An anti-Islamist in Britain

A review of “Reading Ayaan Hirsi Ali in Birmingham” by Gina KhanAyaan:

As a young child and teenager I grew up in an area where the majority was English but there were also Greeks, Chinese, Jamaicans and Indians living in the same community. Everybody got on and respected each other. My parents ran supermarkets, so we were integrated, if not allowed to assimilate as females because of the religion. And now the white people are leaving, the area has disintegrated, and it breaks my heart. Most members of my family have moved out.

The area has been Islamised. Mosques, mini-mosques and madrasas rise up on almost every street corner, but there is nothing for the youth. Drugs and crime has made the area unsafe for young girls. Social services and the police know what is going on. I have witnessed anti-west and anti-Jew posters and leaflets appear in shops run by young bearded Muslims. I watched the Islamists mobilise the Muslim community right under my nose. Before 9/11 the time I could not name it, but I knew something was not right, but it was being done in the name of Islam.

I left because there was no way I was going to raise my children as a lone mother in a community where the Imams or mosques did nothing to serve the community or teach a plural Islam. Even the schools were allowing little primary school girls to wear headscarves, and that has nothing to do with religion. The extremists have had over twenty five uncontested years to mobilise the minds of British Muslims and their backwardness now dominates some areas.

Multicultural polices are not working…


About marypmadigan

Writer/photographer (profession), foreign policy wonk (hobby).
This entry was posted in europe. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to An anti-Islamist in Britain

  1. Infidel753 says:

    It’s admirable, and brave, that Gina Khan has come as far as she has after being raised in such a stultifying background. But I notice she does not mention the thing that most stands out about Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s honesty and intellectual courage — the fact that today she is not a Muslim but an atheist. Hirsi Ali renounced Islam because she realized that Islam — not “radical Islam”, not “extremist Islam”, not some particular “brand” or “interpretation” of Islam, but Islam itself — is the problem. She did think at first that the yelling-and-screaming haters who preached in the Muslim community in Nairobi were distorting Islam, but then she looked in the Qur’ân and found that everything they said was actually there.

    A Westernized, tolerant, non-misogynist, non-jihadist Islam will always ultimately fail because such a concept is fundamentally dishonest. People like bin Laden and the Taliban are interpreting Islam correctly. Only people like them are interpreting Islam correctly. The Qur’ân and Hadîth are completely clear on this point.

    Even Westerners who are alert to the jihadist threat tend to shy away from recognizing this, probably because the implications are too frightening. But reality is what it is.

    I suspect that Ms. Khan, like most moderate Muslims, is actually not very familiar with the Islamic primary sources. For example, she apparently thinks that the word “kuffâr” is singular, an error which no one even passingly familiar with the Arabic language would make. Her description of the prophet Muhammad — who personally commanded aggressive war, mass murder, and slavery, and “married” a 6-year-old — is even wider of the mark.

    It would be nice if Islam could someday evolve into something moderate and humane. But its founder and primary sources rule out that possibility just as flatly as the reality of Hitler and Mein Kampf rule out the possibility of a moderate and humane Nazism.

  2. marypmadigan says:

    It would be nice if Islam could someday evolve into something moderate and humane. But its founder and primary sources rule out that possibility just as flatly as the reality of Hitler and Mein Kampf rule out the possibility of a moderate and humane Nazism.

    There is no possibility of a moderate and humane Nazism, but, if we were to treat the Nazi problem the way the anti-Koran crowd is treating political Islam, we would be blaming German culture for the current violence and aggression.

    And, looking at German history, that wouldn’t be such a bad idea (they also had a lot to do with the development of communism) but blaming all German culture for Nazism or authoritarianism wouldn’t have helped us win WWII. We would have spun our ideological wheels in a worthless effort to destroy or change a culture instead of more efficiently attacking the military and political source of their power.

    Besides, as the Marshall Plan proves, it’s easier to reform a culture after you’ve killed the bad guys and dismembered their political infrastructure. Attacking “Islam” while doing nothing to harm their political, military and financial infrastructure is a waste of time.

  3. Infidel753 says:

    No, Islam is a belief system, which is to say an ideology, like Nazism or Communism. It is defined by its sacred texts just as Nazism was defined by Mein Kampf and the other pronouncements of Hitler. Obviously Islam has permeated the culture of the societies it dominates more deeply than Nazism permeated German culture, simply because Islam has been dominant there much longer. But there are non-Muslim Arabs, Iranians, etc., just as there were non-Nazi Germans even in Nazism’s heyday.

    Arab, Iranian, etc., culture existed before Islam just as German culture existed before Nazism, and if Islam can ever be uprooted from those societies as thoroughly as Nazism was uprooted from German society, there’s no reason why they won’t be able to become normal, peaceful societies again. In the meantime, as I said, trying to cultivate a moderate, humane Islam is just as futile as trying to cultivate a moderate, humane Nazism would have been, for the same reason — the concept is fundamentally dishonest. The primary sources of both ideologies simply exclude it.

  4. Infidel753 says:

    Oh, and I certainly don’t advocate “doing nothing to harm their political, military and financial infrastructure”. This problem needs to be attacked on every possible front. But we have to recognize the actual nature of the ideology we’re up against.

  5. marypmadigan says:

    I agree, Islam is an ideology. It probably shouldn’t be called a religion, because the legal, social and military aspects are currently more influential than the religious aspects.

    I don’t see any reason for anyone outside of Islam to try to cultivate any changes in the ideology at this point in time. Yes, changes can be made, but only after the military, political and financial infrastructure that supports radicalism and violence is destroyed. Trying to change Islam while it’s supported by states like Saudi Arabia and organizations like Hamas and al Qaeda is a waste of time.

    We can’t properly destroy this political/military infrastructure without the aid of our governments. Well, we could, but it would be against the law, and since world governments are allied with terror supporters, they would actually defend the enemies who are trying to destroy us.

    I linked to this article because Gina Khan pointed out some of the many mistakes the British government is making when they’re dealing with Islamists. We live in democracies, we can change the way our government does things. That’s what we should concentrate on (in my opinion)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s