The Threat of Islam

Before going any further, I want to stress the difference between a person who is a Muslim (in the same sort of sense that a person might be ‘a catholic’) and an Islamist. There are different ‘sects’ within the Muslim faith, but there is only one ‘Islam’. In my view, Islam is more like a ‘place’ – a country – a caliphate – rather than a faith.

I have been watching a video this evening about Islam. You can watch it here if you have three quarters of an hour to spare:

I found it very, very interesting. The speaker very rapidly, but succinctly, traces the history of Mohammed. In brief, it seems that he used religious freedom in a city to protect himself and form a group of followers. At that point, he was purely a religious leader. Once he got a big enough following, purely as a religious leader, you understand, he morphed into a politician and started to make demands. While he was weak, he made treaties, but had no hesitation in reneging on the treaties once he became strong enough. Once he was strong enough, he became a military commander, and had no hesitation in driving out his former allies. Much blood was shed.

According to the speaker,  this format (religion, politics and military) became a template which was used again and again all over those lands bordering the Mediterranean, and extending further and further into Africa and Europe. Few Brits are aware that Islam conquered and held Spain until around 1500 AD (not sure about that date, but thereabouts). I have no doubt, myself, that Islam also explored the West coast of Ireland and Scotland. Islam was an empire and had a huge navy.

The speaker suggests that the Koran was written ‘on the hoof’ to justify the behaviour of Mohammed. I have no opinion on that. Suffice to say that there are parts of the Koran which, according to the speaker, justify the enslavement of ‘infidels’ or even their murder. (Infidels being those who do not comply with being subjugated) It seems that there is a passage in the Koran which says that infidels who comply with subjugation can be allowed to live, but if they object to being subjugated, then the must be killed. The speaker also suggests that there are masses of ‘no go’ areas for the police in many cities of Europe and elsewhere.

Finally, he says that Obama and others are bending over backwards to protect the religious infiltration, on the grounds of freedom of religion, little knowing that that is the way that Islam undermined many a city, country, before becoming political and then military.


The speaker was at pains to say that there are ‘moderate’ Muslims who just want to live as best they can and enjoy their lives. My own view is that there are Muslims and there are Islamists who just happen to be Muslims. As I said earlier, Islam is not a religion – it is a State, a caliphate.

For maybe four years, I have called upon a guy called Assan, who has a taxi, to take me and her to the airport. He is a Muslim, but I do not know if he is an Islamist. As far as I can see from his behaviour and dress, he is a devout Muslim. He certainly does not drink alcohol although he smokes. He is prepared to take me to the airport and pick me up when I return at all hours of day or night. Further, I like him. He clearly has a genuinely caring attitude as betrayed by tiny, subtle kindnesses. Also, I have met his wife. She is not the least bit subservient. I have telephoned him and spoken to his daughter. If it were not for the fact that I know that he is of Asian extraction, I would not have known that his daughter is anything other than an English person from the North West – the accent is mild, but the verbal expressions are what we Lancastrians would term as ‘normal’, such as, “Well, he’s not in so I’ll tell ‘im you rung”.  Me, “Are you his daughter?” “Yeh, I’ve talked to you before”. Me, “Really?”

Those are not Islamist conversations.

Further, two of the nurses who attend to my wife are Muslim. Both have a slight Northern accent and neither have any judgemental or subservient attitudes. Both are lovely people – good at their job, friendly and quite prepared to enjoy a joke.

Of course, it is impossible to say whether or not they are potential jihadists. How can one know?

For the most part, there are three things (and possibly many more) which are important:

1. Any immigrant must accept our SECULAR ways. That is, that there are no demands that all should worship Allah. You can if you wish to.

2. The Laws of this Country have evolved over centuries, and particularly via ‘magna carta’, being the freedom of the individual. Magna Carta is sacrosanct no matter what the UN, WHO or EU says.

3. Persons have a right to moan (freedom of speech) but have no right to impose their wishes. If they wish to enact some process, they can pay for it themselves and not use tax monies, provided that it is legal.


Our Government could immediately, with absolutely minimum effort, save millions upon millions of pounds. It could isolate ‘climate control’ studies to the Met Office and refuse to fund university studies. The Met Office in perfectly capable of, responsibly, measuring the facts. The UN activities are far too corrupt to matter.

But there is a problem. The Chancellor of the Exchequer deals only in BIG, BIG numbers. “Totalitarian” numbers. “One size fits all” numbers. Further, because of the ‘one size fits all’ mantra, Fascist demands that ‘all must obey’ come into play. Think about the ecig controversy.

There is no controversy. No intelligent person would say that inhaling a harmless substance in small quantities (nicotine), from time to time, as compared with inhaling, all the time, air polluted by all sorts of substances, from diesel vehicles, for example, or ambient tobacco smoke, is going to be the direct cause of death or disability.

There seems to be some sort of ‘impulsion’ for political persons to hit the easiest targets, and, because there are easy targets, to hit them.

Do you see the circular argument? It seems too obvious at first, but it is incredibly important. The important word is ‘impulsion’. The circular argument is not important. It is the IMPULSION that is important.

That is why we have stupid and ignorant smoking bans in pubs and everywhere else. It is perfectly obvious that other ways could have been invoked to minimise bar staff exposure to SHS. What decided the smoking ban was IMPULSION. That is, emotional diatribes, such as those which drove young men to their deaths when they climbed out of the trenches of WW1 and faced withering machine gun fire.

ASH ET AL major in emotional diatribes. But I think that ASH is about to be dispensed with. At this time, and for the future, I suspect that ASH is no longer needed. It has served its purpose. Of course, Deborah Arnott will be reassigned, but the rest of ASH will be sacked.


It is easy to drift away.

I am amazed that conversations between Muslims and Secularists have not already taken place. But they may have, and we do not know about them. Thus, our views might already be out-of-date. That is not our fault.

What we need and want is for Muslims in the UK, whatever their origin,  to declare that they regard themselves as English, and to recognise that nothing, but nothing, will overturn ‘magna carta’.

It seems that, in the USA, attempts are being made to overturn The First Amendment, which guarantees Free Speech. The trick, as we have seen over here, is to declare some ‘speech’ to be racist, or ‘hate speech’, or whatever. Free speech is thus being eroded.

It cannot go on. It must be stopped. I should be able to call Obama a DICKHEAD, whatever that might mean, and I should be able to call Mohammed a DICKHEAD, whatever that may mean.


Muslims are just normal people. They live and love. Some of them are Islamists. Those are the enemy within.

%d bloggers like this: