From today's Times:
The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, is under police protection after he and his family received death threats over his claim that parts of Britain had become “no-go areas” for non-Muslims.
[...]Dr Nazir-Ali was in India when staff at his home in Rochester took a number of phone calls threatening his family and warning him that he would not “live long” if he continued to criticise Islam. He has been given an emergency number at Kent Police, along with other undisclosed protection measures, and said that the threats were being taken “seriously”.
So: Nazir-Ali suggests that Muslims have established no-go areas in some cities, into which it is unsafe for non-Muslims to venture. Muslims get upset about the imputation that some among them have a tendency to indulge in violence against non-Muslims. Some of them are so outraged by the association of Islam with violence that they...threaten to kill anyone who suggests that such an association exists. Hmm...
4 comments:
We must start a campaign to get 'postjudice' entered in the Dictionary.
Assuming that it really is Muslims doing the anonymous threatening then I am amazed at their stupidity. They are winning the Battle of Britain hands down and without a political revolution they can expect total victory by 2050. Why then try to bring about that revolution by this terroristic behaviour? Perhaps they just cant help themselves.
It seems to me the Muslim community wins both ways.
If the nutters blow up the Tube or threaten Nazir-Ali or burn books the dhimmis who rule us say either that "it's all our fault . . Iraq . . Palestine . . Bush . . . the Empire . ." or "it's a tiny minority who are totally unrepresentative of the Religion of Peace . . .".
If the moderate rest just press on the nerve of our rulers' sensitivities with constant unreasonable demands "give us calls to prayer through loudspeakers every 5 minutes - you know, like your church bells" or "let us have our own inspectors for our own schools" or "give us benefits in respect of polygamous marriage" they are given what they ask for. The basis for that is that either granting these demands will "contribute to a more cohesive diverse vibrant society" or that not giving what they want will cause offence and probably incite the nutters to do their worst (which brings me back to the previous paragraph).
So we're either terrorised or blackmailed!
FREE SPEECH - USE IT OR LOSE IT! WHY WE SHOULD INSULT ISLAM EVERY DAY
Here's an excellent article by the courageous Maryam Namazie on why it is our inalienable right to insult, satirize and ridicule Islam - with its perverted prophet, its brothel-keeper-in-the-sky bogeyman moon-god, and its one billion brain-dead stone-age memoid followers - and to offend them just as much as we like.
We should set numerous precedents by exercising this right as often and as vigorously as possible. USE IT OR LOSE IT! The thought-police would love to gag us.
From http://www.newstatesman.com/200802050001
"Since religion is divinely ordained, it follows that any real or imputed questioning, criticising or transgressing will lead to blasphemy, apostasy or some form of ‘corruption’. Of course it doesn’t matter so much if you live in a place where religion is to a large extent a private matter. But if you don’t, then a lot of things become ‘crimes’ punishable by death.
One of many examples is the outrageous death sentence imposed by an Islamic court in Afghanistan on Parwiz Kambakhsh, the 23 year old journalist and student, for downloading and distributing an article criticising women’s status under Islam.
Many have rightly come to his defence and must keep the pressure on. But to defend Parwiz by saying he did not ‘intend’ to blaspheme misses the entire point.
This is exactly what the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain say in order to conceal the responsibility of their political Islamic movement. For example, the MCB ‘greeted’ the release of Gillian Gibbons (the British schoolteacher who was imprisoned in Sudan for allowing her 7 year old students to name their class teddy bear Mohammad) by saying she had not ‘intended to deliberately insult the Islamic faith.’
What they are basically saying is that victims and their ‘intentions’ are to blame for the injustices and barbarity of Islamic law.
Moreover, they are implying that if someone knew they were blaspheming, or if their actions or statements were so clearly blasphemous that they should have known better, then the death penalty or calls for their death are permissible - or at the very least understandable.
The smokescreen of ‘intent’ aims to conceal the real issue at hand, which is Islam in power, so their movement can go about its business as usual, so it can continue to hold millions of resisting people hostage to medievalism enshrined in constitutions and legal codes and enforced by religious and morality police, the militia, Sharia courts and the state.
Any life saved is despite Islamic law and because of a vast left, secular and humanist opposition movement in the Middle East and elsewhere, which refuses to kneel.
Clearly, when religion equals power, millions have no freedoms or rights worthy of 21 century humanity.
And until it is pushed back, our loved ones - like Parwiz, or the two sisters, Zohreh and Azar, who have hours ago been convicted of death by stoning by the Islamic supreme court in Iran for ‘adultery’ - will face a torturous death.
But not if we can help it.
Join a demonstration to demand the freedom of Parwiz Kambakhsh on Friday, February 8, 2008, 12.00 to 2.00 pm at the Afghanistan Embassy, 31 Princes Gate, London, SW7 organised by the Iranian Secular Society and endorsed by the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain. You can also send letters of protest to Afghan officials by going to: http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2008/01/call-for-immediate-release-of-afghan.html
To defend Zohreh and Azar and oppose stoning and the death penalty, go to: http://maryamnamazie.blogspot.com/2008/02/zohreh-and-azar-must-not-be-stoned-to.html
Post a Comment