It's good to see one more high profile intellectual in the UK speaking out against the Islamic virus. We can now add him to the lengthy list of Melanie Phillips, Michael Gove, Martin Amis, Bishop Nazir Ali and Bishop Soodkheo(?). Wow! That's more than the fingers on one hand. We're getting there.

Posted by: johndoe at June 22, 2008 7:30 AM

Thanks for once again underlining the fact that it is Islam itself and not something called "Islamism", "Radical Islam", etc. that is the source of all our troubles today.

Posted by: Kemalist at June 22, 2008 7:42 AM

Kemalist:

Yes, it is absurd that we are still crawling in this war. As much as this intellectual has the good sense to understand that mohammed-worship puts him in grave peril, and to point out the illogic of the accusation of racism, he himself is illogical and demonstrates his ignorance by using the word Islamism.

Thus, soldiers are sent into battle without boots.

And the obligatory swipe at Christianity is so dismaying.

The swipe at Christianity is evidence of another difficulty in this war. This intellectual is a colored ribbon man. Ultimately, it is all about him and his sacred ego. He is not, you must surely know, not one of those common haters and cavemen. He is enlightened. He is superior.

But I suppose every army needs jackasses to do a little lifting.

Posted by: Moonzoo at June 22, 2008 7:58 AM

It's a "hate crime" to despise an ideology that hates you?

Would it be hate crime to despise nazism?

Posted by: Crusader at June 22, 2008 8:09 AM

We should be more offensive, and charge Muslims and islam as a hate crime in itself. Bring up the Kkkoran and its hadiths,suras up on charges for inciting violence, hateful literature. there needs to be someway some enterprising lawyers,etc. but again anyone doing this will have to look over their shoulders for the pious muslim taking revenge. still nice to hear some elites speak up, but more effective on the offense to go against islamists.

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at June 22, 2008 8:12 AM

Despite continued, protective use of the word "Islamism," by one usually so vigilant with words, the statement and the stance of McEwan are important, in all the right -- and even some of the wrong -- circles.

Posted by: Hugh at June 22, 2008 8:26 AM

Islam sucks and it is the most screwed up and messed up ideology. The worst thing that has happened to humanity. I wonder what charges are brought against these Muslims who use derogatory terms such kuffar and making anti semitic and anti western protests? Looks like their free speech rights are protected very well by Europe and ironically also Islamic countries where they protest against the US and Israel, like in Pakistan. This is a very dangerous path trying to silence people and critics of Islam. Islam is evil and is very dangerous to free societies if it is not talked about we are becoming our own prisoners of Islam and Sharia. Instead we should be defending the values of democracy and liberty.

Posted by: savsiv at June 22, 2008 8:28 AM

People, "The Independent" site is wierd. Concerning Comments to the article, it says there are 55, yet you click on Comments and only a handful are shown! What's that all about? Also, I made 2 comments, I know they were posted, and yet they don't appear along with many others. What's the deal? Can someone go to the site and figure it out? I would like to read ALL of the comments to see which way the wind is blowing concerning McEwan's remarks!

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 8:45 AM

Look, I don't claim to be a Christian. In fact, I don't always get along with Christians and there are many Christians that I strongly dislike.

However, having said that I am unable to name even one branch of the Christian faith that is "hard core" and "equal to (islam)" in the context that McEwan's interviewer intended.

Moreover, I make the further distinction between the teachings and claims of Jesus, and Christianity; in other words, I see them as distinct, apart, often in accord with one another and many times not.

Even so, I fail to see any Christian group that is remotely like islam.

Why?

Because the claim made by McEwan's interviewer is false if not a outright lie.

There exists no such comparison between Jesus and his teachings and those of mohammad; nor between Christianity and islam. It simply is untrue.

Now, who exactly is making these claims of racisim against McEwan?

That would be interesting to see as well as there obvious willingness to further jihad through the courts.

Those are the scoundrals that should be hunted and brought to the harshest judgement and penalty that Western governments can afford because they are worse than 100 successful suicide murderers!

They are not merely murdering individuals through the courts; they are in fact, ushering in a system of jurisprudence that has been anathama to Western Civilization for nearly one thousand years!

Posted by: witness at June 22, 2008 8:47 AM

I didn't read that quote about Christians as McEwan's words, but those of the interviewer. He was responding to what the interviewer said about Christians being just as hard line as Muslims. If he had left off the part about "in my city" he would have been completely right. But the interviewer did specifically mention the US, so maybe that's why he added that part.

I've never heard of anybody using the racist allegation against people who criticize Islam because the majority of Muslims are dark skinned. Nobody has ever used that argument with me, and I've been called a racist numerous times.

What's really funny about people who throw the racism accusation around is that they almost always defend Islam by saying that it's not Islam, but Arab culture, that is the problem.

I don't think it was Arabs that attacked Beslan.

Oh, sorry, that's another "root cause". I forgot.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at June 22, 2008 9:00 AM

This witch hunt for "speech crimes" should come as no surprise. The Islamists are only taking a page out of the book of Political Correctness. This same "hate speech" tactic was being used by homosexuals before the Muslims picked up on it. In America people have been repeatedly accused of "hate speech" for speaking against homosexual acts. Not for speaking against HOMOSEXUALS, but against the lifestyle. In the name of political correctness, we are digging our own graves with the Muslims. They use cries of "hate speech", "intolerance", "bigotry" and "racism" just like blacks and gays have been doing for years. Muslims have been sitting back and taking note of the things that Westerners fear even more than they fear loss of freedom: The fear of being called racist, bigoted and intolerant, and Muslims are using this fear to their own advantage.

Posted by: Madame Vengier at June 22, 2008 9:04 AM

People - how does one read ALL of the 56 Comments to the article on "The Independent?" I can't figure it out. Can someone go there please and figure it out? S'il vous plait?!

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 9:10 AM

Breaking:

Female suicide bomber kills 15 in Iraq:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080622/ts_nm/iraq_dc

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 9:18 AM

Someone was saying something about the law courts being used by the jihadis.

The courts can be used by the kafirs too.

I'm new on JW so maybe you have already heard about the Calcutta Quran Petition.

Just in case you haven't, it was a writ petition filed one doughty soul, a Hindu named Chandmal Chopra, in the Calcutta High Court in 1984, asking for the Koran to be banned for the various hateful passages.

Of course, the court gave the PC finding which could be expected. But to think that someone could stick his neck out on this in 1984...

There is a book on this petition too, with a preface by Sita Ram Goel. Maybe someone has it and can share it.

Posted by: Hedgehog at June 22, 2008 9:31 AM

Even a novelist gets in trouble now for using the term "Islamism."

The day is coming when no criticism of Islam whatsoever will be permitted. Eurabia will be first, of course.

But how far behind are we here in America? The Bush administration has forbidded the use of certain terms within the administration.

If no criticism of Islam is allowed -- even ever so gently -- how can we win the war of ideas?

Posted by: Always On Watch at June 22, 2008 9:38 AM

"The Bush administration has forbidded the use of certain terms within the administration."

That's not quite correct, it is the State Department which is forbdding the use of certain terms used to describe the enemy. Even in the early 1990's after the first WTC bombing the State Departemnt dictated that the term Islam and Terrorism cannot be used together in the same sentence.

Fast forward to today and the State Department, after 7 1/2 year since the second attack, still cannot decided what to call the enemy.

All in the name of diplomacy, you see.

The State Department, by the way, does not operate on behalf of the United States and further, it's a multi-cultural progressive minefield where the foreign agents can never be fired.

Posted by: syn at June 22, 2008 10:08 AM

This is a DELICIOUS and dead-on description of the origins of Muslim Brotherhood's world plan in Qutb's visit to the U.S. Skip the first third which is partially annoying and read it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/sep/10/september11.politicsphilosophyandsociety

I've never read all the details before they are a fascinating and Martin Amis's comments are devastatingly on target. (Islam is the opposite of love = hate and death.)

Posted by: poetcomic1 at June 22, 2008 10:10 AM

People, here's the deal. If you want to read ALL of the 60 comments to the McEwan article posted on "The Independent," click on "preview" next to "post." Miraculously, all of the comments appear. Wierd, but that's how it is.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 10:19 AM

Darcy;
At the bottom of the article, click on "www.independent etc". That will take you to the message board. On the lower left, look under recent posts. Click on Ian McEwon. That will take you to the whole mess.

Posted by: Richard Garnache at June 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Not that it amounts to a hill of beans, other than my own peace of mind: upon reflection, I think my words in post number three are improperly harsh. I am sorry for them.

This man needs to be congratulated for his courage, however imperfect his formulations.

Posted by: Moonzoo at June 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Here you go Darcy,
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2008/06/ian-mcewan-i-de.html#comments

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 22, 2008 10:22 AM

Dear Richard Garnache and interestin conundrum:

No, neither of those methods provides ALL of the now-68 comments to the article. Believe me, I clicked on those links many times, to no avail!

As I said above, you must scroll down to "Post a Comment" and then click on "Preview." Then all of the comments appear. Totally out-of-the-ordinary but that's how it is.

Thanks, though, for responding to my plea! I have some recent comments if you want to check them out.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 10:31 AM

So we can safely assume that if Winston Churchill, John Wesley, William Gladstone and Hilaire Belloc were all alive today, they'd be charged with hate crimes for describing Islam the way they did.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at June 22, 2008 10:36 AM

Strategy from Bill Warner.
http://www.politicalislam.com/blog/an-ethical-basis-for-war-against-political-islam-part-11/

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 22, 2008 10:37 AM

**MUST SEE**

DEAREST INFIDELS!!!

This is excellent,, please,, share freely,, embed this video on your pages,,

A message to ALL the MODERATE MUSLIMS of the world,,,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avYtAyCxUbA

In light and love
namaste

)0(
solsticewitch13
"do NOT annoy the Bikers"

Posted by: solsticewitch13 at June 22, 2008 10:37 AM

The really nasty thing about all these "hate crimes" and "hate speech" laws is that they are only applied in one direction. I.e. certain hates are o.k., others are not. Thousands of Moslems can demonstrate in London, all waving their copies of the Koran, Mo's "little green book" (in comparison to Mao's "little red book") -- a Koran which itself endorses and inspires hatred of Jews, Christians, and non-Moslems in general -- and all carrying placards labelled "U.K. you must die" or "death to the insulters of Islam" or "death to the kaffirs"; and all that's o.k. But let one novelist say he doesn't like their demonstrating and calling for the deaths of his countrymen, and he's supposed to be the hate-monger! What insanity!
If the government really means it with the hate-crime business, it should start by (1)outlawing the printing, sale, or ownership of the Koran (and the other Moslem "holy" works); (2) jailing a lot (probably most) of the imams and other Moslem "clergy"; and (3) closing most mosques. Then they can add a hate-crime charge to the other charges against these gangs of Moslem punks who attack elderly British men, and tack several extra years onto their sentences. Then jail all these demonstrators carrying "death to the U.K." signs. And so on. Only then, after jailing a few hundred thousand Moslems (that's just for the U.K.), should they turn their attention to novelists who express their dislike of being threatened by Islamic killers.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 22, 2008 10:37 AM

I wonder if that same UK novelist also supports speech crime charges when Christians assert that homosexuality is a sin? If so then the old saying those who have dug a pit have fallen into it themselves will have come true.

Posted by: stickman at June 22, 2008 10:40 AM

interestin - I saw your comment on the Independent - did you see mine?

New "DEFEAT JIHAD" bumper sticker story. My husband is on the interstate again this week driving to city 2 hours away. A State Police car passes him and the cop points to the back of the vehicle where the sticker is, gives him a big smile and a thumbs-up! Bravo.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 11:05 AM

Despise, hate, detest, are all words to be included in the new 'Thou shall not utter', dictionary.
Five thousand words you can go to jail over.
There is already a law, Colorado, I think, that it's illegal to disparage vegetables.
Redefining free speech to protect vegetables, and Islam, is a sure sign that society engineering leftists are in charge. You want more of this kind of change, vote Obama.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 22, 2008 11:15 AM

"A message to ALL the MODERATE MUSLIMS of the world" --solsticewitch

I watched your youtube video. Yeah, it was OK. A bit too "Kumbaya" for me. I prefer Pat Condell.

Also, the problem with a message to "moderate muslims" is that many people consider "mm's" to be Covert Sympathizers. Like me. I think that. I learned of that phrase from Tony Blankley's book, "The West's Last Chance," and I agree with him.

They're just biding their time, reproducing, and waiting, and letting the radicals do all the work. Yep, because I know what the Qur'an says, that's what I believe about so-called "moderate muslims." Then, they just happily move in to the world "ummah" that the radicals have created, everybody worshipping the pagan god "allah."

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 11:21 AM

Yeah darcy, saw your comment. Good going. We have to as Bill Warner says:
Islam frequently is represented at some public event where they hold forth on the "beauty of Islam". Our scholar warriors must show up and pose difficult questions.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 22, 2008 11:24 AM

Time to bash democrats. Many of them have no trouble supporting the criminalization of so-called hate speech (which in many cases is just reporting factual material & interpreting it according to traditional Judeo-Christian values), & yet will vehemently oppose expanding government powers to intercept e-mail & phone calls on the grounds that such constitutes an unreasonable search. So, many democrats & leftists favor actual restrictions on the most fundamental freedom & human activity, speech, but oppose government monitoring of public communications for illegal activity (primarily relating to terrorism), which, in contrast to hate speech criminalization, doesn't actually hinder or discourage those public communications. If democrats say, as some have, that it is better for American to suffer another terrorist attack rather than give up any of our constitutional rights & freedoms, how can they possibly justify criminalization of hate speech? Are they really saying that the hurt feelings of those who are on the receiving end of "hate speech" are more important than the lives of their fellow citizens? Apparently so.

Posted by: sheik yer booty at June 22, 2008 11:26 AM

To support Tony Blankley's view of "covert sympathizers," here is a comment accompanying the McEwan article:

"I have yet to see the mythical moderate Muslims of whom we hear so much but seldom see take to the streets against Islamic terror. The sad and inescapable truth is that they passively support it, support the conversion of the democracries within which they live to Sharia law.

The "good Germans" of WWII may not have joined the Nazi Party and stuffed Jews into the oven, but they quietly allowed it to happen and happily accepted Jewish businesses, homes, clothes, and even sofas stuffed with Jewish hair. Likewise, the "moderate Muslims" may not join Al Qaeda, but should a Sharia state be established will happily accept superior status and rights while supporting your subjugation as dhimmis or death as infidels rejecting Allah."

Wow - it's interesting that I used the word "happily" in my post above and so did this commenter in his. Yes, the covert sympathizers will happily replace the West with Barbarism.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 11:28 AM

Of course we now have the anti-Christian commenter trying to tie the war to Christians, go forth and knock her block off.
http://ios.typepad.com/ios/2008/06/ian-mcewan-i-de.html#comment-119742974

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 22, 2008 11:41 AM

Hi interestin -

I commented that when the Islamic siege begins against the indigenous people of Britain, once the Islamic population has increased ten-fold, she will be begging for help from us "Christian fundamentalists!"

And this siege is probably not too far down the road.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 12:11 PM

the left are poactive-dihimmie. they submit long before the fight takes place.

Islam is contemptible social system sustained by fear. The left already are in fear of it.

Posted by: Ruebacca at June 22, 2008 12:44 PM

I dispise Islamism!!

I dispise Islamofacation!

I dispise Islamofascists!

I dispise Islamic Jihad!

and I think the burka is just plain ugly..

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 22, 2008 1:08 PM

First of all I think we need to recognize the incredible bravery that Ian has to post what he says about Islam with his face attached to it. Not only is he potentially under threat from the Jihadists, but also his own government like we recently saw in Finland over youtube satire in relation to Mohammed. He speaks on the subject of Islam publically voicing his oppinions in a very eloquent and precise way. He speaks for many of us on the subject of Islam. Soon I fear European governments will buckle to the pressure of Islamists and institute Shariaa lite measures to curtail free speach in order to avoid Islamic violence, and the expenditure of the protection certain citizens need when they speak thier mind on this subject. When will we see our first assylum seekers from Europe here in America? Soon I think, as most Europeans blogg on servers here in the states (taking advantage of our free speech laws in relation to the subject of Islam), we should protect European Assylum seekers in relation to free speech and Islam. That would send a huge signal to the governments of Europe. Europeans fleaing Europe to the USA seeking assylum from prosection, because they have spoken ill of Islam. The next thing, and just around the corner in my opinion.

Posted by: ethoman at June 22, 2008 1:29 PM

you can only run so far, and then you run out of places to run to...Challenges to Islam must be made now , here and everywhere the Muslims show up with their insipid demands...the curtailing of free speech is no doubt high on the Muslim dream list..followed by changes in the laws and customs of the host countries that, in effect, turn its citizens into virtual Islamic slaves...

The day will come when you must either fight the Islamic hordes or die trying.

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 22, 2008 2:32 PM

I wonder if it ever occures to proponents of hate crime legislation that when we punish someone for offending Islamic beliefs, that we are saying to Muslims that it's okay to punish those that offend you. We in the West might put the culprit in jail or fine them money, but Muslims simply up the ante to killing. Either way, we say punishment is due the offender, and the severity of punishment depends entirely on ones sense of an appropriate penality for the offense.

How can we argue that death is not an appropriate penality, but imprisonment and fines are?

When we abandoned the principle that, in a free society, freedom to say, write or express opinions are sacrosanct, and no one has the right to penalize you for exercising those freedoms, we gave tacit approval to Muslims to punish anyone they they judge to to have offended Allah, Muhammad or their religion.

The degree of "just" punishment is strictly a matter of opinion. Our only safeguard against Muslim "just" punishment is to say no punishment is warranted when people exercise their rights to express an opinions in as free society.

Hate crime laws effectively remove that safeguard, and concede to Muslims all the justification they need to intimadate and kill in defense of their strange beliefs.

Posted by: rational at June 22, 2008 2:38 PM

Another British intellectual has seen the light as regards Islam?
Mmm…. What I would like to know is why a small group of British Intellectuals who felt this way long ago have not tried to warn the British People.
A small number of British Politicians, examples being Malcom Rifkind and Douglas Hurd, were opposed to the invasion of Iraq, not because they supported Saddam Hussein but because they thought an Islamic society can never become democratic, that Sharia-based theocracy will trump democracy.
If we switch our attention to writers, someone like Paul Johnson, they were aware of the dangers too.
If an Islamic society cannot be truly democratic it follows logically that you should not accept muslim immigration since this will begin a process whereby your own democracy unravels.

Why did not speak out against Muslim immigration instead of leaving someone like Enoch Powell to lead the debate?

Posted by: Odyessus at June 22, 2008 2:54 PM

"...But those American Christians don't want to kill anyone in my city, that's the difference."

Typical SAT prep question:

After reading the preceding paragraph it can be said that the author believes that:
a. American Christians want to kill people.
b. American Christians do not want to kill people.
c. Some American Christians believe that God will return to save them and their followers and damn all others.
d. None of the above.

"What absurdity. Where are these hard-line Christians who want to kill people? "

This statement implies the answer is "a". Sorry, "a" is wrong. With careful reading the answer is obviously "c"; as evidenced in the statement: "I don't like these medieval visions of the world according to which God is coming to save the faithful and to damn the others."

Posted by: Mick_n_NYC at June 22, 2008 3:19 PM

Equally despicable are the Western dhimmi-self-anointed elites who, against their own, do the bidding of their new (islamic) masters

Posted by: TINBH at June 22, 2008 3:39 PM

"You think, I dare say, that our chief job is inventing new words. But not a bit of it! We're destroying words -- scores of them, hundreds of them, every day. We're cutting the language down to the bone...

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." "Syme", 1984 by George Orwell.

You know, George Carlin should really get to work on this stuff. He already has a recitation of the words you can't say on TV. Now it's time for a list of words you can't say anywhere!

Posted by: Abscedere at June 22, 2008 3:55 PM

Folks in the UK must openly and with great indignation express hatred for this attack.

A DISABLED pensioner was battered unconscious with a brick after he went to confront a gang of stone-throwing teenagers.

Ray Mills, aged 73, took on the 10-strong crowd outside his Birmingham home and was knocked to the floor by one of them.

The retired welder, who walks on crutches, is waiting for tests on his eye to see whether his sight has been damaged and has undergone brain scans in hospital.

Recall:

76 year old Walter Chamberlain was attacked in Oldham, Greater Manchester, on Saturday by three Asian youths, who told him: "Get out of our area."

He was dragged to the ground, kicked in the face and battered with a coffee flask he had been carrying, breaking his cheekbones.

and

Alan Sheard, 67 year old pensioner dies after assault by 4 Asian youth

Posted by: heroyalwhyness at June 22, 2008 4:05 PM

I commented on the independent site too, except now I can't find my comment, lol. Just kept going round in circles and got fed up....

Posted by: gymgal at June 22, 2008 4:10 PM

"Where are these hard-line Christians who want to kill people? What doctrines of Christianity do they invoke?"

Some years ago in some parts of the United States, folks started showing up at school board meetings protesting Halloween celebrations because they supposedly glorified witchcraft. To most of us these people seemed bizarre in the extreme; a few intrepid investigators determined that they were part of a movement called "Christian Reconstructionism." I looked into it.

These guys want to create a society applying Old Testament rules about homosexuality, adultery, idolatry, and blasphemy. That's death for all of the above, incidentally. Similarly, self-proclaimed "Christian" pastor Fred Phelps and his merry band of morons regularly cite the Old Testament about God hating "fags." Fundamentalist Mormons practice polygamy and, at least in some cases, child rape-"marriage" -- let's not see all the same hands about what text they're citing.

These folks are (fortunately) marginal in our society, but they do exist. They're taking Leviticus and Deuteronomy at face value -- and there's nothing in either of those texts that declares that they are constrained by historical context. An argument can be made that they are the edge of a larger, silent movement which, while it does not actually advocate death for homosexuals or "loose" women, tacitly approves the "attitudes and atmospherics" of gay-bashing and the restriction of womens' reproductive freedom.

Posted by: Marwan'sDaughter at June 22, 2008 5:01 PM

The Independent is a rag for the fantasy land of woolly minded liberals.

You could knit half a dozen cardigans and some bed socks with each edition.

To this sorry excuse of a 'serious' newspaper the enemies are Christianity and Western civilisation which ties in nicely for the apologists of Islam in that they have the same aims!

Posted by: James at June 22, 2008 5:13 PM

Well to be fair he should be charged with a hate crime, because the law must be equally applied without fear or favour.

In the uk channel 4 program, Undercover Mosque, it was shown that many "moderate" mosques, which are hailed by the government as examples of good Islam, were in fact preaching the Koran. That is hatred of homosexuals(should be killed), Jews(should be killed even more) and the usual contempt for anyone else who isn't a Muslim.
The book shops were packed with books depicting hate and promoting Jihad, violent Jihad at that.
So congregations of moderate Muslims all sat their listening attentively, seemingly in rapture to this disgusting litany of hate and bile.
But the uk legal system (envy of the world) swung into action. The mosques leaders were all arrested charged and set to be deported when they've finished their sentences. The congregations were rounded up and sent back to the Holy Land as undesirables and traitors, not welcome anymore. The mosques (used to live up the road from the Green Lane Mosque), they were all closed by order of the government and turned into carparks.

What none of that happened, really, my mistake.

Why ever not?

Posted by: Ian at June 22, 2008 5:40 PM

"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words." "Syme", 1984 by George Orwell." --posted above.

But even "Syme" was "vaporized," as Winston Smith knew he would be. He was too intelligent. I'd have to get out my "1984" to find Orwell's exact words, but that was the reason.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 6:24 PM

I commented on the independent site too, except now I can't find my comment, lol. Just kept going round in circles and got fed up....

Posted by: gymgal at June 22, 2008 4:10 PM

You have to click on "Preview" to get all of the comments.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 6:26 PM

gymgal - I found your post. Here it is. Click on "Preview" by "Post a Comment" and you will get all of the comments. It's really stupid, but that's how it is on the Independent site.

"Someone should find a lawyer willing to take on the Islamic religion itself regarding hate. Tit for tat...."

Posted by: gymgal | June 22, 2008 at 08:30 PM

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 6:40 PM

Thanks Darcy!!! ;o)

Posted by: gymgal at June 22, 2008 6:45 PM

Hope you return, gymgal. I'm holding down the fort on incredible ignorance.

Also, a Mohammedan just posted saying, "Islam is peace. I bet you are a Homosexual?"

LOL! Is it incredible? No, I'm not homosexual! But, leave it to a "religion of peacer" to inquire thusly! The Hate is SO right there!

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 7:04 PM

Heads up!

Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=67735

Whatever we once were?

Excuse me bub, but it was the Christians who founded this country; the major universities; the Red Cross; the YMCA; and made a representative republic possible.

Sorry you hate Christians -- but we owe them nonetheless; and I don't think this little nod to the future of islam is where I want to go.

I may not be a Christian myself, but I sure would prefer to live under the system of government that they established in this country than other the one that is comin down the pike like a rabid dog!

Keep your eye on mohammad obama!

Posted by: witness at June 22, 2008 8:27 PM

Darcy and Gymgal

You've fallen for a trick becoming increasingly popular on marxist sites.

The fact that you can only see your answers on preview (ie. while you're preparing a response) should have told you that things were not on the level.

The usual method used by marxists involves making responses that don't toe the party line invisible to all casual readers EXCEPT the sender who has expressed non approved thoughts. He or she usually goes away thinking that the response was actually allowed to appear.

In this instance the marxist who set it up was very sloppy as he should have allowed you to view your own answer and left you with the illusion that it appeared visible to all.

Posted by: Ahem at June 22, 2008 8:49 PM

Whatever we once were, we're no longer a Christian nation. At least not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, and a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers," Obama said during a June 2007 speech available on YouTube.

Lifted...?
That sounds suspiciously like a line from the movie 'Gandhi'. Gandhi is being driven past a group of protesters at his ashram gate, and he makes a similar remark to them...not the 'no longer Christian' part, but the rest of the statement.
I bet Baracks script writers thought no one would notice...

Posted by: duh_swami at June 22, 2008 8:59 PM

Actually no! Freemasons founded this country, not Christians, and who cares what you or this McEwan think? It's strange why all of sudden Islam is a threat and' wants to take over the world'. Didn't hear that during the Cold War, the Quran was around then... so were Muslims I believe. It's not a threat at all, you want to make it a threat and try and hide your true intentions, which are to 'spread democracy and freedom', sounds funny doesn't it? GET THE OIL!! oops did I say that too loud?

What is freedom exactly? The Patriot Act? Which targets innocent ppl on a holiday to Disneyland and old folks homes up and down 'your' great country. Soon you won't be able to have a sh** without someone watching. Then we'll see who starts bit*****,'my Human rights have been violated'

I'll tell you what it is, its freedom FOR YOU and for the 'chosen ones' down in the land of David, but for the Arabs? nah.You know why its your freedom, because you won't allow these people to choose who they want, you choose for them. Thats shameful. And you want to sit here posting nonsense about how Islam wants to do this and that. How many countries has ISLAM invaded in the past decade?... hmmm... None.

The stats don't lie, and you can point to the terrorist attacks, the car bombings and so on and say Muslims dun it, but Robert Fisk and co think otherwise. Its still a mystery why you don't keep a counter on the number of coalition air raids that have resulted in 'accidental deaths' of innocent civilians? 'Shall I take em out'... yep take em out.'
Let's be honest here its not about Islam being evil, because the numbers just keep on rising in 'your' great land. Its your hatred of Islam, Just like your hatred of the Blacks and the Jews once upon a time, its a hatred which is irrational and really doesn't get you anywhere.
650,000 and still counting, so much for your freedom and democracy. I'm sorry to say, but the real world can't accept seeing innocent people butchered by rockets and missiles, for oil.

What you gonna call it Taqqiya? You gonna call me troll, a mohammedan? I've heard it all, be a bit more creative.

Posted by: cipher at June 22, 2008 9:18 PM

The situation in the UK with immigration, speech, welfare..and down the line ad nauseum are just a continuation of left wing politics and it's logical conclusions. This is where the left wants us to go here and many march along willingly and happilly. If McEwan is a leftist and is being bitten by a wacky speech law in an out of control leftist country, I say; " I would like to defend with my life what you say about islam but there isn't a damn thing I can do for you pal."

Posted by: pismopal at June 22, 2008 9:43 PM

Good grief!

So much fiskin' stupidity in one posting!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 22, 2008 9:51 PM

It is amazing to me the blank stares I get when I say that islam is not a race.

It's interesting to see how people like cipher view the world...you can see the mindset that I'd call willful ignorance or just plain trying to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

Even a very liberal family member of mine is beginning to see through things. Perhaps there is hope.

Posted by: diaphanous at June 22, 2008 9:54 PM

Diaphanous did you read all of Cipher's comments? Remember, one does not have to eat the entire apple to discover that it is rotten.

Posted by: Pelayo at June 22, 2008 10:06 PM

"The situation in the UK with immigration, speech, welfare..and down the line ad nauseum are just a continuation of left wing politics and it's logical
conclusions."

The appellation left wing does not fully describe the situation in the UK, I think that the UK had magie thatcher for a few years also, but the real problem is not so much left or right wing, but globalization policies.

The UK is more or less committed to those policies of globalization wether they are dressed up as free markets for the right wing, or rehashed internationalization for the left wing.

The UK is committed to those policies almost as much by geography as by ideology, the US has supported those policies also, wether it has been St. Ronald or Bill Clinton.

The dream of internationalization is an old dream, and has its adherents who do so from idealistic notions and those who support internationalization as a way to game their systems and feather their little nests.

Islam is not such a problem for the self lucre motivated internationalists, Islamic theology has as its prophet the man who siezed power, who put to death his critics, and who more or less did as he pleased and supplied plenty of "revelations" to support the idea that allah gave him the green light to do what religion for millenia had always restrained.

It is not merely Christian or Jewish tenets that have enjoined pesky moral standards on all people regardless of status or temporal power, Islamic tenets seem to be a way for those who would forego any restraints to doing whatever the hell they want to do.

Posted by: stickman at June 22, 2008 10:07 PM

Cipher you act like you have never heard the term, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21). You know there is nothing like that in the Quran right? The idea of a secular state is a Christian idea. It is true some of the founding fathers were not Christians but thier enlightened ideals came from Christian theology and thought. Much like the Abolitionists were driven by Christian theology. The very idea that slavery is a bad thing is based on Christian theology. Islamic law however does condone slavery, and does not condone a secular state. The USA did not "butcher" 650,000 people in Iraq even if that number is correct, which I doubt, the west has killed far less than the Islamic radicals whom refuse to let Iraq be governed by a western style Democracy. Bush had this funny idea that a country which is predominatly Islamic will choose to live in a country which isn't ruled by Islamic law a.k.a. a secular state. This fight also by the way was never about Iraqi "oil", as we have never gotten more than 2% of our oil from Iraq. Incase you didn't know. No mention that Saddam was paying "Palastinians" to blow themselves up if they murdered Jews in the process (but you probably like the idea of Palastinians murdering jews), also no mention that he easily murdered more people in his career than we ever did, or ever will. I will agree with you though ... invading Iraq was an ignorant concept. Muslims if given the option will never live under any law other than Shariaa. In addition Muslims if given the option will force you ... yeah you Mr. Ciper to live under Shariaa law if given the opprotunity. You should check it out, or maybe you know and think living as a second class citizen is a good thing, and therefore like Muslims emigrating to your country.

Posted by: ethoman at June 22, 2008 10:34 PM

cipher, where do we begin?
"We are stealing the oil"....sure we are, to the tune of $4 a gallon and over.
The moslems never tried to conquer the west in modern times till now....because now they have MONEY to buy the chairs in the universities and stock in our news media, etc.
If you are not a moslem, what the hell is the matter with you?

Posted by: interestinconundrum at June 22, 2008 10:38 PM

There is already a law, Colorado, I think, that it's illegal to disparage vegetables.
Redefining free speech to protect vegetables, and Islam, is a sure sign that society engineering leftists are in charge.

Posted by: duh_swami

That's a great combination, Moslems and vegetables. They have a lot in common. For example, neither ever show any signs of thought. Vegetables are born that way, but Moslems are made that way, by means of all that beating of floors with their heads. They literally beat their brains out. They're like washed-up punch-drunk boxers, who have taken too many blows to the head.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 22, 2008 10:38 PM

From above: want to sit here posting nonsense about how Islam wants to do this and that. How many countries has ISLAM invaded in the past decade?

It depends on how you want to define the word 'invade'. There is more than one way to invade, but the word itself is tricky...One mans immigration is another mans invasion. Demographic conquest, as practiced by Islam, is an invasion. This invasion is ongoing...There is more than one way to jihad, not all of them are violent but jihad just the same.
Immigration jihad, in large numbers + rapid birth rate jihad = vote jihad = take over = invasion successful.
In 1960 there were about 1600 muslims in the Netherlands...in 2004 800,000, today over a million. Is that an invasion? Is take over and eventual Sharia law inevitable? If not why not? Whats to prevent Islamic demographic conquest from taking over any democratic state where voting creates change?
As long as it's all for Allah, it is an invasion.

Posted by: duh_swami at June 22, 2008 10:58 PM

@ cipher (which rhymes with viper...very apt):

Excuse me, I believe animals acting in the name of Islam invaded our country on 9/11, and not for the first time.

What say you, viper??

Posted by: mepeteart at June 22, 2008 11:18 PM

It's easy to see that "ciper's" neurons don't fire. I wouldn't bother with that Zero. Amazing how perfectly he named himself, however.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 11:19 PM

@cipher

This maybe a waste of time but you sure are ignorant when it comes to history. I am not talking decades I am talking hundreds of years.

Why did the Portuguese sail around Africa or Christopher Columbus sail west for the spices in the far east?

The third and sixth President of the United States, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams had a few things to say that would identify them as hate speakers according to you and the thread. I could add Winston Churchill with a link but I will let you google that.

Finally Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts call us Crusaders and quot the Religion of Peace in justifying their barbaric actions. So, as I stated get you facts and history straight.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at June 22, 2008 11:22 PM

How many countries has ISLAM invaded in the past decade?... hmmm... None. --cipher (Zero)

What do you call September 11, 2001, Zero? Like I said, cipher's neurons don't fire.

Posted by: darcy at June 22, 2008 11:23 PM

Invasion defined.

in·va·sion (n-vzhn)
n.
1. The act of invading, especially the entrance of an armed force into a territory to conquer.

-Since Islam requires Muslims to impose Shariaa law if they are able then the act of Muslims emigrating to non-Muslim countries implies the intent to conquer.

2. A large-scale onset of something injurious or harmful, such as a disease.

-If you think having a large-scale group of people emigrating into your country inspired by divine duty to subvert your government and constitution to impose Shariaa law, as being injurious or harmful ... then yeah invsion.

3. An intrusion or encroachment.

-If you think that people emigrating into your country then refusing to adopt the societies norms, and forming enclave communities, which are declaired "Islamic" then yeah that would be an intrusion or encroachment .... then yeah invasion.

yes invasion on all counts Islam guilty as charged.

Posted by: ethoman at June 22, 2008 11:32 PM

I forgot to add one thing about your projection. We the west or non Muslims have not done anything to them or there people. They started this and are continuing it because of their belief. They belief that have orders from God. Whether you or I don't believe it or not or whether it is the truth or not. That is what their god has told them.

So, when the subject of hate and prejudice is broached, Islam is the source and fountain of it.

Posted by: Im.mad.as.HELL! at June 22, 2008 11:48 PM

Muslims smell fear when infidels use terms other than Islam and Jihad to describe Islam and Jihad, and it only encourages Muslims to continue their aggression. A term like 'Islamism' is code for 'You can't accuse me of criticising Islam.' Those who feel a need to speak about Islam but can't bring themselves to actually use the word Islam, should keep their mouths shut because they're only helping the enemy.

Posted by: Bosch Fawstin at June 23, 2008 1:19 AM

As Cipher says, Iraq was invaded for OIL. And Afghanistan was invaded for... uh... invaded for... er... for rocks! To rebuild the twin towers with of course. The same twin towers which were destroyed by a Jewish conspiracy. Real active guys, these Jews, conspiring all the time.

Poor OBL was just tending his camels and sheep and the Northern alliance and US swept in routing the blessedly angelic taliban, guys who wouldn't hurt a fly (an islamic fly, that is).

The Paki army keeps invading Indian territory ever since its birth. It has to retreat in disorder every time so it don't count as an invasion, least ways not a successful invasion.

And a guy who looks like he just stepped out of the toilet keeps talking about erasing Israel. It's just hot air, no invasion.

Turkey gobbled up half of Cyprus, but it was already an islamic majority area (so they say). So that wasn't an invasion either.

This proves that it is a religion of peace. So what if their battalions aren't big enough or good enough. So far.

Posted by: Hedgehog at June 23, 2008 2:15 AM

What you gonna call it Taqqiya? You gonna call me troll, a mohammedan? I've heard it all, be a bit more creative....

I, nabi ZK, the last and greatest nabi to mohametan trolls, wise, munificent, but I, nabi ZK, digress, call you just plain stupid.

nabi ZK

believe it or else or really else

Posted by: zonie kafir at June 23, 2008 3:19 AM

islam shall perish, mohammedan.

Posted by: CGW at June 23, 2008 7:42 AM

Ahem, I want to comment on what you posted last night about the "marxist sites."

I don't think your thesis is correct here about only approved posts being seen because, and I just went back and checked, there are PLENTY of MoonBat comments mixed in with the anti-Islam comments, such as mine. I mean, both sides are there. Plus, I've gotten a few responses to my comments by MoonBats, which means my posts are being seen and read.

If what you're saying was true, only the anti-Islam comments would be seen by clicking on "Preview," while the PC "approved" comments would be seen elsewhere.

Why don't you go and check out the comments on "The Independent?" I would like to know whether you still think they are censoring un-PC comments. Also, this London newspaper is "Marxist?" How do you know? What's the criteria for being "Marxist?"

Posted by: darcy at June 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Did anybody mention Kosovo? Bosnia?

Nigeria? Bali? Sulawesi. Mindanao, the Moluccas, South Thailand,

or this:

It's all about Iraq, isn't it?
Yep, it's all about Iraq and...

India and the Sudan and Algeria and Afghanistan and New York and Pakistan and Israel and Russia and Chechnya and the Philippines and Indonesia and Nigeria and England and Thailand and Spain and Egypt and Bangladesh and Saudi Arabia and Ingushetia and Dagestan and Turkey and Kabardino-Balkaria and Morocco and Yemen and Lebanon and France and Uzbekistan and Gaza and Tunisia and Kosovo and Bosnia and Mauritania and Kenya and Eritrea and Syria and Somalia and California and Argentina and Kuwait and Virginia and Ethiopia and Iran and Jordan and United Arab Emirates and Louisiana and Texas and Tanzania and Germany and Australia and Pennsylvania and Belgium and Denmark and East Timor and Qatar and Maryland and Tajikistan and the Netherlands and Scotland and Chad and Canada and China and Nepal
and the Maldives and...
...and pretty much wherever Muslims believe their religion tells them to:

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, ... nor follow
the religion of truth... until they pay the tax in acknowledg-ment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection."
Qur'an, Sura 9:29

More people are killed by Islamists each year than in all 350 years of the Spanish Inquisition combined. (source)

Islamic terrorists murder more people every day than the Ku Klux Klan has in the last 50 years. (source)

More civilians were killed by Muslim extremists in two hours on September 11th than in the 36 years of sectarian conflict in Northern Ireland. (source)

19 Muslim hijackers killed more innocents in two hours on September 11th than the number of American criminals executed in the last 65 years. (source)

Good night troll!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at June 23, 2008 9:59 AM

why did Bush knock down the Towers?
You have the most evil man on the face of this earth running your country. The biggest terrorist of the lot. A killer that ranks up there with likes of Pol Pot, Hitler and Stalin. And this fool who posted the last comment. I got one question for you, what world do you live in?
You telling me 3,000 people were not killed in the Northern Ireland sectarian violence, or the Afghanistan war alone? Your even claiming that the inquisition resulted in the deaths of less people. Where are your sources?

You killed more in Panama, than any terrorist ever has, what are you talking about? You remember Lebanon when Sharon drank the blood of the defenseless Lebanese? How many died then?
Saddam was YOUR man. You bought him to power and you didn't bat an eyelid when he slaughtered his own people, the same people you encouraged to overthrow him. All you do is install dictators, and you don't give a damn about the people of the country who have to suffer, as long as the suffering doesn't involve you. That is disgusting and evil and no matter what you try and preach on this website, it won't change your history.
Maybe some people need to go back to the dictionary because an attack done by your president, doesn't mean an invasion. How can you invade yourself? Three buildings fell down in one day because of fire, when in the whole history of steel buildings, NOT ONE has ever collapsed due to fire. And what the hell are the Pakistanis going to invade India for? Curry? Cricket? Didn't India and Bush sign a treaty which allowed them to brake laws on Nuclear weapons? You remember that. At the same time, Mr Bush is running around accusing Iran of building a Nuclear weapon. Do you know how long they have to go b4 they actually build a nuclear weapon? 60 years!! Did anyone tell you that? Probably not. Its you that are the zombies who are willing to believe any cock and bull story.

The Daily Mirror in the UK called 59 million of you DUMB because you chose to vote in a blood sucking monster. The blood of all those people who have died based on a lie are on your hands. So don't preach to me about evil.

How you sleep at night is beyond me. Luckily the majority of people in Great Britain know the truth and chose to give your President the 'welcome' he deserves.

Its a sign of how desperate you people are that you quote this verse and that verse from the Quran and claim Muslims are commanded to do this. Who are you? Who are you to presume what we are taught? You don't know squat about the religion. Good the enemies of the Prophet were subjugated. Good they were brought low. Only when it concerns Islam is the side that practiced female infanticide and all forms of evil, painted as the heroes.

Aren't you laying a claim to Israel based on your bible and fighting tooth and nail for your right because it says so- albeit loosely- in your bible? So isn't infact you that are committing
acts of terrorism against innocent people? Didn't you kill an entire family with your warship, when they were having a picnic on a beach in Gaza? Thats an act of terrorism. And you know why you do it, because you think it says so in your Torah, the same book that claims Insects have four legs.

Where in your bible is slavery outlawed? Show me where? Wasn't slavery condoned based on the bible, particularly the Old Testament? Boy oh boy are woman treated good in that book?

I'm a troll, I'm whatever you want to call me. I'm happy as long as I know I'm a Muslim, the only path that is acceptable on the orders of Allah swt.

Posted by: cipher at June 23, 2008 2:13 PM

Cipher: I know a good proctologist who can help you.

Posted by: johndoe at June 23, 2008 2:24 PM

For those who want to examine a case of wilful mental submission in detail, an example for the connoisseur of mental pathologies is available in a posting above. A clinical case, un caso clinico.

Posted by: Hugh at June 23, 2008 3:13 PM

Goodness, it gives me chills to read what the monster who calls himself viper...er...cipher writes. I can almost smell the sulfur and feel the heat of hell when he speaks. Satan has taught his minions well...

I'm off to take a shower and try to wash the stench away.

May the Lord protect us all.

Posted by: mepeteart at June 23, 2008 3:31 PM

"I'm a troll, I'm whatever you want to call me. I'm happy as long as I know I'm a Muslim" --cipher (Zero)

You're a total and complete brainwashed-by-false-prophet-Mohammed 'bot, is what you are. A total 'bot.

Your 14 9/11 Jihadists are roasting in hell, along with your Con Man Mo. How stupid you are! No wonder you call yourself "cipher" - a Nobody, a Zero, a Nothing. You sure named yourself correctly!

Posted by: darcy at June 23, 2008 4:43 PM

Something needs to be done about trolls like Cipher. It's one thing to support free speech, it's one thing to be tolerant in the name of dialogue, but it's another thing to let people like this hang around with the sole purpose of causing discord. Trolls like Cipher cause such a distraction that the commentors who are actually trying to validly contribute to the blog and to the topic of Islam and jihad are overlooked and ignored. This is exactly what trolls want and they are getting their way.

Please stop feeding the trolls. They are baiting you deliberately.

Posted by: Madame Vengier at June 23, 2008 4:48 PM

Good God! I just read "cipher's" entire comment (puke).

Newsflash: Your Murder god allah the pagan deity that doesn't exist, and your Warlord Mass-Murderer false prophet Mo are the "blood-sucking monsters." ALLAH AND MOHAMET BLOOD-SUCKING MONSTERS!

You're evil, cipher. As evil as your evil "religion," false prophet, and Murder god.

ALLAH AND MO BLOOD-SUCKING MONSTERS! GO TO HELL, ALLAH AND MO (oh, sorry, they're already there!)

Posted by: darcy at June 23, 2008 4:54 PM

"Three buildings fell down in one day because of fire, when in the whole history of steel buildings, NOT ONE has ever collapsed due to fire."

hey birdbrain...two jets jockeyed by Muslim hijackers crashed into the buildings...the fully loaded fuel tanks exploded with the power of several tons of TNT. THe explosion crippled the internal structure of the buildings flawed design. the fire was secondary to the explosion...suddenly a section of the building superstructure was missing, causeing the upper floors to begin a dominos collapsing effect...fire is one thing, the explosion of several thousand gallons of jet fuel is entirely something else...

ok, you can go back to pounding your contaminated Islamic head on the rock of your choice...we will understand//

Posted by: pulsar182 at June 23, 2008 6:37 PM

Cipher very much reminds me of a troll who used to visit this site over a year ago - a British Muslim medical student, of Somali extraction. His pet technique was to accuse everybody of lying and demand proof and cited sources for even simple and well known statements of fact. He eventually started making violent threats against individuals and I think he ended up being banned. Perhaps he's found some way of getting back in.

Posted by: wallyUK at June 23, 2008 9:07 PM

"Three buildings fell down in one day because of fire, when in the whole history of steel buildings, NOT ONE has ever collapsed due to fire."

Actually, it happens fairly often. In the factory where I worked for many years, a pressurized grease and lube-oil system caught fire and the heat was intense enough that the steel girders supporting the roof, and the steel roof iself collapsed.
In the case of the Twin Towers, it was the fire caused by all that jet fuel that weakened the floors above and caused them to give way. When they did, and fell onto lower floors, their weight and impact caused those floors to collapse as well.
Jet fuel is highly flammable, but it's NOT explosive -- unlike the high-octane aviation gasoline used in WW2 piston-engined aircraft. Avgas required extreme caution in handling. The Japanese lost several carriers in the war due to gas explosions. Our navy was only too happy to go to jets, which did not require avgas.
If jet fuel were explosive, the crash of the jets into the Twin Towers would simply have blown off the tops of the buildings at once. As it was, the films clearly show flaming fuel bursting out on all sides of the buildings, and the buildings collapsing only later.

Posted by: ebonystone at June 23, 2008 9:18 PM