Wednesday, 28 January 2015


Is ISLAM a threat to the world? Is it PC to even ask such a question?

I am a great believer in the saying: “It is by their fruits that you shall know them”.
When we look around the world what are the “fruits” of Islam? The attack in Paris? The attack in Belgium? The attacks in London? The kidnapping of locals and foreigners in various places including Africa? Syria? 
How can we be criticised for thinking that the most common fruits of Islam are strife, division, fundamentalism, hatred, fighting and killing?
They tell us that the vast majority of truly religious Muslims do not agree with all these horrible things. I am open to that argument. But I want to know where all these Muslims are. Why are they not more vocal? Why are they not banning and expelling the”fundamentalists” from their mosques and communities?
Is it just a coincidence that you cannot build a Christian church in Saudi Arabia but you can build all the mosques you want in Ireland, the UK, the USA and Europe?
Is it just a coincidence that women are not allowed to drive cars in Saudi and in other “Muslim” countries?

Is it a coincidence that gay people are tortured and killed in “Muslim” countries?

I’m sorry if I am not being PC. But I am coming to the conclusion that Islam is a fundamentally flawed religion – a religion that is not moderated by rationality and a religion where the vast majority of its adherents are uneducated and are manipulated by a relatively small number of religious leaders who are fundamentalist at heart and who enjoy the power they have over their masses.
I was shocked to learn yesterday that 70% of those in prison in Denmark are from the Muslim community!
I do believe that Islam wants to dominate the world. I do believe that such domination would be dangerous and that it would lead to democratic regimes being replaced by Sharia Law!
I want the country I live in to be a modern, pluralist and secular democracy. I do not want my country to be run by any religion – the Muslim religion or the religion of the Vatican.
Maybe in our trojan efforts to be PC we are ignoring the threat that Islam poses to democracy.

At the very least we should think deeply about this issue – before it is too late!
+Pat Buckley 


  1. In a modern world it seems that some have corrupted the name of Islam not so much unlike the way that some have corrupted the name of Christianity in our own fair land by using bomb and bullet to get their views across. Sean

  2. That is too easy. There are few countries where religion dominates social and political life as it does in these few very fundamentalist countries, or countries with a strong fundamentalist minority with a reputation for retribution with impunity. But if we turn the clock back, and remove the eternal ll seeing vigilance of modern communications and media, we can see just such a situation in christian countries in the not so distant past. Clearly Islam h to catch up, but the cost of speaking out is very high, and that speaking out is very public.
    Note the fate of Pakistani politicians and others who have spoken against blasphemy laws. Were you to be your muslim equivalent, in Ireland's(Eire) equivalent (as the closest thing to a theocracy in the christian west), you would not be living in that house enjoying a good public life, minor legal harassment would have been substituted for a torch and tone throwing mob, death at their hands, and no arrests. Much as is Spain a few centuries ago and many other countries even more recently.
    Islam plainly has to catch up fast. As a transgender mystical catholic, I do not hold a brief for these guys, but, having many muslim friends in these very countries, who not only "tolerate" but celebrate and respect my status, actually with more enthusiasm that many "professed humanists" in the liberal west, where acceptance is very qualified, they would be happier if I was atheist on the one hand, and somewhat apologetic and self mocking on the other. Whereas liberal mystical islam can "swallow me whole" without demanding I "convert", where islington implicitly wants me to.

  3. Pat. People will be afraid to comment on this as they fear reprisals from the Taliban believed to be only outdone in severity by the hit squad from Somerton Road

  4. I agree with your concerns about the effects of creeping Islamic fundamentalism in western society, and its restrictive oppressive nature in countries where it is the majority religion. Like you, I too wish for a modern pluralist and secular democracy

    I emphasise the the importance of a secular democracy, for the subsequent blog by Seyyed Ali Khamenai provides very little useful concrete information other than that to an extent I agree with his comment that there is demonisation of Islam in general because of the actions of its militant and radical adherents.

    Where I have to "pick up" on your blog Pat, is where, in saying that Islam is a religion not moderated by rationality, there is an inherent unspoken inference that Christianity, as another of the worlds dominant monotheistic religions, is in contrast "moderated by rationality".
    If indeed this is your inference, I must say that I simply find it without foundation.
    This debate needs more space and time to debate than here, and I will simply continue in a separate post to follow.

  5. Continuation: from MMM.

    A pertinent news item today explains that the Birmingham scientists using the Kepler telescope, have found an 11.2 billion years old star (sun) 117 light years away being orbited by five planets similar in size to Earth. This discovery shows that similar Earth size planets capable of life could exist around other billions of similar ancient stars out there, and that other life/civilisations may be/have been in existence for billions of years.
    This is but another of countless scientific facts now known, against which the core deist beliefs of religions, including Christianity and Islam simply defy all rational thinking.
    Those defending deist beliefs point out that (as yet) there is no evidence of extra terrestial life. I agree. But I find it unnecessary and irrational to "plug the gaps" in human knowledge by believing in a god or gods to explain the unknown. I happily accept the futility and limitations of humankinds' limited intelligence attempting to construct a comprehensive explanation for our existence.
    Christianity, and Catholicism in particular suffers from Thomistic theology/philosophy's obsession with cause and effect theorising necessitating a "prime mover" aka god, and "explaining" the inexplicable with the great get-out of, "It's a mystery".
    I believe such thinking to be irrational, and choose not to follow the wishful thinking of childhood handed down tribal belief in religion, which, while it may psychologically and emotionally soothe the insecurities of our human existence, has little foundation in rational thinking.
    Even though many might point to the good religious belief does, that does not provide any foundation for its core beliefs.
    MourneMan Michael

  6. I see no difference between these fundamentalists and your form of fundamentalism! This blog is your mosque and you are throwing people from it! You act as judg, jury and executioner in written form! My personal feeling is that the written form of violence is as equally abhorrent as the physical form! The fundamentalist motivation is the same just different approaches!

    1. Is this really true?

      At least you are allowed to criticise me and I publish that criticism here on the Blog.

      A blog is not a seat of government or coercion.

      A blog is one person expressing their thoughts and opinions.

      I would prefer you to criticise me in writing than beat me up or kill me.

      And then again - they do say that: "the pen is mightier than the sword".

    2. Only when the written word is truthful and dignified.

    3. One man's "truth" is not another man's!

      One man's "dignity" is not another mans!

      Apart from God (if you believe in him) is there such a thing as absolute truth?

      It used to be "true" that if Roman Catholics eat meat on a Friday they went to Hell.

      Now you can have your Ulster Fry on a Friday and still go to Heaven.

      Which of those positions is the "truth"?

    4. Well said Bishop Pat.

      I like the quote on your other Blog - and it applies to your critic above:

      "The HERETIC is the person who does not take YOUR TRUTH as his or her own".

      Priest. D&C

    5. So priest of D&C, you state the obvious! Your like of wine may not be my like. However if you were to state that my like is white South African 2010, when you know that I like a French Rose 2010, this statement contains some truth, i e. Dates, but is misleading and not truthful. This is my view of this blog when it makes personal attacks on individual clerics! I suggest that this may be the view of the critic above.