March for Free Expression

The next phase

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Reza Moradi

I know there is a lot of concern about Reza Moradi's summons. I have been in contact with the police and with Maryam Namazie. As soon as there is some news, I will post about it.

66 Comments:

Blogger Temporary said...

I have read on another Blog report, that the dispute was apparently "not" related directly to the cartoon banner, but a dispute between Reza and another Iranian? The same report refers to overhearing the police scoff at the suggestion during the demonstration that the matter was related to the banner itself . I guess we need much more accurate information about this, before we comment or even defend Reza. Throughout the day, it seems that the banners of Reza and related others, were used to promote this Communist Youth Organization. Perhaps there is more to this incident than meets the eye?

10:52 am  
Blogger Temporary said...

P.S : A short video clip of Saturday's event.

10:59 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

If this was the case, why did the police take away his poster?

The website jawanan.org for that organization indeed is showing the cartoons.

11:13 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

Great video. can it be include in the collection of links?

11:19 am  
Blogger Temporary said...

Mostazaf said - "If this was the case, why did the police take away his poster?"

Possibly because it was using the cartoons as a way to get advertizing in there? I don't know, Mostazaf. Just guessing here. Because although I was fine with the cartoons being there, I do feel it was a bit sneaky to have rather promiment advertizing for political groups going on the same posters. Seems to be a bit exploitive of the cartoons. Perhaps that is what someone objected to?

Luke Said - "Great video. can it be include in the collection of links?"

I assume so, Luke. It's not my video though. Just one I found elsewhere on the net. I brought a Digi camera along on the day with video capacity, but was so attentive listening to the various speeches that I didn't take any footage. I do wonder if audio of the speeches was recorded though, because i'd love to hear some of the speeches again, such as Sean Gabb's throught provoking one.

Any audio recordings out there, Voltaire? Would it be possible to make Mp3's and post some downloadable links on here sometime in the future? It would give the nee-sayers a better insight into what the event was like and what went on.

11:40 am  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Mates, there may be more to it than meets the eye or the ear, but I doubt it very much. Almost all the speakers at the rally have some agenda of their own and they were not hiding it nor pushing it either. While Sister Ruth was firmly stating her Catholicism, Reza had an equal right to inform on his banner where he is coming from. Is this breaking the law? What law? Sorry - I am reluctant to buy this.

11:45 am  
Blogger Bagrec said...

I can't access the video at work, but I suspect it's the one I (bagrec) put up.

In which case by all means go ahead.

12:56 pm  
Blogger Bagrec said...

Also the Little Atoms show featuring speeches and interviews from the March will be broadcast tomorrow (March 29th) at 7pm on Resonance 104.4 FM. You can listen online there too.

1:00 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

So the Rally was a failure? These recordings of the event will be listened to by thousands, if not millions of people.

The truth is getting out there.

When people see that this was not an attack on Muslims, but an discussion on all forms of religious fundamentalism many and limits imposed by our government, many more people will join us.

Something very important happened on Saturday, irrespective of how many people were physically there.

1:08 pm  
Blogger Someone Special said...

"one of the crowd" might had a good point.

I new an iraninan who had come to the uk for economic reasons. He told me that whilst he had no interest in politics in Iran he was told by some iraninan refugee centre in the uk that if he wanted to stay in this country under the asylum system he had to get visibly involved in activity that would mean he couldn't go back to iran. Once they telephoned him to go quickly to the french embassy as moslems where demonstrating outside it against the head scarf issue in france - he was to join in a small counterdemo and make sure the newspapers got photos of him and if possible his name as this would help his case to stay in this country.

At the demo I was surprised how quickly Reza Moradi volounteered his name to the journalists even before the police incident occured. I certainly would give my details whilst holding the cartoons - would you?

BTW mostazaf, the police only nabbed him - not the placard which stayed in the crowd for the rest of the demo.

Just my thoughts.

3:32 pm  
Blogger Someone Special said...

Oops

"I certainly would " above should say "I certainly wouldn't"

3:36 pm  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

is someone foul-mouthing?

Just my thoughts.

3:41 pm  
Blogger wnw said...

ooooo just what we need, a conspiracy theory

3:50 pm  
Blogger aeneas said...

On the Reza Moradi, I think I was getting ahead of myself as I was getting very worried about the situation. I now agree that we should not formally offer support until we are in possession on all the facts. Polish Solidarity with Denmark - thanks for clarifying your views, you are right, I'm sorry that I missinterpreted your previous posts. I hope that further information follows soon. Sorry for moveing forward too quickly on this one.

4:11 pm  
Blogger feste clown said...

I asked one of the old bill (not sure if his name was bill?) on the way back to charing x if he agreed with what the rally was for, he replied that "yes, of course I do mate, but these things always lead to someone going for the sake of getting nicked in front of everyone, either that or someone ends up getting punched".

Anyone get nicked?
Anyone get punched?

Anyone notice how many old bill were waiting just in case things kicked off?

****

As much as I don't want to, I do agree with you Someone special, I wouldn't give my name out either to the police nor the speakers.
I did feel about taking a banner telling china to get the buggery out of Tibet ("Peace & Compassion to those who insult Lord Budha") but then thought that I was going to the rally for something bigger than my 'personal' struugle. On this occasion anyway.

Small crowd yes but perfectly formed.

6:29 pm  
Blogger Polish Solidarity with Denmark said...

Someone special, you did not give your name so why should I believe an anonymous informer? I find them very unattractive to say the least. It is much easier to push someone into mud than to stand up for him and risk getting soiled as well.
Secondly, in the context of what we are fighting for it is irrelevant even if he gave his name for utilitarian reasons. What matters is that he was detained unjustly. Was it you who reported on him to the police, "Pavlik Morozov"?

7:14 pm  
Blogger mymind said...

the roots are deep and evil the idea of wot to do to jews under hitler is the same as islam wants for all other faithes and no iffs and buts
the koran as long as it not publicly chalengeabel is tantramount to the 3'rd reich

8:01 pm  
Blogger Andy M said...

I went along fully expecting to get punched. In fact, I was slightly disappointed that it didn't all end in a massive ruck, with cars upended and flames belching from the fountains. Still, there's always next time, eh?

For me, the event was almost quintessentially British. A few loons, a few spectators, a few very bored cops, and a few firebrands with an agenda to push. Respect to all of them, but frankly, after listening to that insanely boring speech from the 'direct descendant of the prophet Muhammed' (who he?), anyone could have been forgiven for pushing off to the nearest pub thinking that maybe free speech isn't such a great thing after all. Organisers, please note. She killed the fucking thing stone dead.

Thank the darkness for Labi Siffre, who, as a seasoned performer, had the good sense to realise that it was going nowhere, and appeared out of the blue to make the whole thing worthwhile. If anyone recorded his speech, please, please post it here.

9:38 pm  
Blogger Someone Special said...

fest clown said:

"As much as I don't want to, I do agree with you Someone special, I wouldn't give my name out either to the police nor the speakers."

I think if the police ask for your name your would have to give it or otherwise they would take you to the police station. The odd thing I was pointing to was at the start of the demo before the speeches, Reza was the centre of attention with all the media forming a semi-circle around him. It was at this time that he shouted out his own name, how long he'd been in the uk and started a speech on the evils of iran. I just found that a bit odd. There were several other people with cartoon banners but they certainly didn't behave like Reza. Of course once he had been cornered by the police he had no choice but answer everything they asked and I and you would have done the same at that point.


Polish solidarity said...

"Someone special, you did not give your name so why should I believe an anonymous informer?"

Well unless your name is really polish solidarity you are also anonymous - we all are and yes its your right not to believe me. I didn't say this is what is happening, I'm just sharing my worries. Take them or leave them.
BTW who is Pavlik Morozov?

I also want to listen to Labis speech - does anyone have it?

10:05 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

someone special, there is no reason to assume an exclusive either this or that situation.

Reza Moradi can easily be in agreement with Free Expression and also be in agreement with the Communist Youth Organization. At the same time he may be a political or economic refugee.

If he exposes himself to fight for Free Expression and against Islamic fascism, it is really not up to us to judge him on his ultimate intentions. We can only judge him on his actions.

If this is an issue, then the root culprit is Islamic repression and Islamic impoverishment that prevents this guy to return to his own country as a free man. Iran can easily stand up on its own economically, if there was any half decent government that respected human rights.

The average Iranian family owns about 2.0 million dollars of oil and gas reserves at today's market prices (which is way too high). He is far from an economic refugee.

This is another reason why the Iranian government should be overthrown, instead of Straw and Fischer and Villepin hobnobbing with the theocratic dictators in Tehran.

10:40 pm  
Blogger Someone Special said...

So in the name of "Islamic impoverishment" we should accept another 1.2 billion economic refugees?

Sorry mate, I'm not going to be made a monkey of. If Reza came to the demo just to get arrested then he's on his own.

3:17 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

someone special, there is no way you can ascertain what was the intention of Reza Moradi, when he got summoned. Unless you wish to implement an inquisition of his thoughts. And if you do that, which runs against his rights, it will just cause the next guy to hire a lawyer and be a bit smarter about it.

If you want results, you are better off telling European governments, including the British government, not to deal with the Islamic regime in Iran, boycott its oil, and set up a program to overthrow them. Otherwise economic and political refugees will continuously be created, and the problem has not been dealt with.

The era of isolationism is over. The globe is fully interrelated. You want progress at home, you will need progress abroad.

3:45 am  
Blogger Someone Special said...

Mostazaf what you are basically saying is that until every iranian is richer than me (british people in general) we should accept iranian economic refugees arriving to the UK under the guise of asylum seekers and even help them out when they get arrested as part of their ploy to get residency? I'm no expert in names but "mostazaf" is not a typical british name - you aren't by any chance iranian are you?

Just had another thought, if Reza was arrested over the cartoons the police would definately have confiscated the cartoons which they certainly didn't. Maybe it was as "On of the crowd" pointed out, because Reza was a member of the "Communist Youth Organization". Remember commies in Iran are not the same as those here. Whilst the UK ones are about as dangerous as tree huggers, the iranian ones go around blowing up things. They were bosom buddies with saddam husan - his most loyal troops next to his republican guards. They fought our troops in Iraq before keeling over just like the republican guards. I belive they are actually listed on the UK list of terrorist organisations. This might have something to do with his arrest?

Also I read that now with saddam husan gone the iranian commies aren't welcome in iraq anymore and are currently in the no mans land between iraq and jordan - thousands of them - all asking for asylum to come to the UK! Mostazaf, I guess we should welcome these 1000s of iranian commies, complete the blood of our troops on their hands, to the UK with open arms!

4:30 am  
Blogger FreeSpeech said...

"The average Iranian family owns about 2.0 million dollars of oil and gas reserves at today's market prices (which is way too high). He is far from an economic refugee."

And the average person has one tit.

What a silly argument.

4:50 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Someone, if Reza needed such an alibi to apply for political asylum, he would not go to a free speech rally and bring along cartoons, and wait for some random Muslim (who does not appear Iranian) to point him out and file a complaint. There could have been dozens of people there with cartoons, besides cartoons are not illegal. It would have better served him to go to the anti-cartoon rally last month and received a lot of death threats on national TV.

I am a Muslim from the middle east.

The cartoons were passed among the crowd, and that is why the police did not confiscate it, and the cartoons themselves were not illegal in the first place.

If you check out the Iraqi Communist Party which was exiled during the time of Saddam, they are now all pro-America, and in fact 2 of their members were invited and sat on the Iraqi Governing Council that the US formed in 2003. There is no evidence of the mainstream Iraqi communists and socialists fighting for Saddam.

The Iranian CYO of Reza is certainly not an illegal organization. People dont go in Britain and file complaints against communists. I think you are pretty confused.

Those Iranian commies you refer to are actually the Islamic-Marxists mujs. A double ideological whammy. As if one was not bad enough, they got two! It is a contradiction in terms. They are mainly considered Islamists and not secular communists.

Luke, well lets put it this way - is Europe going to deal with the consequences of its actions when dealing with an Islamic regime that can only impoverish its own population? The US is not dealing with Iran. But the trade contracts that Europe clamors for is certainly propping the Iranian regime. From a practical standpoint, you will have much quicker results if Europe gets together with the US and brings down the regime in Tehran. Now whether this has resulted in more economic refugees to Britain, I don't know. But one thing for sure is that we would have a much better situation today if Europe had a different policy as of 25 years ago, and would have helped people like Reza in bringing down the theocrats. Not that it is Europe's responsibility. Only that it just makes common sense, and would not have cost Europe much.

In any case, this is all hypothetical, including Reza's yet to be realized assets - in the same manner that remarks made against Reza here remains hypothetical.

6:10 am  
Blogger Speak Freely said...

hello, u.k.! free speech advocates world wide are watching this situation!!

free speech with exceptions is not free.

8:54 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Free speech that is used ONLY to vilify a religion/race is not free, because it excludes the other party from the dialogue by sheer intimidation as well as hate mongering. Take this blog entry:

"Next time, start with modest goals. First, protesters against Islam. Denounce a variety of things that have Islam as the common thread - be it cartoons, murdering apostates, terror attacks, et al. That way, such a demonstration stays unappealing to Muslims, who stay out of it, and the original organizers of such a demonstration get to tell people what they really feel. As more and more such demonstations take place and grow, then figure out under what circumstances Muslims should be welcome.
Posted by: Infidel Pride [TypeKey Profile Page] at March 24, 2006 01:12 AM "

This is counterproductive - since the campaign should appeal to all those muslims who (a) believe in absolute free speech - no that does not mean they want to be faced only with cartoons and flags or wear a swarstika, that's intimidating, (b) are not terrorists, (c) are happy with the English Legal system - in as much as any of us are...

In other words MOST muslims

9:26 am  
Blogger feste clown said...

Only the other week I was overheard by a transport policeman calling a tube worker a muppet. In fact what I actually said was "..an you wonder why everyone thinks the tube is run by muppets" The policeman said I could be arrested for "disturbing the peace". I said what about my opinion and he replied if the tube worker hit you because of your comments he could say that you verbally provoked him to it.

How does freespeech work in the work place? I run a call centre and one of the agents said he didn't agree with what a customer was saying and so told him so.
What should I do? Remind him that he is paid to carry out a job and that it doesn't stretch to what he 'as an individual' feels. Yes there are ways to put this across to him but when you work with telephones you are open to people calling in to rant and rave about your products (built in Germang etc..) and I too find it difficult when customers call and ask to speak to me and then say things like how do you feel working for a bunch of nazis? Can I hold back?

9:55 am  
Blogger Someone Special said...

I dont think anyone is suggesting that Reza got his friends to make the complaint to get him arrested. All that is needed is to show you cant go back to iran - a name or photo in a news article showing support for the cartoons would have been enough to secure residency. But I agree with you, a one man counter demo against the anti-cartoon rally last month would have been more dramatic if not suicidal!

mostazaf said "I am a Muslim from the middle east."

Thats like saying I'm from europe - care to be more specific? I dont suppose you know reza from back home?

mostazaf said "If you check out the Iraqi Communist Party which was exiled during the time of Saddam, they are now all pro-America.."

You are confusing things, Reza is from the IRANIAN communist party not IRAQI communist party - it was the IRANIAN commies/marxists who were in bed with saddam husan who fought our troops and after being defeated by our troops are now asking for asylum in our country! What cheek! And BTW it is these same commie-marxist group that is on the government terror list - apparently like other terror groups they go by many names to avoid capture - they even went by the name Iran Aid during the earthquake appeal!

Mostazaf said: "..Islamic impoverishment prevents this guy to return to his own country.. This is another reason why the Iranian government should be overthrown.. if Europe gets together with the US and brings down the regime in Tehran.."

Mostazaf you seem to be suggesting that if we dont want to see iranian economic refugees pouring in to the uk we should send our soldiers in to iran, risking their lives to topple the iranian government and make the average iranian rich enough so that he or she doesn't want to come here! Ludicrous!

What did we gain from going in to iraq? We didn't even get a thank you - unless you call 6/6 a thank you note! What did our soldiers die for? And now you want our soldiers to die for you, to make you rich so you dont have to come here? No way - we have enough problems of our own to deal with including our own poverty - we are not going to give you one drop of our blood - sort your own problems out!

The first thing that happens in any war is refugees - and where do you think they will go?

10:05 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

10:06 am  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I think at around Henry VIII time there was a lot of really young marriages. It's awful but in both western and eastern traditions it used to go on. You can't vilify everyone for what was widespread practice or tradition of the time.

If in 100 years time, for example, it is proven and understood that what we see as acceptable modern marriage today, is actually a form of slavery for women and that the double standards relating to exclusive relationships coupled with preventing women from doing work such as birthing or sex for money - locking those who solicit in jail, is grotesque oppression...

Does that mean we cannot have any regard for figures such as Winston Churchill or William Shakespeare?

10:49 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Someone Special said...

> Sorry mate, I'm not going to be
> made a monkey of. If Reza came to
> the demo just to get arrested
> then he's on his own.

I stood close to him as he spoke and held the card aloft. He looked terrified at the start as journalist rushed him and we huddled around him protectively and encouraged him to speak.

The Asian journalists asked “Are you anti Muslim?” he said “I am ex-Muslim, but left my religion due to the disgusting way it treats women, how can I stay with a religion that not only says stone women for having sex out of wedlock, but specifies the size of stone to do it with?”, they asked “Are you not afraid to speak out against Islam?”, he replied “I have been persecuted by the Iranian Government I have been tortured by the Muslims there for saying these things, I’m not afraid in this country”

He said: “I came here as a refugee x number of years ago to live a better life in a country that allows people to speak their mind and does not suppress women”

At that point very one around spoke: “You are welcome here”

The Asian reporters didn’t like that, as we were ‘meant’ to be having a racist rally, they were visibly cross.

In my opinion Reza make a stand for what he believes and has potentially martyred himself for our cause.

So, Someone Special, I take it that you weren’t there, but you do have enough prejudice to appear on this board and complain about immigration citing Reza as an example.

Reza has my support; your conspiracy theories do not.

10:58 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:10 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:17 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Anonymous. I removed my previous post as it wasn't eloquent enough.

I stated that I had an issue with those that believe that marriage and sex with nine year old girls was acceptable.

You replied: “Does that mean we cannot have any regard for figures such as Winston Churchill or William Shakespeare?”

We regard them, but we acknowledge much of what happened then is not acceptable today. At the turn of last century we stuck children up chimneys to clean them, they got stuck and died. But due to people like Dickens he showed us how it affects the individual and we saw the error of our ways and modified our behaviour.

We have moved on, we accept times have changed. We understand that physiologically a woman is not best placed to have children until she has become an adult, she physically has not grown, her hips are small, and she has not even entered her teens.

My point is that those people who believe it was acceptable then, should not believe it to be acceptable today. We have moved on.

So Anonymous, do you, personally, believe that is OK for a 52 year old man to take a wife at six and consummate at nine in today’s society, just because Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago?

To put it another way, are you arguing that it acceptable for paedophiles to become Muslim, have sex with children and claim protection from your religion because of historical precedent?

11:19 am  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Anonymous said...
Free speech that is used ONLY to vilify a religion/race is not free, because it excludes the other party from the dialogue by sheer intimidation as well as hate mongering.

Hey idiot - stop mixing up religion with race. Religion is not the same category as race.

Religion is something you voluntarily choose, and you have no right to silence others based on your adopted beliefs.

Race is something that you do not choose and cannot change. Therefore criticism of race is beyond the limit.

Get it?

Now tell us why did "prophet" Muhammad assassinate the poetess who criticised him?

12:19 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"My point is that those people who believe it was acceptable then, should not believe it to be acceptable today. We have moved on.

So Anonymous, do you, personally, believe that is OK for a 52 year old man to take a wife at six and consummate at nine in today’s society, just because Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago?

To put it another way, are you arguing that it acceptable for paedophiles to become Muslim, have sex with children and claim protection from your religion because of historical precedent?"

How many times do I have to say this - Of course not!!! Of course it's not OK. I agree!!! I think most muslims do too - especially the ones that have chosen to settle in Europe. No white christian paedophiles then I guess?

12:21 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

Anonymous said...
I think at around Henry VIII time there was a lot of really young marriages. It's awful but in both western and eastern traditions it used to go on. You can't vilify everyone for what was widespread practice or tradition of the time.

Hey you f***ing idiot. Henry VIII did not claim to be a "Prophet" with his word the word of god, to be obeyed, by all of humanity, their children and their grand children, until eternity, at the risk of the sword.

Your pedophile Prophet Muhammad claimed to be talking god's absolute word. He then married a 6 year old baby girl and laid her when she was 9.

Your pedophile Muhammad now WANTS TO RULE ON ME AND MY CHILDREN TODAY. Not at the time of Henry and not 14 centuries ago. But he wants me and my children TODAY. There is no way you can excuse his reprehensible acts in today's standard.

If you want us to respect your turkey of a prophet today, then I will judge him by today's standards. Your excuses that it was just OK at that time to screw a 9 year old not withstanding. I thought he would be smarter than that frankly.

12:32 pm  
Blogger mostazaf said...

anonymous: If in 100 years time, for example, it is proven and understood that what we see as acceptable modern marriage today, is actually a form of slavery for women and that the double standards relating to exclusive relationships coupled with preventing women from doing work such as birthing or sex for money - locking those who solicit in jail, is grotesque oppression...

Listen idiot. Nobody is saying the above is the f***ing word of GOD, to be obeyed until eternity.

But what your turkey prophet said, including beating your wives (plural), and owning slaves, is supposed to be good till eternity.

What he did 1400 years ago, such as secretly screw Mary the copt, his beloved #1 slave, and what he said 1400 years ago will be JUDGED TODAY, by TODAY's standards, because HE CLAIMS THAT HIS WORD is good till eternity, and MUST BE OBEYED till eternity, at the risk of the sword.

If he had a bit of smarts, he would have figured that screwing a 9 year old and cheating on his wives may not have been the smartest idea, especially that he was going to be judged in the future, as he has claimed the future for himself and for his idiotic fanatic followers.

12:40 pm  
Blogger Someone Special said...

Infidel, of course I was there thats why I'm commenting on what I saw. He didn't look at all scared, if anything he looked confident, prepared if not coached, he handled the journaists with ease, even posing for them. Do you think if he was scared he would volounteer his name, age, and how long he's been in the uk, to journalists? I think not.

If you were the guy standing next to him I didn't hear you volunteer any info to the journalists - not a squeek. How come? Because no sane person would unless they had something to gain by it.

Infidel said: "Reza has my support"

Does that mean you will come to his summons and give your personal details to an open court for journalists to report it - I dont think so and for the same good reason.

Also what was strange was how before his arrest he made out that he was there on his own - the poor guy desperate for us to huddle around him, but then later after he was arrested and needed help it was revealled that he was actually part of the first speakers (iranian woman) entourage and not on his own. Doesn't add up does it?

1:26 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

Mostazef - you are sounding a bit hysterical. Some Muslims, like myself take many things that were in the Koran/Hadith with a pinch of salt, just as many Christians do with the Bible. Doesn't mean that they don't identify themselves as Christian or we don't identify ourselves as Muslim. Do we really deserve this kind of abuse. Mostazef, my brother, you are trying to preach civilisation and yet you have such odd methods for doing so. You are being unecessarily rude and abusive.

I'm muslim and I am here to stay in the UK along with my one wife - who I certainly did not marry at 9!!! and three children. Their children will also have children and so on, we are British Muslims and have been here generations. We are going nowhere and will participate in all your debates.

We subscribe to decent civilised values and I have tried to reassure you many times that we are just happy to get along under British law. It is after all why we choose to live in Britain.

Muslim, Christian, Atheist, Sikh, Jew, we are all British.

Isn't it great that Britain is a tolerant pluralistic place? My only embarrassment about being British is to do with the existance of football hooligans and the far right.

My only embarrassment about being Muslim is the people who try to use the name of the religion to commit violent acts or make threats - such as those made to the cartoonists.

Now I just want to know why exactly is it that you have it in for me and "my kind"?

1:35 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"We regard them, but we acknowledge much of what happened then is not acceptable today."

- which I can acknowledge about Islam/the bible etc as well

"We have moved on, we accept times have changed. We understand that physiologically a woman is not best placed to have children until she has become an adult, she physically has not grown, her hips are small, and she has not even entered her teens."

- totally agreed - in my view it should be at least 18

"My point is that those people who believe it was acceptable then, should not believe it to be acceptable today. We have moved on."

- Quite

"So Anonymous, do you, personally, believe that is OK for a 52 year old man to take a wife at six and consummate at nine in today’s society, just because Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago?"

- No, of course not. What kind of a savage do you think I am?

"To put it another way, are you arguing that it acceptable for paedophiles to become Muslim, have sex with children and claim protection from your religion because of historical precedent?"

- No, of course not. It's disgusting. I can't think of any British muslims who feel that that is acceptable at all. I am shocked that you can even think I'm like that - come on man - I'm not blaming YOU for all the crimes of Gary Glitter am I? Anyway, paedophilia is very Un-British, and British muslims are first and foremost British - or they'd be in jail for committing crimes against the country like anyone else who commits such crimes.

- Now is anyone at all interested in broadening the agenda out from muslim bashing?

- And if we are going to take the Muslim route how about liberal muslim clerics and scholars being involved so that we are collectively saying: "In the name of Progress" these are the things we want to achieve for our fellow brothers and sisters, and frankly what they do in their own homes by mutual consent and provided they've broken no laws is entirely up to them.

1:46 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:54 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:55 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:59 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> How many times do I have to say
> this - Of course not!!! Of course
> it's not OK. I agree!!! I think
> most muslims do too - especially
> the ones that have chosen to
> settle in Europe.

Thanks for the clarification, I turn to the comments of Ismaeel:

> If you go to some arab countries even
> now amongst the bedouin and also in
> sub-sahara africa, girls of nine are
> physically, mentally and emotionally
> ready for marriage.

Later he says:

> In many cultures women
> are intellectually, emotionally
> and physically mature by this age [12]
> to be married and have sex.
> Please stop trying to impose your
> liberal values and laws on
> everyone.

It would appear from the above comments of Ismaeel that he believes in Europe we are imposing irrational liberal values on Muslims arriving here from the Middle East by forbidding them having sex with girls of the age from ages 9 through to 15.

Ismeaal believes that is OK for a 52 year old man to take a wife at six and consummate at nine in today’s society, just because Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago, and because it happens in the Bedouin tribes today.

Today you and he stand together against caricatures of Mohammad (PBUH), will you stand next to him tomorrow when he argues that it is acceptable for paedophiles to become Muslim, have sex with children and claim protection from your religion because of historical precedent and the behaviour of the more primitive Islamic societies that continue today?

To be frank and Ismeaal can have our “white christian paedophiles”, I’m ashamed of them, whereas fundamentalist Islamists are proud that they continue the traditions of their prophet (PBUH).

So would you rather next to, me defending liberal beliefs or Ismeaal who has admitted to being a Islamic fundamentalist on a separate thread on the MAC blog (although he stated he didn’t like the term due to its negative conations) or Mostazaf who thinks that our Western liberal values ought visit the Middle East and improve peoples lives?

Cheers,

TFI

2:08 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Anonymous,

- Now is anyone at all interested in broadening the agenda out from muslim bashing?

I completely agree.

I prefer to think of it as Ismaeel bashing who is organising working against and whose belief in the absolute truth blinds him from the principles of our message.

Free speech includes the right to criticize, and ridicule is a powerful form of criticism.

TFI

2:14 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2:19 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

BTW Anonymous I know that you don't think any of things I suggested, I was just trying to build an argument against fundamentalism and where it can lead.

2:19 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Someone Special,

I don't support your conspiracy theories.

You'll be telling me next that the Jews run the worlds media.

TFI

2:23 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> - And if we are going to take the
> Muslim route how about liberal
> muslim clerics and scholars being
> involved so that we are
> collectively saying: "In the name
> of Progress" these are the things
> we want to achieve for our fellow
> brothers and sisters, and frankly
> what they do in their own homes
> by mutual consent and provided
> they've broken no laws is
> entirely up to them.

Here! here! and by provided “they've broken no laws” we are speaking only of British law and completely excluding the Shiri’a.

I've read that 40% of Muslims want Shiri'a here which people get upset about, but when we turn that around we find that 60% of Muslims don't want it.

Due to the twisted mindset of people like Ismaeel, those 60% aren't Muslim enough and need to be kicked in to line by forcing the Shiri’a upon them.

It is "Global Civility", who claim to be our enemy in this affair and claim to talk for 1.4 billion Muslims, including very Muslim in this country. Yet at the same time their Manifesto claim that "Muslims are fed up with individuals claiming to represent Islam".

This emperor wears no clothes.

Ismaeel, I apologize of some of things I’ve said above, I’ll take it all back if you say in the name of “Global Civility” a girl ought finish puberty before she should be legally allowed to marry and give birth and that age is at least 14.

3:53 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Or as anonymously has more wisely stated: 18

4:42 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

> If you go to some arab countries even
> now amongst the bedouin and also in
> sub-sahara africa, girls of nine are
> physically, mentally and emotionally
> ready for marriage.

It's true that they develop and reach puberty earlier, but I don't agree that they are in all those ways ready for marriage - haven't said that I don't think I know anyone that is ready for marriage in all those ways almost at any age. No I don't agree with Ismaeel on this one. However he does say that he does not do it and can practice his religion perfectly well without. In other words, he's no threat to nine year olds himself, in the UK or anywhere else. I think he was trying to make the point of earlier menarche in african, middle-eastern and sub-saharan tribes - which I think is true, where many girls start menstruating at 8!

Later he says:

> In many cultures women
> are intellectually, emotionally
> and physically mature by this age [12]
> to be married and have sex.
> Please stop trying to impose your
> liberal values and laws on
> everyone.

"It would appear from the above comments of Ismaeel that he believes in Europe we are imposing irrational liberal values on Muslims arriving here from the Middle East by forbidding them having sex with girls of the age from ages 9 through to 15."

- it looks to me like his comment is that he thinks its acceptable from age 12 in places where a girl has reached puberty at say 9, and people get married very very young.

"Ismeaal believes that is OK for a 52 year old man to take a wife at six and consummate at nine in today’s society, just because Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago, and because it happens in the Bedouin tribes today."

Don't think I've seen him say that anywhere.

"Today you and he stand together against caricatures of Mohammad (PBUH), will you stand next to him tomorrow when he argues that it is acceptable for paedophiles to become Muslim, have sex with children and claim protection from your religion because of historical precedent and the behaviour of the more primitive Islamic societies that continue today?"

I don't think that's his position, not as it's come across to me, but yes I can understand why he finds the cartoons offensive and think it is also a good idea to try to promote values of a free society to all folk.

"To be frank and Ismeaal can have our “white christian paedophiles”,"

I doubt very much that he wants them

"I’m ashamed of them,"

Good - hope you appreciate that I'm not trying to blame you for their behaviour

"whereas fundamentalist Islamists are proud that they continue the traditions of their prophet (PBUH)."

Know a lot of fundamentalist islamists actually, not one of whom has married a woman younger than the age of 20 so I think this comment presents a very distorted view.

"So would you rather next to, me defending liberal beliefs or Ismeaal who has admitted to being a Islamic fundamentalist on a separate thread on the MAC blog (although he stated he didn’t like the term due to its negative conations)"

- er BOTH, if that's allowed, because I think the healthiest societies can embrace the widest range of views and Ismaeel has clearly stated elsewhere that he is more than satisfied to live within British law so whatever views he holds are neither here nor there, as long as he commits no crimes.

"or Mostazaf who thinks that our Western liberal values ought visit the Middle East and improve peoples lives?"

I think we should aim to have maximal tolerance and liberal values in as many places as possible. Mostazaf does not exactly symbolise such for me. I mean, he seems very uptight. He does give the impression of being a slightly hysterical anti-islamic racist judging by his posts so I doubt he would ever stand next to me. But yeah Sudan and Iran and Afghanistan to name but a few places would be better off with almost any system other than the one they currently have...

Hope this addresses some of your concerns...

4:45 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi anonymous,

Glad the tone our exchange has improved, I didn’t mean to insult your personal beliefs and I certainly don’t mean to claim that you are monster. Although I do wonder if Ismaeels is one in disguise. Lets comment on your comments.

> It's true that they develop and
> reach puberty earlier,

I’d like to see a scientific paper on this, because I won’t take it on face value.

> but I don't agree that they are
> in all those ways ready for
> marriage - haven't said that
> I don't think I know anyone
> that is ready for marriage
> in all those ways almost at
> any age.

I am in my 30s and not married for that very reason so this made me smile.

> No I don't agree with Ismaeel
> on this one.

Glad to hear it! What else do you disagree with him on? He also thinks that you need four males witnesses a rapist “enter a woman” before its rape. Where do you stand on that?

> However he does say that he does
> not do it and can practice his religion
> perfectly well without.

He can practice his religion without undermining our hard won liberal democracies as well, we ask Christians not to watch Jerry Springer if they don’t like it, why should Ismaeel try and prevent the cartoons being shown in New York?

> In other words, he's no threat to nine
> year olds himself, in the UK or anywhere
> else. I think he was trying to make the
> point of earlier menarche in african,
> middle-eastern and sub-saharan tribes –
> which I think is true, where many girls
> start menstruating at 8!

Again I’d like some evidence for these claims, and I don’t sign up for the “old enough to bleed, bleeding old enough” mind set, nor do I think do you.

> - it looks to me like his comment is that
> he thinks its acceptable from age 12 in
> places where a girl has reached puberty
> at say 9, and people get married very
> very young.

By that argument Gary Glitter’s only mistake was to choose the wrong holiday destination.

Interestingly in Saudi its 13 years old, which according our pet islamofascist Ismaeel the peaceful and tolerant, it is not really not young enough.

> "Ismeaal believes that is OK for a 52 year
> old man to take a wife at six and consummate
> at nine in today’s society, just because
> Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago, and
> because it happens in the Bedouin tribes today."
>
> Don't think I've seen him say that anywhere.

He didn’t say that but his logic is getting dangerously close. Its one thing for him to say that he can practice his religion without that part, but he has not said what he thinks of another man that might claim the opposite. Would he quietly agree with him, because it is OK by the Shiri’a?

I would like him to come out and make a statement on this.

It is the same argument as “A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife”. I doubt very much that you do, or many do. In fact I doubt that the ratio wise of wife beaters is any different between non-Muslims and Muslims. But ...

However, say the man next door beats his wife very day. Does Ismaeel have a problem with this? Would he report it to the police? Would he tell the other man that ‘although it was OK in the past it is not today, you have no right to beat your wife’. I don’t think that he would have a problem with this at all, might even hold his coat.

Provided that man kept his women covered and prayed everyday, Ismaeel would think that man was a good Muslim.

>> [snip]Will you stand next to him
>> tomorrow when he argues that it
>> is acceptable for paedophiles to become
>> Muslim, have sex with children and
>> claim protection from your religion
>> because of historical precedent and
>> the behavior of the more primitive
>> Islamic societies that continue today?"
>
> I don't think that's his position,
> not as it's come across to me,

He is dangerously close to it. His logic leads to it. That’s what it means if you don’t condone it, that’s what it means if you allow his version of moderation and tolerance for Islamic traditions to continue unchecked.

> but yes I can understand why
> he finds the cartoons offensive
> and think it is also a good idea
> to try to promote values of
> a free society to all folk.

I don’t think that his aims are a free society. Quite the opposite, lets have a look at something else he has said:

> The purpose of the shariah is thus to
> facilitate a life whereby it is as easy
> as possible to be conscious of Allah
> (SWT) at all times.
> Now the understanding of the prohibitions
> comes in, alcohol makes one's mind clouded
> and takes one away from the remembrance
> of Allah (SWT). Public displays of the
> female body are extremley distracting to
> men and certainly take his mind
> from his Lord and his legal wife.

So he seeks to limit your behavior, massively. You like music? Tough. You look at women and forget god? What about using the Internet? What about computer games? What about watching movies? What about the job you do to support your family? According to his Islamist logic you should do nothing all day but think about and praise god. You’ve got to pick up the kids from school and miss a days pray - tough luck Allah (SWT) might be all peaceful and forgive you but Ismaeel’s kangaroo court will not.

> "To be frank and Ismeaal can have our “white christian paedophiles”,"
>
> I doubt very much that he wants them

Pity, nor do we.

> "I’m ashamed of them,"

> Good - hope you appreciate that
> I'm not trying to blame you for
> their behaviour

Lets have a look at another thing our peace minded Ismaeel has said:

> If Abu Hamza's actions and
> sayings shame anyone it can only
> be himself and perhaps his family.

It’s a pity that. I go on to wonder if he thinks that the 7/7 bombers (terrorists) are in heaven right now having a group sex party? He doesn’t think that Abu Hamza has done anything wrong telling people to blow themselves up on the London tube system. Perphaps he thinks it’s a legitimate way to spread the Shiri’a. Perphaps his organization is no different from Sinn Fein? Expect the IRA tried not to cause mass murder, just disruption. But Allah doesn’t love the infidel, so why not kill the ‘dancing slags’.

> "whereas fundamentalist Islamists are
> proud that they continue the traditions
> of their prophet (PBUH)."
>
> Know a lot of fundamentalist islamists
> actually, not one of whom has married
> a woman younger than the age of 20 so
> I think this comment presents a very
> distorted view.

It was a leading statement. We can all play the hyperlink game.

http://tinyurl.com/j9mt5

Saudi is the #1 spot for fundamentalists, and they love it! I mean 58 wives in 50 years! Wow! That’s a lot for a dirty old man in his 60s or 70s, especially when the newest is just 13 years old.

How many of your fundamentalist Islamist friends would read that, shake his head and say “I’m so glad that we arrest, not celebrate a man like that in this country.”. How many would say “well ... I suppose its OK by the Qu’ran and its good enough for the prophet ... in fact you have to admire that man’s sexual appetite ... I wish I was him”

> "So would you rather next to, me defending
> liberal beliefs or Ismeaal who has admitted
> to being a Islamic fundamentalist on a separate
> thread on the MAC blog (although he stated he
> didn’t like the term due to its negative conations)"

> - er BOTH, if that's allowed,

No its not allowed. Not when that man defends the actions of monsters with his version of the holy Qu’ran.

It is not when you refuse to acknowledge people like him are deserving of ridicule for his extremist beliefs.

> because I think the healthiest societies
> can embrace the widest range of views
> and Ismaeel has clearly stated elsewhere
> that he is more than satisfied to live
> within British law so whatever views he
> holds are neither here nor there, as long
> as he commits no crimes.

So he doesn’t wish for the Shiri’a to be in place in this country? He doesn’t wish for a global Islamic state where freedoms for everyone other than Muslim males are limited? Are his objectives not 100% in line with Osama’s? Is he not an apologist for terrorism? Does he not seek to tear down Western society?

> "or Mostazaf who thinks that our Western liberal values ought visit the Middle East and improve peoples lives?"

> I think we should aim to have maximal tolerance
> and liberal values in as many places as possible.

So do I, but I don’t think that includes terrorizing decent Muslims with the Medievil laws that is Shiri’a 60% of Muslims in this country don’t want it. Who f**k is he, or anyone to tell them that they are not good Muslims because of this?

> Mostazaf does not exactly symbolise
> such for me. I mean, he seems very uptight.
> He does give the impression of being a
> slightly hysterical anti-islamic racist
> judging by his posts so I doubt he would
> ever stand next to me.

Mostazaf appears to welcome Allah (SWT) but reject Mohammad (PBUH), yet he still considers himself to be a Muslim. Who are you to tell him that he is not one? Faith is personal matter and should not be forced upon anyone. Maybe he supports Islam 2.0, the one with the medieval punishments as laid out by the monstrous side of Mohammad (PBUH).

> But yeah Sudan and Iran and Afghanistan
> to name but a few places would be better
> off with almost any system other than the
> one they currently have...

What about Saudi and Pakistan?

What went wrong in Afghanistan? They tried to implement the Shiri’a in its entirety. Male doctors weren’t allowed to treat women and women weren’t allowed to be educated ... 8 in 10 women died in child birth. Although they did successful stop all that opium being grown.

I’m glad the cartoons came out, I’m glad Saudi arranged mass protests across the globe or we wouldn’t be having this conversation, that’s why we have freedom of speech.

I would to believe that the man companioning the grandiose title “Global Civility” might have a remit that was slightly wider that just trying to prevent anyone seeing these cartoons ever again, and the spread of a codified set of Laws that limits of everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims.

So who are you trying to protect by banning the cartoons?

Islam?
Mohammad?
Yourself?
Your family?
or that monster in disguise Ismaeel?

8:58 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

I support both campaigns - I support free expression because I believe in free expression and no censorship and noone being scared and no violence. I also support global civility because I believe that there is a huge amount of islamaphobia, anti-islamic racism etc., that's effecting me and my family right now.

Frankly, I wish both campaigns would move off the cartoons because I don't see that as the point of either campaign.

10:15 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> I also support global civility
> because I believe that there is a
> huge amount of islamaphobia,
> anti-islamic racism etc., that's
> effecting me and my family right
> now.

Anonymous,

Thank you for continuing this discussion with me.

That is exactly the honest, no-nonsense kind of answer I was looking for. For you and nearly very Muslim in this country, this is about defending the family from a perceived (and often real) threat.

For the Islamists who truly love Mohammad (PBUH) above all else, including their own families, this is about defending his honour and spreading the Shiri’a.

What seems to be missing from your opinion is that Islamaphobia is affecting other groups to, especially Hindus as most people are too damn ignorant to tell the difference between the faiths, they just see Asians.

Therefore on the streets Islamaphobia primarily manifests itself as “Asianaphobia”. Believe me; my non-Muslim Asian friends are very, very upset about this.

Question: What creates Islamaphobia?

I’ll give you my answer, I’m interested to hear yours.

As an independent observer that tried not to see race or religion as being anything other than healthy diversity that makes this country one of the best to live in, in the entire world: It is not jealously of your prophet or your god.

I believe there are two main sources: Firstly it is due to Islamafascism. The actions of well intentioned people like Ismaeel (I honestly don’t believe him to be a bad man, just a confused one) and his less well intentioned friends like Osama and the 7/7 bombers.

The second source is the actions of religious dictatorships like Iran and Saudi. They are rattling their swords right now and they are making people scared. I am very scared of them throwing nukes around. This will end the livelihood, if not lives of your family, and mine.

On the Islamic side, I feel that people are feeling scared and are falling back to Islam for support. Women cover themselves more, and often use the Burka to shield themselves form the world. As said before I’m a friendly infidel and smile a lot, I noticed that when I was in Dubai women wearing the jihab smiled back at me when I smiled at them. In this countries women wearing a jihab can barely look at me. I find this very upsetting.

Yesterday woman in a jihab was with her children and they dropped a ball it was rolling into the road, I stopped picked it up and gave it back to them. I then give her a big smile, hesitantly she smiled a little and then gave a broad smile back.

What I’m saying is that Islamaphobia is a two way street, I’m being judged to, I don’t like this.

Who is telling these poor women to be afraid of me? Why couldn’t the long beard at the rally on Saturday smile back at me when I smiled at him? Who is perpetuating all this fear?

I’ve walked past a mosque and listened in on the sermon being given, I’ve no idea what they are talking about, but I do understand tone, and the tone being blasted out of Mosques appears to be angry and ugly. In the papers and on the internet I hear talk of the impending ‘real holocaust’ (like the last one didn’t happen!)

The best thing you and I can do is project the cartoons on the wall of a building for all to see, point and say “there is an example of (perceived) Islamaphobia” lets talk about it, lets acknowledge that it is there, lets engage in a dialogue that builds trust, lets reduce our fears.

This is what we have found to work in the past and this is why we don’t try and brush opinions under the carpet for them to build up and fester.

In my opinion Ismaeel and Global Civility are only working in opposition to this cause. Ismaeel, despite his best intentions, is not protecting you with his attempts to ban the cartoons being seen in NY or any where else.

I can see why you support Global Civility; in turn I hope you can see why I oppose them.

Thank you for taking the time to read and discuss this all with me. I don’t want to made out to be your enemy. I just want people to smile at me again.

Cheers,

TFI
PS After that outpour I'm feeling quite emotional now ... I must go do something manly or I might cry.

12:42 pm  
Blogger Anonymous said...

"Glad the tone our exchange has improved, I didn’t mean to insult your personal beliefs and I certainly don’t mean to claim that you are monster. Although I do wonder if Ismaeels is one in disguise. Lets comment on your comments."

- Thanks!

"> It's true that they develop and
> reach puberty earlier,"I’d like to see a scientific paper on this, because I won’t take it on face value."

- I remember asking this question to my parents when I was learning about the Holy Koran and hearing ancient stories of girls getting married young and I was really shocked. That was the reply I was given and it has stuck, but it might not be true. Still, as I said, we should all be against the exploitation of young girls. That is a value in this country too, though I'm sure it does damage in this culture to have so many under-age models. Paedophilia is a problem everywhere that should be eradicated everywhere. Everyone deserves the right to grow to a mature age and noone should ever be forced into marriage or any kind of sexual union. This constitutes rape. Unless it is two 12 year olds by mutual consent (which does happen in the UK unfortunately - we have a lot of teenage pregnancies)...

> No I don't agree with Ismaeel
> on this one. Glad to hear it! What > else do you disagree with him on? > He also thinks that you need four > males witnesses a rapist “enter a > woman” before its rape. Where do > you stand on that?

I think his last words on it, to be fair on the bloke, was that forensic evidence was acceptable. I remember in the UK it was only quite recently that we acknowledged the possibility there could be rape in marriage.

I know a lot of women who see marriage itself as a form of sexual slavery in a society like ours, where soliciting the sale of sexual services is not legal, and see the law as very backward re: women's rights, as women aren't allowed to earn money from directly providing such services or the amount they are allowed to earn (eg. in surragacy) is strictly limited.

But nothing a man is more fitted to doing due to a reliance on his body (e.g., rugby) is in any such way restricted. I know women who prefer an Islamic marriage because it involves a transfer of money to the wife on marriage to recognise and compensate her for the fact that she is no longer available to other men.

I do not see UK law as going far enough on women's rights. We complain about the hijab, but it's no different from the law that says a woman has to be covered from the neck down while a man is free to expose his chest and upper body no matter how big and ugly it is.

"> However he does say that he does
> not do it and can practice his religion > perfectly well without.
>He can practice his religion >without undermining our hard won >liberal democracies as well, we ask >Christians not to watch Jerry >Springer if they don’t like it, why >should Ismaeel try and prevent the >cartoons being shown in New York?"

Looking at his methods they are all perfectly legal. They involve lobbying and writing letters and all the things you are perfectly entitled to do in a civilised world.

They do not include issuing death threats or plotting terrorist attacks. I have no problem with that. I can also understand the point about the cartoons, which is why I said, I'm a Muslim I support both campaigns and despite the original inspiration of them both being the same I see them as compatible - I really mean that.

Just the other day, my uncle, an elderly man, clearly Muslim was walking down the street back from shopping for groceries when two youths accosted him, one had a T-shirt with the cartoons on it, and they shouted "Bin Laden Terrorist" at him, and then they ran around him in a circle shouting more abuse and things like that "terrorists like him should F*** off home." Well he's been in England for a long time, and he considers it his home. He went home shaking, and then he rang me, he was very upset, actually he was frightened about his safety and that of his family.

I think free expression is about free expression and global civility is about combatting islamaphobia and intimidation so free expression can thrive in a context that does not exclusively focus on and vilify muslims, resulting in these types of incidents. I am hearing and reading about more and more of these types of incidents

> In other words, he's no threat to nine
> year olds himself, in the UK or anywhere
> else. I think he was trying to make the
> point of earlier menarche in african,
> middle-eastern and sub-saharan tribes –
> which I think is true, where many girls
> start menstruating at 8!
>Again I’d like some evidence for >these claims, and I don’t sign up >for the “old enough to bleed, >bleeding old enough” mind set, nor >do I think do you.

YOU might not but your grandfather or his father might. I don't think that but if I did thinking anything is not against the law as long as it's not acted upon.

> - it looks to me like his comment is that
> he thinks its acceptable from age 12 in
> places where a girl has reached puberty
> at say 9, and people get married very
> very young. By that argument Gary >Glitter’s only mistake was to >choose the wrong holiday >destination.

True but like I said if that is his view and I doubt that it is, he's entitled to hold it, you're entitled to abhor him for it, and the majority decide the law - and everyone follows it - that's democracy!

>Interestingly in Saudi its 13 years >old, which according our pet >islamofascist Ismaeel the peaceful >and tolerant, it is not really not >young enough.

I'm against Ismaeel bashing for the simple reason that he's been civilised in how he's approached the dialogue. I'm sure he doesn't have time to respond to all the posts but I don't blame him for not digging the atmosphere in here. UK statistics on paedophilia are nothing to boast about either. It's a problem we need to acknowledge and combat throughout the world.

> "Ismeaal believes that is OK for a 52 year
> old man to take a wife at six and consummate
> at nine in today’s society, just because
> Mohammad did so 14 centuries ago, and
> because it happens in the Bedouin tribes today."
>
> Don't think I've seen him say that anywhere.

He didn’t say that but his logic is getting dangerously close. Its one thing for him to say that he can practice his religion without that part, but he has not said what he thinks of another man that might claim the opposite. Would he quietly agree with him, because it is OK by the Shiri’a? I would like him to come out and make a statement on this.

- He seems to be being asked to "come out" and make a statement on lots of things: was the prophet a paedophile and rapist? do you rape your wife? are you a danger to our young underage girls? does your religion not suck? C'mon guys can't you see it for what it is? This isn't dialogue, and I'm embarrassed frankly to debate alongside people who "just induce" things like that about someone they haven't spoken to for 5 minutes... grow up!

"It is the same argument as “A Muslim man is allowed to beat his wife”. I doubt very much that you do, or many do. In fact I doubt that the ratio wise of wife beaters is any different between non-Muslims and Muslims. But ...However, say the man next door beats his wife very day. Does Ismaeel have a problem with this? Would he report it to the police? Would he tell the other man that ‘although it was OK in the past it is not today, you have no right to beat your wife’. I don’t think that he would have a problem with this at all, might even hold his coat."

- that's sick. What you are doing is dehumanising all muslims who do not behave like that at all in the UK, you are putting it all on muslims and islam and you're suprised if they feel offended and insulted by comments like these? how would you feel? if religion was "just" a choice than there would be very little of religions running in families going on. And even if it's a choice you can assume that ALL muslims (other than the ones in jail) living in Britain are doing so under British law and whatever VIEWS they hold or don't are neither here nor there.

>Provided that man kept his women >covered

Just a reminder we keep our women covered with an unjust law here in the UK, no different to the law on hijab so we should first even out that law so women have a right to go around topless in the summer just like men, without being accused of "asking for it" if they don't and getting raped. Can we agree on this point? The purpose of a whole new campaign. That's equal rights!

>and prayed everyday, Ismaeel would >think that man was a good Muslim.
>> [snip]Will you stand next to him
>> tomorrow when he argues that it
>> is acceptable for paedophiles to become
>> Muslim, have sex with children and
>> claim protection from your religion
>> because of historical precedent and
>> the behavior of the more primitive
>> Islamic societies that continue today?"
>
> I don't think that's his position,
> not as it's come across to me,

"He is dangerously close to it. His logic leads to it. That’s what it means if you don’t condone it, that’s what it means if you allow his version of moderation and tolerance for Islamic traditions to continue unchecked."

ABSOLUTELY disagree. These are all assumptions you have made up, come to your own conclusions about things very quickly. It's bullying and I'm surprised he's stuck around as long as he has.

> but yes I can understand why
> he finds the cartoons offensive
> and think it is also a good idea
> to try to promote values of
> a free society to all folk. I don’t think that his aims are a free society. Quite the opposite, lets have a look at something else he has said:> The purpose of the shariah is thus to
> facilitate a life whereby it is as easy
> as possible to be conscious of Allah
> (SWT) at all times.
> Now the understanding of the prohibitions
> comes in, alcohol makes one's mind clouded
> and takes one away from the remembrance
> of Allah (SWT). Public displays of the
> female body are extremley distracting to
> men and certainly take his mind
> from his Lord and his legal wife.

Sounds very Christian to me, again this type of attitude informs the law for unequal male/female exposure rights here in the UK, not to mention the Sunday licensing laws, glad that's started to change, but there still will be the few old duffers who think women should cover themselves even more and alchohol prohibition brought back, not to mention the smoking bans. So do we turf them all out or do we acknowledge and accept their rights of free expression as well?

So he seeks to limit your behavior, massively. You like music? Tough. You look at women and forget god? What about using the Internet? What about computer games? What about watching movies? What about the job you do to support your family? According to his Islamist logic you should do nothing all day but think about and praise god. You’ve got to pick up the kids from school and miss a days pray - tough luck Allah (SWT) might be all peaceful and forgive you but Ismaeel’s kangaroo court will not.

Again another accusation. I've been to his blog and the global civility site and nowhere does it say anything about wanting to create a kangeroo court, or pursue vigilante justice.

> "To be frank and Ismeaal can have our “white christian paedophiles”,"
>
> I doubt very much that he wants them. Pity, nor do we.

> "I’m ashamed of them,"> Good - hope you appreciate that
> I'm not trying to blame you for
> their behaviourLets have a look at another thing our peace minded Ismaeel has said: If Abu Hamza's actions and sayings shame anyone it can only be himself and perhaps his family. It’s a pity that. I go on to wonder if he thinks that the 7/7 bombers (terrorists) are in heaven right now having a group sex party? He doesn’t think that Abu Hamza has done anything wrong telling people to blow themselves up on the London tube system. Perphaps he thinks it’s a legitimate way to spread the Shiri’a. Perphaps his organization is no different from Sinn Fein? Expect the IRA tried not to cause mass murder, just disruption. But Allah doesn’t love the infidel, so why not kill the ‘dancing slags’.

right more reasonable responses for answers - none of the above can be considered badgering or bullying? if you really think that about people living in the UK that happen to be of islamic faith, and if there are more like you, it's no surprise my uncle was attacked.

> "whereas fundamentalist Islamists are
> proud that they continue the traditions
> of their prophet (PBUH)."
>
> Know a lot of fundamentalist islamists
> actually, not one of whom has married
> a woman younger than the age of 20 so
> I think this comment presents a very
> distorted view.

It was a leading statement. We can all play the hyperlink game.
Saudi is the #1 spot for fundamentalists,

Disagree - I'd say Saudi is the number one place for criminals and the very last place for fundamentalists (orthodox muslims) as the inhumanity and distortion of sharia along the haram direction would not allow them to follow their faith.

and they love it! I mean 58 wives in 50 years! Wow! That’s a lot for a dirty old man in his 60s or 70s, especially when the newest is just 13 years old.How many of your fundamentalist Islamist friends would read that, shake his head and say “I’m so glad that we arrest, not celebrate a man like that in this country.”. How many would say “well ... I suppose its OK by the Qu’ran and its good enough for the prophet ... in fact you have to admire that man’s sexual appetite ... I wish I was him”

NONE. So again please don't assault me or other muslims in this way.

> "So would you rather next to, me defending
> liberal beliefs or Ismeaal who has admitted
> to being a Islamic fundamentalist on a separate
> thread on the MAC blog (although he stated he
> didn’t like the term due to its negative conations)" > - er BOTH, if that's allowed, No its not allowed. Not when that man defends the actions of monsters with his version of the holy Qu’ran.

He's doing nothing of the kind, he's entitled to say and think what he thinks but it's hardly as though he has met much of a civilised response on this blog. I'm surprised he's had the guts to hang around so long and respond to the badgering. And yes I can stand next to you both, not because you agree with each other on everything (wouldn't that make for a bloody boring country) but because you both agree that peaceful protest and dialogue is the way forward, that we should follow the law in the UK as one of our civic duties, that we should have the right to freedom of speech and expression.

>It is not when you refuse to >acknowledge people like him are >deserving of ridicule for his >extremist beliefs.

Bollocks, and you know it. You didn't give the guy a chance, just put words into his mouth and kept badgering him. Even I felt badgered to start with and I lean towards extremely liberal views, more liberal than the laws of any country in the world.

> because I think the healthiest societies
> can embrace the widest range of views
> and Ismaeel has clearly stated elsewhere
> that he is more than satisfied to live
> within British law so whatever views he
> holds are neither here nor there, as long
> as he commits no crimes.

>So he doesn’t wish for the Shiri’a >to be in place in this country? He doesn’t wish for a global Islamic >state where freedoms for everyone >other than Muslim males are >limited? Are his objectives not >100% in line with Osama’s? Is he >not an apologist for terrorism? >Does he not seek to tear down >Western society?

He can wish for what he likes, unless you're suggesting that wishing should also be made a crime. As for his objectives being in line with Osama's - Osama is a known atheist, completely renounced in the islamic world, a murderer and a crook, so even the question is a bloody insult. Are you a murderer and a crook? are you a paedophile? Is your dad one? Your granddad? How do you know? Look I can point to some stats that show that 99.9% one of them will have been a paedophile or a child abuser? How do you and your white christian friends feel about that? Jesus was a fucking sodomiser who shagged moses up the arse and I've got some cartoons of the pope shagging mary up the arse? Mind if I go around London shoving these in the faces of murdering paedophile catholics like you, you wanker?

- Sorry - but I don't see THAT as a dialogue.

> "or Mostazaf who thinks that our Western liberal values ought visit the Middle East and improve peoples lives?" > I think we should aim to have maximal tolerance
> and liberal values in as many places as possible.

So do I, but I don’t think that includes terrorizing decent Muslims with the Medievil laws that is Shiri’a 60% of Muslims in this country don’t want it. Who f**k is he, or anyone to tell them that they are not good Muslims because of this?

AGAIN - Hello is someone there. Noone is terrorising anyone! They are just objecting completely peacefully to the right wing agenda involving the dehumanisation of muslims and their religion, which is fair enough.

> Mostazaf does not exactly symbolise
> such for me. I mean, he seems very uptight.
> He does give the impression of being a
> slightly hysterical anti-islamic racist
> judging by his posts so I doubt he would
> ever stand next to me.

Mostazaf appears to welcome Allah (SWT) but reject Mohammad (PBUH), yet he still considers himself to be a Muslim. Who are you to tell him that he is not one? Faith is personal matter and should not be forced upon anyone. Maybe he supports Islam 2.0, the one with the medieval punishments as laid out by the monstrous side of Mohammad (PBUH).

- Oh right! I don't care what he supports all I know is that he's been unneccesarily insulting and abusive and I'm not with that as an approach to free expression, mainly because as one of the speakers rightly pointed out - it would result in less audience for it.

> But yeah Sudan and Iran and Afghanistan
> to name but a few places would be better
> off with almost any system other than the
> one they currently have...What about Saudi and Pakistan?

Them as well. Maybe the UK, if they succeed in exploiting the climate of fear that exists at the moment.

What went wrong in Afghanistan? They tried to implement the Shiri’a in its entirety. Male doctors weren’t allowed to treat women and women weren’t allowed to be educated ... 8 in 10 women died in child birth. Although they did successful stop all that opium being grown.

Again just cos I'm muslim doesn't mean I agree anything about attrocities in afghanistan. I'm a british muslim and I don't deserve this kind of abuse and linking me to such attrocities. it just feels like abuse and makes me feel sick in the stomache - I'm only staying here because i don't want more like my uncle being attacked because of linking their religion with inhumanity. most muslims are humane and peaceful people.

>I’m glad the cartoons came out, I’m >glad Saudi arranged mass protests >across the globe or we wouldn’t be >having this conversation, that’s >why we have freedom of speech.

Correction Saudi are against the protests which is why they are not taking part in them. They largely don't care about it. SO why not check your facts.

>I would to believe that the man >companioning the grandiose title >“Global Civility” might have a >remit that was slightly wider that >just trying to prevent anyone >seeing these cartoons ever again, and the spread of a codified set of Laws that limits of everyone, Muslims and non-Muslims.

He does. It's called combatting the kind of Islamaphobia exhibited on this blog. I'd like to think we had a mission in the Free Expression campaign going beyond just putting the cartoons on public display. (arguably publicly sanctioning and condoning even encouraging islamaphobia)

So who are you trying to protect by banning the cartoons?

Me and my family from attack in the street, from wrongful arrest or shooting by officers, from deportation because of our religious beliefs, from the gas chambers. I am, to excuse my french now, f***ing sh**ing myself because of these cartoons.

"or that monster in disguise Ismaeel?

- you expect someone to take the time responding to your comments but describe the same as a monster in disguise? judging from all the posts I have seen no evidence of him being a monster in disguise or otherwise.

1:25 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Anonymous,

Thank you for your detailed response. You have made me feel thoroughly guilty for some of the more outrageous things I've said and implied in my last posts.

I acknowledge that I've stepped out of line in some of comments and when I have time later this evening I look forward to picking up this again and answering your points.

I'm terribly sorry about what happened to your father, I feel terrible for this. I can emphasis for the way that you feel right now and wouldn't wish it upon anybody.

Perhaps we ought move this conversation to the toon board or the MAC board, do you have a preference?

Again I thank you for engaging with me and helping me achieve a little more balance in my view points.

I do believe that frank open discussion about all these things is prefferable to anything else.

Cheers,

TFI

3:20 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

- Thanks!

No worries!

Once of my bug bears is as you have pointed out, people seem to post insults and run, I really don’t want to be guilty of this and I want a dialogue on why and how we are different and how we are the same. Yet due to the atmosphere of fear being generated due to all the complex geopolitical sociological issues at the moment tensions are very high and this is reflected in our dialogue.

I do very much appreciate that we are having this conversation and that both you and Ismaeel are not running away from anything that has been said. I do honestly respect that and I do very much appreciate the time that you are investing in talking to me of all the people in this world.

First lets go through the points you raised and answered.

> I'm sure it does damage in this
> culture to have so many under-age
> models.

I completely agree, I don’t understand the sexualization of children in our Western societies and our hysteria toward pedophilia, it feels hypocritical. I would like to move off this point. My reason for pursuing this line was in summary “Can the Qu’ran be used to justify this behavior based on historical president, if so what can we do to safe guard against it?” It’s a valid question, not one I put well.

While we are kicking the corruption of Western society, another thing I don’t understand is how we justify how we treat our old. Society is changing so quickly, they appear to have become redundant, relics from the past that can no longer keep up. My mother could far more easily turn to the wisdom of her grandmother than I can mine.

I watch my cousins children use computers and wonder what it is doing to their neural pathways and whether by the time they get to adult if their brains will somehow be wired differently. How much longer before I’m redundant? Our youth is operating in a completely different way, have a look at the social phenomena that is myspace, there is a whole new way to build social interaction going on there. The internet has opened Pandora’s box, nothing will be the same again.

Consider that we are having this conversation and yet we have never meet yet it is visible to the world. That is unprecedented in human history the doors to very society in the world has thrown open the doors to their culture and we are looking at each other and saying “IMO you do that?”. I’ve been around the world, while I was in the Middle East I noticed on that they had BBC news on and they were showing the gay marriage of Elton John, it stuck me that it this broadcasting of Western values via our world media must really piss people off there, no wonder they are rejecting it. I read the local papers and saw a letters sent to the paper, people were writing in complaining that the Christmas holiday had more visible celebration than Ramadan, yet one man wrote in and said “I don’t see the problem, it’s a nice holiday and its for the kids.” I thought that was nice, especially that it is in essence a pagan holiday nicked by the Christians.

> Unless it is two 12 year olds by
> mutual consent (which does happen
> in the UK unfortunately - we have
> a lot of teenage pregnancies)...

Its still not acceptable between 12 year olds. I think that it is breath taking that the government needs to run a publicity campaign to tell our teenage kids that sex has to be consensual. Perphaps we are old, after all you need only read “A Clockwork Orange” to see that this perception of our youth is eternal.

> I think his last words on it [snip]
> was that forensic evidence was
> acceptable.

Yeah I was a bit annoyed by Luke leaping in there, I would still like to know if forensic evidence is in addition to the male witnesses or as well as.

> I remember in the UK it was only
> quite recently that we acknowledged
> the possibility there could be rape in
> marriage.

Well that’s called progress. Many more things to improve on to.

> I know a lot of women who see marriage
> itself as a form of sexual slavery in a
> society like ours, where soliciting the
> sale of sexual services is not legal,
> and see the law as very backward
> re: women's rights, as women aren't
> allowed to earn money from directly
> providing such services or the amount
> they are allowed to earn
> (eg. in surragacy) is strictly limited.

Wow, could you break this down? You’ve mixed up sexual slavery and marriage here, this is alien to me.

From my view point the wife could / should work if there are no children and that there should be a joint bank accounts. In fact I imagine the wife to hold the house hold budget and I get an allowance (once there are children).

I do not that think that prostitution should not be crime, I think these women should be protected and right now that it not happening. I read this quote form an Eastern European woman “Why do so many British men want to have sex with young scared girls?”. It’s a very good question.

> But nothing a man is more fitted
> to doing due to a reliance on his
> body (e.g., rugby) is in any such
> way restricted.

You compare Rugby with prostitution? Surely that doesn’t work. Men work as gigolos and is that not also banned?

> I know women who prefer an Islamic
> marriage because it involves a transfer
> of money to the wife on marriage to
> recognise and compensate her for the
> fact that she is no longer available to
> other men.

Do you mean the whole ceremony, or the style of marriage itself?

I would love to go and see participate in an Islamic marriage, from what I’ve been told in the past they sound amazing affairs that take days to play out. It is certainly more inspiring and a greater celebration than traditional English ones.

As for compensation, I don’t understand that at all. Once married, what’s mine is hers.

> I do not see UK law as going far enough
> on women's rights. We complain about the
> hijab, but it's no different from the law
> that says a woman has to be covered from
> the neck down while a man is free to
> expose his chest and upper body no matter
> how big and ugly it is.

Women generally wear a bra out of practical necessity; it is more comfortable for them especially if they run. There is no law to stop them wandering around in their bras should they choose to do. Besides they complain we don’t talk to their faces enough anyway!

I agree about man wearing no tops, especially when they are fat and ugly. I would like to see a law against street workers baring their chest, amongst everything else this far up in the Northern hemisphere there is no ozone and with that pale skin they will get cancer.

BTW try walking through Wandsworth park in summer time and you will see plenty of women topless sunbathe. To think that my parents talked in hushed tones about topless beaches in France! How far we have come.

> Looking at his methods they are
> all perfectly legal. They involve
> lobbying and writing letters and
> all the things you are perfectly
> entitled to do in a civilised world.

Agreed.

> They do not include issuing death
> threats or plotting terrorist attacks.

I am told that one Islamic of the speaker didn’t show because of death threats. I’m not saying that Ismaeel had any hand in that. But it happened. Apparently the MAC lady didn’t have that problem.

Some people believe that the ends justify any means. Think of the murder of the abortion worker in America, a lot of people shed no tears over that.

I would like to know that Ismaeel and the MAC does not feel that way.

The MCB are bad enough.

> I have no problem with that. I can
> also understand the point about the
> cartoons, which is why I said, I'm a
> Muslim I support both campaigns
> and despite the original inspiration
> of them both being the same I see
> them as compatible - I really mean that.

I don’t see how you can. Ridicule is a valid form of criticism. Do you know that is how they killed the KKK movement in America?

> one had a T-shirt with the cartoons on
> it, and they shouted "Bin Laden
> Terrorist" at him, and then they ran
> around him in a circle shouting more
> abuse and things like that "terrorists
> like him should F*** off home." Well
> he's been in England for a long time,
> and he considers it his home.

It is his home.

For me this is all the more reason to take away the cartoons from them. They have been made out to be something that they aren’t. The protest and global unrest has given them a weapon. I don’t think that the Jews like the Iranian cartoon much, but they drew their teeth by satirizing the haters by drawing their own and telling the Iranians that they could do better.

> He went home shaking, and then
> he rang me, he was very upset,
> actually he was frightened about
> his safety and that of his family.

We must reverse this trend. I really don’t think that Global Civility is helping.

> I think free expression is about
> free expression and global civility
> is about combatting islamaphobia
> and intimidation so free expression
> can thrive in a context that does not
> exclusively focus on and vilify
> muslims, resulting in these types of
> incidents. I am hearing and reading
> about more and more of these types
> of incidents

Visa-versa attacks the other way are going up to. I’m very scared to give away my identity by giving away to much about where I live. I fear an Islamic fundamentalist might decide to kill me for me speaking my mind. It appears that those that do insult or even criticize Islam wind up in police protection or dead. The people that went on that March were quite brave they had to believe that they weren’t going to branded racists and that they wouldn’t get killed in the process of getting there. I don’t believe those nine(?) guys with their head in bandanas where up to any good irrespective of what Ismaeel has said about them on his blog.

As an outsider I don’t see any equal effort to combat Islamofascism. People like Abu are spouting his hatred of the infidel in Mosques. As an outsider am I suddenly taking a great interest in what is being said in Mosques, what is being taught as history.

I would feel a lot safer if I felt that sheiks like Abu where ostracized, named shamed, vilified, ridiculed, made to feel belittled, weak powerless - not locked up in prison where they continue to spread their poison. Instead they seem to be drawing strength form the hatred that they are spewing. The British public make a good deal of effect doing this to this the BNP and they hate it and are powerless for it. The most awful thing they could say when secretly recorded on tape was “Stephan Lawrence was really a bully” they are a toothless organization. We need to do the same to Abu and the like.

> YOU might not but your
> grandfather or his father might.

Maybe, certainly those from the 18 hundreds had a different mindset.

> I don't think that but if I did
> thinking anything is not against
> the law as long as it's not acted upon.

I agree.

> True but like I said if that is
> his view and I doubt that it is,
> he's entitled to hold it, you're
> entitled to abhor him for it, and
> the majority decide the law –
> and everyone follows it - that's
> democracy!

Actually its not, our government often makes decisions that is best of all of us, or protects the minority, frequently often pisses of the majority. Laws are not made by group vote form the mob.

If the majority decide that we ought install a Shiri’a court and than I find myself in one then find that my word is worth half that of a Muslim man, I’ve been screwed my own liberal tolerance. Of course I might misunderstand the Shiri’a, but that’s how I’m told it works. Ismaeel has not got back to me on this one.

> I'm against Ismaeel bashing for
> the simple reason that he's been
> civilised in how he's approached
> the dialogue.

I’m sure that Hitler, Stalin, Enoch Powell and Dr Shipman where all very nice and polite. That doesn’t mean to say that they don’t have what you and I consider to have despicable ideas in their head.

> I'm sure he doesn't have time to
> respond to all the posts but I don't
> blame him for not digging the
> atmosphere in here.

No, but I would like to know if he is a political revolutionary that regards the infidel as beneath him. If he could show me that I’d have a lot more time for his cause. To me he looks like a wolf in sheep’s clothing. I simply don’t trust highly religious people what ever background that they are from. Most wars have been started over religion in the past. I think that they should have less power, less influence not more.

I would much rather you were running the Global Civility campaign, you seem to have a much more pragmatic view on the world.

> He seems to be being asked to
> "come out" and make a statement
> on lots of things: was the prophet a
> paedophile and rapist?

Well, history is history. Surely he can admit that it is historical fact and reconcile that with his beliefs? I accept that they way it was delivered to Ismaeel was hostile and provocative, but he could say “that was a different time”, “I choose to focus on the positive aspects of his teachings before he was cornered and forced to fight.”.

For those of us that have had Islam thrust in our faces due to 7/11, 7/7, the murder of artists and the cartoon riots; it’s a bit of a revelation that for a period of time he behaved like Genghis Khan. Can we at least talk about this? Can we at least acknowledge that there are people that have suddenly read the Qu’ran a lot “got very religious” and then caused atrocities in the name of Islam? There appears to be a collective denial of these facts.

> do you rape your wife?

I didn’t see this one.

> are you a danger to our young underage girls?

I asked can his religious logic be stretched to condoning sex with underage girls?

I think that is fair question of the Shiri’a.

> does your religion not suck?

I think most do, I admire some and dislike others.

> C'mon guys can't you see it for what it is?

Yep, I can fear of Islamic beliefs brought about by the spread of terror in the name of Islam. We need to discuss this and take the sting from it. We are not inherently racist in this country. We can discuss this. The fact that we are not having an honest dialogue is causing fear, uncertainty and doubt.

> This isn't dialogue, and I'm
> embarrassed frankly to debate
> alongside people who "just
> induce" things like that about
> someone they haven't spoken
> to for 5 minutes... grow up!

Unfortunately it is a dialogue, it is a debate. I want to know how much of what Abu spouts Ismaeel signs up for.

> - that's sick. What you are doing
> is dehumanising all muslims
> who do not behave like that at
> all in the UK, you are putting it
> all on muslims and islam and
> you're suprised if they feel offended
> and insulted by comments like these?

No I’m not surprised, it does demonize, but I still want to know. I understand that the Qu’ran states this to be true. I’ve asked Muslims face to face about this and I’ve been told “just because it says that, you can doesn’t mean you should”.

I want to know if Ismaeel’s version of Islam and interpretation allows people to beat their wife. If it does, could you or someone more liberal take the helm of Global Civility?

> how would you feel?

Well I’ve had all sorts of insults thrown at me on this page so far. It didn’t feel anything.

> if religion was "just" a choice than
> there would be very little of religions
> running in families going on.

It is something that you choose to continue in your families tradition, there is no compulsion to do so.

>And even if it's a choice you
> can assume that ALL muslims
> (other than the ones in jail)
> living in Britain are doing so
> under British law and whatever
> VIEWS they hold or don't are
> neither here nor there.

I have every right to play scruples with Ismaeel.

> Just a reminder we keep our
> women covered with an unjust
> law here in the UK, no different
> to the law on hijab so we should
> first even out that law so women
> have a right to go around topless
> in the summer just like men,
> without being accused of "asking
> for it" if they don't and getting
> raped.

I know of no women that wish for this right. As I’ve said it women bathe topless and they don’t get raped.

> Can we agree on this point?
> The purpose of a whole new
> campaign. That's equal rights!

No its not, and you know it. To be honest I’m disappointed that you are pushing such a weak argument with me.

> His logic leads to it. [snip] that’s
> what it means if you allow his
> version of moderation and tolerance
> for Islamic traditions to continue
> unchecked."
> ABSOLUTELY disagree. These
> are all assumptions you have made up [snip]

Well people are using all sorts of weird arguments based from the teachings in the Qu’ran, like blowing themselves up on the tube. This mind set is very dangerous to both you and I. A belief in absolute truth is very dangerous.

> Sounds very Christian to me

I cannot deny that this is where my family background comes from, I’ve been in a church, never a mosque of synagogue.

> again this type of attitude informs
> the law for unequal male/female
> exposure rights here in the UK,

Could tell where in the world womens rights are better? Who has a better model for us to follow? Such it is not perfect, but it’s the best women have never had it.

> not to mention the Sunday licensing
> laws, glad that's started to change,
> but there still will be the few old
> duffers who think women should
> cover themselves even more and
> alchohol prohibition brought back,
> not to mention the smoking bans.

Are you referring my grandfather or yours?

So do we turf them all out or do we acknowledge and accept their rights of free expression as well?

> Again another accusation.
> I've been to his blog and the
> global civility site and nowhere
> does it say anything about wanting
> to create a kangeroo court,
> or pursue vigilante justice.

Ismeaal doesn’t seek to install the Shiri’a, which has no jury and presides behind closed doors and isn’t staffed by religious bigots?

> right more reasonable responses for
> answers - none of the above can
> be considered badgering or bullying?

What if it is? I’d like Ismaeel to denounce the teachings of Abu.

> if you really think that about people
> living in the UK that happen to
> be of islamic faith, and if there
> are more like you, it's no surprise
> my uncle was attacked.

That is not fair. I simply want to know if he thinks that Abu Hamza brought shame on Islam. Muslims I’ve spoken to think so, doesn’t Ismaeel? It is not a hard question.

> Disagree - I'd say Saudi is the
> number one place for criminals
> and the very last place for
> fundamentalists (orthodox
> muslims) as the inhumanity
> and distortion of sharia along
> the haram direction would
> not allow them to follow their faith.

Cool, so why do so many Mosques accept money from them? Does Civility get money from them?

> NONE. So again please don't
> assault me or other muslims in this way.

I won’t.

> I'm surprised he's had the guts
> to hang around so long and
> respond to the badgering.

I’m very impressed. Although I would really like to know where he stands on something’s before I accept that is a good person and stand next to you, standing next to him. That’s all.

> And yes I can stand next to you
> both, not because you agree with
> each other on everything
> (wouldn't that make for a
>bloody boring country)

Here! Here!

> but because you both agree
> that peaceful protest and dialogue
> is the way forward, that we
> should follow the law in the UK
> as one of our civic duties,
> that we should have the right
> to freedom of speech and expression.

Agreed, but I want to know if his is a political revolutionary. I’m hardly going to agree with someone that doesn’t think that Abu Hamza’s of this world aren’t a bigger problem of those cartoons.

> Bollocks, and you know it.
> You didn't give the guy a chance,
> just put words into his mouth and
> kept badgering him.

That’s true, I wanted to see if he was sincere.

> Even I felt badgered to start
> with and I lean towards extremely
> liberal views, more liberal than
> the laws of any country in the world.

Yeah, your topless women ideals are way out there.

> because I think the healthiest societies
> can embrace the widest range of views
> and Ismaeel has clearly stated elsewhere
> that he is more than satisfied to live
> within British law so whatever views he
> holds are neither here nor there, as long
> as he commits no crimes.

I’m happy with that, I want to know if his is a political revolutionary.

> Osama is a known atheist,
> completely renounced in the
> islamic world, a murderer
> and a crook, so even the
> question is a bloody insult.

I don’t see that as true, I’ve had a lad in my house explain how he was a hero, now people aren’t so sure. I don’t see him as renounced, just vanished. I would very much like you to convince me that statement is true for people like Abu.

> Are you a murderer and a crook?

I cook, nothing else.

> are you a paedophile?

Nah, cheers for asking though. s

> Is your dad one?

Not with me he wasn’t.

> Your granddad?

Not with me he wasn’t.

> How do you know?

No one arrested him, or accused him to my knowledge.

> Look I can point to some
> stats that show that 99.9%
> one of them will have been a
> paedophile or a child abuser?

Can you? Where are these stats?

> How do you and your white
> christian friends feel about that?

I’ve white friends, black friends, Chinese friends, I’ve friends in Java, I’ve friends in Oz, I’ve American friends, Candian, French, German, Pakistani (descent), Italian and more.

But I’ve no white Christian friends.

> Jesus was a fucking sodomiser
> who shagged moses up the arse

He was? Is that in Bible? I heard about the Mary Madeline theory, but WOW! Show me money, where is the truth in that? Quote the bible or any other book at me.

> and I've got some cartoons of
> the pope shagging mary up the
> arse?

Yeah that would funny.

> Mind if I go around London
> shoving these in the faces
> of murdering paedophile
> catholics like you, you wanker?

Not really.

- Sorry - but I don't see THAT as a dialogue.

Yeah, but it was without also without logic, basis or fact.

> AGAIN - Hello is someone there.
> Noone is terrorising anyone!

One that really bugs me as an outsider observer is this “you aren’t a Muslim because you don’t agree with me about X”. I really hope you don’t play this game, but way to many people do.
I’ll say it again: 60% of Muslims in this country don’t want the Shiri’a in this country. That is majority last time I checked, according to your version of majority rule for democracy people shouldn’t be trying to enforce it on the rest.

> They are just objecting completely
> peacefully to the right wing agenda
> involving the dehumanisation of
> muslims and their religion, which
> is fair enough.

What right wing agenda?

> - Oh right! I don't care what
> he supports all I know is that
> he's been unneccesarily insulting
> and abusive and I'm not with
> that as an approach to free
> expression, mainly because
> as one of the speakers rightly
> pointed out - it would result in
> less audience for it.

Nah, I don’t think so. People like a good passionate fight, much bigger crowd. Check the Hitchens vs Galloway debate, completely sold out.

> Them as well. Maybe the UK,
> if they succeed in exploiting
> the climate of fear that exists
> at the moment.

Who are “they”?

> Again just cos I'm muslim
> doesn't mean I agree anything
> about attrocities in afghanistan.

It speaks volumes that no one from Islamic Britain (that I know of) spoke out about Abdul Rahman. Yet for cartoons, they queuing up to take turns. That makes me very fearful of what your religious leaders believe in.

> I'm a british muslim and
> I don't deserve this kind
> of abuse and linking me to
> such attrocities.

I didn’t link you, I linked the absolutist interpretation Shiri’a with it. Not the same.

> it just feels
> like abuse and makes me feel
> sick in the stomache

I’m sorry about that. There is a belief that it would have worked if it had been bigger, that idea that we might try again make me feel sick to.

> - I'm only staying here because i
> don't want more like my
> uncle being attacked because
> of linking their religion with
> inhumanity.

Good stick around, lets push the religious nuts out of this.

> most muslims
> are humane and peaceful people.

I never said anything different. In fact I’d say that most people are, irrespective of creed, colour or race.

> Correction Saudi are against
> the protests which is why they
> are not taking part in them.
> They largely don't care about it.
> SO why not check your facts.

I’m to tired to pull up edvidence of the Saudi press being obsessed with the cartoons.

> He does. It's called combatting
> the kind of Islamaphobia exhibited
> on this blog.

Bourne from the actions of the 7/7 bombers, and the words of Abu Hamza and the lack of commendation of Abdul Rahman. He is fighting the symptoms, not the source.

> Me and my family from attack
> in the street, from wrongful arrest
> or shooting by officers, from
> deportation because of our religious
> beliefs, from the gas chambers.

I’d like to help you with that. But I do think that hateful Abu should be address and neutralized (I don’t mean killed)

> I am, to excuse my french
> now, f***ing sh**ing myself
> because of these cartoons.

I’m sorry to hear that, I’ve just had my flat mate get upset with me because I told her I’m talking to you about this stuff, now she is scared that people are going to turn up on my doorstep and kill us.

> you expect someone to take the
> time responding to your comments
> but describe the same as a monster
> in disguise?

Not really I wanted to engage with you and challenged you allegiance with someone whose beliefs are to absolute for my likely and won’t play scruples, deletes posts and claims to know better than me because he has god on his side.

We’ve faced people like that before in Europe, they are dangerous.

> judging from all the posts I have
> seen no evidence of him being
> a monster in disguise or otherwise.

If he calls other Muslims not Muslim, if he thinks that Abdul Rahman should be killed, if he thinks that so should Salmon Rushie, if he thinks that the cartoons ought be killed (just not by him), if he thinks that Van Gogh deserved to die. If he thinks yes to just half these things I will think that he is a monster and I will fight him tooth and nail defending my civil liberties from him.

Good luck getting more topless girls out on the street! Man that would make my journey down Kings Road more fun.

Thanks,

TFI

10:31 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

http://tinyurl.com/pjwua

Ismaeel loves the Shiri'a and thinks all Islamic states ought to implement in its entirety.

Thank you anonymous for reminding me of this conversation and giving me the impetuous to track it down in Google cache.

Cheers,

TFI

1:56 am  
Blogger the void said...

so is there any news on what he was actually charged with?

seems suspiciously unanswered so far

10:33 am  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi void,

Long time no see. Did you notice how the Rally didn't turn into a blood bath? Have you seen the pictures of the smiley people and listened to a recording of what was said?

> so is there any news on what he
> was actually charged with?

Not that I know of.

> seems suspiciously unanswered so
> far

"One of the Crowd" thinks so to.

I'm supprised to see you side with him against immigration ... still like they say ... you think that you know someone ;-)

Cheers,

TFI

3:37 pm  
Blogger the void said...

Free expressionists stumble on...

not quite infidel...

4:38 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

> Free expressionists stumble on...
>
> not quite infidel...

LOL! why the hell do you think I'm interested in reading your blog?

Are you 12 or something?

Man you crack me up!

GRRR!!

Down void

GRRR!!

No racists here, boy!

Over there, go on, chase the BNP!

Good void!

There's a good void.

You want a biscuit?

There's a biscuit, off you go!

3:16 am  
Blogger the void said...

standard of debate hasn't changed much here then i see

1:08 pm  
Blogger TheFriendlyInfidel said...

Hi Void,

Neither has the quality of your posts.

Still trying to get people to visit your blog which is just jumping up and down shouting "look at me! look at me!"

Cheers,

TFI

8:37 pm  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home