Counting Cats in Zanzibar Rotating Header Image

Let’s give a big round of applause to Angola!


“In an apparent attempt to prevent the spread of Islamic extremism, the African nation of Angola has banned Islam and is in the process of tearing down mosques, according to multiple media reports.

On November 24, Angola President José Eduardo dos Santos said the country is working toward putting an end to Islamic influence in Angola once and for all.

Michael Stone at The Examiner


  1. Lynne says:

    Muslims are not a threat to anyone.

    And elephants fly around on gossamer wings.

    Don’t like a taste of their own medicine, do they.

    This is probably a response to the Islamic terrorist atrocity in Nairobi. The Angolan government has just declared war on Islamic extremists. Can’t help thinking that the Muzzies will do what they always do when their “religion” is threatened; resort to cowardly murder.

  2. Lynne says:

    Argh! WTF is with the hyperlink? I didn’t put it in and editing isn’t getting rid of it!

  3. longrider says:

    I see. So, if they were banning any other religion, that would be okay as well? Islam today what tomorrow?

    Yes, I despise Islam, but I despise authoritarian regimes that ban religions just as much – even though I abhor all religion.

  4. Islam is not a religion. It is a hobby.

  5. AND L.R, show me another “religion” that uses passenger planes to ply skittles with sky scrapers, attacks shopping centers, blows up night clubs, hotels, bus loads of passengers in Israel, cuts heads of soldiers on London streets, then aye, fucking ban those bastards as well.

    Hitler was not wrong. He merely picked on the wrong “religion.”

  6. John Galt says:

    I missed being caught up in the 7/7/2005 attack by about 3-minutes when going from Kings Cross to Liverpool Street to get to my office at Broadgate.

    I don’t remember the Catholics, Anglicans, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs or any other religion trying to bomb me for any reason.

    There are no moderate muslims, just disobedient ones. The basic tenets of Islam clearly state that I must become a muslim or be killed.

    So why shouldn’t I applaud the actions of the Angolan government? given the provocation, it seems quite reasonable to me.

    My argument would be the same if it was the 7th Day Advent Hoppists that were trying to blow me up.

    Islam is a medieval cult based upon subservience to the lunatic ravings of Mo the paedophile. It is a threat to world peace, progress and prosperity in the same way that rats are. It needs to be exterminated in the same way.

  7. single acts of tyranny says:

    In fairness, the old testament also calls for your death JG, its just that those particular believers ignore inconvenient sections of their infallible book.

  8. John Galt says:

    Fair point, but the islamic version is a bit more indiscriminate, kill the unbeliever is a lot broader an interpretation than kill the fag.

  9. Sam Duncan says:

    Yep, I’m with Longrider here. I’m not really in favour of banning anything as a rule.

    However, I can certainly see why someone might. The trouble with the Angolan approach though, apart from anything else – and there’s a lot else – is that it won’t work. Indeed, there’s a good chance they’ll end up radicalizing a whole bunch of kids who’d never have dreamed of slaughtering the infidel otherwise. No cheers from me.

  10. There is a real problem here. Banning religions is wrong, yet Islam is on the march and the intentions of the Islamists are terrible.

    One does not need to read dusty old books (such as Winston Churchill’s “The River War” – the unedited version) to know this. Even the socialist government of France admits it – for example in the case of the Central African Republic where an armed Muslim minority has a policy of “genocide” towards the Christian majority (a majority that is not well prepared for attack).

    So what to do?

    I do not know what to do.

    Try and convert the Muslims?

    Prepare just in case they do attack?


  11. single acts of tyranny says:

    I reckon the old testament was so hard core/kill the unbeliever because the Jews were bossing it at the time, but the new testament was all turn the other cheek because they lost power to the Romans.

  12. john in cheshire says:

    JG, I’m in agreement with you. I feel no need to give equivalence to the death cult that is islam. When you are at war, which we are as far as islam is concerned, you don’t facilitate your enemy’s plans.

  13. xX Sam Duncan
    November 27, 2013 at 4:30 am

    there’s a good chance they’ll end up radicalizing a whole bunch of kids who’d never have dreamed of slaughtering the infidel otherwise. No cheers from me. XX

    Ahh, the old; “Shhh, don’t say anything, you may upset the mooslims!”

  14. However, forget “radicalise” – neocons (and others) use this term all the time, because they do not have a clue about Islam.

    Mohammed was not Buddha or Jesus. A peace loving person whose idea are “misinterpreted” by “radicalised” followers.

    Mohammed was a military and political leader.

    His followers do not need to be “radicalised” – just the study of the teachings (and the deeds) of Mohammed will tend to lead them to seek to kill on enslave infidels.

    For example various people asked what Mohammed would have thought had he heard of the killing of poets (in Holland and elsewhere) in his name. It was an effort to get Muslims thinking in the way “would Jesus have done this?” is supposed to shame Christians who do terrible things.

    But it was an absurd effort – Mohammed ordered such things himself (so there is no need to ask what he would have thought of such deeds carried out in his name).

    For example, an old blind poet mocked Mohammed – so “the prophet” sent men (pretending to be friends) to the family of the old blind poet – to murder him.

    A female poet protested this deed – so Mohammed sent men to murder her as well.

    Sorry – the followers of Mohammed do not need “radicalising”.

  15. NickM says:

    I am totally against banning belief systems from Atheism to Zoroastrianism. End of. I believe many things that many of you might find distasteful and I am sure vice-versa. Angola has done a stupid thing here. JG, you appreciate their are very nasty predatory homosexuals out there so why not ban homosexuality? It is much the same thing.

  16. CountingCats says:

    Let’s give a big round of applause to Angola!


    Absolutely not.

    In fact JG, I am astonished that you could say this. It is everything I thought we stood against.

  17. CountingCats says:


    It is not the same thing. Don’t forget, the philosophical underpinnings of homosexuality do not mandate that followers be predatory. That is an individual choice not related to being either homosexual or hetero.

  18. CountingCats says:


    You are homosexual so they want you dead?

    So what? Dead is dead, don’t award yourself any special dispensation to outrage over that reason.

    I am an atheist, so they want me dead no less. Doesn’t mean that I will abandon my principles in relation to them.

  19. longrider says:

    JG – when we ban things we become what we despise. Also, do you really think that this ban will stop Islam in Angola? Really? Or will it merely go underground and fester, creating even more radicalised suicide bombers. It’s easy to be a liberal when defending the freedom of those we agree with. A bit more difficult when we find ourselves defending those we abhor. So, no, we should not applaud Angola. We should be horrified. Islam is a nasty evil cult, but providing people who follow it do us no harm, they should enjoy the same freedom of (and from) religion as anyone else. If they do us harm, use the weight of the law to prosecute offenders.

    I’m disappointed. Really, I am. You fell at the first hurdle.

  20. Sam Duncan says:

    No, FT, not at all. I’m not calling for appeasement of the existing head-hackers; I’m saying that banning a religion that I have no doubt plenty of people in Angola practice perfectly peacably will only infuriate them, to no benefit to anyone.

    Most of the pussyfooting around Muslim sensibilities by western states is beyond a joke, I don’t dispute that. But there’s no reason to go 180 degrees in the opposite direction and ban the way of life of millions of people who genuinely have no interest at all in bringing our civilization to its knees. That’s how to get a real war started.

  21. NickM says:

    If I might make so bold only weirds who think of “philosophical under-pinnings” to homosexuality. I’d always thought it was simply a desire to have sex with the same sex. Simples.

    **the philosophical underpinnings of homosexuality do not mandate that followers be predatory. That is an individual choice not related to being either homosexual or hetero.**

    There is no philosophical underpinning to morality. There is only desire (and maybe love). There is only reality and morality. All else is folly.

    This is still not 100% but it is getting there – I’m very tired.

  22. Julie near Chicago says:

    O/T: I say again, it’s very interesting that (from the point of view of an a-theist like me) the Jews and their offspring, the Christians, have over the course of millenia come to expect more and more of their God … regardless of His nature as understood 3000 years or more ago, they now expect* of Him both justice and benevolence–regardless of whether they consider Him as directly interventionist.

    *Generally speaking, that is.

  23. Julie near Chicago says:

    JG, that’s an interesting, unusual religious group you bring up there. Do you know where I could go to join the Seventh-Day Advent Hoppists? –I would want to practice my obligatory religious rituals in a social setting, after all. Hopping on one foot all day on Sundays makes it difficult to focus properly on the computer monitor, and, well, with nothing to read and no one to talk to exercise gets boring. I know, because I used to do running-in-place as my aerobics exercise.

    But as the guy said, “Who wants to live long if you have to eat broccoli?” I can’t go along with him there, of course, since broccoli is quite tasty, especially nice tender florets dripping in butter; but it’s true that a sharp cost-benefit analysis should be performed before one adopts daily exercise as a life-extending feature.

  24. CountingCats says:


    My term “the philosophical underpinnings of homosexuality do not mandate that followers be predatory” was tongue in cheek, a pointer that your comparison with homosexuality and Islam was invalid on all points.

  25. Flaxen Saxon says:

    I’m with Cats, Sam D, NickM et al on this one and not because JG
    advocates ostracism. I have Asperger’s syndrome (the astute may have already guessed) but in spite of my many challenges I have carved out a life as a senior
    professional. I have a problem with nuance, or so I been told. I am no stranger to the withholding of fellowship either however, I thought, of all places, I might be accepted here, albeit not uncritically.

    I’m not a great believer in banning anything, on the basis of
    principle. Also, I think in this case, it will not work for reasons
    already eloquently expressed. That said I think Islam is an odious
    ideology and should be opposed. There is a pandering in the West
    toward Islam which is sickening. We should not give in to blatant
    blackmail but should stand up (aggressively) for our hard won freedoms
    and subject Islam to the ridicule it deserves. Islam is not a
    religion of peace but of war and subjugation. I think long term the solution lies
    with education; few religions stand up to the intellect and rational
    thought. The worry of course is that we may not have enough time.

  26. Roue le Jour says:

    I think it stands as much chance of helping as banning Catholicism in Northern Ireland during the troubles would have done.

    However, It’s an interesting experiment being conducted a safe distance away. Let’s wait and see how it turn out, shall we?

  27. John Galt says:

    Ultimately, Angola (despite being a 3rd world shithole), is a sovereign state and they have had enough of islamic trouble makers and they are determined to put a stop to it. Fair enough.

    As Roue le Jour says, “It’s an interesting experiment being conducted a safe distance away, Let’s wait and see how it turns out, shall we?”

  28. John Galt says:

    “In fact JG, I am astonished that you could say this. It is everything I thought we stood against.”

    I’m for freedom of the individual and the freedom to do whatever you want provided it doesn’t affect others, I think non-initiation of violence is a good basis for a libertarian society, but the counterpoint to this is that when others do threaten your society and initiate violence against the peaceful unbeliever you have to make a stand don’t you?

    Otherwise this intolerable “religion” will hold sway over the entirety of western civilisation, something which we’ve been fighting to prevent since the middle ages (1529 – Siege of Vienna and all that).

    It is only because the libtards scream “racism” every time an suggestion is put forward which might stem the rising tide of islam in the west.

    Do you think this sort of thing is acceptable? Because I don’t!

  29. NickM says:


    “a sovereign state” – Saudi Arabia and Iran are sovereign states and they do vile things. Since when did libertarians regard sovereign states as having carte blanche? And what of Malaysia where you live. Don’t Malaysian Muslims have their religion on their passport?

    “when others do threaten your society”. Well, again the use of the term “society” is somewhat loaded here in the context of libertarianism is it not? Whose society? Society ought not to be mandated but just what happens when free people interact freely. I suffer from an Islamic menace. He’s called Sayeed and pushes Dr Who Magazines on my wife (I go into the shop for a Coke and he sidles – “I have a magazine you know…” It is hardly the Siege of Vienna. As far as I know he has never blown anything up, beheaded an infidel or incited chaos and violence in dusty lands. He’s just a bloke with a shop.

    “this intolerable “religion””. Why the quotes on “religion”. It is a religion. Not one I’m keen on but it is a religion as much as any other. Perhaps more than some. Buddhism is detectably not a religion by Western (including Middle-Eastern) standards.

    “will hold sway over the entirety of western civilisation”. Bollocks. In any case when did Angola count as “civilisation”? No Islam shall not triumph because it is no fun at all. No beer, no bacon, no broads, no buggery – sign me up! Nah! Islam is in a crisis of confidence when faced with the West which is why it is lashing out. The leader of the 7/7 bombers spent most of his videoed speech on this sort of subject and yet the only bit you see of his demented ramblings is the final five minutes where he goes on about Iraq and the ‘stan. Mostly it was about imams in five bedroom houses with a Merc on the drive etc. It is a tiger, but a fatally wounded one. I mean how the hell do you think some stuffy old grand mufti spouting tripe can compare with Miley Cyrus on her wrecking ball? To the average young lad anyway. And that matters.

  30. Flaxon Saxon – yes the “ultra male mind” difficulties with the subtle stuff of human interaction (not that most men are wonderful at this).

    As for Islam.

    I am not hearing solutions.

    Logically if people have a belief system that leads them to seek to exterminate or enslave others, it would nice if they converted to another belief system (that did not teach them that exterminating or enslaving other people was a good thing).

    Sadly when this point is made it is often misunderstood as to mean that it would be O.K. if they “assimilated into our society”.

    That is not good enough – in fact it totally misses the point.

    Getting drunk and vomiting on the street (and porn and drugs – and whatever) is not a belief system.

    This behaviour may or may not be nice – but it is not a belief system.

    Humans need beliefs – not just pleasures.

    It they just have pleasures then, sooner or later, they will seek beliefs.

    And there Islam will be waiting for them.

    What does the West believe in – what our BELIEFS?

    And do not do a “sex, drugs and rock and roll” reply on me – I have just dealt with that.

    What is the believe system (the foundation) of the modern West? And how can new people be converted to it?

    For much of the West I think the answer to the first question is “NOTHING” (no real belief system).

    And, therefore, the second question (how to convert new people into believing in it) does not apply.

  31. NickM says:

    I wasn’t doing the sex&drugs&rocknroll defense. I was arguing that Islam can’t compete with that which is not the same thing.

    OK. This is what I believe…

    Individual freedom.

    Individual responsibility.

    Er… That’s about it. Except I ought to go further…

    People do need things to believe but there are easier things to believe in than Islam Paul which are still beliefs. I am an agnostic but that doesn’t mean I believe in nothing.

  32. Watchman says:

    Supporting a state banning people from choosing what to do? Seems to be the path to totalitarianism to me. If people are doing something illegal, punish them. Wierd as it may be to John, I think the vast majority of Muslims have never blown anything up or killed anyone. And, speaking as someone who works with and who has taught plenty of Muslims, most of them wish the idiots would go away. The same as I feel about people who claim to be libertarian or believe in freedom and then applaud a government, without even an electoral mandate to do so (for what that is worth) deciding to ban free speech, free association and the freedom to bloody do what you like so long as it is legal.

    And Islam may take over the west – but not the militant idiots, who can’t even take over the most marginalised sections of society without the consent of local tribes. And therein is the problem for both them and for the intolerant idiots like John – radical Islam depends on the consent of local power structures, hence it cannot flourish in even moderately modern cities (e.g. Cairo – note also the constant dialogue in say Iran between conservatives and modernisers, one lot based in the countryside, the other in the cities) and fails to occur at all in say Bosnia (despite the clear opportunity in terms of religious sectarian conflict). Radical Islam is better viewed as the attempts of very conservative tribal societies to fight off more open secular socieities (which can be anything from Marxism to Libertarianism from their point of view) where power is not held by the elders (the old men with beards and old women who gossip). If Islam takes over the west it will be because unlike almost all Christianity or most forms of Judaism it does not have a professional clergy telling you what to do, and is therefore more suited to an age of individualism. Sure, some idiots take that freedom and the threat to their social order caused by other socieities (including other versions of Islam – not all Islamic socieities are tribal) as a reason to do violence. But fuck it, some people take their confused reactions after drinking or taking drugs as a reason to do violence – do we therefore applaud the government that ban alchohol and re-engages in the war on drugs?

  33. Watchman says:

    Paul Marks – why are you trying to find a solution. Doesn’t that imply using coercion to get other people to do what you want – which seems horribly like what the Islamic extremists do to me. Coercion and violence are both just part of the same scale where we try to force others to do our will.

    If you want a solution, stop thinking in terms of labels and solutions and start thinking in terms of everyone being individuals – and perhaps help enpower those who find expressing their individuality more difficult (even if it does make anyone doing it sound like a militant feminist – they are right on this aspect of their beliefs).

Leave a Reply