Britain's Establishment Muslim Organization Defends Pakistan and Iran

It seems that Fiyaz Mughal's Tell Mama organization has overstepped its jurisdiction of “measuring and monitoring anti-Muslim attacks in the UK” to defend the Muslim hellhole that is Pakistan and the Islamic theocracy that is Iran.  This latest article from Tell Mama ('Yet More Tabloid Islamophobia, the Peter Hill Article'), written by Steven Rose, is itself a response to an article written by Peter Hill for the UK's Daily Express: 'Why does Britain feel so obliged to accommodate for minorities?' (published on the 7th of April).

Steven Rose questions Peter Hill's following assertion:  “I wonder if Muslim countries go out of their way to cater for other faiths. Actually, I don’t wonder.... ['Muslims countries'.. 'think that'] 'unbelievers' don’t even belong to the human race.”  According to Steven Rose, that assertion “is not true”.

It seems strange that in response to Peter Hill's purported view that Muslims are “monolithic”, Steven Rose comes out with an equally generalized statement: no Muslim, and no Muslim/Islamic state, believes that unbelievers “don't even belong to the human race”. Really? Not only are there countless statements in the Koran and hadith which say precisely that: numerous Muslim leaders, from Muhammad himself to clerics/leaders in various Muslim states today, have also said precisely that.  For example, Christians, Jews, "unbelievers", “idolaters”, “polytheists”, etc. are referred to -- in the Koran and hadith -- as “cattle”, “apes”, “swine”, “pigs” and so on. Even the New Statesman's Mehdi Hasan famously referred to all non-Muslims as “cattle”.

As stated, Steven Rose ignores the massive persecution and killing of non-Muslims that goes on in Muslim countries. He chooses, instead, to pick some egregious choice-specimens of Islamic love, peace and tolerance. And even here Rose's few positive examples aren't quite what they seem.,,,

Steven Rose then tackles Pakistan. He tells us that Pakistan's “National Assembly reserves ten seats for non-Muslims”....  

Now, amongst the many screenshots of Tweets and Facebook pages you might have seen on Tell Mama, I bet you've never seen anything like the following:
i) At least a dozen Christians have been given death sentences -- and half a dozen murdered -- after being accused of violating Pakistani blasphemy laws in recent years. In 2005 alone, 80 Christians were behind bars due to these laws.
ii) November, 2005: 3,000 militant Islamists attacked Christians in Sangla Hill in Pakistan and destroyed Roman Catholic, Salvation Army, and United Presbyterian churches.....

But we must add two more things to that list of Islamic persecution and killing in Pakistan: Islamic terrorism against Christians (such as Peshawar last year) and Muslim communal violence against Christians.

For example, Pastor Nadeem Mukhtar, writing a year ago, had this to say about the situation in Lahore alone:  “Hi all friends. I am Pastor Nadeem from Lahore Pakistan. More than 250 houses of Christians are burnt by Muslims in Lahore Pakistan, Please pray for that.”  And in response to the terrible persecution of Christians in Pakistan, Silas Jacob implored: “O lord, Help the Pakistani Christians to migrate and give them the resources to do so.”

http://americanthinker.com/2014/04/britains_establishment_muslim_organization_defends_pakistan__iran.html

It was Andy Warhol who remarked that one day we'd all have our fifteen minutes of fame. I'm now into my fifth day of online infamy - thanks to the blog, Harry's Place (as well as a blog on the Spectator). The former has devoted much time and energy, over five separate posts, to quoting selectively, and out of context, from various informal talks that I have given in recent years, in front of numerous British Muslim (and non-Muslim) audiences.

The end result? Commenters at Harry's Place have decided that I am an ally of "Andy Choudary" (I assume they mean Anjem Choudary, from the radical Muslim group, al Muhajiroun), that I come from a Hizb ut Tahrir "background" and that I'm a "raving Islamist bigot". One commenter says, "we are considering a misguided, arrogant, dangerous Muslim shit-head for a form of hate speech in the same genre as a Hitler rally, based on the Koran."

But consider this:

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who have written a piece entitled "There's nothing Islamic about a state" , as I did for the New Statesman in April, in which I concluded, with the words of secular Muslim professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, that "the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility"?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who challenge senior members of Hizb ut Tahrir in public debates, as I did with HT's Dr Imran Wahid in a debate on the future of European Islam in June 2006?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who believe not simply in parliamentary democracy but who passionately and publicly immerse themselves in the current campaign for the introduction of proportional representation via "AV plus", as I did earlier this month in the Vote for a Change campaign rally at Methodist Hall, where I shared a platform with Peter Tatchell and Polly Toynbee?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chair and shape public debates on the future of the social-democratic centre-left, as I did at the annual Compass conference last month?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell an audience of Muslims that Islam is a "humanitarian" faith and insist that Muslim nations in the Middle East would be under an Islamic obligation to come to Israel's help were the Jewish state to suffer, God forbid, from a horrible natural disaster like an earthquake, as I did in a speech in February this year (a speech, incidentally, singled out for praise by former counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty who was present in the audience that afternoon)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who publicly denounce "those in our community who decry any collaboration any cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims, who describe all non-Muslims as kafirs whom we owe nothing to, whom we need not offer any help or charity to" as I did in a speech in February this year ("I want to disassociate myself and all of us here from such extremist Muslims," I said at the time)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chastise Muslim audiences for daring "to criticize the way this country is run.... complaining and whining and moaning about how we're treated" when "we don't bother to exercise our basic right to vote", and who urge British Muslims to be "an engaged and outward-looking community....politically and socially proactive", as I did in a speech in a north London mosque in October 2007?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell a Muslim audience that "nowhere in the Quran, when we read it properly, can we find any justification for violence against civilians, for indiscriminate attacks of terror against noncombatants, against women, against children. Nowhere!", as I did in a speech in Manchester in September 2007, called "Disconnecting Islam from Violence" (and, again, quoted out of context by my anonymous critics at Harry's Place)?

I have spent my entire life, from secondary school to university to my professional life as a journalist, encouraging Muslims to be moderate, and to integrate, rather than remain outside the mainstream of British society. And I have had innumerable stand-up rows with extremist Muslims who think I am not Muslim enough; as well as with aggressive atheists who think I am not liberal or secular enough. It is par for the course.

So, what did I say, back in February, prior to joining the New Statesman, that has sent one corner of the blogosphere into such an angry frenzy? In the section from the speech quoted prominently (and, once again, out of context) at Harry's Place, I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle". In fact, I am quoting from the Quran - where the word "kafir" simply means "non-Muslim" or "non-believer" and it is in this sense (in fact, in its atheistic sense), and no other, that I used it. I do, however, acknowledge that in the hands of a few Muslim extremists, the word has taken on more sinister connotations. Perhaps it is a time for a debate on the future of this term - or, alternatively, to reclaim it from the bigots and radical Islamists. The Quranic phrase "people of no intelligence" simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient. As for the metaphorical use of the word "cattle", that has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers - plus, you will note that I also refer to unthinking Muslims as "cattle" in the same speech, which was addressed primarily as a critique of my co-religionists (as you can see here and here).

Thankfully, many of my closest non-Muslim colleague and friends over the years have recognized that I am neither an Islamist, nor an extremist of any kind - Jonathan Dimbleby, for example, has said: "Mehdi is a devout Muslim but is at all times entirely within the framework of liberal democratic society. He typifies the best of British."

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/dissident-voice/2009/07/Islamic-extremists-Muslim

Quote Didge:   waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle.... (and, once again, out of context) at Harry's Place, I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle".

Bless you did highlight him and then end up with egg on your face for doing so Tess, as the man is simply able to correct poor claims against him.

Never mind Tess, you failed to see this point again:









So, what did I say, back in February, prior to joining the New Statesman, that has sent one corner of the blogosphere into such an angry frenzy? In the section from the speech quoted prominently (and, once again, out of context) at Harry's Place, I seem to refer to atheists as "kafirs", as "people of no intelligence" and as "cattle". In fact, I am quoting from the Quran - where the word "kafir" simply means "non-Muslim" or "non-believer" and it is in this sense (in fact, in its atheistic sense), and no other, that I used it. I do, however, acknowledge that in the hands of a few Muslim extremists, the word has taken on more sinister connotations. Perhaps it is a time for a debate on the future of this term - or, alternatively, to reclaim it from the bigots and radical Islamists. The Quranic phrase "people of no intelligence" simply and narrowly refers to the fact that Muslims regard their views on God as the only intellectually tenable position, just as atheists (like Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris) regard believers as fundamentally irrational and, even, mentally deficient. As for the metaphorical use of the word "cattle", that has no more pejorative charge than does the word "sheep" when applied by atheists to religious believers - plus, you will note that I also refer to unthinking Muslims as "cattle" in the same speech, which was addressed primarily as a critique of my co-religionists (as you can see here and here).

Didge wrote:Bless you did highlight him and then end up with egg on your face for doing so Tess, as the man is simply able to correct poor claims against him.

Never mind Tess, you failed to see this point again:

Oh I've seen his point exactly to try to backtrack and pretend he didn't say what he did. He said "The kaffars, the disbelievers who remain deaf and stubborn to Islam, they are described in the quran as "a people of no intelligence" - allah describes them as people of "no intelligence" - because they're incapable of the intellectual effort it requires..."

So he himself has described non-musims as kaffars who are stubborn to Islam, and said, himself, that they're incapable of intellectual effort.. so it's him who has insulted non-Muslims and called them stupid, as well as quoting the quran - (as if it's acceptable anyway that the quran describes us as stupid cattle!)

Also you haven't listened to the other video - and there are more, of him dropping his suit and tie veneer and showing what he's really about.

and p.s. If you think that by saying bless in reply to everyone's posts makes you sound more intelligent - it doesn't work dear.

PMSL so what is wrong with as I and others do claim people are not intelligent when they follow religion? Is that no different as he just explained to you?

Seriously get a grip woman, considering you have utterly no issue with Muslims be insulted daily, you then use a Muslim fighting back at atheists, of which he stated was the reason to hit them back with their own views.

Again you need to get a grip Tess, because you certainly never give a tiny rats arse when people insult Muslims, hence your feeble attack on him is absurd and very hypocritical.


I guess you also missed these many points:






* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who have written a piece entitled "There's nothing Islamic about a state" , as I did for the New Statesman in April, in which I concluded, with the words of secular Muslim professor Abdullahi An-Na'im, that "the Islamic state is a historical misconception, a logical fallacy and a practical impossibility"?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who challenge senior members of Hizb ut Tahrir in public debates, as I did with HT's Dr Imran Wahid in a debate on the future of European Islam in June 2006?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who believe not simply in parliamentary democracy but who passionately and publicly immerse themselves in the current campaign for the introduction of proportional representation via "AV plus", as I did earlier this month in the Vote for a Change campaign rally at Methodist Hall, where I shared a platform with Peter Tatchell and Polly Toynbee?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chair and shape public debates on the future of the social-democratic centre-left, as I did at the annual Compass conference last month?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell an audience of Muslims that Islam is a "humanitarian" faith and insist that Muslim nations in the Middle East would be under an Islamic obligation to come to Israel's help were the Jewish state to suffer, God forbid, from a horrible natural disaster like an earthquake, as I did in a speech in February this year (a speech, incidentally, singled out for praise by former counter-terrorism minister Tony McNulty who was present in the audience that afternoon)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who publicly denounce "those in our community who decry any collaboration any cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims, who describe all non-Muslims as kafirs whom we owe nothing to, whom we need not offer any help or charity to" as I did in a speech in February this year ("I want to disassociate myself and all of us here from such extremist Muslims," I said at the time)?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who chastise Muslim audiences for daring "to criticize the way this country is run.... complaining and whining and moaning about how we're treated" when "we don't bother to exercise our basic right to vote", and who urge British Muslims to be "an engaged and outward-looking community....politically and socially proactive", as I did in a speech in a north London mosque in October 2007?

* How many Islamists or Islamic extremists do you know who tell a Muslim audience that "nowhere in the Quran, when we read it properly, can we find any justification for violence against civilians, for indiscriminate attacks of terror against noncombatants, against women, against children. Nowhere!", as I did in a speech in Manchester in September 2007, called "Disconnecting Islam from Violence" (and, again, quoted out of context by my anonymous critics at Harry's Place)?

I have spent my entire life, from secondary school to university to my professional life as a journalist, encouraging Muslims to be moderate, and to integrate, rather than remain outside the mainstream of British society. And I have had innumerable stand-up rows with extremist Muslims who think I am not Muslim enough; as well as with aggressive atheists who think I am not liberal or secular enough. It is par for the course.


Seriously, do you need a tissue to wipe all that egg off?

[quote="Didge"]PMSL so what is wrong with as I and others do claim people are not intelligent when they follow religion? Is that no different as he just explained to you?

Seriously get a grip woman, considering you have utterly no issue with Muslims be insulted daily, you then use a Muslim fighting back at atheists, of which he stated was the reason to hit them back with their own views.

Again you need to get a grip Tess, because you certainly never give a tiny rats arse when people insult Muslims, hence your feeble attack on him is absurd and very hypocritical.


I guess you also missed these many points:

(wall of c&p)
[quote]

Let's move on then. I won't fall for your usual ploy of going round and round and round on one point and ignoring the rest of the OP. So - what about the rest of the article I posted?

Well what do you wanna know Tess, that an article claims people are defending two countries, that the writer of the article with his view point holds that we view them as scum, based off who they are governed by and how someone tries to defend against prejudice views based on these two countries as now a reason to say what exactly?

That they are clutching at straws, that people defend with views as was the case here that not all people are bad in both these nations, when the link you have is of the opinion "all" are as they portray them?

Sorry but did you actually have any relevant point?

There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most extreme members:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most extreme members:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most moderate members:

Naivety

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most extreme members:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most moderate members:

Naivety

Yes that is exactly what you are, naive to hate

Tesstacious wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most extreme members:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nutpicking

There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most moderate members:

Naivety

Also stupidity

smelly_bandit wrote:

Tesstacious wrote:
There's a term for judging a group of people based on their most moderate members:

Naivety

Also stupidity

Yes hate and prejudice are very stupid

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:

Also stupidity

Yes hate and prejudice are very stupid

So is the association fallacy you always use on Muslims

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:

Yes hate and prejudice are very stupid

So is the association fallacy you always use on Muslims

I do not use association fallacies on Muslims, because I see each as individuals, you though do use association fallacies through the fact they follow Islam, and then proceed to offer your own uneducated view on Islam.

Didge wrote:

smelly_bandit wrote:


So is the association fallacy you always use on Muslims

I do not use association fallacies on Muslims, because I see each as individuals, you though do use association fallacies through the fact they follow Islam, and then proceed to offer your own uneducated view on Islam.

You're the biggest user of association fallacy didge

I've even broken it down for how you do it on the Islam prejudice thread

smelly_bandit wrote:

Didge wrote:


I do not use association fallacies on Muslims, because I see each as individuals, you though do use association fallacies through the fact they follow Islam, and then proceed to offer your own uneducated view on Islam.

You're the biggest user of association fallacy didge

I've even broken it down for how you do it on the Islam prejudice thread

Really, that is funny when I just exposed you doing so again.

Again can you show me millions of Muslims engage in endless war for 1400 years then can you?

You illogical concept of association fallacies which was borrowed by the way from another idiot on the web, was as seen comical to say the least, ignoring your own association fallacy trying to poorly reverse it, it made me PMSL

Sure can

Muslims have been waging war since muhhamads time

They attacked and sacked the Byzantine empire and then ravaged their way across the world all the way to rome and Europe and since then they have been in a constant state of war either against each other or expanding their religion at the tip of a sword

smelly_bandit wrote:Sure can

Muslims have been waging war since muhhamads time

They attacked and sacked the Byzantine empire and then ravaged their way across the world all the way to rome and Europe and since then they have been in a constant state of war either against each other or expanding their religion at the tip of a sword

Really for every year and every Muslim being involved?


Please do show me