FREE 2007 Calendar

A free calendar has been produced. There is a cartoon for each month, highlighting some of the strange aspects of Islam.
These cartoons are not gratuitously offensive, as the Danish cartoons were.
The calendar is in the form of a PDF file, which you would then print. The file size is 2 Mbytes.

The calendar can be downloaded from here:

Omdurman

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

They don't have the foggiest

In the days leading up to Christmas, Heathrow Airport has been fogbound continuously. The result has been a significant reduction in the number of flights. Aircraft must rely on the Instrument Landing System (ILS), rather than using visual flight rules. A larger gap between aircraft is then necessary, to ensure that the ILS radio signal is not blocked by the aircraft in front.

At the time of writing (22nd December 2006) there have been three days of fog, and the weather forecast is stating that this will persist for several days more.

This is quite unprecedented in recent years. In general, fog dissipates during the course of the day, which allows some catching up with the schedule of arriving and departing flights. If fog does persist, it is unusual for it remain for many days, as the weather patterns in Britain are very changeable.

Heathrow Airport is the home airport of British Airways.

The controversy regarding the wearing of a cross by their employee Nadia Eweida is well known, resulting in many Christians calling for a boycott of British Airways flights.

Maybe God does exist after all, and He is punishing British Airways. If so, He certainly has a sense of humour. Choosing the busy time leading up to Christmas demonstrates a masterful comical timing!

British Airways is quite happy to profit financially from the surge in passenger numbers at Christmas time, without acknowledging the reasons behind Christmas. This fog will certainly hurt them financially.

So the message to even the largest of businesses must surely be: If you are going to mess with anybody, don't mess with God.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Happy Christmas Tony Blair

Blair - The Qur’an "is practical and way ahead of its time"

From the Muslim Weekly. March 24th 2006


The Prime Minister during his speech "Not a clash between civilisations, but a clash about civilisation" spoke forcefully about the problems of terrorism.
The talk given to the Foreign Policy Centre and Reuters also included his praise of the Holy Qur’an.

"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran – in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is.



"I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance," he said.

He added that under the guidance of the Qur’an, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was "breathtaking".



"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian," he declared.


--------------------------------

A sound appraisal of Blair's views is given on the The Campaign for United Kingdom Conservatism website:

http://www.ukconservatism.freeuk.com

BLAIR IN ISLAM LAND

Never has a British Prime Minister made such a fool of himself.

We set out below a direct point for point contrast between Blair's version of Islam and the true version as laid down in the Koran. The Muslim Weekly (doubtless suitably primed by Nr 10 spin doctors) quoted from a Blair speech to the Foreign Policy Centre. As Blair said himself (and never did he speak a truer word) "I am not qualified to make any judgements….!" But since when did that stop him making them anyway?

There are of course would be reformers of Islam but these extracts from official Muslim teaching, where the violence and hatred is directed against unbelievers and other religions, makes one realise how difficult an accommodation with Islamic fundamentalists is – and how difficult it is for reforming Muslims to argue with the fundamentalists. The Koran, unlike the Bible, is officially the word of God – Allah. We are grateful to Dr Srdja Trifkovic and Rev Dr Alan Clifford for extracts from the Koran.

Blair’s words come first, relevant extracts from the Koran are quoted in italics. The Koran, like the Bible, has chapters "Sura" and verses. Blair was obviously reading the wrong Koran!

"The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran ….. is to understand how progressive it is."

'Believers, retaliation is decreed for you in bloodshed' (Sura 2: 178).

"I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book……"

"When we decide to destroy a population…then we destroy them utterly" (17.16-17)

"The Koran is inclusive…….."

Infidels are "the worst animals" (8.55) and the vilest of creatures" (98.6) For the captured infidel "we have prepared chains, yokes and a blazing fire" (76.4)

"It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance,"

Islam’s heaven is full of virgins "untouched by man" (52.17-20, 55.56-77) and "fresh" boys! (52.24, 56.17 76.19)

"It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition."

'Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate' (Sura 9: 73).

"……. trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers
attempted with the Christian Church centuries later.

"Kill any Jew you can lay your hands on" – Mohammed told his followers.

Blair added that "under the guidance of the Qur’an, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was "breathtaking".

'Those that deny Our revelations We will burn in Hellfire...

"Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. We look back to the early Middle Ages, the standard bearers of tolerance at that time were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian," Blair declared.

"Attacking caravans in the holy month, taking up arms against one’s kinsmen, slaughtering prisoners, reserving a lion’s share of the booty for himself, violating treaties and indulging one’s own sensual passions was all at odds with the moral standards of Mohammed’s Arab contemporaries. Only the ultimate authority could sanction it and Allah duly obliged" Dr Srdja Trifkovic.



--------------------------------

Blair: 'Muslim may be PM'

By Anila Baig
December 09, 2006

A MUSLIM could one day be Prime Minister, Tony Blair said last night.

Speaking exclusively to The Sun, the PM said: “They said there would never be a woman Prime Minister, but there was. It would depend on how good they were.

“The people would judge who was best for the job.”

The Premier also said he would not mind if any of his children wanted to marry a Muslim, saying: "I would respect it, if that was their decision and they were in love and happy."

Earlier, he delivered a lecture on race and religion in front of an invited audience of community leaders, race chiefs and the media.

He celebrated the contribution made by Britain’s ethnic minorities and praised the wider community’s acceptance of people’s backgrounds.

He said Britain was a haven for all people and praised The Sun’s interview with Arsenal’s French footballer Thierry Henry, in which he claimed Britain was one of the world’s most tolerant countries. Mr Blair said: “I read it. I thought it was excellent. And I think Thierry Henry is a really great bloke, by the way.”

The PM said Britain had changed for the better in the last 30 years, with offensive remarks and stupid stereotypes driven out of everyday conversation. According to figures, only 12 per cent of people would mind if a close relative married a black or Asian person.

Mr Blair again acknowledged that he would not have a problem if his son or daughter brought home a Muslim.


But he again defended Commons Leader Jack Straw’s comments over the veil — while pointing out that most extremists were young men, not women in niqabs.

He said it was a matter of common sense that, when speaking to someone, you could see their face.

Mr Blair called Channel 4’s Alternative Christmas Message, which will feature a woman wearing a veil for the first time, “a joke”.

He said: “I won’t be watching. I’ll be watching the Queen’s speech.”

Mr Blair pointed out that there was a great deal of discussion on the issue of veils going on within the Muslim community.

The PM added: “When Jack Straw made his comments, no less a person than the Mufti of the Arab Republic of Egypt made an approving statement.”

Mr Blair pleased Muslims members of his audience by referring to extremists as a “fringe element”.

Many Muslims feel aggrieved over the way the war on terror has been handled and feel they have been tainted and are all under suspicion.

But Mr Blair defined a moderate Muslim, saying this was “someone who believes if you have a disagreement with someone, then you change it by peaceful means”.

He said it was not about how religion was practised, but stressed that it was everyone’s duty to integrate.

He added: “If you are permitted to stay here permanently, you become an equal member of our community and become one of us.”

Mr Blair argued the great thing about Britain is that people can worship as they wish.

He said his family would be going to church on Christmas Eve.

The PM said: “We can worship God in our own way.

“It’s what being British means. And neither racists nor extremists should be allowed to destroy it.”

--------------------------------

So, Happy Christmas Tony Blair. Perhaps you would like to go and live in a Muslim country for your long-anticipated retirement. Perhaps you will then see at first hand how Christians and other non-Muslims are treated there.

If you have read the Quran, did you understand the concept of abrogation?

You, Mr Blair are either a dangerous fool, or a dangerous liar.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Second email message sent to Members of Parliament.

Dear Member of Parliament

I trust that my earlier email to you has been of some value. There is a worrying level of misinformation spread about Islam. It is through reading the Quran itself, and properly understanding the concept of abrogation, that we can start to have a true understanding.

You do not need to take my word for it, but instead study these two websites. They are written by ex-Muslims:
Faith Freedom www.faithfreedom.org
Apostates of Islam www.apostatesofislam.com

I have set up a blog, with the primary aim of providing a truthful understanding of Islam. The blog address is:

http://st-george-true.blogspot.com/

The blog was started in mid September. It was the anniversary of the London bombings that prompted my research into Islam. I wanted to understand the motivation of the Islamic terrorists. I have now come to understand that it is the Quran itself that is the primary inspiration. Blaming al Qaeda alone is too simplistic.

Anybody can leave comments on my blog, anonymously if they like. If I have made any error, I am happy to correct it.

Shortly after sending my first email to Members of Parliament, I have started to run into difficulties. In particular, my Internet Service Provider has threatened to block my internet access. I can only assume that it is one of your number who is attempting to stifle the debate. It may be that they will try to close down the blog also, so view it while you can.

This is really a very worrying development for our nation. Preventing freedom of speech and freedom of expression is a very serious matter, and will inevitably lead to serious consequences for our democracy.

Any reduction in our freedom of speech will seriously disadvantage our efforts to root out Islamic extremism.

I have at all times proclaimed the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of my ability.

It is very hard for the electorate to know which of our MPs actually have an understanding of Islam. It is patently obvious that Blair does not understand it. However, it is only Boris Johnson who has demonstrated some understanding, during the BBC "Question Time" programme of 16th November 2006.

I want to make progress, so here are some additional points:

In addition to a consideration of the roots of Islamic terrorism in itself, there are two areas in which Parliament must take the initiative to press for some real action from the Government (executive). The two areas are:

Firstly, to set up an enquiry into whether the Quran itself glorifies terrorism. Since we have the glorification of terrorism law, we should apply it. The law must be applied without fear or favour. However, it is painfully clear that those in authority are so fearful of offending certain elements in society, that a great disservice is done to the majority.

Secondly, we must consider the cruelty to animals of Halal slaughter. It is clear that human slavery is an evil and inhuman practice, and we should be proud that good Christians in Britain were instrumental in its abolition two hundred years ago. Of course, the abolition was opposed by those with a vested interest in making money from the despicable trade. Today, we have another battle of morals to be waged. This is the slaughter of animals for Halal meat, which causes avoidable suffering. It would be fitting for Britain to again take the lead today, as our ancestors did with the abolition of slavery..
We must first ban this cruel practice in Britain. We can then encourage the governments of Australia and New Zealand to follow our lead on this issue. Of course, there are powerful interests that would oppose the banning of live export of sheep from Australia and New Zeland to Middle East markets. Sometimes however, a reduction of revenues must be accepted for a greater good. Halal slaughter is evil and inhumane, and must be banned.

The Government's own advisers, the Farm Animal Welfare Council (www.fawc.org.uk), have written a document 'Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing'

Regarding Halal slaughter, it states:

"195. When a very large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nerve trunks (e.g. vagus and phrenic nerves) plus numerous minor nerves. Such a drastic cut will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. We are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes."


I wish you success in the application of wisdom and truth. As General Sir Richard Dannatt has said: "the truth will out".

Yours faithfully,
Lionheart.


NOTE:
I have not been able to send this message to the MPs listed below, as they do not give their email address on their websites, or the address given is out of date.
If you see the name of a colleague who would benefit from receiving this message, then by all means forward a copy to them.


Adams, Mr Gerry (SF)
Afriyie, Adam (Con)
Ainsworth, Rt Hon Bob (Lab)
Allen, Mr Graham (Lab)
Atkins, Charlotte (Lab)
Atkinson, Mr Peter (Con)
Austin, Mr Ian (Lab)

Baker, Norman (LD)
Barker, Gregory (Con)
Baron, Mr John (Con)
Barron, Rt Hon Kevin (Lab)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret (Lab)
Bellingham, Mr Henry (Con)
Bercow, John (Con)
Beresford, Sir Paul (Con)
Betts, Mr Clive (Lab)
Blackman, Liz (Lab)
Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (Lab)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony (Lab)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David (Lab)
Bone, Mr Peter (Con)
Borrow, Mr David S. (Lab)
Boswell, Mr Tim (Con)
Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Lab)
Brady, Mr Graham (Con)
Brooke, Annette (LD)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Lab)
Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Lab)
Browne, Mr Jeremy (LD)
Burnham, Andy (Lab)
Burns, Mr Simon (Con)
Butterfill, Sir John (Con)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard (Lab)
Campbell, Mr Gregory (DU)
Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Lab)
Cash, Mr William (Con)
Caton, Mr Martin (Lab)
Challen, Colin (Lab)
Chaytor, Mr David (Lab)
Chope, Mr Christopher (Con)
Clappison, Mr James (Con)
Clark, Greg (Con)
Clark, Ms Katy (Lab)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Con)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Lab)
Clegg, Mr Nick (LD)
Clelland, Mr David (Lab)
Clifton-Brown, Mr Geoffrey (Con)
Clwyd, Rt Hon Ann (Lab)
Connarty, Michael (Lab)
Conway, Derek (Con)
Cook, Frank (Lab)
Corbyn, Jeremy (Lab)
Cormack, Sir Patrick (Con)
Cousins, Jim (Lab)
Crabb, Mr Stephen (Con)
Crausby, Mr David (Lab)
Cruddas, Jon (Lab)
Cummings, John (Lab)
Cunningham, Mr Jim (Lab)
Curry, Rt Hon David (Con)

Davey, Mr Edward (LD)
Davidson, Mr Ian (Lab/Co-op)
Davies, Dai (Ind)
Davies, Mr Quentin (Con)
Davies, Philip (Con)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Con)
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan (Con)
Dobbin, Jim (Lab/Co-op)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank (Lab)
Dodds, Mr Nigel (DU)
Doherty, Mr Pat (SF)
Drew, Mr David (Lab/Co-op)
Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain (Con)
Dunne, Mr Philip (Con)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth (Lab)
Durkan, Mark (SDLP)

Eagle, Maria (Lab)
Efford, Clive (Lab)
Ellman, Mrs Louise (Lab/Co-op)
Ellwood, Mr Tobias (Con)
Ennis, Jeff (Lab)
Etherington, Bill (Lab)

Fabricant, Michael (Con)
Farrelly, Paul (Lab)
Field, Mr Mark (Con)
Fisher, Mark (Lab)
Follett, Barbara (Lab)
Foster, Mr Don (LD)
Fox, Dr Liam (Con)
Fraser, Mr Christopher (Con)

Gale, Mr Roger (Con)
Galloway, Mr George (Respect)
George, Andrew (LD)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Lab)
Gibb, Mr Nick (Con)
Gibson, Dr Ian (Lab)
Gildernew, Michelle (SF)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl (Con)
Godsiff, Mr Roger (Lab)
Goodwill, Mr Robert (Con)
Greening, Justine (Con)
Greenway, Mr John (Con)
Grieve, Mr Dominic (Con)
Griffith, Nia (Lab)
Griffiths, Nigel (Lab)
Gwynne, Andrew (Lab)

Hague, Rt Hon William (Con)
Hall, Patrick (Lab)
Hammond, Mr Philip (Con)
Harper, Mr Mark (Con)
Harris, Dr Evan (LD)
Harvey, Nick (LD)
Hayes, Mr John (Con)
Heal, Sylvia (DCWM)
Henderson, Mr Doug (Lab)
Hepburn, Mr Stephen (Lab)
Hermon, Lady Sylvia (UU)
Heyes, David (Lab)
Hill, Rt Hon Keith (Lab)
Hillier, Meg (Lab/Co-op)
Hoey, Kate (Lab)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)
Holloway, Mr Adam (Con)
Hopkins, Kelvin (Lab)
Horam, Mr John (Con)
Horwood, Mr Martin (LD)
Howarth, Rt Hon George (Lab)
Howells, Dr Kim (Lab)
Hoyle, Mr Lindsay (Lab)
Hughes, Rt Hon Beverley (Lab)
Humble, Mrs Joan (Lab)

Iddon, Dr Brian (Lab)
Illsley, Mr Eric (Lab)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam (Lab)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael (Con)
Jackson, Glenda (Lab)
Jackson, Mr Stewart (Con)
Jenkin, Mr Bernard (Con)
Jones, Helen (Lab)
Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa (Lab)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Sir Gerald (Lab)
Keeble, Ms Sally (Lab)
Keeley, Ms Barbara (Lab)
Keen, Alan (Lab/Co-op)
Kelly, Rt Hon Ruth (Lab)
Kemp, Mr Fraser (Lab)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (LD)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Jane (Lab)
Key, Robert (Con)
Khabra, Mr Piara S (Lab)
Kidney, Mr David (Lab)
Kumar, Dr Ashok (Lab)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen (Lab)
Laing, Mrs Eleanor (Con)
Lammy, Mr David (Lab)
Lancaster, Mr Mark (Con)
Leech, Mr John (LD)
Lepper, David (Lab/Co-op)
Letwin, Rt Hon Oliver (Con)
Lewis, Mr Ivan (Lab)
Lewis, Dr Julian (Con)
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian (Con)
Linton, Martin (Lab)
Lloyd, Tony (Lab)
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Lord, Sir Michael (DCWM)
Luff, Peter (Con)

McCafferty, Chris (Lab)
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Lab)
McCrea, Rev Dr William (DU)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
McFadden, Mr Pat (Lab)
McGuinness, Mr Martin (SF)
McIntosh, Miss Anne (Con)
McIsaac, Shona (Lab)
Mackinlay, Andrew (Lab)
Maclean, Rt Hon David (Con)
McLoughlin, Rt Hon Patrick (Con)
MacNeil, Mr Angus (SNP)
McNulty, Mr Tony (Lab)
Mahmood, Mr Khalid (Lab)
Malik, Mr Shahid (Lab)
Malins, Mr Humfrey (Con)
Marsden, Mr Gordon (Lab)
Marshall, Mr David (Lab)
Martin, Rt Hon Michael J. (SPK)
Martlew, Mr Eric (Lab)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis (Con)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun (Lab/Co-op)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan (Lab)
Miliband, Edward (Lab)
Miller, Andrew (Lab)
Milton, Anne (Con)
Moffat, Anne (Lab)
Morden, Jessica (Lab)
Morley, Mr Elliot (Lab)
Mountford, Kali (Lab)
Mudie, Mr George (Lab)
Mullin, Mr Chris (Lab)
Murphy, Conor (SF)
Murphy, Mr Denis (Lab)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Lab)

Neill, Bob (Con)
Newmark, Mr Brooks (Con)
Norris, Dan (Lab)

O'Brien, Mr Mike (Lab)
O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Con)
O'Hara, Mr Edward (Lab)
Olner, Mr Bill (Lab)
Osborne, Mr George (Con)

Paisley, Rt Hon Ian (DU)
Palmer, Dr Nick (Lab)
Paterson, Mr Owen (Con)
Pearson, Ian (Lab)
Pelling, Mr Andrew (Con)
Penning, Mike (Con)
Penrose, John (Con)
Pound, Stephen (Lab)
Prescott, Rt Hon John (Lab)
Price, Adam (PC)
Prosser, Gwyn (Lab)
Purnell, James (Lab)

Reed, Mr Andy (Lab/Co-op)
Reed, Mr Jamie (Lab)
Reid, Mr Alan (LD)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Sir Malcolm (Con)
Riordan, Mrs Linda (Lab/Co-op)
Robathan, Mr Andrew (Con)
Robertson, Hugh (Con)
Robertson, John (Lab)
Robertson, Mr Laurence (Con)
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey (Lab)
Robinson, Mrs Iris (DU)
Robinson, Mr Peter (DU)
Rooney, Mr Terry (Lab)
Rosindell, Andrew (Con)
Rowen, Paul (LD)
Ruane, Chris (Lab)
Ruddock, Joan (Lab)
Russell, Christine (Lab)
Russell, Bob (LD)
Ryan, Joan (Lab)

Sanders, Mr Adrian (LD)
Seabeck, Alison (Lab)
Shaw, Jonathan (Lab)
Shepherd, Mr Richard (Con)
Simon, Mr Siôn (Lab)
Simpson, David (DU)
Simpson, Mr Keith (Con)
Singh, Mr Marsha (Lab)
Skinner, Mr Dennis (Lab)
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Lab)
Smith, Angela E. (Lab/Co-op)
Smith, Geraldine (Lab)
Smith, John (Lab)
Smith, Sir Robert (LD)
Snelgrove, Anne (Lab)
Soulsby, Sir Peter (Lab)
Southworth, Helen (Lab)
Spring, Mr Richard (Con)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John (Con)
Steen, Mr Anthony (Con)
Stewart, Ian (Lab)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack (Lab)
Stringer, Graham (Lab)
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Lab)
Swire, Mr Hugo (Con)
Syms, Mr Robert (Con)

Tapsell, Sir Peter (Con)
Taylor, David (Lab/Co-op)
Taylor, Matthew (LD)
Taylor, Dr Richard (Ind)
Thomas, Mr Gareth (Lab/Co-op)
Timms, Rt Hon Stephen (Lab)
Tipping, Paddy (Lab)
Touhig, Rt Hon Don (Lab/Co-op)
Tredinnick, David (Con)
Trickett, Jon (Lab)
Truswell, Mr Paul (Lab)
Turner, Mr Neil (Lab)
Tyrie, Mr Andrew (Con)

Vis, Dr Rudi (Lab)

Waltho, Lynda (Lab)
Wareing, Mr Robert N. (Lab)
Watkinson, Angela (Con)
Watts, Mr Dave (Lab)
Wicks, Malcolm (Lab)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Ann (Con)
Wiggin, Bill (Con)
Willetts, Mr David (Con)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Lab)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Lab)
Williams, Hywel (PC)
Williams, Mark (LD)
Williams, Mr Roger (LD)
Wilshire, Mr David (Con)
Wilson, Sammy (DU)
Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Con)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)
Woolas, Mr Phil (Lab)
Wright, Mr Anthony (Lab)
Wright, Mr Iain (Lab)

Yeo, Mr Tim (Con)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George (Con)
Younger-Ross, Richard (LD)

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Can Islam coexist with democracy?

Simply do a Google search with the words "islam democracy".
You will find numerous websites, quite a number of which are written by Muslims.

It would appear that Democracy and Islam are incompatible.

There are obvious implications therefore for Iraq. It was very irresponsible of Bush and Blair to have meddled with an Islamic country, without first having a good grasp of Islam itself. At least Bush is now listening to some wise counsel. However, it is not clear that Blair understands the question yet, let alone has progressed towards a solution.

A valid point has been raised by General Sir Richard Dannatt:

"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro-West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East. That was the hope. Whether that was a sensible or naïve hope, history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."

Whether Islam can ever be compatible with Democracy in the future is an interesting question. It would require Islam itself to change, which seems unlikely. However, any changes must be made from within, and cannot be made from outside Islam.

It may be that the Pope can have some influence to encourage the debate within Islam. Let us hope so.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

New Scientist Halal

It is pleasing to see that Muslim researchers are looking for a less cruel method of slaughter. Meanwhile, the routine cruelty of Halal slaughter must stop, until such time as an improved method can be proven. Any method of slaughter must be no more cruel or distressing for the animal than that of the best possible practice. This applies both to the slaughter itself, but also in the treatment of the animal up to the time of slaughter.

Incidentally, I have a Jewish friend who is a vegetarian. It would appear that a growing consciousnes of, and conscience about the cruelty of traditional methods of slaughter is developing within the Jewish community.

This article is copied from the "New Scientist" magazine of 2nd December 2006:



Halal-standard slaughtering doesn't need animals awake

"He has only forbidden you dead meat and blood, and the flesh of swine and that on which any other name has been invoked besides that of God." (The Koran 2:173)

Muslim religious law requires, amongst other things, that an animal must be drained of blood before it is halal - permissible for consumption. Ritual slaughter according to Jewish dietary law - shechita - has the same prescription.

Most Muslim slaughterers believe that drainage will only be complete if the throat of the animal is slit without stunning it first, but now Haluk Anil of the University of Bristol, UK, and colleagues have shown that the amount of blood drained from the animal, and the rate of blood loss, is the same regardless of whether or not it is stunned first.

Anlil's team have already shown that stunning does not affect "bleed-out" in sheep. Now they have done the same thing in cattle. They measured the bleed-out in 13 cattle killed by the traditional Muslim method, and 13 killed in the same way, but having first been stunned by a captive-bolt-pistol blow to the head (Animal Welfare, vol 15, p 325).

"Stunning does not impede blood loss, therefore this objection cannot be used any more," says Anlil, who is coordinating a European Union project to examine legislation and welfare issues related to religious slaughter, both shechita and halal.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

M&S Halal

This is an email sent to Marks and Spencer. As yet, no useful reply has been received.


customer.care@marks-and-spencer.com


M&S Halal

Dear Sir or Madam


I very much welcome the active stance that M&S has towards animal welfare.


I have looked at the website of the Farm Animal Welfare Council (www.fawc.org.uk), and have read their document 'Report on the Welfare of Farmed Animals at Slaughter or Killing'


Regarding Halal slaughter:


"195. When a very large transverse incision is made across the neck a number of vital tissues are transected including: skin, muscle, trachea, oesophagus, carotid arteries, jugular veins, major nerve trunks (e.g. vagus and phrenic nerves) plus numerous minor nerves. Such a drastic cut will inevitably trigger a barrage of sensory information to the brain in a sensible (conscious) animal. We are persuaded that such a massive injury would result in very significant pain and distress in the period before insensibility supervenes."


Can you reassure me that M&S do not sell any Halal meat, or Halal meat products?

Do you also check whether pet food contains Halal meat?

With kind regards

---------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Email message sent to Members of Parliament.

(NOTE: To anyone wishing to be helpful: This is an email that I have already sent to UK Members of Parliament. It is NOT a petition, therefore do NOT send any additional copies to UK Members of Parliament, as that is likely to cause confusion, which will not be helpful.

However, if you wish to make use of this letter to send it to your MPs or Senators in your own country, then please do so. You will need to adapt it to your own specific circumstances. For example, the paragraph relating to Prince Charles is not relevant to the USA, but is relevant for Canada, Australia, New Zealand and other Commonwealth nations.

If you have the time and energy to do this task, then please add a comment below, so that I can get in touch with you. It is not a small task, and will involve several days of effort. It would be helpful if only one person per country does this task, to avoid duplicated effort and confusion. All replies can then be collated on a single website or blog per country.)


Dear Member of Parliament

During the course of the forthcoming Parliamentary year, there will be debates on terrorism. It is vitally important that you should first have a good understanding of Islam, in order to have a meaningful debate on Islamic terrorism. Hence, you need to understand the Quran.

I have made numerous notes on my blog, which hopefully can be a useful resource for you. You will find it here:

http://st-george-true.blogspot.com/

The key aspect that you must understand about the Quran is the concept of "abrogation". This means that the chronologically earlier verses, which can be very tolerant, are superseded by the later verses, which are generally very bloodthirsty and violent.

Therefore, if you are told that Islam is a religion of peace, and you are given quotes such as "there shall be no compulsion in religion", you need to be on your guard.

It is a frequent misconception, or deliberate propaganda, that the word "Islam" means "peace". It does not. The word "Islam" is derived from the Arabic word "al-silm", which means "surrender" or "submission".

Unlike other religions, Christianity or Buddhism for example, a lack of honesty is inherently part of Islam. A quote from the Hadiths (essentially Mohammed's biography) demonstrates this:

"Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy)." Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64

There is little point in Parliament passing laws which are then not acted upon. The glorification of terrorism act for example. It is clearly the case that the Quran is the single most significant document that inspires, condones, commands, and glorifies Islamic terrorism. There needs to be an enquiry into whether the Quran meets the criteria of the glorification of terrorism act.

It is deeply concerning that our future Monarch, Prince Charles, appears to have a limited understanding of the truth about Islam, despite his interest in it. Since Islam is completely intolerant of all other religions, it is meaningless for him to wish for the title "Defender of Faiths". As a loyal subject, I do not wish to see my Monarch become a laughing stock.

The Quran itself makes it clear that Muslims cannot integrate peacefully with non-Muslims:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran 5.51

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Quran 9.123

In addition to the threat of Islamic terrorism, it is clear from these quotes that Islam is also a serious threat to social cohesion and stability in Britain. There are already strident calls for Sharia law to be introduced in certain areas, which must be strongly resisted. Take care when deciding how much government power to devolve to regions or cities. Islamists will be quick to take advantage of any weakening of control from central government. They aim to "cut off the head", so to speak, meaning, to sever the connection between government and the populace. Beware, they will use any means to stifle debate, and put curbs on any public analysis of Islam. Any reduction in our freedom of speech will seriously disadvantage our efforts to root out Islamic extremism.

Speaking the truth is far more important than worrying about offending sensibilities. We owe that much at least to the victims of the London bombings.

Islamic terrorism cannot be considered in isolation from Islam itself. In response to 9/11, Salman Rushdie wrote an article with the title "Yes, This Is About Islam". It is worthwhile reading the first two paragraphs:

<"This isn't about Islam." The world's leaders have been repeating this mantra for weeks, partly in the virtuous hope of deterring reprisal attacks on innocent Muslims living in the West, partly because if the United States is to maintain its coalition against terror it can't afford to suggest that Islam and terrorism are in any way related.

The trouble with this necessary disclaimer is that it isn't true. If this isn't about Islam, why the worldwide Muslim demonstrations in support of Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda? Why did those 10,000 men armed with swords and axes mass on the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, answering some mullah's call to jihad? Why are the war's first British casualties three Muslim men who died fighting on the Taliban side?>

The full article is found here:
http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/rushdie/yes_its_about_islam.htm
It is worthwhile taking a good look at this Faith Freedom website. It tells the truth about Islam.

I would very much appreciate a meaningful reply to this email. I will place all replies onto my blog, unless you mark it "CONFIDENTIAL". It is important that the electorate should know which of their MPs or Parliamentary candidates have a firm and accurate understanding of this subject matter.

I wish you success in the application of wisdom and true understanding during the forthcoming debates. This issue is far too important to be sidetracked by party political point scoring.

Yours faithfully,
Lionheart.


NOTE:
I have not been able to send this message to the MPs listed below, as they do not give their email address on their websites.
If you see the name of a colleague who would benefit from receiving this message, then by all means forward a copy to them.


Adams, Mr Gerry (SF)
Afriyie, Adam (Con)
Ainsworth, Rt Hon Bob (Lab)
Allen, Mr Graham (Lab)
Atkins, Charlotte (Lab)
Atkinson, Mr Peter (Con)
Austin, Mr Ian (Lab)

Baker, Norman (LD)
Barker, Gregory (Con)
Baron, Mr John (Con)
Barron, Rt Hon Kevin (Lab)
Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret (Lab)
Bellingham, Mr Henry (Con)
Bercow, John (Con)
Beresford, Sir Paul (Con)
Betts, Mr Clive (Lab)
Blackman, Liz (Lab)
Blackman-Woods, Dr Roberta (Lab)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony (Lab)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David (Lab)
Bone, Mr Peter (Con)
Borrow, Mr David S. (Lab)
Boswell, Mr Tim (Con)
Bradshaw, Mr Ben (Lab)
Brady, Mr Graham (Con)
Brooke, Annette (LD)
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Lab)
Brown, Rt Hon Nicholas (Lab)
Browne, Mr Jeremy (LD)
Burnham, Andy (Lab)
Burns, Mr Simon (Con)
Butterfill, Sir John (Con)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard (Lab)
Campbell, Mr Gregory (DU)
Campbell, Mr Ronnie (Lab)
Cash, Mr William (Con)
Caton, Mr Martin (Lab)
Challen, Colin (Lab)
Chaytor, Mr David (Lab)
Chope, Mr Christopher (Con)
Clappison, Mr James (Con)
Clark, Greg (Con)
Clark, Ms Katy (Lab)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Con)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Lab)
Clegg, Mr Nick (LD)
Clelland, Mr David (Lab)
Clifton-Brown, Mr Geoffrey (Con)
Clwyd, Rt Hon Ann (Lab)
Connarty, Michael (Lab)
Conway, Derek (Con)
Cook, Frank (Lab)
Corbyn, Jeremy (Lab)
Cormack, Sir Patrick (Con)
Cousins, Jim (Lab)
Crabb, Mr Stephen (Con)
Crausby, Mr David (Lab)
Cruddas, Jon (Lab)
Cummings, John (Lab)
Cunningham, Mr Jim (Lab)
Curry, Rt Hon David (Con)

Davey, Mr Edward (LD)
Davidson, Mr Ian (Lab/Co-op)
Davies, Dai (Ind)
Davies, Mr Quentin (Con)
Davies, Philip (Con)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Con)
Djanogly, Mr Jonathan (Con)
Dobbin, Jim (Lab/Co-op)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank (Lab)
Dodds, Mr Nigel (DU)
Doherty, Mr Pat (SF)
Drew, Mr David (Lab/Co-op)
Duncan Smith, Rt Hon Iain (Con)
Dunne, Mr Philip (Con)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth (Lab)
Durkan, Mark (SDLP)

Eagle, Maria (Lab)
Efford, Clive (Lab)
Ellman, Mrs Louise (Lab/Co-op)
Ellwood, Mr Tobias (Con)
Ennis, Jeff (Lab)
Etherington, Bill (Lab)

Fabricant, Michael (Con)
Farrelly, Paul (Lab)
Field, Mr Mark (Con)
Fisher, Mark (Lab)
Follett, Barbara (Lab)
Foster, Mr Don (LD)
Fox, Dr Liam (Con)
Fraser, Mr Christopher (Con)

Gale, Mr Roger (Con)
Galloway, Mr George (Respect)
George, Andrew (LD)
George, Rt Hon Bruce (Lab)
Gibb, Mr Nick (Con)
Gibson, Dr Ian (Lab)
Gildernew, Michelle (SF)
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl (Con)
Godsiff, Mr Roger (Lab)
Goodwill, Mr Robert (Con)
Greening, Justine (Con)
Greenway, Mr John (Con)
Grieve, Mr Dominic (Con)
Griffith, Nia (Lab)
Griffiths, Nigel (Lab)
Gwynne, Andrew (Lab)

Hague, Rt Hon William (Con)
Hall, Patrick (Lab)
Hammond, Mr Philip (Con)
Harper, Mr Mark (Con)
Harris, Dr Evan (LD)
Harvey, Nick (LD)
Hayes, Mr John (Con)
Heal, Sylvia (DCWM)
Henderson, Mr Doug (Lab)
Hepburn, Mr Stephen (Lab)
Hermon, Lady Sylvia (UU)
Heyes, David (Lab)
Hill, Rt Hon Keith (Lab)
Hillier, Meg (Lab/Co-op)
Hoey, Kate (Lab)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (Con)
Hollobone, Mr Philip (Con)
Holloway, Mr Adam (Con)
Hopkins, Kelvin (Lab)
Horam, Mr John (Con)
Horwood, Mr Martin (LD)
Howarth, Rt Hon George (Lab)
Howells, Dr Kim (Lab)
Hoyle, Mr Lindsay (Lab)
Hughes, Rt Hon Beverley (Lab)
Humble, Mrs Joan (Lab)

Iddon, Dr Brian (Lab)
Illsley, Mr Eric (Lab)
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam (Lab)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael (Con)
Jackson, Glenda (Lab)
Jackson, Mr Stewart (Con)
Jenkin, Mr Bernard (Con)
Jones, Helen (Lab)
Jowell, Rt Hon Tessa (Lab)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Sir Gerald (Lab)
Keeble, Ms Sally (Lab)
Keeley, Ms Barbara (Lab)
Keen, Alan (Lab/Co-op)
Kelly, Rt Hon Ruth (Lab)
Kemp, Mr Fraser (Lab)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (LD)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Jane (Lab)
Key, Robert (Con)
Khabra, Mr Piara S (Lab)
Kidney, Mr David (Lab)
Kumar, Dr Ashok (Lab)

Laing, Mrs Eleanor (Con)
Lammy, Mr David (Lab)
Lancaster, Mr Mark (Con)
Leech, Mr John (LD)
Lepper, David (Lab/Co-op)
Letwin, Rt Hon Oliver (Con)
Lewis, Mr Ivan (Lab)
Lewis, Dr Julian (Con)
Liddell-Grainger, Mr Ian (Con)
Linton, Martin (Lab)
Lloyd, Tony (Lab)
Llwyd, Mr Elfyn (PC)
Lord, Sir Michael (DCWM)
Luff, Peter (Con)

McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Lab)
McCrea, Rev Dr William (DU)
McDonnell, Dr Alasdair (SDLP)
McFadden, Mr Pat (Lab)
McGuinness, Mr Martin (SF)
McIntosh, Miss Anne (Con)
McIsaac, Shona (Lab)
Mackinlay, Andrew (Lab)
Maclean, Rt Hon David (Con)
McLoughlin, Rt Hon Patrick (Con)
MacNeil, Mr Angus (SNP)
McNulty, Mr Tony (Lab)
Mahmood, Mr Khalid (Lab)
Malik, Mr Shahid (Lab)
Malins, Mr Humfrey (Con)
Marsden, Mr Gordon (Lab)
Marshall, Mr David (Lab)
Martin, Rt Hon Michael J. (SPK)
Martlew, Mr Eric (Lab)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis (Con)
Michael, Rt Hon Alun (Lab/Co-op)
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan (Lab)
Miliband, Edward (Lab)
Miller, Andrew (Lab)
Milton, Anne (Con)
Moffat, Anne (Lab)
Morden, Jessica (Lab)
Morley, Mr Elliot (Lab)
Mountford, Kali (Lab)
Mudie, Mr George (Lab)
Mullin, Mr Chris (Lab)
Murphy, Conor (SF)
Murphy, Mr Denis (Lab)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Lab)

Neill, Bob (Con)
Newmark, Mr Brooks (Con)
Norris, Dan (Lab)

O'Brien, Mr Mike (Lab)
O'Brien, Mr Stephen (Con)
O'Hara, Mr Edward (Lab)
Olner, Mr Bill (Lab)
Osborne, Mr George (Con)

Paisley, Rt Hon Ian (DU)
Paterson, Mr Owen (Con)
Pearson, Ian (Lab)
Pelling, Mr Andrew (Con)
Penning, Mike (Con)
Penrose, John (Con)
Pound, Stephen (Lab)
Prescott, Rt Hon John (Lab)
Price, Adam (PC)
Prosser, Gwyn (Lab)
Purnell, James (Lab)

Reed, Mr Andy (Lab/Co-op)
Reed, Mr Jamie (Lab)
Reid, Mr Alan (LD)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Sir Malcolm (Con)
Riordan, Mrs Linda (Lab/Co-op)
Robathan, Mr Andrew (Con)
Robertson, Hugh (Con)
Robertson, John (Lab)
Robertson, Mr Laurence (Con)
Robinson, Mr Geoffrey (Lab)
Robinson, Mrs Iris (DU)
Robinson, Mr Peter (DU)
Rooney, Mr Terry (Lab)
Rosindell, Andrew (Con)
Rowen, Paul (LD)
Ruane, Chris (Lab)
Ruddock, Joan (Lab)
Russell, Christine (Lab)
Russell, Bob (LD)
Ryan, Joan (Lab)

Sanders, Mr Adrian (LD)
Seabeck, Alison (Lab)
Shaw, Jonathan (Lab)
Shepherd, Mr Richard (Con)
Simon, Mr Siôn (Lab)
Simpson, David (DU)
Simpson, Mr Keith (Con)
Singh, Mr Marsha (Lab)
Skinner, Mr Dennis (Lab)
Smith, Ms Angela C. (Lab)
Smith, Angela E. (Lab/Co-op)
Smith, Geraldine (Lab)
Smith, John (Lab)
Smith, Sir Robert (LD)
Snelgrove, Anne (Lab)
Soulsby, Sir Peter (Lab)
Southworth, Helen (Lab)
Spring, Mr Richard (Con)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John (Con)
Steen, Mr Anthony (Con)
Stewart, Ian (Lab)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack (Lab)
Stringer, Graham (Lab)
Sutcliffe, Mr Gerry (Lab)
Swire, Mr Hugo (Con)
Syms, Mr Robert (Con)

Tapsell, Sir Peter (Con)
Taylor, David (Lab/Co-op)
Taylor, Matthew (LD)
Taylor, Dr Richard (Ind)
Thomas, Mr Gareth (Lab/Co-op)
Timms, Rt Hon Stephen (Lab)
Tipping, Paddy (Lab)
Touhig, Rt Hon Don (Lab/Co-op)
Tredinnick, David (Con)
Trickett, Jon (Lab)
Truswell, Mr Paul (Lab)
Turner, Mr Neil (Lab)
Tyrie, Mr Andrew (Con)

Vis, Dr Rudi (Lab)

Waltho, Lynda (Lab)
Wareing, Mr Robert N. (Lab)
Watkinson, Angela (Con)
Watts, Mr Dave (Lab)
Wicks, Malcolm (Lab)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Ann (Con)
Wiggin, Bill (Con)
Willetts, Mr David (Con)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Lab)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Lab)
Williams, Hywel (PC)
Williams, Mark (LD)
Williams, Mr Roger (LD)
Wilshire, Mr David (Con)
Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Con)
Wishart, Pete (SNP)
Woolas, Mr Phil (Lab)
Wright, Mr Anthony (Lab)
Wright, Mr Iain (Lab)

Yeo, Mr Tim (Con)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George (Con)
Younger-Ross, Richard (LD)

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Charged with congestion of the brain

This blog is concentrating on the threat of Islam in Britain. However, many aspects of the difficulties of modern living are interconnected, and the common theme is that politicians mis-diagnose the ailment, and consequently prescribe an inappropriate medication. Some years later, they start to wonder why their "solution" did not work. Very often, Joe public understands the problem, but even stating the truth of the reality is castigated as being politically incorrect. An open and honest debate is therefore stifled for many years. Without properly understanding the problem, it is impossible to find the solution.

Take the current "hot" topic of road congestion. Too many vehicles making use of too few roads. The problem has not suddenly appeared, but has been getting consistently worse particularly over the last decade during Labour's time in office. It has not helped that Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown has effectively prevented any significant road building. However, I do not think that is the main factor. Simply, the demand for road use has mushroomed. Understanding the demand is key to finding a solution. Building new roads will not keep up with demand for very long.

The simplistic "solution" proposed by the Government is to add a road usage charge. However, we motorists already pay for the roads several times over. Nobody enjoys being stuck in a traffic queue, and if you are wasting time, that equates to money anyway. (You could be spending the time earning overtime payment, or furthering your career or business.) We already pay per mile, it is called fuel duty, which is far easier to collect than even automated road tolls. So, the road charging is already occurring in practice, by a combination of vehicle excise duty, duty on fuel, and wasted time in queues. The Government needs to be honest about why it wants to identify and monitor the movement of every vehicle. We are not stupid, and it is patently obvious that the "solution" is not going to resolve road congestion. Why is this Labour Government so dishonest? What are they trying to hide?

One factor nowadays is that job security is poor. We are fortunate if our job lasts more than five years, before we are made redundant. The cost of moving house is prohibitive, and so we will find it necessary to commute some distance to our new job. Where previously we may have purchased our house within say 5 miles of work, we now find the need to commute. "Only" 20 miles if we are lucky, or more likely 50 miles or even further. One thing that the Government could do to help, would be to minimise the cost of moving house. That means zero stamp duty on any property transaction, irrespective of its value. Of course, not everyone would move house anyway, if their children are settled into a school, for example, but making it less costly to move house would certainly reduce the growth of road congestion.

Nobody in Government certainly, or in opposition either dares to voice the real reason for the mushrooming car usage however. It is far too dangerous to mention it, and you will be branded a "racist" for even alluding to it. The real reason is "white flight". This issue has been increasing in significance for several decades, but has worsened considerably during the past decade, due to the open-door immigration policy of this Labour Government.

As the cities and larger towns in Britain have descended into lawlessness, and you can often be threatened or even stabbed to death for your mobile phone, it is hardly surprising that so many move out, if they can. I blame that grinning fool Blair.

So, having moved out of the city, to a hopefully safer place in a small town or village, the commute to work in the city is considerably further. As more of the law abiding (white) people leave the cities, they are taken over by the lawless elements of unemployable human flotsam, with many no-go areas developing. It is all very well for Home Secretary John Reid to say "there can be no no-go areas". He has an armed escort. The rest of us do not. That man is living in cloud cuckoo land, as I have stated several times already.

I have identified three main factors for the increase in congestion, namely:
1. Job insecurity.
2. The excessive cost of moving house due to stamp duty, and
3. "white flight".

It is the third reason, in my opinion that is the greatest problem, since it is hard to see this Labour government reversing it, and even the Conservatives may lack the will to do very much to resolve it.

We will never resolve the problem of "white flight" by pretending that it does not exist. That applies to Conservative politicians just as much as it does to Labour. The ructions caused a few weeks ago within the Conservative party by a "racist poem" that was circulating, indicates that the Conservatives are currently ill-equipped to tackle this issue head on. I found the poem in question, by searching on the internet. The general gist of the poem is that immigrants are taking unfair advantage of our generosity. Since this is the truth, why is it so difficult for mainstream politicians to acknowledge this fact, which everyone knows anyway?

Of course, a very regrettable consequence of our excessive generosity is that the generally law abiding, tax paying indiginous population is then unable to get onto the property ladder. If we are eventually able to do so, the biological clock has ticked away, resulting in a reduced number of offspring, with an increased risk of medical complications. For example, the risk of Downs syndrome is very much greater if a woman gives birth in her late 30s.

Ideally, women who want to have a family should start in their mid 20s. This is simply unrealistic for everyone except those on high salaries, or for those who are funded by the taxpayer. Those of us who work hard but have only a salary slightly above average and pay tax have little hope. What about our human rights to have a family life? We are subsidising those who choose not to work, have their housing paid for at our expense, and turn out large numbers of delinquent children. Not only does our tax pay for their housing, but it thereby increases the property prices, putting even a modest property ever further out of reach.

What would it take to encourage the indigenous population to breed again? Take a young married couple, by way of example. The husband perhaps 30 years old, and the wife 25 years old. They may just about have paid of their student loans, and have gathered a small deposit. They wish to purchase their own property and start a family. He is earning, say 30,000 pounds per annum. If we assume a mortgage of 3x salary, plus a limited deposit, really the property should be around 100,000 pounds. It should also have three bedrooms, if more than one child is hoped for. However, there is simply nothing available, even in the most grotty, dangerous areas that anywhere nearly meets these requirements. The Conservatives are starting to wonder why so many marriages fail. Is it not obvious?

The "low cost starter homes" are a very poor solution also. They are not "low cost". They are unlikely to be "starter", as only people well into their 30s are likely to afford them. They are not "homes" either, being so cramped. Nobody with an existing house wants them built anywhere near them, since they often have a "social housing" element. They therefore tend to get built next to busy roads, which is inhumane, and leads to even more stress and consequent marriage failures. It is obviously a crazy concept anyway. A newly qualified driver does not immediately buy a brand new car, but will tend to buy an old banger. Why should housing be any different? Giving permission for flats to be built without provision for car parking, or permitting houses to be converted into flats when it is already hard to find a parking space nearby is also grossly irresponsible. The solution of course, is to only build new houses at the middle to upper end of the market, (at least 3-bed semi-detached houses) in keeping with the existing neighbouring houses. There would then be far fewer objections at the planning stage. Such properties would then gradually allow everyone to progress to better properties over a period of time. Such properties would be more readily able to incorporate eco-friendly features. For example, with a larger roof area, there would be more space for solar panels. With a garden, there would be room for a wind turbine on a separate pole. (A wind turbine attached to the house is not a good idea, due to vibration.) With a larger plot, the walls could be thicker, for better thermal insulation.

We are altogether far too generous towards foreigners who arrive in Britain, to our own significant detriment. So many problems follow from it, for example also, the number of cases of heterosexual HIV has risen dramatically under this Labour Government, largely due to the influx of carriers from Africa. The result is an annual additional cost of some 750 million pounds. This is cumulative. We simply cannot afford to continue to be so generous, not just financially, but it is causing serious harm to the indiginous population in many other ways too. The cost of congestion is very high. According to "The Economist" magazine (December 2nd 2006) the cost to the economy of chronic congestion is estimated to be 20 billion pounds per annum.

It is the crass stupidity and dishonesty of this Labour Government that I find so disturbing. They ignore the wise counsel of those who have knowledge and experience. They completely bypassed the Foreign Office, for example. That grinning fool Blair seems happy enough to virtually apologise for slavery, which none of us have had any influence over. One wonders what he will apologise for next. The Crusades, perhaps? However, he seems remarkably reticent when it comes to apologising for his own actions: The deaths and injuries of British service personnel, the death of Dr David Kelley, and not least, the deaths of many thousands of Iraqi civilians. We in Britain should be proud that our Christian forbears put an end to slavery worldwide, at least in the non-Muslim world.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Support for Apostates

I have set up a Site Meter utility (www.sitemeter.com) on this blog, which gathers some limited information about numbers of visitors etc. One piece of information gathered is the name of the website from which the visitor arrived.

One such gave me pause to think.

Now, this blog has not been in existence for very long, and so a high ranking in a Google search cannot be expected yet.
Imagine my surprise when I found that someone had the perseverence to look through no less than 35 pages of Google search results, before finding this blog. Clearly highly motivated! But, consider the search words "british apostates".

Perhaps it was someone feeling desperate, brought up as a Muslim, but now having serious doubts, and looking for support.

I have no idea whether there is a support network for people in such circumstances. Such a network would of necessity have to be very secretive, and so it is not clear how anybody would know who to contact. The best people to organise such a network would be ex-Muslims themselves. However, if it is possible for me to be of assistance, via this blog, then I am very happy to do so.

I am not sure who you should turn to for support. I doubt that a social worker would understand your difficulties. Maybe you could speak with your local Vicar or Priest. Don't be shy, they are generally very kind hearted and would be more than willing to help. They should also have a fair understanding of Islam. Of course, Vicars are very busy people, and so it would be wise to make an appointment if possible.

I am not suggesting that you should immediately convert to Christianity, or any other religion. As you are born with free will, it is your decision and choice of which religion to follow, if any. It may be that a break from religion for a few years would be best, while you come to terms with your new perspective.

It may be that the final hold over you that Islam makes, is the fear of Hell. Now, I cannot prove scientifically to you wether Hell exists or not, but suppose that it does not. Would you really wish to spend your entire life burdened with fear and guilt?

Now suppose that Hell does exist. If you behaved well during your life, been kind and generous where you are able, then surely you have a good chance to avoid Hell. How can it be therefore that Islam teaches you to slaughter the non-believers? How can such an action lead to Paradise?

I had an interesting exchange of views with a Muslim, who wrote these words about terrorists:

"I follow a religion of peace. NOT A RELIGION WHERE MADMEN THINK THAT KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL GET THEM TO HEAVEN. GOD WILL SEND THEM STRAIGHT TO HELL FOR TERRORISM."

Sadly, the truth is that Islam is not a religion of peace.

There are two websites that may be helpful:

Faith Freedom (www.faithfreedom.org)

and

Apostates of Islam (www.apostatesofislam.com)

Finally, you should realise that the British people are generally fair minded. There is a great concern at the present time for our security, and so it is natural that Islam itself should be under scrutiny. There is nothing but admiration and praise for those who can think for themselves, and turn their back on that which is harmful. It is a brave thing to do. Surely we are all fellow humans, and we owe a duty of care to each other.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

No freedom of speech

My Internet Service Provider has threatened to block my account.

I must have upset someone.

As far as I know, I have only given truthful information. In addition, if anyone has wished to point out any inaccuracies, I would be happy to make corrections.

This is a very disturbing development, and bodes ill for the future of Britain. Whatever has happened to freedom of speech, and freedom of expression?

If this blog does not continue to be updated, you will know why.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Censored by the Conservatives

The following is my posting to the Conservatives website "Security" message board. It has subsequently been removed.


Security for Jews

There are certain similarities between Nazi doctrines, and Islamic doctrines.

For example, both wish to exterminate Jews. Both spread their ideology by violent means where necessary. Both have a supremacist attitude.

Here are some quotes:

"Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " " Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran 9.30

"Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement." Quran 4.160-161

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Quran 8.65

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Quran 9.29


I have been criticised for taking a quote out of context. However, what is important is not whether a non-Muslim has some minor misunderstanding of a particular quote, but whether a Muslim will act upon their instructions. It is common knowledge that the leaders of Iran would like to see Israel wiped off the map.

The horrors of the Nazi concentration camps are well documented. We should not imagine that the Jewish people are in any less danger today.

In Britain we see the increasing number of anti-semitic desecrations of Jewish cemetries.

Mehmet Imamzade, do you not think that it is high time that Islam should stop targeting Jews?

----------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

"Glories of Islam" bias.

This is an email sent to Channel 5, regarding bias in a programme.

(NOTE: To anyone wishing to be helpful: This is an email that I have already sent. It is NOT a petition, therefore do NOT send any additional copies, as that is likely to cause confusion, which will not be helpful.)


"Glories of Islam" bias.

Channel 5 showed two very interesting programmes on Tuesday 28th November.

"Glories of Islam" was followed by "Hitler's Private World:Revealed".

The first programme showed some very impressive Islamic art within a number of Mosques. The programme also gave a potted history of the Middle East.

The second programme showed how it was possible to automatically lipread from Hitler's private cine films, which were recorded without sound. It gave a remarkable insight into the man himself.

I appreciate the effort that Channel 5 have expended on these quality programmes. I have no problems at all with the second programme.

However, the first programme was significantly biased. It is important that Channel 5 should follow this by providing a programme or programmes giving a more balanced view of Islam. At this time of increasing awareness of Islamic terrorism, and of its inspiration in the Quran, a simplistic display of Islamic art, however impressive to the eye, cannot cover up the reality of the brutal aspects of that religion.

In effect, we were being asked to suspend our critical faculties, lulled by the hypnotic tones of the presenter Professor Akbar Ahmed.

It would be like an occupant of a Nazi concentration camp being asked to admire the quality of an SS officer's uniform, whilst being marched to the gas chamber.

There are certain similarities between Nazi doctrines, and Islamic doctrines.

For example, both wish to exterminate Jews. Both spread their ideology by violent means where necessary. Both have a supremacist attitude. Both persecute homosexuals.

Here are some quotes to illustrate these points:

"Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.' " " Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 176:

"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran 9.30

"Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement." Quran 4.160-161

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Quran 8.65

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Quran 9.29

It was interesting to recognise another parallel between Nazi doctrine and Islam: Quoting from the "Hitler's Private World" programme:

"..handing out medals to young mothers who produced good Aryans."

Within Islam, a young mother is considered to have all her sins forgiven when she gives birth. A rather more significant incentive than a metal disk on the end of a ribbon.

Interestingly, neither Muslims nor Hitler are too keen on pigs. Regarding Goering: "Pigs eat the flesh of their own."

The truth about Islam is readily available on the internet, and so if Channel 5 gives a seemingly uncritical analysis, it will simply be to the detriment of that channel's reputation.

A website worth visiting is: http://www.apostatesofislam.com/
Also: http://www.faithfreedom.org/

Within British law, a witness must "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". British law has its roots in Judaeo-Christian principles. Such principles of honesty do not apply within Islam.

The Crusades were mentioned in the programme more than once. I personally believe that the Crusades were a mistake. However, there was no mention at all about why the Crusades occurred, which was to try to regain lands that had previously been predominantly Christian. It may be that you can tell the truth, but unless you tell the whole truth, the overall effect is that of a lie.

It is interesting to consider how peaceful the Middle East would become, if the Palestinians were to revert to their original religion, which was Christianity. True Christians have no difficulty living peacefully alongside Jews.

A significant contrast with Islam. Here are quotes that demonstrate that Islam cannot possibly integrate peacefully with any other religion:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran 5.51

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Quran 9.123


...and nothing but the truth: We were told in the programme that there is one shared God, for Jews, Christians and Muslims. However, even an Islamic scholar will tell you that the reality is somewhat different. The God of the Bible, Yahweh (also known as Jehovah) is not necessarily the same as Allah. Certainly their histories have very different roots. Of course there are some aspects of the Quran that have been borrowed from the Bible, in a rather disjointed and distorted way. It would be false logic however, to automatically assume some level of equivalence. It would be like saying that an aeroplane has the same function as a car, simply by observing that they both have wheels.

I do suspect however, that many Muslims do not really understand their own religion. For example, we are told that there is no god but Allah. However, the existence of three goddesses is rarely mentioned. They are: al-Lat and al-Uzza and Manat. One goddess, al-Lat, is associated with the moon, another, al-Uzza, with the evening star (Venus). Hence the crescent moon and star symbols found on the flags of many Islamic states, and on top of Mosques etc. The third goddess, Manat, is associted with a pair of shears, with which she cuts the thread of life. (Maybe when it came to Jesus, this goddess had an argument with Allah. Maybe she cut the thread of life, and Allah restored it, hence the resurrection from the dead. Sorry, I am just being mischevous.) Prior to the rise of Islam, all three goddesses were worshipped at Mecca, together with their father, the moon god al-Llah (Allah). Go to the following website for more details: http://www.bible.ca/islam/

It is a frequent misconception, or deliberate propaganda, that the word "Islam" means "peace". It does not. The word "Islam" is derived from the Arabic word "al-silm", which means "surrender" or "submission".

Channel 5 must provide a balance to this "Glories of Islam" programme, which can be considered to be Islamic propaganda.

May I suggest, as an absolute minimum, that immediately before the next programmes in this series, that you issue a warning. Similar to a warning about violent scenes or strong language. May I suggest these words:

"The following programme gives one view of the religion of Islam. Channel 5 recognises that such a view is not universal, and it is the responsibility of the viewer to judge for themselves the veracity and emphasis of the statements made within this programme"

Here are some ideas for programmes that you may find interesting, by way of balance:

1. What if.. Suppose that all the violent verses had not been added to the Quran in the latter part of Mohammed's career. Effectively, Islam would be considered to be a rather wayward Christian sect. How would the world have developed?

2. What if.. Suppose that Islam had not been quite so effective in squashing opposition. Therefore Palestinians had remained essentially Christian. How would Israel have developed?

3. What if.. The march of Islam had not been stopped at the gates of Vienna.

4. Dangerous ideals: Explore the parallels between Nazi doctrines and Islamic doctrines.

5. Can Islam ever have a Reformation?

6. Can Islam ever be compatible with Democracy? (Things that Bush and Blair should have known before they started their Iraq adventure.)

7. The physiology of being stoned to death.

8. The homosexual hypocracy.

9. Muslim feminists.

10. Islamic Eskimos: What do they do when Ramadan falls within the perpetual daylight of summer? (Humour - No offence intended to Eskimos.)

So, in conclusion, be bold, and tell the truth. Thank goodness for the internet, because its credibility surpasses that of the traditional media. It is now time for newspapers and television to catch up.

I look forward to watching the next programme in the "Glories of Islam" series. Presumably on Tuesday evenings at 7:15 p.m..


The reply:


Date: 11th December 2006


Dear Correspondent


Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding Glories Of Islamic Art. We apologise for the delay in responding.


We were sorry to read your comments about this series celebrating the art and architecture of Islam down the ages.


We have logged your comments in the Viewer Enquiries Report, which is circulated throughout the company. Also, your complaint will be noted in the quarterly report to our regulator. Commercial television is regulated in the UK by Ofcom (the Office of Communications).


The final episode of Glories Of Islamic Art has been scheduled for transmission at 19:15 on 12th December on Five. We hope that you are available to watch the programme.


If there is anything further we can help you with, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Thank you for your interest in Five.

Yours sincerely

Kevin

VIEWER ADVISOR

----------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.