Wednesday, March 28, 2007

Hamas: ‘Islam will take over the world’

"Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world," says Hamas leader Al-Zahar.

This from the Palestinian Media Watch:

While the Hamas goal of destroying Israel is well known, its aspiration for Islamic subjugation of the entire world is just as basic to Hamas dogma. Both aims appear in the Hamas Charter as God's irrepressible will, and both aims were reiterated this week by senior Hamas leader and former PA Foreign Minister Mahmoud Al-Zahar.

At a mass rally in memory of Hamas founder Ahmad Yassin, Al-Zahar said that the Qur’an promises the ‘liberation of all of Palestine’, meaning the destruction of Israel. Below is the translation of parts of Al-Zahars speech:

We have two important foundations: One is Qur’anic and the other is prophetic. The Qur’anic: The divine promise made in the Al-Israa Sura [Sura 17] is that we will liberate the blessed Al-Aqsa Mosque, and we will enter it as we have entered it the first time [Sura 17, ayat 7]. And the prophetic foundation is the message of the prophet Mohammad, that Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world."

"Our position is the liberation of Palestine, all of Palestine. This is the final and strategic solution for us. There is a Qur’anic message for us, that we will enter the Al-Aqsa mosque, and the entrance to the mosque means the entrance into all of Palestine. This is the message, no one can deny it. Anyone who denies it must check his faith and his Islam.”

So, not much doubt then about the aims and intentions of Hamas. Or perhaps their exegesis is faulty, and they have simply misunderstood the tolerant and peaceful message of the Qur'an...


Anonymous Colin said...

As always, excellent information, His Grace.

Apparently, the next war in the Middle East is in preparation. The US navy is in the Persian gulf. Saudi Arabia already increased its oil output. British soldiers have allegedly being kidnapped by Iran, which might the casus belli for starting the war.

An American and British war against Iran might finish the Ayatollah regime. What would be the consequences for Israel, Hamas, and Islam? I don't know.

28 March 2007 at 22:31  
Anonymous m.d. said...

I certainly hope that there isn't a war fronted by US and Britain as this would do nothing but fuel the militant nutters (to use the parlance of our times) even more. It would further de-stabilize the region, cause huge uproar amongst the Arabs who would vow to kill all infidels, turn more British Muslims into gown-wearing hook-for-hands who rally and cry against the country which embraced them and is probably giving them income support to feed and gown their 27 children. On the other hand, it does mean that Iranians will feel the full force of the usual American "Three Pronged Attack" stage 1) 'Shock and Awe' Stage 2) 'Hearts and Minds' then the great finale... Stage 3) 'Cut and Run'


Colin, it probably wouldn't have too much of an impact on Islam because only 200 million of the 1.3 billion muslims are Arabs.

28 March 2007 at 23:04  
Anonymous Colin said...


"would further de-stabilize the region"

Very likely correct. The Iran regime will probably collaps anyway like the UdSSR because of its economic inefficiency. Non-interference appears to be the better strategy.

28 March 2007 at 23:29  
Blogger Tony said...

How long will it be, Your Grace, until an Islamic communicant presents himself on your blog and explains the comments away as having been misinterpreted? Most likely a translation error will be cited and an allegation of Islamophobia will be levelled.

28 March 2007 at 23:52  
Anonymous Colin said...


You might be right that it could be a misinterpretation after all.

29 March 2007 at 00:01  
Anonymous The Gloved One said...


Typing with a hook for a hand is no easy task, it could take days for a legible communicant to reach us.

If you are interested there is a mathematical formula to predict how long this will take:

size of hook X distance from burkah, Divided by 9/11

29 March 2007 at 00:04  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Tony,

Welcome to His Grace's august blog of intelligent, erudite comment upon matters religio-political.

There is already a communicant who fulfils the function you have specified. We eagerly await her comments.

Mr Gloved One.

His Grace is much amused by your formula, and awaits corroboration through the rigours of the scientific method.

29 March 2007 at 07:11  
Anonymous Forecaster said...

The logical thing is for Great Powers to get together and solve the Middle East Conundrum.

China can have Iran and sent 50 million Chinese to replace the natives; and Britain and the Us will take Saudi Arabia and Iraq. The French can have Lebanon and Syria, and the Russians....well...we must think on that

This solution seems the neatest and offers a multicultural approach with immigration as a means of reinvigorating Muslim societies

29 March 2007 at 07:22  
Anonymous The gloved one said...


I can't figure out if you are being facetious or actually think that that would be a good idea. Could you clarify?

29 March 2007 at 08:58  
Anonymous the gloved one said...

I would just like to log my disbelief at the news that even more people are asking for a formal apology and reparations for the slave trade, including the President of Guyana, who aimed his rant at the Queen directly.

How on earth can people apologise and repent for sins they have not committed? Also why should we give reparations to people who have actually been put in a better position out of the fact that there were slaves, arguably making them the prime beneficiaries of the slave trade? Besides, if we give them money they will just use it to 'pimp their ride' or buy 'bling' or something - hardly a good use of reparation capitol I think.

29 March 2007 at 09:15  
Anonymous the gloved one said...


The formula is going through stringent Mosque testing as we speak. The theory behind this if you are interested is based upon a very famous premise, of which the hypothesis is:

'100,000 Muslims with typewriters given an infinite amount of time will accidentally write something rational'

Optimistic perhaps, but Colin has suggested a 5% accuracy rating - I have my doubts.

29 March 2007 at 09:41  
Blogger Buenaventura Durruti said...

'100,000 Muslims with typewriters given an infinite amount of time will accidentally write something rational'

Such comments are unbelievably offensive, insulting and stupid; and if you replaced 'Muslims' with 'Arabs' or 'Palestinians' would probably be illegal also.

29 March 2007 at 10:26  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It is bemusing that Hamas has such lofty aims. They were elected to eradicate rampant corruption in the palestinian we know if progress has been made ?

29 March 2007 at 10:46  
Anonymous the gloved one said...

If the glove fits...

29 March 2007 at 10:48  
Anonymous m.d. said...

I wonder if the US will launch an attack on Iran in April.... That could be good, could be very bad..

29 March 2007 at 11:19  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Gloved One,

Whilst you are welcome to His Grace's august blog, he asks you to observe the demands for intelligence and erudition.

He inclines to agree with Mr/Miss/Mrs Buenaventura Durruti (who is also welcome), and requests that gratuitous offence be avoided. By all means be offensive if you wish, but His Grace will only tolerate that which emanates from the planes of intelligence and erudition.

29 March 2007 at 13:55  
Anonymous the gloved one said...

The Gloved One will not bow to censorship! Although his gloved hand will attempt to tone down his comments in a bid to placate the sensitive among us, but let it be known that his gloveness is put-out that he cannot speak his mind. Even over the virtual he has to tailor, nay, shape his comments to suit the prevailing climate. Alas today is not a good day for the freedom of speech. I understand however that one may not go about abusing people for no reason, but I did try to water my point down with scientific drolery. The gloved one whips his cape at those who would seek to limit the few remaining freedoms we have in this once great nation. He tips his zorro-esque hat at Mr Cranmer who although impersonating a dead man (A crime I believe) is a man of upright integrity and never fails to spot indecency. I shall therefore make a swinging getaway before those liberal among you hang me from the nearest yard-arm for breaching the encroaching liberal orthodoxy which eminates from the insidious bowels and spurts from the ears of those insipid cretins who label themselves as 'progressive'!

I shall now exit for the time being and lick my wounds, but I will be back to joust with words and ideas.

29 March 2007 at 14:38  
Blogger Cranmer said...



29 March 2007 at 16:53  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Interesting article, Cranmer. You never fail to disappoint me. I would comment, but after reading the comments of your other communicants such as 'the gloved one', I now feel deluded as to think that I would find intelligent people to converse with on this blog.

Alas! Jelly Bean shall return later if someone decides to contribute something which is worthwhile answering to.

For now I'll go back to the usual; lurking in the background and observing with my small critical eyes.

29 March 2007 at 18:03  
Blogger Sir Henry Morgan said...

"Islam will enter every house and will spread over the entire world,"

That's not just Hamas: it's part of the core belief of Islam itself. And Islam is not fussy about how this is to be achieved.

Some of us dispute it, and we are equally unfussy about means.

29 March 2007 at 18:19  
Anonymous Colin said...

The gloved one wrote "I will be back to joust with words and ideas."

Dear gloves,

Thanks for kindly offering an intellectual joust. However, I have to decline your invitation because it is inhumane to fight against a person with an handicap in the field of contest as proven by His Grace's diagnosis. But thanks.

29 March 2007 at 22:24  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wouldn't loose too much sleep over the mad mullah's and their raghead followers spouting off as usual.

When push comes to shove, I have no doubt, they will be expedited to heaven and matyrdom in a modern and efficient manner...

30 March 2007 at 00:36  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Sir Henry Morgan said...
"That's not just Hamas: it's part of the core belief of Islam itself".

Yep, that's right. It's a common belief amongst Muslims that the masjid-al-aqsa shall once again be liberated and Islam will become the worldwide dominating religion.

Honestly Cranmer, I don't see why this should come as a shock to you or anyone else. I thought it was well known that Islam is a religion whose sole purpose is to spread the message of the Prophet to every end of the earth, unlike Judaism which was only for the children of Israel, and Jesus was only sent for the 'lost sheep of the house of Israel'. The Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem is seen as the first 'Kaba' to the Muslims. Of course they would fight for it. I'm not saying I agree with Hamas and its methods for achieving its aims, but being a religous organisation it will no doubt have the liberation of the masid-al-aqsa on its agenda.

30 March 2007 at 15:55  
Anonymous The Gloved One said...

The Gloved one swings in on the debate and slashes a zorro-like 'G' onto Cranmers buttocks, then swoops out leaving him with a look of anguish upon his face!

30 March 2007 at 22:03  
Anonymous Colin said...

"Yep, that's right. It's a common belief amongst Muslims that the masjid-al-aqsa shall once again be liberated and Islam will become the worldwide dominating religion."

And Yep, Miss Jelly Bean, you can understand that people who love liberty don't like to be dominated by others and hence don't enjoy to see more and more of these "liberators" in their neighbourhoods. Since we are all human, as you once correctly said, you should be able to understand that people feel threatened and react accordingly.

31 March 2007 at 18:54  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

I agree with you completly, Colin.

When I say that Islam will become the dominating religion, I don't mean it in the sense that it will be enforced upon people. It wil be the dominating religion simply because the majority population shall be Muslim. Even today, we know that in America and Europe the fasted growing religion is Islam.

I know your freedom is very important to you, and it should be. You have the right to worship what you like. Islam is a very tolerant religion.

31 March 2007 at 19:18  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

"Islam is a very tolerant religion."

I wish it were true. Theo van Gogh thought so. Look what happened to him. Ayatollah Khomenei certainly knew his Koran by heart when he issued his fatwa against Salmon Rushdie. And look at the religious war in Kashmir. Do we need something like that here?

31 March 2007 at 19:34  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

"in America and Europe the fasted growing religion is Islam."

Don't believe everything the imperialists are telling you. History knows a large number of such dreams which all resulted in disasters. Look at the facts:

In Europe, the increase of Islam is mainly due to immigration. That's the reason why Cranmer and many others are against it.

In the USA, the largest number of immigrants are coming from Mexiko. Hence, the fastest growing religion in the USA is Catholicism and not Islam.

Southern America, is also mainly Catholic without much of Islam.

In China, Islam doesn't have a chance. In India, Hindus have also a high fertility rate and are unwilling to peacefully convert to Islam.

In Europe, don't forget the counter-reaction which makes it now more difficult to marry someone from abroad (e.g. laws in Denmark and Germany). Furthermore, the high fertility rates of Islamic families depend on the advantages of welfare benefits for a large number of children. However, the welfare state will not survive much longer because of its high costs and economic competition from the USA, China, and India. Everywhere in Europe, welfare benefits are reduced which will result in reduced fertility of the poor because the incentive for many children is disappearing. Statistics show that the Islamic women educated in Europe have fertility rates which are not much higher than those of the native population. In conclusion, the future might bring reduced immigration from Islamic countries and reduced fertility rates of Islamic families in Europe.

What will the future bring according to the demographic data? In about 1-2 generation the major European cities will have an Islamic majority. In the same time, the number of Muslims will rise to about 25% of the population of many European countries. In other words, the majority of European countries will consist of non-Muslims who are more likely to live in the suburb or the countryside like in the USA where the poor are living in inner city ghettos. Finally, demographic data show that the high fertility rates of Arabian countries is already declining and will approach the normal level of about 2.1 children per woman in about 1-2 generations.

In summary, the world will be far from having converted to Islam in about two generations when the demograpic power of Islamic world will decrease again. If fanatics don't start a civil war, we should be able to get all along with each other until the dream of Islamists has perished in the times of history as so many dreams of world hegemony already have done in the past.

31 March 2007 at 20:18  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Interesting statistics.

And now I assume it's my turn to accumulate data from lots of different websites and present it to you as an attempt to prove you wrong? Actually, I really don't see the point in doing that. Infact, I think you most probably are right and Islam therefore isn't the fastest growing religion. I don't however think the growth rate is important, what's more important is that the true message of Islam is being communicated and disclosed to the world. The prophesies depicted in the hadith of the Prophet may not come true for many thousands of years to come.

You also mentioned Khomeini issuing a fatwa on Rhushdi. Well, I'd just like to clarify that a fatwa is a legal verdict given according to Islamic law. It is 'NOT' obligatory to follow a fatwa, as this is merely an opinion given by a scholar who is considered to have the ability to extrapolate a decision on the basis of existing law (fiqh), which may be unclear to the common Muslim.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with Khomeini, essentially because I lack knowledge in this particular field of Islam (and also because I'm a Sunni and he was a Shia). Islamic law and its penal system are both quite complex, and can therefore not be determined on the basis of one man issuing a dead sentence as a fatwa on another man.

31 March 2007 at 20:56  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

"And now I assume it's my turn to accumulate data from lots of different websites .."

You can do whatever you like. I enjoy this blog not because I agree with everything posted here but because it often triggers me to think about a new topic. So did your comment. I started to think about it and let you know what I found.

"a fatwa is a legal verdict given according to Islamic law. It is 'NOT' obligatory to follow a fatwa, as this is merely an opinion given by a scholar who is considered to have the ability to extrapolate a decision on the basis of existing law (fiqh), which may be unclear to the common Muslim."

You are certainly right. Unfortunately, the result of a fatwa is that people often get killed, probably because the common Muslim sees it as a command from above.

"the true message of Islam is being communicated and disclosed to the world"

Could you kindly educate me in this regard. What is the true message of Islam?

"The prophesies depicted in the hadith of the Prophet"

Likewise, I am very curious to know. What are these prophesies?

Much obliged. But be aware that I may have some doubts. Thus, if you think that my doubts will hurt your feelings, don't reply.

31 March 2007 at 21:23  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Not wanting to take sides at all, but...

First of all the 'fastest growing religion' is not Islam, it is Mormonism. Even this is incorrect because it relies upon exponential data and percentage growth rates, so for instance if I started a religion tomorrow and ten people joined over the course of the day, then my religion would be the fastest growing in the world because it would have increased by tenfold. The data is not reliable.

Jelly Bean, you said that a Fatwa is an opinion given by a scholar who is considered to have the ability to extrapolate a decision on the basis of existing law.

It seems to me that what Colin was saying is that not only does Islam, and more specifically the Quran et al, have the passages and teachings in place to initiate and direct such a horrendous crime, but that Islam is so divided and has so many factions that fatwa's will always pose a direct threat to anyone who is deemed a heretic or says something against the Islamic orthodoxy. Bin Laden issued a fatwa against the US which many people are still following. As a sane human being you cannot support such a directive against a man whose only crime is to write a novel... It angers me greatly to think that Islamic laws can and will spill over into secular life and affect people who have nothing to do with your laws. It sickens me to be honest.

Islam cannot survive much longer as it is in democratic nations, especially the west. Read any Pew poll done in this country about Muslims and you will see that a large proportion of 'moderate' Muslims tend to side with extremists ideals (it is important to seperate this from their actions) with many actually saying that they sympathise with the sentiments of suicide bombers.... I find this unnacceptable and an offense to humanity.

Islam may not be an inherently violent religion, many of its believers may not be extreme in the slightest, but if you imagine that 5% of muslims are fanaticised, just 5%, that would be sixty million people who believe that infidels must die, that the West must suffer and that murdering and killing is all done in the name of Allah. Islam and modern civilization are heading for a collision course which cannot be fixed by the 'moderates' (who have actually done very little so far to fight out against the extremism in this country). I wonder if you saw the program 'Undercover Mosque' it depicted a number of Mosques in Britain, one of which was the Green Lane Mosque (I think that was it's name) this Mosque was actually on the Government's list of 'moderate' Mosques with leaders on the panel for multiculturalism etc... There were a number of radicalised preachers allowed to spit hate in these mosques with absolutely no reaction by the leaders, all against the nation they were enjoying the freedoms of. I have also personally seen people in London ranting outside of a Mosque about how the people who drew the Dutch cartoons should be beheaded... I am dumbfounded at this, they are here in a country which opend its arms and reached out to them and took them in, and they are spitting hate back into its face saying that they wish to islamize the nation and let Allah punish those who are not his servants.

While there are undoubtedly some "moderate" Muslims who have decided to overlook the irrescinable militancy of their religion, Islam is undoubtedly a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisage - as muslims - is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, subjugated or killed. The tenets of Islam simply do not admit of anything but a temporary sharing of power with the 'enemies of God'.

Jihad is a central feature of the faith. Armed conflict in "defense of Islam" is a religious obligation for every Muslim man. And if you believe that this is in self defense, you are mistaken. As Bernard Lewis writes "the presumption is that the duty of jihad will continue, interrupted only by truces, until the world either adopts the Muslim faith or submits to Muslim rule." There is no denying that Muslims fully expect victory in this world as well as the next. While the Quran is more than sufficient to establish these themes, the literature of the Hadith elaborates:

'Jihad is your duty under any ruler, be he godly or wicked.'

'A single endevour (of fighting) in Allah's cause in the forenoon or in the afternoon is better than the world and whatever is in it.'

'A day and a night fighting on the fronteir is better than a month of fasting and praying.'

'He who dies without having taken part in the campaign dies in a kind of unbelief.'

'Paradise is in the shadow of swords.'

However you understand these verses, the fact is that many people will take them as literal justifications of attacks upon infidels and apostates. This imperative of world conquest is an interesting one, given that "imperialism" is one of the chief sins that Muslims attribute to the West....

The question is; Should we allow the rise of a religion whose ultimate goal is to spread itself to all corners of that country, and change the style of Government from the checks and balances of a Democracy to a theocracy, under which we can expect a Taliban-esque or Iranian dictatorial supression of any opposition? Should be be benign to a possible future of all women being forced to wear the Hijab? (you can argue Miss Jelly Bean, but look at every country which has proper Islamic rule and you will find that freedoms of all kinds are curtailed). You see, there can be no such future. How could you want such a future?

Look at Islam now, look at the world objectively and look at how currently there are Muslims killing one another in droves over sectarian differences, how Muslims are killing non-Muslims in droves, in a world where Islam is the dominant religion, can we expect anything different from the current situation but on a larger scale? The answer is no.

1 April 2007 at 00:14  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Colin, your comments don't offend me. I've heard many insulting remarks regarding my religion, but am willing to put up with them in order to defend my beliefs. I'm well aware that you will have doubts. That comes as no surprise to me, essentially because as we've already discussed, religion cannot be fully comprehended through logic, and with knowledge comes doubt; faith springs from a form of knowledge other than logic, which is better experienced than understood.

On your point regarding fatwa, I'm intrigued that you think people usually get killed by issuing a fatwa. A fatwa can range from the most basic of 'fiqh' to very complex issues and many fatwas are given everyday. So tell me (I think I've missed out on this one), how many people have you heard of being killed due to a fatwa being issued on a daily basis?

When I speak of the 'true message of Islam', I'm referring to the authentic practise of the 'Sunnah' of the Prophet, in accordance to the Quran and Hadith.

There are many prophesies in the Hadith of the Prophet regarding the end of time. I will not go into detail describing the depictions because they are quite long, but I can give you references:

Sahih Muslim: volume 1, page 87 and Bukhari volume 1, page 490 both speak of the return of Isa (Jesus).

In the hadith of Abu Dawood, hadith number 4273, there is reference made to Imam Mahdi (the 12th and final Imam to come).

In sahih Muslim- hadith number 7208, there is a depiction of the 'Dajjal'

There are many other prophesies which are believed to take place before the final battle (in which Isa will descend).

1 April 2007 at 11:31  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

m.d. thank you for your research regarding the fastest growing religion, but we've already established that Islam may not be the fastest growing religion, and I really don't think this is a significant issue to discuss.

You mentioned however, that Islam has many factions and is therefore very divided. Hmmmm, I think I could say exactly the same for Christianity.
Your points regarding Jihad, well I've already mentioned this before, but there are many forms of Jihad and your continuous insistence upon interpreting every verse of the Quran and Hadith of the prophet in its most literal sense only, is inexcusable.

The hadith you mentioned however do refer to the Jihad in the battlefield. You need to understand before making such assertions, the rules which apply to Jihad, and when you go to Jihad.

Jihad becomes obligatory:

1) If the Islamic state is under attack
2) If Muslim land has become occupied by the non-Muslims. Basically an invasion.
3)Jihad is not for a small group of Muslims to conduct. The responsibility is upon the Islamic state (the country). It must be a country which has the strength to defend Islam as a whole community, which is why you would therefore need a Caliphate for Jihad.

We don't have an Islamic state currently, hence no form of physical Jihad can actualy take place. Furthermore, Jihad is only for defense, not for spreading Islam. You must spread Islam through preaching, not compulsion.

You also mentioned Muslims killing one another over sectarian differences. Well, if you're referring to Iraq, then I can tell you that before the invasion in Iraq, Sunnis and Shia had no sectarian conflicts. Sunni families would marry into Shia families and would live peacefully as neighbours. No I'm not making this up. I have an Iraqi friend who was telling me about Pre-war Iraq and how everything has now become much worse since.

1 April 2007 at 12:30  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Whether or not most Fatwa's are prosaic in their nature, the fact remains that they can and will be used to enforce religious commands which affect people negatively. When a few of the batteries in Dell laptops started exploding, they were a few of hundreds of thousands of these batteries. Can you imagine Mr Dell misdirecting everybodies attention towards those batteries which havent exploded, saying it is ok for some to explode?? No, he retracted all of them.

Christianity is not divided as such, it may have different strains but there has been no violence between churches EVER who regularly convene and work together in our communities. There is a slight difference between Christianity and Islam in regards to this. Give me one Christian leader who is today preaching about killing people? And don't say G W Bush. The reality is that Islam is in crisis, and this crisis is begining to affect everyone.

You may understand Jihad in this light, it may be perfectly clear to you that the rules of jihad are lucid and uncompromising, but the fact is that many thousands of Muslims do not share your discerning reading of the Quran. Whether or not you personally regard the passages as benign does nothing to change the fact that many innocent people are dying everyday because of these verses.

When people link Christianity to violence and war they say:

'Christianity caused so many deaths, just look at the Crusades and the inquisition'... That was centuries ago.

When people want to link Islam with violence and war they say:

Islam has caused so many deaths, just look at its history, just look at the world today, look at terrorism, just look at the Israel and Palestine situation, just look at Hezbullah, just look at Iraq, look at north Africa and the Sudan etc... Christianity may have a period in history where it was used to violent ends, but it seems as though violence follows Islam wherever it goes.

Can you give me an example of internet spread Christian beheadings or videos of a headband wearing man holding a Bible spouting about why he has blown himself up in the name of Jesus??? NO. Thankyou.

Muslims may say that Islam is peaceful, but the forthcoming reply to these people must be: "ARE YOU BLIND!!!"

m.d. enthusiastically passes the baton of debate back into the hands of Miss Jelly Bean!!!

1 April 2007 at 13:25  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Thank you very much for your reply and for challenging me on the killings by fatwas. Indeed, I had to do some googling to find additional evidence such as Khomeini fatwa 'led to killing of 30,000 in Iran': "The most damning of the letters and documents published in the book is Khomeini's fatwa decree calling for all Mojahedin (as opponents of the Iranian regime are known) to be killed...the fatwa reads: "It is decreed that those who are in prisons throughout the country and remain steadfast in their support for the Monafeqin (Mojahedin) are waging war on God and are condemned to execution."...According to testimony from prison officials ...: "They would line up prisoners in a 14-by-five-metre hall in the central office building and then ask simply one question, 'What is your political affiliation?' Those who said the Mojahedin would be hanged from cranes in position in the car park behind the building."

All forms of life have developed mechanisms of positive tropism towards resources needed for survival and of negative tropism for harm avoidance. The signs of resources produce greed and satisfaction whereas signs of danger induce fear and avoidance. Symbolically, these mechanisms are called carrot and stick and are widely used to influence people’s behavior. Since all life forms long for salvation from danger and fulfillment of all its desires, it is hardly surprising that humans are captivated by stories about dangers, salvation and a happy end.

Novels, movies, fairy tales, myths and religions are based on. All religions induce fear and tell stories of struggles for salvation from danger and for eternal satisfaction. In other words, the essential ingredients of every religion consist of danger, doomsday and salvation (paradise).

Disobedience of God’s orders is claimed to be dangerous (-> fear), obedience of the Bible, Koran, jihad, pilgrimage etc. (-> salvation), the end of time (= doomsday -> eternal pain for infidels, eternal satisfaction for faithfuls = paradise). And any good story needs a hero, a savior, a James Bond, Jesus or Mahdi who rescues humankind in the last second before doom.

All religions of the world tell this storyline. However, the proclaimed end of time has never occurred, doomsday has never happened and nobody ever returned from paradise to tell us about it. To convince people, all religions use prophesies of inevitable victory. And always superior forces are cited as testimony such as Gods, the forces of history (Marx), climatology (environmentalists) because who would believe a mortal human being like you or me.

For example, if George W. Bush would claim that he has heard the voice of God telling him how to save his people from doom by conquering the lands of the infidels and establishing the paradise on earth, would you believe him? Probably not. Why not? Because he is as human as we are. Now, let’s assume he has won his wars, has conquered many countries and wiped out all the dissidents in his empire. Would you believe him? Probably not. Why not? Because he is your contemporary. Now, let’s assume the year 4007, George W. Bush’s successors derived their power from his legacy and therefore made the revelations which George has received mandatory knowledge for every schoolchild. His life and words are taught at every school. The media praise his words of wisdom collected in a book and the priests of his religion discuss his life as a model for everyone. Dissidents are threatened by death penalty. More than 1 billion people worship George W. Bush. What do you think how many people would dare to entertain doubts about George W. Bush having received one or several revelations from above? Not many. You are probably correct.

” The prophesies … may not come true for many thousands of years to come.”

Religions have a rather limited life span. As history demonstrates, they are replaced by another or mixed with another. In not a single case, the prophesies have become true before the disappearence of the religion.

Finally, permit me to cite a famous Islamic scholar, Grand Ayatollah al-Udhma Yousof al-Sane’i from Iran ”Power always involves lying, theft, oppression, and betrayal. Governance requires duping humans. The world of governance is a world of oppression.” Can there be any doubt that religion has power by its systematic use of the carrot-and-stick, i.e. paradise-and-hell method?

My advise: Don’t trust people like George W. Bush and waste your time with unfounded fears and irrealistic hopes but instead enjoy your life because that’s the only one you will ever have.

1 April 2007 at 14:32  
Anonymous m.d. said...


Your argument regarding positive and negative tropism in regards to faith is somewhat lacking in substance. Just because a religion has aspects which follow a narrative of danger and the eventual salvation from this danger no more refutes religion than it upholds it. For instance, I will tell you a story:

Last summer I was surfing off of the coast of South Africa when I noticed a shark fin in the water, it began following me as I tried to paddle away from it. Eventually it burst out of the water and bit my surfboard in half! As this was happening a hand grabbed me from a nearby dinghy and hauled me onto deck, a business man from Kentucky saved my life that day.

Now, I have no way to prove whether this actually happened, you just have my word. Using your reasoning; it has a danger and a saviour, so therefore I must have made it up seeing as the story cunningly follows a narrative which people will find interesting.

As for your argument about the end-of-times having not happened yet is clearly foundationless because obviously it can be argued that it hasn't happened yet. Only if we were able to see all of the future laid out before us could you correctly say that there was proof of there not being a future second coming or an equivalent. That is just logical.

I wouldn't trust Bush because he is an idiot, not just because he is a contemporary. All of the scientists you buy into are your contemporaries, so why do you believe them? In schools now we are being taught evolution, Richard Dawkins et all will soon be beheading people of faith on the internet as their fanatacism and anger seems to increase on the same trajectory as Islam fundamentalism. Perhaps soon it may be illegal to have a faith in this country under the guise that faith leads to war, anyone with a faith will be threatened by the death penalty. More than one billion people will worship Darwin and chant passages from 'The Origin of the Species' whilst hugging monkeys. Will that make you happy or do you think that it would be a disastrous result of fanatic anti-religion zealots who have taken the form of that which they claim to despise?

Colin, you look at the marvels of nature and are happy that there was no design behind it, you fail to see the beauty and magnitude of creation and the God it points to because you would rather believe that man has most of the answers, that something as complex as the human brain was a result of random mutations over millions of years, that the eye formed over countless generations to be able to see and focus etc.. Perhaps to you it all makes sense, that it all fits together, but what you seem to have overlooked is that there were countless laws of physics which had to be in place before the Big-Bang, laws which allowed those particles to react in those exact ways, which abled the atoms and molecules to move and be impacted upon and react with other forces. For the big-bang to have occurred you not only need to understand and map the 'seen' items; the matter and how it behaved 1 trillionth of a second after the BB, but you also have to explain where the underlying and unchanging 'invisible' frameworks of physics which command and control these occurances have come from. As far as i'm aware these laws cannot be explained, nay, thay are not even close to being explained because all reason suggests that they would have to have been created. there is a fundamental framework of constant laws and assumed concepts which are 'givens', for example the very concept of 'existence' or 'solids' or 'area', or 'space', or 'maths' which mean that all of the matter and explosions are possible in the first place, these laws inform everything and yet cannot be explained. In effect this gaping hole of an unknown upon which rests the big-bang theory leaves the ancillary theories of evolution resembling the philosophers turtle... It is turtles all the way down. You may put faith into science and its future ability to uncover such mysteries, but in the words of Richard Dawkins 'We just have to be content that there may be things which we can never prove, which are beyond the realm of science, that doesn't mean we should not believe them'.. Hmm, sounds rather similar to many religions........

1 April 2007 at 15:46  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

m.d. it's true Christianity does seem to be less divided than Islam and has a far less violent history than Islam. But, you seem to think it ended with the crusades. Does Northern Ireland ring any bells? How about the IRA. You're a catholic right? So justify the IRA's use of violence. Please don't tell me this has no religious implications because everyone knows there was, and still is a major sectarian division in Northern Ireland. Personally, I don't think this current agreement with the DUP and Sinn Fein will make any changes or progress.

Colin, I realise that Khomeini's fatwa caused a lot of death, but I was talking about fatwas in the general sense that are issued by 'Muftis' on a local and community level. This is not to say that I agree with Khomeini. like I said before, I don't know on what basis he issued this fatwa and whether I can agree with it. Sunnis and Shia do tend to differ on issuing fatwas. I most certainly do not agree with the killing of 30,000 people in Iran by Khomeini, but I am glad that there was an Islamic revolution in Iran.


P.S. m.d. like your comment at 3:46 PM

1 April 2007 at 16:46  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Let me start by saying that I am not a Catholic. Secondly, the Northern Ireland conflict is not based on religion at all, it is based on the division over the future of a united Ireland. the fact that those who want a united Ireland are a majority Catholic is due to the fact that Ireland is historically Catholic and the English invaders are historically Protestant, it is a way of demarcating the population yes, but the conflict has no roots in religion whatsoever i'm afraid. You will be able to observe this by the distinct lack of religious rhetoric which would have surrounded such a conflict if indeed it was about religion.

Look at the current power-sharing deal, it is not about religion, it is about politics and consociational conflict regulation. It is about the disputed future of a province, half of which want to re-unite Ireland, the other half which want to be part of Britain. Making the Northern Ireland case about religion is simply not true.

As for the IRA taking up arms and using violent methods to further their aims I cannot justify, but what is undisputable is that it was not done in the name of Jesus or Mary or upheld by Biblical passages, it was a form of ethno-national conflict which was partaken by people of a certain religion. This is a marked difference from Islamic fundamentalists who hold an AK-47 in one hand and the Quran in the other. Those in the PIRA, I doubt went to church, indeed it is one of those things which is claimed by a group who has historical ties to a religion. An example of this is the census data for England, if you look under 'religion' on the census poll you will see a huge number of Christians apparently living in England. Now we know by church count that there can't possibly be this number of practicing Christians. People put it down on the questionnaire because that is what they loosely identify with, perhaps they have been Christened, whatever, it doesn't make them a practicing Christian at all.

As for your point about the recent power-sharing deal, it already has made progress.. They have already made a jont plea to ensure that seperate water bills will not be issued for the first time in Northern Ireland. Perhaps a mundane concern, perhaps a favourable augury for the next chapter in the Province's history. The fact is that two arch enemies are sitting down together for the first time in history to try and provide a better future for Northern Ireland, indeed it wouldn't suprise me if there will be a united Ireland in the distant future.

I wonder if your ideas of Iran would change if you lived there....?

1 April 2007 at 17:21  
Anonymous Colin said...


Congratulations for writing several well reasoned comments on this thread including your 3:46 pm.

Although I do not believe that I will be able to convince you or anybody on this blog including Miss Jelly Bean and although I am happy with the fact hat my friends maintain different views than I do, I would respond just for the fun of it. Your 3:46 comment has three topics, i.e. (1) the existence of danger in a story doesn't prove its incorrectness,(2)the claim that science is another religion, and (3) that the existence of the laws of physics disproves evolution and proves the existence of intelligent design.

(1) "it has a danger and a saviour, so therefore I must have made it up seeing as the story cunningly follows a narrative which people will find interesting"

Absolutely not. Have I or evolutionary scientists ever claimed that life is without danger? On the contrary, life is endangered all the time. That's why the protective behavioral mechanism of fear has developed. And once your brain has developed in such a way that it reacts to real danger such as sharks, it is also able to react to imaginary dangers. And you are right, that does not disprove that the imagined dangers might not become real. However, and this is my point, it also does not prove that they exist. So what, you will ask, how can we decide if an imaginary danger is likely to be realistic or irrealistic? After all, you do not believe every story which you have been told. Then, how do you decide which one to believe and which not? What you and most of us consider if the story is implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to known facts. This is the method of rational skepticism. You have beautifully applied this method in your two last replies to Miss Jelly Bean.

Now, let's see what your method of rational skepticism is able to tell us about your shark story. Is your story implausible? No. We know that sharks attack human beings. Is it dubious? A bit but still possible. Is it contradictory to known facts. Clearly not since it is a known fact that sharks attack humans near Australian beaches. However, if you would have told us that an elephant or a dragon had attacked you, it would be rather implausible since in fact, nobody has ever seen such event in Australia.

Now, let's examine the claim that somebody heard a voice of God. Is implausible, dubious or clearly contradictory to known facts? If you believe in the existence of God, such a claim is plausible. However, you might have doubts with regard to this individual person. Isn't it a bit implausible that all the marvelleous events, which are accepted today, occurred approximately 1,000 years ago, while everyone claiming today to hear the voice of God is treated for schizophrenia in a psychiatric hospital where these voices disappear a few days after the beginning of therapy? How are we able to differentiate between the true voice of God and the effects of a brain disorder in persons who lived many centuries ago? It is nearly impossible. Hence, the skeptic has sufficient reason to doubt. And the believer has sufficient reason to believe. And as long as one doesn't start to threaten or kill the other, that's an acceptable situation.

(2) "All of the scientists you buy into are your contemporaries, so why do you believe them?"

What you are practically saying is that science is just another religion in which I happen to believe. Let me answer by another question. Why don't you believe in witches or that the earth is flat or? Your answer is because I didn't see any evidence for witches and I have seen evidence that the earth is not flat. Hence, you and most others normally decide on the basis of empirical evidence. And that's the foundation of the scientific method: evidence for or against a postulated cause-effect relationship. The scientific method is nothing else but an error correcting mechanism. No such mechanism exist in religion. The latter starts with a belief which is maintained at all costs by the persecution of dissenters. How utterly convincing!

(3) "what you seem to have overlooked is that there were countless laws of physics which had to be in place before the Big-Bang, laws which allowed those particles to react in those exact ways"

If these particles did not react in precisely these ways, the Big Bang would not have happened. In other words, the Big Bang, our universe and its physical laws might be the result of selection according to Lee Smolin in The Life of the Cosmos. "For him, physics are not mathematics, but biology. Cosmology is a question of natural selection. This selection happens via black holes, where universes are created with slightly different random new values for the parameters of the standard model in physics.
There are no eternal laws, only worlds which are the result of random and statistical processes of self-organization."
How shocking, isn't it. No God who protect us. Just we alone in the universe killing each other about beautiful ideas.

You said "Richard Dawkins et all will soon be beheading people of faith on the internet"

Come on, M.D. that's an exaggeration, isn't it. Let me reply by a modified version of what you have previously said to Miss Jelly Bean "Can you give me an example of internet spread Richard Dawkins beheadings or videos of a headband wearing man holding a book by Richard Dawkins spouting about why he has blown himself up in the name of Darwin???"

Finally, scientific skepticism "is an approach to strange or unusual claims where doubt is preferred to belief, given a lack of conclusive evidence. This is a personal principle -- it does not, on the surface, imply that skeptics should attempt to convert other people to their beliefs."

As long as no harm is done to anybody, I am perfectly happy with you and other nice people on this blog believing in Christianity, Tejus in Hinduism and Miss Jelly Bean in Islam.

1 April 2007 at 17:26  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Colin, congratulations to you on writing convincing arguments as well.

Let me take your points and see if I can extract some truths here..

1) I understand your points about rational skepticism in relation to the inspection of various stories and statements. But I find it amusing to think that there are all those Christians out there who claim to hear from God and who aren't undergoing treatment for mental health problems... Indeed the Bible is based on faith, so no amount of empiricle testing will answer this one, yet empiricle testing can neither prove that God doesn't exist can it?? Alas it seems it is impotent after all!

2) Yes I don't believe that the earth is flat, and you are right, but it is because I have seen the evidence for myself in the curve of the earth, in video images etc... Only a small proportion of those who believe in evolution really know what the evidence is, let alone have actually conducted the experiments for themselves. There is a huge difference between empirically discovering something for yourself, and believing what another person has said, normally through the means of television and the internet.. And we know how authoritative the internet is! Indeed, having not conducted the experiments yourself (assuming you are not a scientist who has) you are regarding the information you believe on a level akin to faith on the basis that you are believing something which you have been told and not seen for yourself. Perhaps scientists in the field have a vested interest in not letting out elements of their data which may make their findings more sketchy and less concrete than they have us believe. Imagine if there was, in the next year, an uncontravertable piece of evidence which negated the theory of evolution (hypothetically). I really do believe that the potential embarrasment would be so supreme as to make sure that that piece of evidence would never see the light of day. YOU CAN'T TRUST THEM FULLY!

3) Ok, you have pulled a file on one scientist who could for all I know, be considered a nutter by his peers. There are many other thinkers out there who admit to being completely stumped by this. I really do find it amazing that really intelligent people can say with a straight face, that something came from nothing on its own, without God.... Incredible.

4) Ok so my Dawkins diatribe was tongue-in-cheek, so sue me!

I am glad that you are not trying to convert me, there are many others who are though... Just read Sam Harris, a brilliant but rather acrid supporter of science.

1 April 2007 at 17:57  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Colin, I wonder if you have seen any of the 'Beyond Belief' seminars which are available freely on the internet? They focus on whether there is a God (a foregone conclusion when you look at the panel surely) then debate about morals in a world which is devoid of a creator. V interesting.

The panel consists of Dawkins, Harris and numeous scientists and philosophers.

1 April 2007 at 18:02  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

My apologies m.d. I suspected wrong (about you being Catholic).

Seperate water bills are hardly going to remove violence m.d. and if you think religion doesn't play a significant role in the division of Northern Ireland, then you are one of the most deluded people I've ever come to know (no offense). I'm not saying that religion is the ultimate reason as to why N.Ireland is divided, but lets have a look at its history.

1)Cromwell transfers Protestants to N.Ireland in 1606 (the so-called plantation).

2)The Protestant William of Orange takes Throne from Catholic James II- results in Battle of Boyne in 1690 between the Protestants and Catholics.

3) The current division between the different political parties is not so much distinguished on a left-wing right-wing basis, rather they are known by their religious beliefs. You have the Unionists (moderate Protestants), the Loyalists (the extreme loyalists). On the other side, you have the Nationalists (the moderate Catholics) and the Republicans (more extreme Catholics like SinnFein and IRA).

4) The division in the N.Irish community was/is also due to religion. The RUC was known to be very pro-Protestant, the Judiciary was also very pro-Protestant and anti-Catholic and there were also a lot of cultural diferences since Protestants were given better land to live in.

5) Lets also not forget the Siege of Drogheda in 1649 and the Easter uprising in 1916.

1 April 2007 at 18:10  
Anonymous m.d. said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Your history is not only severely incomplete, but fails to support your argument.

1) "Seperate water bills are hardly going to remove violence"

I don't know if you've heard, but the IRA have decomissioned their weapons, there is no more violence.

2)"The current division between the different political parties is not so much distinguished on a left-wing right-wing basis, rather they are known by their religious beliefs"

The religious names which are placed on the political groups such as the DUP, the IRA etc.. are simply a useful way to label the seperate groups, they do nothing to explain the conflict, and are labels which I think are unhelpful in that respect. If you think that the NI conflict is about religion, or even that religion plays a big role in the conflict you are the one who is deluded i'm afraid. It just isn't true. I am begining to think that you are getting all of your information from (no offense!)

3)"Lets also not forget the Siege of Drogheda in 1649 and the Easter uprising in 1916"

Siege of Drogheda:
Oliver Cromwell landed in Ireland in August 1649, to re-conquer the country on behalf of the English Parliament. he may have been religious, but the seige wasn't.

Easter uprising:
The Easter rising was an attempt by militant Irish republicans to win independence from Britain by force of arms. It was the most significant uprising in Ireland since the rebellion of 1798. The Rising, which was largely organised by the Irish Republican Brotherhood, lasted from Easter Monday April 24 to April 30, 1916. Members of the Irish Volunteers, led by school teacher and barrister Patrick Pearse, joined by the smaller Irish Citizen Army of James Connolly, seized key locations in Dublin and proclaimed an Irish Republic independent of Britain. The Rising was suppressed after six days of fighting, and its leaders were court-martialled and executed. It was not done under the banner of God.

The conflict would still occur if everyone were Catholics. The point is that England invaded Ireland and created a province of the UK called Northern Ireland. The irish didn't like that so they fought against the rule, yes they were of a different denomination, but that was not why they started fighting!!!!

1 April 2007 at 18:38  
Anonymous m.d. said...

The reality is that, yes religion was 'used' as a tool to oppress the Catholics, but the origins of conflict between Catholics and Protestants in the north of Ireland lie in the British settler-colonial Plantation of Ulster in 1609, which confiscated native owned land and settled Ulster with (mainly Protestant) English and Scottish "planters". Conflict between the native Catholics and the "planters" led to two bloody conflicts between them in 1641-1653 and 1689-1691. Yes there was a curtailing of religious, legal and political rights of anyone who did not conform to the state church — the Anglican Church of Ireland, this is not the fundamental cause of the conflict, as you can see by looking at the conflict now, there is almost no religious aspect to the current conflict, it is all about national realisation. Yes religion was used to shroud some earlier aspects of the conflict, but to say that it still plays a big role in the current minds of the Republicans or the Loyalists would be wrong.

1 April 2007 at 18:56  
Anonymous Colin said...


It is a pleasure to debate with you because your logical abilities are quite outstanding. In regard to your points:

(1) "I find it amusing to think that there are all those Christians out there who claim to hear from God and who aren't undergoing treatment for mental health problems."

That's a misinterpretation of my statement. I never said that all these Christians out there hear God's voice in the same way as you hear, for example, a voice coming out of the radio. These Christians, Muslims and other faithfuls are perfectly normal people. They don't need any treatment.

"empirical testing can neither prove that God doesn't exist can it??"

You are absolutely correct. Science will never be able to disprove the existence of anything which cannot be seen or measured in any way. But this doesn't prove its existence either.

"Imagine if there was, in the next year, an uncontravertable piece of evidence which negated the theory of evolution (hypothetically). I really do believe that the potential embarrasment would be so supreme as to make sure that that piece of evidence would never see the light of day. YOU CAN'T TRUST THEM FULLY!"

In the short-term, this is possible. A good example is the current global warming debate which is clearly contradicted by the available evidence. Scientific fraud isn't new. However, in the long-run, manufactured data or false theories have all been debunked because of the error-correcting mechanism of the scientific method. Why should we trust more people in other fields which do not have any error-correcting mechanism?

"you have pulled a file on one scientist who could for all I know, be considered a nutter by his peers."

Science is not a method based on majority votes but on supporting evidence. There are many cases in science, where a scientist has been considered a nutter by his peers, only later to have found to be correct. Thomas Kuhn carefully researched the history of science and described his findings in a book entitled "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".

" I wonder if you have seen any of the 'Beyond Belief' seminars"

Not yet. But since you are recommending it already for the second time, I will search for it.

Finally, in my experience and observation, religious people are on average kinder than non-religious individuals. In my personal life, I would rather trust a deeply religious individual of any religion than a person who doesn't care about religion or ethical behaviour.

Please permit me discontinue the debate about my religious doubts on Cranmer's blog since I ought to consider the feelings of his religious readers. It would be extremely impolite of me to abuse His Grace’s generous hospitality and continue talking about topics which might hurt his feelings and those of his readers.

1 April 2007 at 19:36  
Anonymous m.d. said...


It has been a pleasure debating this with you, I for one love to think about stuff like this and chat to people, which lets me learn more whilst sharpening and streaching my own knowledge. I will indeed drop this line of debate as I'm well aware that there may be people reading this who may not appreciate such an elongated, yet good-natured banter on the subject of religion. Thank you Colin for your reasoned approach to this line of discussion, and remember.... Jesus loves you!

1 April 2007 at 20:21  
Anonymous Colin said...

Miss Jelly Bean,

Your proclaimed in capital letters on this blog "LONG LIVE ISLAM!"

Please permit me to express my disapproval, not of your opinion but of such inappropriate behaviour on Cranmer's Christian blog.

Imagine a similar situation in an Islamic country, e.g. M.D. having immigrated to Pakistan, wearing in public a religious sign, e.g. a cross instead of a hijab, writing on a strongly islamic blog about the beauty of Christianity and LONG LIVE CHRISTIANITY! What would be the consequence? Probably, not such a rather civilized behaviour as you encounter in the UK and on this blog.

My impression is that your proclamation is a sign of fanaticism (please correct me if I am wrong) which is not infrequently encountered in Islamic commentators on this blog. Before you kindly joined this blog, we had the pleasure of a brief visit of an nice man from Sri Lanka who proclaimed ISLAM UNITE. We also had visitors from other religions, e.g. Tejus Ramakrishnan who believes in Hinduism. Unfortunately, only Islamic believers were totally absorbed and fanatic about their religion. It is precisely this fanatism which produces all the problems never encountered before with any other group of immigrants.

While I value you as an intelligent, charming and witty individual, I do not value fanatism. Therefore, let me add as an antidote to fanatism the following proclamations:


1 April 2007 at 20:24  
Anonymous Colin said...


Thanks for your kind remarks.

" I for one love to think about stuff like this and chat to people, which lets me learn more whilst sharpening and streaching my own knowledge."

We seem to have this love in common and I appreciate that you don't distribute reading lists as others do.

"remember.... Jesus loves you!"

Happy to know that. And he certainly loves Miss Jelly Bean, too.

1 April 2007 at 20:29  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Sorry Colin, Jelly Bean has been a very naughty little girl and therefore apologises.

Bur you're right, I am completely absorbed in my religion. I live Islam! I guess that makes me a fanatic. Oh well!

P.S. I love Jesus to!

1 April 2007 at 20:55  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Colin, you missed out Judaism in your list of 'long lives'

Nevermind, I'll do it for you.


1 April 2007 at 21:01  
Anonymous Colin said...

Wow, Miss Jelly Bean,

Again, you are impressing me with your wit and humour.

1 April 2007 at 21:17  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

m.d. I tried the site you accused me of using (
Unfortunately it didn't work. I'm very upset because I could have used it for my politics exam which I'm supposed to be revising for now! Woops! I'll start on that tomorrow, or maybe the next day or... how about next Monday... maybe never.

1 April 2007 at 21:23  
Anonymous Colin said...

Hear, hear, Miss Jelly Bean is enjoying us with more of her wit and humour.

Politics has been called the "Art of the Possible", i.e. the art of looting people as much as possible. Good luck with your politics exam.

1 April 2007 at 21:46  
Anonymous m.d. said...

I fail to see how Islam is going to spread over the world as it is probably the least evangelistic religion there is. I have never seen an outreach by Muslims designed to encourage non-believers to engage with Muslims....

Miss Jelly Bean, please answer this.

1 April 2007 at 22:50  
Anonymous Miss Jelly bean said...

Actualy m.d. you won't have to go far to search for such evidence. In Britain, every year, a Global Peace and Unity event is held where non-muslims as well as muslims go to learn more about Islam. Scholars are invited from across the world to discuss important issues regarding Islam.

This website might help

2 April 2007 at 08:53  
Anonymous m.d. said...

perhaps, but one event on such a formal basis pales in comparison to the outreach done by christian churches.

2 April 2007 at 09:58  
Anonymous Miss jelly bean said...

You can hardly make such a comparison m.d. How would you know at what point, in which part of the earth who's preaching what to someone and as a result of this, inspiring only one, or many hundreds to convert. it may only take one verse of the Quran or one sermon of a priest to change a person's mind and direct him to follow another path. Whether it's done on an international level once a year or local level every day, makes no difference.

2 April 2007 at 17:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In a nut shell Islam is about world dommination! this is a short and brief view of how the muslims intend to attain their agenda of islamification of the whole world and what is their motivation.Let me start by saying that most of us are ill informed about islam being a religion of peace and most of the muslims we know are the peace lovinging mograte silent majority, and the religion of is hijacked by radical elements .Well it is not so. We will have to agree that most of the religion of the world have some point of time undergone the changes mentioned above,but none of the religions advocates the death for not sharing the same faith,whatever volience which was caused by the people of other faith is purely political and not religious although some amount of religious intolerance is there in all the mentioned religions.BUT IN CASE OF ISLAM ,IT IS INTOLRANCE WHICH IS THE RELIGION,IT IS A BLUE PRINT FOR MASS MURDER IN A INDUSTRIAL SCALE WHICH TRANCENDS PLACE AND TIME,(meaning the project which was started almost 1400years ago is not complete until the world would be completely converted Islam)THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO STOP, COME HELL OR HIGH WATER ,OR ALL OF US HAVE CONVERT TO ISLAM THERE IS NO THIRD OPTION BECAUSE- The muslims ummah propgates expnasion of islam by all means ,First and fore most by the sword ,it is the duty of all the muslims to kill the non muslims it written. the koran state that there is no other god other than Allah and Mohammed is only true porphet,any one who beg's to differ is a infidel and kafir so should be beheaded at once.It is said not to be friend them (the non muslims)! strike them when you get the chance..Any peace treaty with the muslims is invalid, as the koran say make peace treaty with the infedals, in the dead of the night go out kill them all . Eevery muslim no matter how he or she is educated in western value 's DO NOT FOLLOW MULTICULTURE ethics it is evident in the way they dress, they live.It is a mere obligation that muslims pretend that they follows the law of the land(this is allowed in islam-Taqiyya-to be decitfull to confuse the nonbeliver) when they are minority.If they become tha majority the rules of engagment diffrent,Remember(jessiya the slave tax which give's the non beliver right to live in muslim dominated country,persecution are many in islam yet it called the universal brother hood-) & who ever disagrees has to be beheaded.Polygamy is rampant in islam have any one every wondred why? the point is women in islam are sub-human without any rigths on their own ,they are only useful to reproduce their own, It is because polygamy leads to a lot of children .They breed like rabbits,And without a single short being fired one fine day in the near future (may be in another 50-75 years) the muslims will over run Europe by sheer numbers,this also a method of jihad, Might sound LIke conspiracy theory,?Here comes answer as the muslims immigrant from pakistan,libya,morroco and the north afircan belt,middle east & sub continent come to Europe with their peace full brotherhood they slowly change demograph of europe, as of now.,(More than 53 million Muslims live in Europe -- 14 million of them in the European Union and growing.) in Europe. A Europe which dose not belive in any thing now(GOD, FAMILY VALUES,IDEOLOGY or,IDENTY). ,because of their hypocriscy, of being politically correct or because,widely held libral secular views or simply the lack of will to act,The european's way of life as we know it now will cease to exist. thank to our Muslim appeasing politicians who are only intrested in there votes because of their growing numbers,so they could hold on to power,These hypocrites look the other way when EUROPEAN WOMEN ARE GANGE RAPED,AND HUMILIATED , by these peace loving Muslims,Muslims aim is ISLAMIFICATION OF the whole world,but one step at a time. This is what happened in Egypt almost 1300 yrs ago,after conquering the arabian peninsular by war ,the Muslims went on to conqure mighty egypt which was then a super power,which was a very advanced cosmopolitan culture,Rich in science,astonomy,mathematics and medical science(remember the LIBARY OF ALEXANDRIA a center of higher knowledge-no more) like that of present day Europe, the culture which we admire so much and fascinated,is now confined to the pages of histoy thanks to peace full islam and his prophet.The muslims from the arab heart land populated Egypt ,the native's of this once ancient land became a minorty in their own land, Enslaved & Persecuted and heavily taxed and they vanished without a trace in less than 100 years .And yes the koran advocates this to be a form of jihad.......................ethnic cleansing i would say!...can we still claim islam to a religion of peace!.i see europe going the same way ...........not far behind is America .it not to late................sit up and smell the coffee!.let us still not say that Islam is time the World ( the people, politicians& media) strat acting today tomorrow migth be too late for who ever who is not a muslim


6 September 2007 at 16:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I feel Islam is like a coin. The coin has two sides, moderate people who happen to be Muslim accounting for the vast majority, and evil extremists who will utilise every interpretation in order to gain power through seeking to conquer all others before it.

For that dark side of the coin, all methods to destroy the enemy are justified in their interpretation of Islam.

Unfortunately, the good moderate muslims cannot divorce themselves from the other side of the coin, because the coin of Islam houses both these moderate people and the evil that seeks to takeover the world and kill those that are different to it, thus opposed to the converting to the rule of Islam.

The coin is rolling on a path to the aquisition of weapons of mass destruction. When backwards countries such as Pakistan and North Korea can obtain these weapons, it's only a matter of time in this information age before radical islamic extremists will have the bomb. 5 years, 10 years , 15 years I don't know.

Maybe next year with Iran. The point is short of launching premptive wars that can often be wrong like Iraq based upon suspision, the odds are the West cannot stop them from acquiring these weapons.

Radical Islam would use weapons of mass destruction to strike first. They use suicide attacks to show they will die in order that Islam prevail.

What Islam can do is destroy the west yes and bring the world to a state of destruction and anarchy.

What they can never do is win the hearts and minds of the free west.

What does this mean then. If some appocolyptic use of weapons of mass destruction reigned down on the can be sure that NOT ALL the population would be dead.

If the west was held hostage..............submit to the agenda of radicals or another strike will occur within the next 24 hours, what do you think most people would do.

What do you think depressed people do sometimes when they see no hope. Unfortunately some who are in pain commit suicide themselves.

What I'm saying is sacrificing oneself is not the sole possession of radical islam. I think many Western people would be happy to die than be made a slave of that which they hate.

Die as in with a doomsday scenario, people would rather die than except the way of the dark side of that coin.

What can the west do in such a situation. A kind of world war 3 scenario I paint. If you yourself are going to die, and it's not an alien concept, as thousands are trying everyday, sometimes self inflicted.

If you are going to die, your whole world dies. Does it matter that all the people you hate will die too. It's more than likely you wouldn't hestitate to push that button.

As we left the 1990's, it did appear that the idea of democracy would gain further momentum a decade on from the Cold War. It looked like the the free world would spread the idea of a more equal world.

Then September 11. The concept of Islam caught up with us, and there was a coin that had an evil side on one half that sought to destroy freedom. This was evil designed in ancient times that finally caught up with modern times.

The world could've seen an agree of freedom and greater equality, but evil got in the way.

I guess noone really knows when they will acquire greater weapons capability. It may be to hard to prevent them from gaining WMD's now. If when they do, they are commited to being martyrs, and if they die, does it matter if they kill one person or half the world. No. The more the better for them as that is there code.

The future looks like destruction. The destruction of the west, nuclear war perhaps.

I guess, but as a westerner, I would rather die than myself than be a slave to evil. I'm not alone, a great many free peoples would rather die than be ruled by that.

A world of anarchy post appocalyptic holocaust. Thanks Islam.

Anyway people are trying death every day. One can be sure that Islam will not rule the West, not as long as the west lives. It will destroy the west, but not before the west retaliates and destroys Islam in its own kamikaze mission.

World War 3. Perhaps. When.......don't know. They say World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones. Hopefully we can squeeze afew more good years out.

The day will come though when there is another September 11 though, with the enemy armed with greater weapons capability. Every expert says so. Thats why they say this is a 30-40-50 year war. Too late though, will likely be attacked by then.

A scary thought, but evil does produce horror.

The good moderate people of Islam are unfortunately the other half of the same coin as radical Islam. The religion does not exist without giving shelter to both.............and it;s always been this way since it's creation.

I don't hate moderate people, but I have no love for Islam because of this. I hate those people that seek to kill us.

I hope and pray good fortune will break or at least push such scenarios into a far far away time if they cannot be fully stopped.

The west is not just a place, it is an idea. The idea of freedom is greater than tyranny.

We all die someday. When were gone, the nature of evil is just that, and righteousness and a spirit of freedom are in the hearts of people.

We have that, Islam will perish oneday. Good riddance, it only has brought destruction.

Just have a look, and don't even bother with the debate, we just know there are two sides to that coin.

Godbless a better age.

9 September 2008 at 18:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess if things are to be bad or not, one must get on with life..This conflict is often spoken as a long battle that could span a generation, possibly two.

Whether worse is to come or not, were here now. Live the better times while they're still there to have.

The threat is real, though no century to date, the span of almost a lifetime has yet been untouched from thev horrors of war.

Sometimes things cannot be avoided, things come to you, though that day isn't today.

11 September 2008 at 14:46  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Miss Jelly Bean is proof that many muslims either cannot think straight or deliberately avoid answering the question.

6 September 2009 at 02:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older