That they believe that assaulting Pensioners will win them the support of the People? They're in serious need of re-educating, they're a menace to Society and Common Criminals with Mental Illness.

We did not say you were there Mike. The reason your photo is up is because you were one of the one's mocking the pensioner who was beaten up.

Feel free to contact the police and your solicitor. They can contact us through the contact page.

if u look i worte ouch nasty how is that mocking someone you fucking idiots.
and lol what you people are sick in the head. i

According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman. This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

Of course killing the idolaters “where ye find them” was not always expedient. What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus? Over whom would they rule? So pragmatism often prevailed and Muslim rulers would exert some degree of tolerance towards their pagan subjects. It is hard to find a Muslim ruler as ruthless as Muhammad himself. Muslim rulers killed whenever profit dictated and since live subjects were more profitable than dead ones, exterminations were not total as was intended by Muhammad. Nonetheless, their tolerance was out of political expediency. Muhammad’s butchery of his victims on the other hand, was psychopathologi cal. He would massacre entire populations simply because they rejected him or hurt his narcissistic ego.

The Christians and the Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatments. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out in rainy days, lest their impurity rub on a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and annul his prayer.

Jews and Christians were required to dismount from their riding animals if they met a Muslim on their way and they were supposed to greet him humbly and show submissiveness towards him. The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair the existing ones. This law is practiced to this day in virtually all Muslim countries.

Taheri says: “To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.”

In an article titled “The Political Framework of Islam,” found on many Islamic sites, the author explains: “In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives . The laws given by Allah through His Prophet (Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.”

Taheri quoted several Muslim thinkers who expressed their disdain and disapproval of democracy.

@Van Bastard

1. I don't know what you mention Muslims when not one Muslim was involved in the cowardly attack on the old pensioner.

2. The word "Hindu" is never mentoned once in any islamic literature or Quran, so all that wrote is a load of Bollox

@ van bastard

>>> According to this hierarchy, a Muslim man’s life is worth 33 times that of a Hindu woman.

1) Bollocks, nowhere is that written. You do realise Islam began in Arabia not India? And let's face it, you EDL are a bunch of racist, misogynistic misfits, who revel in their "political incorrectness" [= incorrectness, full stop].


>>> This hierarchy is based on the Islamic definition of human rights and is rooted in the Quran and Sharia (Islamic law). How can we talk of democracy when the concept of equality in Islam is inexistent?

2) Wow this is what l call "keyword spamming". It's all there - human rights, Quran, Sharia, democracy, etc. [also see below].


>>> Of course killing the idolaters “where ye find them” was not always expedient.

3) What's the to-do with polytheism? Is this about the English Defence League or what? And the Quran does not command Muslims to kill all idolaters wherever they are found. It refers to a specific situation, against people who have broken a treaty, and explicitly excludes idolaters who have done nothing, and commends the safe conduct of idolaters who surrender - better than any rule of war even today.

Are you actually saying that you have built your whole life around Quran verses that you've never examined yourself?


>>> What would the Muslim rulers in India gain if they killed all the Hindus?

4) Right it's clear that this has nothing to do with EDL, why are you posting here?


>>> Muhammad’s butchery of his victims on the other hand, was psychopathologi cal. He would massacre entire populations simply because they rejected him or hurt his narcissistic ego.

5) You are a mad liar. The opposite is attestably true. He gave amnesty to all of Makkah, even after the intense persecution they subjected the Muslims to, including a Makkan woman chewing the Prophet Muhammad's dead uncle's liver.


>>> Christians and the Jews, the so called People of the Book, had some conditional rights. They had to pay Jizyah and buy their protection. Nonetheless they lived in a state of religious apartheid and were subject to humiliating treatments. For example, they were considered najis (impure) and were not allowed to go out in rainy days, lest their impurity rub on a passing Muslim, make him “impure” and annul his prayer.

6) See above, you are a mad liar. People like you never give chapter and verse references to any accusation.

And actually, the "Jizyah tax" levied on non-Muslim "People of the Book" / "zimmis", was actually LOWER than the tax on Muslims, and it applied only to adult males earning above a specific amount of money, and it relieved adult males of any military duties, and it was at most l think around 5% to 7% of income.


>>> The Dhimmis were not allowed to build their houses taller than those of their Muslim neighbors and in some cases they were not allowed to build new churches and synagogues and needed permission to repair the existing ones. This law is practiced to this day in virtually all Muslim countries.

7) Firstly, there is no religious reference to this - it would have been the prerogative of a local ruler. If THIS part is true, then it would be because in those days, religions were actual national laws. All countries were religious states. Hence you can't have a religious minority raising themselves above the host's religion - you and l would expect the same if the UK suddenly became a Christian State. In contrast, l am guessing ANY Muslims / mosques would have been unwelcome in medieval England. And l'm guessing Christians imposed similar injunctions upon Jews. And today, Israel [a quasi-religious secular state] imposes quite stringent injunctions upon Christian and Muslim minorities, and even upon Haredi / Orthodox Jewish minorities.

Note that Muslim countries never ran smear campaigns against their Jewish and Christian religious minorities - there was never anything like the EDL. Such thugs would have been given a public lashing by the local police. The minorities were prized and even given priority by local rulers in some matters.


>>> Taheri says: “To say that Islam is incompatible with democracy should not be seen as a disparagement of Islam. On the contrary, many Muslims would see it as a compliment because they sincerely believe that their idea of rule by God is superior to that of rule by men which is democracy.”

Whoever Taheri is (no chapter / verse reference, and even if he exists, it is irrelevant) - Muslims have always elected their leaders. In fact they gave women the full right to vote from the age of puberty, right from the start of the Islamic State.

Compare this with women in the modern world only having full voting rights in the 1960s (yes the Suffragettes caused many reforms, but voting rights for all women, married or unmarried, only came about in the 1960s). Even today, l doubt most people who have just reached puberty can vote in most countries.


>>> In an article titled “The Political Framework of Islam,” found on many Islamic sites, the author explains: “In Western democracy, the people are sovereign; in Islam sovereignty is vested in Allah and the people are His caliphs or representatives . The laws given by Allah through His Prophet (Shari ‘ah) are to be regarded as constitutional principles that should not be violated.”

9) What are you doing talking about democracy you fascist ragamuffin?

And what does it matter where a law came from - whether from religion or from a group of modern lawmakers? Surely it's about whether the law is any good or not? The fact is, you have no reference point for right or wrong, so you focus on the tag not the item itself. I think many modern laws have religious origins, be they Biblical, Quranic, pagan, etc. For example, the French Law that a passerby must offer assistance at an accident scene, was used to prosecute the paparazzi who failed to offer assistance at the death of Lady Diana. This French Law was derived from the Napoleonic Code, which in turn was derived from Islamic law, via Napoleon Bonaparte's contact with Egypt etc.


10) And oh yeah, what is this to do with the cowardly attack on a pensioner just for promoting a political view that requires you to stop and think?