Anjem Choudary; The Day Freedom Died.

Locking a man in a cell for five and a half years to prevent him airing his views is the final triumph of Britain’s immigration policy. We are now no better than a grubby third world dictatorship, with one of our most vocal critics locked up in jail and silenced. Yesterday Anjem Choudary was sentenced to five and a half years solitary confinement to prevent him ‘infecting’ other prisoners with radical Islamic views. While it is true he is serving his sentence for sending killers to Syria, a sentence this magazine considers far too lenient, he will serve it segregated to stop him speaking to other prisoners who might be influenced by his extreme views.

In this, along with all the other restrictions on our liberty we have accepted since the arrival of Islam in Britain, we are aping a pre – medieval religion which forbids any criticism of its beliefs, and in many countries will kill, imprison or torture you if you do. The real solution, which would have saved our democracy which died yesterday, is to subject Islam to the type of secular attack on its theology we are familiar with the liberal media mounting against Christianity. The theology of Islam is, like all other religions, pure speculation, backed with threats of dire punishment, either here or in the hereafter, if the faithful do not obey rules laid down by old men, themselves sitting trembling at the departure gates of life. Western society on the other hand having either divested itself of religious beliefs, or consigned them to pantomimes such as those of the Church of England, has steadily advanced in matters of liberty, freedom of thought, science and philosophy. The discoveries of western science, while offering painless dentistry, penicillin,the Hubble telescope and clean water, do not offer the slightest support to any religion, quite the contrary, as science progresses the established religions look increasingly improbable.

Our failure to dissect Islamic beliefs in the same way we have dissected Christianity became apparent on the Victoria Derbyshire programme on BBC TV yesterday. A senior police officer reminded the egregious Derbyshire that it was BBC shows like hers, particularly Radio 4’s ‘Today’ programme, that fell over themselves to give Choudary not only airtime, but do little more than utter polite noises when he justified the killing of Private Rigby and other atrocities. Derbyshire rewarded this criticism with a self righteous, dismissive sniff. Nobody, she said, thought the BBC biased. But another member of her panel, a white ex prison warder, insisted that his colleague was right and that the real solution to radicalisation was to tackle extreme Islamic beliefs in public, long before it’s preachers get to court, but by which time it is already too late.

The last thing Derbyshire wanted to hear was a white working class man with a shaven head lecturing her on combating Islam, a religion her class has been in love with for years, and which they absolutely refuse to criticise. Brushing his views aside, she demanded details of the proposed segregation of Choudary and who he would be allowed to mix with. When she was told it would be with lifers in for murder, who would never get out, she was thrilled. Is this the BBC’s idea of free speech?

Choudary is in jail because the BBC and other media organisations that gave him a platform were, and are, too cowardly to tackle the theological and historical claims Islam makes to be the one true religion and the Koran God’s direct word. It is upon this latter, unprovable and extremely unlikely assertion the radical preacher based his violent philosophy. Yet while an unlimited supply of liberal atheists are available to pull the claims of Christianity apart on air, when it comes to Islam there is total silence. Even money does not speak. A couple of years ago Channel Four prepared a documentary critical of the accepted historical account of the origins of Islam. Due to thousands of complaints its TV screening was cancelled. One can be sure that a similar programme about Christianity would receive very different treatment.

Why? Partly cowardice, attacking Islam can be physically dangerous, but it is also mainly an Asian or black religion, at least in the west, and a dark skin has a special virtue in the eyes of liberals, to be black is to possess a type of pre-lapsarian innocence, a state of grace only found before Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil then shared it with Adam. White people  have eaten from the tree, which is why we alone are guilty. That the smart metropolitans of the BBC should have fallen for such nonsense is itself a cause for both laughter and tears

The future for free speech, independent enquiry, justice itself, looks very grim indeed.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


21 Comments on Anjem Choudary; The Day Freedom Died.

  1. Religion should be prevented from influencing the public realm. It should be purely a matter of private conscience. The state, run in accordance with the principles of science, democracy and rationalism, should guarantee freedom of conscience, however outlandish and pre-scientific the beliefs held, but at the same time not tolerate any intolerance to non-believers or permit any form of proselytizing.

  2. And so the long retreat from Moscow of conservatism continues. Harris, channelling the spirit of Roy Jenkins, lets us know that ‘yes conservatism failed to conserve Christianity but worry not because we’ve decided to shift left and hate it now neatly side stepping the failure’. Will we live to see a day when Myles tell us that new polygamy laws betray the integrity of gay marriage, I do hope so.

    A nation is a people joined by blood, language, culture, religion and geography. Choudary is not ‘as British as fish and chips’ he cannot be, he is alienated by his blood, which he cannot change, for many it goes only this far, though this is far enough. Yet as the left stokes the anti-white hatred of ‘white privilege’ as whole communities form within our country unified by non-English languages, cultures and religions, as our culture self immolates in the fire of consumerism alienation will increase and as ever like will fall back upon like. No one questions why Choudary embraced Islam and not militant Jainism, Buddhism or Seventh day Adventism, because they know as we all know that roots run deep.

  3. For a different view on the relationship between science, Christianity and Islam, see The Rise of Early Modern Science by Toby E Huff (Cambridge University press, 1993).

    Nevertheless, this excellent article gets straight to the heart of a number of matters.

    The scriptures of Islam, like those of all other religions (they all have them), have never been widely subjected to the historical and literary criticism that those of Christianity have. One of the few exceptions would be the short works of the American Edwardian missionary to Arabia, Samuel Zwemer.

    If the decline of Christianity in Britain and Europe, or its change into something moderate, finally ending with this religion’s conversion to the beliefs of the Frankfurt School (especially in the Church of England), resulted at least in part from this public criticism (termed Higher Criticism in the 19th century) then the same effect might be expected if Islam were to be subjected to the same.

    If the BBC and others avoid airing or making this criticism then they are taking up a position similar to what would have prevailed prior to the Thirty Years War.

    If the civil war going on between the two branches of Islam today is the equivalent of the Thirty Years War in Christian Europe then it might have the same effect. Having looked into the abyss in that war, Europeans eventually made religion a private matter, as Roger Scruton has explained. The problem with Islam is that it is still a public religion. As Lord Curzon observed, it is not a state religion but rather a religious state.

    • there is no “problem” with Islam. there is a problem with the Europeans current ideology that permits the followers to settle in Europe and promotes their beliefs above their own.

      • The point the editor is making in his article is that until the scriptures of Islam are subjected to the same historical and literary criticism that Christian ones have been then the problem arises because Islam is out of step with the way in which religions in Europe have taken their place in civil society since the Thirty Years War.

        Given the extent of immigration the editor has perceived the one thing that would make a significant difference.

        If Christianity has declined because of this criticism then it can be expected that Islam would also.

  4. Amusing – Roger in Florida complaining about Pakis(tanis) in the UK. I don’t feel his pain – not being in any of those places – but he reminds me of the time about 25 years ago at a class reunion when I bumped into an old card playing friend of mine from Pakistan by the name of “Kapi”. Being somewhat dyslexic, as well as immensely pleased and happy to see him again, I shouted out…(well, if you are any good at word puzzles, you can guess what I shouted out).

  5. A better question is why the hell was he (and his ilk) allowed to settle in Britain in the first place. A far better solution now would be to kick his ass out of Britain back to the 3rd world dump he came from. The advanced western nations, of which Britain is still (just) a member of are ruled according to the laws of man, not the laws of god. It is a sick perversion of the truth to claim that the enlightenment was in any sense a christian phenomenon. Rationality triumphed over religious superstition and many paid with their lives for challenging the absolutism of the religious PTB. Is the tradition of free speech a suicide pact? Do western societies have to tolerate medievalists and others bent on the destruction of the liberal tradition? The answer surely is no, any believer in the islamic faith is clearly not an acceptable member of western civilization. At last we have, in the US, a Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, who understands and is prepared to articulate that truth.

    • He was born here, educated here, a medical student for a while. He is as British as fish and chips….there are just as many in America like him who Trump cannot deport,

      • Perhaps your British is not my British; he is a paki and he should be sent back to Pakistan, along with his parents and any other relations. “British as fish and chips” for heavens sake man grow a pair!

        • I am curious how D Trump would select those for deportation – a third generation Slovak who looks a ‘bit funny’ , what about descendants of those early communists who arrived on the Mayflower ? George the 3rd God God Bless his Majesty made life too hot for them because they were plainly left wing, they say there was even an early feminist or two.

          • Mr. Harris,
            You may make light of this critical issue but your attempt at humor does not make it less important. Mr. Trump has clearly stated his policy regarding the immigration issue: First to go are the criminal illegals of which there are hundreds of thousands roaming our cities and resident in our jails. He has promised to enforce “E-verify” whereby illegal immigrants will find it much harder to obtain employment and those who do employ them will face very stiff penalties. He has also stated that illegal aliens will not be eligible for public benefits; that is free health care, enrollment in public schools or welfare programs such as SNAP, food stamps, etc. that are provided for the benefit of the native poor. It is difficult to put a number to the illegal population for obvious reasons, but it does seem that we are looking at the forced or self deportation of approximately 30 million individuals.
            The US has a very serious demographic problem, our population is changing quite rapidly from a white European society to a 3rd world society largely comprised of Central and South American natives. You may think this inconsequential, you would be wrong. Any society will became a reflection of it’s demography. Just as in Britain there is now a parallel islamic society existing beside the traditional liberal white society of the native English people. In the US there are cities where Latin majorities have re-created the typical Latin society where graft, nepotism, cronyism and what we Europeans regard as corruption have become normal, and be aware, these characteristics are regarded as perfectly normal and acceptable to the Latin mind, also to the African mind, of which population we have approximately 35 million.
            Further to your apparent belief that one’s place of birth defines one’s nationality; I won’t bother quoting the Duke of Wellington but refer you to two persons whom apparently you believe to be as Indian as Teekha Murg and the goddess Ardhanarishvara: Sir Cliff Richard and Wing Commander Guy Gibson VC.

      • One doesn’t become as British as fish n’ chips simply by the accident of birth. Being British has to be earned, just as does elsewhere. Even if I’d been born in Pakistan and spoke Urdu as my native tongue that wouldn’t make me dye-in-the-wool Pakistani, and the locals there would not be stupid enough to flatter me as such either, unless I became whatever the equivalent of Hiberniores hibernis ipsis is in Islamabad.

  6. Our esteemed editor says: “A couple of years ago Channel Four prepared a documentary critical of the accepted historical account of the origins of Islam. Due to thousands of complaints its TV screening was cancelled. One can be sure that a similar programme about Christianity would receive very different treatment.”
    …and then asks “Why” that is before giving a couple of answers (one correct, the other plausible) but without naming the really central one – which is that, today, Great Britain is Christian in name only, and indigenous Brits have little interest in protecting that religion – a situation which our esteemed editor seems to look favourably upon in any event. So (speaking from across the sea in an equally agnostic place) you have brought this upon yourselves. Nature abhors a vacuum and all that.

    • It’s not just nature that abhors a vacuum it seems.

      The editor may have missed it, but Christians will be aware that in the Gospels there is the account of the house swept and set in order.

      This is Christ’s reference to a person who has their discordant and self-indulgent life changed for one that is prepared for a life that is in every way the opposite. But only prepared. If this person doesn’t actually have the ‘spirit’ that motivates their conscience, will and affections to live that new life then things far more discordant will return to take up residence. Then the state of that person will be far worse than before.

      One doesn’t have to be a Christian to see the wider application of this parable. If Christianity (along with free speech) is swept from the public square, then other things will inevitably take their place. When a society is no longer animated by the spirit of Christianity it must become possessed by another.

  7. An additional driver of the liberal mentality is the sheer pleasure he experiences in showing that he can love the unlovable, a secular Christ. The fouler the deed the more deserving of his condescension is the doer. Let them murder, behead, rape and destroy, the liberal, wired up wrong, will see them as victims in proportion to the horror of their deeds and the natural and correct condemnation evoked from the rest of us.

    Real victims receive their support from decent people, which undermines their credibility with the liberal. He goes beyond their victimhood, all too obvious, too common, to the perpetrator’s. Indefensible, it is for the liberal the perpetrator who is of course most in need of defence, and only he, the liberal, good enough, selfless enough, brave enough, to provide it. In the end it is the genuinely insupportable that elicits the liberal’s deepest sympathies, providing him with proof that he is truly better than the rest of us.

  8. White guilt about what ? Slavery? Colonial exploitation? Muslims were at the heart of the SubSaharan slavery as middlemen. Muslims traded slaves, as did Africans, long before and long after the transAtlantic slave trade was abolished. There was no drive to abolish it in Islam, since Mohammed captured, owned and traded slaves including black slaves. Christianity abolished it.

    Imperialism? Islam spread through conquest and exploitation – the jizjah tax. The Ottoman Empire speaks for itself, as do the Muslim Empires elsewhere such as in the Indian sub Continent. The latter was responsible for reducing the population there by an estimated 8o millions.

    If the West feels guilty, it is because it betrayed its Christianity conscience and for no other reason.

    Those who want to traduce Christianity should reflect that the most glittering civilisation in history arose because of it. That includes its Enlightenment which was a function of the uniquely Christian faith in reason. (Note ‘faith’).

    In reality, Science has nothing to say about the truth or otherwise of religion, unless it is that the fine tuning of the Universe to promote life seems to indicate a guiding hand.The creation of Western Civilisation which is raising billions out of tyranny, hunger, ignorance and disease on the other hand can be seen as another indication.

    Liberals do not shred Chritianity, as asserted, although they try to. The Gospels have undergone far and away the most intense scholarly scrutiny of any ancient documents and have emerged pretty much unscathed.

    Those who would deny the miracles, for example, do so thanks to culturally determined intellectual horizons which deny the divine a priori. Even if one accepts that a God cannot operate outside the laws of nature, what exactly are these, given the uncertainties and mere probabilities of Copenhagen school quantum physics?

  9. Good article. The bien-pensant attitude is partly down to ‘white guilt’, but partly too that western thinkers have no locus standi any more. They have deconstructed rationality and the ability to discern truth or really know anything. What happens next? They get swayed by the first bunch of people who show a swaggering certainty, however idiotic and irrational its basis. It’s pure primate politics … pheramones. Like so many beta-male baboons, they are mesmerised by the Islamists’ threatening masculinity and they want to be on their side. And yes, it’s cowardice too. At school one got used to the equivocation of teachers confronted by bullies … their judicious readiness to ‘listen to both sides’, ‘sympathise’ with the bully’s ‘problems’, really meaning that they hadn’t the courage or energy to sort him out, sending him a signal that it was safe to carry right on. The liberal establishment’s bleatings about burkini bans and the iniquities of ‘Prevent’, etc etc, have precisely the same smell about them.