How well do we understand Islam and the threat that it poses? Does the next leader have a good understanding of it, and relevant policy proposals?
A questionnaire was sent to all candidates. Anne Marie Waters (AMW), Ben Walker (BW), David Kurten (DK), and John Rees-Evans (JRE) answered the questions. David Allen and David Coburn replied, declining to answer. The remainder failed to reply to repeated requests.
Note that these are the stated views of the candidates themselves, and that those who have endorsed them may have differing views.
Should we have “One Law For All” only?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “Yes. The law should operate without prejudice. …there should not be special rights for people with ‘protected characteristics’.”
JRE: “Yes”
Should Sharia Councils be banned?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “Muslim Arbitration Tribunals use Sharia Law where women have fewer legal rights than men. They should be banned … women suffer as a result.”
JRE: “Yes”
Should Sharia Finance be banned (i.e. Sharia mortgages and bonds)?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “I am not against financial instruments where the repayment is based on a share of the profits of a business rather than a fixed rate of interest. However, those which have conditions attached such as non-investment in Israel or ‘halal only meat’ in the canteen should not be allowed.”
JRE: “Yes. There is evidence that property (such as the Admiralty) financed by Sharia-governed bonds infers application of Sharia law within that building. This militates against the principle of one law for all.”
Have you read the Koran?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes, some of it. In the process of reading it all.”
DK: “Yes, some of it.”
JRE: “Yes, some of it. For 12 years I have hosted a website that critiques Islam …“
Does the Koran incite terrorism and hatred of non-Muslims?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “There are verses in the Quran and the Hadith which incite violence if taken literally: “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (Quran 8:12) and “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992).”
JRE: “In the minds of some Muslims, certainly. … it is clear from even a cursory glance of history that a violent understanding appears to be the norm.”
Is Islam incompatible with Human Rights?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes, as are most religions.”
DK: “There are versions of Islam where the adherents integrate well into Western society. Especially so are the Ahmadiyya and Ismaili Muslims. There are also sects such as Wahhabis and Tablighis which view all non-Islamic countries as Dar al Harb (House of War) which must be converted into Dar al Islam (House of Submission) and want to establish a global Islamic caliphate with full Sharia Law. These are obviously incompatible with Western civilization.”
JRE: “It depends how we define ‘human rights’, or whether we accept the United Nations’ description of what rights ought to be ‘universal’. I believe entry to Britain should – amongst other criteria – be dependent on whether the person is willing to live in accordance with our own British Bill of Rights and as such yes, … very few exegetical schools within Islam whose teaching would be compatible with these rights.”
Marriage between first cousins has a high risk of recessive genetic disorders. Should it be banned?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “My personal belief is that types of marriage such as these are a form of incest and should be actively discouraged. I have some reservations about a ban due to being a libertarian however, could be persuaded with a reasoned argument.”
DK: “It is currently legal in the UK. The risk … is no greater than that for a woman having a child in her 40s.”
JRE: “No. To the best of my understanding, within Common Law, the marriage of first cousins has never been proscribed as a prohibited degree of kinship. To innovate against established legislative practice … is in my view tenuous.”
There are thousands of Islamic terrorist sympathisers known to the security services. Of those who cannot be deported would you consider internment to be an option?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes following investigation where proven guilty.”
DK: “No. Internment is likely to inflame more violence than it prevents. However, electronic tagging of known suspects and sympathisers is a good option.”
JRE: “Where there is clear evidence of a desire to cause harm, insurrection or sedition, yes. Internment of ‘sympathisers’ is legally very problematic…”
Should farm animals be treated as humanely as possible?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “Yes”
JRE: “Yes”
Should non-stun and inadequate “stun to stun” slaughter methods be banned?
AMW: “Yes”
BW: “Yes”
DK: “90% of halal is pre-stunned. There is no need for non-stun halal slaughter and it should be banned in the UK. I would allow licenses for a small number of shochets to perform shechita slaughter for the Jewish community, where animals are treated much more carefully than in non-stun halal slaughter.”
JRE: “… animal suffering should be minimised to the greatest degree possible, within the context of whatever relevant technology is available to assist this process.”
In just a one sentence soundbite, please express your own thoughts and feelings on the matters raised in these questions:
AMW: “We can see what Islam does simply by reading its scriptures and observing its influence in the world, the problem is that those in power don’t seem to want us to do this, therefore we need new people in power.”
BW: “There should be one rule of British law: anything that is incompatible with our way of life, culture and existing legislation has no place in our country and should be dealt with accordingly.”
DK: “It is important in all of these issues to make policy with careful thought, not to make policy on the hoof and to consider any possible negative unintended consequences of implementing our policy as law.”
JRE: “The government will not deliver what the people want in relation to combating aggressive Islam, until the people take control with Direct Democracy.”
Many thanks to those who answered the questions. A shame that the other candidates have squandered this opportunity to communicate with UKIP members.
The authors comment at the end is a little disingenuous as I did respond and made the point that I never answer yes/no loaded questionnaires for obvious reasons. My views on these issues are well publicised and knee jerk responsed don’t help to achieve progress. It might play well in ‘the room’ but getting drawn into footnball terrace diplomacy is very risky. David Kurten at least tried to temper the excercise by knowledgeable comment. Two answers stood out and I think would be severely detrimental to the respective candidates. The question was about internment, which doesn’t work, by the way, so historical unserstanding is lacking. A headline that says the UKIP will lock up thousands of innocent people indefinitely, will bring hell’s own condemnation down on the party and finish us for good. Secondly on this question Ben Walker says “Yes following investigation where proven guilty.” Seemingly unaware that the concept of proven guilt is not required for internment, which is incarceration wihout trial. Typically Ben’s enthusiastic contributions, all too often, show a limitation of strategic thought and knowledge. Such bullish positions actually detract from our ability as a party to promote a equality agenda for British values. Any actions we take, and we must take positive action, have to be executed through due process. I wish some of our candidates thought more highly of legal and judicial intervention.
David, all candidates had the opportunity to answer the questions and thereby communicate with party members.
I do appreciate that you did reply to my email request, and noted within the article that you did reply.
The limitations of article size meant that even some answers had to be truncated.
@ Sean
That’s shocking and explains much about the failed state known as Pakistan. And an Ahmedi can’t even escape that hell-hole of hate by coming to Britain. Remember the Ahmedi shopkeeper who was murdered by a Sunni who travelled the length of Britain to do it after he heard that the man had wished white customers “A Happy Easter”. Easter is not an event in the koran because according to momad the crucifixion was all an illusion and Jesus was never killed; therefore no resurrection showing he was the son of god because allah has no sons or any issue, so there. Ahmedis seem more like normal human beings that mainstream muslims, hence the murderous hostility.
The above reply relates to Sean’s link to what the Pakistani government ruled in 1974. It’s at the bottom of the page and I forgot to click ‘reply’.
@Panmelia
My point with posting that article was really to highlight the fact that if we don’t outlaw Islam there is a very good chance Islam will outlaw us further down the road.
For those that say that it’s impossible to outlaw a religion my answer would be that 200 years ago the French outlawed the monarchy. At the time I’m sure there were people saying that it would be impossible. We need to grasp the nettle and at some point propose that idea. I also would wager that if that ever came to pass then overnight a decent proportion of Muslims would abandon the faith. Many Muslims want out, they just need a little help in moving in that direction. We need to let Muslims know through education that Muhammad is not to be followed. He’s a bad example.
The Ahmadis are persecuted by the mainstream Muslims. They are regarded as not proper Muslims because they do not believe in abrogation.
The principle of abrogation is clearly enough defined within the Koran itself, and so it does seem that the theological basis for disregarding it is weak.
This should not be an excuse for persecuting them.
They are regarded as apostates, and there is the death penalty for apostasy under Sharia law.
Actually, the theological and logical case for disregarding abrogation is strong. The logic is clear though conceptually awkward. According to Islam, Allah is infallible as was Mohammed. Infallibility is an absolute, not dependent upon time, changing values or different situations, after all the concept of change doesn’t feature much in this form of Islam. If Allah is infallible then abrogation has no meaning. Where the Koran contradicts itsef, or where Islamic texts are contradictory the clear and logical conclusion is that both contradictions are right. Get your head around that.
“According to Islam, Allah is infallible as was Mohammed”
If Mohammed is regarded as infallible, how do you account for the Satanic Verses?
Regarding abrogation, the Koran itself states:
“Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?” Koran 2:106
http://www.comp.leeds.ac.uk/nora/html/2-106.html
You are making quite a dramatic claim David. Can you quote from any authentic sources to support your theory?
Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?
https://islamqa.info/en/105746
@ David
‘Clear and logical’? What has clarity or logic to do with islam? Or any religion, in fact, but islam leaves all the others standing in befuddlement when it comes to sheer perversity, insanity and inhumanity.
Mmmm …now what would be a good religion to live by? Let’s worship an angry god that we’ll describe as ‘great and merciful’ just to keep him placated. Gotta butter up these dictatorial types if you want to keep your head. And this easily-offended god created everything but infidels don’t worship him, so he’s pissed off by that and commands us to make the filthy kuffir submit unless they’d rather die, and we can arrange that while we rob them of all that is theirs. Violence, hatred, oppression, cruelty, robbery, rape, slavery, torture, terror, murder: these are all means approved by our psychopathic god to rule the world and keep people’s heads fixed to the ground without using nails.
islam is the biggest calamity on earth since the Cambrian extinction. It is incompatible with the human rights declared by the hypocritical UN, but benefits from the misguided ‘respect’ accorded to even the most preposterous and destructive of ‘religions’ by superstitious cowards.
I’m just wondering. Maybe the commenters on here could assist me. Would it be useful for AMW for instance to engage with us on here. Get every issue out in the open and thoroughly aired. She could be directly and repeatedly asked ‘is unity important’, ‘would unity be a priority’, ‘would you turn UKIP into the anti-islam party of Great Britain’ etc etc.
If so we can email AMW and say get yourself over here so we can better make your acquaintance. The same would apply to the other candidates.
M
This morning I emailed AMW, BW, DK, and JRE with the link to this article.
I felt that it was a courtesy to let them know that it had been published.
Just found this site whilst trawling the Pat Condell site and it’s exactly what I expected.
Welcome Rik.
You say ” exactly what I expected”
Meaning you approve or what?
This seems to need saying; UKIP are no longer a major party.
We will not be winning any elections any time soon, we will not be guaranteed media coverage at future elections, we do not have 4m voters and tens of thousands of Members. Those days are long gone. There is no easy route to getting them back, much less surpassing them.
We are effectively back to the level of support we had 10 years ago, but without our founding, unifying, unique purpose and the charismatic leader that drove us on to success.
It is, however, vital that UKIP or some alternative to the “liberal” establishment survives.
Islam and immigration are the only issues in this post-referendum world where a niche party can make itself heard. This is because the other parties will not speak the obvious truth on these issues, just as they all failed to talk honestly about the EU, thereby creating the vacuum for UKIP to fill.
The challenge before us is not to elect a media-friendly leader and attempt to win mass appeal through safe, media friendly policies. We could elect the lovechild of Nelson Mandela and Mother Theresa with a policy platform of free puppies and ice cream and the media would still run “racist UKIP” stories at election time and the vast majority of the public would continue to think “no smoke without fire” and continue not to vote for us.
This leadership election is decision time. Either we back a candidate outspoken and radical enough to get UKIP the attention it needs to survive in the short term and rebuild in the medium term or we say thanks for all the fish (hopefully, depends on Mr Gove) and continue as an electoral and political irrelevance.
Yes, AMW as leader will mean we attract the full fury of the media and political opponents. This is a good and necessary thing.
Once more we need a leader with fire in their belly and who is up for the fight. We need a leader who is in politics, almost reluctantly, to do something, not to be something. Only then will the party survive and have the chance to thrive.
Either way, the UKIP of the past few years is gone. It remains to be seen whether a new UKIP emerges from the ashes.
Well said.
Seconded
Gary. There have been many outstanding comments on this article and for other articles on the wider website. Surely this is one of best.
Gary,
I don’t know whether you know much about football. If you do, you’ll know that having a bright, talented player doesn’t mean that player will automatically become a good manager.
The leadership of UKIP is a ‘manager’s’ job. Nigel Farage described it as “trying to herd cats”.
Speaking as an admirer of Anne Marie Waters as a ‘player’, I’d like to know on what basis you think she has the knowledge and experience to take on ‘the manager’s’ job.
It’s a bit like asking Alexis Sanchez to take over at Arsenal from Arsene Wenger.
My humble apologies to those not interested in football to whom this comment may be in a foreign language.
Well, I’m a Palace fan, so clearly I know less than nothing about football.
I’d tweak the analogy slightly; ideally the role of football manager should be split between the Party Leader and the Party Chairman.
The Party Leader should be the public face, should pick the team, set the tactics and do the post match interviews.
The Chairman should do the behind the scenes management, the party machinery stuff.
Neither AMW, Farage, Corbyn, May or any other party leader I can think of excels at both roles. This is because, to a certain extent, they are mutually exclusive; the crowd pleasing, no-notes-speaking, media performer is unlikely to be good with spreadsheets, diaries and the minutiae of branch communications, and vice versa. Apart from anything else, on a practical level if you’re travelling up and down the country and from media interview to media interview as Party Leader, you’re not going to be able to give party management the attention it requires.
So to answer the question, I have no idea whether AMW would excel at all that kind of party management (I believe she trained as a lawyer, so would probably do quite well), but I think it’s more important that the Leader is the public face of the party and figurehead. Get the right Chairman in, and free the Leader up to fight on the national stage.
You want your star striker scoring goals and grabbing the headlines, so let’s pick someone for that job, and find someone else to manage communications, membership, party minutiae…. If we pick a Vincent Kompany to play up top because they are good at organising the team then we can’t complain when the goals dry up. Farage would probably agree…
I’m puzzled as to why you think lawyers would be good ‘managers’, many aren’t even good lawyers. perhaps guilty of historical cultural deference?
Howard. I have no interest in football but I understand what you are getting at. I think maybe AMW has always been the leader and manager of a team (just a small one) – if she wins then her team gets way bigger overnight. I think she would find a team of dedicated followers would come to her side and make up for any shortcomings in managerial skills.
Gary,
Good points; I will not join a UKIP that is tolerant of the invader. I am sure that many will support an anti Islam party but their voices are never heard in the MSM.
I’ve looked, but not found anything to suggest that Ofcom have rescinded the ‘Major Party’ status afforded to UKIP in 2015. If you have a reference I would be interested to see it.
Dear Hugo,
You were sent a statement from Jane Collins which stipulated that it needed to be included in any article, in order to comply with media law.
Statement from Jane Collins MEP
As a leadership candidate I am happy to answer questions about my political and economic philosophy but I am concerned about the number of questionnaires being circulated which are focused on Islam.
As Nigel Farage has warned, we must not become obsessed with Islam – or any religion. These are easy targets for our opponents.
I am concerned this election is becoming dominated by religion: either the religion of a candidate or a religion a candidate hates.
As home affairs spokeswoman I have repeatedly stated I believe in only one rule of law in this country: no ifs, no buts.
I have also stated foreigners who break any UK law or who are a threat to our security should be deported.
But I am not islamophobic, not do I think UKIP should be. As the person who spoke out for the 1400 victims of CSE in Rotherham, at considerable financial and emotional cost, I know the problems we face.
Civil war and vigilantism is not the answer. I hope people realise I am the person with the experience on this subject and listen to me.
My interview on talkRADIO on the topic of grooming gangs can be heard on my website jane4leader.info. Today I have also been quoted in articles regarding a Labour MP who belittled the suffering of CSE survivors, which can also be found on my website and on my facebook page.
Ends
Jane,
The growth of Islam is the most pressing issue that we face. It needs to be dealt with and soon. Your speaking up about the child rapes is welcome but it is not enough.
Thank you Hugo for this informative questionnaire which has given an insight into the characters of those leadership candidates who replied. It was refreshing to have definite yes or no replies instead of the prevarication that we are used to hearing from career politicians.
‘Sharia law is incompatible with democracy and human rights’. Source Annual Report 2003 of the ECHR, Council of Europe. I think that our candidates would be wise to bear that judgement in mind at all times.
Can anyone tell me if any of the leadership candidates were involved in any way with the pro-Halal leaflet that was distributed to Asian households during the Stoke Central by election?
I thought everyone knew which candidate was responsible for that excellent pro-Halal leaflet, it was Peter Whittle.
MEP O’Flynn did his bit also. But give credit where its due, it was mainly the work of the famous Deputy Leader, who told Paul Simple what to do. He designed pro-Halal, later the Intergation-Agenda, the stand or stand-aside policy, more. You could be forgiven if you thought he was trying to make Paul look a fool.
This photo has been bucketing round the internet for months — http://i1174.photobucket.com/albums/r603/cambahn/hoopla_zpsyswfricf.jpg — shows the whole brains of britain team huddling together in Stoke. O’Flynn is on the left, Simple on the right and Magnificent Whittle towering above them all.
Since this time last year Ukip takes the biggest failures and makes them leader. But theres a silver lining,we get Whittle (indorsed by Paul Simple) and we get to keep Paul Oakden as chairman. Best of all worlds.
Thank you for quoting that ECHR ruling. I asked Ben Walker several times on twitter if he agreed with that and he wouldn’t give me an answer. Instead he blocked me so I am a little surprised to read his answers here. Perhaps it is the incompatible with democracy part that he couldn’t accept.
How strange for a candidate to block someone asking questions….I remember many people saying that was a Nuttall/Evans favorite in the last Leadership election. I am surprised that Ben Walker, who wants to reorganize and put members front and center, would do that.
A Lancaster, can you give a link to your twitter comment?
Thank you Hugo for trying to help the members understand the candidates better. I do fear, that although Islam is very important it is certainly not the only thing the voters want to consider. We need a Grassroots, member driven Leader who has the members as first priority. All other policies should be spoken about. We need a Grassroots, firm but strict Leader. One who makes you feel alive again on all policies. There is one – he makes you start to feel like Nigel used to. BW
Amorée, yes I am impressed by Ben Walker. He responded rapidly to my questionnaire email request, without any need for chivvying.
While several of the candidates offer similar messages about the importance of British law, all except AMDW cling to the idea of multiculturalism and the successful integration of muslims into the UK in the longer term. I believe they refer to this as the “integration agenda”.
Fortunately, we have some 1,400 years of history in which to review the success of muslim integration in countries around the world and we would be fools to ignore this.
We need not only to understand islam as a political party, we need to widen the understanding across the electorate. Islamic philosophy is very clear indeed, and the instructions in the Koran are unambiguous.
We are not Japan. We cannot now protect “the old Britain” because it no longer exists. But we can change the direction of the path that we have been on since Blair, and we need to do so before the demographics make it impossible to avoid widespread islamification of our way of life.
Only AMDW has the courage and commitment to raise public awareness of this critical issue, the others will keep it low key for fear of upsetting the MSM.
If I may add one last point, it has been a pleasure to read the various opinions on this thread. I can think of no other political party that could elicit such calm, thoughtful and articulate responses to such a controversial topic.
” I can think of no other political party that could elicit such calm, thoughtful and articulate responses to such a controversial topic.”
Indeed so. If we are to solve this problem, and we must, then we must tackle it calmly, thoughtfully, and also with determination.
It is my hope that whoever is selected for the leadership role, that they make good use of the talents of the other candidates. The matter is far too important for individual egos or snubbed feelings to get in the way of a resolution of this matter.
Multiculturalism and integration are opposite concepts, you speak as if you are unaware of the difference. Also, the term ‘Muslim Integration’ is meaningless, if you meant the integration of Muslims with British values than that is a laudible objective. Multiculturalism is sectarian in nature and a major part of the problem we have today.
Some commentators think Islam is just another religion like Methodism and Buddhism and under freedom of religion we should tolerate if not celebrate diversity of belief.
Islam is not like any other religion here or elsewhere. Look at any Muslim majority country to see what is in store. Islam, even in its non-violent forms, teaches a subservient status for women. Compare the number of female and gay vicars with female and gay immams. Notice anything? And the greatly increased attacks on Jews are not coming from Anglicans.
India’s High Court yesterday banned the concept of “instant divorce” regarding Muslim marriage when a husband can tell his wife “I divorce you” 3 times and the marriage deal is off and she is left with no visible means of support. He could previously even do it by twitter should he have wished. Is this an instance of the forward looking thinking we in the West are in need of? Worshiping our favoured God is mentioned here as being desirable. What about Scientology which has been declared ‘a religion’ by British Judges even though Ron’s followers worship no deity.
Roger, that is great news. It should be banned in the UK too.
“Halala” is the procedure whereby if a woman wishes to re-marry her husband after they divorce, she must first marry another man, then divorce, before she can marry her original husband.
The going rate for this “service” in the UK is £2500 according to a BBC investigation:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39480846
It is entirely consistent with the teachings in the Koran 2:230:
“And if he has divorced her (the third time), then she is not lawful unto him thereafter until she has married another husband. Then, if the other husband divorces her, it is no sin on both of them that they reunite, provided they feel that they can keep the limits ordained by Allah. These are the limits of Allah, which He makes plain for the people who have knowledge.”
Notice that it requires the new husband to divorce her. He might prefer to keep her effectively as a sex slave. Koran 2:223:
“Your wives are a tilth for you, so go to your tilth (have sexual relations with your wives in any manner as long as it is in the vagina and not in the anus), when or how you will, and send (good deeds, or ask Allah to bestow upon you pious offspring) before you for your ownselves. And fear Allah, and know that you are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give good tidings to the believers (O Muhammad SAW).”
Islam really is evil. I defy anyone to prove otherwise.
I read a Penguin book in 1953, that said Communism had most of the characteristics of a religion.
(I forget if it said “All” the characteristics)
So we shouldn`t be surprised what judges say
Many Muslim ‘marriages’ aren’t legally so in accordance with British law, so in those circumstances, for divorce, read separation. The conceptual basis for that decision probably isn’t relevant in the UK.
I agree with Gary Conway , ask a yes or no question get a yes or no answer it’s not hard to understand , To my mind AMW did as well as the others , as for Sharia law , it should be banned in the UK as well as Halal , it’s just cruelty to animals end of, , I would have liked to see a question on Sharia NoGo areas , and people being threatened in the so called no go areas and what’s to be done about them , i was very interested in the answers about Islam and to my mind AMW was best , she has my vote ,and yes I have read her manifesto
Jane’s comments in Islam-related questionnaires in general are available here:
http://www.ukipdaily.com/ukip-leadership-contest-statements-hustings/
As well as http://www.jane4leader.info/jane_questionnaires.html for the miniscule number of Kippers who don’t visit here daily ?
Thankyou Rob.
I was disappointed that Jane did not respond to the questionnaire, as she must have looked into these matters in detail.
The purpose of the questionnaire was to bring the responses to the key issues of our time into one place, such that members could compare and contrast the merits of the candidates and their policy stances.
You could of course suggest to her that she is free to answer the questions via the comments section.
I did, and she prefers to stick to her general statement.
Personally, the way I read the answers to this questionnaire – thank you Hugo for trying – is that of all of them, David Kurten gave the most ‘politican- like answers….which makes me worry!
Firstly, I’m afraid we cannot discriminate on slaughter laws, stun-to kill – no exceptions, that where we’ve always gone wrong, you cannot take a partially moral stance, everyone will say their knives are sharp etc….
Secondly, whatever its problems internment is a must imo – and not just internment but no pandering to unnecessary Halal or Unsupervised visits from Imams – all should be conducted in English, imo the human rights of potential victims should supersede all others as victims are the majority. Tagging wastes time and resources, and allows contact, through internet, with others. We are, whether people like it or not, in an ideological war, as well as a physical one.
Thirdly, there are many studies, and even many Muslims are now aware of the risk of first cousin marriage. Muslim Women have little or no say, I think they would be relieved, in many cases, if this practice was illegal. It is and always has been simply a way of keeping wealth within a family. It costs the NHS a great deal of money. It is far more risky than a woman of 40 giving birth, imo.
Sharia Finance should be banned, end of!
I wonder if David Kurten and John R-E have truly understood that it isn’t the verses that are the trouble with the Koran, it is not that verses are ‘interpreted’ or ‘taken literally’ – it’s that Mohammed is the role model and how he advanced Islam in Medina is how a ‘good Muslim’ must also advance Islam in order to get rewards from Allah.
We must understand that.
I would comment on Thoshammer below that if Anne Marie had gone into detail she would have filled pages! I found David Kurten the least impressive, and Anne and Ben have come out best in my estimation. I think John R-E is slightly hampered because he works happily with Muslims in their home countries, and perhaps doesn’t understand that here the intention is to impose Islamic Law, so it is quite a different situation from working in a Muslim country. I might be wrong – but that’s the impression I got from the last London ‘hustings’.
Expanding unnecessarily on an answer didn’t do David Kurten much good, in the UKIP4Family questionnaire, did it? It just gave his unscrupulous opponents the chance to manufacture outrage and set the Leftards on him.
I love Anne Marie’s ‘YES’ replies: no ‘ifs, buts, maybes’ or waffle. Her one-sentence summing up, especially ‘we need new people in power’ is perfect.
To the question, “Are you going to vote for Anne Marie Waters?’ my one-word answer is ‘YES!’
The candidates who did not bother to respond to Hugo’s excellent questionnaire are not worth considering.
Why should I need to understand Islam?
Muslims who come to the United Kingdom should be free to worship the deity of their choice as I am free not to believe in any deity. What should not be allowed is any law that attempts to control and/or supersede British Law.
The law in the United Kingdom is know as British Law and any other law, apart from EU law, has no authority in the UK. Any person or organisation that proposes actions that are contrary to existing British Law should be prosecuted.
As a British Citizen, British Law should be concerned in protecting me from religious laws that condemn me for not following rules and regulations that a religious organisation thinks that it has a right to impose on me. British Law should not be hindered by political correctness.
In modern times all religions should accept that there are people who believe that deities do not exist. Not believing in deity is as personal as believing in a deity.
David, with respect, you should understand Islam because it is not a ‘religion’ it is a complete political system for living handed down by Allah to Mohammed his messenger. Some of the laws handed down are that Muslims must, in order to obtain favors with Allah, never cease from converting all unbelievers into that faith. Give them a chance, if they don’t, kill them. That’s how Mohammed achieved what he did, and Mohammed is the perfect man. When Mohammed was in Mecca, being an ordinary peaceful prophet he converted 150 people to Islam. When he went to Medina he recruited bandits to help him, became a warlord and in ten years everyone had become Islamic. That’s why you should understand Islam, again, with respect.
Dee, British Law should not accept Islamic in any form where Islamic Law apposes British Law. Islamic law should be treated in the same way as rules and regulation apply to business and other organisation. At the moment the European Union is trying to force the United Kingdom law to subservient to EU Law. This is not acceptable to the majority of the British people. Why is Islamic law not treated the same way? Islamic law should be down graded to the same status as club law.
If the Muslim communities object then they can either get the British Law changed, via new laws approved by Parliament ,or they are free to move to a country where Islamic law rules.
If you tell me that parts of Islamic Law is in force in the UK then the politicians who approved it should be named and shamed, especially at the next general election.
What this country needs is to take a firm stance on enforcing British Law to all levels of society. Most of our politicians seem to be afraid of taking hard decisions especially since we have been in the EU. Roll on a Hard Leave and lets us then have poltiicans who will fight for what was British Law.
Once again degrade Islamic law to basically club law and do not let political correctness influence legal decisions regarding the downgrading
“should be free to worship the deity of their choice”
Therein lies the first difficulty. Someone who was born with a Muslim father is automatically regarded as a Muslim. They have no choice but to remain as a Muslim – there is the death penalty under Sharia law for apostacy.
“British Law should be concerned in protecting me from religious laws that condemn me..” How many newspapers declined to publish the Danish cartoons? Newspaper editors know that de facto we now have anti-blasphemy rules against criticism of Islam.
Censorship will start with bloggers, and I was not a blogger and so I did not complain. Then they came for video producers and deleted their videos. I did not make videos and so I did not complain. And then… we have complete censorship of any criticism of Islam, and our civilisation is lost.
Because you don’t understand it now
“Why should I need to understand Islam?”
Nail on head.
This whole questionnaire is loaded with Islamocentrist assumptions. I am not surprised some of the candidates failed to reply to it. What the Islamocentrists in our party fail to understand is that those societies that seem to be protecting themselves best from Islam, like Japan, are doing so not because they know anything about Islam but because (unlike we British) they still know about and take pride in their own culture, history, customs and way of life.
The responsility of the Japanese is know about Japan and its way of life; the responsiblity of Muslims is to know about the Islam and the Muslim way of life; and the responsibility of the British is to know about Britain and the British way of life.
@ RW
‘know about Britain… British … British way of life’. Absolutely true. Unfortunately, the destructive Leftards who have infiltrated every level of Government, Education, Social Policy-Making and Media have done their very best to stifle and undermine that knowledge and replace it with a Politically Correct, anti-patriotic, negative image of Britain. Having spent 25 years in Education, I know this from personal experience. If you want examples, just ask me.
The Japanese have not been so foolish as to allow mass uncontrolled immigration of muslims into their country as our governments have since the end of the last war. They have not allowed muslims to form ghettoes which are actually centres of islamic power and promotion. Our society has not protected itself or its citizens from islamic encroachment and ambitions for future control through force of numbers.
Worst of all, the Labour party and all points left are anti-Jewish allies of islam in order to reap their support and votes. Meanwhile, our ‘Conservative’ government betrays us all by continuing to allow the sharia courts endorsed by Blair, and even goes one step further by supporting their financial arrangements.
We have enough ostriches in government; Ukippers need to be ‘heads-up’.
But Richard we aren’t in the situation of Japan. We’re in the situation of Britain. Islam is here and growing, you’re talking as if it isn’t. Of course we have to understand what it is, in the same way we have to understand the Mafia, and anything else that infiltrates our society and seeks to spread itself and influence us.
If only we’d kept it out like Japan, you say…But we didn’t.
Wrong. Because we now have 3-5 million Muslims in the country. I was in Oxford today in St Mary the Virgin church where they have a monument to all victims of persecution in the reformation (naturally in an Anglican Church it would be wrong to take sides, even with yourself!). I knew of Fox’s Martyrs, but what surprised me was the killing went on for at least 150 years. All so we could reform a religion. Why should a single person die?
@ DT
‘muslims … free … worship deity … choice’
I’m afraid these words and phrases do not work together, because there is no freedom of choice in islam. The babe out of the womb has ‘allahu akhbar’ whispered into its ears and it is a prisoner for life. Only the most analytical, intelligent, determined and very, very brave people escape this ideology, mostly in the West where they have the opportunity to see other ways of thinking, and hopefully avoid the violent retribution/murder visited on apostates in islamic countries.
This makes islam a cult similar to the moonies and scientology, whose victims are physically and psychologically restrained from leaving, and have to be kidnapped and de-indoctrinated by their concerned families and friends, sometimes by experts in this field.
Unfortunately, for muslims who want to break free from islam in the West, there is little or no support. In fact, here in the UK, our foolish government colludes with the bully boys of islam to keep them in power and exercise their iron control over the women, children and homosexuals. Given the chance, one day they will exercise that iron control over the rest of us in this country.
> Why should I need to understand Islam?
1350+ years ago, my tolerant, welcoming, paternal forebears probably also underestimated that same need.
Back then, they assumed this was another generally friendly monotheistic faith, rather like Judaism or Christianity, with whom they’d intermingled and coexisted (for ~2500 and ~500 years respectively).
They took no no precautions. What followed is well-documented:
http://ow.ly/QfPs30eCpf5
New words for Hugo & friends:
‘ajam’ = you’re made a foreigner in your own land
‘najis’ = polluted, unclean, untouchable, therefore denied all rights
and “milk them well, but once their milk dries, suck their blood”
That was a long time ago, though.
Most would say they paid a heavy price for their ignorance which led to a lack of preparation.
They didn’t have recourse to Google, though.
What’s your excuse?
This is why you should be concerned:
Secular Values versus Islamic Values – The Key Question
The key question is, when Muslims become even a significant minority within a community and act as an Islamic block whilst the majority are divided, will Muslims in sufficient numbers stand up for secular values against Islamic Sharia values?
There is no evidence that they will do so judging by the various Islamic countries around the world!
I certainly prefer a simple Yes/No answer. You know exactly where you stand with that.
Nigel Farage is a simple Yes/No politician.
Multiple worded answers to Yes/No questions are usually waffle leaving wriggle room for later denial or dilution.
“Multiple worded answers to Yes/No questions are usually waffle leaving wriggle room for later denial or dilution.”
Really? And how do you propose exposing loaded questions, false dichotomies and hidden assumptions with your simple Yes/No formula?
E.g.Have you stopped beating your wife yet? Yes/No
A good rejoinder.
RichardW, are you male or female?
Please reply. I assure you the question is neither flippant nor irrelevant.
Male. Relevance?
… is an incorrect answer.
It was probably the answer to the question “What is your gender?” But that was not the question asked.
The correct answer to the question put was “Yes”.
Relevance should now be obvious. No offence meant.
Well in that case you would say “that’s a loaded question / false dichotomy / has hidden assumptions so I can’t give you a Yes/No answer”.
But given the fact that none of the questions in this survey were anything other than straight Yes/No questions I’m not sure how that’s relevant.
What’s revealing is how people have chosen to respond to straight Yes/No questions.
To my mind, a clear Yes/No tells me the respondent is clear in their own mind, sure of their ground and is not playing games.
Generally speaking the politician who feels the need eschew the simple Yes/No and to expound further is either interested in the sound of their own voice, in obfuscation, or is trying to justify to themselves and their listeners a position in which they don’t truly believe. They tend to be trying to give the impression that they believe what voters wants to hear, while still giving themselves wriggle room for the inevitable u-turn or non-delivery after the election.
Go back 10 years, change the questionnaire title to “How well do we understand the EU?” and my vote would go to the candidate who responds to the question “Should we leave the EU?” with a “Yes”. End of.
‘Well in that case you would say “that’s a loaded question / false dichotomy / has hidden assumptions so I can’t give you a Yes/No answer”.’
I think this may be implied in the answers of those who gave more than Yes/No replies. In many cases those who said more than Yes/No were not avoiding giving an answer but were either simply elaborating on the reasons for their Yes or No, or were giving reasons why they felt a Yes/No reply was inadequate.
“But given the fact that none of the questions in this survey were anything other than straight Yes/No questions I’m not sure how that’s relevant.”
Sorry, but I disagree. E.g. Should we have “One Law for All” only? The answer is yes but this needs some elaboration. The implication of the question is that we don’t have “One Law for All” at the moment whereas in fact we do. Sharia Council rulings are not legally binding: but you can’t stop people complying with them voluntarily if they wish to do so and no crime is involved in them doing so.
Another example: Does the Koran incite terrorism? This is tendentious question. I would be loath to give a simple Yes/No answer to this. It is entirely a question of interpretation. The real question is can it be reasonably interpreted as inciting terrorism. For example, Charles Manson claimed to have been inspired to murder Sharon Tate by the Beatles song “Helter Skelter”. But no sane person would blame the Beatles for that murder because Manson’s interpretation was not a reasonable one.
But even if it is true that the Koran can be reasonably interpreted as inciting terrorism, so what? Are you proposing banning it?
@ RW
No, we don’t have One Law For ALL. If we did, there would be no sharia councils and courts, no halal cruelty, no FGM, no forced marriages, no taking girls out of the country for forced marriages, no “honour killings”, no muslim street grooming rape gangs getting away with victimising young white girls, no terrorists planning to blow us up or fight for IS, no terrorist sympathisers funding the jihadis.
Theoretically, there are laws against most of those things: the FGM laws weren’t meant to stop ordinary British people butchering THEIR daughters, you know. But thousands of mainly muslim girls are butchered every year, breaking a 32-year old law and there has not been ONE conviction. That’s because muslims break our laws whenever it suits them and expect to get away with it, because no one wants to be accused of being ‘racist’, right?
And if you were a battered wife, I think you’d prefer to have your case heard in a proper British law court rather than a kangaroo sharia court where a woman’s word is only worth half that of a man’s and she’d have her kids handed over to her husband just for complaining anyway. But the Blair government took that option away from her when they allowed sharia law to operate in their male-dominated communities and the muslim bully boys to threaten anybody who wanted recourse to British law.
You need to wake up to realities RW, especially if you have children and grandchildren.
Anyone who answers yes or no to a yes no political question doesn’t understand the issue.
NO SURPRISE that Mason Powndsland Bolton and Coburn did not answer (at least the latter did say he would not be answering). The other thing that these four have in common is that they will receive at most 200 votes each in the leadership election. They are a joke.
David Allen saw the writing on the wall and retracted from the race. Whittle and Collins are playing at dog in a manger.
It was disappointing that some candidates did not reply at all to three sets of emails from me, or to being contacted by a prominent party member. How are we to know what their thoughts are on these issues?
To be fair to David Allen and David Coburn, I did receive polite emails from them.
Permit me to speak, not for but in defence of, those candidates who have chosen not to speak here in UKIPDaily.
I assure you that none of the ten candidates (including the four who replied, the one who declined and the five who didn’t respond) is an apologist for Islam or downplays the existential risks posed by Islamists.
But they may have seen the rough justice meted out here to nuanced views, and therefore chose to stay out of it.
For example, see the reasonable articles:
http://www.ukipdaily.com/respecting-muslims-challenging-islam
http://www.ukipdaily.com/good-muslim-bad-muslim
– written by my (then) deputy Chair and myself respectively – and also note the tone of some of the readers’ comments following them. Even for stating the obvious, i.e., that there are *many, many* good muslims, I took flak. (I’m not complaining, merely observing; since I can dish it out when merited, I don’t throw my toys out of the pram when I’m on the receiving end).
To me it is self-evident that in a world with over 1,800,000,000 people professing Islam, and with that number growing (in pure numerical terms, not %) faster than any other faith, it is only sensible to try to enlist the help of reasonable members of that religion to solve problems. Some here profoundly disagree, though.
Perhaps this is why other candidates held back?
“Perhaps this is why other candidates held back?”
Maybe. However it would have been helpful for them to acknowledge the receipt of my email, even if declining to answer questions. I know that candidates are extremely busy at present.
You are not as clever as you think you are particularly with regards islam – perhaps you are an apologist given your mistakes regarding the demographics of islam.
There are 1,300,000,000 in the world and the numbers are not increasing rapidly ‘faster than any other faith’ – that dubious honour may belong to Latter Day Saints (mormons) and converts to Christianity in China are extraordinary and also converts from RC to Evangelical in Latin America also big.
Many muslims do not practice their religion so in reality they do not count. If it were possible to leave without the automatic death sentence then millions would sign out. Many more muslims are nominal members – to stop being pestered by fanatics and being classified as shirkers.
Perhaps 25% of Turkish muslims are in any meaningful sense non practising/agnostic. Similar figures go for Syrians, Turkmen, Kazakh, Uzbek,Kirghiz, and just maybe Indonesian.
My gross figure above is not a typo.
In Russia Belarus Ukraine etc there is a great renewal of Christian faith esp Orthodox.
There is almost certainly a quiet and stealth like increase of agnostics cum deists in Persia particularly amongst the most educated and entrepreneurial groups. Shia versus Sunni will start to tear at each other in a vicous way in the coming years. Yemen etc are just a warm up.
Ck, you probably won’t read this but didn’t have the time to reply yesterday.
It’s interesting that China is moving into so many third world countries – maybe all is not lost for the world, as I have read that some Chinese ‘Christians’ are quite aggressive in furthering their faith – so just maybe the latter half of this century Russia and China will be the bulwark against Islamization – and, as Russia seems to work with Iran it will only be Europe (and the U.K.) that will be lost?
I had written:
“in a world with over 1,800,000,000 people professing Islam, and with that number growing (in pure numerical terms, not percentage) faster than any other faith”
citizenkain attacked with:
“There are 1,300,000,000 in the world and the numbers are not increasing rapidly ‘faster than any other faith’ – that dubious honour may belong to Latter Day Saints (mormons) and converts to Christianity in China are extraordinary and also converts from RC to Evangelical in Latin America also big.”
Do check:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam
which says Islam is “the FASTEST-GROWING major religion in the world, with OVER 1.8 BILLION followers” i.e. precisely what I had stated.
If you can’t grasp what “that number growing (in pure numerical terms, not percentage) faster” means, perhaps you could benefit from attending one of those language courses which I wish immigrants were compelled to attend?
Or is it maths? A religion with one founder manages to dupe one person into joining in its first year, that’s a 100 percent increase p.a., which no established faith can match. It is in pure numerical terms that Islam’s growth is highest, and that’s why I specified that, and ruled out percentage comparisons.
Or don’t you even realise that by far the most significant factor in the rapid growth of Islam is the differential birth rate, not the conversion rate?
I reiterate – in pure terms of number, Islam is growing FAR FASTER than any other religion in the world. If you’re denying it, it is you who are the apologist.
Your point that many Muslims do not practice their religion is valid but irrelevant because the same – arguably and observably in greater proportion – applies to Christianity, etc.
citizenkain wrote:
“You are not as clever as you think you are particularly with regards islam – perhaps you are an apologist”
lol, thanks for that. You can’t swing a cat here without hitting a twerp. citizenkain, it would have been better for you to remain silent and thereby leave in doubt how knowledgeable you are, rather than advertise it so blatantly.
Carry on regardless. I’m used to being called foolish by insolent fools. 😀
Hi Freddy. I think many of us are unsure re the best way to proceed with Islam and who to choose as our leader. Have you any thoughts to assist us with these matters.
> it is you who are the apologist
it is you who is the apologist
Maximus, sadly, I am not at liberty to answer you here with the frankness called for. My generally cowardly foes (almost none of whom got there by winning anything resembling an open election or vote) embedded like gemstones within the party hierarchy watch my every move; their multiple attempts to rid themselves of me, via the ballot box or the rule book, have so far backfired. But they know they have to get lucky only once.
I’m informed my holey trinity of sins are competence, hard work and integrity. I can neither be bought nor unduly influenced, and therefore can’t be “controlled”. Also, while mainly about nonsense, I think too much. Such men are dangerous (JC,I,2).
Freddy,
Characterising many millions as following Islam in increasing numbers, are you saying they are persuaded by the wonderful atributes of that religion/political system?
I hope not because we both know that most of them have no choice – non-moslem areas of Africa are being militarily taken over by Islamic forces (vis.Nigeria) and it’s either do what they say or get their bleedin’ heads chopped off!
You asked at 2:39pm today:
“are you saying they are persuaded by the wonderful atributes of that religion/political system?”
I thought I’d answered 28 hours earlier, at 10:33am yesterday:
“by far the most significant factor in the rapid growth of Islam is the differential birth rate, not the conversion rate”
HTH!
Looking at the responses it is actually quite clear who has the best understanding of Islam, and it’s not Anne-Marie Waters. AMW treats Islam as a homogenous whole, whereas the best responses came from David Kurten.
Ammidiyah Islam for example is clearly not incompatible with human rights. Regardless of whether it is mainstream or not. AMW has pretty much proven in these responses that she speaks in generalisations and isn’t actually as good on the subject as her fans claim. You’d think she’d have gone into detail.
Judgement in responses from best to worst: DK, JRE, AMW, BW .
“You’d think she’d have gone into detail.”
Not when replying to a series of Yes or No questions I wouldn’t.
One of my many pet hates is politicians who seem pathologically incapable of giving a simple Yes or No answer to a Yes or No question. They simply can’t do it, usually because they are unsure of their ground / lack the courage of their convictions / don’t have any convictions / are trying to defend the indefensible / are cynically trying to hedge their bets. Or all of the above.
I for one appreciated AMW giving one word answers when one word is all that is required.
HEAR HEAR HEAR…
Thoshammer, to be fair to AMW, the questions were set as simple multiple choice: “[yes/no]”. The other three candidates who answered the questions expanded upon their answers. Since only four candidates answered, there was space in the article to include most of their replies.
I am sure that AMW has a good grasp of Islam. She and Ben Walker both gave an unqualified support for non-stun animal slaughter to be banned. This policy would be hugely popular with voters.
I agree with you & DK – if I lived in one of the former Iron Curtain nations saying no Muslim immigrants, you won’t fit in here I’d be 100% behind that, accepting I was rejecting the good as well as the bad – coming out to join the rest of the world & looking at 9/11, 7/7 and so on it’s common sense, not Islamophobia. Here in the UK we have had Muslim communities that are happy to live alongside, in the same way as Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons like the groups David identifies. They are persecuted too remember- we should encourage and support them.
PP, and anyone else who longs to live in harmony – there’s a reason that more Muslims die at the hands of other Muslims than any other races or religions do – because they are either the wrong type of Muslim or they have offended Allah – make no mistake, these good people will either convert or go the way of the Kuffar when time and demographics get to a certain point.
Unfortunately throughout history the moderate majority has always been irrelevant, and there has been a significant change in Britain from when the first generation of Muslims came here. Now many Saudi-funded mosques also have Saudi-funded Imams preaching their poison into the willing ears of 2nd and 3rd generation Muslim boys. These boys often fall for the temptations of the West – drink, drugs or listening to music. That would mean that they are doomed to eternal hell-fire – but they are told that there is a way out for them. If they embrace Jihad, of the sword, of the pen and word, or of money, (inner struggle is only 2% on Allah’s scales, so not really a goer) then Allah will tip the scales in their favor, and their sins will be ruled out. It really is that simple. That’s why, when they say, oh but he drank, or gambled, took drugs or whatever, so he can’t have been a Muslim, all it really means is that he was taking advantage of Allah’s get out of jail free card.
We will reap what these Imams have sown in their mosques and madrassas for many years to come, even if we were to start acting now and enforcing our laws and outlawing Sharia and Halal, which is the foundation of Islam and Islamic Law. We need to be clear about the enemy of the Western way of life that we are fighting, and our best and only hope is not to think it may be all right, but to begin now to face up and do what we can. That’s why many of us here are, as Richard W describes us, Islamocentrist – for the sake of our country and those that come after us, we need to be, Richard W.
You are being unfair. This was ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ only. Those that had more to say didn’t understand what they’d been asked.
Neither do you.
Ahmadiyya still consider Muhammad to be one of the greatest human beings to ever walk the face of planet Earth. Muhammad is still an example for them to follow. That should be enough to discount them as being a group compatible with Western values/Human Rights.
Here’s an article on what can happen when a Sunni/Muslim majority makes use of democracy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/raza-habib-raja/ahmadiyya-muslims_b_8099324.html
We have all the information we could ever need to know that Islam in whatever flavour is serious bad news.