islam is evil and antihuman ,there are two reasons why evil BLAIR calls islam progressive practical and ahead of its time:THE OIL IN MIDDLE EAST AND THE ARABS MONEY IN BRITISH BANKS.

Oh Blair! Stone worshipping islamofascist are primitive tribal cultists! They have enslaved 50% of their population servile sex slaves - some into becoming eight wife of an 80 year old man!

All the science they learnt, was form India, including numerals. Going around kaaba stone is is also a Hindu practice, if you see people going around the main deity in humanized form.

Throwing stone at the devil, is what is practiced in Palestine, India..to lynch civilians to death. Now acid is more popular that has disfigured many Indian women. In effect, it s bogus cult full of fraudulent claims, Haj being forced tourism trick by the arabs!!!

The link referred to by Buccaneer seems not to work, but I think this refers to the same article:

Revealed: preachers' messages of hate

Muslim worshippers are being urged by radical clerics to ignore British law

It is apparently planned as a televised release.  The article is here: 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1984616,00.html

I came across the following article while looking for a link to the one posted by Buccanner which didn't work for me.  I was surprised that it was in print in an English paper.  Maybe the author was the reason. 

"in the name of multiculturalism, mosque schools were encouraged and Muslim pupils spent up to six extra hours a day learning the Koran and Islamic tradition, as well as their own regional languages. Finally, there are the grievances. Some of these are genuine enough, but the complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene where Muslims are victims (as in Bosnia or Kosovo), and always wrong when they may be the oppressors or terrorists (as with the Taliban or in Iraq), even when their victims are also mainly Muslims. "

The entire letter is worth reading:

Multiculturalism is to blame for perverting young Muslims
By Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester

The link:  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/08/15/do1501.xml

"At the Sparkbrook mosque, run by UK Islamic Mission (UKIM), an
organisation that maintains 45 mosques in Britain and which Tony Blair
has said 'is extremely valued by the government for its multi-faith and
multicultural activities', a preacher is captured on film praising the
Taliban. In response to the news that a British Muslim solider was
killed fighting the Taliban, the speaker declares: 'The hero of Islam
is the one who separated his head from his shoulders.'"
 

Read the whole comment on:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1984530,00.html

Tony Blair has faced having to operate within a collectivist society and making choices which were not popular with those of that mentality.  The results of choices which he made are currently perceived as having been in error.  I do not think he will be judged too harshly in history, but I think he is trying to leave with some legacy within the society which he views as having a continuing dominance.

I applaud him for some difficult choices he made and will not begrudge him for attempting to leave with some chance for operating within the circles of the collectivists.  I feel certain that history will vindicate him while excoriating the power structure which resisted his efforts.  I don't agree with his statements but I doubt that he does either.  Only a collectivist would.

You have proven yourself, so many times, both in international, and home affairs, to be completely operational in some sort of seperate reality. Would you please enlighten me?
I just gotta have some of whatever it is you are smoking!

Gee.  Seeing that muslim ad claiming Mohammed as last prophete to mankind reminds me of Joseph Smith claiming even later prophete still.  Well, millions of Mormon believe that.  Too bad that they don't recourse to violence to spread theit religion like muslims.

They all forget  what Jesus said: "by their fruit you will recognize them".

@ Mr Doney

You may deny having your head in the sand, but you make a good effort to illustrate further that you do. I have no more prior (a priori) insight into what is going on in "collective heads" than you do, but you seem to have a strong resistance to making empirical observations if these observations do not conform with received pc 'wisdom'.  Hence your knowledge about what goes on in "collective heads" will be deficient.  And jokes about "psychics" are a diversionary strawman.

I have nowhere "explicitly agreed with you"!  What makes you make such a ridiculous statement?  I have made a distinction between a superficial (or fake) peace and a real peace.  So, I invite you to think deeper about the concept of peace, and to make empirical observations about what that means concretely in different parts of the world.

We are not talking about individual behavior, but about groupthink and group behaviors.  A specific individual can indeed be (or become) "different" by virtue of living in a different society.  Groups, particularly large groups, generally do not.  I repeat, ask your typical London muslim taxi driver whether he would 'tolerate' his child to choose a different religion in adulthood, and learn something about intolerance on which no "real peace" can be based.  And make historical empirical observations (1) about countries where demographic changes have put muslims in power, or (2) what happened to democratic structures initially bequeathed by colonial powers in muslim countries, and extrapolate in Europe's future (if you dare, of course).  

Perhaps the best illustration of your head in the sand, i.e. of your unwillingness to make un-pc observations, is the ridiculous rethorical question of "...what do you mean by the muslim world".  

It would appear that the Kapitein has a better appreciation of reality than Mr Doney, and that the latter has his head in the sand. 

Of course the majority of muslims in the west live there in "peace".  They are not fools, and they know what would happen if they did not live in 'peace' today.  The reality of the nature of that 'peace' will be clarified when they become perhaps politically dominant in the west in the future as they are in the 'muslim world' today.  Ask the Copts in Egypt. Why would muslims fundamentally be different in the west than in the muslim world?  And about the 'peace' of the muslim world there is ample empirical evidence available.  It is the peace of the 'grave' or of 'submission'.

@ Mr Doney

Ask your 'peaceful' muslim taxi driver if he would 'allow' his children to change their religion when they reach their adulthood.  And you get a glimpse of the nature of muslim "peace".   Perhaps, the nature of the 'peace' in Lebanon could be the best indicator of the future peace of Europe (given current demographic realities in both Lebanon and Europe). 

"This is belied by the fact that most Muslims in the West do [co-exist peacefully]."

Actually they do not; to believe that Islam is divided between a so-called moderate majority and a radical minority is a fallacy. Muslim terrorists, criminals, and hate-mongerers (clerics) are merely the tip of the iceberg. While the majority may not participate in or conspire with this minority's political activism, crime, and hatred, the majority nevertheless is complicit. Furthermore, the Islamic leadership and its intellectual foundations (e.g. the Qu'ran) are anti-Western. This complicity makes all Muslims responsible for the actions of their radical elements; similarly, Germans were complicit with their National Socialist minority, and Russians were complicit with their Communist minority.

As long as Muslims are unwilling to take responsibility for or challenge the extreme actions committed by their community and in its name, they demonstrate complicity.

Western European Muslims would not prevent the imposition of Sharia law, nor would they protect their European hosts. Essentially, they remain fifth columnists, willing to open the gates of European civilization to their zealots even if they do not join in its sack.

"To me, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is how progressive it is."

It is debatable whether or not Islam was more progressive than the intellectual and spiritual beliefs that preceeded it. Contemporary Islam certainly is not progressive.

"...the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins..."

Allah may be an extreme version of the Old Testament God, however, the Qu'ran has none of the emphasis on forgiveness and tolerance of the New Testament. Furthermore, Judeo-Christian "origins" lie in Zoroastarianism, something that the Arab Muslims eradicated upon their conquest of Persia.

"The Koran is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge..."

Firstly, the Qu'ran is not inclusive with regards to either their fellow Abrahamic co-religionists or other religions and philosophies. It is a Pan-Arab ideology adopted by those seeking to spiritualize their militant sentiments; it has none of the universal cosmopolitanism of Christianity. Secondly, Islam and science could never co-exist, unlike with Christianity, and the Islamic world chose religion over science in the ensuing debate...

"It is practical and far ahead of its time in attitudes toward marriage, women, and governance."

Again, only compared to pre-existing social structures, and even then the anthropological evidence is debatable.

"...the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands were breathtaking. Over centuries, Islam founded an empire and led the world in discovery, art, and culture."

Islam unified the Arab tribes, doing for them what Genghis Khan did for the Mongols. While Islam can take the credit for Arab unity, it cannot claim credit for the accomplishments of the Indians or Seljuk Turks. Indeed, this is like attributing the British Empire wholly to Christianity...

"The standard-bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ones."

True. However, just like Arab-Islamic successes were derived from secular developments, so too were Europe's Dark Ages. Ultimately, the theoretical foundations of both Islam and Christianity could not be ignored, and have resulted in the contemporary situation.

One wonders if Mr. Blair has ever read the Koran.  Or which version he has read.

With over 20 conflicts in the world being driven my muslims -- A religion of peace?

Yes, liberailsm is a mental disorder.

Firstly, in regards to the entire African continent, I agree it is lamentable that Western states continue to allow exports of arms and munitions to Africa's authoritarian governments and militant groups. However, China and the CIS (previously the Eastern bloc) are more responsible for the proliferation of small arms in the Third World than anyone else...

Secondly, Islam itself, including the Qu'ran, is incompatible with European and Western values; whether or not Muslims can live harmoniously in their own homelands or amongst themselves does not change the fact that Muslims cannot co-exist peacefully with Westerners while residing in the West.

Thirdly, North Africa should blame Islam, Socialism, ethno-national tensions, arbitrary borders, political instability, and tribalism for its current challenges.

Fourthly, many of these so-called "democratic forces" are:

1. Ethno-national independence/secessionist movements e.g. the Berbers
2. Rival tribes either opposed to the current monarchy or seeking to create one
3. Islamic groups that are almost always more extreme than the current governments

Thus, the totalitarian democracy of an Islamic republic may be less appealing than an authoritarian monarchy or secular dictatorship.

@ H. Haque

1) You claim to be NOT a supporter of Blair's "Irak policy", and at the same time you want "europeans" to stop supporting corrupt kings and sheiks and support "democratic forces" instead in muslim countries.  But, that is exactly Blair's policy in Irak, i.e. remove a tyrannical regime and support democratic forces.  Could you explain such a contradictory stand on your part?

2) You blame France and Russia for selling weapons to corrupt undemocratic regimes in the muslim world, and I agree.  But, you forgot the Chinese as military suppliers to Iran and Sudan.  Considering that virtually all muslim regimes are "corrupt and undemocratic", should we conclude that you want to deny muslim countries access to weaponry? 

3) While there are many "undemocratic regimes" in other (nonmuslim) parts of the world, it is is nevertheless remarkable that ALL regimes in the muslim world are "undemocratic".  Do you ever wonder why there is such a close correlation between "undemocratic" and "muslim"?  If not, you should.  Because you claim that "positive change" will have to come from "within".  How could it, unless the religious world outlook of islam gets re-interpreted differently than presently is the case?     

II am not a supporter of Blair's Iraq policy but I
must say that I am surprised that he has good knowledge of Koran unlike most of you who have posted here. Reading other articles and comments in this site, it is obvious to me that many of you are paranoid of your countries' arab and muslim population. Only thing I want to say here is that north african migration to europe has a lot to do with the economic conditions in that part of the world and these countries were exploited by european colonizers and it continues to this day even though these countries have achieved 'freedom'. If europeans truly want to stop the arabs from crossing the mediterranean and flood their land, the should stop supporting the corrupt kings and sheikhs and support the democratic forces instead.

that Blair is halfway converted to Islam, at least speaking lies just like they do.

He's so typical of policician.  No he gives the word politician a worse connotation, one that says BSing without taking in any knowledge of the subject.  Now he's pretty much another hipshooter cowboy just like Bush.

 
Worse yet, the Brits may believe in Blair's statement and are in turn misled.

I read somewhere on the web yesterday that Tony Blair's plane overshot the runway while pulling into Miami at some point this weekend.....I can't help but wonder if he hit is head on something and is now mentally comotose as a result!.....

 
A reforming book trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their roots???...Correct me if I am wrong, but wasn't Islam founded in the 7th century???...Long after Christ's death????.......Meaning that Judaism and Christianity HAVE NO ROOTS with regard to Islam!

Progressive religion???...With regard to marriage???....Oh yeah, polygamy, and abuse of women...real progressive their Tony!.....People over in EU always bitch about how they can't wait for Bush to leave office....I for one can't wait for Tony Blair to leave Downing Street!...Can't come soon enough for me!

Tony Blair hasn't read the Koran. If you believe that you'll believe anything. He might have read a two page executive summary written up by one of his advisors. He doesn't do books, least of all those that relate to history.

He's simply doing his usual smoke and mirrors distraction act while John Reid and the others put the "security state" into effect - biometrics, powers of arrest, cameras, databases and all the rest. If you think he's a friend of Islam please explain why he has spent his time bombing the shit out of Muslims.

Anyway, he'll be gone soon.

We have to understand where Tony Blair is coming from.

Here's a guy who is a Premier of a supposedly Western free country/society but in reality, it is a country that is prostituting and enslaving itself to its Muslim population and to the Muslim world.

Tony Blair is proving to his new masters, the Muslims, that he his a loyal slave ready to prostitute himself anytime, anywhere for the sake of Islam.

By the way, the entire West, including America and Canada are becoming slaves and prostitutes to Islam and the Muslims.

Just look around you, check the daily news from around the Western world. Islam has bought the West.

The Muslims are fooling the West. They cry "unfairness," and they whine about their so-called "human rights" and play with and manipulate our laws to their benefit.

The Muslims succeeded with the help of Westerners IDIOTS in invading, dominating, and soon ruling the West.

The West claims to be smart, intelligent. Not so. The Muslims proved that they are smarter. What they couldn't do centuries ago by invading France and the rest of Europe militarily, they are succeeding in doing it these day, peacefully, by:

1- Massive immigration,

2- Breeding like rats,

3- Intimidation and threats of suing, i.e. using our own laws against us.

Thanks to IDIOT Westerners who:

1- Opened their countries' borders wide open to the Muslims,

2- By being coward toward Islam's intimidation,

3- By succumbing to political correctness,

4- By enslaving themselves to the Muslims' oil instead of drilling in their own lands because of so-called "environmentalists," who in my opinion are traitors and should be hanged in a public square.

5- And finally thanks to TRAITORS who are ready to sell themselves and their countries to anybody who pays more.

The West is doomed if it doesn't save itself soon and expel the Muslims out of its land, cut immigration completely, shut the borders, demolish the Mosques and outlaw this devilish cult called "Islam."

If the West will not take the previous measures, then say goodbye to your Western civilization as you know it and get ready to be governed by Islamic Law sooner or later.

The West will get what it deserves.

The reason most of Europe and a sizeable portion of America are not capable of winning in such a struggle is that their thought process is interfered with by leftist social programming.  Multiculturalism and political correctness have become the standard by which many center their lives. 

Choices need to be made, individually and regionally, in time for a choice to be of benefit to anyone.  When the leadership waivers it is of no benefit to anyone.  It is inviting defeat.

An article bearing on this, explores the process in programming terms: 

http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/12/how_to_think_about_the_war.html

I entirely consent to you, sonomaca. In a few years time, the migrant ( particularly Muslim) population in Europe will have been exploded, and Europe imploded. All hail Eurabia !

I think he was writing about Buddism, and just got confused.

But, that paragraph aside, the article is a very powerful statement.

That said, he is inconsistent on the Israel/Palestine question. On the one hand, he says that radical Muslim forces want to destroy Israel. He then goes on to make that conflict a litmus test of the West's evenhandedness.

Well, Mr. Blair, how exactly are you going to be evenhanded when one side in the conflict is constituted of people who will not accept a two-state solution. It would seem to me that the only way would be to crush these people first, and then to force a genuine two-state solution.

So, how about sending British or NATO troops to destroy Hamas and other radical elements?

Another question Mr. Blair: you have been PM all these years, and yet Islamists have thrived in Britain. You have allowed this situation to develop. You have failed to deport and/or adequately punish the people who seek to subvert British democracy. So now, in your final months, you tell us, "and by the way there is a problem in the UK, so better get cracking." Well, gee, thanks for the warning Mr. Blair, (under the breath) you PC bootlicker.

All that said, I think that Europe is already gone. It's spineless and aging populations have no stomach for the fight. The Islamist propaganda merely provides them an excuse to do what they would have done anyway, namely nothing.

A "battle historian" by the name of Patrick O'Donnnell recently published a book about the American effort to take Fallujah called "We Were One." He was there, and several of the subjects with which he rode were killed before his eyes. He, author of several books, calls it the toughest urban combat since WWII.

Why does he say this? Because the opponent was relentless, superbly trained, and happy to die for the cause, provided that Americans were killed in the process. Yes, Americans proved they are still capable of winning this type of fight, as capable as they were during WWII. Perhaps the British are too. But, most of the rest of Europe: forget about it.

This is why I think an aging, scared, and valueless Europe is no match for the Islamist enemy, despite Mr. Blair's plea.