Donate Now

And your point is?

And your point is?

  • Posted by Maryam Namazie
  • On February 21, 2012
  • 6 Comments
  • Sharia

The Telegraph (which must give away a free bottle of water that costs more than the paper with every issue) has a piece on the ‘slave roots’ of Richard Dawkins. This ‘awkward revelation’ is yet another fine piece of journalism.

I suppose since my grandfather led Friday prayers and was an ‘Islamic scholar’, I have an Islamist gene in me that will one day most likely reveal itself when I set up a Sharia court.

And the Telegraph’s point is?

 

 

6 Comments

nemothederv
Mr. Dawkins must be either clean as a whistle or very good at covering up if this is the best they dig up.
Alban Bytyqi
Turning the Journalist's point that never was on its head would clearly show that they too are offspring of some imoral people compare to the morals we hold dear today. There isn't really much to be said except that that journalist was paid perhaps stupid money to come up with some stupid smears against one of country's most knowledgeablescience promoter. The sad bit is that the telegraph has dropped its standards to tit for tat services rathern doing is job of keeping people informed. Shame on the telegraph.
lordshipmayhem
Their point is on the top of the editor's sharp little skull.
Re-Enlightenment
The Telegraph’s non-point on Dawkins and slavery was scraping the underside of a non-existent barrel that has a massive hole where its base used to be. I thought Dawkins stayed pretty calm on The Big Questions on Sunday morning when it came up again. Cristina ‘Christ’ Odone was also on the programme and she was grinning like a priest in a playground, the dumb bint. Slavery and Islamic ‘scholars’ aside (I’m going to try and remember the quotes in future, as per Dawkins’s speech at the rally), we are all the offspring of incredibly competent rapists – and that includes Telegraph ‘journalists’.
Iain
The Telegraph's point is that secularism is bad so the chief secularist (for so they have ordained him) Dawkins is bad. If the fact that he had a 17th century ancestor who held values that would not be supported by a 21st century secularist is the best smear they can come up with then they'll just have to run with that. Every single person alive today has a 17th century ancestor who was objectionable by some 21st century norm but Dawkins is special because, erm, nah. I give up.
    piero
    Yeah. I gave up too. It is just too stupid and base to reason about it. My only hope is that this shameful episode figures prominently in the annals of infamy.

Leave a Reply to nemothederv Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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

Maryam Namazie