Friday, October 05, 2007

Islam means ‘peace’, or else…

London is being flooded with religious propaganda as an advertising campaign is launched which promotes Islam as a religion of peace. ‘Islam is Peace’ is advertising aggressively on the capital's buses and on the Underground, in order to combat the association of Islam with terrorism. After the London campaign, ‘Islam Is Peace’ intends to launch a nationwide tour in order to combat the ‘fabrications and stereotypes’. It is asserted that ‘prejudice has become entrenched and sensationalistic media reporting is creating a climate of paranoia’. As Sadiq Khan MP states: ‘Islam is a faith whose primary focus is peace and submission to one God. This campaign will help to bust some of the myths about Islam and allow the true face of Islam to reach all parts of our country.’

No, it won’t.

It will take more than a few posters on a few buses and trains to allow ‘the true face of Islam’ to reveal itself from beneath its burkha. And even then, those who gaze upon the visage might find the creature to be somewhat more than two-faced. In truth, Islam is a many-headed hydra: of course there are many who want peace and wish to live in peace; equally so are there many who consider themselves to be at war with everything the West stands for.

The Times has an appallingly naïve post on this development, and highlights the ‘Islam Is Peace’ website, which selectively quotes from the Qur’an in order to make its utterly simplistic points. The target appears to be schoolchildren (of both The Times piece and the website), yet any GCSE student with critical faculties would be able to discern the bias. According to both, ‘the word Islam means peace in Arabic’, but it doesn’t only mean peace, it ‘of course’ means peace. And if you want ‘a more jaundiced view’, The Times helpfully refers you to an evil American site of ‘hatred’ which dares to suggest that Islam means ‘submission’. An appalling suggestion; an outrageous assertion; how dare these hateful Americans pervert the true meaning of the most beautiful word in the world.

Why is The Times peddling this socio-theological candy? Why is Libby Purves propagating this religio-political claptrap?

The word 'Islam' does most definitely mean 'submission' - insofar as any equivalent translation may be rendered of any Semitic language - and the assertion would not be remotely controversial to any literate Muslim. By choosing to associate this etymological fact with ‘hatred’, The Times is not only propagating ignorance; it is stoking ‘Islamophobia’, and undermining the foundations of rational and reasonable debate. That ‘peace’ is the intended consequence of this ‘submission’ is doubtless true, but the submission to Allah is the prerequisite - theologically, spiritually, socially and politically – and it is linguistic and etymological ignorance to assert otherwise.


Blogger Alfie said...

Did you listen to the excellent Radio 4 programme edition of 'File on Four' a couple of months ago.

It was all about honour killings, forced marriages etc in Britain. One of the more shocking stats to come out of the prog was that every single year, up to 250 British asian muslim school girls go missing from the register roll of Bradford schools.

They just disappear, one day they attend school, the next, they are never seen again....

They are apparently sent to Pakistan, India or Bangladesh for arranged marriages (mostly against their will). And what do the local authorities do about it?

Absolutely nothing. It is all hushed up. If a girl fails to turn up the next day, no one says a word.

5 October 2007 at 10:12  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

War is peace.

5 October 2007 at 10:20  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

Islam is jihad (holy WAR)

5 October 2007 at 11:00  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

Therefore Islam is peace.

5 October 2007 at 11:01  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

And a witch weighs the same as a duck.

5 October 2007 at 11:01  
Anonymous najistani said...

It is to be hoped that the 'Islam is Peace' campaigners will take their travelling Taqiyya-fest to Santon Bridge, Wasdale in Cumbria, where they may achieve the recognition they deserve...

"The Wasdale Valley in Cumbria boasts England's deepest lake (Wastwater), highest mountain (Scafell Pike), smallest church (Wasdale Head Church), and the official World's Biggest Liar Competition, arranged by Copeland Borough Council and held at the Bridge Inn.

This unusual distinction was first conferred on the area through the efforts of a Victorian publican - one Will Ritson, who apparently owned a foxhound/golden eagle crossbreed which could leap over even the tallest dry stone walls. So, since the 1970s, the good people of Wasdale have honoured his memory by holding a lying competition.

Entrants are allowed a minimum of two minutes and a maximum of five to demonstrate their economy with the actualité. The use of Cumbrian dialect is permitted, although mechanical aids are not allowed and overseas competitors have to provide their own interpreters if necessary. Politicians and members of the legal profession are barred from entry."

5 October 2007 at 13:02  
Blogger Savage44 said...

Being a fan of Granny Weatherwax, I suspect that a witch weighs exactly what she wants to weigh, and it'd be better for all concerned if no-one wasted time arguing.

I remember having a series of lengthy (also calm and good natured) conversations with a Pakistani Moslem friend, neither of us attempting to convert the other, just exploring the other's beliefs. She explained to me, exactly as stated by the Archbishop, that Islam means submission, and that this is submission to Allah in every aspect of life. The problem that I had with this was that the result of the submission could vary greatly according to the interpretation of the Quran. She agreed with this, but just accepted it as a fact of life and seemed incurious about the differences between various interpretations and the reasons for them. She pointed out, quite rightly, that there are considerable shades of difference in the Christian churches too. But what concerned me more was that when I tried to ask about the motives of Al Quaeda, which seemed to be destroying everyone who didn't agree with them, she said she couldn't give me an answer because her Imam hadn't said anything about it. I concluded that the submission is absolute and unquestioning to anyone in authority and is consequently very dangerous. (We're still friends, incidentally.)

I don't question that there are many Moslems who want peace and will work happily alongside Westerners - my friend being a case in point. But there are also those who most emphatically do not want peace, and trying to conceal that behind a campaign such as this is seriously dishonest. The problem needs to be confronted and resolved if possible, not swept under the carpet or behind pretty posters.

5 October 2007 at 14:52  
Anonymous giles said...

I see that "Islam is Peace" has a 5 point action plan. Point 1 is to "monitor" and fight Islamophobia, whilst point 3 is the standard "address Muslim grievances". None of the 5 points offer anything that the Muslim community will do to root out and fight those in its own ranks who do commit acts of terrorism in the name of Islam. Instead, it's the same old story of heads-in-sand denial and claims of victimisation.

"D" for effort, I'm afraid.

5 October 2007 at 14:57  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


I don't think there is much disagreement between us.

I think you failed to see what I was saying though.

You also failed to see the full implications of what you yourself were saying - namely that the peaceful ones will always submit to the non-peaceful ones.

They all have to go. All. Even the native Brit converts.

5 October 2007 at 15:02  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

You are quite right that Islam means submission. This definition has been reiterated countless times by Muslim pundits in the media and it is interesting that they should wish to change the definition now.

However, even if it didn't and meant 'peace' instead, as does the cognate Hebrew word 'shalom', by their deeds shall they be known.

The day after 7/7 in the Dept of Religions and Theology, Manchester University, a large sign went up, put there by the Head of Department, stating that 'Islam is a religion of peace'.

At the same time, Jewish and American members of staff and students were subject to intimidation and aggression.

Muslim students who, the previous year, had worn the same clothes as other students, now attended classes in burkhas and jilbabs. Some classes in the Jewish Studies programme were disrupted.

Self-censorship came into operation and I for one was challenged in my area of expertise - the Jews in medieval Muslim Spain - by a male student from Pakistan who stated publicly that I was both unclean and female and therefore unfit to discuss Islam.

He was not punished for this and for me, this was the beginning of the end of civilized Britain as we knew it.

No wonder that Muslim terrorism, university boycotts of Israel, media bias against Israel, 'The War Against Britain's Jews' (Channel 4) have all happened.

This latest is just one in an Orwellian chain that does not appear to end.

Something will have to be done if sharia is not to take over the whole country within the next 10 years.

Yes: Islam is a religion of the sword and any behaviour to the contrary is the exception rather than the rule.

5 October 2007 at 15:05  
Anonymous John said...

Once again it seems liberal secularists are re-branding religion to suit themselves.

This just reeks of the whole "winterval" affair. Secularists rebrand Christmas so as not to offend Jews and Muslims. Jews and Muslims are surprised at this, as they didn't give a toss in the first place...

You don't here me complaining about Ramadan. Actually, its nice to see people fasting properly, rather than the happy-trendy-liberal CofE teling us that we should all be just-extra-nice instead!

Anyway, I don't have a problem with Islam at all. At least they have something worth believing in. They can tell Jesus that at least they tried to know God. What will these flippin' secularists be able to say to Him??

5 October 2007 at 17:41  
Anonymous Rob Spear said...

The Peace of the Grave, perhaps.

5 October 2007 at 18:05  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Why is The Times peddling this socio-theological candy? Why is Libby Purves propagating this religio-political claptrap?

Because people like her prefer what makes them look good to the truth. When Enoch Powell lived up to his name and prophesied the consequences of our insane immigration policies, he was smitten hip and thigh by liberals like her. We should not have let an intensely selfish and destructive group of anti-Christian aliens into the United Kingdom -- and that goes for more than just the Muslims. To quote His Grace:

...the revelation comes from the blog of Baroness Julia Neuberger, the Liberal Democrat peer and rabbi. Yet the agenda is not merely reported, but advocated. She states:

It is a very good thing if a Hindu chaplain opens the senate proceedings with prayer.
We are just beginning to try to move away from the only prayers (every day, before proceedings start) in the House of the Lords in the UK being conducted by the Church of England bishops. There is no sign of a move. I cannot comment on church and state divides, but in terms of
having prayers at all, it is a huge improvement to have people of all faiths conducting the prayers from time to time, and it works very well in the Scottish parliament.

5 October 2007 at 18:19  
Anonymous Neo said...

Your Grace,

I sincerely hope you address Sir HM's comments with the necessary integrity and strictness, such primitive proposals have no place on the intellectual blogosphere.

5 October 2007 at 18:54  
Anonymous najistani said...

Sir HM said "They all have to go. All. Even the native Brit converts."

This proposal is most un-PC and is not going to happen.

It is however quite likely that they will get kicked out of one or more European countries in the next few years (Italy and Germany are possibilities), but not out of tolerant Britanistan.

Instead, the displaced continental cultural enrichers will be looking for a new homeland - preferably one with the social security, welfare payments etc to keep them in the manner to which they have become accustomed (they won't be going back to Dar al Islam! ).

Now, I wonder which nation in the EU will gladly welcome hordes of expelled jihad-crazed terrorists and rapists hell-bent on taking bloody revenge on kuffars for their victimhood? Can anyone think of such a country?

5 October 2007 at 19:39  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Neo,

Sir HM has said nothing of any meaning. He appears to understand neither the meaning of peace, nor of jihad, and neither is he acquainted with the mass of a necromancer subject to gravity in relation to that of the anatidae.

5 October 2007 at 19:45  
Anonymous Ultraviolents said...

So this is what Egalitarianism has to do to keep its show on the road. Ignorance is Strength etc.

It resembles Holocaust denial - "The Jews are liars therefore - kill the Jews" (what a conveniant conclusion)

"Islam is peace - we are at war because we are victimised by the West with it's 7/7 9/11 hoaxes therefore - Kill the Kuffar and the Jew dogs."

They're easily as blind as the most insane Neo-Nazis. And they're in power. And they're everywhere.

Islam is Peace. Peace, like a wilderness is Peace.

5 October 2007 at 19:56  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

NEO , i should very much like to see you have a "rational and reasonable debate"with "rage boy"i am sure that you are all familiar with him from the internet, this is the true face of islam,you may flatter yourself with intelect, but when push comes to shove,it is people like you that handicap common sense and cripple every-ones powers of decision by endless appeals to discussion and hoping that you are the last one to be eaten, we must not toy with this dangerous evil ,we must eliminate it as ruthlessly as they seek to eliminate us, they are the same as they always have been,have you not noticed that the west has been fighting them for the last thousand years, and now they have been allowed a bridgehead within our very own shores, they have not come to share our way of life ,they have come to rule us according to thier barbaric "laws",if you wish to live on your knees ,fine leave with them.

5 October 2007 at 20:06  
Anonymous najistani said...

Regarding the Times 'Islam is Peace' taqiyya by Libby Purves ( , I think she is actually taking the p*** in a grim sort of way, because just above the headline is the link 'Christians killed in Nigeria' (, which describes how at least nine Christians were killed, churches were set on fire and businesses and homes destroyed in the Tundun Wada area of Kano State.

The violence is said to have been committed by Buddhist youths after accusations that Christians had blasphemed the Dalai Lama.

5 October 2007 at 20:32  
Blogger Savage44 said...

@ Sir HM: my first paragraph was only building on your post regarding the witch, although your first post figured in my thought process. By a slightly convoluted route through various bits of literature, I managed to go:
- from the witch weighing the same as a duck (I was amused by his Grace's erudite translation of the concept and hope he doesn't mind me replying to you);
- to Terry Pratchett and a non-specific thought of Granny Weatherwax as a witch;
- to 1984 and war = peace;
- to Humpty Dumpty in Through The Looking Glass ("When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.");
- back to Granny Weatherwax and her attitude being that, whatever happened, she was always right and wouldn't be bothered to spend time arguing about it;
- and finally to the Islam Is Peace campaign probably having similar attitudes to both Humpty Dumpty and Granny Weatherwax.

Maybe I should just have said that last bit in my original post, it might have been easier. I humbly apologise for any confusion caused.

I don't agree with your extension of my argument. I know there are Moslems who hate and despise others in the name of this supposedly peaceful religion, and Dr Lancaster has given a first hand account of some appalling treatment. That sort of behaviour is unacceptable in itself, but that the University refused to take any action is truly shameful in my opinion. This only supports the people (the politically correct multiculturalists and secularists as mentioned by John) who bend over backwards not to offend 'anyone' (though Christians and Jews seem to be fair game) and want to hide anything that's even slightly uncomfortable. That way they can pretend that everything is fine when clearly it isn't.

Refusing to look at a problem is never going to solve it.

Perhaps I should simply have said that ducks are irrelevant, it's ostriches we should be considering?

I don't know whether peaceful co-existence with all Moslems will ever be possible or not, but I would like it to be possible to insist that if people come to this country, they must abide by its laws and live peacefully alongside its existing citizens. However, two things are certain in my mind: as long as prominent citizens and newspapers support campaigns like Islam is Peace we'll get no closer to that possibility; and secondly, any attempt to go down your suggested line will make any chance of peace impossible forever.

5 October 2007 at 20:44  
Anonymous Neo said...


If you equate Islam unequivocally with evil then you are reciprocating the very sentiment you profess Muslims to hold; double standards breed flawed theory, something you seem to be oblivious to.

The answer to problems posed by a particular religious or social group is not to unilaterally brand them all a threat to Britain - Muslims are not inherently bad people and it is bigots like you who place toleration of Islam on a par with toying with "dangerous evil" that perpetuate tension and misunderstanding.

5 October 2007 at 21:00  
Anonymous Neo said...

And as for my self-professed intelect [sic], I think it's highly ironic for you to succeed such a statement with the placement of kicking out an entire race from a nation with common sense.

5 October 2007 at 21:06  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


Witch and duck came from Monty Python and the Holy Grail. I was trying to say that you can claim any old nonsense if you manipulate words.

Your Grace

If I am correct in the sense of what you said then you are correct - I do not know the meaning of peace. However, I do know the meaning of jihad.

I say what I say because I do not want the next generation of this country to have to defend themselves from jihad on our own streets. We should do it.

It would be easier for everyone if they just left. Look around the world: every country with large numbers of Mohammedans has conflict. Every country. Does anyone suppose that we will be the exception?

5 October 2007 at 21:41  
Anonymous Neo said...

Yes...France, Denmark, Holland, Sweden, the UAE, they're practically on the brink of recession and downfall due to their large Muslim communities aren't they?

Kick them all out, Islam = disharmony, no?

5 October 2007 at 21:44  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

France - conflict
Denmark - conflict
Sweden - conflict
Netherlands - conflict
UAE - no conflict but no non-Mohammedan citizens either.
Egypt - conflict
Thailand - conflict
Indonesia - conflict
Lebanon - conflict
India - conflict
Nigeria - conflict
Sudan - conflict (I'm not talking about Darfur, either)

Roughly speaking, the only countries where there is no conflict as those where all the citizenry is Mohammedan, or all the citizenry is non-Mohammedan. Mix the two and there is conflict.

Those countries where the vast bulk of the citizenry is Mohammedan, and only a small percentage is non-Mohammedan all have extreme oppression of the non-Mohammedans.

Separationism is the only thing that will prevent jihad on the streets of the non-Mohammedan world, West and East. It's only a matter of when they feel themselves strong enough, that's all.

Try studying the history of Islam - it is nothing but one long story of war against the infidel.

Unlike most who post on Cranmer, and I suspect most who read it too, I could not care a damn about whether or not people think I'm nice and peacefully civilised. I could care a damn about the pros[pects for our upcoming generations.

My military life started at age 15. It ended at age 36 and I thought I would never again have to pick up a gun. I no longer think that. And that saddens me.

5 October 2007 at 22:10  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Sir Hm,

You say the next generation will have to defend themselves on the streets. I must disagree.

This is merely people finding a target for hate and fear in a worryingly Orwellian fashion. Of course we will have Jihads going on in the world but we will not be having an Islam-Christian civil war in the UK, despite what some bigots will have you believe.

5 October 2007 at 22:10  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


Yes we will.

My assertion is every bit as good as yours. Better. Just look around the world and look at history.

5 October 2007 at 22:14  
Anonymous Nothos said...

I assume that by "the world" you mean "the middle east". And the middle east is a very unstable region anyway. The UK and the western world in general are much more stable and the radical movements will not be able to gain enough momentum to be able to cause any large scale trouble

5 October 2007 at 22:29  
Anonymous Neo said...

France - conflict
Denmark - conflict
Sweden - conflict
Netherlands - conflict

WHERE?! I see no mentionable conflict

5 October 2007 at 22:48  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


Ah, Nelson's eye.

5 October 2007 at 22:54  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


Just for starters: India, Indonesia, Thailand, Nigeria, Serbia (that's who Kosovo belongs to)?

How old are you? I need to assess the quality of the geography lessons you were taught at school.

And what about the history of Islam? The imperatives in the Koran and the aHadith?

Please don't say you are yourself a teacher.

5 October 2007 at 22:59  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Sir HM,

And are you actually saying that a the battle in which Nelson lost his eye, which was in 1794 in Sicily was actually as a result of Islam?!

So your logic is that any and all wars are because of Islam, even if Islam has little or no involvement in them?

5 October 2007 at 23:07  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Please excuse the poor use of English in my previous comment.

5 October 2007 at 23:09  
Anonymous Augustine said...

Obviously, whatever Sir HM says, it's the first thing that comes to his arse.

5 October 2007 at 23:22  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

No - seems school didn't teach history very well either.

I was saying that you don't see what you don't want to see.

Nelson at the battle of Copenhagen wanted to attack. Signals from the flagship ordered him not to. Reputedly, he put his telescope to his blind eye and said "I see no signals". And attacked.

5 October 2007 at 23:29  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

And it seems Augustine had no idea what I was on about either.

5 October 2007 at 23:32  
Anonymous Nothos said...

And what do I not see? I'm not seeing bombs going off or daily executions in the west. All I'm seeing is an atmosphere of bigotry which has resulted in innocent deaths all in the name of protecting ourselves from Islam, which is just as bad as Radicals killing innocent people in the name of protecting themselves from the west.

5 October 2007 at 23:46  
Anonymous Sir HM said...



We'll just have to agree to differ. Our definitions of conflict are obviously at variance.

I will be proven correct, in time.

5 October 2007 at 23:54  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

I have no issue with Muslims attacking allied troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, by the way. Was I an Iraqi or an Afghan, that is exactly what I would be doing.

And Islam should know that if it dares kick off here, then British people will do here exactly what Muslims are doing there.

All I really want to do is prevent things getting to that point.

Hence Separationism.

5 October 2007 at 23:59  
Anonymous Nothos said...

That's not a conflict. Occasional radicals trying to "bomb" an airport is just as much a conflict as Communist Party rallies are full-blown revolutions. When we have bombs going off every day, massive loss of life and we're too scared to go anywhere near a bus or a tube station then there will be a conflict.

You're acting as though we've never had terrorist attacks in this country. Look at IRA bombings. There were more of them and they had a higher rate of success.

6 October 2007 at 00:02  
Anonymous najistani said...

Mohammed said "I have been made victorious with terror"
al-Bukhari Vol. 4, Bk 52, No. 220.

Mohammedans regard Mohammed as 'uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil' - the perfect man whose example is to be followed in all things.

Therefore a true Mohammedan is, by definition, a terrorist.

6 October 2007 at 00:03  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

If there is even so much as an argument between a Brit and a Muslim, never mind suicide bombers murdering 52 people on the Tube and buses, then that is UNNECCESSARY conflict. Unneccessary because if they weren't here it wouldn't have happened. Just as if our army wasn't in Iraq then it wouldn't be sustaining those casualties. I don't see why we should have to put up with ANY conflict here.

Separation now.

6 October 2007 at 00:08  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Separation now? Muslims are not cattle that can be put in the back of a truck and shipped out. They have homes, jobs and families, bank accounts, stocks, etc. It's totally unfeasible to move all these people out of the country.

And najistani: The Al-Bukhari is considered under the Qur'an, anything the Qur'an says that contradicts the Al-Bukhari wins, and the Qur'an, just as the bible, says that killing is a sin. Anyone who ignores this is thus cannot be considered a true muslim, the problem is that they get much more media coverage than muslims who are not anti-west.

6 October 2007 at 00:17  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

And if there was separation then this oppressive government wouldn't have any excuse for all the repressive legislation it's enacting, and has enacted.

6 October 2007 at 00:17  
Anonymous Nothos said...

I would've thought you'd love repressive legislation, since it results in innocent muslims being targeted and arrested.

6 October 2007 at 00:25  
Anonymous najistani said...

"and the Qur'an, just as the bible, says that killing is a sin"

Qur'an 9:005: So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...


6 October 2007 at 00:29  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


I really couldn't care less what happens to Muslims. I just don't like bad stuff happening to my own people. Repressive legislation is bad stuff that'll be harder to throw off than Islam will be.

6 October 2007 at 00:33  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Except we are not Idolators, najistani. We are people of the book and the Qur'an says that we People of the Book.

"Verily! Those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in God and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve" Qur'an 2:62

And you make it sound as though ordering the death of Idolators is exclusive to Islam, allow me to quote Exodus 32:27-28:

"And he said unto them, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour. And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men."

6 October 2007 at 00:40  
Anonymous Sir HM said...


Your problem with that is that some of us understnd the rules of abrogation for the Koran.

The Biblical stuff is specific to time and place, but the Koran is claimed to be the immutable word of Allah, unchanged and unchangable for all time.

I'm an atheist anyway. His Grace knows this; and though he would prefer I wasn't he wouldn't dream of chopping my head off for it. Islam would - would dream of it, and would do it.

6 October 2007 at 00:47  
Anonymous Nothos said...

Oh, of course Christianity wouldn't dream of killing those it sees as non-believers.

Except, of course for the Spanish inquisition, witch hunts, burning of Catholics/Protestants at the stake during the reformation (Hello Cranmer!) or even in this day and age we have the Northern Irish Sectarian divide and to a lesser extent the conflict between the UK and the EU over Protestantism Vs. Catholicism.

6 October 2007 at 00:55  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

They are our problems, internal to us, which are for us to settle. Any problems with Islam are imported problems that we are going to have to export.

Anyhow, Christian rivalries are settled in a civilised manner, with words and negotiation. They weren't always, but they are now. We learned. And the inquisition was a long time ago.

How are differences between the various Muslim Sects settled? To this very day? And has it ever been different? The origins of taqiya lie in the necessity for the Shia to protect themselves from the Sunni.

We really are going to have to agree to differ. I'm not going to change you and you aren't going to change me. But don't you find it refreshing that in Cranmer we have a forum where we are expected to express our differnces in a civilised manner? Well, apart from the occasional deviation as evidenced above. Even then, it wasn't me who became intemperate.

6 October 2007 at 01:14  
Anonymous najistani said...

"Except we are not Idolators, najistani. We are people of the book and the Qur'an says that we People of the Book."

So, Nothos, presumably it's OK to behead those who are not 'People of the Book' - Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Atheists, Confucians, Sikhs, Pagans etc etc?

Regarding the rules of abrogation. Why are they necessary? If the Koran is truly the product of a superhuman intellect, rather than the ramblings, rantings and ravings of a psychotic paedophile, why is it so inconsistent and self-contradictory?

6 October 2007 at 08:26  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

And of course, the carbecue is an ongoing problem in France

As it soon will be here too.

6 October 2007 at 09:18  
Blogger defender said...

As a simple man who live amongst the common people of this land, I would like to know how to differentiate between the peaceful muslims and the jihadist? It seems to me and to those like me who are the peasents of this land that the muslims are loyal to Islam first, last and forever otherwise they are not good muslims. How can they then be depended upon to be loyal subjects to the Crown?

6 October 2007 at 10:54  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

Shows how memory can't be relied on:

In my comments above referring to Nelson and the battle of Copenhagen, Nelson had already attacked and the battle was at full pitch. The order he claimed to not see was the order to withdraw.

Forgive me, I was relying on memory from school history lessons that happened more than forty years ago.

The principle of what I was saying remains unchanged.

6 October 2007 at 11:09  
Anonymous Ultraviolents (Postjudiced) said...

The Islamic civilisation is a rival and should never have been here in the first place.

As for 'atmosphere of bigotry', this only proves my aphorism: No matter how despicably non-Westerners behave, the West is always to blame.

Do you know it's okay to be a mass murderer so long as you kill indiscriminately? And even better if you're a member of a designated 'victim group'.

When I have this conversation with people like "Nothos" or with Muslims they always become very angry. Their teeth start flashing, their pupils contract, the expressions become harder and more energetic.

If only they could react like that to the news that we received on the 7th of July 2005. Where people said they were "Shocked but not surprised". Where many people blamed the Iraq War. Or perhaps diseased individual psychology. And where the BBC tried to ban the use of the word "terrorist" as it is a "barrier to understanding". (Which means they are imploring us to join them)

You know if you look at the footage of the 7/7 survivors running out of the tube you will see they have no emotions whatsoever. No anger, no fear - zero affect.

This is what PC has done. It has reduced many people to the level of barbarians prostrating themselves before idols of evil - sacrificing their people on heathen altars - in a dumb attempt to placate a malevolent and uncontrollable universe.

So yes, this is what you have to do to keep the Egalitarian boat afloat. Close your eyes - Ignorance is Strength.

6 October 2007 at 14:32  
Anonymous ultraviolents (Postjudiced) said...

Oh and isn't modern leftism Cosmicist?

Isn't it Environmentalist? It sees man as the bascially good, souless product of his environment?

Nature worship begins in the pleasant dawn and ends in the evening of savagery as the nature worshippers imitate the amoral universe.

6 October 2007 at 14:43  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

It appears that many Muslims have a problem with modernity and this may be the root of the problem. Ironically, my experience since living in Israel and teaching Muslims is that over here they are really interested in other cultures and miles apart from those encountered in teaching and other scenarios in Britain.

One of your posters has intimated that Jews have a problem with Christmas. This is the opposite of the truth. I have been asked to take the Christmas assembly at this school in Jaffa in December and am currently helping to devise the weekly assemblies in any case.

The Dalai Lama cannot be blasphemed, because even if some consider him as 'God', he himself has a most self-deprecatory attitude to himself, which is part of his great charm and success.

If Israelis learned to be half as self-deprecating they would go a long way to convince the rest of the world of their rightness on many matters.

End of sermon.

6 October 2007 at 19:02  
Blogger the doctor said...

Really sorry to lower the tone of this site , but my knife is bigger than his , also he had better know how to use it , I know how to use mine .

6 October 2007 at 19:42  
Anonymous najistani said...

Robert Spencer lifts the lid off this can of memes:

8 October 2007 at 10:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older