The principle is always and everywhere the same: in Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform to Muslim sensibilities. And in non-Muslim countries, non-Muslims must conform to Muslim sensibilities.
“UK’s First Female Sharia Judge: ‘We Can’t Ask Muslims Not to Have More than One Wife,’” Breitbart, July 2, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
Britain’s first female sharia law judge has issued a brazen warning that flies in the face of UK law, stating that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”.
The news comes on the back of a report by the Times newspaper which claims that Britain is experiencing a “surge” in Sharia marriages, as young British Muslims adopt a more hardline religious stance than their parents.
The Times reports:
“As many as 100,000 couples are living in such marriages, which are not valid under UK law, experts said. Ministers have raised fears that women can be left without the right to a fair share of assets if the relationship ends, while others are forced to return to abusive “husbands”.”
A leading Islamic family lawyer warned that the increase in Sharia ceremonies among the 2.7 million-strong Muslim population in Britain was also behind a growth in “secret polygamy”.
“Probably a quarter of all couples I see involve polygamy issues,” Aina Khan told The Times. “There has been a huge rise in recent years because people can have a secret nikah [Islamic marriage] and no one will know about it.”
The growth in a parallel marriage system that bypassed the register office was being driven by Muslims aged below 30, who were becoming more religious, she said. Other factors include finding a way around the expectation of no sex before marriage and a fear of British family courts, which presume that assets should be split equally.
Muslim Arbitration Tribunals, colloquially known as Sharia courts, have existed in the United Kingdom since 1996, when the Arbitration Act began to allow for different religious laws to be applied in cases such as divorce.
While the tribunals are supposed to work within UK law, recent reports suggest that young Muslims are not registering their marriages with the government under UK civil law, instead simply using nikha ceremonies, which can lead to men having a number of wives, and none of the legal responsibility towards them usually afforded to spouses under the 1949 Marriage Act.
Now, Amra Bone, who is the UK’s first female Sharia council judge, has said that “the government cannot — ask Muslims not to have more than one wife. People have a right to decide for themselves,” implying that British Muslims are free to operate outside UK law, as a rule unto themselves and the Sharia courts they feel are legitimate….
Ashley says
OT: Department of Homeland Security website is down. Is this unusual? http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/dhs.gov.html
Ashley says
Never mind…appears to be up and running now.
Angemon says
The government needs not ask muslims not to have more than one wife because the law is clear on that regard: polygamy is illegal. It’s legal in Saudi Arabia though – maybe muslims in the UK should consider emigration…
That is a brazen statement, and it will be interesting to see the public reaction to it.
Charli Main says
Nothing new here. Muslims have been strutting around British streets for decades openly declaring that British laws do not apply to them.
Even worse, Muslim sock puppets like David Cameron and Tony Blair have actively encouraged this kind of behaviour over the years.
So, don´t blame the Musrats for thinking that Britain is their land and the rest of us should know our place in their society.
particolor says
Charge the Lot of them with Bigamy You weak Dhimmis !! Show the Barbarians who’s Boss !!
Peggy says
But they ARE showing everyone whose the boss. It’s them.
Peggy says
But they ARE showing everyone whose the boss. It’s them.
============
Sorry, meant to say who’s the boss.
mortimer says
Sharia law even if not designated in national law is always considered superior to national laws by Muslims. They will ignore national laws when more convenient to do so because Sharia supports Islamic supremacism. They believe Sharia is ‘divine’, but national law ‘man-made’.
Note: Sharia law is equally ‘man-made’. The Koran and hadiths and Sira (Mohammed’s biography) have all been shown to be ‘man-made’ by scholarship. Sharia is another layer of fraud.
R Cole says
Way back then – the origins of Islamic law were drawn in large part from Persian and Armenian law.
But for example when we take on democracy – we acknowledge its Ancient Greek origins.
For Islam, though, all external influence or contributions were negated – and for Muslims history became with Islam.
However for fear of causing offense that may lead to Muslim violence – we might do the same. The effort to suggest that Islam was always peaceful – until a minority adopted an extremist version – is to throw out much of Islamic history.
The rapid spread of Islam after Muhammad’s death meant that possibly 500 million people were slaughtered – to make way for Islam. What we see with ISIS is a carbon copy – the latest turning children into mass murderers – is how Muslims took vast swathes of India. They killed the men [sometimes by the hundred thousand], took the women as slaves and trained the young boys in the way of jihad – to attack and take more land.
And what is troubling about the faith – is that although there has been peaceful periods – the religion as a whole hasn’t settled. However much we would like to believe in a peaceful coexistence with Islam in the west – reality seems to be taking a different route.
Appeasing it only feeds the beast – and it is only natural for it to expect more.
First we have Islamic courts – now the laws of these [arbitrary] courts are asserting themselves.
In Egypt a Christian cannot give evidence against a Muslim – in the country’s court of law – no doubt the ancestors of those Copts once thought – what’s the harm in allowing the set up of a few Islamic sharia courts.
Steph says
“The rapid spread of Islam after Muhammad’s death meant that possibly 500 million people were slaughtered – to make way for Islam.”
I’m thinking this is why the muslins are allowed to take more than one wife, when you kill so many men there is going to be a huge amount of women left, ?? is it me that loves the fact women are equal in intelligent society or did I miss something …
I wonder about how the women felt about this, the marrige bust have been brutal ..
As long as the muslim women in Britan don’t end up on the welfare system, I say let them get ripped of by their husbands and by Islam …
ninetyninepct says
“As long as the muslim women in Britan don’t end up on the welfare system”
But they do. All of them.One male and 4 females and 12 kids, all on welfare. The pogey system needs to cross reference males and addresses as well as pictures. If the male is on pogey, that is all the “family” gets. The other three so called wives have no male therefore get no welfare of any kind. Starve. Tough $hit.
gravenimage says
ninetyninepct is quite right—polygamous “marriages” don’t keep these Muslimahs off the dole. The scenario is this: a Muslim knocks up all his wives, and those he is not legally married to are considered unwed mothers by the British state, who supports them through welfare.
Thus Muslims treat welfare as a form of Jizya that actually enables any Muslim to engage in polygamy. Suicidal madness.
Larry A. Singleton says
I’m just now getting around to reading Bostom’s chapter on Georges Vajda. Like an idiot I looked for his essay, “Jews and Muslims according to the Hadith”, for a week before I discovered I had the whole thing in Bostom’s book. Duh.
ninetyninepct says
They want to follow sharia law then so be it. Defrauding the welfare system is fraud which is also stealing. The welfare department has to set up an operation to chop off hands and feet of all thieves. Muzzies will of course have no problem supporting that as it is they who want to live by sharia.
john spielman says
deport polygamists
jasmine says
muslims should only be admited if they agree to be sterilized , in that way they will not produce more offspring that will turn into islamofrankensteins. If they want to marry more than one wife, they must post a surety bond of 100,000 dollars per wife. ..that ought to fix it
Jaladhi says
No, Muslims should never be admitted now that they have seen their behavior!!
don bill says
Absolutely! Make polygamy a deport-able offense!!
Don McKellar says
This is what you get when you enact things like the Arbitration Act under the assumption that all religious groups have a similar view on the world with humanist values and ethics — all the while being willfully ignorant of Islam. The idea behind the Arbitration Act is to save money and taxpayer expense in civil law matters. But when you have Islam enter the picture — with sharia law being completely at odds with any modern civilized country’s laws, and encouraging of criminal activities — all that money savings goes right out the window and it starts costing the taxpayer a LOT MORE down the road.
Larry A. Singleton says
“This is what you get when you enact things like the Arbitration Act under the assumption that all religious groups have a similar view on the world with humanist values and ethics — all the while being willfully ignorant of Islam.”
It’s comments like this that make me wish I were more articulate. You nail it. And the public funding going to actively jihadist Muslims in Britain is mind-numbing. And their demand that the government provide the money for their mega-mosques makes my skin crawl.
Stephanie says
POLYgamist#1 allah, 4:3</b< “… Marry women of your choice, Two or three or FOUR”
vs.
German § 1306 BGB (Civil Law Code)
RonaldB says
The increase in polygamous marriages, Islamic of course, is a perfect illustration of the consequences of losing a national identity and losing sight of the real function of government, which is to provide security and a legal framework with which to conduct business and personal affairs.
The first responsibility of a government is to enforce, by a military, the coherent identity of a country and protection against invaders. Also, the responsibility of a government is to protect its own existence. Generally, though not always, a country is better off under the most vicious domestic government than foreign conquerors. There are exceptions. The Cambodians were much better off after the Vietnamese invasion removed the Pol Pot regime.
The government must claim sovereignty over the use of force and the rule of law. Any country with multiple centers of power, and with multiple legal systems will lose its national identity and will to exist. It is the responsibility of the government to eliminate competing legal systems and courts. One can argue that sharia courts are voluntary and therefore legally permitted. However, it is illegal for a non-lawyer to provide formal legal advice, especially for pay, and for a non-doctor to provide medical advice, especially for pay. If you have a single imam providing advice, there’s not much you can do, but a formal tribunal dispensing legal opinions should definitely come under the purview of government control, including the right to forbid the tribunal altogether.
There is the additional issue that allowing Muslims an autonomous existence in British cities, including their neighborhood enforcement gangs and their own legal system is asking for trouble. The people in the Muslim enclaves will have no attachment to British values or identity.
And yes, I know I’m preaching to the choir. There is a libertarian strain of thought which says that people ought to have the right to any voluntary relationship they wish, including the right to voluntarily adhere to an extra-legal tribunal ruling. I am sympathetic to this type of thinking, but I no longer think that it’s functional to a real existence in which individual liberties are valued and enforced.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi RonaldB
“There is a libertarian strain of thought which says that people ought to have the right to any voluntary relationship they wish,”
Yes, and that idea has much appeal to my libertarian friends, who tend to be somewhat idealistic, or perhaps I should say, unrealistic. There are a great many practical problems with the notion of a free-for-all, anarchy, individualistic society, which is why we have contract law to put some bounds on what can and cannot be agreed to by contract.
Arbitration can be used both in contract disputes and civil legal disputes, but in the case of a legal matter, such as divorce, the final agreement reached during arbitration must still be reviewed and approved by a government judge to ensure it conforms to government law..
Any agreement reached in a Muslim Arbitration Tribunal or any other arbitration venue should be submitted to a government judge and take effect only if that judge decides it conforms to law and is a fair judgement to all parties absent terms agreed to under duress.
Larry A. Singleton says
Preach on; I need to be reminded.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
We here in America are better than the English at civilizational suicide, at least in the PR realm.
Instead of issuing a proclamation endorsing Moslem polygamy, here it is not even an issue, almost nobody knows about Allah’s allowance of four wives. It’s better to just pretend it doesn’t exist than to come out in favor of it. This is possible because the feminists here spend all their time focusing in on the white guys who passed the Equal Rights Amendment to set things right between the sexes (whoops, meant to type between the genders). It’d be dangerous to come out against real world misogyny.
Better to just have a highly publicized FBI bust of a wayward Mormon cult leader every year or two. The LDS relented and proscribed polygamy over a century ago, but it is them who must be targeted.
Jaladhi says
UK is hopeless case. All the judges and the government ministers have secretly converted to Islam. If you can’t fight them why not join them! Let’s how much time before UK starts supporting ISIS officially?? Morons, they have forgotten their roots and culture and pandering to Muslims.
Rezali Mehil says
Salaam all,
Well I can sort of see both sides on this.
There are many more women in the world than men, and we women tend to live longer too.
Whilst it is kinda hard for women to accept another female present in the house and having to share the same husband…look at the bigger picture.
So many women will never be able to be in a relationship, to feel the (halal only) male sex organ inside them, they live and die as lonely women…this problem would go away ..resulting in a happier and more content female population (indeed more ear rings would be sold …something that Mirren and Graven know all about).
There are other benefits too, there are women who have never had the privilege to be a mother …the case in prime on this web site is Graven…we have all benefited from seeing her depraved writings, her scrawls which she confuses as art…resulting in a bitter loneliness where her mental state is so confused that she draws old men having sex with a child… I mean who would do that?
I have advised Gravenin one of two ways …that she asks her husband Dennis to marry another woman such that they can share bringing up the kuffar sprogs …or that she can leave Dennis and marry a muslim man (preferably an imam) already with children and a wife and delight in bring up the bestest of children.
I feel that she is strongly considering one of these options…but has not opened up to us all here.
Folks it’s just a small mindset change…and I feel there are few disadvantages.
I’ think it’s worth giving it a shot…
More Later …
Rezali
Ashley says
There’s depraved…and then there is depraved.
It is my fervent hope the above comment is removed.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Oh, I don’t know about that. This posting by Rezali is as good as interfaith dialog gets with Moslems. It certainly made me rethink my position; now I understand that there *is* fun in Islam. Rezali has helped me realize that the scowling old scold Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini didn’t know what he was talking about, one the one hand. On the other hand, Persia *is* doing rather well nowadays.
Champ says
There’s depraved…and then there is depraved.
It is my fervent hope the above comment is removed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I *wholly* agree, Ashley! Add to the fact that Gravenimage hasn’t even commented on this thread — which is really beside the point. I’m just sayin’ …
This vile comment from “Really Mean” clearly demonstrates a heartless & soulless person. Yes — this egregious comment is very revealing.
Ashley says
Thanks, Champ! Happy 4th to you and yours!
As for Rezali…ugh! Her pet goat must shudder every time Rezali straps on that dildo…
Champ says
Thank you, Ashley! Happy 4th to you and yours, too! 🙂
LOL!! ..no kidding!
Rezali Mehil says
Salaam Champ,
Why should it be deleted …isn’t this the expression of freedom that you want to fight for?
Perhaps Graven may even enjoy her new subservient role as wife 2.
It takes the pressure off you see…she may even thank me one day.
More Later …
Rezali
Champ says
Freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, as demonstrated by “Really Mean.”
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ
“Freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, as demonstrated by “Really Mean.””
Do you live in the UK or something? I mean, there you can be arrested for publicly reading Winston Churchill.
But here in the USA one can say just about any opinion on line. So, RA kinda gotchya on the freedom of speech point.
I think the post by RM is rather crude and pointless, but I have not noticed you calling for the deletion of the many crude and pointless obscenities hurled at me. I actually find them good for a chuckle from time to time, so whatever adolescent invectives you want to embarrass yourselves with folks…have at it.
Also, the argument for polygamy as some kind of favor to women who would otherwise grow old and alone is simply statistical nonsense compared to the 4 wives plus unlimited sex slaves allowed so clearly by the Islamic texts.
Angemon says
Stardusty Psyche posted:
“But here in the USA one can say just about any opinion on line.”
Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef…
Champ says
‘sp’ naively wrote:
But here in the USA one can say just about any opinion on line.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Many of you know that JW has it’s own policies regarding comments, but obviously ‘sp’ doesn’t have a clue about this …
Jihad Watch is privately owned, so Robert Spencer can determine if a comment is removed, or not.
And ‘sp’ is under the false impression that comments have NOT been removed, in the past, but they have. I have been commenting on JW for over 9 years, and I’ve seen *many* comments taken down by Robert Spencer, and for a variety of reasons.
You’re welcome, ‘sp’ …although I doubt he’ll bother to offer any thanks.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
‘sp’ wrote:
So, RA kinda gotchya on the freedom of speech point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, she/he didn’t …
Add that one to the laundry list of STUPID comments offered by the clown.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
Gee, I’m kinda feelin the hate here! That’s some really mean speech against me, ooouuchh.
Ashley says
Stardusty…it was I who asked that Rezali’s comment be removed. Not Champ.
And it was I who speculated a fearful pet goat when Rezali was “in the mood.”
Rezali’s comment to Gravenimage was reprehensible, and I reacted. Champ chimed in with a spirit of solidarity to MY comments.
I’m heartened that you agree that Rezali’s comment was “crude and pointless.” Actually, I think it was far darker than that. It was menacing, cruel, ruthless, and frankly very creepy. Rezali made it a point to drop a name implied to reveal someone close to Graven. I don’t dig that shit.
I maintain that Rezali’s comment should be removed. It wasn’t only offensive to its intended target, it was offensive to most here. It crossed the line. I doubt you would appreciate the “name dropping” of your close partner/friend on this forum.
Champ says
Thank you for stepping in, Ashley.
It should be obvious — to even the casual observer — that I was agreeing with your comment, and I still do. But neither ‘rezali’ or ‘sp’ are very astute readers (which includes their poor writing skills, too), so I’m not surprised by their mistake.
Very revealing that ‘sp’ marginalizes what ‘rezali’ wrote and comes to her aid, and then atttacks others that strongly object to ‘rezali’s’ *very* vile comment to Graven. Once again this demonstrates that ‘sp’ is NO friend to counter-jihad and that he hates Christians, in particular.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
“Very revealing that ‘sp’ marginalizes what ‘rezali’ wrote and comes to her aid, and then atttacks others that strongly object to ‘rezali’s’ *very* vile comment to Graven. ”
Indeed, it reveals that I call ’em like I see ’em with no special allegiance or animosity to any individual.
“Once again this demonstrates that ‘sp’ is NO friend to counter-jihad”
If by “friend” you mean “sycophant to bigots” ok, true dat. The original post by RM was crude and seemed rather pointless to me. That kind of post often elicits posts by certain JW folks that are themselves highly bigoted and ignorant, and I call those as I see ’em too.
“and that he hates Christians, in particular.”
Vacuous. Please provide a quote wherein I expressed hate toward an individual Christian. I am trying to teach Joseph Christ’s message of love, but he is acting all hard headed about it…hope he opens his heart eventually…
Champ says
‘sp’ exaggerates:
Hi Champ,
Gee, I’m kinda feelin the hate here! That’s some really mean speech against me, ooouuchh.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hate speech? Hardly. And exaggerating is a form of lying, so stick to the truth, if you can. But we already know what a liar ‘sp’ is, so I hold out little hope for him.
And ‘sp’ desperately needs a mirror since it’s NO secret that he hates Christians! Just yesterday, on another thread, he wrote …”You’re just another Christian Crack Pot.”
There’s no shortage of nasty comments that ‘sp’ has made to many Christians here.
Again …
This is Jihad Watch, not Christian Watch.
Ashley says
Oh shit, Champ. No thanks necessary. I’m only sorry you became the target of MY comments. You stood by me…thank you.
Still, I wish the original comment by Rezali would be deleted. It doesn’t fall under the category of “spirited dialogue and debate.” It falls under “stalking and outing.” It was clearly a personal attack that revealed personal details…
Be well, friend!
Champ says
‘sp’ wrote:
“and that he hates Christians, in particular.”
Vacuous. Please provide a quote wherein I expressed hate toward an individual Christian.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Just as I stated, I have proof that ‘sp’ expressed hate toward an individual Christian …
Here it is:
Stardusty Psyche says
July 5, 2015 at 1:29 am
Hi Harbidoll,
“satan & demonic activity. To me evolution & anti-Christ teaching in the schools is the sophisticated approach he takes now”
So, evolution education is of satan and demonic.
You are a Classic Christian Crackpot. Fortunately, your side loses in court every time and our public school biology textbooks continue to teach the scientific fact and theory of biological evolution.
This thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/06/northern-ireland-pastor-who-said-islam-is-satanic-faces-six-months-in-jail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There’s the proof ‘sp’ asked for, he wrote …
“You are a Classic Christian Crackpot.”
Proof that ‘sp’ expressed hate towards an individual Christian, “Harbidoll.”
Which also proves — once again — that ‘sp’ is a liar.
(he wrote this nasty comment yesterday — just as I stated in my above comment)
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Champ,
Ok, I see what happened…yes, for some people I suppose that would be hateful. Thanks for digging up that quote, I appreciate your effort there.
Actually, I am kind of a Christian atheist…the message of universal love resonates very deeply with me, you know, love your enemy, pray for those who persecute you…that kind of thing.
I don’t hate Christian creationist crackpots, and I am wistful for the days when countering their unscientific nonsense was a primary anti-religious concern, as opposed to now when we have to worry about religious fundamentalists killing us in suicidal jihad.
Christianity and Islam are equally preposterous in my view, but not even close to equally dangerous with Islam getting more and more dangerous all the time, while Christianity has become relatively benign.
But I don’t hate the Muslim crackpots or the Christian crackpots…they just have a lot of silly ideas.
Champ says
Fair enough ‘sp’ …
And I don’t hate you, either …so don’t misjudge me for calling you STUPID, when you are.
Good, we have an understanding, then.
gravenimage says
Ashley, Champ, and APF, I hope you had a great 4th of July, as well!
gravenimage says
The mendacious “Stardusty Psyche” wrote:
Hi Champ
“Freedom of speech does not protect hate speech, as demonstrated by “Really Mean.””
Do you live in the UK or something? I mean, there you can be arrested for publicly reading Winston Churchill.
But here in the USA one can say just about any opinion on line. So, RA kinda gotchya on the freedom of speech point.
………………………..
What meretricious nonsense. Freedom of speech refers to an absence of *state* strictures on freedom.
The idea that one does not have freedom of speech unless *provided with a platform* is utterly false. In fact, follow this “logic”—by these lights, if Robert Spencer does not allow the Islamic State to take over Jihad Watch and use it to disseminate violent Da’wa, then he is denying them their right to freedom of speech—whereas, of course, this would actually deny Robert Spencer his own freedom of speech.
Does “Stardusty Psyche” fail to understand this, or does he just hope that we fail to understand it?
Champ is *quite right* in pointing this out.
But while Jihad Watch is under no obligation to provide Rezali Mehil—or anyone else—with a platform, I find her horrific admissions *very* instructive of the Muslim mind set, and hence quite educational here.
More:
I think the post by RM is rather crude and pointless…
………………………..
Crude, yes; pointless, hardly. Rezali Mehil is pushing for all the horrors of Shari’ah—including polygamy and pedophilia, and condemning anyone who criticizes such barbarism.
More, in reply to Champ:
“Once again this demonstrates that ‘sp’ is NO friend to counter-jihad”
If by “friend” you mean “sycophant to bigots” ok, true dat. The original post by RM was crude and seemed rather pointless to me. That kind of post often elicits posts by certain JW folks that are themselves highly bigoted and ignorant, and I call those as I see ’em too.
………………………..
Opposing polygamy and pedophilia is “bigoted” and “ignorant”? And standing with those who oppose such ugliness is ‘sychophantic’? *Ugh*.
And note the false moral equivalence “Stardusty Psyche” draws between Anti-Jihdists at JIhad Watch and vile Muslim supremacists like Rezali Mehil, who want to see the imposition of brutal Shari’ah law and who condone polygamy, child rape, “Honor Killing”, slavery, and the use of sex slaves.
Champ is quite correct—again, “Stardusty Psyche” proves he is no friend to the Counter Jihad.
Champ says
Graven, you’ve successfully and thoroughly dissested ‘sp’s’ comment and with such surgical precision! Brava!!
gravenimage says
The nasty Rezali Mehil wrote:
Salaam Champ,
Why should it be deleted …isn’t this the expression of freedom that you want to fight for?
…………………………
The same claptrap—the idea that if Infidels are not providing supremacist Muslims a platform, that they are depriving them of their freedom of speech.
Not that this is a value that supremacist Muslims like Rezali Mehil hold, in any case—but they do hope to exploit our own values.
More:
Perhaps Graven may even enjoy her new subservient role as wife 2.
……………………….
Note that Rezali Mehil does not even bother with the usual lie that Muslim men are at pains to treat all their wives (never mind their sex slaves) equally.
She is, of course, hoping to insult me, but all she is really doing is exposing the ugliness of her own foul creed.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Graven,
“What meretricious nonsense. Freedom of speech refers to an absence of *state* strictures on freedom. ”
Nope, freedom is freedom. Although, you go on to point out correctly that “But while Jihad Watch is under no obligation to provide Rezali Mehil—or anyone else—with a platform”.
Still, if a forum that extols the the virtues of freedom of speech does not practice it then it can be fairly accused of hypocrisy.
Of course, freedom of speech is not absolute. So a moderator can reasonably block spam, threats, and gratuitous profanity without being hypocritical.
Blocking a thoughtful but strongly worded opposing view would be hypocritical for a site that so strongly asserts the virtues of free speech in opposition to sharia that punishes free speech with death.
So, I was not speaking in a strict legal sense, although I probably should have made that more clear from the outset.
The very fact I am still posting here demonstrates Robert Spencer has the courage of his convictions and is consistent in his own arena with the principles he advocates generally.
Tom W Harris says
Maybe it’s satire?
Larry A. Singleton says
Nope; let em’ rant. I wish there were more such views here. It’s an opportunity to expose their twisted thinking. I’d like to see an intelligent rebuttal to his comment.
Excerpt from a letter I wrote:
I LOVE reading these “back and forths” between my heroes and losers like Benny Morris. I’ll print these out and attack them with pen and hi-liter. Feel free to the same. However, Liberals are incapable of this kind of self-debate.
I’m reading Martin Kramer’s rebuttal to Ari Shavit’s book about Lydda. And his “back and forth” with Benny Morris. And an article by Efraim Karsh. I’ve placed the articles in sequence as I’ve read them.
What Happened at Lydda by Martin Kramer (Mosaic Magazine)
http://mosaicmagazine.com/essay/2014/07/what-happened-at-lydda/
Lydda, 1948: They Were There by Martin Kramer (Commentary Magazine)
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/12/24/lydda-1948-they-were-there/
Lydda, 1948: A city, a massacre, and the Middle East today by Ari Shavit (The New Yorker)
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/10/21/lydda-1948
The Uses of Lydda by Efraim Karsh (Mosaic Magazine)
http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2014/07/the-uses-of-lydda/
Zionism’s “Black Boxes” by Benny Morris (Mosaic Magazine)
http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2014/07/zionisms-black-boxes/
Distortion and Defamation by Martin Kramer
http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2014/07/distortion-and-defamation/
The Meaning of “Massacre” by Martin Kramer
http://mosaicmagazine.com/response/2014/07/the-meaning-of-massacre/
And the link to the four other main articles “Massacre”
http://mosaicmagazine.com/tag/massacre/
Link to the “police station”
http://lisa.biu.ac.il/files/lisa/shared/4444.pdf
I’ll jumpt right to Shavit’s New Yorker article that I read before Kramer’s essay.
My first note is on page two where it mentions Lehmann’s educational institution
Mo says
@ Ashley
“There’s depraved…and then there is depraved.
It is my fervent hope the above comment is removed.”
Why should it be removed? This Muslim just admitted that having sex with a child is depraved. And yet she follows the depraved “prophet” of Islam, who had sex with a child! Then she calls us mentally confused.
I love it when Muslims admit these things. Let the world see what this death cult is really all about!
gravenimage says
Mo, I’m afraid Rezali Mehil did not admit that having sex with a child is depraved—instead, she said that my creating a drawing *critical* of pedophilia is depraved.
gravenimage says
I take your point, Ashley—but like APF, I think these ugly dispatches from Muslims are *very* instructive of how the depraved Muslim mind works.
Jaladhi says
Hey Rezali, how many other wives in your husband’s harem you are happily living with?? I am sure you are delirious with the arrangement!! If you husband hasn’t married a few more, why don’t you advise him to do that so that other poor women who didn’t have a chance of motherhood could also enjoy this benefit that you are touting here!! Or is it do as I tell you and not as I do?? Ha, ha, ha,…
somehistory says
The depraved worshipper of satan is not a *woman* so as to have a *husband.* it wishes to be a husband, but no decent female….nay, not even an indecent female,.. will have him as a husband. That is why he comes to Jihad Watch taunting with his nasty writing those he knows to be female on the site.
Going by his use of the English language, it is quite possible that even though this female judge…a woman having authority over him…says he needs more than one wife, he can’t even get one. So he writes his filth to satisfy his lust for what he can’t have.
He should be banned as he serves no purpose.
Charli Main says
If some of the Muslim women I have seen over the years are anything to go by, I can see why so many Muslim men prefer having sex with goats.
duh_swami says
Razali…I have advised Gravenin…Dr Laura in a burqa…
Haha…Dr Laura in a burqa has given cheap advice to thousands. As far as I know, no one named Gravenin (or Greven) have taken it…But it is the thought that counts, so thanks…
jayell says
So, Rezali Mehi, you’re actually female. No wonder I can’t make any sense of your posts, just as you apparently can’t make sense of population statistics. The Male/female ratio varies from country to country and in certain cases, where there has been ‘cultural’ or other ‘official’ manipulation of the demographics, it can work out that there are siginificantly more males than females (e.g., the People’s Republic of China as one example). Where this happens, and there is a perceived shortfall of females, the result can be a rise in antisocial behaviour amongst males that can also manifest itself grave sexual offenses against women. Where females are ‘taken out of circulation’ due the prcatice of polygamy, the same result can occur (e.g., in India). In the UK, and elsewhere in Europe, a birth ration of around 108 males per 100 females has been a kind of ‘norm’ for quite some time, and this has tended to even out due to the fact that males are physiologically weaker than females, therefore more prone to infant and early mortality; also males are more prone to suicide and death by misadventure due to their involvement in more dangerous situations. That plus the life-expectancy stats can give a surplus of females just when they are NOT needed, i.e., in the post menopause years, where they are essentially useless for procreation and (I’m afraid to say) of limited appeal sexually. And maybe also have change-of-life hormone problems which can make them a pain-in the-*rse to live with. Which rather means that the whole ‘marriage’ question in that context is a giant red herring, since it’s not all that likely to happen. So all of that rather blows a large hole in your quaint little argument there. Sorry.
And I mean that MOST sincerely.
Ashley says
With the exception of…
“So, Rezali Mehi, you’re actually female. No wonder I can’t make any sense of your posts, just as you apparently can’t make sense of population statistics.”
AND
“That plus the life-expectancy stats can give a surplus of females just when they are NOT needed, i.e., in the post menopause years, where they are essentially useless for procreation and (I’m afraid to say) of limited appeal sexually. And maybe also have change-of-life hormone problems which can make them a pain-in the-*rse to live with.”
…I enjoyed your address to Rezali. I appreciate that you made no mention of women and driving.
jayell says
Hello Ashley. Sorry you didn’t like some bits there, but if one’s going to answer someone else’s flights of fancy by being somewhat non-pC and perhaps a little bit brutally realistic it’s not always come out as being particularly ‘nice’. But this raises an imprortant point about current Western attitudes.
Suppose I were to reverse the gender identity + a few other details in one or two of my statements there, what would the ‘correct’ reaction be? For example…”So, Rezali Mehi, you’re actually MALE. No wonder I can’t make any sense of your posts…”, and….“,,,,,a surplus of MALES that are just not needed …(etc)….and……” And maybe also have TESTOSTERONE problems which can make them a pain-in the-*rse to live with…..”
My guess is that there would not be so much as hint of a complaint, and if this were to appear in an average UK daily paper it would be seen as a ‘good joke’ with all the usual (feminist) columnists virtually dancing around with glee. And the bit about ‘females not being needed’ was deliberate, because here I’ve transposed ‘MALE’ in place of ‘female’ and it comes out as a statement that might as well have been lifted word-for-word from quite a few articles and stories appearing in the UK national press over the last 2-3 years where this kind of appalling slight to the male half of the population has been pushed without so much as hint of diffidence or apology. And where reference to ‘female hormones’ is replaced by ‘testosterone’, again, this would be popularly seen as ‘not a serious matter’ or some kind of deserved (typically biased and faulty) criticism of a male attribute. What this boils down to is; we all rightly criticise our muslim ‘friends’ for their absolutely appalling misogyny. But we are being far worse hypocrites if we fail to see the ‘moat in our own eye’, which is the equally appalling MISANDRY in modern Western society, as demonstrated by my transposition of gender vocabulary above. Just take a long hard look at the modern press and the media and, if we are honest and unbiased, we cannot help but notice that what started off as a laudable push for gender equality has now over-shot the mark and has reached a level of female-fixation of quite unacceptable proportions. If this were just a ‘media issue’ it could be dismissed as trivial, but it isn’t. Here in the UK there are clear gender-based double-standards in the application of the Law (and family law inparticular), and the education system has been deliberately female-biased so that boys have been allowed to fail and not reach their full potential (something like 70% – over two-thirds – of univerity students here are female, or so I am told. Does THAT sound like ‘equality of opportunity’???).
Oh, by the way, I note your comment ‘I appreciate that you made no mention of women and driving.’ Well in the UK press we have had quite a few articles about the ‘superior driving abilities of women’, all based on ‘statistics’ or ‘research’ that, on close analysis, seems at best somewhat ‘cherry-picked’, at worst plain spurious. So, I’m not allowed to make a comment on the same subject that might possibly be to the opposite effect? Oh dear, oh dear!!
So my point is that we have good reason to admonish the muslim world for its gender inequality. But now we might clearly be just as bad – in reverse.
Ashley says
Actually Jayell, I was thoroughly amused by your original comment!
I can certainly overlook a misogynistic remark or two when your clear objective was to dress down Rezali.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. It was unnecessary, but again, thoughtful and sweet.
Best,
Ashley
jayell says
Hello again, Ashley. Just for the record. I ain’t ‘sweet’.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Ashely and Jayell: Ashley-I’d be delighted to have you consider me ‘sweet’ anytime. Anytime at all.
Jayell: We certainly DO suffer from reverse-chauvinism here in the West. It is disgusting. Every wonderful, innate thing about men is considered awful-and statistics, facts, you name it: ALL must bow before the WOMYN.
[Of course only the sick unnatural womyn tho’-no happily married to a man) mothers need apply]
Now I’d like to submit something earth-shaking, i.e., let’s do what we’re best at here in the good ol’ USA and take the best from both worlds. Certainly we’re [justifiably] proud of our elimination of systemic discrimination v. women (that’s the West). But then, couldn’t we take some of the islamic stuff…
Wait. No. There is nothing good to take from islam. OK. Nix that.
I trust I make myself clear. And remember Ashley: ‘Sweet’? That’s one of my favorite compliments, denoting as it does kindness, thoughtfulness, and other peculiarly feminine qualities. Oh yes, I said ‘feminine’. Innately feminine. Oh yes: There are lots of wonderful ‘innately male’ and ‘innately female’ traits. Hmmm…has something to do with God’s creation of us in His own image and likeness…
‘
vickie says
Rezali – oops you misspelled that – “bestest of children” it should be beastliest of children!
Porky The Crusader says
Personnaly i believe that muslims polygamist in the Western world, all of them should be SHOT on SPOT.
Susan says
No!!! women are not a commodity. You can not be allowed to collect them like cars or TVs. Islam does not recognize females as independent human beings. If a woman wants sex she can get it, men are incredible easy. Funny how in islamic countries the men outnumber the women and they still are allowed four wives. Take you evil 7th ideology out of civilized countries and go live in some islamic hell hole.
Susan B says
Two Susans on this site. Other Susan I will use Susan B moving forward. The above comment is mine SusanB
Angemon says
Poor Rezali. All that stress, the fear of abandonment she must feel every time her husband eyes a first-grader, the possibility or being told “talak! talak! talak!” to make room for someone young enough to be her granddaughter, must be affecting her judgment…
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
‘Every time her husband eyes a first grader’, hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha Ange! Now THAT’S comedy!
‘To feel the (halal only) sex organ inside them’-seriously Rez? You’re taqqiya-ing again I fear!
As if muslim women long to ‘feel the organ’. After [halal] FGM, there’s not only no clitoris, but a butchered labia, no production of the mucus which normally lubricates intercourse, and constant infection at the urinary meatus (opening). Now if that’s not enough for you, the vagina is clumsily sewn together, making it much smaller.
So normal sex for muslim women is-every time mind you-the occasion for vaginal tears, bleeding, and a vaginal infection. Pain Rezali. Plus a UTI (urinary tract infection) which, actually, never subsides.
Ah yes Rez: Do tell us more about the joys of ‘feeling the [halal only] sex organ inside’, experienced by muslim women! Because like everything islam touches, sex too is grotesquely warped, twisted and deformed…
gravenimage says
Grimly hilarious, Angemon!
Joseph says
@ Rezali Mehil
I know why you don’t mind your husband having other wives, it’s because with all those extra goats around your status in the village is quite high.
Stardusty Psyche says
My fellow homo sapiens sapiens Joseph,
“@ Rezali Mehil
I know why you don’t mind your husband having other wives, it’s because with all those extra goats around your status in the village is quite high.”
I warmly invite you to absorb the true message of love provided by your Lord and Savior…love your enemy, love your neighbor, pray for those who persecute you, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Western Canadian says
Anyone and everyone with a IQ above room temperature in Fairbanks, Alaska, in the middle of January with the heat off and all windows and doors open, joins in wishing you a speedy recovery from your obvious mental disorders, which are too numerous to list here.
Joseph says
@ Western Canadian
Thanks for the back-up. S(hit)(for) P(ersonality) knows that I won’t reply to him anymore so he is only trying to taunt a response from me.
Mirren10 says
Agreed, Joseph, As Kathy said on the thread about arming the Kurds, replying to this malevolent little twat only enables him.
Let him wither on the vine.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
So you define
“malevolent”
as
“love your enemy, love your neighbor, pray for those who persecute you, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone”
I find those sentiments rather comforting and uplifting, but I seem to be the only one here who feels that way. Somehow spreading the message of love from Christ makes me have a negative IQ, S(hit)(for) P(ersonality), and a malevolent little twat .
Now I know how the Christians felt while being attacked by lions…but I will continue to think loving thoughts for those of you who persecute me…Champ is right, I need a wahmbulance boo hoo
gravenimage says
Of course, the idea that “Stardusty Psyche” is genuinely urging Anti-Jihadists to be good Christians—and that the poor dear is being fatally persecuted for it!—is utter rot.
Instead, he is trying to characterize those who stand against the horrors of Shari’ah as somehow insufficiently Christian.
Notably, Rezali Mehil herself has done this to good people like Champ—asserting that if she is unwilling to supinely roll over for any Muslim savagery that she is not being a proper Christian.
The posters above are quite right to call him on this.
Joseph says
@ gravenimage
It sure is funny how an atheist is telling Christians how to behave and he even has the audacity to try and quote scripture (rather badly) to back him up. He has no clue as to what the verses mean and he is trying to apply them. I guess he is a lawyer though and we all know what they do….LIE and cloud the issue.
Matthew 7:5
Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
The only problem is that S(hitty) P(ersonality) has a whole sailing mast in his eye.
Joseph says
CORRECTION
” I guess he is a lawyer though and we all know what they do….LIE and cloud the issue.”
_______________________________________________
I guess he is a lawyer though and we all know what SOME lawyers do………
Ayatrollah says
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/single-women-should-move-to-london-but-single-men-should-go-to-merseyside-research-shows-9480725.html
It took me only a few minutes to find this that says they is actually more single men out there. So, Allah be praised, will Islam allow women to have more then one man? Who ever told you there a more women was lying to you or full of crap.
Anti says
How dare you say such things in OUR country?!? If you want to live by your ‘laws’ and ‘islamic religion’, both of which are pseudonyms for ‘take over the world and kill everyone who doesn’t agree with me’, then go back to your country of origin… we do not want you here, and you have no right to try to change our way of life. If you don’t like the way we live, here in the UK, then don’t come here… and certainly do not expect the British taxpayer to support you whilst you plan your takeovers.
Mirren10 says
‘rezali’ isn’t a woman, nor does he live in the UK.
He’s a mohammedan man ( I use the term loosely), and lives in pakicrapistan.
Since first commenting here, ‘rezali’ has pretended to be a woman, but various slips made in various comments show he’s actually an XY; in fact, he actually admitted to being a man on one particular thread. (haven’t got time to look for it right now)
‘rezali’ is pretty vile and revolting, and most of his posts show the usual mohammedan obsession with sex. In the past he’s raved about the disgustingness of ‘white penis’, and here he is again, vomiting up crap about ‘halal’ penis. He’s also said, in relation to ‘honour’ murders, that we should feel sorry for the murderer, not the victim, because the murderer has to suffer the ‘whispers and pointing fingers’ from the ‘community’. So I think old ‘rezali’s’ worried about his wifies stepping out on him.
Anyone interested in ‘rezali’s’ form, can use the JW search engine, and read some of the revolting screeds he’s written here.
He has a particular animus against graven, because graven produced a powerful and disturbing drawing of what little Aisha’s rape by mohammed would have looked like. ‘rezali’ didn’t like having his nose rubbed in what paedophiliac rape actually is, ( he calls it ”holy matrimony ordained by ‘allah’ ) and has harboured bitter resentment against graven ever since. Also, of course graven has effortlessly dissected ‘rezali’s’ revolting screeds in the past, which makes him squeal like a stuck pig.
He hates Champ, because Champ is a strong Christian woman, who defends her faith, and makes ‘rezali’ look like an idiot.
He hates me because I take the piss out of him. 🙂
Champ says
Brava, Mirren10!!! Great comment and so true!
And I would add that ‘rezali’ hates everyone and everything …that’s just a wild guess, mind you 😉
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Take care, my dear friend!! Xo
Mirren10 says
Thanks, Champ.
Hope you had a great 4th of July !
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10,
I was wondering where the art reference came from, Is it posted on line?
Yes, it is rather disgusting when portrayed explicitly, here is another example
Aisha and Muhammad — The Movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZTTeBqJatE
Thanks for the backstory info.
gravenimage says
The link is here:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/AishasWedding-1.jpg.html
Although I have other work criticizing the “Prophet’s” abuse of little Aisha, as well.
And the problem with pedophilia is not that “it is rather disgusting when portrayed explicitly” but that child rape is an atrocity, whether depicted or not.
If it is depicted in order to condemn it, then this is not disgusting at all, but just denouncing an act we should all regard with moral disgust.
Joseph says
@ Mirren 10 Thanks for the gender clarification on Rezali.
” So I think old ‘rezali’s’ worried about his wifies stepping out on him.”
______________________________________________________
What do you think goat pens are for?
Maybe he should try some cultural diversity and buy a few chickens.
Mirren10 says
”What do you think goat pens are for?
Maybe he should try some cultural diversity and buy a few chickens”
Shrieks ! 🙂
Nice one, Joseph.
gravenimage says
You’re right, Mirren—Rezali Mehil (whether Muslim or Muslimah)—does have a particular animus for the three of us.
You guys, I take it as a badge of honor, given how evil Rezali Mehil is, and the evil of the creed she represents.
Winston Churchill said, “You have enemies? Good, it means that you’ve stood for something, some time in your life”.
I am proud to stand with you and Champ! I hope you both are well!
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Hey! Count me in here too!
Western Canadian says
Actually, I do favour this pitiable lout, and all similar who lack in knowledge or intelligence (such as dusted psycho), being allowed to post. It gives such a fantastic look at how crippled minds so filled with hate that there is no room for knowledge, which is very much an educational experience for any and all in the western world, who still could be classed as reasonably decent, normal human beings.
As for the suggestion that rezali is actually male….. it does make a great deal of sense. Yes, those unfortunate enough to be raised in an environment where they are taught what, not how, to think will swallow and offer up utter drivel…. but the suggestion the rezali is a male, pretending to be a happy and satisfied muslima….. is a very reasonable possibility.
Mo says
@ Rezali Mehil
“There are other benefits too, there are women who have never had the privilege to be a mother …the case in prime on this web site is Graven…we have all benefited from seeing her depraved writings, her scrawls which she confuses as art…resulting in a bitter loneliness where her mental state is so confused that she draws old men having sex with a child… I mean who would do that?”
So you agree that having sex with a child is depraved, eh? Your warlord, child rapist “prophet” didn’t draw pictures about it. He actually did it. You agree that this is depraved, and still you follow this warlord, child rapist?
Who’s the mentally confused one now?
***
I love it when Muslims spew their filth. Let the world see this death cult for what it is!
Peggy says
Are you for real?
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Oh Peggy: Your reaction is so spontaneous and honest!
Girlfriend: This Rez creature apparently is for real. Now I don’t know it’s man or woman, but yes, she’s sincere.
Horrible, ain’t it?
gravenimage says
The repulsive Rezali Mehil wrote:
Salaam all,
Well I can sort of see both sides on this.
There are many more women in the world than men, and we women tend to live longer too.
Whilst it is kinda hard for women to accept another female present in the house and having to share the same husband…look at the bigger picture.
…………………………………..
What a load of rot. It is completely false that there are “many more women in the world than men”. In fact, there are—very slightly—more men than women globally. There are 101 men to every 100 women:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
Of course, this is statistically insignificant. While there is regional variation, for the most part men and women are equally matched in terms of numbers.
In any case, for the Islamic model of four wives for every man to work, women would have to make up *80%* of the population. Clearly, this is utterly absurd.
But then, this is not really what Muslim polygamy is all about.
More:
So many women will never be able to be in a relationship, to feel the (halal only) male sex organ inside them, they live and die as lonely women…this problem would go away ..resulting in a happier and more content female population (indeed more ear rings would be sold …something that Mirren and Graven know all about).
…………………………………..
“halal only”—Rezali Mehil lets the population argument drop. This is all about privilege for *Muslim* men.
In fact, the scenario as laid out in the “holy” texts of Islam is Muslims taking multiple wives because they slaughtered Infidel males and taken their women. In many cases, in fact, they have just murdered the women’s husbands. This was certainly the case with Safiyya—the “Prophet” raped her in his tent the night after having murdered her husband, her father, and her brothers.
And note that Rezali Mehil—just like this Sharia judge—are Muslimahs who nonetheless fully endorse Muslim male privilege. Many decent Infidels consider Muslim women purely victims of Islam, but many of them enable it, as well.
If anyone is wondering what the odd reference to earrings is, a few weeks ago after I casually mentioned having pieced ears, Rezali Mehil had a bizarre sex fantasy about me where she claimed my husband was obsessed with my ears. Who knows why? This was apropos of nothing.
This is pretty sick—but considering the fact that she has perviously condoned the rape of children and men murdering their wives in “Honor Killings”, this is actually pretty benign—it might actually be considered comparatively healthy by her twisted standards.
One more point—notice that this Muslimah understands nothing about romantic love and companionship, but posits everything narrowly in sexual terms. And why not? In Islam, the “Nikah” contract—often mistakenly referred to as a marriage contract—actually gives the purchaser legal access to the woman’s vagina, which he has secured from her previous owner (usually, but not always, her father).
More:
There are other benefits too, there are women who have never had the privilege to be a mother …the case in prime on this web site is Graven…we have all benefited from seeing her depraved writings, her scrawls which she confuses as art…resulting in a bitter loneliness where her mental state is so confused that she draws old men having sex with a child… I mean who would do that?
…………………………………..
The “old men (sic) having sex with a child” is *not* something Rezali Mehil considers depraved. The reference, of course, is Muhammed’s pedophilic rape of poor little nine-year-old Aisha. The fact is that far from condemning this, she has described this crime as “ordained by Allah SWT”. She has, in fact, lauded child marriage many times here.
The *only* thing she considers depraved is *criticizing* the rape of a child—especially by a “filthy Infidel” such as myself. The piece in question can be found here:
http://s478.photobucket.com/user/gravenimageartist/media/AishasWedding-1.jpg.html
More:
I have advised Gravenin one of two ways …that she asks her husband Dennis to marry another woman such that they can share bringing up the kuffar sprogs …or that she can leave Dennis and marry a muslim man (preferably an imam) already with children and a wife and delight in bring up the bestest of children.
I feel that she is strongly considering one of these options…but has not opened up to us all here.
Folks it’s just a small mindset change…and I feel there are few disadvantages.
…………………………………..
Of course Rezali Mehil would consider reconciling myself to serving as a drudge in a loveless marriage to be “just a small mindset change”—after all, there is no love in Islam. *Ugh*.
Note, too, that she considers those raised as Muslims to be the “bestest of children”—a reference to Islamic texts calling Muslims “the best of people”. Here’s Qur’an 3:110:
“You Muslims are the best nation brought out for Mankind, commanding what is righteous and forbidding what is wrong”.
Among the things deemed righteous are polygamy and child “marriage”; among those deemed wrong is women being allowed to marry for love.
Minor points, but Rezali Mehil appears confused on several issues—not surprising given that she adheres to a vile creed that disdains reason. It would not be possible for my husband to engage in polygamy as a decent Infidel—he would have to “revert” to Islam as she has urged many times. And were he to do that, he would not be bringing up “kuffar sprogs”, since the children of Muslim men are always deemed Muslims. Not surprisingly, the slang term “sprog” is generally used in a derogatory manner.
Finally, where did Rezali Mehil get the idea that my husband is names Dennis? Perhaps she thinks all Infidels are alike?
“Dennis” is also slang for a wonderful, reliable guy, though—this would certainly describe my husband, so it is a mistake I don’t much mind:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Dennis
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“In any case, for the Islamic model of four wives for every man to work, women would have to make up *80%* of the population. Clearly, this is utterly absurd.”
And that’s not even counting the sex slaves – it all ties in to the need to wage war against non-believers. Muslims die, non-muslims die, women are up for grabs – as devout muslims have told me “would it be better to leave the kuffar women to fend for themselves or to provide for them?” (to which I always reply “it would have been better NOT to attack their country, not kill their family and not take them as slaves”).
gravenimage says
Very true, Angemon. I didn’t even factor in sex slaves with my numbers.
Of course, this isn’t about taking care of women—it is about Muslims taking women, especially from Infidel men.
gravenimage says
Ashley and Champ, thanks so much for the support. It means a lot to me.
TH says
If they don’t want to live by the laws of the country, they can go back to their islamic hellholes. This is what any self-respecting country should make clear to them.
Alarmed Pig Farmer says
Why should they go back to their Islamic hellholes? Everybody always says that as if it’s so obvious. What if it’s true that America can be improved, and what it Moslems have some great ideas on how to improve it? Plus, I don’t think it would be fair to send somebody back to a Dar al-Islam country where they are likely to suffer from poverty and other problems besetting the developing world.
somehistory says
So a woman judge has *ruled* that the legal government can’t…*can’t* keep muslim men from having more than one wife…legally. “We can’t ask”….Maybe not, but the law can “tell” them they can’t have more than one wife.
Jesus said the end times would have “increasing lawlessness” (Matthew 24:12) and this is a prime example of the fulfillment of that prophecy.
She and the muslims over which she is supposed to *judge* refuse to obey the law, and say the government “can’t” make them….”nya nya nya nya nya you can’t make em”
So now what is the government going to do about her *decision from the bench*?
jayell says
“Britain’s first female sharia law judge has issued a brazen warning that flies in the face of UK law, stating that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”….
No. We don’t ASK them not to have more than one wife. We TELL them. Or else. Actually, the slimy persons-of-uncertain-parentage get round this by having their illict extra wives, although only ONE is ‘official’. The others are officially ‘unmarried mothers’ and they claim as such on the State and get free housing, etc., etc., etc.. Now, if the ‘unofficial’ wives became ‘official’, would they lose some of their State handouts? For a start, wouldn’t they all lose their separate houses? I hope? Then maybe get banged up under the bigamy laws?
duh_swami says
Why can’t Muslimahs marry up to four husbands and fool around with male slaves on the side?
You don’t think there is a double standard working here, do you?
Ian_A_S says
The rolling legislation for gay marriage across the developed countries will strengthen the argument for polygamous marriages. The argument for polygamy will be particularly persuasive once it is framed in terms of multicultural minority cultural practices. So even though moslems throw gays off tall buidings with their hands and feet bound, they will reap the benefits of 30 years of gay activism without even trying. You have to hand it to moslems, they play Western culture like a fiddle.
tilda says
Various western countries have civil partnership legislation which provides similar rights and responsibilities to same sex couples as are available to opposite sex couples. The current push for same sex “marriage” in the west (including in countries that already have civil partnership legislation) is not about equal rights, it is about the word “marriage”; it is about manipulating and changing the meaning of that word. Once the meaning of the word “marriage” is expanded to include same sex couples then the doors are opened to claims for further expansion: a man and four women? a man and four pre-pubescent girls?
tilda says
The problem is that it’s the British tax payer who is [in most cases] supporting these multiple wives — and often supporting the husband as well. I thought sharia required the husband to provide for his wives needs — or do the sharia courts manage to think their way around that little problem? It is totally parasitic, and is not what the welfare state was intended for or designed to do.
janice says
They are required to provide for any other wives they take equally, which just goes to show how they are twisting and using our tax money for their own ends providing for all wives and themselves with benefits as much as they can grab then breeding as many children as possible so they can out number the rest of us .Then game over and so far with the governments of most countries as weak as piss its fast becoming a reality .If you think its only Europe and Africa think again its everywhere
Michelle Wayne says
And who will pay the vast amount of welfare money to this extra wives and children? You people the Christians and Jews,they could Jitsu I think according to Sharia you must pay, lol sorry UK they got this country by the bolls, I can hear them laughing all the way to Australia.When something like this is discovered here the muslims would be charged with scamming from Welfare and money would have to be returned, there is lots of us who are eager to put them in, it’s either live according to our law or get out!!
Ian_A_S says
Yeah, right, its the jizya tax … moslems in Britain have found a way to combine Taqqiya and Jizya in one delicious “F… You, Infidels, the Caliphate is Here” package. Ahh, their brains are ticking away under the headbags and little crochet hats. British taxpayers busily working away to pay their Jizya to their welfare-king Islamic masters. Gotta love the UK, they have developed the art of bending over and taking it, to a whole new level. Just to think, once upon a time they ruled the seas and the sun never sank on the empire. And now they just pay their jizya.
Larry A. Singleton says
They should be given a choice: Conform to UK’s laws or leave.
And three articles that merit the caption: “Britain is no longer ‘Great’. Britain is lost”
UK: Politicians Urge Ban on the Term ‘Islamic State'” by Soeren Kern.
and
UK: Belfast Pastor Faces Prison for ‘Grossly Offending Islam'” by Soeren Kern
and
Extremism and Censorship by Samuel Westrop. He makes a good point on censorship even of Muslims but also mentions Islamic preacher Abu Usamah at-Thahabi who encourages the killing of gays but despite advocating murder has never been charged. Meaning the UK doesn’t even enforce the laws they’ve got on the books to combat extremism. It also mentions how groups incited by these preachers march through the streets of London flying the flags of outlawed terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
And I just watched that video of the guy interviewing Americans and asking them why we celebrated the 4th of July. Nobody could even answer who we gained our Independence FROM! They interviewed a “foreigner” who did know the answer to the questions. These are the brain-dead useful idiots who voted for Obummer. Those who don’t READ and inform themselves on the issues.
Gord Schneider says
England, you were my hero years ago. What in God’s name have you done to yourself? You are a shadow of what you once were. You’ve lost your backbone. Your politicians are like jellyfish……no substance whatsoever. Where’s that bulldog spirit? I can’t believe you could allow yourself to be turned into such a weak-kneed, cowardly nation ruled by political correctness and fear.
It’s never too late to change. You’re in a fight for your very lives……best ya get yer dukes up and start defending yourself. You could become a beacon to the free world once again………if you wanted to. The world, now more than ever, needs you to be strong. I’m pulling for you.
David says
There may be nothing that the British government can do about these arrangements under the current law. The same situation applies in the United States as long as the couple is not “legally married” to more than one spouse at one time.
Champ says
Britain’s first female sharia law judge has issued a brazen warning that flies in the face of UK law, stating that the “government cannot ask Muslims not to have more than one wife”.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is insane! What has the world come to?
And the whole of islam “flies in the face” of reason, and even basic common sense.
Steph says
This is really getting dangerous Champ, what if the “good muslim female judge” decided to follow moummed’s image and ruled it ok to take a 9 year old as his wife ? etc..
Yes I know this is the other end of the muslim sick but what other laws will will be pushed in this way and let go my the wimp govt.
Champ says
So true, Steph!
David, Thailand says
“As many as 100,000 couples are living in such marriages, which are not valid under UK law, experts said. ”
Another half-truth with which to deceive the unthinking masses. While it is true that these marriages are ‘not valid’, in fact they are more than just not valid, they are clearly illegal.
The problem with that is, ‘illegal’ implies criminal, which might have people asking why none of the 100,000 people involved have been prosecuted, or arrested, or even politely cautioned to observe the laws of their host nation.
Mo says
@ Stardusty Psyche
“Actually, I am kind of a Christian atheist”
No such thing, since that’s an oxymoron.
“I don’t hate Christian creationist crackpots, and I am wistful for the days when countering their unscientific nonsense was a primary anti-religious concern, as opposed to now when we have to worry
about religious fundamentalists killing us in suicidal jihad.”
What “Christian creationist crackpots” are those?
(Yeah, there’s no hatred there.)
/sarcasm
What “religious fundamentalists” are those?
Take your anti-Christian bigotry elsewhere. This site is about ISLAM.
Steph says
In defence of Mo
Basically all religions are about crowd control, the intensity or viciousness of their controllers ego is what sets the pace ..
Science will tell us a different story about where man began, but history tell us it’s really about self defence and food
somehistory says
If you don’t have faith in Christ, you shouldn’t attempt to say *why* people have a faith. It definitely is *Not* about *crowd control* …*self defense* and *food.*
Science makes an attempt to *tell us about where man began*….but other than to say, *life created itself*….its attempts fail. It is obvious to reason that Life came from Life…Life needs a Source of Life in order to bring about further life.
Louis Pasteur made that point a long, long time ago for those who doubted it.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mo,
***“Actually, I am kind of a Christian atheist”
No such thing, since that’s an oxymoron.***
It seems that way to you, and in the strictest sense you are correct…but I have adopted Christ’s message of universal love as an integral part of my psyche more so than a great many self identifying Christians.
***“I don’t hate Christian creationist crackpots, and I am wistful for the days when countering their unscientific nonsense was a primary anti-religious concern, as opposed to now when we have to worry
about religious fundamentalists killing us in suicidal jihad.”
What “Christian creationist crackpots” are those?***
The ones who take it upon themselves to get on this blog and denounce the scientific fact and theory of evolution.
***(Yeah, there’s no hatred there.)
/sarcasm***
In my heart., no, there is no hatred for those whose ideas I characterize as crackpot nonsense.
***What “religious fundamentalists” are those?***
The jihadis are religious fundamentalists of the most dangerous sort
***Take your anti-Christian bigotry elsewhere. This site is about ISLAM.***
Indeed, but Christians continually get on this site and proclaim their Christian nonsense, so from time to time I address their assertions.
Western Canadian says
Having spent several years corresponding with numerous Christians, several similarities in writing style and phrasing have become obvious, and are the hallmarks of Christian believers. Open to questions, patience, accepting of differences, submersing themselves in a search for truth Make that TRUTH… albeit with obviously becoming tired of willful hypocrites…. . like Dusted Psycho.
No, you are in no way a Christian, your ignorance of Christian history and belief, your pathetic, sub-juvenile smearing and sneering, you are in no way a Christian, and are at best a pathetic, shabbily educated low church atheist. Ignorant even of the church you have joined due, not to intellectual effort, but run a-muck ego: a church that only believes in your own ignorance, and blatant stupidity. As for your endless criticism of all others on this board, you merely project your own massive short comings onto others…… and are so stupidly blind, you will never see it. There is nothing but hatred in you, which in light of your endless ignorance, is rather amazing….. where do you ever find room for it? But then, you will put any effort needed into keeping as hate filled and ignorant as you are.
As for your usual reply, my ability to analyze you from a distance….. I could only wish for an even greater distance…… the stench of your posts is obvious, even on other continents. Suggest you refrain from doing so yourself (and doing it very badly), before knocking someone doing it (and doing it very well), with you.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Western,
“As for your usual reply, my ability to analyze you from a distance”
Indeed, I do appreciate you internet psychoanalysis ever so much. With so many helpful observations and spot on deductions I hardly know where to begin.
I particularly enjoyed the means of identifying a Christian you employ:
“hallmarks of Christian believers. Open to questions, patience, accepting of differences, submersing themselves in a search for truth”
I take it then, you, Joseph, and a number of others here who have displayed the antithesis of these qualities are in no way Christians as well?
Stardusty Psyche says
Ok my fellow continental companion from the great North West howzabout you apply your analytical skills to this thread:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/obama-administration-blocks-attempts-to-fly-heavy-weapons-to-kurds-to-fight-the-islamic-state/comment-page-1#comments
Now, Cecilia Ellis and I were having a nice little conversation about church and state, so our ever gracious friends were kind enough to contribute these epithets:
That was an epic smackdown of our boy, StarThief.
Excellent riposte to the meretricious ‘sp’, Cecilia.
‘sp’ is making a fool of himself
@ Stardusty Pilferer
Just how many stupid pills have you taken today? You are way beyond foolish and ignorant.
Wipe your chin off, Barry is done with you.
Please keep in mind that space cadet is basically retarded and can’t be expected to understand anything you say.
So, Western, what is a stupid, thieving, cock sucking, meretricious, pilfering, retarded fool like me supposed to do? About all I can do is either ignore those kinds of statements or make a joke of them if I see an opportunity for a bit of word play.
I certainly am not going to lower myself to responding in kind with similarly crude and pointless ad hominems.
Mirren10 says
The egregious liar ‘sp’ has the brass neck to speak of “crude and pointless ad hominems” ?
This malevolent troll suggested Kathy Brown was actually a fat little boy typing in his mum’s basement, hoping to get ‘laid’. He has accused various staunch anti-Jihadists of being vacuous, racists, liars, etc, etc.
The creature doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Mirren10
“The egregious liar ‘sp’”
Please provide a complete quote of any lie I supposedly told.
“has the brass neck”
Yes, I’ve got plenty of brass, the ladies like that…
” to speak of “crude and pointless ad hominems” ?”
Well, F*ck and Psycho don’t seem to add much to the discourse, but they are good for a chuckle, so maybe you have a point there, they are not entirely pointless, possessing some amount of entertainment value.
“This malevolent troll suggested Kathy Brown was actually a fat little boy typing in his mum’s basement, hoping to get ‘laid’.”
Of course, that was pure speculation and presented not as any kind of fact based assertion…It just seems to me that KB’s claim to be a prosecuting attorney is out of step with her “all Muslims are culpable” bigotry and more along the lines of a basement troll.
KB-“All Jews are culpable”, then “All Blacks are culpable” then “All Christians are culpable”
Oh, I’m sorry, was that unfair? I don’t think so, I got the idea here:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/articles/quran_hate.htm
“He has accused various staunch anti-Jihadists of being”
vacuous (indeed, many of the arguments provided by JW posters are vacuous)
racists, (“all Muslims are culpable”, “a Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim”)
liars, (SP is an anti-semite, a form of racist against ethnic Jews)
etc, etc. (indeed, it just goes on and on and on)
“The creature doesn’t have a leg to stand on.”
I actually have 2 legs to stand on, they work well for running and spinning also. Oh, but you meant in the rational discourse sense…well, coming from a liar that does not bother me too much.
Champ says
‘sp’ wrote to Mirren10:
Yes, I’ve got plenty of brass, the ladies like that…
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mirren10, where DOES he find the time? ..he’s on JW 24/7! lol! 😀
And I seriously doubt that any “lady” would want to spend quality time with this ..creep.
What he calls “ladies” are in fact __________________.
Yeah, they’re that nasty.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mirren10, take care, my dear friend!! Xo 🙂
Champ says
Mirren10 wrote:
This malevolent troll suggested Kathy Brown was actually a fat little boy typing in his mum’s basement, hoping to get ‘laid’. He has accused various staunch anti-Jihadists of being vacuous, racists, liars, etc, etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mirren10, talk about a double-standard …’sp’ can dish it out but he certainly can’t take it! And I’m 100% certain that he starts these disputes with other posters.
Hmm, he sure does think and behave like a muslim. But apparently he isn’t. Again, hmmm …
Oh well, if he ever decides to convert to islam, then he will fit right in with that crowd, since he’s already the total mohammedan package: both mentally & emotionally.
don newell says
I don’t see how marrying more than one woman can be legal for a muslim but illegal for a non muslim. so whats to prevent them from saying we can also kill or beat our wives also since it’s allowed in the Koran. ?
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Now now Joseph. Go easy.
‘Lawyers’ don’t all ‘lie’.
Yes, yes I know the creeps on TV and all. But I don’t ‘lie’ and most of my colleagues don’t, either.
You don’t have to be a liar to be a lawyer! In fact it’s not a good thing!
Then again I don’t make anywhere near the $ some slimy lawyers do, nor do my friends. It’s the Catholic thing see.
I felt the need to say this Joseph.
Joseph says
@ Kathy Brown, Esq.
I,m sorry and I do apologize for that broad brush statement. The reason why I said that is because one of the things on my mind right now is my disgust with criminal defense lawyers. How many lives are lost women raped and people assaulted because these criminals are found not guilty or have reduced sentences. A young girl was recently murdered in S.F. Cal. by a man who should have been deported or behind bars.
Again I apologize for my blunder and I am grateful that you did not let me have it with “both barrels”
Joseph says
I am happy your not “slimy”. Money is not everything.
What type of lawyer are you in case I need assistance. Obviously not to defend a criminal action.
Wow, Again I’m sorry. I feel really low now.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
No harm done Joseph!
I do 1st Amendment (free speech, assembly, religion). In our colleges mostly.
I’ve done criminal but they all did it. You know? Depressing.
But these lowlife professorial types who like to beat up on their students like jackbooted Nazis: Making THEIR lives a living hell is a wonderful, worthy cause. Them I like to get!
And that’s the difference between Bl. Mother Teresa, and moi.
Kathy Brown, Esq. says
Listen Joseph: I’ve read a lot of your posts and I knew you weren’t ‘one of those’. Besides which I feel we can model-for Rez and the unwashed muslim hordes-just what a little non-Left courtesy and civility, looks like.
By the way, you did that automatically in your response to ME.
So we can both thank each other and let’s spread it around. There are SOME people around here-not to mention those not worth the mention-who really need our example.
Bless you Joseph-
voegelinian says
Notice that StardustyPsyche adroitly avoids a crucial refutation by gravenimage —
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/uk-sharia-court-judge-uk-cannot-ask-muslims-not-to-have-more-than-one-wife/comment-page-1#comment-1265106
For that was published July 9 — meanwhile he has come back with a comment on July 11, and chose to respond to something he could exploit, rather than the one for which he has no defense, gravenimage’s comment linked above.
This is part of SP’s pattern (and the pattern of other trolls with whose bones the road of Jihad Watch is proverbially littered): to respond quite copiously, but only to those comments he (thinks he) can exploit for obfuscation, disinformation, and other forms of sophistry; meanwhile the clouds of smoke & mirrors generated by this activity of his (and of those responding to him in reaction) obscures the more incisive rebuttals to him.
gravenimage says
Thanks for pointing this out, Voeg.
This is a *very* common tactic with trolls—simply fail to address anything that substantively counters their bs, and later repost the same idiocy, and hope that new readers haven’t seen the previous posts.
Another example of this with “Stardusty Psyche” is his repeated claims that Robert Spencer is calling for “Muslim sensitivity training” to be imposed on insufficiently “respectful” Infidels, when nothing could be further from the truth.
Stardusty Psyche says
Hi Graven,
Do you intend to make fabrication of words and then falsely attributing them to me a full time avocation or is it just a now and again kind of thing with you?
GI-“Another example of this with “Stardusty Psyche” is his repeated claims that Robert Spencer is calling for “Muslim sensitivity training” to be imposed on insufficiently “respectful” Infidels, when nothing could be further from the truth.”
I never said that at all. I used Robert Spencer’s words to provide sensitivity training to those here who showed signs of bigotry toward Muslims.
Here they are:
Robert Spencer—Dr. Jasser says Muslim parents don’t want their parents to become Imams and there’s a reason for that because Islam does teach a violence and a radicalism at the core, that is embedded in the Qur’an, embedded in the teachings of Muhammad that…
… many Muslims obviously don’t want to partake of in their lives because human nature being everywhere the same,…
… people are people, they want to have a job and raise their family and live a life and they don’t want to be bothered with strapping on a suicide vest and killing people and so on.
And so they keep a distance from Islam as it is officially codified and they live lives in accord with generally more Western values
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxcttDHIH7A
AIFD’s Dr. Zuhdi Jasser debates Jihad Watch’s Robert Spencer
voegelinian says
Like I said, the Counter-Jihad has got to deal with its own incoherence regarding its asymptotic tendencies (in so doing, articulating a coherent platform of what it stands for), in order to refute a StardustyPsyche with his sly re-presentations of the asymptotic rhetoric of the ROP page and of Robert Spencer’s few pronouncements on the problem (or non-problem) of Muslims — unless, of course, the Counter-Jihad agrees more or less with StardustyPsyche’s TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists meme).
The TMOE meme, in brief, contains the following givens:
— The problem of Muslims following Islam is not systemic — i.e., it is not amorphous and broad-based, but is easily delimited: a) the vast majority of the time, we can tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims; and b) we know beforehand that the dangerous Muslims only constitute a tiny fraction of Muslims in general.
– the above, in turn, seems to be based on the implicit assumption either that
a) mainstream Islam is benign and that this TMOE is “twisting” or “hijacking” or distorting benign Islam into a malignant misinterpretation; or that
b) okay, sure, Islam is not benign, but hey, the vast majority of Muslims don’t follow any of the bad parts, because we all know they just wanna have a sandwich (Ben Affleck’s version of George Bush’s “most Muslims are decent moms and pops like the rest of us”).
The asymptotic Counter-Jihad tendency would not avow an unadorned TMOE meme, of course; in its incoherent tendency to try to have its cake (of a robust anti-Islam stance) and eat it too (avoid the “bigotry” of “painting all Muslims with a broad brush stroke) — in the context of its growing horrified awareness of the horrors of Islam and the mayhem and/or mendacity daily fomented by Muslims all over the world — it clumsily stumbles along with various permutations of a MOE (Minority of Extremists) with the untenable T (“Tiny”). One way it does this is by retaining the Moderate Muslim meme under other names — allowing it to simultaneously reject the ridiculous label Moderate Muslim while retaining its function under other labels, which I wrote about here:
The Mutation of the “Moderate Muslim”
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-mutation-of-moderate-muslim.html
To be supplemented by my more recent essay:
A shift from Islam to Muslims
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-shift-from-islam-to-muslims.html
To
Like I said, the Counter-Jihad has got to deal with its own incoherence regarding its asymptotic tendencies (in so doing, articulating a coherent platform of what it stands for), in order to refute a StardustyPsyche — unless, of course, the Counter-Jihad agrees more or less with StardustyPsyche’s TMOE meme (Tiny Minority of Extremists meme).
The TMOE meme, in brief, contains the following givens:
— The problem of Muslims following Islam is not systemic — i.e., it is not amorphous and broad-based, but is easily delimited: a) the vast majority of the time, we can tell the difference between the dangerous Muslims and the harmless Muslims; and b) we know beforehand that the dangerous Muslims only constitute a tiny fraction of Muslims in general.
– the above, in turn, seems to be based on the implicit assumption either that
a) mainstream Islam is benign and that this TMOE is “twisting” or “hijacking” or distorting benign Islam into a malignant misinterpretation; or that
b) okay, sure, Islam is not benign, but hey, the vast majority of Muslims don’t follow any of the bad parts, because we all know they just wanna have a sandwich (Ben Affleck’s version of George Bush’s “most Muslims are decent moms and pops like the rest of us”).
The asymptotic Counter-Jihad tendency would not avow an unadorned TMOE meme, of course; in its incoherent tendency to try to have its cake (of a robust anti-Islam stance) and eat it too (avoid the “bigotry” of “painting all Muslims with a broad brush stroke) — in the context of its growing horrified awareness of the horrors of Islam and the mayhem and/or mendacity daily fomented by Muslims all over the world — it clumsily stumbles along with various permutations of a MOE (Minority of Extremists) with the untenable T (“Tiny”). One way it does this is by retaining the Moderate Muslim meme under other names — allowing it to simultaneously reject the ridiculous label Moderate Muslim while retaining its function under other labels, which I wrote about here:
The Mutation of the “Moderate Muslim”
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-mutation-of-moderate-muslim.html
To be supplemented by my more recent essay:
A shift from Islam to Muslims
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-shift-from-islam-to-muslims.html
voegelinian says
minor but crucial correction:
the Counter-Jihad “clumsily stumbles along with various permutations of a MOE (Minority of Extremists) with the untenable T (“Tiny”). ”
should read:
the Counter-Jihad “clumsily stumbles along with various permutations of a MOE (Minority of Extremists) WITHOUT the untenable T (“Tiny”). “
Angemon says
voegelinian posted:
“Like I said, the Counter-Jihad has got to deal with its own incoherence regarding its asymptotic tendencies”
It’s the other way around, voeg. YOU have to deal with the fact that no one here is willing to play guard-dog to someone who has a hard time making proper, on-point, concise posts (or even properly explaining his ideas – we’re not mind readers, you know?).
Case in point, your habit of throwing your (or Hugh’s, or Bostom’s, I really can’t keep up with all that backpedaling) pet-word “asymptotic” at people who don’t tow your party line.