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.


For All Women Foundation said...

I've been told by a number of imams and Islamic scholars that "honor" killings are, in fact, un-Islamic.

Ellen R. Sheeley, Author
"Reclaiming Honor in Jordan"

The Merchant of Menace said...

And there are many who say otherwise, for it is a fact that so-called 'devout' Muslims have committed what they call 'honour killings' and they feel that it has not compromised their status as Muslims or their Islamic faith. On the contrary, some of them they have even used their faith to justify their homicides, and their fellow Muslims, at least here in the UK, have not condemned them for it, but fortunately our legal system did and sent them to jail where they rightly belong.

In other words, when it suits them many Muslims are prepared to claim that the inerrant words of god - for that is what the Qur'an allegedly is - are not to be taken literally. However, some Muslims use the Qur'an, the Hadith and other teachings as proper justification for maiming criminals or beheading adulteresses, whilst others use it as an excuse to cane a woman for not covering her feet. And some use these so-called 'teachings' as an excuse and justification for committing murderous atrocities in the name of their so-called 'god'.

I've even met scholars and Imams who have declared that the permission given in the Qur'an for a man to beat his wife with a stick is merely 'a metaphor' whilst others happily instruct men to beat their wives senseless for daring to question their dictats.

But if anyone wants to examine some of the ridiculous issues that concern many Muslims, and have a good laugh whilst doing so, I can recommend the site'Ask an Imam'.

Some of the more entertaining questions asked are: "Can I have sex with slaves these days?" (Answer: No, because most societies do not allow you to take slaves nowadays)or "My husband sent me a text message saying 'I divorce you' - is it valid?" or "What are the consequences when my husband tells me to 'Go Fuck your Dad'"?

And if you think that the questions are ridiculous, just wait until you read some of the replies from the various Imams, they're positively hysterical - example: during her menses a husband cannot touch his penis on any part of his wife between her navel and her knees, but the rest of her body is his to use as he sees fit.

Of course the real question we should be asking is: Why does anyone take these lunatics seriously?

Admittedly the same question applies to Xtians but, as yet, they have not resorted to blowing-up those who do not share their views - or, at least, those Xtians who are not part of the so-called 'pro-life' movement haven't resorted to homicide yet.

papalazarou said...

there is a wonderfully sick irony among the pro-life xtian fundamentalists wouldn't you say?

For All Women Foundation said...

Wonderful post, Merchant. Yes, I've heard all sides of these issues, too. There seems to be so little consensus among Muslims and, by design, no supreme imam to rule on these differences of interpretation. Nor does there appear to be any Muslim with sufficient moral authority and gravity amongst the ummah to, in effect, act as arbiter.

With "honor" killings, though, the roots are more cultural than religious. They are believed to have their origins in misinterpretations of pre-Islamic Arab tribal codes. They pre-date Islam by centuries.

Where it gets confusing is that Islam is an all-encompassing faith, which its adherents contend provides guidance for every aspect of life. Also, it is the case that of the U.N.-estimated 5,000 "honor" killings per annum globally, the overwhelming majority occur in Arab/Muslim countries and in Arab/Muslim immigrant communities elsewhere. And so there is this complicating correlation.

I am glad to see, though, that the courts in the UK are treating these crimes as any others. They are placing a value on human life and the rule of law and disallowing the emergence of a two-tier system for dealing with murder.

The Merchant of Menace said...

Hi Ellen (if I may be so bold),

Your comments are most welcome.

I agree with you that the roots of so-called 'honour killings' are cultural rather than religious, in that they pre-date Islam by centuries, but then again one must not forget that the roots of Islam itself are grounded in the same cultural background and the particular psychopathology of Muhammad himself.

In short, trying to make a distinction between cultural practices and religious ones is about as useful as pondering whether the chicken or the egg came first.

Nevertheless, when it suits them, Muslims are as just as adept as non-Muslim religious believers in using their faith to justify some atrocity or other - until said atrocity is met with too much condemnation, in which case it is blamed on extremists who have simply misinterpreted the 'word of god'.

Despite that ready excuse, a religion which, to this day, sanctions brutal and often homicidal treatment of those who either transgress or simply do not accept its tenets and beliefs is not strongly placed to displace the evidence that it does not support or endorse 'honour killings'. After all, qualitatively there is absolutely no difference between so-called 'honour killings' by some Mulsims and the religious exhortations to all Muslims that it is their religious duty to kill apostates and infidels.

Regarding your final comment, I am sorry to say that Muslim pressure groups like the MCB are pressing the government here to allow them to introduce Sharia Law and, apparently, some 40% of Muslims in the UK support them, but whether they want it to apply to Muslims alone, or to the rest of us, the polls are not quite clear. However, it is interesting that the Muslim proponents of Sharia have not defined which version they wish to have imposed here, but then they probably think that the rest of us are too stupid to know that their versions of the law are as divergent as their interpretations of the Qur'an and the Hadith.

Which conclusion brings me back to a point you made:-

"There seems to be so little consensus among Muslims and, by design, no supreme imam to rule on these differences of interpretation. Nor does there appear to be any Muslim with sufficient moral authority and gravity amongst the ummah to, in effect, act as arbiter."

If you have any further thoughts on the matter, I do hope you will share them with me.

Take care.

The Merchant of Menace said...

I meant to respond to Papalazarou's comment earlier. He said: "there is a wonderfully sick irony among the pro-life xtian fundamentalists wouldn't you say?"

One can hardly be surprised at the 'sick irony' of these people's homicidal antics, for religious beliefs themselves are simply the product of ignorant, superstitious, irrational and psychopathological minds that are unable to accept that life does not need their artificial and invented constructs. And since their so-called 'god' is purely a figment of their own imagination, it is not surprising that they define him in such a way that he fits in with their intimate plans and 'allows' them to do as they wished in the first place.

Nevertheless, it's a good job that these lunatic pro-life xtian fundies don't construe masturbation to the point of ejaculation or Onanism as an offence against their invented 'god' otherwise their movement would have no male members (no pun intended). Mind you, that would probably be a good thing, for one has to remember that the 'pro-life' movement was set-up by men with the primary aim of exercising and re-establishing their control over women.

For All Women Foundation said...

Merchant, you may be so bold. :-)

I hope Sharia law never comes to pass in the UK.

The Merchant of Menace said...


I hope that (a) you read this, and (b) forgive me for not mentioning your truly impressive achievement in researching, writing and publishing your book "Reclaiming Honor in Jordan" - even if you Americans do insist on misspelling 'honor'(joke!).

After reading the reviews on Amazon I am determined to get my hands on your book and read it for myself. Unfortunately it does not seem to be available through booksellers in the UK - and I refuse to deal with Amazon as they have recently bilked me out of some money (see here), so I will have to try and get if from the British Library under the auspices of the Inter-Library book-lending service.

Incidentally, Amazon gives your publisher as 'Black Iris Publishing' but the only website I can find with that name is this one, which is so abjectly terrible that it must have been designed by following this advice.