December 07, 2003


I wonder if this guy has any opinions on gay marriage:

Police are investigating claims that one of Australia's most senior Islamic clerics has incited his followers to attack homosexuals.

A complaint made to Victoria Police alleges the chairman of the Board of Imams, Rexhep Idrizi, was reading from the Koran when he made derogatory comments about homosexuals and said they should have "their heads chopped off".

Idrizi denies the allegation ("I wouldn't encourage anyone to attack my enemy") and says he has evidence to prove it, but worshipper Asip Demiri claims he and others heard Idrizi make the subtle and nuanced head-removing remarks. Demiri adds:

"We go there to pray, not to listen to that kind of rubbish. There were a lot of intelligent people there who were offended by it. He (Imam Idrizi) needs to be taken to task for it, because it gives Muslims a bad name."

The Idrizi name already has some badness associated with it:

Last year, Imam Idrizi's son was jailed for four years and eight months, with a minimum of 15 months, for bashing gays.

Muhamed Idrizi, 20, and four others attacked a cyclist with a machete and bashed and robbed two other men. The court heard that the group had gone on what he called a "p--fter bashing" mission.

Posted by Tim Blair at December 7, 2003 11:22 AM

The Imam's actions are, it would seem, being hypocritical in the extreme.

It was the Islamic community who, at the encouragement and with assistance of the Equal Opportunity Commission, brought vilification charges against a Christian pastor for saying something to a congregation which was interpreted by three Muslim women - NOT members of said congregation - as being "offensive".

It is to be hoped that regardless of the finding of the Vic. Police, the complainant requests assistance from the EOC in using the same laws to bring charges against the Imam.

Naturally we can all be confidant the very fairly-minded, taxpayer-funded EOC will be just as helpful in this case. Can't we? Oh.

Posted by: Jim Riley at December 7, 2003 at 12:08 PM

Dunno Jim. Gay rights vs multicultural correctness. It would be really hard for the EOC to sort that one out. Bound to lose a few nights sleep. Hope they get it dumped in their lap!

Posted by: Bob Bunnett at December 7, 2003 at 12:58 PM

I'd reckon it's a poofter.

Posted by: G. Murry at December 7, 2003 at 01:11 PM

We've found a religion we can't reasonably tolerate. It doesn't matter if our laws seem to require toleration of Islam, unless the laws are a suicide pact. If we continue to let Islam spread and flourish, we'll spend our shortened existence regretting our toleration. If we destroy Islam, we'll have all the time in the world to regret our intoleration. I think the latter is the better deal.

Posted by: Doug at December 7, 2003 at 03:27 PM

Alas, if only you read further down the page:

'But worshipper Asip Demiri, who was at the service, told the Sunday Herald Sun that Imam Idrizi had verbally attacked homosexuals.

"I couldn't believe it. I was sitting there with my son and he comes out with comments as if the Koran says it's OK to attack homosexuals," Mr Demiri said. "He told us they should have their heads chopped off.

"My son asked me if what the Imam said was true and I said 'No, it's not'. Then, he wanted to know if the Imam was lying and I couldn't give him an answer that would make any sense.

"We go there to pray, not to listen to that kind of rubbish. There were a lot of intelligent people there who were offended by it. He (Imam Idrizi) needs to be taken to task for it, because it gives Muslims a bad name."

Mr Demiri said a complaint had been made to police and he urged others in the congregation to disavow the Imam's comments.'

Hardly sounds like a unanimity of Muslim opinion for homophobia.

Posted by: Randy McDonald at December 7, 2003 at 04:15 PM

Are we talking about the same Islam that revealed its true identity on 9/11? How can this be? Islam is a religion of peace. Don't these muslim homophobes know that?! Next thing ya know, these nuts are gonna start exhibiting gynophobic behavior. Then where will it end? Will they hate Jews next?

Posted by: Islam Sucks at December 7, 2003 at 04:45 PM

Islam Sucks: Islam does NOT suck.

Please leave your own racist ignorant comments to yourself.

Islam did not reveal its true identity on 9/11; rather Taliban/Al-Queda did.

Posted by: KoMaN at December 7, 2003 at 04:55 PM

Isn't it about time that some folks start asking themselves, "What have we done to make them HATE us so?"

Or mebee not.

Posted by: Anga at December 7, 2003 at 07:55 PM

So, what? Is Islam, like, a race now? I'd just thought it was, y'know, a really beautiful religion.

Posted by: bobbylife at December 7, 2003 at 10:42 PM

Islamists are angry at the US for the same reasons that so many people want to come to live in the US.

For one thing, we let gays run around loose with their heads still attached.

Posted by: frew at December 8, 2003 at 02:31 AM

KoMaN- Why don't you enlighten this kufr son of apes and pigs, and potential dhimmi, how islam doesn't suck. I'd really like to know why I shouldn't hate this ethos of oppression and violence. Or do you not think that women and non-muslims in Saudi Arabia, the epicenter of the blood cult, are treated like property, and not human beings?

Posted by: ISLAM SUCKS at December 8, 2003 at 05:42 AM

There are plenty of examples of Muslims that go about their day without bothering anyone one. So pull your head in ISLAM SUCKS, and save your wrath for the zealots.

Posted by: Gary at December 8, 2003 at 08:30 AM

Islam Sucks may have a bit too much fire in his words, but the message is true. If you don't believe it, go and live in a Muslim country for a few years. Sure, there are moderate Muslims, but as a system, it's tyranny of the soul.

Posted by: daniel at December 8, 2003 at 10:41 AM

Islamic groups have called for an end to the use of the word 'Islamic terrorists' or 'Muslim terrorists'.

Censorship or common sense?

Islam does not condone terrorism in any shape or form. The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and have no axe to grind with anyone.

'Islamic' terrorists are criminals who are hijacking one the world's largest religious groupings to incite revolution against the West for their own reasons.

None of these reasons have any basis in core Islamic beliefs - nor in any writings, irrespective of their literal sense - any more than the Bible's literal exhortations need be taken literally.

Muslims are no more terrorists than Catholics are IRA murderers or Protestants are Catholic-killers.

Comments like some of the above feed the flames which the terrorists hope will engulf the world in an Islamic-West struggle. Hatred of Islam is not the solution. The only solution is for the West to embrace Islam and destroy terrorism together.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 8, 2003 at 11:28 AM
Islam does not condone terrorism in any shape or form
Given what I read coming out of the Moskkks in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Iran, etc....I have to respectfully disagree. If the pope stepped out on his balcony every Friday, and proclaimed that the muslims were descendants of monkeys and apes, and that they should be murdered for Jesus, you could then reasonably claim that Catholicism sucks. Until then, quit trying to see Islam through westernized eyes. And by the way, I do not dispute that there are good and peaceful muslims in the world, but I'm also certain that there were peaceful Germans and Japanese in the world during WWII, but that didn't change what had to be done. Posted by: Islam Sucks at December 8, 2003 at 11:56 AM

"The biggest summit of Islamic leaders in three years opened yesterday with calls for the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims to unite against “a few million Jews” who allegedly rule the world and get others to fight and die for them. “We need guns and rockets, bombs and warplanes, tanks and warships for our defence,” Mr Mahathir told leaders from 57 nations gathered for a summit of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference." 2003/10/17

This is from a "moderate" Muslim, who is also the leader of a country, addressing a gathering of top Muslims.

The call is clear: Get rid of the Jews and everything will be great. Self deception is a scary thing.

Posted by: daniel at December 8, 2003 at 12:26 PM

Daniel, Mahathir's comments need to be treated with the contempt they deserve. And he wasn't saying 'Get rid of the Jews'. He was enjoining Muslim nations to defend and stand up for themselves as well as has Israel.

And so they should - against the criminal terrorists in their midst treacherously hijacking their religion to further their various causes.

He also said resorting to terrorism was not the answer.

To the previous poster whose pen name is just so cute I can't bring myself to repeat it, nothing changes what has to be done as you say, we just need to carefully identify it and not hurt innocent people in the process - an accusation that already haunts Western nations pursuing quite justified campaigns against evil and tyranny.

To a far greater extent than ever before, the tyrants this time around secrete themselves within innocent populations, using them as both their refuge and as their defence.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 8, 2003 at 12:54 PM

I would like to believe there are "moderate Muslims", but the fact is, many of their leaders on the world stage are not. Of course it goes back to the roots of Islam, and what is written in the Qur'an.

It sounds like you have not read Mahathir's speech,
so here is a link

Notice he says: "we, the leaders of the Organisation of Islamic Conference countries are gathered here today to confer and hopefully to plot a course for the future of Islam and the Muslim ummah worldwide."

OK, this is the agenda - to plot a course for the future.

"...even though they may be cynical about our will and capacity to even decide to restore the honour of Islam and the Muslims, much less to free their brothers and sisters from the oppression and humiliation from which they suffer today."

He is going to talk about how to restore honor to Islam and Muslims. This involves freedom from their "oppression and humiliation".

"Apart from the new nation-states we also accepted the western democratic system. This also divided us because of the political parties and groups that we form..."

Western democracy has helped make Islam weak he says.

"The early Muslims were as oppressed as we are presently. But after their sincere and determined efforts to help themselves in accordance with the teachings of Islam, Allah had helped them to defeat their enemies and to create a great and powerful Muslim civilisation."

Muslims became a great power after military conquest. Quite a contrast from any other major religion i know of.

"We are enjoined by our religion to prepare for the defence of the ummah. Unfortunately we stress not defence but the weapons of the time of the Prophet."

Again, i know of no other major religion that stresses physical weapons.

"They believe that things can only get worse.The Muslims will forever be oppressed and dominated by the Europeans and the Jews."

Now he shows what kind of oppression he alluded to at the beginning - European and Jewish oppression.

"It cannot be that there is no other way. 1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way."

THIS IS THE CRUX, He wants to defeat the Jews. After this he goes into a hate-speech about how they need to use brawn and brains to defeat the Jews.

What was the reaction? Did Muslims condemn this speech promoting genocide? If you have the quotes, please let me see them. Here is what CNS said about the reaction:
"The speech earned Mahathir a standing ovation and was praised or defended by OIC participants from several member states, including Egypt, Yemen, Indonesia and Afghanistan."

It may be possible like you say: "The vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and have no axe to grind with anyone." But the fact is, is that the Muslim leaders have not just an axe to grind, they have axes they want to use on heads.

Posted by: daniel at December 8, 2003 at 03:07 PM


I'm confused. Was the peaceful religion of submission hijacked for violent purposes when Mohammed began killing nearby unbelievers in order to ensure that his revelation prevailed?

Posted by: dickweed at December 8, 2003 at 03:45 PM

Daniel, some Muslims immediately moved into 'damage control' in varying degrees after Mahathir's speech (which as I said before, really ought not be taken seriously). Here's one example.

Nevertheless, Mahathir, albeit in his typically antagonistic manner, did say that violence was not the answer:

'Mahathir, a respected leader in the developing world with a long history of making articulate, provocative comments, is retiring Oct. 31 after 22 years in power. He told the Islamic leaders that Muslims had achieved "nothing" in more than 50 years of fighting Israel.

' "They survived 2,000 years of pogroms not by hitting back but by thinking," Mahathir said of the Jews. "They invented socialism, communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so that they can enjoy equal rights with others."

'Mahathir said the world's "1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews," but suggested the use of political and economic tactics, not violence, to achieve a "final victory." '

Let's be perfectly clear. This is no defence of Mahathir, and any statements or noises from Islamic radicals threatening Israel, America or anyone else should be slapped down immediately. My central point is a simple one - that despite some 'outspoken' leaders, such as Imam Idrizi, the dangerous fool who is the subject of this thread, most Muslims are peaceful, have no desire to conquer anyone else and do not deserve to be lumped in with the former. See the comments of the worshipper quoted in the story.

The task of defeating Islamofascists, Taliban and al-Quaeda is not made easier by renouncing all Muslims.

To the other poster, countless massacres have been committed in the name of just about every religion, cult or superstition ever known to man.

Posted by: ilibcc at December 8, 2003 at 04:58 PM
To the other poster, countless massacres have been committed in the name of just about every religion, cult or superstition ever known to man.
Oh yes, but Islam is the only one people seem to have a problem taking to task for it. Coincidentally, it is the only one doing it right now. Coincidentally, I/we are all the targets. I highly recommend that you read the translations of the sermons made weekly all over the Muslim world. Many can be found at MEMRI. It is not a fringe minority. It isn't every muslim, but among the leadership of the muslim world, it is not a minority. Posted by: ISLAM SUCKS at December 8, 2003 at 05:15 PM

Well ilibcc, you've had a chance to see Mahathir's speech now, and yet you still seem not to have understood it, or else you are just flat out lying and hoping i don't check things out for myself.

Nowhere does he say that violence is not the answer. That quote is from the link you kindly offered: "The Muslim News".

You repeat that the speech: "really ought not be taken seriously". Yet: "it got a standing ovation from the kings, presidents, sheiks and emirs - including key U.S. allies - ". This shows this is not some fanatic fringe - it is the LEADERS of Islamic countries who are so enthusiastic about - defeating the Jews.

He definitely DID promote the use of "brawn" to defeat the enemy Jews. I have some problems with English too (altho i'm a English teacher!), but brawn means muscle, might, meat, force, power. So yes, The Prime Minister of a country of maybe 23,000,000 is NOT a radical, no less than the emissaries from many other Muslim countries (and even some "key U.S. allies") (just love the dig), who gave him a standing ovation. They represent their constituents, so it IS fair to say that most Muslims agree with his idea of using force to defeat the enemy.

Islam is NOT about peace. It's totally about force. What countries that have Christian roots forbid Islam proselytising? What about the other way around? It's clear what Islam is about - it's about force. Did i say that yet? It's about force.

Ishamel's descendants' future actions are prophesied about in the Bible, so it's not too surprising, but sad that people involved refuse to see it.

Posted by: daniel at December 8, 2003 at 10:08 PM

Why is everyone in this world so damn afraid of Muslims? Why do we continue to treat these crooks with kid gloves? Why is it so politically incorrect to call them exactly what they are? Murderers!!! I'm sick to death of these fools defending monsters because they are afraid of offending a few people. Do you really think they share your stance on tolerance? Do they think, "gee, I better not say 'Zionist pigs', when calling for the heads of all the Jews. It might hurt some feelings. Rubbish! Guess what you chickensh!t doves, they'll lop your head off as fast as they would a jew, homosexual, woman, or anyone else they ignorantly slap on their hitlist. They could care less about PC, so you should just realize the futility in your defence of a murderous, ignorant tradition and embrace the fact that they need to be taken to task in order to comply. When I hear one, ONE prominent muslim speak against 9/11, explosions in Bali, bombings in Gaza or any other organized mass murder, then I'll change my stance. Until then, F#@$ 'em!!!!!

Posted by: Nick at December 9, 2003 at 06:14 AM

Okay, Nick. Time to wipe the froth from your keyboard and take your nap.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at December 9, 2003 at 09:58 AM

What part of theocracy do the defenders of Islam pretend not to understand?
A key difference between Islam and the majority of other faiths is rooted on the belief that the leaders of the faithful are the only leaders and what they say dictates the direction people must follow.
If you want to defend Islam, start by quoting Imams that decry violence. Here, I'll set aside a spot for you to do it:
Hmmm. Still empty.

Posted by: Brian at December 9, 2003 at 11:44 AM

I want a nap too. Can i have cookies and soy milk first?

Posted by: daniel at December 9, 2003 at 01:09 PM

I can see by most of your comments that the Imam is absolutely guilty of what he has 'allegedly' said.

If left to you guys, the Imam would of already had his own head chopped off, or be put to the firing squad before he had the chance to defend himself.

A little too judgemental for my liking. But, I guess that's what we Muslims have to put up with these days - GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

Posted by: HAQQ at December 11, 2003 at 04:15 PM