Thread: koran, allah, and all things islam

Originally Posted by slackula

Quote: Originally Posted by the dogcatcher Ant believes that if a rag head come up and blows his childrens brains out, them that's ok. When you say something as disgraceful as that you pretty much blow your credibility out of the window imho.

Not serious though is it, Ant has not got a girlfriend, never mind any kids.

Originally Posted by keda

Also worth distinguishing between islam and muslims. For me it is the ideology of islam that ought to be reviled and addressed, but far from all muslims.

True but it's the passive 'moderates' who are also part of the problem, the ones who don't stand up for what the believe in. There seems very little active opposition, in the UK at least to the Islamists. Articles online and a few outspoken people are not enough to combat the damage that radical Islam has done, in the UK at least.

Originally Posted by Eliminator

Originally Posted by Wallalai

Could you imagine a muslim Thailand ?

I guess there will be no one farang coming here. And you know why. So don't ask western countries to accept the islam "diktat".

Let the muslim stay in their dunes in the desert and when they come in our country they have to follow our laws and rules. Like when we go (not me) there.

If they are not happy with that they are free to fly back home.

Too true, ship all the bastardssss back.

Can't see that's needed or even possible. It would help if we had leaders that are able and prepared to recognise the invasion of corrupt ideals, and are prepared to acknowledge there is a problem. Unfortunately can't see that happen anytime soon, not with the crop we seem to be stuck with. For sure future (infidel) generations won't thank us.

The good news is that more people are waking up for longer than a yawn, and more are beginning to feel their way of life threatened. Still, not enough and almost certainly too late for some parts of Europe.


If someone visits my home and criticises my choice of wallpaper I may be irked, but if they demand I change it because if I don't they will, then however 'nice' I am it's time to respond in a less than civil fashion. As it is, many European politicians are prepared to capitulate on colour and texture, whilst insisting it needed changing anyway.

Message of peace and tolerance. Just listen.

militant idiots.if they dont like britain and europe,well go back to the lands of theyre forefathers.theyre brainwashed and dangerous to any reasonable human.its obvious they dont share the same ethos of the majority of this country and should be classified as a threat and dealt with.the majority of muslims are peacful,but these idiots give them all a bad name.any religion preaching death to any form of criticism,has no place in civilized society.are they truly quoting the koran,or just warping the words to suit theyre own ends.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Wallalai

Could you imagine a muslim Thailand ?

Don't have to imagine it, there are Muslims living in Thailand. Plenty of them.

Yes, causing trouble, killing and bombing.

There a few very outspoken women of course, but most of them have to have their lives protected and there movements kept secret as they are already commended as blasphemers for daring to have an opinion. Nobody thought that the Berlin wall would crumble so fast but it did and in these internet days when it's difficult to hide information from the masses islamic women might just start to wake up, starting with demands for equal education and employment. It's a faint hope perhaps, but I cannot see any other way these barbarians, hiding behind the ravings of a madman can move forward.

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by keda

Correction. I believe he would turn from a complacent bh liberal into a savage, and rightly so. Problem is, bh libs can always justify collective evasion of responsibility to prevent someone blowing the heads off other peoples' children.

Nice. So you guys arse on about 'Muslim intolerance' yet in the face of perfectly reasonable and logical discussion you turn to personal attacks on both the poster and their family. Anything but address the actual issues raised as they might force you to confront an ugly truth/reality.

Excuse me? What was offensive about my post other than this very question is pointless because you are in heckle mode? Where was my personal attack upon you or your family? You sound like Thai Foreign Minister Kasit's complaint to the people that Thaksin must be repatriated and punished for Lese Majesty - because he mentioned HM.

This thread was never intended for discussion - it was merely yet another Muslim-bashing exercise, a chance for group confirmation bias.

I feel better knowing you've cunningly figured the intention of this thread, and that you've let me in on it. As ever, you know all, including the latest e-mindreading techniques.

It also explains why you would contribute nothing to a muslim-bashing thread, but if you see it as a communal right-wing wank, why are you so determined to make yourself the focus of attention? Bukake? Why lower your own standards to that of those you claim this thread represents? Doesn't it make more sense to let your bigoted cyber-enemies hang themselves? What is the matter with you?


Thanks, though, for (inadvertently) inspiring the piece I sensed was missing but couldn't find because it was so obvious. Will soon reflect in this thread.

Cor, that ought to have you trashing your den.

woman of hope, from jihadwatch.org

Wafa Sultan: "I am trying to send a message to the West"



But is anyone listening? Pamela Geller reviews Wafa Sultan's superb and essential new book for FrontPage:

Wafa Sultan's seminal moment was when she took on an Islamic cleric on Al-Jazeera. The clip went viral on Youtube, and it really was a defining moment in the clash of civilizations. Here was a woman, basically considered "property" in the Muslim world and expected to do what she was told, turning around after she had been interrupted numerous times, and saying in effect, "Quiet, it's my turn." Now comes her new book, A God Who Hates, which will undoubtedly prove to be a key resource in the resistance to jihad and Islamization. In it, the brilliant psychiatrist from Syria, now an American citizen, tells her own story.
It is the story of a Muslim woman who grew up in a country where she was indoctrinated in Islamic ideology. So her perspective is very important in terms of establishing the credibility of scholars like Robert Spencer and Dr. Andrew Bostom. But what makes this book great, apart from its breathtaking honesty and truth and the clarity and urgency of its warning, is that it is also a beautiful love letter to America.
Wafa speaks powerfully about what America means to her. It manifests itself in little things. She leaves her house at 5 am and makes her way to Starbucks to have her coffee without fearing that someone might see her and accuse her of immoral behavior. To her, America means saying "good morning" to her neighbor and chatting with him for a few moments without being accused of having spent the night with him. America, for this courageous woman, means that her daughter can come home and tell her that she had lunch with her boyfriend without being beaten or accused of having impugned the family honor.
It is clear throughout A God Who Hates that Wafa Sultan was always a very independent thinker, even though there were times in her life when she did not immediately allow herself to go to the next step to which her thinking was leading her. She writes lovingly about her husband, who was very supportive of her. He was an open-minded thinker -- initially more so than was Wafa herself. But she recounts in the book certain momentous events that jarred her thinking, such as in 1979 when Muslims screaming "Allahu akbar" murdered one of her professors, the ophthalmology lecturer Dr. Yusef Al-Yusef, whom she respected and admired. Wafa witnessed the murder - and at that exact moment started to question the nature of the Islamic faith.
"But I was afraid," she explained when I interviewed her recently, "to express my feelings. I was afraid to express my thoughts, because under Islamic sharia, a Muslim who dares to leave Islam or dares to convert to any other religion is to be killed. And every Muslim has the right to kill someone who has left Islam without being asked a question. This is the Islamic law. Once you were born as a Muslim, you're not allowed to leave it. This is simply the Islamic law, and it seems to me it's very hard to convince Americans that this is the way it is."
The recent Rifqa Bary apostasy case shows how right Wafa is about that, and how urgent her message is. Rifqa Bary is the teenage girl, a Muslim in Ohio, who left Islam four years ago and converted to Christianity. When her father found out about her conversion, she fled from her home in fear for her life. She said she ran away to Florida because she wanted to get as far away as she could -- because not only her family but the mosque and the community in Ohio is very devout, and as an apostate she is in danger. But now she has been returned to Ohio, in large part because American authorities don't know anything about Islamic apostasy law....

Originally Posted by crazy dog

There a few very outspoken women of course, but most of them have to have their lives protected and there movements kept secret as they are already commended as blasphemers for daring to have an opinion. Nobody thought that the Berlin wall would crumble so fast but it did and in these internet days when it's difficult to hide information from the masses islamic women might just start to wake up, starting with demands for equal education and employment. It's a faint hope perhaps, but I cannot see any other way these barbarians, hiding behind the ravings of a madman can move forward.

Most of the names that speak out against islamic supremest ideology, are in hiding and under 24/7 protection. This is no surprise, since there are many muslims that misunderstand the ideals of peace and tolerance in islam.

Originally Posted by keda

Excuse me? What was offensive about my post other than this very question is pointless because you are in heckle mode? Where was my personal attack upon you or your family? You sound like Thai Foreign Minister Kasit's complaint to the people that Thaksin must be repatriated and punished for Lese Majesty - because he mentioned HM.

Now you're just being disingenuous. You took the time to quote and address the vile comments that dogcatcher posted in regard to my family, and then added your own ad hominem slant to it.

What neither of you did, tellingly enough, was to actually address any of the points or questions that I raised. The "heckle mode" as you put it is nothing of the sort; as I keep saying my posts in this thread have been perfectly reasonable and valid - the responses are personal attacks and have not been.

You called for discussion on this topic. So why don't you / can't you address those points that have been raised instead of engaging in this constant name-calling? The stark contrast between those posts that you find agreeable to your opinion and those that you don't speaks volumes as to your actual willingness to engage in reasonable and informed deabte (ironic too, given your comments in the OP).

I feel better knowing you've cunningly figured the intention of this thread, and that you've let me in on it. As ever, you know all, including the latest e-mindreading techniques.

It's hardly an unfair conclusion to be drawing though is it, particularly given the points I've mentioned above.

It also explains why you would contribute nothing to a muslim-bashing thread, but if you see it as a communal right-wing wank, why are you so determined to make yourself the focus of attention? Bukake? Why lower your own standards to that of those you claim this thread represents? Doesn't it make more sense to let your bigoted cyber-enemies hang themselves? What is the matter with you?

keda, I have contributed. You've just chosen to ignore this in favour of continued and constant personal attacks. Can you not make a point without resorting to this? I'm not the one dragging this thread into the gutter and nor am I the one making myself the focus of attention - I posted on the topic, it's yourself and others that choose bypass this in favour of attacking the messenger and not the message.

Re-read the posts, it's abundantly and completely objectively clear.

Crazy Dog: I haven't read her book and probably won't till they make a torrent version, but Wafa Sultan's one of those on the hitlist, for daring to be less than complementary towards islam.

She has quite a following of fanatical right-wing muslim haters on Youtube.

Anyway, am off now for a while. Thanks again, insect.

All things Islam? OK -

A SHOPKEEPER from Bethlehem who was branded a terrorist in Sacha Baron Cohen's film Bruno is seeking $US110 million ($121 million) in damages.

Ayman Abu Aita is suing Baron Cohen, US talk show host David Letterman and others for libel and slander, according to a lawsuit filed in the Federal Court in the District of Columbia last week.

The actor and comic Baron Cohen plays a gay Austrian fashion journalist in the film, which was released in Australia in June. Keen to become what he calls ''the most famous Austrian since Hitler'', Bruno travels to the Middle East, and in an interview with Mr Abu Aita, asks to be kidnapped in an attempt to become famous.

A caption labels Mr Abu Aita as a member of the militant al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade, the armed wing of the Fatah movement. In fact he is a member of the board of the Holy Land trust, a non-profit organisation that works on Palestinian community-building.

Baron Cohen was interviewed on David Letterman's talk show and said finding a ''terrorist'' to interview for the movie took several months and some help from a CIA contact.

He said he had feared for his safety during the interview with Mr Abu Aita, which he claimed took place at a secret location.

According to the lawsuit, however, the interview with Mr Abu Aita took place at a hotel chosen by Baron Cohen in a part of the West Bank that was under Israeli military control.

Bruno 'Terrorist' Interviewee Sues Sacha Baron Cohen

Looks like a strong case to me. Pay up Bruno.

Originally Posted by keda

Thanks again, insect.

Just can't help yourself, can you.

Do you honestly think that childish name-calling helps your case. You might want to consider that it acutally hinders and betrays an inability to engage in rational and logical debate. That it speaks volumes about the intellect of the person so doing. It might serve as a distraction from the fact that you can't address the issues keda. But that's all that it is, a distraction.

When viewed objectively it's quite apparent that you only want to hear those opinions that accord with and reinforce your own, having disingenuously presented this thread/topic as one for discussion and debate. Close-minded is what it's called.

Originally Posted by keda

Excuse me? What was offensive about my post other than this very question is pointless because you are in heckle mode? Where was my personal attack upon you or your family? You sound like Thai Foreign Minister Kasit's complaint to the people that Thaksin must be repatriated and punished for Lese Majesty - because he mentioned HM.

Mr Ant's repeated tactic is to completely misrepresent what somebody has posted in the hope that the poster will return to play with him. He is rather like the pub bore-always there at opening time until chucking out trying to get somebody involved in a pointless argument. He's not interested in discussion he just wants to convince people he's an expert on whatever and to to impress everyone, not realizsng nobody likes him and everyone tries to avoid him. In reality he has no friends so just spends his time hating everyone he comes into contact with, sad life.

In the beginning...

The right place to start is at the beginning. Nobody's fault but mine, and a special mention to insect (PBUH) for the unintended inspiration.

Before the flames arrive, I am no expert, sources are many, and there will be tons of scope for anyone so inclined to contribute, divert or even attempt to trash the thread, but in this case at least they are taking an interest where they wouldn't otherwise. Also, I can't see us running along a timetable, but it's no big deal to ff to a current event and then resume where we left off, or thereabouts, or somewhere else.

Anybody's guess, but seems the best way to begin to understand islam of today should be to understand its roots and the harsh environment of the Arabian Peninsula (AP) of 14 centuries ago.

It must have been much like it is today, but without technology and other benefits of modern day oil. So, harsh terrain, bleak, desolate, sparsely populated, with extremes of searing heat during the day and chills at night. Lots of sand and rock, little vegetation, and no conveniences beyond what the people could scratch out for themselves among the rocks and dunes. Small towns and smaller villages, with the known world stretching not far beyond the Peninsula, no concept of education since a prerequisite for that is knowledge that’s worth passing on, no dole, short life span, and a very basic language which is mostly lost to history.

The inhabitants of the AP were christian, jew, and pagan, and they lived in relative peace though each community made the effort to protect itself from neighbours.

The region’s remoteness from the main trade routes, its hostile environment, barrenness and backward people, deterred a farang invasion, but it also shielded the AP from the benefits of more advanced cultures. Swings and roundabouts.

Not sure when and haven't checked, but at some time within about a century, the advanced Persians gave the people along the coastal regions of the AP a basic written language that survived, and which is probably the origin of Arabic.

Otherwise, from the Greeks centuries before, the rest of the world was advancing with knowledge and discovery. Little of this reached the AP, where the people were more concerned with the necessities of survival than airs of new knowledge and culture.

Not claiming anything, but this could be relevant to hardcore Islamic attitudes towards other faiths and how they developed through Mohamed. Whereas pre-mohamed they could think no further than how an act benefits the tribe, post-mohamed the tribe has grown to islam, but the principles remained unchanged. They could only be unchanged, or more deeply rooted, since there was no undefeated/unconverted tribe/culture to oppose those principles, and none with which to compare them, so the larger the tribe of islam became the more the principle would become entrenched.

Christians, jews and pagans lived together in a workable peace, and religious tolerance was the order of the time.

Mecca was a main trading centre on a local trade route, and had a kaaba, which is a structure roughly the shape of a cube, and home to various icons and idols representing the pagan gods that drew pilgrims during the holy months, as a source of spiritual relief and income. Nothing special about that, and many towns owned a kaaba. Until mohamed’s elevation there was nothing holy about the kaaba at mecca, just the dozens to hundreds of idols it housed. But mecca gained popularity as a farang destination because its kaaba housed the holy black meteorite which is there today, and which preceded islam by many centuries. Tradition says it is the same white stone that god threw down from heaven to show adam where to build an altar for sacrifice, then lost until recovered by Abraham and Ishmael and eventually passed down to the meccans.

Allah was a moon god, and one of many pagan gods in 7th century AP. Allah was worshipped by many tribes, each of which also worshipped many other pagan goods and idols. One of these tribes was mohamed’s Kuraysh.

Righto, well it's patently clear that your intent for this thread is not to discuss but rather to diatribe and sound-board off other like-minded posters, to reinforce each other's preconceived notions, so I'll leave you lot to it.

I will however firstly point out your disingenuity and apparent lack of integrity and honesty in firstly presenting this thread and yourself as being open to any form of rational and logical debate when you yourself are obviously only too ready to subvert it with petty and childish name-calling, and secondly in accusing me of 'heckling'.

I have asked you several pertinent questions based on your posts which you have pointedly declined to address - fair enough you're under no compulsion to do so. However when you then deem a post by someone else wishing the anal rape of my wife and death of my children upon me (and further legitimise it by addition) then you've clearly lost all credibility to any claims of desire to debate on the topic, apparently the ability too.

Not that you're alone in that mind. Too this point in this thread there have been no shortage of posters ready and willing to attack me (and/or my family). What speaks volumes however is that not one single person has actually pointed out anything incorrect or fallacious in what I've said on the topic; attacking the poster and not the post. The neccesary corollary of that being that neither can they then defend their own arguments with logic or fact.

Frankly it's all rather like being accused of being drunk by a bunch of belligerent alcoholics.

Yet, Islam was the beacon of civilization and tolerance during the middle ages.
The Western basis for science, philosophy and medicine was from the ancient Greeks. Books that were totally lost to the West.
It was only when copies of these ancient texts were discovered in the Arab lands in Arabic and then translated to Latin, did the West rediscover it's heritage and kicked off the Renaisance.

So, Islam isn't a totally intolerant religion. Yes, you can find violent passages in it, but, just like the Bible, for each violent passage there will be another that contradicts it.

The beginning of the downward spiral of Islam started when the Portuguese discovered sea power. Previously, the middle-east was a cross-roads for goods between Europe and Asia. These goods were taxed and the Islamic countries were rich. They could afford artists, artisans and philosophers.
Once the Portuguese, then later the British and Dutch used sea power to bring goods back from the east, the middle-east lost it's importance as a trade route and became poor and irrelevent.

The base reason why islamic counties are so messed up today is the lack of opportunity and moribund economies. Unemployment is endemic. There is a hopelessness amongst the young people.
Change this and you will see radical islam melt away.
Most people in the world just want a good job, the opportunity to better themselves, have a family and live in peace to get on with their lives. The population of Arabic countries are no different.
Give them prosperity and the fanatics will disappear.

Why don't they have this prosperity? Because they've been let down by their leaders and government.
These are the root causes of radical islam. Addressing this is the answer to eradicating islamic extremism.

Religion of peace and TOLERANCE. Are you so dumb you don't understand they love us.

Amsterdam: Burkini swimmers want men to leave pool


Amsterdam: Burkini swimmers want men to leave pool

A group of Muslim women in Amsterdam is demanding that men be banned from the Zuiderbad pool while they're swimming there. The pool's employees disagree with that.

A burkini almost completely covers the body, but the Muslim women feel uncomfortable if the men in the pool see their feet and hands. Egbert de Vries, mayor of the Oud-Zuid district, says it's nonsense to bar all men from the pool for this reason. But he says that he can see having women's hour for one or two hours a week. For example, there's naked swimming an hour a week, and that is open only for men.

There is already a weekly women's swimming class in the Zuiderbad pool and a special mixed hour for women 18+ and men 55+.

Parliament member Paul de Krom (VVD) says it's 'quite bizarre'. "This is a world turned upside down," according to Krom, "if they want to swim in a burkini, and then also demand that all men leave, they should do that in Casablanca."

Source: Telegraaf (Dutch)

Canada: Muslims outraged that the police use of sniffer dogs during the Vancouver Olympics.

If there was not much of their coreligionists who seek to kill the infidels, the sniffer dogs would not be necessary.


Dogs to find explosives The transport company of Vancouver, TransLink plans to acquire Sniffer dogs to detect explosives in buses and light rail. The dog handlers are recruited as part of a pilot project for two years. Soon, animals are trained.
However, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of British Columbia, Shawket Hassan, expressed concern about the presence of sniffer dogs in public transit. It states that animals should not approach within 30 cm of passengers. Mr. Hassan said he could not pray with the drool on his clothes. For its part, says that the TransLink pilot project is still at the stage of development and that there was insufficient time to consult the community Muslim. It will be consulted, said George Beattie, deputy chief of police of the transport company. TransLink expects to have two patrol canines in service since February at the Olympic Games.

And I could continue posting such news ad nauseam for years.

For those still around despite the heckling:

It’s incredible that a nothing religion, founded by an illiterate camel herder in the dust of back of beyond, and competing against the well established systems of Judaism and Christianity, has swelled to become not just a major following but will soon take the numerical lead. That region wasn't even on anyone’s shortlist to conquer due to its miserable environment and backward people.

Somebody reminded that much the same occurred a few centuries before, with Christianity passing a billion years ago, from a cult that could also have died stone dead on a single minor variable. The difference, aside from 700 years, is that one’s prophet and texts are deemed perfect, beyond criticism, and the clincher, to be emulated in perpetuity according to 7th century values.

Anyway, now we meet Mohamed for some background, and then the Satanic Verses kicks off 14 centuries of almost continuous bloodshed, treachery and perfidy that has become an immutable part of Islam.

And I believe it can only pause but never recede.

Oh yeah, and I got my auto-caps working.


All scholars agree that Mohamed was born in Mecca, but nobody offers more than a guess for the year. Not important, but some say he was born in the year of the elephant, so probably when an elephant was used in a local war (AD 570).

Father died before he was born, mother when he was 6, he grew up just another poor orphan and worked for uncle (Abu Talib) as a camel herder at the bottom of the social heap till he was 25. Next, he met and married the widow, Khadija, 40, who had a trading business and would be his first disciple, in another 15 years.

Most agree Mohamed was illiterate; common enough for his time and place.

Now idle and rich, he used to wander off to meditate for days to months at a time. His wife's business also allowed him to travel and gain knowledge and hear stories that were not available to the people back home. Many of his revelations seem to be woven from traditions and teachings of the Jews and Christians.

At 40, he claimed to have been visited by the archangel Gabriel, and this is the first record of many revelations over the next 23 years till he died. His wife went for it, he announced himself as a prophet, and started trying to convert others to his new religion. At that early stage he didn’t actually have one that could stand scrutiny, but that came by combining his understanding of Judaism and Christianity, and pagan traditions he had grown up with.

Community leaders wanted to know more about this new religion. Many gods had come and gone, some survived and others slipped into oblivion. At first he compromised by agreeing to share his god, Allah, with their 300 or so gods. They already knew Allah as a surviving moon god that had been worshiped in the region for centuries. And they had no reason to feel threatened by his system of a single god, being familiar with the concept through the Jews and Christians, who got on fine with the pagan Arabs.

Later, Allah would become the third monotheistic god, rather than one to be worshipped of many.

No serious problems over the next years, till Mohamed went beyond preaching to his god and began mocking other gods. He also began attacking the customs of the people, and their ancestors (Ibn Ishaq 167).

As custodians to the Kaaba at Mecca, which attracted travellers and served all of the region’s gods including Allah, the leaders responded by mocking his low caste background, and compared this against his claim to be a prophet. Mohamed retaliated by claiming Allah to be the god of a single religion for all.

For more than the next decade, they absorbed his attack on the customs of the locals, after he conceded to leave ancestors be. He also mocked the gods of pilgrims and travellers, who were a significant income source, but Mecca was a well tolerant society.

Mohamed was not very successful as a proselytiser except among family and friends. Estimates of his following after thirteen years are around a hundred. They called themselves Muslims.

But numbers are deceptive. His first convert after wifey was cousin Ali, destined to be the 4th Caliph of Islam, and soon after came Abu Bakr, a wealthy, shrewd and influential figure that many academics credit with the survival of Islam.


Next: Satanic Verses.

...No serious problems over the next years, till Mohamed went beyond preaching to his god and began mocking other gods. He also began attacking the customs of the people, and their ancestors (Ibn Ishaq 167)...

...

This is all just a cut 'n paste, unattributed, from somewhere else innit.

Originally Posted by Wallalai

Canada: Muslims outraged that the police use of sniffer dogs during the Vancouver Olympics.

If there was not much of their coreligionists who seek to kill the infidels, the sniffer dogs would not be necessary.


Dogs to find explosives The transport company of Vancouver, TransLink plans to acquire Sniffer dogs to detect explosives in buses and light rail. The dog handlers are recruited as part of a pilot project for two years. Soon, animals are trained.
However, the vice-president of the Muslim Association of British Columbia, Shawket Hassan, expressed concern about the presence of sniffer dogs in public transit. It states that animals should not approach within 30 cm of passengers. Mr. Hassan said he could not pray with the drool on his clothes. For its part, says that the TransLink pilot project is still at the stage of development and that there was insufficient time to consult the community Muslim. It will be consulted, said George Beattie, deputy chief of police of the transport company. TransLink expects to have two patrol canines in service since February at the Olympic Games.

And I could continue posting such news ad nauseam for years.

Dogs are unclean, to Islam.

If they withdraw the dogs and a terror incident succeeds because of it, someone's going to have to explain to the people and esp victim families, slowly and clearly, how they calculate the going rate of lives to Islamic sensibilities.

Just as well it wasn't the UK; there would be a muzzie uproar if not riots.