Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Such a “Demanding” Religion Islam, isn’t it?

Our little Muslim buddies are at it again folks, when are they never you ask? and you would be right.


Now what is the main thrust of an Atheist Society do you think? Reverence and respect for those who believe in the Sky Fairy? Or debunking the whole damn scam? Discuss politely and with no reference whatsoever to the glaring holes and contradictions that exist at the centre of every religion that ever existed on this planet.


I am an Atheist. I’m not the slightest bit militant about it, I just don’t believe in a Supreme Being or Creator. I get up in the morning, look in the mirror and say myself… “ You’re still looking good RAB my old son, but how much longer do you have left to enjoy this wonderful accident of existence? Best make the most of it while you can, cos you’re only going to get one shot at it and you’re a long time dead,  gone and forgotten”. Then I proceed with my day, and get on with it in the most joyful and productive way that I may.

Fisk it yourselves folks, I could do it myself but that would leave less scope for the rest of you commentators. I don’t blame the bloke for running for cover, you need brass balls and police protection to go head to head with the thin skinned practitioners of the “Religion of Peace” these days , but bloody good on the rest of the Society , for refusing to take the cartoons down.

Is drinking Alcohol actually prohibited in the Koran? Well it’s a mute point, I heard that it came first from Big Mo himself, admonishing his followers for not slaughtering the Infidel unbelievers fast enough and conquering their lands, because they stopped to party after every victory.

And if this is blasphemy or in the slightest bit insulting to normal rational human beings, then I am a baboon’s arse.


  1. john in cheshire says:

    I just wonder if it is retards that are muslims or islam makes them into retards.

  2. Thornavis says:

    As has been pointed out elsewhere this is the Ahmadiya sect that is itself on the receiving end of Sunni intolerance, excuse me if in future I fail to register the slightest sympathy for them.

  3. Its a MOOT point – although not in the US where it means something different again!(/pedant)

  4. permanentexpat says:

    At some time we have to stop ‘turning the other cheek’ to Islam in the UK…..before it subjugates us by sheer demographics. It is our enemy but not our greatest. The deadliest are apathy & political correctness.
    …and do I not read today of 370,000 illegals on our stupidly generous Welfare system? Yes, I know, E.Europeans incl. How come we’re still intent on commiting national suicide?
    Oh, I am at heart an atheist but I like to hedge my bets so my current label is Agnostic 8-))

  5. 370,000 ‘illegals’ – no you didn’t – the actual figure was I think 180. The 370,000 referred to immigrants to this country found to be on benefit. It also includes people who later took British citizenship.

  6. RAB says:

    Thank you Ian, my pedant friend, ;-) but twas just a typo as I tend to just rattle these things off at a rate of knots. However having thought about it for a milisecond, I recon Mute is just as good, as the question whether Alcohol is forbidden by the Koran, is never questioned, or spoken about by Muslims and is assumed to be a “Given”. This leads me to a long held believe of mine that most Muslims have never actually read the Koran from cover to cover and get their interpretations of what it actually says from their Imams. They recite it in Arabic (a language the majority of Muslims do not speak) while banging their heads on the carpet, so to speak.

    You are also correct that the figure of 370,000 “illegals” claiming benefit were not illegal at all, but the point was that they used not to be allowed to do so under the old rules, but somehow now, magically are. Like the dear sweet Roma lady who is now able to claim housing benefit on top of all the other benefits she receives, because some twat of a Judge has ruled that selling the Big Issue is a proper job.

    Incidentally she used to be a permenent fixture outside my local Co-op, day in day out, but since the story broke, has mysteriously dissapeared. How very odd, it’s a good pitch.

  7. “Actions may be legal or illegal, but people are not. Call them immigrants, undocumented families, parents without papers, our coworkers and neighbors. But they are not “illegals.” The i-word reduces human beings to their political status, and silences the real issues in the debate – whether existing immigration laws are even remotely fair or just in the first place. The i-word is offensive and divisive, and doesn’t belong in a newspaper headline any more than the n-word or any other ethnic slur. No human being is illegal.”

  8. RAB says:

    Thanks for the lecture Ian, but to whom were you addressing it? Certainly not me I hope, as I clearly stated they were not illegal.

    Lazy journalise is what that is all about. People are not illegal but their status and actions may be.

  9. Anyone who calls people ‘illegals’. It dehumanises them and that is the first step on a very slippery slope.

    How do you suggest we restrict immigration by the way? ‘Immigration’ is surely a consequence of having a state dedicated to restricting the free movement of people.

  10. NickM says:

    What gets me is the broad-brush talk of limiting “nett-migration” as a policy goal. So that’s bearded Jordanian hate preacher Abu Qatada and a cleaning lady and someone who just snagged a professorship in genetics at Cambridge all lumped in one boat. It’s farcical! It’s truly farcical because there should be a free market here. It’s a sort of incredibly crude kissin’ cousin of the fixed wealth fallacy. I mean some bloke comes over here and gets a job (bad – taking jobs from the lokes), some bloke comes over here and signs on (bad – taking taxes from the lokes). But in the first case most of the folks I’ve ever met who are foreign and work here are in positions to create even more jobs. They have homes (plumbers, electricians, builders…) and cars (mechanics) and eat food and go to bars and… And the crowning disaste of this argument is the “strain on the NHS” one. A lot of these people are doctors and nurses!

  11. RAB says:

    ian, by dehumanises them I presume you mean in the eyes of the indiginous population? because I very much doubt that persons that do not have the right entry and residential paperwork give a flying fuck what people call them, as long as they are allowed to stay.

    Like Nick, I have no problem with “Immigration” per se, only the speed and volume of it. New Labour deliberately let it rip for their own nefarious political purposes, two and a half million in the last decade alone. That’s more people in a very short time than since the end of the last Ice Age.

    I would like to think that people want to come to my country for the right reasons… Namely to work and improve their lot, to share in the culture that has been built up over centuries and intergrate with it, but I think that may be a little naive in the main, don’t you?

    So if we want to limit immigration then getting rid of the Welfare State would be the place to start, a good idea all on its own by the way. Then we will see how attractive we still are. Let’s face it, nobody comes for the weather do they?

    It is the dissipation of our Culture, Heritage and History that troubles those of us who were born into a monoculture (with some variations, Welsh (I am Welsh) Scots and Irish). But that is a topic for a whole thread on its own, isn’t it?

  12. spinoza says:

    Alcohol is actually prescribed, not proscribed in one surah in the Qur’an.
    16:67: And of the fruits of the palms and the grapes– you obtain from them intoxication and goodly provision; most surely there is a sign in this for a people who ponder. (Shakir) Yet strangely Yusuf Ali appears to have found a different version of the original Arabic, for any mention of strong liquor is absent: And from the fruit of the date-palm and the vine, ye get out wholesome drink and food: behold, in this also is a sign for those who are wise.
    The whole shebang is so totally confused I never cease to wonder how any sensible, intellectually curious adult can live their life, their precious one life, believing such bollocks.

  13. Immigration to this country is not a function of the Welfare State – just look at the history of the East End of London, Liverpool, Cardiff or South Shields. Nor has Britain ever really been a monoculture – the culture we do have is a mongrel born out of successive waves of immigration over centuries.

    Who decides what are the ‘right reasons’ for coming here? We treat asylum seekers abominably, yet the people coming here to ‘work and improve their lot’ are refused entry as simply ‘economic migrants’.

    I don’t care why people choose to come here. If they have taken the decision to uproot their lives and make incredibly arduous journeys to get here, I’m not going to second guess them and say “sorry mate, wrong reason”!

    We dehumanise people by the language we use to describe them – ‘illegals’ is simply the latest. ‘Ethnics’ was another I heard a particularly stupid local councillor use. As I’ve already said, when we treat people as less than human, as less than ourselves, that is but a short step from a steep and nasty slope.

  14. RAB says:

    Thanks for yet another lecture ian (you are rather fond of them arn’t you?). I can’t be bothered to debate with you further, I know a closed mind when I encounter one.

    I was born in Cardiff in the early fifties by the way, and if some Sociology lecturer has been extolling the wonderous Rainbow culture of “Tiger bay” to you, I will quickly put you straight as to the facts of that, if you like.

    And if you really don’t think that Asylum seeking is in 80% of the cases nothing but a legalistic scam, then feel free.

  15. Paul Marks says:

    Six months suspension if you use the word “retard” John, and compulsory “diversity training”.

    Good to live in a “free country” like this.

    Although, most likely, better to be dead.

  16. Paul Marks says:

    On immigration.

    Race does not matter a tinker’s curse – Bill Ayers and co are as white as snow (and as evil as they come).

    What matters is not what colour somone is or where they were born – but ARE THE LOYAL.

    Islamists (for want of a better word) are not loyal (can not be so) – it does not matter if they are blond haired and blue eyed whose forefathers came to this island at the end of the last Ice Age. CONVERTS.

    And it does not matter that the former Bishop of Rochester is brown and was born and bred in Pakistan – he is loyal.

    Ideas are what matters (to whom and what your loyality is to) not race or place of birth.

    Ditto with “Mexicans” in the United States.

    What matters is the following…..

    “To what are you loyal – the Mexican Constitution or the American Consitution” if the reply is “the Mexican” or “I do not know” – then kick them out.

    But remember that Hollyood (for example) has been loyal to the Mexican Constitution (or worse) for decades.

    All those blue eyed, blond haired Hollywood types – making films about how the Mexican Revolutionaries were heros.

    Including ones who raided the United States and murdered American citizens. And Mexican Revolutionaries who murdered people for such “crimes” as “having stairs inside your house” (no I am not making that up).

    Films about the peasant resistance to various “Progressive” regimes in Mexico (in the 1920s and 1930s).

    None made in the last forty years – not in Hollywood.

    Again – they may have been born in America and have blond hair and blue eyed, but they are not LOYAL.

    And it is exactly the same in Britain.

  17. NickM says:

    If you mean Michael Nazir-Ali (who is a good stick for a bishop) then his colour does matter… to the church of England General Synod. The word on the street is that he and John Sentamu (both men who bizarrely managed to obtain senior positions in the CofE despite you know believing in God) were dissed for the “top-job” and hence we got Williams who looks like he flunked year one of Istari school.

  18. Why is loyalty to a state such a good thing?

    RAB – I never said Tiger Bay was good – or anything for that matter, just that as a matter of fact, immigration has been a longstanding aspect of British life. The Windrush generation didn’t come here for the welfare state they came here to work. So did the Filipino nurses who came to my local mental hospital in the ’50s and whose families are still here. The Huguenot who came here in the 17th century did so to escape prosecution, but brought skills too. The Ugandans expelled by Amin were asylum seekers but also brought an intense work ethic. Many Poles and Eastern Europeans in the last wave ended up in East Anglia and the like, picking fruit and other produce for peanuts, but as importantly doing work the locals turned up their noses to.

    RAB – you call them lectures, I simply call it looking at the facts.

    Paul – I would be interested in seeing a reference for your suggestion that people were murdered in Mexico for having a staircase. There is plenty of evidence for similar behaviour in Cambodia under Pol Pot and in China during the Red Guard period, but I’ve never come across that one.

  19. Paul Marks says:

    That is weird news Nick – I hope it is not true (i.e. I hope your source or sources were wrong) – just about the only thing I did not think the G.S. was NOT guilty of was racism.

    Someone who votes on the basis of race (i.e. refusing to vote for a “non white” or, like all those people in the United States who voted for a man they knew nothing about in 2008 – to prove they were “not racists”, thus actually proving they were because they were voting on the basis of skin colour) is rather low.


    If you mean loyality to the “government of the day” then it is not much of a good thing, but I meant loyality to the NATION (to the CONSTITUTION itself – either the written Constitution of the United States or the unwritten traditions of the United Kingdom – and so on).

    “Why is that a good thing….”

    You might as well ask “why is INVASION a bad thing?”

    That is the difference between immigration and invasion (and invasions can be peaceful at first) – do the new people come to be PART OF THE NATION or NOT.

    If it is NOT (if they come as aliens – as hostile to the nation they are going to) then it is not a good thing (this is really 1+1=2 stuff).

    But, of course, this applies (just as much) to people born in a country. The “Weathermen” were all born in the United States – and they were (and are) certainly not loyal.

    Which is better people who have blond hair and blue eyes – but are working to destroy the country (and enslave the population), or people with black hair and brown eyes who have come to the country to JOIN A NEW POLITY.

    Obviously someone can not be loyal to the PRINCIPLES of the 1917 Mexican Constitution and loyal to the PRINCIPLES of the United States Constittuion.

    A person must CHOOSE.

    “Who was the guy he murdered people for having more one floor in the house”.

    Zabata – (spelling alert).

    Hollywood has made films gloryfying this son-of-a-bitch – for example “Viva Zebata”.

    And Hollywood has made films gloryfying Pancho Villa – who murdered American citizens inside the United States.

    Well Hollywood has not got a city (and county) of LA with a majority Mexican population – full of the “Social Justice” principles that people like Z stood for.

    Ian – would you really care if this population started to “redistribute” the great wealth of the Hollywood people?

    I know I should care (robbery is robbery and murder is murder) – but Hollywood has been making films gloryfying such actions for DECADES.

  20. RAB says:

    Ah the Huguenots, bless! I could have put money on them coming up, they always do in immigration discussions. Right, between 20,000 and 40,000 of them turned up over a period of about 10 years. Hardly a flood in Daily Fail parlance was it? Effect on the indiginous population and lasting legacy? Zip, none, nada.

    Some turned up in the Welsh Valleys and founded the little village of Fleur de Llys. Not very Welsh sounding is it? Lasting effect? None whatsoever apart from the name. I bet you’d be hard pressed to find anyone round there who knows what a Huguenot was, let alone claim descent from them. Ah but if you asked who has a bit of Italian in them…

    A lot of Italians turned up in the South Wales Valleys when coal was discovered in the 1860s, and the place went from an almost unpopulated rural place to a veritable Klondyke. Cardiff for instance went from 2000 people to 20,000 in a decade , and is now 400,000.

    The Italians really were a boon in many ways though. They ended up running all the cafes in S Wales, generically called Bracci’s, because they were the biggest family. Thanks to them, us Welsh had taste of the finest coffee, ice cream, pasta and pastries, that didn’t get seen in the rest of Britain (except Scotland as Sam will tell you) for another hundred years! I went to school with kids called Iolo Spinetti, and Carlo Evans, and when asked what we were we said Welsh without pausing for breath even. And I had two French aunts and bilingual cousins in case you think I harbour any racist type thoughts. My aunts chose to live there because they loathed their own countrymen (for reasons perfectly valid, but too long to go into here).

    Were all those immigrants in the 1860s Welsh? No of course not, but apart from the Italians, the vast majority of the rest, came from other parts of Britain, and when they got there they melded into the very distinct Welsh culture that exists today. They intergrated and now call and feel themselves Welsh whatever their genes and skin colour says about them.

    The point I’m making, and Paul above is too, is who your allegiance is to, where your head and your heart says you belong. If people of such different cultures turn up in such massive numbers that they subsume the culture that existed before, and make no attempt to intergrate whatsoever, then it is no wonder that the original population gets a bit pissed off.

    The Ugandan Asians were indeed asylum seekers, and we welcomed them. Their expulsion from Uganda was as blatent a bit of Racism by Idi Amin, that you will ever find an example of, and it did wonders for Uganda didn’t it? it went from the bread basket of Africa to plain basket case in a decade. But this work ethic of theirs of which you speak, do you think it didn’t exist in Britain before their arrival??

    So to conclude, it is culture and the acceptance of it that makes a country, not whether it has immigration or not, and that culture is an evolving thing, but it has to happen slowly and manageably, so that common bonds are not lost. If it is too fast and too vast, that slippery slope you keep alluding to, gets ever slicker, doesn’t it? and you end up with Hotel UK, which is what we seem to be becoming now.

  21. NickM says:

    Ian is right. We have buggerated immigration and conflated it with so many things we’ve lost the plot and the idea that folks might just want to come here for all sorts of reasons not related to getting bennies. Yeah, Ian is right in the sense that South Shields boasts a mosque that goes way back. Liverpool can claim much the same. Now here is one for you. I had a girlfriend once who was from the USA. She got a job here (she liked England and she liked me) and guess what the job was? It was working for the USAF aiding the spouses and families of USAF personnel stationed in England to adapt. She was ideal and she was going to be paid on the US dime but UK immigration didn’t want her. Phi Beta Kappa honours society with the highest GPA in the entire school of Arts & Sciences of her year at Cornell and superfluous to UK requirements. We broke-up essentially because we couldn’t live in the same country. UK (and US) immigration are run by ineffable cunts who combine malice and incompetence in equal measure.

  22. RAB says:

    Who is this “we” you are talking about Kimosabe?

    You and I didn’t buggerate the Immigration system, the Govt did, and in the case of NuLab, quite deliberately, for their own political advantage.

    You’ve told me the tale of your American girlfriend before, and we both agreed that it was utterly insane, but the mistake she made was to play by the Govt’s convoluted rules. If she’d fetched up having destroyed her documentation and claimed asylum because she came from the worst hellhole on earth (which of course she hadn’t) and she’d have been half way home free.

    Now, as you must know by now, having read my comments above, that I have nothing against immigration per se, but only with the speed and volume of it. We have had vastly more immigration to this country in the last 20 years than at any time in the last 1000. And if that alters the framework, fabric and social cohesion of what we used to call Great Britain to the point that it is unrecognisable, then what is there to applaud about it? Anymore than we would applaud a Communist revolution, or an actual invasion by a foreign power?

    But this thread is getting a bit long in the tooth now. As long as you fully understand my points, though not nessessarily agree with them, then I shall draw a veil…

  23. We’ve come a long way from the OP about the lunacies of the UCL Student Union…


    Paul – naming Zapata isn’t really providing a reference. I haven’t found an online source for your story and don’t have any relevant print material to hand, so a link, or book title would be nice. Without that your story is just that – a story.

    RAB – you say again about the vast scale of current immigration. However, on your figure of 20-40,000 Huguenot coming to Britain (the Huguenot society says 40-50,000) this has to be set into the context of the time. The population of Britain in 1700 was about 6m, so they formed just under 1% of the then population. Apply that percentage to the 2001 population of 59m and you get 4.7m. The proportion of the UK population who were foreign born in 2001 was 8.3%. (Compared to Australia 23%, Canada, 19.3% and the USA 12.3%) About 4.9% came from outside the EU.)

    There was a big change 2001 – 2010, largely accounted for by the new EU accession states like Poland and Romania, a large proportion of whom appear to have returned home, partly as the job market tightened here, but largely it seems because they were of an age where they wanted to have their own families.

    It seems strange to me, as the non-libertarian in this discussion, that I should be questioning what seems to be a curious faith in state power. If immigration is too high, how is it to be constrained? Who should decide when the fabric of our society has been strained too far? Who should have the power to say ‘thus far and no further’? That isn’t a power I would willingly give to any state agency if I had the choice.

    Paul talked about ‘loyalty’ not to the government, but to a Constitution, but they relate to the nation state, so loyalty to the one is implicitly loyalty to the other.

    ‘But the constitution sets out a set of standards of behaviour’.

    They may indeed, but if you look at the text alone, you will see lots of similarities between the constitution of the USA and many totalitarian states. It isn’t what is written down that counts, it is what is DONE. In the way we – by which I mean this country – are treating immigrants and asylum seekers we are demonstrating as Nick put it ‘malice and incompetence in equal measure’. It is like the absurd security theatre of the TSA or the equally absurd ‘war on drugs’ – it doesn’t matter if what you are doing works, it is more important to be seen to be doing something, anything, so you can play to the lowest common denominator of the electorate and stay in office.

    I’m not saying that all immigrants are without fault, or even that some of them are not motivated by the idea of benefits – although if you have come from some hell-hole like Somalia, Congo or Afghanistan who could blame them? My complaint is with the dismissal of someone who has risked all they had, including their life, to get to another country and the chance of a fresh start, as ‘illegals’, as ‘wetbacks’, as less than ‘us’, simply because they are not already ‘one of us’.

    Now I’m going to take my cue from RAB and shut up.

    Although… on your original question – Yes I do think the Jesus and Mo cartoons are blasphemous, but I don’t care. Blasphemy is only meaningful to Christians, Muslims and other followers of fairy tales.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: