Tuesday, January 21, 2014

Petition to deselect LibDem candidate Maajid Nawaz for tweeting Jesus and Mo cartoon

Is this cartoon offensive?

The BBC thinks so. On their Sunday morning programme The Big Questions on 12th January, the producers opted not to display it to viewers even though the Jesus and Mo satirical comic strip was the very topic of debate. By doing so, they chose to manifest and perpetuate a certain hyper-sensitivity to an imagined sharia compliance with which very few British Muslims actually accord, let alone the vast majority of non-Muslims. By censoring this innocuous image, the BBC is inculcating the whole nation with the belief that depictions of Mohammed are haram - forbidden - and that everyone - people of all faiths and none - must respect and obey this precept.

Setting aside the irrefutable historic fact that Shia Muslims have a centuries-old tradition of depicting Mohammed, and this sort of strict censorship being principally a Sunni assertion of belief (including the malignant Wahhabi-Salafi strain), it is surely not for the state broadcaster to take a dogmatic view of the deeply-held sensitivities of one religious denomination, or to impose a moral view of religious blasphemy when Parliament has abolished the concept.

The fact that the BBC chose to censor a T-shirt depicting this cartoon rather upset Muslim Maajid Nawaz, who was a guest on the show. He proceeded to tweet out the image to his followers with the message: “This is not offensive & I'm sure God is greater than to feel threatened by it.” Mr Nawaz is a former member of the Islamist revolutionary group Hizb ut-Tahrir, and became director of the anti-extremist think-tank the Quilliam Foundation. He is now the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn. Mohammed is his prophet, and Islam is his faith. But he understands perfectly that some people view Islam is a vile ideology and, for many, Mohammed is no kind of prophet at all. And depicting Mohammed saying "Hey" to Jesus does not offend him in the slightest.

No reasonable person goes out of their way to cause offence. In this instance, Maajid Nawaz was simply challenging the BBC's (myopic) interpretation of a particular (narrow) view of sharia, and demonstrating that British Muslims are moderate and do not reach for the nearest meat-cleaver to dismember the apostate or behead the blaspheming kuffar.

Sadly, a few Muslims have now threatened Mr Nawaz with certain 'surprises', and others have been more explicit in what they would like to do to him:

A few moderate types are simply demanding that he be deselected as a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate. They include Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, who tweeted: “I intend to formally complain to the @libdems about @MaajidNawaz and his offensive tweet of a cartoon.” And also George Galloway:

Mr Nawaz has tried to educate these dimwitted hooligans, explaining: “My point is, that cartoon is not offensive. That's my opinion. Don't like it? Don't read my tweets". And he has called for calm.

But there is a petition for the LibDems to deselect Mr Nawaz (currently with 5,476 signatures), and its organisers appeal to Article 3.1(b) of the LibDem Constitution, which says:
As a Member of the Liberal Democrats, you must treat others with respect and must not bully, harass or intimidate any Party member, member of Party staff, member of Parliamentary staff, Party volunteer or member of the public. Such behaviour will be considered to be bringing the Party into disrepute.
And there is a counter-petition (currently with 1,150 signatures) to Nick Clegg urging support. Its organisers explain:
Islamists and political opponents have mounted a campaign against Maajid Nawaz, resulting in numerous threats to his life. We note that this campaign, rather than being based on legitimate concerns of Muslims, is a political campaign which is being spear-headed by a group of Muslim reactionaries with a track record of promoting extremism. They are seeking to use Muslim communities in order to whip up hatred against a liberal and secular Muslims. We are concerned that this campaign will also be used by anti-Muslim extremists as evidence of Muslim intolerance and incompatibility with liberal values which could, in turn, fuel anti-Muslim bigotry.
Stephen Evans, campaigns manager at the National Secular Society hits the nail of liberty squarely on the head. He says: "We simply can't have a climate where politicians are intimidated into silence by people who believe they have a right not to have their religious sensibilities offended. Anything other than complete Liberal Democrat support for Maajid could have a very chilling effect on free speech in this country."

This is more or less what Nigel Farage said in support of Ukip Councillor David Silvester, who has since been suspended (for continuing to stoke the fire, it must be noted; not for expressing his personal beliefs about divine judgment). This is also the rational view taken by very many Muslims, who must now it seems be styled 'moderate', as though they were an emerging denomination distinct from the extremists.

Freedom of expression is essential to the functioning of a liberal democracy, and strong passions may be aroused on both sides of any dispute. If we cease to respect such freedom, we no longer tolerate difference or dissent. And tolerance is important because the alternative is religious war or cultural conflict. Those who demand the censoring of the expression of religious beliefs have no sense or understanding of the common life, and so it disintegrates into a chaos of warring factions. Where there is no respect for pluralism or diversity, there is no grasp of the common good. And a society is only good when it sustains freedom from tyranny and the imposition of an oppressive uniformity. 

His Grace has no wish to augment Nick Clegg's present woes, but this is important. Culture is a shared social reality, and the good of the British culture arises from the historic Christian commitment to support and foster religious freedom as a shared virtue. Please sign the petition in support of Maajid Nawaz. To be deselected by a political party and barred from standing for Parliament merely for articulating a religious opinion or supporting a particular theological doctrine is an offence to all that is reasonable, honourable and just.  


Blogger The Explorer said...

Just looking at the picture (and without reading any of the narrative) two things about it struck me.

1. Here are two equal religions. Either of them (plus any of the others not depicted) will lead you to God.

2. Here are two comparable religious figures. (Probably preaching essentially the same religious message about tolerance towards your neighbour.)

And yet Christ is intrinsic to salvation in a way that Mohammed is not. A more equivalent pairing would be Christ and the Koran.

That said, I'll now read the post before commenting further.

21 January 2014 at 07:50  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The cartoon is meant to be offensive or at least anti religious. As a Christian I believe that Jesus is big enough and scary enough to look after himself. I'm with John Stuart Mill on that. He wrote in 'On Liberty' that any God worthy of the name did not need laws to protect His honour.

I AM offended by limitations on my freedom to criticise and question orthodoxies. I want the liberty to criticise, question and indeed mock figures that are sacred to others, particularly Darwin and Muhammad. therefore accept the right of others to mock and belittle Jesus. But they are ill advised to do so.

21 January 2014 at 07:54  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Any news on the police investigating the death threats? I mean, arrests are imminent, aren't they?

21 January 2014 at 08:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Immediately after commenting, a further though struck me. (I still haven't read the text.)


Danish experience.

Ah yes. Problem.

21 January 2014 at 08:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

From a Lib Dem perspective, this could be offensive to three groups:

1. Those who believe Christianity is true.

2. Those who believe Islam is true.

3. Those who believe neither is true, and religion should be kept out of politics.

Those in Group 1 don't matter. (Probably not Lib Dem voters anyway.)

Some in Group 2 might kill you.

Group 3 might not vote for you.

21 January 2014 at 08:15  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

To an historian, the cartoon is anachronistic...

21 January 2014 at 08:25  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 January 2014 at 08:32  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

One hopes Constable Knapweed and his colleagues are tracking down the tweeters - I for one am offended by their threats, but as an Anglo-Saxon I don't suppose my being offended counts...

21 January 2014 at 08:34  
Blogger Joe Vickers said...

I don't get what all the fuss is about. The cartoon clearly depicts a guy named Mo.

On a serious note we know full well why this image wasn't shown on the BBC and fear of causing offence is not the reason. Fear of a Danish cartoon or Satanic Verses scale mass hysteria possibly leading to violence and maybe even death is the reason. This post has pretty much covered every facet of why this is such a stupid position for the media (in this case the BBC) to take. Special treatment of a particular group of Muslims' perceived offence is not objective and dispassionate. It goes against everything the media should stand for and merely fans the flames of Islamophobia.

21 January 2014 at 08:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Joe Vickers:

Quite so.

In Marlowe's 'Tamburlaine', a Koran is burned onstage.

An intention to include this scene received appropriate threats. Result: the scene was cut from the production.

Nothing to do with respecting sensibilities, and everything to do with a bomb in the theatre: possibly with a suicide bomber attached.

Danish cartoons = nuns firebombed in Africa. This reality cannot be ignored.

21 January 2014 at 08:49  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Fear of a credible death threat is not a phobia.

21 January 2014 at 08:50  
Blogger David B said...

Once again I find myself in agreement with Cranmer.


21 January 2014 at 08:51  
Blogger David B said...

And signed


21 January 2014 at 08:55  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Voltaire's maxim: "I may disagree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

This, I suspect, will increasingly be put to the test in the Europe of the future. Pym Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh are two obvious examples.

21 January 2014 at 09:09  
Blogger Martin said...

Actually Nigel Farage has called David Silvester names and His Grace has failed to support his own position from Scripture so I doubt that is any sort of argument. I somehow doubt their arguments for suspending Mr Silvester.

The National Secular society are well known for objecting to any challenge to their creation myth of Evolution and I have no doubt they'd react strongly to any politician who supported Biblical Creation. So the National Secular society really have no argument when it comes to comment on politicians being intimidated into silence.

When it comes to the cartoon, since Jesus is God can Christians really accept such idolatry as His depiction.

Not, of course, that the BBC would worry about offending Christians, indeed they seem to go out of their way to do so. Does that mean the BBC is unreasonable?

So why are the BBC so scared of offending Muslems?

No doubt the LibDems will kowtow as Nigel Farage has done, it's what we expect from politicians. Except, of course, when it comes to offending Christians.

21 January 2014 at 09:21  
Blogger IanCad said...

Duly signed YG.

Now, where is the petition to halt the persecution of Lord Rennard??

21 January 2014 at 09:26  
Blogger David Sinfield said...

The most offensive thing about the cartoon is its bland inanity.

21 January 2014 at 09:33  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David Sinfield @ 09:33

Unfortunately, there are those - the kind likely to take retributive action - who would not agree with you.

21 January 2014 at 09:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Martin @ 09.21 says, 'So why are the BBC so scared of offending Muslems?'

It's not. With a Muslim head of Religious Affairs the BBC is simply defining British Islam and the definition includes banning representation of Mahommed. Heard of the Church of England? Well, the BBC is the Mosque of Britain.

21 January 2014 at 10:35  
Blogger non mouse said...

None of these 'debaters' have British names. The topic under discussion isn't British.

So nobody involved represents me in any way. Basically, none of it is any of my business ---- except....

Oh. But Nick Clegg isn't really British either, is he?

21 January 2014 at 11:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I watched the BQ programme and the two lads wore the tee-shirts under regular shirts and were invited by Campbell to unbutton and reveal the cartoons. He asked the woman in a niqab if she found them offensive which of course she did. Predictably She was less offended by actions of the Islamic doctrine on the marginalisation of women.

So, they were shown on BBC if in a roundabout sort of way.

Credit to Cranmer for publishing them here today.

21 January 2014 at 11:16  
Blogger Len said...

If a cartoon such as this banal poor quality one can offend someone as to call forth death threats its says a great deal about the religion which responds in that way.
I find it more offensive to behead someone and then post it on the internet.
But that`s just me.

21 January 2014 at 11:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 10:35

Right on the nail.

We are not discussing a situation that might pertain in the future.

We are discussing a situation that is already part of our way of life. Some just haven't yet realised it.

21 January 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger David Grey said...

"This is also the rational view taken by very many Muslims"


Spineless BBC. Run by people who won't stand up for principles that others have died to give them.

They don't deserve their freedoms and neither does anyone else who doesnt speak up against Islam each and every single time something like this happens.

21 January 2014 at 12:47  
Blogger David Grey said...


The fact you don't accept evolution, which is frankly laughable to any reasonable person, of course discredits you immediately. I would be very surprised if "His Grace" himself didn't accept it. But then, he does believe in talking snakes...

Anyway, the NSS does not exist to have an opinion on Theism. You misunderstand secularism and atheism, two ENTIRELY DIFFERENT things. The NSS would not have a problem with a politician believing that the Earth is 10,000 years old (however absurd and factually incorrect that position is). The NSS is simply concerned with equality for people with all religions and none ie no special privileges for the religious. How can any reasonable person disagree with that?

21 January 2014 at 13:09  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Maajid Nawaz is that most dangerous of creatures - the extreme moderate. His performance on Question Time (with Ian Paisley Jr) was genuinely scary.

21 January 2014 at 13:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David Grey @ 13:09

"equality for people with all religions".

I've used this real-life example before, but not, as far as I remember with you.

A while back the headless torso of a boy was fished out of the Thames. It turned out he had been sacrificed to ensure a good harvest.

Undoubtedly a religion. Would you include it your equality for all, or would you qualify your statement?

21 January 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger David Grey said...


I don't know what you mean. Obviously whoever was responsible for that should be punished accordingly.

When i say equality I mean before the law. One law for all.

21 January 2014 at 13:55  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I'm not quite clear what you mean either.

1. Do you mean everybody must obey the law? (Including, say, if the law ordered you to report the whereabouts of members of a particular race so that they could be exterminated?)

2. If a religion has beliefs that are in conflict with the law of the land (as in the example above), those beliefs cannot be put into practice. So how does that square with "equality for people with all religions".

It may simply be an issue about the wording.

21 January 2014 at 14:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Unclear expression on my own part in 1n the 14:09 post, and insufficient attention to yours at 13:55.

I take your position to be that existing laws will, by definition, be just and correct, and that nobody should have exemption from them on the basis of personal belief.

21 January 2014 at 14:22  
Blogger David Grey said...

1. Yes everyone must obey the law, which is decided democratically by all.

2. Everyone has the right to a religious belief but where that belief (such as slavery, murder for apostates/blasphemers/depictions of mohammed, homophobic discrimination) conflicts with the law of the land the law of the land prevails - one law for all. No special exception on the grounds of religious belief or the lack of religious belief (or any other ground).

21 January 2014 at 14:25  
Blogger Len said...

Funny how the more 'liberal' our society gets the more legislation is needed to enforce that liberal view.

21 January 2014 at 14:29  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David Grey @ 14:25

What if a majority voted democratically to exterminate a minority, and that vote became the law of the land.

Or (less explicitly, and more like the NAZI reality) if the majority simply voted that those in power should be allowed to do what was deemed necessary.

Can one rely on the majority always to make the right decision?
What if ninety out of a hundred voted their belief in an Earth round like a plate?

21 January 2014 at 14:37  
Blogger Martin said...


So can you demonstrate the descent of all life from an original form? If you cannot then you accept Evolution on faith, having been told that it is true.

Why do I accept the Bible? Because I know the author and I know he is entirely reliable in what He says.

Sorry, the National Secular Society is entirely about Atheism, the two are the same as can clearly be seen by their actions.

I haven't seen the National Secular Society campaigning against what appeared to be a deliberate attempt by interested parties to entrap them. Clearly the law is being used on behalf of some who have an opinion to oppress the religion of others.

21 January 2014 at 14:44  
Blogger Jesuestomihi said...

The only offense I can see is implying that Mohammed ,a proponent of a pagan religion, is equivalent to Jesus Christ who is God and Lord over all

21 January 2014 at 14:52  
Blogger IanCad said...

Looking at the drawing - I would hardly call it a cartoon - again; I have to wonder if, as Jesus is depicted standing a full head over the turbanned imposter, that in itself could be a reason for all the angst.

21 January 2014 at 14:54  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Isn't that cartoon a cropped version of the one where Jesus and Mo are standing at the pub bar having a pint of beer? So it's not inane. It's amusing.

I hope the police were as quick in rounding up and arresting all those who have issued these barbaric threats in response to Mr Nawaz as they are to do so to other tweeters who merely tweet that they are Christians and against 'equal marriage'.

21 January 2014 at 14:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Jesuestomihi @ 14:52

Excellent point.

From the BBC point of view, the sole issue is that Muslims might be offended.

That Christians might be offended (for exactly the reason you have given) would be baffling to them.

But then, for the BBC, Jesus was a basically nice guy who died a long time ago.

21 January 2014 at 14:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Islam would seem to be on the side of the wielders of meat cleavers. Islamic law classes the making of pictures as an enormity, based on the Prophet’s observation that ‘Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him for each picture he made, to torment him in hell.’

If to make a picture is a sinful act, to make a picture of the Prophet is a double whammy of sinfulness, and one can understand the anger felt by devout Muslims, the ‘dimwitted hooligans’ of Your Grace’s description. Where one community sees a praiseworthy expression of intense devotion and another community sees dimwitted hooliganism, what realistic hope is there for a tolerant via media? All this when Britain’s Muslim population is a mere five per cent. We ain’t seen nothing yet.

21 January 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger David Grey said...


You highlight the unfortunate reality and downside of democracy.

Every idiot, psycho, moron and maniac has an equal vote.

21 January 2014 at 15:03  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David @ 15:03

Very honest response. Thank you.

21 January 2014 at 15:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


Good point. Except you see, making death threats is far less of a problem than saying that marriage should only be between one man and one woman.

Death threats are not seen as subversive. Opposing equal marriage upsets the planned new utopia


21 January 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

We did used to live in a free society with the freedom to speak your mind even if it offended others. This right, amongst others, was won by the blood of our forefathers. It makes me livid that we bow down to a foreign or alien culture and set of values. I long for the day when our politicians and media display the courage of their ancestors and stop this nonsense in it's tracks. Petition duly signed.

21 January 2014 at 17:00  
Blogger David Grey said...


Apparently thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, DNA evidence, the fact it is literally OBSERVABLE means nothing to you in terms of evidence.

Yet you can convince yourself with simply -

"Because I know the author and I know he is entirely reliable in what He says"


Let me guess your next comment is 'why are there still monkeys?' right?

Surely you reasonable christians (dare i say Explorer) must be embarassed by evolution deniers and creationists like Martin and the other cretins across the pond?

In all seriousness Martin, the theory of evolution is one of the fascinating things ever and so so interesting to learn about. And it's even better because we know its true. As certain as the earth goes round the sun. You should look into it. I can recommend Dawkins book if you like - "The evidence for evolution"

21 January 2014 at 17:01  
Blogger publius said...

It's common for an institution that has lost power and credibility to try and sybiont with another dieing institution. So the church and representative government are going to bed together, in their mutal dieing embrace.
Roger F. Duronio

21 January 2014 at 17:05  
Blogger Martin said...


Peer review means squat when the science being reviewed is consensus. Evolution is scientific consensus which means it has destroyed the scepticism that should be at the heart of every scientific investigation.

In fact, DNA, by being an information storage and processing system casts great doubts on whether Evolution is a viable concept. You cannot get information from random events.

And do you not know that even Dawkins could not produce could not give an example of a mutation that had increased the information in the genome.

Yes, I know the author and vast numbers of Christians have said that before me and paid with their lives.

I am not about to kow tow to the silly ideas of a Victorian gentleman whose understanding of biology was limited before that cloud of witnesses.

No, my next comment was not going to be, why are there still monkeys. I'll say, why have you not demonstrated the descent of all life from an original form?

21 January 2014 at 17:13  
Blogger IanCad said...

David Grey, wrote concerning his faith in evolution:

"---And it's even better because we know its true. As certain as the earth goes round the sun.--"

Faith indeed; A true believer!!

Now what's this about the complexity of a single cell??

Perhaps Professor John Walton of St. Andrews University could help you out a little.


21 January 2014 at 17:36  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

David Grey cites DNA as evidence for evolution. I wonder if he has read or even heard of Stephen Meyer's book 'Signature in the Cell' which specifically examines the issue of the information stored in DNA. Using mathematics and biology he shows quite clearly the impossibility of this information arising from non intellent source.

Meyer's arguments destroy the fundamental basis of Darwinism by eliminating its only available creative mechanism, randomnmutation. No wonder Dawkins refused invitations to debate Meyer, he would have been trounced.

21 January 2014 at 18:00  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Sorry ' non intelligent source.'

As Meyer shows there is not one observed example in any of the natural sciences of meaningful information arising from a non intelligent source. Given that DNA is the highest level of information known to man, the idea that it arose without design is absurd.

Darwin and Muhammad- two idols who are protected from criticism by their devoted worshippers.

21 January 2014 at 18:07  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

I say, what jolly sport do we have here then !!

Death threats aplenty, and this in a country of a mere 4 million of them, a situation that is changing as we breath as one understands every tenth child born in the UK is now a Mohammed or Fatima. One can almost hear the animal grunts and whimpering as the next generation is {AHEM} sown all over this land. If just one percent of what we have are aggressively minded, and one percent is by no means an outrageously wild figure, that’s 40,000 potential decapitators - 4 army divisions or columns as the civil war Spanish would have put it.

So will the all-things-to-all-men Lib-Dems deselect the candidate ? Well, yes they would, if that was the easy way, and we all know that particular party have no concept of principle whatsoever, just what they have to do to get your vote. Do they want the contents of their constituency offices blown into the street ? Probably not, so another mark in favour of de-selection. Do they want the Islamic vote ? Take it as read, and also realise there is no depth to where they will not descend to achieve it.

Of course, Maajid Nawaz will not be deselected, nor was he ever likely to be. Even the Lib-Dems are going to have to show some defiance, even if it’s watered down. One forecasts he will resign his candidacy ‘for the good of the party’, and within time, emerge in the Lords. That well known rotten borough has a myriad of uses, don’t you think ?

And no, the Inspector will not be signing the petition. He has washed his hands of it all, it is beyond him, he does not wish to soil himself with this malarkey or similar. This is not the England he knew in his youth, so quite understandably, he no longer wants to know. Besides, the police shouldn’t need some damn petition to investigate these threats, and neither should the Lib-Dems to throw Shafic out…

21 January 2014 at 18:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The image is now on my Facebook. Feck em. :)

21 January 2014 at 18:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Death threats are not seen as subversive. Opposing equal marriage upsets the planned new utopia

Phil 15:42
This is so very wrong. It is almost condoning violence and I thought the government were clamping down on those who issue death and violent threats to others??? It would seem that criticising, disagreeing with and wanting more open debate about the planned new utopia has to be quashed whilst publicly threatening to cut someone's neck off is ( and he will be meaning it too!) is OK. Mmmm lovely society we live in.

21 January 2014 at 18:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Marie @18:46

Someone on a thread a while back quoted a Peter Hitchens' comment that politicians are scared stiff of Muslims.

My guess is that the comment is horribly accurate in practice; although it would be denied in theory.

21 January 2014 at 18:57  
Blogger David Grey said...


Don't accept evolution? Then please, live by that dogma. Stop consuming modern crops and using the latest antibiotics.

Of course you shouldnt be using hospitals either, given you can just pray right.

21 January 2014 at 19:07  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Jonny

"Islam would seem to be on the side of the wielders of meat cleavers. Islamic law classes the making of pictures as an enormity, based on the Prophet’s observation that ‘Every maker of pictures will go to the fire, where a being will be set upon him for each picture he made, to torment him in hell.'" One thinks of Tracy Emin and sniggers...wicked, I know

21 January 2014 at 19:21  
Blogger Martin said...


So what have 'modern crops' and antibiotics got to do with Evolution. You simply have no arguments to support Evolution.

21 January 2014 at 19:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

David @ 19.07 says,'Don't accept evolution? Then please, live by that dogma. Stop consuming modern crops and using the latest antibiotics.'

Remind us, in what way are genetically modified crops a natural evolutionary phenomenon?

21 January 2014 at 19:37  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said, that Inspector @ 18.21.

Let the Mujahideen form their own party, 'Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them'.

We are fortunate indeed that being entirely apolitical the BBC may not provide electoral support to terrorists in political mufti. An interview by a fawning and sympathetic apparatchik doesn't count, of course.

21 January 2014 at 19:46  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Greetings Bluedog, but one understands these types already have their own party, the ironically named ‘Respect’. (qv the thing’s ‘homogenous’ leadership)

God help us all then. That would be the Christian God of course, not the suicide bomb rewarding monster they worship...

21 January 2014 at 20:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Inspector @ 20.22, from wiki 'The Respect Party is a far-left political party in the United Kingdom founded in 2004. Its name is a contrived acronym standing for Respect, Equality, Socialism, Peace, Environmentalism, Community and Trade Unionism.'

Ummm, doesn't quite hit the spot. Here's an idea, what about a party called 'The Muslim Brotherhood'. Self-explanatory and should appeal to the Ummah/Fellaheen/Mujahideen/Jihadis etc. One can see the party banner now, a crescent on green background with appropriate hieroglyphs. The thing is to marginalise the Muzzies; letting them in to existing parties simply guarantees Islamification of same.

One can take inclusiveness too far.

21 January 2014 at 21:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 January 2014 at 22:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Muslim tolerance underwent a 180º shift during the Prophet’s ministry, evolving from forbearance of other religions to open hostility, an evolution that reflects Mohammed’s growing confidence and military successes. The following revelations are in chronological order. When the Qur’an is in two minds, the later revelation overrides the earlier.

● [109:1] Say: ‘Unbelievers, [109:2] I do not serve what you worship, [109:3] nor do you serve what I worship. [109:4] I shall never serve what you worship, [109:5] nor will you ever serve what I worship. [109:6] You have your own religion, and I have mine.’
● [2:62] Believers, Jews, Christians, and Sabæans—whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day and does what is right—shall be rewarded by their Lord; they have nothing to fear or to regret.
● [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!’
● [8:38] Tell the unbelievers that if they mend their ways their past shall be forgiven; but if they persist in sin, let them reflect upon the fate of their forefathers. [8:39] Make war on them [non-Muslims] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.

Dear Mrs Proudie,
Tracey’s unmade beds would go down a storm with the Prophet, who said: ‘So if you must draw, draw trees and things without animate life in them.’ Much of the rest of her œuvre, though, would have Allah donning his art critic hat and looking distinctly tetchy.

21 January 2014 at 22:11  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Gentlemen. The ‘Wiki’ entry on the Respect party is a must if you want to further understand immigrant politics in the UK.

Bluedog, one feels that particular organisation is unstable. We should not read into ‘far left’ leanings as its mantra as of course the fluidity in these recent start up complaining groups is as confusing as if to consider the NAZIs originally had relieving the plight of the German worker as its main objective.

21 January 2014 at 22:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Bluedog and Inspector, Happy Jack suggests a new party called 'Cultural Reproachment And Peace'.

21 January 2014 at 22:27  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

A devout Arab Muslim entered a black cab in London. He curtly asked the cabbie to turn off the radio because as decreed by his religious teaching, he must not listen to music because in the time of the prophet there was no music, especially Western music which is the music of the infidel.

The cab driver politely switched off the radio, stopped the cab and opened the door. The Arab Muslim asked him, “What are you doing? The cabbie answered, “In the time of the prophet there were no taxis, so feck off and wait for a camel!”

21 January 2014 at 22:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Please sign the petition in support of Maajid Nawaz. To be deselected by a political party and barred from standing for Parliament merely for articulating a religious opinion or supporting a particular theological doctrine is an offence to all that is reasonable, honourable and just."

Ernst will not sign for several reasons.

1. He hates the LibDems and hope this adds to their current woes.
2.The person being asked for our support is a dangerous 'extreme moderate' whose agenda is to homogenize Islam and make it palatable when it can NEVER be.
3. Let us now see what the 'moderates' in Islam will do.


22 January 2014 at 10:42  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack agrees with your assessment of both the Lib-Dems and this chap. However, there is a principle at stake:

"To be deselected by a political party and barred from standing for Parliament merely for articulating a religious opinion or supporting a particular theological doctrine is an offence to all that is reasonable, honourable and just."

Jack says it's the same with that Ukip bloke, David Silvester, who's being hounded. Jacks asks if its better people speak their mind, and be free to do so? That way we know what they believe, rather than them having to cow-tow to a politically correct, cowardly political party.

22 January 2014 at 17:17  
Blogger Frank Keefe said...

Any Christians threatening to kill Nawaz I doubt it yet the left always seem to attack Christians I wonder why!

24 January 2014 at 01:31  
Blogger Dorothy White said...

when will the world get religion out of its head? the development of humankind should have included by now the rejection of such mysticism and dreams and illusions. we have magicians instead. you are all going to die and disappear. no god is going to save you, we can only save each other and combine together under socialism. if you want to kill somebody, it makes no difference war or murder, you are killing your own species for no reason. i will not ramble on, simply remind you of lennons song, imagine.

27 January 2014 at 16:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Oh dear Dorothy, you need to move up to a higher plane.

Man’s destiny on this earth left entirely in man’s hands ! What a bloody awful thought...

Still, one you are welcome to, and it serves you right for being an atheist.

By the way, a few years after Lennon wrote ‘Imagine’, this man recalls it came out that he was screwing Yoko’s young and nubile assistant .

Imagine no fidelity, it’s easy if you try. Hardly the way forward, is it ?

27 January 2014 at 19:39  
Blogger Len said...

It rather ironic that Lennon`s 'imagine' talks about love and peace on a worldwide scale but not even four Beatles couldn`t get on together.
Ironic ,...you bet.

31 January 2014 at 17:28  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older