Christopher Hitchens in 2007  said in relation to the Danish cartoons that the ‘Barbarians’ are not at the gates they are inside them…gates held open by the other religions who condemned not the murderous violence but the cartoons. ..get used to this he said…you may be living in the last few years where you can complain about religion….we’re heading back to the stone age he forecast.

A thought Charlie Hebdo also recognised…all three religions demanding Charlie Hebdo be ‘veiled’…



See how the cartoons relate to real life and are not mere ‘insults’…they have a point to make.


Nothing has changed.

Delighted to see the Pope upholding Christian virtues…he is after all the supreme head of the Catholic cult that supposedly says ‘Turn the other cheek…love thy neighbour…thou shalt not kill’…or as one commenter said...’Considering the history of Catholicism, what a hypocrite.’


Paris attacks: Pope Francis says freedom of speech has limits

Pope Francis has defended freedom of expression following last week’s attack on French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo – but also stressed its limits.

The pontiff said religions had to be treated with respect, so that people’s faiths were not insulted or ridiculed.

To illustrate his point, he told journalists that his assistant could expect a punch if he cursed his mother.

[He said] such horrific violence in God’s name could not be justified.

He staunchly defended freedom of expression, but then he said there were limits, especially when people mocked religion.

“If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope’s trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched,” he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.

“You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit.”


Kinda sounds like he is saying ‘I don’t really give a s**t about those dead cartoonists’…or as Muhammed said about the poet Asma Bint Marwan, whom some say he had murdered for her criticism of him,“Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”.


The Pope has rushed out an explanation…he didn’t mean that at all…..

Vatican: Pope’s Charlie Hebdo Comments Didn’t Condone Violence

Pope Francis’ press office on Thursday issued a clarification following his comment that there is a limit on the freedom of expression when it insults someone’s faith, saying the pope’s words did not advocate the violence seen in the Paris terror attacks.

“The pope’s expression is in no way intended to be interpreted as a justification for the violence and terror that took place in Paris last week,” Rev. Thomas Rosica, an English language assistant to the Holy See Press Office, said in a statement sent to reporters. “His words mean that there are limits to humor and satire particularly in the ways that we speak about matters of faith and belief.”


Sure…but then what?



Back to Asma Bint Marwan and the BBC.

Douglas Murray in the Spectator reports that the BBC has issued its own little fatwa and banned him from saying anything that Muslims don’t like:

There may be some positive things to be said about Mohammed, but I thought this was pushing things too far and mentioned just one occasion when Mohammed didn’t welcome a critic. Asma bint Marwan was a female poetess who mocked the ‘Prophet’ and who, as a result, Mohammed had killed. It is in the texts. It is not a problem for me. But I can understand why it is a problem for decent Muslims. The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk. How dare I say this? I replied that it was in the Hadith and had a respectable chain of transmission (an important debate). He said it was a fabrication which he would not allow to stand. The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed and I was left trying to find another way to express the same point. The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.


So much for reporting without fear or favour…what about journalistic integrity…what about the duty to investigate all sides to an argument rather than present the one favourable to the most violent?  Reminds me of this….Humane Bullfighting in Costa Rica – No one Can Hurt the Bull but the Bull Can Kill Anyone


Many Muslims do object to the story…but many use it to justify killing….the story is ‘politicised’…or ‘weaponised’ if you like….as it reflects badly upon the prophet….

It is alleged that Prophet Muhammad reportedly had a number of non-Muslims killed in Medina. Many non-Muslims use these alleged incidents to argue that the Prophet promoted violence against his critics while many Muslims view these incidents a justification to demand death for those who insult the Prophet and blaspheme Allah.



….having said that they admit Muhammed did have critics killed ….here it just happens to be two Jews who also published poems criticising him…any policeman might look at the coincidences there, poets who criticise Muhammed being killed, and conclude maybe the Asma Bint Marwan story has some legs:

The scholars are unanimously agreed that a Muslim who insults the Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) becomes a Kaafir and an apostate who is to be executed. This consensus was narrated by more than one of the scholars, such as Imaam Ishaaq ibn Raahawayh, Ibn al-Mundhir, al-Qaadi ?Iyaad, al-Khattaabi and others. (Al-Saarim al-Maslool, 2/13-16)

However, the stories of Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf and Abu Rafi’, due to speaking ill against and insulting the Prophet (Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) are found authentic in Bukhari.


In this Muslim source it is accepted Marwan was killed on the orders of Muhammed…well, it was Allah what done it really…..

The killing of Asma bint Marwan, who ridiculed the prophet.

Asma bint Marwan used to ridicule the prophet, alaihisslaam, in her poetry. Although the prophet always forgave all people who attempted to cause harm to him through their words or deeds, don’t forget that he was not an ordinary person but Rasulullah (the messenger of God).

The Quran is unmistakably clear about this law, which the Almighty declares as Sunnatallahi (the way Allah deals). See 17:77, for instance. Asma bint Marwan was therefore killed not by the prophet but by Allah. As a general principle, the prophet, alaihissalaam, always forgave people who caused harm to him. However, when he was asked by the Almighty to get certain people killed through His own law, which He has clearly mentioned in Quran, then he implemented what his God desired of him.



There is definitely an argument to be had…and as many Muslims use it to justify their violence perhaps the BBC should have run with it, if only to expose any errors in the tale….but regardless of the truth of the Asma Bint Marwan story Muslims have to admit other similar tales as mentioned above.

The BBC is censoring anything they deem uncomfortable for Muslims to hear…in essence it is little different to  Salman Rushdie and the ‘Satanic Verses’ when verses inconvenient to the Muslm narrative being published resulted in a death warrant for Rushdie…Murray is probably lucky the BBC decided to shut him up….he’d probably need police protection now…judging by the reaction of his fellow interviewee.

Peace man!




Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to ButtHeads

  1. DP111 says:

    The the West no longer defends freedom of speech in a manner vigorous enough to deter the defenders of Muhammed, from doing what they want. All it does now is to try to apprehend those who defend Muhammad in the precribed Islamic manner.

    The West is thus engagaing in what I term as passive defence – the equivalent of the Maginot line. That was, and is, never enough for victory.


    • DP111 says:

      Hitchins lays out the way we should be going. Not deterrence, but we must make Jihadis/Muslims afraid even to think of Jihad.


  2. Guest Who says:

    ’The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed … The broadcast had this ‘offensive’ fact left out.

    But was this fact true?

    If so, the BBC’s new precedent is going to make a large chunk of history unavailable for broadcast… well, more than it is already, and rather selectively. Well, more than it is now.

    Presumably if other groups start requiring edits on the basis of their beliefs, the BBC output in a fair number of areas is going to be reduced.

    Anyway, as a reminder the new guidelines on imagery are out.


    Focus on one very active segment of society; not so much on others. Mainly those prepared to turn to other means to push their views or express displeasure.

    Still, they are only guidelines, and BBC staff have shown themselves untroubled by these when necessary, as BBC Watch notes near daily. Or, indeed, those who may even be considered friends…


    ’Lord Patten first refused to attend, and then was saved from the ordeal by ill-health. Rona and Richard turned up, bearing news that the Director General Lord Hall would not – and might, if pushed, make the Committee issue a warrant.’

    Seems like having a Lord at the helm does more than confer a ‘get out of jail free’ card. More like a ‘we are immune from all accountability’ card, at least for the guy at the top, who is who gets held to account usually. Oddly, if they can’t attend because they just can’t, things stall a bit. Imagine demanding answers of RyanAir and their gobby CEO pulled a title out the hat and that was that?

    The MPs said they had important further questions to ask, and the BBC was using sophistry to place itself above accountability.

    The MP’s being wrong in what way now?

    ‘Rona and Richard tried a little light deflection’

    Returning Flokkers please note; it is rather obvious, even from the rotten head.

    That’s there trouble when you have exemptions on top of exclusions on top of double standards, especially for some things over others… you get in a tangle. And look out of your depth. And lose all credibility. And get laughed at.

    Good luck with the Charter negotiations. What was it… loading on the council tax? Or ISP subs? What could go wrong?


  3. DP111 says:

    In a way I’m not surprised that the BBC will not encroach on any “sensitive” Muhammed issue. Health and Safety directives make the BBC responsible for the safety of their employees, and any person in the broadcast. The last thing the BBC, or for that matter anyone wants, are Jihadis shooting up the BBC, mass deaths, and then the usual apologies, visits to mosques, Islamophobia etc.

    For this state of affairs, I blame government/EU over the last few decades. In the first instance, they allowed in millions of immigrants who they knew carried with them an ideology that requires the submission of all Infidels. The authorities may claim that they did not know- but ignorance is not an excuse, as history, past and present, has shown that Islam in any form, is dangerous.

    Now that we are in this mess, heading towards a catastrophe, the only options we have is to continue appeasement, and hope, that like the Nazis, Islamo-fascists overplay their hand.

    I just hope and pray, that we are victorious, a total defeat of Islam , and a final death count less then WWII.


    • Chop says:

      The only sensible option is to start to return Muslims, En-Masse back to the lands of thier origin, it cannot be controlled any other way.

      We, in the West, have spent thousands of years running as far as possible away from these barbaric savages, only for our dipshit governments to throw us right back in the mix, all within the space of what?….50-60 years?

      Like throwing a pan of cold water onto a hot boiler plate and expecting everything to be calm.



      • Llareggub says:

        Chop, You are correct, and we need to push our politicians into discussion on ways of removing them. We can point out that they are unhappy here, find our culture distasteful and inferior to those found in shariah lands. There is no need to punish them or expropriate their wealth, let them take whatever with them, including cash from sales of their property. The re-settlement might include many who were born here but really belong in a different land. There would be many legal issues to over come but the counter would be that they were being moved in their own interests. Imagine the numbers arriving each year – that number could leave each year. As for the vital jobs they do here – surely the rest of the civilised world has people, of many different colours of skin, who could replace them.


  4. George R says:

    Islamising INBBC keeps up its campaign against GITMO.

    Will INBBC celebrate the consequences, e.g.?:-

    “Freed Gitmo detainee opens Islamic State base in Afghanistan”


    INBBC is not at all interested in campaigning for entry of American anti-Islamic jihadists, Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer into U.K.

    I wonder why not.


  5. johnnythefish says:

    Suppose the government gave in and made this so-called ‘blasphemy’ an offence. Given our existing laws on religious equality, what might the implications be? For example, how would you know if you were offending a Wiccan?

    And if this equality was somehow miraculously achieved without descending into total farce, would Muslims be happy with it or would they be looking for something else to gripe over to keep them at the top of the ‘must not be offended’ victimhood league?


  6. Rob in Cheshire says:

    It’s good to know that Mohammed only killed people when the voices in his head told him to. Not that he was psychotic or anything, God really was talking to him.


  7. Ian Rushlow says:

    In some parts of the world, barbaric behaviour is common. For instance, in Pakistan around 1,000 women a year are murdered in so-called ‘Honour killings’. Last year, a Christian couple were accused of blasphemy and burnt alive by a mob of 1,200; they first had their legs broken so they could not run away and the woman, who was 4 months pregnant, was wrapped in cotton so she would burn more readily. But this type of thing is not unique to Pakistan – unpleasant things happen in many Third World countries. Nor is it necessarily connected with religion: in Mexico, several hundred women a year are raped and murdered and several thousand go missing, usually forced into prostitution. Mexico is the second largest Catholic nation in the world but no rational person would describe these problems as having their roots in Christianity – it is down to the drug cartels.

    The bottom line is that if large numbers of people from such places are allowed – encouraged, in fact – to live in Western countries then they will bring their behavioural excesses with them, whether that comprises vote-rigging, fraud, rioting, witchcraft, child rape or murdering people who have different beliefs. Many will integrate and assimilate and lose the old ways, but they are actively discouraged from doing so by the liberal fantasy of multiculturalism, which enables them to live in separate colonies in Western towns and cities and makes excuses for bad behaviour. As their numbers increase due to higher birthrates and continued mass immigration, they will assert their values more aggressively and the overall character of this country will reflect that. Ultimately it boils down to demographics: let’s suppose that the vast majority of the Muslim population are genuinely peaceful. Maybe only 1 in 10,000 is a nut-job who would pick-up a gun or plant a bomb to kill his or her fellow citizens. That equates to 300 such nut-jobs in this country and 500 in France meaning there will, from time to time, be serious unpleasantness.

    The only people who need to be blamed for this state of affairs are the politicans who have imposed mass immigration on the people of Europe and those organisations that have connived and supported it, such as the BBC.


    • picky20 says:

      Totally agree – except on your 1 in 10,000 is a nut-job, or rather that is the only danger. The point is that Islam has become more radicalised as it has moved out of the middle east and into Western democracies – prime example is the covering up of women which had declined to be almost absent in places like Egypt and Malaysia prior to the 1980s, and has been revived to become symbolic of Islamic strength and adherence. This probably is a defensive strategy in the face of the threat of westernization and loss of Islamic cohesion, certainly it seems the women are complicit and mostly ok with the restrictions on them. Because of this defensive attitude they are all potentially dangerous, and capable of at least being complicit in the Islamic invasion and takeover, if not actively at the frontline.
      BUT what I really can’t get my head around is why our politicians and MSM can’t see what is happening, maintaining their protective stance on Islam – I just don’t get it! There has to be indoctrination going on somewhere because even at the level of self-preservation it does not make sense – enlighten me someone, I’m just not enlightened enough.


      • I Can See Clearly Now says:

        I think your problem arises from judging Call Me Dave as a Prime Minister. Call Me Dave is not a Prime Minister; he remains a PR man. When the Christian girls were kidnapped, a Prime Minister would have scuttled off to secret talks with foreign leaders and generals and serious men with big guns. Instead, Call Me Dave posed for a ‘selfie’ holding a ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ sign on Andrew Marr’s sofa. Ditto the ‘act of defiance’ march in Paris; the wide shot showed that they were cordoned off safely in a deserted street. Obama didn’t even go, for safety reasons.

        To be Prime ministerly, and to take a Churchillian ‘we will never surrender’ stance at this point necessarily risks massive civil disorder that Cameron has no intention whatsoever of risking. So old indigenous whitey has to be brow-beaten into submission instead.

        Of course, it could all blow up when the original population really start to hurt. But it didn’t happen in Rome; their empire just fizzled out. Ours will probably go the same way.