And then there’s this “Urgent – Calling all muslims” at Islamicawakening on Monday –
Brothers, the Queen Mary Athiest Society, sister of the shaytaani UCL Athiest Society (which published pictures of Rasoolullah(saw)) are holding an event today at Queen Mary University of London at 7:00 pm on ‘ Is Shariah in violation of human rights’.. We need your presence. Who gave these kuffar the right to speak?
The kuffar have no right to speak, at a university in London. That’s an interesting thought. Also the comment addresses “Brothers” – so apparently “all muslims” actually means only half of all muslims – and then the “kuffar” who was speaking at Queen Mary that evening is a woman, so her right to speak is even more non-existent.
Let me ask you – if a bunch of kuffar got together and were given the right to touch your mother up and analyse her, then would you stand by and let it happen?
The patriarchal mind at work – “you” are always male, and women are always “yours” as opposed to being you. Men are always the agents and women are always the faceless voiceless objects. That of course is before we even get to the confusion between molesting a human being and disputing a religion.
Then what about your deen?!! Remember, these guys hate religion and are not looking to have an unbiased debate. Please be here by 7 pm. to let them know what we think. Back in my day no-one in UNi would dare even look the wrong way at a muslim, because we used to represent our deen and didnt take kindly to it being insulted. It is only when the pacifists ecame numerous that the kuffar dared to raise their heads.
A bully and a thug.
Update
Via Anne Marie Waters – she and Maryam debated sharia with an Ahmaddiya Muslim at UCL last month, and here that debate is:
And obviously proud of it.
“Represeting your deen” means intimidating and bullying others into silence. Way to represent your faith, guys. Islam has an image problem, and it’s you.
They sound angry…almost as angry as if someone had taken down the prayer banner in the gym.
Kenbo
Only because people allow themselves to be silenced. Otherwise, these “thugs” have no weight behind their threats.
Reminds me of all those christofascists emails I used to get that invariably shouted, if you don’t agree with this, sit down and shut up. Bullies, thugs, authoritarians, religious evangelists – all the same damn thing.
A bully and a thug.
Absolutely; exactly right: the whole religion is based on bullying and thuggery – from its inception to its modern manifestations, although “modern” is hardly a term that one can apply to Islam itself. Once again something from Ibn Warraq’s Why I Am Not a Muslim (and once again, thanks for the recommendation, even if indirect):
Perhaps it was Charles Watson who, in 1937, first described Islam as totalitarian and proceeded to show how “By a million roots, penetrating every phase of life, all of them with religious significance, it is able to maintain its hold upon the life of Moslem peoples.” Bousquet, one of the foremost authorities on Islamic law, distinguishes two aspects of Islam that he considers totalitarian: Islamic law, and the Islamic notion of jihad that has for its ultimate aim the conquest of the entire world, in order to submit it to one single authority. [pg 163; Chapter 6: The Totalitarian Nature of Islam]
Poor backwards out-of-touch me, I had to look up deen.
Quite a relief to find out it’s not (only?) short for mujahideen…
I’ve just read the rest of the “Urgent – Calling all muslims” thread.
Both funny and depressing.
“Kuffar,” is it? Please, don’t hold back; tell us how you really feel.
Yes, “a bully and a thug” is a apt description, all the more because his mentality is remarkably similar to that of a street gang member.
I’m pleased to hear that they’re so insecure! I’d have thought there was a lot within society to give them optimism – what with all the miserable self-censorship we see today – but their gloom suggests that there’s some cause to be cheerful.
Have you noticed, by the way, that “sisters” who post on the forum are given an icon of a woman in a burqa. What a charming website.
This is comical and creepy in equal measure. Who remembers the case of Usama Hasan? He enraged other Muslims by stating that he, er – accepted the validity of evolutionary science. This is from the bloke who led the campaign against him. He’s lecturing his comrades on public relations…
That has to be sarcasm. Please tell me that’s sarcasm.
Sorry to say that nothing will be done about any of this until these guys are not identified as a religious group but as a gang. Religious identity doesn’t render more civilized the tribal and feral. Think about it. Forget their religion for a moment. If you just consider the behavior, how do you identify them? Then think about what you do about it?
Sure, this kind of stuff happens when a deity doesn’t have enough important sports events to occupy it, and thus finds the time to kill a lot of people in an attempt to meddle with politics.
Ysanne:
Allah was probably just bored and cranky. Probably a bad hair day as well.
And his piles could have been killing him.
Ysanne –
The irony is the statement that Allah caused the Japanese Tsunami is in itself a blasphemy in Islam…
Allah does not do miracles or punish people in this life. It’s explicitly mentioned in the Koran that god need not do parlour tricks. This is actually kind of weird to see from a muslim source.
Honestly, after this and the “Jesus and Mo” incident I think it’s time to bully them back, but as non-violently as possible.
The UK is clearly caving into threats of Muslim violence. Maybe some non-violent secular group could strike back and cause economic damage to the Muslim community and get them to encourage the leaders to back off.
Before you think I am baised against Muslims (is it really bias if the are genital-mutilating, woman oppressing scum?) I wish secularists in the US had the power to do the same thing to Fundie Christians here.
But sometimes violence is an appropriate response. If Salman Rushdie had died as a result of the fatwah, would you blame the UK if they lobbed a few cruise missiles into Iran?
Proper response to the Rhys Morgan incident would be for a represetative of the govt to call up the school and tell them they could not pressure Morgan in any way. They would follow up by sending whatever equivalent of La Migra they have in the UK to threaten those who fucked with Rhys Morgan.
Free speech should be defended with extreme force. You attack a citizen who speaks out, we raid your community. You kill one of us for speaking out, we bomb your country and destroy your sacred places and kill thousands.
Religious people are nothing like us. Their faith dulls their moral sensibilities such that they understand nothing but force. Their asskicking God makes things right and wrong. They confess that they have weakened moral sensibilities and insane metaethics. As much as I love peace and reason, there are limits to how much progress we can make with religious people.
I really think Danish forces should have bombed the Kabba over the cartoon incident. You attack our cartoonists, we bomb your holy sites. That’s the message they need. And don’t think Denmark could not have done it. Danish planes were in Afghanistan and could have taken light ordinance and refeuled from American tankers and then flown straight to Saudi.
Fundamentalist religious zealots cannot be defeated by force, as their psychological mindset is that of someone suffering from Borderline Personality Disorder. In that they will cut off their nose to spite their face, in the name of their god, violence will be met with more violence, anger with rage. Muslims, in particular, appear to think that dying is a good way to impress their moronic deity, especially when that death occurs during an attempt to kill non-Muslims.
The problem is not immigration, it is the legislated deference of archaic toxic ‘cultural’ and religious values that is at fault. In immigrating to a ‘multi-cultural’ society, often from theocratic countries, they encounter privilege and legally-mandated respect. Their children are raised to see cultural differences as ‘one religion compared to another’, so why would they ever be convinced of the need to apply rational and objective consideration of their delusional belief, if it is only being challenged by another delusional belief?
Secularism, Skepticism and Free-thinking should be mandated as the institutional norm. There should be no ‘Church of England’, no faith-based schools being (part)funded by the taxpayer. This is why they get so angry at atheists, because their god-delusion will find no apologist get-out-jail-free deference in our ranks.
We are not selling a snake-oil cure for existential angst, we simply want theists to be a little bit cleverer than they currently are.
Fundamentalists are fundamentalists, after all.
PS commenters: It’s not a feature unique or special or even defining about Islam. Don’t confuse ignorant comments from yore with more enlightened actions.
Secularists should encourage the spread of the METAMEME. It blocks the growth of violent, intimidating, dogmatic religions such as Islam, in the same way that the mild cowpox virus blocks the spread of lethal smallpox.
“Free speech should be defended with extreme force. You attack a citizen who speaks out, we raid your community. You kill one of us for speaking out, we bomb your country and destroy your sacred places and kill thousands.”
And, dear Francisco Bacopa, you will have a fullfledged war, WWIII.
Bombs do not distinguish between people who are suppressed by the respective religion but NOT YET here in Europe having to fight for acceptance as refugees, AND THE FAITHHEADS WHO ORDERED THE ATTACK and deserve their own medicine.
Standing up to bullies with the utmost consistency is not the same as violence.
Ridicule often works.
Getting our own politicians out of their belief, which is: “religion is a useful tool against the masses”
is the difficulty.
And you failed to look into the demographics of Muslim fanatics in Western Europe:
They did rarely come here.
Most of them are born here or brought here as children.
They are SECOND GENERATION and some third already.
And the US Christian version of abortion clinic bombers are US citizens for generations.
Devise a few techniques to help children born into fanatic families OUT OF their dumbth, help them leave abuse families for good – and you will succeed where my generation could not.
@Francisco Bacopa #16
Only a tiny percentage of the Muslim population is threatening violence. How exactly would we “strike back at the Muslim community”? Boycott all businesses owned by Muslims, despite the fact that most of them have nothing to do with these angry young bullies? Perhaps we could make all bearded men and veiled women feel unwelcome by hissing at them in the street? Spraypainting yellow crescents on Muslim houses so good secular people will know to avoid them?
The majority of Muslims do not practice genital mutilation. Oppression of women and control of female sexuality are consequences of patriarchal cultures. Christians in parts of Africa practice genital mutilation, Hindus and Sikhs practice honour killing in rural parts of India, and Chasidi Jews spit on women who don’t cover their heads. The solution is not as simple as “getting rid of Islam,” as satisfying as it might be to have an evil other to demonise, but rather eradicating poverty, investing in education and infrastructure in developing countries, promoting ideas of sexual equality, freedom, and female emancipation.
Interesting how you specify Fundie Christians as the enemy, rather than all Christians. Yet you don’t bother to qualify Muslims, instead treating Islam as a monolith. Are you aware that there are Muslim feminists? Muslim gay/lesbian/transgender people? Muslims in mixed marriages with Hindus, Christians and atheists? Something tells me you have few Muslim friends. If the only Muslims you know are from news reports about angry young men trying to intimidate others, you’re going to get a distorted picture of the actual Muslim community.
Yes, you insensitive twit. I have friends with relatives in Iran. The people of Iran are human beings just like you and me. They are mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters. Most of them are just trying to live their lives, study, run businesses, get married, read books, play games, raise their children, and survive in the oppressive regime that has their country in its grip. So as a result of one man’s death, we should cause the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians?
… is this a joke? Good to know you don’t have to be religious to hold a savage, Bronze Age sense of morality.
Yes, they’re nothing like us. After all, they believe in killing thousands of innocent people to defend their principles. And their morality is so primitive, unlike your sophisticated ethical sense. “As much as you love peace and reason” indeed. What a crock of shit.
You need help if you think mass murder of Saudis was warranted by the cartoon controversy. Please stay away from firearms lest you’re tempted to pull an Anders Breivik.
Re: the post quoted by BenSix:
That post was made by “Expergefactionist” (real name Abuz Zubair) who is, apparently, the owner of the forum. As above, so below, as they say…
Free speech should be defended with extreme force. You attack a citizen who speaks out, we raid your community. You kill one of us for speaking out, we bomb your country and destroy your sacred places and kill thousands.
So you’re saying that collective punishment is a good thing. In other words, you’re just like the people who decided that since they didn’t like US foreign policy in the Middle East, they’d fly some planes into buildings and kill 3000 or so innocent people. Or like the Nazis, who used to in places shoot 100 or so random civilians for every partisan they caught.
That’s very civilised of you.
Just saw X-men First Class.
Anyone else reminded of how Magneto hated humans and thought war was needed against all humans…But was really really really upset about the loss of his human mother?
think of yourself as superior if you want, but they are the base stock your anointed group comes from.
If the moderate muslim political editor of the New Statesman can describe non-muslims contemptuously as “living like animals, without morals” and get away with it with not a word of apology or even reproach from the political elite or the media luvvies, then the low-life fundie muslims are certainly not going to pull their punches when ordering the kuffar to STFU.
It’s modern Britain, where the likes of Amnesty International UK throw out feminists for the jihadists of Caged Prisoners. It is a place where universities and their students’unions -UCL, LSE, UOL – turn a blind eye to truly toxic hatespeech by speakers invited by their pretty extremist islamic societies but would try their damnest to bully easier targets like humanist societies over a pretty harmless cartoon. This has been going on for quite a while. So I wasnt surprised at all Rhys Morgan was the one told to shut up or get lost or that assholes like Abu Zubair enjoy their bloody fucking nauseous free speech while the One Law rep gets hounded and threatened.
It’s the UK bending over for the ‘the anti-imperialist victims’ innit. It is really what is left of much of the left.
Comment #16 was totally out of line. No bombing is necessary at all – just am awareness of what liberty is at stake by being so very accomodating to religious nutters. Even the ones who’ve suffered (or not) at Guantanamo, like Moazzem Beg. They are not allies in ANY cause. If AI is so blinded by its politics, what hope is there for the rest?
Comment #16 is way out of order. No the right response to Islamist bullying is not “bomb all the Muslims!!”
FFS does that even need to be said? Yeesh, Francisco.
@Avicenna #15:
Good point to make, but: When did you last see religious nuts do anything but ignore the sensible bits of their scripture?
There usually are some themes of “disliking someone is not a good enough reason to kill them”, “leave the judging and punishment to God” and “don’t even try to boss God around” themes, but they’re not the ones that are fun for people looking for an excuse to gain power over others by violence.
Hi Ophelia, yep – its always “what if they touched your women”? Lay their hands on your property?? The idea!!
You may have seen the debate Maryam and I had with the so-called ‘moderate’ Ahmadiyya Muslim Students Assocation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTYrjFE6Rcg).
As you can see, a large part of the debate came down not to whether you are “permitted” to beat your wife, but how hard. We’ve been told that “beat her” should be interpreted as “don’t beat her” (the exact words of the perfect all knowing god) and round and round we go… how can you argue with someone who changes the meaning of a word to suit their argument, and if you object, you are “offensive” and should be silenced? But this is where we are… there is no truth, everything is relative.
Btw, I loved ‘Does God Hate Women?’. Have read it many times and it has contributed to many of my speeches… so thanks!!
Oh and I’ve got to answer this one: “Islam gave women rights a zillion years ago and so therefore Islam is kind to women”…..totally dismissing all the progress women have made SINCE THEN!!
Islam may have given rights all those years ago, but it stopped there.
The rest of us have since moved on…..
Hey Anne Marie – you rock! And thanks very much.
Re the video: they don’t get it do they? Its always describing what “you” can do or can’t do with “your wife”.
The Koran, or any other holy book, never speaks directly TO women, always ABOUT women.
There’s a message in there somewhere … (note the guy who told us we need to “get over” wife beating)
Thanks Ophelia. I hope you can make it to my talk at UoL when we reschedule. We will do the same talk, but with double the audience. Best revenge we can have…
These Muslim clowns are really amazingly thick. It is obvious that the debate was about the actual, real, concrete, palpable consequences of applying Sharia law. What they believe to be the “real Sharia law” (TM) is wholly irrelevant. Ahmaddiya Muslims are a negligible minority, and their opinions are unlikely to have any bearing whatsoever on the way Sharia courts will actually work. Besides, their “let’s love one another” attitude sounded treacly and phony. The white Muslim guy was trying hard to appear loving and friendly, but finally he just admitted his take on Sharia law was just his take, and the showed no sign of being willing to oppose its “wrong” application. Hipocrisy at its most despicable height. The brown Muslim guy was equally hypocritical. In addition, he seemed to believe that justiying the unjustifiable was some kind of exercise in rhetoric or cleverness.
Fuck them.