Nothing is written…..you are free to choose.
All the events surrounding Charlie Hebdo, the Danish cartoons and Salman Rushdie, Fitna and Theo Van Gogh, and many many more, relate to Islam, the Koran and Muhammed and many Muslims’ ferocious, frenzied and often barabaric refusal to accept any criticism or ridicule for their ideology.
‘Take the lesson of Theo Van Gogh…you will pay with your blood’ British Muslim
They demand respect and a virtual obeyance to their religion from all regardless of others religious or otherwise beliefs….in effect forcing them to become Muslims by default.
The question that should be asked, but isn’t by the BBC, is on what authority?
The Koran isn’t a revelation from God, but the BBC refuses to explore that, its contents do command its adherents to further the interests of the ideology with force but again the BBC will not countenance that narrative, and the BBC will not question the pedigree of Muhammed…in fact doing the opposite burnishing his reputation with a hagiography which only reinforces the attitudes and actions that bring so much trouble to the world….telling us Muhammed’s life is known in every detail…..when in fact almost nothing is really known about him….Islam was not, as claimed, ‘Born in the full light of history’.
In light of that here is a short look at Islam, some of its claims and the BBC’s refusal to rock the foundations with its irresolute and unconvincing explanations and its apologia for terror.
The BBC and the various apologists for Islam have a little mantra they like to hold tight to…‘There is no compulsion in religion’ ….they tell us this is an Islamic virtue.
Curious that we are now told, even as non-Muslims, that we have to respect this ideology, that we are not allowed to draw any images of the ideology’s prophet on pain of death, forbidden as it is by this religion of peace that compels no one to do, say or believe anything they don’t want to.
However I’d say someone, somewhere was trying to compel non-Believers to prostrate themselves before what is to them, a false God. Are they being compelled to be ‘Muslim’? It seems so. And there-in lies the whole problem with creeping Islamisation…it’s not just the direct threat of violence but the imposed ‘respect’ we have to pay to Islam making us virtual Muslims by default.
And let me remind you of the rank hypocrisy of the Muslim position, theologically speaking, and one that is central to the debate about Muhammed and ‘insulting’ his memory.
Muhammed smashed the idols, the religious icons that represented the Gods other people worshipped. He didn’t respect them one jot.
For all its talk of respecting the People of the Book Islam has a funny way of showing it….perhaps Muslims are making the mistake of taking the teachings of the Koran, which seems, to say the least, on the whole to not respect the People of the Book and their religion, calling them blasphemers and so on, too seriously.
Muslims say they live by the example of Muhammed, who seems to have attained the forbidden status of a God in Muslim eyes almost up alongside Allah. If Muhammed’s actions are to be held up as an example then iconoclasm, smashing other people’s idols, must be an accepted part of that.
In other words Charlie Hebdo was acting in accordance with Muslim, or rather Muhammed’s, own behaviour by ‘smashing’ Muhammed and his teachings.
Live by the sword you die by the sword….smash other people’s icons, they can smash yours.
Commentators who thoughtlessly parade the Muslim narrative are in effect setting a very dangerous precedent for the future.
Digging their own graves.
Those who support Muslims’ right to be somewhat more than offended about cartoons depicting Muhammed dig themselves a very big hole for how can they then, should they wish to, take Islam to task for its homophobia, its anti-Semitism, its Christianophobia, its misogyny? For all these are given divine sanction by the Koran, the Muslim holy book, the veritable, unchangeable word of God. They would be saying the Koran is wrong, that God is wrong.
Blasphemous stuff surely…much more so than merely drawing the prophet.
But just how ‘divine’ is Muhammed and how reliable his booky wooky? Couldn’t Russell Brand stake a claim to be the new Messiah, his new book the latest revelation? It is after all as comprehensible as the Koran with just as many conflicting, unresolved issues and unsavoury messages. Who knows in 600 years he could be a God. Why not?
The Forging of Islam.
Tom Holland in his book, ‘In The Shadow Of The Sword’, laid out a scholarly case that said Islam is man-made and much of it fabricated in order to provide divine sanction for those coming after Muhammed who would exploit other’s belief for their own ends.
‘The dry rot of fabrication, in short, was endemic throughout the Sunna.’
He tells us not much is really known about Muhammed, indeed hardly anything was set down on paper that mentioned him or ‘Muslims’ until many years after his death.
The idea that anything Muhammed said or did was guided by God and was therefore an example of a just life or the correct way to do things was a license to do anything you liked as long as you could ‘prove’ Muhammed had done it or approved of something similar himself….control the history and define what Muhammed ‘said’ and you’re away…..much as today the BBC et al try to define Islam as ‘The Religion of Peace’…thereby controlling everyone’s response when Muslims launch attacks on things they don’t like….much as the BBC reinterpreted the Koran for its own ends as shown later in this article.
Tom Holland states….
So it was that a novel and fateful message was coined….
‘In the name of God, Muhammed is the Messenger of God.’
The potency of this slogan was self evident.
Not only had Muhammed claimed to be a medium for divine revelation, but he was also safely dead. Ram home the point that he had authentically been a Messenger of God, and anything that could be attributed to him would perforce have to be accepted by the faithful as a truth descended from heaven. ‘Those who offend the prophet,’ so it had been revealed to Muhammed ‘ are cursed by God in this life and in the hereafter.’
Here for any warlord looking to damn his enemies, was a literal godsend.
And who controls what is written about the past controls the future…
The Ulama, by tightly controlling what went into the history books, were able to propagate an understanding of their own dazzlingly rich and complex civilisation that attributed almost every single thing of value within it to the prophet, and the prophet alone. There was no question of acknowledging the momentous roles played in the forging of Islam by countless others.
Submission to God was definitely cast as submission to Sunna.
Ironically the last words of Holland’s book are ‘The pen, it seems, is indeed mightier than the sword’.
However Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn tells us that it is the sword that provides the secure environment for those who write or continue to propagate the ‘lie’…propaganda and terror make fine bedfellows…
‘Violence can only be concealed by a lie, and the lie can only be maintained by violence.’
Tom Holland tells us that the Koran was designed as blueprint for conquest and colonisation, it was a device that could be used to claim the authority of God to conquer and plunder the lands as a reward for their efforts on God’s behalf…
‘The Arab tribes had grown much impoverished….the message proclaimed by the prophet, that he had a licence from God to plunder unbelievers, [would have] met with an enthusiastic uptake.’
Some authority from God for that…
‘It was God who made you [Muslims] inherit their[ non-Muslims] lands, their homes and their wealth.’
[33:27]
or to put it bluntly…
‘Booty belongs to God and His Messenger.’
[ibid 8.1-2]‘Allah has promised you much booty that you will take [in the future] and has hastened for you this [victory] and withheld the hands of people from you – that it may be a sign for the believers and [that] He may guide you to a straight path.’
[48:20]
When people tell you that Islam is a religion of peace and then back that up with violence to defend that claim, ie cast doubt on its word or insult its Messenger and you will be killed, and then use the Koran to sanction the same violence you see the neat little paradox…defending the lie that Islam is not violent by using violence sanctioned by the same lie.
However, Muslims are offended, grievously insulted in fact, by the depiction of their prophet Muhammed in some cartoons.
Charlie Hebdo did not produce cartoons of Muhammed in order to insult or offend Muslims. They had a point to make, several points in fact, about the religion started so long ago by Muhammed.
They are not nihilists intent only on destroying, the opposite in fact , they intended to reform or to at least encourage the reform of Islam by questioning its less attractive tenets.
‘Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it‘
Charlie Hebdo could be looked upon as a less reverent Martin Luther who also posted ‘offensive’ writings and got himself excommunicated…
In 31 October 1517, Luther posted the ninety-five theses, which he had composed in Latin, on the door of the church in Wittenberg.
‘Out of love for the truth and from desire to elucidate it, the Reverend Father Martin Luther, Master of Arts and Sacred Theology, and ordinary lecturer therein at Wittenberg, intends to defend the following statements and to dispute on them in that place. Therefore he asks that those who cannot be present and dispute with him orally shall do so in their absence by letter. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.’
Placing his theses on a door as Luther did was emblematic of the paradigmatic shift that took place throughout Europe, where matters of the church became less an internal matter, and more open to extramural debate on issues that had previously been taken as Papal-business only..
Note that last bit where Luther’s theses opened up the Church to debate not just by the Church itself but from without…and changed the world.
It is convenient for the BBC to dodge the whys and wherefores of the cartoon’s meaning and look solely at the alleged ‘offence’ caused just by their existence. The BBC similarly ducks the real aims of the terrorists who killed the cartoonists…they also are not anarcho nihilists looking to kill for the hell of it. They have a very determined plan that aims to impose Islam upon Europe and beyond…..the BBC isn’t keen to point that out as it is also the aim of many peaceful, ‘conservative’ Muslims, and non-Muslims may start asking difficult questions to which the answers might be even more difficult to swallow.
The Koran is Blasphemous
Next point is that the Koran is itself a ‘toxic arsenal’ of blasphemous utterings from a Jewish and Christian point of view. Throughout its pages it disparages and discredits the Christian faith and its beliefs…here telling us that Christians are ‘blasphemers’, despite having existed long before Islam…..
“They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity, for there is no god except One God.” (Qur’an 5:73)
The Koran also denies Christ is the Son of God reducing him to a mere prophet….for obvious reasons…can’t have a Christian ‘Son of God’ who would outrank the Muslim prophet and cast doubt on his ramblings.
And never mind all those exhortations in the Koran about Christians being unbelievers, unclean and unworthy…never mind the commands not to make friends with Jews and Christians, never mind the order to kill the unbelievers and to make Islam reign supreme.
And yet Muslims are apparently offended by a ‘blasphemous’ cartoon!
And why, you have probably asked, is it blasphemous to produce images of Muhammed?
You may well ask.
Supposedly there should be no images of any living thing in Islamic art hence there are no figurative artworks, just decorative patterns, on Mosques….of course there are many exceptions to the general rule which was intended to prevent idolatry.
For Muhammed in particular there should be no images thus reducing the temptation to worship him.
This is why the allegedly very unIslamic ISIS give you the Islamic finger….
One God, One Religion, One Mosque.
The one mosque refers to the fact that there can be no divisions in Islam, no sects, no different interpretations of Islam…it’s in the Koran……so when someone from the BBC tells you that you cannot group all Muslims into one group, you can, you should. The BBC are wrong. There can only be one interpretation of the Koran….hence Shia and Ahmadis are not considered Muslims having left the true religion…hence ISIS (and others) kills them as apostates.
The BBC and many, many others…love to tell us that there is no compulsion of religion in Islam…..certainly you don’t have to convert but there is a price to pay, literally…an ‘infidel’s’ tax to pay for protection from the Muslim ruler…..and then there are the numerous verses that suggest an element of compulsion…
‘Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme’ [8:39]
or this
“If anyone desires a religion other than Islam never will It be accepted of Him” [3:85]
Pretty conclusive huh? And then there is God’s wrath at being ignored…
We sent them [the prophets] to those who had denied our signs, and utterly destroyed them.
As for Noah’s people, We drowned them when they denied their apostles and made them an example to all mankind. [25:34]
So you can choose not to do God’s bidding…but he’ll destroy you, utterly…if he hasn’t drowned you first.
And of course if you wish to leave Islam….good luck with that….
Who has any right to contradict the Prophet of Allah, salla-llahu `alaihi wa-sallam, who says,
“He who reverts from his religion, then kill him”
[as-Silsilah as-Sahihah 487]
And if there is only one God you cannot then worship God and his prophet Muhammed….or the Holy Trinity or Jesus.
Which you might think is somewhat of a paradox. Muhammed shouldn’t be worshipped and yet he is… Muslims are prepared to kill to defend the Prophet and stop him being ‘insulted’ and Muhammed is the most popular boys name in the UK, undoubtedly a serious case of hero worship.
Here is the hypocritical MCB complaining about the cartoons…by extolling their own very unIslamic worship of Muhammed…
To Defend Our Beloved Prophet, Let Us Exemplify His True Ideals Say Imams
Following the shocking murders in Paris, condemned by Muslims all over the world, and subsequent moves to depict the Prophet Muhammad ? once again, Imams from the UK and abroad have come together to issue the following advice to those concerned about the depiction.
For Muslims, love of the Prophet ( peace be upon him) is a NECESSARY part of our FAITH. He is dearer to us than our parents and children. We prefer him to our own self.
But it isn’t just Muhammed that shouldn’t be drawn or sculpted…or worshipped….none of the prophets should be, including Jesus….something Media Hasan ignores in a blasphemous article in which he declares Jesus was a Muslim…..ironically here he relates a story about Muhammed smashing all the other idols but preserving a picture of Jesus…
The veneration of Jesus by Muslims began during the lifetime of the Prophet of Islam. Perhaps most telling is the story in the classical biographies of Muhammad, who, entering the city of Mecca in triumph in 630AD, proceeded at once to the Kaaba to cleanse the holy shrine of its idols. As he walked around, ordering the destruction of the pictures and statues of the 360 or so pagan deities, he came across a fresco on the wall depicting the Virgin and Child. He is said to have covered it reverently with his cloak and decreed that all other paintings be washed away except that one.
Note that ‘veneration of Jesus’….veneration is worship and that’s blasphemy….as contradictorily Hasan in a later paragraph proves…
‘The Quran castigates Christianity for the widespread practice among its sects of worshipping Jesus and Mary’
And yet he feels he can safely use a picture of Jesus to illustrate his piece….what Hasan doesn’t tell you is that he is a Shia, and Shias frequently portray Muhammed in artwork…as well as the other prophets….is Hasan also ‘offended’ by that? Clearly not. Dodgy little fellow.
The story about Muhammed and Jesus’ picture is almost certainly invented, or rather plagiarised from Biblical stories as you will see below.
Others object to the cartoons not just on grounds of blasphemy or ‘insulted feelings’ but because they claim they are racist…here Islamist Myriam Francois-Cerrah suggesting that the drawing is stereotypically ‘hook-nosed’…
Today’s front cover bothers me only in one regard and that is in the racial stereotypes employed in the depiction of the prophet Muhammad, a shorthand here for Arabs and Muslims more broadly. We (thankfully!) wouldn’t accept an image of a hooked-nose Jew, so it is unclear to me why images of hooked-nose Arabs – because forget who the prophet Muhammad is to Muslims, he is an Arab man being depicted in racially stereotypical terms – isn’t more disturbing to others.
Paradoxically Media Hasan complains of ‘ crude caricatures of bulbous-nosed Arabs’
However, many Arabs are in possession of large or ‘hooked’ noses…and are drawn that way by Arab cartoonists…
That one was drawn by Arab/Brazilian cartoonist Latuff whose work was used by ex-Guardianista Glenn Greenwald in his own tract denouncing Charlie Hebdo as racist for its ‘stereotypes’…an irony perhaps if a ‘hooked nose’ is racial stereotyping.
Myriam Francois-Cerrah then does a double take after denouncing Charlie Hebdo for publishing cartoons of Muhammed saying this…..
One of my favourite caricatures by Charlie Hebdo was one featuring the prophet Muhammad being beheaded by an extremist. That image perfectly captures the hijacking of the faith by radicals and the truth that Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism and the main target of retaliatory violence.
So, is she insulted or pleased to see the cartoons?…..by her description it shows that Charlie Hebdo were right to raise ‘offensive’ questions and as mentioned above were intent, not an insult, but on reform and genuine satire.
The BBC and Muhammed
Then we get to the BBC…..it reports that the Koran alludes to a ban on images of Allah……
There is no specific, or explicit ban in the Koran on images of Allah or the Prophet Muhammad – be they carved, painted or drawn.
However, chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: “[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth… [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him.”This is taken by Muslims to mean that Allah cannot be captured in an image by human hand, such is his beauty and grandeur. To attempt such a thing is seen as an insult to Allah.
The same is believed to apply to Muhammad.
First note that ‘is believed to apply to Muhammed‘…kinda sketchy that…still, worth killing people for…get a good lawyer, Phil Shiner?, and he might be able to swing that in court.
Then there is the rather less than honest cut and paste job of the Koranic verses, selecting parts that suit and missing out those that don’t.
Look at this quote again from the BBC to justify a ban…
Chapter 42, verse 11 of the Koran does say: “[Allah is] the originator of the heavens and the earth… [there is] nothing like a likeness of Him.“
There is indeed one interpretation of that verse that says that….
The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; nothing like a likeness of Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
However ‘nothing like a likeness of him’ can more sensibly be interpreted as meaning there is no one who compares to God [not Muhammed]……and this is the way that every other interpretation has gone……and there are many of them…..for example…
[He is] Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you from yourselves, mates, and among the cattle, mates; He multiplies you thereby. There is nothing like unto Him, and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.
And some other interpretations all saying the same:
There is no other like Him
There is nothing whatever like Him
Naught is as His likeness
Nothing is like Him
There is nothing whatever like unto Him
There is nothing whatever like Him
Naught is as His exegesis, (He is beyond all comparison)
The BBC seems to have cherry picked the one verse, out of so many that say different, that could marginally be used to support the Muslim case….however the verse is about Allah not Muhammed, so already a significant degree of separation, and then as I said the verse could more readily be interpreted in the same way other interpretations took it to mean…that there is no one comparable to God.
Why would the BBC do that?
The BBC also quotes this……
Chapter 21, verses 52-54 of the Koran read: “[Abraham] said to his father and his people: ‘What are these images to whose worship you cleave?’ They said: ‘We found our fathers worshipping them.’ He said: ‘Certainly you have been, you and your fathers, in manifest error.'”
What they miss out is the following verse…….
And then he broke those [idols] to pieces, [all] save their supreme god, so that they might [be able to] turn to it.
21:58
The BBC takes that ‘in manifest error’ to mean they were wrong to worship the ‘graven images’, thus supporting the idea that graven images are forbidden by the Koran …however that’s not what it means…it means they were wrong to worship those particular Gods…Abraham was saying worship the one true God, his God.
Ironic…arguing that Muhammed should not be shown in figurative form or insulted or abused but illustrate that with a story about other peoples’ gods being smashed because Abraham didn’t like them….it’s OK to smash other’s Gods but not to draw Muhammed.
If iconoclasm was good enough for the ‘Muslim’ Abraham then it must be good enough for other religions too….and atheist cartoonists.
At the end of the day Muslim’s anger at cartoons of Muhammed smacks of the rankest hypocrisy ever ready as they are to blaspheme about other religions and co-opt their prophets and gods for Islam in order to give Islam a back story, some history, some authority and credibility.
The acceptance of this narrative, the refusal to challenge it, the refusal to condemn the violence sanctioned by it, means nothing will change.
The BBC paddles around in the shallow waters of some dissident thought such as when David Goodhart was allowed to voice some very strong criticisms of the religion and the consequences of ignoring the realities of having large communities of people who cleave to the conservative, fundamentalist version of that religion. But when push comes to shove the BBC quickly backs off and sides with the bigots, the men of violence, the religious fanatics who impose their ideology upon all, Muslim and non-Muslim, at the point of a gun.
But hey, there’s no compulsion in religion…just a lack of backbone in those who should know better.
Others do raise the subject...and, as with the new Lutherans of Charlie Hebdo seek change, a revolution in Islam…a genuine one not the Islamist phoney version peddled by Tariq Ramadan….
At last, on New Year’s Day, the president of Egypt, Abdel Fattah al-Sisi, did what no other leader of the Muslim world has done to date: he named Islam’s real enemy.
In a gathering of religious clerics at Cairo’s ancient Al Azhar University, he called for the rescue of Islam from ‘ideology’. His speech was given little coverage in the western press, but it is worth repeating at some length.
‘We are in need of a religious revolution,’ he said. ‘You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move because the Islamic world is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost. And it is being lost by our own hands.’ It is inconceivable, he said, that ‘this thinking — and I am not saying religion — should cause the entire Islamic world to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world.’ The remedy, said al-Sisi, was for Islam to recognise and talk about its mutant strain. ‘Religious discourse is the greatest battle and challenge facing the Egyptian people,’ he said. ‘We need a modern, comprehensive understanding of the religion of Islam,’ rather than ‘relying on a discourse that has not changed for 800 years’.
Sisi’s speech is significant because the Islamic world has precious little record of leaders discussing Muslims’ collective responsibility for the toxic ideologies within our midst.
Absolutely on the nail Alan.
Wow – Alan, a most impressive piece by you.
You certainly got my attention and you definitely substantially enhanced my Islamic knowledge.
Many thanks.
Islam doesn’t need a Reformation, it needs a New Testament to reject all the violent texts from the Koran.
The Wahhabists and Salafists “reformed” Islam to a puritanical form, and that’s why Saudi Arabia is the way it is.
Islam cannot have a Reformation. If it did, the result will be worse then what we have now.
What Muslims need is a faith that is somehwt similar, but radically different.
Alan
Brilliant essay.
Bill Whittle on multiculturalism:
Alan. Thank you for such a truly impressive piece of work – detailed and well considered.
Beeboids, whether they all realise it or not, largely adopt an attitude of ‘DHIMMITUDE:’ – the position of subservience of non-Islamic people to Islam, as specified in the tenets of Islam, and as practised in Islamic Sharia law dominated regimes for over 1,500 years.
“Dhimmitude in History”
http://www.dhimmitude.org/d_history_dhimmitude.html
Beeboids behave as dhimmis today, when again they use their favourite, and most dangerous euphemism: ‘militants,’ to mis-describe Islamic jihadists barbarians in Belgium, and globally.
‘Daily Mail’-
“Jihadists killed in Belgium swoop were inspired by the murder of Lee Rigby says investigator as first photograph emerges from blood-spattered home where they were killed”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2912966/Belgium-jihadists-killed-anti-terror-officers-planning-kidnap-policeman-judge-decapitate-video.html#ixzz3P57WBwXE
And when Alan finished his hours of work WRITING IN VERY large LETTERS and adding italics to prove he KNOWS about these THINGS, he posted his tirade of mindless bigotry. Of course using a false identity he hopes will allow him WRITE with IMPUNITY because Alan is so brave. A keyboard warrior who even supported the pillock on Fox, BLESS
And when he was finished in a glow of self righteous fury he started adding comments under other names, racking up the likes as he unzipped his trousers and gave his tiny todger a squeeze. But it remained limp. Like Alan. So he took out his Asian Babes magazine again, if he could only unstick the pages.
Hi Twinkle Toes, youre a fine one to talk about Alan using a false identity. Why dont you do use all a favour and book yourself into a hotel
http://www.expedia.co.uk/Hotel_Booking
Hello Scott, back again ? Getting bored with flicking thru Asian Boys ? Writing about others behaviour using your own as a template eh, mindless bigotry, false identities , a brave little keyboard warrior, bless. And playing with the old happy stick whilst watching gay porn……………..one thing to say to you Scott.
http://gentoo-blog.de/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/please-do-not-feed-the-troll.jpg
Bye big boy.
I’m sure you, and your fellow Biased BBC commenters, know all about posing under multiple pseudonyms.
“headbanger” is not me.
But then, I don’t expect you to believe me. After all, truth is but an inconvenience to Biased BBC commenters, isn’t it? Far better to be unburdened by facts and common sense – it gets in the way of being a self-righteous, inaccurate moron.
Ah, like rubbing the lamp 3 times and he shall cum…….Scott(y) boy ! ‘Fraid you still don’t grasp that there is ( unlike at your end) more than one person at this end. As I have said before and will say again, this D1004, is my one and only identity on this site, don’t post as Scott, Scotty, headbasher, et al, not now not ever, understand ?
And still using the terms of love to others who do not share your opinions, bless.
Goodbye Troll.
Oh look! Lickle Scott got a new nom-de-plume for Christmas! Bless.
Three hours after I said that it wasn’t me, you pop up and say the opposite. Woohoo. That must be, what, three entry conditions for the “Biased BBC Elite Morons’ Club” in one. Insult me – check. Make a completely false allegation without any evidence to back it up – check. Ignore what’s been posted before contributing nothing of merit – check.
Go you. I’m sure the other club members will be so grateful that there’s another witless fuck joining their midst.
Do not feed the Scott Troll
Bless.
You insult someone else under the mistaken impression that they are me. I stand up for myself. You label me as a troll.
You poor, poor creature.
Scott/headbanger, sorry but you simply failed the Sh*t from Shinola test. This is a fact. Therefore, you *are* Scott and you *are* headbanger, and no doubt you are many identities in between.
Please check your results here:
http://www.neatorama.com/2014/02/11/Spectroscopic-Discrimination-of-Shit-from-Shinola/
Have a shining day, Scott/headbanger.
Bless!
Therefore, you *are* Scott and you *are* headbanger
Oh dear God. You really are stupid, aren’t you? Who’d have thought that Biased BBC would actually manage to cultivate a commuter so fuckwittingly dense that David Vance would actually look like the sane, intelligent member of this rabble of lunatics.
“…a commuter so fuckwittingly dense”
Having raised the dread by invoking the Candyman, no one can complain that the call gets answered.
However, that comment is one to treasure on a variety of levels.
Yeah, yeah, autocorrect got the better of me.
What’s your excuse? Does autocorrect mangle every sentence of yours so that it’s incomprehensible to anyone but you, or do you manage that all by yourself?
You also appear to have turned the civilised discourse dial to eleven, too.
Seems to happen a lot when autocorrect, and a desire to share in volume over embracing the opportunity afforded by the edit countdown window, gets the better of you.
Oddly, most seem to catch my drift just fine. That you and your fellow travellers keep professing not to suggests the problems may be more your own to reconcile.
Sun’s out; lunch digested. As someone once also shared, I now have other things to attend to this fine weekend by virtue of having a life. Enjoy yourself here at the place you loathe so much you cannot bear to leave it alone.
Perhaps if Scott wiped the spittle off his screen he would be able to see the words which lead him to believe you are unintelligible.
Works for me ;p
Oddly, most seem to catch my drift just fine.
You sure they just don’t skim over all your usual tirades, assuming (correctly) that they can all boil down to “I’m wonderful, I am. No, I am. I am! Look, I use long words and everything! Please like me! Please!”?
Do you realize what a thorough nuisance you are on this blog, getting everybody to talk about YOU, instead of discussing the subject?
A commuter responds. Sir, it has come to my attention that my name is being taken in vain by a certain ‘Scott’ who frequents this website. He has abused me most foully with vile accusations of my my lack of intelligence and sir I demand the man posts an apology forthwith. The fuckwit is not I but the man who posts such insults, he sir is a vile Troll.
He has abused me most foully with vile accusations of my my lack of intelligence
Well, you were the one who accused “headbanger” of being me (he isn’t). And then proceeded to insult him, thinking he was me.
If it walks like a stupid duck, quacks like a stupid duck… That particular stupid duck has no place whining that someone is calling him stupid.
Still, never mind. It’s not like you’re the only halfwitted lunatic on Biased BBC to think that every thought that rattles around in your empty head must be true.
And if you’re not “Henry Wood”, then maybe there’s somebody out there who’s deluded himself that emulating a vacuous little halfwit is something to be proud of.
Piss off you inadequate idiot.
DON’T FEED THE TROLL
Actually old scott(y) me old cock, I’m not a commuter at all, I was (probably miserably ) trying to write a reply to your hysterically funny faux pas inability to deal with predictive text and proof reading before posting. The missive was an attempt to copy the style used by the late great Graham Chapman ( well known poof) and his style of sending up the ruling classes in ‘Monty Python’ ( go ask some elder in your family and they can probably provide you with a DVD to better educate yourself ).
Obviously ( not surprising, seeing the poverty level to which modern bbc ‘comedy’ has fallen) you have not come across the fine British humour which used to be portrayed as ‘outraged from Tunbridge Wells’ losing his rag. Never mind Scott(y) old son, keep reading and we will get you educated in the approved fashion !
Anyway be off with you now little troll, beddy bye byes for you.
Don’t feed the troll
Alan wrote:
This is why the allegedly very unIslamic ISIS give you the Islamic finger….One God, One Religion, One Mosque.
You mean like this dhimmi:
And here’s wallace professing his Pro_Islamic credentials again:
I see the bBC is on form defending a French Islamic comedian who tweeted that he was Amedy Coulibaly (One of the Islamic killers in Paris) in which to express his solidarity with the murderers.
#FreeSpeechStories: France accused of ‘double standards’
Tens of thousands of fans of the French comic Dieudonne – often criticised as anti-Semitic – are making claims of hypocrisy and double standards after French authorities opened up dozens of cases against people accused of justifying terrorism.
Just wondering has the bBC ever written an article about how people who complain about the double standards shown towards muslims…nah to the bBC those people can only be racist bigots.
NIGER.
Muslims undertake ‘Islamophobia’ and violence against Christians.
INBBC report-
“Charlie Hebdo: Niger” [ Muslim ] “protesters set churches on fire.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-30863159
“Niger: Muslim mobs ransack churches, burn French cultural center, in cartoon rage”
[Excerpt, by Robert Spencer]:
“The Western intelligentsia’s response to this savagery will likely be to call for voluntary self-censorship so as not to offend Muslims — rather than to call for a robust defense of the freedom of speech and resolute stand against these violent attempts to make the non-Muslim world conform to Sharia blasphemy laws.”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/niger-muslim-mobs-ransack-churches-burn-french-cultural-center-in-cartoon-rage
What did this mohammed character actually prophesy and how accurate was he? If, as I suspect, he didn’t actually make any prophesies; or none that amount to anything; why is he constantly referred to as such?
John
Prophet generally means a teacher. Sometimes, a prophet may foretell future events.
Thank you for your efforts here Alan.
Keep shining the light on it and even Scott/headbanger might start questioning himself about his interpretation of ‘the truth’.
even Scott/headbanger might start questioning himself about his interpretation of ‘the truth’.
Bless. It must be nice to be so unencumbered by intelligence (as I’ve said above, I’m not “headbanger”). So straightforward for you: believe your own shit all the time, and you’ll never have to deal with the truth.
Still, must be nice for Alan to get some praise, even if it is from the few imbeciles who make him look intelligent by comparison.
Scott
“Still, must be nice for Alan to get some praise, even if it is from the few imbeciles”
IMBECILES – who you calling IMBECILES?
Apology please, or back it up.
Amazed the big girls blouse can even spell ‘ imbeciles’ funny how the daft git is trolling this thread but staying off the one that proves his masters at the BBC are ageist and sexist ?
An excellent piece. Surely the BBC should be held accountable for helping to normalise Islam’s position in this country and for attempting to make it seem not only acceptable, but desirable? Worryingly, there was a piece of research carried out a few years ago which suggested that once 10% of the population which held ‘an unshakeable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.’ How long will it be until we reach that 10% threshold in the UK? Alas, it wouldn’t seem to be that far off: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/how-large-is-fifth-column.html.
“‘Religion of peace’ is not a harmless platitude.
“To face Islamist terror, we must face the facts about Islam’s history.”
By Douglas Murray.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9416542/religion-of-peace-is-not-a-harmless-platitude/
For Islam’s history, INBBC feeds us Muslim Rageh Omaar’s propaganda TV series.
Alan, You have said many more factual and important things concerning the Muslim religion than Charlie Hebdo has ever done.
Such a pity it is to such a small audience.
Perhaps Scott/Headbanger could invite some of his “many” friends to take a read and then attempt to pick the bones out of your article?
By “picking the bones”, I mean arguing logically and factually with all you have written. *NOT* the usual vapid name calling from the “Bless!” trolls.
it seems non muslims like me and you have no voice on the bbc anymore,day after day on radio 5 live we have bbc presenters having little focus groups of muslims giving there opinions and the usual pandering to them crap that we dont agree with terrorism but,there is always a but that foreign policy etc is the cause of radical islamic extremism,but i ask where is are voices on the bbc and radio 5 live asking us about are concerns and fears about this viris of radical extremism that is tearing are soceity apart,after every terrorist outrage we have the same old debates on the bbc and radio 5 live with various muslim groups telling is that islam is a religion of peace and the death of one man is like the death of humanity as proved on peter allens show on friday just gone,the one debate the bbc and radio 5 live will never have with muslims is what is the driving force behind terrorism which in my view and alot of other people is the teachings of the koran and the hadith,to deny that is nothing but a deception on behalf of the muslim community and until we have that debate we will just be burying are heads in the sand and covering are ears up about the real causes of islamic terrorism in the uk and worldwide.
Fine piece of work Alan.
Maybe worth a look to correct that 25.34 one…by my reckoning it`s 25.37.
Also in the light of Starkeys life and work being assaulted by the pygmies of QT last Thurs, might be good to call him Medhi Hasan…not media( although it works well as a joke, should that have been your intention).
Surah 43,63-64 show Hasans co-opting Jesus by way of a flag of convenience for their barbarities…a fig leaf.
Islam is a tribute act, but like the ichneumonidae wasp it is eating any Judea-Christian faith away from the inside. A cuckoo in the nest, presuming to know that Jesus said that Muhammad would trump him ,and that church divisions and mis-hearing of the Torah, the Tanakh and the Gospels caused the need to replace them with Islam.
For Muslims to “venerate” Muhammad as being “the best a man can get”..Gods representative on earth and his final verdict etc…is Satanic blasphemy…and Rushdies verses are sidelines.The selfsame Muslims used to rage at being called Muhammadans by whitey…and now that is what they turn out to be.
Any other interpretations of drawing the warlord, the child bride groomer as being “blasphemous” is perverse…and deliberately used as a litmus test of Islams power to control what we see.
Soon It will be what we hear.
How the hell can Mo trump Jesus…there is no shrine to The Christ in Jerusalem…Mo died, rotted and faced heaven or hell with Moses as his judge.
A far scarier fate than being judged by Jesus…who “Inshallah”(sick) will be MY judge, as well as yours.
Hasans piece is more taqqiya than tariqqa, but at least it`s a start.
That Islam is now so dangerous and threatening that we now need to look at their torrid, boring, ranting tribute act to “The Book” to check it is a new low…but one I`ll have probably to get used to.
Those prattling prelates we have will need a higher shelf for the Folio Soc Korans that they`ll soon be ordered to buy, so it lords it over the BCP/bible.
Would hate to be in their slippers come their day of reckoning…open-eyed, empty headed guides and sons of hell and perdition will get a hotter seat than the blind ones Jesus railed at.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/sarai-eilat/europe-killed-six-million-jews-and-replaced-them-with-20-million-muslims-/149121785180990
No further comment is needed.
We all recognise that Islam is a religion plagued by extremists. Muslims are most aware of this – worldwide they are much more likely to be the victim of jihadists than Christians or Jews are. The vast majority of Muslims are moderate and get on with their lives without troubling anyone, yet time and again they find themselves represented by ISIS or the likes of the Kouachi brothers.
We desperately need moderate Muslims to come forward and join with us in taking stand against those who kill in the name of Islam. Yet those who are the most vociferous in calling for moderates to take a stand are often those who defend the right of Charlie Hebdo to print cartoons depicting the Prophet.
Thus we extend the hand of friendship towards moderate Muslims only to slap them in the face in our determination to offend them in the name of free speech. In doing so, we legitimise the rantings of extremists who say that Muslims have no place in Europe. Radical Islamists are already declaring that this week’s cover of Charlie Hebdo is “an act of war.”
If we genuinely want moderate Muslims to be part of our community, to stand beside us against the extremists, then we have to start a process of building trust that will involve listening to their concerns. That’s not ‘self censorship’, it’s respect – the very thing that civil society is based on.
All the above is the craven Facebook effort of Billy Bragg to “have his ciabatta and eat it” when it comes to
a) Free Speech and its clash against
b) Islamic Fascism that has yet to find its torchlight procession heading down to West Dorset and Sir Williams country pile.
An old Persian phrase is “If you want to defeat your enemy sing his song”…now clearly none of us want to sing anything that Bill records with his “bellicose quack”…but to see the twisting verbal tics and gymnastics of this Lefty golden Boy is as good a snivelling squit from the left after Charlie Hebdo as I`ve seen.
Enjoy it-the man who gave you “This Guitar kills Fascist” is now learning “Peace Train” in Arabic no doubt-and stabbing all notions of French Enlightenment thinking and revolutionary slogans in its back now that Hebdo can now be left out to dry.
So last week, all that “Je Suis Charlie” stuff.
Let`s hang UKIP!
We all recognise that Islam is a religion plagued by extremists.
Well I think we have to recognise that Islam itself is extreme. The extremists we hear talked about are usually following the true Islam.
We have to be careful to distinguish between moderate Muslims (which clearly do exist) and moderate Islam (which does not exist).
Moderate Muslims pick and choose – usually sensibly – the parts of Islam that they find allows them to live a normal life in a western culture and still fit in with the major tenets of their ‘religion’. So for example they would like to pray five times a day but accept it is not always possible and observe fasting. Similarly, though they may be offended by a cartoon of their prophet they would not think of killing someone because of it any more than you or I would.
The big problem (for which I do not know the solution) is that the more correct followers of the religion will never accept these accommodations to conform to western society. If they do accept them, it will always be as a necessary deception while they wait to achieve a majority. They will always follow the correct Islam and work towards Sharia law.
The only hope I see is for the moderates to take power in Islamic countries and declare the pure form of Islam to be harmful.
Sadly, I do not see this happening.
The only hope I see is for the moderates to take power in Islamic countries and declare the pure form of Islam to be harmful.
Sadly, I do not see this happening.
I’m sure you’re right. At times, there seems to be a remarkable number of liberal Muslims, even in places like Iran. But ‘democracy’ and ‘majority’ man nothing if a small number of nutters stand ready to slaughter you.
Maybe it takes a rare event or individual to effect change. I used to read of Cromwell and think, that’s interesting, but it was probably ‘an idea whose time had come’; if it hadn’t been him it would have been someone else. Now I’m far less certain. The Civil War was on its way to being another crushed peasants revolt before he took charge of the rebels. It was an odd, but fortunate, situation where the greatest military mind of the time was religious enough to command devotion from his men, believed profoundly in liberty and tolerance, but was prepared to fight everyone – Episcopalians, Roman Catholics and Presbyterians – who stood in his way.
It’s impossible to see any parallel situation in modern Islam; rather the nutters have the military might. Maybe the Kurds are the nearest.
Maybe al Sisi in Egypt is leading the way ? He has challenged Egyptian imams and universities to stand up to the nutters. And he visited the Coptic cathedral a few days ago with words of greeting “We are ALL Egyptians”. Looks to be following the Sadat line – I hope he continues, Egypt is the biggest Muslim country in the Middle East.
Yes, he has certainly moved along the right lines.
Until the moderate Muslims in the west rise up in their millions to declare their disgust at the literal interpretation of Islam and to protest loudly for change in the fundamental understanding of what Islam is, I think it wise to tentatively treat all western Muslims as a potential threat.
Islam itself is firmly set against reform, of course. The mere existence of taqiya – where it is acceptable for a Muslim to lie to infidels if the progress of Islam is furthered – makes it very hard to trust Muslims. How can you ever decide whether they are genuine or lying?
I suppose the same thing arises from someone from any culture, but at least in ours I feel I have a good chance I can tell if I’m being deceived. On the other hand, with someone brainwashed from birth to believe it is ‘good’ to lie to infidels, I’m not sure I would be able to tell. They would believe it was the right thing to do.
I can see no sign of a Martin Luther arising in the Muslim world. But we should not forget that Luther ushered in 150 years of religious warfare in Europe and a man like him would no doubt cause equal upheavals in the Muslim world. There is no doubt that Islam is on a course that will set it against the rest of the world’s people. That seems implicit in the division of the world into the Dar al harb and the Dar al Islam . The former is where we live.and if I understand the Muslim theology aright is governed by the illigitimate, being non Muslim, and ripe for subjugation by virtue of not being part of the Dar al Islam which must one day encompass the whole world.
How can there ever be anything but a temporary truce between those who believe this doctrine and the rest of us.?
There is a de facto war of civilisations and always has been as long as Muslims believe in the dar al harb and the primacy of Sharia over man made law.
Now why our liberals are unable to understand this is something else again. They do not lack intelligence but their world view is distorted by the refusal to accept reality instead of their idealised view of human nature and the world. So to the liberal all cultures are of equal worth and this leads the liberal to ignore the obvious- that Islam must dominate or go down. Complicating this is the liberal’s often genuine lack of religiosity but also a refusal to extend his scepticism over religion to a group he perceives to have been oppressed by the West. Funny people Western liberals.
Maybe it takes a rare event or individual to effect change.
Yes. A bright light of a thousand suns.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/amir-khan-reveals-good-friend-david-cameron-is-on-speed-dial-9984984.html..i wonder why would he be besty mates with cameron ?