Tuesday, June 08, 2010

Inspired by Mohammad - women's rights?

There is a (not-so-)subtle plot afoot to inculcate us all with subliminal messages about the illiterate man to whom Allah chose to reveal the greatest book ever written. It is not so much what was Inspired by Muhammad which is in question; theological arguments can be made to support all manner of historical propositions, especially disjunctive anachronisms like 'women's rights' in 7th-century Arabia. No, what irritates Cranmer the most about this campaign is the sly, subtle, stealthy standardisation of the spelling of Mohammed.

Where did 'MU-hamm-AD' come from?

In England (which is, lest it be forgotten, where we live), by the English, the name is traditionally spelt 'Mohammed'. Yes, of course, there have been and are variations in the spelling - a fact which is responsible for the statistical confusion over the most popular name given to baby boys every year. But why adopt a distinctly foreign spelling of the name when the campaign is aimed at non-Muslims?

There are at least 14 different spellings of the name – all pronounced the same. The main two, Mohammed and Muhammad (a non-Arab Muslim would adopt the name ending in -ed while an Arab Muslim would adopt the -ad ending) are complemented by Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Mahammed, Mohammod, Mahamed, Muhammod, Muhamad, Mohmmed, Mohamud and Mohammud. And these are augmented still by the much less-common Mehmet or Mohemet.

The name ‘Muhammad’ (which, however it is spelt, means ‘one who is praiseworthy’), like all transliterations, comes from replacing the Arabic script with what is deemed its closest Latin equivalent. It is well known that Muslim parents like to have something that shows a link with their religion or with their Prophet. Parents who name their son Mohammed believe that the name has an effect on their personality and future characteristics. They are saying that this boy will be of good character.

The problem with this campaign, however, is that there is a certain amount of politically-correct and religiously-convenient redaction going on, so much so that it really ought to be a matter for Advertising Standards. For Mohammed was into women's rights just about as much as he was into gay rights (and where are the posters espousing that proposition? Or are homosexuals less entitled to rights than the women?). Of course people are free to believe whatever they wish, but when it comes to an aggressive advertising campaign to induct the whole nation into a particular set of beliefs, one ought to expect a degree of scrutiny, criticism and historical analysis.

For the sake of factual accuracy: Mohammed knew nothing of 'women's rights' or even of the principles of natural rights or the Rights of Man, which emanated on the continent of Western Europe a thousand years later. And even those did not address the status of women or issues of slavery.

Mohammed knew nothing of these because they are philosophical and political principles of the Enlightenment. Seventh-century Arabia knew nothing of individualism, equality or Locke-Rousseau notions of social contract. It knew nothing of the foundational tenets enshrined as 'natural law' in the US Declaration of Independence. There were no rights for women because there were no collective rights for any but the male Muslims. There were no women's rights because they had no rights to liberty, property or even life (there are many Hadith accounts of Mohammed riding roughshod over women, usually after slaughtering their husbands and sons; and Qur'anic accounts of the words of women being worth less than those of men).

And Mohammed never made it the business of his government to recognise and secure any such rights for women.

So, by all means believe that Mohammed was the coolest dude who ever walked the earth - a great husband, father, warrior and a better footballer than Beckham.

But please let no intelligent Muslim (or kaffir) be deluded into believing that he was remotely supportive of women's rights.

But doubtless a poster campaign stating this would be illegal on the grounds of 'incitement to religious hatred'.

As would one which said: 'I believe in gay rights - So did Mohammed'...


Anonymous Kiwi said...

Mohammed also knew nothing of children's rights either. Particularly, if they were of the female gender, and aged between 6 years and 8 years 9 months old.

8 June 2010 at 10:28  
Blogger English Viking said...

Ho, ho, ho, ho, he, he, ha, ha, ha!

The right to dress like Luke Skywalker. The right of genital mutilation. The right to be buried alive in the back garden for talking to kuffars. The right to be forcibly married to a blood relative, and then beaten for producing deformed babies. The right to be raped by your husband, who incidentally owns you like a man own a dog. The right to have acid thrown in your face if you refuse a sexual advance. Oh the wonders of the religion of peace.

PS Your Grace,

With regard to the etymology of the name Mohammed, don't forget Baphomet. I sure one as erudite as you will have no need to Google it, but others might, and the spiritual amongst them could be surprised. Or not.

8 June 2010 at 10:32  
Blogger Daniel said...

I think Your Grace may be missing the point here. I don't take this advert to mean that Mohammed (excuse me, Muhammad) championed the principles of the Enlightenment. Rather, I take it (and the intimately related and often repeated argument that Muhammad affected significant improvement in the status of women) to mean that he, through his teachings and example as recorded in the Quran and Hadith, improved women's treatment over that which was common in seventh-century Arabia.

Of course, that is also a controversial and arguable assertion, as I'm certain Your Grace knows full well.

However, despite it's controversial nature, I would argue that this is a message that is to be encouraged. The ultimate end of this message is that Muhammad improved the treatment of women by, for example, only allow polygamy when the groom is able to provide equal treatment of all his wives (as opposed to whenever the groom feels like taking another wife), and hence, in order to truly follow his example, a devout Muslim today should likewise seek to improve women's treatment. Of course, any good Salafi would take significant umbrage at this line of argument, but that in itself is reason to support it.

8 June 2010 at 10:36  
Blogger chris said...

If they want to call him MuhamMAD then let them, I just wish they had got the capitalisation correct.

8 June 2010 at 10:43  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mo knew all about women's rights. The right to be chattels and slaves. The right to be hidden from sight and not educated. The right to be killed for daring to be raped. The right to be beaten. The right to be treated like a dog. The right to be treated as worth far less than a man under sharia law when it comes to inheritance.

Who is this campaign aimed at? Only the brainwashed, congenitally stupid and dhimmi lefties will give it any credence.

I certainly don't.

8 June 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Your Grace may be interested to read the comment I received in response to the decline in Christianity in our schools highlighted by Ofsted:
Is there a less than cunning plan?

8 June 2010 at 10:56  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Damn! EV beat me to a list. :D

8 June 2010 at 10:57  
Anonymous Jamess said...

I think they missed out the:

's twelve wives

at the end.

8 June 2010 at 11:23  
Anonymous John Hayward, Jubilee Centre said...

As I blogged yesterday, it is not that one cannot find anything positive in the Qur'an on women's rights, social justice and the environment, as claimed by the advertisements, but the problem with the "Inspired" ads and associated materials is their selective treatment of history. As the Islamic feminist scholar Riffat Hassan notes, there is also a gulf between Qur'anic ideals and actual Muslim practice.

Having themselves raised the issue, one of the many questions the Exploring Islam Foundation now needs to answer is whether they accept the concept of universal human rights as they have developed in recent years.

8 June 2010 at 11:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ Daniel

Saying that Mohammed improved women's rights like that is the same as saying that you believe that using a cat and 9 tails is morally reprehensible and that instead it should be a cat and 5 tails. It just means that you are treating them less badly!

8 June 2010 at 12:32  
Blogger srizals said...


Is this you?
"Kiwi paedophile deported from Philippines - World - NZ Herald News"

You should have clean up your own mess,

"Whites in Servitude in Early America and Industrial Britain by by Michael A. Hoffman II"

English Viking,

As an obtuse as you are, about 10 -15% you're right. Hopefully those unashamed men that think they're Muslims would think twice of becoming a bullet for you. And what about this one,

(CNN) -- A British man was jailed Tuesday for raping two of his daughters and fathering nine children over 27 years, a case with echoes of Austria's Josef Fritzl

Should I overgeneralize all British men then?

I'll watch my mouth if I were you.

8 June 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn’t Mohammed an illiterate 7th Century peasant who simply dictated the word of “God” to scribes who then wrote it down. Hardly a man capable of understanding the concept of women’s rights even if alive today.

This campaign is a most insulting and dishonest piece of propaganda and would do justice to Goebbels. Islam is vilified for what it is, not because of Islamophobia. The YouGov survey that reveals what most of us feel towards Islam should be a wakeup call to the new government to rid themselves of all those community representatives and advisers. If you live in the UK then you damn well subscribe to our values or push off to some Islamic paradise. Islam is not compatible with democracy and the sooner this is recognised the better!

Well having got that rant off my chest don’t think that you Christians are getting away Scott free! As regards revisionism you are all up to it. All that nasty Old Testament stuff is as bad as the Quran and you are constantly trying to reconcile some of the most ridiculous aspects of your beliefs with the enlightened modern world. Praying for example and miracles are simply the invocation of magic. Add that to your constant attempts to garner respect for what is essentially superstition and to expect the rest of us to consider it a serious subject worthy of scholarship.

8 June 2010 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love the irony of a women in a head scalf on a women's rights poster

8 June 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger Young Mr. Brown said...

If the Exploring Islam Foundation want to spend their money on these posters, fair enough. Christians and atheists do it - so can Muslims.

I've got a feeling, however, that they are not going to convince many people, and that a fair number of people will wonder if the ads really qualify as "Legal, Decent, Honest and Truthful."

8 June 2010 at 12:56  
Anonymous PJ said...

Your Grace there is more
including similar posters with "social justice" and "protecting the environment".

I'm sure many commuinicants can have a good rant about those ones aswell

8 June 2010 at 12:59  
Blogger English Viking said...


Your posts contain so little English that I really don't know what you are saying.

Criminals have always existed. They will continue to exist. The problem with Islam is that it enshrines some of the most vile forms of criminality as virtues, and encourages its followers to carry out these crimes in the name of your false god.

Mohammed was a paedophile, a murderer, a liar, a rapist and a war-lord. Little more than a common thug, a Mafia type who invented clap-trap that justified his perversions, just like his modern-day followers, including you.

PS Please don't beat the soles of my feet for disrespecting your mad mullah.

8 June 2010 at 13:07  
Anonymous Vincent said...

Time to buy a bumper pack of nice, fat, permanent marker pens.....

8 June 2010 at 13:09  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

srizals, clearly since you are unable to defend your faux prophet, you have to resort to an ad hominen attack - pathetic!
Stop sidestepping, having sex with a child may not have been immoral for Mohammed, but it was ethically wrong, and you know it. If Mohammed really was a messenger of God, or an honourable man, as he made his imaginary Allah to proclaim him thus, he should have known that what he was doing was dishonourable and unethical.

8 June 2010 at 13:11  
Blogger English Viking said...


PS. Be a good chap and post a link to the CNN British rapist thing will you? I can't find any sign of it on any of the European news sites either.

We wouldn't want people to think that you are making stuff up, would we?

8 June 2010 at 13:13  
Anonymous AnaNimosity said...

Well me, myself, personally, I think a butcher's at the Plagues in Revelation 16 is thought-provoking. I say all three frogs have materialised from the teachings of the Red (Rev.12) Dragon, the Beast, and the False Prophet!

8 June 2010 at 13:28  
Anonymous Caratacus said...

All this fuss about v.little. It is quite obvious that you start your boiled egg AT THE BIG END and not the little end. Anyone who maintains the little-end falsehood is condemned to eternal damnation, piles and a never ending rendition of Agadoo.

My mate Nobby says so.

8 June 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger Bryan said...

The ad does not specify which rights this Muhammad believed in; therefore his belief that women had the right to be chattel owned by their father, until purchased by their husband is perfectly well covered. And by wearing the headscarf of ownership, and posing for the ad, the young lady agrees with her "prophet". In as much as her father or husband allows her to so agree.

8 June 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger srizals said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 June 2010 at 14:22  
Blogger srizals said...

Not all

Should a few reflect many?

8 June 2010 at 14:30  
Blogger Scrigg said...

Just another attempt to ram Islam down your throat. I personally think we deserve no less. I hope it gets rammed down everyones throat until it hurts. And it will hurt.

8 June 2010 at 14:46  
Blogger srizals said...


you old slow moving bird, a marriage is not a paedophilic norm you little cute annoying little birdie,

In 623 or 624, Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. married Aisyah r.a.

In 1396, Richard II of England married young Isabel of France, 7 years old when their engagement was announced the previous year in Paris.

In 1789-1797, the marital age of a 'child bride' during George Washington was 10 years old.

8 June 2010 at 14:47  
Anonymous Alice said...

We may think Muslim women are hard done by, but who gives a thought to the way we treat our own women?

I think especially of girls and young women, who are under tremendous pressure nowadays to compete sexually - to be ready to have sex with their boyfriends at an early age, whether they wish to or not, so, often ending up either as single mothers or having abortions.

We've heard recently of bras being advertised for little nine year old girls. They are taught about sex in school at a young age, and shown how to use contraceptives - thus forcing them even more into a situation of not being able to say no to sex.

And when grown up, it's not considered alright any more to be a housewife and mother, but must prove themselves by having careers, which causes them much stress, trying to juggle home life and work life.

I think we should be careful to criticise others without even noticing our own follies.

8 June 2010 at 14:51  
Blogger English Viking said...


A little one-sided. Males are under tremendous pressure to conform to the world's ideas of right and wrong too, especially the young ones.


No, you are absolutely right, we should not allow the minority to brand the majority. So I guess you'll be repudiating the minority of one (according to your logic) which was Mo?

8 June 2010 at 15:04  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

You don't mention "Mahomet", which is the way I always spell it.

As for the bossy spelling Qu'ran, where did that come from? It is like the Times referring to a Russian as "Aleksandr".

8 June 2010 at 15:19  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Why didn't you rebuke srizla's data of the so called marriages, English Viking?


8 June 2010 at 15:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Because he's an obtuse?
ops, blime me!

8 June 2010 at 15:35  
Blogger Scrigg said...


Richard II did not say he was a prophet of God, and thus create a new religion of hatred and warmongering. And in any case, we have managed to move on considerably since then, whereas Islam is still back in the medieval times.

8 June 2010 at 15:38  
Blogger English Viking said...


Why didn't you, but as you wish.

George Washington married once, to a 28 year old, Martha Dandridge.

Richard II married Isabel when she was 6, a purely symbolic arrangement to stabilise the peace between the almost perpetually warring nations of France and England. The law at that time dictated that consummation was not permitted until the female was 12 years old, and as Richard died when she was 11, there is no suggestion that he did consummate the marriage, particularly when one considers he was already married to Anne of Bohemia, the daughter of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles IV, whom he married when he and she were both 15.

To the best of my knowledge, neither George Washington nor Richard II played any part whatsoever in the foundation of either Christianity or Judaism, and modern-day scholars of these faiths do not cite them as examples of a perfect men, nor use their marriages as an excuse for paedophilia, whereas modern muslim scholars do exactly that with Mo.

Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran proves the point, with this gem of wisdom:

"A man can marry a girl younger than nine years of age, even if the girl is still a baby being breastfed. A man, however is prohibited from having intercourse with a girl younger than nine, other sexual acts such as foreplay, rubbing, kissing and sodomy is allowed. A man having intercourse with a girl younger than nine years of age has not committed a crime, but only an infraction, if the girl is not permanently damaged. If the girl, however, is permanently damaged, the man must provide for her all her life. But this girl will not count as one of the man's four permanent wives. He also is not permitted to marry the girl's sister."

Really. Those that doubt can do just a tiny bit of research to have those doubts removed. You should see what he thinks about goats.

8 June 2010 at 15:51  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Srizals, even if I could understand a word you say I'm not inclined to give much of a toss because it's all incoherent rambling and ad hominem. I just wanted to say that before I go back to ignoring your twaddle.

8 June 2010 at 17:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How I delight in that most famous of surahs that tells women to become Barristers.

I believe in womens rights, so did Karl Marx would be more apt for her pinko banner.

I believe in de-jure rights and customs, so why don't they all just de-facto off.

8 June 2010 at 18:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

srizals - I've done with you; you are as vile as your so-called prophet, but singularly less imaginative. After all, at least he knew what he was doing; whereas you are a mere fool.

There is no point to addressing any of your comments; you have ceased to exist.

8 June 2010 at 19:12  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Your Grace, the picture you have displayed might be considered amusing, were it not so deeeeeeeeeeeply disturbing.

I for one cannot counter such idiocy; I have no idea as to how one should respond to such monumental bollox!

We are dealing with something so beyond our ken, as would make any extraterrestrial contact with some jelly-like species, comparatively normal by comparison!

I'd rather the earth be inherited by cockroaches than suffer the domination of these most dangerous, and culpable fools!

8 June 2010 at 19:36  
Blogger Thoughts and Events of the Day said...

In Islamic law a woman's testimony is half that of a man's and it is the same with the law of inheritance. In one of the hadiths Muhammad said that the majority of the denizens of hell were women- their crime was a lack of gratitude. So much for the rights of women in Islam!

8 June 2010 at 19:37  
Anonymous len said...

Women`s rights under Islam.

Welcome to the world of Dar-Al-Islam... where little makes sense. It's the same all over the world... like Hotel California, you can check out anytime you like but you can never leave.
The legal case of Lina Joy, a convert to Christianity who wants the right to be recognised as a non-Muslim, has gone on for several years. Born 43 years ago as Azlina Jailani as a Malay, her "Mykad" identity card, automatically given to all citizens at age 12, claimed that she was a Muslim. This is the labeling given to all Malays, whom the UMNO-led government considers to be de facto "Muslim". Details of Mykads, which must be carried at all times, are stored at the National Registration Department or NRD.

26 years ago, she became a Christian. On February 2, 1997 as "Lina Joy" she applied to the NRD to have her new Christian name registered on her MyKad. On August 11, 1997, this claim was rejected. She applied again to the NRD to have her Christian name recognized, and the NRD approved having the name Lina Joy entered on her MyKad, but refused to designate her faith as Christian. It remained as "Muslim".

Article 11 of Malaysia's constitution states that anyone can follow any religion of their choosing, but in 1988, this was undermined. An amendment (1A) was made to Article 121, which stated that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over "any matter" which falls under the jurisdiction of the Islamic (or Syariah) Courts.

8 June 2010 at 20:20  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry EV and everyone - but you knew I'd have to appear on this one, didn't you? Just in case anyone will be interested in clarification of RII's marriages, and the role of Anglo-French women 14-16th centuries...
RII, son of Edward the Black Prince and Joan of Kent, was born 1367. According to Michael Bennett, "he was actually the first king since the Norman Conquest of wholly English [[?-born]] parentage, and to speak English as his first language,"(189). He reigned from 1377 until his usurpation and death c. 1399/1400. According to my sources, his first marriage treaty was signed May 2, 1381 (218). Queen Anne died in 1394, at which point Richard famously had their favourite palace, Sheen [later Richmond], "razed to the ground," (194). He did not marry Isabel until 1396 (your statement about her protected status is consistent with everything else I've read.)

In 1415, Henry V founded a Brigettine double-monastery at Syon, across the river from Sheen. I mention this to highlight the active roles of aristocratic women at the time, for several of the line associated themselves with devotional and literary activities at the Syon nunnery. In particular, Margaret Beaufort [remarkable mother of HVII] also contributed to continuing the development of education, and of preaching in the vernacular. Lady Margaret followed other royal figures in developing colleges at Oxford and Cambridge. Henry VI had founded King's at Cambridge, and Margaret B. further developed Christ's. Margaret of Anjou (Queen of HVI) and Elizabeth Woodville (Queen of EIV) had been associated with Queens' Cambridge in 1448 and 1465 respectively, as had Philippa of Hainault with Queen's at Oxford in 1341 (Queen of EIII, grandmother of RII). Margaret continued the tradition of their influence.

Sorry if it bores you all to death, but I don't think this lot were too terribly oppressed or illiterate!
Any errors are mine, but my sources for most of the info are: Richard II: The Art of Kingship. Eds. Anthony Goodman and James L. Gillespie. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1999.
Jones, Michael K. and Malcolm G. Underwood. The King's Mother: Lady Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
The University info is on the respective websites.

8 June 2010 at 21:14  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry - omitted Lady M's dates: (1443–1509).

8 June 2010 at 21:24  
Blogger Gnostic said...

The right to be thrown back into a burning building to die if you are thoughtless enough to escape whilst dressed immodestly.

With rights like this who the hell needs wrongs?

8 June 2010 at 22:28  
Blogger Gnostic said...

no nonny, I am rarely bored by history. Unless it's modern history of course. :0)

8 June 2010 at 22:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

no nonny,

You are correct, the marriages were not contemporaneous, thanks for the correction.

I am still of the view that he acted entirely honourabley towards Isabel, and even if he didn't, that fact would have nothing to do with Christianity as he was not its founder.

8 June 2010 at 23:58  
Blogger English Viking said...

Forgive my typos, won't you?

9 June 2010 at 00:02  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking at 23.58 - your view is shared by many others, including the Court of Henry IV!

Following the death of Richard II, Henry IV insisted, because of young Isabella's STILL virginal state, that she marry his son, the future Henry V. However, Isabella argued that her virginity was irrelevant; and, as the widow of a King, she held the right to marry whomsoever she chose. Which she duly did.

There is, I suspect, little point in offering piece-by-piece refutations to the burbling, rambling accusations of srizals ...he'll just invent more.

I really don't believe it is possible to educate the culpably ignorant. He, in common with others of his ilk, are not interested in any truth inconvenient to their beliefs.

9 June 2010 at 01:20  
Anonymous Oswin said...

no nonny at 21:14

Cor, I love it when you talk medieval!

Ps. Thank you for 'Paulinus at Ad Gefrin' xx

9 June 2010 at 01:29  
Blogger srizals said...

Thank you for demonstrating how lawfully we treated our Christian minority in the lands of the Malay. Lina Joy didn’t pursue her case to the Syaria Court and finish her story. Well, she should have. It is so evil of us to obstruct her from her chosen faith by her mere Mykad.

My dear Christian friends,
You have only demonstrated your judgement to us all. Double standard, as always. As Alice had pointed out in her posting, your 9 year old is twitching to have sex, outside of marriage. An innocent little girl would not. A doctor in the USA also had acknowledged he had experienced in aborting pregnancy as young as to 9 to 10 years old. A little girl should not be able to enjoy sex and conceived. You haven’t debunked my point as far as I remember.

The characteristics of a paedophilia are not mentioned and compared with Muhammad s.a.w. Why? Find me a research without this element of comparison if you can. If your sound judgement is lacking of this, then what judgement is that? A judgement of the ignorant?

Please address my point of arguments and debunk them one by one so that there would be no doubt that Islam is evil.

1. Secrecy.
A Paedophile as demonstrated in history and our present of time, did not announced his paedocracy to the entire world. He only showed where he dumped the corpses. Most, acted holy and never actually face or brought to justice since it was so deep in secret. Only time will tell. The scary part is what if paedophilic priests were a norm in the Catholic Church since ages? For no man and woman can deny his or her natural desire. Only the unnatural can (by channelling it sinfully, of course).

2. Victims.
Paedophiles’ victims had never been recorded as to be only one. Please find me a paedophile that stopped at only a victim, on purpose. Please find me a victim that were treated with great honour and didn’t snap out for her or his horrific experiences.

3. Redundancy and commonness.
If you can prove that paedophilia is a norm in Islam and not in Christian dominated West, you would have debunked me completely. As for child marriages, it is not even a norm in most Muslim nations, since the time had change. Girls are no longer to marry at an early age, since they have to complete their studies and pursue a career in a demanding materialistic modernity.

9 June 2010 at 03:11  
Blogger srizals said...

4. Holy Matrimony.
You have simply ignored this very important distinction. Since sex outside marriage is not an absurdity in your so-called civilised perfect democracy where fragile and unborn babies are not a cherished living soul, how could you justify yourself against Islam? One Paedophile’s characteristic seems to show a trait of consistency. They did not marry their victims. As for the King of England, your assumption that her wife was a virgin is not beyond reasonable doubt, unless we have an autopsy of historical evidences. Anyway, it is not even a rebuttal of my point of the so-called barbaric ‘child marriages’. I doubted that Christians had over passed their medieval ways. Current evidence showed this glaringly. Maybe they are getting only worse. But don’t worry, they are not driven or controlled by their faith.

5. Non-practising Christians.

A considerable number of you are no longer practising your holy books. A quite number are non-practising Christians, since the OT and NT are not practised in your laws and ways of life. Some, maybe. Since neither the laws of your holy scriptures are implemented and dominated your society. That is why I guess, Muslims have to go certain procedures when they want to convert. They must go through counselling processes in order they know what exactly they are diving into. They must be exposed to the gospel of Barnabas first before deciding and pointing to which bible is their chosen holy book. Lina Joy seemed to be afraid of going through this process. Maybe she thought it was like a process in the inquisition I guess.

Rebuke me or ignore me. It doesn’t make any difference to me. We all have a choice laid in front of us, free to be chosen, but not without consequences, I’m afraid.

I’m going to be busy in a couple of days, do come at me with all your might and unity. Don’t worry. I’m all alone. I’ll read up afterwards. As always..

Sweet dreams..

And Gnostics,
you're a fool for even imagine that you can simply asscociate all the evil of men with Islam. Read up! The numbers in your culture and country outmatched us. Please ignore me. You good at it!

9 June 2010 at 03:11  
Blogger Ivan said...

Kadijah, Moe's first wife was a businesswoman whose caravans Mo looked after. Like any modern shipping agent, he made sure that the goods were delivered and collected the dues. So already before Mo came out with his infernal cult, the women of Arabia were liberated enough to engage long distance trade. Kadijah was in effect his employer and benefactor. All that freedom was to be lost after Moe and his thugs gained power. Omar then made sure that women had to around in burqa, otherwise its open season on them as they go about their ablutions in the fields. In short women lost freedom after the advent of Islam. I realise that this is simple logic and thus beyond the ken of Muslimah barristers.

9 June 2010 at 03:33  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Ivan the terrible,

Your logic simply fits you like a glove!

Why did you mentioned Kadijah, a well established businesswoman in that time to prove a point?

9 June 2010 at 06:09  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I just wonder why Muslims that are sensitive to criticism of their religion, choose to come and live in a country where that right to criticise exists (for the moment anyway). Surely they would be happier in an Islamic country. This is a country shaped by Christianity with hard won freedoms, not really a place for devout Muslims with their repressive customs.

9 June 2010 at 10:55  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Two groups arguing over the length of a Unicorns horn and the colour of a Dragon's fire.

9 June 2010 at 12:35  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Although I think the 6 inches and red brigade may have the better argument.

But in the end any answer is a waste of time.

9 June 2010 at 12:36  
Anonymous Katy said...

Daniel - slight problem with your argument. Mohammed was born into a Christian (Orthodox) family and tought the Christian laws (badly) by his grandmother. So the starting point we must take, to see whether he improved the lot of women, must be Christian law - 'one man, one wife' became 'one man, as many wives as he wants, as long as he treats them all equally badly'.

Hmm. Step backwards if you ask me.

9 June 2010 at 13:22  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Thanks for the feedback, EV, Gnostic, and Oswin!

Oswin @ 01:20/29: Yes, the wonder of English mediaevalism is - well just that. I'm honoured if I can reflect any of it, and do appreciate your reassurance!

Glad also that you enjoyed the ref. to Paulinus and your home grounds:) In my turn, I love that initial assertion of English, and its re-flowering so much later, despite the works of the frogules...

That part of the right to our culture is obviously hard-won, in line with Mature Cheese's thinking. The problem of retaining rights can be compounded by the wilfully deaf and blind, whom you describe; but, as we know, such types were ever with us. I guess that's why I see nothing new about their kindred spirits of Marx, the euSSR or the, er, subject category...

9 June 2010 at 14:15  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Ivan at 03:33

Aye, true enough; old Mo behaved himself well-enough whilst his old lady wielded the purse-strings, and the key to the executive loo!

If the whole situation was any more transparent than it already is, we'd have to reinvent glass!

9 June 2010 at 16:26  
Anonymous Oswin said...

no nonny - have you visited Yeavering and, the Holy Well, where Paulinus baptised those thousands? (Although Bede would have it at York; which I've always wondered at, as Holystone is so much nearer to Ad Gefrin!)

Ubtil just a few years ago, the 'Salmon Inn' was conveniently placed just a few hundred yards from the 'Holystone Well' - two essential 'watering holes'!

Alas, the 'Salmon' is no more....sobs...

9 June 2010 at 16:42  
Blogger srizals said...

Maybe for you TheGlovner, since you're going nowhere when you're dead. For some, it matters. They just can't believe that they'll end up being nothing after all the love, joy and suffering that they had to endure in this heavenly hell of life. It's just illogical. They can't take the chance of a probability, like you. But, keep on being good. Good things come to those who are good, eventually.

Sweet dreams my friends, my enemies and the in-betweens..

10 June 2010 at 00:24  
Blogger Ivan said...

Observer (unless you are an Eliza program), Kadijah who appears to have been the midwife of Islam is directly relevant here, she was a Margaret Thatcher of her time.

Oswin, its really wierd how the stories and traditions of Islam not only undercut the supposed loftiness of that religion, but suggest that the polar opposite is in fact the case. Take for example Moe's intitial encounters with the Angel. The tradition records that Moe was repeatedly terrified that he may have met an evil spirit, and had to be soothed by none other Kadijah. Now, none of the Old Testament prophets were similarly terrified of an encounter with God or his Angels. Abraham was not, Jacob wrestled with an angel, Moses didn't fall down in fear - he merely took off his sandals. In the New Testament the Virgin Mary humbly assented to Her destiny when asked by the Angel Gabriel. No terror, only a quite determination. Mohammed on the other hand, had to be cajoled and coaxed by Kadijah into accepting that the spirit was benign. Kadijah was reenacting the original sin of Eve in persuading Adam to eat of the apple in Eden. No wonder then that Mo in one dreams saw that Hell was full of women.

10 June 2010 at 02:21  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Ivan...do you think he might have been dreaming of all his wives, concubines, and the mothers-in-law thereof?

Or perhaps they were the wives and mothers of all he had had murdered; waiting for his arrival?

Alternatively, it might have been down to that last piece of cheese he ate...

10 June 2010 at 02:41  
Blogger Ivan said...

Oswin, Mohammed comes across as a schizoid character. It is also possible that the original Mohammed was a stellar figure around whom all kinds of unsavory legends accreted later. Islam is a man-made religion, a vehicle for Arab imperialists in search of booty. Thus some stories such as that of the legendary sexual prowess of the randy prophet, may have been added to attract felons and freebooters to the cause.

10 June 2010 at 07:54  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Wow, what a wonderful way to slither your way out of a debate! By being obnoxious. I wonder if no nonny was right about Northumbria.

Srizal, although I don't entirely agree with you, I can't say that I'm please with the ridiculous childish behaviours of certain posters. They do not reflect us in majority as you have proposed. They are in their own class of arrogance and sadly ignorance.

10 June 2010 at 08:49  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Observer ???

Being myself of Northumbria in its larger and older sense, I hope not to be too far wrong about the dear place. Can't guess what you think I've said about it, though. We don't speak the same English, I note.

10 June 2010 at 10:02  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oswin - deeply regret haven't made it to said environs; it's also been a while since Bamburgh or Campodonum were on my horizons! Or Sutton Hoo, even.

I fear all are now beyond my bourn.

10 June 2010 at 10:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English! They are all so full of themselves. You're wasting your time trying to put some sense into them. They are beyond any reach. Ignorance is bliss. Go back to where you came from. You don't belong in this forsaken place srizla! Let them be in their scandals and self pity. They are not worth it. Just let us be.

10 June 2010 at 10:52  
Anonymous Oswin said...

TheObserver at 08.49 - ah but no but: perhaps some mild levity is to be expected, in reaction the absurd, but repeatedly documented claims, found within the Koran/sura and the Hadiths?

Further, those self-same sources record, for all to see, the warped consciousness of the so-called Prophet.

There is hardly a figure from history quite so well documented, by friends and associates, let alone any other sources, as is that of Mohammad.

The standard muslim response to this mass of documentation appears to be a pic-n-mix refutation/promotion, to suit what ever need arises. That, and a 'tu quoque' (srizals' introduction!) response, siting Western examples of iniquity, to counterbalance the bizarre proclivities of Mohammad; all of which serves to make any meaningful debate an almost impossible task.

10 June 2010 at 15:11  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Anonymous at 10.52 - you might have a point, somewhere amidst your overly excitable rant.

However, by srizals' own terms of reference, it would not be merely the 'English' considered ''beyond reach''- but anyone else capable of some modicum of sequential thought!

10 June 2010 at 15:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Observer - one further point: you refer to 'ignorance': could this perhaps imply that YOUR take on Islam is more learned, more accurate, than that of us 'jolly-japers'?

You might be right about the ''arrogance'' part; I confess I find it a difficult trait to avoid, when faced with the dog-bite lunacy and mouth-foaming idiocies of overly excitable natives. I am reminded that I am not a perfect being...

10 June 2010 at 15:40  
Anonymous TheObserver said...


I'm neither a Muslim nor a Christian. In terms of your religiously understanding, an agnostic.

Here you have a wonderful chance of portraying your belief, which you have failed miserably. But had successfully shown that you are driven by hatred, and therefore your judgment is clouded by it.

If only you have tackled wisely, the arguments by one Muslim, brought up in this posting which had in the first place, questioned the basic foundation of his faith, and doing so by not being over-reacting, can't say the same for you, and that's a shame.

10 June 2010 at 18:04  
Anonymous CrazyWorld said...

Type 'youngest mother' and googled for it. You'll be surprised! Hilariously mind-blowing facts!

10 June 2010 at 18:34  
Anonymous BystanderEffect said...

ccoraxfan — January 22, 2009 — This story is about a 10 year old girl in Idaho who got pregnant in 2007 at the age of 9, and gave birth to a baby girl at the age of 10. The father of her baby is apparently the boyfriend of her mother.

The reactions of the people interviewed are interesting. It seems that most people are in denial of a basic fact of biology: When a girl is capable of becoming pregnant, she is old enough to become a mother. Our society has for so long been trying to extend childhood later and later, trying to tell young adults that they are still children, trying to keep them from living as adults in an adult world; that when someone proves them wrong, they go into denial, and claim that it is wrong. Now rape is wrong, and sex outside marriage is wrong, but for a girl to have a baby at the age of 10 is not wrong in itself. A 10 year old is not a baby, she is not a little child even. I started operating heavy equipment at the age of 8, and was driving a car at 9... and girls are more mature than boys at this age. (I'm a guy, by the way.) We don't give young people enough credit for what they can do, nor do we give them opportunity enough to prove themselves.

Some people seem to believe that the girl's baby should have been killed via abortion. I am glad that did not happen, for that would have added yet another tragedy on top of what has already been done. As if she hasn't had enough done to her already, this poor girl and her baby have been put in state custody, which is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.


10 June 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

1 Corinthians 7:36 - But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry. 37 Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well.

Christianity is load of hypocrites! That's why I am no longer one. Offend me and I'll start posting the nasty ones!


10 June 2010 at 19:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I Cor. 7:

32. But I would have you without carefulness [..."be without solicitude": Douay-Rheims]. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33. But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. the unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.

[[[36 D-R reads: But if any man think that he seemeth dishonoured, with regard to his virgin, for that she is above the age, and it must so be: let him do what he will; he sinneth not if she marry.
37. For he that hath determined being steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but having power of his own will; and hath judged this in his heart, to keep his virgin, doth well.]]]

38. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better.
39. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.

10 June 2010 at 20:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore, while some girls may be capable of conceiving at say - 11 years of age - it is not safe for them to do so. The rest of the body/skeleton is not sufficiently developed until later. That's presumably why laws came into effect quite early: to safeguard the girls and the babies.

So just because a few ignorant barbarians go in for it now doesn't make it either legal or wise.

10 June 2010 at 20:32  
Anonymous Oswin said...

TheObserver at 18:04

Clearly you aren't any sort of observer at all; otherwise you might have noted, over a prolonged period, that ''one muslim'' is incapable of any form of rational debate whatsoever...thus the reaction to his bletherings.

Your other presumptions serve only to highlight your own over-blown, and under-researched, perceptions.

Neither do you address any point from 15:11.

Looking back over your own contribution of stick-poking and finger-wagging, I'm left with the distinct whiff of an oily sanctimoniousness. Not bad going for an agnostic!

10 June 2010 at 20:36  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Undeluded at 19:39

Oh you are an interesting specimen!

''Offend me and I'll start posting the nasty ones!''

Feel-free to say your piece. It might make a refreshing change from srizals' usual bletherings.

10 June 2010 at 20:49  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

I'm not a Muslim, why should I Oswin?
You on the other hand is a very proud Christian. And yet, you failed miserably in dealing with a puny Muslim's bletherings. May be once in a while, you should consider looking at yourself in the mirror? As they say, it takes one, to know one.

10 June 2010 at 21:25  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Warned ya,

Christian "Eucharist" (Sacrament / Communion) Founded in Ancient semen-drinking Rites.

Testimony of St. Epiphane [4th century] ), semen is shown as having been ritually consumed in "Agape" (the original ceremonies of the earliest Christian sects wherein "...many of the rituals involved the anointing and swallowing of this sacred substance [semen], an orgiastic ritual that had been the bane of the Old Testament prophets a thousand years before..." [see under "Other Practices, (3) "Love Feasts"], - John Romer, Testament: The Bible and History, p. 194) and later condemned by the Catholic Church and stripped of its sensual-spiritual foundations:

Christian folks had and have always been in the 'sex' thing. They just like to act holy. Muslims may be bad, but ya all are a bunch of hypocrites in a sense of a crazy dog kinda backward philosopher.

Check it out yourself, you bunch of idiots!


10 June 2010 at 21:37  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Read up Oswin!

Interestingly, there existed many competing Christian cults in the early years after Jesus' alleged death. Some sects saw the universe in dualisms of goodness and sin, of light and darkness, God and the Devil. Other Christian sects performed odd rituals, some of which involved the swallowing of semen, thought of as a sacred substance. Many other Christians also wrote mystical stories and by the second century there existed more than a dozen Gospels, along with a whole library of other texts. These include letters of Jesus to foreign kings, letters of Paul to Aristotle, and histories of the disciples. In one of these secret Gospels, it describes Jesus taking naked young men off to secret initiation rites in the Garden of Gethsemene. There lived Christian Gnostics (knowers) who believed that the church itself derived from the Devil to keep man from God and from realizing his true nature. In those first centuries of Christianity orthodoxy did not exist and when an organized orthodox church finally came, it got defined, almost inadvertently, in argument against many of the Gnostic sects.

So the idea of the Bible as a single, sacred unalterable corpus of texts began in heresy and later extended and used by churchmen in their efforts to define orthodoxy. One of the Bible's most influential editors, Irenaeus of Lyon, decided that there should only exist four Gospels like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, and the eagle of John. In a single stroke, Irenaeus had delineated the sacred book of the Christian church and left out the other Gospels. Irenaeus also wrote what Christianity did not include, and in this way Christianity became an orthodox faith. A work of Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, became the starting point for later inquisitions.

10 June 2010 at 21:45  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

And the UK did NOT have deep rooted Christianity heritage of shit! All of Europe were PAGANS! Dumb shit!

10 June 2010 at 21:55  
Anonymous AnaNimosity said...

The Post-Modernists have been playing this game for a long time. That's presumably the source of this cut-and-paste internet trash.

I suppose there's some wisdom in letting them show themselves up...
I mean - it hardly enhances the campaign His Grace has identified, does it? It can't turn anyone towards the False Prophet.

Just a pity they can't limit themselves to their own bits of desert and cyberspace. I'm actually beginning to thank the Crusaders for keeping them off us for so long!!!

10 June 2010 at 22:53  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Save your breath, some will keep on deluding that they are always right while the reality would always show them otherwise. I’m an agnostic but I don’t think it’s cool to dehumanize a respected religious figure while your own religion is in a mess beyond comprehension. All the mistakes can’t be corrected by playing dumb. But then again, that’s the norm in some of us.

11 June 2010 at 01:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Undeluded, pardon me of asking, are you a muslim?

11 June 2010 at 01:47  
Anonymous Anonymous 2 said...

"All the mistakes can’t be corrected by playing dumb. But then again, that’s the norm in some of us." Quite.

And until you apply knowledgeable English usage to your reading and writing, you naturally won't expect the British, on our home ground, to take you seriously.

11 June 2010 at 03:47  
Anonymous Anonymous3 said...

I thought Christians are supposed to turn the other check? Not these Christians I guess. I'm wondering if the class 'Mind Your Language' is still available for non British to learn Her majesty English nowadays?

Or should they have the same demeanor to start thinking like one?

11 June 2010 at 06:00  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

No, I'm not, so what? Your proud bunch of losers thought only Muslims would respond and read the kind of shit that your classy Christians are doing here. We're in the www.com, stupid assholes! Thanks a lot for reminding me how British you are. s.o.b! Don't take me seriously, you're just some goddamned retards!

11 June 2010 at 06:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I'm not a Christian, I just come here for the politics. I don't follow any kind of god, not even ones with antlers. It sounds more like you have a downer on Brits. So which particular type of Brit pisses you off the most? English? Irish? Scottish? Welsh? Or just the kind who run oil companies?

And how can anyone take seriously your ranting ad hominem attack? Not much of an advertisement for your own towering intellect is it.

You are quite correct about the pagan thing though. Kudos for reading a book.

11 June 2010 at 06:54  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mr Deluded, I've just read the interesting diatribe your name links to. My, my, if this is the type of reading material you take on preferance then perhaps you can be forgiven for your gross ignorance of what constitutes a British citizen. Allow me to fisk a particular section.

“Luckily it is easy to recognise a Brit on holiday. A clean shaven head with a much too big and cheap pair of sunglasses...

Nope. Most of us have a full head of hair including me. Mine is regularly coiffeured. My sunglasses are Dolce and Gabbana, picked up for a reasonable price because they are not this year's fashionable must have.

...a sunburnt bull’s neck...

Nope x 2. Most Brit tourists have heard of sunblock and even know how to apply it.

...a set of disgusting tattoos across his torso...

Like President Theodore Rooseveldt did? Do tattoos make people evil or ugly? Maybe Angelina Jolie has something to say about that. I don't have a tat by the way.

...if it is not covered with a football shirt of Manchester United, Chelsea or Celtic Glasgow...

Now we're getting somewhere. The majority of Brit tourists dress like ordinary tourists in colourful holiday garb. You are confusing the ordinary tourists with the noisy, football loving chavs out on the Costas for a continental binge or an international footie match. An easy mistake for an anti-British bigot who reads too much trash journalism to make. Perhaps you should change your holiday destination to avoid them? I do.

...a half liter of beer always on hand.

Some of them like lager and they tend to drink it in pints. A few of them might even know how to spell litre. Well, maybe not. I tend not to have a glass to hand. It makes driving my car, amongst other things, rather difficult and I'd look a bit odd when shopping in Sainsbury's. I'm sorry to dispel your view of British life but toting glasses of beer in public is not a common site on British streets. Beer glasses can usually be sighted outside pubs where smokers congregate to indulge their habit.

The lady in the company divides her attention between the whining children and the curtain that she got mixed up with the tops in her wardrobe while packing.

All children whine at some stage. It's programmed into their DNA. Why single out British ones? Not even chavs are dim enough nor industrious enough to remove the curtains from their tracks to wear as a toga. Perhaps you are confusing them with some weird travelling frat party?

Anyone who has seen a British couple on holiday understands why the English papers are filled with dramatic stories about binge drinking, obesity and teen-age pregnancies.

Yeah, I've noticed quite a few US tourists and European tourists who closely match that description. As for newspapers, anyone who has read a Western rag anywhere should know that these "get-a-lifestyle" articles are written by dumb as rocks journos looking to sensationalise and who think they know what people want to read. Most Brit newspapers are in decline because ordinary people are quitting buying the news-lite and celeb-heavy garbage that has infected the British press. These papers are written by lazy hacks who can't discern the difference between ordinary, hardworking British people and the freaks that appear on the Jeremy Kyle show. Since you display zero discernment too perhaps you should ask Jeremy for a job?

11 June 2010 at 08:10  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

The Gnostic has a point.

Might also be worth noting that my wife was more than happy to move to Scotland (that's a country within the UK in case you aren't aware) to live and get away from America. She considers America to be a nice place to visit but she doesn't want to live there.

11 June 2010 at 09:56  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Oh, and I support Hibernian and wouldn't wear a Glasgow Celtic top if I was paid (although here we just call them Celtic, having said which I've never heard it put Celtic Glasgow before).

11 June 2010 at 09:57  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11 June 2010 at 13:30  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Mr. Deluded, it matters not what year the garbage was written, it's still garbage. I'm not the one who linked my name to it, you are. And while we're on the subject of bullies, I'm not the one dripping in poisonous invective and ad hominem. If you don't like the idea that most Brits are just ordinary people trying to live the best way they can and are not the freaks you seem to think we are, then that reflects negatively upon you, not me.

11 June 2010 at 13:51  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

11 June 2010 at 13:56  
Anonymous AnaNimosity said...

'Tis the Frogule of the Red Dragon! (dressed up as post-colonialism ....)

wv: sauteri

11 June 2010 at 13:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Undeluded,

Please desist from using foul language.

11 June 2010 at 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Deluded, ops, undeluded, the link you've provided is just trash anyway.http://www.vexen.co.uk/UK/dislike.html,the webpage had clearly demonstrated biasness and ill information of the British people.

11 June 2010 at 14:02  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Takes one to know one. And don't give me that Ad hominen crap! If that's how you escape reasoning, not even the blood of all the sons and daughters of gods or titans will save you.

I'm sorry. I'm allergic to xenophobic arrogant spp. string of virus. They caused me to do strange things in the net.

Especially when you are trying to act just how holy you are compared to others. It is just pathetic.


Yeah, yeah, Jesus didn't do that and this, how could he? He was crucified remember??

11 June 2010 at 15:15  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

Mr. Deluded, what part of I'm not religious did you not understand? I'm sorry you have an outsized inferiority complex. Please feel free not to share it with me any further. I'll leave you to fume, rant and spit perjorative by yourself since you are obviously incapable of reasoned discussion.

11 June 2010 at 15:25  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Gnostic, it is your style, chicken s...! It doesn't matter whatever you are. British are British. They share common distintive behaviour. A pompous as..

11 June 2010 at 15:36  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

Like I said, you're incapable of reasoned discussion. I'll let you have the last word because you are the type that absolutely must have it. It's not like it'll be worth much anyway. More bigotted spleen no doubt. I'll leave you to your cancerous Britophobia I hope you will be happy together. I'd like to say it was a pleasure meeting you but I'd be lying. It was a hoot winding up the troll though.

Toodle pip. :D

11 June 2010 at 15:57  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

With an execption of Irish, Scottish and Welsh.


And you wonder why they are so proud. It's in their blood.

11 June 2010 at 15:59  
Anonymous Gnostic said...

It might pain you to know that I'm Welsh, born and bred. I only live in England.

I guess you'll have to shorten that list then...


11 June 2010 at 16:17  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Omigosh! Then I should put 'Equals of the English' in front of 'the others'. Game Over.

11 June 2010 at 17:15  
Anonymous BystanderEffect said...

Just a comparison, Britophobia and Brontophobia.

Brontophobia: An abnormal and persistent fear of thunder that causes undue anxiety even though sufferers realize that thunder itself poses no threat to them. When outdoors during a thunderstorm, they may suffer excessive anxiety. When indoors, they may hide under beds or desks, behind sofas, or in closets.

Britophobia: A baseless fear of losing one's self and heritage for a greater Great Britain.

Or is it more similar to Islamophobia definition?

11 June 2010 at 18:17  
Anonymous Undeluded said...

Funny one, BystanderEffect,

Maybe you should replace Islam on the word thunder and you'll get a correct definition. =P

11 June 2010 at 18:27  
Blogger William said...

Gracious me. Some of the colonials are talking out of their colons. Does one need to pass an English grammar test to post here? It's all rather slap-dash. What what?

11 June 2010 at 19:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Islamophobia. The fear of being blown to pieces by some suicidal jihadist headcase while going about your lawful business on public transport or walking along a street.

Of course that could never happen here.

12 June 2010 at 11:26  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

This Vexen individual has some incredibly mixed up and confused ideas.

He claims that Britain succeeded because we were irreligious; something that is manifestly untrue. Britain has a tradition of modest (yet still orthodox) Christian faith. This includes both main Christian groups. Just because we have not become zealots does not mean that the Anglican and Catholic faiths have not been practised.
Our success was determined more by our relatively peaceful island status, our gradual movement towards constitutional monarchy and relatively high levels of personal freedom. Without the religious we would have been illiterate, uneducated and without unity.

He also states that Britain is on the decline, with 'trash culture' being his biggest irritant. Compare this with the article on the decline of the faith in this country and you can hardly expect him to claim that faith is a problem or that it is good that it is dying. Yet he still does of course.

Overall he doesn't seem to understand either the good parts or the bad parts of our United Kingdom, and his explanations for both are ill-researched, biased and overly simplistic. He has shown that he is completely unable to determine why we have a religious armed forces and why the decline of the UK correlates with the decline of the faith.

12 June 2010 at 16:23  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Oh wait there are several links to pro-satanism pages. That might explain things a bit.

12 June 2010 at 16:33  
Blogger Dulon said...

The entire inspired by muhammad cmapaign is rebuked here, wuth evidence from hadith


12 June 2010 at 17:25  
Anonymous anonymous 2 said...

Well posted, Lakester91. Thank you.

12 June 2010 at 17:49  
Blogger srizals said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 June 2010 at 22:45  
Blogger srizals said...

Wow, kudos Dulon!

There are so many accusations and lies in your link, but the one that interests me the most is the order to burn Muslims and their houses if they didn’t come to the mosque to pray. It is interesting to note that no Muslims were ever recorded to have done such a thing of burning Muslims and their houses for not attending prayer at the mosque.

As for the hadith, not even the correct and true version of it by the way, was just to reflect the dead seriousness of not attending the call to pray, that's all. Unless you can prove that at that time and even now, Muslims and their houses were burnt for not attending the mosque in times of prayer, WikiIslam and you would have pulled it off.

But please note, don't ask my Christian friends in this blog if there were such a thing in Christianity, of burning people alive if they disagree with you, among other things.

But if we refer the World War 2 with the event of war that depicted the cutting down of trees to show how Islam deals with the environment, it is quite pathetic. Unless we could consider the Agent Orange usage in Vietnam and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not done by the highly civilised West or Christians. Could we say they were inspired by Christianity? But then again, they were all done by the ones that claimed not, of being a prophet. So I guess it's quite ok.

As for others, there are so many to mention here, had been addressed by other Muslims. So, nothing fancy there. But you can believe whatever they say, or check things out for yourself through more reliable and authorised sources with recognisable and distinguished authors as a comparison, to make things clearer of course. But then again, it’s up to you. A word of advice, do compare information and double check them. What exist in reality in terms of history and current happenings should help too. Good luck!

I have to go to the mosque and perform my Subuh prayer now; I don’t want to get burnt of course. :0)

12 June 2010 at 23:11  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Cyber-Islamophobia? The case of WikiIslam, Journal:Contemporary Islam., Publisher:Springer Netherlands, 1872-0218 (Print) 1872-0226 (Online).

It would be a good read for those who think WikiIslam is a good source of Islam. But then again, Muslims should come up with a real Wiki-Islam or some sort to counter such websites.

12 June 2010 at 23:32  
Anonymous Anonymous 3 said...

WikiIslam is the product of faithfreedom.org. Check this out before using the information at your disposal.


12 June 2010 at 23:47  
Anonymous Not I-phobia but news said...

Ladies rights according to muslimes


Kiddies rights according to muslimes


13 June 2010 at 08:22  
Anonymous mouse potato said...

So - according to wiki - this [false] prophet died on June 8, 632AD. His Grace posted this article on what would, in Christian tradition, often have become the Feast Day of the subject.

Oh - and for those who claim that England was not Christian at the time of this warlord: Augustine came to Canterbury in 597 to convert the Anglo-Saxons. The Welsh already had a Christian tradition; and other various pieces of archeological evidence of churches, or mosaics (e.g. fourth century one from Hinton St. Mary) suggest that some other Celts in the island were also.

13 June 2010 at 09:36  
Anonymous mouse potato said...

...were also Christian. Apologies, lost my glasses.

13 June 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous forkandles said...

Mohammed the great emancipator as endorsed by a lady muslim lawyer, a profession that is the last word in probity. Dunno about you guys but I'm convinced.


13 June 2010 at 15:23  
Anonymous len said...

So mohammed was a really nice guy then,
Just the sort to invite round for afternoon tea and meet the family?

13 June 2010 at 18:27  
Anonymous AntiLiar said...

Hmm. Now I'm feeling a little bit strange. Who's judging who here? But I'll add up two links that confirm the Muslims are bad:



14 June 2010 at 09:27  
Anonymous Forkandles said...

AntiLiar those links are about criminal activity and all races are involved in the illegal trafficking of human beings for profit all over the world. This thread is about the false claim that Mo was a womens rights advocate which is a big fat lie. With a name like yours you should already have sussed that. So your point is?

14 June 2010 at 10:47  
Anonymous AntiLiar said...

The more evil should not try to bedevil the lesser evil. It would be totally devilish.

15 June 2010 at 20:50  
Anonymous Forkandles said...

You are a couple of imps short of an inner hell me old cocker.

16 June 2010 at 14:21  
Anonymous AntiLiar said...

Forkandles, it takes one to know one. Open up your eyes and see! The decadence around us. It's not hope.

16 June 2010 at 19:55  
Anonymous Forkandles said...

I don't believe in hellfire and damnation. If god hated decadence he wouldn't have let us invent the wheel.

17 June 2010 at 09:32  
Blogger Dulon said...

This entire campaign is rebuked here.


19 June 2010 at 00:00  
Blogger jeety said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

19 June 2010 at 10:14  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Undeluded - I've just caught-up with your comments...was that it? You're just a wee pussy. I was expecting something extreme!

19 June 2010 at 16:59  
Anonymous Oswin said...

The Observer - my apologies, I did not notice your post.

I am not, as you suggest ''a very proud Christian'' - at least, not in the sense of your terms.

I am a very poor representation indeed. I'm middle-of-the-road C-of-E and feel uncomfortable with any form of extremism; be it emanating from my own religion, or any other.

As such, I deplore the evil of Islam: a con-trick concoction of an evil, and false prophet ... a deliberate false-hood used to promote arabic expansionism.

I would feel the same were I of any other religion, or of none at all: either atheist,
agnostic or blue-arsed baboon, it would not matter one jot!

The evidence for my assertions are so over-whelmingly documented that it becomes tedious forever raking-over the embers; especially so when the 'muslim' concerned uses every paltry argument to deceive both themselves, and others.

srizals is such a one; and regardless of anything that might be said, or shown to him, he is incapable of independent thought.

He is the arch hypocrit, and I for one, refuse to offer the dignity of debate.

However, another muslim might well engender yet another response entirely.

Yet again your comments are ill-founded, ill-judged and presumptuous...

19 June 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Then, I offer my apologies Oswin, personally, I've been enjoying your comments. :) That's why I'm hoping to read more.

20 June 2010 at 02:43  
Anonymous srizals said...

My, my, Oswin, you're one brave man, shielding yourself from me by using such statement and character assassination. Read back Oswin. What's the purpose do we all have in common, in spite of glaring differences?

Ok, I'll declare defeat and announce you victorious! Satisfied?

Please spare me the humiliation and stop antagonizing my faith. Leave us in peace, and all is forgiven. If you can’t do that, do expect some questions and inconvenient truth to be delivered on your desk. And stop mentioning my name all the time in your comments. It’s quite embarrassing. People might think that we are related or something, in a love and hate relationship. Bye Oswin. Have a good life.

20 June 2010 at 12:55  
Anonymous Oswin said...

The Observer - it's very gracious of you; thanks.

I note that I have missed-off the 'e' from 'hypocrite' ... I hate it when that happens!

srizals at 12.55 - ''...all is forgiven...'' not bloody likely! NOT until you start to see the 'wood for the trees' - or, in your case, the 'ooloo'!

I leave all ''inconvenient truths'' solely to you; as you and yours have enough to to contend with, as it is.

21 June 2010 at 18:40  
Anonymous srizals said...

As it is then Oswin, as it is.

22 June 2010 at 03:06  
Anonymous Michal said...

LOL, I wish I had cranmer's worries!

27 June 2010 at 15:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older