Slaying The Prophets

To open a discussion in the world about something which deeply concerns everyone, and of which it was previously ignorant, to prove to it that it is mistaken on some vital point of temporal or spiritual interest, is as important a service as a human being can render to his fellow-creatures. That the messengers of these ideas should be martyred, that their reward should be to be dealt with as the vilest of criminals is a deplorable error and misfortune.

It will be said that we do not now put to death the introducers of new opinions: we are not like our fathers who slew the prophets. It is true we no longer put heretics to death: and the amount of penal infliction which modern feeling would probably tolerate, even against the most obnoxious opinions, is not sufficient to extirpate them. But let us not flatter ourselves that we are yet free from the stain even of legal persecution.’




 The BBC’s Nihal from the Asian Network was once asked this:

What do you think about Morrissey’s row with the NME over his comments on immigration?

And replied thus:

Quite frankly, I couldn’t give a toss what Morrissey says about race. No one really cares what he says about immigration because he has no influence on the political debate. Let him say what he wants to say because he has every right to say it. We live in a democracy.



The BBC has entered into the zone from which it has so long recoiled…that of discussing ‘Islam’ as a religion, what it proclaims and the values it demands of its followers. However they seem to be playing it ’safe’ by choosing Nihal, an Asian, to present the show demonstrating their nervousness about the subject…a white Christian obviously not having the ‘cultural capital’ or the right ’privilege’ to allow him to talk about such a subject…in the BBC’s mind.

Two American ‘counter Jihadists’ , Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller, were planning to come to the UK to lay some wreaths for Drummer Lee Rigby at an EDL organised event. This has been vociferously opposed by various groups and the BBC produced this programme asking if they should be banned from the UK.


Events have somewhat overtaken this post as Spencer and Geller have now both been banned from coming to the UK but that is a side issue here.

Spencer claims that he is drawing attention to the texts and teachings in Islam used by the Jihadis to justify their violence and says his work says nothing about all Muslims, just Jihadis, and he wants the Koran reformed….as do many Muslims.

To answer the question the BBC has to examine what ‘counter Jihadists’ say about Islam and then get a response from some ‘authority’ on Islam to try and counter their narrative by giving their own explanation and interpretation of the Koran for the listener.

Interestingly Nihal admits later that he has been repeatedly asked by Muslims to bring on an Imam to his show to talk about the claims that people such as Spencer make about the Koran.

This is exactly what this site has been asking the BBC to do…just as it has done for all other religions…..challenging and explaining their beliefs, values and the historical basis for their scriptures.

Nihal has a pretty good interview in many respects…skewering both the ‘Hope Not Hate’ spokesman and the Imam that came on to counter Spencer…..but you get the impression that Nihal was scrabbling around desperately for something to pin on Spencer who gave perfectly sound and reasonable answers and explanations.

Nihal in the end resorted to asking why, when we have so many people in this country already saying what Spencer says, do we need more people coming here to add to those voices? A pretty weak question if ever there was one.

Here is another such question that is hugely ironic when you consider what the BBC has done to Christianity….

Nihal states if you write a book called ‘Did Muhammed Exist?’, as Spencer has, you are provoking the wrath of many people who believe Muhammed to be dearer to them than their own family members….and asks…‘Is Spencer here to create racial hatred and communal disharmony or to put across a valid point?’

Why would pointing out the ‘medieval’ parts of the Koran or asking if Muhammed existed lead to racial hatred and communal disharmony?


Nihal brings on Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate and asks him: ‘Can you quote something Robert Spencer has said that is islamophobic?’ [The interview is paraphrased for brevity]

NL: ‘No….but he wrote a book ‘Did Muhammed Exist? And he’s a leading member of the Counter-Jihad movement.’

N: ‘Are you not counter Jihad?’

NL: ‘I am…I’m against all extremism but I think you’ll find that Spencer is not just against Jihadists but against all Muslims.’

N: ‘But can you quote something he’s said that is islamophobic?’

NL: ‘His organisation has produced adverts that call Muslims savages.’

N: ‘The advert says support Israel and defeat Jihad…the savage is the Jihadi surely?’

NL: ‘You have to look at the wider context…another poster from Spencer in 2010 said Islam equals 1400 years of aggression and murder.’

N: [Hasn’t heard of that poster]…’You can’t give me a single quote that says he’s islamophobic.’

[irony….Lowles wants to ban Spencer for his writing….claiming Spencer is an extremist because he wants to ban or change the Koran…difference of course that the koran advoctaes killing….Spencer does not.]

Nick Lowles goes onto attack Pamela Geller for a post she wrote examining why Breivik wanted to attack the Labour Party in Norway and her statement that Muslims have ‘Holocaust envy.’

Spencer than comes on.

He says that the advert Lowles mentioned was referring to the ‘savages’ who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam….and those like the Palestinian Authority who handed out candy to celebrate the slaughter of the Jewish Fogel family, and that Geller is misquoted.

Nihal says that Muslims are under ever increasing attack in the UK…day on day they are suffering attacks in fact. And asks ‘What help is it for you to come here to the UK…are you bringing peace, unity and harmony by demonising British Muslims?’

Sp: ‘No one is demonising British Muslims.’

N: ‘Well… they are.’

Spencer goes on to say that the quote attributed to him by Lowles about 1400 years of Muslim aggression and murder was never said by him and he has never put out an advert saying that.


Nihal  asks why would a non-Muslim write a book asking ‘Did Muhammed Exist’ if it wasn’t purely to provoke Muslims.

Surely the BBC would never consider doing anything so provocative?

This programme for instance: ‘Did Jesus die on the cross?’

Nothing ‘provocative’ about that?    Nothing wrong with questioning ‘the most famous event in history…the Crucifixion.’

The Crucifixion and resurrection….the cornerstone of the Christian faith…to doubt it is to undermine the whole basis of Christianity, the primary part, the heart of Christianity.

Here the BBC is ‘challenging the truth of biblical stories…that Jesus didn’t die is an explosive idea for Christians.’


Still…it’d be rude to ask if Muhammed really existed wouldn’t it?  You know…just to see if there was any evidence….where’s the harm?


Nihal then brings on an Imam…Yusuf Dohadwala [?] who says that quotes from the Koran are easily taken out of context.

Nihal here states that he has had many requests from Muslims to bring on an Imam to counter the arguments of the counter jihadists.

He asks the Imam ‘As an Imam who has studied the Koran and knows it inside out and back to front, please explain the context for these quotes…..the EDL and their like will make up their own minds what the Koran says if no one interprets it for them.’

Yusuf replies that ‘There are 3 million Muslims in the UK, they follow the Koran…am I ordered by the Koran, which I follow fully, from the time of 1400 years ago during the time of Jihad and fighting to kill Jews and Christians? No I am not.’

He continues: ‘If it says that Jews and Christians are inferior it is all about context….if it says they are unclean it means spiritually unclean.’

Nihal asks where in the Koran does it say everybody is equal?

Yusuf quotes a verse that he claims says this which shows how Muslims value all human lives:

“If anyone slays a person, it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people.”

But in fact what the verse says in the Koran is this:

5:32 On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person – unless it be in retaliation for murder or for spreading mischief in the land – it would be as if he slew all mankind: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of all humanity.

Following that verse is this which clearly indicates Allah is unconcerned by killing or torture:

5:33 The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter; Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.


Most merciful indeed.

Nihal doesn’t accept the Imam’s answer and asks again where the Koran says everyone is equal.

The Imam hilariously says he wasn’t asked on to talk about that and he isn’t able to quote anything off the top of his head.

Nihal exclaims: ‘But You’re an Imam!’

Yusuf says yes but this is more Robert Spencer’s field…knowing what the Koran says!

The Imam adds that wife beating is not sanctioned in the Koran….Spencer reads out the relevant passage from the Koran:

4.34 Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them. Then if they obey you, take no further action against them. Surely God is high, supreme.



I think it is more than apparent that Spencer’s opponents were both struggling to come up with any real counter to his comments….and to deny the truth about what he says the Koran really says and means.

Lowles lied about the content of one advert and then went on to lie about another claiming Spencer said something which he hadn’t in fact said.

The Imam deliberately misquoted the verse from the Koran which had nothing to do with ‘Muslims’ but was in fact ‘reporting’ an historical event concerning the Jews….this verse is regularly so misquoted by Muslims and apologists for Islam using it as the basis for their usual claim that Islam is the ‘religion of peace’.

This shows the limitations of BBC presenters….Nihal didn’t pick up that misquote…but it is  widely quoted and well known…..perhaps he should have been ready with the real quote?

Nihal was game to tackle both sides of the argument but he lacked the ammunition to do battle properly…especially when some speakers were less than honest.



Nick Lowles from Hope Not Hate also had a try at painting Pamela Geller as some sort of Nazi extremist and tried to connect her to Breivik.

In 2011 Geller published an article examining the reasons for Breivik’s crimes…this naturally, as it suits their agenda (as we’ve seen they are not beyond making things up), was reinterpreted by the likes of Hope Not Hate as support for Breivik.

Geller examined the state of politics in Norway, in particular the anti-Semitism of the governing Labour Party and what the young people were doing on the island.

It is apparent that Norway does not like Israel…and supports Hamas and the Palestinians and is prepared to excuse Palestinian terrorism as it’s ‘in a good cause’.

The events on the island were described as a ‘summer camp’ but were in fact a highly political event designed to indoctrinate the young Labour members…..and not only about Labour politics but about the rights and wrongs of the Palestine/Israel conflict.

This post was used as ‘evidence’ that Geller is an extremist herself and an apologist for Breivik.

Here is an example of what may be a bit of black propaganda from her opponents….Geller included a photograph from the camp on her post….this is what her opponents claim is a screen shot of that photo…note the caption:

Pam Geller Justifies Breivik’s Terror: Youth Camp Had More ‘Middle Eastern or Mixed’ Races Than ‘Pure Norwegian’

Under the picture, Geller writes: “Note the faces which are more MIddle [sic] Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.”



This is the picture and caption that they posted on their own article…note the difference in the way the caption is placed.




That article was dated Aug 1.….but I can find no cache of what they claim is Geller’s original caption…..which should have been posted on July 31.


What we do find is her ‘present’ post still dated 31 July…and from the ‘Wayback Machine’ the very same post cached on Aug 1.


The caption on Geller’s post reads:

The camp was run by the Youth Movement of the Labour Party and used to indoctrinate teens and young adults.’

The caption claimed to be hers on the screen shot does not make sense…it is claimed to say:

‘Note the faces which are more Middle Eastern or mixed than pure Norwegian.’

Look at the photo…where are these Middle Eastern students or the mixed race ones? There is one patently Asian man and one equally obviously African girl…the rest are nearly all white and blond….and no obvious ‘mixed race’ at all.

Is it possible that those attacking Geller are not above changing the caption… do we get two different versions of the same screen shot with the caption placed differently?


Nick Lowles also claimed that her statement that Muslims suffer from ‘Holocaust envy’ is utterly wrong…is it? Don’t Muslims frequently claim they are the ‘new Jews of Europe’?

Here’s what Labour’s Muslim MP, Shahid Malik had to say:

‘Britain’s first Muslim minister has attacked the growing culture of hostility against Muslims in the United Kingdom, saying that many feel targeted like “the Jews of Europe”.

Shahid Malik, who was appointed as a minister in the Department for International Development (Dfid) by Gordon Brown last summer, said it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority

“I don’t mean to equate that with the Holocaust but in the way that it was legitimate almost – and still is in some parts – to target Jews, many Muslims would say that we feel the exact same way.’


How about this:




There they are quoting the Norwegian, no surprise there maybe, 1st Secretary of the Norwegian embassy in Saudi Arabia:

Trine Lilleng is the first secretary of the Norwegian Embassy in Saudi Arabia.  Few know her but for the fact that she recently made this claim: “The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany.”‘


Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Slaying The Prophets

  1. Dazed & Confused says:


    It’s Nick “Lowles” not “Laws”, and some of his outright hypocrisy of late would make even the BBC think twice before allowing him another shot at making a follow up Panorama programme on the evil “Waycists” of Poland and the Ukraine, as hilariously seen before the European championships last year….

    Here we go….People are finally becoming sick and tired of this undemocratic goon…


    • Alan says:

      Oh Yes…thanks….any ideas on ‘Yusuf Dohadwala ‘?


      • noggin says:

        good enough ;-D, and easily forgettable.

        whats obvious here, the bbc narrative is simple, and it is of course insidious and a lie.
        far far …. far right… robert spencer pamela geller, (whose message is factual and truthful
        and if given chance to be expressed agreed with by the majority)
        vaz good old blokey bloke bloke, unelected warsi, (who have proven to be self serving, agended, grasping, manipulative and beneath contempt.).

        On tv spots on bbc news etc having the actual person involved, is only an after thought, while vaz is lauded … total inversion of reality, fact and truth.
        Cowardly “empty vessel” politics cause violence instil threat … and get your own way, as the moral spineless cower.
        The cynical logic seems to be, REAL hate preachers whip up hatred against, … Jews … or gay people … or soldiers, … or catoonists, or film makers,… or uncovered women, … our children… etc, appalling?
        BUT … NO violent response so thats ok?
        The ‘logic’ must be, for anyone to stop a REAL hate preacher, immediate violent confrontation?,
        a non-incentive to abide by the our law, and pander to the islamic method, capitulate to their well trodden path.


    • Mice Height says:

      Nick Lowles claims to be against all forms of extremism!!?? WTF (as the kids would say)
      He’s a former member of Red Action and was close friends with one of the 90’s Harrods bombers acting on behalf of the IRA, he’s a Communist, and he’s on record saying he wishes to see indiginous Brits driven from their towns.
      When will the BBC question him about this, not to mention his state funding.


  2. Demon says:

    “The grandchildren of Holocaust survivors from World War II are doing to the Palestinians exactly what was done to them by Nazi Germany.”

    So, where are the gas chambers, the ovens, the slave labour/death camps? The genocide practiced by the Nazis who exterminated one third to one half of the World’s population of Jews is exactly matched by the same happening to the Palestinian population, i.e. the 800,000 who chose to leave Israel in 1948 and number some 5 million or so today???

    So in what way does this Norwegian nazi think that the Israelis are doing exctly the same to the Paestinians? A genuinely evil person is, mercifully, rare. However, she sounds like she qualifies for that “distinction”.


  3. George R says:

    Alan, your almost ‘line-by-line’ dissection of this particular ‘Asian Network’ programme, is more than fair. It was par for the course that Spencer was outnumbered by ‘Hate Not Hope’ and an imam, that Spencer was not invited on the programme in the first place, and that he was the only target for constant interruptions by Nihal.

    To take a broader view of BBC-NUJ output relating to Islam, the following tendencies are apparent (and there are others):-

    1.) Islamic jihadists (and their supporters) are classified politically in the same sort of bracket as counter-jihadists such as Spencer and Geller.
    One often gets the impression that the English Defence League (EDL) is rated by BBC-NUJ as more politically egregious than e.g. Al Qaeda. For example, the BBC has a technical agreement with the Islamic broadcaster, Al Jazeera, whereby the BBC has access to Al Jazeera material on Bin Laden interviews, which BBC broadcasts. In contrast, BBC-NUJ’s politically attitude to the anti-Islamic jihadists of EDL is one of outright hostility.

    2.) The BBC’s output on Islam is heavily influenced by the political policies of the NUJ which are pro-Hamas, pro-Unite Against Fascism (UAF), and anti-Israel and anti-EDL.

    3.) In the BBC’s global broadcasting empire, it is apparent that a considerable amount of its output from Islamic countries is provided by local journalists, who seem, judging by much of their language and viewpoint, to adopt a pro-Islamic position.

    4.) On use of language, BBC-NUJ is inclined not to report e.g. Islamic jihadists as the subject of any massacre, or as the perpetrators. Instead, the passive tense is used; and words such as ‘men’ or ‘militants’ are misleadingly used, especially in headlines. This devious dogma seems to derive in large part from the BBC ‘madrassa’ of its ‘College of Journalism’ (CoJo).

    5.) Non-Muslim BBC-NUJ journalists usually give the impression of knowing very little about the tenets or the history of Islam; and such matters are inclined to be delegated to Muslims who get ‘carte blanche’ to provide an uncriticised, euphemistic version of Islam. As Alan pointed out, above, the BBC-NUJ treatment of e.g. Christianity is totally different, and more hostile.

    6.)The political line of BBC on Islam is perilously close to that of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, the OIC (representing 57 Islamic countries at the UN), which campaigns for the global criminalisation of criticism of Islam. As mentioned elsewhere, the BBC is empathetic towards ex-Gitmo, ex-Al Qaeda trainee, Binyam Mohamed, but hostile, and opposed towards Spencer and Geller.

    The OIC will be pleased at how its policy imperatives are being enacted by the ‘political Left-Islam alliance, which it must be said, on matters Islam, includes the BBC, judged on its global propaganda.


    • DP111 says:

      There is a suggestion that the BBC journo(Nihal) was fair, as he also gave a tough time to the imam.

      I don’t believe this to be the case. As in all BBC interviews, the interview is a setup to reflect and propagate BBC views. The BBC is now concerned, that after the slaughter of fusilier Lee Rigby, it is being perceived as Islamo-friendly, and not impartial, as it is required to be.

      The setup was as follows. The BBC invited Robert Spencer, a person who is expert on Islamic doctrine, and was linking the violence endemic in Muslims to Islamic texts. They then invited an imam, as the interviewer stated, who would provide expert rebuttal. The BBC interviewer could then sit back as a genuinely neutral person, assenting to the imams views, as if being swayed by his force of arguments.

      To the utter surprise of the BBC journo (Nihal?), the imam refused to debate koranic violence pointed out by Mr Spencer. Quite understandable and tactical. This left the BBC setup in total disarray. Listen to the interview again. What is evident, is the anger of the BBC journo directed at the imam, for not knowing the subject he was supposed to be expert on. Nihal like everyone else, assumed that an imam, like any normal vicar, would know his faith.

      The BBC journo was left high and dry. He could not take on Robert Spencer on the topic that he was invited for, so had to switch the attack on the EDL. And boy, was the attack on the EDL really vicious. Then the BBC journo linked Robert Spencer and Pamella Geller to the EDL. Mission accomplished.


      • DP111 says:

        What I do not find surprising is that Nihal did not pick the imam on being economic with Koran 5:32

        Because of that, We decreed upon the Children of Israel that whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. And our messengers had certainly come to them with clear proofs. Then indeed many of them, [even] after that, throughout the land, were transgressors.

        The verse refers to the children of Israel, Jews, and the context is the murder of Able by Cain.

        From verse 5:33, normal service resumes – kill, crucify and decapitate.

        Koarn “5:33 The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom;”


        • DP111 says:

          Abnd who are they who wage war omn allh? It s us. Soi look forward to a future of decapitation.

          Now the imam said that the vast majority of Muslims do not slit throats etc True enough. But in the koran or in Reliance of the Traveller, Muslims are advised to be meek and mild when weak.

          The true nature of Muslims comes out when they are in a near majority. Look around the world.


  4. George R says:

    On British government’s banning of Spencer and Geller:-
    “Britain capitulates to jihad”


  5. David Lamb says:

    The banning of Geller and Spencer, despite the refutation of arguments supporting this ban, should be taken as a warning to anyone who criticises Islam, or even the BBC’s bias in favour of Islam. The BBC has departed from rational argument based on assertion and refutation, and has taken the traditional leftist path of distortion, misrepresentation and ultimately censorship. This is also a standpoint endorsed by the present government (and opposition) and will be supplemented by actions on the streets by the UAF et al to suppress anything deemed to be offensive to Islamists. I fear that a line has been crossed and it may not be long before this blog, and others deemed to offend the religion of peace, will be targeted. For reasons of personal security I will no longer use my own name.


  6. BigT says:

    jihadwatch website taken down by hackers… allegedly … or is it now being blocked… you know like we can’t do with child abuse (porn) but should do.


  7. Alex Feltham says:

    The ironic thing is that the solution to our problem involves asking just those sort of questions that Spencer was barred entry for.

    On a lighter note. That guy at Ruthless Truth has written about how to annihilate the jihadis. It’s called: “So, What Now?” at:!/2013/06/so-what-now-ii.html

    On a lighter


  8. Teddy Bear says:

    There’s a particular irony to the webpage the BBC had for the article on this story.
    I’ve put red arrows next to it.algt37.png

    Who gets banned? 🙄


    • hippiepooter says:

      Very droll.

      I notice also that the BBC captions them as ‘anti-Islamisation’ inverted commas, but then describes them as ‘anti-Muslim’, without inverted comments.

      No value judgements there then.

      I think a key factor in Geller and Spencer being banned is that they were coming here at the invite of the EDL.

      Geert Wilders was banned inspite of being invited by Lord Pearson (his ban was eventually overturned of course), so one can’t say that it’s only because it’s the EDL that has invited them has led to the ban, but strewth, they have an appalling lack of judgement associating themselves with these fascist football thugs.

      Geller and Spencer have shared platforms with the likes of Douglas Murray and Melanie Phillips, they really should be asking themselves why their valiant British fellow counter-jihadis dont share a platform with the EDL (nor, I believe, does Geert Wilders).

      All the same, appalling lack of judgement withstanding, I’ve signed the petition condemning their ban. The Home Office have made no reference to their association with an extremist group here, it’s just falsified their counter-jihad work as ‘anti-muslim’.

      Oh, there BBC. Inverted commas. How biased is that of me?


      • Teddy Bear says:

        I also notice in the article that besides referring to comments made by Robert and Pamela, the only other quoted denouncing the decision is Tommy Robinson.

        Pro the decision is ‘a government spokesman’, as well as Keith Vaz, and a ‘Hope not Hate’ representative.

        Just the sort of balance we’ve come to expect from the BBC.

        I know lots of people who are not necessarily EDL (yet) but would certainly question the dubious wisdom of this decision that the BBC prefers to not find any examples of.

        I see also that Spencer denies the quote that the Home Office attribute to him:
        [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society because media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.

        To which Robert writes:

        I said no such thing, of course. I generally speak and write in coherent English. But the point is clear enough. I certainly have pointed out that Islam mandates warfare against unbelievers. This is not really a controversial point to anyone who has studied Islam at all.


        • David Preiser (USA) says:

          Universal Tommy. The Beeboids are very shrewd when it comes to these things.


        • hippiepooter says:

          Is it just me, or do a detect something derogatory in the BBC referring to Geller and Spencer as ‘bloggers’?

          There are members of ‘anti-fascist groups’ who ‘blog’, but they’re never referred to as ‘bloggers’, but, well, ‘anti-fascist activists’ or some such.

          The BBC seeks to demean Geller and Spencer as mere ‘internet loons’ with the term ‘bloggers’. If they were being objective as opposed to advancing a totalitarian left, jihad friendly agenda, they would refer to these counter jihad campaigners as … well, .. ‘counter jihad campaigners’ or bung ‘controversial’ in front of that if you like, as they do associate with the EDL.


        • dez says:

          This is a word for word transcript of what Robert Spencer said to camera in one of his videos. It is available on YouTube but I am not going to provide a link because I found the video as a whole to be abhorrent.
          I had the same feeling of disgust when attempting to watch “Der Ewige Jude” (couldn’t manage more than five minutes). The comparison will probably be lost on most people here, but the difference is little more than superficial.
          Robert Spencer is correct that he didn’t say all of those words in the Home Office Letter as a direct quote. The second part appears to be paraphrased. However the actual quote is just as (if not more) damning;
          [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.
          Americans need to know this. Western Europeans need to know this. Because Muslims are coming into Western Countries while holding these beliefs and intending to act upon them. They are the motivations behind Western terrorist activity; and they are the goals of millions of muslims in the United States and around the world.
          We need to know this so we can protect ourselves. But unfortunately because of Political Correctness, and because of media and general government unwillingness to face the sources of Islamic terrorism these things remain largely unknown.”
          Get that? It’s not “some” Muslims; it’s not “Islamist” Muslims; it’s “all Muslims“. Millions of them…
          All of “them” conscripted in a war against “us“.
          How is that not incitement to religious hatred?


          • John Anderson says:

            Rubbish. Millions does not mean all of them – it is millions out of 1.3 billion worldwide. Just 3% equates to 4 million – no-one can suggest that there is not this level of Islamist belief, it is likely much much higher.


            • dez says:

              [Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers…”
              That means that anyone who follows Islam is “mandated” to commit warfare against unbelievers does it not?
              Spencer doesn’t refer to “Islamist” or “Fundamentalist” or “Sunni” or “Shia” or any other of the countless denominations… just “Islam”.
              How exactly does that not include every Muslim on the planet; i.e. “all of them”?


              • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                So, Dez, you found the video nasty of a speech abhorrent.
                Well, have look at this link.
                Now that is what I call abhorrent.

                Take a look at the crowds watching these scenes. These folk are the so called moderates. You know, the ones who fall outside your convenient definition of islamists. That demonised group into which the apologists for Islam as a whole, manage to bundle up the wrongdoings of the savages.
                Yes I used the word savage, whatvelse would you call the people capable of such barbarism.
                These crowds of onlookers manage to be so disgusted by these acts of savagery, that they record the scenes on their mobile phones for posterity. How nice.
                Do you follow the prophet Muhammed Dez? Are you one of those moderates?

                The practical effects of Islam are obvious, wherever it exists there is barbarity.

                Abhorred by the video of a no- account blogger? Dont make me laugh.
                How many more videos do you want links for of real barbarity?


                • Dysgwr_Cymraeg says:

                  I guess we will see your response as soon as the nightshift begins at al beba.
                  Who did u upset to end up on the graveyard shift?


                • dez says:

                  “So, Dez, you found the video nasty of a speech abhorrent.
                  Well, have look at this link…”
                  It’s not a game of Top-Trumps Dysgwr. I found Robert Spencer’s video abhorrent because it was an hour and 30 minutes worth of propaganda stating that all Muslims were inherently evil.
                  Posting videos of various Muslims doing horrendous things is just as pathetic as posting pictures of dead people in Palestine as some sort justification of why Der Ewige Jude; “isn’t so bad after all”.
                  Your question; “Do you follow the prophet Muhammed Dez?” speaks volumes. Don’t know why? Well try getting a bit more education. Learn some history. At the moment the best you can possibly hope for is to be king of the idiots.
                  A step up in your social status perhaps…
                  [hugs] 🙂


              • Mark says:

                More worryingly, according to a poll of British Muslims, about one-third still believe in the death penalty for apostasy, i.e. leaving the Islamic faith.

                And, yes, I know what ‘Der Ewige Jude’ is. – it’s ‘The Eternal Jew’ – the Nazi propaganda film advocating the Final Solution of extermination of the Jews. I had also visited Auschwitz, so I think I know a bit of what I’m writing about.

                There are worrying parallels in our own madrassas, where Muslim children are encouraged not to socialise with non-Muslims, and where Jews and Christians are regarded as sub-human ‘pigs’ and ‘dogs’.
                There is indeed a parallel with Nazi Germany, but just who are the Nazis now ?


              • hippiepooter says:

                Because Scez dear boy not every Muslim follows what their religion mandates, but the fact – and it is ever so much a fact – that that is *exactly what their religion mandates.


              • David Preiser (USA) says:

                As Teddy Bear pointed out, Dez, Spencer has denied the very quote you’re using to prosecute him. Thoughts?


          • hippiepooter says:

            Scez wrote: “it’s “all Muslims“. Millions of them…

            Oh dear Scez, if anything is reminiscent of “Der Ewige Jude” it’s you telling a bare faced lie (from what you yourself quoted verbatim) about what Robert Spencer wrote.

            Robert Spencer’s actual words are reminiscent of Churchill’s warnings about Nazism. Heck, they’re even reminiscent about Churchill’s warnings about Islam:-


            What is definitely reminiscent of Nazi anti-Semitic propaganda is the cosmic blood libel that the Jewish State is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians.

            That cosmic obscenity is something often perpetrated by lefties who make common cause with the new Nazism of Islam and is something you remain resolutely quiet about.

            Throw up as much smoke as you like Scez, there’s nothing disguising the evil and bigotry of yourself and all those who’ve said bare-faced lies about Spencer and Geller. Melanie Phillips, as ever, brilliantly delineates the exquisite hypocrisy and evil here:-


            As sexually attractive as you find hirsute Muslim terrorists Scez, a substantial number of the British people nevertheless put the Defence of the Realm before your titilation.


            • Stewart says:

              “[Islam] is a religion and is a belief system that mandates warfare against unbelievers for the purpose for establishing a societal model that is absolutely incompatible with Western society.”


              Christians are mandated to love their neighbour even at cost to themselves
              Do all Christians act in accordance with that mandate No
              If only 10% did we would have heaven on earth
              Muslims are mandated to kill the non-believer. Do all Muslims act on that mandate No
              If only 10% did we would have a living hell


  9. stuart says:

    the only far right that exists in this country at the moment are anjem choudary and his supporters from the uaf/swp,same faces,same hatred


  10. Teddy Bear says:

    Melanie Phillips offers her view on the UK decision

    The British government’s jihad against free thought


      • Llareggub says:

        Perhaps Melanie Phillips speaks for those Jews who oppose the EDL as seen in the UAF demonstrations chanting ‘We are moslem we are Jew, we are more than you’. And in the call for Moslem-Jewish unity in the Jewish Chronicle. Given the threats to Jews the world over, I find this position odd, but there you are.


        • hippiepooter says:

          The difference between Melanie Phillips and Pam Geller, is that while they both can discern the stealth jihad of ‘moderate Muslims’, M/s Geller is completely purblind when it comes to racist street thugs seeking to exploit Islam to foment race war.

          Must be frustrating for EDL types that M/s Phillips is not duped by them.


          • Teddy Bear says:

            Actually I disagree with Melanie about the EDL, at least from the understanding I have.
            Bear in mind these are predominantly (lower) working class people who have been most affected by the excess immigration, as well as the Islamist groups that populate their towns. It’s understandable that when a voice like theirs are denied open expression, as has been, it will create further frustration that will manifest some other way. In a way the left wing mindset are creating a more robust opposition by trying to stifle a view that has merit. Perhaps the force that ultimately will ‘redress the balance’, as we have seen throughout history.

            I think whenever I’ve heard EDL leader, Tommy Robinson, speak, he’s made a lot of sense and does a very good job considering the opposition he faces most of the time from those interviewing him.


          • Stewart says:

            “Must be frustrating for EDL types that M/s Phillips is not duped by them. ”
            More so that you judge them on what others say they really mean rather than what they actually say


            • Stewart says:

              hippiepooter Its seems that the police ,according to BBC report just watched, adopt your policy on EDL’ Having just arrested Robinson and Carol (is that right spelling?) not for what they are doing, but for what other people say the might do and this just after they ,in presence of police assaulted ,by unnamed (by BBC) assailant


              • hippiepooter says:

                Robinson and Carroll deserved to get arrested. They refused to listen to the Police attempting to make enquiries about an incident they were party to so quite rightly they got arrested for obstruction.

                On the EDL youtube itself you see Carroll provoked the incident by pushing the guy in front of him saying “Get out of my f***ing way”. He should consider himself lucky if he doesn’t have public order charges brought against him too.

                As an aside utterly repulsive that Robinson and Carroll try to use a dying girl for a publicity stunt.

                But that’s the EDL for you. What does one expect from football hooligans with a BNP background?


                • Stewart says:

                  That’s not what it looked like to me on real time video
                  looked to me that police had run out
                  reasonable excuses to arrest them
                  so made up an unreasonable excuse
                  I think your view, of incident in particular and EDL generally, is distorted by old fashioned snobbery


  11. DYKEVISIONS says:

    The BBC could not help itself about the grooming story; listen to Robert Piggott, the ‘religious affairs’ correspondent, come up with this factoid in his little ditty on the 7am news bulletin:-
    at 1hour 4 minutes 14sec

    ‘Although MOST grooming is carried out online by WHITE MEN…’ phew, I thought for one moment that only ‘Asian’
    men got on with this.