Saying the Unsayable About Islam (While We Still Can)
Who is currently the bravest man on Planet Earth? For me, it is not a soldier, firefighter, or undercover spy, but Nigel D. Salmon, an obscure Jamaican author of whom you have almost certainly never heard. Why do I think this about Mr. Salmon? Because in 2016 he wrote the following book:
Just to avoid any doubt, by the way, all here at the Daily Sceptic would like to hang on to our heads and make it abundantly clear that the answer to that particular question is ‘NO!’ – after all, the Prophet of All Prophets famously consummated marriage with a nine-year-old girl, and had 10 other adult human female spouses, so he can’t possibly have been a homosexual, can he?
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a Donor will also entitle you to comment below the line and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Winston Marshall’s Interview with Islamic scholar and Muslim apostate Ibn Warraq, is well worth watching.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=psHAiQyAeIw&t=3s
The UK is already halfway to being totally ‘dhimmified’. All England needs next is a Muslim Prime Minister then it’s ‘game over’. Non-patriot Keir Stalin is just paving the way and making the process of Islamification easier for whoever comes next. More from Dieppe on the subject here; “Striking a believer, for example, is a crime; debating her beliefs is a right,” Dieppe explained. “The definition of ‘Islamophobia’ immediately conflates the religion of Islam with Muslim people and makes this into an issue of ‘Muslimness.’” “It may have been more useful for the report to discuss the term ‘Muslimophobia,’ which would at least make clear that it did not seek to prohibit criticism of a religion, but rather irrational discrimination,” he urged. Dieppe also criticized the “wrongheaded” attempt at equating Islamophobia with racism, writing: “Islam is not a race. It is a religion. People from all kinds of ethnic backgrounds are Muslims. Muslims do not see themselves as anything like a separate race.” “Even if Islam was a ‘racial’ religion, restricted to a particular ethnic group, criticism of the beliefs and practices of this religion should still be allowed in a free and open society,” he insisted. “Defining ‘Islamophobia’ as… Read more »
The religion of peace eh.
That’s what they want you to think – but it is actually submission that is really required.
I was of course taking the P.
Deeply disturbing. It is a de facto blasphemy law. Interesting how no such protection was ever provided for Christianity. Will it prevent us talking about the systemic and flagrant persecution of Christians in countries such as Pakistan? Is that the aim? No one will be able to point out inconvenient truths?
I am beginning to wonder if the islamification of Europe has been the plan. Christianity led to too much freedom and independent thought.
“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.”― Albert Camus
“I am beginning to wonder if the islamification of Europe has been the plan.” Islam is being used. There is no desire on the Davos Deviants (DD) to see an islamic Europe as such. In the longer term all religions are to be eliminated. Islam is a “religion” based on hate and and a core tenet is to kill all non-believers so millions of muslims are being bussed in to Europe in order to destabilise the countries and eventually result in massive societal breakdowns. The military aged men coming to the UK and Ireland are here to fight and many of them have been prepared prior to arrival (cf John O’Looney). Once our countries have been destabilised by civil unrest the Fuehrer can impose martial law aided and abetted by his Calais Yatch Club members and then 1984 can really start. The government / establishment of the United Kingdom declared war on its people in March 2020 with Agenda 2030 as its goal and the people are to be subjugated and completely immiserated to that end. Do not be fooled by the political shenanigans taking place in Westminster, this is pantomime, window dressing designed to keep the masses confused and… Read more »
It seems these Globalists are seeking to deny me (and many) natures free pleasures, that is why they must be resisted with full force. I was just thinking to myself in the Gym….Is there any organisations that haven’t been infiltrated by the Marxist Left!
You don’t hear the persecution of Christians mentioned much anyway in the MSM. When has Welby spoken out against how Christians are treated on other countries, or even this one. If he did I must’ve missed it!
It is obvious that there is an agenda at play that has been in the making for decades. Ivor Cummins covers these issues well on his Youtube channel.
But I’m confused. Hasn’t one of the major projects of progressivism been to show how most of the great figures of the past were, in fact, gay. The National Trust devotes whole seasons to the theme. To be “gay” is to be superior to the “straight” gloomies – isn’t that the very reason for the re-definition of that word? Isn’t that the reason for Pride Week, Month, and Summer?
So what are Queers for Palestine to think if they are accused of Islamophobia for paying the prophet the greatest compliment in their worldview? How can anti-racists possibly be Islamophobic? It’s as absurd as believing that blacks can be racist, or that trans-women are not women. It’s as absurd as believing that singling out Islam as the only religion above criticism is to establish it as the State religion.
All religions are equal, but some are more equal than others.
The only thing worse than a state religion is a religious state.
“Muhammad Ahmad, you are charged that on the 5th May last you did wilfully and maliciously cut the throats of Catholic Priest, Seamus O’Murphy, and four of his congregation, whilst he was celebrating Mass. How do you plead?”
“I plead that this charge is Islamophobic, because to slay the enemies of Islam is an intrinsic part of my Muslimness, and therefore this whole court is guilty of Islamophobia and racism in bringing the charges, and these proceedings are illegal.”
“I note that there is no definition of ‘Muslimness,’ nor indeed of any of the content of Islam, in the legal definition of Islamophobia. Therefore the defendant’s objection is valid, and I rule that this court is not qualified to try the case. I therefore dismiss the murder charges, and refer the case to the Birmingham Sharia Court, where Mr Ahmad can be tried by his Muslim peers within an Islamic context.
“Allahu Akbar, your honour, and remember that you’re next.”
“Allahu Akbar, your honour, and remember that you’re next.”
Nail. Head.
Would quotes from the Koran (you know the ones) be considered hate speech?
Swap Islam for Israel and Muslim for Jew and discover the world via we’re already living in. The government of Israel is off limits for criticism no matter what it might do because only antisemites would ever want to criticize the government of Israel. Muslim organizations are just copying this demonstrably working recipe. “Can only by defined by this by no means exhaustive set of examples: […]” has essentially been taken verbatim from the ‘official’ definition of antisemitism. Eg, criticize the influence of financial investors like Black Rock on public policy => you are an antisemite because that’s just a “Jewish bankers!” dog whistle.
People who are fine with this definition of antisemitism have no reason complain about other people believing they ought to have something similar, just in favour of a cause that’s more dear to them then that of the middle-east dwarf state completely filled with main battle tanks, ie, a whole 2½ of them.
And yet the ADL would still prefer to criticise Tommy who, if true, has had funding from a pro Israel organisation, than to go against the Woke establishment and criticise Islam. A bit like Gays 4 Palestine.
I don’t quite understand this in the given context (actaully, I don’t understand it at all).
I think the criticisms of the author the article are essentially valid but I remember the Labour party being strong-armed into accepting definition of antisemitism not that long ago which was very similar to what’s being addressed in the text. In particular, doing away with the notion that people can only be guilty of having committed a crime when it can be proven that they actually meant to commit a crime, ie, that they knowlingly broke the law, is a feature of both. That’s actually more general feature of all contemporary anti-isms: Malicious intent is never required.
The so-called ‘dwarf state’ you refer to has demonstrated over many decades its ability through brains, innovation and hard work to create a nation far superior in many aspects of the western world’s technological achievements than its neighbouring Arab (and predominantly Muslim) states. Those latter that are rich, for example the Gulf Oil states, are so because western technology made them so; otherwise many of them would still be ‘driving’ a camel and not a Roll Royce or Mercedes Benz.
Even taking all your points as granted – and that’s giving quite a bit because the dwarf state could already only get started because British troops conquered the area from the Ottomans and tacitly accepted mass illegal immigration of Jews despite they were supposed to prevent that – the answer is still a resounding “So what?” Which band of Semites presently controls access to certain historical sites in Jerusalem is of absolutely no concern to me and neither is that members of different bands of Semites keep killing each other in the area. They’ve been doing that for centuries, if not millennia. Just let them.
I think it perfectly sensible in fact necessary to criticise an ideology that mandates genital mutilation of children – who can’t possibly consent.
Yes the article mentioned FGM….I will also add MGM.
You are absolutely spot on.
And that includes the insane ritual mutilation of the genitals of baby boys, called “circumcision”, which kills a couple of hundred baby boys every year in the USA through botched genital mutilations. But the good news for hospitals is that they make lots of money selling the baby foreskins for medical and cosmetics research. That’s right, ladies, it’s in your Rejuvenating Face Cream.
Oh, but wait! Nobody’s supposed to mention that, because it’s only baby boys being mutilated, and everybody knows we must only be outraged by what happens to GIRLS.
Well done to Stephen Tucker for that amazing find of a Scotsman actually imprisoned for “Revving His Car in a Racist Manner”!!!
That’s one to keep for future reference and comparisons to the many Muslim “Vehicular Jihad” attacks that have been carried out in Britain and abroad.
If my father, a Parsi, was still alive he would be branded an islamophobe because the Arabs drove the Zoroastrians out of Persia in 800AD or so, and he never forgave them (also he was seriously injured in a race riot in Mumbai in the thirties). So-called hate crime is universal; Arab against Jew (and just about everyone else), Catholic vs Protestant, Russian against Ukrainian Orthodox, Hindus against Muslims (look at India), Chinese against Muslims, Muslims (Shia) against Muslims (Sunni), Buddhists against Muslims (Myanmar), African tribe against tribe, scientists against dissenters etc. In these disputes internal hate crime legislation largely does not exist. It’s a Liberal Western phenomenon.
Nowadays, were I still at school where I was regularly called Four-Eyes because of my glasses, I suppose I could have called that out as a hate crime. This is spiralling into insanity. How do we stop it?
The problem is that mould-like pax transatlantica forced onto western Europe in perpetuity
or so it’s meant to be. This relies on suppressing all these conflicts with the military force (ultimatively) of invaders and since these invaders don’t really want to spend that much money on this in perpetuity their governour generals are supposed to suppress everything which could conceivably turn into a conflict before this actually happens. Hate must become a crime because it’s the manifest antithesis to the wrong ideology that all humans naturally seek to do is live in eternal peace and harmony with all other humans. Just need to repress them a little harder for a little more time and then, we’ll finally have reached the ‘natural’ state of sheep procreating happily with elephants while all the wolves and lions became vegans!
This is ultimatively a communist phantasy and – like all communist phantasies – the illusion of it would soon disappear if it wasn’t constantly maintained by force. We’re not free.
As a practicing Catholic, I honestly have no thoughts about the religion of Islam. People should be free to practice their religion freely and in peace.