Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Well, At Least He’s Not Geert Wilders!

Most readers will remember the refusal of Great Britain to allow Geert Wilders entry into the UK back in February. Her Majesty’s government, in its infinite wisdom, determined that The Blond was a threat to public order and community cohesion. The Home office judged that he would tend to incite religious and racial hatred by his very presence.

Mr. Wilders’ sin was to point out that Islam is a hateful, intolerant, and subversive force in Europe and needs to be contained. Such sentiments — which would seem nothing more than common sense to most ordinary Europeans, who have to bear the brunt of Islamization — put him beyond the pale. His dangerous ideas required that he be excluded from British society.

Sheikh Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, on the other hand, is just the kind of bloke to warm the hearts of the Mandarins of Westminster. Sheikh Al-Sudais is not one of those nasty Caucasian “racists”, but a minister in Britain’s fastest-growing faith community.

The fact that he believes Jews are the “offspring of apes and pigs” — yes, there really are Muslims who say such things! — is of no consequence. His presence in the nook-shotten Isle of Albion is bound to enhance community cohesion, so it’s time to put out the welcome mat for him.

Here’s the latest scoop on this “teachable moment” for the Home Office:

Home Office Caught Out by Hate Preacher

Abdul Rahman Al-SudaisSHEIKH Abdul Rahman Al-Sudais, the Imam of the Great Mosque of Mecca, will be leading prayers at the East London Mosque at around 9 o’clock tonight. But should he be afforded the privilege?

In 2005, an edition of BBC’s Panorama programme called “A Question of Leadership” claimed that Al-Sudais (pictured, on the left) has, in the past, preached in Mecca that Jews were “monkeys and pigs”, “rats of the world” and the”offspring of apes and pigs”; that Christians were “cross worshippers…those influenced by the rottenness of their ideas and the poison of their cultures the followers of secularism”, and that Hindus were “idol worshippers.”

When challenged by the Muslim Council of Britain on the veracity of such claims, Panorama editor Mike Robinson maintained, “I can assure you that he did. His sermons are available from a Saudi website covering mosques in the holy cities of Medina and Mecca and the translation we used was verified by BBC Monitoring, a fluent Arab speaker on our production team, and a translator outside the BBC.”

Claims that he also called for God to “terminate” Jews lie behind the cancellation of some of his lectures in the US and a ban on entering Canada.
- - - - - - - - -
“It’s extraordinary that the Home Secretary is allowing him into the country — especially since the government has banned other hate preachers who have said far less inflammatory things,” human rights campaigner, Peter Tatchell (pictured, on the right) tells me.

“At the very least the directors of the East London Mosque should insist Al-Sudais makes a statement renouncing his past anti-Semitism and expressing opposition to hate and vile attacks on Jewish people.”

The director of the East London Mosque was stalwart in defence of Al-Sudais, however: “These are some of the old reports by Islamophobes. He is very popular. He’s not just coming to our mosque, he is also visiting major mosques around the country.”


Hat tip: Steen.

64 comments:

Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Dymphna said...

...there are certainly hateful, intolerant and subversive radical Muslims there. That needs to be made clear...

Ummm...I think that's clear lready. It's so absolutely transparently clear. Clear as a bell.

What I'd like is more moderate Muslims to muddy things a bit and speak up instead of letting the ranters take up all the oxygen in the room.

I mean, aren't all the tolerant, wise Muslims embarrassed by these haters?

When I hear some Christian fundamentalist beating his drum in order to march the heretics out of the Church, I'm certainly embarrassed for the poor sod.

Maybe it's a cultural thing?? Maybe moderate Muslims don't feel the need to tell these shrieks to tone it down? Or come out with a coherent and firm defense of women and children?

The few moderates I've met are quite secular and their main interest is making money. In those respects, they are much like many Americans.

4Symbols said...

Solkhar

"confuse between legitimate jihad and…the terrorizing of peaceable people"

Was this statement not made in relation to the Riyadh suicide attacks in 2003 and therefore the "peaceable people" who should not be terrorised refers to muslims particularly within Saudi Arabia.

Can you define what exactly al-Sudais meant by legitimate jihad?

WAKE UP said...

Words words words... when "moderate" Muslims are in the streets in their hundreds protesting AGAINST the excesses of their own religion's lunatics (which will happen when pigs fly), then we might take some notice.

It's a sad, morbid, little religion that has to desperately continue to try to re-define itself as "moderate", but continues to fail at every hurdle.

Cyrus said...

Keeping with the theme of al-Sudais' rant against others as idolators, it turns out that Muslims too are idolators. They worship the giant meteorite they've dubbed "Kaaba".

VH said...

@ Solkhar: "monkeys and pigs", "rats of the world", "offspring of apes and pigs", and urging to "terminate" people", etc., is quite something to recall, as you will agree.

Now you yourself use words like "this filth", "ugly, a disease", etc., to describe a decent democratic politician whose political views you do not agree with, and place his political views in one line with Hamas. Others you do not really agree with, you name "low-life" and "sc*m". Not unlike your man "Al-Sudais" (who preaches in one of the two 100% apartheids-cities in the Word that happen to be Islamic) I must say.

As someone else said of you: "The concerning thing is, Sokhar considers himself to be a moderate. I pray non of us every have a run in with a radical."

Now if you allow me, I have a task for you. Provide a definition here — as short as possible — of:

1) A radical Muslim
2) An ultra-conservative Muslim
3) A hateful, intolerant and subversive radical Muslim
4) A Muslim
5) A moderate Muslim

VH said...

@ Cyrus: Exactly, and interesting you mention this. Because there is more like that: With the "crescent"-and-star icon, or "Hilal", Muslims actually pay tribute to ancient pagan gods. That icon seems to predate Islam with many centuries, going back to Babylonian times. And it is not a "Moon-crescent", but it depicts the Sun and Moon (and a Star), in which the Moon eclipses the Sun…

(The New Orleans Police used a similar logo in the 19th century, but that is of later date:)

Robin Shadowes said...

And as if this is not enough, nutjob Anjem Choudary demands in his latest rant, that Queen Elizabeth II should be trialed and executed for allowing british soldiers fighting against mahoundians in Afghanistan. What Britain needs now is a queen like the one in Alice in Wonderland. One who points at Mr Choudary and screams: "OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!"

Watching Eagle said...

here

DP111 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DP111 said...

Wilders is the one politician who truly understands the ferocious nature of Islam, just as Churchill did. Wilders is a very brave man to take this position, as he knew the consequences would be death threats. He is now unable to live a free life in his own country.

I have great admiration for him, and I'm sure we all do, for the very courageous stand he has taken. Lets hope and pray that he does not get murdered by one of the faithful.
-------------------------------

Meanwhile in Pakistan, Christians are being murdered for being Christians. Normal stuff.

AND in Bangladesh

DHAKA, Bangladesh, August 4 (Compass Direct News) – At the urging of local Muslim leaders, police in western Bangladesh have tortured a pastor and two other Christians for legally proclaiming Christ.

Habibur Rahman, 45, pastor of Boalia Spiritual Church (Boalia Ruhani Jamat) in Boalia in Cuadanga district, 220 kilometers (136 miles) west of Dhaka, said he was about to meet with 11 others for a monthly meeting on evangelism at 8 p.m. on June 8 when local police stormed in and seized him and Zahid Hassan, 25, and a 40-year-old Christian identified only as Fazlur.

The first question the police commander asked him, Rahman said, was, “Why did you become Christian?”

“Using a lot of filthy words, he charged me that I was teaching the Bible and converting people to Christianity in this area,” the pastor told Compass....

The commander who seized him and the two others was a sub-inspector with the name Khaleque on his badge, Rahman said. Police dragged them to a nearby parked vehicle and transported them to Shamvunagar police camp.

“Police told us, ‘We will teach you in the camp how to forget your Christ,’ while dragging us to the vehicle,” said Rahman.

“We want a Christian-free society

Keep these people in your minds and prayers.

Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Czechmade said...

Solkhar, glad to hear from you that you detest radicals like mohammad who killed many people for nothing.

But you go even further - you detest also people who are only vocally radical (violent).

Wilders likes mohammad-free muslims to stay in Holland. Here you are mistaken.

erdebe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
anti-uffe said...

We should all be grateful for someone like Solkhar to come here and present a textbook case of taqiyya and kitman, and the impossibility of selling his brand of religion to readers well versed in textual critique.

You see, Solkhar has one crucial problem of pedagogy that he can never rise above: He cannot change his point of reference and put himself in his readers' shoes. No matter what lengths he goes to in order to debunk or criticize those who dislikes his religion cum ideology, he ultimately ends up confirming what we already know - Islam is an unsellable pile of camel dung.

Everything he writes here is futile and a waste of time, and for this we should be grateful.

Zenster said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DP111 said...

Not all radicals are a problem. Buddhist radicals are no problem. But Muslim radicals, fundamentalists or just true believers of Islam, are a problem, as they behead people, or behead little Christian girls going to school. They are the ones who are burning Christians alive right now in Pakistan. It just never stops.

People who realise the huge problem that Islam and Muslims have become for the West, are not bigots but realists. Wilders is not a bigot, a man who has lost his freedom because of Muslims. Far from it. He is fighting for freedoms that we took for granted.

Solkhar, I dont loathe you, as you loathe Wilders. Loathing or hating a person is not the answer to your problem. However, you should be ashamed of yourself that you call him a "bigot",(seems a favourite word of yours) - a brave man, who stands to loose his life because of Islamic beliefs.

Churchill was right, “The religion of Islam above all others was founded upon the sword - Moreover it provides incentives to slaughter, and in three continents has produced fighting breeds of men – filled with a wild and merciless fanaticism.”

So no change then.

4Symbols said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sean O'Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
erdebe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
VH said...

"VH, are you perhaps a member of the Vlaams Blok er... ehh... eeh.. Belang?"

Ignoring your silly way of asking a simple question, non, I am not a member of any party.

Dear Muslim-lite Solkhar, since you are an Anti-Semite, hate America and hate the West, and have no trouble meeting your Muslim brother al-Sudais in the Islamic apartheids capital Mecca, who happens to advocate the termination of Jewish people, what party may we associate with you?

Another peculiar thing about you, Solkhar, is that you do not allow comments on your Solkhar web-blurb: "There is no "comment" section on my blog, I am not a hypocrit like some that allow it".
But you scribble yourself wet elsewhere with the most peculiar nonsense.

But that is not all. After you dropped your blop, you write somewhat sneeky to yourself: "I guess it was simply a shock to them that their world of uninterrupted agenda-based bashing and self-encouraging mis-truths, misinterpretations and myths was challenged."

Now I am even more curious to read your definitions as requested above. Or is that too difficult for you?

Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
erdebe said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sean O'Brian said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Czechmade said...

Radical muslim should be extremely good, but is not. "Radical" is then a sort of magnifying glass:

Imagine a radical Christian: devoting all his income to charity, spending his free time with the weak, old and sick. Blowing Holy spirit around him without taking any pride in it (how could he?). Exhibiting nothing but modesty.

It might be annoying to some, some might doubt if it were his natural tendency, feel humiliated by too many good deeds.......

... but on the whole no one would be scared of him.

It is totally hypocritical to reserve a term such as "islam-ist" for muslims with no such distinguishing equivalent for other faiths.

Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Czechmade said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sean O'Brian said...

Back to Wilders, he is a bigot, since he is being charged with insighting hatred against a community, obviously the Royal Prosecution Service in The Netherlands thinks the same.

Being charged with a crime is not the same thing as being guilty. Although I understand that Holland does not use the jury trial system, which is unfortunate in my opinion. Without citizen involvement in the judicial system a trial is conducted, and its outcome determined, entirely by government bureaucrats.

DP111 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
erdebe said...

@Solkhar

Thanks, but no thanks. I have asked a few pretty straightforward questions which you do not seem to want to answer. So as far as im concerned, there really is no point in any more discussion with you.

Solkhar said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DP111 said...

Christians are being targetted by Muslims everywhere - in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, at the moment. And in Iraq a few months ago. Buddhist monks, for heavens sake, were being burnt by Muslims in Thailand. Over a decade ago, Christians in Sudan were subject to what can only be called a genocide. It is this murderuous beat that is so consistent with islam, that should bother you, instead of Wilders and his views.

But since someone who can insight violence and hatred has targetted Islam and thus you think is righteous - I consider your own view to be as radical and violent as those that you have condemned.

This is surreal nonsense. Wilders targets the violent strain in Islam, and has made it abundantly clear that he has nothing against peaceful Muslims. It is you Solkhar, in defending the indefensible, the murderous brood, while castigating a brave man in fear of his life, and protected by armed police, put yourself in that category.

I notice your continuing refrences to attacks on Christians in the Sub-continenet and thus I think perhaps you are a South Asian Christian, though that is an assumption on my part.

What has that got to do with it? Stick to the topic.

The real tragedy is that even in England there are ex-Muslims who have to be in hiding to avoid being murdered by their families. Wilders does not have to target Muslims - Muslims are doing a fine job on their own.

But as I've said before, I do not loathe or hate you. Your hatred and loathing of Wilders is your problem. You have your view, and I disagree with it. All you have to do is to see what Muslims are doing in the name of Islam to their fellow human beings.

ericaonthebeach said...

Wilders has nothing to recant! He was never called Muslim pigs and prayed for their deaths!
This man is sick, I hope he meets his fate soon. Being forced to apologize says nothing of his true heart, only his own words do.

Sean O'Brian said...

Solkhar,

I will search out statistics from the French and Dutch tribunal system on mistaken condemnations and false immprisonments in comparison to the jury system and it will make your stomach churn.

It won't change my mind. When jury trials were first initiated in Britain (12th century?) the authorities tried to starve the first juries into submitting the 'correct' verdict, but failed. In France jury trials were abolished by the Nazis and the Vichy regime and after the war de Gaulle, Monnet and others liked this new arrangement so much they decided to keep it.

When it comes to political trials one especially need a jury to guarantee fairness. I already know Wilders will be found guilty and I know nothing of Dutch law. He is an enemy of the political establishment and will simply be removed and put ijn prison.

Although you are right about '12 ignorants' insofar as abolishing the restrictions on jury members (that they be a certain age, be property holders or have a third level education) in Britain and Ireland was a mistake. As the EU attempts to 'Francify' its member-states I think jury trials will be slowly erased from the judicial system. There are already calls in Britain and Ireland to make exceptions for particular cases (due to high cost in the UK, and a crime wave in IRE). That makes my stomach churn!

Czechmade said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Czechmade said...

Sorry for my spelling blasphemy:

"divine"

(I know I deserve multiple beheadings and regular weakly public whipping on the state TV according to the decadent Western sharia as opposed to the progressive islamic sharia, postpone my multiple capital punishments and industrial stoning for a while, I am ready to pay for 2 trucks of rocks myself)

Czechmade said...

It may be naive at first look to say "mohammad never read quran"...as he recited it.

But this poor guy could not remember the verses he once "revealed".

In one of the burlesque places (no sex or violence, beheadings, your own kids/wives killing involved this time) the prophet cannot remember those perfect verses. He consoles his gullible companions:

"Do not worry, I provide you with better ones (verses)."

This is really more than funny: The humankind gets benefitted each time our sclerotic superprophet forgets his own revealed verses. Cause he gets for us "better ones".

There is definitely a lot of progress in islam - each time the prophit forgets something - we get a higher quality as compensation!!!

Robin Shadowes said...

"I would rather have my fate decidedd by a number of experts on the law than in the hands of 12 "ignorants" whom are easily persuaded to change their minds by the expertise of a lawyer whom has the gift of the tounge."

Good for you! Then I hope you don't mind having your hand and feet or head chopped off if it comes down to that. Or being whipped and stoned for that matter.

WAKE UP said...

Czechmade, you're a breath of fresh air, just what we need. The words Islam and funny in the same sentence. Good on yer mate :)

Robin Shadowes said...

"Anjem Choudary is a danger a self confessed supporter of terrorism a poison to all that come near him let alone the country as a whole.

He needs to be sent back to Pakistan (as he is not a UK National) and either let him die fighting in the mountains or as I am sure, rot in a prison in Karacchi."

Solkhar, for once I have to admit that I completely agree with you in this case. I would also however want to add that I would also see a couple million more mahoundians accompany him on his one way ticket expulsion to Dungholistan...

Czechmade said...

Once emptied our European mosques might be used as schools of comedy.

We have something like 60 0000 ahadith, one more funny than the other. Get a non-believer to read them all for other non-believers.

During the comedy performance make the viewers perform all the necessary islamic rites like raising the asses to heaven. Read the ahadith aloud and charge extra money from those who find it funny.

Then punish those cowards who did not find it funny.

Then discuss the merits of making fun or being funny. More financial transactions can take place.

Raise lot of money, but do not keep it: Bomb Iran with this money.

Let them have some independent money fun, goats are expensive these days, basijis are expensive these days, mullahs are even nmore expensive. Where it comes from?
From hisb-kufaar funny mosques!

From independent funny European mosques, my dear ahmadi....nejad!
Lot of fun, lot of money, let us dance some samba in Rio and Teheran!

laine said...

Solkhar's pattern is emerging.

He "agrees" on the danger of Muslim radicals and the need for moderate Muslims to take them on but surprise! is very short of credible evidence that moderates as the West understands the word have any sway whatsoever over the direction of Islam.

As the price of this empty admission that is of no advantage to anyone interested in countering Islamic jihad, Solkhar inflicts reams and reams of apoologia for Islam consisting of useless anecdotes and customized interpretations of the Koran that are either takiya or of some marginal small group who are not representative of mainstream Islam. For example, he constantly tries to sideline the damning hadiths as having no importance in Islamic theology.

Whether he wants people to enter his seriously deluded fairy tale world where the Koran is full of sweetness and light and Islam is a force for good despite the crimes it commits on a daily basis against peace and humanity, or whether he is a committed takiya artist (denying most Muslims even know what it means) the end result for this site is the same.

He wastes people's time and that's his probable goal. See the pattern. He draws someone in with what sounds like a reasonable admission on Muslim radicals. But he always spends more time denying or justifying Islam's manifest sins. Eventually, people conclude as Erdebe did above that discussion with him is unprofitable. Then he casts out another loss leader so that he can sell some more BS about Islam.

Push him and the patronizing, entitlement, bigotry and anger start showing. His clear hatred of Geert Wilders is a dead giveaway of his real thoughts.

A typical Solkhar ploy is "Look at what the Hindus are doing"! even when he's been told in no uncertain terms by the Baron himself among others that there is no numerical comparison and that until Hindus start blowing up buses in London, trains in Spain and office buildings in New York, he should give that deflection a rest. Nope. He's at it again above.

Here's another typical Solkhar ploy that he's used several times to counter the charge of anti-semitism in Islam. He keeps embroidering on Jews' idyllic situation in Morocco. According to him, they're even returning there from "complicated" Israel. (Complicated in Solkhar-speak means Palestinian Muslims declaring undying enmity and raining down rockets and suicide bombers).

Here are Jewish demographics in Morocco.

Ethnic cleansing of Jews:

Morocco:
500,000 in 1948
7,000 today http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/07/the-real-catastrophe-ethnic-cleansing-of-jews-from-arab-lands.html

So the big picture in treatment of Jews is not favorable at all to any Muslim country including Morocco. If Israel had done proportionally the same amount of ethnic cleansing of Muslim Arabs from its midst, no one would be giving it props for the handful (1.4%) of Arabs left.

erdebe said...

I see that you have removed Solkhars posts and the comments on them.

Im not quite sure why, but my apologies if i have broken any commenting-rules here! I didnt mean too. Just got carried away, i guess!

Dymphna said...

@erdebe

You didn't do anything wrong. Sometimes the rules change in the middle of the game and people get caught in that.

I have removed all of Solkhar and will continue to do so. Some of the responses to him, especially the ones that begin with his name, are also being deleted.

New rule: Solkhar is persona non grata on our blog. All his comments will be deleted. If someone responds to him, they are likely to be removed also.

I left laine's comment (preceding yours) up so that people can understand why this person is no longer welcome here.

Yesterday, I said he was free to remain as long as he stuck to discussing the weather, his love life, etc. Anything but his endless verbiage on his usual obsession.

That is no longer the case. Now, he must simply cease to exist on our blog.

IOW, going forward from here if commenters respond to the entity known as Solkhar they will definitely be deleted. However, while I'm catching up with this, the deletion of responses will be somewhat more random and intermittent.

erdebe said...

@Dymphna

I see! Thanks for clearing that up!
You had me worried there, for a bit ;-)

A_S_A said...

You know what's funny?

You have these banners on the left saying "Support free speech" yet you sensor many of the comments here.

A Ridiculous blog. You want to talk about hypocrisy? Start with your own site.

Dymphna said...

A_S_A--

"Sensor"?

A device which senses any change like changes in light or electrical output is a sensor. Your car and your digital camera contain sensors...

When you sneer, my dear, check your spelling. That homonym you used is wrong.

My sock-puppet sensor indicates that you don't like our censure of commenters who offend our sensibilities.

Yep. Hypokrits-r-us.

Zenster said...

A_S_A: You have these banners on the left saying "Support free speech" yet you sensor [censor] many of the comments here.

Please purchase a clue. As someone who has had quite a few comments deleted and more than a few essays posted, claiming that the owners of this site censor "many of the comments here", is a ration of unmitigated bu!!$h!t.

laine said...

ASA demonstrates the usual lefty disability when it comes to understanding free speech and private property.

"You have these banners on the left saying "Support free speech" yet you sensor many of the comments here".

The right to free speech that is an inalienable liberty and that conservatives support is freedom from STATE interference.

This is not a government or public site. There is nothing in the Constitution or your people's preferred United Nations charter that forces a private individual on his property to pass on your drivel.

Think of this as someone's living room. They may choose to have an open house but it is THEIR RIGHT ON THEIR PROPERTY to set the rules for guests. YOU have NO RIGHT either to visit or have your comments published. The hosts may award you that privilege. If they do not, you have not been censored as in you did not have a right that was abused.

I know I'm wasting my breath as Lefties are congenitally unable to understand that it is only their beloved government that must support and not interfere with free speech.

Private citizens, especially on their own property have the right not to listen to you and that is not censorship. When you bore someone to death at a cocktail party and your victim walks away from you, have you been censored?

The same lefties who rudely shout down conservative speakers on university campuses suddenly get in a huff when their lame comments don't make the grade on a conservative blog.

Here's another brain buster for a Lefty. When you're denied a government grant for your "art", you have not been censored. No one is stopping you from making all the bad art you want and trying to sell it. Being denied a taxpayer subsidy is not censorship.