Imam issues predictable and inevitable warning to author Sebastian Faulkes: “Don’t criticise Islam or else…”

Sebastian Faulks: Koran has ‘no ethics’

A few posts back I commented on a report of author Sebastian Faulkes and  the “elephant in the room” that he was brave enough to point out after reading the Koran in order to research a new character for one of his books (click here to read the original post). Faulkes gave a very forthright and honest opinion saying:

“It’s a depressing book. It really is. It’s just the rantings of a schizophrenic. It’s very one-dimensional…With the Koran there are no stories. And it has no ethical dimension like the New Testament, no new plan for life. It says ‘the Jews and the Christians were along the right tracks, but actually, they were wrong and I’m right, and if you don’t believe me, tough — you’ll burn for ever’.”

Today we learn that a respected Muslim has issued what could be called a veiled warning and after all, how could anyone be surprised. Ajmal Masroor, an imam and spokesman for the Islamic Society of Britain said Faulks’ statements ran the risk of stirring religious hatred against Muslims. He said:

“Attacks on Islam are nothing new, but the danger is this will have a ‘drip, drip’ effect… People don’t seem to understand the consequences of saying things like this could be quite severe. History tells us it can encourage hatred.”

Firstly, both what Mr. Masroor says and the fact that he was asked for his opinion and quoted in the first place is pathetic. There are plenty of smarter and younger Muslims to ask who have a better understanding of what it is to live peacefully in the West. Why wasn’t Maajid Nawaz or anyone else at the Quilliam Foundation asked for their opinion? Why were none of the members of the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain asked. Are cultural Muslims who happen to have left the actual faith of Islam unworthy of an opinion?

Sebastian Faulkes is an author who has the right, just like we all do, to give an honest opinion about a literary piece of work. To accuse him of “stirring religious hatred” simply because he gave his opinion is unfair.

Secondly, Ajmal Masroor is being foolish when he says that “people don’t understand the consequences” because the consequences are plainly there for all to see. We do understand is that any criticism of Islam or the Koran is liable to be met with violent thoughts, words and deeds. This is not our problem. It is an Islamic problem and therefore it is up to Islam to get its own house in order.

We have learned from history that what “encourages hatred” more than anything else is a dogmatic adherence to a hateful belief system. Islam hates freethinkers, atheists and homosexuals. It is a racist ideology that oppresses women and essentially looks down on all those who who disagree with its doctrine. Branches of it quite openly advocate killing these people who it sees as “enemies”.

We are very “respectful” of Islam already and most of the time we, who hold western values, keep our mouths shut even when criticism is warranted. Sebastian Faulkes is a mild-mannered and humble author who has had the temerity to criticise Islam. His view is based on his own values and Ajmal Masroor’s attempt to redefine his values as prejudices must not be allowed to succeed. When Mr. Masroor says that Foulkes’ words “encourage hatred” he is wrong. It is Mr. Masroor who is doing all the encouraging and the hatred is coming from within Islam rather than being directed towards it.

“Words are being used quite shamelessly to try and engineer an artificial sense of guilt in western society, to redefine our values as prejudices and to silence legitimate opinion and the free exchange of ideas that have made us what we are and that have given us our strength and that’s why this is damaging our society in a fundamental way and it has got to stop.”

“All over the western world we’ve become so intimidated into watching every word and thought in case it might offend somebody’s precious faith. It’s as if the free world has forgotten to inhale. What happened to our birthright? We need to take a deep breath. We need to get the oxygen of freedom flowing through our veins again and through our brains again and get things back in perspective.” (Pat Condell)

Nice try Ajmal, and who could blame you for trying? You are simply using the same tactics that most of Islam has used against its perceived “enemies” for countless generations; fear and intimidation. It just won’t wash. Even the apologist “new liberal left” is starting to realise the folly of giving in to people like you for the sake of appeasement. Our culture is founded upon freedom rather than submission and we will stand up to any twisted values that are based on blind faith alone. We will attempt to do this with the pen rather than the sword because reason is the most powerful weapon of all and however many senseless killings there are we have empirical evidence that the path of violence and fanaticism ultimately leads to failure.

Issuing warnings, threats and fatwas against authors for airing their opinions, amongst a majority who expect that of them, is a misguided way to deal with what is essentially in internal Islamic problem. The West has come a long way towards attempting to accommodate Islam. We are inclusive by nature. We are ready to accept people for what they are but we are not ready to compromise our hard-won freedom to do that.

See:
“Is it really “courting controversy” to say that there is an elephant in the room?” (TEWNC 24.08.09)
“Sebastian Faulks: Koran has ‘no ethics’” (The Times 23.08.09)
“Author Sebastian Faulks risks Muslim fury by describing the Koran as the ‘depressing rantings of a schizophrenic’” (Mail Online 24.08.09)
The Quilliam Foundation
“Apologists for Evil” (by Pat Condell – Video & Transcript)
Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain

Filed under: Appeasement for Islam, books, Homosexuality, Islam, News, Religion, The Koran, Ajmal Masroor, Maajid Nawaz, Quilliam Foundation, Sebastian, Sebastian Faulks

Fashion: Is the birka standard equipment for French Secret Service operatives?

On the 18th November 2005 police officer Sharon Beshenivsky was shot dead during a bungled robbery in Bradford, West Yorkshire, England. She didn’t have a chance. Shot at almost point-blank range, she was a very new recruit to the force and was not expecting any firearms to be involved in the altercation. She was dispatched to investigate a disturbance at a travel agent’s shop within shouting distance of her own police station.

"Woof!" erm no I mean "meow!"

One of the men responsible escaped from Heathrow Airport wearing a niqab, an extreme form of female Islamic attire known to you and me as a “black bell tent with peep-hole”. He was allowed to go through customs at the airport to board his plane completely unchallenged. Happily he returned and is now an invite at one of Her Majesty’s correctional institutions.

It was not the first time such a thing had happened. In 1998, Fawzi Mustapha Assi, who was accused of smuggling night vision goggles and other military equipment to Hezbollah in Lebanon, fled from Detroit to Canada, where he was working as an engineer for Ford Motor Company, by wearing a niqab.

It was amusing then, to read the story in the Mail Online today about a French secret service agent, Herve Jaugbert, who supposedly escaped from the Dubai police by using the same sort of get-up. He was able to cover up diving air tanks with the garment and make a clean getaway by walking down to the water’s edge and swimming out to the only patrol boat in the area, disabling it and then making his way by dinghy to outside Dubai’s territorial waters where he was picked up by another French agent in a yacht.

Quite how credible the story is I don’t know. It sounds like it should be stamped with a large warning “Only to be taken with a bucket full of salt”. Funny nevertheless to think that the Dubai authorities may have been hoisted with their own petard. See the original Mail article for some great pictures.

See:
“French 007 tells of great escape from Dubai wearing a wetsuit under a burka”
(Mail Online 24.08.09)

Filed under: Islam, Bradford, Dubai, Fawzi Mustapha Assi, Herve Jaugbert, Mustaf Jama, Muzzaker Shah, Niqab, Sharon Beshenivsky, Yusaf Jama

Ramadan – Is drastically changing the timing of a daily calorie intake any different to depriving one’s self of sleep?

I don’t know about you but I tend to get quite grumpy when I’ve missed a calorie-intake session. I’ve never been a big breakfast fan but by midday the inevitable signals are sent from my stomach to my brain and if I pay them no heed I become less productive and more obsessive about food. If I then go on to miss out on an evening meal as well as lunch I really get ratty.

Ramadan started on Saturday and millions of good Muslims all over the world, this country included, will be observing a daytime fasting ritual as a result. I say “fast” but really it is more like a farce.

Ramadan is not a fast because Muslims are not denying themselves food for long periods. Instead, Muslims do not eat between sunrise and sunset. In the average British summer’s day that leaves a good six hours in which they can stuff themselves to their heart’s content and in fact this is effectively what happens.

No doubt as a result of their “spiritual” concentration on food as well as an internal body-clock disruption to regular calorie intake, many Muslims actually put on weight at Ramadan. In Britain Muslims go all day long with cups of hot lemon tea and then stuff themselves in the evenings when they get home from work.

We are concerned about that great ideal “The British Worker” taking time off to see the dentist because of the number of man-hours that are lost and we have minimum consecutive hours policies for doctors, lorry drivers and for those in any profession where others may be put in danger through a lack of concentration. Why do we allow all these people a choice out of respect for their faith to go for eighteen hours without taking in calories?

Look at it this way. If you were to catch a late bus after a long day at the office and you were asked to choose between a driver who’d been driving solidly for eight hours without a break or one who hadn’t eaten anything for twenty four hours, which one would you choose?

Filed under: Islam, Special Religious Dispensation, Ramadan

Is it really “courting controversy” to say that there is an elephant in the room?

Elephant! What elephant?

There are more negative posts on this blog about Islam than there are about other religions and for this I make no apologies. I dislike all faiths but do have a bias of dislike towards that particular one. At the same time, Islam, unlike most other religions, does not keep itself to itself. It is right “out there” everyday, being pushed into my face like a custard pie every time I turn around. Unlike most of the other major religions, it is not benign and in recent times many of its members have been responsible for more slaughter and mayhem than any other religion. Being a Muslim doesn’t make one a terrorist but these days it’s highly probable that any given terrorist is a Muslim.

In an interesting article published in The Times yesterday author Sebastian Faulks says that “The Koran has no ethical dimension”. He also states that the Koran “is a depressing book… It is very one-dimensional  and unlike the Christian New Testament, it has no plan for life.” Faulks had to read the Koran as part of the research he was doing on one of the characters in his latest book. He says:

“Jesus, unlike Muhammad, had interesting things to say. He proposed a revolutionary way of looking at the world: love your neighbour; love your enemy; the meek shall inherit the earth. Muhammad had nothing to say to the world other than, ‘If you don’t believe in God you will burn for ever’.”

By criticising the Koran, Sebastian Faulks has joined the ranks of blasphemers (like me) who, if hard-line Muslims had their way, would be punished with death for what they have said. Thank God we don’t live in a Muslim country.

By the way, just for the record, I don’t believe there is any such thing as “Islamaphobia”. As Pat Condell has so eloquently said:

“Just because somebody offends you with their opinion it doesn’t give you the right to saddle them with a clinical condition. There is no such thing as Islamophobia. It simply doesn’t exist and most people now realise just what a cynical manipulative lie that word really is. Suspicion of or dislike of Islam is not a phobia. It’s an honest, healthy reaction to the evidence that’s been provided.”

“These words are being used quite shamelessly to try and engineer an artificial sense of guilt in western society, to redefine our values as prejudices and to silence legitimate opinion and the free exchange of ideas that have made us what we are.”

See:
“Sebastian Faulks: Koran has ‘no ethics’”
(The Times 23.08.09)
Pat Condell – “Apologists for Evil” (Video & Transcript)

Filed under: Islam, books, Koran, Sebastian Faulks

Self-censorship – Does Yale University need to take a leaf out of Pat Condell’s book

No Cartoons Here

Yale University Press have just published a book about the Danish cartoons that caused such a fracas among Muslims several years ago – without showing the cartoons.

“The Cartoons That Shook The World” by Danish-born professor Jytte Klausen, is a serious book examining the protest campaign against the caricatures first published in the Danish newspaper “Jyllands-Posten” in 2005. Its publishers, Yale University Press, have said  that having consulted a panel of (anonymous) “experts” it has decided not to include the actual cartoons in the book.

This shameful capitulation, to a threat that has not even been made yet, is a fine example of a disastrous decision having been made by people who Pat Condell would no doubt refer to as “multicultural appeasement monkeys”. Or, to use more of his words, “the kind of people who’d put their own mothers and daughters in birkas to avoid being called intolerant and who occupy such high moral ground that you can hardly see them up there through the clouds of self-righteousness.”

All of these so-called “experts” need to watch his latest video entitled “Apologists for Evil” which was posted on his YouTube channel three weeks ago. I was unable to find a transcript of this video on-line but felt that what he said was so prosaic that one deserved to be made for the benefit of the internet community. So here it is. Are you pathetic pseudo-intellectual idiots at Yale sitting comfortably? Then hit the link below and we’ll begin.

Video and Full Transcript

See also:
“Yale Press Bans Images of Muhammad in New Book” (New York Times)
“Yale Surrenders” by Christopher Hitchens

Filed under: Appeasement for Islam, Islam, News, Special Religious Dispensation, Stupidity, Jyllands-Posten, Jytte Klausen, Pat Condell, The Cartoons That Shook The World, Yale University Press

Jihad Watch warns of imminent terrorist “spectaculars” in the UK

On the 20th of July the official UK government’s terrorism threat level was lowered from “Level 4 – Severe – An attack is highly likely” to “Level 3 – Substantial – An attack is a strong possibility” but on Monday of this week the “Jihad Watch” website reported that home-grown terrorists in are plotting to attack targets in Britain.

Their source is is Express India whose own source is just described as “an internet magazine run by supporters of deported hate preacher Abdullah al-Faisal who was booted out of Britain after serving a jail sentence for being found guilty of three charges of soliciting the murder of Jews, Americans, and Hindus, and two charges of using threatening words to stir up racial hatred”. Not actually naming the source seems a bit suspicious however.

Jihad Watch reports:

“Al-Qaeda has labeled Britain and Europe as a bigger enemy than the United States [and] the strikes are being planned by terrorists living in Britain and others overseas, and warns of ‘spectacular attacks'”

Britain’s own intelligence services are saying nothing about this and the current threat level remains at “Level 3 Substantial”. Let’s hope that Jihad Watch have got it wrong and our own spies been have right not to have raised the bar.

See:
Jihad Watch “Al-Qaeda boasts that “spectacular attacks” are coming to UK”
Home Office Current Terrorist Threat Level

Filed under: Al-Qaeda, Islam, News, Terrorism, Jihad Watch, Terrorist Threat Level

Why are prisoners who don’t even have the right to vote given so many privileges when it comes to faith?

Belief is its own reward

At the moment convicted British prisoners can’t vote  although a change in the law is under consideration for those whose sentence is less than four years. Why is a real and tangible process such as voting denied to them when something as frivolous as faith is permitted?

It seems that all religions, even the weirdest ones, are well respected in British prisons and prisoners of even minority faiths are furbished with all sorts of accessories and privileges so that they can “worship”.

Pagans can have a hood-less robe, a flexible twig for a wand, incense, jewellery and rune stones. They are also allowed to have Tarot cards as long as a “risk assessment” is made by the prison authorities and no prisoner uses their Tarot cards for fortune-telling with other prisoners. In addition to being allowed to have all this stuff, pagans can choose two holidays per year, from a list, when they are excused from work. This list of days includes Samhain, as Hallowe’en is know in paganism, the vernal equinox and the midsummer solstice.

According to figures published this month the population breakdown of faiths in British prisons is as follows:

26,000 Atheist
23,000 Anglican
14,000 Roman Catholic
9,795 Muslim
366 Pagan
340 Rastafarian
6 Nation of Islam

Ignoring the fact that Judaism seems to have been left out of the figures all together it is interesting to note that the majority of prisoners are atheists. Does this mean that there is a greater tendency towards criminality among atheists? I hope not.

I don’t know whether I am in favour of prisoners being given voting rights as it is not something I’ve really ever thought about enough to have formulated an opinion. I am very surprised however that our society affords even prisoners so much respect for their belief in the supernatural.

See:
“Privileges ease spell in prison for pagans”
(The Times 01.08.09)

Filed under: Atheism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Paganism, Religion, Special Religious Dispensation, Prison, Voting Rights

Afghan rape laws for the “modern” world… A husband’s right to have sex a minimum number of times per week has been abolished but now he can legally starve his wife for refusing his sexual demands

Progressive President Hamid Karzei

With Afghanistan in the midst of election fever its “enlightened” and relatively fresh young president, Hamid Karza, has apparently just signed an amended version of the marital rape laws.

The clause that insists that men have the right to sex with their wives a certain number of times a week has been withdrawn and men will only have the right to deny their wives food for withholding sexual favours.

Courts will also be able to grant guardianship of women’s children to fathers and grandfathers should wives be lacking in the lust department.

In addition the “marital rape laws” will grant men who are guilty of the “petty” crime of rape the chance to get away with their crimes so long as they can pay to avoid prosecution.

Reporting in The Times newspaper today Melanie Reid writes:

“[It] would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. The British Army, decent and professional and upstanding as ever, now finds itself fighting to within an inch of the polling stations in order to allow Afghan men to continue mildly unpleasant habits such as withholding food from their wives, insisting on sex and imprisoning them in their own home. (Which makes you wonder exactly what the problem with the Taleban was.)”

See:
“Right to rape: is that what we’re fighting for?”
(The Times 18.08.09)

Filed under: Afghanistan, Islam, Religion, Stupidity, Hamid Karza, Marital Rape Laws, Rape

More “birkini” madness – No longer optional but compulsory at some UK swimming pool sessions

I have just telephoned my local swimming pool in Hornsey and asked if a (fictitious) Muslim friend could use the pool wearing a “birkini”. They told me straight away that she would be welcome. I also said that I had no swimming trunks and asked if I could swim in my jeans shorts. The answer was “no”. They told me that I would have to have “proper” swimming trunks in order to enter the pool.

As if having special swimming times for women wasn’t already bad enough, according to a piece in yesterday’s Telegraph newspaper:

“Across the UK municipal pools are holding swimming sessions specifically aimed at Muslims, in some case imposing strict dress codes.”
and that
“Under the rules, swimmers – including non-Muslims – are barred from entering the pool in normal swimming attire.”

Surely such measures are divisive and fly in the face of common sense and community cohesion. Is this is not bound to cause resentment from non-Muslims towards Muslims?

If I was to go to my local pool dressed in pirate garb on September 19th, which is a holy day for Pastafarians known as “Dress and Talk Like a Pirate Day”, do you think they would let me go for a swim? I wonder.

Having Muslim-only swimming sessions is yet another example of special dispensation for religions. This kind of policy divides people rather than bringing them together and because there are so many religions, taken to its logical conclusion, one that would exclude the majority most of the time.

Flying Spaghetti Monster

Maybe the saying “if you can’t beat ’em join ’em” applies here and the only way to show some local councils how truly stupid they are being is for all religions and minorities to demand that they have their own special swimming times. Wouldn’t it be great if atheists could get organised and demand atheist-only sessions so that they could swim in peace without being surrounded by weak-minded faith heads.

See:
“Swimmers are told to wear burkinis”
(Telegraph 15.08.09)

Filed under: Atheism, Islam, Neo-puritanism, News, Special Religious Dispensation, Stupidity, Birkini, Blackbird Leys Swimming Pool, Croydon Council, North Woodside Leisure Centre, Scunthorpe Leisure Centre, Swimming Pools, Thornton Heath Leisure Centre

Speedos, “birkinis” and the strange mixed up world of modern bathing apparel

Bathing costume styles are high on the agenda in this week’s “silly season” news stories.

It seems that some men like to wear shorts whilst others swear by skimpy Speedos and women can choose between a one-piece suit or a bikini ensemble. A few (as reported in my last post) like to let it all hang out by wearing nothing at all. But now there is a new way to bathe. Yes, this week saw the addition of the “burkini” to our repertoire of swimming apparel.

Purple Track Suit with Blue Scarf

This week saw Carole, a 35-year-old Muslim woman banned from wearing a “birkini” in a small provincial French Parisian suburb by the chief lifeguard of a swimming pool. He is reported to have banned her on the grounds of hygiene.

Described as “a head-to-toe swimsuit to aid Muslim women in their quest for modesty”, the “birkini” completely covers a woman’s body except for the face.

I lived in France for a year and in Germany for much longer. Such are the swimming pool by-laws. It is just a fact. Men are not permitted to wear heavy shorts but must wear lightweight briefs because an abundance of absorbent natural cotton-type material is said to be able to harbour more bacteria than thinner man-made fibre. I’m not sure just how much scientific evidence there is for this and I suspect that wearing one thing or another wouldn’t really make much difference; swimming pools are chlorine saturated environments anyway but that’s not the point is it. Rules are rules and exceptions and special dispensations should not be made only for one particular section of the community; especially not for the one section that seems to believe that is is always a “special case”.

A Naughty "Package"

In another bathing-costume-related story this week we read about a ban on Speedos at Alton Towers on the grounds that men’s “packages” were too shocking for children to see although many believe that the story probably originated from Alton Towers’ management in a publicity-seeking attempt during a summer that was promised to be a scorcher but instead turned out to be a very damp squib.

In the case of the banned Muslim woman in France, thankfully sanity prevailed and her complaint to the local police on the grounds of discrimination was met with scorn. Carole, who was born into a traditional French family became a convert to Islam when she was seventeen. She bought her “birkini” whilst on holiday in Dubai. The French police told her that she was in contravention of the hygiene laws and she was warned not to be such a silly girl and then sent on her way. I suspect that her subsequent threats to “leave France” have been met with roars of approval.

At any rate, Carole and others of a similar mind are welcome at beaches all along the French coast where their additional bacteria can do no harm in the already heavily polluted salty water. As for Speedo-wearing men with large “packages”… well they should surely have better things to do than visiting tacky amusement parks.

See:
“French Muslim woman wearing ‘burkini’ banned from Paris swimming pool”
(Times Online 13.08.09)

“Alton Towers bans men in Speedos”
(Guardian 10.08.09)

Filed under: Islam, News, Religion, Alton Towers, Birkini, Emerainville, Speedos