 |
| Islamic ingénu |
David Cameron recently spoke at a ceremony for the Islamic Eid festival.
He said:
… we celebrate these great
festivals because of course we want to say what a fantastic contribution
Muslims make to our country. Of course we want to celebrate everything that the
Muslim community here in Britain is and does.
So I thought I would look up what those
contributions are.
The latest is a paper by the Muslim Council of
Britain (*), which reports:
British
Muslims contribute more than £31 billion to the UK economy and wield a spending
power of £20.5 billion.…
… there are 114,548 Muslims in "higher managerial,
administrative and professional occupations"….
British Muslims…spend £1 billion on the halal food industry.There
are around 2.78 million Muslims in the UK.
Figures by
themselves are meaningless; they must be measured in percentage terms and in
comparison with similar figures.
The £31 billion “contribution”. That is 2% of the total UK GDP. Muslims are 4.4% of the UK population (MCB figure above).
So, in comparison, the contribution of Muslims per capita in the UK is a little less than half that of the rest of the UK population.
The number of Muslims in “higher managerial….etc” occupations is about 7% of the Muslim workforce. For the economy as a whole the same figure is 39.6% [ref]. In comparison then, the Muslim workforce in the UK is found one-sixth as often in high-level occupations, as is the general population.
No doubt many factors contribute to these small numbers, for Muslim contributions to the UK economy.
Bu it is not I who have highlighted these figures, but the Muslim Council of Britain. Presumably it has done so to indicate the importance of Muslim contributions to the UK economy (and I note parenthetically that, being the MCB(*), it will not have underestimated the numbers…).
But in context, the numbers show the opposite of what the MCB aims to show: they show that Muslims are under-performing in their relative contributions to the UK economy.
A different headline would be:
As for the spend on halal food industry, this merely "celebrates" a cruel method of killing animals.
See my earlier comment on this.
The £31 billion “contribution”. That is 2% of the total UK GDP. Muslims are 4.4% of the UK population (MCB figure above).
So, in comparison, the contribution of Muslims per capita in the UK is a little less than half that of the rest of the UK population.
The number of Muslims in “higher managerial….etc” occupations is about 7% of the Muslim workforce. For the economy as a whole the same figure is 39.6% [ref]. In comparison then, the Muslim workforce in the UK is found one-sixth as often in high-level occupations, as is the general population.
No doubt many factors contribute to these small numbers, for Muslim contributions to the UK economy.
Bu it is not I who have highlighted these figures, but the Muslim Council of Britain. Presumably it has done so to indicate the importance of Muslim contributions to the UK economy (and I note parenthetically that, being the MCB(*), it will not have underestimated the numbers…).
But in context, the numbers show the opposite of what the MCB aims to show: they show that Muslims are under-performing in their relative contributions to the UK economy.
A different headline would be:
“British Muslims pulling one sixth to one-half their weight in the economy”.And that would be the fact, not at all "Islamophobic"!....
As for the spend on halal food industry, this merely "celebrates" a cruel method of killing animals.
See my earlier comment on this.
World
Islamic Economic Forum and Sharia Finance
Cameron’s comments were made in the lead up to the
9th World Islamic Economic Forum this week, which the BBC is also
touting.
London is now trying to become a centre of Sharia
compliant finance.
I object to Sharia finance for a number of
reasons:
First: it is supremacist. It was pushed by the influential cleric Maulana Maudidi in the 1960s, specifically to help promote Sharia law more broadly to the rest of the world. It was also seen by him as a means to prevent Muslims form assimilating with kafirs ("unbelievers" or "deceivers") around them [Timur Kuran, 1996, 2006, ch4].
First: it is supremacist. It was pushed by the influential cleric Maulana Maudidi in the 1960s, specifically to help promote Sharia law more broadly to the rest of the world. It was also seen by him as a means to prevent Muslims form assimilating with kafirs ("unbelievers" or "deceivers") around them [Timur Kuran, 1996, 2006, ch4].
That hoary old Jew-hater, Sheikh Qaradawi has
called Sharia finance “Jihad with money”.
Second: it is used in part as a means of raising
more money to fund terrorism. The
path is this: that any Muslim business, including Sharia finance businesses, must
contribute a part of its income for Islamic Zakat (charity). By Islamic law,
one-eighth of this must go to waging of Jihad, specifically defined in the Umdat
al-Salik as “warfare against unbelievers to establish the religion of Allah in the world”.
Third: Sharia finance is a sham.
That “interest-free” loan? Only in form, not substance. To make the loan viable requires the purchase and resale of an asset to create a false profit for the lender, equivalent to the prevailing interest rate usually Libor.
That “interest-free” loan? Only in form, not substance. To make the loan viable requires the purchase and resale of an asset to create a false profit for the lender, equivalent to the prevailing interest rate usually Libor.
In order to make this sham workable, local laws need to
be changed to repeal double taxation on the asset purchases and resale, and to
repeal taxation of any profits made by Sukuk (as it is these profits that
provide the “interest-rate” equivalent)
As for sukuk bonds, supposedly more “ethical” than
traditional bonds? Whether or not you consider not investing in businesses
dealilng with pork, alcohol, gambling and weapons as more ethical than traditional bonds, is up to you. But what about
the other areas banned for Sukuk, but rarely mentioned? There can be no Sukuk investments in
businesses promoting women's rights, gay rights or any investments in businesses
with a Israeli or Jewish link. So: is
it “ethical” to invest in a homophobic, misogynist and anti-semitic financial product?
So let’s summarise:
Sharia finance is supremacist, separatist, homophobic, misogynist, terrorist-funding and a sham which requires changes of local laws to make the sham marginally viable.
And yet London, Cameron, and Boris, are
enthusiastically promoting it.
Shame on them.
Cameron on “telling lies” about Islam:
As a by-the-by, Cameron makes the following
comment in his Eid speech:
We still have a
huge battle fighting prejudice in our country, and I think perhaps particularly
Islamophobia – people telling lies about your religion – is one that we have to
face up to particularly strongly in our country. And it’s a time to remember
that. It’s also a time to remember that welcoming people to our country of all
faiths is something that has to go across every single part of life.
Why does he say that people are
“telling lies” about Islam? Would
he know? In all the blogs that I
see, often labeled “Islamophobic”, simply writing the truth about Islam will do
it -- will reveal what a horrid religion it is -- there's no need to lie about it!
The best of these sites critical of Islam is JihadWatch, which I’ve been following for many years.
I challenge Cameron or his researchers to find a single lie in the blog, in ten years of reporting Islam. (I've done the excercise myself from time to time, and aside from some, at times, prickly observations on his critics, there's nothing that Spencer has written about Islam that could be called a "lie")
The best of these sites critical of Islam is JihadWatch, which I’ve been following for many years.
I challenge Cameron or his researchers to find a single lie in the blog, in ten years of reporting Islam. (I've done the excercise myself from time to time, and aside from some, at times, prickly observations on his critics, there's nothing that Spencer has written about Islam that could be called a "lie")
And what does Cameron mean by facing
it “particularly strongly”? Does
he perhaps mean that there ought to be laws criminalizing the criticsm of
Islam, as the Organisation of the Islamic Conference is trying to do? But what of the many, many more Muslims in the UK who call for freedom to "go to hell", for the beheading of infidels? For the stoning of homosexuals? Why does Cameron mention none of this?
Mr Cameron: you appear ignorant
of Islam, and as such have become its stooge.
Shame on you.
Shame on you.
-----------------------------------------------
(*): This
is the same MCB which:
· … has said that veiling the face: "is not open to
debate". Not to do so is equivalent to apostasy, for which
Islamic law requires death
· MCB has supported the entry to the UK of hate preachers
like the oleaginous Zakir Naik(*), the
anti-semite Sheikh al Sudais and
the terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki
· MCB has called for attacks by
Muslims on the British Navy
References:
IslamicFinance, Principles and Practice. Hans Visser, Edward Elgar Publishing,2009. Has a chapter on “The origins: Maulana Maudidi”.
Don’t drink the Sherry: Nick’s dangerous delusions, BoT, 10th June 2010, et seq
