Khalid Kelly the Irish Jihadist

“I always believe Islam is terrorism. We are told to terrorise the enemies of Islam. The world will become a dangerous place. Everybody had better start embracing Islam or people will start flying planes into buildings again.”

The above quote is not attributed to Osama bin Laden, but our own Paddy the Jihadist, the bould Khalid Kelly.

I was attracted to the peculiar predicament of Paddy the Jihadist after reading today’s letter in the Irish Times from the Muslim Council of Ireland ex secretary general, Mohammed Alkabour.

Terence Khalid Kelly is a former altar boy from the Liberties area of Dublin. Incidentally, bin Laden studied in London and was an Arsenal fan. Didn’t you just know he’d be a Gunner.

Attracted by the tax-free salary, Paddy the Jihadist went to Saudi Arabia in 1996 to work in a hospital. However, he was jailed in 2000 for bootlegging whiskey – as all Islamicists and ex alter boys do – and locked up in Al-Ha’ir prison where he was radicalised by an Afghan Islamicist. He was ready to be – rad-ical -ised – as Lloyd Cole and the Commotions might sing.

“Looking like a born again Living like a heretic Won’t be reading Norman Mailer Or getting a new tailor, ” – crooned Paddy and his radicalised mates as they swayed from side to side in a padded cell deep in the bowls of of the Al-Ha’ir correctional facility.

Paddy’s now believed to be somewhere in the badlands of Pakistan en route to Afghanistan where he hopes to realise his “dream” of killing a Brit in battle, although an America would do nicely also. He’s not particular. Paddy the Jihadist, 43, also hopes that his son, Osama – he’s named after the patron saint of air traffic controllers, bin Laden, Kelly’s role model – will be efficient with weapons by the time he is ten and graduates to become a suicide bomber.

Most of us just want our sons to sign for Man United, even Prospect Priory will do, but Paddy the Jihadist has a career path marked out for the bairn as they say in Glasgow.

“I hope he goes to jannah (heaven) before marriageable age,” said the proud dad, who also believes that Ireland is a legitimate target: “Ireland has a US embassy so it is open to attack”.

We could go on all day about Paddy the Jihadist. However, I will say this. You can’t blame this one on the Catholic Church, the Christian Brothers, Nuns or the GAA. Terence was once an angelic altar boy in Dublin but has since flown right over the cuckoo’s nest. He’s out there in the Tora Bora as we speak, radicalised and dreaming his impossible dreams – how will he cope with seventy Irish virgins?


Previously on Bock:

Imagine being a dead Muslim


Stoning a Woman to Death

It seems the world is beset by religious fundamentalists.  Catholics.  Baptists.  Zionists.  Islamists.

All happy to kill people in the name of some holy book.

You can’t have missed the case of Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, condemned by an Iranian religious court to be stoned to death, due to some ludicrous stricture laid down by a sixth-century sheep-herder.

This is insane.

Now we hear that Mohammas Mostafaei, the courageous Iranian lawyer defending Sakineh, has been abducted, presumably by the Islamic cavemen who hold ordinary Iranians in their insane religious grip.

People aren’t stupid, and Iranians are among the most sophisticated in the history of the world. These are the Persians.  And yet, they’ve been overtaken by the sort of certainty that has given the world most of its oppressions.

It seems they’re not entirely impervious to international opinion, and therefore we can do something about this latest outrage.

Go here and do THIS.



Over the past few years, we’ve had various discussions here about current events.  Some of the debates have been heated, and some of the comments have been very personal and vociferous, particularly on subjects like Gaza and Israel.

I’ve been accused of being anti-Semitic, anti- Arab, anti-Palestinian, anti-Israeli, when in fact all I am is anti-nonsense.

One of the regular commenters (thesystemworks) in favour of the Israeli position has at least had the courtesy to be logical and reasonable during these discussions, and some time ago I offered him the opportunity to write a piece on anti-Semitism if he felt that my coverage was biased.

Here it is, unedited.  There’s much in it that I disagree with, but contrary to popular belief, people contributing to this site are not required to agree with me if they don’t want to.



To a decent person, there can be no reasons or causes for anti-Semitism, only excuses. These excuses have, throughout time, been astoundingly varied and even contradictory (as befits the world’s oldest prejudice). Jews have been attacked for being Communists, but also for being ‘rootless cosmopolitan’ capitalists by the Communists themselves. Jews get attacked (sometimes by well-meaning people) for being insular, but at the same time for being great assimilated insiders who infiltrate financial systems and governments.

On top of that, Jews are often criticised, slandered and caricatured as being obsessed with anti-Semitism. Today that criticism is mostly decorated towards Israel, but it has more pedigree than the modern state. Before the Second World War, the parlours of Europe and the backwaters of America were full of voices asking: ‘Who are these bloody Jews, always brandishing past wounds’ who were perhaps ‘trying to lead us into a war not in our interest’. The American isolationist movement, represented by America First, has gone down in history as one that attracted far too many people of THAT persuasion. Some of the darker elements of the current anti-war movement will be remembered the same way. Yet this example shows how Jewish fears have never been unfounded. Jew-hatred, for a start, is no more dangerous than say, hatred of the Kurds – they have both led to genocide and mass displacement. What anti-Semitism is, however, is different. Lots of people hate blacks and Asians, yet there aren’t many people who believe blacks or Asians are trying to control the world, the global financial system or the media. There are few conspiracy theories about other peoples. It’s the Jews who seem to take this kind of stuff, though it’s shared with the Freemasons sometimes.

I want to go into specifically why anti-Semitism needs addressing today, as well as the challenges facing Jews in doing so. I’ll do this later on. First, it’s best to look at the phenomenon itself.

A Brief History of Anti-Semitism

The best way to analyse anti-Semitism is probably to look at history: to see how the Gentile societies have interacted with Jews over time, examine those societies, and spot any major trends.

Jews are the last survivors of antiquity, of the ‘classical civilisations’. Babylon, Ancient Egypt, Persia, Ancient Greece and Rome are dead and buried, and the current ethnic stock in those places has little to do with their ancient namesakes. The earliest Jewish-Gentile relations we have a decent record of are from the height of Greek civilisation. The word anti-Semitism did not exist then (that would be thousands of years in the making), so I am looking at hatred directed towards Jews for any reason, religious, ethnic or national. We have negative accounts of Jews from various Greek sources. Seneca lambasted the Jews for being lazy: how could a people enjoy a holiday after every six days of work, regardless of the Jew’s social or economic prestige? The writer Apion criticised Jews for simply not being pagan, but also was probably the first revisionist historian: he argued the Jews were not an ancient people, but a bunch of imposters who recently made up their history. It was a matter of Greek pride that Jews could not have more history or pedigree than the Greeks. Arguably, the first written rebuttal to an anti-Jewish thinker was written on the basis of this (Flavius Josephus’s ‘Against Apion’, kind of like an early Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair). The pre-Christian writers who attacked Jews generally did so due to an alleged clannishness, insularity and superstitions. And yet, Aristotle spoke fondly of the Jews, as did his successor Theophrastus. The negative attitudes towards Jews was not universal, and some Greek leaders like Alexander the Great treated the Jews as equals and rewarded his Jewish-Greek citizens for their loyalty. Anti-Jewish myths were at that time part and parcel of the Greek attitude to foreigners in general. All non-Greeks were regarded as brutish and uncivilised. So the Greeks used onomatopoeic wordplay to describe them – ‘barbarians’, an imitation of the bleating of sheep. They felt the same way about Jews as they did all of their neighbours. Any hatred towards Jews was essentially on nationalistic grounds.

Something changed with the birth of Christianity. Perhaps it was the fact that many Christians defined themselves primarily in opposition to the Jews, a living people. Christians saw themselves, and many still do, as the new chosen people, part of a new covenant. The Jews, on the other hand, were rejected and cursed. Christian art portrayed the Jews as blind and stubborn for clinging onto something they didn’t like – particularly important because the continued existence of Judaism, no matter how dominant Christianity became, could be very embarrassing for the new religion that felt it was a ‘perfected’ version of the old. Some of the portrayals the early church thinkers concocted pervade Christian thinking today: Judaism was and is still sometimes seen as the religion of strict law as opposed to love, with a vengeful God coming against the Christian God of mercy (despite the fact they are meant to be the same God).

These teachings of contempt were the seeds of the phenomenon that was the Middle Ages. Or at least, the Jewish experience of it. Do we even need to go into this one in detail? The Crusaders, blood libels, allegations of well poisoning, getting blamed for the plague, the expulsions from almost every country in Western Europe, the ghettoes (actually, a Muslim invention) – and it seemed from Luther’s tirades in The Jews and Their Lies being matched by Papal hate-mongering there was really no haven from it. It was a formative time for Jewish world. The epicentre of the Jewish world had to move to Eastern Europe, which lasted until the 1940s. The teachings of Christianity gave birth to a persecuting society, made all the worse by the centrality of Christianity in those societies.

Then there was the great white hope: The Enlightenment. Yes, with a capital E – sounds promising. The Age of Enlightenment was the era when reason began to supersede religious revelation or superstition in importance. So, considering the fraught Christian-Jewish relations so far, it could be expected to get better for the Jews. The American and French Revolutions had declared all men are created equal, and America would become a haven for persecuted people from all over the world, not least the Jews. So in an era when Nietzsche declared God to de dead, how could Judeophobia continue to exist in the secular nation state? The answer came in science. Actually, it was a blend of Darwinism and sociology. Most people do not appreciate just how big eugenics was before WW2. Even the minimum wage was introduced primarily because guys like Sidney Webb and the Fabian socialists thought it would lock blacks, the lower races and other undesirables out of the workplace and starve them out of existence (or at least, keep their numbers down). It was a science eagerly adopted by the intelligentsia, the progressives, and mostly the non-religious. Wilhelm Marr, an atheist German journalist, gave us the name anti-Semitism – he needed the new name to mark a change from the past. Racial anti-Semitism, the idea of Jewish blood poisoning Europe, was born.

This did not come out of nowhere. Enlightenment thinkers, the finest minds of Europe, were not particularly keen on Jews even in the new era. Kant called the Jews ‘the vampires of society’, while Fichte argued all Jews needed to be decapitated. The greatest German philosopher of the twentieth century, Martin Heidegger was an early and enthusiastic convert to Nazism and remained silent for the rest of his life over his betrayal of his Jewish colleagues, as well as his fawning words for Hitler. Old hatreds cannot die overnight. The greatest tragedy of all this was its culmination during the Shoah. Christians could work for the conversion of Jews, but the racial anti-Semites could only aspire to their physical elimination. A painful event in Medieval Spain fore-shadowed all this: the Inquisition. The Inquisition was launched supposedly to root out ‘secret Jews’ from the ranks of recent converts to Christianity. Benzion Netanyahu (yes, Bibi’s father) is the foremost scholar on this era and the authority on Medieval Jewish history. His landmark work on the history of Jews in Spain argued that most of the Jews who did convert at that time were assimilationists – willing converts to Christianity. The small number of forced converts who did not truly adhere to their new religion were merely used in a propagandistic way by the Inquisitors to allege a broader resistance movement. According to Netanyahu, Christian society had never accepted the new converts, for the same reasons Dreyfuss was much later by French society – a Jewish background. There was a good reason for prominent Spaniards to get behind this: Jews that converted to Christianity were exempt from all economic regulations and sumptuary laws imposed on Jews. Now that Jews could join the professions, established Spanish families feared these new Christians ousting them from their prominent positions and exposing them to competition. The painful lesson: no matter how far Jews go to appease the Gentiles, even to the point of getting baptised, it’s not enough. Anti-Semitism will still exist in some form.

Excuses, Excuses

Before we move on to the modern age, we can test whether common excuses or explanations for anti-Semitism hold water, when we are able to look at history before and during the Shoah. As anti-Semitism is an ever evolving doctrine, which history clearly shows, specific explanations are simple fallacy and don’t deserve much space (sorry to spoil the surprise). Statistics show the two most common excuses are:

  1. The Jews possess too much wealth and power.
  2. The  Jews arrogantly claim they are the chosen people.

The first theory is very simple to debunk: Firstly, do anti-Semites persecute wealthy non-Jews as well? At no time in history have Jews been the only wealthy people.  As soon as the hater decides to single out wealthy Jews and ignore wealthy non-Jews, economics no longer can be the cause for this hatred. Similarly, Jews were hated for centuries for being usurers, but legislation in most Christian countries (that banned usury among Christians) forbade Jews from entering any other profession or owning land, partly to actually encourage Jews into usury. These restrictions existed centuries before the Shylocks of the world, and wouldn’t have existed if there wasn’t hatred of Jews beforehand.

Secondly, for the economic theory to be valid, Jews must be noticeably more advantaged in terms of wealth compared to their peers. This was not the case in the fiercely anti-Semitic Russia under the Tsar. The Jews who lived in the shtetls (small agricultural settlements) of Russia and Poland, immortalised in musicals like Fiddler on the Roof and the stories of Sholem Aleichem were, to put it bluntly, dirt poor and powerless. Studies reveal the average Jewish family in the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century owned one pair of shoes per household. Most Jews wore the same outfit during the week, every week, with one for Shabbat. Forty percent of Jews were unemployed, and there was a forty percent child mortality rate. Yet Prof. Zvi Gitelman, of the University of Michigan, found that in 1905 during a four day period in October, there were 649 pogroms in Russia. And this was small compared to the height of pogroms in the 1880s. The anti-Jewish campaigns caused 40% of Russian Jews to emigrate. Famously, refugees from these pogroms were the bulk of early Zionist settlers and a major motivation for the early Zionist movement.

The ‘Chosen People Theory is even easier to debunk. If the claim to ‘chosen-ness’ gives rise to anti-Semitism, then it should give rise to hatred of other people who make similar claims. Yet it doesn’t.  Is it not, after all, Christian belief that once Jesus made his appearance, and the Jews rejected him, G-d changed his mind about His “choice” of the Jews? At that point the Christians became G-d’s new chosen people. Why don’t the anti-Semites hate them? It is a fundamental aspect of Christian doctrine, as much as it is to Jews. Muslims also believe that G-d spoke to their Patriarch Abraham, as is recorded in the Bible. But they replace Isaac with Ishmael, the ‘father of the Arabs’. According to Islam, G-d made the Moslems His chosen people when Mohammed was chosen as a prophet. Anti-Semites don’t hate the Muslims, however (remember that Marr didn’t care about Arabs, though ‘anti-Semitism’ taken literally might refer to them – he just wanted a more scientific label for Jew-hatred, and Arabs were never a concern of his writings).

How Hate Is Legitimised Today

The heydays of Christian anti-Judaism and racial anti-Semitism have passed. More modern forms of anti-Semitism recycle many of the theories, but it has all been legitimised in new ways. Make no mistake: we have a problem on our hands. The level of anti-Jewish crime has been at its highest since the War, which is the only reason that I write on such a dismal subject. In post-war Britain and America, most Jews for the first time in history grew up in an era without significant anti-Semitism. Many Jews in advanced countries never experienced it at all, and were never concerned about it until the present day. Some people, however, don’t even like to acknowledge it. Norman Finkelstein told the Israeli filmmaker Yoav Shamir that anti-Semitism simply doesn’t exist anymore, and was clearly angry at even having to address the topic in the film ‘Defamation’. Noam Chomsky has dismissed it, saying Islamophobia is a far bigger priority. Ken Loach, when asked his opinion on the rise of anti-Semitism considered it a ‘red herring’. These people will be no help in our modern struggle: they are in fact part of the problem. Chomsky and his ilk could easily look up the FBI statistics for hate crimes in America. The FBI counted 967 anti-Jewish crimes in 2006, verses 156 against Muslims. After blacks, Jews are the biggest victims of hate crimes in America today. There are about twice as many anti-black crimes, but this is still quite shocking when you consider there are six times as many blacks in America as there are Jews. Similarly, the London Metropolitan Police count four times as many anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2009, in the wake of Cast Lead, than Muslim ones (Muslims out-number Jews 4 or 5 to 1 in Britain). Of course, the reason why many people ignore these easily checkable statistics is that the facts don’t suit their agenda. Many thinkers and activists work hard to make us aware of growing Islamophobia since 9/11, or hype up the threat, to exploit it for their cause. Similarly, knowledge of growing anti-Semitism can damage these movements, though most try hard to distance themselves from the phenomenon.

In January 2009, the police reported 220 anti-Semitic attacks in Britain in five weeks alone. Brondesbury Park Synagogue in Willesden was firebombed. A gang of between 15 and 20 youths rampaged around Golders Green one day, forcing their way into Jewish restaurants and shops to scream abuse and threatening slogans, focusing especially on the London Jewish Family Centre (where Jewish ladies go for Pilates classes and the like – surely a Zionist front?). A Jewish motorist was also dragged from his car and assaulted. People stood outside synagogues, like Marble Arch, when they knew Jewish worshippers were arriving to shout things like ‘Hitler should have finished the job’. Countries with significant Jewish and Muslim communities suffered the worst, with the exception of Venezuela, which has very little Muslims but had some of the most shocking incidences. In Toulouse, a car containing bombs was rammed through the front gates of a synagogue and exploded. A Chabad centre in Paris was hit by nine Molotov cocktails in a single night.

Countless millions of people around the world took to the streets to protest the Iraq War. They shouted ‘Not In My Name’, ‘War Is Not The Answer’, ‘Stop The War’ and so on. This was not the language of the protestors of the Gaza War. In Times Square, they gathered to shout about ‘Israel: The Fourth Reich’. In LA, Stars of David got replaced by swastikas on Israeli flags, with ‘Upgrade to Holocaust Version 2.0’ underneath. The protests were disgraceful in tone. Posters put on synagogues proclaimed slogans like ‘Gaza – The New Shoah’ and another read, ‘Hamas Recognises Israeli Genocide’. Not only did these display ignorance, but a huge pride in that ignorance – or at least a cocky self-assuredness in their mistakenness typical of the Israel-haters.

The language was not confined to pot-heads on the street, nor Islamic fundamentalists or Arab nationalists/racists. Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez went on TV to say ‘Don’t Jews repudiate the Holocaust? And this is precisely what we’re witnessing’. It is not surprising that fifteen armed men broke into Caracas’s main synagogue and held the caretaker at gunpoint, with an explosive thrown into another. Catholic cardinals called Gaza a ‘big concentration camp’. A few days, even hours, in an actual Nazi concentration camp, and I’m sure they would give their teeth to live in Gaza.

How is this hate being legitimised? Hate cannot be publicly aired without a justification, and there has been a lot of excuse-making recently. There is a pattern in the history of anti-Semitism. In the Middle Ages, and when the Christian Churches were at the height of their power, religion was the supreme source of authority. Hostility to Jews was therefore based mostly on religion. When religion lost much of its influence in 19th Century Europe, the justification was based on social Darwinism and racial science. Science has lost its pristine image of offering unfettered progress since the heyday of eugenics and the invention of the atom bomb. What has emerged as the supreme source of authority in our day is the doctrine of human rights, thanks in no small part to the Shoah. ‘Human rights’ is the new religion, and its holy texts are the Geneva Convention and various UN and EU Charters. Some of these were formulated with preventing another Holocaust as their primary aim. Members of the Church of Human Rights read these texts literally and without compromise. Ironically, they read these documents in the way Jews and Israelis are traditionally ridiculed over, the ‘eye for an eye’ method. They allow for no alternative readings or context-placement. The most fundamentalist branches of the Church of Human Rights are the Palestinian Solidarity Campaigns, a part of the Church of Palestinian Victimhood. The followers of this cult are the most fanatical and dour of worshippers – the Amish or Puritans of the broader movement that allows for no deviation from the cause.

The hi-jacking of human rights to demonise Israel, and by implication, the Jewish world, is one of the most significant developments of our lifetime. It is part of the broader movement to place a halo over the head of groups with a questionable cause. Today, the BNP and the KKK have the gall to call themselves human rights organisations for white people. The Muslim Public Affairs Committee, a British hate group that now has an Irish presence adopts the same tactic, as did the blatantly anti-Semitic ‘Ireland’s Friends of Palestine against Lisbon’. The full flowering of this new anti-Semitism can be seen from people like Mick Napier, the Chairman of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. Not only is he awaiting trial at Edinburgh Sheriff Court for racially aggravated assault, he justifies Arab murder of Jewish children (namely, the slaughter at Mercaz HaRav) on the basis that they may soon oppress Arabs. For someone who claims to believe in human rights, it’s very odd that he justifies Arabs punishing Israeli teenagers on the basis of a crime they have not yet committed, and are in reality extremely unlikely to commit. It would seem to run contrary to most people’s conception of justice. Could you imagine if the Israeli government announced it would start killing Arab children indiscriminately because they may one day become terrorists? Even worse, of course, was the anti-Semitic hate fest of the Durban Conference in 2001, where Israel and no other nation was accused by the most vile and racist states, and their useful idiots, of all the cardinal sins of the post-Holocaust world. Thankfully, decency won a victory in 2009.

Today’s most dangerous anti-Semites pose as friends. Their strategy is ingenious. They of course acknowledge anti-Semitism is evil, and the Holocaust as the most evil crime against humanity. Any decent person must adopt the same attitude. However, in their moral blindness they see a moral equivalence between Israel’s behaviour towards the Palestinians and the Nazi treatment of the Jews. Therefore, if you oppose anti-Semitism, you must oppose Israel and its supporters, who just happen to be Jews. This has proven to be of devastating effectiveness. Whether it is from Communists, the Green movement or Muslims adopting Western suits and decent language, Jews and their allies must see through this farce. These individuals are enemies if the Jewish people and by extension, humanity.

There is one logical conclusion to all this: to fight evil and prejudice, we must fight the demonization of Israel, argue the case of the Jewish state incessantly and get the truth out there. When respected academics and journalists, including such figures as Edward Said and Robert Fisk, attribute made-up racist quotes to Jewish leaders (oh, they’ve done it) we must be there armed with the truth. When the BBC airs news programs from the Middle East obtaining all its footage and sources from local Palestinians without questioning them (happens all the time) we must be there. When the UN is hi-jacked by despotic Muslim regimes and tries to pass another Israel-bashing resolution, we must be there. They brought Ahmadenijad to speak at an anti-racism conference. We brought Elie Wiesel.

It’s going to be tough. Israel’s enemies have convinced themselves they are radicals taking on a powerful ‘Lobby’ (a complete straw man and convenient scapegoat for all our post 9/11 ills). Regardless of the fact there is a distinct lack of risk in criticising Israel, our enemies pat themselves on the back for being so ‘brave’ in doing so at their cocktail parties.

But we know the Jewish State. We know we stand for this:

Rather than this:

We are on the side of truth, and history will prove that. Let us hope that history proves us right before more masses of Jews die.

Crime News Politics Religion

Lars Vilks Murder Plot – Seven Suspects Arrested in Ireland

Seven people — four men and three women — have been arrested in Ireland on suspicion of plotting to murder Swedish cartoonist Lars Vilks.  An Islamic group offered €70,000 for his murder, with a 50% bonus if his killers slaughtered him like a lamb by cutting his throat.

They were angry with him because he drew a sketch portraying a bearded man with the body of a dog, wearing a turban.  The sketch was published in July 2007 by a small Swedish newspaper, Nerikes Allehanda, and somehow came to the attention of a bunch of people who decided Vilks must die.  How exactly an obscure Swedish newspaper came to be read by people in Iraq and Pakistan was never explained adequately, but even stranger, the sketches had already been published in large-circulation Swedish papers.

Vilks now lives in police protection.

It’s forbidden to make images of the prophet and they have a fairly simple way of expressing their displeasure: they  kill you.  Oddly enough, depictions of Muhammmad are common in books written by Muslims, but for some people, there’s no thinking involved.  In many ways, this makes it a lot like Catholicism, but for all his faults, at least old Ratzo doesn’t send out assassination squads every time I take the piss out of him.

This is lucky for me or I’d be dead a dozen times over by now.

I remember a few years back, discussing Rushdie’s Satanic Verses with a devout Libyan Muslim.  It was in a late-night bar in Limerick, and Tariq, the devout Muslim slugging on a beer, was explaining that it was essential to kill Rushdie for mocking the Prophet.

I asked him what he knew about the book, and he told me he’d read it.  Rushdie had to be killed.  As it turned out, I’d read it myself, so I asked him what he thought of the ending, and it was then he explained that he’d only  read some photocopied pages containing the offending passages.  And then he explained that they weren’t actually pages from the book, but some quotes put together by a cleric and handed out in the mosque.

So you haven’t actually read the book, just some photocopied pages, but you still want to kill him?

Yes.  Any good Muslim would kill him.

As I recall, Tariq had some strange ideas on the place of women in society as well, but that didn’t stop him going to night-clubs, getting drunk and trying to get laid.  I haven’t seen him around in a while.

Two years before the Lars Vilks incident, the Jyllands-Posten debacle was probably the most outstanding example of hair-trigger Islam, and yet its origins became completely lost in the furore that erupted after publication of cartoons depicting the Prophet.

It all came about innocently when Kåre Bluitgen,  a  Danish writer,  said he couldn’t find an artist to illustrate his book about the Prophet and in typical Danish style, the Jyllands-Posten newspaper called on artists to submit illustrations and published twelve of them.  Again, magically, the cartoons of this obscure Scandinavian newspaper somehow appeared all over the Muslim world, with Danish Imams touring the Middle East to stir up protest.

Riots broke out with Danish embassies being torched in Syria, Lebanon and Iran, and there was a strong suspicion that the whole thing was orchestrated, since nothing happens in Iran or Syria without government approval and absolutely nothing spontaneous is ever permitted.

It’s ironic that the seven suspects were arrested in Ireland.  Our government recently passed a law concerning blasphemy that would delight the hearts of demented, homicidal Imams the world over.  This law makes it a crime to offend the beliefs of any religion, or to put it another way, if enough crazies decide to be pissed off over something you wrote or drew, you’re a criminal.  If Jyllands-Posten had been published in Ireland, its editor would probably have been convicted of blasphemous libel.  I’m not aware of any other law in the Western world making it a crime to poke fun at somebody’s unproven suppositions, but this is Ireland after all, a fantasy world where almost everything is unproven supposition.

Leaving all that aside, however, isn’t it about time that normal, sensible Muslims got on top of this problem and started disowning the extreme attitudes of Koran-belt Islam?

Not too long ago we witnessed the insane spectacle of a British teacher receiving a jail sentence in Sudan for calling a teddy-bear Muhammad.  The fact that the bear was named after a pupil in the school made no difference.  Gillian Gibbbons had insulted the Prophet.

More recently in Sudan, we had the absurd Lubna Hussein case, where a woman was sentenced to be flogged for wearing trousers.

These are not the actions of rational adults.  These are things you’d expect from a petulant adolescent and it’s about time the middle ground of Islam started to condemn such bullshit, just as moderate Christian opinion distances itself from the crazy Sarah Palin fundamentalist strand of religion.

On a more sinister level, we recently witnessed two young lads in Iran publicly murdered by the government for being gay.  We see women rape victims stoned to death or flogged.  We see Hamas imposing their benighted, tunnel-visioned ignorance on the suffering people of Gaza.

It’s time for the Muslim adults to speak out but meanwhile, we have to put up with adolescent Islam.

Message to the adolescents:  it isn’t always about you.


Previously on Bock

Imagine being a dead Muslim


Islam and Christianity Find Something in Common

Muhammad the Prophet (Peace Be To Him)

Idiots, religious lunatics and the war on terror

One man and his magnet


Sharia in Ireland — Official

I have no doubt that the good citizens of this site have been fretting over the Finance Bill as published last week, searching for those grains of comfort that will indicate that the death of our beloved Celtic Tiger has been greatly exaggerated.

Sorry, his demise hasn’t been exaggerated. He’s as dead as Monty Pyton’s parrot and buried – you and your childrens children will be paying the burial expense for the next thousand years – with O’Leary in his grave.

Perusing the bill you will notice guarantees to gladden the heart of every Irishman, such as, – Decrease in the Excise Duty on Beer and Cider by 12 cent (VAT inclusive) per pint, on Spirits by 14 cent (VAT inclusive) per half glass, and on Wine by 60 cent (VAT inclusive) per 75cl bottle with effect from midnight on 9 December 2009.

But then you’ll come across the following jaw-dropping statement.

Provision of measures to facilitate the attraction of Ireland for the development of Islamic finance which covers any financing arrangement that is compliant with the principles of Shari’a law. The tax treatment applicable to conventional finance transactions will be extended to embrace Islamic finance.

Ah, our friend Sharia has made it to Hibernia at last. But what does the government mean by “compliant with the principles of Shari’s Law?

Does it mean that woman will have to wear a Burka and be accompanied by a male relative if she wants to open an account at her local Bank of Jihad on O’Connell Street?

Maybe it means that you’ll have both your hands amputated if you stray slightly above your overdraft limit – unless you incurred the expense en route to Mecca?

Default on your mortgage payments and you’ll be beheaded live on the net incidentally. These guys don’t do subprime.

Sharia finance rejects the principles of western banking as impure (haram) as opposed to their pure (halal) system. They, ostensibly at least, claim that the charging of interest (usury) is unethical.

But are they really not charging interest? According to a number of reports Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF) loans are transferred into bonds or “sukuk” and interest is charged on these. The interest payments are kept off the books in “special purpose vehicles” to maintain the pretence of halal.

That’s all very well you’ll say. It’s just another system of banking. Why not give it a shot. It can’t be any worse than the almost complete collapse of the world economy over the last few years because western banks we rushing out onto the street offering winos one million pound mortgages on five bedroomed detached houses in Foxrock.

Indeed, however, quite a number of Islamists believe that SCF is a continuation of their war on western society by other means. Sheikh, and it’s always a Sheikh isn’t it, Tagi Usmani, a former senior member of the Dow Jones Islamic Index, was quoted as saying.

This “holy war” is to be waged where possible through violent means, where necessary through “soft” means like Sharia-Compliant Finance. For this reason, such Islamists call SCF “financial jihad.

Regardless, banks, particularly in the USA, are eager to embrace the principles of SCF and the infusion of billions worth of petrodollars.

However, analysts in America are warning that in embracing SCF they are in danger of jumping out of the subprime frying pan which nearly destroyed the world economy into an Islamist fire which will legitimise and institutionalise Sharia – which wants to destroy the world as a raison d’être – in America.

Over here in Ireland we’re already legitimised it and in a few months time we’ll be opening a Saudi type Wahhabi school in Dublin. The followers of Wahhabism pursue a strict interpretation of the Koran and hate everything – including their fellow Muslims – that walks or crawls on this earth.

The Trojan horse is inside the gate. Welcome to Eireannistan. How do you say one hundred thousand welcomes in Arabic?


More Sharia Bullshit – Lubna Hussein to be Flogged in Sudan

Update 8th September 2009

Lubna Hussein was fined for wearing trousers.  She refused to pay and was sentenced to 30 days in jail.  The journalists union subsequently paid the fine and she was released, but she isn’t happy about it, and with good reason.

The union is controlled by the Sudanese government which is embarrassed by the international attention this case has attracted, and payment of the fine got them off the hook. The last thing the Sudanese administration needed was a journalist in prison on such a patently ludicrous charge.

Hussein points out that thousands of women are in Sudan’s prisons for breaching some insane morality law, with no-one to pay their fines.


Lubna Hussein, a Sudanese journalist, faces 40 lashes for dressing indecently.

Here’s the outfit the Sudanese police found indecent:

lubna hussein 3

The police arrested 13 women, Muslim and non-Muslim, for wearing trousers.  Ten women pleaded guilty to the crime and immediately received 10 lashes and a fine.  As far as I know, the lashes were administered by some pervert policeman getting his kicks, and I suppose he used the fine-money to buy himself a freshly-oiled boy.

Lubna Hussein and two other women asked for lawyers and now face trial with the possibility of 40 lashes.

Now look.  How can anyone take Sudanese Muslims seriously with this kind of bullshit?

They’re fucking demented.  We already had a case last year where they wanted to lash a woman for naming a teddy-bear Mohammed, and now they’re flogging women for wearing trousers.

What the fuck is wrong with these people?  In most countries, this kind of bizarre sexual obsession would be enough to justify psychiatric treatment, but in Sudan it gets you a job as a cop.

And if I tell you that I think Sharia is a despicable, mentally-deranged, sexually-deviant, perverted, life-hating ideology, some mad Muslim fucker might decide to make a complaint and get me prosecuted under our new, equally-insane blasphemy law.

Imagine that.


Become a fan of Lubna Hussein HERE

Previously: Sudan Blocks Bock


Sudan Blocks Bock Shock!

I knew it would have to happen eventually, after the terrible things I said about their teddy-bear police, or maybe it was what I said about Islamic martyrs, or it could have been because of the guy with a magnet up his arse.  Anyway, the Sudanese government have finally cracked down on me.  Hard.

A friend in Sudan has emailed me to say that this page appears when he tries to summon up Bock :

sudan bock filter 002

Isn’t that terrible?  The people of Sudan are denied the opportunity to read about the holy tree stump of Rathkeale, and Leonard Cohen, and blasphemy, and Gerry Ryan being a fat wanker.

Right then.  It’s war.

From now on, I’ll be keeping a close eye on the Sudanese government.  See how they like that!

Bock's People

Islamic Suicide Bombings Down by 90%

I bumped into old Cap’n Purplehead the other day.
Bock, he said, did you hear that there’s been a collapse in the number of Islamic suicide bombings.

No, I said. Why’s that?

Well, he said, it seems they broadcast Britain’s Got Talent to the Middle East and the Muslims realised what a virgin looks like.
What awaits the Muslim Suicide Bomber
What awaits the Muslim Suicide Bomber


Previously on Bock:

Imagine being a dead Muslim

News Politics

Iran Elections Fiddled

It looks like Hack-Me-Dinner-Jacket has stolen the elections in Iran.

I wonder what this means for relations with Middle-Eastern neighbours, or the wider world?  Probably nothing at all, considering the fact that the whole place is run by clerics anyway, a bit like Ireland in the Fifties.

You know, Iran and Ireland have so much in common, from fiddling elections to putting miserable old clerics in charge of things they know nothing about.

As far as I can tell, Dinner-Jacket’s role is superficial, the real power lying with Ayatollah Khamenei, another ridiculous old priest, with unlimited political power in a confessional state, much like John Charles McQuaid in the Ireland of the Forties, Fifties and Sixties. Isn’t it a wonderful thing?  In Iran they put old priests in charge of power stations.  Here we put them in charge of abusing children.

What’s interesting, though, is that so much rioting is happening in Teheran, which would have been unheard of a few years ago.  It’s a sign of different thinking among Iranians and it could bubble over into something very like a popular uprising.  But we can all remember the brutal oppression of the Revolutionary Guards, and we need to remember that this is a society that hangs young girls on the flimsiest of excuses, in much the same way that Ireland banished them to the murderous laundry gulags operated by the merciless Sisters of Sexual Frustration.

Bastards.  Two countries scarred by a common insanity.  The filthy nexus where Christianity and Islam meet.

Ironically,  what we’re witnessing now is not far removed from the kind of things that the Shah”s Savak secret police used to get up to before Khomeini arrived from Paris, the hypocritical old perfume-fetishist.  I wonder what sort of costumes McQuaid used to climb into at night as he fantasised about the things he’d like to do to DeValera?

Two deeply fucked-up countries.  One common thread.  Priests.

Crime Favourites Scandal

Crimes of Blasphemous Libel

According to the Defamation Bill 2006, a person commits the crime of blasphemous libel if he publishes anything that is

grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

Anyone convicted of such a crime is liable to a fine of up to 100,000.

Now, let’s examine this in more detail, by breaking the definition into its constituent parts.

A person commits an offence if the material he publishes is

grossly abusive to matters held sacred by any religion


insulting to matters held sacred by any religion

thereby causing outrage

among a substantial number of

the adherents of that religion;


he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned,

to cause such outrage.

Therefore, if for example, a police investigator, looking into a case of abduction, expresses in print the view that Scientology is a money-making scam dreamed up by a crook called L Ron Hubbbard, and if that person intends to insult what he believes to be a criminal conspiracy, he would fulfil the following criteria:

His opinions would be insulting to matters held sacred by Scientology

They would cause outrage among many Scientologists

He would have intended to cause such outrage.

Therefore the case against him is proved. He is guilty of the crime of blasphemous libel, no matter how contemptible the organisation he insults.

Likewise, if a geologist writes an article about the formation of the earth, he would cause outrage among large numbers of people in creationist Christian groups, who would find his scientific findings insulting to matters they hold sacred. If a court decided that he published the article with the intention of causing such outrage, he is a criminal, not a scientist.

If a biologist thinks the notion of intelligent design is insanity and says so in a learned paper, he would cause similar outrage among large numbers of people particularly in the Bible Belt of America. They would find his opinions insulting to a matter they hold sacred. Since the Bill does not limit the location of the outraged people to Ireland, it would be sufficient to outrage anyone anywhere in the world, and if it could be proven that he wanted to annoy them, he could be convicted of a crime.

If an atheist states publicly that there is no God, he will cause outrage among large numbers of adherents to every religion on the planet. His views will be insulting to matters sacred, in the minds of many believers, and likewise, if his intention is to offend, then he is a criminal, no matter how sincerely he holds the view that God does not exist.

Why stop there? If the Pope declares that Mary is the mother of God (a ludicrous, but sincerely-held Catholic dogma) he blasphemes against Islam. Will the irish government haul him before a court?

If a rabbi declares that Jesus is not the Messiah, he blasphemes against Christianity. He’d better not open his mouth in Ireland.

The government is now framing a law, placing in the area of logic something that is not tangible or amenable to agreement among reasonable people. This half-witted government is now trying to prevent us, through ill-conceived law, from expressing any opinion that might conceivable offend any lunatic, anywhere in the world, from Antarctica to the Hindu Kush.

The crime is defined by the reaction of the other person. If he decides to be offended, or outraged, as the Bill pompously expresses it, then you are guilty of a crime. It doesn’t matter one jot how nutty his beliefs are or how sincerely-held your opinions are. If you take the piss out of any religion, long-established or founded yesterday, then you are a criminal, under the terms of this ridiculous legislation. It doesn’t matter what sort of crime, scam, abuse, kidnap, mass suicide or plain insanity the religion espouses. You’re not allowed to offend its members ever, anywhere in the world under this new Irish law.

Your accuser decides your guilt.

How about that?

Time to start calling your local representative and expressing your outrage.

Isn’t it just as well we have the European Court?



Define the following:






Substantial number


Previously on Bock:

Blasphemous Libel

National Blasphemy Day


Elsewhere: Ian Poulton