MarkHumphrys.com

Home      Blog      About      Contact

Click to hide the content:
Search:

    


Islam in Ireland - Liam Egan - MPAC Ireland - 2nd Exchange


2nd Exchange with MPAC Ireland

MPAC wrote another post about me, Nov 2009.

Again, I reply not for the sake of MPAC, but for the sake of lurkers and young people who might still be open-minded.




Another free ad for Guinness.
Because MPAC want to ban it.




From MPAC


Mark Humphys describes himself as Irish, Atheist, Liberal-right, Anti-jihad, Pro-American and last but not least Pro-Israel. He is also apparently anti-Muslim, though he sidesteps any claims of Islamophobia through a disingenuous labelling system – moderates are tolerable, extremists must be opposed. An extremist, using Humphrys' standards, not that anyone cares, is essentially a practicing Muslim.

Interestingly, while castigating every Muslim organisation in Ireland, he's also relied heavily on the rantings…sorry…writings of one Robert Spencer of JihadWatch. Indeed, he's recently embedded Spencer's 5 point plan to eradicate Islamophobia, we'll deal with that in a moment. This of course implies more than a passing interest.

Robert Spencer has been linked by former associate Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (another anti-Muslim site) to fascist politicians in Europe. Johnson has also exposed Spencer's affiliation with a group that wishes to reconquer Turkey and expel or slaughter the 150 Muslims currently residing there. The group Spencer has joined is called The Campaign for the Reconquista in Anatolia. Humphry's mentor wants to reconquer Turkey, is this part of his eradication of Islamophobia - essentially remove the object of scorn? Does Mark Humphrys condone this position and will he verbally distance himself from such vile rhetoric?

But let's take a look at this 5 point plan that Humphrys lauds. It begins with the disingenuous claim that there have been over 9000 violent attacks since 9/11. A ticker counter on Humphrys site puts the number at 14331. What this doesn't tell you is that the vast majority of those attacks have been carried out against occupying western forces in Muslim countries. Now we know that Humphrys and Spencer think that Muslims should simply allow themselves to be slaughtered, tortured and subjugated without creating a bother. But, thankfully the Quran and Sunnah, international law and most sensible people recognise the right to fight injustice, occupation and oppression.

The first point Spencer brings up is actually one we agree with. While we uphold the right of Muslims under occupation to resist said occupation and believe it is a duty of Muslims to support that struggle, we do not and cannot endorse terrorist acts against non-combatants in a land that is not considered dar-ul-harb. In fact, we believe it is an obligation upon Muslims to ensure that the festering sentiment that gave rise to 7/7 does not take hold and manifest itself in actions that will bring the community into disrepute. If Muslims in the UK or Ireland are aggrieved at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere then they need to use the legitimate means available in these lands to make a difference. They should collectively lobby and use political means to bring about change. In Muslim majority constituencies, for example Dublin South, politicians depend on your vote. Use it! But we don't need the Spencers of this world to tell us what to do, our scholars have already guided us toward that which is best for our souls.

The second point is one we must disagree with vehemently. We believe it is our Islamic, moral and patriotic duty to bring about the conditions that will make Allah's authority in this and all lands manifest. We have argued before that, as we believe Shariah is the very best system available, it behoves us to unapologetically propagate it, anything less would be demonstrably and discriminatively miserly.

Spencer's third point is interesting in that it expects something of Muslims that they have been consistently denied - coexistence. We do not believe that coexistence can manifest itself fully in the face of the continued aggression, discrimination and inequality enacted toward Muslims. As Malcolm X famously said, 'sitting at the table does not make you a diner, unless you eat some of what's on that plate.' When Muslims peruse the social landscape and witness the barriers and hurdles placed before them, it's little wonder they feel distanced.

The fourth point expects Muslims to renounce what Spencer calls 'violent' jihad (what does he want us to do blow bubbles when Zionist Jews and American soldiers fire on us?) and so-called supremacist ideas. In other words, Spencer wants to pacify the Muslim populace without offering real peace. We must renounce Jihad but they retain the right to occupy, maim and kill hundreds and thousands of Muslims. Not only that, but we must abandon any idea that Islam is the only way, that it is superior to all other religions and that it will once again dominate the world. Of course, in abandoning Jihad we condone their subjugation of Muslim lands, and in giving up the idea that Islam is supreme we must take on board the idea that democracy is superior - in effect we must renounce our religion. Over my dead and lifeless body!

Finally, Spencer wants us to police ourselves (more evidence of his schizophrenia) and shop 'jihadists'. But what's a Jihadist? Well it's someone who believes it's right to fight against injustice and oppression, to 'fight them in the way they fight you'. It's someone who believes that Allah's law is the ultimate authority in the land and that Muslims should work to establish that and it is one who believes that Islam is superior to all other religions. In other words, if you're a practicing Muslim you're a Jihadist.

Here's our five point plan for the peace and societal harmony we all desire:

1. The west should remove itself from all Muslim lands and should cease its support of the belligerent state called 'Israel'.
2. The west should cease all involvement and meddling in Muslim affairs and Muslim lands.
3. Muslims living in the west should be afforded equal dignity and respect without preconditions. The cloak of suspicion must be removed.
4. Muslims in the west should be allowed to govern themselves under Shariah as Christians and Jews were given liberty to do in the Islamic state.
5. The west should engage in a policy of positive discrimination to redress the lack of Muslim representation in both political and media circles. If there is to be peaceful coexistence then Muslims need to be in prominent positions to enact and encourage that alongside their non-Muslim counterparts.

Humphys ends his whinging and whining with the trite, 'whining grievance-mongering groups like MPAC are not listening'. Listen Mark, when you have something useful to say we may – as ever we live in hope.



From me

"Mark Humphys describes himself as Irish, Atheist, Liberal-right, Anti-jihad, Pro-American and last but not least Pro-Israel. He is also apparently anti-Muslim, though he sidesteps any claims of Islamophobia through a disingenuous labelling system - moderates are tolerable, extremists must be opposed. An extremist, using Humphrys' standards, not that anyone cares, is essentially a practicing Muslim."

An extremist is anyone who wants to force his religion on me by force of law. Anyone who believes in sharia law. Like you guys.

A typical rhetorical trick of extremist Muslims is to claim that anyone who opposes extremist Muslims is "anti-Muslim".

Anyway, moderate Muslims do exist. Here are some:



Anti-Islamist demo, Oct 2009, from British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

If all Muslims were like the above, there would be no Islamophobia. But unfortunately, there are lots of Muslims like you. Hence lots of Islamophobia.


The challenge to Muslims in Ireland

"Interestingly, while castigating every Muslim organisation in Ireland"

Well I don't want to castigate every Muslim organisation in Ireland. Can you find one of them that will give satisfactory answers to my challenge:


Open challenge to all Muslims in public life in Ireland

Can you openly state that it is wrong for Islamic countries to arrest, or in any way prosecute:

  1. Apostates.
  2. Critics of Islam.
  3. Blasphemers.
  4. Proselytisers.
If any Muslim in public life in Ireland declares this, tell me here.


Robert Spencer is a secret "fascist", or something

"Robert Spencer has been linked by former associate Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs (another anti-Muslim site) to fascist politicians in Europe."

Unconvincing. Johnson has had a real meltdown over the last two years, and has been de-linked by almost everyone on the right. See my lengthy discussion on the LGF blog war where I explain how I find the claims that Spencer is a secret "racist" or secret "fascist" unconvincing.

"Johnson has also exposed Spencer's affiliation with a group that wishes to reconquer Turkey and expel or slaughter the 150 Muslims currently residing there. The group Spencer has joined is called The Campaign for the Reconquista in Anatolia. Humphry's mentor wants to reconquer Turkey, is this part of his eradication of Islamophobia - essentially remove the object of scorn? Does Mark Humphrys condone this position and will he verbally distance himself from such vile rhetoric?"

This is rubbish. Spencer has replied to this here. He was foolish to accept a friend request from a Facebook group without reading it properly, but you have to believe in conspiracy theories to think this other group represents his "real" beliefs, and his years of writing don't represent his beliefs at all.

As Spencer says: "it is noteworthy that Johnson can't produce a shred of evidence for his claim from anything I have written. Instead, he has relied on fellow libelblogger Kejda Gjermani's increasingly implausible guilt-by-association sand castles, but nothing from what I've actually written, in eight books, hundreds of articles, and thousands of blog posts. You'd think that if I'd be cavalier enough to join a genocidal Facebook group on purpose, because I approved of what it stood for, that the mask would have slipped a few other times."


The absurd claim that the jihad is mainly against the West

"But let's take a look at this 5 point plan that Humphrys lauds. It begins with the disingenuous claim that there have been over 9000 violent attacks since 9/11. A ticker counter on Humphrys site puts the number at 14331. What this doesn't tell you is that the vast majority of those attacks have been carried out against occupying western forces in Muslim countries."

Rubbish. Take a look at the list of jihadi attacks. How many of these are against "occupying western forces in Muslim countries". Very few.

Check the list in the past. It was also very few. Check the list again in 1 year's time. It will still be very few. Or check it in 2 years' time. Or 50 years' time (for the jihad goes on forever). It will still be very few.

Most jihadi attacks are against innocent civilians, non-Muslim religious minorities, and the "wrong" type of Muslim. Here's a few sample attacks that prove your whole world view is nonsense:


  1. Bombs strapped to Down's Syndrome child who is told to approach a line of voters in the Iraqi election, Jan 2005, where the child is blown up. And here.
  2. Mumbai terror attacks, Nov 2008. Jihadis attack a hospital, a hotel and an innocent Jewish centre, and sexually assaulted and tortured their innocent civilian victims.
  3. Iraqi resistance blows up 5 year old child in order to kill Muslims waiting for food aid, Apr 2009. Jonathan Kay: Mommy blows up with toddler - this has got to be a new low for militant Islam.
  4. Somali jihadis behead the two children of a Christian leader because they were angry with him.
  5. 7 year old Christian burned alive by Muslim mob enraged by "blasphemy" in Pakistan, Aug 2009.
  6. Muslims behead Christian orphanage workers in Somalia, Aug 2009.
  7. Disembowelled and murdered for teaching girls - A teacher killed by the Taleban in 2006 for teaching girls.
  8. Taliban bomb girls' primary school in Pakistan, Apr 2009, killing at least 4 children.
  9. Taliban campaign of attacking girls' schools with poison gas. They even gas girls at primary school.
  10. Taliban attack a group of boys on their way to school, Pakistan, Sept 2009. They kill the children because they are the "wrong" type of Islam.

  11. Iraqi resistance bombs Shiite Muslim mosques and Christian churches (and here). It randomly kills Shiite Muslims, bombing Muslim mosques, weddings and funerals. It regards Shiite Muslims as infidels to be exterminated. It bombed the famous Shiite Golden Mosque of Samarra and destroyed it. It bombs Muslim pilgrims and shoots Muslim pilgrims coming home from Mecca. It regards Yazidis as infidels to be exterminated.

  12. Iraqi resistance murders innocent Iraqi barbers for cutting men's hair. It executes clowns. It sadistically tortures homosexuals. It bombs football fans. It bombs crowds of children. It cuts the heads off children (and here). It shoots teachers and cuts off their heads in front of terrified primary school children. It pulls Shia school children off buses and executes them. It tortures children with electric drills for having the "wrong" kind of Islam (also here). It cuts the heads off children for the crime of being Christian. It kills, rapes and tortures Mandaeans, including children, for the crime of not being Muslim. It drowns children after killing their fathers. It sets off car bombs with children in the back seat. It beheads and cooks Christian toddlers (and here). It shoots 6 year olds for having the "wrong" kind of Islam. It cuts the heads off the children of villagers. It grabs small children and uses them as cover in suicide bomb attacks. It has a retarded 13-year-old suicide bomber hold the hand of a 3-year-old girl in a suicide bomb attack. It set a 5 year old boy on fire (and here). It tried to set a 4 year old boy on fire in front of his family. It suicide bombs children's playgrounds. It straps bombs to Down's Syndrome women and blows them up in crowds of innocents. It even straps bombs to a Down's Syndrome child and blows them up. It shoots a whole family of children in bed.


I could go on and on, but it's so depressing.


MPAC supports jihad

"Now we know that Humphrys and Spencer think that Muslims should simply allow themselves to be slaughtered, tortured and subjugated without creating a bother."

Liar. You are a liar. Why don't you quote Humphrys and Spencer then, if they allegedly "think" that? Liar.

"But, thankfully the Quran and Sunnah, international law and most sensible people recognise the right to fight injustice, occupation and oppression."

So you support the fight against the Taliban then? Glad to hear it.

"we uphold the right of Muslims under occupation to resist said occupation"

So citizens of Iraq and Afghanistan who don't like the (imperfectly) elected governments in those countries should turn immediately to violence rather than, say, writing about it and standing for election?

You are very quick to support violence when another way is possible (voting). Do you support them bombing and killing voters?

"we do not and cannot endorse terrorist acts against non-combatants in a land that is not considered dar-ul-harb. In fact, we believe it is an obligation upon Muslims to ensure that the festering sentiment that gave rise to 7/7 does not take hold and manifest itself in actions that will bring the community into disrepute. If Muslims in the UK or Ireland are aggrieved at the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere then they need to use the legitimate means available in these lands to make a difference. They should collectively lobby and use political means to bring about change. In Muslim majority constituencies, for example Dublin South, politicians depend on your vote. Use it! But we don't need the Spencers of this world to tell us what to do, our scholars have already guided us toward that which is best for our souls."

Yes, well it's very nice that you don't believe in violence in Ireland right now. But I think we're setting the bar a bit low if we infidels get excited about that. What other immigrant minority is even queried about whether it supports violence instead of democracy? Muslims (*) seem to be the only immigrants who threaten violence (Madrid, Theo van Gogh, 7/7, 21/7, Glasgow, and dozens of foiled plots) and oppression (demands for sharia law). All other immigrant groups (like Hindus, Chinese, Koreans, Africans, Caribbeans) seem to be cool with the West, and move here because they like it.

Only yesterday (as I write this), an American Muslim, the son of Palestinian/Jordanian Muslim immigrants, killed 13 people in Fort Hood, Texas, for jihad. No other immigrant group produces attacks like this.

You remind me of this:

(*) Yes, I know not all Muslims threaten the West. Lots of Muslim immigrants like the West. They aren't all sharia-lovers and whining grievance-mongers like you. Lots of Muslim immigrants came here to escape from people like you.


MPAC supports sharia

"The second point is one we must disagree with vehemently. We believe it is our Islamic, moral and patriotic duty to bring about the conditions that will make Allah's authority in this and all lands manifest. We have argued before that, as we believe Shariah is the very best system available, it behoves us to unapologetically propagate it, anything less would be demonstrably and discriminatively miserly."

Fine. MPAC is a threat to me and to my liberties. MPAC is a threat to Irish freedom. I'm glad that's cleared up.

"The fourth point expects Muslims to renounce what Spencer calls 'violent' jihad (what does he want us to do blow bubbles when Zionist Jews and American soldiers fire on us?)"

How about stopping targeting mosques, churches, synagogues, schools, shops, restaurants, markets, public transport, weddings, funerals, aid workers, children, non-combatants and religious minorities? Wouldn't that be a start?

If jihadis only fought against military targets, I would still support war against them. But I wouldn't view them as quite as evil as I do now.

"We must renounce Jihad but they retain the right to occupy, maim and kill hundreds and thousands of Muslims."

Nonsense. Western armies don't want to "kill Muslims". If they did they could kill millions. Why don't they?

No one wants to "kill Muslims". Not a soul needed to have died in Iraq since 2003. It is the choice of the jihad that there has been violence since 2003, not the choice of the West. The moral responsibility for all deaths in Iraq since 2003 lies with those Muslims who turned to violence to resist the introduction of democracy.

The same goes for Afghanistan. All violence in Afghanistan since 2001 is the fault of those Muslims who turned to violence rather than elections.

Check who is killing who in these countries. You will find that almost all civilian deaths are at the hands of the jihad, not the West.


If you hate the West, why are you here?

"Not only that, but we must abandon any idea that Islam is the only way, that it is superior to all other religions"

No. You can believe that if you want. And I am free to not believe it.

"and that it will once again dominate the world."

That's right. You should give up that desire.

"Of course, in abandoning Jihad we condone their subjugation of Muslim lands, and in giving up the idea that Islam is supreme we must take on board the idea that democracy is superior - in effect we must renounce our religion. Over my dead and lifeless body!"

Why do you live in the West, if you hate it so much? Why don't you live in some hellhole where they have sharia law?

Why should we who like the West be happy to have people like you living here? Seriously. How can you threaten Ireland with oppression and then complain that we don't like you?




This is the West.
If you don't like it, please leave.
If you want to destroy all this, we don't want you here.
Photo from here. See terms of use.
Taken in Bogotá, Colombia (the West is a big place).




A pro-Ireland Muslim: Mohammed Al Kabour

A pro-Ireland Muslim, Mohammed Al Kabour, of the Supreme Muslim Council of Ireland, has begun to take on the Ireland-hating fanatics of MPAC. He initially made comments on their site but they deleted them, so he has set up his own site.




Guilt-by-association: Spencer links to a Hindu fanatic



Brainwashed Hindu fanatic nutcase.





1st Exchange with MPAC Ireland




Return to MPAC Ireland.


Feedback form

See explanation.
Enter a URL for me to look at:
Enter this password:


Politics      Religion      Politics feeds      Religion feeds      Maps      Since 1995.

Banned in Iran: This site is banned in Iran.

Blocked on Twitter: I am blocked on Twitter by George Galloway MP and Owen Jones and Mo Ansar and Charles Johnson and Frankie Boyle and Carlos Latuff and CAGE and Stanley Cohen and Alaa Abd El Fattah and Aziz Poonawalla and Mubin Shaikh and Ali Abunimah and David Sheen and Andy Kindler and John Cusack and Mick Wallace TD and Cllr. Paul Donnelly and Cllr. Enda Fanning and Mary Fitzgerald and Frank McDonald and Donal O'Keeffe and Joanna Kiernan and Rachel Lynch and Allan Cavanagh and Umar Al-Qadri. What a shower. Islamists and Islamic right-wing conservatives. And their western leftist enablers and fellow-travellers.

Who I block: I will debate almost anyone. I love ideas. I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following: (a) Make threats. (b) Accuse me of crimes. (c) Comment on my appearance. (d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.) (e) Complain to my employer. Yes, people do all these things.