SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2014 19:33
Are New Laws Against “Extremism” Needed – or Wise?
Theresa May made a rather good speech to the Conservative Party Conference. She has shown, in the last few months, that she is prepared to stand up to the police, quite courageously. She did it again today when she spoke movingly and eloquently about the awful abuses of stop and search powers and her determination to prevent those abuses in the future.
And she rightly identified the appalling threats posed to us by ISIL. Those who think we can just look on what is happening in Syria and Iraq as irrelevant to us, something we can safely ignore, are horribly mistaken. Mrs May explained why.
I would go so far as to say that Mrs May almost, but not quite, convinced me that she was right to want to give the government the power to monitor all our internet communications. She made some very good points on that controversial issue, but I think she needs to do more to satisfy us that she intends to ensure there are real safeguards against abuse by the authorities. After all, stop and search powers seemed reasonable until we saw how keen the police were (and are) to abuse them. The same could well happen with powers to monitor all our emails and portable telephone calls. She would do well to reflect on the fact that almost every exceptional power already given to the authorities to combat terrorism has been used for quite different purposes.
There was, I have to say, one part of her speech which caused me concern. She has decided we need new laws to combat “extremism”. Her definition of extremism was, inevitably, a little vague. Her concern seemed to be that people are presently allowed to say things which are not against the current law, but which she thinks should be banned. She mentioned those who espouse various causes. Those who advocate neo-Nazism, who oppose equality, who object to democracy, who are not keen on the rule of law: they should all be made criminals.
I am not comfortable with that. Are we to introduce a criminal offence of holocaust denial? I am entirely satisfied that those who deny the holocaust are totally barking. But it seems to me to be very un-British to send them to prison. Are we to go even further in our equality laws than we have already? Will it now be an offence to say that women are not as clever as men (or women are all cleverer than men)? Again, I know full well that such silly statements are barmy, but I don’t think it is terribly British to have criminal laws designed to punish anyone who makes them. And what about democracy? What does Mrs May mean by that word? We are lucky, in the UK, to have Parliamentary, rather than true, democracy. My own view is that true, as opposed to Parliamentary, democracy is a very bad thing. Does Mrs May want to send me to prison for having such a dreadful opinion? Or is she just keen to incarcerate those harmless friends of mine who yearn for a return to an absolute monarchy (usually with a Stuart king)? Who are those who object to the rule of law? Anarchists must be amongst them. I find anarchists rather charming. Of course, I also think them dotty. But I have never thought of them, or most of them, as a threat to national security.
No, I disagree with Mrs May. I think we should be allowed to say anything we want to say, however silly or poisonous (the word she used in her speech) it may seem to her, so long as what we say does not incite others to breach the peace. This modern idea, which she seems to have adopted, that we need laws to make everyone support the “British Way of Life” is thoroughly un-British.
I hope the Home Secretary was only engaging in an exercise of getting applause from the Tory conference audience and not seriously proposing to introduce those illiberal laws.
charles, you raise many good points and so does Theresa May yet it all comes out totally confused and much of it totally contradictory. Why? Because everyone is still trying to be politically correct and avoiding to see the elephant in the room. Let me quote a few sentences from you blog and then comment on it:
“(1) And she rightly identified the appalling threats posed to us by ISIL……..She has decided we need new laws to combat “extremism”. Her definition of extremism was, inevitably, a little vague. Her concern seemed to be that people are presently allowed to say things which are not against the current law, but which she thinks should be banned”
[a.muhammad:The threat from ISIL? What is it? It is an Islamic caliphate. I have checked, and ISIL in no way violates the Islamic definition of an Islamic caliphate nor violates any of the teachings or commands of the Quran or the Hadiths or the Sharia Laws. It is in accordance with Islamic teachings and ethics. So in effect if ISIL is perceived as a threat to Britain, then why not call it by its proper name – Islam is a threat to Britain. Political correctness does not lessen the reality of the threat. So in reality it is a clash of the Islamic Culture against the western Christian culture that we really face. Let us face the real facts.
All the extremist Islamic views expressed are identical to that found in the Quran. The Quran is the source of every extremist view that is abhorred by the West. So why has no one had the courage to point to the Quran and say, this source of all of mankind’s woes should be banished?
If we had the courage to face these facts, perhaps we could one day solve the problem.]
(2) ” Will it now be an offence to say that women are not as clever as men.”
[a.muhammad: Why is it an offence when no one has criticised the Quran for making these accusations. The Quran is full of this sort of prejudice but no one condemns it:
Qur’an (4:11) – (Inheritance) “The male shall have the equal of the portion of two females” (see also verse 4:176). In Islam, sexism is mathematically established.
Qur’an (2:282) – (Court testimony) “And call to witness, from among your men, two witnesses. And if two men be not found then a man and two women.” Muslim apologists offer creative explanations to explain why Allah felt that a man’s testimony in court should be valued twice as highly as a woman’s, but studies consistently show that women are actually less likely to tell lies than men, meaning that they would make more reliable witnesses.
Qur’an (2:228) – “and the men are a degree above them [women]”
Qur’an (5:6) – “And if ye are unclean, purify yourselves. And if ye are sick or on a journey, or one of you cometh from the closet, or ye have had contact with women, and ye find not water, then go to clean, high ground and rub your faces and your hands with some of it” Men are to rub dirt on their hands if there is no water to purify them following casual contact with a woman (such as shaking hands).
Qur’an (24:31) – Women are to lower their gaze around men, so they do not look them in the eye. (To be fair, men are told to do the same thing in the prior verse).
Qur’an (2:223) – “Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will…” A man has dominion over his wives’ bodies as he does his land. This verse is overtly sexual. There is some dispute as to whether it is referring to the practice of anal intercourse, which it has been used historically to justify. If this is what Muhammad meant, however, then it would appear to contradict what he said in Muslim (8:3365).
Qur’an (4:3) – (Wife-to-husband ratio) “Marry women of your choice, Two or three or four” Inequality by numbers.
Qur’an (53:27) – “Those who believe not in the Hereafter, name the angels with female names.” Angels are sublime beings, and would therefore be male.
Qur’an (4:24) and Qur’an (33:50) – A man is permitted to take women as sex slaves outside of marriage. Note that the verse distinguishes wives from captives (those whom they right hand possesses).
From the Hadith:
Bukhari (6:301) – “[Muhammad] said, ‘Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?’ They replied in the affirmative. He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence.'”]
(3) ” And what about democracy? What does Mrs May mean by that word? We are lucky, in the UK, to have Parliamentary, rather than true, democracy. My own view is that true, as opposed to Parliamentary, democracy is a very bad thing.”
[a.muhammad: We talk about democracy as though it was our sacred rights and we are prepared to die to defend it. Yet we do not utter a word of disapproval when it is so preached every day in the Quran and Ahadith:
Islamic law is absolutely incompatible with democracy. It is a theocratic system with Allah alone at its head. Allah’s law is interpreted by a ruling body of clerics. There is no room for a secular political system in which all people are treated as equals.
Qur’an (33:36) – “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.”
Qur’an (45:21) – “What! Do those who seek after evil ways think that We shall hold them equal with those who believe and do righteous deeds,- that equal will be their life and their death? Ill is the judgment that they make.” Unbelievers are not equal to Muslims. This is dutifully reflected in Islamic law.
Qur’an (39:9) – “Are those who know equal to those who know not?”
Qur’an (4:141) – “…And never will Allah grant to the unbelievers a way (to triumphs) over the believers.” This is at odds with democracy, which allows anyone to serve in a position of power over others regardless of religious belief.
Qur’an (63:8) – “…might (power) belongeth to Allah and to His messenger and to the believers;” ie. not to anyone else.
Qur’an (5:49) – “So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce thee from some part of that which Allah hath revealed unto thee” Allah’s Qur’an takes priority over the desires of the people. A democratic nation is by nature one that is not governed by Islamic law, meaning that a Muslim citizen would have divided loyalty. It’s clear from this verse which side he must choose.
Qur’an (4:123) – “Not your desires, nor those of the People of the Book (can prevail): whoever works evil, will be requited accordingly. Nor will he find, besides Allah, any protector or helper.” ]
(4) “No, I disagree with Mrs May. I think we should be allowed to say anything we want to say, however silly or poisonous (the word she used in her speech) it may seem to her, so long as what we say does not incite others to breach the peace.”
[a. muhammad: I agree that we should be able to say anything, but with decorum, because we believe in the freedom of speech. Yet we are being shouted down and silenced when we discuss Islam, as I expect this reply is going to be censored. I’ll keep a copy in case. Muslims will silence infidels from speaking against Islam in any form and I am sure there is enough proof that I need not elaborate. So why one rule for them and another for us?]
Amuhd, thank you so much for that comprehensive and highly persuasive response. I should make it clear that I have grave concerns about Islam. I can’t help being a Christian, the only Abrahamic faith founded by a man of peace, a man who never wielded a sword. But I know I have no chance of converting Muslims to the true faith. All I can hope is that they will try to follow those passages of the Qur’an (and there are many) which advocate peace rather than war.
A, Muhd responds:
charles, I am glad that you have read my response. I select my replies very carefully and comprehensively so as not to get misunderstood, hence the necessity for my quotations.
But you have raised a “common misconception” that I must clarify for you and other readers i.e., “they will try to follow those passages of the Qur’an (and there are many) which advocate peace rather than war.” There are no longer any passages advocating peace in the Quran because these have been “abrogated” my the “verse of the sword.” Let me expand on “abrogation” and I quote, with links:
“The Qur’an’s tolerant verses: “canceled”
What’s more, the Qur’an’s last word on jihad is not defensive, but offen- sive. The suras of the Qur’an are not arranged chronologically, but accord- ing to length. However, Islamic theology divides the Qur’an into “Meccan” and “Medinan” suras. The Meccan ones come from the first segment of Muhammad’s career as a prophet, when he simply called the Meccans to Islam. Later, after he had fled to Medina, his positions hard- ened.
Why does this distinction matter? Because of the Islamic doctrine of abrogation (naskh).This is the idea that Allah can change or cancel what he tells Muslims: “None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?” (Qur’an 2:106).According to this idea, the violent verses of the ninth sura, including the Verse of the Sword (951, abrogate the peaceful verses, because they were revealed later in Muhammad’s prophetic career: In fact, most Muslim authorities agree that the ninth sura was the very last section of the Qur’an to be revealed.
In line with this, some Islamic theologians have asserted that the Verse
of the Sword abrogates no fewer than 124 more peaceful and tolerant
verses of the Q ~ r ‘ a n T. ~afsir al-lalalayn, a commentary on the Qur’an by
the respected imams Jalal al-Din Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Mahalli
(1389-1459) and Jalal al-Din ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Bakr al-Suyuti
(1445-1505), asserts that the ninth sura “was sent down when security
was removed by the sword.”*Another main-
stream and respected Qur’an commentator,
Isma’il bin ‘Amr bin Kathir a1 Dimashqi
(1301-1372), known popularly as Ibn Kathir,
declares that sura 9:s “abrogated every agree-
ment of peace between the Prophet and any
idolater, every treaty, and every term.. ..No
idolater had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah BaraPah [the ninth
sura] was revealed.
Ibn Juzayy (d. 1340),yet another Qur’an commentator whose works are
still read in the Islamic world, agrees: The Verse of the Sword’s purpose is “abrogating
every peace treaty in the Qur’an.””
I hope this clears any misconceptions by any other readers of this reply, including Muslims.