Paying the Dane-Geld

Back around the year 1000 in England, the Vikings raiding the English coast on their longships were often called “Danes”, because some of them were from Denmark. And like most folks, these  Vikings were not dumb. Early on they just raided, fought battles. But after while they wised up. They turned it into your basic Mafia-style extortion scam—they would land and say “Nice village you got there … be a terrible shame if someone were to burn it to the ground …”. And the villagers would pay them to go raid somewhere else. Better deal for everyone, no risk of battle in a time when a scratch could mean death.

Eventually, a tax was instituted under the rule of some King hight Elthelfred the Improbable or something equally English, called the “Dane-geld”, which means the “Danish Tax”. The money and valuables collected through the “Dane-geld” were used to pay off the Danish raiders so they wouldn’t attack England.

Here’s the first part of a Rudyard Kipling poem regarding the payment of Dane-geld to avert a threat:

Dane-Geld
A.D. 980-1016

It is always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
  To call upon a neighbour and to say: --
"We invaded you last night--we are quite prepared to fight,
  Unless you pay us cash to go away."

And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
  And the people who ask it explain
That you've only to pay 'em the Dane-geld
  And then  you'll get rid of the Dane!

dane-geld-i

 

What brought this to mind is the sad decay of Europe. I discussed in an earlier post called “Forbidden Words” the case of Geert Wilders. He’s the Dutch politician who was tried and arrested for asking a simple question. He uttered in public the following horrendous and clearly criminal sentence:

“Should we have more or fewer Moroccans in our country?”

He was tried and convicted for merely asking that question, using what the Hollandians and other Europeans vaguely call “hate speech against Moslems” … think about that in the light of Dane-geld.

And in the latest incarnation of this madness, a Danish man has just been charged under Clause 140 of Danish law, the blasphemy clause which says:

Anybody who publicly mocks or insults any in this country legally existing religious community tenets of faith or worship, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 4 months.

Now, people around the planet routinely mock and insult the tenets of other religions. It’s a sport in some circles in the US, where any and all speech of every kind is called “free speech” and is protected by the Constitution.

And it seems to be a religious tenet of Islam, they waste lots of time railing against Christian beliefs of all kind. Here is a most ironic fact: you could charge the Koran itself under Danish Law for what it says about Jews and Christians …

So when an American sees that Danish Clause 140, we find it most bizarre and anti-human. We find it a Middle-Ages anachronism that you guys cannot speak your minds freely.

But in practice, the Danish Clause 140 has only been invoked a few times. The font of misinformation, Wikipedia, links to sites saying that in 1938 someone was convicted of passing out anti-Semitic literature. In 1946 two people were convicted of performing a sham “baptism” at a ball … the horror. And in 1971, a couple of people working for Denmark radio were acquitted for airing a song mocking Christianity.

So … anyone care to guess what religion was insulted leading to Clause 140 being applied this week?

Ponder that for a moment while we enjoy the second part of Kipling’s rollicking poem, viz:

It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
  To puff and look important and to say: --
"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
  We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
  But we've  proved it again and  again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
  You never get rid of the Dane.

Returning to our story, I’d asked which religion was insulted. And yes, you’re right. Clause 140 was used to charge a man with blasphemy for an insult to Islam, in this case burning the Koran. Plenty of other insults around that the Danes could charge, insults by Muslims against Christian tenets occur frequently in Denmark, but noooo …

Bad news, folks. In a greatly ironic historical twist, the Danes are now preemptively paying Dane-geld to the Muslim mob.

The good news that theirs is not a new situation. After all, the name Dane-geld is a thousand years old … and Kipling’s poem, while not that ancient, is from a couple of centuries back. The bad news is that their situation is everyone’s situation …

We need to deal with the resurgent Islamic militarism that is once again taking up arms in their endless war on the West. But in this centuries-long battle, paying them even the slightest Dane-geld is a huge mistake. The nations need to pay attention to Kipling, who closes by saying:

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
  For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
  You will find it better policy to say: --

"We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
  No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
  And the nation that pays it is lost!"

Sadly, it does appear that Europe is mostly lost at this point, with the possible exception of the UK fortunately pulling back from the brink … they have foolishly invited into their homes an entire nation of people whose very “Holy Book” violates Danish Law. And in response to the demands of that nation-within-a-nation, they are symbolically burning one of their own at the stake in the vain and foolish hope that this and other Dane-geld will appease the Muslim mob … good luck with that …

Dark times, dear friends. People are correct to be concerned and cautious about who we let into the US.

Meanwhile, here near the northern California coast we’re bathing in both freedom of speech and sunshine. Storm yesterday and storm predicted tomorrow, but today is glorious … sounds like a metaphor for life.

My best to each of you,

w.

PS—Don’t imagine that because Danish prosecutions for blasphemy are rare, that the Danes don’t prosecute what we describe as “free speech” and they call “hate speech”. What they call “hate speech” is prosecuted under another statute, Clause 266b:

Whoever publicly, or with intention to disseminating in a larger circle makes statements or other pronouncement, by which a group of persons is threatened, derided or degraded because of their race, colour of skin, national or ethnic background, faith or sexual orientation, will be punished by fine or imprisonment for up to 2 years.

Two years in the slammer just because some snowflake feels “threatened, derided, or degraded”? Give me a break! That’s not a law, that is a crime in itself!

There is NO WAY TO TELL IF YOU ARE BREAKING THAT LAW!! That’s dumb as a bag of ball bearings. A law has to have a “bright line” so the governed can be clear if they are or are not breaking the law. For example, is it “deriding” Catholicism to talk negatively about the Inquisition? Does it “degrade” the rest of us to point out that Asian Americans do better on tests than any other group here? There is no bright line to tell us.

And don’t get me started about people being “threatened”. Being “threatened” is a lifestyle choice these days. Publicly announcing their fear about whatever the huge threat du jour might be is a wonderful way to show that they are simultaneously virtuous and sensitive. Hollywood actors are famous for it … while in reality, you get to attack your opponent by posing as their victim. These days it is common for people to say “I’m terrified about X, you must stop threatening me with X!”, with their purported terror being held up as the “proof” that the threat is real … nice try.

A law without a bright line dividing legal from illegal allows the Government prosecutors to decide what is illegal. This is a huge danger to free people.

PPS—My usual request. When you comment, please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING. This lets us all be crystal-clear regarding what you are referring to.

Advertisements

53 thoughts on “Paying the Dane-Geld

  1. While it was a strategy doomed to eventual failure, at least the Anglo-Saxons didn’t believe it was virtuous to pay the Dane-geld.

    Progressives, on the other hand, believe it’s the height of virtue to shed Western values in favour of nihilistic cultural relativism.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. As lawyers love to cite precedent, perhaps the person being charged should use the words of the Koran as evidence that his similar words are acceptable to the wider community.

    To decide otherwise would be discrimination against him although, in these weird PC/animal farm times, some religions may be more equal than others

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Umm…. I believe that you have got the second part where the first part ought to be, if you get my meaning.

    Kipling’s poem starts:

    IT IS always a temptation to an armed and agile nation
    To call upon a neighbour and to say: –
    “We invaded you last night – we are quite prepared to fight,
    Unless you pay us cash to go away.”

    And that is called asking for Dane-geld,
    And the people who ask it explain
    That you’ve only to pay ’em the Dane-geld
    And then you’ll get rid of the Dane!

    Like

  4. These issues with Islamists existed even during early American History:
    “During the period of the American Revolution and the early republic, American merchants and sailors were under constant threat from North African pirates from the Muslim powers known as the Barbary States. More than one million Europeans were captured and enslaved by Muslim raiders between the 16th and 18th centuries. One village in Ireland, Baltimore, was famously sacked and entirely depopulated by slavers.”
    “While in London, Jefferson and John Adams spoke to the ambassador from Tripoli, Abd Al-Rahman, and questioned him on why the Barbary pirates thought they should war upon a nation that had never done them any harm.
    The Muslim ambassador’s response was, “It was … written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged Islam’s authority were sinners, that it was their … duty to make war upon them … and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners.”
    And the following looks like the Liberal approach:
    “John Adams, as president, refused to use the navy to fight the pirates because he knew if we got involved in a conflict with radical Islam, it would be on going for years,” Barton said. “He thought the American people had no stomach for it.”
    However President Jefferson had a different approach:
    “When Jefferson became president in 1801, the ruler of Tripoli demanded tribute, which Jefferson refused. The result was the First Barbary War.”
    “Adams was right about the expense and time required to confront Islamic piracy. However, ultimately the problem was stopped when the United States was able to inflict a high enough cost to force aggressive Muslims to back down. If the United States had followed the European practice of simply paying off the Islamic attackers, the problem could have continued indefinitely.”
    The major problem is that the soft half of Western culture believe that the religion has moderated, but the evidence indicates that those who are still hard core per Quran or quietly supporting their ideology would be the vast majority.
    http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/tough-guy-thomas-jefferson-crushed-muslim-terrorists/

    Two books by Mark Steyn who has assembled evidence for European and American under future Islam inroads:

    Like

      • For whatever it’s worth:
        “Muslims also enslaved Europeans. According to Robert Davis, between 1 million and 1.25 million Europeans were captured between the 16th and 19th centuries by Barbary corsairs, who were vassals of the Ottoman Empire, and sold as slaves.[16][17][18] These slaves were captured mainly from seaside villages from Italy, Spain, Portugal and also from more distant places like France or England, the Netherlands, Ireland and even Iceland. They were also taken from ships stopped by the pirates.[19]
        The effects of these attacks were devastating: France, England, and Spain each lost thousands of ships. Long stretches of the Spanish and Italian coasts were almost completely abandoned by their inhabitants, because of frequent pirate attacks. Pirate raids discouraged settlement along the coast until the 19th century”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_slave_trade

        Like

  5. Pirates (not Vikings) are making a comeback.
    https://www.porttechnology.org/news/crew_kidnapping_reaches_10_year_high

    The word “Filibuster” originally referred to the sub-set of piracy whereby the terrorists would board and hold the vessel, crew, passengers and cargo all together intact until a ransom was paid. No progress would be allowed until demands were met. A very few fanatical and violent men would stop trading and business altogether.

    I have NO idea how such a concept, and word, became applicable to the U.S. Senate.

    Liked by 1 person

    • a Senate filibuster is holding the senate hostage by refusing to let debate end and a vote be held. This also stops all other process as the Senate floor is tied up with people reading phone books or otherwise just wasting time to prevent any votes from taking place. In many cases, other Senators are unwilling to stop all progress, so instead they agree to drop a bill

      Like

  6. Making citizens into “criminals” is a favorite tactic of the political left. Always has been and always will be.

    Oh, and the trick with Dane Geld is being certain to kill the Danes and get the Geld back before they reach their boats.

    Like

  7. It gets even better: “Islamic State militants said Abu-Zakariya al-Britani, a British citizen who was originally known as Ronald Fiddler and then cast himself as Jamal Udeen al-Harith, detonated a car bomb at an Iraqi army base southwest of Mosul this week. … He was detained in Afghanistan by U.S. special forces and taken to Guantanamo in 2002. Britani was freed in 2004 after the government of then-Prime Minister Tony Blair lobbied for his release and later traveled to Syria to fight with Islamic State. … The Daily Mail reported that Britani had been awarded $1.25 million by the British government after claiming British agents knew or were complicit in his alleged mistreatment.”
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-britain-militant-idUSKBN1611A8

    $1.25M buys a lot of explosives. I wonder what guilt the British government was feeling then, and what guilt, if any, it is feeling now.

    Like

  8. I finally found the quote I was looking for:

    “Did you really think we want those laws observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them to be broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against… We’re after power and we mean it… There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Reardon, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”
    ― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

    Every time I read that I get sick to my stomach because I know there are people who are doing just that.

    Like

  9. A good analogy. Of course, the Normans who conquered England in 1066 were Vikings / “Danes” who had settled in France. Paying the Dane Geld didn’t keep them at bay for long.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. “….. with the possible exception of the UK fortunately pulling back from the brink ………” Already too late I, as a Londoner born and bred, but no longer resident there, fear. White British as a cultural distinction, is already a minority in London, as well as in many other major English cities and those that aren’t there yet are fast approaching. In addition, while the percentage of Muslims is only 5-6% of the UK population they are concentrated in specific inner city areas making up 30 – 50% of the populations there. Politicians, government and the Establishment already bend over backwards to placate them, note the Sharia court system having been accepted as an alternative civil dispute resolution system with the British Courts routinely rubber-stamping their decisions despite the knowledge that they are inherently misogynistic and reference religious law rather than the law of the land. This is one genie that I doubt very much can be put back in the bottle. Indeed, within two generations I fully expect to see a Muslim block basically controlling the UK parliament.

    Like

    • The Brexit vote showed that these cities are not the majority of the country. Time to be concerned, but not to panic.

      Just hope that those who hate brexit so much leave the country to remain in the EU 🙂

      Like

      • I think you have missed the point of my comment 🙂 My contention is there is no way to remedy the situation, time will tip the scales against us whether we actually achieve Brexit or not. In truth it is not so much European immigration that is the problem, there are over 5 million foreign born immigrants in the UK from non-EU countries, mainly India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. They don’t care about Brexit. They come because they already speak the language and because they already have family here. These are the immigrants that will take us over the edge. The only true solutions would be anglicisation or forced repatriation. The second is simply not going to happen, the first does occur but at the same time they also contaminate British culture, not malevolently in most cases, but simply because they like their original culture and keep it. Then, while subsequent generations lose bits of their original cultures they gradually adopt more and more British values and culture until after about four generations they would consider themselves wholly British. But it cuts both ways, at the same time more and more uniquely British traits are lost, aided and abetted by the UK government and political classes with their devotion to PC and multiculturalism.

        Like

  11. Previous comments have mentioned the US problems with the Barbary Pirates in the 19th century. When the demand for tribute hit the Jefferson Administration, the cry “millions for defense but not one penny for tribute” led to the creation of the US Navy.

    Sadly, the temptation to simply pay trouble to go away is old and enduring. In September 1938 after the Munich Agreement essentially surrendered half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, Chamberlain was hailed for having “achieved peace in our time.” A much wiser Churchill noted “today this government had to chose between shame and war. It chose shame and it shall get war.”

    After Hitler ignored the Munich Agreement and occupied all of Czechoslovakia, a detachment went to New City in Prague to the Czech National Bank. The party included Herr Karl-Edrich Müller, a director of the German Reichsbank. Soldiers took up positions around the bank and Müller went inside and demanded the manager open the vaults. When this was done he found the expected Czech national gold reserves (some six million pounds sterling at the time) were missing; they had previously been transported for safekeeping to London.

    The Czech National Bank manager Joseph Malik was eventually forced to sign an authorization allowing the Bank of England to release the Czech gold holdings to the German Reichsbank. He stalled long enough to get in contact with both British and French legations to warn them what was happening and plead that they not honor the authorization he would soon be forced to sign.

    The French Finance Minister was informed and agreed it would be madness to release the gold to the Germans, but he was not supported by the British Government. Their top bankers in the Band for Internaltional Settlements had already met with Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir John Simon, and had been instructed not to hinder the German request.

    At the next board meeting of the Bank of International Settlements in April when one board member told the Chairman he wished to place the issue of the Czech gold on the agenda, the Chairman told him not to bother: 80% of the gold had already been transferred so what did the other 20% matter?

    All this would have remained secret had not Paul Enzig, a financial writer in London ferreted out these facts and published them. The account came up later in Parliament where Winston Churchill said:

    Here we are going about urging people to enlist, urging them to accept new forms of military compulsion; here we are paying taxes on a gigantic scale in order to protect ourselves. If at the same time our mechanism of government is so butter-fingered that this six million pounds of gold can be transferred to the Nazi government of Germany, which only wishes to use it, and is only using it, as it does all its foreign exchange, for the purpose of increasing its armaments … it stultifies altogether the efforts our people are making in every class and in every party to secure national defense and rally the whole forces of the country.

    This account is from On Borrowed Time, How World War II Began, by Leonard Mosely (Random House, 1969).

    Sadly, the temptation to simply pay trouble to go away is old and enduring, but I repeat myself.

    Like

  12. Hey, I dropped the last verse of Danegeld into a comment elsewhere just last week.

    This first amendment thing. Free speech, fine, glad you still have it. Freedom of religion is not such a universal good. When a religion comes in a package with its own laws and foreign policy with different treatment for non-believers, that religion can’t happily co-exist in a secular nation. Try to bring it into line, and that first amendment thing jumps out at you. And people who hate YOUR religion use it to their advantage.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rhoda Klapp February 24, 2017 at 6:20 am

      Hey, I dropped the last verse of Danegeld into a comment elsewhere just last week.

      Dang, she be stylin’! Well done.

      This first amendment thing. Free speech, fine, glad you still have it. Freedom of religion is not such a universal good. When a religion comes in a package with its own laws and foreign policy with different treatment for non-believers, that religion can’t happily co-exist in a secular nation. Try to bring it into line, and that first amendment thing jumps out at you. And people who hate YOUR religion use it to their advantage.

      Thanks Rhoda. There are a host of problems with freedom of speech, and you’ve pointed to one. However, the gains far outweigh the losses.

      w.

      Like

  13. Hi Willis – where does “Roseby” in your blog address come from? Is it by any chance the canine fairy tale characters “Roseby woof and Fairy wogdog” from Richard Adams’ “Watership Down” (his novel about rabbits)?

    Like

  14. Quote:
    “you could charge the Koran itself under Danish Law for what it says about Jews and Christians”

    Really?

    You can find a tolerant view of Chritians and Jews in verse 2.62,
    Quote:
    ” Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve”

    quote end.

    It is also possible to interpret passages in the Koran as an excuse for hateful behavior, but unfortunately, you can say the same about the holy bible. The medieval witch processes is only one example.

    The big question is whether Islam is an especially intolerant and hateful religion or if it only have some especially intolerant and hateful supporters. I go for the latter

    /Jan

    Like

    • Jan, always good to hear from you.

      The men of ISIS keep captured civilian women from the territories they conquer as sexual slaves because the Koran specifically says it is permitted. Boko Haram does the same. This is not an “interpretation” of the Koran. It is the clear and undeniable meaning, it was practiced by Mohammed himself, and it is supported by the Hadiths.

      Perhaps you don’t think that keeping a woman captive forever as some sick bastard’s sexual slave is “especially intolerant and hateful” … however, I see no other religion practicing such savagery in the year 2017.

      Regards,

      w.

      Like

      • Well, all civilized Muslims will object to this. Similarly will all civilized Christians object to the bible’s saying that women must be silent in church, and other discriminating phrases in the bible.

        It is possible to dig out some very intolerant phrases from the books we base our religions on, but I do not think it is very fruitful to do it.

        We should rather try to build bridges between the religions.

        /Jan

        Like

        • Jan, I am shocked to my core. You are seriously equating a bible verse about women being silent in church on the one hand, with thousands of men holding women in long-term sexual slavery on the other hand?

          Really?

          That sick moral equivalency is your obscene justification? I thought I’d heard pathetic excuses before, but excusing women actually being held as sexual slaves on the basis of some unknown and unidentified verse in the Bible? Seriously, Jan, your moral compass is more than a few bubbles out of plumb to make that excuse.

          As to “bridges between the religions”, Islam says that anyone who leaves the religion and speaks out about it should be crucified or have one hand and one foot cut off. Please explain to me why I should want to “build a bridge” to such a sick belief. I want to wipe such murderous injunctions off the face of the earth, not build a bridge to them.

          And please don’t claim such practices are somehow equivalent to the injunction in Exodus to kill people who work on Sundays. Nobody has been killed for that in centuries by Christians or Jews, but today, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has to live with bodyguards because she left Islam …

          w.

          Like

          • I am not equating the two; I am just saying that it is possible to dig out some very intolerant verses from these books. There are also more horrifying phrases in the bible, such as “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” which was used to legitimize the medieval witch processes.

            I am not quoting this to put Christians in bad light. Actually, I consider myself as a Christian, going to church in Christmas et cetera, but I strongly oppose the less tolerant verses in the bible. Moreover, I am convinced that there is a solid theological fundament to discard these verses.

            The religion of Islam has more than a billion followers and it is futile to think that we can wipe them off the face of the Earth. What we can hope for is that the theology of Islam will be adopted to the modern world in the same way that Christian theology has adapted Christianity.

            /Jan

            Like

          • There will be no Martin Luther in islam. Every time some one stands up and suggests reforming islam they have their head cut off. You are as much the problem with the human race as islam is. Until both are removed from the gene pool humanity can not take its next evolutionary step forward.

            Like

          • Jan Kjetil Andersen February 26, 2017 at 11:48 pm

            I am not equating the two; I am just saying that it is possible to dig out some very intolerant verses from these books. There are also more horrifying phrases in the bible, such as “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” which was used to legitimize the medieval witch processes.

            I say “women are being held in sexual slavery today”. You reply “it is possible to dig out some very intolerant verses” in holy books.

            I say “Women! Are! Being! Raped! As! We! Speak!”. You say there are “also more horrifying phrases in the Bible”. Yeah, sure, Jan, that makes it all perfectly OK …

            Do you truly not see the obscene equality that you are asserting, that BARBARIC ACTIONS by Muslims are somehow balanced, not by equally horrible Christian actions, but by BAD WORDS in the Bible?

            Gotta say … if yours is any kind of example of the European logic and attitude, it’s no surprise that Europe is bending over for the Muslims. You don’t seem to give a shit if women are being raped, as long as you can claim that Islam is just Christianity in funny hats and we’re all brothers under the skin. We’re not.

            I don’t kill people if they don’t believe as I do. I don’t keep sexual slaves. I don’t beat my wife.

            And all of those actions are SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED BY THE KORAN, all of them are ACTIVELY PRACTICED BY MUSLIMS TODAY, and all of them are approved and applauded by their so-called “holy men”.

            So no, Jan … I don’t want the West to build bridges to Islam. That way lies ruin. I don’t want to move one inch in their direction. I don’t want to normalize their behavior or justify their actions. What needs to happen is that Islam needs to build bridges to us by stopping the damn 7th century barbaric practices.

            w.

            Like

          • I think it is a huge error to view all Muslims as bad People.

            The Terrorists in ISIL and Boko Haram is beyond reach. We cannot build bridges to them. However, there are also millions of modern well-educated Muslims who respect women and the modern society.

            ISIL and Boko Haram are two relatively small and perverted fractions of hateful people who perform horrible thing in the name of Islam. I can imagine how painful it is for modern Muslim people to see their religion being misused by those terrorists.

            It is the other modern Muslims we need to encourage to continue to transform their religion to modern values in the same way that Christianity has been transformed during the last centuries.

            /Jan

            Like

          • As long as the vocal Muslim leaders keep insisting that there is no “extreme Islam” and the majority of Muslims don’t disown and try to curb the terrorists (and in fact tend to go the other way and shelter them), the rest of us are going to be unable to tell the difference between people who are just waiting to get enough power to attack us and these “modern Muslims” that you talk about.

            Christianity had this problem back in the 1500s and 1600s, and it resulted on a lot of war between the factions, but people were very clearly labeled. Islam needs to go through it’s own Reformation, and that can’t be done from the outside.

            Like

          • As already stated, there will be no Reformation in islam, as soon as a Martin Luther stands up he has his head cut off. The three legs of islam fight each other constantly and yet they stand united in war against all outsiders. Leon Uris, The Haj, a very good explanation of islamic ideology.

            Like

    • Really? muslims are raping, robbing and murdering people in the name of allah all over Europe, and you keep defending them. No wonder you are so f**ked.

      Like

    • Oh, this just popped up in my email feed, not sure why stuff comes in out of order. Yea, saw a couple of articles about this. People always seem to think technological advance is a very ordered and step by step progression. Its not. It jerks and twerks and hops around rather chaotically. Discoveries are were more often accidents rather than careful research. Men who worked metal kept their formulas and methods secret for a very long time, and accidental mixing of ores or metals were difficult to reproduce, especially in the ages before written language. Alchemy comes to mind, today most people associate it with witchcraft when it was in fact the basis of much scientific and technological advancement.

      Like

  15. Jan Kjetil Andersen February 27, 2017 at 2:24 am

    I think it is a huge error to view all Muslims as bad People.

    Since you are the only person here who has said anything about all Moslems being bad people, I fear I have no clue what you are talking about. QUOTE WHAT YOU ARE DISCUSSING.

    The Terrorists in ISIL and Boko Haram is beyond reach. We cannot build bridges to them. However, there are also millions of modern well-educated Muslims who respect women and the modern society.

    ISIL and Boko Haram are two relatively small and perverted fractions of hateful people who perform horrible thing in the name of Islam. I can imagine how painful it is for modern Muslim people to see their religion being misused by those terrorists.

    “Relatively small”? Sounds like you listened to Obama when he claimed they were the “Junior Varsity” … if they are “relatively small” how come we’ve been fighting them over and over?

    And what does their size matter? Are you saying that the hundreds of sexual slaves that they are holding are too small to worry about? Are you saying that they are not dangerous?

    As to “misuse” of Islam, two points: a) the Koran specifically says men can keep sexual slaves, and b) Mohammed himself kept sexual slaves. This is not a “misuse” of the religion, is is THE CLEAR INSTRUCTION OF THE KORAN AND THE RECORDED ACTION OF THE FOUNDER OF THE RELIGION! Mohammed himself kept women as sex slaves. You can’t get any more orthodox than that.

    You are a man who is obviously passionate about this subject, which makes your lack of knowledge of Islam most curious. You are accusing ISIS of a “misuse of Islam” for doing what Mohammed himself did … how does that work?

    Misuse of Islam? My friend … you desperately need to read the Koran. Beating your wife and keeping sexual slaves IS Islam.

    It is the other modern Muslims we need to encourage to continue to transform their religion to modern values in the same way that Christianity has been transformed during the last centuries.

    That is a pipe dream. Islam has not changed in fourteen centuries. Judaism had a reformation. Christianity had a reformation. But Islam never has. Not for lack of trying—Baha’ullah tried, and his followers have been ruthlessly slaughtered by Orthodox Muslims ever since. Kinda put the damper on anyone trying the same …

    So yes, in some alternative universe we could successfully encourage Muslims to do what they have refused to do for fourteen centuries, to reform their own religion.

    And if you want to wait for that … well, you better have a basement full of canned goods, it’ll be a long, long wait.

    w.

    Like

    • You say, quote:
      “Beating your wife and keeping sexual slaves IS Islam.”
      Quote end.

      Both the Koran and the Bible as well as the Torah have many verses that seems to be in conflict with each other. This means that there are ample room for enemies of the religions to find evidence of the hatefulness in each of the religions. However, that is not a very fair way to judge the religions because it does not take into account the tradition from the theological interpretations, which have been developed over centuries.

      A better way is to listen to what the modern Muslims and their Imams say about these topics. Such topics are for instance discussed on Islamic web sites such as this: http://www.islamicity.org/forum/

      All modern Muslims as well as their Imams will disagree with your statement above; they will say that no-one shall be kept as slaves or beaten in our societies today.

      As I have pointed to above, the Koran also contain very tolerant verses such as the cow 2.62.

      We should give the Muslims opportunity to answer whether the verses, which seems hateful to us shall be taken literally, before we claim that this is the only way the Koran can be read.

      /Jan

      Like

      • You defend muslim terrorism, yes, holding people in slavery, beating/raping/sodomizing them, is terrorism, and decry christians as being the evil ones. Done with you, dhimmi, go pay your jizya and grovel at the blood soaked feet of your muslim owners..

        Like

      • Jan Kjetil Andersen February 27, 2017 at 1:45 pm

        We should give the Muslims opportunity to answer whether the verses, which seems hateful to us shall be taken literally, before we claim that this is the only way the Koran can be read.

        Or we could ask the women held in sexual slavery whether their captors take literally the Koran verse authorizing their slavery …

        Dear heavens, Jan, you are debating how many Europeans can dance on the head of a pin while women are being raped BECAUSE OF THE KORAN! There is no other reason that ISIS and Boko Haram keep sexual slaves. They are observant Orthodox Muslims, and they wouldn’t do it if the Koran didn’t authorize it.

        Finally, asking Muslims if the Koran authorizes beating their wives is gonna be like asking your barber if you need a haircut … if you want real answers, ask the slaves, not the masters. Among other problems, the masters are PERMITTED BY THEIR RELIGION TO LIE TO YOU! It’s spelled out in the Koran, and as a result, anyone believing them without first checking is a fool.

        Jan, when a man’s “religion” says he is justified in flat-out lying to your infidel ass, AS THE KORAN DOES, you are more than welcome to believe his answers … me, I’ll pass on that bit of gullibility. You might do well to google “taqiyyah” …

        Seems you just sit around and play with ideas and think up wonderful theoretical excuses to continue believing that Islam doesn’t condone sexual slavery … and doing that when women are actually enslaved is despicable.

        You are indeed making it clear why Europe is becoming the land of the dhimmis. I wish you the joy of your new neighbors.

        w.

        Like

        • “Jan, when a man’s “religion” says he is justified in flat-out lying to your infidel ass, AS THE KORAN DOES, you are more than welcome to believe his answers”

          Although I know quite a few Muslim people, none of them has actually taught me anything new about Islam. Most people are a bit shy about explaining their own religious belief, and in my experience, Muslims seems to be more so than others.

          However, a good source to learning something about Islam is to look at discussion forums meant for Muslim writers and readers. There you can see people putting forward their honest concerns and receiving different answers like this about sex slaves: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?288555-Sex-with-slaves-Global-misunderstanding-or-permissible-!

          Discussions like this about how to understand the problematic verses give me a hope for modernization of Islam. No doubt that the there is a room for modernization. All the different branches that exist of Islam shows that there are different ways to interpret the scriptures and some of those branches are more modern and more in line with human rights than others.

          Anyway, I think I have made my point for this time; I believe it is possible reach out a hand for more dialogue with the Muslim community. Therefore, I say thank you Willis for an interesting discussion. Always enjoyable to discuss with you.

          /Jan

          Like

  16. Jan Kjetil Andersen February 28, 2017 at 11:53 am

    “Jan, when a man’s “religion” says he is justified in flat-out lying to your infidel ass, AS THE KORAN DOES, you are more than welcome to believe his answers”

    Although I know quite a few Muslim people, none of them has actually taught me anything new about Islam. Most people are a bit shy about explaining their own religious belief, and in my experience, Muslims seems to be more so than others.

    However, a good source to learning something about Islam is to look at discussion forums meant for Muslim writers and readers. There you can see people putting forward their honest concerns and receiving different answers like this about sex slaves: http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?288555-Sex-with-slaves-Global-misunderstanding-or-permissible-!

    You can believe that … or instead of being misled by talk, you can look at people’s actions.

    The actions of Mohammed were that he kept sexual slaves. The actions of the men described in the Hadiths were that they kept sexual slaves. The actions of the men of ISIS are that they keep sexual slaves. The actions of men of Boko Haram are that they keep sexual slaves.

    All of them, hundreds of thousands of men over the centuries, including Mohammed, have based their keeping female prisoners of war as sexual slaves on the crystal-clear instructions of Allah as recorded in the Koran. In the Koran, slaves are called “those who your right hand possesses”; and “made lawful” means lawful for sex. Here’s the verse:

    Qur’an 33:50—O Prophet! surely We have made lawful to you your wives whom you have given their dowries, and those whom your right hand possesses out of those whom Allah has given to you as prisoners of war …

    Now, it appears you are impressed by the silver tongues of the Muslim apologists who will offer up fifty-six reasons why that verse doesn’t say what it clearly and obviously says.

    I, on the other hand, am impressed by the number of women raped over the centuries and the number of women being raped today based on that Sura of the Koran. There is no extremism involved. A simple honest reading of Sura 33:50 is all it takes. It says yes, you can rape female prisoners of war. PERIOD.

    Discussions like this about how to understand the problematic verses give me a hope for modernization of Islam. No doubt that the there is a room for modernization. All the different branches that exist of Islam shows that there are different ways to interpret the scriptures and some of those branches are more modern and more in line with human rights than others.

    I’m sure that they will tell you that. But ask them if the Koran is the inerrant word of God … every sect, every branch will tell you yes, every verse is holy writ.

    Which means that even though they personally may abhor and hate sexual slavery, they have to admit that it is SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED UNDER ISLAM. People often wonder why Muslims don’t speak out against this horrific practice.

    That is speaking directly against the Koran … and that is something that no observant Muslim can do.

    Anyway, I think I have made my point for this time; I believe it is possible reach out a hand for more dialogue with the Muslim community. Therefore, I say thank you Willis for an interesting discussion. Always enjoyable to discuss with you.

    You have made your point, but I fear it is not the one you hoped to make. You’ve made the point that you care more about the deceptive pleasantries of apologist mullahs and imams than you care about innocent women being raped today as we talk about this.

    To me, that’s sick. I don’t give a rat’s ass about, what was it, oh, yeah, “different ways to interpret the scriptures”. You can kiss up to the Moslems regarding the Koran all you want … or you can READ IT YOURSELF.

    Me, I’m concerned with women being raped based on the crystal-clear injunction of Sura 33:50.

    Your obsession with words and discussions and talk while ignoring the obvious problems makes perfect sense when I look at Europe, and the rapes, assaults, and sexual harassment you folks have invited in and allowed to be imposed on the women there because “religious freedom”. The day after Sweden went all “Who, us? No, President Trump, we have no Muslim problem!” a suburb of Stockholm went up in flames … deny the clear evidence of sexual slavery as to the true nature of the Koran all you want, Jan, but that doesn’t make it go away.

    w.

    Like

    • > But ask them if the Koran is the inerrant word of God … every sect, every branch will tell you yes, every verse is holy writ.

      Well, most branches of Christianity will say the same thing about the Bible, including it’s oddities.

      Don’t get distracted by this, instead do as you keep saying, look at their actions, not their words.

      If this was just smallish fringe groups that were showing their odd beliefs and acting only on concenting adults (i.e. Mormans and Poligamy) it’s possible to live-and-let-live.

      But when they insist on conversion by the sword and not allowing people to live by other religions, something needs to be done.

      ISIS and the Palistinians are poster-child examples of this today, and you don’t see mass condemnation of them by other Muslims.

      A couple decades ago, Ireland was being torn up by Catholics vs Protestant, but both sides were condemmed by the larger world, including by Catholics and Protestants around the world.

      Christanity prior to 1700 had a similar problem to Islam today, where Religion was considered something for the Government (i.e. King) to impose on their subjects, and go to war over with the expectation that the sides in the war would fall very neatly into the competing religious grouping.

      Until Islam goes through the same process, it can’t be seriously treated as equivalent to the other religions that do accept the existance of competition, and the concept that secular laws take precident.

      Like

  17. davidelang February 28, 2017 at 12:50 pm

    But ask them if the Koran is the inerrant word of God … every sect, every branch will tell you yes, every verse is holy writ.

    Well, most branches of Christianity will say the same thing about the Bible, including it’s oddities.

    Not true. For example, despite the clear biblical instructions in Exodus, most branches of Christianity do NOT kill people for working on Sunday, and they are quite happy to speak against that particular verse. Far from saying that they are valid and divinely inspired, most Xtian sects ignore most of the rules Old Testament.

    And most sects of Christianity take many things, like say the “Garden of Eden”, as allegory.

    But Islam is an “all or nothing” deal. Why? Because there’s never been a reformation in Islam. So you don’t get to say “I’m chill with giving alms to the poor, but praying five times a day is SOOO seventh century, I’ll give that one a complete miss.”

    Which is why these barbaric practices still exist. Yes, various Muslims often decide to not actively practice some things that are specifically permitted, like sexual slavery or beating your wife. But they can’t deny that doing those things is specifically permitted in the Koran. And that keeps them from criticizing the practice, because that would be speaking against the Koran.

    Thanks for the comment,

    w.

    Like

    • I didn’t say that they kill people for working on Sunday. I said that if you ask them if the Bible is the literal word of God and everything in it is accurate, they would agree with the statement (the more sophisticated may qualify it by saying things like “there are errors in translations” or “Inspired by God” instead of “literal word” or that the New Testament superceeds the old, but they won’t be able to list what parts of the Old can be ignored)

      But while they would agree with the blanket statement, they would go ahead an happily ignore parts of it that are considered too extreme.

      So the fact that Muslims will make a similar statement about the Koran is a red herring and invited Islamic Apologists to make the equivalancy argument.

      Rather than beating the drum about how they agree that the Koran is the “literal word of God”, beat the drum instead about how they act and use the Koran as justification.

      Like

      • Thanks, David. I fear you’ve missed the distinction, likely my lack of clarity.

        The difference is that observant Muslims believe that all of the laws, rules, and strictures of the Koran, every line and verse, are eternal, as valid today as they were in the year 632. So they continue to chop off hands for theft and keep sexual slaves.

        Christians and Jews, on the other hand, think that some or many of the laws, rules, and strictures of the Bible are NOT valid today. They don’t stone people to death, despite it happening in the Bible.

        What difference does this make? It means that Christians and Jews no longer kill people for working on Sunday, although that is a clear law in their holy books. They know that some of the laws in their holy book are no longer valid in the 21st century (or the sixth century for that matter).

        And it also means that Muslims practice sexual slavery because being an observant Muslim means you believe all of the laws of the Koran are still as valid as the day they were written.

        And if you don’t believe me … ask an educated observant Muslim which verses of the Koran are no longer valid. Want to know the first person who will cross his mind? Salman Rushdie.

        The reason that Salman Rushdie had a freaking DEATH SENTENCE put on his sorry ass was for asking that exact question—are there verses of the Koran laying down laws and strictures that are no longer valid or were never valid? He called these verses the “Satanic Verses”, based on an old Islamic legend that when the Koran was being written down well after Mohammed’s death, Shaitan himself slipped a few bogus inflammatory verses in there just to screw with Allah’s perfect and eternal word.

        For his troubles, Rushdie had to live with bodyguards for decades under the threat of death.

        That’s the difference I’m pointing to. Christians and Jews don’t pass a death sentence on a man for asking if some verses of the Bible contain laws that are no longer relevant.

        Muslims do.

        That’s what I meant when I said that there is a very fundamental difference between Islam and the other world religions. Muslims are still stuck in the 7th century because they take the Koran literally, and say that every verse of it contains eternally valid laws for human behavior. Christians and Jews on the other hand got rid of the savage and inhuman laws long ago.

        w.

        Like

  18. I doubt that they read Satanic Verses before issuing that fatwa, just the title.

    The story of the Satanic Verses goes all the way back. Usually we say Mohammed changed his mind, then he blamed it on Russian hackers. The truely faithful say it never happened since Allah could not allow Mohammed to make a mistake.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_Verses

    The fatma was renewed; the bounty is now $600,000.
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/salman-rushdie-iranian-state-media-renew-fatwa-on-satanic-verses-author-with-600000-bounty-a6887141.html

    Like

  19. Hi Willis,

    Slightly different but in a similar vein that might just interest you from the UK – particularly in regard to the selective application of laws depending on religious, racial or political background.

    We have what is known as a ‘Section 5, Public Order Offence’.

    The legislation defines section 5 :

    Harassment, alarm or distress.

    (1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
    (a)uses threatening words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
    (b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening ,
    within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.

    A friend, who is a barister (legal counsel), told me of this and explained that under its strict interpretation if she were walking down the street and I called out to attract her attention and she was in any way startled by that then I had committed an offence !!

    It was used by police against a friend of my daughter in the following circumstamces. A fight at the other end of a bar he was innocently drinking in led to bottles and glasses being thrown about. One glass smashed in his face leaving him badly cut around his eye and bleeding heavily.

    The police and an ambulance were called but by the time the police arrived the people who had been fighting had left – they didn’t want to get arrested. My daughter’s friend was led outside by the police to wait for the ambulance and sat bleeding on the pavement.

    Now this was shortly after targets for police forces had been introduced by the government; they had to achieve certain percentages of crime clear-up and police chiefs were pushing this onto police officers.

    So the police had been called to a brawl where the people responsible had fled. All that was left was the innocent victim who then, while waiting for the ambulance, made a fatal mistake. He turned to one of the officers and said ” Where the f**k is the ambulance”.

    That was it, one police officer claimed to have been caused “alarm and distress” by his use of the F word and immediately issued him with a fixed penalty £70 fine. Job done as far as the police were concerned – a crime reported, a ‘villain’ receiving a Fixed Penalty Punishment and, most importantly, a tick in the right box as ‘incident cleared up with penalty notice isued’ for the crime statistics.

    Now that was simply bad policing caused by political targets.

    But I then saw another instance where the police totally ignored this law because it was being broken by Animal Rights activists, the long term darlings (and sometime paymasters) of the left-wing liberal elite then in government.

    The company my daughter worked for was targetted by Animal Rights activists trying to force them to stop doing business with a company that the activists were trying to close down. In normal fashion they had picketted the entrance to the company with banners, loud hailers and were stopping every vehicle entering or leaving to shout abuse at the driver.

    My daughter called me as she was worried about leaving work and so I drove down with a video camera, saw what was going on with a group of around 6 police officers standing watching the 20 or more ‘protestors’ but doing nothing to stop or moderate them.

    I simply got out the camera and stood there filming them, an officer came over and demanded to know what I was doing. I told him about my daughter and that I was filming to record what the activists and the police were doing and that I would ensure she was able to leave work safely without being threatened or suffering abuse.

    He went to fetch his sergeant and while he was the leader of the activists stormed over to me and, with his snarling face about 2 inches from mine, demanded to know what I was doing. I calmly told him – I don’t do backing down to bullies and I will continue to film you with a view to a prosecution of you all if you carry on as you are now

    I then spoke to the police Sergeant and reminded him of Section 5 and that it was abundantly clear from what I had already filmed that these activists were causing alarm and fear amongst employees of the company. I asked why they had not already arrested or moved the activists on for breaches of section 5 He gave a lame excuse that he was only instructed to watch and monitor what was going on.

    I responded that I was filming it all and unless it was stopped immediately i would bring private prosecutions against all concerned. That finally did the trick and he then told the activists that unless they left immediately they would all be arrested and charged unser Section 5. They went.

    And the point of this is that had my daughter not called me, and had I not done what I did the police would have selectively ignored this Public Order offence because it was being committed by animal rights activists.

    Like

    • Another tragedy from across the pond … thanks, Roger. The whole thing starts from a common point—FREEDOM OF SPEECH. We have it, and you poor blokes don’t. Instead, you have all kinds of very vague worthless laws criminalizing something called “hate speech” which is left vague intentionally so it can be used against whoever the authorities don’t like.

      I have no clue why y’all have put up with that for so long … but I definitely feel for you. A law against anything which is “likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress” in todays snowflake world includes anything you might possibly say or do. Those jokers have vapors and fainting spells when someone says “Trump” in their presence.

      We have our problems here in the USA, but at least we have freedom of speech. I see Marine Le Pen is about to get busted because when someone compared her party to ISIS, she posted photos of what ISIS had done to show the difference between the two.

      Clearly, the crime here is not posting the photos. The crime is DOING what ISIS is doing … but the braindead Eurotrash are going to nail her to the wall for SHOWING what ISIS is doing.

      That is as dumb as a bag of ball bearings, and a tragic milestone on the road to the end of European civilization. When people care more about pictures of atrocities than the atrocities themselves, that “civilization” has jumped the shark.

      w.

      Like

You are invited to add your comments. Please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE DISCUSSING so we can all be clear on your subject.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s