you said something about muslim doctors not being terrotist , i dont say they are but remember the 2 idiots that tried too blow up glasgow airport entrance , they where doctors , ps good tune like the bass PEACE,
Hmmm...when somebody from the far right says stuff against jews, gay people, womens rights etc they don`t get away with it. So why should radical muslims? What`s the difference between a white supremist fascist and an islamofascist supremist? The maker of this video really should go back to school.
Why are you upset because Condell calls Muslims misogynists? Don't all you Muslims remain quiet when you see your Muslim brothers in other countries killing and maiming their Muslim women? By watching your vid here, I can only conclude that the only thing that bothers YOU, is a few insignificant but true words spoken by Condell
@valupak but where does Condell get his 'truth' and 'facts' from exactly? Just admit it, you aren't atheist, you believe in god, Condell is your god, and youtube is the messenger of god!!
Keep hating on religion, and don't ask questions by the government, and mass media propaganda, believe everything you see and hear, no need to come up with your own conclusions, Pat is enough proof for you!
Why are you upset because Condell calls Muslims misogynists? Don't all you Muslims remain quiet when you see your Muslim brothers in other countries killing and maiming their Muslim women? By watching your vid here, I can only conclude that the only thing that bothers YOU, is a few insignificant but true words spoken by Condell.
I love how muslims are confused, can't understand why the world is pissed off at them, they have no clue, it is a big mystery to them... ha ha. Of course it is not them ever. It is us, we are fooled by the media or the Jews did it... or they are not muslims? Really the terrorist say they are muslims, quote the quran and a large percentage of their fellow muslims call them hero martyrs when they blow shit up. I am getting the feeling Muslims lie. Hum you think? It is called Al Taqiyya.
Yeah exactly. But the Muslim world is far less enduring under the light of internet scrutiny than Communism ever was, because the Marxist foundations of Communism are actually theoretically viable. Not so with Islam. Its the contradictory ravings of a senile desert rat, that happens to press the right buttons of all the people who know they are losers, but want to feel like winners, and cannot understand that their destructive acts all over the world are seen by billions.
Ignorant, apathetic people/liberals in USA/Europe believe the lies (Al Taqiyya), "a religion of peace". Bush & Obama both played lip service to the "great religion". 1.3 Billion Muslims, granted 60% are illiterate living in shit holes, immigrate West, use our freedom, demand religious freedom. "Good Muslims" are silent about violent jihad/martyrdom/misogynistic BS out of fear of ignorance, denial, brainwashing, fear of persecution (by other muslims), insanity or intentional lying.
I respect your comment but disagree. Islam is worse than totalitarian, authoritarian fascist communism because it is all these things hiding behind God. Americans, even Christians who know better, need to understand ISLAM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDEO CHRISTIANITY. In fact everything about Islam is the OPPOSITE, calls our religion SIN and for the destruction or subjugation of all non Muslims or death. Killing the enemy (non Muslims per Quran) is not a sin.
Hi again. My point is what you're saying pretty much. Because Islam itself is so contradictory in its principles and so corrosive a religion that even its own followers are usually at war with one another.
One by one the Islamic countries will fall and become harmless to the West, but there will be more blood and terrorism in the meanwhile because of all the stupid Muzzies already here.
But I wonder whether Muslims really can understand liberty and democracy at all.
I appreciate your confidence, agree Islam is failed, it's so contradictory, hypocritical, words they speak are totally opposite of what they do. USA of course saves them from killing each other & oil is important truth be told. From age two they're taught to hate Jews & West. They do 5 daily mindless Arabic chants to mecca, a powerful brainwashing. THEY'LL BELIEVE ANYTHING! They follow a pedophile warlord false prophet in opposition to all that came before. Don't underestimate evil.
You SEE what is going on. Good, many don't, even DEFEND islam! WTF? Islam is ANTI FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANTI FREEDOM OF RELIGION, ANTI DEMOCRACY. Islam is a false flawed political cult that DEMANDS TO DOMINATE ALL GOV, PEOPLE, RELIGION. NOT ALL RELIGION OR CULTURES ARE GOOD OR EQUAL. People can rationalize a few bad apples and say that is not what islam is about. It's of course a lie.
Some religions and cultures are better than others. Islam and Arabic medieval tribal BS is wrong and must be rejected. Islam must lose it's standing as a religion, until Jihad/Martyrdom/Misogyny/Sharia Law are rejected as intolerant hate speech, barbaric, seditious treasonous ideology that has no place in the West. I do agree Islam will fail but that doesnt mean it will not infect and cause a cancer in humanity that will cause pain and suffering for decades to come.
@nightowl8 -Free open America society is both our strength and weakness. Don't doubt muslims enjoy power as a group (ummah, tribe) due to the fear of terrorism. "we better let the Muslims do that or we'll make the terrorist mad, recruit more terrorist." That's "Dhimmitude", appeasement, subjugation, islamification, disproportionate political power. Imagine a majority of muslims! Good Muslims see no problem with lying, denial, al taqiyya, deception, treason, sedition for power = Islam = evil !
muslims are always whining and complaining, especially in europe, that they are being treated unfairly. how about their mistreatment of jews and christians in their country? why are they so happy to build mosques in our country and yet churches and synagogues are not permitted in places like saudi arabia? honestly, if it is so bad over here why don't they go back to their country?
islamofascist? are we just making words up now? i mean the word 'islam' to me is baisically another word for fascism.... my definition would be: Islam - fascism in the name of god
You say 3.1% thats roughly 3 in 100 of the population are Muslum, then why the ratio of religious schools almost 1 in 7 that does not reflect a fair share of resources to all, it shows Muslum schools get more funding. a correct reflection by population would be 18 Muslum schools to 700 none muslum schools. 3 to every 100
You yalk of incosistances, yet in 5:90 (Asad) O YOU who have attained to faith! Intoxicants, and games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan's doing:' [105] shun it, then, so that you might attain to a happy state!. Yet in 83:25 (Asad) They will be given a drink of pure wine whereon the seal [of God] will have been set,. The only thing this tells me is that Satan has a hand in Paradise !!!!
whypatcondellisntfun Do you even know what the fuck misogynist means? How can you be so blind? Muslims are working very hard, not to emancipate people, not to bring about greater Liberty but to ENSLAVE them. Does that not register in that pea brain of yours? There is so much evidence from this that it is astounding how anyone could be so deaf dumb and blind. Whether it's a reading of the Qu'ran or words out of the mouths of leaders or the apathy of Muslim moderates. This has to be stopped
pat condell is criticising supremacist islam. if there is any other kind, then its up2 those who claim 2B of that other kind, 2use their voice to SHOUT DOWN and verbally lay into the extreme element that is giving islam a bad name.
i havnt seen or heard of a demonstration of muslims who marched to proclaim their condemnation of & opposition to the islamic Supremacists ideology..not anywhere in the uk in the last 10 years.
if you keep silent out of FEAR, what does that say about PEACEful islam?
Hello my friend! My goodness, can't you just accept a compliment? :-) Why assume that I am not convinced by your cogent use of what appear to be well researched facts? My point is that the 'metaphors' handed down by an angel are not facts, they are faith. I assume you are working to show the rest of us that Muslims are being misrepresented. If so, then can I suggest you don't dilute your factual arguments with stuff which needs faith which many of your readers simply don't recognise.
@1830mof I think you still have misunderstood what I've said again.
1) Condell siad that a person said one thing.
2) That person actually said another.
3) Regardless of if you believe in the basis of Islam or not, the fact is that Condell misrepresented what a person said in order to bolster his case
4) I was not asking you to believe the 'metaphors' being discussed, I was asking you to believe that Condell was incorrect. Belief or disbelief is not the issue, so my argument stands.
@1830mof To directly address your issue with 'metaphors' handed down by an angel not being facts. Well, in this instance, a person who believes in Islam - both male an female - and who thinks that being modest is a good thing actually has the power to make it a fact by exercising control over their own actions. If you don't think that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" lesson does not contain value for everyone, regardless of faith or lack of faith, then I think that is a bit sad
The reference come on the slide which starts at 7 minutes. The prophet states that there must be four witnesses to the adultery before the woman can be stoned. I know you didn't intend this to be a debate about religion or Islam, so I shall not express any opinion about. But my point is that your otherwise seemingly well researched and cogent views are let down by the inclusion of an arbitrary rule thought up by a man who claims to have been visited by the angel Gabriel!
@1830mof Ah. I see. Again, this is a problem of context.
Let us both assume that Islam is all a pack of lies.
Does that give Condell the right to wilfully misquote what was said by somebody practising Islam?
Condell is obviously pursuing his own agenda, which is fine, however, he I think did not truthfully represent what was said. If somebody says "stoning is a metaphor" and you say that "they cannot bring themselves to condemn stoning" you have mis-represented what they said.
@1830mof So, my argument was not in support of stoning, nor was I using the issue of stoning to prove Condell wrong and argue the case for either Islam or stoning.
The point I was making was that Condell misrepresented what was said. This makes the basis of his argument incorrect and this is a separate issues from believing or not believing in Islam.
I actually doubt you will accept this explanation, and I doubt you will question Condell as to why he wilfully mis-quoted a man several times.
@1830mof As you can see, I was not relying on the argument of stoning - or religion generally - being right or wrong, I was pointing out that Condell was wrong because he wilfully misquoted another person.
The point is that I made several other key observations and you can only find fault with one of them (and I utterly refute the point you are trying to make on that issue), which surely means that, on balance, my argument is more rational and logical than Condell's?
I just think It weakens you argument when you include ramblings of a man who claims to have been spoken to by a supernatural being! It doesn't do your otherwise well put case any justice.
I'm a bit of a Condell fan, but I must admit I enjoyed your use of stats as an argument. But then you tried to introduce arguments based upon religion i.e. make believe, and it all fell apart. Sorry.
@1830mof I'm not sure which bits you are referring to with regards to religion, could you point them out? Simply put, I'm not asking you to convert to Islam or believe in God for my points to be valid. One just has to understand that Condell is making erroneous claims about the nature and requirements of Islam as well as wilfully misquoting Muslims in an attempt to prove his point.
If Condell is making fair criticism, fine, but he is not, and this video proves it using logic, not religion.
I'm a bit of a Condell fan, but I must admit I enjoyed your use of stats as an argument. But then you tried to introduce arguments based upon religion i.e. make believe, and it all fell apart. Sorry.......nice try though.
PAT ALL THE WAY FUCK WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT HIM 90% OF THE LISTENERS AGREE WITH HIM AND SEE THIS ISLAMIC FASCISM ALL AROUND THEM. PEACE IS THE ANSWER TO ISLAM
Muslims in the world do have a bad reputaion not because some people talk badly about them or some do speek against it, but because Mulsims talk about peace and execute terror attacks all around the globe!
These terror attacks are executed no matter who is the victim! What matters is the world look at them! Trying to internationalize their conflics they cannot handle.
These conflicts are caused by holy Quran! It is the handbook for dictators opressers!
@malsifood I'm sorry, you appear to be arguing against logical arguments with mere swear-words. Is it your assertion that *all* Muslims execute terror attacks, or do you think just a small proportion do so?
@malsifood I am a Muslim who has been nothing but polite to you, and yet you judge me on the actions of others, do you think that is fair? Who else would you judge on the actions of others?
Yes, I am asserting that only a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, if it were otherwise, the world would be very different, no? Verse 109 of the Qur'an (titled "THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS") explicitly states how one should treat unbelievers, go read it then come back for more debate.
@malsifood There is a passage in the Qur'an directly related to "Disbelievers" and "Atheists". I invite you to read it. 109:1-109:6. Also, even though I'm so tired of having this debate over and over again, I invite you to quote from the Qur'an where it says to "kill the unbelievers". I advise you to read the Qur'an in it's entirety and to make a special effort to understand the context of each verse such as those things which are permissible during war, and those which are required in peace.
Islam is a cave man ideology that teaches to go to war! Therefore Islam is not a religion! And i refuse to discuss the so called behaviour inside or outside war!
If a religions preoccupation is war, killings and oppression, there is no right for such stupid ideology to be tolerated in any place on this planet!!!!!!
Islam teaches men to dominate woman and to oppress them! Islam is the religion of dictators and warlords!
@malsifood Fortunately, the majority of Muslims do not believe that Islam is preoccupied with war, killings or oppression of women, otherwise, this world would be a very different place. The fact that it isn't shows that your personal understanding of Islam is not shared by the majority of Muslims (me being just one example, but there are many more on YouTube), therefore, you must concede the point that your understanding of Islam is perhaps not as complete as it could be.
Are you a Muslim yourself whypatcondellisn'tfunny? If you are its good to see you on Youtube. Although we may disagree with what you say, I always think we gain (and learn) a lot by debating...
The nature of Islam stands against EVERY decent aspect of Western thought, religion and culture. We must, as common sense American citizens (and Westerners), understand that those who embrace Islam come from a religious background which has carried its medieval and deranged founder's violent principles for centuries.
@NoRagheadsInUSA, not surprisingly I see you are a friend of the BNP via 1kewldude2, so my first point to you would be to ask why you are friends with a self-confessed supporter of a legally proven racist organisation? My second point would be that you are concluding that Islam and "Western" thought are incompatible, but I was born and raised in the West and as a Muslim I'm not against "western" thought, religion and culture. How would you explain this?
@whypatcondellisntfun I would explain it by saying a lot of muslims ARE against western thought religion and culture especially the ones who do not live in b
Britain, you don't speak for all muslims and i would say that muslim culture IS incompatible with ours. We have freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. What is the penalty is Saudi Arabia for preaching religions other than Islam? Death? Thought it was. See the incompatibility?
@antonyhamill Define "a lot" in terms of the total global Muslim population. Is it 5%? 25% or what? Where do you get your figures from? I don't speak for all Muslims, but the very fact that I exist and speak as a Muslim should be a signal to you that not all Muslims are against "western thought, religion and culture". Can you even define what "western" thought, religion and culture even is? You make the mistake of equating a country (Saudi) with a religion (Islam). They are not the same.
Well A LOT of muslims believe the penalty fo leaving your faith is death because that is what the Koran says. This sort of barbaric rule is not compatible with western culture. So do you only believe the bits you like from the Koran or do you agree that the penalty should be death?
@antonyhamill Why don't you tell us what the Qur'an actually says? Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith? Let me help you out here...
"Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
IV. 89: They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them
Seize us and put us to death eh? And you say this is compatible with our culture?
@antonyhamill I'll ignore the misquote, readers who are worried about this verse should pick up any copy of the Qur'an and read it for themselves. What I cannot ignore is the contextual ignorance. You see. If one has read the Qur'an all the way to 4.89, why would one not read 4.90? I'll quote that also, so we each have a more complete picture of the context.....
"Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."
LOL! So basically as long as the disbelievers are submissive it's ok, you won't try to kill us. Well I'm not submissive and neither is most of Britain so the Koran says we should be killed!? you're proving my point better than i ever could and my first comment wasn't misquoted.
@antonyhamill How is a peace treaty submissive? How is a restraint from physical violence submissive? How is mutual trust and guarantee of peace submissive?
You are in a dreamworld in which context is not relevant and one can pick a single narrow passage from a book, ignore the rest of the book and expect it to make sense.
Your channel says "Fuck me..." I take it that is an invitation to us all? It must be! I can just lift that sentence out and ignore the rest of your profile. Yes?
the statement YOU made was "Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" 4:89 clearly states this!
Your argument hinges on people being at peace with you for this rule not to be enforced. If they are not at peace then kill them for not believing in the faith? That quote was NOT taken out of context. it was a direct reply to your question and it is telling the faithful it's ok to kill disbelievers. Religion of peace? Don't think so.
@antonyhamill If they are not at peace with you... then they must be at war with you! If people are at war with you then you defend yourself not because they are not Muslim, but because they are attacking you! Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslms, this is true, though in practice it doesn't work like that, does it? 4:89 says it's OK to kill disbelievers but 4:90 specifically qualifies this by saying *only* if they make war with you.
No the koran says " if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace,"..... NOT sending a guarantee of peace is NOT the same as being attacked. Talk about extremism with comments like " If they are not at peace with you... then they must be at war with you!" (exclamation mark was all yours. A lot of people in this country are not at peace with each other (religious and atheists etc..) doesn't give you a right to kill them though.
Also, these supposed "misquotes" can be found in nearly every translation of the koran, it depends on your source. your quote is misquoted from the version i have. go figure.
@antonyhamill Then I invite you to do 2 things. Firstly, name your source (which sounds like a gameshow!), and secondly, tell me what your source says 4:90 says. Don't be shy, after all, your profile invites people to literally "fuck" you, doesn't it?
well considering there is no definitive translation of the koran it might as well be a gameshow! Koran 4:89 showed you to be drastically under educated in the teachings of your (multi-translated) holy book.
You seem to only want to believe the cop-out of verse 4:90 and completely ignore the licence to kill in 4:89..... Typical theist, picking and choosing the moral bits and ignoring the rest. Until it suits you.
the koran condones killing apostates. Not compatible!
@antonyhamill I believe in both 4:89 and 4:90, there is no hypocrisy in it. The "licence to kill" is only valid under the scenario of being attacked. I'm not under educated to state this. I asked you to name your source. You still haven't. I asked you to tell me what your translation of 4:90 is, you still haven't. What have you got to hide by not revealing this information?
Whoaa... so If the conditions are not met then it's ok to kill people! HA HA HA HA! Epic Fail! You have proved my point! Regardless of the conditions the koran gives you licence to kill apostates and YOU never knew that! I did. My source is the koran. translated slightly differently from yours. Don't change the subject with your hard-on for sources. You now openly admit the koran calls for death to apostates (regardless of translation)
@antonyhamill Firstly, I invite you to read the many comments on my other videos about this very subject. I've had this debate time and time and time again, so you are naive if you think I didn't know exactly where you were going all along. You are still ignoring the fact that Islam makes a specific reference as to what to do with those who reject faith (109:1). You are still ignoring the fact that a Muslim cannot kill an apostate *merely* for being an apostate.
@antonyhamill Also, you have still failed to name your source or translation of the Qur'an, why? I have not openly admitted that Islam calls for death to apostates at all.
"Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way." (Qur'an 4:137)
How can one reject Islam, believe again and reject again and *increase* in disbelief if apostates are to be killed?
@whypatcondellisntfun How would you explain 4:137? I guess it says something completely different like "Kill murder death kill them all Raaarrrr!" in your translation, but then, you won't name it so we'll never know, will we?
Your "mate" thinks you are "lashing" me, but I think you have bitten off more than you can chew here. You can't really explain nor justify your stance based on the Qur'an unless you intentionally distort the meaning of the Qur'an. That's just not cricket, is it?
Not named my source? Of the Koran?.....Errrrr it's the er.....KORAN! You know... That book you selectively read and preach from without actually knowing what you are talking about (else you wouldn't make comments such as "where in the koran is there a call to kill disbelievers?").
@antonyhamill I think we are going around in circles here. Your source could be some freaky site on the Internet for all I know, you refuse to name the translation of the Qur'an that you are using. I'm saying that I don't believe you have a pukka copy, you are saying you do, all you have to do to prove me wrong is to reveal the translation of the Qur'an you are using.
@antonyhamill Please note, I have not been preaching to you, merely debating the content and context of the Qur'an. You call *me* "selective" whilst at the same time arguing a very narrow point which only stands if you take 4:89 out of context, where I've quoted 4:89, 4:90, 4:137 and 109:1, which when taken in context conclusively prove that the Qur'an does not call for the killing of apostates merely for being apostates.
Why misquote me here when you already quoted me elsewhere word for word?
Fair enough. Ok then i admit to being selective insofar that i was responding to a direct question from you to point out the passage which asks for the killing of apostates. I concur that other passages may contradict this but then that is the point of contention with most if not all holy books. Depending on your morality as a person you can interperet whatever you want pretty much. All hard feelings aside this has been a fun debate and I do not think you are a dick. Cont.
@antonyhamill I thank you for your politeness, and I bear no animosity towards you. It is my belief that when looked at objectively, and in context, the Qur'an does not contradict itself as it does not call for the killing of apostates simply for being apostates which appears to be the premise you have been working on during this debate. Though I equally concede that the Qur'an may be "interpreted" in a narrow fashion depending upon the pre-disposition of the reader. Our discussion prove this.
Exactly! Look at christianity. it basically ignores the old testament (and seems embarrased by it) due to it's fascist ideaologies. Countries like Saudi do the same with Islam but to the opposite, ignore certain parts (such as the passages you pointed out) but ENFORCE other parts vehemnently. The moral of the story is that taking things too literally is a double edged sword and can be used to reinforce any view you choose (Not just in religion).
However i think we will have to agree to disagree as I for one have other people to argue with and this has been going on for a while now with neither side gaining much ground. Regardless of our differing opinions You, at least didn't descend into irrationiality and kept your argument clear. Fair play.
" Why don't you tell us what the Qur'an actually says? Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?"
You appear to be trying to win this challenge by both ignoring what the actual challenge was and by taking a single verse in the Qur'an out of context whilst ignoring multiple other examples which prove the Qur'an does not require the killing of apostates. We are clearly wasting our time here.
@antonyhamill Oh.... I'm far from a typical theist, I don't for instance, make a judgement on an entire group of people by the actions of one, I would never say, for instance, that a "typical" atheist (there is no such beast!) picks and chooses the text they want to prove their point and ignores the rest...
It would appear to me that my mate is lashing you in this argument! You asked where in the koran was the call for muslims to kill and he pointed it out! get lashed.
@avaughan585 I said, and he quoted me saying : "Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" He has not pointed out anywhere in the Qur'an that calls for Muslims to kill anybody specifically for leaving the faith. The Qur'an is clear. If a Muslim leaves Islam *and also* attacks you, then you have the right to defend yourself. There is no call to kill someone *just* for leaving Islam *unless* you pick and choose the bits you read and leave the rest out!
oh one more thing you said " Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" .... 4:89 clearly states this regardless of the "unless they sue for peace" part of 4:90.
@antonyhamill I concede that you found in 4:89 a call for Muslims to kill, but this cannot be implemented whilst selectively ignoring 4:90. Otherwise, as a Muslim, you would not be conforming to basic Islamic principles. You have failed in epic proportions. Just admit defeat gracefully.
How is it a fail when you yourself concede that 4:89 IS a call to kill? Take a look at your comment of "Kill disbelievers......Except..."
LOL! whatever the "except" is, your book condones killing apostates! You claimed it didn't and i proved you wrong. This is true and anyone who reads these comments will see you haver been trounced.
"Well A LOT of muslims believe the penalty fo leaving your faith is death because that is what the Koran says."
4:89 and 4:90 together prove that there is no penalty for simply leaving Islam. The Qur'an is quite clear, you cannot kill a non-beleiver unless they are attacking you. Apostates are fine, as long as they don't attack Muslims, in which case, any right minded person would assume a posture of self-defence, no?
The quote is NOT if they are "attacking you". It's if they have not given a guarantee of peace (which is a lot different from openly attacking you! Even you must see that). How can you interperet someone NOT sending you a guarantee of peace as an open attack and requiring you to kill them in self-defence? Don't twist the words to fit your argument. Oh sorry, you're religious and can't help it.
@antonyhamill For an atheist... you appear to have an extremely literal and selective interpretation of religious text. As literal and extreme as the most literal and extreme religious extremists. I wonder, why is that?
@antonyhamill My reading of the Qur'an is not extreme, though, is it? It is not me who is insisting that apostates should be killed outright just for being apostates, it is you. It is not me who is selectively ignoring other parts of the Qur'an such as 109:1 and 4:137 which, when taken together with 4:89 and 4:90 (both of which cannot be read independently from each other as together they form a chain of reasoning) clearly show that apostates should not be killed *just* for being apostates.
I don't insist apostates should be killed. Your holy book does. I never wrote it. If you choose to selectivley believe the nice parts and ignore the bad that is up to you mate. I don't demand anyone being killed.... Because I don't believe a 2000 year old book is the be all and end all of morality!
@antonyhamill Funnily enough, I don't believe *any* book is the be all and end all of morality either. I don't think any book has *all* the answers to *all* the questions. For instance, the Qur'an doesn't guide me on what to do about Internet based peadophiles, I guess I need to figure that for myself. I don't demand that anyone be killed either, I just want the right to defend myself in a fight, and the Qur'an allows for this, which is, I suppose, a basic human right after all.
@antonyhamill And what's with the childishness? "Must have learnt off you eh?", that's like saying "I know you are, said you are, but what am I?, ner ner ner-ner ner!".
wow! 6 comments without waiting for a reply? cool. You must like the look of your own words eh? The thing is..... I proved that islam demands the killing of apostates. You said it didn't...... But it says so in the koran. If you would like more help with education on your holy book I will be glad to help.
@antonyhamill Islam does not "demand the killing of apostates". You have proven nothing. You simply keep saying that you have whilst pretending that we've not had a conversation in which I've shown 3 different quotes which prove that apostates are not ti be killed just for being apostates.
Your the MAN Pat,But watch out for the white transit van filled with british born al qada from a cash and carry near you, Keep up the great work mate you show us that so of us brits, stll have a backbone,
I must apologise, I accidentally deleted your reply to FGFMinfo. In it you said that 30-40% of Muslims agree with Sharia law. Could you cite your source please. Additionally, my understanding of Sharia law is that it cannot be applied to non-Muslims. Do you dispute this?
You also said that it is "treasonous" to want Sharia law. Please give your definition of treason.
Telegraph pol, Februrary 2006: 40% of Muslims want sharia law in Britian. Search along those lines - you will find many more.
Under sharia law, we will be dhimmis. That is how non-Muslims are to be treated. There is no "half sharia" according to these people. So yes, it absolutely applies to all.
This is a slippery slope. They will take what they can get at first, and then expand it until they take control of all of the law.
Thanks for the source. Did you do any other research beyond believing what you read in newspapers? For instance, are you aware of MPAC, a Muslim organisation that is firmly not promoting 'sharia' law? Are you aware of British Muslims for Secular Democracy? What about Bary Malik, chairman of the Bradford branch of the Ahmadiya Muslim Association, who said: "There are 73 sects of Islams. There is not one form of Sharia law."
Well yes, I will concede that if 40% of Muslims want sharia, then 60% do not. For now.
Bottom line is, sharia law is NOT compatible with English Common Law. You can shoehorn and prevaricate all that you want. British Muslim "moderates" will gradually be swept away by your more radical counterparts. After all, what do you say in public against these traitors who would destroy your host country?
The silence is DEAFENING. You should be counter-protesting and all sorts of stuff.
If Muslims cannot agree on what Sharia law is, or how to implement it, and if there are Muslim-run organisations specifically dedicated to not allowing religious law take over the world, how on earth is it that you can present a seemingly black and white case that "They will take what they can get at first, and then expand it until they take control of all of the law."?
You take about "these people" [Muslims] but I'm a Muslim and I dispute that sharia law applies to non-Muslims.
If you could quote from the Qur'an about how sharia law applies to non-Muslims then I shall concede this argument. But your case seems to rest upon the fact that "these people" demand things. Ohhhh! Scary!!!
People demand things all the time. I demand decent health care and public transport system, doesn't mean I'll get it!
Sharia law is personal to each Muslim. Praying, fasting, giving to charity, etc. Sharia law is not simply about crimes and punishments.
Can I also ask you to provide a source for non-Muslims becoming "dhimmis"? The source must be backed up by the Qur'an otherwise it won't hold water, will it?
Everywhere you go, you seek to conquer and force dhimmitude on those who do not convert. India is a particularly HORRIBLE example of the "tolerance" of the "religion of peace".
Even though i am an atheist and have plenty of criticism towards islam, honesty commands me to rectify this terrible assertion you made.
In India, where tensions are high between communities, muslims have been mostly victims like the 2002 pogroms where BJP (hindu far-right-wing) crowds had lists of addresses (which highlights premeditation) of muslim people on which they committed mass murder, rape and torture. The estimate is around 2500 dead.
@nickst0ne Who were the victims in the first place, going back to the 1300s? Hindus - MILLIONS of them! Oh, and Buddhists too. They were really bad to Christians but the Muslims were ABSOLUTLY WICKED to the Indians, whom they considered idolaters. At least us Christians were "people of the book" - we were allowed to "live" as glorified slaves. Indians were simply to be destroyed. Most mosques in India were built over Buddhist/Hindu temples.
cmon ! We can't go back to the 14th century for arguing about who drew the first blood.
We must indeed keep History alive and remember the events of the past. I don't know about 14th century India and I willingly believe you on this. I have myself criticisms against Islam (among others).
But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu !
@nic I am not familiar with the current situation in India since the Partition ('47)which I studied very closely. Bottom line is, no matter when it happens, you don't just kill millions of people over decades and not have lasting, evil consequences. Islam needs to look in the mirror rather than CELEBRATING these atrocities and singing songs about them, which they often do. Islam has NO self-criticism or self-examination whatsoever - or almost none.
@nickst0ne "But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu!" Do you have any proof of that? Are you sure you're not confusing the efforts in India to stop Muslims from taking over and imposing their particular brand of tyrannical theocracy on everyone else? The attempt to do that would create a lot of friction. Islam as an ideology is not fit for civilization.
@nickst0ne "But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu !" Do you have any proof of that? Hindu as a religion is pretty wide open and tolerant but I think you're confusing India's attempt to stop this tyrannical theocracy of Islam from imposing itself on everyone else. As an ideology Islam is not fit for civilization and needs to be stopped. As a religion it is just as intolerant and ugly as it's ideology. It seems pathological in the best of cases.
First of all, the "do you have proof" argument is BS. I mentioned clearly the events and the parties involved. You got to be a moron AND a slacker for daring to ask this question without the slightest googleing.
You know ? I actually dislike Islam. But what I dislike more than Islam is people who use their opinions as if they were facts. And on this subject, I brought facts while you're spilling hateful opinions.
Also, as reported in The Telegraph about the poll, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "It should be seen in the context of one of the other findings of the poll, which shows that while over 80 per cent of Muslims believe that Western society is not perfect, they should seek to make the best of it." (Telegraph, 19th Feb, 2006)
Treason: Any willful attempt to subvert the law structure of the home country. In America, for example, it would be trying to destroy the Constitution. In Britain, it would be an effort to replace the brilliant English Common Law system with the medieval sharia law.
If any "willful attempt to subvert the law structure of the home country" counts as treason then we need to lock up our MPs pronto. Guess what. We pay MPs to subvert the old laws and replace them with new ones. Many of our laws date from medieval times anyway, so the age of a legal system is not at issue here.
If you look up Sharia in wikipedia you will see an argument that some elements of English common law - the jury, the contract, etc - may be historically derived from sharia law.
You misunderstand. I said legal SYSTEM, not individual laws.
And yes, the libtard, self-hating, atheist, relativist, hard left MPs from Labour and their Tory Big Business sell-outs ARE traitors too. Labour wants Muslim votes, and Tory/Big Business wants cheap Muslim workers.
And they don't care if the country is torn down in the process.
Condell gets loonier all the time. He approves of the actions of anti-Islamic bigots like Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, and they happen to be fanatical theists themselves!
I agree wholeheartedly with Pat Condell. While I can't comment on political issues, I certainly agree with him that religion and the basic medievial superstitions that it fosters are seriously eroding modern society. Very little progress in human rights can be attained as long as we, as a society, are unwilling to shake the bonds of religious repression and move forward, using free thought. Any defense of any religious practice keeps us in the stone age.
You agree wholeheartedly with Condell on the basis that he is an Atheist and so are you? And that isn't a bigoted outlook at all? Of course, we could dismiss anything as having no value simply because it is not modern enough for us. Lets smash the pyramids, they are keeping us in the stone age, right? What possible value could they offer us? We could build some offices and car parks on that prime real estate, no?
of course not all muslims are bad. but those who are abuse a book thats never been proven as a fact to jastify their own fantasies such as paedophilia and mass murder of people who think differently.
religion is dangerous when taken completely literally no matter that religion it is especially ismal and christianity.
dont believe me? type in most hated family in america
Both religious and non-religious people use all sorts of things to justify "their own fantasies". For instance, I could argue that string theory is a bogus field of science, and I'd be justified in saying so - though it may or may not be true. Anything, is dangerous when taken completely literally, especially physics and mathematics.
I'm not sure how Muslims justify peadophilia using the Qur'an. Could you explain how so?
ok i dont know much about the quran i only know whats gone on in the news maybe im completely wrong about it but i do know many religious people give a bad name to it at times.
as for science and mathematics their proven and help us develop society. as for a bogus field of science its only bogus till its proven.
anyone who believes in things that aernt true or never been proven true are just idiots plain and simple
Of course, it is so easy to paint the black and white picture and ignore the subtle shades in between. Is all religion stands for wrong simply because it is based upon religion? There may be very many issues with which you agree, or disagree with people of religion about, but why write of the entirety of religious beliefs for no other reason than because it is a religious belief? Is an Atheist less likely to oppress because he is an atheist? Is an Atheist less likely to commit fraud?
As for human rights, you will see that within Islam human rights are explicit. Why is it, for instance, that it is only a recent event that rape within marriage has only just been recognised within UK law, but was always recognised within Islam? What about the rights of women to own property? Again, enshrined in Islamic law for centuries whilst Europe lagged behind. To assert that religion is incompatible with human rights, then, is false. To assert that Atheism offers paradise equally so.
I'm not sure what sharia law you are quoting. Could you provide me a reference to this law? In my turn, I shall quote the Qur'an to you:
Let there be no compulsion in the religion:
2:256
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.
4:137
So, you can believe, and reject, then believe and reject, where is the mention of killing apostates?
As I've shown using quotes from the Qur'an, it is not admissible within Islam to kill someone just for being an apostate. Therefore, it is not possible to kill anybody "in the name of Islam" for being an apostate.
I would suggest to you that those people who think that killing anybody at anytime "in the name of Islam" is acceptable do not understand what has been written, or have an interest in deliberately distorting the truth for personal gain.
You may well be right that Islam does not permit people to be killed for apostacy. Yet people HAVE been killed by muslims for the "crime" of apostacy.
I ask you if these peopel are acting AGINST Islam by killing in the name of Islam, why do they go unpunished by the majority of Muslims (I assume it's the majority) who follow true Islam?
What you say in theory is fine, but it's the reality that is the problem.
It is a fair and valid point. I would say that in countries where beheading for apostasy is seen as correct, the general populace is not in a position to overthrow government to change the law. As I said before, some people deliberately distort facts for personal gain, and this is the case in every human society.
In fact, there are a variety of Muslim organisations that do not support beheading of apostates, and I'm fairly sure that Amnesty international counts Muslims as members, no?
Where religion dominates the society, the general populance is not in a position to overthrow the government to change laws they impose. We've had this with the Catholic church in the past. Oh they're all smiles and peace now, but put them in a position of power and you have blood in the streets at the whim of the heads of the religion.
I agree with what you say about the disparity between theory and reality, but at least we have agreed that the reality is in no way supported by the theory and that thoughtful people can differentiate between the two.
In theory a Prime Minister of the UK should not lie to take us to war, and if he does so should at least supply the army with the right tools for the job. The theory is fine, but it's the reality that is the problem. There is disparity between theory and practice everywhere.
Herein lays the fundimental problem. Islam, like Christianity and most religions in fact, is populated by followers who in the majority do not read and/or understand the religious dogma they follow. They rely on their leaders to do this.
So "thoughtful" believers are very few and far between. And to be fair, that's the way religious leaders like it. Islam in particular is based around the concept of abject submission.
I'm not singling out Islam for criticism here. It's a natural human trait. People prefer for others to do the thinking and tell them what to do. It's why people get angry when scientific advice changes. It also explains why religious dogma doesn't change. People don't like to be caught out beliving something without knowing why, only to be told to believe something else later.
Tony Blair (and G.W. Bush) is a good example of a man driven by religious conviction.
It was telling that Blair hid his Catholic leanings until he was out of power. In Islam this deciet comes under al taqiyya, in the west we just call Blair a lying bastard.
You've tried hard, but really failed to answer anything on why Islam seeks to change everyone and adopt it's own views on everyone , including people like Pat, who don't want to know thank you very much and now have to go on youtube to try and get this across before you force it onto everyone. That's the main problem with your religeous views, you have no mind space available for anyone who may not believe in what you do. Pat isn't asking anyone in this country to change, but you an Islam are.
Condell has, on numerous occasions, made comments to the effect that because he does not like or agree with a certain piece of clothing, that people should not wear it.
I'm expressing my point of view. As is Condell. And Condell is also a member of the National Secular Society, a political organisation designed to lobby government with the secular viewpoint. By definition then Condell is seeking to, "change everyone" and adopt [his] own views on everyone".
My point is that whilst Condell does not seek change from the standpoint of a given religion, as an Atheist he is a paying member (£29 per year!) of an organisation (the NSS) that is designed to "defend the rights of non-believers from the demands of religious power-seekers".
In essence, the non-religious NSS are seeking power in order to stop the religious seeking power so that the views of the NSS are adopted over and above all others.
Again, you're implying that the NSS wishes to impose something upon you.
The NSS seeks to protect people from having religion imposed upon them.
Religious people have always said "Because I believe this, you can't do that or you have to do this!". Sunday shopping, would be one example in this country. Now we are allowed to due to the efforts of people who didn't want to be subject to the rules of a religion they don't follow.
As I pointed out, the NSS is an organisation dedicated to political lobbying. It has a view and it wishes to impose that view through democratic means.
The NSS wishes to reduce the influence of religion on government. Fair enough, but that necessarily requires the imposition of a non-religious view point over and above a religious one, does it not? The NSS have every right to lobby, but so do religious organisations have that same right to get their view across democratically.
Condell is asking for change. That is why he posts videos on YouTube, runs a website and a facebook page, and sells his own branded merchandise. Why should he be entitled to demand change, and not I? What is freedom of speech if not the fundamental right to ask for change?
I do have the mind space available for those who do not believe in Islam. Many of my friends are Atheists, some are Sikh, some are Hindu, some are Christian. I don't have the mind space for bigotry or narrow views of Islam
He is asking for change, change so that no religion has any special laws.Think of it as a level playing field in which everyone is equal no matter what you believe in or don't believe in.
Turn your TV and all you see is hardline Muslim who want everything their own way and one religion.
I know not all Muslims are like that, but objecting to those that are is what's happening here. Your average muslim needs to do something to counter the radicals, otherwise you have people like the BNP who do
In fact, I agree that no religion should have special laws such as being tax-exempt. However, if two people wish to, for instance, settle a divorce using Sharia tribunal, and both enter into the tribunal fully aware of the implications of their actions, who are we to stop them from doing so?
As for countering the radicals, that is part of what I'm doing on YouTube. Whether they are radical Muslims or radical members of the radical BNP!
I am a Muslim and disagree that Pat seeks conflict or insults our intelligence. In my view he identifies without fear or favour serious issues which should concern all Muslims resident in England. If extremism and Wahhabism continue to prosper in England then it will first be the Muslims then the rest of the population which loses out in daily life. The complicit silence of Muslims with extremists in their midst should stop. I am sick of fellow Muslims who despise cherished freedoms.
This is a great start to 2010 for me. I absolutely love this comment which smacks of a sock account on so many levels.
Please view all my videos, take a look at my friends, view my comments and favourites (this is more than can be done on your channel!) and then come back and let us discuss how I "despise cherished freedoms". And how I'm "complicity silent" when I'm at one and the same time deconstructing a bigoted world view and narrow pre-conceptions of Islam.
Salam. It is reasonable for any Muslim to agree that our faith has been hijacked by ignorant oppressors. Those who deliver khutbas at my mosque have encouraged us to work for a caliphate in which all who drink alcohol are whipped.
I had not viewed your channel. My complaint about those who despise freedom was not aimed at you but at Muslim oppressors who, as Pat suggests, can be compared to cavemen who use a torchlight (the Koran) like a hammer.
I find it is more creative than using all capital letters which seems to be the preferred method of pressing home a point on YouTube. And I don't do it all the time, just occasionally, as you will see if you click the 'more info' link.
you said something about muslim doctors not being terrotist , i dont say they are but remember the 2 idiots that tried too blow up glasgow airport entrance , they where doctors , ps good tune like the bass PEACE,
GAREMPOTS 5 days ago
Hmmm...when somebody from the far right says stuff against jews, gay people, womens rights etc they don`t get away with it. So why should radical muslims? What`s the difference between a white supremist fascist and an islamofascist supremist? The maker of this video really should go back to school.
hmwm67 3 weeks ago
It´s always out of context with you people isn´t it? Never your fault.
ra5711 3 weeks ago
THE M. C. B. !!
note that there is no BHUDDIST C.B.
some of you guys ARE trouble-makers
Theangelahorne 9 months ago
Why are you upset because Condell calls Muslims misogynists? Don't all you Muslims remain quiet when you see your Muslim brothers in other countries killing and maiming their Muslim women? By watching your vid here, I can only conclude that the only thing that bothers YOU, is a few insignificant but true words spoken by Condell
valupak 11 months ago 5
@valupak but where does Condell get his 'truth' and 'facts' from exactly? Just admit it, you aren't atheist, you believe in god, Condell is your god, and youtube is the messenger of god!!
Keep hating on religion, and don't ask questions by the government, and mass media propaganda, believe everything you see and hear, no need to come up with your own conclusions, Pat is enough proof for you!
Muskateering 8 months ago
Why are you upset because Condell calls Muslims misogynists? Don't all you Muslims remain quiet when you see your Muslim brothers in other countries killing and maiming their Muslim women? By watching your vid here, I can only conclude that the only thing that bothers YOU, is a few insignificant but true words spoken by Condell.
valupak 11 months ago
This video has absolutely nothing on Pat Condell's original video ... if they are attempting to derail that video, they totally failed.
nightowl8936 11 months ago
I love how muslims are confused, can't understand why the world is pissed off at them, they have no clue, it is a big mystery to them... ha ha. Of course it is not them ever. It is us, we are fooled by the media or the Jews did it... or they are not muslims? Really the terrorist say they are muslims, quote the quran and a large percentage of their fellow muslims call them hero martyrs when they blow shit up. I am getting the feeling Muslims lie. Hum you think? It is called Al Taqiyya.
gmcjetpilot 1 year ago
@gmcjetpilot
Yeah exactly. But the Muslim world is far less enduring under the light of internet scrutiny than Communism ever was, because the Marxist foundations of Communism are actually theoretically viable. Not so with Islam. Its the contradictory ravings of a senile desert rat, that happens to press the right buttons of all the people who know they are losers, but want to feel like winners, and cannot understand that their destructive acts all over the world are seen by billions.
nightowl8936 7 months ago
@nightowl8
Ignorant, apathetic people/liberals in USA/Europe believe the lies (Al Taqiyya), "a religion of peace". Bush & Obama both played lip service to the "great religion". 1.3 Billion Muslims, granted 60% are illiterate living in shit holes, immigrate West, use our freedom, demand religious freedom. "Good Muslims" are silent about violent jihad/martyrdom/misogynistic BS out of fear of ignorance, denial, brainwashing, fear of persecution (by other muslims), insanity or intentional lying.
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
@nightowl8
I respect your comment but disagree. Islam is worse than totalitarian, authoritarian fascist communism because it is all these things hiding behind God. Americans, even Christians who know better, need to understand ISLAM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUDEO CHRISTIANITY. In fact everything about Islam is the OPPOSITE, calls our religion SIN and for the destruction or subjugation of all non Muslims or death. Killing the enemy (non Muslims per Quran) is not a sin.
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
@gmcjetpilot
Hi again. My point is what you're saying pretty much. Because Islam itself is so contradictory in its principles and so corrosive a religion that even its own followers are usually at war with one another.
One by one the Islamic countries will fall and become harmless to the West, but there will be more blood and terrorism in the meanwhile because of all the stupid Muzzies already here.
But I wonder whether Muslims really can understand liberty and democracy at all.
nightowl8936 7 months ago
@nightowl8
I appreciate your confidence, agree Islam is failed, it's so contradictory, hypocritical, words they speak are totally opposite of what they do. USA of course saves them from killing each other & oil is important truth be told. From age two they're taught to hate Jews & West. They do 5 daily mindless Arabic chants to mecca, a powerful brainwashing. THEY'LL BELIEVE ANYTHING! They follow a pedophile warlord false prophet in opposition to all that came before. Don't underestimate evil.
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
@nightowl8936
You SEE what is going on. Good, many don't, even DEFEND islam! WTF? Islam is ANTI FREEDOM OF SPEECH, ANTI FREEDOM OF RELIGION, ANTI DEMOCRACY. Islam is a false flawed political cult that DEMANDS TO DOMINATE ALL GOV, PEOPLE, RELIGION. NOT ALL RELIGION OR CULTURES ARE GOOD OR EQUAL. People can rationalize a few bad apples and say that is not what islam is about. It's of course a lie.
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
@nightowl8936
Some religions and cultures are better than others. Islam and Arabic medieval tribal BS is wrong and must be rejected. Islam must lose it's standing as a religion, until Jihad/Martyrdom/Misogyny/Sharia Law are rejected as intolerant hate speech, barbaric, seditious treasonous ideology that has no place in the West. I do agree Islam will fail but that doesnt mean it will not infect and cause a cancer in humanity that will cause pain and suffering for decades to come.
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
@nightowl8 -Free open America society is both our strength and weakness. Don't doubt muslims enjoy power as a group (ummah, tribe) due to the fear of terrorism. "we better let the Muslims do that or we'll make the terrorist mad, recruit more terrorist." That's "Dhimmitude", appeasement, subjugation, islamification, disproportionate political power. Imagine a majority of muslims! Good Muslims see no problem with lying, denial, al taqiyya, deception, treason, sedition for power = Islam = evil !
gmcjetpilot 7 months ago
muslims are always whining and complaining, especially in europe, that they are being treated unfairly. how about their mistreatment of jews and christians in their country? why are they so happy to build mosques in our country and yet churches and synagogues are not permitted in places like saudi arabia? honestly, if it is so bad over here why don't they go back to their country?
allison8914 1 year ago
islamofascist? are we just making words up now? i mean the word 'islam' to me is baisically another word for fascism.... my definition would be: Islam - fascism in the name of god
godkingRoss 1 year ago
go pat...
the proof is in one dead cartoonist...go Geert!
farleygranger 1 year ago
How is it that people miss the fact that patty boy is a Zionist ?!?!
MonsterMunchAreAce 1 year ago
ANYONE KNOW WHAT SONG THIS IS?
Justcardona 1 year ago
You say 3.1% thats roughly 3 in 100 of the population are Muslum, then why the ratio of religious schools almost 1 in 7 that does not reflect a fair share of resources to all, it shows Muslum schools get more funding. a correct reflection by population would be 18 Muslum schools to 700 none muslum schools. 3 to every 100
phcoh 1 year ago
You yalk of incosistances, yet in 5:90 (Asad) O YOU who have attained to faith! Intoxicants, and games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan's doing:' [105] shun it, then, so that you might attain to a happy state!. Yet in 83:25 (Asad) They will be given a drink of pure wine whereon the seal [of God] will have been set,. The only thing this tells me is that Satan has a hand in Paradise !!!!
phcoh 1 year ago
PAT CONDELL IS ALLAH!!!
laaxe 1 year ago
whypatcondellisntfun Do you even know what the fuck misogynist means? How can you be so blind? Muslims are working very hard, not to emancipate people, not to bring about greater Liberty but to ENSLAVE them. Does that not register in that pea brain of yours? There is so much evidence from this that it is astounding how anyone could be so deaf dumb and blind. Whether it's a reading of the Qu'ran or words out of the mouths of leaders or the apathy of Muslim moderates. This has to be stopped
equsnarnd 1 year ago
pat condell is criticising supremacist islam. if there is any other kind, then its up2 those who claim 2B of that other kind, 2use their voice to SHOUT DOWN and verbally lay into the extreme element that is giving islam a bad name.
i havnt seen or heard of a demonstration of muslims who marched to proclaim their condemnation of & opposition to the islamic Supremacists ideology..not anywhere in the uk in the last 10 years.
if you keep silent out of FEAR, what does that say about PEACEful islam?
catveezle 1 year ago
funky music....grooooovy, yeh!
catveezle 1 year ago
@catveezle Porno music! LOL
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
Hello my friend! My goodness, can't you just accept a compliment? :-) Why assume that I am not convinced by your cogent use of what appear to be well researched facts? My point is that the 'metaphors' handed down by an angel are not facts, they are faith. I assume you are working to show the rest of us that Muslims are being misrepresented. If so, then can I suggest you don't dilute your factual arguments with stuff which needs faith which many of your readers simply don't recognise.
1830mof 1 year ago 4
@1830mof I think you still have misunderstood what I've said again.
1) Condell siad that a person said one thing.
2) That person actually said another.
3) Regardless of if you believe in the basis of Islam or not, the fact is that Condell misrepresented what a person said in order to bolster his case
4) I was not asking you to believe the 'metaphors' being discussed, I was asking you to believe that Condell was incorrect. Belief or disbelief is not the issue, so my argument stands.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@1830mof To directly address your issue with 'metaphors' handed down by an angel not being facts. Well, in this instance, a person who believes in Islam - both male an female - and who thinks that being modest is a good thing actually has the power to make it a fact by exercising control over their own actions. If you don't think that "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" lesson does not contain value for everyone, regardless of faith or lack of faith, then I think that is a bit sad
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
The reference come on the slide which starts at 7 minutes. The prophet states that there must be four witnesses to the adultery before the woman can be stoned. I know you didn't intend this to be a debate about religion or Islam, so I shall not express any opinion about. But my point is that your otherwise seemingly well researched and cogent views are let down by the inclusion of an arbitrary rule thought up by a man who claims to have been visited by the angel Gabriel!
1830mof 1 year ago 2
@1830mof Ah. I see. Again, this is a problem of context.
Let us both assume that Islam is all a pack of lies.
Does that give Condell the right to wilfully misquote what was said by somebody practising Islam?
Condell is obviously pursuing his own agenda, which is fine, however, he I think did not truthfully represent what was said. If somebody says "stoning is a metaphor" and you say that "they cannot bring themselves to condemn stoning" you have mis-represented what they said.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@1830mof So, my argument was not in support of stoning, nor was I using the issue of stoning to prove Condell wrong and argue the case for either Islam or stoning.
The point I was making was that Condell misrepresented what was said. This makes the basis of his argument incorrect and this is a separate issues from believing or not believing in Islam.
I actually doubt you will accept this explanation, and I doubt you will question Condell as to why he wilfully mis-quoted a man several times.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@1830mof As you can see, I was not relying on the argument of stoning - or religion generally - being right or wrong, I was pointing out that Condell was wrong because he wilfully misquoted another person.
The point is that I made several other key observations and you can only find fault with one of them (and I utterly refute the point you are trying to make on that issue), which surely means that, on balance, my argument is more rational and logical than Condell's?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
I just think It weakens you argument when you include ramblings of a man who claims to have been spoken to by a supernatural being! It doesn't do your otherwise well put case any justice.
1830mof 1 year ago
@1830mof Please quote exactly where I actually "include ramblings of a man who claims to have been spoken to by a supernatural being".
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Condell is a hero. islam is shit. fail
mikespulligan 1 year ago
I'm a bit of a Condell fan, but I must admit I enjoyed your use of stats as an argument. But then you tried to introduce arguments based upon religion i.e. make believe, and it all fell apart. Sorry.
1830mof 1 year ago
@1830mof I'm not sure which bits you are referring to with regards to religion, could you point them out? Simply put, I'm not asking you to convert to Islam or believe in God for my points to be valid. One just has to understand that Condell is making erroneous claims about the nature and requirements of Islam as well as wilfully misquoting Muslims in an attempt to prove his point.
If Condell is making fair criticism, fine, but he is not, and this video proves it using logic, not religion.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
I'm a bit of a Condell fan, but I must admit I enjoyed your use of stats as an argument. But then you tried to introduce arguments based upon religion i.e. make believe, and it all fell apart. Sorry.......nice try though.
1830mof 1 year ago
PAT ALL THE WAY FUCK WHAT YOU SAY ABOUT HIM 90% OF THE LISTENERS AGREE WITH HIM AND SEE THIS ISLAMIC FASCISM ALL AROUND THEM. PEACE IS THE ANSWER TO ISLAM
andresviveros 1 year ago
Bullshit!
Muslims in the world do have a bad reputaion not because some people talk badly about them or some do speek against it, but because Mulsims talk about peace and execute terror attacks all around the globe!
These terror attacks are executed no matter who is the victim! What matters is the world look at them! Trying to internationalize their conflics they cannot handle.
These conflicts are caused by holy Quran! It is the handbook for dictators opressers!
malsifood 1 year ago
@malsifood I'm sorry, you appear to be arguing against logical arguments with mere swear-words. Is it your assertion that *all* Muslims execute terror attacks, or do you think just a small proportion do so?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
There is no moderate Muslim that opposes verses from quran, that would agree that certain verses in quran should be altered!
So you are saying that only a tiny little minority of Muslims are terrorists?
No! Quran asks Muslims not to become friends with Jews or Christians!
It asks them to kill the unbelievers and the people from the book (Christians and Jews)!
So you expect from me to be polite? Express me in a polite way?
Fuck all worshippers of that death creed!
malsifood 1 year ago
@malsifood I am a Muslim who has been nothing but polite to you, and yet you judge me on the actions of others, do you think that is fair? Who else would you judge on the actions of others?
Yes, I am asserting that only a tiny minority of Muslims are terrorists, if it were otherwise, the world would be very different, no? Verse 109 of the Qur'an (titled "THE DISBELIEVERS, ATHEISTS") explicitly states how one should treat unbelievers, go read it then come back for more debate.
Thank you.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
I judge you because of your "perfect" book!
If you agree to burn that primitive quran and write something better then ok, I will not criticise you anymore!
In quran it also asks to kill the unbelievers and the people from the book (Christians and Jews) wherever you can find them!
And it also states that all other religions must submit to Islam, and pay special tax in order to be left alive!
Do you really think I agree to that bullshit? How stupid are you?
malsifood 1 year ago
@malsifood There is a passage in the Qur'an directly related to "Disbelievers" and "Atheists". I invite you to read it. 109:1-109:6. Also, even though I'm so tired of having this debate over and over again, I invite you to quote from the Qur'an where it says to "kill the unbelievers". I advise you to read the Qur'an in it's entirety and to make a special effort to understand the context of each verse such as those things which are permissible during war, and those which are required in peace.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Islam is a cave man ideology that teaches to go to war! Therefore Islam is not a religion! And i refuse to discuss the so called behaviour inside or outside war!
If a religions preoccupation is war, killings and oppression, there is no right for such stupid ideology to be tolerated in any place on this planet!!!!!!
Islam teaches men to dominate woman and to oppress them! Islam is the religion of dictators and warlords!
If you believe in that then you are imbecile!
malsifood 1 year ago
@malsifood Fortunately, the majority of Muslims do not believe that Islam is preoccupied with war, killings or oppression of women, otherwise, this world would be a very different place. The fact that it isn't shows that your personal understanding of Islam is not shared by the majority of Muslims (me being just one example, but there are many more on YouTube), therefore, you must concede the point that your understanding of Islam is perhaps not as complete as it could be.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
I beg you pardon?
Did Muslims integrate in any society they went?
No none!
Do Muslims live in peace with their no Muslim neighbours? No nowhere they live peacefully together with their neighbours!
Do Muslims live in peace in Muslim dominated countries? No nowhere, they force no Muslims to adopt their primitive customs!
Do Muslims live in peace in 100% Muslim countries? No! nowhere! All ruled by dictatorships! Figthings between sunnies, siiites, wahaby ....
malsifood 1 year ago 6
Pat Condell is Right on you Islamic bastard!
astropath3 1 year ago
I enjoyed the video, especially the last bit.
uniwork88 1 year ago
pat rules Fuck this muzzie rubbish all they do is lie lie lie kill kill kill fucking bastards.
SheerGeniusZ 1 year ago
@SheerGeniusZ Joke.
uniwork88 1 year ago
Are you a Muslim yourself whypatcondellisn'tfunny? If you are its good to see you on Youtube. Although we may disagree with what you say, I always think we gain (and learn) a lot by debating...
CharmingLordSausage 1 year ago
@CharmingLordSausage Yes. I consider myself a Muslim. And yes, I've certainly learnt a lot by debating on YouTube
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
The nature of Islam stands against EVERY decent aspect of Western thought, religion and culture. We must, as common sense American citizens (and Westerners), understand that those who embrace Islam come from a religious background which has carried its medieval and deranged founder's violent principles for centuries.
NoRagheadsInUSA 1 year ago
@NoRagheadsInUSA, not surprisingly I see you are a friend of the BNP via 1kewldude2, so my first point to you would be to ask why you are friends with a self-confessed supporter of a legally proven racist organisation? My second point would be that you are concluding that Islam and "Western" thought are incompatible, but I was born and raised in the West and as a Muslim I'm not against "western" thought, religion and culture. How would you explain this?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun I would explain it by saying a lot of muslims ARE against western thought religion and culture especially the ones who do not live in b
Britain, you don't speak for all muslims and i would say that muslim culture IS incompatible with ours. We have freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion. What is the penalty is Saudi Arabia for preaching religions other than Islam? Death? Thought it was. See the incompatibility?
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Define "a lot" in terms of the total global Muslim population. Is it 5%? 25% or what? Where do you get your figures from? I don't speak for all Muslims, but the very fact that I exist and speak as a Muslim should be a signal to you that not all Muslims are against "western thought, religion and culture". Can you even define what "western" thought, religion and culture even is? You make the mistake of equating a country (Saudi) with a religion (Islam). They are not the same.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Well A LOT of muslims believe the penalty fo leaving your faith is death because that is what the Koran says. This sort of barbaric rule is not compatible with western culture. So do you only believe the bits you like from the Koran or do you agree that the penalty should be death?
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Why don't you tell us what the Qur'an actually says? Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith? Let me help you out here...
"Say : O ye that reject Faith!
I worship not that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship,
Nor will ye worship that which I worship.
To you be your Way, and to me mine."
Qur'an 109:1
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
How about I help you out dude?
IV. 89: They would have you disbelieve as they themselves have disbelieved, so that you may be all like alike. Do not befriend them until they have fled their homes for the cause of God. If they desert you seize them and put them to death wherever you find them. Look for neither friends nor helpers among them
Seize us and put us to death eh? And you say this is compatible with our culture?
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I'll ignore the misquote, readers who are worried about this verse should pick up any copy of the Qur'an and read it for themselves. What I cannot ignore is the contextual ignorance. You see. If one has read the Qur'an all the way to 4.89, why would one not read 4.90? I'll quote that also, so we each have a more complete picture of the context.....
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Kill disbelievers...
"Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them)."
Qur'an (4:90)
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
LOL! So basically as long as the disbelievers are submissive it's ok, you won't try to kill us. Well I'm not submissive and neither is most of Britain so the Koran says we should be killed!? you're proving my point better than i ever could and my first comment wasn't misquoted.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill How is a peace treaty submissive? How is a restraint from physical violence submissive? How is mutual trust and guarantee of peace submissive?
You are in a dreamworld in which context is not relevant and one can pick a single narrow passage from a book, ignore the rest of the book and expect it to make sense.
Your channel says "Fuck me..." I take it that is an invitation to us all? It must be! I can just lift that sentence out and ignore the rest of your profile. Yes?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
the statement YOU made was "Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" 4:89 clearly states this!
Your argument hinges on people being at peace with you for this rule not to be enforced. If they are not at peace then kill them for not believing in the faith? That quote was NOT taken out of context. it was a direct reply to your question and it is telling the faithful it's ok to kill disbelievers. Religion of peace? Don't think so.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill If they are not at peace with you... then they must be at war with you! If people are at war with you then you defend yourself not because they are not Muslim, but because they are attacking you! Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslms, this is true, though in practice it doesn't work like that, does it? 4:89 says it's OK to kill disbelievers but 4:90 specifically qualifies this by saying *only* if they make war with you.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
No the koran says " if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace,"..... NOT sending a guarantee of peace is NOT the same as being attacked. Talk about extremism with comments like " If they are not at peace with you... then they must be at war with you!" (exclamation mark was all yours. A lot of people in this country are not at peace with each other (religious and atheists etc..) doesn't give you a right to kill them though.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Also, these supposed "misquotes" can be found in nearly every translation of the koran, it depends on your source. your quote is misquoted from the version i have. go figure.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Then I invite you to do 2 things. Firstly, name your source (which sounds like a gameshow!), and secondly, tell me what your source says 4:90 says. Don't be shy, after all, your profile invites people to literally "fuck" you, doesn't it?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
well considering there is no definitive translation of the koran it might as well be a gameshow! Koran 4:89 showed you to be drastically under educated in the teachings of your (multi-translated) holy book.
You seem to only want to believe the cop-out of verse 4:90 and completely ignore the licence to kill in 4:89..... Typical theist, picking and choosing the moral bits and ignoring the rest. Until it suits you.
the koran condones killing apostates. Not compatible!
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I believe in both 4:89 and 4:90, there is no hypocrisy in it. The "licence to kill" is only valid under the scenario of being attacked. I'm not under educated to state this. I asked you to name your source. You still haven't. I asked you to tell me what your translation of 4:90 is, you still haven't. What have you got to hide by not revealing this information?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Whoaa... so If the conditions are not met then it's ok to kill people! HA HA HA HA! Epic Fail! You have proved my point! Regardless of the conditions the koran gives you licence to kill apostates and YOU never knew that! I did. My source is the koran. translated slightly differently from yours. Don't change the subject with your hard-on for sources. You now openly admit the koran calls for death to apostates (regardless of translation)
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Firstly, I invite you to read the many comments on my other videos about this very subject. I've had this debate time and time and time again, so you are naive if you think I didn't know exactly where you were going all along. You are still ignoring the fact that Islam makes a specific reference as to what to do with those who reject faith (109:1). You are still ignoring the fact that a Muslim cannot kill an apostate *merely* for being an apostate.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Also, you have still failed to name your source or translation of the Qur'an, why? I have not openly admitted that Islam calls for death to apostates at all.
"Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them nor guide them on the way." (Qur'an 4:137)
How can one reject Islam, believe again and reject again and *increase* in disbelief if apostates are to be killed?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun How would you explain 4:137? I guess it says something completely different like "Kill murder death kill them all Raaarrrr!" in your translation, but then, you won't name it so we'll never know, will we?
Your "mate" thinks you are "lashing" me, but I think you have bitten off more than you can chew here. You can't really explain nor justify your stance based on the Qur'an unless you intentionally distort the meaning of the Qur'an. That's just not cricket, is it?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun Arf, I @ myself. Of course, the above comment about explaining 4:137 was @antonyhamill
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Not named my source? Of the Koran?.....Errrrr it's the er.....KORAN! You know... That book you selectively read and preach from without actually knowing what you are talking about (else you wouldn't make comments such as "where in the koran is there a call to kill disbelievers?").
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I think we are going around in circles here. Your source could be some freaky site on the Internet for all I know, you refuse to name the translation of the Qur'an that you are using. I'm saying that I don't believe you have a pukka copy, you are saying you do, all you have to do to prove me wrong is to reveal the translation of the Qur'an you are using.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Please note, I have not been preaching to you, merely debating the content and context of the Qur'an. You call *me* "selective" whilst at the same time arguing a very narrow point which only stands if you take 4:89 out of context, where I've quoted 4:89, 4:90, 4:137 and 109:1, which when taken in context conclusively prove that the Qur'an does not call for the killing of apostates merely for being apostates.
Why misquote me here when you already quoted me elsewhere word for word?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Fair enough. Ok then i admit to being selective insofar that i was responding to a direct question from you to point out the passage which asks for the killing of apostates. I concur that other passages may contradict this but then that is the point of contention with most if not all holy books. Depending on your morality as a person you can interperet whatever you want pretty much. All hard feelings aside this has been a fun debate and I do not think you are a dick. Cont.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I thank you for your politeness, and I bear no animosity towards you. It is my belief that when looked at objectively, and in context, the Qur'an does not contradict itself as it does not call for the killing of apostates simply for being apostates which appears to be the premise you have been working on during this debate. Though I equally concede that the Qur'an may be "interpreted" in a narrow fashion depending upon the pre-disposition of the reader. Our discussion prove this.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Exactly! Look at christianity. it basically ignores the old testament (and seems embarrased by it) due to it's fascist ideaologies. Countries like Saudi do the same with Islam but to the opposite, ignore certain parts (such as the passages you pointed out) but ENFORCE other parts vehemnently. The moral of the story is that taking things too literally is a double edged sword and can be used to reinforce any view you choose (Not just in religion).
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
However i think we will have to agree to disagree as I for one have other people to argue with and this has been going on for a while now with neither side gaining much ground. Regardless of our differing opinions You, at least didn't descend into irrationiality and kept your argument clear. Fair play.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill My challenge to you was this :
" Why don't you tell us what the Qur'an actually says? Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?"
You appear to be trying to win this challenge by both ignoring what the actual challenge was and by taking a single verse in the Qur'an out of context whilst ignoring multiple other examples which prove the Qur'an does not require the killing of apostates. We are clearly wasting our time here.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Oh.... I'm far from a typical theist, I don't for instance, make a judgement on an entire group of people by the actions of one, I would never say, for instance, that a "typical" atheist (there is no such beast!) picks and chooses the text they want to prove their point and ignores the rest...
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
It would appear to me that my mate is lashing you in this argument! You asked where in the koran was the call for muslims to kill and he pointed it out! get lashed.
avaughan585 1 year ago
@avaughan585 I said, and he quoted me saying : "Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" He has not pointed out anywhere in the Qur'an that calls for Muslims to kill anybody specifically for leaving the faith. The Qur'an is clear. If a Muslim leaves Islam *and also* attacks you, then you have the right to defend yourself. There is no call to kill someone *just* for leaving Islam *unless* you pick and choose the bits you read and leave the rest out!
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
oh one more thing you said " Where in the Qur'an is a call for Muslims to kill people for leaving their faith?" .... 4:89 clearly states this regardless of the "unless they sue for peace" part of 4:90.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill I concede that you found in 4:89 a call for Muslims to kill, but this cannot be implemented whilst selectively ignoring 4:90. Otherwise, as a Muslim, you would not be conforming to basic Islamic principles. You have failed in epic proportions. Just admit defeat gracefully.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
How is it a fail when you yourself concede that 4:89 IS a call to kill? Take a look at your comment of "Kill disbelievers......Except..."
LOL! whatever the "except" is, your book condones killing apostates! You claimed it didn't and i proved you wrong. This is true and anyone who reads these comments will see you haver been trounced.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill No. I will quote what you said
"Well A LOT of muslims believe the penalty fo leaving your faith is death because that is what the Koran says."
4:89 and 4:90 together prove that there is no penalty for simply leaving Islam. The Qur'an is quite clear, you cannot kill a non-beleiver unless they are attacking you. Apostates are fine, as long as they don't attack Muslims, in which case, any right minded person would assume a posture of self-defence, no?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
The quote is NOT if they are "attacking you". It's if they have not given a guarantee of peace (which is a lot different from openly attacking you! Even you must see that). How can you interperet someone NOT sending you a guarantee of peace as an open attack and requiring you to kill them in self-defence? Don't twist the words to fit your argument. Oh sorry, you're religious and can't help it.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill For an atheist... you appear to have an extremely literal and selective interpretation of religious text. As literal and extreme as the most literal and extreme religious extremists. I wonder, why is that?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
Must have learnt off you eh?
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill My reading of the Qur'an is not extreme, though, is it? It is not me who is insisting that apostates should be killed outright just for being apostates, it is you. It is not me who is selectively ignoring other parts of the Qur'an such as 109:1 and 4:137 which, when taken together with 4:89 and 4:90 (both of which cannot be read independently from each other as together they form a chain of reasoning) clearly show that apostates should not be killed *just* for being apostates.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
I don't insist apostates should be killed. Your holy book does. I never wrote it. If you choose to selectivley believe the nice parts and ignore the bad that is up to you mate. I don't demand anyone being killed.... Because I don't believe a 2000 year old book is the be all and end all of morality!
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Funnily enough, I don't believe *any* book is the be all and end all of morality either. I don't think any book has *all* the answers to *all* the questions. For instance, the Qur'an doesn't guide me on what to do about Internet based peadophiles, I guess I need to figure that for myself. I don't demand that anyone be killed either, I just want the right to defend myself in a fight, and the Qur'an allows for this, which is, I suppose, a basic human right after all.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@antonyhamill And what's with the childishness? "Must have learnt off you eh?", that's like saying "I know you are, said you are, but what am I?, ner ner ner-ner ner!".
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
@whypatcondellisntfun
wow! 6 comments without waiting for a reply? cool. You must like the look of your own words eh? The thing is..... I proved that islam demands the killing of apostates. You said it didn't...... But it says so in the koran. If you would like more help with education on your holy book I will be glad to help.
antonyhamill 1 year ago
@antonyhamill Islam does not "demand the killing of apostates". You have proven nothing. You simply keep saying that you have whilst pretending that we've not had a conversation in which I've shown 3 different quotes which prove that apostates are not ti be killed just for being apostates.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Your the MAN Pat,But watch out for the white transit van filled with british born al qada from a cash and carry near you, Keep up the great work mate you show us that so of us brits, stll have a backbone,
legiondas 1 year ago 2
What is with this porn movie music?
LOL
I expect to see Jenna Jameson jiggling about any minute...
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
I must apologise, I accidentally deleted your reply to FGFMinfo. In it you said that 30-40% of Muslims agree with Sharia law. Could you cite your source please. Additionally, my understanding of Sharia law is that it cannot be applied to non-Muslims. Do you dispute this?
You also said that it is "treasonous" to want Sharia law. Please give your definition of treason.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Telegraph pol, Februrary 2006: 40% of Muslims want sharia law in Britian. Search along those lines - you will find many more.
Under sharia law, we will be dhimmis. That is how non-Muslims are to be treated. There is no "half sharia" according to these people. So yes, it absolutely applies to all.
This is a slippery slope. They will take what they can get at first, and then expand it until they take control of all of the law.
Wake up.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
Thanks for the source. Did you do any other research beyond believing what you read in newspapers? For instance, are you aware of MPAC, a Muslim organisation that is firmly not promoting 'sharia' law? Are you aware of British Muslims for Secular Democracy? What about Bary Malik, chairman of the Bradford branch of the Ahmadiya Muslim Association, who said: "There are 73 sects of Islams. There is not one form of Sharia law."
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Well yes, I will concede that if 40% of Muslims want sharia, then 60% do not. For now.
Bottom line is, sharia law is NOT compatible with English Common Law. You can shoehorn and prevaricate all that you want. British Muslim "moderates" will gradually be swept away by your more radical counterparts. After all, what do you say in public against these traitors who would destroy your host country?
The silence is DEAFENING. You should be counter-protesting and all sorts of stuff.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago 7
@TheLoyalOfficer
Muslims against Muslims Against Crusaders -
Muslims against Sharia Law UK
There might be some coalition of Muslims...
Nicksvoiceinthewild 1 year ago
@Nicksvoiceinthewild That would be very helpful.
Let's see those "moderates" stand up for once - on their OWN. Let's see some calls for REFORM!
REFORM!!!!
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
If Muslims cannot agree on what Sharia law is, or how to implement it, and if there are Muslim-run organisations specifically dedicated to not allowing religious law take over the world, how on earth is it that you can present a seemingly black and white case that "They will take what they can get at first, and then expand it until they take control of all of the law."?
You take about "these people" [Muslims] but I'm a Muslim and I dispute that sharia law applies to non-Muslims.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Look up dhimmi status. It's how you people got rid of the Coptic Christians, for example, in Egypt. And that's just one sample of Muslim "tolerance".
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
If you could quote from the Qur'an about how sharia law applies to non-Muslims then I shall concede this argument. But your case seems to rest upon the fact that "these people" demand things. Ohhhh! Scary!!!
People demand things all the time. I demand decent health care and public transport system, doesn't mean I'll get it!
Sharia law is personal to each Muslim. Praying, fasting, giving to charity, etc. Sharia law is not simply about crimes and punishments.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Can I also ask you to provide a source for non-Muslims becoming "dhimmis"? The source must be backed up by the Qur'an otherwise it won't hold water, will it?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
The source is: HISTORY.
Everywhere you go, you seek to conquer and force dhimmitude on those who do not convert. India is a particularly HORRIBLE example of the "tolerance" of the "religion of peace".
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago 6
@TheLoyalOfficer
Even though i am an atheist and have plenty of criticism towards islam, honesty commands me to rectify this terrible assertion you made.
In India, where tensions are high between communities, muslims have been mostly victims like the 2002 pogroms where BJP (hindu far-right-wing) crowds had lists of addresses (which highlights premeditation) of muslim people on which they committed mass murder, rape and torture. The estimate is around 2500 dead.
nickst0ne 1 year ago
@nickst0ne Who were the victims in the first place, going back to the 1300s? Hindus - MILLIONS of them! Oh, and Buddhists too. They were really bad to Christians but the Muslims were ABSOLUTLY WICKED to the Indians, whom they considered idolaters. At least us Christians were "people of the book" - we were allowed to "live" as glorified slaves. Indians were simply to be destroyed. Most mosques in India were built over Buddhist/Hindu temples.
A mostly untold story - and TERRIBLE.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
@TheLoyalOfficer
cmon ! We can't go back to the 14th century for arguing about who drew the first blood.
We must indeed keep History alive and remember the events of the past. I don't know about 14th century India and I willingly believe you on this. I have myself criticisms against Islam (among others).
But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu !
nickst0ne 1 year ago
@nic I am not familiar with the current situation in India since the Partition ('47)which I studied very closely. Bottom line is, no matter when it happens, you don't just kill millions of people over decades and not have lasting, evil consequences. Islam needs to look in the mirror rather than CELEBRATING these atrocities and singing songs about them, which they often do. Islam has NO self-criticism or self-examination whatsoever - or almost none.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@nickst0ne "But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu!" Do you have any proof of that? Are you sure you're not confusing the efforts in India to stop Muslims from taking over and imposing their particular brand of tyrannical theocracy on everyone else? The attempt to do that would create a lot of friction. Islam as an ideology is not fit for civilization.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@nickst0ne "But the reality of modern-day India is a genocidal drive against Muslims by Hindu !" Do you have any proof of that? Hindu as a religion is pretty wide open and tolerant but I think you're confusing India's attempt to stop this tyrannical theocracy of Islam from imposing itself on everyone else. As an ideology Islam is not fit for civilization and needs to be stopped. As a religion it is just as intolerant and ugly as it's ideology. It seems pathological in the best of cases.
equsnarnd 1 year ago
@equsnarnd
First of all, the "do you have proof" argument is BS. I mentioned clearly the events and the parties involved. You got to be a moron AND a slacker for daring to ask this question without the slightest googleing.
You know ? I actually dislike Islam. But what I dislike more than Islam is people who use their opinions as if they were facts. And on this subject, I brought facts while you're spilling hateful opinions.
So go get lost ! and buy an encyclopedia !
nickst0ne 1 year ago
Also, as reported in The Telegraph about the poll, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain said: "It should be seen in the context of one of the other findings of the poll, which shows that while over 80 per cent of Muslims believe that Western society is not perfect, they should seek to make the best of it." (Telegraph, 19th Feb, 2006)
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Treason: Any willful attempt to subvert the law structure of the home country. In America, for example, it would be trying to destroy the Constitution. In Britain, it would be an effort to replace the brilliant English Common Law system with the medieval sharia law.
Yes, that's treasonous.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
If any "willful attempt to subvert the law structure of the home country" counts as treason then we need to lock up our MPs pronto. Guess what. We pay MPs to subvert the old laws and replace them with new ones. Many of our laws date from medieval times anyway, so the age of a legal system is not at issue here.
If you look up Sharia in wikipedia you will see an argument that some elements of English common law - the jury, the contract, etc - may be historically derived from sharia law.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
You misunderstand. I said legal SYSTEM, not individual laws.
And yes, the libtard, self-hating, atheist, relativist, hard left MPs from Labour and their Tory Big Business sell-outs ARE traitors too. Labour wants Muslim votes, and Tory/Big Business wants cheap Muslim workers.
And they don't care if the country is torn down in the process.
TheLoyalOfficer 1 year ago
Condell gets loonier all the time. He approves of the actions of anti-Islamic bigots like Pam Geller and Robert Spencer, and they happen to be fanatical theists themselves!
FGFMinfo 1 year ago
I agree wholeheartedly with Pat Condell. While I can't comment on political issues, I certainly agree with him that religion and the basic medievial superstitions that it fosters are seriously eroding modern society. Very little progress in human rights can be attained as long as we, as a society, are unwilling to shake the bonds of religious repression and move forward, using free thought. Any defense of any religious practice keeps us in the stone age.
Impalamark64 1 year ago
You agree wholeheartedly with Condell on the basis that he is an Atheist and so are you? And that isn't a bigoted outlook at all? Of course, we could dismiss anything as having no value simply because it is not modern enough for us. Lets smash the pyramids, they are keeping us in the stone age, right? What possible value could they offer us? We could build some offices and car parks on that prime real estate, no?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
of course not all muslims are bad. but those who are abuse a book thats never been proven as a fact to jastify their own fantasies such as paedophilia and mass murder of people who think differently.
religion is dangerous when taken completely literally no matter that religion it is especially ismal and christianity.
dont believe me? type in most hated family in america
teedonster 1 year ago
Both religious and non-religious people use all sorts of things to justify "their own fantasies". For instance, I could argue that string theory is a bogus field of science, and I'd be justified in saying so - though it may or may not be true. Anything, is dangerous when taken completely literally, especially physics and mathematics.
I'm not sure how Muslims justify peadophilia using the Qur'an. Could you explain how so?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
ok i dont know much about the quran i only know whats gone on in the news maybe im completely wrong about it but i do know many religious people give a bad name to it at times.
as for science and mathematics their proven and help us develop society. as for a bogus field of science its only bogus till its proven.
anyone who believes in things that aernt true or never been proven true are just idiots plain and simple
teedonster 1 year ago
Of course, it is so easy to paint the black and white picture and ignore the subtle shades in between. Is all religion stands for wrong simply because it is based upon religion? There may be very many issues with which you agree, or disagree with people of religion about, but why write of the entirety of religious beliefs for no other reason than because it is a religious belief? Is an Atheist less likely to oppress because he is an atheist? Is an Atheist less likely to commit fraud?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
As for human rights, you will see that within Islam human rights are explicit. Why is it, for instance, that it is only a recent event that rape within marriage has only just been recognised within UK law, but was always recognised within Islam? What about the rights of women to own property? Again, enshrined in Islamic law for centuries whilst Europe lagged behind. To assert that religion is incompatible with human rights, then, is false. To assert that Atheism offers paradise equally so.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
The penalty for apostasy according to sharia law is death.Anybody with a brain cell can see the stone age mentality behind this outrageous law.
07englishpride 2 years ago
I'm not sure what sharia law you are quoting. Could you provide me a reference to this law? In my turn, I shall quote the Qur'an to you:
Let there be no compulsion in the religion:
2:256
Those who believe, then reject faith, then believe (again) and (again) reject faith, and go on increasing in unbelief,- Allah will not forgive them nor guide them on the way.
4:137
So, you can believe, and reject, then believe and reject, where is the mention of killing apostates?
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
So are you claiming nobody has been killed in the name of Islam for apostacy?
MrSonicAdvance 2 years ago
@MrSonicAdvance.
As I've shown using quotes from the Qur'an, it is not admissible within Islam to kill someone just for being an apostate. Therefore, it is not possible to kill anybody "in the name of Islam" for being an apostate.
I would suggest to you that those people who think that killing anybody at anytime "in the name of Islam" is acceptable do not understand what has been written, or have an interest in deliberately distorting the truth for personal gain.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
You may well be right that Islam does not permit people to be killed for apostacy. Yet people HAVE been killed by muslims for the "crime" of apostacy.
I ask you if these peopel are acting AGINST Islam by killing in the name of Islam, why do they go unpunished by the majority of Muslims (I assume it's the majority) who follow true Islam?
What you say in theory is fine, but it's the reality that is the problem.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
It is a fair and valid point. I would say that in countries where beheading for apostasy is seen as correct, the general populace is not in a position to overthrow government to change the law. As I said before, some people deliberately distort facts for personal gain, and this is the case in every human society.
In fact, there are a variety of Muslim organisations that do not support beheading of apostates, and I'm fairly sure that Amnesty international counts Muslims as members, no?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
You've hit the nail on the head!
Where religion dominates the society, the general populance is not in a position to overthrow the government to change laws they impose. We've had this with the Catholic church in the past. Oh they're all smiles and peace now, but put them in a position of power and you have blood in the streets at the whim of the heads of the religion.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
I agree with what you say about the disparity between theory and reality, but at least we have agreed that the reality is in no way supported by the theory and that thoughtful people can differentiate between the two.
In theory a Prime Minister of the UK should not lie to take us to war, and if he does so should at least supply the army with the right tools for the job. The theory is fine, but it's the reality that is the problem. There is disparity between theory and practice everywhere.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Herein lays the fundimental problem. Islam, like Christianity and most religions in fact, is populated by followers who in the majority do not read and/or understand the religious dogma they follow. They rely on their leaders to do this.
So "thoughtful" believers are very few and far between. And to be fair, that's the way religious leaders like it. Islam in particular is based around the concept of abject submission.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
I'm not singling out Islam for criticism here. It's a natural human trait. People prefer for others to do the thinking and tell them what to do. It's why people get angry when scientific advice changes. It also explains why religious dogma doesn't change. People don't like to be caught out beliving something without knowing why, only to be told to believe something else later.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
Tony Blair (and G.W. Bush) is a good example of a man driven by religious conviction.
It was telling that Blair hid his Catholic leanings until he was out of power. In Islam this deciet comes under al taqiyya, in the west we just call Blair a lying bastard.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
I agree. Pat makes fundamental sense!
bigguitar22 2 years ago
You've tried hard, but really failed to answer anything on why Islam seeks to change everyone and adopt it's own views on everyone , including people like Pat, who don't want to know thank you very much and now have to go on youtube to try and get this across before you force it onto everyone. That's the main problem with your religeous views, you have no mind space available for anyone who may not believe in what you do. Pat isn't asking anyone in this country to change, but you an Islam are.
bmgm3 2 years ago 3
Condell has, on numerous occasions, made comments to the effect that because he does not like or agree with a certain piece of clothing, that people should not wear it.
I'm expressing my point of view. As is Condell. And Condell is also a member of the National Secular Society, a political organisation designed to lobby government with the secular viewpoint. By definition then Condell is seeking to, "change everyone" and adopt [his] own views on everyone".
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Your logic is twisted. By your arguement:
"So because Condell doesn't agree with a certain piece of metal, people shouldn't go around carrying knives."
What are the views you claim Condell is seeking people to adopt?
MrSonicAdvance 2 years ago
@MrSonicAdvance.
My point is that whilst Condell does not seek change from the standpoint of a given religion, as an Atheist he is a paying member (£29 per year!) of an organisation (the NSS) that is designed to "defend the rights of non-believers from the demands of religious power-seekers".
In essence, the non-religious NSS are seeking power in order to stop the religious seeking power so that the views of the NSS are adopted over and above all others.
That is democracy, though isn't it?
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Again, you're implying that the NSS wishes to impose something upon you.
The NSS seeks to protect people from having religion imposed upon them.
Religious people have always said "Because I believe this, you can't do that or you have to do this!". Sunday shopping, would be one example in this country. Now we are allowed to due to the efforts of people who didn't want to be subject to the rules of a religion they don't follow.
MrSonicAdvance 1 year ago
As I pointed out, the NSS is an organisation dedicated to political lobbying. It has a view and it wishes to impose that view through democratic means.
The NSS wishes to reduce the influence of religion on government. Fair enough, but that necessarily requires the imposition of a non-religious view point over and above a religious one, does it not? The NSS have every right to lobby, but so do religious organisations have that same right to get their view across democratically.
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
Condell is asking for change. That is why he posts videos on YouTube, runs a website and a facebook page, and sells his own branded merchandise. Why should he be entitled to demand change, and not I? What is freedom of speech if not the fundamental right to ask for change?
I do have the mind space available for those who do not believe in Islam. Many of my friends are Atheists, some are Sikh, some are Hindu, some are Christian. I don't have the mind space for bigotry or narrow views of Islam
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
He is asking for change, change so that no religion has any special laws.Think of it as a level playing field in which everyone is equal no matter what you believe in or don't believe in.
Turn your TV and all you see is hardline Muslim who want everything their own way and one religion.
I know not all Muslims are like that, but objecting to those that are is what's happening here. Your average muslim needs to do something to counter the radicals, otherwise you have people like the BNP who do
bmgm3 2 years ago 3
In fact, I agree that no religion should have special laws such as being tax-exempt. However, if two people wish to, for instance, settle a divorce using Sharia tribunal, and both enter into the tribunal fully aware of the implications of their actions, who are we to stop them from doing so?
As for countering the radicals, that is part of what I'm doing on YouTube. Whether they are radical Muslims or radical members of the radical BNP!
whypatcondellisntfun 1 year ago
I am a Muslim and disagree that Pat seeks conflict or insults our intelligence. In my view he identifies without fear or favour serious issues which should concern all Muslims resident in England. If extremism and Wahhabism continue to prosper in England then it will first be the Muslims then the rest of the population which loses out in daily life. The complicit silence of Muslims with extremists in their midst should stop. I am sick of fellow Muslims who despise cherished freedoms.
straidaran 2 years ago 2
This is a great start to 2010 for me. I absolutely love this comment which smacks of a sock account on so many levels.
Please view all my videos, take a look at my friends, view my comments and favourites (this is more than can be done on your channel!) and then come back and let us discuss how I "despise cherished freedoms". And how I'm "complicity silent" when I'm at one and the same time deconstructing a bigoted world view and narrow pre-conceptions of Islam.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Salam. It is reasonable for any Muslim to agree that our faith has been hijacked by ignorant oppressors. Those who deliver khutbas at my mosque have encouraged us to work for a caliphate in which all who drink alcohol are whipped.
I had not viewed your channel. My complaint about those who despise freedom was not aimed at you but at Muslim oppressors who, as Pat suggests, can be compared to cavemen who use a torchlight (the Koran) like a hammer.
straidaran 2 years ago 4
Pat is ALWAYS right on the money. The whole world denounces sheria law. Only barbaric animals believe it is right.
MrJohnnyrace 2 years ago
Just. The. Facts. ?
I see: putting periods after each word makes the sentence true.
What. Focking. Bollocks.
borderpoint1 2 years ago 2
I find it is more creative than using all capital letters which seems to be the preferred method of pressing home a point on YouTube. And I don't do it all the time, just occasionally, as you will see if you click the 'more info' link.
whypatcondellisntfun 2 years ago
Islam holds no future, it only brings; hate, death, destruction and