UKIP candidate: ‘Koran is worse than Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf’

A candidate for UKIP has compared Islam’s holiest book to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, Political Scrapbook can reveal. Academic Julia Gasper — a former Westminster hopeful and current council candidate in Oxford – said the Koran was “fascist” and compared those who defend Islam to holocaust deniers.

In emails seen by Scrapbook, Gasper ranted:

“Why is it any more wrong to assert that the Koran is a fascist book than to assert that Mein Kampf is a fascist book? The Koran is a lot more explicit in advocating hate and murder than Mein Kampf is.”

Having dismissed comparisons between sections of the Koran and the Old Testament as “not valid”, Gasper responded to suggestions that her hateful bile was demonising Muslims:

“Words like “demonization” are just self-deception. They are being used to persuade you to keep your eyes shut. In fact, the apologists for Islam are really very similiar to Holocaust deniers.”

To compound matters, the rant comes to light as another UKIP candidate is suspended for expressing sympathies with Norwegian mass-murder Anders Breivik – and just days after Julia Gasper herself was slammed for saying gays should stop ‘complaining about persecution’ and start thanking straight people for giving birth to them.

Looks like they’ll be making that a double suspension then.

190 Comments

  1. Michael Short says:

    All Abrahamic religious, be it Muslim, Jewish or Christian texts ARE horrendous books, it might not be nice to say so but if people want to throw themselves behind a particular deity they should actually read the texts. Most Christian’s these days choose to understand vaguely that God doesn’t really like gays, but they don’t read the same Leviticus where you can enslave people and murder people.

    Religion should hurry up and die out, in my lifetime please, I’d like Humanity to be able to just get on with it without people getting upset about their particular brand of book.

  2. Joe Paxton says:

    I have to agree with Michael…the Bible, the Torah and the Koran are all pretty nasty. I don’t understand myself how religious people can choose to ignore certain parts of them and believe others…it makes no sense to me.

    However, in Julia Gasper’s case, she’s clearly saying this to win the votes of disaffected Tories who are annoyed that this current government seem to be taking an even more lax line on national security / extremism than Labour was. It’s a blatant electioneering move, and it stinks.

  3. Since your website has decided to ignore the privacy laws, I will say that these e-mails do not say anything controversial.
    I have a copy of the Koran in my house and it is on a shelf in this room. I iinvite you come over to my house tomorrow morning or later this evening if you like and have a look inside it with me calmly and in an adult fashion.
    “The Koran, the Holy Book of Islam, translated by E.H. Palmer [ he was a leading Oxford scholar in Arabic] with an introduction by R. A. Nicholson, published by Watkins Publishing Company, London 1990, reprinted 2007.
    page 88. of unbelievers “They would fain that ye misbelieve as they misbelieve, but if they turn their backs, then seize them and kill them wheresoever you find them.” etc etc.
    page 169. “But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them”. [genocide is not to committed in Ramadam, you see. Only after it!]
    page 460 “And when ye meet those who misbelieve – then striking off heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds”.
    Those are only three examples of many that I picked out at random.
    I have a D. Phil in literature from Oxford University and when I talk about any book, I know what I am talking about.
    This book can be read by anyone and if England is still a free country, anyone is entitled to tell anyone else what is in it. Or are you denying freedom of speech and freedom of expression? Both are guaranteed to me under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
    In recent times – during the past year in fact – there has been news from around the world of Christians being persecuted by Muslims in Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt. Churches and villages have been burnt down and many lives have been lost. I suggest that you start by looking at websites such as :-
    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/11604/muslim-persecution-of-christians-march-2012

    That is only 1% of the evidence! Other evidence comes from sources as widely respected as Amnesty International. To my mind, it is shameful that the media in this country continue to
    exclude and ignore news of this kind and refuse to give an honest picture of what is happening in the world.
    If you try to launch a witch-hunt against me, you will get nowhere. Criticizing Islam is not racist, and you don’t have to be white to do it. People who know me personally will tell you that I have never behaved in anything but a fair and friendly way to any individual who happens to be born into a Muslim family.
    Personally I find it offensive that your website is setting out to suppress freedom of speech, thought and opinion in this country.
    And I conclude by saying:-
    >>> I am proud to be a campaigner for freedom of speech in this and future elections.<<<

  4. PS As for the person above who says I said or wrote these things as a “blatant electioneering move”: you are clearly unaware that they were stolen from private e-mails, re-edited, twisted and sent to the website by a malicious person without my knowledge.
    So that’s something else you owe me an apology for!

  5. @ Michael Short: Christians don’t believe in the laws of Leviticus. I am not a religious fundamentalist, but I think you have got it wrong about Christianity. Jews too have moved on a lot in the last three thousand years and their religion has evolved and grown more spiritual. Islam is not really the same issue.

  6. mike cobley says:

    Dr G – you do make a reasonable point in that mainstream Christianity and Judaism tends to disregard the more primitive and tribalistic elements of their holy texts; however, those unenlightened passages remain in the books, to be handed down generation after generation, and as you may know there are certain powerful elements of the faith-based community who call themselves Christians or followers of Judaism but who elevate the aforementioned brutal sections, at times to the exclusion/sidelining of the more merciful aspects. Point is, there are plenty of spokesmen/women in all the Abrahamic faiths willing to go down the merciless-punishment route to draconian theocracy. Your one-sided finger-pointing is, shall we say, less than helpful.

    And incidentally, have you ever read a definition of fascism? I dont think I’ve seen passages from the Bible, Torah or Koran which encourage the merging of government and corporations, but if you know of them please dont keep them to yourself!

  7. Julia has the right to free speech, when you take away that right you have a totalitarian regime. The reason why Christians may not take Leviticus seriously in relation to today, is that Jesus brought in a new covenant. That covenant was to love your neighbour as you love yourself and to love the Lord your God. The book of Romans in the New Testament (the New Covenant that Jesus brought in) does speak out against Homosexuality and some say it even warns of Aids/HIV. It is not Christians picking and choosing what they believe.

  8. Robert says:

    QUOTE Christians don’t believe in the laws of Leviticus. END OF QUOTE – Really? All of them?
    Anyway, I think there’s enough craziness in the New Testament without having to resort to Leviticus.

    If you’re bothered about the content of these “private” emails why do then spout on about freedom of speech? PS is showing everyone just exactly what you think, you should applaud them…

    And you know, your boasting about your D Phil has never been a good look…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wWUc8BZgWE

  9. Al says:

    We all have the right of free speech, so:

    ‘Doctor’ Julia Gasper is an unpleasant twat of a person whose interest in self-publicity seemingly revolves around making populist, quasi-fascistic attacks on minorities, and whose deserve nothing but contempt.

    Free speech innit.

  10. Edward says:

    To be fair, the doctorate looks to be legit. On the other hand, she’s an independent scholar, so describing her as an academic is pushing it somewhat.

  11. Al says:

    P.S. Odd that Gasper feels the need to go on the defensive. She ought to know that the best way to quash any negative publicity, is to ignore it. I have a feeling she’s one that just can’t accept her views being challenged as ignorant and downright unpleasant.

    “I have a D. Phil in literature from Oxford University and when I talk about any book, I know what I am talking about.”

    Oh puleeese. Why not try appling your critical faculties to, I don’t know, the Bible as well. Also, if you really WERE such an outstanding critic blah blah you’d know that the Classical Arabic of the Qur’an (and, incidentally, any translation is not considered valid by Muslims, it is merely an ‘interpretation’) makes Hitler’s prose look like… well, Hitler’s prose.

    Is this seriously the quality of UKIP candidates? They’re in more trouble than I thought :-D

  12. Al says:

    Actually one last comment – most of the UKIP website is worse than Mein Kampf.

  13. torycunt says:

    Last name: The Ghost

    Gasper is the middle name.

  14. Clearly it is Al who is ignorant and cannot bear to have the malicious smears of the article above thoroughly refuted in a professional academic manner.
    Nothing on the UKIP website has ever resembled Mein Kampf, but you lefties are too busy reading the theories of mid-Victorian economists like Karl Marx to read anything up to date!

  15. Alan says:

    Mike & Dr Julia – Christians do not disregard any of the Bible – all of it points to Jesus Christ. The Levitican laws however are LARGELY to do with the Jews and God`s Covenant with them. Therefore many of the laws do not apply to the `Gentiles` ie not eating pork or shellfish (which carried diseases like tapeworms etc). I think you need to go a little deeper with regards the OT and what it means to Christians and the various prophesies in it that come to pass in the NT. The whole point is that we are ALL sinners in need of a Saviour and that of ourselves we cannot attain salvation by being `good`.

    The whole Bible is about Christ
    http://marshill.com/media/luke/the-bible-is-about-jesus

  16. Paul Wiffen says:

    It might interest you all to know that Winston Churchill compared the Koran to Mein Kampf and warned repeatedly of the violent regressive nature of this political ideology masquerading as a religion: Here are some more of his wise words, written over 100 years ago. “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! . The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient” Rome.

  17. Jon W says:

    @ Gasper

    You’re a crackpot.

  18. Jon W says:

    @wiffen

    No one cares.

  19. Robert says:

    QUOTE you lefties are too busy reading the theories of mid-Victorian economists like Karl Marx to read anything up to date! END OF QUOTE

    From academia edu.:

    My first book The Dragon and the Dove: the Plays of Thomas Dekker, was published by OUP in 1990.
    My second book, a biography of Theodore von Neuhoff, King of Corsica, was written with a research grant from the Cotton Foundation for Mediterranean Studies. It has been accepted for publication by Delaware University Press, U.S.A.
    I am currently working on a critical biography of the Marquis d’Argens, philosopher and novelist 1704-1771.

    And the last time I checked the Bible was written when exactly?

  20. Psalm says:

    @ Dr Julia Gasper

    I might take a slightly different slant on this.

    Firstly, I agree with your comment regarding the Koran. I might even add here that it is both the Koran and the Hadith that are despicable and fascist. The Koran is largely without context if not read with the Hadith in mind. The Hadith reveal the character, conduct and example of Mohammad (i.e. raping a 9 year old child, slaughtering those who disagreed with him (esp Jews), etc).

    Secondly, while I agree that there is no comparison between the Old Testament and the Koran, I do not hold this view based on “Jews and Christians having moved on”. The reason why there is no comparison is based simply on the texts. The wars fought by the Israelites, for example, are HISTORICAL. These are not wars meant to be fought ad infitinum. The Old Testament text is clear in that it reports the events. It gives the record.

    As for Leviticus, even if the Jews believed in carrying out the laws set out in Leviticus, this would only affect the Jews – not the gentiles. The laws are based on covenant/agreement. Furthermore, Leviticus (unlike the Koran) has no concept of Judaization of the world. Jews are no called upon to enforce their laws against gentiles and Jews have NEVER fought any war to spread Judaism (not even in the historical wars mentioned in the Old Tetstament). Muslims have waged endless Jihad against non-Muslims and where Muslims rule and enforce Shariah, Islamic fascism takes over and non-Muslims are either slaughtered or oppressed severely.

    I might also wish to add this: as much as the ignorant wish to point to the Old Testament wars as “evidence” of “barbarism”, they forget that it is the Old Testament that COMMANDS Jews to LOVE THEIR NEIGHBOURS AS THEY LOVE THEMSELVES. This commandment is reiterated by Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

    It also noteworthy, that the Greatest Jew (i.e. Jesus Christ) summarised that this supposedly “barbaric” Old Testament Law into 2 Laws: 1. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and strength and 2. love your neighbour as yourself.

    That is how the Old Testament Law is summed up. That is the Law that is fully revealed in the New Testament.

    How shall we sum up the law of the Koran and the Hadith? There isn’t even a comparison between the Bible and the Koran (and Hadith).

    Having said that, I admire your courage in speaking unpopular truth. I hope you will not back down or retract. Explain your point, yes. Back do not ever retreat. I also hope UKIP will be principled enough to support you. If not, they should not even attempt presenting themselves as an alternative to the “mere politics” of the Tories.

  21. Linda Hudson says:

    Religion is man made, faith is an entirely different matter beacause it is individual, personal, and has God in charge, who has the first and last word for everyone and everything, no man made religion should have any respect or place in our world, that advocates murder, torture, slavery, or any other primitive practices, and culture, that is what will serve only to bring war and destruction on a world scale!

  22. Al says:

    Loooooooool.

    As I suspected.

    Oh, and I’m guessing you don’t value Adam Smith much, then.

    Sheesh, get a life.

  23. Nigel Farage says:

    What planet is this woman on?

  24. A Friend In Light says:

    Curious to know the motivations behind Dr Gasper’s stance? Why bash Muslims in particular, and why now? Easy targets? Prejudice? To gain far right kudos? So sad, really, that we can’t all get along and tolerate each other. Doubtless she’d say, tell it to the Muslims – but most Muslims (actually, ALL Muslims) I know are extremely tolerant. Religion is a flawed human creation, so should we chuck the baby out with the bath water? There are elements in every holy book which can be used to justify slavery, torture, murder, rape etc etc. Why pick on the Qur’an? And how deeply offensive to compare it to the work of an architect of genocide. The majority of Muslims are peace-loving and have no interest in the violence of al-Qa’ida et al: violence which, I might add, is much more often directed against fellow Muslims (Iraq, Afghanistan etc) than anyone else.

  25. Leon Georgiou says:

    Julia, the fact that you picked those verses out at random is precisely the problem—they need to be read in context otherwise you wind up with absurd beliefs, such as that the Qur’an is worse than Mein Kampf!

    This verse was revealed towards the end of the revelation period and relates to a limited context. Hostilities were frozen for a three-month period during which the Arabs pledged not to wage war. Prophet Muhammad was inspired to use this period to encourage the combatants to join the Muslim ranks or, if they chose, to leave the area that was under Muslims rule; however, if they were to resume hostilities, then the Muslims would fight back until victorious. One is inspired to note that even in this context of war, the verse concludes by emphasizing the divine attributes of mercy and forgiveness. To minimize hostilities, the Qur’an ordered Muslims to grant asylum to anyone, even an enemy, who sought refuge. Asylum would be granted according to the customs of chivalry; the person would be told the message of the Qur’an but not coerced into accepting that message. Thereafter, he or she would be escorted to safety regardless of his or her religion. (9:6). (Hathout, Jihad vs. Terrorism; US Multimedia Vera International, 2002, pp.52-53)

    Therefore, this verse once again refers to those pagans who would continue to fight after the period of peace. It clearly commands the Muslims to protect those who seek peace and are non-combatants. It is a specific verse with a specific ruling and can in no way be applied to general situations. The command of the verse was only to be applied in the event of a battle. As Abdullah Yusuf Ali writes:

    The emphasis is on the first clause: it is only when the four months of grace are past, and the other party show no sign of desisting from their treacherous design by right conduct, that the state of war supervenes – between Faith and Unfaith. (Yusuf Ali, The Holy Qur’an, Text, Translation and Commentary, emphasis added)

    If the Pagans would not cease their hostilities towards the Muslims, then they were to be fought, especially since they were living in the land of an Islamic state. Dr. Zakir Naik writes concerning this verse:

    ‘This verse is quoted during a battle. We know that America was once at war with Vietnam. Suppose the President of America or the General of the American Army told the American soldiers during the war: “Wherever you find the Vietnamese, kill them”. Today if I say that the American President said, “Wherever you find Vietnamese, kill them” without giving the context, I will make him sound like a butcher. But if I quote him in context, that he said it during a war, it will sound very logical, as he was trying to boost the morale of the American soldiers during the war. Similarly, in Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 5 the Qur’an says, “Kill the mushrikiin (Pagans) where ever you find them”, during a battle to boost the morale of the Muslim soldiers. What the Qur’an is telling Muslim soldiers is, don’t be afraid during battle; wherever you find the enemies kill them. Surah Taubah chapter 9 verse 6 gives the answer to the allegation that Islam promotes violence, brutality and bloodshed. It says:

    “If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure that is because they are men without knowledge.” (Qur’an 9:6)

    The Qur’an not only says that a mushrik seeking asylum during the battle should be granted refuge, but also that he should be escorted to a secure place. In the present international scenario, even a kind, peace-loving army General, during a battle, may let the enemy soldiers go free, if they want peace. But which army General will ever tell his soldiers, that if the enemy soldiers want peace during a battle, don’t just let them go free, but also escort them to a place of security? This is exactly what Allah says in the Qur’an to promote peace in the world.

    In conclusion, you cannot infer a general command from random cherrypicking, Julia, when the context is referring to the battlefield.

    As for the hadith, they are HEARSAY attributions to the Prophet. They could well be untrue and they often contradict the Qur’an. The Qur’anist or Qur’an-only movement in Islam seeks to trash the hadith and the sunnah altogether. According to the Qur’an itself, it is haram to make attach fabrications to God and should be used alone. Indeed, the Prophet himself prohibited writing down his sayings (and the hadith were first compiled over a hundred years after his death, questioning their authenticity anyway):

    Qur’an 16:116: “You shall not utter lies with your own tongues stating: ‘This is lawful, and this is unlawful’, to fabricate lies and attribute them to God. Surely, those who fabricate lies and attribute them to God will never succeed.”

    Qur’an 10:59: “Say, ‘Did you note how God sends down to you all kinds of provisions, then you render some of them unlawful, and some lawful?’ Say, ‘Did God give you permission to do this? Or, do you fabricate lies and attribute them to God?’”

    Qur’an 6:115: “The word of your Lord is complete, in truth and justice. Nothing shall abrogate His words. He is the Hearer, the Omniscient.”

    Qur’an 5:16: “These are the verses of Allah that we recite to you in truth. Then in what statement after Allah and His verses will they believe?”

    Qur’an 39:23: “Allah has sent down the best statement [hadith]: a consistent Book wherein is reiteration. The skins shiver therefrom of those who fear their Lord; then their skins and their hearts relax at the remembrance of Allah. That is the guidance of Allah by which He guides whom He wills. And one whom Allah leaves astray—for him there is no guide.”

    Qur’an 77:50: “Then in what statement [hadith] after the Qur’an will they believe?”

    The Prophet himself lived and preached by the Word of God alone:

    Qur’an 5:49: “And judge, [O Muhammad], between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their inclinations and beware of them, lest they tempt you away from some of what Allah has revealed to you. And if they turn away—then know that Allah only intends to afflict them with some of their [own] sins. And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient.”

    I am not a Muslim or an apologist for the faith, but I simply do not share the hatred of the religion as many seem to in my party. I believe that the Qur’an is a book of moderation and clemency—far more so than the Bible!—and has many practical elements in its guide. If I were not an atheist, I would probably be a Muslim. There is a strong libertarian streak in Islam too.

  26. wayne riley says:

    i love this women!!!! well said! the koran is nothing but filth…..muhammad was a dirty thief, murderer, rapist, and a horrid filthy paedophile…..these where just a few of his dirty little deeds…islam is the vilest thing on his planet……the word RETARDS comes to mind……

  27. Basem Emara says:

    Ignorance comes to mind. If you only read a couple verses before or after these snippets in the Quran, you will see it is referring to those who kick you out of your home or fight you, etc. It does not make sense for a billion muslims to go around killing people for religion or no reason, otherwise there would be a lot less people on earth. Use your sense and look beyond some snippets. At least look at a couple verses before or ahead. Here is an example:

    “And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” [Quran, 2:191]

    BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERSE ***BEFORE*** IT:

    “Fight in the cause of Allah those WHO FIGHT YOU but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.” [Quran, 2:190]

    Now let’s put that together:

    “Fight in the cause of Allah those WHO FIGHT YOU but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors. And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.” [Quran, 2:190-191]

    You see how you haters of Islam have been played into the agenda of the war mongers? Do not be a fool and actually read instead of taking the words of politicians who just want war for oil and colonialization.

    Islam is a call to peace; it abhors war, but cannot prevent it, hence it prepares for it, but does not wage it unless it is forced upon it, which is due to Islam’s realistic nature and its recognition of the law of mutual checking. Gets your facts right instead of hating from ignorance.

  28. Ibrahim says:

    As an impartial observer, everything Ms Gasper has stated is documented and correct.

  29. Jon W says:

    @ ‘Ibrahim’ You’re fooling nobody ;)

    Also, what is with the suggestion that there’s been no ‘leftie’ economists since Marx? Paul Krugman says hi XD

  30. Ibrahim says:

    “Jon W”, please tell me everything that Ms Gasper has said that was incorrect and I will address your point.

  31. Emily Roberts says:

    Why do parties like UKIP and the BNP keep recruiting the vilest possible candidates? Surely these parties must have some remotely sane and normal people who would put themselves forward for elections? Or maybe not…

  32. Ibrahim says:

    Emily, I don’t know anything about Ms Gasper, BNP and . I’m not from the UK.

    However, I do know the Quran and the words and deeds of Muhammad as recorded in Islamic scriptures very well.

    Nothing that Ms Gasper has said about Islam is incorrect. Islam, as recorded in the words of Allah and Muhammad is quite distinct and opposed to what we might now call liberal values, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and belief, rights of women, and rights of homosexuals.

  33. Carliol says:

    Suspension is not enough, expulsion is what is needed here and a very public one at that. There are too many people painting our Party with their despicable racist brushes. Get rid whenever possible.

  34. Ibrahim says:

    Carliol, I hate racism as much as anyone, but what is the race that is allegedly being impugned by accurately stating that the Quran and Muhammad has hateful attitudes to women, Jews, Christians and other non-Muslims?

  35. @ “A Friend in Light”. You have been misled by the twisted allegations of this leftie website. Are all your views based on such unreliable sources?
    It is wildly inaccurate to accuse me or any members of UKIP of “bashing Muslims”. It is just utterly stupid and on the level one would expect from mindless Guardianistas.
    The Political Scrapbook used copies (rather dubious I think) of private E-mails sent to them by a malicious person without my knowledge. That is against the Data Protection Act. The E-mails were making completely true statements about what is in a text, the Koran. That is not “bashing Muslims”. The Koran is a book, Muslims are people. You are a foolish confused person who is spreading malice and being drawn into a witch-hunt.
    Political Scrapbook deliberately make out that I made offensive comments in public, and show a picture of me speaking in the 2010 General Election campaign, to mislead the readers. You are one those typical readers, easily misled.
    As to what is in the text, I have proved what I said and won the argument game, set and match.

  36. @ Ibrahim. At lest you are admitting that everything I was quoted as saying was absolutely correct.
    If you and other readers are trying to insinuate that I, or UKIP, have anything in common with the BNP, that is a tired and rather despicable ploy. Nobody is going to believe it.
    @Carliol. Far from being expelled, I have had a lot of support from UKIP throughout this distasteful smear campaign.
    >>> I am proud to be a campaigner for freedom of speech in this and future elections.<<<

  37. Robert says:

    QUOTE As to what is in the text, I have proved what I said and won the argument game, set and match. END OF QUOTE

    Just…wow…completely ignore the comments which utterly dismantle your deliberately provocative little rant and claim victory! Fantastic!

  38. My Quran Lesson is an easy way for you and your kids to learn the Holy Quran. All you need is a PC, headset with a microphone and a broadband internet connection.

  39. Emily Roberts says:

    @Julia Gaspar: Trying to make this about “invasion of privacy” is an attempt at distraction. You are ducking the real issue. You say you are talking about the Koran and not bashing Muslims, and yet you defended similar fascist statements in the Bible by saying Christians don’t take those passages seriously – implying that Muslims do take the relevant passages of the Koran seriously.

  40. Linda Hudson says:

    Sharia law is very much alive and kicking so to speak, with Islamic countries practacing it in the fullest sense, So what are none muslim ordinary people to make of it all!

  41. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    @ Leon Georgiou and Basam Emera.
    Your claim that the excerpts were misunderstood because they were taken out of context is simply untrue. Anyone who goes to the text using my clear references can ascertain that for themselves. None of these instructions are limited to behaviour on the battlefield, or to the treatment of those who attack muslims and eject them from their homes. You are just making this up. The first quote comes from the Chapter of Women, which is not about war or people being ejected from their homes. The whole chapter makes it very clear that the killing of a “believer” and the killing of “unbelievers” are to be regarded as two quite different things. the first is a crime, the second according to the Koran is a virtue. The Chapter of Women has little specifically to do with women, because the Koran is a collection of jumbled, incoherent scraps without any design or progression. As well as explaining the distinction between killing believers and killing unbelievers, this chapter abruptly asserts that Jesus never died, but was carried up to heaven while still alive, and blandly adds a paragraph on the inheritance rights of sisters of childless men.

  42. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    @ Emily Roberts. You call the Data Protection Act merely a distraction? In that case I suppose you are a defender of the Sun , the News of the World News International, Rupert Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks and all the rest of the phone-hacking, e-mail stealing gutter press? Because that is what Political Crapbook is doing – sorry about the typo!
    I suppose you will even defend hacking in to Millie Dowler’s phone?
    They have deluded you into believing that a private, intellectual discussion about a text was a public attack on people, “muslims”. They have manipulated you by using words like “rant”and “bile” when they are actually stealing private messages.
    If you base your political opinions on unreliable sources like this you are being completely naive. I suggest that you go and read the entire UKIP manifesto and its website and stop letting these antiquated marxist hacks control your mind.

  43. Me says:

    More free speech. Gasper, your views, your pathetic excuse for a party and your whining pseudo-rational excuses for your actions are as repulsive as your ugly bulldog face. Hooray for free speech, now piss off back to whatever rock you crawled out from under.

  44. Laurence says:

    @Julia Gasper: With reference to the Data Protection Act, how exactly have we breached the law?
    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/29/contents

    We’re calling your bluff. Please complain to the Information Commissioner:
    http://www.ico.gov.uk/complaints.aspx

    If he rules in your favour, we’ll publish a full apology. If nothing happens because you’re a crank without a leg to stand on, then we’ll probably remember this in a few weeks time and have a quiet chuckle to ourselves.

  45. Ibrahim says:

    Dear People,

    To those who condemn this Ms Gasper for stating her views about an ancient book of ideology in a free modern country, I am most disheartened. Not only that, her views are demonstrably well referenced and documented. The book is a curse to Muslims and to the victims of its hateful ideology – men, women and children. The more the Quran is adhered to – Taliban, Saudi Arabia, Iran – the more hateful, repressive and miserable the country. The islamic countries that manage to contain its influence are the only islamic countries that allow human rights.

    It’s not the sort of book that anyone interested in liberty and human rights could do other than read fairly, and accurately critique.

    I don’t know much about the politics of the UK, but seems incongruous that people in a blessedly free country, compared to so many miserable Quranic states, disdain privacy and condemn free speech.

    Ms Gasper, I am not trying to link you to the BNP. I’m sorry if it seemed that way.

    Once again, could anyone identify specifically what Ms Gasper said that is allegedly incorrect?

  46. Ibrahim says:

    Also, if a woman in the UK can’t critique the Quran, what hope do any women in Sudan, Somalia, or Iran have?

  47. Blackgriffin says:

    If most of these posters here attacking Dr. Gasper are Brits, I can see why they’ve lost their country to islam. Dr. Gasper, you have quite a fight ahead of you to save Britain. God speed.

  48. Emma says:

    Hi Julia,
    Thank you for a well written and honest reply. I agree with you on islam. I have read the quran and hadiths and what you say about islam is true. There are 109 surah’s in the quran that command unbelievers to be killed or subjugated, to lie, decieve the unbeliever and to spread islam. This is all acceptable behaviour.
    Islam is the problem, not individual muslims. Ibrahim is correct when he says the book commands muslims do evil things to other human beings, even animals. Wtihout the book, I believe we would have a peaceful world and peaceful muslims. What people fail to realise is that the verses/commands in the quran are for perpetuity, whereas, in the bible, the verses in the main in the OT, are not. Christians are not under the mosaic laws because when Christ came he gave new laws, which Christians follow. Hence the name Christians, e.g. followers of Christ. What does apply to both Christians and Jews are the ten commandments.

    Those who attack Julia clearly have no understanding of the quran and of islam. I suggest they do extensive research and read the quran and hadiths themselves. Six million ex-muslims have left islam and many converted to Christianity, or to other religions, or no religion at all. Many more try to leave, but are killed for wanting to by their so-called loving families. If they do manage to escape, they are hunted down and killed. In fact, there is a family right now, an Egyptian father and daughter who left islam and have ended up in Sweden hoping this country can protect them, but they had to go to france for safety, but there are too many muslims there and they had to flee, and went to Germany, but had to flee there due to too many muslims. Frankly, where are they safe? No where islam is. I find this disturbing and so very sad. They are back in Sweden afraid to go out of their home, living in abject fear. This is islam. To all those who are being obnoxious, insulting and rude to Julia for her views on inslam and valid criticisms, shame on you. As Ibrahim and Julia pointed out, at the moment, we are entitled to free speach, and voice our opinion and free to criticse who and what we want. That very same law protects your spew of hatred and bile, remember that. In American, Hillary Clinton is busy trying to pass a law that takes away American’s freedom of speech and freedom to criticse islam, but there will be no law passed to protect Christians or other faiths against islam’s criticism or hatred of them. They can criticise us and spew vile things with impunity, but we cannot answer them back. I think this will be disasterous for all those who enjoy freedom and democracy, the two things many muslims and Christians in islamic countries are denied. Do we really want this to happen in England?

    As for the personal attacks against Julia, (I hope you do not mind me calling you by your first name) please stop. It is not racism to criticise islam, as islam is not a race! Importantly, what is racist, bigoted or islamaphobic about the desire to resist colonisation of your country? You cannot tell me that muslims who come here demanding halal meat for all of us, sharia law banking, of which most of you are not aware of the dangers of this, halal other foods, sharia law for the country, wearing full islamic dress (when the quran only says women should be modest of dress, but not what that modesty is or entails) we bow down to their values, culture, their incessent demands, whinging and whining for special treatment, concessions, their violence if they do not get what they want, is a desire to integrate, fit in, or assimilate completely because they love our culture and way of life. No. It it is infiltration, take over, whatever you want to call it. They are here for a specific reason, and that is to make us an islamic state, along with the rest of Europe, under full sharia law. I hope you dhimmies, (slaves) and islamic apologists understand what that means to be under islam’s boot. Clearly from your comments you are totally ignorant of the facts. Make no mistake people, if islam takes us over, I hope to God you do not have children because you will be condeming them to a life of slavery, rape, abuse and sheer unending misery. The same misery and slavery all women will have to live under. Living under islam is no picknic. It is not pleasant, tollerant, easy going or fair minded. I know many English people are, but those qualities are being used against you, e.g. us, in order to take over. By being an apologist for islam, you allow and accelerate this process of colonisation. Frankly, I would class those of you who allow this and think islam is a big pink fluffy bunny, as traitors to England and to English people in general.

    Instead of being nasty, get off your lazy butts and do some homework on islam.

    And Julia, I would be delighted to meet a lovely lady who clearly and bravely understands islam and its danger.
    Emma

  49. Jaz says:

    The best thing to do with people like Dr Julia Gasper is to ignore her. She revels in the attention, believing herself to be some sort of champion of free speech. Well if that is what she wants to think about herself then let her; everyone else sees her and her nasty BNP-lite party for what they truly are.

    Some of these replies have a very strong whiff of sock-puppetry about them …

  50. Kali P. says:

    She’s right. And the leftist asshat who wrote this stupid blog should clean it up for remarks like “bile” and so on. The leftist morons commenting here about “ignoring” her should themselves be ignored.

    Islam is an evil cancer upon the world, and you idiot leftists are helping it spread. As a woman who stands to lose much if this sick women-hating cult keeps gaining power, I’m disgusted at your IMMORAL stance concerning this sleazy, violent and hateful ideology.

    SHAME ON YOU.

  51. A Friend In Light says:

    Dr Gasper, a pity you cannot take a civil tone, even if your opponents do not always, and that you feel the need to resort to bitter ad hominem attacks by calling me “foolish and confused” and accusing me of “spreading malice.” This just goes to show, I think, that your intentions are far from decent and honourable, and that your worldview must be quite narrow and twisted. I pity you, and trust that you may one day achieve some sort of contentment and even-mindedness without resorting to attacking minorities and bitterly snapping out at your opponents. In peace.

  52. A Friend In Light says:

    Please, “Kali P”, take your ignorance and hatred elsewhere. They’re not welcome here, or anywhere there are decent, tolerant people who embody the spirit of British values and culture.

  53. A Friend In Light says:

    Fortunately, these views are a tiny minority, and most in this country are fair-minded, tolerant, open people who hold no brook with those who spread nasty, invectile-filled bigotry against those who are different or who hold different beliefs. They are entirely unrepresentative, and long may it stay that way.

  54. Ibrahim says:

    Just to recap.

    People have been heaping personal abuse of Ms Gasper for her private communication of her assessment of a book of ancient, hateful anti-woman, anti-freedom of speech, anti-freedom of religion, pro-murder ideology.

    Did anyone identify anything incorrect she said, or is this just a conformist convention?

  55. Ibrahim says:

    Still nothing incorrect in what Ms Gasper said?

    I thought I would ask again.

    I learnt this great thing in the west. When you disagree with someone’s opinion of something, you say why, with your own reasons, not “ignore her, she’s a baddy”.

    I can just imagine the same attitude displayed here to someone criticizing Mein Kampf in 1937 – “We are much bigger than those small minded bigots who criticize people who are different or believe different things like Mein Kampf.”

  56. Thank you Emma, I don’t know who you are but I hope to welcome you as a friend. Thanks also to Ibrahim, and all the others who have supported me. How your clarity and reason gleams through the mindless ranting abuse of the lefties.
    There has been no sock-puppetry and you must be desperate to even resort to such an argument.
    The Political Crapbook set out to portray me as an undercover Nazi agent, plotting genocide as I cycle around Oxford, lecturing on Shakespeare one day and weeding my allotment the next. That attempt has failed. It has been exposed as the most utter puerile nonsense, and no educated person could take you or your potty little website seriously.
    You are amateurs if you don’t even know the Data Protection laws. And ignorance of the law is no defence.

  57. Rodney Willmore says:

    Well said, Paul Wiffen, in quoting the words of Winston Churchill.
    They are far too little read these days and undervalued. This website tried to make out that Ms Gasper and UKIP were somehow in the camp of Adolf Hitler, but as you have shown, she is only following in the footsteps of Hitler’s greatest adversary – Winston Churchill.
    He knew what he was talking about. And so does she!

  58. Salman Rushdie says:

    Your readers have a curious idea that criticizing the Koran is “bashing Muslims” and that Muslims are an “easy target” for bashing. Neither is true.
    Far from it.
    My own experience provides very clear evidence to the contrary.
    I have spent my life in hiding ever since I was accused of criticizing the Koran. I have been the target of a life-long fatweh. I hope the same does not happen to this poor woman. In most cases, it is the muslims doing the “bashing” I assure you.

  59. GB says:

    You really have to remember that these religious texts aren’t meant to be taken in the extreme fashion that so many people take them. Nor, by the moral teachings in these books (on which, by the way, most of our laws are based), is one supposed to opress any other human being, or force a human being into believing what is in these books. The whole point of the Abrahamic religions is brotherhood. The good Samaritan helping his enemy. The rich man giving his wealth to help the poor.
    The word that is often used in these texts is a form of the word ‘love’, which, when taken literally, means ‘to give charity and thanks’. But as we have seen, human nature can twist what is meant to be a solid, moral teaching into something it is not. People become judges instead of teachers. Become executioners instead of forgivers. The bible and Koran are two books with the same fundamental principle at heart; that we should follow a wholesome life of giving to others before ourselves. You must understand this before you read either.

    I understand that yes, the Old Testament is at times brutal, but over two thousand years ago, it wasn’t uncommon for the governments to make laws so much harsher than biblical penalties. These were times when people were not much more than savage. You also must remember that the Old Testament was the ‘Old Law’, which meant that sin was paid in blood. That law no longer applies. Jesus’ blood was paid, and brutal punishment for wrongdoing was no longer required. To me, it doesnt matter whether you are white, black, foreign, or native, Christian, Jew or Muslim. Hatred is still hatred. Condemn a Jew, it is hatred. Condemn a Muslim, it is hatred. Condemn a non Religious person, it is hatred. People say ‘ then why do Christians look down on us? Why do Muslims incite hatred? The answer is; there will always be people who skew things out of context and warp things into what they arent. But religion isnt any more an evil than the person who practices it. Nor is political view. Its down to the person with the knowledge in their hands, to decide how they use that knowledge. Personally, I don’t want to bomb anybody, because I am forbidden from taking a life. I don’t want to damn anybody, because I am not the judge of the world. I don’t want to spew hatred against other faiths, though I may dispute them in a respectful way, or believe something different, simply because it is counterproductive to my purpose on Earth; to try and make it a more loving place

  60. GB says:

    Having too strong and violent an opinion that the Koran is hateful, and should be outlawed, is in itself, a most hypocritical way of thought. It is hatred begets hatred.

  61. GB says:

    If I am honest, the whole New Testament is, in the words of Buddha ‘the perfect example of Morality’. Mohammed does not deny Jesus, so I find it very difficult to think that Mohammed’s punishments are meant to be taken seriously when 400 years before him, Jesus tells us to turn the oher cheek, forgive and forget. But people do need to read these things properly. The majority of Muslims are great people. Its just that extremism seems very intense, striking, and i suppose, somewhat attractive to the susceptible

  62. [...] elections. However, those who enjoy watching the fringes of British politics might like to consider this story before they try and keep their kippers and toast [...]

  63. Clarence Baker says:

    John W says that Ibrahim is “fooling nobody”. Of course he isn’t – because he is telling the truth, Raymond Ibrahim is a top-class academic, bi-lingual in Arabic and English, from a Muslim family but brought up in the USA, which gives him an unrivalled position to comment on both and interpret texts in either direction. He specializes in translating this kind of text and it is his profession. He is the expert here, and those who say that critcizing the Koran should be illegal are the facist bigots. As Emma points out so eloquently, it is muslims who are often oppressed and so the liberal/lefties who try to gag criticism of Islam are the real Muslim-bashers. They are complicit in stonings, honor killings, FGM, amputations, hanging of gays and adulterers, beheadings for blasphemy and attacks on non-muslims or muslins of other sects.
    The word “kaffir” used at one time in South Africa as an insulting term for black people is derived from the Koran. It means an unbeliever, an inferior who is hardly human and may be killed. That is where they got the offensive racist term.
    Here again is a link to an article about the horrific practice of FGM. Dr Gasper put it on this page earlier and the leftie thought-police removed it:-

    http://www.translatingjihad.com/2012/04/amja-senior-committee-member-female.html

  64. Clarence Baker says:

    @ GB You are quite wrong that the Koran was not meant to be taken literally.
    It saays many times that is is “esy to understand” and that lukewarm hypocrites who don’t follow all its instructions unquestionalingly are not true Muslims. They also are to be killed.
    Why would a book says something it did not mean, 109 times?
    Your excuses are not convincing.
    They will cause more suffering and death. You are complicit in that suffering and death.

  65. Laurence says:

    @Clarence Baker: Where does Raymond Ibrahim teach/research?

  66. Clarence Baker says:

    @ GB You are quite wrong that the Koran was not meant to be taken literally.
    It saays many times that is is “easy to understand” and that lukewarm hypocrites who don’t follow all its instructions unquestionalingly are not true Muslims. They also are to be killed.
    Why would a book says something it did not mean, 109 times?
    Your excuses are not convincing.
    They will cause more suffering and death. You are complicit in that suffering and death.

  67. Clarence Baker says:

    Go and look at his website.

  68. Clarence Baker says:

    And here is a well-researched report on the Prophet Mohammed’s paedophile practices and teaching, which are upheld in Sharia law and being imposed in many muslim countries:-
    [Bigots, if you don't wish to see the truth look away now!]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hoWgOIojMk&feature=share

    “Thighing of female children in Islam”.

  69. Laurence says:

    @Clarence: Raymond Ibrahim is not a “top-class academic” as he doesn’t have a doctorate or tenure with a university.
    http://www.raymondibrahim.com/about/

    The bodies he lists in his biography are right-wing “think tanks” cum campaign groups:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Forum
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Horowitz_Freedom_Center

    As far as I can tell, Ibrahim has had no peer-reviewed work published outside of Middle East Quarterly, which is published “explicitly from the viewpoint of American interests”
    http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=any&as_sauthors=%22raymond+ibrahim%22&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdtf=&as_sdts=5&hl=en

  70. Clarence Baker says:

    Your definition of “right-wing” seems to be “opposed to Jihad” therefore you cast doubt on his reliability.
    Thus you would only believe the assertions of those who are sympathetic to Jihad? You would call those left-wing? How absurd!
    Left-wing and right-wing are simply not adequate terms to categorize the modern global political scene and they are no guide to the reliability of readings of texts.

  71. Clarence Baker says:

    And here is someone else who agrees with Dr Gasper’s view of the Koran. Are you going to have him arrested too?
    http://freethoughtnation.com/contributing-writers/63-acharya-s/479-richard-dawkins-islam-is-one-of-the-great-evils-of-the-world.html
    RICHARD DAWKINS: Islam is ‘one of the great evils in the world’
    Wednesday, 09 February 2011 06:56 Acharya S Contributing Writers – Acharya S/D.M. Murdock

    Richard Dawkins says it outright. One wonders why so few other atheists are speaking out in the same way. Note that he does not hasten to qualify his comment by saying, “Islamic extremism” or “radical Islam.”
    …read on…

  72. Dr Bob says:

    It’s a pity our dear Julia doesn’t practice what she preaches. Any cursory glance at her blogspot reveals that she is a master at deleting posts that she deems inappropriate for her website:

    http://juliagasper.blogspot.co.uk/

    P.S. On the Churchill thing:

    The Guardian(London) Thursday, November 28, 2002,

    Winston Churchill, exterminationist, racist and anti-Semite was yet voted the “greatest Briton”.

    The Churchill you didn’t know.

    Thousands voted him the greatest Briton – but did they know about his views on Gandhi, gassing and Jews…

    [Churchill in favour of gassing 'lower grade' of races]: i.e. Kurds and Arabs in Iraq
    “I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.” — Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919

    [Churchill the racist]:
    “It is alarming and nauseating to see Mr Gandhi, a seditious Middle Temple lawyer, now posing as a fakir of a type well known in the east, striding half naked up the steps of the viceregal palace, while he is still organising and conducting a campaign of civil disobedience, to parlay on equal terms with the representative of the Emperor-King.” — Commenting on Gandhi’s meeting with the Viceroy of India, 1931

    [Churchill the racist]:
    “(India is) a godless land of snobs and bores.” — In a letter to his mother, 1896

    [Churchill in favour of exterminating lower grade of races]:
    “I do not admit… that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia… by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.” — Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

    [Churchills views on communist Russia, more extreme than Hitler's]:
    “(We must rally against) a poisoned Russia, an infected Russia of armed hordes not only smiting with bayonet and cannon, but accompanied and preceded by swarms of typhus-bearing vermin.” — Quoted in the Boston Review, April/May 2001

    [Churchill on the Irish spectre, horrid and inexorcisable]:
    “The choice was clearly open: crush them with vain and unstinted force, or try to give them what they want. These were the only alternatives and most people were unprepared for either. Here indeed was the Irish spectre – horrid and inexorcisable.” — Writing in The World Crisis and the Aftermath, 1923-31

    [Churchill wanted to sterilize the mental ill]:
    “The unnatural and increasingly rapid growth of the feeble-minded and insane classes, coupled as it is with a steady restriction among all the thrifty, energetic and superior stocks, constitutes a national and race danger which it is impossible to exaggerate… I feel that the source from which the stream of madness is fed should be cut off and sealed up before another year has passed.” — Churchill to Asquith, 1910

    [Churchill in praise of Adolf Hitler]:
    “One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as admirable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” — From his Great Contemporaries, 1937

    [Churchill condemns the Polish exile government]:
    “You are callous people who want to wreck Europe – you do not care about the future of Europe, you have only your own miserable interests in mind.” — Addressing the London Polish government at a British Embassy meeting, October 1944

    [Churchill handing over whole nations to Stalin]:
    “So far as Britain and Russia were concerned, how would it do for you to have 90% of Romania, for us to have 90% of the say in Greece, and go 50/50 about Yugoslavia?” — Addressing Stalin in Moscow, October 1944

    [Churchill the anti-Semite]:
    “This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States)… this worldwide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the 19th century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.” — Writing on ‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’ in the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 1920

    http://globalfire.tv/nj/04en/history/churchillunknown.htm

  73. Dr Bob says:

    “And here is someone else who agrees with Dr Gasper’s view of the Koran. Are you going to have him arrested too?” Clarence.

    I’m guessing you haven’t read what Dr G said on the subject? To make that comparison merely highlights your own simplistic view of the world and all that’s in it.

    P.S. Anyone that offers up Youtube footage as evidence other than of what people have said cannot be taken seriously. What next, hoax e-mail speeches about immigration by the Australian PM as irrefutable evidence?

  74. Julia Gasper says:

    It is absolute rubbish that Winston Churchill was an anti-Semite. I have read the allegation before and (like the attack on me) it was based on twisted and distorted evidence. An article in the Guardian about five year ago quoted Churchill’s remarks about the spread of anti-semitic feeling among the British working classes in the time of Oswald Mosley, and used the familiar tactic of taking out the quotation marks where Churchill had used them. Churchill had said that some people were using expressions such as “the hebrew menace” , terms he regarded as unjust. The article alleged that Churchill had used the expressions himself rather than quoting them. It was a mean, dirty, underhand attack on a great man.
    Just the sort of thing the left-wing press specializes in. Very like Political Crapbook in fact!

  75. Julia Gasper says:

    It’s Bob who hasn’t read what I wrote on the subject – as I never in fact wrote any blog about it at all. He is completely deluded.
    Re. Churchill and Ghandi – the same accusations have been made about Ghandi. He too had all sorts of opinions that were typical of the 1920s and 30s and would not be considered “politically correct ” these days. He was opposed to women’s equality, and supported a “separate state” solution for the Muslims and Hindus in 1948. He did not wish the Asians in South Africa to be classifed along with the black people. At this rate you will end up making villains of all the great men of the 20th century.
    Then you will be left with Stalin and Pol Pot as your heros.
    Your level of education is inadequate for this sort of battle, Bob. You are at a hopeless disadvantage.

  76. Darren Green says:

    “People who know me personally will tell you that I have never behaved in anything but a fair and friendly way to any individual who happens to be born into a Muslim family.” – Dr Julia Gasper

    I have campaigned with Julia and can vouch for this. She is no “racist” or “Islamophobe”.

    Oh… and just for the record I think she is right. The Koran IS a fascist book. It calls for my murder because I am an atheist!!!!

    Darren Green (a former UKIP member)
    Oxford

  77. Dr Bob says:

    Dear Julia,

    I never once said I had read it, that is your vivid imagination at work in a vain attempt at defending your position. Maybe you should look elsewhere for delusion?

    As for your presumption about my education, it appears guesswork is a strong point of yours. Attempting to place me below you in the intellectual stakes doesn’t strengthen your argument one iota and goes contrary to your accusations on your own blog about insults exposing the loss of the argument.

    I am interested though in your interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation with your selective quoting of a religious text. It appears that you have missed the irony of attacking ‘religious fundamentalists’ whilst employing the same logic they do by quoting selective texts from interpretations of interpretations of interpretations.

    Just for the record, this defender and advocate of free speech that is Julia Gasper has deleted comments by her opponents on her blogspot and has also taken down her piece calling Homosexuals paedophiles. Why would that be Julia as I have asked you the question several times and as yet with no response?

  78. Dr Bob says:

    P.S. Free speech strikes again on Julia’s blogspot. She is now posting pieces without allowing any comments. Well done Julia!

    Oh, and her latest piece, she says the Nazis were Socialists. You couldn’t make it up!

  79. Ibrahim says:

    Dr Bob, having failed to demonstrate that anything Dr Gasper has said about the Quran is wrong, now attempts to obliquely devalue her views on the quran by claiming she is wrong about other things, instead, stating “she says the Nazis were Socialists”.

    Even if Dr Bob succeeded at proving Dr Gasper wrong about that, it would not prove his alleged point about the quran.

    It is of course accurate to describe National Socialism as a branch of socialism.

    This tactic suggests that the man is tendentious, insubstantial, unscrupulous, ignorant. But is inescapable that he is not an honest broker.

    Dr Bob, attempts to inspire a lynch mob mentality amongst the equally ignorant.

    Once again, if a well educated woman in Britain cannot critique an ancient book of anti-woman, anti-freedom of belief and expresssion, anti-jew ideology, what hope do women in Sudan and Somalia have?

    If you get past that question, Dr Bob, you might like to demonstrate what Dr Gasper said that was wrong about the Quran. That would be a great start to your argument, Dr Bob. You have left it a little late.

  80. Dr Bob says:

    “Dr Bob, having failed to demonstrate that anything Dr Gasper has said about the Quran is wrong, now attempts to obliquely devalue her views on the quran by claiming she is wrong about other things, instead, stating “she says the Nazis were Socialists”.”

    Unfortunately for Julia her views about many things wreak of illogical prejudice.

    On the point about what she says about the Quran, likening a religious text from a religion that has no over arching hierarchy to a political ideology that involves nationalism, state authority and is often based on race seems completely at odds with itself. Furthermore, Julia has yet to present her argument as to why she thinks as she does therefore putting the onus on her to present the evidence. The onus is always on the accuser.

    Can you remind me of my “alleged point about the Quran”?

    Anyone who describes Nazism as a form of Socialism is just highlighting their own political ignorance and their simplistic thought processes. Similar to likening the Quran to Fascism.

    “This tactic suggests that the man is tendentious, insubstantial, unscrupulous, ignorant. But is inescapable that he is not an honest broker.”

    A wonderful collection of emotive words. It’s just a pity that together they don’t appear to mean anything. In what manner am I not an “honest broker”. You appear to just be stringing collections of words together with no coherent meaning to them.

    “Dr Bob, attempts to inspire a lynch mob mentality amongst the equally ignorant.”

    How so? How is pointing out the illogical, ill informed and incoherent arguments of a political candidate who seems determined to only offer a very one sided and subjective view focusing on one religion without fair or objective comparison. Half the story, even if it was fair comment, wreaks of prejudice and propaganda.

    Given that Julia only polled 69 votes in the recent election she appears to have hit a political gold mine.

  81. Dr Bob says:

    P.S. Julia, the arch proponent of free speech, has deleted my awkward questions from her blogspot.

    Funny that.

  82. Ibrahim says:

    So, Dr Bob, I see that after all that, you still cannot identify anything Dr Gasper said about the Quran that was incorrect.

  83. Dr Bob says:

    Are you actually blind my friend or just selectively so?

    Your prejudice filter is doing a grand job.

    Well done.

  84. I don’t like to personally attack Dr.Gasper but I would like it if she replies to my message, it took me a long time to find the verses as Dr. Gasper didn’t provide the chapter or verse numbers.

    The first verse that Dr. Gasper quoted from the Qur’aan she said: “They would fain that ye misbelieve as they misbelieve, but if they turn their backs, then seize them and kill them wheresoever you find them.” etc etc.”

    First lets see what the ‘etc etc’ means which Dr. Gasper couldn’t be bothered to type up maybe she was in a rush but i will use the same translation as she did:

    “and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (89) Excepting those who join a people between whom and you there is a bond or who come to you with their breasts straitened that they should fight you or fight their own people. And had Allah so willed, He would have surely set them upon you. If then they withdraw from you, and fight not against you and offer you peace, then Allah openoth not for you against them a way.” [Chapter 4 End of verse 89 and 90]

    These verses are talking about the hypocrites who infiltrated the Muslim camp, these people were idol worshippers who pretended to convert to Islam to try and destroy it from within they also left the Muslims in the battlefield to die.

    Our brother Yusuf Estes here deals with verses here that some Islamophobes like to quote you can skip to 18.11 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iqYNydEH5Sk

  85. The second verse that Dr. Gasper quoted she said: “But when the sacred months are passed away, kill the idolaters wherever ye may find them”. [genocide is not to committed in Ramadam, you see. Only after it!]”

    This is from Chapter 9 verse 5 now lets see the verse before it using the same translation as Dr.Gasper

    Except those of the associators with whom ye covenanted and they have not failed you in aught, nor have they backed up anyone against you; so fulfil unto them their covenant till their full period. Verily Allah loveth the Godfearing. [Chapter 9 Verse 4]

    Now lets see the verse after it:
    “And should one of the associators seek protection of thee grant him protection, that he may hear the word of Allah,then let him reach his place of security. That is because they are a people who know not.” [Chapter 9 Verse 6]

  86. The third verse that Dr. Gasper quoted she said: “And when ye meet those who misbelieve – then striking off heads until ye have massacred them, and bind fast the bonds”.

    This appears to be from chapter 47 verse 4 but Dr.Gasper has only quoted a part of that verse and also I think Dr.Gasper meant to type disbelieve not misbelieve anyway if anybody goes to the tafseer (exegis) of these verses or even a better translation you will see they are regarding battle and prisoners of war, lets see the rest of the verse she quoted

    then, thereafter let them off either freely or by ransom, until the war layeth down the burthens thereof. That ye shall do. And had Allah willed, He would have vindicated Himself against them, but He ordained fighting in order that He may prove you one by the other. And those who are slain in the way of Allah, He shall not send their works astray. [Chapter 47 end or verse 4 using same translation as Dr.Gasper]

    If somebody read a better translation or an interpretation of the Qur’an they will clearly see these verses are regarding battle

    anyone who like to read the Qur’aan themselves can go to http://www.quranexplorer.com/quran/ also there is a great iPhone app called iQuran which has a free version.

  87. Dr. Gasper said: “I have a D. Phil in literature from Oxford University and when I talk about any book, I know what I am talking about.”

    she also said: “Christians don’t believe in the laws of Leviticus. I am not a religious fundamentalist, but I think you have got it wrong about Christianity”

    So I would like it if she could explain the following verse

    Numbers 31 (New International Version)
    17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
    18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

    Deutronomy 13 (New International Version)
    6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods”(gods that neither you nor your fathers have known,

    7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other),

    8 do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him.

    9 You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people.

    10 Stone him to death

    Deuteronomy 25
    11 If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts,
    12 you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity

    Those are only three examples you see Dr. Gasper it is very to quote even an uneducated person like me can do it

    I don’t have a D. Phil in literature from Oxford University and when I talk about any book, I probably don’t know what I am talking about so I encourage everyone to double check the references.

    I tried to keep all my messages short and also sorry for my bad english

    Peace be upon those who follow guidance

  88. Dr Bob says:

    Don’y expect a reasonable or rational response from these people for they are driven not by the truth but by their own overwhelming prejudice.

    Like all fundamentalists they see what they want to see in doing so toss everything else that doesn’t fit out the window.

    Or they delete your awkward questions from their personal blog spots as Julia has done. In fact, what she now does is not allow any comments.

    What is she afraid of?

  89. Dr Bob says:

    Don’y expect a reasonable or rational response from these people for they are driven not by the truth but by their own overwhelming prejudice.

    Like all fundamentalists they see what they want to see in doing so toss everything else that doesn’t fit out the window.

    Or they delete your awkward questions from their personal blog spots as Julia has done. In fact, what she now does is not allow any comments.

    What is she afraid of?

  90. Julia Gasper says:

    Hi, Darren, long time no see.
    Drop by some time won’t you? My number hasn’t changed.

  91. Julia Gasper says:

    Not “awkward questions” Bob just stupid questions. You asked to see something I had written so that you could prove there was a vast gulf between it and what Richard Dawkins was writing – yet you hadn’t read either. I call that an asinine comment.
    Calling me a fundamentalist is another asinine comment – wherever do you get these ideas from? You are utterly confused and are not interested in the issues, only in baiting an individual.
    If Mr Khaliq reads the New Testament, he will find that Jesus condemned stoning and by implication all cruel and inhumane punishments. He never told his followers to impose their beliefs with violence. As for the Jews they have not stoned anyone for thousands of years. It happens quite frequently however in Muslim countries and Mr Khaliq does not seem at all concerned about that.

  92. Jonathan Clegg says:

    Abdul Khaliq offers one verse from the Jewish scriptures (not the Christian writings) that advocates executing one person, and thinks this is comparable to the mass extermination advocated by the Koran.
    Plainly it is not. It is a drop in the ocean compared to the murder and violence of the Koran. It refers to punishing a person who is actively trying to subvert the Jewish beliefs, NOT someone who merely wishes to follow a different set of beliefs himself.
    There is no doubt that the Koran is far more aggressive and that it does advocate Jihad.
    When Mr Khaliq says that he is not a very highly-educated person and his understanding of texts is not expert, that part of his comment is accurate.

  93. This site is rubbish says:

    Is it right-wing or left-wing that Muslims are blowing up Buddhist shrines in Thailand, smashing Hindu temples in India, impaling Sikhs in Pakistan and setting fire to churches in Egypt?
    I guess it must be left-wing as the pinko press here in the West never mentions it, just keeps droning on about the demon “Islamophobia”…

  94. Dr Bob says:

    “Not “awkward questions” Bob just stupid questions. You asked to see something I had written so that you could prove there was a vast gulf between it and what Richard Dawkins was writing – yet you hadn’t read either. I call that an asinine comment.”

    But you were using free speech to attack those you deemed were trying to prevent you using yours yet here you are admitting that you have deleted my comments from your blog spot because you deemed then “asinine”.

    From what I have witnessed from you Julia it is my opinion that you are a self righteous hypocrite.

    Julia, is free speech only for those you deem worthy?

    “Calling me a fundamentalist is another asinine comment – wherever do you get these ideas from? You are utterly confused and are not interested in the issues, only in baiting an individual.”

    Julia, I am very surprised that an English ‘scholar’ clearly doesn’t understand the difference between calling you a fundamentalist and drawing no distinction between your methods and those of fundamentalists. You do understand the definition of the word “like” Mrs D Phil in English Literature from Oxford University Gasper, don’t you?

    “If Mr Khaliq reads the New Testament, he will find that Jesus condemned stoning and by implication all cruel and inhumane punishments. He never told his followers to impose their beliefs with violence. As for the Jews they have not stoned anyone for thousands of years. It happens quite frequently however in Muslim countries and Mr Khaliq does not seem at all concerned about that.”

    You see, the problem I am having with your statements is the fact that you are basically arguing the toss over whose interpretation of a text that has been translated from a text written in another language which is itself drawn from a human interpretation of events a long time ago is best. Are you really offering the line ‘my religious hocus pocus is better than your religious hocus pocus’?

    As for your assertion that I am only interested in baiting an individual, I disagree. You have voluntarily offered your opinions in the public domain (even commenting on your own private musings instead of staying schtum). You have stood for election to a position of political power and you have publicly challenged others that disagree with you.

    Don’t get ahead of yourself Julia and believe for one minute that I consider you important enough for this to be personal because I view you with disdain and based solely on your public views. I do not know you personally and do not have any desire to do so but as long as you are willing to put your crackpot views out there for others to see then be prepared to be challenged.

    In my opinion you operate double standards, you like to attack others with the same methods you decry in others, you proclaim to be a champion of free speech whilst censoring your opponents and you have this bizarre self inflated sense of self as we all witnessed in your humble statement about your academic qualification and how that makes you untouchable in the truth of your comments.

    What sheer unadulterated arrogance and from one so illogical, incoherent and prejudiced.

    When are you going to open your blog spot comments attacking sections of society up to a right to reply again Julia? Where is the courage of your convictions and your championing of free speech you so admire in yourself?

  95. Dr Bob says:

    “Is it right-wing or left-wing that Muslims are blowing up Buddhist shrines in Thailand, smashing Hindu temples in India, impaling Sikhs in Pakistan and setting fire to churches in Egypt?
    I guess it must be left-wing as the pinko press here in the West never mentions it, just keeps droning on about the demon “Islamophobia”…”

    It’s a terrible thing to be sure when only one religion in the world engages in such behaviour when all the rest act so peacefully.

    Just out of interest, if the “pinko press here in the West” (your assertion that our press are sympathetic to communism is risible by the way) has never mentioned it what is your source for such information?

  96. if you haven’t figured it out yet Clarence Baker is probably Julia Gasper playing sock puppets. One of the comments made by Clarence appears verbatim on Gasper’s tawdry blog. Of course, I could be wrong, in which case she is a plagiarist. Either way, its pitiful.

  97. Dr Bob says:

    It’s not the first time different names have popped up and quoted Julia verbatim without referencing it. It happened on the Oxford Mail website to which Julia said the poster could use anything they wanted off her blog (after I challenged them for stealing other people’s work and presenting it as their own which is both dishonest and fraudulent) but strangely didn’t care that they didn’t seem keen to reference her work.

  98. Dr Bob says:

    Nice blog.

  99. Dr Bob says:

    ““People who know me personally will tell you that I have never behaved in anything but a fair and friendly way to any individual who happens to be born into a Muslim family.” – Dr Julia Gasper”

    Quite a telling comment given that it only refers to people born into a Muslim family as if they then go on to have no choice in the matter as adults.

    Has Julia deliberately missed out referring to Muslims that are Muslims by choice?

  100. Ibrahim says:

    Ok, game’s up.

    Dr Bob is angry that someone has an accurate opinion on a book that he hasn’t read, in a language he can’t read. Like Mein Kampf, or the Quran.

    He only wants to hear good impressions of it. Anything else offend him, even if Muslims say it.

    Still, no one can point out something wrong in what Dr Gasper said? Having an opinion on the suitability of “Leviticus” doesn’t count. It’s pretty simple, really.

  101. Dr Bob says:

    Ok, game’s up.

    My dear friend, I am no more angry than I am religious or a supporter of Nazism so hopefully that will put your mind at rest.

    Your assertion that Julia Gasper has an “accurate” opinion on books that she would have had to have read from cover to cover in a different language from the original and relying upon the translation skills and accuracy of the translator and furthermore, one of those said books being an an interpretation to begin with is risible. Even a layman like my good self can see that much.

    I’m still waiting to see what evidence she provides to back up her opinion, have you seen it? I ask only because you appear to be accepting that she has some yet I don’t see it anywhere. Are you the person she had the original conversation with about it? If not then what do you base your statement that her opinion is “accurate”?

    This old interpretation game is interesting isn’t it?

    Given that I am an practicing Atheist and a vehement opponent of Nazism I am rather confused by your idea that I only wish to hear “good impressions” of them.

    Oh, wait, don’t tell me that you think because I don’t agree with you that I must be a supporter of Islam? What a typical schoolboy error.

    You are right in one thing, it is pretty simple yet you choose to ignore it instead opting to pursue your own narrow agenda at the expense of understanding what people are actually saying about your newly acquired friend Julia.

    So, let’s see the evidence and analysis either Julia is putting forward or the evidence only you appear to have seen.

    So far this is the damning evidence Julia has posted asserting that the Quran is a Fascist book not forgetting that her political literacy extends to believing Nazis were Socialists and that’s why Stalin briefly entertained them:

    “Why is it any more wrong to assert that the Koran is a fascist book than to assert that Mein Kampf is a fascist book? The Koran is a lot more explicit in advocating hate and murder than Mein Kampf is.”

    It’s not what I would call a rigorous academic analysis.

  102. This site is rubbish says:

    This guy called Bob covers acres with his witterings all because he can’t stand to have an honest person prove to him what is in the Koran.
    You are blinkered and you’re kind of boring.
    You’ve got your head in the sand and your arse … well that has to stick out so that you can talk through it!

  103. Julia Gasper says:

    Rigorous indeed, Mr Bob, you are just as ignorant as the pretentious students who run the Political Crapbook. It is plain that you haven’t read any of the texts you are trying comment on.
    The website run by Maryam Namazie, of the Council of ex-Muslims of Britain, is full of dozens of honest articles by other scholars who were brought up Muslims, studying the Koran meticulously, and they support everything I say. CEMB is classified as a human rights organization actually.
    The Council of ex-Muslims of Britain has been observing and condemning the sort of contemptible intimidation of free speech that Political Crapbook is guilty of:-

    http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/2849/uk-islamist-intimidation-free-speech

    There are hundreds of better minds than yours, writing good articles about how criticising Islam is not racist, but you will never read them either, because you think you know everything already.
    It is time for all misguided readers of Political Crapbook to switch to reading CEMB instead.

  104. Gasper’s transparent attempts at sock puppetry here begin when she provides a link to a web site http://www.raymondibrahim.com in a comment made on 1 May, 7:45pm.
    On 2 May someone calling themselves Ibrahim ( such a fortuitous coincidence) makes a comment that “as an impartial observer, everything that Ms Gasper has stated is documented and correct”

    big wup… that doesn’t bring anything of substance to the argument.

    The person in question does not claim to be “the” Raymond Ibrahim, and his only role is to repeatedly state that Gasper’s comments about the Quran are accurate, while ignoring the lengthy and detailed comments made by Leon Georgiou and Bosem Emara and others on the same subject. As the imparital authority he claims to be, he has remarkably little to say of any substance.
    He sole interest seems to be to assert that Gasper is inerrant. Hmmm…

    Jon W cops to the transparent subterfuge and calls it,  with the comment “@ibrahim you are fooling nobody”

    Then Rushdie shows up ……yeah right, no one can even bother to comment on that it’s so embarrasing.

    Enter stage left, Clarence Baker, another sock puppet, who comes to admonish the doubters as to Ibrahim’s authority and identity. He says:

    “John W says that Ibrahim is “fooling nobody”. Of course he isn’t – because he is telling the truth, Raymond Ibrahim is a top-class academic, bi-lingual in Arabic and English, “from a Muslim family but brought up in the USA, which gives him  from a Muslim family but brought up in the USA, which gives him an unrivalled position to comment on both and interpret texts in either direction. He specializes in translating this kind of text and it is his profession. He is the expert here.”

    At no time has Ibrahim, Gasper’s champion,  claimed to be the Raymond Ibrahim that Gasper linked to in her in her initial comment…. so how does Clarence Baker know the true identity of ibrahim? 
    This is nothing but a weak minded charade.

    As a student of Elizabethan theater I would have thought that Gasper would have a better grasp of plot and character development than this!
    Call the burn unit Gasper needs treatment.

  105. Ibrahim says:

    Dr Bob and “J Gasper Born Again” fight so very hard to avoid being educated. I’m not Raymond Ibrahim. I’m just one of the many people who have read the quran, the sunnah and the hadiths. I’m not a briton, or an american or a politician. I don’t know anything worth saying about Dr Gasper’s policies or the UKIP.

    As far as I know, and apologies to Dr Gasper, she might be a mad woman who eats string. However, I do know that what she has said about the quran is not only reasonable, but objective and accurate – and she is being vilified for it. It reflects badly on those who would do it. “Oh, other religions are bad” is not a valid counter to Dr Gaspers views on the quran.

    We would all like to believe that the quran is a lovely book, and some made people pulled the repressive states of Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Taliban out of some terrible mistranslation.

    “Beheadings”, “stonings”, “you can rape your slaves if you wan’t to”, “women are deficient in intelligence”, “unbelievers are the vilest of creatures”, “kill them wherever you find them”, “kill Salman Rushdie”, “kill anyone who denies that Muhammad was the agent of god” are all a terrible misunderstandings we would hope.

    Sadly they are not misunderstandings. Now, once you address reality, then you have to deal with the consequences. Many muslims try to do this. The opinion of ignorant people who insist the quran shouldn’t be criticised, because they personally cannot concieve of anyone reading it, are not worth anything.

    Some people have (1) read the quran and (2) are not trying to convince potential converts that it is the word of god. Such people who give an honest reading of the quran cannot escape that it is a supremacist document, mandating the subjugation of all men, women and children to Islam.

    Some people here have (1) not read the quran and (2) feel a great and irrational loathing of those who have read it and would critique it. “How can anyone do such a thing!!!! I can’t even read it!!!”

    I think it is a fair bet that Dr Bob and his ilk have never lived as a woman in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan, where the law comes from a lovely book, that they dare not criticise. Dr Bob would condemn anyone who criticised that divine book, because he can’t understand it.

    If an educated, literate woman in the UK who has read the quran cannot critique it, what hope does any woman in Saudi Arabia have? She won’t even find a supporter in the free world, if Dr Bob has his way. Dr Bob, are you hoping the fatwa on Mr Rushdie is successful?

    And Dr Bob, why does it offend you that someone critique either the quran or Mein Kampf? Have you read either?

    You interesting people ask for “evidence”, but you can’t be bothered reading the book.

    Here’s a crash course. Beat your wives if you fear they are disobedient, 4:34
    Cut off hands of thieves, 5:38
    You can marry kids who haven’t reached puberty, 65:4
    You can rape your prisoners of war, 33:50

    Allah, in the Quran 9:29, had this to say (in Arabic) “Fight those people who don’t believe in Allah or Muhammad or Islam, including Christians and Jews, unless they willingly pay Islam an ongoing tribute and are subdued.”

    All the word of god. All beyond critique. All highly offensive to Dr Bob et al, who rejects the possibility that anyone but the taliban can understand, translate, or talk about the quran.

    So be it.

  106. Ibrahim says:

    Dr Bob and “J Gasper Born Again” fight so very hard to avoid being educated. I’m not Raymond Ibrahim. I’m just one of the many people who have read the quran, the sunnah and the hadiths. I’m not a briton, or an american or a politician. I don’t know anything that is worth saying about Dr Gasper’s policies or the UKIP.

    As far as I know, and apologies to Dr Gasper, she might be a mad woman who eats string. However, I do know that what she has said about the quran is not only reasonable, but objective and accurate – and she is being vilified for it. It reflects badly on those who would do it. “Oh, other religions are bad” is not a valid counter to Dr Gaspers views on the quran. Noting various good things about Islam and muslims is not a counter.

    We would all like to believe that the quran is a lovely book, and some made people pulled the repressive states of Saudi Arabia and Iran and the Taliban out of some terrible mistranslation.

    “Beheadings”, “stonings”, “you can rape your slaves if you want to”, “women are deficient in intelligence”, “unbelievers are the vilest of creatures”, “kill them wherever you find them”, “kill Salman Rushdie”, “kill anyone who denies that Muhammad was the agent of god” are all a terrible misunderstandings we would hope.

    Sadly they are not misunderstandings. Now, once you address reality, then you have to deal with the consequences. Many muslims try to do this. The opinion of ignorant non-muslims who insist the quran shouldn’t be criticised, because they personally cannot concieve of anyone reading it or understanding it, are not worth anything.

    Some people have (1) read the quran and (2) are not trying to convince potential converts that it is the word of god. Such people who give an honest reading of the quran cannot escape that it is a supremacist document, mandating the subjugation of all men, women and children.

    Some people here have (1) not read the quran and (2) seem to feel a great and irrational loathing of those who have read it and would critique it. “How can anyone do such a thing!!!! I can’t even read it!!!”

    I think it is a fair bet that Dr Bob and his ilk have never lived as a woman in Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan, where the law comes from a lovely book, that they dare not criticise. Dr Bob would condemn anyone who criticised that divine book, because he can’t understand it.

    If an educated, literate woman in the UK who has read the quran cannot critique it, what hope does any woman in Saudi Arabia have? She won’t even find a supporter in the free world, if Dr Bob has his way. Dr Bob, are you hoping the fatwa on Mr Rushdie is successful?

    And Dr Bob, why does it offend you that someone critique either the quran or Mein Kampf? Have you read either?

    Some interesting people ask for “evidence”, but can’t be bothered reading the book.

    Here’s a crash course. Beat your wives if you fear they are disobedient, 4:34
    Cut off hands of thieves, 5:38
    You can marry kids who haven’t reached puberty, 65:4
    You can rape your prisoners of war, 33:50

    Allah, in the Quran 9:29, had this to say (in Arabic) “Fight those people who don’t believe in Allah or Muhammad or Islam, including Christians and Jews, unless they willingly pay Islam an ongoing tribute and are subdued.”

    All the word of god. All beyond critique. All highly offensive to Dr Bob et al, who rejects the possibility that anyone but the taliban can understand, translate, or talk about the quran.

    Read the books. Read the critiques of the books. Then you opinion might be worth something, like the people who currently annoy you by having reasoned, opinions.

    Can’t do that? Still indignant? So be it.

  107. Ibrahim says:

    Oh and while I’m at it, this will not count as a valid critique of Dr Gasper

    “Oh, but a muslim apologist says that ALL of those terrible verses are mistranslated and out of context, even when they are translated by dedicated arabic muslim scholars. And just because every orthodox arabic islamic scholar for the past 1400 years has agreed with those mistranslated, out of context readings in practise, and just because devout islamic regimes stone adulterers, kill atheists, and rape slaves in accordance with those verses doesn’t count for anything. ”

    This also does not count as a valid critique of Dr Gasper -

    “Some islamic countries are more liberal than others, they don’t kill atheists, or oppress women!” (That’s because some countries like Turkey have enough sense to disobey the quran, to the indignation of orthodox clerics.)

    Neither does this count as a valid critique of Dr Gasper
    “But I’m an atheist! But she is a bigot to criticise an individual religion’s text!”

    It’s pretty clear really.

  108. Julia Clarence Ibrahim strikes again!
    Is there something in the Quran that probibits men from dressing in women’s clothes? Or women dressing in men’s clothes?

  109. Dr Bob says:

    “It reflects badly on those who would do it. “Oh, other religions are bad” is not a valid counter to Dr Gaspers views on the quran.”.

    Then perhaps you should ask Julia Gasper why she uses exactly this style of defence when I pointed out the fraud, corruption and hypocrisy of the party she represents? She said other parties do it as well so that’s ok then.

    Regardless, I am always amazed at those that interpret text (often in isolation and out of context) and then believe their interpretation is 100% accurate and immovable. That is the domain of religious fundamentalist nut cases and therein lies the irony.

    A narrow mind produces narrow views.

  110. Laurence says:

    SOCK PUPPETING: Just to point out that the IP addresses used to post from “Dr Julia Gasper” match those used to post comments from:

    * This site is rubbish
    * Rodney Willmore
    * Psalm
    * Clarence Baker
    * Darren Green

  111. Ibrahim says:

    Speaking of socks, Muhammad always used Allah as a sock.

    Whenever someone asked Muhammad something to the effect of “Why are you doing this apparently immoral or adulterous act?” it would usually end with Muhammad saying something to the effect of “Oh, I’m getting a message from Allah. He says its OK, for me, since I’m the prophet. And he says always obey me or he’ll punish you.”

    While some other posters might be socks, or IP sharers, I’m an individual. I don’t claim strength in numbers, or the wish to pretend to be multiple people. My views on the quran are unpopular- they attract the death penalty in most of the Islamic world. In the west they seem to attract the title of “bigot”, and the popular notion that one’s views should not even be expressed, no matter their factual basis. This is the price of knowing things that people would rather not know or admit.

    I hope that people of good will can take a little something from what I have tried to communicate here. I’m not promoting UKIP or christianity or any other religion, when I say unequivocally that the moral example of Muhammad, whose rapes and murders are documented in Islamic scripture, is objectively abysmal. I’m in favour of human rights, not medieval superstition passed off as virtue. When the atheist rape gangs start causing trouble in london, you can tell me about it.

    You cannot confuse the quran with the possibility of human rights. You cannot confuse the quran with the possibility of gender equity. You cannot confuse the quran with the possibility of freedom of religion or non-religion, of speech and of belief. To the extent these good things are permitted in Islamic countries like Turkey, the threat of the quran has been suppressed by a military-backed state.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been abrogated in the entirety of the Islamic World by the “Cairo Declaration” which states that all human rights are subservient to Sharia law. This doctrine comes from the quran.

    If you care to educate yourself about Islamic theology, without being assimilated by the cult, I think you will find yourself in a very small informed elite in the west. This strikes me as another analogy to Mein Kampf.

  112. Dr Bob says:

    Ha-ha-ha Julia, you are a diamond. Who’d have thought it?! : )

  113. that is precious…. Julia Gasper is such a total douche. and sorry Ibrahim if I falsely accusing you of being one of Julia’s many sock puppets. My objections are only to Gasper’s cynical use of islamophobia to arouse racial divisivness in Uk society.

  114. Dr Bob says:

    He’s a disciple.

    Julia seems to have gone silent across the internet. Have the big boys had words do you think?

  115. Ibrahim says:

    The quran will still be a totalitarian, authoritarian manifesto, with or without Dr Gasper.

    If you revile Dr Gasper for daring to critique the quran, I hope at least you will be consistent.

    I hope you will also revile every single muslim politician.

    Every one of them promotes the dogma that the Quran is the pure word of God that we would all do well to follow, and it is blasphemy to deny it.

    I find that worse that Dr Gasper’s view that critique is permissible.

  116. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/13/islamic-teacher-sadia-malik-suspended-extremist-links_n_1512645.html?ref=uk

    A special needs teacher at a school in Cardiff has been suspended for links with an extremist Muslim group that promotes Sharia law and proclaims that Islam will dominate the world.
    A few very timid, right-wing people feel this is a cause for alarm, but the left-wing people know that there is nothing to worry about.

  117. Ibrahim I haven’t voiced any opinions about Islam because this was not my purpose in visiting this website. But since you have made some incorrect assumptions about me I would like you to know that I am not as ignorant as you may think about Islam. I have in fact studied under the apostate and critic of Islam, Ibn Warraq, of whom you may have heard. For all of Gasper’s professions of innocence she is a distasteful purveyor of hatred – be it for immigrants, homosexuals, socialists., or just about anyone with whom she disagrees. Don’t get sucked into her extremist world.
    You really don’t want to go into that dark place.

  118. Julia Gasper, or should I say Psalm, Clarence Baker, Derren Green, This Site is Rubbish, or Rodney Willmore… the puppet mistress fraud is back! WUP!

  119. Ibrahim says:

    Where, oh where did this teacher get these terrible ideas from? Cannot she read the loving Quran?

    I have a very amusing experiment that I would recommend to my British cousins.

    See if you can get any British Muslim politician to agree with these propositions “Sharia is an inferior legal system when compared to the legal system of the UK. I unconditionally oppose any gradual moves to install any authority of Sharia in my country. ”

    I really would be most grateful if you would try it. You will get a whole lot of motherhood blather in response, I predict.

  120. Ibrahim says:

    I apologise for misrepresenting you “J Gasper Born Again”.

  121. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    Your accusation in that respect is as barmy as one would expect from Political Crapbook. It is this site that purveys hatred. Nothing I have ever written expresses anything but an interest in the truth. People who merely wish to defend the existing marriage laws are not “haters” of anything – that is just abuse.
    Even the remarks you stole from private E-mails do not say anything that Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie and Maryam Namazie are not saying every day.
    Your own site is absolutely seething with hatred. Political Crapbook purveys malice, venom, slander, invective from anonymous trolls, distorted arguments and cheap little vilifications from people whose understanding is shallow.

  122. Dr Bob says:

    Go on girl, spit it out.

    Julia, why have you disabled and deleted opposing comments from your blog? You were only moaning the other day people were trying to deny you your right to make your views known.

    Are you a hypocrite Julia?

  123. Ibrahim says:

    To the allegation that Ms Gasper “promotes hatred” I have no knowledge. Maybe she does, maybe she doesn’t.

    Her statements about the Quran, as presented here, are factual. I don’ t think that is hatred.

    To use her factual statements in opposition to the hate-filled Quran to bolster the view that she promotes hatred is not, I think, fruitful.

    It tends to devalue whatever real arguments you may have against Dr Gasper, and gives the impression of a disingenuous vendetta.

    If she is promoting hatred, you need to line up Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, every rationalist, every infidel, and every former Muslim in your sights.

  124. The Great Gasper Sock Puppet Farce
    showing on a blog near you

  125. The Great Gasper Sock Puppet Farce
    ——————————————————-
    Gasper: …your website has decided to ignore the privacy laws… I have a D. Phil in literature from Oxford University and when I talk about any book, I know what I am talking about…

    (Stage directions: Gasper stamping her foot and waving her diploma while muttering inaudibly: I am smart. I am, I am, I am.)

    Gasper: Clearly Al is ignorant and cannot bear to have the malicious smears of the article above thoroughly refuted in a professional academic manner.

    (Stage directions: Gasper mutters under her breath… I am smart… I am I am I am!)

    Enter Sock Puppet 1
    Psalm: …both the Koran and Hadith are despicable and fascist… ie raping a 9-year old child, slaughtering those who disagreed with him especially jews.

    Psalm: (turning to face Gasper) I admire your courage in speaking unpopular truth. I hope UKIP will be principled enough to support you.

    Gasper: It is wildly inaccurate to accuse me or any members of UKIP of “bashing Muslims”. It is just utterly stupid and on the level one would expect from mindless Guardianistas… You are a foolishly confused person who is spreading malice. As to what is in the text, I have proved what I said and won the argument game set and match.”

    (Stage Directions: Gasper stamps off stage pouting… But I won! I know I did. I won, I won, I won.)

    Enter Sock Puppet 2
    Rodney Willmore: This website tried to make out that Ms Gasper and UKIP were somehow in the camp of Adolf Hitler… she is only following in the footsteps of Hitler’s greatest adversary – Winston Churchill. He knew what he was talking about. And so does she.

    Stage directions: Gasper sticks big cigar in mouth and throws audience a V sign)

    enter Sock puppet number 3
    Clarence Baker: You are quite wrong that the Koran was not meant to be taken literally… it says many times that … lukewarm hypocrites … are not true Muslims. They are to be killed. Your excuses are not convincing. They will cause more suffering and death. You are complicit in that suffering and death. And here is a well-researched report on the Prophet Mohammed’s paedophile practices and teaching…

    (Stage Directions: Cries of SOCK PUPPETS! coming from back- stage. Gasper throws the audience a different kind of V sign)

    Enter Sock Puppet 4
    Derren Green: I have campaigned with Julia and can vouch for her. She is no “racist” or “islamophobe”. Oh… and just for the record I think she is right. The Koran IS a fascist book. It calls for my murder because I am an atheist!!!! Signed Derren Green (a former UKIP member)

    (Stage Directions: Gasper titters at her own cleverness)

    Gasper: Hi Derren, long time no see. Drop by some time won’t you? My number hasn’t changed.

    Enter Sock Puppet 5

    This site is rubbish: Is it right-wing or left wing that Muslims are blowing up Buddhist shrines in Thailand, smashing Hindu Temples in India, impaling Sikhs in Pakistan and setting fire to churches in Egypt? I guess it must be left-wing as the pinko press here in the West never mentions it, just keeps droning on about the demon “Islamophobia”…

    This site is rubbish: This guy Bob covers acres with his witterings all because he can’t stand to have an honest person prove to him what is in the Koran. You are blinkered and you’re kind of boring. You’ve got your head in the sand and your arse… well that has to stick out so that you can talk through it!

    (Stage Directions: Long suffering commenter Ibrahim looks on wearily before having the final word)

    Ibrahim: Muhammad always used Allah as a sock.

    (Stage Directions: Curtain falls. Gasper curses, flapping empty socks in empty threats)

  126. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    One thing is clear – the person calling themselves “Julia Gasper.born.again” is the editor of the site Laurence Durnan.
    Your remarks are certainly worthy of a complete imbecile, Laurence. You can’t even spell Darren’s name!!!!Are you sure YOU didn’t write all the other comments, apart from the ones you don’t like? Unlike Ibrahim they don’t have websites.
    It clearly makes you very miserable and upset that there are people out there who are not taken in by the malicious smear campaign you ran. You will soon be invited to dinner by the lynch-mob that pursued Salman Rushdie. What a cosy time you will have with them!
    When the Political Crapbook faithful see common-sense (like mine) they label it “hatred” and when they see the twin towers attack or the Toulouse shootings they call it “playful affection”.
    You can’t help having an nth-rate brain, I suppose.

  127. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    One of the first people who pointed out the nature of the Koran to me was my friend the late Dr. Jimmy Harle, fellow of Christ Church and a curator of the Ashmolean. He had spent a lifetime studying Muslim art and culture, reading the texts in the original languages and interacting with scholars in many Asian countries. Back in the 1980s he would quote with a smile the verses that command “Kill the idolaters” etc . But after the 9/11 attacks he had to think again. The smile vanished.
    One of his last remarks on the subject was “Well, you can’t be too complacent.”

  128. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    “Your E-mail is never published or shared” ??????
    Except when Political Crapbook steals E-mails and publishes them illegally.
    The exception proves the rule!!

  129. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    @ Laurence. You are lying about those IP addresses as I have nothing to do with most of those messages . One of them is a friend who visited me at my house, but all the other people you mention have no connection with me.

  130. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    Emma though has since become a friend. That is a different matter!

  131. Oh Laurence… you just got burned on my behalf! <>

    I am going through my sock draw to send Gasper some new outfits.

  132. OUCH! Sending the burn ointment over :-)

  133. The New York Times ran an interesting piece on Psychopaths on May 12.
    The article described clinical psychopaths as exhibiting a lack of interest in and empathy for others, and an “unparalleled capacity for lying, fabrication, and manipulation.”
    It didn’t mention sock puppets though :-)

  134. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-488239/MartinAmis-launches-fresh-attack-Muslim-faith-saying-Islamic-states-evolved.html

    Amis described Islamists as ‘anti-Semites, psychotic misogynists and homophobes’

    The 58-year-old defended a proposal he made last year that Muslims be deported and strip-searched in a crackdown on terrorism.

    His latest comments came in a TV news interview last night and during the Cheltenham Literature Festival last week.
    In an interview with Jon Snow on Channel Four News, Amis declared: ‘I feel morally superior to Islamists, by some distance. I feel an intellectual distance to Islam.
    ‘There are great problems with Islam. The Koran recommends the beating of women.

    ‘The anti-Semites, the psychotic misogynists and the homophobes are the Islamists.’

    Days earlier, Amis shocked festivalgoers in Cheltenham with claims that Muslim states are less ‘civilised’ than Western society.

    ‘I am just saying some societies are more evolved than others. Young men in those kinds of societies are growing up full of loathing and hatred. Something has to be done about it.’
    ‘There is no inoffensive way to put this – by evolved, I mean more civilised. We have more respect for civil society.’

    >>So when is Political Crapbook going to include Amis in the witch-hunt?

    PS. Dr Bob calls himself a “practicing atheist”. What does that mean, Bob? What do you practice? You mean you go to an atheist church and sing hymns about God not existing?

  135. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    What Mr Durnan says about all those IP addresses is no more reliable than any other statement or claim made in the pages of Political Crapbook.
    However I have no doubt that he is writing the abusive messages about me.

  136. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2174813/Ian-McEwan-I-despise-militant-Islam.html
    Ian McEwan: I despise militant Islam
    The award-winning novelist Ian McEwan has launched an outspoken attack on militant Islam, accusing it of “wanting to create a society that I detest”.
    Ian McEwan has been criticised by the Muslim Council of Britain Photo: PHILIP HOLLIS

    By Nicole Martin, Digital and Media Correspondent

    1:07PM BST 22 Jun 2008

    The author said he “despises Islamism” because of its views on women and homosexuality.

    But predicting a backlash against his comments, which were made in an Italian newspaper, he insisted he was not a racist.

    The writer of Atonement and Enduring Love condemned religious hardliners as he defended his friend, the writer Martin Amis, against charges of racism.

    Amis was accused last year of being Islamaphobic after he said that “the Muslim community will have to suffer until it gets its house in order”.

    In an essay written the day before the fifth anniversary of the bombing of New York’s Twin Towers, the novelist suggested “strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan”, preventing Muslims from travelling, and further down the road, deportation.

    In The Age of Horrorism, Amis argued that fundamentalists had won the battle between Islam and Islamism.

    McEwan, 60, said it was “logically absurd and morally unacceptable” that writers who speak out against militant Islam are immediately branded racist.

    “As soon as a writer expresses an opinion against Islamism, immediately someone on the left leaps to his feet and claims that because the majority of Muslims are dark-skinned, he who criticises it is racist,” he said in an interview in Corriere della Sera.

    “This is logically absurd and morally unacceptable. Martin is not a racist. And I myself despise Islamism, because it wants to create a society that I detest, based on religious belief, on a text, on lack of freedom for women, intolerance towards homosexuality and so on – we know it well.”

  137. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    @ Laurence pretending to be Bornagain:-
    How can somebody “create racial divisions” by discussing a text intellectually in a private e-mail?
    You are really not very bright are you?
    Your venom is no substitute for rational argument.

  138. Laurence says:

    Julia. Perhaps you can tell us all how your complaints about this website to the Information Commissioner and Thames Valley Police are going?

  139. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    In January this year the Conservative Party chair Baroness Warsi caused controversy when she suggested that such prejudice, far from being confined to the kinds of violent attacks documented by the IRR, is in fact an everyday feature of British society. Islamophobia, she declared, has “passed the dinner table test” and is now seen by many “as a legitimate – even commendable – thing”.

    For critics of Warsi’s position her use of the word “Islamophobia” was particularly problematic. Taken literally it appears to denote a negative attitude not only towards Muslims, but also towards the Islamic religion itself, with the implication that such an attitude is a form of unacceptable prejudice. “It’s not a useful term,” says Maryam Namazie, spokesperson for the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain and the One Law For All campaign, which fights against the use of Sharia law in the UK. “It is used for scaremongering and silencing criticism of Islam by implying it is racist to do so. Xenophobia or homophobia target people, which is why they are unacceptable, but targeting a belief system or religion in general, or Islam in particular, is actually fair play.”

  140. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.kenanmalik.com/essays/prospect_islamophobia.html
    The Islamophobia Myth
    prospect, february 2005

    He writes:-
    “Ten years ago no one had heard of Islamophobia. Now everyone from Muslim leaders to anti-racist activists to government ministers want to convince us that Britain is in the grip of an irrational hatred of Islam – a hatred that, they claim, leads to institutionalised harassment, physical attacks, social discrimination and political alienation. Former Home Office Minister John Denham has warned of the ‘cancer of Islamophobia’ infecting the nation. The veteran anti-racist Richard Stone, who was a consultant to the Stephen Lawrence inquiry, suggests that Islamophobia is ‘a challenge to us all’. The Director of Public Prosecutions has worried that the war on terror is ‘alienating whole communities’ in this country. The government is so concerned that it is introducing a new law outlawing incitement to religious hatred.
    But does Islamophobia really exist? Or is the hatred and abuse of Muslims being exaggerated to suit politicians’ needs and silence the critics of Islam? The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims on the one hand with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of ‘Islamophobia’ is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And in reality discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived – but criticism of Islam should be greater.”
    The whole article is well worth reading.

  141. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    Laurence asks “Perhaps you can tell us all how your complaints about this website to the Information Commissioner and Thames Valley Police are going?”
    They are telling me that it is not worth pursuing a case against such a potty little website read by half a dozen aging bolsheviks left over from the 1950s. They asked me, “Had you ever heard of Political Crapbook before this happened?”
    I said, “No.”
    They said, “No, neither had we, and neither has anybody else. So why worry? Frankly, this would get more publicity if you wrote it on a postcard and pinned it to the noticeboard of your local old people’s home.”

  142. Laurence says:

    @Julia: You can’t pursue a case because there is no case to pursue. All you have achieved is making yourself look a bit nuts.

    You seem to be slightly obsessed with the site, thus the number of posts here and vexatious complaints to the police and ICO.

    As for aging Bolsheviks, really glad they enjoy the site… along with the 130,000 odd other readers in the past month.

    I’m about to block you, so by all means get anything else of your chest. It’s getting a bit boring now.

  143. Dr Bob says:

    “PS. Dr Bob calls himself a “practicing atheist”. What does that mean, Bob? What do you practice? You mean you go to an atheist church and sing hymns about God not existing?”

    I’m glad you got the joke Julia, you did, didn’t you?!

    I’m a practicing Atheist, I don’t go to Church 7 days a week, boom boom.

    Julia is nuts mate, I’m only surprised she hasn’t started posting those right wing crank e-mail hoaxes claiming the Australian PM/Kramer/Robin Williams/ad nauseam having a rant about Muslims

    Julia, you are still to explain why you have been championing your own right to freedom of speech yet have refused to allow anyone comment on your blog anymore? What are you afraid of exactly? It’s a bit like those that champion Geert Wilders and free speech when the man is trying to get passages of a book banned.

    100% completely cuckoo!

  144. Dr Bob says:

    Please don’t block her, she’s pure entertainment and a great argument against herself and the rest of the UKIP loonies.

  145. Dr Bob says:

    “Laurence asks “Perhaps you can tell us all how your complaints about this website to the Information Commissioner and Thames Valley Police are going?”
    They are telling me that it is not worth pursuing a case against such a potty little website read by half a dozen aging bolsheviks left over from the 1950s.”

    Julia allegedly has a history of inventive contact with the police, see the Oxford Mail.

    It’s so funny it’s almost cruel.

  146. Darren Green says:

    Posted by Laurence on May 14…

    SOCK PUPPETING: Just to point out that the IP addresses used to post from “Dr Julia Gasper” match those used to post comments from:

    * This site is rubbish
    * Rodney Willmore
    * Psalm
    * Clarence Baker
    * Darren Green

    I don’t really exist, eh Laurence? I am just a figment of Julia’s imagination????

    Well, tell it to the 104 people who VOTED for me in May 2002…

    OXFORD CITY COUNCIL ELECTON – 2 MAY 2002

    ST MARY’S WARD

    Green – Craig Simmons – 433 votes
    Labour – Mohammed Abbasi – 429 votes
    Green – Annie Skinner – 390 votes
    Labour – Peter Moss – 389 votes
    Liberal Democrat – Elizabeth Barker – 150 votes
    Conservative – Darren Green – 104 votes
    Liberal Democrat – Pieter-Paul Barker – 96 votes
    Socialist Alliance – Angelina Rai – 91 votes

    Source: Wikipedia.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_City_Council_election,_2002

  147. The Queen says:

    Well I’m the Queen! It says so with my user name. : )

  148. Spartacus says:

    Look, I’m Spartacus!

  149. Nelson Mandela says:

    Enee one seen mah socks?

  150. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    The Oxford Mail never said anything of the sort.
    Dr Bob is getting more and more desperate to find new fibs to tell.

  151. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    Darren’s message exposes the editor’s lies rather neatly. No need to go there again!

    “I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes.” (Koran 8:12)
    “Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: Wipe the infidels out to the last.” (Koran: 8:7)

  152. Jesus Christ says:

    CUCKOO!!

  153. The unbeliever says:

    Dr Gasper, can you please link to where I can find that particular translation so I can see the context and the credibility of the translator?

    Is it your translation from the original text or have you borrowed it from another source?

    Thanks.

  154. Ibrahim says:

    “The unbeliever”, I guess if Dr Gasper had a bad translation, then everything she had said it wrong. Otherwise, her critics are wrong. Lets see what three authoritative translations from “The Center for Muslim-Jewish Egagement”, a centre that promotes dialogues between religions.

    Here we go

    “008.012
    YUSUFALI: Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”
    PICKTHAL: When thy Lord inspired the angels, (saying): I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Then smite the necks and smite of them each finger.
    SHAKIR: When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them.

    008.013
    YUSUFALI: This because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger, Allah is strict in punishment.
    PICKTHAL: That is because they opposed Allah and His messenger. Whoso opposeth Allah and His messenger, (for him) lo! Allah is severe in punishment.
    SHAKIR: This is because they acted adversely to Allah and His Messenger; and whoever acts adversely to Allah and His Messenger– then surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). ”

    OMG – Terror, punishment, cutting off heads and cutting off fingers.

    I can’t wait to see all the apologies that say “Well, Dr Gasper, I have political differences with you about so many things, but you are essentially correct about the violent, bigotted nature of the Quran. I was wrong, and I spoke out of ignorance. You were right. No one should follow the Quran in its entirety.”

    It would take a very decent man or woman to make that apology. Let’s see who can’t pass the test. I stand ready to be suprised.

  155. The unbeliever says:

    Thank you Ibrahim for exposes the fatal flaw in Julias argument and that is, translation and interpretation are individual. Julia has posted a translation that is a culmination of Chinese whispers on the internet. Every time the translation has passed hands it has slightly changed until, as we can see, there is a gulf of difference between yours and hers.

    Julia has not consulted original text and translated it herself, she didn’t even post a recognised translation from an academic scholar or interpreter. All she did was lazily post what she found posted by all the cranks on the internet their own version of an adjusted and distorted quote that has morphed into it’s final text twisted by the prejudice of the reader and poster.

    Julia’s quote:

    I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes.

    Ibrahim’s quote:

    Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you: give firmness to the Believers: I will instil terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them.”

    Quite a difference wouldn’t you say and in the context of people interpreting and acting on those quotes the potential for very differing outcomes wouldn’t you say?

    Even your own three examples vary which tells us a lot about translation and interpretation.

    To use, out of context (let’s not forget that the Quran’s prose is firmly set in the 7th to 9th century), interpretations of translations of translations of translations of translations of interpretations of translations to condemn the source, in my book, are complete lunatics. It’s what the extremists do.

    Julia’s understanding of the text is different to yours and therein lies the flaw. If neither of you can agree as to what the Quran has actually said then how can either of you offer a credible critique? Julia is even basing her views on what some other loon has posted on the internet and not even bothered to check the text. Not very becoming for a supposed academic wouldn’t you say?

    Maybe Ibrahim, you can explain to us a bit more about the context of those verses? You know, what they were referring to, at what historical time and what historical context? Can you do that for us? It’s easy to take single quotes, give a rough translation and then condemn out of context wouldn’t you say?

  156. The unbeliever says:

    A man once said “Let’s go out there and destroy them, wipe them out, obliterate them and come back and celebrate”.

    Quite a damning quote wouldn’t you say?

    Once we put the context in though it reads a little different.

    The man was a football manager talking before a cup final.

  157. Ibrahim says:

    “Unbeliever” your thesis that the Quran doesn’t mean anything, because you can’t read it, and reject the plain meaning of every standard translation is pathetic. Do you reject the fact that Muhammad struck the heads off infidels? Do you reject the fact that Muslims decapitate the heads of apostates and infidels and strike off the hands of offenders?

    You want context? Muhammad struck the heads off unbelievers. Allah told him to. Find a single orthodox muslim cleric in the last 1400 years who thinks Allah was joking. It wasn’t a “football game” as far as muslims are concerned.

    If you think Muslims think allah was joking you will be suprised that Muslims have codified in their sharia law which still stands, based on their plain reading of the Quran which you think is meaningless because you cant read it
    -stonings
    -beheadings
    -amputations
    -killing of apostates
    -subjugation of non-muslims, or killing them if they reject paying tribute.

    I’m telling you what muslims believe the Quran says, which is what it plainly does say.

    I don’t know if you are stupid, Unbeliever. However you give the impression of being, plain and simple, an ignorant, intransigent idiot or simply an ideologue with a barrow to push. I don’t care which, but I hope you get over it,

  158. Ibrahim says:

    Unbeliever, you probably think the quran doesn’t say anything about killing homosexuals, or making women wear a veil, or there being no punishment for killing your own child, or the legality of raping your slaves.

    Here’s news for you. Sharia records that muslims beleive the Quran and Muhammad command all those things. Good luck telling muslims they are wrong about what their own book literally says.

    Tell the taliban. They can read arabic. Tell the iranians. Tell the saudis.

    But, you know better.

    Gasper’s not wrong, and you are either a moron, shockingly ignorant, or a man of person of poor character.

  159. Ibrahim says:

    I can’t wait for your lecture tour of the Middle East, when you tell all the Muslims that the Quran doesn’t mean what they think, because you personally can’t read it.

    They will probably invite the christians and jews back to the arabian peninsula, then they will stop beheading witches, and hanging homosexuals, and killing people who disagree with Muhammad.

    Good luck.

    No, but you’ve got better things to do – make ignorant slurs against what Dr Gasper has said. I hope you are not such a fool that you will never allow that you were wrong about this.

  160. Ibrahim says:

    What a consolation it will be for the massacred Hindus, Assyrians, Armenians, Jews et all, and a consolation for the stoned women, hanged homosexuals, beheaded atheists.

    “Oh, a person on the internet says the Quran has been mistranslated to you arab Muslims.”

    Well, it doesn’t matter that the Quran is a load of old nonsense, unbeliever. You and I both know that it is. But the difference is that I respect the fact that people actually believe it. You must find it hard to believe that people take it seriously, but they do. They take it as the word of God. God, they think wasn’t joking about the burning and killing and beheading, the praying, and the polygamy, as much as you think it is a metaphor or some such thing. Tell the muslims not to take it seriously.

  161. Ibrahim says:

    It will be so great when the Islamic world gets the message that “unveliever” can’t say one way or another what any verse of the Quran literally says.

    There goes the religion.

    Eat pork or not eat pork? Who knows, its all meaningless. It’s in arabic for Christ’s sake!

    Seriously, however, in the mosque, in arabic, there is no contention as to what the words of the Quran say.

    When the horror of it the quran is alluded to by non-muslims – killing, stoning, beheading, conquering, amputations, they drag out the “out of context” “mistranslation” story. It’s plain, 100% bullshit, however.

  162. Ibrahim says:

    All that kerfuffle over Salman Rushdie – millions of Muslims who mistook what the Quran said. Yusuf Islam – he didn’t know what the Quran said. Ayatollahs of Iran – didn’t know what the Quran said.

    They all wanted Rushdie dead! What fools! Don’t they know the Quran is in arabic and when it says to kill someone it means to beat them at football? Stoning means giving drugs! Beheading means hitting the neck!

    However, there is a non-muslims man/woman named “unbeliever” who can correct those muslims – “no one knows what the Quran says!!! ”

    Thank goodness that has been cleared up.

  163. Ibrahim says:

    If you read “Mein Kampf” the way “unbeliever” reads the Quran, you see that is basically pro-Jewish, and anti fascist. Besides, it is in German, so who knows what it means? It’s all translation and interpretation.

    Nothing more needs to be said, does it, “Unbeliever”?

  164. The unbeliever says:

    Woah there sonny, getting a little personal aren’t we? Not very becoming for your supposed rational argument.

    It appears that you have gone from interpreting the Quran in a discussion about what it says to now talking about how others interpret and act on it. You’re all over the place mate.

    I’ve a simple question for you that illustrates my point beautifully. How do you explain the millions upon millions of Muslims across the world that don’t interpret their holy book as you have? The ones that see it in it’s historical context and of it’s period? You know, the way you can’t see it.

    Do you equally equate the Bible as being worse than Mein Kampf due to it’s quite appalling texts and passages that defend killing children, raping women and having non believers burn in hell?

    Why do you only obsess about one cranky religion to the exclusion of all others?

    All in the name of balance you understand.

  165. Ibrahim says:

    “I’ve a simple question for you that illustrates my point beautifully. How do you explain the millions upon millions of Muslims across the world that don’t interpret their holy book as you have? The ones that see it in it’s historical context and of it’s period? You know, the way you can’t see it.”

    That is indeed a simpleto question. It illustrates your intransigence and ignorance beautifully.
    You are the person who thinks you know how Muslims read the Quran.

    Many so-called Muslims hate the Quran. They are forced to identify as Muslims. No sensible, honorable, educated person follows the quran.

    Did you know that many people read Mein Kampf the way Hitler wrote it, and agree with it, but they are not acting on it because of political constraints?

    The majority of the world’s muslims are illiterate. A very small minority can even read the Quran. Of those who do, you cannot find me one Muslim cleric in the Islamic world who says that Muhammad’s example and the words of Allah are not eternal and valid for our times. They remain valid for all times.

    “Why do you only obsess about one cranky religion to the exclusion of all others?” Oh, you really are an ignorant twit. You don’t give a shit about the welfare of women and children, and the degradation of the Islamic world, so please do something useful, rather than display your ignorance.

    Did you miss out on explaining how stonings, beheadings, killings of atheists etc are carried out? What book do you think muslims get that out of?

  166. Ibrahim says:

    “It appears that you have gone from interpreting the Quran in a discussion about what it says to now talking about how others interpret and act on it.”

    That you think your idiotic reading of the Quran is suddenly more valid than the way that actual arabic speaking Muslims have interpreted it for 1400 scholarly years and encoded it in their sharia for all to see, is illustrative of your intellectual perspicacity.

    What’s your thesis? The Quran is not about violence and domination. Tell the Ayatollah.

    You want to put forward an argument about the Bible, go ahead. If you think Jesus’ example is anything remotely like Muhummad’s recorded rapes and murders, go ahead. It doesn’t have one whit of relevence to the fact that the Quran is about subjugation of non-Muslims and subjugation of women. But don’t think that your inability to come up with a cogent position prevents others from doing so.

    Basically, you are saying that no matter how stupid, or lacking in evidence your views are, they are remain valid.

    To conlude on a note that you are probably used to – “Good work, unbeliever. That was a lovely talk on the Quran and how there is nothing wrong with it, just naughty people read it litterally, when you know it’s just a suggestion. A+. Can’t wait to hear your speach to the class about when the tooth fairy came and gave you 50p.”

  167. Ibrahim says:

    The Quran specifically says that its instructions and the example of Muhammad are valid, and the word of God, for all people, forever.

    It sets out a plan for subjugating non-Muslims, murdering apostates, legitimizing slavery and rape, and the inferiority of women.

    Since the time of Muhammad, and his slavery, rape and conquest, these things have been carried out, religiously.

    Muhammad knew how to follow the book, better than anyone. He murdered critics, raped slaves, killed infidels. His successors followed the book and killed dissidents. All people who follow the book as it describes approve stonings, amputations, rapes, killing of apostates, subjugation of non-Muslims, whom the Quran describes as “the vilest of creatures” by the Muslims, whom the Quran describes as “the best of peoples”.

    Now along comes “Unbeliever” who says the book is not fascist or brutal because . . . . . you don’t have to do what it says. He can show us people who call themselves Muslims, but don’t do the stonings amputations and rapes like the book endorses. Oh, nothing wrong with the book then.

    Oh great. Of course no one has to do what the book says. No one has to do what Mein Kampf says. That doesn’t make criticism of the book “bigoted”.

    Of course no muslims should do what the book says. The book is appalling. Millions of women are living in subjugation to people who read the book in arabic and take it at its word.

    It irritates “non believer” that someone should criticise what he sees as a charming, valid guide to morality known as the Quran without also criticising other religions equally, at the same time and falsely claiming that every ideology is just as bad. Too bad. Educate yourself before you slander those Muslims who are trying to break out of the horror.

  168. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18142695

    MORE THAN 90 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN KILLED IN A SUICIDE BOMB ATTACK at a military parade rehearsal in Yemen’s capital, Sanaa, defence ministry officials say.
    The bomber, who was reportedly wearing an army uniform, blew himself up among a group of soldiers at al-Sabin Square, near the presidential palace.
    An al-Qaeda source told the BBC one of its members had carried out the attack.
    It was the deadliest incident in the capital since Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi was elected president in February.
    THE POLITICAL CRAPBOOK, A LEFT-WING NEWS SITE, INSISTED THAT UKIP WAS TO BLAME.

  169. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    Laurence Durnan, editor of Political Crapbook, finally resorts to censorship, threatening to block me from the site. Just like Stalin and Mao-tse-Tung his idols.
    Conclusive proof that you and your red-flag-waving loonie followers have lost the argument.

  170. The unbeliever says:

    “Now along comes “Unbeliever” who says the book is not fascist or brutal because . . . . . you don’t have to do what it says”

    Apart from the fact that you have reduced the debate down to a continual tirade of personal abuse and given the impression that you are incapable of a rational and reasonable argument this one phrase highlights why you have got yourself bogged down in your self created fog.

    What I have clearly pointed out is that even between you and Julia your translations and understanding differ. Extrapolate that across a wider audience and we can start to see the problem with having a definitive status on what the book actually says. This of course is further compounded by the fact the Quran was written in a dialect that no longer exists, is an interpretation of historical events and has been translated by numerous people in varying quality. If you don’t recognise the inherent issues in this state of affairs and continue to offer a definitive stance based on it then I can only assume you have an agenda that obscures the capacity for rational and reasonable intellectual debate.

    In my opinion, what you have done on these pages in effect is say, your understanding and interpretation of selected out of context quotes is the only correct one. To admit that there are other interpretations and understandings that contradict yours is to admit the fatal flaw in your argument.

    I see you as no different to all the other looneys, Julia Gasper included (for her unquestioning reproduction of anti Muslim sourced incorrect translations that have morphed and twisted at the hand of those that repeat them) who take selected quotes out of context and offer definitive answers/interpretations based on them.

    I bid you good day Ibrahim and hope you find a way to become more objective in your arguments because it seems to be causing you a great deal of stress.

  171. The unbeliever says:

    “Laurence Durnan, editor of Political Crapbook, finally resorts to censorship, threatening to block me from the site. Just like Stalin and Mao-tse-Tung his idols.
    Conclusive proof that you and your red-flag-waving loonie followers have lost the argument.”

    Julia, you are more of a crank than even I ever imagined. You are so obsessed with your own self righteous opinion that you cannot see the wood for the trees.

    As Lawrence hasn’t blocked you then he hasn’t resorted to censorship. As a scholar of the beautiful English language I am shocked at your illiteracy.

    You equate being blocked to the actions of Stalin and Mao yet the only person in this conversation that has carried out such an act is your good self. You have disabled comments on your blog where they once stood and you have deleted all those comments that exposed your frail arguments. Your hypocrisy is stunning and your self righteous arrogant stance is exposed for all to see but you seem so uptight I think you don’t see it. If you do then you should be very embarrassed.

    Dr Julia Gasper has blocked all opposition comments on her blogspot and deleted all opposition comments that used to be there . Conclusive proof that she and her right wing-flag-waving loonie followers have lost the argument.

  172. Ibrahim says:

    Unbeliever, I you lost the argument. Good day.

  173. Ibrahim says:

    As I meant to say, Unbeliever, you lost the argument, and you were a twit. Of course people can read the Quran any way they like, or not at all, like you.

    You haven’t addressed a single fact or explained stonings amputations, killings of apostates and oppression of women. It’s all there. You write off Sharia as if it does not come from a precise reading of the Quran. You are an utter ignoramus, despite your self-righteousness.

    No good person follows the Quran. But it says what it says despite all your ignorant claptrap.

  174. Dr Julia Gasper says:

    Court hearing today 22nd May 2012.
    http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pakorigin-muslim-couple-in-uk-killed-daughter-for-her-western-lifestyle/952380/
    A muslim couple in Britain murdered their daughter by stuffing a
    plastic bag down her throat, according to their surviving daughter.
    Why? Because she wanted to avoid arranged marriage and have more
    freedom.
    The Political Crapbook website insisted that UKIP was to blame and that the real problem was “racist islamophobia.”

  175. The unbeliever says:

    My dear Ibrahim, you are starting to sound like a ranting fundamentalist.

    Have you declared your preferred religion yet?

  176. The unbeliever says:

    Julia, why are you now engaging in the childish tactic of every other right wing nutter on the internet by posting links to individual stories as if it somehow proves a point that in the scale of things makes your posts look silly?

    P.S. You really should read your own evidence as you have posted a story that, so far, is only an accusation from a teenager who got caught stealing. The case is ongoing.

    Would you like to get into the silly game of post and match news stories?

  177. Can someone remind me again the argument that there’s no such thing as Islamophobia?

    Daily torment of racism in the classroom
    By Divya Talwar
    BBC Asian Network

    Khadeja is one of a growing number of pupils to have faced racist abuse
    Continue reading the main story
    Related Stories

    Schools saw 87,000 racism cases
    Kids reported for racist language Listen
    Schools see racist bullying rise
    School is finished for the day, but as on most evenings, 14-year-old Khadeja Fahat, is catching up on her school work.

    Since the year 9 pupil faced racist Islamaphobic abuse every day at her school in Wilmslow, Cheshire, her education has suffered along with her mental health.

    “I was tormented nearly every day; I was scared to go to school,” said Khadeja.

    “I used to go to school thinking: what am I going to face today?

    “Is someone going to physically hurt me, or shout something at me or throw something at me?”

    She continued: “The other children would shout verbal abuse at me; I was called a terrorist and a Taleban and asked why I was behind 9/11.

    “Someone once shouted: look at that girl, she has a bomb in her bag.

    “It made me feel so low and all my confidence had gone.

    “I went from this happy girl who was always smiling and loved going to school and learning, to someone that didn’t care about anything and just wanted each day to be over.

    “I didn’t understand why I was being treated like this. I was the same as the other students, except that I wore a headscarf.”

    ‘I stopped eating’
    According to anti-racism charities, there has been a rise in Islamaphobia and racism in schools around the UK, and there are concerns that schools are not sure how to deal with it.

    At first the year 9 student hid the abuse she was facing at school from her mother, Saiqa Shabir.

    Mrs Shabir, a trainee teacher, of Pakistani origin, said that she was shocked when she found out about her daughter’s bullying, and took it up with the school.

    “Khadeja was very secretive about everything that was going on.

    “When she eventually told me, I was upset, I was angry and disappointed in myself.

    Khadeja is now trying to catch up with her school work
    “I kept asking why I hadn’t asked more questions about her day.”

    Khadeja says the bullying not only affected her education but also her health.

    “I was so depressed and I lost weight because I just stopped eating, because I just didn’t feel hungry.

    “I just wanted to go to bed to get each day over with since there was nothing to look forward to, not even coming home, since I would have to go to school the next day.”

    Khadeja’s mother says the last straw came when her daughter was punched by another student.

    “I got a text from her saying someone had hit her in the ribs and she asked if I could collect her from school.”

    Mrs Shabir says that she was disappointed by the way the school dealt with the matter.

    In an attempt to protect Khadeja from the abuse, which took place over six months from September 2010 to March 2011, her school assigned her a buddy who had to stay with her at all times.

    Continue reading the main story

    Start Quote

    Young people can pick up racist behaviour from parents or friends ”

    Sarah Soyei
    Show Racism the Red Card
    But Mrs Shabir says: “The teachers were overwhelmed and did not know how to deal with the situation.

    “She was being bullied by so many different kids from different years.

    “It makes me so angry to think how the children behaved towards her, why were they able to take so much from her?”

    Khadeja has now moved to a new school where she is slowly settling in and making friends.

    But her education has taken a hit. Having missed three months of schooling, she is behind many of the other students in her year.

    “We just want to bury the last year and move forward, everything that Khadeja went through was very hard on the whole family to deal with,” said Mrs Shabir.

    But pupils like Khadeja are not alone.

    Anti-racism charities say that Islamaphobia is a significant problem in schools in some areas around the country.

    Sarah Soyei, from the anti-racism charity, Show Racism the Red Card (SRRC) said: “We are seeing a growth in racist bullying towards Muslims students, and those from Roma, Gypsy and travelling communities.

    “The fear of terrorism and the growth of right wing groups like the English Defence League has contributed to a growth of Islamaphobia in many classrooms around the country.

    “Young people can pick up racist behaviour from parents or friends and from not understanding certain situations.

    “But it is not about punishing very young children, it’s about educating them so they can understand why these behaviours are wrong so they can change them,” she added.

    Prevention
    The charity delivers anti-Islamphobia workshops in schools across the country, with the help of ex-professional footballers.

    The aim of the lessons is to help young people challenge racist behaviour in the classroom.

    It is hoped that educating young people against racism will prevent more students like Khadeja becoming victims.

    Counselling has help Khadeja overcome the experience and she is trying to put it behind her.

    “I had lost all of my confidence, and now it’s slowly gradually building up.

    “But I’m still nowhere near the bubbly and happy person I once was.”

    You can hear more on Asian Network Reports on the BBC Asian Network

    More on This Story
    Related Stories

    Schools saw 87,000 racism cases 23 MAY 2012, EDUCATION & FAMILY
    Kids reported for racist language 14 SEPTEMBER 2011, UK
    Schools see racist bullying rise 05 JULY 2011, NORTHERN IRELAND
    ‘Racism missed’ at attack school 08 SEPTEMBER 2010, WILTSHIRE

  178. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    Ibrahim is not ranting and it is a childish tactic of leftie hacks to refer to anything they disagree with as “ranting”. “rant,” Ranter”, “ranting” – they haven’t got a very wide vocabulary have they?
    Bet they call this a “rant” too. Comes of being so ignoRANT.
    @ Ibrahim: I like the sound of what you are saying. Please contact me at this e-mail address which I have set up on purpose
    Psalm, and all the others accused of being me are welcome to contact me as well.

  179. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/23/taliban-targets-schoolgirl-afghanistan-_n_1539364.html

    70 girls lethally attacked by Taliban with aim of preventing female education.

  180. Dr. Julia Gasper says:

    @ Ibrahim. You are offering excellent reasoning and hard facts but they are wasted on these people because they are just stupid. Sorry to say it, but self-righteous lefties who trap themselves in a corner defending the most reactionary ideology in the world, an ideology that is anti-feminist, anti-Semitic, anti-science, anti-democratic, anti-enlightenment tolerance, anti-freedom in general, and even anti-alcohol……these people are just stupid.
    No point in telling them anything, they cannot understand it.

  181. Dr Julia Gasper’s record on view so far:

    Constantly uses childish insults against posters that have the gall to disagree with her.

    Bemoans others using the word rant when she does it all the time.

    Complains that people are trying to shut her free speech down and that the Law Society has denied Christians the right to free speech and contravened the Declaration of Human Rights then proceeds to either ban replies to her own comments on her blogspot or deletes any comments that expose her blatant hypocrisy.

    Uses selective, out of context, religious quotes to attack those that use selective, out of context, religious quotes to justify their own prejudices.

    This one really did make me laugh out loud and is a perfect example of Dr Julia Gasper’s complete crank status.

    “….anti-enlightenment tolerance…”

    This comment is from a woman that said this;

    “We ought to reflect that there is a strong connection between male homosexuality and paedophilia.”

    It’s funny how she selectively brushes from existence anything that contradicts her view .

    This woman is a complete crackpot even by UKIP standards.

  182. Greg_L-W. said…
    Hi,

    one can hardly consider UKIP to be a Libertarian Party as it claims with Gerard Batten MEP publishing tracts that incline to incite racial hatred based on his own personal fears and superstitions as in his vile anti Islamic tracts and his association with criminals like Gregory Lauder Frost who many see as an extremist, a bigot and something of a white supremacist!

    Let us not forget the efforts made by Gerard Batten, involving wasting Police time, to trying to suppress freedom of speech and legitimate discussion of his failures in public service – Not very Libertarian I would contend.

    There is nothing Libertarian about UKIP’s vile racist, anti Jewish, anti homosexual, Holocaust denying advocates of violence as a political expedient that is UKIP’s grouping in the EU – a grouping their leader Nigel Farage chairs and exploits The EFD Group.

    What is Libertarian about the army of sock puppet and muppets who are unleashed by UKIP unfettered to attack, abuse and defame those who dare to disagree with their odious behaviour!

    Regards,
    Greg_L-W.

    30 APRIL 2012 01:08

  183. “…it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions.”

    Richard Dawkins

    What religion are you Julia, and your parents?

  184. …it is a telling fact that, the world over, the vast majority of children follow the religion of their parents rather than any of the other available religions.

    Richard Dawkins

    What religion are you Julia, and your parents?

  185. Still won’t get an answer, lol.

  186. The unbeliever says:

    I found this gem of a quote from dear Julia.

    Do you believe that religious belief should be legally protected from ridicule?
    “No, or we would have to ban the works of Voltaire and all the great enlightenment philosophers! I do think that in general, it is more civilized to treat other people’s beliefs with respect and sensitivity though. If nurses or other people want to wear a cross at work, I think they should be allowed to do so.”

    Respect and sensitivity eh Julia?! You’re all over the place my friend.

  187. Laurence says:

    Sorry to spoil the party but I’ve now blocked Julia. It was all getting really boring. I sent her a brief note explaining this. This is what I got back:

    Censorship!!!!
    Proof that you cannot sustain your viewpoint by means of logic.
    First the despicable stealing of private information, then the smear
    campaign, based on twisting information and misleading people, then
    the three further stages of the smear campaign, then you finally
    resort to censorship.

    Just like your communist predecessors.

    Hmmmmm.

  188. Stephanie says:

    To Julia Gasper, who somehow believes argument by quote spam is somehow an interesting way of conducting debates… I offer http://www.evilbible.com/

    The Bible is replete with genocidal, anti-liberal, child murdering, hate. If the Koran is to be banned on the grounds that it contains violent verses, the Bible contains more and far worse. Nowhere in the Koran does it praise smashing the heads of infants on rocks, as it does in Psalms. Anyone who reads the two books cannot but come to the conclusion that both scriptures are bloody, but the Bible is bloodier.

    Saying the old Testament laws no longer apply is a weak argument.
    a) This is your personal belief and interpretation about scripture. There are equivalent beliefs among Muslims, regarding that harsher parts of Sharia Law. Just ask the British Muslims for Secular Democracy, who want equality for the sexes, no stoning, etc.

    b) Not all Christians have adhered to this view about the OT law being abrogated or redundant. History is full of Christians who have believed the OT law still applies. The Apostles Peter and James argue over the Law with Paul in Galatians – this point of view has its roots in early Christianity. Furthermore, there have been Crusades, Inquisitors, witch trials, the forced conversion of the Moriscos, and much more. Even today, terrorists like Breivik believe in the ideal of the Christian Crusader Knight (see his video Knights Templar 2083).

    As an atheist, a secularist, and a classical liberal, I don’t want to ban any religious scriptures. I want people to be free to read what they please, and it’s my firm belief that Judaism, Christianity and Islam will die out more swiftly when ordinary people can actually study them as well as be confronted with arguments against them. There is a humanist alternative to religion, a world which is based on the compassion, dignity and empathy we have and want for one another, not the whims of a jealous, angry, celestial dictator.

  189. “Censorship!!!!
    Proof that you cannot sustain your viewpoint by means of logic.
    First the despicable stealing of private information, then the smear
    campaign, based on twisting information and misleading people, then
    the three further stages of the smear campaign, then you finally
    resort to censorship.

    Just like your communist predecessors.”

    You mean she didn’t mention her banning of any opposition comments on her own blogspot?!?! Funny that.

    Julia Gasper the censor complains about censorship.Well I never.

  190. A new addition on Julia’s blogspot, lol.

    “Your comment will be visible after approval.”

    No it won’t unless you agree with her point of view.

  191. Laurence says:

    Sorry to put an end to the fun (and the sockpuppeting) but I’m now closing comments on this post.

  192. [...] your party as nuts you should take the hint. Derision aside, there’s always this absolute pariah. Also a tell tale hint of your party being a shambles is when these two turn up to your [...]

  • Follow us on Twitter