Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Baroness Warsi ‘doesn’t even look like a Muslim’

She is deemed to be the most powerful female Muslim in the UK: she is certainly the most powerful Muslim of either gender in the Conservative Party. Her Labour co-religionists have been in no doubt as to why she was elevated to the peerage and promoted straight to the Shadow Cabinet, and they may have a point.

But Baroness Warsi’s walkabout in Luton, during which she was pelted with eggs (haram), is interesting on a number of levels.

Her assailants were all male, and they accused her of not being a ‘proper’ Muslim and of supporting the murder of her fellow Muslims in Afghanistan.

By ‘proper’, of course, they mean she is not concealed beneath a burka, or even a hijab, and she does not agree with their particular interpretation of the Qur’an. One only has to see the arrogant incredulity on the face of the tall bearded one when she mentions ‘the prophet Mohammed’. It is as if she has no right to even utter the name: she is blaspheming by daring to even mention him to male Muslims. And his persistent question ‘Do you represent shari’a?’ was designed to ensnare. They did not want a discussion: there is no debate to be had. For this brand of disreputable Islam, there is one truth and then the sword.

Or the egg.

Politicians are used to being pelted with foodstuffs, splattered with paint, given pies in the face and generally abused. This has been the case for thousands of years. But increasingly in the United Kingdom we are quite literally seeing them threatened with physical violence – even the sword – and one wonders how long it will be before one can only consult one’s MP behind a screen of toughened glass.

When Jack Straw dared to question the burka in Blackburn, he undoubtedly angered some of his constituents. When Ann Cryer in Keighley questioned the treatment of women and children in mosques, she was reviled. When Paul Goodman attempted to calm the Muslims of Wycombe after the plot to bring down transatlantic airliners, he found himself tiptoeing on eggshells.

Baroness Warsi told the BBC that the men were ‘idiots who did not represent the majority of British Muslims’. She said they bring the Islamic faith into disrepute in exactly the same way as Nick Griffin brings Christianity into disrepute.

The problem, of course, is that these ‘idiots’ make the news and so are increasingly perceived to represent, if not the majority of British Muslims, the ‘proper’ interpretation of Islam. The ‘Islamists’ are Muslims following the example of their prophet. Nick Griffin may profess to be a Christian, but the Son of God did not distinguish between races: the gospel does not discriminate. There is no sense in which the misrepresentations of these faiths are ‘exactly the same’.

One of the protesters, Sayful Islam, said they were ‘against everything she stands for’. He said: “She is not a practising Muslim. Clearly by looking at her she does not represent Muslims.”

It is interesting that he purports to be able to judge that Baroness Warsi is not a Muslim ‘clearly by looking at her’.

The irony, of course, is that Baroness Warsi is the Shadow Minister for Community and Social Cohesion, and yet has become one of the most divisive figures in British politics. She is undoubtedly right that she was besieged by a vocal, finger-jabbing minority, but it is naïve to pretend that there are not thousands of British Muslims who agree with them. Of course, there are also thousands who do not, but they are increasingly silenced, cowed, intimidated by the ‘proper’ Muslims for fear that they too might be ‘pelted with eggs’ if they dare to challenge the ascendant Islamist Wahhabi orthodoxy.

The Bury Park area of Luton has its own madrassa, an Islamic primary school and shops selling halal meat and Asian clothes. The Daily Mail reports that when a Mecca Bingo Hall opened, ‘its windows were smashed after some Muslims claimed the neon “Mecca” sign insulted their religion because it associated the name of their holy city with gambling. Advertising hoardings featuring women deemed to be showing too much flesh have also been defaced’.

And it is apparent that the area is fast becoming what the former Bishop of Rochester termed a ‘Muslim ghetto’, with a campaign of ‘ethnic’ cleansing (for those who can tell a Muslim ‘clearly by looking at them’). ‘Over the past 18 months or so, around 30 non-Muslim homes have been attacked. One white couple in their 80s had bricks hurled through their front window. A West Indian woman in her 70s was watching TV when a metal beer keg crashed through her bay window. The culprits have never been caught, but the victims are in no doubt that they were targeted by a small group of religious extremists who want all non-Muslims out of Bury Park.'

Islamists extremism may not be cohesive or coherent; it may not be unified or organised. But it is well established, deeply-rooted, and spreading like a cancer through some regions of the United Kingdom. Its adherents glorify terrorism, exhort suicide bombers and preach hatred for the kuffar. They are the ones who say: “When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I felt elated.” They are the gravest threat to the peace and security of the Realm: they are the ‘enemy within’.

And Cranmer would like to point out that the kuffar to these vile people includes apostates: any Muslim who does not support their views; Muslims like Baroness Warsi, because ‘her stance on terrorism, Afghanistan and Iraq shows she can't represent Muslims.' According to Abdulrahman Muslim, a community youth worker (God help us), ‘Many Muslims are angry with Baroness Warsi for abandoning our traditions and culture.’ He continued: “She claims she supports Muslim people, but she's a hypocrite. She doesn't even look like a Muslim. If she comes back to Luton I hope she gets the same treatment.”

She doesn’t even look like a Muslim.

These men undoubtedly do.

But they do not behave as Muslims are supposed to.

At least in the Qur’an according to Baroness Warsi.


Blogger Sue said...

Baroness Warsi has my admiration. What courage!

These "gentlemen" would love to see women in chains and everyone converting to their interpretation of Islam.

They are obviously not happy living in the UK. I suggest they move to another country more suited to their strict way of life and leave us in peace.

2 December 2009 at 10:18  
Blogger Ian said...

Baroness Warsi while having my sympathy, is attempting to mislead us with her mistaken views about Islam and the 'faith' being brought into disrepute. (Much like her boss over Europe).

Unfortunately the people responsible for egging her, are in reality, more representative of Islam than any mistaken perception of what a moderate muslim maybe.

The more moderate the muslim, the more frowned they upon they are within the real tenets of their faith.

2 December 2009 at 10:37  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Aggressive young men blinded by religious zeal....sad and makes me despair!

2 December 2009 at 10:40  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

Nice video, difficult not to enjoy it even though the Anti Christ is pleased with the Warsi woman, she helps his agenda no end. But even the Anti Christ has had a wee chuckle over this one - I nearly choked on my coffee, and although the word EGG leaped from my mouth, I did manage to prevent the words 'THE BITCH' from escaping into the room and thus decloaking some deeply held beliefs that would not please the Master at all.

2 December 2009 at 10:56  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

Just one minor point of observation though. Neither Nick Griffin, or any BNP member would feel the urge to EGG fellow Christians of a less/more fundamental position. Interesting to see the instinct to involve the BNP in something totally unrelated though. It's all Nick Griffin's fault for warning everyone about this. It gets harder and harder to make this shit edible. But do continue with the efforts, I am more than curious as to where this is going.

2 December 2009 at 11:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Part 1 (of 2)

One of the protestors said that they were ‘against everything she stands for’. That must imply everything the free West stands for: equality before the law; the rule of law; freedom; security; liberty; democracy; free trade; the arts; nation-hood (the idea of the Caliphate like the EU is against nation-hood).

But why have a small fraction of Muslim youth become consistent Mohammedans? You did not have this phenomenon in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s and 1990s (when there is clear evidence to suggest that Muslims were being abused by the far Right).

What conditions or paradigms have changed to facilitate this?

The first is that within our universities, since the 1960s, Left-liberalism has gained the ascendancy and it has taught two ideas: scepticism, a questioning of all things based upon materialist assumptions; and ‘equality’, that all beliefs that it admits into its status zone should be seen as the same (all religions are the same, for example).

The rise of Left-liberalism required the destruction of faith. For example, it was an article of faith that the family is the basic building block of society and Christianity embodied objective truth.

The ideas and methods of Left-liberalism were carried by post-graduates into such institutions as Parliament and transposed into law; for example the Human Rights Act 1998.

New Labour was the propagator of this Left-liberalism. In the Spectator magazine (11 October 2006 edition (online)) in an article titled ‘Cameron’s substance is nonsense’, David Miliband made a number of candid statements:

‘New Labour has given modern intellectual expression to the idea of social justice. I remember when the change really started, because I was there. The late Sir Bernard Williams guided the Social Justice Commission through a debate in the winter of 1992 about what we meant by social justice. He constructed a hierarchy of four ideas that together have, implicitly or explicitly, come to define the values of modern progressive politics. Everyone should have equal legal and political rights; basic needs should be met as the foundation of citizenship with responsibilities assumed in return; equal opportunity, a far more radical concept than people realise, should be the policy lodestar;…’


‘In the end any Conservative party worth its salt has to dispute the core propositions of social justice. The reason is simple. As Friedrich Hayek explained very clearly 50 years ago, once you admit that social justice is the central purpose of political and moral life, then you are damned to a slippery slope of collective action that is contrary to a world view based on personal freedom.’

2 December 2009 at 11:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Part 2

In other words the State will damn Britain to ‘equality’.

By the first decade of the 21st Century New Labour attacked Christianity, through legislation, to cut it down in size so that it would be merely another belief that had the same status as say, Buddhism and (or) belief in sexual equality.

Muslim youth had already, by the scepticism of Left-liberal education, been stripped of a world of objective meaning – they therefore went in search of objective meaning upon graduation. They did not turn to Christianity for in their minds it was associated with the Far Right. Instead, they turned to Islam.

They discovered that Christianity was losing its status and at the same time Left-liberalism said that Islam was equal in status to Christianity. They then took the next step on the journey: Islam is superior.

The collapse of Christianity’s status was abhorrent to nature; it created a vacuum: that vacuum in Muslim minds was filled with Islam. They had found their identity, meaning and status in the now and tomorrow. The great social function that dominant Christianity had performed for social cohesion was that Muslims constructed an identity by using, unwittingly, Christianity as a monolithic reference point as to who and what they were. Islam (and therefore Muslims) was second to Christianity.

When the first Gulf War started Muslims had increasing access to the Internet. The material on the Internet, after thousands of hours viewing, radicalised Muslim youth.

The conclusion is, radical Islam in Britain is a product, paradoxically, of Left-liberal thought.

2 December 2009 at 11:07  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I am sick to death of reading about this kind of outrageous behaviour by radical Muslims. It is an utter disgrace that there is ethnic cleansing going on in the Uk, unbelievably against the very people who belong here. The fact that this is just the same thing being repeated yet again makes it all the more deplorable. WHY DO WE PUT UP WITH IT!!
You cannot turn the other cheek with these animals as they see it as weakness and exploit it. Personally I would like to see them rounded up and given the choice of leaving or being shot. The problem is that this country is led by cowards, self serving cowards.

2 December 2009 at 11:09  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2 December 2009 at 11:23  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

There is no discussion, no debate possible, with the closed minds and hard hearts of these Islamic colonists. Their clear intention is the imposition of an Islamic state with its brutal tyranny and harsh legal system. These extremists are intransigent; realistically there is no possibility of their integration into society. Can this 'cancer' be halted by the 'chemotherapy' of containment? It probably depends on how widespread it is. If it can't be contained it needs to be 'surgically removed' before it kills the patient.

There should be no ethnic cleansing and ghetto creation allowed here. The Government has a responsibility to protect all its citizens. Something has to be done. Bury Park would be a good place to draw the line.

2 December 2009 at 11:35  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I am grateful to his Grace for clarifying exactly what these ruffians said to the Lady Warsi. All I could see and hear was the baying mob, ready to shout down anything, which was said to them.

How can you criticise some one for not looking like you belong to a particular religion?

I appreciate that some people do not have much time for Warsi, but to my mind she is rising up to the challenge no end; it must surely take a lot of courage to stand in front of these people and disagree with them.

2 December 2009 at 11:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh
I too have wondered what happened in the univerisities including Oxbridge, & including by stealth.
"Equality" as now praeached in not the social justice of the bible. I think as Christians we should promote access to law for all & oppressions for none in the country. However noone can or should legislate out all inequities or biases out of society. Some Fabians & communitarians are rich - why? Some things cannot be proved or enacted fairly & should not be legislated - the more powerful will win such cases & the overall result will be inequity. Freedom of conscience and the like should be protected. Men & women are different, though they have things in common as people. One problem I see is society's focusing on equalising people - making them the same, & also over-emphasis on money & materialism. There will always be differeences in opportunity & wealth in democratic societies. What I find unbiblical from some of the left & right is the human tendency to judge success by station in life. Life is like an obstacle course. God will judge us by what we did with what we had ie talents(including those which don't create wealth in society) given opportunities, setbacks & obstacles we faced given our personal strengths & weakness of personality and mind and body as well as our mistakes and sins, and given the support we had. We can't equalise everything without sinful control & disrespect to property and personal rights, and such control is sinful & oppressive, and the power given to the enforcers will tend to corrupt them. Where genuine crimes & disputes happen, it is often better to litigate the offences, not the discrimination behind them which is harder to prove. I also believe in not trying to legislate or litigate every dispute. Dealing with stigma is important - though I dislike social engineering. What happened to forgiveness or mercy? I personally support help & education & opportunities for all, but not left or right-wing forms of totalitarianism. I have been severly hurt by genuine discrimination & crimes, so I don't say this lightly.

2 December 2009 at 11:41  
Blogger Ingenieur said...

It is really so obvious! The only people who cannot see it are those who do not want to see it.

There are two faces to islam.

The first is based on the utterances of mo when he was in a weak and powerless position.

The second is based on what he said and did when he had power over his rivals.

Gullible westerners are presentd with the first, because it helps to persuade them that islam is "a religion of peace". But anywhere muslims are in a strong-enough position to get away with it they act upon the second.

Notice also how many cowardly politicians (like man-of Straw) are anxious and willing to be deceived by "taqiyah" - the prophet-endorsed principle that it is OK to make solemn and binding agreements with the enemies of islam, and then break them when it suits you, if it will further the cause of islam.

2 December 2009 at 11:45  
Anonymous Dobryden said...

I wonder if viewing this video is the kind of 'education' that Andreas Gross, president of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, had in mind when he said the Swiss vote to ban minarets was, "... clearly the result of a lack of information and political education in Switzerland."
Perhaps Gross [what a delightful name] should make it available to Swiss citizens through an EU subsidy? I'm sure everyone will see how mistaken they were about how they voted.

2 December 2009 at 11:49  
Blogger Dave H said...

"...threatened with physical violence – even the sword..."

There is some irony here. I saw the name Sayful Islam in another 'paper' this morning, along with its translation:

The Sword of Islam.

2 December 2009 at 12:00  
Anonymous Etienne said...

I read a comment on the Old Holborn blog a few days back (re the Swiss Minaret token gesture) to the end that 'we haven't rejected one load of old fundamentalist rubbish (Christianity) only to swallow another (Islam).

AH, the liberal lefties might think that, but they malke the mistake of only seeing things through the eyes of their narrow world view, which they mistakenly call 'rationalism'. And in any event, it is not a matter of an impenitent, amoral, selfish, entertainment-obsesed, Christ-rejecting Britain swallowing Islam, but being swallowed by it.

And serve us right. Did they think that a just Deity would just ignore the blood of 7 million aborted children?

2 December 2009 at 12:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The difficulty with my analysis above is that it points to the need for Christianity to become dominant once more in this country. But in our present hostile to Christianity culture that appears impractical. That means in order to control the resulting disorder that is a symptom of Left-liberal thought, the State has to step in with more laws (as New Labour have done).

Again, at the risk of repetition, the paradox is that the implementation of Left-liberal thought inevitably leads to government becoming more and more authoritarian: as New Labour have proved (identity cards and the EU’s implementation of EU wide personal database).

The choice is clear: either the benefits of Chrsitianity or more authoritarianism.

2 December 2009 at 12:39  
Anonymous Soldier said...

Excellent article. As a newcomer to Your Grace's blog I find myself agreeing totally with your sentiments and stimulated by the intelligent comments.

Baroness Warsi is to be commended for her bravery in consistently standing up to these people and I do not doubt her sincerety.

In spite of her best efforts though, I do not think she represents a significant section of the British muslim community ( I would not like to guess the exact percentage) and I sympathise with the points made previously by Knighthawk and Ingenieur.

2 December 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger srizals said...

A disgrace indeed, Muslims that think they are Muslims by being heartless and rude. Keep up the good work nerds.

p.s.- To all Muslims, do read up here and there or consult someone, or at least pause to think before doing something stupid, ever. I hope the length of their beards measure up to their thinking abilities. Showing you're a Muslim by being aggressive sure do helps a lot, I mean, your enemy and shying away the good and the sane. Thanks again, nincompoops.

2 December 2009 at 13:13  
Blogger F.G.S.A said...

D. Singh

pertinent analysis. Not surprising if you remember that radical leftist groups like the Baader-Meinhof Gang or Red Army Faction in West Germany, the Action Directe Gang in France and others, in the 1960's-1970's, aided, funded and actively helped in many other ways the OLP, and other islamist terrorist groups. Also notice how the French Socialist Party is always cosying up to Muslims of all stripes. The left is the left whether it claims to be liberal or militant. And its relationship with radical Islam or Islam tout court is not going to stop today.

2 December 2009 at 13:21  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

I am not sure what point Cranmer is actually trying to make here - apart from possibly trying to to whip up a little bit of hatred. All religions from time to time have had their bigots - they just seem to vary in their time and location. And as a "Left Liberal" - all I can say is that eternal and consistent vigilance is needed against all such bigotry.

As for D Singh's analysis I don't really have the time or inclination to enter into a jelly wrestling tournament - but I would like to add the observation that "left -liberalism" is not really the monolith that he portrays and actually contains a multitude of different views, values, visions and analyses. In fact, don't us Lefties usually attract a fair degree of humour because of the arcane discussions which we have about our divergent views.

If D Singh decides to actually look he will find Left Liberals include represenatives of the major world religions - as well as atheists and agnostics (like myself) who have no problems in sharing values with Christianity and other religions, although some of us may have reached those values by upbringing, rational thought or some process other than faith. You should remember that the British Labour Party owes more to Methodism than Marxism.

BTW re
"The rise of Left-liberalism required the destruction of faith. For example, it was an article of faith that the family is the basic building block of society and Christianity embodied objective truth."

I thought "faith" was meant to be a believe that something was the "truth" without the need for objective evidence.

2 December 2009 at 13:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps putting up a sign for a Mecca Bingo Hall in a Moslem area is just a little tasteless or just on a par with opening a "Blood of Christ" off licence next to St Pauls.

2 December 2009 at 13:34  
Anonymous blood of christ off licences said...

Absolutely right - nothing tasteless about opening a Mecca Bingo Hall in a Moslem area.

Will you support my application to open a new branch next to St Pauls?

2 December 2009 at 13:37  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
It is interesting that some of her persecutors claim that Baroness Warsi doesn't 'look like a Muslim' so what does a Muslim 'Look' like? Well if the video footage is to be believed a baying mob of bearded young Asian men who shout people down & have a bombastic, superior, patronising attitude to any woman who does not fall down at their feet & invite them to use her as a doormat. On its own this is a bad advert for Islam with its scornful chauvinistic attitude, although one can understand its appeal to a small group of immature, insecure young men.
This howling mob also brings under scrutiny the reasons for Brown & Co's insistence on I.D cards being imperative to halting terrorism when obviously the 'enemy' are already within the gates.
Ingenieur also mentions 'taqiyah' or 'taqiyya' as I have seen it spelt, perhaps the arrogance of these young men is a blessing in disguise, by attacking elderly 'non' Muslims & getting away with it, they feel they no longer have to resort to this deception, but the rest of society should tread carefully.
Without doubt there are good peace loving Muslim people out there as demonstrated by Baroness Warsi herself, I have met many, but the Islamic community must take responsibility for its rebels & be prepared to integrate into society. Differences will always remain but genocide & domination will eventually destroy us all.

2 December 2009 at 13:38  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

But that isn't how Singh sees leftist leanings or liberalism.

He just sees it as something else that he doesn't believe, therefore by his logic it is bad and should be hated. But he doesn't need to change his mind because he has "faith" that he is always correct.

What a sad little hate filled faith based life he leads.

2 December 2009 at 13:41  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"I am not sure what point Cranmer is actually trying to make here..."

Never mind. It is quite obviously beyond you.

2 December 2009 at 13:41  
Blogger srizals said...

Blogger Ingenieur said...

"It is really so obvious! The only people who cannot see it are those who do not want to see it".

Such a hasty words coming from a nasty thinking chap that talk about something based on nothing.

2 December 2009 at 13:44  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

I like Baroness Warsi. She first came into the public eye when she intervened to get the teacher released in the mohammed teddybear fiasco in the Sudan. This latest incident shows she is brave as well. At the risk of introducing unwanted levity into a serious discussion I think she is a 'good egg'.

Her opponents say she doesn't look like a muslim. Unfortunately they certainly do look like the public perception of a muslim: bearded, intimidating, aggressive and violent - a persona which the islamists have created step by step over the last ten years.

BTW BOCOL How do you know there ain't a Mecca bingo hall in Mecca? Perhaps the Islamists were protesting against misuse of a trade mark.

2 December 2009 at 13:45  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

I have to say that it pleases me that there are no solutions being suggested, as usual. There is only one thing that amuses me more than having to listen to Liberalists condemning everything that is terrible as terrible, and celebrating everything that is good as good while avoiding everything in between, and that is listening to the sheeple complaining and pointing out the bleeding obvious as if this is some kind of solution in it's own right.

You guys are funny.

D.Singh is very interesting here today though and there is almost a whiff of a solution being put forward, but I think we both know the impossibilities of any likelihood of any solution but the end of the world as we know it/knew it.

2 December 2009 at 13:52  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

What was that? What would be my solution? Well. the evidence points to one overwhelmingly obvious conclusion: Make them all barons and Baronesses and pay them huge tracts of cash - dah dah!

Oh and encourage them to make operas - lucrative ones about highly sensitive things like the BNP

2 December 2009 at 14:19  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

I too am left wondering what your point is here, but I can assure you, if you had one, it would not be beyond me.

Why mention the BNP when they had nothing to do with this? Why imply that Nick Griffin is a Christian, when he openly states that he is not, only that he agrees with truths contained in the Bible concerning morality and that the cultures that Christianity has produced are superior to others and should be protected? Not concerned that the BNP are removing votes by the handful from the Cons, are we?

In a religion which does have a dress code for women (and men, incidentally) it is a simple thing to decide if a person is complying with that code, just by looking at them. Please don't try to come back with 'the Koran does not make this stipulation' because a muslim's 'faith' is subject to other things such as writings, fatwas and edicts from clerics, in the same way that a Catholic does not ignore what the Pope says when he comes out with something that is either not in the Bible or contradicts some previous teaching.

That you are a fan of the liar Cameron is your business. That you wish to see him elected to continue the insane policies the duopoly of power has enacted over the last 60 years is also your business. That you use a blog to try and further the cause of Conservatism is, once again, your business. That you appear set on using the same tactics that Nulab have perfected to achieve these ends, namely smear, insinuation, sarcasm and misdirection is now my business, as you seem to try to do these things with a (very) thin veneer of Christianity to smooth things over.

If you really are Christian, nail your colours to the mast. Make a stand against the Islamic invasion of Christian Europe, speak out against this idolatry in all it's forms, in a crystal clear fashion. Islam and Christianity are completely incompatible, as is Islam and democracy.

Moderate Islam is as ridiculous an oxymoron as moderate Nazism. Your promotion of this myth is not only against scripture, sense and reason, it is dangerous, as events past, present and future will undoubtedly show.

2 December 2009 at 14:24  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

For every Muslim in that mob there will be maybe 5-10,000 who feel exactly the same way but are smart enough to conceal their lust for Shariah until the time is right.

The way our Dhimmi governments in the West have been sliding into submission makes me feel quite assured this day is not too far from now.

2 December 2009 at 14:31  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

English Viking

BNP bashing pays huge dividends. All the ground work of instilling fear has already been achieved and all that remains open is for any half decent entrepreneurial minded capitalist to, well, capitalise.

2 December 2009 at 14:32  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

A true capitalist will stand poised before the proverbial needle with 20 camels, and he will add to the herd another 10 at the first opportunity, it's just another human defect that cannot be rationally explained.

I think back to the words of Benazir Bhutto who said that each setback was simply another opportunity. Her last set back was an opportunity to die which she exploited to the full potential. There are as many ways to commit suicide as there are to skin a cat, to some, it's just an alluring power that cannot be defeated.

2 December 2009 at 14:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner

‘How can you expect a man who’s warm to understand one who’s cold?’

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (1962)

2 December 2009 at 14:49  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

If you had bothered to watch the video, you would have learned that it was Baroness Warsi who mentioned the BNP and Nick Griffin. His Grace is not remotely concerned with what you suggest.

2 December 2009 at 14:50  
Anonymous father dowling said...

English Viking is just an out and out BNP supporter. If it wasn't the muslims it would be the Jews or commies or some other group. Not sure where the Christian gospel of love comes into it, but some people use their religion to fit their own world views.

2 December 2009 at 14:58  
Anonymous Ted Heath, English Hero said...

I am sure that these religious /racial matters can be best dealt with at the European and not the provincial level.

2 December 2009 at 15:00  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

In the run-up to a General Election, due to take place some time before June next year, the oligarchy that runs Britain clearly sees its citizens as an alien breed, a race apart, who must be therapeutically weaned off their irrational fears and hatred. The contempt with which New Labour rulers utter the words ‘traditional communities’ and ‘white enclaves’ illustrates their estrangement from those who still make up the majority of British voters: the white working classes. These people seem so inscrutable to our political rulers, so peculiar, that the elite genuinely fears that they might become part of that most foreign creed, against which modern, postwar Britain has defined itself: fascism.

Denham’s initiative gives an insight into how today’s political class chooses to interact with the masses: not in terms of democratic political engagement, but in the language of anthropology. For the political caste, the mass of voters – ‘ordinary voters’, that is, rather than the more erudite, middle-class voters who make up the consumer activists and issue advocates inside the political tent – are a weird tribe to be prodded and studied, massaged and managed. They are not there to be represented (their alleged views must be extinguished rather than taken seriously) or to be engaged with as adults (their fertile minds have been far too warped for serious discussion) but rather to be re-educated, reassured, remade as sedate, obedient citizens.

Full Article. (WARNING if your head is in the sand, do not read - seek medical advice first).

2 December 2009 at 15:01  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And what pray tell is the good Father Dowling's world view, that he condemns that of others while offering nothing as an alternative except the half baked and the psychotic?

2 December 2009 at 15:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Tory Boys Never Grow Up

‘As for D Singh's analysis I don't really have the time or inclination to enter into a jelly wrestling tournament - but I would like to add the observation that "left -liberalism" is not really the monolith that he portrays and actually contains a multitude of different views, values, visions and analyses. In fact, don't us Lefties usually attract a fair degree of humour because of the arcane discussions which we have about our divergent views.’

Och! You silly socialist. Did Miss never teach you about the concept of the ‘Lowest Common Denominator’?

For example, ‘us Lefties usually attract a fair degree of humour because of the arcane discussions which we have about our divergent views.’

The ‘Lowest Common Denominator’ here being the ‘arcaneness’ of your discussions.

2 December 2009 at 15:23  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

You're doing just what I accused you of earlier, namely misdirecting and casting aspersions. You claim I cannot 'be bothered' to watch video. You repeated the mention of the BNP and implied that Nick Griffin was claiming to be a Christian. That you are not interested in, nor have a response to, a rebuke from a Christian is hardly surprising.

@ father dowling.

I am not a BNP supporter, but even if I were your objection to my exercise of my democratic right to support them is hardly in-keeping with your 'wow man, peace and love, man' version of the Gospel, is it? When you can't argue the point, just attack the man.

BTW The Jews are great, after all my Lord and Saviour is King of the Jews and their armed forces are fighting a front line which has already begun to spread in this direction, and might just cause enough trouble to bring you down from your cloud of self-righteousness. You did get one thing right though (it is difficult to be wrong all the time). I don't like Communism, nor those communists who wish to inflict their mental illness upon me.

2 December 2009 at 15:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It does show sadly the trouble we are heading for in the future, I saw the faces in a March not long ago when the Muslim hit squad moved out face covered banners raging death to everyone from Blair brown to Cameron to white people, sadly it makes no senses at all.

2 December 2009 at 15:52  
Anonymous Father Dowling said...

In that case I do apologise to English Viking on casting incorrect aspersions on his good person.

BTW : 'wow man, peace and love, man'

2 December 2009 at 16:05  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Brings a whole new meaning to free range.

2 December 2009 at 16:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Father Dowling,

Cosmic, dude.

2 December 2009 at 16:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

That elephant in the room is trumpeting very loudly now. And here is Baroness Warsi, on the receiving end of the hatred, trying to polish the industrial strength turds in the name of community cohesion.

You couldn't make it up...

2 December 2009 at 16:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I don't believe this! Why has peace broken out on this battle field?

what is this love and peace business? Why isn't there a whole loada hollering, rootin', tootin' an' a fightin' going on?

What is the matter with people? You're suppose to be soldiers!


2 December 2009 at 16:40  
Blogger Angus Twelvetrees Hudson said...

It's the same old story- these people wouldn't be able to do what they did in their own country. They would probably be put in jail or have their hands chopped off if they showed any dissent.

I can only think that more is not said to combat this religion because the PC brigade are desperatly trying to keep their PC/Gay/Muslim/Unionised working class coalition together.

If you say anything against them you are a racist. Rubbish. These PC people confuse religion with an ethnic background. A Pakistani or an India can be a Christian, but that is lost on the PC brigade.

2 December 2009 at 16:43  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

Hooray, hooray! Cranny, you said, '...she is not concealed beneath a burka, or even a hijab...'

You did not use the irritating, unnecessary and almost universal definite article to refer to these items of clothing. Almost everybody else talks about Moslem women wearing 'the burka' or 'the hijab'. It would be extremely odd if we were to say, 'Here comes a man, wearing the suit,' or, 'Today, I shall wear the tie,' or, 'I notice that the man calling himself Cranmer does not wear the surplice.'

So well done, boss; you've gone up several notches in my esteem by puncturing the smug self-importance of people who insist on describing bits of cloth in such an un-English manner.

2 December 2009 at 16:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Some of you are thinking you won't fight. Others, that you can't fight. They all say that until they're out there. [Picks up a sword] Thrust this into another man's chest, and the crowd will applaud and love you for it. In time, you may even begin to love them for that. Ultimately, we're all dead men. Sadly, we cannot choose how, but … we can decide how we meet that end in order that we are remembered … as men.


2 December 2009 at 16:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where were the police? If they were there, why do they think the tax payer provides them with truncheons?

2 December 2009 at 16:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D.Singh, you seem to actually desire a fight?

2 December 2009 at 17:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...


As a child - they made me bend my knees - and worship war.

2 December 2009 at 17:33  
Anonymous Timidicus said...

Anon 16:57
"Where were the police?"

I am told that two PC's turned up when the fun was over. The rest were probably on a diversity course learning to be PC PC's. Apparently this is necessary qualification although a mere 20%
of Lutons population is moslem.

2 December 2009 at 17:43  
Anonymous Pat said...

Well at least when we do decide to do something about them it'll be easy to tell the troublesome Muslims from the rest- just as they can tell each other by their dress.

2 December 2009 at 18:44  
Anonymous Ol d Grumpy said...

@anonymous 13.04

Actually, good Sir, I'd suggest a more appropriate comparison would be to put up a sign advertizing "Jerusalem bingo."

That being the case, no probs, mate.

I would think that most Christians could cope with that.

Not quite the same level of religious zeal, maybe? Doubt if they'd have bricks through the window, either.

2 December 2009 at 18:44  
Anonymous Hank Petram said...

@ Anabaptist (today at 16:43)

And if you take off all the bits of cloth, will you be in a nude?

I'd never noticed before that trick with the definite article. I'll keep an eye out for it in future. (In the future?)

2 December 2009 at 18:47  
Anonymous Anabaptist said...

@Hank Petram (18:47)

Mr Hank, I'm not actually opposed to all uses of the definite article, you know. Only those un-English examples which seem to have the aim of deference to articles of Islamic clothing. Just look out for it, as you say you will, and you'll find it happening over and over again.

2 December 2009 at 19:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's an Islamist set up to make Warsi look acceptable -- nothing else. After all, being pelted by eggs looks good (at least to those who are easily bamboozled)

Sayful Islam and Warsi are birds of a feather and have more in common than you think... look at what Warsi has done so far, not at what she attempts to claim she is.

Warsi clearly is an Islamist plant in the Conservative party, and I'm very surprised that the good Archbishop is so uninformed and naive on this issue.

Also see here:

Statement by the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom on the Appointment of Sayeeda Warsi, as Shadow Minister for Community Cohesion

Also, a short session with Google should leave you all in no doubt of what kind of person you're dealing with here.

Wishful thinking is not going to change reality...

2 December 2009 at 20:51  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

Me and the Boss have been amusing ourselves with this business of 'brining the faith into disrepute'. It has us tickled how one man can attract such a large focus upon the subject when on a scale of one to ten, peadophile priests seem to be immune from any such hysteria. Where are the eggs for kiddyfiddling priests? Where are the ex Archbishop's irrideemably evil condemnations, and call to arms for Chritian unity against such?

We do love this purpose-driven propaganda-targeted fear business.

A toast to human moronic stupidity!

2 December 2009 at 21:15  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Me - I sympathise with the eggs and the poor deprived chickens. This female and her alleged assailants can sort each other out, though I wish they'd do it somewhere else.

Furthermore, if she likes german-sounding titles, that's certainly her prerogative. Just don't expect me to be impressed.

2 December 2009 at 21:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I know Luton and it is predominantly Muslim. M&S was picketed by them in protest of their size 16 women ad’s. You couldn’t get in the store one day. Nearby Hitchin a beautiful Olde English market town has also got a growing Muslim population and although not all extremists, they are very pushy in my experience. The moderate Muslims also harass and badger people out of their homes especially if they are elderly or weakened in some way

The Muslim population is worse than “Japanese knotweed” being fed and watered by Labour. I was astonished to find out the freehold of a community centre in my home town in South Wales was sold off by the Labour council for a mere £100 to Muslims, who after some refurbishments for which they received a grant, money came from the European Union, have now established it as their local mosque. And that there are now enough followers in this Welsh town which has always treated strangers with a friendly suspicion, displaying a protectiveness towards their own, is even more frightening. Many of the lovely large 4 bed Victorian tce’s in the town centre are being populated by Muslim families each with enough children to have their own football team. In fact they have set up a football team for 16 to 24 year old Bengali boys other nationalities can join them they say.

So what worries me is David Cameron’s plan to sell disused community centres to the public to take pride in and use for the general benefit of their communities which on the surface is a good plan, but what if most of them are bought up by the local Muslims? That would only be benefiting one section of the community. Once they get a proper foothold they don’t want to share it with other religions’ activities. They say that it has to be used throughout the whole of Ramadan so they will not be able to share a community centre. Why is it when we cannot even take so much as a Bible to one of their countries they have to establish a permanent root here and choke us out.

2 December 2009 at 21:35  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

There was no reason why that Baroness should bring the BNP into it. She took it as an opportunity to make sure that she established a link in people’s minds that the BNP are similar to the Muslim extremists that pelted her. But in fact this is far from the truth. It showed me that she is rather a nasty piece.

2 December 2009 at 21:37  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

If I was to advise Mr Griffin, and I am not allowed to because I have an agenda of The Anti Christ at the end of the day, but I would say this:

How much did Tony Blair and George Bush bring the faith into disrepute? And do people who vote for these murdering bastards really have any sway in such a debate and exchange of accusations? How many paedophiles would feel the pain of sin when confronted by a priest with his member lodged up a choir boys arse? And who cares about the words from people who support them? Hmmm, this disrepute thing kind of disolves under close scruitiniy really. It kind of smells a lot like hypocrisy. Excepting ofcourse in the case of Muslims - they do their faith a justice for reasons which are too obvious and tiresome to explain everytime, wasting breath and energy on well trodden ground.

After all said and done, how fascist is it to kick people out of the garden for all eternity because they scoffed the wrong fruit, and how fascist is it to kill the children of second and third generation sinners, and to demand that your son gets nailed, and to have him come back to wipe out all those who disagree. Did I mention the flood? Why did he do that, I forgot? Whoops, no these are just ineffable spiritually complex truths that are beyond the otherwise psychic attributes of those who have all the other answers.

2 December 2009 at 21:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D singh we did have these people during the 80's and on. You just wern't looking. I saw them in Manninghan park bradford during the annual mela festival. Spouting their hatred about the jews and Israel. Probably 1988ish. I was furious with them and had to leave their stall before they thumped me. I got their mettle then and I get it now. Seems back then no one else did. Only back then they wore western clothes and were unbearded.

2 December 2009 at 21:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

So Marie 1797 is a taffy. That explains a lot. Well my welsh friend, you don't have to worry about the BNP- the Welsh will be a republic in a few years with Welsh as the offical language, the muslims won't have a clue and hop it back to merry auld england. It's the English you have to worry about my dear, you will be safe living in the people's republic of Cymru.

2 December 2009 at 21:55  
Blogger Tarquin said...

If they want sharia law and place foreigners above their own citizens because they share their religion then they have no place in this country - unfortunately not a lot we can do about it, there'll always be homegrown bigots

I don't see them as any different to the BNP 'christians' - the only difference is that we know Griffin's lot are a minority, it's easy to dismiss, but with muslims this is often the only view people get - if you actually know some, like I do, and you'll realise these guys are just a bunch of loudmouth bigots

2 December 2009 at 22:11  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

I sometimes wonder where these folk were/ are when Saddam and the Taliban cheerfully kill/ ed fellow Muslims in prisons or terrorist attacks without warning.

2 December 2009 at 22:36  
Anonymous len said...

Perhaps the question that should be asked of moderates is this, if the radicals are a minority and if they do not represent the 'real' Islam how is it they have been able to carry on a global jihad on several fronts, jihads that include civil wars, secessionist movements, revolutions, assassinations and global terrorism? The list of countries that have been affected by this global jihad is quite long. Incidents have occurred in England, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, Kashmir and Bangladesh. The simple fact is that there is broader private support for the Islamists objectives than is ever admitted to publicly and a number are sitting on the fence, waiting to see which way things turn out.

2 December 2009 at 22:52  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Such clever writing Your Grace! Just so clever.

2 December 2009 at 22:57  
Anonymous Andy said...

The man who claimed that Baroness warsi was not a proper muslim is according to one report;

His vile opinions are shared by others. Yesterday, Abdulrahman Muslim, 28, a community youth worker, said: 'In Luton, many Muslims are angry with Baroness Warsi for abandoning our traditions and culture.

'There were probably about 30 people protesting against her. However, there would have been many more protesting if they had known she was going to be in the town.

'She claims she supports Muslim people, but she's a hypocrite. She doesn't even look like a Muslim. If she comes back to Luton I hope she gets the same treatment.'


2 December 2009 at 23:03  
Anonymous Simon said...

"the Son of God did not distinguish between races"

Obviously he did, just as all Jews did, otherwise the Parable of the Good Samaritan would have been meaningless. Jesus' point was that he was Good *even though* he was a Samaritan! And likewise there can be good and bad anywhere.

As for the Salafists - either ban them or don't bother. Once you let Islam in to your country, you can either go the Egypt/Syria/Turkey route of forcefully suppressing the Islamists, or you can let them run riot, as at present.

2 December 2009 at 23:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you know that we have power over God? Well,consider this: There is this one mighty God that invents and creates this wonderous universe, and along comes this tiny zit of a thing that exists on the surface of a tiny zit in the cosmic landscape, and he pretends that there is a "different" God. The real God gets so hung up about this that He makes this commandment that says it is illegal to worship other Gods (even though this insecure God knows in all His mighty wisdom that there are actuslly no other Gods out there). So this zit goes out and makes up a whole bunch of Gods and God gets so stressed out that He becomes totally obssed in proving that He is the only God while at the same time remaining totally silent and invisible. Then all these fake Gods get jumbled up in a frenzy of psychotic clamour, and the zits get so confused that they start murdering each other over which one is the real one without stopping to wonder why it even matters because there is nothing to be seen or heard anyways. And God continues to do nothing because it should be obvious to anyone who has read that book He masterfully inspired which reads like a cross section of Alce in Wonderland glued to an encrypted version of The Wizard of Ozz.

Sometimes God comes accross as a bit of a dick really.

2 December 2009 at 23:25  
Anonymous Egg The Crows said...

These people should not be egged on.

2 December 2009 at 23:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Good post.

There is also another aspect to Islam that drives it towards violence it is their doctrine of precedence.

This is how it works. The early part of the Koran is full of peaceful injunctions (presumably because Mo had just started his journey and he wasn’t meeting much opposition).

The later part of the Koran is full of instructions to conduct violence (presumably as Islam spread it met opposition).

Now when there is a conflict of meaning between the earlier part (peaceful) and the later part (violent) it is the latter part that takes precedence to resolve the conflict between the two. Hence, the violence.

3 December 2009 at 07:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Here is a post about a change in strategy from:

Danielpipes’ org
To borrow a computer term, if Ayatollah Khomeini, Osama bin Laden, and Nidal Hasan represent Islamism 1.0, Recep Tayyip Erdog(an (the prime minister of Turkey), Tariq Ramadan (a Swiss intellectual), and Keith Ellison (a U.S. congressman) represent Islamism 2.0. The former kill more people but the latter pose a greater threat to Western civilization.

The 1.0 version attacks those perceived as obstructing its goal of a society ruled by a global caliphate and totally regulated by the Shari'a (Islamic law). Islamism's original tactics, from totalitarian rule to mega-terrorism, encompass unlimited brutality. Three thousand dead in one attack? Bin Laden's search for atomic weaponry suggests the murderous toll could be a hundred or even a thousand times larger.

However, a review of the past three decades, since Islamism became a significant political force, finds that violence alone rarely works. Survivors of terrorism rarely capitulate to radical Islam – not after the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat in Egypt in 1981, nor the 9/11 attacks, the Bali bombings of 2002, the Madrid bombing of 2004, the Amman bombing of 2005, or the terrorist campaigns in Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Terrorism does physical damage and kills and intimidates but it rarely overturns the existing order. Imagine Islamists had caused the devastation of Hurricane Katrina or the 2004 tsunami – what could these have lastingly achieved?

Non-terrorist violence aimed at applying the Shari'a does hardly better. Revolution (meaning, a wide-scale social revolt) took Islamists to power in just one place at one time - Iran in 1978–79. Likewise, coup d'état (a military overthrow) carried them to power just once – Sudan in 1989. Same for civil war – Afghanistan in 1996.

If the violence of Islamism 1.0 rarely succeeds in forwarding the Shari'a, the Islamism 2.0 strategy of working through the system does better. Islamists, adept at winning public opinion, represent the main opposition force in Muslim-majority countries such as Morocco, Egypt, Lebanon, and Kuwait. Islamists have enjoyed electoral success in Algeria in 1992, Bangladesh in 2001, Turkey in 2002, and Iraq in 2005.

Once in power, they can move the country toward Shari'a. As Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces the wrath of Iranian street demonstrators and bin Laden cowers in a cave, Erdog(an basks in public approval, remakes the Republic of Turkey, and offers an enticing model for Islamists worldwide.

Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, the Egyptian theorist of Al-Qaeda, changed his approach and now endorses lawful Islamism.

Recognizing this pattern, Al-Qaeda's once-leading theorist has publicly repudiated terrorism and adopted political means. Sayyid Imam al-Sharif (b. 1950, also known by the nom de guerre Dr. Fadl) was accused of helping assassinate Sadat. In 1988 he published a book that argued for perpetual, violent jihad against the West. With time, however, Sharif observed the inutility of violent attacks and instead advocated a strategy of infiltrating the state and influencing society.

In a recent book, he condemned the use of force against Muslims ("Every drop of blood that was shed or is being shed in Afghanistan and Iraq is the responsibility of bin Laden and Zawahiri and their followers") and even against non-Muslims (9/11 was

3 December 2009 at 08:13  
Blogger D. Singh said...

counterproductive, for "what good is it if you destroy one of your enemy's buildings, and he destroys one of your countries? What good is it if you kill one of his people, and he kills a thousand of yours?").

Sharif's evolution from theorist of terrorism to advocate of lawful transformation echoes a much broader shift; accordingly, as author Lawrence Wright notes, his defection poses a "terrible threat" to Al-Qaeda. Other once-violent Islamist organizations in Algeria, Egypt, and Syria have recognized the potential of lawful Islamism and largely renounced violence. One also sees a parallel shift in Western countries; Ramadan and Ellison represent a burgeoning trend.

(What one might call Islamism 1.5 – a combination of hard and soft means, of external and internal approaches – also works. It involves lawful Islamists softening up the enemy, then violent elements seizing power. The Hamas takeover of Gaza proved that such a combination can work: win elections in 2006, then stage a violent insurrection in 2007. Similar processes are possibly underway in Pakistan. The United Kingdom might be undergoing the opposite process, whereby violence creates a political opening.)

In conclusion, only Islamists, not fascists or communists, have gone well beyond crude force to win public support and develop a 2.0 version. Because this aspect of Islamism undermines traditional values and destroys freedoms, it may threaten civilized life even more than does 1.0's brutality.

3 December 2009 at 08:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am deeply disturbed by the rapid islamification of my country aided and abetted by Labour and Conservative politicians pandering to moslems at every turn. Baroness Warsi was never elected and yet Cameron elevated her to this position because she is female and a moslem. Last night, Harman’s Equalities Act was passed in the Commons. Most Conservative MPs voted in favour. If this bill is passed in the Lords then it will become legal, obligatory in fact, to discriminate against white males seeking employment even if the other candidates are less qualified non-whites or female. Of course, there are exceptions for moslems under the guise of religious bodies. As a life-long Conservative voter it pains me to see the party betraying its constituencies and core voters in exactly the same way as Labour.

‘Nick Griffin may profess to be a Christian.’ I profess to be a Christian too. I’ve voted Conservative my entire life, and I’m well past middle age, but at the general election it will be Nick Griffin’s party that gets my vote this time.

3 December 2009 at 10:36  
Anonymous Farouds said...

We must always remember that, to use a famous phrase, Muslims are the first victims of Islam. It is a system which admits of no moderation, save by apostates. Baroness Warsi is admirable in many ways, but she is trapped, as are the rest of them, until they can summon even more courage up and denounce the whole barbaric system they were born into. Not so easy.

3 December 2009 at 11:28  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

If she is a muslim and a woman,how can she be the most powerful muslim peer,since a womans word is worth a quater of a mans,she can not be a muslim because she has abandoned the way of submission to men,and her title is meaningless,since she is not one of my people,and certainly not English nobility,in fact all of these muslims would be far happier back in the lands that they come from.

3 December 2009 at 12:48  
Blogger srizals said...

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall. Along came a bearded man walking so tall. He asked the bearded man, "Do U represent Sharia?"

N the bearded man, convinced that his beard was long enough to scare critics, ask back, "Do U represent Sharia?" Humpty Dumpty was confused, since his question is met with another question. Lost of interest, the bearded man walked away, leaving Humpty Dumpty all alone and still wandering about Sharia while delicately balancing himself so that he won't fall off the wall and broke to pieces.

Not long afterwards, a couple of balloons as drunk as they can be walked by. They almost knocked him off the wall. Singing happily, "we were masters of the Muslims, we steal, we lie and cheat and now we have all the glory and they have none but nits."

Interested, Humpty Dumpty called to them, "Do U represent Sharia?" Caught by surprised, they laughed at him, "What? U gotta be kidding, We represent the highly civilised West that burnt people on stakes. But we don't do that no more, we just toast them with nukes or willy pete".

Humpty Dumpty got more confused. The Chaps were happy with themselves but they did not represent Sharia.

Along came a man. Had a little beard, thin moustache, smiling when looking at him. Not drunk and seems compose with manners. He decided to ask this man and hope that he would be able to answer his eggy question. "Do U represent sharia?"

The man although quite startled answered back in a profound manner, "Yes, Sharia means law and order n never torture. It harms no one but an offender. No spies to catch U. No moral police to guard U. Oh, one more thing, it is exclusively for Muslims. Those who do not kill n plunder but fight the likes of Vlad the Impaler. So don't worry, U can keep on being an egg. My job is just conveying the message of the truth, that is all. U can keep on poisoning yourself with alcohol or whatever else that makes you tick. U can keep on aborting your unborn babies or halting your nature of sex but pray, sorry, prey on little ones for ages and kept on accusing Muhammad of being a paedophile, while paedophilia are rampant in most Christian churches all over the globe."

N Humpty Dumpty frowned its painted eyebrows as if they were real, "I'm only asking do U represent Sharia? What's with all the lengthy answer. I already knew about it!

4 December 2009 at 04:09  
Anonymous Old Grumpy said...

Srizals - thank you for your considered views.

Just a quick question on

"paedophilia are rampant in most Christian churches all over the globe"

Any evidence to back up this claim?

Now then, my dear Sir, I'd cordially suggest the revised statement

"paedophilia has not been unknown in Christian churches all over the globe",

to be, well, fair enough


I think not.

How about another sweeping generalization, to suggest to you how offensive your original statement actually is:

"There are armed terrorists to be found in most mosques from all over the globe."

Perhaps I could now define the generalization to something more realistic:

"It has not been unknown to find armed terrorists in mosques from all over the globe"

Is this fair? In which case, perhaps you might consider revision of YOUR sweeping generalization?

Merely a polite request, you understand, in the spirit of enlightened dialogue which His Grace encourages in this blog

4 December 2009 at 15:41  
Blogger srizals said...

To Old Grumpy,

I've gathered the evidence that U asked for, but slumber is grasping me. U see, I live in the lands of the Malay n it's 3:20 AM so U have to excuse me for a while. Thanks.

4 December 2009 at 19:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Anonymous 21:55

Honey they've taken root I don't see them ever hopping back to merry olde England. From the foot hills of Pakistan to the foot hills of Nantyglo they're home from home. The benefit leaflets in Urdu and Pashto are flying across the oceans and the steady stream of the pre informed heading this way with their pre-completed claim forms they could already pass an A level on Claiming Benefits in Britain!

They will even have their own Sharia law court in Cardiff from next year!

12 December 2009 at 01:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older