An interesting visitor to the Netherlands yesterday.

Friday February 17 2012

Muslim cleric Haitham al-Haddad or British-Palestinian extraction is part of a debate in Holland along with several other people I have yet to identify. I have excerpted a segment of that debate below along with a brief interview with him on his position on Jewish people but the whole debate can be seen here.

What I found immediately interesting is how in both clips he attempts to deny things everyone can clearly read that he had said from his own pen or reported from his own mouth. I wonder how much longer he, and so very many like him can continue to get away with this. If a person not wearing a nightgown were to say these things he would go to jail.

The interview is from this page which also has more info.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

2 Replies to “An interesting visitor to the Netherlands yesterday.”

  1. The debaters almost pinned the imam down, but failed badly:
    – When the imam claimed that women had three more rights than men, they should have pinned him down on why these three rights are supposed to compensate for the loss in almost every other right. I would like to know which rights these are supposed to be, and whether they are just a biological difference elevated to be a ‘right’?
    – When the imam claimed that people were begging to be stoned to death voluntarily, they should have asked him what should be done about the ones who definitely do not want to be stoned. Just as they should have asked if all of this Sharia thing is voluntary, then why the need for the Sharia courts?
    – When the imam implied that you could extinguish human rights – as long as it was done by a majority in a democratic vote – then he should have been asked if it was thus OK to deprive muslims of the trappings of their religion – as long as it was done by a majority in a democratic vote.
    – When the imam claimed that the punishment for apostasy from islam is death because it was akin to treason, then he should have been asked if that made every muslim in a western country treasonous for the same reason: that one cannot be loyal to the country and religion at the same time if the two are not the same.
    – They allowed the imam to get agreement that allah, mohammed and islam were beyond any criticism, hampering any ability to make proper debate, yet the imam was allowed to claim that Christianity is responsible for one and a half million deaths in Iraq (an outrageous claim, already debunked). This unbalanced the terms of this debate badly.
    – The panel seemed to think the imam, because he wasn’t frothing at the mouth, waving a sword, yelling “Allahu Akbar”, that meant he was a reasonable fellow and there seemed to be a bit of the mutual stroking of egos about the brilliance of the questions.

    As always, the imam claimed to be quoted out of context, and that quite clear statements in Arabic magically acquire new meanings when translated into any other language and seem to be somehow less self-incriminatory or vile in the original Arabic.

  2. ” Begging to be stoned for adultery”

    What out and out perverts! One wonders; if there are any limits at all to the depravity of islamic sharia!

    Wonder: what would Freud & Jung have to say about this stone throwing thinge in particular! Maybe it is connected to FGM and other such perversions. And then, as if this was not enough, in addition to being so unpleasant these mullahs/imans are rarely if ever good looking. Apparently; a good looking mullah is as rare as a laughing Atoyallah!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.