Hot Air » Blog Archive » Time Out London heralds the dawn of the Islamic British utopia

Time Out London heralds the dawn of the Islamic British utopia

posted at 2:45 pm on June 7, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Like Charles says, you have to read it to believe it. It’s a whitewash for the ages, beginning with a sneering dismissal of right-wing worries about a “society where women are second-class citizens, same sex relationships a crime and Sharia law enforces terrible public disfigurement and death” and segueing into section by section hosannas to the genius of Islamic civilization. From the prostration during prayers, which keeps the joints supple, to the health benefits of banning alcohol and enforcing halal dietary laws to the “revolutionary effect” it would have on education and self-discipline if schools had a little more of a madrassa vibe to them, we’re in for a golden age, kids. Through it all, two themes recur: the author’s blithe insistence that any failings in the Islamic world are due to “social factors,” not religion, and the contempt he shows for his own culture, most notably in his description of eating habits and the genuinely astonishing assertion that London on balance will become “a little less cruel” thanks to the compulsory donations to charity. As for the section on inter-faith relations and “the guiding hand of Islam,” the less said, the better.

I do like how he regards concerns about this scenario as being exclusively the province of the right-wing, though. Too true, my friends, too true.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Eloi.

ahem on June 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

One has to wonder if the people who write this kind of stuff actually believe it or if they’re just playing word games.

Farmer_Joe on June 7, 2007 at 2:50 PM

What could I say that Martin Amis hasn’t said first?

The most depressing thing was the sight of middle-class white demonstrators, last August, waddling around under placards saying, We Are All Hizbollah Now. Well, make the most of being Hizbollah while you can. As its leader, Hasan Nasrallah, famously advised the West: “We don’t want anything from you. We just want to eliminate you.” Similarly, when I went on Question Time the other week, a woman in the audience, her voice quavering with self-righteousness, presented the following argument: since it was America that supported Osama bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians, the US armed forces, in response to September 11, “should be dropping bombs on themselves!” And the audience applauded. It is quite an achievement. People of liberal sympathies, stupefied by relativism, have become the apologists for a creedal wave that is racist, misogynist, homophobic, imperialist, and genocidal. To put it another way, they are up the arse of those that want them dead.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 7, 2007 at 2:52 PM

any failings in the Islamic world are due to “social factors,” not religion

…and we all know how cultures discard all “social factors” at the border, right?

calbear on June 7, 2007 at 2:57 PM

As Mark Steyn says, myself being a social conservative will be just fine. Grow a little beard, dress in an Islamic robe, keep a low profile and I’ll probably get by. Its the gays and the feminists who are going to have a tougher time.

Zetterson on June 7, 2007 at 2:58 PM

Well, the Utopian promise of Marxism has kinda bitten the dust and these types have to have something to cling to…

elgeneralisimo on June 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM

Interesting take on religious tolerance.

Inter-faith relations
In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. Hindus and Sikhs manage to live alongside a large Muslim population in India, so why not here? Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London.

Hmmm…sounds familiar.

Kid from Brooklyn on June 7, 2007 at 2:59 PM

To be perfectly fair, British food could use some improvement.

Other than the requisite fish and chips, of course.

James on June 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM

What did you expect from people who are only motivated by a desire for instant gratification and focus on feel good emotions? No logic, forethought or care for the consequences.

Sadly enough, they won’t know how good they had it untill they are being killed by their “utopian benafactors:

Wyrd on June 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM

By the way, I must say that the comments to the article are quite astute, and this one at least made me laugh:

The ignorance of the writers of this article is breathtaking. If the first few paras are a hysterical right-wing nightmare, what followed can only be described as a drug-fuelled hallucination.

calbear on June 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM

O. M. F. G.

Under Islam all ethnicities are equal. Once you have submitted to Allah you are a Muslim – it doesn’t matter what colour you are. End of story.

I don’t think I’ve ever read anything with less self-awareness.

The authoer does make a good point - totalitarianism would be much easier without all those pesky freedoms and liberties to mess everything up. At least the trains would run on time, right?

Tosser.

Enrique on June 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Inter-faith relations
In an Islamic London, Christians and Jews – with their allegiance to the Bible and the Talmud – would be protected as ‘peoples of the book’. — From the article Is “London’s future Islamic?”

Christians would be protected as “peoples of the Book” hun ? Maybe we should as the Christian being slaughtered by Islamics in Darfur how that is going for them.

Maxx on June 7, 2007 at 3:06 PM

You have to ask yourself, what is it that attracts Libs to Islam and totalitarianism in general, and repeals them from things like Christianity. What unifying force draws these groups, who seemingly have very different aims, together?

TheBigOldDog on June 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM

To each his own. I’ll keep my BBQ’ed spare ribs and my .30-30, but thanks anyway.

RedWinged Blackbird on June 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM

On the bright side, click on over and scan the reader reactions. Conservative and “progressive” bullsh!te detectors alike have been set off by this one.

“How about if I send my kids to Catholic school and we kneel during Mass? Is that a good thing?”

“F@#k no, you f&#*ing Nazi fascist bigot! You deserve to be on your g&#*$damn knees.”

saint kansas on June 7, 2007 at 3:08 PM

What unifying force draws these groups, who seemingly have very different aims, together?

TheBigOldDog on June 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM

….’I'm Ok, You’re OK’

Limerick on June 7, 2007 at 3:09 PM

The negative reaction to the article on their page, though, is heartening. Not everyone there’s ready to surrender to Islam just yet.

The Colossus on June 7, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Yes, indeed. The reader comments are mildly reassuring.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 7, 2007 at 3:19 PM

What unifying force draws these groups, who seemingly have very different aims, together?

Liberals envision a world free of governments and borders - a utopia where everyone lives in peace and harmony and drinks Coke. Islamists envision the same utopia, but with burqas, a caliph and no Coke.

RedWinged Blackbird on June 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

So is this supposed “conversion” of everyone to Islam supposed to be something voluntary? Or are they just accepting the foregone conclusion that Sharia rule will be brought by the sword?

Imagine someone writing this same article arguing for everyone in London to become born again Christians and listen for the screaming of “Fascism!” from everyone on the planet. I think I hear crickets chirping from everyone except HA and LGF.

acleaver on June 7, 2007 at 3:22 PM

So how much, exactly, is the jizyah in Pounds Sterling?

BohicaTwentyTwo on June 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Compassionate?

No…

Slavery?

Yup, even into the mid-19th Century.

Prophet of Doom

Tim Burton on June 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

You have to ask yourself, what is it that attracts Libs to Islam and totalitarianism in general, and repeals them from things like Christianity.

Honestly? My guess is this: You know when Silky Pony’s Amanda Marcotte was defending her anti-Catholic rants by saying, “You criticize what you know?” I think libs are so afraid of being associated personally to anything flawed in their own backgrounds (capitalism, Christianity, America) that they flee and attach themselves to The Other, with the caveat that it just hasn’t worked “yet.” I.e., Communism is great in theory, it just hasn’t worked yet.

Doesn’t Islam have its flaws too? Sure, but as non-Muslims, they bear no personal responsibilities for those flaws; they’re on board with Islam Done Right (see article above). Your ego is stroked on both sides: you reject everything wrong with your own culture and open-mindedly embrace what’s good in all others. Great for you, crappy for reality.

saint kansas on June 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

Liberals envision a world free of governments and borders - a utopia where everyone lives in peace and harmony and ~~drinks Coke~~ smokes weed. Islamists envision the same utopia, but with burqas, a caliph and no ~~Coke~~ pork.

RedWinged Blackbird on June 7, 2007 at 3:20 PM

Tim Burton on June 7, 2007 at 3:24 PM

The most common boy name is Muslim in England. Nothing to see here…what…run away…run away!!!!!

tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:30 PM

One begins to wonder whether many on the Left are considering a kind of soft conversion to Islam as a way of avoiding the obvious necessity of having to fight it.

I had this same thought when listening to Hitchens recent debate with that “anti-war” idiot. The softening-up to Islam within the Left has to be motivated by, and leading up to, something. And so far, we know that they’ll go to any lengths to remain in denial about the nature of the war and the enemy. Perhaps some surprising conversions are on the horizon…

Halley on June 7, 2007 at 3:31 PM

Slavery?

Yup, even into the mid-19th Century.

Try 21st Century. From UAE to Mauritania, the places where slavery persist tend to be Islamic countries.

By the way, the quote

Under Islam all ethnicities are equal. Once you have submitted to Allah you are a Muslim – it doesn’t matter what colour you are. End of story.

has been getting the most play here, and there’s a ring of some truth to it, ignoring that the all-important “once.” However, practically speaking, it’s a lie exposed by interracial (see Iran) and interdenominational (see Iraq) strife. Also, isn’t there an explicit word for “non-Arab Muslim” that accords them second-class citizenship in some places? I suppose that’s a part of the “social factors,” that are presumably left behind as soon as any Muslim steps from Asia into Europe.

calbear on June 7, 2007 at 3:35 PM

wow…looking at all the violence in the middle east that statement is shockingly stupid. You are a target if you don’t subscribe to sharia.

tomas on June 7, 2007 at 3:40 PM

You have to ask yourself, what is it that attracts Libs to Islam and totalitarianism in general, and repeals them from things like Christianity. What unifying force draws these groups, who seemingly have very different aims, together?

TheBigOldDog on June 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM

That’s a question I’ve often pondered. I think its their lust for power, their greed and contempt for people in general. They believe when totalitarianism comes, that they are smart enough and pliant enough to be within the ruling class and not part of the enslaved masses. And of course their hatred of Christianity stems from their desires to do what they wish without any form of constraint.

I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one’s actions has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others. … People like me want to … satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are all there only for me. … People like me only have a duty to ourselves; we have no duty to other people.

Chairman Mao

And if you look here, you will find a liberal that’s trying to secure his position within any ruling communist class that might be on the horizon.

Maxx on June 7, 2007 at 3:46 PM

But Tahir Alam, education spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, claims Muslim children do better in their own faith schools than in the mainstream state sector: ‘Muslim schools have their own distinct ethos. They use the children’s faith and heritage as primary motivators to provide the backdrop for their education and behaviour. This ethos is consistent with the messages that children are getting at home, so it is a very coherent operation between the home and the school.’

You better memorize the Koran or we’ll beat you?

memorization by rote does not make a critical thinker, the new 5 W’s are: what, where, how, who, and praise allah?

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on June 7, 2007 at 3:54 PM

It’s good to see there is something we can still agree on. With all the BDS going on around here I thought you guys would start waxing on about “Bush would never have been elected if we lived under Sharia” or “Islam repects the rule of (Sharia) law and the imortance of enforcing the borders against the infidel tribes, sons and daugters of pigs and monkeys”.

Max Power on June 7, 2007 at 4:04 PM

Isn’t this the whole key?

Under Islam all ethnicities are equal. Once you have submitted to Allah you are a Muslim – it doesn’t matter what colour you are. End of story

Enrique above caught this, but isn’t this the rub?

Blaise on June 7, 2007 at 4:19 PM

Enrique above caught this, but isn’t this the rub?

It may be the rub, but it’s not even true. Go to an arab country and take a look at how the arabs treat the africans who live there.

Farmer_Joe on June 7, 2007 at 4:29 PM

How about how Indonesians are treated in Saudi Arabia too? ot the claim that the Koran cannot be understood in any language except Arabic?

In addition to its many other totalitarian attributes, Islam is a tool for Arab imperialism. All people are not treated equally under Islam - end of story.

forest on June 7, 2007 at 5:22 PM

The author also botches zakat.

Zakat is not simply charity for the poor, it is charity for Muslim poor only or it is used to fund missionary activities. Some of the less totalitarian Islamic scholars say zakat can be provided to dhimmis, but only if there are no Muslim poor who could benefit from it which is not too likey. (there is always a BUT isn’t there).

Anyway, zakat is much more than charity, it is yet another tool for Islamic supremacy.

Maybe Robert will take up zakat as part of his series on Islam - I’d look forward to it.

forest on June 7, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Max Power on June 7, 2007 at 4:04 PM

lol! give it time.

jummy on June 7, 2007 at 5:46 PM

Although England has a long tradition of religious bigotry against, for instance, Roman Catholics, it is reasonable to assume that under the guiding hand of Islam a civilised accommodation could be made among faith groups in London. This welcoming stance already exists in the capital in the form of the City Circle (see Yahya Birt interview), which encourages inter-faith dialogue and open discussion.

The ” civilised accommodation” is called dhimmitude.

4shoes on June 7, 2007 at 5:54 PM

saint kansas on June 7, 2007 at 3:23 PM

I think that’s true.

4shoes on June 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM

What you said above…!

4shoes on June 7, 2007 at 6:20 PM

The assertion that Islam is not racist is a bogus belief. First, Muslims believe that Allah is Arab and the Koran can only be understood in Arabic, which means that Islam has incorporated racism into its doctrine. Irshad Manji points ou in “The Trouble with Islam Today: A Muslim’s Call for Reform in Her Faith” that Arab Muslims believe they are better Muslims than non-Arabs because Allah is Arab. Manji argues that Islam is so dysfunctional because it has been Arabized, which is to say, it has been racialized by Arabs who believe they are superior.

If you recall, the Al Qaeda code word for Americans was “white meat,” ie pig meat, which is crudely racist and quite acceptable to the pious Islamists.

Tantor on June 7, 2007 at 6:25 PM

You have to ask yourself, what is it that attracts Libs to Islam and totalitarianism in general, and repeals them from things like Christianity. What unifying force draws these groups, who seemingly have very different aims, together?
TheBigOldDog on June 7, 2007 at 3:07 PM

There are really only 2 basic views of government. That it should only maintain order and people should be free or that government should run all of society and people must be obedient. If you believe the second, then what particular philosophy you want the government to enforce is really secondary, does it even matter? Marxism, Fascism, a Caliphate, Goracle enviornmentalism, a radical feminist matriarchy, military dictatorship, Divine right Monarchy…it barely matters at all the results are pretty much the same for the people stuck in a government that doesn’t give them freedom. I get upset when even American Republicans are on the wrong side of this issue, trying to use big government to enforce a christian worldview. That is not how the Republic is supposed to work!

Resolute on June 7, 2007 at 7:19 PM

I call well disguised satire, written to evoke exactly the response he’s getting.

It’s written by a Michael Hodges and the first thing that came up on google is this.

It’s very well written, with little to show that it might not be serious - and everything he says is nominally true, so it’s very believable.

well done sir, very well played indeed.

moflicky on June 7, 2007 at 9:25 PM

You will be assimilated.

Resistance is futile.

(The Borg Collective is taking over)

Dhimmie a break!

William

William2006 on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 AM