He is used to speaking at closed BNP meetings, where his weird take on history and anthropology are never questioned. If he rarely exposes himself to public scrutiny, then what does he expect?

The English also know a bumbling fcukwit when they see one.

Just seen your further email Steve (took me two hours to reply to the first one ). I'm sure you're right about where you live - I know London much better and I think conditions may be a lot different. But I was trying to suggest that the media haven't picked up on the huge debate within Islam in Britain about exactly the same issues. Like all political/religious debates there are massive differences of opinion - Muslims are just as inclined to fudging, hypocrisy, misunderstandings and hysteria as the rest of us.

The question for us as outsiders is how we deal with it. The answer is - I don't know. But I think I know what we should not do. Repeated insults and attacks on Islam drive Muslims further into a corner, make them less open to dialogue and more inclined to drastic solutions.

Now - and it's getting complicated again - a Muslim as you know may perceive an 'insult' to Islam where none was intended. A traditional scholar would say that he or she should show proper 'good manners' (a very important idea in Islam) and respond carefully and correctly to challenge that insult but without anger or violence. Attacking the Danish embassy or even losing your temper because of some cartoons is profoundly un-Islamic behaviour.

However, we know that not all Muslims in this country or elsewhere can live up to these high ideals. Is it sensible therefore - or good manners on our part - to insult Islam deliberately when we know what the reaction will be? Probably not. However, we should - just like you did in asking these important questions - not hesitate to ask about those aspects of Islam which appear strange or even barbaric to us. It is vital that we ask these questions and not hide them, ignore them or prevaricate - just as mainstream politicians often do. Inevitably some Muslims, whether due to pride or misunderstanding, will take offence - just as some of us would if anyone challenged some of our most basic beliefs.

Nonetheless, I believe if we ask those questions in an understanding and non-judgmental way, we will get the answers. The answers may be incomplete, contradictory and confusing because of the sheer number of Muslim voices - there is no Muslim Pope, there is no Muslim Archbishop of Canterbury who can provide a quick fix.

In among those Muslim voices are the ones that will prevail during the next 50 years. In my view - and this of course is coming from a white, middle-class Protestant living in the South of England - it is more likely that ultimately a more moderate strand of Islam will come out top. But this is not necessarily the voice that we expect. Let us be clear - the vast majority of British Muslims currently believe that: homosexuality is a sin; that Muslim women should not marry non-Muslim men; and that leaving Islam, if not punishable by death, is nonetheless an extremely serious and shameful event. All of these matters are subject to qualification and quite often (and surprisingly) people will live in a way quite different from what their religion dictates. But it is there.

Does this mean the end of Britain as we know it? I don't think so, and that's largely because it seems that an 'indigenous' (!) form of Islam is developing in Britain which is not like Islam in Pakistan or Bangladesh or Turkey. It may take years to reach fruition but it is already clear to me that when you meet a French Muslim they talk about Islam in a peculiarly French way - for example, French Muslims tend not to get upset about the headscarf ban in schools, which is a catastrophe according to British Muslims. Why? Because French Muslims, living in France, have partly picked up the idea that the state is secular and so it seems right to them that state schools should not allow religious clothing.

Similarly in Britain a lot - not all of course - of younger Muslims are talking about Islam in a very British way. It's very distinct if you meet Muslims from Egypt or Syria.

So what might British Islam look like in 20 years' time? Well, one possibility is that it will start to develop its own tradition of scholarship, so that British Muslim scholars will be able to argue with their counterparts in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, interpreting Islam in accordance with British realities not Middle Eastern hypotheticals.

It is possible that Islam will continue to be a vehicle for political aspirations. Islam is often how Muslims talk politics - it provides an extraordinarily powerful language of liberation and hope. I think that you have seen something of that power when you talk about the magnetism of Islam. Very often it is a perspective that non-Muslims don't understand - and which Muslims don't always explain very well.

From our point of view, the crucial fact is that the vast majority of Islamic activism takes place in a very familiar framework - legal protest and engagement in a parliamentary democracy. Activists' groups will campaign alongside traditional British political organisations like trade unions and political parties. This is not just a marriage of convenience - they genuinely have interests in common. Muslim activists will lobby MPs; they were heavily involved in the creation of a new political party (Respect).

Now you and I and most right-thinking people will think the SWP, Tony Benn and George Galloway are bonkers, but the fact that this is the main route that the activists followed in 2001-2003 must be cause for hope. They are joining the British political debate as fully-fledged members of a democracy. They are articulating their Islam 'Britishly' and their Britishness 'Islamically' - there is no contradiction between the two.

Another possibility is that over time, British Muslims will become secular. This is happening already in parts of France, where mixed marriage is common - there was talk in the French papers a while ago of couples sharing 'bacon couscous', which clearly represents an accomodation with the underlying secular traditions of the country. Likewise in the UK some Muslims celebrate the end of Ramadan by going on a massive drinking binge after one month off the booze (this may actually be more common than we think).

However - I would say - don't expect Muslims to stop being Muslim. France has its own context and we have ours. The French tend to force their ideas on their citizens - we don't do that here because, as an earlier poster said, the British don't like being told what to do. The UK has seen a huge revival of interest in Islam, and the foreign-policy issues in the Middle East and debates in the British media encorage people to defend rather than give up their faith.

But - and this is where being British comes in - Muslims in the UK have started describing their Islam in British terms. They talk about human rights, the rights of women, democracy, the need for tolerance, seeking parallels in both traditions and describing how these ideas are Western and Islamic at the same time. You can find precedents for all of these concepts in the Quran and in the very earliest Muslim communities - centuries before the West thought it had discovered them. Now if we can find common ground with the Muslims on these basic ideas - which are universal in my view to all mankind - then we can work together.

There was a scholar once, centuries ago, who said that Islam is like water in a coloured glass. You hold it up to the light and in a red glass, the water appears to be red. In a blue glass, the water looks blue. But it's still the same water, and still the same Islam - but it can be articulated and accommodate itself to different cultures and countries.

Look at the Kenyans, the Malaysians or the Chinese. Not one of peoples was originally Muslim but now you can meet Muslims from each of these countries - and they are all completely different. Do they stop being Kenyan, Malaysian or Chinese? In the same way, the Muslims are becoming British. One day, if we hold that glass up to the light, it may just turn out to be red, white and blue.

Really?

Could you throw a bit of light on the last twelve years of Labour misrule then please?

Question Time, and not just last night's, is a load of w4nk.

The BBC continuity announcer should say "And now on BBC1, and hour of that ridiculuous old ponce Dimbleby interrupting people for the purposes of self-aggrandisement"

Last nights farce was a massive early Christmas present for the other members of the panel - no debate on war, MP expenses not being repaid, Fag Mandelson fcuking up the Royal Mail or owt else.

The politicos and the BBC tried to stitch up mouth-breather Griffin, and it backfired on them.



And Jack Straw is a lisping cnut.

As a Scotsman, I take great delight delight in reminding you that 'The English' as you call them elected a bumbling Scottish fcukwit Bliar for three terms in government.

Blair was born in Edinburgh, Scotland

What about the outrageous immigration policies nulab have had which have led to the rise of the risible BNP?

New Labour has much to answer for.

23rd October: Jeremy Vine's programme, Radio 2:

Hundreds of e mails received; majority of which expressed some sympathy for Griffin because of his treatment on previous night's QT.

Callers generally expressed similar views; one stated -

"The audience was packed with ethnic minorities and left wingers, and none of the panellists were interested in debating the issues."

"You Gov" poll for Daily Telegraph, 23rd Oct:

22% of respondents said they'd consider voting BNP.
43% of respondents thought the BNP was"... right to speak for the white British".

Exactly the sort or response I predicted back on p18.

The BBC screwed up, & gifted Griffin/ BNP a major propaganda coup.

As I stated earlier, the reactions of the studio audience, & the opinions of those in Hampstead etc, are irrelevant to Griffin & Co. No surprise he commented after the programme that "London is no longer a British city". What is relevant, is how this whole fiasco might be viewed by some potential voters in, for example, Bradford, West Midlands, areas of London "saarf" of the River etc! The indications are that he's done himself & his odious minions no harm there...

Had the programme been conducted as per normal - ie questions on key issues de jour posed for the panel to answer in turn, I'm convinced Griffin would have exposed himself as the nasty little sh*t he really is. As it turned out, he's been able to garner a lot of undeserved sympathy; which'll be exploited fully via a formal complaint to the BBC!

Cheers Steve - I think we're on the same wavelength. Sorry I didn't see your latest before posting my long-winded response... here's another one You've really got me thinking!

I think you're absolutely right - you have to keep talking to people. I always thought it was a mistake for the West to stop dialogue with Hamas for example. The thing is, if you talk to people, they sometimes say what you're not expecting. You can find what you have in common, what you disagree on and you can start to identify the real crazies that nobody agrees with.

In the Islamic tradition, scholars always used to meet face-to-face, if they could, to learn and discuss ideas, even if it meant travelling to the other side of the world. They didn't really trust things when they were written down - there was one scholar who was supposed to have learnt everything from books, and so he was always treated with caution. It's a very oral tradition. In the same way, you can't really rely on newspapers or the internet - I only ever learnt anything by listening.

There is so much that Islam and the West have in common - but the language we use is so different that we are only just starting to work it out, just like Nick Griffin admiring the Islamic banking system! I don't mean that one side is talking English and the other is talking Arabic or Urdu (although that may literally be the case). It's more that the way that Muslims express themselves by focussing on ideas that have their own specific meaning within the religion.

For example, Muslims talk a lot about the importance of 'patience' and fortitude in adversity. They talk about 'compassion' and 'mercy'. 'Justice' and the struggle against oppression is another key idea. And above all, there is the importance of 'good manners' at all times - especially in debate on difficult topics. As you say, they are powerful, even addictive ideas.

But I think to have British citizens who think in this way is a good thing - and it mirrors our own native traditions. These are all ideas taken straight from the Quran and experienced in the life of the Prophet Muhammad. Often Muslims will use the Arabic words for these ideas, even when speaking in English; they are instantly recognisable to them but mean nothing to non-Muslims. This disguises just how close the ideas can be.

One curious thing I noticed was that after spending a lot of time listening to Muslims and to Islamic TV and radio, it changed the way I used language - I started to talk and even think with distinctly Islamic ideas. Now imagine a Muslim who's grown up in this country - of course he or she will straightaway engage with ideas like democracy and human rights and the rights of women.

And you see it happening already - take just one example: a well-known activist organisation MPAC (you've probably come across them) campaigned for mosques to open up their doors to women. If you look at MPAC from the outside, it might appear to be your typical 'special rights for Muslims!' group beloved of ARRSE posters, but (as always) it's a bit more complicated than that. The young activists of MPAC (they tend to be in their 20s and 30s) were using a very British political response to a problem by door-stepping men coming out of the mosque, handing out leaflets and campaigning - direct action, in other words. This caused a lot of upset especially to older men brought up in different times and often in different countries who thought that young women shouldn't behave like this.

Now you and I might think - 'Great, another example of Muslims becoming integrated into British culture', but it's a bit more complicated still. For these young activists, they were acting in a profoundly Islamic way. They were asserting the rights of women to attend prayers - rights that should have come down to them from the earliest Muslim communities, but that were being denied by a South Asian patriarchal tradition without basis in true Islam.

This for me is just one example of how Islam and British culture can work together. I'm not talking about 'tolerating' each other (which has a hint of contempt - we don't like what you do but we will tolerate it). I'm not talking about 'respecting' each other either - that word has been used too often by our liberal elite as an excuse to cover up the uncomfortable truths you mentioned. I'm talking about how the two traditions can find their common ground and work together - that for me is the British solution which I think could be an Islamic solution too.

I am not a moral relativist - I know what terrible crimes have been committed, are being committed and will be committed in the name of Islam. I also think that we are in for some tough times ahead - but I want to suggest that there is an alternative future, that we (us and the Muslims together) can choose if we (and they) have the courage and the wisdom to do so.

The thing that scares me is if the Muslims start to 'get' it - and there are signs that some of them do so - but the non-Muslims don't, then that could be terrifying.

But to end on a cheerful note, the least-quoted verse in the Quran states:

'Not all of them are alike: of the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) are a portion that stand (for the right); they rehearse the signs of God all night long; and they prostrate themselves in adoration.' (3:113)

From the Muslim perspective, this was a revolutionary idea - in the seventh century, when Europe was in the Dark Ages, Islam proclaimed that even among the Jews and the Christians there were righteous people, since 'not all of them are like'. They were not killing Christians in a holy war or banning Jews from their lands. Through the Quran, God is saying that you cannot tar everyone with the same brush; it is not simply a question of Muslims versus infidels. There are good people even among those who you might be inclined to distrust.

I am not suggesting that every single Muslim in the UK sees it this way, but it suggests to me that there are other possibilities within Islam. There is the possibility that it is not narrow or intolerant. When the young men you talked about are drawn to the hypnotic power of Islam, I don't think they are drawn because they see a way to oppress their women or wage war against the West. I think they see something of the power of the Quranic arguments in favour of justice and of a correct, natural way of life - what you and I might call 'family values'.

I believe - and I know a lot of Muslims think this too - that sometimes people who strive for those great ideals get carried away, sometimesly disastrously. This not surprising; non-Muslims have pursued important, wonderful ideals like democracy or human rights but with unforeseen, catastrophic results.

Nonetheless, when these energies are channelled in the right way, then I think you can see some extraordinary human endeavour - you must have met people like this in your neck of the woods. I have met some remarkable Muslims whose driving force was the faith. For example, very devout, practising Muslims doing human rights work in uncomfortable circumstances with unsympathetic regimes. They will show us that the mad-eyed fanatic living off benefits spending his weekends waving the placard 'Death to those who insult Islam' is the exception rather than the rule. His behaviour is, I would suggest, profoundly un-Islamic.

It is not sufficient to expect Muslims to understand us. They should make every effort to do so. But we also have a duty to understand them too. I think I do understand Islam a little bit more than I used to but that was down to luck and meeting some good people. I just wish some of our smug politicians and journalists would do the same - not just looking it up on the internet (!), not even just visiting the local mosque and 'engaging in dialogue' (whatever that means) but really sitting down and learning from people, not just telling them what we want. They have a lot to tell us.

"Star Chamber"?

My bold

Utter bollox.

Warsi shot Griffin down in flames when he dared to talk this sh1t

Reading up on Warsi seems she's no better than the rest
Got hammered in the General Election when she stood in Dewsbury (lost by over 5000 votes)
Maigically after hanging round parliment in the mythical "Researcher" and "Special advisor" to Michael Howard she suddenly became a Peer
Managed to outrage Stonewall ( who hasn't though) by questioning Labours decision to lower the age of consent for Homosexuals

Also from Wiki

Other comments made by Lady Warsi have also provoked anger amongst gay-rights and anti-fascist campaigners, when she went on record saying that people who back the BNP, criticised for its racist and homophobic agenda, may even have a point. "They have some very legitimate views

I know!

Jack Straw is such a loser!

Even some "Independent" journos are miffed:

indyeagleeye.livejourn.../8663.html

She also upset a lot of folk in Dewsbury when it was discovered that she'd lied in order to woo the older Punjabi voters. She claimed to them in her canvassing that she had had a traditional arranged marriage in Pakistan. Turned out to be a lie, her and her ex-husband met in a UK university, quite independently of their parents.

Not the worst of crimes of course, to be an 'arranged marriage' walt but I do take some of her other claims with a bit of scepticism.

Both her grandfathers may well have fought for Britain during the war as she claimed on the programme and good for them if they did. But I wouldn't swear it was true just because she said so.

My bold, she didn't say both her grandfathers fought for Britian during the war. She said both of her Grandparents fought during the war, but never actually said what side.

I'm not saying they didn't fight for GB, but she never said they did either.

She was quite 'clever' if you like though when challenged about gay marriage.


She's a lawyer and was saying that under the law they have a right whilst ignoring any moral aspect to that. This falls in with her asylum seeker comment.

Yes, thats quite true, a lot of his meetings are with like minded knobbers, or people fed up with being fcuked over by Nu Lab. However, according to Wiki, he has been involved in debates at a number of Universities and I seem to remember that he was on the Andrew Marr show. As he's a Cambridge graduate, I doubt that he himself is in fact a bumbling fcukwit, rather an exploiter of fcukwits, racialists and the disenchanted. I consider it to be an indictment of this Government, in that the odious BNP has started to flourish and has grown in strength, since Nu Labs immigration and open ended benefit policies have well and truly kicked in.

If Labour and the Tories and that other bunch in the House of Commons had treated Immegration and Asylum seakers and had a grown up debate out in the open instead of calling anyone who mentions it a Racist Nazi thug then the BNP would still be stuck under their stone

In fairness to the Tories, they have questioned the Govt's immigration stance quite vigorously on occasion. They were of course shouted down as racists, as indeed were any others that dared to question St Tony's open to all policy. Now, people who can be bothered to keep up with the news, know that the shit has hit the fan, thanks to the week end revelation by one of their former advisers.

Thanks Yellow Devil, I am sure I agree with you,and tried to say something similar (in a much cruder way!)The current military mission will I'm sure eventually only be resolved by finding an Afghan centred solution which will of course be highly affected by Islamic and Tribal factors. I have no idea what that eventually will look like,but I am certain only full and frank communication and an honest acceptance of each parties true objectives has any chance of offering a route to a useful conclusion.I am now going to read your excellent posts again because I think there is much for me to learn there and I find myself encouraged to be finding a perspective that has broadened my insight and seems to offer hope.I just hope that the British Government can decide what it actually expects our forces to do,and then gives them sufficient support to do this as effectively,in as timely a fashion as possible for every one's sake.

If the BBC did in fact hand a PR coup to Nicholas "Call me Nick" Griffin, which I doubt, he demonstrated that he couldn't have handled it anyway! He was like Dan Parks, with a four man overlap...