Katie Hopkins – Is free speech dead?

Police probe over Katie Hopkins’ “repulsive” rape tweet

A TWEET by Katie Hopkins claiming Muslim men raping white women is “consistent” with Islamic teaching is being reviewed by the Metropolitan Police.

The controversial columnist made the comment last Friday after prison sentences totalling 102 years were given following the Rotherham child sex abuse trial.

National group Tell MAMA, which records anti-Muslim incidents, lodged a formal complaint after receiving “numerous” calls from the public.

Read on… http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.co.uk/news/102120/police-probe-over-katie-hopkins-repulsive-rape-tweet.aspx

21 thoughts on “Katie Hopkins – Is free speech dead?

  1. Tellmama is a muslim propaganda group run by a bigoted idiot.
    It mainpulates and bigs-up the statistics – with the purpose of creating the poor muslims as victims by somewhat liberal interpretation of the meaning of the term “hate crime”.
    I could easily make out a logical case for the view that muslims consider non-muslims as inferior and to be used as they wish by quotes from the Koran and the Hadiths of Bukhari and Muslim.
    The problem that Hopkins has made for herself is that she quotes “white” rather than “Kuffar”, which rather over-simplifies the situation.

    Like

  2. Rotherham, Oxford, Derby, Rochdale, Telford, Peterborough ….. MAMA. Where were your formal complaints or is it just the trivial nonsense you’re offended by ?

    Like

  3. The referenced approach to Kuffar female prisoners in the Koran would not be acceptable to us today, well most of us anyway. Sex with them is permitted as is enslavement, but the withdraw method is forbidden as there seems to be a duty to impregnate.
    There is a problem with interpretations when translating the book from the original into English, but clearly rape in the context of prisoners of war who do not “submit” to Islam is accepted.

    The relevant sections are as follows:
    Qur’an 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or (the captives) whom their right hands possess—for (in their case) they are free from blame.

    Qur’an 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for (then) they are not to be blamed.

    The term “whom the right hand possess” means their slave.

    Clearly these texts are appalling by modern values and mores.

    However, there is much smiting called for in the Christian Old Testament, but most Christians have long since desisted from stoning, smiting and slaughtering. Lets hope they stay that way.

    Like

    • Using your logic the paedophile Christian priests were following their religion when abusing children all over the world and the various hierarchies/authorities such as the Vatican, Anglican did their best to cover up the sex abuse scandals. Was the abuse and the cover up part of their Christian teaching?

      FYI I am posing this to show the holes in your argument and not smearing the Christian religion or the Christian people.

      Like

      • I was suggesting texts that could be misinterpreted from the Koran and not vilifying an old religion that many follow with a sincere faith and do not use it to excuse the inexcusable.
        I have quoted the texts but not attempted a scholarly interpretation of them. If I have got the content and context wrong then please correct me.
        As for Cristian priests who abused children they are criminals as are those who actively covered up their crimes.
        However, The Prophet of Islam did take Aisha to his bed as a wife when she was only nine years of age. This may well have been socially acceptable then, but here and now most folk would consider this as wrong. No offense to a religion intended.
        I am not a Christian.
        I am not seeking to challenge a religion. But I would point out that I tired of neighbours and youths spitting at the pavement as I passed and saying “Kuffar”. Is such dehaviour approved of within the teachings of the Prophet or interpretations of scholars?
        I moved house.

        Like

      • @Poetmorgan

        “I tired of neighbours and youths spitting at the pavement as I passed and saying “Kuffar”. Is such dehaviour approved of within the teachings of the Prophet or interpretations of scholars?”

        Rather than moving house you need to report such behaviour to police as racist/hate crime and let them deal with it. Such criminal behaviour is criminal and nothing to do with any religion even muslim.

        In regard to:
        “However, The Prophet of Islam did take Aisha to his bed as a wife when she was only nine years of age. This may well have been socially acceptable then, but here and now most folk would consider this as wrong. No offense to a religion intended.”

        Aisha’s age is a matter of debate. Those on relying her age to be six and nine rely on a weak hadith narrated by her grand nephew at the age of 70 years age who was recorded at time of suffering from memory loss. The person criticising the narrater was none other than Imam Malik a contemporary of the grand-nephew who founded the Maliki School of Jurisprudence- one of the four main ones in muslim religion. There is plenty of other evidence showing Aisha’a age from different sources to be older from anything from 14 to 19 years of age. Aisha had been engaged to another man called Jubair before engagement to Muhammed. Just google to find other sources. It is convenient for those opposing muslim religion to be selective in just choosing one source and ignoring others putting her age older. Some muslim communities where child marriage is prevalent accept the hadith at face value as it supports their cultural practice. The hadith may appear in Sahih Bukhari but hadith relating to practice of muslim religion were authenticated and those relating to historical accounts such as this were not.

        see
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2012/sep/17/muhammad-aisha-truth

        Like

  4. Ms Hopkins crime is, she White, a woman who speaks her mind and she’s telling the truth about our law abiding, morally upstanding , whiter than white, Muslim folk, in particular, the Pakistani community. She should be imprison or ever worse stoned, heretic lol.

    Like

  5. Does anyone know how many of these “Muslim groups”(Muslim Council of Great Britain etc) there are in this country ? Why are they here and what useful purpose do they really serve in the grand scheme of things ? (Other than to stir the s^^t and “play the race card”)

    Like

  6. Katie Hopkins speaks the absolute truth about Muslims in this country. These offensive people, who abuse us at every end and turn, who infest and infect our political and social system and use the race card to further their abusive cause. It’s now time to stand up to these individuals, I would call them people but I sometimes question whether they should belong to the human race because they abuse non-believers in Islam in such a disgusting and offensive way.
    STAND UP NOW!

    Like

      • I do not believe it is deluded nonsense.. I agree with what Katie Hopkins said about being consistent with Islamic teaching …. and I am not the only one ………. Three paragraphs from a telegraph article ……. True Islam preaches respect for women but in mosques across the country a different doctrine is preached – “one that denigrates all women, but treats whites with particular contempt,” the Imam said.

        The men are taught that women are “second-class citizens, little more than chattels or possessions over whom they have absolute authority,” he claims in the column.

        “The view of some Islamic preachers towards white women can be appalling. They encourage their followers to believe that these women are habitually promiscuous, decadent, and sleazy — sins which are made all the worse by the fact that they are kaffurs or non-believers. Source …. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10061217/Imams-promote-grooming-rings-Muslim-leader-claims.html And the fact that they see prophet Mohamed as the PERFECT one whose teachings they all follow …. ” The Prophet Muhammad was a perfect example of an honest, just, merciful, compassionate, truthful, and brave human being. Though he was a man, he was far removed from all evil characteristics and strove solely for the sake of God and His reward in the Hereafter. Moreover, in all his actions and dealings, he was ever mindful and fearful of God.” …. Source .. http://www.islam-guide.com/ch3-8.htm PERFECT EXAMPLE…. lol ….. he did not mind marrying a 6 year old and then consummating the marriage when she was only 9 and he was 53 years old … Now who is deluded RR .

        Like

    • Yes the muslim nations have been recently invading sovereign non-muslim countries and blow their citizens to smitherines in the name of Civilisation and Freedom!

      BTW Have you been living in a cave for last 15 years?

      Like

    • Interesting item on the R4 Sunday Programme Today about the reaction to the execution of the Pakistani fanatic Qadar who assassinated a provincial governor in that benighted country

      “This morning’s Sunday led with the news about Mumtaz Qadri’s funeral, with Edward Stourton expressing his (understandable) astonishment that tens of thousands of people had come out to demonstrate in favour of an assassin and BBC correspondent Shaimaa Khalil echoing that, saying that if you’d have landed in Pakistan and seen the crowds you might have assumed Qadri was a national hero rather than a killer.”

      http://isthebbcbiased.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/brits-for-blasphemy-ii.html

      Actually only an imbecile would be suprised at this

      More to the point though is the reaction of Pakistanis here. Apparently this Barevli sect controls 40% of UK mosques – and it was generally supposed that they represent a much more cuddly, “moderate” version of Islam than the hard-line Wahhibis or Deobandis.

      Sadly liberal idiots may have to disabuse themselves(eventually) of this comforting notion

      “Ed Stourton: Innes, what have you picked up on social media here, by way of indications of the sort of impact it’s having in Britain?

      Innes Bowen: Very, very surprising actually to me. Shaimaa called the people who are regarding this guy as a martyr as ‘hardliners’ but in the UK the people who’ve come out in his support are people who were previously regarded as the most moderate of religious groups, and that’s a group called the Barelvis – a Sufi group that controls about just under 40% of mosques in the UK. And these are people who have no connection with jihadist groups, who are really regarded as the love-and-peace wing of Sunni Islam in Britain. Yet some of their most prominent clerics have this week come out, calling this guy a ‘martyr’. And this has caused quite a stir on social media. You know, it’s brought other people out to say, ‘No, this is completely wrong’ – for example, the Association of British Muslims. One of their co-directors, Paul Salahuddin-Armstrong wrote, “Under no circumstances should anyone be celebrating the death of a convicted murderer as a saint”. But in saying that he’s actually coming out against his own Sufi order. A prominent mosque of that order in Birmingham – the Ghamkol Sharif mosque – on the front page of their website has something calling this chap ‘a martyr’.”

      “Moderate” in the Islamic context doesn’t appear to mean what left-liberal idiots projecting their own culturally rather specific values think it does

      “Ed Stourton: What’s going on? I mean, why from a moderate group (as you say) those sort of opinions?

      Innes Bowen: Well, the Barelvis have a very, very intense love of the Prophet Muhammad…Of course, all Muslims revere the Prophet Muhammad but with the Barelvis it’s kind of done with a great intensity. And that does mean when there are things like any insults to the Prophet Muhammad or anything regarded as blasphemy that is when they are really roused. So over The Satanic Verses, the cartoons…the Danish cartoon dispute, that kind of thing, they will come out quite militantly. But this I think is really a quite dramatic development.”

      Only suprising to those devoid of a clear critical thinking facility I fancy

      Like

      • Rather odd behaviour of some followers of the Prophet Muhammed. They will happily relate the story of an old woman who opposed his teaching in Mecca who would throw rubbish from her roof top every time he passed her house. Muhammed did no respond to her until one day she stopped and was not seen by him. Eventually Muhammed went to find out and see why she stopped throwing rubbish over him and discovered that the woman was ill. The gesture by Muhammed of going to see her and show concern for her well being, impressed upon on her. She did accept Muhammed’s message/preaching and became a muslim.

        Pity some brainwashed followers do not appear to follow Muhammed example/actions.
        Committing murder to protect his honour is a greater insult to Muhammed and he will be turning in his grave!

        Like

    • Rulers that happened to be muslim conquered other countries but religion did not endorsed their actions. Religion only allows defensive war to defend oneself, society and property. Such conquests were secular and empire building. Revisionists later gave history a religious garment to coat the events. For example Ottoman empire lasted several centuries yet not one Caliph/sultan ever went Hajj/pilgrimage to Mecca during this time – this is duty in muslim religion if one can afford to do so.
      Having a muslim name or being born a muslim does not mean actions of such individuals are only due to their religion even when do not practice the religion.

      Like

    • History shows other surround empires such as Persion and Roman attacked the new emerging muslim state who they saw as a threat and were defeated.

      Like

      • @sba
        The 7th century was a confusing time. Historians have written many diverse views on the origins and expansion of a major religion.
        The problem with religions is that interpretations of texts can be so diverse and therein lies the risk of conflict.
        Perhaps this is not the place for that.
        If I have caused offense or hurt I apologise for that; but that does not mean I do not hold different views from your own.
        Peace be with you.

        Like

Leave your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.