anybody who poses even the slightest threat should be kept out. we don't want those people here. nobody wants anybody in the uk who approves of suicide bombing in any way shape or form and anybody in the uk who approves of suicide bombing should leave. WE DONT WANT YOU HERE!

He was banned on the grounds that he is against homosexuality? what? seriously? most religious leaders are against homosexuality- only the Anglican church have nice things to say, and that is divisive in itself. Is that really a valid reason? Suicide bombings is a different cattle of fish, but even Cherie Blair sympathised with the actions of suicide bombers in Israel- lets all hope she will also be banned from entering the UK when she leaves this increasingly censored island.

I fully support such ban. This's not about free speech, the left should not be deceived, but it's about leaders who are involved in abusing human rights. I've lived and have been oppressed by sharia laws almost my whole life living in Malaysia; can one imagine the more brutal plights of those living in more barbaric regimes with Islamic leaders such as in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran or Saudi Arabia? and this's not about being racist either since these elite class that includes the priestly class is using religion for their own perverted self-interests oppress the ordinary population and followers, especially of women, female children and gays as in Islam. Peter Thatchell, the brilliant left campaigner has a great article currently in the guardian on this right-wing religous priest-scholar. How can religion be so oppressive when it's supposed instead to be preaching humanity and social justice values that include, peace, truthfulness, kindness and high morality? It's time that the EU as a whole take a lead in championing human rights for the global population; since the UN is hopeless in achieving it due to it being corrupted by barbaric regimes like these. Of course not every nations in the EU is practising superior human rights values including the current warmonger UK regime; but EU on the whole comprise of many great liberal and progressive nations with great radical and progressive NGOs and great historical tradition of great and genuine humanistic philosophers-activists. One last thing; imagine the fear that will be instilled in leaders and politicians especially when they are banned from entering the western nations especially the EU. Not only it will hinder their political work but their super luxury holidays and double and hypocritical-lifestyle; such as the Saudi, Brunei royals or even the Malaysian Islamic leaders whose second home is usually in London, Geneva or Australia.

Only one quote:
‘There is no choice but to continue the resistance in Palestine, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and in every country that has been conquered by foreigners.’
How extreme. How hate filled.
Not much of a dossier here. Not that ever made much difference.

If the moderate clerics start to get banned from the uk then who is there left for the muslims of the uk to turn to for guaidance. Shaikh Qardawi is being used by the politicians as a scapegoat just to show that thye are being tough with so called "muslim hate preachers" - but these moves are not going to help anyone in the long run.

guess its time to start thinking for yourself, rarther being a sheep i guess

This is a sad day for British democracy....

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". We should look back at Europe's oppressive history to realise what we have to lose. let us not be narrow-minded and have so little belief in our system. Is it not time that we start to silence people we disagree with, with our logical arguments, rather than hiding from those people by declining them entry?

I was chatting to a Muslim friend this morning who said he was not particularly enamoured of Qaradawi but was worried about the signal that his ban sends out.

"When Muslims started agitating and protesting against the Danish cartoons we were told to pipe down and to allow free speech. Now we are told what Qaradawi says is unacceptable and we should accept that. The problem is that his ban makes it feel like there are parallel standards here. When Islam is attacked that's free speech, but when a cleric says something we don't like, we muzzle him."

He pointed out that, if anything, the ban will simply add to Qaradawi's appeal and that with his immensely popular website and Al Jazeera show British Muslims are perfectly capable of reading what he says anyway.

This scholar-preacher is involved in promoting institutional policies that has in reality justified and continue the abuse of the human rights of women, female children, gays, non-Islamic minority groups and converts in Islam. Most of the opinions I see here as supporting him are from the male-sides. Well, as a once Muslim woman who have and still continue to live under the oppressive Sharia Law in Malaysia (look at the plights of oppressed Muslims under other barbaric regimes under Islamic leaders such as in Afghanistan as in Pervez'z case - just for debating women's rights in Islam?!; or the monstrous and primitive stoning of adulterous women in Iran!), reform will never happen in Islam especially for the oppressed groups if this kind of right-wing preacher-scholar is allowed to get away with it. We reformists, especially women, need the progressive, humanistic and liberal western help, not through barbaric capitalist-imperialism as currently practised by the US-UK regimes, but through peaceful and practical strategies like these that include the banning of such human rights promoters and abusers. Which will impact upon such human rights abusers as they usually still worship the western civilization and technology to a certain extent. As to the Islamic followers who support such hate-filled preacher; you should be thankful that you're allowed to practise free speech back there in the west (as long as one do not have the power to transform it into practising human rights abuses towards others) whilst we here in nations run by barbaric Islamic leaders and preachers are being silenced and punished for speaking out or even just to think about it! Pervez's case shows such extreme injustice of such human rights abuses and the ridiculousness as promoted by Islamic Sharia laws that are justified and promoted institutionally by male chauvinist idiots and religious fanatics like Qardawi!

the government suppose not to listen to him even 4 a second. we dn't want him at uk.

let him go to other arab countries for his treatment.

he is also like osman bin laden

thanks,
mercy brown

I fully approve of this ban.

Qaradawi, like so many other religious leaders - both Muslim and non-Muslim - is a narrow-minded, bigoted man who cloaks his ignorance and prejudice in vain piety and theological scholarship, in the mistaken belief that this renders his views and pronouncements beyond criticism from those he considers less pious and 'learned' than himself. It does not - he and others like him can and should be criticized, ridiculed and censured by all right-thinking people.

This ban is not an matter of suppressing free speech - Qaradawi is free to air his views as much as he likes on Islamic websites, and in the Islamic media (and, unfortunately, he already avails himself of every opportunity to do this).

On the contrary, it is about protecting the right of free speech that citizens of this country currently enjoy - protecting that right from those who would abuse it to promote their particular brand of religiously inspired intolerance, bigotry and hatred. And within that definition of 'free speech', I include freedom of sexuality, freedom of education, freedom of belief (or non-belief), freedom to marry the person of one's choosing, freedom to disobey one's parents, freedom to wear one's hair and dress in any way one pleases, freedom to shave one's beard, freedom to drive a car, freedom to leave one's home without a male chaperone, and all the other freedoms that are routinely - and often brutally - suppressed in many of the countries in which Qaradawi's version of religious morality currently holds sway.

This ban should send a very clear message to religious leaders, be they Imams, Rabbis or Popes - that message being that, in case they haven't noticed (and most of them seem not to have), this is the 21st century, and the foolish superstitions and primitive moral outlooks of desert-dwelling tribesmen from past millennia have no place in modern, liberal, educated, democratic societies. And if those religious leaders want access to the benefits of modern civilization - such as to our healthcare system - then they must leave their anachronistic, illiberal, ignorant and antidemocratic religious beliefs back in their own countries, and not try to peddle them here.

I fully approve of this ban.

Qaradawi, like so many other religious leaders - both Muslim and non-Muslim - is a narrow-minded, bigoted man who cloaks his ignorance and prejudice in vain piety and theological scholarship, in the mistaken belief that this renders his views and pronouncements beyond criticism from those he considers less pious and 'learned' than himself. It does not - he and others like him can and should be criticized, ridiculed and censured by all right-thinking people.

This ban is not an matter of suppressing free speech - Qaradawi is free to air his views as much as he likes on Islamic websites, and in the Islamic media (and, unfortunately, he already avails himself of every opportunity to do this).

On the contrary, it is about protecting the right of free speech that citizens of this country currently enjoy - protecting that right from those who would abuse it to promote their particular brand of religiously inspired intolerance, bigotry and hatred. And within that definition of 'free speech', I include freedom of sexuality, freedom of education, freedom of belief (or non-belief), freedom to marry the person of one's choosing, freedom to disobey one's parents, freedom to wear one's hair and dress in any way one pleases, freedom to shave one's beard, freedom to drive a car, freedom to leave one's home without a male chaperone, and all the other freedoms that are routinely - and often brutally - suppressed in many of the countries in which Qaradawi's version of religious morality currently holds sway.

This ban should send a very clear message to religious leaders, be they Imams, Rabbis or Popes - that message being that, in case they haven't noticed (and most of them seem not to have), this is the 21st century, and the foolish superstitions and primitive moral outlooks of desert-dwelling tribesmen from past millennia have no place in modern, liberal, educated, democratic societies. And if those religious leaders want access to the benefits of modern civilization - such as to our healthcare system - then they must leave their anachronistic, illiberal, ignorant and antidemocratic religious beliefs back in their own countries, and not try to peddle them here.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Yes, by all means, ban al Qaradawy for his opinions, and welcome war criminals who CARRY OUT genocide against the Palestinians. Even better, allow fanatic zionists loyal only to Israel to corrupt your government officials and manipulate British foreign policy, so that more British citizens are sent to murder and die for Israel.

As for his views on homosexuality, why not ban Catholic clerics as well? Jewish Orthodox clerics? Their views are indistinguishable from his.

Because his views are irrelevant to the ban, and British racism, as shown by most of the above comments, is alive and rabid as ever.

The UK is implicated in the murder of 1.3 million Iraqis and the other crimes against humanity that have utterly destroyed one of the most beautiful and prosperous countries of the Middle East. For Israel.

The Arabs fighting back against foreign invaders of their countries are heroes, just as the French resistance were heroes. I'm sure the Nazis described them as "terrorists" as well.

Let's see how Israel thanks you, for all your help.

Reply to Ines:

"The hypocrisy is breathtaking. Yes, by all means, ban al Qaradawy for his opinions, and welcome war criminals who CARRY OUT genocide against the Palestinians. Even better, allow fanatic zionists loyal only to Israel to corrupt your government officials and manipulate British foreign policy, so that more British citizens are sent to murder and die for Israel."

That piece of anti-semitic conspiracy-theorist rhetoric is so riddled with tired cliches that it's actually funny.

"The Arabs fighting back against foreign invaders of their countries are heroes, just as the French resistance were heroes. I'm sure the Nazis described them as "terrorists" as well."

In case you hadn't noticed, Ines, the brave, heroic freedom-fighters you so eulogize actually expend most of their psychopathic energies killing *native Iraqis*, most of them innocent men, women and children, and not 'foreign invaders'.

And a major cause of the continuing carnage in Iraq is that Muslims are fighting other *Muslims* over territory, resources and political power - Sunnis against Shias - rather than uniting to expel the coalition forces of Britain and the US.

So your attempt to equate these *ruthless, fanatical psychopaths* with the brave resistance fighters of France (and other occupied European countries) in WWII is not only utterly absurd and bizarre, it is also deeply insulting both to the memory of those same resistance fighters and to the intelligence of anyone who knows enough about history and current affairs to know that you are talking complete rot!

You are clearly a deranged Islamist/jihadi sympathizer with no grip on reality. As such, you and your Zionist foes thoroughly deserve each other.

"That piece of anti-semitic conspiracy-theorist rhetoric is so riddled with tired cliches that it's actually funny."

Reply to Rowan:

Haha. Not everybody's laughing.

Sleaze committee infiltrated by “Friends of Israel” refuses to investigate

Stuart Littlewood

A UK group has vowed to continue the fight against the corrupting influence of Israel lobby groups on the British government after Parliament’s sleaze watchdog, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which is itself infiltrated by Israel apologists, turned down their request to investigate the influence of Israel lobbies on government.

The British Parliament’s sleaze watchdog, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, has initially turned down a request by a group of 20 top academics, surgeons and others to investigate the influence of Israel lobby groups like Friends of Israel at the heart of British government.

The submission, addressed to the committee's new chairman, Sir Christopher Kelly, was rejected in a note from office staff on the grounds that it was "a matter of general policy for others". An administrator admitted that the remit of the body she suggested (the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards) did not fit the circumstances.

The three main political parties in the UK each has a “Friends of Israel” lobby group that ensures pro-Israel members are embedded at all key levels in Parliament and government.

For example, the Foreign Office minister responsible for the Middle East is a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel.

His opposition “shadow” is a member of Conservative Friends of Israel.

Campaigners argue that these lobby placemen inhibit the government when it comes to taking a principled stand on issues such as Israel's murderous and unlawful blockade of Gaza, which is costing the lives of many innocent civilians and children and doing irreparable damage to Gaza's economy. ...

http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/01/22/p22721

The Jewish press in Britain is panicking lately and they have good reason, too. While the British papers are filling their mouths with water hiding the real story behind the huge Labour donation sleaze, the UK Jewish press is overwhelmingly concerned with the unveiling saga.

We have already learned about Lord ‘cash machine’ Levy who acted as ‘No 1 Labour fund raiser’. We have learned recently about David Abrahams who donated his money to the party by proxy.

Both Levy and Abrahams were overwhelmingly active at the time Britain was taken into an illegal war by the Labour government. David Abrahams already admitted in an interview to the Jewish Chronicle that he donated money by proxy to “to quell conspiracy fears”.

...

Levy and Abrahams were prominent activists in the ‘Labour Friends of Israel’ and ‘Jewish Labour’. They both operate as Israeli lobbyists. It is more than possible that their interests as openly rabid Zionists do not exactly match the British interests. ...

Yesterday, Peter Hain, a senior British Cabinet minister resigned. Once again following a row over political donations and guess what, once again it is Zionist donators who put money into his campaign by proxy.

Hain, who served as Work and Pensions Secretary said he was leaving to clear his name after electoral authorities referred questions to the police about the funding of his unsuccessful campaign to become deputy Labor Party leader.

Clearly, the British press avoids questioning the identity of the donators, and more crucially there is the disturbing question: what was it that they tried to buy?

....

Last week Jewish Chronicle’s report on the Hain affair is indeed very revealing yet concerning.

“International diamond broker Willie Nagel, 83 — one of two Jewish benefactors to Mr Hain’s campaign through the Progressive Policies Forum — told the JC he had donated and loaned money to PPF and had “no objection that this money [had been] used to support Peter Hain’s campaign”.

Seemingly, Mr. Nagel changes league quite easily. As much as was happy to donate to Labour candidates in power, he was delighted to donate to the Tories at the time when they ran this country.

Here is the JC report:

“Mr Nagel, a member of St John’s Wood Synagogue, was also known to be close to the Conservatives during the premierships of Baroness Thatcher and John Major. He reportedly donated to Mr Major’s Huntingdon constituency, giving rise to reports in the media that he had attempted to interest the then-prime minister in Israeli-made unmanned aircraft at a time when the UK maintained an arms embargo on Israel.”

Clearly, Mr Nagel operates here as a foreign lobbyist for Israeli interests and even military interests. As much as Peter Hain was happy to receive Mr Nagel’s money, it does raise big questions as to whether Mr. Nagel was a ‘permissible’ donator. Though, he is a UK citizen, he clearly represent some foreign interests.

The JC continues. Mr Nagel “has been a vice-chairman of Israel Bonds UK, and played a major role in the Balfour Diamond Jubilee Trust and the British Overseas Trade Group for Israel.

He is also a life-long supporter of both the Labour and Conservative Friends of Israel and appears regularly in the JC “Guest List” pages alongside leading Israeli and communal figures.”

Clearly Mr Nagel was there to buy Israeli interests and it is NO coincidence that Peter Hain ‘forgot’ to report his voluntary contribution. I ask myself whether there are many donators in this country who openly send money to the two rival parties. I guess the answer is no. There are not many, there are just very few.

However, Mr Hain’s other benefactor is another prominent Zionist named Isaac Kaye. Mr Kaye is a South African-born multi-millionaire who was known for his support of the South African Apartheid regime.

Mr Kaye, 78 year old a man with dubious past “is the former chairman of Norton Healthcare, which was investigated by police looking into an alleged £400 million price-rigging of pharmaceuticals sold to the NHS.” Mr Kaye is obviously a rabid Zionist and a major Israeli Lobbyist.

Again the JC report that Mr Kaye “has backed the Community Security Trust, UJIA and other Jewish and pro-Israel organisations. He is on the board of Bicom, the Britain-Israel Communications and Research Centre, and is a governor and major benefactor of the Hebrew University, where he has endowed the Kaye Research Awards.”

Interestingly enough, the Tories here do not do much to expose the identity of the Labour proxy donators. The reason is simple, they are backed by the very same people.

We have read about Mr Nagel swinging between the two parties. Recently Parliament's sleaze watchdog has launched an inquiry into complaints made against shadow chancellor George Osborne.

Mr Osborne allegedly received money from some of the wealthiest people in Britain, including banking heiress Lady Serena Rothschild, believed to have donated £190,000 to Mr Osborne.

...The truth of Israeli lobbying in Britain is totally revealed in the Jewish Chronicle paper, God bless them. Interestingly enough, the British press wouldn’t touch the crux of the matter yet.

http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-jewish-jokes-israel-lobby-and.html

"Arabs continue to welcome British officials and companies involved in the war in the Gulf with open arms."

**********

Well, not all Arabs. Only the corrupt few who are willing to sell themselves and their people in exchange for a few crumbs from the US/UK/Zionist table. AKA "moderate Arabs", "staunch allies in the War on Terror", etc.

Those who don't go along, get their countries bombed with depleted uranium, their people starved, their lands occupied, their children's flesh burned with phosphorous weapons, and their leaders assassinated.

***********************

"P.S, as a quote that Enoch Powell said: "Briton is becoming over-crowded, its becoming a black colony.
You Muslims should go if you start bitching about our laws,go back to your own country,its far more worser there.

ALL THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT ALLAH-AKBAR, (GOD IS GREAT) TRANSLATED.

Lets put this muppet in a plane, drop him from 30.000 feet, lets see if god is great, can you fly baby

anyone agree?"
*************************************

What a racist cesspool this comment section is.

How sad for you that you are infuriated by the declaration that God is Great. The God of love, mercy, justice and truth, the One true God, IS great. Some of us still worship him, and we can be recognized by how closely our words and deeds reflect these qualities.

Your words are evidence of a soul diseased by hate, and a mind poisoned by ignorance. May God heal you.

I apologies to all on this thread for being an ignorant racist bigot.

steven said:

Religion is a pile of shit, not to mention it is the starter of all wars, whatever war it is, religion is always there.

steven said:

Lets put this muppet in a plane, drop him from 30.000 feet, lets see if god is great, can you fly baby

Ines says:

Yes, steven, I see how your hatred of religion has made you more peaceful, tolerant and wise...

steven says:

I dont care if you all hate me for what i believe in

Ines says:

If "what you believe in" is throwing people off airplanes for their religious beliefs, all I can tell you is that one can hate the sin without hating the sinner.

steven says:

DOES HE FRIGGIN EXIST?

Ines says:

Ask Him.

And another thing...!

"Ines says:

If "what you believe in" is throwing people off airplanes for their religious beliefs, all I can tell you is that one can hate the sin without hating the sinner."

Oh yeah, we've all heard that one before, especially from Christians, who usually phrase it as 'Love the sinner, hate the sin.' Disingenuous, self-serving tosh! I suppose the Muslims who hang or stone to death homosexuals (to come back briefly on-topic re Qaradawi and his homophobic preaching) are practising this edict, are they? Or are homosexuals excluded from this rule, because they're just...well, *too* sinful to be excused in the eyes of Allah ('the Merciful')?

"steven says:

DOES HE FRIGGIN EXIST?

Ines says:

Ask Him."

Okay, I will.

Hey God, Allah, Yaweh or whateveryournameis! Cooo-eee! You up there? Hell-o-o?

*****deafening silence*****

Hmmm...Guess that's a 'No', then...

Reply to Ines:

"Steven, you speak as though the slaughter of an estimated 1.3 million Iraqis, the destruction of one of the most beautiful, prosperous countries in the Middle East and the poisoning of that land forever through the use of depleted uranium and other genocidal methods, are not worthy of consideration.

Nor the decade of vicious sanctions, in which 1.5 MILLION innocent Iraqis were coldly murdered, one-third of them children. Were you outraged, appalled, disgusted, as I was, Steven, when even before the criminal invasion, "shock and awe" bombing and occupation of Iraq, the sociopath Madeleine Albright deemed the murder of all those people "worth" "it", whatever "it" was?"

I challenge you to find a *single word* in any of my posts that even *suggests* that I condone or excuse *any* of the deaths of innocent Iraqis either during or since the invasion of their country, whether those deaths were cause by coalition troops or Islamic fanatics. I believe that an *unbiased* reading of my remarks would reveal that I am opposed to *all* human suffering, regardless of the perpetrators' identities and motivations. It is only because you are obviously incapable of an *unbiased* reading that you can *imagine* I believe things I do not, or have said things I have not. Do not put words into my mouth, Ines, because you will simply be wasting all your spit and fury demolishing a straw man of your own making.

"Steven said:

And the bodies of their victims will probably be sufficiently intact to allow for both a forensic autopsy and a conventional Muslim burial. But for sheer cold-blooded, savage, merciless, indiscriminate murder on a massive scale, your 'heroic freedom fighters' win hands down - and *they* are likely to get away scot-free."

***************************

Do you know what phosphorous bombs DO to human flesh? Do you know what happened in Fallujah, in Haditha, in so many cities and towns in Iraq? Are you aware of the soaring rates of cancer and deformed babies from the uranium-tipped missiles used against the helpless civilians of Iraq?"

Yes, I read the news, Ines - I know all of these things. And, to reiterate, I find them all saddening and appalling. What's your point?

"Have you ever heard of 'false-flag terrorism', Steven? What were those British soldiers doing in Basra, disguised as Arabs, shooting at civilians from a car loaded with explosives, Steven?"

Why do so many of the cars used as car-bombs have American serial numbers? The Americans say they're stolen in the U.S. by an "Iraqi car-theft ring" and smuggled into Iraq. Do you believe this, Steven?"

Thank you, Ines. You have just demonstrated - as if a demonstration were actually needed - the feeble powers of logic typical of the religious mindset (and which are, one might suspect, a prerequisite for such a mindset).

Let me ask you this - which of the following scenarios is more likely?

(a) That coalition troops would engage in 'covert' operations, *posing as Islamic terrorists* and suicide bombers, but be so *stupid* as to use cars with American license plates, so as to immediately bring suspicion upon the coalition forces, and not upon the Islamic terrorists they are trying to impersonate?

(b) That it was actually Islamic terrorists who were driving those cars, and deliberately chose cars with American license plates in a clumsy and pathetic attempt to fool people into thinking that coalition soldiers were actually driving them?

I mean, DUH!

Or perhaps your twisted mind even imagines an elaborate counter-bluff, in which coalition troops drove cars with American plates precisely because they wanted people to think that they were islamic terrorists trying to lay the blame on coalition troops...?

Of course, I can then suggest a counter-counter-bluff, in which Islamic terrorists drove the cars, hoping people would think they were coalition troops pretending to be Islamic terrorists pretending to be coalition troops... And so on, ad infinitum.

But if we adopt the principle of Occam's razor - that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one - to slice through this proliferating tangle of increasingly implausible possibilities, the simplest explanation is (b) - it was stupid, clumsy attempts by Islamic terrorists to lay the blame on coalition troops. You may still want to believe one of the more complicated and less credible scenarios, but then I'm afraid the burden of *proof* is on you.

"While hypocritically denouncing "Islamic" terrorism, you seem singularly unmoved by the far, far greater terrorism to which millions of Arabs and Muslims have been and continue to be subjected."

No, as I have already said, I find all human suffering appalling. But - unlike you, apparently - I do not choose sides; I do not choose to see the world in terms of a simplistic, black-and-white bipolarity between 'innocent' Muslims and 'evil Western imperialists'. And I do not believe in an eye for an eye, and that one death deserves another by way of retribution. *I* am not willing to argue that the death of one innocent Muslim in Palestine, Iraq or elsewhere justifies the death of any number of innocent non-Muslims in Israel, Madrid, London or New York. Are you? I have yet to hear you express your horror at the deaths of innocents civilians in these cities (or countless similar locations in the world), where Islamic fanatics have perpetrated their savage, psychotic acts of 'vengeance' against the 'Infidels'. How close have you ever been to the reality of that, I wonder, Ines? Well, I've been no more than a few yards from it - I had to look out from the windows of my office every day at the white tents of the temporary mortuary that processed the bodies of all the victims of the 7/7 tube bombings in London. And had I left home for work only half an hour earlier on the day of those bombings, I might well have been one of those bodies myself. I didn't acquire my outrage at human suffering from watching the TV news and reading pro-Islamist propaganda pamphlets. Is that where you got yours?

"My outrage and revulsion at the vicious treatment of innocent people who happen to be Muslim, is shared, believe it or not, by many non-Muslims, of whom I happen to be one. You exhibit a sick, primitive tribalism, otherwise known as racism, that causes you to assume that I must be a Muslim, otherwise how could I possibly bring myself to defend the human rights of Muslims?"

It is the last resort of someone who is losing an argument, and the first resort of a fool, to wave the 'racism card' in the hope of demonizing their opponent and winning the crowd over to their side, Ines. Your willingness to use that cheap tactic speaks volumes. The happy fact is that if you accused me of racism in front of my many Asian friends, colleagues and acquaintances (and Muslims number amongst them), they would all laugh at you, and make you feel the fool you obviously are.

And if I made a mistake in thinking you a Muslim, it was because of the way you spoke of your belief in your God (whichever imaginary Sky Fairy it is) using language that was uncannily similar to the language Muslims use when speaking about theirs (and I wonder why that is?). And as such, it was an understandable mistake, for which I do not owe you any apology.

"Steven said:

"It is highly likely that seconds before the 911 hijackers slammed their planes into the World Trade Centre at 500 miles per hour, obliterating thousands of innocent lives, they were chanting "Allah Akhbar, Allah Akhbar!" at the tops of their voices. But please explain to me if you can, Inse, where exactly in the lethal hurricane of high-speed debris and burning jet fuel that engulfed those plane passengers and office workers could be found the 'love', 'mercy' and 'justice' of Allah - or any other God?"

***************************************

That's some imagination you have there, Steven. Too bad you can't come up with some more original dialogue to put in the mouths of your imaginary "hijackers"."

A feeble riposte - can't you do better than that? And I'm willing to bet that if the black box flight recorders from those flights had survived the impacts, that is precisely what would have been heard on the cockpit voice-recorders. Because those guys thought they were seconds away from paradise - and a blissful eternity of decidely un-islamic hedonism and excess (pity about the white raisins, though...). Who *wouldn't* have felt like singing the praises of the entity whom one imagined was going to deliver one into that paradise, under the circumstances?

"On the other hand, if there is no God, how else to explain the miraculous collapse of three steel-beamed buildings for the first and last time in history, all within minutes of each other? Even WTC7, which wasn't even hit by an airplane?"

How else to explain the miraculous "stand-down" of the U.S. Air Force for hours on that particular day, over what is usually the most protected air space on earth?

How else to explain the miraculous pools of molten steel that continued to burn 6 weeks after the attacks?

How else to explain the miraculous survival of one of the "hijackers'" (Satam al Suqami) passports, despite raging fires that supposedly melted steel beams?

How else to explain that "Abu Musab al Zarqawi", Master Terrorist Bogeyman, died and was resurrected THREE times before he was finally "killed" by the Americans (although they refuse to return his body to his family, for some reason); and that after having his leg amputated, IT GREW BACK...

So many miracles! And yet, you claim there is no God..."

Oh, purr-lease! Don't try that conspiracy theory rot on me, Ines. Unlike you, I use reason and evidence to judge the truth of things; and I have seen all the documentaries, read all the aritlces, and listened to all the wild-eyed, obsessive X-file geeks and their elaborate theories about CIA plots and demolition charges. And I came to the conclusion long ago that they're just a bunch of sad misfits with no grip on reality, believing in things for which there is no evidence and looking for truth where they will never find it.

Kinda like your typical God-believer.

Kinda like you, in fact, Ines.

Read the Sam Harris article/book, please, Ines - it might bring you back into the *real world*!

Reply to Ines:

"steven said:

"It is the last resort of someone who is losing an argument, and the first resort of a fool, to wave the 'racism card' in the hope of demonizing their opponent and winning the crowd over to their side, Ines. Your willingness to use that cheap tactic speaks volumes." "

Yes, indeed, I did say *those* words, and I stand by them.

"Steven, here are your own words:

"WTF, who gives a rats arse about British Muslims being angry about the ban or not.
Since when we as a British Society have to please Muslims and let idiots like this guy into the country just so British Muslims can be happy about it, who cares how you feel, its our country, its our laws, its our government, if you dont like it, get the Fu*k out, if you want to stay, please do, but abide by our laws and rules."

"P.S, as a quote that Enoch Powell said: "Briton is becoming over-crowded, its becoming a black colony.
You Muslims should go if you start bitching about our laws,go back to your own country,its far more worser there.

ALL THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT ALLAH-AKBAR, (GOD IS GREAT) TRANSLATED.

Lets put this muppet in a plane, drop him from 30.000 feet, lets see if god is great, can you fly baby"

It is the last resort of someone who is losing an argument, to deny that they said what they said.

How could I accuse you of racism? I must be nuts. You didn't actually say something about Britain becoming a "black colony", eh? And of course, some of your best friends are Muslims, even though you froth at the mouth with hatred for their religion and you don't give a "rats arse", was it? for how they feel."

Ah, well now you really have stuck your foot firmly in your mouth, Ines. Because you are attributing those remarks to me, whereas if you actually look at who wrote them, it was someone called 'Steven', *not* 'Steve Denton'. So no, I did not say those things, which proves just how absurd your repeated accusations of racism towards me really are - as I have always maintained, of course. And so yes, I *do* deny I said those things, not because I was 'losing the argument', but because I did *not*, in fact, ever say them!

Please feel free to apologize for your completely unwarranted slurs of 'racism', if your blustering, indignant arrogance will permit such humility.

And yes, I have Muslim friends, and yes, I feel nothing but contempt for their religion - the same contempt I feel for all religions. But I do not feel contempt for my Muslim friends *because* they are Muslim; I pity them, perhaps, and am concerned for them, certainly, and hope that one day they will feel able to abandon their anachronistic, unenlightened, irrational worldview in favour of a more modern, enlightened and rational one.

But I recognise that this is a process that they must go through by themselves, in their own time, and I would not attempt to 'convert' them in the same way that the religious are continually trying to convert non-believers to their faiths. Because *true* knowledge and *true* wisdom are characterized by the fact that the *truths* on which they are based are *self-evidently, verifiably* true, and accessible to anyone with an open, honest and inquiring mind. And coming to this realization *by oneself* is one of the most satisfying and enriching emotional and intellectual experiences that life has to offer.

Of course, *false* knowledge and *false* wisdom, especially of the type that involves believing in fantastical notions for which there is no evidence, and which run entirely counter to common sense, can only be instilled in people with a combination of peer pressure, emotional bribery, psychological blackmail, lies, threats and coercion - which is exactly how *religious proselytizers* gain new converts to their crazy, twisted metaphysical beliefs :o)


"As for the invasion, occupation and pillage of Iraq, and the destruction of millions of innocent people's lives, funny how you are incapable of seeing this as merely the latest chapter in a long history of British crimes against Arab and Muslim people, all to feed your insatiable greed for what belongs to others."

Ahem - that's rather a case of the pot calling the kettle black, I think, Ines. Need I remind you of the Muslim wars of conquest of the late first and early second millennia, and the Muslim invasion and occupation of many countries from North Africa to Far East Asia, in pursuit of their dream of establishing an Islamic Caliphate to rule over the entire world (a dream which many in the Muslim world are still pursuing to this day, of course...)? Many of these countries are still ruled by the descendants of their original Muslim conquerors today, and often in a very oppressive, corrupt and undemocratic fashion.

So it is not only the forces of white 'Christendom' that are fond of a little empire-building, quite obviously.

And the fact that most of those countries of the Islamic Umma have not prospered and progressed economically and technologically (unless, of course, they happened to discover oil or some other commodity that they could exchange for the cash and technology of more advanced nations) to the same degree as non-Islamic countries in Europe and elsewhere cannot necessarily *all* be blamed on outsiders.

Much of the blame for that lies in the oppressive, suffocating influence of the rigid and inflexible Islamic dogmas that govern every aspect of life in those societies, which resist progress, amendment and adaptation to changing times, and condemn the people who live by them to social, political and cultural stagnation. In fact, it could be argued that it is *their own religion* that has harmed the peoples of the Islamic world far more than all the political, military, cultural and economic intrusions of non-Islamic outsiders. Of course, that is something that most Muslims, in their misplaced cultural pride and sense of innate supriority to non-Muslims, could never admit...

"The bogeyman of "Islamic terrorism" was invented to justify criminal invasions and occupation of Muslim and Arab lands, but also to justify the obscene inflation of military spending by governments led by corrupt individuals like your Blair, who have been very well rewarded for their service to their true masters.

Without it, the British people would not have remained passive as their civil liberties and privacy rights were eroded beyond recognition, as their government was corrupted by agents of a foreign state, and as the gap between the obscenely rich and the struggling poor yawned ever wider."

Please do not refer to Tony Blair as 'Your Blair', meaning mine. I'll have you know that I thoroughly detest and despise the man, *and* all his cronies, spin-doctors, unelected advisors and sycophantic boot-lickers, *and* the style of politics that they introduced into this country. And my opinion of George Bush and his administration is, if anything, even worse.

Both Blair's and Bush's administrations have proven to be disastrous for their respective countries in so many ways that it's difficult to know where to start in a detailed criticism of them. So I'm actually in agreement with you on that point, Ines!


"The history of the so-called 'Islamic terrorism' is deeply rooted in the machinations of your very own Military Intelligence, as well as the CIA and the Mossad, as a pretext for their highly lucrative crimes against sovereign resource-rich nations."

Actually, no, I think you'll find that Islamic terrorism has its roots in the Islamic reformist movement, Wahhabism, which dates from the 18th century (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wahhabi), the Muslim Brotherhood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood), which came somewhat later (1920s), and - especially - in the paranoid and rabidly anti-western rhetoric and political subversion of Sayyid Qtub (1906-1966) (http://www.answers.com/topic/sayyid-qutb-1) whose 'philosophy' of achieving worldwide Islamic supremacy (that old global Caliphate idea again...) through acts of terrorism, political subversion and religious conversion is probably still the main source of inspiration for Islamic terrorists all over the world to this day.

So please don't lecture me on the history and causes of Islamic terrorism, Ines, because it is evident that my knowledge of that subject is both more detailed and more *balanced* than your extremely *one-sided* and incomplete understanding of it.

"movement of Islam The official 9/11 conspiracy theory is merely the latest manifestation of a shameful history of similar psychological operations. Regardless of your insults, the 9/11 official story simply collapses once it is looked at with a critical eye, using simple reason and the available facts."

I don't use 'simple reasoning', Ines, because simple reasoning generally leads to *simplistic* - and erroneous - conclusions. No, when I look at the evidence and the arguments about the actual causes for the collapse of the WTC towers, I use *complex* reasoning, based on the reports of *engineers* and *scientists* and my own knowledge of physics and mechanics - which is extensive, as I am a graduate in mathematics and theoretical physics.

I don't have to rely on other people - often people with political agendas who have a vested interested in making me believe their version - to make up my mind for me. I can make up my own mind. And what my mind tells me backs up what my eyes saw on the newsreel footage - the towers fell because two very large, very heavy, fully fuelled planes slammed into them at 500 miles per hour, subjecting them to structural and heat damage that they were never designed to survive (and probably never could have been).

That's all there was to it - no secret, synchronized demolition charges, no CIA conspiracy, just the awful, fateful confluence of religious insanity with the limits of structural engineering and the inviolable laws of physics.

Mr Jeremy Havardi, do you go to university?