Saturday, 28 March 2009
Friday, 27 March 2009
You can make as much fuss about doctors prescribing the pill to your under-aged daughters, as Victoria Gillick did, but you will get nowhere if you are white and Christian.
You could start a campaign about the BBC broadcasting obscene language and promoting values that are likely to morally corrupt the nation, as Mary Whitehouse did, and be laughed at.
The Archbishop is quite right in praising Muslims for caring enough about their religion and their politics to take steps that cannot be merely brushed aside.
It seems that God (if you believe in Him) created Muslims for a purpose!
The publicity being organised to herald the booklaunch consists of an invitation to for those seeking their ideal job to post those details at
My entry -
(4) Court Jester
(6) Chat Show Hostess
(7) Paid Companion to Wealthy Person Who Loves Me
(8) Asker of Awkward Unanswerable Philosophical Questions
Andromeda Galaxy, The Princess of Paradox
"animis opibusque parati"
"By doing nothing, everything is done."
Beauty (the kind that is in the eye of the beholder)
VALUES AND AMBITIONS:
- To be paid for what I would do for free.
- To be lionised.
- To make participation in politics rewarding and moral.
- To demonstrate the workings of direct democracy through http://www.1party4all.co.uk/
- To persuade enough people that a one-party state under a narrower franchise of taxpayers only is the rational form of government and that such a state need not be oppressive or totalitarian if all the safeguards in the party constitution are in place.
- To propagate the idea of the Domestic Partnership to revolutionise and improve gender relations, to be found at
- To be one of the Great and the Good
- To be remembered by posterity
- To be known as a one-woman think tank
- To create a new religion
Hosting a chat show specialising in interviewing super-villains.
Thinking of things for the participants to do in a Big Brother Politicians' and Super-Villains' Special featuring George Bush, Osama bin Laden, The Pope, The Dalai Lama, the Leader of the Chinese Communist Party, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Harriet Harman.
SALARY c £1M pa ONO
Wednesday, 25 March 2009
CHAPTER 8 - PERSISTENCE - p178-180, 1937 edition
The Last Great Prophet
Reviewed by Thomas Sugrue
Mohammed was a prophet, but he never performed a miracle. He was not a mystic; he had no formal schooling; he did not begin his mission until he was 40. When he announced that he was the Messenger of God, bringing word of the true religion, he was ridiculed and labelled a lunatic. Children tripped him and women threw filth upon him. He was banished from his native city, Mecca, and his followers were stripped of their worldly goods and sent into the desert after him. When he had been preaching ten years, he had nothing to show for it but banishment, poverty and ridicule. Yet before another ten years had passed, he was dictator of all Arabia, ruler of Mecca, and the head of a new world religion which was to sweep to the Danube and the Pyrenees before exhausting the impetus he gave it. That impetus was three-fold:
the power of words,
the efficacy of prayer,
and man's kinship with God.
His career never made sense. Mohammed was born to impoverished members of a leading family of Mecca. Because Mecca, the crossroads of the world, home of the magic stone called the Caaba, great city of trade and the center of trade routes, was unsanitary, its children were sent to be raised in the desert by Bedouins. Mohammed was thus nurtured, drawing strength and health from the milk of nomad, vicarious mothers. He tended sheep and soon hired out to a rich widow as leader of her caravans. He travelled to all parts of the Eastern World, talked with many men of diverse beliefs and observed the decline of Christianity into warring sects. When he was 28, Khadija, the widow, looked upon him with favour and married him. Her father would have objected to such a marriage, so she got him drunk and held him up while gave the paternal blessing. For the next 12 years Mohammed lived as a rich and respected and very shrewd trader. Then he took to wandering in the desert, and one day he returned with the first verse of the Koran and told Khadija that the archangel Gabriel had appeared to him and said that he was to be the Messenger of God.
The Koran, the revealed word of God, was the closest thing to a miracle in Mohammed's life. He had not been a poet; he had no gift for words. Yet the verses of the Koran, as he received them and recited them to the faithful, were better than any verses which the professional poets of the tribes could produce. This, to the Arabs, was a miracle. To them the gift of words was the greatest gift, the poet was all-powerful. In addition the Koran said that all men were equal before God, that the world should be a democratic state - Islam. It was this political heresy, plus Mohammed's desire to destroy all the 360 idols in the courtyard of the Caaba, which brought about his banishment. The idols brought the desert tribes to Mecca, and that meant trade. So the businessmen of Mecca, the capitalists, of which he had been one, set upon Mohammed. Then he retreated to the desert and demanded sovereignty over the world.
The rise of Islam began. Out of the desert came a flame which would not be extinguished - a democratic army fighting as a unit and prepared to die without wincing. Mohammed had invited the Jews and Christians to join him, for he was not building a new religion. He was calling all who believed in one God to join in a single faith. If the Jews and Christians had accepted his invitation, Islam would have conquered the world. They didn't. They would not even accept Mohammed's innovation of humane warfare. When the armies of the prophet entered Jerusalem, not a single person was killed because of his faith. When the crusaders entered the city, centuries later, not a Moslem man, woman or child was spared. But the Christians did accept one Moslem idea - the place of learning, the university.
Religious visionaries such as Mohammed; business leaders such as Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, and Andrew Carnegie; political leaders such as Samuel Adams; entertainers such as Fannie Hurst, Kate Smith and W C Fields; cosmopolites such as Wallis Simpson and the Duke of Windsor - no matter what their walk of life, individuals such as these in all areas of human history have demonstrated the power of The Eighth Step to Riches - PERSISTENCE, sustained effort in the face of all odds and all adversity.
PERSISTENCE creates FAITH. And FAITH is the only known antidote for failure, it is the starting point of all accumulation of riches, and it is the only agency through which one can tap the force of Infinite Intelligence.
These passages were notably absent in Arthur Pell's 2004 edition.
Reviews of this "travesty" can be found at:
Interesting, is it not, the insidiousness of Islamophobia? Shame on you, Arthur Pell, for omitting these crucial pages in your 21st century edition! Such blatant intellectual dishonesty should not escape criticism.
Those who wish to take him to task for his crime of omission may email him at
Saturday, 21 March 2009
Friday, 20 March 2009
Those who remember the British Empire cannot come to terms with the national decline that has taken place since WW2. This actually includes the many immigrants who now wistfully wish they could return to their homelands, now more prosperous than the UK.
And how did Britain "make its pile"? Through being a rogue nation of pirates and warriors demanding protection money from weaker states and generally helping themselves to other people's stuff. I am sure the Spaniards of Elizabethan times would not disagree! Nor the Chinese who were peddled opium to keep them weakened and apathetic to their exploitation.
Perhaps we should at least now admit that and henceforth resolve to be more effective organised criminals?
For the sake of their own survival, the British must again cultivate characteristics that any hypothetical gangster would approve of. I propose that my trinity of
which no one has bettered so far, should be adopted, unless a better trinity is proposed.
Thursday, 19 March 2009
The Eastern half of the Byzantine Empire ruled from Constantinople.
The centuries after Constantine were filled with theological disputes that, to us, seem ridiculous, but which caused charges of heresy, dozens of different sects and splits in the Church itself. The Roman church became dominant in Western Europe, while the church at Constantinople dominated the East. Christians, from the pope to the paupers, fought over everything.
One Christian group, the Arians, taught that Christ, though divinely inspired and sired, was still a man, not equivalent to God. At a church meeting in Nicaea in 325, Arianism was declared a heresy and its followers were persecuted as if they'd been traitors to the Roman Empire.
Even for the poor and uneducated masses, the nature of Christ was a burning issue. While the scholars "disputed", real Christians brawled, rioted and generally raised hell over the true nature of the Prince of Peace.
A school of theologians called the Nestorians saw Christ as two distinct persons, divine and human but a church council at Ephesus condemned them in 430, while the Monophysites, on the other hand, were certain that Christ had a single, wholly divine nature. But the Orthodox bishops met at Chalcedon in 451 and declared the Monophysites heretics because the real truth, the Orthodox church declared, was that Christ was both perfect God and perfect man and that his two natures, though separate, were combined within the single person of Jesus Christ ...
Can you imagine the collective sigh of relief that went up in the Middle East when Muhammad cut through all that crap and said simply,"There is no god but God"?
If Anjem Choudary wants to promote Islam in the UK, it is suggested that he acquire some knowledge of Christian theology, if only to demolish the religion of prophet-worship and idolatry.
It is also suggested that he read the Koran properly and not abrogate verses just because he wants to cut off hands and stone adulterers to death, Old Testament style.
Methinks he is just a firebrand who is too busy upsetting people to read the Koran properly. If he did, he might be more effective as a revolutionary. Revolution was of course what Muhammad, Jesus, Moses and Abraham were all up to.
Right now, he is just regarded as a crank or a terrorist, neither of which will be ultimately helpful to his cause of Islamicizing the UK.
It can now be seen that Islam was created as an antidote to Christianity, and that its efficacy waned as Islamic civilisation became bloated, corrupt and feeble-minded, just as Western civilisation has now become bloated, corrupt and feeble-minded.
The Gate of Interpretation was closed in 1200s and it is now time they are re-opened!
To make Islam acceptable to this country in this time, Muslims like him who wish to Islamify Britain will have to talk about ridding themselves of the unnecessary baggage that is the Hadith and travel light again, just like the Bedouin crossing the Sahara ....
Monday, 16 March 2009
The term refers to "allegiance and disassociation"--namely, whom a believer associates with and allies themselves with; and whom they disassociate from and oppose. While the concept has basis in the Qur'an and Sunna, it is promoted (through narrow, negative definition and understanding) by many of radical or intolerant ideologies to create a danger attitude of enmity towards any "other"--whether Muslims who don't fit a narrowly-defined mold of "right understanding and conduct" or non-Muslims in general. This intolerance and negativity is far from the guidance and example of our Beloved Messenger Muhammad.
Perhaps I am a little over-optimistic, but I found the talk given by a group affiliated to East London Mosque strangely reassuring, rather like listening to an old-fashioned fire and brimstone sermon, which Christians no longer go in for, and which I have only read about. I really don't think these beardies and burqaed ladies want to blow us up. They just want to change us and make us better than we are.
Already aware that "strict segregation will be enforced" I was not surprised or resentful to be politely told by a rotund and bearded man to sit at the back, which was where I wanted to sit anyway.
"We will pray. That will take 10 minutes and then we will begin our talk", he informed me.
Then, they left in a group for about 5 minutes before returning, and may have discussed me and what to say or not say with an impressionable kuffar in their midst.
Soon, the ladies mostly in burqas shuffled in. They all had English accents. There were a few African-types who only covered their heads. A boy, about 5, pointed and laughed at my kuffar appearance and clothing and was shushed, but to no effect, because he did it again a bit later. (I was not wearing a burqa as the woman in charge of him was.)
Chairs were folded and leaned against the wall, shoes were shed. The boy could not contain his mirth at my incongruity.
More latecomers shuffled in during prayers accompanied by a pleasantly musical recitation.
Prayers finished, the sermon began.
"Moderates" - what does this mean?" asked the big bearded man's bearded slimmer companion. "These are the government-appointed scholars, the Muslims recruited by MI5, the Army, the police. In short, those cursed by Allah!
The Muslim Council of Britain and Ed Hussein of the Quilliam Foundation were high on the hate list. His name was Muhammad, but started calling himself "Ed", just to fit in with the kuffar, we were told.
The subject of the sermon, ie whom and what to hate and love in the name of God, was expanded upon.
The brothers who demonstrated in Luton and insulted the returning soldiers by calling them rapists and babykillers were declared to have understood this and praised. The moderate Muslims who denounced those brothers were in turn denounced for their cowardice and hypocrisy. Those were the Muslims who only wanted to enjoy their religion in peace, without wishing to spread the word, as is their Islamic duty.
All true Muslims would want sharia law, wherever they are. It is just a Muslim thing to want. There are however no countries in any part of the world that implement sharia law as it is meant to be.
A rather distasteful analogy was drawn. If a liquid was 99.9% milk but 0.1% urine, would you drink it? Sharia must be 100%!
"Don't sit with the homosexuals." There is the Camp of Imam and the Camp of Kuffar. One is sharia and the other is shit. (At least that was what I thought he was saying until I realised later that he may have meant shirk - which means ascribing partners to God, which includes the religion of prophet-worship known as Christianity, as well as others forms of idolatry.)
"There is no such thing as being in the camp in between." (Bush: "You are either for us or against us!")
"Although I hate you, I will never be unjust to you" (is what you could say to reassure any kuffar you may alarm).
"We believe in discrimination" (presumably meaning that he wished to be able to discriminate between the moral equivalent of urine in milk and between what is sharia and what is not).
Distinguish yourselves from the kuffar. If they wear their watch on their right hand, you wear it on your left; if they eat with their left hand, you eat with your right; if they write the question mark in one way, you write it the other way. (The last one aroused bemused laughter.)
"Nationalism is a disease." (I waited for his rant about the wickedness and racism of the BNP, but they were not mentioned at all. Instead he railed against Pakistanis thinking themselves better than Bengals, and the divisiveness of this sort of ideology.)
"Even atheists follow something, though they claim not to. They wear lucky charms."
"We don't celebrate Mother's Day or Father's Day or birthdays. We must be different! We will grow our beards long, if it is their practice to trim theirs. We will grow beards, if it is their custom to be clean-shaven!"
"We hate drunkenness, drugs, alcohol, pornography."
"The Islamic system is superior simply because it is divine."
Apparently, 8000 laws have been enacted against Muslims by the Labour government.
The Muslim who protested against the Danish cartoons with a "Down Down Denmark" placard apparently received 6 years, recently reduced to 4.
"Democracy is hypocrisy." (In the form we currently have, there is no denying this.)
"Laws have been used to define terrorism. Yet what is a terrorist or an extremist but a Muslim, according to those laws?"
"For true Muslims, an extremist is one who goes beyond the sharia or who does not come up to its standards."
"According to UK law, you are an extremist if you condemn homosexuals. Your also an extremist if you condemn British soldiers in Muslim lands."
Another analogy is drawn: "Think of your sister raped, your father killed and your house bombed. And they expect us to be grateful when they later mend the kitchen sink?!"
"The MCB say the soldiers were just doing their job. Can we also say that bin Laden was just doing his job?"
There is a vacuum in the Muslim community, of those who will agree to anything the government says just to be left in peace to pray and fast. They are the Chocolate Muslim, who melt when the going gets tough.
The caliphate should be implemented as soon as possible for the good of all.
"Bright light hurts your eyes only if you have been in the dark for too long."
"The future is not orange. It is Islam." Sharia law is being agitated for, apparently, from Xinjiang to Chechnya to the UK.
On the ignorance of the some Muslims: "Bosnia? Isn't that a washing machine?"
"Muslims have a duty to implement Sharia."
The Covenant of Security was mentioned. This is explained at
Covenant of Security
As Muslims living in the UK we abide by a Covenant of Security, which prohibits us from violating the life and property of all non-Muslims here in Britain. We do not encourage any forms of terrorism on this website whatsoever and furthermore believe if any Muslim were to break this Covenant of Security that it would be a violation of the Sharee’ah.
There are 4 ways an Islamic State can come about:
- a Muslim state is established, eg Somalia.
- Non-Muslims accept the invitation that is dawah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawah
- "they surrender"
- "fighting" (He did not say the J word, but was perhaps more specific in that he must have meant the R word.)
Questions were taken after the sermon.
The most interesting question posed was how to answer people who say: "Go move to a Muslim land then if you hate it so much here."
Surprisingly, this question was acknowledged to be a good question, and a rather quaint old-fashioned English phrase used, ie "What are we to say to them when they tell us to sling our hooks?" (The delightfully villainous Captain Hook of an Abu Hamza comes to mind. But poor Abu Hamza! Why was his hand cut off? And what did he steal?)
"The whole world belongs to Allah!" was the glib answer.
There was laughter after a joke about claiming benefit, which I did not quite catch because the little boy who found my presence so amusing was now throwing paper planes, and did not cease and desist his distracting activities even when many bearded men turned crossly to glare at him.
Then, rather poignantly, the following points were made, points which might not be out of place in a BNP meeting:
"They way to kill a man is to cut him off from his own roots."
"We forget ourselves when we forget our own history."
The oppression secularism and capitalism was also mentioned.
Since supporters of both are motivated by the same pain, caused by the lack of an identity that they can be proud of, the following extracts are illuminating.
Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as "verbal diarrhoea".
"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."
Although unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white community."
Racism is not just a black thing or brown thing but something that affects us all regardless of our colour. Yes, even white people can be the victims of racism.
[This is just so BNP that I am beginning to wonder if these Muslims are fishing in the same waters and also reaching out to the disgruntled white proletariat. There is even a photograph on their webpage of a white nationalist by an England flag looking young white and proud. Is there an intentional subliminal message that says "Islam also understands your pain, white boy, and welcomes you, too"?]
"Victory is not driving a luxury car. It is sharia!"
"And ... struggle with your women!" was the final exhortation.
This made a few of us at the back giggle, me included. I do not remember the men laughing. Perhaps they had no women to struggle with, or did not regard struggling with women as a laughing matter ...
I was handed a card by a lady with kind brown eyes (for that was all I could see of her in her burqa) in charge of paper plane-throwing, obstacle course-running and door-slamming boy, who suggested that this meeting may be too advanced for me, because it was for the hard core (not her words). Saturdays between 2 and 5 at the East London Mosque when they have their New Muslim Circle ("Kuffar Converts"?), would be more my thing, she thought.
The card announces an event on 27th March 2009 further details may be found at http://www.islam4uk.com/:
We see them in prisons, being tortured, persecuted and extradited. We
also see them on the run and being chased by authorities.
Who are they?
They are the scholars .... the likes of Sheikh Abu Qatadah, Sheikh Abu Hamza have been imprisoned while others like Sheikh Omar and Sheikh Faisal have been demonised and driven out.
What are they wanted for?
The only crime they have committed is that they believe in Allah and fearlessly speak the truth and carry the message of Islam. Simply these scholars have the vanguard of light and righteousness, radiating the party of Islamic monotheism (tawheed) and exposing the evil corrupted beliefs and actions of polytheism (shirk). These are they who dare to speak the truth at a time when people are afraid .... Just like the Prophets were persecuted for spreading the truth, the scholars today are similarly prosecuted. How many a prophet was vilified by his people, jailed ... or driven out and mocked .... Pharaoh killed babies to stop the spreading of the truth so he could remain in power. Today the pharaohs have changed but the tactics remain the same. It is a sad fact that scholars continue to be kidnapped, imprisoned, exiled or even worse, for no crime except believing in Allah and His Deen [Islamic ideology] and speaking in defence of the Ummah in the face of a brutal war waged by non-Muslims against Islam.
What is the importance of these scholars? What are their characteristics?
"Verily the Prophets did not leave behind dirhams and dinars, but rather they
left behind knowledge." .... They are those who do not seek any worldly gain nor
to appease the rulers.
What is our duty?
We must support them with our wealth and our tongues. We must expose the evil propaganda from the media of the present day pharaohs and we must absolve them from the lies attributed to them.
My conclusion is that these people are not dangerous. (A concerned friend who knew where I would be going warned: "Do be careful. These people are dangerous and Oxford House is infamous for being a seedbed of Islamist radicalism!") I now believe they are merely segregationists who speak exactly what is on their mind and who do not wish to be contaminated by the decadence and sin of Soddom & Gemorrah New Britain. There may well be a few of them who will take things to extremes, but then the BNP have their Combat 18, and Sinn Fein now have their Real IRA.
They have an unfortunate way of expressing themselves on the subjects of
manual amputation -
http://www.islam4uk.com/non-muslims/62-non-muslims/119-british-legal-system-vs-shariah "The Islamic Judicial System: Burglars will have their hand cut off, provided they fulfil the seven conditions for this punishment. They are not permitted to have it surgically replaced."
This seems rather harsh and extreme because the verse dealing with thieves explicitly says you are to forgive them if they express remorse. It is beyond the Koran in terms of punishment and not up to Koranic standards of forgiveness, since it is unimaginable that any thief caught red-handed would not express remorse. Allah is stated to be oft-forgiving, and this means it is certainly possible that a thief could be forgiven more than once.
But if the thief repent after his crime, and amend his conduct, Allah turneth to him in forgiveness; for Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.
Anjem Choudary has said "we" want to stone adulterers while their website appears to approve of fornication being punished by flogging (100 lashes), the deterrent value of adultery and homosexual fornication being both punished by public execution, even though the Koran does not prescribe this.
"If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone; for Allah is Oft-returning, Most Merciful."
Their position is incoherent and inconsistent and therefore not to be taken seriously, methinks.
The accents I heard were without exception local, ie local London and English. They, the brown dispossessed, have something in common with the white dispossessed, both of whom are having their faces stamped on by the boot of political correctness.
While BNP supporters seek succour in being white and proud, these Muslims seek to be Muslim and proud. Successive governments have not been able to give us - and I mean all of us who are citizens in this once great country - the means to be positively British and proud, because they lack the vision to conceive it, the words to articulate it and the courage and competence to implement it.
Those reading who are Islamophobes may well be comforted by the fact that middle class and affluent Muslims are more hated for their spinelessness than the kuffar. They may also be comforted to know that these alienated Islamic youth will not succeed in their jihad to make Islam attractive, nor turn Britain into an Islamic state until and unless they moderate their language, and cease using language that antagonises their elders and the kuffars.
In the long run, modest Islamic tact will work far better than fiery Islamist rhetoric. This is something that youth - and they were all without exception young - in its defiance refuses to acknowledge. But youth will one day make way for maturity, and bluntness concede to discretion. In this way do we who are older and wiser (of all races and religions) submit to the Realities of Life ...
Saturday, 14 March 2009
Ron David explains it all with admirable clarity.
Why must we learn about the Middle East? Because for evil to prosper all that is required is for good men to do nothing. Not only have most of us not done anything, we have not even bothered to find out what it is all about.
The apathy is of such stupendous proportions that bin Laden felt he had to bomb the Twin Towers to get our attention. Even after that, we are still not being told the whole story or even bothering to find it out for ourselves. Our capacity for moral apathy, when it does not appear to affect ourselves, appears to be infinite.
Perhaps that was why God created terrorists.
The Middle East will be the cause of the next world war, because Israel was created through an act of injustice, of robbing Peter to pay Paul.
If it comes to that in our lifetimes, some of us should at least have taken the trouble to know how and why.
Friday, 13 March 2009
Islamisation proceeded with remarkable gentleness, at the hands of Sufis and merchants. Christianisation used mass extermination of the native Americans, the baptism of uncomprehending survivors, and the baleful scrutiny by the Inquisition of any signs of backsliding. A more extreme contrast would be impossible to find.
The mosques constructed in the areas gradually won for Islam are endlessly diverse, and reflect and indeed celebrate local particularities. Christianity is a universal religion that has historically sought to impose a universal metropolitan culture. Islam is a universal religion that has consistently nurtured a particularist provincial culture. A church in Mexico City resembles a church in Salamanca. A mosque in Nigeria, or Istanbul, or Djakarta, resembles in key respects the patterns, now purified and uplifted by monotheism, of the indigenous regional patrimony.
Non-Christian religions were, in classical Christianity, seen as demonic and under the sign of original sin. But classical Islam has always been able and willing to see at least fragments of an authentic divine message in the faiths and cultures of non-Muslim peoples. If God has assured us that every nation has received divine guidance, then we can look with some favour on the Other.
Those who believe that Muslim communities can only flourish if they ghettoise themselves and refuse to interact with majority communities would do well to look at Chinese history. Many of the leading mandarins of Ming China were in fact Muslims. Wang Dai-Yu, for instance, who died in 1660, was a Muslim scholar who received the title of ‘Master of the Four Religions’ because of his complete knowledge of China’s four religions: Islam, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. Many of the leading admirals in the navy of the Ming Empire were practising Muslims.
In China, mosques look very like traditional Chinese garden-temples, except that there is a prayer hall without idols, and the calligraphy is Qur'anic. In some of the most beautiful, you will find, as you enter, the following words in Chinese inscribed on a tablet:
Sages have one mind and the same truth. In all parts of the world, sages arise who possess this uniformity of mind and truth. Muhammad, the Great Sage of the West, lived in Arabia long after Confucius, the Sage of China.
Though separated by ages and countries, they had the same mind and Truth.
Local mindsets are Islamised, but remain distinct.
... many young Muslims feel so threatened by the diversity of calls on their allegiance, and by the sheer complexity of modernity, that the only form of Islam they can regard as legitimate is a totalitarian, monolithic one. That there should be four schools of Islamic law is to them unbearable. That Muslim cultures should legitimately differ is a species of blasphemy.
These young people, who haunt our mosques and shout at any sign of disagreement, are either ignorant of Muslim history, or dismiss it as a gigantic mistake. For them, the grace and rahma of Allah has for some reason been withheld from all but a tiny fraction of the Umma. These people are the elect; and all disagreement with them is a blasphemy against God.
We cannot hope easily to cure such people. Simple proofs from our history or our scholarship will not suffice. What they need is a sense of security, and that, given the deteriorating conditions of both the Muslim world and of the ghettos in Western cities, may not come readily. For now, it is best to ignore their shouts and their melodramatic but always ill-fated activities.
This is the sum of Mahometan Religion, on the one hand not clogging Men’s Faith with the necessity of believing a number of abstruse notions which they cannot comprehend, and which are often contrary to the dictates of Reason and common Sense; nor on the other hand loading them with the performance of many troublesome, expensive and superstitious Ceremonies, yet enjoining a due observance of Religious Worship, as the surest Method to keep Men in the bounds of their Duty both to God and Man.
He values wholesome morality that is pragmatic rather than irresponsibly idealistic: so he commends polygamy, and shows the moral dangers of legally imposed monogamy. He regards with distaste traditional Christian strictures on ‘the flesh’ - a century beforehand, Englishmen had rejected the arguments for a celibate clergy and had firmly quashed monkery as both unnatural and parasitic. For Stubbe, the Prophet’s approach was in accord with nature: the love of woman is as natural as the love of God. The Prophet, like the great Hebrew patriarchs, showed that sacred and profane love can and indeed must go together.
A generation earlier, John Donne had suffered passions for both woman and for God; and found his religion finally unable to reconcile the two.
Far from regarding the Islamic institution of the just war as a reproach, he extols it, contrasting it with what he regarded as the insipid and irresponsible pacifism of the unknown New Testament authors. Stubbe is an English gentleman of a generation that had known war, and knew that there are some injustices in the world that cannot be dissolved through passive suffering, through turning the other cheek. He had sided with Parliament during the civil war, holding, with Cromwell, that the righteous man may sometimes justly bear the burden of the sword. An admirer of Cromwell, he became an admirer of the Prophet. For him, the Prophet was not a foreign, exotic figure: his genial vision of human life under God exactly conformed to what a civilised Englishman of the seventeenth century thought necessary and proper. In Stubbe’s work, in other words, we find a vindication of Muhammad as an English prophet.
There is more that can be said about the convergence of Islamic moderation and good sense with the English temper. Tragically, the rise of Dissent in England coincided also with the rise of nationalism and xenophobia, which reached its intoxicating heights with the empire of Queen Victoria and the Edwardians. Under such Anglocentric and frankly racist banners, sympathy with Islam became once more a receding possibility. But there were exceptions. Perhaps the most celebrated was that most English of intellectuals, Carlyle. Carlyle, like Stubbe two centuries before, was a free spirit, unhampered either by obsessions with Trinity, or modern delusions about the ability of material progress to secure human happiness.
... we see the English realism towards the use of force, which had made possible the creation of the British Empire, inspiring a more positive appreciation of the Prophet of Islam. The great Christian blindness towards Islam has always been the belief that there can be only one type of perfection, namely the pacifist Jesus, who taught men to turn the other cheek, and who said, ‘Resist not him that is evil.’ For minds nurtured on such an image, the hero-Prophet is a difficult figure to comprehend. In the Far East, of course, there is no such mental block. Spirituality and the cultivation of the martial arts there went hand in hand. The love of women was also seen as a necessary part of this ethos. The samurai tradition in particular, of the righteous swordsman, a meditator who was also a great lover of women, ensures that a Japanese, for instance, will have few difficulties with the specific genius and greatness of the Prophet of Islam. But for Christians, there is no such model, although knightly ethics in the early Middle Ages, learned from Muslims in Spain and Palestine, dimly suggested it. But even for the Crusader knights, the ideal of celibacy was often accepted: the Knights Templar, for instance, a monastic warrior order, who were influenced enough by Islam to comprehend the importance of a sacred warriorhood, but who never quite got the point about celibacy.
With Carlyle, the Hero as Prophet, or the Prophet as Hero, reveals itself as a credible type for the English mind. And Carlyle’s insistence on the moral exaltation of the Prophet who transcended pacifism to take up arms to fight for his people was understood by at least one later British writer: George Bernard Shaw. For Shaw, as for Carlyle, there was no doubt about the correct answer to Hamlet’s question:
Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.
Edmund Burke had already pointed out that ‘for evil to triumph, it is enough that good men do nothing.’ Shaw, like Carlyle, recognised that this principle calls into question the Gospel ethic of passivity in the face of suffering and injustice. Let me read to you a few words from Hesketh Pearson’s biography of the generally post-Christian Shaw:
For many years (this was 1927), Shaw had been meditating a play on a prophet. The militant saint was a type more congenial to his nature than any other, a type he thoroughly sympathised with and could therefore portray with unfailing insight. In all history the one person who exactly answered his requirements, who would have made the perfect Shavian hero, was Mahomet.
‘The false prophet is a moralist, he tells the world how things ought to be; the
real prophet is a realist, he tells the world how things really are.’
... the British Isles have for several hundred years been the home of individuals whose religious and moral temper is very close to that of Islam. To move from Christianity to Islam is hence, for an English man or woman, not the giant leap that outsiders might assume. It is, rather, simply the logical next step in the epic story of our people. Christianity, formerly a Greek mystery religion advocating a moral code against the natural law, is in fact foreign to our national temperament. It is an exotic creed, and it is now fatally compromised by its positive view of secular modernity. Islam, once we have become familiar with it, and settled into it comfortably, is the most suitable faith for the British. Its values are our values. Its moderate, undemonstrative style of piety, still waters running deep; its insistence on modesty and a certain reserve, and its insistence on common sense and on pragmatism, combine to furnish the most natural and easy religious option for our people.
I should close by saying that nothing in what I have said is intended in a jingoistic sense. That the British have a convergence with Islam is to the credit of our people, certainly. But I am not commending any smug ethnocentrism; precisely because Islam itself came to abolish a tribal mentality. Islam is the true consanguinity of believers in the One True God, the common bond of those who seek to remain focussed on the divine Source of our being in this diffuse, ignorant and tragic age. But it is generous and inclusive. It allows us to celebrate our particularity, the genius of our heritage; within, rather than in tension with, the greater and more lasting fellowship of faith.
A good speaker and a lawyer, he has qualities that would suggest that a career in stand-up might not be a bad career move.
Comment by Jeff Marshall, BNP on the clip:
A very interesting speaker - good on the follies of multiculturalism, though I must say I am getting a bit tired of hearing Pakis define core British values as ´fish and chips´.My response to Jeff Marshall's comments:
Core British values have traditionally included tolerance and allowing people like that to live here peacefully in the first place. When they abuse this tolerance they forfeit the right to live here peacefully. But this obvious fact does not seem to occur to them.
He openly admits that Sharia Law entails cutting off the hand of the thief and stoning the adulterer. The Archbishop of Canterbury and similar idiots should take note.
British values cannot be just tolerance. Who would want to be part of this tolerance? It is just like saying "We are people who will always turn the other cheek if you slap us." Choudary says no thanks, and so do I!
As for what he says about sharia law, there are many schools of sharia. (I have already pointed out that there is a verse after that which specifies the punishment for stealing, which says "If the thief expresses remorse, forgive him", which is often ignored in the eagerness to punish. Stoning for adultery can only be found in the Old Testament, which some Muslims prefer because it is more satisfyingly punitive. The Koran clearly states that 100 lashes is to be the punishment for adultery. Methinks Choudary does not know his Koran.)
I think there are many people like him, completely fed up with the anodyne, self-destructive self-abnegation that British values represent that they embrace either Islam or British nationalism. I can see angry young people thinking they can't stand it any more, preferring to blow themselves up rather than allow themselves to be a part of all this fish and chippery that you cannot define or articulate in a way that a sane and questioning person would find appealing.
YOU define British culture then, Jeff, and Choudary is right, you cannot find the words except to talk about tolerance. Tolerance of what, a Muslim would ask.
Tolerance of promiscuity? Drunkenness? Gambling? Fiona McKeown-type single parenting, bastardy and decline? Low standards of behaviour in public and private?
Tolerance of stupidity, unproductiveness, self-pity and apathy? Tolerance of being run by unelected Eurocrats?
NO. THANK. YOU.
Choudary was jack the lad when at university. I knew a Muslim who was a self-confessed slag and slapper and became so disgusted with herself that she now embraces the dress code of a nun. These are signs of psychosis and it is quite important, I would have thought, to articulate British values as we would wish them to be.
Brown's trinity of tolerance/responsibility/co-operation makes me want to vomit.
Griffin could come up with nothing better than tolerance/humour/freedom, which is just not good enough.
Those words to describe the British cannot be nouns.
They must be ADJECTIVES so people have something to do and BE.
I propose RATIONAL, ROBUST, RESOURCEFUL as well as having the other 3 Rs that state schools do not teach.
The Muslims can say they want to be Islamic, but what vision do the BNP have for this country other than to be White, and rid of the Muslims?
Wednesday, 11 March 2009
It is suggested that Muslims chant the following, to show solidarity, or at least not antagonise white non-Muslims, whose interests are not served either by a ruinous and unpopular war based on a lie that too many of our politicians were too mendacious, cowardly or stupid to reject.
WMD - where are they?
Bush and Blair - where are they?
Bush and Blair - fool and liar,
with the ship of fools who voted war,
Go be with the boys who didn't come back!
Such a message will have a wider appeal than blaming soldiers who are only doing what they are told.
Sunday, 8 March 2009
David Davis MP, Champion of Habeas Corpus - shame he is not leader of the Conservative Party. Tall, handsome, courageous, charming - a Prince amongst the Pygmy Tories! He could benefit from elocution lessons in the way Maggie did. Too soft-spoken, perhaps, for our vulgar, clamorous times.
I must point out though that he did vote to invade Iraq, something for which I hope he will one day show deep and sincere remorse.
The beautiful Miss Great Britain in a pensive moment ...
Miss Great Britain and her ladies in waiting ...
Miss Great Britain looking gorgeous!
David Icke, who was very cross with me when I wouldn't buy his very long book and instead asked him to summarise his conspiracy theories for me in a few short sentences. Accused me of being superficial and shallow. I was told to leave his presence by his female minder, because I was upsetting him. Egomania may be his problem. He has the manner of a dictator or at least a leader of a cult. Bangs his hand on table to make a point, jabs his finger in a Hitler-like way, and is aggressive and humourless. His minions quite nice people, apart from female minder. Why do they put up with it?
Tom Darwood of Eurasian parentage shaking hands with NF minder of Tessa Culnane, who had left the BNP to campaign as NF candidate. Tessa Culnane polite but uninformative about why she left BNP. Now back with the BNP.
Overcome by lust, understandably. Am I the only one who finds the sweet spot where he has placed his thumb curiously erotic and full of possibilities? Mmmmm ....
Thursday, 5 March 2009
Too right, matey! It is time to say something before the unproductive breed their way into majority status, before the lunatics take over the asylym, before the British become fit for nothing else but the White Slave Trade ....
Sunday, 1 March 2009
The Brussels bubble: how long can the junkets last?
By Associate Editor David Stevenson Feb 27, 2009
The European Parliament has so far escaped the recession. But as a damning report reveals shocking levels of self-enrichment, for how much longer can it do so? David Stevenson reports.
What's been going on?
Former management consultant David Craig and Matthew Elliott of British campaign group The Taxpayers' Alliance (TPA) have opened up a Pandora's box of lavish MEP perks, with their new book The Great European Rip-Off. "The EU project and institutions have been hijacked by an arrogant, self-serving and undemocratic elite, which has become increasingly isolated from and disdainful of the people who pay their considerable salaries, expenses and pensions – us," says Craig in The Sunday Times. "Among the things that shocked me were the arrogance, cynicism and avarice of MEPs, commissioners and EU staff, and the extraordinary levels of thieving. Brussels is a bubble that's escaped the recession."
How big are the numbers?
A British MEP receives basic pay of £63,291, the same as a British MP. But after this June's European Parliament elections, MEPs from all countries will be paid the same - €91,980. At current exchange rates, that would see a British MEP's salary rise to more than £81,000. MEPs also enjoy free accident, travel and life insurance, as well as widespread medical benefits. But the real kicker – and the area most ripe for abuse – is in allowable expenses. Over the course of a year, these include a subsistence allowance of £51,000, staff allowances of £182,000, office expenses of £44,000 and travel expenses of £11,000. That lot accounts for €200m of the €1.45bn total annual cost of the EU parliament.
So the living is easy for MEPs?
It certainly seems so. Thanks to "lax financial checks", says the Daily Mail, "grasping MEPs can become millionaires [pdf] through dodgy expense claims". "So generous is the staff allowance," says Craig, "an MEP can slip his or her spouse or offspring £50,000 to £60,000 a year and still employ more than one full-time secretary and a few researchers." And although allocated two fully furnished, rent-free offices in the European parliament building, "many MEPs claim for a constituency office in their own homes, while some take the cash without having a constituency office at all". No receipts are required. That's also true of the £257 a day tax-free subsistence allowance, which MEPs can claim by simply turning up and signing in to the European Parliament in the morning before leaving again – no attendance at actual sessions is required. Chuck in handsome travel expenses and one of the best pension schemes in Europe and the package is worth more than £400,000 a year. At current exchange rates the five-year total profit – even after deducting expenses such as 'genuine full-time assistants', and assuming salaries are spent on living costs – comes to £1,176,800, says The Times's Jonathan Oliver.
Is this all legal?
The rules governing the use of expenses and the need for receipts are certainly lax, but it seems that some MEPs have stretched them to breaking point. The TPA has also published a confidential 92-page study, written by the head of internal audit for the EU parliament, Robert Galvin, in 2006. He details "corruption, dodgy dealing and poor financial controls". Some assistants were paid bonuses of over 1.5 times their annual salaries. Payments were made to others for whom no records existed, or to 'front' companies. One MEP paid the entire staff allowance to a person suspected of being a relative, while other payments were made to the coffers of national political parties. Overpayments of allowances were also common, says Galvin. Overall, such abuses exposed the parliament to "financial, legal and reputational risk". "Taxpayers deserve to know if anyone is stealing from them," concludes Elliott. "There must now be a proper police investigation."
Why has all this taken so long to emerge?
Galvin's analysis was initially "kept secret", says The Daily Telegraph's Andrew Porter. It first came to light a year ago when Lib Dem MEP Chris Davies disclosed some of its findings after refusing to sign a confidentiality agreement, but it's only now that the full report has been published. Many MEPs aren't on the make, says Davies, but honesty just doesn't pay. "We need absolute transparency. No one knows who's cheating and who's not, and it's a disgrace the parliament has voted to keep auditors' reports secret. I don't want the cheats to get away with it." Given that Galvin examined just 167 payments out of a total of 4,686 in October 2004, it's likely that many more abuses of the system by some of the 785 members of the 27-nation parliament remain uncovered.
How can the junkets be stopped?
This June's European elections will see "a complete overhaul of the system", says the EU parliament. MEPs' flat-rate travel allowances will be replaced by reimbursement of expenses incurred, and they won't be able to hire close family members as assistants. But any employed before July 2008 may remain on the EU payroll until the 2014 European parliament elections. And payments for subsistence and constituency offices of up to £94,000 annually will continue, with no requirement to prove where the cash goes. So MEPs can still make thousands a year tax-free. Davies thinks the reforms don't go far enough: "if five steps are needed, the parliament always seems to take only two. We're now better than the Italian system but a long way short of the standards of the House of Commons". Not that London is squeaky clean. As Galvin concludes: "the world's political class is increasingly contemptuous of the rules".
Tom Wise boasting about his cushy life as MEP to impress a "posh Teddington bird".