MPACUK recently asked Muslims to send a message of support to David Cameron after he spent two days with a Muslim family. An unheard of act by any high profile politician!

Some ignorant Muslims complained it was a “PR Stunt”, what these political un-savvy Muslims failed to realise is that over the last few years, most politicians did PR stunts by locking us up without trial, or creating ever more fear about us in their public statements!

Here a non Muslim politician does something to reach out to us, and we all act like a bunch of stuck up incompetents.

Well not for the Zionists such a stand offish approach, they are the first to cosy up to politicians and lobby them, get them “on-side”.

And those that don’t fall into line, they smear, attack and destroy. Chief rabid pit bull of the extreme right wing Zionists within Britain is Melanie mad dog Phillips, a Muslim hater and a Jewish extremist. She has started the first round of attacks on Cameron in her article pasted below.

If Muslims don’t wake up, and appreciate when a politician does something positive for us, then we may as well give up any influence at all at carry on being the victims of our enemies political clout. It would have been logical that Muslim leaders around the UK, thank him and organise in defence of him, asking that of our current crop of backward leaders is asking illiterates to write.

Its time Muslims give credit where credit is due. Cameron deserves our support, and he does not deserve to be abandoned by us and attacked by Zionist bigots, while we stand and watch, moaning and groaning about “PR” stunts while our enemies ensure he never does anything for the Muslims again having been burnt once too often.

If you want him to realise we appreciate him then email him and say thank you (if not don’t worry, the Zionists will also be doing it, from within the party and from outside whether it was a PR stunt or not). camerond@parliament.uk

Mad Mel Attacks David Cameron

May 13, 2007

The Tory leader David Cameron says in today’s Observer, after his stunt
spending two days with a Muslim family in Birmingham, that the term
‘Islamic’ or ‘Islamist’ terrorism is a form of ‘racism or soft bigotry’
and that those who employ such terms help do the terrorist ideologues’
work for them, confirming to many impressionable young Muslim men that
to be a ‘good Muslim’, you have to support their evil campaign.

I have to say I can’t quite follow the precise logic here, but I get
the general drift. On Planet Cameron, the phrases ‘Islamic’ or
‘Islamist’ terrorism are to be expunged from the lexicon. I wonder
therefore whether Cameron would denounce the British Muslim Ed Husain
for ‘soft bigotry’ over his book ‘The Islamist’?

I have already commented here on Husain’s courage, based on the
extracts from his book which were published in the press. I have now
read the book itself, and the extracts don’t convey half its power. In
286 simply devastating pages, it tells you all you need to know about
why British Muslims are being radicalised, how it is being done — and
the lethal stupidity of those who squawk that it is all because of Iraq
or Islamophobia, or that to talk about Islamist terrorism is ‘soft
bigotry’.

Husain describes how as a child he was brought up in a tradition of
pacific, spiritual Islam. He describes how, despite enduring episodes
of racial prejudice, he was accepted and nurtured by Britain and loved
it as his country. The story of how he then became radicalised to the
jihad is eye-opening. He was first introduced to Islamism — the belief
that Islam ordains taking political control of a country, an idea that
was previously unknown to him — by the non-Muslim religious education
teacher at Stepney Green school, who in an act of well-meaning but
desperate ignorance gave him a book about Islam which was written by an
Islamist radical. [The one by Ghulam Sarwar!!]

He describes the takeover of the East London mosque by the radicals of
Jamaat-e-Islami, the intimidation that took place at Tower Hamlets
college which gave in to Islamist demands for special treatment, and
his introduction to Hizb ut Tahrir by a Muslim convert called David,
with Bosnia being the key issue that called them to jihad.

It is his description of HuT, the power and influence it wields on
campus and its recruitment of untold thousands of young British Muslims
to holy war, which should sound the loudest of alarm bells. For the
British government refuses to ban HuT (which is proscribed in many
countries) on the grounds that it is not connected to violence. Yet
Husain, who during the 1990s became the HuT leader at Tower Hamlets
college, shows in terrifying detail just what a deadly delusion that is
and what lethal damage it has done.

He describes how HuT, whose appeal lies in its combination of
intellectualism and charisma, flattened Muslim opposition and
radicalised one hitherto moderate Muslim organisation after another. As
Husain describes it, HuT appears to have been the most significant
force behind the radicalisation of countless young British Muslims, who
were sent to university to get an education but returned as
fully-fledged jihadi zealots.

HuT manipulated Muslim grievance and resentment to boiling point by
cynically blaming every Muslim problem, from terrorism to poor
community relations, on British foreign policy — a piece of
manipulation which has been swallowed and regurgitated in turn by the
credulous British media and intelligentsia. It was the media which
swelled HuT’s recruitment by giving them huge and uncritical publicity.
But what HuT was doing was inciting Muslims to violent revolution. It
was Hut which recruited Britain’s first suicide bomber, Asif Hanif, who
blew up Mike’s Place bar in Tel Aviv in 2003 and who had attended HuT
meetings when a maths undergraduate at King’s College London. Husain
observes:

What is beyond doubt is that he was introduced to radical ideas by the
Hizb as an undergraduate and later developed those ideas to the point
where he planned to die for Hamas.

Husain records how dumbfounded he was that HuT was never stopped by the
college authorities. But the official line has always been that HuT was
never associated with violence. Over and over again, Husain demolishes
this myth, only to record despairingly how HuT still has not been
banned despite the fact that its incitement to violence goes on, with
calls upon God to ‘destroy the kuffar’, threats to kill future Muslim
leaders who oppose the coming caliph, or the statement by a prominent
HuT member that ‘some people in Britain should be bombing Washington
DC’.

In response to the devastating picture of it that is painted by this
book, HuT last week issued a statement distancing itself from its
activities under the leadership of Omar Bakri Mohamed, the period about
which Husain chiefly writes, and claiming to be involved in
‘constructive engagement’ with British political life. But we learn
from Husain’s book that one of HuT’s main weapons is systematic
deception. It trains its members to deny the truth, using the religious
justification for deceiving the enemies of Islam. When its activities
led to the appalling murder of a Nigerian Christian student in Tower
Hamlets college, HuT put out press releases stating falsely that it had
never operated on the campus.

…the Hizb leadership issued a condemnation of what had happened, saying
it was a non-violent party. This myth was swallowed by investigators
who never really understood the seriousness of the Hizb’s form of
violence. Even today, a primary reason for western failure in the War
on Terror is this same cause: an innate inability to understand the
Islamist psyche.

Husain asks himself whether HuT has really moderated itself as it
claims. He concludes that it is trying to appear moderate in order to
gain acceptance within a Muslim community now under enormous pressure
to sideline extremists — because, chillingly,

Britain remains vital to the Hizb, for it gives the group access to the
global media and provides a fertile recruiting ground at mosques and
universities.

Husain records how his eyes were progressively opened to HuT’s violence
and lack of spirituality. Tellingly, and frankly, he records how
difficult it was for him truly to renounce Islamism because, even after
he thought he had left it all behind him, he still had assumptions that
he thought were normal and therefore moderate but which were actually
anything but.

Particularly interesting to those who have long identified the
supposedly moderate Muslim Council of Britain as a nest of Islamists is
his account of how Inayat Bunglawala, the MCB’s political officer, took
him to meetings of the Islamic Society of Britain, which was anything
but moderate and whose teachers were Hamas and Brotherhood ideologues
who imparted a deep and powerful hatred of Israel and the Jews.

Neither Inayat nor myself questioned any of this. Jew-bashing was an
acceptable part of the Islamist curriculum, though not necessarily
accepted throughout the ISB.

And every week, says Husain, Bunglawala took him to such sessions of

…Koran recitation, religious discussion, antisemitism and good food.

We may draw three principal lessons from this book. 1) The recruitment
to Islamist extremism and terror of large numbers of British Muslims
long predated 9/11 let alone Iraq. 2) The British political and media
class is criminally negligent and worse in their appeasement and
indulgence of HuT and Islamist extremism. Those politicians who refuse
to ban it and those newspapers and broadcasters which promote HuT and
its ilk have blood on their hands. Those like David Cameron or the
British police who refuse to use the term ‘Islamist terrorism’ are
doing far more than merely sanitising the language; they are actively
conniving in the lie that enables this horror to replicate itself.

And 3), Husain shows that Islam and Islamism are two different things:
that it is perfectly possible to be a Muslim who derives spiritual
solace from the faith in a way that threatens no-one — and that it is
essential to distinguish such Muslims from Islamists and protect the
former, along with all of us, from the latter. Muslims like Husain need
our support, encouragement and protection. David Cameron’s words
instead take the ground from under his feet. ‘The Islamist’ should be
sent to every politician at Westminster, put on the desk of every
counter-intelligence officer and thrust under the supercilious nose of
every journalist who maunders on about ‘Islamophobia’ and the alleged
right-wing conspiracy that identifies Islamist terrorism solely to
promote bigotry and sow needless fears to sanitise the crimes of the
evil Bush and Blair.

If you want to know why the civilised world is losing the battle against the Islamists, read this book.

source: http://forum.mpacuk.org/showthread.php?p=350395#post350395

---