Saturday, September 16, 2006

Time for Moderate Muslims to Defend the Pope?

As you know, I take advice in matters spirtitual and religious from the ghost of Archbishop Cranmer. Several readers have suggested I should comment on the Pope's comments on the Prophet Mohammed, so I naturally turned to Cranmer's site as the first (and admittedly only) piece of research. I should from the outset declare my own religious views. I don't have any. There, that was quick, wasn't it? Although I perhaps should say that if I were ever to be persuaded out of my state of agnosticity it would be to head in the direction of Rome. Miss Widdecombe's influence is greater than she imagines. This view is based on the view that at least the Catholic Church still believes in something and unlike the C of E doesn't just tack with every prevailing wind.

Let's just clarify what the Pope said...

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

In the interests of balance he might also have said the very same things about many of the early Popes or many other religious leaders. However, as Cranmer points out, these weren't even the Pope's words, he was quoting someone else in an academic paper, which I imagine sent most of the audience to the land of zzzzzz.

Cranmer's view is simple...

Instead of hurling insults, therefore, it would be more illuminating if Muslim leaders could enlighten the kafir of the justifiable reasons for Mohammed’s murderous and violent actions, or tell us why the Pope has misunderstood the Islamic concept of ‘holy war’. They might even consider a little restraint, since their own words are now edging towards justification of violence against ‘the West’, on whose behalf they seem to think the Pope speaks. They might even consider reading the entire speech.

Mine is even simpler. We cannot allow anyone to deny freedom of speech in this way. We have seen a dangerous tendency among more fanatical muslims to edge in this direction already this year (remember the publication of a cartoon of the Prohet in a Danish newspaper?). It's a shame that the Vatican has already got a little jumpy and already rushed to a semi-apology. In the end, any reasonable person should acceopt that the Pope has a point of view and even if you don't aree with it, as a democrat and believer in freedom of speech, you must accept his right to give it. If not, do you accept the right of Islamist fanatics to walk around with placards calling for the destruction of Israel or all Jews to be killed?

This issue highlights the problems caused by the Governments Incitement to Religious Hatred legislation. It's fundamentally anti-democratic. In theory, if the Pope had made the remarks in Britain he could have been arrested (correct me if I am wrong). But how many extreme Muslims have been arrested for waving the kind of placards I describe above? Very few, I suspect. It's becoming one law for one and one for another. And in the long term that can only damage our democratic freedoms.

One way or another we in the west have to stand up against Islamist fanataics without appearing to brand all muslims as extremists. They are not. It's yet another case of a tiny minority giving the overwhelming majority a bad name. So it's time for the majority of Muslims to stand up and be counted. They could start by making it clear that although they fundamentally disagree with the Pope, they accept his right in a democratic society to say what he did.

Glad I got that off my chest. Click HERE to buy the Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam.

111 comments:

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dale,

His Grace is impressed by your extensive research on this matter. His revered blog is, indeed, a veritable one-stop shop for all religio-political insight. He is, however, saddened to hear of your Romeward leanings, particulatly as it is only within the Church of England that and theological discussion on sexuality is taking place; Rome's position on that is even more dogmatic under Benedict that it was under his predecessor.

That aside, your Party practises its own form or religious discrimination, as evidenced on one of your candidates at the last General Election, and the Catholic journalist Charles Moore attacked your Party for 'religious persecution'.

It is one thing to defend 'freedom of speech' in theory; quite another to support it in practice.

Tapestry said...

Either God is into volence, or he isn't. It's a fair question to raise. The answer is either Yes or No, not the one given by Pakistan's Parliament 'Retract the question.'

Moderate Moslems don't have to support the Pope. They like only need to give an answer the the question raised. Is God into violence, whatever denomination or religion you come from? It's either yes or no.

Anonymous said...

You may want to read this, the blog of Ali Eteraz, a progressive Muslim who happens to agree it's time they got the hell over things and stopped freaking out so much.

As do I.

towcestarian said...

The Pontiff was rather quick to defend the islamofascist reaction to the Danish cartoons.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4734454.stm
Maybe he now has slightly different views on "harming religious sensibilities".

Bottom line. If you are slow to defend free speech, it won't take long before you don't have it. At some point, the non-muslim world is going to have to face up the elephant on the sofa. Maybe this is the time?

Anonymous said...

In Gaza a Greek Orthodox church has been attacked.
Mob educated by Interpal

Anonymous said...

I rather fear that any Muslim foolish enough to practice sufficient moderation to defend the Pontiff would be swiftly denounced as an apostate - that is, not actually a Muslim at all.

"Moderate Muslim" is really as much an oxymoron as "Liberal Roman Catholic" - the qualifying adjective itself proves the lack of true devotion.

Archbishop Cranmer said...

Is God into violence, whatever denomination or religion you come from? It's either yes or no.

No, Mr Tapestry, it may also be yes and no.

Jeff said...

There has been an ever increasing tendency towards positive discrimination in this country over the last few years, the muslim fanatics do not need to use bombs to claim our country, the politcal correctness crowd and bleeding heart liberals are slowly handing it to them on a plate.

your points about Religous Hatred Legislation are quite right, it is perfectly fine for muslims to walk the streets with placards supporting acts of terrorism, and burning effigies of the pope.
Yet if we raise any obkections or say anything that the Muslim councils disagree with then we are racist or bigots.

I wonder if any local council would allow a march by Christians demanding that the Muslim clerics in Britain condem the acts of terrorism and oustthe recruuiters from the mosques.

I bet such a march would be refused permision under currrebt legislation.

The MPAC go on about the equal rights of muslims, yet after four weeks I am still waiting to hear if I will be able to subscribe to their website. I wonder if I had a Muslim name would I still be waiting?

quarsan said...

things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

pot. kettle. black.

what else were the crusades, the inquisition, the slaughter in south america other than evil, inhuman and spread by the sword?

Paul Walter said...

"Let's just clarify what the Pope said...

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." "

No. He didn't say that. Manuel II Paleologos said it in the fourteenth century. The Pope quoted him.

Anonymous said...

Whatever the motives were behind his choice of words, there's no doubt the Pope has struck a chord.

The crowds of angry, violent muslim protestors complaining about being portrayed as angry and violent is an irony that most in the West seem to be getting a bit fed up with.


The fact that we have a significant number of these nutcases living in Britain ought to be considered as a problem.

Sadly politicians find it expedient to pretend it's just a few bad apples, rather than the norm.

Johnny Norfolk said...

The problem is that islam does not allow free speech, it treats it woman like 2nd class citizens. and you can only speak and think what its leaders tell you. but of course its ok for them to criticise and threaten anybody who does not agree with them. This attitude does not fit into a modern free world.If they carry on like this they will be ostracised for it. I think most of us agree with the pope.

Anonymous said...

It will be interesting to see if we will have a repeat showing of the "cartoon" protests, fanatics doing alright here calling for jihad, death and destruction upon us.
The penny is dropping that we in the west are really now treading on eggshells with these people, that ultimately they do not share our democratic values and views on freedom of the individual.
There is an opinion that their presence is not integration but to ultimately triumph and establish a global caliphate.

Man in a Shed said...

I suspect there is a deliberate policy of finding things to take objection about by certain Muslim organisations (Muslim Brotherhood anyone ? Remember how the Danish cartoons where taken on tour by certain Islamic Clerics to make sure outrage was stirred up ). It allows the West to be seen as weak. For example whilst apologising - even when its not necessary - might be seen through Christian eyes as turning the other cheek - through some Muslim eyes it confirms their superiority and eventual dominion.

The Islamic world is often very poorly informed about Christianity - especially when they make statements about Christians believing in 3 gods. Given the lack of freedom and debate in many Muslim countries, and communities, it is unlikely to change unless we challenge it directly and with confidence.

The Pope should ask for an explanation of what he has done that is wrong. The usual manufactured outrage from Muslims is just not enough for anyone except the BBC.

This looks like an attempt to get the outrage going for the Pope's visit to Turkey.

Anonymous said...

As someone who prays to God everyday and thanks him/her/it for one thing, that he/she/it made me an atheist. I would like to thank the Pope for the loving care that his predecessor Pope Innocent the third showed to the Albigensians, particularly when hundreds of them where burnt to death at Montsegur, being heretics I'm sure it was a blessed release.

Anonymous said...

I guess the Pope had forgotten that it if you made any statement that could be conceived as critical of Islam,you would automatically get the response we have just witnessed from its medieval followers.

stalin's gran said...

Well said Mr Dale.

Anonymous said...

The funniest and most illuminating exchange I heard on free speech went like this. They were discussing the piece of 'art' which had christ on the cross in a jar of piss.

Trendy leftie: I think it's justified in the name of free speech.

Presenter: But what about the offence it causes to Christians.

Trendy leftie: Tough. It's dangerous to limit free speech.

Presenter: So there should be no restrictions on freedom of expression?

Trendy leftie: None.

Presenter: So would it be ok to paint a swastika on the side of a synagogue?

Trendy leftie: Err....

End of conversation.

Some subjects are ok to ridicule in the name of free speech but others are still taboo. We used to call this hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

The Pope is repeating allegations that have been made against Islam since its inception regardless of whether he quotes someone else or actually believes them himself - which incidentally hasn't prevented Islam from spreading at an extremely fast rate previously and at present

As a moderate Muslim (and member of the Tory Party), I don't see what all the fuss is about - a Roman Catholic Pope doesn't like Islam? That must be breaking news surely!!!! I think some Muslims need to calm down and spend their energies studying their religion to counter these sorts of arguments (repeated by some posts above) with well informed answers.

However, what I find very odd is that those who defend democracy want to rightly defend the Pope's freedom of speech but are quick to condemn those who exercise their (non-violent) democratic and free right to protest and speak out against his comments passionatley.

The concept of Jihad is utterly misunderstood in the west. The extremists use it for their own political purposes which has been taken as the true meaning. Equally some in the west use the argument of the extremists to justify their prejudices against Islam, selectively and out of context quote from the Quran to try and portray Islam as only violent.

A very quick look at Islamic history in countries such as the US, UK, other western European nations, Indonesia etc where there are milllions of Muslims will show that Islam wasn't spread by the sword but those who want to believe that Islam is based on violence and point to the extremists conveniently overlook this.

my view is that we should let and indeed encourage the Pope get all his interprettions of what Islam stands for off his chest. If he wants to spend his time discussing Islam we should encourage. The Pope's interpreation won't make an iota of difference to the spread of Islam and to what moderate Muslims believe is the correct interpreation of their faith.

Anonymous said...

Don't these grumpy Muslims give you the pip? They will find something to moan about in just about anything said or written about Islam, however tenuous the link with reality. Islam seems to me to be just about the only religeon in the world that stopped itself dead in its tracks the day it started. They would do well to get out a bit more and get over their inward, backward and intolerant view of the rest of the world. They're certainly not going to do themselves any favours wittering on about the Pope's quote. They will simply give further confirmation to the unfortunate view that most of the non-Muslim world has of them.ynac

Anonymous said...

But there again former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad recently stated "There is no such thing as a moderate muslim".

stalin's gran said...

Further to that, I think we should take a lesson from Chamberlain. Appeasement is not an option. Strength is. The Pope may be a fascist, as the Catholic church generally is - I am thinking of the Spanish civil war here, not to mention the Irish Republic before it was flooded with EU money - but we have to remember that militant Islam is the most fascist movement currently abroad....

Anonymous said...

man in a shed asks... 'The Pope should ask for an explanation of what he has done that is wrong'.

The problem is there is nobody to ask. There is no supreme Islamic leader such as the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury, etc. There is no consensus view because there are as many views as there are Muslim clerics, and there's an awful lot of them.

indigo said...

The chasm of ignorance about Islam displayed in these comment so far is really depressing.

Of course, the Pope has just reinforced that grovelling ignorance. Iain, you should make it clear that the Pope was quoting someone who lived six hundred years ago.

Anonymous said...

The speech is essentially about our understanding of "reason" and, based on our understanding, of the relationship between reason and faith.

I find it absurd that so much attention has been placed on the quote about Islam, and that by people who have patently not bothered to read what the Pope said (I'm not talking about you!)

To be frank that small part of the speech that mentions Islam could easily be removed without affecting the point that Pope was trying to make, and in this sense I can see why people would say that it was irresponsible for the Pope to make such a comment. However, while I can see why they would say this I most certainly don't agree. The Pope is (of course) a theologian, giving an appropriate speech at his old university. Neither his comments nor his intention are insulting to Islam, and I worry for a world where academics cannot mention any other culture for fear of having their words twisted.

Ironically the Pope's conclusion makes it clear that his concern is for the way other cultures can take very different meanings from things that we take for granted. Though he is talking about the way we exclude the divine from our notion of "reason" without appreciating how for others this is affront to their very deeply held beliefs, it takes on a new meaning in light of the reaction in some parts of the Muslim world to this speech.

If anything, the significant part of what the Pope says about Islam is that he highlights that the Emperor Manuel II Paleologus must have know of surah 2:256 which states quite clearly that "There is no compulsion in religion" and yet goes on to make the comment about Mohammed spreading Islam "by the sword". The Pope is talking about the incompatibility of trying to spread religion through force, why this contradicts reason which in itself is against the nature of God. The very act is a contradiction. Given that this was the topic Emperor Manuel II Paleologus was talking about the Pope is quite right to quote him. People whinging "what about the history of Christianity, what about the Crusades, etc" are idiots. The Pope wouldn't disagree with you about any of that, but the individual he is quoting, the one who is addressing the nature of faith and the relationship to reason which is the topic of the Pope's speech didn't use the Crusades as an example, so the Pope can't quote him on that. What he has done is made explicitly clear prior to quoting that he himself is aware of surah 2:256, and there is I feel an implicit criticism of Emperor Manuel II Paleologus by stating that he too "must have known" of it.

I'm sure I've bored you all now so I'll shut up, save to say that the clearest evidence that many protesters haven't even bothered to read the speech comes in their reaction. The Pope's point is that the only way to convince someone is to "speak well and reason properly". I have seen little reason in those criticising the Pope. They have proclaimed Islam to have been insulted, when it has not been. They have said the Pope has an anti-Islamic bias, when his concern is with inter-cultural dialogue. They cannot explain where the insult from the Pope is, because they have not read what it is he has said in full. Fire-bombing churches and burning effigies just rather goes to prove his Holinesses point, which never was about Islam at all, but about reason.

Anonymous said...

Dave says, what's this Islam thing?

Anonymous said...

Quarsan - you are a twat. That was then, this is now, and that is the point. Don't get all medieval on us...

James Higham said...

...Let's just clarify what the Pope said...

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."...

He was actually quoting the Emperor, rather than giving his own opinions.

Mikey said...

Doesn't it become so tedious when lefties accuse others of "ignorance" just because they disagree with their opinions?

And it's really pompous, too.

Anonymous said...

what's all the fuss about writes: "my view is that we should let and indeed encourage the Pope get all his interprettions of what Islam stands for off his chest. If he wants to spend his time discussing Islam we should encourage." That's bloody fine of you, but I don't think we in the advanced West need advice on freedom of speech and thought from muslims.

Iain, with your sweetness of nature, I think you find it hard to believe evil of anyone, but islam is not misunderstood. It is understood only too well by people who have studied it - people like Pope Benedict, who is, in fact, an islamic scholar and knows very well whereof he quotes.

Islam's relationships with women is utterly perverted. It is legal, in their shariah law, to marry a child of 13 to get her started breeding. A man can have livestock of four wives - for breeding warriors. They mutilate the genitals of girls so they won't enjoy sex (although, looking at islamic men, I would think that was pretty much guaranteed anyway) because she might stray and breed with someone outside the tribe. That's why the hang homosexuals. They don't breed. Subjugate. Breed. Subjugate. Breed.

Ex-Prime Minister Dato' Mahathir Mohammad is a very smart man. He said, as bt quotes above, that there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim. And that is true. You can't have a moderate warrior.

Now we are going to have to endure, because our governments are so weak, a month of Pope Rage. Incidentally, the islamic "cleric" who took the Motoons on his world tour folded in three he'd found on the internet that had nothing to do with the Jyllands-Posten. Ah, the oily politics of the souk!

Anonymous said...

These people really need to get a life. Funny how it is okay for THEM to burn an effigy of the Pope though.

I am just so over these people stamping their feet every time they don't like what somebody else says about Islam. Then they hold jihad or whatever punishment over our heads. Tolerance? I think they have tested the tolerance of the West to the max.

The Pope has nothing to apologise for. Period.

neil craig said...

Paul is quite correct that the Pope did not say this he merely quoted somebody else as saying it - this leads me to think the Pope did not do this not knowing what would happen but was cleverly covering his pontifical posterior.

It is undoubtedly true that the initial spread of Islam from Spain to Pakistan within a couple of generations of Mohammed's death, was accomplished by force & it does say something about the nature of the religion that this is so. it also says something about the degree of faith of the origintors.

On the other hand I have commented previously on the way his predecessor gave $2 billion to Tudjaman, the Croatian Nazi leader at a time when he was committed to "genocide is commanded by the word of the Almightly to spread the one true Faith".

Who was it made the remark about he who is without sin casting the first stone?

Anonymous said...

I agree with Permanent Expat - How many wake-up calls does the West need?

I cannot but help think it is intentional. Mad as it sounds, I think there is a plot to give the West away to the primitives - a final act of self-immolation of the virulent, feverish Left.

In Britain and Europe, that is, as Oriana Fallacci wrote. The Americas will be safe.

I recommend, in all seriousness, dismantling the BBC immediately. I would actually like to see it razed to the ground and no trace left. Maybe we could make the site into another memorial for Diana. But the BBC is the most poisonous organisation in the world.

Anonymous said...

Ian Dale
Whats All the Fuss About

Islam is a complex and differentiated religion worldwide and I`d like to limit my comments to the UK community. In this community there is , we are told , a moderate Pakistani majority who are badly misrepresented by Saudi extremists or Wahabi Muslims. I am sceptical .Surveys of Muslim attitudes do not reflect this view .The British Coucil of Muslims have threatened us with racist bombing attacks (in effect) unless , like Spain we allow terrorists to conduct our foreign policy .This does nothing to reassure me .
So is there really a `dove` Muslim we must endlessly placate . Are moderates ,tacit supporters , at least like Sinn Fein Irish Catholics are for the IRA or would that be to tar dog owners with the same brush as animal rights assassins. My feeling is that option a is by far the closest comparison and the attitude of international embarrassment Ken Livingstone to each is a good guide.
Another problem is the minority of well educated `incidental` Muslims who claim authority but in reality know nothing about the workings of the Muslim community ( What` s all the fuss about ?)No more than Salman Rushdie did. My wife, (who is black) , is often obliged to throw things at the Television whenever Dianne Abbot speaks on her behalf .The extent to which such assumptions go unquestioned is remarkable if you are looking for it .

Free speech is not the point, there is little point to free speech at all unless deeper concepts like rightnes and truth are the foundations for the whole ricketty tower of babel. ( Naturally a media invertebrate like Ian Dale will find this incomprehensible)

Allow me to explain. The Pope is saying my religion , my culture, my values, are qualitively better than yours . He has succinctly explained why and I find it utterly convincing ( without going on to conclude Catholicism is the best of all possible beliefs )
In other words he is attacking cultural relativism the cancer we have not irradiated from discourse since its outbreak in the 60s.
We can expect Ian Dale , David Cameron , Boris Johnson ,and the other Liberal sycophants who are earning a living from the Conservative Party ,to support `Free Speech` only when it is used in the context of a game or entertainment.

A pitifully shallow response

Anonymous said...

quarsan - or may I call you Mr Moral Equivalency? Do you work for the BBC, by any chance? The Guardian?

We are speaking of a primitive religion guided by a primitive set of rules, trying to please their Dark Ages diety who has not moved on one inch since the year 800. I mean, WTF has he been doing all this time?

I would be interested in getting islam controlled as a dangerous cult, like the David Koresh folks and Jim Jones of Kool Aid fame in the Guyanese jungle. A lot of directionless, weak people sign up to these bonkers cults.

Anonymous said...

The Islamic reaction (as usual) seems to be "...call us violent? Take that back or we'll thump you."

Anonymous said...

quarsan - I saw this posted on another blog today

"And what country was the most holy-warrior about swordpoint conversions, that sent conquistadors in the name of God to convert the American Indians, that fought to suppress the heretics in the Netherlands, that tried to invade England with the Armada, and whose ruling dynasty launched the Thirty Years’ War?

Why, the one with the longest and most intimate exposure to jihad, the one that spent the most time under the rule of Muslims before being reclaimed by Christendom. Spain."

http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/point_proved/#160977

Can anyone tell me if this is the case? Thanks

Anonymous said...

Having read and digested all the comments herein I can only make one observation. Disregard history, religious differences and racial red herrings pro tem. You must think about what is happening now!!!

Does anyone realise what danger the 'infidels' (us in the non-Muslim world) are in from a bunch of moonbats with whom you cannot reason, who are determined to change our lives.

Us infidels are in deep trouble from these fanatics who are protected by our governments for political reasons (votes).

Please people, be aware, be very aware!!

The Druid said...

This is all another manipulation a la Danish cartoons. As Cardinal Ratzenberger he was accused of similar "dissing" - more on my own weblog. No doubt those with an axe to grind have been awaiting such an opportunity. A great example of the heckler's veto in action. I don't like what you are saying so I will shout you down and chill any further speech.

As for moderate Muslims standing up. This is less likely to make it happen. When such brave souls try to modernise their religion they will be branded heretics, apostates and blasphemers. The punishment for that as Mahmoud Mohamed Taha found out is death.

towcestarian said...

Dave Granger 4:40

"Be aware be very aware!"

Don't worry, I am. Come the English Civil War of 2012 I intend to take up my rights to US citizenship (thank you daddy for being a yank!) and piss off to safer shores.

Anonymous said...

Haven't been paying attention. Those chaps burning flags and effigies, threatening the Pope as they compare him to Hitler and generally going nuts out in the streets are doing so to demonstrate that they are not violent and irrational?

Anonymous said...

It didn't, and wouldn't, matter what the Pope said; if he didn't bow down to anything muslim than he would be wrong.

Personally, I am a Catholic and consider any and all religions as heretical and deserving of no respect from me at all...I thought that was the point of being a part of a specific religion?

The Pope should tell muslims to go fuck themselves until such time as they renounce teachings which state kafirs should be either enslaved or killed.

Anonymous said...

towcestarian said...
Dave Granger 4:40

"Be aware be very aware!"

Don't worry, I am. Come the English Civil War of 2012 I intend to take up my rights to US citizenship (thank you daddy for being a yank!) and piss off to safer shores.

5:08 PM

Erm, any chance good buddy that you could fit me, my wife, our children, pets, house an' all in your see through carry on bag?

I'll pay your fare all charges and taxes!

Anonymous said...

David Granger - Agreed. History is history; it's gone. Trying to find moral equivalencies with 15th C Spain (which also had the Spanish Inquisition, which is equally irrelevant in Britain) is historically illiterate. Spain is a unique case and its history doesn't apply to Britain or N Europe.

The point is, there are too many adherents of a very primitive religion in this country and one way or another, they need to be winnowed out. A government, and it won't be under Tone or Dave, needs to take control of the threats and aggression. And a great wadge, maybe 250,000 or more, need to be shifted to a more congenial civilisation. They will not fit in to Britain. They will not integrate. They will try to take over inch by inch.

I also think consideration has to be given to downgrading islam from a religion to a cult. Religions are living things that travel forward through time. islam is set in stone in the year 800. Twelve hundred years, and no progress.

Why? Because the islamics believe that allah had already invented everything that needed to be invented in 800 and said everything that needed to be said when he told Mo to take a letter. (Mo couldn't write, so he was kind of a bad choice, but he remembered as much as he could and hied him off to a scribe.) And that's how things stand. Right where they stood in the year dot.

(Strange that the islamics feel no compulsion about using videos, cell phones, planes, etc when there's no mention of them in their koran or surahs. They like guns and rockets, too.)

My point is, the only accommodation that can be reached with islam in our civilised countries is: You do as we say or you go. And it should be soon.

Anonymous said...

I wish the Pope would have the balls to say:

"I refuse to apologise. The reason you lot are getting so worked up is because you are culturally about 200 years behind us. Catch up quickly!"

Anonymous said...

no longer anonymous - 200 years behind us? Where on earth did you get that from? That would mean they were up to the early 1800s and the Duke of Wellington! Purleeze!

They are 1200 years behind us. They have made no attempt to modernise or reform during that time.

There are moderate muslims - intelligent, thoughtful and inquisitive people - but it is they, not the violent primitives, who are in the minority. Islam admits of no questions and does not tolerate any notion of reform. Many Muslims are charming ... to a certain point. But they cannot get beyond that point. Which is: everyone was born a muslim, so if you are not a muslim, that means you rejected islam and are therefore no longer an innocent. (So it doesn't matter if you get blown up on a tube, a nightclub, a railway station.) This is a very critical point.

They believe their god wants them to force the world to be islamic at the point of a sword. Those who refuse, deserve to die. Sometimes, they will let Christians live (I don't think they let Jews live under any circumstances, but I can be corrected on this point) if you accept that you are utterly inferior to islamics (oh, please!) and accept an inferior position - dhimmitude. Sometimes you will be allowed to wear shoes, sometimes not. But you must pay a special tax for them allowing you to live and continue to worship God, the jizya.

It is a very aggressive, intolerant, vicious "religion".

towcestarian said...

Dave Granger 6.04

You and your clan (children & pets OK, house is a bit of a maybe) will be most welcome as travelling companions as the towcestarians venture forth the the New World. However, I think that ocean liner may be a more suitable means of transportation, given the islamofascits' penchant for blowing up aeroplanes (the spams don't call them "aluminum death-tubes" for nothing).

quarsan said...

often funny: i'm getting medevial? but it was the Pope who was approvingly quoting people from the 14th Century. If you want to get more up to date then the Pope's behaviour towards Hitler and the holocaust was hardly a shining example of honorable resitance or a moral high ground... just like the current Pope's aquiesence in joining the hitler youth...

Verity: you said We are speaking of a primitive religion guided by a primitive set of rules, trying to please their Dark Ages diety who has not moved on one inch since the year 800.

sorry, are you talking about islamic fundamentalism or the history of the Catholic church?

What is frightening is just how acceptable islamophobia, and the libelling of the overwhelming majority of muslims and mainstrean islamic theology is.

Jeff said...

We see images like the ones displayed over the last few days, watch as ourrights and freedoms are taken away and more of our taxes are given to imigrants.

all the while we ask the government to take a stance and stop being so weak, we ask Tony Blair to listen to the people.

The most worrying thing about this is that the only political party out there that seems to be following the mood of the nation is the BNP. I have just read their mission statement and find that it is quite similar to views that I have expressed and would like to see implemented by this government.

The fact that it is the BNP that is voicing these opinions is a little frightening, the increase of people willing to vote for the BNP should be telling all political parties to sit up and take notice.

All things aside if a party leadder was to stand up and say enough to fundamentalists, tell Europe to kiss his arse, tellthe US to back off and deal with the imigration issues then he would get my vote.

The saying look after number one shouldbe applied tothis countryby the party in power. maybe then we would have a country worth living in.

Anonymous said...

quarsan - busy, busy, busy trying to score points while Rome burns -

Islam is aggressive, primitive and intolerant. If you wish to argue the point, argue it.

"What is frightening is just how acceptable islamophobia, and the libelling of the overwhelming majority of muslims and mainstrean islamic theology is."

What is frightening is how simple-minded you are.

Do you have a dictionary? Look up "phobia". It means "an irrational fear". I dislike islam intensely for the reasons I have stated. I don't fear it.

You add: "the libelling of the overwhelming majority of muslims and mainstrean islamic theology ..." You forgot to add "peace-loving" and "moderate".

If you are a muslim you know damn fine there are few "moderate" or "peace loving" muslims when push comes to shove. They almost all have a point at which they stop being moderate, etc and become fundamental. If you are a muslim, you know that already. If you're not a muslim, you need to learn it.

towcestarian said...

quarsan

Hearing you justify your own religion's excesses in relation to another of the world's great brain-washing manipulators (the Roman Catholic Church) is hilarious.

Western civilizations spent centuries putting Christianity where all religions belong: in a box marked "harmless freaks". Now we have you bunch of medieval throwbacks voilently trying to roll-back The Enlightenment. And you wonder why we aren't happy?

Apart from all that, good on you for having the guts to come here to discuss this with us. Blogging comments would be dreadfully dull if there wasn't a bit of argy-bargy.

Jeff said...

Have just read on Litle green footballs about a senior muslim cleric who has called for all muslims to hunt down and kill the pope.

I wonder if the good people who represent the British muslims will condem this, or try to ignore the fact that it would seem the popes speech has been proved as true today as it was in the 14th century.

Read it for yourself at these links,

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/weblog.php

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/somali-cleric-calls-for-popes-death/2006/09/16/1158334739295.html

Anonymous said...

I cannot and will not accept, and Iain said this too, that it is a tiny minority that are islamic fascists, when 13% of two milliopn muslims said they agreed with the 7/7 or 9/11 bombers, and further, stated they would not co-operate in bringing them to justice.

A small minority will blow themselves and a bunch of innocents to bits, but it is not a small minority that are fundamental and likely to give succour and help to the nutcase scumbag muslims who blow themselves up.

muslims, if we believe they are muslim as they claim, are inherently fundamentalist because to be a muslim you must follow certain edicts as laid out in the koran, and the koran is the word of god and cannot be changed...and this is why they are 1400 years behind and have not changed anything about their religion in all that time.

Take the above into consideration before you claim most muslims are moderate, because to be a muslim is to be fundamentalist.

Read this:
http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

There are no moderates.

Anonymous said...

Woo hooo! We're right on track for Pope Rage!

At first the (unelected) Muslim Council of Britain was feeling pretty chipper when the Pope "apologised". Little Pecksniffian satisfaction and warnings that it would be better for the Pope of Rome not to step out of line in future.

I wondered how long it would take them ... not long... They've now realised that the Pope said he was sorry they'd been offended - standard apology fare these days. He didn't say he was sorry for making his quote, and the Muslim Council have now twigged.

"It's not enough of an apology" said a spokesman. Now the "islamic council" whatever the hell that is but you can be sure it's not elected, in the person of Ajaral Masroor, has said: "It would've been better if he'd said the views of the emperor no way accorded with his. There is still a concern that he has not repudiated the views of the emperor."

Well, yes, Aj. And it would be better if my ticket had won the lottery, but it didn't happen.

Of course, the Pope knew exactly what he was doing and these "offended" muslims are just going to have to pound sand or go full gear into Pope Rage!

What format will it take, given there's nothing to boycott? No stores carrying Danish products to picket.

Well, your effigies and the burning thereof, yes. Shouted slogans with the energetic ONE, TWO, THREE arm jabs, yes. Posters reading ... Insult to islam! (islam must be the most affronted religion in the history of the world.) But where they go with it, and how many muslim deaths it causes (Motoon rage caused 47), we will have to watch and see.

strapworld said...

verity, well said, as usual.

The problem is we have a collection of apologists in all the parties, the united nations, the eu and everywhere you can choose to look.

Everyone is aware of the real and present threat from the muslim culture and we need a politician to stand out and say it...if not I am very afraid that the BNP will and win many many supporters.

Never give an inch because they take a yard. Do we have to wait until they get sharia law in Birmingham or some other place before this bloody country wakes up to the dangers of the enemy within?

Gosh, where is Churchill when you need him?

Anonymous said...

I've emailed sky news about an hour or so ago with the same details asking them to get it out there to the masses - no joy.

I just can't understand why we are tolerating this? What's it going to take? The pope's assassination?

Even then I think it would be there there never mind, we can get a new one.

I'm appalled that a Greek Orthodox Church was burnt earlier today.

I tell ya, these fuckers need putting on boats and sunk half way back to their native countries.

Bring back Maggie and her Bellgrano attitude.

How's about muhamed go and fuck himself? That's what I say. Mind you he's to busy shagging 14 year old kids. Dirty fucking pedophile! He’s down in some muslim comic book (Koran) or how ever it’s spelt, as Allah loving. Yeah, I won’t be a minute.

And that’s another thing, they can’t even decide on a comic book spelling. Is “Koran” ”Quran”, “CurryAnn”, or just plan “The little book of bollocks”? Can they make up their tiny minds?

And, if anyone is offending by my comments, then you can go and fuck yourself as well.

I'm offending on a daily basis with this continuous shit and nobody is arsed how I and others feel. So I'm no longer interested in how some Arsehole, camel jockey feels.

I'd like to know how these guys fit bombings in anyway. They pray like 7 million times a day!

I doubt you will post this but I feel better for writing anyway.

Anonymous said...

Strapworld - Conkers to Churchil.

We need some like dear old Maggie with a set of balls.

I say Verity for PM

Jeff said...

this will probaly upset those of muslim disposition but it kind of stikes me as funny that the prophet mohammed was by all acounts a direct decendant of Abraham, and was actualy married to a christian.

It just goes to show that muslims have been screwing christians for longer than we thought

Jeff said...

I'll second Verity for PM,

Mr dale for deputy

Anonymous said...

I've just emailed the MPC and told them to go and fuck themselves with a shitty stick as well.

Back in a bit, need to take the pills and put the camel out for the night.

Anonymous said...

strapworld, sadly, they will not wake up. They have the drugs of endless reality TV, booze, fast food ... They don't want to confront anything uncomfortable. And many of them have been drip-fed on "multiculturalism" since birth. They are the soma people. islam is a religion of peace. It's "racist" to oppose them. These are people who have been so confused by their own government and education that they have no idea what the definition of "race" is.

The islamics missed out getting their shariah law in Ontario by a squinch. But they missed. They didn't get it in Dearborn, MI, either. Although all the usual arguments were piled wordily forward - god how these people talk and talk and talk and talk ... but they lost. "It's just for family law. It wouldn't be anything to do with normal Ontario law. It's just what we're accustomed to ... (If you were so attached to it, why did you emigrate?) ... BTW, it was muslim women who managed to get it killed in both instances. They're in civilisation and they're going to go back willingly to darkly anti-female tribal laws? Are you serious?

I can't remember all the figures now, but something like (from memory) 28% in Britain said they thought our ancient country, a beacon of civilisation for over a thousand years, should descend into the primitive pit of their shariah. If they want shariah, there are many hell holes to which they could emigrate. Including their own ancestral tribal areas which abound with first cousins to marry.

(They asked for a millet in France and Chiraq and Sarko made quite a rude noise. In France, you cannot work in a public building and wear your islamic gear. No one working in a mairie or a school can appear in a burqa. Pupils have to remove their burqas at the school gates.) But then, Chiraq and Sarko love their country.

I would expect extreme lefty collaborators in the British government, but I am sorry to see the same eager collaboration now coming from the Conservatives.

BTW, I keep forgetting to mention it, but in Spanish, Cameron means shrimp.

Anonymous said...

VERITY

Only started reading your rivetingly misguided material the other day and as usual you give me the comforting feeling that I am not the most right wing person in the world after all . You never did answer the my request for you to make a ( vital) distinction between UKIP and the BNP by the way but no matter. Politics , for you , is a matter of winning arguments rather than winning support and I can see why you would find Conservatives frustrating as result..
I have enjoyed ( lets be honest) the bloody tale of the Counter Reformation. One interesting thing about this pre industrial human catastrophe is the Industrial scale slaughter that was achieved in the Low counties without the technology of the Nazis or Stalin. One imaginative method was to tie the hands of crowds and herd them into lakes clubbing the odd swimmer at the shoreline. I am quoting Colin Wilson here who is pretty reliable .. ish ( he of The Outsider fame I mean).
I `m going to try to make a tricky point ,for me , here so bear with me . You pick off facts about Islamic culture , which is of course far more various geographically than you claim. Thereby you construct your arguments like a Mediaeval Monk trying to fit classical works separated by a thousand years into a system ignoring context entirely
The vast mistake of making a judgements of this sort is never clearer than with Religion. Clifford Longley `Chosen people` is good on this as is CS Lewis ( The Discarded Image , not Narnia .) . It is fairly pointless to gather example of crimes against contemporary western culture committed in either religions name at various times an places and counterproductive. It looks like draw which it isn’t .
The obvious wrongness of de-contextualising cultural practices was the innocent 60s beginning of the cancer that is `Cultural relativism `. This began in the new Sociology and Anthropology departments in red brick Unis. It has since been found to be most congenial to Liberals in that it allows them to conclude that everyone can be right at the same time. Clearly this is an absurd extension of the original insight allowing the following sinister conclusions
1 Female Circumcision is culturally justified and yet should be treated with `education` without the admission that one culture is superior to the other
2 Muslim anti-Semitism and militarism is morally less reprehensible than were the West to espouse it ( Without the conclusion that the West is morally superior)
3 South African `tribalism ` was worse than black African tribalism without the admission it was because we expect better ..

Etc. down to the sexism and homophobia of Black lyrics.

That is why Ian Dales easy point about `free speech ` is a cowering Liberal position . The real problem with the Pope is that he has opened the possibility that one tradition , `Christianity`, is better (not best) than another, `Islam`( an easy one surely) . Also that to argue in these terms is valid at all. Free speech is not the point , `truth `is .
How hateful to Liberals is the very suggestion that the Teacher Training Colleges ,Sociology Courses in which they flourish are intellectually so inadequate , they fear loathe contradictions of the sort the Pope has exposed.

Without clearing the way to compare cultures you are throwing insults and you will only win arguments in pubs. The first enemy is Liberal academia and its semi digested popular forms This is why we live in a climate when so often it feels as if you are the child that has seen the ,absence, , the kings clothes.

Any way at least I read you posts carefully ,as you might imagine , that rarely happens to me.You can imagine how much I depise the description `Liberal Conservative`

Anonymous said...

Verity said "[Muslims] mutilate the genitals of girls so they won't enjoy sex (although, looking at islamic men, I would think that was pretty much guaranteed anyway)."

Not true. It is largely a modern concept for the majority of female Muslims. Female genital cutting is practiced by Muslims and non-Muslims alike residing mainly in Sub-Saharan Africa in countries that include but are not limited to Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Kenya and Chad.

I suppose it would be an abuse of freedom of speech if I were to say "Jews mutilate the genitals of boys so they won't enjoy sex (although looking at Jewish women, I would think that was pretty much guranteed anyway)."

Pretty repugnant notion to express either way round, I would say...

And as for Verity's comment "We are speaking of a primitive religion guided by a primitive set of rules, trying to please their Dark Ages diety who has not moved on one inch since the year 800". That will be the year 800 AD, I take it? Unlike Judaism, whose Laws were set out in the first five books of the Bible - way back in the days BC. The Torah - as received by Moses.

The Muslims admit that their religion is founded on Judaism. The Koran is clear on this point. They just, you know, updated it a bit.

Still, an eye for eye never goes out of fashion, does it?

Anonymous said...

buster george - "mohammed was by all acounts a direct decendant of Abraham, and was actualy married to a christian." They do bleat on about the Ibrahamic tradition, but I don't know whether Mo was that aspirational that he "married" a Christian. He certainly "married" everything else, including little six-year-old Aisha. Poor little Aisha.

He was also illiterate, which makes him a quixotic choice for allah to decide to dictate the rules of the universe to. Just a thought.

I'm not a theologian and cannot comment on the Ibrahamic tradition, but I think, over all, it's a bit of a nonsense because it veers so crazily away from Judaism and Christianity - and it suddenly sprang up 800 years after Christianity. Grabbing a ride on to Christianity's credibilty, which Christianty certainly had by the year 800, may be one explanation.

Anonymous said...

Well the 'offended' Muslims seem to have shown what the Pope quoted was correct.

Offend Muslims and you can be certain that the usual rent-a-mob will be out on the streets within hours burning flags and effigies of whoever it is who has offended them with a camera crew in tow for it to be shown on the news around the world.

One thing that confuses me though, is that although they seem to hate the west so much, they seem to have a ready supply of flags of whichever country has 'offended' them to burn. The shops selling National flags must do good business out there.

Anonymous said...

Outside Finsbury Park Tube Station I was accosted by a leaflet bearing Student .

( Two of the bomb plot trawls were recruited in the local college by the way)
He said will you sign this petition against Islamphobia .

I said .Phobic , an irrational fear of being blown up with 80 plots of simliar size being tracked ( says ian Blair)

Phobic where in our view ( I pointed ,is a Mosque that three years ago was searched revealing a cache of guns and bomb making equipment.

Phobic ? when the British Muslim Coucil want to run our Foreign policy underthreat of violence

at some point i may have staryed into things I wish I had said

Anyway I would not sign it and so he shouted after me `RACIST` I am not a racist actually but large groups whithin Islam quite unashamedly are

Finsbury Park Mosque has been a violent flashpoint before and I can understand the rage.

Who would this little twerp be representing `Socialist Worker `of course. I take it I don`t have to remind anyone of the piratical character associated with this Mosque and many more

Anonymous said...

VERITY

Only started reading your rivetingly misguided material the other day and as usual you give me the comforting feeling that I am not the most right wing person in the world after all . You never did answer the my request for you to make a ( vital) distinction between UKIP and the BNP by the way but no matter. Politics , for you , is a matter of winning arguments rather than winning support and I can see why you would find Conservatives frustrating as result..
I have enjoyed ( lets be honest) the bloody tale of the Counter Reformation. One interesting thing about this pre industrial human catastrophe is the Industrial scale slaughter that was achieved in the Low counties without the technology of the Nazis or Stalin. One imaginative method was to tie the hands of crowds and herd them into lakes clubbing the odd swimmer at the shoreline. I am quoting Colin Wilson here who is pretty reliable .. ish ( he of The Outsider fame I mean).
I `m going to try to make a tricky point ,for me , here so bear with me . You pick off facts about Islamic culture , which is of course far more various geographically than you claim. Thereby you construct your arguments like a Mediaeval Monk trying to fit classical works separated by a thousand years into a system ignoring context entirely
The vast mistake of making a judgements of this sort is never clearer than with Religion. Clifford Longley `Chosen people` is good on this as is CS Lewis ( The Discarded Image , not Narnia .) . It is fairly pointless to gather example of crimes against contemporary western culture committed in either religions name at various times an places and counterproductive. It looks like draw which it isn’t .
The obvious wrongness of de-contextualsing cultural practices was the innocent 60s beginning of the cancer that is `Cultural relativism `. This began in the new Sociology and Anthropology departments in red brick Unis. It has since been found to be most congenial to Liberals in that it allows them to conclude that everyone can be right at the same time. Clearly this is an absurd extension of the original insight allowing the following sinister conclusions
1 Female Circumcision is culturally justified and yet should be treated with `education` without the admission that one culture is superior to the other
2 Muslim anti-Semitism and militarism is morally less reprehensible than were the West to espouse it ( Without the conclusion that the West is morally superior)
3 South African `tribalism ` was worse than black African tribalism without the admission it was because we expect better ..

Etc. down to the sexism and homophobia of Black lyrics.

That is why Ian Dales easy point about `free speech ` is a cowering Liberal position . The real problem with the Pope is that he has opened the possibility that one tradition , `Christianity`, is better (not best) than another, `Islam`( an easy one surely) . Also that to argue in these terms is valid at all. Free speech is not the point , `truth `is .
How hateful to Liberals is the very suggestion that the Teacher Training Colleges ,Sociology Courses in which they flourish are intellectually so inadequate , they fear loathe contradictions of the sort the Pope has exposed.

Without clearing the way to compare cultures you are throwing insults and you will only win arguments in pubs. The first enemy is Liberal academia and its semi digested popular forms This is why we live in a climate when so often it feels as if you are the child that has seen the ,absence, , the kings clothes.

Any way at least I read you posts carefully and ,as you might imagine , that rarely happens to me.

Anonymous said...

Permex - I will post an explanation of taqqya tomorrow. I have posted this many times before, in various forms, but I will post this again because it is extremely dangerous to our notions of law. It comes with its partner kitman. Sounds like a music hall show, doesn't it? "And now, ladies and gentlemen, for your laughing pleasure, please welcome, Taqqya and Kitman!"

I'm tired and I don't really want to get involved in any more of this islamic shit, but I'll post it tomorrow.

Anonymous said...

Paul Newman: "Any way at least I read you posts carefully and ,as you might imagine , that rarely happens to me." I can indeed. People rarely have the patience to fight their way through prolix maunderings.

I have already alerted our host, Mr Iain Dale, that you are obsessive, way too focussed on me and I feel threatened by you.

Mr Dale not having responded by even giving you a warning, I am banning myself and will no longer be posting on this blog.

The Military Wing Of The BBC said...

The lack of our media's desire to defend the Pope's right to say what he thinks (in an academic lecture, not a Nuremberg rally) dismays me.
I have heard many times the Media repeat that Christianity and Islam are broadly similar. ("the Church Of England in turbans")
Nothing could be further from the truth: Christianity was founded by a pacifist. Islam by a Warrior leader of an army.
Without realising it their liberal secular view is based on two central tenant from Christ's teachings "Love thy Neighbour" and "He who is without sin cast the first stone".
The early Christians were Pacifists. Extreme Christians today (Quakers, Jehovah's Witnesses) ARE pacifists are their ANY Muslims who profess pacifism?

The BBC and all the defeatist liberals are making the same mistake as James Bond did whilst strapped to the table in Gold finger. When faced with imminent danger (the laser moving towards his crouch).
They ask: "Do you expect me to talk?"
They must realise that the reply that is deafening some of us but ignored by their Brains conditioned as they are for intellectual debate is:

"No Mr Bond We expect you to die"

Anonymous said...

Verity said of Paul Newman "I have already alerted our host, Mr Iain Dale, that you are obsessive, way too focussed on me and I feel threatened by you..."

Threatened intellectually is that, Verity? Losing an argument - so running off home with your ball? Pitiful.

"I am banning myself and will no longer be posting on this blog."

But how can you ban Verity - The Truth itself? Well, whatever. Still, it will be a shame. Your views were always good for making me feel grounded on planet Earth.

James Higham said...

Strapworld [interesting name] was closest to the truth when he said it needed a politician to stand up and say it. Yes but that's political suicide [ask Ken] and therefore the man would not be a politician but a humanitarian - or are they one and the same thing?

Anonymous said...

buster george - you don't want to stick with the USA? Shouldn't the West stick together?

Jeff said...

Verity,

Don't let anyone get you down or put you off posting on this blog,
especially an obvious appologetic git like paul newman.

He strikes me as the type of person who would try to understand the reasons for suicide bombers and try to talk them out of doing it in the future instead of just condeming them and then shooting the survivors.

Speak your mind girl and to hell with the doubters and those who insist on political correctness.

I for one appreciate you views on some of these topics

Anonymous said...

2.16 am

Verity - don't give him the satisfaction!

He clearly can't cope with a reasoned argument. I think it's
do with all the chicken sauces he sells in supermarkets.

Besides, I don't get the impression that you are the type of person to allow herself to be threatened or intimidated by any tosser. Not least by a dodgy sauce maker!

Paul Newman - Do us all a favour and take your face for a shit. I think you really need to clear your head.

Alternatively, as with the MPC and any other camel lover, with a splintered stick my foolish friend. (this will only make sense if you bother your sad arse and read the entire blog and not just selective reading).

I wonder where else that situation arose this week? Ermm…

Anonymous said...

well that went well then.....Those calling me politically correct have obviously not read my contribution Hardly!

Aren`t women always the same .It doesn`t go there way and when all else fails they burst into tears.

I `m off to rifle through a minor celebrities bin. Busy busy

The Military Wing Of The BBC said...

The best quote so far:
Anonymous (3:55)
The Islamic reaction (as usual) seems to be "...call us violent? Take that back or we'll thump you."

Their tanks are on our lawn of free speech, yet unbelievably the media is discussing the merits of the Pope's argument.

The media is surrendering the central ground with no fight.
How will individuals on local authorities resist the imposition of Sharia law if the media continues along this path of absolute defeatism?

ps I will no longer be using Paul Newman's salad dressing - its not for meat eaters anyway.

Jeff said...

Just been anounced by AFP and sky news that muslim gunmen have shot dead a nun in somalia.

I wonder if we will hear the same amount of outcry from the so called moderate muslims over this act.

I bet not, they will view this as a minnor crime compared to the comments made by the pope.

This is yet another example of the peace loving nature of the muslim faith, and for those of you who missed it that was a sarcatic comment with more than just a hint of derision.

the muslim world continualy harp on about the fact that we are not understanding enough, or that we are trying to do down their faith.

They should look closer to home, I do not hear them condeming the murder and rape of the people of Darhfor by muslim soldiers, they should show their commitment to peace by dealing with this issue instead of crying for the UN to do it.

neil craig said...

I bet this is the first time Iain has been called a "liberal invertebrate". Most of this "your religion is medieval, mine is venerable" is so silly.

For example "trying to please their Dark Ages diety who has not moved on one inch since the year 800" - this is the basis of christian fundamentalism too - after all if you really take seriously the idea that a diety created the universe billions of years ago (or 6,000 to taste) it is impossible to believe He/It has entirley changed Its views in the last 1,200.

Islam is not a serious military or cultural threat to us - the USSR was, China is becoming one but Islam is a failure. We may have to occasionally slap somebody down but right now we are doing far more harm to ourselves running round like headless chickens than al Quaeda ever could.

Anonymous said...

Teri - That was funny. Buster George, thank you.

I said yesterday, in response to Permanent Expat that I would post the definitions of taqqya and kitman today, and I'm going to go ahead and do it because it is immensely important in this war against the West that we be familiar with these techniques.

Taqqya - as it's a translation of an Arab word in Arab script, it is spelled in three or four different ways in English, but this is the spelling I use - is, essentially, a licence to lie and deceive. It's not a nudge-nudge, wink-wink kind of lying. It's formalised.

You can tell any lie, any lie at all, as long as it is in the cause of the advancement of islam (which, as we all know, is a religion of moderation). This is formalised in their koran.

Worse, they are authorised to lie while sworn on the koran in a court of law, as long as it is in the advancement of islam. You don't need me to tell you that this is very dangerous and the British courts need to be aware of it. People think that muslims swearing on the koran is the same as us swearing on the Bible,and may give their word the same credence.

But they can swear on their koran and then lie their brains out and it's OK with allah, Mo and any other big guy up there. In fact, they get credits for it.

This is one reason muslims are such dangerous people. Their standards are the standards of deal-making in the alleys of the souk. No honour. All slyness.

Taqqya is dangerous to people who don't know about it. If you know about it, you just make the assumption that muslims are lying and dismiss what they have to say.

Kitman is equally dangerous. This is deceit by omission. "Cleverly" (for them) leaving a key point out of your evidence or your argument - a key point that would, if mentioned, swing the argument in the other direction.

The most vivid example I can think of is a fairly recent one. It involves the bombing of London Transport and "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie's interview on TV.

He went through the wrong-headed jihad bit (quite a yawneroo) and the interviewer asked words to this effect: "Yes, or no, do you regret the loss of innocent lives in the bombing?"

Sacranie affected amazement and outrage. "Certainly! Of course we regret the loss of innocent lives! This was a terrible tragedy for the innocent people who died!"

Can anyone spot the key word here? Time's up! It is "innocent".

It may come as a surprise to you, but as far as they're concerned, infidels (i.e., normal people) cannot be "innocent", so our deaths are of no account.

Why are we not "innocent" as defined by islamics? Well, they have that all wrapped up, too. You see, everyone is born a muslim. Bet you didn't know that! Islam has the birth franchise! But hundreds of millions of us left islam and became Christians, Jews, Buddhists or nothing at all. This makes us guilty, not innocent. Therefore, our deaths are not the deaths of human beings and don't count.

This is kitman. Deceit by ommission. Again, kitman is happily practised while swearing on the koran. Again, it is very important for the legal structures in the West to be aware of this because one cannot assume that these people are operating by the normal standards of civilisation.

Anonymous said...

I see on Michelle that the religion of peace has now issued instructions for the islamo brothers to "hunt the Pope down". This came shortly after they shot a 70-year old nun in the back four times in Somalia.

Who will have the nerve to outlaw this wretched, murderous, primitive cult?

Anonymous said...

As usual sky news isn't really going into the murdered nun by a Muslim Somalia story. I wouldn't mind but I emailed them last night about little green footballs and the Somalian cleric. Why me asks?

Still haven’t heard from the MPC. Probably busy doing what I suggested to them!

I wonder if the same goes for Paulhamed Newmanistan. Although, I do find you funny.

PS What's this shit with Dafur about now? Muslims nailing muslims. One less job for anyone else in my view. It's not our problem! We have enough of those to deal with.

We find ourselves castigated on one hand and then called upon to act with the other.

Jeff said...

Anon 9:15

I don't think that we should alienate ourselves completely from the US, or the other western nations.

But I do think that we should not support them blindly either. The idea that one nation should call the shots over the wests involvement in world events is a dangerous situation to be in.

There is also the matter of who should be running the military actions that we do get involved in, historicaly the US does not have a great record in military actions. |They played a big part in the victory during WW2, but have not exactly covered themselves in glory since.

We as a country a quite capable of standing on our own two feet, and the leaders of this country sholuld think of the impact on it before jumping into bed with anyone just to look as if they are acting.

The war on terror is a right thing to do, yet there has been little thought on how to accomplish the goals outlined, and the only people who are paying a price for it are the innoocents. by this I mean the ever growing list of civil liberties that are being removed from us this country, and the growing numbers of civilians that are dying at the hands of terrorists in the countries that we have supposedly liberated.

Anonymous said...

"The war on terror is a right thing to do"

Really? And how do you fight "terror"? I have an abiding terror of spiders. Those pesky arachnids are determined to ruin my life by scuttling along the skirting board of an evening. So even if we nuke all Islamists, I'm still in terror. Which means what - that we cannot win the war on terror until the spiders are all dead too?

I have another friend who has a terror of birds. Another with a terror of the dark. Yet another who runs out of the room screaming when Gordon Brown smiles. How do you suggest we win their war on "terror"?

The "war on terror" is very deliberately framed to be a war without end. A war that can NEVER be won. And so a war that requires us to submit to the ongoing loss of civil liberties, the ever broadening invasion into our private lives. What we should have is war on those who use terror as a tactic to destabilise our way of life. Which is not won by taking away those very things which make us free.

Jeff said...

If you still believe that the Muslim faith is one of peace then check out this blog and then tell me otherwise.


http://islamstrueface.blogspot.com/2005/07/muslim-atrocities.html

Anonymous said...

little miss muffet - Boy, you have some weird friends. Do you all have rooms in a ... secure home, by any chance?

Jeff said...

Little miss muffet

It is the right thing to fight terrorism, it is only the methods that need be decided.
As for own terrors and those of your freinds might i make the following suggestion.

We simply kill all birds, stuff them with poison and feed them all to John prescot in a dark spider infested room.

Otherwise teri could terrify us all with her splintered sticks!!

Yak40 said...

Well, the muslim Londoners weren't supporting the pope today., just showing their usual love and tolerance.

Anonymous said...

They have to be compelled to unmask themselves.

Serious point. What they were doing is illegal. Why were they not arrested? Would a human being in a Mickey Mouse?QE mask, making the same verbal and written threats, have been left alone?

Frankly, its the most important cause of today among the left: DISCRIMATION!

Why can't the islamics get arrested?

Anonymous said...

yak40 - "Well, the muslim Londoners...". How do you know they were Londoners and not shipped in from Luton with the promise of a free lunch and a photo op?

neil craig said...

"Would the shooting dead of another 70 year old, dedicated aid-worker nun help you to concentrate your mind a little"

No - this is exactly what I meant about headless chickens - the effect this will have will be purely detrimental to the people of Sopmalia & is another fundamentalist own goal.

It is also another example of selective reporting - when a Salvadorean death squad murdered 5 priests, their housekeeper & her 15 year old daughter it didn't get reported. Indeed I only know about it myself because the death squad was defended by the US ambassador, William Walker, who subsequently, as the US government's top human rights expert, "discovered" the faked "Racak massacre" as a justification for our helping KLA Moslem terrorists commit genocide during the war in support of terror.

Anonymous said...

Er - the Pope didn't say what you said he said. He was quoting a statement made by someone else (a 14th-century Byzantine emperor, actually) as a stimulus for discussion of a theme only tangentially to do with Islam.

You should try reading the whole lecture. It's good.

Anonymous said...

See? Many of the above entries PROOVE that Iain doesn't censor his blog.

Sir-C4' said...

I am sick and tired of these so-called 'Muslims' who think that the world owes them special treatment. Why is it wrong to critise Islam when 'Islamofascist' zealots like Captain Hook incite impressionable Muslims to threaten homosexuals and glorify in the deaths of innocent men, women and children during terrorist attacks?

I have nothing personal against Islam. Before the religion was hijacked by fanatics, Islamic civilisation was the envy of the world both in terms of culture and religious toleration at a time when Catholics and Protestants were chopping each others heads off and burning each to death. As time progress, the fanatics will dimish as more level-headed generations emerge in the aftermath of the Islamic verison of the Middle Ages. The only difference between 1500 AD and 1500 AH is that today there are guns, plastic explosives, chemical and nuclear weapons that can wipe out most life on Earth several times over.

When was the last time that a Christian or a Jew commited a suicide bombing?

Anonymous said...

Greenham Woman:

Splintered sticks to you. If you don't like what you read or the matter of fact view of others, then go and blog on some lib dem site, where by you can all discuss why the sky is blue for an eternity while we all get blown up by terrorists.

If you meant this as a joke then all i'll say is stop playing your banjo and move to the city instead.

Jeff said...

Greenham Woman,

Iain dale does censure the entries on this blog.

He also however allows for different viewpoints in order to encouragge discussion.

If the views above offend you then welcome to the real world.

I find the attitude of do gooders offensive but I will listen to them, just in case they come up with an idea that actualy works for all and not just a minority

Anonymous said...

I've been wondering why there isn't any movement from the government and the media on this.

I think I have an answer - It suits the government and the media are basically capped!

Whilst we are all jumping up and down with the distraction of Terrorists and there foolish, stupid carry on, the government are up to all sorts:

1 ID cards
2 Legistaltive Reform Act
3 John Prescott
4 Lord Falkner reducing personal
privacy laws

I say let's start looking at the distractions and come to the conclusion that this crap of Islam will get sorted eventually. We won't stand a chance if our rights and freedoms are taken away via the back door.

As for the BBC - will what a waste of money paying for that license.

I would truly like to see a 24hr independant news desk that isn't in anyone's pockets.

Anonymous said...

Teri - I think you're right in one sense, but I also think the Blair "government" is shit scared. So's the Beeb. They're barely mentioning this.

And Her Very Cherieness, the Blairina, is a Roman Catholic. I think all these threads are hanging together and no one knows what to do. This government has never been decisive or bold. Or even intelligent. My reading is, they simply do not know what to do.

Anonymous said...

Censorship clearly does exist but in rather a suprising form. Thankyou for that further point of interest.We shall have to see if my concerns are felt to be groundless or not.

Anonymous said...

Teri, chill. I moved from the city specifically to play my banjo. Having enjoyed living within a bengali muslim ghetto/community for 8 years I have to say I really dont know what most you are talking about. Obviously I would defend your right to say it. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a "liberal" is a bit sad though. And doing good Mr Bluster G is not such a bad way to spend ones time...

Anonymous said...

Yeah, and Greenham Woman writes: "is not such a bad way to spend ones time...". Where is the possessive apostrophe? Don't these people realise that the whole point of their sentence and the point they are trying to convey can be distorted or turned upside down by wrong punctuation?

The grossest errors always come from the lefties. Perhaps because they write in such a foam-flecked frenzy.

I don't capitalise muslim, islam, allah or mo, but it is an intentional affront, not a mistake.

Anonymous said...

So, dyslexics shouldn't contribute? In case they sound uneducated or left wing? It seems to me that typos and grammatical errors can happen to us all (even to the wisest, most erudite and casuist amongst us. Fortunately this is not a legal document nor is ever likely to form the basis for one.

Anonymous said...

Having read the "foam-flecked frenzy" in the comments here I shall have to redefine my understanding of what it is to be "lefty". Thank you Verity, for enlightening me.

Anonymous said...

It does seem to me, that these extremists are breeding more and more racism against themselves. With all this sparking outrage over the smallest things, and the seemingly one sided rules.

There will end up a full 'holy war' if things keep escalating like this, what is it they want apart from total subservience to 'their god'.

Anonymous said...

Buster George , Verity , Teri (Ithink) and whoever

How very amusing to see the subject of English usage being discussed in this `Island of Dr. Moreau`. English is an uninflected language and its proper use is more vitally concerned with fine nuances of emphasis and association than any other. The semi educated so often miss the point and this has been amply demonstrated by the splendidly porcine absence of irony or the appreciation of it hereon. Ah yes` irony ` that most English quality.
For those of you who are unaware of the innocent amusement your silly attitudes afford others here is an example. Many who enjoy daubing their rancid racism and historically illiterate piffle are often keen that English be made a prerequisite to inward migration. Even mildly cultivated speakers , however , generally find it harder to communicate with inadequate ` first language` communities than those who stumble with ` second language ` English..
I begin to wonder if I am in a sense even more right wing than the `BNP ` sympathisers here. I would like to propose a thoroughgoing examination of English appreciation at an imaginative level and ongoing phased deportation of those failing to reach a reasonable level. Aside from denying myself the pleasure of sneering at barbaric grunts studded with Latinate pretension there is little to lose . Australians in particular would soon become a distant memory along with most of the inhabitants of Bemondsey
On the subject of free speech I have had a insight which I would like to share with you ,my new friends. Freedom of speech is vastly overrated as it rapidly degenerates into anarchy of speech and onwards to the merely bestial.
As someone who has recently been censored from this forum for expressing main stream Conservative views I feel uniquely qualified to comment and intend to go on doing so. Personally I have other objectives , not least , paying the taxes that so often finance the nasty louts that shout at me from their Socialist Worker stand or from this place .
Thank you for helping me to discover that I am not after all the unapologetic Libertarian I thought I was. As I settle into the comfortable leather chair of traditional Conservatism I find it an excellent place from which to comment on the vice and folly I see all around me. I will be using material harvested for some articles I have planned and commissioned.I will not bother to reveal the difficulties of this sites association with the Conservative Party other than un-officially.

What a very revealing exchange and in particular what a very revealing act of censorship

Anonymous said...

Am I censored again then .. this is fascinating . I wonder what you scamps are up to . Would this be for expressing disapproval of the BNP ?

I `m going to enjoy this even more than I imagined .

See you at the conference

Anonymous said...

greenham woman - In your penultimate post, you forgot to close your parenthesis.

anonymous 7:25 writes: "It does seem to me, that these extremists are breeding more and more racism against themselves."

Which race are we talking about, and why would islamic extremism breed racism? Against which race? You do know that a race is a subdivision of a species? - in this instance, human being.

Last time I looked, there were only five races: Aryan, Semitic, Mongoloid, Negroid and the one that includes the people of the South Pacific which I can never remember. Which one of these races is being damaged by religious extremism of the muslim variety?

Anonymous said...

FAILED EXPERIMENTS ( see Island of Doctor Moreau)
Race, well I wouldn’t want to upset anyone by knowing more about anything than them ,or everything as is likely in this company, but there are not five races. The five races mentioned can more truly be said to be one race .There are four , perhaps more population groups that are more distantly divergent within African Continent and the rest of the worlds population are subsets of a relatively recent migration outwards. The Victorians were obsessed with the Problem of race and a lot of the presumptions about it come from their primitive understanding of how genetic inheritance and features such as colour might arise. Its an interesting subject and worth discovering something about
We are unlikely to be able to make up for the inadequacies of the educational system in South London here so I shan`t continue. My advice to the `failed experiments` would be to read something we like to call `book` . The cheaply printed leaflets from which I imagine contributions from the BNP sympathisers here are ultimately sourced are astonishingly unreliable .

Anonymous said...

What is most ironic about this entire situation is that after the Pope made his speech quoting the words of a 14th century Byzantine Emperor — "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached" - some Islam followers felt it appropriate to burn several catholic churches and kill a nun in retaliation. Further, it seems some iraqi Islams have threatened the Vatican. (Dear Muslims, how about an apology for these acts?)

It would seem a more appropriate and reasonable response would have been a verbal challenge to the Pope rather than destruction, threats and death.

The world must question these ' muslim followers' who seek out any opportunity to wreak havoc.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 2:54 writes: "The world must question these ' muslim followers' who seek out any opportunity to wreak havoc."

Muslims haven't invented anything in 1400 years because mohammad couldn't think of anything new to invent, and if mo' couldn't think of anything, it would be blasphemous for a human to think of something. So we in the advanced secular West do all the heavy lifting progress-wise. The mohammadans haven't thought up diddley.

The quote is as accurate today as it was 1200 years ago.

Anonymous said...

First thanks for the free speech. Unfortunately we are often exposed to just one side of the problem (especially in media, bbc is a clear case...Does anybody knows where to write to complaint??)
I would like to ask any muslim if they know the history of their religion. If it is the case, the "spreading by the sword" should not be a new thing, less an insult.
know your history, as you may say to me, because of this part of history I have seen few muslims reactions being ingnorants: the crusades. Let me tell you, they were a reaction. Could you please tell me to what?

Finally I would like to show my support for our Holy Father and his service to the truth. The reactions only proves that faith does not match with violence (which is the main message of the speech if we take some minutes to read it). What good comes of killing an innocent nun for the sake of religion? is this good or bad? If it is bad, you agree with the Pope. If it is good, you may have not faith in God at all, call yoursef muslim or whatever.