Muslim fanatics spouting on British TV: Call for terror, murder and the torture of gay people

Originally posted by RizeorDie

Like I said kiddo, Iran will not harm anyone leaving Islam as long as they keep it to themselves

but if you start inviting others to join you thats when you'll get executed.

Indeed the article states

Iranian pastor Yousef Nadarkhani had proved his "apostasy" by "organizing evangelistic meetings and inviting others to Christianity, establishing a house church, baptizing people, expressing his faith to others and, denying Islamic values.

Iran Court: 'Pastor To Be Executed By Hanging'

What a peaceful form of Islam we have in Iran. Or perhaps not.

Sadly, it is a capital offense to leave Islam in almost every Muslim dominated country in the world.

Originally posted by ollncasino
The Public Order Act 1986 section 5 outlaws threatening, abusive and insulting words or behaviour.

When John Terry, the England football team captain, was alleged to have said something racist to another footballer, the police maintained they had a legal duty to investigate the case because someone had telephoned them and complained.

John Terry to face criminal charges over alleged racist abuse

Yet apparently, calling for the torture of homosexuals or the death of those who insult Muhammad appears to not be a hate crime?

Was it the Public Order Act he was charged under? I believe it was actually under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.. Never the less, the point you are making is the Police were obliged to investigate as someone made a complaint..

As a side note, the Police have to receive a complaint now about any Public Order offence and any "harrassment" or "racist" element, as the High Court told the Met last year that Policepersons cannot be offended on someone elses behalf, that someone has to make the complain themselves. This came about after a court case where someone got section 5'd for swearing in public, but no one else complained and the Police took it upon themselves to be "offended". The judge told them to expect to be offended, it's part of the job.

Now, this brings me onto my point, which is have YOU made a complaint about these preachers on their Radio/TV shows (or anyone else for that matter).. If a complaint is made, they have to investigate it. It's no good bleating about only White folk being charged with these offences when no-one has actually made a criminal complaint againt thse Asian folk.

Don't get me wrong, I find their behaviour totally at odds with our society, but they play by the rules and kick up a stink if we give them grief (by making those complaints), why not do it back instead of complaining on an internet forum?

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by RizeorDie
The Abbasids held the Quran in one hand and the sword in the other hand, then they begun imprisoning and poisoning the grandchildren of the prophet Mohammed

A sword in one hand the Koran in the other?

That sounds like Muhammad to me. He did fight 8 major battles conquering the Arabian peninsula.

HistoryNet

Major battles were exactly that.

• At Kheibar in 628 C.E., the Muslim army was 2,000 combatants.
• When Muhammad mounted his assault on Mecca (630 C.E.) he did so with 10,000 men.
• And at the Battle of Hunayn a few months later the army numbered 12,000.

Source: Islamic Imperialism: A History by Karsh, E. (2007)

good job, since you are so good with researching

finish it off and tell us why each and every battle started, was it offensive or defensive? what were the objectives?

and most importantly, is it similar to the Islamic conquests which followed by the so called Caliphs?

regards

Originally posted by RizeorDie

finish it off and tell us why each and every battle started, was it offensive or defensive? what were the objectives?

and most importantly, is it similar to the Islamic conquests which followed by the so called Caliphs?

regards

I can easily answer your first question.

According to Islamic apologists of Muhammad's wars of aggression, he fought defensive battles.

By the time that 10,000 Muslims attacked Mecca in 629, the fiction of defensive war was wearing a little thin.

Conquest of Mecca

Originally posted by stumason
Was it the Public Order Act he was charged under? I believe it was actually under section 28 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.. Never the less, the point you are making is the Police were obliged to investigate as someone made a complaint..

I think you are correct.

Originally posted by stumason
Now, this brings me onto my point, which is have YOU made a complaint about these preachers on their Radio/TV shows (or anyone else for that matter).. If a complaint is made, they have to investigate it. It's no good bleating about only White folk being charged with these offences when no-one has actually made a criminal complaint againt thse Asian folk.

Don't get me wrong, I find their behaviour totally at odds with our society, but they play by the rules and kick up a stink if we give them grief (by making those complaints), why not do it back instead of complaining on an internet forum?

A very good point. I will do so.

reply to post by ollncasino

Why are the police turning a blind eye to such incidents? Previously, in the UK, under the Public Order Act 1986 section 5 • A Christian was charged for calling homosexuality a sin. • Another Christian couple were charged for calling Muhammad a warlord and stating a burqa was oppressive. • Another man was charged for calling scientology a cult.

It's much easier for the police to charge English people because they can do so with impunity (ie they can go back to their families and not have to worry about death threats).

Also there is the consideration of not coming down too heavy on protected minorities lest they get the government, the Confederation of British Industries and the British Chambers of Commerce squawking foul play.

So it's a no-brainer for the police.

Keep shtum.

reply to post by ollncasino


I don't see this as a Muslim / Christian issue. In reality it's not a religious issue at all.

It's a criminal issue.

It's a crime to call for or attempt to incite murder or violence of a physical or mental nature.

It's also a crime to incite religious hatred, to persecute a person or group based on their race, creed or sexual orientation.

If they broadcast these phrases, they are guilty of a number of the above crimes, and ought to be investigated and charged under the letter of the law.

Fines, even hefty fines are not a substitute for justice.

reply to post by ollncasino


Keep us posted on how that goes - to be honest, I'm not expecting massive waves from it, as their is an inherent, institutional blindness when it comes to dealing with minorities being racist/biggotted gits.

But, if you can collate the necessary evidence - video clips or recordings would be best - they'd have a hard time not pressing charges. However, even if you convince the Police, you still have to hope the CPS views any prosecution as "in the Public interest". If you had tried this 3-4 years ago under the Labour Government, I wouldn't hold my breath. You might get a bit more traction now with the Tory Home Secretary sex-bomb in charge....

Originally posted by MysterX

I don't see this as a Muslim / Christian issue. In reality it's not a religious issue at all.

It's a criminal issue.

While you are undoubtedly correct, it is religious bigots who are calling for the torture of gay people and the death of those who either leave Islam or criticize Muhammad.

The really worrying thing is, they are remaining faithful to the canonical Sunni Hadith which make it clear that the penalty for leaving Islam is death and the penalty for being a homosexual is death.

It is also well known that radical Muslims call for the death of those who insult Islam. British Muslims did so as long ago as 1988. When Salman Rushdie wrote about the Satanic Verses, he was accused of of blasphemy and British Muslims marched on the streets demanding his death. I remember it at the time.

Here is a link explaining what the Satanic Verses are about.

Iranian group raises price on Satanic Verse's Author Rushdie's head

I hope that doesn't mean I have criticized Islam or committed blasphemy.

• 68% of British Muslims polled believe that people who insult Islam should be arrested and prosecuted.
• 62% believe that freedom of speech should not be allowed if it insults Islam.


CBS News

As a group, British Muslims are not a terribly tolerant bunch.

That isn't good.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
3. The prophet Muhammad had never put anyone to death for criticising him during his lifetime,

Aṣmāʼ bint Marwān (Arabic: عصماء بنت مروان‎ "'Asmā' the daughter of Marwān") comes to mind ...
Muhammads Dead Poets Society

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
3. The prophet Muhammad had never put anyone to death for criticising him during his lifetime,

Aṣmāʼ bint Marwān (Arabic: عصماء بنت مروان‎ "'Asmā' the daughter of Marwān") comes to mind ...
Muhammads Dead Poets Society

Are Muslims really so ignorant of their own religious writings that they aren't aware of the violence that Muhammad committed establishing Islam?

I have been told by a Muslim that Muslims are indeed aware of how violent Muhammad was. It is a puzzle then why I come across Muslims on the Internet that would have us believe otherwise.

reply to post by ollncasino

Yet apparently, calling for the torture of homosexuals or the death of those who insult Muhammad appears to not be a hate crime?

Dont worry dont worry, as long as you are not Christian......it can still be called a religion of peace.....and no one will mind much.....

reply to post by ollncasino

• A Christian was charged for calling homosexuality a sin.
• Another Christian couple were charged for calling Muhammad a warlord and stating a burqa was oppressive.
• Another man was charged for calling scientology a cult.

???? On TV as the host or as a citizen, on or off the television voicing opinion because thats free speech. Also,Burka's are a crime against humanity and the only statement there I disagree with is the homosexuality one. I won't judge that as I believe its a physical condition, and in some cases, systematic child abuse. The part about Mohammad, that would depend on who he really is, and if he really existed as currently believed. If he's Peter, then no, its all created by the Church to get rid of the Nazarene Christians as opposed to Rome that lived in the Middle East and for the invasion plans on Jersualem. Alot of history could very well be a manipulation, and I've read other things regarding all of that.

Not sure if the Muslims have been watching the scoreboard.....but countries with gays in them have been killing MILLIONS of muslims and taking over their countries.

Check the score card Muslims. Gays are exterminating you.

reply to post by FlyersFan


If you had read and cross reference prophet Muhammad's life, unlike some here who claimed to have read the Koran but yet fail to COMPREHEND the teachings, you would have realized the context and the situations that prophet Muhammad had faced all his life.

It is no easy task to convert barbaric nomadic people such as pre-Islam tribes Arabia was. It is not even easy to talk about Islam here with so many anti muslim bigots here alone!!!

He even doubted himself when he was given the first revelation, but thanks to his wife, friends and uncle who supported him, he started preaching civilisation to the barbaric pagans. He was spat at, ridicule and even humiliated, but he never fought back. Even his daughters were divorced and sent back to him by the pagans, but he never fought back, until he was forcefully ejected out of Medina and some of his followers slaughtered.

He fled to the desert lands and life was very much unsustainable for the tribes there who accepted him as an educated 'arbitor', who rose in respect by all to command and lead them. Robbing caravens was a way of life back then, the way present day bankers rob depositors. It was no crime.

Very much was told of his conquest upon Medina with thousands of troops, but the truth was that in the end, Medina opened its gates to the prophet, and no blood was side by both sides. He had an army, but he disarmed them all, and walk in unarmed into Medina to conduct the annual pilgrimage there, which impressed the frightened Medinates with such peaceful overtures, that they welcome him and converted to Islam.

As the leader of the most richest and most populous area in Arabia, he consolidated the tribes unity under Islam, and as any leader, more so one trying to convert barbaric pagans into peaceful civilisations, those who sought to undermine the teachings during this crucial stage had to be dealt with, and many were, just as any king would have done back then during ancient days.

Thus, understand the Koran under the context and situations of that time, and it will lent a greater perspective to understanding Islam.

ATS is to deny ignorances, and never meant to perpetrate falsehoods or anti-muslim rants here. The more we honestly share and discuss, the more we will learn openly amongst us all, and dispel the divisions that others want us all be caught up in - to hate and kill one another.

reply to post by RizeorDie

Like I said kiddo, Iran will not harm anyone leaving Islam as long as they keep it to themselves but if you start inviting others to join you thats when you'll get executed.

So it is a murderous fascist cult, then.



To the topic, islamic extremism in the UK is widespread, there is good evidence for it. For example around a third British muslims want to kill apostates, and around two thirds want to make homosexuality illegal.

Source (page 47)

Islam is comparable to nazism, maybe even worse. Just substitute Jews with homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers or apostates. Its just political correctness or ignorance about the subject matter that tries to pretend otherwise.

reply to post by Maslo


Well, it just occurred to me.

Why is the spread of this filth allowed in ever so pompous Great Britain?

It will allow the pedophiles who run things to have their way with little 8 year old girls.

This is why the U.K needs to pull out of the E.U so we don't have to put if with these idiotic European human rights laws which stops us from sending failed terrorists that tried to kill us back to where they came from encase they are executed for failing, I wish England could be ruled solely by a king or queen again prince William or harry who both fight these scum bags in the middle east would know exactly how to deal with them and i would back it 100%.ever since a government took over power we lost our empire got colonized our self's and now are reduced to a tiny little broke island Run by idiots like Cameron who tried a Cornish pasty for he first time and decided to put taxes on it.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Robbing caravens was a way of life back then, the way present day bankers rob depositors. It was no crime.

The owners of the Caravans robbed and the guards Muhammad killed may disagree with your Islamic spin of robbing Caravans.

All together it would appear that Muhammad took part in 11 caravan raids.

Caravan Raids

Perhaps the most notorious took place in 624. Muslims under Muhammad's command ambush a caravan at Nakhla. One guard was killed and two captured. The raid occurred during holy month of Rajab during which bloodshed was forbidden according to pagan Arab beliefs. A wave of indignation struck Medina against Muhammad and his men.

Nakhla raid

Luckily, a revelation came down from Allah, through Muhammad, exempting Muhammad and his men from any wrong doing.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Very much was told of his conquest upon Medina with thousands of troops, but the truth was that in the end, Medina opened its gates to the prophet, and no blood was side by both sides.

Muhammad advanced against Mecca in three columns. Only one column experienced resistance from the Quresh. The rest of Mecca decided that capitulating to Muhammad's army of 10,000 men was a wiser option.

Conquest of Mecca

reply to post by MX44K


Whilst I find the patriotic thrust of your post encouraging (despite bordering on being a little "racist"), I might just point out that when we last had an absolute Monarch, we actually had no Empire at all aside from a few North American colonies. It was Parliament that was in control by the 18th Century, long before the British Empire we know and love today was born.

Just remember, that while our current Princes (and Queen) might be alright, there is no guarantee that their progeny will be, so we might well end up with a despot with total power, rather a bunch of idiots we can get rid of if the need should arise...