Sacreligious Publishing

Okay, I guess that unlike the 25,000¹ ravening bigots whipped into a fury of "peace and tolerance for their fellow man"^(TM), I have watched 'Fitna' and read 'Infidel'. There is some utter crap² around concerning these.

Now, it has to be said that all religions have their utter wackos. Ask any family planning clinic in the US 'Bible Belt'. Or somebody after a drink (or a game of golf) on the Western Isles on a Sunday. However, modern Islam does have its nutters more than a wee bit closer both to the mainstream and to the hairy edge than, for example, Tibetan Buddhists. (Ed notes: And a happy non-violent continuing anti-Olympic protest beating to you in the gulag near Lhasa! And best of British for your protest in SanFran - you ought to have a more favourable policing atmosphere than you did in the Euro-statist capitals of Paris or London.)

Well, Infidel was not a nice story. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has not had a quiet and easy life. An impoverished upbringing of tribal brutality in exile. A violent mother out of place in modern³ society. Endless misogyny and female circumcision⁴. Much of this seemed to be post hoc justified in Islam - but like just the burka, these are tribal customs enforced through female acquiescence to patriarchal stupidity. I was cured of this by reading Germaine at a suitably impressionable age. Islam didn't come out of her childhood too badly - her adults came out appallingly - mother, grandmother (especially) father, brother - a fairly uniform bunch of oxygen thieves. Now, once she was a free adult in the Netherlands, then the 'Religion of Peace' showed its real (ugly) form. It is a good, albeit fundamentally disturbing (especially, I suspect, if you are a sexually active female) book - buy it or borrow it, but read it. If it doesn't make you think then you are probably a nu-Lab PPS.

'Fitna' was a damp squib. Nothing new, nothing particularly interesting. A simple documentary on fundamentalist extremism in Europe would have done the trick, without the political kudos. No mention of Saudi (although I did spot at least one Saudi sheik amongst the rabid), Salafism or Wahabbi. 15 minutes of the best of the Quran, the successful amongst Islamist terrorists and crowds incited to foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Semitism. We get that on the news - even al-Beeb carries that sort of hysteria. Watch it - just because people want to ban it and that is, of itself, a bad thing⁵. Many thanks to Liveleak for carrying it - I appreciate the sheer aggro you went through with all the mindless nut-jobs and the intimidation.

The last word.



1. It's nice to see there are some commonalities in modern policing - 100,000 according to the organisers.

2. Exodus, Samuel, Psalms. And this is an angry response about Christians. Well educated in the 'good book', then. New covenant, anybody? 'Sermon on the Mount', going cheap?

3. Geek moment. Mine is /was an AS400 Sysadmin. Zero cool points for the Tux generation!

4. This is the wrong word. Male 'circumcision' involves removing a small bit of skin on the end of your knob that, frankly (and I speak as one with one) doesn't seem to serve that much of a purpose. And I get the hygiene point. As opposed to removing the clitoris, the labia (various) and whatever else gets in the way of the knife. 'Castration' isn't the right word either. But it's closer.

5. I've read 'Mein Kampf'. It's a terrible book - huge, turgid and vile. The 'John Prescott' of literature. But it is an important book - it shaped a large part of the last century and is still significant now. Which is why it should be available to be read. Along with "Animal Farm', 'One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich'. Both of which are (much) shorter and (vastly) better written.

Iraqi Employees: Fine words, shabby deeds!

Actually, I am not as politic as the estimable Mr Hardie. I don't think the words have been that fine. I think they have been grudging, late and weasely. I think that the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence have behaved appallingly and that Dan actually got it right here:

Only pressure will stop this Government from finding bureaucratic excuses to abandon its moral obligations and leave its former Employees to the death squads.

Still, the latest in the saga is up here and or on what I am pleased to learn is "the right-wing neo-con supporting Harry's Place website" here.

Do you like reading fine words? Here is the Prime Minister on the subject of Iraqi ex-employees of the British Government, speaking in the House of Commons on October 9th, 2007: ‘I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of our civilian and locally employed staff in Iraq, many of whom have worked in extremely difficult circumstances, exposing themselves and their families to danger. I am pleased therefore to announce today a new policy which more fully recognises the contribution made by our local Iraqi staff, who work for our armed forces and civilian missions in what we know are uniquely difficult circumstances.’

Fine words. What about deeds?

A small number of Iraqis - fewer than a dozen, according to people close to the operation who are in contact with me- were removed from Iraq in the early autumn of 2007. Since the Prime Minister’s admirable declaration of October, how many Iraqi ex-employees have been evacuated from Iraq? According to all the Iraqis that I am in contact with: none.

...

The Home Office is dawdling while people are threatened with death.This is either incompetence in the face of a crisis, or it is a deliberate policy of putting bureaucratic obstacles in the face of fugitives. Neither is acceptable.

Please read the whole thing and do what your conscience tells you.

Proud to be one of " Neil Clark's 'Quislings' ".

He's back

Islamo-cretin of the year and, apparently, the internet's Number 1¹ "Radical Muslim"². Like, as we all know, Neil Clark has Britain's best blog.

And what is he back with?

• It was a good thing for Pakistan that Benazir Bhutto was killed.
• The situation in Kenya is clearly the fault of the UK and the US.
• Diana was killed by the masons.
• The teddy bear demanded 40 lashes.
• Slavery has never happened in Islamic countries (and was Britain's fault anyway).

Glad to see his absence hasn't sharpened either his intellect or his grasp of reality. I suppose if your ideal is a life of 6th Century peasantry, then neither are of any use. Hopefully we'll see him back in the comments, trying to justify his pathetic drivel.

1. Update: err, no, he isn't reliably. At 11:30 GMT, 4th Jan, he was number 10, after a guy called Mohammed Saleem, some proper news sites, Amazon and a Muslim dating site. He now seems to be back up. Not the most accurate indicator of worldwide significance, methinks. Update 2: oops. Mr Saleem is an apostate.

2. Using exactly the same criteria, can I please point out that not only I am the internet's Number 1 for "Surreptitious Evil" (which will really upset the world-wide conspiracy of the Elders of Zion, the Bilderberg Group, David Icke's lizards and the Illuminati), I am second through to fifth as well, and a full 8 of the top 10. I am just off to change the price of gold, crush the co-operative movement and introduce a 43 second delay to all internet packets carrying IRC traffic.

A Victory for Common Sense?

This, it seems to me, is good news. However, there is always a sting in the special-pleading-because-we-are-the-religion-of-peace tale:

Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain, told the Times he did not think the case should have reached court.

"Many young people download objectionable material from the internet, but it seems if you are a Muslim then this could lead to criminal charges, even if you have absolutely no intention to do harm to anyone else.

To paraphrase then - if young people download objectionable material from the internet and that material is illegal merely to possess under the laws of the United Kingdom and they are Muslim then they shouldn't be prosecuted.

As opposed, say, to secular paedophiles - who, mostly, also intend to do no harm to anyone else. But because harm is involved in the creation of the material, in exactly the same way as terrorist videos of bombings that kill innocent children or offering praise and succour to those terrorists, we criminalise it.

Of course, we could try her under Sharia law, where, as a woman, her evidence would be discounted and a "suspended sentence" is hanging?

Professional Over-Reaction

The Religion of Peace and Tolerance is at it again:

The protesters gathered in Martyrs Square, outside the presidential palace in the capital, many of them carrying knives and sticks.

Marchers chanted "Shame, shame on the UK", "No tolerance - execution" and "Kill her, kill her by firing squad".

Can we possibly stop supporting these barbaric medievalists with UK taxpayers' cash?

The UK record is strong: it disbursed some £110 million of humanitarian and development assistance to southern Sudan since the Oslo conference in April 2005, where the UK pledged £317 million in aid to Sudan over three years (2005-2007). To date we have spent £290 million in the whole country and stand to exceed this pledge. This includes £47 million, which is channelled through the Multi-Donor Trust Fund over three years (2005-2007) and split evenly between North and South Sudan.

UK Development Aid Programme in Sudan

• In the past five years the UK has provided US$667m (£326m) in aid to Sudan, out of a total of US$2201m (£1075m) from the international community.
• In 2007/08 the UK plans to give about US$228m (£114m).

Not a Gentle Morning

I do dislike people saying profound things, stupid or intelligent, on the radio as I am just waking up. It disturbs my equilibrium. Similar to waking up to a proper alarm, or to the unpleasant realisation that you have massively overslept on a day where you have significant commitments.

So, this morning, when I thought I heard one of the usual islamo-facist apologies for terrorist scumbags from the MCB saying:

There is such a thing as manners and civility.

I was none too impressed. This being from an organisation that wants us to lock away our daughters, ban music in schools, mandate Salafist propaganda in school libraries, allow a religious interpretation of "child abuse", thinks we are fascists etc, etc. How mannerly and civil. Of course, my first thought was to dash here and rant but then that usually ends up unpublished, so I went to Radio 4's listen again function.

• Oh god, sodding cartoons again.
• A muscial about the cartoon controversy. Hmm, given that music is haram anyway, I can really see the "Religion of Peace" taking this well.
• This Swedish bloke, he really doesn't understand our Muslim brethren, does he? It's "had its time"? The cartoon controversy? Let's be honest, they are still mad at the Jews for them rejecting Mohammed in the early 7th Century. It may be out of the media but you can be sure there is a wild-eyed fanatic somewhere desperate for a non-religious education so he can work out how to spell "Lars Vilks" for carving into a block of C4.
• OMG, the triumph of a liberal (socialist, anti-dogmatic, Enlightenment) education over common sense. It's called the scientific method - observe the world; develop a theory; make some testable predictions; experiment and see if the predications come true or not.
  
• Humour. They don't do humour. "Dogs" as a pun on "Cats"? You should be able to criticise religions? The same rules for Islam as for Christianity and Judaism? Absolutely. Sharia - it's the same rule :)
• So there is S-E's theory of comparative religions: islamists have no sense of humour. Therefore they aren't going to like this. Let's see ...

And the rebuttal:

• Still can't make the MCB guy's name out.
• Yes, Lars is doing it to demonstrate his and, by extension, our freedoms, you pillock.
• Of course the "prophet is much loved by Muslims". As is Christ by the Christians, Buddha by the Buddists, the patriarchs by the Jews, oh and the American flag by the Yanks.
• Ah, yes, the famous "War Against Islam". Shown so convincingly by our attacks on the core Islamic state - Saudi Arabia, our refusal to defend the Islamic state of Kuwait, the war we are waging against Indonesia. Yes, clearly.
  
• His intent is "clearly to provoke"? "To create mischief"? No, you got it right before. It is to demonstrate that he is living in a free, post-Enlightenment, secular state. We have to tolerate all sorts of crap here (Hizb ut-Tahrir, of course, not his Grace's excellent blog.)
  
• "In Europe, of course, we have the freedom to satirise. We have that right to offend." Good. Wonderful in fact. My theory is clearly bollocks and I can get on with breakfast. But, wait ...
• "There is no obligation to offend." So what isn't mandatory is forbidden? I seem to recall that Jared Diamond used that as the basic distinction between tribal and civilised modes of behaviour.
  
• "There is such a thing as good manners. There is such a thing as civility." My quote - nearly.

Manners and civility.

It would be civil for you to recognise the ancient freedoms of this country instead of insisting on ramming some Wahabist interpretation of C7 desert culture down our throats. It would be mannerly to consider your demands for special treatment in the context of your contribution to British society - which, at the moment, seems to consider solely of complaining about it.

I would, normally at this point, consider repeating the words of somebody even you infidels consider to be a prophet "let him who is without sin, cast the first stone". I mean, this is mannerly and civil, is it? And, I note, uncriticised by the MCB. Then, casting stones is something Islamic states have quite a bit to say about (as well as these interestingly undeserved judicial punishments). Please note, unlike a (probably crap) musical or the horror of having boys and girls in the same swimming pool, uncriticised by the MCB.

You bunch of ignorant medievalist terrorist-succouring peasants.

Shock and Awe

Johann Hari speaks great sense (he may have been under the influence when he wrote this):

If Christian fundamentalists were doing this – as they used to, and would like to again – none of us would hesitate in erupting in rage. But because Islamic fundamentalists are doing it, we feel awkward, and fall silent. The difference is the colour of their skin. There's a word for this: racism.

Read the rest. There should be one law for all and it should be impartial - race, religion, sexual preference, riches and all.

Two Good Books

Well, these were both "read until you're finished". Admittedly, one of those was being read while I was waiting for a delayed Sleazyjet flight at Gatwick so ...

(Mohamm)Ed Husain, has been a member of an number of Islamist militant organisations, culminating in a position in Hizb ut-Tahrir - a weird bunch of coves that we seem to be the only country on God's green or sandy Earth don't realise are a militant terrorist nut-job collective. His book is the interesting journey from a bright young schoolboy to remarkably close to being a terrorist - and certainly being a terrorist sympathiser - and back to being a true believer in the "Religion of Peace".

This is an utterly remarkable book - comparable to the "Anarchist's Cookbook" and the original "2600" samizdat copies. It is but competently written however remains wholly engrossing. We see the techniques used to prize young Muslim men away from their families; the techniques used to force the politically correct British establishment into allowing a fascist regime to establish itself in its midst; the gradual journey back to an orthodox Quranic faith. Jamal really ought to read it but I suppose he would just declare it haram and go back to his hate-mongering.

On the other hand, I really enjoyed this. Dan seems to have escape Simon's battle to throttle comment (this and other blogs passim) - he actually praises Director Public Relations (Army) on the dedications page. Some of the aspects of the siege of Cimic House have been written about before - (then) Pte Johnson Beharry won his VC for actions on this tour and it has also been covered in Richard Holmes "Dusty Warriors", however this is a compelling eye-witness account from a Senior NCO who was there for almost the whole period of the significant action - covering the pull-out of the Coalition Provisional Authority, the to-and-fro battles with the Mehdi Army and their commanders in the OMS and leaving just before the handover to the Iraqi authorities. Sgt Mills doesn't like Al Amarah; he, like many Sergeants, is sceptical of his officers but extremely positive about the good ones and, like so many of his rank in wars gone past, clearly the backbone of the British Army. He cares for his men (and, with one exception, seems to really like them) and is rewarded by loyalty and bravery in the fight.

The unique point of view of the commander of the snipers allows a further priveleged account of the trials and tribulations of the battle - the changes in RoE (Rules of Engagement) and how they were exploited by the Iraqis and the care necessary when fighting in a built up area. Read this book - with one caveat - it is slightly over a tenner from Amazon, you may wish to wait for the paperback.

Shortcut for convenience

For the large number of what I should only suppose are Jamal's friends (you are, at least, his readers) visiting, here is a shortcut for you.

Thanks,

S-E

Disclaimer: No terrorists were harmed, brought to trial or killed trying to commit atrocities in the production of this post.

Who Lifted that Stone?

Okay,

I understand that a self-confessed "Radical Muslim" may consider the Iraqi Employees' saga in a different light to people who can actually be bothered thinking about it.

What I don't understand is that his sidebar also includes this (way down, it has to be said, on the bottom right):

and, as well as supporting the murder of Iraqi's who assist the Coalition Forces and any Coalition Troops themselves:

If these traitors now lose their lives as a result, then this is the consequence of their participation in this wicked, deceitful and catastrophic war, which has seen over a million Iraqis killed. The same goes for coalition troops.

he also calls for the return of the death penalty. Like it or loath it (and, once again, I am not suggesting that you should hold any particular point of view), both Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (amended by "Protocol No. 6 concerning the abolition of the death penalty" and as implemented in the UK HRA 98) are pretty explicit concerning the right to life being a fundamental human right.

Consistency? From a jihadi fanatic? Hardly. To paraphrase, "It is our right to practise our religion as we see fit, free from any legal contraints. This specifically includes permitting us to deny you any rights, including, but not limited to, the right to deny you practising your religion - and here - and, wherever we see fit, the right to freedom from torture and the right to life."

Now, I happen to think that my support for human rights (and the international Law of Armed Conflict) means that I fundamentally oppose Gitmo, so I cannot suggest we send this turkey there. Any logically and morally consistent suggestions?

No

I don't really know what to say about this.

A call for consistency

I am getting more than a little irate with the so-called moderate British Muslim "community" who, by current performance, appear to be about as "moderate" as the Bideford ex-Lib-Dems were "liberal". Let me be clear in my request. As I see it, you can have it one of two ways.

Either the current Islamist terrorist threat has nothing to do with Islam, and is a supra-nationalist power struggle based variously in the foundation of Israel / plight of the Palestinian nation (not, of course, that Palestinian Muslims are waging a 'religious cleansing' of Palestinian Christians) and the US invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq (and general extra-territorialism), and any number of other geo-political or economic (not that I am convinced that those are necessarily different) events. In which case, events like "Jihad the Musical", the treatment in prison of convicted terrorist plotter and race hatred "expert" Abu Hamza and other convicted terrorists (apologies for linking to the Mail), and the general approval that Dr Ahmed has gone for a short and succinct interview with his maker before finding out whether it is the Christian or Muslim view of Hell that is true, are also nothing to do with Islam, a religion of peace as is proclaimed. Instead they are perfectly understandable reactions against a somewhat loosely co-ordinated non-religious terrorist campaign that is out to destroy post-Enlightenment western secular democracy.

Or, as the alternative, the current Islamist terrorist threat is entirely consistent with the views of jihad and the division of the world between the dar al'Islam and the dar al'Harb, as expressed in the Quran, the hadith and Sunnah and many, many fatwa. In which case, Western reaction against these terrorists is indeed anti-Islamic and possibly even Islamophobic. However, given that the demands made include the imposition of Sharia law throughout the world and the inhumane punishments proscribed therein, is not a degree of "fear of Sharia", if not full-fledged "fear of Islam" entirely reasonable?

The British public generally, not just the BNP racists, do not look at forced marriage, female circumcision and so-called "honour" killings and see civilisation, never mind a civilisation we would be willing to live in. It has to be said, entirely correctly, that we also should and generally do look at ned and chav lifestyles with some, if not quite as much, abhorrence.

The last significant terrorist threat against the UK was from the IRA and its splinter groups. Although Irish nationalism, with some notable exceptions, largely originated in the separate culture and appalling treatment of the Catholic population, it never led to demands in the UK for the repression of Italian, Polish or German Catholics. Why not? Because outside of Ireland and some of the loopier bits of Scotland (Scottish and Irish do get slightly confused when you look at history properly) and the USA, Catholics and especially those in theological authority, denounced both terrorism and wider political violence. Whereas we see endless support, from Islamic nations, from imams and preachers in mosques in the UK, for the terrorists, both their objectives and their means. There is no excuse for terrorism, even if it is committed in the name of a "religion of peace".

Lunch time musing

Started considering the post-corporeal fate of the soul of Dr (PhD not MD) Kafeel Ahmed. This was engendered by the digression in the comments on this one of the good Archbishop's posts. Now there is clearly some discussion, of which I am most grateful not to be a part, within jihadi circles as to whether you actually need to kill an infidel to become Shaheed. This differs, of course, from the Crusades, where you merely needed to embark, and the "elect", where you merely need to have a set number of doors slammed in your face.

Now, there was also a very amusing cartoon (thanks Theo - that's us both utterly haram and on the short list for the next fatwa party, I suppose) that adds a little different piquancy to the venerable virgin / raisin discussion.

Any way. What if he were a Christian? As an unrepentant and unshriven attempted murderer, I would expect that he would be on a short sharp shock downwards. But what torments would await him? Remember the various proclamations regarding the health and safety inspired damping of the flames of Hell? That it was eternal banishment from the presence of God, rather than actual torture? I just wondered when Lucifer had been switched to British Gas as his energy supplier?

BBC Sort of Missing the Point?

So most imams are foreign? I understand you can say much the same (if you count Irish as foreign) about Catholic priests, although the stats are almost certainly not as extreme. However, the bit that got my goat is that only 6% speak English as a first language but that 8% are UK born.

That means that at least a quarter of UK born imams are from areas of society so withdrawn and regressive that even the blokes ('cause imam = male, at least for now) don't speak English as their first language. And we wonder why we have home-grown jihadis and suicide bombers?

S-E

A question about Iranian fanatics

Does anybody know why USA, Russia and the UK are various sizes of "Satan" in Iranian political bile? I thought that the name for the fallen Lucifer equivalent in Islamic theology was "Iblis". Or is this right and Iblis / Azazil and Satan / al-Shairan are different?

Nice to see that Allah (in what I assume was C41 BC) had the same idea as C18 Britain and sent his convicts to Australia, though. Hmm, I can see the similarity (apologies to sheilas and larrikins who live in the more hospitable parts of Down Under than the "never never" or Woop Woop.) Makes this even more amusing.

S-E