The Deep, Deep Sleep of England

A quote from Paul Goodman MP in a speech in the House of Commons, 15 November 2006

Islamism divides not on the basis of class or of race, but on the basis of religion. To this politician, it has three significant features. First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam – the house of Islam – and the dar-al-Harb – the house of war – and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict. Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma – that is, the worldwide community of Muslims. Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law. [...]

Let me give a hard example of what that means [...]. The Home Secretary was recently and notoriously heckled at a public meeting in Leyton by Abu Izzadeen, another convert to Islam, who was formerly known as Trevor Brooks. He said to the Home Secretary:

“How dare you come to a Muslim area?”

That was not some random insult or interruption; Mr. Izzadeen knew what he was doing. He was asserting that Muslims are in a majority in the part of Leyton in which the Home Secretary was speaking. He was therefore claiming that part of the country as part of the dar-al-Islam. He was saying, in effect, that sharia law, not British law, should run in Leyton. Mr. Izzadeen’s version of sharia law would be consistent with dispensations for Muslims from some aspects of British law, the application of a sharia criminal code, special taxes for non-Muslims, a public ban on alcohol consumption and the closure of pubs and bars, and a ban on conversions from Islam to other faiths.
We can, of course, choose to dismiss Mr. Izzadeen as an isolated fanatic, but such a view may be unwise. There is polling evidence to suggest that his views tap into a reservoir of sympathy and support. For example, an ICM poll that was commissioned last February found that four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced to parts of this country. It is important to note that that almost certainly represents a degree of support for what I would call soft sharia – in other words, for the application of some sharia law in relation to family arrangements alone. None the less, even the implementation of soft sharia would mark, I think for the first time, one group of British citizens living under a different set of laws from other British citizens. [...]
The leadership of the Muslim community that I know best, in High Wycombe, is moderate and sensible. The community makes a huge contribution to the town. It is well integrated into both the main political parties and it produced the first Conservative Asian mayor in the country – Mohammed Razzaq – in the 1980s. However, it is clear that nationally, and especially among the alienated young, the moderates are not making the running; the Islamists are making the running. [...]
George Orwell once wrote of the

“deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.”

On 7/7, we heard the roar of bombs in London. I sometimes worry that the deep, deep sleep that Orwell described in the 1930s is still here in relation to Islamism in sections of the Government, parts of the political and media establishment, the House and the country. This is one of the most urgent problems facing us, and if we are in that deep, deep sleep, it is time for all of us to wake up.

H/T: Cranmer

Sleep or Hypnotism?

I don't think that all people are sleeping, even in officialdom.  What the ones are facing who choose to awaken to the problems is the hypnotic spell of the media, which continually issues a barrage of stories either ignoring the problems or pressing for even more of the same.  They have hypnotised the public into believing that most of the public believes as the media does and makes sure that people who try to do sensible things about immigration or assimilation are hounded publically. 


This may not be hypnotism in classic terms, but it has the same effect when foisted upon a public that hears few dissenting views, or which have only cursory interest in the subject but absorb the media messages which they adopt as their own opinion. Many dissenting views abound which are never given appropriate voice by the media, not because they are not practical and realistic, but because they are.

Will the bombs wake up the United Kingdom?

His Grace thanks you for drawing attention to this post on his august blog.

It is a cause of concern, though not surprise, that Mr Goodman's speech has received no coverage by the BBC or any of the mainstream media in the UK.  There is an apparent censorship of the rational, intelligent approach.  Such theological and political insights are simply not newsworthy.

But now that the observations have been made, will the Government sit up and take note?  Will anything change?  No.  The policy remains one of appeasement; Islamism is winning.   



....In the U.K., the U.S. or anywhere else that is a Non-Islamo State.....PERIOD...You don't like it, LEAVE!..THERE'S THE DOOR, ALI BABA!........

Sharia law

(Rousing self from deep, deep sleep)

There was a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday evening about the effects of having dual legal systems, focussing on the effects in Malaysia of having civil and sharia courts operating in tandem. It highlighted the very real problems in conflicts of laws when sharia courts are given priority as far as Muslims are concerned in matters such as divorce, inheritance and, most troubling of all, apostasy. These sharia courts are, because of a change in the constitution, aggregating more and more powers to themselves. The victims who were interviewed included a couple of mixed religion who couldn't marry or have children because of the consequences for them and their families, a mother who couldn't have access to her son, and a lawyer (a Muslim!) who lived under death threats because he represented people caught in this snare of dual laws.

This is a link to the page on the Beeb's website, and there is a link to the programme itself there if you want to listen to it.

It convinced me (not that I needed much convincing) that there can only be one source of law in a nation. That's not to say that some sharia ideas can't form part of that law - for example I can see that some Islamic products should be incorporated into the generality of financial regulation. But parallel legal systems? - no thanks. There was enough trouble from the ecclesiastical courts to have learnt that lesson.

Bob Doney