Wednesday, 24 May 2017


My wife and I are Mancunians. When I was aged 17, my office was by Manchester Cathedral, opposite the River Irwell in its 50 foot deep chasm, 100 yards from Victoria Station and the Manchester Arena. I know the place and the people very well. It is a great, multicultural city, of solid, independent, inventive and innovative people; that gave the world The Industrial Revolution and in 1810 became the richest city on Earth. Last week I published my Manchester memoirs, tales of our first 20 years. My book Dancing on the Half-Beat ends "And they all lived happily ever after."

Manchester Suicide Bomber - Salman Ramadan Abedi
SALMAN RAMADAN ABEDI, the mindless suicidal 22 year old idiot who blew himself to pieces on 22nd May 2017 - and slaughtered, maimed and wounded eighty youngsters and children - to celebrate Islam, the Muslim religion - prefers that the story should end "And they all died horribly - for Allah and Muhammad". 

He was an evil, deluded lunatic. Those who tutored and brain-washed him in their twisted, ugly interpretation of the Will of God and of their holy prophet, Muhammad, are still alive and are far more evil than the fool who they persuaded to slaughter himself and innocent children. These false-Imams, his teachers, will have justified warping his mind by reciting bits of text out of context dating from 600 AD - inciting Muslims to kill all non-believers. As a reward, these cowardly preachers almost certainly promised him seventy-two virgins on whom to wear-out his sad little prick to a sore, limp worm - after death, in heaven. 

Manchester Guardian Letters - 25 May 2017
As we attempt to come to terms with what has happened in Manchester, it is very important to draw attention to the fact that the attack was not simply an attack on children and teenagers: it was an attack on girls. The overwhelming majority of those attending the concert were female, and the perpetrator knew that. We will not grasp the irrational, confused and hate-filled thinking behind it unless we see it as an act of gender violence.
Isis and those brainwashed by them think that women are less than persons, and that their lives are to be disposed of as men see fit. The emancipation of women in the west forms a large part of any explanation for why our civilisation is hated by these brutal men.
Dr Rufus Duits


Christians and other biblical religions were stuffed with similar hate and sex myths. When God was upset by sinners he "Destroyed the Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah" and turned fleeing citizens into pillars of salt. (Really?) When he got very cross, he picked a city at random and "Killed all the men; all the women; all the children - and even All the Beasts of the fields - and all the crops". Jesus countered that violent madness - preaching love and forgiveness. But, by 300 AD, Christian philosophers had perverted his message, banned love and  sex, stoked up misogyny and sexual perversions and opened the doors to The Spanish Inquisition, heretic and witch-burning, and torture. But most Christians got over that crap by 1950. Islam also needs to grow up. 

As in many religions - Salman the Stupid will have been denied normal, healthy love and sex with females in life; to be driven by a build-up of intense and bewildering sexual frustration - often manifested in hatred of the women he desired; to be released through violence and self-destruction; and by belief in false fairy-tale promises - after death. What a dick-head. In our rugby teams, we described such an obsessive as "thinking with his prick". 

The pedlars and purveyors of these wicked falsehoods - steeped in hatred - the insane men and women who turned the killer's mind, are as guilty of the 22 murders and the 60 woundings, as is Salman Ramadan Abedi. 

All the leaders of Muslims, of Islam, need to step-up, speak-out and publicly erase the hatred and silly fairy-tales from their holy books and teachings. In the meantime such preachers, teachers, tutors, philosophers and interpreters of Islamic history should be tried and imprisoned for the crimes of their deluded, demented pupils - as accessories to, before and after, the wicked, evil crimes. 

Who taught the Manchester Suicide Bomber to hate? Put them on trial.


Heaven in the Islamic faith does not include 72 wide-eyed sex goddesses. The number ‘72’ does not appear anywhere in the Quran. Nor does the word “suicide” (intihar in Arabic) appear, which is a word used interchangeably with martyrdom.
The confusion that exists arises over one oral tradition by Imam Tirmidhi. He cleverly crafted the “72 virgins” that has now become instilled in the minds of radicalized and misinformed Muslim men. The real tragedy is that so few scholars have accepted that this controversy exists or have failed to challenge the misinterpreted verse “of the 72 virgins” in the Quran.
A well-known and widely transmitted hadith of imam al-Tirmidhi explicitly notes that male martyrs will enjoy the pleasure of seventy-two virgins in paradise:
According to al-Tirmidhi, a martyr has seven special favors from Allah. They are:
  • He [or she] is forgiven his sins with the first spurt of blood.
  • He sees his place in paradise; he is clothed with the garment of faith.
  • He is wed with seventy-two wives from the beautiful Maidens of paradise.
  • He is saved from the Punishment of the Grave.
  • He is protected from the Great Terror (Judgment Day).
  • On his head is placed a Crown of Dignity, better than any jewel.
  • The world and all it contains, and he is granted intercession.
  • And seventy people of his household will enter paradise.


Peace and conciliation[edit]

Numerous scholars and authors, both Muslim and non-Muslim have testified to the underlying rejection of violence, cruelty, coercion, and intolerance of the Quran and its embrace of justice and self-defence. According to Fawzy Abdelmalek, "many Muslim scholars speak of Islam as a religion of peace and not of violence. They say that the non-Muslims misunderstand the Quran verses about Jihad and the conduct of war in Islam."[17]
Nissim Rejwan asserts that, "violence and cruelty are not in the spirit of the Quran, nor are they found in the life of the Prophet, nor in the lives of saintly Muslims."[18]
According to Feisal Abdul Rauf, "the Quran expressly and unambiguously prohibits the use of coercion in faith because coercion would violate a fundamental human right—the right to a free conscience. A different belief system is not deemed a legitimate cause for violence or war under Islamic law. The Quran is categorical on this: "There shall be no compulsion in religion" (2:256); "Say to the disbelievers [that is, atheists, or polytheists, namely those who reject God] "To you, your beliefs, to me, mine" (109:1–6)"[19]
Charles Mathewes characterizes the peace verses as saying that, "if others want peace, you can accept them as peaceful even if they are not Muslim." As an example, Mathewes cites the second sura which commands believers not to transgress limits in warfare: "fight in God's cause against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits [in aggression]; God does not love transgressors" (2:190).[1]
Chiba and Schoenbaum argue that Islam "does not allow Muslims to fight against those who disagree with them regardless of belief system", but instead "urges its followers to treat such people kindly".[20][21][22][23]Yohanan Friedmann has argued that the Quran does not promote fighting for the purposes of religious coercion, although the war as described is "religious" in the sense that the enemies of the Muslims are described as "enemies of God" (8:57–62).[24]
Solomon A. Nigosian has argued that in "duty to halt aggression or to strive for the preservation of Islamic principles", fighting may be involved, where the Quran encourages them to "fight courageously and steadfastly against recalcitrant states, be they Muslim or non-Muslim." He also argues that the "Quranic statement is clear" on the issue of fighting in defence of Islam as "a duty that is to be carried out at all costs", where "God grants security to those Muslims who fight in order to halt or repel aggression".[25][page needed]
According to Chandra Muzaffar, "The Quranic exposition on resisting aggression, oppression and injustice lays down the parameters within which fighting or the use of violence is legitimate. What this means is that one can use the Quran as the criterion for when violence is legitimate and when it is not."[26]
In the Islamic telling of Cain and Abel, Abel tells his murderous brother that "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah".[27]Some scholars, such as Jawdat Said,[28] have identified this an example of pacifism.[29]
Various Ahmadis scholars like Muhammad AliMaulana Sadr-ud-DinBasharat Ahmad and also the British orientalist Gottlieb Wilhelm Leitner argue that when the Quran's verses are read in context, it clearly appears that the Quran prohibits initial aggression, and allows fighting only in self-defense.[30][31][32][33][34]
Arvind Kumar writes:
The Quran sanctions violence to counter violence. If one studies history of Arab tribes before Islam and fierce fighting they indulged in one would be convinced that the philosophy of passive resistance would not have worked in that environment.[35]
Khaled Abou El Fadl asserts that "there is not a single verse in the Quran that calls for an unmitigated, unqualified, or unreserved obligation to fight the unbelievers."[36] According to Esposito and Mogahed, the Quran balances permission to fight the enemy with a strong mandate for making peace.[37][38]

No comments:

Post a Comment