Sunday, November 23, 2008

UK: Historic "Saracen's Head Pub" Renamed So As Not To Offend Muslims

For God's sake. The history of Europe is replete with Islamic invasions. Sometimes the Muslims even won. They controlled the Iberian Peninsula until the 1400's. Muslim invasions were largely responsible for what we now call "The Dark Ages." The year Spain finally through Muslims the hell out of their country was 1492. I do not think it is a complete coincidence that that year also synonymous with the height of the Renaissance, or rebirth of learning.

European Civilization built the modern world. Islam has rarely been anything but an impediment to progress and learning. 

And yet, a great nation like England would worry itself about offending Muslims? Pathetic.

BIRMINGHAM Mail readers have spoken out against the decision to change the name of a historic city pub – accusing it of being “politically correct”.

The home of the famous Saracen’s Head, in Kings Norton Green, will become known as Saint Nicolas Place said its owners, at the nearby St Nicolas Church.

Angry letters fired off to the Mail said the church had no right to “wipe away 300 years of history” for fear of offending Muslims.

Ann Spooner, of Kings Norton, wrote: “To us it will always be the Saracen’s Head.”

The 18th-century former inn was originally built as a rich wool merchant’s house in the 1400s and was given to the church in 1930. In 2004 it won £500,000 to help bring it back to its former glory in the BBC programme Restoration.

Cannon Rob Morris said the church consulted with its congregation of more than 300 and the Friends of Historic Kings Norton in reaching the controversial choice.

In 2004 the Birmingham Mail reported how the Very Rev Morris said the name was “offensive” to Muslims. But he said the reason behind the name-change was to stop people from mistaking the building – now a community centre and church office – for a pub. It was also to recognise the role of the church and its more than a million pounds’ worth of investment.

Keith Carton, from Kings Norton, said: “When was the last time anyone can recall coachloads of lager louts turning up for a heavy session?”

Rod Murphy, from Northfield, said: “This barmy decision has nothing at all to do with people thinking the building is still a pub. The only people who use the building are locals and they know full well it is not a pub.”

Rod was among many who felt the new name was prompted by a fear of offending Muslims.

He said: “This is the real reason that the name is being changed. How the misguided, deluded do-gooder Canon Rob Morris can be allowed to wipe away 300 years of history is beyond belief.”

Mr Morris denied the charge adding the site would be home to the Saracen’s Head Cafe.

He said: “I’m surprised at how many people have complained.”

Now, I will provide for you a long but far from exhaustive list of Things That Offend Muslims.

Be sure to do all these things as much as possible. Maybe all those Muslims who get offended at such things will get the fuck out of the Western world.

Fellow Infidel Ray Boyd lends reason to the matter:

Perhaps we should not jump in with glee when we see a story like this. By omitting to tell the whole story we are guily of manipulation.

The real reason the name was changed was simply because the building is no longer a pub and the name Saracens Head is a name that means pub to most people. The name was inappropriate for the use of the building as it now is.

Nothing to do with Muslims at all.


Anonymous said...

«They controlled the Iberian Peninsula...»
They controlled part of the Iberia Peninsula.

Always On Watch said...

I saw this story earlier today, tried to post about it, and got so pissed that I deleted the post.

This crap the West is doing is really getting to me lately.

Damien said...

Always On Watch,

Its getting to bother me too. Here in the west, we should not care about what religious fanatics think of us.

Anonymous said...

There are a lot of documentaries on TVs misinforming people, spreading ignorance about islam.

Islam and the Submission of Women

By Jamie Glazov | Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Bill Warner, the director of the Center for the Study of Political Islam (CSPI) and spokesman for CSPI’s goal is to teach the doctrine of political Islam through its books and it has produced an eleven book series on political Islam. Mr. Warner did not write the CSPI series, but he acts as the agent for a group of scholars who are the authors. The Center’s latest book is The Submission of Women and Slaves, Islamic Duality.

FP: Bill Warner, it’s a privilege to have you back at Frontpage Magazine. We are going to do a two-part series with you on the most recent book. In this first part we will discuss Islam and its doctrine on the submission of women and in the next part we will discuss the matter of slavery.

Welcome to Frontpage Interview.

Warner: Thank you, it is a pleasure.

FP: So tell us in general where Islam stands on women and why.

Warner: Islam’s stand on women is the same as its stand on every issue—duality and submission. Dualism demands that everything is seen, not as a unified whole, but as divided. The primary political duality is the division between kafirs (unbelievers) and believers. The primary internal duality is the division between males and females.

The principle of submission means that one must rule over the other. No surprise, the women must submit to the men.

CSPI measured the submission of the female to the male by analyzing the Islamic doctrine. All of Islam’s doctrine is found in the Koran, the Hadith (Traditions) and the Sira (the life of Mohammed), the Trilogy. We collected every verse, every paragraph and every sentence that mentioned women and their power relationships. These were all categorized into the women being superior, inferior, equal or merely mentioned.

In 4% of the cases, women were superior, in 91% of the cases they were inferior and in 5% they were equal. But there is a big catch. The only way that women are equal is after death on Judgment day, when men and women will be judged on how well they followed the Koran and the Sunna. And guess what? The only way to follow the Koran and the Sunna is to obey men. Equality means obeying men.

Woman are superior by being a mother, who must obey her husband. So the perfect woman on Judgment day will be a mother, who obeyed all the men in her life. So really, the women are subordinate to men in 100% of all of the Koran, Hadith and the Sira.

FP: So what’s the story on sex in heaven? Apparently men will have lots of fun but not women?

Warner: What does the perfect Muslim woman find when she gets to Paradise? A male Paradise. Her husband will have his pick of Allah’s houris for sex. These houris are the perfect Islamic women. They are light-complexioned, sexy, shy, perpetual virgins who never say no.

The question arises: why shy and why virgins? Since submission is key to Islam, then submission must apply in Paradise as well. A virgin knows nothing, is a blank slate, and is easily dominated. A shy woman has the same submissive qualities. A houri will not even look you in the eye, nor offer any opinions about anything.

The word houri never appears in the Koran. It is always in the plural, houris, although the Koran does not say 72 virgins, just virgins. So a subservient Islamic woman must wait in line behind perfect women to see her husband. The promised equality on Judgment day would imply that there are male houris for her pleasure, but no. There are eternally young, beautiful boys, but they don’t seem to be there for the women.

However, women are included in the drinking wine, fine food, lying about in the shade and watching and taunting the kafirs (unbelievers) burning in Hell. So Paradise is just like earth, a place based upon duality and submission. Women must submit to men in this life and the life hereafter.

This parallel between Islam after death and in this life is important. Islam is usually seen as a vague and confusing doctrine. This is not true. All of Islam is built on duality and submission. Islam is absolutely logical and coherent in heaven, hell and earth. Islam is submission and duality yesterday, today and tomorrow.

FP: Why does Islam teach that most people in hell will be women?

Warner: Women may come up shy in Paradise, but they get more than their fair share of justice in Hell. The Bukhari’s Hadith (Traditions) record over twenty times how the majority of those in Hell will be women. Why are these women in Hell? Murder? Theft? Lying? Cheating? No, they were not grateful to their husband. They were not submissive enough.

In the same hadith, Mohammed says that women are not as smart as men. That is the reason that it takes two women to equal the testimony of one man. By that formula, a woman is half as smart as a man. The final part of this hadith also assures us that women are spiritually inferior to men because they can’t pray when having their period.

Again, all of this is a manifestation of submission, women must submit to men in all things including intelligence and spirituality.

This inferiority started with Mohammed, just like everything else in Islam. Since Mohammed is the ideal model of a Muslim, the one to be copied in everything, we must turn to Mohammed to understand sexual roles in Islam.

FP: How many wives did Mohammed have? Is it true he had sex with Aisha when she was nine?

Warner: We know a great deal about Mohammed’s sexuality. It is recorded in incredible detail. Mohammed’s sexual life is like the Koran in that it is divided into Mecca (early) and Medina (later). In Mecca he was married to a widow and had six children. His wife died shortly before he was driven out of Mecca into Medina. After her death, his sex life took an abrupt turn. He engaged himself to Aisha at the age of six and also married a widow.

In Medina he (age 53) started having sex with the nine-year-old Aisha. She was always his favorite. Most of the sexual details are told by Aisha and recorded in the Hadith.

By the time he died he had nine wives and several sex slaves. Mohammed is seen as the perfect Islamic husband and part of his perfection is his role as “stud” in the harem. Every Muslim male wants to be like Mohammed.

FP: How about the subject of wife beating?

Warner: Women must submit to men in all things. But this causes some human problems. If the woman does not submit, what is the man to do? After all, the wife will have violated the sacred law of submission. Mohammed had a solution to this misbehavior—beat her. After all, Allah said it was good to beat the wife. Koran 4:34 says that if a wife is not submissive, first admonish them and remind them that Allah wants them to submit. If they don’t submit then use social pressure by ignoring them and not having sex. If that doesn’t work, then beat them lightly.

Mohammed laid out more rules for these beatings. Do not strike them in the face. (That leaves public bruises.) One of his rules (Sunna) was not to ask a man why he beats his wife.

He stood around, more than once, while beatings were administered to women and slaves. Beatings are a fundamental part of Islamic justice. The Koran mentions Job beating his wife, beatings in Hell and beatings for adultery. Mohammed gave advice to a woman not to marry a certain man because he beat his wives, but he did not condemn the beatings. When a woman came before him seeking justice about her husband, her face was bruised from a beating. Mohammed made no comment about the beating that bruised her face.

Beating the Muslim wife is not to be done in outrage. No, the husband is putting the world into Islamic order of duality and submission. The husband submits to Allah and the Sunna of Mohammed. The wife must submit to Allah, the Sunna and her husband. Her lack of submission is a fault in the world and the beating restores the proper order of submission. Beatings are justice. So when the husband beats his wife, both are partaking in a sacred moment of good (what is permitted).

FP: Did Mohammed beat any of his wives?

Warner: We have only one record of Mohammed hitting one of his wives, Aisha. Her father, in the presence of Mohammed, also hit Aisha. Mohammed made no complaint. At one period in Medina, Mohammed said not to beat women. But that developed into the practical advice that if you beat your wife during the day, don’t expect to get any loving that night.

Mohammed was around a lot of beatings. For example, he stood by while Ali beat Mohammed’s slave to make her tell the truth about the affair of Aisha and her possible assignation with a jihadist.

FP: What was Mohammed’s family life like?

Warner: Mohammed had a very busy family life. But even though he was the most perfect man who ever lived, life was not always harmonious around the house. His favorite wife was the little Aisha, but for a while his favorite sex partner was a Christian slave called Mary. She was a gift to him and came with a sister. He gave the sister away as a present to help placate his favorite poet.

One day, one of his wives, Hafsa, went into her room to find Mohammed in some state of intimacy with his sex slave. Now, it was granted by Allah that Mohammed could have as many sex slaves as he wished, but not in a wife’s bedroom. Hafsa was outraged and Mohammed tried to placate her and told her not to mention it to the other wives. Good luck. The harem erupted in anger and coolness.

Mohammed retreated from his wives and set up his sex slave in another apartment. He stayed away for a month. Allah even weighed in on his sex life (Allah had a lot to say about Mohammed and sex and it was all good for Mohammed). Allah said Mohammed could divorce all of them and get better ones, if he wanted.

In the end, he went back to his familiar family scene.

Allah also gave him permission to marry his daughter-in-law. Mohammed craved his adopted son’s wife. Incest laws prevented his marriage, but Allah weighed in and said that his adopted son was never a real son, so go ahead and marry her. Even Aisha remarked that Allah was quick to grant Mohammed his pleasures.

There is a large amount of text about how the wives fought, argued, and plotted against each other. Jealousy was an ongoing state of affairs in the Mohammed household. It turns out that you can’t get a houseful of women to live in harmony with the ideal man.

FP: Can you talk a bit about menstruation?

Warner: Islam is always about submission and duality. What is amazing is how completely this is applied. There is no part of being a human being that is not to submit to Islam. Women are divided from men and must submit in all things, including every aspect of femininity. Men tell women what they can and cannot do about their most personal life, having a period. Allah and Mohammed tell women that they are unclean during their period. They should not go the mosque or pray during their period.

But it does not stop there. Men even tell women how long to nurse a child. Islam is obsessive/compulsive. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is left out for Islam to dictate.

FP: Is it true that Islamic doctrine advocates rape?

Warner: Mohammed and the Koran advocate rape of the kafirs. After their battles the jihadists partook in the pleasure of raping the wives and daughters of the conquered men. Duality separates the kafirs from a real humanity and submission means that the cruelest treatment is given to them so they will submit. It is only just.

Rape is a supreme tactic of war and Mohammed used it in everyway possible. Rape humiliates the kafir men and crushes the spirit of the women. It is the perfect weapon of fear and subjugation. How much more humiliated and subjugated can a woman be? The history of jihad shows that rape was a constant.

Rape is in use today, but the media refuses to talk about it. The media does not want to offend Islam by unpleasant news. The use of rape by Islam is a forbidden topic. Islamic rape of European women is happening now, but our media refuses to ever mention it. Now, it could be that the media does not like to connect sexual malfeasance with a religion, but the media eagerly reports about Catholic priests and children for instance. Think of the number of times the press has covered some preacher’s sexual misconduct. No, the media loves sex and religion.

What the media does not want to do is to criticize anything about Islam. Reporting the rape of the school children at Beslan, Russia would mean finding fault in Islam. And Islam would harass the media. The media fear Islam.

Dualistic ethics make rape a virtue. Islam has one ethical code for Muslims and another one for kafirs—dualism. The kafir woman is not real human. Allah hates kafirs and sanctioned rape. So when a Muslim rapes a kafir, he is partaking in sacred behavior, sanctioned by his ethics. Rape of the kafir is Sunna (following the ideal behavior of Mohammed).

FP: Why is the veil/hijab so important and what is its real role?

Warner: The veil is the supreme symbol of duality and Islam. How separate can a woman be? The most dangerous aspect of a women is her sexuality. All aspects of the veil/hijab control this, including the headscarf. It says to Muslims, “I have submitted to Islamic men.”

The Muslim female dress is a battle flag of jihad. She is better than us. It says to the civilization of equality and freedom, “I hate your freedom. I hate your equality. I want nothing of you (except your money and technology).” For the kafir the veil is the same symbol of subjugation and oppression that of the Ku Klux Klan white robe.

The veil/hijab is also a way of subjugating the woman in public. All aspects of being a woman are controlled by Islam (men).

In the end, there are two things to remember about Islam and sex—duality and submission . Islamic dualism separates men from women. Submission makes sure that the women submit to the men.

Islam is a civilization that is entirely based upon duality and submission. Our civilization is based upon equality and freedom. These two civilizations cannot co-exist. Islam is ahead of us here, because the incompatibility of the two is clearly stated and gives the world the solution for this incompatibility. We must submit to Islam and exchange freedom and equality for Islamic slavery.

This is not really an inherent problem, since we have faced other doctrines that said we must submit. Communism and Nazism come to mind. In the past our intellectuals have attacked our enemies of our civilization and defended our civilization. But our intellectual system has degenerated and is no longer capable of defending us or attacking our enemy.

Our intellectuals have decided that we don’t even have a civilization, it is just one big multicultural world where all of the cultures are equal. So there is nothing to defend.

The other thing that has happened in our schools is that debate is no longer used. Our intellectual system used to be based upon the arguments between two views, some form of the left/right, nature/nurture. There was no presumption of evil on the part of the opponent. As the debate went on, some middle ground of understanding occurred.

Debate is no more. There has been some kind of divine revelation that has decreed the final truth and what can be discussed. The Church of Political Correctness does not indulge debate, but decrees that all views that differ from its papal bulls are evil. Those who argue against Islam are bigots filled with hate.

Our universities are filled with arrogant ignorance about Islam. Find a single university that has a women’s studies program that teaches the sexist doctrine of Islam. Not even 1400 years of rape is of interest, much less the doctrine that supports it. Of course, the history department never teaches the suffering of the kafir and the dhimmi, just the glorious history of Islam. The universities do not teach the suffering of the deaths of 270,000,000 kafirs, so why should they teach about the suffering of women?

Why do our tax dollars go to our state universities, who refuse to teach the facts of doctrine and history? Why can’t we pressure them to teach this?

We may be too afraid to attack Islam, but why can’t we attack the universities and intellectuals? How can we justify not teaching and debating the doctrine of Islamic sexuality? What is the basis of not teaching the doctrine and history of Islam? It is all fact and the seed of the action of Islam in 1400 years of history. We must acknowledge and master the Islamic political doctrine and history or be annihilated as a civilization.

FP: Bill Warner, thank you for joining us.

Warner: Thank you Jamie.

Pastorius said...

Yes, thanks for correcting me. It looks like they controlled about 3/4 to 4/5 of the Iberian Peninsula.

Do I have that right?

Ray Boyd said...

Perhaps we should not jump in with glee when we see a story like this. By omitting to tell the whole story we are guily of manipulation.

The real reason the name was changed was simply because the building is no longer a pub and the name Saracens Head is a name that means pub to most people. The name was inappropriate for the use of the building as it now is.

Nothing to do with Muslims at all.

Pastorius said...

Good point, Ray. Should I take the story down, do you think?

Damien said...


I'm not Ray Boyd, but I personally don't think you should take the story down. I think you should put a correction at the end for those that have already read it.

Anonymous said...

But to put a correction, there must be a link to an article that says otherwise.

Anonymous said...

The invaders invaded the Peninsula but not the North and Nothwest part. The Natives started the Reconquest immediately. When you read the invaders remained in the Peninsula until 1492, it means the invaders remained in AndalucĂ­a which is in the south of the Peninsula. That´s where Isabell and Ferdinand de Castilla and Fernando kicked them off.

Anonymous said...

The invaders invaded the Peninsula but not the North and Nothwest part. The Natives started the Reconquest immediately. When you read the invaders remained in the Peninsula until 1492, it means the invaders remained in AndalucĂ­a which is in the south of the Peninsula. That´s where Isabella and Ferdinand de Castilla kicked them off.

Pastorius said...

Anonymous at 5:44 PM,

The article we linked to, in its journalistic evenhandedness, does make Ray Boyd's point, but it also makes our point. Ray Boyd thought we should include both sides in our analysis, and since I respect his opinion, I added his side.

Pastorius said...


I know. In fact, I was deliberately vague in my language, so that I wouldn't have to waste time with all the nuance.

Truth is, Muslims invaded Europe, and places like the Saracen's Head Pub are an example of the resentment and anger which Muslim behavior caused.

Pastorius said...

And, it shouldn't be forgotten.

Anonymous said...


By the way, here´s a map of The Reconquest:

Pastorius said...


Ray Boyd said...

Pastorious: As a younger man you may need an old git like me to pull on your reins from time to time LOL

BTW I have got my parachute site working until I can get the original back online. Go have a look, the links on the side bar will work as I put a redirect on. Interesting point: have I been targeted by someone because of my views AND why has my infidel YouTube channel been suspended. Anything to do with Obama?

It's all on

Pastorius said...

Unfortunately, I am not as young as I act.


I'm glad to see you got your site running again.

That's the same address, isn't it?

Ray Boyd said...

yes, same address but different site due to a re-direct on the original site.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...
There are a lot of documentaries on TVs misinforming people, spreading ignorance about islam.

This Anonymous says - do you mean like telling us that islam is a religion of peace?