Piers Morgan had Tommy Robinson on his show recently, but only very briefly, and he hardly let Robinson have a word edgewise, interrupting him at every turn. Here is how it went:
Piers Morgan, co-host of “Good Morning Britain,” angrily denounced Tommy Robinson, an author and famous British critic of Islam, his guest on June 20, and called him a “bigoted lunatic” while debating his controversial response to the recent attack on Muslims in London.[Morgan had mistakenly identified Muslims leaving the notorious Finsbury mosque as the target; in fact, the target was Muslims leaving a nearby Islamic welfare house].
Morgan registered his objection, saying, “Here’s my point. Right, I’ve read a lot of stuff that you’ve said and done. I know your history, I know all of it. Good, bad and ugly. Some of it is ugly, some of it, I agree with.”
“My issue with what you did, yesterday,” he continued, “is within one hour of this utter lunacy, this terrorist, driving from Wales, and deliberately mowing down innocent people, as it turned out, all Muslims, outside the Muslim welfare house, not the Finsbury Park mosque, killing one, maiming maybe 10 others, is your first thought process was not to express sympathy, for what had happened.”
“I read the tweets in sequential order, right,” he added, “within one hour your thought process was to go on the attack, to talk about another mosque, not the one that had been attacked, to talk about it in historical context, of when everybody knows the Finsbury Park mosque at the turn of the century was a bad place, with Abu Hamza, and everything else, right. And what you were doing, was fomenting hatred and almost suggesting that somehow this attack, this revenge attack as you put it, was somehow deserving because of the historical behavior of certain people at a completely different mosque — that was my problem.”
“OK, Piers,” Robinson responded, “the newspaper you work for said exactly the same within an hour — Abu Hamza’s mosque. Were they fomenting hate, the newspaper you work for? Were they? Were they inciting hate?”
“I don’t run the Daily Mail,” Morgan protested.
“Now, if I hold up this book and say, ‘There will never be peace on this Earth so long as we have this book, it’s a violent and cursed book,’ Can I say that? Sir William Gladstone said that,” Robinson continued, referring to the 19th century prime minister of Great Britain’s description of the Quran.
“Would you say that of the Bible? Show some respect,” Morgan retorted.
“Show some respect? Have you read this book?” Robinson shot back. “Have you read this book? There are a hundred verses in this book that incite violence and murder against us.”
Why didn’t Piers Morgan answer Robinson’s question? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had, why wouldn’t he say so? The problem for Piers Morgan is that either he has not read the Qur’an (which is entirely possible, for study is not his strong suit, and he seems to be noticeably unwilling to engage on its contents, never having mentioned a single one of its verses) and therefore has no business taking issue with what Tommy Robinson, channeling Gladstone, maintains, or he has read it in which case he knows what it contains and and wants to keep that information from the public. After all, if he had said, “Yes of course I’ve read the Qur’an,” Robinson’s next question would have been: “Okay, can you recall even one verse out of the more than one hundred that incite violence and murder against the Infidels?”
What does Morgan do then? Reply with something like this: ‘Oh, I’m sure there are some violent verses in the Qur’an, I don’t deny that, but these all relate to a specific context, in when certain tribes were fighting Muhammad, 1400 years ago and not meant to apply today. And by the way have you looked at the Old Testament recently?” (False “contexualization” followed by tu-quoque.) “ No religion is without some violent passages, I’m sad to say. But let’s not single out Islam, please. And I’m sorry, I can’t recall such a verse — though I’m not denying some exist. But it’s a question of whether the basic message of the Qur’an is one of peace and tolerance, as 1.6 billion Muslims certainly believe, and have told us repeatedly that it is. We mustn’t let extremists, who are only working out their own private demons, nut jobs the lot of them, be confused with real Muslims, who get up, drop off their kids at school, go to work,come home, eat dinner, watch the telly, and go to bed — that is, they do exactly what non-Muslims do.Why should we listen to the likes of of Tommy Robinson, who seems to think he’s more of an expert on Islam than Muslims themselves, and insists that the Holy Qur’an is a manual of war and terrorism?”
That is what, more or less, Piers Morgan would have offered had he had more time: “contextualization,” taqiyya, and tu-quoque.
The next time Robinson faces Piers Morgan or anyone else in the media so intent on defending Islam from Robinson’s criticism, he might try to slip in a verse or two, just to make things more difficult for his unsympathetic host. It need not be a Jihad verse, as 9:5 or 9:29. It could be, for example, one of those that explicitly mentions “terror,” as “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12), which is hard to explain away. And so is “Infidels are the most vile of creatures” (98:6). If Robinson can manage to quote those verses on television, pushing them out into the public consciousness, that would be more valuable than a general denunciation of the Qur’an or of Islam.
When Robinson held up a Qur’an, Morgan was outraged.
“Put that book down,” Morgan commanded angrily, “show some damn respect for people’s religious beliefs, right?”
“I should show some respect for a book that incites murder against me?” Robinson responded.
“Put it down,” Morgan said. “Put it down.”
“No, I won’t put it down,” Robinson said defiantly. “Sir William Gladstone held this book above his head in Parliament and he said, ‘There will never be peace on this Earth so long as we have this book. It’s a violent and cursed book.’ Was Sir William Gladstone, who we have statues across our capitol, was he a bigot or an Islamophobe?”
“See now you’re sounding like a complete lunatic,” Morgan said. “You’re sounding like a bigoted lunatic.”
Is Robinson sounding like a “bigoted lunatic”? All he did was accurately quote William Gladstone, four times prime minister of Great Britain. Was Gladstone a “bigoted lunatic”? He who had closely followed the ravages of the Ottoman Turks against the Bulgarian Christians, even wrote at length about the Turkish atrocities (“The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East”), and who had read the Qur’an, was not a man to shy away from recognizing either the disturbing doctrine of Islamic Jihad, or the disturbing practice of Muslims who engaged in violent Jihad. But of course it was a different time, and truth-telling about Islam not then suppressed, as it is today by the omnipresent piers-morgans of our latter-day media.
If Tommy Robinson is a “bigoted lunatic,” then so is William Ewart Gladstone, the man Robinson quoted so appositely.
Either Gladstone said what Tommy Robinson attributes to him, or he did not. Morgan can’t handle this. He doesn’t deny Gladstone said it, because he can’t, and his method of dealing with it is to deflect attention away from what Gladstone said that was so damning about the Qur’an — to wave away William Ewart Gladstone, with Churchill one of Great Britain’s two greatest prime ministers (and, we should remember, Churchill shared Gladstone’s dim view of Islam, which he formed early when he was in the Sudan, and never recanted) and to prevent Tommy Robinson from quoting him at greater length, by resorting to hysterical name-calling: Robinson is a “complete lunatic…you’re sounding like a bigoted lunatic.” Viewers are left confused, and some will come away with the impression that Robinson has made something up about William Ewart Gladstone. But of course he hadn’t. Gladstone did hold up a Qur’an during a session of Parliament, calling it an “accursed book” and declaring that “so long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world.” His study of the Qur’an, and his own experience the Muslim Turks led him to such a view. When in 1876 the Bulgarian Christians rose up against their Muslim masters, the Ottoman Turks, Gladstone, then out of office, was appalled by the reports of the many cruelties of the Turks in suppressing the Bulgarians — massacring men, women, and children with fantastic cruelty, with 15,000 civilians killed in Plovdiv alone — and wrote a pamphlet: “The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East.” It was not just about the latest atrocities, but about the long history of what happened when the Muslim Turks conquered Christian lands, including Greece, the Balkans, Bulgaria and Rumania, and extending all the way north into Hungary.
In that work, Gladstone described the Ottoman Turks thus:
Wherever they went, a broad line of blood marked the track behind them; and, as far as their dominion reached, civilisation disappeared from view. They represented everywhere government by force, as opposed to government by law. For the guide of this life they had a relentless fatalism: for its reward hereafter, a sensual paradise.
They were indeed a tremendous incarnation of military power. This advancing curse menaced the whole of Europe. It was only stayed, and that not in one generation, but in many, by the heroism of the European population of those very countries, part of which form at this moment the scene of war, and the anxious subject of diplomatic action. In the olden time, all Western Christendom sympathised with the resistance to the common enemy; and even during the hot and fierce struggles of the Reformation, there were prayers, if I mistake not, offered up in the English churches for the success of the Emperor, the head of the Roman Catholic power and influence, in his struggles with the Turk.
What that “bigoted lunatic” Tommy Robinson was referring to when he invoked Gladstone was not only that statesman’s remark made during a session of Parliament, where he held up a Qur’an and said that “as long as there is this accursed book there will be no peace in the world,” but Gladstone’s condemnation of Islam in “The Bulgarian Horrors and the Question of the East.”
Morgan called Robinson a “complete disgrace” for holding up the Quran in his hand “in a disgraceful manner,” while Robinson continued his argument against Islam. What was disgraceful about it? That he did not show extra-special deference to such a book, handling it with ostentatious hyper-respect as if it were a delicate and precious object, whose sacredness he recognized? How would one demonstrate that a particular book is being shown the necessary “respect”? We can imagine the reverse: someone handling a book with studied contempt, by slamming it down on a desk, or holding it upside down, or tossing it onto the ground. But that is not what happened here.Tommy Robinson merely held the book up, the way he would hold any other book, including the Bible, with no attempt to show disrespect. Apparently that wasn’t enough to satisfy Piers Morgan.
Wasn’t Piers Morgan’s objection really that in his view no Infidel should be holding up the “Holy Qur’an” at all unless the deepest respect was also shown? It’s as if all Infidels should be made to refer to Muhammad as “the Prophet Muhammad” (as some already are). Morgan’s extraordinary panicky reaction was possibly prompted by fear that Muslims, learning of the putative ”mistreatment”of their holy book on his show (meaning: an islamo-critic like Tommy Robinson should not be allowed to even touch the book), might come looking for him as the host, and Morgan wanted to make sure to distance himself, by denouncing Robinson in such extreme terms (“lunatic”…”bigoted lunatic”), for daring to hold up a Qur’an. Such a fear is not unreasonable. But it’s something Morgan must overcome, if his guests are to have any chance of unconstrainedly discussing the texts and teachings of Islam.
What would be a “right way” for Infidels to hold a Qur’an, or is there no “right way,” especially if they are criticizing its contents? Were Muslims in the U.K. to demand that “in the interests of inter-communal peace” there be a law that would “forbid anyone from touching the Holy Qur’an unless in doing so he shows the proper respect,” how long would it take the political and media elites in the U.K., including Theresa May and Piers Morgan, to find this proposal perfectly acceptable? And would “proper respect” include, as I fear it might, constraining criticism of the contents of the Qur’an? How long would it be before an even more dangerous law is passed, ostensibly giving all faiths the same protection, but really aimed at protecting Islam, making it illegal to criticize the contents of any sacred book, on the spurious claim that such criticism is what leads to hate-speech? Free speech, especially of speech critical of Islam, is already under assault, shouted down on campuses, censored on-line (both Facebook and Twitter have censored Jihad Watch as “hate speech”), and islamo-critics, like Tommy Robinson, hysterically denounced on television, while the suave apologists for Islam, such as Tariq Ramadan, now a professor at Oxford, or Sadiq Khan, Mayor of London, have no such worries. And this at a time when we need much more instruction, not less, in what Islam inculcates, including the valuable testimony from disaffected Muslims, who must brave death threats.
Meanwhile, there is a telling postscript to the story of William Ewart Gladstone. who so detested Islam. At his death he left money for a library to be built in Hawarden, Flintshire, near where he had lived. He donated 32,000 of his own books, delivering some of them himself — when he was 86 — in a wheelbarrow. In 2011, a new addition, called the House of Wisdom, after a library of the Islamic ”golden age,” the Bayt al-Hikma, full of books on Islam and Islamic history, was added to Gladstone’s Library. According to a news report, “the addition was hailed as just the kind of thing Gladstone himself would have approved of, to help promote inter-faith understanding and co-operation.’” Peter Francis, the Warden [director] of Gladstone’s Library, is quoted as saying that “relationships between Muslims and non-Muslims would certainly have been amongst Gladstone’s central concerns.” Yes, they certainly were, but not in the way Peter Francis allows himself to believe.
Knowing what we do about Gladstone, it is impossible to think that he had much interest in “promoting inter-faith understanding and co-operation.” He knew too much about Islam; his understanding of the doctrine of Islam and the practice of Muslims — the result of study of the Qur’an, and observation of what the Muslim Turks did to the Christian Bulgarians — caused him to conclude that the Qur’an was a work counseling permanent war against the Infidel, which is why he stated that “so long as we have this book, there will be no peace on earth.” But in 1876, the year of the Bulgarian massacres, it was D’Israeli, not Gladstone, who was Prime Minister. And the policy of D’Israeli’s Conservatives, who saw the Ottoman Empire as a counterweight to Russia, was to leave the Turks alone (geopolitics makes strange bedfellows). Gladstone thundered against this cruel calculation, which meant abandoning the Bulgarian Christians. He understood that only force would stop the Muslim Turks — or any other Muslims conducting violent Jihad. The very idea of “interfaith cooperation” with Muslims he would have found both infuriating and ludicrous.
Yet Gladstone, now safely dead and in no position to set the record straight, is being presented by others as the very opposite of what he was: a man appalled not just by the atrocities committed by Muslim in Bulgaria, but by Islam itself.
“And, within the context of his pragmatic politics and humanitarian principles, it is likely that inter-faith understanding and dialogue would have been at the core of his approach.” [Peter Francis again.]
On what basis does Peter Francis claim that “it is likely” that Gladstone would have had “inter-faith understanding and dialogue” as the “core of his approach” in dealing with Muslims?
There is not the slightest evidence that Gladstone, whose name is now being deceptively invoked by apologists for Islam, and enrolled, without so much as a by-your-leave, in a campaign to promote “inter-faith understanding” that he would have found silly and sinister, ever changed his views of Islam; he believed that only force would stop the atrocities of the Muslim Turks against the Christians of Bulgaria. He wrote “The Bulgarian Horrors” to awaken others to the campaign of mass-murder by the Turks. Having read the Qur’an, he understood that the Turks in 1876 were not violating, but hewing to, the texts and teachings of Islam, in conducting Jihad against the Christians. A student of history, Gladstone knew, too, of the 1400 years of uninterrupted hostility toward, and often open warfare against, non-Muslims by Muslims, who were only following the Qur’an’s commands. That is why he held up the Qur’an and declared that “so long as there is this book, there will be no peace in the world.”
Tommy Robinson, who so often is treated condescendingly by the British media as some sort of lager lout (he’s not the suavest of speakers, but he has one uncommon virtue: he tries to tell the truth about Islam) was perfectly justified in invoking Gladstone’s views on Islam when he appeared on the Piers Morgan show. Not everyone who watched that show will have come away thinking he’s a “bigoted lunatic.” Why did Gladstone have the views on Islam that he did? some in the television audience will have asked themselves. Some must even have been prompted to look into what Gladstone wrote about the Muslim Turks, or to find out why he thought the Qur’an such a dangerous and violent book, by reading it themselves. And if they do so, they will realize how false is the claim now being made for Gladstone as a believer in “interfaith cooperation and dialogue” with Muslims. This is the very opposite of the views Gladstone unambiguously did hold, and eloquently expressed. And though the evidence shows that there was a “bigoted lunatic” on the Piers Morgan show, it was not Tommy Robinson.
Charlie in NY says
If Gladstone is to be enrolled in the program of furthering “inter-faith understanding” then it would follow that, as part of that program, his views on Islam should be correctly stated and discussed – as only from such a clarifying dialogue is any true understanding possible (though this result appears to me to be a quixotic undertaking if Islam is to remain true to its foundational texts)
Savvy Kafir says
Piers Morgan is a rude, politically correct ideologue who has no business calling himself a journalist. He seems totally uninterested in facts.
Michael says
Pier Morgan is nominally a Roman Catholic. He married Marion Shalloe in 1991, from whom he was divorced in 2008.
In 2010 he adulterously married Celia Walden and has been living in sin with her ever since.
Why should I show any respect to this faithless evildoer?
marblenecltr says
Morgan spent much time and energy arguing about a subject of which he seems to know nothing. The Bible has more terrorism than the Koran? Violence in it is generally limited to the Old Testament in order to protect a people and provide for them a very small piece of the earth on which to live. As for the New Testament, Jesus died that people might be saved, and Muhammad’s way was to kill, rob, enslave, and rape them for his God. And, by the way, say nothing negative about him and Allah. If Morgan were ever to carefully seek knowledge about the Koran, he would read at least chapters 8 and 9 and then, if intellectually honest, admit that what I wrote in the previous two sentences was correct. Terrorists don’t “abuse the Koran;” those who try to remove the violence in those chapters and elsewhere in it and who encourage others not to follow the Hadith are abusing it. Either Morgan truly believes what he says, or he is too stupid to be stupid.
davej says
Comparing the Koran to the Old Testament while ignoring the fact that the violent and hateful Koranic verses are being currently preached and ACTED UPON in his own country demonstrates his ignorance, stupidity and Islam-like deceitfulness.
Georg says
Out of my depth here, as my knowledge of Christian scholarship approaches zero, but isn’t it rather disingenuous to talk about the Old Testament in isolation given the content of the New Testament? One would think the wisdom and compassion Jesus offered was/is rather direct commentary on the verses Piers is comparing to those within the Koran. Where abrogation in the Koran legitimizes, even sanctifies, violence, the New Testament does the opposite. Just look at the contrast in lifestyles of Jesus and Mohammed. Like comparing Stalin and Gandhi.
Benedict says
I think you have an apt discernment of the spirit of Islam versus OT and NT, G, despite being “out of my depth”. The gospel and the spirit of NT manifestly promulgate the goodness of God without compromising the severity of G’d in OT – and it’s the gospel that shall be proclaimed to the end of the world, not stonings according to the Mosaic law or the Sharia. Islam has thus been utterly unveiled with its ugly face by contrast and its false, demonic ideology thoroughly rejected by the gospel.
What a pity that the West has embraced and made room for Islam with its perfect villain: Muhammad, instead of the Christ of the gospels. But it’s the story of Barabbas, preferred and let loose by the mob, that prophetically repeats itself on a global scale. This choice will have fatal consequences.
Mark Swan says
Last week French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Theresa May met to discuss a new, joint counter-terrorism effort aimed at online hate speech and encrypted messaging.
A key focus of the effort will be to “make sure internet operators ‘delete any content promoting hatred and terrorism in any way’” (EU Observer, June 14, 2017). Their project will also target tech companies (primarily social media sites) that allow “unacceptable content” to remain on their websites.
In recent years, content that was once considered free speech has increasingly been categorized as unacceptable hate speech—including traditional Bible-based speech
related to behavior.
Daniel Triplett says
Christians interpret Scripture through Jesus Christ, The Prince of Peace.
Glyn Davies says
Piers lost the plot when Tommy quoted Gladstone. I nearly joked on my toast. Very unprofessional, he was only saved by the break.
Delotte London says
HUGH FITZGERALD! What a SUPERB article! Thank you. The only thing one might add to your report is how Piers Morgan interrupted and cut of and drowned outf Tommy Robinson every time Robinson tried to answer the assertive questions put to him.
Rufolino says
Yes, that appalling programme was a shocking display of uncivilised bully-tactics from Piers Morgan.
His manner was despicable as well as vulgar. The essence of civilisation is self-restraint -something Morgan abandoned by shouting.
Tommy Robinson should be congratulated on keeping his cool in the face of such a barrage.
Delotte London says
In my earlier post, the phrase “assertive questions” should have been “assaultive questions.” I don’t know how that happened. Auto-correct?
Anyway, the rapid fire of Piers Morgan’s questioning was clearly meant to stop Tommy from completing his sentences. This was most flagrantly done whenever Tommy started voicing intelligent criticisms of the texts of Islam. I am so tired of fucking news media in every country always trying to defend the image of islam from the barbarous acts of so many Muslims. So tired of hearing how the terrorists are such a “TINY MINORITY” of the Muslim population. THE TRULY TINY MINORITY ARE THOSE WHO STEP UP AND PROTEST THE ATROCITIES OF THEIR CO-RELIGIONISTS.
Cretius says
Mr. Morgan is your typical leftist apologist for Islam. Muslims are taught that the Koran is the direct word of their god. Therefore, there can be no discussion or disagreement with the Islamic belief system. Bringing up the Bible is simply a distraction. Christians and Jews are not terrorizing Muslims worldwide. While Muslim outrages are numerous and ongoing. To say Islamists are misusing the Koran is to tell a lie. They are following the teachings of Mohammad to the letter.
Islam is a system of ideas. Ideas have no rights but people do. ‘Islamophobia’ is a Muslim construct designed to shut down any discussion or criticism of Islam or it’s prophet. Therefore, the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ is anti-democratic and totally against the western values of discussion and debate of ideas. Mr. Morgan is on the wrong side of this issue. Respect for supremacist Islam is not the real issue. The main issue is to recognise Islam for what is and find ways to keep it from destroying secular democracies. If Mr. Morgan cannot see that then he is part of the problem.
Annak says
Piers is now clearly officially a ‘good’ controlled dhimmi.
Michael Copeland says
Piers Morgan may think that a heated controversy makes “good telly”, but he comes across as rude, conceited, smug, and arrogant. That is painful to watch. In doing so he exposes his own huge ignorance about Islam.
blindguard says
Piers is really wetting himself with fear, when Tommy brings out the Koran. He’s basically trying to desperately distance himself from Tommy, in case he’s blamed by all the peace loving Muslims he’s so fond of; who will then peacefully kill him, nastily. His hysteria, gives the lie to what he’s saying. He knows he’s wrong, but needs a well paying job, and his head.
Georg says
It’s worth noting Tommy did this interview on *literally* zero sleep. The day before, he’d been in the north of the country at some cause/event helping victims to address their Islam-induced misery when he got the call from the swindler. Acknowledging in advance it was to be a “hatchet job”, Tommy decided to take the beating in order to expose Islam and jihad. Tommy appeared exasperated and deflated immediately after the interview as he worried he’d appear “angry”. But he didn’t. He appeared passionate and Morgan was shown to be enabling jihad and promoting Islam for personal gain. It was a sort of reverse scandal, but after Tommy won out over a stacked deck the network buried the exchange. On his drive down to London he discussed and lamented what was to be an unfair — even perverse — exchange before finally contemplating and finishing with a brief smirk saying, “But you can’t beat the heart of a volunteer.” Of 65 million British he is their premier counterjihadist and I worry very much for his safety.
Mitch says
If the West somehow survives the current world war, it will remember Tommy Robinson as one of its champions. Regardless of which side wins, Morgan will be forgotten, namelessly lumped with the hundreds of elite cowards who assisted the enemy.
WPM says
Morgan will be remember the way Lord Haw Haw {William Joyce} was remember on radio during WW11, a traitor to the good people of England.
CogitoErgoSum says
This segment with Tommy Robinson was not an interview, it was an inquisition. I’ve seen other videos of Tommy Robinson and at times he can be quite eloquent …. when he is not being constantly interrupted and harassed. For crying out loud, give the man a chance to speak! Listen to what he has to say and don’t let your own preconceived notions about what “religion” is (or should be) get in the way of forming your own opinion as to what the “idea” of Islam truly is. I have tried to do just that and come to my own conclusion that Islam is a bad idea conceived by and for the benefit of one man and one man alone who lived almost 1,400 years ago and who is now long dead and SHOULD be long forgotten. But, if he is to be remembered at all, he should be remembered as the perfect example of how a man should NOT live his life.
paul says
Piers is so typical of the ignorant PC TV personalities that should be arrested for impersonating journalists. Obviously he hasn’t read the Qur’an as knows not of what he speaks. He’s right up there with that admitted Communist Van Jones who now has his own show on CNN…are your kidding me… a Communist on CNN telling me what I should think…we are doomed because of our own stupidity!
jewdog says
Sir William Gladstone, in common with many of the educated men who founded the United States, like Jefferson and Adams, lived in an age when people read books in order to find things out. As a result, their pronouncements on topics such as Islam were honest and well-informed. Now, we have electronic media which fills up our time and creates an illusion of informing us about everything. In lieu of in-depth knowledge, we live in an age of superficiality, where people glimpse events in passing, where passionate “experts” moralize before they analyze.
It’s been a long way down from Captain Morgan to Piers Morgan.
roger woodhouse says
We are constantly being told(by the appologists of Islam)that these 100 or so verses in the koran that call for the killing of non believers are ‘taken out of context’.Well lets have someone explain in what context we must take them.As all the muslim terrorists are acting on these exhortations to kill the infidels it must be encumbent on muslims to either remove these passages from their holy book or denounce them.As they are unable to remove them we must continue to believe that it is the intention of all muslims to force their religion onto everyone .If these passages are no longer relevent their can be no objection to removing them from their so called holy book thus rendering their faith to be as harmless and as peacefull as they are so keen on telling us
notmoron says
People like Tommy Robinson and UKIP have no chance of succeeding in the modern Britannia.
Britons have chosen the suicide even many people do not want to recognize.
mortimer says
Agreeing with Hugh.
Quote: (Tommy said) “Have you read this book? There are a hundred verses in this book that incite violence and murder against us.”
“Why didn’t Piers Morgan answer Robinson’s question? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had, why wouldn’t he say so?”
Exactly the point! Piers Morgan smugly and PREPOSTEROUSLY presents himself as an authority on Islam, and yet, HE HAS NOT READ THE ISLAMIC TRIOLOGY and hasn’t a CLUE what is in them.
The Koran (that MORGAN DID NOT READ) is a book with hatred on nearly every page. If Morgan had taken a few hours out of his BUSY SCHEDULE to read the Koran, he would know what PM William Gladstone and many other have discovered, namely, that the Koran is a troop motivator, a Machiavellian hoax, a plagiarized text that is self-referentially incoherent, ungrammatical, illogical and unhistorical, incomprehensible in the original text, a racist manifesto of hatred towards non-Arabs, a solicitation of murder, an anti-Semitic hate text, an anti-Christian death warrant, an extortionist’s manual, a justification for pedophilia, polygamy and violence against women. The Koran appears to be the rantings of a schizophrenic. There isn’t a single useful idea in it, and much that is in it is obviously erroneous, stupid and morally repugnant. It preaches implacable hatred and endless world war against non-Muslims until victory. “So long as there is this book, (said Gladstone,) THERE WILL BE NO PEACE IN THE WORLD.”
mortimer says
Disraeli was short-sighted. If he had acted against Turkey when Turkey was weak, he could have prevented much of the suffering of WWI. Disraeli ought to have kicked the Turks right out of Europe by establishing states loyal to Great Britain in the Balkans. This would have prevented the German-Ottoman alliance that gave so many problems later. If Disraeli had done that, Russia might never have fallen to the communists. A strong Turkey can only mean trouble to the world.
newUser says
Disraeli is the reason many Bulgarians don’t like the Brits. Or one of the reasons.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Another missed opportunity for the West came in August 1915, when the celebrated liberal, head of the Progressive Bloc and he was the founder in 1905, and remained the leader of the Constitutional Democratic Party, Prof. Pavel Milyujkov, declared that the conquest of Constantinople should be a war aim of the Allies. These were the Russian liberals, mind you, who were most offended by the Ottoman cruelties. Had the Russians concentrating on seizing Constantinople, pushed the Turks out, and made the city, which at the time still had many Christians (they may have been a majority, which I remember reading but, alas, can’t remember where) a Russian protectorate. Such a feat, if successful, might even have helped another Russian liberal, Kerensky in early 1917 to stay in power and stave off the spoiler, a certain V.V.. Lenin who arrived in his sealed railroad car at the Finland Station in St. Petersburg, just in time to ruin everything.
Two Russian right-wing monarchists, real fascists and, bien entendu, antisemites of the Black Hundreds variety, tried to assassinate Milyukov when he spoke at a public meeting in Berlin on March 28, 1922. They approached the podium singing a Russian nationalist song, and one of them fired at Milyukov. Meanwhile, Vladimir Dmitrievich Nabokov, father of the writer, jumped off the dais, knocked down the man who had fired the shots, and was himself then killed by the other gunman. A certain Shabelsky-Bork, that gunman became, under the Nazis, a great friend of Alfred Rosenberg (of Der Stuermer) and was put in charge of Russian emigres in Germany.
I see I’ve gone off topic, somehow getting from Constantinople to Shabelsky-Bork. Sorry. Or, to quote V. D. Nabokov’s son, Otstupnika prosti!
jewdog says
Perhaps the greatest mistake of the 20th century was the Czar’s decision to go war against Germany after the Archduke Ferdinand’s assassination. WWI devastated Russia economically and led directly to the Bolshevik takeover. Trying to retake Constantinople would only have made things worse.
Back then, Turkey was far friendlier to Jews than Russia (Jews were traditionally appointed ambassadors to Turkey), and, just speculating, that may have helped nudge Disraeli into the Ottoman corner.
Pong says
Hugh,
Your knowledge of Russian history is excellent. A small correction though: V.I.Lenin, not V.V.Lenin.
Hugh Fitzgerald says
Yes.Thank yo for the correction. Ilyich it is.
Charli Main says
The objective of liberating Turkish Muslim occupied Europe and Constantinople was well on the way to being achieved by the Imperial Russian Army around 1876.
The Western superpowers of the day Britain, France and Germany rushed to the aid of their Muslim ” allies” and threatened Imperial Russia with the full weight of their empires, if they did not stop their campaign to liberate Eastern Europe form Muslim occupation.
AT THE SHAMEFUL TREATY OF BERLIN, THE IMPERIAL RUSSIANS WERE FORCED TO HAND BACK HUGE SWATHES OF LIBERATED EUROPE TO THE MUSLIM INVADERS AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO FREE CHRISTIAN CONSTINOPLE WAS LOST
newUser says
Good Tommy Robinson knows about Gladstone. More people should learn about it. Bulgaria has many places named Gladstone to acknowledge the man who noticed them. I have learned from their history and that made me hate islam. Unfortunately many people today are trying to re-write Bulgarian history in order to hide Ottoman atrocities. One of them is half Syrian and has many fans.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
Pardon my ignorance, but please name this half-Syrian.
Edgar Allen says
Here is a MUST SHARE MEMRI video to spread far and wide, along with the link to the transcript page.
It proves what Gladstone and Tommy Robinson, and anybody who can read, already knows.
SAUDI CLERIC MAMDOUH AL-HARBI:
CONCEPT OF TERRORISM IS A BLESSED ONE. REQUIRED BY THE SHARIA. DESIRED BY ALLAH AND PROPHET MUHAMMAD.
THE DANGER LIES IN THIS MAGNIFICENT QURAN, AND IN THE DOZENS OF CLEAR AND POWERFUL VERSES THAT CALL FOR JIHAD FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH.
“THE ONLY MEANING OF THE PHRASE ‘JIHAD FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH’ IS FIGHTING THE INFIDELS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE WORD OF ALLAH REIGN SUPREME. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYTHING OTHER THAN FIGHTING.
https://www.memri.org/tv/saudi-cleric-mamdouh-al-harbi-blessed-terrorism-and-jihad-required-sharia-blowing-car-among
https://www.memri.org/tv/saudi-cleric-mamdouh-al-harbi-blessed-terrorism-and-jihad-required-sharia-blowing-car-among/transcript
CelticToTheBone says
Perhaps missed in Morgan’s ranting was Tommy pointing out that Morgan was the central figure in various Media scandals. The reason he was working in the USA was to escape scrutiny from the British Press for his involvement in the infamous ‘phone hacking scandal central to his tenure as Editor of the Daily Mirror.
As an Irishman I have nothing but disdain for the creep even though his father was Irish. The bastard changed his original surname O’Meara to his step-fathers surname Morgan.
There is a list of Media and Political creeps that make me want to smash something when I see their visages and hear their smarmy, lying, hypocritical, Politically correct voices. They include:
Morgan;
Barry Soetoro (aka Barack Obama);
Hillary Clinton;
Rachel Madcow
Justine Trudeau; and upon reflection I’m realizing the list is much longer than originally considered so I’ll leave it at this for now.
Creep Morgan’s Wikipedia entry:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Morgan
Steve Klein says
Piers Morgan is a bully. We saw it when it came to discussion about the 2nd Amendment with his guests on CNN before his departure.
I am just beginning to read this peace which I plan on forwarding. Mr. Fizgerald, you wrote: “Why didn’t Piers Morgan answer Robinson’s question? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had, why wouldn’t he say so?”
I had to go back and listen to this argument about the Qur’an. Morgan did say he read the Qur’an. The question he would not answer (at approximately 12 minutes 45 seconds) was “Mr. Robinson’s repeated question, “Have you read the the biography of prophet of Muhammad.” He would not answer the question. If he has read the biography of the prophet Muhammad, why not say so?
Steve Klein says
Whoops I am mistaken. Just went back and listened to the interview at approx. 12 minutes plus. Mr. Robinson asked Morgan, “Have you read the biography of Muhammad,” not the biography of the prophet Muhammad.
IQ al Rassooli says
In the UK there are only TWO men who tell the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth about Islam:
Tommy Robinson and Anjam Chaudry yet the mindless, spineless, clueless Liberal/leftists call Tommy a Racist, Bigot and Islamophobic even though he is telling the British people EXACTLY what Anjam Chaudry (the PERFECT Sunni Muslim) publicly declares:
That Muslims will NEVER integrate or assimilate among non Muslims and that the single purpose in life for Muslims and Islam is to FORCE all of humanity to SUBMIT to Sharia or be EXTERMINATED.
Piers Morgan (who has not had the decency to even read let alone study Muhammad’s Quran) like ALL the elites in Europe and the USA in the Media Academia Politics and Clergy are accomplices in TREASON (by omission or commission) with Muslims to undermine the WILL of a mostly Quran ignorant general public.
Only when enough British people understand, comprehend and digest Tommy’s perfectly correct and crystal clear message regarding the existential threat posed by Islam and Muslims to Western civilization, the British, American and European peoples will have to live with weekly and then daily Muslim TERROR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTuFA1fQ-yg&feature=youtu.be&a
IQ al Rassooli
Kafir & Proud!
Bxgirl says
All Tommy needs to quote is Allahu Akbar. This is what terrorists say and is indeed their justification. Since they make this clear, Islam must be reformed by Muslims, and the West must enforce civil laws That protect society against sexist, homophobic etc
crimes. Also, make all face coverings illegal in public.
Terry Gain says
I would describe Morgan as a politically correct moron, rather than a bigoted lunatic. Political Correctness shuts down honest dialogue. It is the plague of our time.
Guy Jones says
Piers and his ilk have gone so far off the deep end in a frenzy of self-congratulatory posturing at notions of moral superiority and obeisance to multiculturalism and moral relativism.
Piers is so unhinged and delusional in his breathless rush to gain dhimmi status, he would no doubt similarly defend “Mein Kampf” against critics.
Kilfincelt says
Islam isn’t so much a religion as it is a theocratic ideology. It is a political, legal and social system wrapped in a thin veil of religion. In fact, very little of what constitutes Islam is religious in nature. Furthermore, the violence in the Old Testament is descriptive in nature because it includes a history of the Jewish people and their wars. Nothing today in the OT, particularly after it was reformed, commands Jews to kill non-Jews. On the other hand, the New Testament like the Koran is prescriptive. in nature. However, while the New Testament exhorts people to love one another as thy self, the Koran tells its followers to treat non-believers as if they were dirt and even kill them. While some Muslims will tell you otherwise, the Golden Rule does not exist within Islam.
Sometimes I think that whoever created Islam decided to take many of the more violent verses found in the OT, particularly in Deuteronomy, and graft the ideas found in Revelations on to it. Also, I think that one has to understand what was going on within Middle Eastern Christianity during that time because those events influenced the development of Islam. Obviously, whatever was happening within the Arabic world would also have had a strong influence on what became this violent, supremist ideology.
tony46 says
”What killed my people was a lack of knowledge”
..
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
Hosea 4:6.
Wow. Thanks for that. The Holy Bible really does have so much wisdom. We can’t say we weren’t warned.
Victoria says
I admire Tommy Robinson tremendously. He is a modern soldier seemingly unfazed when confronted with overt hatred and condescension aimed directly at him. I saw him once in some kind of panel discussion. He was in the audience and the ENTIRE room was against him. He kept his cool and made his points. Besides having nerves of steel, a backbone of titanium, and a love for his country and countrymen, he also has brains. Plenty of them. Thanks for the article and the link to the entire interview. Inspiring as it is maddening.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
This was not an interview. It wasn’t even a debate. It was a well prepared ambush of Tommy. The entire editorial staff must have worked days to prepare for this attempted (character) assassination. But Tommy wrestled their weapons from them and gave them a good thrashing. Pier’s bimbo sidekick got neutralized early in the scuffle; Piers was on his own from then on. Finally left with nothing Piers resorted to name calling. Tommy took his “islamophobia” name calling and resolutely tore it to shreds. With all of his ammo spent, Piers resorted to fake moral indignation. Tommy finishes him off by opening the Koran and reciting the Sword verse (9:5) making Piers’ words sound empty and ridiculous.
This “interview” should be required viewing for anyone having to face an MSM ambush like this one. These shills-for-hire don’t know what hit them.
Tommy is definitely improving with age. He was in tip-top form for this face-off. He’s become formidable! As a Canadian I am so tickled pink that he is now contributing to The Rebel!!
Baucent says
Tommy scored a good hit by pointing out Morgan’s own publisher the Daily Mail had linked the mosques to Jihadists at about the same time Tommy’s tweet had. From then on the impression was left that Pier’s should be including the Daily Mail in the criticism he was leveling at Tommy. The fact that Morgan would not criticize the Daily Mail spoke volumes.
But it was an ambush, the video on hand was the evidence of it. I think he did very well in the circumstances. He is a very fast talker and can jam in a lot even when being shut down.
TheBuffster says
Thanks for this article Hugh. It’s most enlightening – especially the part about Gladstone. I’ve looked up the “Bulgarian Horrors” essay: http://www.attackingthedevil.co.uk/related/bulgarian_horrors.php
I do need to point out an error you made, but it’s okay because I’m going to leap off of that to make a more important point. 🙂
You said: “Why didn’t Piers Morgan answer Robinson’s question? Has he read the Qur’an? If he had, why wouldn’t he say so? The problem for Piers Morgan is that either he has not read the Qur’an (which is entirely possible, for study is not his strong suit, and he seems to be noticeably unwilling to engage on its contents, never having mentioned a single one of its verses) and therefore has no business taking issue with what Tommy Robinson, channeling Gladstone, maintains, or he has read it in which case he knows what it contains and and wants to keep that information from the public. ‘ ”
Apparently you missed the earlier exchange in this video. Morgan had already said he’d read the Koran during this exchange, but apparently Tommy didn’t catch it, either and so asked the question later on:
Robinson: “Piers, Okay, can I ask, what do you know about Islam?”
Morgan: “A lot.”
Robinson: “Have you read the biography of Mohammad?”
Morgan: “I’ve read the Koran. Have you?”
Robinson: “Yes, I have.”
Morgan: “Have you read the Bible?”
Robinson: “Yes – have you read the biography of Muhammad?” (This is the question that Piers Morgan didn’t answer.)
Morgan: “Which has more violence in it?”
Now the interesting thing about the question “Which has more violence in it?” is that the Koran is not like the Bible – it does not tell the story of Muhammad. In fact, it’s short on story telling, and when it recounts many of the stories from the Bible they are extremely truncated and all their rich meanings are essentially reduced to the idea that all the towns who rejected the prophets were destroyed by Allah, so people had better listen to the prophet that Allah sends them, in this case, Muhammad, or Allah will destroy them and send them to eternal hell.
But while the Koran doesn’t tell the story of Muhammad, the Bible tells both the words of God AND the stories of the prophets, with the New Testament being the story of the life of Jesus, his actions and sayings and how people reacted to him. It’s all together in one book, whereas the Koran is Allah’s words removed from their context and presented out of chronological order.
In order to get a comparable book in Islam as you get with the Bible, you have to put Allah’s words together with the story of Muhammad’s life. For that you need the “authentic” hadith collections, most especially the most respected Sunni collection of Hadiths (the sayings and doings of Muhammad) of Bukhari and/or the Sira – the recognized biography of Muhammad. Once you’ve put the Koran together with Muhammad’s life, you have something you can compare and contrast with the Judeo-Christian Bible.
*Now* it’s appropriate to ask which has more violence in it, and ask which prophet – one whose followers are told is the perfect example that should be emulated – *does* the most violence.
And then ask which orthodox followers in the world today take that example seriously.
simpleton1 says
Good points Buffster.
I find that in the way of “look a squirrel, over there” by Piers, the controversy/cover-up simply added more weight to Tommy’ staying on message.
I would think that many would talk around the “water cooler” about what it was about.
One can find the chronological order of the koran, as it its “chapters” are jumbled.
Meccan verses are kinder
After the hirj (“migration”) to Medina began the career of a warlord, and taking over with vengeance of Mecca.
One can find the “abrogating” verses them selves in the koran.
Basically the abrogating verses nullify the earlier verses where there is in any conflict.
http://www.koran-at-a-glance.com/ can be very helpful.
The hadith are also rated with different authorization, ṣaḥīḥ (sound, authentic), ḍaʿīf (weak), or mawḍūʿ (fabricated), ḥasan (good)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith
The hadith does give very good back ground of Mohammad’s life, thoughts, sayings, deeds, and actions.
Mohammad’s vindictive, manipulative attitude is opened up and displayed.
Mark Swan says
There attempts to bring the Quran into fruition is warped fiction.
simpleton1 says
Thanks, yes Mark Swan says a “warped fiction”
when we know that the
“abrogating” verses nullify the earlier “peaceful” verses, so that it can bring complete islam (submission) by terror.(nightmare).
Mark Swan says
You Do Understand the “there” should have been their, I was talking about Muslims.
Sorry for the type error.
Lon Spector says
Tommy Robinson: Hero for our time.
Peter says
I expect most modern Brits will actually be asking themselves, “Who the hell was Gladstone?” Peoples’ ignorance these days is colossal. And the law the article describes hypothetically was enacted a few months back in my own country, Canada.
PoetOfPeace says
About the book of the religion of – pretended – peace…
The book of lies and bigotry
The spineless dare not pan
Spewing hate and evil
The pedophile’s koran
Islamic mirror says
MOST DAMNING VIDEO EVER!.MUST SHARE NOW.! Usama Dakdok
INSTITUTIONALISED ISLAMIC PERSECUTION, OPEN HATRED & KILLINGS OF INFIDLES
Islam: • Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
in Muslim countries, promoting genocide is OK if MUSLIMS DO IT. MULLAHS OPENLY and PUBLICLY CALL FOR GENOCIDE
a lot of love in Christianity, a lot of anger and hate in Islam. Christian pray for others, muslims pray for themselves. “religion of war” full of “venomous misogyny
• Coran has 114 chapters 6666 word. Jesus mentioned 25 times and mohammed 4 times
• Hate appears towards unbeliever 296 times, (kill unbeliever 180 times, muslims are the best people. 51% (548,190 words) of the Trilogy text, most of it slanders against non-Muslims
• 154 – 164 verses of curses , jihad and war and killings -31% of the Islamic Trilogy (327,547 words) concerned with jihad-warfare
that’s 80% plus of that obnoxious rag being useless
the Hadith Book 12 has 1700 verses about Jihad alone.
‘STAGED’ Islamic terror in the last 30 days: (In May/June 2017)
-198 Islamic attacks in 30 countries
-1777 people were killed
-1863 wounded
‘STAGED’ SINCE 9/11
-30,973 DEADLY ‘STAGED’ JIHAD ATTACKS
1. The Quran contains many verses .Several command Muslims to strike fear into the hearts of the unbelievers and to kill the apostates.
And call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called ‘hypocrites’ and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter.
Moslems were NEVER told to love Jews or Christians but rather to murder and kill them all for Allah. – no, not even one verse from the Quran to show or proof that Mohamed told Moslems to love Christians and Jews… but here we have Mohamed telling Moslems how to treat Christians and Jews…
2. HANDY GUIDE TO INTERPRETATION
“Kill” means kill.
“Stone” means stone.
“Cut off” means cut off.
“What your right hands possess” means slaves.
How come “allah” is so anti-Semitic and anti-Christian given that all
of God’s prophets (in the Bible)-Moses,Elijah,Jesus…..are JEWISH?How nuts is “allah”?
The hatred of Jews (and Christians).
“The angel gabriel is the enemy of the Jews” sahih al bukhari vol4 bk 60 no 3329 .allah curses the Jews(and the Christians)in k9:30 and k3:56.
His “prophet” mahomed murdered them and the angel gabriel(-the luciferian counterfeit most certainly-)is the “enemy of the Jews”.
“When the last moment of allah’s apostle came he started putting the khamisa on his face and said “may allah curse the Jews and the Christians for they built the places of worship at the graves of their prophets”.
Bukhari 1:8:427
So just because Christians and Jews liked to build places of worship to God in their own way,the Christ-rejecting,commandment-violating,anti-semitic “prophet” of islam curses them.
Such a warped teaching from the most perfect man that ever lived (al-Insan al-Kamil).
Didn’t he know that someday he would be judged by a Jew…Jesus Christ??
Koran 40:35 “They who dispute the signs (verses) of Allah without authority having reached them are greatly hated by Allah and the believers.” (Note: not just “hated”, but “greatly hated”.)
Koran 4: 101 “The kuffar are for you a clear enemy.”
The Quran dehumanizes/animalize non-Muslims, describing them as “animals” and beasts:
Those who disbelieve from among the People of the Book and among the Polytheists, will be in Hell-Fire, to dwell therein (for aye). They are the worst of creatures. (98:6)
Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve, then they would not believe. (8:55)
Verse 7:176 compares unbelievers to “panting dogs” with regard to their idiocy and worthlessness.
Verse 7:179 says they are like “cattle” only worse.
Verse 5:60 says the unbelievers are unclean. Verse 6:111 says they are ignorant. Verse 23:55 says they are helpers of the devil.
Verse 5:60 even says that Allah transformed Jews of the past into apes and pigs. This is echoed by verses 7:166 and 2:65.
Allah has cursed the unbelievers and proposed for them a blazing
hell. – 33:60
Unbelievers are enemies of Allah and they will roast in hell. – 41:14
(‘allah’ is obsessed with hell and knows so much about it.
That’s because he’s the devil. muslims follow the devil and want to
deceive others about the true nature of islam. muslim are deceived
and muslims aim to deceive.)
________________________________________
A hadith (Bukhari 54:524) says that Muhammad believed rats to be “mutated Jews” (also confirmed by Sahih Muslim 7135 and 7136).
Verses 46:29-35 even say that unbelieving men are worse than the demons who believe in Muhammad.
Mervo says
Tommy is a true hero.
Golem2 says
Piers only retort is trying to shout down Tommy since he has no argument but it’s his show
underbed cat says
Pier Morgan talks too much and listens little but to attack his guest which has more facts.Mosques teach terrorism and that is the mosque purpose just to quote the Quran of the commands apparently Pierce does not read the Quran. Morgan is truly an idiot and it shows and gives this guy not chance nor credit, Morgan is following sharia law of slander, forbids facts to be spoken and does not realize, but he does slander Tommy.
Tommy is correct.
underbed cat says
Pier Morgan talks too much and listens little but to attack his guest which has more facts.Mosques teach terrorism and that is the mosque purpose just to quote the Quran of the commands,apparently Pierce does not read the Quran. Morgan is truly an idiot and it shows and gives this guy not chance nor credit, Morgan is following sharia law of slander, forbids facts to be spoken and does not realize, but he does slander Tommy.
Tommy is correct.
John Fofrbes says
Actually amazing to see how TERRIFIED MORGAN & the woman were when Robinson lifted the KORAN & quoted some of the hate verses !
I thought MORGAN was about to mess his pants !!
This gives us all a taste of how TIGHT the GRIP OF ISLAM & ISLAMOPHOBIA ,POLITICAL CORRECTNESS & the HORRORS of MULTICULTURALISM is in the UK & RIGHT across EUROPE !
Let the US Never get like this ! Australia is fast heading in the same direction but REBEL is TRYING to counter the LIES !
If anyone doubts what Governments are capable off to PRESERVE a FAILED POLICY _ Check on YOUTUBE :What the BBC didn:t tell you /Easy Meat -Peter Mclochlin
Dacritic says
Donald Trump seemed to like Piers Morgan. But Trump also has a problem with Islam (I pray he studies it further if he has indeed begun), and Morgan obviously doesn’t.
Perhaps Morgan can invite President Trump and see if he dares call his former boss a bigot.
Malcolm Jackson says
I don’t trust Piers Morgan an inch. Has everyone forgotten when Piers Morgen was Editor of the Daily Mirror, and the long running shares scam under Piers Morgan’s Editorship. Wonder he never ended up in jail. Such a great scam on all readers of the Daily Mirror. Loads on line about this criminal scam.
Larry A. Singleton says
I posted a comment referencing this article on the Gladstone Library’s Fakebook page. This was their response:
Gladstone’s Library Hi Larry,
There is no referenced record of Gladstone making the quote you mention above in which he refers to the Quran as an ‘accursed book…so long as there is this book there will be no peace in the world’. In 2009, Gladstone’s Library commissioned Ruth Clayton Windscheffel to research the truth of this claim and her report stated ‘I could not find any reliable source for the inflammatory citations credited to Gladstone in either Hansard or the newspapers of the time, where they certainly would have been reported.’
William Gladstone was a scholar. He read many books on both Islam and Judaism and was approving of Islam and the Prophet – a Quilliam pamphlet notes how strongly Gladstone approved of the ethics of Islam. In criticising Ottoman aggression in Bulgaria and Armenia, Gladstone was at pains to distinguish between Islam and the Ottoman Empire. In a speech made in Chester Town Hall to several thousands, he carefully distinguishes between Turkish misrule and religion…But this I will say, that if, instead of dealing with the Turkish government and impeaching it for its misdeeds towards Christian subjects, we were dealing with a Christian Government that was capable of similar misdeeds towards Mahomedan subjects, our indignation ought to be not less, but greater, than it is now’ [Mr Gladstone on the Armenian Question’, The Times, August 7 1895].
In 2009 Gladstone’s Library set up the Islamic Reading Room to counter misinformation and to promote dialogue; something this world desperately needs.
Larry A. Singleton says
Again; I encourage people to not just “preach to the choir”, or however that goes, but to post on the pages of leftist, liberal, fascist websites and Fakebook pages.