Lord Ahmed has been one of the noisiest voices demanding a ban on Geert Wilders*, claiming that Wilders is a danger to this country. In reality fewer people have been killed as a result of Fitna than have been killed as a result of Lord Ahmed's text messaging habits.
Ahmed use to be a kind a professional moderate but he has been making definite moves to get in with radical islamists and other nutters of late with stunts including overt threats to Parliament, palling around with terrorists, promoting neo-nazis and praising Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister for a rant in which he promoted an antisemitic conspiracy theorist.
Shouldn't Labour be kicking Lord Ahmed out?
* I'll echo the obligatory disclaimer that Wilders isn't much of a free speech martyr given that he wants to ban Islam.
Update: There appears to be some argument of what Wilders has called for, he hasn't called for a ban on Islam as I wrote earlier, but there have been claims that he called for the banning of the Koran. However it appears that he argued that if the Netherlands was going to have incitement laws it should equally apply to the Koran as any other literature, which isn't exactly calling for a ban.
Not spiked, no, badly made
35 minutes ago
16 comments:
Trouble is, Lord Ahmed as won.
As have all the extremists on one side of the debate.
Whatever one's opinion of Wilders' film - and I found it unpleasant and bigoted - we should be able to expect a full and open discussion, not capitulation to those who make the most noise.
D
He's won in the sense that Wilders can't come over but I think the PR backlash has been disastrous for the government and Lord Ahmed.
'I'll echo the obligatory disclaimer that Wilders isn't much of a free speech martyr given that he wants to ban Islam'
Correction- he wants to ban the Koran, in Holland only (or at least for as long as the ban on Mein Kampf stays in place).
He isn't an ideal free speech martyr by a long chalk (I first came across his name in Buruma's 'Murder in Amsterdam', and the impression I gleaned wasn't too favourable)- but he has managed to get the UK Govt. to score a spectacular own goal.
No0t sure about the whole argument about Wilder's not being a martyr to free speech if he supports treating the Koran the same way they treat Mein Kampf.
In sure far as the Tory's Sayedda Warshi supports terrorism in India, does that mean we can shoot her?
DJ- I take the point, but it would still have shown up the double standards more forcefully if Wilders was an absolutist on free speech.
"Correction- he wants to ban the Koran, in Holland only (or at least for as long as the ban on Mein Kampf stays in place)."
OK correction noted. I suppose the government should be asked what moves have been made to ban representitives of the Saudi government who actually do ban religious texts (including the bible) rather than simply propose it.
There is no conflict between advocacy of free expression and advocacy of banning the Qur'an and/or Islam.
Islam is supremely intolerant, declaring all who do not embrace it to be rebels against Allah, to be tortured and killed in this world and burned forever in the next.
The first and most essential right is the right to life, which Islam does not recognize. Moe declared that our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims until we become Muslim.
For the mentally slow set: Moe's declaration, found in Bukhari 1.8.387, is a declaration of open season upon Kuffar.
The Qur'an is an everlasting incitement to genocidal conquest using terrorism for tactical advantage. There is ample reason for banning it, but no practical way to make a ban effective.
Wilders demands that Muslims remove the violent verses. That demand is impossible to meet because the Qur'an is perfected and immutable. Allah's word can not be changed.
Read Allah's word and curse Islam!
A passing thought - has Lord Ahmed been sentenced yet - it was to be on 22 December, then 19 January - can't trace the eventual outcome.
Geert Wilders does not advocate banning Islam.
He argued, once, in parliament, that as Mein Kampf was banned as a result of its extreme incitement it made no sense for Mo's Big Book on How to Hate the Infidel in 1,001 Easy Suras to not be similarly banned.
In the same speech he expressed support for Muslims who don't want to see us all reduced to slaves or Muslim or dead.
For reference, a translation of the words Wilders actually used:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/024800.php
"There is no conflict between advocacy of free expression and advocacy of banning the Qur'an and/or Islam. "
There quite obviously is a conflict between the two positions.
He argued, once, in parliament, that as Mein Kampf was banned as a re"sult of its extreme incitement it made no sense for Mo's Big Book on How to Hate the Infidel in 1,001 Easy Suras to not be similarly banned."
I'll include an update elaborating on what Wilders has and hasn't done.
'Lord' Ahmed.
Ain't my lord mate!
Let me understand this correctly. This paymaster of the Labour party, was then APPOINTED to the Lords as a 'quid pro quo' for services rendered.
He now uses his undemocratic position to whip up his pet rioters in an, so far successful attempt to intimidate the government.
That 'Lord' Ahmed?
Where in law, reason or morality do you find the right to:
1. invade & conquer
2. captivate & rape women
3. captivate & enslave children?
Unless there is a right to rapine, there can be no right to practice & propagate Islam.
Rights & responsibilities must be reciprocal. Islam does not recognize the right to life, neither does it recognize the right of free expression. Open your copy of Umdat as-Salik to Book O and read the following citations:
O8.7 :
-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as ``Allah is the third of three,'' or ``I am Allah''-unless one's tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;
-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);
-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;
-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;
O11.10 [acts breaking treaty of dhimmitude]
-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.
what does koran say about torah and gospel
http://www.conflictingviews.com/religion/all-religions/koran-says-torah-gospel-not-corrupted-3324.html
The assertion is false, Mohamed. 22:52 says that Satan threw some falsehood into every Prophet's message.
4:157 denies the crucifixion, death & resurrection of Christ, directly contradicting the Gospels. Other ayat declare that God has no son, that Jesus was only a slave and messenger.
Verse 22-52 also says that Satan does not succeed. As far as crucifixion the Koran says "they" did not crucify him and it appeared to "them", meaning the Jews. It did not say that Jesus was not crucified but denied the Jewish claim that they killed the Messiah. Read the Talmud about this issue.
Post a Comment