Features

'Religion of peace' is not a harmless platitude

To face Islamist terror, we must face the facts about Islam's history

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

17 January 2015

9:00 AM

The West’s movement towards the truth is remarkably slow. We drag ourselves towards it painfully, inch by inch, after each bloody Islamist assault.

In France, Britain, Germany, America and nearly every other country in the world it remains government policy to say that any and all attacks carried out in the name of Mohammed have ‘nothing to do with Islam’. It was said by George W. Bush after 9/11, Tony Blair after 7/7 and Tony Abbott after the Sydney attack last month. It is what David Cameron said after two British extremists cut off the head of Drummer Lee Rigby in London, when ‘Jihadi John’ cut off the head of aid worker Alan Henning in the ‘Islamic State’ and when Islamic extremists attacked a Kenyan mall, separated the Muslims from the Christians and shot the latter in the head. And, of course, it is what President François Hollande said after the massacre of journalists and Jews in Paris last week.

All these leaders are wrong. In private, they and their senior advisers often concede that they are telling a lie. The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting. ‘Noble’ or not, this lie is a mistake. First, because the general public do not rely on politicians for their information and can perfectly well read articles and books about Islam for themselves. Secondly, because the lie helps no one understand the threat we face. Thirdly, because it takes any heat off Muslims to deal with the bad traditions in their own religion. And fourthly, because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.

If politicians are so worried about this secondary ‘backlash’ problem then they would do well to remind us not to blame the jihadists’ actions on our peaceful compatriots and then deal with the primary problem — radical Islam — in order that no secondary, reactionary problem will ever grow.

Yet today our political class fuels both cause and nascent effect. Because the truth is there for all to see. To claim that people who punish people by killing them for blaspheming Islam while shouting ‘Allah is greatest’ has ‘nothing to do with Islam’ is madness. Because the violence of the Islamists is, truthfully, only to do with Islam: the worst version of Islam, certainly, but Islam nonetheless.

Last week, a chink was broken in this wall of disinformation when Sajid Javid, the only Muslim-born member of the British cabinet, and one of its brightest hopes, dipped a toe into this water. After the Paris attacks, he told the BBC: ‘The lazy answer would be to say that this has got nothing whatsoever to do with Islam or Muslims and that should be the end of that. That would be lazy and wrong.’ Sadly, he proceeded to utter the second most lazy thing one can say: ‘These people are using Islam, taking a peaceful religion and using it as a tool to carry out their activities.’

[Alt-Text]


Here we land at the centre of the problem — a centre we have spent the last decade and a half trying to avoid: Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not. It is certainly not, as some ill-informed people say, solely a religion of war. There are many peaceful verses in the Quran which — luckily for us — most Muslims live by. But it is by no means only a religion of peace.

I say this not because I hate Islam, nor do I have any special animus against Muslims, but simply because this is the verifiable truth based on the texts. Until we accept that we will never defeat the violence, we risk encouraging whole populations to take against all of Islam and abandon all those Muslims who are trying desperately to modernise, reform and de-literalise their faith. And — most importantly — we will give up our own traditions of free speech and historical inquiry and allow one religion to have an unbelievable advantage in the free marketplace of ideas.

It is not surprising that politicians have tried to avoid this debate by spinning a lie. The world would be an infinitely safer place if the historical Mohammed had behaved more like Buddha or Jesus. But he did not and an increasing number of people — Muslim and non-Muslim — have been able to learn this for themselves in recent years. But the light of modern critical inquiry which has begun to fall on Islam is a process which is already proving incredibly painful.

The ‘cartoon wars’ — which began when the Danish paper Jyllands-Posten published a set of cartoons in 2005 — are part of that. But as Flemming Rose, the man who commissioned those cartoons, said when I sat down with him this week, there remains a deep ignorance in the West about what people like the Charlie Hebdo murderers wish to achieve. And we keep ducking it. As Rose said, ‘I wish we had addressed all this nine years ago.’

Contra the political leaders, the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not lunatics without motive, but highly motivated extremists intent on enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws in 21st-century Europe. If you do not know the ideology — perverted or plausible though it may be — you can neither understand nor prevent such attacks. Nor, without knowing some Islamic history, could you understand why — whether in Mumbai or Paris — the Islamists always target the Jews.

Of course, some people are willing to give up a few of our rights. There seems, as Rose says in his book on the Danish cartoons affair, The Tyranny of Silence, some presumption that a diverse society requires greater limitations on speech, whereas of course the more diverse the society, the more diverse you are going to have to see your speech be. It is not just cartoons, but a whole system of inquiry which is being shut down in the West by way of hard intimidation and soft claims of offence-taking. The result is that, in contemporary Europe, Islam receives not an undue amount of criticism but a free ride which is unfair to all other religions. The night after the Charlie Hebdo atrocities I was pre-recording a Radio 4 programme. My fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. We agreed on nearly everything. But at some point he said that one reason Muslims shouldn’t react to such cartoons is that Mohammed never objected to critics.

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.

I cannot imagine another religious discussion where this would happen, but it is perfectly normal when discussing Islam. On that occasion I chose one case, but I could have chosen many others, such as the hundreds of Jews Mohammed beheaded with his own hand. Again, that’s in the mainstream Islamic sources. I haven’t made it up. It used to be a problem for Muslims to rationalise, but now there are people trying to imitate such behaviour in our societies it has become a problem for all of us, and I don’t see why people in the free world should have to lie about what we read in historical texts.

We may all share a wish that these traditions were not there but they are and they look set to have serious consequences for us all. We might all agree that the history of Christianity has hardly been un-bloody. But is it not worth asking whether the history of Christianity would have been more bloody or less bloody if, instead of telling his followers to ‘turn the other cheek’, Jesus had called (even once) for his disciples to ‘slay’ non–believers and chop off their heads?

This is a problem with Islam — one that Muslims are going to have to work through. They could do so by a process which forces them to take their foundational texts less literally, or by an intellectually acceptable process of cherry-picking verses. Or prominent clerics could unite to declare the extremists non-Muslim. But there isn’t much hope of this happening. Last month, al-Azhar University in Cairo declared that although Isis members are terrorists they cannot be described as heretics.

We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component. That has always been a problem for reformist Muslims. But the results of ongoing mass immigration to the West at the same time as a worldwide return to Islamic literalism means that this is now a problem for all of us. To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • Rik

    The warning signs were there 20 years ago with the Rushdie affair who was given damn all support at the time,the hysterical reaction of so called “moderates” to the faintest criticism of Islam means we have a very long way to go.If Islam can not find its own”enlightenment” it will remain totally incompatible with Western Democracy.

    • trashbat

      I seem to recall the liberal press actually sided/supported Rushdie, and our government protected him against death threats. But our liberal press and government have very little impact on the views of anyone except the metropolitan middle class.

      (And as Devil’s Advocate – this rightful backing of Rushdie is part of the evidence used by radicals to prove the West hates Islam – rather than as you say being incompatible with it)

    • somewhereinthesouth

      Yes and we had not invaded Iraq and Afghanistan then . The truth is Islam is intolerant and they dislike us for who we are not what we do.

  • Comrade Pootie

    Here in the west, they always say it has nothing to do with islam, but both Egypt and UAE label it radical islam.

    • Mister Rible

      since Egypt disposed of the west-backed christian slaughtering Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt has become Gens non grata in our media.
      It also does not help that Egypt is doing pretty well in containing the peaceful Palestinians to their terrorist activities within their own Gaza strip, and collaborating closely with Israel once again to retain peace in the Sinai.

  • RationalFearOfTerror

    It certainly isn’t

    Muslim Party Leader Says Islam is “Peace and Love”, Calls for Killing Cartoonists
    January 9, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield, FRONTPAGE MAG

    “Islam is “Peace and Love”, Calls for Killing Cartoonists” this is the Islamic/Muslim cultural ‘rational’ model as opposed to the Western ‘rational’ model “Party Leader Says Democracy is “Peace and Love”, Calls cartoonist for a copy to add to the Party leaders collection”

    The shadows define us be it individual or culture we must therefore not take subjective derived portraits, particularly self-portraits at face-value.

    There is a war currently occurring in Western Public Squares for the retention of the Western scientific method of “Duty to Doubt” Be doubtful, Be skeptical, Be critical, against the increasing imposition of Religious Islamic/Muslim cultures method of “Duty to Certainty” Be certain, Be compliant, Be silent, assisted in major part by our very own Western inept dangerous cultural gatekeepers.

    The West spent centuries and many lives removing the “Duty of Certainty” from our Public Squares and here we are again.

    • CriticalThinker

      Still religion is far to present in western society. And now there’s the Islam as well. We need to explain to them that religion can’t be used to affect the world around you.

      What if I would claim pigs are great animals and there needs to be a pig on
      every bill someone uses to pay me with, otherwise it’s a hatecrime?

      • RobertC

        You wouldn’t get your books published by Oxford University Press. BBC appearances would be unlikely as well.

      • HCintheM

        You’d be called a madman; but of course if you were able to get a few million (or just a few thousand) other people to demand it with you, you’d be called a prophet and discrimination legislation would be passed to protect you, and special issues of all notes printed.
        And pigs ARE great animals.

  • UnblockedmaninEurope

    The Fifth Column is not the Jihadis but our own Politicians and Progressives.

    • James Jones

      “own Politicians and Progressives”

      I have come to the idea that many on the British Left are likely delighted with the islamic extremists.

      Bloody revolution by proxy.

  • NickG

    Muslims are going to have to work through. They could do so by a process which forces them to take their foundational texts less literally, or by an intellectually acceptable process of cherry-picking verses. Or prominent clerics could unite to declare the extremists non-Muslim.

    It is intellectually dishonest, deeply patronising and rather trite to argue that Muslims should substitute belief in their toxic tosh with benign tosh.

    We should be urging them to abandon the whole nasty, patently untrue Islamic religion. That is more honest and there is less risk of recidivism to the default nasty Koranic literalist mainstream; either for themselves or their descendent.

    • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

      absolutely correct, even if we need to use words like ‘convert’!

    • Damaris Tighe

      I wish, wish, wish that the protestant missionaries from the US focussed on converting muslims rather than their fellow-christian roman catholics in South America. But of course, that would entail the risk that their Victorian forebears took on when they attempted to convert African pagans. Targeting catholics is so much safer.

    • HCintheM

      It might altogether be better for everyone to see the truth and become atheists, but it’s not realistic to hope for this. Christianity in Britain today is a relatively benign social element, with perhaps slightly positive effects at least in some small areas, but it was the religion that 1,500 years ago tore Hypatia to pieces in the streets of Alexandria for studying mathematics and refusing to accept its dogma, 350 years ago hanged thousands of women across Europe for witchcraft and a mere 20 years ago wrought great suffering and destruction in Northern Ireland and in Yugoslavia. By gradual liberalisation, Christianity is not only becoming less dangerous in civilised countries but also less powerful, as people lapse out of it or desert from it. We should try to apply this same process to Islam; the President of Egypt should be encouraged in his attempts to reform Islam – he may hope it will lengthen the religion’s survival, but our (the liberal secular left) aim is its ultimate vanishing away. While our right hand fights for laïcité, our left hand should support moderate Islamic theologians in dedogmatising the religion, pushing it down the path Christianity has already gone down.

      • Ed  

        You’re only able to believe that there is no God because that God gave you free will. See how that works?

        • red2black

          Not really. It depends whether you believe that free will is God-given or not.

          • Ed  

            Now you’re getting it!

          • red2black

            Not at all.

        • Ed_Burroughs

          So the god gave him the ability to disbelieve, just so that he (god) could torture him for all eternity? Sounds more like satan mate.

          • Ed  

            Oh, sooo close. You missed it by THAT much.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I don’t know what you mean.

          • denis

            Too clever for words

      • Paddy S

        Your historical knowledge is lowsy.
        – Christianity had nothing to do with Hypathia’s death, she was friends with many Christians, and killed by a monster in a city notorious for violence. So thats an atheist myth (there are many).
        – Christianity had absolutely nothing to do with violence in Yugoslavia, in fact as one reporter famously remarked, it was Christians who didnt go to church, killing Orthodoxs who didnt go to temples, killing Muslims who didnt go to mosques. It was pure tribalism.
        – Northern Ireland as kevin myers (lapsed Catholic) famously said was about tribes and land, Adair didnt murder Catholics cause of transubstantiation, he killed them cause he was a psycho. The Provos (supposed Catholics) killed more Catholics than army.
        – Women killed as Witches was a problem specific to Northern Europe, where political control of religion and lack of proper outside courts allowed many to die.

        – Atheism and secularism are in many ways responsible for not allowing these people to integrate, as they see the West as a degenerate, sick society, with little values and nothing worth embracing.

        PS: 150 million people died as a result of atheism in the 20th century. More than all wars in history up to that point combined. And why do top 25 murderers in history dominated by atheists?

        • Ed_Burroughs

          No, you wretched simpleton. No one died as a result of atheism, no crime was committed ‘in the name of’ atheism. Who the hell could be bothered to get of their backside to commit a massacre in the name of their disbelief in somebody else’s imaginary friend?

          • denis

            Ed_B, if you insult people by calling ’em ‘wretched simpleton’ you have immediately lost your credible audience !

          • Paddy S

            Thanks Denis, but sure it has to be said, the most dogmatic people in the west outside of Islamists are lefty atheists

          • Paddy S

            Then why have so many of the biggest murderers the planet has ever seen been atheists, not all but the top ones are littered by membership of atheists.
            Oh and Marxism was an explicitly atheistic creed which tolerated no religion which is why everywhere they took over the religious orders were massacred either en masse or within a few years.

          • Patrick Milne

            Marxism is a religion, so is nazism.They have gods and saints and dogma and holy books and martyrs just like any other religion.

          • Paddy S

            Thats a cop out, they were explicitly atheist and secular ideologies which had atheists at the very top. Christians have to deal with Inquisition and Crusades why shouldnt they be held to same standards?

          • Paddy S

            Its a secular ideology – two which were explicitly atheistic and secular to the core. You guys have no bother blaming inquisition on every Christian now should take responsibility for atheisms victims.

          • dinza

            Don’t forget the “Church of Climate Change / Global Warming”.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Atheism was and is an integral part of Marxism. The state is god and does not suffer competition from any other gods or ideologies.

            Why are so many young Westerners drawn to Islam? Perhaps because a secular life which revolves around pleasures and consumerism is, at bottom, an empty one. I think that one reason the secular West can not even be bothered to replace itself and is in steep demographic decline, while religious people have children.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            Good lord, how often must we go over this. No regime has ever perpetrated a genocide because of, or inspired by atheism.

            Poor people have children, as history shows us. When countries become more prosperous the birth rate declines. Regardless, I’ll take ‘pleasures and consumerism’ over praying my knees off to a deity who never replies.

            Insofar as Mark viewed religion as ‘the opium of the people’ he was dead right.

        • denis

          Well said Paddy!

      • denis

        I wonder what you think of Pope Francis and his path of love and peace ?

    • Donafugata

      Or they could just shove off to an Islamic country where they won’t be offended, at least not by trivia.

    • Steve Kane

      Jesuits have been “jesuitical” with sacred text and law for generations, just watch the latest guy do an end run around the literalists. Every now and then they lose out to fundamentalists like the Dominicans and have to go to ground.
      Likewise within Islam Sufis have been devouring the meat of the Koran and spitting out the bones” to quote a prominent one back down the ages, for centuries, and getting purged by new waves of fundamentalism every generation or so. Where I live in Portugal during the long Islamic era, generally all faiths rubbed along well, and in my bit Sufism dominated, but every now and then a bunch of primitivist nasties came over from the Magreb and shut it all down. Sometimes they were Berber, sometimes Arab.
      But because of this there is a kind of liberal jurisprudense within Islam to reach back to. No surprise to hear that ever since the rise of Wahabbism in Saudi the Sufis have been their first target.
      Don’t assume I belong to either of the traditions I take example from.

      • NickG

        The trope about fluffy Sufis is not quite the whole story. Just a couple of for instances – the 2004 Russian Beslan school atrocity which killed nearly 400 was carried out by Sufis Jihadis. More, amongst the most bloodthirsty groups during the Iraq insurgency/ civil war in the naughties was Sufi – including the
        Naqshbandi Order.
        Koranic literalist Islam – which is entirely mainstream – is thoroughly is nasty.

  • Robert Shaw

    “The Charlie Hebdo murderers were not lunatics without motive, but highly motivated extremists intent on enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws in 21st-century Europe.”

    1) No one has said they were “lunatics without motive.” The point is irrelevant, except to the extent that it is inflammatory.
    2) They were indeed highly motivated extremists. That is why there are relatively few of them and why it’s irresponsible to regard all Muslims as if they are potential extremists.

    • WFB56

      You’re flat out wrong, there have been many articles that suggested that the perpetrators of this crime were lunatics acting independently of any religious motivation.
      Relatively few? 500 hundred is relatively few, 15% of the French muslim population is 750,000. Most people would struggle with your definition of relatively few.

      • Robert Shaw

        “You’re flat out wrong”. Oh well, who needs debate when one side KNOWS it’s right without bothering with credible evidence? 15% of France’s Muslim population are extremists?! I rest my case.

        • WFB56

          You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts. You stated that Murray was wrong in suggesting that apologists were suggesting no religious motivation or association. You remain flat out wrong.

          • Robert Shaw

            “You’re entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.” I entirely agree. “You remain flat out wrong” isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion. You’re entitled to it and I’m entitled to challenge it. I have seen no credible evidence to support your opinion that I’m “flat out wrong”. Perhaps more importantly, I have seen or heard no influential leader or commentator saying they were “lunatics without motive”. Murray has invented the point in order to provide himself with a target. His actual words are “lunatics without motive”, not “independently of religious motivation” which is what you wrote first, nor “no religious motivation or association” which you wrote second.

          • Mister Rible

            all muslims read from the same book!

            islam can not even live in peace amongst their own, in their own countries, under their own laws

            everything else is deflection and dhimmitude

          • Robert Shaw

            “islam can not even live in peace amongst their own, in their own countries, under their own laws” So what? You could apply that to the USA. How many gun-related deaths are there each year?

          • Mister Rible

            so the US is as bad as the average muslim country, is it?

            strange how many millions of people all over the planet dream and even risk their lives, to live in America.
            Meanwhile, not even muslims want to live in muslim countries.
            I wonder how long the immigration lines into Iran and Pakistan are…..

          • Robert Shaw

            “not even muslims want to live in muslim countries.” Yes, they do. In their millions.

            “so the US is as bad as the average muslim country, is it?” In terms of the number of people murdered with guns, the US has a worse record than many Muslim countries.

          • Mister Rible

            they do???

            why does Europe have 48 Million Muslims, if they’re so happy in their wonderful countries???

            Do you usually engage in taqiyya and then people just walk away from you?

          • Robert Shaw

            Europe’s population is 742 million. Albania and Bosnia are European countries whose indigenous populations are predominantly Muslim (that’s 5 million). There is also Kosovo 1.5 million). There are significant indigenous Muslim minorities in Macedonia (600,000) and Bulgaria (700,000) . France has 7 million. I’d like to see evidence of 48 million Muslims in Europe. Where are the other 29 million? In general, Europe has economic migrants and political refugees from many countries and religions, not only Muslims. Why single them out? Taqiyya, defined as “a legal dispensation whereby a believing individual can deny his faith or commit otherwise illegal or blasphemous acts while they are in fear or at risk of significant persecution”, is “a legal dispensation” in many religions who have traditionally been persecuted.

          • Guest

            did you just google all of these numbers?
            cause I googled my numbers, why did you not check them??

            btw, statistically by 2040, 55% of Europe will be muslim! are you looking forward to that dhimmi, time to get your female family members some rape whistles.

            as for your post: there are a lot of europeans in EUROPE BECAUSE THEY BELONG HERE – THEY ARE THE NATIVES!!!

            Muslims have 58 countries, yet they spread like parasites and war with everybody.

            debating anything with you is useless,s as you’re too dhimmified to make any sense for reply to any arguments factually

          • Robert Shaw

            Are you running away? My statistics are from Wikipedia. Where are your facts? Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym?

            “dhimmi” means “protected person”. You seem unclear about the meaning of the word.

            “statistically by 2040, 55% of Europe will be muslim”. Really? So, even if the non-Muslim population doesn’t increase in the next 25 years, you’re saying that “statistically” there will be about 900 million Muslims in Europe by 2040? Evidence?

          • starfish

            And how many of those murders are religiously inspired rather than criminal?

          • Robert Shaw

            Murder is criminal, whatever it claims to be inspired by. Who knows what goes on in the mind of someone so dissociated from the world around them, and with such a huge grudge against it, that they can commit these acts of mass murder? That seems like a common denominator between the Charlie Hebdo killings and, say, Columbine or other mass shootings in the US or elsewhere.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      Your position is challenged by the disturbingly high proportion of European Muslims whose opinions about Islam-inspired terrorism are at best equivocal, as demonstrated consistently whenever polls are conducted among them. When one-third or more of Muslims fail to condemn terrorism unequivocally, and when we have very large Muslim communities here which transparently have no interest in adopting English ways, it is clear that Muslims are very much a problem.

      • Robert Shaw

        Lenin said: “those who are not with us are against us”. I disagree. The opposite also applies. I don’t accept your premise.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          Lenin? A red herring (!), no sort of parallel. The objective fact is that Europe in general, and certainly England, has a substantial migrant Muslim population – an alien sea in which terrorist fish can swim because too many Muslims are at best equivocal about Islamic terrorism. But at least your interjection of an otherwise irrelevant theme reminds us that while the late USSR posed a serious military threat to our liberty, the oppressively large Muslim population threatens our demography and our culture. The terrorist minority almost seems insignificant by comparison.

          • Robert Shaw

            Not quite. Your point was that Muslims are somehow required to condemn terrorists who claim to act in the name of Islam and should be presumed to be against us unless they do so loudly and clearly. I don’t agree. I would go as far as to say that it is discriminatory to apply such strictures to that group. On that basis, and assuming Rupert Murdoch to be at least nominally Christian in origin, I wish to apologise on behalf of lapsed Christians everywhere to Muslims who may be insulted by his recent tweet and to women who may have been insulted by Page 3 of the Sun since 1970. By the way, the USSR didn’t pose a serious military threat to the West. It was mostly bluff.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            Discriminatory? I should think so: one discriminates (or
            should do) against individuals and groups who represent a threat. You seem rather to be going against the grain even in terms of many recent converts in the MSM, who have belatedly accepted that Islam isn’t all sweetness & light.
            Amused to learn that the USSR was mostly bluffing: one wonders what you imagine your qualifications are for such a bold assertion.

          • Robert Shaw

            An open mind reluctant to make ill-informed assumptions for one thing. I am not a Muslim, convert or otherwise. As Churchill said: “Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt.” (Apologies, but you did rather ask for that one.) I think anyone who has shown an attentive interest in Russia over the last 20-30 years understands that the Soviet Army was a shadow of the picture they tried to paint of it. This was mainly because by the time Communism fell, the country was broke. Qualifications? Possibly the degree in Russian from Cambridge University may have helped.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I hadn’t realised reading Russian at (unstated) College inculcated the strategic wisdom to deny what most people tend to think was that scary period when we were menaced by an aggressive, heavily militarised USSR… A friend of mine read Russian & French at St Ann’s oxford, but has no such pretensions. I would appear to have shown an “attentive interest” in such matters for longer than you, and I have to say your opinion is somewhat, ah, off the wall.
            But the subject from which you chose to stray is Islam. I’m glad to hear you’re not one of them yourself – we have rather too many already. Discriminatory? Damn right. Bring it on.

          • Robert Shaw

            There seems to be quite a lot you hadn’t realised. Including the fact that different people are, well, different. That goes for Russian students from Oxbridge as it does for Muslims, most of whom are perfectly ordinary people wanting quiet lives like the rest of us. Discrimination is unlawful, so I’ll leave it with you if that’s OK.

      • red2black

        Please can you give sources for the polls you mention that are conducted among European Muslims. Another comment elsewhere on the Spectator site made a claim that 70% of Muslims in Holland supported the Islamic State, but no source was given.

        • EHGombrich
          • red2black

            ICM interviewed 3,007 respondents aged 18-24 by telephone between 11 and 21 July 2014.
            Britain – 1,000
            France – 1,006
            Germany – 1,001

        • Malcolm Stevas

          You could find this information easily yourself, if you bothered, but for example, according to the PEW Global Attitudes Survey in 2006 around 14% of British Muslims indicated that they had a “lot of” or “some” confidence in Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; when asked whether they sympathised with those offended by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, 52% of British Muslims sympathised. Another poll carried out by ICM that year found that four out of 10 British Muslims wanted sharia law introduced into parts of Britain; in the same poll, 20% of British Muslims said they sympathised with the “feelings and motives” of the suicide bombers who carried out the London 7/7 attacks.

      • red2black

        Malcolm – I copied your reply from the Disqus email notification because it wouldn’t link and I couldn’t find your reply here.
        You say:

        You could find this information easily yourself, if you bothered, but for example, according to the PEW Global Attitudes Survey in 2006 around 14% of British Muslims indicated that they had a “lot of” or “some” confidence in Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda; when asked whether they sympathised with those offended by cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, 52% of British Muslims sympathised. Another poll carried out by ICM that year found that four out of 10 British Muslims wanted sharia law introduced into parts of Britain; in the same poll, 20% of British Muslims said they sympathised with the “feelings and motives” of the suicide bombers who carried out the London 7/7 attacks.

        I did go to the link provided by EHGombrich, which included the information about the number of people who took part in the poll, as shown in my reply to him. I only hope the poll EHGombrich directed me to wasn’t typical of ICM, consisting of such a small sample. I will have a look at the ones you mention as well. Whether a particular poll apparently supports ‘the left’, ‘the right’, or whoever, I believe it’s reasonable to wish to examine the sources of the information that people are including in their comments.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          I never believed in polling as the ne plus ultra of objectivity or accuracy but to the best of my knowledge all such polls of Muslim opinion have consistently shown a significant large minority who are at best equivocal about Islamic violence, and at worst openly sympathise with it. This emerged, for another example (though I can’t cite the details from memory) shortly after the 9/11 NYC atrocities.

          • red2black

            The only thing I’d add is that these percentages are based on relatively small samples, which then appear to be projected on to the whole Muslim population (or whatever a particular poll is concerned with) and regarded as, say, 17% of the total Muslim population, rather than 17% of the 1000 respondents to the poll.
            I’d also suggest that it’s possible to more or less ‘engineer’ results dependent on exactly who is polled, and how questions are worded and ‘framed’.
            Again, I believe this applies ‘across the board’.

    • Mr Grumpy

      Where did he say that all Muslims are potential extremists, please?

      • Robert Shaw

        He didn’t use those words, but it seems to me to be a fair summary of his position. If I have time and if you’re really interested, I could go back through it and quote all the sentences that lead me to this conclusion. Here’s one: “We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam, a complex religion with competing interpretations. It is true that most Muslims live their lives peacefully. But a sizeable portion (around 15 per cent and more in most surveys) follow a far more radical version. The remainder are sitting on a religion which is, in many of its current forms, a deeply unstable component.”

        • Mr Grumpy

          That quote wouldn’t justify the words you’ve put into his mouth, even if it wasn’t immediately followed by a sentence referring to “reformist Muslims”.

          • Robert Shaw

            I haven’t put words into his mouth. I’ve given my interpretation of what he says. I accept that one sentence doesn’t justify my interpretation on its own.

          • Mr Grumpy

            If you cannot support your interpretation by reference to words he has used it is tantamount to putting words into his mouth.

          • Robert Shaw

            I didn’t say I couldn’t support it. I said: “If I have time and if you’re really interested, I could go back through it and quote all the sentences that lead me to this conclusion.” You’re putting words into my mouth. I don’t see the issue you’re trying to debate. I prefer not to get involved in personalising the discussion.

          • Mr Grumpy

            You may or may not be interested in trying to convince me that your interpretation is a valid one, I leave that to you to decide. I can only say your one attempt so far to do so has been entirely unsuccessful. In fact much of what you have quoted suggests precisely the opposite – “a complex religion with competing interpretations” and “most Muslims live their lives peacefully”.

  • Robert Shaw

    “Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not. It is certainly not, as some ill-informed people say, solely a religion of war. There are many peaceful verses in the Quran which — luckily for us — most Muslims live by. But it is by no means only a religion of peace.”

    Why does he think it’s “lucky” that the vast majority of Muslims wish to live peacefully? Could it possibly be because the vast majority of Muslims, like the rest of us, believe in peace? The idea underlying his point is that “we” are reasonable and peace-loving through some allegedly natural or inherent sense of decency. Whereas in his view Muslims in general do not have an inherent sense of decency and live by the peaceful verses in the Koran not from choice but out of “luck”. What a profoundly bigoted and racist assumption by him.

  • ADW

    Good luck with all that Douglas, but I don’t fancy your chances. The liberal left have too much to lose by admitting they were wrong about Enoch, wrong about Honeyford, wrong about Rushdie and wrong about everything since. That’s why were in this mess.

    • CriticalThinker

      I think the liberal left will happily admit they were wrong about something once they realize it. We need to be critical of religion in general. Religious beliefs should be personal and not affect anything outside you as a person.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Let’s not go down this sidetrack and start lamenting the nasty things all religions do, or at least have done in the past. Murray reminds us, rightly, that “No religion is [peaceful], but Islam is especially not.”
        It really isn’t about religion in general. The Jehova’s Witnesses who regularly knock on my door might be mildly irritating (while consistently polite) but I’ve never worried that they might behead me, or try to substitute an alien ideology for the dominant one in my country.
        Islam is the problem, as Murray explains succinctly.

        • global city

          Everything centres round the response, perceptions and emotions of the adherents of religions. Nobody ever states that the mental pastor or that family of hate preachers in the US are ‘nothing to do with Christianity’.

          What we do with Islam is akin to denying that anything more robust than the meekest happy clapping liberal C of E vicar has nothing to do with Christianity.

          • jaymz

            The Phelps family are nothing to do with Christianity – if you look closely you will find that God has NOTHING against homosexuality – he was just “unable” to stop humans from adding that stuff in.

          • global city

            like I said…….they can all play that card, but Muslims are allowed to get away with it.

            All of these holy books are entirely written by man…that’s the truth, whether you believe in god or a god or not.

          • Brian Clough

            ‘look closely’ at what? Given that there’s zero evidence for any god – Zeus, Thor, Yahweh, Allah, Lord Zenu etc etc etc – what robust, peer reviewed scientific document would you like me to ‘look at’?

          • The Great Cornholio

            Are you serious? How do you know this?

          • dinza

            Nonsense, God has a big problem with homos.

          • SimonToo

            That pastor is generally regarded by Christians as having gone over the edge. He suffers from the fundamentalist Protestant problem of relying on his own understanding from his personal study of scripture, untempered by the moderating influence of hierarchical authority.

            Islam has a similar problem, but it is central to Islam and not confined to its smaller sects. It does not have a hierarchy which can put its adherents straight when their theology goes astray. Muslims do have means of addressing blasphemy as such, but not for addressing persistent error.

        • Rowland Nelken

          I was a child Jehovah’s Witness. Of course they do not need to behead you for being less than interested in joining them. Big Jehovah is their hitman. He will execute you at an imminent Armageddon for the capital crime of not being a baptised and active Jehovah’s Witness. Their murderous activities, like the blood transfusion ban and shunning of apostates which of then leads to depression and suicide, are not as newsworthy as mega shootouts and kidnappings. So they get away with their polite and earnest evangelical image.

          • Grace Ironwood

            I’d nevertheless rather take my chances with Jehovah’s Witnesses than Islamists anyday.

          • Rowland Nelken

            So, Grace, unless you join them, and forsake all your ‘worldly’ (aka Satanic) family, friends and activities and devote your life to augmenting the capital value of the Watchtower Society, the JWs will regard you as dead meat.

          • Joshua Lord

            I was also raised a Jehovah’s Witness. Though true that they have nothing on Islamists in terms of the level and imminence of the threat to civilisation they present, they still adhere to a dangerous ideology that if were to rapidly spread would become a serious societal problem! The point is that though all religions are not equally dangerous, very few, if any, can be said to be utterly benign.

          • alfredo

            But the JW ideology is not going to spread rapidly, is it? So this is a bit of a red herring.

          • Rowland Nelken

            It had a great growth spurt in the late 20th century. Crackpot marginal oufits have become big and mainstream in the past. Just look at Islam and Christianity. Both survived the clear failures of the prophecies of their founders. St. Paul and Mahomet were both convinced of an imminent Judgement at the End of Days. Neither apcalypse materialised, but I hear that Islam and Christianity still have a following.

          • dinza

            It is in the future – hence the description of it as “prophesy”, and these specific prophecies fulfilment is immanent. What is your excuse? You have been warned. Go and read the book of Revelation (it’s the last book in the New Testament). God certainly will not be mocked by humanists or anyone else.

          • Rowland Nelken

            Too true Dinza – Those trumpeting angels and many headed beasties roaring about in Daniel and Revelation, as well as the number puzzles, have led Bible devotees to work out when the End will come. My money was on Joachim of Fiore. He reckons the big year is 1260. Or you could choose St. Augustine and Christopher Columbus with their 1658. Pastor Russell was hooked on 1914, Judge Rutherford on 1925 and the Jehovah’s Witnesses of my childhood convinced me of the accuracy of ‘before the end of the 20th century’ and, thus, before the death of the last of the 1914 generation of Bible Students. I side, however, with Jesus and St. Paul as declared in God’s infallible Word in the Bible. Their scriptures make it clear that the Parousia, Judgement and the whole New World works is due within the lifetimes of their followers.

          • Joshua Lord

            It’s not a red herring if we wish to ackowledge the root as the problem as submission to religious dogma.

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            Few religions are “utterly benign,” but only Islam is killing innocent people–for religious reasons–by the tens of thousands every year.

          • The Great Cornholio

            There are Christian jihadists commiting mass murder in CAR, DRC and Uganda but yes in terms of sheer numbers of deaths Islamic fanatics outstrip them by far.

          • Zanderz

            I think this is an interesting point. Most in the west know Christ was non violent, so we know that people identifying themselves as Christians yet killing indiscriminately are not following his teaching. The west assumes Islam is the same, people killing in the name of Islam but not following the teachings of mohamed.

            As we are starting to realise, this is not true. Mohamed was a mass killer and his followers mimic his actions.

            This realisation is key to understanding the Islamic mindset.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah, those who campaign for Christian violence have to do considerably more cherry picking than Islamic Jihadists.

            Jesus in about half of his moods was not only non-violent but committed to pacifism. However, in parts of Africa, Christian thugs use passages like Luke 14:26-27, 33, in which he preaches abandoning and hating family members and joining him, to recruit child soldiers. This is further justified with God’s genocidal commandments in the Old Testament.

            Also all religions can be used create a strong tribal mentality whereby non-adherents are seen as not only different but essentially satanic. Such a mentality can strip us of our normal moral constraints towards others.

            But I agree with your main point that western ignorance of Islamic scripture and the life of Mohammed have inhibited us from a fair analysis of Islam.

          • shasnat

            Don’t forget what the “Christian” West has doing throughout the world for Several Hundred Years.. eg, Slavery,Empire Building, 2 WW wars,Native American Destructions . Don’t forget the Holocaust. Last but not least Iraq and Afghanistan!!

          • Zanderz

            Are you reminding us of all the things lslam has and wants to do?

          • shasnat

            Just reminding U of How Peaceful The Christians are, and Have been!!

          • Singapom

            It is certainly true that Christians have been in the past, and some continue, to be unpeaceful: but the reported teachings of their Prophet (Jesus) are qualitatively different than those of Islam. There is also diversity of opinion and interpretation allowed in Christian theology, whereas this is, it seems, punishable by death in Islam. I wish this were not so, but it seems to me to be undenaibly true. I am happy to be told I am wrong.

          • dinza

            Jesus is not a “prophet” to Christians. He is the Son of God and the Redeemer of mankind. He is part of the trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Prophets are found in the Old Testament.

          • Dissenter

            “Don’t forget what the “Christian” West has doing throughout the world for Several Hundred Years.. eg, Slavery,Empire Building, 2 WW wars,Native American Destructions . Don’t forget the Holocaust. Last but not least Iraq and Afghanistan!!”
            People who do not follow Christ’s teachings are not Christian. Countries are not Christian unless the people who follow Christ’s teachings are in the majority in that country. Thus you cannot pin all the wrongdoing of western countries on Christians.

          • shasnat

            Do you ever Criticize the West for their wrong doings?

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            We live in the 21st Century. Only Islam is a problem now. Both Islam and Christianity have violent pasts, but for the past 100 years, and unquestionably for the last 50 years, only Islam has been slaughtering people solely for religious reasons.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Do you ever criticize non-Western countries for theirs? Do you think slavery and empire building are a monopoly of the West? The Arabs were trading slaves long before the Europeans ever got involved. Ask a Filipino about how well the Japanese treated people under their occupation in during WWII. The Native American tribes were engaged in continual wars. the Aztecs ripped the hearts out of living human beings.

            Yes, Western Civilisation took some very wrong turns. It remains the place where the ideas of democracy, freedom and the rights of the individual took place. I am tired of apologizing for a civilisation which has given the world so much of value and beauty. If you hate it so much, get out, as the mayor of Rotterdam said. And stop using that Western invention, a computer, to tell the world how much you hate the West.

          • Dissenter

            I don’t criticise “The West” because the expression is just a useful catch all-phrase for a group of nations that have a particular history and civilisation. I would, and do, criticise individual nations and people for crimes regardless of their geographical location.

          • Rex

            I’m from India, which has faced a millennium long genocide of native Hindus under Muslim conquerors on a scale that would make the Holocaust look like a few bar room brawl casualties. From Mahmud Ghazni’s repeated invasions and destruction of temples to Timur’s sack of Delhi in 1398 where he built a pyramid of 90,000 ‘infidel’ skulls to thousands of women raped and taken away as slaves over centuries, the list is endless. This has been going on since long before Western Europe grew as colonial powers. So stick your white guilt where the sun don’t shine.

          • denis

            But all these things have nothing to do with the teaching of Jesus Christ. Shouldn’t it be the “Secular” West. ?

          • SimonToo

            Slavery, empire building and warfare have also been Muslim activities. The red Indians were safe from Muslims, but the brown ones certainly felt their impact.

          • Nicky Christian

            I hadn’t realised slavery or Empire building was something Christians began? You should read your history books, shasnat.

          • dinza

            Most in the west know Christ was non violent, so we know that people identifying themselves as Christians yet killing indiscriminately are not following his teaching.
            ===============================================
            They are not Christians and use Christianity as a cover to carry out their evil and demonic deeds.

          • denis

            But these ‘Christian jihadists’ are not actually following Christ’s command to love the enemy are they ? They are behaving like medieval crusaders if they are murdering and not acting in self-defence !? There is absolutely no where in the Bible or christian doctrine which advocates murder as ok .

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah, you certainly have to ignore a lot of the better parts of the message of Jesus to get to their position.

            I should point out that they are operating in regions that are incredibly war torn and plagued by various factions of militants including, in Uganda and CAR at least, Islamic militants.

            There may not be a concept of Jihad in the Christian bible, (and perhaps I use that word to loosely although it does describe theocratic lunacy rather well), but there is plenty of eye for an eye type passages for them to justify their part in these ongoing blood feuds.

            There are also numberous divine commandments of genocide against a neighbouring tribe to inspire them.

          • ArthurSparknottle

            Agreed. It is fundamentalism that is the great enemy of the modern world. Any form of it is a curse on the people who come up against it.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Well, the consequences of fundamentalism relate to the content of the fundamentals.

            For, parasite Mehdi Hasan wrote a piece in the Huff Post recently in which he called those who defended Charlie Hebdo free-speech fundamentalists (he actually used the term in the title).

            I am a fundamentalist of free speech. It is the bedrock upon which all our other freedoms and rights are based.

            But yes, religious fundamentalism that strips people of any self-criticism whilst believing their actions are justified by a supernatural omnipotent being is extremely dangerous.

          • dinza

            Mehdi Hasan is an apologist for Muslim/Islamic perversion. He’s forever busy with his hubris. And writing for Puffington Host is just fueling the fire, as most libtards and progs believe everything as gospel they read there.

          • ArthurSparknottle

            I think you only get to the core of what fundamentalism is in the last paragraph of your reply. THAT is the meaning of fundamentalism and that was the context of the discussion. Your commitment to free speech is exactly that, an absolute commitment. Fundamentalism refers to unquestioning, unreasonable, and all encompassing commitment to so called truths, revealed by supposed authorities who may not be interrogated or tested for truth. They are generally the writings of so called prophets who are said to have been handed ‘truths’ by gods of some kind. Of course this is a pre-modern kind of thinking since doubt is discouraged and the receiver of this kind of ‘knowledge’ is expected just to accept it without question. The habit of mind which has taken us out of the pre-modern era of ignorance and error is in fact the exact opposite of the one that fundamentalists require of us – thinking hard about whether the ‘truth’ as revealed, stacks up against reality.

            Your commitment to free speech is part of the modern kind of thinking, so I think you do it a dis-service to say that it is fundamentalist. You arrived at it after coming to the conclusion that it is a requirement of discovering what reality is. It was not revealed to you by a prophet who insists that you do not question whether it is a good thing.

          • The Great Cornholio

            My point was that we all have fundamental beliefs that we hold dear both to our identity and to what components make for a better world. Thus if we use fundamentalism as a derogatory term duplicitous villains like Mehdi Hasan can turn the term back at us.

            I would much rather talk about the content beliefs in order separate completely justifiable core beliefs like free speech and other liberal values from the lunacy of religious fanaticism or Utopian political ideologies.

          • Zanderz

            Including fundamentalist humanism (I.e. Eugenical Marxism)

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            I don’t believe these Africans are killing because they believe Jesus wants them to or to “protect Jesus,” while Muslims are killing for expressly stated religious reasons. I don’t see, in the news, Christians, Jews, Hindus or Buddhists killing people–in the name of religion–in Europe at all. But I do see that behavior all over the world, every week, with Muslims.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah as I said Islam is by far the most destructive religion.

            It is far harder to use Christianity as an inspiration for genocidal violence but there are groups in Africa that do.

            We don’t hear about them partly because we haven’t been involved militarily in these regions, partly because terrorism has not spread to the West from there but mainly I believe because violence there is so come that it is no longer newsworthy.

            This is why we here far less about the war in Syria than we used to. In the DRC more people are believed to have died in the there conflicts since the turn of the century than in any war since WWII.

          • Lo

            Dan W: It’s not just religion, it’s ideology. And all ideologies can harm and kill. Atheistic ideologies killed millions in the 20th century. Secular ideology kills hundreds of thousands of innocents every year in the uk. It’s called abortion. Secular ideology will soon change the law to permit people to ‘choose death’. This will open the door to involuntary euthanasia as it already has in the Netherlands and elsewhere. The problem is human nature. It needs a profound reformation. That’s why I am a Christian, flawed though it may be. I’m a much ‘better’ person, more considerate and less selfish than I was when I was an atheist. A long way to go yet though. Please note – I’m not comparing ‘atheists’ in general with ‘Christians’ in general, I’m comparing my atheistic self with my Christian self. I’m a better person as a Christian, a change many many other people have discovered for themselves.

          • Joshua Lord

            I totally agree. I was just making a general point that Islam is the worst of a bad bunch. I think it’d be foolish to lose sight of the root problem underyling ALL religious lunacy: submission to religious dogma. Tackle the problem at this level and you solve the problems presented by Islam *as well as* those – albiet less severe – presented by other religions.

          • Wiaruz

            Jainism pretty benign.

          • Joshua Lord

            Probably the least malign. Its extremists worry themselves silly about the possibility of killing bacteria, though, and go to great lengths to avoid doing so. Even here the irrationality of religious belief has the potential to lower people’s quality of life!

          • denis

            Isn’t that just it. Christianity is Benign! We just haven’t bought it yet, like Ghandi said. Christ and Pope Frankie have bought it.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            They’re also not waging a global territorial struggle either, to be fair.

        • Joshua Lord

          “I’ve never worried that they might… try to substitue an alien ideology for the dominant one in my country.”

          That is reasonable because they don’t exist in great enough numbers to have any significant influence. It is, however, absolutely their aim! And believe me when I say that if they were to succeed, you wouldn’t like it.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            I don’t see your point: you acknowledge their numbers are too low to do anything. The same doubtless applies to countless small bands of oddballs, but who cares? It’s the big battalions we need to be concerned with – like Islam.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I’m inclined to believe that. Nevertheless it is Muslims doing the killing, until we’re seeing worldwide massacres perpetrated by the Jovos lets reserve our ire for the Mohammedans.

          • Joshua Lord

            We nearly agree. I’ll direction my ire towards religious dogmaticism in general while acknowleding the need to focus on Islam in particular, at least in the short-term.

          • Amicus001

            They refuse to bear arms anyway.

          • cmflynn

            ‘…they don’t exist in great enough numbers….’
            How long do you think it will be before numbers are sufficiently great enough.

        • shasnat

          What about the Christian Invaders who Utterly Destroyed Iraq and it’s people(Not to mention Torture);also Afghans being Bombed and destroyed By “Christian” Drones by the Holy Christian Nato Soul Saviors???

          • Ed_Burroughs

            NATO is not a Christian organisation Sir, you have been misinformed.

          • shasnat

            What I meant was the people in NATO are from Christian countries.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            They are nominally Christian countries in the case of the UK, but the C of E is really a church for atheists. The United States is not a christian country (although it has many Christians) nor is France, they are politically secular.

          • shasnat

            The Us is much more religious than Europe. My point is America & Europe are committing atrocities thru out the world more than anybody else and yet U are focusing on the Moslems. The Moslems R reacting to the Imperialist policies of the West . The West hasn’t learned anything from the 2 world wars.

          • Richard Baranov

            Actually, America is not much more ‘religious’ that Europe. There is a famous survey done called: ‘ “I Know What You Did Last Sunday,”. It demonstrates loud and clear that because of peer pressure most Americans lie about their religious activity.

          • denis

            I’m afraid there is no such thing anymore as a ‘Christian country’ .

          • Richard Baranov

            No, they were from Western countries aided and abetted by other Muslim countries. There are no officially ‘Christian countries’. All of them are officially secular.

          • guest

            NATO is not Christian.
            Secondly, anyone that has a problem with the destruction f the mass-murdering Hussain crime family and their acolytes, or the Taliban being destroyed and reduced to insurgents as opposed to when they were in power and millions of afghans ran away to Pakistan and became refugees, has not a clue about the world and has probably lost his mind.

      • http://i-squared.blogspot.co.uk/ Katabasis

        “I think the liberal left will happily admit they were wrong about something once they realize it.”

        – Really? My experience and observations thus far indicate that in the face of any substantial violent threat they actually fold like urine soaked paper bags.

      • Lee

        I’m a leftist, and it embarrasses me to say that I think you’re too kind to the liberal left. I know far too many among the chattering class (not the proles generally) who get a genuine gut-level thrill watching videos of Islamists stone girls to death, hang gays by the neck, and behead infidels.

        It might be hard to believe if you don’t hang out with leftists, but many are the kind that make up Kim Jong-un’s gang of thugs, and who made up Pol Pot’s gang, Mao’s, Stalin’s, the Stasi, etc etc. They will never admit they’re wrong, because in fact Islamofascism suits their blood-lust and desire to see people suffer perfectly well.

        • edithgrove

          Orwell wrote eloquently about exactly that.

          • Lee

            Well said – you’re so right. Funnily enough, I hadn’t read 1984 for decades, then re-read it fairly recently, and found he perfectly described *and analysed* the personalities *and motives* I’d been astounded by. My amazing discoveries had been discovered 65 years or so beforehand…

          • edithgrove

            Yes and I was thinking particularly of his Notes on Nationalism.

            http://orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/english/e_nat

          • Lee

            I thought I’d read all of Orwell’s essays, but not that one – thanks so much. From ‘1984’, consider how this fits the mentality of the politicians Islamising the UK against the will of the people – [the Socialist] O’Brien: “How does one man assert his power over another Winston?”
            Winston thought. “By making him suffer”

            “Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing. Do you begin to see then what kind of world we are creating?…
            A world of fear and treachery and torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon…

            Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilisations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph and self-abasement.”

          • global city

            self hate…. despising ones own culture, history and traditions…that is what modern progressive ideology is predicated on amongst our own political and intellectual elites.

        • HCintheM

          Pol Pot and Mao and the rest, and those you claim to be titillated by Islamofascist acts, can hardly be described as LIBERAL left.

          • Lee

            Yes, except that’s how they describe themselves. And that’s why I spent so many years confused as to the chasm between their pose, and their innate savagery.

        • global city

          also, the core articles of faith are never questioned…so everything else, especially failings are rationalised as aberrations …. they still hold to that idiocy that could is should.

        • Andrea Collins

          Ditto, Lee.

      • Daz K

        ***Some** of the liberal left please.

        I am a liberal secularist, much like Sam Harris, Nick Cohen or Maajid Nawaz, and I agree with Douglas fully. There are a growing number of us chipping away at ignoramuses like Owen Jones you know.

        • guest

          I think a lot of this is nomenclature. I am a ‘secularist’ too, but not a liberal. At least not 21st century one.
          Don’t get me wrong. Secular universalism is a liberal value, right? As I’d think Freedom of speech and expression are. The problem is that 21st cenury liberalism likes none of these things. They like ‘tolerance’. And ‘compassion’. Of everyone.
          I would be interested to know if there is a difference between modern and classical liberalism on freedom of speech.

          • Daz K

            I’m having a similar discussion with someone here, I class myself as a true liberal, freedom of expression, of/from religion and equality.

            Those principles, in my mind, should and must cover minorities in our society which make claims upon liberal principles. I believe this is where you are coming from here, that over-zealous political correctness means some faux-liberals and leftists have become apologist for intolerant Islamists.

            I agree with tolerance to a point, as long as you are not tolerating intolerance. Sam Harris said this better than I could:

            “The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance.”

          • The Great Cornholio

            Liberalism is a value system that nearly all of us in the West share.

            The problem is that it is a term that it has been hijacked by the Mehdi Hasan/Glen Greenwald types who make careers as self proclaimed “liberals”.

            They operate with appalling double standards vilifying any slight misstep in the West’s war on terror but have endless excuses and will tirelessly deflect blame, often onto the victims, when it comes to discussing the most barbaric atrocities committed by Islamist fanatics.

            It is our duty to reclaim liberalism and prevent those from abusing its meaning. The clue is the name. It means freedom. Especially the freedom of speech, consciousness and expression upon which all other freedoms and rights are based.

            If we don’t stand for are freedoms we are at risk of losing them. We have already seen the majority of major media outlets surrender freedom of speech to fascist thugs.

            I speak as a former Chomskyite anarchist who was persuaded out of the idea that the abuse of power by capitalists was essentially the sole cause of all the world’s problems, particularly in the Middle East, by the arguments of people like Sam Harris and D.M. so there is hope that people can be reasoned with.

          • Drew

            I could have written this: I fully agree.
            The Left is also suffering from an internal split as well, and the likes of Greenwald, Hedges, and Chomsky are making it very difficult to offer a viable left-critique. It is sad that i have to read/listen to conservatives (like at National Review Online) or on conservative radio to find moral clarity.
            It pains me to hear conservatives, with whom I disagree on many fronts, be the only ones talking sense about Islam and how the Left is eager to make excuses for jihadist violence fret about Islamophobia, and pretend as though all religions are essentially equal – with benign and “extreme” forms.
            Harris and Murray are indeed shining moral examples here, and it is sad to watch opponents dismiss them “because they sound like neo-cons.”
            Why has our political discourse become so thoughtless and vapid all of the sudden?

          • Ed_Burroughs

            Are you still an anarchist? I think its got a lot to recommend it.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Not any more. I am far to skeptical to believe in Utopian visions anymore.

            I just champion liberal values now – freedom of consciousness, speech and expression, open democracy, egalitarianism, rule of law, human rights.

            Get that right and you can’t go far wrong.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I find the term ‘egalitarianism’ leaves me cold; maybe because I’ve heard it said by people who care nothing for the rest of your list. I only asked as I think that the best way to protect liberal values is by a ‘minarchist’ approach, if not full on anarchist.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah, egalitarianism is often abused by those who feel that certain groups should be treated differently, e.g. the Muslims should not have their religions lampooned like all the rest. This is the exact opposite of what it should mean and why the term is so important.

            I find libertarianism very appealing but I also sympathise with socialism. I can’t square the two like I thought I could when I was an anarchist, or more specifically a social libertarianism.

            I don’t have the requisite hardheadedness to tell everyone else I know how society should function beyond the basics of liberalism.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            “I don’t have the requisite hardheadedness to tell everyone else I know how society should function beyond the basics of liberalism.’

            To me that is the joy of Libertarianism, it is not prescriptive. It seems to me like a political embodiment of Smiths invisible hand.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Granted libertarianism is perhaps the least prescriptive political ideology, but I still feel that it relies on a central dogma that I used to believe but am now uncertain about. That is left to our own devises, without overt interference from a central government, we will continue to make the best decisions and our flourishing talents will make for a better world.

            As I said, this is certainly very appealing, and am not saying that it is necessarily false, but I am very skeptical about any ideology that seams too good to be true.

            Having spent my teenage and early adult years basically deluded from consuming the Chomskyesque world view that essentially all major events and developments were the consequences of capitalists satisfying their greedy neoliberal economic agenda, I am reluctant to really commit to any specific ideology, even if it is libertarianism which allows the most freedom of manoeuvre within it.

            I don’t want to misrepresent myself as a political nihilist either. I appreciate that their are better and worse ways for societies to organise themselves with regards to prosperity and human flourishing, and am open to a libertarianism version being the best. But having being humbled into intellectual honesty from believing that I had the panacea and that if only I was listened to I could set the world straight, to realising that the world is far more complicated than I could appreciate, I would, for now, prefer to keep an open and critical mind to all world views that are not in conflict with my liberal values.

          • lambdoid

            The tolerance and compassion thing is really an extension of Christian values such as turn the other cheek, minus the religious trappings and not specific to liberalism per se. There’s a limit to tolerance in the pursuit of liberty, and that’s when other people demand you take away your freedoms in order to pander to their completely illiberal values and threaten violence in order to do so. The whole political correctness thing where you dare not criticize certain groups for fear of offending them is largely a socialist concept which has spread throughout the political system and it’s not liberal at all, at least not how I understand it. It’s the opposite of free speech and thought. It was well-meaning in intention but it’s gotten to the point where no-one speaks their mind for fear of upsetting a protected minority and legitimate debate is stifled as a result.

        • Ed_Burroughs

          In my wildest dreams I don’t dare to believe that is true, however the sentiment is much appreciated.

      • Grace Ironwood

        Are you having a larf?

      • http://www.worthynews.com/ Joe DeCaro

        I think the liberal left happily creates a false narrative to avoid ever admitting to making a mistake even after they are proven wrong.
        This narrative is embraced by liberal “true believers” much the same way Islamists embrace their “religion of peace” myth.

      • Jody Taylor

        Getting the Left to actually “realize” something is impossible; most of them are infantile in their thinking and, like Pollyanna, they want to be “glad” about everything. I agree with you about religion, though.

      • hippiepooter

        That line of thinking would result in a secular version of Iran where a committee of atheists weed out all candidates for political office on the basis of being religious. If we get back to our judeo-Christian roots we’ll recognise the naked evil of Islam and do what it takes to defeat it as we did with Hiter.

    • Lee

      Remember it’s politicians from all sides who have enjoyed Islamising our countries, and who thrill when watching us squirm as they assert their power over us in doing so. Murray mentions Bush and Abbott as 2 conservative leaders who suck up to the Jihadi death-cult, but Cameron does too.

      I’ve never met a working-class Leftist who supports the Islamification of civilized countries yet – and this is why the proles are so despised by our political masters. I think it’s a major mistake if we fracture along party lines, when the vast majority of us want the murderous cult OUT, and the political scum who thrust it down our throats tried as the traitorous scum they are.

      • vanLomborg

        Well said – Mr Murray is finally listening.

        One wonders, did he watch “Noah” over Christmas too and come to the conclusion that our Judeo-Christian culture (i.e. the Old Testament) is full of mindless violence fuelled by fanatical religious dogma? What relevance does he give ‘the message’ of our own scriptures?

        None of course, he ignores them. Instead, the extremists up and down these blogs purport how Muslims somehow did not have that same option. They are all extremists.

        Which part did I get wrong?

        • Steve Kane

          Noah was saturated with Gnosticism and New Ageism, which is becoming the new protestantism.

          • UnionJihack

            Jews call him נוֹחַ
            Muslims call him نُوح‎
            Christians call him Noah.

            All three world faiths value him as a prophet.

          • Alpyre

            The problem is about Mohammed.
            Not Noah, Abraham, David and Moses myths.

          • SalmondFishing

            You registered with disqus to make this comment?
            I’ll tell you what the problem is: crackheads like you.

          • Alpyre

            Well… Being a “crackhead”, I never blew any building up with bombs or never shooted people to death with automatic weapons. 😉

          • Richard Baranov

            ‘Shooted people’. Whire they deaded then?

          • Alpyre

            Ooops! 🙂

          • Richard Baranov

            No biggie. Just having fun with you. I’m not the grammar police. faux pas happen. 🙂

          • Jeff Thompson

            Nope … It’s filth like you.

          • Keith

            Is that people who believe that Islam is not “The Religion of Peace” who you think are the problem?

          • Des

            Salmond: you better go fishing for real salmons.

          • Steve Kane

            And the makers of the movie reinvented him as a vegetarian non-dualist new ager.

          • SalmondFishing

            What movie? Are you unable to read a book, my red meat month loving friend?

          • Steve Kane

            Are you not Able to read to the top of a thread. It starts with “One wonders, did he watch “Noah” over Christmas” referring to the popular but dire movie of that name.
            I am about to eat salmon actually.

          • mollysdad

            Geordies use his name to answer in the negative.

          • the coming storm

            All 3 are similar because the other two were copied from the first one…

            I will never tire of people noting how ‘amazingly similar’ the religions are.

          • Mahmoud

            No, not copied, ‘descended’, and they’re not as similar as some rationalists would like to think.
            Muslims regard themseves as ‘Ishmaelites’, the descendents of a slave girl called ‘Hagar’, owned by Abraham’s wife, Sara. Jews are of course ‘Israelites’ the descendents of Abraham’s legitimate son Isaac. Thus, ‘Israelites’, descendednts of Isaac, are ‘sons of the promise of God’, and ‘Ishmaelites’ , descendents of Ishmael are ‘sons of the flesh’. In a nut-shell, Ishmael was the result of lack of faith in and disobedience to God, (which is what ‘sin’ is – it’s not being ‘bad’ in conventional moral terms).
            Muhammad argued that because of Jewish disobedience the Ishmaelites had replaced the Israelites as, ‘Heirs of the Promise of God.’ This position is rejected by Christians and Jews.
            Christians follow the teachings of the Jew, ‘Jesus’ (Joshua – named by the angel), who they regard as the ‘Christ’, (meaning ‘The Annointed One’), and as the ‘Messiah’, (the ‘king’ sent by God as fufillment of jewish prophesy).
            Muhammad is not, for a whole host of reasons, accepted by either Jews or Christians as a prophet. The Islamic deity, Allah, is not accepted by them as God. (We think Muhammad ‘made it all up’)
            ‘Adonai’, on the other hand, is both the Christian and the Jewish God, to whom Jesus taught his followers to pray (Matthew 6:9-13).
            As you can see, there are insurmountable difficulties here. It’s not a question of, ‘why can’t we all be friends and play nice’.

          • the coming storm

            I do understand and agree with most of what you’ve written.

            My point is that Islam never existed independently of Judaism until Mohammed arrived. There was no group of people claiming to be descended from Abraham through Ishmael.

            Mohammed, it seems, co-opted the Jewish stories to lend some legitimacy to his ‘new’ religion. He claimed Ismael as an ancestor so that Islam too could be considered Abrahamic, on a par with Judaism. That’s why so many stories, laws and teachings in Islam are so similar to Judaism.

            Whilst I’d agree that Christianity was descended from Judaism, Islam was an illiterate man’s own interpretation of the old and new testament, a muddled mess to which he added a prescription to a way of life which would, nearly 1500 years later, come to endanger us all.

          • RandomGuy

            Did you know that while Jews and Christians agree the it was the binding of Issac, the Muslims believe it was the binding of Ishmael. They twisted the entire biblical story, and they even have an holiday celebrating that God saved Ishmael, by giving Abraham a deer to sacrifice instead of him. It seemed they changed a lot of the Abrahamic text to make them more special than the Jews and Christians.

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Actually it’s spelled without a “vav.”

            I can’t speak for others, but Judaism does not “value Noah as a prophet.” He didn’t go around teaching anybody anything, other than his children… after all there was no one else to teach. He was given some commandments (besides the personal instruction to enter the Teiva), the 7 Noahide laws, but for Jews those are all covered anyway by the 613 commandments which were given later.

          • Sage Ham

            Murray knows lot more than you

          • Dogsnob

            And yet, it’s only one of these groups who insist that peace is denied to all others until they submit to the one belief.
            Who knew eh?

          • http://rijministry.org/ BrotherBob

            Please use methods to distinguis Films, Books and Newspapers: Quotation marks, Italics and Underlining. Thank you.

        • Mahmoud

          You got it wrong when you failed to notice Judaism is non-proselytising. No old testament figure, however violent, ever advocated forced conversion of gentiles to Judaism, and to kill all those who refused to be converted. Koran is littered with exhortation to forced conversion and descriptions of what must be done to anyone who refuses. Try Sura 5:33, the description of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Ironically
          it follows the Koran’s famous ‘most peaceful verse’.

          • vanLomborg

            You still purport your reference was a relevant message to ALL muslims yet NOAH is not to you? You still DARE to do that? Do you?

          • stephen rothbart

            Gosh, here is some news for you. Transformers was a film. Exodus was a film, Noah was a film.

            Try reading a book if you want to reference something, not a Hollywood Blockbuster designed to sell tickets by having as many people die as possible during 90-120 minutes.

          • SalmondFishing

            You dumbos are mad aren’t you? WHAT MOVIE?

            Noah is a w r i t t e n piece of superior intelligence. It was written down a few years earlier and b e f o r e any film was made, can you believe it?

          • Mary Ann

            try a book, like the bible or the koran, ge wizz, written thousands of years ago before most of us realised that we are all human under the skin, put together by committees. filled with myths.

          • Cogra Bro

            What myths do you believe in ?. The natural goodness of humanity? The inevitability of ‘progress’? That the universe and popped up out of nothing and that the natural laws which guided its arrival and our own presence in it had no previous existence in anything?

          • Ed

            you lack a moral intellect, but that doesn’t mean everyone does. conservatives have always thought they’re “so fuckin edgy” in their social critique but this quickly becomes laughable under even shallow scrutiny. from a serious Social Darwinian perspective, conservatives ARE the actively psychopathic members of society. you are the cause of the serious ills in society, we are your vigilant and disillusioned progeny. of course you would think that social behavior is a myth, it is the raison d’etre of those who have threatened your impotent throne since time immemorial. it is the very opposite of your unsustainable ecological niche. apologies, your vestigial intelligence simply cant dedicate resources to such a higher order concept. a micro-culture cannot survive indefinitely, as an axiom. diversity shall prevail.

          • Ed

            religious conservatism is a mating strategy

          • pewkatchoo

            What do you believe? Goddidit I suspect.

          • pewkatchoo

            Try not bothering to reference nonsense stories written at a time when the sum total of mankind’s knowledge would probably fill only a very small book.

          • Rob Jones

            Have you ever read a… BOOK, sir? You really shouldn’t garner all of your opinions from mass media, it’ll just confuse you.

          • Oddsbods

            You certainly should not garner your opinions from A book either, you should form your opinions from experience and many books or conversations, the more the better.

          • pgtipsster

            You must be the only person on the planet to claim that Noah (the film) is an accurate representation of Noah (in the Old Testament).

          • vanLomborg

            Never did I claim that – perhaps it is time for you to learn a second language: English.

          • De Doc

            Oh my! He mistakes Hollywood fantasy for the Bible. Of course the tales in Torah are mostly fiction anyway, so what is your point?

            I don’t see Mormon fanatics marching up and down the street with placards saying to behead those who insult Joseph Smith. Nor do I see Amish folks storming their local governments with pitchforks in an effort to enforce their religious views on the populace. Heck, even the Catholics have a pope so liberal now, that he’s the darling of the media theses days. And when was the last time you saw those soft, wimpy, secularized Anglicans do or say anything to stick up for their Christianity?

            Moral equivalency arguments are so passe fellow – I suggest you update your style, before posting again.

          • Pepperless

            Just in case you don’t know Hollywood account to any story is make belief and one sided. The Noah piece could just be propaganda funded by Middle eastern oil money to depict Christianity as violent to excuse Isis murderous campaign.

          • politikalme

            If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant;
            17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
            17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel;
            17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die. – Deuteronomy 17

            http://www.atheistrev.com/2005/03/bible-commands-christians-to-kill.html#ixzz3P97j2fSa

          • Leigh Eagerton Westraad

            ^speaking to the Jews and telling them to root out any people in THEIR MIDST (ie. God’s Chosen) who are Jewish and still worshipping pagan gods.

          • Mahmoud

            This seems the key distinction between Islam and Judaeism. Judaesim seeks separation not converts. The punishments, as in the story of the Golden Calf, are inflicted by Jews on Jews for adopting foreign gods.

          • politikalme

            I missed the bit where it says that exceptions be made for non-Jews. could you point it out?

          • politikalme

            oh well that’s alright then I suppose… amazing the excuses that come out when the lie gets given

          • Suzy

            Do you believe that speaks to Christians today when Jesus did the dying for all those like the ones in v 5 above?

          • politikalme

            that’s your interpretation – mainstream Islam does the same thing.

          • Suzy

            Mainstream islam does the same thing? As believing Jesus died in our place, taking the penalty we deserve so that we are forgiven and free? Hallelujah! Praise God!

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Point?

          • judyk113

            This is why Jews do not use the pages of the Bible in the way that you do as a set of instructions, like a car manual. Jewish tradition is based on the history of scholarly debate and interpretation, set down in the Talmud and subsequent received interpretations, over two thousand yours. A person who picks out bits of biblical quotation out of the air and says that this is what Jews have to do is called an “am ho’oretz” in the traditional texts– literally, a man of the earth, or as we translate it, an ignoramus. Even in Talmudic times, cases about alleged idolatry or adultery were tried by a set of three learned judges, or by the Sanhedrin. It was said in the Talmud that a Sanhedrin that agreed the execution of one person over a period of sixty years was “”a bloodthirsty Sanhedrin.”

          • politikalme

            yes, thanks for supporting my point. all scriptures of all religions are subject to interpretation, only the ignorant assume otherwise

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Yeshiva students are ignorant of Judaism? Funny…

            Judaism is not “subject to interpretation.” @disqus_MIrjgaACAM:disqus is a bit wrong over here. The “interpretation” of the bible was always part of the package, it just was never written down: Jews are required to basically live and breathe Torah, and transmit not some words on paper but a living way of life. They memorized everything and reviewed things hundreds of times, not to mention studying, analyzing, getting deeper into it. Until the Roman exile reached a certain point it simply was not necessary to write it down; in fact doing so would have been counterproductive, because there’s a lot of nuance that words can mask. For this reason, even once it was obvious what kind of oppression we were going to endure, which would limit the dedication to Torah study, initially only the Mishna was written, which is a really highly compressed encoding of all the interpretation: it could not be used as source material, only to supplement and “anchor” ones own memory. This sufficed for a long time, until it became necessary to expand it even more, hence the Talmud, which is primarily taking the Mishna and showing you how to expand it.

            A related point: In Judaism, our reverence for our teachers does not come from “faith.” Jews have quite a reputation as independent-minded, argumentative, truth-seekers. 🙂 We revere our teachers only because we get to know them quite closely on a personal level, and their integrity, fear of falsehood, humility, scholarship, etc., is as clear as can be.

          • ushaya

            what about the Talmud ?

          • nafg

            @ushaya:disqus what about it indeed? I just described it. It basically shows you how to analyze the Mishna. It recorded information that was known at the time, but was in danger of being forgotten.

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Ha, I was thinking of coming back here to make that point about the rarity of capital punishment, but you got there first.
            Actually the Talmud says once in seventy years. It was that hard to get the capital punishment for anything. In fact once there was a decline in morality, so that things like prosecutable murder weren’t extremely rare anymore, the Sanhedrin disbanded, terminating the use of capital punishment. It was never meant as something to use at any serious frequency.
            Just to give you an idea, a person could not be executed unless at the time that he was about to do the crime, two legally valid witnesses warned him that he would receive the death penalty — and the person explicitly replied that he understood and would commit the crime nevertheless.
            The judges were required to deliberate extensively, to turn the case over and over, searching for any possible angle they could come up with to exonerate the defendant. And the laws pertaining to such deliberation were quite biased towards letting him off the hook. Basically the bar for evidence (more like proof) of guilt was far higher than that of any modern court. “Innocent until proven guilty” was taken much more seriously.

          • L_King

            Love the wonderful turn of phrase “..as a set of instructions, like a car manual”. 🙂

          • Smiffy51

            Christians follow the New Testament, not the Old one.

          • Mahmoud

            No, not quite Smiffy, or the Bible would be a lot thinner than it is. I’m afraid the same basic, Exodus 20, rules apply to Christians and Jews. Jesus said; “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.” (Mattity Ahu 5:17 – Complete Jewish Bible)

          • Omar

            The “completion” was the act of atonement accomplished through his death and resurrection. Through his death, Christ fulfilled the law – an act of both infinite justice and infinite mercy. That is how he “completed” the law. In this way, Christ effectively abolished the death penalty for biblical crimes.

          • politikalme

            haha – you’re just regurgitating the received “interpretation” of modern Christianity.

            for 1500 years Christians continued to apply Old Testament penalties for sin, now your ideas come along in the last 500 and start throwing the rule-book out – and the pointing the finger at others!

            the only difference between Islam and modern Christianity is The Reformation. humanity has a choice; help usher in the Islamic Reformation, or return to Medieval conflict – the choice is stark.

          • Mahmoud

            Do you mean an Islamic Enlightenment? It’s already had a Reformation and the current wahhabism is the result. And don’t expect too much of humanity,it won’t usher in anything. Contrary to the humanist faith, we are NOT ‘innately progressive’, (or you’d have to teach children to be bad). Humanity is already doing what it does best, cutting off heads in Syria.

          • Sage Ham

            bullshit. List down actions of Mohamad and Jesus.

          • Mahmoud

            I agree.

          • Angelique Angel

            Yes!

          • Cogra Bro

            He said that when he commanded us to love God with all one’s heart and soul and mind and that the second law was to love one’s neighbour as one’s self. .Matth 22:36-40

            One cannot love one’s neighbour as oneself by cutting their heads off as required of non believers in the Qur’an.

          • politikalme

            majority moderate ones do, that’s called “interpretation” – extremist, backwater, red-neck Christians don’t observe such a distinction when it comes to the definition of “sin”.
            the same as the spectrum of Islamic faith

          • Mahmoud

            This doesn’t apply, it is a ‘golden calf’ warning for fellow Jews. They weren’t interested in what non-jews did. They knew about pagans. They weren’t interested in converting them then, and they’re not interested in converting them now – you have to born a Jew.

          • Ian Nairn

            Did you know that serving other gods meant human sacrifice? So you are condemning the Bible for condemning those who murder innocent children. Interesting logic you have there.

          • chris

            Could you let me know when and where Christians last stoned someone to death and we can do a comparison with the latest Islamic interpretation of the “holy” texts.

          • mrs 1234

            That is the Old Testament. Jesus stopped a group of men about to stone a woman saying, he that is without sin shall cast the first stone. The stones were put down and the men walked away. Women are being stoned today but not by Christians and Jews

          • dlp6666

            And to cap it all the wonderful sounding words of this ‘most peaceful verse’ [Sura 5:32] come from a pre-existing Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5 – per Andrew Bostom).

          • FrancisKing

            “And to cap it all the wonderful sounding words of this ‘most peaceful verse’ [Sura 5:32] come from a pre-existing Jewish text (Mishnah, IV Division 5 – per Andrew Bostom).”

            The Qur’an claims to be a confirmation of the Torah and Gospels – Surah 2:41. So if it accords with the Talmud, I would call that a positive sign.

          • Joseph Flannagan

            5:32 is ALWAYS misquoted by muslims . Not only do they ignore that it is directed to the people of Israel but they also fail to mention the last few words of the verse which justifies killing those who make ” mischief ” in the land. It is also noticeable that they NEVER continue on to quote from 5:33 which confirms death , crucifixion and amputation for anyone who is against islam.

          • Steve Neman

            The Quran should be burned.

          • Anthony Edwards

            The Torah does advocate killing everyone who doesn’t believe in their God. Including the cows, but excepting the virgin girls… so it’s basically a ‘have converted or die.’ I suppose that does… give you the freedom to die.

          • sarah_13

            I believe that it has been deemed heresy to take the old testament literally for centuries. Hence why jews are rampaging all over europe in response to the murder of 6 million? The problem surely is in the literal interpretation of 7th century “texts”.

          • Mahmoud

            Not true, Anthony. There is one verse advocating killing unbelievers, but it only applies to Jews (Leviticus 24:16). If you know of any verse in the Old Testament that ‘actually’, directly instructs Jews to convert, kill, or subjegate non-Jews, please post it.

            Just so you know the sort of thing to look for here are a few examples (from the Koran);
            Sura 2:189 God does not love aggressors (that’s you and your family Anthony) Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you.

            Sura 9:27 Fight against such of those to whom the scriptures were given as believe in neither God nor the last days…until they pay tribute (out of hand and are utterly subdued.

            Sura “9:5 When the sacred months are over kill the idolaters (That’s you again, Anthony) wherever you find them. …. If they repent and take to prayer and render the alms levy [pay a ransom], allow them to go their way [As a “dhimmi” of course – look it up] . God is forgiving and merciful.”

            And so, on, and so on, it goes, full of hate, page after page. I have the Dawood translation. I got it in Smiths for £6.99. Bargain! Everyone should have one.

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            @disqus_a1o9ZW7QQu:disqus I guess if the truth isn’t on your side, you just make up lies?

          • Anthony Edwards

            The Torah, Leviticus 24:16. Kill anyone who blasphemes against God. That includes non-believers or believers in other gods.

            Numbers 30; If you encounter a city where they do not believe in the Jewish God, kill them all including the cattle, but keep the virgins for yourself.

            So… what exactly am I lying about again? Or were you saying that the truth is against you, so you’re going to make up lies?

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            First of all, your comment implied that Jews would go around killing anyone including non-Jews. These verses are very clear that they only refer to Jewish transgressors. Moreover…

            A. The blasphemer:
            1. “That includes non-believers or believers in other gods” is completely false. In fact it refers to a VERY specific form of an explicit statement of blasphemy
            2. As I said elsewhere on this page, the written Torah only mentions the general points. The details were passed down from father to son and teacher to student (until they needed to be written down as the Talmud), and they include many constraints that are not explicit in the written Torah (although they are usually hinted to in grammatical nuances). #1 is one instance of this; another is, as mentioned elsewhere, the requirement to have legally valid witnesses warn him in advance that doing so would make him liable for capital punishment, AND the transgressor to STATE that he accepts that and will go ahead and do it anyway.

            B. Numbers 30 — this does not exist. I will wait for you to clarify what you were talking about; hopefully it was a typo rather than an intentional fabrication.
            If you meant Ir Hanidachas, first of all see #2 above. Second, the Talmud says that the constraints in this case are so tight that it’s nearly impossible to happen, and in point of fact never did and never will.

            So this underscores what I stated elsewhere on this page, that in the Torah capital punishment seems primarily to provide the proper fear of transgression (Jews are instructed to be very well versed in Torah), rather than something that was at all common occurrence.

            I apologize if I insinuated that your mistakes were intentional and they weren’t. In actuality there is tremendous ignorance in the world about what Judaism is about (of course the gamut runs all the way to blood libel-type things, which are alive and well in Muslim countries).

          • Anthony Edwards

            Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him.” (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

            Interesting isn’t it? Even Jews! Everyone! Because it is the job of Jew to kill any non-believer. This passage does not brook much dissent or interpretation.

            To argue that these are misinterpreted by non-believers is absolutely insane. Jews today do not follow these passages because most Jews are rational people who don’t believe every word of the Torah, but in America and in Africa, people want to make the books you tout as ‘perfect’ into national law and so anyone – even a non-believer must be aware of these passages.

          • nafg

            Exactly, Ir Hanadachas. As I said before,

            > first of all see #2 above. Second, the Talmud says that the constraints in this case are so tight that it’s effectively impossible to happen, and in fact never did and never will. (This is true of a few other laws as well.)

            (Also without having looked it up to refresh my memory I noticed several mistranslations; there may be more.)

            To respond to further statements of yours,

            > Because it is the job of Jew to kill any non-believer

            Again, you imply that this is about Jews punishing non-Jews, which is completely false, it’s talking about a Jewish city.

            > This passage does not brook much dissent or interpretation.

            As I said before, the law itself not being contradicted — it’s true under certain circumstances, which happen to be effectively impossible (there are no mezuzos etc. in the town, because they are forbidden to burn, and it’s all or nothing). The Talmud says it never happened and never would happen, and G-d knew that when he wrote it.

            Pretty much every law in the Chumash has constraints that are not made explicit in the text. Perhaps the most famous example of this is Shabbos: the Torah forbids doing certain “actions of creative work” yet doesn’t specify what they are. It’s only the oral tradition that specifies the 39 well-defined actions that the reference is to. This true of everything. There is barely anything in the Torah that you can actually put into practice without the oral tradition. How would you know what Totafos are, for instance?

            > Jews today do not follow these passages because most Jews are rational people who don’t believe every word of the Torah,

            My dear chap, it is true that there are many ignorant Jews today (in a trend that started only a few generations ago). But it is also true that there are many (yes far fewer) Jews that are thoroughly educated in and devoted to Torah in an unbroken chain going all the way back to Har Sinai. I am one of them. I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that Judaism has never interpreted it any other way. I am not speaking as a third party here. Authentic Judaism has never understood the Chumash by reading it as one intuitively reads an ordinary book; we have always understood it the way the oral tradition specifies.

            > in America and in Africa, people want to make the books you tout as ‘perfect’ into national law and so anyone – even a non-believer must be aware of these passages.

            I guess you’re referring to muslims and sharia. Unfortunately the juxtaposition of Judaism to islam is a widespread assumption, and you are demonstrating this common ignorance. I’m fully with you about Islam — the problem is that people project those attitudes onto Judaism, even though it doesn’t take all that much investigation to see how absurd that is.
            Muslims do not believe in Chumash, they have the Koran, which is unambiguously a lot more evil than anything any rational person can force-read into Chumash. (Honestly this should not be surprising; witness today the beliefs and actions of real-life devout muslims, and the beliefs and actions of devout Jews.)

            Out of curiosity, are you Jewish?

          • A Jew

            “Because it is the job of Jew to kill any non-believer”. Unfortunately this comment betrays a very deep misunderstanding of Judaism. Religious Jews do *not* follow the Bible. They follow the Bible as interpreted by the Talmud. You are therefore welcome to seek support for your assertion in the Talmud. As nafg stated above, you will never find it: the Talmud even opposes capital punishment. But in case you need proof – surely you can name at some “Jewish Jihadi” terrorist organizations involved in murdering non believers as such? Jewish people engaged in same? No? Not even one?!

          • Anthony Edwards

            Yet the Orthadox Jews do, so claiming that Jews do not follow the Bible or the literal Talmud or the literal Torah is fallacious, because just as some Christians do, so do some Jews, and many many Muslims.

          • Pedro Antonio

            2 wrongs dont make a right. I am not a follower of the Torah , so why should i stay silence about religions that preach holy war ? Too many facts about islam have been silenced such as Mohamed did marry a 6 year old girl and marriage took effect when she was 9 years old. People should be free to debate,criticize without fear.

          • Anthony Edwards

            Absolutely.

          • FrancisKing

            “Try Sura 5:33, the description of the massacre of the Banu Qurayza. Ironicallyit follows the Koran’s famous ‘most peaceful verse’.”

            Is that supposed to be a joke?

            Firstly, Surah 5:33 provides several punishments – including exile. Secondly, Surah 5:34 says ‘Unless they repent of their sins before they fall into your hands’ – so there is another exit clause right there. What has this to do with the mythical story of the ‘Banu Qurayza’?

            Surah 5:32 is a version of the teaching in the Talmud – Mishnah Sanhedrin, verse 37a. You may wish to read this, too.

            “Koran is littered with exhortation to forced conversion and descriptions of what must be done to anyone who refuses.”

            No it is not. The Qur’an (not ‘Koran’) is an axiomatic text. It asserts that it is correct, and leaves the judgement on this to the reader’s conscience – Surah 2:256. Honestly, if you’re not even aware of this verse, why are you preaching at us?

          • http://www.youtube.com/dashcam55 dashcam55

            Actually Sura 5:32 dictates to the Jews, and does not relate to the actions of Muslims!

        • stephen rothbart

          You do know Noah was a film don’t you?

        • ArthurSparknottle

          Very few followers of biblical religions arm themselves and set out to put people to the sword these days. I know they used to do so, but not really since the start of the Enlightenment, if you set aside the odd deviant madman who may from time to time feel inspired by voices in his head to wreak vengeance on prostitutes and sinners.

          This is not so with the followers of the ‘religion of peace’. A substantial minority of them will kill a blasphemer at the drop of a hat and for the new death cult in Islam, a number amounting to tens of thousands will cut off your head even for being a somewhat sloppy Muslim.

          • johndowdle

            Oklahoma City Bombing?

          • Richard Baranov

            Your point is?

          • johndowdle

            McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist and carried out one of the worst acts of individual atrocity in the USA.
            Check out his history and background…….

          • Richard Baranov

            And you know him by name because he is an aberration and, how long ago was that? Now, can you, without looking, tell me the name of the last terrorist produced by the Religion of Grovelling Abnegation? Thought not, there are to many to recall their names, aren’t there? Your game of equivalency is simply disingenuous and you know it.

          • guest

            Tell me more about how 1 = 22,000

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            I’ve checked out Timothy McVeigh. He committed a terrorist act in response to the US Government’s killing of people at Waco. His actions had zero to do with Christianity, in fact, he stated he killed because he hated the government, and he claimed to be an atheist.

          • johndowdle

            And who were the people who died at Waco?
            Like McVeigh, fundamentalist Christian gun nuts.
            McVeigh – a Catholic – has been linked with the racist Christian Identity Movement.
            As a humanist, I would rather see an end to all religions.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            The Waco group was an outrageous example of government enforcement gone wild. That was above all what motivated McVeigh and others to attack the US gov. Again, he was not a fundamentalist Christian so you don’t know what you are talking about.

          • johndowdle

            McVeigh had links with the white racist supremacist Christian Identity movement. Like them, he too was a religious gun nut. The US is stuffed full with such types, don’t you know?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            ORLY? Gee that is big news to me living here in the US heartland. You might start by reading some of their favorite literature like “Turner Diaries’ As you furiously look that up on Wiki keep in mind that I can give the details for all of that off the top of my head, as well as go out this weekend and have my guns cleaned and sighted by some of them, since they do great work at reasonable prices.

          • johndowdle

            Thank you for the information, which precisely proves my point, that the US is THE most violent place on Earth.
            The Muslims are bare beginners – at best.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Right, silly, because we are routinely shooting women in the head in sports areas for committing adultery and turning 10 year girls into suicide bombers.
            Your lies and groveling will not save you.

          • johndowdle

            Alternatively, you hand little girls Uzi sub machine guns, with which they then shoot to death their instructors.
            Well, that’s a different twist, I guess? !!!
            No lies or grovelling from me, sun shine.
            I’ll keep telling the truth even if others want to carry on lying.

          • Keith

            That was a tragic accident caused by the instructor not following the proper procedure and in my opinion he should not even have given a child strong enough to hold the gun against the kickback. You cant make a comparison between a tragic accident and the continual Islamic inspired attacks by muslims. You are a typical apologist for Islam. Too stupid to make a real distinction between action A and action B.

          • johndowdle

            Yes, it was a tragic accident, for which I blame primarily the parents of the little girl for being so stupid in the first place as to “gift” her lessons in firing an automatic sub machine gun. What kind of crazy mentality do they have?
            The instructor was also a fool; firstly, for even agreeing to such an activity; and, secondly, for being such a lousy instructor that he ended up losing his own life as a result.
            What kind of trauma has a little girl been subjected to for the rest of her life? Does that thought even cross your mind?
            You people in the US have got to stop being mind-washed by the NRA and try to start thinking for yourselves.
            What kind of life is it to live in a society awash in guns?
            I am no apologist for Islam or any other religion.
            The sooner humankind sees the end of them, the better.

          • Keith

            Yet again you come up with the moral equivalence. A stupidly tragic accident that will leave a child scarred for life mentally and left the instructor dead is not the same as Islamists murdering their way through anyone who does not agree with what they believe.
            People are no more violent today than they were in the 7th century at the time of Mohammed or in 55bc when Julius Cesar first invaded Great Britain, it is just with modern weapons we are much more efficient at killing. You may or may not be an apologist for Islam but you certainly don’t understand that Islam is the main problem in the present age not the US NRA or Christianity or the western world. Also if it wasn’t religion people would find other things to fight over, you will never stop people killing if that is what they want to do, but the silent majority should not allow the violent minority to get away with it. It should be widely condemned bye everyone but the majority of Muslims silently support what is happening in the hope of implementing Sharia law, and there are too many western apologists who like you claim that all religions are the same but have to go back years to find any actions to confirm it. Then you claim that one or two people killed by a christian/Jew/Buddhist/sikh/any other religion is equivalent to the hundreds killed each month by the Religion of Peace.

          • Matthew P Ward

            I’m a 47-year-old American who lives in the South and has never seen a gun fired criminally. Also, I’ve never seen a Ku Klux Klansman. But whatever gets you through the night.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            That makes sense. Especially since Islamic civilization, nations and cultures predate the founding of the US by around 1000 years. The body count from the Islamic invasions of India alone is about, oh, 20 million or so greater than all wars the US has ever inflicted casualties in. Still, in your keen historical reckoning and understanding of current events and facts it is true for you. That is what is really important, what we should all respect too – regardless of how stupid it is because you are a unique and sensitive human being with beliefs and ideas just as valid as any of the rest of us who are not completely full of shit.

          • johndowdle

            As you point out, the US is a late starter in the business of mass killing but they certainly made an impact at Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Ever since, I don’t think there has been a single day when their forces have not been killing people somewhere around the world. Given time, they will easily surpass the body count of all other historic nations.
            Who knows how many died in Iraq and – more recently – Syria, where the US, Israel, Saudi, Jordan and Turkey have racked up body counts in the hundreds of thousands?
            Now we are seeing blowback body counts across the US and Europe, mainly thanks to the US neo-con idiots.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Ah, you seem to have forgotten a little thing called Pearl Harbor. The Japanese treated the countries they occupied with incredible brutality. Tell me, what happened to the British inhabitants of Singapore when that city fell?
            Dropping the bombs saved the lives of many Japanese as well as Allied troops, since a ground invasion of Japan would have meant a million lives lost. Of course, smug twerps like you feel free to rewrite history over 60 years later, so you can feel morally superior.
            Do you think your hero Stalin would have had any qualms whatsoever about dropping the bomb on Berlin if the Soviets had developed it first?

          • johndowdle

            I do not forget Pearl Harbour, which many US conspiracy theorists believe Roosevelt and Churchill let happen.
            I am open-minded about the deployment of atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, though it is widely known that the Japanese were suing for peace terms through the Soviets at the time of the bombings.
            Critics suggest the war could have ended without any invasion of mainland Japan.
            Truman wanted to show Stalin that the US had the bomb as part of an opening salvo of Cold War one-upmanship.
            Through his US spies, Stalin knew about the atom bomb.
            The bank robber Stalin is no hero of mine.
            He held up the talks with the Japanese in order militarily to seize territory from them, prolonging the conflict.
            I doubt he’d drop the atomic bomb on Berlin as fallout would have affected large parts of Europe and Russia.
            No point in occupying contaminated land, is there?

          • dinza

            You never had a point, since your “argument” was full of lies, misinformation and good ol’ fashioned BS.

          • ItinerantView

            “the US is THE most violent place on Earth.The Muslims are bare beginners – at best”
            Has to be the most historically ignorant statement on this thread.
            Muslims had transported and sold millions of slaves, slaughtered countless millions in its militant and violent expansion, centuries before Colombus was even a twinkle in his father’s eye.

          • johndowdle

            Jews and Muslims were involved in the slave trade.
            However, once the good ol’ Christians got involved, it turned into a veritable global industry.
            Ever heard of the triangular trade routes, involving African slaves being shipped in their millions to The New World, in exchange for agricultural products, shipped to Europe for trading goods for fresh supplies of slaves?
            How many millions of lives were ruined by that form of trade to “develop” the Americas?
            How many indigenous North, Central and South America folks were exterminated by good ol’ European Christians?
            How many Vietnamese were murdered by American forces? How many Iraquis have died and been horribly scarred for life thanks to that good ol’ Christian Bush?
            All the people who have died in places like Libya and Syria can be traced back to the American neo-con zionist lackies fulfilling the aims of the Yinon Plan.
            In places like Gaza, American planes and weapons killed more than 2,000 Palestinians recently – mostly innocent civilians and a quarter of them innocent children.
            When will the murderous American industrial-military complex finally have its blood lust sated?
            Maybe never – unless America (or, at least the USA) is removed from the world scene once and for all.
            The USA is a walking war crimes nation – which explains why they – and Israel – routinely refuse to be bound by norms and conventions of international human rights.
            And the Americans wonder why so many people around the world despise them? You can’t make it up !!!

          • Matthew P Ward

            No, I don’t know. Sounds like a fabrication by leftists continually embarrassed that most of the mass killers here in the States tend to be anti-religion types whose political ideology, if they have one, is usually more toward the left side of the political spectrum.

          • johndowdle

            Leftists in the US are an extinct species.
            The country has been completely taken over by capitalist running dogs, to use a good ol’ Maoist phrase.
            The reason there are so many gun nuts in the US is because the US itself is completely crazy.
            The vast majority of people are sheeple who have been mind-washed into utter compliance by the US media.
            Virtually all US politicans are corrupt and for sale to anyone who will pay them money for pork barrel laws of any kind.

          • dinza

            Do you have a problem with “guns”?
            Haven’t you heard that an armed society is a polite society?

          • johndowdle

            Of course there is a US problem with guns. Just ask the parents of young black men in the US who have had their sons murdered by white police officers and vigilantes.
            That, of course, does not even begin to include the parents of children in schools, college and universities who have had their children murdered by fellow pupils and students.
            Viewing a Batman film can never be the same again, can it?

          • ThisChapWotTalks

            There isn’t a problem with firearms in the US. Between 8000 and 9000 people were murdered with firearms last year, but the numbers are less for stabbing and other murder causesper 100,000 when compared to the UK AND this is in a nation of 320,000,000+ people where over a third own firearms. Of these murderers, the vast majority did not acquire their firearm legally and in fact were felons, meaning they can’t buy guns legally anyway. The vast majority of these murders also took place in states where gun control is at its highest.

          • johndowdle

            See http://www.juancole.com/2013/01/firearm-murders-equiv.html, where the conclusion is ‘The international comparisons show conclusively that fewer gun owners among civilians per capita produce not only fewer murders by firearm, but fewer murders per capita over all.’ and ‘In the case of Britain, firearms murders are 30 times fewer than in the US per capita’
            Yanks need to clear out the contaminating mind-washing propaganda of the NRA and to try to start thinking clearly, logically and positively for themselves.
            Stop being sheeple.

          • Carl Ross

            You are aware that the Waco group was under investigation over sales of rifles, which they were legally buying in large lots and then re-selling them to whoever wanted to buy. Legal under the American Constitution, and when the ATF came knocking, they just did not let them in under their interpretation of the second amendment, it was a mexican stand-off until the ATF drove a tank into the compound and “fire bombed” the buildings. There was very little gunfire from within the compound directed at the ATF until the Compound was breached. It is still undecided in the official reports if the ATF or the Davidians sparked the fire that eventually killed those who died there. Video clearly shows the fires erupting where the tanks broke through walls. Under American constitutional law the Davidians felt they were simply protecting their home. In reality it was a gross lack of communication and legal interpretation. Much like what Islam is facing now, a gross lack of communication and the allowance by Imams of individual interpretation instead of the international Islamic community laying down the law of how Islam is to be practiced globally.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            Uhhh, right.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            The Koresh sect did not practice Christianity but a weird faith based on the strange mind of David Koresh.
            Your rationalizations are pitiful.

          • johndowdle

            The Waco siege was a siege of a compound belonging to the religious group Branch Davidians by American federal and Texas state law enforcement and military between February 28 and April 19, 1993.[4] The Branch Davidians, a sect that separated in 1955 from the Seventh-day Adventist Church, was led by David Koresh and lived at Mount Carmel Center ranch in the community of Elk, Texas,[5][6][7] nine miles (14 kilometers) east-northeast of Waco.
            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege.
            There were a number of British nationals among the dead and survivors, which is why I know that a number of them were highly religious ex-Seventh Day Adventists.
            You US people need to accept that the US is not squeaky clean where gun nuts and religous nuts are concerned.
            Your survivalists are jihadists by another name.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Uh, dolt, they SEPERATED from the 7th Day Adventists, so they were NOT 7th Day Adventists. Can you read?

            It is amusing that the militant atheists who talk of “reason” tend to be the most unreasonable, bigoted, foaming at the mouth lunatics around – with the exception of Islamists of course.
            You are as ignorant of America as you are of religion.

          • johndowdle

            Feeling better after your little illiterate rant, are you?
            If so, I suggest you go and lie down in your darkened room.
            Then, try thinking instead of ranting – just for a change.
            It will get you a lot further on in life if you do.

          • dinza

            As a humanist you’re going to end up in hell. And good luck with your “see an end to all religions”. You sound like McVeigh and Koresh. Why don’t you start your own cult, based on your strange rationalizations an illiberal ideas.

          • johndowdle

            There is no Allah, God or Yahweh. Therefore, there is no heaven, paradise or hell. I will leave the delusions to all the religionists and other crazies who believe in non-existent fictional characters like Moses, Jesus and Mohamed.

          • Tony Mungall

            That you will never see

          • johndowdle

            You can never say “never”.
            There was a time in human history when religion did not exist. It is just a matter of time before we all leave it behind, even though you and I may not be alive to see it happen.
            What a massively better world that will be then.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            Nonsense, religion has existed since the dawn of man and always will, in fact, we seem to be biologically wired for it. Your own wiring is off and so you’re like a color blind man who denies that purple and green exist because he can’t see them. It’s unfortunate that you are defective, but don’t expect the world to change because of your problem.
            Christianity is growing by leaps and bounds in China and Eastern Asia. Your parochialism blinds you to the global reality.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            “McVeigh was a Christian fundamentalist ” Bull, Timothy McVeigh was not Christian. He was agnostic. He made the statement many times to newspapers. He also said “science is my religion.” McVeigh was Catholic as a young child, but never really practiced the religion. He told the authors ofAmerican Terrorist that he “did not believe in Hell.”

          • johndowdle

            So why did he accept Catholic communion shortly before his execution?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            I think I did write: “McVeigh was Catholic as a young child, but never really practiced the religion.” So that is not exactly a ‘Christian fundamentalist’ if he had second thoughts before getting executed. Furthermore this is getting old in a pathetic attempt to claim his act is in any way comparable to Islamic fundamentalist terror so give it a rest as it is total BS.

          • Keith

            By claiming that 1 act of terrorism by someone who was born a christian, practicing now or not is irrelevant, is equivalent to thousands of acts of terrorism done in the name of Islam by thousands people like John Dowdle just show how stupid and irrelevant they really are.

          • ade

            hedging his bets……..

          • johndowdle

            Losing bet, I’d say.
            He still ended up as dead meat, just like everyone else.

          • bionde

            Looking for the fire escape

          • Keith

            So he accepted Catholicism just before his execution that does not in any way shape or form mean that his justification was to convert non believers to Christianity/Catholicism.

          • Tony Mungall

            He never accepted Catholicism before he died,he already was a Catholic,who had lapsed,he merely asked for the last rites(Sacraments) of the Catholic Church,like most Catholics do

          • Keith

            Sorry Tony I don’t think I had read the wikipedia article on this guy when responding to the post by John Dowdle. I was just trying to make the point that even if he had accepted the catholic communion just before his execution that does not confirm that he was a Christian Fundamentalist who bombed a government building because the people there were not Christians/Catholics.

          • Tony Mungall

            For the very same reason the thief on the cross beside Jesus ,Asked Jesus to forgive him and to be with Jesus in Paradise.Read your Bible

          • johndowdle

            Except there never was any thief, jesus or cross.
            You must stop taking works of fiction literally.
            Next, you’ll be believing in Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny.
            There is no “paradise”; once you’re dead, you’re dead.

          • Rod Ivall

            And you’ll be believing in Julius Caesar ! There are hundreds more times as many contemporary New Testament manuscripts than there are of the Gallic Wars.

          • johndowdle

            There is contemporary historical evidence to support the fact that Julius Caesar led Roman troops and occupied Ancient Britain around 55 BCE.
            His assassination when Emperor is also testified to by a number of contemporary eye witness and other accounts.
            Where the fictional characters of Moses, Jesus and Mohamed are concerned, however, nothing was ever written about them during their claimed lifetimes. All of the writings date from anywhere from 50 years after their alleged existence to several centuries after the events.
            You’ve all been duped by these religious fiction works.
            These people and their religions never actually existed contemporaneously as they have been described.
            There was no exodus of Jews from Egypt or “Israel”.
            There was no real living or dying Jewish Jesus.
            Islam only developed as a religion around 200 years after Mohamed was claimed to have established his religion.
            Those believing in religious nonsense have been duped.
            You are ruled by cheap social control measures instead.

          • DAVIDJOHN

            And all the followers and believers of Jesus were willing to die to keep a lie going. Some of the early historians of Rome mention Jesus by the way.

          • johndowdle

            Early historians of Rome pre-date Common Era by quite some time – at least several centuries. None of them, before or after common era, make any mention of Jesus.
            There is not one single shred of contemporaneous written or other historic record relating to the fictitous Jesus from the time when he is claimed to have lived.
            You are right: there are always fools in human history and there always will be.
            The Roman Empire Church used religion as a cheap form of social control. It made sure accounts that contradicted it’s version of the state religion were destroyed.
            That is why so much emphasis is placed on the so-called synoptic (seeing eye-to-eye) gospels, which were invented by the early imperial church leaders.
            If you and others are happy to continue dancing to the tune of a mythical yesteryear fictional individual invented by a former Roman Emperor, then carry right on……..
            For myself, I prefer to live in today’s world.

          • StephenDaedalus

            Apparent references in Tacitus and Suetonius to either Christians and/or their belief in a person called Christ (or Chrestus), are often erroneously cited as direct references to Jesus Christ.

            Clearly, Christians and their beliefs existed.

          • DAVIDJOHN

            Actually Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD stated: Jesus execution at hands of Pontius Pilate was during the reign of Tiberius 26- 36 AD.
            Flavius Josephus 37 -100 AD confirmed the wonderful works an dthe crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. Josephus also writes about James, Jesus’s brother being brought forward to be stoned to death.
            Celsus accused Jesus of sorcery in his writings he described him as just a normal human.
            Lucian 125 – 180 AD confirmed the crucifixion of Jesus.
            Thalus 52AD wrote about the darkness during Christ’s death on the cross noting it was not physically possible and must have been supernatural.
            Pliny the younger wrote about the willingness of 1st centuary christians to suffer torture and death instead of denying Christ. This is only just after the crucifiction.

            Of course many scriptures in the old testament prophesised when and how Jesus was to die and why. Isiah, Ezekiel, Amos, David’s psalms the list goes on.

          • johndowdle

            The mythical character Jesus is supposed to have lived between the years 0 and 33. None of the historians you have cited above was alive during that time period and – therefore – was incapable of providing living eye witness.
            As for prophecies in the Old Testament, none of them mentioned anyone called Jesus. The so-called “gospels” were written around the earlier myths, which is very easy to do after alleged events, especially when they never even took place. Wine into water? Feeding thousands with a few fish and a couple of loaves? How gullible can those early primitive people have been? It is not like people today are so stupid as to be taken in by such silly stories any more, is it?
            Face it, guys: you have been had by these fairy stories.
            I can understand – even if I do not share it – a Gnostic version or interpretation of the mythical Jesus as representing the good forces that lie within us all and the possibility of us all becoming much better people.
            Ultimately, it is a fabled existence, like many of the other old folk tales, which serves a very simple lesson on life.

          • johndowdle

            Results based on extensive Wikipedia research:-

            Actually Cornelius Tacitus (55-120 AD) stated: Jesus execution at hands
            of Pontius Pilate was during the reign of Tiberius 26- 36 AD.

            (117 ACE) Ab
            excessu divi Augusti (Annals)

            The Annals is one of the earliest secular
            historical records to mention Christ, which Tacitus does in connection with Nero’s
            persecution of the Christians.

            Although his work is our most reliable source for
            the history of his era, its factual accuracy is occasionally questioned. The Annals
            are based in part on secondary sources, and there are some obvious mistakes,
            for instance the confusion of the two daughters of Mark
            Antony and Octavia Minor, who are both called Antonia.[

            Only a third of his known work has survived.

            His antipathy towards the Jews and Christians of
            his time — he records with unemotional contempt the sufferings of the
            Christians at Rome during Nero’s persecution — made him unpopular in the Middle
            Ages.

            Conclusion:-

            Tacitus wrote about events which occurred 25 years
            before he was even born. He cited no
            sources for his information so it is speculated that it might have been based
            on oral testimony, which is invariably highly unreliable. His apparent history may well be fraudulent or
            have been altered by later church clerics to fabricate apparent evidence for
            the existence of Christ, Christus, Chrestus or any one of a number of other
            names concocted later on.

            What he allegedly wrote was ‘Christus, from whom
            the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of
            Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most
            mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only
            in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things
            hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become
            popular.’ No mention of crucifixion and a definite question mark as to the actual
            status of Pontius Pilate – procurator or governor?; they are different.

            Flavius Josephus 37 -100 AD confirmed the
            wonderful works an dthe crucifixion by Pontius Pilate. Josephus also writes
            about James, Jesus’s brother being brought forward to be stoned to death.

            He took the name Flavius
            because he was a personal slave of the Roman Emperor Flavius Vespasian, who
            spared his life and employed him as a secretary. Clearly, Josephus would have written whatever
            he was told to write by Vespasian.
            Josephus’s works were crudely adulterated by later early so-called
            church fathers to provide bogus evidence for the existence of Christ, who had
            apparently been killed even before Josephus had been born. Again, Josephus was not an actual contemporary
            eye-witness to the events claimed to have taken place in the New Testament.

            James may well have been
            stoned to death but that does not mean he was necessarily a real living brother
            to the mythical Jesus. Some Christians
            dispute that Jesus had any siblings at all in order to get away from the problem
            that if the mother of Jesus had been a virgin then how could she have had other
            children. Some suggest that James and
            others were half-brothers, who only shared the same nominal father with
            Jesus. It all gets quite ridiculous.

            Celsus accused Jesus of sorcery in his writings he described him as
            just a normal human.

            Celsus’s work was written in 177 ACE – even more remote
            in time than some of the other so-called “authorities” cited before. Can anyone really suggest that an account
            written at least 140 years after the event is reliable? In fact, his work is only known as a result
            of criticism by Origen in 248 ACE.

            Lucian 125 – 180 AD confirmed the crucifixion of Jesus.

            Again, an account written in 165 ACE, i.e. 135 years
            after the alleged events in Palestine, which in fact focus on a character
            called Peregrinus and his death, which is a satire on christianism and –
            frankly – has the usual hall marks of Christian forgery in the subsequent wording
            employed.

            Thalus 52AD wrote about the darkness during Christ’s death on the cross
            noting it was not physically possible and must have been supernatural.

            Thallus work, like the vast majority of ancient literature,
            perished, but not before parts of his writings were repeated by Sextus Julius Africanus in his History
            of the World.[2][3][4]

            Thallus calls
            this darkness an eclipse of the sun in the third book of histories, without
            reason it seems to me. (Africanus, in Syncellus)

            The works are
            considered important by some Christians because they believe them to confirm
            the historicity of Jesus and provide non-Christian
            validation of the Gospel
            accounts: a reference to a historical eclipse, attributed to Thallus, has been
            taken as a mention of the worldwide darkness, reported in the Synoptic
            gospels at the time of Jesus’ death. However, no eclipse could have taken
            place at Passover, when the crucifixion took place.[5][6]
            [7]
            Modern scholars see the darkness as a literary creation rather than a
            historical event.[8]

            There is no
            historical evidence of an eclipse during the time Jesus was supposedly
            crucified. The reason Africanus doubted the eclipse is because Easter happens
            near the full moon and a solar eclipse would have been impossible at that time,
            as was well-known. Compounding the matter is the Armenian translation of Eusebius
            has many corrupt numerals and so many apologists claim that 167th Olympiad (or
            109 BCE) should really be 217th Olympiad

            Pliny the younger wrote about the willingness of 1st centuary
            christians to suffer torture and death instead of denying Christ. This is only
            just after the crucifiction.

            Pliny
            the Younger, Roman
            governor of Bithynia-Pontus (now in modern Turkey) wrote a letter
            to Emperor Trajan
            around 112 AD and asked for counsel on dealing with Christians.
            Note that this – yet again – is long
            after the claimed mythical Jesus events in Palestine and – yet again – provides
            no actual living eye-witness testimony of the claimed events.

            Clearly, Pliny’s concern
            was not with the truth or otherwise of the beliefs of Christians but he was
            concerned about their cultish activities, apparently involving atheism, cannibalistic feasts and incest. He was primarily concerned about the
            potential for christian groups to undermine social order.

            But the temporal order for the documents begins
            with Pliny writing around 111 AD, then Tacitus writing in the Annals around 115/116 AD and then Suetonius writing in the Lives of the Twelve Caesars around 122 AD.

            Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliny_the_Younger_on_Christians

            Of course many scriptures in the old testament prophesised when and how
            Jesus was to die and why. Isiah, Ezekiel, Amos, David’s psalms the list goes
            on.

            None of the prophecies employed the name Jesus – they were
            always different names, so these so-called prophecies are completely useless in
            terms of any predictive powers.

          • Rod Ivall

            Actually there’s loads of history in both the Old and New Testaments; for example, look at how keen Luke is to reassure sceptics about the exact context of Jesus’s birth at the begnning of his gospel.

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Yeah Jews have always been known for naivete haven’t they? What planet are you on again?

          • johndowdle

            I live on planet Earth. I am not sure where you live.
            If you are one of the dupes who believes in a YHWH or Yahweh “god” then you are not merely naive but stupid.
            There are no gods, no messiahs and no after-life.
            All religious ideologies are rubbish.
            Fighting and dying over religion is a mug’s game.
            Only manipulable fools get caught up in it.
            On this planet and in this life, once you are dead – you remain that way. Nothing follows after death.
            Anyone believing they are part of some so-called “chosen” group of people are also deluding themselves too.

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            Do you have any actual cohesive arguments? Or are you only capable of repeating the assertions that you were brainwashed into believing?

          • johndowdle

            Poor Naftoli: still so yesterday in thinking and reasoning.
            People like you are not brainwashed – there’s no such thing.
            You are mind-washed by memes based on irrational beliefs.
            But – hey! – if that helps to keep you happy, then why not?
            Enjoy your sheeple experiences in the flock!

          • StephenDaedalus

            The number of copies made of a document tells us how keen people at different times were to have or circulate copies of it; by the 4th century, Christianity had become a state religion and many copies were inevitably made. It tells us nothing whatsoever about the veracity or otherwise of its contents.

            In the Gallic Wars Caesar describes fortifications that he erected in Gaul that have since been dug up and found to be pretty much exactly as he described. The GW sees things inevitably from the perspective of JC – but it contains no supernatural events and is not written explicitly to proselytise on his behalf.

            There are numerous other contemporaneous sources that triangulate in considerable detail the life of Julius Caesar. The same cannot be said of the NT’s JC.

          • StephenDaedalus

            There are around 107,000,000 copies of Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone.

          • Rod Ivall

            Also hundreds of Old Testament prophecies which were later fulfilled – chances against are dozens of millions to one.

          • StephenDaedalus

            The gospel writers were keen to fashion stories around poorly understood fragments of the LXX. They cannot be seriously regarded as genuine ‘prophecies’ any more than the number of NT MSS can be regarded as evidence of their veracity.

          • DAVIDJOHN

            johndowdle you know this and believers are all wrong because ………well you just know. Sad really.

          • johndowdle

            As an ignostic rationalist humanist, my knowledge is based on facts – not on fairy tales and other works of fiction.
            Humanists are believers too: we believe, for example, that the sun rises and sets every day.
            Why is that? Because it has been doing so for all of recorded history – and pre-history too. That is a fact.
            Of course, the sun – in reality – is not moving; it is the Earth that is orbiting around the sun while spinning on its own axis.
            That is why we have a sense of the sun rising and setting.
            These days, scientific knowledge – based on fact – provides a factual basis for our beliefs, unlike in the past when works of fantasy were relied upon to explain natural phenomena.
            Forget about religion: it gets you absolutely nowhere.

          • ExiledOnMainStreet

            The vocal atheist “comedian” Bill Maher was raised Catholic. If he went off the deep end and shot a bunch of people, would johndowdle describe him as a “Christian murderer” because Maher was baptised as an infant?

            johndowdle employs the facile leftist trick of calling murderers who were raised as Christian “Christian fundamentalists,” nevermind what their actual beliefs or motivations were. The truth is that McVeigh did not scream “Praise be to Jesus!” as he committed his act and he did not use Christianity to rationalize his evil. It’s a pathetic attempt at moral equivalence and anybody who is not deluding himself can see though it.

          • dinza

            At least Maher had the gumption to call out the Muslims a couple of weeks ago.

          • Tony Mungall

            By God.If he never believed in hell,he certainly did at his death by taking the last Sacraments

          • Matthew P Ward

            I don’t remember McVeigh’s Christianity ever being talked about at the time, or after. He seemed more a nihilist or anarchist than anything else. He was a terrorist with an anti-government agenda.

          • johndowdle

            That’s the “impartial” US media for you.
            Don’t forget that religion in the US is real big business.
            By now, it probably rivals the industrial-military complex.
            You don’t seriously expect the US media to report the truth?

          • SteveMG

            The day before his execution McVeigh said that he was an agnostic and had been for a long time.

            More important: McVeigh explained the motivation behind the attack and nowhere – no where – does he mention any religious beliefs as a motive. There wouldn’t be since, as he admitted, he was an agnostic.

            As the famous baseball manager Casey Stengel once said: “You can look it up.”

          • johndowdle

            I looked it up for you:-
            The execution date was re-set for June 11, 2001. McVeigh invited California conductor/composer David Woodard to perform pre-requiem Mass music on the eve of his execution. He requested a Catholic chaplain…Before his execution, McVeigh took the Catholic sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick.
            Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh.
            Don’t YOU love it when you learn something new each day?

          • Rather worried

            So (1) This proves his motivation in the killings was to pursue the Catholic religion?
            and that proves
            (2) that Islamic radicals are no worse than Catholics?

            Didn’t know by the way that radical fundamentalists in the USA are Catholics. I thought they were rather anti-Catholic.
            Ever heard of a deathbed conversion?

          • http://rijministry.org/ BrotherBob

            Insurance. If I am wrong, and my Sunday School Catechist was right, repentence is needed. If the chatechist was wrong, what harm in mouthing a few apologies? How can any of us tell what was in his mind at the end?

          • Lee

            It wasn’t a conversion. Agnostics believe there might be a “God” and there might not be. They believe in hedging their bets at death, which is what McVeigh the self-proclaimed agnostic did. Johndowdle is a garden-variety Islamofascist apologist looking to divert attention from Muhammad-inspired murders, rapes, paedophilia, etc etc. He uses this diversion in the hope nothing is ever done to stop Islamic crimes. Top bloke…

          • dinza

            No, he was not.

          • Keith

            I have just read the Wikipedia article on McVeigh, whilst it does say he was a Catholic, nowhere does it say that his bombing of Oklahoma City government buildngs was due to his religion. The bombing was done due to his hatred of the government of the USA not to convert people to Catholicism/Christianity. If you have information to the contrary please point me in the correct direction. On the other hand Al Qaeda, IS, Boko Haram and other Islamic terror groups are all attacking non Muslims because they are non muslims. On top of that Islamic countries world wide persecute non muslims on a regular basis, look at Pakistan, Saudi Arabia even moderate Malaysia.

          • johndowdle

            Keith,
            If you read the Wikipedia article on McVeigh, you will know that he was raised as a Catholic from childhood – like Hitler – and that the Jesuit maxim of “Give me the child, then do what you like with him” applied to him too.
            The groups you mention – supported by the US and Israel, among others – attack Muslims too.
            The 200 Nigerian school girls kidnapped by Boko Haram were all Muslim. As far as we know, they have all probably been sold into sex slavery.
            Within Pakistan and the Saudi-controlled part of the Arabian peninsula, Muslins as well as non-Muslims are also persecuted – just look at the sentence of 1,000 lashes imposed on a blogger in Riyadh.
            I can’t comment on Malaysia as I do not know much about the situation there.
            As a secularist and humanist, I consider all religions to be a curse on humanity. I do not delude myself that if that form of oppressive ideology were to be removed from humankind that others will not rise up to take their place. Secular ideologies can be just as bad as any other.
            People globally need to learn to live together peaceably.

          • ebipere

            Chibok and the area are Christian.

          • Keith

            Yes people do need to learn to live together peacefully but people like you with your moral equivalence do not help any more than the kidnappings and killings we are seeing today.
            The McVeigh article says he was born and raised a Catholic Christian but nowhere does it say that he committed the bombings in Oklahoma in the name of the Catholic Church or Christianity.
            The Muslims that are persecuted by these violent jihadis are persecuted because they are either the wrong sect of Islam or were considered apostate.

            The blogger in Riyadh was convicted under Islamic law of criticizing Islam or the rulers of Saudi Arabia. Saying that he is being persecuted because he is a Muslim is like saying a native European who is imprisoned for breaking the law is being persecuted for being a Christian.
            I can’t find an article that says all the school girls in Nigeria were Muslims I found an article that said that some were Muslim but most were Christian. Please give a reference for your claim that all were Muslims.
            As a Humanist you believe that all religions are a curse on humanity, well that goes for humanists as well doesn’t it, After all it is just another belief system. If religion gives someone peace and helps them live a comfortable life I have no problems with it as long as they don’t try and force their religion on me.

          • Rob Jones

            Then you’re a fucking fool. If your source is wikipedia, you’ll find nothing of real value there. Give the internet to people, and you all think you’re experts.

          • Keith

            Come on then brain box what is incorrect in the Wikipedia article about McVeigh?

            That is of course if you can use the intelligence you were born with to do a bit of simple explanation rather than just sneer at people like an imbecile?

          • david

            Which was a one off so to speak!Not a constant flow of barbaric violence in the name of Allah!

          • johndowdle

            Yet violence continues weekly to occur in the US.
            Admittedly, it is not apparently organised on a routine basis; it just happens to keep on happening on a routine basis – which must raise the question in the mind of any intelligent person “What is wrong with the USA that it experiences such violence”? Further: “Is it a reflection of the violence which it embraces in fiction/film/video/on-line and which it exports to most of the rest of the world – Palestine, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen – and virtually everywhere else”?
            Much of the religious violence is being fostered by the US and its shady allies in pursuit of the Israeli Yinon Plan.

          • Dogsnob

            So, let’s both put our life-savings on a bet. I’ll lay down all of mine, that the next atrocity is committed by muslims; you only put 10%of yours down that it’s those Christian thugs?
            You up for it?

          • johndowdle

            You’ve lost the bet.
            In the US, white christian police officers are daily gunning down young black males all the way across the country.
            That is an every day christian american atrocity.
            I don’t need your money.
            Give your life savings to a charity that assists victims of police violence in the good ol’ USA.
            I am sure they have plenty of work to do with your money.

          • Dogsnob

            You ARE having a laugh, yes?

            You equate the US police officer, trying to do his job and his having to deal with street thugs with the result very occasionally that unfortunate fatalities occur; you equate that with highly organised, fundamentalist, religio-fascists who ride into villages with the express intent of beheading a few innocents so as to traumatise the population into submission, and whose declared mission is to grab territory and repeat the horror?

            You are scraping a very dirty barrel indeed.

            (By the way, I didn’t realise that only Christians are allowed to serve in the US police service? There are no atheists, muslims, hindus, etc etc?)

          • Dogsnob

            I didn’t know that only Christians are allowed into the police service of the US! That’s terrible.
            And I was surprised too to hear that no white people ever get shot by the police there.
            Drama queen or what mate?

          • johndowdle

            No-one can accuse you of being quick on the uptake, can they?

          • Dogsnob

            Quick is not always strong. You don’t need to be told that.

          • ArthurSparknottle

            Wasn’t that mainly about Mc Veigh’s hatred of government? I thought it was.

            Interestingly, my comment above seems to have been removed and sent into some moderation queue. I wonder why. It was polite, cogent and true. It wasn’t in the least intemperate. Since you were able to see it, I suppose some sensitive member of the religion of peace just demonstrated their utter inability to have anyone comment on their religion or its adherents without going into a strop. This is a land where people of my grandparents and parent’s generation used to speak proudly about the fact that this was a free country where a man could express his thoughts without let or hindrance….. not anymore clearly.

        • Ne11y

          If you get your information about Old Testament scripture from watching Hollywood films, it’s simply not worth even debating with you.

          • Asim

            the old testament is full of hate, it may as well be a book of punishment

          • Naftoli Gugenheim

            That’s not how Jews understand it

          • Mahmoud

            A ridiculous comment. In fact, you’ll find the moral basis of western society encapsulated in Exodus 20. There is no equivalent in the Koran. And despite what you might have read or heard, the message of the Torah is consistent. Unlike the Koran it contains no ‘abrogated’ verses.

          • Dogsnob

            And yes, look how many Christians are running amok, demanding that the world must be at war until they get their way.

        • Terrordactyl

          The part you were wrong about is that Noah, was produced in Hollywood! It was historically inaccurate in relation to what is said in the bible in nearly all of it. There were no giant rock monsters for a start!!!

        • Sridhar Kaushik

          Yes, Judeo christian history is full of violence in the past but we are talking of the present.
          It is galling to see people from muslim world take the very freedom that West has to offer (which is denied in their own countries) and strike terror among the masses.

        • Rather worried

          Uh? You are comparing a film which you saw on tv over the holidays with thousands of deaths and bombings to draw conclusions that two cultures are always equally bloody? Or what?

        • Suzy

          The part you got wrong, speaking as a Christian, is that Jesus is the ultimate expression of God, and as the author said, His call to those who follow Him, is to leave judgement to Him and “vengeance is mine; I shall repay”…. Show me a verse where mankind is commanded to retaliate…on the contrary “do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but….bless for to this you were called….” 1 Pe3:9

        • Kevin

          I haven’t seen the Noah film but I so know the Bible reasonably well. The point I think you’ve missed is that at the heart of Islam is an expansionist theocracy. A theocracy is a society where the only laws are what the religion teaches to be the laws of God and where all the laws of God must be enforced. Ancient Israel was a theocracy but it was not an expansionist theocracy. Christianity is expansionist but it is not a theocracy. Christians living in a culture opposed to Christianity are not called to overthrow it. They are called to practise civil disobedience where necessary but they are not called to take control and impose theocracy. They are called to suffer persecution as they wait for Jesus to return to impose his rule personally. Christians have not always been good at this but it is what they are called to do in the Bible. However Islam is both expansionist and a theocracy. Islam calls its followers to build a caliphate and to extend the caliphate around the world.

        • Dogsnob

          The bit when you thought you would forward a lucid argument.

        • Cogra Bro

          I do not recall reading in the New Testament anything about mindless violence.

        • Dogsnob

          That part which required a sound grip of history and its bearing on present reality. It’s a big part.

      • Lithlad

        The left use Muslims like a useful idiot; like how a spotty oik uses their bulldog to terrorise his neighbours for laughs. Look at how the UAF deliberately goads Muslims into fighting the EDL (which it nearly always out-numbers), and stands back to watch the ‘fun’. Same thing’s happening in parliament.

        • James Lovelace

          You are absolutely right. Under the lie that the Left care about muslims, they treat muslims in a racist way (the racism of low expectations). The Left think they can bring about their revolution using muslims as their Stormtroopers.

          Bravo Douglas for exposing that the politicians and media are involved in a conspiracy of deceit, and that their doing this for (more than 15 years) has made things far, far worse.

          The reason why the media NEVER discuss the historical actions of Mohammed is because it utterly destroys their lie about “the Religion of Peace”.

        • Lee

          Such a great point. Interestingly, ex-Muslim writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali was interviewed last week on ABC TV here in Australia (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4160195.htm ) and said of our struggle with the Muslim war on us:
          “…when it comes to military power…we are far more powerful. When it comes to police power and resources and money, we have more than they have…The men and women who love death and who choose death, where they’re DEFEATING US right now is in the battlefield of
          ideas.”

          An incredible thought. A filthy head-chopper/rapist/paedo’s death-cult winning the war of ideas?! It struck me then – Muslims can’t forcibly invade the West (unlike the past centuries), they don’t have their own mainstream TV networks here to manipulate the masses with, or their own mainstream newspapers, or radio stations. And they don’t have the final say running universities or high-schools.

          Their death-cult is *only* winning because they have been ALLOWED to come live among us by NON-Muslim politicians. Further, their interests and points of view are
          generously represented (and covered-up where necessary) by NON-Muslim politicians; by most NON-Muslim journalists on all mainstream TV, print, and radio; and by NON-Muslim educators in universities and high-schools.

          In other words, the Muslim rapist death-cult has been brought to us and spread by the powerful among our own country-men and women.

          As you point out, this war on us is being prosecuted by traitors, and the Muslims are their troops. Ideally, we need to take the fight back to the traitors (through legal means).

          • greggf

            “In other words, the Muslim rapist death-cult has been brought to us and spread by the powerful among our own country-men and women.”

            One Peter Sutherland has had undue influence generally. Sutherland strongly advocates liberal immigration policies and mass immigration into the European Union.
            He is chairman of Goldman Sachs International and a past Director-General of the World Trade Organization.

          • Lee

            A late reply but I wanted to say thanks for the info on Peter Sutherland. For proof that politicians use Muslims for their own purposes, Andrew Neather of course admitted (re Labour’s immigration policy) that it was designed to:
            “change the face of Britain forever”
            and further
            “the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the right’s nose in diversity”

            In other words, a group of Labour men and women decided to import a million or so immigrants in part as a weapon for their own *personal conflict* with “the right”.

            Now, to “change the face of Britain” and “rub the right’s nose” you’d have to import immigrants who don’t admire the British, who don’t love British culture, and who don’t value British values. Otherwise you wouldn’t “change the face of Britain”, and in particular you wouldn’t get to “rub their noses in it” etc. Enough said.

      • Z D

        The reason that “our” politicians welcome islam is that they are brothers with influential muslims in freemasonary.
        They have sold out their nations to achieve the goals of their masonic orders.

        • RAFFINGO

          NOT ONLY THAT BUT MUHAMMAD HAD 13 WIVES ONE OF WHICH WAS ONLY 9 WHEN HE WAS 53. IN OUR LANGUAGE WE CALL SUCH A MAN A PEDOPHILE. GOD DID NOT GIVE THE ANGEL GABRIEL PERMISSION TO SPEAK TO THIS VILE MAN AS HE CLAIMS. THE EUROPEANS ARE DISGUSTING BY ALLOWING THE HORRIBLE MUSLIM TURKS TO BULLY THE GREEK CYPRIOT POPULATION FOR SO MANY CENTURIES. ENOCH POWELL WAS A GREAT MAN NO WONDER HE SPOKE GREEK FLUENTLY. IF ONLY THE OTHER BRITS COULD FOLLOW HIM. THEY CALL MUHAMMAD A PROPHET – I THINK THIS MUST BE THE BIGGEST JOKE OF THE MILLENNIUM. PERSONALLY I HATE THE MAN AND I THINK HE IS USELESS. HE WILL BE JUDGED ON THE DAY OF JUDGEMENT JUST LIKE HITLER.

      • George White

        Here’s one middle class leftist who can see the problem QUITE clearly.

        It IS a clash of civilizations.

        Our inheritance of rational thought, of the concept of individual freedoms, of equality before the law that we inherited from its beginnings in the Greek “polis”, via Rome and The Enlightenment are under attack!

        I hate the way the left has been so cowardly in sidestepping this issue. I accuse many of them of racism. I suspect they think brown people “can’t help it”. I suspect that they are ashamed of these thoughts and over compensate.

        If you can’t find it in yourself to call some allah u akbaring twat a twat, then you’re probably racist!

    • IslamReligionofPeace

      Then prepare for WW3 against Islam, this time with nuclear weapons which will be used. Erdogan basically accused Europe of fabricating the attacks to make muslims look bad.

      That’s almost a declaration of war. As soon as the plan becomes obvious and we’re heading there rapidly, the left (Islamic appeasers) will become the minority and we commence the fight back needed to take out this brutal of ideologies.

      We did it to Imperial Japan, we did it with the infinitely smarter Nazis, we’ll do it with the Islamists.

      World War 3 is coming unless the Islamists back down which we know they wont. They’re too stupid to understand what’s going to happen.

      • kittydeer

        ‘They’re too stupid to understand what’s going to happen’.
        I agree entirely with your post but that last comment could be about the UK in general. Look at the number of people on this blog alone seeking to defend, excuse and justify. They so badly want to believe their Christian culture is evil and not worthy of defense, the issue along with islam is Western self hate, so little pride is shown in living on a continent that people risk life and limb to join.

      • Richard Baranov

        You may be interested to know that there is a Buddhist text, the Kalachakra, it is at least 1000 years old. It predicts a war, a war between Islam and the rest of the world. So the inevitability of conflict with Islam on a gigantic scale is hardly a new thing. Unfortunately I think the Kalachakra is accurate in its prediction. I say unfortunately because, war or not, I’m sure we can look forward to a lot of death in the near future, in this country and elsewhere. I sense that people are getting angrier by the day and it will not take much more before people simply explode.

        • IslamReligionofPeace

          Isn’t the Religion of Peace currently fighting with Buddhist monks?
          That tells you something when the Muzzies pick a fight with little bald guys sat cross legged humming all day long not speaking.

          • Richard Baranov

            Very into intelligent stereotypes aren’t you? Obviously like to display your ignorance. There is, in fact, no such thing as a Buddhist monk, that is a Western misnomer,, nor do said persons sit there humming nor are most of them bald. Thank you for contributing to the general pool of ignorance!

          • IslamReligionofPeace

            So who are the people currently engaged in battle in Burma at the moment?

            As for stereotyping I was stretching a point to make a point. By the way, get off your moral high horse, we all stereotype, we do it by religion, by gender, by nationality, by belief etc. It’s whether you choose to get all aggressive and violent with it that it becomes a major problem. Freedom of speech allows me to stereotype, that’s exactly what we’re fighting for remember? Did you forget that?, Are you one of those lefties defending Islamists?

            It’s common knowledge Buddhist monks are known for being the mental olympic athletes they are precisely because of their meditative abilities, that aint stereotyping, it’s simply stating a fact.

            This is the problem, we have sensitive idiots like you causing issues taking offence at every given opportunity.

            Man up or fcuk off. You can either take offence and button bash a pathetic reply or you can focus on the issues at hand which is the Islamist onslaught Western civilization is awakening to. Your choice.

          • Richard Baranov

            It has nothing to do with ‘moral high horse’ as a Buddhist and a ‘monk’ for 40 years I get rather tired of the sort of nonsense you perpetuate. It ceased being amusing a couple of decades back and now is just a display of ignorance.

          • IslamReligionofPeace

            Yes it has, you’re about as Buddhist monk as the wannabe Islamists that convert “Richard Baranov”

            and by the way it’s attitudes like yours causing hell on earth, you’re a left wing liberal Islamist appeaser.

            You’re a disgrace to humanity

          • Richard Baranov

            As I said, I’m an ex-Buddhist monk and since Buddhism is a subject you obviously know nothing about you are in no position to judge anything else other than your own stereotypes. And I’m hardly left wing, I vote UKIP.
            Obviously didn’t read what I wrote on Burma. Typical ignorant troll. Truth is irrelevant to fools like you.

          • IslamReligionofPeace

            Oh so you’re an “ex-buddhist monk”? I thought you stated it was an affront to society to use the term “monk”? So one day you wake up and decide that’s it, I’ve had enough of the whole “Buddhist monk” thing! I’m now proclaiming myself an “ex-buddhist monk”. Is that not more of an insult to the real buddhist monks out there? You deciding to call yourself an “ex-buddhist monk” given they dedicate their whole way of life to buddhism and then some.

            UKIP, you? right ok then.

            Buddy if I were you, I’d stop digging a hole, you’re giving me way too much ammo to cut you down.

            Rather than focussing on buddhism, monks, ex-buddhist monks, my ignorance, my trolling?! etc. let’s maybe re-focus on the current global jihadic onslaught attempting to tear civilization apart.

            Trolling is baiting “fool” enticing those into engagements to which I’m certainly not doing. I’m here to discuss the Islamic jihad onslaught, that said judging by your exchange of comments, you’re the one “trolling”. I’ve yet to hear you discuss the topic at hand.

            Islamic extremism, anti-semitism etc.

          • Richard Baranov

            And, why do you think that I put the term in quotation marks in my bio on discus? And if you bothered to read what I write on Islam, you obviously don’t, you would realize that you are talking drivel. I say plenty and non of it supportive. So go and read and stop being such an idiot.

          • IslamReligionofPeace

            Then stop being such a silly cnut and focus on the challenge at hand, at least I don’t want to cut your head off because we have a disagreement. Let’s put your waffle down to an over sensitive ego and move on.

            Now, there are circa 12 million jews in existence, 5 million live in the US, 6 million in Israel, the rest scattered around the world, versus 1.4+ billion muslims, that’s approx 1,400,000,000 muslims out of a global pop of 7.2 billion, 7,200,000,000.

            So nearly 20% of total global pop are muslims. Let’s get things into perspective; a fraction of those jews may
            be nutters, say 1 million which is about 0.013% of total global pop, even so, doubt they’re seeking to destroy you for not being Jewish, they’re more than harmless. I would also add, most moderate, secular jews don’t really give a damn.

            Muslims on the other hand, let’s assume of the 1.4+ billion representing 20% of total global pop, 20% are “extreme” by our standards, that’s around 280,000,000 extremists, or 4% of total global pop, maybe 4 to 5 x the size of Nazi Germany in 1940 which had a pop of 70,000,000. Obviously you can debate whether 20% is an accurate number (-+) and how you would define extreme.

            Figuring it out should but a dampner on your hard on and make you think about every up & coming GE from this point forth.

          • Richard Baranov

            Thank you I already know all that. Old news. So what is your point? And you obviously didn’t read what I wrote on Burma, did you? Please look it up, it is a comment on the article ‘Yes, Muhammad is the No I baby name in this country, so what? You can find it via Google. For some reason when I try to post it the specie puts it in ‘pending’ which makes no sense because the post is still there. The point is that you will learn something about why and what is happening in Burma, in Asia for that matter because the same pattern is being repeated elsewhere. I explain the history and that is important to know as people who read it agreed.

          • IslamReligionofPeace

            Right, so in that case even though we disagree about certain methods of presentation styles and worldyviews and the fact I’m probably more of a “bull in a china shop” than you, we both see the risks and threats ahead re: extremism. My point is, power never leaves a vacuum, so if the West doesn’t stand up to this form of ancient but extreme interpretation of Islam in its own backyard, which seems to be seducing some hostile, incredibly vulnerable young minds across the planet (usually, but not always from the vast repository of the muslim population) we’re going to have a major problem.

            That applies to:

            Moderate muslims
            Other religions
            Other nations
            Other ideologies

            All, either are, or will, have major problems when muslims start to hit certain percentages of total population in and around their respectibve neighbourhoods.

            1-2% we can expect certain low level things to occur, but minor
            2-5%+ we see/hear about more things (UK)
            10-20% we start to witness growing unrest (France)
            20-50% more, violence, unrest and vocality re: Sharia Law

            50%+ we see outright oppression, persecution, war

          • Richard Baranov

            Since you are to lazy to go and look. ” Yes, Muhammad is the No1 baby name in this country. So what?”

            Richard Baranov telemachus • a month ago

            You have no idea what you are talking about with regard to Burma because, thanks to the left wing enamored with Islam, or rather its false image of Islam as the
            ‘religion of peace’, and the utter tripe that said votaries feed your naïve little left wing P.C. brains, we have arrived at the point that truth, when it is adverse to the religion of perpetual abasement, must be censored for fear of upset. Instead we attack the Buddhists. Oh look, the Buddhists are as violent as Islam! This effort to smear Buddhism and, I should say, all other religions in a game of equivalency to Islam is false in that the lowest baseline of inauthentic religion, Islam, is used as the criteria to judge all authentic
            efforts at spirituality. It’s almost as if one were to take a crude cartoon and judge all great works of art against it and, in the spirit of the Emperors new cloths, pretend that the cartoon is superior. To compound the situation we then practice censorship in order not to offend this gang of thugs because we fear the consequences.

            The mainstream media will not explain the etiology of the violence in Burma because it will upset the Muslims and we must, at all costs, promote how peace loving Islam is and we must be servile to the votaries of Allah!.

            The problems in Burma start with the Muslim invasions of the Indian sub-continent, the people, Buddhist and Hindu, were not, ‘People of the Book’ they were therefore fair game, it culminates in, conservatively, 80 million dead, the utter destruction of Buddhism and the native Indian civilization in appalling massacres and acts of wonton destruction. The three great university/monasteries
            of ancient India were burnt to the ground, the library of Nalanda, the greatest of the universities, which contained books on all known subjects from astronomy to Zoology burnt for three months and only three to five people, depending on accounts, were left alive out of more than twelve thousand students and teachers, the last of whom, Sakyasribhadra, fled to Tibet. In the West we were
            spared this sort of destruction because, as ‘People of the Book’, we were not subject to the excesses of Islam.

            In Bangladesh, the small community of what is left of Buddhism is perpetually under threat and is constantly subject to violence, including frequent murders. The Burmese are fully aware of this history of Islam and because Bangladeshi Buddhists flee for their lives to Burma they
            are fully aware of what goes on in Bangladesh on a contemporary basis. It will come, therefore, as no surprise that the Buddhists of Burma fear that what
            happened to the Buddhist community of Bangladesh will happen to them as the Muslim Bangladeshi’s continue, illegally, to invade Burma. Be under no doubt, that
            the Burmese understand this for what it is, an attempt at demographic invasion by a hostile force and they have every reason to fear as the below link demonstrates. But, warning, the link is quite upsetting and contains images
            that some might not want to see.
            http://hlaoo1980.blogspot.co.u

            Yes, it is wrong and from the point of view of
            Buddhism, totally unacceptable that Buddhists are killing Muslims but, in context, fully understandable. It was Islam that started the violence and, frankly, although I should, I have no sympathy for them but every consideration
            for the Burmese who would rather be left alone by these people.

            As for: “We must live and let live and embrace those who are here” It is a stupid remark by a person quite ignorant about Islam’s intentions and the consequences to those
            under Islam.

            Lastly, Telemachus. I spent my childhood under Islam and ‘live and let live’ doesn’t enter into it. It is them or us and if you want to see the destruction of civilization, which always happens wherever Islam spreads then by all means support Islam. But know that by doing so you wish your own destruction

          • Richard Baranov

            As for Burma, by way of a P.S. you can see my comments here http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/yes-muhammad-is-britains-no1-baby-name-so-what/
            You may find it Enlightening.

        • cmflynn

          ‘…..a war between Islam and the rest of the world….’
          We are certainly heading for a war between secular liberalism and Islam. But remember the largest religion in the world is still the Catholic Church. When push comes to shove who do you think the Pope is most likely to side with, the group who show respect for Mary the mother of Jesus or those who condone the right to mock her in cartoons? The Pope gave a little hint this week.

    • James Jones

      “The liberal left have too much to lose”

      It is the illiberal left who I strongly suspect are delighting in these difficulties. As far as they are concerned things are going swimmingly.

      • Tox66

        An excellent point not made often enough.

    • Jack

      Enoch Powell has absolutely nothing to do with this. How absolutely stupid of you.

      • ADW

        Don’t be so witless. Powell was against mass immigration and the insane Roy Jenkins policy of multiculturalism. If we had listened to him the number of Muslims here would be no more than loose change, and they would be properly integrated with a proper understanding that this is not an Islamic country. Read some history instead of throwing around ignorant insults.

    • Chris Hobson

      Not to mention their economics bringing venezuela and france to their knees.

    • http://flyingdingo.com/ Rick Roberts

      I am a member of the liberal left. The problem with many of my tribe is that they equate criticism of Islam with criticism of brown people and have a knee-jerk instinct to defend. It is disappointing.

      • Ed_Burroughs

        Please leave that ‘tribe’ then, its quite possible to be liberal and Right wing. I’m (probably) the most liberal person I know and (probably) the most right wing. I say that in full knowledge that ‘witty’ comments regarding the company I keep may follow.

      • ADW

        Precisely. And they live in abject terror that the country, or enough of it anyway, will turn racist and various other ists at the drop of a hat, and only the most formidable campaigning on their behalf can stave off that imminent disaster

    • Lydia Robinson

      They are so gutless and lacking in morals that they can’t even defend their left wing colleagues at Charlie Hebdo.

    • Asim

      rushdie??? ADW i guess you never read his books the satanic verses?? in the book he calls all blacks ape like, pokes fun all religions, says jewish women are only good for sex.It was banned in south africa for being racist and this was during the apartheid. just because the muslims were the only ones to speak out so actively, perhaps too harshly by iran etc, they are the only ones that spoke out against the racist book, and since he gathered so much fame from the book he choose to only go after islam, he isnt some kind of saint. just a moron that cause hurt and pain to millions by printing lies.
      plenty of people have joined and left islam and nothing happens. its only because the muslims value their religion, these people that murder in the name of islam may as well do it in the name of gummy bears. they murder muslims and they fight with anyone, they are therefore called extremists, but some of them have reasons behind their hatred. the quran has less in it about war more about peace then any of the other books. the bible is full of murder and cruel punishments for those who are not christians or even those who are.
      shame none of you losers mention that, the old testament is full of punishments

      • ADW

        So did you agree with the fatwa then? Christians have been insulted countless times but manage not to respond in the same way. The reason is that they let all the evil stuff in the bible go over the centuries. Muslims, or at least an unfortunate number of them, have yet to do the same with the Koran.

    • VSP

      We are not asking them to have a navel gaze ADW. It is well past that time, we are confronting them, en mass. I hope you add your voice.

    • Jon-Anders Grannes

      The leftist support it probably because they see it as an attack on Western culture and tradition. Something they to are working hard to undermine or destroy?

    • Bentley

      I’m replying directly to you, ADW, but this is intended as a response to a lot of you on this thread.

      I don’t fancy anyone’s chances of solving anything by politicizing
      it. That’s how things DON’T get solved. Sniping at each other across the aisle has never stopped a single act of
      violence. It can’t.

      It sounds like you’re suggesting that all the hatred, violence and intolerance of extreme Islam would magically disappear if only the liberal left didn’t have so much to lose. When you read it that way, can you see how ineffective and potentially harmful it is to politicize this threat? To be clear, this approach is not proprietary; the conservative right is just as guilty of the same hubris.

      Terrorists see a bunch of fractious squabblers who can’t agree on anything and are emboldened. At the same time, politicizing this horror can only further polarize the people who are most likely to be victims of it rather than creating a unity of purpose against a common enemy no matter their political affiliation.

      Pass it on?

    • Puddytat

      Wrong about Enoch?

  • Robert Shaw

    “Islam is not a peaceful religion. No religion is, but Islam is especially not. It is certainly not, as some ill-informed people say, solely a religion of war. There are many peaceful verses in the Quran which — luckily for us — most Muslims live by. But it is by no means only a religion of peace.”

    Why does he think it’s “lucky” that the vast majority of Muslims wish to live peacefully? Could it possibly be because the vast majority of Muslims, like the rest of us, believe in peace? The idea underlying his point is that “we” are reasonable and peace-loving through some allegedly natural or inherent sense of decency. Whereas in his view Muslims in general do not have an inherent sense of decency and live by the peaceful verses in the Koran not from choice but out of “luck”. What a profoundly bigoted and racist assumption by him.

  • sebastian2

    The Religion of Peace cannot simultaneously be the Religion of Truth, for to claim the first is to contradict the second. The claim is at odds with the evidence.

    From its so called sacred texts; its history; its contemporary actions; its declared intentions and global ambitions; and the divisive concept of Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, the RoP narrative is unsustainable. At best, it might claim to have some peaceful bits (much abrogated, by the way). This, though, is hardly the same.

    In a similar way to the fallacy of unmitigated “peacefulness”, another extends to the alleged prophet who, we are told, was “perfect”. This is the fallacy of perfection. Again, the evidence suggests otherwise but, regardless, mohammedans believe both. The “evidence” is not even a minor inconvenience. They entertain a twin devotion that seems mentally and emotionally idolatrous, let alone highly dubious and ill-founded. This from the Muslim Council of Britain website:

    “For Muslims, love of the Prophet ( ﷺ 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.”
    The figment is binding and compulsory – for mohammedans.

    All this creates difficulties for those outside this creed. How can the improbabilities and contradictions that islam appears riddled with, and the apparent falsehoods of its pretensions or declarations ever be taken seriously? They are not rational. They seem mendacious and delusional. Imperfect. However, to oppose them or cast doubt on them as we are rationally bound to do, is to “insult” the faith or the so called prophet. And such insults invite revenge. They are blasphemous and, in an Islamic state, they will kill you for it. This peaceful creed so public in its peaceful condemnation of the Charlie murders, hasn’t for the sake of peace, demanded the death threats against the Danish cartoonists and publisher be lifted. Neither has anyone claimed that the qur’an’s violent contents (a significant portion) are not the “real” islam.
    Islam as the religion of peace and the prophet as the perfect man, is simply untrue. We have a duty to point this out.

  • sebastian2

    Douglas you are correct. Unfortunately I’ve been prevented from posting my reasons for agreeing.
    Maybe I can say, in summary, that the Religion of Peace cannot at the same time be the Religion of Truth. To insist on the first is to contradict the second.

    • HCintheM

      That suggests that the Truth is not Peace, which is a pretty extremist interpretation of religion – the terrorists’ interpretation, even. And why have you been prevented from posting your reasons? Are you planning a terrorist attack, or just seeking a Labour preselection?

  • CriticalThinker

    They are protected by other religions because they don’t want any religion to be criticized. They have replaced peoples natural morality with a set of dogmas, instead of explaining why it’s good to be moral.

    • The Great Cornholio

      So true and they know it. That’s why Baroness Warsi was trying to unite all the religions to keep them protected from criticism lest we live in a religiously free society.

  • WFB56

    An excellent and well considered article, thank you.

    • soporific

      Except, factually wrong where claptrap requires credible sources.

      • Zanderz

        Er?

      • Ed_Burroughs

        Elaborate.

  • misomiso

    Well done Doug.

  • zanzamander

    So we are supposed to tip toe around the “moderate” Islam, like some reformed alcoholic, just in case it falls off the wagon and goes all jihadi on us.

    Oxford University Press, a leading publisher of schoolbooks has banned its authors from mentioning pigs, sausages, and anything pork related in their books, lest the words offend Muslims and Jews (yes they mentioned Jews also, but I leave it up to you to guess why they did that).

    Don’t you see, it is the very threat of violence that intimidates us into granting more and more concessions?

    Look at the Charile Hebdo terror attack. Four “extremists” did the job for millions of “moderates” Muslims who also take offense at any caricature of their leader.

    Even at its most moderate, Islam would still be too hard line for our societies.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Re your second parag, yes, I noticed that. Lol!

    • RobertC

      They all read the same book, one that cannot be amended, changed, improved or even thrown away, on pain of death.

      • tompiper

        Apt and apposite!

    • Grace Ironwood

      Precisely. Are we going to tolerate a sharia compliant media. Is the BBC going to apply the rules of sharia or western civilisation ?

      I think we know.

    • Ed_Burroughs

      I think it was ‘guidance’, not a ban. Still disgusting though.

    • edithgrove

      Moderate Islam was in favour of the Paris murders, at least according to a radio 4 report from High Wycombe. We have to find a new category for the mayor of Rotterdam, reformed or enlightened Islam, perhaps.

  • zanzamander

    In the entire “Islamic world” where all threats from all other religions has been removed for centuries and replaced by Arabic imperialism, one can still, despite the free run Islam has had in these countries (or perhaps because of it), we can find no signs of moderation that we in the West could, even applying the most elastic of definitions, remotely conceive as liberal, free, equal or just.

    I repeat, why do we think that Islam in the West is going to be any different or that Muslims in this country are any different to Muslims of other Islamic countries around the Islamic world?

    • http://owsblog.blogspot.com Span Ows

      I am pretty sure ‘we’ as in hoi polloi, don’t; those “in charge” (although meant to do our bidding) do.

      • zanzamander

        No I mean “we”. For we are the sum total of who represents us (our politicians), who speaks for us (our media) and who teaches us (our educators). In all these cases, we are represented by people and bodies are doing the bidding for us and in matters of Islam are united.

        We as individuals have no say in the matter. Those who do not agree with our representatives are pushed towards the (darker) fringes of our society where our voice is even more silenced.

        So yes, although it pains me to say it, I mean “we”.

  • jack

    Historically Islam has been the most violent religion on Earth. Since it’s creation 1,400 years ago it has been in a stage of almost perpetual war. This is shown either by its attacking of the Jews and Pagans in the Arabian Peninsula during Muhammad’s lifetime, occupying up to two thirds of Christendom by the 11th century and its ravaging of the Indian subcontinent which initiated one of the longest and most systematic genocides in history (80 million Indian Hindu’s murdered by the Muslim’s during the first half of the last millennium). Islam has only (temporarily) been halted because of European colonialism and the defeat of the Ottoman Caliphate.

    Douglas, the reason the politicians give Islam so much praise and allow it to build a fifth column within our society is because powerful Muslims control vast swathes of European capital. London is being bought up by Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Malaysia. Britain became the first non-Muslim country in history to sell Shari’a compliant bonds (because of the Tories in this government). The Islamic blasphemy law has been all but in name introduced into the UK with wide scale self-censorship across society including in the state apparatus itself (BBC for example). Imaginary “hate crimes” have been levied at those who criticise Islam in Britain.

    The European parties of freedom, the people and Western civilization need to get themselves together and unite. With one European-wide political movement we could take over the European parliament, have far greater financial clout and we could arrange massive protests the likes have never been seen in Europe.

    • Blindsideflanker

      The religion of peace.

      633 Moslem Arab armies invade Syria and Iraq.

      636 Byzantium driven out of Syria.

      638 Jerusalem falls to the Moslem Arabs.

      640 Egypt taken and North Africa absorbed.

      640 Cyprus raided.

      655 Khurasan conquered.

      664 Kabul taken.

      690 Carthage taken .

      708 -11 Hindu Kush invaded and settled.

      711 Straits of Gibraltar crossed destroying the Visigoth kingdom in Spain, France invaded.

      The Franks stopped further advance in France, Byzantium and Constantinople stopping them in Anatolia, Khazars in Azerbaijan.

      1453 Constantinople falls to Ottomans, St Sophia the heart of Christian Orthodox religion is made into a mosque.

      1459 Invaision of Serbia and Trebizond.

      1450 Peloponnese occupied.

      1452 Boznia and Herzegovina fall, as well as Albania and the Ionian Islands. Venice besieged, Crete, Cyprus taken and Turkish attacks going on until the 1700’s.

    • Donafugata

      Well said Jack, both the problem and the solution identified.

    • Autolocus

      So mass civil disobedience of a patently corrupt law would appear to be the appropriate reponse

    • James Jones

      “the reason the politicians give Islam so much praise and allow it to
      build a fifth column within our society is because powerful Muslims
      control vast swathes of European capital.”

      This possibility had occurred to me too.

      Do you know of any supporting documentation?

  • colonel wintle

    More truth, thank you Douglas.

  • Don Zamifaro

    I don’t know. There are a lot of muslims who say that no where in the Quran does it mention death for blasphemy. Are the extremists using the hadith or other texts to justify their ways?

    • Steven Carr

      You are not an extremist if you believe the hadith are Islamic texts which teach about the life of Muhammad. Unless, say, Karen Armstrong is an extremist.

      • Don Zamifaro

        I’m not saying whoever believes the hadith are extremists. I’m wondering if extermists are using some obscure hadith to justify their position, as moderate muslims believe the Quran does not validate the extermist view. Would like to see this debated out somewhere.. Anjem Choudray vs some muslim scholar on the contents of the Quran.

        • http://schda.wordpress.com Isley Constantine

          All major islamic schools of jurisprudence have harsh punishments for blasphemy, in most cases “death”. I’m not sure so about Quran not mentioning a penalty for blasphemy, maybe it just doesn’t says it directly but more like (in the meaning, not actual text from the Quran) “All who criticise Islam are non-muslims” and inanother place “being non-muslims is being blasphemous”. But anyhow, surely those major islamic schools of jurisprudence must have their sound reasoning.

    • Mister Rible

      taqiyya

    • RobertC

      Wiki doesn’t always get it right, but a quick google would start you on the path to finding an answer:

      “Blasphemy in Islam is impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran and the hadith admonish blasphemy, but do not specify any worldly punishment for blasphemy. Various fiqhs(schools of jurisprudence) of Islam have different punishment for blasphemy. Where Sharia pertains, the penalties for blasphemy can include fines, imprisonment, flogging, amputation, hanging, or beheading.

      Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.”
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_blasphemy

      Quite a peaceful lot really.

  • Rowland Nelken

    The Church of England has pretty well junked the Bible, save as a ceremonial prop. Its presence, even there on the fringes, still lends legitimacy to the fundies who prefer the Law of God to that of fallible men. The Christian God certainly did a love and peace act while on earth, but still declared his respect for Daddy’s law. Nothing too loving or peaceable about executing sabbath breakers, adulterers, gays and non virgin brides. Celebrating genocidal warriors like Joshua is definitely stretching all definitions of love that I have come across. I fear that Judaism and Christianity will only be entirely peaceful once their holy books are consigned to the history shelves and no longer paraded in their rituals. We cannot guarantee that some malcontents might one day want to live by their laws and wacky prophecies. As to the Koran; that is even worse. You have to dig deep, especially in the New Testament, to find the hellfire threatening and sword waving Jesus (the guy’s main role in the Book of Revelation) – but he’s there alright. The koran and Hadiths, however, are stuffed with hate filled hellfire warnings for unbelievers and invocations to Jihad for the faithful. It seems that Mahomet, like Jesus and St. Paul before him, was convinced that Judgement Day was nigh and their frantic outpourings were largely based on this misconception. Some stats, however, are encouraging. Non believers are increasing in numbers, and in more societies, coming out as non religious is easier. When it becomes as easy to dump an old Koran as it is a Spectator back number, and cartoons of Mahomet are as relevant as cartoons of Lord Rosebery (or any forgotten historical character) it will be time for celebration.

  • zanzamander

    I disagree that all religions are violent. Many Eastern beliefs based on ancient philosophical thinking are non-violent to the core. Many of these followers may have resorted to violence in order to protect their beliefs from what they see as an invasion from foreign ideologies – but this is self defense. They themselves have never sought to invade other countries (faiths) in order to prothletise others.

    Remember also that these ancient faiths were established many centuries before Islam (for instance) was formed, so had no notion of there being other competing and far more vigorous ideologies that they may one day end up competing with.

    Islam, on the other hand, was formed purposefully to replace all existing faiths (no god but Allah, no prophet but Mohammad etc.) and therefore you cannot claim that all other religions are violent when followers of these ancient faiths, beliefs and cultures show up some resistance and in some cases, in face of constant pressure, fight back.

    • Steve Kane

      Once Christianity got its hands on the Roman Empire they conducted themselves like wolves in the sheep pen.
      It was actually a reaction to that extremism and the turmoil it caused, that sowed the seeds of Islam at the Empire’s margins.

      • Ed_Burroughs

        The Roman Empire was a busted flush long before Islam can along, innit!?

        • Steve Kane

          On the contrary the Empire in the East was the biggest show in town at the time.

      • lambdoid

        I think it’s more a case that the Roman establishment adopted Christianity and not the Christians getting their hands on the Roman Empire. Under pagan Rome, most religions were tolerated(apart from Christians who were used as scapegoats and considered troublemakers), but as soon as the Emperor adopted it and it became the state religion, it was abused as a tool of power to enforce compliance.

        • Steve Kane

          Same might be said of islam, or any religion, in the hands of those who see it as a war horse to ride into power, as do the Muslim Brotherhood and their more extreme fellow travellers and their Qatari backers. Even Atheism was thus used by Pol Pot and other fundamentalists of the left. Constantine was as cynical as Stalin and Napoleon in his first rejection and then courting of religion, you can see many parallels in the current Islamic world, Saddam Hussein did the same two step.

        • Steve Kane

          I think you should do little more research and them come back and make a better informed comment lamboid. “I think” is not enough afraid, and I cannot be bothered to complete your education. The first martyr was Priscillian, from right near where I live, the emperor wanted him spared, the church did not, they executed him for heresy. That’s just off the top of my hat. Then they went after everyone else.

          • lambdoid

            I was talking about the early persecution of the Christians by Nero, and the much later adoption of Christianity by Constantine. Priscillian was executed long after the death of Constantine under the reign of Magnus Maximus. The point I was trying to make was after the adoption of Christianity as the state religion, the political power of the emperor was used to give the church more power by building churches and appointing Christians to high office. The marriage of church and state led Christianity to become more monolithic and dogmatic, whereas prior to that Christianity was very much the underdog. When Constantine II ascended the throne he made paganism illegal, thus further entrenching the church’s power.

          • Steve Kane

            See my new comment above.

        • Steve Kane

          The Jews were also persecuted, and further to your reply to my other reply I see now you have done your homework, and have a clear view of how, once they were able to Christians persecuted just as enthusiastically as Nero. Constantine did institute Christianity as imperial orthodoxy, in a kind of desperation to unite the empire, in fact he was something of a Manichean, only being baptised into orthodoxy on his deathbed, after him the wolves took over.
          All other faiths as well as non orthodox christians were then persecuted, except jews, for Augustine of Hippo’s perverse reasoning, carried forward in concentrated form by Luther centuries later.

    • denis

      Of course not all religions are violent !
      Just follow the Pope ! He is teaching intelligently and coherently what Christ taught . A religion of total Love and Forgiveness . Eventually this has to be the common denominator .

      • Kemlyn Hughes

        Yes! If somone disses your mum, punch him in the face, innit! Yes! Free speech for everyone, unless you insult my religion of course, then punch him in the face, innit!

  • Sean

    Douglas who was the Muslim you debated with on Radio 4 and do you have a link to the recording? Thanks in advance

  • sebastian2

    The Religion of Peace cannot simultaneously be the Religion of
    Truth, for to claim the first is to contradict the second. The claim
    is at odds with the evidence.

    From its so called sacred texts; its history; its contemporary
    actions; its declared intentions and global ambitions; and the
    divisive concept of Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, the RoP narrative
    is unsustainable. At best, it might claim to have some peaceful bits
    (much abrogated, by the way). This, though, is hardly the same.

    In a similar way to the fallacy of unmitigated “peacefulness”, another extends to the alleged prophet who, we are told, was “perfect”. This is the fallacy of perfection. Again, the evidence suggests otherwise but, regardless, mohammedans believe both. The “evidence” is not even a minor inconvenience. They entertain a twin devotion that seems mentally and emotionally idolatrous, let alone highly dubious and ill-founded. This from the website of a prominent muslim, UK body:

    “For Muslims, love of the Prophet ( ﷺ 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.”

    This sentiment is binding and compulsory – for mohammedans.

    All this creates difficulties for those outside this creed. How can the improbabilities and contradictions that islam appears riddled with, and the apparent falsehoods of its pretensions or declarations ever be taken seriously? They are not rational. They seem mendacious and delusional. Imperfect.
    However, to oppose them or cast doubt on them as we are rationally bound to do, is to “insult” the faith or the so called prophet. And such insults invite revenge.They are blasphemous and, in an Islamic state, they will kill you for it. This peaceful creed so public in its condemnation of the Charlie murders, hasn’t for the sake of peace, demanded the death threats against the Danish cartoonists and publisher be lifted Neither has anyone claimed that the qur’an’s violent contents (a significant portion) are not the “real” islam.

    Islam as the religion of peace and the prophet as the perfect man, is
    simply untrue. We have a duty to point this out.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Well said. I find the stories of Islam’s foundation & its behaviour as a cult similar to Mormonism & Scientology, both of which we’re allowed to criticise & lampoon. Indeed the latter attracts far more official persecution & bile.

  • Steven Carr

    So a ‘moderate’ Muslim refuses to debate if somebody quotes Islamic texts?

    I guess I haven’t quite understood what ‘moderate’ means.

    • soporific

      Er, it’s Murray who ducks debates with Muslims who want to discuss Islamic texts. Lesson 1. The story of Asma bint Marwan is NOT true.

      • Steven Carr

        You mean the Muslim debater discussed this Islamic text?

        He didn’t refuse to discuss it? He didn’t say that all discussion of it had to be wiped from the programme?

        • OldFlashy

          Quite laughable. We are, quite literally, talking about him debating Islamic texts with a Muslim who insisted on shutting it down and having it deleted. Now we’re hearing that he is ducking debates of such a nature.Think we might have to just take this chaps comments with a pinch of salt.

      • sebastian2

        Neither is it false. Some (not all) scholars merely dispute it; though set against the other acts of violence he was plainly responsible for, the story remains plausible.

        • soporific

          Not “some” but almost all scholars reject this story as a fabricated lie by a known liar who manipulated Chinese whispers 300+ yrs after the prophet for his own ends, something not uncommon in hadith narrations.

          • John Croston

            Funny that Hadith which had been accepted for years are now disputed because they show Mohammad in a bad light and are used by non-Muslims to criticise Islam. Ayesha’s age when she was raped by Mohammad is now claimed not to be nine but nineteen – even though the Hadith says she was playing with her dolls at the time and says she was nine.
            I have lost count of the number of times I have been told by Muslims that various Hadith are “unauthenticated” or “badly translated.” It must be up there with all those “taken out of context” verses of the Koran that justify murder, crucifixion, mutilation, slavery and rape.

          • William_Brown

            A fabrication within a set of fabrications then…

            Your rigidly defensive stance is interesting – care to share?

          • Steve Kane

            Like I imply above, there is a confusion about the authority of the Hadith, as opposed to The Koran, or rather before we even get to the Koran. Ironically many of the ISIS theologians reject much of it and commentary on it, I was tempted to say “doesn’t make them Martin Luther” but actually it does, have you read his snarling antisemitism, and much else, also Zwinglers conversions by the sword and Calvin’s turning in of theological rivals to the Catholic inquisition?

          • Richard Baranov

            Well considering that the Koran is billed as the most perfect piece of literature in the Arabic language, a clear fallacy. That the claim it was handed down, as is, by Allah to Mohammad is also a fallacy, because we know very well that it evolved like any other ‘sacred’ book. That the Koran may not have even been written in Arabic in the first place. You have some minor problems, methinks.
            Your claims at manipulation become rather dubious when the truth about the central scripture of Islam is itself a fabrication. So which falsehood according to you is true? Bit of a conundrum, isn’t it?

          • somewhereinthesouth

            It seems to me Islam isa bastardised religion . it has borrowed great deal from theJudaeo -Christian religions but then added in a load of Arab cultural stuff [ oppression of women being the prime example] with a large dose of lack of Arab self esteem to boot. Odd to my mind that God decided to “dictate” so much from the bible to the Prophet who was a war monger and to some extent a womaniser. It is almost as if the Arab or tribes decided they must have thier OWN religion . However lack of self esteem, and envy of their neighbours coupled with an unconscious self hatred could not be admitted by the early adherents, so this hatred was aggressively projected on to others – resulting in a desire to destroy. This reflects the nature of many dictators and totalitarian regimes who must pump themselves up and create an external enemy to deflect the fears of rebellion from within. The threat to others by islam e.g. the west , is therefore actually of internal origin rather than external. It reflects weakness rather than strength. The texts just provide another layer of justification and a deadly one at that to annihilate any opposition . { In this context it is notable that many of todays Jihadists are often losers or socially isolated who have found it difficult to make a success of their lives and are subsequently recruited to belong to something which makes them important – this desire to be someone to be admired is further encouraged by the islamic texts and as a result they are driven to repeat their bloody history].

            Indeed the early history if Islam is one of raids and wars on [and killing of ] their neighbours and stealing booty. These wars and raids were indeed practiced by Mohammed himself. [Mohammed himself beheaded 100 jews …hardly the actions of a “saint” or a man of peace in western eyes at least]. Subsequently Islam continued to aggressively expand by more or less continuous war which only ceased in the 17th century in Vienna when it was too weak to succeed against the west. This self hatred and envy of the west is still in evidence today. The desire to destroy is still there. There is nothing liberal or democratic in this religion. There are of course passages relating to peace but the Islamic texts do seem very conflicted – rather like many of its believers.

          • sebastian2

            Find me an islamic scholar or learned imam that confesses anything “negative” about islam.

      • Damaris Tighe

        So why didn’t the muslim debater argue this point rather than getting enraged & offended, & then forcing censorship?

        • Richard Baranov

          Because although, as I said above, the story falls into the ‘not sure’ category of hadith. It probably is true. After all Mohammad called for people to be killed several times. Therefore the story fits to the character of the person involved and that is why this hadith continues to survive.

      • Citizen Pain

        “But mufti Murray has form of course trading in sewer fodder.” Wow, you come across as a well-balanced, reasonable person & not at all like the sort of person to which this article allures.

      • Grace Ironwood

        I must have been dreaming.
        I thought I read the various versions of it & about it’s provenance in the Bukhari hadith last weekend.

        Thanks for setting me straight.

      • Richard Baranov

        The chain of transmission of this story is confused. There are certain rules in establishing whether a hadith is true or not, this story falls into the faulty chain of transmission category. The correct answer is, ‘not sure’. Not true is incorrect.

        • denis

          I wonder why intelligent and informed muslim scholars don’t read The Spectator, ?

          • Richard Baranov

            I’m sure some do but if they are Wahabi they are probably tracing IP addresses and putting you on a list. For friendly purposes, you understand.

    • James Jones

      “I guess I haven’t quite understood what ‘moderate’ means.”

      As far as I can see it means that they don’t want to behead you, until next year.

  • John Smith

    Excellent article! Let us not forget the 1400 children who were sexually abused in Rotherham – something which was tolerated by the police because THE OFFENDERS WERE MUSLIM.

    This insanity has to end. NOW.

  • Steven Carr

    Douglas Murray is quite correct.

    Muslims can read Islamic texts. Pretending that certain Islamic texts don’t exist is silly, because many Muslims actually know something about their religion.

    Of course, the majority of Muslims are too busy with jobs, funerals, weddings, births, exams, tennis lessons, cricket, piano lessons, in short, life, to find the time to study their religion deeply.

    But there will always be a tiny minority who are extremely religious and will read the Islamic texts that Douglas Murray knows exists, and which certain people pretend are not there.

  • soporific

    The story of Asma Bint Marwan order to be killed by Mohammad is fabricated. It was a forgery attributed to a known liar and rejected by early scholars.

    But mufti Murray has form of course trading in sewer fodder.

    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%27Asma%27_bint_Marwan

    • OldFlashy

      How about the one regarding slaying hundreds of Jews ????

      • monty61

        To be fair, Christianity’s record in this area isn’t stellar.

        • Mister Rible

          very true

          and nowadays reading some british newspapers, feels like reading Der Sturmer in 30s Germany, sickening

        • OldFlashy

          I’m not Christian so it’s irrelevant to me. I want to know why people are getting shot, blown up and having their heads chopped off in the name of a religion. Douglas Murray puts forward some very sensible points in this article and this chap is trying to discredit him. I’m just interested as to why.

        • Richard

          Which I think is addressed in the article. However, this is 2015, not 1450.

        • GUBU

          Indeed.

          But I doubt you find any recent film footage of members of your nearest select vestry throwing someone off the roof of a block of flats near their church.

      • soporific

        Why don’t you ask mufti Murray to vomit that story out as reference in the debates with Muslims who know their **** that he chooses not to have?

        • OldFlashy

          I’ve seen Murray debate with many Muslims and is always rational and succinct. Your claim that this is a false hood doesn’t seem to stand up, when Wikipedia is your best reference I’d suggest that it might be a struggle. Seems to be a lot of moving the goal posts on this but not to bother as I’d it’s the sort of thing that is impossible to prove either way. He’s correct in the fact that there are a significant amount of people using the teachings of Islam in the most horrific ways possible. They are my worry, not the writings of any religion as it’s a load of nonsense in my eyes.

    • Steven Carr

      So your claim is that early Muslims lied about Muhammad?

      This is very likely true.

      http://www.muftisays.com/qa/question/2144/asma-bint-marwan.html explains why the story of the killing of Asma bint Marwan is probably an early Muslim fabrication.

    • Malcolm Stevas

      Ultimately most of us probably don’t give a damn what ancient religious texts of dubious – but clearly mystical, superstitious and fanciful – provenance say. What matters is the here & now of a huge resident diaspora of people with alien cultural & religious beliefs who couldn’t care less about assimilating and indeed would be happy to impose upon us their primitive ideology.

      • soporific

        Not what Murray is saying.

        • Malcolm Stevas

          I addressed your comment, not Murray’s. No-one cares about the details of religious fairy stories: it’s the present daily reality brought about by believers that concerns us.

    • doctorseraphicus

      The article you refer cannot prove unequivocally that the story is true or false:

      Some classical and post-classical hadith scholars have rejected the story, with some declaring it as fabrication (mawdu’), pointing out in their arguments against the factuality of the incident that the chains of transmission (isnads) by which the story was transmitted are all weak (daʻif)

      Reading the rest, though, the likelihood is that it was false. What one must then ask is, why would someone make up a story about a barbarity like that was a good thing? Why would others buy into that like it was something to be admired? There is a darkness in the heart of man which, sadly, Islam doesn’t really seem to address.

      • soporific

        Why does Douglas Murray use the story and pass it off as factual if it didn’t serve an agenda? Primitive hearsayers had an excuse, what’s Murray’s?

        • Steven Carr

          As Soporific knows, because he is an expert, there are Muslims who believe this story.

        • doctorseraphicus

          I suppose he wishes to try to understand the violent interpretation of Islam favoured by, in his figures, 15% of its adherents.

      • Damaris Tighe

        1) The muslim debater could have made the point you make about the veracity of the text, instead of closing down discussion in a cloud of hair-trigger offended outrage (as usual).

        2) “There is a darkness in the heart of man which, sadly, Islam doesn’t address.” I agree. And when it’s pointed out that practices such as FGM, veiling & polygamy predate Islam, the question is, if Islam is really based on a good & true revelation, why did it not address & stop these practices?

  • zanzamander

    The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk.

    You said that your fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. He ended up going “berserk” and forced to the BBC to do what he wanted.

    Now remember this man, for for intents and purposes, is what we might call a “moderate” Muslim who would never harm anyone, yet the BBC, for the fear of offending him (and by extension other moderate Muslims) gave way.

    That is why I say that even at its most moderation, Islam will remain too hard line for us.

    • Damaris Tighe

      But I also blame the craven BBC for giving in & editing the piece out.

      • Donafugata

        Guess what faith the head of BBC religious broadcasting belongs to?

      • William_Brown

        Exactly. The whole ‘berserk’ moment should have been broadcast.
        Goodness me, if one of Farage’s acolytes had ‘gone berserk’ in a similar (if opposite) way, it would be replayed and repeated until May at the very least.

        I have been one of the last defenders of the BBC, but recent events and complicity with a largely apologist agenda, has undermined my belief in the organisation as a whole.

        • Damaris Tighe

          Good point.

      • Donafugata

        Since May 2009 the head of BBC religious broadcasting has been one Aaqil Ahmed, moved from Channel 4 with a reputation for being ‘ controversial’ , to quote the DT at the time.

        His appointment by Mark Thompson provoked letters from the then A of C, Rowen Williams and several other leading church figures.

        No prizes for guessing AA’s faith.

        • Damaris Tighe

          It was Channel 4 of course that decided that broadcasting the muslim call to prayer every morning during ramadan was a good idea.

          • vanLomborg

            It was a splendid idea! All those who had no clue what that culture is all about could go and have a look what it was about without stepping foot into a mosque. The Henry Jackson ‘backup juifs’ will not understand that point, I am certain. They, like you, are not interested in common values, they are interested in social division and exercising maximised control.

          • Donafugata

            And also Mr. Sunshine Ramadan on the weather report telling them what time they can have their dinner.

    • Tim Reed

      I think this is an important distinction.

      When people talk of ‘moderate muslims’, they may well be moderate by Islamic standards, but not necessarily by our Western, liberal democratic standards.

      • The Great Cornholio

        For a long time it had been the case that the only “moderate Muslim” spokespeople were the likes Mehdi Hasan, Miriam Francois-Cerrah, Mo Ansar, Tariq Ramadam et al. Indeed not very moderate by Western standards and totally incapable of discussing Islam honestly.

        Now however there are Muslims in the public eye with the courage and integrity to be critical of Islam. Maajid Nawaz, Ed Hussein, Irshad Manji. Still too few but with apostates like Aayan Hirsi Ali, are gaining a considerable voice in the coming war of ideas, in an effort to reform Islam.

        • Jon Sobieski

          Reforming Islam is impossible. Will never happen. For disbelievers to believe that Muslims will throw away hundreds of verses demonizing disbelievers and/or calling for their murder or enslavement because these verses don’t fit the modern world is naivety. Islam’s verses that we are disturbed by and often fear are PREscriptive; the often referenced verses in the Bible used by Muslims as a counter in debate (old testament almost all) are DEscriptive. The Muslim verses are impossible to ignore because they are prescriptive, they are the core of Islam.

          Separation, while not a perfect solution, will reduce exposure of the disbeliever population to murder and violence by Muslims. Queen Isabella achieved this in 1492, it can be done again.

          I would also point out that abrogration nullifies the ‘nice’ verses many disbelievers take refuge in as they try to convince themselves that not all Islam is bad.

          It looks bleak. Islam hellbent on domination. West in denial right up to its beheading. Even then the West will scream out “But I’m with you!”

          • The Great Cornholio

            I am an atheist and I don’t understand how any of the adherents of the Abrahamic religions manage to square what is written in their scriptures with modernity but they seam to do it.

            The truth is that we are just very capable of double think. Ask a Christian what they think about the endorsement of slavery in the Bible and you’ll get a response like “Well… you just have to appreciate it in the time it was written.”

            Hang on, what?!??

            I thought it was the inspired word of an eternal god shouldn’t it be timeless? And are you really saying that owning people as property that you could beat was once morally justifiable? And if so when did it become wrong?

            Wilberforce and co. were on the wrong side on a theological debate in their efforts to end the slave trade but they did so and today there is hardly any call from Christians to bring it back.

            This is the sort of triumph that must happen from Muslim reformers if the Islamicfascist threat to liberty and civilisation is to be ended. Although I agree that this is a much greater challenge.

            Separation is not the answer. The world is get smaller and globalisation is inevitable. We have to champion liberal principles that we can all live by.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I think Islam may be irredeemable due to its main character. No amount of burnishing and/or whitewashing is going to make mo’ into a nice guy.

          • The Great Cornholio

            You may well be right. Reforming Islam with all the theocratic baggage that is attached to it is a mammoth task. But there are at least now a handful of individuals brave enough to raise their heads above the parapet in an effort to address this need.

            It may be a fool’s errand but I believe that we have to support them. I mean what other choice to we have? If we fail to contain the growing threat of Islamofascism we are heading for a collision from which civilisation would be lucky to survive.

          • Ed_Burroughs

            An apocalyptic war between the west and Islam would make for a box-office smash IMO.

            I think ‘we’ are are own worst enemies, if European societies were not so willing to kow-tow to Islam(for example by having Mahmoud Abbas march in Paris- wtf is that about?) then the problem would be diminished. To put it another way, why would hardcore muslims respect a society that repeatedly fails to respect itself?

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah I went overboard with apocalyptic nihilism in my last post. I can’t really see this happening, at least in the near future.

            However I can see worsening divisions in society with the greatest suffers of this being the Muslims themselves.

            I completely agree that we have brought this on ourselves to some extent by failing to value the liberty that we inherited.

            Our forefathers fought for it, we have no right to surrender it as much of our media are doing right now.

            We have to reclaim our liberal identity and show the Islamofascists that we are not giving it up at any price. This should include standing by genuine liberal Muslims who are on the front-line in this war of ideas.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah I went overboard with apocalyptic nihilism in my last post. I can’t really see this happening, at least in the near future.

            However I can see worsening divisions in society with the greatest suffers of this being the Muslims themselves.

            I completely agree that we have brought this on ourselves to some extent by failing to value the liberty that we inherited.

            Our forefathers fought for it, we have no right to surrender it as much of our media are doing right now.

            We have to reclaim our liberal identity and show the Islamofascists that we are not giving it up at any price. This should include standing by genuine liberal Muslims who are on the front-line in this war of ideas.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Yeah I went overboard with apocalyptic nihilism in my last post. I can’t really see this happening, at least in the near future.

            However I can see worsening divisions in society with the greatest suffers of this being the Muslims themselves.

            I completely agree that we have brought this on ourselves to some extent by failing to value the liberty that we inherited.

            Our forefathers fought for it, we have no right to surrender it as much of our media are doing right now.

            We have to reclaim our liberal identity and show the Islamofascists that we are not giving it up at any price. This should include standing by genuine liberal Muslims who are on the front-line in this war of ideas.

          • denis

            I disagree . The battle can only be won by love .
            Christ would have condemned violent slavery , long before the good Wiberforce arrived . In other words the law of loving your neighbour is the only real radical answer.
            Today we have the acceptance culturally of abortion . But eventually , like slavery, it will be seen as uncivilised . Christ condemns abortion just as he condemns slavery, . It just takes time , it seems, for the christian penny to drop.!

          • somewhereinthesouth

            Loving some one who continues to hurt you is actually a form of self abuse. Just as in a marriage, if you are being abused you need to separate not people please and try harder – so it is with Islam. They need to reform or go.

          • The Great Cornholio

            You illustrate my argument perfectly.

            If the bible is the word of god then he clearly expects us to keep slaves. Jesus talks in parables about slaves, St Paul commands slaves to serve their masters well, and not only does Jesus not condemn slavery, he claims to fulfill every jot and tittle of the law meaning all the Old Testament endorsements of slavery still apply.

            But in spite of this you, as an obviously devout believer, still find slavery morally reprehensible and have painted your religion in your own vision.

            This is what Muslims have to do, reinterpret their faith in the light of modernity. A great deal of cognitive dissidence is required but the human capacity for this can be seemingly unending.

            Oh and by the way god doesn’t condemn abortion either. There are numerous times in the bible in which he is in favour of it, including this delightful passage, Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28, in which pregnant wives, whose husbands suspect have been unfaithful, are commanded to undergo a trial by poison whereby if she miscarries doesn’t matter as it meant her husband was not the father. Charming.

          • Jon Sobieski

            I disagree. Separation will be difficult as it requires overt discrimination against a religious group, but it is the best solution. I recommend you read Lawrence Auster’s articles on separation.

            http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/006854.html

          • The Great Cornholio

            I scanned the comments on the link. Apart from curtailing immigration from Muslim majority countries, which seems reasonable, and ending our oil dependency, not going to happen any time soon, they were opaque as to what separation entails. Could you explain what you mean by it?

          • Donafugata

            They will never stand for what Isabella did, they think the continent of Europe belongs to them now.

            Unfortunately they are being appeased to a degree which can only encourage the misconception.

        • Dr. Heath

          There is almost nothing moderate about anyone who decides to stay within the Islamic community. Even the widespread belief of committed pacifist Muslims in the entitlement of their faith to exceptionalist political treatment is extremist in a secular society. Moderates are Muslims who’re on the verge of becoming, if they are not already so, apostates.

          • The Great Cornholio

            I could not possibly agree more with you that anyone who thinks their faith deserves special treatment is not moderate but I would encourage to look into what Maajid Nawaz is saying if you haven’t already. He says that he wants his beliefs to be treated like any other and yet still professes faith in Islam.

          • Dr. Heath

            Thanks. We have to hope and expect that in future generations, Islam, wherever its believers live, will adopt the same stance that all other sects have adopted and acknowledge the need to privatise religious sentiment and divorce it absolutely and forever from the secularist politics that, in truth, are alone capable of protecting all believers. Much of Daar el Islam is a non-democratic post-colonial world and many of its inhabitants, still lacking any form of civil society and rationalist government, view the Middle East conflict as proof of their victimhood and an excuse for jihadism and genocide. It’s our leaders, whose policies of special treatment and exceptionalism encourage this mindset, who help postpone Islam’s centuries-late reformation.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Absolutely we are always essentially fighting for the hearts and minds of future generations. This is why we need to support the growing movement within Islamic societies to make its practice compatible with our much better liberal values.

          • tamimisledus

            Anyone who claims that islam and liberal values (by which I understand most people to mean Western values) can be made compatible is ignorant of islam or liberalism or both, or is failing to tell the truth.
            You have claimed that you have an open mind, and I do believe you have. If you do then, you should look behind the propaganda behind islam to see the reality at its core. I think you will be very anxious for future generations, as I am, when you see that reality.
            At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, just because you end up finding islam to be irredeemably destructive of liberal values (as I did), does not mean that you did not have an open mind (as I did) when you come to that conclusion.

          • The Great Cornholio

            Like Dr Heath, I would encourage you to look at what Maajid Nawaz and others like him are saying if you haven’t already. Maajid Nawaz is as dedicated to freedom of speech, and for Islam to be treated like any other idea in polemic discourse, as Douglas Murray is.

            He holds these views whilst still professing faith in Islam. I don’t understand how he does this, to me it seams like cognitive dissidence, but he is proof that it is possible to be both a liberal and a Muslim.

            Whether this can be adopted on a sufficiently large scale I don’t know but the other Abrahamic religions have managed it. If Christians and Jews were to follow their holy books as Muslim fanatics are trying to do, Western society would be like living under the Taliban. Instead they have managed to build a tolerant and liberal world whilst still claiming that a book that advocates slavery, and many other oppressive laws, is written by an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god.

            They manage to square their iron age theocratic books with modern values and morality. I don’t know how they do this either but it must be achieved for Islam as well if there is to be peace.

            Now there are many reasons why this is much harder for Islam. I have read the Koran and am well aware of the ceaseless Wahhabi fascism being spread throughout the Islamic world.

            I am skeptical as to whether the project of liberalising Islam can be successful but I can’t see any other way of ending this miserable conflict. So, perhaps with more hope than expectation, I will continue to endorse the reformers that they might reach a significant number of their fellow Muslims. I urge you to do likewise.

    • EHGombrich

      “You said that your fellow discussant was a very nice Muslim man who
      works to ‘de-radicalise’ extremists. He ended up going “berserk”
      This is what reading between the lines means. That is the only way to read newspapers nowadays. Just like in the good old GDR.

    • Autolocus

      God save us from Tristramland and the corrupt world of the BBC.
      There’s nothing so queer as folk apart from the best quangoland of BEEB

  • laurence

    Splendid piece, Douglas. I noticed one of the papers yesterday carried pictures from the Philippines of the most peaceable followers of this most peaceable religion burning the Israeli flag whilst some peace-filled savage from Boko whotsit praised the murders in Paris. It is really time our elected officials dispensed with rehearsed platitudes that are clearly out of kilter with reality and started employing Ockham’s Razor. The simplest most cogent account of these atrocities is that they have everything, absolutely everything, to do with the ‘religion of pieces’.

    • soporific

      Occam’s razor would suggest the rest of the sane world holds its nose beside Murray and his lonely league of rodents.

      • Guest

        I’d rather be a rodent than a Muslim!
        not even rodents gas and eat their own

      • laurence

        Hello. Here’s a challenge for you. Come back here when you can produce a sentence that has some, any, meaning. Or is this semi-literate gibberish a consequence of the hook you used to type with?

      • Richard

        This sounds like Mighty Mouse on drugs.

      • Richard

        I note that the piece above you is censored. Is it because of the phrase “peace-filled savage” I wonder? Perhaps the censors do not believe that killing hundreds of people is a savage act? Maybe because the perpetrators are of darker hue, as per my point made elsewhere here? Or perhaps it is fear of calling a spade, a spade, as Douglas Murray says in his article?

        • laurence

          Hello, Richard. My intention was the first of these: ‘killing hundreds of people is a savage act’. Evidently there are some among us who do not consider kidnapping, rape, enslavement, genital mutilation, beheadings, general misogyny, homophobia, and the systemic and systematic murder of those who do not hold your 7th century world view to be ‘savage’. Peace be upon them.

  • Clap Hammer

    Great piece Douglas. Keep safe.

  • edithgrove

    “The upshot was that he refused to continue unless all mention of this was wiped from the recording. The BBC team agreed”

    Through cowardice and a complicated relationship to victimhood, that I’m unable to understand, the BBC’s role in this has become as dangerous as any jihadist. On the morning of the French attacks they had to switch from talking about an extremist newspaper to reporting the French reaction supporting democracy and free speech. Since then most of what we have heard from the BBC has focused on the offence muslims must feel about the cartoons of Mohammed.They are as much of a problem as the Islamists. Sky and CNN are no better but that appears to be purely economically driven.

  • Mister Rible

    Islam as a brand is dead in the West and beyond.
    It does not matter how many years we have the same bs shoved down our throats, words are just words. Evidence is: Islam can not live with anybody, anywhere. Not even their own, in their own countries. As soon as Islam becomes a a visible minority, there are problems.

  • Coleridge1

    Maybe the peace-loving muslims who don’t subscribe to sharia, jew-hatred, Christian-killing, Women-oppressing and Gay-persecuting should consider changing the name of the religion they believe in.

  • Esther

    “the hundreds of Jews Mohammed beheaded with his own hand”
    It’s good of the left to shield Muslims from blame for continuing the massacre of Jews by saying it’s the Jews’ fault anyway for occupying Palestine.

  • Richard

    Remember, the real issue isn’t that people don’t see what is going on. It is that the perpetrators are dark-skinned. In modern Europe, and the UK has made itself part of Europe in toto, the following applies:

    1) The darker the skin, the less capable you are of doing anything bad;
    2) If you seem to be doing anything bad, it isn’t your fault, but really the fault of others, usually white people;
    3) If you really are doing anything bad, refer to (1) above.

    And so the fear of contradicting this law will drive people to ignore or refute anything and everything in Islam that might be violent or hateful, which is a lot of it. When Europe acts against Islam, it is only because America acts. Muslims know this. America doesn’t adhere as much to the law as stated above, and isn’t trussed up like a Turkey, as we are.

  • Blindsideflanker

    In 622 Mohammed went to Yathrib where he invited the Jews there to join his religion, when they refused he threw them out of the town, changing the name to Medina.

    Not a very tolerant beginning for the religion of peace

  • zanzamander

    The more we suppress the truth, the more the darkness will spread.

    We are voluntarily sliding into the darkness. Eventually fewer and fewer people will come to know about Asma bint Marwan and her sorry demise.

    Look at the Crusades, for what was a rearguard action by a bunch of Christians to recapture their holy lands from the Islamic invaders has now been spun around as an attack on Islam. Through out the history of Islamic invasions, stories of genocide of non-Muslims have been turned into the fault of the slain – the victims. Even now so soon after the event, things are afoot in changing the narrative of Charlie Hebdo killings – the victims are slowly being painted as perpetrators of their own deaths. In a few months, years we will all agree that Charile Hebdo had it coming. You take the so called Islamic golden period – this is somehow now interpreted (and taught in schools) as a period of great enlightenment whereas the reality was the complete opposite – dripping with blood of “non-believers”.

    In all these and many such instances, we revise the truth to secure momentary peace. Eventually the truth will be forgotten and replaced by revised stories which will again need defending….which lead you to your meeting with the nice moderate Muslim in the studios of BBC.

    This is the power of latent threat, fear and intimidation.

    • Mister Rible

      I agree wholeheartedly. Europe is a very very sick man, and the infection has spread into our media, which is trying to brainwash the masses, and our politicians who are protecting those who want to kill us.
      The masses are getting angrier and angrier.

      • Damaris Tighe

        There was a Channel 4 prog last night on the far right. It filmed groups of shaven men with flags marching into Rotherham last summer, shortly after the Jay Report. I saw ordinary bystanders – mostly women – smiling & clapping. This is all because the establishment has completed abrogated its responsibilities.

        • Mister Rible

          I watched it too. It’s obscene how propagandistic our media has become, it’s like being in Russia or Iran.
          As if NORMAL non far right public members wouldn’t agree with the disgusting cover up over the mass rape of thousands of girls.

          • Damaris Tighe

            And then they followed the programme on the far right with another on Nigel Farage! I’m sure this was a deliberate attempt at guilt by association.

          • sebastian2

            You’re correct. Guilt by association with that and other things too’ It’s the oldest trick in the book.
            My instinct is that Ukip stands a better chance than any of decreasing the “extremism” some worry about (depending, of course on how you define these things – but that’s another argument). They are hearing and taking note of ordinary, sensible people’s anxieties – many of which are justified. (Though not in power, Ukip represents the ordinary citizen more than those in Westminster do. Ukip has a majority in the Parliament of the Pavement.) When leaders listen, people stop “shouting”. They don’t need to.
            A vote for Ukip is a vote for calm.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Couldn’t agree more.

        • Wildflowers

          This was craftily followed by the Gogglebox special edition with Nigel Farrage – Ch4 subliminally linking the two.

          • OldFlashy

            I noticed that and pointed it out to my wife. Very scary stuff. The documentary was also quite worrying.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Yes absolutely. While you were typing this I was typing exactly the same in another reply!

          • Ed_Burroughs

            I wouldn’t give them that much credit.

      • Ed_Burroughs

        Europe is not ‘man’ you bigot. She is proudly transgender!

    • Blindsideflanker

      “Look at the Crusades2

      No one ever asks what were the Muslims doing in Jerusalem in the first place.

      And also conveniently forget the activities of the Seljik Turks , who having converted to Islam took it upon themselves to harass Christian pilgrims going to the Holy land.

      • somewhereinthesouth

        They are now.

    • Blindsideflanker

      “the victims are slowly being painted as perpetrators of their own deaths.”

      Hardly slowly, the BBC was doing it on day one, but as you rightly say all we hear about is how the Muslims feel. When we have Muslims slaughtering non Muslims around the world , the British media worries about how Muslims feel if we look at them in the wrong way, they never worry about how we feel having Islamists chopping someone’s head of in our streets. I find it sickening that we are supposed to be accommodating and treat it as an everyday event to have someone’s head choppered off in our streets.

      When did we allow ourselves to be acclimatised to this barbarism ?

    • Richard

      It is like rape: in Islam, the raped woman is invariably to blame.

    • somewhereinthesouth

      Yes. it was the aggressive expansion of islam by war and invasion which resulted in the crusades – NOT the other way around.

  • Jean-Baptiste Poquelin

    Two things. First, you write: “I say this not because I hate Islam, nor do I have any special animus against Muslims.”

    It’s right to say you have no animus (per se) against Muslims, but it is OK to hate islam. After all, it’s just a belief system. And, based on your excellent article here, one would say you can recognise that it is a very bad belief system, as far as belief systems go.

    Second, you write: “This is a problem with Islam — one that Muslims are going to have to work through.” This is the crux of the problem, I think, particularly for Leftists and politicians and apologists. What on earth could “work through” mean? What could possibly be done? You cannot erase the nasty passages in the quran, hadith and surah. They are there for eternity. More important, you cannot erase the story of muhammad himself – a killer and a paedophile, a horrible man who would be in jail were he alive today.

    The belief system is poisoned at its very source. This is the reality that people simply cannot countenance.

  • Robertus Maximus

    “We are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.”

    Most of us woke up to what it is years ago. The trouble was (and is) the suffocating layer of Government, Guardian, BBC, and acolytes who relentlessly pursue their love-in with Islam while at the same time hurling vitriol at anyone who dissents from their ‘enlightened’ view.

  • mandelson

    Arguably the German SS (and their foreign divisions including muslim units) were radical nazis so nothing to do with the real National Socialism. Equally the majority of Germans even NSDAP members were peaceful people who just wanted a better life and had no intention of carrying out the holocaust nor took part in it.

    • Donafugata

      Exactly, the high command, the SS and the Gestapo represented only a tiny fraction of the population, the vast majority were ‘moderate’ Germans but that didn’t stop the few from causing the deaths of millions of people and wrecking the entire continent.

      Today there we have the new Nazis living among us.

    • red2black

      ‘The truth is that no more than 150,000 Muslims fought in the Wehrmacht or Waffen-SS. At least 4 million Muslims fought on the Allied side.’ (Stormfront)

  • Liberanos

    It’s a mental illness (talking to invisible dead people, seeing ghosts, devils monsters and so on), differing from other religions in that its idee fixe is violence.

  • Richard

    People are afraid to criticise the Religion of Peace in case it comes to kill them.

  • William_Brown

    As usual, a measured and intelligent piece of proper journalism from Douglas – one of the few with regard to this subject, it has to be said.

    “….because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.”
    It’s already happening and growing in Germany with PEGIDA – the Eurocrats are trying to deny that out of existence. It happened, with a less focussed narrative, in Paris last weekend and was immediately and cynically hijacked by the very same Eurocratic cabal.

    Unless some sense of reality is recognised soon, then the public will have no choice but to “overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent”. I for one would rather that we didn’t have to – I do not look forward to the ultra right (or ultra left) wing gaining any amount of tacit, mainstream public support, or implied credibility.

  • Bob Level

    Wonderfully articulate article. Thank you.

  • Seat of Mars

    Islam is not simply a religion but a competing system of government that seeks to take control of social, cultural, economic, legal AND religious spheres. This means that secular liberalism cannot absorb or assimilate it. There is no solution to be found in secularism. They are incompatible. But there will be a solution eventually – even if its something we cannot contemplate now….

    http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2015/01/14/a_war_between_two_worlds_110905.html

    “There are many charms in secularism, in particular the freedom to believe what you will in private. But secularism also poses a public problem. There are those whose beliefs are so different from others’ beliefs that finding common ground in the public space is impossible. And then there are those for whom the very distinction between private and public is either meaningless or unacceptable. The complex contrivances of secularism have their charm, but not everyone is charmed….. Europe’s sense of nation is rooted in shared history, language, ethnicity and yes, in Christianity or its heir, secularism. Europe has no concept of the nation except for these things, and Muslims share in none of them. It is difficult to imagine another outcome save for another round of ghettoization and deportation. This is repulsive to the European sensibility now, but certainly not alien to European history. Unable to distinguish radical Muslims from other Muslims, Europe will increasingly and unintentionally move in this direction.”

  • Crumbs

    Islam is a primitive tribal religion with a dual nature. The positive teachings make for civilised co-existence, but they apply only to fellow believers. Outsiders are to be treated quite differently. That’s where the problem lies – how to get from where they are to ‘love thy neighbour’.

  • John Croston

    Mehdi Hasan will be wheeling out his usual lies in defence of Islam on Question Time this evening. I hope David Starkey has done his homework and blows him out of the water. If Mehdi again gets away with his doctored version of Sura 5:32 without someone pointing out the chunk that actually justifies killing Islam’s opponents has been deliberately omitted – and also pointing out that the very next verse (5:33) justifies not only murder but crucifixion and mutilation of Islam’s opponents – I will probably put my foot through the screen.
    Come on, Starkey – rip him to bits.

  • Barry W

    Only half the story. Douglas Murray has left out the embarrassing bit. The journalist Flemming Rose had also promised to publish Iranian cartoons mocking the Holocaust until the management heard of his plan. According to Wikipedia, the paper’s editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-Posten under no circumstances would publish the Holocaust cartoons and Flemming Rose later said that “he had made a mistake.” The next day, Rose’s editor-in-chief stated that Flemming Rose was on indefinite leave because he needed time off, obviously to ponder the distinctions between what can be satirized and what can’t. After some months Rose returned to Jyllands-Posten. (This was in the Occidental Observer)

  • mandelson

    As an aside on UK media self censorship tried to post on the Daily Mail website using islam in the text in regard to a report on Boko Harams latest “nothing to do with Islam” massacre and got moderated. A brief search through the posts and couldnt find one with the express words “muslim” or “islam” in it. Not an accident methinks.

  • CortexUK

    I really wish you’d run for parliament, Murray. What a voice you would be in parliament, sitting next to Carswell (hint hint). Then we’d just need to convince Hannan to stop playing around and get a proper job too, and we’d have a triumvirate of highly-educated, highly intelligent, highly rationale, and very decent minds in the chamber.

    • CortexUK

      ..though I must ask you this, Murray: when you spoke (any time when you spoke) to Flemming Rose, did you tell him that the furore that met him – and nearly cost him his job – when he said he would reprint in Jyllands-Posten the holocaust cartoons first printed in the Iranian publication Hamshahri was a disgrace, or did that test ‘freedom of speech’ too far for your palate?

    • EHGombrich

      Murray is more influential as a cue-giver outside of parliament.

      • CortexUK

        Well obviously not, if his own complaints are anything to go by.

    • Ed_Burroughs

      3 Vs. 647 is a start I suppose.

  • Don Zamifaro

    It is frightening when you watch a video like Fitna.. and the commentary from Geert Wilders in his interview here, makes a lot of sense. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3689995.htm

  • rtj1211

    I have just had a blog comment censored using the excuse ‘You cannot respond to a post which is not active’.

    Posting this proves that to be censorship and lies.

    Spectator: uphold all your nonsense about Freedom of Speech, please.

    • CortexUK

      Your post wasn’t censored. Disqus can’t post a reply to a comment that was already deleted. That comment would have been deleted because it breached the community guidelines.

      Calm down and read properly.

  • rtj1211

    ‘That would be Iraq would it where the West conducted two extremely murderous wars??
    How about Iran, which America seeks to destroy for not having a Federal Reserve Bank?

    How about Libya, which Western Forces bombed recently??

    Just where exactly do you want all these Muslims to go where the West won’t be agitating for war??’

    Reply to donafugata, 25 minutes ago….censored down below.

    Trying to post it directly…….

  • rtj1211

    Ah good: the censorship nonsense stopping.

  • rtj1211

    Out of interest, how can this article have ‘first appeared’ on a date two days into the future, whilst we are commenting on it in the here and now??

    • Donafugata

      Because it is the date that the magazine is published, I think.

      • CortexUK

        Yup, happens all the time. Bit silly though.

  • global city

    Is the depiction of Mohammed our Sudatenland or Czechoslovakia? If the call by Douglas Murray is not heeded then our politicians are going to have to second guess what the next mark on the ratchet is.

    A whole continent walking on egg shells….. for why?

    • WTF

      It wont get that far as they’ll be a bloody battle between cultures if Muslim clerics and western leaders don’t rein it in.

  • William_Brown

    .

  • SimonNorwich

    Like many non-Muslims, I struggle to understand why “moderate” Muslims don’t make more of an effort to isolate and condemn radical Islamists, and to reform their religion and texts to make them unequivocally peaceful.

    The nearest comparison I can think of that resonates with me, is the problem of football hooliganism in Britain in the 1970s and 1980s. As a football fan, it used to annoy me whenever the media referred to the hooligans as “football fans”, “England supporters”, etc.

    “How can these hooligans be regarded as football fans?” I used to think. “Their actions are only harming football!” So I can, to some extent, understand why some Muslims are outraged when atrocities are associated with Islam.

    But in both cases, the peaceful majority shared the blame for allowing violence to continue.

    When we look back at football hooliganism with the value of hindsight, it now seem simply crazy – and tragic – that even though the vast majority of those involved in football (the fans, the clubs, the FA) were not directly causing hooliganism, we still allowed it to exist around the game. We even built cages within grounds to hold some supporters, in the knowledge that many of them would not behave themselves! That was simply madness. It took far too long to face up to the reality of the problem and bring in reforms that helped to banish the trouble makers and drastically reduce the problems. The vast majority involved in the football industry were not causing the violence, but it was their responsibility to ensure that they rooted out or isolated the trouble makers. Eventually, large and expensive changes were brought in and it had a dramatic effect for the better.

    Similar changes need to be made with Islam. Peaceful moderates should promote reformed texts with all passages promoting hatred and violence removed. Radicals need to be identified and banned from mosques. Peaceful Muslims must realise it is THEIR responsibility to completely separate themselves from the extremists. As it is, just like it was with football hooligans, the extremists benefit from hiding among the peaceful majority. The initiative for reform can only come from the peaceful majority.

  • Graeme S

    A long and violent history since Islams inception …..

  • Damocles

    For those interested I highly recommend to read http://prophetofdoom.net which makes clear what drives these muslims and also shows that their prophet is their big role model.

  • Emanuel Hoogeveen

    “[…] an intellectually acceptable process of cherry-picking verses.”

    This seems like a bit of an oxymoron. I know it’s what has to happen to bring Islam into the 21st century, given that it has proven quite successful for Christians. But as someone who does not believe in any of these religious texts, it seems incredibly dishonest to me.

    • The Great Cornholio

      I agree, but the human mind’s capacity for cognitive dissidence is enormous.

      Ironically it won’t be the success of reason and intelligently rigorous argument but double think that will save us from this medieval death cult.

      • Damaris Tighe

        It already happens. A great many ordinary muslims choose to believe their religion is all sweetness & light & behave accordingly.

        • The Great Cornholio

          Yeah, this way of thinking just needs to spread to the rest of them

  • Cymrugel

    So basically the muslim interviewee succeeded in having a BBC interview censored because he did not want to have awkward truths pointed out on air.

    and this is a moderate working to “Deradicalise” people.

    Well frankly I am starting to feel a bit radical myself.

    I have just about had enough of being told what I may or may not read/say/think and believe by a pack of demented third world yokels who basically think they can bully the rest of us into silence.

    I am even more fed up with the whimpering timidity of our rulers and the puerile cowardice of journalists and others who are pandering to this nonsense.

    If something isn’t done soon the much talked about “backlash” will finally happen and its going to be a lot worse than a few frowns and the odd bit of graffiti.

    The muslims are pushing their luck and I think its almost run out.

    All its going to take is another major terrorist outrage and the UK public will want action ; and I don’t think a few platitudes and denials from imams is going to cut it.
    You can only tweak the tigers tail so many times.

    If the powers that be have any sense they should start preparing to take serious steps to stop islamist right now. Others view the whole situation is going to get out of control.

    • Cyril Sneer

      I’m also sick of hearing about it in the new every day, it’s important that we’re informed but the atrocities that Islam commit happen multiple times a day throughout the world and against many different religions and faiths, including its own. Nothing compares to the amount of violence this religion commits.

      If I hear Cameron say “this not about Islam, or Islam is a religion of peace’ one more time I think I will go to London and shoot him myself.

    • Ed_Burroughs

      C’mon your English -oh no Welsh, its close enough- there’ll be no backlash, you’ll just calm down, have a cuppa and then wait for the next atrocity happen. That’s what we do, its our ‘culture’.

  • PickledOnion

    >>And fourthly, because unless mainstream politicians address these matters then one day perhaps the public will overtake their politicians to a truly alarming extent.
    It’s already started. Regrettably I see people taking matters into their own hands and the result will be riots and civil war.

    Douglas makes the classic mistake in suggesting their is any difference between Islam and radical or fundamentalist Islam. There isn’t. The Islam practiced by the nice man who you work who worships in his local mosque is no different from that practiced by those dubbed Islamic terrorists. Apart from the fact that the man in the mosque has chosen not to ‘take up arms’ and defend / further Islam.

    The other mistake that many make is that Islam and those who follow it have any intention of putting their faith through a reformation as Christianity and Judaism did. The simple reason is that Islam seeks global domination. It does not play second fiddle. It has to dominate its host society. The terrible thing is that given the larger birth rate, lack of integration and refusal of the useless idiots to recognise this danger, eventually it will succeed. Probably in the next 50 years in Europe.

  • Zanderz

    Fantastic article. Should be handed out to all MPs and editors.

  • Greyfox

    A voice crying out in the wildeebeest. Eventually these truths will become self evident. Keep going, Douglas.

  • John Partridge

    17th of January 2015

    wat?

    • guest

      I guess it goes to print then.

  • James Jones

    “As Rose said, ‘I wish we had addressed all this nine years ago.’”
    “We have spent 15 years pretending things about Islam”

    My line in the sand was crossed in 1989 with the Rushdie Affair. That is when we should have acted to ensure that any muslims in Britain and any potential arrivals were aware of the requirements of our society. Those requirements should have been enforced.

    Instead we have had 26 years of appeasement. The extremists have only got bolder and vastly greater in number in the interim.

  • Rowland Nelken

    Many modern Christian sects have remianed in business for all that they are saddled with a set of writings from a primitive, and sometimes barbaric past. They have done this, in part, by chucking words like ‘context’ and ‘allegory’ around when confronted with the absurd, cruel and ridiculous nature of much of the Bible.

    Jesus’ Dad (aka himself if you are a Trinitarian) demanded, amongst the 600 odd other rules in the Torah, that brides found not to be virgins on their wedding night, gatherers of firewood on the Sabbath and adulterers, amongst others, deserved the death penalty.

    Of what on earth can these rules be an allegory? As to historical context, advocates of the rule of an omniscient, almighty God will proclaim that, unlike the morality of fallible humans and their fads, fashions and misunderstandings, the morality of God is perfect and utterly transcendent. So, if a bit of writing is given this divinely inspired or divinely issued status, its context is likewise eternal and universal.

    Nice, peaceful Christians who naturally abhor the foul decrees of the God they worship, have all but sidelined the Bible entirely, and not only the Old Testament. They have the temerity to chuckle at those who believe St. Paul and his prophecy of an imminent rapture, and his conviction that the End of Days is imminent. The C. of E. has even discarded this apostle’s assertion that women should keep silent. They are now in pulpits everywhere, and soon to occupy more Episcopal thrones.

    And so to the Koran and Hadiths. Not shrinking from violent jihad; not mocking the prophet on pain of death; purifying the world by getting us to convert, by force of necessary, to Islam in time for the Day of Judgement, cannot be allegorised or ‘contextualised’ in order to drain it of its totalitarian and delusory poison.

    By all means, all members of religious groups, keep patronising your various arts like music, Arabic script, gargoyles, exotic tiling and the rest, but please consign your holy books, in their entirety, to the history shelves.

    • Grace Ironwood

      I think you’ll find the Jews have abrogated most of the violent material in their book.

      And always, actions speak louder- the religion isn’t suprematist.

      • Rowland Nelken

        I realise that and am very glad. But is that not double think? How can mere, fallible humans, especially those not in receipt of a new divine revelation, abrogate the laws of their Almighty God?

        • The Great Cornholio

          All Christians and Jews do.

        • Damaris Tighe

          Christians & Jews believe that God-given human reason can re-interpret many of the precepts of their religion for new & different times, & that they are permitted to do so.

      • guest

        Yes, there is reformed Judaism. There is no reformed Judaism version of Islam which is mainstream.

  • Peter Stroud

    Thank you, Douglas Murray. At last someone who is prepared to say what many, many of us knew all along. Islam is not, and has never been a peaceful religion. I have read very little of the Qur’an, but what I have read is not all peace and love: far from it. At least one verse orders those in Jihad, if they should meet unbelievers, to smite their necks (behaved them). Thank God only a few cretins, like those who killed Drummer Rigby, take this order seriously. And never forget that Salman Rushdie’s death was ordered by a Moslem fanatic, and his books were burned by enraged mobs: how peaceful is that?

    • Grace Ironwood

      Unfortunately Peter, the moderates- as with moderate Germans in the 30’s-
      are irrelevant.

  • Elouise

    Problem is, most people follow what they hear from those they trust who, as you stated, are lying. But I don’t think their reason is solely due to their “lynch mob” constituents, but their beheading mob constituents and (somewhat) allied nations. As you’ve illustrated, even moderate Muslims aren’t known for being cool headed about their faith and having leaders from the west cast a negative light on Islam would unite a region against the “Crusaders” & the Jews. They’re religious fanatics, Islam is set up to be that way, & the only thing that is preventing a literal WWIII, is keeping the region unstable and the immigrants placated until things change. Makes one feel all warm & fuzzy, right?

  • Mr_Ominous

    A Muslim is like a free floating nationality to whatever country they are born is irrelevant because they are ‘nationalised’ to be Muslim and adhere to and revere Islamic laws and customs. Islam’s ideological goals is to create an Islamic empire its means of conquering non-Muslim lands is through rapid population growth. Once the Muslim population in a certain area is large enough the establishment of ‘Muslim Areas’ or ‘Sharia Zones’ will then act as a Muslim power base within a country from which they can progressively expand their territory. Muslims even have something which they call the ‘Ummah’, which as a concept is essentially the basis of a pan-international Islamic empire.

    The reason why the West has been slow to react is because non-Muslims will surmise that not all Muslims are terrorists looking to blow themselves up and commit mass murder. So what have they got to fear from the majority of Muslims? When the reality is the so called moderate Muslim is a wolf in sheep’s clothing they may not want to commit acts of terror but they support such acts and want to further the ideological goals of Islam of establishing Islam as the dominant force within their non-Muslim countries.

    • James Jones

      Mr_Ominous

      Ding ding ding, you win a prize.

    • Ambientereal

      As in another reply James Jones also says, you win a prize. Exact in the nail´s head.

  • wudyermucuss

    This is a problem with Islam — one that Muslims are going to have to work through.-
    They will not.

    • Elouise

      I think the idea is to shock them (Mod/liberal Muslims) to the barbarity of Islam & the seemingly pious forgiveness of the West. But this is more about Muslim countries than immigrants. It’s working somewhat. Asisi recently spoke out about Islam terrorizing the world & if you check out Muslim news’ boards, most appear fed up with terrorists whom their religion can’t even call heretics. It will be a long, bitter process though.

      • The Great Cornholio

        I agree, but at least the process is now finally underway and there are some Muslims, such as Maajid Nawaz, prepared to take the courageous and stoic stance necessary to reform the faith.

        It is atrocity that so many have had to suffer in order to reach this stage and for pernicious, obscurantist rhetoric such as “Islam is a religion of peace”, and “this has nothing to do Islam”, to have started to wain.

      • wudyermucuss

        I simply can’t see it working as Islam is fundamentally unreformable as Mohammed is their,well,superhuman idol doesn’t come close.
        They love him,a dead person from hundreds of years ago more than their own children.
        This has very real consequences.
        Scratch most so called moderate Muslims and it is clear that the word moderate simply doesn’t apply.

  • guest

    Can someone give me links to articles or threads that explain the difference between modern and classical liberalism?
    And is Freedom of speech/expression, a classical liberal value or a modern liberal value? Or both? Or is it a conservative idea(small-government conservatism?).
    Yes, I know in the 21st century western civilization it is the ‘liberal’s and ‘progressives’ that are defecating on freedoms. But is it liberalism they’re following or are they like Bill Maher says, not standing up for liberal values? I am confused and which is why I ask these questions and some links to relevant material would be very helpful.

    • The Great Cornholio

      There isn’t really classic or modern liberalism – just liberalism. Freedom of speech is its central tenet, the freedom from which all other rights and values arise. You can be consistent with liberalism values and be conservative or socialist providing you allow those who disagree with you their right to do so.

      The problem is that there are a number of journalists and public figures who have abused the term to mean this rather vague, yet astonishingly demagogic anti-Western bigotry. Many of them feel that freedom of speech should be restricted when discussing Islam. Anyone who wishes to restrict freedom in this way cannot be called liberal.

      • guest

        OK, then isn’t Douglas a liberal? Why on earth would he call himself as a ‘conservative’? What are these liberal-seeming conservatives seeking to ‘conserve’ and how are they different from liberals?
        Is it that the right is now preserving the old liberal tradition and the left has gone nuts and deviated from liberalism?

        • The Great Cornholio

          As I said you can be conservative and still be consistent with liberalism – which is freedom of conscious, speech and expression, open democracy, egalitarianism, the rule of law, human rights etc.

          DM is a liberal as he defends these principles. He may also be a neo-con. You can be both, as you can also be a leftist and a liberal.

          The problem is that the term has been hijacked by by a number of obscurantist journalists and public figures who make a living bashing the West.

          Thus when the values of liberalism, of which we virtually all believe in, are under threat, we have lost the identity to act as a flagship for us to rally around. That is why we need to reclaim.

    • Damaris Tighe

      Unfortunately the word ‘liberalism’ is used in the US to describe the modern left, & this usage has travelled over the Atlantic.

      Classical liberalism is close to small-government conservatism. Therefore, ironically, freedom of speech/expression is not a modern liberal value – they prefer political correctness & its enforcement by law, which has resulted in the erosion of our traditional liberties. Bill Maher is absolutely right when he says that modern ‘liberals’ & ‘progressives’ don’t stand up for liberal (ie classical liberal) values.

      In their own view of themselves modern liberals consider themselves liberal because they’ve traditionally been s*xually permissive.

  • Blindsideflanker

    There are many things I have argued that the Spectator might have taken issue with, but listing the historical time line of Islam’s military conquests I didn’t expect to be one of them, especially in a discussion on Islam’s claim to be a religion of peace.

    Much of the source for my list came from J M Roberts, ‘The Pelican History of the World’. Not an extreme historian for even the Guardian listed his book as a good read..

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2007/jul/24/thehistorybookthathasever

  • http://www.thelaymansterms.com/ The layman’s voice

    Despite it being uncomfortable it’s hard to disagree with any of what Douglas says here. Islam is the root of the violence, even if it’s perverted by the extremists.

    The issue I have, and I think many people have, it is the double standard at play when it comes to freedom of expression. It is restricted for everyone when discussing and depicting the prophet but used to its fullest when Anjem Choudray preaches his vile hatred.

    So Muslims must accept offence – free speech does as much for them as it is used to offend them.

  • Dr. Deduction

    The truth must not be told about Islam because it is “offensive”.

    • Autolocus

      Offend away to your heart’s content. Is seems the only way to set in motion the crucial reformation the Islam needs. If it involves portraying Mohammed for the religious tyrant that he was – so be it.

  • beenzrgud

    Very good article, stating what most of us realised a long time ago. As usual politicians are bringing up the rear, trying to maintain the status quo at all costs.

  • Ambientereal

    Slowly but constantly we, the people, are arriving to a conclusion our politicians should have to copy – paste in their speeches if they want our votes. This incredible act of self defense coming from the feeling of being defenseless and deserted by our rulers, will have to stay in the history of western civilization as an important landmark like the fall of Constantinople.

  • Elouise

    Leaders have to take into account the reactions of Muslim countries, which wouldn’t take an official negative statement about Islam too kindly. Europe would be a sitting duck.

    • WTF

      What do you mean by a sitting duck, are you suggesting we should appease ourselves to a violent religion.

      • Elouise

        Not at all, but you’re woefully unprepared for a war on home soil vs an enemy that engages in guerilla warfare & wants to die for his god. You need to prepare yourselves prior to shaking up the hornets’ nest.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

    “No religion is [peaceful], but Islam is especially not.” That is as ridiculously lazy an equivocation as saying no person is peaceful but people who still believe in violent defense of their fairy tale warrior creed icons especially not.

    • WTF

      Just read the scriptures of any religion and you’ll find some references which are hardly endearing or compassionate, the only thing that separates Islam from the others is that Islam is the motherlode of bad ideas !

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

        The Tao Te Ching? The Dhammapada? I love stupid absolute “any religion” statements. What separates Islam among major religions is the core violent creed and acts of the founder (peace be upon his murdering child raping fictional self) and his followers. Too bad the Mongols were not converted to Buddhism. They found Islam more copasetic with their core values.

        • Richard Baranov

          The Mongols were converted to Buddhism, specifically Tibetan Buddhism, and specifically within that to the Gelug school of thought.

          Mongols do not practice Islam, I think you are mixing them up with someone else, The Uighurs, perhaps?

          But you are right on the ‘absolute’ thing. You are not going to find anything in Taoism, Jainism, or Buddhism, to name but three, in which there are exhortations to anything contradicting Love or Compassion. None violence is central to all three systems.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            Mongols did not convert to Islam??? Right. I think you may want to check your historical facts on that one starting with big examples like Tamerlane.

          • Richard Baranov

            Go to Wikipedia, to ‘Mongolia’ and then skip to the section on religion.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            Ahh Wikipedia, brilliant. So the descendents of the Mongol conquests only live in Mongolia. None of them made it to places like Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and beyond. I guess they also did not convert to Islam and rule as the Mughal empire. No, they all stayed in Mongolia and became Buddhists.

          • Richard Baranov

            Mongol is a generic term about as useful as ‘White’ or ‘Chinese’. Timur was a Turkic Mongol, there is a difference. Kalmuks, Manchu, Tibetans are also Mongols, to name just three branches of the family tree. Dalai Lama is a Mongol term, it means ‘wide/vast’ as the Ocean. However you don’t indiscriminately lump Tibetans in with Mongols, do you? You make distinctions, not to do so is just the same as calling the English French because both races are white!

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            Why did the Mongols embrace Islam?
            http://www.quora.com/Why-did-the-Mongols-embrace-Islam

          • Richard Baranov

            Yes, and as I pointed out there are different types. The article you posted lists four. So why are you being so stubborn? I’m not in a p..g contest with you I’m simply pointing out that Mongol is a broad term and that one needs to distinguish one from another. Anyone knowledgeable about the Mongols does so, so why can’t you?

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            What YOU wrote was: “The Mongols were converted to Buddhism, specifically Tibetan Buddhism, and specifically within that to the Gelug school of thought.

            Mongols do not practice Islam,”

            Which I have shown to be ridiculous. Oh but I am being “stubborn” how exactly? It is abundantly clear that you don’t know what you are talking about and refuse to learn even after you have been shown to have an idiot’s understanding of history, you refer to a wiki article to eliminate all doubts about it. Or you can dig deeper and get even more absurd and say that only all true Mongols converted to Buddhism like all true Scotsmen.

          • Richard Baranov

            Types of Mongols: Khalka, Ejikin Khalka, Drkhad, Sartuul
            Khalka, Dariganga, Barga, Buryatas, Hamnigan, Abaga Mongols, Abaganar, Aohan,
            Asud, Baarins, Chahar, Durved, Gorlos, Kharchin, Hishigtan, Khorchin, Huuchid,
            Jalaid, Jaruud, Muumyanagan, Naiman (Southern Mongols), Onnigud, Ordos, Sunud,
            Tumed, Urad, Uzemchin, Kalmuks, Oirates, Kuoshats, Choros, Torguts, Altai
            Uriankhi, Batuud, Bayad, Chantuu, Choros, Durvud, Mongols (proper), Alxa
            Durbut, Ooled, There are a few Dozen others. However, the Mongols of Mongolia
            are Buddhist. Timur was a Turko-Mongol, the Clue is in Turko.
            As I said, to saythat the Mongols are Muslim is as useful as saying all Europeans are Frenchmen.Timur is also quite late, long after the Mongolians proper became Buddhists.1254, Timur was born in Transoxiana, which is modern day Tajikistan about 100 years later.. He would have been quite unable to communicate with a Mongol
            proper. Timur spoke a Turkic language, only vaguely related to Mongol which is
            an Altaic language and his culture was also quite alien to Mongolians proper.

            To repeat my point, to claim that the Mongols are or were Islamic is to muddle
            different peoples up. Just as French, Germans, English, Danish, etc are called
            Europeans. So, all the people I have listed above are called Mongols. You are
            refusing to make distinctions that anyone who knows anything about the subject
            makes as a matter of course. Thank you!

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

        The Tao Te Ching? The Dhammapada? I love stupid absolute “any religion” statements. What separates Islam among major religions is the core violent creed and acts of the founder (peace be upon his murdering child raping fictional self) and his followers. Too bad the Mongols were not converted to Buddhism. They found Islam more copasetic with their core values.

  • Ulysses Jefferson

    Name one good thing that is a result of a Religion that couldn’t have happened anyways

    • The Great Cornholio

      Religious art and music.

  • Ulysses Jefferson

    Islam is a cult, a proper cult

    • Blindsideflanker

      Indeed it is, it seeks to dominate its adherents lives by dictating Laws, dress, eating habits, etc which keeps its flock separate to others, which promotes an inward looking view, whilst at the same time teaching its believers that the rest are subhuman.

    • edlancey

      an absolute bunch of cults

  • http://t.co/rXjomKpfUv JP Janson De Couet

    “I say this not because I hate Islam, nor do I have any special animus against Muslims.” I don’t believe you.

    • Louise_Cyphre

      Hating Islam is a perfectly rational stand. And having animus against people who demand your submission is the only rational response.

      • http://t.co/rXjomKpfUv JP Janson De Couet

        You do realise that what you replied has nothing to do with what I wrote?

        • Louise_Cyphre

          You implied that the author is hiding his true stand, and hiding something means that it is something to be ashamed about. So my response got you in one.

          • http://t.co/rXjomKpfUv JP Janson De Couet

            No I didn’t. No you didn’t.

          • Louise_Cyphre

            You’re not fooling anyone, dear.

  • edlancey

    “The moment I said this, my Muslim colleague went berserk.”

    They are all the same, seemingly lucid then berserk.

    “This is a problem with Islam — one that Muslims are going to have to work through.”

    Well let’s stop letting them into and our countries and then throw out any who are already here and are having difficulty “working through” the problem.

  • derek Drew

    Wouldn’t it be great if, at the end of prayers tomorrow, the imam led his followers from every mosque on to the streets to claim peaceful solidarity with those opposing the jihadists?
    Wouldn’t it be great if they were joined by their womenfolk, refusing any longer to be “disappeared” ?
    Wouldn’t it …?

  • Bill_der_Berg

    It is time that those who promote the ‘religion of peace’ line explained what they mean by it. If they are claiming that Muslims have renounced violence and war, then it is obviously untrue. If on the other hand, they have something else in mind, let them spell out what it is.

  • Guest

    TEST

  • SimonW

    Good article Douglas. The reason Islam is so hard to reform for Muslims is the fear of standing up to do so. The punishment is death. It is the religion of fear.

  • http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/ BobSmith101

    Let me point out a study published by Scientists at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in the July 22, 2011 online edition of the journal Physical Review E article titled “Social consensus through the influence of committed minorities” (http://news.rpi.edu/luwakkey/2902?destination=node/38887). This study found “that when just 10 percent of the population holds an unshakable belief, their belief will always be adopted by the majority of the society.”

    Apply (religion and) violence to the mix and the number decreases.

    The way Islamic theology comes together – jihadis, calls to violence, blasphemy laws – creates a toxic society.

    Reformation is the only answer.

    Read my thesis on this at: http://islamsfatalflaw.blogspot.com/

  • Father Onabit

    Is there anything akin to excommunication in Islam?

    • John Croston

      Yes, beheading.

    • Damaris Tighe

      I don’t think there can be. The penalty for voluntarily leaving Islam is death. The penalty for offending Islam on the inside is a continuum involving lashes, imprisonment & ultimately, death as well. I don’t think you get to leave Islam, either by going or being pushed. Anyone who converts to Islam must therefore be completely mad.

      • Father Onabit

        So ultimately there can be no penalty from the moderates against the extremists. It seems Mohammed figured it all out while he was sat around his old camp fire back in the day…….

      • Richard Baranov

        Ditto my remarks above.

    • Louise_Cyphre

      Yes, and at the same time they excommunicate you from the community of the living too.

    • Richard Baranov

      Yes and No, in the sense that it’s all rolled into blasphemy for which the punishment varies depending on the seriousness of the offense, flogging is a favourite, so is death.

  • http://www.memo.tv Memo Akten

    The first half of this article is correct, but then it completely misses the point unfortunately. This is totally *not* about enforcing blasphemy laws. That is just the tip of the iceberg, and in fact the ‘trap’. This is about creating unrest and polarization, to recruit more and more radicals to strengthen the islamic brotherhood for the jihad.
    The tragic irony is, hardliners like these articles, while they think they are writing *against* islam, end up doing the perfect pro-jihad propaganda, and is exactly the type of response that the jihadists want.
    That’s the jist of it, but If interested a bit more reading here. http://bit.ly/1BUbok8

    • SeanieRyan

      A large majority of British Mosques are from Extremist schools of Islam -Deobandi and Salafist.

      Virtually all Islamic Scholars in Britain are learning in extremist institutions.

    • James Jones

      “The tragic irony is, hardliners like these articles, while they think
      they are writing *against* islam, end up doing the perfect pro-jihad
      propaganda, and is exactly the type of response that the jihadists want”

      So, if writers in Britain tell the truth about the threats we face we are doomed and if British publications just keep quiet and let the islamist agenda progress essentially underground then we are doomed too.

      What do you recommend?

      • http://www.memo.tv/ Memo Akten

        These articles aren’t telling the truth though. This isn’t about censorship or blasphemy. So these articles are either lying to the public outright, or genuinely missing the point. In response to articles like this, the public and media go crazy demanding “freedom of speech” and a whole cascade of mohammed cartoons follow. Causing more polarization, causing more young disillusioned ‘intermediate’ islamists to potentially cross the line into radical, which is exactly what the radicals want.

        I have the freedom to insult your mother, but I don’t exercise that right just because I can.

        Ultimately the jihadists want unrest in our society, so they can recruit and train more radicals. They will do everything they can to cause unrest and break the peace. What writers should do is try to maintain peace, prevent the intermediates from becoming radical. They need to communicate the WHOLE story, not just the bit that enforces their own agenda. It’s a long and complicated story. I explain more here https://medium.com/@memoakten/on-charlie-hebdo-a-house-divided-against-itself-cannot-stand-658f7d27b471

        • Sarka

          My view is that we are going to see a greater and greater split in the Muslim population. Between those who will (despite all the fear), become braver in contesting both Islamism and the attitudes in the community that support extreme ideas (but not methods) and the others.

          While some Muslims may be “radicalised” by a degree of confrontation rather than “soothing”, I don’t see psychologically why “soothing” is the only way to prevent radicalisation. Actually, soothing often strengthens the hand of the more extreme (separatist/supremacist) people in the community, – for example it has always included turning a blind eye to authoritarian and intimidatory practices among Muslims.
          A certain degree of confrontation (the mass protests in France!), may radicalise some, but for others it is a reminder of how much they stand to lose by making excessive demands on non-Muslim majorities, and how much they are antagonising non-Muslims…So it may also result in some moderate Muslims moving more clearly into the liberal and accommodating camp…

        • Penny

          I’m not sure that works. If you engage with the more fundamentally-inclined on the internet you might notice that they take all and anything that this society – or elements therein – might not agree with as a sign of “oppression”.

          One example that wasn’t confined to the internet was that of Shabina Begum whose school would not allow her to break its uniform rules by wearing the jilbab. This is the case that got as far as the European courts. In a TV debate she labelled this “oppression” when the breaking of uniform rules in most schools would warrant sanctions. Ditto segregation. Not allowing this is an “oppression”, a denial of human rights etc etc. The radicals will seize on anything they can to impress young minds with this apparent “oppression”. It really doesn’t have to be anything more than an issue – any issue – that they push and which this society pushes back against.

  • http://alchemyoftheword.net/ Gideon Jagged

    ” The world would be an infinitely safer place if the historical Mohammed had behaved more like Buddha or Jesus.” Oh, if only.

  • SeanieRyan

    This attack has woken up a lot of people.

    What will it be like in a few more years, after more repeated attacks across Europe.

    These people have a sole aim of killing in vast numbers, the more, the better.

    It is only a matter of time before they have success in that endeavour and an attack in Europe has hundreds or even thousands of corpses piled up.

    That is the unfortunate reality we find ourselves in.

  • David Walker

    No religion is peaceful?!

  • benfromharrow

    ‘We are Charlies’ might be more appropriate for us in the UK

    • Hamburger

      Right Charlies?

  • Andrea Collins

    Excellent article, thank you.

  • Richard McArthur

    Your experience with the BBC is depressing but also illustrative of the real struggle that moderate Muslims have in facing up to what the texts of the Koran and the Hadiths actually say. To see how difficult one well educated peace loving American Muslim found this process, but how he did finally face up to the reality, have a read of ‘Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus’ by Nabeel Qureshi (just 3.999 for Kindle version), particularly chapter 38 ‘Veiling the Violence’ and chapter 43 ‘Those Whom Their Right Hand Possesses’

  • Jon Sobieski

    The only solution is separation. The West must stop all Muslim immigration and halt all citizenship applications for Muslims. The West should provide refuge for apostates from Islam. Any mosque applauding sharia should be seized by the govt and its assets liquidated. All madrassas closed, assets seized. That’s just a start.

    • Donafugata

      I don’t know if you saw my reply earlier but as with almost every comment on the Speccie, it is getting the PENDING treatment.

      Clearly I need a new identity.

  • Albert Aho

    It’s my opinion that Barack Obama lies when he claims to be a Christian.

  • Ted Bishop

    One of the main truths within the Koran is to have one faith for the whole world and that is Islam. It can be achieved in many ways so the book says but slaughter of those who are non believers, those who do not submit to it, are gay or like me just do not believe in any fairy tale God whatsoever is the best way so I am led to believe. Islam has only one holy book and it is not open to interpretation on any issues in anyway and anyone who doubts the words within cannot be a true Muslim and thus an object worthy to be killed. Is there a Muslim who can inform me if I am wrong about this as I would be very glad of the information and then change my views.

  • Jonathan Cracknell

    I love the way you argue with the religious bigots on TV Douglas…you never lose your cool. At last we have declared War on Islam with the publication of the pictures of their unholy prophet, may be Europe will awake now to the danger that this religion poses to all of us. No more lies from the Liberal politicians.

  • HungryShrew

    I feel like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders, to hear the above truth in mainstream media….. finally.

    ..and so clearly expressed.

    I have seen the above truth many, many times expressed by members of the public, in forums, in comment threads, between close friends…its release into the mainstream is refreshing.

    There is hope for freedom of expression. The Enlightenment was not in vain.

  • Hypocrite

    “Contra the political leaders, the Charlie Hebdo murderers were not lunatics without motive, but highly motivated extremists intent on enforcing Islamic blasphemy laws in 21st-century Europe. If you do not know the ideology — perverted or plausible though it may be — you can neither understand nor prevent such attacks. Nor, without knowing some Islamic history, could you understand why — whether in Mumbai or Paris — the Islamists always target the Jews.”

    Well this is factually false. First the murderers did no target the magazine because they wanted to impose blasphemy laws, but because they used it as a symbol of the ongoing attacks on some of the Muslim countries by the West. It was symbolic. They clearly stated this. There lies your problem. If you cannot distinguish between these two motives you cannot see what is happening in here. So your point that we should come face to face with the problem should be valid for this case as well. Western intervention for “the profit” and not for democratizing or freedom or human rights is one major axis in these ever growing problem. So is fundamentalist Islam.
    Jews are considered a people of book, and therefore are widely respected by Muslims. Attacking Jews is again a symbolic attack on Israel. Again you have to understand this to be able to solve the problem. Unless you can tackle the Israel-Palestine conflict you would be unable to do so. For example tens of thousands of Jews live in Iran, nobody is killing them, nobody even threatens them. Ask yourself why. Koranic verses only point to that specific historical period.

    And if you are writing this to justify anti-immigration laws, again you are not seeing the point. You have to reduce discrimination, you have to hold responsible Saudi and co for their far-right Islamist interpretation, you have to put pressure on your government not to give aid to any Islamic faction for their of goal of undermining another faction, you have to curb the right-wing fascism in the West which breeds more violence, you have to be consistent regarding the problem of Palestine, you have to be more inclusive of Muslims, and their individual rights.

    Whereas in all holy books there are violent and peaceful verses, why are 15% of Muslims are going to follow that violent approach? are they genetically different? or are other factors at play. Why for example Palestinians despite not being hardliners were the most supportive of suicide attack? is it inherent in Koran? or is it a product of the situations. Fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is just one axis of the problem. You have to recognize other factors, or you are doomed to failure.

  • ArthurSparknottle

    Islam can’t be reformed because its adherents believe Mohammed is, was, and always will be, God’s last messenger. Fundamentalism like this is incompatible with reform.

  • Julibarn

    The road to reform is hard when you risk being killed for criticising yourself.

  • somewhereinthesouth

    The left and liberals have a problem with Islam. Of course most muslims are peaceable but there a large number of adherents want something more “radical” and probabaly sympathise with some of the extremists objectives [ if not the killing ] . e.g. Sharia, the oppression of women, dislike of the sexual liberation and hate or killing g of gays etc. The problem is however the lefts approach has been based political correctness , multiculturalism [ all cultures are equal and to be celebrated – whatever ] and guilt based on the notion of past or present injustices e.g. colonialism , the crusades and the behaviour of Israel. The effect has been to neutraise or prevent any discussion of the issues raised by Islam when processed in a western context. It has also allowed extremism to fester and may also permit some extremists to pose as moderate democrats [ until such time as they get power when the true ideology will reveal itself – just as with communism etc].
    That their approach is now proving to be utterly wrong wont make any difference as the true socialists and liberals will turn a blind eye to the evil doings Islamists just as they did with Communists . [It is ironically ok to for them to openly hate Facists [ and extreme Islam is just that ] although in some respects the outcomes of living under Facism wasn’t that different from marxists led states which the left prefer – in both cases freedom of expression course was the first thing to go.. They cannot and will not therefore admit that extreme [and maybe some moderate ] forms of islam are in essence incompatible with democracy and its ideals. It would undermine the foundations of their beliefs. So better do nothing.

    Hayek showed that communism [and Facism] was incompatible with democratic freedoms and individual rights but that did not stop the left ignoring the odious nature of communist regimes. We need someone toads to the point out the true nature of or at east risks of Islam especially in its more radical forms The left were on the whole prepared to overlook the police state and the gulags in Soviet Russia , the devastating impact of Mao’s cultural revolution or the starvation of Kim Jong’s odious regime. Their defence is usually that these states and their actions were the result of particular and fallible leaders, not their left wing ideology – never mind the facts : i.e that the loss of freedom has been the result in nearly all socialist and totalitarian regimes where they have been tried . The refusal of lefties to criticise or to permit criticism of Islam [as opposed to other western religions] has allowed Islamists to behave in ways which are undermining our hard earned freedoms and democracy. It has also allowed Imams and the leaders of Islam to get away with ignoring extremist preachers , to keeping the status quo and to refuse to reform or even openly oppose the the radicals in their mosques.

    It should be noted that the texts of Islam do indeed appear to permit the beheading of infidel and Mohammed himself carried out wars against Christians and Jews and he also also beheaded many Jews personally. So on one level the radicals are right. Of course there are passages elsewhere in the Koran saying that each nation has been given their own “way”[ and its is not for Moslems to judge] so clearly there is room for interpretation…… In the end i can’t help but agree with the Muslim mayor of Rotterdam – if you live in the west are muslim and you want to enjoy its benefits [ rounded and free education , free healthcare, high incomes, freedom of expression ] fine , but if you don’t like democracy or some its is aspects and its individualist approach then “F off”.

    • Dan W Taliaferro

      Reformation of Islam has several impediments, and none larger than this: In any debate between a radical Islamist and a “moderate” Muslim, the Islamist will always win. Why? Because there is far more scripture and religious text material, long accepted by Muslim scholars as authentic, that supports violence and intolerance towards non-believers, that supports subjugation of women, and that permits the curtailment of freedoms of speech and religion.

      It is rather difficult to reform a faith to accept Western ideas when the accepted texts, history and tradition of that faith is on record as being opposed to those ideas.

      • somewhereinthesouth

        Regrettably I must agree with you . Reform seems very unlikely . This means we can longer appease them…although i fear the consequences.

  • SNCO

    Can we simultaneously work on the Conservative Christian lunatic fringe, as well? After all, both groups are cherry-pickers deep down at heart.

    • somewhereinthesouth

      Well they Christians especially the fundamentalists have had, and to some extent still do have, a problem to some degree with women, gays , sexual libration and in the past slavery. But the Churches are reforming and do allow discussion on the matter . AND they don’t [these days anyhow] go around calling for gays to be hanged or blasphemers to be killed . The comparison with the Islamists is therefore wrong and unfair.

      • SNCO

        But their more lunatic members are not immune to killing sprees and focused arson, in fact these events often show a habitual pattern against Muslims, perceived Muslims (as when these dunder-heads kill Sikhs and Hindus), or simply time-honored animus against racial minorities. Historically, no one lynched like a Southern Baptist.

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          The problem is Islam, not Christianity, no matter how much the moral equivalency police insist Islam is no different. There is no “habitual pattern” of Christians killing Muslims for religious reasons in this century or the last. And Southern Baptists have not lynched racial minorities in 50 years. Can you name even one Baptist who lynched an African American man in the last 40 years and did so because he said Jesus wanted him to murder? No, you cannot. In fact, Muslims kill more innocent people in one month than were killed by the KKK in its entire history. And today I can show you–in any given month for the past 10 years–accounts of Muslims murdering hundreds or thousands of innocent Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Yazedis, and Muslims solely for religious reasons. We live in the present, not the past. The present is Islam killing innocent people.

          No Christian is shouting “Praise Jesus” and beheading people, or flying commercial aircraft into office buildings while yelling “Yahweh is Great.” Only Muslims are murdering, expressly and specifically, in the name of their god, and it happens every single day. This is not true for the world’s other major religions.

  • http://facebook.com/betteroffdamned Better Off Damned

    It is getting hard to keep up with all these Koran-inspired atrocities that have nothing to do with Islam.

    https://betteroffdamned.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/notislam/

  • matthew hall

    I always think of the Labour MPs who kept their lips sealed as piles of Rushdie’s Satanic Verses burned in the streets of their constituencies.

    Those who tolerate intolerance in the name of tolerance are intellectually bankrupt and have lost all credibility. I hope politicians can square up to the issue, because if it’s left to the poor, white and angry we will have some very ugly scenes this summer.

  • Zytigon

    Admirable article by Douglas Murray, thanks.
    The news papers could help by encouraging people to read, “Why evolution is true” by Jerry A. Coyne or just give more details on natural history & the history of science.
    None of the 1st millennium scriptures managed to predict the agricultural, industrial or digital revolutions. All the scriptures failed to foretell the atomic age, jet age, space age, information age. They had no words of knowledge about 21st century technology. Did any of the 1st millennium scriptures contribute to the advance of technology ? Even in the present day the religions are unable to receive divine revelation leading to successful nuclear fusion reactors or grid scale batteries or new antibiotics.

  • Steve Kane

    There seems to be a failure to distinguish between the Hadith and the Koran here. But as the writer says only more open discussion and wider knowledge will help to make the distinction. The Hadith is far more open to assault by modern critical thinking than the Koran, though in the end key facts have to be recognised, like that it was not written down during the Prophet’s life, and alternative versions have turned up.
    Within Christianity humanist theology rose and then was suppressed with the rise of protestantism, Christianity did not have to go through this process of self questioning and struggle under the spotlight of a competing set of faiths, it was a private struggle in the main, though it spilled across the globe. The process within Islam is more concentrated and there is an “enemy without” to blame, so much more visible than during modern Christian theology’s growing pains.

  • Rob

    But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. – Luke 19:27

    Jesus not such a chippa chap after all

  • http://batman-news.com The Commentator

    Sorry Douglas but this sort of approach is bonkers. The problem is not “radical Islam” or anything written in the Qur’an or the hadith. Islam does not need to “modernise” or de-literalise or any other similar nonsense. The problem, the only problem, is that there are some people in the world who like to use religious belief to justify murder. Whether they are Al Qaeda or Likud doesn’t much matter, they all need to be shunned and condemned. In the UK we have around 2.7 million Muslims, 50% of whom are under 25. There are more than 1400 mosques with around 40-50 new ones opening each year. They are all packed with worshippers (unlike the semi-derelict Anglican churches that dot our landscape). So insulting so many of our fellow citizens and telling them that their religion is inherently violent and needs to modernise is really NOT the way forward.

    • Louise_Cyphre

      “The problem is not “radical Islam” or anything written in the Qur’an or the hadith.”

      Yes, it is. Until you acknowledge that there indeed is a problem, you can’t find the solution.

    • Alexsandr

      OK , we will ignore the nasty parts of Islam and put our fingers in our lugoles and sing la la la.
      Thats a good idea.

  • Terry Field

    ‘These people are using Islam, taking a peaceful religion and using it as a tool to carry out their activities.’

    This axiomatic point on which douglas rests his main argument is untrue.
    The Koran describes the stages of Jihad, from humble acceptance of local conditions when the Muslim group is a small minority, to the actions of ISIS when they constitute the dominant majority.It is an expansionist religion of, as Mr Choudhary says, a mindset of submission to Allah, and NO acceptance of the idea of free will and freedom of expression.
    In other words, everything we have from the reformation and the enlightenment onwards, including all forms of development of representative democracy, are for the trash-can.
    We ALL know this, despite the fascist-liberal media control, and the lying politicos that Douglas represents so well at the start of the article.
    The incompatibility is uncontested by Muslims, and now by non-muslims, so progress in destroying the absurdities our political prostitutes have peddled is underway

  • Jim Station

    Can
    anyone, anywhere please give me some benefits of Islamising our country that is inevitable with mass Islamic immigration? All
    that I can see is a very aggressive return to the dark ages. What
    contributions have been gained by our country? I can accept that some doctors
    have been serving our country’s health services, and the ‘culinary contribution’
    of chicken tikka masala, but what else? (Compare this with the contribution from
    other non-Christian incomers eg Judaism, and one can see contributions to the
    sciences, arts and drama.) What I find totally and completely hard to swallow is
    the fact that there is an ever growing number of Islamic incomers entering our
    country unwantedly and illegally, yet stridently defending their own background
    and aiming to bend/ change our own laws to accommodate their preferences. (Eg.
    Trojan Horse in Birmingham, tell mama etc.) The views and values that they hold
    onto come from their own countries which too often have been hostile to non-Muslims
    – just like us in our own country. Do we really want to import people from these
    places? Why is there not even a timescale for stay that is to be strictly applied
    before such people are allowed in? Our own leaders in the UK and, ha-ha, the EU
    have been truly treacherous in not facing the problem posed by importing a
    faith that has been at war with Europe and Christianity from its early days.

  • Che Bob

    The collision with the islamic world has really revealed some worrying flaws in western liberalism. If the next Nazi party are of a different race, liberals will hold the doors open for them right until the very last second before they start holocausting.

    • hippiepooter

      They’re already helping Islam write the mood music for the next Holocaust.

    • Louise_Cyphre

      You should have heard the British audience on BBC QT today, applauding a comparison (made by a person who thinks non-Muslims are immoral cattle) of free speech that got the French cartoonists murdered with farting in a lift.

      Just suicidal.

      • Che Bob

        Yeah I heard about that. I wouldn’t worry about it too much, it’s quite easy to make people laugh at a flawed point if you just include something silly in the point. The same crowd would probably laugh and applaud at the exact opposite point if it used a fart metaphor as well.

  • 70sgirly

    “The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting”

    And when have the British public behaved like a lynch mob? Actually, I think it’s the fear that the Muslim community are a lynch mob, primed on a hair trigger for any “offence” to their oh so sensitive feelings. Now they have behaved like a lynch mob on many occasions, Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc.

    “It’s nothing to do with Islam is NOT a “noble lie” it’s a grotesque downright lie and we are sick to death of hearing it. Stop ****ing saying it

  • AverageGuyInTheStreet

    Well yes but you’re preaching to the converted. When a piece like this is transmitted by the BBC or printed in the Guardian, perhaps we’ll know that we’ve entered a new era of truthfulness.

  • Doug

    … and thus fell Western civilisation. Allahu Akbar!

    Which is exactly what will be written a hundred years hence if we don’t start dealing with all the leftists, feminists, corporate cronyists, communists, white guilters, religionists, and mass immigrationists within our ranks.

    Our civilisation and everything we cherish is on the brink of extinction. We’d better buck our ideas up.

  • shasnat

    Has Douglass Murray every thought about the Invasion and Destruction (and Tortures) Iraq and it’s people by the thousands by the “Christian” invaders? Not to mention the same thing happening to Afghans by the “Christian” Nato & “Christians” American Mass Murderers!!Of Course Not, it’s so easy to overlook one’s faults!!

    • sebastian2

      Actually, we don’t overlook our faults. We have a free press and much else that openly examines what we do and why, and says so. But this isn’t the issue. We’re not drawing parallels or comparing body counts (mohammedism has accumulated a lot of corpses on its own account, by the way) but whether or not islam is the religion of peace and “perfect”. To be or not to be – peaceful and perfect? That is the question.
      The answer? It isn’t. And we’ll continue to say so. We will not share in your delusions. Mohammedism, which is so scathing about other religions or beliefs, WILL get a taste of its own medicine.

    • sebastian2

      Actually, we don’t overlook our faults. We have a free press and
      much else that openly examines what we do and why, and says so. But
      this isn’t the issue. We’re not drawing parallels or comparing body
      counts (mohammedism’s tally is enormous) but debating whether or not islam is the religion of peace and “perfect”. To be or not to be – peaceful and perfect? That is the question.

      The answer? It isn’t. And we’ll
      continue to say so. We won’t share your delusions. Mohammedism, which
      is so scathing about other religions or beliefs, will learn to take
      it as well as give it.

      • shasnat

        The “Christian West” has killed a lot more People than Any other Religion, and they still are.(FYI they have killed a Lot More Jews than anyone has-Check out Ur Bloody History). check out the Tolls in Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few.
        and Afghanistan to name just a Few. Ur So called Free Press seems to be Controlled By Large Corporations and above all by theZionist Lobby!!

        • Louise_Cyphre

          Typical fact-free whataboutery, combined with idiotic antisemitism, as usual.

          ” Iraq and Afghanistan to name a few.and Afghanistan to name just a Few.”

          You’re counting Afghanistan twice, dear. Not to mention that the VAST percentage of victims in both Iraq and elsewhere in Muslim world are victims of violence that Muslims perpetrate against other Muslims.

          You’re not fooling anyone any longer.

        • Cassandra

          The islamic invasion of India resulted in the reduction of the population by 80 millions,according to figures produced by an Indian historian / statistician whose name I can’t remember, but who I could look up if I had the energy. One muslim ruler alone made a point of killing 100, 000 ‘polytheists’ a day – ***A Day ****.

          According to the historian Will Durant, this was the ‘bloodiest story in history’.

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

            Yes. The numbers are comparable to WWI and II, which is astounding but does seem to be valid as they are confirmed by more than just current Hindu nationalists who are a bit biased.

  • balance_and_reason

    The reason that these politicians are repeating this mantra ad nauseam is down to the issue that is intractable and not solvable under our current legal regime. We have a significant and fast growing muslim population with British passports, as do the other Euro countries, which cannot legally be thrown out. To start saying 5% of the population are a bunch of murderous, medieval, uncivilised bunch of ingrates would then set roll a process that is non reversible and ends in a lot of death. The tipping point was reached when immigration levels doubled in the early 2000’s and continued at that level for five or six years…the muslim communities got self sustaining and democratic weight…we now pay the bill and must listen to the politicians lie.

  • Martha van der Pol

    Totally agree. Look at the hateful response to an innocuous tweet I made this am –

    http://marthavanderpol.com/2015/01/15/all-free-speech-is-not-created-equal/

    • hippiepooter

      Islam murders those who offend it and those who leave it. It is unique among religions.

      Diplomatic hypocrisy about Islam to protect our Muslim citizens from backlash should not be confused with craven hypocrisy. The laudable former is perfectly possible without endangering our security by making the enemy think we’re stupid and cowardly enough to be defeated.

      #Jesuisberlinerkurier
      http://vecinodemocratico.blogspot.com.es/2015/01/jesuisberlinerkurier.html

  • hippiepooter

    So a ‘moderate’ Muslim who ‘deradicalises’ those ‘extremist’ Muslims acts like a complete nut when you catch him out in a lie about the life of Mohammed.

    If this is a ‘moderate’ Muslim responsible for ‘deradicalisation’, it shows how extremely dangerous Islam is.

    9-11 raised the flag of Jihad once more and Muslims are flocking to it because our response of moral imbecility (viz your BBC producers) shows we’re there for the taking.

    While at least half the western world regards having terrorist prisoners of war in a war against terrorism as a crime, we’ll keep sleepwalking like self-harming zombies to Armageddon.

    European Guantanamo now, end Muslim immigration.

  • Martha van der Pol

    I watched an intelligence squared debate with Douglas and Ayaan Hirsi Ali today – Maajir Nawaz was very odd on Israel –

    http://marthavanderpol.com/2015/01/15/ayaan-hirsi-ali-islams-absolutism-and-cult-of-victimhood/

  • Robert Heenan

    The Charlie Hebdo affair has many of the characteristics of a false flag operation. The attack on the cartoonists’ office was a disciplined professional attack of the kind associated with highly trained special forces; yet the suspects who were later corralled and killed seemed bumbling and unprofessional. It is like two different sets of people.

    Usually Muslim terrorists are prepared to die in the attack; yet the two professionals who hit Charlie Hebdo were determined to escape and succeeded, an amazing feat. Their identity was allegedly established by the claim that they conveniently left for the authorities their ID in the getaway car. Such a mistake is inconsistent with the professionalism of the attack and reminds me of the undamaged passport found
    miraculously among the ruins of the two WTC towers that served to establish the identity of the alleged 9/11 hijackers.

    It is a plausible inference that the ID left behind in the getaway car was the ID of the two Kouachi brothers, convenient patsies, later killed by police, and from whom we will never hear anything, and not the ID of the professionals who attacked Charlie Hebdo. An important fact that supports this inference is the report that the third suspect in the
    attack,Hamyd Mourad, the alleged driver of the getaway car, when seeing his name circulating on social media as a suspect realized the danger he was in and quickly turned himself into the police for protection against being murdered by security forces as a terrorist.

    Hamyd Mourad says he has an iron-clad alibi.If so, this makes him the despoiler of a false flag attack. Authorities will have to say that despite being wrong about Mourad, they were right about the Kouachi brothers. Alternatively, Mourad could be coerced
    or tortured into some sort of confession that supports the official story.

    The American and European media have ignored the fact that Mourad turned
    himself in for protection from being killed as a terrorist as he has an alibi. I googled Hamid Mourad and all I found (January 12) was the main US and European media reporting that the third suspect had turned himself in. The reason for his surrender was left out of the reports. The news was reported in a way that gave credence to the accusation that the suspect who turned himself in was part of the attack on Charlie
    Hebdo. Not a single US mainstream media source reported that the alleged
    suspect turned himself in because he has an ironclad alibi.

    Some media merely reported Mourad’s surrender in a headline with no coverage
    in the report. The list that I googled includes the Washington Post (January 7 by Griff Witte and Anthony Faiola); Die Welt (Germany) “One suspect has turned himself in to police in connection with Wednesday’s massacre at the offices of Parisian satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo;” ABC News (January 7) “Youngest suspect in Charlie Hebdo Attack turns himself in;” CNN (January 8) “Citing sources, the Agence France Presse news agency reported that an 18-year-old suspect in the attack had surrendered to police.”

    Another puzzle in the official story that remains unreported by the presstitute media is the alleged suicide of a high ranking member of the French Judicial Police who had an important role in the Charlie Hebdo investigation. For unknown reasons, Helric
    Fredou, a police official involved in the most important investigation of a lifetime, decided to kill himself in his police office on January 7 or January 8 (both dates are reported in the foreign media) in the middle of the night while writing his report on his investigation. A google search as of 6pm EST January 13 turns up no mainstream US media report of this event. The alternative media reports it, as do some UK newspapers, but without suspicion or mention whether his report has disappeared. The official story is that Fredou was suffering from “depression” and “burnout,” but no evidence is provided. Depression and burnout are the standard explanations of mysterious deaths that have unsettling implications.

    Once again we see the US print and TV media serving as a ministry of propaganda for Washington. In place of investigation, the media repeats the government’s implausible story.

    It behoves us all to think. Why would Muslims be more outraged by cartoons in a Paris magazine than by hundreds of thousands of Muslims killed by Washington and its French and NATO vassals in seven countries during the past 14 years?

    If Muslims wanted to make a point of the cartoons, why not bring a hate crime charge or lawsuit? Imagine what would happen to a European magazine that dared to satirize Jews in the way Charlie Hebdo satirized Muslims. Indeed, in Europe people are
    imprisoned for investigating the holocaust without entirely confirming
    every aspect of it.

    If a Muslim lawsuit was deep-sixed by French authorities, the Muslims would have made their point. Killing people merely contributes to the demonization of Muslims, a result that only serves Washington’s wars against Muslim countries.

    If Muslims areresponsible for the attack on Charlie Hebdo, what Muslim goal did they
    achieve? None whatsoever. Indeed, the attack attributed to Muslims has ended French and European sympathy and support for Palestine and European opposition to more US wars against Muslims. Just recently France had voted in the UN with Palestine against the US-Israeli position. This assertion of an independent French foreign policy was reinforced by the recent statement by the President of France that the economic sanctions against Russia should be terminated.

    Clearly, France was showing too much foreign policy independence. The attack on
    Charlie Hebdo serves to cow France and place France back under Washington’s thumb.

    Some will contend that Muslims are sufficiently stupid to shoot themselves in the head in this way. But how do we reconcile such alleged stupidity with the alleged Muslim 9/11 and Charlie Hebdo professional attacks?

    If we believe the official story, the 9/11 attack on the US shows that 19 Muslims, largely Saudis, without any government or intelligence service support, outwitted not
    only all 16 US intelligence agencies, the National Security Council, Dick Cheney and all the neoconservatives in high positions throughout the US government, and airport security, but also the intelligence services of NATO and Israel’s Mossad. How can such intelligent and capable people, who delivered the most humiliating blow in world history to an alleged Superpower with no difficulty whatsoever despite giving
    every indication of their intentions, possibly be so stupid as to shoot themselves in the head when they could have thrown France into turmoil
    with a mere lawsuit?

    The Charlie Hebdo story simply doesn’t wash. If you believe it, you are no match for a Muslim.

    Some who think that they are experts will say that a false flag attack in France would be impossible without the cooperation of French intelligence. To this I say that it is practically a certainty that the CIA has more control over French intelligence than does the President ofFrance. Operation Gladio proves this. The largest part of the
    government of Italy was ignorant of the bombings conducted by the CIA and Italian Intelligence against European women and children and blamed on communists in order to diminish the communist vote in elections.

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2015/january/14/charlie-hebdo-shootings-false-flag/

    • Martha van der Pol

      You sir are very misguided – it is easy to see Islamic fervour and passionate support for terror worldwide – it is not rational, nor intelligent.

      • Robert Heenan

        You miss are very naive and totally gullible to the sheer propaganda the governments and mainstream media are presenting to you hence the brainwashing. The facts are out there for you to investigate with an objective mind. Did Oswald alone kill Kennedy? Do you believe the official story of 911?

        Im afraid things simply dont add up whatsoever regarding these Paris attacks and Im afraid more and more people are waking up scrutinising the official narratives regarding the Paris attacks just as how more and more people dont believe the official 911 establishment narrative

        WAKE UP!!!

        • red2black

          How can someone ‘investigate with an objective mind’ if they’ve been brainwashed?

      • Louise_Cyphre

        Not misguided – just insane.

  • Bonkim

    What baffles me is that both France and Britain had known Islam for over three centuries and yet ask what the basics of Islam are every time they are shown to be naive.

    • hippiepooter

      We’d basically subdued it during those centuries and forgot what happened before. Our mainstream parties would rather we don’t remember.

      • Bonkim

        Islam went on as usual – post-Empire Britain lost interest in people killing each other in far away locations. Still goes on without attracting much attention from Western media.

  • James Trow

    And…. Murray is a liar about history. ” On that occasion I chose one case, but I could have chosen many others, such as the hundreds of Jews Mohammed beheaded with his own hand.” Why are you deliberately lying about a historical incident and hiding the truth, in order to advance your flawed argument? Let’s recount the REAL history as evidenced by both non-Muslim and Muslim scholars: When Prophet Muhammad in 622 A.D. migrated to the city of Medina (Madinah) from pagan Mecca (Makkah) to escape persecution and assassination attempts, the tribes of Madinah welcomed him and the nascent Muslim community. All residents of Madinah then pledged themselves to a treaty that became known as the “Compact of Madinah”, which provided equal rights, protection and obligations for all people of Madinah – whether Muslim, Jewish, Christian or pagan. Three major Jewish tribes of Madinah entered into this mutual pact, which provided that all people of Madinah would band together to resist any attacks by pagan Makkah on their city (the Makkans had vowed to chase and destroy the Muslims in Madinah), who were much more powerful than Madinah. War broke out between Makka and Madinah. During a major military attack on Madinah by the Makkan Confederacy, the Muslims built a trench around the city to protect it from assault (hence it is called the Battle of the Trench). The trench confounded the Makkans, so they entered into secret negotiations with the Banu Qurayza, a Madinah Jewish tribe which was part of the Compact of Madinah, to attack the Muslims from the rear inside Madinah and supply more arms to the Makkans. The Banu Qurayza agreed to this arrangement and betrayed their Treaty. However, before more could happen, the Makkans withdrew under humiliation as they were unsuccessful in assaulting the city. The Prophet was informed of the betrayal of the Banu Qurayza, so he marched to their community with the Madinate forces and demanded their surrender for their treachery. Eventually, the Banu Qurayza surrendered and gave up all of their arms, and their former allies, the Banu Khazraj tribe, asked the Prophet to be lenient towards them and asked that the leader of the Banu Khazraj be allowed to judge the Banu Qurayza’s treachery. The Prophet agreed to this. Thereafter, the leader of the Banu Khazraj judged the Banu Qurayza based upon the ‘Law of the Torah’, which was execution for treason, for all the arms-bearing men of the Banu Qurayza, and captivity for the women and children. The sentence was carried out. The Prophet was not involved and did NOT behead anyone. In those times (i.e. 600 ADs), treason was punishable by death, especially during time of war. That remains true in the modern world – think World War I and World War II. So….. Murray… instead of lying about the Prophet’s conduct, give the accurate historical narrative. The Muslims were in a ‘state of war’ for 13 years with pagan Makkah after Muhmmmad’s emigration – all these events happened during war and major battles.

    • Louise_Cyphre

      “Prophet Muhammad ”

      He was not a prophet of any kind, if we’re talking history and not Muslim apologetics. Just a warlord who invented a religion to help him in his dreams of conquest.

      So anything else you have to say is worthless.

  • falcons1988

    The problem with reforming Islam, is that any attempt reform it and it ceases to be Islam. The Quran claims to be the eternal word of Allah and his words cannot be changed. Surah 6:112-118. Which basically says the Quran means exactly what it says, especially when taking historical context into account. You cannot re-interpret verses that are explicit in calling for the heads of non-muslims such as 47:4. The peaceful verses in the Quran are obsolete, the doctrine of abrogation Surah 2:106, makes the peaceful verses obsolete.

    Furthermore, there is the Islamic dilemma. In Surah 3:3-4 the Quran affirms the Bible as the word of God. The Bible is the either the word of God or it isn’t. If the Bible is the word of God, Islam is false because the teachings of the Quran contradict the Bible and calls Muhammad as false prophet. Deuteronomy 18:15-22, Proverbs 30: 5-6, 2 Corinthians 11: 3-14. If the bible isn’t the word of God, neither is the Quran. Also the Quran claims that Allah is the greatest of all deceivers Surah 7:80. How can the word Allah be believed?

    I could go into greater theological depth..

  • sebastian2

    Disgraceful that the BBC cut the “tolerant” mohammedan’s hysterical rant. Had it been Tommy Robinson ……………….. there’d be no end to the coverage. The BBC is a complete disgrace.

  • Fredrik Andersson

    Thank you! Much needed. Our only human option is to support the moderate muslims, take them on our side, and hope there “moderate” interpretations of the sharia laws and jihad will spreed, and be reformed even more. But what will happen if we find this to be impossible, if the content of the Koran sets a limit for reformation?

    • TommyCastro

      It’s insufficient, in turn we need the moderates to unconditionally condemn and to reform from within.

  • Louise_Cyphre

    Here is what lies ahead:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/15/tony-blair-speaks-republican-strategy-session-pennsylvania-radical-islam

    “Blair, who was introduced by Senator John McCain, also reportedly argued that radical Islam and the terrorism associated with it had not been contained; that countries in the west “didn’t cause it but were caught up in it”; that it was neither isolated nor insignificant and that while the majority of Muslims opposed it, “a substantial and not a fringe minority” supported it.”

    Finally, some straight talking.

  • Donafugata

    Guess what faith the head of BBC religious broadcasting belongs to PENDING!

    • Louise_Cyphre

      They’re all in it together to be honest.

  • mark

    Sajid Javid, is just the bog standard lying muslim.

    • TommyCastro

      How does your comment help or contribute? Just another ignoramus shouting from the sidelines.

  • http://jimmoyers.com Jim Moyers

    I take it you haven’t read the Hebrew scriptures with God ordering the slaughter of people who worshipped gods other than him or the New Testament where Jesus is quoted as saying he came not to bring peace but a sword? The medieval crusades to supposedly liberate the Holy Land from “the infidel” was not a shinning moment in the history of Christianity. Then there is the sad history of Christian persecution of Jews that preceded the systematic “final solution” of the Nazis. Or how about the Buddhist slaughter of Moslems in Burma/Myanmar? What about the religious wars that came with the Reformation in Europe? The imperative to eliminate those who have different beliefs can be found somewhere in most ideologies for “true believers” to grab hold of and declare some form of holy war.

    • somewhereinthesouth

      No they weren’t Christianity’s finest hours.. But lets be clear the invasion of Jerusalem and Constantinople was in the first place carried out by Islamic armies as it was in Spain, Portugal , North Africa and India. The Islamic religion has mostly only been spread by war from its inception The spread of Christianity was different and indeed it remains so today. To say that Christianity was the aggressor is like saying Britain and France were the aggressors in the second world war when the Nazis invaded Poland.

      • http://jimmoyers.com Jim Moyers

        Yes the spread of Christianity was different in that an important factor in establishing it throughout the Western world was becoming the prescribed religion of the Roman Empire. Dissenters from what became orthodox Christianity along with non-Christians found life in the Roman Empire very difficult. To say nothing about what happened in medieval Christendom. It seems to me that Islam today is much like medieval Christianity in its lack of tolerance. During medieval times Islam was generally more tolerant of other religion than was Christianity. But that changed as Christian countries became more secular and tolerant. There are still a lot of fundamentalist Christians who, given the chance, would be more than a little inclined to persecute people whose beliefs differed from theirs, justifying it as “the Lord’s will.”

    • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

      I’m sure others can deal with the rest of your points, so I’ll just deal with one. That Jesus came with a sword to set parents against children, and siblings against one another. There were several instances in which Jesus could have recommended violence to his disciples but did not. His disciples pursued no violent aims after his death and had little involvement in politics. What did he mean that he came with a sword? The real explanation is that he meant that by choosing the divine way his followers would have to reject the beliefs of those that opposed them: A person should not believe simply because their parents tell them them to, or their siblings, or their friends. This is not a violent confrontation – it is the rejection of conventional belief handed down from generation to generation. The appearance of things is not as they are, therefore merely accepting them is to live in ignorance. Christianity seeks to liberate the individual from their mistakenly placed confidence in the absolute reality of the material world – this is something others cannot accept, until they themselves realise the same knowledge. It is not a political statement at all – and has no relation to violence.

      • http://jimmoyers.com Jim Moyers

        I agree with your interpretation of what Jesus most likely meant. But my point was that a lot of Christians have used scripture to support violence, slavery, the divine right of kings, and so on. In the US the Southern Baptist Church, one of the largest denominations in the country, was founded on a defense of slavery as divinely ordained. Islamist fanatics use verses from the Koran to justify psychopathic behavior; Christian fanatics have done the same.

        • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

          That is true, but it has to be asked what is the core message of Christianity and of Islam, and compare them. Christianity is based on love for God and love for one’s neighbour. I would argue that it is undeniable that the true message of Islam is one of total violence until submission to Islam is acknowledged. This is the message rammed home by the Koran hundreds of times. The supporting documents and authorities of Islam support that point of view universally.

  • GraveDave

    Sajid also said Britain was stronger for immigration. As if everyone who comes here from outside has something wonderful to offer.

  • Kasperlos

    Is there anyone out there asking a simple question, if not at least to themselves, to wit: ‘How did the problems of Islam come to land upon our quiet doorsteps in the West, and why?’ Such a question just might help invigorate the brain cells of the sleeping to awaken and realize that they’ve been had. Had, thanks to quiet acquiesence of the electorate to the machinations of their supine politicians, Marxist oriented academia and phony salesmanship media, in that the inflow of baggage from the Morning Land was planned from A – Z, and you’re paying the price. There is no surprise in all of this in that there were voices over the past 45 years warning of what was happening and what might – and has – come to the shores of Western Christendom.

  • sapermktg

    Show solidarity with those in France who are ready to act against Islamic Jihadism within their country and globally, while maintaining the rights of all its citizens and resisting the alluring temptress of xenophobia during times of civil crisis.

    Give encouragement to those Muslim voices who not only condemn this wanton violence but are ready to go public and say this does not speak for their Islam (for example, Hisham Melhem, the Washington bureau chief of Al-Arabiya). We need to support and protect them

    Do everything we can to reach out, communicate and show concern for the French Jews who are caught in a tragic maelstrom. For those of us who love the France we know, this is the hour to be heard and support the best angels of their conscience in the defense of liberty and security for all its citizens and the right of free speech, thought, and personal freedom that we share, that is not given, but must be vigilantly fought for.

  • Roy

    Generation after generation the ordinary members of society, the ones who have been unable or disinterested to get involved in politics, have been told they are too ignorant or not educated enough to put forward a point of view. Then suddenly they wake-up one morning and find the world, or worse, their country, is in such a mess. Like Rip Van Winkle they wake from a deep sleep and find a new order of things that has been put in place by ones voted into supreme authority. It appears one thing we must learn in life that teams of learned professional people put in charge of important decision making are definitely not to be trusted. Ones own thoughts, mainly gut feelings have told us it is all a terrible mistake, yet it goes ahead and in the finale assessment the country and the ordinary people have to pay for these terrible mistakes. The decision makers are never brought to book, live to a great old age, and at our expense.

  • TommyCastro

    Clear, well written, a reasonable argument and an argument / debate that desperately needs to take place in an honest way. Watching the juvenile conversation on this topic last night on Question Time shows how dishonest, shallow and cowardly the politicians, the BBC and most Muslim spokesmen are. Meanwhile the public are mostly ignorant and afraid after being bombarded by the Left over so many years about what is “offensive”. We will regret this cowardice.

    • red2black

      Question Time is entertaining in an annoying sort of way. The most annoying part is having to pay the licence fee under threat of a 10-stretch in one of Ed Stalin’s gulags if we rebel against the Red Terror State Broadcaster and refuse to cough up. Host David ‘Mad Dog’ Dimbleby ‘pulls the strings’ as a carefully selected panel of left wing extremists like David Starkey talk over each other and ignore the pre-scripted loaded questions asked by an invited audience of carefully vetted card-carrying Communist Party locals.
      Why anyone imagines QT is biased in some way is beyond me. (tee hee)

      • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

        Ha ha ha!

        • red2black

          Much appreciated.

  • Singapom

    The cool, calm truth is, Christianity, both the “as-verfiable-as-possible” actual words of its Founder and its teaching, are qualitatively different from those of Islam. There is an innate rationality to a Christian approach to living together that Islam lacks: as the BBC story in this article highlights. If Islam does not reform (as the Medieval Church had to) it will forever be in conflict with the free, rational, just, decent, liberal, tolerant world it is clear most people want to live in.

    • somewhereinthesouth

      It will have to delete or ignore 60 % of its texts then. Not very likely I reckon and history is not on the side of reform so far as Islam goes . Depressing – as the alternative is worrying. Appeasement is no longer answer however. [ it never was of course ].

  • Arden Forester

    I have not recently agreed much with what Douglas Murray says but this is 100% spot on. Very well written and goes to the heart of the dilemma. Our politicians do tell “noble lies” and Islam does have “history”. Mohammed was a warrior as much as a prophet. He led men into massacres especially at Medina. Many died in the Arabian Peninsular. That we in the “West” are now subjected to a politically correct way of responding to events is shameful. Douglas Murray has reasoned and researched his points. That the BBC and our leaders are so afraid to speak the truth says a lot.

  • EnochP

    Two positions only needed to take over western democratic countries :
    Aggressor and Victim, Victim and Aggressor. They will change positions
    faster than you can blink. No in-between , no middle-way, no admissions of guilt, no empathy, no
    mercy. Inch by inch moving forward,forward.. Being aggressor…Being
    victim..Being aggressor
    If this ideology had been a dog, it would have been put to sleep a long, long time ago.

  • Cassandra

    All Religions are not peaceful? So Christ said ‘behead your enemies, not love and forgive them?
    .
    Christianity is deeply pacific although Christians may be and have been historically aggressive. In a mirror image, Islam is fundamentally aggressive although many Muslims have been and are peaceful.
    .
    There are over 130 verses in the Qur’an which advocate aggression towards non-believers, either directly or by implication. These vastly outweigh the more peaceable ones and take precedence over them according to the exegesis taught by the most authoritative schools.
    .
    Thus, in words which Muslims could readily interpret as applying to the materialist West, we have: ‘ When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them to have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah’s word is proved against them; then we destroy them utterly.’ ( Surah 17:16-17)
    .
    Furthermore, there is the example of the Prophet Mohammed, ‘the perfect man’ in Islam, whose practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Murder, more murder, rape and pillage are not just in the Qur’an but in the Traditions about Muhammad’s life. They have inspired his followers throughout history to indulge in the same.
    .
    ‘KIll, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’ is an injunction which is as unambiguous as it is powerful. How can that be relativised or explained away in any kind of believable fashion?

  • johndowdle

    Based on comments I have read, it is obvious that most of you simply do not get it.
    Why are things the way they are?
    Because that is how the people in power want them to be.
    They – and their industrial military complexes – welcome terrorism.
    Secret services world-wide welcome terrorism.
    They think they can use terrorists for their own political ends.
    Who do you think backs and supports ISIS?
    Try: the US, Israel, the Gulf, Saudi and Jordan monarchs, Turkey too.
    Why are Western jihadists able to travel freely through Turkey to Iraq and Syria?
    We are all being used by the power elites: the Christians, Moslems and secularists.
    Do please wake up and start addressing the real issues.
    THE major issue is the loss of control over groups like ISIS, Boko Haram, etc.

  • Gabriel B. Atsepoyi

    Have you forgotten the CRUSADES by the Christians or White people in the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries where the Christians or White people marched on foot from Europe to Israel and killed everyone (thousands of innocent people!) on the way who was not white or Christian? Have you forgotten the MODERN DAY CRUSADES like the Gulf Wars and LIES about Weapon of Mass Destruction in order to go and kill thousands of non-Christians or non-whites as usual? Or, the KKK also known as NRA (National Rifle Association) in the USA killing innocent black people and minorities daily in the USA?! Or, the Israel Govt killing thousands of innocent Palestinians by guns and funds supplied by Western nations and stealing their lands, no question asked!? I think this article is very myopic and total nonsense! It is simply an esoteric mystic cooked up in an isolated laboratory in Christendom! If you are interested in a reasonable, just and balanced approach to the issues of religious conflicts in the world, please read my bestseller ( a very good book on this topic) available at amazon.com titled: “Practical Solutions to Religious Conflicts in the World” by Gabriel B. Atsepoyi. Thank you! God bless all countries in the WORLD!!!

    • Louise_Cyphre

      “CRUSADES by the Christians or White people i”

      Not this silly old whataboutery nonsense again.

      Crusades were just a very belated and ultimately half-hearted response to four centuries of Muslim expansion, conquest, murder and mayhem.

      http://pbs.twimg.com/media/B6XFWUaCIAA_OE6.png

    • TrulyDisqusted

      There is nothing in Christianity – the Christian texts that supports the crusades. They happened as a result of Muslims blocking ancient pilgrimage routes and access to Christian sites. Nowhere in the Christian bible does Jesus tell Christians to fight or conquer other faiths by means of violence.

      Whereas the Koran is littered with instructions from Mohammed requiring his followers to fight the unbelievers until there is no God but their false God.

      Man is imperfect. But unlike the Koran, Jesus instructs his followers to love their God with all their heart and soul, Love your neighbours and Love your enemies because only then can you be like your Father.

      The Crusades were a response to Muslim aggression.

  • Martha van der Pol
  • Frogmobile

    These beheaders are not Muslems, they come from Planet mars everybody know that…

  • http://www.competentme.com Adetoz

    Dougy argueable the most eloquent European speaker of the problem in Islam. I would argue that David Wood, Robert Spencer, Bill Warner are the best speakers of the same issue in America.

    Keep up the good work on speaking the truth on these issues.

  • evad666

    If you are happy to pay obeisance to Islam Vote as you have always done or Vote Green.
    If you have had enough of the forelock tugging you all know which way to Vote.

  • retiredolegit

    Well said. For once someone dares to say what is obvious when the Koran or the life of Mohammed is studied.
    Islam needs the Reformation that Christianity went through, and for muslims to dare to question their religion; sadly I cannot see it happening in the near future.

  • BonzoDog

    Mohammed was a warlord. Warlords are generally not peaceful, and he certainly was not. When Mohammed died, muslims could not agree about who should succeed him, so rather than agree to disagree, they went to war over it. They split into Shia and Sunni groups and that war continues today, 13 centuries later. Most of the muslims today are Sunni. But some, like Iran, Iraq and Syria are majority Shia. The two groups hate each other with a passion. Al Q’aida and Isis are Sunni, and all of the terrorism we experience in the west comes from the Sunni side. They seem to be the ones who want to export their religion. And Saudi Arabia is their main benefactor and financier. We need to put pressure on Saudi Arabia to stop exporting their toxic Sunni Muslim version of Islam (which incidentally has a name: Wahabbism). But do you ever hear any politician suggest we should be talking to Saudi Arabia? No, they are all gutless.

  • Ayatolla Howmany

    Peaceful Koranic verses? NO, NO, NO, NO!!!
    As Muhammad gained more power and wealth from his terrorism [LO, I have been made victorious through TERROR!] he ‘brought down’ the principle of ABROGATION, nullifying his Meccan peaceful tolerant verses and replacing them with the Medinan verses of terror and war on the infidels.
    This is basic Islamic ideology and not knowing it is a fatal mistake.

    ‘Only’ 15% of muslims are inclined to extremism? Why, that is a mere 0.15 x 1,000,000 = 150 MILLION potential terrorists!! Nothing to worry about, eh?

    • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

      The Koran is violent from page 1, and gets worse.

  • Ayatolla Howmany

    Islam is the only religion that will kill you for disagreeing with it—
    and then claim that YOU have a phobia.

  • The PrangWizard of England

    Some years ago I was told by someone who worked in Saudi about an experience (one of many) while there. It is known that the best thing is to have an escape plan, (ie to get to the airport fast) if you have a mishap, but that aside. He travelled regularly with a man whom he knew well, and one day his car was involved in a minor bump with another. He needed a witness; he was in the right and the other party was in the wrong. He called on his muslim ‘friend’ who refused point blank to side with him, as he said he would never take the side of a westerner against his ‘brother’, whatever the circumstances.

    For those without experience – take note.

  • Louise_Cyphre

    Here’s some adherents of “the religion of peace” being peaceful today in Jerusalem:

    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=783540131682064

  • Patricia

    My personal experience with Muslim people is positive. I have had only one bad interaction out of hundreds of positive ones. And by positive I mean outstandingly generous and patient and forebearing. To the point that my children know that if they are lost, they are to locate the first woman wearing a hijab they can find to get help, until I can locate them.

    I certainly see the crazy on television, but I class the extremists I see there with other mentally ill people who have gone round the bend and need some serious medication. Lots of religious extremists need a vacation, meds and some counseling.

    But no religion bears the full burden of that kind of crazy.

    • Dan W Taliaferro

      The problem is that this “mental Illness” seems to afflict Muslims far more often than people of any other religion, and seems to grow directly out of Islam.

  • Robert Heenan

    Islam is basically simply another christian sect. They believe in Jesus as the messiah. Theres obvious differences between groups but dont forget the ISIS millitants and alqaeda are simply CIA/Zionist funded and trained mercenaries

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-isis-islamic-terrorists-are-supported-by-the-us-israel-and-saudi-arabia/5396171

    Its so obvious!!!

    WAKE UP!!!

    And theres alot more!!!

    • Cassandra

      Oh for goodness sake….

    • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

      Islam is the antithesis of Christianity. It is violently opposed to the basic Christian tenets.

    • Father Onabit

      So obvious? Maybe to you but not to rational people.

  • Robert Heenan

    The murder of Dr. John Britton, July 29, 1994. To hear the Christian Right tell it, there is no such thing as Christian terrorism. Tell that to the victims of the Army of God, a loose network of radical Christianists with a long history of terrorist attacks on abortion providers. One Christian Right terrorist with ties to the Armyof God was Paul Jennings Hill, who was executed by lethal injection on Sept. 3, 2003 for the murders of abortion doctor John Britton and his bodyguard James Barrett. Hill shot both of them in cold blood and expressed no remorse whatsoever; he insisted he was doing’s God’s work and has been exalted as a martyr by the Army of God.

    Theres also the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karantina_massacre where christian millitias did the genocide and lets not forget manifest destiny and the slaughter of American indians.

    But then again how is a little old lady who goes to church on a sunday morning in rural France or England responsible for monsters who happen to share here faith?

    • Dan W Taliaferro

      Islamist terrorists killed 17 innocent people last week in France. ISIS kills that many, and usually more, on any given day for the past year. 2000 innocent people were killed by Boko Haram last week. Muslim terrorists have killed well over 200,000 people since 9/11…all in the name of Allah.

      Abortion was made legal in the US in 1972. The “Christian Right” has killed exactly 8 people at abortion clinics since then–8 people over a 42 year period.

      The difference is rather stark.

      • Robert Heenan

        How Christian fundamentalists plan to teach genocide to schoolchildren

        Good News Clubs’ evangelism in schools is already subverting church-state separation. Now they justify murdering nonbelievers

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

        How is a little old lady going to church on a sunday morning praising her Lord and creator responsible for the monsters who happen to disgrace and pervert her christian beliefs?

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          Exactly how many Christians from the “Good News Club” have murdered anyone? Zero would be the answer.

      • Robert Heenan

        http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-paul-craig-roberts/

        That gives you the answers regarding the Paris attacks.

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          What about Coulibaly at the Jewish Deli? He’s on record stating why he murdered for the Islamic State. How about Boko Haram? They killed 2000 innocent people last week, and strapped a bomb on a 10 year old girl which they detonated killing another 16 people in a market. You actually believe these were false flag operations?

          • Robert Heenan

            The French one was absolutely but i believe Boko Haram have very shadowy and sinister groups funding their terror.

  • ugly_fish

    I recommend the following book.

    http://www.amazon.co.uk/Did-Muhammad-Exist-Inquiry-Obscure/dp/161017061X

    There is a lot of evidence in the Koran that it, and Islam, sprang out of a branch of Syriac Christianity, anathematized at the Council of Nicaea, but which retained strong roots in the Middle East and Arabia. The historical origins of Mohammed (which means “the chosen one”) are very obscure, and there is also evidence to suggest that this appellation was used by the Syriac Christians to refer to Jesus Christ.

    • Dan W Taliaferro

      Anyone reading the Quran with an open mind can quickly discern that Mohammed cobbled it together from both the Jewish and Christian faiths, with a little Arabic pagan beliefs added in. Other than that, there is no similarity in the life of Jesus and Mohammed. One killed no one, never married, never held office or possessed wealth, and was murdered. The other murdered thousands, personally beheaded his enemies, became a warlord over thousands, acquired great wealth raiding and pillaging his enemies, married a dozen women including a 9 year old, and died wealthy.

      The men, and their faiths, are quite different.

      • Robert Heenan

        Only problem is theres not much known about Jesus’s life and besides all the other biblical prophets had their wars and killed with polygamy rife.

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          Not much. But what is known is that he never killed anyone and preached to love your enemy. His teachings arguably form the best moral code ever devised. We know Mohammed was a warlord who murdered thousands, and taught his followers to kill his enemies, and we know it from many different sources.

          • Robert Heenan

            murdered thousands?

            I didnt realise that when involved in war that killings can be called murder.

            A bit of honest historical analysis would be appreciated

            Try looking up The Treaty of Umar and the fact that christians in Syria and Egypt preferred the rule of Islam rather than that of the Byzantines.

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            Yes, Mohammed’s followers murdered thousands. But here’s a list of those–about 1000 here–that Mohammed personally ordered murdered. He executed 600-900 of one tribe alone: Mohammed had all the captured men above puberty beheaded. He also murdered several just for criticizing or mocking him. He even had men tortured to death.

            http://wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad

            No matter how you look at Mohammed’s history, he had many people murdered and executed for religious or personal reasons. Search all you like, you’ll not find such violence with Jesus.

          • Robert Heenan

            I think the answer to Banu Qurayzah’s treason has been well documented on this thread by the poster James Trow about 18 hours ago in response to Douglas Murrays lies and propaganda.

            Punishment against treason and threatening the state of Madinah was execution carried out on the orders of the Jewish chief of another tribe in accordance with the laws of the jewish holy book Torah

            Just like William Joyce, Julius and Ethel Rosenborgs were executed

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            So then, according to Mohammed, beheading boys just over puberty (generally 12 to 14 years of age), and enslaving the widows, children, and siblings of the executed, and dividing their property among their murderers, is acceptable conduct for a prophet of god?

            But here are a few others to explain:
            Asma Bint Marwan was murdered because she wrote poetry that mocked Mohammed.
            Abu Afak was murdered because he wrote poetry that mocked Mohammed.
            Ka’b ibn al Ashraf was murdered because he wrote poetry that mocked Mohammed.
            Fartana was murdered because she recited poetry insulting Mohammed.

            There are more, but those are a good start. I guess Mohammed really did not like being mocked?

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            The Rosenbergs were adults. Mohammed had boys just past puberty (ages 13 and up) beheaded. And Mohammed was a religious leader, not a nation state. You don’t find Jesus or Buddha murdering 600 to 900 men and boys who had surrendered.

            Moses also had several poets murdered just for mocking him in poetry. Again, something a man would never do if he possessed any self assurance.

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          All other prophets? Yes, some were polygamous, but none are recorded to have had sex with a 9 year old like Mohammed did.

          Moreover, many prophets are not recorded as having ever been married. I know of no source stating Enoch, Ezekiel, Elisha, Daniel or John the Baptist had wives.

          • Robert Heenan

            Im afraid you dont take into account the history and cultural aspects of the time. Girls marrying off at a very young age was cultural norm at the time. As soon as girls hit puberty it was common for them to be married off often for political or tribal purposes to the better suitor irrespective of age

            Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were
            the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth
            century

            http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/aggiefran.htm

            Life expectancy wasnt that long either

          • cartimandua

            But now we know better except Muslim countries don’t know better.

    • Robert Heenan

      I dont know about that but ive always said the Islam is another Christian sect which believes in Jesus as the messiah.

      • Dan W Taliaferro

        In Islam, Jesus is revered as a prophet, not a messiah. In Islam, Jesus is not the greatest prophet either, for Mohammed has that title.

        • Robert Heenan

          Jesus is seen as a messiah and revered

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            Not in Islam is Jesus the Messiah. He’s merely revered as the second of the great prophets in the Quran and clearly not on the same level as Mohammed.

          • Robert Heenan

            But still very highly revered and respected

          • cartimandua

            Not enough to stop Muslims murdering Christians.

          • http://alchemyoftheword.net/ Gideon Jagged

            —Gideon Jagged

            about.me/gideonjagged

            אני לדודי ודודי לי

          • cartimandua

            Well isn’t it odd then that Christians are often murdered by Muslims.

  • FedUpIndian

    Most Muslims will not condemn even slavery of other human beings because their beloved “prophet” said it was OK to enslave infidels and had a lot of slaves himself. The next time some one claims Islam is the religion of peace, ask him what his opinion of slavery is and whether all slave-owners should be condemned.

    • Robert Heenan

      Slavery made up the bulk of Arabian economy yet Muhammad started the abolition of slavery and the huge incentives in freeing slaves at a time when Christians until the 19th century didnt at all see anything wrong with slavery and dont forget the abolition of the biggest slave tactic – USURY

    • Dan W Taliaferro

      Saudi Arabia did not outlaw slavery until 1962, and that’s the home of Mecca, the “Vatican City” of Islam.

      • Robert Heenan

        Saudi Arabia do not represent Islam anymore than the Vatican representing Jehovahs Witnesses

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          Saudi Arabia, site of the holiest of all Muslim holy sites, and the destination of every Muslim’s hajj, is a Sunni Islamic state and there are over 1,000,000,000 Sunnis on this earth.

          Here are the LAST nations to prohibit slavery: Mauritania (1981), Oman (1970), UAE (1964), Yemen (1962), Saudi Arabia (1962), Niger (1960). All are Muslim majority nations. The only states still practicing slavery are Muslim nations.

          • Robert Heenan

            But Mohammed set the motion for the freedom of slaves.

            Muslim voices have called for the abolition of slavery since ancient times. According to the Prophet Muhammad, “There are three categories ofpeople against whom I shall myself be a plaintiff on the Day of Judgment. Of these three, one is he who enslaves a free man, then sells him and eats this money.”

            Many scholars note that the Quran “disapproves” of slavery and
            instructs Muslims to treat slaves humanely. Sura 90 in the Quran states that the righteous path involves “the freeing of slaves.”

            This is a fact which is of course ignored by muslims and especially non muslims.

          • Robert Heenan

            Saudi Arabia is ruled by the house of saud which is opposed by most muslims. Lets see who helped install the house of saud?? The fact of the matter is it was Mohammed that set the motions for abolition of slavery

          • Dan W Taliaferro

            The fact is that Mohammed owned slaves. If slave owner Mohammed is the example for slavery, is he also the example for pedophilia? Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 and consummated the marriage (had sex with her) when she was 9. That’s “the fact of the matter” also.

          • Robert Heenan

            Absolutely. Mohammed set the motion for the abolishment of slavery but paedophillia – Im afraid you dont take into account the historical/cultural aspects of 7th century Arabia. Girls marrying off at a very young age was cultural norm at the time.
            As soon as girls hit puberty it was common for them to be married off often for political or tribal purposes to the better suitor irrespectiveof age

            Child brides, whether Byzantines or foreign princesses, were
            the norm rather than the exception, especially from the late twelfth century.

            Child brides as young as 8 (eight) were common among the Christian Byzantine emperors and nobility!

            http://www.luc.edu/roman-emperors/aggiefran.htm

            Furthermore, according to the Jewish Talmud, Prophet Moses and his followers had sex with girls as young as 3 years old

            Also in 1396, Richard II of England was joined in marriage to young Isabel of France, who had been 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris. Not only was there no uproar; there was considerable happiness expressed over the assumed probability that this marriage would end the Hundred Years War then in one of its periodic
            states of truce between the two kingdoms. Peace was to be ensured by joining together this man and this little girl in marriage.

            How old was Joseph when he married 12 year old Joseph, the husband of Mary (the mother of Jesus Christ)?

            90 years old so in todays world he would be a paedophile

          • cartimandua

            We do take into account that a number of Muslim countries use Mohammeds example to permit child marriage (well rape) to this day.
            http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/19/iran-child-bride-faces-execution
            “Razieh Ebrahimi was forced to marry at the age of 14, became a mother at 15, and killed her husband at 17. Now at 21, she is on Iran’s death row.

            Ebrahimi, who shot dead her husband while he was sleeping, faces imminent execution, despite international laws prohibiting execution for crimes committed by juveniles.

            Human Rights Watch, has urged Iran’s judiciary to halt the execution. Earlier this week, Ebrahimi’s lawyer also asked judges to consider a retrial, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

            “I married our neighbour’s son when I was only 14 because my dad insisted,” Ebrahimi was quoted as telling officials working on her case, according to Mehr. “My dad insisted I should marry him because he was educated and was working as a teacher. I was 15 when I gave birth to my child.” Her child is believed to be now six years old.”

          • Robert Heenan
          • Dan W Taliaferro

            You might want to conduct further research. Richard II never had sex with a 7 year old, the marriage to his wife was arranged many years in advance. The Bible or Talmud mentions NOTHING about Moses having sex with a 3 year old. If you have proof (any you have none) quote the chapter and verse stating Moses had sex with a 3 year old. And the Bible states no age for Mary when she married Joseph. But Mohammed DID have sex with 9 year old Aisha. It is a known and established fact.

          • Robert Heenan

            Numbers 31:17-18tells us that Moses gave this order to the Israelite army in regards to a recently defeated neighbor: “Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” Verse 35 tells us the number of the
            women children the Israelites kept alive for themselves was 32,000!

            There is not a sane person on Earth who would even attempt to justify such an anti-human/anti-child ungodly order. And to claim that a man of God gave the order is an indirect slap in the face to God.

          • Bonkim

            Sane people have consigned such text to the scrap heap referring to later enlightened teachings of Christ – message of love nor vengeance.

            What you are really saying is that all religions are the creation of man and continuously modified to suit the time and geography of the Believer.

            It may be Islam had been stuck in a time-warp and no one seriously challenged the basic tenets – imagine if Greek or Latin was the language of the Church and you were told to learn the Greek Bible by rote and play out the lessons in real life without question. Yes some Christian groups still do to an extent but in the land of the illiterate – most in Islamic countries – at least the women are illiterate and dependent on their men-folk. No better way for a religion to succeed.

          • Robert Heenan

            The paedophilic Biblical verses are Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40 are SPECIFIC verses from the Jewish Talmud explaining the pedophilia that took place against the 3-year
            old slave girls under the direct command of Moses.

            While Christians are not obligated to follow the laws of the Talmud in their social lives, but the historical FACTS that exist in the Talmud about the Biblical verses Numbers 31:17-18 and Numbers 31:35-40 , and howthe “BIBLE FOLLOWERS” during those days were mostlypedophiles who literally forced sex on 3-year old girls after Moses’ supposed ‘Divine’order is clear indication that the Bible condones pedophilia.

          • Robert Heenan

            Did David Ben-Gurion who was an athiest represent the holiest Jewish sites?

            What about Golda Meir?

            Do the paedophiles in the Vatican represent the holiest sites of Christianity?

    • Robert Heenan

      Funny how my previous comment on this was deleted by the author

      Slavery was a major part of economies in the world during the 7th century and yet it was Mohammed that gave and prompted the freeing of slaves. This is an absolute fact just as he abolished the biggest slavery tool – USURY

      • cartimandua

        He took loads of slaves and Islamists are slave taking now.

    • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

      Slavery has been reconfirmed over and over again as an absolute necessity in Islam by the top Muslim scholars. Al-Azhar in Egypt reconfirmed it again a few years ago. That’s one of the reasons why the Muslim slave trade still flourishes across the world.

      • Robert Heenan

        the motion for abolishment of slavery was set in motion by the prophet of Islam – Mohammed.

        As for christianity and the slave trade

        In 1835, at the end of two long articles about religion and slavery in theCharleston Mercury, it was said that both the Old and New Testamentgive permission to hold others as slaves. In the Old Testament, God and the Patriarchs approve. As for the New Testament, Jesus and the Apostles show that slavery is permissible. Therefore, slavery, to those who wrote the article, was not an anti-Christian institution. It was just the opposite. Furthermore, they added, it is impious to say slavery is anti-Christian because such a conclusion contradicted God.

  • Lady Magdalene

    Face facts!

    The political elite “leading” the West don’t deal in facts. They deal in spin, PR, and fantasy.

    Which is why we’re in the mess we’re in.

  • Cassandra

    This was scrubbed from the blog the first time I put it up for some reason which is not clear to me. Probably a mistake / cowardice on the part of the mod?:

    All Religions are not peaceful? So Christ said ‘behead your enemies, not love and forgive them?
    .
    Christianity is deeply pacific although Christians may be and have been historically aggressive. In a mirror image, Islam is fundamentally aggressive although many Muslims have been and are peaceful.
    .
    There are over 130 verses in the Qur’an which advocate aggression towards non-believers, either directly or by implication. These vastly outweigh the more peaceable ones and take precedence over them according to the exegesis taught by the most authoritative schools.
    .
    Thus, in words which Muslims could readily interpret as applying to the materialist West, we have: ‘ When we decide to destroy a population, we send a definite order to them to have the good things in life and yet transgress; so that Allah’s word is proved against them; then we destroy them utterly.’ ( Surah 17:16-17)
    .
    Furthermore, there is the example of the Prophet Mohammed, ‘the perfect man’ in Islam, whose practice and constant encouragement of bloodshed are unique in the history of religions. Murder, more murder, rape and pillage are not just in the Qur’an but in the Traditions about Muhammad’s life. They have inspired his followers throughout history to indulge in the same.
    .
    ‘KIll, kill the unbelievers wherever you find them’ is an injunction which is as unambiguous as it is powerful. How can that be relativised or explained away in any kind of believable fashion?

    • Robert Heenan

      Funny that for propaganda purposes one chooses to completely ignore context and cultural/ historical analysis

      Never mind

      Cruelty and Violence in the Bible

      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

      Given this violent legacy, religion historian Philip Jenkins decided
      to compare the brutality quotient of the Quran and the Bible.

      Defense Vs. Total Annihilation

      “Much to my surprise, the Islamic scriptures in the Quran were actually far
      less bloody and less violent than those in the Bible,” Jenkins says.

      Jenkins is a professor at Penn State University and author of two books dealing with the issue: the recently published Jesus Wars, and Dark Passages , which has not been published but is already drawing controversy.

      Violence in the Quran, he and others say, is largely a defense against attack.

      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124494788

      • Cassandra

        We are talking about the New Testament, not the Old. Christianity invented the idea of ‘Progress’ which did not exist before Jesus ‘ teachings.
        Were it not for those, we would still have the Nietzschean ethics of the Romans.
        So called ‘progressives’ in modern times make the fundamental error of thinking that the achievements of Western Civilisation were inevitable, They weren’t.
        Just contemplate the 7 centuries of complete stagnation of Islamic civilisation, which also had access to Greek learning. to see the truth of this.

        • Robert Heenan

          Its still the bible

          As for the New Testament and violence

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

          • Cassandra

            Oh fiddlesticks.

          • cartimandua

            Protestant Christianity has permitted progress.
            Islam has been stuck for 6 or 7 centuries.

          • Robert Heenan

            Thanks to imperialism and colonialism the muslim countries have been pillaged.

          • cartimandua

            No, their treatment of women and religious fundamentalism has guaranteed failure.
            They have scuppered progress all by themselves.
            Progress needs ideas (and religion) to be able to be challenged. Progress needs a population not massively grown by child marriage and polygamy.

          • Cassandra

            They did a lot of colonising and pillaging on their own account.
            The Ottoman empire pillaged its way to the gates of Vienna while Empire- building Muslims reached Tours in France having conquered their way across the Near and Middle East and the whole of North Africa including Egypt.
            .
            They conquered India in the greatest bloodletting
            the world has ever known.
            .
            On the way, they wiped out the ancient culture of Persia, just as they destroyed the cultures and oppressed peoples of other areas they conquered in their Peace-loving way.

          • Robert Heenan

            Critics of the “religion of the sword theory” point to the resence of the strong Muslim communities found in Southern India, modern day Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, western Burma, Indonesia and the Philippines coupled with the distinctive lack of equivalent Muslim communities around the heartland of historical Muslim empires in South Asia as refutation to the “conversion by the sword theory”.

            Eaton, Richard M.’The Rise of Islam and the Bengal Frontier, 1204–1760. Berkeley: University of California Press, c1993 1993, accessed on 1 May 2007

            Islam was brought to India by Muslim invaders

            Most historians now agree that India’s introduction to Islam was through Arab traders and not Muslim invaders, as is generally believed.The Arabs had been coming to the Malabar coast in southern India as traders for a long time, well before Islam had been introduced in Arabia.

            http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Trade-not-invasion-brought-Islam-to-India/articleshow/2144414.cms

            Writes H G Rawlinson, in his book, ‘Ancient and Medieval History of India’, “The first Arab Muslims began settling in the towns on the Indian coast in the last part of the 7th century.” They married Indian women and were treated with respect and allowed to propagate their faith. According to B P Sahu, head of the department of history of Delhi University, Arab Muslims began occupying positions of prominence in the areas where they had settled by the 8th and 9th centuries.

            Funny that there are hundreds of millions of Indian, Pakistani and Banglaeshi muslims who’s ancestors were Hindus.

            One cant argue against the gates of Vienna but dont forget around the same time christian countries (Dutch, French, Spanish, Portuguese and British) were all over the world invading and committing genocide.

            Lets not forget the crusades either and the fact that Christians ruled North Africa before the muslims.

          • Robert Heenan

            This is what Gandhi said about Muslims in India after missonaries played a huge part in converting hindus to islam

            “I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle”.

            As for Persia. – i think you ignore the christian wars against the country and even now with teh hawks in Washington and Israek who want to bomb, loot and pillage the country

      • http://www.ukipforbritain.co.uk/ ukipforbritainwebsite

        I think that is a mistake. The Old Testament is generally descriptive of events that happened 3000 plus years ago – it is typical of ancient literature; the Egyptians and the Assyrians were far more extreme. The events of the Old Testament are not instructions for what to do now. The events and guidance in the Koran ARE instructions for what to do now. They are not limited by time. The writer of the Koran had a massive inferiority complex and an undying hatred of non-Muslims. The Old Testament ends in the belief of reconciliation of all peoples; the Koran advocates pursuing violent war until the entire world is subdued and all people become Muslim. That is supposed to be UNALTERABLE word of God.

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/jgury/ JBGIV

        BS. And here is a formal study of violence in the Quran that shows you, Robert Heenan, are full of it.
        http://10news.dk/after-three-years-of-research-in-texts-of-10-biggest-religions-linguist-concludes-islam-is-the-most-violent-religion/

      • cartimandua

        But the problem with your supposed argument is that no one is violent now because of Christianity.
        Islam is used as an excuse all the time.

  • pobinr

    Time for a little clarity: (Note: to the New York Times / White House Press Office : You arent bullshitting anyone but yourselves).***********************
    The Shoe Bomber was a Muslim
    The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
    The Fort Hood Shooter was a Muslim
    The underwear Bomber was a Muslim
    The U-S.S. Cole Bombers were Muslims
    The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslims
    The Bafi Nightclub Bombers were Muslims
    The London Subway Bombers were Muslims
    The Moscow Theatre Attackers were Muslims
    The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslims
    The Pan-Am flight #93 Bombers were Muslims
    The Air France Entebbe Hijackers were Muslims
    The Iranian Embassy Takeover, was by Muslims
    The Beirut U.S. Embassy bombers were Muslims
    The Libyan U.S. Embassy Attack was by Musiims
    The Buenos Aires Suicide Bombers were Muslims
    The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslims
    The Kenyan U.S, Embassy Bombers were Muslims
    The Saudi, Khobar Towers Bombers were Muslims
    The Beirut Marine Barracks bombers were Muslims
    The Besian Russian School Attackers were Muslims
    The first World Trade Center Bombers were Muslims
    The Bombay & Mumbai India Attackers were Muslims
    The Achille Lauro Cruise Ship Hijackers were Muslims
    The September 11th 2001 Airline Hijackers were Muslims’
    Think of it:
    Buddhists living with Hindus = No Problem
    Hindus living with Christians = No Problem
    Hindus living with Jews = No Problem
    Christians living with Shintos = No Problem
    Shintos living with Confucians = No Problem
    Confusians living with Baha’is = No Problem
    Baha’is living with Jews = No Problem
    Jews living with Atheists = No Problem
    Atheists living with Buddhists = No Problem
    Buddhists living with Sikhs = No Problem
    Sikhs living with Hindus = No Problem
    Hindus living with Baha’is = No Problem
    Baha’is living with Christians = No Problem
    Christians living with Jews = No Problem
    Jews living with Buddhists = No Problem
    Buddhists living with Shintos = No Problem
    Shintos living with Atheists = No Problem
    Atheists living with Confucians = No Problem
    Confusians living with Hindus = No Problem
    Muslims living with Hindus = Problem
    Muslims living with Buddhists = Problem
    Muslims living with Christians = Problem
    Muslims living with Jews = Problem
    Muslims living with Sikhs = Problem
    Muslims living with Baha’is = Problem
    Muslims living with Shintos = Problem
    Muslims living with Atheists = Problem
    MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEM
    **********WHICH BRING US TO *****************
    They’re not happy in Gaza
    They’re not happy in Egypt
    They’re not happy in Libya
    They’re not happy in Morocco
    They’re not happy in Iran
    They’re not happy in Iraq
    They’re not happy in Yemen
    They’re not happy in Afghanistan
    They’re not happy in Pakistan
    They’re not happy in Syria
    They’re not happy in Lebanon
    They’re not happy in Nigeria
    They’re not happy in Kenya
    They’re not happy in Sudan
    ******** So, where are they happy? **********
    They’re happy in Australia
    They’re happy in England
    They’re happy in Belgium
    They’re happy in France
    They’re happy in Italy
    They’re happy in Germany
    They’re happy in Sweden
    They’re happy in the USA & Canada
    They’re happy in Norway & India
    They’re happy in almost every country that is not Islamic! And who do they blame? Not Islam… Not their leadership… Not themselves… THEY BLAME THE COUNTRIES THEY ARE HAPPY IN!! And they want to change the countries they’re happy in, to be like the countries they came from where they were unhappy.
    Islamic Jihad: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    ISIS: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Qaeda: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Taliban: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Hamas: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Hezbollah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Boko Haram: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Nusra: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Abu Sayyaf: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Al-Badr: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Muslim Brotherhood: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Lashkar-e-Taiba: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Palestine Liberation Front: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Ansaru: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Jemaah Islamiyah: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION
    Abdullah Azzam Brigades: AN ISLAMIC TERROR ORGANIZATION

    • Cassandra

      Much as I admire this list, there are some things not altogether correct. Muslims are not too happy in France where they routinely burn 1000 vehicles a night to show it.
      Same goes for places like Gothenburg in Sweden .And there have been shootings and riots in Sydney, Australia.
      Islam= Trouble

    • Robert Heenan

      Can’t be asked dissecting all of the groups and atrocities you have listed but lets take the Argentinian 1994 case

      http://www.voltairenet.org/article162474.html

      Its not the first time zionists have bombed Jewish targets…Baghdad 1951???

      http://richardedmondson.net/2015/01/14/false-flag-attacks-by-zionists-against-fellow-jews/

      Eveland, Wilbur Crane (1980). Ropes of Sand, America’s Failure in the Middle East. W W Norton & Co Inc. p. 48. In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in the synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel. The Iraqi police later provided our embassy with evidence to show that the synagogue and library bombings, as well as the anti-Jewish and anti-American leaflet campaigns, had been the work of an underground Zionist organization, most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the
      Zionists had “rescued” really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population.

      • Patrick Milne

        The chinstrap on your tin foil hat may be a little tight, it appears to be cutting off the oxygen supply to your brain.

  • Scion

    To face Christian terror and imperialism, we must face the facts about Christian history.

    • Robert Heenan

      As for Christian terror – biggest ever genocide – The people of the Americas

      • cartimandua

        compared to Stalin?

      • Dan W Taliaferro

        90% of native Americans died from disease. But Muslims murdered as many as 100 million Hindus over 200 to 300 years in their conquest and subjugation of India. That’s the largest genocide ever.

        • Robert Heenan

          Historical stories point to Lord Amherst requesting that smallpox infected blankets be sent to the Indians, like this one in Carl Waldman’s Atlas of the North American Indian about a siege of Fort Pitt by Chief Pontiac’s forces during the summer of 1763: “Captain Simeon Ecuyer had bought time by sending smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs to the Indians surrounding the fort—an early example of biological warfare—which started an epidemic among them. Amherst himself
          had encouraged this tactic in a letter to Ecuyer.

          Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2012/05/20/american-history-myths-debunked-indians-werent-defeated-white-settlers-113869

          also the book:

          http://www.pbs.org/gunsgermssteel/index.html

          Also the book : Bury my heart at wounded knee

          http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bury-My-Heart-Wounded-Knee/dp/0099526409

          Manifest Destiny

          Im sorry but the American Indians were wiped out by genocide

          • Robert Heenan

            The New World Holocaust:

            “From all this it is clear how a virtuous life in the preachers of the faith takes the place of miracles, so that unbelievers readily hear the words of life and see that it is reasonable to believe them, and thus finally they gain these men for Christ. But it will be just the opposite if their lives are stained by crime, especially by devastating their lands,by looting, invading and unjustly seizing the domains and properties of these same unbelievers. And if for this reason a countless number of them are killed and slaughtered, as we have always done and continue to do in the Indian lands of the west, nothing can be clearer than that we have become an effective obstacle to their conversion”
            (In Defense of the Indians, de Las Casas, p. 136).

            This is a famous quote from Don Fray Bartolomé de Las Casas, the Defender of the New World people from his own rapacious countrymen.

          • Cassandra

            The ‘manifest destiny’ de nos jours is globalisation and the obliteration of nations and ethnic identity.

            It is encouraged by greedy and interested people with the same kind of disregard for what people love and cherish as the United States had for the native Americans.

            The Native British can look forward to their reservations in the land of their ancestors – if they are lucky.

        • Bonkim

          That is an exaggeration – whilst Medieval conquests were bloody and whole populations were killed or mostly enslaved, the population of the world/Asia was relatively small and numbers low. Islamic conquerors were also shrewd politicians and killing off whole populations would have been unprofitable. Many adopted local customs, took local wives and established alliances to profit from their enterprise. The Islamic contingent that rampaged through the lands (mainly Mongols) was small – and as was the custom of the times accompanied by camp followers that joined in the plunder and pillage.

          Going back over a thousand years before the Mongols – Alexander’s conquests were mainly supported by the Persians and others that came along with the small band of Macedonians – with the numbers growing as they went through their eastern passage.

          • Cassandra

            Alexander wasn’t supported by the Persians. He defeated the Persian King at the Battle of the Issus

          • Bonkim

            You have no clue – following defeat the Persians and others joined his march eastwards. That was how invasions proceeded in history. The numbers of Macedonians were not sufficient for the war in Persia – others en-route in Asia Minor joined the gang – plunder and pillage was the order of the day – how those participating and their families got rewarded. Same story when Chenghis Khan and the Mongols marched westwards in the early second Millennia.

          • Cassandra

            Only after defeating them

          • Bonkim

            Many non-Greek tribes joined Alexander’s Armies as mercenaries and camp followers including Persians, Indians, and others along his route.

            The Persian were not a monolithic race or tribe either and had various tribes from the Indo-European ethno-linguistic group. Pre Alexander there were vast migrations of these tribal groups to modern day Iran, and also eastwards towards the Indian sub-continent and west and northwards in Europe – modern day Scaninavians, Germany, etc. The Persian, Indian, Germanic and Scandinavian languages are all connected as also their gene-pool.

            Today’s Afghans are a mix of the same groups as also those from central Asia/Mongols. You are talking about a time in history when human societies as we know today were being formed.

        • Robert Heenan

          Funny that so many Bangladeshis, indians and pakistanis are around and in vast vast numbers. Their ancestors converted to Islam I should add. Never was a genocide but its a documented fact that native Americans were wholly wiped off fromt he Americas

      • Cassandra

        No, that was the Islamic conquest of India. Christians admit their historic errors. I have yet to see Muslims admitting theirs. That’s because they aren’t errors according to Mohammed.

  • Lithlad

    The problem is simple: Muslims are incapable of looking at any problem from a logical, reasonable point of view. They have an emotional response to *everything*. They have had their intellect beaten out of them. They are little more than supplicants, spending all their time kissing the ground and sticking their arses in the air. The word ‘Muslim’ means ‘slave to Allah’; why the hell are we trying to free slaves who actually like being slaves; who are too feeble-minded to even notice that they’re slaves? We’d have better luck communicating with the ants.

  • ExiledOnMainStreet

    “The most sympathetic explanation is that they are telling a ‘noble lie’, provoked by a fear that we — the general public — are a lynch mob in waiting.”

    No, I no longer believe that. The elites are not afraid of what we would do to Muslims. They’re afraid of what Muslims would do to them if they told the truth.

    • Cogra Bro

      I think they are buttering up Islam to get the Muslim vote. In any case, having invited these people into the country, they are hardly going to say,

      ‘Oh sorry, we have made an error of historic proportions on the same scale as the Romans inviting the Germanic hordes into the Empire which led to its eventual destruction and the end of classical civilisation.’

  • pobinr

    VERSE FROM THE KORAN ABOUT NON-MUSLIMS:

    Quran (Sahih International 9:73)
    “O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.”

    • Robert Heenan

      I find historical and cultural context regarding that phrase would be more accurate especially since the muslims along with the rest of Madinah were involved in wars against the pagan Meccans.

      But hey it seems the bible approves of paedophillia

      http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/says_about/pedophilia.html

      Its funny how we can use holy texts and our interpretations to demonise and villify we happen to dislike or in Douglas Murrays viewpoint – venemously HATE

      • cartimandua

        But no current western government is allowing it under law. Most Muslim countries are allowing child marriage.

        • Robert Heenan

          well what was age of consent within our weatern world until recently?

          During the 19th century, the age of consent in the United States varied between 10 and 16, depending on the state and year. The age of consent was the age when it was determined that a boy or girl — but most often, a girl — would marry

          And of course some Christian groups still believe in child marriage

          http://edition.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/06/23/o.child.brides.stories/index.html

          Justified using the bible i should point out

          Interesting comment:

          “Jeanne says that when she was 15 years old Alamo, who was 59 years old and her pastor at the time, forced her to become his spiritual wife and have sex with him”

          • Bonkim

            and multiple wives too.

          • Robert Heenan

            The Mormons and other christians still do

          • Bonkim

            Mormons and some other Christian sects and from other religions – more a cultural feature – not majority – monogamous marriages or no marriage is the general rule apart from some tribal and Islamic societies where such practices are prevalent in great numbers.

          • Robert Heenan

            The Nigerian Celestial Church of Christ allows clergy and laymen to keep multiple wives, and the Lutheran Church of Liberia began allowing plural marriage in the 1970s

            Also: Interviewed by Time magazine about his book, Michael Coogan said that, from a strict literalist view, fundamentalist Mormons are right about polygamy.

            Alexandra Silver What the Bible Has to Say About Sex
            Time.com “So the fundamentalist Mormons who insist that polygamy is biblical are right, in a sense. If you’re going to be a strict literalist, there’s nothing wrong with polygamy.”

            Theres alot more:

            Idaho Evangelical Christian polygamists use Internet to meet potential spouses

            http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695257217/Idaho-Evangelical-Christian-polygamists-use-Internet-to-meet-potential-spouses.html?pg=all

          • Bonkim

            You would expect common themes in religions that evolved at a particular region and systems of social organisation and commerce.

            Child marriage and marriage between close relations inevitable in small nomadic tribes.

            there is a tendency of humans to compare everything – past and present and within different geographical and cultural regions in terms of their own present circumstances. Also generalising complex interactions centuries past in simplistic and prejudicial terms. One wonders whether sites such as this is simply a forum to let off steam rather than serious discussion.

          • Robert Heenan

            Absolutely. Cant at all argue with that.

          • anotherjoeblogs

            Is that Christopher Walken and Robert Heenan is your nom de kitman ?

      • Dan W Taliaferro

        The verses you cite from the Old Testament mention taking the women of conquered tribes as slaves. They do not condone pedophilia, but Mohammed did.

        • Robert Heenan

          Some customs of biblical Palestine continued through the centuries, and after her trip to the Near East around 1910, Alma White commented on theage of marriage in Palestine, “A girl is usually married in her twelfthor thirteenth year, and sometimes as early as her TENTH year.”

          Alma White, Jerusalem, Egypt, Palestine, Syria, (Pillar of Fire, Zarephath, New Jersey, 1936), p. 83, 173.

          Also: W. M. Thompson, a missionary in the Middle East for some 30 years, attests to the same thing

          W. M. Thompson, The Land and the Book, (Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1880, reprinted 1973), p. 293

          James Neil points out that everyone married, because they felt obligatedto fulfill God’s command to be fruitful and multiply, and that, “Girls are ‘given in marriage’ at eleven or twelve years of age, though this is not the limit. They are frequently married as young as nine….”

          James Neil, Everyday Life in the Holy Land, (Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1913), p. 223.

          http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/mary-a-teenage-bride-and-mother

          • Robert Heenan

            Also Roman girls also married very young, sometimes even before puberty

            Robert Flaceliere, Love in Ancient Greece, (Crown Publishers, Inc., New York, 1962), p. 115.

            But of course none of the historical and cultural analysis skews your bigotry and hate just like Mr Murrays

          • Bonkim

            Medieval Church Law allowed betrothals and marriages at puberty – some earlier. Kathryn Howard was 15 when she married Henry VIII.

  • pobinr

    The Quran as an instruction manual on how & when you should beat your wife > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04bG5U-I2Lw

    Teaching young children how to slit an animal’s throat > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9Cd953_Zg

    • Robert Heenan

      I think you will also find that the bible condones paedophillia and rape

      They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed
      every man……..Now kill all the boys [innocent kids]. And kill every
      woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who
      has never slept with a man. (Numbers 31:7,17-18)

      Theres alot more like that in the bible.

      But then again is the little old woman that goes to church every sunday a bad person?

      • cartimandua

        Christianity is er about Christ?

      • William_Brown

        Yes, of course….and those blood-thirsty Christians are still raping, murdering and beheading thousands across the globe every year, because of what is written in the bible and Charlie Hebdo.

        You sir, are just a bit silly.

      • Bill_der_Berg

        “I think you will also find that the bible condones paedophillia and rape”.

        And yet you like all religions. I do not understand their appeal.

      • VSP

        Do try harder to hide your identity, and failed attack upon the Christian doctrine. The Bible as you know is in two parts. The old Testament is filled with very ancient violence of Jews, and Christ came to renounce such behaviour and more, to fight against any oppression.
        I think you will find that by not being fully informative and saying it was Jewish,you can be seen as a patent troublemaker in how you make such statements as if reference to the Christian teaching. The St. James revised version omits that verse in the old testament.
        So just what was your intention or agenda?

        • Robert Heenan
          • VSP

            No Paul, I ask again what is your agenda and not someone else’s agenda you seek to hide behind. Nihilism and scepticism has proven itself as useful and contributory and questioning in the right hands but, in the wrong hands it is more a tool of deceit of fools than whatever it seeks to deny. It is a schism and as such the shadow of a dark cloud that passes by.
            There are thousands of years difference between the ancient violent era of Noah and the time of Christ’s peaceful rebellion against both the Roman oppression but also that violence in the old testament.
            We see frequently the critics of Christianity. We note that even beyond the Reformation certain protestant movements still warped the message, just as some do today. It seems an unavoidable trait, but does not detract from the true value of Christ’s message. The reality of course is that it is not meant as a political agency, but simply an influence and attitude equal for any contesting and worthy political agent. A positive measure of worth, rather than simply a negative Nihilism.
            The Council of Trent attempted to forge a politics from Christian tenets and failed.

    • Cassandra

      It’s also an instruction manual on conquest and the oppression of the unfortunate conquered – if they are spared the chop, that is…….

  • redsquirrel

    It’s alarming that the key fact in the charlie hebdo issue for most muslims seems to be that the magazine was offensive to them. They just won’t / don’t get that the freedom that is allowing them to practice their faith is part of why you can’t ban satirical magazines.

  • pobinr

    It actually doesn’t matter whether they’re peacefull or not. They can take over the world by breeding alone. The pork sword is mightier than the sword.
    Definition of a moderate Moslem.

    ‘One who relies on a their high birthrate rather than bombs & guns to islamify Britain’
    .
    My friend’s had to move out of Wimbeldon. 10,000 person mosque appeared. Reckons she lost £150k on her house value. she was the last white person in her street. Effectively ethnically cleansed in her own country !
    .
    I assume the liberals won’t mind if a wailing tower springs up next to them halving their house value overnight.
    .
    On average six children per Moslem family thus doubling in number every 10 years so 5m now, 10m in 10 yrs, 20m in 20 yrs, 40m in 30 yrs, 80m in 40 yrs.
    .
    Long before then our country will be lost to Shaira law & all the other stone age horrors that go with it
    .
    Our poor grandchildren !!!
    WARNING GRAPHIC
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GawmWVEgeI8

    The Quran as an instruction manual on how & when you should beat your wife > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04bG5U-I2Lw

    Teaching young children how to slit an animal’s throat > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK9Cd953_Zg

    Islam the religion of peace?
    VERSE FROM THE KORAN ABOUT NON-MUSLIMS:
    Quran (Sahih International 9:73)
    “O Prophet, fight against the disbelievers and the hypocrites and be harsh upon them. And their refuge is Hell, and wretched is the destination.”

  • Biastai

    Douglas, thanks for a well thought through and honest article.

    • Robert Heenan

      Its a pretty stupid article without ever seriously considering this report which more and more people are taking into consideration

      http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/01/13/charlie-hebdo-paul-craig-roberts/

      • GnosticBrian

        Robert – And just because you disagree will you take it upon yourself to kill Douglas?

        • Richard

          The gentleman to whom you are responding is convinced it is all a Zionist plot. I asked him in another post how he is able to differentiate between a genuine Islamic plot, and a Zionist imitation, but haven’t had an answer to my knowledge.

          • GnosticBrian

            Indeed, what are the characteristics of a Kosher plot?

          • Robert Heenan

            911

          • GnosticBrian

            You think that the iconic Porsche sports car is a Kosher plot? What are you on?

          • William_Brown

            Ignore – another tin foil hat merchant. Let him/her carry on absorbing infowars et al…

          • Bill_der_Berg

            666.

          • Richard

            Premier-quality chicken soup carried in flasks by the killers.

          • GnosticBrian

            Like it Richard.

          • Richard

            Not to mention the excellent bagels with smoked salmon.

          • GnosticBrian

            You make it sound an ever more attractive proposition by the minute.

      • cartimandua

        Aah what a lot of pro Russian articles on that link. Is that how you earn your pension Ivan?
        It was a Russian missile in the wrong hands which killed nearly 300 on an airliner 80 of them children.
        Russia is tanking and that’s a pity.

      • William_Brown

        Are you DavEdCamerBand? Your syntax and references are remarkably similar…

        Paul Craig Roberts is merely a pro Russian book seller.

        • Robert Heenan

          I like all religions and believe in good. There are evil christians, jews and muslims but the little old lady that goes to church every sunday morning just like the old man that goes to the mosque or cannot be responsible for the sheer evil perpetrated in the name of their religion.

  • cartimandua

    There are 1,700 Mosques in the UK. Only 2 are modernist. 45% are Deobandi.
    But thank God for Douglas. After reading him one feels that not everyone in the world has gone crazy in a doublethink way.
    David Starkey tried on QT but the rest of the panel was neck deep in doublethink.

  • abystander

    This guy Murray is an Arabic speaking scholar or a TV pundit?

    Just asking.

    • cartimandua

      He is rational.

      • abystander

        A TV pundit.

        What’s rational about sounding off about a culture whose language you have not bothered to learn?

        • Dan W Taliaferro

          I guess that settles it…I can never learn anything about Rome if I don’t learn Latin, and nothing about Russia if I don’t learn Russian, and nothing about France until I learn to speak French. Brilliant.

          • abystander

            What!

            You are publishing articles in newspapers and magazines and sounding off on tv about Rome and France without a word of Latin or French?

            Do you make a living that way?

          • balance_and_reason

            I think you have been smacked down…don’t wriggle, just accept you made a foolish point and go away.

          • StephenDaedalus

            Most people who comment on Christianity – including most clerics – have not read the New Testament in koine Greek. It is a very long time since the clergy used scholarship and language (the wrong language, as it happened) for authority and as a barrier against hoi polloi. The reformation was founded on the idea that translation opened up holy texts to the common people.

            The better translations are sufficient for anyone to grasp its message, it is only in a few cases that interpretation comes down to Greek etymology.

          • abystander

            And quite a lot of comment about Christianity by people, say here, who do not have Hebrew, Greek or Latin is ridiculous and childish.

            But no commentator here as set him/herself up as an expert as wee Murray has on Islam.

        • Richard

          Translations? I mean, I have a copy of the Epic of Gilgamesh in translation. Does that mean it’s no good?

          • Richard Baranov

            From the Islamic point of view with regards to the Koran, yes is the answer. The Koran was spoken by god, it is the direct word of God, therefore any translation is invalid. The Wahabi deliberately distort what the Koran says, in translating it, in order to further their own agenda, Its a bit like the Jehovah’s Witnesses version of the Bible. Rewritten to suit them but inaccurate in fact. The Wahabi don’t care about accuracy to the original because a translation is false anyway. The Wahabi are truly evil people, in my opinion, without conscience, the consequence of being fanatics.

          • Robert Heenan

            I agree the wahabbi are truly evil people but then again our governments are tied up like lovers with the House of Saud. Regarding Jehovahs witnesses…same could be said about every christian group whether its the catholics, seventh day adventists etc etc. Infact same could be said about any religious group whether in Islam, Christianity or whatever.

            P.s…Ive personally always found Jehovahs Witnesses very nice humble people

          • Richard Baranov

            Yes, I noticed that our government remained silent about the flogging of the blogger, Raif Badawi, whilst other governments protested. Disgusting!

          • Bill_der_Berg

            Be fair, they were too busy chanting ‘Je suis Charlie’.

          • Richard Baranov

            Not criticizing Jehovah’s Witnesses per se just the fact that they doctored the Bible. A ‘translation committee’ in which no one spoke any ancient language, by all accounts. I suppose they were guided by the Holy Spirit (ahem).

          • Richard

            So a kaffir like me cannot find a proper and accurate translation? I mean, I understand about nuance (translations of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, for instance, seem to me to lack something; I can tell this, even though I don’t speak Russian) but surely “facts” are “facts”? What can be so different about the original that a proper translation can’t convey?

          • Richard Baranov

            Actually it is hard to translate Arabic properly because of the nature of the language, words are based on roots so that, for example, anything to do with books is based on the root KTB, so you can do plays on words that simply can’t be done in English and Arabic does this play on words constantly. But I most certainly would not disagree with you about translations. It’s generally accepted that the translation by A.J. Arberry is the best one, Oxford University Press. It is interesting to look at that one and then have the Wahabi translation beside it. You will see how the Wahabi distort the text when translating it into English. The Koran is recommended reading for insomnia, it’ll put you right out 🙂

    • Richard Baranov

      Arabic is the language of the Koran and, as I have pointed out elsewhere it is an archaic Arabic, about as coherent as Old English to English speakers unless they are trained.

      Probably fewer than 1% of all Muslims can read it and understand it. Therefore your suggestion that because Murray doesn’t speak Arabic it makes his opinions invalid is not a useful one, by that score, easily 1.5 billion Muslims of the 1.6 billion Muslims in the world haven’t a clue what it says.

      Children in Madrasas learn the Koran by heart, sounds impressive until you understand that they are reciting parrot fashion. The reason they do it is because they believe it is sacred as the direct word of God. A bit like the idea of mantra actually, it produces a certain frame of mind and it does if you have ever watched the Koran being recited produce a sort of ecstasy in the person reciting.

      Kornic chanting is quite beautiful actually, I have to admit. Pity that people
      have no idea what bloodthirsty ideas they are reciting!

  • sandalwood789

    Islam is not a religion, it’s an ideology.
    That is a fact.

    Proof 1 – see here –
    http://www.cspipublishing.com/statistical/

    The above site has statistics and the supporting data.
    If you look at the link “Amount of text devoted to the Kafir” (non-Muslims,i.e. us) you see that 64% of the Quran text is about us (and 51% of the overall trilogy (Quran, Sira, hadith).
    No so-called religion can devote half of its texts to those *outside* it and still call itself a “religion”.

    Proof 2 – Islam covers a huge number of areas of everyday life, none of which come under the aegis of “religion”.
    Inheritance law, for example.
    Islamic jurisprudence is called “fiqh” and covers the following categories –
    Criminal law
    Economic law
    Etiquette law
    Hygienical law
    Inheritance law
    Marital law
    Military law
    Political law
    Theological law

    This shows very clearly that “religion” is but a very small part of Islam.

    Proof 3 – The Quran itself implores Muslims 91 times to follow the example of Mohammad – an ordinary person.

    As for “peace” – the fact that the Quran contains over 90 verses calling on Muslims to wage war against non-Muslims says enough about that.

    This is simply meant as a factual and matter-of-fact post about what Islam is.

    • Bonkim

      An all round instruction manual for living for a Muslim from the 5 a day prayer for sustaining life I suppose. Looking back in history, Islamic powers by and large followed the laws laid down in their book. One would have expected the rest of the world to have looked back in history and learnt their lesson how to deal with followers of this religion.

      The Bible also lays down rules for living a Christian life – but later watered down by human interpretation.

  • StephenDaedalus

    The history of Christianity is as bloody as it was because Jesus also talked, frequently and with relish, about eternal torture for anyone who didn’t follow him. And suggested that his followers might like to bring the infidels to the fire themselves (“If a man abides not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned”) – which some duly did.

    The gospels, Qur’an and ahadith may well contain some ‘nice’ passages, but as long as these ‘smiting the unbelievers’ passages exist in holy texts, there is always the potential that some believer will take it into their head to do God’s work for him. Christianity demonstrated that, and Islam continues to demonstrate it.

    • Cassandra

      See above.

  • q-pantagruel

    Brilliant article. I’ve been waiting for someone of note to make this case as eloquently and rationally as Douglas Murray has here. His final sentence is absolutely true – but I feel is retorical. I fear that this ship may have sailed long ago and it may be too late. The future does not bode well, awake or asleep.

    • Cassandra

      I think you will find the story of the burning of the branches is a metaphor. Hell is being removed from God’s presence.

      St Paul said that it ‘is better to marry than to burn’ this didn’t mean actual burning, but to burn with lust.

      Burning is a state of mind.

      • Cassandra

        Sorry, that should have been a reply to Stephen Daedalus.

  • Lydia Robinson

    The rivers of blood speech looks more and more prescient. ”the significance and consequences of an alien element introduced into a country or population are profoundly different according to whether that element is 1 per cent or 10 per cent.

  • William_Brown
  • Christian Koncz

    I’m with Geert Wilders on this one. Islam isn’t so much a religion as a totalitarian political philosophy, with violence at its very core. Its nearest equivalents in our societies are Fascism, Communism and National Socialism. Just as not all Germans were Nazis and not all Nazis were murderous monsters, we should judge those that profess adherence to Islam (I dislike the word Muslim, because it signifies some sort of racial element, as if Muslims were born that way, but that is completely false) on their individual merits or failings. Still, looking at Islam as a set of ideas, codified by the Quran and the Hadith and put into practice by the Prophet and his followers, it is clear that it is wholly incompatible with civilization. Islamists seek to destroy civilization and human progress entirely, they wish to destroy everything that is good and human in us and replace it with inhumanity, cruelty and Barbarity. As Richard Dawkins said, Islam is the greatest evil of our time. Anybody who supports or apologizes for Islam is complicit in evil and shares responsibility in the rape, torture, mutilation, enslavement and genocide of millions, Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I understand the power of brainwashing that a death cult such as Islam can have especially on those who have been indoctrinated into it from an early age, but any thinking, educated Muslim should look deep into themselves and examine if they can honestly continue to follow the tenets of Islam without becoming tainted by the evil that they thus enable. Most Muslims are of course not Islamists and Jihadists, but the extremist minority can hide behind the backs of the moderates, claiming that waging war on them is to declare war on all 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. That provides them with immense power and protection and ordinary moderate Muslims are responsible for what is done in their name. Any conscientious, empathic Muslim that understands what is done in the name of the religion of their ancestors can only come to the conclusion that they themselves are servants of evil in some small way. The only sensible thing to do in this situation is to leave Islam and proclaim: “Not in my name”.

    • Robert Heenan

      The Native Americans must have said a similar thing about Christianity when they were being burnt at the stakes and the christians were setting their vicious dogs on them to rip them to shreds. They must have thought of it as a death cult

      When the jews were kicked out of Europe in the 15th century it was the Ottomon muslims that gave them sanctuary and freedom to practice their faith

      Ottoman rule was much more tolerant than Byzantine rule had been. In
      fact, from the early 15th century on, the Ottomans actively encouraged
      Jewish immigration. A letter sent by Rabbi Yitzhak Sarfati (from Edirne)
      to Jewish communities in Europe in the first part of the century
      “invited his coreligionists to lease the torments they were enduring in
      Christendom and to seek safety and prosperity in Turkey”.

      The jews must have thought Christianity was a death cult

      The Christians of Syria and Egypt actually welcomed the muslims so heavily oppressed they were by the Byzantine tyranny. The fresh, simple and democratic tenets of Islam were preferred in Syria and Egypt , to the the dogma and degeneracy of Byzantine Christian theology

      Now who has created and funded ISIS and Al-Qaeda??

      WAKE UP!!

      • Christian Koncz

        Another convenient liberal myth. Yes the Ottoman’s gave Jews sanctuary as third class citizens in exchange for quite a lot of ransom money. They weren’t entirely as vile as the Spain of Torquemada and the Inquisition. Woohoo. What apologists for Islam always fail to mention that at the very same time, millions of Europeans and even more Africans were enslaved by the Ottoman empire and other Muslim kingdoms, well into the 20th century. The Sultan’s harems were full with Christian sex slaves, the Janissaries, his most fierce army unit was comprised entirely of enslaved Christians who were stolen from their parents as children. Christians were sold on slave markets as cattle, all prescribed and sanctioned by the Quran and the Hadith. The entire South Eastern quarter of Europe was under Islamic rule where Christians were treated as dogs and had to pay punitive taxes. The landscape was devastated and once proud ancient cities, from Budapest to Athens, lay in ruins. This part of Europe still hasn’t recovered from the devastation wreaked on them by the “enlightened” rule of the Caliphate and the entire Middle East and much of North Africa has been destroyed, Its pre-Islamic cities and culture razed and burned to the ground.

        In any case you are missing the point. Christianity was degenerate and fascist in the past. It isn’t any more. Islam was slightly more tolerant in the past. Today it is far worse than Christianity has ever been. And, the main point is that the example of the main Christian prophet, the Nazarene, call upon its followers to be peaceful and pacifist, whereas the prophet of Islam calls upon his followers to kill infidels, to rape their women and children, it gives instructions on how to treat their sex slaves and how to punish homosexuals, adulterers, etc…

        I am no fan of Christianity, but it is infinitely better today than Islam has ever been.

        • Robert Heenan

          Theres no disputing the Ottoman sultans kept harems and hardly ever married and kept jannisarries as well as slaves but the same can be said about the christians too. Remember Columbus and the catholics and their sex slaves

          Women and girls as young as nine or 10 were used as sex slaves for the Spanish.

          Christians did acquire some exported Muslim slaves. There are records, for example, of Saracen slave girls sold in Marseilles in 1248 so both muslims and christians were at it

          http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1248serfs5.asp

          As for the African slave trade – one has to look at the United States and Britain

          Dont know much about Athens and Budapest but then again
          modern slavery of IMF and banking doesnt help the greeks or other countries like Argentina.

          http://fightslaverynow.org/why-fight-there-are-27-million-reasons/economics-and-human-trafficking/world-bank-and-the-imf/

          http://rt.com/op-edge/money-mass-slavery-debt-223/

          As for middle east being destroyed by the muslims. I thought the great city of Baghdad was destroyed by the mongols and besides the Americans have literally bombed it to smithereens.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

          Its the West bombing and installing puppets to loot the natural resources and set up strategic bases that have destroyed the middle east

          As for christianity not being degenerate anymore.

          U.S. Military Weapons Inscribed With Secret ‘Jesus’ Bible Codes

          http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/us-military-weapons-inscribed-secret-jesus-bible-codes/story?id=9575794

          Lets not forget the David Koresh, Jim Jones, John Hagee, Pat Robertson lot either and of course Northern Ireland

          Im not saying Islam is better than Christianity. Not at all. Im simply saying that people twist and abuse both faiths to justify evil and lets not forget politics

          http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/how-the-us-helped-create-al-qaeda-and-isis/

          And theres alot more!!

          WAKE UP!!

          • Christian Koncz

            Don’t come to me to defend Christianity, I’m an antitheist, that is opposed to all religions. However, to quote Sam Harris specific beliefs have real-world consequences. There is no equivalent of “Kill the infidels wherever you find them” and “kill the apostates” in almost any religion other than Islam and some crazy end-of-the world death cults such Aum Shrinikyo in Japan which actually tried to build a Nuclear bomb to blow up Tokyo. There is nothing in the teachings of the Nazarene, the Buddha or Mahavira that calls for Jihad, rape, beheadings, torture or genocide. That is just a fact that your liberal mind cannot grapple with. I understand that you want to see all religions and all cultures as equal but they’re most assuredly not. Some things are better than other things and that applies to religions and cultures as well. The Dalai Lama welcomes and invites Free Inquiry and accepts that science has better answers to the big questions than religion and holy scripture written millennia ago when our understanding of the universe was extremely limited. The Pope isn’t far behind either. Islam is different than any other religion in this respect and in fact it shouldn’t even be considered and accepted as a religion, it is a totalitarian ideology that has murderous racism and anti-semitism at its core. And, whilst similar things could be said about Judaism, very few Jews go out to rape, murder and torture in the name of their religion.

          • Ninebobnote

            Which part of ‘That was then and this is now’ don’t you get?

  • Joe Long

    Excellent

    “To stand even a chance of dealing with it, we are going to have to wake up to it and acknowledge it for what it is.”

    Rather left hanging in the air though

  • Acleron

    Excellent point about politicians. But then, who believes any politicians these days.

    • Keith

      True most of them lie about everything

  • johndowdle

    These extremists groups are supported and funded by elites in the US, Israel and Europe, as well as by elites in the Gulf, Turkey and Jordan.
    Having toppled Gaddafi and unleashed an absolute flood of heavy weaponry across Africa and the Middle East, these jihadists are the low-cost option for achieving the objectives of the Yinon Plan – look it up.
    The Saudi elites are using these cheap fools to attack the Assad regime in Syria as an indirect form of warfare against Iran, as the Saudi Wahhabi Sunnis are determined to bring down the Iranian Shias and their supporters.
    Just about every single one of the outside forces is phony and corrupt.
    Forget “good” “guys” in this – there are none whatsoever.

  • Carl Fales

    I am a strong conservative who voted for George W. Bush twice. But I lost a lot of respect for him when he said shortly after 9/11 that “Islam is a religion of peace.”

    I figured that if he is going to blatantly lie to us about one of the most important challenges facing America we are in trouble. And I was right about Bush, and Obama is even worse. Jan. 20, 2017 cannot get here soon enough.

  • Des

    It cannot be a religion of peace nor a religion of forgiveness, Just read the few verses of the Koran translated here 3 days ago by a webchat person. These really opened my eyes to this religion. Maybe the Caliphate should not call it in the name of a God, call it something else as in the name of the prophet not God

  • Steve Lawrence

    Religion, a load of mythical tripe used by cowards and idiots as an excuse to kill people.
    That includes Christianity, Islam, Judaism and all the other stinking lies and propaganda.
    Believing in God is one thing, Religion is another.

  • ijdavenport

    Finally, someone who has publically acknowledged what many of us have seen happening for years. Well reported Douglas – you have a new follower.

  • Dot Donworth

    cameron and his protected cronies will only the truth about islam, when he gets his cosy little world uprooted. when his kids come under attack. i dont need mealy mouthed politicians to tell me that islam is a very dangerous cult. they kill because they can. life is cheap inthier world. the women just produce kids and remain subjugated. they really isnt any place in western society for such a backward people. plenty of space for them in Iraq, Iran,Pakistan.

  • david

    Ahh the much vaunted silent majority!Pahh! So queit that their inaudable!!and will re main that way. Custard Shameron and too many white faces! `as for Bush and B Liar who lit the blue touch paper?? All of them need jail time!

  • David Harding

    “The BBC team” The biggest problem is the media teams of the world that refuse to report the facts as they stand.

    • Cassandra

      I would treat anything the ‘unbiased and impartial’ but deeply politically correct BBC Team came up with with deep suspicion.

  • John V

    I really did not know just how much of a right wing rag The Spectator was until I started reading it online. Thank God I never spent any money on it when it was just paper squeezed in between The Sun and Hustle.
    Religions and violence are not the same thing. Obviously, Muslim terrorists are like other terrorists they use violence to impose their world view on others. The Zionists are happy to murder thousands of Palestinians but they do not refer to themselves as terrorists. The several inquisitions carried out in the Middle Ages were acts of terror – the perpetrators were Catholics. The troubles in Northern Ireland, hopefully now part of history, have episodes of terrorism from both sides of the religious divide – no Muslims there of course.
    It is a totally false argument to equate a particular religion with violence or terror. I am an atheist but I support the pope on this one – please, respect other people’s right to believe whatever they wish.

    • Ninebobnote

      So if some Muslims believe that killing people who offend them is OK, I need to respect that? No thanks …

      • John V

        Ninebobnote. Ask yourself the same question but substitute Zionists (or any other belief system for that matter) for Muslims. If your reply is still “No thanks” then I am on your side; if not, you are a bigot.

        • Ninebobnote

          I asked myself the question, with substitutions, as requested and got the same answer, so I am not a bigot. Happy now? I have no time for any ‘revealed’ belief system and make no distinction between them.

    • Robert Heenan

      Well said!!!

    • FedUpIndian

      “It is a totally false argument to equate a particular religion with violence or terror.”

      So in your view, the Aztec religion, which carried out human sacrifice on an industrial scale, cannot be associated with violence and terror any more than Jainism?

    • Bill_der_Berg

      “It is a totally false argument to equate a particular religion with violence or terror”.

      And just as false to equate any religion with peace, although that does not stop Dave from trying it on.

      I take it that you that you strongly disapproved of Christoher Hitchens’s lack of respect for religions.

      • John V

        Bill_der_Berg: “And just as false to equate any religion with peace”. Yes, as the history of the Christian Church demonstrates.
        Proclamations are distinct from actions. In theory, Christians should follow Jesus and turn the other cheek; but they don’t.
        The problem for me is not the religions themselves – I respect people who believe in Jesus or Muhammad ou John Cleese – I do not respect those who use religion as a cloak to hide their hatred of others.

        • Bill_der_Berg

          I daresay that Islam is a fine religion if you ignore the Arab Conquests, slavery and much else that is unsavoury.

  • WarriorPrincess111111

    People from all over the world can live more or less peaceably together without outside interference such as those who greedily want to take over another country’s resources.
    Each nation in every country follows their own way of life based on their history, beliefs and their resources. A country can never be a multicultural society ever! There will always be those who consider that there nation is superior to others, who will not adapt to another country’s ways, there will always be arguments and fighting. People have always travelled to other countries – but they have always returned home.
    It took thousands of years of human existence on Earth to find the optimum method of maintaining peace in the World and it has taken just a few decades to completely ruin it.
    Islam is not just a religion – it is a way of life that Muslims follow. If they follow the teachings of a prophet from thousands of years ago – why have they travelled to other areas in the World where there Prophet never went?
    Nations should stay within their own country, with people who believe in the same ideals, who speak their own language, who follow their own laws and religions – they should work to make their country great – there would be no need for anyone to move out of their own country to live elsewhere since they can make their own country into the ideal that they are looking for. It is the people who should have the right to demand that the country is managed properly, it should not be for a group of self centred people to say what they want.
    Yes, there are those who even from the UK have settled in other countries, who are themselves immigrants in those countries – but the numbers are of a natural balance and each country can sustain that. But when the numbers are unbalanced so that a country becomes overburdened with people, as it has been shown throughout history – that country cannot ever reach a successful economic level.

  • Debbie foster

    Jesus preached forgiveness, peace and love. His followers did not spread the word by acts of war.

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Big picture time Britisher pals. Boston, Sydney, Paris … Events intended to psyche up mug punter public opinion for the pending attack on Islam before Iran gets thermonuclear weapons. Because the next world war is going to be between Islam and all the nations that Islam has attacked. With the side benefit of addressing the world over population issue.
    Nice neutral Buddhist country anyone?

    • FedUpIndian

      Buddhists in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand and other places are joining together to fight back against Islamic aggression.

      http://islamexposedblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/buddhists-unite-to-counter-islamic.html

      Every religion on this planet is fed up with this death cult and its savagery. Opposing Islamic apartheid is the duty of all civilized people.

    • Bonkim

      Is there a nice neutral/peaceful Buddhist country anywhere? How about Burma or Sri Lanka? or Thailand? May be they are getting their bad habits from the Muslims.

  • Ollie Bear

    For decades, the West has been shying away from religion. We are driven by science, logic, reason, education, democracy, freedom of speech and thought, and the rule of law – one law. Like David Starkey accurately said, nothing important has been written in Arabic for 500 hundred odd years – and a once enlightened religion has become a bloody, intolerant dictatorship, driven by superstition, chronic ignorance, violence and fear. Churchill foresaw the dangers it posed to Western culture. Was he wrong? I think not.

  • npbinni

    Islam has a long, violent history. Catholicism also used violence in the past, but has recognised this to be quite counterproductive to its aims. Muslims have yet to learn this lesson.

    • Robert Heenan

      Catholocism and terrorism recently – Northern Ireland

      As for christian terror recently:

      In what Amnesty International is calling “ethnic cleansing,” Christian terror groups called the anti-balaka are targeting and attacking Muslims in the country of the Central African Republic.

      http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/14/muslim-convoy-central-african-republic-exodus

      Pastor John Hagee calls for pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDh1Vr7qajA

      • Cassandra

        The violence in Northern Ireland was essentially an ethnic struggle, rather than religious, Irish nationalism existed long before Catholicism was hijacked by it.

  • Conway

    … abandon all those Muslims who are trying desperately to modernise, reform and de-literalise their faith.” How can you de-literalise the word of G*d (the koran)? How can you modernise an ideology that believes that a mediaeval war lord was perfect?

  • Ali Khan

    Mr D Murray Excellent how a Racist Bigot like you has jumped on the band wagon. You must be some low life journalist who seems to give one side of interpretation on Islam. So lets look at one or two of your fantastic article. 1st the beheading issue you refer to. Ever seen the French postal stamp in early part of the 19th century? Do some research then come back. 2nd. 9/11 How come so many White Christian believe that 9/11 was carried out by America it self? America under attack? What did G W BUSH do? Why was all the gold moved out of vault the night before? Why was no JEWS killed in the attack when people from over 190 countries died? Why was Zionists CELABRATING THE ATTACK which supposedly carried out by MUSLIMS? Why was Bin Laden Family allowed to leave the country when he was supposed to be the MAIN suspect? Why was Iraq attacked again? WMD? What did there actually find? Who helped to defeat Hitler? 900,000 Muslims. Do you know the name of the Mosque that helped 1000’s of Jews escape occupied France OR the fact that the Muslims helped in the removal of Jews holiest and oldest book out of France? How much land was given to the Jews under the Balfour treaty after the war and how much do there have now? Ever seen what damage an AK47 can do at close range? Did you see any blood when a MUSLIM POLICEMAN named Ahmed get shot on the ground? Ever seen a body a DEAD body shot at it still jumps when shot, did you see it move? Did you see the smoke in front of the body when the French terrorists were behind him and a shot was heard before the terrorist approached him? Why when 160 countries are asking for a independent enquiries regards the recent Israel/Palestine conflict only Israel and America refuse to participate. When both side could equally be responsible for there actions? Please feel free to respond to me? Now REGARDING Muslims and terrorists More Muslims are killed by one another in 1 calendar month in the last 10 years than terrorists have killed Christians in the entire 10 years, yet you say all Muslims are of the same faith? You say 15% so which Islam do there follow then? I Think you have not done any research my friend because your as stupid as the Steve Emerson on FOX TV who had not done any research! Finally you say Islam is a threat to all humanity and you make it out like there have massacred more people than any other religion since the dawn of time? Well please just because of your article try to add up the figures to the nearest million please? Here is the answer of a German Muslim scholar replies on TERRORISM … I liked the answer of this German Muslim scholar when he was asked about terrorism and Islam : He said : Who… started the first world war? not Muslims ? Who started the second world war ? not Muslims ? Who killed about 20 millions of Aborigines in Australia ? not Muslims ?? Who sent the nuclear bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? not Muslims ?? killed more than 100 millions of Indians in North America ? not Muslims ?? Who killed more than 50 millions of Indians in south America ? not Muslims ?? Who took about 180 millions of African people as slaves and 88% of them died and were thrown in Atlantic ocean ? not Muslims ?? No , NOT Muslims!!! First of all, You have to define terrorism properly… If a non-Muslim does something bad..it is crime. But if a Muslim commits the same..he is a terrorist… So first remove this double standard…then come to the point!!! , . . . . . I am proud to be a MUSLIM !!!

    • Robert Heenan

      I respect all religions and just as the little old lady who goes to church every sunday morning can never be held accountable for the evil perpetrated the same applies to the old muslim man praying to God in the mosque.

      Its ashame people fall hook line and stinker for the official government and presstitute media narratives, propaganda and lies.

      Its not only muslims that no longer believe the lies – more and more good people from all religions are seeing right through the utter lies

      • Ali Khan

        Robert I share your comment 100%. We have nutters just like any other religion. I love people of all kind it does not matter to me. We are all human beings first .

        • anotherjoeblogs

          ” We are all human beings first . ”

          Nice sentiment but previously you wrote

          ” I am proud to be a MUSLIM !!! ”

          and in bold letters, you emphasised your religion and not ” I am proud to be a HUMAN BEING “.

          • Ali Khan

            Yes I agree anotherjoeblog and there is no excuse as you say me emphasising it and in BOLD letters to. However put your self in my shoes for a second. You should never judge a book by it’s cover unless that book is a Muslim or Islam then it’s a different story! Now I’m married to a beautiful Christian My daughter has a first name Jewish middle name Christian and last name Muslim. My business is HMS UK which stands for Hindu’s Muslims and Sikhs UK which is for everyone. I get pissed of when Israel bombs the living daylight out of Palestine yet all the world can do is say the Muslims started. I am a proud Muslim and no terrorist represent me my family or religion. PS I thumbed you up ON YOUR COMMENT.

          • VSP

            Just give in Ali, You are a prize piece of nonsense. Your deceits , I admit, take some beating. But we have heard it all before and doubtless others will try it on. You are a Muslim, you do the walk, you do the talk and no doubt you would have converted to Hindu or Christian if you felt for your family rather than the undemocratic misfit for any life we know as Islam beyond its own border.

          • Ali Khan

            I would never convert to any religion as I do not need to. I drink I smoke I eat what ever I want, I will never it PORK not because it’s against my religion because a Pig is exactly what it is, check at your own faith ask a Jew why he does not eat it? check out the Bible see what that say about a pig? Check out worldwide food and see what there say about a pig! I am married to Christian yet still respect both religion. My daughter has a Jewish name! My company is based on Hindu’s Muslims’ and Sikhs. My mother said I can marry any one eat with any anyone except a Hindu. Yet I have wine and dined with a Hindu. So don’t Judge me before you know me? I say live side by side respect me as you want the same respect back okay VSP!

          • VSP

            Try not boiling your cabbage twice old son, you already said this. I take you back to your first post accusing people or the writer of racism, and on with a fantasia of conjecture. See what I mean by the attempted deceit? Islam is not Britain nor will it ever be so, it is a narrow compulsory doctrine as communism or fascism with a god bolted on. Sad this offends you but it is the genuine truth. if you live here and see the flaws of it and see the utter tribal idiocy of it in western eyes, you could do something about it rather than the usual of trying to deflect the argument into other references. It is an insult to basic intelligences, and your last mail implied this strongly. This nation grew from its critical evaluations in order to define a best truth beyond what you choose to believe. Those truths are provoked in many ways and by a vast variety of sources,, and yes satire and cartoons are one element of expression.
            I note you seem unable to respond to the other side of your cretinous old fella’s advices as published by your clerics, Or maybe you are not faced by such until someone tells you that you cannot condemn these words. I ask you what is the point of any intelligence if you are unable to use it and create your own personal values, because of a compulsory belief in something that seems to invoke more evil than good. The cloven hoof you referred to were also upon Satan, and Satan came in many guises to fool and delude peoples into worshipping him as a false prophet.
            Really, you concern me, because nothing will affect your thinking.

          • Ali Khan

            what otter nonsense. You can’t handle the truth? Nor can you see past your nose. Read the book before you spout your vile racist view as if the whole world is on your side. This Planet or what’s left of it will wont be here for too long because of lies that are constantly put out there by the USELESS STATES OF AMERICA AND IT’S ZIONIST FRIENDS! Zionist is not a religion but a movement that hates everything and everyone including the USA & Britain! Muhammed (PBUH) Was an uneducated man yet he managed to put a book together. A book that 1400 years later has not been doctored at all unlike Christianity who has 5 or 6 Hmmmm 1 book turned into 5? what’s wrong man, Don’t know what the truth is? I mean do you celebrate the Fat man in RED at Christmas? Rabbits and eggs at Easter? Was Christmas not a pagan thing that the Christians adopted? You write good but then any tom dick and harry can write fantasies lies etc? Lets not beat about the bush bring me facts! If you have proof that 1.5 billion Muslims are TERRORISTS then I will eat my words otherwise do your self a favour and get lost.

          • VSP

            Try not boiling your cabbage twice old son, you already said this. I take you back to your first post accusing people or the writer of racism, and on with a fantasia of conjecture. See what I mean by the attempted deceit? Islam is not Britain nor will it ever be so, it is a narrow compulsory doctrine as communism or fascism with a god bolted on. Sad this offends you but it is the genuine truth. if you live here and see the flaws of it and see the utter tribal idiocy of it in western eyes, you could do something about it rather than the usual of trying to deflect the argument into other references. It is an insult to basic intelligence’s, and your last mail implied this strongly. This nation grew from its critical evaluations in order to define a best truth beyond what you choose to believe. Those truths are provoked in many ways and by a vast variety of sources,, and yes satire and cartoons are one element of expression.

            I note you seem unable to respond to the other side of your cretinous old fella’s advices as published by your clerics, Or maybe you are not faced by such until someone tells you that you cannot condemn these words. I ask you what is the point of any intelligence if you are unable to use it and create your own personal values, because of a compulsory belief in something that seems to invoke more evil than good. The cloven hoof you referred to were also upon Satan, and Satan came in many guises to fool and delude peoples into having no other choice but to worship him as a false prophet.

            Really, you concern me, because nothing will affect your thinking.

        • VSP

          The problem is Ali Khan that simply being a Muslin means no one can trust what you say. I do not believe a word for excellent reasons . Read the words of Cassandra above. Read your own Mohammed’s words about Muslims in foreign lands. How many reject Islam in Islamic lands and get away with it?
          Who do you think we are that you play your childish nonsensical games and think we should believe you. Go back oh twisted one.

      • Cassandra

        One can respect all religions? Would you have respected the religion of the Axtecs, which involved constant wars against neighbouring peoples for the purpose of obtaining captives, who were then sacrificed to appease the gods by having their still beating hearts torn from their bodies?

        Religions aren’t equal, in spite of what atheistical Leftist so – called ‘intellectuals’ tell you.

        I respect the spirituality and meaning in life which Islam gives to its votaries. But the Aztecs got that from their religion.

        There are many ways to God, it is claimed but the surest is Christianity. God may be reached only insofar as those practicing other religions or none manage nevertheless to follow ‘the Way, the Truth and the Life’ which is Christ.

        If Muslims manage to do this, it is in spite of their religion, not because of it. I have no doubt that In the finality, that they have been brought up in this religion will be taken into account.

    • VSP

      The punch line comes after your pathetic Muslim tirade. Are you proud enough to go back to Islam and bring a voice of peace into this violent cult, or are you pretending and being deceitful to lie and misdirect argument as Mohammed taught you. That is beyond the abuse to women and our law.
      You see Mohammed makes it impossible to listen to any Muslim and anticipate any truth or veracity. As you show you only navel gaze. Cheeky little boy, go back home.

      • Ali Khan

        VSP YOU Pathetic little useless testicle. Tell me first your religion before you howl like a dirty piece of used tampon! Bring me FACTS not what you hear on main stream media? Be a man and just because you hair round your mouth does not mean you have to talk like cunt! any case there take out the last word here is an anagram to work on CNUT!!!!!

        • VSP

          Oh dear , the truth hurts little innocent Ali. Hmm perhaps bollock brainwashed you- needs a reminder of what your ridiculous ole man said and can be quoted ver batum. I was just doing another cartoon of your easy to render Mohammed the tribal primitive as you interrupted. Hardly watch TV but I do read well documented books by authoritative authors. I refer to one about your Holy arsed, and crude one who was considered reverently because he once washed his own shirt and one night gave up his bed for his Fatima. But before I could stop laughing at this I came across his advice for Muslims in foreign lands you Mohammed put into his Quotes manual for twerps such as you to be obedient to. I had know little until then and was most profoundly shocked. So pal you have no choice but to be a porky teller (liar) and deceitful. You have no choice but to see rape of none Muslim women and pillage or nastier things ( such as Habo syndrome) as nothing more than being obedient. The book confirmed by other readings had been published in 1968 so before your vicious and resentful lot were much about here. Obviously I like to research freely for my cartoon work, perhaps you would like it in your living room, I’ll send it to you if you offer your address, or even come and deliver it personally. The book by the way had been written and edited by Muslim scholars, if that is what they call themselves.
          So you have only an inkling and by no means anywhere near all of what I can tell you about yourself, your cult, and your self delusions
          It will serve for now, so please dash off and wail with arse end up and complain. As if I care . I stand by every word, but for your own sake do not ask for relevant experiences. Whoosh…you lost your own plot smelly.

          • Ali Khan

            You said you have read by a book that you do not give a title or author to? If such a book exits how come the main character in the Book Muhammed (PBUH). You silly little white trash cannot spell his name correctly? Seems like some is telling a little PORKY! Pork does not offend mean if you think it does boy your behind the times, you really need to do more re search. Cartoons do not offend me son people who thinks to offend someone is funny however does! Shame your movement did not make it past 1945? Now it seems you think you can insult someone and laugh it off. Okay if you live in England I dare you to go into any pub and go and pick on the smallest man or women and just say hmmm your very small? See if you do not get a beating of your life?

  • kbphoto

    The Western ‘Christian/Jewish’ world of course has no record of such atrocious history, from the massacre by Crusaders of Jerusalem to the present-day onslaught against Iraq/Afghanistan/Libya/Syria? Of course a journey from Christian Fanaticism to an all powerful belief in economic righteousness i.e. Oil.
    We should not be shocked for we are meeting the children of our own waywardness and I suspect within the ‘Great Game’ it is entirely convenient.

    • Cassandra

      Christisn as admit that historically there have been plenty acting in the name of Christ who have been unchristian.

      Peaceful Muslims today are being unIslamic. The address to the faithful in that mosque in Iraq by the leader of ISIS was quite correct when he pointed this out. Jihad is ordained of Moslems, even if they do not like it.

  • John Jones

    All bullshit, its about greed and corruption in the west, oil, business etc. Western governments ‘dance with the devil’ for these reasons