Islam is satanism, pure and simple


Nice people who did this, nice “religion of peace”

So they actually did it, the Islamic savages – I missed it because on Mon-Wed, I’m usually a bit out of things.  Poor, poor woman to have the misfortune to grow up a Muslim.  Even worse to be anywhere near a Sharia state.

The execution for adultery, when she was a widow, was bad enough but the 200 lashes were just so excessive that anyone with even one ounce of humanity or compassion would be sickened.  The other extreme, found in our own society – the feminazis with their highly developed sense of grievance, entitlement, carping, misandry and indifference to the plight of Muslim women, is nauseous, not to mention their meddlesome interference with education but we’d at least stop short of physical abuse to shut them up and reverse the damage they’ve done.

The reason Islam is satanism and not just an obnoxious and repressive social system is in the excess.

It’s the excess, the abandonment of basic human compassion, the enjoyment of the repression, which sets both Islam and Them apart, the difference being that Them are merely cold and indifferent to our hardship and suffering, whereas Muslims are fanatical about causing it.

Two examples are the Janjaweed and the Algerian monsters, before even getting on to the Iranians, Iraqis, Indonesians and the Beslan butchers.  The Algerian story, for example, was covered by Gary Brecher’s article:

First thing to keep in mind is that Algeria’s always been a bloody place, even before it was “Algeria.” Piracy was the main business on the North African coast. That’s where we get that line about “the shores of Tripoli” in the Marine Corps hymn.

Second: the GIA [Arab killing militsia] is not just a few loonies. It’d be nice to believe that, but it’s just not true. The GIA has at least 15,000 soldiers. You can’t feed and supply that many men without cooperation from the civilian population.

The war got even sicker as it went on. My personal favorite for coolest group of crazies is this GIA splinter group I read about – the Disciples of Satan. Sounds like a biker gang, but these guys make the Hell’s Angels look like a book club.

Some formed a new group called the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (you gotta love that name!) which tried to be “good” guerrillas, sticking to military targets and not killing civilians unnecessarily.

“We pledge allegiance to Sheikh Osama Bin Laden… We will pursue our jihad in Algeria. Our soldiers are at his call so that he may strike who and where he likes,” said the statement, signed by Abu Mossaab Abdelwadud, the emir of the group.

Wherever the Muslims are out in force, there is violence not far away.  And of course, with every Muslim excess, out come the Dawkinses et al who demand that all religion be banned, that one size fits all, forgetting all about their supposed libertarianism and their ability to distinguish between two diametrically opposed systems – one built on compassion, faith, hope and charity, characterized by such people as Mother Theresa, the Venerable Bede and so on … and the other system, based on the chopping off of limbs and represented by such people as Saddam Hussein, Chemical Ali, the Taliban, Al Qaeda and Mayor “let’s do dirt on America because I’m one of Them and only a mosque at Ground Zero will grind the noses of an already demoralized people into the rubble” Bloomberg.

Any system which bases itself on the ravings of a paedophile mass-murderer, indulges in slitting the throats of its enemies, as well as its food, letting animals bleed to death on the road, oppresses its women and hides them under wraps, which amputates by way of delivering its message and in which its devotees are forever at each other’s throats, is one to be resisted with maximum prejudice, [as is Masonry, which carries the same types of penalties for grassing].

Barack Obama backs Ground Zero mosque

But of course.


24 comments for “Islam is satanism, pure and simple

  1. August 14, 2010 at 20:24

    Not too gentle I see!

  2. August 15, 2010 at 10:53

    They’re not the only ones who have a harsh approach. Islam is in its 15th century; what were Christian nations doing in the AD 1500s? Surely the principle of evil will use any power structure, and the principle of good will resist it.

  3. August 15, 2010 at 12:24

    You mean nations purporting to be Christian but which were not following the precepts, whereas Islamic regimes are just following the script?

    Surely the principle of evil will use any power structure, and the principle of good will resist it.


  4. August 15, 2010 at 12:59

    As I understand it, the penalty for infringing any one of the Ten Commandments was death. The New Testament is about love and second chances – think of the woman taken in adultery – but not carte blanche (“… and sin no more”).

  5. August 15, 2010 at 13:11

    As I understand it, the penalty for infringing any one of the Ten Commandments was death.

    Where, in any of the gospels, is this laid down?

    If you mean that some regime has put its own spin on Christianity, trusting that no one has read the gospels, and this regime has imposed death on any who don’t observe their interpretation of the gospels, then that’s an entirely different matter and one I have been campaigning against for a very long time.

    However, no one needs a regime to tell them because the texts are available for any to read and understand:

    You’ll see in there no penalties imposed from outside but only an exhortation for people, individually, to obey them. Here’s an example:

    [21] Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:
    [22] But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

    Now that is the tone of the gospels and nowhere there does it say “take up arms and cause a bloodbath in Jerusalem for Me such that the streets run ankle deep in blood.” Nowhere does it say that at a Knights Templar meeting, “Thou shalt ravish an unspoiled virgin or eight and … er … spoil her.”

    Nowhere does it say that the Vatican should horde gold and get its officers to sell pieces of the true cross at a huge profit or that people should be racked by Torquemada for failing to endorse the regime’s interpretation of what they could read themselves if they were allowed bibles to read.

    What we have there is the other side, masquerading in the colours of Christianity.

    JC, throughout his entire ministry, was in trouble with the druids, the leaders, the priests, the interpreters and the whole point of the gospels is that no one needs anyone to help him/her with them – they’re self-explanatory. Where the parable was not clear, He Himself provided a later explanation.

    It’s a self-help manual.

  6. August 15, 2010 at 13:49

    Now, Sackers, compare that to the Koran.

    “Abrogation is a reoccurring topic whenever verses of the Koran are discussed. As a rule, later verses counseling Holy War, such the Sword Verse (K 009:005), abrogate earlier verses counseling tolerance and peace, such as K 002:256. The Sword Verse is just one of the 164 Jihad verses listed below. It follows that not many, if any, of the Holy War verses in this list are abrogated.”

    An example:

    Excerpt K 2:193-194
    Set 3, Count 5+6 [193]…fight with them…[194]…whoever then acts aggressively against you, inflict injury on him according to the injury he has inflicted on you…

    Christianity – turn the other cheek.

    Excerpt K 3:152-158
    Set 9, Count 22-28 [3.152]…you slew them by His [Allah’s] permission [during a Jihad battle]…[3.153] Pickthall: …the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight)…that which ye missed [war spoils]…[3.154]…They say: Had we any hand in the affair, we would not have been slain here [in a Jihad battle]. Say: Had you remained in your houses, those for whom slaughter was ordained [in a Jihad battle] would certainly have gone forth to the places where they would be slain…[3.155] (As for) those of you who turned back on the day when the two armies met…[3.156] O you who believe! be not like those who disbelieve and say of their brethren when they travel in the earth or engage in fighting: Had they been with us, they would not have died and they would not have been slain…[3.157]…if you are slain in the way of Allah…mercy is better than what they amass [what those who stay home from Jihad receive – no booty on earth and no perks in heaven]. [3.158] …if indeed you die or you are slain, certainly to Allah shall you be gathered together.

    Christianity – spread the word, go out to nations and preach the gospel. This is evangelism.

    There is no way to equate the satanic bloodbath of Islam with what the gospels preach. One more:

    Excerpt K 8:012
    Set 28, Count 62 …make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

  7. August 15, 2010 at 17:20

    Read the OT and you’ll see how the Ten Commandments worked. “Thou shalt not bear false witness” is strictly to do with attempts to incriminate the innocent by false statements in court, and otherwise lying and cheating (as far as the 10 C cover them) are permitted, indeed Jacob could not have taken Esau’s inheritance without; “thou shalt not kill” specifically refers to murder of a fellow member of the chosen race, and in no wise proscribes genocide and mass slaughters as in the Book of Joshua. I haven’t the time to find the episode where parents brought their drunken wastrel son to court on the grounds of not honouring them, whereupon the lad was condemned and killed. St Stephen was (rightly, according to The Law) killed by an outraged congregation, rushing at him with their ears covered, when he blasphemed in the synagogue.

    The Gospels radically revise the understanding of The Law.

  8. August 15, 2010 at 18:20

    Sorry, old chap, but your very first sentence shows your error.

    Gospels, Sackers – they are what Christianity is about – the synoptic gospels. Bringing in the Torah is fine if we are discussing Judaism but we’re not. Bringing Paul in is interpretation and revision.

    The central Christian message is in the synoptic gospels and the central Islamic message is in the Koran. The central Jewish message is in the Torah [old testament].

  9. August 15, 2010 at 20:51

    We’re agreeing at cross purposes. Though even with the continuing Jewish tradition, there is Shammai vs Hillel.

  10. August 15, 2010 at 23:14


    After reading through the comments thread, what do you think Christianity is about? What do the gospels tell us?

  11. August 16, 2010 at 04:15

    You should not tar the whole religion based on the actions of some of its believers.

  12. August 16, 2010 at 05:57

    Land of nod last night – sorry.

    Sackers – later for that.

    Cherie – the post is on Islam, not Christianity but to answer the question, there are two central tenets – one is that you can be redeemed, especially in the next world and the other is that you treat people around you as you’d want them to treat you, the latter a precondition for the former.

    Xensen – I’m glad you made that statement, all too commonly made today. Just as the impossible constructs such as diversity and enforced equality, which play on people’s natural goodnaturedness and evenhandedness, are made into a system which punishes any who beg to differ, so it is here:

    You should not tar the whole religion based on the actions of some of its believers.

    … sounds eminently reasonable until it is explored and then it is seen to be flawed reasoning in this situation. Look at what fanaticism produces in each of the three. With Judaism, it produces the Khasidic mentality, the superiority to all other lifeforms plus the Kabbalah. With Christianity, it produces ascetics who would leave everything and follow a personal star. With Islam, it produces fanatics who kill and maim.

    The reason is that the text itself is flawed – it has literally hundreds of exhortations to violence in it, one which I quoted above in a comment. It encourages violence towards any who don’t accept the complete system as it stands – the Sharia system.

    You refer to peaceful Muslims. They are, in fact, not Muslim in the sense of the Koran and the Koran discusses this – the need to get up off the butt and do jihad. Even if that jihad does not kill and maim, it is a divisive act, saying that you’re wrong and I’m going to force you to do right.

    The force endemic in Islam is what sets it apart from all the other major religions and that is what must be resisted because the end result of the imposition of that force in all societies it has blighted is human misery.

    Did Aesop not write fables on this and many others since his time? Is not the concept of a wolf buttering up his prey a common theme throughout history? Soviet dissident Bezmenov admitted that they were trying to soften up the west in the 60s, introducing elements which played on the agenda of Them and the incredulity of people. The whole peace movement was infiltrated and was meant to produce the abandonment of the old values and a sense of demoralization in the guise of progress. 60s icons such as Hanoi Jane were labelled “useful idiots” by the Soviets.

    The deep sleep in which the majority of people are currently reposed, the talk by the MCB of “tolerance” and “freedom” is an absolute insult because you only have to read the text to see what the gameplan really is and this includes the complicity and silence of the “peaceful Muslim”. It is like the Walmart philosophy – move into a town and suck the lifeblood out of the local economy, only with Walmart, it is voluntary and based on price.

    With Islam, it is like the Nazis – you can either embrace us or die and the lower echelons will die anyway.

    I’m well aware that a certain mentality reading this will interpret it as extreme but the extremity is in the philosophy and social system it opposes, not in the philosophy of the holder. Would you not defend your family? Well why may I not defend my society?

  13. August 16, 2010 at 21:40

    Sounds like I can create my own religion and then massacre people with no comback because, hey, Christianity in its first century was full of death in the name of God.

    The length of time Islam has been practised is irrelevant. We are in the 21st century now. Nobody has an excuse for actions like this.

  14. August 16, 2010 at 21:45

    1. You cannot condemn a whole religion for this, terrible though it is.
    2. It is ridiculous to compare feminists with the perpetrators of this action, or with Nazis.
    I despair yet again, Jmaes.

  15. August 17, 2010 at 02:31

    I am currently working on a book about the early seventeenth century. At that time the Muslim world was far more tolerant of diversity than was Europe, which was about to enter the bloody war of religion known as the 30 Years War. The Spanish Inquisition was doing its thing, “witches” were being executed, and Galileo was being persecuted by the church.

    Trying to suppress other religions has been tried, and it didn’t work. There are 1.5 billion Muslims in the world — if only as a practical matter I think it is better to search for common ground than to demonize them.

  16. August 17, 2010 at 04:47

    Xensen…I think you will find in the period you are studying that in quite a few parts of the world Islam was expanding and killing in its own merry little way., it is not just we in the west who have suffered but anybody bordering the religion of peace.

  17. August 17, 2010 at 06:22

    Yet again, the point must be made that with Islam, there is exhortation to violence in the actual text. With Christianity, there is no such exhortation.

    Islam refers to the house of peace and house of war. Anywhere already islamicized has submitted and is more tolerant of the infidel. In the house of war, e.g. the west, there is no such tolerance – it is a war zone and the rhetoric speaks of submission.

    An imperfect reading of the Koran and hadiths suggests that all is love and tolerance in the house of war.

    Anti-Christians always try three arguments:

    1. the Crusades;
    2. the Old Testament or Torah [first part of the OT];
    3. Paul [Saul]

    The Crusades were a political movement very much driven by conquest and exploitation – zero to do with Christianity but because it was done in lovely white tunics over chainmail and because it was done, as Lord T said, in the name of God, anti-Christians are immediately happy to ignore that it had zero support in the Christian [as distinct from Jewish] scriptures.

    All three religions are [or should be] based on their scriptures. The first two are but with Christianity, it has always been done in defiance of the scriptures, by men in positions of power who saw the advantage of those scriptures in keeping the people compliant.

    If it were otherwise, then it would have to be admitted but it is not otherwise. As to why and who the people behind the Crusades were, a study of the Templars rewards. As you know, the bibles were in Latin and kept chained to the pulpits – the ordinary person only knew the passages quoted out of context to them by men in positions of power. These are the problem – those druid types who interpreted the Word for their own ends.

    This was partly what Luther was on about and many others subsequently. This is what JC was on about – the priestly class perverting the Word. That was what it was all about and these bstds eventually had him murdered.

  18. August 17, 2010 at 16:33

    Why does everyone target islam?
    If you had not noticed all throughout history there have been things done by other religious ‘fanatics’ that are far worse!
    Look at bloody mary and elizabeth for example.
    No one seems to remember how many catholics and protestants were killed and mamed due to religion there!
    Tudor women were also treated much like women under sharia law…
    They would even bleed themselves to obtain a pale look so to be more attractive. A female was property and could, on obtaining the kings permission, be killed by her husband!

  19. August 17, 2010 at 18:00

    Janina,you’ve clearly ignored all I wrote. Let me summarize again.

    1. There are hundreds of exhortations to violence embedded in the Koran. Here are some:

    The religion/social system is based on the house of war and the house of peace. The latter only exists once all infidels are either converted or expunged.

    2. There are no exhortations to violence upon others in Christianity. The relevant books are the synoptic gospels.

    3. Anti-Christians always try three arguments:

    1. the Crusades;
    2. the Old Testament or Torah [first part of the OT];
    3. Paul [Saul]

    You’ve brought in another two – catholics and protestants and Tudor women. As I said before, the fanatics in Islam are so because their scripture exhorts them to. Fanatics in Christianity are so despite the scriptures, i.e. they selectively choose non-Christian texts or ignore the gospel texts and yet they call it Christianity.

    The leaders of society who make the rules and who decide who is and who is not the enemy are secular and a good example is Wolsey – a churchman rather than a Christian. “If I had served God as diligently …”

    Christianity is one of the most wrongly maligned faiths in the world – almost everybody gets it wrong or ascribes things to it which are almost always negative and destructive when in fact it is completely positive in outlook and intent.

    I don’t see or hear any anti-Christian come out and ascribe “love thy neighbour as thyself” or “faith, hope and charity” to the religion. And yet that’s what it’s all about.

    What ever single detractor does is throw in strawmen and think that it somehow attacks Christianity. And these people like to think of themselves as “scientific”, “rational”, “fair-minded”, when in fact they’re anything but.

    Irrational prejudice against Christianity is fair enough if it is based on fact but therein lies the problem – it’s based on falsehood and misinterpretation.

  20. September 30, 2010 at 23:47

    Please do not blasphemously refer to our precious Lord, Jesus Christ, as “JC”. That is disrespectful, flip, and ugly. When you stand before Him, at the Judgment, you will not presume so to address Him.

    If all men, everywhere, were to obey the Gospel and remain in obedience to it, we would have no wars, no terror, no crime, no poverty, no despair and hopelessness.

    But men want to sin, and reject the Gospel call to obedience in so doing. Like David, we spot our Bathsheba,(subject of temptation), then our iniquities pile one upon another, growing worse and worse, as did David’s behavior toward Uriah. Like David, we must “confess and forsake” our sins, and live in obedience to our Lord, Jesus Christ, trusting in His promise of mercy to those who choose to do so.

  21. October 1, 2010 at 09:34

    With the greatest respect, White Tiger, it is precisely this judgement by another person, rather than by the deity, which has turned so many off the Word, as expressed in the gospels.

    Readers of this blog are well aware that I do not step across that line, I’m not that oxymoron – a liberal Christian – who thinks we should descend to interfaith relativity and I show great respect to JC – always using capitals, always writing positively and always writing G-d in that way.

    Just as an economics writer is going to turn off the vast majority attempting to understand his piece if he drops into esoteric jargon – and often he simply can’t help himself – so I am not going to use language which is immediately going to alienate the ordinary reader.

    If it alienates you, then sorry but that doesn’t really matter because you already see things in a Christian way and though I am sad to offend thee, I’m still not going to descend to dogmatism and hellfire and brimstone with the people with whom I engage. I’d prefer to write in an accessible manner, capable of debate, shorn of jargonese, bearing in mind that most of these readers are not of the Jehovah’s Witness mentality or similar.

    Methinks people going about calling others blasphemers should be a little more careful on what they base that charge. It’s certainly not founded in the gospels and they are the authority by which I speak and write on the subject.

    JC or the Nazarene or the Nazarene carpenter’s Son are not in the least blasphemous. Doing as Dawkins does and says is blasphemous but that’s a matter between him and his Maker.

    “When you stand before Him, at the Judgment, you will not presume so to address Him.”

    Certainly – but you’re referring to me speaking in the third person singular, not addressing the Person Himself. If I was doing wrong in what I’m doing, I’d assume I would have been communicated with by now.

    My advice is to judge not, that you not be judged yourself. All the judging can be safely left to Him later.

  22. November 9, 2010 at 17:54

    I luv your blog design, very smart design!

  23. November 9, 2010 at 19:18

    I kinda like her jewellery so I let this one through.

Comments are closed.