Translate

Thursday, 28 July 2011

Anders Breivik participating in two separate debates on Islam (1) Thread started by Jeffrey Marshall (2) Thread started by Claire Khaw

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3718804/Mass-murderer-Anders-Breivik-emailed-some-of-Britains-most-notorious-far-right-extremists-just-over-an-hour-before-he-launched-his-massacre-The-Sun-can-reveal.html

Anders Breivik
Jeffrey Marshall
I exchanged a few messages on Facebook with him on Islam in 2009, the context of which I set out below.


Jeffrey Marshall's Thread

 BNP debate with Muslims - “Islamification of Britain: reality or myth?”

Date: Thursday 10th December 2009
Time: 6.15 pm - 9.15 pm
Venue: Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, Holborn, London, WC1R 4RL
A public forum where members of the Muslim community invite members of the far-right to an open dialogue to discuss their contentions on Islam, the Muslim community in England / Europe, and the impact of immigration, in the hope that prejudice and misconceptions can be tackled through engagement. Additionally, the panel will also be joined by members of the Christian People's Alliance Party and the Liberal Democrats, who both current serve as London councillors, and will be attending to add their perspectives to the discussion.
The invited panel, consisting of representatives from Liberal, Christian Democrat, Muslim and Far Right backgrounds, will be engaginng in discussion and debate over the controversial topic of 'Islamification' which has become the flag bearing issue for the campaigns by the BNP, EDL and SOIE (Stop the Islamification of Europe) groups.
Speakers who have confirmed their attendance include Alan Craig (Councillor for Newham & Leader of Christian People's Alliance Party), Jeffrey Marshall (Central London Organiser for the BNP), Abdullah Al-Andalusi (Public Speaker on Muslim Political Affairs) and Stephen Gash (Stop Islamification of Europe and organiser of the September Harrow Mosque Demonstration).
Stephen Gash writes: "I am happy to be given a platform to express my views, despite the fact that others would not give me such a platform."
Still to be confirmed are Abdurraheem Green and Dr Azzam Tamimi. 
This event is expected to be the first of its kind, where members of the Muslim community directly inviting right-wing anti-Shariah campaigners to the discussion table. Such an intercommunity public discussion event is virtually unprecedented in modern times. Also, the event itself, whatever the result, will help to demonstrate that Muslims are not against censorship, but rather we welcome open discussion and debate, as long as everyone is given a voice to defend their beliefs and way of life in a fair, equal and open platform. Lastly, we feel that only by direct engagement can we defeat the prejudice and hatred that is rising in Europe against Islam. This event is being organised in the hope that Muslims, general non-Muslims and those of the far-right, can all attend, listen and come to an understanding of the real human reality of Britain today, not the false scaremongering and social dissension created by the skewed perspectives of some individuals. Today's situation in Britain is one that Muslims cannot afford to ignore, hoping it will go away if we do no engage it directly.
Security will be present at the event. The ground floor of the main hall can hold over 250 people along with seating for around 100 on the upper galleries. Come early to guarantee a good seat.
For further information please contact:
Tel: 07843 126 715 
E-mail: info@thedebateinitiative.com
Website: www.thedebateinitiative.com

MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIK
06 December 2009
The most essential issue here is demography. Marseilles (the epi-center of Islamisation in Western Europe) now has 38% Muslims and will be a Muslim city with 51% within 20 years.
Difficult but essential questions have to be raised relating to demography and the alleged Islamic demographical warfare waged "indirectly" by the Global Islamic Ummah.
Shall we allow any given European city to become Muslim in the future (51%+)? Should it be prevented and why? If it should, how can it be prevented? Will Europeans be allowed to prevent it?
On a national level
Shall we allow any Western European country to become Muslim in the future (51%+)? 
Is it unacceptable to discuss the possibility that there is an indirect ongoing demographic warfare being wage facilitated by the doctrines of Islam/sharia (limiting womens rights equates to higher Muslim birth rates etc)?
And perhaps most importantly, shall we allow British cities or perhaps even Britain itself to end up as Lebanon?
Lebanon was, as we should all know, a Christian country but is now Muslim. The Christian minority have for several decades lived under hard conditions (dhimmitude).
I understand that discussing these issues are considered politically incorrect. They are however important to many Europeans.
Lebanon demographical development – (Christian/Muslim pop)[1]:
1911 - 21% Islam
1921 - 45% 
1932 - 49%
1943 - 48% 
1970 - 58% (Civil war 1975–1990 started when Islam reached 60%)
1990 - 65% (Christians lost the war)
2008 - 75%
2030 - 90%? 
Source:
1. Tomass Mark, Game theory with instrumentally irrational players: A Case Study of Civil War and Sectarian Cleansing, Journal of Economic Issues, Lincoln; June 1997.
06 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Hi Anders,
Your post is funny, because Lebanon was only created last century. But the area of Land has been within Islamic authority for 1,300 years - only NOW have Muslims begun to try to Islamify it?! I don't think so. I think you'll find that the state the Israel, and the sykes-Picot treaty are to blame for the resultant immigration and wars that occur in the region
As for Marseilles, it is one of France's Southern cities, of course Immigration is increasing the population of non-French citizens, so what? IT is not the result of birthrate; and France and Europe as a whole are now beginning to limit Immigration, as the beneficial economic results can no longer be realised in this recession. Why not complain about the 'Latinisation' of America. There have a far bigger Immigration problem then europe. I think you are just a scare mongerer, and there is no sociological facts you can present to demonstrate that Islamification is happening in Europe. In fact the French 'Dhimmis' as you call them, seem not to be so compliant with Islam - with their BANNING THE HIJAB IN SCHOOL. Does that sound like the actions of a weak subjugated 'Dhimmi' government. Or a strongly intolerant, culturally french-supremist Secular Government?
I'll leave people with half an ounce of sense to decide.

MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIK
6 December 2009
Any "Atatürk approach" will not solve anything but only delay the inevitable. Turkey became secular after Mustafa Atatürk, by military force, implemented his harsh reforms 90 years ago. The result? Sharia lay dormant for 70-80 years. As soon as it was practically possible (Turkey had to implement more human rights to appease the EU) the former "dormant" devout Muslims resurfaced and the Islamist alliance won the last election. The secular elites of Turkey backed by the military are now in an undemocratic manner refusing to obey the will of the majority (Islamist alliance). Turkey is therefore a dictatorship. We have to understand. Islam is extremely resilient, in fact more resilient than most people can comprehend. Taking Sharia (and all political aspects) out of Islam is simply not possible.
Sure, we can force temporary secularization on the Muslims but eventually, even though they would have to wait 90 years, the demands for more Sharia will resurface. And by then they will be in majority and can democratically do whatever they want. 
I predict one of the four scenarios for W. Europe:
1. Islam will reform to a secular "Islamic Protestantism", where all political aspects (Sharia included) will be purged. This is unlikely.
2. Britain will be Muslim
3. Several mini-Pakistan's will be created all over Europe, one in each country (due to Lebanon style conflicts)
4. All Muslims (who does not convert to a non-political religion) will be deported.  
History will always repeat itself.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
English Democrats - the non-racist English nationalist party - even more Islamophobic than BNP?
I was there and don't remember Abdullah saying he wanted Shariah law. Are you confusing Abdullah with Anjem Choudary (who wasn't there on Thursday either), Bill?
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
Then you should of cleaned your ears out Claire. He stated that Sharia was a better law than English law and would be a benefit in the mosques and society in general. He rambled on about womens clothing instead of asking direct questions and has manipulated the whole debate as a propaganda success for the promotion of Islamic values.
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
He said Sharia takes into account of human nature. The fact that we commit adultery, divorce, steal, are gay, engage in commerce, wage war with each other and have governments who have an established tendency of borrowing and lending irresponsibly. If you take Sharia to mean law in accordance with Koranic principles, then you may find it not so sinister after all. Love thy neighbour is also a Koranic principle, in case you didn't know that. Or do you think it just means stonings and beheadings?

13 December 2009
Bill Baker
It has several concepts that is set differently in the various sects of Islam. The point being that it is unacceptable in any form.If he likes the Sharia law and what it takes into account so much then go to Saudi Arabia and live there for the benefit of living under such a 'wonderful legal system'
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
What is "any form"? The death penalty would be in accordance with Koranic principles. Ditto direct democracy.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
any form as in what ever sect has written its version of Sharia law. We have law here, based on Christian principles. People who cant live within that legislative structure must leave, simple as that.
13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Let's be clear about this, Bill. Will you have everything be the opposite of what it is in the Koran, just to avoid what you think is Sharia law?
What about the Koran stating the love thy neighbour principle, or at any rate not harm him?
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
The Koran has many different interpretations and is not written by god or Allah but by a prophet who had mood swings that are clearly defined in his writing of the scriptures, one moment a man of peace the next a violent antagonist and dominant factor. While people can follow the Koran as they see fit for peaceful religious values as that is the right of everyone, it can never be used in any legal concept in league with Sharia law while in England as we have Christian values that take priority as 72% of the population in this country are Christian.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
“Worship God and join none with Him in worship, and do good to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, the poor, the neighbour who is near of kin, the neighbour who is a stranger, the companion by your side, the wayfarer (you meet)... Verily, God does not like such as are proud and boastful.” (Quran 4:36)
Yes, there are many interpretations and there are many laws. 
One must just hope that the court who interprets the law in your case will be fair and just, and that there are ways of fixing things when they go wrong. 
There are no guarantees in life and the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. 

72% of the population are Christian - where did you get that statistic?
It seems a lot less to me.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
The last national census. It was also reffered to by the supposed Anglican Vicar if you had been listening to him. An apologist that should not still be a man of the cloth and should also decide on a political or religious career, but not entwine the two.

MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIK
13 December 200
Claire,
You should study the Islamic legal principles of naskh (Quranic abrogation - the aggressive Medina verses take precedent over the peaceful Mecca verses where appropriate). I could try to educate you further here about Islamic jurisprudence hadn't it been for the fact that this is an inappropriate forum.
I doubt this would be fruitful to any of us as you obviously have a very clear agenda;)
"Taqiyya does not mean you are allowed to lie for promoting one's faith.
Dont worry Abdullah. You are allowed to use al-taqiyya against all kafr until Britain (Dar al-Kufr or Dar al-Harb) has become Dar al-Islam. I can provide a 30 page assessment of the correct use of al-taqiyya against any and all kafrs until Dar-al-Islam has been established.
Please let me know if you have any other questions relating to Islam.
Thank you.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Anders, I am quite aware that there are aggressive verses. Indeed, there is a verse that justifies a pre-emptive war. It is all a matter of interpretation, and whoever controls the interpretation is in charge. 
As for who will be in charge of the interpretation, well, that is what politics is all about. 
I am saying the Koran can be useful, useful even to the people who now fear and hate it. It is but an ideology like any other but more powerful because it is holistic, for the state and for the individual, social and economic, political and moral. 
There is no need to incorporate a formal body of legislation called Sharia law to have law in accordance with Koranic principles, no need at all.
13 December 2009
Bill Baker
We have social economic and moral principals set out under our own legislative system thanks!
13 December 200
Claire Khaw
What moral principles are these? 
Islamic principles are also Christian principles.

13 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Forgive thine enemy, love thy neighbour, etc.

13 December 2009
Bill Baker
Then if the principals are the same there is no need for Sharia law is there. Know your enemy and defeat them to ensure your own survival. You dont fight for love you fight to kill and if you are not going to kill your enemy then dont go into battle as they are surely trying to kill you.
Always ensure your neighbour has social values along the same qualities as your own.

MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIC13 December 2009
Claire,
What part of the doctrines of naskh (Quranic abrogation) do you fail to understand?
I assume you mean well and that you think you can create a non-political “secularized Islamic Protestantism”. But that project will fail just like it has failed multiple times in the past. Why do you think you will succeed this time when even Ataturk failed?
And why would any devout Muslim listen to a kafr like you? They laugh at PC Europeans/ Americans every time they to teach true Muslims what "real Islam (the religion of peace)" is all about. You will be a useful idiot to them until they are in a position where they no longer require your services. I suggest you travel to Lebanon and ask the non-Muslim apologists how they were treated after 1990;)

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Well Anders,
The whole conception of Naskh is debated by scholars (some even deny it exists), others accept it exists, but only limit it to 1-5 small verses, other simply say it existed for verses that were no longer part of the Quran. Suffice to say, the peaceful verses of the Quran have been abrogated. I should like to hear evidence to say that they are (from majority concensus please).
Secondly, ooh, you can provide a '30 page' dissertation on how Taqiyya is applies to what? Even if that is so, I can find a 30 page dissertation from the 'flat earth' society, saying how the Earth is actually flat - so what?! You and them both share your loony interpretation of facts (or even, dare I say it, blatant lies). So unless you put your money where your mouth is, and PRODUCE SOME PROOF, I suggest you keep yor bigoted, paranoid delusions to yourself - your choice :)

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
Actually, I have a better Idea, Anders - Lets Debate it - in PUBLIC. Come on, you have nothing to fear, except the truth. If we allowed the BNP et al the make a public presentation, then you should be no different.
Let's debate the issue of Taqiyya, in PUBLIC. Let's blow this issue Wide open, yes? We have nothing to hide, do you?
(we have no problem coming to your country, or you coming here - take this as a formal invitation to Public Debate).

14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Excellent idea, Abdullah.
In what way did you think Ataturk failed, Anders? He got his secular state that has now banned the niqab, didn't he? Or would success to you mean only the complete suppression and abolition of Islam?
Let me put it this way. If you want to regard Islam as a virus, then let us extend the analogy. Not every person will have exactly the same response and defences to a virus. Some people have immunity, others will recover, some will not. 
I guess I am optimist. What does not kill us makes us stronger.


Claire Khaw's thread:


14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
The Voice of Reason: Faith and Reason; Faith v Reason
Is it reasonable to have faith? Should we have faith in reason? Whether we believe in God or not, surely we should have faith in the future and faith in our convictions?Our convictions must surely be in accordance with Truth, Reason and Reality or they will not withstand the wear and tear of Truth, Reason and Reality. 
If God is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal and unique, then He must surely also incorporate Truth, Reason and Reality. 
On this point perhaps atheists and monotheists can agree: that whether we believe in God or not, we must inevitably submit to Truth, Reason and Reality. Which might conceivably make us all Muslim originally, without realising it ...A disturbing thought for some, no doubt.
14 December 2009
Andrew McKie
Dear Claire, May I give you a reason why you are about to be defriended? Because tedious threads like this & every update to them ping on my iPhone, using up my battery to no good purpose.
I have no objection to those discussions, nor to your encouraging them, but they are below the intellectual level of the average 11-year-old, and use up my storage space and battery life.
Not your fault, I'm sure. But unless you can tell me why I shouldn't cut the cord, I shall, within the next 24 hours. without prejudice, as the lawyers say, best aye A [of http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/author/andrewmckie/] 
14 December 2009
Conor Walsh
The best answer I can give is the Jesuit answer - where faith conflicts with reason, reason must prevail. But don't ask me how they square that with the leap that faith must be.


14 December 2009
Claire Khaw
The difference between what is possible and what is probable is the measure of that leap of faith, which we use our reason to measure. 
That Christ is Son of God is impossible. That God may exist is possible. Indeed, it is virtually certain since we, Man, created Him, as a concept.

14 December 2009
Bill Baker
So the possibility of God /Allah speaking to a deluded idiot such as Mohammed and writing the Koran through this schizophrenic is to be taken seriously then if not through the word of Christ and the Prophets before him? People will believe as they will when it comes to religious values as it is drummed into those without access to education constantly, but those with any form of intelligence realise that it is all fable and the heads of religion are in it for personal gain and the power buzz only. We derive our moral standards to create law through historical faith and good common sense.

14 December 2009
Abdullah Al Andalusi
It is funny Bill, how you attack the Intelligence of a man, who presented a holistic integrated spiritual and socio-political system, that changed a backwater nomadic people into an advanced and intellectually progressive world superpower that lasted 1,300 years, who's mere contact with the West, generated the European Renaissance. If that man is considered by you to be an Idiot, I'd hate to see what we come up with, if we were to apply your exacting standards to yourself - who has achieve far far considerably less (if at all).


MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIC
14 December 2009
I agree, Abdullah, Muhammad is perhaps the greatest military leader, statesman and political intellectual that has ever lived. I have studied Islam for several years and must say I am extremely impressed by how efficient your ideology is. Well, the Ummah failed twice but you might actually succeed in conquering Europe this time eventually. It is a shame that most Europeans reject non-PC history and thus underestimate Muhammad's brilliance and Islams potency.

My favourite quote from the Hadith is the following btw:
Hadith of the Prophet

"Lataftahanna al-Qustantiniyya wa lani`ma al-amiru amiruha wa lani`ma al-jayshu dhalika al-jaysh." "Verily you shall conquer Constantinople. What a wonderful leader will he be, and what a wonderful army will that army be!"

Needless to say; every single kuffar capital is considered modern day Constantinople’s. The only difference is that the strategic weapon used in the Jihad against Europe is Islamic demographic warfare instead of regular infantry units (which is the preferred method in the Sudan Jihad).
As for the debate. What would be the point, Abdullah? We are all ideologically confident and experienced enough to remain immune to each others argumentation and approaches. Our objective is to influence the people, not to try to influence eachother:)

The ruling establishment, the multiculturalist PC block (politicians, media, NGOs) are all ignoring any non-PC group so you shouldn’t be worried at all. We have absolutely no way of influencing national decision making at this point (with the exception of Denmark, Italy and certain other European local counties). Only time will tell if we ever gain influence in the remaining countries before it is too late:) Abdullah, you don't have to answer my question or counter my argument. We can just agree on the fact that we disagree:) Claire, I already answered your question regarding Ataturk and Turkey. Pls check earlier msg:)

18 December 2009
Bill Baker
Conor, there are certain Christian sects that are as bad as the Islamic sects who promote war and persecution. The three Abrahamic faiths Judaism, Christianity and Islam all have splinter groups that are either advocates of peace or war, but I oppose vehemently any of these sects who fall into the latter category. I will repeat again that we have preachers to soothe the souls of those who seek consolation through religion and we have politicians to guide our laws, but while each should have respect for the other, the two should never be entwined as it leads to the type of Tribalism and depravity you speak of around the world.

18 December 2009
Conor Walsh
OK Bill thanks for that - sounds like fair comment - so you would accept that what people loosely call Islamic terrorism has as little to do with Islam as say, my own Irish Catholicism has to do with the anti-civilian atrocities of the IRA? In other words, religion is used by people in both Western governments and others in Asian countries to obscure or mystify or aggravate the real nature of conflict which has a lot to do with oil and little to do with sacred texts?

MESSAGE BELIEVED TO BE FROM ANDERS BREIVIC18 December 2009
You seem extremely naive, Conor. You should browse through the December list of Jihadi violence and terror here: More than 14000 Jihadi terror attacks since 9/11. In comparison during this period, how many Christian terror attacks?
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
I invite you to find a similar list committed by Christian groups...
You cannot compare Christendom and Islam. Islam has historically killed more than 270 million, Christendom less than 27 million. As such, Islam is historically 10 times more bloody and cruel. 1000 times as bloody and cruel in todays context. Is it perhaps due to the fact that Islam is a political ideology? ;)
Please wake up.

18 December 2009
Conor Walsh
Anders please don't call me naive. I will have to start searching for terms of my own to characterize my feelings regarding your own slightly selective reading of recent history. How many people were killed by Western forces in Iraq?
Bill assuming that your term satanic applies to the western cheerleaders of aggressive war as well as anyone else who advocates military action against civilian populations, in particular, I have no problem with your use of the term though I would be inclined not to see this in theological terms of any kind.

8 December 2009
Claire Khaw
Even I know that Islam is the religion of peace AND WAR. That is what makes it so versatile and fit for the purpose of government and international relations. 
Islam is a political ideology like any other so its effect would be similar to the effect of Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Liberalism etc. 
I am afraid it is the nature of man to kill each other over a philosophical disagreement. It is just the way of the world.

No comments: