Monday, June 18, 2007

Muslim Politician Justifies Suicide Bombing - But Not If He's Asked To Be The Murdering Bastard Who Does It, The Fucking Coward!

Or so says the Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister, Ejaz-ul-Huq.

Granted, he delivered his vile little speech in the Pakistan's National Assembly as part of the Pakistani parliament's condemnation of the UK awarding a knighthood to Salman Rushdie, but to use the award of such a dubious honour as an excuse and exhortation to murder of infidels who offend the fragile sensibilities of Muslims is egregious in the extreme.

Strangely enough, so far our Tony 'Baloney' Blair hasn't come out and condemned ul-Haq for his incitement to murder and to commit acts of heinous terrorism, though he usually has plenty to say about these things, but sad to say that no other British luminary seems to be prepared to put their head above the parapet either and risk being attacked for daring to speak out against these insane religious monsters.

According to Reuters, ul-Haq declared, "If someone commits suicide bombing to protect the honour of the Prophet Mohammad, his act is justified". So, given that Muhammad married a 6 year old little girl child, I suppose we must not call him a paedophile, even though that is the usual appellation reserved for such people in civilised countries.

Isn't it amazing, though, the length to which we in the West are prepared to go to appease these lunatic Muslim murderers and those cowardly behind-the-scenes types who incite them to perform their heinous acts in the name of 'God'? Even more surprising, is the leniency shown towards them in this country when the fact is that Muslims account for only 2% of the UK population, according to the National Centre for Social Research survey data, yet Blair and his gang of sycophants continue to tiptoe around their delicate sensibilities. But anyone who dares to speak out about this is dismissed as a racist by one side and marked down for murder by the other.

Postscript: According to 'The Independent' today, ul-Huq said: "This is an occasion for the 1.5 billion Muslims to look at the seriousness of this decision. The West is accusing Muslims of extremism and terrorism. If someone exploded a bomb on his body he would be right to do so unless the British government apologises and withdraws the 'sir' title." Whilst his vile and cowardly threat was condoned by his parliamentary colleague, the Minister for Parliamentary Affairs, Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, who added that the knighthood would "encourage people to commit blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed".

In view of sentiments like these, it is time that the British Government classified Pakistan as a rogue terrorist state and expel or jail ALL Muslims in the UK who support or incite terrorism while dressing it up as a devout religious act, like these two leading Pakistani politicians.

Post-postscript: According to The Daily Telegraph (21/06-07), "Abdul Rashid Ghazi, one of two brothers who run a mosque in Islamabad, said: "Salman Rushdie deserves to be killed and anyone who has the power must kill him." Meanwhile, that mealy-mouthed hypocrite, Lord Ahmed of Rotherham, told The Daily Telegraph: ''I would urge and plead with all Muslims around the world to remain calm." But he warned that honouring the author put "Her Majesty the Queen in a very difficult position" as head of the Church of England as The Satanic Verses had offended Christianity as well as Islam. Strange, however, that this ignorant ennobled religious moron doesn't criticise ANY of his murderous Muslim brethren for their vile threats, is it not?


Alan Mackenzie said...

Looks like you got there before me, Merchant.

It is a coincidence that I published a condemnation of ul-Huq's statements on my site.

The Merchant of Menace said...

Coincidence that two decent people think that the Pakistani Religious Affairs Minister is no different from any other Muslim psychopath, like Osama Bin Laden to name but one,and that we are amazed at the lack of condemnation he has received from so-called 'moderate' Muslims living in this country and elsewhere, not to mention the resounding silence from our political masters? I don't think so. Any decent person would be outraged by such a vile sentiment as uttered by ul-Huq, but unfortunately few Muslims or politicians have either the decency or courage to stand up and say so.

Having said that, your blog entry has done the subject greater justice than mine, but you had better be careful regarding your criticism of Muslims, since the homicidal religious lunatics amongst them will have little difficulty in tracing you and butchering you in order to appease their so-called god, Allah.

Don't forget that the revered so-called prophet, Mohammed, was told by the Arch-angel Gabriel that Allah exhorts his submissives to murder all infidels and apostates, otherwise they themselves are deemed to be fair game to be murdered, and so it was written in the Qur'an. So, basically, we're all fair game to them -it's 'God's will, after all'!

But not only does Allah exhort his homicidally lunatic submissives to murder anyone they don't like in the name of Allah, he actually promises them a reward of a minimum of 72 virgins and 80 servants plus a huge tent filled with riches the size of an Arab province if they do so. For most of those poor, ignorant dysfunctional psychpathic wretches, that must be a very great incentive indeed.

But, hey, we mustn't criticise them - it's their religion, after all, and to the politically correct and religious apologists amongst us, and there are far too many, all religions are above criticism, though, as yet, Muslims are the only ones who murder you for criticising theirs.

Alan Mackenzie said...

you had better be careful regarding your criticism of Muslims, since the homicidal religious lunatics amongst them will have little difficulty in tracing you and butchering you in order to appease their so-called god, Allah.

Surely you're not suggesting that they ought to be denied 72 virgins in heaven, are you? Or 72 olives, since that oft quoted "promise" is a mistranslation.

But, hey, we mustn't criticise them - it's their religion, after all, and to the politically correct and religious apologists amongst us, and there are far too many, all religions are above criticism

This article by Peter Tatchell deals with such issues.

"Paralysed by the fear of being branded racist, imperialist or Islamophobic, large sections of liberal and left opinion have, in effect, gone soft on their commitment to universal human rights. They readily, and rightly, condemn the excesses of US and UK government policy, but rarely speak out against oppressors who are non-white or adherents of minority faiths. Why the double standard? The answer lies, in part, in a perverse interpretation of multiculturalism that has sundered the celebration of difference from universal human rights.

jeff said...

Respect THIS, fucking moronic muslim retards.

That wasn't too harsh was it?

The Merchant of Menace said...

Surely you're not suggesting that they ought to be denied 72 virgins in heaven, are you? Or 72 olives, since that oft quoted "promise" is a mistranslation.

I suggest that you are incorrect, since every translation I have ever consulted refers to them as virgins - see Sura 56:36, for example.

As the Muslim scholar Ibn Warraq said in 'The Guardian' back in 2002...

QUOTE: One should note that most translations, even those by Muslims themselves such as A Yusuf Ali, and the British Muslim Marmaduke Pickthall, translate the Arabic (plural) word Abkarun as virgins, as do well-known lexicons such the one by John Penrice. I emphasise this fact since many pudic and embarrassed Muslims claim there has been a mistranslation, that "virgins" should be replaced by "angels". In sura 55 verses 72-74, Dawood translates the Arabic word " hur " as "virgins", and the context makes clear that virgin is the appropriate translation: "Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents (which of your Lord's blessings would you deny?) whom neither man nor jinnee will have touched before." The word hur occurs four times in the Koran and is usually translated as a "maiden with dark eyes".

Two points need to be noted. First, there is no mention anywhere in the Koran of the actual number of virgins available in paradise, and second, the dark-eyed damsels are available for all Muslims, not just martyrs. It is in the Islamic Traditions that we find the 72 virgins in heaven specified: in a Hadith (Islamic Tradition) collected by Al-Tirmidhi (died 892 CE [common era*]) in the Book of Sunan (volume IV, chapters on The Features of Paradise as described by the Messenger of Allah [Prophet Muhammad], chapter 21, About the Smallest Reward for the People of Paradise, (Hadith 2687). The same hadith is also quoted by Ibn Kathir (died 1373 CE ) in his Koranic commentary (Tafsir) of Surah Al-Rahman (55), verse 72: "The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: 'The smallest reward for the people of paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana'a [Yemen]'."

Modern apologists of Islam try to downplay the evident materialism and sexual implications of such descriptions, but, as the Encyclopaedia of Islam says, even orthodox Muslim theologians such as al Ghazali (died 1111 CE) and Al-Ash'ari (died 935 CE) have "admitted sensual pleasures into paradise". The sensual pleasures are graphically elaborated by Al-Suyuti (died 1505 ), Koranic commentator and polymath. He wrote: "Each time we sleep with a houri we find her virgin. Besides, the penis of the Elected never softens. The erection is eternal; the sensation that you feel each time you make love is utterly delicious and out of this world and were you to experience it in this world you would faint. Each chosen one [ie Muslim] will marry seventy [sic] houris, besides the women he married on earth, and all will have appetising vaginas." UNQUOTE.

The notion that the translation of virgin, whilst correct for the word 'hur' used in the Qur'an if it had indeed been an Arabic word was in correct was first put about by Christoph Luxembourg, who maintained that it was not the Arabic word hur at all but actually the Syriac word hur that had been used, though why the scribes who inscribed Muhammad's words for him should suddenly use a Syriac word in the middle of an Arabic text and place of a commonly-used Arab word spelled exactly the same is not explained. The Syriac word hur does not mean virgin, but is a feminine plural adjective meaning white, with the word "raisin" understood implicitly, thus according to Luxembourg Allah was promising a paradisical reward of white raisins and not sexually nubile young virgins. However, if you think Luxembourg's thesis is at all likely, then I suggest that you are even more gullible than anyone who would believe the Qur'an in the first place.

The Merchant of Menace said...

Ooh, Jeff,

You'll really upset their delicate sensibilities with comments such as that. I'll bet that somewhere or other, some deranged Muslim religious lunatic is currently girding his 'bomb-belt' to make another bunch of innocents suffer for the affront to his religion, whilst shitheads like ul-Huq skulk in the background inciting the homicidal morons to commit their atrocities in the name of their (non-existent) so-called 'god'

Alan Mackenzie said...

Quote from Richard Dawkins:

'My dear fellow, I wish to thank you. I have been wrong these fifteen years.' "And we all clapped our hands raw. That was the scientific ideal of somebody who had a lot invested –– a lifetime almost –– invested in the theory, and he was rejoicing that he had been shown wrong, and that scientific truth had been advanced."

Papalazarou said...

To be honest the US would have been beter off invading Pakistan and changing the regime there had they genuinely wanted to weaken Al Qaeda but instead they buddied up to them in order to bash Afghanistan (opium) and Iraq (oil) simply because their particular fascism favoured US goals in other fields of endeavour. Overlooking appalling human rights is a commonplace for US foreign policy so long as their paticular version of free market capitalism is supported