The BBC Asks What the Penalty for Blasphemy Should Be — And Doesn’t Like the Answer

The hostess in the following clip from the BBC makes the mistake of asking her listeners — most of them presumably Muslims — what the penalty for blasphemy should be. She seems genuinely surprised when a caller tells her exactly what Islamic law specifies as the required punishment for blasphemers.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for uploading and annotating this video:

30 thoughts on “The BBC Asks What the Penalty for Blasphemy Should Be — And Doesn’t Like the Answer

  1. Blasphemy means the taking of the Name of God for an evil purpose. The Name is entrusted to the Jews and the Christians.

    By that standard, every Muslim, and the Muslim caller in particular, should be put to death.

    Deuteronomy 18:20: “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.”

    • Are we referring to the supposedly absolutely unique revealed name, the Tetragrammaton?

      After all, God (Gott, Goda), Deus (Zeus), Theos (Thein), etc. are not, strictly speaking, proper and unique names of the Creator.

      • In the normative case, it is the Tetragrammaton. To pronounce it is blasphemy per se, but the use of any divine name in any language for the purpose of, say, contradicting God’s truth about the law of murder, is blasphemy. Muslims deserve to die for this.

    • and that was what Jesus Christ was charged with by the Pharisees. The right of capital punishment was removed by the Romans at the death of Herod Antipater so they had to turn Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. The penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning, but they made an excepting in Jesus’ case so that Psalm 22 could be fulfilled.

  2. In September 1916 , Lord Alfred Douglas* applied at The Old Bailey ( the central criminal court for England & Wales ) for a writ alleging Blasphemy against George Moore of County Mayo.The application was rejected.
    Moore had written a novel in which Jesus is as a hapless victim of the imagination of Paul of Tarsus.This caused much offence in the British press : and the Irish press refused to review it.Yet the English Court refused to issue a writ.
    These days what are in effect Blasphemy laws are now being pursued in respect of any one offending the m*h*m*d*ns.

    The above Court verdict might well be considered by anyone in the USA or Canada who is under threat.

    ( Lord Alfred Douglas is the infamous `Bosie` who lead Oscar Wilde to destruction.In his later years he `got Religion`. )

  3. Free speech should always trump blasphemy laws, IMO. Of course I was brought up here in America and free speech was one of the things I learned about in school. The fricking muslims should try it for a change, instead of beheading anyone who doesn’t agree with them.

    I am SO SICK of muslims. If I were the queen of England I’d be deporting every single one of them as fast as possible, after this latest travesty. The only reason we can tolerate muslims in USA is because we have guns and they know it — they don’t know who has the guns but they do know that guns are a right here in USA.

    But to close I will say I feel sorry for muslims. It is such an intolerant religion and the penalties for “sin” are so horrendous — people of muslim origin come here for either welfare or freedom. Those who come for freedom must feel somewhat light as air when they arrive from their constricting and deadly home countries. I’m not sure about the ones who come for welfare but we do have our fair share out here on the plains. And it doesn’t bother me — we tax-payers have paid for welfare for many years and are kind of used to it. I guess it is enforced charity in a way, enforced by the government

    P.S. GOV, thanks for all you do!

    • Why feel sorry for Muslims? They are Islam; they created it and they sustain it.

      • Actually, they are required to sustain it under penalty of death. What you have therefore is a congregation of craven cowards who would rather be somewhere else, and not trussed up in their religious dress.
        If I were an imam I would issue a fatwa saying that Allah does not want people who do not truly worship him. All those who would not wish to die in jihad are free to leave and find another religion if they wish and if any of the other congregants attack those who have departed they will be guilty of murder.
        Then it would be very easy to separate the goats from the sheep.

      • Look at it this way. When they were little, their parents forcibly installed Islamic software into their still-growing, child-like minds. Now that the Islamic software has embedded itself in their minds and is up and running, it is extremely difficult for them, as adults, to uninstall it. Even when it is driving them to do awful, terrible things. Imagine having that Satanically designed code running inside your mind. It’s enough to drive anyone crazy.

    • Unfortunately, the Queen doesn’t have the authority to do as you suggest … though I suspect she may wish she had!

    • Speaking of muslims and welfare, there was an interesting link in the GOV daily news feed In Calgary, Canada, the number of “underprivileged Muslim families” has grown from 167 in 2007 to 7.000 in 2016. Of course they are on welfare, how else could they afford 10 kids out of a single unskilled job salary. I have no doubt the situation is the same in the US, Europe, Australia. This video talks about where US welfare is going, although it does not explicitly consider muslims.

      The most worrying part is not the welfare cost, but the intolerance and barbarism of islam. From the first link, the aim of Muslim Families Network Society (Canada) is “providing education and awareness, poverty relief and social supports based on Islamic principles and values.” The same organization offers programs for the “youth”: the “Learn and Live Qur’an Program” aimed at ages 5 and up, “includes Qur’an, Sunnah (teachings of the Prophet Mohammad Peace be upon Him), Tajweed (the science of correct recitation of the Qur’an), Tafseer (exegesis of the Qur’an), Memorization, Islamic studies, and Islamic History.” All this indoctrination (100% islam) is being done under the false pretext that it fills the gap in language and cultural barriers.

    • “people of muslim origin come here for either welfare or freedom…”

      Actually, there is a third reason that Muslims come here: hijra. “Hijra” is the mandated migration of Muslims into non-Muslim areas for the purpose of spreading Islam.

      So, public officials, even Trump, oppose Islam on the grounds that part of it is extreme terrorism. But, do we want a strongly-cohesive identity group to immigrate whose religious idea is to mandate Islamic law on not only Muslims, but on the rest of us? But politicians, like judges, craft their policies on the narrowest grounds possible so as to get their way with the least resistance.

      But, politicians are not educators. It is up to the real journalists, like GoV sites, to inform people. Real journalism is flourishing in the US, especially under the embattled First Amendment. It’s simply that people who are called journalists, like the mainstream news anchors, columnists and cable reporters, are not really journalists, but are entertainers.

      Actually, I’ve been looking at some of the Fox network hosts, like Hannity and Carlson, and they come very, very close. O’Reilly is a real journalist, who simply doesn’t understand genetics or Islam.

      Since I’m on this, why should we be paying welfare to immigrants? Nothing is free. Putting public monies into welfare subtracts it from citizen services, or even from letting the actual wage earner keep more of his money.

      And, the solution to polygamous Muslims having their wives and kids on welfare, is to require sterilization of all long-term welfare recipients, kids included. The sterilization would not be forced, but would simply be a condition for further public welfare assistance.

      I realize that to do anything even approaching this would require the impeachment and removal of a large proportion of federal judges.

  4. Her caller said nothing we didn’t already know.

    This young Muslim woman is either unbelievably naive, amazingly courageous or incredibly stupid.
    To be admired or to be pitied??

    All it takes is a fanatic Muslim who takes exception at her un-islamic stance and her voice can be silenced, for good.
    Unlike Salman Rushdie, as a BBC radio personality she is easy to track down.

  5. As the man said “If someone insults Islam there is a capital punishment”
    That’s fairly clear and unambiguous. The muslim woman presenter must go to a different mosque.

  6. “The BBC Asks What the Penalty for Blasphemy Should Be — And Doesn’t Like the Answer”

    This verifies yet another point the counter-jihad makes – namely that Muslims themselves don’t know their own religion. The interviewer admits (at -2:30) that she’s a Muslim; yet she disagrees with the death penalty for blasphemy. “We’re living in 2017,” she declaims.

    But the death penalty for speaking ill of Islam is a bedrock principle of Islam, as is the death penalty for apostasy. That this penalty is not practiced widely doesn’t mean or prove that it’s not there in Islam’s very DNA. Get the right conditions, like ISIS, and it will be applied regularly.

    They, meaning most Muslims, simply do not know their religion. But their leaders do, and exploit this ignorance.

    • I think many do know, but they are on the fence themselves. Instead of having all their allegiance to Islam, they also have a strong allegiance to the West and the way we do things. Of course, many Muslims call them apostates…

    • I believe she knows that the punishment is death, but asks the question because she thinks she is safe in England asking the question. That is what makes her ignorant.

    • ” most Muslims, simply do not know their religion…”


      A religion as pervasive in your life as Islam, and you don’t know the most basic principles of it? Unlikely.

      There are undoubtedly some Muslims who don’t like the horrific aspects of Islam, live as seculars in the West, and wish the issue would go away. These Muslims are, pretty much by definition, not active as Muslims and have zero influence in any Muslim politics or community consciousness.

      Why are they still Muslims? In the US and even Canada, a legal-age Muslim can move away from the community, keep his head low, and be pretty safe. Someone who publicizes his apostasy, of course, encounters danger. They could always move to a concealed carry state, like Texas, and at least feel like they had a fighting chance.

      The fact is, they are hedging their bets. They live a secular life, but they are not ready to renounce Islam because they may wish to take it up again in the future. There’s no philosophical object to Islam; it’s just inconvenient for them at this time. Their kids are exposed to the Koran and Hadith, which are by their nature manuals of terror.

      And we should allow any Muslim at all to immigrate: why?

  7. Get real guys…she is on BBC (British…in Britain). You are not a driver if you don’t know the punishment for speeding…you are not muslim if you don’t know the punishment for contradicting islam. This is pure dust in the eye for naive west population. I can’t believe you don’t see the main target. A muslim just killed some people in UK…and now BBC with a very “naive” muslim woman broadcasting about how peaceful some muslims are…they don’t even know that criticising islam means death. I wonder…the guy talking on the phone, is still free ?

    • 2 years ago, a guy from Syria complained about his 2 daughters insulted on the streets of Bucharest because they were covered in hijab. After police investigated the case, they discovered that it was “fake news”. The guy and his family was deported on the ground of inducing national guilt feelings (his main objective was to make romanians look “fascists”) and declared persona non grata. And you are wondering about this muslim woman simulating imbecility about islam…you are naive if you think she don’t know about blasphemy in islam.

    • One more thing…why asking on BBC what punishment is for blasphemy, when you as muslim must read the “qooran” ? There is very clear….you don’t need to ask on BBC live broadcast…you just read the quran. This is all poop of horse for westerners. Westerners don’t know shot about Christianity, so they will just believe the story. There are so many nice and pure muslims in the world…we must believe them.

    • I suggest BBC for next broadcast with a muslim woman, the woman must be topless to convince me.

  8. 1) This woman is an idiot…I wonder if she graduated from Oxford, Cambridge, or Imperial College, London.

    2) Despite her proclamation, her attitude marks her as an apostate, not a Muslim.

  9. Absurdistan…while in the west you can’t think about criticising muslims, on Romanian television I just saw a funny program involving stupid arabs (stupidity born from islam).
    In Romania, arab is synonym to nifty and dirty.

Comments are closed.