Coffee House

Is it Islamophobic to record ‘Christianophobic’ hate crimes?

5 February 2016

6:03 PM

5 February 2016

6:03 PM

A freedom-of-information request by Sikhs has turned up some curious statistics from the Metropolitan Police. They show that of the more than 400 ‘Islamophobic hate crimes’ recorded in the first half of last year, 28 per cent were not attacks on Muslims at all. They were either attacks on people thought to be Muslims (often Sikhs) or attacks classified as Islamophobic because of the absurd criteria (invented by the Macpherson Report on the death of Stephen Lawrence) which define such incidents as ‘any offence which is perceived to be Islamophobic by the victim or any other person’.

Muslim bodies attracting government grants obviously have an interest in there being as many such incidents as possible, so that ‘perception’ tends to extend well beyond reality. If we must have all these phobias, why not Sikhophobia and, indeed, Christianophobia? Collection of these numbers would lead to the arrest of a lot of Muslims, so I suppose it is ruled out as being Islamophobic.

This is an extract from Charles Moore’s Notes. The full article can be read here

More Spectator for less. Stay informed leading up to the EU referendum and in the aftermath. Subscribe and receive 15 issues delivered for just £15, with full web and app access. Join us.




Show comments
  • ohforheavensake

    Erm… nope. No idea what your point is, Charles. If someone gets attacked because he or she is wrongly identified as a Muslim, then that counts.

    & as to Christianophobic attacks: you haven’t been to the West of Scotland recently, have you? We’re still doing sectarian violence in and around Glasgow- and that counts as Christianophobic (at least for those people who still think that the Pope’s the antiChrist).

  • Jaria1

    We are responsible and will deal with our people that are guilty of religious hate. Muslims are not our responsibility and should be returned to their ancestral homes rather than cause problems here. Something no jail will prevent them from doing.

    • ohforheavensake

      Muslims are us, too.

      • Jaria1

        A Muslim aims to run the country and expect the inhabitants to abide by Sharia laws , usually overseen by the grand Ayatollah .
        The U.K. Is a democracy where people have freedoms not allowed under a Muslim theocracy , so I don’t accept them as us until they accept our form of democracy which their religon doesn’t recognise.
        They are here because of freedoms and tolerance , compare that with their treatment of Christians who have lived for centuries in the Middle East. The Muslims here are paper UK citizens and their religon which includes their politics is centred from their ancestral homes.

  • Hippograd

    Tut tut. And Tell Mama, the premier Islamophobia experts, are advised by the Community Security Trust too.

    Muslim bodies attracting government grants obviously have an interest in there being as many such incidents as possible, so that ‘perception’ tends to extend well beyond reality.

    But this does not apply to anti-Semitism. Never ever ever.

    If we must have all these phobias, why not Sikhophobia and, indeed, Christianophobia?

    I don’t think the Community Security Trust would be in favour of Christianophobia. And that’s the important thing.

  • roccolore

    “Islamophobia” is a term Muslims use to criminalize dissent.

    • ohforheavensake

      No- it’s a term they use when someone beats them up for practicing their religion.

      • roccolore

        Muslims in Europe are assaulting women, then cry “Islamophobia” when outraged citizens want the beatings to stop. They did the same thing after the Paris attacks.

  • rationalobservations?

    Is it ‘Christianophobic’ to record christianity’s hate crimes?

    • http://www.workinprogress.com Nicetime

      No but it probably is to try a diversion like that in the context of the behaviour of ‘some’ Muslims in the Middle East and Europe too. Very little inter-communal behaviour like that on the past of Christians, at least European Christians, in recent years. You can dance around it all you want, there is a fundamental (pun intended) problem with islam, and the more exposure we have to Muslims, the more obvious it is

      • rationalobservations?

        Yes, we appear to be in broad agreement, Nicetime., but (and you can dance around it all you want) there is a fundamental (pun intended) problem with christianity, and the more exposure we have to the corrupt and obscenely wealthy modern institutions and barbaric, blood soaked history of christianity, the more obvious it is.

        The close similarity between the actions of historic christianity and modern Islam only reinforces the reasons that an ever more rapid movement is taking place away from religion and toward peaceful, charitable, law abiding secular democracy all across Europe, the USA and other educated and developed regions of the world.

        • http://www.workinprogress.com Nicetime

          So your argument with Christianity is how it was implemented in subsistence societies centuries ago? It surprises me that you would see Christianity as underlying the brutality of those times. I would agree with your thesis to extent that I think the problem is with the pre theistic cultures, but then the respective merits of the relevant religions to exacerbate or ameliorate the worst traits need to be examined, wouldn’t you say? I’m reading an excellent history of the Arabs by David Pryce-Jones called ‘The Closed Circle’, which I would recommend to you unless you are striving towards a Guardianesque closing of the mind on this topic

          • rationalobservations?

            “So your argument with Christianity is how it was implemented in subsistence societies centuries ago?”
            No. It isn’t. That’s your “straw man”.

            “…. unless you are striving towards a Guardianesque closing of the mind on this topic”
            And that appears to be your failed attempt at ad hominem?

            I am intrigued to know what “pre theistic cultures” you allude to and what you know about them that your consider to be a problem that is not similar to, and also demonstrated by; judeo-christianity and islam?

            • http://www.workinprogress.com Nicetime

              By ‘ pre theistic cultures’ I meant those that predated the conversion to Christianity/Islam. Sorry but I have no I interest in debating with you further. From your response I don’t think we could possibly have a meaningful dialogue. If you want to take that as a victory, I hope it brings you joy

              • rationalobservations?

                We have some 6000 years of recorded theistic cultures with very few that did not have some imaginary gods dreamed up by men from which those men gained power and authority over the populations they dominated. There have also been almost endless “god-men” and quite a few “messiahs” before the legends of “Jesus” were first written and subsequently endlessly embellished and exaggerated for centuries after.

                I always hope for an interesting and informed/informing discussion. If you feel unable to participate in that – it is of little consequence to me. The only “victory” is the exchange of knowledge and opinion within an interesting and respectful dialogue.

                Best wishes and kind regards to you and yours, my friend.

                • JabbaPapa

                  I always hope for an interesting and informed/informing discussion

                  Then you’d best stop “contributing”, ratty.

                • rationalobservations?

                  It is a duty of the educated and the informed to educate and inform. If you reject all education and information., and have nothing logic or evidence based to contribute – that’s your problem.

                  Next..

                • JabbaPapa

                  It is a duty of the educated and the informed to educate and inform

                  Such activity then has nothing to do with yourself, ratty.

                • rationalobservations?

                  Your opinion is in the minority and applies to those to whom knowledge, education and information appears to be anathema.

                  I am happy to leave those for whom ignorance is bliss to their delight and guess you must be extremely happy, my friend.

                  Sincere sympathy and best wishes to you and yours, buddy.

                • JabbaPapa

                  ah, you’re an American.

                  Unsurprising I suppose, given the sheer, crass dogmatism of your every “contribution”.

                  You continue not to be worth talking to, given your blinkered and ignorant ideology, based on stupidity and arrogance.

                • rationalobservations?

                  It’s not unexpected that you are wrong in this presumption as you are wrong in most of your presumptions, pal.

                  I am British born and bred.

                  You continue not to be worth interacting with, given your proclivity for assumption and presumption and blinkered and ignorant ideology, based only upon stupidity and arrogance.

                  Any chance you are capable of presenting a coherent point based upon logic and evidence? Your continued wild guesswork and childish petulance is amusing – but irrelevant.

                • JabbaPapa

                  You continue not to be worth interacting with

                  Shut up then, and act upon at **least** ONE moral principle..

                • rationalobservations?

                  Why do you bother to continue with your vacuous nonsense?

                • JabbaPapa

                  You continue not to be worth interacting with

                  So you’re a liar as well as a twit ?

                • rationalobservations?

                  You appear to be a moron as well as utterly ignorant.

                • JabbaPapa

                  Given that you routinely confuse your blinkered tunnel-vision monomaniacal obsessions with “rationality”, not living up to the “intellectual” “principles” that you “aspire” to is a worthy pursuit.

                • rationalobservations?

                  You appear to have nothing but failed infantile insults to offer, Jab.

                  Here’s a chance to enter into discussion and abandon your apparent furious hysteria.

                  What do you believe and why do you believe it?

  • DaviddeAngelis

    Islamophobia “A word created by fascists, used by cowards to manipulate morons.” Christopher Hitchens

  • Liberanos

    I once commented on these columns that the definition if islamophobia was the act of embarrassing muslims by quoting accurately from the koran. It was removed.

    • Hybird

      Doing that got me banned from the Guardian. They didn’t like to be reminded that Sura 5:33 sanctions crucifixion and lopping off hands and feet.

      • http://www.workinprogress.com Nicetime

        The Guardian wants to classify arguments against the premise behind the concept of ‘Islamophobia’ (as well as ‘transphobia’, ‘feminism’ and ‘racism’) as hate speech.

  • Hybird

    It’s actually “Islamophobic” to quote what the Koran says and what Islam’s appalling “prophet” got up to. We are supposed to keep that quiet as it would upset Muslims and disrupt “community cohesion.” In fact – exactly the same reasons for not talking about the Muslim grooming-rape epidemic.

  • Dominic Stockford

    If there were to be such a list I think I could get past half of the total the muslims claim on my own…

  • JJD

    “Islamophobic” falls under the broader heading of discrimination based on religion. So theoretically at least, all possible religious “phobias” are included as aggravating factors. There’s a conspicuous gap, however, between theory and practice, or so it seems at least.

    But yes, I don’t know why we still have the supremely, almost comically absurd Macpherson definition of discrimination in place.

  • James Chilton

    The suffix ‘phobia’ has become an ideological trap. Once you’re in it, there’s supposed to be no way out.

    Since a ‘phobia’ is an irrational fear, ‘Islamophobia’ suggests a psychological disorder which requires ‘treatment’.

  • outlawState

    The use of “phobia” is intended to define something as part of the government value system. There can never be anything called Christianophobia because Christian values are not part of the government value system.

  • evad666

    Muslim abusers of under age white and sikh children have notched up a total of 5179 victims to date with relative impunity, at least two MPs have ignored this epidemic when it has been drawn to their attention.
    Now why is that?

    • Hybird

      Rotherham’s MP reckons the final figure nationwide will be in the region of a million. There just aren’t enough prisons…

      • Jackthesmilingblack

        Letting the wrong people in while keeping the right people, curtesy of the UK immigration service, staffed largely by”foreigners”. Call attention to this and some bearded British thug in a Gestapo style uniform scream “Racist” at you. I know because I

        • EUSSR 4 All!

          Wrong colour of the uniform for a start, Andy Milner, ex-Billingham! Being from a known particularly “thick” part of the North of England notwithstanding, are you really THAT mentally-ill that you always end up getting caught making up tall tales?!

  • Guilttripjunkie

    As a white middle aged man I am concerned about the increasing levels of Anglophobia in our society. Politicians like Dianne Abbot and a string of unfunny comedians and ‘celebs’, regularly make disparaging comments about white working class people. In fact the whole Multi Kuliti ideology is racist as it states all white communities are flawed and undesirable. As such they must be enriched with culturally incompatible people, many of whom loath their hosts.

  • evad666

    Are the authorities keeping a running total now at 5179 of the number of victims of Muslim Criminality across the 41 English towns and Cities currently affected?

  • Harryagain

    “A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed.”
    [Wikipedia]

    Well Islamophobia is hardly “disproportionate to the actual danger posed”. Well only if it’s some one who never watches TV/reads newspaper/internet.

    Islamophobia is a perfectly normal reaction to a cult that advocates slavery, rape, paedophilia, murder, robbery and exotic forms of execution.
    Read about it here.
    http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

    • jeremy Morfey

      By the Wikipdedia definition and according to your last paragraph, this is not Islamophobia, since it is not an irrational or disproportionate fear.

      I once had a girlfriend – she was a schoolteacher and pedantically law-abiding, but she was a true Islamophobe. We were trying to get out of a shopping centre in Cagayan de Oro when she spotted a gentleman in a white robe with his head covered going about his business doing no harm to anybody. She gave a squeak in fear like a startled mouse and dived for cover back in the shopping centre, refusing to go out until he had gone away. Now that is a phobia. Mind you, she was scared for me, since there were many cases of foreigners being kidnapped and ransomed by separatist Muslim gangs in Mindanao.

      A phobia, it is dislike or even hatred. My daughter once claimed to be arachnophobic, but a child psychologist once asked her what she would do if she came across a spider. She said she would stamp on it and kill it dead. A phobic would have run away fast, so he concluded that my daughter simply did not like spiders.

      What our sloppy legislators and their sloppy political thinkers mistake for ‘Islamophobia’ can be a generalised guilt-by-association, which is not a phobia but a prejudice. Muslims are themselves quite capable of this.

      • Harryagain

        Clearly your comprehension skills are not great

        “A phobia is a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation the affected person will go to great lengths to avoid, TYPICALLY DISPROPORTIONAL to the actual danger posed.”

        Islamophobia is perfectly justifiable as the danger is real.

        • jeremy Morfey

          So it’s not a phobia then. If the danger is real, then it’s a proportional fear to the danger posed, which seems normal to me.

          Which is why I put ‘Islamophobia’ in inverted commas. I gave an example of true Islamophobia, since this gentleman in Cagayan de Oro was no threat to me, but simply going about his lawful business.

  • JabbaPapa

    80% of all acts of religious hatred, worldwide, are carried out against Christians.

  • Chamber Pot

    No. Next.

  • rob174

    It’s time that it was recognised that the regressives also have their own phobias;
    ‘Infidelophobia ‘ and ‘Kuffarophobia ‘.
    It is high time that these phobias were made to be a criminal offence under antidiscrimination laws in Europe and the UK.

  • jeffersonian

    ‘Collection of these numbers would lead to the arrest of a lot of Muslims, so I suppose it is ruled out as being Islamophobic.’

    This is the thing. The courageous among us raise the topic. The foolhardy persist beyond the disparaging comments. Who remains when the Caliphate is inside the gates?

  • Jacobi

    What is Islamophobia, and Islamophilia and of course, what is Phobia.

    A phobia is a fear. It has many meanings. The common one is a dislike distrust or disgust with usually without good reason of something. Most people have such feelings.

    There is however such a thing as a rational fear, lets just call it a fear, based on knowledge and experience. A ll rational sane people have such fears.
    The list is endless. I have such a fear when it comes to Islam.

    The opposite is of course an irrational liking of something. Islamophilia would be in that category.

    Now I am happy to justify my fear, but that is another matter. But to hold such a view is I presume an acceptable right in any civilised society.

    So for instance the fear of Islam, often expressed as a desire to halt and reverse and otherwise deal with Islamic religious immigration, frequently
    expressed in this magazine and increasingly throughout even the left wing press is quite acceptable.

    Should our politicians try to deny this to us or penalise us and change or thinking or worse as has been indicated, that of our children, then truly we will have moved into an era where once again the state is controlling our thoughts as it did in the last century in Germany and Soviet Russia.

  • Gilbert White

    Not disagreeing with the main thrust be we have an issue here. Sikh terror financed from the UK has been dastardly in other parts of the world. The Sikhs kept to the original muslim diktat that is do not soil your own nest? Likewise the Tamils and the Kurds.

  • Nick

    An excellent and succinct article Mr.Moore.

    I wonder what the answer is?

    • James Chilton

      My answer is to smother the concept of Islamophobia with ridicule.

    • Hybird

      Mass immigration to be replaced by mass deportation?

      • Nick

        If only.

  • Peter Simple

    The representation of the opinions of those with whom you disagree as a mental illness is the ultimate admission that you have no confidence in your ability to argue in defence of your own and to defeat theirs by means of reasoned debate.

    • sidor

      It is an admission of defeat. If you don’t understand the rational logic of your opponent, you have no chance.

  • sidor

    Before discussing Islamophobia, it would be useful to define what is Islam. Which particular aspects of that culture should be considered as causing our concern?

    As an example. One can be criminally prosecuted in Saudi Arabia for possessing Bible. Shall we be indifferent to the attempts to spread this kind of society to Europe? These are openly discussed, and some politicians seem to have no objections to introducing the Sharia law in the UK. Why can’t we express our opinion about this?

    • AndrewMelville

      Ok let’s just focus on the main stream – you know the one that hates everyone else, promotes violence and intolerance and won’t do an honest day’s work.

      • DaveM

        It only promotes violence against those who cannot defend themselves. When faced with retaliation they run away like cowards. Usually dressed as the women they force to wear robes because they’re scared of them, and using kids as shields. (I have first hand experience.) They’re good at murdering women, children, animals, and the weak, but do not have the gumption to stand and fight. Real muslims, like many that I have met in this country, practice their religion according to the Qu’ran and keep themselves to themselves. It’s just a shame they are unable to control the fools who think bombing innocent folk is a ticket to heaven.

        • sidor

          They cannot control the crazy ones (wahhabi) because this ideology is coming from Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis are under the US protection. They can do whatever they like. In a couple of weeks after 9/11 Bush was hugging prince Bandar. When Asad (a normal Moslem) fought the ISIS fascists, the Western politicians threaten to bomb him.

          • Harryagain

            A few hours after 9-11 Saudi Arabian princes were allowed to fly home.
            Everybody elese was on “lockdown”.

            • Jackthesmilingblack

              Funny that. As was destroying the crime scene. Then there’s the problem of some seven of the alleged 9/11 hijackers turning up alive and well after 9/11. Jeb Bush declaring martial law in Florida shortly before 9/11. Well, he and brother George were seen dining together the night before.
              And I haven’t even got to Building 7 …. Those controlled collapses… Miracle passport ….Lack of wreckage at Shanksville
              Where do you want to start?

        • Harryagain

          You are living in Lala Land.
          There are two sorts of muslims.
          Violent ones and patient ones.
          They both want the destruction of Western culture.
          http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx

  • MikeF

    There is, of course, no such thing as ‘Islamophobia’. The term is a piece of gibberish that parodies the form of proper scientific terminology to give a spurious appearance of analytical objectivity to what is in reality sectarian special pleading. But then the whole ‘anti-racist’ bandwagon is a sham – it is in reality the smokescreen for an attempt to negate democracy by destroying the empiricism and freedom of speech without which representative politics are a mere mechanism. The requirement that any incident is ‘racist’ if it is ‘perceived’ to be so is simply a form of licensed witch-hunting intended to help create an atmosphere of hysteria and name-calling in which the mass of the population are intimidated into compliance with a single political orthodoxy. It is nothing whatsoever to do protecting anybody – least of all members of ethnic or religious minorities – from unprovoked aggression.

    • Harryagain

      Good post.

    • James Chilton

      Compliments on your analysis.

    • fundamentallyflawed

      You know it, we know it yet the mass media and our political classes ignore it.

      • MikeF

        Thanks – and to Harry and James. Even the Spectator can’t quite admit it – note the lack of parentheses around the word in the headline to this article.

  • sebastian2

    “the absurd criteria (invented by the Macpherson Report on the death of Stephen Lawrence) which define such incidents as ‘any offence which is perceived to be Islamophobic by the victim or any other person’.”

    You have put your finger on it although the statement is: “A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person.” which, anyway, amounts to the same thing. Either way, a blank cheque for the inventively aggrieved.

    So ………. taking it at face value, I accuse former Birmingham Mayor elect Muhammed Afzal of racism for this: “‘domestic violence was happening mainly in the Christian community because they get drunk’.”

    I perceive this as a racist incident and appeal to the law to act accordingly. It is also, apart from anything else, deeply Christianophobic and, as such, I claim the right to be violently offended.

    Anything wrong with that?

    • salieri

      Nothing at all, my friend, except that unhappily you do not qualify for victimhood and therefore don’t have the right not to be offended, going forward, in our progressive and vibrant society. The hapless (gosh, nearly wrote hopeless) Mr. Justice McP failed to complete his definition: “a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person, provided the latter is non-white, reads the Guardian or works for the BBC”.

      • Dominic Stockford

        An excellent comment, especially from someone so cruelly treated by history – which adulates your drunken and womanising rival to such an extent that your music has been airbrushed right out.

    • DaveM

      I appreciate the tone of your post – quite amusing.

      I’m not racist (that would imply I consider any non-English people to be inferior). I’m not Islamophobic (that would imply I’m afraid of muslims). I’m not homophobic (that would imply I’m afraid of homosexuals).

      I don’t get offended by people who make comments about my country or the fact that I’m a white Englishman because I’m not so pathetically weak that I cry when someone says something nasty. If I am threatened I fight back. If someone hurts me or mine I retaliate. I work for what I have, I expect nothing from anyone and I expect to keep what’s mine. I help people who are worse off (if I can). If I see someone doing something wrong I will intervene. I don’t judge others and I (naively) expect them not to judge me. I walk softly but carry a big stick.

      I believe what I have just described is human nature (regardless of nationality, colour, or religion) and I believe there are some idiots who will judge me for it. However, I also believe that if everyone behaved the same way there would be considerably less trouble.

    • evad666

      Victimhood is only permitted for non white folks.

  • LoveMeIamALiberal

    A phobia is an irrational fear, to the extent that medical intervention is likely to be appropriate. Fear is not the same thing as hatred and it isn’t irrational to fear the advocates of the only religion which has adherents that find gruesome ways to kill those whom they hate. Thus, there is no widespread Islamophobia.

    • Icebow

      Irrationality is not implied by the original Greek. The usual modern meaning represents psychiatric appropriation. Islamomisia is hatred of muzzness.

      • Harryagain

        Islamomisia??
        Learned something new today! :-)

        • JabbaPapa

          Yes, the wonders of pedantry are sublime, aren’t they ?

  • sidor

    It is abundantly clear that instead of bullshitting about “Islamophobia” the authorities in the UK and the US should criminally prosecute certain branches of Islam. Wahhabi ideology and related Sunny jihadist groups should be outlawed, any association with them must be regarded as a criminal offence, and the respective mosques closed. Propaganda of these religious groups on Internet must be banned. The Islamic groups obtaining financial support from Saudi Arabia and Qatar must be registered and put under surveillance as enemy agents.

    • sebastian2

      I wish. We all wish.

    • Hybird

      “The refugees found to share this ideology must be immediately expelled. ”

      The ideology is called Islam. It’s time we admitted what everyone in their hearts knows : that allowing Muslims to settle in the West was/is the biggest mistake in the entire history of Western civilisation. We’ll have to expel all of them to correct that terrible, terrible mistake.

  • sidor

    The term “Islamophobia” is idiotically meaningless. The reality is: most of the Moslems killed in the religious wars nowadays are killed by Moslems. ISIS fascists kill those Moslems who do not share their wahhabi persuasion. They do it in a most cruel way. Now, I wonder: assume that the Alawite or Ismaili Moslems whose relatives were butchered by the ISIS Wahhabis attack the Wahhabi mosque in UK which is busy recruiting volunteers for ISIS. Shall we consider this event as an act of Islamophobia?

    Just as an example: if IRA Catholics put a bomb in a Protestant pub in Belfast, would it be an anti-Christian act?

    • sebastian2

      The most extreme of “Islamophobes” are mohammedans themselves. Not only to they detest each other, they live in abject fear of their own violent and threatening texts and the punishments that are promised to the disloyal and unfaithful, the disobedient.

      You can almost hear their knees knocking.

      • sidor

        You described your total lack of understanding of what the current global religious war within Islam is about. The problem is that the Western politicians don’t understand it either and behave very stupidly. The situation is very dangerous. The West must chose the side in that war. It is a matter of existential importance.

        • AndrewMelville

          The side I choose is the sole of my shoe – under which they all should be squashed.

        • sebastian2

          With respect, I do understand it.

          Western politicians attitudes may be difficult to generalise – there is a broad range of view. There is however, a much narrower range of permitted view as determined by a prevailing “culture” of pc multicultural “liberal” self indulgence. Those politicians who conform are spared the curses flung at those who do not.

          A breadth of view exists. Freedom to say so? Well ……… that’s a different matter.

          • sidor

            Tell us please what you think you understand. What is it about?

            • sebastian2

              I guess you already know the answer. But, to be more precise, and speaking for myself, I understand that mohammedism is not a religion of peace. It is more a triumphalist ideology that has falsely assumed religious credentials that are undeserved. It is also idolatrous. I understand that the origins of the quran are quite obscure and certainly controversial, and its contents contradictory; and I understand that the so-called “prophet” was not a nice man. I reject the view that Al’Lah is the god of the Jews and Christians.

              Most of all, perhaps, I understand that we cannot permit ourselves to be intimidated or silenced in our intelligent scepticism of this dubious creed. Neither must we adopt the mohammedan narrative which, in my view, is wholly narcissistic and heavily biased in its own favour. It is infatuated with itself.

              And that’s just for starters. And yourself?

    • AndrewMelville

      We should encourage that sort of inter-Umma violence. Indeed we should provide ammo.

      • sebastian2

        We do. KSA, for example, is a major arms purchaser. Iran is bristling with weaponry. Pakistan has a nuclear device. The Taliban never go to the high-street unarmed. Our mistakes lie mainly in giving them more pretexts than they already require to unite against us instead of dividing against each other.

    • sebastian2

      It would be an un-Christian act, wouldn’t it? Which respected Christian leader could say otherwise? But if such deeds were sanctioned or encouraged by the Gospels as Christian acts, then one would be rightly fearful of those ordinances – those sacred texts – and nervous of those who willingly carry them out. That would be a form of Christianophobia. On the other hand, fearlessly and calmly condemning them as wicked, inappropriate, unacceptable, savage, and so forth, would be proper. That would not be Christianophobic. It would be Christianorealist: a different thing entirely.

      My own view is that mohammedans are rattled by their own so-called sacred texts because of what they permit or endorse, and are as disturbed by the deeds or dispositions – as permissibly violent now as in the early 7th century – of their own co-religionists, even against each other. That is islamophobia. There is an atmosphere of terror, punishment and retribution within the entire creed, and mohammedans suffer this. They are frightened of their own islamic shadows looming over them, so to speak.

      • sidor

        The religious war within Islam that we are observing perfectly reproduces the pan-European religious war of the 16th-17th century, though not that bloody yet. That earlier war too was about the “sacred” language (Latin). But the patterns of opponents in both wars have nothing to do with whatever theological points: they can only be understood if looking at the pattern of civilisations which existed much before these religions emerged.

        The radical Sunni Islam we are dealing with is the same kind of phenomenon as fascism was in continental Europe. There should be no mercy. Anyone fighting this plague is an ally. Anyone demonstrating ambivalence is a traitor.

    • Dominic Stockford

      To answer your last question, yes it would – read the 39 Articles.

  • alabenn

    Muslim men have always had an inferiority complex, they are without any saving graces, they feed on grievance, they hate all others, they even hate their own females, everyone else is always to blame, their big cop out on failure is always, ” it is the will of Allah ”
    It is peculiar that it is never the will of Allah when invariably Muslims fail, it is always the fault of non Muslims, especially white men.

    • sebastian2

      “Muslim men have always had an inferiority complex” ………… Only because they are inferior.

      • Greenslime

        That’s just silly.

        • moronophobe

          which is in turn a rather moronic thing to say.

    • sidor

      You probably never met a Saudi. The degree of their arrogance is beyond belief.

      Benn in his speech in the Parliament put it clearly: THEY HOLD US IN CONTEMPT. They are absolutely sure that their culture, and, most importantly, their language is superior. The third generation of Arabs in France still speak Arabic. Their goal is simple: cultural imperialism. They want to force us to speak their language, read Quran and live by the laws of Sharia.

      • AndrewMelville

        We all have our fantasies. I for example would like to see them all attacked and eaten by feral pigs. That’s probably a bit out there, so instead I sometimes dream that they’d get off welfare, learn English and take a job. When I’ve been drinking I sometimes imagine what it would be like if they learned manners and how to queue.

        • sidor

          If you fail to understand the intention and the logic of action of your opponent, the best guess is that you are stupid, not him. A stupid guy is bound to be the loser. For that reason, we should avoid listening the bullshit of those who don’t understand and find those who do.

          • jim

            Moslems are primitives but like all savages they are still in touch with primal urges such as the survival instinct. Sophisticated westerners have had their survival instinct guiltripped out of them .We have no interest in our own self preservation.We hate ourselves. We are doing the moslems work for them.

            • sidor

              During the Dark ages in Europe, all the science and culture were in the Islamic world.

              Fibonacci brought arithmetics do Europe in the 13 century from the primitive Arabs. Before that sophisticated Europe couldn’t count.

              1000 years ago Omar Khayyam, a Persian poet and scientist, could solve cubic equations. Can you?

              • jim

                What have they done for us lately.?. Besides,they got most of that from India.Even if we accept all the claims they make for their history, what has that got to do with the choices we are faced with today?

                • sidor

                  First, you have to make it clear: who are “they”? Only an idiot illiterate in history can fail to realise that the current war within Islam is a historic event: conflict of civilisations. In order to realise this one needs to know the history of the ME for at least 3000 years. The problem is that not a single person in the Dept. of State has a slightest idea what it is about. The American textbooks of history start from the 18th century, and now it is the end of history.

                  The answer to your question follows from geography. Just look at where the medieval Islamic culture was. And you will understand what is going on. Those who were riding camels have in the deserts of Saudi Arabia have nothing to do with that culture, which was in Baghdad and Damask. This is an old Aramaic civilisation, the foundation of Christianity. Isis is trying to wipe it out.

                • jim

                  Like most europeans I am more concerned with Paris and Cologne than with Damascus and Baghdad.I prefer to be practical.There is little we can do about the carnage within islam.We can however take steps to reduce the devastation these people are going to inflict on us.

                • sidor

                  Don’t you realise that 9/11 and London bombing were results of an idiotic mistake of romantic adventurist Jack Philby, the founding father of Saudi Arabia? And 1 million of them came to you last year. Be practical. Think a bit beyond your a$$ range.

                • jim

                  People like you always believe that if history had a reverse gear we could rewind to some specific point in time and make a different choice which would have avoided our present woes …but anyone can play that game.How far do you want to rewind the tape? We could just as easily go back a few hundred years and say moslems were once driven out of europe at the point of a sword and if that had not happened we’d all be moslems already.Today,Saudi Arabia is refusing to admit a single Syrian migrant but is quite happy to bankroll the construction of 200 new mosques in Germany.Islam is re-invading our continent (at the invitation of our putrid perverted elites) and we should act accordingly.Everything else is irrelevant.

                • sebastian2

                  You make a very good point. The Saudi attitude is deplorable. They are spreading wahabbism by proxy. Not a single refugee entered into their own, neighbouring, territory but lavish help to establish the cult in migrant open Europe.

                • Jaria1

                  Excellent post Jim

                • Chamber Pot

                  It is a jihad on their part and it will be a crusade on our part.

                • JabbaPapa

                  Only an idiot illiterate in history

                  Such as yourself ?

                • Richard Baranov

                  Quite so. Please see my replies to him above.

                • Adam Carter

                  I don’t care about the war within Islam.
                  In fact if all muslims in the world were to kill each other today then I would enjoy my Sunday lunch more tomorrow.
                  What matters to me is the war being waged by muslims against Europe.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Having pork are you?

                • Ralph

                  The current ‘war within Islam’ just the latest variant of the Arab versus Persian conflict that has been going on since before Cyrus the Great.

                • sidor

                  Almost correct. It is a war between the old Aramaic (Syrian) civilisation which the Persian Empire was a protector of and the new Arabic one. The Jews belong to the former. The Aramaic civilisation later merged with the Hellenistic one after Alexander. To those who understand there is no doubt which side we have to support.

                • Jaria1

                  Surely who we support ,if any , should be judged on much later knowledge of their stance rather than one centuries past.

                • freddiethegreat

                  Nobody in the State Department, beginning with whichever dribbling liberal is at the top to the bottom, has the slightest idea about anything. They never have. The State Department is a state within a state, and usually a fifth column.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Not a conflict of civilisations. They are uncivilised. It is a conflict between modernity and conservatism/backwardness.
                  It is like Cowboys and Indians, or the Highland Clearances. It is what happens when the tide of progress washes up on the stony shores of the reactionaries who cling to their supposedly noble past.
                  The way to challenge and defeat radical Islam is to champion the education and freedom of their young women and to ridicule their clerics, those unsmiling old men who pretend to be educated but have only ever read one book.

                • sidor

                  Instead of watching the cowboys movies, try to read the third volume of Gibbon.

                • MikeF

                  Very true – but it is not just a question of ridiculing imams and mullahs. It is also about confronting the left which is seeking to create a muslim bloc vote as a means of entrenching itself in power. In order to achieve that they are in cahoots with Islamic clerics and other ‘community leaders’ to create what are, in effect, ghettos underpinned by a mindset that is a mix of resentful defensiveness and contemptuous hostility towards the rest of the population. The ideology is that of ‘Islamophobia’, the mechanism is the Labour Party. In order to sustain this system the left are quite prepared to countenance the rape and sexual abuse of young women from the ‘majority’ population – that is what Rotherham was about. It is a political stratagem that combines depravity and cynicism to a degree that is quite unprecedented in British public life.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Now don’t be so silly. You sound paranoid.

                • MikeF

                  You sound complacent and self-deceiving.

                • Todd Unctious

                  No. I tried very hard to be positive and to offer benefit of the doubt. It is just that where Muslims are concerned I struggle. I find their women most annoying, gobby, self entitled, rude. If you have never been hectored by an Islamic lady you have never been properly insulted. They are a disgusting shower of inbred, uneducated bullies.

                • MikeF

                  I think I failed to see the irony in your previous reply. But seriously the real danger lies in this Machiavellian alliance of the left with Islamist isolationism. It is utterly poisonous.

                • Frank Marker

                  I agree. They are beyond rude.

                • Tom M

                  I suspect you still haven’t strayed beyond the Dept. of State library yet then.
                  The Islamists started in Saudi Arabia, a groups of tribes in a continuous state of war unified by Mohammed. Once they stopped fighting with each other they fulfilled their warlike tendancies elsewhere.
                  First up through today’s Israel and Syria (Caliphate Damascus 640) whilst making forays into the Steppes and reaching China. The same groups ventured down the Indus valley (today’s Pakistan).
                  At the same time others started off going West across North Africa reaching the Atlantic around 680. They crossed into Spain around 711 and all of Spain was Islamic by 716. They continued up through France until Charles Martel beat them at Potiers 732.
                  The current inter-Islamic war you refer to has it’s origins in the succession row after the death of Mohammed. The Sunnis hold that the true successor to Mohammed was Abu Bakr whilst the Shias recognise Mohammed’s son-in-law Ali.

                • sidor

                  I wonder if you have read the 3d volume of Gibbon? It may help yo to understand the ME history which you are trying to inform us about.

                • Tom M

                  If I wished to enlighten myself as to the end of the Roman Empire then I might well take up the book you mentioned.
                  However, another book was written since then and is more pertinent to today’s events. It is this later book that is the cause of strife in the region and has been for the last 1300 years.
                  The current belligerents I doubt have ever heard of the Persian Empire. Their historical take on anything other than their own wars usually starts with the First Crusade (1095).

                • sidor

                  You shouldn’t discuss a book you haven’t read. Gibbon, in his 3d volume, gives a detailed description of what was going in ME before and after the advent of Islam. In a more general perspective, you should read Toynbee. He provides a general analysis of historic process in terms of interaction of civilisation.

                • Tom M

                  I don’t think I was discussing a book I hadn’t read. It was a suggestion of yours that I should.
                  However your suggested reading list apart, if you could perhaps explain why you think my original post, as to why the Middle East is in the position it is today, is wrong then I would be happy to discuss your point of view. I’m interested.

                • Frank

                  India arguably got most of this from China!

                • Richard Baranov

                  It is, in fact, the opposite way round. I suggest you learn something of Asia. You obviously know very little.

                • JJD

                  I think this is an important point: there was very little, in terms of genuine intellectual creativity, that emerged from Islamic culture as such. From countries and peoples that were conquered by Islam – such as Persia – yes, absolutely. And as absorbed from older, more elevated cultures, such as the Greeks and the Hellenistic Mediterranean, yes, I suppose so. But the specifically Islamic/Arabic contribution to human ideas, as far as I can see, was minimal.

                  The cause of this dearth of intellectual vibrancy is, of course, pretty evident. With Islamic theology and law bearing down on every potentially-creative mind, it is no wonder that, in such circumstances, these minds produced very little. Indeed, I suspect that Islam conditions the human mind into a dumb submissiveness which is inimical to innovation and creativity.

              • JabbaPapa

                During the Dark ages in Europe, all the science and culture were in the Islamic world

                You *do* carry on posting this rubbish, no matter HOW many times it is pointed out to you that it’s completely unhistorical bollocks.

                • evad666

                  Now there was I under the impression most of it was obtained from ancient Greece who after all built an early mechanical calculator to work out the year of the Olympiads and factor in a leap year.

                • sidor

                  Papa dear, please enlighten us about the history of the Dark Ages. Were they in Europe?

                • Todd Unctious

                  The Dark ages is a bit of a misnomer. It is a phrase coined during the Italian renaissance tonrefer to the relative lack of intellectual progress from approx 500 to 1300. With the realisation that the early Middle Ages were more progressive than first thought it became restricted to the period before the first crusade around 1090.
                  In Britain it has traditionally been the period from the departure of the Romans in 410 until 1066. However this is more to do with the Norman Conquest destroying Anglo-Saxon archives. The Normans eradicated as much of the old culture as they could, replaced castles, churches, monasteries and of course books.
                  The so called Dark ages were indeed very dark around 535 when due to a cataclysmic volcanic eruption the skies darkened around much ofvthe northetn hemishpere for seven years, leading to disastrous harvests and disease. However great art flourished too, like the cathedral in Ravenna.

                • sidor

                  You confused everything. Missed the elephant in the room while looking at its tail.

                  1. The Dark Ages specifically refer to the medieval Latin Europe. This cultural and intellectual decline haven’t happened in the Eastern part of the Roman Empire.

                  2. The decline began well before the 5th century. It can be traced to the separation of the Empire in the 3d century into Latin West and Greek East. In this way, the Latin part lost its contact with the source of its culture and science, and, quite naturally, declined.

                  3. The reason for Renaissance was the fall of Constantinople, when the Greek scholars moved to Padua which became the centre of the European science. It was also the breeding ground for the leaders of Reformation. In this way, the Greek culture and science returned to Europe after 1000 years of the Dark Ages.

                  4. It is true that the Norman invasion which brought to the British Islands the power of Vatican, resulted in a cultural decline. Which supports what I wrote above. This decline stopped when the English Bible translated from the Greek has been published. In a similar way, the foundation of the German culture was the Bible translation by Luther and Melanchthon, also from the Greek text.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I do agree there was no Dark age in Byzantine Europe. It is questionable if there was one in Italy/Sicily too. I often think it is a British concept. But I see it was from Petrarch trying to add gravitas to his “rediscoveries”.

                • sidor

                  The medieval Italy was never that bad due to its contacts with Constantinople and the Arabs. Fibonacci brought mathematics and arab numerals to Europe. A significant point is that the medieval Italians developed their own reach language of literature, distinct from the Latin, which was greatly influenced by the Greek. Sicily was a part of the Byzantine Empire. Clear traces of the Eastern Orthodox culture can be seen in Ravenna.

                • Fred Blogs

                  Clever Clogs

                • JabbaPapa

                  Sadly, I doubt that you will cease typing out this sort of rubbish any time soon.

                  Your claims are those of some 19th century ideologues, the foundation of whose claims has been broadly discredited as being based on ideological and (anti-)religious prejudice.

                • JabbaPapa

                  the relative lack of intellectual progress from approx 500 to 1300

                  This claim is rubbish too, though.

                  The fall of the Western Roman Empire did lead to a century or two of regression locally here and there, sure, but **nothing** like the 900 years of decline that you allege.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I said relative lack of intellectual progress. Technical progress was slower still.
                  I am not sure the average peasant with a cart load of veg and a pig trundling up the road to pre revolutionary Paris in 1789, would have noticed much different than that same peasant trundling up the road to Rome in 200AD. In fact the road would probably be worse as would the city sanitation. His life expectancy would be the same and the Christian Church impose more on his day to day life.
                  For Britain it is more about the Norman Conquest. All extant Anglo-Saxon literature will fit into one decent sized trunk.

                • JabbaPapa

                  I am not sure the average peasant with a cart load of veg and a pig trundling up the road to pre revolutionary Paris in 1789, would have noticed much different than that same peasant trundling up the road to Rome in 200AD

                  You would be grossly mistaken.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I await with baited breath, your reasoning for why I am wrong.

                • JabbaPapa

                  Let’s see — 1500 years of technological advances, for starters, and an entirely different system of roads, including early public transport systems instituted from the 16th century onwards.

                  Completely different political and religious infrastructures, including utterly different travel laws that directly affected “average peasants”. Also, no serfdom as such, not in France anyway, a completely revolutionised agricultural system, and quite frankly so many blatantly obvious differences that it’s frankly embarrassing that you needed them explained to you at all.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I rather doubt that rural French roads of the 1780s were any better than Roman roads. Macadam came much later. What public transport did we have in the 1780s other than few lumbering g stagecoaches on pot holes turnpikes? The Romans could get fresh oysters from Bordeaux to Rome in less than 36 hours.
                  I said peasant not serf. Serfdom is only one type of peasant. Of course France had peasants. It is derived from a French word, paysan.
                  You need to read Weber’s Peasants to Frenchmen written in 1908, France was very much pre industrial in 1789.

                • JabbaPapa

                  I rather doubt that rural French roads of the 1780s were any better than Roman roads

                  The road system in the late 1700s was VASTLY better than in early 3rd century Roman Gaul. Perhaps you’d do better to actually, y’know, **study** this sort of thing prior to opining (ignorantly) about it ?

                  What public transport did we have in the 1780s other than few lumbering g stagecoaches on pot holes turnpikes?

                  Canals and barges, public river transport, stage posts where the public could rent horses with a continual supply of fresh ones (instead of these being reserved for military/government use), though the first omnibuses would only be introduced about 30 years later. Early rail transport was introduced in the 16th century, though of course without the steam engine to power it. etc etc etc

                  I said peasant not serf. Serfdom is only one type of peasant.

                  You compared early 3rd century Gaul with late 18th century France, and you expect me NOT to point out various major differences, that you allege to have been virtually non-existent ??? LOL

                  You need to read Weber’s Peasants to Frenchmen written in 1908, France was very much pre industrial in 1789.

                  You need a basic education in the realities of the Roman Empire, and Mediaeval and early Modern to Modern Western Europe.

                  This will not be discovered in the works of the Victorian era and its atrociously poor methodology.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Well that is interesting. I was not aware that such advances had been made in road technology.
                  It is also very interesting to hear that we had publicly funded canals, river transport and free horses at that time.
                  I still believe life for the typical peasant farmer was little different.

                • JabbaPapa

                  It is also very interesting to hear that we had publicly funded canals, river transport and free horses at that time

                  Only the canals were publicly funded — everything else was privately operated by various corporations.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Which canals were state funded?

                • Jaria1

                  What did the Arabs and Muslims call their dark ages. My guess that without oil it would include the present day. If more and more oil supplies are found around the rest of the world then they might find themselves back in their dark ages. Many of them realise that their oil supplies are finite and are turning to other sources of income such as tourism which due to their various terrorist connections are destroying Tourism

                • Todd Unctious

                  They are still in their dark age as they have undergone no enlightenment, no Reformation and they eschew modernity.
                  I would say they went backwards after the crusades.

                • Jaria1

                  They have been under the thumb of unintelligent religious leaders who have kept them ignorant of what has happened in the outside world, prevented any of them from free thinking in order to retain power. Do the people vote for Irans grand Ayotollah ? The one they do vote for can’t move without his consent.
                  Their enemy is freedom of thought and one would hope that those that do have access to news might start to question the strictures of their imams who do allow and no doubt preach anti Christian views as Yasmin Brown found in a Mosque. Why don’t we do something about this snake in our midst.

                • JabbaPapa

                  The “Dark Ages” are a modern myth.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I intend to visit the magnificent Ostrogoth Basilica of Theodoric in Ravenna this summer. Built before any Saxon set foot in Britain.

              • Adam Carter

                And since then?
                Not so much.

                • Ron Todd

                  Is a cure to the zika virus more likely to be discovered by somebody from a civilised Western country or somebody from a Muslim country?

                • freddiethegreat

                  Given the record of such things, probably a Jew. And probably Israeli.

                • sebastian2

                  Tov M’od.

                • sebastian2

                  Indeed. Show me the islamic fluorescent tube, the islamic analysis of the fluid that fills the ear’s semi-circular canals, the islamic data tables for the density, depths and current flows of the earth’s oceans, the islamic formula for coca-cola, and the islamic mass-produced ball-point pen in a range of colours.

                  And so on ………

                • Todd Unctious

                  The Islamic Nobel prize winners.

                • sebastian2
                • Leon Wolfeson

                  Well, it certainly won’t come from you, in your oh-so-uncivilised…

                • Todd Unctious

                  Latin America has a small head start.

              • Ralph

                I think the Chinese amongst others might disagree with you on that.

              • Richard Baranov

                Your statement is historically inaccurate, the child of pro-Islamic propaganda. The reality is that the West never lost touch with Byzantium, the inheritor of both Greek and Roman knowledgeas the continuation of Roman civilization. There was vigorous interaction between the West and Byzantium right up until the fall of Constantinople in 1204. Do you honestly think that the West had no truck with one of the great centres of Christendom and preferred to get their knowledge of Greek etc. thought from a civilization hostile to them? I will tell you this, because it is true. Those who fail to learn about the enormous contribution of Byzantium to the West do not know the true history of the West or Christendom. Think Venice and its treaty with Constantinople, 1082. Or Ravenna, a Byzantine city in Italy. How do you think it got there and what do you think those Byzantines were doing there, keeping mum and saying absolutely nothing of what they were the inheritors of?

                • alfredo

                  all very true. but down to the fall of constantinople 1204 (i.e., to the latins of the fourth crusade)? why not down to the final fall of the city – to muslims, of course – in 1453 (which brought another influx of greek learning with refugees to the west)?

                • Bendys

                  There was enough learning in the West even without the Byzantines.

                • alfredo

                  Enough learning is an odd concept. How do you know when you have enough?

                • Richard Baranov

                  That is a good point. But as I admit above, I was in error about the date. It comes with having all this information in one’s head. If anything, however, your observation simply reinforces my initial point.

                • Todd Unctious

                  I completely agree. Constantinople was the engine of western civilisation from 500 to 1200.

                • sidor

                  Unfortunately it wasn’t. 2000 years ago every civilised Roman spoke Greek. In the 5th century the Romans didn’t speak Greek, and didn’t read the Greek books. The Greek philosophy and science disappeared in the West.

                • Todd Unctious

                  What?

                • JabbaPapa

                  So now you’re just posting outright lies as if they were “facts” ?

                • sidor

                  A medical fact: Caesar’s last words were pronounced in Greek.

                  You have two options: either confirm your claim about me lying, or apologise for your lying. The third option is for me to explain you, in plain language my opinion about slightly respected you..

                • JabbaPapa

                  So where did all of that Greek literature disappear to then — did they organise some massive Empire-wide book-burning event ?

                  And what about all of those Ecumenical Councils where Greek was spoken and the documents of which were published in Greek ?

                  Whether you’ve personally invented these lies or not is irrelevant to the mendacity that they provide.

                  2000 years ago every civilised Roman spoke Greek

                  This simply isn’t true, despite the pro-Hellenistic snobbery of the Romans themselves.

                • Bendys

                  In their area.

                • sidor

                  Right. That’s why they broke with Rome after the latter adopted pagan filioque.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Still on Friday the Pope and Metropolitan Kirill put 962 years of animosity behind them and embraced in of all places, Cuba.

                • sidor

                  Common enemy made them friends.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Yes. I think this is sadly correct.

                • JabbaPapa

                  The Filioque isn’t “pagan”, you nitwit.

                • sidor

                  Don’t take it as an insult. Aren’t you, by any chance, a Roman Catholic?

                • JabbaPapa

                  I’ve done a translation of the original 7th century Church document that first established the theological validity of the Filioque ; when it is accurate to cdonsider the Father, Son, and Spirit as One, and when it is not. In the Latin Credo it certainly is, though in the Greek Credo it isn’t (because they use verbs with a different meaning in the sentence in question).

                  Ironically, I think it’s a Greek failure to understand the Latin that created the problem — the Filioque was BTW first proposed by a local Council of the Eastern Church.

                • sidor

                  Do you mean that the Greeks are responsible for the pagan Latin’s inability to understand the Greek text and the mental retardations of the Catholic pagans who invented idiotic filioque?

                  I agree, however, with your point: the basic problem of the mess in the Roman Catholic theology arises from the linguistic deficiency of the Latin for inconceivable reason selected as a church language by the Catholics which makes it impossible to adequately translate to that language the theological ideas formulated in Greek.

                • JabbaPapa

                  Do you mean that the Greeks are responsible for the pagan Latin’s inability to understand the Greek text and the mental retardations of the Catholic pagans who invented idiotic filioque?

                  When you’ve not actually done any work on the subject, just make up something out of your imagination, eh ?

                  I mean precisely what I said — that the Greek understanding of 7th century Latin was so poor that they misunderstood the theology (to be fair, the Latin of that period and that location is somewhat uneasily understood). The Latins had no similar difficulty comprehending the Koine Greek nor the Eastern theological positions.

                  the linguistic deficiency of the Latin

                  That’s a completely false claim, given that the necessary vocabulary and related philosophical concepts had been introduced into the Latin by the 2nd Century.

                  impossible to adequately translate to that language the theological ideas formulated in Greek

                  That’s complete bollocks.

                • sidor

                  You never fail to meet my expectations. Just to keep the show running. Could you very kindly explain for the public the actual meaning of filioque, in plain English?

                • JabbaPapa

                  John : {15:26} But when the Advocate has arrived, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, he will offer testimony about me.

                  The Latin Credo says that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, which is correct as seen above.

                  The Greek however uses a verb meaning “to breathe forth”, which is an Act of Generation appropriate only to the Father, as referred to in the second half of the verse.

                  The Trinitarian theology explained in that 7th Century Council shows that sometimes the Three must be considered as One ; but that when the Father or the Son or the Spirit are considered in particular, then they must be considered as Three. God is both One and Three, so that depending what we say of Him, we must be careful to think whether we are referring to the Father, Son, and Spirit separately ; or together. Even a subtle difference in vocabulary can mean the difference between either case.

                  The Latin and Greek versions of the Credo were promulgated simultaneously, the one is not a translation of the other, and they are equally valid. The disagreement about the Filioque is entirely predicated on a discrepancy in one verb usage in the two texts. Pope Benedict XVI clarified this pretty authoritatively during his pontificate, and the Church does not condemn the omission of the Filioque in the Greek Credo.

                  It is not “pagan”, and those who claim that it is are just speaking from ignorance or malice.

                • sidor

                  Papa dear, you have problems with understanding plain English. The quote you presented doesn’t say that the Spirit proceeds from both the father AND the Son. Read again, slowly.

                  Let’s apply normal logic: if the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the son, it implies that there are two independent sources playing the role of God. Unintelligible rubbish and blasphemous Latin paganism. The Spirit actually proceeds from the Father through the Son, which defines subordinate role of the latter.

                  Are you a Roman Catholic (no offence)?

                • JabbaPapa

                  Let’s apply normal logic: if the Spirit proceeds from both the Father AND the son, it implies that there are two independent sources playing the role of God.

                  I can see that you understood exactly nothing of the explanation that you requested.

                • sidor

                  I don’t think you understand the grammar. AND means that you are talking about a complementary independent item. That is, the Son is grammatically suggested to be an independent source of the Spirit complementary to the Father. Two independently acting Gods. A perfect paganism. Typical for the Latin mind.

                • JabbaPapa

                  I don’t think you understand the grammar

                  That is because you have never studied grammar at the University level, as well as never having studied the origins of the relevant theology.

                  the Son is grammatically suggested to be an independent source of the Spirit

                  God is not subjected to your dubious comprehension of Grammar.

                  The Latin pagans could never understand the concept of transcendental God

                  If by “pagans” you mean Christians, you’re just talking complete bollocks having no relationship with reality.

                • sidor

                  “God is not subjected to your dubious comprehension of Grammar.”

                  =================

                  Do you mean that your post was directly dictated by God? Like it earlier happened to Muhammad?

                  You never fail to meet my expectations. Thanks for the entertainment. Keep writing!

                • JabbaPapa

                  Do you mean that your post was directly dictated by God? Like it earlier happened with Muhammad?

                  Crikey, your mental processes are lacking in coherence …

                • sidor

                  But your claim concerning the God’s authorship of your writing is perfectly coherent with that of Muhammad.

                  Keep writing! I just love to discuss filioque with Roman Catholics.

                • JabbaPapa

                  But your claim concerning the God’s authorship of your writing is perfectly coherent with that of Muhammad

                  No it bloody well isn’t, you Proddy fool, nor did I even claim that God wrote my words in the first place.

                  Your incoherent Protestant gibberish pure and simple has no resemblance to reality.

                • sidor

                  I asked you about the grammar of your writing. You answered that God doesn’t care about grammar. Possible conclusions: (a) you claim to be God or (b) you claim that your writing is actually God’s writing. The latter is perfectly consistent with the claim of Muhammad.

                • JabbaPapa

                  You answered that God doesn’t care about grammar

                  No I did not.

                  Meanwhile, discussions with blinkered Protestants are liable to be coloured by their nonsensical false interpretations of just about **everything**.

                  you claim to be God

                  Crikey you’re an idiot.

                • sidor

                  But you still didn’t explain us some crucial points of your Roman Catholic theology: is there one God from which the Spirit proceeds, or there are two of them and, respectively, two separate processions of the Spirit? In the latter case, do these two streams of the Spirit later converge, or remain distinct?

                • JabbaPapa

                  /face-palm/

                  I am not responsible for your willful failures to comprehend theology.

                • sidor

                  Are you responsible for your failure to explain your theology?

                • JabbaPapa

                  To a certain extent of course, but your own bad faith is not of my doing.

                • sidor

                  Your chronology fails too. You claim that rejecting filioque id Islamic. But, according to your own statement, filioque was introduced AFTER the advent of Islam. Shall we instead assume that filioque is a result of Islam?

                • JabbaPapa

                  You claim that rejecting filioque id Islamic

                  No I don’t, given that it’s some Protestant gibberish.

                  I’m pointing out that your rejection of ordinary Christian Trinitarianism is motivated by Islamic falsehoods accusing Christians of “paganism”..

                • sidor

                  Do you mean that the Arians were Moslems?

                  Your theological lectures are entertaining indeed. Keep writing!

                • JabbaPapa

                  Do you mean that the Arians were Moslems?

                  ?????!!!????!!??

                  I am not responsible for your confusion in these matters.

                • sidor

                  Speaking about accurate history. Constantinople was conquered by the Turks on 29 May 1453. You have missed 250 years. Did you study your history in an American school?

                  I note that you don’t seem to disagree about the decline of the Latin civilisation during the Dark Ages.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Constantinople was sacked by the crusaders in 1204. It is how the four magnificent horse statues from their hippodrome come to be in St Marks cathedral in Venice.

                • Richard Baranov

                  See my reply to the hypocrite Sidor, above.

                • Richard Baranov

                  And how is that relevant to the dates I gave? In fact I was in error because I referred to the wrong fall and you are correct in your date concerning the Turks but it does not change one jot what I said about the contribution of Byzantium to the West, and you know it, in fact, if anything it reinforces my contention with an extra couple of hundred years of communication between the West and Byzantium.

                  My education is both English and American, thank you. But you clearly didn’t learn about comprehending what someone has written in the English language.

                  And, you need to learn a little more about history. The ‘Dark Ages’ is no longer used as a marker because there was no such thing, it is a historically inaccurate term born out of the ignorance of previous generations of historians who lacked the means to know what was actually going on during that period. You need to go back to school, not me!
                  Finally, I’m man enough to admit an error. You, on the other hand, tell historical porkies that are based on no evidence at all other than propaganda.

                • sidor

                  “The ‘Dark Ages’ is no longer used as a marker because there was no such thing, it is a historically inaccurate term born out of the ignorance of previous generations of historians who lacked the means to know what was actually going on during that period.”

                  ============

                  So, it is now politically incorrect to say that the Latin Europe during 1000 years couldn’t read, write and use arithmetics for counting? Sounds like a Roman Catholic view of history.

                • Leon Wolfeson

                  No, it’s just something which historians have stopped used because it’s not accurate.

                • JabbaPapa

                  Latin Europe during 1000 years couldn’t read, write and use arithmetics for counting

                  It is completely idiotic to believe any such utter rubbish.

                • sidor

                  What kind of Roman knowledge did you inherit? What exactly was the Latin contribution to science and culture that I missed?

                • Richard Baranov

                  I apologize for rushing back and replying to you with such undue hast but your arguments are not impressive at all. You don’t happen to be the person I was arguing with some time ago who thought that Edward Gibbon was the last word on history, are you? Because anyone who knows their stuff knows that he bears a great deal of responsibility for the myth of the “Dark Ages” and was entirely hostile to Byzantium, it didn’t fit his narrative, a narrative which, now a days, is regarded as somewhat lacking, to say the least.

                  I am, of course, perfectly aware of your arguments because they are convention, and like most conventions, lazy, in as much as they ignore later research. Your ignorance of Byzantium and its influence on the West and, indeed, vice versa, seems to be almost total. You might want to look up, for example, the ‘Barlaamite controversy’, which demonstrates in spades the interaction between Byzantium and the West. You should, if you read French, look up “Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel: Les racines grecques de l’Europe Chrétienne”. By Sylvain
                  Gouguenheim’s. If not then here is a blurb that gives the gist. http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3732

                  Likewise your so called “Dark Ages” are a myth. You might want to type into Google something like: “The myth of the Dark Ages”, or some such, and learn. But really, to be perfectly honest with you, your arguments are the arguments of someone who has an ideological axe to grind and
                  are therefore uninteresting because come what may, you are clearly impervious to fact. So the following sentence is my last word on the subject. Go and learn, and realize that thanks to modern research and techniques that our predecessors could not even think of much less be aware of, you are woefully out of date in your opinions.

                • sidor

                  It looks like you studied humanities. I follow the principle of Newton: discuss facts, not opinions. The facts are clear: there were 1000 years of cultural and intellectual decline in the Latin West. You can call this the way you like. Do you have anything to say about the reason of this phenomenon?

                  Besides Gibbon, I read Toynbee, if you think it’s relevant. Gibbon is quite good about facts, though I don’t share his admiration of the Rome.

                • JabbaPapa

                  I follow the principle of Newton: discuss facts, not opinions

                  Your unhistorical opinions are not “facts”.

                  there were 1000 years of cultural and intellectual decline in the Latin West

                  This is a blatantly false statement, based on nothing more solid than your rancid hatred of Catholicism.

                • JabbaPapa

                  You should, if you read French, look up “Aristote au Mont Saint-Michel: Les racines grecques de l’Europe Chrétienne”. By Sylvain Gouguenheim

                  Excellent.

              • Malcolm Stevas

                Very good points. One might ask whether anyone can now build wooden-wall fighting ships the way they did 200 years ago – and the answer is no, since knowledge of the techniques has been lost.
                Even more embarrassing with that “Islamic world”, where the key question is what they’ve achieved in the last 1000 years.

                • freddiethegreat

                  And the really BIG question is: Why did they lose whatever technology and science they had, while the West went ahead in leaps and bounds? Answer: It’s all in the prevailing religion.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Cultures of fear and revenge never thrive.

                • Todd Unctious

                  A pile of petrodollars in Swiss bank vaults. Try going to Swizzland in August. After the ubiquituous Chinese the largest group of tourists are Saudis and other Gulf Arabs visiting their cash hordes.

              • Dominic Stockford

                Did they indeed? And of course we simply forgot everything the Romans had already taught us.

                • sidor

                  What did they teach you? It is well known that the only Roman contribution to mathematics was their killing of Archimedes.

                • Dominic Stockford

                  How to build aqueducts, cathedrals and other large buildings – mathematics in practice – very useful. Also, how to make ‘concrete’ which can set under water, a mixture of mathematics and physics and chemistry in practice – very useful. Just to be getting on with.

                • sidor

                  Aqueducts, concrete and the building methods the Romans used were invented centuries earlier by other people. Their alphabet is Etruscan. Poetry and art they learned from the Greeks. Rome was a gigantic parasite: economic, technological, scientific and cultural.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Decent roads. An oyster landed in Bordeaux could be in Rome 900 miles away,within 36 hours.

                • freddiethegreat

                  Marine varnish that lasted 20 centuries, according to Cousteau

                • Cobbett

                  So, some Muslims advanced mathematics back in the 12th century(or thereabouts) And your point is?

                • sidor

                  This is my point. You’ve got it right. With one correction: some Moslems did, others didn’t. And now we see how these two kinds of Moslems fight each other. Syrian civilisation against Saudi barbarism.

                • Todd Unctious

                  It took them 600 years to learn to count properly.

                • Bendys

                  European civilization was based on Greek philosophy, Roman jurisprudence and Catholic Christianity.

                • Todd Unctious

                  ……and French cooking, Italian fashion, German cars and English beer.

                • sidor

                  French cooking was brought to France from Italy by Medici.

                • Todd Unctious

                  Good point. Italian cuisine has out done the French for at least the last decade. This confirms it is a reversion to mean.

                • Bendys

                  French literature, Italian art, German industry.
                  English beer is bad.

                • Cobbett

                  The Greeks wasn’t it?;

                • Dominic Stockford

                  Whilst the Greeks may well have taught the Romans, they never came and taught us. They preferred to leave the Romans to do that.

                • Cobbett

                  Greek culture as the foundation of European civilisation….the Romans were more pragmatic….preferring conquest and subjugation.

              • Lawrence James.

                True enough and easily overlooked by the ignorant. Yet something went hideously wrong: the Islamic mind ossified in the Middle Ages. The islamic world underwent no renaissance and there was no Enlightenment. This is all too self evident.

              • Hybird

                Nonsense. During the Dark Ages in Europe Western civilisation’s knowledge and science survived in the Byzantine world. Until Islam snuffed that out, of course. Oh, and the British were using arithmetic when they built Stone Henge.

                BTW – I don’t think Khayyam was much of a Muslim. He wrote poems about the pleasures of drinking wine, for a start.

                • Todd Unctious

                  He was a Muslim alright. He did the Haj to Mecca as a 22 year old man.

                • Richard Baranov

                  He was a Sufi, the present lot murder Sufi’s because they are rather dubious as Muslims. In fact they are heavily influenced by Christianity or Buddhism, depending on geographical location. In fact the origin of the Sufis seem to be central Asia. The first were the ‘Khwajagan’ Buddhist monks who involuntarily converted to Islam, Khwaja is the Persian for ‘Elder’, a cognate of Sthavira, Sanskrit for the Sthaviravada, a Buddhist school that thrived in Asia until the Muslim conquest. The Khwajagan are now called, the Naqshbandhiyya, and are regarded as the founding sect of Sufism, by the Sufis themselves.

                • sidor

                  “Sufi’s because they are rather dubious as Muslims.”

                  =====================

                  So Sufi aren’t real Moslems. Neither are Ismaili and Alawites. Thanks for informing us about the opinion of ISIS and their Saudi masters.

                • Richard Baranov

                  Then again, you are ignorant. The Sufi’s have always been regarded as dubious but mainstream Muslims. You really need to learn more. Even Ibn el Arabi was accused of being a Sufi. There were no members of ISIS around in those days. Do please learn your history because you keep making stupid remarks.
                  Another thing you can try explaining away. How come if Spain was so heavily Arabised are there no more than 100 words of Arabic origin in Spanish?

                • sidor

                  Yes, I got your point. The “mainstream moslems” are those following the wahhabi ideology of Saudi Arabia. Which ISIS is trying to install by killing people in Iraq and Syria.

                • Leon Wolfeson

                  Ah, you believe in thought crimes. Like ISIS.

                • Jaria1

                  Lol an honest Muslim perhaps.!

              • freddiethegreat

                All the science – a bit mythological, there.

              • sebastian2

                I’m afraid you have been misled. Why do you think the Arabs write their numbers in the opposite direction to their script?

              • Harryagain

                Drivel.
                All this stuff was devised by the Ancient Babylonians.
                Mathematics, asronomy, accountancy, writing etc etc
                5000 years ago, long before Islam

                They were doing great there until Islam came along.
                After that, nothing.

              • Hayekian

                I think you have been watching too many BBC documentaries. The islamic world was either a just a storage medium for the wisdom of more advanced cultures or a conduit of knowledge from the east.
                So Omar Khayyam could do cubic equations, Victor Kiam has had more influence on the modern world.

              • hepworth

                Muslim are you?

                • sidor

                  Looking for a company?

              • Oddsbods

                Ah but then the religious leaders managed to take full control over Islam, they were scared stiff of open, intelligent moslems who might question what they taught as everlasting truths, so they put a stop to all change and advancement in Islam. How many books do Islamic countries publish (aside from Korans)? Where is their theatre, their music, their museums, their Internationally recognised Universities? In 500 or 600 years they may get around to a few changes, but I ( and my children) cannot wait that long.

              • anyfool

                There was no dark ages in Europe, Greeks then Romans devised the mathematical formula, the Muslim faith appeared centuries after European civilisation began.
                You could say they knocked back the tide of European advancement with their invasion of the continent, their primitive and vicious ideology, did and does brutalise all it comes into contact with.

                • sidor

                  “Romans devised the mathematical formula”

                  ========

                  What are you talking about? Algebra is an Arabic word. You cannot multiply and divide using the Roman numerals.

                • Todd Unctious

                  MCMLXXV minus MCDLXXVII= CDXCVIII

                • sidor

                  Try to explain us: how can you do multiplication and, particularly funny, division using these numerals. Thanks in advance.

                • Leon Wolfeson

                  Your personalities want to know…hmm…

                • JabbaPapa

                  You cannot multiply and divide using the Roman numerals

                  They used the abacus, you nitwit.

              • Todd Unctious

                Well they did invent the number zero. So we can literally state that Islam gave us nothing. They created nothing. Nothing is their legacy to the modern world. We have to thank them for Nothing.

              • richardofkent

                Persians are not Arabs.

              • Jaria1

                What made them forget all these wonderful talents and allow themselves to regress into savagery. As the previous Pope pointed out the religon of the sword.

              • Tom M

                A group of people approximately 5000years ago built an edifice in the South of England which predicts the movements of the sun and moon with pinpoint accuracy. It still stands testament to their ability today.
                The knowledge implied by this monument is that the builders were aware of the central position occupied by the sun and the relative motions of the earth and moon. It wouldn’t be a stretch to confer their knowledge onto the whole solar system.
                I imagine that predates by a margin any claim of the arabs on that subject.

          • Cobbett

            “Arab migration has been the best thing that’s happened to
            Europe in the past 50 years. Arabs in Europe are a fact of life. It’s
            time we started to accept that there’s no way to block the migration of
            Chinese, Pakistanis or Arabs to Europe. It’s true, Europe won’t be what
            it once was, but that’s a good thing. The more migrants from Africa and
            Asia who arrive, the better off Europe will be. Sooner or later, their
            children and grandchildren will marry into veteran European families and
            change the demographics of their countries. –
            Yigal Ben-Nun

            It seems not everybody is against the annihilation of Europe.

            • Bendys
              • Cobbett

                There’s quite a few like him…maybe they think Europe deserves it for (imagined) past crimes. If we ‘go’, they will surely follow.

          • Hybird

            People often ask why the Saudis and other Gulf States won’t take in any of the “refugees” who are pouring into Europe. The answer is quite simple – why would anyone draw back their invading forces when they are successfully over-running and routing the enemy?

      • sebastian2

        I have met many Saudis and your assessment is generally correct. Saudi women, on the other hand, can be quite different.

        And if you are suggesting that the qura’n is an imperial manifesto, a political tract serving fantasies of Arab supremacy – again, you are correct.

      • Cobbett

        A professor in Germany has said that all school children should learn Arabic…along with, women should cover up,Christmas celebrations banned, Halal, no pork…it seems the host has to always accommodate the (unwelcome) ‘guest’.

      • Todd Unctious

        See the Saudis on holiday in Swizzland. Awful people, just awful. You are correct. Arrogant is too polite a word ,I can only think of phrases ending in that popular Highland game where gigantic men throw a caber.

    • Tommo

      It seems that the Labour Party is now supporting systematic islamic misogyny.

      See: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/05/muslim-women-blocked-seeking-office-male-labour-councillors

    • Caviar luvvie

      At least it seems Allah’s will that nobody kills more Muslims, than other Muslims.
      I drink to that.
      Cheers Allah.

    • Todd Unctious

      Islam is a culture of revenge and distrust. Western Europe is a culture of co-operation. However, we risk having this watered down by welcoming too many from Arab or Orthodox Christian cultures.

  • Ron Todd

    Collecting the numbers would not lead to the arrest of any Muslims. It would lead to the numbers being buried in the deepest cellar in Whitehall.

    • Atlas

      Just as happens with statistics on anti-Semitic attacks. Muslims, despite following a barbaric, sexist, homophobic and violent ideology get special treatment for some reason.

      • justejudexultionis

        Muslims get special treatment from ‘liberal’ authorities because they use the threat of physical retribution (which is very real) to intimidate and silience opposition. If present developments continue, once the Muslims reach five million in the UK it will become almost impossible to voice any criticism of Islam whatsoever. The spineless pseudo-liberals in central and local government, and the appeasers in the universities and police force, will have blood on their hands. A barbaric, homophobic, misogynic, irrational, intolerant and unenlightened political death cult masquerading as a religion cannot be accommodated in a free society.

        • sebastian2

          It’s that, and Gulf (particularly Saudi) money and contracts that has the UK government by the “tonsils”. The tonsillitis is acute and all but incurable.

          This is an exceptionally murky financial connection which, I dare say, lies at the root of many of our predicaments. The effeminate and cash-strapped UK government can only grovel.

        • Ron Todd

          I suspect a large part of our liberal ‘intelligentsia’ support the Muslims from conviction not fear. Some of them will support any organisation they see as anti west or anti democracy. Some of the left might be attracted to the idea of an institution that has total control over the little people.

          • moronophobe

            I agree, and I also know that are a considerable amount of people on the left who have understood that there is no need for a socialist utopia as long as there is not enough misery. now instead of accepting this, they are so stuck in their leftism and indoctrinated hate of the west, that they want to create misery. and islam is JUST the right thing to come along to achieve this goal.

            scialsm is a collective mental illness. nothing more. the next step in human enlightenment after overcoming religion will be to overcome socialism.

            • James Chilton

              Best compliments on your screen name – an effective satire on the ‘phobia’ nonsense we’re discussing.

          • James Chilton

            Liberals sympathise with groups they conceive to be in a ‘suffering situation’. In their view, Muslims are oppressed by Western civilisation. We, the infidels, hold all the aces and Muslim societies have had a bad deal that confines them to the 7th century.

          • Leon Wolfeson

            You mean they don’t engage in thought crime activity? Ohnoes!

            And no, they don’t support you, get over it, or either your antis or your dislike of the 99%.

      • sidor

        The reason for the special treatment of the most virulent kind of Moslems emigrating from Syria and Iraq is trivial: the Saudi billions efficiently used for buying the US political elite. The second largest stock holder of the Fox News is a Saudi prince. What is going on is simple and disgusting: the defeated Christian-hating ISIS supporters are evacuated to Europe to continue their activity under the Saudi leadership.

    • sebastian2

      I believe I hear the sound of JCBs digging the cellar deeper. There is so much to bury, isn’t there?

  • The Masked Marvel

    It’s not Islmaophobic but, if we listen to the wisdom of people like veteran BBC journalist Hugh Sykes, talking about it publicly could give permission for prejudice. Which explains so much that’s happened, really.

    • Conway

      Their definition of prejudice is pointing out that an ideology that says women are worth less than a man, homos3xuals should be thrown off high buildings and non-muslims should be beheaded has no place in Western society.

      • HHGeek

        I’m pretty sure that Western society is almost equally convinced that women are worth less than men.

      • The Masked Marvel

        It’s an intellectual failure because, like ex-BBC DG Mark Thompson, they are intellectually incapable of separating their blind support for a perceived victim class against the oppressor phantasm from allowing them to have moral agency. This sort of infantilisation is itself racist, according their own logic, but we are rather down the rabbit hole as it is.

  • Vukefalus

    I confess to being an Islamophobic, EUphobic, Francophobic, Merkelphobic, Labourphobic misanthrope. Should I save everyone’s time and just hand myself into the middle-class-whitemanphobic Metropolitan Police?

    • Swarm of Drones

      Boasting about being a miserable old git won’t get you any brownie points for me, Ulysses.

      • Desperate Dan’s Porridge

        But what about your self up-voting sockpuppets? What do they think?

    • sidor

      The listed phobias aren’t misanthropic: negative feeling towards the enemies of the mankind should be regarded as manifesting your altruism.

    • Greenslime

      No. You should stay out there and be thoroughly miserable.

    • McRobbie

      The metropolitan police are not afraid of white men so there is clearly no whitemanphobia in their ranks. There is a middle class whitemanantipathy however.

    • Duckworth Keats

      I am Spartacus……..

Close
Can't find your Web ID? Click here