• First published in 2004 as Bartholomew’s Notes on Religion (BNOR).

    Previously at:
    blogs.salon.com/0003494
    barthsnotes.wordpress.com

    Email me
    (Non-commercial only)

  • Archives

  • Twitter

  • Supporting

  • Recent comments

EDL Rabbi Wants Debate with Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

From the Jewish Chronicle:

The rabbi who spoke at an English Defence League rally two months ago has apparently challenged Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks to a televised BBC debate on “Is Islam a religion of peace?”

…In an email seen by the JC, Rabbi [Nachum] Shifren says he has set rules for the debate structure, to be followed by the Chief Rabbi and the BBC – despite no known interest in such a programme from either party.

The JC saw the email because it was sent to them; the text was published on 23 December on a blog devoted to the Rabbi’s exploits:

Dear Sir,

I, Rabbi Nachum Shifren, Director of The California Security Council, who,having been the first person in the history of England to be banned from excercising [sic] freedom of speech at the home and pivot of British free speech at Speaker’s Corner in London, Hereby challenge Rabbi Lord Jonathon [sic] Sacks; Chief Rabbi of the Hebraic congregations of The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth, to a one hour televised BBC debate on a number of topics including “Is Islam a religion of peace?” The Islamification of Britain. Cultural Marxism in Western liberalism, Multiculturalism and it’s [sic] effect on the host society; education, religion, laws and culture.

This is the first time I’ve seen Shifren complain that he was supposedly “banned” from Speaker’s Corner; a video of his appearance there merely shows him arguing with a Muslim about how “fags” can’t be executed in Judaism because there is no religious court in Jerusalem where they can be put on trial. The only people who seemed to be keen for him not to continue in this vein were his EDL handlers (I blogged on the incident here, and on Alan Lake’s response to my post here).

The blog where the “challenge” was published has the encouraging name of Newworldorderuk, but there is no information about who runs it or how the message was passed to them; presumably the blog owner is someone with a personal link to Shifren. However, given that Shifren has a background as a schoolteacher in California, the spelling is strangely poor, and one wonders if he has actually written it himself.

There is also a list of conditions for the debate, including  the demand that

The programme should not be advertised or announced using such inflamitory [sic] labelling as ‘far-right, ‘extremist.’ i.e. not served up in terms that suit the marxist-Islamist agenda of the BBC.

Further:

That the usual practice of selecting a carefully chosen hostile audience to the guest deemed to be ‘politically-incorrect’ according to BBC Trotskyist strictures [sic – the JC misquotes this as “Trotskyist structures”] be avoided by having no audience at all, ditto questions from emails or phone-ins.

Of course, this is transparent publicity-seeking – it’s a common crank strategy to demand a public debate with someone who has a higher profile, and then to insist, when the “challenge” is ignored or rebuffed, that this is clearly evidence that the crank views cannot be refuted.

Newworldorderuk has some commentary of his or her own – the writing style is the same as that of the challenge itself:

Rabbi Sachs [sic] has not responded to the challenge. Though the Chief Rabbi often makes important statements against secularism and the atheist attack on religion he inevatably [sic] risks a second Holocaust by supporting the Islamification of Britain, something which does not much worry the mass of the British political and religious class, still basking in the heritage of Bolchevism in the land where Karl Marx lived and died, wrote Das Kapital and the Communist Manifesto, and where Marx’s grave in Highgate cemetery remains a holy shrine. The land whch has been a socialist state since 1945.

…It appears that as is normal with all news emanating from the EDL or other opposition to the one party state, Rabbi Shifren’s challenge was referred to either Yasmin Alabhai Brown or Mehdi Hasan, the ‘Anti-fascist enforcers’ for the Communist National Union of journalists, where one of these two distinguished British Muslims has slapped a ‘No Platform’ on it’s [sic] publication across all British print and televised media.

39 Responses

  1. The JC journowhore who put the piece together not only deliberatly changed the spelling of the word ‘strictures’ but added to the word ‘apparently’ to try to make the Rabbi look like a fool. All she accomplished was to betray the sneering elitist, anti-British contempt of her newspaper for the non-socialist British working class who feel the full brunt of mass Islamic migration in the areas in which they live and whom Rabbi Shifren champions.

    Furthermore this so-called ‘journalist’ left out the full challenge itself which reads:

    Dear Sir,

    I, Rabbi Nachum Shifren, Director of The California Security Council, who,having been the first person in the history of England to be banned from excercising freedom of speech at the home and pivot of British free speech at Speaker’s Corner in London, Hereby challenge Rabbi Lord Jonathon Sacks;
    Chief Rabbi of the Hebraic congregations of The United Kingdom and the British Commonwealth, to a one hour televised BBC debate on a number of topics including “Is Islam a religion of peace?” The Islamification of Britain. Cultural Marxism in Western liberalism, Multiculturalism and it’s
    effect on the host society; education, religion, laws and culture.”

    Now the Rabbi can be forgiven for not knowing that freedom of speech no longer exists in Enfland due to a series of marxist communitarian laws, as well as the plain fact that though the spiderweb of the Communist NUJ, Britain no longer has a free press.

    Obviously to the JC the death of free speech in Albion was nothing new to report, given that they also benefit from the ending of a free press as it suits the agenda of their brazenly marxist editor.

    The Rabbi did however note Chief Rabbi Sacks’s contempt for the British people by changing his title so that he is no longer the Chief Rabbi of England or the United Kingdom but the Rabbi of the Commonwealth and even then not the ‘British’ Commonwealth. Rabbi Shifren feels that any man who places the land of Shakespeare on a par with Zimbabwe is a man who cannot be trusted with the lives of British Jews.

    She also left out the full text of Rabbi’s rules for the debate which I now quote in full:

    1) In order to provide a fair playing field the debate should be one to one,
    Rabbi to Rabbi, without any moderation and transmitted in full without any
    editing or extranious commentary.
    2) Without any introductory preamble to ‘put things in context’ according to
    established BBC bias.
    3) The programme should not be advertised or announced using
    such inflamitory labelling as ‘far-right, ‘extremist.’ i.e. not served up in
    terms that suit the marxist-Islamist agenda of the BBC.
    4) That the usual practice of selecting a carefully chosen hostile audience
    to the guest deemed to be ‘politically-incorrect’ according to BBC
    Trotskyist strictures be avoided by having no audience at all, ditto
    questions from emails or phone-ins.
    4) That the programme not be followed by BBC’s well practiced technique of
    hosting a biased panel disscussion allowing the BBC’s inevatable ‘Trail By
    Television’ to occur. This is strictly a bout between two combatants from
    which the listener and viewer may draw their own conclusions.
    5) Nor should the BBC seek to circumvent this by releasing selected edited
    snippets after the programme in a way biased against one side.

    As to your idea that the challenge had to do with some attempt to seek publicity, nothing could be farther from the truth. It was based on Rabbi’s study of the fearful Neville Chamberlain syle collaberation between many in the German Rabbinate in the 1930’s with Hitler which did not in the end save Jewish lives but failed to prevent the Holocaust. Rabbi Shifren perceives the Neville Chamberlain character of Rabbi Sachs and fears he is leading the Hebrew congregations of the United Kingdom to the Holocaust British Islamists have gone out of their way to advertise.

    This fear of Rabbi Shifren had been triggered by a disgraceful speech to the House of Lords in the ‘Human Rights’ debate by the Chief Rabbi in which he all but called for an increase in marxist brainwashing in schools in the name of multiculturalism, ‘respecting difference’ and so called ‘diversity.’ The Chief Rabbi positing that the indiginous population, who as part of his deranged liberal insanity he considers to be the threat and not the Muslims his Regime are pouring into Britain, are the problem.

    In the speech Sacks laughingly implied that that those opposed to the (islamification of Britain) were in fact seeking a Holocaust for Muslims.

    The No Platform on Rabbi Shifren’s seriously made challenge was rigorously upheld across all print and broadcast media apart from the JC who deceided to take the Michael out of the Rabbi and try to turn it into a joke.

    Chief Rabbi Dhimmi Sacks is no doubt too busy in conference with his colleague the Mufti of Jerusalem about improving the lives of the population of Gaza or trying to dodge questions of his tasteful makeover of the 19th century Synagogue in Luton to debate Rabbi Shifren. Pity, it would have been a thoughtful, cordial, candid and respectful debate and a tribute to free speech. A discussion this country badly needs.

    Lastly as you have questioned the character of Rabbi Nachum Shifren I wish to add this tribute to him from his friend Jackie Mason:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZblDnJ0ZV8

    Snering comments that he was a failed candidate made on another blog can be answered by the fact that no conservative has a chance of being in elected in what has rapidly become the failed banana republic that is liberal California.

    • So what’s your association with the Rabbi, and does the above reflect his opinions about Sachs?

      • I see you have also misspelt Sacks as Sachs. Most people misspell Rabbi Shifren’s name in a multiplicity of ways. it is a very cheap jibe but not untypical UAF ploy to question a bloggers abilities by referring to their spelling; many of us do not have 20/20 vision as obviously you may not.

        As to your question, my reply is in keeping with discussions I have had with Rabbi.

        May I also say that you missrepresented his answers to the Islamist in Hyde Park. He was merely trying to point out that as a result of the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem a number of religious legal practices including animal sacrifice (several million goats are sacrificed every Eid in Mecca and buried in the sand by giant bulldozers) were ended. A majority of Jews are greatly relieved by that unintended consequence though the siting of a ‘Victory Mosque’ on top of the temple mount as an insult and a sign of domination of the Jews by the Arab invaders still hurts.

      • I see you have also misspelt Sacks as Sachs.

        Yes, you caught me there. It was just a slip, though – it’s not the case that I know nothing.

        So how come you had Shifren’s statement before anyone else?

  2. Newoeldorderuk is, of course, spot on.

    That mosque on the Temple Mount should, in my humble opinion, be dismantled, packed in crates, and then shipped C.O.D. to the nuckledragger “scholars” of Saudi Arabia.

    • Any other architectural treasures you’d like to see erased while you’re at it?

      • Perhaps the confused, weak-minded and frankly evil architecture of your own dhimmi mind needs rebuilding. But that is up to you.

      • Which is exactly what would have happened had the Muslims not stopped the mount from being the city’s landfill , cleaned it and built a Mosque where the landfil used to be. You could feel the love the Christians and Jews had for that place, right up into your nostrils

  3. I feel a bit sorry for you Mr. Bartholomew, since your otherwise awesome blog seems to have a troll infestation.

    • I feel sorry for you, a disciple of the devil for evermore.

    • Yes, Nassir, don’t you know! Islam is of the debbil! O.O

    • It’s always the case with certain topics, they come with an army of trolls, who trot out cliche, worn-out ideas and dogma like trained dogs.

      Their vomit is most unappealing but useful as a device by which they expose themselves and their crude and brutish ideas. It acts as prime evidence of their ignorance.

      Just be grateful Nassir that they’re not on ‘your side’. With allies like that…

  4. I feel a bit sorry for you Mr. Bartholomew, since your otherwise awesome blog seems to have a troll infestation.

    Run along now, Nassir, and blow up a church, or something.

    Everyone can see how hideous you are, and there isn’t a thing you can do to hide it.

    It is that grotesuqe and hideous face that fuels the ELD and so many other pro-western groups, and as I said it’s a face you and you “co-religionists” can do nothing to hide.

    We’re going to provoke you and provoke you, so that any and all will see just how ulgy, primitive and backward you, your koran and your meshuggah prophet really are.

    Yes, Nassir, don’t you know! Islam is of the debbil! O.O

    Why don’t you read Maimonides ‘Epistle to the Yemeni Jews’, EJ.

    Nearly nine centuries ago this brilliant Jewish scholar gave humanity the straight dope on ‘prophet’.

    Just be grateful Nassir that they’re not on ‘your side’. With allies like that

    Yes, and on your side, you’ve the likes of Anjem Choudry, an irascible and uncontrollable idiot who embarrasses anyone foolish enough to associate with him.

    You need to wheel guys like him out more often and give him a microphone and plently of air time because he’s one of the EDL’s biggest assets.

    • You’re incoherent, shooting off badly thought out assumptions and ideas into your desperate dark.

      Poor you.

    • “It is that grotesuqe and hideous face that fuels the ELD and so many other pro-western groups, and as I said it’s a face you and you “co-religionists” can do nothing to hide.”

      So Nassir is a terrorist now is he?

      “We’re going to provoke you and provoke you, so that any and all will see just how ulgy, primitive and backward you, your koran and your meshuggah prophet really are.”

      Provoke? So you are not interested in debate? Interesting. Because I doubt you are provoking the Muslims or Asians. Just like the gays and blacks and Jews, they will ride it out and your ideaology will, once again, belong to the history and reviled by all.

      “Why don’t you read Maimonides ‘Epistle to the Yemeni Jews’, EJ.

      Nearly nine centuries ago this brilliant Jewish scholar gave humanity the straight dope on ‘prophet’.”

      I have read it. Althought right now I’m looking for Canaanite sources and on what happened to them and how they dealt with it. Got any sources? Thought not.

      “Yes, and on your side, you’ve the likes of Anjem Choudry, an irascible and uncontrollable idiot who embarrasses anyone foolish enough to associate with him.

      You need to wheel guys like him out more often and give him a microphone and plently of air time because he’s one of the EDL’s biggest assets.”

      The EDL leaders are no different than Choudhry. They share the same reviled ideas on groups “other” than themselves. The EDl keeps trying to portray itself as standing against Islamic Extremism, yet their blogs, sites and forums are full of standard Islamophobia and racism against Arabs and Asians. No wonder there are people leaving the EDL all the time, citing hypocrisy and disillusionment.

    • June called me a terrorist? Why am I not surprised?

      Oh, and Anjem Choudry has like what, maybe 50 or 60 followers? if you’re going to ignore the billion + Muslims who live ordinary lives and concentrate on one freak then that’s your problem, not mine.

  5. There is documentary information to Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks tthat help him to debate knowingly

    Muhammad, founder of Islam and author of Koran, was mentally sick psychopath, could not read and write. While in seizure, he uttered disjointed phrases, which his followers represented as Allah divine afflatus. This is the history of Islam that muslims and “honest and free” western media would not like you to know. These facts show that islam is not a religion, but a cult.
    Read: “History of Middle Ages” Professor Nikolay A. Osokin, Textbook (in Russian), Publishing house: Imperial University Printing Office, Kazan, 1888, 771 pp.; Publisher: ACT, Harvest, Moscow, 2008, 672 pp. (reprint)
    “Great” arab inventions. Obama’s Cairo speech.
    In his Cairo speech, Obama accredited to arabs all fundamental inventions human race made over centuries. None of the Obama mentioned is true, as every person graduated from credible high school knows. However, it does not mean that arabs, great nation with centuries of history, has no inventions critical for human life. They have and here they are:
    1. Ethnic Cleansing – invented centuries ago, implemented over 2000 years ago in Israel when they occupied Israel and disseminated Jews around the world; from 1948 through 1953 arab countries expelled a million Jews and stole their properties; in 1974, Turkish armed forces invaded Cyprus, captured 36 percent of its territory, partitioning the island, implemented a policy of “ethnic cleansing” that sent close to 200,000 Greek Cypriots southward as refugees who lost their property; churches and cemeteries were desecrated by Muslim and declared the northern Turkish Republic of Cyprus in 1983; in 1999, Kosovo Liberation Army stormed homes of the last 15 Jews in Kosovo’s capital, who had to clear out, with just the clothes on their backs; currently, Jews in Yemen under attack, including the murder of Jewish community leader Moshe Yaish al-Nahari. “They throw stones at us. They curse us. They want to kill us,” said Salem Suleiman of his former Muslim neighbors.
    2. Genocide – invented by Turks and implemented in 1915–1917 in Armenia: over 1.5 mln. Armenians, including children, died.
    3. Holocaust – invented by Haj Amin al Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, in 1920s in Palestine (occupied territory of the State of Israel); implemented in Palestine in 1920s-30s; in 1941, Haj Amin al Husseini brought the Holocaust idea to Hitler and helped him to implement Holocaust in Europe from 1941; he organized in Europe two islamofascist brigades that operated under SS. Had their own concentration camp and killed thousand of Europeans, including Jews.

    Islam is based on three fundamental principles:
    1. Stealing
    2. Killing, and
    3. Lying

    Koran says:
    “Slay them wherever you find them. Fight against them till idolatry is no more and God’s religion reigns supreme” (Sura 2:190),
    “Seek out your enemies relentlessly” (Sura 4:103),
    “Make war on them till idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme” (Sura 8:36),
    “When the sacred months are over slay the unbelievers wherever you find them. Arrest them, beseige them and lie in ambush everywhere for them” (Sura 9:5),
    “Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you” (Sura 9:121),
    “When you meet the unbelievers on the battlefield strike off their heads” (Sura 47:3),
    “Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal sternly with them. Hell shall be their home, evil their fate” (Sura 66:7).

    Koran is Islamic Mein Kamf. Islam is fascist cult and must be eliminated from the earth.

    Mark Bernadiner, PH.D.
    Texas

    • (a) lay off the cut and pasting, please.

      (b) “PH.D” – I’ve got one of those too, but I don’t feel the need to go on about it.

    • Perhaps he went to Clown College?

    • Does anyone else find it curious that some of the verses cut and pasted by Mark, PH.D, don’t exist in the Qur’an?

      For example:

      This from Mark…

      “Make war on them till idolatry shall cease and God’s religion shall reign supreme”

      Actually appears as this in the Qur’an…

      “Indeed, those who disbelieve spend their wealth to avert [people] from the way of Allah . So they will spend it; then it will be for them a [source language=”of”][/source] regret; then they will be overcome. And those who have disbelieved – unto Hell they will be gathered.” (8: 36)

      And this from Mark…

      “Seek out your enemies relentlessly”

      Is actually this…

      “And when you have completed the prayer, remember Allah standing, sitting, or [lying] on your sides. But when you become secure, re-establish [regular] prayer. Indeed, prayer has been decreed upon the believers a decree of specified times.” (4: 103)

      http://quran.com/8

      But seriously Mark, who gave you that PH.D. exactly?

      • But alas, this has happened before. I had shown an Islamophobe that his supposed verses from the Qur’an or Sunnah were fabricated, but it still didn’t change his opinion about *anything*. Despite the fact that he knows some folks purposefully spread libel against Muslims and that he’s been duped by it, his mind was still set on hating Muslims.

    • Interesting that Mark should post here. I don’t know whether you really are a Ph.D but if you are, may I suggest reading your post before posting it. That may allow you to catch the various spelling and grammatical errors.

      Anyway, moving on to your fatwa, I could swear I had read it somewhere before. A little digging refreshed my memory. It was posted on the EDL Extra blog:

      http://theenglishdefenceleagueextra.blogspot.com/2010/09/islamic-inventions-ethnic-cleansing.html

      Funnily enough, the post was dismissed by other Islamophobes because of the inaccuracies they found in it:

      http://juniperinthedesert.blogspot.com/2010/09/from-mark-bernadiner-via-english.html

      Seriously, Mark, when your fellow Islamophobes dismiss your rantings, it’s time to take a good hard look at yourself. No mention of the atrocities, massacres and genocides throughout “recorded” Jewish history in the Bible or Christian history. None. Islamophobes who are pro-Zionist tend to want to portray the world as being perfect with Jews and Christians living in harmony with eachother and everyone else until those bad Muslims came along. Unfortunately for them, history always proves them wrong. This is also the reason that none of them is actually a peer reviewed historian or academic. if they were, they would be slaughtered by their own peers for their ridiculous views. Like the Husseini propaganda.

      The notion that Arabs/Muslims were responsible for the Holocaust took off when a pro-Zionist newspaper in the USA published an article on Husseini and the Nazis. After this, the Islamophobes and pro-Zionists have taken Husseini and tried to blame everything they can on Husseini. As Novick states:

      “The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume Encyclopedia of the Holocaust from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann–of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.”

      They want to present him as someone as worse as or worse than Hitler, so they can justify their attack and extermination of Arabs and Muslims in Palestine and the rest of the world. And historians laugh in their faces. Hitler’s attitude towards Jews and his plans for them were clear from before he came to power and had ever met Husseini. For example, in 1922 he said:

      “Once I really am in power, my first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews. As soon as I have the power to do so, I will have gallows built in rows – at the Marienplatz in Munich, for example – as many as traffic allows. Then the Jews will be hanged indiscriminately, and they will remain hanging until they stink; they will hang there as long as the principles of hygiene permit. As soon as they have been untied, the next batch will be strung up, and so on down the line, until the last Jew in Munich has been exterminated. Other cities will follow suit, precisely in this fashion, until all Germany has been completely cleansed of Jews”

      Husseini only met him 20 years later if I recall correctly. From Operation Reinhardt to the Wannsee Conference, the Nazis had already planned to carry out the Final Solution (A term which was, ironically, coined by the Father of Zionism, Herzl, in a letter to the anti-Semite Czar of Russia) and, as many historians readily agree on, the Holocaust was the culmination of centuries of Christian anti-semitism in Europe and Germany in particular. Yet, we won’t see these Islamophobes blame Christianity for any of it. They would rather blame Husseini by saying he invented the Holocaust in Palestine and brought it to Germany, even though no confirmed sources for this can be found anywhere.

      And regarding the laughable assertion that the Holocaust started in Palestine and was then moved to Germany and Europe, what these Islamophobes fail to mention is that Jewish and Arab fighting resulted in an almost equal number of casualties.

      On top of that, the Jewish Irgun sent a letter to the Nazis offering their co-operation in return for Nazi support against Arabs. But will we ever see the Islamophobic pro-Zionists elaborate on that? Nope. Never. Will they ever talk about the numerous Jewish leaders in Europe that collaborated with the Nazis to kill their fellow Jews and others, including gypsies? Nope. Never. Will we ever see them talk about the 100s of 1000s of Jews saved by Muslims in Europe? Nope. Never. I wonder why not.

      Now, let’s move onto the verses you quoted and why you are wrong about them. The first verse you “quoted” is in fact 4 verses which you have edited to make it say whatever you want to say. The real verses are as follows:

      “And fight in the cause of Allah against those who fight against you, but do not transgress. Surely, allah loves not the transgressors.

      And kill themwherever you meet them and drive them out from where they have driven you out; for persecution is worse than killing. And fight them not in, and near, the Sacred Mosque until they fight you therein. But if they fight you, then fight them: such is the requital for the disbelievers.

      But if they desist, then surely Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

      And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is professed for Allah. But if they desist, then remember that no hostility is allowed except against the transgressors. (2:191-194)”

      I’m pretty sure everyone can see what you tried to do here. You tried to lie, and now you have been caught. The verses in question say that if someone fights you and drives you out from somewhere, you are allowed to fight them, but only until they desist. After that, there is to be no more hostility.

      The next verse once again discards te entire verse and also the verses leading up to it. They are:

      “And when you journey in the land, it shall be no sin on you to shorten the Prayer, if you fear that those who disbelieve may give you trouble. Verily, the disbelievers are an open enemy to you.

      And when thou art among them, and leadest the Prayer for them, let a party of them stand with thee and let them take their arms. And when they have performed their prostrations, let them go to your rear, and let another party, who have not yet prayed, come forward and pray with thee; and let them take their means of defence and their arms. The disbelievers wish that you be neglectful of your arms and your baggage that they may fall upon you at once. And it shall be no sin on you, if you are in trouble in account fo rain or if you are sick, that you lay aside your arms. But you should always take your means of defence. Surely, Allah has prepared a humiliating punishment for the disbelievers.

      And when you have finished the Prayer, remember Allah standing, and sitting, and lying on your sides. And when you are secure from danger, then observe prayer in the prescribed form; verily Prayer is enjoined on the believers to be performed at fixed hours.

      And slacken not in in following up the enemy. if you suffer, they too suffer even as you suffer. But you hope from Allah waht they do not hope. And Allah is All-Knowing, Wise. (4:102-106)”

      These verses are usually discared by the Islamophobes and a single line from these is presented to make it seem that Muslims are commanded to hunt innocent non-Muslims relentlessly and kill them. In reality however, these verses talk about the very real problem of performing prayers during a time of battle or war. Anyone familiar with Muslim prayer knows thaat it consists of a certain number of Rakats, depending on when the prayer is being performed. In a time of war and battle, Muslims cannot defend themselves when performing these prayers so it was easy for the enemies of the Muslims to jump them while they were performing the prayers and kill them. These verses give Muslims permission to perform prayers during war time or during a battle while allowing a certain number of Muslims from the army to stand back and protect the people that are praying from attack, and then switch with the people taht have prayed, so that everyone can perform their prayers. Ofcourse, after having prayed, Muslims er enjoined not to give in to tiredness or philosophy and reflect on various issues, as usually happens after Muslim prayers.

      Moving on to the next verse:

      “Say to those who disbelieve, if they desist, that which is past will be forgiven them; and if they return thereto, then verily the example of the former peoples has already gone before them.

      And fight them until there is no persecution and religion is wholly for Allah. But if they desist, then surely Allah is watchful of what they do. (8:39-40)”

      Once again, entire verses discared for you to present your argument. We see that the Quran once again says to Muslims that is you are persectued or if people of a religion are being persecuted, fight against the persecutors until religion is for God and to stop when the persecutors desist. Allah is the Arabic word for God, hence he verse is not limited to Islam being persecuted. According to Islamic teachings, almost all the religions in the world had their origins with Allah, so this verse would apply to practicitoners of various faithssuffering religious persecution. Once again, what you said.

      Onto the next verse:

      “Excepting those of the idolators with whom you have entered into a treaty and who have not subsequently failed you in any thing nor aided anyone against you. So fulfil to these the treaty you have made with them till their term. Allah loves those who are righteous.

      And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolators wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.

      And if any one of the idolators ask protection of thee, grant him protection so that he may hear the word of Allah; then convey him to his place of security. That is becuse they are a people who have no knowledge. (9:4-6)”

      These verses tell the Muslims that they are not to fight a war or battle during the Sacred Months. If the Muslims are in a war or a battle with someone, it must be suspended until these Months have passed. After these, hostilities with those people would be resumed. That is ofcourse, unless they stop attacking the Muslims, have a treaty with the Muslims or ask for their protection. But just who are these people these verses are talking about? Well, we don;t ahve to look for ebcause a verses down the line we are told just who these people:

      “And if they break their oaths after their covenant, and attack your religion, then fight these leaders of disbelief, –surely they have no regard for their oaths– that they may desist.

      Will you not fight a people who have broken their oaths, and who plotted t turn out the Messenger, and they were the first to commence hostilies against you? Do you fear them? Nay, Allah is most worthy that you should fear Him, if you are believers. (9:12-13)”

      Once again, we see that you have tried to lie to us. These verses deal with people who break their oaths with the Muslims and fight them and try to kill them. The Muslims are allowed to fight those people, but if those people have a treaty with the Muslims, they are not to be harmed, nor are they to be refused protection should they ask for it.

      Moving on to the next verse:

      “O ye who believe! fight such of the disbelievers as are near to you and let them find hardness in you; and know that Allah is with the righteous.”

      This verse, combined with the ones preceding it and the ones following it, talk about the hypocrites amongst the Muslims themselves. They were those people who outwardly confessed to be Muslims and or allied with the Muslims, but secretly plotted against the Muslims with the enemies of the Muslims and aided them. The words “such of the disbelievers as are near to you” signify those hypocrites, who lived amongst the Muslims and intermixed with them. Muslims were enjoined to fight them as a class and not each and every one of them individually. They were to fight them by exposing their malpractices and hypocritical deeds, as borne out by the Hadith.

      The words “and let them find hardness in you” mean that, like a hard thing which refuses to receive impressions, a Muslim should not allow him or herself to be influenced by his evil desires and the evil persons surrounding that Muslim.

      Moving on to the next verse:

      “And when you meet in regular battle thos who disbelieve, smite their necks; and, when you have overcome them, bind fast the fetters–then afterwards either release them as a favour or by taking ransom–until the war lays down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah had so pleased, He could have punished them Himself, but He has willed that He may try some of you by others. And those who are killed in the way of Allah–He will never render their works in vain.”

      This verse, once again, deals with battle, as it makes incredibly clear in the first few lines. Ofcourse, when you cited it, you left out the part where it says that this is only allowed in a time of war and battle, and, as soon as the war or battle is over, this verse does not apply anymore. Once again, you tried to lie.

      Moving on to the last verse you provided:

      “O Prophet! strive hard against the disbelievers and the Hypocrites; and be strict against them; their resort is Hell, and an evil destination it is”

      What I am wondering is what translation you got the words “make war” from? Yusuf Ali, Pickthal, Shakir and Sher Ali all translate that as “strive”, not “make war”. Are you trying to lie to us again? It wouldn’t be the first time.

      “Koran is Islamic Mein Kamf. Islam is fascist cult and must be eliminated from the earth.”

      Once more, we see that the Islamophobes are no different than the Islamic Extremists they say they stand against, by issuing fatwas like these.

  6. I have read it. Althought right now I’m looking for Canaanite sources

    That’s a howler.

    Provoke? So you are not interested in debate

    How can someone debate individuals whose pagan sensibilities and primitive mindset render them utterly incapable of doing so?

    Were any debate possible in the islamic world, that world wouldn’t be so primtive, backward, savage and unenlightened.

    “Debating” knuckledraggers like you just confers legitimacy on a form a pagan, clerical fascism that deserves no legitimacy.

    I’ve no desire to build bridges with you. Don’t even try to cosy up to me. What I ( and many others) want to do is to erect an impermeable barrier in order to keep you and other sociopaths of you ilk quarantined…the way the Israelis did.

    Attaturk, pehaps the only true reformer the muslim world ever produced, referred to islam as a “rotting carcass” and to ‘prophet’ as an immoral Bedouin.

    Care to debate that assertion, sweetie?

    • Like any good politician, Ataturk was flexible and made seemingly contradictory statements.

      “He [Muhammed] is Allah’s first and greatest human-being. Today, in his footsteps, millions are walking. Your and my name would get erased someday but he, eternally, is immortal.”

    • “That’s a howler. ”

      Howler? You tink the genocide of an entire civilization is funny? Ah, but ofcourse, unless it is Christian and Jewish Jihad, it’s bad.

      “How can someone debate individuals whose pagan sensibilities and primitive mindset render them utterly incapable of doing so?”

      Pagan sensiblities and primitive mindset… Once again, you keep proving just what kind of person you are.

      “Were any debate possible in the islamic world, that world wouldn’t be so primtive, backward, savage and unenlightened.”

      You have never actually lived there, nor do you read or speak any language spoken in the Muslim world. Just how you can then declare this is beyond me. Unless, ofcourse, you are sticking with the fatwa against the Pagans from teh Bible? Is that it?

      “Debating” knuckledraggers like you just confers legitimacy on a form a pagan, clerical fascism that deserves no legitimacy.”

      Ah yes, no debate, just fight!

      “I’ve no desire to build bridges with you. Don’t even try to cosy up to me. What I ( and many others) want to do is to erect an impermeable barrier in order to keep you and other sociopaths of you ilk quarantined…the way the Israelis did.”

      Bridges? Oh sweetie, I am not trying to build bridges with you, or even cosy up to you. What I am doing is showing you up for the liar, racist, Isamophobe and generally ignorant person that you are. All in the hope that if someone was to find your posts on here via any search engine, they would also have people pointing out what kind of person you are and why.

      “Care to debate that assertion, sweetie?”

      Ataturk had his own opinions, and that was fine. I am not here to debate what he thought. Ataturk is dead and his fascistic anti-religion ideology is is being challenged. But, apart from that, Ataturk had great respect for the Islamic Prophet. He did not say or do the things the Islamophobes say and do about Islam.

  7. (b)“PH.D”– I’ve got one of those too, but I don’t feel the need to go on about it

    Did you recieve it as a stocking-stuffer?

  8. Any other architectural treasures you’d like to see erased while you’re at it?

    I didn’t say to earse it, I simply stated that it should be packed into crates and shipped to Saudi Arabia, a for more fitting place for Islam’s “furthest” mosque.

    They can do what ever the hell they want with it

  9. Still upset that there is no archeological evidence for the Temple being there? Still upset that the ISraeli government knew this hence the power given to the Waqf over the Mount?

    You’re so right E.J.! There never was a temple, let alone two, and there never was a Holocaust either.

    Understand perfectly well where you’re coming from.

    And by the way, love your brown shirt!

    • Not as nice as your black shirt, June. Although the black colour doesn’t really cover up the sewage that spills from your head orifices as much as you think it does. Every time your cesspool of a mind does a little spin there’s diarrhea everywhere.

      P.S. What’s that behind you?!! Eeek!

  10. “He [Muhammed] is Allah’s first and greatest human-being. Today, in his footsteps, millions are walking. Your and my name would get erased someday but he, eternally, is immortal.”

    If Muhammed is Allah’s first and greatest human being, then Allah isn’t god, but rather a drooling, knuckledragging simpleton. A model for all those frustrated boy-men, irretrievably bearded and inbred

    Muhammed , the meshuggah, will be long gone, and yet the Jews will still be here.

    That’s not a helpful line of argument, and it wasn’t one that was a part of Muslim discourse until recently.

    That line of argument has always been an integral element of the Muslim “discourse”

    Your comboxes are full of anti-semitic negationists!

  11. “Your comboxes are full of anti-semitic negationists!”

    Asking for proof is not being anti-semitic. However, just charging people with anti-semitism when you cannot provide any proof just makes you look ignorant.

  12. Asking for proof

    Listen you can’t handle either the truth or the proof that your belief system is irretreivably flawed, fabricated and doctored

    EJ, there are none so blind as those who will not see!

  13. “Listen you can’t handle either the truth or the proof that your belief system is irretreivably flawed, fabricated and doctored”

    You don’t know what my belief system is. And once again, you provide no proof.

  14. You don’t know what my belief system is. And once again, you provide no proof

    Muhammed was a poopy-pants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.