This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Friday, 13 March 2015

Anti-Muslim Racism?


Many Muslims don't like the legal fact that Sikhs and Jews are deemed to constitute distinct racial groups; though Muslims aren't.

The prime reason that Muslim activists and lawyers are unhappy with this situation is that they would like to turn the critics of Islam and Muslims (as Muslims – not as members of an ethnic group) into people who would treated as racists by the legal system.

TheCommission on British Muslims and Islamophobia (set up in 1997) saw this“anomaly” (as Muslim activists put it) this way:

It has been established through case law that members of two world faiths, Judaism and Sikhism, are fully protected under the Race Relations Act 1976, since they are considered to belong to distinct ethnic groups.”

This is clearly problematic for Muslims.

Thus the Commission immediately went on to say that that it is “a serious anomaly that no such protection exists for members of other faiths”.

This is the conundrum that Muslims find themselves in:

i) On the one hand, Muslims continuously stress the “universal nature of Islam” and the fact that “Muslims come from all races”. (Or, as the Commission itself put it: “Muslims (as also Christians) would emphatically not wish to be seen as belonging to a single ethnic group.”)
ii) Yet on the other hand, if Muslims were seen to constitute a single race, that would most certainly confer upon Muslims many legal - and therefore social and political - advantages. (Such as making Islam and Muslims beyond criticism - legally speaking.)
Some of these anomalies are precisely that – anomalies.

For example, the lawyer Nadeem Malik claims (in the book British Muslims between Assimilation and Segregation) that one tribunal stated that

Sikhs are geographically defined by originating from a particular place in India and that they are bound by their culture as well as their religion”.

So if that's true about Sikhs, then, according to Nadeem Malik, it's also true about Mirpuris from Kashmir. That is, the Mirpuris “have a particular language, geographic heritage, ancestral links, common culture and religious values”. It's also true “with regard to Pushtuns from Pakistan”. Yet, unlike Sikhs, “it has been found that Mirpuris from Kashmir are not a racial group”.

The illogicality of the argument here - especially from a lawyer - is blatant.

Only a tiny a minority of the world's Muslims come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan. (Not even all British Muslims come from these areas.) Sikhs, on the whole, can trace their heritage to specific parts of India. There will of course be a tiny number of Sikhs who won't be able to do so. Nonetheless, compared to the hundreds of millions of Muslims who don't come from Kashmir or the Pashtun-inhabited regions of Pakistan, the comparison completely breaks down – and Nadeem Malik must know that. The only argument Malik can uphold is that Mirpuris and Pashtuns constitute racial/ethnic groups and that they also happen to be Muslims. Though what has that to do with the legal status of all Muslims (asMuslims) in the UK?

The obvious answer to all this is to fully separate racial/ethnic groups from religious groups. Nonetheless, it seems that many Muslims - including Malik himself - aren't happy with that conclusion.


Because, as I said, Muslims would benefit enormously from being seen as a single racial group.

Of course this racialisation of Muslims is clearly ridiculous. (Isn't this what racists are supposed to be doing – racialisingMuslims?) Muslims themselves, when coming at this issue from the perspective of “Islamic universalism”, agree. Indeed the ridiculous nature of this racialisation of Muslims is noted by Malik himself – if only indirectly. He cites a finding of the House of Lords which

stated that a person could fall into a particular racial group by birth or by adopting and following the customs of the group”.

Yes; you read that correctly. If a white person were to become a Sikh, he would be deemed - by the Lords and the law generally - to have suddenly fallen under another racial group. And it seems that many Muslims would also want this to apply to white, brown, black, etc. Muslims too.

Tuesday, 10 March 2015

The Niqab & Burka: Islamist Uniforms


The niqab, burka and, to a lesser extent, the hijab are utterly symbolic items of dress. Despite what people think, even in the Arab world (as well as in Iran) the burka and niqab didn't start being widely worn until the late 1970s. In the UK itself, it's a very recent phenomenon. The burka and niqab only began to be worn in the late 1990s or early 2000s – and often much later than that.
The niqab is a symbol of Islamism and of self-conscious difference. It's a symbol of the Muslim woman's complete separation from non-Muslim society. In other words, the wearing of it is a political and religious statement.
In Islam, politics and religion are already fused. It can even be argued that all believing and practising Muslims are Islamists in the sense that Islam itself – not Islamism – happily fuses religion and politics and has done continuously since the time of Muhammed.
Women who wear the niqab most certainly fuse Islam with politics – with totalitarian politics.
Considering the blatantly political nature of the niqab, it's interesting to recall that Muslim women began to wear the niqab – mainly under Hamas direction – in the West Bank during the 2001 intifada. In addition, all the female candidates in the elections which brought Hamas to power in 2006 wore niqabs. As one would expect, the longer Hamas's harsh rule has continued, the more women have worn the niqab.
The strange thing (at least it may seem strange to some Western non-Muslims) is that the niqab is actually banned in some Muslim countries because they too recognise the political implications of allowing people to wear it. They realise that it is a statement of Islamist intent. Consequently, the niqab has been banned in Azerbaijan, Tunisia and Turkey (though often only when the Muslim woman is working as a public servant). In Syria, for example, 1200 niqab-wearing teachers were transferred to administrative duties in the summer of 2010. However, possibly under Islamist and Sunni pressure against the Shia-Alawite-Baathist regime, this position was apparently reversed when it was reported in April 2011 that teachers would again be allowed to wear the niqab.
Just as non-Islamist Muslim states ban the niqab, so Islamist and Wahhabi states legally enforce its wearing. This again stresses the political nature of the niqab.
For example, in Saudi Arabia women are required to wear the niqab; or at least they are so required in the main cities (e.g., Mecca, Medina and Taif).
In the case of Iran, the Shah (pre-1979) banned all Islamic dress or at least all head-coverings. The clerics, of course, were very much against this because they deemed it obligatory (in Islam) that women cover their hair and faces. Needless to say, after the 'Islamic Revolution' of 1979, the niqab came into fashion.
The Niqab & the Burka

Muslims will make the pedantic point that non-Muslims often mean niqab when they say 'burka'.
There is indeed a very small difference between the two. The burka is literally like a prison in which the Muslim woman is caged. You can't even see her eyes. With the niqab, on the other hand, Muslim men are kind enough to allow Muslim women to show their eyes (“the niqab liberates Muslim women”). In point of fact, however, one translation of the Arabic niqāb is actually 'mask'.
Another way of distinguishing the niqab from the burka is that Western Islamists tend to wear the niqab; whereas Muslims in tribal countries (such as Afghanistan) wear the burka. The other thing is that the burka is said, by Muslims, to cover the entire body; though this isn't true of the niqab. Yet those Muslims in the West who wear the niqab also wear a full Islamic uniform (what better way in there to describe it?) which similarly covers the entire body.
Islamic Justifications for Wearing the Niqab & Burka
Although I said that the wearing of the niqab is a new phenomenon in the West (as well as in most of the Muslim world), there are still lots of Koranic and Islamic backings for the covering of the hair and face; if not specifically for wearing the niqab or burka. So this doesn't mean that there wasn't “Islamic dress” before or that hair and faces weren't covered in Muslim countries. Again, the niqab is a very specific (indeed political) Islamic dress.
In the Hanafi (Sunni) and Hanbali (Sunni) schools it is obligatory (wajib) for a woman to cover her face and indeed her entire body. The Salafis (Sunni) also believe that a woman should cover her entire body other than her eyes and hands.
The Sunni Muslim position is fully understandable when you consider various Koranic and Islamic texts.
For example, the wives of Muhammad covered themselves when in the presence of other men.
Muslims also cite this passage in support of the hijab, burka and niqab:
"O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters, and the believing women, to draw their cloaks (veils) over their bodies. That will be better that they should be known (as respectable women) so as not to be annoyed."
Some Muslims, however, claim that the above doesn't say anything about covering the face itself. Nonetheless, there are tens of passages in the hadith which say precisely that.
For example, in Bukhari 6:60:282, Sunnan Abu Dawud, it reads:
"Narrated Aisha: The woman is to bring down her Jilbāb from over her head and [then place it] upon her face."
There's also this passage (1:1833):
"Narrated Aisha: ... each of us would lower her Jilbāb from her head over her face, and when they passed by we would uncover our faces."

Finally, Asma bint Abi Bakr (a “companion of the Prophet”) says:
"We are used to cover our faces from the men, and cut our hair before that in Ihrām [for Hajj]."


In terms of the political fuss that has been made about the niqab and burka (as well as their deeply political nature), it can safely be said that rather than Muslims not wanting the niqab or burka to be banned, this is precisely what they do want. Or, more correctly, through the wearing of these clothes, and the resulting political uproar, Muslims – or at least Islamists – can both assert their identity and challenge the secular state.

Take just one of many examples of this.

Sultaana Freeman, in 2003, sued the state of Florida for the right to wear a niqab for her driver's licence photo. She lost the case. Nonetheless, she gained the concession of making sure that the photographer was female. That was just one more victory for Islamism and possibly (depending on how you view the difference) for Islam itself.

Finally, even if the banning of niqab and burka does raise issues of freedom and personal rights, we still mustn't forget the utterly political nature of these garments. In fact they are the exact equivalents of swastika armbands or hammer-and-sickle badges.

Monday, 9 March 2015

Russell Howard (Public-school Mockney Millionaire) on the EDL & the Woolwich Killing


Someone posted a video of the comedian Russell Howard doing a sketch on the Woolwich killing of Lee Rigby back in May 2013. I decided to watch it. (See above.)

It actually turned out to be a sketch on the response of EDL supporters to the Woolwich killing, not on the killing itself. Indeed Russell Howard has done at least four other sketches on the English Defence League over the years. (I found fouron YouTube – so he might have done more.)

You'd think that a comedian like Russell Howard would have liked to have done some serious political satire on the subject of the attemptedbeheading of an unarmed person on the streets of London. (Say, about the dangers or religious -or even Islamic! - fundamentalism.) Not a bit of it. Instead his serious political satire only stretched to EDL members being thick (“they're so stupid!”), having low voices and working-class regional accents. (He also used an Photoshop image of an EDL banner to demonstrate his point.)

To stress the thickness of EDL members, Howard uses phrases such as “what a bunch of dicks” and “utter knobs”. He uses these phrases in order to convince the audience that he's an ordinary working-class geezer/lad. Yes, he's an ordinary working-class geezer/lad who was educated at a public school and who now has millions of pounds in the bank. In other words, Russell Howard uses these colloquial affectationsin order to show us that he's not an old-fashioned (“right-wing”/Daily Mail) snob. (That's also the reason why he tells journalists that he “still goes down the pub and plays football with [his] mates”.)

Russell Howard's Fusion of Mockney & Estuary English

I made exactly these points (without the biographical detail) about another sketch Russell Howard did on Tommy Robinson, the former leader of the EDL. (See this link: 'Russell Howard slags off the “thick” EDL'.)

Again, Russell Howard's sketch only really contained three jokes:

i)Tommy Robinson is thick.
ii) He has a low voice.
iii) He speaks with a working-class Luton accent.
On the subject of accents, I may as well quote my previous piece on Russell Howard. In that case, Mr Howard was having a go at an EDL guy with a northern working-class accent (as well as Tommy Robinson's Luton accent). I wrote:
....he also uses the now-famous 'Muslamic Ray Guns' video.... Apart from the fact that the EDL guy in the video is clearly drunk, very young, and maybe even a little nervous, what’s funny about a northern accent? It's a northern accent, Howard, you know, people Up ‘t’North speak that way. They don’t speak in the way they do in Leamington Spar, a BBC dinner party and certainly not at Bedford Modern private school. So stop being such snob against northerners and the white working class... But that’s OK nowadays, isn’t it?”

Basically, Russell Howard thinks that regional accents (though not his own counterfeit Mockney/Estuary English accent) and thickness go together.

Russell Howard himself has that fusion of Mockney and Estuary English which many Leftists (especially Trotskyists) affect in order to hide their middle-class backgrounds. This is also the accent that's so love by thousands of students.

Russell Howard was brought up in Bristol and the West Country until at least the age of 21; when he graduated form the University of the West of England with a degree in economics. (He's certainly become a good businessman.) So where the hell did he get his Mockney-Estuary English accent from? Is he doing what so many other posh Leftists do: fake their accents?

In Bradford, for example, I noted that virtually all Socialist Workers[sic] Party members (as well as revolutionaries generally) quite literally had the same accent. It was as if they all came from exactly the same place. But of course they didn't have a “posh”south-eastern English accent. They all spoke with Russell Howard's fusion of Estuary English and Mockney. (At least Russell Brand was brought up in Grays; which is 20 miles east of London.)

Lord Alexander Theodore Callinicos and Sir Charles Nicholas Kimber, of the SWP Central Committee, also have this accent. (They're both the descendants of 19th-century Lords.) The accent can also be heard from the mouths of the many Leftist lawyers (who earn up to£700,000 or more a year) who utiliseit for dramatic, political and hoodwinking purposes. (Interestingly enough, Eton Tories are keen on the glottal stop too.)

(Since Russell Howard is a comedian, he'll like this Alan Partridge interview – or spoof – in which he talks to a public-school Leftist lawyer. Partridge asks him: “Why do you affect a cockney accent when you went to Harrow?”)

Leftist Snobbery

You may be forgiven for thinking that all this is good old-fashioned snobbery. (Basically, Daily Mail stuff.) But, of course, Russell Howard will claim that it's not typical snobbery towards the (white) working class as a whole – only against the EDL and “far right” generally.

Yet Russell Howard, Gary Fieness Hastings'sEDL News ( see'The Unbearable Snobbery of EDL News') and the middle-class“anti-fash” generally focus on such things as lager-drinking, (bad) tattoos and bad spelling; which are hardly the sole domain of the “far right”.

Is Russell Howard really working class? I don't know. According to the Daily Mirror andThe Independent, Russell Howard earned £4 million in only two years. He was also educated at Bedford Modern School; which is an “independent [private] school”(i.e., you must pay fees). He then went on to study at the University of the West of England. His partner is a doctor and he now lives in Leamington Spa; where he drives a BMW Z4.

I wouldn't ordinarily mention a rich-man's credentials; though because Leftists are notoriously envious and bitter about other people's wealth; I've done so here.

On the subject of Russell Howard and Leamington Spar, I'll let anotherblogger (Defend the Modern World) himself speak on that subject:

"He ridicules those native people living in Islamised areas from one of the most prosperous and monocultural regions in the European Union. Leamington Spa is an extremely white, totally non-urban, totally safe, totally middle-class enclave.”

Compare that to the situation experienced by many of the EDL supporters Russell Howard turns his nose up at:

"When the EDL return home after a march, they often go back to war-torn urban sprawls, divided by religion, economics and race. After a stand-up show ridiculing the EDL in London, Howard goes home to a region of serene peace and social harmony. His bedroom window looks out onto a picture of unenriched olde England; a wonderland most working class families cannot afford."
Interestingly, Russell Howard does move on (after being snooty about the EDL) in order to make jokes about how posh David Cameron is. Perhaps Mr Howard is pissed off because he went to what people call a “lesser public school”. However, it's also my bet that David Cameron earns a hell of a lot less than Russell Howard.

Despite saying all that, I still think that Russell Howard's an Ordinary Geezer; though one with a very fine Mockney accent.

Inside the (Far) Leftist's Mind


Love Humanity but hate people.”

A Leftist will tell you that his/her dogmatism and totalitarianism (though of course he won’t use those words), as well as his policies and actions (e.g., the “no platform” policy, violence, etc.), are vital because his very many enemies and as well as Das[capitalist] System itself are so all-embracing, omnipresent and evil that such dogmatism and violence are required. Accordingly the ends justify all manner of violent, cynical and unscrupulous means.
Martin Smith: former leader of the SWP & Unite Against Fascism

That’s why many Leftists use violence (from the small- to the large-scale), foam at the mouth and shout a lot. It expresses their foaming minds.

Psychologically speaking, it’s often the case that, as Bertrand Russell put it, "fanaticism is a camouflage for cruelty" and that "fanatics are seldom genuinely humane".

Again, just look into the face of your average Leftist and ask yourself this:

Is his heart bleeding for the poor and oppressed? Or is he simply foaming at the mouth about his enemies and because he desirous of their annihilation?

Think of the eroticised nature of so much “anti-Zionist” action and rhetoric (along with anti-Israel monomania). Therefore hate (for“Zionists”, “neo-liberals”, Nazifascistbigots!,“bankers”, “corporate bosses”, “Nazis”, “fascists”,“racists”, etc. ad infinitum) and not love (for the oppressed, the Palestinians, etc.) is the prime emotion of the zealous Leftist. He finds the hatred “of enemies easier and more intense than love of friends”, as Bertrand Russell (once again) put it.

Then there's the pure moral outrage of the righteous Left .

That’s another reason why so many Leftists foam at the mouth and why they accuse their very many enemies of being ‘racists’ (as well as being ‘fascists’,‘fascist racists’, ‘racist racists’, ‘bigoted racists’, "racist bigots' and Nazifascistbigots!). They have the Truth and everyone else simply opposes the Truth. That Truth, in this case, wasn’t written by Mohammed, it was written by, say Chomsky, Marx, Lenin, or whoever. It’s just as firmly held by these Leftist puritans as it is by the straightforwardly religious.

Look into the face of those zealous little Leftists. The faces of puritan outrage against all those who dare fall outside their "tribe of independent minds". Leftists have the Truth in its purest form. Hence the facial contortions which are manifested during speeches and demonstrations. Their hate is pure and unadulterated.

And just as radical Muslims see the world in terms of a Manichean battle between the kuffar (evil) and Muslims (good), so too do many Leftists (good) believe that they're involved in a war against capitalism (evil). Consequently, just as militant Muslims say that all our problems will be solved when the entire world "belongs to Allah"; so Leftists believe that a pure and ubiquitous “socialism” (or even just a plain revolution) will solve all our problems.