MICHAEL HEBDEN looks at the attempted Islamic conquest of Yorkshire
IN WEST YORKSHIRE, thinking people – and that doesn't only include those enlightened individuals who have joined our movement – have long been convinced that it's only a matter of time before the Muslims completely take over what used to be called the West Riding. Unless somebody stops them that is.
Determinedly pro-immigrant local authorities in these parts have made no secret of their willingness to give way to Asian demands, to grant them special rights and privileges and enable them to form their own separate communities. The result is that such communities now exist, invariably hostile to even the most harmless white presence.
Mark you, I don't suggest that this development is exclusively devoted to Yorkshire; exactly the same thing is happening in other parts of the country. But it seems to me that the county of the White Rose is a prime example of the birth and growth in Britain of Islamic nationalism.
Not our sort of nationalism, of course, which believes in the sanctity of national identity within the confines of the lands of ethnic origin. On the contrary, this is a form of nationalism which is in reality imperialist.
Anyone who cannot understand – or refuses to understand – that we are actually the victims of an insidious colonisation by Islam is either stupid or traitorous – or both. What is happening in Britain is exactly parallel to Saddam Hussein's takeover of Kuwait, except that it is being achieved by stealth and contrivance rather than by force or arms.
It is impossible to understand why there has been no apparent public outcry over the recently released Islamic plans to set up own two-tier Government and a 'non-territorial' state, right here in the heartlands of our own country. Behind this monstrous manifesto is the unashamedly pro-Iranian British Muslim Society, headed by Dr Kalim Saddiqi.
Exactly what a 'non-territorial' state might be is difficult to understand. It seems that adjective and noun are a contradiction in terms. How can any state be non-territorial, and how can it possible have any enforceable authority?
It is quite obvious that in Britain there are many large alien-populated districts which are already claiming territorial possession, if they haven't actually got round to proclaiming territorial rights. Within ten miles or so of my own home there are several such areas, into which few white folks ever venture. To all intents and purposes, they are already mini-states in which the inhabitants pay little or no heed to British law or traditional behaviour.
Some Muslims are claiming – well, they would, wouldn't they? – that Dr. Saddiqi is no more than one of a number of self-styled Islamic leaders who have no real following, and that his plans are dangerous because they could well result in a backlash of white anti-Muslim feeling. Notable amongst these protesters is one Dr. Zaki Badawi, who appears to have set himself up as a sort of Public Relations Officer on behalf of Muslim 'moderates'. Sadly for him, his title of Head of the Council of Mullahs and Mosques is scarcely likely to instill confidence in the minds of any indigenous Briton.
Recently the Sunday Telegraph a lengthy article by Badawi in which he said, amongst other placatory platitudes: 'The impression that Muslims in Great Britain are bent on isolating themselves from the rest of society and establishing a state within a state is totally untrue. There might be a few first generation immigrants who are still drawn to the image of the society back home and wish to transplant it over here. The second generation, however, has no such longing; nor do they seek to live separately or even accept such an arrangement.'
Anyone living in an area in which there is massive Muslim presence will immediately recognise those words for the rubbish they are. Far from showing any desire to integrate and become a part of traditional British life, these second generation immigrants are steadily becoming more arrogant and assertive. It is now commonplace to hear of them spitting insults – at elderly white women –and telling them get out since this is their town. Even the young females, who until fairly recently have been as self-effacing as chameleons, have started banding together to hurl obscenities at solitary passing white girls.
Whilst you might, very occasionally, come across white and immigrant school children walking around town together, you never see teenagers in mixed groups. And if it's possible to have anything less then never, that's the number of times you see a social intermingling of adults. So much for integration.
I have a theory –which I can't substantiate, of course –that, far from Siddiqi and Badawi representing opposing ends of the Islamic political spectrum, they are working hand in glove. Whereas Saddiqi openly expresses true Muslim aims, I believe, Badawi presents a picture of moderation aimed at securing even more acquiescence from the gullible supporters of multi-racialism and allaying the fears of normal white people. Such covert co-operation would represent no dichotomy the convoluted reasoning of Muslim politics.
Badawi's piece resulted in some pretty robust replies from Sunday Telegraph. One of them pulled the plug on him by quoting his own words, written in a book called Islam in Britain: 'A proselytising religion cannot stand still. It can either expand or contract ... (Islam) hopes that one day the whole of humanity will be one Muslim community, the Umma.'
It would perhaps have been more accurate for Badawi to have said 'Islam intends' rather than 'Islam hopes'.
There is no such animal as a moderate Muslim. Even Saudi Arabia, which has called on Western aid to prevent further advances by Saddam, is virulently Islamic – witness its laws and practices, its open funding of Muslim expansionism, its detestation of Israel. The only reason for the appeal for UN help was the most basic of them all . . . self-preservation.
Already there are disturbing stories of Muslim disgust in Saudi Arabia about white women in uniform, or driving motor vehicles or smoking in public. Outside the Saudi Royal Family there is much secret resentment of foreign nationals being located on the holy sands of a country that houses Islam's most sacred shrines.
Already Saddiqi has openly called for the withdrawal of British forces from the Gulf. Badawi, without actually contradicting this view, concentrates on stating that Muslims abroad should obey the laws of the land in which they are living.
Unfortunately, however, that particular ruling is based on convenience, not moral obligation, and is valid only when there is no perceived opportunity to replace non-Islamic law with that of Islam. If such an opportunity arises, the Muslim is obliged to take it.
Given all the foregoing, can anyone doubt what will inevitably happen if (or perhaps I should say when) Saddiqi's manifesto is generally accepted by British Muslims.
Those mini-states of Bradford and Batley and Dewsbury, and in Rochdale and countless other towns throughout the land, will become even more isolationist and self-contained.
Muslims pride themselves on their deep sense of religion, indeed they are admired for it by a great many white people. To call it religion is perhaps a misnomer. Islam is not so much a religion as a way of life, in which the ruling factor is Islamic law as interpreted by the Imams and Mullahs.
This proposed Muslim 'Parliament', its members democratically elected, is supposedly to be called together to debate Islamic law and its application. words in bold are unstated and are my own, but I have no doubt whatever that they are implicit.
The pronouncements already made by Saddiqi and his kind are an indication that the discussions of Islamic law within their own Parliament will inevitably involve matters of international politics. Muslim reaction at the height of the Rushdie affair caused enough problems in the country, heaven alone knew what might result from a united determined opposition to, say, future UN collective action against an Islamic state.
As it is, no 'infidel' knows what goes on in the secret fastnesses of the ever-proliferating mosques, no one knows what the religious instructions may be in those madrassahs in which fledgling Muslims are indoctrinated. But it's fairly safe to hazard a few guesses. And only the feeble-will include in their guesswork instructions about the observation of British law or respect for British customs.
Any political ostriches in this land who believe that, if they ignore them, Saddiqi and his totally unacceptable plottings will disappear are demented. They won't go away!
The fundamental difference between Muslim and non-Muslim is not a matter of skin colour or ethnic background. It is, quite simply, a matter of basic philosophy. Ethical ruthlessness is rare amongst Christian races; in the world of Islam it is the norm.
Once the concept of a 'non-territorial' Islamic state is generally accepted by the Muslims themselves – which it will be, because their collective ego precludes any other decision – and supinely agreed by our gutless leaders, with the customary excuse that to disagree would create racial disharmony, the next step towards a truly territorial state is inevitable.
Realisation will move from the realm of nightmare into the realm of reality.