Sunday, October 03, 2010

Eco-Jihad - the Islamist version



With thanks to Dr Richard North (whose far greater mind appears so frequently to think like that of His Grace), this 'Islamist' parody of the eco-jihad promotional film is exactly what His Grace was talking about when he referred to 'climate change terrorism'.

If this is offensive - as well it might be to both Muslim and non-Muslim alike - by what reasoning was the original 10:10 Richard Curtis film ever deemed to be morally acceptable? Does this communicate truth, or is it a perversion of a creed? Does it incite hatred, or is it legitimate expression of belief?

What would be the response if those being exploded were homosexuals?

Or Muslims?

Or Socialists?

Isn't this precisely what the 'Islamist' in our midst did on 7th July 2005? You take your bombs onto London underground, identify the unbeliever, press a button and blow him to smithereens. Why is it 'funny' to blow up those who happen to believe that global warming is not a man-made phenomenon, yet grossly offensive to liquidate others for their sincerely-held beliefs?

Perhaps blowing 'the Right' to kingdom come is a legitimate pursuit: the world would doubtless be a far better place without heterosexual homophobes, Christian Islamophobes and Thatcherites.

And you can count on the pathologically-socialist luvvies and darlings to donate their time and talent free of charge in this righteous pursuit.

But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?

40 Comments:

Anonymous Trencherbone said...

Please don't take the p!$$ out of Muslims, they don't like it!

3 October 2010 at 11:05  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Calm down dear, it's only a commercial!"

No, seriously though, it was very horrific and in extremely bad taste even though they are APPOLOGISING.

I have never liked any Richard Curtis stuff to be honest - totally not funny crap.

3 October 2010 at 11:21  
Anonymous Michal said...

Oh no. Fake blood on TV. Whatever shall we do.

Now the video is quite funny (I'm sure Daily Mail would appreciate it) although hugely politically incorrect, practically as much as blowing up people over environment. So Cranmer, are you also going to be appalled over furthering the stereotype of Islam as a terrorist religion? Are you also going to be so resoundingly infuriated over the supposed incitement of religious hatred? I suppose not, that's totally fine, because it happens to be convenient for your purposes. So being politically incorrect here is fine.

3 October 2010 at 12:00  
Anonymous Sam Vega said...

"But this parody poses a searching question: what is the difference between 10:10 and 7/7, other than that one group thinks it 'funny'?"

One of them was a terrorist atrocity carried out in the real world, and the other is merely a video which some find objectionable.

3 October 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I'm a climate sceptic and my trigger finger (I shoot clay) is faster than Curtis' Big Red Button finger...

;0)

3 October 2010 at 12:29  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

How about addressing a few questions to William Hague as to why the Government should be seeking to do business with war criminals and Islamists.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/wanted-by-the-hague-genocide-and-by-william-hague-as-a-trading-partner-2094575.html

The government Hague is trying to business with did this fro real in Darfur rather than fro pretend in a stupid film or parodies thereof.

3 October 2010 at 13:05  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Michal (12:00)—… are you also going to be appalled over furthering the stereotype of Islam as a terrorist religion?

Islam has only itself to blame, with Allah specifically ordering the use of violence against non-Muslims:

2:191 Kill them [the unbelievers] wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage.

8:12 Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, maim them in every limb!’

8:39 Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

Not for nothing does Islam divide the world into the House of Islam and the House of War.

3 October 2010 at 14:18  
Blogger srizals said...

The House of War would be, Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. No Muslim soldiers killing the infidels in the House of Christians. What should the Muslims do? What should the Muslims do? Die silently Johnny?

3 October 2010 at 15:08  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Your Grace,

By all means feel free to labour the point regarding this video, but I don't think anyone is defending it this morning. Indeed I understand it has been withdrawn. For what it's worth, I think the blowing up scenes were obviously not very realistic, and were doubtless therefore intended as a parody. But perhaps we can all agree that the end result was totally crass and damaging to the cause of 10:10.

What becomes a little tiring, however, is this constant comparison with Islam. His Grace rarely finds the courage to make a clear and open criticism of Islam. Rather, he seems to want other people to do it. So if somebody attacks the Bible, His Grace says, "you would never have said that about the Koran." If somebody parodies Jesus, His Grace says, "you would never have said that about Mohammed." And so on.

To point out a double standard is one thing, but the debate must move on to actually address that double standard. It is never clear whether His Grace would prefer all religions to be criticised, or whether he would rather have all religions protected from criticism. (Or maybe he wants to see all religions strongly criticised apart from his own religion. Surely not?)

I would love to hear His Grace make a direct and robust intellectual criticism of Islam. There certainly isn't enough of this sort of thing. But His Grace always disappoints with his, "you would never say that about Islam." It resembles nothing more than a sort of futile complaining from the sidelines, rather than being prepared to address head on a genuine cause for concern.

3 October 2010 at 15:27  
Blogger srizals said...

Blogger Laurence Boyce said...a genuine cause for concern.

And that would be?

Since you could do better than his grace, why don't you start blogging yourself, that would surely set things right, at least his grace would have an idea or two from a genuine blogger such as you.

3 October 2010 at 16:12  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

That would be the genuine concern that Islam poses worldwide for the rights of women, the rights of homosexuals, or just for our freedoms in general.

I myself have criticised Islam in the strongest possible terms, and have had the predictable opprobrium heaped upon me for so doing. But I can't see Cranmer following suit.

Instead, all I ever hear is a desire for Islam to be criticised more, for Christianity to be criticised less, and for someone else to take the bullet if one happens to be flying through the air.

3 October 2010 at 16:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Boyce,

You clearly have not been reading His Grace for very long at all: you obviously have far better things to do with your time.

Criticising 'Islam' is quite possibly as fruitless as criticising 'Christianity': there is no monolithic culture and no supreme spiritual authority which can define what 'Islam' is. The religion is as fragmented and diverse as all major religions, and many scholars would refute even your authoritative and informed interpretation of their interpretation of the rights and liberties of women and homosexuals.

Islam is more, much more than this.

Bait His Grace with a 'lack of courage', by all means.

He has endured far, far worse.

3 October 2010 at 16:43  
Blogger srizals said...

Briefly if I may. For the rights of women, no woman should be a sex toy and exposed of any harm (from manipulators of the sex industry or self-inflicted) and specific sexual borne diseases. For the rights of homosexuals, the right to have meaningful sex and using their sexual organs correctly, fruitful with offspring, secured from HIV, Aids, genital warts and dying slowly from an antagonising death.

Freedom in general, no one gets away hurting anyone without the fear of equal retribution, without proper compensation if forgiven by the victims, safety from unhealthy high cholesterol meat that would lead to monstrous and incurable punishing diseases and damaging neuron (and self-dignity) intoxicating drinks. Did I forget something?

Any viruses that failed to distinguish the good and the bad should also be brought to the stake for being so..Should I say, inconsiderate, for not letting man do whatever pleases him.

3 October 2010 at 16:59  
Blogger Oswin said...

srizals @ 15.08

What they should do, is explore the very nature of the inception of Islam; then hopefully they will see it for what it truly is, a malignant construct!

3 October 2010 at 17:36  
Blogger srizals said...

Oswin, you win, cheerio!

3 October 2010 at 17:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (15:08)—Hello srizals. The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were deplorable, and I do not criticize the people of those countries for resisting the aggressors (principally the US and Britain).

The violent nature of Islam, though, dates from its very inception, long before Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Pakistan existed. In the words of Abul A’ala Maududi, the Islamic scholar from Pakistan:

❛Islam is not merely a religious creed [but] a revolutionary ideology, and jihad refers to that revolutionary struggle … to destroy all states and governments anywhere on the face of the earth, which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam.❜

3 October 2010 at 18:08  
Blogger srizals said...

Hi, Johnny.

And who is this Islamic scholar from Pakistan to the majority of Muslims, Johnny?

Is he as same as what Hitler and Mussolini was to the White European Christians?

Or is he like an unpopular preacher, desperate for attention to upgrade his puny church members by daring a stunt, so bizarre, fame engulfed him finally before he breathes his final breath?

If you're willing, let us compare the death tolls of all the conflicts, of all religions and the non-religionists. Would it be a more reliable measuring instrument on how violent we really are? What say you Johnny? No string attached, just a friendly discussion on the internet, thousand miles apart and yet too close for comfort.

Since the data would require extensive reading and a little bit of research, let us take our time. How about it Johnny?

3 October 2010 at 18:59  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

His Grace is mistaken in that I have been reading him for a very long time. Sadly, I have little better to do. I find His Grace hugely entertaining and was genuinely concerned to hear of his recent troubles, the details of which I know nothing. But no matter, he is risen now, and I wish His Grace a speedy return to his normal self.

His Grace has at least resolved the question which has been gently troubling me. It is now clear that His Grace would prefer religion not to be criticised at all. Indeed we learn that it is "fruitless" to criticise either Christianity or Islam, because there is apparently nothing to tell us what Christianity or Islam actually is. How terribly convenient!

Of course this is all such tommyrot. Were someone to pen a devastating critique of socialism both in theory and practice, would His Grace point out that there is no such thing as socialism? That socialism is too diverse a concept to merit criticism? In short, that any attack on socialism is "fruitless"? The question is purely rhetorical.

When it comes to religion, there is plenty to criticise. We may start with the scriptures, sacred texts, and creeds; move on to the specific teachings of the diverse religious institutions; and finally consider how all of this plays out in practice. His Grace would prefer that we did none of this. But then he is unable to conceal his irritation when his own brand of superstition is called into question while Islam is treated with misguided respect.

His Grace then vents his frustration on anything to hand - scientologists, druids, climate change freaks - whatever it takes to divert attention from his own peculiar beliefs, which some joker once parodied in the following way:

"Christianity - the belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman who was created from a man's rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat an apple from a magical tree. Makes perfect sense really."

Altogether now: "HE WOULD NEVER HAVE SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT ABOUT ISLAM!!!"

(By the way, as far as the rights of women under Islam are concerned, I think I may prefer to be informed by a genuinely brave lady who knows all about it (let's say Ayaan Hirsi Ali), as opposed to some male "scholar" with a vested interest that goes back centuries.)

His Grace will forgive me for baiting him so soon after his recent troubles.

I wish His Grace God speed (except of course that there's no God).

3 October 2010 at 19:06  
Blogger srizals said...

Ayaan Hirsi Ali has encountered the ancient Pharaonic circumcision method that long existed before Islam. The problem with Muslims, they were something else before embracing Islam, how much have they adopt Islam into their way of life and discard their previous culture and ways (which Islam oppose in the first place) would determine the outcome of their society.

Don't you find it strange that only a certain part of the region in the world that produced Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Why can't it be more global, say, the entire Muslim nations. That would be surely decisive. I mean your simplistic over-generalisation technique of a simpleton.

I'm married and I don't have to elaborate to show I know what I'm talking about. And I have a daughter. To deprive them of their basic needs and bodily function would be unthinkable. To expect you to understand would be likewise.

But for the sake of others,

Pharonic
http://www.islamset.com/hip/health5/pharaon.html

Africa
http://www.irinnews.org/IndepthMain.aspx?IndepthId=15&ReportId=62462

Islamic
http://www.jannah.org/genderequity/equityappendix.html

I would appreciate it if you do some reading, genuinely looking for the truth, before writing something about Islam. Where's the intellectuality in that?

3 October 2010 at 19:34  
Anonymous I think therefore I thwam said...

As someone else remarked a few days ago, it isn't so much what muslims say that matters. It's what they do instead we should be wary of.

Enjoy your reading Srizals.

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

http://www.amcoptic.com/

http://www.answering-islam.org/

http://www.apostatesofislam.com/

http://mychristianblood.blogspirit.com/

http://www.dhimmi.com/

http://www.faithfreedom.org/

http://www.genocide1915.info/

http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/

http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/

3 October 2010 at 19:57  
Blogger srizals said...

Wow! Then Q Anonymous I think therefore I thwam. Funny name for a blogger. Bet you're a rookie.

Is that all?

I will only give one link to counter your overwhelming link attack.

John W. Loftus
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/

3 October 2010 at 20:03  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (18:59)—Many of the dead in the two World Wars were Christian, killed by their fellow Christians; part of the Muslim world became involved in the First World War only because of Turkey’s decision to fight alongside Germany. The European wars of the 18th and 19th centuries were, again, fought among Christian countries.

In any case, the fundamental point is surely this: Christianity condemns violence, whereas Allah gives His blessing to violence. The 9/11 martyrs are taking their ease in Paradise; Tony Blair will spend the rest of eternity in Hell.

3 October 2010 at 20:13  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"Don't you find it strange that only a certain part of the region in the world produced Ayaan Hirsi Ali? Why can't it be more global, say, the entire Muslim nations? That would be surely decisive."

You're quite right. It's a bit like child rape in the Catholic Church. I don't know what all the fuss is about. When less than 5% of the priests were at it! Now 100% - that would be decisive!

By the way, having her thingy chopped off was just the start of Ayaan Hirsi Ali's troubles. Today, she lives in a constant state of fear and police protection just for telling her story. Doubtless it's all down to a few rotten apples. A couple of bad eggs . . .

You know what would be really good, srizals? It would be that instead of going straight up with a "nothing to do with me!", you stopped for a moment to consider whether you might not like to take just a tiny portion of responsibility.

Why exactly is the "religion of peace" so easily and frequently "misunderstood" and with such devastating consequences?

3 October 2010 at 20:41  
Blogger srizals said...

Tony Blair will surely spend eternity in Hell and we would not want to join him, the rest of the killers and mutilators of mankind now, would we?

Johnny, when someone is threaten by someone else, and that person is much bigger and more powerful than he is, and not only that, he has gangs of hoodlums at his will, one would not have much option left than to face the nemesis in the way the nemesis has provoked in the first place, of flee and being hunted down like a rat.

Surely you can't expect the early Muslims to scatter like Jesus' companions, look what it did to the Christians. And I don't think Muhammad would be willing to be crucified for our sins, that would make us all more confused and unsure of how many sons and daughters does god really has. I don't think God would let it happened twice, don't you think so?

The early followers of Christ, and I don't think they are even Christians since Paul was not even born yet at that time, had no option to fight since there were only 12 of them against so many.

The early Muslims on the other hand, although largely outnumbered and out-gunned by the stronger and richer union of wealthy tribes, stood their ground in defiance of tyranny, after years of persecution and torture.

As in the present world we are living in, the irony is showing itself in the current conflicts. How overwhelming the adversaries of Muslims then as they are now. History does repeat certain part of itself. Strangely, the struggle between the good and the evil. I mean the mighty bad against the puny good.

3 October 2010 at 20:44  
Blogger srizals said...

Mr. Boyce 20:41,

What makes you so sure that it is only 5%? It has not ended, the investigation and revelation I mean. It would be shocking to know that the mere 5% (your figure) were the ones that declared themselves as the ones that are closed to god.

As would Nietzsche and Sade be, according to your worldview as an atheist, I wonder if you even know them or share their views. I would not even bother to try to introduce Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and a few prolific atheists that highlighted themselves in the course of history.

I wonder how would you figure out the percentage and the basis of the calculation. The number of those killed? Or the number of those who gave the order? Or the widespread of the event?

3 October 2010 at 21:03  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 October 2010 at 21:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (20:44)—How overwhelming the adversaries of Muslims then as they are now.

Now that there’s an Islamic bomb, who knows what destruction will rain down in the name of Allah? I dare say one of the main reasons that Christianity has been responsible for so much slaughter—often directed against itself—is that the Christian world was far more technologically advanced than the Muslim. Now that the Muslim world is catching up… well, all the more reason for Britain to retain her nuclear strike force.

Every conflict in history has been started by those who love power—tribal chiefs, kings, popes, prime ministers, presidents, dictators. No conflict has ever been started by the people. Want to end war? Ban those who love power from holding power.

3 October 2010 at 21:23  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

I was being ironic about the priests. Not quite sure if you got that. I don't know what the exact figures are. The point is that we don't need to reach 100% to prove a systemic problem. Just 1% could signify a systemic problem.

The Stalin-Mao thing is a bit of a canard. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. It's more of a negative belief than a belief in anything positive. It's also a very short and simple belief. Many of us would say that our non-belief in God is like our non-belief in Father Christmas. Some would say it's hardly even a belief at all - merely the most rational and parsimonious interpretation of the available data.

Sticking with women's rights, let's see what the consequences are for women if we say there is no God. To be honest, I can't see that there are any consequences. We could say there is no God and treat women well, or we could say there is no God and treat women badly. It's all the same. Thus atheism is not responsible for the mistreatment of women, but nor does it provide any positive vision for the treatment of women.

Now let's look at religion. To a first approximation, Islam and Christianity rest upon the idea that the Koran or the Bible is the word of God. Now I am perfectly aware that this belief is held in varying degrees among the faithful, from a very literal interpretation to a much looser one. But the fact remains that I can find verses in both these books which, even in their most generous interpretation, provide a negative vision for the flourishing of women. None of this would matter if these lines were repudiated, but they are not. And so we find - from extremist Islam through to the woolly Church of England - issues negatively affecting the rights of women.

Admittedly the worst thing that happens these days to women in the CofE is that they don't yet get to be Bishops and wear a silly hat. But this is still set to cause considerable disruption within that Church over the coming years.

Unfortunately the worst thing that happens to women under Islam is . . . much much worse.

3 October 2010 at 22:13  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny 21:23,

Bush and Blair are democratically elected by the people. They were both not dictators. The people knew what these two were up two, if they didn't know back then, they surely do know now, and what has changed lately?

The people who appointed them and continue to support them and the likes of them let their own selves be deceived. And everyone is talking about deception (taqiyya).

It's the oldest trick in the book. Calling the others as you are.

Which Islamic bomb are you referring to? A couple of Pakistanis A Bomb? Other than Pakistan, sadly, no other Muslim nations had the capability of fending of tens of thousands nukes, enough to blow us all to smithereens.

Do you think most of us had forgotten what it was like living the cold war?

Careful Johnny, you might be placing your fear at the wrong foe.

3 October 2010 at 22:23  
Blogger srizals said...

There you go again making simplistic arguments without solid facts and figures and the same over-generalisation conclusion.

We'll continue after this Mr. Boyce, I have to return to the real world. The call of prayer is in the morning air. I have to get a couple of shut eyes to recharge myself for the day ahead. Until then. It has been fun. Good night.

3 October 2010 at 22:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wonder anyone still remember what Truman said before raining destruction onto the Japanese.

3 October 2010 at 22:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (22:23)—Even in a democracy, power is invariably held by those who love power. If the United States and Britain were fully-fledged dictatorships, Bush and Blair, or other power addicts, would still get into power. The difference is that, in a dictatorship, they would achieve power by using physical violence; in a democracy, they get into power by using violence against the truth—they lie.

BTW, in my 21:23 comment, ‘Christianity’ should read ‘Christendom’.

3 October 2010 at 22:57  
Anonymous The Observer said...

"If they do not now accept our terms, they may expect a rain of ruin from the air, the like of which has never been seen on this earth. Behind this air attack will follow sea and land forces in such numbers and power as they have not yet seen and with the fighting skill of which they are already well aware."

Japan was not a nuclear power and thus suffered the nuclear bomb twice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki

3 October 2010 at 23:06  
Anonymous I think therefore I thwam said...

@ Srizals

What? That is what you consider a valid response? You try to deflect from the subject at hand, which was Islam, and link to a vacuous site which has nothing to do with it. Where are the responses to your own fellow ex-muslims accusations, along with all the others?
Deflection and taqqiya, taqqiya, taqqiya, lol. But what do I know, being nothing more than a rookie?

However, we are all anonymous in Blogland, even you. Unless you'd like to print your real name, phone number, address etc etc.

3 October 2010 at 23:21  
Anonymous Michal said...

Johnny Rottenborough (14:18) Islam has only itself to blame, with Allah specifically ordering the use of violence against non-Muslims

Helly Johnny, I hear a lot of talk about our judeo-christian foundations. Would you like to read old testament with me, perhaps the Deuteronomy?

4 October 2010 at 00:57  
Blogger ZZMike said...

Monty Python did the explosions a lot better.

srizals: "how much have they adopt Islam into their way of life and discard their previous culture and ways (which Islam oppose in the first place) would determine the outcome of their society."

Glad you brought that up. It explains completely why Muslim countries are basket cases, and why countries that they're inundating - such as Formerly Great Britain - are rapidly becoming basket cases.

somebody said "it isn't so much what muslims say that matters. It's what they do instead we should be wary of."

That's it exactly. What they do speaks so loudly that we cannot hear what they're saying.

When we hear major mullahs and Imams condemning the terrorism of (as you suggest) the minority; when we see a Christian church built in an Islamic country (compared to the thousands of mosques in America), then we'll be able to have a conversation.

But we seem to have gone off the topic of the egregious propaganda video.

4 October 2010 at 00:58  
Blogger saraly said...

Why is it the highly civilised always look down on the less fortunate. Walk the talk ZZMike.

Whos invading who.

4 October 2010 at 04:19  
Blogger saraly said...

Anonymous I think therefore I thwam

YOU are a rookie. Stop making a fool out of yourself.

4 October 2010 at 04:25  
Anonymous I think therefore I thwam said...

@ Saraly

Ah, bless. Get over yourself.

4 October 2010 at 07:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Michal (00:57)—Hello Michal. Christian teachings are found in the New Testament, not the Old.

4 October 2010 at 15:29  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older