Monday, March 27, 2006

The unbelievable Tony Blair falls for the unbelievable!

Image hosting by Photobucket
"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran - in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is. I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements.

But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian ..."


No, Tone, the most remarkable thing about the Koran is precisely how regressive it is! What have you bin smokin’?

How can you possibly stand before an audience of educated, intelligent people and pronounce such balderdash?

If the Koran is so "progressive", and so "ahead of its time", then how come Muslims are so backward? How come Muslims wish to kill apostates, people who can no longer stomach the lies, the myths, the fairy stories propagated by the prophet of Islam? How come women, if they are not obedient, have to be beaten until they are prepared to be submissive to their husbands? How come women should be stoned to death for the ‘serious crime’ of adultery (while the men, the adulterers, will miraculously get away with it)? How come the Muslim world has contributed virtually nothing to human endeavour for approximately five hundred years? How come rates for adult illiteracy are so high in Muslim lands? How come? How come? How come?

Oh, and by the way: About that 'abhorring superstition' bit… Didn’t you know, Tone, that Muslims believe in Jinns? And didn’t you know, too, that they believe that two angels sit permanently on each person’s shoulders? The one on your left shoulder taking down notes on your bad deeds, and the one on your right shoulder taking down notes on your good deeds?

For God’s sake (not Allah’s), get real, will you?

You have disgraced yourself, and you have disgraced your office, too! It’s surely time for you to spend more time with your family now. It awaits you!

©Mark Alexander

37 comments:

Brooke said...

Wha--- Am I hallucinating?

Always On Watch said...

Mark,
I'm glad to see that you are posting this information at various sites.

Mark said...

Brooke:

No, I am sorry. You are not. This is for real!

Mark said...

AOW:

Yes, it's so important that this drivel gets out there.

Iran Watch said...

I am at a loss on this one. Tony Blair knows that this is untrue and claiming otherwise is to bow to Islamic pressure.

friendlysaviour said...

no no no no non
no no no n o
no no n o n o
no no n o n o
no no nono nono
no no n o n o
no no no n o n o
nonono no n o n no

TBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTBTB tb

hutchrun said...

What is remarkable is that Tony now supports genocide since he has taken a fancy to Darul Islam.
There goes the United Kingdom.

little-cicero said...

I hate to sound like a liberal, as I am not, but the Q'ran from what I know of it is about as violent as the Old Testament, and like the Old Testament, it does bring about constructive, peaceful ideas.

The religion is a different story. Just as Christianity has been perverted at some points in its history, the Q'ran has been perverted. As in most cases, religion is not a motivator, but rather a facilitator of evil. There's nothing wrong, however, with praising a religious document.

hutchrun said...

TB is a a virulent sickness and needs hospitalisation afore it infects others.

This would help as a cure:

Indra Sain Sharma, president of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, and Rajkumar Arya, secretary of the Hindu Raksha Dal, Delhi, were arrested under Sections 153A and 295A of the Indian Penal Code for publishing a poster which had cited 24 Ayats of the Quran under the caption, 'Why riots take place in the country?' They had added the comment: 'These Ayats command the believers (Musalmans) to fight against followers of other faiths' and that 'so long as the Ayats are not removed from the Quran, riots in the country cannot be prevented'. Unlike the hyper politically-inclined Judge of the Calcutta High Court Justice Z S Lohat, Metropolitan Magistrate of Delhi gave a landmark verdict discharging Rajkumar Arya and Indra Sain Sharma on 31 July, 1986. I give below the operative portion from his judgement:

'It is found that the Ayats are reproduced in the same form as are translated in the said 'Quran Majeed'. In my opinion the writer by writing the above words has expressed his opinion or suggestion and at the most it can be branded as a fair criticism of what is contained in the holy book of Mohammedans'.. With due regard to the holy book of 'Quran Majeed', a close perusal of the Ayats shows that the same are harmful and teach hatred and are likely to create differences between Mohammedans on one hand and the remaining communities on the other. In view of the above discussion, I am therefore of the view that there is no prima facie case against the accused as offences alleged against the accused do not fall prima facie within the four corners of Sections 153-A/295-A of the Indian Penal Code and hence both of the accused are discharged'.

http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/Sundaram60315.htm

friendlysaviour said...

..xx......xx......xx.......xxxx.....
..xx......xx......xx.......xx..xx...
..xx......xx.....x...x.....xx..x....
..xx......xx.....xxxxxx....xxxxx....
..xx......xx.....x....x....xx...xx..
..xxxxx...xx..x..x....x....xx....xx.

tb

hutchrun said...

`praising a religious document.`- posted above
That is interesting. Warrants a reading of this:
We don't know about the Myth of Mecca because we are afraid to.
Al-Rawandi summarizes what then happened:

Once the Arabs had acquired an empire, a coherent religion was required in order to hold that empire together and legitimize their rule. In a process that involved a massive backreading of history, and in conformity to the available Jewish and Christian models, this meant they needed a revelation and a revealer ?a Prophet ?whose life could serve at once as a model for moral conduct and as a framework for the appearance of the revelation. Hence (Ubu'l Kassim was selected to be the Prophet), the Koran, the Hadith (Sayings of the Prophet), and the Sira were contrived and conjoined over a period of a couple of centuries. Topographically, after a century or so of Judaeo-Moslem monotheism centered on Jerusalem, in order to make Islam distinctively Arab ?an inner Arabian biography of Mecca, Medina, the Quraysh, the Prophet and his Hegira (flight from Mecca to Medina alleged in 622, Year One in the Islamic calendar) was created as a purely literary artifact. An artifact, moreover, based not on faithful memories of real events, but on the fertile imaginations of Arab storytellers elaborating from allusive references in Koranic texts, the canonical text of the Koran not being fixed for nearly two centuries. (p.104)

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/9/24/152943.shtml

friendlysaviour said...

litl cicero
i think you should go and study the koran, the hadiths and other sources.
when you have done this, then come and tell us if you think the violence advocated in the same, "are more violent than the old testament" or not.
there are so many people of good nature such as yourself who are doing themselves such a big disfavour because they speak from emotions and not study of cold hard facts.
if you were ever to understand the reality of islam and it over-arching
power,.. force that will crush the liberals and left sympathisers that infest institutions such as the bbc like woodworm. Likewise much the same way as those worms that are gnawing at the cassock of the A o C and indeed our heir to throne (giv im a slap, lz.)
don't worry, for you, conversion will be easy.
you seem to have nothing worth defending or preserving in your life.

friendlysaviour said...

this is the biggest spoof ever.
please tell me

hutchrun said...

List of Islamic Terror Attacks sanctioned by the religion of peace:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/index.html#Attacks

friendlysaviour said...

little cicero,.. sorry to be so harsh in my earlier comment.
I took alook over your way and see that you are young enough to still have idealism.
That is a very great asset, but that becomes harder to support when you have seen some of the worlds events for a few years.. I see from your profile that you say "I am conservative, but consider myself open minded, and am willing to be subject to conversion at any time- because such an attitude is neccessary in making this the greatest nation on God's Green Earth!
Such a sentiment will make you extremely vulnerable to conversion to the one way ticket that is islam.
Maybe its for you, but think carefully.
Study the koran, and study the links to many informative sites, compare the two schools of thought, read "A new Dark Age Is Dawning" if you can. It will give an insight into what those that want to convert think like.
You can then think about what kind of America you want and then ask yourself if islam will bring you hope or hell on earth.
I apologise for being so direct.

friendlysaviour said...

Mark,... First Blair lets himself off the hook, by excusing his French, or should I say, Arabic.
Then he grovels and abases himself, before he throws in the towel of reason, and finally confesses his ignorance in the facts of islam.
All this within the first paragraph.

What follows, is a distinct brand of lie.
It stinks of a brand of lie that could only have been written by a Moslim for a Christian.

On the surface the words.. " the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later," seem to be passing a notion that ther is no difference between the likes of the Baptist religion. for instance, and the Mohammadan's.
Can someone remind me of the great battles fought by Christian reformers, that were as drenched in blood as the average campaign in the rise of the people of submission, islam?
If you were to include Cromwell in the comparison, maybe we could approach the similarities of a few skirmishes, perhaps.
Islam is inclusive Tony, it is compulsory. And it is compulsive and compelling, in their darkest sense.
If you think that it is "..
way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance."
then it is plain that you have not read one word, and understood less, of the koran.
Do you intend to divorce Cherie with the repetition of the phrase "I divorce you" three times?
Do the women of the world of your parents and your relatives think that is so "way ahead" to adopt such practices?
OooH, Tony, do you mean to say that your attitudes towards governance are going down the sharia road?
What have you got in mind?
Let us imagine for a moment.
Can we see a return to spiking the heads of your rivals on stakes at the Tower of London? Will you re-open Tyburn Gate for hanging and head chopping sessions, Dear PM?
Perhaps you will re-invent some of the Gestapo torture techniques with islamic "extollers of science and knowledge."

In the final paragraph you descend into an acceptance of islams insidious rise over previous Centuries as being somehow beneficial, yet you show no proofs of this.
"The standard bearers of tolerance in the early middle ages" Oh woeful Tony.
Bitter are the tears. You bleed inside with the cuts of your dishonesty, but your concience has died and atrophied your heart.
Spiller of the ancient blood of your People, a beggars cuss lies upon your being, sink to your knees in prayer to your God, "as a member of another faith."
Dear Tony you spoke out so bold in defense of our American Cousins and the Special Relationship, yet you hold the the sacred vows you made to our Queen, so lightly in your breast. Thou art unfaced, you are exposed. You have uncovered the deceipt within your eye. You have spoken the words of Judas. You have whispered with satan himself.
Cry for shame, that your god may forgive you.

friendlysaviour said...

Mark,... First Blair lets himself off the hook, by excusing his French, or should I say, Arabic.
Then he grovels and abases himself, before he throws in the towel of reason, and finally confesses his ignorance in the facts of islam.
All this within the first paragraph.

What follows, is a distinct brand of lie.
It stinks of a brand of lie that could only have been written by a Moslim for a Christian.

On the surface the words.. " the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later," seem to be passing a notion that ther is no difference between the likes of the Baptist religion. for instance, and the Mohammadan's.
Can someone remind me of the great battles fought by Christian reformers, that were as drenched in blood as the average campaign in the rise of the people of submission, islam?
If you were to include Cromwell in the comparison, maybe we could approach the similarities of a few skirmishes, perhaps.
Islam is inclusive Tony, it is compulsory. And it is compulsive and compelling, in their darkest sense.
If you think that it is "..
way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance."
then it is plain that you have not read one word, and understood less, of the koran.
Do you intend to divorce Cherie with the repetition of the phrase "I divorce you" three times?
Do the women of the world of your parents and your relatives think that is so "way ahead" to adopt such practices?
OooH, Tony, do you mean to say that your attitudes towards governance are going down the sharia road?
What have you got in mind?
Let us imagine for a moment.
Can we see a return to spiking the heads of your rivals on stakes at the Tower of London? Will you re-open Tyburn Gate for hanging and head chopping sessions, Dear PM?
Perhaps you will re-invent some of the Gestapo torture techniques with islamic "extollers of science and knowledge."

In the final paragraph you descend into an acceptance of islams insidious rise over previous Centuries as being somehow beneficial, yet you show no proofs of this.
"The standard bearers of tolerance in the early middle ages" Oh woeful Tony.
Bitter are the tears. You bleed inside with the cuts of your dishonesty, but your concience has died and atrophied your heart.
Spiller of the ancient blood of your People, a beggars cuss lies upon your being, sink to your knees in prayer to your God, "as a member of another faith."
Dear Tony you spoke out so bold in defense of our American Cousins and the Special Relationship, yet you hold the the sacred vows you made to our Queen, so lightly in your breast. Thou art unfaced, you are exposed. You have uncovered the deceipt within your eye. You have spoken the words of Judas. You have whispered with satan himself.
Cry for shame, that your god may forgive you.

leavingtheleft said...

Children know more about islam:

It is said that in order to bring the children to submission to Islam, they were made to enter, next day, through a very small door while the Quran was displayed on the other side. The idea was that as the children would enter the door with their heads down, they would then be told that they had bowed to the holy Quran and thereby to Islam. When the children saw that trap, the seven years old Sahibzada Fateh Singh threw his feet first instead of his head while entering through the small door. Throwing the feet towards the Quran meant an insult to Islam. Wazir Khan, therefore, could not conquer the nine and seven years old children of Guru Gobind Singh. When every effort failed to convert the children to Islam, it was finally ordered that they should be bricked alive in the wall. A wall was, therefore, built step by step on their tender limbs until it came up to the shoulders of Sahibzada Fateh Singh. The executioner advanced with his sword, and asked whose head he should chop off first? Upon this Sahibzada Fateh Singh said," Listen O executioner, since the wall has reached my shoulders first, therefore cut off my head first." Sahibzada Zorawar Singh exhorted,"No, you cannot cut off his head till you do mine, because I am the eldest and therefore, I have the right to go first. Cut off my head first." Hearing such a strange debate, the wholeassembly of Wazir Khan's court was stunned. The small children were ridiculing the angel of death. The chronicler states that Sahibzada Fateh Singh's head was cut off first. Therefore, that place is called Fatehgarh Sahib to commemorate the memory of the young children. When this news was delivered to Mata Gujri in the tower, where she was waiting for them, she breathed her last on the spot.

http://allaboutsikhs.com/gurus/gurugobind7.htm#1

leavingtheleft said...

I do hope TB will now amend the UK marriage laws to conform with noble islam:
NEW DELHI, India (Reuters) -- A Muslim couple in India have been told by local Islamic leaders they must separate after the husband "divorced" his wife in his sleep, the Press Trust of India reported.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/27/india.religion.reut/index.html

And when on earth is UK going to introduce death for apostasy.

John Sobieski said...

So where do you think they will have the public stonings in London?

leavingtheleft said...

Trafalgar Square?

leavingtheleft said...

Britons 'had bombs and poison cache' in Pakistan
http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=476772006

Mark said...

Iran Watch:

Tony Blair knows that this is untrue and claiming otherwise is to bow to Islamic pressure.

He knows it's untrue alright; otherwise he's a bigger idiot than I thought he was.

He's a panderer: He panders to the Muslim vote. He lost a lot of them because he went to war in Iraq. Now he's trying to woo the voters back.

That's how much power Muslims wield in the UK already. (And how many of them are legally here?) Imagine what it will be like in years to come if we don't do something about this?

Mark said...

Hutchrun:

There goes the United Kingdom.

Yes, if this idiot remains the prime minister for much longer, we cannot hold out much hope for the mother country.

Mark said...

Little-Cicero:

hate to sound like a liberal, as I am not, ...

Well, you sound like a screaming liberal to me!

... but the Q'ran from what I know of it is about as violent as the Old Testament, and like the Old Testament, it does bring about constructive, peaceful ideas.

I think you're being very unfair to 'The Old Testament', and you certainly show that you have not read anything much in the Qur'an.

The Qur'an is replete with violence against the infidel.

As for bringing constructive and peaceful ideas, well I'd like know which ones you are referring to. Please elucidate!

The religion is a different story. Just as Christianity has been perverted at some points in its history, the Q'ran has been perverted.

The religion of Islam and the Qur'an are one and the same. What Al-Qaïda preaches is Islam, the real thing. If it was ever perverted, it was in previous decades, before the advent of the Ayatollah Khomeini, when Muslims showed some tendency to modernize and Westernize. The Ayatollah put paid to all that in 1989 with his Iranian Revolution.

As in most cases, religion is not a motivator, but rather a facilitator of evil.

In this case, the religion of Islam is the motivator. You'd better believe it. Islam intoxicates the mind. In fact, in this regard, it truly is the opiate of the people!

There's nothing wrong, however, with praising a religious document.

Yes, there is! In this case there is, since this particular religious document reads like a war manual. Further, it is diametrically opposed to everything our civilization stands for. In such a case, there is definitely something wrong with praising such a religious document, especially since this religious document advocates destroying our civilization and way of life.

Mark said...

Bld:

Study the koran, and study the links to many informative sites, compare the two schools of thought, read "A new Dark Age Is Dawning" if you can. It will give an insight into what those that want to convert think like.

Thanks for the plug, my friend. Much appreciated!

I think you mean my book, The Dawning of a New Dark Age. A New Dark Age Is Dawning is my website.

... "the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, ...

Don't you think that this is an INCREDIBLE statement? If he believes this, then he can't understand a damn thing about it! Islam came to do away with Judaism and Christianity! Muslims consider that Islam is the perfection of religion for man for ALL time. They call it ad din al kamal.

It is blatantly obvious to me that Blair is ignorant if he believes this. (But as I said in an earlier comment: Isn't he just playing politics?)

But if he is playing politics, then he's playing a game of politics at its most dangerous!

Dear Tony you spoke out so bold in defense of our American Cousins and the Special Relationship, yet you hold the the sacred vows you made to our Queen, so lightly in your breast. Thou art unfaced, you are exposed. You have uncovered the deceipt within your eye. You have spoken the words of Judas. You have whispered with satan himself.

Cry for shame, that your god may forgive you.


Here! Here! Go bury your head in shame, Tone!

Mark said...

Bld:

I like it! TB = Tuberculosis! :-)

Mark said...

By the way, TB is looking pretty sickly at the moment. The MP's are asking when he's going to leave, according to this morning's paper.

Mark said...

Leaving the Left:

do hope TB will now amend the UK marriage laws to conform with noble islam: ...

If he stays in power much longer, he'll do something to help the Muslims.

Did you know that there is already talk of giving Muslims special tax status for them to have more than one wife? Yes, this has been spoken about at the highest level!

Mark said...

John:

So where do you think they will have the public stonings in London?

Yes, as Leaving the Left has suggested, Trafalgar Square would be an obvious choice. But then they might well take place on the main square of each and every London borough. Indeed, there could be 'chop-chop squares' all over the place by the end.

little-cicero said...

I am not being idealistic, but from comparing the Old Testament and the Koran, I see that both specify punishment for non-believers either by a diety or by mortals. Since I have not read the Koran, I can't say with any certainty how violent it is, but I would guess that it is more violent than the Old Testament.

We should acknowledge such passages as the one specifying the slaughter of Christians on Sunday and Jews on Saturday, as the liberal media all too often forgets. However, there are also passages in the Old Testament, such as once instructing the destruction of those who have sex during part of the menstrual cycle, or the destruction of the pagans in Exodus.

That being said, I was wrong to equate the two in terms of violence, but right to point out the obvious parallels.

When I said I was open to conversion in my bio, I meant political conversion (unclear semantics on my part). Of course, ask my gay liberal associate Andy and you'll find that I am actually a hard-headed, Right-Wing homophobe.

little-cicero said...

Was Christianity a motivator of the Inquisition?

I argue passionately that it was not, it was a facilitator of the Inquisition. It was used by mortals to achieve mortal goals.

In the same way, terrorists tend to take the beginning of a passage that instructs war on non-believers (which is most accurately interpreted as "pagans" since Mohammed acknowledged Abraham and Jesus as legitimate prophets) and leave out entirely the passage instructing them to have mercy after their enemies' defeat. It seems that we are doing the same thing.

When we use the terrorists' interpretation instead of the interpretation of legitimate scholars of the Qu'ran, we can't expect to have a fair understanding of it.

Mark said...

Little-Cicero:

but I would guess that it is more violent than the Old Testament.

Too right it is!

Since I have not read the Koran, I can't say with any certainty how violent it is, ...

You ought to. You'd get an eye-opener. And I don't mean a breakfast drink on a Sunday morning, either!

I was wrong to equate the two in terms of violence, ...

You really were.

... but right to point out the obvious parallels.

There are few.

... ask my gay liberal associate Andy and you'll find that I am actually a hard-headed, Right-Wing homophobe.

You can be right-wing without being a homophobe.

Is the converse of this: I am left-wing without being a heterophobe? :-)

little-cicero said...

You were right in your opposition, but my dilemma is that I was taking the moderate stance I usually take on liberal blogs to persuade someone to the right of me. In effect, I made an overly moderate and false statement.

little-cicero said...

By the way, can I interest the administrator of this blog in a recipricol link?

friendlysaviour said...

little-cicero,..
You said,

"In the same way, terrorists tend to take the beginning of a passage that instructs war on non-believers (which is most accurately interpreted as "pagans" since Mohammed acknowledged Abraham and Jesus as legitimate prophets) and leave out entirely the passage instructing them to have mercy after their enemies' defeat. It seems that we are doing the same thing."

Ther is are other factors to bear in mind.
When we talk of "terrorists," we must bear in mind that behind those of the moslemkind, sits amouthpiece of religion.

That mouth usually belongs to "islamic scholars" who are recognised as having special knowledge of the koran and it's meaning.
Can you argue against a scholar that
he is wrong?
Only another islamic scholar can argue with verity, the nature of the koranic verses or the hadith. Our speculation is irrelevant to them.

No Islamic scholar is ever shown to be wrong. It just seems that whatever voices support the current mood, are the ones that are heard and given relevance.

Osama is given relevance and his personal "islamic scholars" give him religeous backing for his plans of destruction against us.

No muslim can deny the relevance of the scholars wisdom.
They can either to act upon it, or not.
Islam does not allow variation in belief.

You are one, or you are not.
If you are, you become a "brother,"
If you are not, you are are an unbeliever, an enemy of the faith, to be converted or conquered.

Or if in certain historic times, you may be allowed to be "dhimmi," a second class citizen, at the whims of the muslim master-race, whatever their mood may be, at the time.

"..instructing them to have mercy after their enemies' defeat."

Do you want to experience the mercy of mulims after your Country has been defeated?

little-cicero said...

Having mercy for your enemies is a very Christian idea.

As for Islamic scholars, there are Islamic scholars who disagree with bin Laden's scholars are there not? If not, I would agree that Muslims have allowed the defamation of their religion, and will deal with the consequences.

If there are, then they have a duty to oppose bin Laden if they truly believe what they preach. It seems that Iran or even Saudi Arabia would have no place for such Muslims, but part of the reason that Iraq was a noble and wise venture is that there will now exist a place wherein such scholars are welcome to speak out, get air time on Al Jazeera, and oppose Bin Laden.