Stephen Fry's latest video - a challenge to homophobes of every hue

In his latest video, released today as part of the excellent Proud2Be Project , Stephen Fry's gentle style belies an iron-hard determination to rid the world of homophobia.
How can Muslims seriously believe this good man is going to Hell?
With apologies to NTNON: "Allah's just like that, He hates gays..."

Taliban: "Give us your money, Muslims!"

The Taliban have launched an ambitious appeal to the umma (the world-wide Muslim community) for money to fund their "holy war" against the Western invaders.
"In the light of Islamic sharia, all Muslims everywhere are duty-bound to join the Jihad with money and soul," the militant group said.
The Taliban "are still waging legitimate Jihad single-handedly with mere help from common sincere Islam-loving masses and is in dire need of financial assistance from the Muslim brothers worldwide for its military and non-military expenditures," it added.
This got me wondering about British Muslims' view of the war in Afghanistan. Do they, like my Muslim friend and the poor deluded loon Yvonne Ridley, regard the Taliban as basically misunderstood and misrepresented good guys, fighting for the right to establish a pure Islamic state  (whilst at the same time acting as charity workers)? 
Here's how my Muslim friend interpreted the Taliban's abduction of Ridley and their blowing up of the Buddhas.

So who are the Taliban? Who is supporting them? Are they being manipulated?I met Yvonne Ridley some years ago, the intrepid Daily Express reporter who was captured by the Taliban. Yvonne's story is worth telling in detail, but the substance is that American agents encouraged the Taliban to murder her in order to make black propaganda for war. The Taliban warned her of this plot, and transported her under armed guard to the Pakistani border. A shortwhile before this, a UNESCO team had visited Khandahar with an offer of aid for restoration of the Bamiyan statues. In a country were several thousand children were dying every month from hunger and disease, the Taliban insisted that the money be used instead for food and medicine. When theUNESCO team refused, the Taliban decided to blow up the statues after many months of dithering on the issue. And so our televisions carried not the news of Yvonne Ridley's killing, but the sight of ancient Buddhist monuments being blown up.

So according to one Muslim at least, the Taliban were misrepresented by the (no doubt Zionist led) Western media. Their destruction of a UNESCO World Heritage Site, which we in the West had been led to believe was done because the statues were "un-Islamic" were in fact destroyed because UNESCO refused to give money to starving children. Cuh- who'd have thought it, eh?


How far is this view of the Taliban as shaggy naive softies, cruelly manipulated by cynical western super-powers shared by the Muslim community, I wonder. To help answer this, I've asked the Muslim blogger, London Muslim, if he'd consider doing a post. I'll let you know his response (if any))


In the meantime, let's examine the Taliban.

Human Rights abuses. (click on the [] for links to references)

According to a 55-page report by the United Nations, the Taliban, while trying to consolidate control over northern and western Afghanistan, committed systematic massacres against civilians.^[] UN officials stated that there had been "15 massacres" between 1996 and 2001.^[] They also said, that "[t]hese have been highly systematic and they all lead back to the [Taliban] Ministry of Defense or to Mullah Omar himself."^[] "These are the same type of war crimes as were committed in Bosnia and should be prosecuted in international courts", one UN official was quoted as saying.^[] The documents also reveal the role of Arab and Pakistani support troops in these killings. Bin Laden's so-called 055 Brigade was responsible for mass-killings of Afghan civilians.^[] The report by the United Nations quotes "eyewitnesses in many villages describing Arab fighters carrying long knives used for slitting throats and skinning people".^[] The Taliban's former ambassador to Pakistan, Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, in late 2011 stated that cruel behaviour under and by the Taliban had been "necessary".^[]

In 1998, the United Nations accused the Taliban of denying emergency food by the UN's World Food Programme to 160,000 hungry and starving people "for political and military reasons".^[] The UN said the Taliban were starving people for their military agenda and using humanitarian assistance as a weapon of war. Remember, these are the same Taliban who, according to my Muslim friend, destroyed the Buddhas only so as to convince the UN to give money to starving children

On August 8, 1998 the Taliban launched an attack on Mazar-i Sharif. Of 1500 defenders only 100 survived the engagement. Once in control the Taliban began to kill people indiscriminately. At first shooting people in the street, they soon began to target Hazaras. Women were raped, and thousands of people were locked in containers and left to suffocate. This ethnic cleansing left an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 dead.^[][] At this time ten Iranian diplomats and a journalist were killed. Iran assumed the Taliban had murdered them, and mobilized its army, deploying men along the border with Afghanistan. By the middle of September there were 250,000 Iranian personal stationed on the border. Pakistan mediated and the bodies were returned to Tehran towards the end of the month. The killings of the Diplomats had been carried out by Sipah-e-Sahaba a Pakistani Sunni group with close ties to the ISI.^[][] They burned orchards, crops and destroyed irrigation systems. And forced more than 100,000 people from their homes with hundreds of men, women and children still unaccounted for.^[]


History

The name comes from the Pashto word meaning student. This is significant since the Taliban has its origins in a clearly recognisable ethnic group - the Pashtun tribes. 
The Islamic State of Afghanistan was created in April 1992, after the fall of the Soviet-backed Najibullah government when several Afghan political parties agreed on a peace and power-sharing agreement called the Peshawar Accords.
One party however, Hekmatyar's Hezb-e Islami, refused to recognize the Accords and the resulting government and , according to a Human Rights Watch report, "launched attacks against government forces and Kabul generally. ... Shells and rockets fell everywhere". Gulbuddin Hekmatyar received operational, financial and military support from Pakistan whilst Iran and Saudi Arabia supported opposing militias. Soon a full scale war erupted.
In the midst of this chaos, in 1991, the Taliban (a movement originating from Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-run religious schools for Afghan refugees in Pakistan) developed in Afghanistan as a politico-religious force. In the beginning the Taliban were a small band of a few hundred - badly equipped and low on munitions. Within months however 15,000 students arrived from the madrassas in Pakistan.  In the course of 1994, the Taliban took control of 12 of 34 provinces not under central government control. They had become a force to be reckoned with...
In a bid to establish their rule over Afghanistan, the Taliban started shelling the capital in early 1995. In a 1995 report the UN reported:

This is the first time in several months that Kabul civilians have become the targets of rocket attacks and shelling aimed at residential areas in the city.

The Taliban's early victories in 1994 were followed by a series of defeats that resulted in heavy losses which led analysts to believe that the Taliban movement as such might have run its course. But Pakistan and Saudi started to offer their support, regarding the Taliban as useful agents in the area. In fact the Taliban were largely founded by Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) According to Pakistani Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid, "between 1994 and 1999, an estimated 80,000 to 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought in Afghanistan" on the side of the Taliban.
With the huge military support of Pakistan and the financial support of Saudi, the Taliban entered Kabul on September 27, 1996, and established the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan. But this was not an end to the fighting. 
In 2001 alone, according to several international sources, 28,000-30,000 Pakistani nationals, 14,000-15,000 Afghan Taliban and 2,000-3,000 Al Qaeda militants were fighting against anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan as a roughly 45,000 strong military force.
Of all the leaders trying to resist the Taliban, Ahmad Shah Massoud emerged as the one with enough support and international credibility to pose a threat. In fact he remained the only major anti-Taliban leader inside Afghanistan who was able to defend vast parts of his territory against the Taliban.
In the areas under his control Massoud set up democratic institutions and signed the Women's Rights Declaration. In the area of Massoud, women and girls did not have to wear the Afghan burqa. They were allowed to work and to go to school. In at least two known instances, Massoud personally intervened against cases of forced marriage.
In early 2001, Ahmad Shah Massoud addressed the European Parliament in Brussels asking the international community to provide humanitarian help to the people of Afghanistan.
He stated that the Taliban and Al Qaeda had introduced "a very wrong perception of Islam" and that without the support of Pakistan and Bin Laden the Taliban would not be able to sustain their military campaign for up to a year. On this visit to Europe he also warned that his intelligence had gathered information about a large-scale attack on U.S. soil being imminent. The president of the European Parliament, Nicole Fontaine, called him the "pole of liberty in Afghanistan"
On September 9 2011 Massoud was assassinated  by suicide bombers.


Now, please correct me if I'm being naive - but weren't the international community (rightly) criticised for not intervening quickly enough in the Balkans when thousands of Muslims were being massacred? 
The US is spending billions in Afghanistan trying to establish a stable government. It could cut and run but it hasn't. Could some guardianistas please explain?

Western Converts to Islam - Abdal Hakim Murad "explains"...

In an article in today's Times newspaper, Muslim convert and lecturer in Islamic studies, Abdal Hakim Murad (previously known as Tim Winter, older brother of Henry, the football writer) attempts to explain the growing number of conversions to Islam in Britain (100,000 in the past decade compared to 60,000 in the 90s according to Winter). (Actually, 75% of new converts to Islam leave the faith within five years. But that's another story...)

Using the doubtless heroic and selfless British aid worker and Muslim convert Khalil Dale (who was found beheaded in Pakistan this weekend...by Islamists) as a "living challenge to standard Islamophobic sentiment", Murad asks us to question our prejudices about Islam and to consider why so many people are converting.

Apparently he is  at a loss to explain, other than to suggest many "spiritual wanderers" find Christianity "too complex" because they are "bewildered by the concept of the Trinity". As disingenuous bollocks goes that surely takes the biscuit. They're only bewildered, matey-boy, because Muslim clerics delight in "explaining" to these "wanderers" the impossibility of God having a son, whilst the Qur'an bizarrely interprets the Trinity as God, Jesus and Mary.

"When asked who converts to Islam and why, I usually have no answer"


But back to the main issue. We have to ask ourselves this question: Is a high profile British convert to Islam, one who writes copiously on the issue of conversion, really unaware of the world-wide efforts of dawah sites such as iERA to con people into believing there are scientific proofs in the Qur'an?

All he needs do is ask ANY BRITISH OR AMERICAN convert (such as poor old "Yusuf Islam" aka hairy rock star Cat Stevens. I'd wager my house that 90% of them would at some stage mention embryology, mountains as pegs, the big bang theory or one of the many other so-called miracles that the bucailleists trot out. That's why, Abdul. Because of the bare-faced lies promulgated  by people like Yusuf Estes and spread in such emetic publications as The Man in the Red Underpants.

If you want us to accept Islam as a part of British culture and even as a "reconnection with aspects of Britishness that have been lost to globalisation" (whatever that may mean) then as a representative of British Islam you should be more honest in your analysis.

London Muslim's trouble with racists...

The Islamic blog, London Muslim, has been host for a while now to a vitriolic anti-Semitic racist commenter who calls himself Mr Black. Those of us poor atheists who value people’s rights and freedoms above the dictates of some ancient, violent, racist, misogynistic, homophobic, mythological construct of desert dwelling tribes, find the whole my God is better than your God thing a complete mystery – but even by religion’s standards the Islamic obsession with Jews is beyond the pale. I have posted elsewhere on how Islam is inherently antisemitic and seems to foster in many of its adherents a searing hatred of Jews, Judaism and thus modern-day Israel. This racist bigotry is, of course, all but ignored by an establishment hell-bent on pandering to an ever-growing Muslim electorate/market. 

London Muslim's obsession with the "Israelites" is a case in point. His readers all know that by "Israelites" he means Jews. But by using the term he can pretend he is making a political point as opposed to inciting distrust and hatred in the age-old fashion of all antisemites. LM is careful (usually) to avoid blatant references to Jews but he reads, approves (posts must be approved by LM before being published) and allows to be posted such virulent, hate-filled comments as would have warmed the hearts of the Eichmann et al.  Here are some choice comments by Mr Black which apparently London Muslim approved for publication: 

Any wonder why jews have a history of getting kicked out of one nation after another. "Monotheistic" religion my ass. Judasim is more like a criminal cult masquerading as a religion hellbent on drowning the world in economic, political and military slavery.Hypocritical lying murderous parasites the lot of them.
NEVER trust a white beast, EVER. Lock and load!
Zionism is incompatible with humanity which is why it and it's (sic) practitioners must be exterminated. Zionist kikes deserve nothing less.

There's plenty more of the same but you get the gist.

Not once has LM seen fit to distance himself from these comments. 


Update: Even LM's Muslim readers are expressing concern over the vile antisemitism expressed in the comments section: 

JasmineApr 28, 2012 05:10 AM @LM - LM, I'm going to file a complaint here. Please take some steps to restrict Mr Black and disallow the spouting of such vicious hatred and baiting. I am not happy for this kind of character to speak on behalf on "the muslims" . I am a Muslim and I find his conduct disgusting: I do not wish to be associated and I am unhappy that his voice & views are dominating this webspace and taking away the attention from valid points that you are raising and turning this all into some kind of mud-slinging, rage-enhancing, argument. The man is openly antagonistic, racist and is even using swearwords. As your blog is now drawing the attention of the press and you are being featured in news articles etc - I think the one thing you really don't need for your profile is any sign that you are happy to tolerate this kind of speech on your blog.

How does Lm respond to the concerns of his readers? By appealing to their liberal consciences and quoting Voltaire...

LMApr 28, 2012 11:56 AM Voltaire I think it was who said I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it. The moment you start to censor you end up on a slippery slope. Either you believe in freedom of speech or you don't which is why I have allowed disgusting hate filled comments about Muslims and Islam not because I agree with them but because it is a perfect illustration of the extremism that exists among all people of faith or no faith and all skin colours. Criminality and incitement of course is the one caveat where this blog will aim to draw the line which has happened on a number of occassion's including reluctantly closing down threads.

hmm....

Mohammad foretold in the Bible...again. Is Jesse really Ishmael?

Ishmael and Haggar                            Jesse, father of King David


As I have explained in previous posts, Muslims believe that Mohammad is prophesied in the Bible because the Qur'an tells them so. This has led to all sorts of imaginative interpretations of various verses in an attempt to find that elusive prophesy.
Recently my Muslim friend directed me to a verse in Isiah (11 1-2): And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a twig shall grow forth out of his roots. And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD.
Jesse, he and they say, actually refers to Ishmael (the father of the Arabs and thus an ancestor of Muhammad). Many Muslim sites repeat this, including Islamawareness. How they arrive at this conclusion is interesting, to say the least.... 

 To understand this prophesy we need to study the verses carefully. These verses tell us that the rod (branch) which shall grow out of the stem (trunk) of "Jesse" shall be filled by God with wisdom, understanding, council, might, knowledge, and the fear of God. In other words, he shall be a statesman, a prophet and a judge. The obvious question that springs to mind is: Who was "Jesse"? In the Encyclopedia Biblica we read that Jesse is a contraction of Ishmael, or: "Jesse, for Ishmael… The changes which proper names undergo in the mouths of small children account for a large number of these particular abbreviations - who could guess, to take modern examples, that Bob and Dick arose out of Robert and Richard? … such forms as in ai were particularly common in later times … and many more in the Talmud, which also exhibits various other kinds of abbreviation"

Encyclopaedia Biblica, Rev. T. K. Cheyne D.Litt D.D., J. Sutherland Black M.A. LL.D., Vol. 3, under "Names," p. 3292, item 52 The implication that a descendant of Ishmael would be a major prophet is unacceptable to those Christians who oppose Islam, since the only person to fulfil this description is the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. This may explain why Bible scholars assert that the text is referring here to the father of King David (Matthew 1:6). But how likely is it, when describing the pedigree of a man, that reference should be made to an almost unknown person in his family tree (Jesse the father of King David) in preference to a man whose fame has spread across the nations of the earth (Ishmael, the son of Abraham)? It is much more likely that the Jesse of Isaiah 11:10 is Ishmael the son of Abraham, the father of the Arabs, the ancestor of prophet Muhammad.

Firstly, just as a matter of passing interest (to me) but given Muslims' feelings towards the  Bahá'í Faith  perhaps more relevant to them, it  should be noted that Cheyne converted to the Bahá'íst Faith towards the end of his life. It is not surprising therefore to find some of his interpretations supporting Mohammad as a prophet foretold in the Bible (and his wish to belittle the importance of the line of David, since Baha'ists consider David a minor prophet). I certainly admit the Enc Bib is authoritative, but Cheyne's theories regarding names has been thoroughly discredited as far as I can make out. 

"The ingenuity of Cheyne's method may be admitted; but the thesis must be rejected as altogether arbitrary. That it has received serious attention is owing solely to the great service rendered by its sponsor in other departments of Old Testament research.

Cheyne frequently mentions this theory in his Encyclopaedia articles, often appending his view to articles written by people with more mainstream interpretations. He does, however, detail the alternative (and therefore mainstream) views, while doing so. Hence the articles are respected, as long as Cheyne's theory about these names is ignored."

In any case, the Muslim determination to see the shoot of root of Jesse as reference to Mohammad completely fails, as I have pointed out before regarding Deuteronomy, to take into account the context of the rest of Isaiah 11.10. This chapter and the following one are obviously referring to a future glorious end-time when peace rules the Earth and the Jews' political torment is finished (seen any lions eating straw or children playing with snakes recently? do you think knowledge and wisdom cover the Earth since the arrival of Mohammad? and what about the Lord recovering His people from Egypt? or "assembling the dispersed of Israel"?) Still not convinced? Let's look at the next chapter, which as you know is simply a continuation as to what is going to happen when the shoot out of the root of Jesse makes his appearance: 4 And in that day shall ye say: 'Give thanks unto the LORD, proclaim His name, declare His doings among the peoples, make mention that His name is exalted.5 Sing unto the LORD; for He hath done gloriously; this is made known in all the earth.6 Cry aloud and shout, thou inhabitant of Zion, for great is the Holy One of Israel in the midst of thee.' Sure, take one verse completely out of context if you wish, ignore the obvious references to the Jewish people, retro-fit names and nick-names - but please don't expect anyone else to swallow it all. Finally do they really consider the father of the most important king Israel ever had, to be "almost unknown"? Given the obsession with genealogy***  in the Bible do Muslims really think that fair comment? (Note also the irony of your expecting people to accept the genealogical link between Mary and Aaron despite the thousands of years between them, whilst discounting the relationship between a father and son as unimportant!)

To summarise then: we have the Judeo-Christian Biblical tradition established for millennia which maintains that a direct descendant of King David will be the Messiah. We have Jesse whom no one can dispute is the father of King David.  And we have a verse which states a great prophet will be "a shoot out of the root of Jesse". The verses referring to the root of Jesse also include numerous references to Israel and the Jewish nation. And Muslims maintain this verse, by a strange contraction of the name (why use such a bizarre contraction in a prophesy anyway?) using a discredited method of a follower of the Bahá'í Faith from a century ago, refers to Mohammad. 
How can people believe this utter nonsense?

******According to Genesis 46:12 and Ruth 4:18–22, David is the eleventh generation from Judah, the fourth son of the patriarch Jacob (Israel). The genealogical line runs as follows: (1) Judah → (2) Pharez → (3) Hezron → (4) Ram → (5) Amminadab → (6) Nahshon → (7) Salmon → (8) Boaz (the husband of Ruth) → (9) Obed → (10) Jesse → (11) David

Bradford Spring T shirt - now available!

SPECIAL OFFER! £3 OFF FOR FIRST 48 HOURS JUST £12.99, usual price £15.99
29.03.2012 was a sensational moment in British political history. George Galloway has dubbed his victory in Bradford West the Bradford Spring. There's never been anything quite like it, a party from the Left, outside the Westminster mainstream, turning a safe Labour Seat into a 10,000 majority against war and cuts, for a progressive alternative. Wear 'Bradford Spring' on your chest wherever you are and share in the joy of, for once, the neo-liberal consensus being shattered.
AND even better, for every shirt sold we will give one FREE to the army of young helpers, many unemployed, who helped secure the success in Bradford West. A small help toward ensuring the 'Bradford Spring' becomes a change for all seasons.


"Share in George's joy!" - wear a "Bradford Spring" T  ...and show your tenuous grasp of political reality. PhilosophyFootball.com, the company that likes to say yes to any half-baked political notion as long as it fits in with their idea of what trendy lefties should be supporting and earns them some dosh, has just released perhaps the most jaw-dropping piece of band-wagon merchandising since Galloway was last on the phone to them.

Just to help you get a more sensible view of philosophy... and football... here's some Python.

Galloway DID target the Muslim vote - here's the proof!

I've been accused over at London Muslim blog of lying when I said the Galloway targeted the Muslim vote.
Apparently he never said anything about being a Muslim or not drinking.
Just for the record then...