Blogs Coffee House

Tony Blair spoke the truth about Islamism. But not the whole truth

23 April 2014

1:35 PM

23 April 2014

1:35 PM

As so often (in my opinion) Tony Blair is almost right. In a wide-ranging speech at Bloomberg this morning he roamed over Syria, Libya, the Middle East and the West’s withdrawal of interest, let alone engagement, in the region.

But it is Blair’s comments on Islam that are most interesting, are already garnering headlines and merit most attention. Referring to the problems across the Middle East he said:

‘At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that distorts and warps Islam’s true message. The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world. It is de-stabilising communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalisation. And in the face of this threat we seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it and powerless to counter it effectively.’


All of which is frustrating, because Tony Blair is so nearly there. After all, this is a man who, in office, only ever trotted out (as George Bush did, as David Cameron does, as absolutely everyone does when they are in office) the message that Islam is a ‘religion of peace.’

Nowadays, with interviews and speeches like this one, Blair gets huge headlines and is occasionally congratulated for admitting that it may be more complicated than this. But as he edges towards the truth of the situation, he is still a step away from facing up to the reality.

Here is what he would say if he wanted to be wholly truthful:

‘At the root of the crisis lies a radicalised and politicised view of Islam, an ideology that – while obviously the worst version of Islam going – nevertheless has a long tradition. The extremists do not make their claims based on some wild misreading, but on a plausible reading of the texts and traditions which have existed within the religion since its founding. In order to confront this, and defeat the extremists, we cannot simply pretend that these problems do not exist. Non-Muslims must be unafraid to point them out and to say that there are extremist attitudes which remain permissible in mainstream Islam – such as the second-class status of women, the mandating of death for those who leave Islam – which go wholly against our own most deeply held beliefs. And it is vital that Muslims do everything they can to face up to the challenges which these extreme elements pose within their faith. Rather than denying that these questions of interpretation exist, or brushing them under the carpet, it is incumbent upon Muslims everywhere to do everything they can to anathematise and stigmatise the extremists and to chase them and their readings out of the religion. Muslims must face up to the problems of the tradition and overcome them, rather than deny that they exist. The process of denial only emboldens and strengthens the extremists while simultaneously making it easier for some non-Muslims to crudely and cruelly lump all Muslims in the extremist camp. This is a matter of urgency. The threat of this radical Islam is not abating. It is growing. It is spreading across the world. It is de-stabilising communities and even nations. It is undermining the possibility of peaceful co-existence in an era of globalisation. And in the face of this threat we seem curiously reluctant to acknowledge it and powerless to counter it effectively.’

Now, that would be a speech worthy of a former Prime Minister who – having made a good living, and with no need to search for higher office – should speak the whole truth, rather than portions of it, without favour or fear.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • moi333

    Our society needs more Douglas Murray’s. He is extremely intelligent and more importantly extremely brave. I watch or listen to him and think, wow, how clearly and concisely he expresses what many people feel and think. Many would like to silence you, but they don’t realise that you cant silence the TRUTH.

  • Marissa
  • Augustus

    The Syrian Kurds, who are supported by the Kurds from Iraq, are fighting the jihadists. They don’t want to conquer anyone, they just want their own areas back. And secular women are there at the front fighting alongside the men. These Syrian Kurds should serve as an example to other Kurds who dream of a united Kurdistan. Although Iran, and therefore Iran’s puppet Assad, will never accept an independent Kurdistan. But we should all take note of those brave Kurdish women in Syria, who aren’t slaves to Islamists, and secularists around the globe should unite with all their strength against political Islamic ideology and its lust for power.

  • Neo Con

    An excellent article Douglas.
    There are are so many problems with Islam its really difficult where to begin. From the Anti Christian and Jewish remarks that are so prolific in the Hadith, to the stoning of women and men and hanging of gays.
    Islam…’a religion of peace’ is what I find most disturbing. Mohammed himself was a Warlord, Moderate Muslim’s argue that these extremist muslim’s are misinterpreting the Quran, but it needs to be recognized there are fundamental problems with a book, when misinterpreted it results in the mass murder of civilians.

  • Robin Rosenblatt

    To all those people living in the Land of Oz.

    We are in a World wide Islamic Cultural War or 1400-year-old Jihad.

    We each see a different parts of it in the world and if you put all the violent parts together it adds up to only one cause: an 1400 year old Islamic Cultural War. It is the same as that joke of four blind men touching the elephant.

Arabs and Palestinians are controlled by it and do not know it! 

It is not about land, rights or settlements, water or being politically left or right. If
    it were it would have been solved long ago. It has not.

    It is Cultural War that means Islamic Culture must destroy Western Culture or Western Culture must destroy Islamic Culture. It is a Genocidal War.

    Muslims have been fighting each other and others for 1400 years or more. There is no reason that it will stop now. If we want peace we must change Islamic Culture.

    The book “Culture and Conflict”, explains it clearly. It shows that current cultural conditions in the Arab Middle East will not support internal development, advancement or peace until there is a major cultural change. “It is critical that we
    understand our enemy. That is step one in every conflict,” RR. Philip Carl
    Salzman, INSB # 978-1-59102-587-0.

  • Robin Rosenblatt

    The Glazov Gang-‘Easy
    Meat’ — Inside the World of Muslim

  • Robin Rosenblatt

    Islam is Evil.
    What part of Evil do you not understand? Islam enslaves your minds, your bodies
    and your souls. It must be destroyed. Islamic Culture is a Slave, Hate, Violent and War Culture.

  • Simon Fay

    Expecting veracity from Blair over such matters is akin to asking Shipman for his views on patient care.

  • Abdullah

    An article written by an extremist (Douglas Murray) claiming to refute extremism!!!

    ”Non-Muslims must be unafraid to point them out and to say that there are extremist attitudes which remain permissible in mainstream Islam – such as the second-class status of women, the mandating of death for those who leave Islam – which go wholly against our own most deeply held beliefs. And it is vital that Muslims do everything they can to face up to the challenges which these extreme elements pose within their faith.”

    Conditions for Muslims in Europe must be made harder across the board: Europe must look like a less attractive proposition Douglas Murray

    • cartimandua

      And why should we ignore the failed state customs people bring with them? They will make them poor miserable and ill. I was chatting to another Mother from my daughters school. She explained they were Muslim but “not very religious”. She has a perfect right to keep her cultural rootedness while “not being very religious”.
      People like you would sell her out and sell her family out to extremists who would decide “exactly” how she and her family should live.

      • Abdullah

        Extremists like Douglas Murray

        • cartimandua

          It isn’t extreme to find the treatment of women under Islam utterly abhorrent. Catholicism is a bit better but still not good at all.

        • Grey Wolf

          How is he an extremist if speaks against extremists who are committing acts of violence right from Thailand to the UK. They commit these acts in the name of Islam, are financed by Muslims and are Muslims themselves.

          Douglas Murray, I would say is not tough enough on Islam.

  • Jimofthehill

    Britain is only a mildly Christian country. Most of us are educated enough to not believe the ridiculous nonsense in the bible. Unfortunately, many people in the world seem to need some form of God, and will not be happy until they have forced their beliefs onto everyone else. Islam is a few hundred years behind Catholicism in that respect . Education and discussion is the best policy. Most muslims living here in the UK respect that britons have their own beliefs and culture. They also know that trying to overthrow our government and introduce sharia law would result in a short lived bloodbath, where thousands of non militant muslims would be persecuted by right wing nutters just waiting for the right excuse. Tony Blair, as a catholic, is riding high on his horse, and is risking causing huge problems within britain, by making these nutty comments. I’m wondering what trumped up excuse he can come up with this time for instigating an invasion – islamists using potato cannons ? Weapons of mash destruction.

    • cartimandua

      You cannot “discuss” anything with a fundamentalist. They live in a mental tautology. They are not reachable by any argument.
      You just have to tell them no when necessary.

  • Nav Hir

    This publication has gone seriously downhill. Poor journalism.
    It has nothing to do with Islam & the various forms of it. If you believe that then you are a misguided idiot. It is all to do with oil & selling of arms… nothing else.
    Go back in time and after the Moors were ‘vanquished’ the amount of trouble in the areas only arose from the discovery of oil. Look at a recent example like UAE, they were just nomadic tribes in the desert until the West turned them in to monarchies & police states… without natural resources those places would just be another Guyana/Haiti/New Zealand ie no one would give a toss what went on there… and certainly wouldn’t help if they were suffering any sort of crisis (re Haiti, most relief is from NGOs, governments the world over have failed that place)… The West will side with anyone that gives them the access to the natural resources and their corporations the contracts to rebuild the place after they’ve smashed the backside out of it…

    • zanzamander

      Islam spread throughout the North Africa, Eastern Europe, the ME, Spain, India and the Far East like blitzkrieg, killing, converting and supplanting existing faiths, civilisations and cultures before even a drop of oil was drilled or its use found.

      To think that all fundamentalism, beheadings, hijackings and bombings are only recent events is to disregard and ignore the violent expansion of Islamic history.

      • Nav Hir

        Islam has not done anything to any other religious faction that the Christians/other deluded masses etc have not done themselves.
        True, they did conquer much of the areas you posit. But then so did the likes of Genghis Khan, the Germans, blah blah blah. All of them ‘evil’. I think you have an extremely anti-Islamic sentiment. Don’t get me wrong I could not give the proverbial flying about Islam or any other religion whatsoever. They are all being, thankfully, bred out and removed. Religion is, without a shadow of doubt, the vilest & most evil form of mind control that man has ever invented. And your premise and thinking is likewise…
        How else can you explain the way the governments of the West support various regimes… they propped up Mubarak, Gaddafi & Saddam – even putting them in place – paying backhanders etc, kept the Shah of Iran (or Persia like the Muppets from the area refer to themselves) gainfully employed.
        The West are happy the Saudis are continuing to spread their mentalist Wahhabi flavour of their fairy tale & take their cash to help the Al-Qaeda rebels in Syria, they chase after the Somalian warlords but then fund them to go across borders to cause issues with oil lines.
        The situation is complicated but to think that it is mad mullahs inciting danger etc & causing chaos is very naïve. The amount of deaths that have had a racial, religious element to them in the UK against those that have come to live in the UK is quite large. A lot are never reported as such.
        I find the Muppetry of your comment regarding hijackings, beheadings and bombings hilarious. In the US the stats are clear that US home grown White nutjob bombers/shooters have killed more people than any other terrorists. Also please take in to account the million or so people that the UK, US and Aussie governments have killed in Afghanistan & Iraq. Let alone the amounts that have been displaced and starved.
        I haven’t seen too many signs of an expansion at the moment. More a consolidation. Mainly in the police and nanny states that are propped up by the West…
        I’d love to hear some stats that you could come up with regarding the numbers of deaths and who is accountable.
        If you really want to get a grip on reality may I suggest you listen to what Steven Pinker has to say and if so inclined read his book “The Better Angels of Our Nature”…
        As soon as religion becomes a minority the better the world will be. By then the oil will have long finished and the corporations will be busy destroying something else… all war is wrong and any death is a tragedy. It is gross beyond belief. We are being primed for another one right now. And all those that buy in to it and the media hype are very sad people indeed…

        • cartimandua

          The gender apartheid within Islam absolutely guarantees overpopulation, unemployment, and violent cruel societies.
          It guarantees failed states and exports that failure as terrorism.

  • IainRMuir

    “As so often (in my opinion) Tony Blair is almost right.”

    But (in my opinion) lots of ordinary people are always right but they’ve been dismissed as racists.

    There is nothing to admire in understating the obvious, too late in the day. A lot of people have died Mr Blair.

    • cartimandua

      They didn’t die because of what he did. They may yet die because politicians will not lay down the line to fundamentalists. It is also because mass media will not do that either.
      Just to begin with why are they “asking” Muslim women to tell Muslim males not to go to Syria? Why don’t they say “go there and you will never be allowed back in here again”?
      In 2001 we had no counting out only counting “in”. Do we now?
      Do we have the ability to see who is going “out” of the country? Or does the EU take away our borders. Is that why they have to “ask” Muslim women to create a border?

      • Simon Fay

        “They didn’t die because of what he did”
        Given he has presided over a regime devoted to experimenting on them that statement isn’t entirely accurate.

        • cartimandua

          And what “regime” would that be? There has been for some period of time an international consensus about stopping genocides. Saddam was genocidal and perpetrated the worst chem weapons attack on civilians ever. He caused genetic damage. It wasn’t “us” causing problems in Fallujah. The birth defects there were the same as the birth defects in Halabjah where we never went.
          They were down to Saddams production of chem weapons.
          You don’t think the people making storing and handling them were protected do you? The birth defects were paternal in origin.

          • Simon Fay

            I’m sure you and your’s have been in the front line of the International Brigade, dodging the bullets, paying for it all too.

            • cartimandua

              You mean we should all just pull up the drawbridge? If things are not fixed “over there” we have to repel borders here.
              Happy to rescind asylum and refugee conventions?
              That is the only alternative as well as laying down the line to immigrant groups.

  • jesseventura2

    Is this the same Tony the phony Blair who allowed unlimited numbers of these uneducated uncivilized medieval dogs to enter UK?
    Blair and his labour stooges were throwing millions of pound of tax payers money at the most disturbed head bangers in the hope they would refrain from bombing us?
    When Blair and Bush were spouting this is not about islam, Salman Rushdie said they will find out it is.

  • cartimandua

    Tony Blair was in the end vilified by media and their self generated urban myths. How many still think |Iraq was “illegal”? Why on earth should Russia and France on the Security council be able to “decide” things purely for their own financial reasons? That is what they did. They didn’t refuse to contain Saddam for any “good” reason.
    They were benefitting under sanctions. Russia has since forgiven Iraq 12.9 billion for weapons sales.
    And who ever believed in the 45 minutes? What they meant was battlefield chem weapons and Iraqis since said “we could load those shells in 25 minutes”.
    At the time chem suits were no good in hot weather and if chem weapons had been used Bush had permission to use nukes against the Iraqis.
    What derailed Blair in terms of reputation was a ubiquitous feral media making things up for schlock horror effect as they went along.
    We did not want to point out the insecurity of Soviet legacy weapons. We did not want to embarrass Putin.
    Around the time of 9/11 there was a credible threat of a missing Soviet nuke. That would have cost well over 30,000 lives. Zawahiri at the time said “if you have the money you could buy a nuke from a Russian.”.

    • Simon Fay

      Good work, Tony.

      • cartimandua

        The Soviet union had the largest stocks of WMDs the world has ever known. After the fall of the Soviet Union they were all over the place and insecure.
        The media wanted “openness” which would have put a come and get it sign on every bit of it for every dissident group and criminal.
        It would have been really clever to “announce” their insecurity wouldn’t it?
        Putin was supported then . What a pity he is so ungrateful now.

  • cartimandua

    OK Penny another problem which has remained unaddressed is “covering”.
    The evidence that “covering ” women and girls harms their health is overwhelming.
    There is no doubt about it.
    Vitamin D must be got by sun on the skin. Neither food nor supplements can make up for it. 9 out of 10 Asians in the UK are low in vit D and Asians here have 6xs the risk of Diabetes.
    It is linked with Rickets of course, heart disease, cancers depression and Schizophrenia in the children of covering women.
    I wrote years back suggesting government explain the health damage to people but
    of course it was “too sensitive”.

  • Mrs.JosephineHyde-Hartley

    In the past, I’ve set great store in that old saying about two kinds of people in the world ie those who see a glass half full, or half empty.

    On further reflection about what may be happening to the minds of our young people generally in the face of all this extreme stuff sloshing about.. one wonders if the glass half-full type is one who knows how to “love and be loved” ( by God in whatever form it takes) – while the glass half-empty type will be perpetually stuck in some co-dependent, control and be controlled mode.

    This might be another way to look at the root causes of extremism.

  • beenzrgud

    Blair is a pinhead. End of story !

  • Roy

    “But as he edges towards the truth of the situation, he is still a step away from facing up to the reality.”
    He isn’t the only one. Reality is a step too far for many in politics. To give the truth to their supporters is not on the agenda.

  • rjbh

    If his lips moved he lied.

    Ask Dr Kelly

    • cartimandua

      Bumped off by the Russians for debriefing Pasechnik or the Iraqis.
      He was number 4 on their hit list.

      • rjbh

        He was No1 on Blairs list

  • Liz

    Uh oh, the deck chair crusaders are awake.

  • Bonkim

    Islam has gone through virulent cycles in the past and one assumes will do so again. The problem for the rest of the world is that a few sane Muslims pointing out the obvious will only harden the bigotry of the extremists. The only way to ward off the worst aspects of Islam in our midst is to exclude it ruthlessly – not to engage with Islam.

    Politicians should in effect not get involved in religion of any sort.

    • cartimandua

      They need to make sure our values are upheld and then have “no opinion”.
      Ukip made a mistake about gay marriage. They should have maintained “freedom of belief” and then had no opinion. Politicians do not have to have an opinion about absolutely everything.

      • Bonkim

        Values are constantly changing in all societies. An Englishman say from the 1940s or 50s resurrected in today’s Britain would be dumbfounded and have difficulty communicating with those around him.

  • FrancisKing

    There is no such thing as ‘Islamic extremism’. Islam has two basic texts – the Qur’an and the Ahadith. The Ahadith is supposed to be the prophet Mohammed living out the Qur’an, but the texts blatantly contradict each other. Most Muslims embrace the Qur’an and pay lip service to the Ahadith, and are some of the nicest people you will ever meet. Those who embrace the Ahadith are clearly mad, and need our pity and compassion as much as our condemnation and mistrust.

    The right way has become distinct from the wrong way – Qur’an 2:256.

    • cartimandua

      Currently there are very few to no Islamic sects which are not obsessed with sexuality and controlling women. Because of that they do not make think or do.

  • black11hawk

    I find it hugely ironic that the man who did the most to bring radical Islam to our shores through mass immigration and then allowed it to flourish through his policies of multiculturalism now sees fit to lecture the world on the very same issue.

    • cartimandua

      Yup that pesky need to appease ones perceived pool of voters.

    • anotherjoeblogs

      The lecturing is Blairian Mea Culpa. His next step is to lecture the muslim world the true message of islam and how so many have got it wrong.

  • emale

    So Blair, despite his misgivings about Islam, nevertheless invited millions of Muslims to live in England. Perhaps he could explain to us why.

    • cartimandua


  • cartimandua

    Lady M no one could (or should) attempt to remove from the unloved their supposed access to their supposed imaginary friend.
    What could be done though is utter firmness about leaving failed state habits at the door.
    No covering of identity (and that is hair too)
    No Halal
    No Mosques to function where women do not have equal access to the main hall.
    They can always divide it down the middle.
    That would be bye bye the Regents Park Mosque then and all the most extreme Mosques.
    And no workplace or school should feel they have to make “special arrangements” for
    If midwives cannot do their job because they are Catholic or Pharmacists cannot do their job because they are Muslim or someone cannot provide a service to gays fire their backsides.
    Over centuries we have learned that religion needs to be in the private sphere to permit
    individual belief and a peaceful society.

    • Penny

      I’m not sure you can – or should – attempt to dictate what happens in a private venue, cartimandua. The hall of a mosque would be classed as such. The public sphere is one thing, but I’d not want to see precedents set as to what people / groups can do in their own private spaces.

      • cartimandua

        We require access for the disabled but you think it OK to keep Irish blacks Jews women out of a public space?
        A Mosque is not a private space.
        If you offer any kind of service to the public you may not discriminate.
        This is especially vital when dealing with religious fundamentalism.

        • Penny

          Sorry – I genuinely don’t understand your comment.

          • cartimandua

            We have regulations in this country requiring access to public buildings for the disabled. One has to have disabled loos and lifts to them etc.
            You don’t get to offer a public space or service and then exclude certain groups from it.
            In practice few Jews would attend a Mosque except for some
            working together for peace type of thing.
            What Mosques are doing now is excluding women and it makes those Mosques dangerous to public safety.
            Gender apartheid and all its foul practices are what makes Islam backward and dangerous.
            Sexual obsession is not moral development. It is merely social control

            • Penny

              Completely with you on the public space / service bit. When the gender segregation at university talks was in the news I was posting hither and thither against it – because it’s the public space and in my view, that must be kept completely secular so that all may be heard on equal terms. Private venues are, I think, a different ball game. If we create laws that prevent people doing what they want in a private venue then we could open up cans of worms for ourselves.

              • cartimandua

                A religious building is supposed to be “open to the public”.
                Since woman free Mosques are truly dangerous they cannot be accounted the same as a private club.
                I rather expect religious buildings attract some benefit over rates too.
                But bottom line even Tony B has “got it” about the risk attached to gender apartheid.
                And as I said it would be quite possible to comply . Just divide the main hall.

                • Penny

                  I replied to this earlier but my response appears to have moderated – can’t think why as it was perfectly harmless. Anyway, I’ll try again just in case it doesn’t reappear.

                  I don’t think all religious buildings are “open to the public” or classed as public institutions. Quite a few – possibly not mainstream Christianity or even Christian – are funded and built entirely by the attendees. The ones I have in mind (which I haven’t mentioned in case they were *trigger words* in a bizarre moderation scheme that caused my comment to disappear!) are difficult to see as anything but private venues.

                  I don’t disagree at all on your general principle of gender apartheid. All I’m saying is that I am pretty sure a mosque main hall is not an open-to-the-public space but classed as a private venue. I don’t think we can lay down the law in a private venue. Nor do I think it wise because these things can widen to have unintended consequences.

                • cartimandua

                  But if we don’t find a way to assert our non failed state values we are toast.
                  The police this AM are suggesting Muslim women work with them to stop Muslim men getting killed in Syria.
                  Thing is fundamentalist families are highly linked to domestic abuse.
                  They put women at risk asking them to shop the menfolk.
                  On the other hand if my son was going somewhere where he would get killed I would be most happy for the police to hold his passport.
                  And back to what is private space assuring women and the disabled may use a church or Mosque is not the same thing as demanding for instance such an institution perform gay marriage.
                  If we are talking about a B and B that whole thing was daft.
                  Did they ask every guest if they were ill in some way|? Incontinent?
                  No they picked out one group of people and said you may not come here. Would we accept that if they said no blacks no Irish?

                • Penny

                  Like I said, I don’t disagree with your actual principle, cartimandua. I think you’re absolutely right about gender segregation and our need to assert our own values. I also think you are right in saying that the lack of value placed on women plays a part in why states fail.

                  Our only difference lies in the fact that while I think we must assert our values in the public square and not allow gender segregation in any public institution nor show fear or favour to any religious group, I am simply saying that there actually isn’t anything that can be done in private venues. If people own or hire a venue then they are – generally speaking – using the premises for a specific reason and can invite who they want and pretty much run the event as they please.

                  I feel that, over the years, we’ve become over-regulated. I don’t think drafting laws to stop people doing what they want in a private venue is the way forward because inevitably, they will be used inappropriately and affect us all. I suppose in that sense it’s a bit like faith schools – one of which I attended. People call for the closure of all faith schools when in fact, we know there is nothing much wrong with the vast majority of them. As a one-time faith school pupil I know that in terms of religion I wasn’t subject to anything more religious than was occurring in other schools at the time. A morning assembly; a half-hour a week RE lesson – it was all very mild stuff that has existed for decades without any problems and created schools that parents are prepared to elbow their way into by means foul or fair, because generally speaking, they’re good schools. But we don’t feel able to say that we disagree with young girls having to wear veils and be covered from head to toe or that we’re worried about children being indoctrinated into fundamentalist ideals. Instead we feel we can only make Islamist-orientated schools go away if all faith schools are closed.

                • cartimandua

                  Well no they cannot Penny. Universities who realize they are hosting events where segregation is imposed can and do pull the plug.
                  If a hall found they were hired by the KKK they could pull the plug.
                  The UK has long held customs and indeed laws about equality and lack of discrimination. You don’t get to “buy something” and then within that behave in ways which counter all our laws and customs.
                  How far do you go with “private space”/ Exorcising children?
                  That would be on private church space or in a private home.
                  A meeting which excluded Jews or non whites?
                  We already have laws which can be used to wind in the necks of fundamentalist groups.
                  There is no (I believe women are subhumans because my God says so) get out clause.

                • Penny

                  Yes, I know that halls can pull the plug but only under certain conditions. One might be “choice” – because they’re a private venue in the first place and may have some say in who they host. Another might be if they’re warned in advance that something illegal may take place – the cancellation of a booking due to it playing host to some Islamist speaker known to incite against Gays and Jews springs to mind here. If the building itself is owned by a group in the first place, though, I don’t see how you can prevent them having segregated seating. At the moment I don’t think there is anything in law that says every private venue must host both sexes in the same room. The public square is an entirely different matter.

                  I’ve argued with many on this matter – those who cite the ridiculous as examples of “segregation” e.g. public lavatories, changing rooms, schools – even the WI for heaven’s sake. It’s the underlying reason for segregation that is important – privacy, special interest, personal choice – none of which indicate “inferiority” in the same way that segregation in a university talk does. I’m with you on it all, cartimandua, but only those women who are being asked to segregate themselves in a private venue can change this. While they want to continue – and do so in a private venue, what can the law actually do without opening all manner of worm cans?

                • cartimandua

                  The host community cannot leave it to the victims to “sort it out”. That’s like saying slaves should “sort it out themselves” or DV victims should sort it out themselves because they choose to stay in an abusive situation.
                  Law needs to say no. That needs to be the default position for our security but also because gender apartheid creates
                  failure and aggression.
                  Its not all about those women. Women have a civic duty to be fully present in public space.

                • Penny

                  You’re assuming they consider themselves to be victims, cartimandua. Some probably are, mind, but the university girls seem quite happy – if not determined – to support their own segregation. What can you do if they actively rally to it?

                  I totally agree about the public space but there is a clear demarcation between that and private venues.

                • cartimandua

                  Heard of the term Stockholmed Penny?

                • Penny

                  Yes – certainly have heard of Stockholm. I live quite near a Muslim community and I think it’s more than that, though. And not all of it to do with piety, either. Judging by some of the girls I see, I think there’s a form of rebelliousness involved. They’re at the age where it happens to many young people. Perhaps anti-establisment; perhaps “I’m more pious-than-thou”. The trouble with this is that I’m not sure they’ll be able to jump out of the act as easily as they got into it.

                • cartimandua

                  Yes it absolutely is a rebellion but making oneself anorexic of space is no better than refusing food. That is not a person with choices and a healthy mind.
                  What Muslim women may for instance refuse marriage or be gay? Some may these days pursue a career but how many will be allowed separate economic independence?
                  Its not all about those individuals. The girl who covers to give the plan made for her an acceptable v sign is stopping the choices of other girls and young women.
                  We should not accept a “little bit of slavery” because it is more comfortable to do that.. for us.

                • cartimandua

                  Totally agree with your point about politicians not feeling able to draw lines in the sand for extremist groups.
                  Its not just Islamic groups either. There are Christian groups who would happily teach against Evolution.

  • Lady Magdalene

    Shame the liar didn’t speak the truth when he was Prime Minister and committing us to an illegal war in Iraq.
    The few texts I know from the Koran and the teachings of Mohammed make it perfectly clear that Islam is not a religion of peace. Yet that is what our Leaders constantly claim, even when its adherents have just beheaded an unarmed man in a London street.
    Islam is a violent, backward, misogynistic religion. And tragically for the UK, our political class have imported far, far too many of its followers and have appeased them for far, far too long..

    • cartimandua

      It wasn’t “illegal”. The nations on the security council were acting for their own financial reasons. Our Parliament is sovereign. If they say war we go to war.
      Because of Iraq the G20 had time to spend billions helping Russia contain the loose Soviet WMDs. We didn’t lose our vital energy from the Gulf. The oil leases are now shared and not all given to Russia.
      The loss of life was one years worth of Saddam’s doings. Europeans would have got on with building. Arabs and Muslims have a revenge culture and had been made brutal by Saddam who had killed 2 million people.
      Of course they “got even” and Shias and Sunnis always go for each other.
      That’s not down to us.

    • arnoldo87

      We haven’t had a “Bliar” claim for a while,

      So, Milady, maybe you are the person who can quote a Blair lie. No one else has managed to do it yet.

      Or, like most of the rest of those who claim that Blair is a liar, will you fail to find one and then slink off into a corner and keep quiet for a few weeks?

      • Sir Harry Plunket-Greene

        The clear warning signs of self-delusion were obvious as early as December 1996 when Blair confided on the Des O’Connor Show that as a 14-year-old he had run away to Newcastle airport and boarded a plane for the Bahamas: “I snuck onto the plane, and we were literally about to take off when the stewardess came up to me,” he recounted. This came as a surprise to his father, who is said to have exclaimed: “The Bahamas? Who said that? Tony? Never”. It equally surprised authorities at the airport who pointed out that in the 61 year history of the Newcastle airport there has never been a flight to the Bahamas.

      • Sergio Georgini

        Here’s one – ‘they’ve got weapons of mass destruction’.

        • arnoldo87

          In English a lie is told when someone says something he knows to be untrue.

          So, according to you, Blair was the only person who knew there were no WMD, even though the intelligence services of the world all told him that they DID exist. He clearly had his own dedicated intelligence units in Iraq who were much smarter than MI6, and knew that there weren’t any.

          Despite this, he told the world there WERE WMD, in the full knowledge that when the Iraq invasion was successfully accomplished, he would be proven spectacularly incorrect.

          And that’s what you believe, is it?

    • wakasam

      that which has been imported can always be exported assuming it is more or less in its original condition i.e. hasn’t been blended with anything much.

  • cartimandua

    Mr Murray is spot on about the treatment of women. The Left has always said “sit down dear after the revolution”. The right ons prefer to ignore what happens to women but it is absolutely crucial.
    Not only is it necessary to have low birth rates it is necessary to have women in work.

  • Jesus Actionfigure

    Hey, you left you “mainstream” acceptance of whipping people:

  • saffrin

    And this is the man that would ally himself to the Al Qaeda terrorists murdering women and kids in Syria.
    Furthermore, had the ‘West’ not allied itself to the Jewish invasion of Palestine, all this Islamist insurrection, including 9/11, 7/7, Private Rigby, Afghanistan ect ect would never have happened.
    So Teflon, do the World a favour and find a very tall building to jump off.

    • anotherjoeblogs

      No, you are wrong. Mohammed started it.

      • saffrin

        Which one, there are millions of them?

    • cartimandua

      That is weapons grade tripe. Absolutely priceless. The treatment of women in Muslim and African tribal societies create rapidly growing populations. Youth bulge is the number one precondition for conflict.
      There are youth bulges in every Muslim nation. There are 100 million in the youth bulge of the MENA region.
      If Gender apartheid “went” and women were not supposed to be breeding livestock there would be diminishing numbers of violent failed states and less oppression needed to govern youth.

      • saffrin

        It’s the woman and kids gunned down in a town hall in Syria somewhere I’m on about. The west like to claim it was Assad but I don’t believe a word of it.

        • cartimandua

          Brutal Assad and brutal Islamists.There is nothing to be done because Arab culture is cruel.
          Anywhere with gender apartheid is going to meet failed state criteria.
          The births per woman now is just under 3. Before the conflict it was over 4. They could only employ all the youth in government jobs when they had oil wealth.
          The oil is running out or has run out.

    • La Fold

      And if the Barbary privateers of the Ottoman empire had had never attacked American shipping all those years ago…

  • DrCrackles

    Islam is the symptom and not the cause. It is part of the judgment.

  • RaymondDance

    The difficulty that faces everyone engaged in this debate is that we all know that, if Muhammad were alive today, he would be an ‘islamist’, but no-one can say so.

  • Brian Thomas

    One problem for Muslims when it comes to matters of interpretation of the Koran is that, in an attempt to out-do Christianity (which only declares that the writings of the Bible are inspired by the Holy Spirit), the Koran is declared to be the actual words of god. It is thus more difficult for them to presume to interpret the many quite unequivocal barbaric injunctions. A Muslim teenage girl once posted that she was quite upset about the nature of these injunctions, until she discovered the concept of hermeneutics whereby a word can have a symbolic as well as a literal meaning. She was trying so hard. Moderate Muslims have no theological basis for so being.

    • McRobbie

      Any religion that bases its teaching to the young on memorising under threat of beating the words of a old book written by antiquated men (and only men) is not a religion worth a light. It is certainly not an enlightening and peaceful theology to follow. A woman is worth half a man? Thats enough for me, sickening !

    • ItinerantView

      Nevermind moderate Muslims, the Council of Islamic Ideology in Pakistan declared, “women’s existence anti-Islamic” and “that their mere existence contradicted Sharia and the will of Allah.”

      • Donafugata

        Thanks for the link.

        It’s unfrigging-believable, I had to check the date, 2014!

        To think these lunatics have nuclear weapons and get millions in aid from the UK and the US.

  • Donafugata

    Seventy-odd years the persecution of the Jewish population of Austria and Germany was based on the lie that they were Bolsheviks, hellbent on global domination.

    Since the full horrors of the holocaust were revealed, laws have been enacted to prevent the repeat of such an atrocity.

    The Third Reich was the main culprit but every European country shares to a greater or lesser degree, in the anti-semitism of the time.

    Perhaps it is because of this holocaust guilt that the EU is now giving great leeway to this cult which really is intent on world domination.

  • mikewaller

    I recall that Stalin, when told that the Pope disproved of some action of his, asked the rhetorical question “And how many divisions does he have?” I can’t help thinking that Blair should be applying the same yardstick to Muslim terrorists vs. Russia under Putin and China. Like the IRA of deeply unpleasant memory, radical Muslims may well cause a lot of mayhem and many deaths, but for wholesale ways of changing our lives very much for the worst, the really big threat comes from military adventurism – probably as a distraction from economic failure – from these erstwhile communist states.

    That said, to Israel, radical Islam does pose the kind of threat that Russia and China now pose to the wider world. So it may be that is the audience to which his remarks are directed.

    • Ron Todd

      To me the radical Muslims are like the red indians, they might win at little big horn but long term they are going to lose.

      • mikewaller

        At root, that is what they think themselves. Just look at it from their perspective. Huge though the ark of “Muslim lands” is as it stretches from North Africa to Indonesia, it is overhung by far more powerful lands ranging from The USA, through Europe, to Russia, India and China, all of whom see militant Islam as a major threat. Indeed, the greatest black joke concerning Putin’s new found sensitivities to the unkind treatment of Russian minorities in Eastern Ukraine is how much this contrasts with the unremitting savagery with which he put down the separatist ambitions of the Chechens.

      • amicus

        I hope so!

  • zanzamander

    I’m afraid that even you, Douglas, are not speaking the whole truth.

    saying that it is only the radicalised and politicised view of Islam
    that needs to be addressed, and blaming this on questions of
    interpretation, you are rending the whole history of Islamic invasions,
    subjugation, extermination of non-Muslims, forced conversions etc. a
    free pass.

    This is not only the matter of interpretation or
    radicalisation, this is what Islam is. The fact that
    not all Muslims go around killing non-Muslims is down to the fact that
    they’re not interpreting Islam correctly. You get the point: it is not
    the fanatics that have misunderstood Islam, it is that the peaceful ones
    have chosen to ignore it.

    It also comes down to numbers,
    demographics. Wait till Islam comes near to 10%-15% of the Western
    population, then tell me that it is still a problem of interpretation
    and radicalisation. Right across the Islam world, where non-Muslims are
    now in miniscule numbers, there is no place hiding place for them. Where
    have they all disappeared, Douglas? If it was just a matter of
    misunderstading, there are an awful lot of followers
    who have misunderstood the peaceful message of submission to god!

    are no different to Blair or any number of other intellectuals in
    media, politics and academia. You are still living in a cloud cuckoo
    land where all religions are peaceful, tolerant and benevolent. You
    cannot get your heads around the fact that there are ideologies that
    exists to do the opposite, to dominate, to subjugate and to change the
    very nature of your thought.

    Show me one Muslim majority country
    on this earth where non-Muslims are treated equally, under law, of that
    country, where they enjoy the freedom to criticise Islam (if they so
    wish), openly spread their own faith by funding schools paid for by
    their Islamic governments, where they are not discriminated in
    government jobs, in housing and in welfare, or where their kids can
    marry their Muslim girlfriends and have the freedom to convert their
    spouses into their non-Muslim faiths.

    Why do you think that Islam in the West is any different to the ones practiced elsewhere in the Islamic word?

    I know I am in the minority who sees Islam itself as a worrisome
    presence in our midst. I hope I am proven wrong in the long run, because
    despite our protestations, Islam is here to stay, prosper and grow,
    thanks to people like Tony Blair, David Cameron etc.

    • Tom M

      Excellent post zanzamander. On this point :
      “Wait till Islam comes near to 10%-15% of the Western population”,
      I ponder often just how secular the Muslim representatives in Westminster will continue to be when the population balance is nearer those figures.

    • Donafugata

      Well said.

      Islam pretends to come in two flavours but in reality the choice is between vanilla and vanilla.

      The high profile international suicide killers may be a very small minority but every Muslim has a duty to do whatever it can to realise a global caliphate and to destroy anything that is not Islamic.

      Just by coming to the UK from Somalia and claiming benefits for a litter of children, a Muslim is doing their sacred duty. I was unfortunate enough to have had such people in my English class and they, Somalis, are quite open about their motives, ie, to take our money and make us as poor as they were.

      There are as many degrees of jihad as there are Muslims, every little helps, as they say.


    • dwwilcox

      You are talking crap; just like the right wing extremist that you are. The majority of Muslims do not condone what the extremists do. So I can categorically state that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about and are spouting nonsense. The writer of this article is the biggest hypocritical incubus ever. Tell your puppet masters to stop invading countries where a majority of the citizens are Muslims. Secondly tell the Western Governments to stop sponsoring terrorists in order to destabilize those Muslim regimes who reject Western imperialism. Lastly stop hobnobbing with countries like Saudi Arabia who continue to sponsor terrorists. As for Blair he is a fascist christian imbecile. What are our governments doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya then? Stealing the resources of the populace. When our governments begin to address that then maybe they can start to criticise Muslims

      • Adam Carter

        zanzamander, to whom your reply is addressed, wrote ‘show me one Muslim majority country on this earth where non-Muslims are treated equally, under law’
        Can you, dwwilcox, do that?
        Can you answer the question ‘Why do you think that Islam in the West is any different to the ones practised elsewhere in the Islamic world?’
        You have a point about the need to stop invading countries where a majority of the citizens are Muslims, but it’s only tangental to this discussion.
        And you won’t win many to your point of view by your rude opening.
        Finally, please read the Koran and some Haddith and see for yourself what Islamic theory demands and aspires to.
        I have done that, my conclusion is that Islam is a huge threat to our way of life and we need to oppopse it now, the sooner the the better. The longer we leave it the more likely, in my judgement, that there will be major bloodshed in Europe and the West will, regrettably, have to annihilate people and cities until it is demionstrated beyond argument that Islam is based on submission to a false god.
        If Islam doesn’t respond to reason it will have to be obliterated by force. That is a terrible situation indeed, but not as terrible as the alternative which would be to allow Islam to triumph. Should that happen you can forget about plurality of religion, freedom of thought and equality.

        • Keith D

          Excellent post. Maybe dwwilcox has no daughters or grandchildren who’ll inherent the finer points of Islam. Or maybe his neck is all brass and immune to the rusty blade.

          • Shazza

            Or maybe he is a moslem. If not, he definitely is a dhimmi.

        • zanzamander

          My friend there will be no bloodshed in Europe or the West, at least not the kind you have in mind.

          Oh sorry, don’t get me wrong, there will be lots of Lee Rigbys kind of blood before it is all over.

          But you see, they (the media, politicians, our educators and givers of wisdom and direction) are boiling us like frogs, if you catch my meaning.

          • Shazza

            I agree. We will submit and I believe that the politicians etc. realise this. The general British public has been cowed and brainwashed and the general apathetic attitude will be our downfall. It is far too important for them to know who is going to win X Factor or what’s happening in Eastenders to concern themselves with the future and the freedoms which they take for granted.

            There will be no fightback in either Europe or the West.

            I cannot for the life of me understand why they believe they and their families will be immune to the horrors that islam brings.

            Are they so naive as to believe islam will morph into a benign belief system which slots into 21st century secular civilisation?

            • Keith D

              Our effete elite have long since surrendered to the self inflicted imposition of Islam into Western lands. In fact they’ve encouraged it in an act of unprecedented treason against its own electorate.

              We, the betrayed, have not. And our voice is growing year on year. Look at the spectacular rise of anti immigration parties across our continent.

              Whatever else we are, we are not cowards in the face of a threat to our childrens futures. Even the most unaware of us will eventually be forced to concede that something must be done. The muslims cant help it, they’ll commit one atrocity that breaks the camels back. They are evil and evil can’t hide behind a mask, no matter how hard our elites pretend it can.

              This is not what anyone wants, but its as inevitable as tomorrows sunrise.

      • RaymondDance

        “I can categorically state that you don’t have a clue what you are talking about and are spouting nonsense.”

        Except you haven’t actually produced any evidence to that effect. Still, never mind.

      • Pootles

        I expect that zanzamander, like many other people, are not only concerned about the rise of Islam, but also oppose western interventionism. People who are hostile to the Blair approach – which included/includes mass immigration into the UK, as well as US-led interventionism – generally oppose the wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. Oddly, it appears that the UK origin jihadis who are fighting in Syria wanted the West to attack Syria, as did Saudi Arabia. One last thing, who are ‘the puppet masters’ ?

      • jesseventura2

        Why do they want an Islamic state when a majority are living like impoverished dogs?
        Islam is obviously not working.

        • McRobbie

          Islam has nothing to say about betterment of impoverishment or human rights..its all about womens non rights and killing kaffirs. Islam is based on warmongering…killing all non believers and dominating the world. Whoever pretends islam has anything to say about peace is not aware of the koran. It is not a religion its a call to arms.

      • curious

        The only one who defends fascism here is you. You are the one who stands on the side of theocracy, oppression of women, persecution of gays against humane and civilized secular society. In other words – you stand against everything generations of European socialists have fought for. You should be ashamed of yourself but somehow I suspect that such a feeling evades you.

      • Jules Wright

        Your absolutism is your undoing. And your bile is unhelpful to balanced debate. Would you froth and foam face-to-face I wonder?

    • Shazza

      Excellent post.

      The problem with people like Douglas Murray is that they judge people by their own standards of behaviour.

      My husband once said to me ‘Just because you would not do something to somebody else, don’t think they wouldn’t do it to you’.

    • oscargracie

      “By saying that it is only the radicalised and politicised view of Islam that needs to be addressed, and blaming this on questions of interpretation, you are giving the whole history of Islamic invasions, subjugation, extermination of non-Muslims, forced conversions etc. a free pass”.

      Every work of literature needs to be interpreted in some way. It is not interpretation itself that is the problem. Jesus.

    • jimmy james

      Doesn’t this too ring true of Christianity? And it’s potentially just a case of waiting for islam to mature and write a new testament?

      • Tzur

        The authoritarianism and oppressions of contrary viewpoints that came along with pre-modern Christianity were not prevented by its own New Testament, which it already had and followed. So it is not a New Testament that Islam needs, but modernization and democratization. These are not easy processes but filled with bitter struggle: they emerged in the West only after two centuries of religious wars, and were facilitated in Christianity when Protestant scholars from the 16th through to the 18th centuries, in search of a more upright commonwealth under God, went back to the Hebraic sources, including the Hebrew Scriptures and Rabbinic writings. They discovered there the root ideas for democracy itself, tolerance of diverse religious views, and the equality of all persons. On this, see Joshua Berman, Created Equal: How the Bible Broke with Ancient Political Thought (Oxford UP, 2008), Eric Nelson, The Hebrew Republic: Jewish Sources and the Transformation of European Political Thought (Harvard UP, 2010) and Gordon Schochet, Fania Oz-Salzberger, and Meirav Jones, eds., Political Hebraism: Judaic Sources in Early Modern Political Thought (Shalem Press, 2008) — and the bibliographies in these works.

        But the problem with Islam runs much deeper than it did with Christianity, so it is more intractable and less likely to achieve a harmonious solution any time soon. For Islam has no religious sources tending to strongly democratic ideals as did Christianity in its “Old Testament.” On the contrary, mainstream Islam has grounded itself on theologies that allow no room at all for independent will or reason or morality, that as a result explicitly endorse personal conformity, submission and authoritarianism of all kinds, and that echo previous pagan Arab culture in explicitly promoting feud ideas of “justice,” group honor and warfare. On the teachings of Muslim sources on these matters, and the resulting history around the world and down through the centuries, see Andrew G. Bostom, ed., The Legacy of Jihad: Islamic Holy War and the Fate of Non-Muslims (Prometheus Books, 2005). This is not a book that Tony Blair has read, I am sure.

        Another very big problem for Islam is that, as a commentator on this page (below) has noted, the Qur’an unlike the New Testament is not presented as the testimonies of disciples who often differ amongst themselves on crucial matters, and thus as a human document having gradations of interpretation and truth, but as the very word of God, absolute and perfect. So once modernization sets in and reasonable questions are raised about this or that point or moral problem, the foundations of faith themselves are immediately shaken, and the only possible responses can be violent repression, or complete overthrow. There is no easily determined compromise available, no middle path.

        It is common to read that the flourishing of new ideas that occurred in the first Muslim centuries of dominance around the Mediterranean and the Middle East (7th to 11th centuries) was due to Islam. But this ignores that the rulers that promoted these new currents were not especially pious at all, even if they took pleasure in pursuing jihad against other countries for personal glory and economic profit. We might even, very loosely, call them secularist, although the term is really anachronistic. Their pleasure in holding debates between spokespeople of different religions, for example, and not predetermining the outcomes, and even adopting some of the non-Muslim religious views, was strongly condemned by mainstream Muslim authorities, but those authorities had to accept that the rulers had the power and went their own way (this political philosophy was generalized into the Sunni outlook that it does not matter if rulers violate Islamic norms as long as they fund and support its institutions). The religious jurists of those centuries were generally ignored by those rulers, or even imprisoned if they got too persistent, and the ruler’s own laws superseded Shariah law. In such an environment, the rediscovery of Greek thought and openness to Indian and other cultural achievements could flourish. But the eclipse of all of this from the 11th century on to the present was signalled by the breakup of the ecumenical empires and rise to power of militantly Islamic orthodoxy.

    • sebastian2

      Excellent post. Much truth in this. It really quite astonishes me that UK “liberals” can claim that the islam as practiced for hundreds of years and still is in places like The Land of the Pure (Pakistan) and other Islamic states, is somehow flawed. As if all these fervent slaves to this cult have got it all wrong for generations.
      More likely, surely, that fully fledged Islamic states that condemn people to death for “blasphemy”, apostasy or for preaching alternative faiths (as in Pakistan and elsewhere), and so forth are the “real muslims”. It seems perfectly improbable to me that these people, whose scholars and thinkers that have studied the so-called sacred texts for hundreds of years and who dictate mainstream mohammedan opinion, are seriously misguided: inept in the beliefs they know so well and so uncompromisingly voice and force others to conform to.

      But this is the notion we’re expected to agree. Moreover, it’s as if the extent we’re obliged to accept a naïve view of all this – the “religion of peace” fallacy – is somehow connected to the potential conflict that facing the facts about islam and stating them, will spark. We murmur agreeable flattery lest we anger the demon we know to be there. As if denial, appeasement and concessions will end the creed’s militancy, win its members’ loyalty and persuade them to betray their stern convictions. As if, too, accepting them into the liberal, benevolent and wealthy Dar Al Harb will blunt their jihadist purpose and turn aside their ambitions to subordinate us.

      For some it might. For many – too many probably – it will not. Either way, don’t try to tell me that those who won’t are not real muslims. They are. And their 21st century islam – as practiced since its violent inception and, so far, unreformed – is as real as it gets.

  • Donafugata

    Islam is alleged to have begun when Mohammed woke from a dream, the message of which was to take an army to conquer Jerusalem.

    From the inception, Islam was a militant enterprise and of all the places to go, to pick Jerusalem has a hint of arrière pensée about it.

    The Jewish temple and homeland and, Christ being a Jew, the home of Christianity seem to have been too good a challenge so the first act of Islam was to aspire to destroy its main rivals.

    If Mohammed had decided to spread his message throughout Arabia it might have some credibility but it is so obviously a politically motivated cult it is anything but a “religion of peace”.

    • FrancisKing

      “Islam is alleged to have begun when Mohammed woke from a dream, the message of which was to take an army to conquer Jerusalem.”

      In a word – no.

    • Eurocentric

      There is no mention, anywhere, in the entire Koran, of Jerusalem. Mohammed’s “dream” is mentioned only as “a faraway place.” The “interpretations” only came much later… indeed, the link to Jerusalem appears to have been made by the grand Mufti – an uncle of none other than Yassir Arafat. Ah, the good old mythologies of religious belief.

  • NedMissingTeeth

    We need the BBC and a mainstream media that isn’t afraid to criticize Islamic extremism for what it is; a fascist ideology that has no place in the UK.

    We need to be able to discus Islam without accusations of racism.

    • Ron Todd

      Yes we do, but that ain’t going to happen any time soon.

    • ian channing

      Pat Condell would agree. This is a heartfelt one.

    • saffrin


    • Sheila Windsor

      I agree. But while waiting for accusations of racism to evaporate away we surely need to stand up, toughen up, speak out. I’m no racist. I despise prejudice of any kind. That said, I am very concerned about the ideology of Islam and share an earlier view that we really can’t afford to allow that ‘tipping point’ to be reached. Personally, I think of myself as spiritual but of no particular religion/denomination. I believe that in the UK we have allowed our terror of being non-PC to keep us from seeing what’s really going on re this question. I lived for ten years, until quite recently, in a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood and while I encountered many pleasant individuals/neighbours, could never condone the extreme anti-feminism/misogyny and prejudice against gay/trans/bi/anyone other than the most narrowly conformist, of ‘mainstream’ Muslims, let alone the extremists. In my view Islam is an ideology that has no place in western democracies or in the 21st century.

  • Trapnel

    Brian: Look, you’ve got it all wrong! You don’t need to follow me. You don’t need to follow anybody! You’ve got to think for yourselves! You’re all individuals!

    Crowd: Yes! We’re all individuals!

    Brian: You’re all different!

    Crowd: Yes, we are all different!

    Btw, isn’t it about time the Home Secretary reconsidered the absurd banning order on Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller from entering the UK? The whole truth will remain a distant prospect as long as genuine Islam critics are prevented from speaking up here in the UK or elsewhere.

    • James Lovelace

      This crisis is only going in one direction. The only question is: how long before the country breaks down. Might be 20 years away.

      But one thing’s for sure: the Demos will turn against those who banned the people who told the truth and tried to warn us (Geller, Spencer, Wilders).

      • Trapnel

        Remiss of me not to mention Wilders – I think mainstreamers such as Murray will do all they can to avoid mention of Europe’s foremost Islam critic and why? At the Gatestone Institute today Murray discusses denial and not therefore without a certain amount of schariafreude to note how zanzamander above neatly skewers his Islamo-denial.

        • James Lovelace

          my comments are being deleted by the moderator.

          I can see why more people are taking to twitter to discuss these things.

          • GeeBee36_6

            Itried to post an excerpt from a Victorian poem on hunting, on tCamilla Swift’s article on that subject yesterday, but it ‘moderated’ (i.e. banned) it. No doubt it contained some non-word or doublethink conce[t. It really is so childish here at the ‘robust, free-speech defending’ Speccie.

            I’m thinking of cancelling my subscription to the print mag after several decades as a result.

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              Britain, it used to be a free country.

  • BigAl

    Don’t recall Saddam nurturing radical Islam, but Blair was quite happy to invade and has now twisted the story to suit his own needs.

    • Donafugata

      That occurred to me too.

      The secular Iraq of Sadaam was probably not God-fearing enough for The Lone Ranger and Tonto.

      See how much happier Iraq is now that religion is compulsory?
      Mission accomplished, indeed.

    • Jez

      He also seems to be twisting the knife into the policy makers that crashed through the Libya disaster….. and making it public, as our ever so obedient media haven’t.

    • DazEng

      Would that be the same Saddam who had a Quran created in his own blood?

      • La Fold

        Or had the scholars trace his lineage back to the prophet himself. Saying that it was probably more an act of political astuteness on his behalf.

    • OldSlaughter

      Then your recollection is unsound.

  • ADW

    Fat chance. It might imperil some of his income from oil-rich states for a start.

  • IfItPleasethThee

    “it is incumbent upon Muslims everywhere to do everything they can to
    anathematise and stigmatise the extremists and to chase them and their
    readings out of the religion.”

    As a Christian who is in principle, how do I say it, homophilic, I would still have quite a problem with being told to “anathematise and stigmatise” Christian homophobes “and to chase them and their readings out of the religion”. Let’s face it, St Paul didn’t like gays very much, and I can’t simply airbrush this out of my religion. I have to live with it in a way that respects the words but also accords as well as possible with my own morality.

    So on this one I wonder if Blair was slightly closer to the mark than Murray?

    • Tom M

      Quite so ‘Thee. It occurred to me when I read this part “..warps Islam’s true message…” to ask what is it that gives Blair the right to decide what is and isn’t “the true message of Islam”.
      In that statement he is assuming that Islam conforms (or should conform) to his view of religion. History tells us that as far as Islam goes this isn’t necessarily true.