David Cameron adopts neo-con Policy Exchange line towards UK Muslims

The Guardian and The Independent today both carry extracts from a speech that the British PM, David Cameron, is set to deliver later today in which he seems to lay down the law, wild west style, to UK Muslims about their duties and responsibilities.

Speaking at an anti-terrorism and security conference in Munich, Cameron is set to say that:

“Europe needs to wake up to what is happening in our own countries. We need to be absolutely clear on where the origins of these terrorist attacks lie – and that is the existence of an ideology, Islamist extremism…some organisations that seek to present themselves as a gateway to the Muslim community are showered with public money while doing little to combat extremism. This is like turning to a rightwing fascist party to fight a violent white supremacist movement.”

The comments by David ‘I am a Zionist’ Cameron reveal that he has bought into the worldview espoused by the neo-con thinktank Policy Exchange and the Education Secretary Michael Gove (a former chairman of PX) which seeks to blame ‘Islamist ideology’ rather than Western warmongering and support for dictatorships in the Muslim world for the AQ terrorist phenomenon.

I am quoted in the Guardian news piece responding as follows:

“Mr Cameron’s remarks are ill-judged and deeply patronising. The overwhelming majority of UK Muslims are proud to be British and are appalled by the antics of a tiny group of extremists and so will hardly be pleased with his lecture on integration.

“Ironically, the PM’s comments come on a day when the viciously Islamophobic English Defence League are to stage their biggest demonstration yet on our streets. Integration works both ways and we would expect Mr Cameron and his government to be openly challenging these EDL extremists. Instead, he and his senior ministers have to date remained totally mute. It is disgraceful.”

Update: The BBC are carrying an extract from an interview I did earlier.

Update 2: Mehdi Hasan has written a splendid rebuttal here.

Update 3: An additional fine rebuttal of Cameron’s neo-con-inspired idiocy in The Indy today: Paul Vallely – ‘How monocultural does the PM want us to be?’

This entry was posted in Extremism, Government, Islam, Zionism and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to David Cameron adopts neo-con Policy Exchange line towards UK Muslims

  1. Unfair says:


    Did you actually read the speech? He did attack the far right.

    On the one hand, those on the hard right ignore this distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism and just say:

    Islam and the West are in irreconcilable. This is a clash of civilisations.

    So it follows: we should cut ourselves off from this religion – whether that’s through the forced repatriation favoured by some fascists or the banning of new mosques as suggested in some parts of Europe.

    These people fuel Islamaphobia. And I completely reject their argument.

    If they want an example of how Western values and Islam can be entirely compatible, they should look at what’s happened in the past few weeks on the streets of Tunis and Cairo.

    Isn’t that exactly what we’d want a Tory to say? We should be congratulating him.

  2. Unfair: Has Cameron uttered one word about the arson attacks on UK mosques? The burning of the Qur’an in Carlisle town centre? The abuse of Muslim mourners at a cemetery? I listed a number of such publicly reported Islamophobic incidents in a recent blog post:


    These attacks do not materialise out of thin air. They are – in my view – the result of continuous anti-Muslim propaganda churned out by largely pro-Tory tabloids and right-wing thinktanks such as Policy Exchange and the Centre for Social Cohesion. Have you heard Cameron criticise them for their anti-Muslim bigotry?

  3. As an English Muslim who is absolutely sick of Muslims who don’t want to mix in and be part of this country, (however small you may feel their number to be) I’m fully supportive of David Cameron and what he has said in his speech. The intolerance towards homosexuals, the prejudice towards women and the utter contempt for many aspects of ‘Western’ society that is all too easy to come across shows this attitude DOES need to be challenged and it’s about time people espousing these views were told to shut up and stop expecting to be tolerated. If the vast majority of British Muslims already live by the values David Cameron expects of us (just as is expected from the rest of society), then we should welcome him working with us to others that they can’t expect special treatment. As somebody who sees herself as fully English and a full member of this society, I don’t need to take Cameron’s remarks as a personal insult- I appreciate his words towards other members of ‘our’ community who needs a kick up the backside.

    • D Gilles says:

      I think you are missing the point here !
      The whole issue is about injustices in the muslim world and the extention of COLONIALISM .Untill today some of the arabe and muslim lands has not been freed yet. Unfortunately the few muslims who try to stand against this injustice will always be treated as a terrorists but what about the terrorist state of israel who is backed by all western governement because the people at the head of those governement are Jewish ZIONIST without any exception. So if you want to adress the real problem look closely at the western foreign policy that has always favoured ISRAEL againt the poor palestinian people. It is so simple to understand what is going on it is not about religion but it is about the LAND and thanks god religion is there to motivate the opressed people to stand for their right.
      Look arround you and see who are the countries that are still occupied in the 21st century where all nations have gained their independance but some muslim countries are still stugling for their Freedum.
      Why Palestine, Iraque, Chechnia, Afghanistan etc…. still occupied?
      If you are a muslim you should feel their pain …… I can not say no more thanks god there are people still fighting for those lands to be freed by the all the means available.

  4. 'Uthmān says:

    In his speech, David Cameron advocated the need for a more ‘muscular liberalism’. I would like to link to what is, in my opinion, an oustanding piece of research by the Muslim intellectual (a convert as it happens) Hamza Andreas Tzortzis which challenges from various angles the assumption that liberalism is a good basis for values and legislation, drawing on both philosophical arguments and academic research. He goes on to present the Islamic model as an alternative which does not suffer from the flaws to be found in liberalist ideology.

    The publication is entitled ‘Liberalism & its Effect on Society’: http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/Liberalism1.0.pdf

  5. Asim says:

    Groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir and Anjem Choudary’s gang are an enourmous problem for Muslims. They are desparate to continue living in this country enjoyng the freedoms and opportunities that it gives them while preaching hatred about the British way of life. These ‘Islamist’ bigots just go on producing negative headlines for Muslims and it would be to the benefit of all Britons if they were tackled more strongly.

    Thus, I welcome David Cameron’s speech. I hope British Muslims and the government can unite against the common enemy. The bigots and hypocrites who preach against Britain in the name of Islam have no place here.

  6. Asim: Freedom of speech surely means that people have the right to speak out against whatever they want – provided that they do so within the law. I think that HT have a quite ludicrous (and overly romantic) notion of the Khilafah – but I don’t think they are breaking any UK laws.

    Cameron on the other hand has gone to Germany to a security/terrorism conference and has said that the root fault why people are turning to violent extremism lies with multiculturalism. That is, well, utter bollocks. We have had case after case of suicide bombers declaring that their main motivation was western warmongering – not multiculturalism! Cameron cannot address this because he and his party enthusiastically backed the tragic wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. If anyone is a hypocrite, it is David Cameron.

  7. Kits says:

    Yet David Cameron addressed the foreign policy excuse in his speech and made the point that even if all the problems were resolved, extremism and terrorism would still exist because of the ideology. That is correct. I agree that foreign policy provides the animus by giving examples, but the narrative that “islam is under attack” predates 2001 and would find other examples even without Afghanistan and Iraq.

    In your BBC interview you said that muslims have been here in great numbers since 1960. Well that is 4 years after Suez and in the meantime there have been British military involvement in Oman, Brunei and Iraq. So why didn’t these trigger violent extremism? You’d have been on better ground arguing that it is not British for the state to impose belief systems on its citizens than pushing that line

  8. Kits: ‘Well that is 4 years after Suez and in the meantime there have been British military involvement in Oman, Brunei and Iraq. So why didn’t these trigger violent extremism?’

    I specifically referred to the phenomenon of AQ terrorism. AQ only issued their edict announcing a war against the US and its allies in 1996. The AQ call gained UK adherents overwhelmingly because of our involvement in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is really self-evident and has been admitted by a number of senior establishment figures now, even if Cameron seems to be blind to the fact (as was Bliar).

  9. Asim says:

    Yes, freedom of speech means that people have the right to speak out against whatever they want. I also don’t think that HT are at present breaking any laws, though they have a history of bigotry and appalling statements which I saw in a lot of in mosques and universities when I was a student. They should continue to have the freedom to speak as they like (within the law) but they remain an enormous liability for British Muslims and we should all recognise that.

    Britain’s foreign policy may have been the motivating factor behind the 7/7 bombings but nothing can justify those atrocities. Hate-preaching ‘Islamist’ crackpots like Anjem Choudary and Abu Izzadeen cannot be excused for poisoning the minds of impressionable Muslims. I repeat, these people would fight tooth and nail to continue enjoying the freedoms and opportunites of Britain. At the same time they hypocritically portray this country as the epitome of evil.

    The Iraq War was obviously wrong and the sooner we are out of Afghanistan the better. That does not justify the bigots in their preaching of violence, disregard of what they see as Britain’s ‘non-Muslim law’ and bigotry against everyone who disagrees with them. If we could tackle groups like Al-Muhajiroun (or their latest reincarnation) the Islamophobic elements of the media would find it harder to produce their anti-Muslim headlines.

  10. Kits says:

    For sure, I think it has motivated people but only because it gives examples to an “islam under attack” ideology that has been propagated for quite some time. This is the logic of the “cart before horse”. The islamist attacks in Paris on the metro and the plane hijacking by Armed Islamic Group (GIA) shows this type of thinking predates and exists externally of anything that AQ say and do. Are you really suggesting that everything will be aok once the troops come back? And what about the next time that this country has a disagreement with a majority muslim country; do nothing in case a bunch of nutters kill people.

  11. Robin says:

    Dear Inayat, Good to see you have put this discussion space here, at least so long as it is not going to be artificially constrained in the range of questions to those that Islam’s apologists are comfortable with.

    With reference to the Guardian report, I commend your opposition to vicious extremism, and your wish that “integration works both ways”. That being the case, it would be helpful if you could clarify what is your view of a number of verses of Allah’s flawless Last Testament, in the context that its own verse 2:85 condemns those who pick and choose which verses to believe. Do you endorse or reject for instance 9:29, 9:5, 8:12, 8:41, 8:67, 4:24, 33:50, 2:216, 4:74, 4:77, 48:16, 48:20, 48:29, 59:2-7, 5:57, 5:80, 9:23 (and numerous similar ones). For your convenience I’ll copy in here some established translations of most of those verses. You and others can of course readily check their context such as it is.

    “Fight against those who have been given the scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah has forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the religion of truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”[9:29]
    “Slay the idolators wherever ye find them”.[9:5]
    “…. I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, Smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger tips of them.” [8:12].
    “One-fifth of your spoils of war shall belong to Allah, the Apostle, the Apostle’s kinsfolk, the orphans, the destitute, and the traveler in need.” [8:41]
    “It is not for any prophet to have captives until he hath made slaughter in the land.” [8:67]
    “O Prophet! We have made lawful to thee thy wives … and those whom thy right (sword) hand possesses of the captives of war whom Allah has assigned to thee.” [33:50].
    “Married women are forbidden to you except the captives your sword hand possesses.” [4:24]
    “Warfare is prescribed for you” [2:216].
    “Who so fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or victorious, on him we shall bestow a vast reward.” [4:74]
    “Hast thou not seen those unto whom it was said: Withhold your hands and establish worship and pay the poor-due? But when fighting was prescribed for them, behold! a party of them fear mankind even as they fear Allah or with greater fear, and say: Our Lord! why hast Thou ordained fighting for us? If only Thou wouldst give us respite for a while. I Say: The comfort of this world is scant; the Hereafter will be better for him that wardeth off evil.” [4:77]
    “You shall be called upon to fight a mighty nation, unless they accept Islam [= Surrender].” [48:16]
    “Allah promises you will capture much booty.” [48:20]
    “Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, but ruthless to unbelievers.” [48:29]
    “The spoils of war taken from the town-dwellers and assigned by Allah to His apostle shall belong to Allah, to the Apostle and his kinsfolk, to orphans, …..” [59:7]
    (And the rest of 59:2-7 in which Allah enthuses over the start of the ethnic cleansing by Saint Mohammed (pbuh) of the cowardly Jews of Bani-Nadir.)

    Are you of the view that the All-Powerful, All-Wise (3:6) Allah should in retrospect have chosen his words less confusingly when he was dictating this perfect (11:1; 4:82) timeless book? Can Allah’s perfect Last Testament really need tortuous clarifications of its meaning by supposed successors to Allah’s Messenger (pbuh)? Why didn’t All-Powerful Allah just directly reveal it to us all in clear English, Chinese, etc, anyway, rather than bizarrely grant an all-time monopoly to just one 6th century Arabian businessman (pbuh)? In a language that didn’t even have vowel symbols? Didn’t He have enough other angels to spare?

    Until there is open, honest engagement with these crucial questions, from yourself and equally from other very outspoken asserters about Islam such as Sayeeda Warsi and the various so-called “Professors of Islamic Studies”, the vicious extremism is surely only going to get worse and worse. There’s more than enough evidence that it began with the founder of Islam, not least those gloating menacing verses 59:2-7 which so clearly document for all time that the vast terrorism of this “religion of peace” against defensive civilians started with Mohammed himself.

  12. Unfair says:

    “I would like to link to what is, in my opinion, an oustanding piece of research by the Muslim intellectual (a convert as it happens) Hamza Andreas Tzortzis which challenges from various angles the assumption that liberalism is a good basis for values and legislation, drawing on both philosophical arguments and academic research. He goes on to present the Islamic model as an alternative which does not suffer from the flaws to be found in liberalist ideology.”

    I do admire and respect your honesty. But can you see that teaching a section of British society that they should oppose the very liberal values which protect their liberty is a foolish thing to do? Isn’t this exactly David Cameron’s point?

    Inayat – I know that you agree with this. I have read your articles on Comment is Free where you yourself endorse liberal positions and reject the nonsense that Tzortzis peddles.

    However, it is Tzortzis who is touring the country, and Tzortzis who is put forward through the IERA as one of the great intellectuals of British Islam: not you.

    In fact, it is Tzortzis’s IERA which has brought people like Naik and Yee and Phillips into this country. You’ve seen their lectures. What they say about gay people, and about other minority groups, is absolutely horrendous. They’re easily as bad as the incitement against Muslims of the English Defence League.

    Yes, I know you think they shouldn’t be banned. But, just as you led a demonstration against Al Muhajiroun, why not also one against the goons of the IERA?

    Why don’t you take Tzortzis on? Challenge him to a debate. Stand up for the principles that you and David Cameron both believe in, and that Tzortzis rejects?

  13. Pingback: Well said, David Cameron! «

  14. Asim: ‘Britain’s foreign policy may have been the motivating factor behind the 7/7 bombings but nothing can justify those atrocities.’

    I didn’t say that they could be justified so why put up a straw man?

    Kits: ‘The islamist attacks in Paris on the metro and the plane hijacking by Armed Islamic Group (GIA) shows this type of thinking predates and exists externally of anything that AQ say and do.’

    Yes, you are correct – but the conclusion you draw is incorrect. The GIA attacked France because of its perceived support for the Algerian military junta which had aborted the democratic elections in 1991 and imprisoned thousands of opposition activists. People are not born as terrorists.

    Robin: I hope you are genuinely interested in learning more and are not just a troll. The Qur’an contains over 6000 verses to do with worship, family life,war and peace, the hereafter etc. Why did you not quote this verse?

    ‘Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers.’ (Qur’an 60:8)

  15. Unfair says:


    Seriously, why don’t you campaign against the IERA? Not because you’re a Muslim, or because you have some special duty to do so, but because they are promoters of preachers who stir up hatred against other minorities.

    You expect, rightly, for people to take on and defeat the EDL, because of what it says about Muslims. Non Muslims do this.

    Please take on the IERA.

  16. Unfair: ‘Seriously, why don’t you campaign against the IERA?’

    Because I have a life, mate and IERA are not really anywhere on my radar. I have had no dealings whatsoever with this IERA and know nothing about them. I had one look at that PDF file that ‘Uthman provided a link to above and saw that it was 41 pages long and immediately deleted it from my PC because I just couldn’t be bothered to read it. Most of the criticisms of liberalism from Muslim ‘scholars’ that I have seen has turned out to be simply ill-informed pseudo-intellectual twaddle.

  17. Robin says:

    Dear Inayat,
    Thank you for publishing and responding to my comment above. I notice that you haven’t answered any of those crucial questions. My personal best guess is that that is because the only respectable answer is that yes the Qur’an is flawed and therefore not the word of God and so Islam is not really the religion of truth–and yet for you to acknowledge that would seemingly entail too much disruption from your social and cultural background and prior beliefs.

    In my experience of talking with some very notable Muslims, they are very boastful about their superior expertise (supposedly contrasting with the ignorance of those of other views)…..until such time as they get presented with questions such as these, and then they suddenly find they are just far too busy to explain this subject of which they were so expert and devoted just a while earlier.

    For instance Sayeeda Warsi is supposedly such an outstanding intellect and communicator, and she emphatically declared that “we are the real Muslims” in contrast to the “extremists”. And yet her great intellect could only manage a non-reply to the crucially-important question of on what basis she knows that hers is the real Islam.

    I appreciate that it could be harder for you to put answers here than it is for myself to put questions. I can imagine a scenario of “Mr Bunglawala killed for apostasy”. But I don’t think that prospect can be taken very seriously not least due to the immense own goal such an execution would represent. How many of the Council of Ex-Muslims have been killed yet?

    You ask: why did I not cite verse 60:8? Well, firstly, because I did not need to. My questions stand perfectly coherently without citing that verse.

    And secondly because, so what? Sure, the Qur’an contains various relatively peaceful or nice verses, though none comparable to those of Christianity such as “Thou shalt not kill.” or “love your enemies” or “forgive them for the know not what they do” or
    “You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth”. But I say to you, do not resist an evildoer. If anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” (Matthew 5:38–39, NRSV) or “Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.”

    The Qur’an is well-known to contain numerous glaring self-contradictions (sufficient themselves to prove the fallaciousness of Islam). And there is the widely-accepted principle of abrogation, according to which later verses cancel out earlier ones that contradict them. It’s well-known that the nicer verses date from earlier when the founder was in a weak position and needed to be diplomatic, whereas after he became a powerful warlord the more warmongering and intolerant verses were added. The last chapter to be composed was Sura 9, which contains the most violent verses, and not least a lengthy haranguing of those who were reluctant to join in his unnecessary (unprovoked, merely aggressive) invasion of Syria (9:38-99).

    The Qur’ans initial tolerance of alcohol was replaced by its prohibition after some of his jihadists went into battle while drunk and got killed thereby. The prohibition of alcohol in Islam is because military aggression has always been its most central characteristic and so the founder could not allow his followers to indulge in drunkenness.

    And please put the Qur’n in the wider context of the extensive Hadith (sayings) and Sira (biography) which make amply clear the outstandingly evil, criminal nature of the founder of this phenomenon, a mass-murdering, mass-raping, pedophile multi-bigamist sadist thieving liar. One thing that is amply clear is that the Qur’an is the authentic words of its author. That is the authentic, inimitable words of a most evil psychopath, not least in their disorganised ranting and self-contradictions. And also in their strangely divine preoccupation with warfare, capturing slaves and booty and women, and property, sex, and above all a peculiar preoccupation with all those who refuse to believe or pretend to believe it. There’s a vast contrast to the very cogently and skillfully presented Gospels and Acts of the Apostles.

    And please tell me Inayat, quite what possible reason could anyone have to want to disbelieve the words of this All-Powerful Allah (as the opening pages go on and on about)? .

    Does it not all add up to a very simple picture of an obscure man who decided he wanted to get rich and powerful and have as many wives and rape victims as he fancied, and have everyone obeying all his orders? So he started a scam, pretending to be the unique receiver of the one God’s message, and anyone who challenged the claptrap of his scam got killed. It’s all there ready to be understood unless of course you are already too embedded in the Personality Cult to be able to see outside of it.

    So the bottom line is that you have proved unable to answer those reasonable questions. Just like Sayeeda Warsi and all the others. It’s no wonder that after 1400 years the vast majority of the world reject this intellectually and morally bankrupt ideology that gets so easily lost for words; that after 1400 years the countries where its mind-rot dominates are among the most pathetic on the planet; and that millions are now helping to sweep it into the bin where it belongs, not least the millions who have recently successfully repelled the decades of bloody Jihad in Sudan.

    Or am I wrong? Do you indeed have any answers to those questions? I’m open to your answers, albeit I’m doubtful whether any will be forthcoming.

    When the known facts change I change my opinions. And what do you do?

  18. 'Uthmān says:

    Hi Robin,

    I don’t personally have as much time on my hands as you appear to have in order to be able to construct a comprehensive response to the points that you raised (which is besides the fact, of course, that they were aimed at Inayat rather than myself which I realise). However, you might consider checking out the following link entitled ‘Commonly Misquoted Verses and Narrations’ : http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=414&subsection=Misconceptions


    @Unfair: Thank you for your comment. Obviously, I disagree with you as you may have guessed. I might reply to you in the near future. Unfortunately, I don’t have time to do so now.

    Poor Inayat keeps having to approve all our comments!

  19. 'Uthmān says:


    I forgot to link you to a piece on the same site entitled ‘Alleged Internal Contradictions in the Qur’an’: http://www.load-islam.com/artical_det.php?artical_id=472&section=indepth&subsection=Glorious%20Quran


  20. Robin says:

    Dear ‘Uthman,
    Thanks for responding to my comments. I wasn’t thinking of them as “aimed” at anyone, but rather being questions that need to be answered by all people who declare themselves as supporters or defenders of Islam. They surely need to be able to say whether or not they approve of those far-from-ambiguous verses.

    I notice that you too have not said whether or not you affirm or reject those verses. But isn’t that rather important, for all of you to do? Don’t you actually know what you think you believe? The notion that you “haven’t got time” to answer these questions is the standard one from apologists of Islam (such as actually reply at all) and it really doesn’t impress me or many others.

    I am indeed aware of the extensive claims that the (real or seeming) contradictions and other bits are mere misunderstandings and misinterpretations. The problem with that line of argument is that it immediately falls foul of the other points I raised above, that this is supposed to be the perfect communication from an all-powerful all-knowing God and so why is it that I can understand every other book clearly in translation but not, supposedly, this one that should be so superior to all the others. And by what authority are we to place and recognise as valid some newer Messenger in place of the Final Messenger of Islam (as per 33:40)? Especially when the Qur’an already speaks to me and many others with perfect clarity its message of ongoing violent jihad and mental confusion of its author, as abundantly confirmed by the Hadith and Sira. Few historical figures can have been so thoroughly documented.

    You see, your response raises no less confusion than it resolves. Personally I only believe that which I have already understood, verified, and subjected to due skeptical questioning. But in respect of Muslims I find a lot of people who express great confidence about their faith and yet seem to have great difficulty answering even the most basic questions about what they supposedly believe. This can be fully understood in terms of people becoming Muslims merely via birth, social/economic pressure, intimidation, and or Islam’s own misleading “Introduction to Islam” simplifications such as you will encounter from just about any Islamic missionary project. Approximately zero people start by reading the amazing Qur’an and only then think wow I must become a Muslim; on the contrary, Muslims read it and think, heck, if only I’d known what nonsense it is. As one of the millions of apostates put it, “The Qur’an is the sickest book I have ever read, and Islam makes good people do bad things”. Hardly surprising that the www, computers, electricity, typing, etc were all products of kaffir society instead. Best wishes, In Truth.

  21. Robin says:

    Dear ‘Uthman, Inayat, et al:, Just a last word here (as I’m sure you’re already slightly tired of me!), to say that it’s not been my intention to humiliate you by my previous comments and questions. And you have no reason to feel humiliated in any change of view. I just had the good fortune (as I see it) to not grow up in an Islamic context nor to accidentally find myself seduced thereinto. And Islam is a very sophisticated web of confusion, operating on several levels, not least in that for centuries most of the faithful have not had access to read the texts for themselves, and Islam has started believing its own deceits, making itself tediously complicated. People do have to take a lot of things on trust and so inevitably we make mistakes (such as I have myself). The least of all due humiliation lies with those who raise themselves up from misunderstanding to a bit more knowledge and understanding, don’t you agree?

    One final point – there’s extensive discussion of the contradictions and misunderstandings debates at the answering-islam website, but I consider all that complexity to be superfluous anyway, because it misses the simple points indicated above.

    Cheers, and thanks for meeting in this space with me.

  22. 'Uthmān says:


    Reading your reply, I feel sort of helpless because I genuinely don’t have time to actually respond to each and every one of your points. I’m a little saddened by your suggestion that I actually do have time but am pretending otherwise. If that were the case, I would be lying and lying, as you will no doubt be aware, is generally considered to be a sin in Islam.

    I do indeed accept those verses as I accept all verses from the Qur’an, as understood in their proper context. I do not reject them – I am a Muslim after all. What I will say is this: although I was born a Muslim, I continue to believe in Islam with certainty for a few reasons. Amongst them are:

    – It seems clear to me that the Qur’an is a miracle which can only have originated from the creator (from a literary perspective, you can see this site: http://www.theinimitablequran.com/ although this is only one aspect of it’s miraculous nature).

    – From analysis of Muhammad’s life, I believe that he can only have been a Prophet of God. Indeed, I think that is the only coherent explanation for his behaviour at times. (if you’re willing, see this video, all parts: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RW43S0bS894&p=436505A241885FFC). I’m giving you these links to save time – it’s not my intention to just throw lot of material at you. Hopefully, you’ll appreciate that.

    Of course, the comments section of Inayat’s blog isn’t really the appropriate place to have a discussion like this. If you do want to pursue this further and actually have all your points addressed by people who presumably do have time to respond to them, I’d point you towards http://www.islamicboard.com/. I don’t post there but I used to and I trust the people there to answer your points based on proper knowledge and understanding. You do seem like a sincere person, for what it’s worth.


  23. Robin says:

    Thanks ‘Uthman. I didn’t mean to imply that you were just pretending not to have time, merely that’s how it has alway worked out in practice, though I have to agree that you have in this latest case put some effort into a response. I note you have even answered my first set of questions, sort of, to an extent, though you have left me still unclear what you reckon them to mean (hence what you actually believe), with your opaque phrase of “as understood in their proper context.”

    My guess is that this is one of those situations where people have to agree to disagree, as perceptions can be so resistant to movement. To my own eyes, the above comments show a clear conclusion that my own ideas are correct. But I wouldn’t be surprised if those who come to it from a convinced Islamic perspective will think the opposite. Thanks for your thoughts anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.