Rastafarian denounces Muslim activists in Speakers Corner for hypocrisy and the idolatry of worshipping a gay white man called Paul

A Catholic understanding this more than many Muslims today shamefully playing identity politics while living amongst non-Muslims.

“I need to fight for queer rights so that queers will fight for my rights”

While totally ignoring God’s right to be worshipped and obeyed above all https://t.co/aEiIg2mCvd

— Nomad Islamist (@nomad_islamist) March 23, 2018

I N T E R S E C T I O N A L I T Y pic.twitter.com/gWogEJVLfR

— ❥Petite Nicoco (@PetiteNicoco) March 24, 2018

Intersectionality  = I'll support your bullshit if you support my bullshit so we can swell our numbers. Otherwise only six people care about my bullshit and three people care about yours. Now let's go find some more bullshit to support.

— TriggerIX (@TheTriggerIX) March 24, 2018

Rastafarian:

A gay Muslim is an oxymoron. It's like saying you are a paedophile Muslim or a racist Muslim. [Or a Jewish Nazi or a Nazi who loves Jews, presumably.]

You can't classify yourself as a gay Muslim.

A [Muslim] hypocrite is worse than a kafir. 

You know how Shaitan is going to come to Muslims? He is not going to come saying 'Muslims this and Muslims that' and put their backs up. He's going to come in the form of a nice little white guy calling himself a gay Muslim. That's how Shaitan is going to infiltrate Islam. Allah says it is an abomination! 

I don't worship no white man called Paul! [The Rastafarian is suggesting that these Muslims whom he alleges to be hypocrites are making an idol of Paul - and thereby practising idolatry - because he is white and gay. Being nice to him allows them to make them seem moderate and tolerant. It is most unlikely that these Muslim activists would be quite so tolerant with gay men of their own race.]

I am African and a Rastaman. [He is proudly proclaiming that Africans and Rastafarians abhor sodomites and makes the usual point about the anus being a sewer and certainly not where a moral man should insert his sex organ.]

When the allegedly hypocritical Muslim points out that Paul is not a practising sodomite, Rastaman says "Then he shouldn't call himself gay." Presumably he means that Paul should have the decency to stay in the closet rather than let it all hang out and make Muslims think it is OK to be Muslim and gay.

The Rastafarian makes the point that these brown Muslims are guilty of idolatry and therefore of worshipping Paul rather than Allah and allowing their worship of a gay white Muslim convert to triumph over their Islamic principles because they perceive Paul as a valuable token of Muslim tolerance and moderation.

Rastafarian warns Muslim activists in Speakers Corner that " the people with the agenda [to turn people gay]" have already infiltrated Christianity and are now coming for Islam. Learn debating and reasoning skills, he tells them. A very impressive young man! https://t.co/4uLs5mhKqq

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 March 2018

Rastafarian complains that while Paul has said he is not a practising sodomite, he has not absolutely promised that he will never have sex with another man. 

Rastafarian says he is more Muslim than the Muslims who pretend sodomy is OK to display their Western tolerance and inclusiveness and accuses them of assimilating.

Rastaman says most of the Hadith comes from the Torah.

These Muslims have allowed Paul, the West and LGBT rights to triumph over Allah.

Rastafarian loses his temper with PC LGBT-tolerant Muslim activists in Speakers Corner for saying it is OK for Paul Williams to call himself a gay Muslim just cos he is white. https://t.co/HyUKdikd9d

— Claire Khaw (@MinimumSt8) 24 March 2018

Richard Ingrams on dictators, antisemitism, feminism, homosexuality, child abuse and Auberon Waugh

http://quartetbooks.wordpress.com/2014/06/27/richard-ingrams/

Dictators

Mary and I had dinner with Mosley once and I was most impressed. His political charisma was clearly defined. At a certain point the conversation stopped and he began to speak about what was going on in the country and what ought to be done. Then he started to wave his arms and it all became slightly hypnotic and quite frightening.

Antisemitism

People such as Balfour, who were responsible for the State of Israel coming into being, were quite anti-Semitic and believed that creating a Jewish state would be a good way to get the Jews out of their own countries. It’s always seemed to me that the Gentiles most keen on Israel are anti-Semitic.

 The Jews are saying to the Palestinians, we don’t want you people; this is our country; we must keep our race pure. But because there are so many powerful Jewish lobbies, particularly in the United States, you’re made to feel guilty, or you’re attacked for anti-Semitism, if you mention the fact of racism in Israel.

Margaret Thatcher and Feminism 

I used to admire Mrs Thatcher quite a lot and I think she has done many good things. As a journalist, one is aware of how the printing unions have been crushed by her, and they undoubtedly were a restriction on the press. For example, you could never have started a paper like the Independent in the old days. There is no doubt, on the other hand, that she has been in power too long and has grown to be power mad. It happens to all those people. In my experience, women (this is a sexist remark) are unable to cope with power, not only in politics, but also in publishing, journalism, or whatever. Women in positions of authority can’t do it as a rule, or else they manage for a time, but after a while they crack up.

People say there should be more women in politics, but one of the good things about women is that on the whole they don’t want to go into that world. They are not in general ambitious, they don’t want power; or if they do want it they want to exercise it over individual men, not over men and women generally. The reason why there aren’t more women MPs is not because men are prejudice against them but because there are so few women who actually want to do it. Men and women have totally different urges, most men being ruled by women within marriages, for instance. Dr Johnson was absolutely correct in saying that law has wisely given women little power because Nature has given them so much.

I wouldn’t wish to attack individual feminists, but I do feel it’s dangerous for women to think they are better off without men or vice versa. It seems to me that we both need each other, yet the whole women’s movement is geared to the idea that women should dispense with these dirty, nasty men. It’s the same the other way round: men can’t get by without women. It’s natural for women to want to have children, and encouraging them to think that somehow they’re better off pursuing a career seems to me a wicked thing to do. It asks women to turn their backs on their natural instincts and produces much unhappiness.

I feel sure that feminism is in part responsible for our huge number of divorces, because women are encouraged to think that, if they are unhappy in their marriages, they have no reason to stay enslaved to a man; that if they don’t like it they should just give up. That’s wrong, and it is just as wrong for a man to make the same assumption. Women have a natural urge to kick over the traces, as I’ve constantly found with those I’ve employed on Private Eye. Every so often they think, sod this, I’m off to do something else. If you apply that urge to a marriage, then it can’t be a good thing.

Homosexuals

My antipathy to homosexuals is directed against homosexual campaigners rather than individual homosexuals. If I’m sitting side by side with a homosexual at lunch, I’m not going to get up and spit in his face since I don’t feel that individual repugnance. I don’t feel repelled by homosexuals if I meet them. I do object, on the other hand, to the politicizing of homosexuality and the propaganda and promotion of the idea, because I don’t believe in the notion being peddled that people are born that way and there is nothing to be done about it. It may well be true of some homosexuals, but the vast majority of those I know seem to me to be quite capable of heterosexual activity and to have a choice. Promoting the idea that they ought to make a choice in favour of the homosexual way of life therefore seems to me a great mistake.

Child abuse

Child abuse, for example, has become a major issue on television, and a kind of hysteria has been worked up because it is something on which everyone can agree. No one, except possibly Bron, will get up and speak for the child abuser, but all will agree he is terrible. In the same way, it is very easy for a vicar to make awful statements about South Africa in a sermon since no one will contradict him. All the time people try to get on these bandwagons of consensus issues.

Lying scum promote homosexuality and degeneracy while matriarchal Western governments lie back and think of England

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-06-2010/114036-same_sex-0/

"She deliberately had her associates recruit participants to obtain a pool of subjects who understood what her ‘experiment’ was about and how it was to be used to achieve a political goal in transforming society. Hooker had no clinical experience in the field or in the scientific method to be employed, had obvious bias, and provided no details about her procedure. The inadequacy of her research was even acknowledged by the journal that published it.""She deliberately had her associates recruit participants to obtain a pool of subjects who understood what her ‘experiment’ was about and how it was to be used to achieve a political goal in transforming society. Hooker had no clinical experience in the field or in the scientific method to be employed, had obvious bias, and provided no details about her procedure. The inadequacy of her research was even acknowledged by the journal that published it."

‎"homosexuality is not a stable trait and that it tends spontaneously to convert into heterosexuality as an individual gets older; that sexual identity is not fixed at adolescence but continues to change over the course of life and that there is no evidence for homosexuality being innate."

‎"ALL studies reflecting the opposite opinion had a methodological flaw in that they compared the wellbeing of children in homosexual households to those raised in difficult circumstances such as single-parent households that resulted from divorce. None of the studies compared children raised by homosexual parents to children with two heterosexual parents in a stable, loving marriage."

Fucking LYING shitting SCUM.

‎"girls raised in homosexual households are more likely to be more aggressive, boys are likely to be less masculine and that both girls and boys engage in sexual experimentation at earlier ages and are more sexually promiscuous. As a result children reared by gay couples have gender confusion and are put at high risk for sexually transmitted diseases."

‎"homosexually behaving teens and young adults suffer increased rates of depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions and suicidal thoughts. And in the case of boys who adopt a homosexual lifestyle because of the influence of their same-sex parents, Cretella said, they face a 30% chance of being dead or HIV-positive by the age of 30."

"Homosexuals tend to recklessly and unjustly label all those who oppose homosexual activity as “homophobic” - the term "homophobia" itself intended to denote a disorder. In this way they seek to impose their own disordered behaviour and lifestyle on society under the guise of tolerance."

Why do these sick people promote degeneracy and sin?  Why does Cameron the Cuntservative who conserves the worst of liberal feminist shit promote degeneracy and sin?  Does he even know?  Can that piece of filthy Etonian shit even explain it to us, or will he leave Tim Montgomerie to do it for him?

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/05/28/video-conservativehome-editor-tim-montgomerie-comes-out4marriage/

Who the fuck do these people think they are and what do they think they are doing??

Gay people don't even want it.  The whole shitty exercise is not even going to get Cunt Cameron enough votes to save his cooked goose at the next election.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2156183/Most-homosexuals-indifferent-David-Camerons-drive-gay-marriage.html

I think this just means that they haven't the foggiest idea what they are trying to do.   If Cameron's head explodes into a fountain of poo because it is now too full of shit to keep it all in, it might just be a blessing, for him and us.  

I urge stupid gay people not to marry each other, because, come the backlash, they will know who you are and where you live.

What gay people who want to live together should do is campaign to abolish inheritance tax, so that when the civil partnership and gay marriage are swept away in the coming backlash, you can leave property to your gay lover without incurring a 40% tax.

White gay convert to Islam Scott Kugle so arrogant that he says homosexuality not forbidden in the Koran because it happens to be something he does

http://www.mpvusa.org/sexuality_01.html
http://urdutahzeeb.net/articles/blog1.php?p=11805&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Mandy Rice-Davis:

"Well, he would say that, wouldn't he?"

He must be of the school of thought that believes saying something makes it so.

Or he could be of the Hitlerian School of the Big Lie:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie

"in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation."

You see there is a great difference between being a mere sinner and a sinner who is so fatuously up his own arse and mad with arrogance that he really believes that something cannot be a sin simply because he indulges in it.  

This is the reality of sexually-liberated PC liberal extremism.

  

Sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2130668/Male-priests-marry-in-Anglican-church's-first-gay-'wedding'.html

Male Priests' Civil Partnership Blessed in Church by Rector

This could never happen in a mosque because the Koran specifically states that homosexuality is a sin to be punished, in rather the same manner as adultery.

HOW EXTRA-MARITAL RECREATIONAL SEX IS PUNISHED IN ISLAM

4 witnesses would be required in the case of gay and lesbian lewdness as well as adulterous wives.The relevant verses in the Koran are:

4:15 (lewd acts between women)
4:16 (lewd acts between men)

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html

24:1 (adultery - punishable by 100 lashes)

Those that defame honourable women and cannot produce 4 witnesses shall be given 80 lashes. If a husband accuses his wife but has no witnesses but himself except himself, he must swear 4 times by God that his charge is true, calling down upon himself the curse of God if he is lying. But if his wife swears 4 times by God that his charge is false and calls down His curse upon himself if it be true, she shall receive no punishment.

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/024.qmt.html

You can't say fairer than that, can you?

In theory extra-marital recreational sex is all forbidden and punishable horribly. In practice, under a liberal interpretation, acts of homosexuality and adultery are tolerated provided it is not flaunted in front of more than 3 witnesses (making a threesome legally unproblematic and, dare I say it, halal, even if any of the three participants were prone to self-accusation). The same could be said of a threesome (of any combination) with no more than three voyeurs, witnesses or observers, call them what you will.

If we now have sharia-compliant investments, then I see nothing haram in organising sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies, whilst adding to the gaiety of the nation and the umma. It is a shame the Christians didn't quite got round to articulating this sort of thing in a Word of God Book coming from one source, ie Muhammad. Instead, their moral code comes from the Old and New Testament, written by different people over the ages. No wonder schism is endemic and inevitable when Christian ideology is so messily articulated.

Old Testament: Leviticus
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=18&verse=22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Leviticus&chapter=20&verse=13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

"New Testament: Romans 1:26, 27
http://net.bible.org/passage.php?passage=Romans%201:26-31

It does after all say in the Old Testament that homosexuality is an abomination, but some New Testamenters seem to think this does not apply to them.

Perhaps it is because New Testamenters like to think that the Old Testament cannot apply to them in any of its literal and illiberal entirety, when so many transgressions we now regard as minor to trifling could lead to the death penalty?

For an impressively long list of sins which Old Testamenters regard as deserving of the death penalty, see http://www.wvinter.net/~haught/Bible.html

In contrast, under a liberal interpretation, the Koran is a model of mercy and clemency.

The Koran restates the Ten Commandments and adds a few more of its own. No rational Muslim would argue that an act specifically stated to be a sin in the Koran could possibly deserve the blessing of any Islamic clergy! The most that could be argued in an Islamic context is the "ask us no questions and we'll tell you no lies" principle, which would be the perfect compromise between puritanical censoriousness and the libertarian ideal.

In these circumstances, homosexuality would be tolerated, provided it is not flaunted. How can anyone reasonable, whether religious or atheist (like me) deny that this is the perfect compromise? Or that the Islam of the Koran is structurally sounder, better-drafted, more coherent and sexually liberated than Judaism or Christianity?