Friday, 16 March 2018

Politics in Pakistan and the mandatory aspect of chapter 24 of the Koran

Peak Decadence: The WEST & The Fate of EMPIRE

Thursday, 15 March 2018

Why Jews in the West fulfilling their religious duty to promote the Noahide laws should encourage Western governments to adopt Islam

Rabbi Kin asks if Jews are negligent in not doing what they were supposed to which is to "Recount His glory among the nations."  Otherwise, humans will become worse than animals. He concludes by saying our civilisation will be destroyed if we keep changing the laws and drive ourselves and everyone else mad. God's laws don't change because He doesn't make mistakes, unlike liberals and feminists.

There appears to be a school of thought in Judaism saying that if only Jews would perform their religious duty and remind the gentile not to fall below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws, all will be well again. This means Jews must point out to the gentiles of the West in no uncertain terms that Christianity has failed and propose that their failed religion be replaced with Secular Koranism ie Islam as I, an agnostic, interpret it, and become a one party theocracy. 
Fortunately, America can do it without even having to change its constitution though I would advise the omission of pursuing happiness altogether.

Could someone please draw this to the attention of Melanie Phillips who has blocked me on Twitter because she does not like what I say? She seems hell-bent on attempting to revive the corpse that is Christianity, which would be a waste of time. Even if Britain had an absolute dictator, it would not be enough if he just forced everyone to attend church on Sundays and declare that they believe that Christ is God, would it, Melanie? To restore patriarchy, sluts must be shamed and to do this as soon and as effectively as possible requires the enforcement of, and the abolition of no fault divorce, the civil partnership and gay marriage as well as the repeal of the Equality Act 2010 and the Equal Pay Act.

By the way, Melanie, only Islam guarantees freedom of worship with and only Islam specifically accommodates both Jews and Muslims. Christian scripture does not accommodate either Jews or Muslims. The First Amendment was derived from the Koran I was also disappointed to note that what she says about Islam in is either irrelevant or untrue.

Because Islam absolutely forbids usury, Jews would no longer get into trouble with the locals and be moved on by gentiles in pogroms when gentiles who borrow usuriously from them realise they will never be able to repay their loans. Calvin the anti-Semite was obviously wrong in allowing Christians to practise usury, thinking it was jolly clever of him to allow Christians to practise usury while making sure Jews always got the blame.

Gay marriage is definitely flouting the Noahide laws on sexual morality for which God will definitely zap us. 

French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte's Islam

Napoleon wanted to be the same genius conqueror of the world. He wanted to be for the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries “what Muhammad had been to the seventh.” Therefore he could not accept the slightest denigration of the Prophet. He admired Muhammad in the following words: “Mahomet was a great man, an intrepid soldier; with a handful of men he triumphed at the battle of Bender (sic); a great captain, eloquent, a great man of state, he revived his fatherland and created a new people and a new power in the middle of the Arabian deserts.” Here Napoleon refers to the Battle of Badar which was fought in the second year of Prophetic migration to Madinah.

“Voltaire”, said the Emperor, “in the character and conduct of his hero, has departed both from nature and history. He has degraded Mahomet, by making him descend to the lowest intrigues. He has represented a great man who changed the face of the world, acting like a scoundrel, worthy of the gallows. He has no less absurdly traverstied the character of Omar, which he has drawn like that of a cut-throat in a melodrama. Voltaire committed a fundamental error in attributing to intrigue that which was solely the result of opinion." Omar here refers to Omar bin al-Khattab who was the second caliph after Prophet Muhammad. 

Napoleon rejected the central theme of Voltaire’s play that Muhammad was a fanatic. He observed that the rapid social changes and political victories which Prophet Muhammad realized within a short span of time could not have been the result of fanaticism. “Fanaticism could not have accomplished this miracle, for fanaticism must have had time to establish her dominion, and the career of Mahomet lasted only thirteen years." General Baron Gourgaud, one of the closest generals to Napoleon, gives almost identical accounts of Napoleon’s evaluations of Voltaire’s play. Napoleon further observed that "Mohammed has been accused of frightful crimes. Great men are always supposed to have committed crimes, such as poisonings; that is quite false; they never succeed by such means." 

Napoleon was a true admirer of both Prophet Muhammad and his religion. As an aspiring world conqueror and legislator, Napoleon adopted Muhammad as his role model and claimed to be walking in his footsteps. Before his military excursion to Egypt he advised his soldiers and officers to respect the Muslim religion. “The people amongst whom we are going to live are Mahometans. The first article of their faith is this: "There is no God but God, and Mahomet is his prophet." Do not contradict them… Extend to the ceremonies prescribed by the Koran and to the mosques the same toleration which you showed to the synagogues, to the religion of Moses and of Jesus Christ.” 

“In the name of God the Beneficent, the Merciful, there is no other God than God, he has neither son nor associate to his rule. On behalf of the French Republic founded on the basis of liberty and equality, the General Bonaparte, head of the French Army, proclaims to the people of Egypt that for too long the Beys who rule Egypt insult the French nation and heap abuse on its merchants; the hour of their chastisement has come. For too long, this rabble of slaves brought up in the Caucasus and in Georgia tyrannizes the finest region of the world; but God, Lord of the worlds, all-powerful, has proclaimed an end to their empire. Egyptians, some will say that I have come to destroy your religion; this is a lie, do not believe it! Tell them that I have come to restore your rights and to punish the usurpers; that I respect, more than do the Mamluks, God, his prophet Muhammad and the glorious Qur'an... we are true Muslims. Are we not the one who has destroyed the Pope who preached war against Muslims? Did we not destroy the Knights of Malta, because these fanatics believed that God wanted them to make war against the Muslims?” 

Humberto Garcia observes that Bonaparte promised “to restore egalitarian justice in Ottoman Egypt under an Islamic republic based in Cairo.” The intended Islamic republic was to be based upon the egalitarian laws of “the Prophet and his holy Koran.” Bonaparte casted himself as a Muslim convert and took the Islamic name of “Ali”, the celebrated son in law and cousin of Prophet Muhammad. He expressed his desire to establish a “uniform regime, founded on the principles of the Qur’an, which are the only true ones, and which can alone ensure the well-being of men.” Garcia further observes that “supposedly, the French came as deist liberators rather than colonizing crusaders… and not to convert the population to Christianity…” Juan Cole states that “The French Jacobins, who had taken over Notre Dame for the celebration of a cult of Reason and had invaded and subdued the Vatican, were now creating Egypt as the world’s first modern Islamic Republic.” 

Throughout his stay in Egypt Napoleon used the Qur’anic verses and Ahadith (Prophetic reports) in his proclamations to the Egyptians. “Tell your people that since the beginning of time God has decreed the destruction of the enemies of Islam and the breaking of the crosses by my hand. Moreover He decreed from eternity that I shall come from the West to the Land of Egypt for the purpose of destroying those who have acted tyrannically in it and to carry out the tasks which He set upon me. And no sensible man will doubt that all this is by virtue of God’s decree and will. Also tell your people that the many verses of the glorious Qur’an announce the occurrence of events which have occurred and indicate others which are to occur in the future…” Napoleon used the Muslim apocalyptic vocabulary and tradition to convey his political motives. Ziad observes that the “use of the Qur’an and Sunna in the remaining proclamations serves to consolidate further the image of Napoleon as not only a follower of Muhammad, but a Mahdi destined to conquer that region.” Napoleon truly infused his declarations with “an unprecedented degree of Qur’anic allusion and auto-deification. No longer a mere exporter of the Enlightenment, Napoleon is now the arm of God…”

Napoleon formed a “Directory” comprised of French officials, Cairo elites and Muslim clergy. He patronized mosques and the madrassas, the centers of Qura’nic studies programs. He participated and presided over the Muslim festivals and Egyptian holidays and “even tried converting the French army to Islam legally without undergoing the Muslim practice of circumcision and imposing the wine-drinking prohibition… Marriages between Frenchmen and Muslims women were common, accompanied by formal conversion to Islam. Indeed, French general Jacques Manou, governor of Rosetta, married a notable Egyptian woman of the Sharif cast and changed his name to “Abdullah” (Servant of Allah).” Manuo was a senior French general. He married Zubayda in the spring of 1799. “The adoption of an almost Catholic discourse of piety in an Islamic guise by a French officer in Egypt could scarcely have been foreseen by the Jacobins on the Directory and in the legislature who urged the invasion.” 

The French Jacobins like their deists comrades believed that “Mahometans” were “closer to “the standard of reason” than the Christians…” 

Some notable French thinkers, as discussed above, had already “tried to show how close Europeans could be to Islamic practice, without knowing it, as a way of critiquing religion.” They had already employed Islamic ideas to root out the priestcraft. Therefore, Napoleon was reaping the fruits of a long strand of French radical enlightenment where Islam and Muhammad were the known commodities. Bonaparte’s personal deistic disposition and the overall French propensity towards hatred of organized Christianity and its irrational dogmas combined with simultaneous appreciation of Islamic rational monotheism and medieval Islamic civilization were truly at play in Egypt. The political expediency added to the already existent seeds of the French radical enlightenment and caused them to flourish in a congenial Muslim Egyptian environment. The French were not accepting a new religion. They were accepting a reformed version of their deeply held religious convictions, something already present in their religious outlook. 

Bonaparte dressed in Islamic attire, promoted Islamic art and sciences, and greatly emphasized the “affinity between the French egalitarian principles and Shari’a law. 

The Egyptian scholars, in their letter to the Sharif of Mecca and Madinah, wrote the following about Bonaparte. “He has assured us that he recognizes the unity of God, that the French honor our Prophet, as well as the Qur’an, and that they regard the Muslim religion as the best religion. The French have proved their love for Islam in freeing the Muslim prisoners detained in Malta, in destroying churches and breaking crosses in the city of Venice, and in pursuing the pope, who commanded the Christians to kill the Muslims and who had represented that act as a religious duty.” Napoleon’s public conversion to Islam was more significant for the Egyptians than any of his other policies. 

Napoleon’s conversion to Islam was highlighted by the known newspapers both in France and England. In England, the “Copies of Original Letters from the Army of General Bonaparte” was published in a total of eight editions to implicate “a Franco-Ottoman conspiracy to eradicate Christianity.” The publicity and importance given to Napoleon’s proclamation was geared towards “supplying indisputable evidence of French admiration of Islam”, and identifying a “Jacobin-Mahometan plot to undermine British national interests at home and abroad.” The alliance between the Islamic Egypt and French republicanism was the source of English paranoia that resulted in a grand scale polemical works against Islam culminating in a new biography of Muhammad, the professed model of Napoleon Bonaparte. Humphrey Prideux’s famous biography “The Life of Mahomet, or the history of that Imposter, which was begun, carried on, and finally established him in Arabia… To which is added, an account of Egypt” was published in London in the year 1799. The books multiple editions over a short span of time, the enthusiastic support it generated both from the Church of England and English monarchy and its widespread distribution over the European continent in different languages reflect the levels of anxiety, alarm, suspicion and fears caused by a perceived alliance between the Islamic and French republicanisms. 

Prideaux’s claims of hundreds of thousands of hidden “Mahometans” both in France and England highlight the extent of cross cultural pollination of Islamic ideas during the eighteenth century Europe. While scolding the Mahometan policies of Bonaparte, Prideaux also wanted to incite the British public against the radical enlighteners at home, like Henry Stubbe, John Toland, Blount, Tindal etc., who, like Bonaparte, subscribed to the Islamic republicanism. The egalitarian republicanism of the radical enlighteners both in France and England was depicted as the “corrupt political theology imported from the Muslim world.” The Christian Europe’s divine right monarchy and ecclesiastical authority were in a chaos due to Islamic ideas foreign to Christian Europe. Napoleon’s supposed conversion to Islam had really caused a public paranoia about an Islamic conspiracy to overtake Europe. Napoleon was completely identified with Islam and Muhammad. 

“Although Bonaparte and his defender, Bourrienne, prefaced this account by saying that Bonaparte never converted, never went to mosque, and never prayed in the Muslim way, all of that is immaterial. It is quite clear that he was attempting to find a way for French deists to be declared Muslims for purposes of statecraft. This strategy is of a piece with the one used in his initial Arabic proclamation, in which he maintained that the French army, being without any particular religion and rejecting Trinitarianism, was already “muslim” with a small “m.” Islam was less important to him, of course, than legitimacy. Without legitimacy, the French could not hope to hold Egypt in the long run, and being declared some sort of strange Muslim was the shortcut that appealed to Bonaparte.” 

A systematic study of his ideas over the later years of his life substantiates the fact that he was a true admirer of Prophet Muhammad and his religion. Juan Cole admits that “Bonaparte’s admiration for the Prophet Muhammad, in contrast, was genuine.” Napoleon expressed the same positive sentiments about Muhammad and Qur’an while leaving Egypt after his failed attempt to control it. In 1799 on his way back to France he left specific instructions to French administrators in Egypt. He strongly urged them to respect the Qur’an and love the Prophet, "one must take great care to persuade the Muslims that we love the Qur'an and that we venerate the prophet. One thoughtless word or action can destroy the work of many years." Napoleon showed the same respect towards the Prophet in the last years of his life while living in captivity on a tiny Island in the middle of Atlantic Ocean, Saint Helene, without any hope of political power or gain. One can easily see that in conformity with the French Enlightenment ideals Napoleon truly believed that Prophet Muhammad’s concept of God was genuinely sublime and that the Prophet was a model lawmaker. That is what he said in St. Helene: “Arabia was idolatrous when Muhammad, seven centuries after Jesus Christ, introduced the cult of the God of Abraham, Ishmael, Moses and Jesus Christ. The Arians and other sects that had troubled the tranquility of the Orient had raised questions concerning the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Muhammad declared that there was one unique God who had neither father nor son; that the trinity implied idolatry. He wrote on the frontispiece of the Qur'an: "There is no other god than God." 

Muhammad’s lack of resources and greatness of accomplishments make him the super hero. His fifteen years of achievements surpass fifteen centuries accomplishment of the Jews and Christians. “Muhammad was a prince; he rallied his compatriots around him. In a few years, his Muslims conquered half the world. They plucked more souls from the false gods, knocked down more idols, razed more pagan temples in fifteen years, than the followers of Moses and Jesus Christ did in fifteen centuries. Muhammad was a great man. He would indeed have been a god, if the revolution that he had performed had not been prepared by the circumstances.” 

Napoleon said, "Mohammed appeared at a moment when all men were anxious to be authorized to believe in but one God. It is possible that Arabia had before that been convulsed by civil wars, the only way to train men of courage. After Bender we find Mohammed a hero! A man can be only a man, but sometimes as a man he can accomplish great things. He is often like a spark among inflammable material. I do not think that Mohammed would at the present time succeed in Arabia. But in his own day his religion in ten years conquered half the known world, whilst it took three centuries for the religion of Christ firmly to establish itself.” Napoleon identified himself with Muhammad. "Mohammed's case was like mine. I found all the elements ready at hand to found an empire. Europe was weary of anarchy. Men wanted to make an end of it.” 

Napoleon believed that religion was necessary for law and order in a given society. “All religions since that of Jupiter inculcate morality.” He further stated that “Society needs a religion to establish and consolidate the relations of men with one another. It moves great forces; but is it good, or is it bad for a man to put himself entirely under the sway of a director? There are so many bad priests in the world." That is why he did not abolish any religion from any country which he conquered. It seems that he outwardly showed respect to almost every faith tradition including the Catholics but inwardly despised Christianity due to his deistic notions of the divinity. The same reasons made him respect the rational monotheism of Islam. 

Napoleon entertained the same lofty ideas about Islam in the final years of his life. He said "The Mohammedan religion is the finest of all. In Egypt the sheiks greatly embarrassed me by asking what we meant when we said 'the Son- of God.' If we had three gods, we must be heathen." He was a staunch admirer of Islamic morality which he considered a prerequisite to the wellbeing of all societies. “A man may have no religion, but may yet have morality. He must have morality for the sake of society.” The simple Islamic monotheism, its lack of burdensome ceremonies and strong emphasis upon morality were the keys to Napoleon’s admiration of Islam. "That is how men are imposed upon Jesus said he was the Son of God, and yet he was descended from David. I like the Mohammedan religion best. It has fewer incredible things in it than ours. The Turks call Christians idolaters." While denying the biblical miracles attributed to Moses, Napoleon confirmed the historical miracle of Muhammad, the stunning victories and sweeping social changes in a short span of ten or so years. " 

John Tolan states that “Bonaparte's Muhammad is a model statesman and conqueror: he knows how to motivate his troops and, as a result, was a far more successful conqueror than was Napoleon, holed up on a windswept island in the South Atlantic. If he promised sensual delights to his faithful, it is because that is all they understood: this manipulation, far from being cause for scandal (as it had been for European writers since the twelfth century) provokes only the admiration of the former emperor.” 

Napoleon was also impressed by certain aspects of the Islamic Shari’ah and intended to incorporate some of them into his “Napoleon Code”. John Tolan observes that Napoleon was “ready to excuse, even to praise, parts of Muslim law that had been objects of countless polemics, including polygamy.” Napoleon argued that “Asia and Africa are inhabited by men of many colors: polygamy is the only efficient means of mixing them so that whites do not persecute the blacks, or blacks the whites. Polygamy has them born from the same mother or the same father; the black and the white, since they are brothers, sit together at the same table and see each other. Hence in the Orient no color pretends to be superior to another. But, to accomplish this, Muhammad thought that four wives were sufficient.... When we will wish, in our colonies, to give liberty to the blacks and to destroy color prejudice, the legislator will authorize polygamy.” 

The identification between Napoleon and Prophet Muhammad and the emphasis upon Muhammad the lawgiver perhaps played a role in Adolph A. Weinman’s visual expressions which decorate the main chamber of the U. S. Supreme Court. Weinman (December 11, 1870 – August 8, 1952), a German-born American sculptor, visualized the Prophet as one the great lawgivers of the world. He is one of the eighteen great conquerors, statesmen and lawgivers commemorated in a series that includes Moses, Confucius and Napoleon. Even though Muslims have a strong aversion to sculptured or pictured representations of the Prophet, they can still appreciate the impact of his legacy upon the legal and political traditions in the West. 

Jew prescribing Islam for gentiles satirises white nationalists

Karaite Jew recommends Islam for atheists to better fight feminism

Anti-feminist Karaite Jew encourages mosque attendance

Monday, 12 March 2018

My political position summed up in a comedy sketch

Hizb ut Tahrir and restoring the Caliphate

Jew prescribing Islam for gentiles satirises white nationalists

F Schmidt:

According to Nu'man bin Bashir, Muhammad told this story:

"The example of the person abiding by God's order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the upper deck passengers), so they said, 'Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) so that we do not trouble the upper deck passengers.' If the people in the upper part left the lower deck passengers to do what they had suggested; then all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they had prevented them, then both parties would be safe."

I would like to expand on this story and bring it up to date.  I will assume a large modern boat with lifeboats, as is standard now.  And I will assume that it is in a large lake.  To make the story realistic, assume that something went wrong with the plumbing on the lower decks so that fresh water isn't available there.

My guess is that when Muhammad told this story, he imagined all Muslim passengers.  In this case, his story makes perfect sense.  But what if there are passengers of other religion?  As long as these other religions are reasonable, the story still makes sense.  But what if some passengers are from unreasonable religions/cultures so that they cannot be reasoned with?

The obvious example is modern culture.  Superficially, members of modern culture seem reasonable.  But discuss anything of substance and you will discover otherwise.  In this story, some members of modern culture on the lower decks began drilling holes in the boat to get water.  They considered this to be a progressive innovation.  They considered the fact that only those in the upper deck had easy access to water to be a form of discrimination against those in the lower decks, so drilling holes in the boat is a moral good to eliminate discrimination.  Sensible people argued with them saying that it is a well known fact that making holes in boats is bad.  The modern people responded that this old folk tale is just outdated morality that no longer applies.  Sensible people replied that there is abundant historical evidence that boats with holes sink.  Modern people responded that many of these stories are nothing but myths and the historical evidence for the rest is weak.  And in any case, these old boats were different from modern boats, so the historical evidence doesn't apply.  Sensible people tried to argue based on physics saying that if the ship filled with water then its average weight would be greater than water's, so it would sink.  Modern people responded that modern boats are equipped with systems that pump out excess water so this would never happen.  In effect, modern boats can never sink, so there is nothing to worry about.  Then the more sensible people remembered the Titanic and stopped arguing, realizing that there is no way to talk sense into a member of modern culture.

So now what?  If those who want to drill holes are a small minority, then the solution is simple.  Put them on lifeboats and get rid of them.  Then if they drill holes in the lifeboat, they only drown themselves.  But what if those who want to drill holes are the majority?  In this case, there is no way to prevent the boat from sinking, so sensible people will get in lifeboats themselves, and leave the sinking ship.

To tie this story back to reality, America and the rest of Western culture is a sinking ship, and sane religious communities are lifeboats on this ship.  I currently know of three types of lifeboats - mosques, orthodox synagogues, and traditional Anabaptist churches.  Now back to the story.
When this boat started its voyage, it had on board some Muslims, Jews, and Mennonites (Anabaptists).  The Mennonites were the first to leave.  They left even before people started drilling holes.  They recognized that when the plumbing problems started, the people reacted unreasonably.  The Mennonites are quick to detect evil and they want no part of it.  So they politely asked for exactly the number of lifeboats that they needed and they left the ship.  The Mennonites are practical and hardworking, so they soon became expert fishermen and occasionally they returned to the ship to trade fish for other goods.  But they had no idea what was really happening on the ship.

The Jews were intelligent people and they immediately recognized the risk of drilling holes in the ship.  So the rabbis went to the deck and bribed the crew to give them exactly as many lifeboats as were needed for the Jews on the ship.  At the same time, Jewish businessmen started businesses to drill holes in the ship for those who wanted this service.  Finding this business profitable, they began a marketing campaign advocating hole drilling and supporting the arguments of modern culture.  Some people argued that this would destroy the ship and that this marketing campaign should be stopped.  So the Jewish businessmen labelled these complainers as anti-Semites and said that criticism of hole drilling is hate speech that should not be tolerated.  By the time the ship was about to sink, the Jewish businessmen had acquired most of the wealth on board and they loaded this onto their lifeboats and safely left the sinking ship.

Most of the Muslims on the ship were oblivious to what was happening.  But some of the Muslim leaders understood and began preparations.  They secured as many lifeboats as possible, more than was needed just for Muslims, so that anyone who understood the truth of the situation could escape.  These leaders began to preach about the situation to the Muslims on board.  The Muslims were not as efficient as the Mennonites or Jews because they wasted time arguing about religious issues like how to determine in which direction to pray when on a lifeboat.  But in the end, the Muslims saved the most people from the sinking ship.

Those few sensible people who were not Mennonites, Jews, or Muslims simply had no other choice but to board the Muslim lifeboats.  The Mennonites had already left and the Jews refused all non-Jews.  So the Muslim lifeboats were the only option.

I neglected to tell the story of two other groups that sank with the ship - the post-modernists and the white nationalists.

Earlier, when the sensible people were arguing with the modern people, some of the sensible people thought that since they couldn't reason with average modern people, they should try reasoning with the modern intelligentsia.  And there were a number of academics aboard from the humanities.  Naturally they were all post-modernists.  When the sensible people told the post-modernists that drilling holes would sink the ship, the post-modernists replied that truth is subjective, so whether or not the ship would sink is nothing more than a subjective opinion, and that the "sensible" people were free to believe their truth while the modern people were free to believe their truth.  The sensible people replied that regardless of belief, a decision had to be made about whether or not it should be allowed for holes to drilled in the ship.  The post-modernists replied that such issues are simply a question of power and that naturally the most powerful side will prevail, whichever it is.  The sensible people then asked the post-modernists about their opinion, who did the post-modernists side with?  The post-modernists said that they sided with those on the lower decks who wanted to drill holes because they were the oppressed class so their view deserves the most sympathy.  The post-modernists drowned with the ship.  In some sense, the post-modernists are right about power prevailing, but what they miss is that what is powerful in the short term isn't necessarily powerful in the long term.  In the short term, ignorant people can have power.  But in the long term, the most powerful side is always God which is why the ignorant people drowned.

When the hole drilling started, the white nationalists immediately blamed all other races for the problem.  The white nationalists correctly pointed out that percentage-wise fewer whites drilled holes than other races.  The white nationalists also correctly pointed out that most of the technology used on the ship had been developed by whites.  They therefore concluded that all non-whites should leave the ship.  So the white nationalists spent their time trying to convince other whites to join them in an effort to rid the ship of other races.  The white nationalists continued with this effort until the ship sank and they drowned.  The white nationalists never considered leaving on a lifeboat because they considered the ship to be theirs, and the idea of abandoning ship seemed treasonous to them.  And even in the unlikely event that they could have succeeded in ridding the ship of other races, the unreasonable whites still would have drilled holes, so the ship still would have sank, just more slowly.  The white nationalists didn't drown because they are racist.  After all, the Jews (that follow Judaism) are just as racist and they didn't drown.  The white nationalists drowned because they are lacking in common sense.  

Now to finish the story.  The Jews and Muslims lowered their lifeboats into the water and rowed away.  The Mennonite lifeboats could be seen in the distance.  Those who stayed on the ship went to the side to watch the spectacle.  They thought "How backward and ridiculous are these religious lunatics to prefer a primitive lifeboat over a sophisticated modern ship.  We are so obviously superior to them."  Life was good on the ship.  Many holes had been drilled, so continuously running water fountains were widely available.  The bottom of the ship began to fill with water, but no one cared.  The ship sank slowly so no one noticed.  The people enjoyed themselves and thanked their progressive modern thinking for their superior comforts.  It was only near the end that the people realized to their horror that they were doomed.  But the horror was brief because by then the ship sank quickly and pulled the people under with it, thereby ending their terror.

I hope I haven't abused Muhammad's story too much in my expanded version, but I wanted to cover the relevant groups from my time.

Karaite Jew recommends Islam for atheists to better fight feminism

F Schmidt:
If you are reading this, I assume that you are an atheist who recognizes that modern culture is a disaster and that Islam is a morally promising alternative.  Your problem is that you cannot accept Muslim beliefs.  I will address this problem. 
First I will address atheism.  Atheism means believing that there is no god.  The problem with this is that most atheists don't have a coherent definition of god, and to take a position on the existence of something that you haven't properly defined is simply silly.  The main attribute of god that atheists object to is that is god is supernatural.  Yet pantheists define a god that is not supernatural.  I believe that the Old Testament idea of God is not supernatural either.  The definitions of "god" found in dictionaries reflects the Christian nature of our society, not the historical use of the concept of god.  A more reasonable definition of god is a global force or set of forces that cannot be described scientifically.  For example the forces that shape human history can be considered god if you believe that history is shaped by a consistent set of forces.  Because people are unsatisfied with concepts that aren't described and explained, god has historically been described through personification and explained as supernatural.  But these are not necessary attributes of god.  The key point of the idea of god is that just because one cannot describe a force mathematically or explain the mechanism of the force doesn't mean that the force doesn't exist.  Forces that cannot be described or explained (yet) are still real and must be respected.  This is the concept of god.  The concept of monotheism is that there is one consistent set of forces that applies across time and space.  This consistent set of forces we call the one God.  This concept makes science possible.  It also makes it possible to study history to determine which moral systems worked.  If you accept what I have written so far, then you are no longer an atheist.  You can now honestly say that you believe in God, but that your view of God differs from the Muslim view.  This is a big step forward, big enough to allow you to participate in a mosque without fundamental conflict. 
The next step is to honestly consider Islam.  It is only fair and reasonable for you to consider Islam with an open mind.  You should attend mosque regularly.  There will certainly be people there who will explain to you why they think you should accept Islam.  Consider what they say.  And read the Quran.  As you gain understanding of Islam, it will become clear to you whether or not this is something that you can believe.  If you can accept Islam, then you are done, no need to read more.  But if you can't accept Islam, continue reading. 
Even if you can't accept Islam, you should still support Islam because it is the only major moral force in the world today.  As a believer in monotheism, you are still closely aligned with Islam.  To fit in, avoid undermining the beliefs of Muslims with pointless debate.  Instead, focus on areas where you agree.  I also recommend that you do daily prayer at home.  The purpose of prayer is not to benefit God, but to benefit yourself by reminding yourself of the importance of religion.  I do one 4-repetition prayer in the Muslim form each day.  Doing daily prayer will prevent you from feeling like a hypocrite in the mosque, and will make prayer in the mosque more natural. 
If you find yourself in this position, as a non-Muslim attending mosque and supporting Islam, then I hope you participate in this forum.  There aren't many of us and we can give each other advice. 
But the main thing is to take the first 2 steps above.  Reject atheism and start attending mosque.  Do not be intimidated by Islam, and don't settle for being part of degenerate modern culture.