Australian human rights activist Avi Yemini interviews Nigel Farage and reveals his abject ignorance of Islam and the jihad threat. Note Farage’s absurd moral equivalence in claiming that the Old Testament is incompatible with Western values in the same way that the Qur’an is. The difference is that the Old Testament has been part of Western culture since there has been a Western culture. Interpretative traditions are mainstream in Judaism and Christianity that mitigate its violent passages and other aspects that are not in accord with modern understandings of human rights. There is no such tradition in Islam. Farage insists that the vast majority of Muslims are assimilating and accepting Western values; he doesn’t have, however, any coherent idea of how to deal with those who aren’t. Farage makes the familiar conflation of Islam and Muslims, arguing that if one finds any problem with Islamic texts and teachings, one is condemning all Muslims. There is no reason why that should be so, and if he would foreclose upon any discussion of the motivating ideology behind jihad terror and Sharia oppression, how can he confront them?
Farage insists that we must not think that we are at war with the entire religion. But what, Mr. Farage, are we to think about the Muslims who consider themselves and their religion to be at war with us?
Nigel Farage has become just another mainstream hack politician.
Video thanks to the Geller Report.
Tony Buton says
Poor chap,out of his depth.Needs to have his eyes opened by the Holy Spirit.
Hector Archytas says
Nigel farage is not useful anymore.
Roger woodhouse says
NFhas reached his level of usefullness and is now taking the rewards for all his effort.On the subject of Islam hes always been pretty cagey and he was exposed by Avi in that brief interview.He acted like a leftwing politician asked an awkward question by replying with astonishing response that one would have expected from a desperate leftwing student on a campus demo.Very disappointed by Nigel Farage.Hes run his course.He has nothing to offer in the fight that lies ahead.
Emmie says
The Old Testament is descriptive, the Qu’ran is prescriptive.
No Fear says
Ditto.
Jimdandi says
When war was prescribed by God against any people or nation, the OT specifically gives the reason which was usually due to the sins of that people against God, and their destruction was prescribed as judgment on their sin. Nowhere does the OT prescribe war for the sake of advancing God’s kingdom or His cause, or that those people would convert or be put to death.
Wellington says
Willful ignorance on display again. this time courtesy of Nigel Farage.
Also, those Muslims who don’t want death for apostasy, do want non-Muslims to have equality under the law, don’t want death or physical punishment for those who criticize Islam, Mohammed or the Koran, do want a Golden Rule for all, don’t want to divide the world between the dar-al-harb and dar-al-Islam with holy war required to end all of the dar-al-harb, et al. are not good Muslims, believe in a fantasy version of Islam that does not exist and hence are people respecting whom it would be foolish to rely upon.
In short, good Muslims = bad news for mankind; bad Muslims = unreliable people.
gravenimage says
And how many of those lax Muslims would actually stand with us as their more committed coreligionists wage violent Jihad and impose Shari’ah on us? Damn few.
Wellington says
Damn right. Counting on so-called moderate Muslims is a path to Nowheresville.
Peggy says
Very few indeed.
That’s exactly what I’ve been telling people who say that there are moderate Muslims.
I always ask them if these moderate Muslims would join us in the fight.
What a stupid question NF asked which was “How many would you kill”. It just shows how he doesn’t have any answers.
gravenimage says
True, Peggy.
jule says
I think what this guys problem is, as he talked, is that he thinks saying Islam cannot be in the West unless it reforms means HATE. He says the problem is we cannot let hate rule. Someone needs to explain that it doesn’t mean hate. Its Common Sense if you read the Qur’an/Hadiths and take one small look at history from some small area of Mecca/Medina and see what this Movement did. How many countries did it take over with the sword. How many people have been killed for blasphemy. He has never read the Qur’an if he says there is only one problem towards the end of the book.
But he thinks saying it cannot exist as ISLAM in a free country means ‘Hate like racism or bigotry’ Just because ALL Muslims don’t commit murder does not mean they are not paying to have it done or choked into silence by fear of friends, family, neighbors, or Allah torturing them in hell. He doesn’t even think of the idea that forced Reform might SAVE many Muslims from their own Fear, punishments and terror.
The THING IS…every time a nazigroup, white Supremacist etc comes out, he can point to Hate and say ‘See, this is what I mean’. He, and many, need moderate intelligent people explaining the real reasons Islam has to go, the real reasons even ‘moderate’ are a Danger, since it will not change.
Judge Dredd says
nuke mecca and pave the way to exterminate islam and all thoes that pray to that pedophile raping warlord…
gravenimage says
Agent provocateur.
HarveyMushman says
OMEGA SKELETON Men’s Vintage 1936
Dave says
He is afraid he will end up like Tommy Robinson for criticising Islam in Britainistan.
Roger woodhouse says
Yes Nigel ran away when he was being edged into a corner that might have exposed his total wilfull ignorance re the ROP .Hes been very carefull to distance himself from the growing resistance to Islam.He refuses to acknowledge the problem which is very disappointing.I think he believes the issue is way beyond anything he can control so opps out.Tommy Robinson is the future now!
StellaSaidSo says
Indeed, Roger, Tommy Robinson may well be the future – of UKIP! Which will REALLY p*ss Nigel off. A vote is about to take place which will determine whether Tommy can join the party.
In Nigel’s defence, he DID receive credible death threats from members of the ROP, so it isn’t surprising that he avoids the topic of Islam. What IS surprising, however, is that he knows so little about it. And that he assumed Avi knew even less.
Michael Copeland says
Tommy has a very penetrating question:
“Have you read the biography of Mohammed?”
We can all use it.
Tony Holland says
Yep,’fraid so,I’ve been Nige’s biggest fan,he has done more to distance us from the Brussels mafia than anyone in political Britain but he falls short against the islamic hordes,he is,it seems,not prepared to go the ‘wholehog’ against the subhumans,the dirty peadophiles,the unclean rapists and groomers.It is no good anyone saying that not ‘all muslims are jihadists’,maybe so,but until anyone can give me a ‘definitive’ list of ‘clean mussies’ I’ll stay with the premise that all mussies would like us dead and sharia introduced.
Seems Gerard Batten and UKIP have their finger on the pulse of the nation regarding the dirtbags of islam,his association with TR is a good move and will make or break the UKIP surge.
StellaSaidSo says
I agree 100%, Tony H, Gerard Batten and Tommy Robinson would be a great team. And, down the track, Tommy could become UKIP leader…
There is hope!
Mchael Copeland says
Gerard Batten, leader of UKIP, alone of any politician, speaks of “the cult of Mohammed”.
See Rebel Media’s video on youtube:_
“Gerard Batten speaks at #FreeTommy rally” (at 4.47).
gravenimage says
Here’s more good stuff from Gerard Batten:
“Ukip’s Gerard Batten reiterates his belief that Islam is a ‘death cult'”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/18/ukip-gerard-batten-islam-muslims-quran
Malcolm Jackson says
100% spot on Tony. Anyone who loves Islam, then Nigel Farage is their man.
Gjallarhornet says
Farage has learned to say the right things. I’m sure his corporate masters have great plans for him now that he behaves so well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s29RKnB7l7o
Roland says
Farage provided his country valuable service in selling Brexit and holding Teresa May”s feet to the fire. The restoration of national borders and national sovereignty will help stem the tide of Islamic invasion in Europe. I can forgive him for waffling when asked directly about Islam.
Infidel lives matter says
No, Mr. Farage. If the strategy is to get the vast majority of Muslims on our side against the bad guys, as you say, then we are certain to lose.
gravenimage says
Certainly true.
tim gallagher says
I agree, Infidel lives matter and gravenimage. I think pretty well all Muslims have a nasty attitude towards non-Muslims. That attitude permeates Islam and, I’m sure, is the attitude of the vast majority of Muslims towards non-Muslims. It’s the house of Islam and the house of war. Many Muslims will not actually be out to kill us as the “bad guys” of Islam do, but I believe that pretty well all Muslims dislike all of us non-Muslims (as they’ve been indoctrinated to do) and want Islam imposed on all of us. I believe that when our countries let Muslims in they are letting a clear enemy of our way of life in. It’s very foolish. With people like Farage, I wonder whether they don’t know the truth or are afraid to tell the truth. They should go away and study more about Islam ( maybe read some Robert Spencer) before speaking their rubbish. There’s no excuse for failing to tell the truth on such an important issue..
gravenimage says
And even of the few Muslims who don’t hate us and don’t particularly want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law, how many would actually stand with us against their more devout coreligionists? Damn few.
jule says
Thats what USA says too. Even people in Intelligence. They think it can be tamed with making people snitch or pretending the ‘moderates’ reform Islam in their minds and might Deny all the words in the Qur’an are the true Words of Allah for yesterday, TODAY and tomorrow until Judgment Day. (and nowhere in the Old Test does it say make everyone follow Judaism and to kill Pagans or those who say they will not convert. Christians do say ‘find Jesus or they you’ll go to hell’ but Islam goes 1000 steps further than that. And that Allah sent them Make everyone not Muslim ‘Shape up or be shipped to hell)
Benedict says
“Note Farage’s absurd moral equivalence in claiming that the Old Testament is incompatible with Western values in the same way that the Qur’an is. “ ………
The belligerency proscribed for the ancient Israelites was limited to the promised land in order to drive out the inhabitants that had defiled the land, and this cannot be compared to the violence and terror of modern days islamists to whom the whole world is “the promised land.”
If the mosaic religion was universal it would indeed be incompatible with western values.
The Christian gospel to the contrary is universal but cannot be promoted or proclaimed and spread under the shadow of the sword as is the case with Islam. That’s why Islam stinks!
overman says
+1
gravenimage says
True, Benedict–and where are Jews and Christians committing violence in the name of the Old Testament? Of course, this is false.
But Muslims are committing horrors in the name of the Qur’an every day.
Noel says
Benedict, I think you must mean prescribed. Proscribed means forbidden.
Benedict says
You are right, Noel. Thank you!
gravenimage says
I knew what you meant.:)
StellaSaidSo says
Credit is due to Nigel Farage for the BREXIT referendum result, but his betrayal of Tommy Robinson, and his failure to confront honestly the issue of Islam, have lost him a lot of support. He reveals the extraordinary depth and breadth of his ignorance of Islam in this short interview with Avi Yemini. Even Avi was surprised.
Indiana Tom says
the Old Testament is incompatible with Western values in the same way that the Qur’an is.
Yeah, that is why a lot of Western law is abstractly based off of Biblical values.
I did not say always literally.
Sharia Law is based on the literal readings of the three main Muslim documents consisting of the Koran, Hadiths, and Sira.
CogitoErgoSum says
Let’s think about what Farage is actually saying: some Muslims are good people despite their religion. You mean following Islam to its fullest will actually make you a worse person? Give me a break. Shouldn’t a good religion make you an increasingly better person the more closely you follow its teachings? If being a good person means NOT following some of the teachings of your religion then your religion is nothing but crap and you need to cleanse your soul of it. Tell the whole truth, Farage. Not all Muslims are “good” Muslims and not all religions are “good” religions. Islam is not a good religion, not good at all … and it’s NOT immoral to despise it and to fight against it.
Watchingtheweasels says
“…not all religions are “good” religions.”
That’s an intellectual delusion that western agonistics must maintain to self justify their unbelief. No one who knows anything in detail about the history of world religions would make such a statement.
CogitoErgoSum says
You are going to have to explain to me some of those details to get me to understand what you are saying here. I would classify any religion that commands its followers to fight, convert, humiliate or kill all unbelievers as bad. I would classify any religion that commands living peacefully and respectfully with all other living creatures, no matter what their own beliefs may be, as good. What is delusional about that? Perhaps I should make clear that I do not consider the words “good” and “bad” to be interchangeable with the words “correct” and “incorrect.” So I’m not seeing the intellectual delusion you mention. (Maybe the words “benign” and “malignant” would more appropriate to use in place of “good” and “bad.”)
gravenimage says
No, there have been evil religions before. The worship of Baal, say, or the religion of the Aztecs. One does not have to consider every individual religion to be true.
Michael Copeland says
Memo to Nigel Farage:
Islam is not defined by “the vast majority of peaceful muslims”.
Islam is defined by its source texts:
“between us and you enmity and hatred forever….”
Kora 60:4, part of Islamic law.
Second memo:
Muslims who fit in fine and adopt Western values are no longer muslims: they are defined as “hypocrites”, who have to be killed.
gravenimage says
+1
Don Quixdon says
I agree with Nigel. “Most Muslims” are like “most Christians”, who don’t really know what’s in the bible: For example, In the late 90’s and early 2000’s there were many public arguments and debates in the UK with/against creationists, who took a biblically literal interpretation of the bible. The issue with creationists is/was only about including creationism in education and against homosexuality (for example), whereas political Islam demands much more than that, with far higher consequences.
So we need to welcome Muslims as people, but be free to criticise political Islam, Sharia, Jihad etc as ideas and question their Islamic sources for veracity. In the same way, the English translations of KJB (made accessible through printing), reformation and enlightenment, etc caused biblical textual criticism, leading initially to Ussher, Newton (et al) calculating a “young earth”, then against those same literal interpretations, by questioning the same source texts.
It will be impossible to “ban” Islam and cause huge losses to go to war with it, so we do need to “box clever” as Nigel puts it and make sure Muslims have a safe, loving religion to believe in. It is possible, since most Hadith were written hundreds of years after events and the violent stuff in the Koran can be restricted just to the medieval times they occurred. Their relevance today could be similar to all the bad stuff in the Torah.
Islam needs a reformation and can only have it by open debate and discussion, rather than war and bloodshed. There are already various strains of Islam to chose from: Unfortunately Deobandi has become rather popular in the UK (where I live), which is almost as literalist as Salafism and Wahhabism. we need to oppose these totalitarian values with more humanistic values found in Ahmadiyya Islam, for example.
I say all this as an old age atheist, that has argued and discussed various religions for most of my life.
Michael Copeland says
“The teachings of the Koran are universal and trans-time:
they are as true today as they were 1400 years ago”
-Ahmed Saad, North London Central Mosque
tt says
Yes, and every firstborn of our daughters in law will have to have black eyes, Arab profile and Arab curly hair. Like in today’s Greeks, Sicilians, Balkans and Spaniards – for this became the law.
Fuuuj, Nigel!
gravenimage says
Spot on, Michael. Pious Muslims do not reject the violence and supremacism in the Qur’an.
And we see the fruits of this every day in the mushrooming acts of Jihad and other acts of Islamic savgery in the West.
Don Quixdon says
If that is true, then why are there the different strands of Islam? What one person says (i.e. Ken Ham or answers in Genesis) is not what makes the belief system what it is.
In the same way; halal is supposed to be “haram” for infidels, but we all (in the UK at least) get it served up without us even knowing about it.
What I’m saying is that the tenets can be easily rebutted and sources easily questioned or dismissed, given the opportunity for discussion and research. Moderation is better than war, after all.
The reason given by a senior police officer for their kid gloves approach to Islam is they don’t want a repeat or escalation like the 2001 UK Bradford riots, which seemed to contain a different order of violence against police than your typical UK riot. I’d prefer jaw jaw than war war but we are not getting the chance to do this.
Michael Copeland says
It can be easy in the West to question sources or rebut tenets: it is extremely difficult in Islamic countries. The man in Iran who suggested that the story of Jonah be taken figuratively rather than literally was hanged. The imam in Arizona who put forward his theory that two verses did not properly belong in the Koran was stabbed to death by a muslim who had come to attend that mosque in order to do kill him.
Islam violently discourages any questions, and forbids innovation.
gravenimage says
Grimly true, Michael.
Roger woodhouse says
How about our PM stating that unless Islam is reformed and the very idea that ‘sharia law ‘can replace our common law here in Britain is denied by muslims ,there will be mass deportations .That just might concentrate the minds of a few (moderate) muslims dont you think?
StellaSaidSo says
@Roger
That would probably work, Roger, but I suspect we will have a long wait for such a PM.
Eventually, Muslims will have to decide where their allegiance lies. If their first loyalty is not to the country which has welcomed them, they should leave.
gravenimage says
Don Quixdon wrote:
If that is true, then why are there the different strands of Islam? What one person says (i.e. Ken Ham or answers in Genesis) is not what makes the belief system what it is.
…………………………..
Don, there are *very* few Muslims who openly reject Jihad and Shari’ah, and most of the few who have have been threatened with violence from their more orthodox coreligionists.
There is no strand of mainstream Islam that rejects violent Jihad.
And Ken Ham is *not* Muslim–he is an Infidel.
More:
In the same way; halal is supposed to be “haram” for infidels, but we all (in the UK at least) get it served up without us even knowing about it.
…………………………..
Actually, Muslims do not consider Halal to be Haram for Infidels–in fact, many Muslims are pushing for wider adoption of Halal everywhere, including in the Infidel West. This is part of stealth Jihad and the imposition of Islamic norms.
More:
What I’m saying is that the tenets can be easily rebutted and sources easily questioned or dismissed, given the opportunity for discussion and research.
…………………………..
That’s how *you* see it, but only because your are a rational Infidel. Muslims don’t accept this at all.
More:
Moderation is better than war, after all.
…………………………..
Yes, it is–but how many Muslims are actually moderates? And certainly, they are unable or unwilling to stop the violent Jihad against us.
The fact is that we are *already* in a war, but only Muslims are waging it.
And remember that the end goal of Jihad is the imposition of Islamic law. More than half of Muslims in the US openly share that aim.
More:
The reason given by a senior police officer for their kid gloves approach to Islam is they don’t want a repeat or escalation like the 2001 UK Bradford riots, which seemed to contain a different order of violence against police than your typical UK riot.
…………………………..
Giving the horrors of Jihad a free pass does *nothing* to make Britons–including police officers–safer. This policy is suicidal.
More:
I’d prefer jaw jaw than war war but we are not getting the chance to do this.
…………………………..
The only “jaw jaw” Muslims would accept is all Britons intoning the Shehada. Otherwise, what are you going to discuss with those who adhere to a violent, supremacist creed, who want you in state of submission or dead?
And who is stopping you from talking to Muslims, Don? You can do so whenever you wish–but you should know that most of these Muslims will not appreciate your telling them that they have to abandon Jihad. You may well find yourself on the receiving end of violence, so stay safe.
And do you recall whose quote you cited? That was Winston Churchill. He did indeed say that “jaw jaw” is better than “war war”–but he also recognized when the Nazis were not interested in talk, but just in conquest. Are you saying we should ignore this with Muslims?
Don Quixdon says
Point 1 – very few – so you say, but some – showing that it is possible. In my country, the identity seems more important than the scripture to the majority.
Point 2 – it depends how you define mainstream. Ahmadi is fairly popular.
Point 3 – supposed to be haram was my point, indicating that scriptural rules are bent and are therefore flexible to suit a purpose.
Point 4 – Not all Muslims think the same. For example, if all Muslims took a literalist interpretation of Islam, my country (UK) would be in a civil war right now, but it isn’t.
Point 5 – I’m not trying to give Islam a free pass – exactly the opposite. I wish you’d read and think about what we’re writing, rather than wage your own war against Islam. Maybe you can win the war at a keyboard, but good luck out there in reality.
Point 6 – Churchill fought Nazis and not Germans. That was fortunate for my mom, who came to the UK from (ex)Prussia at the end of WW2.
StellaSaidSo says
Don Quixdon
I see that you have made the acquaintance of JW’s self-appointed oracle, with her lengthy armchair pontifications and insufferable condescension (‘Ken Ham is not a Muslim’ – as if you had claimed he was! And pointing out to you that the ‘jaw jaw’ quote was from Winston Churchill – as if you didn’t know!).
If you didn’t know before you posted here that you are completely wrong about everything, you do now. gravenimage invariably knows more about what you know and think than you do – because she makes it up as she goes along. She has more straw men at her disposal than Old MacDonald. Your Point 5 pretty much nails it. She replies to what she thinks you said, not what you actually said. You are not the first here to notice this.
Of course it is true that Ahmadiyya are a minority sect in terms of overall numbers, but what you know, and gravenimage does not, is that Ahmadiyya account for quite a large percentage of Muslims in Britain, and are the only sect which has ever publicly protested, in numbers, against jihad. While they ultimately do want a caliphate, they are unlikely to slit your throat if you try to talk them out of it.
Of course you are right that ‘not all Muslims think the same’. I have known this from personal experience since the early 70s. There are many who are on the edge of apostasy, and who welcome the opportunity to engage with neighbours outside their faith. But for gravenimage, every last one of them is plotting our demise 24/7.
As I have said elsewhere, I think reform of Islam is unlikely. The big money is solidly behind the literalists, whose numbers are growing. Nevertheless, while the subject of reform is being discussed within communities, the door to freedom is at least ajar. Ayaan Hirsi Ali famously complimented Maajid Nawaz on his trajectory. Imam Tawhidi is very popular amongst infidels in Australia. We tease him by asking him if he has chucked away the book yet. The problem is that, if he did, the ‘bridge’ that he represents would close, and that would be a loss to good people on both sides.
I grieve for the people of Britain. You have been forced to accept too many who are too different too quickly. The only option, if bloody conflict is to be avoided, is to halt all Muslim immigration for 5 years, and concentrate on integrating those who share our values, and repatriating those who don’t.
gravenimage says
Don Quixdon, thank you for your reply. You wrote:
Point 1 – very few – so you say, but some – showing that it is possible. In my country, the identity seems more important than the scripture to the majority.
………………………..
Don, that a handful of lax Muslims who reject Jihad and Shari’ah does not make us safe. Note that even the Ahmadi do not reject brutal Shari’ah law.
And if your country is somewhere in Britain (later in your post you mentioned that your mother came to the UK) then surely you are familiar with the hideous mushrooming Jihad terror attacks there, from Muslims who take their creed *all too seriously*.
More:
Point 2 – it depends how you define mainstream. Ahmadi is fairly popular.
………………………..
Don, the highest estimates worldwide for Ahmadis is 20 million–most estimates are more in the 10 million range. This is less than .01% of Muslims, who number about 1.8 billion. There are about 30,000 Ahmadis in all of Britain.
More:
Point 3 – supposed to be haram was my point, indicating that scriptural rules are bent and are therefore flexible to suit a purpose.
………………………..
Actually–as I noted–Muslims do not consider Halal food to be Haram for Infidels. Indeed, Muslims regularly try to impose Halal standards in the West, and have been quite disturbingly successful at it.
More:
Point 4 – Not all Muslims think the same. For example, if all Muslims took a literalist interpretation of Islam, my country (UK) would be in a civil war right now, but it isn’t.
………………………..
Muslims still make up just 5% of the population in Britain, and are becoming more murderously aggressive all the time. That civilized Infidels are not openly fighting back has more to do with those Infidels than it does with Muslims being ‘moderate’.
More:
Point 5 – I’m not trying to give Islam a free pass – exactly the opposite. I wish you’d read and think about what we’re writing, rather than wage your own war against Islam. Maybe you can win the war at a keyboard, but good luck out there in reality.
………………………..
Don–with all respect–I don’t believe that relying on lax Muslims is realistic, nor that it in any way moderates what Islam actually teaches. I think it is important to know exactly what Islam teaches, and what all too many Muslims actively embrace.
More:
Point 6 – Churchill fought Nazis and not Germans. That was fortunate for my mom, who came to the UK from (ex)Prussia at the end of WW2.
………………………..
Yes–Churchill did indeed fight Nazis. In the same way, I do not oppose people from, say, Pakistan or Egypt or Somalia, on the basis of their being from these countries, because this is not about nationality or ethnicity. Instead, it is about the vicious ideology of Islam.
gravenimage says
StellaSaidSo wrote:
But for gravenimage, every last one of them is plotting our demise 24/7
……………………..
Stella, this is simply mistaken. Not only have I never said any such thing, I have often noted that *not* all Muslims are engaged in plotting violent Jihad.
There is even an Islamic doctrine that covers this–most Muslims consider violent Jihad to be Fard Kifāya, which means that so long as members of the Ummah are waging Jihad is it Halal; only a minority of Muslims at this point consider it Fard Ayn, or incumbent on every individual able-bodied Muslim.
I know you are angry at me because I did not agree with you that 9/11 was abetted on the ground. Certainly, that is your prerogative; but please do not mischaracterize my statements.
gravenimage says
Here is Robert Spencer on the fact that no large population of Muslims have *ever* throughout history opposed Jihad violence. He begins to address this issue at a little after four minutes in:
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2018/09/video-robert-spencer-at-the-westminster-institute-on-what-we-dont-see-in-the-history-of-islam
He also notes that the West is betting its life on their doing so.
StellaSaidSo says
Don’t flatter yourself, gravenimage.
You should have figured out by now, GI, that I have not the slightest interest in your ill-informed views on 9/11, and the notion that I would be ‘angry’ with you for ‘disagreeing’ with me is utterly risible. If I did not welcome debate, I would not participate on sites like JW or in ‘real life’ forums. Believe me, in a very long professional career, I have encountered plenty of opinionated fools. If I got angry every time someone said something stupid I would have quit years ago.
I find it ironic that you – who routinely misrepresents the views of other posters here – accuse me of ‘mischaracterising’ your statements. Perhaps you will have some insight now into why so many JW posters get annoyed with you.
gravenimage says
No, it is not foolish to question the claim that 9/11 was aided by unnamed collaborators on the ground, nor is it ill-informed.
Peggy says
Yes–Churchill did indeed fight Nazis. In the same way, I do not oppose people from, say, Pakistan or Egypt or Somalia, on the basis of their being from these countries, because this is not about nationality or ethnicity. Instead, it is about the vicious ideology of Islam.
—–
StellaSaidSo wrote:
But for gravenimage, every last one of them is plotting our demise 24/7
……………………..
Stella, this is simply mistaken. Not only have I never said any such thing, I have often noted that *not* all Muslims are engaged in plotting violent Jihad.
========================
I was thinking the same thing GI as I was reading Stella’s comments.
We are only opposing the Muslims not entire populations of any country.
Also, Nazis were not only Germans either. There were plenty of Nazis in countries which collaborated with German Nazis too.
StellaSaidSo says
Unfortunately, reform of Islam is unlikely. The Koran forbids any questions. The few well-meaning Muslims who argue for reform have few followers. Don’t be fooled by the ‘pacifism’ of the Ahmadiyya. Their goal is the same as that of every other Islamic sect – a global caliphate, ie totalitarianism.
Deobandi Islam is simply Salafism from the sub-continent. The reason it is so ‘popular’ in UK is that the majority of Muslims in UK are Pakistani.
Of course we should be free to criticise Islam. But the fact is, we’re not. And especially not in UK, where 900 police are employed solely to monitor social media sites for ‘hate speech’.
KWJ says
Stella, you’re correct about the Amadiyya. They may be mellower followers largely because they’re persecuted by Sunnis and Shi’a, but their goals are the same and their Qur’anic apologetics too. I check out their Qur’an site and there translations and commentary are no different than the other seven I read. The Saudis disseminate The Noble Qur’an and approve of Mohsin Khan’s translations which aren’t much different than Sahih International’s.
They all believe in the main tenets of Islam and Prophet Muhammad. The Muslims in Cyprus openly drink alcohol and are disturbed about all the Turkey mosque-funding and Turkish immigrants. They are the kind that can assimilate as well as the non-hijab women in Syria that go to nightclubs in Damascus and can drink and wear bathing suits on Syrian beaches.
StellaSaidSo says
Yes, KWJ, the Ahmadiyya differ from mainstream Islam only in that they reject violent jihad. The only Muslims who are capable of integrating into Western society are those who largely reject Islam – such as the examples you mentioned, and the many Indonesians I knew at University who identified as ‘cultural’ rather than ‘believing’ Muslims. If Nigel Farage thinks that most Muslims in UK have assimilated, or want to assimilate, he hasn’t been to Birmingham or Bradford recently. Or Khan’s London.
gravenimage says
True–the Ahmadi do reject violent Jihad. But not only do they make up just a tiny percentage of Muslims, but orthodox Muslims consider them “heretics” and oppress and even murder them.
And even the Ahmadi ultimately believe in imposing brutal Shari’ah law.
abu taleb says
I don’t believe that Ahmadiyah rejects violent jihad, they currently say so because they have no power and are being persecuted by other muslims, but once they are in power, I believe they will do the same as other muslims.
In a conversation with an Ahmadiyah follower, he defended the butchery of Jews clan of Quraiza by his beloved prophet. The Ahmadiyah followers see Muhammad as their role model, so they don’t mind doing genocide to the Jews, do they?
gravenimage says
I take your point, abu taleb. The Ahmadi only say that violent Jihad cannot be used to spread Islam.
But they do believe that on the order of a Caliph that Jihad can be used for “defense”. One does not have to be around Muslims very long to realize that this covers a *lot* of ground, including situations that are not remotely defensive.
Don Quixdon says
That’s what I think Nigel’s “boxing clever” means. I think he would allow free discussion of the various Islamic ideas and suppress the political intentions for the religion. This would still give Muslims something to good to believe in and the fundamentalists a challenge to their “pure” concepts that are based on writings 200 years after events that can be interpreted in different (i.e. time and context sensitive) ways.
The notion that all Muslims are evil is not only patently untrue (since many of them know as much about their book as many Christians do about their book), but also divisive.
I’ve discussed Islam with Sunnis who say Shias are not Muslim. The no true Scotsman fallacy is always of use when it serves fanatics.
I thought Ahmadi wish to share a peaceful coexistence with the rest of humanity and therefore have as much chance of converting everyone as Christian evangelists have of saving everyone.
StellaSaidSo says
Yes, the Ahmadiyya do wish to ‘share a peaceful coexistence with the rest of humanity’ – provided the rest of humanity is Muslim.
Nigel is naïve if he thinks that Islam can be ‘reformed’. If all the violent content was removed from the Koran, you would end up with a book the size of an instruction manual for a toaster. Easier to recite, perhaps, but with little appeal to the inner thug. What would Muslim men do without women, gays, and kuffar to abuse? The mullahs would never allow it.
gravenimage says
Don Quixdon wrote:
That’s what I think Nigel’s “boxing clever” means. I think he would allow free discussion of the various Islamic ideas and suppress the political intentions for the religion. This would still give Muslims something to good to believe in and the fundamentalists a challenge to their “pure” concepts that are based on writings 200 years after events that can be interpreted in different (i.e. time and context sensitive) ways.
………………………
*All* pious Muslims believe that the texts and tenets of Islam and the model of the vicious “Prophet” are good for all time.
The idea that Muslims are going to listen to Nigel Farage or any other ‘filthy Infidel’ is mistaken.
More:
The notion that all Muslims are evil is not only patently untrue (since many of them know as much about their book as many Christians do about their book), but also divisive.
………………………
Who here is saying that all Muslims are evil? No one–this is a straw man argument.
And you cannot rely on Muslims who are ignorant of what their faith demands–to the extent that this group exists–to reform Islam.
The problem is that all too many Muslims know *exactly* what Islam teaches–and are waging violent Jihad against us as a result.
More:
I’ve discussed Islam with Sunnis who say Shias are not Muslim. The no true Scotsman fallacy is always of use when it serves fanatics.
………………………
Alas, Muslims considering other-sect Muslims not to be real Muslims is not fanaticism–it is mainstream.
More:
I thought Ahmadi wish to share a peaceful coexistence with the rest of humanity and therefore have as much chance of converting everyone as Christian evangelists have of saving everyone.
………………………
The Ahmadi are not mainstream Muslims–they are a tiny unorthodox sect.
And while they do reject violent Jihad, they do *not* reject the other horrors of Islam.
They “wish to share a peaceful coexistence with the rest of humanity” only if you consider the imposition of the brutal Shari’ah law–with all of its savagery and oppression of women and Infidels–to be “peaceful”.
Watchingtheweasels says
Ah yes. A reformation of Islam led by western atheists and their collaborators. What a perfectly silly idea!
CogitoErgoSum says
You are tilting at windmills. Those Muslims who want to believe in a safe and loving religion should be encouraged to leave Islam. If they want a religion that is like Christianity, they should simply become Christians. With a religion which is based upon a book that is flawed yet considered unchangeable, reform is impossible. Leaving such a religion behind and the destruction of it is the only path left. The tenets of the religion itself make it necessarily so.
CogitoErgoSum says
The above was meant as a reply to Don Quixdon’s comment at 2:13 p.m.(Sept 8).
Crusades Were Right says
“Old Testament”
Gee, Nige, a pity there isn’t a “New” one (apparently)!
; ¬)
Crusades Were Right says
I’m against “peaceful” Muslims. Why? Because when VIOLENT Muslims come to get me, I would like my fellow citizens – including Muslims – to DO SOMETHING TO STOP THEM!
“Peaceful” people didn’t win WW2, folks!
tt says
Our kids will never forgive us.
abu taleb says
Unfortunately, the majority of “peaceful” muslims are either silent and doing nothing when the “fanatics” muslims are killing the non muslims, or they help the killing in one or another way.
StellaSaidSo says
True, but many Muslims live in fear. More now than ever, because of the spreading tentacles of Wahhabism. If they can’t save themselves, they have little chance of saving others.
tt says
Nigel, the Bible has never been a policy handbook of the West, but I get very worried when I see Muslims treat their Quran like one.
Geez, Nigel, are you smelling the petrol dollars, or are you scared??
Either way, the caravan is moving in. And is here to stay a couple of hundreds of years.
Then, Brexit was in vain anyway.
Michael Copeland says
Muslims “have no option” (Koran 33:36).
The Koran is part of Islamic law, with death for denying any verse.
The killing, vigilante-style, is penalty-free.
Nick says
I was once a big supporter of Nigel Farage, and I still give him a lot of credit for leading the UK to leave the EU. However, after seeing this video he has fallen quite far in my estimation and I think his political days are now over.
StellaSaidSo says
Likewise, Nick. Nigel started to slip in my estimation when he took Islam off the UKIP table. Then he shafted Ann Marie Waters in the leadership ballot. Then he betrayed Tommy Robinson. Plus, I’m weary of his constant dining out on his connection with the Trump campaign. But this interview with Avi (who is a sweet guy, still fairly new to the bail-em-up-and-ask-em-questions caper, but who is far from the fool that Nigel took him for) exposes Nigel for the pretentious wind-bag that he has become. I hope Nigel continues as an MEP, but in UK politics he should definitely take a back seat.
andy mckendrick says
Agree , went off Nigel after he threw Tommy under the bus by referring to him as a racist. Had my doubts then about how much Nigel knows about Islam.
Justicia says
GREAT interview. Have never seen anyone who understands Islam actually bring up the major arguments against Islam. I respect Nigel on Brexit, but Nigel is off on Islam.
gravenimage says
Video: Nigel Farage grows flustered, stalks out of interview when questioned about the jihad threat
…………………..
There was a time when I considered Nigel Farage a very hopeful figure. Now, not so much.
shoehorn says
So, Nigel ‘you won’t win’ Farage is in the Neville ‘peace in our time’ Chamberlain camp, not the Winston ‘fight them on the beaches’ Churchill camp.
FYI says
The OT contains the official moral teachings of God’s laws revealed to the Jews via Moses in a 10+2 commandment system{10 basic and 2 chief}
The NT emphasises the 2 chief LOVE commandments as being “The whole of the Law”:It reveals God to be one of LOVE,not hate.
The Judeo-Christian system is based on these 10+2 laws.
Jews subscribe to them.Christians subscribe to them.Judaism and Christianity have the SAME Law.
islam does not conform to God’s Laws.See for yourself;compare and contrast the moral code of the Judeo-Christian religions{the 10+2} with respect to islam’s koran.
There are no 2 chief commandments in islam{in fact the 2nd is completely rejected}and the 10 are warped by allah in his koran to enable muslims… to break them.
Of course,people sin against God and they are broken BUT it is understood by Jews AND Christians that it is important to obey them.
Not so in islam!
The koran does not confirm the Bible{koran 3:3}The teachings of allah are warped
and at odds with God’s Laws as revealed in the Bible Exodus 20:1-17
Remember that allah claims to have written the Bible koran 3:3 so one would expect that these essential laws would be reaffirmed in the koran but they are not.
This too:-
“Oh ye who believe!Take not the Jews and Christians for friends”
koran 5:51
That’s a total rejection of God’s 2nd Chief commandment{found in Judaism and in christianity but not islam]
So instead of “Let’s at least TRY to love one another and get along”{2nd Chief} we have in islam allah’s command to muslims “Let’s NOT TRY to get along”
Jay says
Peter McLoughlin who wrote Easy Meat: Inside Britain’s Grooming Gang Scandal said on his Gab account.
I don’t believe Farage is ignorant about Islam. He is choosing to make false analogies so that he doesn’t have to take a position on Islam. My guess is he’s hoping for a peerage or a knighthood.
StellaSaidSo says
The thought crossed my mind, too, Jay. What better way to get Farage out of the way than to kick him upstairs?
sheik yer'mami says
“Do you wanna kill em all?” is the worst of low blows in the arsenal of leftist kaputniks. Its amazing that Farage is using it to defend his untenable position.
No, there is no “integrated majority” in Britain or elsewhere, and by the law of allah every Moslem must support the jihad in any possible way, which includes to kill & die to make the religion dominant.
The questioning was a bit weak too; but Farage’s prevarications were just reprehensible.
He want’s to be the major of Londonistan. He can’t do that without the Moslem vote. That demands lying and putting on that pig called Islam.
Sad.
Warren Raymond says
The 10 Commandments are incompatible with Western civilisation?
gravenimage says
Good point, Warren. Much of our values and laws are based on the Old Testament.
Harold Armitage says
Christians had an update on the old testament called the new testament.
This is the one Christians follow.
Antivenin says
First we had to fight a war on “terrorism”, thanks to dumbass President Bush, and now we have to fight against “Islamism” according to Nigel Farage.
While we fight “terrorism” and “Islamism” (oh, and don’t forget the dreaded “Islamophobia”), Islam, the real enemy, is invading our countries, spreading its tentacles through our societies and steadily increasing the number of its soldiers (young men of fighting age, also known as “refugees”) everywhere in our lands. How is that not a recipe of total disaster?
Sun Tzu said: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles.”
We don’t know ourselves anymore, and we certainly do not know our enemy: Islam.
Fear the coming battles. The enemy is already within our walls and we are fighting with both hands tied behind our back!
Michael Copeland says
Third memo to Nigel Farage:
“Islamism” is a cunning decoy invented to take the spotlight away from Islam.
“Islamism” is not found in the Manual of Islamic Law, “Reliance of the Traveller”.
“Islamism” is not found in the Middle East.
“Islamism” is a deceptive concoction devised for Western consumption.
gravenimage says
+1
Malcolm Jackson says
So Nigel comes out in the open at last and confirms his support for Islam.No wonder Donald Trump has dumped Nigel.
“If UKIP goes down the route of being a party that is anti the religion of Islam, then frankly it’s finished The party would be finished.” https://order-order.com/2017/07/17/farage-slaps-anti-islam-ukip-candidate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+guidofawkes+%28Guy+Fawkes%27+blog+of+parliamentary+plots%2C+rumours+and+conspiracy%29
David says
Having listened carefully to the whole interview, I think the headline for this article is misleading. Nigel Farage did not get at all flustered. Whilst you may not entirely agree with his answers, he showed no signs of being “flustered”. There are large numbers of Muslims – e.g. the Ahmadis – who do not subscribe to the literal words of the Koran and Nigel Farage did agree that Islam needs “reformation”, although I personally don’t think that will ever be possible. The best way to fight Islam is to promote atheism and humanism.
The headline also describes Nigel Farage as stalking off. He did NOT stalk off. He decided to end the interview when the argument started going round in circles.
Chand says
“The best way to fight Islam is to promote atheism and humanism.”
That’s right, David.
James Lincoln says
I watched the interview and I believe that Nigel Farage is HOPING that he is right regarding:
–The UK winning over and successfully integrating the so-called moderate Muslims.
–A Reformation of Islam by the moderate Muslims regarding a moderate interpretation of the Koran.
–A successful fight against the radical Muslims with the moderate Muslims on the side of the UK government.
–A reawakening of the Judeo-Christian culture in the UK.
–Stoping practices condoned by Sharia law that go against UK law.
If he is WRONG, and the UK continues along its present course, it is doomed.
Jack Maxwell says
“Interpretative traditions are mainstream in Judaism and Christianity that mitigate its (The Old Testament’s) violent passages and other aspects that are not in accord with modern understandings of human rights.”
Well, not really. The violent passages in the Old Testament were a response to particular circumstances at a particular time, such as the destruction of the Canaanites because their pagan lifestyle, the sacrifice of children to Baal, was too much of an affront to God that could not be seen to go unpunished, and the STDs they had acquired from promiscuous religious practices (orgies) would have been transmitted to Hebrew males due to the strength of the male sex drive. This was not a prescription for an ongoing dogma such as Islam promising an eternal heavenly orgy for men killing in Allah’s name, but a one time event to fulfill God’s command that we love good and hate evil, which requires at time lethal violence, such as against the Nazis, Communists, and the followers of the fundamentals of Islam.
herb planter says
What a shame Nigel has lost it and lost any hope of being elected. I’m glad he was exposed now before he got in anywhere..
Dimi says
If threatened, all muslums unite. When the threat has been overcome, they go back to business as usual, i.e. blowing each other up. There is no such thing as a moderate moslim. The silent majority will not stand on the side of their host nation (Britain for example) but will side by their ‘religion’.
Why do the moderates never protest in mass after yet another terrorist attack? Are they indifferent or scared? Maybe both.
In short, we can’t trust the moderate moslims. When the sh*t hits the fan, they’ll start to kill their christian neighbors and friends. This is what happened in Falluja.
Malcolm Jackson says
100% spot on. The evil cult of Islam is the evil cult of Islam.
Steve says
Farage misses the point that even if Islam can have a moderate form or western-style reformation, a doubtful enough proposition in itself, that is no reason to allow Islam to spread in and colonize the West, least of all before it is proven. Muslims already have scores of their own nations, they have no right to ours as well (some of which they actually took anyway). And even the Muslims already in are in good part either extremist or criminal, or both, and usually welfare-dependent to boot. They need to go, with a stop onb more coming in, then maybe some sort of effective assimilation of the remainder might be possible, though the huge number of ‘Muhammads’ will always be a fly in the ointment.
André Berntsen says
“The difference is that the Old Testament has been part of Western culture since there has been a Western culture.”
Another difference is that God loved humanity so much that he sacrificed his only son and forgave us for our sins.
Allah loves only Muslims and hates kaffir. So much that he sent the Prophet to kill us.
From such messages, very different cultures grow from a kafir’s point of view.
terry says
Cop out Nigel.
Chand says
This current phase of Islamic Jihadism is temporary. It might even be the last dying throes of religion in general. Scientific materialism is fast eroding the ground beneath the organized religions. Islam too will surely be eroded and peter out into some kind of a cultural relic as it faces the relentless onslaught of science and technology. The reform will probably happen within Muslims, especially from those living in advanced nations.
But now we are in a world war against violent Jihad, which in my opinion, will last four generations or so, i.e a hundred years before it is totally defeated.
StellaSaidSo says
Interesting post, Chand. I think Christopher Hitchens once remarked that the modern jihad was the last desperate expression of a dying power. Despite the best efforts of the well-funded literalists, Muslims continue to quietly leave Islam. I hope that this vile ideology will be crushed before another century elapses, but we will need to act quickly and decisively to reverse the current trend. They’re breeding faster than we are.
gravenimage says
Chand wrote:
This current phase of Islamic Jihadism is temporary.
………………………..
Muslims have been waging violent Jihad against us for 1400 years now. I has just intensified in the past couple of decades due to an Islamic revival and weak response from the West, but it is nothing new.
More:
It might even be the last dying throes of religion in general. Scientific materialism is fast eroding the ground beneath the organized religions. Islam too will surely be eroded and peter out into some kind of a cultural relic as it faces the relentless onslaught of science and technology. The reform will probably happen within Muslims, especially from those living in advanced nations.
………………………..
Other faiths do not present a threat–Islam certainly does, though.
More:
But now we are in a world war against violent Jihad, which in my opinion, will last four generations or so, i.e a hundred years before it is totally defeated.
………………………..
Actually, the war is against the victims of Jihad. There is no organized war against Jihad; that is a big part of the problem. Defense against Jihad is scattershot and disorganized at best.
And on what do you base your hundred year timeline, given that Islam has not been defeated in the past millenium and a half?