Terror suspects — the root of the problem, by Nick Griffin

[Nick Griffin looks at the connection between Islam and terrorism.]

By Nick Griffin, 1 March 2005

The terror charges levelled at Gloucester Muslim Sajid Badat have yet again provoked a flurry of liberal media speculation about what it is that leads ‘respectable’ and well-educated youngsters into positions where they end up accused of plotting to blow civilian airliners out of the sky.

When the culprits in such evil plots are obviously ‘disadvantaged’ semi-morons such as shoe-bomber Richard Reid, the multi-culturalists can blame poverty, ignorance and society in general (it’s OUR fault — geddit?!) But many of those accused of Islamic terror plots and murders — such as Badat, or Mohammed B, the well brought-up 26-year-old ‘Dutchman’ charged with the butchery of Theo van Gogh — are essentially middle class and had the choice of becoming model citizens of the Western consumerist secular societies which reared them. The liberal are at a loss to understand what is going on in such cases.

This confusion is increased when ‘moderate’ Muslims are presented on TV shaking their heads in bewilderment and claiming that they have no idea what caused such fine upstanding young men to slip into the murky world of terrorist hatred and alleged plots to main and murder.

Things are not made any clearer when Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke insists on railroading through parliament the most illiberal Bill in living memory, claiming that the draconian new powers contained within it are needed to give him the power to combat this same terrorist threat that appears to be so inexplicable. If the Home Secretary, with all those intelligence briefings at his disposal, doesn’t know what is at the root of this terrorist compulsion, that what hope do the rest of us have? That’s the message coming from most of the media.

Elephant in the living room

So allow me to point to the bloody great green elephant crapping in our living room. The common denominator between the perpetrators of the terror attacks that have traumatised the West since 9/11, and those accused of plots which didn’t quite come off, is not poverty, not immigrant status, and not bad schooling. It is Islam.

Not some strange, eccentric and utterly fringy version of it (analogous to the utterly marginal Christian Identity sect which has been involved in the occasional spasm of violence by alienated American whites) but the thing at the very heart of Islam — the Koran.

All the bewildered head-shaking and ritual condemnations of violence by ‘moderate’ Muslim leaders cannot get around this point. The only thing that can is for them to explain to us — and the young ‘extremists’ — how the verses in the Koran and the Haddiths which provide prima facie evidence of incitement to hatred, terrorism, religious imperialist aggression and the murder of Unbelievers and lapsed Muslims alike, do not really mean what they say.

That lying, murdering creep Anthony Charles Linton Bliar and the ever so peaceful Koran he claims to read most nights (to be fair, faced with the prospect of a night next to Mrs. Pillarbox Mouth, I’d be tempted to bury my head in a book as well). Let me give just a few examples:


“O you who believe, fight those of the Unbelievers who are near to you and let them see how harsh you can be. Know that Allah is with the righteous.” Surah 9.123

“The worst beasts in the Sight of Allah are those who disbelieve, because they will never believe.” Surah 8.55

“O Prophet, urge the believers to fight. If there are twenty steadfast men among you, they will defeat two hundred; and if there are a hundred, they will defeat a thousand of the unbelievers, because they are a people who do not understand.” Surah 8.65

“Fight those among the peoples of the book (i.e. Christians and Jews) who do not believe in Allah and the Last Day, do not forbid what Allah and His Messenger have forbidden (i.e., inter alia, pork and alcohol, two of the foundation blocks of our indigenous European culture and identity) and do not profess the true religion, till they pay the poll tax out of hand and submissively.” Surah 9.29

“So do not obey the unbelievers and strive against them with it (The Koran) mightily.” Surah 25.52

“O believers, what is the matter with you? If you are told: ‘March forth in the Way of Allah, you simply cling heavily to the ground. Are you satisfied with the present life rather than the Hereafter? Yet the pleasures of the present life are very small compared with those of the Hereafter….If you do not march forth, He will inflict a very painful punishment on you.” Surah 9.38-39

“And there were in the city nine individuals, who worked corruption in the land and did not set things right….They schemed a scheme and We schemed a scheme, while they were unaware. See, then, what was the outcome of their scheming: We destroyed them together with all their people. Their houses are in ruins, on account of their wrongdoing. There is in that a sign for a people who know.” Surah 27. 48-52

‘Justification’ for terror

This is the classic section used to justify WMD terror attacks. And every single one of those ‘moderate’ Muslims who claim that Islam does not permit terrorism against ‘innocent’ targets knows that they are lying. A whole city destroyed on account of nine individuals. OK, so Bush and Blair flattened dozens of Iraqi cities on account of Saddam Hussein, but two wrongs do not make a right. There can be no accommodation between Western values and Islam until the followers of Muhammad reform their religion by removing these verses and the justification for terrorism that they provide.

In writing this, I do not seek to blame Muslims for the brutality and aggression at the heart of their faith. It is the religion that is — by our standards — wicked, not the people who imbibe it with their mothers’ milk. Many of them believe implicitly in a Faith which, in their own societies and in their own countries curbs many evils (usury, theft, abortion, etc). In seeking to spread it to the West they no doubt believe that they are doing something which, in the end, will benefit all Mankind.

The people I blame are the politicians — including Michael Howard, with his sick-making “Islamic values are Conservative values” drivel — who pretend that Islamic values are compatible with those of either the Christian or the secular West.

The choice

They are not. You can have Islam or Christianity, but not both. You can have Islam or democracy, but not both. You can have Islam or equal treatment of women, but not both. You can have Islam and freedom of speech, but not both. You can have Islam or animal welfare, but not both. You can have Islam and free scientific inquiry, but not both. You can have Islam or peace, but not both. You can have Islam or freedom, but not both.

There are, at last, signs that many people are waking up to this fact, and to the choice that we will shortly be compelled to make. The latest sign came in a major report on the situation in the strife-torn Netherlands in the Sunday Times (27/2/05).

But having examined the growing crisis caused by the total collapse of the multi-cultural experiment in Holland, the Sunday Times went even further, making the connection between the Islamic question and continued mass immigration into Britain. Here is just one example:

“Public cynicism on figures seems well founded. The Home Office puts the number of Somali ‘principal applicants’ at 18,050 in the three years to 2003, making them the largest national group applying for asylum. The figure applies to the individual making the application, usually the head of the family.

It gives little indication of the real numbers of Somalis entering Britain.

Not giving totals and age groups breeds speculation. If the average Somali woman has 6.9 children, and the British 1.66, which they do, does that not mean that the wives of the 18,000 applicants will produce 124,000 children? And if gross domestic product per capita in Somalia is $500 (£265), and in Britain $27,700 (£14,700), which they are, isn’t the whole of Somalia going to arrive at Dover? Neither scenario is remotely likely, but lack of openness makes for dark interpretations.”

Serious debate needed

Indeed it does. And the impact of just 18,000 Somali women (assuming that each Muslim Somali only brings one wife over) in just a single generation shows just how quickly the whole problem will spiral out of all possibility of control within just a couple of decades unless the nettle is grasped now, and a serious and adult debate initiated about how to avoid catastrophe and the Death of the West.

I am aware that some nationalists, still busy fighting old battles against old foes, think that the BNP’s emphasis on the danger of the Islamification of Europe is excessive. How blind can people be? This is already the central issue of our Age, and we are only in the early stages of the whole affair.

Before it is through, whatever decisions the peoples of the West reach about all sorts of other non-European immigrants, they will have to face up to the fact that a large and growing Muslim population will inevitably lead to a clash of values that can only end in a continent-wide civil war.

With all the others, integration is a possibility (though, given the implications in terms of the obliteration of the true cultural and ethnic diversity of Mankind, we in the BNP do not regard it as desirable).

With the followers of Allah there is a much more limited choice of only three possible outcomes: 1) We surrender; 2) they renounce whole sections of their religion and cut their rate of population increase to match ours; or 3) they must leave our continent and we must leave theirs.

If the NuLab totalitarian fantasists want to put me on trial for saying such things, then so be it. Whether under their old anti-free speech Race Laws or their proposed new anti-free speech Islamophobia laws I really don’t mind. Let’s have all this out in the glare of a high-profile political Show Trial.

But they’d better be quick, because if they leave it too much longer the self-evident justice, truth and human decency of our position will mean that no ‘Unbeliever’ jury in the land will convict anyone accused of ‘Islamophobia. That word, you see, means “irrational fear of Islam”. Yet, as the Kornaic quotes above, and the antics of those inspired by them, indicate, there is nothing irrational about fearing Islam. It’s a menace to all we in the West hold dear, and the time when anyone can pretend otherwise is almost at an end.

Rare praise for BBC programme

P.S. Congratulations, just for once, to the BBC on the superb fictionalised account of the Miners’ Strike, Faith, shown last night. Of course, as one would expect from leftists, the producers glossed over the central tragedy of the strike — that the Marxist demagogue Arthur Scargill refused to hold the ballot which would have legitimised the strike and brought most of the Nottinghamshire miners out on strike as well.

But the account of the calculated police brutality and the utter cynicism with which Thatcher and her minions went about breaking the desperate and legitimate attempt to save Britain’s coal industry — including the use of agents provocateurs to kick off the violence and mayhem which did so much damage to the miners’ cause – was both powerful and accurate. Anyone who was ever in two minds about who was right and who was wrong in the Miners’ Strike needed only to read the final frames:

At the time of the strike, there were more than 191,000 coal miners in Britain. Now there are a mere 5,000, working in just eight pits. In a world where oil production has peaked but where demand for oil is still soaring, in an island which is still “built on coal”, there are more coal mining museums than there are coal mines. Scargill was right when he insisted that the Tories’ aim was to close down Britain’s coal industry. And, with the help of Blair’s New Tories, and in pursuit of the same unspeakable globalist/Euro-federalist fantasy, that is precisely what has happened. Bastards!

Originally published on the website of the British National Party.

Speak Your Mind