Tuesday, November 27, 2007

An Insult To Islam

This poor woman is none other than Gillian Gibbons, a British primary school teacher who went out to Sudan and tried to do her bit for some of those she felt were most in need of her professional skills, but who is now beginning life as a criminal, having been found guilty by a kangaroo-court in Khartoum of 'insulting religion' and sentenced to 15 days in a stinking Sudanese jail prior to being deported.

Her crime? Asking her class of little children to name the classroom mascot, a teddy bear, and acceding to the request of one 7 year old and 19 of his compatriots - making it an almost unanimous choice as 20 out of the 23 children in the class chose it - that the bear should be named Mohammed, like himself. The school director, Robert Boulos, said each child was then allowed to take the bear home at weekends and told to write a diary about what they did with it.

Subsequently, Miss Gibbons was arrested and charged under Article 125 of Sudanese criminal law which deals with so-called 'insults against faith and religion'. She was subsequently charged on 3 counts: insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs.

This poor woman faced 40 lashes in public, 12 month in jail and/or a hefty fine, and appeared in court today without her legal team being given any opportunity up to 23:00 hors last night to prepare her defence. Today, in the travesty of a court that conducts so-called 'justice'in this shit-hole of a country, the judge silenced Miss Gibbons' legal team as they started their defence, stating that "[he'd] heard enough". The judge then proceeded to find Miss Gibbons guilty, and sentenced her to 15 days imprisonment followed by immediate deportation.

Still, Miss Gibbons should consider herself lucky - if she survives her ordeal - for Sudan's top clerics had called for the full measure of the law to be used against her as they claimed that her actions are part of a Western plot against Islam.

Well I've got some news for you, you ignorant, misogynistic Muslim morons, the only persons guilty of insulting Islam are you, and the sooner that you and all your fundamentally-challenged lunatic delusional religious psychopaths are expunged from the face of the earth the better off we'll all be.

Sanctimonious Saudis At It Again.

The ignorant and backward kingdom of Saud has been made so angry by the criticism of its ridiculous religious laws by articles such as this one that it has spoken out in its defence. According to the BBC, the woman whom we all thought had been treated so abominably by those misogynistic morons in Riyadh had actually been treated fairly for, according to the inappropriately-titled Saudi justice minister, she had:
"confessed to doing what God has forbidden"
The justice ministry went on to bleat whiningly about what it called "foreign interference" in the case and threatened to cancel the lucrative contracts it has doled out to its lackeys in the West, primarily the UK and the US, which explains why the BBC concludes its report with this comment:
The US, a major Saudi ally, declined to comment specifically on the sentence, but did call the case "astonishing"
Well, at least they had expressed some opinion, which is more than one can say for the arse-licking Brits - after all, did not one of our government ministers in a previous administration actually pimp for catamites when these Saudi princes and ministers visited the West, even though it was illegal for Mr Aitken to have done so?

However, the Saudi justice ministry did let a couple of new pieces of information come to light: first, that the woman that they intend flogging near to death allegedly admitted that she was having an adulterous affair with her male companion whom she was with in the vehicle at the time they were attacked by the gang of lust-driven slavering brutes, and second, that the gang were not content with raping the woman but were so consumed by lust that they raped her male-companion also - thereby demonstrating the oft-repeated claim that woman are equal to men under Islam is not entirely spurious.

Those whose voices are raised demanding equality for the sexes will be pleased to know that the male rape victim was also sentenced to the same 90 lashes that his female companion was. Fortunately for him, however, he did not question the so-called justice being meted out to him by brutish Shari'a law, so he escaped the additional 110 lashes and 6 months in prison ladled-out to his woman companion who, it seems, did have the balls to complain.

And to think that 40% of Muslims living in the UK claim that they want Shari'a law imposed here too.

Monday, November 26, 2007

More Delusional Nonsense

According to a recent poll conducted on behalf of the proselytizing Xtian charity Tearfund, two in five adults say prayers and one in three believes that God is watching over them, whilst a third think that God will answer their prayers, but interestingly enough the poll does not indicate what respondents meant by this entity they all refer to as 'God', and Tearfund chooses not to enlighten us either.

However, since Tearfund proclaims itself to be a Xtian charity, whose 10-year mission is...
"...to see 50 million people released from material and spiritual poverty through a worldwide network of 100,000 local churches."
... presumably their glib answer would be that everyone who took part in the survey had the Xtian model of 'God' in mind, as if that answered the question adequately. Well, I've got some news for you: It doesn't.

For a start, the Bible, which many claim contains the inerrant words of this Xtian God, makes it quite clear that only those who adopt 'His' commandments and rules have any hope of having their prayers answered, yet only
one in five adults participating in the poll admit to attending church at least once a month despite the fact that the Xtian God of the Bible demands a greater commitment at his altar than this. Consequently, these sporadic church-goers who hope that their prayers will be answered must have a different 'God' in mind to the one referred to in the Bible, since 'He' makes it clear that their prayers simply will not be answered.

Not so, says Christopher Rowland, Dean Ireland professor of the exegesis of holy scripture at the University of Oxford, for we can all pick and choose which parts of the Bible we are prepared to pay lip-service to - or to put it in his own words quoted directly from his article in 'The Guardian' :
"Too much study of the Bible is either completely dismissive of it, or excessively reverential. It doesn't allow for creative, imaginative engagement with it, recognising its limitations and delighting in it as a resource through which to stimulate understanding, rather than a book of moral precepts."
In other words, the faithful can simply use their faculties of 'creative, imaginative engagement' to ignore the parts of the Bible which they don't care for or which are just too inconvenient to adopt in the modern world.

But that still begs the question: Who or what is this so-called 'God' these people are praying to?

More importantly, what credible evidence do those who claimed to 'believe' that their prayers will be answered have to substantiate that claim, for without such evidence their claim is not a justified true belief but simply wishful thinking and delusion.

But then again, I suggest that the whole poll was a fraudulently based exercise using highly biased questioning in order to load the responses in favour of the results wanted by the organisers.

Why else would Tearfund's Chief Execuive, Matthew Frost, claim that this clearly flawed poll:
"...demonstrates the prevalence and potential of prayer."
Or that the results:
"...fly in the face of the view that faith is increasingly irrelevant in today's secular society."
As Professor Ronald Weiers used to say:
"Researchers have a moral and a professional obligation not to distort he principles of market research and statistical inference in order to produce the result they might wish for...one must take especial care in the design of questions asked of respondents...words or concepts used should be free from bias or mis-interpretation...."
Frankly, I doubt whether Tearfund or their pollsters either explained to their respondents what they meant by the word 'God' nor quizzed their respondents on their own interpretation of it.

In conclusion, it's just another piece of worthless, so-called, research, produced with the sole intention of complementing Tearfund's proselytizing role and fulfilling the delusional psychopathology of theists.

Sunday, November 25, 2007

Another Phoney Priest Speaks Out

This phoney is none other than Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester, who has responded to this story regarding Tony B-liar's pusillanimity regarding his failure to declare that his faith was an essential part of his Premiership in running ruining our country. Nazir-Ali told the BBC:
"I am sorry that Tony Blair feels he could not talk about his faith in case people thought he was a nutter.

A Christian vision underlies all that is important about Britain: its laws, institutions and values.

However, it would seem that like most so-called Xtians, Nazir-Ali is quite selective about which of the particular values he takes from the book of myths and fairy tales he refers to as the 'Bible'. For example, I doubt whether he, or Blair for that matter, consider that their so-called God's orders in Leviticus 6:5 regarding the lies which politicians and clergy regularly try to palm off on us have any relevance to themselves:
[Believers who lie and obtain things by deceit from others] shall even restore it in the principal, and shall add the fifth part more thereto, and give it unto him to whom it appertaineth, in the day of his trespass offering [ a ram without blemish] to the Lord.
Not that that's the only one of their so-called God's orders which they deliberately ignore, such as the detailed instructions in Leviticus 13 and 14 on how to treat lepers and leprosy, or how about Leviticus 19:11
Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsely, neither lie one to another.
Not to mention the infamous Leviticus Chapter 20 which promises the death penalty for people who swear at their parents, or for adulterers, those who indulge in incest, and homosexuals, or banishment from the UK for having sex during the woman's menses, to name some of their so-called God's more ridiculous values.

Mind you, were Nazil-Ali really to believe these irrefragible orders which were allegedly utteredd by his so-called God, he would immediately resign from his Bishopric - more accurately be referred to as a 'bishop-prick' - since his 'Lord' said in Leviticus 21:5:
[Priests] shall not make baldness upon their head, neither shall they shave off the corner of their beard...
And again in 21:18
For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not [be a priest, and this includes] a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing superfluous...
If I am not mistaken, I believe that Nazir-Ali is clean-shaven, bald, and wears a pair of spectacles.

Why do the words 'hypocrite', 'charlatan' and 'mountebank' spring to mind?

Probably because I've just encountered yet another phoney priest speaking out.

The National Secular Society is correct: we do not need these people intruding in public life. Or, as Ruth Wishart stated in 'The Herald' this week:
“What is not acceptable is that the UK Parliament should be subjected to sustained emotional blackmail from representatives of the one-fifth of the population who said in a poll this month that they attended church ‘once a year or more’. Constantly, the cry goes up from ecclesiastical quarters that we live in a Godless society whose handcart is accelerating to hell. In fact, we live in a society where many church leaders constantly attempt to subvert the democratic will of the majority.”

Man In Frock Makes Startling Admission

In an interview for the Muslim magazine 'Emel' the Archbuffoon of Durovernum, Rowan Williams, slipped into one of his most expensive dresses before snuggling up to his fellow delusional psychotics by declaiming that:
"There is something about Western modernity which really does eat away at the soul."
When asked to define exactly what he meant by that extraordinary claim, Williams shrugged and told his interlocutors that he hadn't the faintest idea, but that he thought it would sound good to his Muslim readers, despite the fact that their religion scorns men who wear frocks - unless, of course, they are doing so to evade capture or to defeat an enemy.

Actually, I would like the Archbuffoon to define what exactly he means by 'soul' as well as explaining in what way he considers that 'Western modernity' has 'eaten away' at it.

I would also remind the Grand Poseur Williams that no less a figure than Gautama Buddha himself taught that there is no such thing as the 'soul', so that it is more accurate to state that ancient Eastern philosophy destroyed the soul once and for all - and that it did so long before there even was anything that could be described vaguely as 'Western modernity'.

In short, what completly dysfunctional charlatans like Williams want is for the rest of us to acknowledge their authority to tell us how to live our lives.

Well, I got some advice for you, Rowan: why don't your sort slip into your prettiest dresses and go fuck yourselves - I'm sure it'll be a welcome relief to choirboys, not to mention the rest of us.

Blair Admits His Delusional Psychopathy

According to 'The Telegraph' today, our quondam leader took us into the illegal invasion of Iraq because he claims he is devoutly religious and communes with "the man upstairs" who "tell's him the answers, and that's it."
However, Blair went on to complain that people in Britain regard religion with suspicion - especially when used as a defence for their decisions by their politicians. He opined:
"It's difficult if you talk about religious faith in our political system. If you are in the American political system or others then you can talk about religious faith and people say 'yes, that's fair enough' and it is something they respond to quite naturally.

You talk about it in our system and, frankly, people do think you're a nutter."
According to Blair's ultra-sympatico confidante, Peter 'The Pederast' Mandleson, apparently Blair takes a Bible with him wherever he goes and habitually reads it last thing at night - and I'll leave it to my readers to ponder how, exactly,Mandy came to know that.

Naturally, that other great delusional psychopath, The Archbishop Archbuffoon of York, the Most Rev John Sentamu, said:
"Mr Blair's comments highlight the need for greater recognition to be given to the role faith has played in shaping our country. Those secularists who would dismiss faith as nothing more than a private affair are profoundly mistaken in their understanding of faith."(emphasis added)
No, mate, it's delusional psychopaths like you who are ' profoundly mistaken in [your] understanding of faith.

'Faith', by definition, is a psychological condition which cannot be considered to be what philosophers or psychologists call 'justified true belief', since 'faith' is characterised solely by the adamant refusal on the part of the faithful to acknowledge logic, ratiocination, or empiric evidence when these show their faith to be exactly what it is - a form of delusional psychopathology that is indistinguishable from any other acknowledged mental illness.

But if any of the so-called 'faithful' out there still doubt that they are either simply delusional psychotics, at best, or manipulative liars, at worst, then let me remind them that, over the millennia, none of their kind has ever been able to produce either a shred of credible evidence or a valid logical argument proving that their so-called 'god' exists anywhere outside their own psyches - oh, by the way, pointing to the collective madness of the 'faithful' over the millennia is evidence of nothing other than what the philosopher Charles Mackay, who was also a Reverend, called 'Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds'.

Friday, November 16, 2007

More Muslim Justice Misogyny

The BBC have reported yet another example of Muslim justice - well, you wouldn't expect them to call it misogyny, would you? I mean, it might result in the Saudis withdrawing their lucrative contracts for billions of pounds and our mealy-mouthed government branding the BBC's actions as being 'against the national interest [to criticise anything the Saudis do]. Nevertheless, the report not only demonstrates the misogyny at the heart of Islam, but also the real division between the Sunnis and the Shias - remember that the latter are the minority in Saudi.

Admittedly I don't have all the facts of the case, but then these are not relevant under Shari'a law - especially when it involves a woman victim. Nevertheless, the main issues seem quite clear:
  • A young Shia woman was gang-raped 14 times by 7 Sunni men.
  • The woman complained to the authorities and the court imposed 90 lashes on her for being in the car of one of the men.
  • The men faced the death penalty for the rape, but were given lenient jail-sentences.
  • The woman appealed against her sentence.
  • The court then more than doubled her lashes to 200 AND imposed a 6 month jail term on her for daring to complain to the press about her original barbaric punishment.
  • Admittedly the court also doubled the prison terms of her rapists, but even it has still been extremely lenient when the mandated penalty according to the fiqh (the rules of Islamic jurisprudence) is death - and remember that the fiqh is derived from the 'inerrant words of Allah' as allegedly set-out in the Qur'an.
Still, I suppose the young woman considers herself very lucky that the court didn't impose lapidation on her.

Note: actually lapidation isn't all bad - if you're not on the receiving end of it, that is. According to a geologist friend of mine, that's how oil was first discovered in Arabia - the men were scrabbling around in the sand looking for rocks to throw at their women-folk when one lucky misogynist by the name of Saud put his hand in something black and oozing, and lo! the Kingdom of Saud ensued.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Are 'Honour Killings' Cultural or Religious?

According to the UN report, 'The State of World Population 2000' , perhaps as many as 5,000 women and girls a year are murdered by members of their own families, many of them for the "dishonour" of having been raped, often as not by a member of their own extended family.

Admittedly the grotesquely named practice of so-called 'honour killing' is not exclusively restricted to Muslims, but the cases that have come to light would suggest that it is most widely practised by people of that persuasion. Why this is so is not such a mystery, since the Qur'an and the Sunnah together form the Shari'a, which deals with every aspect of life, including international, constitutional, administrative, criminal, civil, family, and religion. Subsequently, Islamic scholars made legal rulings on the basis of the Shari'a, and these are called the Fiqh. Now the Fiqh recognises four classes of crimes, the most serious of which are called Houdoud.

Houdoud crimes are said to be so serious that they threaten the very existence of Islam per se, and they are to be punished in accordance with the penalties set forth in the Qur'an itself - which is, after all, the so-called inerrant words of 'god' - or the Sunnah - matters which were subsequently laid down by Muhammad, either by his word or deed. Houdoud crimes include adultery, defamation, theft, robbery, rebellion, drunkenness, and apostasy, and some are punishable by death - specifically adultery, which is classed alongside apostasy. As a general rule the death penalty is to be carried out by the sword, but for adultery the woman is to be stoned to death as this is slower and more painful for her - and a greater deterrent to other women.

However, Sharif Kanaana, professor of anthropology at Birzeit University has stated that 'honour killing' is:
A complicated issue that cuts deep into the history of Arab society. .. What the men of the family, clan, or tribe seek control of in a patrilineal society is reproductive power. Women for the tribe were considered a factory for making men. The honor(sic) killing is not a means to control sexual power or behavior(sic). What's behind it is the issue of fertility, or reproductive power.
Not only does the Professor make no reference to the Fiqh imposing the death penalty for sexual transgressions, were his explanation that culture rather than religion be blamed for this barbaric practice, a woman who produced only female children should also be killed by the tribe, since she would be a distinct liability by failing in her duty to be 'a factory for making men', especially as these same men readily murder their girl-children when they consider them a burden.

Although the organisation 'Human Rights Watch' declared in 2001 that...
Honor(sic) crimes are not specific to any religion, nor are they limited to any one region of the world. Human Rights Watch has worked on this issue in the Americas, Asia, the Middle East, and North Africa.
... the fact remains that the practice is predominantly one practised by Muslims qua Muslims. Furthermore, there is nothing to distinguish the cultural or the religious practices of these people, for both are born out of their collective ignorance and superstition. And irrespective of what anyone says to the contrary, there is no honour is 'honour killings', they are simply another means of men expressing their insecurities, misogyny and control over women - but that's what religion is all about anyway!

Saturday, November 10, 2007

More Mad Muslim Mutterings Lies

The delusional psychotic pictured is none other that Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB).

Amongst other things, he thinks the Government is stoking the tension between Muslims and the rest of us.

After all, Bari declared yesterday in an interview with 'The Daily Telegraph' that there would be no problem if we all simply adopted Muslim ways.

Bari also likened us to Nazis for demonising his people and referring to Islamic terrorists. He declaimed:
"Terrorists are terrorists, they may use religion but we shouldn't say Muslim terrorists, it stigmatises the whole community. We never called the IRA Catholic terrorists."
Well, Dr Bari, if you're going to make comparisons, here are some other facts that you should consider:
  • The IRA never carried out their terrorist attacks in the name of Catholicism, but Muslim terrorist do it in the name of Islam.
  • The Roman Catholic religion does not make it a holy duty of its adherents to kill all apostates, unbelievers, and anyone it considers enemies of Roman Catholicism, but the Qur'an, the Hadith, many Islamic leaders and scholars do declare that it is the holy duty of Muslims to do so in the name of Allah, and that those who do not join in the jihad are themselves legitimate targets for butchering.
  • The Roman Catholic religion never promised the IRA terrorists that they would be rewarded extravagantly in the place they call 'Heaven' for their murderous terrorist attacks yet Islam does precisely that.
  • Muslim scholars, of which you are one, know full well that a 'Muslim' is defined as 'one who submits to Allah' and that 'Islam' is simply the collective noun for these people.
In short, Dr Bari, when a religion qua religion exhorts its adherents to murder those they think deserve it and promises the perpetrators rewards for doing so, it is perfectly correct to name those perpetrators as religious terroists. Therefore, Dr Bari, it is accurate to refer to those Muslims who exhort and carry-out these atrocities as either Muslim or Islamic Terrorists, so please stop insulting out intelligence with your specious and diversionary example of the IRA.

Mind you, there are some amusing parts in Bari's apologia for the murdering Muslim scum amongst his people, like his defence for not doing anything to remove the terrorist pamphlets, videos and books from the bookshop in the East London Mosque - where he was the Chair - Bari had this to say:
"The bookshops are independent businesses. We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see what books they keep, if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"
Now, to appreciate the sick-humour of that statement, you must compare Bari's mealy-mouthed pack of lies with his attack on Sir Salmand Rushdie:
Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted. "He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped."
Sauce for the goose, eh Bari?

More of Mad Bari's bon mots, with suitable addenda:
  • Religion has principles that can help society - like killing those who don't believe in it.
  • Alcohol is the worst drug long-term - as anyone trying to get of crack-cocaine will tell you.
  • Sex before marriage is unacceptable in Islam - so non-believers shouldn't be allowed to do it either.
  • Homosexuality is "unacceptable from the religious point of view" - but homicide is acceptable, provided Islam sanctions it (it does for homosexuals), or its an 'honour killing' of one of your daughters.
  • Stoning women to death for adultery is OK - it just depends on the size of the rocks you throw at them.
As it says in the title: More Mad Muslim Mutterings Lies.

PS: The BBC also carries this story with some additional comments from deluded fools who think that Allah actually exists anywhere apart from in their imagination. One of them, Farmida Bi from the Progressive British Muslims organisation agreed that British society as a whole could benefit from adopting some of the teachings of Islam. She said:
"A lot of what [Islam] says is relevant and important to our society today..."
Such as what, Farmida?

And whilst you're pondering that, name one thing that Islam says that is as relevant or important to our society than anything that the National Secular Society or the British Humanist Association have to say, for example.

But perhaps there is hope for the likes of Farmida yet, for she concludes:
"...but at the same time Muslims have to acknowledge that the West has an awful lot to teach the Muslim community as well."
And here's something to start with - people who believe in imaginary beings are delusional psychotics, irrespective of whether they call that non-existent being Allah, Yahvey, God, Santa Claus, Cthulthu, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or any of the other ten thousand silly names that the ignorant, irrational, superstitious, or psychopathological have invented to explain the creation of the cosmos over the millennia.

PS: An excellent response to the MCB and Bari and his ilk can be found here - and whilst you're there, check out some of Mr Condell's other videos as they are, in my opinion, excellent and say some of the things that need to be said by those of us who have no truck with organised religion.

Religion should be a private affair for those who need it, but if they use it in order to force their delusional views on the rest of us then, if they are not willing to accept counselling for their underlying psychpathological problems that have driven them to religion in the first place, they should be excoriated and held up to the ridicule and disapprobation that they rightly deserve.