“Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behaviour; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favour of more derogatory names such as ‘Daesh’ or ‘Faesh’, and his point deserves a wider hearing.”
Can Boris Johnson or Rehman Chishti or anyone else who advances this view point to even a single “impressionable young Muslim” who was moved to support or join the Islamic State because some non-Muslim called it “the Islamic State”? Can they point to even a single “impressionable young Muslim” who was moved to reject the appeal of the Islamic State because Boris Johnson or David Cameron or John Kerry or some other non-Muslim said that it wasn’t Islamic?
The problem with refusing to call the Islamic State what it calls itself is that it is a manifestation of a greater unwillingness to examine its motives and goals, and to devise ways to defeat it based on that examination. Refusing to understand your enemy is a recipe for defeat.
“Islamic State? This death cult is not a state and it’s certainly not Islamic,” by Boris Johnson, Telegraph, June 28, 2015:
If we are going to defeat our enemies we have to know who they are. We have to know what to call them. We must at least settle on a name – a terminology – with which we can all agree. And the trouble with the fight against Islamic terror is that we are increasingly grappling with language, and with what it is permissible or sensible to say.
When a man sprays bullets at innocent tourists on a beach, or when a man decapitates his boss and sticks his head on the railings, or when a man blows himself up in a mosque in Kuwait – and when all three atrocities are instantly “claimed” by the same disgusting organisation – it is surely obvious that we are dealing with the same specific form of evil. This is terrorism.
But what are the objectives of this terrorism? Is it religious? Is it political? Is it a toxic mixture of the two? And what exactly is its relationship with Islam? Many thoughtful Muslims are now attempting – understandably – to decouple their religion from any association with violence of this kind.
The excellent Rehman Chishti, MP for Gillingham, has launched a campaign to change the way we all talk about “Isil”. He points out that the very use of the term “Islamic State” is in itself a capitulation to these sadistic and loathsome murderers. They are not running a state, and their gangster organisation is not Islamic – it is a narcissistic death cult.
Rehman’s point is that if you call it Islamic State you are playing their game; you are dignifying their criminal and barbaric behaviour; you are giving them a propaganda boost that they don’t deserve, especially in the eyes of some impressionable young Muslims. He wants us all to drop the terms, in favour of more derogatory names such as “Daesh” or “Faesh”, and his point deserves a wider hearing.
But then there are others who would go much further, and strip out any reference to the words “Muslim” or “Islam” in the discussion of this kind of terrorism – and here I am afraid I disagree. I can well understand why so many Muslims feel this way. Whatever we may think of the “truth” of any religion, there are billions of people for whom faith is a wonderful thing: a consolation, an inspiration – part of their identity.
There are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom the word “Islamic” is a term of the highest praise. They resent the constant association of “Islam” with “terrorism”, as though the one was always fated to give birth to the other. They dislike even the concept of “Islamic extremism”, since it seems to imply a seamless continuum of Muslim belief and behaviour: from liberal to tolerant to conservative to reactionary to terrorist.
Their point is that terrorist violence is alien from Islam, and that is why they argue so strenuously that we should drop all references to “Muslim terrorists” or “Islamic terrorists”. They say that any use of the word Islam or Muslim in such a context is actually offensive and derogatory, and helps to alienate the very people we need to win over.
As one Muslim friend put it to me, “you wouldn’t talk about Christian terrorists would you?” And there is some truth in that. We don’t talk about “Christian terrorism” even in the context of the sectarian violence between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland. Why do we seem to taint a whole religion by association with a violent minority?
Well, I am afraid there are two broad reasons why some such association is inevitable. The first is a simple point of language, and the need to use terms that everyone can readily grasp. It is very difficult to bleach out all reference to Islam or Muslim from discussion of this kind of terror, because we have to pinpoint what we are actually talking about. It turns out that there is virtually no word to describe an Islamically-inspired terrorist that is not in some way prejudicial, at least to Muslim ears….
Indeed. You’d think that Boris Johnson would wake up to the game being played here.
Carl Thomas says
The word ‘Islam’ means ‘peace.’ The word ‘Muslim’ means ‘one who surrenders to God.’ But a lot of THE IMANS, (any crazy idiot can be one in the islam religion) are religious zealots that have changed the meaning of peace and love into hate and to kill, that is why ISIS occurred with their barbarism and infrahuman satanic actions with ignorant mixed up followers abound so not until Islam reforms its tenets like Christians did centuries ago will there be peace among us. Mohamed didn’t say that his teachings couldn’t be reformed, he was just a human man with some imagination about God, it’s the Imans who included these terrible ideas into the hadiths that are totally false to control and subject their people. In this 21 century muslims still dress like 1000 years ago, no advance? They contribute zero to society today only using western ideas and arms against peace loving people. They should wake up.
If we desire a society of peace, then we cannot achieve such a society through violence. If we desire a society without discrimination, then we must not discriminate against anyone in the process of building this society. If we desire a society that is democratic, then democracy must become a means as well as an end.
Jack Diamond says
Islam means submission, not peace. The Qur’an is a manual of war, not peace., permanent war against all non-Muslim mankind. Unless you mean the peace of the graveyard. No, not any crazy idiot can be an imam, he has to know the crazy Qur’an and Sunnah backward and forward. ISIS is just emulating Muhammad and his Companions, the best of Muslims. This Abu Bakr is just emulating the first Abu Bakr. The Islam you are talking about is non-existant but nice try. See IQ al Rasooli’s post for the start of your education.
jihad3tracker says
Thank you Jack, for taking several minutes of your life that you can never get back.
Efforts to point out facts is LIKE SHOVELING WATER UPHILL . . . And just as effective.
Georg says
And they wonder why we’re occasionally sarcastic… The word “Islam” has meant “submission” for probably thousands of years and we have to put up with this on a weekly, if not daily basis…
Bamaguje says
Methink a more apt translation of Islam is “surrender”… ostensibly surrender to Allah.
“Surrender” underscores Islam’s militaristic agenda for world domination.
Carl Thomas is very wrong to assert that Islam means peace. Muslims cannot be at peace with the non-Muslim world, which they consider Dar-ul Harb (land of war).
Consequently, Islam also forbids Muslims from greeting non-Muslims “Assalam alaikum” – “peace be unto you.”
The “peace” of Islam is the peace of a graveyard full of infidel corpses.
Jack Diamond says
“al-silm” the root, is translated as either “submission” or “surrender.” “Muslim” means one who submits. Submission, surrender to Allah and his religion and his messenger.
Mr. Thomas and those like him are told “Islam” is related to “salaam”, or peace. There’s not a single verse of the Qur’an where Islam or Muslim means peace. Salaam itself is better translated as safety or security, your protection and preservation. Which comes from your submission and surrender, of course. Even if Islam meant “peace” it’s not a peace you would seek in your right mind.
“Islam and Salam are two incongruous words that share no common ground either in name or in substance. In order to find the meaning of a certain word in the Arabic dictionary, it is essential to search for the three letter infinitive verb which is called the root. Many words can be derived from the same root, but they don’t necessarily have to have any similarity in their meaning. The word Islam, which means ‘submission’, is derived from the infinitive Salama. So is the word Salam which means ‘peace’ and so is the verb Salima which means ‘to be saved or to escape from danger’. One of the derivations of the infinitive Salama means ‘the stinging of a snake’ or ‘The tanning of the leather’. Hence, if the word Islam has something to do with the word Salam i.e. ‘Peace’, does that also mean that it must be related to the ‘stinging of the snake’ or ‘tanning the leather’?
“Muhammad used to send letters to the kings and leaders of the surrounding countries and tribes, inviting them to surrender to his authority and to believe in him as the messenger of Allah. He always ended his letters with the following two words: “Aslim, Taslam!”. Although these two words are derived from the same infinitive Salama which is the root of Salam, i.e. ‘Peace’, neither one of them implies the meaning of ‘peace’. The sentence means ‘surrender and you will be safe’, or in other words, ‘surrender or face death’”
http://www.answering-islam.org/Hoaxes/salamislam.html
Huck Folder says
Carl ‘koolaid’ Thomas
“The word ‘Islam’ means ‘peace.’”
Your CITATION please, or who fed you that line?
It means SUBMISSION and you know that.
I’m in two minds about that word.
Can you ‘submit’ absolutely voluntarily?
Dictionary quote:
“the action or fact of accepting or yielding to a superior force or to the will or authority of another person.”
“they were forced into submission”
Maybe I was wrong. It certainly has the flavor of genuflection, and doing what someone else wants.
For the brainwashed worshipers of mo, it means putting yourself second to a (very successful) caravan bandit, who lied, raped and pillaged his way to a personally very lucrative and sexual dictatorship.
That included the cultural GENOCIDE and ethnic cleansing of arabia, of tribes which had existed for hundreds of years before mo invented sock-puppet ‘allah’ and ‘islam’, along with some real GENOCIDE (the Banu Qurayza – were there others?).
Georg says
Your CITATION please
His citation: That’s what he feels like it means.
mortimer says
CT has two points: 1) there is a ‘good’ Islam that is peaceful and 2) Islam is backward.
I disagree about one, but the evidence of two is so crushing it needn’t be discussed.
In fact, CT, there is no evidence that a ‘good Islam’ or a ‘peaceful Islam’ exist. Islam lacks the Golden Rule, so all non-Muslims are enemies of Allah who must be repressed by warfare. This warfare (jihad) is unending until the Day of Judgment. That is the version of Islam preached by Mohammed in Medina after ‘peaceful Islam’ was abrogated and cancelled.
Jihadic Islam cannot be dis-abrogated. You need to learn more about Islam. You are a beginner.
Peggy says
Are you claiming to know more about Islam and Koran than Imams do?
What exactly qualifies you to make these statements? Please do tell.
Georg says
“Are you claiming to know more about Islam and Koran than Imams do?
What exactly qualifies you to make these statements? Please do tell.”
Yea, it’s not like you’re the British PM or something.
Wellington says
Are you for real, Carl Thomas? Look, I don’t mean to hit this too hard but you deserve this: You are either hopelessly naïve or you are a deceiver. No third alternative exists.
If you think me wrong here, then respond to my two choices about you by providing a cogently argued third one. If I don’t hear from you, and that goes for others on this thread who have doubted for one reason or another why you asserted what you did, then your initial comment needs to be completely dismissed, because if one can’t back up what one initially says when criticized, like the contention that “Islam” means “peace,” then what one initially has said is worthless, whatever the reason for stating it. The ball is now in your court.
silvergreycat says
Carl,
*The word ‘Islam’ means ‘peace.* Yet the Quran contains 164 verses promoting violence against non-muslims… http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Themes/jihad_passages.html
Sources:
http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbworld.aspx?pageid=8589953043
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/Quran/023-violence.htm
Celtic says
@Carl
Mohammed had nothing, really nothing to do with love and peace. You obviously are really ignorant about this man.
@topic
Basically, nothing has anything to do with Islam. Neither the islamic history, nor jihadattacks – yes, not even Mohammed has something to do with Islam.
I actually believe th
jihad3tracker says
As Robert has correctly noted in several posts of this “don’t dignify ISIS” category, jihadis do not give a flying goat f*ck what Inifidels like Mayor Boris say about them.
They have the Qur’an + Hadith + Sira for comfort and inspiration — those are perfectly adequate.
Weeping Man says
Even a self-professed State can be a state, particularly when they’re expanding territory more rapidly than the Borg Collective of Star Trek TNG fame. He is delusional. And to say they’re not Islamic is nonsense. They’re pure Islam, direct from the black heart of Muhammed. He is doubly delusional, and may pose a threat to others in the UK by his ignorance.
IQ al Rassooli says
The current TRAGEDIES facing Western peoples are caused NOT by Muslims whose PUBLICLY declared intention to is bring SHARIA rule ALL over this planet (starting with Muhammad’s unilateral TOTAL war declaration against ALL Infidels/ Kuffar in 622AD in Medina) BUT by our own Witless, Clueless, Spineless and Criminally negligent leaders such as Boris, Cameroon & others who are DENYING all Facts & Realities facing us
Take Boris’s assertion that Jihad is ” a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t necessarily involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness…” when any decent human being with TWO brain cells of Logic having read ONLY the first nine chapters of Muhammad’s Quran (no need to read all 114 chapters) or so many Hadith articles will come to exactly the OPPOSITE conclusion
Al Tauba 9:5 “But when the forbidden months are past then fight and slay [fa’qtuloo] the pagans wherever ye find them and seize them beleaguer them and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war”
Al Tauba 9:29 “Fight [qatiloo / SLAY] those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth [ISLAM] (even if they are) of the People of the Book [Christians & Jews] until they pay the Jizya [Onerous tax for NOT being a Muslim] with willing submission and feel themselves humiliated”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.50 Narrated by Anas bin Malik
“The Prophet said, ‘A single endeavor of fighting in Allah’s Cause {Qital fi Sabil Allah} (JIHAD) is better than the world and whatever is in it.'”
Sahih Muslim Hadith 4631 & 4626 Abu Huraira
“I heard Muhammad say: … I love that I should be killed in Allah’s Cause [Jihad]; then I should be brought back to life and be killed again in Allah’s Cause [Jihad].'”
Sahih Al-Bukhari Hadith 4.73 Narrated by Abdullah bin Abi Aufa
Allah’s Apostle said, “Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords.”
Not a single one of our current leaders in the West is willing to declare that the COMMON Denominator to all 100% acts of TERROR committed against Infidels/ Kuffar all over the globe are by MUSLIMS reciting verses from Muhammad’s Quran JUSTIFYING each and every dastardly deed of theirs!
Is there anyone in the UK who can prove me WRONG?
Boris are you MAN enough to take me on or just a mouthpiece for Muslims?
$100,000 says NOT possible!
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Huck Folder says
“…Jihad is ” a central concept of Islam, and doesn’t NECESSARILY involve violence; indeed, you can be engaged in a jihad against your own moral weakness…””
JIHAD was used in a PRIMARILY MILITARY sense.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad
“In his work, The History of Baghdad, Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi, an 11th-century Islamic scholar, referenced a statement by the companion of Muhammad Jabir ibn Abd-Allah. The reference stated that Jabir said, “The Prophet… returned from one of his battles, and thereupon told us, “You have arrived with an excellent arrival, you have come from the Lesser Jihad to the Greater Jihad—the striving of a servant (of Allah) against his desires (holy war).”” [Their ‘desires’ were for HOLY WAR? What do ‘peaceniks’ say about that?]
Sounds OK, if a bit vague, but FOUR HUNDRED YEARS LATER? And ONLY ONE such quote from the 10 billion words of babble about mohammed! More wiki jihad:
“According to the Muslim Jurist Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, the quote in which Muhammad is reported to have said that greater Jihad is the inner struggle, is from an UNRELIABLE SOURCE:
“This saying is widespread and it is a saying by Ibrahim ibn Ablah according to Nisa’i in al-Kuna. Ghazali mentions it in the Ihya’ and al-`Iraqi said that Bayhaqi related it on the authority of Jabir and said: There is weakness in its chain of transmission.” Hajar al Asqalani, Tasdid al-qaws, see also Kashf al-Khafaa’ (no.1362)”
“Ibn Habbaan narrates: The Messenger of Allah was asked about the BEST JIHAD. He said: “The BEST JIHAD is the one in which your horse is SLAIN and your BLOOD is spilled.””
So the ‘best’ of the lesser jihad – (the least jihad?) – is the most violent?
Now we know where George Orwell got his ideas of Newspeak from, islamist taqiyya!
“Middle East historian Bernard Lewis: “the overwhelming majority of classical theologians, jurists, and traditionalists (specialists in the hadith) understood the obligation of JIHAD in a MILITARY sense.” Furthermore, Lewis maintains that for most of the recorded history of Islam, from the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad onward, the word JIHAD was used in a PRIMARILY MILITARY sense.”
…more
Huck Folder says
…continued:
“According to Sayyid Qutb, an Egyptian, (the leader of the Muslim Brotherhood): “There are two parties in all the world: the Party of Allah and the Party of Satan – the Party of Allah, which stands under the banner of Allah and bears his insignia, and the Party of Satan, which includes every community, group, race, and individual that does not stand under the banner of Allah.””
In other words, you’re WITH us or AGAINST us. Sound familiar? The leftards and MSM castigated Bush for that; what do they say about Qutb? Crickets!
“The Muslim Brotherhood created some [MANY] American Muslim groups and sought influence in others, many of which are listed as unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land case, such as CAIR.
The MB posted a series of articles by Dr. Ahmad ‘Abd Al-Khaleq about Al-Walaa Wa’l-Baraa, an Islamic doctrine which, stipulates ABSOLUTE ALLEGIANCE to the community of Muslims and TOTAL REJECTION of non-Muslims and of Muslims who have strayed from the path of Islam. In his articles, the writer argues that according to this principle, a Muslim can come closer to Allah by HATING all non-Muslims – Christians, Jews, atheists, or polytheists – and by waging JIHAD against them in every possible manner.”
“In her book Muhammad: a Biography of the Prophet, Karen Armstrong writes:
“Fighting and warfare MIGHT sometimes be necessary, but it was only a MINOR part of the whole jihad or struggle.”” [Taqiyya Sister? One lump or two?]
“David Cook, author of “Understanding Jihad”, said “In reading Muslim literature – both contemporary and classical – one can see that the evidence for the primacy of SPIRITUAL JIHAD is NEGLIGIBLE. Today it is CERTAIN that no Muslim, writing in a non- Western language (such as Arabic, Persian, Urdu), would ever make claims that jihad is primarily nonviolent or has been superseded by the ‘spiritual jihad’. Such claims are made SOLELY by Western ‘scholars’, primarily those who study Sufism and/or work in INTERFAITH DIALOGUE, and by Muslim APOLOGISTS who are trying to present Islam in the most INNOCUOUS manner possible.”
“Presentations along these lines are ideological in tone and should be discounted for their BIAS and DELIBERATE IGNORANCE of the subject” and that “it is no longer acceptable for Western ‘scholars’ or Muslim apologists writing in non-Muslim languages to make flat, unsupported statements concerning the prevalence – either from a historical point of view or within contemporary Islam – of the ‘spiritual’ jihad.”
Jack Diamond says
I thought it was Gary Busey. It even sounded as incoherent as Gary has been known to be.
But no, it’s just the Mayor of London.
“When a man sprays bullets at innocent tourists on a beach, or when a man decapitates his boss and sticks his head on the railings, or when a man blows himself up in a mosque in Kuwait – and when all three atrocities are instantly “claimed” by the same disgusting organisation – it is surely obvious that we are dealing with the same specific form of evil. This is terrorism.”
It isn’t terrorism. It is Jihad. The core of this wonderfully consoling, inspiring faith. And the jihadi is doing WORSHIP, unbeknownst to the Mayor but very well known to those Muslims who insist he contort language into fantasy-speak so not to offend them. What a good dhimmi. Wag your tail.
“If we are going to defeat our enemies we have to know who they are.” You haven’t a clue who they are, Mayor Busey. You are already defeated.
jayell says
Seems like we in the UK might be in a situation here similar to the mid-1930’s. I’m not sure what the ‘official’ stated position on Hitler and the Nazis was at that time, but I get the impression that we were supposed to try and ‘get on with him’ and we weren’t (apparently) preparing for war or possible invasion. Hitler WAS, however.
In 1936 a company of ‘Dutch’ land-drainage engineers on some kind of ‘legitimate’ business requisitioned 26 pieces of land in the UK for their ‘engineering work’. It just happened that these pieces of land were unusally flat and just happened to be in strategically the ‘right’ places for landing strips for aircraft coming from the continent, but that fact never struck anyone. The ‘Dutch engineers’ also built ‘barns’ or similar buildings on their properties, but no-one on the ground apparently noticed the curious formation of these buildings. It was only a couple of years later when war started looking possible that RAF reconaissance aircraft flying over the UK looking for likely locations for RAF bases noticed that most of the best locations were in the hands of these ‘Dutch Engineers’ and the buildings there had been laid out in the form of swastikas. I believe that it was at that point that the ‘Dutch Engineers’ were found to be Dutch Nazi sympathisers, and guess what they had been doing? Not sure what happened to them.
Now, here we have leading establishment figures and muslim interlopers trying hard to con us that all this nasty Isis business in Syria and elsewhere and the goings-on in a certain Mediterranean holiday resort are nothing to do with Islam – despite all the evidence screaming to the contrary from outside and inside the UK – and of course ‘Dave’ is at it as well (Daily Mail – ‘Cameron tells BBC to stop calling barbaric terror group ‘Islamic State’ because name is offensive to ‘many Muslims’).
Seems like we’ve been here before. There might be some hope that sense will prevail since some high-up person in the Defence fraternity has recently been reported in the London ‘Times’ as drawing parallels between our Islamic friends and the Third Reich. But people had better get their skates on, because although our ‘Dutch Engineer’ friends had a couple years to get up to what they were doing in 1936, our ‘islamic friends’ in the UK have had a whole lot longer and they’re well in truly in the woodwork over here.
Huck Folder says
This is exactly, EXACTLY like Hitler’s rampage through Europe (AND reaching The US!) – which started in 1933, NOT 1939.
Appeasing BASTARDS (I wish there were some ten times stronger epithets) in Britain and France, touched their toes for the nazis, NUMEROUS times, ALLOWING all that followed. AS far as I know, NONE of them was ever even charged with treason. One of them ‘Lord’ Halifax even continued his career as Ambassador to America.
Britain was saddled with Joe ‘traitor’ Kennedy as US Ambassador, who NEVER missed an opportunity to boost Hitler or stab Britain in the back.
BTW, has anyone heard of any ‘Quel horreure’ cries about IMMINENT BACKLASH against ‘poor threatened, peaceful’ worshipers of mo, especially from cair?
I wonder how Marine Le Pen and Generation Identitaire are doing?
jayell says
“BTW, has anyone heard of any ‘Quel horreure’ cries about IMMINENT BACKLASH against ‘poor threatened, peaceful’ worshipers of mo, especially from cair?”
Wouldn’t know about CAIR (what a misnomer!) but over here we have an organisation called ‘Tell Mama’ which essentially provides a focus for all the incessant muslim whingeing. After the islamic murder of the soldier Lee Rigby they were telling us about all the attacks & threats against muslims; which would have been quite understandable in the circumstances, except for the fact that either they didn’t happen at all or were gross exaggerations (e.g., accusing muslims of being ‘filthy rotters’ would have counted as a ‘murderous threat’). Essentially, it was a tissue of lies from ‘Tell Mama’, but what else do you expect from the followers of the ‘Religion of Peace’ (there, another lie!). Quite obviously, following their own mindset, these people expected ‘retribution’, didn’t quite get it, so they made it up. Perhaps it was supposed to have been an excuse for yet more disgusting behaviour from them.
Proud islamaphobe says
Funny how the Billion plus loony followers don’t rise up and fight these IS ‘infidels’ who are slandering their peaceful & oooh soo loving wack cult. They must snicker ceaselessly at the bought and paid for Cam-amoron, Nojohnson and BO!!!
Jack Diamond says
They would be pronouncing takfir on them, starting with al-Baghdadi. Excommunicating them as apostates. They will no more do that to ISIS than they did to Bin Laden or Zawahiri. And unless they do that their objections are a joke. But they can’t and won’t do that because those in ISIS and Al Qaeda are better Muslims than those accusing them, and can prove it.
Jaladhi says
>” He points out that the very use of the term “Islamic State” is in itself a capitulation to these sadistic and loathsome murderers. They are not running a state, and their gangster organisation is not Islamic – it is a narcissistic death cult.”<
But, but…that is an excellent summary of Islam itself and Muslims!!
somehistory says
islam is ….”t is a narcissistic death cult.”
They need to acknowledge that fact. islam is a narcissistic death cult It always has been and always….as long as it exists….will be. It has not changed, it will not change….except when it ceases to exist.
One thing: If they have nothing to do with *islam* as the pres says, then why….big why….did he try to make what they are doing less offensive by saying *Christians* have a bad history….ie: when we *shouldn’t get on our high horse.*??
If it has nothing to do with islam, he and others wouldn’t feel the need to bring up the Crusades and try to equate what Jesus taught and His followers do/have done with what muslims all over the world are doing and have always done when in numbers large enough to enforce their evil, satanic unlawfulness on others. They wouldn’t feel it necessary to bring up the Crusades….when Christians were fighting for their very lives against muslim hordes intent on taking the life of every Christian without any provocation other than the Christians were breathing and serving the True God, refusing to bow to satan’s beast
And even here, Christians are thrown in, even though no one is committing terrorism in the name of Christ. No one is committing atrocities and saying Christ told them to do it and that it is the will of Christ or the will of the True God and His Son.
If it had nothing to do with the narcissistic death cult, they wouldn’t feel the need to throw Christians to the lions in order to defend islam. Calling them is, is not giving them power or dignity. They are what they are and this guy, and the PM, should admit it. The pres never will.
Angemon says
Not by creating a form of islam that strictly forbids terrorism but by making sure that non-muslims don’t addressislamic terrorism as such. If necessary, using the blunt hammer of “islamophobia” to silence those who point out that the terrorists are resorting to islamic texts to justify their actions.
My point is made and proved.
Including the muslims in the islamic state.
The problem is that the terrorists themselves identify as muslims and use islamic references to back everything they do. That’s how they win other muslims over – by proving that they’re adhering to the purest form of islam presently available.
Is there any group belonging to a mainstream Christian denomination committing acts of terror, justifying them with quotes from the Bible and winning supporters from all over the world because they style themselves as the purest form of Christianity?
Has he been reading Karen Armstrong lately? The violence in Northern Ireland was a matter of nationalism and independence. Arguably the most (in)famous terrorist group involved was called the IRA (Irish Republican Army), not the ABCC (Armed Branch of the Catholic Church). If the IRA had killed every non-catholic they could get their hands on and fighting to create a Catholic State ruled by Catholic law, the comparison would be fair. As it stands, it makes no sense.
“Minority”? Spend less time reading Armstrong and more time reading Pew data, buddy – you might learn a thing or two. Like I said, the islamic state portrays itself as being the purest form of islam, and backs their actions with islamic scripture and the example of muhammad and his companions. Whether we call them “muslims”, “jihadis” or “killer klowns from outer space”, that won’t change.
Dan says
Okay.
Since the same words have different meanings in different cultures.
My definition of “Peace” is as follows.
peace (noun)
1. a state of mutual harmony between people or groups, especially in personal relations, after you have pounded into sand individuals and/or groups attempting to enslave you or bring about your violent demise.
2. the normal freedom from civil commotion and violence of a community; public order and security after your enemies acknowledge they understand they will be pounded into sand if they even think about trying to enslave you, or actively enlist in bringing about your violent demise.
3. cessation of or freedom from any strife or dissension that comes from your enemies completely understanding you really, really mean it when you say you will pound them into sand if they even joke about trying to enslave you, or actively enlist in bringing about your violent demise.
4. a state of tranquillity or serenity that comes from knowing your friends will have you backs and you theirs if anybody tries to enslave you, or tries to enlist in bringing about your violent demise.
CanuckEH says
Satan has done one HELL of a job with ISLAM.
WOW
Ed says
I wish Rehman would go meet the IS leaders in the Islamic State in Iraq or Syria in person, so they can explain (and perhaps demonstrate) to him why it is called IS.
Mirren10 says
Rehman is a muslim, from Pakicrapstan. His father is an *imam*. He’s the MP for Gillingham, an area with the fastest growing muslim population in the Medway.
He knows damn well why the IS is called the IS, which is why he wants to stop us from using the term. This is just another example of how muslims are infiltrating everywhere into the ‘corridors of power’; and fools like Johnson and camoron listen happily to all that sweet taqiyyah. Blech.
Joe Shmo says
The replies on his facebook page show that many people aren’t buying it.
https://www.facebook.com/borisjohnson/posts/10153039566661317
If anyone wants a little cheering up here’s a funny video of lovable buffoon Boris Johnson hosting a British satirical news quiz. He might end being prime minister one day. Think about that. Still, he’s more fun than Cameron.
vox populi says
… then I imagine that the fact that 100% of islamic state adherents is muslim, that they therefore apply literally the quran and that worldwide 100% of their supporters goes to mosquees must be for this fellow a mere stathistical coincidence …
Paul says
Renowned Islamic scholar Boris Johnson ought to now. Maybe he
could go to Iraq or Syria to advise them on how they’ve got it so
terribly wrong. I think that would be a huge success.
Paul says
“ought to know”.
Voytek Gagalka says
Word of reality to Mr. Mayor:
It IS Islamic State (sorry for little redundancy between this third-person singular present tense and acronym of the IS, or ISIS). Using the name which they use themselves does not mean one must *recognize* them as a state, i.e. have diplomatic relations with, or grand them any “moral status. During WWII Rehman’s countrymen used to call Hitler’s Germany as “The Third Reich” (name he devised) even though they fought total war against it. Why those sissies are so afraid of using proper names and linguistic descriptions?!
vlparker says
The stupidity of these people is absolutely astounding.
abad says
Utterly depressing and tragic. Those are NOT the words to come out of the mouth of an Englishman from half-century or more than half-century ago.
No.
Champ says
Aw, hes been to Supercuts …
vincent says
What with texting drivers and blood thirsty fanatics it is getting harder to be a pedestrian. I take very seriously the behavior of the actions of the fanatics. Firstly the wish to stop democracy, free speech, freedom of religion, they just want to kill kill kill. These actions are absolutely wrong and it being done by in the name of a religion casts the memory back to historical records of what Christian fanatics have done in the past. I’m believing that this is 100% symbiotic and to deny any connection between this activity of the modern fanatics and their religion is not right. Take Iran, they have done many similar things, when Ayatollah Khomani was first in power it was stated that he wiped out the Bahia in his country. When you have a holy book advising many of the cut throat things then the problem is apparent. You should ask if it is safe to bring in more Muslims into our countries if they are in such conflict with those outside their inner circle. For English people to have people within their own country being mistreated by the immigrants is a matter which goes beyond utter rudeness it is hegemony and disdain.
Western Canadian says
Am I the only one who is sick and tired of ignorant people trying to pretend that Christianity has ever been as vile a curse on the human race,, as islam always is??
somehistory says
No.
mortimer says
Boris Johnson spouts the party line. His Saudi informants want to continue their self-protective explanation that Saudi Islam is the ‘real’ Islam, but it is in fact no different from the Islam of ISIS.
For the last two hundred years, the House of Saud has committed the same human rights violations as ISIS, but without the cameras rolling or reporters bringing the news to the West. ISIS is putting Saudi Islam onto the world stage.
The House of Saud created ISIS by the religious teachings they put in their school curricula. ISIS is the Frankenstein’s monster of the House of Saud.
Boris Johnson is listening to Saudi propagandists who are disguising their responsibility in the creation of ISIS.
This is tragic that so many British politicians are deceiving the public.
Peggy says
If any of these traitors like this mayor and Cameron wish to rename this cult and continue to say that it has nothing to do with Islam, would they kindly go to Syria and tell all those terrorists how wrong they are and what they should rename their cult to.
No use “educating” us on how this isn’t Islam and it isn’t ISIL. We are not the ones who had anything to do with it. Go tell them.
Western Canadian says
After having purchased his book on Churchill last year, I ended up rather amazed that i never finished it. How anyone could produce page after page on such an absolutely intriguing and unusual personage, and manage to make the subject…….. BORING!!!! is something that I continue to wonder about…. Scattershot, rehashing what has been said by others before him, but not saying it anywhere near as well. And how anyone could actually study Churchill’s life, and not be clued in on how vile islam (RTC) actually is, but be capable of uttering the offensive drivel he has spewed in this article…. He is either brain dead, bought and paid for, or both.
Kasey says
Both British leaders are just trying to appease their Muslim constituents and keep the peace. But by doing so they only postpone the on-coming clash within their society.
ZAHEER HUSAIN KHAN says
HOW ABSOLUTELY TRUE .
EVERY MUSLIM ,SHIA OR SUNNI DON’T RECOGNISE THEM ie I S OR WAHIBBITES . NOW THE EUROPE, U K & U.S. CHRISTIANS HAVE FULLY REALISED THAT THESE ARE THE MAIN VILLIANS
OF TERRORISM AND SOURCE FOR WORLD WIDE VIOLENCE . ARE THE MUSLIMS, SHIAS AND
SUNNIS AS WELL AS CHRISTIANS OF THE WORLD ARE SO IMPOTENT THAT THEY CAN’T BE
UNITED AND TOGETHER THEY THROW THEM OUT OF EXISTANCE . IT IS JUST A SIMPLE MATTER,
WHY LET ALL THE PEOPLE SUFFER ALL THE TIME . WHAT PREVENTS YOU TO MAKE THIS WORLD PEACEFUL AND WORTH LIVING.
God Almighty says
Given the hopeless state in which the West find itself in the battle against Islamic challenge, the best strategy for them now may well be to withdraw from the Islamic world, and try to contain Islam outside its boundaries. While this is the best strategy to undertake at this time, but I am also aware that it may be impossible to implement when large number of Muslims are already within the West’s borders. And Muslim growth rate much higher than that amongst non-Muslims, thanks primarily to unrestrained breeding amongst Muslims — Islam’s encroachment and expanding influence on the Western culture and polity is all set to become unbeatable. And as Western nations become more and more financially insolvent — due, at least in part, to the misguided wars of attrition in Afghanistan as well as to Muslim immigration, and unsustainable social programs — their ability to resist Islam will decrease and Islam will advance at an even greater pace. Increase in Muslim population in the West will certainly lead to further assorted internal problems within non-Muslim nations, like those we witness happening in the Islamic world.
God Almighty says
Communism and Nazism died out because their ideologies were proven to be seriously flawed and repulsive to mankind. Islam’s ideology is racist, discriminatory, misogynic, inhumane, and belligerent. Unfortunately, many if not most Westerns are not sufficiently confident of their own ideologies to take a stand against Islam. Westerns somehow accept the false notion that Islam is just another of the great Abrahamic faiths. We must disabuse them of that notion. Rebecca Bynam wrote in “Allah is Dead,” “Islam is deeply and profoundly wrong. Pretending it is right only worsens our situation by delaying actions that must be taken if our own civilization, however imperfect and unseemly it may be, is to be preserved.” Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote in “Nomad,” “Islam is built on sexual inequality and on the surrender of individual responsibility and choice. This is not just ugly; it is monstrous. . . . . Multiculturalism helps immigrants postpone the pain of letting go of the anachronistic and inappropriate. . . . It perpetuates poverty, misery, and abuse. . . . Yet Western governments also practice a racism of low expectations: they presume that people from traditional countries are like toddlers who will freeze in growth, who cannot evolve, who will never be able to let go. But I know that they can, for I have done it myself.” Discredit the ideology, and Islam will die. It’s not hard to do.
BC says
BJ seems unaware that IS is operating from Mohammad’s play book and his directives. Everything they do can be attributed to Mohammad’s direction, plus they do so attribute it. They make no secret of their atrocities so how can those misguided people go to join IS knowing what IS does? Precisely because they are establishing a new caliphate. They go there because it is Islam resurgent and claiming to be Islamic, The lure is Islam and a pure totalitarian state cleansed of all infidels. It is identical to the policies of the Nazis and later the Communists in Eastern Europe. All dissent must be eradicated brutally. Remember also that this attracted Fascist and Communists from other countries. to join the fight to establish their philosophy around the world on all peoples.
Both Cameron and Johnson are naive and stupid in their assessememt
Bronson says
Boris has form in Islam denial. He joined Cameron after the Rigby beheading in London in declaring ‘nothing to do with the religion of peace’ lie. He also has a personal stake in deflecting attention from jihad seeing as one of his grandparents was Muslim, in the Ottoman Empire government at the time of the Armenian genocide.
particolor says
The Infidel Removal Movement
Craig says
They control territory, they collect taxes, they make coins and stamps, they have police, military, judicial and legislative apparatus. They have people from all over they world heading towards it, unlike most Arab countries. They get every idea from the Koran and follow all of Mohammed’s teachings. This is not only the most organized Arab country in the world, but at this point it is far more of a cohesive state than the the EU, and more clearly defined than the UK.
duh_swami says
Anyone with hair like that can’t be ‘all’ bad. It’s interesting how some kuffar take it upon themselves to define for the pious, what is their religion and what is not. And then inform the rest of us their profound conclusions.
Most posting here know these people spout hog wash, it’s so bad you have to rely on Ajem Chaudary to tell you the truth. In the US we have a more reliable source…Marie Harf…She never has a hair out of place.
A Polish kafir says
Quote: “in favour of more derogatory names such as ‘Daesh’ .”
I do not understand why “Da’esh” would be “more derogatory” than “Islamic State.”
It is the abbreviation of (transcribed) “Ad-dawlah al-islami fi l’eraq wash’sham,”
which literally translates as “The Islamic State in Irak an Syria.”
gerard says
London mayor: “Islamic State? ….. certainly not Islamic”
And you know this because?….
Journalism is dead. There was a time when public statements were challenged: “What are your reasons for saying this?” “What evidence do you have to support your claim”?
Not any more! The accomodating Media rush to print any unjustified and factually unsupported claim so long as it suits their own line!