A Dutch MP who called the Koran a "fascist book" has been sent back to the Netherlands after attempting to defy a ban on entering the UK.
Freedom Party MP Geert Wilders had been invited to show his controversial film - which links the Islamic holy book to terrorism - in the UK's House of Lords.
But Mr Wilders, who faces trial in his own country for inciting hatred, has been denied entry by the Home Office. Read More.
Two things are worthy of note. First, it's ironic that the British government refuses to admit Wilders into the UK because they're worried about Muslims responding violently, since Wilders's entire point is that Islam causes Muslims to respond violently. It's as if Muslims are saying, "How dare you call us violent! We'll teach you a lesson by rioting!" It's as if the UK government is saying, "Of course Muslims respond violently, but we don't want people like Wilders pointing it out. We want to pave a smooth road for the Muslims to take over the UK."
Second, far from protecting Great Britain from violence, the actions of the British government will only encourage Muslims to respond with violence and riots when they don't like something. Muslims in the UK now know that their recent outbursts have intimidated the government, and that Parliament will bow to the Muslim will. What's going to happen the next time Muslims want something? Riots anyone?
I thought the borders were open to all citizens of the EU. Hmmm???
Even the muslim-apologists on this blog are pissed off because you point things out that don't really work with their perception of islam.
This reminds me of what happned to Yusif Islam. When he wasn't allowed entry to Britan for no reason. David I also have to comment you on your stupid pole. Why not include others if you were truley intersted in the answer of who muslims belive is the best defender of islam? You obviosley dont care, and all know what your true intention is.
Poll*** not Pole
That's why I included the "Someone Else" choice.
Will Muslims complain about anything?
I think he should've been let in, especially to debate Muslims and let us defend our opinions. If anything the Government's move has backfired by making this unknown guy (to people who don't follow Islamophobia) a star over night.
However I am consistent, I say Farrakhan should not have been banned from UK either.
Mark this date. Yahya and I are in complete agreement on something.
I have to agree with you (Wood) and Yahya. Why has Islam become an untouchable religion that one cannot question or critique? In my opinion violence being a response to a video shows something very scary about the minority of radical Muslims. That video has been refuted plenty of times, but by the reaction of Muslims around the world that video has been given unnecessary credibility. Just like the vegetable super bowl commercial that was banned, by banning the commercial, the commercial has been viewed by millions.
If that video was debated and refuted as brother Sami Zaatari did Wiliders would have been exposed and laughed at, but now people see him as a fighter of free speech for some odd reason. This reminds me of a story where Imam Jaffir Al-Saddiq (As) was approached by an atheist who claimed to be God, and instead of beheading the man, Imam Jaffir Al- Saddiq (As) debated him on the issue and rationally refuted the individual.
Not only have Muslims given him credibility but they have only darkened the black cloud that has been following them (radical Muslims).
"This reminds me of a story where Imam Jaffir Al-Saddiq (As) was approached by an atheist who claimed to be God"
A yes sounds like an islamic story, as there already exists a blatant contradiction:
There is no such thing as an Atheist who believes he/she is God, since that would make the person a THEIST...lol
"If that video was debated and refuted as brother Sami Zaatari did Wiliders would have been exposed and laughed at, but now people see him as a fighter of free speech for some odd reason."
The only thing laughable is thinking brother Sami has refuted anything.
The man went to mock Imam Jaffir Al-Saddiq (As) he says in the hadith which I tried to summarize. The man says You believe God is a creator because he can create, well I can create to so I must be god. So there is the story no contradiction he doesn’t become a theist, he was merely mocking the Imam when he walked in the Masjid. I hope you get what I mean now, if you don’t I would be more then glad to explain it again.
Well first of aww thats so sweet you called him your brother. Anyways unless you have refuted brother Sami's video then his video still stands up as a official refutation to the man in question. There were also other video’s which refuted Gerts video which still have not been refuted.
Dk are you the man who debated Dr. Onomatopoeia? The Dk who debated Dr. Onomatopoeia studied with or under Sam Shamoun, I was just wondering if this is you.
I saw an atheist named Frank Zindler do the same thing in a debate with William Lane Craig. He said, "All right, I've come to believe in God, and I'm it."
Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday.
David this may sound like a stupid question and I have a feeling it may be. Did you believe in Christianity which led you to god, or did you start believing in God first then you were lead to Christianity.
Well Bfloai i'm glad you expanded on the story a little, but one thing:
"well I can create to so I must be god."
This isn't mocking, this seems to be applying the same reasoning as the Imam was, thus the Atheist is pointing out using that reasoning he must also be God(since he also creates). It could be that the man is most likely mistaken and using a misinformed argument, it doesn't to me come across as mockery.
"his video still stands up as a official refutation"
says who? lmao. this is the mindset of Muslims.. for god sake, maybe this is as bad as Osama, although I use to give Sami more credit.
Finally yes Sam was a good teacher, and yes Onomasta is the coward who dotted me since he couldn't answer anything, as has been proven time and time again.
As a perfect example of this, the time he dotted me for pointing out his informatrion on John 1:1 came from Ahmed Deedat and the Answering Christianity website, and that it was completely flawed, even the transliteration, and the mistaken use of greek form of words and the place of the words.
Of course pointing out where the good Doctor gets his information from was bad enough, but to point out that it was completely flawed was unacceptable.
haha, I can think of countless more examples, thanks for some good memories, Muslims really are willing to use anything to attack Christianity and defend Islam.
Atleast Sami on the other hand appeals to biblicalunitarian.com which of course makes slightly better argumentation, but nonetheless does not refute the standard exegesis of such a prologue.
Post a Comment