St George True: February 2007

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

The Hindu perspective

Some people mistakenly think that it is somehow racist to criticise Islam. This is of course nonsense, since Islam is a religion, not a race. We cannot choose which race we are born into, but we do have the choice of which religion (if any) we follow.

Here is the Hindu perspective on Islam:

Misconceptions on Islam
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Balasubramanian
Misconceptions on Islam

There are a number of misconceptions on Islam. The civilized world particularly the west, has a glorified image of Islam. The following were my comments on the subject in a recent seminar on the subject in Pune.

1. Debate was allowed in early Islam
The Islamists who advocated debate and believed that theological questions could be settled by debate were known as "Muttazil" ( I am not sure of the exact name.) They preached only in Egypt. They were persecuted and one section took refuge in Tamil Nadu where they were known as Marakkayars. I came to know about the background of this community only about six months ago. They have their own Madrassas and do not mix with the other Muslims. After their expulsion, debate was violently suppressed in Islamic countries. Instances of innocent sufis being put to death have been recorded just because they claimed a direct relationship with God.

2. Islam had a tradition of scholarship
A participant cited the case of al-Beruni. He was a Persian with an Arabic name. This supports my contention that the we cannot conclude anything from names. Further al-Beruni's work was a sycophantic praise of the ruling dynasty. Whatever poetic merit was there, the work could not have had intellectual depth for the simple reason it was debasement of poetry for mercenary ends.

The modern equivalent would be someone writing Sonia Vamsham. The administration of Islamic lands was in the hands of Persians supported by Jews. The Arabs retained their tribal culture and never bothered about intellectual pursuits.

3. Islam preserved the ancient European classics and passed them on to the renaissance Europeans
I had said that the Jews of Spain were the ones who were responsible for creating such awareness in Europe of its classical past. The evidence for this idea is as follows. The library in Alexandria, or whatever was left of the library after Christian vandalism, was destroyed by the Muslims. The argument was advanced that the Koran was all embracing and the world does not need any other book or knowledge.

Emperor Frederick III (around 1200 AD) occupies a peculiar place in history. When his father died he was too young and the Pope was his guardian. He turned out to be a person of great wile and guile and was excommunicated for not pursuing the crusade he had promised to the Pope. He held court in Sicily and entertained Arabs and Jews in his court. He knew the non-Christian view of Christianity and had scant respect for the Pope.

After the excommunication edict, he decided to redeem his pledge and went on a farcical crusade. He was received in a friendly manner by the Egyptian Sultan and treated with respect as an honored guest. Frederick III enjoyed life in Egypt for six months. As a mark of his regard for the Emperor, the Sultan gave Jerusalem to the Christians. Frederick III returned to Sicily, Jerusalem in his pocket, without firing a single arrow.

If the Egyptian Muslims or the Jews were aware of the European classical knowledge Frederick should have brought the same to the notice of European scholars. There was no evidence that he did so or that the eastern Jews were aware of ancient Greece in any depth or were interested in such knowledge.

That is why I presumed a key role for the Jews in Spain. The classical knowledge came into European possession after the Moors were expelled from Spain.

4. "Islamic architecture"
My comment on architecture was based on information in a 1989 book: "India Rediscovered" by Kealy. It was there I found that Islam has no treatise on architecture comparable to Vastu Shastra. One does not have to accept everything in Vaastu. Even after the abstract elements are ignored, there would still be a science of building techniques. This is what is lacking in Islam.

The same author cites English archeologists of the last century to say that the Qutub should be a Hindu structure. The vijaya stamba is a Hindu tradition. The iron pillar at the site is also pre-Islamic. A friend showed us a video of the systematic removal of the Hindu carvings in a Mosque in side the Qutub Minar. The British author says the arch is a Hindu feature. So is the dome. The central dome in the Taj surrounded by four smaller ones is also a feature of the Hindu tradition. It was known as pancharatna. The author goes on to say that in the 18th century belief amongst the British archeologists was that the Taj must have been built by Hindu artisans trained in the tradition of the Hindu architecture who built the Gol Gumbaz.

The Garbha griha of all southern temples have decorated domes over them. The two exclusive elements of Islamic architecture are thus shown to be non-Islamic in origin.

5. The "inferiority complex"
Regarding "inferiority complex", as I said, it exists in the minds of the Indian middle class educated in English. What should not be forgotten is that Hindu society is the only society that stopped Islam in its tracks. All other Islamic societies are today 100 % Muslim. People who speak of Hindu inferiority look at the 30% that became Muslim in India. I look at the same picture and say that 70% retained their individuality. The resilience of Hinduism had been overlooked.

The role of Buddhism in sapping the vitality of our society has to be looked into objectively. Buddha was a great individual but his (?) social prescription to ignore external evil was disastrous for morale. Malaysia and Indonesia fell because they were Buddhist. It may be a coincidence but the only non-Muslim part of Indonesia, the Bali island, is Hindu.

6. Hindu Military "inferiority"
Military inferiority of Hindus is another aspect on which we have to do rethinking. Hindus also had been blamed for not adopting newer techniques of warfare. As I said there had been six incursions into India over seven hundred years. It is not likely that border incursions were limited to this number. So the occasions when we won had been ignored and only our failures are highlighted. The Hindu military genius was reflected in Shivaji's achievements.

It was another matter that our defeats had disastrous consequences which were due to the tribalism of the attackers. Often we did not repay them in kind. That was our culture. China also suffered from tribal attacks which was why the Great Wall was built and manned. Roman empire too paid a price to tribalism on its borders. In the third century Rome had as many as thirty "tyrants" ruling over the land in one century.

7. The cultural difference
The basic difference in the Hindu and Islamic approach lies in their attitude to wealth. The Hindu insists on creative processes. In Islam misappropriation, plunder, perfidy and persecution derive sanction from the example of Mohammed. The example of the Management of the BCCI bank is a typical case of Islamic culture of deceit. Besides there is the case of Asli Nadir, a British Muslim " business magnate" who now evades arrest for commercial crimes by living in the Turkish part of Cyprus. The economic crimes in Iran, Indonesia and other countries are all part of Islamic behavior. Even in India more than half of the criminal class is drawn from Muslims.

There is more objective evidence on the clutural difference. Hindus and Muslims from the subcontinent emigrated to Britain at the same time in the period 1950- 62. In those days the Commonwealth citizens could travel without restrictions to England. The Hindus and the Muslims started at the same level of poverty. After fifty years the difference between the communities is telling. The Hindus are amongst the foremost sections of British population, in wealth, social status and education. The Muslims are way down at the lowest levels.

8. Islam - A humanistic religion
There have been attempts by discerning Muslims to white wash Islam's nature and present it as a humanistic religion. Akbar Ahmed, a Pakistani living in England, propagates the view that the western media is prejudiced against Islam.

A recent article by Maulana Wahiuddin Khan in the Times of India says that the Prophet participated only in three wars. This statement is a total distortion of what is known about Mohammed's life. He was responsible for the first expeditions of plunder and loot. He laid down by his personal example the principles of "Islamic warfare". He personally ordered the massacre of the Jews. He did not participate in some wars because several missions of loot were undertaken at the same time.

If you enjoyed this article, please visit: www.hinduunity.org

Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Talking Turkey

I have read the article by Boris Johnson in The Daily Telegraph (26th Feb 2007) "Why are we so afraid of Turkey?".

Now, I often find myself in agreement with Boris, who is not one to pander to the politically correct crowd. He can be relied upon to be amusing. I enjoyed his article on the effect of flatulent cows on climate change, for example. Was his analysis complete however? What would be the overall effect on GDP (Greenhouse Derriere Product) if everyone were to eat beans instead of cow or sheep?

However, I am not in complete agreement with Boris regarding Turkey. I fear that his analysis is not complete.

I regard Turkey as having a very important role as a buffer state between the Christian world and the Islamic world. It does indeed straddle these two worlds, both geographically as well as politically. We can understand that it is being pulled in both directions by powerful forces: Modernity and secularism to the west, and religious fundamentalism to the east. I do share the concern that if we in the EU make a mess of our relationship with Turkey, that it will easily slip into the hands of the Islamic fundamentalists.

However, I do not subscribe to the view that there are only two options for Turkey. The stated options being, either full EU membership, or abandonment by the EU. The third option, which has served Switzerland very well, is to have a strong trading relationship whilst retaining political and cultural independance.

Unfortunately, the drive towards admitting Turkey into the EU has already had a destabilising effect. Fundamentalist Islam is on the rise, in a nation that had been to a large extent secular in its politics. Islam itself is not compatible with democracy.

Buffer states are vitally important. I wrote an article on my blog with the title: "A possible solution for Iraq" which discusses this in more detail. My concern is that when (or if) the coalition forces pull out of Iraq, there will be a complete bloodbath, with far more violence even than we see at present. Eventually, Iraq will be completely split along sectarian lines. Why do we not pre-empt this, at least as far as possible? This would mean formally creating a nation of Kurdistan, which would border Turkey. Possibly Kurdistan could form a secular democracy, and would in turn provide a buffer state, protecting Turkey from the elements of fundamentalist Islam.

For Kurdistan to be viable, it would be necessary for Turkey to give up its Kurdish territory. Likewise, so must Iran. It just seems bizarre that the EU is seriously considering Turkey for full membership, whilst such important issues remain unresolved.

It may be unwise to admit any Islamic state into the EU anyway. However secular it may appear officially, there will be an undercurrent of demands to introduce Sharia law into EU law. Sharia law is fundamentally incompatible with the process of generating "man made" laws, i.e. democracy itself.

For Turkey to be compatible with the rest of the EU, it must either jettison Islam completely, which is unlikely, or Islam itself must be completely reformed, to remove all the bloodthirsty and intolerant verses from the Quran. That is also highly unlikely. Therefore, the relationship between the EU and Turkey must proceed along pragmatic lines, not idealistic lines. To announce an engagement, and give the intended bride an engagement ring, then to call the wedding off is the act of a cad. It would have been better not to have even discussed the possibility of a marriage union.

The Quran itself precludes such a union:

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." Quran 4.89

It was not the fault of the old Roman Empire, nor is it the fault of the new Roman Empire (the EU), that Islam cannot be reconciled with Christianity. The core difficulty is simply within the Quran:

"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

Hoping for a reconciliation with Islam is simply naive wishful thinking, whilst such verses remain relevant.

Here is the link to my blog:

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

Finally, Boris, yes logically we should only use quotes in context. The quote that the Pope used in his Regensburg lecture was however pertinent to his overall argument. His main messages, that God abhors bloodshed, and that we need to apply logic and reason to faith, were somewhat overshadowed by events. The quote was then taken out of context by irate Muslims. (I think that is what you meant in your article, but the English language is not always very precise.)

Whether, in my case as a non-Muslim I consider the full context of a particular quote from the Quran, may not be too significant as I will certainly not carry out the instructions to slaugter unbelievers. What is relevant however, is whether an Islamic terrorist will take whatever quotes they like from the Quran (and there are plenty) to justify their murderous acts.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Helping those at threat from Islam

I have in mind to start a charitable organisation, with the aim of giving support to those who have been harmed by Islam. In the first instance, this will help those who fall victim within Britain, but it is very clear that this is highly relevant in other close neighbours, such as France, The Netherlands, Sweden etc.

This is at a very early stage of being put in place. At present, it is little more than an idea. There is no name yet finalised, nor a website, nor a means of transferring funds securely and anonymously. However, where there is a need, and a willingness to actually do something about it, there will be ways found to cause it to happen. We can be inspired by William Wilberforce, who through sheer persistence against considerable opposition was able to put an end to slave trading 200 years ago.

We are familiar with the victimisation of non-Muslims by Muslims in countries such as the Sudan, Nigeria, and Thailand. However, it is seldom mentioned that there are also serious problems in Britain and other European countries.

Within our cities, as the Muslim areas expand, there is considerable strife and attacks on non-Muslims. These go largely unreported by the mainstream media.

The purpose of this Appeal is to provide material assistance to those non-Muslims who are being displaced from their homes, so that they can start their lives afresh in a safer area. Often there is a considerable financial loss incurred by the victim, not simply due to the cost of moving, but also because their house or flat will fetch a much lower price than it would, if it were not in an area of conflict. This Appeal will assist with at least partially offsetting this cost, and will permit the innocent victim to re-establish their life, free of fear.

We aim to also provide advice and information, both to the victims themselves, but also to the Police, Social Services and other organisations who may become involved, to help them to understand the roots of the problem.

Another group who are very significantly victims of Islam are apostates. These are ex-Muslims who have realised the truth about Islam, and have turned their back on it. Such people are very brave, and are deserving of our support as they seek to build a new life. It is very likely that their Muslim relatives will disown them, and indeed will cause them considerable harm, even to the point of murdering them. Of course, every effort will be made to establish the bona fides of these individuals, so that funds are not given inappropriately.

The recipients of this Appeal will be provided with assistance on the basis of urgency. Those who have recieved credible death threats will be assisted with the highest priority, but should contact the Police in the first instance.

Assistance is given irrespective of gender, race, religious background, or whether straight or gay. Of course, whilst Muslims themselves can be considered to be the greatest victims of Islam, it would not make any logical sense for this organisation to help them, unless they will firstly completely turn away from Islam.

The (no name yet) Appeal organisation is not afiliated to any political party. Neither does it promote any particular religion as an alternative to Islam, although there are comitted Christians among its founders. It should be noted that Hindus and Sikhs are also very often victims of Islam in Britain and in other European countries. It is to be hoped that we will establish strong links with the Hindu and Sikh communities, as our work progresses.

Often when a serious offence is comitted by a Muslim, the mainstream media will describes them as "Asian". This unfortunately tars the law-abiding Hindu and Sikh communities with the same brush, and is most unfair.

We have made a conscious decision that we will not apply for charitable status. In this way, we will not be beholden to officialdom, which would very probably compromise the scope of our work. Since tax relief is given to registered charities, in effect the taxpayers are providing a donation. It would not be appropriate for the (no name yet) Appeal organisation to receive these effective donations from Muslim taxpayers, who would very likely object that their tax payments are being used for purposes that they are in disagreement with.

The whole of humanity is offended by the bloodthirsty teachings that exist within the Quran, and which indeed form an integral part of Islam itself. We who form the (no name yet) Appeal organisation are motivated not by personal greed or by self-agrandisement, but simply because we are comitted to doing the right thing. Join with us in this vitally important task.

Monday, February 19, 2007

The Muslim Eskimo! A poem

The Muslim Eskimo! A poem

(No disrespect to Eskimos intended)

I have (praise be) seen the light
With the Prophet as my guide
I pray to Allah day and night
To unbelievers woe betide
You cross my path and you will know
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

Of huskies I had a band
Now gone the dirty dogs
Unclean in manner and
So it is true are hogs.
Sheep are good in many ways though
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

I use my sheep to pull my sled
But they run slow
Many end up dead
My life is woe
By Allah on I go
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

The women are scarce round here
Too many a Muslim brother
Taken many wives I fear
But the sheep I can bother
Between me and ewe. No?
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

By stealth and by guile I fight
Into my right hand posess
A lively woman. Every night
When I want I caress
And into my tilth I go
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

By and by wives two three and four
I am occupied, busy now
Offspring by the score
We are become a tribe but how
With mouths to feed, what to do?
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

The solution I espy
I approach quite near
Christians! Joyfully I cry
I can tax them very dear
To demonstrate superiority though
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

My wives' bellies get fat
The Christians are getting skinny
I wear a wooly hat
The days are somewhat chilly
The Christians start to die, but so?
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

The days are short and
The nights are long
Now is the feast of Ramadan
Plenty of exercise for the tongue
Mutton and butter and ample dough
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

A few years come and go
All praise to Allah above
I can see a problem though
It is: The nights have
Gone. All is woe
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

Now is the fast of Ramadan
A whole month long
With not a drop to drink and
Not to eat. My tongue
Has turned yellow
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

We are all faint
With hunger
We taint
Our anger
And curse our Mo
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

An idea pops into my head
A travelling we must go
Quick get the sled
Rouse the sheep and so
Through the snow we plough
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

If you travel you may eat
And drink. Make merry
What a genius feat
To move and not to tarry
Happy I am now though
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

Making endless circles in the snow
My plan is in action
Not a single problem so
Let us eat luncheon
We feast and guzzle as we go
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

But look, our provisions are all eaten
We shall eat the sheep that pull the sled
We are not so easily beaten
That one there, grab its head
Slit its throat so
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

The red blood flows upon the pristine white
The animal struggles for a minute or two
Then the end, its last fight
Chop chop, a piece for me and a piece for you
Halal we keep, the rest we throw
I am a Muslim Eskimo!

One by one the sheep are gone
Slower and slower runs the sled
Of further progress there is none
Now for certain we are all dead
This is the last terrible low
I am no more a Muslim Eskimo!

There is a lesson from the Arctic
Know full well. This is certain
Islam is a miserable trick
Long overdue for its final curtain
Reincarnation works for me now
I was a Muslim Eskimo!

St George True (http://st-george-true.blogspot.com):

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Wither Islam? A poem

WITHER ISLAM?

God abhors bloodshed.
Mankind adores God.
Mankind does not abhor bloodshed.
Does God adore Mankind?

Allah does not abhor bloodshed.
Mohammed adores Allah.
Mohammed does not abhor bloodshed.
Does Allah adore Mohammed?

Mankind adores Mohammed.
Mankind adores bloodshed.
Mankind adores Allah.

Bloodshed is Allah. Allah is bloodshed.
God abhors bloodshed.
God abhors Allah

Mankind abhors Mohammed.
Mankind abhors bloodshed.

Adore Allah? Oh God!

St George True (http://st-george-true.blogspot.com):

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

The poem, together with the following message, have been placed on the Web Cameron website. www.webcameron.org.uk

David, it is important for you to have a correct and reasonably thorough understanding of the truth about Islam.

If you read the Quran, it is vitally important that you first understand the concept of "abrogation". This means that the chronologically earlier, more tolerant verses are cancelled out by the later bloodthirsty verses.

An excellent description of abrogation is given on the Faith Freedom website. This website is written by ex-Muslims, so they should know. www.faithfreedom.org

Britain is at very serious risk from Islam itself, not just Islamic radicals or terrorists.

I appreciate that you have a busy schedule, but this is a matter of the greatest significance and demands your attention.

Firstly you must gain a true understanding of the threat of Islam itself.
You must then pledge yourself to do whatever is necessary to protect the British people from this menace.

This will require you to have great courage. You do not have that courage yet, but I perceive that you have the potential to gain it. If you can do this, you could one day stand alongside Churchill as one of the great leaders of Britain.

Can you agree to take the first step at least? The first step is to study the Faith Freedom website.

Quoting Sir Isaac Newton:

"When thou art convinced be not ashamed of the truth but profess it openly & indeavour to convince thy Brother also." (Yahuda Ms. 1.1 f. 6r).

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

University funding

Tony Blair has written an article in The Daily Telegraph (15th February 2007) regarding University funding.

The title of the article is:
"Keeping universities up to the mark"

Quoting from the article:

"Today, I will launch the first national scheme to encourage a 'culture of giving' to universities from business, former students and philanthropists. It is a vital part of our changes to higher education to ensure universities remain world-class and competitive."

This sounds laudable enough. However, I have always distrusted Blair and his poor judgement. For example the half-baked change to the constitution, which means that a Scottish MP can vote on matters concerning England, whilst an English MP cannot vote on matters concerning Scotland. What a fiasco. We also see the mess of the "cash for peerages" scandal to understand that when politicians find themselves in the pockets of businessmen, that the wider public good is very ill served.

Who are these businessmen and philanthropists? Are the Universities expecting money from Saudi Arabia for example, as is the case with various schools? We see how that has led to very inappropriate text books being supplied. See my posting "Monkeys and pigs", which has a link to an excellent article by Melanie Phillips.

In the very same edition of the newspaper, there is a short article regarding the fundraising efforts of Cambridge University:

"Seat of earning

Cambridge University is half way to achieving its target of raising £1 billion from wealthy benefactors and former students by 2012 as it strives to reduce its dependence on Government grants.

The total will be used to help preserve its historic buildings and fund new research."

One hopes that my fears are groundless. However, we have seen the reaction of the authorities at Cambridge University to the re-publication of a couple of the Danish cartoons in a students' magazine. I fear that the University is already beholden to Muslims. If it has been receiving funds from Saudi Arabia, that would explain the reaction.

He who pays the piper calls the tune. One wonders what Sir Isaac Newtion would make of it all. No doubt he would be expelled from Cambridge University for his "Islamophobic" comments, if he were alive today.

Of course, it was Blair and his cronies who have called off the investigation of bribery of Saudi officials.

Doh! I am being a bit slow. Of course, the calling off of the corruption enquiries requires some reward. What better than to have the reward given to a very worthy cause, such as the restoration work of the historically important buildings at Cambridge University. We cannot therefore expect Blair to oppose the spread of Wahabi Islam in Britain.

How cheaply is our birthright being sold. I would rather see the historic buildings crumble to dust, than for our nation to become beholden to Muslims. Our rights and freedoms, developed from their early beginnings with the signing of the Magna Carta, are being systematically destroyed. We have become a nation of prostitutes.

It may be that history will show that Blair has been one of the greatest traitors to the true interests of the British people in recent times. Possibly ranking alongside Edward Heath, who took us into the "Common Market". It would have been far better to have negotiated bilateral trade agreements, as Switzerland has done, and retain sovereignty of our own Judiciary and Parliament. Without such sovereignty, it will be very hard to tackle the Islamic menace, which continually strengthens itself within our shores.

My despair for the future of Britain is growing daily.

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

The Reverend Martin Niemoller (1892-1984)
Pastor in the German Confessing Church who spent seven years in a concentration camp:

In Germany they first came for the Communists -- and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews -- and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists -- and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics -- and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me -- and by that time no one was left to speak up.

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

Robert Nordlander
American social critic:

Those death sentences for blasphemy suggest that Islam lacks the moral and intellectual strength and integrity to defend itself against its critics.
-- Robert Nordlander, in a Letter to the Editor, The Daily Illini, University of Illinois (July 27, 2002)

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

Charles Blount (1654-93):
'for supposing that there were but three laws, viz. that of Moses, that of Christ, and that of Mahomet: either all are false, and so the whole world is deceived; or only two of them, and so the greater part is deceived'.

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

Taslima Nasrin
Bangladeshi writer, secular humanist, feminist; now living under fatwa (Islamic death sentence)

I don't find any difference between Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. I believe religion is the root, and from the root fundamentalism grows as a poisonous stem. If we remove fundamentalism and keep religion, then one day or another fundamentalism will grow again. I need to say that because some liberals always defend Islam and blame fundamentalists for creating problems. But Islam itself oppresses women. Islam itself doesn't permit democracy and it violates human rights.
-- Taslima Nasrin, Interview in Free Inquiry magazine, winter 1998-1999, Vol. 19, No. 1

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

St George True (http://st-george-true.blogspot.com):

WITHER ISLAM?

God abhors bloodshed.
Mankind adores God.
Mankind does not abhor bloodshed.
Does God adore Mankind?

Allah does not abhor bloodshed.
Mohammed adores Allah.
Mohammed does not abhor bloodshed.
Does Allah adore Mohammed?

Mankind adores Mohammed.
Mankind adores bloodshed.
Mankind adores Allah.

Bloodshed is Allah. Allah is bloodshed.
God abhors bloodshed.
God abhors Allah

Mankind abhors Mohammed.
Mankind abhors bloodshed.

Adore Allah? Oh God!

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

Sir Isaac Newton

"The Mahometan religion tho spread by conquest is not yet grown so universal, the Christian tho spread by the divine assistance & at length backt by the Roman Empire is less universal than the Mahometan."

"When thou art convinced be not ashamed of the truth but profess it openly & indeavour to convince thy Brother also." (Yahuda Ms. 1.1 f. 6r).

-----------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Raspberry and wasp flavoured yoghurt

The yoghurt that I was eating as part of my breakfast seemed unusually crunchy, so I spat it out. There were the remains, or at least part of the remains of an illegal stowaway. A wasp!

Here it is:

If only the illegal human stowaways entering Britain were as harmless as this specimen. There would not be too much of a problem (other than scarcity of resources). Here illegally, it is unlikely that they will find lawful occupations. Drug dealing, prostitution, financial scams, thievery and muggings, and other illegal activity We need proper security at our borders. The financial cost of such security is very likely far outweighed by the resulting cost of all the ensuing lawlessness.

No doubt these aliens will wish to own and drive a car. Being illegal however, means that they will have to drive without a license or insurance. The vehicle is therefore unlikely to be taxed or have an MOT (annual safety inspection). How many deaths or serious injuries have been caused to innocent British citizens by such illegal immigrants? Is it any wonder that the statistics for road accidents and deaths is increasing, even though the design of cars is improving in their safety features? Also, due to the ever-increasing number of speed cameras, the typical road speed is noticeably reducing.

What about H5N1 bird flu and the very apparent lack of bio-security at the Bernard Matthews turkey farms both in the UK and in Hungary? They have been criticised for allowing seagulls to eat the waste meat, and spread it to the turkey sheds. Also the turkey sheds have holes large enough for rodents to enter. Surely the disease could also be transferred by a fly travelling the few hundred yards between processing plant and turkey shed?

This Labour government has been failing the British people for too long. Too many harmful people and items (drugs, guns and ideologies) have been allowed to enter Britain. By contrast, a dead wasp in a pot of yoghurt is probably harmless, unless it first visited a turkey farm.

I shall continue to eat this type of yoghurt because it is soya based, and supposed to be good against cholesterol. However I shall check it first by emptying the contents of the pot into a separate bowl.

It only takes a small amount of harmful entity to spoil a much larger wholesome entity.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Thursday, February 15, 2007

The gravity of the situation

This has been sent as an email to the authorities at Clare College Cambridge.
My postings "Sir Isaac Newton regarding Islam" and "Policy Exchange report" have been appended.

---------

The gravity of the situation

Regarding the recent re-publication of the Danish cartoons:

I would be grateful if you would forward this email to the student involved. It may be that he does not quite understand what he has got himself into, and would benefit from the information below.

I would hope that the University authorities will properly exercise their duty of care towards this student, even though his actions are a little foolhardy.

May I draw to your attention to the report prepared by the Policy Exchange think tank, on behalf of the Conservative Party.
( www.policyexchange.org.uk ): "Living apart together - British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism".

A pertinent quote from the report is:

"An integral aspect of this liberal model is the right to cause offence and criticise other people’s cultures. Today, with increased sensitivities about Islamophobia, many Muslims feel entitled to have their religious views and identity protected. Their attitudes towards women, homosexuality, or politics are seen to be so inalienable that they are out of bounds for criticism." page 89

In addition, during BBC Question Time (21st September 2006):

Regarding the lecture by the Pope, Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the U.S. said:

"The freedom of speech comes with the freedom to be offensive. It comes, from time to time, with the freedom to upset people. The important thing is: When it happens, be it said by a Catholic Pope, or by a Muslim, the reaction of the authorities and the law should be an absolutely level playing field for everyone, and we don't have that."

In the context of the offensiveness caused by Muslims who have slaughtered and maimed innocent civilians in London, and the threat to blow up airlines and more recently the plot to torture and execute a British soldier, how does the offensiveness of a cartoon compare? Of course there is simply no equivalence whatever.

The wise course of action is to stop pandering to those who get so agitated, and to point out the harmfulness to community relationships that is caused by Islamic terrorists, which far outweighs in its significance the publication of a few daft cartoons.

I trust that the University will not penalise this student out of all proportion to the nature of the offence. The University must also do what it can to ensure his safety.

You may also like to ponder over the points below.

Yours sincerely,

-----

Message sent to:

CONTACTS AT CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

Bursar - Hearn, Mr D bursar@clare.cam.ac.uk

Dean - Greeves, Revd R dean@clare.cam.ac.uk

The Master - Badger, Prof A J master@clare.cam.ac.uk

MCR President - Doupe, Mr David dpd26@cam.ac.uk

UCS President - Davey, Mr Calum cd361@cam.ac.uk

Acting Senior Tutor - Fara, Dr P pf10006@cam.ac.uk

---------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Sir Isaac Newton regarding Islam

Here are quotes from Sir Isaac Newton regarding Islam:

"The Mahometan religion tho spread by conquest is not yet grown so universal, the Christian tho spread by the divine assistance & at length backt by the Roman Empire is less universal than the Mahometan."

and

"All other religions have been set on foot for politique ends, this is of a contrary nature. The heathens out of flattery worshipped the ancestors of their kings & the Mahometans the founder of their Empire such religions men are prone to: but Abraham fled his country for the sake of his religion & Christ & his disciples suffered persecutions even unto death for 300 years together for the sake of theirs."

No doubt Newton would be expelled from Cambridge University if he were to write such inflammatory remarks today.

We see that a student of Cambridge University, perhaps ill-advisedly given the threat to his safety, has re-published a couple of the Danish cartoons.

It may be that this student will be expelled. Coincidentally, he is studying mathematics and physics, and clearly has some interest in theology. Very much following in Newton's footsteps therefore.

One hopes that the University authorities have some understanding of the truth about Islam. As Newton himself has stated:

"When thou art convinced be not ashamed of the truth but profess it openly & indeavour to convince thy Brother also." (Yahuda Ms. 1.1 f. 6r).

Links of interest:

God Help Britain

godhelpbritain.blogspot.com

CLARE COLLEGE MAGAZINE

Clareification-news@srcf.ucam.org

HERO: STUDENT FIGHTS THE CAUSE

www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/city/2007/02/09/ef79ee97-fec1-4f00-babf-dbd17447b40b.lpf

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article1362553.ece

The MSM have refused to report this:
drakesdrumuk.blogspot.com/2007/02/murder-too-far-for-msm.html

Could it have been a grooming gone wrong? The girl was around the right age:

drakesdrumuk.blogspot.com/2007/02/grooming.html

Cambridge Tooniversity bans free speech about Islam...

ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/02/fuck-it-we-aint-giving-up-ghost.html

pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2007/02/clare_college_r.html

pubphilosopher.blogs.com/pub_philosopher/2007/02/student_discipl.html

I (religion of pe) recently published the 20 most menacing aspects of the death cult at

ibloga.blogspot.com/2006/11/20-things-you-should-know-about-islam.html

Islam has a paedophile for a prophet, and a brothel-keeper for a god.

Jesus said "By their fruits ye shall know them".

Real religions bring out the best in people, Islam does the opposite.

GOD SAVE THE QUEEN! (WHAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE?)

----------

CONTACTS AT CLARE COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE

Bursar - Hearn, Mr D bursar@clare.cam.ac.uk

Dean - Greeves, Revd R dean@clare.cam.ac.uk

The Master - Badger, Prof A J master@clare.cam.ac.uk

MCR President - Doupe, Mr David dpd26@cam.ac.uk

UCS President - Davey, Mr Calum cd361@cam.ac.uk

Acting Senior Tutor - Fara, Dr P pf10006@cam.ac.uk

-------

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Buddhist exemption from inheritance tax

Buddhist exemption from inheritance tax

A Buddhist does not need to pay any inheritance tax whatsoever.

This is how it works:

Buddhists are reincarnated. Within their will, they can decree that all of their posessions are simply transferred to the new incarnation of themselves. Since no other party is the beneficiary of the will, there is no inheritance tax to be paid.

How can you tell that a particular baby is the reincarnation of a particular deceased person? This is a problem that has already been addressed, at least in the case of the Dalai Lama. Various tests have been devised in order to be able to select the correct infant.

Furthermore, it appears to be possible for the person to have some influence over their future incarnation. This is demonstrated as the current Dalai Lama has declared that his next incarnation will be in territory that is not controlled by the Chinese.

So, for the purpose of avoiding inheritance tax, you could declare that you will be reincarnated as a baby born to a relative, your niece for example. The entire value of your estate will therefore benefit your relatives, without a single penny going to the tax man.

What it means of course is that non-Buddhists end up paying more tax, to make up for the shortfall that Buddhists are not paying.

Is this not quite outrageous? Of course it is. I made it up.

The point that I am making is that if you make concessions to one religious group, then you should in fairness make concessions to another religious group. Since various concessions have been made to Muslims, it would be perfectly reasonable for Buddhists to also benefit from special treatment. Avoiding payment of inheritance tax is quite reasonable in this context.

Muslims have been given the concession that they can take out bank loans at zero interest rate. This is because Islam forbids usuary.

However, if a Muslim were to take out an interest free loan, and put the money into a different account which bears interest, then they are effectively getting money for nothing. For example, borrowing one million ponds, interest free for a year, and putting it into a separate account bearing 5 percent interest would give 50,000 pounds interest. Even if the condition of the interest-free loan is that any "profit" is split equally (which appears to be the case typically), this still gives the Muslim 25,000 pounds for virtually no effort.

Of course, it is the non-Muslims who are paying for this, through our bank charges and the interest that we pay for our loans.

Is this not just as outrageous as the possibility that Buddhists need not pay inheritance tax? The difference of course, is that interest free loans for Muslims are happening right now.

The other concession to Muslims of course is the matter of Halal slaughter, which I have gone on about ad nauseam. Simply to state that if a non-Muslim were to kill an animal by slitting its throat without any pre-stunning, that person would quite rightly be prosecuted for cruelty to animals.

Perhaps any of us can start our own religion, and then claim special treatment. One that I have in mind I am calling "Automatonism". The central belief is that there is no such thing as free will. We are all pre-destined to follow exactly a pre-defined course through our lives. We are all automatons.

Since we have no free will, we also have no responsibility for our actions. Therefore I can steal as much as I like, and will not be arrested or appear before any courts. In addition, I do not need to purchase any car insurance, since if I cause an accident, it is not my fault since I have no free will.

So the concessions that I demand for my religion is that I can steal as much as I like, and I can cause as much harm to other people as I feel like, and be immune from any prosecution.

It is very clearly absurd to give anyone concessions on the basis of their belief in "Automatonism". Why is it any less absurd therefore to give concessions on the basis of their belief in "Islam"?

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Wednesday, February 14, 2007

What can a Christian eat?

Around a quarter of all sheep slaughtered in Britain are killed using the Halal method. It is the case that many of these are unwittingly consumed by non-Muslims.

Much the same applies to cattle.

It may be that you are not too concerned about the completely avoidable suffering caused to these animals by slitting their throats whilst they are fully conscious. However, do you really wish to eat meat that has been prayed over by a Muslim? Since for the Muslim the Quran abrogates the Bible, it would seem logical that any prayers given by that Muslim would over-ride any subsequent prayers given by a Christian over that food.

It is the case that pigs are not Halal. However, it is worth reconsidering whether they should be permitted for Christians.

"And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase." Deuteronomy 14:8

I am aware of the following verse, which would appear to make it permissible to eat anything:

"There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him: but the things which come out of him, those are they that defile the man." Mark 7:15

However, there are also these verses:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

Presumably the law includes the injunction not to eat swine. (See Deuteronomy 14:8 and other similar verses.)

At the present time it may be unwise to eat chicken or turkey due to H5N1 bird flu. We are advised that it is perfectly safe if it is cooked. Does that imply that it may be unsafe raw? However, it is generally received and handled in an uncooked state. There appears to be a logical disconnect.

It may be that the ideal diet of the Bible is that of a vegetarian or a vegan. It appears that Adam and Eve were vegans before the fall.

"The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent’s meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD." Isaiah 65:25

"He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man; he that sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck; he that offereth an oblation, as if he offered swine’s blood; he that burneth incense, as if he blessed an idol. Yea, they have chosen their own ways, and their soul delighteth in their abominations." Isaiah 66:3

Really it is your own choice whether to eat Halal meat or not. Likewise, it is your choice whether to be a Christian or a Muslim or an atheist etc. However, the reality in Britain today, if you choose not to eat Halal, is that it is necessary to simply avoid eating meat altogether (except pig meat), since you have no idea whether the meat is Halal or not.

A final thought:

"For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him." Romans 14:2-3

So, in your own conscience applied to yourself: What can a Christian eat?

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Monkeys and pigs

Whilst it may be true that the Quran can be fully understood only by those who understand Arabic, does it follow that just because the fine gradations of meaning are lost in translation, that we cannot have a pretty good understanding by reading an English translation?

Surely not.

Whilst we can take with a pinch of salt the accusations that the Police, or the BBC or any other mainstream organisations are "institutionally racist", what about the Quran? This is, in effect, the operational handbook of Islam. Imagine the outcry if a Police handbook made reference to "pigs and monkeys"!

What then are we to make of the text books used in schools? These books were provided by Saudi Arabia. Details are given here:

www.melaniephillips.com/diary/?p=1459

Can this really be happening in Britain in 2007? It seems like medieval nonsense.

The trouble is, some people really believe this nonsense.

Quotes from the Quran:

[2.65] And certainly you have known those among you who exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, so We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

[5.60] Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path.

[7.166] Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, We said to them: Be (as) apes, despised and hated.

Given that the "solution" to the school textbook problem was to tear out the offendeing pages, perhaps the same solution can be applied to the offending pages in the Quran?

If all pages containing bloodthirsty, violent, homophobic, sexist, derogatory and supremacist verses were removed from the Quran, we would very probably find few pages remaining. Remove also any verses that have been abrogated by the bloodthirsty etc verses, and there may be nothing left at all.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Conservatives: You do not understand

I have posted this message onto the Conservative's "Security Policy" message board.

I have read the "Uniting the Country" interim report of the Policy Group on National and International Security.

I have also read the report by the Policy Exchange think tank ( www.policyexchange.org.uk ): "Living apart together - British Muslims and the paradox of multiculturalism".

The latter gives much useful informtion. For example, 37 percent of 16 - 24 year olds would prefer to live under Sharia law, compared to 17 percent of 55+ year olds. If this trend continues, and there is no reason to believe that it will not, then we can expect an increase in the intensity of the demands for Sharia law to be introduced in the coming years.

Unfortunately the Security Policy Group are still labouring under a delusion. The "Uniting the Country" report states:

"Government should combat the incorrect and damaging popular misconception, revealed in public opinion polls, that Islam as a religion per se is a threat to democracy"

Sadly, it really is the uncomfortable truth that Islam itself is indeed a threat to democracy. The electorate are more advanced in their thinking than are the Conservatives on this point. Here is why:

Sharia law is considered to be made by Allah. Man made laws must therefore be subservient to Sharia law, and even removed entirely. Man made laws are produced in places such as Brussels, Westminster, the Scottish Parliament, and the Welsh Assembly. With the possible exception of Brussels, there is some sort of democratic accountability involved. Sharia law is unarguably undemocratic. By extension, so is Islam itself.

For the Conservatives to have any hope of forming the next government, they must show some true leadership qualities right now. Such qualities include stating the truth, even if it is uncomfortable. Churchill understood very well what we are up against, and he had the boldness and conviction to be able to state it clearly. I am convinced that if successive governments had heeded his words, that we would not find ourselves in the mess that we are now in. Can Cameron turn the situation around? Not if he refuses to understand the truth.

Quoting from Churchill:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries; improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step. Were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Home Secretary: "My friend"

Gathering a few threads together:

1. July 2006: Just before the anniversary of the London bombings, Abu Izzadeen made a number of remarks, which "allegedly" glorify terrorism. Glorification of terrorism is a criminal offence.

2. September 2006: Home Secretary John Reid addressed a gathering of Muslims, with the aim of asking them to co-operate with the war on terror within Britain. He was heckled for some time by Abu Izzadeen. During the heckling, the Home Secretary repeatedly referred to him as "My friend".

3. January 2007: The Conservatives produced a document with the title: "Uniting the Country". (In fact, it has no title, but the file name is "unitingthecountry.pdf") This is the interim report of the Policy Group on National and International
Security.

4. February 2007: Abu Izzadeen was arrested for "allegedly" glorifying terrorism, and released on bail pending trial.

The most curious aspect of this is why was he not arrested shortly after making his remarks in July 2006?

Also, why was he permitted to disrupt a meeting presided over by the Home Secretary, the purpose of which was aimed at rooting out extremists such as him?

Is it merely a coincidence that he was arrested not long after the Conservatives produced their document?

Regarding the glorification of terrorism law, the document states:

"The Government has recently passed laws to prevent the spread of racial hatred and the glorification of terrorism. It has objectionable features but as it is on the statute book, it should be used actively to combat the instances of abuse of tolerance and free speech which are known to occur or else it should be removed from the statute book. Dead letter legislation induces contempt for the law."

I have made it my task to spread the truth about the bloodthirsty verses in the Quran, which abrogate the chronologically earlier verses. The earlier verses tend to be more tolerant. As part of this task, I have posted a number of messages onto the Conservative's "Security Policy" message board, together with links to my blog and other websites of relevance.

One of the points that I made was:

"In my own opinion, it is very clear that the Quran does indeed glorify terrorism. Should the British legal system therefore ban the Quran? The legislation is relatively recent, and was enacted in response to 9/11. It is not some archaic law (such as the obligation to do weekly archery practice) which has simply not been repealed. It is very much a law of our time.

I would suggest that given that we have this law now which makes illegal the glorification of terrorism, and also to anyone of sound mind, it would appear that the Quran does in fact glorify terrorism, then surely we should as a minimum have a legal enquiry into the status of the Quran in this respect. The legal process must take its course.

Doing only half a job, i.e. producing this legislation, and then failing to follow it through to its logical conclusion indicates that the present government is incompetent at the least. Perhaps they understood what they were doing, but now are too afraid to carry it through. In either case, whether they are stupid, or whether they are cowards, they are not fit to govern.
.............
It is the current Labour government that has created the law banning the glorification of terrorism. However, it is patently clear that they are completely lacking in courage to follow through with the task. They must realise that the Quran is the single most significant document that glorifies terrorism."

Now that Abu Izzadeen is the first person to be charged under the glorification of terrorism act, perhaps some truths will come out. What sort of arguments could his lawyers put forward in his defence? Since he appears on video making these remarks, it is hardly likely that the lawyers can argue that his words are misunderstood. The meaning of his words are plain and obvious for all to see and hear.

The lawyers may try to get him off on some legal technicality. However, there would be such a public outcry if that were to happen, that such a course would seem unlikely. A re-trial would be almost inevitable in that case.

The only other realistic possibility that I can see would be for the defendant to plead some sort of insanity or undue influence. Where would such influence originate? Err .. the Quran perhaps?

If that is the defence given, the next logical step would be to have a judicial enquiry into whether the Quran itself glorifies terrorism. We live in interesting times.

We who feel the urgency to enlighten our fellow humans about the inhumanity of the Quran, often feel that we are shouting into an empty cave to no avail. However, I do wonder if my efforts have played some part in the chain of events that have led to the arrest of Abu Izzadeen. It is probable that there are several hundred thousand more like him. It is unlikely that the Home Secretary can provide accommodation for all of his new-found friends however!

Very regretably, it really is a vain hope to believe that Muslims can live peacefully alongside non-Muslims. I truly wish that it were not so, however, the Quran itself makes this point very unambiguously:

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." Quran 3.28

"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

It is a sign of weak leadership by our politicians (both Labour and Conservative) that they are unable, or unwilling to confront the truth of this reality. It is not possible even to begin to solve a problem until it is properly understood. Do they not understand why, despite the best efforts of Ghandi, it was necessary to partition India? If someone of the stature and moral courage of Ghandi was unable to effect a workable cohesion for "Uniting the Country", what hope have Blair, Brown or Cameron?

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Monday, February 12, 2007

Afghan poppy crop

Tackling the growing of poppies in Afghanistan is a difficult problem. The current plan which is to spray herbicides is unlikely to have any lasting impact. It will have little impact anyway, since the spraying will of necessity be at low level, using relatively light aircraft. These will be extremely vulnerable to being shot down. You are likely to run out of aircraft and willing pilots before even a fraction of the many square miles of poppy crop has been sprayed. The exercise must be repeated year after year to have any significant impact.

Given the vast acreages, it is necessary to use a fleet of heavy-lift aircraft such as the Hercules. The size of the problem is simply too great to be tackled by light aircraft. To reduce the risk of being shot down, the Hercules would need to fly at a reasonable altitude, say 10000 feet or above. Unfortunately, any herbicide sprayed from that altitude is liable to have evaporated and dispersed long before it reaches the ground. (Possibly you could spray herbicide from some altitude, if you do so whilst it is raining. The rain would carry it to the ground level. It would however be necessary to fly at or below cloudbase, which is likely to be a vulnerable height. Additionally, the herbicide may be rendered ineffective, if the rain is too heavy, since it would simply be washed off the leaves. It may be worth considering, but as a stop-gap approach, to destroy a crop that is already established.)

Here is a workable solution:

Simply stated: From a safe height, dispense a combination of salt and rape seed from the back of a fleet of Hercules aircraft. As both of these are solids, they will reach the ground, in most weather conditions. Since rape plants are members of the brassica family, they are easily able to grow in salty soil. Poppies are not in the brassica family, and are weakened and stunted by salt, if they grow at all. Unlike herbicides, the salt in the soil will remain active for some time, until it is eventually washed away.

The rape seeds are small. However, each rape plant grows into quite a good sized bush, some 5 feet high. It should easily out-compete the poppy plants near it, particularly if they are weakened by the salt. Each rape plant produces a large number of seeds, which would produce a much denser ground cover in the following year. Taking the land out of use for poppy growing in this way has some chance of success. Spraying herbicide is too high-tech, and requires too much infrastructure and support for it to work effectively over the vast areas involved.

The rape plants can be harvested and used for cooking oil production. Salting the land does not make it completely useless for growing other crops. Any plants in the brassica family should be OK. This includes food crops such as cabbage or sprouts etc, so this approach will not result in starvation of the population.

Incentives could be given to the farmers to grow and harvest the rape seeds, which would then be used to curtail poppy growing in other districts.

This is a possible solution to one particular problem. However western civilisation is under much greater threat than that due to a small percentage of the population who are involved in drugs. Tackling the drugs problem is worthwhile for the sake of those who get sucked into it, but also as it fuels the crime wave.

No, the greatest threat is from Islam itself. In a survey last year, 53 percent of the respondents consider that Islam itself is a threat to democracy and our way of life. Unfortunately our political leaders are somewhat behind the public understanding on this issue.

Tony Blair appears to have little depth of understanding. Following the London bombings, he stated:

"We will start to beat this when we stand up and confront the ideology of this evil. Not just the methods but the ideas."

That is a valid point. However, more recently Blair has stated:

"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.

What utter tripe!

It is high time that our politicians fully grasped the truth about Islam, as the general public are ahead of them on this issue. Do they understand the concept of "abrogation"? Blair clearly does not.

If you will but read the Quran, with an understanding of abrogation, you will clearly see that the Quran is at the root of encouraging, condoning and glorifying Islamic terrorism. It also clearly states that Muslims cannot integrate with the rest of society. Why are our politicians so blind not to see this?

Here are a couple of quotes, by way of example. There are many others that are equally disturbing:

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran 8.12

"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

"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

It is high time that our politicians demonstrated that they have a true understanding of Islam, and the bloodthirsty nature of the Quran. You will have no chance of beating the "ideology of this evil", until you understand the true nature of the ideology itself.

Following 9/11, Salman Rushdie wrote an article with the title "Yes, This Is About Islam". This article should be required reading. It can be found here:

www.faithfreedom.org

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Thursday, February 01, 2007

Who are the Nazis now?

The Conservatives have now published their "Uniting the Country" policy document. It makes an interesting starting point, and highlights a number of key issues. However, it does not delve deeply enough into the root cause of Islamic terrorism. Without a thorough understanding of the cause, you will struggle to develop an effective solution. Hiding behind bland or twisted analysis, for fear of being on the receiving end of a fatwa is not helpful for the future of Britain.

David Cameron has also made a speech recently around this subject.

The speech was bizarre however, in that he stated that the "racist" (meaning neo-Nazi) BNP is the mirror image of the Islamic extremists. This statement, needless to say, did not go down well with either Muslims or with Nationalists!

It is only seven months ago that the scales fell from my eyes, and I understood for the first time the truth about the deep-rooted violence at the heart of Islam. How had I been so blind for so long? Following swiftly on from that revelation was the realisation that we are now in a really deep mess here in Britain. It is not just the severe threat of terrorist acts, dirty bombs and mass poisoning that is to be feared. More insidious, but even more to be feared is the creeping Islamification of Britain. Perish the thought that Britain will one day become an Islamic state. This is our fate, unless some very bold action is taken right now.

The problem has been building up over many decades, and both Labour as well as Conservative Governments have done precious little to curb it. Churchill understood well the nature of the Islamic menace. We would not be in the mess we are in today, if sucessive Governments had heeded his wisdom. The significant quote by Churchill is given below.

In the past I have nearly always voted for the Conservatives, warts and all. This is because whenever Labour get into power they always make a terrible mess. How many defence contracts have they wantonly cancelled? TSR2, supersonic Harrier etc etc. They and their acolytes have destroyed British industry. I have also never trusted that grinning fool Blair, and I trust Gordon Brown even less.

I have voted for the Conservatives, warts and all, even though I do not agree with all their policies. For example, I am very much against cruelty to animals, and so I am against fox hunting. Banning it is at least one thing that Labour have done right.

I have not been particularly interested in politics, and could not bring myself to vote last time. I really could not picture Michael Howard as Prime Minister. There is a word to describe him, but I cannot recall what it is at present. "Smarmy" does not quite cover it.

David Cameron does have some potential however, but he must come to the painful realisation that it is not possible to be all things to all men. He needs to work out where he stands on a range of issues. He does not have the boldness or vision of Churchill, nor the strength of character of Thatcher. It is hard to match such giants however, but Cameron can learn to stand upon their shoulders.

Making puerile remarks about the "racist" (meaning neo-Nazi) BNP does him no credit whatsoever, and it is hard to see that there is any justification now for that label. Indeed, one of their councillors is Jewish, which would not be possible if Cameron's statement were true.

Indeed, there are certain parallels between Nazi and Islamic attitudes:

Both have an especial hatred of, and wish to exterminate Jews. Both spread their ideology by violent means where necessary. Both have a supremacist attitude. None of this applies to the BNP, as far as I can see.

Despite all of Labour's woes, the Conservatives are struggling to exceed 40 percent in the polls. This must be quite disconcerting. So, where are the votes going? According to The Daily Telegraph, they are going to the "Nationalist" parties, although the figure is not broken down into details. If the Conservatives are unable to understand the issue of the very real threat of the creeping Islamification of Britain, and state clearly their policy to tackle it, such voting trends will surely continue.

It may be that the Conservatives will not be able to form a majority government at the next election. Given that the electorate are now waking up to the truth about Islam, and are disgusted with the lack of real action by the mainstream parties, it is very probable that the BNP will make considerable strides. However strange it may seem, the Conservatives may well find that they must form a coalition with the BNP in the not too distant future. Puerile and ill-informed comments are not helpful.

The gathering storm clouds make for strange bedfellows. It would appear that an increasing number of homosexuals are considering the merits of the BNP. Not surprising however, given the severe penalties for homosexuals under Sharia law.

I am quite sure that everyone of good character wishes the best for the future of Britain. As Sharia law is introduced step by step, our traditional values are seriously eroded. This step by step appeasement will not solve the problem. Indeed, it emboldens those who wish to destroy us.

Both Labour and Conservative Governments share the responsibility for creating the mess that we are now in. Some humility is now long overdue. Confering with those who have been studying the problem for many years would be a useful step, even if it may be uncomfortable to admit your own errors.

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

Churchill:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia (rabies) in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries; improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

"A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement, the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities, but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

"No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step. Were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

You do not need to take my word for it, or even Churchill's. Simply study the Faith Freedom website. It is produced by ex-Muslims:

www.faithfreedom.org

We in Britain must regain our self confidence to do the right thing, even if it is not popular in certain quarters. Appeasement is not an option. It did not work with the Nazis, and it does not work with Islam either.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Salman Rushdie: Yes, This Is About Islam

I have posted this article a while ago, but it bears repetition, in case you missed it.

The article is by Salman Rushdie and was written in response to 9/11. It is still highly relevant.

This article and others are found here:

www.faithfreedom.org

Yes, This Is About Islam

By SALMAN RUSHDIE

LONDON -- "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?

Why the routine anti-Semitism of the much-repeated Islamic slander that "the Jews" arranged the hits on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the oddly self-deprecating explanation offered by the Taliban leadership, among others, that Muslims could not have the technological know-how or organizational sophistication to pull off such a feat? Why does Imran Khan, the Pakistani ex-sports star turned politician, demand to be shown the evidence of Al Qaeda's guilt while apparently turning a deaf ear to the self-incriminating statements of Al Qaeda's own spokesmen (there will be a rain of aircraft from the skies, Muslims in the West are warned not to live or work in tall buildings)? Why all the talk about American military infidels desecrating the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia if some sort of definition of what is sacred is not at the heart of the present discontents?

Of course this is "about Islam." The question is, what exactly does that mean? After all, most religious belief isn't very theological. Most Muslims are not profound Koranic analysts. For a vast number of "believing" Muslim men, "Islam" stands, in a jumbled, half-examined way, not only for the fear of God — the fear more than the love, one suspects — but also for a cluster of customs, opinions and prejudices that include their dietary practices; the sequestration or near-sequestration of "their" women; the sermons delivered by their mullahs of choice; a loathing of modern society in general, riddled as it is with music, godlessness and sex; and a more particularized loathing (and fear) of the prospect that their own immediate surroundings could be taken over — "Westoxicated" — by the liberal Western-style way of life.

Highly motivated organizations of Muslim men (oh, for the voices of Muslim women to be heard!) have been engaged over the last 30 years or so in growing radical political movements out of this mulch of "belief." These Islamists — we must get used to this word, "Islamists," meaning those who are engaged upon such political projects, and learn to distinguish it from the more general and politically neutral "Muslim" — include the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the blood-soaked combatants of the Islamic Salvation Front and Armed Islamic Group in Algeria, the Shiite revolutionaries of Iran, and the Taliban. Poverty is their great helper, and the fruit of their efforts is paranoia. This paranoid Islam, which blames outsiders, "infidels," for all the ills of Muslim societies, and whose proposed remedy is the closing of those societies to the rival project of modernity, is presently the fastest growing version of Islam in the world.

This is not wholly to go along with Samuel Huntington's thesis about the clash of civilizations, for the simple reason that the Islamists' project is turned not only against the West and "the Jews," but also against their fellow Islamists. Whatever the public rhetoric, there's little love lost between the Taliban and Iranian regimes. Dissensions between Muslim nations run at least as deep, if not deeper, than those nations' resentment of the West. Nevertheless, it would be absurd to deny that this self-exculpatory, paranoiac Islam is an ideology with widespread appeal.

Twenty years ago, when I was writing a novel about power struggles in a fictionalized Pakistan, it was already de rigueur in the Muslim world to blame all its troubles on the West and, in particular, the United States. Then as now, some of these criticisms were well-founded; no room here to rehearse the geopolitics of the cold war and America's frequently damaging foreign policy "tilts," to use the Kissinger term, toward (or away from) this or that temporarily useful (or disapproved-of) nation-state, or America's role in the installation and deposition of sundry unsavory leaders and regimes. But I wanted then to ask a question that is no less important now: Suppose we say that the ills of our societies are not primarily America's fault, that we are to blame for our own failings? How would we understand them then? Might we not, by accepting our own responsibility for our problems, begin to learn to solve them for ourselves?

Many Muslims, as well as secularist analysts with roots in the Muslim world, are beginning to ask such questions now. In recent weeks Muslim voices have everywhere been raised against the obscurantist hijacking of their religion. Yesterday's hotheads (among them Yusuf Islam, a k a Cat Stevens) are improbably repackaging themselves as today's pussycats.

An Iraqi writer quotes an earlier Iraqi satirist: "The disease that is in us, is from us." A British Muslim writes, "Islam has become its own enemy." A Lebanese friend, returning from Beirut, tells me that in the aftermath of the attacks on Sept. 11, public criticism of Islamism has become much more outspoken. Many commentators have spoken of the need for a Reformation in the Muslim world.

I'm reminded of the way noncommunist socialists used to distance themselves from the tyrannical socialism of the Soviets; nevertheless, the first stirrings of this counterproject are of great significance. If Islam is to be reconciled with modernity, these voices must be encouraged until they swell into a roar. Many of them speak of another Islam, their personal, private faith.

The restoration of religion to the sphere of the personal, its depoliticization, is the nettle that all Muslim societies must grasp in order to become modern. The only aspect of modernity interesting to the terrorists is technology, which they see as a weapon that can be turned on its makers. If terrorism is to be defeated, the world of Islam must take on board the secularist-humanist principles on which the modern is based, and without which Muslim countries' freedom will remain a distant dream.

Salman Rushdie is the author, most recently, of "Fury: A Novel."

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

St George True