‘Haqqathon’ Takes Anti-ISIS Fight To Cyberspace

May 8, 2015

Courtesy of Rim-Sarah Alouane

By Dina Temple-Raston

In Arabic, haqq is the word for truth.

Last week in the United Arab Emirates, group of Muslim scholars held what they called a “haqqathon” – a hackathon meant to create new ways for Islamic scholars to connect with young Muslims and, by doing so, defuse violent extremists like the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

The competition took place in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, on the sidelines of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies. More than 400 Muslim clerical scholars — Sunni, Shiite and others — gathered for the second year to talk about how extremists are hijacking Islam, and what to do about it.

The urgency for something like the haqqathon is clear, because groups like ISIS have had great success recruiting young people on social media.

“We do want to start speaking the same language as our youth,” said Zeshan Zafar, the group’s executive director. “What is that language, and who are the individuals that need to be part of that whole mix as well. So that’s vital for us.”


Read the full article by clicking the name of the source located below.

49 comments on “‘Haqqathon’ Takes Anti-ISIS Fight To Cyberspace

  • OH NO! Not this again!

    When will the naive western mind begin to understand Islam?

    The SOLE reason for radicalisation is simple- Islam IS RADICAL. There’s no secret, it is there for all
    to read in the Koran and more so, the Hadith of Bukhari and Muslim. Fundamental Islam is merely correct and honest reading of these texts; this “Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies” is
    one of two things- either a genuine if naive attempt at reforming that which it is forbidden to
    reform, or another attempt to whitewash the Religion of Peace, using the familiar and well-worn
    techniques of Islamic lying and dissimulation- taqiyy’ah, tawriya, kitman, muruna and others as
    approved by Islamic scripture and the Prophet himself.

    The Holy and Glorious Qur’an is accepted by all true Muslims as the perfect, inerrant Word of Allah,
    ‘brought down’ to Mohammad by Jibreel/Gabriel in many revelations, dictated to and written down
    by his followers. It is immutable for all time, in all places, for all people.
    It is most definitely NOT like the Bible or Talmud, which are considered corrupt.

    Thus, no change in its message is possible. Those verses exhorting Muslims to kill infidels and
    enforce Islam on the world cannot be ignored or misinterpreted, for the Book is “Alif Lam Ra.
    A Book whose verses are set clear, and then distinguished, from One All-wise, All-aware”

    Radicalised Muslims will hardly be persuaded by what they will see as a ‘soft sell’



    Report abuse

  • Even lions, tigers and bears have been tamed. The same will happen with Islam. I notice this lot were meeting in a nice hotel, and not some cave in Pakistan. Relevant ? I think so !



    Report abuse

  • Islam has been around for over 1000 years. The problem with terrorists is relatively recent. They said themselves the trigger is American aggression. Islam by itself was not sufficient, though obviously it helps. Christianity has gone though similar phases. Religion is a Rorschach test. I have read the bible and the Qur’an cover to cover. The bible offers 100 times as much excuse for violence and craziness. It is just ISIS is extremely efficient at milking it.



    Report abuse

  • To be a Muslim, one must believe in the prophet Muhammad, who was 53 when he married Aisha bint Abu Bakr, who was 9 years old at the time.
    I don’t know how to do the mental or moral gymnastics to see this as an okay thing.
    To deify a bloke like this seems bit radical to me.



    Report abuse

  • Yeah Big Pencil but if you look at that in context you can find hundreds of other examples of that behaviour that have nowt to do with Islam. If you’re going to cherry pick be consistent.

    Several English kings and nobles at that time married girls that age. Indeed a few hundred years later the mother of Henry VII was 13 when he was conceived and 14 when she gave birth. An experience that ruined her yet hasn’t impacted on our opinion of the Tudor line. Nor has it dented some Brits continuing to worship our outdated monarchy.

    If you’re looking for a more modern day vomit inducing 44 plus year age gap look no further than wrinkled, repulsive Hugh Hefner whose very young partners seem to have drug themselves into a stupor before going off to earn their crusts in his fetid bed. Yet people don’t seem to need mental gymnastics to see that as an ok thing. And of course the establishment cover up of mass child abuse by judges and senior politicians has not dented our opinion of the legal and democratic system.

    There are also plenty of pretty repulsive things going on in the bible as far as I can see. Concubines cut up after being raped. Dubious alliances with maid servants with no real comments about consent. Yet the vast majority of Christains don’t seem to feel the need to build IS style states.

    The essentials are that whilst people continue to worship their Gods surely it’s far better that they use the verses that aren’t violent, misogynistic and brutal.

    The other essential is that brutal versions of old religions flourish where there are political and social vacuums for sociopaths to inhabit. Look at IS propaganda and you’ll see western brutality emphasised along with good looking warriors of freedom. Modern day well constructed propaganda.

    Don’t forget, that when seen in a broader hostorical context, those old religions in their day, were actual improvements on what preceded them.



    Report abuse

  • Wrong. It’s not the interpretation of the Faith, it is the Faith itself that is the problem.
    It is unlike the equally ludicrous faith of christianity because contemporary christians ignore the dogma whenever it suits them, which is most of the time, like when they fancy some extra-marital or a divorce, some gay love or staying in bed before shopping and playing sport on the holy day and when ill prefer modern medicine to placing their hopes in prayer. The worst thing about modern christians is that they are simply hypocrites and no bad thing I say, better a sanctimonious whining twerp than a crazed psychotic killer for god.



    Report abuse

  • Islam was born and spread in violence, often top down but the Assassins in the middle ages proved that murderous lunacy could be more entrepreneurial. Who could forget the “Mad Mahdi” whose fanatical dervishes where finally and thankfully destroyed at the Battle of Omdurman?
    Islam does not have a monopoly of murderous crazies but it sure leads the way.



    Report abuse

  • Interesting that you mention (the angel) Gabriel and; by way of a diversion, can anyone enlighten me on what an angel actually is and what it does? I mean I’ve seen the representations on stained glass windows of blokes with wings and a frisbee on their head and I know the “Book” mentions them manifesting themselves in glory/wind/fire/booming(or soft still) voices, But WHY? I mean what is it that the do on behalf of the omnipotent god that because he is outside of space and time has all the “time” in the universe to do everything.
    I can only come up with the theory that god is a man made creation and made more magnificent than the most magnificent of men (kings) that of course are surrounded by an entourage of sycophants.
    So, wtf are angels? And why are they still present in the mythology of modern day republics and democracies?



    Report abuse

  • 11
    old-toy-boy says:

    The words truth and religion do not go together, and Islam is the worst enabler. Until the haqqathon acknowledged that, everyting else they say cannot be trusted.



    Report abuse

  • 12
    NearlyNakedApe says:

    Wrong. It’s not the interpretation of the Faith, it is the Faith itself that is the problem.

    Exactly. And until Muslims begin to question and/or criticize the contents of their “holy” Quran and re-examine the validity (not to mention morality) of their religious beliefs, nothing will change. Progress in the Christian world began when thinkers started questioning beliefs and the religious dogma of the “holy” Bible.

    No amount of pussyfooting around the issue and trying to cajole believers with half-truths and sugar-coated lies to avoid “hurting their sensibilities” is ever going to accomplish anything. In fact, it’s having the opposite effect. It delivers the message that it pays off to play the victim card.



    Report abuse

  • 13
    Andrew says:

    Not that recent… the reason Islam spread so quickly in its infancy is due to its militant nature. Their succesive early conquests made those believers even more sure that god was on their side. Yes, other religions have been equally adept at violence and their holy books equally filled with lunacy. But that hardly excuses Islam for their own misdeeds. Saying “Sure ISIS is bad, but look at all those other religions that did bad things” is a completely irrelevant argument when trying to defend religious violence. It’s the same as going into court and saying “yeah, I killed a guy, but so-and-so killed three, so that makes me not so bad, right?” Or, arguing for the difference in the number of reasons for violence in their holy books, is like saying “yes, I said we should be able to kill people, but so-and-so has been saying it longer.” Neither argument has any logical merit.



    Report abuse

  • 14
    Andrew says:

    This. Yes. Just, yes.

    It’s unfortunate when people start using their intellect to figure out that, yeah, this part doesn’t make sense, but then can’t or won’t make the next just to say that none of it makes any sense. But then comparing it to Islam, it’s like comparing selective hearing to deafness. Or color blindness to total blindness. Christians tend to admit when they were wrong when it suits them, whereas Islam seems to ignore where it falls short and calls it a “difference in interpretation.”



    Report abuse

  • Different ages, different mores it is true. If there is a difference to King John’s Bride Isabella & Margaret Beaufort it is just likely they were post pubescent whereas Aisha was still of primary school age (still muslim girls and primary school is another dissonance). But the essential difference as I see it is that we do not celebrate King John or Edmund Tudor as moral exemplars whereas Mo is, even allowing for his grosser indecency. John was a venal man and a slave to his passions both political and sexual, but Mo should have known better and behaved better what with his hotline to god.
    Its disingenuous how these cretins claiming the higher moral ground fail so often to meet it. I mean we know that schools and orphanages abused children with the same alacrity as the Church but then if we believe their preaching, the church should have known better and acted better.
    But then when can we ever expect rational and consistent action from these serial moral (mis)leaders?



    Report abuse

  • Muslim girls and schools may well be a dissonance nowadays but Mohammed’s nine year old bride was apparently both a religious and political leader following his death contributing much to the spread of Islam following. Apparently valued highly by Muslim scholars for her intellect. She seems to also be credited with contributions to the hadiths, stories of his life, law, inheritance and property. I guess she would have had a bit of a hand in creating her own myths.

    There is no reason at all for religious leaders to claim moral high ground. Look at the background of most and you’ll see they’re just people on the make. Using a deity to bolster their charisma and get their own way. So moral high ground will always be whatever suits them politically. Be it the nine year old child of a powerful potential ally or the altering of laws to get more cash from devotees.

    And so it is with IS. Cherry pick the bits about young and numerous brides, ignore the bits about women’s political leadership roles. You’re crediting religion with a modern morality based on human rights and empathy rather than the need to politically bend groups of people to your will.



    Report abuse

  • Angels are obvious aren’t they? The useful tools of charismatic leaders on the way to power. Want to rule with just a bit more credibility? Be visited by an angel. A nebulous, mysterious thing that just so happens to dictate a deities wishes that magically benefit you and your mates.

    Yes angels are still present but they’ve changed their name to ‘the economy’ Equally nebulous but with much the same effect. Dictate things that benefit you and your mates by conning the masses to do your bidding. Today’s ‘angels’ say tell the gullible that closing their hospitals etc and give us a tax break is what the economy dictates they’ll buy it as much as early Muslims!



    Report abuse

  • Wrong it IS the interpretation of the faith. Mohammed was around a long time and ruled thru different circumstances. So you can decide which bit suits you best and use that as your interpretation.

    Mohammed forging peace time alliances to increase power – nice Islam a religion of peace and tolerance of other faiths etc (well allies are allies whomever their God may be)

    Mohamed going to war – nasty Islam. A religion to sanction the dehumanisation and killing of other faiths (well they’re after our bit of land after all).

    If you’re looking in the Q’uran for the roots of modern extremism you’re looking in the wrong place. Look at the wider geopolitical picture. Look at the political vacuums. Follow the money and see which interpretation will win out. Follow it to Saudi not somewhere like Indonesia. Saudi likes its nasty Islam cos it’s very good for dictators.

    So anything pushing the alternative is good for humanity in the long run cos the men being beheaded and the women being raped don’t have the time to wait for rational debate. This is not engage people with reason time. This is push a kinder interpretation to stop brutal human rights abuses.



    Report abuse

  • Sorry but the men being brutally murdered and the women being raped do not have the time for reasoned debate to filter thru to IS and the power they have gained from brutality.

    Looking for interpretations that stop that brutality are the only initial hope. And they’re there because millions of ordinary Muslims spout them every day, rightly or wrongly, and live perfectly violence free lives.



    Report abuse

  • Straw-man argument Luis. I can draw a cartoon of Winston Churchill and it wouldn’t raise an eyebrow with anyone. Not so with a deified Muhammad. Historical context is irrelevant when talking about a perfect being like the prophet. He’s supposed to be all knowing as Allah’s messenger.
    Are you saying that Allah didn’t know that sex with little children was, is, and always will be wrong? Dr. Martin Luther King was, by most accounts a prolific womanizer but it doesn’t alter his message in the slightest, he made no claim to sainthood.
    You basically make my case for me. This is supposed to be a god and his prophet we are talking about here, yet they both behave in a way that, while considered normal in historical context, is plainly immoral. What are we to learn from a prophet pedophile? Shouldn’t he have enlightened the misguided masses against this type of sick behaviour instead of indulging in it?
    This is the difference between philosophy and religion. It makes no difference if Socrates bedded down with young boys. It doesn’t even matter if he existed at all as one human being rather than a flock of ghost writers. The philosophy is valid independent of the philosopher. Not so of the sectarian Jesus or the pedophile Muhammad, as they are in the category of being “holy”.

    BTW, I’ll call out anyone for idolizing another human being…thats the type of thinking that opens the door for religious, cultish lunacy in the first place, whether its politicians, war heroes, actors or famous athletes. No human being is perfect, but gods and prophets claim to be, and thats a big, dangerous difference.



    Report abuse

  • I’m not cherry picking Alice, I simply don’t have the time to cite every abhorrent behaviour that has nothing to do with Islam.
    I don’t know why you would assume that I find anything palatable about the sexual habits of Henry VII or Hugh Hefner. Their behaviour isn’t even remotely relevant to the point I make about an Islamic prophet also being a pervert. They may all be perverts, but only one of them is considered by millions of people to be god’s perfect prophet.
    You mention the bible being full of similar atrocities, and you are correct. Not sure what your point is.



    Report abuse

  • Point is why pick on that? If people are going to survive than every attempt to tone down the current IS interpretation of Islam is important. The extreme version has mega bucks on its side! You’re not looking at a two bit Taliban. Go find the bits in the contradictory books that are positives!

    This post isn’t about rational debates about the righs and wrongs of Islam it’s about finding ways to tone down the message of violent lunatics.



    Report abuse

  • Alice;
    why pick on that?

    Because it goes to the heart of the matter of what is evil about religion in the first place. It gives gods and prophets a pass in terms of the types of sick behaviour they are able to indulge in.
    God decides his children are wicked so he drowns them in a flood. What a terrific dad.
    Muhammad beds down with a pre-adolescent, but its okay because, well, he’s the messenger.
    Maybe someday in the future we will all get to hear that most “moderate” muslims feel its okay with them if someone draws a cartoon of the prophet. If that ever happens, we will know that the reeking bathwater has been thrown out and the baby has been saved. Hope we all live to see that day come.



    Report abuse

  • The problem with religion Big Pencil is that it isn’t totally evil. Nor is it totally good. It’s a hotchpotch of contradictions from which individuals and societies cherry pick to suit. You cannot follow all of it because it contradicts itself, it is not a coherent whole because it’s written to suit its leaders at different periods with different things to deal with.

    For every bit if murdering nonsense in the OT for example, you’ll find humane social justice in the NT. eg murder a concubines in one chapter followed by don’t stone adulteresses in another. Butcher your enemies in one bit followed by love your enemies in another.

    On one hand you have the lunatic IS killers or Saudi misogynists on the other you have human rights activists and fantastic female role models like Malala Yousefzai or Leila Hussain

    Isn’t the key is to tap into and support the moderates? As far as I can see religion doesn’t go from extremism to nothing it goes from extreme to nicer to indifferent to gone. A Muslim seeing the very well produced propaganda of IS won’t be swayed by reasoned argument about their whole religion but they might be swayed by alternative views of it. If that equates to lives saved than as a short term aim it’s worth it.

    And if Mohammed’s pedophilia is queried by those in the nice camp who suggest his nine year old bride was 19 before consummation saves one nine year old victim I’ll go with their interpretation!

    And sadly, the Q’uran is nowhere near as effective a recruiting tool as past western foreign policy anyway.



    Report abuse

  • Alice I’ve been impressed with your appeals to the moderation that can be found in the “holy” books, but many of us argue that such inconsistencies that allow cherry picking of the “good” bits are the real problem. If any of the books were in fact “Divine” such inconsistencies would have no place. Because they are there … the problems begin, because people try to make their own sense of them and when you do that, effectively, you do as you like and that includes being beastly to any whom disagree. You have to do this because to convince yourself of anything so ridiculous as found in the books requires a ruthless rather than a rational defense. If I believe that the only path to eternal life, bliss and endless sexual delight is to mutilate genitals, then it is a small step and a logically self-preserving one to start killing those that disagree. To argue the point means to question an understanding of the universe. If any of the books were actually the “word of god” there would not be a problem, it is the fallacious claims that they are that is the problem and leads to all the misogyny, murder and mayhem. Some individuals of faith will behave more moderately than others but this does not mean that any religion is moderate. The tolerance we should be displaying towards believers is the same as that we display towards those that believe in Santa Claus that is amused, condescension.



    Report abuse

  • Speaking as both a non-Westerner and a non-Muslim I am somewhat puzzled by all these references to Muslims being especially violent, and cannot see how members of Western societies could possibly make such ludicrous claims.

    I am not sure what goes on inside the western educational system but it seems most of you , excepting Alice and Roedy, seem to be woefully historically ignorant. The vast majority of war and killings have been initiated, carried out and usually have primarily been between non- muslims e.g Vietnam, korea, 2nd WW, 1st WW,Boer War, Boxer rebellion., Sino-Japanse war, Crimean War, Peninsular War, american civil war and War of independence, Napoleonic Wars…i’ll stop at the end of the 18th century . Never mind the ravages and massacres of Western imperialism and colonialism since the 16th century, resulting in millions of deaths and wholesale destruction of whole civilisations. . Not to mention the deliberate targeting of hundreds of thousands of civilians by American democracy at Nagasarki and Hiroshima, or the deliberate fire bombing of civilian cities in Germany and Europe during WW2 or slavery etc etc

    Plot the percentage of war and violent deaths carried out by non-Muslims against the percentage of Muslims in the world throughout the centuries and then have the gall to try and argue that Muslims are especially violent.

    And neither am I an apologist for Islam, or denying the multitude of horrors also carried out by Muslims .



    Report abuse

  • But you are cherry picking your historical arguments. That I suppose is a lesson for us all that it is not just the religion that cherry pick. But cherry picking is not really the argument nor is the league tables of historic atrocities.
    This is a current political problem which , yes we can use a knowledge of history to inform us of possible reactions, but it is essentially a problem of the here and now and we have no option but to address it. How do we do that? Well by trying to eliminate ignorance. Religion is not the only cause of beastliness, but it is a contemporary issue and really it is unconscionable that it is causing so much current violence because of easily remedied natural misconceptions about the natural world leading to absurd supernatural claims provoking murder on a scale approaching the worst examples in our history that we all hoped the entire world had learned from.



    Report abuse

  • It is not cherry picking. It is a Fact that Western societies have been more aggressive, warlike and violent than Muslim societies, even in the current conflicts far more Muslims are being killed and maimed by Westerners than vice versa.

    If you wish to eliminate ignorance you should also try and educate Westerners about the actual real political causes of the current conflicts, to blame it all on Islam is itself ignorance.

    How do you explain inconvenient facts like polls showing the vast majority of Muslims everywhere in the world deplore and condemn the actions of Muslims? Or the fact that those dying and fighting in the front line against IS are Muslims?

    Ironically the simplistic Islam-is-to-blame argument, while correctly denying the supernatural, invokes the supernatural as an explanationary factor!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – Last week in the United Arab Emirates, group of Muslim scholars held what they called a “haqqathon” – a hackathon meant to create new ways for Islamic scholars to connect with young Muslims and, by doing so, defuse violent extremists like the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

    Apparently a “hackathon” has a different meaning in Pakistan and Bangladesh!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-32701001
    A secular blogger has been hacked to death in north-eastern Bangladesh in the country’s third such deadly attack since the start of the year.

    Ananta Bijoy Das was attacked by masked men with machetes in Sylhet, police say. He is said to have received death threats from Islamist extremists.

    Mr Das wrote blogs for Mukto-Mona, a website once moderated by Avijit Roy, himself hacked to death in February.



    Report abuse

  • What has that act got to do with the haqqathon?

    I could equally say , and it would be just as senseless, that Western civilisation deliberately targeted hundreds of thousands of civilians during World War 2 etc therefore all of Western civilisation and its values are evil, corrupt, violence loving blah blah blah..



    Report abuse

  • Alice
    May 9, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Wrong it IS the interpretation of the faith. Mohammed was around a long time and ruled thru different circumstances. So you can decide which bit suits you best and use that as your interpretation.

    But that is the nature of “faith-thinking”! Belief without evidence or proof, allows any circular thinking from personal preconceptions, and any “ink-blot interpretation” of words, to mean whatever you want them to mean!
    http://psychwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2009/07/how-to-interpret-your-rorschach-ink.html



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 12, 2015 at 6:39 pm

    What has that act got to do with the haqqathon?

    It simply illustrates the range of “faith effects” from verbal apologists, to radical fundamentalists, both centred around the interpretation of the word “hack”!



    Report abuse

  • The word is Haqq, with no etymological connection to hack. But hey thats a silly foreign word so lets make it into a real proper English word with a different meaning, none of those odd foreign words here, and use it not to discuss ways of combatting the attractions of IS but instead indulge ourselves in the usual weary Islam bashing because that makes us feel good, because we have “reason” unlike all those wild eyed insane foreigners.

    Using that logic, to show the range of “Western reason effects”, I guess I should mention the civilians and kids continually being killed by the US drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia.



    Report abuse

  • Roedy, I don’t defend the bible one bit, especially the OT, but you’re absolutely wrong when you say the OT’s call to violence and bigotry is worse than the Qu’ran. Since they both advocate murder and genocide, of course, comparisons become pointless, but for the record, the Qu’ran has far more content devoted to tales of heroic violence, and instructions for more of the same. If you’ve read it cover to cover, I’d be surprised – it’s unpalatable in the extreme.



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 13, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    Using that logic, to show the range of “Western reason effects”, I guess I should mention the civilians and kids continually being killed by the US drone strikes in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia.

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
    George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq,

    Mr Bush, who became a born-again Christian at 40, is one of the most overtly religious leaders to occupy the White House, a fact which brings him much support in middle America.

    There is very little “Western Reason” involved, and a great deal of US political Christian “revelation”!



    Report abuse

  • The tolerance we should be displaying towards believers is the same as that we display towards those that believe in Santa Claus that is amused, condescension.

    What tolerance would (or should) we show to members of, say, a neo-Nazi group with similarly evil doctrines? I’m not advocating intolerance of muslim beliefs – they have a right to whatever crazy values they want. But firstly, we should not tolerate any threat to our hard-won values, and secondly, our tolerance should not imply that we are obliged to respect or keep silent about bad ideas. Amused condescension, in my opinion, is not a sufficient response to the vile principles of islam, especially when so many muslims support and act on those principles.



    Report abuse

  • Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Bush guy has not been President for quite a while now, and the killing of civilians by drones in numerous countries has continued apace.

    And are you seriously saying the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan are due to christian revelation? I presume Hiroshima and the dropping of Agent Orange on Cambodian and Vietnamese villages and Churchill gassing Iraqis and Slavery etc etc were all down to Christian revelation as well.

    It is a very simple world once you understand everything bad which has ever happened has been caused by religion, the realisation is a bit of a epiphany in fact. All sorted, no need to bother about reality.



    Report abuse

  • @Steve

    My thoughts exactly!

    I’m glad there are people on this thread whose atheism and dislike of/indifference to organised religion notwithstanding still remain able to draw the necessary distinction between legitimate and entirely valid criticisms of religion and Islam/Christianity/Judaism and simple-minded religion bashing/bigotry.



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 13, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    And are you seriously saying the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq and drone strikes in Somalia, Pakistan are due to christian revelation?

    I provided the link where Bush as the president who made the decision to go ahead with the invasions which destabilised the areas, explained this as his basis for this decision.

    It is a very simple world once you understand everything bad which has ever happened has been caused by religion, the realisation is a bit of a epiphany in fact.

    I see you have added a lot of other issues to complicate the matter, and fallaciously exaggerate my claims, without addressing the linked evidence provided, of a president using his religion as a basis for deciding to invade other countries! – not to mention his “faith” in imaginary “weapons of mass destruction”!

    All sorted, no need to bother about reality.

    Denial of Bush’s statements is not “reality”. It is self-delusion!



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 13, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that Bush guy has not been President for quite a while now, and the killing of civilians by drones in numerous countries has continued apace.

    It has been continuous since Bush destabilised the previous governments and started the civil wars which led to these conflicts.



    Report abuse

  • ludicrous!

    A interview in the Grauniad with a Palestinian politician proves that the invasions were caused by Geogie’s religious convictions. LOL

    Please tell me you are joking. You cannot really believe this was the cause of the wars, and all the geo-political and historic context etc was just a smokescreen to hide the fact that God dunnit!



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 15, 2015 at 2:51 pm

    ludicrous!

    A interview in the Grauniad with a Palestinian politician proves that the invasions were caused by Geogie’s religious convictions. LOL

    Is that incredulity the best you can do in an attempt at a reasoned reply or producing alternative evidence for of Bush’s decisions??



    Report abuse

  • LOL again.

    . You really do believe that interview is proof! Presume then you think that all the rest of the Western world then said since George has had a word from God that is a valid reason for us all to go off to War. Utter piffle!

    Or are you pulling my leg?



    Report abuse

  • @OP The competition took place in the UAE capital Abu Dhabi, on the sidelines of the Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies. More than 400 Muslim clerical scholars — Sunni, Shiite and others — gathered for the second year to talk about how extremists are hijacking Islam, and what to do about it.

    Best of luck to them with that, but it can be summed up with the old English saying, “You can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”!



    Report abuse

  • Steve
    May 15, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    You really do believe that interview is proof! Presume then you think that all the rest of the Western world then said since George has had a word from God that is a valid reason for us all to go off to War.

    So Bush and Blair launched four to six trillion dollar wars, with Bush “listening to god”, dreaming of seized oil assets, denying the escalating costs, and deluding himself and others, that the wars were being “won”!!

    https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=8956

    The Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, taken together, will be the most expensive wars in US history – totaling somewhere between $4 to $6 trillion. This includes long-term medical care and disability compensation for service members, veterans and families, military replenishment and social and economic costs. The largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid.

    Utter piffle! – Or are you pulling my leg?

    If you have rational explanations for these idiot decisions, please present them. Until then delusional thinking looks like the best explanation available!

    Hillary Clinton said on Tuesday that the trillion dollar cost “is enough to provide health care for all 47 million uninsured Americans and quality pre-kindergarten for every American child, solve the housing crisis once and for all, and make college affordable for every American student”.

    The higher cost of the war has also contributed to the US budget deficit, which could rise further if the economy slows down, and has reduced the fiscal headroom to put in place a bigger economic stimulus package. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7304300.stm



    Report abuse

  • If the behaviour was considered normal in historic context then how can you say it is plainly immoral.

    Are you justifying your Islamophobia by saying the norms and morals of modern Western society ( I presume you are using these to judge the Prophet’s behaviour as immoral and libel him as sick etc ) are Universals?

    Nice to see your Western cultural imperialism extends back in time, I am all for consistency!

    We uncivilised, bearded and wild eyed, irrational, baby for breakfast eating inhabitants of the benighted rest of the globe are so grateful for your carefully considered rationality and reason. LOL.

    As Alice notes unthinking Western Islamophobia and Western foreign policy are far greater recruiting tools for the likes of IS then the Q’uran.

    .

    O



    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.