Tell me about it! Americans who criticize backward ideas of blacks (such as forced hypodescent and the "one drop" myth) are routinely demonized as "racists" for opposing obvious racism.

What we will find on both sides of the pond is a reluctance to criticize peoples and cultures perceived as "nonwhite."

ProudandIslamophobic,

No, fascism is the fascism of now. I assume you are European so you should know quite well what fascism is.

Is there a difference for you between Islam and radical Islam? If so what are those differences?

"While Islamophobia Watch talk about defending Muslims, they end up defending the nastiest and most right-wing part of the Muslim community – the ones who are oppressing and killing the rest."

In the above passage, Johan Hari was able to make a distinction. Can you?

"Perhaps it has not happened because of the insane ISLAMOPHILIA of the police, the media, the government, councils, schools, colleges, universities etc which allows fascism, incitement to murder and bigotry thrive so long as the bigot is a muslim with brown skin."

In detail, what should be the position of the above institutions towards Islam and more importantly Muslims since they arent an abstract set of ideals-like religion, but actually have rights and protections under the law. Thanks.

Johan Hari,

"For example, the gay rights campaigner Brett Lock wrote to one of the website’s authors, asking if he really thinks it is Islamophobic for gay people to resist sharia law, a system that demands we should be lashed or stoned. He replied, “As with adultery, I think it’s not homosexuality as such that’s an offence but the sexual act itself."

You have a problem with the Sharia that deals with punishing homosexuals and adulterors but do you have a problem with the Sharia that deals with Muslims praying, fasting, or breast feeding for two years? I ask because it seems rather superfluous to be even talking about the former because no one is even proposing it. Not even Muslims. To even have that debate is to further castigate British Muslims over complete non issues.

What next opposing laws againt the prohibition against wearing trainers?

"In response to my column yesterday - saying we should criticise all supernatural belief-systems, including Islam - a torrent of e-mailers and bloggers have predictably dubbed me an 'Islamophobe.' "

id say it was more a case of anti semitism directed towards muslims and islam.

"Do you believe a religious leader who fights to save Section 28 and says gay people spread disease is a fulminating bigot?"

it is true gays as with other members of society do spread disease.

if one has a faith and that faith disallows the homosexual act then the religious leader has to stand by his principles. religion is not pick and mix.

"Do you believe a “leading cleric” who advocates stoning gay people to death should be denounced?"

is this all gay people or gay people who have been witnessed to have taken part in the homosexual act (in public) which is against that religious leaders tenets of faith and possibly the law of the land.

is stoning and the electric chair provide the same outcome.

however what you have failed to understand the punishment is meant to be a deterrent for that homosexual act that takes place in public. clearly if it is in private who is to witness it?

"Do you believe sharia law – which requires gay people to be lashed or stoned – is always and forever unacceptable? Then, according to an energetic and aggressive group of white straight boys who surreally consider themselves to be on the left, you are an “Islamophobe” and “objectively pro-Nazi”."

sharia means law in arabic. within islam these punishments are meant to be deterrents, however the greatest act in islam is forgiveness. (see above also). the koran itself does not exact any punishment for homosexuality.

india is largely an hindu state which still has on its statutes a law contrived during the british raj which outlaws homosexuality.

what is worse an upfront statement with regard to homosexuality or that response in the usa/europe where society hides its homophobia and finds itself murdering individuals because they are perceived to be homosexuals.

"People who believe in opposing hatred of gay people everywhere – in Teheran as much as Tunbridge Wells, in Kingston, Jamaica as much as Kingston-Upon-Thames – are being subjected to a bizarre counter-campaign. As so often, Peter Tatchell is facing the most abusive backlash on our behalf. Tatchell believes all people are equal, regardless of their pigmentation. He does not see a difference between the white far-right preacher Jerry Falwell calling gay people diseased, and the Muslim leader Sir Iqbal Sacranie doing the same. He does not see the difference between gay teenagers being lynched to death in
Jamaica and murderous gay-bashings on Clapham Common. He reacts to them in exactly the same way – by fighting to stop them."

however there is a difference, sacranie as far as im aware has not sought to kill, lynch or advocate gay-bashing homosexuals. he has stated a principle of his faith. in a free country one should have the right to hold views that others might disagree with.

"For this, he is being accused of racism. Look, for example, at the popular website ‘Islamophobia Watch’, set up by a man called Bob Pitt. His website obsessively snipes at Tatchell, responding to every criticism he makes of the Islamic fundamentalists who incite and perform the murder of gay people by calling him a bigot and even “pro-Nazi”. How does he back up this slander against a man who has fought fascism all his life? The website complains Tatchell uses “the term ‘Islamism’… without distinguishing between its reformist and violent wings.” Yes, it’s true - Tatchell fails to draw a distinction between the people who will lash and stone gays after winning at the ballot box, and the people who will lash and stone gays after seizing power in a coup. This is bigotry? "

yes. one should not confuse islam the faith , its teachings with what some individuals might do or action. it is not islamism (curious term that is rather more akin to judaism that the intended fascism) but islamozionism.

recently the anglican church has proven the christian church is not so distant from what islam preaches, and christian clerics have proven themselves to be as fundamentalist (that is they observe the fundamentals of their faith) as any other adherent of any faith.

"When the Festival of Muslim Cultures promised to represent “all parts of the Muslim community” but banned gay Muslims, Tatchell supported Muslims like Aaron Saeed, who said, “Lesbians and gay men are part of Muslim faith and society. We are not going to be silenced or victimised any more. We are out and proud, as both gays and Muslims.”"

however as with christianity , islam does not allow those who partake in the homosexual act to be adherents of the faith since it is against its teachings. so it is impossible to be a muslim or a christian and be engaged in the homosexual act.

gay muslims as with gay christians have in effect created a new faith with changed principles.

"Islamophobia Watch accused Tatchell of a “stupid stunt.” When Adam Yosef, a leading figure in George Galloway’s RESPECT Coalition, said Tatchell “needs a good slap in the face” and should “pack up his bent bags and head back to
Australia ,” Islamophobia Watch accused Tatchell of leading “a witch-hunt” for answering back – without offering a single word of condemnation for Yosef’s homophobiic jeers. The list goes on."

why should islamophobia watch be answerable for the words adam yosef. and why have you conflated two issues?

"The website – which has also attacked me, I should add – reminds me of the people who respond to every criticism of
Israel by accusing the critic of anti-Semitism. It is a poisonous way of avoiding a serious debate about the facts."

but you are not entering into any serious debate, your response thus far has been pretty much akin to that which you complain islamophobia watch of being.

"They defend Sacranie on the grounds that his homophobia is part of his religion."

its not homophobia and homophobia is not part of his religion.

" But religions are just another set of ideas formulated by human beings and open to human discussion."

in your opinion. others have the right to believe otherwise.

" Tatchell says, "All people are worthy of respect - but not all ideas are." Just because somebody wrote it in a book a millennia ago and called it a ‘religion’, doesn’t place it beyond discussion. If I write a book calling Sacranie a homophobe and claim it was dictated to me by the Archangel Gabriel, will Pitt defend it as my religious view, and damn everyone who disagrees as “Johann-phobic”?"

who said it was beyond discussion? there is a vast debate in the islamic world.

but havent you just called him a homophobe, when he certainly isnt. you have no evidence that he has ever discriminated against homosexuals. he has a belief that is essentially states that the homosexual act is not permissable. that is not meaning that he dislikes homosexuals .

"Islamophobia Watch – and the dense chunk of the hard left that adopts a similar approach – is trying to redefine consistent atheism as a form of racism."

isnt that a religion, consistant atheism, only that you choose what you want to believe in. makes you god doesnt it. ironic isnt it.

" I believe that the idea of God has been a disaster for humanity, and any person who bases their morality on the writings of hallucinating pre-modern nomads is going to have pretty warped values."

pre modern does not equal stupid. and you have no evidence that it was hallucinating individuals. it is not the idea of god that has been a disaster but those who have perverted religious texts for their own greed and power (ie what zionism is). it is zionism the political ideology that involves both those of no faith and those with any faith who pervert religion. this is today known as neo conservatism .

" Islam is no worse than the absurdities of Christianity and Judaism, but it is no better. Yet Islamophobia Watch call the National Secular Society – which campaigns on this basis – “bigots”. But how is criticising a set of ideas that people choose to adopt and can choose to abandon akin to attacking people on the basis of their skin colour?"

it is not akin to skin colour. it is a specific sexual practice be it with man and man or man and woman neither is acceptable.

i cannot understand why we should be condoning such sexual practice to our children as you appear to do.

"The real racism comes from Islamophobia Watch itself, and the people who parrot their claims. Where Tatchell treats Muslims as the equal citizens of a democracy, people with open minds and a free intelligence, they treat Muslims as feeble children who cannot cope with the scorn we routinely (and rightly) pour on Catholics and Protestants. They argue that Muslims are so sensitive and uncurious that their ideas must be ring-fenced from criticism, with the police arresting anybody who vehemently criticises their beliefs."

nonsense. he has a right to campaign to voice his opinion . he can seek to have certain punishments disallowed (we must understand that sharia is no different to laws that are determined by christian values - ie each country can formulate the laws according to the principles and values of islam - sharia is therefore different in different countries just as each european country has different laws which in part are determined by europes christian past) he however cannot demand from those who have a belief in the fundamentals of their faith demand to have those fundamentals changed .

"Indeed, in their shrill condemnations of anybody who criticises Islam, they have actually fundamentally misunderstood Islam itself. Like all religions, it is based on a dense, contradictory and often ludicrous Holy Book that is being constantly reinterpreted."

doesnt this mean there is a vast debate that is on going within islam. doesnt this reinterpretation mean that islam is accounting for the change in knowledge and understanding the change in the environment.

however one cannot expect a rewriting of the koran , in doing so one perverts islam, and it is no more relevent than that which is practised by islamozionists.

" At the moment, there is a fierce battle within Islam between fundamentalists with a viciously reactionary agenda, and liberals with a more moderate agenda."

people who are mainstream of any faith are fundamentalists. that is they believe in the fundamentals of their faith.

the battle is between islamozionists and neo conservatives who are fighting over the same piece of turf .

islam itself is a moderate religion.

" If Muslim women and Muslim gays are going to have any kind of decent life, the liberals need to receive solidarity and support – but slap-dash charges of Islamophobia intimidate people who could offer it."

the weaknes of your argument has used every trick of the prejudiced. women have equality in islam.

practising homosexuals are not given any room within islam however it should be said that the koran does not advocate any punishment for homosexuals.

"They make people afraid to help the Muslim critics of fundamentalism, encouraging people to see Islam as a homogenous block defined by its most reactionary elements."

actually its neo conservatives and those who are anti semitic towards islam/muslims who encourage people to see islam as a homogenous block. just pick up any of the news media and read the terms of their arguments. they deceive, distort and lie.

why because the government needs its affiliates to deny the accountability of involving themselves in wars that are deemed to be illegal and achieved through lies and a certain fundamentalism from neo conservative backers.

"While Islamophobia Watch talk about defending Muslims, they end up defending the nastiest and most right-wing part of the Muslim community – the ones who are oppressing and killing the rest."

why do you act so specifically against this organisation when there are more horrendous demonisations of islam and muslims existing in our mainstream news media - numerous reports and research prove this fact. if islamophobia watch defends islam and muslims its because you fail to do so when it has obviously been wronged. why do you remain silent and yet vociferous when it is targeting islam and muslims?

" For example, the gay rights campaigner Brett Lock wrote to one of the website’s authors, asking if he really thinks it is Islamophobic for gay people to resist sharia law, a system that demands we should be lashed or stoned. He replied, “As with adultery, I think it’s not homosexuality as such that’s an offence but the sexual act itself. And you need four independent witnesses for a conviction.” This is, of course, the distinction made by the vilest homophobes across the world – we don’t dislike gays, just the ones who actually have sex. Lock accurately summarised Pitt’s view as, “Don’t worry, it’s okay to be gay or lesbian under sharia law – as long as you don’t sleep together.”"

nonsense . it is not homphobic. the koran does not provide for any punishment for of homosexuals. however for the sexual act be it with a woman or a man it is not allowed. that is it is equally applied regardless of sexual orientation.

neither is it about sleeping together that is just dishonesty on your part. muslim men do share beds with other muslim men without any sexual act taking place you know.

"(You can ask the editors of the Islamophobia Watch website why they continue to demonise gay men who resist sharia law at editorial@islamophobia-watch.com)."

"Like all people who cry wolf, those who cry Islamophobia are aiding and abetting the real wolves out there. There is an authentic Islamophobia howling in the background. It is the notion that Islam is a uniquely evil religion, more inherently war-like and fanatical than Christianity or Judaism or the other primitive delusions. These bona fide Islamophobes do not have a principled disagreement with superstition and human rights abuses, as Tatchell does. They have a raw prejudice against Muslims, often because they see them as foreign and all secretly sympathetic to the al Quaeda psychosis. You can see this poison smeared across the pages of the right-wing press every day. Muslims face hefty discrimination in the workplace and wildly disproportionate stop-and-searches by the police. But organisations like Islamophobia Watch are making many gay people – the natural political allies of any minority facing cruel discrimination – dismiss all claims of Islamophobia as concocted nonsense. If Tatchell is an Islamophobe, they say, then so am I."

and yet you go out of your way to demonise islam and muslims based on your irrational dislike of one organisation. one organisation that has clarified the stance islam makes with regard to homosexuals and homosexual act.

" And as for me… I am not inclined to take lectures about defending Muslims from people who utter not a word in condemnation of the systematic slaughter of gay Muslims across the world, nor a splutter of condemnation about the violation and battery of Muslim women across the world. As Tatchell asks, “Since when has being oppressed given anyone the right to oppress others?”"

and yet you feed into that which wants to oppress muslims their right to have freedom of thought and belief.

you have every right to seek a change of practice with regard to laws against the homosexual act but you have no right to seek a change of belief if that belief is benign to your being.

as far as im aware im not aware of any muslim vigilantism in this country or europe seeking to persecute homosexuals, to kill murder. i however cannot say the same for non muslims whose murderous activity and discrimination are reported in our news media.

"So true. In Iran, in Egypt and in Saudi Arabia, there is no persecution of gay people. None.

Fool.

Posted by: Jule "

theres a persecution in this country. in europe, africa, americas . tell me where there isnt any persecution?

so to direct ones ire at islam and ignore the global is disngenuous in the whole scheme of things.

i mean why dont we provide the same demonisation of judaism ,christianity hinduism etc in its peoples wrongdoings?

Jule,

Perhaps you didnt read the entirety of my post. I talked specifically about Muslim in the UK and so was Johan Hari.

But you *are* an Islamophobe, Johann.

Your piece yesterday was sheer hard-boiled hatred and bigotry.

religion smigion - who cares?.....nothings real anyway, just BE

Astounding - Johann must get this kind of insanity all the time - my respect for him has risen tenfold. Rarely have I read such ill-argued, illogical hate-filled nonsense as most of the above.

Radical Islam, as it is implemented quite clearly discriminates against gay men, lesbians and women. It is repressive, mediaeval and unacceptable in a sane and civilised society -but then so is fundamentalist Christianity, with which it shares a great deal. The idea that Christ advocated love so all Christianity stems from that flies in the face of 2,000 years of the most hate-filled bigotry, destruction and death ever seen on this planet. It'll take the Islamic world quite long time to catch up - what's depressing is that they seem to feel the need to try when instead we could drop the mutual loathing and practise compassion as a reasonable alternative.

Modern progressive Islam is no more insane than any other religion which claims to have a unique handle on The Truth of a man-made God.

so here's a vote for the modern progressives who understand nuanced argument - and a far bigger vote for dropping the fantasy Sky Fairy and simply practising compassion as an end in itself.

and a huge nod to JH for the courage and sanity of what he writes. Thank you

CarolJ

Johann Hari is right, open expression of views is what leads society forward to justice. But to overcome the fear he writes about we need to understand why people in the West have arrived at this state of affairs. Maybe its connected to 9/11 and acts of terrorism mainly commited by Muslims. But the connection between terrorism and fear of Muslims may not be that direct. The causes of terrorism run deeper than the fear of Muslims. It is possible that a more significant cause of terrorism is Western policies towards the Middle East since late 19th C. And the two issues, terrorism and fear of Muslims, have become confused in the interest of Western politicians. As in so many sectors, politicians act according to their interests and not in the interest of justice.
By the way, Martin Luther in the 15/16th C. was one of the first to openly criticise the Church and start the movement of reform/liberalisation that led to secular states.

If it was up to me, there would be no immigrant into my homeland who believed themselves to be superior to my fellow islanders. Yes, we are islanders and have enjoyed our own company and prospered but we now face annihilation by a 7th century complete belief system who want the world and his wife, the latter being booty! Brace yourselves ladies, there are no 'headaches' in Islam.

The modern situation is just like France in the 1930s - when the socialists essentially made excuses for the nazis and their persecution of left wingers, and betrayed their principles and their friends. 'We have to understand them', they said; 'it's our fault anyway for reparations in WW1', 'they have a point', 'they have their own culture', 'we shouldn't get involved' - the same attitude of the left-wing men and women now who will never ever criticise anyone with a brown skin and a religion.

Why are muslims like this - they say: 'oh it's our fault' they cry, 'the West is to blame', ' people who criticise muslims are just islamophobe neo-cons', 'we must understand the muslim side', 'we are just being imperialist'. It is UNBELIEVABLE that these cretins cannot see that hardcore muslims ARE the fascists of now - their views, if translated into german, would be quite at home in Berlin 1936. And Mein Kamff is very popular in its arabic version (available from a council-funded islamic centre near you, togethr with the usual under the counter jihadist DVDs).

The defenders of islamofascism should be ashamed at their betrayal of western liberal principles. If white non-religious people expressed similar views they'd be called fascists - so why do a brown skin and a religion magically turn you into a hero in their eyes? Pathetic idiots

Johann, you are one hundred per cent right. Your critics are the true bigots, insisting that debate be stopped altogether or conducted in terms they find 'acceptable' i.e. condemning the UK and the West, making excuses for terrorists, and basically telling lies when the facts don't fit. Keep up the good work, and don't let the bastards grind you down. There are very few good columnists in the national 'liberal' press nowadays.

So what makes any challenge to 'Holocaust' material - unlike the Koran - 'disgusting'?

"Wendy, you say about homosexuality: "theres a persecution in this country. in europe, africa, americas . tell me where there isnt any persecution?" There is a difference between coutnries that hang gay people, and copuntrues that don't. Your moral equivalence - and your Holocaust denial - is despicable.

Posted by: Jules"

firstly i have not denied the holocaust, however you do inadvertantly prove a very important point that i was making. the point was about being critical, inquisitive of the established state run version of the holocaust that makes various claims. now what you are telling me is that people cannot ask questions be critical of the one version that we all have to adhere to. now that is not a denial but healthy investigation in a free society isnt it?

as for there being a difference between countries that hang individuals for the homosexual act that takes place in public. there is a law that is specific. in iran for example it doesnt just apply to homosexuals but to heterosexuals too. the law and values are understood and are there as a deterrent largely to what they would consider as immoral acts in public.

i dont know about you but i certainly do not want to be condoning the homosexual act to children and even less so for them to do the act in a public place.

the perceived treatment of homosexuals is therefore irrelevent if one keeps it in a private place. i personally therefore dont view it as a significant problem. if however you are saying as in the west homosexuals are denied equality in say the workplace then yes you might have a point but surely we need to remove that here first.

as ive stated before i dont know of any muslim vigilantism in europe/uk/usa that specifically targets homosexuals and yet i do read about non muslims who do go out of their way to kill abuse ridicule homosexuals across europe/uk/usa.

in the same way that i see in europe/uk/usa with its paedophiles who are in the vast majority non muslims.

curious isnt it that those things that you and others would accuse muslims of doing is so much more prevalent amongs non muslims.

nice to see logic and sanity at the fore, as ever in these discussions.

JH, as far as I can tell, is completely consistent, could never be described as a hypocrite and has the immense courage to point out the gaping flaws in all kinds of fundamentalism.

watching the efforts of those same fundamentalists to smear him is an education in itself.

Keep going, it's good

CarolJ

Wendy Mann (lovely muslim name by the way) - if you love medaeieval Islamic values so much why not go and live in an Islamic state? Or do you like the tolerance and prosperity and welfare state the infidels generously give you too much? If so, it could be argued that you are a user a parasite and a coward - why not have the courage of your convictions and go and live in a cave with you islamic heroes?

You Wendy are part of the problem. You are evidence that Islam is a backwards and vile and hypocritical faith committed to bigotry, violence and outdated dark ages values.

You say: "islam and christians who believe in the fundamentals of their faith do not consider the tenets of their faith to be repressive or mediaeval but rather one that is progreesive lays down a morality and seeks justice and equality as well as peace."

Rather like the nazis or any fascists then - there are however generally accepted values of humanity, that Islamism and nazi-ism and medaeival attitudes do not share. I do not care what fascists consider 'normal' to be. Depends how one defines justice and equality too - and executing innocent people (for being atheists, gay, christian, progressive muslim) who have not had a free trial would not represent that to all civilsed people.

"i wuld say that is waht any civilised society would aspire to becoming."

What, a repressive islamofascist state? Err... Islamic states are NOT civilised in modern terms. You barabarians need to aspire to be as civilised as us - we do not need to emulate your 11th century barbarity.

"however for those who are outside of any faith who want no morality or ethical standards to be held accountable to will always view those faiths as being repressive."

What a load of spurious garbage! Morality and ethical standards were there to start with and religions took them when they were created: one does not need a faith to be moral or ethical. In fact, muslims are about the least moral and ethical people on earth.

"as ive stated elsewhere do we really want to have a society that condones public sex, that condones the homosexual act to children . do we have any lines which do should not cross."

And does western society condone sex with children? No. Does muslim society? Yes, with marriage at 10, and lots of paedophilia hidden away. And many many muslims have gay sex - in al queda training camps the students are expected to 'pleasure' their trainers, and there is a lot of gay sex amonst mulsims in every country - but it's all hidden because of people like you. (And gay sex was central to the ancient muslim societies).

Do we have any lines we should to cross? Yes, the line that allows islamists like you to incite violence and spout your vile filth to children in my country. Do us all a favour, leave the UK - you'd be much happier in an islamist state I'm sure. You share no British values at all. Go away.

"Maybe its connected to 9/11 and acts of terrorism mainly commited by Muslims. - robert"

this is not a true statement of fact it is a perception created by media.

"If it was up to me, there would be no immigrant into my homeland who believed themselves to be superior to my fellow islanders."

if you didnt realise we are all immigrants onto this island and each immigrant has always believed themselves to be superior to those already here.

"Yes, we are islanders and have enjoyed our own company"

thats obviously not true factually.

" and prospered but we now face annihilation by a 7th century complete belief system who want the world and his wife, the latter being booty! Brace yourselves ladies, there are no 'headaches' in Islam.

Posted by: carolfarrell"

islam does not seek women as booty. how quaint of you to have such mediaeval thoughts and beliefs.

"The modern situation is just like France in the 1930s - when the socialists essentially made excuses for the nazis and their persecution of left wingers, and betrayed their principles and their friends. 'We have to understand them', they said; 'it's our fault anyway for reparations in WW1', 'they have a point', 'they have their own culture', 'we shouldn't get involved' - the same attitude of the left-wing men and women now who will never ever criticise anyone with a brown skin and a religion."

youre correct of course we are trewating muslims like latter day jews of the 1930's.

"Why are muslims like this - they say: 'oh it's our fault' they cry, 'the West is to blame', ' people who criticise muslims are just islamophobe neo-cons', 'we must understand the muslim side', 'we are just being imperialist'. "

do you think there is any truth in those sentiments at all?

"It is UNBELIEVABLE that these cretins cannot see that hardcore muslims ARE the fascists of now "

how do you arrive at this conclusion?

"- their views, if translated into german, would be quite at home in Berlin 1936."

what are these views? how and why did they arrive at these views that you will provide?

" And Mein Kamff is very popular in its arabic version (available from a council-funded islamic centre near you, togethr with the usual under the counter jihadist DVDs)."

it is no more popular than in the uk where it can be found in libraries and bookshops.

what is you evidence of undercounter jihadist dvds?

"The defenders of islamofascism"

of course you mean islamozionism.

" should be ashamed at their betrayal of western liberal principles."

what are these western liberal principles and what has been betrayed?

" If white non-religious people expressed similar views they'd be called fascists"

what views are these?

" - so why do a brown skin and a religion magically turn you into a hero in their eyes? Pathetic idiots

Posted by: Bubbles "

you really should change your writing style then you'd be less recognisable.

islam as ive stated elsewhere is not a brown skin religion it is across all communities. the fact you see it as a brown skin issue suggest that you have other axes to grind.

i have to say its interesting the type of poster that supports hari.

"Wendy Mann (lovely muslim name by the way)"

what is a muslim name exactly?

"- if you love medaeieval Islamic values so much why not go and live in an Islamic state? Or do you like the tolerance and prosperity and welfare state the infidels generously give you too much?"

i suppose you could as the same questions about judiasm, hinduism, chrsitianity, bhuddism with regard to ancient values.

why do you allow your bigotry come to the fore. you presume that i should be a muslim, then you presume that in being a muslim i should be on the welfare state.

you clearly have little tolerance and our prosperity is borne of our looting the world. currently it happens to be iraqs oil and possibly irans.

infidels refers to non believers in god.

"If so, it could be argued that you are a user a parasite and a coward - why not have the courage of your convictions and go and live in a cave with you islamic heroes?"

again you show your bigotry and intolerance. you make presumptions and then act them out on the page. please stick to facts.

"You Wendy are part of the problem."

am i? is it all my fault now because i dare to question your belief system and values?

am i not supposed to question and be critical of what you believe in and uphold?

" You are evidence that Islam is a backwards and vile and hypocritical faith committed to bigotry, violence and outdated dark ages values."

yes , i see. you are so eloquently proving your point - i must admit.

"You say: "islam and christians who believe in the fundamentals of their faith do not consider the tenets of their faith to be repressive or mediaeval but rather one that is progreesive lays down a morality and seeks justice and equality as well as peace."

Rather like the nazis or any fascists then"

erm no. not at all.

" - there are however generally accepted values of humanity, that Islamism and nazi-ism and medaeival attitudes do not share."

i think you might mean islamozionism.

" I do not care what fascists consider 'normal' to be."

you should care, how else can you arrive at any conclusions, thoughts?

" Depends how one defines justice and equality too"

no. i think we all understand the principles behind justice and equality.

" - and executing innocent people (for being atheists, gay, christian, progressive muslim) who have not had a free trial would not represent that to all civilsed people."

executing innocent people is not in the sole domain of religion.

we may not execut people these days but we certainly do put away innocent people.

reprieve.orgs clive stafford smith states that in his civil rights work he has found that 30% of all black americans on death row are completely innocent another 30% to have been convicted on unsafe grounds.

america along with iran china are the worlds leading executioners.

unlike iran america will convict juveniles.

""i wuld say that is waht any civilised society would aspire to becoming."

What, a repressive islamofascist state? Err... Islamic states are NOT civilised in modern terms. You barabarians need to aspire to be as civilised as us - we do not need to emulate your 11th century barbarity."

what are modrn terms exactly?

why do you think our government actively props up some states with some of the worst despotic governments and dictators against the will of their people, eg egypt, saudi , kuwait, bahrain, uzbekistan even saddams iraq.

is that how we define being modern?

i have to point out that in islamic terms there are no islamic states at present.

""however for those who are outside of any faith who want no morality or ethical standards to be held accountable to will always view those faiths as being repressive."

What a load of spurious garbage! Morality and ethical standards were there to start with and religions took them when they were created: one does not need a faith to be moral or ethical. In fact, muslims are about the least moral and ethical people on earth."

unlike you i wasnt around when mankind first appeared on earth. so cant really comment.

it is true some do not need religion to be moral/ethical however some do.

i unlike you cannot make sweeping statements about all muslims. im certain that you have consulted all 1 billion or so muslims vs the rest of the world .

""as ive stated elsewhere do we really want to have a society that condones public sex, that condones the homosexual act to children . do we have any lines which do should not cross."

And does western society condone sex with children? No. Does muslim society? Yes, with marriage at 10, and lots of paedophilia hidden away. And many many muslims have gay sex - in al queda training camps the students are expected to 'pleasure' their trainers, and there is a lot of gay sex amonst mulsims in every country - but it's all hidden because of people like you. (And gay sex was central to the ancient muslim societies)."

in some countries in europe and the usa sex with a 12yo girl is allowed if consent is given. that is enshrined in law. in muslims countries sex outside of marriage is not allowed (unlike europe/usa) and there is an age of consent in muslims countries that is comparable to the uks.

last year there was a governmental debate about reducing that age to 14yo in the uk.

im afraid im not an expert on al qaidas sex activities - so i cant comment.

""Do we have any lines we should to cross? Yes, the line that allows islamists like you to incite violence and spout your vile filth to children in my country. Do us all a favour, leave the UK - you'd be much happier in an islamist state I'm sure. You share no British values at all. Go away."

why do you presume that im an 'islamist'. do you have evidence or is it that you prefer not to have criticism thrown at your lifestyle and values?

curiously hari is advocatiing that this is entirely what muslims/islam denies.

i have not incited violence at any time.

can you detail these british values?

"unlike iran america will convict juveniles"
Just one example: on 19 July 2005 two gay youths were hanged in a public square in Mashhad. One was a minor under 18 at the time of his judicial murder, the other was under 18 at the time his confession was extracted.

"wendy, as someone who puts "facts" of the holocaust in inverted commas, and compares the treatment of Jews in 1930s Europe to that of Muslims in present-day UK, one has to wonder if you might have other axes to grind?

Posted by: Daedalus"

no. the reason was not to question that the holocaust happened, it certainly did. but to question whether the facts that we are given as being sacrosanct and not open to scrutiny is something that is what many would advocate wrt the debate that hari utilises against islam.

as with treatment of jews , one has to understand the manner the media portrayed jews, how the leadership sought to lay the groundwork to allow a demonisation that led to many germans feeling that the jewish populations (and other groups) deserved to be abused, mistreated and imprisoned and killed.

a similar environment has been created by the government and its many affiliates in the media only at present it is against islam and muslims.

i understand why, since we need what they have and the govt in particular does not want to be held accountable for its lies and deceits with regard to iraq and the blowback that it was warned about by its own foreign office and intelligence agencies.

so to have this demonisation serves a lot of vested interests.

all of those who have attempted any terrorist attack have stated their prime reason to be because of foreign policy. this is a clue to where the radicalisation begins . and the radicalisation process is as a result of those images and reports that we can find on mainstream news programmes (however largely sanitised in the uk through government policy but not so in europe and elsewhere).

now this attack of islam and muslims arrives from the government and its affiliates who have financial/power interests - as well as organisations such as the bnp who have found a 'legitimatised' method of action for their vile neo fascism that feeds into mass fearmongering and demonisation of muslims and islam due to the governments rhetoric in order to justify its actions.

so the bnp is furthering its fascistic ideology at the expense of muslism and islam because the political climate cultivated by government allows it to.

some journos feed into the bnp bigotry (but not all) and they also have to maintain the political neo conservative zionist agenda too which is what their proprietors demand if they are to be having any influence on government policy.

Trading off atrocities is morally repugnant to me. "what do you have to say about y" is simply not a decent response to x. As it happens, I wish the Cubans would rid their country of torture by kicking the USA out - but I do not see the connection to the judicial murder of juveniles in Iran.

The facts of the holocaust are open to scrutiny; and you appear to be either ignorant or in denial of what actually happened to Jews in 30s Germany.

"Wendy - you are clearly an Islamofascist and a danger to the UK, if you encourage others to act out your violent fantasies."

what violent fanatasies have i advocated. please clarify.

"What you say is all predictable islamist lies - rather like your lie-filled koran which is full of contradictions (read it eh - or look on the internet for the lies to be highlighted)."

yas ive stated before you make a presumption of 'guilt' without any evidence. that is dangerous .

with regard to the internet one has to travel with caution.

"You clearly know nothing of islamic history or diversity and are just parroting the saudi-funded wahabi pakistani literalist islamist line you get told to think by your imam in your ismalofascist mosque - you probably think drinking alcohol is forbidden, as usual trying to make out all muslims are islamofascist jihadists like you."

do you feel better now?

"Muslims like you are most certainly not being treated like the Jews in the 1930s"

on what basis do you state this? refer to the way der sturmer portrayed jews .. through cartoons. history repeats as they say.

" - how dare you say that when my taxes pay for your stupid religion and your freedoms in the UK "

dont 'muslim' taxes pay for you too?

"and when all British people have equal rights in law and there is not one single anti-muslim law in this country "

depends how you define anti muslim law. one can have anti muslim acts condoned in the law by not having a law that prevents it. we have laws that prevent anti jewish or anti sikh acts which do not apply to muslims.

"(though many anti-chritian and anti-muslim and anti-infidel laws in islamic states)"

there are no true islamic states in the world today. however just as laws in the uk europe are based to some degree on chrsitian values it applies to those of other faiths too elsewhere.

we have values that we would choose to live by and they choose theirs. why should this be an issue. you may not approve of their values they might not approve of yours.

there are many here who would deny the existence of mosques in this country. in what way are they better than those who would deny say a church elsewhere?

"- Muslims are actually behaving like the fascists of the 1930s, which is why Hitler's books sells so well in arabic translation."

it sells very well in europe and the est. we must remind ourselves fascism was a european (christian) construct. it was in europe that so many were killed. facism famously held hands with the vatican.

" Islamism = Fascism."

what is islamism you are confusing bhuddism, judaism islamis - of course you mean islamozionism.

" And now, like in the 1930s/40s, we should fight it. I hope all those people with dangerous inciting views like yours are locked up and prefeably deported."

im not advocating any fighting unlike some here.

"To be honest, I cannot be bothered to debate with islamofascist like you."

i understand you just want to get straight down to the fighting - as youve already said

" I just think it a shame you have taken advantage of our British (un-muslim) tolerance and wish the idiots who turned our country into a multiculturalist mess hadn't been so careless with our country's future and not allowed so many people like you to stay here."

this country has always been multicultural. from aristocracy to the culture of the peasants.

"I hope you leave my country as soon as possible. Go away Wendy. Iran's lovely this time of year, apparently - you could even see some really fun executions of innocent people every Friday. Wouldn;t that be fun?

Posted by: Bubble"

oh to be tolerant like you ... sigh.