Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part I

[Ed: Freddy Vachha originally posted this text as comment under the article “Appeasers and Cowards”. It was far too long, so we asked him if we could post it as article because of its importance for the debate we must have in UKIP. Freddy agreed and detailed his arguments further. His reply is published below. It comes in two parts, Part II to republished tomorrow.]

For the avoidance of doubt – and, for the many who know me, there shouldn’t have been any – it isn’t as if I am opposed to everything, or even most things, in this article on UKIP Daily

I’m not. There is a lot of common sense there. But there’s a “but”.

I think that approach is a step or more too far. Fairness aside – for one thing, the public are not ready, and this won’t ready them. Enemies will have us promptly branded as BNP-Lite, or similar, within whole swathes of the media, including some who were beginning to gradually lean towards us, or at least stopping to throw the usual tired epithets at us which no longer are as effective as they used to be (“definition of a Racist = Someone who’s just won an argument against a libtard”). If we go down the route that article subliminally suggests, there’s liable to be a vote shift to the Tories (if only as virtue-signalling), and we will face electoral oblivion.

Then, who will there be to fight our corner? Arron Banks – but where are his troops on the ground? They don’t exist. Reality check: keyboard lobbyists and air campaigns don’t win elections without an army of door-knockers and leaflet-pushers; Labour will attack, with or without justification, any party of his as being the result of an attempt to buy one’s way to power. It won’t win us J***S*** up in the Midlands and North, and could lose our cause everything. Liberty GB? You must be kidding!  No numbers there – it’s seen as a single issue micro-movement with one charismatic proponent who sometimes goes too far.

Our party has, in general, got the balance right. We are shifting from being an “EU” focus to a “local issues” one. Membership numbers are back up to where they were when Paul took over. And Paul is sounding more and more decisive and insistent, appearing more and more in the news. Nigel’s was a tough act to follow – give the bloke a chance! He’s aware of mistakes made.  He’s fixing them.

Tragic recent murders (committed by a vile Islamist nutcase, operating, like in all 28 preceding premeditated terror attacks in Europe, during the eight “non-sacred” months of the Islamic calendar – the odds are worse than 100,000:1 that this could be just chance) notwithstanding:

Hysteria = OFF

If – I repeat, if – UKIP gets to be seen as BNP-Lite by the great unwashed, we are on a path with no turning back. I will assume that fear is common ground for almost all of us. How do we shift the debate so as to bring a matter of enormous concern (a permanent, irreversible change for the worse to our country) out into the open, without falling into that trap, is my exclusive focus below.

I am an agnostic/atheist – and if it matters to anyone, I have no Muslim ancestry at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if I knew as much, if not more, of the history of Islam than any other reader here, because I have studied it (and several other religions/cults) on and off since I was a kid, and from the errors I’ve read, especially among Reader’s Comments, it is evident most here haven’t.

Anyone who thinks I’m an apologist for the excesses of (say) Islam would be very mistaken; about half of my distant ancestors, perhaps guilty of being too trusting or naive due to their happy, friendly, millennium-length-duration coexistence with Jews (who were the guests, and my ancestors the hosts), and a shorter one with Christians etc., came into very direct conflict with Islam back when Islam was the brand new kid on the block.

They came off pretty badly, soon achieving Dhimmihood in the worst ways conceivable (hopefully, much of what happened is beyond your ability to imagine) and losing everything except their lives. If they hadn’t fled their homeland forever, they’d probably have lost their lives too, as did most of their brethren. I won’t dwell on this further – it’s all in the history books and contemporaneously recorded works.

Does this bias me at all against Muslims today? Absolutely not. That would be ridiculous and blatantly unjust. The persecution and elimination occurred between thirteen and eleven centuries ago. If we look back far enough in history and bear grudges, no one profits, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. But it also doesn’t prevent me from learning from history, either, and carefully assessing how much (or how little?) things have changed.

My mum’s dad died, unnecessarily young, just a few days before V-E day because he denied he had acute pneumonia and insisted hospitals were only “for our lads” (i.e., our troops).  The family lived through the Blitz – my mum, evacuated, had returned home during the “phoney” war, only to be greeted by some of the first of Hitler’s love-packets delivered to London. Another relative, a merchant seaman, has a watery grave at the bottom of the Arctic – he perished on one of the convoys, not PQ17, supplying the Soviets via Murmansk. On the other side of my family – one of my dad’s older sisters was a cryptographer in WW2; another drove a truck for the Army.  My dad’s dad was honoured with a C.I.E., the equivalent of a C.B.E., and more.  So, like many of you, perhaps I don’t need too many lectures on patriotism, thanks all the same, or on the imperative need to combat evil, using all means available. I like to think that had I been born half a century earlier and in Germany, I’d have recognised, as Churchill and a few others did, from his book and his works, early on the appalling danger to the world that Hitler presented, and used all my meagre wits, skills and guile to to assassinate the blighter, who had the Devil’s own luck. This, whatever the personal cost.

Recently, a committed Christian sincerely and adversarially wrote to me:

“… your comment that we are talking about a minority of people in Islam is not true. The Quran is to be taken literally… every single word. Any good Muslim will be waiting for the right time to strike down the unbeliever because in Britain they live in the House of War (a non-Muslim country that has not yet been subjugated) and they should be in a perpetual state of Jihad.” (See here.)

There is no reference to “House of War”, i.e. Dar-al-Harb/Gharb, AKA Dar-al-Kufr (region of heathens) in either the Q’ran or hadith, so this is not binding upon Muslims in any way.

That is not to say that many rogue (often Salafist/Wahhabi) preachers don’t claim it is, but their agenda is clear. Paul Nuttall has rightly attacked Saudi funding of UK mosques, and so do I.

These evil or misled people are at the heart of the problem. We need the Police, CPS and Judiciary to start applying laws that already exist, without fear or favour, instead of being cowardly and politically correct.

While helping a fellow UKIP PPC start their election campaign in a part of London where there are plenty of Muslims, mainly from Bangladesh, by luck I struck up a conversation with an elderly Muslim we encountered on the street and who happened to be the head of  a mosque committee. The gent was a history graduate from India, and (while not unsympathetic to UKIP, or so he said – I tended to believe him, partly because his companion was a Hindu who had been his best friend for 20 years) a Labour supporter.  When we asked him what was the biggest problem he faced running his mosque, he said “Young jihadi-recruiters coming from Walthamstow to join our mosque and then mislead our young people”.

Indeed, the “House of War” thinking had main relevance in the 8th century when the Battle of Tours thwarted the Islamic invasion of Europe, and began the reversal which culminated in their expulsion from Spain. Till then, Islamic conquests had appeared unstoppable. The term isn’t in mainstream Islam any more… most Muslims don’t think this way.

It follows that it is incorrect to claim that “Any good Muslim will be waiting for the right time to strike down the unbeliever … in Britain”, as what is in neither the Q’ran nor hadith cannot be considered to be prescriptive for a “good” Muslim.

Christian fundies too are also not unknown, friends, but they don’t go round murdering innocents in the name of religion. Unjust wars (post-WW2) waged by “Christian” countries were not for religious ends – while I’m hugely opposed to the insane 2003 war on Iraq by Bush/Bliar, who I think should face War Crimes trials, it wasn’t fought to spread Christianity.

Disturbing, apparently prescriptive, verses of the Old Testament (OT) are, to the overwhelming majority of Christians, set aside (superseded) by the NT teachings of Jesus. Doctrines like that of Everlasting Torment (Hell), introduced in the NT, leave all punishment to God, not to man. That’s a very significant difference between the NT and the Q’ran.

I don’t subscribe to cultural, moral or religious “equivalence” either, which is just woolly thinking.  If I was forced to adopt a religion, heaven (!) forbid, it wouldn’t be Islam.

However, for the sake of clarity, let’s look at the other major Abrahamic faith (i.e., faiths which profess a belief that Abraham was a prophet, and claim lineage from him), Judaism. Jewish scriptures contain more than a few disturbing, permissive (even if not prescriptive) verses, with no Messiah to later set them aside.

This said, I wouldn’t for a moment think that “Any good Jew will be waiting for the right time to “do whatever unpleasant things are permitted”. That would be absurd and I’d get rightly accused of anti-semitism (unless, heaven forbid, I was in the Labour Party, wherein I’d be promoted).

It’s simple – “Good” people try not to do wicked things. The broad agreement across religions and cultures as to what is “wicked” is better than many imagine. Most are born with this ability to distinguish.

So, IMO, it isn’t fair, wise or correct to say “any good Muslim will “do unpleasant things at the first chance”.  Such assertions simply alienate tens, hundreds or thousands of millions, including many reasonable, reasoning non-Muslims.

A much more significant debate, one where right and logic are very clearly on our side, relates to the Shariafication of Britain.

[Ed: to be continued tomorrow in Part II. Freddy also asked us to post this video showing him ‘in action’ , adding that ‘Freddy was very tired at that time, having been educating LibLabCon Remoaners all day. We’re happy to do so.]


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Freddy Vachha (8 Articles)
Freddy Vachha is UKIP Regional Chairman - London

50 Comments on UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part I

  1. David Warwicker // March 29, 2017 at 10:13 am // Reply

    Why not group the UKs two main intolerant ideologies together and oppose:’SocLam’?

    Both ideologies are arrogant and backward in that:
    -> Are too superor to listen/learn to other views or accept criticism, label-instead-of-listen and even ignore victims if the crime threaten’s their ideology.

    The two main contenders are Socialism and Islam, so let’s group these together, call them ‘SocLam’.

  2. I’ll wait until seeing the second part until commenting, but not looking good so far… demographics are destiny

    • > not looking good so far… demographics are destiny

      I agree it’s not looking good so far; it looked a lot worse in 1939.

      But both my grandmas told me they never even considered the possibility of defeat (ridiculous!) and just soldiered on.

      > that demographics are destiny

      … which is much the theme of Part 2, which I see is now up at:
      Points (1)-(7) there are IMO the heart of the matter.

      I remember having a magic wand as a toy when I was a tot. I soon figured it didn’t work, no matter how vigorously I brandished it.

      I don’t have a magic wand now.

      But, like so many of us in UKIP, I have a brain, reason, determination and a modicum of courage. So we figure out – without alienating allies and potential allies – what’s to be done.

      Giving up, simply put, is not an option. Nor, for me, is pointless ranting.

  3. Well said Freddy. The “let’s all turn into islamaphobes” brigade in here simply don’t grasp the realities of political life. We need to win elections, not just make a lot of noise. There is no doubt that Islam represents a big problem but the issue needs dealing with carefully and constructively if we want to resolve it peacefully, not by ranting.
    Muslims who live in the West have to be persuaded to adapt their religion to the 21st. century, just as Christians have done. Not insulted or threatened. Insisting on everyone observing the same laws and public cultural norms, explaining that there is no right not to be offended and that strict interpretation of ancient scripture simply won’t work in our society is ok, hitting people with verbal sticks is not.
    In truth they still represent a very small percentage of the population and whilst these days most terrorists are Muslims, that’s still just a very few individuals. The Islamic population have to help remove the rot in their midst, we can’t do it for them, threatening them will have the opposite effect and is just not the British way.

    • > Well said Freddy. The “let’s all turn into islamaphobes” brigade
      > in here simply don’t grasp the realities of political life.
      > We need to win elections, not just make a lot of noise.

      Yes, and thanks icini/iceni for the support and understanding.

      Let’s give an example – Islamophobia (note the spelling).

      A hostile MSM, busy virtue-signalling to sheeple, who then don’t vote for us, simply love it when some person responds

      “It’s not phobia, it’s justified fear”.

      For that contains an admission of fear of Islam – and an admission of having a “dislike of or prejudice against Islam or Muslims, especially as a political force”.

      Yes, that’s the dictionary definition of Islamophobia, not “fear of Islam” as some simple souls think it is.

      The MSM then gleefully use our acceptance of the perjorative term against us.

      In contrast, when asked by the media if I’m Islamophobic, I reply:

      “Nonsense, I’m neither afraid of nor prejudiced against Islam or Muslims, as the many Muslims who know me would agree. The very thought is preposterous.
      However, in the same way that right-thinking Muslims are, I’m very much against Extremist Islam, the Shariafication of Britain and am fearful of terrorism, which is on the increase.”

      Use the language; we’re smarter than these foolish hacks.

  4. GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // March 28, 2017 at 4:51 am // Reply

    Freddy Vachha,I disagree most strongly,when you say “our party has,in general,got the balance right”The balance can never be right as long as Paul Nutall remains as leader.he has disgraced himself,with that despicable bloody Halal supporting
    Leaflet,where I found his pandering and appeasement to the death cult Islamists sickening and stomach churning.Where you say Membership numbers are back up is a downright lie,members have been leaving in unprecedented numbers,and support from the general public is at an all time low.Nutall is damaged goods,the up and coming Council elections will prove what a failure and liability Nutall has become.I was a huge supporter of his,however my love of animals and my sheer
    strength of character,I can never ever support such a stupid and delusional fool.
    I find it distasteful when you say “give the bloke a chance!He’s aware of mistakes
    made,He’s fixing them.He has made a monumental mistake,which I can never ever forgive and he’s blown his chance.He had many years as Depity Leader to gage the huge support the policy to ban that most vile practice of non-stun slaughter,bloody Halal had with the majority of members and throughout the country.Just became he and most probably you and other UKIP Big Beasts have no love or compassion in their hearts for all animals,does not give you the right to overturn that most just and worthy policy.What finishes Nutall,is his sheer bloody downright arrogance,when,he firstly hid that vile leaflet away,while we were clapping and cheering him loudly after his speech in Bolton,Nutall had a guilty secret which he hid from us in a most sly and underhand way.Since his disastrous defeat at Stoke when no Mozziies voted for him
    as any fool could have told him they always vote Labour.Since then Nutall hashid himself away,and had refused to offer any explanation of his absurd behaviour,The longer Nutall and his dullard advisors remain,the sooner will be the demise of UKIP.
    Freddy Vachha,please note your support of the now disgraced Nuatall and your damage limitation exercise,and everything you say is in fact meaningless,at best we can now only ever be a protest party,as who in their right mind is going to vote for
    someone who know wants to now overturn the fox hunting ban,Nutall must go!

    • Toby Micklethwait // March 28, 2017 at 1:04 pm // Reply

      Dear GCE,

      You mention “non-stun slaughter”. I think that is a good phrase for UKIP to use rather than talking about Halal or Kosher.

      I have read somewhere that 80% of halal is stunned first.

      Nuttall’s leaflet said “UKIP will not ban Halal or Kosher but believe that there should be honest labeling”. (he uses the American spelling).

      Nuttall has not mentioned stunning.

      It appears to be open to us to say the we want a ban on non-stun slaughter … without going against what he said.

      OK, a bit technical, but it’s the best I can do to avoid having to admit to a U-turn.

      I have never visited an abattoir. I gather they are pretty awful even with stunning.

      Regards, Toby, 01932-873557

      • 80% of halal stunned… proper stunning is not allowed by HFA but only ‘reversible/reverse stun’ is allowed where the animal regains consciousness… So most probably the animal is conscious at the point of throat slitting and shahada being recited over this process without the animal being able to resist or move… It looks pretty cruel to me. The majority of supermarkets con their customers by not labelling halal meat properly. ALL New Zealand lamb is halal but no supermarket labels it as such. With chickens Tesco was able to give me only 2 ranges where they are sure that the chicken is 100% non-halal – British Organic and Tesco Finest. Otherwise they don’t know! At least they were honest unlike M&S and Waitrose. Waitrose sells Welsh lamb some of which comes from Welsh halal abattoirs but they don’t label it as such because according some Muslim law it is not halal… they mean Sharia. Why on earth do they obey some muslim law is beyond me!!! So they sell Welsh lamb which is halal unlabelled and con their customers. The only lamb they are sure about is 100% non halal is Organic and the stuff they sell behind the counter… I just want the same choice religious minorities have – to have the meat properly labelled and not be conned! The best supermarket appears to be Morrisons as they have their own abattoirs. So their own label meat sold there should be 100% non-halal as it comes from their own non-halal abattoirs. I don’t mind supermarkets selling halal or kosher properly labelled but I want to have the same right and I don’t want to be deceived! Just write to a few and find out for yourself…

    • Geoffrey, we agree on some things, and I understand and share much of your anger. But mine is cold rage, and I think on the evidence yours isn’t. You are striking out, at me too, in fury and therefore blindly.

      This clouds judgement, and makes you easy to dismiss or ignore.

      It may make you feel good, but it loses votes and elections. Where did you stand for UKIP, btw?

      > he and most probably you and other UKIP Big Beasts have no
      > love or compassion in their hearts for all animals

      A preposterous rant. You know nothing about me.

      I’d ban all non-stun slaughter in a trice and recommend those who feel that would force them, because of some religious proscription they choose to follow, to enjoy mycoprotein fungi (Quorn or similar).

      I’m happily omnivorous, not having much red meat for health reasons nor fish because they were childhood pets. But then I’m not subject to religious laws, and I’m resentful when this forces cruelly-killed food on me.

      So please do calm down, dear.

      > Where you say Membership numbers are back up is a downright lie

      Not a lie by me. I was given this information, i.e., that membership is back up to what it was immediately before Paul Nuttall took office, on March 22, in a meeting by the highest ranking officer in the Party.

      What is your source for your claim it’s “a downright lie”?

      > your damage limitation exercise,and everything you say is in fact meaningless

      ?? Damage limitation by me?

      Good grief. I want to save the country. End of.

      Enjoy ranting which may make you feel good, until you can manage to calm down and think straight – that would be my recommendation.

      Cool thinking is required. Most here know where we are, “A”. By and large, we know where we want to be that might be achievable, “B”.

      How to get from A to B is my mission. Hope its yours, too.

  5. Freddy – The Muslim world is a complex one, we Infidels will never understand it and I personally have no interest in doing so.

    I know that there are many Muslims that are peaceful but it’s just too difficult to separate this minority from the rapidly growing more extreme and fundamental variety.

    Think of our situation with Islam as like a case of Foot & Mouth Disease in the UK. only a small number of cattle are actually infected, but we have to destroy hundreds of thousands of healthy cattle as well to eradicate the problem.

    In an ideal world we’d repatriate instead of destroy, but they wouldn’t allow this without fighting back, they already think of our country as theirs: we don’t live in an ideal world.

    People that come to our country, sexually abuse and exploit hundreds of thousands of children and gang rape women, are worse than animals. If we treat Muslims like we do cattle, we’re being far to kind.

    • > we Infidels will never understand

      “Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs. When the Mohammedans attempted to penetrate beyond France into Central Europe during the eighth century, his visitors had told him, they had been driven back at the Battle of Tours. Had the Arabs won this battle, the world would be Mohammedan today. For theirs was a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and subjugating all nations to that faith. The Germanic peoples would have become heirs to that religion. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the Germanic temperament.
      Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate and conditions of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.
      Hitler usually concluded this historical speculation by remarking: ‘You see, it s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?'”
      – page 96 of the English translation of ‘Erinnerungen’, (Inside the Third Reich), the memoir of Albert Speer (1905-81), Hitler’s architect and then Reichsminister of Armaments. Speer was accepted as being accurate in his reporting of the inner workings of the Nazi world.

      > there are many Muslims that are peaceful but it’s just too difficult to separate this MAJORITY from […]

      I corrected your typographical error above.

  6. Freddy, many thanks for your excellent article.

    Are you being overly concerned about the risk of being called “BNP-lite”? If the party had cowered away from being called fruitcakes and loonies then the EU referendum would never have happened.

    I say: let the party do what it is true and good and just, and force the opponents (Labour mostly) to try to justify the opposite. Such as FGM, “honour” killings, cousin marriage, wife beating, non-stun animal slaughter, unfair Sharia courts, jihad, polygamy, death threats, vitamin D deficiency, no-go zones, Sharia patrols, sex slaves, fatwas against authors and cartoonists, anti-Semitism, homophobia, and sexism. And probably a few more which I have missed.

    UKIP could gain huge support by truly standing up for traditional British values. The BNP messed up in a number of ways, which need to be avoided.

    We need a skilled navigator at the helm to guide the UKIP vessel through these treacherous waters. There needs to be an urgent review of policy, tactics and strategy. The party can win, and do so with conviction and purpose. Unfortunately the leaflet delivered to the “Asian” addresses in Stoke was a serious blunder, and is symptomatic of a lack of clarity of thinking.

    • Hugo, you’ve said it.

    • Hugo, you value accuracy, as I do, and are cognisant of the need for it to avoid our foes scoring easy and preventable victories. In that spirit:
      > force the opponents (Labour mostly) to try to justify … ,cousin marriage

      1. We’re all cousins… are you advocating sexual abstinence or, at least, 100% contraception? 🙂

      2. You meant “First-Cousin” (FC) marriage; anything more distant and the medical risks (physical deformities and mental issues) subside into the background rate i.e. 2%.

      3. But FC marriage is LEGAL in the UK.
      And it is legal almost everywhere in the world.
      Please see: and, since the article takes some digesting, especially the diagram at
      The only countries which ban or discourage FC marriage are:
      * China, Philippines, Taiwan, N & S.Korea, Romania, Bulgaria, several former Yugoslavia components (BAN)
      * U.S.A. (banned in some states; I’ll omit the hillbilly jokes – we all saw ‘Deliverance’, didn’t we?)
      * India (but legally permitted if religious law allows it; never prosecuted in any event)

      4) Therefore there’s nothing for Labour (etc.) to “justify”.

      5) There is and should be debate in the UK as to whether to discourage or ban FC marriages. Per the cited article, 55% of British Pakistanis marry a first cousin, and this percentage is increasing. Dr Mohammad Walji stated that it is a “very significant” cause of infant death, and his practice has produced leaflets warning against it. However, Alan Bittles of the Centre for Comparative Genomics in Australia states that the risk of birth defects for first cousins is only 4% and so this is “alarmist”.

      6) It’s thus when it happens for generation after generation that the risk mounts into a distinct likelihood. Some of the physical disabilities, and all of the mental ones, aren’t curable either, and may then be inheritable – i.e., future generations will probably suffer from it too, even if the practice is discontinued immediately.

      7) Why should our over-burdened NHS pay an easily avoidable cost? BTW, much the same relates to tobacco, alcohol, other narcotic abuse, and arguably super-obesity.

      • Freddy, yes of course first cousin marriage.
        It was not a problem in the UK until just a few decades ago. Our laws do not prevent anything unless it is a problem, unlike Napoleonic law which I understand is the other way round.

        Charles Darwin married his cousin Emma Wedgewood. However from his own scientific research years later he realised that such close ties were detrimental.

        That few practiced it in the intervening years meant that there was no great necessity for a law against it. Now that it is a significant problem there should be leglislation against it. However, nobody will now dare to do anything about it. Primarily due to cowardice, and in the case of Labour presumably a concern not to lose votes.

        The fact that the Koran specifically allows first cousin marriage, and that it is taken as the highest authority, means that mere education will not resolve this problem. Only legislation and a will to enforce it can make any progress.

  7. I was going through the Muslim card as I know it this afternoon ( and that is only surface bits I have picked up from this site) and part from discussing the impact of Muslim births on the probability of their becoming the majority in not too many years away and the effect of loud mouth Imams and their adherents and the objective of Isis reinstating a Caliphate, I included the effects of Sharia Law (she`d never heard of it and she is 81 – like me, still with most of her eggs) nor did she know what FGM was (although she did understand what Female Genital Mutilation was).
    I am not surprised, I had worked amongst Muslims back in the 1950/60s and knew that certain women were “cut” for tribal reasons, but I hadn`t heard of it mentioned in FGM terms until it began to appear on here (Pamelia take a bow) over the last few yearsmaybe it also came up on the old lamented forum), but I had never heard the word “Sharia” until the last few years.
    I fear Freddie and everybody else you are underestimating the educational task that we have in really inculcating the full explanation of the dangers of Islam to probably 90% of the electorate.
    The dangers of 300K immigration – that`s beginning to sink in and the likelihood that it will contain acertain number of Islamic firebrands,but linking that with exponential takeover through Islamic population pressure as a pre-requisite to UKIP making progress on “relevance” I don`t really see it.
    Unfortunately we have to try – for the Nation`s sake.

    Oh and we should also really work at getting rid of ALL drugs – make it PC (anti-social) and start at the top – put a few of the “elite” “The IN people” in jankers.

    • > The dangers of 300K immigration

      What 300K immigration??

      That’s NET migration.

      It is more like 600K per year immigrating (that we know about it – all the illegals incl. overstayers aren’t counted) and 300K per year emigrating…

      And today, the average emigrant has more education, business experience, wealth, qualifications, etc. than the average immigrant.

      So, it’s a double whammy.

  8. Freddy, I am concerned your views about Islam are governed by your fear of what our political enemies may say about us (para 3).

    Surely UKIP can cut through all the waffle and stop tip-toeing through Islamic eggshells by following two simple guiding principles:

    1. We offer full respect and equal rights to all Muslim people who are our fellow British citizens;

    2. In our democracy we also insist on the right to examine and critique Islam as a rising politico/religious power in the land. If we are free in the UK to damn Das Kapital, so we are also free to damn the Quran. If we are free to criticise Jesus Christ and even, like James Kirkup, publish erotic homosexual poems about him, so we are also free to criticise Muhammad and to ask, for instance, what are the implications for our society that he, Islam’s “Role Model for all Humanity”, had sexual relations with his wife, aged nine, who he had married three years earlier.

    UKIP has never been a cowardly party, nor has it before been frightened by its enemies. For the sake of our children and of wider society, we must continue boldly to speak inconvenient truth and take up politically-incorrect causes, even regarding Islam.

    • > Freddy, I am concerned your views about Islam are governed by your
      > fear of what our political enemies may say about us (para 3).

      Alan, in general I agree with you, and I also want UKIP to win elections (no implication you don’t) else we’re just another pressure group or voice in the wilderness.

      Hence I am rightly mindful about how our enemies spin what we say and do. When my citing, in response to a question at a multi-party parliamentary hustings in 2015, that an eye for an eye leads to a world full of blind people (Gandhi), and see it distorted by our American friends into a claim I was mandating the blinding of Palestinians, it is hard to forget how vicious and untruthful these scoundrels can be. Sure, I got that one nailed on the head very quick.

      I am only too aware of what is in Islamic scripture (Q’ran and hadith) on the subject of the personal life of the prophet. I compiled, to avoid confusion, a list of his partners including consorts etc., and checked out references to English renditions of scripture. Its length etc. was noteworthy, even given that it was a very different world back then. Many a contemporary Indian Raja or Maharaja would have him hugely beaten in numeric terms, and many of these would have claimed divine status (which M never did).
      However, those potentates are not viewed as prophets of a modern-day faith.

      There is material at:
      Accessing the last one may necessitate a little ingenuity, as it is frequently blocked (e.g. by Sky) due to complaints lodged. I believe the site is reasonably unbiased, though.

      I know many Muslims who trust me and express their own concerns about much of this. They may be uncomfortable at public questioning of Islam but they certainly wouldn’t wish to punish the critic for it.

      As an agnostic, I am fearful (but not “phobic”, for the obvious definitional reason) of being in a society where I would have to pretend to believe – or else face sanctions.

      Christians (“people of the book”) are far safer in an Islamic state claiming to follow the Sharia than are, say, outed atheists.

    • > your views about Islam are governed by your fear of what our political enemies may say about us

      I should have drilled down into this before.

      I couldn’t care less what LibLabConGroanRemoan think. I go out of my way to wind them up, for when they’re furious they make (even more) errors.

      But I do care about what the voting public think, because without them we cannot win. And whether we like it or not, the majority of the voting public is influenced by what the MSM publish. The MSM are our truest “political enemies”, because large sections of the public believes what they are fed, drip drip drip.

      I conducted a straw poll in a pub in a Conservative part of London in spring 2014. I asked how many people there thought the BBC was generally unbiased in its news reporting. Almost half indicated they thought the BBC was unbiased. In response to the next question, several even opined that Auntie was too right-wing.
      Perhaps it was the alcohol talking, but…

  9. Freddy, your account of how muslims took over your homeland, your ancestors were dhimmified and eventually had to flee, never to return, is horrifying and terrifying. It doesn’t matter how long ago that happened, because islam is the same now as it was then, and quite capable of doing the same to us. And it will, unless steps are taken NOW to thwart its aims of creating a worldwide caliphate, the capture of the UK being a major step on the road to victory.

    Maths doesn’t lie. Muslims are still in a minority (a protected, privileged minority, excused from obeying the law), but compare their birthrate to that of the historic people’s birthrate and it is possible to compute the year in which the minority becomes the majority. Democracy will be compromised because it will not operate to the benefit of the people who put it in place; instead it will operate to the benefit of our ideological enemies and oppressors. They would install sufficient numbers of muslims in positions of power to kidnap the country and the British would have to accept dhimmihood or flee, just as your ancestors did.

    Here’s another possible scenario: the burgeoning numbers of muslims allow them to control cities where they concentrate in numbers: London (muslim Mayor aready), Birmingham, Bradford, Leicester (where they are already in the majority), and democracy allows them to islamify these cities. The rest of the country gets the wind up and an armed Resistance forms. So now there is a civil war and our beloved country turns into the kind of hell-hole we see in the Balkans and the Middle East. Or put it another way, our country regresses to 1649.

    Where is the national government in all of this? On present form, probably still waffling about islam being the ‘religion of peace’.

    Those nightmare scenarios MUST be pre-empted by all possible means, one of which is to heighten awareness and make our people LOOK at what is happening now and prevent disaster for us in the future. You say the people aren’t ready to listen; I disagree with you there. Many are afraid to SPEAK OUT about the abuses that are going on: of our benefits system; of our animal welfare laws; of halal meat spreading into our shops; of our laws against FGM, of our Parliamentary laws being sidelined by sharia, the islamic segregation and idoctrination of children in schools, our tax money being spent on promoting and spreading islam …

    It took UKIP 23 years to make people realise that the EU is an anti-democratic, fraudulent racket and want to get out. We have about the same amount of time to make the majority of people realise the danger that they and their children and grandchildren are in, before it’s too late. UKIP should now have the courage to be the voice of all the voters who deplore the division and threat and violence that islam brings to any hapless country it infests.

    Who cares if we are accused of being BNP-lite or similar foolish names by the idiotic media and clueless Leftards? Isn’t it worth risking in order to gain support from the electorate and save our country?

    • > Maths doesn’t lie

      But statistics are frequently misused. Part 2 of this article presents a (1)-(7) argument we’d, IMO, be somewhat crazy to ignore, and on which subject I’ve frequently clashed with (sometimes disgustingly dishonest) leftard journalists, the sort who make up the news rather than report on it, and fail to report all the things which don’t fit their Orwellian agenda.

      Of all countries (defining that term loosely) in the world with a population at least that of Holland (thereby omitting minnows like the Vatican City), even on the absurd “official” (i.e., ONS) data, England is the fourth most densely populated already, ahead of India – and increasing this unwanted lead every day.

      Only bursting-at-the-seams Bangladesh and two countries smaller than us (Taiwan and South Korea) are more crammed full of people.

      When some of those virtue-signallers north of the border lecture us about these things, they really don’t get it (or are feigning ignorance).

      • So if we live in a country that is the 4th most densely populated yet, according to the sinister UN’s ‘Replacement Migration’ policy, has an ‘ageing dwindling [native] population’, from where does this burgeoning population come? The clue is in the fact that ‘mohammad’is the most popular name in the UK!
        If every muslim man is allowed 4 wives – and can claim social security benefits for each as 4 dependants, plus their children, taxpayers are actually paying for them to have about 20 children, the better to outbreed and conquer us.
        Utter suicidal folly!

        Madness such as this needs exposing to public view, along with all the other reprehensible things muslims are allowed to do by this dhimmi government.

        • Pretty much the way I think, though I would add that polygamy is illegal in the UK (presumably with little or haphazard enforcement), and so legally there aren’t multiple “wives”, just one wife and various mistresses, concubines or whatever.

          At I provide the reproduction rates for various groups.

          Let’s say there is a group with 95% young adult “White British” and 5% “Pakistan-origin Muslims”, who have children at the ONS average rates cited.

          So, 95:5.

          The next (2nd) generation will be in the proportion 87:13. I’m ignoring the fact that many of the earlier generation will still be alive.
          The 3rd one’s will be 71:29.
          The 4th one’s will be 47:53 (PARITY)
          The 5th one’s will be 25:75.
          The 6th one’s will be 11:89.
          The 7th one’s will be 4:96.
          And the 8th one’s will be 1:99

          Albert Einstein wrote: “Compound interest is the eighth wonder of the world. He who understands it, earns it; he who doesn’t, pays it.”

        • GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // March 29, 2017 at 9:08 am // Reply

          Panmelia and everyone,see my first link,a Muslim site promoting up to 4 wives.My second link shows just how the Islamification of Britain is in full swing.Every political party now promotes Muslims and all that their peverted religion demands,we’ve even now got the disgraced leader of UKIP,Paul Nutall,pandering and appeasing to the death-cult Islamists,sickening to find that he is even now promoting their blood lust that is that most disgusting and vile torture of poor animals,BLOODY HALAL!

          • GCE, this polygamy site is unbelievable! And our stupid government does nothing to stop it, just allows claims for four dependants to be paid welfare out of taxpayers’ pockets!!

            Polygamy is ILLEGAL in this country, but these sickos are allowed to promote it. Chuck the lot out and let the man work like a navvy to support those wives in an islamic country.

          • I suggest clicking on
            instead, as the URL that GCE provided includes some identificatory data. The person behind it is now masked (anonymised) but the site is no spoof – see:

            Azad Chaiwala, now 33 or 34, set up and Bigamy is a crime (max. sentence 7 yrs) here, but its promotion is not. Chaiwala claims the service promotes fidelity & old-fashioned attitudes, and stops women being lonely: “Users police each other … We do not allow cleavage.” Translated literally, the founder’s name means Free(dom) Tea-Vendor. Just saying.

            GCE your “up to 4 wives” does not tell the whole story; in addition or substitution, men are allowed female captives as slaves, and it is lawful to have sex with them (even if they are/were married). There is no specified limit to the number of these.

            Q’an 4:24, 23:1-6, 33:50, 70:22-30
            Sahih Muslim 2:3371,3384,3432
            Sahih al-Bukhari 4138, 3:432,718, 5:459,637, 9:506,
            Sunan Abu Dawood 2:2150,2167

            But before you leap into battle:
            * The Q’ran and hadith also contain passages requiring fair and decent treatment of others, and conferring some limited rights on slaves.
            * The other 2 main Abrahamic faiths have scripture filled with fairly similar material, referring to slavery (and the usage of slaves) approvingly or neutrally i.e. without criticism.
            * Before I am reprimanded, I add that the New Testament has few references to slavery. In 1 Peter and several Pauline epistles, slaves are told to obey their owners as they would the Lord. But owners were warned to serve their slaves similarly or better (as brothers), and never to threaten them. Paul writes of returning a runaway slave to Philemon, but entreats the latter to view the slave instead as a loved Christian brother, and to treat him as Paul was treated. This is a far cry from the Q’ran and hadith on this subject.
            * It was a long time ago and slavery was a way of life for much of the world, certainly including the areas where Islam was born.

  10. Much of what the more extreme adherents of Islam say or do is seditious. Unfortunately, Labour abolished the common law offence of sedition in 2009.

    It may be that the vast majority of muslims in the UK are not individually violent or seditious but don’t forget 1989 and the Rushdie affair. The head of a foreign power (Iran) called for the murder of a British author. In Bradford and other places they demonstrated in their thousands burning a book they had not read and echoing the call for Rushdie to be killed. So called British citizens were answering the call and to an extent that Rushdie had to go into hiding. Nothing to do with halal and sharia. Everything to do with muslims in the UK.

    Following the Danish cartoon affair there was a demonstration in London calling for anyone who `insults’ Isalm to be killed. No action taken by the police (but try asking one if his horse is gay).

    The problem with Islam is that we cannot mock and satirise it in the way that we did with Christianity. Only when they are rolling in the aisles of a Bradford cinema while watching Monty Python’s Life of Mohammed will Islam be tolerable in the UK.

    Meanwhile, the `respect’ we must show `faith’ and Islam in particular is what fuels division. On one level I understand the don’t go too far trope. On another, and increasingly, I am getting mightily fed up with the appeasement of Islam. So great is this religion (apparently) that leaving it has to be met with death threats. It’s a cult. It’s a political ideology and yes we should be allowed to discriminate against it. At present it has special privileges as we have to tip toe around it. Each day I have to do that so each day I am willing to go a bit further and too far worries me less and less.

    • Stout Yeoman – High Treason too. You raise key points – thanks – that I thought about but didn’t put into part 2.

      As an agnostic, I’m far too well-mannered to mock and lampoon religions, with one outcome being upsetting sincere adherents.

      But if I wanted to, I know I could make a blooming good job of it.

      Only in a few cases (Islam being the most well-known) is such crass activity physically dangerous, though.

      Freedom of speech, including as it must the freedom to give offence, is vital to a modern society. I agree this is non-negotiable.

      An absurdity is that the Danish cartoons were mild. There’s far more graphic material satirical or critical of Islam out there – including drawings including, with another, a young girl clutching a doll and so terrified she has lost control of her bladder. You don’t need much imagination.

      ‘The Satanic Verses’, a “study in alienation”, may have been reacted to with that infamous fatwa not because of any perceived insult to Islam but because a dream sequence (the last one) in the book involves a fanatical, hypocritical, fault-filled Imam living abroad and in modern times. This is obviously Ayatollah Khomeini from the era when he lived in exile in Paris, plotting the overthrow of the (brutal but probably preferable) Shah. And that’s why Khomeini issued the death sentence on Rushdie – because he was personally insulted.

      I put it to some devout Muslims that by issuing the fatwa, supposed to be a punishment for blasphemy or similar, Khomeini was himself usurping the position of God and his prophet. This was because the insult in the book was to Khomeini and not them. Therefore it was Khomeini who, by that logic, should have been the subject of a fatwa, equating an attack on himself to one on God. I’d swear they agreed with the logic but were too scared to admit it.

      So – don’t think the majority of Muslims don’t _privately_ think much the same as you do. They feel compelled to be externally committed to a path they don’t actually want to get to the end of – the pot of gold being Sharia Britain, whose drawbacks to them is as apparent to them as to you.

      I don’t know if this is a huge majority, but I would wager it is a majority of mature (i.e., not youngsters) British Muslims.

      > Only when they are rolling in the aisles of a Bradford cinema while
      > watching Monty Python’s Life of Mohammed will Islam be tolerable
      > in the UK.

      Brilliant – wish I’d thought of that test!

      Some migrant communities _have_ made that jump, apparently.
      I read that “Goodness Gracious Me”, self-lampooning British Indians (and the host and other groups), made back in 1998 and IMO pretty funny in parts (“cheque, please!”), was a smash hit in “Asian” communities.

      That ability to laugh at oneself and accept cricitism without looking for a reason to take offence is a sign of an assimilated culture at peace with itself.

      The issue is – Islam, certainly in Britain, is generally NOT at peace with itself. Most of its victims are themselves Muslim.

      • ‘Goodness, Gracious Me’ Freddy? – come off it, you have to be kidding! Those were Indian Hindu heritage actors lampooning Hindus and the English, as in the famous English restaurant scene: “Twenty bread rolls, please!”
        Being of Hindu origin, those actors knew a hell of a lot better than to lampoon muslims, even 20 years ago.

        • Panmelia, they poked fun not only at Hindus and the English, but also at Buddhists (remember the Buddhist rat-catcher?), Sikhs etc. You are only 75% right about the main 4 actors being of Hindu heritage; one is Parsi.

          I can recall but one incident of GGM taking on the Religion of Peace, but there may have been more. It was in the triplet about a son asking his father about the meaning of being a Hindu / Sikh / Muslim. Each sketch ended with dad admonishing the lad about inappropriate use of his hands (don’t ask!).

          Yes, this was soft-pedalling.

          Even the delightfully irreverent SOUTH PARK modified their cartoon depicting the RoP’s prophet… fear of a fatwa?

          I’m as furious about protesters waving posters like “God damns Free Speech” and “Kill those who oppose Islam” as anyone else. Include all those (generally silent) Muslims who view with horror the excesses of their co-religionists.

          I was recently on the BBC (I won’t say what show as I don’t want to embarrass the person I mention below). One of the other panellists was an educated, Labour-leaning Muslim lady from the States. I invited her for a coffee immediately after. She revealed that hubby was an atheist scientist and she remarked on how “backward” (her words) so many British Muslims were, compared to their American counterparts. Wow, had I said that – ouch.

      • I agree that deliberately seeking to give offence is crass but most of the mocking of Christianity – by endless BBC comedy programs – was ispired by humour not an overarching desire to offend. The humour was allowed to trump any fear of giving offence though in a few cases the real motive may have been to wind up Mary Whitehouse.

        But the BBC, Guardian, MPs and others do not treat Islam, Christianity and other superstitions equally. THAT is the problem. Attempts by Blair and others to inculcate equal `respect’ for `faiths’ is not a solution I want to see. We should mock the beliefs. The reason why the suicide bombers of July 2007 – we know this from the videos posted – acted as they did is because they believed in 1) paradise and 2) entry by killing non-muslims (a route to redemption for some of them). We need to discredit the idea of heaven or paradise not argue about entry conditions.

    • > there was a demonstration in London calling for anyone who
      > `insults’ Islam to be killed. No action taken by the police
      > (but try asking one if his horse is gay)

      To be fair, the demo was a protest, rather than specifically to make the call you said. Some of the protesters had placards which were highly offensive and to me (IANAL) appeared to unambiguously incite the murder of a defined set of people, including some Danes whose names were known. One assumes other protesters read these banners but played a role instead of walking away. It is astounding the police did not arrest them – immediately. TBH I am angrier with whoever in the police made that call, and the sinister figures who were behind the protest, than with the placard-brandishing halfwits…

      As to the drunken Oxford Uni student, 21, arrested in 2005 for potentially offending the policeman’s horse (there being no passers-by to offend) over its sexuality and despite being warned to stop, who had to sweat it out for six months before he was told the charges were dropped – it may be relevant that his name was Sam Brown, suggesting he may not belong to a protected group.

      In case I too appear humourless, I mention that I won’t mention my friend John Rees-Evans here. 🙂

  11. Freddy I think you make a very good point that going “too” far will do more damage than good to our cause. But by the same token, going anywhere on this subject will open floodgates, so lets go far enough to make it worthwhile.

    Since most of the electorate, myself included, have minimal knowledge of the subject and even less desire to confront it, my instinct says keep it simple.

    When in Rome, equal gender rights and equality before the law, coupled with targeted immigration and emigration control from countries like Pakistan, to prevent the traffic of young girls.

    Culpability. Of senior police officials, teachers, preachers, social workers, even prisons that run scared of confronting extremism thus condone and condemn.

    But also simple themes like banning the burka and those horrible veils with eye slots. We are a country that broadly celebrates women’s lib so why aren’t we about empowering women rather than imprisioning them?

    Likewise Sharia. Likewise banning halal, home grown or imported. We profess to be a nation of animal lovers. Can we not build on that?

    I do not subscribe to the view that all muslims are the problem and would like to see ukip (or ukip2) invoke the memory of siad shah, the shopkeeper murdered last year in Glasgow for wishing his customers a happy Easter.

    But I also think for people of a certain age, remembering Enoch Powell isn’t such a silly idea because they know he was used as the means to shut down all sensible discussion on matters of race but not even he foresaw the evil that your elderly Muslim friend now encounters.

    Does he have any suggestions?

    My interest at 63 years old is my 14 year old daughter and my observation that her age group, with no memory of Enoch Powell, is far more critical of inequality than I was at her age. Which makes me wonder who will take an effective lead in this fight? Not too frightened to raise the subject or too xenophobic to put people off.

    AMW perhaps? Sorry but I don’t think it’ll come from Paul with his labour-lite attitudes and redukip acolytes.

    • Alan:
      > Freddy I think you make a very good point that going “too” far will do more damage than good to our cause

      Thanks. I think I do. As a physicist, I know balance is everything.

      > lets go far enough to make it worthwhile.

      Sounds like a plan!

      BTW I too am very unhappy with halal.

      The theory is one thing – bad enough, and/but similar to schechita.

      The practice… well… I won’t sully this place with videos of appalling suffering from halal slaughterhouses in Britain. Some of the suffering seems to be because sadists or deviants are employed there.

      It appears that in Jewish (kosher) slaughterhouses in Britain there’s better supervision or staff screening or something. Or perhaps they are better at ensuring videos don’t get out? I don’t know.

      I’m not a vegetarian, but the thought of eating something that’s really suffered in order to get to my plate makes me heave.

      Up to me, I’d ban the lot.

      End of. God says the only “meat” you are allowed to eat must be un-stunned?
      Great, no problem, obey God, use un-stunned mycoprotein:
      Mushrooms / fungi don’t scream in agony. Not that poor mammals with torn out pharynxes can even scream as they slowly die.

      Shame on us.

  12. Indeed CK, wherever there are Muslim immigrants in a non-Mulsim country they make trouble. We have no need of differentiation between “good” and “bad” Muslims; there are far too many here already and, when push comes to shove, whose side will they take?

    As Dee has written many times on here all it takes for a start is rigorous enforcement of the Law. That requires the military on stand-by in sufficient numbers to deal with the likely riots. We don’t need another Bradford where they were allowed to run amok virtually unchecked and prosecutions were few.

    • > when push comes to shove, whose side will they take?

      Speaking about the majority (but not everyone):

      I don’t know for sure.

      And nor do you.

      In a more conciliatory vein:
      > prosecutions were few

      Try to find how many (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions and (c) jail sentencings there have been for FGM in the United Kingdom since (arbitrarily chosen) Labour got the boot in 2010.

      Please let us know the result of your research. I suspect many don’t understand quite how broken this is….

  13. Freddy, in my opinion, it all comes down to Law. If we reinstated British Law, and had no truck with Sharia, which goes against British values as well as our own laws, we would be giving Muslims the chance to either break free or follow a reformed Islam, When or if that ever happens. All religion has reformed over time, except Islam. When you say the persecution and elimination occurred between thirteen and eleven centuries ago, that isn’t true. Christians, and other faiths, have been and are still being eliminated where Islam moves in.
    In demanding the removal of Sharia practices we are fighting for all – those who are now subject to it as well as those who might one day be so. How can it not be right to do that? I do believe that many, especially women and girls, have been terribly let down and left unprotected by cowardly Governments who refuse to confront the fact that Sharia is practiced. It is not a secret, it is widely known, and there are also ‘Sharia zones’ operating in Britain. Sharia is the foundation of Political Islam, no other ‘religion’ is a complete system for Government. It has no place here.

    • Thanks for replying!

      > Freddy, in my opinion, […]

      Are you a mind-reader, Dee, or had someone already provided you with my whole article? 😉

      For reasons of presentation, UKIP DAILY chopped it in the middle – Part 2 set for tomorrow. Well, the last sentence of Part 1 above gave you a pretty good clue as to where I was heading, so perhaps your guess wasn’t that inspired.

      What you claim it all comes down to is pretty much what I’d already written it all comes down to.

      > When you say the persecution and elimination
      > occurred between thirteen and eleven centuries
      > ago, THAT ISN’T TRUE.

      Dee, while I am the first to admit it when I make a mistake, I made none here.

      I probably do know the history of my very distant forebears… rather more about my dad’s ones, because they kept better records than did my mum’s Ancient Britons.

      Let’s reprise what I wrote, using ellipses:
      “about half of my distant ancestors … came into very direct conflict with Islam back when Islam was the brand new kid on the block … The persecution and elimination occurred between thirteen and eleven centuries ago”

      I think you will now see I made no mistake. My hospitable paternal ancestors, hammered over about two centuries into an oppressed, bankrupt minority in what had been their own homeland, fled in boats eleven centuries ago, never to return. All in the history books.

      Context shows I wasn’t referring to anyone else. Kurds and hapless Yazidis, to name but two, are being put through the grinder right now as we write – in actions the majority of Muslims worldwide condemn.

      • I am justly taken to task, Freddy, but I think we have to focus on the wider context, in that the persecution and elimination didn’t stop there, it has continued, and perhaps if we are facing up to the threat, we need to bring it to the point where people can relate it to the now – which is extremely pertinent to the U.K.
        Sorry, I have no prior knowledge of your Part 2, I shall be very pleased if it goes along the same lines as those, as Jack T has kindly said, I keep hammering away it!
        Anne Marie is the woman for the job – her knowledge of Sharia is equaled by her courage in facing up to and identifying the threat of it, so I hope all UKIP members, without exception, agitate until she is UKIP’s Spokesperson for women.

        • Sorry, hammering away at!

        • Anne Marie is courageous and knowledgeable.

          However, as with everyone – especially me – there are gaps in knowledge.

          Strongly relating, as AM does almost by rote, the international practice of FGM with Islam simply isn’t right, and permits sceptics to dismiss the lot.

          FGM is pre-Islamic, not mentioned in the Q’ran and only ambiguously in hadith, and in parts of Africa is shunned by Muslims while practised by Christians!

          In Britain, the vast majority of FGM cases involve Muslims, but the overwhelming majority of Muslims here – almost all the South Asian ones – find it utterly abhorrent. Unless my memory’s playing tricks, I’ve mentioned this in Part 2.

          Before the pro-AM lobby get into a feeding frenzy:
          (a) I was the one who publicised her last talk, in Peter Harris’s Barking & Dagenham branch, and
          (b) She’s a friend, and
          (c) I’ve lost 4 stone since last May, so there’s little of me left to feed on. If you must, I demand pre-stunning.

          • Yes, FGM is pre-islamic because it was practised by disgusting arab slavers on girls and women to give them added value to perverted male buyers. These slavers also completely ‘shaved’ boys of their genitals in order to create eunuchs for harems. The latter practice ceased, but FGM goes on to this day to the utter shame of the UN and any other organisation that thinks it knows how to rule the world.
            The practice of FGM spread to patriarchal cultures in Africa, some of whom were later converted to Christianity. The shame of it having continued belongs to the Roman Catholic church that did not outlaw and abolish it completely among Christian converts.
            FGM is now practised mostly or wholly in muslim countries on whatever continent has been blighted by the presence of this ‘religion’, including our own.
            The practice of mutilating women is, of course, particularly attractive to a cult which practises institutional misogyny and an ugly, warped idea of male ‘honour’, and it WAS endorsed by *’mohammad’ in the koran; although he said it was better for the husband not to ‘cut too deep’ he did not say ‘do not cut’.

            The shame is now borne by our own country which, despite enacting two separate laws (the first in 1985) against FGM on females here or taken to another country for it, HAS NOT CONVICTED ONE SINGLE PERPETRATOR, despite the evidence of 5,500 mutilations last year alone.

            It’s time to stop being ‘culturally sensitive’ about this abomination and set up an all-female police team whose goal is to eradicate the practice altogether in the UK, on pain of long prison sentences, children removed from parents, and deportation.

            If I were PM, this is what I would do, but I’m not a feeble dhimmi like Theresa Sharia May, who prefers to ignore the sexual abuse of helpless girls and subjugated women.

          • Panmelia, this is in response to your comment (36808) of March 28, 2017 at 12:31 pm, which has 7 paragraphs. I agree with paras 1-3 and 5-7, except I am tempted to add that in most cases of FGM a man is directly involved, and a fitting punishment for a man besides “long prison sentences, children removed from parents, and deportation.” occurs to me…

            Note, under international law no country can deport its own citizens except under an international warrant and court order.

            You repeat an error in para 4:

            > it WAS endorsed by ’mohammad’ in the koran …
            > it was better for the husband not to ‘cut too deep’
            > he did not say ‘do not cut’.

            Wrong, no matter how much you eMpHaSiSe it with capitals, Panmelia.

            The Q’ran is in written form – so produce a citation to support what you claim. You won’t be able to, end of.

            What you are confusing is, and exactly as I wrote, the Q’ran with hadith, which put into writing the oral tradition re the words and actions (sunnah) of M.

            From Sunan Abu Dawud 41:5251, one of an immense number of add-ons:
            “Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (PBUH) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.”

            That isn’t the Q’ran. It is hadith. Big difference for a Muslim. And an excellent opportunity for a hostile press to show up UKIP(pers) as ignorant. Happens again and again.

            K.I.S.S. :

            1) You bl**dy well don’t want FGM here (or anywhere) and you want the perps so badly punished it’ll stop the other pervs or idiots doing it.

            2) I bl**dy well don’t want FGM here (or anywhere) and I want the perps so badly punished it’ll stop the other pervs or idiots doing it.

            3) But you are incorrect in your evidence and thus allow a hostile media to demonstrate you are wrong, thereby allowing all the valid things you write to be unfairly dismissed and so discredited.


          • Freddy,
            Whether it’s in the koran or hadith doesn’t really matter because both are held to be equally important to muslims in their goal to imitate and obey the teachings of mohammad. Seeing as the koran is practically unintelligible, I’d say more muslims relate to the hadith because it’s got nice little stories in it about what mohammad was supposed to have said and done in various circumstances.

  14. Mr Vachha, you are a genuine good guy and you don’t need to introduce yourself as your good reputation and good deeds precede you.
    By your name I assume you are of Bombay Parsi origin but I have no idea what languages you speak on top of your native English (?).
    England is not facing/experiencing islamic cultural enrichment of the Chaudhvin ke Chand variety (cf Guru Dutt) but more on the lines of K. Asif’s Mughul-E-Azam. The large M/ism population in the UK is increasingly separated and strident. it is characterised by massive immigration of relatives ( some undoubted bogus) and large families but also with low educational achievement perhaps due to commonality of cousin marriage. Frankly we would be better off without all the problems this brings and I do not care a fig for the insults of the media and political elites.
    Time is of the essence as already over 20% of Brummagem is of ‘the one true faith’ and historically this is at the penetration point where violence kicks off.
    Could you please name a country in the world with more than 25% M/ism population that is peaceful and civilised in the way that the UK your family fought valiantly for 70odd yrs ago undoubtedly was. Countries being destroyed and/or under serious threat include Lebanon, parts of Russia, Phillipines, central Africa, Sweden (for God’s sake !!!!!!).

    • ck, thanks for the misdirected compliments.

      Since you asked:

      Not that it’s too relevant, I’m English on my mum’s side and Parsi on my dad’s. My dad’s side were far more Anglophile. Brits and Parsis generally got on like a house on fire, first few non-European MPs and so on. It kicked off when the first English traders ventured to certain foreign parts and were confused to find a tiny number of educated, “white” people who’d already lived there for nearly a millennium, careful to keep out of the hot sun (that was left for mad dogs and you-know-who).

      Languages? In decreasing order of spoken fluency – English – American Hindi=Urdu – French Gujarati – German – Italian, the final two confined to barely-tourist-adequate. While I resented it at the time, I’m now glad I was forced to learn other languages at school.

      > Could you please name a country in the world with more than 25%
      > M/ism population that is peaceful and civilised in the way that
      > the UK … was.

      Hmmm. Counting only countries with a Muslim population of more than a million, I find there’s 48 which are more than 25% Muslim.
      Though I’m quite a globetrotter, the only two I’ve overnighted (or more) in are Nigeria and the UAE. In the UAE it’s only a veneer. Neither, in my opinion, pass your test.

      Of the other 46, possible candidates are:
      MOROCCO (99%)
      THE GAMBIA (95%) .. but vaguely remember recent warnings
      INDONESIA (87%)
      MALAYSIA (62%)

      Four out of 48 (8%), but what do I know. Until recent times, I’d have included secular Turkey. Now, that would seem like a double-blunder.

      A curious phenomenon is as follows:
      If we consider all the countries in the world except for tiny ones excluded as before, disproportionaly FEW have Muslim populations in the MID-RANGE from (say) 25% (your chosen threshold) to 60%. See for yourself:

      Mauritania 100%
      Afghanistan 100%
      Tunisia 100%
      Iran 100%
      Algeria 99%
      Morocco 99%
      Iraq 99%
      Yemen 99%
      Somalia 99%
      Tajikistan 99%
      Turkey 99%
      Azerbaijan 98%
      Niger 98%
      Palestine 98%
      Saudi Arabia 97%
      Sudan 97%
      Libya 97%
      Uzbekistan 97%
      Pakistan 97%
      Senegal 96%
      Kosovo 96%
      The Gambia 95%
      Mali 95%
      Jordan 94%
      Turkmenistan 93%
      Egypt 90%
      Syria 90%
      Kyrgyzstan 89%
      Oman 88%
      Indonesia 87%
      Bangladesh 87%
      Guinea 84%
      Qatar 78%
      UAE 76%
      Kuwait 74%
      Sierra Leone 72%
      Kazakhstan 70%
      Malaysia 61%
      Burkina Faso 61%
      Lebanon 61%
      Albania 59%
      Chad 58%
      Bosnia-Herzegovina 51%
      Nigeria 48%
      Eritrea 44%
      Ivory Coast 40%
      Tanzania 35%
      Ethiopia 34%
      Benin 24%
      Mozambique 23%
      Cameroon 21%
      Ghana 18%
      Israel 18%
      Russia 15% (upper end estimate)
      India 14% (official) 17% (suspected)
      Malawi 13%
      Uganda 12%
      Kenya 10%
      … (many)
      UK 5% (ONS figure… seriously)
      … (many)

      Nigeria suffers Christian v. Muslim unrest, perps on both sides, and perhaps that’s partly caused by it being close to 50-50.

      Since Islam is the fastest growing religion (measured by numbers, not percentages) in the world by far, the above suggests Muslim populations get to a hinge percentage and then tend to accelerate to a clear majority. I’ve checked a few cases (as in, saw how the population composition changed over time) and they support this simple view.

      Drawing conclusions from this – as in, why it happens – is not easy. Caution.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.