Islamic State of Great Britain The Inevitable Outcome of Muslim Appeasement

Tuesday, 12 October 2010 10:29 Dr Radhasyam Brahmachari Jihad - Dhimmitude-Appeasement-Treason

In the Previous article Dangerous Policy of Muslim Appeasement in the U.K., it has been pointed out that the British Labour politicians have adopted the disastrous policy of Muslim appeasement to capture their block-votes to win election and stay in power. But little do they understand what Sir Winston Churchill had said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last”. While commenting on Islam, he, in another occasion said, “No greater retrograde force (than Islam) exists in the world.” 

It may be mentioned that, in India since independence, congress and all other political parties, including BJP, who came to power played vote Bank politics by appeasing minority Muslims, at the cost of majority Hindus as well as the national interest. So, Naresh Khanna, a political analyst, writes, “Though India is being devoured bit by bit, every day, by its tormentors, India continues to appease them (Muslims). Poisonous politics of appeasement has crippled India and ravaged its body and soul. …. Genocide and eviction of Hindus from Kashmir to be made refugees in their own country; frequent Pak-Bangla sponsored terrorist attacks on security forces, civilians and temples; continuation of Article 370 conferring a special status on Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir; infiltration of millions of Pak-Bangla (Muslim) nationals into India to create one more Islamic country on Indian soil represent the bitter harvest of this suicidal appeasement. The Indian Government, starting from secularism has steadily gone towards Minority (Muslim) appeasement. … The future of 85% of the population (Hindus) of India is bleak unless the present Government is replaced by a truly secular government.”  

 In the latest Parliamentary Election, held in May this year, with the defeat of the Labour Party, the 13-year-long Labour rule came to an end in UK and a coalition government of Conservatives and the Liberals came to power. David Cameron, the leader of the Conservatives, took his office as the new Prime Minister on May 11, 2010. So, the Labour Party or the Labour Government is responsible for most the steps taken up by the Government for appeasing the Muslim. Some of the outcomes of the Labour Government’s policy of Muslim appeasement will be discussed below.

Going Soft on Muslims is a Sign of their Appeasement:

It has been mentioned in the previous article that, as soon as Muslims in a non-Muslim country could sense that the ruling government or the ruling political party is greedy for their votes and has adopted the policy of Muslim appeasement, they start stiff bargaining to squeeze out as much benefit and privileges as possible from it. They go on demanding unjust financial, religious and other benefits and concessions from the government, because they know that government would bow down to their most unjust and illegal demands for their votes. In addition to that, they intensify their jihadi and other unlawful and terrorist activities because they know that the government would turn a blind eye to these activities for the fear of losing their votes.

So, going soft on unruly Islamic demands and activities is an important element of Muslim appeasement. For example, the UK Government is reluctant to hand a harsh punishment for Roshanara Chaudhary, a young Muslim woman, for stabbibg the Labour MP Stephen Timms and that is the reason they have invented a history of mental illness in order to spare her of severe punishment. A few more examples are narrated below.

Suicide Bombings in London on 7th July, 2005:

On April 2, 2004, thousands of UK Muslims staged a (not so peaceful) demonstration to denounce the British policy of sending troops to Iraq and Afghanistan. The demonstrators carried placards that read:

“Europe will pay”, “ Your annihilation is on the way”
“This is the beginning of the end for you disbelievers”.

The unruly angry mob shouted violent slogans: “UK, you pay”, “Tony Blair, pull out your troops from Iraq, pull out your troops from Afghanistan, and if you do not pull out your troops, you will get bloodshed in the streets of London.”


The commentator of the video says, “But none was arrested. Media was reluctant to publicize the incidents.” .. “40% of the UK Muslims wants Sharia Law to be implemented in Great Britain. 32% of British Muslims believe that the Western society has become decadent and immoral and the Muslims should seek to bring it to the end”, the commentator continues.

The Muslim mob actually threatened Tony Blair by saying, “If you do not pull out your troops, you will get bloodshed in the streets of London.” The threat was put into action exactly a year later, on July 7, 2005, London suffered a terrorist attack, In that incident, also known as 7/7, a series of coordinated suicide bombings took place on London’s public transport system during the morning rush hour. The attack claimed 56 lives and nearly 700 injured. Britain’s involvement in the Iraq War was supposed to be the motive of the attack. The bombings were carried out by four Muslim men, three of British Pakistani and one of British Jamaican descent. But the then Labour government restrained itself from taking stern action against the culprits but took a softer course.

Theo Van Gogh

Theodoor (or Theo) van Gogh was a Dutch film director, film producer, columnist, author and actor. He was the great-grandson of Theo van Gogh, who was the brother of the world renowned artist-painter Vincent van Gogh. Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the 10-minute film Submission, depicting the treatment of women in Islam. In fact, Submission, the title of the film stands for Islam, because submission is the literal English word for the Arabic word Islam.

Thousands of UK Muslims held a demonstration in London against Theo Van Gogh and his film. The angry mob shouted slogans and carried violence-inciting placards. A few of the placards read:

“Stop your crimes against our Religion and our Prophet”
“This is the beginning of the end for you disbelievers”

Muslim leaders delivered inflammable speeches during the demonstration.

In the early morning on November 2, 2004, Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh, in Amsterdam, in front of the Amsterdam East borough office, while he was cycling to work. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun causing his death on the spot. Bouyeri then stabbed dying Van Gogh repeatedly on the chest and left the knife implanted on his torso and a 5-page letter on his body. The letter threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The note also contained references to the ideologies of the Egyptian terrorist organization Takfir wal-Hijra.

The day after the murder, Dutch police arrested eight Muslim radicals belonging to a group later referred to as the Hofstad Network. Six detainees were Dutch-Moroccans, one was Dutch-Algerian and one had dual Spanish-Moroccan nationality. The chief accused and the assassinator Mohammed Bouyeri was a 26-year-old Dutch-Moroccan citizen and police apprehended that he had links with the terrorist outfit Dutch Hofstad Network. He was also charged with the attempted murder of several police officers and bystanders, illegal possession of a firearm, and conspiring to murder others, including Ayan Hirsi Ali. He was convicted on 26 July 2005 and sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole. However, the murder of Theo Van Gogh sparked a storm of outrage throughout the Netherlands. Flowers, notes, drawings, and other expressions of mourning were left at the scene of the murder.

It should be mentioned that, Imam Fawaz of the as-Sunnah Mosque in The Hague gave a sermon several weeks before the murder in which he called Theo van Gogh “a criminal bastard’ and beseeched Allah to visit an incurable disease upon the filmmaker. Many believe that Imam Fawaz’s incitement and provocation led the Muslim jihadis to plot his murder.

The Cartoon Controversy and British Muslims:

On September 30, 2005, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published 12 editorial cartoons, most of which depicted the Islamic prophet Muhammad. The newspaper Jyllands-Posten announced that this publication was an attempt to contribute to the ongoing debate regarding criticism of Islam and its Prophet Muhammad. Muslim organizations of Denmark objected to the depictions by holding public protests attempting to raise awareness of the Muslims regarding cartoons. Meanwhile further examples of the cartoons were soon appeared in the newspapers of more than 50 other countries.

This led to violent protests across the Muslim world. In some countries police had to resort to firing to disperse the angry mob resulting in a total of more than 100 deaths. Thousands of violent protesters set fire to the Danish Embassies in Syria, Lebanon and Iran and stormed other buildings. Violent protesters also desecrated Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, French and German flags in Gaza City. Various Muslim groups, primarily in the Western world, responded by boycott of Danish goods. Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen described the controversy as Denmark’s worst international crisis since World War II.

In London, thousands of Muslims staged a demonstration, in front of the Danish embassy in London, against the cartoons appeared in the Danish newspaper. The demonstrators carried placards that read:

“As Muslims we are unite & we are prepared to fight”
“Behead those who insult Islam”
“Massacre those who insult Islam”
“BBC = British Blasphemic crusaders”
“Europe, you will pay, fantastic 4 are on their way”
“Annihilate those who insult Islam”
“Freedom go to hell” 
.... and so on.

The demonstrators were shouting violent slogans such as:

“May Allah bomb you”,
“May Osama bin-Laden bomb you”,
“May they bomb Denmark so that we may invade that country and take their wives as war booty”,
“Denmark go to hell”,
“USA go to hell”,
“George Bush go to hell”,
“Khaibar Khaibar, O Jew, the army of Muhammad is coming for you”,
“Nuke Nuke USA”, “Nuke Nuke Denmark”,
“Allahu Akbar”
..... and so on.

But the Labour Government refrained from taking any action and arresting none. It is needless to say that such an inaction on the part of the government encourages these Muslim criminals to undertake more violent activities in UK and that would gradually lead the country towards an Islamic Great Britain.

As a follow up of the politics of Muslim appeasement by the British government so many incredible things are taking place in the UK. According to a report appeared in the February 5, 2010 edition of The Independent, on February 4, a UK Judge Cherie Blair, the wife of ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, gave the man reduced sentence because he is devout Muslim. The news obviously shocked secular British society. The accused Shamso Miah (25) was released from jail last month after he was convicted of assaulting a person at a bank queue in east London and sentenced to prison terms. In the present case, he was convicted of fracturing another person’s jaw. He was given a two-year suspended sentence instead of a six-month jail term because, Mrs Blair said, he was a “religious person” who had not been in trouble before. (JihadWatch)

Another news says that a Catholic High School Forced Female Students to dress as Muslims. “Female students at the Ellesmere Port Catholic High School in Ellesmere Port, Cheshire were ordered to dress like Muslim women by wearing trousers, long sleeve shirts or blouses and headscarves on a compulsory school field trip to a local mosque. Students who refused to Islamicise their outfit were punished by being branded a truant and their permanent school record marked with an unauthorized absence”, the report said. ( )
A Muslim organization called Dudley Muslim Association planned to build an £18million mega-mosque, with 65ft tall minarets, on Hall Street in Dudley town centre. But the authorities have been compelled to scrape the scheme due to vigorous protests from the local Christian people.

So, Geert Wilders, while addressing the audience in the House of Lords, on March 3, 2010, jokingly asked the audience, “Would London remain London, or it would become Londonistan?” We hope to discuss many other developments in forth-coming articles.