If you'd like to republish any of my articles, you are welcome to do so. Please add a link to the original post on my blog.

Thursday, 15 January 2015

Christianity Saved Europe from Islam: Je Suis Charlie Martel

Fantastic video from ramzpaul.

It has been the Christian cross and Christian Church that has defeated the invading Islamic armies again and again, throughout the history of Europe, let's never forget that.

Now Europe is losing Christianity, and is losing to Islam: can that be only a coincidence?

Wake up, people! The attacks on Christianity have come from various sources, but none of these sources have had European interests at heart. Sometimes these attacks are repeated by naïve, unaware, possibly well-meaning "useful idiots", but mostly they are conceived and put into effect by those organised groups and elites who have a purpose: breaking up indigenous European coherence and resistance, by depriving us of the core set of principles and values what has kept us united for millennia.

Yes, united even after the Reformation. Protestants and Catholics have fought, but so have English against French, British against Germans, French against Prussians, Florentines against the Sienese, Pisans against the Lucchese, Scots against English, Dutch against Portuguese, English against Spaniards, Italians against Austrians, Russians against Swedes, Poles and Lithuanians against Russians and Swedes, and more European nations against European nations.

In the Thirty Years War (1618–1648), one of the longest and most destructive conflicts in European history, Catholic and Protestant countries on one side fought against other Catholic and Protestant countries on the opposite side.

Our divisions along national lines haven't stopped us from feeling all Europeans and part of the great, glorious Western civilisation; exactly the same can be said about our divisions along religious lines - provided that they relate only to different confessions within Christianity, to which all we Westerners historically and genuinely belong.

The total disaster of multiculturalism has demonstrated that a society cannot survive without a shared central belief.

Do we really want to risk the end of the West, the most beautiful human creation the world has ever seen? And for what? Because we have been subjugated by alien anti-Christian propaganda? Without rebellion, without a fight?

This is based on just empirical truth: if we want to defeat Islam, what else can we resurrect if not the spirit of the Crusades?


  1. Sir George Bernard Shaw

    I have always held the religion of Muhammad in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing phase of existence which can make itself appeal to every age. I have studied him - the wonderful man and in my opinion far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the Saviour of Humanity.

    I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness: I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today.

    1. In his 1899 book, “The River War: An Account of the Reconquest of the Sudan,” he wrote, “How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy.”

      “The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live,” Churchill wrote in 1899.

      “The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities – but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith,” Churchill wrote.

    2. “The agenda and political faith of Saddam Hussein, Yasir Arafat, Osama bin Laden, Hamas and the rest of the international Islamic terrorists can be traced back to World War II and two key figures, Adolf Hitler and Amin al-Husseini, known as the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.”

      “The Nuremberg and Eichmann trials revealed that Nazi official Adolf Eichmann met with the British-appointed Mufti in Palestine in 1937. Following this meeting, the Mufti would become essentially an agent of Nazi Germany charged with the funding and organizing of pro-Nazi organizations in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Iraq.”

      “The Mufti’s activities in Nazi Germany and occupied Europe would set the stage for today’s Islamic terrorism. On April 25, 1941, the Nazis sent the Mufti to Nazi-occupied Bosnia, where he assumed the title ‘Protector of Islam.’ On Feb. 10, 1943, Hitler ordered the creation of the Nazi SS Division Hanzar and approximately 100,000 Bosnian Muslims volunteered. The Mufti, serving as chief administrator, referred to these Nazi-Muslim brigades as ‘the cream of Islam.’ ”

      “Nazi attitudes regarding Islam were perhaps best expressed by Himmler, who is reported to have stated: “I have nothing against Islam because it educates the men in this division for me and promises them heaven if they fight and are killed in action. A very practical and attractive religion for soldiers.”

    3. Inside the Third Reich.

      Speer reports that "Hitler had been much impressed by a scrap of
      history he had learned from a delegation of distinguished Arabs." The delegation had speculated that the world would have become "Mohammedan" if the Berbers and Arabs had won the Battle of Tours in the 8th Century AD, and that the Germans would have become heirs to "a religion that believed in spreading the faith by the sword and in subjugating all nations to that faith. Such a creed was perfectly suited to the German temperament." Speer then presents Hitler's own speculations on this subject:

      Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.

      This exchange occurred when Hitler received Saudi Arabian ruler Ibn Saud’s special envoy, Khalid al-Hud al-Gargani. Earlier in this meeting Hitler noted that one of the three reasons why Germany had warm sympathies for the Arabs was:

      … because we were jointly fighting the Jews.
      This led him to discuss Palestine and conditions there, and he then stated that he himself would not rest until the last Jew had left Germany. Kalid al Hud observed that the Prophet Mohammed … had acted the same way. He had driven the Jews out of Arabia ….

      Gilbert Achcar wryly observes that the Führer did not point out to his Arab visitors at that meeting that until then he had incited German Jews to emigrate to Palestine, and the Reich actively helped Zionist organizations get around British-imposed restrictions on Jewish immigration.

      Achcar also points out that the German version of "Mein Kampf" designates the Arab people as one of the lowest races of humanity, though this section was not included in the Arabic translations of the book.

      Prior to the Second World War, all of North Africa and the Middle-East were under the control of European powers. Despite the Nazi racial theories which denigrated Arabs as members of an inferior Semitic race, many Germans made exceptions for the Arabs who assisted the Reich in fighting the British for possession of the Middle East.

      Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini, for example, was granted "honorary Aryan" status by the Nazis for his close collaboration with Hitler and Nazi Germany.

      In 1932, Hitler was given the name Abu Ali in Syria, and he was named Muhammad Haidar in Egypt. Adolf Hitler was celebrated in large parts of the Arab world, and some newspapers even likened him to the Prophet. Many Arabs thought the Germans would free them from the rule of the old colonial powers France and Britain.

      After France's defeat by Nazi Germany in 1940, some Arabs were chanting against the French and British around the streets of Damascus: "No more Monsieur, no more Mister, Allah's in Heaven and Hitler's on earth." Posters with Arabic sayings: "In heaven God is your ruler, on earth Hitler" were frequently displayed in shops in the towns of Syria.

      There were many wealthy Arabs who traveled to Germany in the 1930s and brought back fascist ideals and incorporated them into Arab Nationalism. One of the principal founders of Ba'athist thought and the Ba'ath Party, Zaki al-Arsuzi, stated that Fascism and Nazism had greatly influenced Ba'athist ideology. An associate of al-Arsuzi, Sami al-Jundi, wrote:

      "We were racists. We admired the Nazis. We were immersed in reading Nazi literature and books that were the source of the Nazi spirit. We were the first who thought of a translation of Mein Kampf. Anyone who lived in Damascus at that time was witness to the Arab inclination toward Nazism. Michel Aflaq a founder of the Ba'athist philosophy admired Hitler and the Nazis for standing up to Britain and America. This admiration would combine aspects of Nazism into Ba'athism."

    4. after reading the well written responses to your vapid nonsense, you can take your head out of your ass now.

    5. Bernard Shaw also admired Hitler. So no coincidence thatr he liked Muhammed, and Muslims like Hitler.


    6. The George Bernard Shaw quote is false! He never said this!

  2. Typical Clap Trap from a Religion of Peace Advocate that lies to Infidels..
    I prefer the factual statement of Manuel II

    From wikipedia
    In a lecture delivered on 12 September 2006, Pope Benedict XVI quoted from a dialogue believed to have occurred in 1391 between Manuel II and a Persian scholar and recorded in a book by Manuel II (Dialogue 7 of Twenty-six Dialogues with a Persian) in which the Emperor stated: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." Many Muslims were offended by what was perceived as a denigration of Muhammad, and many reacted violently. For others it may simply have been false indignation or the assumption of offence by non-Muslims. In his book, Manuel II then continues, saying, "God is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death..."

    I don't see any other main stream religion where a large % of the followers believe in killing those that do not believe as they do.

    1. I wonder of Iftikhar is a masochist, as he seems to love getting his arse kicked.


  3. Wonder how Sir George Bernard Shaw would feel about the Islamic terrorist group Boko Haram killing over 2000 Nigerians?

    Another Point of View:
    Even Bertrand Russell, who in no way is a critic of the Islamic world, writes in the Second Volume of The History of Western Philosophy:
    Arabic philosophy is not important as original thought. Men like Avicenna and Averroes are essentially commentators. Speaking generally, the views of the more scientific philosophers come from Aristotle and the Neoplatonists in logic and metaphysics, from Galen in medicine, from Greek and Indian sources in mathematics and astronomy, and among mystics religious philosophy has also an admixture of old Persian beliefs. Writers in Arabic showed some originality in mathematics and in chemistry--in the latter case, as an incidental result of alchemical researches.

    Mohammedan civilization in its great days was admirable in the arts and in many technical ways, but it showed no capacity for independent speculation in theoretical matters. Its importance, which must not be underrated, is as a transmitter. Between ancient and modern European civilization, the dark ages intervened. The Mohammedans and the Byzantines, while lacking the intellectual energy required for innovation, preserved the apparatus of civilization--education, books, and learned leisure. Both stimulated the West when it emerged from barbarism--the Mohammedans chiefly in the thirteenth century, the Byzantines chiefly in the fifteenth. In each case the stimulus produced new thought better than any produced by the transmitters--in the one case scholasticism, in the other the Renaissance (which however had other causes also).
    Read more:

  4. In the early 700’s AD life begins to change drastically in Europe: coinage disappears, artisans are forced to give up their trades and go back to living on the land, books disappear, schools close, the roads and aqueducts and other infrastructure are no longer maintained and the standard of living throughout the Roman world begins to decline sharply.

    What happened? The answer is quite simple. This was when the Islamic armies began their war against the West. Starting in the late 600’s AD these armies invaded Egypt, North Africa and the old Fertile Crescent area. With them they not only brought Islam they also brought practices, which resulted in economic catastrophe for the entire region.

    Roman, Egyptian and Persian agricultural practices were destroyed in most of the conquered territories. As a result food production plummeted and ancient agribusiness was replaced by subsistence farming. Cities were abandoned as their inhabitants were forced back on to the land in order to avoid starvation. The Fertile Crescent area of Iraq and Iran suffered particularly harshly as the loss of the old technology, especially well planned irrigation works, resulted in the use of crude methods of irrigation, which led to the contamination of the Tigris – Euphrates Basin through salt percolation and turned it into the barren desert seen today.

    The other economic killer was the Islamic destruction of the old overland trading system. In the ancient world there had been large scale foreign trade extending from China to Britain. The Islamic refusal to deal with the “Infidels” led to the decline of this trade and the destruction of the second most important component of the ancient economy: trade with India, China, Persia, Egypt and the other advanced economic centers of the ancient world. This trade did not recover until the Age of Exploration when Europeans discovered how to sail around the Islamic barrier to foreign trade.

    The Dark Ages were an enormous setback for European civilization. This revisionist version of history is far from the truth, if you doubt it I challenge you to read “Mohammed and Charlemagne.”


    The problem is the presence of immigrants from non-European cultures, Islam included. For this we must look at the contribution of Organized Jewry. It's news to most that the Jews and Moors were united against a common enemy, Christianity, in the time of the Crusades. Little has changed on the Continent. Note the flag on the tower and the Moor's comrade-at-arms, not referred to in the description.

  6. Christianity is a religion and it is peaceful. It is a religion because it is mainly a set of beliefs and attitudes without a governing system. However its doctrines are interpreted to justify mixing third world races with first world races in the same country because 'we're all equal in god's eyes.' This is destroying America and Europe.

    The idea that Islam is inherently peaceful is wrong. Is government inherently peaceful? No. Government is tasked with upholding laws and protecting its people among other things. It uses force and often violence to accomplish this. It is inherently forceful.

    Therefore, since Islam is both a religion and a governing system it can never be considered inherently peaceful as long as it comes with Sharia law.

    These simple distinctions prove that Islam is inherently forceful and employs violence. George Bernard Shaw's views are insane. He's either a knowing accomplice to the destruction of Europeans or a useful idiot.

  7. The disease that kills a person with AIDS is not AIDS. AIDS ruins the defense system of the body so the person dies because of a normal disease (for example, influenza). This is called "an opportunistic infection".

    The problem with Europe (or the Western Civilization) is not Islam. Islam is an opportunistic infection. The problem is that most Westerners are against Christianity (which is our shared identity and our defense system). Islam takes advantage of that to conquer Europe, which is defenseless.

    During the late XX century (after centuries of trying), Western elites managed to inoculate the masses with the same nihilism they had long worshiped.
    According to this "new gospel" repeated once and again by schools and mass media, there is no God, there is nothing worth fighting for, you only live to get as much pleasure as possible during your short existence, "Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die".

    In addition, Christianity is a religion you must despise and fight because it sets limits to following your basic instincts. All the Western history is a mistake and we must abandon our culture and limit ourselves to buy, eat, f*ck. Hedonism must be your reason to live, your religion.

    This is the ideology that makes the West to be unable to resist Islam. The reason is "Why should you fight against Islam conquering Europe? You will be dead when this happens. Live your life to the fullest! (meaning abandon yourself to your instincts, like an animal, so you don't aspire to something better and are easily manipulated by politicians) Buy, eat, f*ck for tomorrow you will die."

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Subject: Charlie Hebdo

    Charlie Hebdo was deliberately Islamophobic as a reflection of their political worldview. The Hebdo anti-Muslim cartoons remind me of the notorious anti-Jewish cartoons in the German Nazi press of the 1930s - only far more pornographic. The obsessive pounding on Muslims to which your weekly has devoted itself for more than a decade has had very real effects. It has powerfully contributed to popularising, among “left-wing” opinion, the idea that Islam is a major “problem” in French society. That belittling Muslims is no longer the sole privilege of the extreme right, but a “right to offend” which is sanctified by secularism, the Republic, by “co-existence”. And even - let’s not be stingy with the alibis! - by the rights of women. It’s widely believed today that the exclusion of a veiled girl is a sign, not of stupid discrimination, but of solid, respectable feminism, which consists of pestering those whom one claims to be liberating. Draped in these noble intentions that flatter their ignorance and exempt them from any scruples, we see people with whom we were close, and whom we believed mentally healthy, abruptly start to cut loose with a stream of racist idiocies. Each has their own source of authority: Skirt Day [film starring Isabelle Adjani - trans.], Elisabeth Badinter, Alain Finkielkraut, Caroline Fourest, Easter Bruckner, [Prime Minister] Manuel Valls, [fascist National Front leader] Marine Le Pen or countless others, there’s one for every taste and “sensibility”. But it’s rare that Charlie Hebdo is not cited to support the golden rule authorising us to spew all over Muslims. And, since your disciples have learned their lessons well, they never fail to exclaim when they’re caught red-handed: “But it is our right to mock religions! Don’t confuse legitimate criticism of Islam with anti-Arab racism!”

    Freedom of speech is only a rally-ing cry when defending the right to make fun of Muslims. Making fun of Jews or Christians would be considered beyond the pale. Try running a cartoon of Jesus fornicating with a sheep and see who's firebombing who...? Charlie Hebdo is the symbol of free speech now As well as the symbol of offensive speech.

    The coalition of state terrorists -along with 40 heads of states, displayed their unity in Paris on 11/01/15 and showed their deep hatred against the Muslims. They killed more than a million in Iraq and Afghanistan in the recent wars. Did they show a single moment’s silence in their memory? France herself killed 1.5 million Algerians in its war of occupation in the sixties. Did they pay any homage to those innocents who were killed there? Recently the Christians killed thousands of Muslims in Central African Republic. Where is the solidarity with the innocent victims of the genocide?
    But they showed solidarity with Charlie Hebdo! They chanted chorus not only in Paris but also in all major European cities: “We are all Charlie”. What does that mean? It means, like hateful Charlie Hebdo they too declared that they are equal abuser and hater of our beloved prophet (peace be upon him). They are not ready to retreat an inch from that abusive path. The butcher of Gaza -the Israeli PM was cordially welcomed in their midst.

    They talk about protecting western values and culture. Do we need any lecture to understand the western values and culture? Didn't they display those values and culture during the last several centuries all over the world? Is it not the values and culture of military aggression, occupation, colonisation, imperialism, ethnic cleansing, slave-trading, genocide, World Wars, gas chambers, dropping atom bombs, waterboarding, Guantanamo Bay, Abu Gharib, Sabra, Satilla and Gaza? They killed 75 million only in two World Wars! Who else can match their brutality? Their war machines are still not withdrawn from the Muslim lands.

    When all the Muslims will unite together to tell the world that we are all Palestinian?

    1. Racists are people who understand the reality of race. The term racist should never be considered pejorative. If we ever become a 'post-racial' world we simultaneously become a 'post-reality' world.

      Christianity is simply an emergent property of the white race. It may help unite whites. However the fundamental uniting force behind the white race is their genetics.

      Whites have always warred with the purpose of establishing a base of law across the world. They are responsible for the immense relative peace and prosperity of the world.

      The arab race has declared war and slaughtered millions of whites since the times of ancient Greece. They have attempted to promulgate their primitive, savage culture since the beginning of history.

  10. Making fun of Jews or Christians would be considered beyond the pale. ry running a cartoon of Jesus fornicating with a sheep and see who's firebombing who...?

    As most Muslims, you are a liar. Charlie Hebdo published lots of blasphemies against Christianity. For example, a cartoon about Jesus sodomizing God the Father. What did Christians? Nothing. But picture your pedophile and bloody prophet with a bomb (which is the true, because Muhammad conquered by the sword) and you all behave like the savages you are.

    On a different topic, I see what Iftikhar Ahmad's strategy is: to post lengthy comments full of BS, so other comments are not visible. This way he suffocates discussion about topics he doesn't like to be discussed.

    Dear Enza, if you want to save the West, you must before save this blog. It is incredible that only one Muslim guy can ruin discussion. It shows Western culture weakness when it cannot even stop virtual bullies such as this guy.

    There is a tool for this kind of trolls: to ban it from the blog so we can have a honest discussion.

  11. The idea of free speech is flawed in theory and politicised in practice. It is an idea impossible to implement, and has never been implemented anywhere historically – not even today, in liberal societies.

    Free speech does not exist in absolute form. There is no absolute freedom to insult. Across the liberal West, we find defamation laws, sedition laws, professional standards and journalistic standards of reporting about politicians and celebrities. In Germany, denial of the Holocaust is prohibited by law. In the United Kingdom, the Public Order Act makes “threatening, abusive or insulting words” a criminal offence. In Australia, Commonwealth Criminal Code makes it an offence for a person to use a postal or similar service “in a way … that reasonable persons would regard as being … offensive.”

    As for in practice, we find numerous examples of people being convicted for mere speech. In the United Kingdom, Azhar Ahmad was convicted in 2012 for “grossly offensive communications” because of a comment he made on Facebook about British soldiers killed in Afghanistan, which read, “all soldiers should die and go to hell.” District Judge Jane Goodwin, in arriving at the conviction, noted that the test was whether what was written was “beyond the pale of what’s tolerable in our society.” Even Charlie Hebdo, the magazine printing the offensive cartoons while claiming to be a bastion of free speech – previously lambasted their own cartoonist Maurice Sinet for writing a biting article about Nicholas Sarkozy’s son which appeared to denigrate him for marrying a Jewish heiress for money. Sinet was subsequently sacked by his employers for refusing to apologise.

    So in reality the principle of free speech is used selectively as a political tool. When Muslim sanctities are denigrated, we’re lectured about free speech and how it can’t be qualified. Yet when Muslims and others insult, they are met with the force of law. Who decides about when and how to qualify free speech? The real question, then, is not about freedom. It is about how far power can go. It’s about power using the notion of freedom to extend and enforce its reach.

    Is the western world really in a position to lecture others about violence? Or about values? The “free world” seeks to dominate and impose itself upon the rest by means of military, political and epistemic violence: perpetuating Orientalist fantasies about Muslims being prone to violence, backward, unable to manage themselves; propping up dictators like Sisi and King Abdullah; destroying entire countries through war and invasion; using unmanned drones to kill indiscriminately in Yemen and Pakistan. This is the broader context of provocation in which the global Muslim reaction to insults come. It here that far more attention needs to be focussed.

    One thing that needs to be clear is that Islam is not against critique. Any attempt to quash or stifle serious debate is unacceptable in Islam. Critique of any ideas or beliefs is halal. Insulting any beliefs or people is not. Critique Islam all you want. Write in measured, considered tones about why Islam is not the truth, or why the Prophet was not a prophet. Such books fill bookstores across the West as it is. Never have any of these books resulted in a riot. But to mock, to denigrate, to provoke, to agitate – that is something else, and is unacceptable.

    To insult is not an acceptable mode of interaction for mature, self-respecting people. It is the modus operandi of pseudo-intellectuals with nothing to offer, no intent to engage, and only interested in projecting their own insecurities onto others. Insults bring nothing to society except hate and divisiveness. “

  12. Ahmad's Shaw quote is false. He never said this:

  13. From "The Australian" newspaper article on the bogus Shaw quote:

    "ANTI "Islamophobia" advertisements due to screen on major free-to-air channels from today rely on a fabricated quote from Irish playwright and avowed atheist George Bernard Shaw, from a book that does not exist, according to the International Shaw Society.

    The 30-second ads have been funded by the Sydney-based Mypeace organisation, which says it hopes to "build bridges" between Muslims and other Australians.

    Animated with voiceovers and with quotations displayed on the screen, they feature major historical figures including Mahatma Gandhi and Shaw praising the prophet Mohammed.

    The advertisements quote Shaw proclaiming the prophet Mohammed was "the saviour of humanity" in a book he is supposed to have written entitled The Genuine Islam.

    But International Shaw Society treasurer Richard F Dietrich said he had compiled a complete list of Shaw's works, which did not include the book.

    "I think The Genuine Islam is bogus," he said. In his writings, Shaw described the religion in a 1933 letter to Rev Ensor Walters as "ferociously intolerant".

    "Mahomet rose up at the risk of his life and insulted the stones (that the Arabs worshipped) shockingly, declaring that there is only one God, Allah, the glorious and the great . . . And there was to be no nonsense about toleration," Shaw wrote.

    "You accepted Allah or you had your throat cut by someone who did accept him, and who went to Paradise for having sent you to Hell."

    The suggestion that Shaw may have written a book entitled The Genuine Islam has its origins in an interview between Shaw and Muslim propagandist Maulana Mohammed Abdul Aleem Siddiqui published in a Muslim periodical in January 1936.

    The interview took place in Mombasa, Kenya, some time between April 10 and 20, 1935, and copies of the periodical remain.

    It contains a quotation which describes Mohammed as the "saviour of humanity" and Islam as having "wonderful vitality" and "the chance to rule of Britain, nay Europe, in the next hundred years", but these are not recorded as the words of Shaw.

    The quotation appears in a separate quotation box without attribution, and not in the main body of the interview.

    However, the main body of the interview does feature Shaw challenging Siddiqui from a rationalist perspective.

    "How can you possibly present the picture of Heaven and Hell, which is portrayed in the Koran, in a manner convincing to persons conversant with science, whose minds are inured to accept nothing without visible or palpable proof?" Shaw asks.

    Another account of the conversation between Shaw and Siddiqui, published in the Tanganyika Herald of May 3, 1935, does not mention the purported quotes from Shaw, but quotes him commenting on a lecture Siddiqui had given.

    "You spoke on Philosophy of Peace, but as a Muslim it would have been more appropriate if you had delivered a lecture on the Philosophy of War, for Islam doubtless was spread at the point of the sword," Shaw is quoted as having said.

    Mypeace, a Muslim organisation dedicated to fostering understanding of Islam, did not respond to The Australian's requests for comment. Mypeace founder Diaa Mohamed told the Daily Telegraph the advertisements were a response to "misinformation" about the prophet.

    "Mohammed is the most influential man in history and the commercials will show what scholars and historians have said about him," Mr Mohamed said."