Saturday, July 21, 2007

Where is the Muslim outrage?

The Guardian is of the opinion that 'an inability to tolerate Islam contradicts western values'. This may be deemed a little insensitive, coming in the week that a ‘strict Muslim’ father was jailed for life (ie 20 years) for murdering his daughter in an 'honour killing' because she brought ‘shame’ on his family by falling in love with the wrong man. What is 'Islam' and what is 'Islamic'? How is The Guardian defining these terms? Why does it not seek the voice of outrage from those within the 'Islamic' community? And what of the hanging of children in Iran, or the stoning of women and girls, the beheadings, female 'circumcision' and the barbaric mutilation of criminals in other lands? Should all this be tolerated because it is 'Islamic'? Just where is the objecting voice of 'moderate Islam' amidst all of this?

This radio phone-in is a few months old, but it is interesting and worth listening to all the way through. The host, Neal Boortz, is rather hard-hitting, and Cranmer can’t help but feel some sympathy for the polite and mild-mannered Mohammedan who attempts to advocate on behalf of Islam (…incidentally, since when do Mohammedans who are born Mohammedan have names like Will?). The principal fault is Boortz’s tactic of refusing to allow the caller to finish his point, or even make his point. This is a tactic frequently deployed by Mohammedans to silence their opponents, and reason cannot prevail. Nonetheless, the starkness of the truth of ‘Islamic tolerance’ and the bleakness of the reality of the ‘religion of peace’ are evident for all. And there is something refreshingly cathartic about listening to Islamist rhetorical tactics used against the apologists of Islam instead of by them.


Anonymous Dr C. Riyal Kilah said...

Your grace, you forgot to mention that it was necessary to rape the disobedient bint before dispatching her to ensure that she was not a virgin, for as every Muslim knows, women who die as virgins are assured a place in heaven.

I see the Kuffar media are reporting the disruption of another bomb plot by 'Islamic terrorists' in Bristol. (Don't these infidels realise that Gordon Brown (pbuh) has forbidden the use of the term 'Islamic terrorists' and instead we should be referred to as 'non-Buddhist activists'?)

However, do not fear, sooner or later one of these plots will produce a successful result and incinerate the dancing slags and many other equally obnoxious Kuffars.

I accept that we Muslims may not be the sharpest tools in the shed, and that some of our brothers have brains the size of Ayesha's clit, but what do you expect after fifty generations of cousin-marriage? Nevertheless, what we lack in quality we make up for in quantity. There are so many of us involved in such a vast number of plots that some are sure to work sooner or later, on the same principle that if you sit three million monkeys down at typewriters one is sure eventually to write The Koran.

Always remember the definition of a 'Moderate Muslim' - one who is involved in fewer than five bomb plots at any one time.

Brothers and sisters - our day will come!

- Dr C. Riyal Kilah
Ethics Committee
Muslim Medical Malpractitioners Association

21 July 2007 at 14:53  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Whilst the radio host was fairly unequivocal in his opposition to Islamist behaviour and Muslims in general I thought the Armstrong article was bland and tedious.

She has nothing to say, except for the usual anti-Christian platitudes and liberal pap.

Being upset about what is written in the Guardian is the first sign of madness. Surely only ex-crackheads and people who care desperately enough about the Third World to buy fairly-traded Kumquats buy and read the Guardian?

My understanding of the atmosphere in this country is that the Muslim world is on a very short leash. Very few people, including me, are prepared to take any more shit from them. They are not welcome here with the kind of attitudes they so clearly all support.

21 July 2007 at 16:01  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...

It seems to me that there are a number of elements to be disentangled here. First, it seems to me that the radio host is quite wrong to demand of Muslims that they queue up to condemn, in the name of their religion, the acts of al-qaeda. Why should they dignify that organisation by accepting its claims to act in the name of Islam?

Next, we can criticize Islam's treatment of women etc. without at the same time conflating those criticisms with an identification of Islam with terrorism. Boortz makes no such distinction (despite giving himself ample time to do so, at the expense of his interlocutor).

Lastly, the above should not be taken to mean that I am saying that Islam is, in fact, not a religion that encourages or condones violence. I am in no position to comment on that at all, and it seems quite wrong to me when politicians offer such comment - as happens all the time. If Jack Straw, who is neither Muslim nor Christian as far as I am aware, were to comment on whether "true" Christianity considered practicing homosexuality wrong, I would consider his remarks offensive - what business would it be of his to tell me what my religion, the truth of which he denies, says? Similarly, why should Muslims be other than offended by government minister interventions on veils, or the role of women, or interpretation of the Koran?

There certainly does seem to be a group of people to which the secular tag "Muslim" seems entirely appropriately applied, for whom their religion enjoins them to violence. I believe that we should, without fear or favour, call such people "Muslims" and accept that a religious motivation is part of their drive. But they are not the only kind of Muslim, and it is not for other Muslims to speak on their behalf, any more than it is my duty to speak on behalf of Catholics or Pentecostalists.

21 July 2007 at 16:09  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

ARE you not speaking for the muslims?

21 July 2007 at 17:21  
Anonymous Andrew Lilico said...


I make no claim that my remarks represent the views of "true Islam". I might claim that they represent the truth - but that's a quite different matter.

21 July 2007 at 17:55  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Islam is not a religion. it is a politico-religious creed requiring total obedienence viz Submission.....we have met that kind of groupthink before in European history.

It is banal to claim Islam is a religion simply because it lays down how society is to be structured, how taxation policy is to function, building policy, and even the signing of treaties, and how trials are to be conducted, and how burials are to take place.

That is a great deal of temporal detail for a "religion" and coupled with the use of a mosque for non-religious purposes, and in some jurisdictions for ensconcing armed men and explosives; the Western penchant for reasoning by analogy is shown to be deluded.

I had thought however that His Grace was commenting on a 20-year old woman being raped over 120 minutes and murdered in a lingering death before being stuffed in a suitcase and interred in a garden.

The fact that this is not being addressed suggests it is not only Muslims who turn a blind eye to barbarity in their midst and reveal the moral cowardice of people who have nothing to say about primitivism.

Qui tacet consensit

21 July 2007 at 17:59  
Anonymous Sue-American Heartland said...

Neal Boortz started his radio career on local Atlanta radio about 30 years ago. I lived in Atlanta from 1986-2004 and listened to him off and on for most of that time. Love him or hate him - he doesn't suffer fools lightly. He also has the knack for infuriating those who disagree with him, which can many times cause the person on the other end to "scream" back perhaps more truth than they had originally intended.

He did begin his career as an attorney, after all.

22 July 2007 at 02:28  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Andrew, truth is an experience of the soul ,not a conclusion of the brain.

22 July 2007 at 08:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...


On the July 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Neal Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and called "this Muhammad guy [] just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "[i]t is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."

Now recall he is in the Great Britain he would be visited by the Police under section 5 of the 1986 Publi Order Act

viz Public Order Act

This makes it an offence for a person to use "threatening, abusive or insulting words" within the hearing of "a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress" as a result.

The prosecution must also establish that the defendant intended his words to be threatening, abusive or insulting or that he was aware that they may be.

Remember there is no First Amendment in Great Britain and you might wish to contrast a private meeting filmed and broadcast without consent by the BBC to render it a public meeting



This trial is about free speech and if we have free speech, that means even Nick Griffin must be allowed to make his point. If he is found guilty and his condemnation of Islam is ruled illegal, then that would effectively restrict everyone else's right to criticise Islam openly.


There is Fear in Islam and Groupthink - this is what appeals to the Left in its attempt to use Law and Thought Police to control what might be sais or done in this country

22 July 2007 at 09:02  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

'Truth is an experience of the soul, not a conclusion of the brain'

?? Please do explain what you mean Englishman.

22 July 2007 at 10:29  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Surely you cannot be suggesting that we would be better off without any laws at all to curb people's behaviour?

I take it you believe there is a place for Asbo laws and that there should be some restriction on what Muslim clerics are allowed to shout at gullible audiences?

The problem is not the existence of the law. The issue lies in what precisely consitutes threatening and abusive language.

22 July 2007 at 10:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Surely you cannot be suggesting that we would be better off without any laws at all to curb people's behaviour?

You are obviously an extremist who jumps from one polar case to the other. If one upholds Free Speech as in the USA up you pop to say that ios licence and anarchy and should be stopped

22 July 2007 at 11:56  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

I am not an extremist. I am likening the desire to stop yobs shouting obscenities in the street to the desire for laws which prevent abusive language. It is hard to argue against one without arguing against the other.

I am then pointing to the core of the issue which is what exactly constitutes abusive language...what constitutes harm to others. It isn't about me. I support Nick Griffin's right to say the things he has said. I am making a philosophical point.

22 July 2007 at 12:28  
Anonymous Voyager said...

1986 Public Order Act passed November 1986.....January 1989 a book entitled Satanic Verses was burned before the City Hall in Bradford.

The Police took no action with respect to nehaviour likely to breach the peace or to incite disorder.

Mr Iqbal Sacranie stated that death was too easy a punishment for the author of the book.

No police action with respect to incitement.

In 2006, Sir Iqbal Sacranie answered a question on BBC radio saying he thought homosexuality to be wrong, and that civil partnerships were "unacceptable"

He was visited by members of the Thought Police to tell him that under the 1986 Public Order Act his views could make him liable to criminal way of intimating he should not make such comments if he did not wish the Thought Police to visit

Interesting developments for a 20 year old law

22 July 2007 at 13:45  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Who let Muslims into Britain when the majority has always been opposed to mass immigration? Who is still letting them in?

Who brought in the race laws and multi-culturalism that allowed the Muslim Fifth Column to establish itself so firmly here?

Muslims are the symptom of a more serious disease: "liberalism", i.e. crypto-Marxism.

22 July 2007 at 16:19  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Thank you Voyager - That's what I wanted: an argument, and a powerful one at that. But you now seem to be saying that it is not simply the existence of the law which is the problem but rather the arbitrary way in which it is applied. Are you saying that the police ought to have acted in the Satanic Verses scenario, or that they ought not to have acted in the homosexuality scenario?

22 July 2007 at 18:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

When His Grace was being incinerated Edward Coke was 4 years old (1552-1634)- when he became Lord Chief Justice of The King's Bench he had several interesting Opinions

"[T]he common law doth controll Acts of Parliament, and sometimes adjudge them to be void: for when an Act of Parliament is against Common right and reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the Common Law will controll it, and adjudge such Act to be void...." Bonham, 8 Reports 113 b, 118 a (Court of Common Pleas, 1610).

Another which I recall the late -Lord Denning proudly relating was Be ye ever so high, the law is above you

Now selective application of the Public Order Act ina political manner removes the quality of impartial law and makes it arbitrary. To have a system where the Executive applies laws selectively is to remove the protection from one group and to use it to oppress another.

That is what selective application of the Public Order Act does when book-burning - a very serious cultural taboo in Western society....maybe you should recall the comments of the German poet Heinrich Heine:

those who begin with burning books will end by burning people

The Act should have been enforced with vigour against those who burned a book with intent to incite disorder and threat of murder against an author.

Iqbal Sacranie should have been threatened with prosecution.

Nick Griffin made comments in a private closed meeting infiltrated by BBC cameras which broadcast private comments.

The BBC should have been prosecuted under The Public Order Act 1986 and not Nick Griffin

Sir Iqbal Sacranie is perfectly entitled to enunciate fundamental beliefs on homsexuality and civil partnerships without police harassment providing he does not incite violence.

That seems to be a perfectly simple enunciation of principles in a democratic libertarian society and I am shocked that you required such a detailed instruction in how free speech is to be handled snuffleupagus

22 July 2007 at 19:37  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

While I thank you Voyager for indulging me with your detailed explanation (I seem to remember the last time I asked for one, you thought I was on some kind of high horse.) You should know I only seek this from you because you always supply the most extraordinarily informative answers.

But please forgive me when I say that if free speech were perfectly simple, centuries would not have been spent discussing it and the BBC would have indeed been prosecuted.

It would seem then that you believe speech is to be free as long as it does not incite disorder or violence. Had Nick Griffin made his comments publicly, should he then have been prosecuted?

And I do return to my point about it being difficult to determine what exactly incites disorder. Neither am I clear that disorder and violence should be the only things that should curb free speech (as shocking as that may be). According to such criteria, denying the Holocaust would be acceptable. And abusive comments towards any particular person (let's say racist language for instance), should this be allowed as long as it does not incite violence.

I am not sure the debate is simple at all Voyager. But perhaps you will enlighten us?

22 July 2007 at 23:30  
Anonymous Voyager said...

It would seem then that you believe speech is to be free as long as it does not incite disorder or violence. Had Nick Griffin made his comments publicly, should he then have been prosecuted?

Indeed didn't Griffin himself say that in his recorded comments inside the meeting ?

The Public Order Act makes incitement to violence and disorder the criterion for prosecution.

Holocaust denial is not illegal in this country and David Irving publishes books which indicate that view, and you will find Muslim bookshops full of books asserting that no such mass-murder took place at all.

Will laws improve Education ? If we lay down prescriptively what teachers must impart to pupils under threat of criminal sanctions would that really improve historical learning ?

23 July 2007 at 07:50  
Anonymous Voyager said...

(I seem to remember the last time I asked for one, you thought I was on some kind of high horse

I told you what i thought of Livingstone and you disagreed, implying I should convince you.

That is impossible since it is a matter of opinion and your belief in Livingston is an article of faith; a faith I do not share.

23 July 2007 at 07:52  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Voyager - Thanks for clarifying. Yes exactly about Irving and Muslims and I find their writing and speeches very worrying. And I do think that if we had tighter laws on what Muslim clerics could say, we might be safer. But I recognise that one is then entering into dangerous territory with regard to free speech.

As an aside, your comment about teachers assumes that they don't want to teach history as you might see fit. Frankly, most teachers don't think very much and simply teach what they are told to teach. Criminal sanctions are not needed. One need only change the National Curriculum.

Your opinion on Ken came about because of things you have observed him do or say. It is not simply an article of faith. You pay far more attention to political detail than I do and that was what I was seeking.

23 July 2007 at 10:42  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older