March for Free Expression

The next phase

Friday, March 31, 2006

Blaxploitation

I am indebted to the blogger drinking from home for this post, which comes via the pub philosopher. It refers to a piece on the Black Information Link (BLINK) website, written by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway. Ms Aguiar-Holloway is a lot more significant than she knows in the history of the Free Expression Rally. But more on that later.

Here's how the piece starts:
A sea of white faces
by Shirin Aguiar-Holloway
30/3/2006

FREEDOM FOR WHO? That was the question being asked after an all-white 'Freedom March' took place in London.
Eh?

Ms Aguiar-Holloway telephoned me twice in the run up to the rally. So I thought I'd return the compliment, and telephone her. I was put through without any problem, but she was audibly taken aback by the fact that I'd called her. I explained that I thought her article was the most racist thing I'd seen since that drunken night when a series of know-thy-enemy links led me to the website of White Aryan Resistance. And I said I'd like to ask her a couple of questions.

She said that she normally asked, rather than answered. No kidding? But I wanted to ask anyway. She told me there was someone in her organisation who fielded press questions. But then, I'm not a member of the press, so I persisted.

Question One:
Are you aware that the rally in London was a lot more racially diverse than the counter rally in Birmingham?
Answer:
So, that's your first question?
True. Was she going to answer it?
There's someone here to answer questions. I can't speak for BLINK
I'm not asking you to. You wrote the piece.
[silence]
So you're not going to answer the question?
No. What's the next question?
Will you answer it?

She wouldn't. So I was put through to the person who does answer questions, Lester Holloway. Lester turns out to be the editor of BLINK. I asked him question one again, but he wouldn't answer. He did, though, offer me a right of reply. I am going to take that up, but will drag this out over two posts, so it can wait. There is even a reason for this.

Notwithstanding, I asked Lester my second question:
Does the validity of what someone has to say depend on the colour of their skin?
Lester did answer this:
No.
So why the emphasis on skin colour - to the exclusion of all else - in their article?

Lester wouldn't answer. OK, Last try:
Is "All white on the day" a racist caption? (It accompanies a photograph of the rally)
And Lester did answer:
No, because it reflects the racial composition of the march.
He added, apropos of the whole piece:
I deny it was racist.
You will, perhaps, have noticed how much, during this conversation, we discussed the issue of free speech and the statement of principle. Nor did the BLINK piece. It was ONLY concerned with the racial composition of the rally. Oddly, they were less concerned with the racial composition of the Birmingham Rally, one of the most racially homogenous assemblies ever seen in this country. Even the clothes of the attendees were the same colour.

Why does this matter? After all, we can dismiss black bigots as readily as white ones.

Because I don't think the Holloways are bigots. I know that seems like a bizarre piece of self-delusion, but I have actually talked with them. They seemed like very nice, courteous, educated people who care very much about issues of race and equality, and might also care about freedom of expression. That's why Shirin was more important than she knows. She was one of three journalists (the others were from the BBC's Asian Network and Sunrise Radio) who made me ask people not to bring the cartoons to the rally. It had bugger all to do with MAC, who have just been using what they have perceived as my weakness to dig themselves into the most astonishing crater, for no very obvious reason.

It was instead these clever, cosmopolitan, accomplished young women for whom it just didn't compute that the cartoons might not be a hideous racist, BNP attack on Muslims in particular, and every other person with a better than average suntan in general.

Shirin, when she wrote the second piece, knew that I had asked people not to bring cartoons solely to help include Muslims who might have otherwise felt intimidated, because I had told her this on the telephone during our second conversation, but this knowledge failed to penetrate the carapace of her paranoia and her racist assumptions about white people. She knew that of nine speakers, only five were white, yet she still called that Rally "all-white". She knew that there were lots of people there who were not white, yet she still called the rally "all-white". She knew that the Birmingham Rally was entirely racially homogenous, but she drew no attention to that fact because the race in question was not white.

There can be no more pure and complete an example of racism. But I remain convinced that these two people are decent.

They are the type of people we need to get on board, somehow, sometime. Because Freedom of Speech and Expression have nothing at all to do with race or culture. They are universal. And the people the Holloways are tacitly supporting would remove these freedoms from them, as well as from us.

It is going to be a long haul, though.

133 Comments:

Blogger St George said...

There can be no more pure and complete an example of racism.

Haven't you twigged yet that it is only whites who can be racist?

7:11 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Voltaire, you are quite a dissembler, there were Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Somalians, English and iraqis at our demo.
Also our demo on the 18th february was not intimidating, we had 50,000 people out there, mainly Muslims, but there were many non-Muslims around, none of whom seemed to be intimidated.

7:29 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Oh and Peter, your letter, it wasn't a bargaining chip, it certainly was when you first called. Incidentally while you were being squeezed by the police, GLA and Sayyida was about to walk out.

You:
"If you agree to send a speaker from MAC, i'll tell people not to bring the cartoons"
Me:
"That's not good enough Peter, you should be doing that anyway".

An hour later, Peter calls again:
"I've told people not to bring the cartoons, i've posted it up, i thought i'd tell you as a courtesy"
Me:
"We're still having that talk about whether to send a speaker"
You:
"It wasn't a bargaining chip"

Anyways, no nothing to do with MAC at all.

8:20 pm  
Blogger Voltaire said...

Just for the record, both the police and the GLA approved the rally with the cartoons on display, and neither made any attempt to persuade us to ask people not to bring them.

This is the basis of the complaint to the Police Complaints Authority - that they should have been in a position to tell us that there would be legal action taken. Instead, they said that senior officers and their lawyers had read this blog and it was all OK.

For the rest, I gave up responding to Ismaeel's posts when MAC refused dialogue, and that remains my position until and unless they learn that dialogue is a two way street.

8:32 pm  
Blogger Jew 90 said...

MAC refusing dialogue? Surely not! I mean these are the people who talk about 'civility' whilst campaigning against others rights of expression, aren't they?

8:53 pm  
Blogger Jew 90 said...

PS anybody else see this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
article/0,,17129-2112070,00.html

If only there were more like him.

8:56 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Who has refused dialogue Voltaire? We welcome dialogue and debate, but we're not going to have it in a room where you're insulting our Prophet (PBUH). Why don't you invite some Priests to debate with you while you burn some crosses.

9:02 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Did you not read our open letter- we will debate and dialogue with you about anything anywhere but keep your cartoons at home.

9:04 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Comment moderation on the MAC blog has been turned on.

9:24 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Can I see some pictures of the birmingham protest please?

9:25 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

hello?

9:35 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

http://slim2005.blogspot.com/2006/03/jyllands-posten-secular-fundamentalist.html

only ones i can find

9:46 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

many thanks Ismaeel. Any chance that you'll turn off the comment screening on your blog?

9:54 pm  
Blogger bloggersunion said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:55 pm  
Blogger bloggersunion said...

On March 25th 2006, people gathered at Trafalgar in London to show out for there support for an open fourm on the freedom of Expression. Although this could have been seen as a jump of point for ones own politic, it was a brilliant day if a little tense at times. The rain did not dull our spirits nor did it slate out humour.

I heard some very cutting sac-religous comments which, while I do not agree with where 100% vaild. I was waiting for my sentiments to be reflected by a speaker but it seemed that it did not come. So here are my thoughts:

"I come to you today in the spirit of Oliver Cromwell. The founding member of our great Democracy and Goverment. He was a common man, a man of the land who took the power away from those who abused it. I cannot say that I aproved of his tactics ethier as a weight of blood followed this man but it was his vision and tatical mastery that lead him to victory over the Royalists.

And it was in 1657 that he rejected the Crown of England. This man who had fought tooth and nail against what the Crown stood for and suddenly was given the chance to rule as monarch and he refused. That is the spirit that is summed up in me today.

If the Crown where indeed apointed by God then it was on that day he could have became a greater instrument on world and future affairs but he used his free will to say no. God or no God.

Under Mr. Blair's law even saying the phrase "The Crown was appointed by God" has just made me guilty of the crime of incited-religous hatred. This is a forpar but the letter of the law can and will be dictates to us. This is why I request that either myself or Mr. Blair should be placed in the Tower until further notice because one of us is of ill thinking.

But even as I say these word I know in my heart of hearts that if I or any man, was to assume postion over Mr. Blair in the spirit of Cromwell and over throw him and him only, then we would be setting ourselves up to be lead by a dictator and it is this I also wish to speak against today, as Decocracy is very much at my heart and it is the only thing that will save us from ourselves."

9:56 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

yeah i've done it

10:01 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

I seen. Cheers.

10:04 pm  
Blogger Ranting Kraut said...

It seems odd to conclude that people can't be intolerant (or can't be bigots) because they are nice.
Who hasn't met nice people with odd political opinions? What your account suggests is that those people are deeply committed to identity politics and political correctness, in the sense of being primarily concerned with a group’s or a person’s identity rather than their actions. They care about who speaks not about what is being said. It should not come as a surprise if they would also define rights according to ethnic identity.
To me, it seems improbable that people like this can become involved without compromising the basic message that freedom of speech should apply equally to all and that there is no right not to be offended.

rantingkraut.wordpress.com

10:13 pm  
Blogger Temporary said...

>>Who has refused dialogue Voltaire? We welcome dialogue and debate, but we're not going to have it in a room where you're insulting our Prophet (PBUH). Why don't you invite some Priests to debate with you while you burn some crosses.

Sounds like a fascinating scenario. Cartoons which criticize those who abuse Islam and abuse the legacy of Muhammad to sanction murder (because that is what the cartoons are, not insults against Muhammad) in a room of burning crosses. Maybe it will be made into a movie at some stage? (I doubt it, because someone will of course protest outside the multiplex to get it taken off the reels).

12:36 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Oh and Peter, your letter, it
> wasn't a bargaining chip, it
> certainly was when you first
> called. Incidentally while you were
> being squeezed by the police, GLA
> and Sayyida was about to walk out.

Ismaeel, seeing as your tone has become more chirlish, I'd lower my acedemic standards and join you in the play ground.

-------------

Oh Ismaeel, your tone, it wasn't mature, it certainly was when first started. Incidentally while you were being squeezed by comments on your own blog, here and one toonaphobia.

You: "If you agree to be civil I will support free speech with an acceptable baseline of civility"

Us: "That's not good enough Ismeaal, you should support free speech anyway be doing that anyway".

An hour later, Ismaeel calls again:

You: "I've told people not to riot, i've spoken to militant political Islamic groups and cancelled the mob, i thought i'd tell you as a courtesy"

Me: "We're still having that talk about whether we can see the cartoons in private"

You: "It wasn't a bargaining chip, of course not"

Anyways, no nothing to do with Islamafascim at all.

------------

Is mimicry a valid form of expression? It makes people laugh at the target and the target feels small, insulted even. Do you wish to ban this mode of communication too?

I don't believe that your absolutist brand of Islam has wide support in the Muslim community, this is reflected in the photos of your recent march.

I think that is time for you to step down and use your money to reduce, not increase intercommunity tensions.

Open the Mosque, invite ordinary British people in, have a party, break out the hooka pipes, relax, run a creesh looking after kids from all backgrounds.

Embrace British culture, show some generosity to your fellow man (or women) in the street irrespective of their race, creed, colour or religion.

Cheers,

TFI

10:34 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I have to say I don't think you can say that MAC refuse dialogue when their only condition is not to do it in a room where displayed are the Danish cartoons insulting the Prophet (SAW).

I also think that dialogue with MAC and as many others as possible does need to be encouraged. Did anyone watch HardTalk Extra last night with Amin Maalouf? Amazing chap.

He thinks the politics of identity, as opposed to ideology, will define the conflicts of the 21st Century. The reason he gave what that while you can discuss ideologies through debate and reasoned argument, and even arrive at conclusions and compromises, identity is about shouting out what you are and seeing who shouts the loudest.

He thinks the gulf between "the West" and the arab world is worse now than it was 100 years ago. He is sad to see the enormous rift that divides the two. He thinks there needs to be more mixing and a focus on ideology rather than identity.

That's why the journalists have been trying to get Peter to either expose MFE for having "white/BNP" identity, and why I think it was a jolly good move from Peter to take down the Danish flags from his poster downloads and ask people not bring the cartoons, then it doesn't become an identity battle.

When it's an ideology discussion all people can participate, the biggest task I think will be separating identity from ideology, which has been the source of the kind of racism associated with this campaign.

When I first came across this blog through a friend, I thought it had a white, danish, christian-if-religious-at-all identity, and that put me off participating because I didn't feel my identity - Muslim - was welcome.

When Peter made the decision to change that, I felt comfortable to participate in this forum. That's not saying to remove identity completely from the debate but to focus on ideology (a stand-off mocking any religion won't encourage a constructive debate, it's just a means of shouting an identity louder).

Anyone can participate in an ideological debate.

I don't know if we can combat these types of trends in our own little way in the UK, where others are starting to fail, I hope so.

Ismaeel, I know you don't know me other than on this blog but I'd just like to commend the work you've been doing to engage in debate and dialogue, even at the face of insult and abuse, forming the basis of an ideological discussion.

As for why Peter made the decision not to display the cartoons, you need to join me in accepting that it was finally his decision. I understand that MAC supporters will want to feel that this happened because of MAC but isn't it a far better thing that Peter spoke to others like the female journalists and Sayyida? This shows that there are many people outside MAC (potential supporters perhaps?) who would like to switch from shouting identities to more egalitarian discussions and debates on ideology.

I don't think Peter comes across as the kind of person who would respond to any warnings or threats. Look at the kind of pressure he was under from his own supporters who wanted him to reverse the decision on the cartoons. He's a - is this the right English expression - "stubborn git"

There were no warnings or threats from anyone, and the decision he took was definitely the right one. Why? Because he stepped away from what was going to be an "identity" rally :- (danishflags/cartoons=nonmuslim vs islamicflags/anti-cartoons=muslim)

This type of attempt to put ideology under identity is cursed, just like in Nazi Germany. And right up until a couple of days before the rally so was the MFE from this perspective.

Now journalists are confused they thought the what they now call "Danish Cartoon" protest was an all white affair, nothing to do with ideology just the far right shouting their identities.

If we're in the same room and we talk and we have a modicum of courtesy between us we can quickly move to discussions of ideology provided and this is a very important provision that - noone feels his/her IDENTITY is under attack. This is why I think the next step should be some kind of party or gathering where we aim to get as many different people together as possible.

That's my pennys worth for now!

Let's keep them confused!

11:00 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:12 am  
Blogger dizzyfatplonka said...

Well after much problems and ponderings of my beliefs that all people are created equal, im now resigned to the fact that a huge shift to the BNP is the only thing that will ever get any government in power to wake up to the feeling taking over in this country.

11:13 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"Well after much problems and ponderings of my beliefs that all people are created equal, im now resigned to the fact that a huge shift to the BNP is the only thing that will ever get any government in power to wake up to the feeling taking over in this country."

I don't see it as much of a shift - Gordon Brown is proposing a British National day, and the politics of Labour have shifted towards Nationalism anyway.

The feeling taking over in this country = fear = paranoia of anything "other" = sickness

11:16 am  
Blogger Will B said...

Maybe if you hate the place somuch maybe you should.. er I don't know leave?

2:17 pm  
Blogger Ranting Kraut said...

‘Anonoymous’: I think those remarks on identity politics vs ideology are very helpful. I can see how some have ended up seeing this as a racist event, at least if they didn’t spend enough time on the blog to actually read the statements there.

Of course the opposite problem arose with non-Muslims: to many, the request not to bring the cartoons will have looked like giving in to Islamist identity politics. That is how I saw it, in particular because the request had been made so late. Well, it is always easier to judge with the benefit of hindsight, so Peter ended up being damned if he did and damned if he didn’t.

Keeping away from white supremacists and likewise from identity politics more generally is absolutely paramount. We should remember though that the same point needs to be made vis a vis ALL ethnic groups involved. Fine tuning the political marketing for a demographically wide appeal sounds like a good idea; compromising on contents does not.

rantingkraut.wordpress.com

2:24 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

" Maybe if you hate the place somuch maybe you should.. er I don't know leave?"

will-b - love England, but I laughed when I read your comment!

I am just really concerned about things like:-(1) the fact that we're not allowed to protest outside parliament anymore, (2) we can get arrested for any offense even a non custodial one, like dropping litter, (3) the fact our government spend 32m of our money on ID cards before they even became law, and (4) the fact they're in the third reading of the Regulatory and Legislative Reform Act - which would allow any Minister to change almost any law or Act of Parliament for almost any reason.

I know a lot of people, from all backgrounds, who are pondering leaving now because of these things - not to mention the tax on beer!

Now I -could- leave as well, but since I spend at least an hour a day and an afternoon in the weekend campaigning on the above 4 issues as a British citizen and resident, with your permission I'll stay?!

Of course I don't hate this country, it's what it's becoming, starting to become. I'm the type that sticks around as long as I can folks to do what I can. I hope that's Ok for the rest of you, even if it isn't for will-b?

2:41 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:56 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi Anonymous,

Glad to see that you are still posting. I think that your post hits the nail on the head, I will stand next to you defend and oppose all the things that you have just pointed out.

However I don't agree with you in protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule.

One thing that you said elsewhere that I did agree with is that Ismaeel and the MAC are far more open, intelligent, honest and helpful than the MCB.

Cheers,

TFL

3:06 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3:06 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule."

The other religions don't ask for that. So I suppose Islam is weak, or can't face the truth, or sees itself as superior, or any combination of that.

3:08 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

will-b - love England, but I laughed when I read your comment!

I am just really concerned about things like:-(1) the fact that we're not allowed to protest outside parliament anymore, (2) we can get arrested for any offense even a non custodial one, like dropping litter, (3) the fact our government spend 32m of our money on ID cards before they even became law, and (4) the fact they're in the third reading of the Regulatory and Legislative Reform Act - which would allow any Minister to change almost any law or Act of Parliament for almost any reason.

I know a lot of people, from all backgrounds, who are pondering leaving now because of these things - not to mention the tax on beer!

Now I -could- leave as well, but since I spend at least an hour a day and an afternoon in the weekend campaigning on the above 4 issues as a British citizen and resident, with your permission I'll stay?!

Of course I don't hate this country, it's what it's becoming, starting to become. I'm the type that sticks around as long as I can folks to do what I can. I hope that's Ok for the rest of you, even if it isn't for will-b?


No harm to you but I hear people yap about how awful the country is I tend to think they don't like it. And my stance is if you don't like a place and its people you may as well leave.

Now to your points...

Firstly, I totally disagree with the fact we can't protest outside parliament anymore and I think it is a disgrace that such a law was passed.

Secondly, Again I disagree with that way of doing things, far too much power to the police is a very bad thing which can lead to a totalitarian police state which I and I’m sure you, don't want.

Thirdly, it is much more than just that the government spent 30+m on the ID cards project before the bill was passed; it is the fact that it was introduced in the first place.

And fourthly the horrible LRRB. Again like the above things I totally disagree with what is going on with it. However one of the reasons that it has got this far is because of the principle behind it, I was reading a letter to a friend of mine from his local MP and that’s what I got from the letter, that MP's voted for it because of the principle and in the hope that the Lords will stop the bill. I personally think they should have voted against it no matter what the principle was as you can't be relying on the Lords as the government can force it past the Lords with the parliament act.

Now to again address the suggestion I made to you. I consider the wrongs against freedom mentioned above lie at the feet of Labour and not with the British people. I got riled up by your 'country = fear = paranoia of anything "other" = sickness' comment suggesting that the country was sick. I totally disagree, I think it is the labour government who is truly sick and who should be being attacked not the people. Why was it that anything could be passed by them over the last 9 years? Because of Blair’s control, Blair's sick control over the party and over parliament because of the number of labour MP's and the weakness of the opposition, not the people.

Now from your last comment it is clear you don’t hate this country or its people. fine stay if you wish, in fact I hope you do stay and help us fight the injustices and wrongs against this country and its people enacted by a corrupt, power hungry Labour government.

3:09 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

will-b actually we're on completely the same page agree with all your comments - now what are we going to do about our corrupt government? Should we try and get all but the labour party together at a meeting and air our concerns, emphasise the universal human values that they should not be threatening ever? like our parliament? our Magna Carta? etc

3:19 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Just saw the pics of the Birmingham (HAM !! for god's sake!).

It's rather good PR for secular people.

3:31 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Oh, and before the day is over I wanted to ask this:
Is the Birmingham rally part of that long running project of Cristo (Romanian artist of some fame) to wrap up the female population on this planet?

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4399/1929/320/VS2.jpg

3:37 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"However I don't agree with you in protecting policital Islam from criticism and ridicule."

Oh then you misunderstand me. I don't think any ruling doctrine should or can be protected from criticism or ridicule, that includes of course political Islam, as well the Labour Party - remembering the effigy of Blair that was also censored at the MFE.

But I don't see the cartoons as an attack on political Islam. I see them as an attack on Muslims, which is where we differ. That's not to say they are meant as an attack, but because of how they've come to be seen and the disintigration of the dialogue between Muslims and Non Muslims, their use by the BNP etc, they are now perceived by many Muslims as an attack on their identities as Muslim.

If, in the name of free progressive principles, Muslims are forced to (as many may see it) insult their Prophet (SAW), as the starting point many will be put off from participating and as their identities are alienated from the ideology of free expression fall pray to more backword ideologies of extremists.

Basically, I wouldn't want MFE to be usurped by any extremists.

That's not the same as saying I think anyone should be protected from criticism - not at all - I just feel that we should try to get as broad appeal as possible for the ideology that drives this campaign and identity assertion basically reduces our audience, something we can ill afford at this time.

3:40 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"help us fight the injustices and wrongs against this country and its people enacted by a corrupt, power hungry Labour government."

Well said will-b, well said!

3:41 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Well, anonymous, I take this for your joke of the day. It's the 1st of April.

4:19 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

will-b actually we're on completely the same page agree with all your comments - now what are we going to do about our corrupt government? Should we try and get all but the labour party together at a meeting and air our concerns, emphasise the universal human values that they should not be threatening ever? like our parliament? our Magna Carta? Etc

It is good to hear that we are in fact on the same page! I think we need to include all parties in this, if you exclude the Labour party they will brand you as some sort of nutter.

P.S. sorry for late responce, I was collecting all my comments on this blog. lol.

4:20 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

Thank you anonymous for your hear hear's. :D

4:21 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Historians found out today M. had his first revelation on a first of april.

will b
You don't really believe this poser, do you?

4:38 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Hey Luke!

I'm a poser
And it's April fool
I want you to be a poser, too
'Cos posers rule

Hey Luke!

C'mon man pose with me
Posing's way more fun
When there's two or three

Hey Luke!

Oh yeah he Luke's so cool
It's sunny - oh so dandy!
And the posers rule
Got an umbrella handy?
Cos he's no fool

Hey Luke!

Ya Look So Coooool

x
:-)

4:55 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

sorry just came out!

4:56 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

will-b
"It is good to hear that we are in fact on the same page! I think we need to include all parties in this, if you exclude the Labour party they will brand you as some sort of nutter."

You are probably right. Though if anyone has become a monolithic bloc... I think I have become a nutter, I mean what is there left that our government can rob from the people of this country? gas? electricity? tax?

All done. The only thing left that any citizen has that has any value at all is their identity now, their information, and I'm pretty upset that they're going to take that and use it and sell it and goodness knows but I don't trust them!

I think I really am a nutter. I'd never have imagined myself talking like this ten years ago. They say "Thatcher is back with a real dick this time."

http://eclectech.co.uk/londoncalling.php

5:12 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

until he says something contary to what has bee said above or I am shown other posts by him that contradict what he has said I have no option but to believe him

5:33 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

By the way... on the minimum benchmark of civility mentioned on the M.A.C. site Ismaeel has said this of it on two separate occasions...


'The minimum bench of civility is people signing up to the principles embodied in the Proclamation of Global Civility'

'Yeah we are actually going to change that, it's wrong and doesn't fit in with the campaign.'

so it either fits with the campaign and is a main part or they are removing it. which is it?

5:54 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Free Speech (Islamist way) in France

http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=25&story_id=28926

7:57 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Forgive me TFI and Voltaire, my earlier rant was definitly churlish.

MAC does not represent political Islam of any brand: we represent Islam- the complete way of life. People didn't come out in Birmingham because they were appreciative of the Peter's decision not to show the cartoons and didn't feel there was much to protest about. When they did, we had 50,000 in Trafalgar Square.
Sorry if that sounds churlish.
I think mimicary and satire is fine, but not when it just becomes abusive and insulting.
Taking up the earlier discussion, many here seem to think that the Danish cartoons weren't intentionally insulting, most Muslims do. I'm not going to reherese all the arguments again. Let's agree to disagree. From that point let me say this IF i accept that it was unintentional, it still doesn't stop the cartoons being insulting. Intention is something very important in Islamic law and english law, however both legal processes recognise that if you do certain things even unintentionally you still have to recieve a punishment or pay compensation.
Now before anyone gets excited, i'm not talking about applying Islamic law. However what you have to understand is that regardless of the cartoonists' intentions, the Muslim world has found the cartoons insulting. There is a big cultural difference and we have to accept this. Otherwise there is no difference to colonial attitudes. If i walk into a room and accidently knock someone's books out of the hands, i apologise and help them pick them up. I had no intention of knocking the books out of their hands, but i still know the right thing to do is apoligise and rectify the situation.

9:18 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

I seen that on Jihad/Dhimmi watch Luke. At least they haven't taken them down.

9:18 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Oh and TFI, i embrace many aspects of British culture, though not all of it. No-one does, if that's your aim please go integrate the goths, punks and new age travellers while you're at it.

We do have many open days in our Mosques and do the things you are suggesting.

However we are entitled to campaign for a revival of civility just like any other citizens of this country are free to campaign for whatever they want to campaign for. Unless of course we're not allowed to, because we're Muslim and somehow we're not quite fully citizens because of that.

9:23 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

By the way... on the minimum benchmark of civility mentioned on the M.A.C. site Ismaeel has said this of it on two separate occasions...


'The minimum bench of civility is people signing up to the principles embodied in the Proclamation of Global Civility'

'Yeah we are actually going to change that, it's wrong and doesn't fit in with the campaign.'

so it either fits with the campaign and is a main part or they are removing it. which is it?

Will B come now, don't confuse things. I said that the aim stating "we demand a dialogue with the relevant authorities on setting a minimum benchmark of civility" needs to be changed because we are not trying to enforce things through law.
However we want to revive and establish a minimum benchmark within society on a voluntary self-regulating basis and those are the principles of the proclamation.

9:26 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

You can't compare a free speech issue with knocking some books out of someones hands. The long and short of it is that they don't NEED to say sorry or be punished as it didn't break any laws.

9:29 pm  
Blogger Will B said...

I'm not confusing anything, You said it. It is a black and white issue.

9:31 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Anonymous.

"and the politics of Labour have shifted towards Nationalism anyway"

Im sorry.. you have said some thoughtfull things (if your one and the same annonymous as a couple of posts above the one i quote) but that is a truly wrong statement.

10:49 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

BNP Member

It's from Brown's suggestion that there should be a British National Day. I read something about that on the BBC.

11:39 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"However we want to revive and establish a minimum benchmark within society on a voluntary self-regulating basis and those are the principles of the proclamation."

As long as you do not rationally explain what is racist in the cartoons, one by one, you cannot talk of benchmarks, unless your benchmarks are the ones we already know.

You seem simply to step back a bit for the moment, but your goal is obvious. You have stated it often enough (and cleared the characteristic statements on your side later on)

2:00 am  
Blogger PubSkeptic said...

Ismaeel,

You say, "[t]aking up the earlier discussion, many here seem to think that the Danish cartoons weren't intentionally insulting, most Muslims do."

Please explain what is insulting about the one of Muhummed leading a donkey.

Indeed, you have been asked numerous times, by Luke, I think, to explain one by one what is insulting about each cartton.

I think no-one can have any complaint at all about many of the cartoons, the one with the orange with "pr stunt" dropping on the artist's head (with the artist holding a drawing of a beared stick figure!). What's wrong with the one of the boy at the blackboard, or the line up of religious figures? Please enlighten me why it's insulting to show a man standing with a cresent around his head (a good parody of a Christian halo!) What about the face with the green cresent moon around it - where's the insult there?

Do you object to those cartoons? If you do, you are not just requesting that people be civil, you are saying that no representation (however inncouous or mild) of Muhummed is permitted (for anyone in any context). This is fascist - can you see that?

I admit the other cartoons could be interpreted as barbed comments on Islam, but I don't think on Muslims. But this is not a reason to ban them - sometimes you just need to suck it up - I think this is one of those times for Muslims.

The way to stop people linking Islam with violence is to not be violent (you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been). The way for people to realise that Islam is a religion of peace is to condemn the violence mongers, drive them out of your mosques and inform on them to the authorities. Muslims have the tools in their own hands, we wonder when they will be used.

9:52 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been"
Pubsceptic

You say "The way to stop people linking Islam with violence is to not be violent (you might not have, but many of your co-religionists have been)."

Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?

"The way for people to realise that Islam is a religion of peace is to condemn the violence mongers"

Done. See Sayyida's speech for example.

"Drive them out of your mosques and inform on them to the authorities."

Done. In so far as they can be identified. Though there are very few violence mongers among the people who visit mosques. There is a much higher percentage of violence among those who visit football stadiums.

"Muslims have the tools in their own hands, we wonder when they will be used."

Oh you patronising pathetic and dumb fool. We - the majority of us - are doing our best. Now you go out and promise me that there will never be a problem with football hooligans or sick idiots like Gary Glitter to go out and rape small children, or "Christians" who molest children in care homes, or white governments that wage illegal wars (AND AN ACTUAL PROVEN MAJORITY then votes them in again!)

So go - clean up your act - good luck! Wanker.


When was the last time all the football supporters joined arms and protested about the violence and hooliganism? Never! They must all be thugs then...

10:42 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

OK let's start with the "Western" answer to violence:-
Football hooliganism.

I noticed surprisingly few people at the MFE or associated with it have "done anything" about "their" football hooliganism!?

THAT's What's Doing The Most Damage in Britain Right Now. Not Muslim Protests. See:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series2/football_hooligans_rail_network_station_violence.shtml

"FOOTBALL HOOLIGANS ABUSE RAIL NETWORK

CONCERN | match day crowds are stretching police resources

Football hooligans are abusing Britain’s rail network by using it as the venue for violent match day fights.

Inside Out investigates how this is stretching police resources to the limit.

Football hooliganism is a menace that refuses to go away. It’s a vicious drama played out every Saturday in a town centre near you.

But forget public houses or stadium car parks, railway stations are the new hooligan hotspot.

Prearranged fights and ambushes at railway stations are now common currency.

The cost of policing

British Transport Police are battling to keep the problem under control.

Their resources are stretched every weekend by the hundreds of thugs from all over the country who use trains as their preferred method of exporting violence.

Officers are deployed in their hundreds in an attempt to prevent violence, intimidation and inconvenience to ordinary members of the public.

The cost of policing these fixtures is immense. In the North East area alone, British Transport Police will have overspent their football budget by around £400,000 by the time the football season ends.

This is money that they could have spent on other areas of policing.

Hooligan groups in the West (BBC):

"We also talk to players and hooligans in Italy about the growing influence of racist and far-right groups on the terraces that the hooligans control.

The Lazio hooligans: the Irriducibilli - now have their own merchandise, and businesses - organising all the stadium banners and meetings with the players - many of them international stars - and the club. "

So why not make the next rally about THAT - oh yeah the thugs that are doing a lot more damage to this country, and the reputation of Britain than any muslims.

-------------------------------
Interestly the term Hooligan was coined in the 1890s as an alternative to "street arab"! hehe

Oh and what have scout masters done to object to scout masters going mad in schools? Like the Dunblane killer.
http://century.guardian.co.uk/1990-1999/Story/0,6051,112749,00.html

So who wants to join me in a March to Condemn football hooliganism, cos you know what? we've gone around as hooligans killing people from other countries and teams but we've not once protested about this going on in the name of ENgland - not once.

Why?

11:10 am  
Blogger PubSkeptic said...

Hi Anonymous

We haven't been properly introduced, which undoubtedly explains your appalling rudeness (hardly "Globally civil").

I salute those Muslims who are interested in fostering peaceful relations with their fellow global citizens.

Your points in detail:

"Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?"

Or not so small, there are no figures, so we can't argue over the facts of the matter. I utterly condemn violence regardless of who performs it. Christians murdering abortion doctors (for example) are as appalling as Muslims murdering commuters in my book. Perhaps because I am not a football supporter, I can't understand why people get excited (to violence) over a game!

"Done. See Sayyida's speech for example."

If I read Sayyida's speech correctly, she says "the monster is not Islam... the monster is fear". But so many of the violent acts committed by (the small percentage of) Muslims are justified by reference to (Muslim) religious books and teaching - say it is not so! And I think the problem is worse, because a straightforward reading of these religious books and teachings permits and encourages these (violent) people. I think that's a problem that needs to be addressed.

"Done. In so far as they can be identified. Though there are very few violence mongers among the people who visit mosques. There is a much higher percentage of violence among those who visit football stadiums."

Excellent. I do not visit mosques, so I do not know. Thank you for reporting that this is the case.

"... We - the majority of us - are doing our best. Now you go out and promise me that there will never be a problem with football hooligans or sick idiots like Gary Glitter to go out and rape small children, or "Christians" who molest children in care homes, or white governments that wage illegal wars (AND AN ACTUAL PROVEN MAJORITY then votes them in again!)"

I'm not violent at football matches, nor abuse children, nor did I vote for Bliar. I am not in favour of the war in Iraq. I make these views plain to anyone who listens, as do the majority of my friends. I recognise that the majority of Muslims want to live in a peaceful secure country where they are able to raise their children and do their religious duty. I have no problem with that. But many of those same people want to control my behaviour, and the behaviour of others; hence the question I asked about the specific cartoons which I cannot see as offensive.

Perhaps you will now answer the question.

11:14 am  
Blogger Emir of Anglia said...

"Actually a very small percentage of co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? Or football supporters?"

Ah yes how could I forget the infamous Anglican suicide bombers or the Methodist kidnap squads.

Islam had the violent prophet, Christianity didn't. The crusades were an aberation - the jihad isn't. Deal with it.

11:20 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Christianity had the violent prophet, Islam didn't. The jihad is an aberation - the crusades weren't.

Deal with it.

11:26 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Oh and Emir you're conveniently burying your head in the sand about football hooligans aren't you?

They seem to be costing the police a lot more injury, time and taxpayer money than muslims.

Deal with THAT please

11:28 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Plus please can we muslims have an apology about the Crusades. They were carnage. Not to mention the carnage inflicted on the poor indians who were quite literally murdered by savage English thugs and have never received an apology from this country...

Deal with THAT

11:30 am  
Blogger PubSkeptic said...

Anonymous,

About the cartoons I assert are non-offensive?

Your reply is...

11:31 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

And Emir

Think about what the Indians had to go through before being given their independence and they have never received an apology for those murders.

Football hooligans, illegal wars waged by those who are voted in again by the majority.

Oh I see - all "aberations"

11:33 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Pubskeptic...

Maybe the cartoons are non offensive - say for arguments sake - but if you take one look at the dregs of "supporters" they attract - like the group that wants to deport all Muslims from Europe, the BNP, IslamaNazi, and some of the totally ignorant comments on this blog a different picture emerges.

11:36 am  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Annonymous wrote;

"Actually a very small percentage of (muslim) co-religionists. What about the number of Christians that are violent? "

The point is, they arnt violent in the name of christianity.

Sure, you can go off hunting and find one or two examples, but the point is entirly valid. The koran justified killing people in all sorts of circumstances, but jesus was quite the opposite.

Christianity is at root passive (which is why your allowed to be here in the first place) while islam is inherantly agressive, and indeed evil.

We all know that islam is at least agressive but if you need convincing, ask indians. Ask their daughters.

Frankly, anybody who claims islam is anything other than a vicious faith is a liar or ignorant of the facts.

List of islamic terror attacks;

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

(its very long)

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."

11:36 am  
Blogger infidelious said...

"Oh and Emir you're conveniently burying your head in the sand about football hooligans aren't you?"

I'm sorry, let me get this straight - you are comparing some thugs fighting at the weekend with the global rise of a facist ideaology (political islam) which thinks it is OK to kill people because they draw a cartoon or dare to criticize its warped view of the world.

Get a grip.

11:48 am  
Blogger PubSkeptic said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for your answer. I'm glad that we agree that the cartoons I enumerated are non-offensive.

You claim that because rascists are using the cartoons to demonise Muslims, then they should be banned.

I do not agree. The ONLY reason that these cartoons are being used i this way is because of the complete over-reaction by some Muslims. If Muslims had ignored this non-insult, the cartoons could not be used by racists. Therefore, they are now a rod which have been made for Muslim backs, by Muslims!

The only way out of this is to say, "OK, have your cartoons, our Prophet is too amazing to us to be damaged by them!"

If you keep insisting that the carttons be banned, then that is just more ammunition for the far-right to say "Those Muslims are intolerant and ultra-sensitive - see how bad they are".

BNP Supporter -

Your claim is just false. The theology of Christianity (for at least 1500 years) is that without the correct beliefs you are going to Hell. Since Hell is worse than anything that can be imagined, then it is permissable to do ANYTHING to stop someone going to Hell. This line of reasoning justified the Inquisition and the Wars of religion since the Reformation.

11:51 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To All -

I'm not meaning to come across as aggressive on my posts, I just put them to try to make us all think.

Shouting out our identities louder and louder is a waste of time. Dialogue about Ideology is useful.

Most Brits (Non-Muslims and Muslims alike) abhorr and condemn violence from thugs, football hooligans, so-called "jihadists" and protestors irrespective of the provocation if there is any.

And in ALL these cases the thugs are a minority that spoil it for the rest. So why are we shouting identities? History has shown us secularism in the form of Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, Blair and the non existant WMD, Christianity - where do I start? Islam - where do I start? Atheism - plenty of examples there too - atheist leaders forcing religious people to denounce their religions or leave the country/face massacre, the massacre of the Indians before their independence etc.

I don't want us to be enemies because I can see that everyone here actually condemns the same things, condemn them in the name of humanity.

We are being manipulated politically by these emotive divisions of identity. "Divide and Rule" is the current government's strategy. But on fundamental issues we all agree. We urgently need to move toward an ideology politic and discussion for the sake of humanity.

We need to work hard to undo the brainwashing, to dissolve presumptions about another person's identity and realise that the media always gives the most coverage to aggressive activities of the minority in any group.

So:- Football supporter not equal to hooligan. Christian not equal to crusader. Atheist not equal to Nazi. Jew not equal to Zionist. And Muslim not equal to terrorist.

And:- We are freedom fighters. We are the silent majority from all the categories above and others. And we will not allow an identity politic to confuse us or distract us from our focus. We will not allow the vocal well publicised aggressive minority to be used as an argument to take away our human rights and fundamental freedoms.

It stops now.

That's why I've engaged with the MFE as a Muslim (of the silent majority kind).

11:58 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Pubsceptic:

"You claim that because rascists are using the cartoons to demonise Muslims, then they should be banned."

No I don't. Where have I said that?

"now a rod which have been made for Muslim backs, by Muslims!"

Correction: by SOME Muslims, not majority of the above.

Otherwise I agree which is why I'm NOT insisting on the cartons being banned. Neither as it happens is the MAC or Global Civility - that would involve a change in the law - and noone is calling for that.

12:02 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Thats a good refutation pubskeptic.

All i can say is, does (or did) Jesus promote that line of thought?

Mohammed promoted marriage with 6 year old girls by 54 year old men, raping wives after slaughtering their husbands, and beheading people if they oppose him including writing poems critical of him, which i guess is the medieval version of cartoons, so you can see why we are where we are today because of islamic teachings with no stretch of the imagination at all.

12:06 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

BNP Member said...

"The point is, they arnt violent in the name of christianity."

Oh no of course they never are...

"The koran justified killing people in all sorts of circumstances, but jesus was quite the opposite."

Right. I won't labour the point but from both religious books people have pulled out passages to justify violence, as we all know. And both religion define it as a gross sin to go around killing people.

"Christianity is at root passive (which is why your allowed to be here in the first place)"

Very interesting perspective. I was BORN here. I'd be interested about what Voltaire has to say about that. Apparently, V, this BNP member thinks that it is the "passiveness of Christianity" that prevents me from being kicked off this website and out the country? You agree? What's the MFE position on that?

"while islam is inherantly agressive, and indeed evil."

Useful comment, not. I'll take that on board. Maybe "flog the wife and kids" ? to get the "influence of the devil" out of them ? Or flog myself? That not the Lutherian way of dealing with such things as the evil of my own religion?

"We all know that islam is at least agressive but if you need convincing, ask indians. Ask their daughters."

Like I said I suggest you ask Indians and their daughters how much they appreciated their independence massacres - Our (English) soldiers I recall...

"Anybody who claims islam is anything other than a vicious faith is a liar or ignorant of the facts."

Right then I am obviously ignorant of the facts...

"List of (non-)islamic terror attacks;"

Then BNP member lists a bunch of hate-mongering websites - well the BNP have long been an embarrassment to this country.

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."

Using an identity politic can have only one logical conclusion. The culling of 1.3Billion or however many there are self-confessed Muslims.

You loading your gun BNP member? It's going to take a lot of bullets?

12:18 pm  
Blogger British National Party member said...

Ive just finished my post to come up and write this at the top; I started of writing acrimoniously, but by the end i realised that its not you personally who is choosing to be bad, but i think you are very mistaken, so i changed my post acordingly.

**********************

You may notice that im not trying to kill you :)

I am trying to get you to see that your prophet was a violent phsycopath, and the more people that folow him the more physcopath wannabe's there will be. (allah akbar and all that)

Jesus said thou shalt not kill, while Mohammeds message was thou shall not kill a muslim. When the PM read out that "he who kills a single soul, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind" quote from the koran on BBC primetime over and over was lying to us.

The quote is "He who kills a single soul that has not caused corruption in the land , it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind"

Remember, the PM had every PR guru to help him, and the best thing he could read out from the koran to convince us its non-violent to us? a lie. Because the koran IS violent as was mohammed.

About the English soldiers, if they did something wrong, our laws should have changed to stop them. Should the koran change? take out all the "apes and pigs" and beheading the infidel bits, the having the woman your right arm posseses bits, or is it just the English that should change to accomodate you and the millions like you coming here.

If something, anything, is wrong, it should change for the good of humanity. English, islam, christianity, French, whatever.

Here is what our greatest modern leader Churchill wrote about islam, and about what kept our Christian civilisation safe;

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities...but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Sir Winston Churchill, our great wartime Prime Minister, On islam ("from The River War", first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

************


As a last note. If you wernt muslim i wouldnt be arguing with you like this. I disagree with you because of what you choose to believe and who you choose to follow, just as i would with a nazi. As Churchill wrote, individual muslims can display many fine qualities, and you have displayed a few yourself. You are brave to come here and say your piece, and thats what free speech is all about. I dont believe your a bad person, but that your unintentionally backing the wrong team when it comes to good and evil.

Im proud of this post, and hope you dont take it as an attack on you personally, as some of my others probably were. Im sorry about that.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/index.htm

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."

12:58 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"from both religious books people have pulled out passages to justify violence, as we all know"

For Christianity: Which ones, and when?

2:06 pm  
Blogger Emir of Anglia said...

"Right. I won't labour the point but from both religious books people have pulled out passages to justify violence, as we all know. And both religion define it as a gross sin to go around killing people."

You'll find the point generally being that it took a lot more effort to extract justification for holy war from the Bible (and even then from the Old Testement or the writings of that old bugger St Paul) where as it is significantly easier to do so with the Koran and the hadiths of Muhammad himself. If anything the militarist tendency in Christianity has been neutered by Thomas Aquinas and the Just War theory. Of course the whole thing was built on a slender conceptual structure left by Saint Augustine: A just war is one that is willed by God. Otherwise the ideal of Christianity is ultra-pacifism (whether the ideal is ever lived up to is another matter but we are talking about doctrinal justifications). Indeed there is no equivalent in the Islamic text to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword" which takes quite some effort to circumvent and accordingly Just War Theory places a strict criteria upon war making, which is why in answer to your post - the crusades were the aberation whereas the Lesser Jihad, as a religious obligation (either to participate or support) is not.

"Christianity had the violent prophet, Islam didn't. The jihad is an aberation - the crusades weren't.

Deal with it."

How many people died in military operations conducted by Jesus? How many were murdered with his prior knowledge and consent. There is no episode in the life of Jesus that can be compared with Muhammad consenting to Sa'd ibn Mu'adh's genocidal order against the Banu Qurayza.

In the subsequent conflict between Christianity and Islam there is blood on the hands of both sides - yet it is undeniable fact that the forces of Islam struck first in aggression against their Byzantine and Persian neighbours. Indeed this was premeditated aggression, as the hadith of Hisham records Muhammad saying to his companions even during the battle of the Trench.

"I have been given the keys to the Kingdom of Persia; my Community will conquer it. He struck the rock a second time and, again in the light of the sparks caused by the blow, declared: God is the Greatest. I have been given the keys to the Empire of Byzantium. My Community will conquer it."


As to football hooliganism - who killed more people in the UK last year, al-Qaeda affiliates or Milwall supporters?

Communism and Nazism were mass movements which deified Marxism-Leninism and the der Führer respectively. In their own way they took the irrational impulses of religious fervour and took them for their own use - indeed the Nazis were never coherent enough to be considered 'atheists. Some lovely Hitler quotes:

"I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work." [Adolph Hitler, Speech, Reichstag, 1936]

And this favourite of mine which I'm keeping for use the next time anyone tries to defend faith schools:

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people." [Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933, from a speech made during negotiations leading to the Nazi-Vatican Concordant of 1933]

Need I also mention that Himmler kept a copy of the Koran at his desk next to the obligatory edition of Mein Kampf?

"please can we muslims have an apology about the Crusades"

No, not unless their is a similar apology for the original Muslim aggression conducted by the Caliphs against the Christian world. Our ancestors may have sacked Jerusalem in 1099 but Jerusalem was itself conquered by an Arab army in 638 and the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed on the order of the Fatimid Caliph in 1010. Then off course there was the conquest of Spain in 711, several sieges of Constantinople and the sack of Rome in 846. Then off course there are the Ottoman conquests which were dressed up in the mantle of jihad. So lets have an apology for all of that and then we can consider recatagorising the Crusades as something other than a strategic counter-offensive against a rival expansionist faith/ideology.


(Incidentally if some one can link me to an Islamic equivalent of the Just War theory I would be very interested to read about it.)


Regarding Indians. Well yes we Brits did have an unfortunate habit of strapping rebel sepoys to cannons and blasting them appart after that regretable business with the Mutiny in 1857. Of course the Cawnpore Massacre (perhaps the Indian Government if it ever wants an apology for the Raj from Britain could do one for that by way of a trade?) may have helped darkened our otherwise genial mood a little. ;) Of course is that really any worse than when esteemed Mughal Emperor Akbar massacred 35,000 Hindus after the siege of Chittor in 1568?

I'd say while in no way consented to the British rule in India was preferable to the French or Russian alternatives. Indeed when financial and military exhaustion, as well as a certain number of promises made to secure Indian support during the Second World War made independence unavoidable India was blessed with a significant transportation network, a competent army, a professional civil service, an independent judiciary and a model of parliamentary democracy borrowed from Westminster, and if it hadn't been for its misguided flirtation with socialism and state planning India would have been well on its way to becoming the major power it is only now promising to become.

What it boils down to is that while Muslim and Christian communities have tended towards conflict in the past the Jihadis are carrying on the trend into the present and since Islam is the core of their ideology it is legitmate for non-muslims to wonder aloud what the hell Islam is all about. Similarly muslims who are of that faith merely because they are born into it should question what are its virtues that they must persist in being fellow travellers with the delightful types such as Hizb ut-Tahir (Islam's equivalent to Milwall supports if I might be permitted to be crude ;-) ).

2:08 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

BNP member says:-
"I am trying to get you to see that your prophet was a violent phsycopath, and the more people that folow him the more physcopath wannabe's there will be. (allah akbar and all that)"

BNP member - you mean psychopath surely? Come on now man, you're just playing into the old stereotype that BNP members can't spell!

"Jesus said thou shalt not kill, while Mohammeds message was thou shall not kill a muslim. When the PM read out that "he who kills a single soul, it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind" quote from the koran on BBC primetime over and over was lying to us. The quote is "He who kills a single soul that has not caused corruption in the land , it is as if he has killed the whole of mankind""

Well I identify as Muslim and my own interpretation of the faith is that thou shalt not kill... I'd say that goes for MOST Muslims. So I don't see the problem with being Muslim. You could pick out a whole load of quotes to justify opposing positions from the Bible as well.

"Remember, the PM had every PR guru to help him, and the best thing he could read out from the koran to convince us its non-violent to us? a lie. Because the koran IS violent as was mohammed."

Let's say for arguments sake BNP member that the Koran is violent, and so was Mohammed (SAW)... Let's say the Bible is violent and so was Jesus... Let's say the same about every religion on the planet.

How exactly does that make our message and campaign more appealing to all those people who hold these identities but who are not violent or aggressive? and who see or interpret their own faith as one of peace (through what you would see as their delusion)?

"About the English soldiers, if they did something wrong, our laws should have changed to stop them. Should the koran change?"

Yes. Why not? It represents to me What Allah said at the time. I expect what he would say now might be different, there's no Prophet to record that so we have to use our own judgements and make up our own minds based on principles outlined in the essense of Islam, peace, working against injustice, helping the sick and poor, free speech, it is these values that I have taken from a silent majority interpretation of Islam into this campaign.


"or is it just the English that should change to accomodate you and the millions like you coming here."

Repeat. I was born here BNP member and have just as much right to be here as you. Of course that means that me and "my kind" must adhere to British law. It also means that I am a part of this society just like you, and I object to any attempt to describe me as "other" - I'm British and Muslim, and I have no conflict of interests between the two.

"If something, anything, is wrong, it should change for the good of humanity. English, islam, christianity, French, whatever."

AGREED at least we are on one thing.

"Here is what our greatest modern leader Churchill wrote about islam, and about what kept our Christian civilisation safe;"

Oh if you could only hear yourself. He also said that fools should be given freedom of speech to expose them for the idiots that they are. Oh well done for going back to Churchill's time, absolute wealth of good strong and compelling racist material to quote.

"How dreadful are the curses which Nationalism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Fascists rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Europe until quite recently, in the law no woman was able to even hold her own property, and right now no woman can apply for a loan without the consent of her father or husband, we will go forth and fight until the ideology of Nationalism and Racism has ceased to be a great power among men (and women).

Individual Racists may show splendid qualities...but the influence of Nationalism paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Nationalism is a militant and proselytizing ideology. It has already spread throughout Central Europe, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Islam is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled,the civilisation of modern humanity might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Winston Churchill, Prime Minister during our dark days of flagrantly Racist Britain, On Nationalism ("from The Racist War", first edition, Vol. II, pages 248,50 London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899)

************
My understanding though is that Britain has moved on, we've become more civilised, we're no longer calling black people niggers that don't belong, or referring to all arabs as savages that don't deserve feeding, we've moved on.

"As a last note. If you wernt muslim i wouldnt be arguing with you like this."

At least you acknowledge that - and if you weren't a member of the British Nazi - sorry "Nationalist" party I probably wouldn't be talking to you like this either...

"I disagree with you because of what you choose to believe and who you choose to follow, just as i would with a nazi."

Right. That's interesting. Yet you can't point to anything you actually disagree with me on? Another interesting thing - what would you disagree with a Nazi about? They were making pretty civilised sounds before they got into power after all. What would you disagree with the Nazi Party in Denmark about? What would you disagree with IslamaNazi about? I'm all ears...

"As Churchill wrote, individual muslims can display many fine qualities, and you have displayed a few yourself. You are brave to come here and say your piece, and thats what free speech is all about. I dont believe your a bad person, but that your unintentionally backing the wrong team when it comes to good and evil."

I'm not backing the wrong team I'm backing humanity and I'm refusing to divide it up into black and white or take the easy option of vilifying people based on their religion or identity as jews, gays, women, blacks etc, just to try to improve my own position. I'm also refusing to rise up to fear mongering about Muslims. It is way over the top compared to the reality which still says the majority are ok and denounce violence, the minority are to be totally condemned - same with football supporters, and that's a very triabl thing but I'm not saying any football supporters should give up their team because some club manager spouted out a racist comment or was involved in aggression. As for aggression in football not being comparable, at least as many people have died through football hooliganism and racist attacks than Islam, at least in Britain - I'm confident the police would be able to produce the numbers to support that point. Worth thinking about.

"Im proud of this post, and hope you dont take it as an attack on you personally, as some of my others probably were. Im sorry about that."

Apology accepted AND appreciated.

"Faith Freedom International is a grassroots worldwide movement of ex-Muslims and all those who are concerned about the rise of the Islamic threat."

The problem with the site you quote is the implicit assumption that Islam as a Religion and Muslims are defined by only two things (1) The Koran, and (2) Muhammed.

I refute that claim. I don't identify as Muslim because I believe every single word in the Koran or because I think Muhammed was beyond and above any form of criticism and reproach. I identify as Muslim because of values I was raised with as a child, through my family identifying as Muslims etc.

That's why the whole site is a load of rubbish because it depends on this assumption and my very existance disproves that assumption.

Unless you think there are no Christian Gays or Homophobes (complete opposites). Or is it right because the bible says homosexuals are not allowed to identify themselves as Christian? If that's the case, then who's being facsist?

I don't agree with the website not because of it's charges or claims, but it's fascist assumption that being a good Muslim depends on the totally verbatim acceptance of X and Y. It does not.

Now let's put it another way. Say your family surname is "Wilkinson" - and you undoubtedly identify as a Wilkinson, say you go back years and have loads of family stories as well as a network of other Wilkinsons you communicate with around the world. Yes some of them are vicious thugs but you wish they wouldn't use the family name...!

So someone sets up a website tearing your family to pieces - your granddad was a paedophile (by the way statistically speaking that's a good chance for anyone here), your great grandmother knifed five blokes, whatever etc.

Anyway, what kind of impact do you think such a site would have on all those that identify as Wilkinson?

Is it going to help us arrive at greater peace for the good of humanity? A constructive dialogue with Wilkinsons? After all they can CHANGE their name? Lots of ex-Wilkinsons on the site...

BNP member I think you are mistaken.

2:16 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Jesus himself was completely peaceful and Christians are commanded by God through Jesus to be peaceful!

Muhammed himself was consistently violent to those who opposed him and Muslims are commanded by Muhammed to be violent!

The difference is that violent christians all those many years ago and those that are still violent today, are not true Christians as they are not following Jesus'/God's words.

There is NO difference between violent Muslims all those many years ago and those that are still violent today, as they are following the instructions of Muhammed!

Perhaps Christians that are violent should become Muslim as we are warned in the book of revelations that man will destroy himself and will follow the number of the beast, dragon etc...

I personally feel that Muhammed is the 'Anti-Christ' and it will be through Islam 'that man will destroy himself'

2:40 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

babyboots - you have any Muslim friends?

2:45 pm  
Blogger Emir of Anglia said...

"Yes. Why not? It represents to me What Allah said at the time. I expect what he would say now might be different, there's no Prophet to record that so we have to use our own judgements and make up our own minds based on principles outlined in the essense of Islam, peace, working against injustice, helping the sick and poor, free speech, it is these values that I have taken from a silent majority interpretation of Islam into this campaign."

Laudable, but redolent of trying to open the Gates of Ijtihad...

2:53 pm  
Blogger Emir of Anglia said...

And with regards to Babyboots, since her listed interests include "fighting against the Anti-Christ Muhammed" I'd say the odds of Muslims friends might be a little slim.

2:56 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Worth a try though perhaps Emir? I think part of the problem is that the lovely, I have to admit charming, and ever-so graceful babyboots needs to go out and mix more just like her exremist Islamist counterparts?

3:00 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

anonymous, your transformation from shy and terrorized fahter of a family to macho attacking a lady (I know the concept escapes you, but there is no other word),
this transformation is a miracle, a true miracle, honestly, really.

Let me finish this post with a quote from someone we all know:
"It is Islam which gives space, it is not Islam which is given space."

3:10 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Christ (PBUH) said according to the gospels "I did not come to bring peace, i came to bring a sword"
He also drove money lenders out of the temple, he didn't ask them nicely, he drove them out. Many historians believe Jesus (peace be upon him) was a Zealot leader and that is why he was going to be crucified which is a political punishment by Romans for political crimes not a Jewish punishment for religious crimes (which is what he was accused of according to the gospels).
Also Christian scripture was used to justify slavery, apartheid, segregation, crusades, imperialism, forced conversions, extermination of europe's pagans.
Yes the Prophet (PBUH) fought wars and took slaves and by doing so he showed the highest possible ethical standards that can be had in such circumstances.
He taught his followers not to kill civilians, women, children, old people, monks, rabbis, priests, not to attack churches, synagogues, not to destroy crops and trees. As far as slavery was concerned slaves had to recieve the same sort of food and clothing as their master had and be given help by the state to buy their freedom. Slaves also had to be given education and health care by their masters and their masters were not allowed to beat them in a severe way where bones were broken, blood spilt etc and could only be beaten for severe indiscipline. Slave girls were not allowed to be raped and indeed they could only give their consent after a menstrual cycle had passed (i.e. a month), before then their masters could not have intercourse with them.
There were no such safeguards in european slavery and war. That is why slavery was so vicious, people of good conscience in the west fought for it's abolition. There was no such inhumaneness in Islamic slavery and thus not such a strong impetus to abolish it, but in the end the Ottomons agreed to stop trading in slaves in a reciprocal agreement with the European powers. The west has introduced the geneva convention which mirrors many of the Islamic rules of Jihad, however far too often they fail to abide by those rules.

3:21 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Ismaeel, well said.

Sorry Luke and everyone here - I certainly have not meant to "attack" a lady (babyboots)...

I rather thought she was attacking me! I only responded by suggesting she get out more and balanced this suggestion with the same directed at extremists from the Muslim camp.

If this is interpreted as an attack I am sorry it is not meant that way.

Luke the thing about stereotypes is that it's easy to rise to them, especially when on the defensive. Maybe that's why I started off shy, I was unconsciously playing up to one of the stereotypes held about "my kind" - you know - the quiet "shopowner causes no trouble" muslim - preferable to the "terrorist."

Now I think the walls are coming down and I'm just being myself more and more as my sense of being threatened is being dissolved as a result of this dialogue.

This may seem strange considering things like babyboots' last post. But I am reassured that we are actually having this conversation.

My guard is dropping all the time and that's brilliant! I can connect even to the "Islam-is--Anti-Christ" type people, as people with a cause and a sense of endangerment.

I have to thank everyone on this board for that- irrespective of their opinion- because we are finally engaging in discussion and I sincerely hope there be more of that mixing going on. It's much healthier than segregation and isolation.

3:31 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Well said anonymous

4:05 pm  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Well said anonymous

4:05 pm  
Blogger PubSkeptic said...

Hi Anonymous

It's great that you're thanking us! It's a pleasure to chat to you as well.

One of the biggest problems for me is that since I don't accept that there is a God or gods, the arguments between Christians and Muslims are funny more than anything. As far as I can see, both religions are just as wrong as the other.

I would like to be able to have a system of morals and values that are religion independent - and this is where human rights comes in. If we can all agree that human beings have value just because they're human beings, and that the particular qualities of human beings mean that certain political rights are taken as fundemental, then we have made a great start.

What do you think?

4:06 pm  
Blogger samtheinfidel said...

Well said!
pubskeptic

4:15 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

4:54 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Yes! You're absolutely right! I have no Muslim friends! I had a Muslim boyfriend once and that just say's it all really...

Yes! I've been out, mixed, 'been there, done it, got the t-shirt' and that's why I know what I'm talking about! The question is, do you?

4:55 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"I would like to be able to have a system of morals and values that are religion independent - and this is where human rights comes in. If we can all agree that human beings have value just because they're human beings, and that the particular qualities of human beings mean that certain political rights are taken as fundemental, then we have made a great start."

Pubsceptic I completely agree. I would also add "National Identity" dependent to the "religious" qualifier.

While morals can be inspired by religion, as in "thou shalt not kill," values themselves should be independently scrutinised and certainly not based on subjective interpretations of any holy texts.

What you are talking about is escaping the identity politic again and that is key to this, I'm sure. If we stop shouting identity, start talking ideology, I'm sure we'll agree on many things.

This has been illustrated by each religion wanting to claim the image of peace, progressiveness, freedom, democracy, non violence - it hasn't been Ismaeel and I saying - We as muslims want to go around killing people - we've been saying we reject the notion of this being Islamic - just as babyboots rejects the Christianity of the Crusades.

We obviously agree on the principles and can discern butchery and savagry from benevolence and peace. In fact we even seem to agree on what constitutes the above. Our problem comes when we associate a particular identity (e.g., Christian/Muslim) with an ideology.

Now some people say of course you can do that because Christians follow the ideology of Christianity by definition and the bible says this and that, and Muslims adhere to the ideology of Islam and the Koran says this or that.

This is a grotesque and dangerous over-simplification that does not explain how people who are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum ideologically (eg. Christian and gay, Christian and homophobic) can share the same religion as an identity.

It is also dangerous because colouring ideologies that should appeal to the entire of humanity with a nationalist or religious identity, be it Danish or Christian (and I can't imagine it's much fun for Danish Muslims at the moment!), will make us inadvertantly reduce the circle of success for the ideology itself. Why do that at all when you can get most people to buy in on a humanitarian basis irrespective of religion or national identity?

5:15 pm  
Blogger Call Me Ismaeel said...

The Muslim Actionable Committee.

5:21 pm  
Blogger Derius said...

"He (the prophet Muhammed) taught his followers not to kill civilians, women, children, old people, monks, rabbis, priests."

"Yes the Prophet (PBUH) fought wars and took slaves and by doing so he showed the highest possible ethical standards that can be had in such circumstances."

Both posted by Ismaeel, above.


If anybody here is tempted to believe this nonsense, then kindly do a google search for "Asma bint Marwen", "Abu Afak", and "Banu Qurayza", and see what you come up with.

Maybe Ismaeel, you would care to explain how these three examples show how your prophet had "the highest possible ethical standards"?

5:32 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Babyboots:-
I had a Muslim boyfriend once and that just say's it all really..."

Indeed it does...

6:43 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

to "call me Ismaeel" - maybe it's an amusing attack on Ismaeel and what he stands for - your website.

But he IS participating in this discussion so I wouldn't blame him if he felt picked on and intimidated. I'd also call that pretty personal.

I'd delete that post in the context of this discussion, it's not really on, Ismaeel is showing huge courage here, and doesn't deserve to be bullied out.

Now you ask me to call you Ismaeel. Who are you? I think you'd benefit from your own tribute site, well at least if you were doing anything of any importance, like Ismaeel.

6:55 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"I had a Muslim boyfriend once and that just say's it all really..."

Indeed it does..."

anonymous, I suppose you did not need to pose for this one - that's your real self.

7:19 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Now I think the walls are coming
> down and I'm just being myself more
> and more as my sense of being
> threatened is being dissolved as a
> result of this dialogue.

Yay! that's the point of never taking an idea off the table and engaging in open speech.

Its also the why insulting speech should be allowed, tempers need to flare to give off some steam. I think that even Ismaeel must finally be realizing that after his last few posts. I spat coffee through my nose when he apologized for being churlish then suggested that I go culturally integrate with Goths - Too-shay! Sir! Too-shay!

> This may seem strange considering
> things like babyboots' last post.
> But I am reassured that we are
> actually having this conversation.

Believe me, I'd have been much stronger if I'd been in your shoes.

> My guard is dropping all the time
> and that's brilliant! I can connect
> even to the "Islam-is--Anti-Christ"
> type people, as people with a cause
> and a sense of endangerment.

This is good, I'm glad you are being to see that just because we champion free speech, isn't because we want to only use it to attack and insult "1.6 million Muslims"

> I have to thank everyone on this
> board for that- irrespective of
> their opinion- because we are
> finally engaging in discussion and
> I sincerely hope there be more of
> that mixing going on. It's much
> healthier than segregation and
> isolation.

This is where I agreed with the MAC lady, the biggest issue we are facing is fear. We need to fight this fear and reduce it.

I wish that this sort of dialogue was being put out on British TV and people felt OK to discus this all openly. If that where the case there won't be the growing that fear that exists today.

I think that the British public have always been good at excepting other peoples way to be. Enforcing this upon people via the Political Correctness has been counter productive.

For instance I think that the Danes have the right idea allowing the Nazi party to exist, consider that it gives you and I the opportunity to stand next to each other and throw eggs at them.

Just because I disagree with some what you and Ismaeel have to say doesn’t mean that we couldn’t sit down and break bread and share some laughs.

Cheers,

TFI
PS. Loved the poem :-) Can I be cool to?

7:36 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Indeed it does...

ROFL!

7:38 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

thefriendlyinfidel,

Sure you can be cool. I think we all need to be now and try to turn to our friends and family and spread more coolness and positive Karma about.

"This is where I agreed with the MAC lady, the biggest issue we are facing is fear. We need to fight this fear and reduce it."

Agreed. Completely 100%.

Which MAC lady?

9:19 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
Do you ever get tired of your takiyya?
Once my answers to your wishful thinking are here:

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22297247&postID=114348797914244960

You said: "Christ (PBUH) said according to the gospels "I did not come to bring peace, i came to bring a sword"

Let me settle the record straight.
Providing context always helps, unless the quote comes from Islamic sources. Then the context makes things worse, much worse.

32"Whoever acknowledges me before men, I will also acknowledge him before my Father in heaven. 33But whoever disowns me before men, I will disown him before my Father in heaven.

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw—
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

If you still cannot understand the meaning of this passage think Abdul Rahman.

9:30 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

The original version comes from Talmud:
Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)

"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

9:32 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

The notoriously abused by Muslim apologists passage from Sura 5:32 is in fact a menacing warning to ...the Jews:

005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a
person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if
he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life
of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet,
even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a
human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had
killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the
life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's
Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a
soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our
messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act
extravagantly in the land.

9:51 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To polish solidarity with Denmark

Are you OK?

11:22 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To BNP Member

Inspired by BNP Member thought this a good photo to use to reinforce my identity as a British Muslim. It reflects my great pride in this Nation, our Nation.

Lots and lots and lots of love and kisses for my BROTHER from the BNP!

It's OK
You can stay
I don't mind
I mean...

You're just as British as me
You're equally off your tree
Accept Enoch Powell is history
Just like your Party ideology
Not great friends with reality
With racism as your theology
If ya burn I ain't gonna pee!

(Just to clarify - that was meant as a joke not a threat!)

:-)

Yours Sincerely,

HERE TO STAY

2:35 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Hey I just found out that Nick Griffen was educated at Cambridge - wow

I mean he doesn't give the impression of being educated at all!

2:47 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Sorry I meant "Griffin" - must be the effect of using this photo - on my spelling.

From the BBC Website:-

Under its current policy, the party backs an immediate halt to "all further non-white immigration" and the "voluntary resettlement" of non-whites to "their lands of ethnic origin". The BNP's website states all members must be of "British or kindred European ethnic descent"

-----
Makes me feel sick in the stomach, my family have been here generations and I was born here. No wonder they were so upset about the U-turn in the rally's cartoon policy!

Well done Voltaire. Like eveyone says, you must be doing something right if you're upsetting the BNP.

I have to say it now - I've held back for way too long because of the BNP's wish for political correctness - as in "white is right".

I HAVE to say it:-
What a bunch of racist bigots and a "wicked, vicious" party.

The "Bigoted Nationalistic Pigs" (hence the appropriateness of the policemen illustration) should be well on the scrapheap in the coming election and little would be gained in voting for them locally since their idea of bins collection is rounding up anyone with a better than average suntan ... That'll of course give Britain a Great Image.

But as far as local elections go my main objection is that we will only be left with white bins filled with white trash. Still they promise us that there will be recycling - at least of the old Enoch speeches and other figures that spouted nonsense they're no longer proud of, when Britain was still a racist country.

Thank goodness us Brits have always been too sensible to give such rotten fruit any real power.

BNP - Definitely NOT cool...

3:19 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

BNP member says:
"You may notice that im not trying to kill you :)"

Cheers for that - now go and look at your own website and you may wonder why I might think that removing me, my wife, my kids, and my parents - all of whom are British - from this country - where, just like you, we were born and bred, is cruel is frankly inhumane.

My kids are only half way through school. Their country is Britain and they have never even visited their "country of ethnic origin" that we are supposed to "go back" to.

I think BNP member mentioned there were a few BNP members at the rally but noone noticed them there. They were trying to make the point that they had managed to recruit at least one person with a brain cell.

I feel sick in the stomach when I look at the campaign material of the most inhumane party in Britain, that plays on people's vulnerability in a textbook Nazi manner. "Reclaim our country" indeed...

Voltaire - I thought something had been said of not involving the BNP in this campaign? This website should not be a platform used to spread their odious bile. There is so much incitement to racial hatred in their posts that you could find yourself in legal problems (not from me I hasten to add) but it's worth looking over those posts again. Remember the famous duo had a pretty close scrape with the law themselves over inciting racial hatred.

QUOTE: " or is it just the English that should change to accomodate you and the millions like you coming here. "

Sorry I thought I WAS English - certainly not Scottish, Irish or Welsh. I'm an "English Muslim." Unless you are suggesting that that is a contradiction of terms?

"I dont believe your a bad person, but that your unintentionally backing the wrong team when it comes to good and evil."

Right, and you suggest I back Nick Griffin? So my kids can get deported mid school, never mind having been born English and British. Have you even SEEN your own party's website and their propoganda? Are you proud to be of "good character"?

I ask you again: WHAT is it you disagree with the Nazi's about? Because I can't see anything different coming from you or the BNP website!

And if anyone is wondering why I'm so upset I've just been on the BNP website and I find it really very upsetting that the good names of England and Britain should be dragged through such purile shit.

Just wanted to mention it...

So BNP Member ???

4:06 am  
Blogger Ismaeel said...

Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...
The original version comes from Talmud:
Jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin 4:1 (22a)

"Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

9:32 PM


Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...
The notoriously abused by Muslim apologists passage from Sura 5:32 is in fact a menacing warning to ...the Jews:

005.032
YUSUFALI: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a
person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if
he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life
of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet,
even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.

PICKTHAL: For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a
human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had
killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the
life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs (of Allah's
Sovereignty), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth.

SHAKIR: For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel that whoever slays a
soul, unless it be for manslaughter or for mischief in the land, it is as though he slew all men; and whoever keeps it alive, it is as though he kept alive all men; and certainly Our
messengers came to them with clear arguments, but even after that many of them certainly act
extravagantly in the land.

9:51 PM

Polish solidarity, you need to calm down, seriously. How on earth you can say this is an anti-semetic verse i don't know. The verse is saying that Allah (SWT) gave the law to the children of Israel, to call them to account for their actions but it is also used generally by all Islamic scholars for murder by anyone.
Anyway this is the last time i respond to one of these posts, I've refuted so much stuff now and clearly shown that much of what has been quoted has been wilfully mistranslated or ripped out of it's context. There is a big propaganda war going on by Christian Evangelicals and the like of the BNP against the Prophet (PBUH), if people are honest they need to go out and research for themselves, sit with people who know arabic, who know the principles of Islamic law and such like and have deep knowledge about the Prophet(SAWS) life.
That is what we do every day, go to experts to find the truth, not just sucking up the propaganda that easily comes to hand.

6:13 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"For this reason did We prescribe to the children of Israel " and so on.

"prescribe"? Superority Cult uncovered.

6:41 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Anyway this is the last time i
> respond to one of these posts,
> I've refuted so much stuff now
> and clearly shown that much of
> what has been quoted has been
> wilfully mistranslated or ripped
> out of it's context.

Hi Ismaeel,

However tiring that you find the time to keep it up.

We are told that Islam is a religion of peace, then the extremists use passages in the Qu'ran to justify attacks on our society.

If you can demonstrate that their interpretation to be poppy cock, you will help reduce the fear that is clouding your religion. Nobody is asking you or anyone else to have anything other than a romanticized view of Mohammed life and actions.

Banning criticism of Mohammed is not helpful, responding to the criticism even when it is insulting is very helpful; it reduces fear, uncertainly and doubt.

You cannot promote debate by taking issues off the table.

Cheers,

TFI

9:10 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Ismaeel,
Let me make a couple of points clear.
I do not hate Muslims just like I do not hate Hindus, Jews, Atheists. Why should I? My religion teaches me to love everybody, including my enemies.
Let me repeat after Wafa Sultan: "Brother, you can believe in stones as long as you do not throw them at me" or anybody else.
If Islamophobia means irrational fear of Islam, then I am not islamophobic, though I am scared of Islam. Why? Because I know what Islam teaches its followers and I do not have to know Arabic (you haven't yet answered my question why Arabic is the only language in the whole world that cannot be translated) just like majority of Muslims in the world.
Please tell me WHY Islam
prescribes such harsh punishments for apostasy?

From _Reliance of the Traveller_, Shafi'i school

o8.1 "When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to he killed."

o8.4 "There is no indemnity for killing an apostate (O: or any expiation, since it is killing someone who deserves to die)."

[Those rulings are consistent with the Koran].


Some notes on Apostasy

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 20:
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet said, "Whoever possesses the following three qualities will taste the sweetness of faith:
1. The one to whom Allah and His Apostle become dearer than anything else.
2. Who loves a person and he loves him only for Allah's sake.
3. Who hates to revert to disbelief (Atheism) after Allah has brought (saved) him out from it, as he hates to be thrown in fire."

Allah's Punishment.

Those who learn about Allah but reject him or make jest of him will be punished severely by Allah (2:211-212). Those who oppose the Messenger, after believing, will be exposed to hell. Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve and increase in disbelief, Allah will never pardon them nor guide them (4:137). Apostates, those who reject their belief in Allah, will receive an awful doom “because they have chosen the life of the world rather than the Hereafter” (16:106-107). On them is the curse of God, angels, and all mankind, and they will never be forgiven (3:86-90). Apostates are condemned, doomed (47:25, 47:32, 47:34).


Allah's punishment through the hands of the believers.

Verses 4:89-91 call directly for the killing of apostates (in this case those who had allegedly abandoned the Muslims in the battle of Uhud) unless they (a) are protected by peace treaty, (b) withhold their hands from fighting and surrender, or (c) return/revert to Islam. Note that 9:5 is regarded by many scholars as having abrogated the restrictions in 4:90, such that the policy is “convert (or revert) or die” (or accept dhimmitude 9:29, or be protected by temporary peace treaty).

In general, Sura 9 says to fight disbelievers, fight “the heads of disbelief” (9:12), those who have broken their oaths (cf 9:111) and assailed Islam with criticism and disapproval (9:11-14), who are to be killed unless there is a treaty still protecting them. Tafsirs of this passage agree that “fight” means “fight to kill.” (Incidentally, this passage has been cited by bin Laden as well as Bouyeri (who assassinated Theo van Gogh). Verse 9:14 exhorts Muslims to fight those disbelievers and Allah will deliver his punishment through the hands (read swords) of those who are guided by his will. (The disbelievers can be saved if they convert or revert to Islam). Verses 9:73-74 state that they (disbelievers; hypocrites, and apostates) will have no protectors on earth, Allah will inflict them with a doom in the world and in hereafter. (And Allah can punish them at the hands of those guided by his will, i.e., slaves of Allah). It is clear in the context of Sura 9 that “fight” in 9:12 means ‘fight to kill.’

Verse 2:217 says disbelief or turning (oneself or others) away from Allah is worse than killing (also see 2:191, as well as numerous other verses that cite disbelief/rejection of Allah and Mohammad as the worst crime in Islam). Ibn Kathir comments (2:217): “…(...and Al-Fitnah is worse than killing.) means, trying to force the Muslims to revert from their religion and re-embrace Kufr after they had believed, is worse with Allah than killing.'…” Note that the penalty for killing a believer is not only hell-fire but the death penalty; therefore the penalty of apostasy, by simple logical assumption at least, should be death in addition to hell-fire.

Hadith.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 259:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah's Apostle sent us in a mission (i.e. am army-unit) and said, "If you find so-and-so and so-and-so, burn both of them with fire." When we intended to depart, Allah's Apostle said, "I have ordered you to burn so-and-so and so-and-so, and it is none but Allah Who punishes with fire, so, if you find them, kill them."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn 'Abbas, who said, "Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, 'Don't punish (anybody) with Allah's Punishment.' No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

Sahih Bukhari:
Volume 9, Book 84, Number 57:
Narrated 'Ikrima:
Some Zanadiqa (atheists) were brought to 'Ali and he burnt them. The news of this event, reached Ibn 'Abbas who said, "If I had been in his place, I would not have burnt them, as Allah's Apostle forbade it, saying, 'Do not punish anybody with Allah's punishment (fire).' I would have killed them according to the statement of Allah's Apostle, 'Whoever changed his Islamic religion, then kill him.'"

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 83, Number 17:
Narrated 'Abdullah:
Allah's Apostle said, "The blood of a Muslim cannot be shed except in three cases: In Qisas for murder, a married person who commits illegal sexual intercourse and the one who reverts from Islam (apostate) and leaves the Muslims."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84.
(2) CHAPTER. The legal regulation concerning the male and the female who reverts from Islam (apostates). Ibn 'Umar, Az-Zuhri and Ibrahim said, "A female apostate (who reverts from Islam), should be killed. And the obliging of the reverters from Islam (apostates) to repent. Allah said: — 'How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the Apostle (Muhammad) was true, and that Clear Signs had come unto them? And Allah does not guide the wrong-doing people. As for such the reward is that on them (rests) the curse of Allah, the Angels, and of all mankind. They will abide there-in (Hell). Neither will their torment be lightened nor it will be postponed (for a while). Except for those that repent after that and make amends. Verily Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. Surely those who disbelieved after their belief, and go on adding to their defiance of faith, never will their repentance be accepted, and they are those who have gone astray.' (Sura 3:86-90) — Volume 9, Book 84, Chapter 2, p. 42-43.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 59, Number 632. Narrated Abu Burda: […] Once Muadh paid a visit to Abu Musa and saw a chained man. Muadh asked, "What is this?" Abu Musa said, "(He was) a Jew who embraced Islam and has now turned apostate." Muadh said, "I will surely chop off his neck!"

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 89, Number 271: Narrated Abu Musa: A man embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism. Mu'adh bin Jabal came and saw the man with Abu Musa. Mu'adh asked, "What is wrong with this (man)?" Abu Musa replied, "He embraced Islam and then reverted back to Judaism." Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down unless you kill him (as it is) the verdict of Allah and His Apostle.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 84, Number 58 (also see Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Number 4490):
Narrated Abu Burda:
Abu Musa said, "I came to the Prophet along with two men (from the tribe) of Ash'ariyin, one on my right and the other on my left, while Allah's Apostle was brushing his teeth (with a Siwak), and both men asked him for some employment. The Prophet said, 'O Abu Musa (O 'Abdullah bin Qais!).' I said, 'By Him Who sent you with the Truth, these two men did not tell me what was in their hearts and I did not feel (realize) that they were seeking employment.' As if I were looking now at his Siwak being drawn to a corner under his lips, and he said, 'We never (or, we do not) appoint for our affairs anyone who seeks to be employed. But O Abu Musa! (or 'Abdullah bin Qais!) Go to Yemen.'" The Prophet then sent Mu'adh bin Jabal after him and when Mu'adh reached him, he spread out a cushion for him and requested him to get down (and sit on the cushion). Behold: There was a fettered man beside Abu Muisa. Mu'adh asked, "Who is this (man)?" Abu Muisa said, "He was a Jew and became a Muslim and then reverted back to Judaism." Then Abu Muisa requested Mu'adh to sit down but Mu'adh said, "I will not sit down till he has been killed. This is the judgment of Allah and His Apostle (for such cases) and repeated it thrice. Then Abu Musa ordered that the man be killed, and he was killed. Abu Musa added, "Then we discussed the night prayers and one of us said, 'I pray and sleep, and I hope that Allah will reward me for my sleep as well as for my prayers.'"

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 56, Number 808 (also Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64):
Narrated 'Ali:
I relate the traditions of Allah's Apostle to you for I would rather fall from the sky than attribute something to him falsely. But when I tell you a thing which is between you and me, then no doubt, war is guile. I heard Allah's Apostle saying, "In the last days of this world there will appear some young foolish people who will use (in their claim) the best speech of all people (i.e. the Qur'an) and they will abandon Islam as an arrow going through the game. Their belief will not go beyond their throats (i.e. they will have practically no belief), so wherever you meet them, kill them, for he who kills them shall get a reward on the Day of Resurrection."


Sahih Muslim, Book 016, Number 4154 (see 4152-4155):
'Abdullah (b. Mas'ud) reported: Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) stood up and said: By Him besides Whom there is no god but He, the blood of a Muslim who bears the testimony that there is no god but Allah, and I am His Messenger, may be lawfully shed only in case of three persons: the one who abandons Islam, and deserts the community [Ahmad, one of the narrators, is doubtful whether the Holy Prophet (may peace be upon him) used the word li'l-jama'ah or al-jama'ah), and the married adulterer, and life for life.

Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 39, Number 4487:
Narrated Uthman ibn Affan:
AbuUmamah ibn Sahl said: We were with Uthman when he was besieged in the house. There was an entrance to the house. He who entered it heard the speech of those who were in the Bilat. Uthman then entered it. He came out to us, looking pale.
He said: They are threatening to kill me now. We said: Allah will be sufficient for you against them, Commander of the Faithful! He asked: Why kill me? I heard the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) say: It is not lawful to kill a man who is a Muslim except for one of the three reasons: Kufr (disbelief) after accepting Islam, fornication after marriage, or wrongfully killing someone, for which he may be killed.
I swear by Allah, I have not committed fornication before or after the coming of Islam, nor did I ever want another religion for me instead of my religion since Allah gave guidance to me, nor have I killed anyone. So for what reason do you want to kill me?

Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Book 20, Number 2534. 'Abdullah, called Ibn Mas'ud (Allah be pleased with him), reported that Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The blood [of] a Muslim is not lawful who testifies that there is no god but Allah and that I am Allah's Messenger, but (it is lawful to shed blood) in one of the three cases: (killing) a person, an aged fornicator or a man who forsakes his religion (Islam) and deserts the body (of the Muslims)."

Sunan Ibn-I-Majah, Book 20, Number 2535. Ign ‘Abbas (Allah be pleased with him) reported that Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Kill him who changes his religion (of Islam).”


Sira.

Ishaq:550 “The reason that Allah’s Messenger ordered Abdullash Bin Sarh slain was because he had become a Muslim and used to write down Qur’an Revelation. Then he apostatized (rejected Islam) after becoming suspicious of some verses which prophet changed after his suggestions.”

Ishaq:551 The Messenger ordered Miqyas’ assassination because he became a renegade by rejecting Islam.”


Would there be 1.2 billion followers of Islam otherwise?
I very much doubt it.

10:09 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Polish Solidarity with Denmark.

You say you're scared of Islam - fine. There is no political party in the UK that seeks to deport those with Polish blood.

Are you not scared of the BNP?
Have you seen what a bunch of sickos they are?

10:50 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

And how many times do I have to repeat - I'm not for BANNING the cartoons or changing the law, neither is Ismaeel.

My concern and Ismaeel's is about the sick F***s that are members of the BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY!

10:52 am  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

Ismaeel,
Come back, come back, I was just about to convert!

Or is it "re-vert"?


Oh - and I quite agree about ripping things out of context. Please stop selectively quoting all the nice stuff about Mohammed.


Here is the context of the last Sura that we were discussing. Just after the bit about the children of Israel...

Verse 33:
The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement


We are starting to understand the untranslateable Arabic notion of "mischief", more and more each day...

11:08 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Hey BNP - gone all quiet?

11:32 am  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

Anonymous:

"carnage inflicted on the poor indians who were quite literally murdered by savage English thugs and have never received an apology from this country..."

You have your historical facts absolutely wrong, I am afraid. The British fought against the Thugees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thugee#British_destruction_of_the_cult

12:48 pm  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

Anonymous,

You seem to be keen on emphasizing that you are a UK citizen by birthright.

Please remind me how one may acquire citizenship of say "Moderate" UAE for example, as a non-muslim born in their land. Is citizenship also a birthright there?

Do you think we should follow their lead by not offering citizenship to Muslims born here, a kind of Gastarbeiter scheme?

Perhaps you can explain to me how it will work in the "Ideal" Sharia state, which of course does not exist / will never come to pass.

12:59 pm  
Blogger Admiral Allan Ackbar said...

BTW, remind me; how many billions was it?

Please refrain from making this obvious argumentum ad baculum. It roughly equates to me qualifying every statement with

"You are offending the largest nuclear enabled combined naval and satellite linked, stealth capable remote / cruise missile armed section of humanity"

Unless of course you are ACTUALLY representing ALL of the views and speaking for ALL 2.3 billion or whatever number it is.

If not, please dont get upset when we occasionally generalize.

1:10 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Anonymous,
You said:
"You say you're scared of Islam - fine."

So you are confirming the validity of my very rational fears?

"There is no political party in the UK that seeks to deport those with Polish blood."

I would not be so sure.

I am against collective responsibility and if someone (regardless of "blood", race, religion) abuses the laws of the host country, if s/he incites to violence, tries to overthrow the system then the host has full rights to show the door to such an individual.
I would be the last one to defend such a Pole.

"Are you not scared of the BNP?
Have you seen what a bunch of sickos they are? "

I abhor Racism, but I do not think that BNP stands a chance of gaining any significant political influence in the UK and in that sense I am not scared of them, although I can imagine were I not white I might not be so relaxed meeting a BNP member in a dark alley.
I much more fear Islamization of this country:

http://www.barnabasfund.org/islamisationeurope.htm

1:27 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

For Anonymous - continuation:

http://www.barnabasfund.org/islamisationeurope.htm

"Halal meat is now routinely served in many British prisons, schools and hospitals, sometimes to Muslim and non-Muslim alike, and the hijab [Islamic headscarf] is worn in British schools. Muslims in the London borough of Tower Hamlets have forced name-changes for districts and local amenities if the existing name sounds too Christian for their liking.

In the UK, where Islam is making its most rapid advance, Islamic law (shari’a) is already practiced unofficially, with shari’a councils and shari’a courts giving judgments on Muslim family matters. In education numerous concessions are being made to British Muslims, Islam often being given more prominence and respect than other faiths at state schools. An increasing number of university posts are being funded from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries on condition that a certain line of thinking is promoted."

Example no. 1:

In their uniform policy my daughter's school (secular, state-run) states that religious symbols MUST not be visible, but allows Muslim girls to wear hijabs. At the same time the same school has no problem with confiscating crosses from the other pupils.

Example no. 2:

An adult college (where my Polish friends learn English) opens prayer rooms for Muslims. Needless to say no chapels nor similar facilities for Hindu, Jewish, your name it religions.

Should I not be scared?

1:41 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

Anonymous!

You have finally shown your true colours!

You have been progressively worse, insulting, aggressive and swearing. One can only assume you've either been on the bottle or you should be telling Satan to get behind you!

10:10 pm  
Blogger Babyboots said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:11 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Sir Percy,

Since WHEN exactly did TWO WRONGS make a RIGHT?

Ah ... :-) When they make a Far Right

I see

You've answered my question for me.

9:30 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

To Polish Solidarity with Denmark

Of course it's rational that you should be scared, especially reading all of that stuff and failing to realise that you are being played like a monkey in the propoganda of fear politics.

I'm Muslim and I'm not scary, and we're talking, and we shouldn't let any one scare us or intimidate us from having a dialogue.

What is unacceptable to me, as I've said many times is to engage with an inhumane political party like the BNP or the one from Denmark that wants to deport all muslims from Europe. This is offensive not to mention impractical - where will anyone get a kebab?

What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world.

I agree with you about that. So these two groups have to be off the table because they make for too intimidating an environment for the others unless they are prepared to modify their tactics and change their policies so as not to be a direct threat on others, in which case they can come back to the table. In other words there needs to be a ceasefire from both these camps to bring them back to the table.

Until then we should all agree that this is an uncivilised approach.

As for crosses being removed at schools this flies in the face of the race relations act that protects jews, christians are protected by the blasphemy laws, muslims are not protected by any similar laws, so the schools involved should find themselves bang in trouble according to the actual law of the country.

Let us not turn to vigilante politics and criminal justice or believe all the crap we read. WIth all these "Dhimmi Watch" type articles, you got to ask in whose interests they serve?

9:42 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Anonymous,
I have just realised that "Dialogue" is a fragment of your reply to my concerns.

You say "Of course it's rational that you should be scared, especially reading all of that stuff and failing to realise that you are being played like a monkey in the propoganda of fear politics."

What "propaganda" do you mean? Are you insinuating that what I see with my own eyes is a secret plot of Islamophobes trying to discredit your own creed? That The Holy Qur'aan, Hadith and Sira are sabotage materials produced by The Very Far Right to deceive me about the Religion of Peace? You cannot build any dialogue on the premise that your opponent is a half-wit instead of providing a hard core evidence to refute my arguments.

"What is unacceptable to you, which I think is also very reasonable - is to engage with inhumane Islamist groups like Al-Qaida, that seek to agressively impose their brand of Islamism on the world."

No, this is not enough to me. I do not wish any, even the most moderate of moderate brands of Islam imposed on me or the rest of the world, be it in the most peaceful way.

Anonymous, a round table sounds like a great idea, but what are we to negotiate? Terms of free speech? Smooth talk does not cost anything. Muslims call it takiyya, infidels call it diplomacy.
Why after 7/7 did I not see MAC marching in the streets with banners saying "Not in my name"?
Why don't your imams preach in the mosques "Love thy infidel as thyself"? Why isn't there a similar distrust or fear towards Hindus, Jews, Sikhs in this country as towards Muslims? No smoke without fire, Mate.
Please answer my questions before we sit together by a cup of tea and a biscuit.

1:42 pm  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

9:51 am  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

10:33 am  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

9:13 am  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

10:04 am  
Blogger Askinstoo said...

Very nice! I found a place where you can
make some nice extra cash secret shopping. Just go to the site below
and put in your zip to see what's available in your area.
I made over $900 last month having fun!
make extra money

3:52 pm  
Blogger dissertation said...

I liked this post very much as it has helped me a lot in my research and is quite interesting as well. Thank you for sharing this information with us.

Essays On Freedom Of Speech

4:06 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home