality all Muslims reading and accepting the same Quran where the 164 Jihad verses reside.So Warsi is attempting to dissimulate by avoiding the term, “terrorist Muslim, or Jihadist Muslim, of orthodox Muslim, and introduce a (perhaps) neutral term, “British Muslim.” But this is again only window dressing, because Islamic demonstrations as well as the “polls mentions above” in Britain show that British Muslim differ little from the Muslims in Pakistan or Muslims in Iraq, or in France or Afghanistan. So let us accept that a Muslim is a Muslim and there are not different classes of Muslims in Islam.

WARSI:

First, in his New Year message the Prime Minister asked: how we were allowing the radicalisation of some young British Muslims?
He stated very clearly that the overwhelming majority of British Muslims detest this extremism but they must help to find the answers, together.

Here’s what that means:
Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.
Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.
And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.

Second, British Muslims need to learn from and build on the work done throughout history by other communities.
I want to refer particularly to the British Jewish Community and the work done by the Community Security Trust.
Week after week, the CST works with the police and the Jewish community to collect data and details of anti-Semitism in Britain…
….helping to defeat those bigots who say that British anti-Semitism no longer exists.
British Muslims should learn from them.

COMMENT:
The radicalising of a Muslim begins when a Muslim is born with the “adhan” crooned for him at birth. Then after the family has finished with his Islamic instruction, the Islamic schools and mosques continue to teach the young Muslim about Islamand Islamic traditions. If Islamic jihad is not part of those teachings, it cannot be Islam because it is all part and parcel of Islam. The radicalising of a Muslim is a continuous affair that is part of Islamic instruction. And the guidance for Islamic instruction is the Quran and the Hadiths and the Sira. Islam does not teach “extremism” it teaches submission to Allah’s will and Allah’s commands. Any Muslim who has not learned of just these five verses, did not receive Islamic instruction:

Qur’an:9:5 “Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Qur’an:9:112 “The Believers fight in Allah’s Cause, they slay and are slain, kill and are killed.”
Qur’an:9:29 “Fight those who do not believe until they all surrender, paying the protective tax in submission.”
Ishaq:325 “Muslims, fight in Allah’s Cause. Stand firm and you will prosper. Help the Prophet, obey him, give him your allegiance, and your religion will be victorious.”

Qur’an:2:216 “Jihad (holy fighting in Allah’s Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims), though you dislike it. But it is possible that you dislike a thing which is good for you, and like a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knows, and you know not.” [Another translation reads:] “Warfare is ordained for you.”

But for the Prime Minister Cameron to state that. “British Muslims detest extremism” is pure flannel. Watch the British demonstrations and read their placards, and look at the extract of the survey above to see the reality.

Warsi said, “Muslim communities must speak out against those who promote violence.” And speak out against the Islamic ideologies that Allah has promoted in the Quran? Speak out against your own beliefs? Crazy!

Warsi said, “Muslim men and women must make clear that any hatred towards others is wrong.” But the Quran does not consider killing Jews and Christians wrong. The Quran says,
Qur’an:8:12 “I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.”
Warsi said, “And above all, not stand on the sidelines, but step forward and help to lead a progressive, united fight.” All Muslim demonstrations so far disagree this this appeal. A Muslim cannot speak against his brother.

Regarding the “Community Community Trust” it will never work with Muslims because you are asking them to betray their brother Jihadists. It will never happen because it is against the ideology of Islam.

The comments here shows that  BARONESS WARSI has a very shallow grasp of Islam when asking her fellow Muslims to go against their fundamental principles of Islam. 
WARSI:

Third, and above all, British Muslims needs to remember that with rights come responsibilities.
That means no burying our heads in the sand and denying the problem…
…but standing up and doing something about it.

COMMENT:
Absolutely the correct attitude and philosophy Warsi, but for one thing you have overlooked.
That most Muslims, no matter where they live, consider that their allegiance to Allah comes before all else. Your Muslims are standing up to their (orthodox) Islamic beliefs. Here is the survey that confirms this:

British Muslim poll:Policy Exchange [11]

Think of myself first as a Muslim than a Briton, 81%

WARSI:

I (Warsi)asked him (The Pope) to use his unique position to create a better understanding between Europe and its Muslim citizens.

Comments:How patronising of Warsi? The Pope has already declared the Islam will never change. This clearly shows how naive Baroness Warsi is. Islam and Christian Europe are immiscible in ideologies.

Observations:

What is truly amazing is the naivety of  PM Cameron and also of Baroness Warsi. Warsi was “appointed” by a Conservative Prime Minister to show inclusiveness (positive discrimination towards Muslims)  and to appease the Muslim community. Warsi was born in Britain, went to school here, had her tertiary education here as well, speaks like an English woman, and even has the body language and mannerisms of an English woman, BUT emotionally and spiritually she is essentially still a Pakistani Muslim attempting to make Islam acceptable and in Britain but still bearing a chip on her shoulder because of her ethnicity and religion. I have attempted to show the error in her thinking and her assessment of Islam. She still thinks and expresses views of a Pakistani Muslim not a (white) British citizen because she never faulted the Muslim persecution complex but instead criticised British Islamophobia which has been brought on by the Muslims themselves.


I believe I have said enough to discredit the authority of Baroness Warsi as an authority on Islam.

*A Brief CV of BARONESS SAYEEDA WARSI


Sayeeda Hussain Warsi:

Baroness Warsi(Urdu: سعیده حسین وارثی, born 28 March 1971) is a British lawyer and politician. A life peer and member of the Conservative Party, she is the current co-chairman of the Conservative Party Serving with Andrew Feldman and Minister without Portfolio in David Cameron’s cabinet. Her appointment makes Warsi the first Muslim woman to serve in the Cabinet.

Baroness Warsi was born in Dewsbury, West Rilding of Yorkshire in 1971 to Pakistani parents, who emigrated from Bewal, Gujar Khan, Pakistan. She is the second of five daughters. Her father, Safdar Hussain,operates a bed manufacturing company, which earns £2 million a year, after starting life as a mill worker. She later said that her father’s success led her to adopting Conservative principles.

She was educated at Birkdale High School, Dewsbury College, and the University of Leeds, where she read Law (LLB). She attended the York College of Law to complete her Legal Practice Course and trained with both the Crown Prosecution Service and the Home Office Immigration Department.

After qualifying as a solicitor, she worked for John Whitfield – the last Conservative Member of Parliament for Dewsbury – at Whitfield Hallam Goodall Solicitors. She then set up her own specialist practice in Dewsbury. She has also worked overseas for the Ministry of Law in Pakistan and in Kashmir as Chairman of the Savayra Foundation, a women’s empowerment charity.

In 1990, Warsi was married and had one daughter. She and her first husband divorced in December 2007 after 17 years of marriage. On 20 August 2009 Warsi married her second husband, Iftikhar Azam, in a simple Nikah ceremony at her parents’ house in Dewsbury followed by a wedding celebration attended by close family.

Warsi CV

Gathered Opinions:

Last May Lady Warsi was described by Islamic hate preacher ANJEM CHOUDHARY as a “coconut”:
Sayeeda Warsi is not a Muslim in my eyes. She may look like a Muslim and have a Muslim-sounding name but she does not represent Islam or anyone in this country who is a Muslim.
And, for good measure, he added this racist comment:
She is a ‘coconut’, brown on the outside but white on the inside. In fact, she is whiter than most of the other white people in government. Link

The PAUL RICHARDS column

Sayeeda Warsi has always struck me as a bull in search of a china shop. I’ve had trouble discerning the merits and attributes that others have seen, and which have led to her elevation to the House of Lords and the Cabinet. Even her best friends would agree that her contributions to public debate have not been noted for their thoughtfulness. Tonight she makes a speech at Leicester University on the status of Britain’s 2.9 million Muslims. He remarks have been given exclusively to the Daily Telegraph, who have splashed the story under the headline ‘Tory chief attacks ‘bigotry’ against Muslims’. This technique, by the way, of giving a story to only one newspaper in return for enhanced status for the story, and trailing a speech before it is delivered, is what used to be called ‘spin doctoring’, before the Tories introduced us to the New Politics. Link

Melanie Phillips – Spectator

No, what Warsi is calling ‘prejudice’ is talk about Muslim extremism or Muslim terrorism. Because look at what she reportedly goes on to say:

The notion that all followers of Islam can be described either as ‘moderate’ or ‘extremist’ can fuel misunderstanding and intolerance

Remarkable. When people fail explicitly to differentiate ‘moderate’ Muslims from ‘extremists’ they are tarred and feathered as ‘Islamophobic’. But now Warsi says that to differentiate in this way is also ‘Islamophobic’.

Of course, that’s because what she means is that any mention of any Muslim being extreme is itself ‘Islamophobic’. Now where have we heard that before? From just about every Muslim community spokesman every time there is an act of Islamic terrorism – two words which it is not permissible in such quarters to utter together.

This tactic, as we all know from innumerable examples, is designed to intimidate people into not acknowledging reality and discussing the most pressing issue of our time – Islamic extremism and the war against the free world being waged in the name of Islam. For sure, Warsi reportedly urges Muslim communities to be clearer about their rejection of those who resort to violent acts. But her attempt somehow to pretend that these acts have nothing to do with the fact that they are committed by Muslims all but vitiates her challenge. For if she herself is denying what these acts actually represent, then urging her community to be ‘clearer about their rejection’ of them becomes meaningless.

She is expected also to say terror offences committed by a small number of Muslims should not be used to condemn all who follow Islam. But no-one does so. The suggestion that to condemn some Muslims for violence or extremism is to condemn all Muslims is an absurd canard. People like myself make strenuous efforts always to acknowledge the many Muslims who pose no threat to anyone. Yet that distinction is precisely what Warsi says is evidence of prejudice! Link

Sheik Yer Mami

Warsi has  outed herself as a stupid mouthpiece of those who are bamboozling Britain into Islamisation, and  a supporter of that process. She is no different from those who threaten  ‘If you say again that Muslims are extreme or violent we’ll kill you’.Link

Ibrahim Mogra

Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the mosques and community affairs committee at the Muslim Council of Britain, said Warsi was correct to try and tackle growing anti-Mussim attitudes which he said have been partly been caused by the public becoming “desensitised” to anti-Muslim messages in the media in the wake of Islamist terror attacks in the US and Europe while he said Muslims’ positive contributions to British society attract less coverage.

“When I reflect on the tragedy of the Holocaust I think about how the Jew was persecuted as a misfit and somebody not to be trusted, as an alien. The drip, drip of hatred and bigotry by the Nazis led to them being described as rats and murdered in a horrible way.

“This situation is nowhere near that but there is always a beginning for everything. I hope this is not the beginning of something that could be horrendous. We said ‘never again’ and we have to nip this in the bud.”

Gulam Noon, chairman of Noon products

“I haven’t personally come across any casual Islamophobia, but it is there, underlying. Islam is under attack, there is no doubt. It is the responsibility of the press, the government and the Muslim community to deal with it. When people talk about Muslims over the dinner table, they say this one is rational, this one is extremist. That happens. People should be more responsible.”

Akeela Ahmed, chief executive, Muslim Youth Helpline

“What she says chimes with me. Young people feel that Muslims are viewed as being different or apart from society. That has been an unarticulated undertone before, but since 9/11 and 7/7 the rhetoric has been more focused on Muslims and it’s not about being black or brown it is focused on religion. I have Muslim friends who complain they go out after work and it is OK for their non-Muslim colleagues to make jokes about people with long beards or wearing burqas. If you were to replace the word Muslim with black or Jew, you would be jumped on straight away as racist or antisemitic.

“I was on the bus on Oxford Street recently and police were arresting a woman wearing a burqa. Another passenger said they do it a lot because they hide things under there [implying a bomb or weapon], and started asking me why us Muslims are like that. They didn’t feel this was socially inappropriate.”

Lauren Booth, a TV presenter, converted to Islam in October 2010

“We have a really cheapened debate in this country about good Islam and bad Islam and we also have this idea that Muslims don’t like it here, that they object to Christmas and that sort of thing. In my five years in Muslim communities, I have yet to meet anyone who wants to ban Christmas.”

“I was at a bus stop in Richmond during the cold snap [when the bus service was limited] when a colonel type carrying a cane and I were talking about how there weren’t enough buses. He said he’d send all the bus drivers to Siberia and that would teach them. Then he said ‘those muslims, they can all leave the country too and go back to where they came from, they don’t like it here anyway’. I was wearing a loose headscarf and I was shocked by what he was saying.

“On another occasion, I visited an old college friend who I love dearly. It was the first time I had seen her since I had converted. Our children were playing together. She said things like ‘it was a dangerous religion, a lot of them are violent, it’s a bit extremist isn’t it?’ All those words that litter our speech were there. I thought, how do I begin to untangle that knot? She was shocked to hear that Islam was spiritual and that Muslim prayer is close to meditation and we wish well in the world.”

Ibrahim Mogra, chairman of the mosques and community affairs committee at the Muslim Council of Britain

“The baroness is right to bring this debate to the forefront. I am hearing of incidents of verbal abuse and attacks on Muslims more frequently than ever before and those that are carrying out the attacks need to be engaged. Protests against building mosques were unheard of 10 years ago and in fact people used to feel quite warm about the prospect. But now the opposition is very loud and vociferous. Take halal meat: we don’t expect non Muslim Britons to eat it, but the EDL portrays us as changing the British way of life. Halal is under attack and scrutiny in a way that kosher food never was. Every aspect of Muslim life is being portrayed as a non-British thing. We do not wish to harm our country. This is where we raise our families and this is where we live and work. The more anti-Muslim bigotry is displayed, the more we fear our young people will take matters into their own hands.” Link

Addendum:

Warsi condemns sex scandal Muslims

2:35pm Friday 18th May 2012 in National News© Press Association 2011

Muslim cabinet minister Baroness Warsi has hit out at the “small minority” of Pakistani men who see white girls as “fair game”.

In outspoken comments following the Rochdale grooming scandal involving nine Muslim men, the Conservative Party co-chairman acknowledged that race was a factor.

She urged Muslim leaders to address the issue and ensure that men who regard white women as “third-class citizens” are isolated by their communities.

Nine Muslim men, mainly of Pakistani origin, were found guilty last week of plying girls as young as 13 with drink and drugs so they could “pass them around” and use them for sex.

After the trial, Greater Manchester Police sought to play down suggestions of any racial element to the case, as did Keith Vaz, the Labour chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee.

But Lady Warsi told London’s Evening Standard newspaper: “There is a small minority of Pakistani men who believe that white girls are fair game. And we have to be prepared to say that. You can only start solving a problem if you acknowledge it first.

“This small minority who see women as second-class citizens, and white women probably as third-class citizens, are to be spoken out against.”

Lady Warsi, Britain’s most senior Muslim politician, said she had decided to speak out after her father – who moved to the UK from the Punjab – told her she should be “out there condemning it as loudly as you could”.

“In mosque after mosque, this should be raised as an issue so that anybody remotely involved should start to feel that the community is turning on them,” she said. “Communities have a responsibility to stand up and say, ‘This is wrong, this will not be tolerated’.”

She also urged the authorities to have the confidence to tackle allegations involving minorities. “Cultural sensitivity should never be a bar to applying the law,” she said.

Is Baroness Warsi a true Muslim?
I have searched at length for Warsi’s views and sentiments on Islam and drew a blank. She seemed to have an innocent and non-views about the philosophy and culture of Islam until this article appeared that places her in an invidious position. Here are some extracts that are relevant in assessing the possible sentiments of Baroness Warsi on Islam:

By , Investigations Editor

9:00PM BST 02 Jun 2012

A Sunday Telegraph investigation has uncovered that she has never registered a controlling stake in a spice manufacturing firm with the House of Lords authorities.

The disclosure appears to be in breach of rules that order peers to declare their business interests, particularly if they are the principal shareholders in a company.

It follows Lady Warsi’s admission last week that she failed to declare rental income from a property she owned.

The peer claimed the issue of the rent was “an oversight”. However, her stake in a company, Rupert’s Recipes, the existence of which has never been declared, raises significant questions over her judgment. Labour said she had urgent questions to answer.

The Sunday Telegraph investigation also found that:

* Lady Warsi’s business partner, Abid Hussain, accompanied her on a ministerial trip to Pakistan where he met leading politicians;

* Mr Hussain has been a leading member of Hizb ut Tahrir, the radical Islamic group the Tories promised to ban while in opposition;

* It is unclear if Mr Hussain was subjected to security vetting before accompanying the peer to Pakistan;

* Lady Warsi has been on 17 foreign trips while in office, even though her role as party chairman is to foster relations with grassroots members.

The peer referred herself to the Lords Commissioner for Standards after it emerged that she claimed an allowance for accommodation while staying at the home of a party donor who said he did not charge rent. She said she made an “appropriate payment” to Naweed Khan for the nights she stayed at the property in Acton, west London.

Lady Warsi’s business dealings, disclosed in company documents, prompted calls last night for a full investigation into whether she has broken parliamentary rules.

Accounts for Rupert’s Recipes from February say she owns 60 per cent of the shares in the firm. Initially she owned a third of the shares, with Mr Hussain and another unnamed businessman both also holding a third. However, in the February accounts Lady Warsi had increased her holding to 60 per cent and Mr Hussain had 40 per cent. According to the Lords code of conduct, members must register share holdings in firms in which they hold a controlling interest or if they are valued at more than £50,000.

The peer was listed as a director of the company under the name of Sayeeda Hussain-Warsi from its establishment in February 2009 until July 6 2010, two months after she entered the Cabinet.

It is unclear whether Lady Warsi was paid. The code requires “unremunerated directorships” to be registered, as “certain non-financial interests may reasonably be thought to affect the way members of the House of Lords discharge their public duties”.

Yesterday Lady Warsi issued a statement saying: “My shareholdings and, before becoming a minister, directorships, have at all material times been disclosed as required on the Register of Lords’ Interests and to the Cabinet Office and on the register of ministerial interests.”

A party source said the shares were transferred into her name briefly in February before being moved in turn to her husband, Iftikhar Azam. The source said the next set of accounts would reflect this.

However, critics said she still faced questions. The Lords rules do not exempt shares held only briefly from registration. They also say that those held “on behalf of a spouse” must be registered.

The source also said unpaid directorships had only needed to be registered since the rules were changed last year.

Lady Warsi has registered shareholdings in her father’s company and her husband’s.

The background of Mr Hussain in Rupert’s Recipes is also likely to prove controversial. The Sunday Telegraph has uncovered details of his past involvement with the radical Islamic group Hizb ut Tahrir.

He was a prominent member of the group set up in Britain by Omar Bakri Muhammad, the radical preacher. It is unclear when he left the organisation. Lady Warsi said: “I am not aware of any involvement between Abid Hussain and Hizb ut Tahrir, and no such relationship has ever been suggested previously.”

Mr Hussain and Lady Warsi were on close terms by the summer of 2009, when she married Mr Azam, her second husband. Mr Hussain was in the front row of one wedding picture. He has also accompanied her on two trips to Pakistan. The first was while she was in opposition, but on the second, in July 2010, he attended at least two Foreign Office events.

A spokesman for the British High Commission said the Government did not pay for his visit: “Mr Hussain was not part of the official delegation.” Lady Warsi said: “Neither I nor the Conservative Party nor the Government has ever met the costs of foreign visits by Abid Hussain.”

Labour said ministers should state whether Mr Hussain was security cleared. They also said his presence on the trips had parallels to the case of Liam Fox, who quit as defence secretary after he was joined abroad by an unofficial adviser, Adam Werritty.

Michael Dugher, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, said: “This looks like the Liam Fox-Adam Werritty case all over again. David Cameron needs to show he is prepared to make sure his ministers show the highest standards of behaviour.”

Details also emerged of the extent of Lady Warsi’s travels. She has undertaken 17 trips since July 2010. Eight were paid for by the Government, two by Saudi Arabia and one by an Azerbaijani expatriate group. Six have taken place since January but funding details have yet to be published.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9308031/Tory-peer-Baroness-Warsi-and-her-secret-business.html

The above facts places Baroness Warsi in an invidious position and puts Prime Minister David Cameron’s decision regarding Islamic infiltration into the heart of the British Government into serious question.

********************

Miscellaneous

Aug 6, 2014

Baroness Warsi resigns:

Sexist Tory playground bullies have a field day
Ordinary people have applauded Baroness Warsi’s decision to quit her Cabinet post over Britain’s policy on Gaza, while her fellow Tories wasted no time in getting the knives out. Cathy Newman, who sat down with the peer, reports

 

 

12:36PM BST 06 Aug 2014

It’s a very curious thing that Sayeeda Warsi’s resignation was greeted with respect if not outright awe in the Twittersphere. Yet in the Westminster village, the knives were out even before the ink had dried on her resignation letter.

On Twitter, ordinary punters tweeted her to applaud her decision to step down on an issue of principle over the Government’s Gaza policy. Yet MPs and ministers wasted no time in venting their spleen in a series of briefings to journalists.

One Minister told me how “stupid” Warsi’s decision to quit was – a sentiment that was echoed in the Chancellor George Osborne’s clip about her “frankly unnecessary” resignation. He tried to conceal his contempt for the cameras but couldn’t quite manage it. Off the record, his colleagues didn’t need to bother reining in the bile.

Baroness Warsi has been in Cameron’s court since the beginning of his leadership of the Tory party

“Self-indulgent, arrogant, hypocritical and now a nonentity” was how one “senior Tory” put it to the Spectator‘s Isabel Hardman. Wow! Next time try saying what you really think why don’t you?

Another “senior Tory” – an “infuriated” one no less – told the Daily Mail that “Warsi is an egomaniac; not a team player. Good riddance. The feeling in the parliamentary party is that this probably has as much to do with her own lack of promotion (as with Gaza).”

As the vitriol flowed during the afternoon, I gathered some of it to put to Warsi in my interview, broadcast last night on Channel 4 News.

Her response was measured and dignified. “I think anybody who puts out statements to which they’re not prepared to put their name to, are statements that I don’t answer to. The hardest thing in politics is what should be the easiest thing in politics, which is to say this is what I believe in and I put my name to it,” she said.

Another “senior Tory” – an “infuriated” one no less – told the Daily Mail that “Warsi is an egomaniac; not a team player. Good riddance. The feeling in the parliamentary party is that this probably has as much to do with her own lack of promotion (as with Gaza).”

As the vitriol flowed during the afternoon, I gathered some of it to put to Warsi in my interview, broadcast last night on Channel 4 News.

Her response was measured and dignified. “I think anybody who puts out statements to which they’re not prepared to put their name to, are statements that I don’t answer to. The hardest thing in politics is what should be the easiest thing in politics, which is to say this is what I believe in and I put my name to it,” she said.

“If people have these strong views, then I would say have the guts to put your name to the statement,” she told me.

She’s right. Westminster back-biting and manoeuvring has given politics a bad name. Warsi’s party may suspect her of ulterior motives, but the public wanted to believe that she’d taken a bold and principled decision to stand out from the crowd.

Being different doesn’t make you popular with your colleagues though, as she openly acknowledged.

“I think it’s difficult being an outspoken politician…Sometimes you’re on top of your game and sometimes you’re on your way out. That’s the nature of politics and we know that when we join what is sometimes a soul-destroying profession, but it also has the ability to allow you to make huge changes. And for me, a working class Northern girl, I don’t think in my wildest dream I imagined myself sitting around the Cabinet table.”

And in that last sentence you get to the crux of why Warsi struck a chord with the public but got on the Conservative party’s nerves.

Working class, Northern, a “girl” – those are labels that a vast swathe of voters can identify with. But they apply to depressingly few Tory MPs, and I’m amazed so many of her colleagues seem so pleased to see the back of the sort of politician they can ill afford to lose.

Like the playground bullies, they hit out at the kid whose face doesn’t quite fit. And the media establishment connives in that. Would the Daily Mail have accused a male minister of “flouncing” out? Highly unlikely.

For what it’s worth, Warsi herself doesn’t believe the jibes betray an undercurrent of sexism, and she claims she’s untroubled by them. “Remember I grew up in a town where at the end of term there were big school fights, you got your head kicked in and you therefore dashed like mad at the end of a school day to get home,” she told me.

Intriguingly she tended to avoid the playground battles. In Westminster, it seems, it’s impossible for a woman to win without squaring up to the big boys.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11015567/Baroness-Warsi-resigns-Sexist-Tory-playground-bullies-have-a-field-day.html

*******************

 

 

bubbles, very well said. Warsi was treasonous as she put her “ISLAMIC VALUES (Allah’s Values)” above that of state or national or party values. She was treacherous because she betrayed the trust placed in he by her friend the PM who appointed her and gave her a voice and platform in British Public life. She shows that she should never have been trusted for Office of State because her values were alien values. She has embarrassed the PM showing that he is a bad judge of character and is ignorant of Islam. And she still intends to stick her knife into his back by her coming exposures, just because she has been overlooked for promotion. A very vindictive and malicious person this Warsi character.

 

Akber, our sentiments should be very, very, very clear. The more you support division and misinformation, the more hatred you will be stirring, because it will allow us the opportunity to highlight the incompatibility of your beliefs with that of the western Christian civilisation.

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: