The barbarians in our midst

April 16, 2012 38 Comments
By

What is it with Muslims that they seem to think that they are above the laws of this land? Or that the laws of this land are subservient to their own special brand of law that permits misogyny and (dis)honour killings? You could understand it if it was some ignorant Imam fresh off the immigration train and who wasn’t cognisant with the way we do things, but a peer of the realm?

Mail.

A Labour peer was suspended last night after allegedly claiming he would put up a £10million bounty for the capture of Barack Obama.
Lord Ahmed of Rotherham is reported to have made the gesture after the U.S. announced a $10million bounty for Hafiz Muhammed Saeed, whom it blames for orchestrating the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks.
He is said to have described the bounty on Mr Saeed, who founded banned militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), as an ‘insult to all Muslims’.
Pakistani-born Lord Ahmed, Britain’s first Muslim peer, reportedly said Mr Obama had ‘challenged the dignity of the Muslim Ummah (community)’ and said his reward also applied to Mr Obama’s predecessor as U.S. president, George W Bush.
Pakistan’s Express Tribune newspaper said Lord Ahmed had made the remarks at a reception in Haripur on Friday.
A Labour spokesman said: ‘We have suspended Lord Ahmed pending investigation. If these comments are accurate we utterly condemn these remarks which are totally unacceptable.

This I assume is the same Lord Achmed who threatened to mobilize 10,000 Muslims to prevent Mr. Wilders film Fitna being shown in the Lords and threatened to take the colleague who was organizing the event to court? Who also killed a man whilst driving his Jag on the M1, was imprisoned and yet freed on appeal just 16 days into his sentence?

Yes that would be the Muslim peer Lord Achmed…

Now it might be that Lord Achmed said no such thing, or that the context is wrong “If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush.” Is not the same as “I have announced a bounty” So chances are he’s going to plead being misinterpreted, though his previous record speaks for itself, this is a man who like to use his compatriots to threaten violence.

Still, once again we have a Muslim in controversy, who has a track record of controversy and does not feel that normal rules regarding free speech and lawful content apply to him with regards to his religion.

Yet we still have people among us who insist that Islam is the religion of peace and that Muslims are misunderstood.

I’m of the opinion that Islam from its critics point of view isn’t misunderstood at all.

38 Responses to The barbarians in our midst

  1. john in cheshire
    April 16, 2012 at 4:32 pm

    And by all accounts muslims are threatening violence against those who take part in the Eurovision Song Contest.
    The only way to overcome the muslim question is to have them all removed from our country; one way or another.

    • DP111
      April 20, 2012 at 12:40 pm

      With great regret John, I have to agree with you.

      Since 9/11, the authorities and the MSM have unceasingly told the Western populace that the vast majority of Muslims are moderate, and the radicals were just a tiny minority. Then we had the Arab Spring, and again the MSM and the Western political elite glowingly referred to the oncoming of a liberal and free Arab world. But the elections resulted in all the Arab Spring countries electing fundamentalist Islamic parties to power with overwhelming majorities. Burning of churches and killing Christians that followed, was not just by the mob, but by the police and the army as well.

      With the above in mind, for all practical purposes, the distinction between moderate or radical Muslims is meaningless. It is the number that counts. Once Muslims are a near majority, they will declare it to be a Muslim area, and enforce sharia, either illegally if they don’t have the numbers across the nation, or legally if they do. In either case, the distinction between the radicals and moderates is meaningless.

  2. April 16, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    Ironic, as Obama is quite conciliatory towards Muslims in general.

    • April 16, 2012 at 5:07 pm

      Which just goes to show that appeasement doesn’t work.

      • April 16, 2012 at 5:49 pm

        ‘Conciliatory’ being the new ‘grovelling’..? ;)

        • April 16, 2012 at 6:05 pm

          Yep! :)

          • Tattyfalarr
            April 17, 2012 at 1:26 am

            Dhimmitude only serves to move you further down the list…not off it altogether. I don’t think such people quite get that and…unfortunately… they’ll learn the hard way someday. :|

  3. April 16, 2012 at 5:25 pm

    We’ll improve our credibility if we are more nuanced about Muslims; let’s try not to sound like the Provo wing of the Daily Express readership. At least the “ignorant” “barbarian” imams have read their own holy text, which is more than most Christians can say these days.

    As I see it (and leaving aside the obvious cynical pollie rabble-rousers), Islam is facing trouble from, well, its Puritans: the same type that Elizabeth I tried so hard and so long to keep in check, and who exploded England 40 years after she died.

    • April 17, 2012 at 5:44 pm

      “Islam is facing trouble from, well, its Puritans”

      I agree and as far as I can see the problem isn’t likely to go away. As you suggest, something to be aware of.

  4. April 16, 2012 at 6:03 pm

    I’m theorising — someone might have more information — that an act done against one Muslim is a collective act against all Muslims, past record regardless (e.g. Obama’s). This is another reason (again, theory) why Muslims are largely reluctant to condemn atrocities — like our 2005 bombing — collectively in public demonstrations.

    The French were surprised when the Toulouse murderer Mohammed Merah showed no remorse in killing two French army officers of North African extraction. It turns out that one was a Catholic (Merah would not have known that) but the other was a Muslim. One journalist wrote that Merah would have considered them both traitors to Islam as they were serving in the armed forces of a Western country.

    As for an Islamic ‘Reformation’, I don’t see it happening the way most Westerners envisage. I think this is their ‘Reformation’, moving from Western attire and attitudes back to the fundamentals of the faith as they were lived out in the beginning. That was the point of the Protestant Reformation vis a vis the Church.

  5. April 16, 2012 at 6:15 pm

    The Mail coverage missed out this bit from the Tribune:

    “adding that he would arrange the bounty at any cost even if he was left with the option of selling all his personal assets, including his house.”

    link to tribune.com.pk

  6. Greg Tingey
    April 16, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Err … erm, excuse me, didn’t we just have a recent post on “Virulent Religion”?
    And is this not just that very thing?

  7. April 16, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    Isn’t this exactly the sort of occassion where the much misused extradition act was designed to be used?

  8. Ed P
    April 16, 2012 at 6:56 pm

    It’s not “the religion of peace”, but of submission. This mis-translation continues to mislead, mainly thanks to media complicity. I don’t need to spell out who submits to whom, do I?

  9. April 16, 2012 at 8:50 pm

    For all your Muslim death counts.

    link to thereligionofpeace.com

  10. Edward.
    April 17, 2012 at 12:01 am

    Ed P.

    “the religion of peace”

    Is a deep reflection of a bitter irony.

    • Ed P
      April 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Yes, I accept it’s ironic. But too many journos, especially the pro-muslim, anti-semitic Beeboids, use this label without irony, thus (deliberately?) misleading the majority.

  11. Simon
    April 17, 2012 at 1:15 am

    When did it become acceptable to take the view of one person with a religious view in and generalise to an entire group on this site?

    Or should I assume every Christian takes the same view as Marshall Petain or the crusaders? Or would that argument be as ridiculous and rubbish as the argument advanced above about all Muslims on the basis of this cretinous and treacherous Labour peer.

    • April 17, 2012 at 1:45 pm

      I think you will find, though, that this individual is a symptom of a deeper malaise.

    • Just another Albion
      April 18, 2012 at 1:24 pm

      The problem, Simon, is it isn’t just one person speaking out. No one could question that. It is however many of that faith saying the same thing, over and over. It is a continual drip of dislikes, hatreds and anger towards the west and its people.

      If you wish to take Petain as the sole voice of Christianity then that is up to you, but I really think it is very regrettable that at every anti-west outburst by a muslim there are people like yourself who claim it’s only one person and not representative of them all. The evidence would appear to suggest it is a bigger problem than you pretend.

  12. Greg Tingey
    April 17, 2012 at 8:01 am

    Perhaps one should point out, repeatedly, and in public, one little fact (or supposed fact, though it is accepted as such by most muslims) concerning their so-called “prophet”.
    He had sex with a girl aged somewhere between 8 & 12 (Ayesha – see note*)
    Yup, he was a child rapist.
    How nice!

    Note*: Ayesha’s actual age is, I think, in dispute, so I’ve put the full range in, to be on the safe side…..

    • Watchman
      April 17, 2012 at 4:38 pm

      Worth pointing out here that this was normal practice in western Europe at the time as well – husbands tended to be about twenty years older than young brides (in effect a generation gap), at least amongst military aristocracy.

      Not to our taste, but not against any law or social more that existed in Mohammed’s day. And I doubt we’d have to look too hard for evidence of similiar behaviour in Old Testament rulers.

      So point out your fact, but don’t think this is a valid and useful debating tool so much as a mark of your ignorance of the fact that society changes for the better. And, to be fair to Islam, most Islamic countries would not permit this form of marriage now…

      • OzExPat
        April 17, 2012 at 6:32 pm

        This post is either mischievous or naive. That is being charitable. Pray tell, where and when Islamic society has changed for the better; and why should one “be fair to Islam?”

        • Watchman
          April 18, 2012 at 3:18 pm

          Lets see. One does not have to be fair to Islam. I just try to be fair to everyone, because otherwise I tend to find I am being a bit, well, bigotted. You see, that’s essentially what not being fair to particular groups is…

          As for Islamic socity changing for the better, try living in just about anywhere outside the tribal areas, Syria (due to the civil war) or Gaza. Take in particular Bosnia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia, increasingly even Bangladesh. In all of these places life is much better now (and much more liberal, in the proper sense of the word) than it was 10 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 500 years ago. There was an Islamic golden age – but as with the renaissance or any other Christian (or Tibetan, or Japanese or whatever) golden age, these were the elite producing intellectual and artistic treasures (generally almost entirely religious incidentally…) at the expense of the population who were expected to follow the rules of state and religion.

          Incidentally, I think we can say Libya and Tunisia are much better places as well – when the freedom-seeking population overthrew their state’s tyrants. Even Egypt, where they elected the relative extremists, as the extremists now have a simple choice of govern well and fairly or try to establish a tyranny to enforce their will – it has forced the extremists to chose to side with the people or their God; my guess is that it will be the people (and so grows another statist political party – which is at least an improvement on a religious totalitarian movement).

      • Smokey Bacon
        April 17, 2012 at 6:55 pm

        Any of your unnamed paedophiles from history still held up as ‘the perfect man’ and ‘a role model for all’ ?

        Nope – thought not.

        Nice dissemble, but no cigar.

        • Watchman
          April 18, 2012 at 3:10 pm

          Smokey Bacon,

          This works only where the ignorant hold this up to allow child marriage – which tends to be backwards (in all senses of the word) areas dominated by tribal villages. To be honest the problem with these places is not their particular religion – it is the fact that they are dominated by small cliques of old men with beards who control the religion and society, regardless of which brand of religion it is.

          If you can show me anyone in Britain justifying say grooming children by the example of Mohammed, belive me I will vilify them. Oh, and also point out the minor problems in historical sources, interpretation and in fact in their inability to think that they are displaying…

          Just to be clear, there are stupid and ignorant Muslims who seek to defend their behaviour using the ‘model’ of Mohammed. But maybe picking on them specifically (as the original post does to the lovely Lord Ahmed…) would be smarter than assuming all Muslims are the same. After all, there are ignorant Christians (tries to avoid mentioning outgoing Archbishops of Canterbury…) but those of you who are Christian would presumably not like me criticising you because of their actions. In the same way, I find people assuming Richard Dawkins represents me to be intensely stupid.

          Look at it this way – if you were a Muslim, but of moderate bent (e.g. you are fully aware that religion is a personal choice and is not something you need to define your identity) who happened to agree with Smokey Bacon here about the hypothetical idiots using the example of Mohammed to justify criminal behaviour, how would you feel being bracketed in the same category as the wannabe-paedophiles? And what if said young Muslim happened to believe, like all of us, in freedom from state tyranny – would they be inclined to keep those beliefs if they discovered that freedom from state tyranny seems to inexplicably involve hating all Muslims blindly because a few are backwards morons? If young Muslims are alienated by society nowadays, surely that means they are more likely to support the point of view that the state is not the answer; driving them into the arms of the statists who demean them by protecting their ‘Muslim identity’ whilst treating them as voting cabbages is hardly in anyone other than the statists’ interests.

          But if you want to try and build what may be strawmen (I suppose Smokey Bacon might find examples of Mohammed being used to justify paedophilia – but I bet you’d find other Muslims pointing out this is stupid) and to attack other victims of the state’s tyranny over our lives, feel free (because there is no moral way I can stop you). But has it occured to you that by vilifying a diverse group of people gathered together under one of the state’s convenient labels you are playing the state’s game – divide and conquer.

          • April 18, 2012 at 9:47 pm

            ‘If you can show me anyone in Britain justifying say grooming children by the example of Mohammed, belive me I will vilify them.’

            Three links for you as to the predatory nature of some men:

            link to youtube.com (Channel 4 News)

            link to the-salfordian.com

            link to dailymail.co.uk

            • Watchman
              April 19, 2012 at 2:37 pm

              Churchmouse,

              That they are sexual predators is not in doubt. That they think this is fine because of their cultural background (misogynistic, semi-fedualistic, village society in Pakistan/Bangladesh) is also not really in doubt, although the statists would probably scream at you or me for saying that.

              But have they attempted to defend their actions as justified by their religion? Until they do, this is about padeophilia and sexism, not about religion.

              It happens that most people in Britain who come from that sort of backward repressive village society happen to be Muslim (although there are plentiful African Christians and animists who seem capable of their own babarities), but the problem here is not Islam – it is the bloody idiots who perpetrate these social structures in British towns and cities by recognising ‘community leaders’ (hang on – they don’t seem to be elected councillors to me…) and allowing the renewal of the attitudes by further immigration, and, to my mind the greatest problem our Muslim communities have to face up to, the export of often underage Muslim girls to these originating societies (which are often far more liberal than their colonies, as is the norm, but still…) as brides. If you want a scandal involving the Muslim community, ask why most schools do not report Muslim girls who drop off the role after a ‘holiday’ to Pakistan or wherever – these are British subjects remember, and surely the state has the duty, if any, of ensuring they are not sold off as brides in some ancient form of local politics. Quite an interesting FoI request there really – the schools and LAs must have the information on APKN and ABNG girls…

              Grasp the nettle – the child molesters are part of a wider attitude problem, but are not the target that destroys the key strutures that underpin the problem (and which, by no coincidence, the state manipulates those individuals it labels as ‘Muslim’) – attack the targets that actually lead back to the tribal links and the treatment of British subjects as barter tokens both by unprincipalled politicians and by members of their own families. If you see a problem with Muslims, I doubt it is with the individuals (other than a few) – it is with the way that the state has got its claws into them and forces them (and us) to define themselves, a procedure which allows redundant beliefs and exploitation to grow unchecked within these artificially-maintained communities.

              • April 20, 2012 at 2:39 pm

                You make a fine apologist for a group who views women as not entirely 100% human and, therefore, undeserving of respect.

                These are far from isolated cases.

                I agree with you on the ‘holiday’ trips for young girls. I am also concerned about female circumcision.

                I could give you links to a whole catalogue of mainstream UK news stories on these topics.

                I do not need to be told to ‘grasp the nettle’ on this subject.

  13. Peter MacFarlane
    April 17, 2012 at 8:56 am

    “What is it with Muslims that they seem to think that they are above the laws of this land?”

    The very fact that they are Muslims tells them this. Their “religion” explicitly states that its law (Sharia) is the one to abide by, not the temporal laws of whatever Dhimmi community the find themselves living in.

    There’s no nuanced “Render unto Caesar” stuff in Islam: their way or (our) death, is about it.

  14. Watchman
    April 17, 2012 at 4:41 pm

    I love the strange presumption on here that all Muslims are the same; you are aware that there is no single Islamic church setting out how Muslims behave aren’t you? Sure, there are schools of thought, but interpretation is up to the individual Imam or Muslim. Many may unthinkingly follow the Lord Ahmed’s of the world, but I have yet to see any evidence that this particular unpleasant idiot is in fact in possession of any notable following at all. Up until someone provides that, the vilification of all Muslims on the basis of the comments of one idiot who wishes to bully those who oppose him seems to run the risk of bigotry to me.

    • OzExPat
      April 17, 2012 at 6:39 pm

      Another bit of selective logic and apologetic prose. Are you really so pious that you are above making collective judgements? Well, most of us do – and for good reason. Where are the legions of Muslims speaking out against the “Lord” Ahmeds or any number of other psychopathic representatives of The Religion of Peace? Am I allowed to pose such an example of “vilification?”

    • April 18, 2012 at 7:20 am

      “…you are aware that there is no single Islamic church setting out how Muslims behave aren’t you?”

      And yet, gosh darn it, we see the same issues cropping up again and again in the many varied communities in which they settle. The refusal to follow disability laws pertaining to guide dogs is the same in the UK, the US, Australia.

      How do they do it?

      • Tattyfalarr
        April 18, 2012 at 8:51 am

        How ? By governments giving them a sense of being above the law due to preferential treatment in certain areas of society.

        It must come as a hell of a shock when someone else’s card trump theirs and they are are eventually told to sit down and behave :)

      • Just another Albion
        April 18, 2012 at 1:29 pm

        We know there is no single Islamic church as you put it; the Sunnis and the Shiites have been killing each other for centuries.

  15. April 17, 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Fellow contributor Angry Exile has more from the Telegraph. Ahmed has been expelled from the Labour Party.

    I was going to mention this before but didn’t have the time to look it up to verify — Lord Ahmed was the peer involved in the fatal motorway accident a few years ago. (Angry Exile mentions it.)

    Angry Exile’s link:
    link to angryexile.wordpress.com

  16. Trundlemaster
    May 10, 2012 at 2:45 pm

    I’m not sure the Islam even has anything to compare to the Jewish concept of ‘The Law of the Land is the Law for the Jew’ For the Muslim the primacy of Sharia will always come first even when it conflicts with civil law.

    What we are seeing with far too many Muslims are an immigrant group who are refusing to seek the peace of the cities in which they find themselves.

  17. May 10, 2012 at 2:53 pm

    Mind you, a bounty on Obama on general grounds would seem a good thing. Impostor in the white House indeed.

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.