Rod Liddle

Sorry, but you can’t take the Islam out of Islamic State

The unpalatable truth is that they believe what they are doing is theologically right — and a sizeable proportion of the Islamic world would concur

4 July 2015

9:00 AM

4 July 2015

9:00 AM

At last, British politicians have been galvanised into action by the appalling events last weekend in the Tunisian resort of Sousse, in which 38 people were murdered by an Islamist terrorist. Yes, yes, about time, you might be muttering to yourself — but credit where it’s due, please. They may be a little late to the party but at least they have arrived.

A convocation of 120 of our MPs, including Boris Johnson, have demanded strong and forthright action. They have written to the BBC demanding that it stop using the term ‘Islamic State’ to describe the organisation responsible for the attack, because it might upset that seemingly diminishing, if still large, proportion of Muslims who don’t wander around shooting people, or chopping their heads off, or blowing themselves up.

This is an excellent step forward and one would imagine that the BBC will be only too happy to comply. The MPs have suggested that an acceptable substitute for ‘Islamic State’ would be ‘Daesh’, which is an acronym for the Arabic translation of ‘Islamic State of Iraq and Syria’. But crucially, if you just say ‘Daesh’ — go on, try it out for yourself — you can’t hear the word ‘Islam’ in it at all. We could be talking about terrorists who were denominationally Methodists, or Rosicrucians. Also, the term Daesh apparently annoys the Islamic State and they wish we wouldn’t use it, because it doesn’t sound as grand as Islamic State.

Frankly, if we’re going down this route, I don’t know why we should use the term Daesh, either. How about ‘Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam’? It’s a bit of a mouthful, I admit, but it gets the message across and it will please the imams over here. Or some of them, at least. So the next time something horrible happens, Huw Edwards could say: ‘And the BBC has just learned that this latest atrocity, in which 70 people were decapitated, has been carried out by Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam. And now here’s Lizzie with all the sports news.’

I’ve tried to think of something which better encapsulates establishment delusion over aggressive Islamism, but nope — this takes the biscuit. I suppose you might hazard that the Royal Navy cheerfully ferrying thousands of people, including people who want us all dead, over to Europe is fairly deluded. Well, sure. It is — and also a waste of resources which will end up costing more lives than it saves. But this stuff, the Daesh stuff, is of a different order.

It has been backed by the Prime Minister, who said of the term Islamic State: ‘I think this is seen as particularly offensive to many Muslims who see, as I see, not a state but a barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women and murdering people because they’re gay. So I raised this with the BBC this morning. I personally think that using the term Isil or “so-called” would be better than what they currently do. I don’t think we’ll move them all the way to Daesh, so I think saying Isil is probably better than Islamic State because it is neither, in my view, Islamic or a state.’

In your view, David? You’re a Koranic expert, then, are you? You are fit and qualified to adjudicate on what constitutes Islam and what does not? The point is that they call themselves Islamic State: that is their name. You can cavil all you like, but that is generally the approach we have taken over the years in journalism: give something its proper name, not something we would prefer it to be called because the proper name offends our sensibilities. Perhaps we should also stop saying the word Islam when we refer to other manifestations of the religion which we do not like. Such as al-Qaeda and al-Shabaab and Boko Haram. Pretend they are not Muslim at all. Extend it to those Islamic countries which oppress women and put homosexuals to death. Because it’s not just Isis, is it? Stop referring to Saudi Arabia and Iran and Egypt and Pakistan and countless (well, actually, about 48) other countries as being Islamic — and pretty soon, problem solved! No more Islam anywhere, except here at home, of course.

The Islamic State is, in its attitudes, rather more representative of Muslim world opinion than we would like to believe. Pretending that they are not Muslim at all will be counterproductive. The Prime Minister cannot simultaneously implore Muslim communities to root out the extremists in their midst — the incendiary imams, the thick-as-mince teenage jihadi wannabes, the first-generation and culturally medieval emigrés from Bangladesh and Pakistan — and also insist, in politically correct fashion, that these terrorist atrocities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. That makes no sense. If they have nothing to do with Islam, why harangue Muslims about it?

The truth is that, no matter how unpalatable it might be to say so, the Islamic State has an awful lot to do with Islam — yes, the clue is in the name. They believe that what they are doing is theologically right and there is a fairly sizeable proportion of the Islamic world which would concur. And we are not qualified to dissent.

Meanwhile, within our Muslim communities, a similar delusion has taken hold — encouraged by the likes of Johnson and the co-signatories of that letter to the BBC. Why are you picking on us? What have we done to deserve this? It’s not fair. They insist that because crimes often occur which are not perpetrated by Muslims, it is unkind to focus attention on them. But it is from within those communities and that particular creed that this savagery has been unleashed. It does us no good to pretend otherwise.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • pp22pp

    We are being smothered. We could defend ourselves easily and the bulk of the population would be supportive. I can only conclude that Call-me-Dave and all the rest actually want this. I just wish they would lead from the front and destroy themselves first.

  • Rik

    The sheer depth of self delusion exhibited by both the buffoon Boris and the moron Cameron is staggering,the endless mithering,Islam is nothing to do with Islam,but but but its a religion of peace.
    Tunisia has closed 80 extremists mosques and its about bl88dy time our leaders took action against the Islamist hate preachers and terrorist enablers in our midst and close the mosques and schools that spread their hate and bile.
    Soundbites won’t cut it,minutes silence won’t cut it,action NOW.

    • cartimandua

      Only 3 Mosques here are modernist out of 1700. They could start by outlawing floppy hijab in schools and public buildings and transport.

    • Richard

      Well said. These mosques are responsible for the ever increasing numbers of young women wearing full face veils. It’s time to eject these Wahhabi clerics from all the mosques in Europe

      • Suzy61

        The Austrians are doing it.

        No more imported imams.

        No more Middle-Eastern (Saudi) ‘sponsorship’.

    • Perplexed

      Hope for nothing from Cameron.

  • vieuxceps2

    Once again our politicos seek to disguise reality by the use or rather misuse of language.Political Correctness , that monstrous weapon,is not just of the Left but also inherent in the attitudes shown by this attempt to hide the truth that the root of the terrorism in our world is ISLAM.This brain-deadening creed is in Britain and Europe and growing by the day as muslim populations expand.We have all-but escaped the idiocy of religion in this country,it is a tragedy that we now face the prospect of being subsumed by another.

    • Jaysonrex

      You are right. Without terrorism, Islam is NOT Islam. Killing the unbelievers that refuse to convert is part of the Muslim political ideology cum ‘religion’.

    • Shazza

      Islam is a f****st, authoritarian, mysognistic, homophobic, totalitarian, backward 7th century ideology which masquerades as a religion.

      • JewishKuffar

        Can’t argue with that! Wonder if I can get it printed on a coffee mug?

    • Johnny Foreigner

      But still the general public mongs, continue in Europe, to vote for Libtard governments.

      • TrueNorthFree

        Conservative governments are no better. NONE of our politicians and leaders have the courage to stand up for their indigenous white populations, which are being ethnically cleansed by “population replacement”

  • TrippingDwarves

    Remember, the IRA had nothing to do with Irish Republicanism, they were just a bunch of fanatical Catholics intent on imposing the doctrine of transubstantiation on the whole of Ireland… How things have changed!

    • KingHasNoClothes

      Not a good analogy I’m afraid. The IRA of course had everything to do with Irish Republicanism but nothing to do with imposing Catholic doctrine. I think Protestant IRA and INLA men like George Plant, Ronnie Bunting and Ivor Bell would confirm this. Also, every IRA atrocity was condemned by the Catholic hierrachy – as indeed UVF and UDA atrocities were condemned by the Protestant Church of Ireland.

      • TrippingDwarves

        You forgot to mention Wolf Tone.

        Actually, my point lies elsewhere. The Irish ‘Troubles’ are very often presented as having been a religious conflict whereas they were, I agree with you, entirely political. The divide simply broke largely, but not wholly, along religious lines, though one could also say they were ethnic lines.

        My point really is (and perhaps my irony was a bit too thick) that those who claim the Troubles were religiously motivated are very often the same ones who say today’s atrocities are ‘nothing to do with Islam’. Is there not a disconnect between these two positions? Rather like seeing black and calling it white and vice versa.

        • MikeF

          In other words people with a penchant for blaming Christianity tend to absolve Islam.

        • KingHasNoClothes

          I have you now. Agreed.

        • trevor

          You seem to be arguing that if I argue one situation is nothing to do with religion and all to do with politics, then I am condemned to argue that way always. I find that a difficult argument to accept.

          Additionally there is a fine line here: religion has always been used by rulers and various politicians to further their own ends. I think the lines are often blurred. We should know, Henry the VIII had all sorts of problems ….

          I am no expert on Islam and so hesitate to say this is all about Islam. But it is clear that this is about people who are establishing a state or fiefdom of some sort and are appealing to Islam as a raison d’etre. Now we know that lots of people who practice Islam wholly disagree with many if not all the interpretations of Islam that these people take. Indeed, many Arabs refer to ISIL as Daesh on purpose because they feel ISIL demeans Islam. According to two websites I have seen ISIL doesn’t like that name because of the similarity to the Arab words Daes (“one who crushes something underfoot”) and Dahes (“one who sows discord”).

          So where does this leave us? It is a political thing. But it is clearly a religion thing too. The issue for a lot of Islamists is that they simply cannot accept that ISIL works in their name: they find ISIL despicable.

          In conclusion, it is not correct to say this has nothing to do with religion. It has a lot to do with people who are deliberately contorting a religion and making (and finding) interpretations to justify their debauchery. These interpretations are, though in reality, there to further and justify their political power base much the way Henry VIII did once upon a time: anything goes to meet the need.

      • Germainecousin

        And no matter the rights or wrongs of their conviction, the IRA were concerned with NI – not the entire world.

        • KingHasNoClothes


  • Smiffy51

    We have the weakest prime minister since Neville Chamberlain.

    • mrs 1234

      Just when we need the opposite.

    • Ivor MacAdam

      Not quite. Chamberlain was a whole lot more canny than Dhimmi Dave, but is a bit misrepresented by history. Check him out in “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William L Shirer. A great read. Indeed, a huge read.

  • cartimandua

    They don’t like Daesh so lets call them Daesh when we don’t call them terrorists and killers.
    None of this “fighters” and “militants” that gives the psychos some dignity.
    We could call them an Islamic criminal gang.

    • Shazza

      Fox News commentators call them, quite correctly, ‘bloodthirsty barbarians’.

      • Infidelissima

        Fox is one of the few honest news channels left. The propagandists call it ‘propaganda’.

        • Shazza

          They also enjoy freedom of speech – something we used to have as well.

          Sadly, they did have to let Glenn Beck go as he had made too many enemies with his truthful analysis of the Arab ‘Spring’ and his forecast of the Caliphate which we now see unfolding before our eyes. Mr Shazza remarked to me the other day that he hates reading Glenn Beck as he is always right.

    • Kojak

      The ‘Islamic Paedophile State’ sounds about right to me.
      It’s better than ‘Daesh’ which roughly means ‘The Naughty Bunch’.

      • Nik

        I was told that ‘ Daesh ‘ just means ‘ Place ‘ as in ” where is your place? so no wonder they do not like it…..sort of insignificant.

        • justsomeone

          Daesh is Arabic for Isis, an abbreviation. Means exactly the same thing. It’s the name they gave themselves, originally anyway. The “Sh” at the end of “Daesh” is the “s” at the end of “Isis”, it stands for “Shem” or “Sham”, which is the ancient name for the Levant (hence the “l” suffix in “Isil”), or “Greater Syria”, which are approximately what “Shem” (or “Sham”) means. Hope this helps. “Shem/Sham” (not “Daesh”) might also literally mean “there” or “place” or some such thing but that isn’t what it means in this context.
          It’s not “a name they hate”, as I’ve sometimes heard. It might be that because they wish to expand beyond “greater Syria”, that they now prefer to use “The Islamic State” rather than “The Islamic State of Syria/Levant”.
          Additionally, its enthusiasts on internet forums are more likely to refer to them as “The Islamic State” rather than by their abbreviation, in order to stress their Islamic nature.

    • Ipsidixit

      Better to call them Mohammedan terrorists which is what they are.

    • GordonHide

      On the other hand it has been the practice throughout history for people to demonize their enemies, especially those they are particularly afraid of. By demonizing them you are giving them a status they don’t deserve. Far better to just accept they are our enemies and proceed to practical measures to oppose them. To say they represent an existential threat is ridiculous. Our own spineless politicians, by failing to uphold the law in Britain, are a much greater threat.

      • justsomeone

        It’s funny to think that were Iran to behead three journalists (and film it) and to arrange for tens of tourists to be gunned down we’d see Iran as an existential enemy and that were Isis to avoid slaughtering Westerners and instead would simply shout “Death to America” and “Death to Britain” and to construct nuclear reactors we’d see the Islamic State as benign.

  • twi5ted

    Oldthinkers unbellyfeel Ingsoc.

  • Baron

    What are you ranting about, Rod, if we can take procreation out of marriage, we can easily take Islam out of the Islamic State. Is there really anything we couldn’t do in the virtual world of ours?

    All that remains to do is to emboss the new name in a statute and, voila, the boil’s cured.

  • Damaris Tighe

    For once the BBC are right. When the government of Burma changed their country’s name to Myanmar the BBC doggedly used Myanmar even though it wasn’t officially recognised. Likewise with Islamic State. That’s what they call themselves. Cameron is a wish-worshipper. His befuddled brain wants reality to go away.

    • jjw101

      Except that the reason the BBC says it won’t use ‘Daesh’ is because it’s ‘prejorative’ to the terrorists (but they didn’t call them terrorists, obviously). Look it up on a news site if you don’t believe me. The BBC is beyond parody.

      • Damaris Tighe

        I can believe it but the pressure is for them to use ISIL which, like ‘militant’, is sufficiently neutral & bloodless. I noticed that the BBC reverted to ‘terrorist’ during the 7/7 London attacks. Concentrates the mind wonderfully when the blood-letting is close to home.

    • Mr B J Mann

      But while the Chinese call Peking Beijing they don’t call China China, me owd China.

      And while one party in Bombay call it Mumbai, no one calls Bollywood Mumbaiwood!

      And they they don’t call India India in India!

      So why do the Beeb keep referring to Mumbai in India and Beijing in China?!?!?!

      • Damaris Tighe

        Good point Mr B J – I’m guessing there’s some additional policy about common usage. When Ceylon changed to Sri Lanka they went with that – but probably because its government was officially recognised by the UN, unlike Myanmar/Burma’s before the elections.

        • trevor

          It is not about common usage – all these: “Mumbai”, “China”, “Germany” and “Japan” are official English names designated by the respective countries – see the respective Embassy sites. For the unofficial name of the local film industry – the term “Bollywood” is all that there is (as far as i can make out). So no the poster did not point out any odd naming by the BBC at all.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Ah, I see. Thank for explaining.

          • Mr B J Mann

            So where, in the German Embassy website does it say the official German designated German word for the German official English name for Deutschland is Germany (and For Koln, Cologne, etc, etc.)?

            And what does the Chinese Embassy say the Chinese official Chinese designated Chinese names for China in other European countries are?!

            In fact, could you give us links for “”Mumbai”, “China”, “Germany” and “Japan” are official English names designated by the respective countries – see the respective Embassy sites”!!!!

      • trevor

        The Chinese government uses “China” as its official English translation. Mumbai is the official name of Mumbai. Similarly a quick look at the German and Japanese Embassy sites confirms their official English names. Bollywood is an unofficial name which the local film industry uses for itself. Nothing particular odd here.

        • Mr B J Mann


          Last time I looked the official English names were Peking and Bombay.

          Who put the BBC in charge of renaming English names?!?!

          It’s not Beijing Duck and Mumbai Mix, is it ?!!!

          • trevor

            Now you are being awkward and/or prefer staying ignorant.

            In case you want to learn what the right thing is take a look at at the Chinese Embassy and Indian Embassy web sites. They are very clear on this matter. Additionally take a look at a modern atlas or surf a Google map.

            The BBC is not renaming English names, it is using the official English spelling names of towns whether it be (e.g.) Myanmar, Beijing, Mumbai, Kolkatta or Burkina Faso.

          • Mr B J Mann

            “Additionally take a look at a modern atlas or surf a Google map.”

            These would be places where someone has changed the previous name then?!

            By the way, when I put what is China in Chinese into the Chinese Embassy’s website it said:


            Which doesn’t look much like “China” to me!

            Nor like anything I’ve seen on the BBC!!!

          • Mr B J Mann

            By the way, it’s strange, but the first ENGLISH dictionary or encyclopaedia I picked up had the entry for the capital of China under “Peking” and just a note saying it’s the Pinyin form under “Beijing”.

            Oh, and further down it had “Peking Man”, not “Beijing Man”, funny that?!

            But as I decided not to stay ignorant just this once I tried the next one on the shelf, but that one didn’t even have an entry for Beijing.

            So, just in case it didn’t cover geographical names, despite having an entry for Beirut, I tried Peking, and, lo and behold, there it was, along with Pekingese and Peking Man.

            The next one didn’t have Beijing or Beirut.

            But neither did it have an entry for Peking.

            But it did for Pekingese, the dog – “from Peking, the capital of China”!

            The Gazetteer in the next one had an entry on “China”, “in Chinese “Zhonghua Renmin Gonghe Guo”, Capital “Beijing (Peking)”, but in the list of towns it had the Chinese name first, with the English names following in brackets!

            And the last one on that shelf didn’t have Beijing, Beirut or Peking, just a reference to the breed of dog: “also spelt Pekingese”.

            Preferring to stay ignorant, as I seem to, I didn’t bother to look at any more books in that bookshelf, or any other.

          • Mr B J Mann

            Incidentally, the Gazetteer I referred to earlier only had single names for towns under “India (Bharat)”, such as Calcutta and Bombay.

            But I couldn’t find any references to the towns of Myanmar or Burkina Faso, not even under “Burma”, in it!

            I also found Bombay and Calcutta in the other references (and Bombay Duck), but no references to Kolkatta or Mumbai (never mind Mumbai Duck or Mumbai Mix!).

            Perhaps I should add an Indian dictionary to my bookshelves?

            Or perhaps a BBC one?!

        • Mr B J Mann


          The LOCALS call it Bollywood.

          Because apparently it’s only the supporters of the local ruling party who want to call it Mumbai!

          • trevor

            eh? Mumbai is a town. Bollywood is a industry. two different things.

          • Mr B J Mann

            And a name is a name.
            Two same things.

  • Tom W Huxley

    The problem is less about the word ‘Islamic’ and more about the word ‘State’.

    Perhaps the BBC should take a leaf out of Cameron’s book and call it Islamic Big Society.

    • Shazza

      How about RoPSIS?

  • Jaysonrex

    As much as we try to ‘whitewash’ reality, the truth is we are in the middle of the War of Civilizations. But Brits love to avoid addressing the politically incorrect facts and in the comments to Rod Little article one can see that quite easily.

    While Americans will never forget 9/11 – the Brits seem to prefer not to remember 7/7 (just like the Spaniards profound amnesia about 3/11).

    There is no remedy for acute cowardness!

    • Shazza

      I would not call it a ‘War of Civilisations’ – rather the War of Civilisation vs Barbarity.

      • Nik

        or the perennual Good versus Evil….. the old old drama…..and those Isis folk sure look like Demons out of the barren places.

  • KingHasNoClothes

    Refreshing to find somebody talking plain sense – I get dizzy listening to the non-sensical, illogical claptrap of our so-called leaders who are simply lying to us and – let’s be honest here – betraying us.

  • greggf

    “At last, British politicians have been galvanised into action……? ”


    I am reminded by a comment Sir Nicholas Winterton made before his death about politicians and his stunning rescue of children from Prague before the war.
    He said that “the politicians at the time didn’t seem to have any idea what was going on in Europe” – presumably because Mr Hitler was a nice man!
    Well now they do and they say so, but despite that they are in fact still supine, prevaricate and excuse the causes because of the mantra “It Has Nothing To Do With Islam”.

    Plus ca change…..

    • Deiscirt


      • greggf

        Didn’t the Irish consider Mr Hitler nice right up to the end….?

        • Deiscirt

          Well, no. The Irish *government* of the time had a frankly disgraceful policy of neutrality that was only outdone by the appalling mistake of sending a note of condolence on the death of Hitler. These were the actions of De Valera, not the Irish people. And he did so because he wanted to throw anti-British shapes. His error. Please don’t forget the tens of thousands of Irish people who volunteered to join the British Army only a few decades after that same army was at war in Ireland.

          • John Standley

            Well said.

        • Gilbert White

          Yep Irish PM. wrote in the condolances book about the death of Herr Hitler. Irish terror merchants mysteriously escape Columbia and are next seen with uman whites angel Mary, in the emerald isle

  • bryan_stives

    A few cartoons and thousands of Muslims are on the streets protesting. Holiday makers shot dead and silence reigns from the Muslim community. Go figure!

    • cartimandua

      Because its always all about them. Islamic charity is always directed at Muslims.

      • Ipsidixit

        Be fair. They do murder one another as well as we kafirs.

        • jeffersonian

          Oh much better by far – which of course cuts both ways.

        • 2fishypoliticians

          Yes…but nothing unites Muslims, including those who hate each other as a grudge against a filthy non Muslim

          • grimer

            The ultimate unifying force within Islam is killing Jews.

        • Rabbi Burns

          They do not murder “one another”, they murder members of other sects that we term “islamic” while they do not.

      • Omallet

        even then as much use as a button on a sock I mean apparently Israel gives more to Palestinians for example than the Muslim commmmunitee – I suppose some of those oil revenues need to buy football clubs, call girls and casinos

    • MacGuffin

      I suggest someone draw a cartoon of Mohammed machine-gunning elderly Westerners too infirm to run away over hot sand. This will then draw the Muslim community out onto the streets in protest about the Tunisian killings.

      Sort of.

      • TrueNorthFree

        haha! “a cartoon of Mohammed machine-gunning elderly Westerners too infirm to run away over hot sand”

      • Matty Beattie

        This is the best post – anywhere I have seen in a long time.
        Superb point well made.

      • Thorty Two

        Awesome comment.

      • Rabbi Burns

        A fair percentage would make an exception and allow that cartoon.

        • Keith

          An even larger percentage would be protesting against the cartoon not the shootings.

          • MacGuffin

            Keith, you’re not too good with The Irony, are you.

      • dpm7

        I’m no artist but maybe I see this as a commission. I can, I could… but should I?

        • grimer


    • Gergiev

      Yes indeed, and of course on the same day 34 Kuwaitis were murdered while worshipping in a Mosque, the type of Muslim-on-Muslim violence that has been ongoing for centuries with a real bit of accelerated development over the past ten years or so. Muslims, blowing up a Mosque, and with worshippers in side, yet nothing is said by the worldwide Muslim outrage brigade. Not a sausage, diddly squat, nada, nil, nothing at all. Have you seen how the Palestinian refugees in Syria are being treated by ISIS and the Syrian Government? See here: Imagine the howls if the Israelis were doing that! But instead, not a sausage, diddly squat, nada, nil, nothing at all.

      • Perplexed

        And the same day in Kobane in northern Syria, IS murdered about three times as many people as the total in Tunisia, Kuwait, and France— but for Cameron it didn’t count if one goes by his statements.

    • Jack Rocks

      Thousands? Where? A few hundred nutters with the news cameramen using a narrow field of view to make it look like half a million.

      • colchar

        A few hundred? Nice try there Skippy, but there were thousands of them in multiple countries. But you go ahead and keep sticking your head in the sand.

        • Jack Rocks

          Again, where?

          Why are you all so sceptical when it comes to absolutely anything except news reports that confirm your already strongly held opinions? You’re cheating yourself. Nobody else.

      • global city

        I think you’ll find that was actually the anti cuts protest last week….. the anti cartoons (and Jew…always anti Jew) protest was massed, in the tens of thousands….all moderate Muslims, I presume.

    • lorene_jmurphy
    • mathias broucek

      They’re scared.
      An apostate Muslim is worse than a Christian/Jew/Atheist to the fanatics.

      • sebastian2

        Scared? Yes they are scared. Of each other; of rival mohammedan sects; of the torments of hell for the disobedient.

        Their own creed terrifies them. They live in perpetual fear and apprehension of it. If you want to see real islamophobia, look no further than at muslims.

    • Omallet

      Too busy complaining about Smokey Bacon Pringles – Mr Stives you need to get your priorities right and cut them some slack cartoons, crisps and then mass murder surely that is things in the proper order

  • MikeF

    I watched the Sky News report last night on the first repatriation of the bodies of some of those murdered in Tunisia. There was simply no mention of by whom they had been killed or for what supposed reason. It was simply presented as coverage of a ceremony like something taking place on Horse Guard’s Parade.

    • Noam Ahituv

      if the dead would be israeli, the headline of most news agencies would be something like: “muslim man killed by police on tunisian shore after gun shoots tourists”

      • Grace Ironwood

        Are you an editor for the Guardian or BEEB ?

        You really should disclose your professional status when competing with us amateurs.

    • Linda Smith

      Something’s happened to Sky News since they started their Arabian channel, Sky News Arabia.

  • beenzrgud

    On a similar note, this article reminds me of the many reports we see trying to explain why people go from the UK to join Islamic State in Syria. Almost invariably it is stated that it is a complete mystery as to why someone would wish to leave the safety and comfort of the UK to go and live in a dangerous sh*thole. Which of course completely ignores that fact that muslims, according to their religion, should ideally live in a caliphate. For anyone who doesn’t understand the term, a caliphate is a region ruled by a single bloodthirsty misogynistic despot who rigorously applies the lessons handed down from mohammed. So once again, nothing to do with Islam !!

    • right1_left1

      I dont understand why any remark is made about those wishing to go to Syria etc.
      Let ’em go I say.
      I’m taking abouth those who go not the climate of opinion that must exist in Islamic communities in the UK.

  • right1_left1

    What we need to know is
    WHY are the opinion makers so reluctant to confront Islam.?
    WHY do they trot out those who say Islam is a religion of peace ?
    WHY do they claim that danger is only coming from a small number of activists.?
    ALL radical change is driven by minorities.

    Why ?

    I have an opinion which is deffo un PC..In the meantime you lapdogs the caliphate is coming so to hell with demoracay whatever it is !!!

    • The Great Cornholio

      Probably many reasons. They don’t want to appear bigoted. They don’t want to alienate the Muslim community and drive more towards “radicalisation”. They don’t want to create anti-Muslim bigotry. They don’t want to appear out of control. They don’t want to piss off the Saudis, Qataris, Arab Emirates etc.

      None of this is an excuse. For a problem to be resolved we need to be honest about the root causes. An accurate diagnosis is essential for an effective cure.

  • vaevictis

    I suppose if there was a movement operating to establish a reinstitution of Christendom across the whole of Europe and was taking over towns and local governments there are many Europeans who would turn a blind eye to assassinations of media figures, politicians, bankers and academics and deportation of non-Europeans. In fact many would see it as a necessary purge of a toxic infestation.
    Perhaps we might see the growth of a European liberation Army modelled on ISIS?
    That would be interesting.

  • rodger the dodger

    ‘Boko Haram’ itself is a case in point. That is just a local nickname the people gave them.

    They call themselves ‘The Party of The People of The Sunnah for Dawah and Jihad’. Not ‘Boko Haram’. Clear what the former means.

    Of course, there is always the Filipino Islamic terrorist group, the somewhat amusingly acronymed ‘MILF’. Didn’t really think about that one, did they?

    • Des Demona

      Not as bad as the Somali terrorist group
      Coalition United Never To Surrender
      No not really.

      • serge

        One that was milked shamelessly by western media was the State Law and Order Council, (in Burma). Straight out of Fleming.

  • post_x_it

    Rod, did you catch that gorblimey documentary on Al-Beeb this week about the destruction of cultural artefacts in Syria and Iraq?
    They only had Anjem Chaudary on as the resident expert to explain the theological rationale for why the stuff needs to be smashed.
    So there is me, wondering. If none of this is anything to do with Islam, then why bring in Anjem? Or is he also nothing to do with Islam?

    • Dr. Heath

      Anjem, to give him his due, is honest. He says what millions of Muslims think; they hate us and, because we are criminals who have not been fortunate enough to have been born into the correct sect of the Religion of Peace or to have done the right thing and converted, they believe we need to die. He said this on the BBC’s Hard Talk not only of the several thousands killed [every one an infidel and, therefore, “a criminal”, he said] on 9/11 but of every single member of the human race. All but a few score million who somehow earn Anjem’s [Allah’s spokesman on earth, if not in fact Allah himself, I wonder] approval are criminals. Whether Anjem would, if he could, do the killing is not relevant. While some enemies are content just to hate us, there is no modus vivendi possible with every enemy we face. Wherever there are significant numbers of people who’ve committed their lives to killing us, there is only one solution, which is obviously to kill them first. This was how WW II worked. The armed forces of the Allies had to find and kill or capture millions of Germans who’d enlisted in the Luftwaffe, the Wehrmacht and the Waffen SS. ISIL fighters are few fewer. But the answer is the same. And if Anjem heads out to join them, it would be best if he and his mates all went the way of the Third Reich. Nothing else is an option.

      • post_x_it

        This being the case, why does the BBC pay him to appear as an expert on programmes like this? Is that what it’s come to? It’s obviously a shame about the pretty antiquities, but we must bow to the superior understanding of Anjem and accept that their destruction was necessary?
        How long before we’re told that Anjem is a ‘national treasure’?

        • Ivor MacAdam

          Mr. Post, if Anjem was a ‘national treasure’ then ISIS would blow him up, no matter what they were called at the time.
          So: Rejoice!

          • Gergiev

            Yes, it is as if, in 1940 Law Haw Haw had been funded by tax-payers’ money (benefits) to appear regularly on the BBC and broadcast German propaganda to the nation. Extraordinary really when you think about it. Has any nation in history ever been as self-hating as ours has become?

        • Dr. Heath

          Yes. This is what it’s come to. In no conceivable circumstances would the BBC interview anyone from any other faith group who holds such vicious and criminally insane points of view.

        • Gilbert White

          You go into the British Museum every piece that has spent time in muslims lands has the mark of the cold chisel. Originally it just needed the nose chipped to be imperfect enough as a human creation to be allowed. This business of the complete destruction of artefacts as opposed to cities is a new one. The usual suspects made a big deal of the US inability to stop museums being ransacked!

      • Grace Ironwood

        Have we got it in us to defend ourselves any more?

        If we did anything like we did in the World War to protect ourselves what would be the result.

        It’s clear that we could sort out ISIS by levelling Raqqa & associated ISIS power centres in 24hours if we wanted- and it’s just as clear those responsible would be jailed as “war criminals” shortly afterwards.The heinous act of wiping out ISIS would be added to the heavy pile of white guilt.

        Abject apologies to ISIS would be made by all western parliaments. Obama would top it off with one of his trademark Muslim World Apology tours.

    • Nik

      Al-Beeb !!! Well said Sir !

  • Nik

    ! !

  • TrippingDwarves

    This subject is sure to come up on Question Time this evening – especially with the Spec’s own Douglas Murray on the panel. Let’s play ISIS Bingo shall we?

    Four phrases to look out for:
    1: It’s nothing to do with Islam
    2: Islam is a religion pf peace
    3: Extremists are a small minority
    4: Most Moslems are appalled by these atrocities

    Any others I may have missed for a full house?

    • Deiscirt

      Yes: “Western Foreign Policy is Radicalizing muslim youth ” for the full flush and

      • cartimandua

        Who actually are psychopathy looking for an excuse and the reason why there are so many Muslims who display psychopathy and low IQs is “covering” and Ramadan”. They damage the foetal brain.
        Gender apartheid does the rest of the damage.

        • Johnnydub

          Don’t forget the 70% 1st cousin marriage statistics from Bradford,,,

          • Margot

            And the cost to the NHS of all the ‘cousins breeding’ birth defects in Birmingham.

      • Ivor MacAdam

        Mr. Deiscirt, they will probably blame all the ills of the world on Dixon of Dock Green.

    • Richard

      I think you’ve covered most of the sayings. Perhaps you also need to mention ‘we have all the benefits of multiculturalism’. When this raised no one ever asks to list the benefits. I’m stuck to mention even one. I can list the drawbacks though: FGM, suppression of women, gun crime in young black gangs, etc.

      • Marissa

        someone once countered ‘what about spicy food?’ with, “A simple recipe book would have sufficed,”

        • Omallet

          Yes and not very diverse either to assume only Pakistani and Bangladeshi people can provide spiced food from Asia

      • TrueNorthFree

        don’t forget mass rape of thousands of white English schoolgirls by Pakistani Muslim men

      • global city

        We fought for centuries to end the lunacy of sectarianism here, and just when we largely get it checked they go and bring in another group obsessed with stupid religious divisions!!!

      • will91

        Errrmmm welllllll errrrr hmmm give me a few minutes would you.

      • TrippingDwarves

        ‘Warped version of Islam’ – Jeremy Hunt. Duh!

        • LiamNewcastle

          I always enjoy this one. ‘Warped’ in this context of course equates to an interpretation of the texts exactly as they were written.

      • Marcussmod

        The welfare bill resulting from multi kultism is the next taboo to be breached.

    • maraismarais

      Islamophobia , anyone not pro Muslim is guilty of that .

      • TrippingDwarves

        The jackpot word. Instant Bingo!

        This is getting to be fun.

        • global city

          “we must watch for extremism in ALL of our communities”

          • anotherjoeblogs

            That’s odds on , that ‘un.

          • LiamNewcastle

            Bloody Baptists at it again, we must remain vigilant.

          • Tellytubby

            Watch out for the Quakers as well mate…

        • will91

          Me and a mate are playing the unofficial Question Time drinking game tonight.

          Down your drink everytime someone mentions “Islam is a Religion of peace” or “This has nothing to do with Islam”

          I’ve given myself 3 minutes.

          • hedgemagnet

            Make sure you’ve got the hangover cures at the ready!

          • KingHasNoClothes

            3 minutes to be “locked’? – I’d be pissed in 2 I reckon using those rules.

    • Freeworld

      Um “groups on the far right like UKIP’ and douglas Murray will be slandered similarly by panel members and the majority of the hand picked audience.

      • TrippingDwarves

        Of course! How could I have missed that one?

        ‘The real problem here is groups like the EDL and the BNP spreading their hatred…”

        Bound to come up. Heard it on the radio only this morning, as it happens.

        • The Great Cornholio

          And Israel. Know discussion on Islamic theocratic violence among our elected politicians can go on for very long without someone blaming Israel.

          • anotherjoeblogs

            2/1 – for a ‘ plight of the palestinians ‘
            3/1 – for a ‘ zionists are committing genocide against the palestinians on a daily basis ‘

          • Father Onabit

            It’s a strange genocide where the population actually increases. 🙂

          • anotherjoeblogs

            Yeah, it’s all projection of wish-fulfilment coupled with hyperbole to the point of absurdity.
            The Zionists must be committing genocide on a daily basis but the palo baby factories are shooting them out every nano-second.

          • global city

            Yes….refusal to address ‘the middle east problem’ (that is, allow the Muslims to kill all the Jews)

        • Lina R

          The EDL have never shot anyone on a beach, beheaded anyone, thrown a gay man off a building or raped a girl but of course they’re the big problem at the moment.

      • TrippingDwarves

        Another one just popped up (see above) – ‘It’s all an American conspiracy!’ No doubt fuelled by the CIA and Elvis. Angouverymuch!

    • Ivor MacAdam

      Don’t forget “and of course, we MUST celebrate diversity”….
      Nobody asked me if I wanted any b…..y diversity…

      • TrueNorthFree

        Diversity is a code word for “anti-white”. The only countries in which diversity is forced upon the people are white countries.

      • global city

        we should all insist on replacing ‘diversity’ with sectarianism when ever the issue is raised and that meme dribbled out.

      • Dogsnob

        Strange chap, diversity.
        The all-embracing drive towards it has ensured that all European cities will soon be denuded of their formerly diverse character, to be replaced by the one way of life.
        We shouldn’t let the diversity champions continue unchallenged with their idiot chelpings.

      • Omallet

        it’s a funny diversity – where all the effort focus and a*** kissing is about only one group . Who in my opinion act like spoilt brats and socially, culturally and theologically show no regard for any diversity at all in fact demonstrate that they have no interest in minority rights at all except where they are a minority

    • Des Demona

      ”These people are simply criminals”

      • JewishKuffar

        Lone wolves even…

    • Aporia

      5: It’s all a result of poverty/lack of education/racism/marginalisation – we really must be nicer to these vulnerable souls.

      • LiamNewcastle

        The notion that it is ‘racist’ is the one that bugs me most of all. If that were the case then why do we have no such issues with our Hindu and Sikh communities?

    • Dave Cockayne

      You didn’t mention diversity. Report for re-education comrade immediately.

    • Gergiev

      How about “identifying ISIS as Islamic alienates young Muslims and makes them more likely to become radicalised.”

    • colchar

      If I hear the falsehood that “Islam is a religion of peace” one more time my head will explode! The fact is that it is a medieval death cult that was started by a child molester and there is nothing peaceful about it.

      • global city

        “It says that there is no compulsion”

        “there are more passages of peace than of war” literally wildly inaccurate.

        “Well, Christianity has fundamentalists – look what we’ve done in the …blah, blah, blah”

        It is all because of western foreign policy/colonialism/racism/poverty/inequality”


        • JewishKuffar


          (Defensive war/1000 years ago irrelevant).

          • Ohffs

            Correct sir. The left in this country are happy to support the more radical elements of ROP because they hate western society. These “usefull idiots” don’t seem to realise that their agenda will mean nothing to sharia loving cultural enrichers. I would take the left seriously if they stopped moaning and slagging of Israel about Human rights for defending themselves and had a go at Hamas about using kids as a Shield. The lefty clownshoes in the Uk and Europe running it or the minority of SJW on twatter do not represent the majority. Israel is the only democracy in that troubled region. I hope Israel and Al Sissay in Egypt can sort out a partnership because he is the only Muslim talking sense

    • justsomeone

      We forgot the head of the student union who said she can’t condemn Isis because that would be racist. That’s the same one who wants to ban all contact with Israel.

      • Lina R

        She’s a Nazi appeaser. I wish we could send her and Russell Brand to so-called Islamic State.

      • trevor

        I was surprised to read this so went and did some research. The head of the student union did not say what you claim. The truth is that the international students officer a Shreya Paudel proposed the condemnation motion “to condemn the IS and support Kurdish forces fighting against it, while expressing no confidence or trust in the US military intervention.” Whereas the rejection of the motion was led by another officer Malia Bouattia. There are some intricacies here and a context about supporting war. I don’t know the details.

        However, it is worth noting the following statement from the NUS: “Of course NUS does not support Isis and a new motion will be taken to the next NUS National Executive Committee meeting, which will specifically condemn the politics and methods of Isis and offer solidarity for the Kurdish people.”

        • Harry Pond

          You can always trust the NUS to get up real peoples nose, that’s what they are for, a load of whining spotty students.

          • Father Onabit

            Precisely. Who cares what they think? Let them call all their members out on strike and watch the country come to its knees. lol

        • justsomeone

          You forgot to mention (must have slipped your mind) that the NUS proposal to condemn Isis (even while expressing no confidence in “US military intervention”) was defeated.
          They refused to condemn it. And that they refused because condemning it would be “Islamophobic”. “Islamophobia” is “racism”, as we know 🙂
          I really couldn’t care less whether they succeed in condemning Isis next time. What’s important to note is that far leftists who spend most of their time obsessively condemning Israel – far from claiming Isis is anti-Islamic – claim that one cannot and should not condemn Isis because that would be “Islamophobic” and that these nutters were able to get the NUS to vote down a condemnation (however slight) of Isis.
          I fail to see how Isis can be un-Islamic and have “nothing to do” with Islam and yet cannot be condemned because that would be “Islamophobic”.
          It’s also clear that the reason they condemn Israel is linked to the reason they won’t condemn Isis. It tells one everything one needs to know about their politics. However, I see you rushing to defend the NUS, hiding the fact that they refused to condemn Isis (on principle!) and not mentioning that in doing so they also explicitly said that condemning Isis is “Islamophobic” (which means no one should condemn them, since “Islamophobia” is always wrong).
          You’re defending the indefensible. So be it.

          • trevor

            Sorry with respect I am not defending anyone here. I think that ISIS/ISIL should be condemned unequivocally.

            The reason that I replied is because you said the Head of the NUS did XYZ. That surprised me and to be fair i was unaware of the whole thing( it turns out this story dates back 9 months). I found the whole thing strange and I could not believe that the NUS would support ISIL/ISIS nor that the Head of NUS would support it. That would be outrageous. Hence I went and did a small search.

            I agree with you that the motion was defeated. The details are not entirely open for us to see and I personally do not know the exact motion nor do I know exactly what was said by whom (and I am not going to be swayed by the Daily Mail here). But I think that we can accept the following statement as it is an official statement “Some committee members felt that the wording of the motion being presented would unfairly demonise all Muslims rather than solely the group of people it set out to rightfully condemn.” and furthermore ““Of course NUS does not support Isis and a new motion will be taken to the next NUS National Executive Committee meeting, which will specifically condemn the politics and methods of Isis and offer solidarity for the Kurdish people.”

            I have no intention of defending the indefensible. I am only writing in good faith and I for one feel that that ISIL/ISIS should be condemned in the absolute with no let out clause.

          • justsomeone

            Trevor, you have no intention of defending the indefensible and yet you do it anyway 🙂
            I couldn’t give a damn how they ‘explain’ their decision and defend their statements. Their official explanations and contortions are of no interest to me and should be rejected by everyone.
            This vote tells us that the NUS’s politics are deeply skewed and that
            these extreme left-wing activists are moral midgets and hypocrites who
            seemingly live to condemn other people but when considering Isis cannot
            bring themselves to condemn it, and that they hold so much power in the NUS that they
            can defeat the motion and explain (even if not in an official statement) that condemning Isis is Islamophobic.
            Now which side do you think had a higher percentage of Muslim activists? How do ordinary people (terrified of being accused of Islamophobia/racism) behave when surrounded by Muslims who tell them to condemn Israel (or else they’re racists) and tell them that condemning Isis is “Islamophobic”? Do they want to vote against ‘the Muslims’? If they see that camp is crammed with Muslims, do they feel comfortable voting against them? Might they not be branded Islamophobes? 🙂
            Very often people prefer to vote as they perceive Muslims vote. They’ll see what camp has more Muslims and they’ll side with them. It’s safer that way. And they’re rationalise it. They’ll tell themselves they’re right. Now they see just how mad these people are. They can either make excuses for them, saying things like “The details are not entirely open for us to see” and quote official statements and contortions to make it seem that it was all about “the wording” or they can dismiss these extreme left-wing activists altogether.
            I note that you were outraged to discover what the NUS did.
            I also note that your unequivocal condemnation of Isis is worded in a way the NUS could not possibly support.
            So why make excuses for them? These activists of the far-left in the NUS make excuses for Muslim terrorists (clearly, only because they *are* Muslim terrorists) and you make excuses for these activists. I’d even say you do so against your better judgement.

            Finally, the point isn’t even whether having won this battle, these activists lose the next one. This isn’t about whether they win or lose a motion. It’s about what they want, what their politics are about, what motivates them, what their position is. Their position is an instinctive one, it is that Isis should not be condemned and that anyone who condemns Isis is guilty of Islamophobia.
            It really doesn’t matter how they later ‘explain’ their position.
            Their position (and their entire philosophy) is indefensible.

          • trevor

            I am not defending them. As you have correctly noted I don’t think that there is any defence for ISIS/ISIL behaviour and actions. My condemnation is absolute. What I am saying is that the open facts is that I don’t know exactly what motion was defeated and I am not going to rely on the Daily Mail to tell me this. But yes, you might know because of some first hand knowledge. I accept your comment that some committee members may support ISIS because condemnation is tantamount to Islamophobia. Such a belief though is misguided and in my opinion foolish. This is vile terrorist organisation and there is absolutely no redeeming facet to its behaviour.

            The facts that I have read do not suggest that the NUS president (or Head) made the comments you originally said. Indeed as far as I am aware there are no comments from her/him on this matter. There is however, the point that one officer did lead the opposition whereas another three did lead the support for the condemnation motion. And you are right it was voted down by the committee. Nevertheless it is not clear, to me at least, what the motion was exactly. This is not tantamount to defending the NUS. This is saying I don’t know all the facts. But the facts that I do know do not suggest that the Head of the NUS supported ISIS in any way.

            I have no idea what the politics of the various people is – I don’t follow this. Alas, my years of knowing what happens on campus are long gone. You mentioning Muslim activists and how they vote really emphasises that I have no clue what happens on campus. I asked my children and they too don’t recognise, at the least at the Universities they went to, any major Muslim activism. Maybe they were too naive and cocooned away from student politics – I don’t know. I would be very disappointed if any institution supported ISIS/ISIL terrorists directly or indirectly.

            I defend your right to have an opinion and don’t find your thoughts here unreasonable. I think that you should consider affording me such a luxury – and not accuse me of making excuse for them. I have not done this, I have just said the Head of the NUS did not make the statement you said he made. Moreover I did point out that one of the officers did make such comments it seems, on the other hand three officers instigated a ISIS condemnation motion.

            The NUS should quickly and rapidly issue a no holds barred condemnation of ISIS. No excuses.

          • justsomeone

            >The NUS should quickly and rapidly issue a no holds barred condemnation of ISIS. No excuses.

            Given that this was 9 months ago and I haven’t heard that they’ve since issued a no-holds barred condemnation, I suspect your wishes will go unfulfilled. Really, does the no-vote suggest that they’re the sort of people who’d issue a no-holds barred condemnation? 🙂
            They couldn’t even bring themselves to condemn Isis while criticising America. Once more, suppose they’ll hold another vote and more people will come and these far-left activists would lose. So what? The point is that what this vote tells us is that the hard-left (whose raison d’etre seems to be to condemn people) refuse to condemn Isis and look for excuses (“wording”, for example) to extricate themselves from having to do so. That’s the point I’m making. Whether they defeat a motion – whether they succeed – is neither here nor there.

            I don’t have any special knowledge. I kept away from these things back when I was a student. I’d hate to be there now amongst all these activists of the far-left and their moderate-left accomplices. Anyone who doesn’t belong to the left and participates would have to be a masochist of the highest order.

            You seem to think that what the president or head of the NUS is of particular importance. Given that the motion was defeated, it makes no difference and would only be of academic interest. The comment about “condemning Isis is Islamophobic” is very telling. We’re not talking about a tiny, fringe minority of lunatics at the NUS, otherwise Isis would have been condemned. In other words, the NUS has deeply skewed politics.

            From the Independent: ”

            The National Union of Students has rejected a call to condemn
            militant group Isis on the grounds that the motion was “islamophobic”,
            in a move which has promoted campaigners to accuse the body of being in
            the “stranglehold” of divisive “identity politics”.

            The political split in the student body over the conflict in the
            Middle East erupted after a motion was put forward last month to the NUS
            National Executive Council, asking students to express “solidarity”
            with the Kurds in Iraq and Syria who are engaged in a bloody struggle
            against ISIS militants.

            The motion, proposed by Daniel Cooper and
            Clifford Fleming with international students officer Shreya Paudel,
            called on British students “to condemn the IS and support Kurdish forces
            fighting against it, while expressing no confidence or trust in the US
            military intervention.”

            However the call, which also called for
            unity among Muslims and has already been passed by the Scottish NUS, was
            rejected by a members led by black students’ officer Malia Bouattia,
            according the student website The Tab.”

            Her excuses (or the NUS’s) excuses don’t concern me. It’s clear that they don’t want to condemn Isis (though they love condemning Israel, for example, they can’t get enough of that) and that they accuse anyone who condemns Isis as being driven by Islamophobia and claim that if they’ll condemn Isis they’ll be helping Islamophobes. *sigh*. I’m done with them. Their behaviour sickens me. Their world-view disgusts me.

            I’m sorry for being so harsh. Your heart is obviously in the right place and you clearly aren’t trying to help them excuse Isis, but you seem to try to make excuses for the NUS (“perhaps the wording was the problem”, “I don’t know what the motion was exactly”, “the president of the NUS didn’t say you can’t condemn Isis”).
            Saying “I hope they’ll rapidly issue a no holds barred condemnation” is to be willfully naive, they’re just not the type to do that. More to the point, these extremist activists are clearly a dominant force in the NUS, so even if the NUS would muster up a condemnation in spite of these activists, they’ll still be around, skewing the NUS’s politics, winning battles, even if they lose a few.

            All the best.

    • will91

      A useless equivalence to the IRA perhaps?

    • Lina R

      5. We must be vigilant for all forms of extremism including neo-Nazi groups.

    • KingHasNoClothes

      Yes – I’m sure someone is sure to slip in the “old reliable” Quran 5:32 – “….whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land – it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one – it is as if he had saved mankind entirely. ” But OF COURSE conveniently forgetting the very next verse – 5:33 – ” The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. “

      • Mr Sanity

        They also leave out the “unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land” bit – which considering the traditional Islamic definitions of corruption in the land, means any non-Muslim or deviant Muslim is fair game…..

        • KingHasNoClothes


      • madge hirsch

        Well IS are doing ok on the killing, crucifying and chopping off hands and feet bit. They obviously stopped reading before they got to “exiled from the land”.

      • Marcussmod

        5.33 is simply ignored by the Muslim appeasers in the media and politics as it shows the RoP is anything but.

    • Linda Smith

      Hope you’re watching This Week. Andrew Neil just interviewed Tom Holland. Do watch it on iplayer if you missed it. Great put down for Call Me Dhimmi Dave and his twaddle.

    • sebastian2

      Islamophobia? You are insulting my religion?

    • Marcussmod

      There must also be a version of PC top trumps in which Islamophobia trumps womens’ rights and child protection.

    • PapayaSF

      5: The result of colonialism/racism/capitalism
      6: George Bush!!1!

    • Grey Wolf

      There is another one – ”moderate muslims”

  • Nik

    The truth is our politicos are terrified of offending British Muslims in case they start rioting ( which is just the provocation many would love – they could exercise Jihad here ) then we’d have civil war. We are being invaded by this odious ideology and no-one seems to notice or care.

    • Sounds like our politicians believe Muslims in Britain are innately violent.

      • Nik

        How many more people have to commit violent crimes in the name of Islam before it is nessicary to think about protecting the public, more tube bombs, beheading in the streets ? The Fundermentalist followers of Islamic State ARE innately violent by conviction as shown by the youths going off to join them.

  • WarriorPrincess111111

    There are several reports that the Muslims in the Middle East do not recognise IS. In addition to these reports there are many that claim IS is funded by, drug money, bank looting, money laundering etc – but it is widely claimed that IS is funded by the US! Either money directly from the US or money filtering through the US. All large financial transactions are tracked by the US, It has been widely reported that IS have been trained by the US – these reports have been published in Germany, France and the UK. All of which claim that IS members were trained in Turkey and Jordan

    Last March, the German weekly Der Spiegel reported Americans were training Syrian rebels in Jordan.

    Quoting what it said were training participants and organizers, Der Spiegel reported it was not clear whether the Americans worked for private firms or were with the U.S. Army, but the magazine said some organizers wore uniforms. The training in Jordan reportedly focused on use of anti-tank weaponry.

    The German magazine reported some 200 men received the training over the previous three months amid U.S. plans to train a total of 1,200 members of the Free Syrian Army in two camps in the south and the east of Jordan.

    Britain’s Guardian newspaper also reported last March that U.S. trainers were aiding Syrian rebels in Jordan along with British and French instructors.
    It is highly beneficial not to rely on television and the British media for information.

    • Deiscirt

      A very confused mix of half-fact and conspiracy there. 2/10. Must do better.

    • cartimandua

      The FSA is not ISIS although they have been reported as committing atrocities. We need someone to tell us where to send the missiles.

    • Ridcully

      “It is widely claimed…” = “I read it on the internet.”

  • Nexialist

    Rod is right. It seems to me that the attempt by Briitsh politicians to de-fang Islamic state of its true nature and identity by ignoring its ideological foundations (I hesitate to say religious) is completely self-defeating. The cowardly Cameroonian ‘noble lie’ of the RoP is just that, total bollocks (a white flag of submission), since so much of what IS actually does and says in its videos and online mags like Dabiq, are theatrically inspired by the many psycopathic verses of the Koran. Moreover, most Muslims wholeheartedly approve of IS(IS) barbaric methods and practices, since these cultural jewels echo across the centuries the very sadism and remind believers of the gory achievements of an eplileptic warlord Mohammad, ‘the perfect man’, who cannot be criticised or graphically represented, on pain of death. Odd that almost no evidence exists of Mohammad’s earthly or heavenly persona. Lest we forget, Islam and its doctrinal/ideological sources have nothing to do with genuine spiritual exercises or empathising with one’s neighbours’ cultures and ideas. Cultural integration is forbidden by the Koran anyway. Why should the Muzzies try to learn from the ‘kuffar’; their ‘faith’ and ‘civilisation’ are seen as vastly superior and stronger to those of the West. For Islam, there is nothing but submission and the annihilation of all other belief systems, be it in 632 AD or 2015. Unless we close down and eradicate the madrassas/mosques and other evil dens of cultish barbarism, arrest and deport the 2000 worst Islamic serial killers and their networks and progeny, we are in trouble. So best get down to the gym now and prepare, do some circuits, even sign on to a self-defence or firearms course; it wont stop the inevitable butchery (since ALL Muslims are commanded by the PROFIT to kill the kuffar, and protect and extend the faith with their own deaths) but it may console the mind and spirit, while supporting the new homeland dads army.

  • jim

    Its the moslems, stupid.

  • Comrade Pootie

    One of the few to have witnessed the Islamic State from within seems pretty clear about his views about this.

    “VICE News produced a world exclusive when filmmaker Medyan Dairieh spent three weeks embedded alone with the Islamic State in June 2014, gaining unprecedented access into the heart of the self-proclaimed caliphate. Here he describes what he learned.”

    “I believe the muhajireen, as the foreign fighters are known, did not really come to Syria to resist Assad. They came because they saw themselves as soldiers of Islam, and believed it was their religious destiny to build the caliphate”

  • Germainecousin

    I suspect Dave and most certainly Boris have strong personal muslim leanings. The PM told muslims that the UK needs to bend to them not the other way round. Boris (his ex wife a muslim convert) has said more about protecting the feelings of muslims than the life of innocents. It is unpalatable but I suspect true and the future of the UK and indeed Europe has never looked more perilous. Forget Greece and the economic outlook, the fall of the West to this horrific ideology is more horrific than the two world wars combined. God help us, politicians certainly will not.

  • LindaRivera

    The Quran and all Islamic teaching, instruct Muslims to wage violent jihad – beheadings, satanic atrocities, kidnappings, rapes, barbaric mass murders – eternal WAR until all non-Muslims are conquered and enslaved under barbaric sharia law. Islam teaches Muslims to capture non-Muslim females for sex slaves and GANG RAPE them. Exactly what ISIS terrorists in Iraq and Syria do, including torture — and what Muslim imports — the Spawn of Satan, have been perpetrating for decades in Britain to many thousands of non-Muslim, white British girls. DEFEAT THE MASSIVE MUSLIM RAPE WAR ON OUR FEMALES IN BRITAIN AND EUROPE. Centuries ago, our European ancestors fought great battles to drive the cruel Muslim sex slavers out of Europe. In our day, our wicked, traitor leaders invite them in.

    Give military training and weapons to our non-Muslim girls and boys to defend themselves from imported Muslim gang raping monsters. Kurd female fighters are outstanding role models. The world greatly admires these angels!

    Kurdish female fighters ready to send ISIS to hell

  • LindaRivera

    Liberty GB is a patriotic, political anti-Islamisation party promoting Christian civilisation, Western freedoms and British culture.

    Liberty GB leader, Paul Weston, is the only leader with the courage to warn about our terrible danger from Islam – the greatest threat the human race has ever faced. The hour is late. Massive Muslim immigration and massive Muslim breeding is advancing at frightening speed – horrifying national suicide forcibly financed by our people! Unless drastic changes take place very soon, within years all of the horrors – beheadings, crucifixions and satanic atrocities will take place daily in our once safe nation.

    “Cameron is a traitor” – Paul Weston at Downing Street 20.09.2014 Liberty GB

  • Gareth

    Seeing as just about everything ISIS does is what Prophet Muhammad did (beheading captives, taking sex slaves, smashing up pagan statues, and forcing Christians to pay Jizyah). Perhaps the best name for ISIS would be the “State of What Would Muhammad Do”, or SWWMD for short.

  • mrs 1234

    What exactly is the difference between ISIS and the Islamic State imposed by the Ayatollahs following the Iranian Revolution? Both engaged in a reign of terror that followed Sharia to the letter.
    How different is what ISIS establishing to other Islamic States? Are women equal in Saudi, do floggings, beheadings, amputations occur? Are churches built and free worship and atheism accepted? do they alllow a thriving LGBT community?
    Clearly Cameron et al take us all for a bunch of blithering idiots.

    • Freeworld

      I know it’s all very confusing, Sunni and Shia aside, why is the fascist regime in Saudi not sufficient for their fellow Sunni ‘s in Isis , god how much worse could they want it to be.

      • justsomeone

        They probably feel it doesn’t spread Islam aggressively enough, isn’t trying to conquer other countries for Islam.
        Iran is much more serious about spreading “The Islamic Revolution” through Jihad. It’s part of its constitution, which means it’s part of the Islamic Republic’s DNA, but Iran is clever enough to realise it needs nuclear weapons so it isn’t engaged in killing Westerners on beaches. It does execute gays and blasphemers but no one in the West seems to mind. Just so long as it doesn’t saw off Westerners’ heads. If Isis were more forward-thinking they’d not have done that and instead worked on building nuclear weapons and insisted they only want expensive nuclear energy instead of using the massive oil fields they’re sitting on.

  • Johnny Foreigner

    The people that read The Spectator, know all this, they chunter about it here and other places, all the time. So, I don’t see the point of stating the bleedin’ obvious on a forum such as this, to people such as us.

    • WTF

      Its worth repeating otherwise the control freaks like Cameron might win the argument.

  • Terry Field

    The delusional absurdities of the Western leadership hopes that:
    1 The kufar populations will be prevented from rising up against their islamic neighbours, and that justifies the lie.
    2 That there actually are lots of muslims living in Britoland who really do not approve of ISIS.
    I suspect they are deluded on both counts.
    Things are going from bad to worse.
    Because the West has stopped putting Islamic revanchism down, as it did with monotonous regularity over very many centuries.
    Now we obsess over gays, lesbians, trans-genders, fairness, slush of all kinds.
    And that is why we are finished.
    The future’s Black. And we did it to ourselves.

  • Neil Saunders

    Rod, you should be ashamed of yourself! Islamic State is clearly perverting the doctrines of a noble religion in which millions of decent, ordinary people simply wish to continue practising FGM and “honour” killings, state-funded polygamy, electoral fraud, the grooming and rape of underage non-Muslim girls, the turning of provincial English cities into replicas of Bangladesh and the Pakistani FATA, and all the while agitating for Sharia law in which – quite reasonably – women and non-Muslims will be treated unequally and penalties such as beheading, stoning to death, hanging from cranes, eye-gouging, flogging, amputation and torture generally will be routine.

    • Linda Smith

      You forgot humiliating the non-believer and making us pay protection money, the jizya tax.

      • Neil Saunders

        How careless of me, Linda! Thank you for pointing out my regrettable omission.

      • Father Onabit

        That is already happening with a large percentage of the muslim population living on the taxes of others.

      • Nik

        Yes……the three choises, Convert or pay the jizya tax ( admitting inferiority or die……thats Islam…the religion of Peace.

  • Ivor MacAdam

    Fantastica! Now now, everybody. Don’t worry. Fear ye not. Because our dear
    leaders have used an old I.T. trick, which is very effective. They have
    renamed the file… sorry, I mean they have renamed ISIS. It has been
    renamed “Daesh”.com…. Always a good, last-ditch fix in I.T. That’l
    show ’em! They can’t fight a rename! Their AK47s and home-made bombs
    are quite ineffective against a sturdy rename! Those poor wretches over
    there in the Syrian desert must be terrified! Quaking in their ex-Russian-Army boots! Or “Nike” boots, “Ugggggg” boots, or whatever boots they wear.

    We can reduce our armed forces with impunity now, we have deployed a rename, and instructed the BBC, no less, to use it. Whoopeee!

    Let nobody be in any doubt about the effectiveness of this deployment, after all, look what it did for the EU Constitution, when it got renamed “The Lisbon Treaty”. Sorted! Even Gordie Broon signed it.

    You can’t say fairer than that! I rest my case…..

  • davidofkent

    How about ‘Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam’?

    That won’t do because they have everything to do with Islam, as all of us except a few of the usual suspects know perfectly well.

  • Roger Hudson

    Galvanized into action!! I’d hate to see what sort of a response a less serious incident would elicit.

  • zappata

    A government that feels it has the right to re-define marriage presumably considers it also has the right to re-define Islam according to its worldview.

    • WTF

      Its view, barely 0.000001% of the non Muslim population !

  • Alpha Farnell

    It’s the mentality of the powerless – deny it’s a problem and hope it goes away because you’ve no ability to solve it. If that fails call your critic a racist. Sad and pathetic but that where we are these days.

  • WTF

    Sc**rew Cameron and his appeasement to a death cult, Islam is what it is and perhaps if his former guru (Warsi) had bothered to educate him on all things Islamic, he would understand exactly where they are coming from.

    The Jihadists believe they are following the teachings of a pedophile war monger and who are we to disagree when the Quran & Hadith is loaded with the mother of all barbarity and unacceptable inspiration for be-headings, slavery, rape and death to gays & apostates.

    The acronym IS or ISIL clearly stands for Islamic whatever Cameron might prefer to think or wish for so he better get used to it as the electorate isn’t going to change its understanding of what it stands for.

    If he wants to do something constructive here, ban this cancerous hate cult just as we have lesser offensive groups !

  • Lady Magdalene

    Cameron has no idea what to do. But he’s very certain that he doesn’t want to alienate any more “British” Muslims by calling a spade a spade, so he’s going to call it something completely different.

    Then, when ISIS has been renamed, after the next Muslim terrorist atrocity he won’t have to parrot the line “this has nothing to do with Islam; Islam is a religion of peace” because it won’t have been perpetrated by Muslim terrorists. They’ll be Daesh terrorists instead.

    Islam is not a peaceful religion: never was and probably never will be. Our political elite should stop pretending that most Muslims abhor Muslim extremists. They don’t; polls show that to a large degree, they agree with them.

  • Sten vs Bren

    “They insist that because crimes often occur which are not perpetrated by Muslims, it is unkind to focus attention on them.”

    Yes, it is unreasonable to focus upon a group on the grounds of religion.

    The fight would seem to between those who wish to use religion as a means of dividing people; IS and Liddle for example, and those who do not.

    • Chris Mullans

      Islam itself is a system for dividing the religious from the non-religious. Please educate yourself.

      • Sten vs Bren

        Yes, all religions are a system for dividing themselves from others but I thought we were trying to be polite.

  • JohnCrichton89

    It seems to be forgotten that we aren’t calling ISIS Islamic, Muslims are. They are offended at us for repeating what Muslims say, it’s apologetic acrobatics for their religion and the actions of pious Muslims in the name of Islam. And they are winning this propaganda war, they are allowed to commit genocide in the name of Islam and murder us and rape our children. Yet we can’t even talk about the cause………. they are laughing at us.

  • Muttley

    Cameron is a lying fink. End of.

  • Suzy61

    More than the cry of it being ‘unfair’….how they usually respond is with a ‘why should I?’

    Why should I apologise for something I didn’t do? Why should I prove myself to be moderate? Why should I feel any responsibility for what happens?

    It is just another ploy of disguising their total unwillingness to address what is happening in their families and in their Mosques and criticising those who expect them to do so.


    Defiance, more like.

  • ClaritaCJarrell

    22222Ultra Income source by spectator < Find Here

  • stuartMilan

    i wonder what induced those MPs to insist on this… ker-ching!

  • Mystified Man

    If the Islamic State is not Islamic then does that mean Mohammed was not a Muslim? If the qualifier for a state having “nothing to do with Islam” is whether they are a “barbaric regime of terrorism and oppression that takes delight in murder and oppressing women and murdering people because they’re gay” does that not exclude the Muslim empires, from the Rashidun caliphate all the way up to the Ottoman Empire, from being Islamic? The Quran was written by scholars of the first Caliphate lead by Abu Bakr (the namesake of the leader of DAESH), during the Muslim empire’s peak of conquest and (not so peaceful) expansion, does this mean that the Quran is not an Islamic text?

  • Chris

    I’m starting to wonder just whose side Imam Dave and his fellow appeasers are on.
    As for calling them “Really Bloody Horrible People Who Have Nothing To Do With Islam” instead of Islamic State: this would never work either because Imam Dave and our Muslim friends would soon start protesting about having the word “horrible” in the title and we’d be right back at square one. How about calling them Those Really Nice Folk Who We’re So Lucky To Have Amongst Us Who Detest Violence And Enrich Our Society So Much. Or TRNFWWSLTHAUWDVAEOSSM for short. That should make them happy.

    • Suzy61

      That is a very snazzy acronym, Chris.

      Funnily enough, I could envisage some of the useful idiots at El Beeb using it.

      (Picture; Jeremy Bowen with a tea-towel wrapped around his head…)

  • global city

    IS JK is cumming?

  • Newcombe

    Guido puts it rather nicely:

    “It’s not Islamic and it isn’t a state.”

    Really? If it beheads people like an Islamic state, and stones people to death like an Islamic state, and takes the left arm and right leg like an Islamic state, and executes adulterers, homosexuals, apostates, unbelievers and librarians like an Islamic state – it’s probably an Islamic state.

    It doesn’t represent the true Islam, the PM said. Of course, extremists counter-claim and say moderates don’t represent the true Islam. Because the Koran is quite unambiguous when it says, “slay the idolators wherever you find them”.

    What’s unIslamic about that?

    Can’t add anything more to it.

  • Newcombe

    Very soon: Islam is not Islam.

  • Rowland Nelken

    Is the PM really that thick? He must have advisers who know a thing or two about Islam. Because Christianity has calmed down a fair bit over the centuries, maybe there are those who genuinely imagine that all religions are essentially the same, merely with different funny clothes and pretty buildings. Just because The Church Of England’s main concerns are flower festivals, choir concerts and garden fetes, with its weird old Bible and its wacko apocalyptic fantasies sidelined, does not mean that the world’s religions have moved, universally, in a similar innocuous direction.

    Those of us raised in the horrible fundie fringe of Christendom, by contrast, seem to understand straightway that murderous horrors and religion can sit easily together. I was a child Jehovah’s Witness, for example, and, like other ex JWs, recognise straightway our old fundie mindset in the announcements and vids of ISIS.

    The only redeeming feature of JWs is the absence of Jihad. Big Jehovah is their hitman, all set to annihilate the greater part of humanity at an imminent Armageddon.

    It is refreshing to realise, however, that a cradle Anglican, like Rod Liddle, can see the Islam in the Islamic State.

  • Newcombe

    Reminds me of how Obama jumped through the hoops when announcing the execution of Osama bin Laden by US marines. He kept on repeating that OBL wasn’t a Muslim but then honoured OBL with an Islamic funeral.

  • global city

    I think we should insist that IS means Infidel sausage (pork, of course)

  • cartimandua

    The two powerful nations in the region Iran and Saudi (with a bigger airforce than ours) kill people including women and children on a regular basis.
    Saudi also kills people for “witchcraft”. They both agree that little girls can be raped (called marriage in their eyes).
    So anyone saying “it isn’t Islam” is disagreeing with Muslim countries. Even Jordan a very good egg about refugees has not adequately prosecuted for honour murders.

  • Rowland Nelken

    Maybe the Brit PM is thick, but he must have access to tons of advisers
    who can tell him that the Islamic State is thoroughly Islamic. Just
    because most Jews and Christians have sidelined, ignored or wordily
    tried to explain away the barbarous bits of their holy books, it does
    not follow that the majority of Muslims have done the same. And why are
    we are proposing to bomb one Islamic State (ISIL) on account of its
    barbaric actions, yet selling bombers to an equally barbaric other
    (Saudi Arabia)?

    • cartimandua

      SA is not expansionist.

      • Mr B J Mann

        So who is funding all those Wahabist Madrassas all over the, errmmmmm, WORLD?!?!?!

  • AyserTV

    I don’t get why people have so much hate towards Muslims. If a terrorist says he’s a Muslim he isn’t. Because that’s not Islam, it’s terrorism. I wish people could grow up and start being mature. If your going to reply to my comment with hatred stuff please don’t. Instead grow up and start being mature. I’m sick of seeing Muslims blamed for ISIS. When really it was America that created them. FFS & SMH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >_<

    • Precambrian

      So when Mohammed attacked cities he wasn’t a Muslim then? Or when he killed captives? Or when Saladin declared war he also wasn’t being a Muslim?

      You need to learn history (and grammar – more than a couple of exclamation marks speaks of overly tight underwear).

    • Suzy61

      No, no….we will no longer allow you to blame us.

      Times are changing.

      We will not allow you to blame America.

      Tell us why you are not marching in the streets against these murderers who are using your religion’s name in vain?

    • edlancey

      You’re deluded. Islam was spread by the sword. ISIS are doing exactly what it says on the tin.

    • Augustus

      So where does the motto: “Believers are but Brothers”, “Islam is the Solution”, and “Allah is our objective; the Qur’an is the Constitution; the Prophet is our leader; jihad is our way; death for the sake of Allah is our wish” come from, if not from an extremist terrorist organization founded in Egypt in 1928, has branches throughout the Muslim world, is financed throughout the pan-Islamic world, and is a movement which dreams of the death of the Jews, and the demise of the West?

    • Chris

      You don’t have to tell us because we’ve heard it from people like you a thousands times before: all Muslims are good, it all the Westerners who are evil.

    • Penny

      I don’t think Muslims are hated. But to quote Brigitte Gabriel “..the peaceful majority are irrelevant”. Great harm can be caused by a minority.

      To your point about this not being Islam, why did Egyptian leader General al-Sisi feel it necessary to make the speech last year calling, in effect, for reform. In this speech (which you can find on the internet) he said :

      “It’s inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world. Impossible!

      That thinking—I am not saying “religion” but “thinking”—that
      corpus of texts and ideas that we have sacralized over the years, to the
      point that departing from them has become almost impossible, is
      antagonizing the entire world. It’s antagonizing the entire world!

      Is it possible that 1.6 billion people should want
      to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants—that is 7 billion—so that
      they themselves may live? Impossible!……..

      All this that I am telling you, you cannot feel it if you remain
      trapped within this mindset. You need to step outside of yourselves to
      be able to observe it and reflect on it from a more enlightened

      I say and repeat again that we are in need of a religious
      revolution. You, imams, are responsible before Allah. The entire world, I
      say it again, the entire world is waiting for your next move… because
      this umma is being torn, it is being destroyed, it is being lost—and it is being lost by our own hands”

      He’s not casting blame on the USA – or any of the old favourites.

    • cartimandua

      There are Islamic terror groups all over the world. Gender apartheid leads to overpopulation and resource conflicts.
      So yes it is Islam because of the way women are treated.

    • Perplexed

      You mean someone who chops off a Christian’s head while waving the black flag and chanting Allahu Akbar is obviously not a Muslim at all. How very logical of you.

      That would make lots of famous figures in Islamic history into non-Muslims.

      And if you believe that the US set up IS, you need your head examining.

      • AyserTV

        they did create isis you fucking dumb idiot

  • Perplexed

    Idiotic behaviour by Boris Johnson. I am disappointed.

    Excellent points Rod. But this is the second Fall of the Roman Empire (as IS/DAESH are the first to agree.) Cameron our weak figurehead in an age of feebleness.

  • edlancey

    I prefer to call them the Moonies, after their God.

  • justsomeone

    And of course the far-left says that the Islamic State cannot be condemned because condemning it would be “racist”! 🙂 Yes, really, that is what they’ve said. So we have a two pronged attack (on us)
    A: You can’t condemn it, that would be racist. Because it’s Islamic.

    B: It’s nothing to do with Islam so you aren’t allowed to call it the Islamic State.

    As I see it, trying to force us not to call it The Islamic State is no different from trying to force us not to publish a stick figure of Mohammed. I don’t see the difference.
    And for anyone who thought it will end with Mohammed, here is proof that the process of restricting our speech can never end when it comes to Islam.

  • AlecM

    Islam: the Religion of Pieces, mostly body parts, spent rifle bullets and cartridges.

    Islamic paint-balling: send a cocaine-drugged young man indoctrinated to believe that his role as an Islamic Warrior is to imagine non Moslems are inhuman so can be killed at will; it helps that the prey have no weapons to defend themselves.

    These 15%, possibly 25% of Moslems are racist cowards creating our era’s version of Na$ism.There is no choice but to assert military might and push them back to the dark ages they portray they want to re-achieve. Offer assisted passage to Raqqa and close down the violence-preaching Mosques over the whole of the UK

    • cartimandua

      Even apparently “nice” Muslims talk about worshipping the “one true God” (and people who don’t are obviously damned).

  • mortsnerd

    With us or against us. The situation is becoming increasingly binary.

    • Muttley

      Unfortunately, a large chunk of our fellow indigenous Brits are on the wrong side of binary.

    • Father Onabit

      There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.

  • TrippingDwarves

    Brainless, stupid, mindless thugs! Everything to with Islam!

    Wake up world! Last chance to see…

  • David

    If Margaret Thatcher was Prime Minister there would be several squadrons of RAF Tornados in the sky now, flying bombing raids on Islamic State with the intention of killing as many of them as possible. That, and repeated and shrill condemnation of them and condemnation of anyone who in any way supports them as ‘the enemy within’. Passports would be revoked, people would be deported, and a clear sign would be sent that would be visible all around the world.

    Instead we get a debate about whether calling the terrorists what they call themselves is racist.

    We deserve what is coming to us.

    • Chris Mullans

      Except Thatcher totally failed to crush the mobs calling for the death of Salman Rushdie, here in England. A member of her cabinet actually took an anti-Rushdie stance, and was not rebuked.

      • Gilbert White

        After the Argies she said the next task would be to take on militant islam. The usual suspects hounded together against her and the other leaders had no stomach and backbone.

      • Perplexed

        I seem to recall that some Conservatives were pretty hostile to Rushdie and his right to say what he did. Step forward Sir Geoffrey Howe for one.

    • GraveDave

      It would be the same if Tony Blair was around.He did love a good carpet bombing campaign, did Tone.

  • Stormbringer
  • Stormbringer

    “The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.

    Virtually every major decision and law promulgated by the Islamic State adheres to what it calls, in its press and pronouncements, and on its billboards, license plates, stationery, and coins, “the Prophetic methodology,” which means following the prophecy and example of Muhammad, in punctilious detail. Muslims can reject the Islamic State; nearly all do. But pretending that it isn’t actually a religious, millenarian group, with theology that must be understood to be combatted, has already led the United States to underestimate it and back foolish schemes to counter it. We’ll need to get acquainted with the Islamic State’s intellectual genealogy if we are to react in a way that will not strengthen it, but instead help it self-immolate in its own excessive zeal.”

  • Mongo

    The unpalatable truth is that these savage murderous terrorists have not misunderstood Islam, nor are they practicing some kind of distorted perversion of the faith. They’re carrying out the instructions of the Koran to the letter.

    The appeasers and apologists really need to wake up and realise that. The excuses are starting to wear thin

    • Nik

      and the silence of your average ‘ peaceful ‘ muslim is deafening…… actually they’d probably all rather live under Sharia Law than western Christian Laws – they are just keeping stoom until there are enough of them to start demanding it…as instructed by their Prophet… in Brussels, where the population is reputed to be almost 60% muslim

  • Augustus

    And another thing: When is the Department of Health going to say something about the unhealthy lifestyle Muslims lead during Ramadan?

    • cartimandua

      Just shell out for their 6xs higher rate of Diabetes.

  • jeffersonian

    ‘Sorry, but you can’t take the Islam out of Islamic State’

    …saying what we all think, but too few have the courage to say out loud.

  • Charlatans

    A few home truths from the man in the street who will not be convinced otherwise however much one wishes religion has nothing to do with ISIS, since everyone I know all firmly believe Islam is a fundamental foundation of ISIS existence.

    Of course we all also know and understand this radicalised ISIS brutal form of practicising Islam is not what the majority of Muslims here in the UK do.

    This undemocratic, brutal ISIS ideology and adherence to medieval punishments decreed under Sharia has not evolved like the majority of the remaining world religions.

    Our Christian forefathers used to chop off heads, hang draw and quarter, burn at the stake in our lands just a few hundred years ago! But we have moved on with logical, compassionate human understanding, tolerance, charity and humanism.

    Islam fundamentalism has not. They do not believe in our way of life, including democracy, equal rights for women, gays, animal rights and us non-believers are an anathema to their unreformed practices in this modern world.

    The NTDWI – ‘Nothing to do with Islam’ – mantra is absolutely the polar opposite of the unreformed practices carried out by ISIS and many other Muslim countries.

    Another truth that needs facing is of course the Palestinian, Iraq, Afghan business has for sure radicalised millions of Muslims. Almost every evil act Islamists’ commit the perpetrators announce publicly, or their state publish, these radicalised validations and we all know that. So why the attempt to indoctrinate us
    otherwise is total nonsense.

    I am personally fed up to the back teeth of always having to double check what the BBC is saying for example, since our Nations broadcasting arm has turned into a rampant socialist ‘Lord Haw Haw’ with its attempts at indoctrinating us with obfuscations, omissions and half truths.

  • Steve Larson

    Look at the life of Mohammed and please explain how Isis are not following his example.?

    • FedUpIndian

      Mo didn’t have Twitter. Otherwise you are right.

  • FedUpIndian

    I can no longer see the ISIS flag without thinking immediately of the parody flag with dildos and butt-plugs that flew at that gay rights parade earlier in the week.

    • cartimandua

      I looked at the above flag quickly and thought it said ISUK.

      • FedUpIndian

        Dunno – a flag saying “I SUK” belongs up there with the ISIS butt-plug flag.


    Tiresome, Rod. That is the word other folk far bigger than you or me are calling this entire ‘debate’.

    • Battlestar Galicia

      Correct, the inverted carpetbaggers are in for their 21st century napalm treatment. Let our boys do their thing.

    • flipkipper

      Let’s put it this way, the disenfranchised need to vent their frustrations somewhere. RL appears more than willing to cater for this lot, he is in essence a glorified social worker employed by the private sector.

  • Bonkim

    Without getting into ‘Bigot’ mode, the followers og Islam today are the most zealous of people. Now there is a distinction between zeal and bigotry but in the case of Islam the distinction is hair-thin. The main problem with Islam as was the case with Christianity of the Middle Ages, it is not just a part-time belief system but a lifestyle and culture-system. Much is made of ISIS or ISIL being trans-national and border-less. That was how Christendom viewed themselves in the Dark Ages. The Brotherhood of Islam is without borders and increasingly borders are disappearing where this evil takes hold.

    The West needs to think hard and act decisively and not embark on a poorly thought out adventure to be wound down as soon as we reach choppy waters, Utter ruthlessness id required and I am not sure if our democratic/human rights approach is the right answer.

    • Owen_Morgan

      I’m afraid your idea of a parallel between islam and mediaeval Christianity is just completely mistaken. You don’t seem to understand that sharia is absolutely central to islam. There is nothing like this in Christianity and there never has been. Cameron, Johnson and the rest are wrong precisely because they fail to recognise that the muslims who adhere most closely to sharia are both the most obedient believers and, not by chance, the most intolerant and most addicted to violence.

      He can’t be a “good” muslim, who doesn’t follow sharia, which doesn’t ever change. That was set in stone centuries ago, with all of its prescriptions for killing without limit, for crushing other religions, for misogyny, slavery, brutality and (typically for the islamic world) its licence for all-pervading corruption.

      Since there is no reforming islam without the eradication of sharia and since islam without sharia would cease to exist, islam will never reform.

      • Bonkim

        Agree fully with your circular belief. You are absolutely correct in stating that a religion that submits without question is either in or out – no discussion possible with such.

        Medieval Christianity was similar – Church-Law was the ruling force and you were out if you did not abide by Papal Edicts in European Christendom or by the particular brand of your faith such as in England. Wars were fought to establish supremacy of one or the other brand of Christianity and the Kings that subscribed to them.

        Islam – religion of submission is not compatible with the enlightened secular world that has been created following the industrial revolution, international business, etc. Most of the Christian brands have covered over their beliefs by cobbled up explanations and re-wording basic beliefs from the past.

        The real challenge is how do you overcome the Islamic threat – strength is in the hands of those that take the higher risk, prepared to suffer collateral damage. Conversely those that have built up worldly wealth are fearful of losing the system they have created.

        You can go out and bomb groups of people assuming you are destroying ISIS but faith and ideas cannot be destroyed simply by getting rid of some here and there – ideas spread and grow like bacteria – the cancer has spread and I don’t see much in terms of a collective effort to develop intelligent solutions to the existential threat that we face.

        The structure of international aid and economic system/assistance, communications, travel, and technological/medical advances and others post WW2 are the very same thing that have allowed ideas to spread and take root – allowed populations to explode at locations previously hostile to life, allowed the bigots to arm themselves and spread far and wide to carry out their evil acts.

        Simply reacting to the killings in Tunisia by unleashing a few bombs on Raqa or other selected locations will achieve little.

      • Perplexed

        There are lots of Muslims around who do not follow the sharia. Look in at your pub some time.

        • Owen_Morgan

          In islamic eyes, they are not muslims, or they are muslims who aren’t going to reach paradise. The Turks, for instance, have a kind of fire-water which is certainly not approved by the imams; you can’t be recognised as a strict muslim and imbibe the stuff.

          Bear in mind that the initial appeal of islam is often used as a means to soften the rules of some other social order. For instance, islam spread in the Indian Subcontinent largely thanks to the way it enabled new muslims to side-step, or step above, the Hindu caste-system. After this entryist phase, islam starts to impose its own rules.

          When the muslim brotherhood’s running your neighbourhood, how long, do you think, the pubs will remain open?

          • Perplexed

            It’s perfectly obvious what the Ikhwan (to give them their proper name) and indeed most Shariat-compliant Muslims would do to pubs. But the fact remains that there are any many Muslims who do not want to live inside that cage and who eat bacon, drink beer, etc etc. In societies where they are able to do so. If you think that every last one is a bearded fanatic, you are making a mistake. You ought to welcome secularisation and encourage it.
            Dreadful Dave of course does the opposite. Panders to the tame sheriatists whom he thinks are ‘moderate or ‘safe’ thus unintentionally boosting the radicals he thinks he is fighting.

          • Owen_Morgan

            I do recognise and welcome secularisation. Unfortunately, the tide is turning against secular ex-muslims (who, by definition, are not muslims). This is due to the wahhabi campaigns in our schools and our ever more useless universities and to the relentless recruiting of career criminals in our prisons, all aided and abetted by the cynical pretence that muslim terrorism is an aberration, rather than representing the true nature of sharia.

            If nominal muslims step out of the islamic straitjacket and prefer secular society, that is welcome, but it plainly doesn’t amount to a muslim Reformation. You can’t have failed to notice that “radical” (i.e. practising) muslims have actually increased in number in the UK drastically in recent years. We have seen a shift from a far from radical older generation, to a younger generation which is prepared to commit mass-murder, in the name of their utterly vacuous cult.

            By the way, why were you so determined to “give [the ikhwan] their ‘proper’ name”? Are you afraid of being left off their Christmas-card list?

          • Perplexed

            Ikhwan’s Christmas card list! Now there’s a good one. Ho ho ho.
            No I just know something about the historical, linguistic, cultural, and theological background to all this. But don’t let that bother you. By the way I agree with much of what you say about radicalising trends.
            That is why I am taking up the cudgels against the wretched Cameron here.

          • Owen_Morgan


          • Owen_Morgan

            Why are you so desperate to genuflect to the muslim brotherhood and give them “their proper name”, as you describe it? Are you worried that they have your address?

          • Perplexed

            In ‘radical Islamic’ eyes.

            The Bektashis drank raki and ate food during the day time in Ramadhan throughout the Ottoman empire. I guess IS would question their Muslim identity today but no one did then.

  • Freedom for All

    Islam by any other name would smell as violent. No change for the entity – only the name.

  • Margot

    Brilliant article!
    Any comments on a couple of things that puzzle me?
    Either the whole government has gone completely bonkers or there is an hidden agenda. Re the latter – has anyone read a book by Boris Johnson called “Seventy-Two Virgins” – a hoot – try and get it – which takes off Islam unmercifully. Surprised he didn’t get a Fatwa! How anyone can write that and come out with these latest burblings is a mystery…Any ideas?

  • Margot

    Would love an interview in the Spectator with Yasmin Alibhai-Brown who continues to remain Muslim. She doesn’t seem sectionable ——–but it’s really difficult to believe that anyone of her (?) seeming intelligence can continue to remain true to a death cult which seems to have no plus points. Even if you don’t believe in Christianity you have to admit that (mostly) it tends to advise people to be nice to each other and keeps some tolerant social adhesion promoting ‘good’ things whereas all that seems to come out of Islam is the beheadings and the whole list of horrors, without too much protest from anyone of the faith..

    • The_greyhound

      Mrs Alibaba is a deeply arrogant and objectionable bigot, though she likes herself well enough. She may or may not believe what she says about her religion, but it’s important to remember she has no option of resigning her membership : the death cult decrees death for those who attempt to leave.

      Rather notoriously she does not seem to get on at all with our Rod, convincing evidence that she is a wrong ‘un. Rod himself writes up an encounter here, complete wth moving pictures

      • Margot

        Thanks – will have a look. Would still like an interview – possibly with RL! – if he could bring himself to it and she would agree!

  • retiredolegit

    Very good article, Rod.
    I’ve noticed too that in whichever newspaper about some family or its members going off to join Daesh/etc it’s always with the words “so and so is feared to have gone to Syria…”
    What’s to be feared about it? Many, not all I accept, are old enough to know what the’yre doing. Especially the ‘adults’.

  • margolis marmite

    The government is scared to death that Muslims will just start to ignore them on more and more laws. THey already carry on with FGM as if its not illegal, now polygamous marriages are becoming common, although illegal. Theyre just going ahead, creating their Islamic state within the UK, totally unopposed.

    • Linda Smith

      If you took a walk round Regents Park, you’d think you were in Islamic State.

      • Nik

        A Taxi driver told me that they call the Edgware Road the Gaza Strip.

    • Nik

      By marrying wives under Sharia law, with no record under British law these women become ‘ single mothers ‘ then they and children are supported by the Taxpayer.

  • sebastian2

    Politicians and others are refusing ISIS’ islamic credentials. But ISIS apply the quran with diligent attention and follow, with slavish loyalty, the so called prophet’s medieval example (which was brutal). They attract supporters for precisely these reasons.

    If that isn’t islamic, then neither are the texts they enact nor the muhammed they imitate. This is impossible.

    Some people’s denial in this descends to greater and more absurd depths. In yearning so much it is otherwise, they wish it away as it is.

    • q-pantagruel

      “… the so called prophet’s medieval example..”

      A proper usage of the expression “so-called”, unlike its usage by the BBC with regard to Islamic State.

  • mmac1968

    As said many times when Islam is insulted all Muslims are insulted, when atrocities are committed by them over an insult or which way the wind blows then strangely it has nothing to do with them. Our leaders need to grow up and recognise the threat and understand that it nearly always the indigenous population which has to lay down their lives for the supposed assimilated Brits and our country.

  • ant

    Muslims have been murdering each other before Mohammed was a twinkle in his father’s eye, and show no sign of letting up. Although T.E.Lawrence’s key achievement was to unite bickering Arabs, the vast majority of casualties caused by our blundering in the Middle East over the years have been by Muslims on Muslims. They just can’t help themselves. As such, Islamic State seems a perfect moniker.

    • GraveDave

      How could there have been warring Muslims before Mohammed?

      • Father Onabit

        True. And Jesus was a Jew which people conveniently forget lol

  • The_greyhound

    Nothing is to do with anything. When the Rotherham scandal first started to be reported the BBC couldn’t bring itself to even mention the shared ethnic ‘heritage’ (the new cant word) of the perpetrators; honour killings we must suppose are at least as common in the methodist communty as they are in the mohammedan; FGM a reproach as much to the morris dancing villagers of Oxfordshire as to anyone who chances to have come from the dark continent. Stuff just is, in isolation, and we are all as gormless as Mr Cameron hopes we are.

    Thank goodness for Rod. Sad there are so few like him.

    • Nik

      Yes indeed ! Hurrah for witty and brave Rod

  • Clive

    In your view, David? You’re a Koranic expert, then, are you? You are fit and qualified to adjudicate on what constitutes Islam and what does not? The point is that they call themselves Islamic State: that is their name. You can cavil all you like, but that is generally the approach we have taken over the years in journalism: give something its proper name, not something we would prefer it to be called because the proper name offends our sensibilities.

    That’s a load of boll*x. First of all, is Rod Liddle an Islamic expert ? He is passing judgment on someone else’s qualification for that title as though he were himself. The government has advisors for that kind of job.

    Second, yes the naming of things is important. For all of his infamous life, the media called the first head of Al Qaeda in Iraq ‘Abu Musab al Zarqawi’ – which means the father of Musab from Zarqa, a town in Jordan. It’s rather like being called ‘Robin of Sherwood’. His real name was Ahmed Khalayleh which is like being called Dave Smith – why did you not use that when you were at the BBC ?

    It’s the same with all the Palestinian leaders. They are all called Abu this and Abu that but that’s their street names and it names them as fathers. Pretty much lets out those who play on the other side of the track. Abu Hamster (fully ‘Abu Hamza al Masri’) is actually called Mustafa Mustafa – I’ve never heard him called that in a news bulletin, why not ?

    On Islamic State – yes, it is stupid calling it that. It implies some credibility as a state ruled by Islam which is wrong. It breaks Islamic rules whenever it feels like it – as most states professing to be wholly or partly ruled by Islamic law do. It is no different from them and in fact worse, because it murders huge numbers of muslims as someone pointed out below.

    The fact that it has persuaded some bunch of divots that it is in fact a really, really holy state is a feat of marketing comparable to Rodrigo Borgia’s claim to holiness.

    I agree with a great deal of what you say and I have to remind myself that you are the idiot that recruited Andrew Gilligan (hasn’t he gone on to wonderful things, he must be a wonderful journalist) into the Today program to ‘go after the government’ but this is just doing the terrorists’ advertising for them.

    • The_greyhound

      More ranting drivel from our resident islamo-fascist apologist.

      • Perplexed

        PR hack, I would suspect.

        Disingenuous beyond belief, IS sticks a lot more closely to the rules of Islam than most Muslim-majority states, hence its global appeal. You’ll be telling us the Church of England is Christian next.

        Basically Clive and Dave are trying to avoid facing up to the facts. Classic appeasers.

        • Clive

          I wonder if ‘Perplexed’ and ‘The_greyhound’ are the same person ?

          There certainly is at least one person using multiple accounts on here and they invariably miss the point completely

          Saying that ‘Islamic State sticks to the rules of Islam more than most…’ is like saying the Plymouth Brethren stick to the rules of Christianity more than most

          Anyone believe that ?

          • The_greyhound

            What point?

            Your posts consist only of self-serving humbug and copious dollops of misunderstood wikpedia. You know practically nothing about Christianity, even less about islam, and nothing at all about history,

            Your ignorant comparisons between Christianity and islam merely confirm that you a dupe, the sort of person that believes that nothing is to do with islam, that Cameron and the BBC can be believed, and that the Guardian is a newspaper.

  • Clive

    Incidentally, why does no-one pick up on the headlines on BBC Online. They often do not reflect the content of the stories and usually with a left wing agenda.

    Today’s was ‘ headline NHS ‘lags behind other health systems’ – a BBC favourite being that the government does not spend enough on the NHS – also, coincidentally, a Labour campaigning claim. The story says The review by the Nuffield Trust think tank into 15 wealthy nations found lower cancer survival and higher death rates from heart attacks and strokes.

    However, on measures such as immunisation and antibiotic prescribing the UK performed better.

    So why was the headline not ‘mixed results from international comparisons with NHS’ or similar ?

    • GraveDave

      That’s because our NHS is a misnomer nowadays. IHS would be more apt.

  • Perplexed

    If IS isn’t Islamic, then is the Church of England still Christian? Some of its clergy can be heard saying that Jesus wasn’t God. IS believes everything seventh century Muslims believed.

  • GraveDave

    I think it was more about Dave trying to look tough with the BBC than trying to pander to (‘moderate’) Muslims. Maybe he though everyone would come out and back him. But it’s seemingly gone the other way and he’s made himself look a a bit of a p*at.
    Not for the first time of course.

  • John M

    This is another one of those deliberately contrived “rows” that Cameron likes to ignite when he’s keen to deflect media attention from the fact that he hasn’t got a scooby what to do and that his Government, not to mention the previous Labour one, have done precisely f**k all to counter the mullahs who are radicalising young Muslims within our own country.

    Best not to talk about that eh Dave. Tell you what let’s put the blame on the internet and ban and snoop on that as well…

  • Mr B J Mann

    Bring them into the 21st Century

    iSILly ? !

    • GraveDave

      Bring them into the 21st Century

      Well, when it comes to winning people over, all this evil western technology (internet, digital cameras, cellphones, youtube etc) is certainly helping them in the good fight. I mean this sort of thing couldn’t have happened back in the 80s or even the early 90s – could it? So, should it ever come down to it these retards should be careful what they wish for, because we have the biggest and brightest fireworks as well.

    • Dan O’Connor

      Not our ” White man’s burden ” job

  • lindzen4pm

    On a somewhat smaller scale, this reminds me of the time in the eighties when Yorkshire born Jean Rook, the pre-eminent Glenda Slagg of her day, complained in her column about the then at large mass murderer being referred to as the Yorkshire Ripper.
    Auberon Waugh agreed, and thought it should be changed too, to ‘The Yorkshire’.

  • Jaria1

    I cannot claim to be an expert as far as Muslims are concerned. Tell me if i am wrong when I believe that to them I am a second class citizen and will be lucky to get away with my life if I happen to survive when they take over. They are not content with the freedom of worship that they have here but we will have to conform to the rules and edicts of their religon or else.
    You see this in Turkey with Erdogan having taken the powers away from the Turkish army which was there to secure the countrys secular signature. Sissi certainly saw whar Morsi was up to in Egypt.

    • Perplexed

      And Britain and the US and the EU were the cheerleaders for ending secularism in Turkey and ushering of an Islamic state. They actively encouraged a somewhat secular Islamic country to become a thoroughly Islamic one. Seems a lot of people in those countries don’t even understand their mistake yet.

  • John Andrews

    Muhammad’s mistake was to declare that his version of the holy book was infallible, so that nothing could ever change.

  • Animal_Farm

    I fear David Cameron has been spending too much time listening to his friend former Swedish premier Fredrik Reinfeldt who turned the suppression of news about Islamic and other immigrant based crime into an art form.

    When an Islamist bomber attempted to detonate a bomb in a crowded Swedish Christmas high street – which according to experts would have killed 200 had it properly exploded – Reinfeldt was silent for two whole days while he tried to figure out a palatable response which laid the blame somewhere, anywhere, else, than with Muslims. Finally he came out with:

    “Saturday’s events in central Stockholm leads many people to ask whether
    Sweden has become less safe. What occurred is unwanted and
    unacceptable. We must safeguard the open society where people can live
    together side by side.”

    Damning? No I didn’t think so either. Yet Cameron remains a big fan of Reinfeldt’s, particularly on matters immigration and eh ‘multicultural’.

  • Mongo

    Never forget, if Miliband was now Prime Minister articles like this would be illegal and Rod would be prosecuted for ‘Islamophobia’

    • Dan O’Connor

      We are not safe yet , Teresa May is working on it , and the Eurepean Jewish Congress who would like to introduce Stallinesque dracomian “anti-intolerance laws across the EU ( as strange as it may seem )

      • Infidelissima

        ironic how much in common with the mouth foaming mussies you have

  • The Mad Corn Stalk

    Help build a new Mosque in North Dakota! All donations tremendously appreciated!

  • justsomeone

    If killing blasphemers goes against Islam then why does Iran do it?
    If killing gays goes against Islam then why does it Iran do it?
    What is Isis doing in its Islamic State which goes against Islam?
    Of course, Isis does saw Westerners’ heads off and calls for its fans to murder people worldwide whereas Iran is busy with its nuclear weapons project (I mean, with its plan to make use of expensive nuclear energy rather than the vast quantities of oil they’re sitting on).
    If Isis were to start constructing nuclear reactors “for peaceful purposes”, would we consider than an improvement?
    Our policy is incoherent.
    Our leaders don’t understand what they’re dealing with. They refuse to understand what they’re dealing with. Willfully stupid.
    And why on earth are we arresting Muslims for leaving Britain and moving to the Islamic State?
    Our policy suffers from countless inherent contradictions.
    I wish more families of twelve would go.

  • david selvers

    Well said…..HERE HERE. The West has not much time left. I am in no mood to become hateful, hate sucks the energy out of you…..but….”eternal vigilance” spares no free time. I don’t want to be at the losing end of the “Clash of Civilizations” where we will be subjected to abject hate in the name of a pedophile slave trader prophet. Islam can fester in the middle east and Asia for as long as it can but I don’t want it’s subverted ideology and cultish influence over here.
    Islam has no place in Western Civilization ergo it’s mandate of “WORLD DOMINATION” , there is no intent to assimilate only dominate. And the West pathetically succumbs to political correctness and cultural marxism…..tolerance and understanding are “legislated” (arbitrarily dictated) but applies to us only.
    The liberal left expects us to live with immigrants who have no respect for traditional Western values and want to kill us. Trotski once said “you may not have an interest in ISLAM but ISLAM is interested in you”.
    It’s time to get serious about this…..MUSLIM TERRORISTS are for real and if we don’t KILL THEM they are going to kill us.

  • Nedmundo

    The term to use for these criminals is FUG TOPOSI: Fundamentalist Gangsters Temporarily Occupying Syria and Iraq.

  • Sue Smith

    Please, don’t be “sorry” about it!!

  • The PrangWizard of England

    Read what they say and watch what they do. Are we still picking them up at sea and bringing them over? Why are we not towing them back and then wrecking the boats?

  • Mike Bromley

    It does behoove to pretend that the name “Islamic” anything has nothing to do with Islam. They didn’t call themselves “Italian Mobsters” or anything.

  • Jaria1

    Thats interesting Perplexed id be interested to know more about us encouraging Erdogan Turkey in his Islamification of Turkey. The FO arent the brainiest kids on the block but i never thought they were that stupid.

  • Mori

    Well written article and I absolutely agree, but the problem is even much more fundamental. We are dealing with a religion founded by a man who committed what we could label today crimes (e.g. ordering the beheading of a Jewish tribe, marrying a child) yet is considered by his followers to be the perfect man whose example all of mankind should follow. Consequently, if a christian beheads someone, he cannot say that he is following the teachings of Christ (who never murdered anyone), but if a Muslim commits such a crime he can legitimize it by referring to the prophet who ordered massacres.
    Yes, most Muslims in this country are law-abiding, hardworking and peaceful people , and vilifying them indiscriminately is inappropriate. But to ignore the violence that is at the very core of the religion is absurd. We rightfully criticize other religions; why should Islam be exempt from such criticism?
    We must not look away, but critically engage the problem of violence that is at the core of Islam. We can talk about the beauty of charity and hospitality that Islam indeed also prescribes (much like other religions), but ignoring the darker aspects is a bit like bit like saying (and I apologize for the crude but accurate comparison) that the Nazis built great highways and created new jobs whilst ignoring their horrendous crimes.

  • Omallet

    I think like most windbags , braggarts and bullies they use violence and threats so their inherent weaknesses and sometimes lies are not found out. Why else demand murder for people that change their mind or do not subscribe to your view – truly confident people say on your way then or good luck with that etc!

  • Dick Mackintosh

    Hitler was a Christian .. I rest my case that your case is spurious .. LOL

    • The_greyhound

      Church going? Practising? Said his prayers every night? Turned the other cheek? gave to the poor? Forgave?

      Truly idiotic comment.

    • Mr B J Mann

      Last time I looked he was a Pagan!

    • TNT

      Okay. Let’s say he was. The whole world didn’t continue to tiptoe around him, venerating him as something special because he believed in a god.

      Do Muslims with murder on their mind get a free pass because their religious beliefs matter?

      They shouldn’t. Because they don’t.

  • Bob Hutton

    Islam IS the problem. While there may be millions of muzzies that condemn violence it has to be said that Islamic ideology demands the killing of “infidels”.
    For Cameron to say that this has nothing to do with Islam is pure rubbish and he knows it but is too afraid to tell the truth.

  • Best trick pulled by the wiccans yet?

  • Red

    Given that it is a requisite of the Muslim faith that you do all you can to emulate the actions of the Prophet Mohamed and that among other things he f*cked a 9 year old girl – shouldn’t we have discussion on whether that’s something to be welcomed in the UK.

    A good “Question Time” debate perhaps?

  • John

    Does it actually matter what they call themselves? If they referred to themselves as the CuddlyFluffyFriendshipCharity – their actions are no less barbaric. Cameron should stop obsessing over the name nonsense and take a lead in wiping them out – then again, getting any kind of decisive action from dopey Dave is like getting blood out of a stone.

  • John Steadman

    The IRA was able to survive – arguably, prosper (does anybody really believe that they were defeated?) – because of those respectable, decent, law-abiding folk on the council estates who wanted (and it is claimed, had) nothing to do with the violence. But, to me, the term ‘passive support’ comes to mind. And so it is with Islamic terrorism. This support might not be, by any means, of course, universal, but it is certainly widespread, and significant.

    • Mr B J Mann

      I suppose if we want to “defeat” ISIS we need to give them seats in parliament, withdraw our troops from the mainland, and disband the police and replace them with a service that suits the demands of ISIS, perhaps with the crown in the cap-badge replaced by a crescent and Sharia Law enforcement divisions, traffic departments arresting women drivers, and on the spot amputations for unmarried couples holding hands?!

      • John Steadman

        Yes, I’m sure that government advisors should be thinking along those lines. And a meeting with the Queen, perhaps, for our leading Imams?

        • Sten vs Bren

          She’ll meet anyone if she needs to. Not fussy, at all.

  • Bob-B

    If we want a new name for ISIS, we could try the Slightly More
    Enthusiastic Version of the Saudi Religious Establishment (SMEVSRA for

  • Nik

    External Muslim Terrorism and Internal ‘ passive support ‘ would seem to be seen amongst many as a very serious and immanent threat to our way of life and democracy in these isles but What does anyone seriously do about it ? Political movement seems to suggest we get further dragged into an Ideological War – Bombing Isis is like cutting off the heads of the Hydra – for every one you remove another three grow. Maybe we should announce to all those rich Middle Eastern Nations that seem so anxious to get us to help them suppress Isis that it’s their problem – and we will not involve ourselves with Religious Problems, having done our best to bring Political solutions to the area, we wash our hands of the current Sunni/ Shia conflict and to hell with the lot of them. And follow the Australian Approach to dealing with Boat People in the Med. Any other ideas ??

  • Kasperlos

    Whilst the wordsmithing Whitehall Office of Political Correctness burns the midnight oil to head off any outrage by the British natives, the faces on display in the UK on the day of repatriation of the Tunisia victims to RAF Brize Norton – with full military honors no less – was disheartening. The faces exuded a cringing sense of defeatism, haplessness of it all. There was nothing but solemnity expressed on those faces. I speak of the faces of so-called ‘leaders’ of the UK. They offer nothing but Chamberlinesque rhetoric and false sense of security for these isles, these peoples, this civilisation. Any intelligent and honest being would forego the imbecile exercise that the House of Commons and PM are doing. They debated what the ‘politically correct’ name should be so as not to offend! One cannot make this up. This was debated in the Commons on 1 July whilst UK victimes were brought back to the UK. This was the Common’s greatest concern! They are merely fanatical gangsters, mass murderers, killers, haters, destroyers, intriguers. In short, names that can be understood. Less understood and kept from the public is the origin of these gangsters, their funding, their leadership, their helpers, handlers, their supporters, and the bit role they are playing on behalf of, well, whom. What really is the end goal of these gangsters? This is not debated in the Commons, too cumbersome for the general public, and all that, you see. Where is the full story of this entire epoch we are living in. Since the holidaymakers were given military ceremonial status, should we not then assume that they are victims of combat, of a war that really goes beyond terrorism? If they are recognized with ceremony as defacto soldiers of the Queen, why is it that the leaders seem content to turn the UK into a giant cemetary without a shot being fired to defend British soil, British people. They only count for ceremony. Simply stunning.


    Some common sense for a change about this most ‘orrible of religions. Let’s face it, it’s a malodorous political ideology masquerading as a religion, attracting the most gullible of ‘useful idiots’. But one idiot can be responsible for a lot of deaths so the sooner we wipe them out, at home and abroad, the safer our civilisations will become.

  • Clive

    People in comments here keep talking about ‘muslims’ – as though the 1.6 billion muslims in the world were a homogeneous group. They also talk about muslims as though they had all read and abided by the Quran. Yet how many Christians do you think have read the Bible ?

    Suppose a group set up calling itself ‘Christian State’ and said that it was run on communist lines. You have to give all your money to this state otherwise the state will kill you. So this ‘Christian State’ terrorises its members into giving up their worldly goods. How many would think that Christian ?

    I think, just as many as there are muslims that think of Islamic State as Islamic.

    In the New Testament, Acts of the Apostles Chapters 4 and 5 it says:

    Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

    And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
    Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
    But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,
    And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.

    But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

    And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

    And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in. And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

    Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

    Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

    And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

    • Are You Sure

      But there aren’t Christian, or Hindu or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups are there, just Islamic ones.

      • gamebird

        Are you suggesting the IRA were Islamic?

        • Are You Sure

          The IRA were despicable but their end goal was not the creation of a global Catholic empire but an independent, unified Ireland.

          In the end the IRA and their unionist opposition had to adopt a different approach because the people of Northern Ireland demanded an end to the senseless sectarian violence.

          In 2015 we no longer hear of IRA atrocities.

          • Sten vs Bren

            Ah, a gentle reappraisal of the intentions and tactics of the IRA. Unheard of in Britain until September 2001, commonplace thereafter.

            It takes us precisely nowhere.

          • Are You Sure

            I said their tactics were despicable. They were scum of the earth. No reappraisals there from me.

            I don’t believe their intentions were ever in doubt though. They were pretty upfront about it.

            What’s also not in doubt is that their reprehensible attacks were centered on the UK mainland and Northern Ireland. They did not take their violence on a global tour.

            Finally, we should remember that the violence of the IRA is a thing of the past, whereas the violence of Islamic terrorists is in the present and will continue, probably for some considerable time, well into the future.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “They did not take their violence on a global tour”

            A fine tribute. Completely inaccurate, of course as the IRA toured the world buying weapons, thus financing other gentle fellows.

            “we should remember that the violence of the IRA is a thing of the past”

            Clue; there is more than one IRA.

            I’ve heard the IRA crowbarred in to many conversations about the current terrorist threat. It adds nothing.

          • Are You Sure

            Of course they bought their weapons (and got funding from) overseas. I didn’t say otherwise.

            And by the way, I did not crowbar the IRA into this conversation.

          • Sten vs Bren

            Well, when they went overseas and bought their weapons, it caused more money and power to go to other terrorists thus increasing terrorist activity abroad. So, when you say “They did not take their violence on a global tour” it doesn’t really add up to much because it was their activity that promoted terrorism in other places.

          • Are You Sure

            Sure it was. That’s the reason that IS are on a global rampage today, because of the IRA. That’s the best one I’ve heard yet. Priceless.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “That’s the reason that IS are on a global rampage today, because of the IRA”

            No, you’ve got that completely wrong. WE are talking about the IRA not ISIS. Concentrate.

            You said of the IRA that “They did not take their violence on a global tour” but I am explaining to you that when they went on tour buying weapons, that their money and support allowed other terrorists to extend their campaigns. Come on! Use your nut.

          • Are You Sure

            No, we’re talking about Islamo fascist terrorists but you (for some reason I can’t put my finger on) are trying to deflect attention away from the subject in hand.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “we’re talking about Islamo fascist terrorists”

            No. Please try to concentrate, if you can. You were talking about the IRA and I was telling you that you were talking bollocks.

            In summary, your commonplace misconceptions about the nature of the effect of the IRA upon events outside of the United Kingdom get you nowhere in your thinking about ISIS.

          • Are You Sure

            I was talking about Islamic terrorism and someone else brought up the IRA.

          • Game Bird

            You said only Muslims were terrorists, which is untrue.

          • Are You Sure

            Ok, let me rephrase my original statement.

            Although in the past, there have been many non-muslim terrorist organisations, that number has diminished greatly, and they no longer pose the consistent threat to society that they once did. That threat was, generally, limited to the nations in which the terror groups in question were based, and the aims of those groups were, largely, based upon historical territorial, not religious claims.

            These historical irfanisations differ greatly from today’s multiple Islamic terror organisations who have aims which are both territorial and religious. Moreover, these organisations preach that they are the true followers of Islam and that all non-believers are to be killed.

            They further differ from historical terror organisations because they have, as their long term aim, a global caliphate operating under Sharia law to which they have recruited thousands of supporters across the world.

            In addition, their followers have a belief that dying for their cause will make them a martyr with all the supposed rewards that brings according to Islamic belief.

            Unlike Irish or Basque terrorists for example they have no defined goals or areas that can be negotiated and their lack of respect for their own lives, let alone the lives of others, makes them an adversary that it is impossible to negotiate with.

            It’s fair to say that, unless and until the entire world is a Sharia compliant caliphate, the likes of IS will not be satisfied.

            These new terrorists are all muslims. This is not in question.

            This is not to say that all muslims are terrorists.

          • Game Bird

            You say they differ because their followers have a believe that dying will make them a martyr.
            How is that different to the Kamikaze pilots?

            You also say they’re different because their aims are both religious and territorial; again, how does this differ from the Catholic IRA wanted control of mainly Protestant northern Ireland?

          • Are You Sure

            It’s no different to Kamikaze pilots in that both give up their lives on the orders of other men who are too cowardly to do it themselves.

            It’s totally different in that Kamikaze pilots targeted legitimate military targets (even if their method is crazy) and many (not all) suicide bombers blow up totally innocent civilians (muslim and non muslim).

            The aim of the IRA was to have a totally independent unified Ireland, free from rule by London (the clue being in their name). They did not desire the death of all non Catholics even though they were admittedly catholic themselves.

            Islamic State, Boko Harem, Al Qaeda etc all desire a world fully ingabited by muslims, all living under Sharia law.

            The differences are clear and undeniable.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “The differences are clear and undeniable.”

            Yes, ISIS are not the IRA. Different people, entirely. Very profound.

            But what do you think that this tells us? Why have you spent a number of days telling us that the IRA are not ISIS. What is the alleged significance?

            ISIS are not ETA, too. Neither are they the Bee Gees nor the Ovaltinies. It adds nothing.

          • Are You Sure

            Do you think that if you play “clever” word games long enough we’ll all forget about the scourge of Islamic terrorism?

          • Clive

            This is not to say that all muslims are terrorists.

            Therein lies the problem. Many commenters on here say precisely that. The thesis of this and a previous piece by Rod Liddle is that the religion of Islam is inherently terrorist through verses in the Quran.

            My argument is that there are terrorists independently of religion but if they want to, they can find a justification in religion, including religious texts such as the Quran and the Bible.

            That does not mean that other adherents to that religion would ever use these texts in such a way – or even know they exist.

          • Are You Sure

            There may well be terrorist groups that operate totally outside of religion, however IS, AQ, BH etc operate solely based upon their interpretation of (a specifuc) religion.

            I agree that this does not mean that other adherents to this religion openly support the terrorists.

            Perhaps if these other adherents were to be more voluble in their denunciation of the terrorists (as opposed to splitting hairs about semantics) it might dissuade other adherents of the religion from being swayed by the terrorists doctrine.

          • Clive

            There have been many denunciations of ‘Islamic’ terrorism by Muslim clerics. That includes al-Azhar university in Egypt which has condemned terrorist acts many times, most recently as I cite below.

            I believe it is a problem that we are used to Christianity, which is a hierarchical religion. Islam is not like that. There is no Islamic ‘pope’ who could offer a denunciation on behalf of all Muslims. The next best thing – at least for Sunnis – is al-Azhar.

            The Grand Imam of Egypt’s top Islamic institution has called for a radical reform of religious teaching to tackle the spread of Islamic extremism.

            Sheikh Ahmed al-Tayeb of Cairo’s al-Azhar University said that a historical misreading of the Koran had led to intolerant interpretations of Islam.

          • Are You Sure

            You’re “used to Christianity”? Sure you are.

          • The_greyhound

            “My argument is that there are terrorists independently of religion”

            not an argument, merely a counterfactual assertion. Islam was associated with violence and conquest from the outset. Mahound established his temporal authority by violently overthrowing his opponents. His successors did the same. If you didn’t know that, and you clearly didn’t, perhaps it would be better if you desisted.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “let me rephrase my original statement.”

            Why not just take more care with your comments? All this silly backtracking is just to obscure your erroneous statements.

            Have the courage of your misconceptions.

            “These new terrorists are all muslims”

            No, not all new terrorists are Muslims. Sloppy!

          • Are You Sure

            I wasn’t backtracking – merely rephrasing for you.

            Keep burying your head in the sand if you like.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “I was talking about Islamic terrorism”

            No, you were not. You were talking about the IRA.
            Here is the entire post to which I responded. Look:

            “The IRA were despicable but their end goal was not the creation of a global Catholic empire but an independent, unified Ireland.

            In the end the IRA and their unionist opposition had to adopt a different approach because the people of Northern Ireland demanded an end to the senseless sectarian violence.
            In 2015 we no longer hear of IRA atrocities.”

            See? Try and pay attention to your own posts because if you forget what you are talking about, you cease to make any sense. Unless you are not actually trying to make sensible points and are just ‘trolling’.

          • Are You Sure

            All you are doing is trying to play games. We both know someone other than I brought up the IRA and I was responding to that.

            The IRA is irrelevant.

            Islamic Terrorism is the subject matter of this article. If you wish to debate whether we should call IS by their chosen name or Daesh that is fine, otherwise, stop trolling me.

          • Mr B J Mann

            That was exactly his point.

            While trying to appear clever seems to be your only point.

            At which you consistently fail!

          • Mr B J Mann

            So other terrorist organisations gained money and lost weapons (it’s called a trade-off).

            It neither fostered a global Catholic revolution, nor a Communist one (the IRA were actually varied factions of Marxist).

            Not did it promote any other terrorist organisations to achieve, or even attempt to achieve, global domination and the extermination of anyone that didn’t follow their creed.

            So, as usual, your “point” is pointless!

          • Mr B J Mann

            So what did these other terrorists do?

            Throw the IRA’s filthy lucre at their opponents?!?!?

            Not quite in the same league as dirty bombs, is it?

            Not even in the same league as dirty protests, eh?!

          • Game Bird

            Hang on a minute, we weren’t talking about ‘end goals’, you were trying to say only Muslims are terrorists which is clearly untrue.

          • Are You Sure

            In 2015 it’s not untrue. I think that’s the point.

            Live in the past if you wish. They do a good line in the past in IS. You’d love it.

          • Sten vs Bren

            “it’s not untrue”

            No, as he says; it’s clearly untrue. Don’t be obtuse.

          • Are You Sure

            Sure. If you think Islamo terrorism isn’t the biggest danger to the western democratic way of life it is you who is being obtuse.

          • Game Bird

            The threats towards this country are of our warmongering governments making; who have killed far more Muslims than vice versa I hasten to add.

          • Are You Sure

            Oh dear. Someone swallowed the cool aid.

          • Game Bird

            ‘Cool aid’?

          • Game Bird
          • Are You Sure

            Oh come on. Take your blinkers off.

          • Game Bird

            I’m not making inaccurate, blinkered statements.

          • Are You Sure

            One of us is and it’s not me.

          • Game Bird

            So you’re now the denying facts? I’m not sure where to go with that.

        • Mr B J Mann

          They weren’t even Catholic.

          The various factions were various strains of Communist.

          • Game Bird

            How many Muslims are saying these terrorists aren’t acting like Muslims, so the same argument could be used there.

      • Sten vs Bren

        “there aren’t Christian, or Hindu or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups”

        You may need to do some reading.

        • Clive

          Here is a Piece from 2011 but this kind of thing is still going on:

          India is being forced to confront disturbing evidence that increasingly suggests a secret Hindu terror network may have been responsible for a wave of deadly attacks previously blamed on radical Muslims.

          Information contained in a confession given in court by a Hindu holy man, suggests that he and several others linked to a right-wing Hindu organisation, planned and carried out attacks on a train travelling to Pakistan, a Sufi shrine and a mosque as well as two assaults on Malegaon, a town in southern India with a large Muslim population.

          • Mr B J Mann

            …suggests ……may…….

          • Clive

            Ah, I see – you are saying there are not Hindu attacks ? Here’s a story – there are lots of such stories from India.

            A group of Hindus attacked a Muslim village in northern India on Saturday night, police said yesterday, setting fire to homes and killing three people. The attack was prompted by rumours that cows, considered holy by Hindus, had been slaughtered for the Islamic Eid-al-Fitr celebrations.

            Hindus from neighbouring areas attacked Mehndipur village in Uttar Pradesh and set fire to dozens of houses after being told villagers had killed the cows for a feast to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan. A police investigation revealed that no cows had been slaughtered in the village.

          • Mr B J Mann

            No, I said there was no evidence of a “secret Hindu terror network”.

            And there STILL isn’t in your latest post.

            Is there!

            In fact, if that’s the best you could come up with, I think you’ve just proved my point!!!

          • Clive

            What you actually said was “…suggests ……may…….” which conveys the impression that you don’t think there were any Hindu terrorist attacks at all.

            There are many such attacks and other religions also make such attacks – even Buddhists.

            India has, after all, a Hindu nationalist government whose leader was partly implicated in attacks on muslims when he was the governor of Gujarat

            Mr Modi has been accused of allowing or abetting riots in Gujarat in 2002 that killed about 1,000 people, most of them Muslims murdered by Hindus. A majority of the state’s Hindus seem not to have held the massacres against Mr Modi. Later that year he marched to victory in a snap election.

          • Mr B J Mann


            India is full of religious and other political factions which aren’t very nice and tend to do harm to each other as part of everyday politicking.

            In a discussion about Islamic terrorist groups and whether there are or “there aren’t Christian, or Hindu or Sikh or Jewish terrorist groups”

            You posted a quote saying:

            “Here is a Piece from 2011 but this kind of thing is still going on:”
            “India is being forced to confront disturbing evidence that increasingly suggests a *secret* Hindu *terror* network….”

            I pointed out the flaw in this:

            “…suggests ……may…….”

            You responded by posting evidence of public, non-networked, general criminal violence.

            I reminded you that:

            “No, I said there was no evidence of a “secret Hindu terror network”.”

            And pointed out that:

            “And there STILL isn’t in your latest post.”

            And you come back more rubbish about general political rioting and violence.

            Just because something might terrify you doesn’t make it terrorism.

            I might be terrified dangling off the top of a cliff, but that doesn’t make cliffs terrorists.

            Stops wasting everyone’s time.

            There might well be Hindu Terrorism, but if you can’t come up with any evidence that would suggest you are either wrong, or you don’t understand the concept of “Terrorism”.

    • Liberanos

      To most, the bible is an interesting historical document, hardly read but widely admired for its literary merit. The koran is the essence of a muslim’s entire life, telling him how to think, dress, eat, defecate, have sex, treat women. So when it outlines in detail how to deal with the enemies of islam…the infidel and the Jew…it matters to the entire world…as we see every day.

    • Jaysonrex

      You must surely be joking. What kind of comment are you posting to this article? Are you crazy or only trying to show off how well acquainted you are with the New Testament and other similar bullshits? Please, spare us the pleasure of your company. Thanks forever.

      • Game Bird

        You don’t get to choose who posts on these threads.

  • Marcussmod

    Rod Liddle is one of the few writers who connects with the public on this issue. The IS has nothing to do with Islam nonsense is simply denying reality. Even if/when IS fall another hate filled Islamo fascist group will replace them. Islam may have peaceful aspects and ideals however its history both recent and past are seeped in violence.

    • Clive

      Of course IS has ‘something to do with Islam’. The UK has ‘Something to do with Christianity’ because we are a Christian country – but we are not called ‘Christian State’. That would just be advertising – which Al Qaeda and now IS are very adept at.

      By continuing to call it ‘Islamic State’ our media are helping to market it.

      The IRA was never an army, even though it had ‘brigades’ and an ‘Army Council’ and all that crap. It preferred it to being called the ‘Irish Republican Gang’. Not difficult to see why.

  • Liberanos

    Since ISIS are the world’s most devout muslims, living totally within the strictures of the koran and joyously giving their lives for allah, one must suppose that those denying that they are islamic must believe that dying for one’s faith is somehow an example of disavowing it.

  • Neil Saunders

    What now passes for the left is impermeable to evidence and reasoned argument.

    Instead, the “identity politics” narcissists have taken the movement over and patrol the frontiers of permitted debate with a zeal that would shame the physical policing of a Bilderberg gathering or Davos summit meeting.

    Christopher Lasch warned us about this repeatedly in the 70s, 80s and 90s, right up until his premature death:

    • Sten vs Bren

      “”identity politics” narcissists have taken the movement over and patrol the frontiers of permitted debate”

      Dukes of Hazzard repeats cancelled.

      • Neil Saunders

        Is this what passes for wit in your student bedsit?

        • Sten vs Bren

          No, it’s absolutely true.

          🙂 You don’t like the students, eh? How come?

          • Neil Saunders

            The implication is not one of dislike of students, but an awareness (of someone who long ago was one himself) of their intellectual immaturity and opinionatedness.

          • Neil Saunders

            Incidentally, what is the relevance of “The Dukes of Hazzard” on this thread? (Which, BTW, was the first instance of the many references you have made to the programme that I encountered.)

  • NigelFoster

    In the first Shura of the Koran there is a verse that instructs Muslims in a foreign country that if they cannot practise their religion ‘properly’ (and the definition varies wildly) then they must move to a country where they can.
    There’s not one, universal Sharia law. There are several traditions which differ strongly from each other.
    Islamic scholars haver always differed as to which Hadith (sayings of the Prophet) are real, how they should be interpreted and how important they are.
    There are something like seventy odd different sects within Islam, some as different from each other as the Wee Frees are from Greek Orthodox.
    Salafism was originally a centuries old protest movement against Ancient Greek philosophy being incorporated into the then youthful Islam.
    Islam is as splintered a religion as Christianity. ISIL is as much part of Islam as the Inquisition was part of Christianity. Or the the Far Right Christians who bombed abortion clinics.

  • DellerboyNZ

    Douglas Murray made the point a few weeks ago that there were always going to be a few psychopaths in the West – mainly Muslim, who would see ISIS as a chance to indulge in real life rape, murder, pedophilia etc. Religiously-approved creepiness is no longer creepiness but jihad and respectable.

    This article from Oz suggests that the attraction of ISIS practice isn’t just among the psychos but the jihadi brides and other sympathisers AND that it is bad form to point it out.

    • Clive

      I agree that it is right to point out this kind of Islamic practice. What is wrong is to insist that all muslims subscribe to it – any more than that all Christians subscribe to the existence of a repressive communist Christian state because of the parts of the Acts of the Apostles (end of chapter 4, beginning of chapter 5) that I quoted earlier.

      These religions have moved on. It is worth pointing out their history for the sake of truth but not so as to label all adherents social dinosaurs.

      These religious texts are ‘of their time’. It is part of the terrorist narrative to pretend that they still carry the same force and meaning as they did when they were written.

      We should not join in with that narrative.

      • DellerboyNZ

        I disagree Clive. Too many Muslims subscribe to the barbaric apocalyptic vision. Commentators seem all too ready to highlight the bravery of a handful of Tunisians on the beach at Sousse, but seem to have ignored the announcement by the Tunisian government in late April that over 12000 Tunisians had been prevented from leaving to join Isis, but that 2000-odd had got through.
        How many rapes and forced conversions of Christian and Yazidi girls would that 2000 have perpetrated?
        How many beheadings? How many amputations? How many gays thrown off roofs?
        See this media item for further thrilling (but not concerning – Clive?) detail.

        • Clive

          You are saying that the reason these people are going is some attachment to the Quran and Islamic Law and some kind of religious fanaticism. I agree that that is the way it’s often painted but it has always seemed unlikely to me.

          How many teenagers do you know for whom this kind of disciplined dedication holds any appeal ? let alone the moral philosophy you describe which is repulsive.

          This piece from The Economist from August last year is rather long but then, this is a complicated topic. It shows that the largest contributor to IS per head of population is Jordan with Tunisia second.

          It also examines the motives for fighters to join IS and concludes that they are not particularly religious. It’s an adventure.

          Poverty does not explain the lure of jihad for Western fighters. Many of them are quite middle-class. Nasser Muthana, a 20-year-old Welshman who goes by the name Abu Muthana al-Yemeni in IS videos, had offers to study medicine from four universities. Nor does a failure to integrate into the societies around them. Photographs of Muhammad Hamidur Rahman, another British fighter thought to have recently been killed, show a young man in a snazzy suit with a slick hairstyle. He worked at Primark, a cheap retailer, in Portsmouth, a city on the English coast. His father ran a curry restaurant. Nor does religious piety. Before leaving for Syria, Yusuf Sarwar and Mohammed Ahmed, two young men from Birmingham who pleaded guilty to terrorism offences in July, ordered copies of “Islam for Dummies” and “The Koran for Dummies” from Amazon. Some fighters are religious novices, says Mr Maher.

          More plausible explanations are the desire to escape the ennui of home and to find an identity. “Some individuals are drawn out there because there is not a lot going on in their own lives,” says Raffaello Pantucci, an analyst at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think-tank. Images of combatants playing snooker, eating sweets and splashing in swimming pools have sometimes suggested that jihad was not unlike a student holiday, without the booze. For young men working in dead-end jobs in drab towns, the brotherhood, glory and guns seem thrilling. Many of Belgium’s fighters come from the dullest of cities, where radicals have concentrated their efforts to get recruits.

          For the local fighters, there is also money

          He filled the form out, allowed himself to be photographed and signed up. In the next building, he was provided with a Kalashnikov and 100 rounds of bullets. Ibrahim says he was initially deployed as a watch man in Tal Afar, where he was supposed to guard a base and identify Shiites he knew. His pay was $260 a month, $60 more than he got working in construction. He had three days off each week which he could use to visit his family. His life improved in many aspects. After all, the Islamic State looks out for those who enter into war on its behalf.

          Bonuses for marriage are paid and foreign fighters can get up to $1,500. One-time child subsidies of $400 per child are standard in addition to subsidies for food of $65 a month. Compared to the alternative, it’s a pretty comfortable living.

      • Bonkim

        What you are forgetting Clive is that intellectual arguments do not solve the problem as perceived by the majority in British society who are tolerant by world standards. Tolerance however is easily reversed if it is not reciprocated by cultures that have made Britain their home.

  • Ron

    Whilst Cameron postures on the great political stage on which his relevance is only to himself he still harbours the Islamic preachers and pays them to be here because his beloved European Court has told him he cant do anything about them.

  • Clive

    The Islamic State is, in its attitudes, rather more representative of Muslim world opinion than we would like to believe. Pretending that they are not Muslim at all will be counterproductive. The Prime Minister cannot simultaneously implore Muslim communities to root out the extremists in their midst — the incendiary imams, the thick-as-mince teenage jihadi wannabes, the first-generation and culturally medieval emigrés from Bangladesh and Pakistan — and also insist, in politically correct fashion, that these terrorist atrocities have nothing whatsoever to do with Islam. That makes no sense. If they have nothing to do with Islam, why harangue Muslims about it?

    Like all correlations – this is that between Islam and terrorism, perhaps there is a third factor at work. Perhaps A and B do not vary together because of a causal link but because they are both related to C – in this case, several Cs. It is a problem that Islamic terrorism is a very complicated subject. It seems to have many causes including, but not limited to, these.

    Al-Shabaab and Boko Haram which you mention exist in very poor and backward places in the world. It would not be the first time poor and backward places gave rise to violent people – often revolutionaries and terrorists like the Bolsheviks and Sendero Luminoso.

    Coincidentally, Islam is the most prevalent religion in poorer parts of the world. Part of the problem seems to be the clash between the poverty of muslims in those areas and the riches enjoyed by people like us. In other, Christian parts of the world it is dangerous to travel in poor areas.

    There are oppressive regimes seen as supported by the West which give rise to resentment when they are overthrown, e.g. Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

    The Taliban were brought into being by the CIA to help fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Al Qaeda seems to have grown out of that movement. So you could say that the exploitation of the religious conservatism of backward communities by the west was a self-inflicted injury. Add to that Osama bin Laden’s psychology – I believe he was the first of his family not to be educated in the West – and you have a very potent mixture.
    Though he has come to represent all that went wrong with the CIA’s reckless strategy there, by the end of the Afghan war in 1989, bin Laden was still viewed by the agency as something of a dilettante – a rich Saudi boy gone to war and welcomed home by the Saudi monarchy he so hated as something of a hero.

    In fact, while he returned to his family’s construction business, bin Laden had split from the relatively conventional MAK in 1988 and established a new group, al-Qaida, that included many of the more extreme MAK members he had met in Afghanistan.

    Most of these Afghan vets, or Afghanis, as the Arabs who fought there became known, turned up later behind violent Islamic movements around the world. Among them: the GIA in Algeria, thought responsible for the massacres of tens of thousands of civilians; Egypt’s Gamat Ismalia, which has massacred western tourists repeatedly in recent years; Saudi Arabia Shiite militants, responsible for the Khobar Towers and Riyadh bombings of 1996.

    Indeed, to this day, those involved in the decision to give the Afghan rebels access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry continue to defend that move in the context of the Cold War. Sen. Orrin Hatch, a senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee making those decisions, told my colleague Robert Windrem that he would make the same call again today even knowing what bin Laden would do subsequently. “It was worth it,” he said.

    “Those were very important, pivotal matters that played an important role in the downfall of the Soviet Union,” he said.

    Culture clash
    This seems to happen regularly all over the world. Conservatives – often religious conservatives – get excitable about what they see as loose morals or they ‘take offence’ at some criticism of their religion. Thus American religionists went bonkers when John Lennon said the Beatles were ‘more popular than Jesus’ and Christianity was in decline.

    A great deal is made of the contempt in which muslims hold western morals whilst acting worse themselves and using these morals as an excuse. Rotherham and similar cases seem to fall into this category and it is obviously hypocritical but hardly exclusive to muslims.

    And so on…

    It’s interesting that if you go back 100 years you might be persuaded that all violent social movements – terrorist or revolutionary – were Christian, there were no muslims involved in them – and Christian teachings on sharing wealth and avoiding excessive riches (the rich man and the eye of a needle) were sometimes used to justify them

    • Bonkim

      A little lengthy but good analysis – regrettably all get tarred with the same brush.

      The real issue is that Christianity and most other religions across the globe have mellowed, redacted all the nasty bits from their dogma and history. Islam still holds sway over the mostly illiterate and ignorant masses in many parts of the globe and does not accept any other belief system as legitimate.

      Whilst people in many countries have risen up and cleaned up their belief systems, Islamic people do not appear to have the same push to challenge the ignorant beliefs and cultural evils that prevail in their societies. Until they will continue to be shunned by the civilized world.

    • The_greyhound

      More stupid, ill-read nonsense.

      A hundred years ago all violent social movements, terrorist or revolutionary, had their origins in marxism, anarchsm, syndicalism or some other materialist proposition. None of them had any obvious relationship to any Christian tradition.

      But carry on excusing islamo-fascism if you like. Just don’t insult us by pretending it’s the result of a rational process – when it’s merely a manifestation of your dhimmitude.

  • IrisLSparkman

    Last Few Days To Get Smart Deal with spectator < Find Here

  • Fraser Bailey

    The other galvanising action they have taken is to commission a memorial to the dead.

    That is sure to counter the Islamic threat – while giving Romanians somewhere to defecate.

  • Robin Whitlock

    It would be nice if people allowed Muslims to speak for themselves for once, and actually listened to them. There are plenty of Muslims who have actively denounced Islamic State, so this article is just another reprehensible attempt to lump Muslims all together and demonise the lot. Shameful really…

  • Derek Davis

    This tells us more about British politics and political correctness than about the world. You’re clearly an even greater expert on Islam than the Prime Minister. On the principle you enunciate, if someone calls himself the Emperor of the Universe it follows that that’s how you have to report him.

  • Neil Orange peel

    Sexually repressed ugly muslim blokes with bad breath join ISIS and co. A few whiteys have joined up too. Anyone noticed that they are ugly gingers?

    I don’t agree this this ‘Daesh’ crap. Let’s call a spade a spade. It is an Islamic terrorist group. How long we gonna bury our heads in the sand?

  • “you can’t take the Islam out of Islamic State” — but our overlords have succeeded in taking the Britain out of Britain.

  • Don O’Naraigh

    “…and there is a fairly sizable proportion of the Islamic world that would concur.” Since that’s the heart of the argument, why bother with rest of this rambling, self-important, babble. Why not just say “they are all the same and I know because I know.” By the way, it doesn’t take a theologian to know that Islam (or Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism) does not require human slaughter or political domination. But, if it did, there are plenty one could look to. Just say, you’re really that intellectually lazy or intentionally delusion enough to wonder about that (and apparently you’re both), you could turn to any Islamic authority in the world to get an opinion. But that would sort of spoil your entirely empty thesis, I suppose. So, go on writing what you know in heart to be true, why tax yourself intellectually?