I FIND the idea of organised dog-fights utterly despicable, and regard those who engage in this horrifying pastime as savages who deserve nothing less than having their nuts crushed in the jaws of a grumpy pit-bull terrier.
So it was with gritted teeth that I forced myself last night to listen to a BBC Radio 4 programme uncovering the facts behind a 400 percent surge in dog-fighting in the UK in last three years.
And the culprits are overwhelmingly Muslim – but the politically-correct BBC studiously avoided the “M” word, choosing instead to describe these barbarians as “British Asians” from a Pakistani background.
These men are pictured relishing a dog-fighting event in Pakistan
The programme – The Report – used as its foundation the breaking up of a dog- fighting ring in the mainly-Pakistani enclave of Alum Rock in Birmingham two years ago.
Twenty-six men were eventually convicted for taking part in the largest illegal dog-fight uncovered in the UK.
The RSPCA had long regarded dog-fighting as the preserve of white working class men attending fights in the countryside.
What the fight in Alum Rock revealed, said the BBC, was the first glimpse of organised dog fighting in the Asian community taking place in urban surroundings, wuth tens of thousands of pounds gambled on the result.
Subsequent raids have revealed that dog-fighting has become a problem in some sections of the Asian community, said the BBC
Ian Briggs, chief inspector of the RSPCA’s Special Operations Unit said dog-fighting is up 400 percent:
Out of all the work we do 98 percent is Asian.
Mr Briggs said the organisation believes there is a dog fight nearly every week nationally from a small fight in the park to the bigger organised events such as that uncovered at Alum Rock.
Information about one fight we uncover leads to another but certainly we are scratching the surface.
A youth worker from Handsworth said the goal among those engaged in dog-fights goal was to create a perfect fighting specimen.
They’re looking for a more exotic dog, more jaw pressure, one which has got more stamina, the drive just to kill, that’s what they are looking for, them characteristics people will pay money for. That’s where the money’s at.
Dog fighting is part of life in rural Punjab and Kashmir and there are fears that its acceptability could be increasing among a new generation of young Asians in the UK aware of fathers, uncles and cousins attending fights in Pakistan.
But forensic psychologist Dr Vince Egan, of the University of Leicester, believes this creates real dangers of a tolerance of cruelty and of lowering ideas of “what is acceptable”.
The RSPCA says it is keen on tackling this problem in the British Pakistani community but is finding it hard to penetrate the gangs.
And while the majority of the community find the fights abhorrent, there is among others – as one Asian youth worker explained – certain apathy.
People say ‘the dog wants to fight’. I don’t believe that at all because it’s the human being that’s taking the dog to fight. They haven’t got a choice about being in that ring.
You can listen to the programme via the BBC iPlayer after broadcast or download the podcast.
On June 29, the BBC reported that man described as a key player in a major dog-fighting scene was sentenced to four months in jail and banned from keeping dogs for life.
Barkat Hussain, 44, from Unett Street, Smethwick, West Midlands, trained pit-bull terriers for fighting and kept related medical supplies.
He admitted keeping and training pit-bulls dogs in breach of a court order.
He had previously been jailed and banned from keeping dogs, following involvement in a mass dog fight.
The Freethinker was founded in 1881 by GW Foote, an outspoken critic of religion. After the publication of 
July 31st, 2009 at 8:15 am
Religious hypocrisy strikes again. So it is OK for muzzies to refuse a guide dog in a taxi but OK to carry dogs to a fight. This despicable practice is yet another in a long list of barbarous acts carried out by the muzzies – which bit of their book of bigotry says this is OK? And are not the muzzies the first to whine about Police dogs being used in searches?
July 31st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Beat me to it, Angela. And I bet some pillock will claim that objections to their behaviour is Islamophobic.
July 31st, 2009 at 8:52 am
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, they went to considerable lengths to stamp out dog fighting, which they considered un-Islamic (mainly, I think, because of the associated gambling; but also because dogs are Islamically unclean). One of the first visible signs of the departure of the Taliban in 2001/2 was the reappearance of organised dog fights.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:02 am
oh – that makes them alright then.
I had no idea they were so keen on animal rights.
Oh – hang on- they aren't – they are despicable violent primitives… my bad.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:08 am
These actions are undoubtedly barbaric and inexcusable. But I fail to see what the link to religion there is here. It may be true, as Barry says in his introduction, that “the culprits are overwhelmingly Muslim,” but is there any evidence that this has anything to do with these actions? Perhaps that is why the report described the perpetrators as “British Asians” – because it is factually accurate and relevant?
Religious people don’t have a monopoly on bad behaviour. Even if it were true that all of the participants were Muslim, I fail to see how that is relevant, unless their actions were specifically motivated by some Islamic dogma. During the time that “The RSPCA had long regarded dog-fighting as the preserve of white working class men,” was there a religious motivation? If not, why feel the need to bring this up on the Freethinker now, because the perpetrators may happen to be religious?
We are doubtless all familiar with the accusation that atheism leads to terrors because of the evidence of the regimes of Stalin and Mao. The counterargument is that their atheism was incidental, that it was not a motivating factor, that they may have been ruthless and barbaric dictators, but that this has nothing to do with their atheism.
I agree with this counterargument. And as such, I cannot see how we can use an argument similar to the one we are countering on our opponents. Yes, dog fighting is appalling. Yes, these perpetrators may have been Muslim. But is there any causal link?
I’m unable to see why this story is anything other than a tale of animal cruelty. Something I despise, and something we should all be concerned about – but I haven’t seen day by day coverage of other such incidents on the Freethinker before. If the perpetrators were claiming some sort of Islamic justification, then it’s a story (and goodness knows that religious methods of animal slaughter are material enough for endless relevant reports). But as the report stands, I don’t see the relevance.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:10 am
I'm sorry, but the BBC were correct in identifying the dogfighting gangs as "British Asians from a Pakistani background." There is no evidence that their religious convictions – if indeed they have any – have anything to do with this disgusting activity.
There is a great deal that is preposterous and cruel in Islam, and I am all in favour of highlighting it. Those of us who do so are often unjustly accused of racism. We reply by pointing out, correctly, that Islam is not a race. But it works both ways: a race is not Islam.
There are atheists in Pakistan, too. Some of them could be into dogfighting. The title of this article is grossly unfair.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:35 am
David McKeegan continues to whine in a world of his own. The worst treatment of animals I have ever seen is met in the Roman Catholic countries. Why? Animals have no souls. Some examples: 1. Horses in Ireland beaten by young scum who regard them as much like you would a car. Same horses tethered with wire which cuts into their legs. I have seen a yob beat a pony with a stick with a nail protruding. Makes it run when the sun was hot and the pony was exhausted. The excellent horse and animal protection societies are doing good work and making progress 2. Spain: Great fun there – apart from bull fighting – in the village festivals. The priest is often quite happy to watch some ignorant member of his flock gallop on a horse past a frantic chicken hanging by its legs from a branch. If the chicken is removed – sometimes minus a bit of its body – he keeps it. 3. Italy: They really love shooting any birds that fly their. Even when these birds rest to feed on long migrations.
July 31st, 2009 at 9:44 am
4. Bible belt (USA) They love killing animals there. Bears, deer or whatever.
5. Royal Family. They love shooting and hunting. Camilla Windsor and Charles and
her consort love fox hunting and cubbing. (Cubbing: you let the young hounds rip the young cubs to bits to give them the right idea. Siegfried Sassoon was disgusted by this early in the century – cf Memories of a Fox Hunting Man.
6. Blair is infamous for his indifference to animals. Crypto RC, of course.
7. Anybody tries anything like that on my dogs and I sort them myself and fuck the courts. And I know I these comments are unfair and biased.
July 31st, 2009 at 10:46 am
You may be technically correct, but if these guys aren't Muslims I'll eat my pakol!!
July 31st, 2009 at 10:57 am
There is no "causal link" between Islam and animal cruelty being implied here, I think, but dog-fighting is a part of Punjabi culture, and we DON'T want it in the UK, thankyou very much!
(Actually, Mo did say quite a bit about being kind to our animal friends, but then his followers claim that he used to converse with birds and other animals on a regular basis!!)
July 31st, 2009 at 10:57 am
Even if they are Muslims, the fact would be irrelevant.
As Ian pointed out in the comment above mine, if we agree that the fact that Stalin and Mao were atheists is not a valid argument against atheism, then we must concede that the fact that these dogfighters (might be) Muslims is not a valid argument against Islam. Where is the causal link?
July 31st, 2009 at 11:54 am
It's part of Punjabi culture, which they are trying to introduce to the UK. I think that is the point here. I don't want to sound like a paid-up member of the BNP, but if they want to enjoy these sorts of "pleasures" because they consider it "part of their culture" then they should bugger off to the Punjab where it is thought acceptable!
July 31st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
A sickening story – and the Muslims I know, who are practically all of Pakistani origin, would also be sickened. It's a cultural problem relating to parts of South Asia. As Broga indicates, it is not uncommon in parts of Ireland; in Scotland it is almost unknown in the Highlands but is rife in the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire badlands.
Heresiarch is right about the Taliban, who could perhaps be accused of taking the bear-baiting (which also goes on in Pakisatn) position of Macaulay's Puritans; however, all good Muslims know that cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden. The Taliban sent a suicide bomber into the audience at one Afghan dog fight which (hypocrite that i am) I was actually glad to read about.
July 31st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
Hasn't it been established that a willingness to torment and kill animals is linked to a propensity to do the same to people? I may be wrong, but I thought there was a significant correlation, re: serial killers etc. Perhaps MI5 should look into the dog-fighting rings.
July 31st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
I don't know about religion and dog-fights, but enjoying the spectacle of some dumb animals tearing each other apart is very sick!
July 31st, 2009 at 2:50 pm
I agree with Ian Edmond and David McKeegan. Unless the dog fighters themselves regard this activity as sanctioned or encouraged by their religion, or having some sort of religious significance, then for critics to associate it with Islam is pretty meaningless, and offensive to muslims who disapprove of cruelty to animals.
July 31st, 2009 at 3:30 pm
"…and offensive to muslims who disapprove
of cruelty to animals." – Bubblecar
Which though referenced by Barry's report:
"And while the majority of the
community find the fights abhorrent,…"
could have been given just a little more emphasis.
_____
July 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm
One part of this is puzzling why haven't a number of TRUE Asians written to the papers complaining about this 'British Asian' label attached to the muslims???? If I was true asian I'd be pissed as the news gives a completely wrong impression. Actually because of their fear you could say the news sources are flat out lying!!!
July 31st, 2009 at 4:30 pm
A sickening story – and the Muslims I know, who are practically all of Pakistani origin, would also be sickened. It's a cultural problem relating to parts of South Asia. As Broga indicates, it is not uncommon in parts of Ireland; in Scotland it is almost unknown in the Highlands but is rife in the Ayrshire and Lanarkshire badlands.
Heresiarch is right about the Taliban, who could perhaps be accused of taking the bear-baiting (which also goes on in Pakisatn) position of Macaulay's Puritans; however, all good Muslims know that cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden. The Taliban sent a suicide bomber into the audience at one Afghan dog fight which (hypocrite that i am) I was actually glad to read about.
July 31st, 2009 at 4:38 pm
I completely agree with the above posters criticising the association with "Muslims". I see no link between the activities of these people and the predominant religion of their ethnic community. Many Asians are not Muslims, and I find it very hard to believe (and no evidence has been presented here to the contrary) that religion bears any part in their activity in this respect.
If this was an article elsewhere, I'd leave it that. Since this is an article on a site purporting to be for Freethninkers, I'm even more gobsmacked.
July 31st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
The report said Asian men, this does not mean Muslim, you're headline is misleading, i thought the purpose of atheism was truth and clarity and logic……. clearly you're too concerned with striking unnecessary blows rather than dissassembling with properly constructed arguments……
July 31st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
If these Punjabis aren't Muslims then I would be the one who was "gobsmacked"! Read this and weep: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....8/M…
July 31st, 2009 at 10:41 pm
The fact that you posted a link to the daily mail website renders your comment innert
August 1st, 2009 at 3:06 am
Yeah, the dogs want to fight, women want to be incarcerated and raped, infidels relish their own extermination. Sure.
August 1st, 2009 at 8:15 am
Islam is the controlling force in Pakistani and other similar cultures, the two are linked; culture [in this case] and religion are interdependent – so the muzzies themselves whinge. So I would have to disagree that the actions of the perpetrators of these vile acts did not have some cause in religious belief.
“…….muslims who disapprove of cruelty to animals”. So the muslims’ excuse for the barbaric slaughter of animals in the halal ritual is?
August 1st, 2009 at 8:59 am
Heresiarch also pointed out that what really concerned the Taleban was the gambling that was going on, and the fact that these "believers" were contaminating themselves by their association with the dogs, which, as any fule kno, are "unclean"! I don't think for one moment that the Teleban give a shit about animal welfare, and I am appalled at your comment that you were in favour of bombers blowing themselves up in the midst of a crowd of innocent people!!
August 1st, 2009 at 8:59 am
Heresiarch also pointed out that what really concerned the Taleban was the gambling that was going on, and the fact that these "believers" were contaminating themselves by their association with the dogs, which, as any fule kno, are "unclean"! I don't think for one moment that the Teleban give a shit about animal welfare, and I am appalled at your comment that you were in favour of bombers blowing themselves up in the midst of a crowd of innocent people!!
August 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
@barriejohn: You still don't get it. Whether or not these men are Muslims, it's clear from this article that it is nothing to do with their religion that they are into dog fighting. It would be like equating the BNP to Christians on the basis that the BNP is mostly white British and the majority of white British are Christians.
Your link to the Daily Mail adds nothing to this debate.
August 1st, 2009 at 11:28 am
I didn't hear the radio show, but I definately wouldn't attribute dogfighting to a specific religion anymore that Spanish bullfighting is a Catholic tradition, or Chinese dog eating is a traditional staple of godless bastards like ourselves. On the subject, the consumption of dogs is forbidden by islam so I'm assuming these were Christian pitbulls tearing lumps out of eachother. No 72 bitches for them! Then again, these are probably the same wankers that cried bloody murder when a police advertisement showed a puppy in a bobby's hat a while back (first article I googled for a link was the Daily Mail, and I'm not linking those twats).
August 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
If I go to the Sudan or Kwait and wore my shorts and a bra they would not like this and say whilst I am in their Country I should behave like they believe I should, so why is it different in this country that any one can come in and break our laws and in reality get away with it because we do not like to offend.
Dog fighting is despicable, life sentences should be given like the dogs are given life sentances.
Start with dogs and where will they stop, this is just the beginning.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:52 pm
If I go to the Sudan or Kwait and wore my shorts and a bra they would not like this and say whilst I am in their Country I should behave like they believe I should, so why is it different in this country that any one can come in and break our laws and in reality get away with it because we do not like to offend.
Dog fighting is despicable, life sentences should be given like the dogs are given life sentances.
Start with dogs and where will they stop, this is just the beginning.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Great Michael, short and sweet and straight to the point.
Will this sink in to evil minds somehow I think not.
August 1st, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Great Michael, short and sweet and straight to the point.
Will this sink in to evil minds somehow I think not.
August 1st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
It's a fucking news site, for Christ's sake!
August 1st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
These animal abusers are Muslims, dog-fighting is part of their "culture", yet when the police feature a puppy in one of their adverts they are "offended" (as per usual) because dogs are "unclean"! I "get it" all right!!
August 1st, 2009 at 7:04 pm
BTW Barry features Daily Mail news items all the time in that little box from the NSS entitled What the papers say. Have you never noticed it?
August 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
And when he reported the story about the "offensive" little puppy here last July, he linked to the Telegraph site. Perhaps that's more to your liking!
August 1st, 2009 at 8:08 pm
Sorry but its utter nonsense to say that the wee Bastards around ballymun are bad to horses because of their religion. Theres hardly one of them you'd find inside of a church. I've never heard anyone proudly justify animal abuse with the line "animals have no souls" in Ireland either. While I can understand that you feel passionate about animals, taking a behaviour and a set of people (in this case religious) and blaming it on it with some kind of nutty schoolyard rumour is exactly the kind of crap the world needs shot of. That kind of stuff sounds more like a remnant of religion than an attack on it if I'm honest. Try to use common sense instead of attacking someone that attempted to give a level headed response.
August 2nd, 2009 at 3:41 am
If these stupid men want to fight with dogs I say let them, I suspect the dogs would win most of the fights! *winks*
August 2nd, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Edwin Moore. Thank you for your balanced response. I know I go overboard on this. However, I also know that some of the work done in Ireland to stop these grisly events is amongst the best: I also know that some of that is done by christians. I have, as it happens, often collaborated with devout christians to try to prevent this sickening behaviour and I take the view that this transcends, as a practical response, their religious views or my lack of them. Bear baiting – turns my stomach to think about it. Thank you for your information of muslims and cruelty to animals: I must be a hypocrite as well.
August 2nd, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Sounds just like the Church of England Synod to me!!!
August 3rd, 2009 at 9:55 pm
When did the ivory tower Guardian brigade get here? “whine whine it's thier culture stop picking on them”. Filthy traitors.
August 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 pm
"But is there any causal link?"
Yes. Muslims are barbaric. They are happiest when they are killing so yes, there is a link and something we should be very wary of. They think of non muslims on a similar level. We are not fully human and they have no trouble at all in participating in acts of violence against non muslims. These people have no conscience and no moral compass as islam does not recognise morals or even right or wrong. Everything is judged halal or haram. Allowed or forbidden. If mo did it, it is halal. So forcing little girls to marry old men who then rape them is fine since mo did it. If he didn't say that dog fighting was wrong, then that is ok too. They need to drag themselves into the 21st century but don't hold your breath.
Godless not gormless
August 4th, 2009 at 6:30 am
So which of the above posts says anything like this?
August 4th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Do you really believe this is true of all Muslims? Do you think that Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has no moral compass and would have no trouble "participating in acts of violence against non muslims"?
There are so many problems with religion, so many real ways it impacts negatively on all of us, so many battles to be fought. But this simplistic way of thinking – "Muslims are happiest when they are killing" – is not only clearly not true, it's just embarrassing to read. Aren't we familiar enough with empty arguments such as "Atheists have no morals", "Atheism leads to dictatorships", etc., to know better than apply similarly fatuous arguments to our opponents?
Sites like this give us an opportunity to discuss these issues. I'm stunned by the level of debate, where anyone who suggests that all religion and all religious people are not necessarily evil can be smacked down as apologists or traitors. If you want to live in a black and white world, fine. Perhaps this isn't the forum for reasoned discussion, which would be a terrible indictment of a supposedly rational community. I would rather take on the issues as they really face us, rather than a caricature.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:25 am
You make good points, Ian. "Embarrassing" is the best word to describe the level of debate here sometimes. There is a case to be made for more hands-on moderation of comments. I will discuss this with Barry and the board.
August 4th, 2009 at 9:47 am
It was, I take it, Barry who decided on the title Muslims are at the heart of a dog-fighting epidemic in the UK! The whole point of the item was the unwillingness of the BBC, rightly or wrongly, to use the word "Muslim" in this context: it wasn't about the animal cruelty per se .
Why on earth would you consider the level of debate on this site as "embarrassing"? I am amazed myself at the views expressed even by some "rationalists", but are you suggesting that posters should reflect only the views of the management then? I find that a very strange position for a libertarian to take. And as for censorship on the grounds of people's views, or perhaps lack of sophistication (unless they are being offensive or breaking the law), I would be totally opposed to that.
August 4th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I really do want to agree with you here, Ian, and I do think that Godless has gone a bit OTT with some of his remarks. However, I am an ex-fundamentalist myself, and although by nature an extremely tolerant, easy-going, laid-back sort of person, I am now horrified at the sort of views I used to espouse! Admittedly, the likes of Mary Whitehouse and Lord Longford were an emarrassment, but if the chips were down I would have felt it necessary to support them. This is exactly how many felt in pre-War Germany. I'm sure you must have watched The Crucible. It chills me to the marrow, because I know in my heart of hearts that I would have been right there in the second rank, giving authority to the "witchfinders" because, distasteful though I found it, it was "necessary" for the moral welfare of the nation. As I keep iterating: once you commit to an ideology, you are on the slippery slope to fascism!!
August 4th, 2009 at 9:00 pm
"Filthy traitors", Mike?
Looking over the comments, I see nobody *defending* dog fighting as a "valid" cultural choice. The criticism of the article has been about whether it is justifiable to elide the distinction between religion and ethnic origin.
I agree with those who say it isn't.
There may, or may not, be a link between attitudes to animals within Islam and the behaviour of Asian dog fighting enthusiasts (who no doubt will indeed be Muslims).
However, the article does not explore any such link, and does not supply any evidence of such a link.
So what was the point?
Dan
August 4th, 2009 at 9:08 pm
I don't know what "trying to introduce" means, given that dog fighting – though illegal now – was common throughout Britain before anyone from the Punjab or Pakistan arrived here, and still goes on within certain pockets of the white British and probably the black community as well. There doesn't appear to be any toleration of it by the RSPCA or anyone else other than those engaged in it. There's some interest to know that it's mainly an Asian community problem in Birmingham, but beyond that I don't see much of a story for atheists.
Dan
August 4th, 2009 at 9:15 pm
It's also worth pointing out that Punjab is where Sikhism was founded. So is dog fighting more or less common among those with a Sikh background than those from a Muslim background? We don't know, do we?
August 4th, 2009 at 9:27 pm
So Ian and David. My position is embarrassing is it? And I've gone over the top? I don't think so. Bleat to Barry all you want David, but this is an area for people to air their views and these are mine. Let's see what you have to say here.
"Aren't we familiar enough with empty arguments such as "Atheists have no morals", "Atheism leads to dictatorships", etc., to know better than apply similarly fatuous arguments to our opponents?"
Why is it wrong for people to say "Atheists have no morals", "Atheism leads to dictatorships", etc.? Because it's simply not true – that's why. Atheists, as we all know, have no doctrine to follow therefore whatever an Atheist does, comes from his or her own mind and not from some book which tells them how to behave. Someone who does not believe in god and who may label themselves as an Atheist, may well be a mass murderer for instance, or a dictator, but not because an Atheist doctrine tells them that this is the correct way to behave.
So you seem to be implying that we should extend this same line of thinking to religious people – muslims for example. I strongly disagree! Muslims behave as they do precisely because of their doctrine and if you have ever read the koran or anything about the life of mohammed, you will know that he was an evil retarded paedophile and islam is no more than an evil death cult, concocted by him in an attempt to gain power and wealth and to enable him to get to shag as many women as he could while he was at it – and of course, little girls too.
Muslims, including Yasmin Alibhai-Brown I'm sure, consider mo to be the perfect example of the perfect man. Is this not evidence enough that, even if as you suggest, they do have a moral compass, it's pointing way in the wrong direction? Due to the actions of this vile, nasty piece of work, paedophilia is rife in islamic countries and communities and is not even considered paedophilia but perfectly acceptable behaviour, as long as you marry the poor unfortunate little victims first. This and many other crimes against humanity are the doctrine of islam. If you can think of a crime against humanity, it's probably in the koran as acceptable behaviour as long as it is acted out against non believers – or muslim women. So what the fuck are 'decent' people like Yasmin Alibhai-Brown doing following this evil death cult then?
August 4th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Cont…
I do not say what I say because I'm a biggot, but through EXPERIENCE. I used to be the first to jump to the defence of islam up until about 18months ago when I started to discover the truth for myself. I had been going out with a muslim woman for a few years and she had 'taught' me all I knew up until then. I knew other muslims too. She and they were all people who you would consider reasonable, decent people but I have to admit that I made allowances for them at the time though I didn't realise it then. There really isn't room to expand on this here, but now that I understand more about islam, I see what was going on with these 'nice' people.
With most muslims, all it takes is to scratch the surface a little and something else is revealed. I did this with this woman I was going out with. We'd split up by then because she was veering more and more towards her religion and I was not interested by then in converting in order that we could take the relationship further, though I have to say that I had considered converting for that very reason. But the more I looked into it, the more I realised that I was getting into something which was just not for me. I just don't believe in god or religions and I never really have.
We did discuss islam later and she denied even any MENTION of the word hell in the koran!!! To cut a long story short, when I said that I thought that islamists, given the chance would turn the UK into another Iraq, with thousands being slaughtered every month, without missing a beat she barked back instantly "Why should you people get a way with it!?" Get away with what exactly? This is the thing. The victim mentality and the overriding belief that non muslims are the enemy. They started this, or rather mo did when he made those claims about non believers being "the vilest of animals" and gave out instructions from god that we should be destroyed.
Even an organisation like hizb ut tahrir, who go to great lengths to try to convince us that they are non violent, clearly have division between muslims and non muslims in mind. Just go and take a look at the tripe on their website. Apparently, everything that the west does, even when it's appeasing muslims, is a conspiracy to undermine islam. They incite hatred against the west amongst muslims and this is the acceptable face – according to our government and western islamic apologists – of islam. The non violent truth. These people have political aspirations and want to take over the west. Let's see if embarrassment is all you feel when you are living as dhimi's in your own country – if it ever comes to that – and believe me, if they get their chance (and they're working on it now) it will be.
Also, when you're talking about nice muslims, don't forget taqiyya.
Godless not gormless
August 4th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Godless and gormless, it appears that bitter personal experience has led you to swallow whole the paranoid Jihad-Watch ideology of imminent Muslim invasion and takeover, where “even” (!) Hizb ut Tahir are seeking to sow division. I could spend a lot of time telling you exactly why this is bollocks, but your propensity to go off on wild tangential rants is indicative of a mind that is set in its own irrational ways, and experience tells me that it is really not worth the effort.
So I will limit myself to saying that yes, your words are acutely embarrassing, and your lack of personal insight only serves to make them more so. For future reference, phrases of such ignorant bigotry and hatred as “Muslims are barbaric. They are happiest when they are killing” are not acceptable here. I am the administrator of this website, and if you come up with any more shit like that, you will be banned. Got it?
August 5th, 2009 at 12:06 am
I don't consider it to be bitter personal experience, just experience. And I don't consider there to be a threat of an imminent muslim invasion, this is already happening and has been for some time now. I can't believe that you would consider hizb ut tahir as being anything other than typical divisive muslim retards hell bent on the destruction of the west and the civilised way of life. I can read too David and it's all there for all to see on their website.
I'm sure your muslims friends will be proud that they have taught you well and will be happy to see that you take your dhimmitude seriously. Go ahead and ban me then. That's what islam is all about isn't it? Oppression! You are just proving me right.
So much for free thought and freedom of expression! You're a muslim in the making! Just as well really isn't it, since that way you might just be able to keep your head on your shoulders – for all the good it's doing there!
Godless not gormless
August 5th, 2009 at 12:07 am
If you're the administrator of this website, why did you allow this 'grossly unfair' article to get on here then?
August 5th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
If we don't welcome incessant evangelisation on our comments boards, I don't see why we should welcome venomous prejudice either.
We want our stuff to be read. If people come here and just see a load of sub-Nazi crap disfiguring The Freethinker name, they won't read it, and they won't tell their friends. Unless their friends are similarly prejudiced.
I don't want people like that to feel that The Freethinker is a comfortable home for them, and I don't want to end up like "The Truth Seeker" (founded in 1873) did for so many years, hijacked by racism and prejudice.
Dan
August 7th, 2009 at 8:25 am
If we consider dog-fighting to be illegal, for which prosecutions should take place, then it is useful to know that the majority of the increase in dog-fighting is taking place in the muslim communities. This is simple cause and effect. One of the reasons why the UK and the rest of Europe is not effectively tackling terrorism and the rise of religious violence in general is because the media and the government uses politically correct language which fails to describe the cause of the blame.
For instance, to call a terrorist a terrorist or extremist is a big mistake, because it separates them from the group to which they really belong – which is muslims. We should be calling terrorists muslims, and asking the wider muslim community why they are not doing anything about it.
February 24th, 2010 at 10:45 pm
it is indeed a typical scenario nowadays that even the supposed freethinker website (supposedly endorsing the delight of free speech) is moderated by someone who has an inclination to protect and groom the muslim people yet without (supposedly) being one.
Perhaps with the name of this site it is so much more ironic that the total freedom of opinion is actual not so – well not so if you are opposed to the islamic torrent.
March 31st, 2010 at 10:31 pm
Whether or not these men are Muslims, it’s clear from this article that it is nothing to do with their religion that they are into dog fighting.
Bull crap. Islam teaches hatred of dogs in particular. You can bet that these savages find it completely in line with their religion to abuse these animals. And they will continue to use Islam as a justification, if they are stopped. They will cry “Islamophobia!” and “religious oppression” until the libtards give them the right – without legal interference – to commit whatever violent heinous crimes they wish against ALL animals, including humans.
You are naive if you believe otherwise.
April 30th, 2010 at 12:48 am
Islam does not teach cruelty or hatred of dogs.
It is the sliva of the dog that must be washed off a persons body,clothes or any bowl or utensil a person wishes to use to eat with.
The Quran (islamic book) mentions the dog going to heaven.
It mentions a lady who had committed awfull sins and then helped a thirsty dog,she too would go to heaven.
It mentions the people of the cave who asked for refuge and were shown a safe place in the cave, they stayed their with their dog and all of them would go to heaven.
Cruelty towards any living being is strongly apposed in Islam.
Please don’t make judgements on an entire religion from a news story or an article on the internet or even the acts of terrorists. It is not Muslims who are terrorists.
Study the Quran thoroughly to get the full facts.
At one time all dogs were ordered to be killed in a particular region, this was due to the spread of rabis.
Remember foot and mouth? how many animals were killed in the uk?
The prophet mohammed (PBUH) actually liked dogs and even ordered his people to take a d-tour when they were on horse back so that they would not disturb a pregnant bitch.
It is true many asian people will walk away from a dog, won’t stroke it or entertain a dog in any way. This is because of the passing down of knowledge from elders who themselves were told by word from someone who had interpreted something that someone else had interpreted instead of actually reading up from the Quran themselves.
Just like many of us have done on this thread by saying Islam teaches cruelty towards animals and is a barbaric religion. Because of media, terrorism, and our ignorance for not studying the subject (religion) properly ourselves.
The people from brumy were not punjabis,they are mirpuris.
Dog fighting is not acceptable in pakistani law. It is the corrupt police who let it go on.
Dog fighting was here in the uk a long time before the asian community started getting involved.
Infact it is possible that it was introduced in india by the British in the first place, who knows…
October 3rd, 2010 at 3:35 am
Surely linking this barbaric practice to Islam is the same as linking fox hunting to Christianity.
I woudn’t let Muslims or members of any religion off the hook if they were acting in a certain way because of their faith. And some of them often do. I don’t believe this to be the case here. The fact they are Muslims is purely circumstantial.
What I love about Atheism and Freethought is that I believe it will eventually prevail. This is because it is based on truth and not superstitious gibberish. Freethought is based on facts and science provides us with more and more of them on a daily basis. Therefore it is vital that we don’t resort to totally unfounded ad hominem attacks as this makes us look like bigoted simpletons and does nothing for the cause.