Harry's Place

We ought to deport everyone involved in these treacherous and criminal activities. I, for one am sick to the back teeth of having my freedoms eroded because of Satans Disciples preaching evil. Why don´t other muslims speak out or do they secretly concur with these evil bast*rds?

More importantly, why isn´t the government raiding these places and putting a stop to this, they´re pretty quick to attend peaceful demonstrations against climate change etc., they should be at these venues too.

Thank you for this post. I shall not be listening to the message, as I am not sure my blood pressure pills could cope with the inevitable additional load(!)

I have written on this whole topic on several occasions, and readers here might find something of value and/or interest in among all of that. I can’t really add anything more here and now, because it’s all covered in those previous blogposts of mine.

Ah! Claire’s comment has now appeared; and I have to agree that much of what we are seeing purporting to be “Islam” is indeed Satan’s somewhat successful corruption of that into an instrument of his own malign purpose. Again, I have covered this in my own blogposts (see link in my previous comment).

We were warned two thousand years ago of false prophets and the rest; and it is now clear that it was wise advice. It is happening today, and there are (apparently) milions who are so gullible as to be sucked up into what anyone with any sense would realise is an un-Godly ideology.

It is obvious to us that no real God would require us to murder each other as a matter of policy: he wouldn’t want it, and he certainly wouldn’t need it from us. He is quite capable of handling that, thank you very much.

Yes, this is the “law” of corrupt men, not of God, that engeners murder under whatever pretext; and we could as a nation strike a blow for good by deporting all of those who promote violence under the falsified and so often corrupted banner of “Islam”. If we don’t act, it looks like complicity.

“The third speaker is Uthman Lateef of the Hittin Institute. It has published a call for Israel’s annihilation,”

Another member of the Hittin Institute is Hamza Tzortzis who is a trustee of the Green Crescent charity which funded an Orphanage in Bangladesh which was used as a weapons store/bomb factory.

Are these cunts actually British or are they being shipped in for this little hate-fest? If the latter, why aren’t the govt blocking their entry? If the former, then surely their acts are illegal.

another lovely comments thread at HP…

Why don´t other muslims speak out or do they secretly concur with these evil bast*rds?

Probably cos they don’t know about this event…

“Are these cunts actually British or are they being shipped in for this little hate-fest? If the latter, why aren’t the govt blocking their entry? If the former, then surely their acts are illegal.”

They are illegal either way. Visitors are not exempt from criminal UK law while they are here.

And here’s a good example of how Christians are treated in Muslim countries. Algeria this time with 33 million people and no one protesting the oppression of relgious minorities.

I’d love to draw up a list of rights specifically targeting and limiting Muslims based on the way religious minorities are targeted and oppressed in Muslim-majority countries.

Saeed, I see, pleads coquettish ignorance, as though he nor any other muslim, anywhere in the world, at any time at all, have any idea whatsoever of how religious majorities are treated in muslim societies.

Riiiight!

http://www.journalchretien.net/breve16638.html

Do you, Saeed, agree with killing British soldiers?

Are ever disgusted, at any time whatsoever, by the sociopathic behavior and comportment of your more ‘militant’ co-religionists, or do you just acquiesce in their poisonous bile and demonic hatreds?

I don’t think anyone here knows what Jihad actually means, why are the people here so ignorant, i think you should first understand what a word means and then make comments about it, you people have no manners, no respect and no knowledge, look at the way you refer to theses speakers ‘Cunts’ and just for your information Uthman Lateef and Murtaza Khan are British, look how biased you are, it is so obvious that you are anti Islamic, one day you will realise just like I did that there is only One god which is Allah and Muhammed peace be upon him is his last and final messenger. Also Jesus is one of many messengers who came with the same message which is that there is only one god which is Allah..know that on the day of judgment..everyone will be judged and they will find out their final abode which will be either Hell or Heaven..

Whatever you say, darling. Now do finish your porridge so you can grow up and one day perhaps know what the &^%$ you are talking about.

David:

it is so obvious that you are anti Islamic,

You say it as if that’s a bad thing!

everyone will be judged and they will find out their final abode which will be either Hell or Heaven.

Sometimes you know where you’ll be going long before you die.

The utter intellectual, edconomic and scientific stagnation characterising the Islamic world is an indicator of god’s displeasure with mohammed and Muslims.

Imagine legions of screeching, bearded banshees bothering you five times a day and imploring you to kill innocent people?

Allah is a fat, black lesbian, and boy is she pissed off about female genital mutilation!

John, how does that square with you being a Catholic? ;-)

OT: I phoned Friends House earlier today to remind them that they had promised to get back to me. The person I spoke to said: “Oh, I think I remember you, it was about the anti-war group Hamas, wasn’t it?”.
So perhaps the conclusion has to be that they are simply ever so slightly thick.

I’d love to draw up a list of rights specifically targeting and limiting Muslims based on the way religious minorities are targeted and oppressed in Muslim-majority countries.

Why don’t you – it’s a quiet Thursday afternoon, I’m stuck at work and I could do with a laugh. Whilst you’re at it, maybe you could do a list of rights for people with Slavic sounding surnames based on what happened during the wars of secession in the former Yugoslavia.

I don’t think anyone here gives a shit what “Jihad” means. What concerns us is how Muslims interpret it and then behave. That is the issue, not taking a theological interest in your wretched religion; this is not a mosque you are talking in here.

Calling Jihadic Muslim haters “cunts” is an appropriate expression for such people. Or would you prefer perhaps, “I say old chap, these nasty rogues are really very, very, very naughty and not nice people”. Get the point?

Now, perhaps you might answer, why are you taking their side?Convicted terrorists have been British born, and so what?

Actually, damn it, my imam just called and I have to go and do some jihad now. Western society isn’t going to overthrow itself! Maybe I can hear your 21st century bill of rights some other time.

Maybe you can stop talking shit

The founders of the Brady centre where this is being held will be turning in their graves:
The building was erected to house the Brady Clubs and Settlement, which were primarily Jewish youth clubs. A number of commemorative stones from this era can still be seen on the front of the building. There is a blue plaque in Princelet Street for Miriam Moses, who was warden here for many years.

What’s happened to this thread? Both the wide-screen display and sense of menace.

The display was one of the mysteries of WordPress, now solved.

As for menace, bigots really should find another blog to soil.

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/11/11/anti-muslim-bigotry/

If bigots don’t want to acknowledge the condemnable stuff in the Muslim world and merely take every point-scoring opportunity to deny and discredit it and deflect the issues, they should refrain from commenting on what concerns others – but not (as always), them.

That doesn’t make sense, Reet.

Does too

Miriam Moses at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

In 1925, together with Elsie Cohen, who later married Barnett Janner MP, Moses established the Brady Girls’ Club at Buxton Street School. It was conceived as the girls’ parallel of the Brady Boys’ Club that had been founded in 1896. Miriam effectively served as club leader for thirty-three years, living in during the Second World War as warden of the purpose-built Brady Settlement which had been opened in Hanbury Street, in the East End, in 1935. Despite her progressive ideas, the boys’ and girls’ clubs were kept strictly apart along traditional lines. On retirement in 1958 Miriam appeared on the popular television show This is your Life, in which she was brought face to face with many old ‘Brady girls’ upon whose lives she had exerted such influence.

Read it all at:

http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/70162

David is really Daud, it seems to me. The fact he wrote such a long sentence without a single punctuation mark rather suggests that English is not his first language.

Also Jesus is one of many messengers who came with the same message

Yes David (!), Jesus came with the message that he was The Son Of God and that he rose from the dead, didn’t He?

Caves are eerie places where the wind can seem like a whisper of some unseen God. Then you write it all down and say “I heard it – Honest!”. Not much to hang a religion on?

As a devout Muslim you will obviously confirm that the Koran records Allah granting the Land of Israel to the Children of Israel, won’t you? Otherwise you’ll be an apostate to deny the Koran.

You seem like a fake to me.

I know what jihad means. It means ‘inner struggle’, like when you eat too many eggs and you sit on the pot and can’t poo and you think to yourself, ‘Why did I think doing something I saw in Cool Hand Luke would be a god idea?’

And what would any sane person do when they need to pinch off a loaf but can’t? Why go on a killing, raping, torturing and subjugating spree in order to spread their religio-political ideology, over a period of 1400 years, of course. It’s just human nature.

I know the meaning of the word “Jihad” too. But when Muslims say “you don’t know what it means”, blah blah blah, its just a stupid, emotive, obscurantist, deliberately or ignorantly deceptive set of tie-you-up-in-knots bullshit games they use to deflect from what the concerns are about this. I don’t give a fuck about Muslim theology, relatively few people do, and when Muslims start this “you know nothing” etc bullshit what they are doing is substituting idealised theology for observation and condemnation of human behaviour. Incapable of addressing the real issues, they start spouting all the nonsense told them in their mosques as if that constitutes an education others don’t have. Note also, they don’t condemn Muslims with a different interpretation of “Jihad”, they condemn others for condemning them. I’ve no time for this intellectually bankrupt, dishonest and childish bullshit.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, one day you and your family members will become Muslims, once you wake up and realise how stupid and ignorant you have been in the past, you will realise the truth you will regret all the lies and allegations you have made about individuals and Islam..You can never destroy the truth and the true religion is Islam, one day you will accept that..I ask Allah to guide you to the truth, Ameen!

Joshh -isn’t it strange how throughout history people like yourself with a monopoly on the ‘truth’ have always had to enforce it by means of force- be that the sword, the gas chamber or the suicide bomb?

It is quite obvious that Tower Hamlets Council’s copy of Contest 2 is still in the intray waiting to be read.

Dismal – Tower Hamlets Council are a disgrace.

“Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world”

Is that actually written in the Koran somewhere? It certainly suggests that, the way Muslims repeat it again, and again, and again, as if it means something, as if its a useful response to criticism, as if it were reciprocal critical debate – as if, in fact, all Muslims are capable of is emotive little wrangles concerning self esteem, whenever Muslims and Islam are criticised. Its like football hooligans shouting at an opposing side “we will win! you are s***!” That is its intellectual level; in fact that is substantially the intellectual level of Islam.

If you want to play that game, try this: never before, in the history of humanity, has there been such enormous worldwide scrutiny and condemnation of a religion. This is the fastest growing critical consciousness in the world, huge numbers of people are discovering the facts about Mohammed – paedophile and murderer – and on that basis criticism of Islam cannot be countered, together with the facts about the ideology terrorists express: where it comes from, where its written in Islamic literature, and who is the key inspiration for it: the murdering Jihad of Mohammed himself.

White Chrstian Europe:

Why can’t the jew and moslem leave the European Christian in peace. I never ever want to breathe the noxious fumes of Israel nor Saudi Arabia. Too much sulphur for my liking! Jew and moslem do Europe a favour leave our shores.

Paul – fuck off yourself, ignorant Jew-hater.

Oh, leave Joshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh alone – he is a silly 12-year old playing on his mummy’s computer.

Would this be the same Dame Pauline Neville Jones who, speaking live on “Newsnight” last year said where “aspects” of British foreign policy made young Moselms “angry” it would have to be looked at?

“… one day you and your family members will become Muslims …” – joshh.

And if not?

I think I have read “David” before. The grammar and syntax are a give away.

You can judge for yourself here (scroll down – It was in a protracted exchange!)

http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/01/23/azad-ali-oh-no-he-didnt-oh-yes-he-did/

‘He’ was posting under the psuedonym “Ann Frank” (oh, how hilarious!) and aided by even less literate friends ‘Mary” et al. I think David T. (geddit?) posted that ‘they’ had popped into Harry’s Place from the East London.

Below is councillor from T.H. crowing on about her purity and modestry in the guardian.

‘Purity’ and ‘modesty’ as opposed to the debauchery of native British slags, of course.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/apr/07/letters-hijab-islam-women

Amazing how such ostentaious and arrogant clothing can be portrayed as “modest”.

D’ye think Obama might be persuaded to do a few Predator strikes in Tower Hamlets?

Stupid creature (TH). Do these Muslims seriously think the tents and scarves into which Muslim women were forced in 1400 AD, a time when men had harems and sex with children, translates into some kind of feminist stance in 2009?

The fact is, in Islam women are treated as sexual objects to such an extent, its impossible for them to display the most pathetic aspects of femininity like hair or a bare arm, without provoking condemnatory sexual interest.

Tents and scarves imprison women into a sexual victimhood in relation to men that never acknowledges the sexual rights and inclinations of women. The fact is, in the Middle East if women do show hair, bare arms etc they are subjected to violent sexual interest and condemnation. And then these people try to tell us this oppressive, misogynist sartorial stupidity is some kind of liberation!

FFS.

“The hijab does not restrict – it liberates”

You couldn’t make it up! 6th century mysogynism pretending to be liberated and progressive.

““The hijab does not restrict – it liberates”

You couldn’t make it up! 6th century mysogynism pretending to be liberated and progressive.” – Someone.

The BBC disagrees with you. About eighteen months or so ago I watched briefly a television programme aimed at young people. A short film made by a young Asian woman was aired. In it a young woman (her?) was seen walking down a street; she was being pestered by a young Asian man. The film was silent so one could only imagine what was being said but the clear inference was he interested in her and not in a good way; she tried to get him to leave her alone. Suddenly, miraculously, a cloth floated down from on high. The young woman seized it and wound it around her head and shoulders leaving only her face showing. At once the young man’s attitude changed and he began to offer what seemed profuse apologies and bowed repeatedly. End of film.

The two presenters – one of whom was either Lauren Laverne or someone remarkably like – greeted this portrayal of fundamentalism (it opened the show) with due reverence and seriousness. Well. they would wouldn’t they?

Just heard a discussion about this case on the Radio 4 “Today Programme”. Someobody is getting very influential!

Reet @ 10 April 2009, 9:01 pm

“women are treated as sexual objects to such an extent, its impossible for them to display the most pathetic aspects of femininity like hair or a bare arm, without provoking condemnatory sexual interest. ”

Never seen a Muslim woman with both a headscarf and bare arms? You should get out more.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

Here is Chris Grayling on the Today prog

Do these Muslims seriously think the tents and scarves into which Muslim women were forced in 1400 AD, a time when men had harems and sex with children, translates into some kind of feminist stance in 2009?

Yes. Gender enslavement as feminist self-realisation.

You can grind a human being down until they actually agree to first enter, and then to close and lock the door on their own cage.

Veiled Muslim women are to women’s rights what scab labourers are to striking unionised workers.

They cheapen and bid down the value of ALL women and ultimately all human beings.

Their willingness to “submit” and to embrace their status as a mere ’sub-male’ marks them as an affront to all human dignity.

A women in a niqab or a burkha is as obscene as a women can be.

They are little more than the enablers of pedophiles, women who’ll hand over their underage daughters to perverse adult men even though they know deep-down that such things are completely wrong.

The very core of their being, thus, is a festering knot of self-loathing and self-hatred that precludes ANY chance of emancipation.

For some strange reason a comment on the veiling of Moslem women which I posted has been held in ‘moderation’ for some hours. Since all my posts are moderate I cannot think why.

Larkers. Did you include a few links? Too many and it’s held for moderation.

Gsirrah: No, but thank you for that information which I shall remember. My post has now passed whatever hurdle it was and is at 5.18 a.m. today. I woke early.

“The BBC disagrees with you”

Larkers, I would be very worried if it didn’t.

Headscarf and bare arms? An observant Muslim woman? Not in all my years of living in a London borough with a large Muslim population.

EdwardT

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/listen_again/default.stm

Here is Chris Grayling on the Today prog

Ah yes, the Mary Whitehouse approach to fighting Islamism. Ban this guy and ban Geert Wilders. Let’s not have a rational examination but teach all of our children the “true” BBC sanctioned nature of Jihad,
http://tinyurl.com/cumvvr

After all, thought becomes reality, control thoughts with censorship and the problem goes away.

Eliminate secularism and let the government control and steward Islam, then our multicultural utopia can be maintained, and immigration policies that would make our proudly tolerant politicians look intolerant need not even be rationally discussed. We’ll just ban people who advocate them too. We’ll make Muslim immigrants loyal to Britain by having them sit a test whereby they have to memorise the date of the Magna Carta, be able to recite the names of all of the Queen’s corgis and produce the recipe for Yorkshire pudding without consulting a cook book. Do it properly and the anti liberty ring wing of the Daily Mail might be towed along with the anti liberty left.

But of course we can’t ban the Koran and Hadith that’s racist.

That’ll work.

““The BBC disagrees with you”
Larkers, I would be very worried if it didn’t.
Headscarf and bare arms? An observant Muslim woman? Not in all my years of living in a London borough with a large Muslim population.” – Someone.

Bare arms? Who mentioned bare arms?

Let me explain.

My point was that the BBC sanctioned this piece of cultural relativity nonsense (in fact it did not discuss the short film at all). The aggressive behaviour of the male was not an issue, apparently. The film’s message was plain; it was the females ‘inaction’ which occasioned the unwelcome attentions of this male character – behaviour which was magically transformed as soon as the female became a properly attired Moslem woman by covering her hair and upper body in cloth. It could not have been more explicit. The male’s reactions were most significant. Faced with an observant and modestly dressed Moslem he became absurdly apologetic and presumably went elsewhere to practice his chat up lines on a non observant or more compliant female victim.

(Subtext: Women bring on these unwelcome advances by their behaviour and so must be controlled. No such restriction or restraint is made upon male behaviour. This on the BBC in 2008 made by a young and one must suppose UK born and bred Moslem.)

Magna Carta is hardly going to do anything for equal citizenship of women with men. My copy (from Lincoln Castle) says that no man shall be convicted on the evidence of a woman, unless the charge is murdering her husband.

I also have a rather different take on young muslim women rejecting male attention. A friend explained an incident outside an FE college. A youth asked her the time. Apparently the code is (or was about 15 years ago!) if the woman answers in English she just might be interested, in any other language is tantamount to “urinate elsewhere”.

My friend answered in one of several languages that she speaks, but doesn’t write and carried on walking to her work. Why some kid thought she might fancy him was a surprise!

“Magna Carta is hardly going to do anything for equal citizenship of women with men. My copy (from Lincoln Castle) says that no man shall be convicted on the evidence of a woman, unless the charge is murdering her husband.” – Alan Ji.

Then read and understand. The principle was thereby established that this country was hence forth to be a country of Law. The English Common Law has developed progressively by practice over the intervening centuries. That 1215 was then and this is now depends on understanding that rather basic fact. Magna Carta was not a system or framework but a beginning.

English society developed from this basic principle. It is an essential concept to the inhabitants of this island (and an important influence internationally) that this legal framework is always developing alongside society not above and out of reach of it. It is progressive in nature. That is one of several important differences which are the grounds of much discussion on these threads in regard to Islam. The difference is clearly a profound one, and obvious.

Larkers @ 14 April 2009, 10:47 am

” profound one, and obvious”

I don’t agree that profound and obvious go together.

I think Common Law (or common lore, meaning custom and practice?) is rather older than the Norman conquest.

I’m not familiar with the history of tensions between whether the Monarch was above the law or not, but I believe they went on for some time.