‘Nothing To Do With Islam’ – Dangerous New Faith On The Rise.

Rubber-DucksPolling data is often used to claim that atheists and the non-religious are the fastest growing ‘religious’ group. However, some observations made over the last few years have led me to conclude that’s clearly not the case.

I can reveal that the fastest growing faith-based ideology is in fact the cult of ‘Nothing To Do With Islam’ and its adherents; ‘The Notslammers’. This denomination appears to be an off-shoot of The Spineless Church of Apologia.

After a brief investigation I’ve been able to identify ‘The Notslammers’ central piece of dogma – which I refer to as ‘Duck Theory’.

Duck Theory; If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, pecks like a duck, tastes like a duck and in fact calls itself a duck – it’s actually nothing to do with ducks whatsoever, you gross, racist duckaphobe.

Most concerning of all however – this well subscribed faith appears to be responsible for the overwhelming majority of current day terror attacks.

To provide but a small selection from a much greater sample, these last few years alone we have seen; a soldier beheaded on the Streets of London, cartoonists slaughtered in France, scores of girls enslaved in Nigeria, formation of a genocidal ‘state’ and suicide bombings carried out almost daily – all in the name of ‘Nothing To Do With Islam’.

At least we can sleep easy in the knowledge that our world leaders – those charged with the vital task of combating this threat – have been vocal in singling out ‘Nothing To Do With Islam’ in relation to these abhorrent acts. I don’t know about you, but I’ll sleep easier knowing the problem has been clearly identified by those in charge.

No ducks were available for comment at the time of publishing.

You can listen to The Godless Spellchecker Podcast here, and support it by becoming a patron here.

38 comments

  • Well written! I too am increasingly concerned by this shifting of blame constantly. Read this from the delightful Huffington… beacon of the liberal blame shifter… http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/will-black/isis-islamic-state_b_6453846.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

  • Brilliant and spot on as usual..

  • This has been bothering me a lot lately. It may have nothing to do with the majority of those who follow Islam, but to say it has nothing to do with it appears to be missing at least some of the crux of it; this terror is perpetrated in the name of Islam. Ignoring this fact seems to be avoiding the issue at best, at worst it is helping fuel it’s rise.

  • Good post. Anyone who’s read Douglass Murray’s book Islamophillia will know exactly what your talking about. The good news maybe is that Sajid Javid (not sure if he’s muslim or ex-muslim) has said it’s lazy thinking and even DC agreed! Would bve nice to see some left or Lib dems say this.

    I always wonder how much politicians say this to prevent a backlash.

  • Like many blinded by prejudice you’ve utterly missed the point of the discussion which is that PEACEFUL Muslims are NOT Ducks. I happen to work with many Muslims who want nothing to do with extremism and while I DO NOT share their desire for submission to ANY faith, I respect them as fellow human beings and the rhetoric and propaganda that is spread (most shamefully by those pretending to be liberals) results in them being targeted and harassed and murdered. But I doubt you are rational enough to care about that, I mean the tide of Islam must be stopped at any cost… right?

    It seems to be you who cannot tell a Duck from a violent terrorist (it’s not a race you see but Racism is just a special class of prejudice so while some people might use the wrong WORD for it the ultimate implication is the same, you have sunken into the depths of prejudicial hatred towards and entire class that doesn’t share the actual property with which you SHOULD have an issue).

    Nevermind that the violence these terrorists commit kills 8 times more Muslims than westerners – that doesn’t even seem to register. And you completely and utterly ignore the conditions in which the sore of violence festers – and ignore the fact that non-Muslims in similar conditions are also frequently violent terrorists.

    You are making the exact same error that many others make and have made against non-believers which is the FALSE belief that they are ALL THE SAME based on a label – They would claim “Stalin and Mao were anti-church and anti-god so everyone who shares that position is clearly no better than Stalin and Mao.” The result was many peaceful non-believers were rounded up and either murdered or imprisoned.

    And what is your ‘solution’ to this problem? more violence? furthering the conditions that bred terrorism and violence? Rounding them all up in detention camps?

    But don’t worry, I have no delusion that you can see through the prejudice you harbor, your world is too small for that. Empty your hatred at me and tell me how stupid I am and how I’m an ‘apologist for violence’ – no matter how strongly I fight and argue against violence your hatred will not allow you to see reason anyway. But I’ll not set aside my compassion for the Muslim people who suffer the violence infinitely more acutely than you do.

    Pity, I rather liked you for many years now and I wrote to Twitter to get your Twitter reinstated as well (and I would do it again).

    Every human being deserves to be judged on their own merits, not arbitrarily grouped by a label and be pre-judged for crimes of which they are not guilty (guilt by association).

    If it was ONLY Islam that bred violence you might have an argument to make but there are violent extremists of every stripe, yes Christian violence is down in the more settled parts of the West where we enjoy considerable advantages over our neighbors (largely by exploiting them – the U.S. born out of slavery and slaughtering the Native Americans whom we labeled as terrorists for daring to resist our colonization of their lands).

    • Stephen Knight

      This is a rather large, misplaced and accusatory rant. I’m not sure how you have managed to infer all that about me from a piece existing solely to mock those who are unable to see that Islam does have something to do with Islamism.
      At no point have I ever denied the majority of Muslims are peaceful. Thank you for proving my point about the inability to have a sensible discussion on this topic.

    • Those Dark Star refers to as peaceful muslims, are just not beeing good muslims. Read what the bok they believe in dictates, then decide what islam is. The bible clearly state that you should stone this and that. The fact that normal people dont, does not make christianity any better, it just makes the people worse at beeing christian.

    • I think you may have misread the blog. It repeatedly says ‘Islam’ and never once says ‘Muslims’.

    • Why are you even dragging peaceful Muslims into this? This is not about peaceful Muslims who are irrelevant to this discussion. This is about the large and growing number of horrible extremist Muslims who want to cut your head off and mine. I understand that there is the problem of people confusing the goodies and the baddies and that we should use our powers of discretion more, but frankly, the growing number of people want to destroy civilisation is of greater concern (Sorry to all the wrongly persecuted Muslims who are suffering from prejudice).

  • Ooops! This it seems has touched a nerve with the above contributor. I understand the point of this article is that the MSM seem to want to bend over backwards in their attempts to distance these acts of terror from the Islamic faith – when they are all clearly carried out in the name of Islam. It is the denial that there is any sort of link between the act of terror & this ideology that irks with most people. If ‘Dark Star’ followed GS as he claimed he did then he’d know that the disdain is held for all religion and not just Islam – so it is not a prejudice at all. Please curb your offence.

  • I don’t understand how these “terrorists” who are only carrying out the ACTUAL word of the holiest book of Islam are seen as “extremists” and non Islam? The fact is Islam (just as Christianity/catholic) IS extreme at its core! I cringe at using the word respect in regard to these Islam “extremists” or other groups like West Borro baptists… And I don’t respect their actions at all, but at least they aren’t hypocrites… They actually FOLLOW the book of their supposed religious identity! There is no such thing as a secular Jew or a secular Muslim, that’s an oxymoron… It’s like saying I am a heterosexual homosexual! Either live by ALL of the religious book that you claim to have faith in or DONT call yourself OF that religion because you’re NOT! The problem is that people cannot let go of a lifetime of religious identity even though they struggle because deep down they don’t believe what the book says.

  • Great blog again GS. Dark star, try reading the article again and have a little think about what points GS is making.

  • This this the thing that I find most confusing. Moderate Muslims and aplogists keep saying that terrorists are not Muslim. Except that the terrorists are screaming “We are Muslim!!!” So… what am I supposed to do with this? To me, it doesn’t matter what the moderates say because the terrorists are the ones telling us what is directly influencing their decisions: Islam. So, we have to address this. I sympathize with moderates being afraid that people will treat them horribly because they share the same religion as those doing the horrible things. But we cannot ignore the fact that Islam is directly influencing the attackers. We just can’t.

  • anatomy of a internet post poster states something on their page most agree otherwise why would they be following said page, someone states their opinion which is counter to the original post and then everyone points out the dissenters error……………….. Dark Stars opinion is different that is all thank fuck he didn’t make a spelling mistake
    a man walks into a bank and robs it it makes local news, a man robs a bank and screams something religious ( any religion ) and its national news THAT is a problem

  • Shouldn’t the phrase be spelled “NotIslammers”?

  • I love ‘the duck theory’, its absolutely brilliant! but Add the comment from a Muslim ‘We are not ducks’ really helps to illuminate the problem. They simple dont understand our sense of humour and perhaps they only have a very limited sense of humour in the first place as illustrated by the reaction to that very funny video ‘The Happy Muslim’ which was written and produced by ‘Liberated Muslims’ but vilified by all the rest(Clearly not a tiny minority) for being debauched and degenerate because young Muslim girls and boys were actually enjoying themselves laughing and singing.
    I am not an Islamophobe and I certainly dont hate any individual Muslims either but I think I have the right to criticise a religion which clearly inspires the kind of hatred and ‘Middle age Morality’ we have seen displayed so graphically in the last 20 yrs. The problem is that most of the ‘real Muslims’ dont live in the UK, they live in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iran , Iraq, India and Egypt and other parts of the Middle East . Wahabism,one of the most violent, extreme and radical branches of the faith comes from Saudi Arabia, the oil rich home of Islam, the protectorate of the Holy Mosques, Mecca and Medina and the birthplace of Muhamed. Hardly a fringe element I would guess.

  • “To provide but a small selection from a much greater sample, these last few years alone we have seen; a soldier beheaded on the Streets of London, cartoonists slaughtered in France, scores of girls enslaved in Nigeria, formation of a genocidal ‘state’ and suicide bombings carried out almost daily – all in the name of ‘Nothing To Do With Islam’.”

    Like Bill Maher said: “What we’ve said all along, and have been called bigots for it, is when there’s this many bad apples, there’s something wrong with the orchard.”

  • The definition of a Muslim is someone who identifies themselves as a Muslim – a person who follows some variety of Islam, otherwise we get into “no true Muslimism” from right across the spectrum: Islamists who say that about progressives such as Maajid Nawaz, Sunnis in Pakistan about Ahmadis, to others who say it about ISIS – your Ducks.

    Equally, the leaders of the Lord’s Resistance Army would identify themselves as Christians, as would the Christians in the “Democratic Republic of Congo” who have been massacring their Muslim compatriots.

    The difference is that we don’t hold other Christians, or the idea of Christianity, responsible for the brutal ideology and actions of the LRA in the way that we identify the general idea of Islam with violent Islamism. Of course, Islamism is much more widespread and has for decades been promoted by the Saudis and others, backed by massive wealth. And Quaranic literalism provides religious legitimacy. So there’s clearly a difference of degree. But I can’t make up my mind whether there’s really a difference of principle. Both religions have numerous varieties, and both have mad, bad extremists.

    It’s wrong to deny that the Islamists terrorists are Muslims – they clearly are, and they tell us they are. But the enemy is the Islamist ideology they adhere to. There are plenty of Muslims who are on the same side as the rest of us when it’s put that way. Islam isn’t going to go away. But Islamism must be contained. It’s only other Muslims who can defeat this appalling ideology.

    • But why call yourelf Muslim if you dont adhere to the ideology of your religions holiest book? Same with Christianity/Judaism… if you dont adhere to the ideology of the bible, how are you Christian/Catholic/Jewish? The book of your religion is horrific, you cant cherry pick the pages you like and say that you dont follow the laws of the “other pages”… then you are a hypocrite. The “extremists” are the TRUE followers of the religion (the Quran and The bible) in both Islamic and Abrahamic religions. The “peaceful” muslims and Christians are hypocritical brainwashed folk who cant let go of their culturally indoctrinated identity, even though they dont believe in the ideology of the book. Stop calling yourself Muslim if you dont want to be attached the the atrocities that the religions book calls for. Same goes for Christians, Jews and Catholics.

      • This is a classic example of “no true Muslimism”, and exactly the argument applied by the extremists. What right have we as atheists got to tell someone who says they are a Muslim and for whom Islam is an important part of their personal identity, but who rejects the crude literalism of the Islamists, that we know better?

        • I am expressing what seems logical. It’s is like saying I am KKK but I don’t believe in the part about white supremacy… Huh? Then how are you KKK? Because ur parents told you so and you wear a white hat? If being part of an atrocious ideology is “part of your identity” that is unfortunate and I understand that it takes some psychological unraveling to move away from a cult that you don’t truly follow. What is this defense about “literalism”? So ok I don’t “actually” “Literally” follow Islamic faith but I am still of it? Huh? There is no logic in that.

    • The apologists for Islamism and Islam for that matter always use the same inconsistencies and violent passages in the old and new testaments of Judaism and Christianity to defend the even more inexcusable passages in the Koran. They are completely ignoring the very obvious fact that Muslims claim the Koran is the direct and unalterable truth straight from Allah. That is the real reason that Islam is so dangerous because it inspires the true believers to act literally on those often very outrageous words without any qualms, because Allah is directing them.

      • You’re right that Quaranic literalism is far more widespread and therefore more dangerous, than Bibliccal literalism. But it’s not true to say that all Muslims are literalists nor that those who are don’t pick and choose the bits they want to emphasise, just as Christian literalists do (they both have to because the Quaran and the Bible are inconsistent). The risk here is that atheists simply support the “only true Muslims think like us” narrative of ISIS and other hardliners.
        Islam, in all its many forms, will not be going away in the foreseeable future. So simply saying it’s all dangerous isn’t going to get us anywhere. Far more useful to recognise and support those Muslims who advocate enlightened forms of Islam. They are the only ones who will make a dent in the Islamist ideology which feeds extremism, and they’re on the same side as we are.

        • Very true. Islam will not be going away and of course its obvious that we must support the more enlightened and educated Muslims which I certainly do. Unfortunately we are always told the politically correct lie that the fundamentalists are just a tiny insignificant minority. It seems to me that it is the other way around. The majority of Muslims come from the real Islamic world of the Middle East and Asia NOT Europe. European Muslims tend to me much more moderate and reasonable in their approach and may well be on the same side as us but this is because they have been exposed to Western values of free thought and discussion. But they are the minority. The most worrying factor is that the more radical elements in the real Islamic world dont need to be reasonable or moderate because they can simply spread their authoritarian ideology by sheer force of numbers not by reason at all. They have large families and all their offspring have little choice but to follow the blind and narrow path. They are slowly overriding the moderates by size alone.

          • The deliberate spread of Wahhbism by Saudi money has also been a major factor I think, exacerbated by big population growth in North Africa and other countries, a lot of unemployed young people etc. Having said that, the recent elections in Tunisia are encouraging. Pakistan is another issue.

            We can probably do little ourselves other than to try to reverse the growth of Islamism here in the UK by challenging people like the MCB when they try to speak for all Muslims – they’re not extremists, but very conservative (don’t think children should be taught dance in school for example) – as well as the obvious bad guys like Anjem Choudary, while defending moderate Shias and the Ahmadiyyas (pretty conservative but “Love for all, hatred for none” motto – persecuted as heretical “non Muslims” by hardliners) and backing the progressives like Sara Khan, Maajid Nawaz, the Muslim Institute (publishers of the Critical Muslim) etc.

What do you think? Leave some comments!