Pali Arabs ‘Defend’ Their Readiness For Statehood

French Intifadah Continues

* Al Bebeeceera shills for the mob (as usual) ‘why do they hate us’…etc.

* Now they’re using guns too…

* No further comments.


Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…

* The Guardian has long been a tool for far left wackjobs and Muhammedan agit props of the worst kind.

Here is one favored by the notorious Bunglawala Dingdong:


Ed Husain

Stop supporting Bin Laden

Let’s take the question of apostasy. At an Evening Standard debate the other night, Rod Liddle had no qualms in declaring Islam, with a barrage of other baseless abuse, “a fascistic ideology”. Why? Because the Qur’an commands the killing of those who abandon it. Really?

Well, here are a few facts that might help the new coterie of Islam-bashers retract ill-informed statements:
a) there is no verse in the Qur’an that calls for the killing of apostates;
b) the Prophet Mohammed did not kill several people who freely left Islam;
c) Sufyan al-Thawri, a second-generation Muslim, clearly stated that ex-Muslims should be free to exercise their will;
d) the four schools of Muslim jurisprudential thought that endorsed the killing of apostates did so on grounds of treason and sedition, not theology;
e) the 1843-44 Ottoman reforms enshrined the right of Muslims to accept other religions without state punishment.

* Ed Husain engages kitman & taqiyya in order to protect the Islamic ideology from the prying eyes of irritated infidels who demand answers. He knows very well where the relevant verses are:

a. “The punishment for apostasy (riddah) is well-known in Islaamic Sharee’ah. The one who leaves Islaam will be asked to repent by the Sharee’ah judge in an Islaamic country; if he does not repent and come back to the true religion, he will be killed as a kaafir and apostate, because of the command of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him): “Whoever changes his religion, kill him.” (Reported by al-Bukhaari, 3017).

b. Here Husain sets up strawmen to knock them over: of course Muhammed had those killed who left the ‘religion’- does it matter whether he killed them himself or that he sent his assassins after them?

c. More smoke and mirrors: Sufyan al-Thawri was an irrelevant scholar. Although there might be a great number of ‘recorded anecdotes’ none of it is relevant to mainstream Islam, neither in Sunni or Shia traditions.

* The relevant scholars are: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, Abu Da’ud, al-Timidhi, al Sughra and Ibn Maja. But even here only the first 3 are said to be ‘authentic’

d. Here Husain blames ‘treason and sedition’, not theology for the killing of apostates, which is equally absurd. Since the Islamic ideology is a concept of total warfare apostasy is automatically ‘treason and sedition’- 1400 years of jihad warfare against the rest of the world prove it without any doubt.

e. 1843-44 Ottoman reforms? Irrelevant, completely irrelevant when we took a look at how Muslim Egypt, Pakistan, Malysia or Indonesia or any other Muslim country treats its non-Muslim minorities. Besides, dhimmitude is very much enshrined in the sharia and in the Koran, so again we must accuse Husain of pulling the Islamic wool over infidel eyes and ears.

* Robert Spencer answers Husai’s claim:

e) the 1843-44 Ottoman reforms enshrined the right of Muslims to accept other religions without state punishment.

Indeed, but under heavy Western pressure, and with resistance from the Islamic clerocracy. These reforms, in other words, were not affected by Islam or from within Islam, but in spite of Islam. Here again, this is not to say that a form of Islam could develop that teaches that the apostate should not be harmed, but the Ottoman reforms did not come about because such a form of Islam had actually developed. It had not.

* There is a lot more in his article that is just too absurd to mention in light of the grim reality, but it is enough to make the Bunglawala Ding Dong all jubilant as if he was winning the propganda war against the West all by himself. But we all know that Muhammadan’s are by nature triumphalists, so let them soak in their own lard…


Understanding Political Islam and its Dualism....

Quite a few people, myself included, believe that Islam is more of a political ideology, like communism for example, than a religion. Not convinced? Read this…


More ‘Islamic Science’ on Wife Beating

Arab TV: Another wanker instructs Arab youth how to whack their wifes into the proper submissive mood…

6 thoughts on “Pali Arabs ‘Defend’ Their Readiness For Statehood”

  1. Actually, they’re well into the third night now. And the carbecue has also kicked off in Toulouse. This one has legs, and will run and run.

    Police have reported use of firearms by the muslims.

    It’ll stop when the police start killing large numbers of rioters. Say what you like about Saddam – and don’t we all – he knew how to keep muslims peaceful.

  2. Wherever Islamaniacs are violence and trouble are sure to follow. You can count on it like taxes and death.

  3. * Now they’re using guns too…

    Eiffel Tower & civilised parts of Paris lit up for Christmas a few nights ago – other, “restive” parts of Paris lit up in the usual way, & the French prime Minister asserted that people who use guns against Police are criminals, who will be punished. Mo’s followers don’t like pigs, but they attract a lot of the flying ones!

  4. Saddam knew how to make Muslims peaceful bkz he used the only language Muslims seem to understand: violence. Saddam beat them, killed them, gased them, imprisioned them, tortured them until they realized he meant bussness.

    Euro-dhimmis carry islamic loosers on their shoulders, and then complain that Muslims don’t integrate. Who else gets to be carried around like a baby like the Muzzies?

Comments are closed.