Muslims in the Lords
From the desk of Thomas Landen on Mon, 2009-01-26 10:16
The House of Lords is a venerable British institution, but what does one get if one accepts Muslims in? This:
A member of the Lords intended to invite her colleagues to a private meeting in a conference room in the House of Lords to meet the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, an elected member of the Dutch parliament, to watch his controversial movie Fitna and discuss the movie and Mr. Wilders’ opinions with him.
Barely had the invitation been sent to all the members of the House when Lord Ahmed raised hell. He threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders from entering the House and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court. The result is that the event, which should have taken place next Thursday was cancelled.
Lord Ahmed immediately went to the Pakistani press to boast about his achievement, which he calls “a victory for the Muslim community.”
A victory for the Muslim community, but a defeat for British democracy where topics to which Muslims object cannot even be debated. That, apparently, is what one gets when one accepts Muslims into the House of Lords.
Lord Ahmed is considered to be a “moderate” Muslim. The Pakistani born Nazir Ahmed became the United Kingdom’s first Muslim life peer in 1998. He is a member of the Labour Party and was appointed to the Lords by Tony Blair. Lord Ahmed took his oath on the Koran. He led one of the first delegations on behalf of the British Government on the Muslim pilgrimage of the Hajj, to Saudi Arabia. In February 2005, Lord Ahmed hosted a book launch in the House of Lords for anti-Zionist author Israel Shamir. In 2007, he responded to the award of a knighthood to Salman Rushdie by stating that he was appalled, saying that Rushdie had “blood on his hands.”
Lord Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up “to promote world peace in the aftermath of 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance.”
What does “dialogue” mean to those who make discussion about controversial issues impossible? Thank you, Mr. Blair, for bringing “diversity” to the House of Lords.
Melbourne Islamic Cleric says its OK to rape your wife
Submitted by kabwell on Sat, 2009-02-07 13:32.
January 22, 2009 03:10pm
Prime Minister and Islamic leaders have condemned a Muslim cleric who
told followers it was permissible to hit their wives and force them to
But Coburg mosque cleric Samir Abu
Hamza has told a confidant his message has been taken out of context
and that he was referring to hitting wives in a metaphorical sense.
Prime Minister Rudd said Mr Hamza's comments had no place in modern Australia.
a 2003 lecture also posted on the internet late last year, Mr Hamza
told followers that under Islamic law, men could demand sex from their
Despite Australian law requiring consent, it was
impossible for a man to rape his wife even if she refused to have sex,
"Under no circumstances is sexual violence permissible or acceptable in Australia - under no circumstances,'' Mr Rudd said.
no circumstances are other forms of violence, physical violence,
acceptable towards women in Australia nor are they acceptable in my
view to mainstream Muslim teachings.
"Australia will not
tolerate these sort of remarks. They don't belong in modern Australia,
and he should stand up, repudiate them and apologise.''
President of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) Ramzi Elsayed said
he had spoken with Mr Hamza about the lecture, titled The Keys to a
"He told me he was speaking in a metaphorical sense,'' Mr Elsayed said.
regards to hitting your wife, his position is that it has always been
metaphorical - it's not a whack, it's not a slap, it's a wake-up
He said Islam did not condone violence against women or making a wife have sex with her husband against her will.
believes he was taken out of context insofar as he was talking about
people who censure their spouses - it was not so much a physical hit as
a metaphorical one to say wake up, we're heading for a divorce
kind-of-thing,'' Mr Elsayed said.
But the senior honorary
legal adviser to the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, Haset
Seli, hit out at Mr Hamza, calling him a lunatic.
"His lecture was absolutely ludicrous, unIslamic and highlighted the ignorance of the man,'' Mr Seli said.
He said anyone who thinks he can force his wife to have sex with him is a lunatic and certainly not a Muslim.
Seli said he went through a similar episode with the former Mufti,
Sheik Taj Aldin Alhilali, who caused a national uproar in a 2006
Ramadan speech when he likened scantily clad women to uncovered meat,
suggesting they were to blame for sexual attacks on them.
He also claimed at the time that his comments had been taken out of context.
"Statements like (Mr Hamza's) are about as helpful to Islam as a lunatic parading himself as an imam,'' Mr Seli said.
The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia (FECCA) said violence against women in any form was unacceptable.
"There can be no cultural or religious defence for violence against women,'' said acting FECCA chair Beryl Mulder.
the Islamic Information and Service Network of Australasia, which Mr
Hamza runs in Melbourne, a staff member said the comments had been
taken "absolutely out of context''.
"We do not hit our women,
you can ask any Muslim woman and she will tell you that, it's not part
of Islam,'' the male staff member, who did not want to be named, said.
Mr Hamza was on holiday somewhere in Melbourne for the next "couple of weeks,'' the man said.
Hassan, vice president of the ICV, said she was organising workshops
for Victorian imams on the issue of domestic violence.
may be individuals who have interpreted this lecture as condoning
violence against women - it's not the first time we have had this
problem,'' she said.
She said imams will meet next week to plan workshops to find ways of discouraging domestic violence among their followers.
Submitted by KO on Sat, 2009-02-07 14:43.
The mere fact that these discussions take place is evidence that there is no place for Islam in the West. It is the core of an alien, hostile, and incompatible civilization. However, the West is doomed if it relies on women's rights as the essence of its identity, as if Western men had no right to be free of an Islamic presence.
Submitted by MWW on Wed, 2009-02-04 14:51.
Thomas, I am researching this story and would appreciate it if you could give the source of the Ahmed "10,000" threat. Also, do you know who (re)invited Wilders to the House of Lords?
Thanks in advance.
Submitted by Steve Atkinson on Tue, 2009-01-27 03:20.
There can be no "thoughs" regarding Lord Ahmed's assertion that his victory, is a victory for the Muslim communty. Sir Winston must be turning over in his venerable resting place. He missed the opportunity to include "Parliament", as one of the places where Brits would fight off the oppressors.
Now, if only one of America's representatives in Congress would invite the same Dutch Parliamentarian, Geert Wilders, to discuss his film in similar circumstance.
Perhaps, then, Keith Ellison, the sole Muslim member of Congress might emulate Lord Ahmed's "Victory" speech from the very halls of that proud, American institution.
Can't see either happening soon, but would be willing to bet on the outcome, should that occur...
Submitted by Frank Lee on Mon, 2009-01-26 21:52.
Lord Ahmed is right, though: undermining Western democratic values is indeed "a victory for the Muslim community."