How Islam checkmates Liberalism

Islam is so powerful liberals give up the principle of freedom of worship and free speech in order to fight it. Islam even has the Islamic equivalent of Article 9* of the European Convention of Human Rights and the First Amendment**. It is verse 2:256***. Game, set and match for Islam.

The Koran is superior precisely because it enshrines the religious tolerance that is not even mentioned in the Bible.

If you were guided by truth and logic, you would acknowledge this at once. However, most people are not guided by Truth and Logic, sadly, but their subjective emotions of Pride and Anger, Lust and Greed, Sloth and Gluttony as well as the deadly sin of Envy. It is even sadder that our politicians have abandoned altogether the rule of law because they no longer even know what a principle is. If the media were guided by Truth and Logic, my ideas would be given some publicity. The liberal media even now conspire to ignore me, declining to mock or attack me, for that would give me the oxygen of publicity. Make of that what you will.

_____________________________________________

* Article 9 – Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

** First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

*** 002.256
YUSUFALI: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
PICKTHAL: There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.
SHAKIR: There is no compulsion in religion; truly the right way has become clearly distinct from error; therefore, whoever disbelieves in the Shaitan and believes in Allah he indeed has laid hold on the firmest handle, which shall not break off, and Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Anjem Choudary's message to those who would give up the First Amendment/Article 9 to suppress Islam

Wake UP Britain "The scary thing is,what he is saying is true" #BanIslamInBritain protect OUR children @David_Cameron pic.twitter.com/F7FJtatUJ4

— Vicky #No2EU (@2tweetaboutit) August 22, 2015

Choudary is daring Islamophobes to give up the First Amendment and Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights in order to suppress Islam. Doing this would be analogous to putting your king in check in a game of chess, but the degenerate West is no longer capable of understanding rules, the purpose of rules, fair play nor does it value the hard-won liberties their ancestors fought for.

What kind of society will the West be after it gives up this most fundamental of liberal principles? It will no longer be liberal, of course.

What is liberalism anyway?

It would appear to be a gateway ideology to the dysgenic abomination of gay marriage.

Heads liberals lose, tails the Islamists win?

Under freedom of religion you can worship Shaytaan & become an apostate but you cant call for the Shariah to replace man made law #hypocrisy

— Anjem Choudary (@anjemchoudary) June 1, 2015

Choudary knows that hypocritical Islamophobes do not value these liberal principles because they are now too degenerate to grasp the concept of a principle, let alone know what they are for. What would be the West be like after it has given up all its liberal principles in order to suppress the Islamists? What would be the point of giving up these liberal principles just to prop up a demented matriarchy? They might as well give up these principles to re-establish a rational patriarchy.

He is saying - and of course I paraphrase:

"You don't believe in any of this crap either, do you? You will keep changing your laws in your attempts to criminalise what I say in order to suppress my message. You keep changing your laws to hide how useless and wrong they are, even though you continue to laud the rule of law as a fundamental British value, but you don't believe in that either, not really. If you imprison me, I shall be a martyr to free speech, but if your courts find me not guilty of inviting support for terrorism then my reputation is enhanced. I have in any case only expressed approval of Islamic State but this is what you want to in fact criminalise me for, without quite daring to say so. You cannot win this argument, so bring it on."

(Sharia law is of course a species of the rule of law, in case you didn't know.)

God is with those who are patient and persevere, and He does not change the lot of those who do not change what is in their hearts.

http://islamawakened.com/quran/2/153/
http://quran.com/13/11

http://foreignpolicy.com/2009/10/20/the-return-of-patriarchy/

What is in the hearts of so many Westerners that God if He exists would wish changed? I imagine it would be the irrational belief that liberalism and feminism is absolutely right and Islam absolutely wrong without an honest thoroughgoing debate and investigation into the policies that led us to this pretty pass.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/the-future-of-free-speech-in-britain.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/08/should-it-be-crime-to-express-approval.html

Hunting is a time-honoured tradition which should be protected in a civilised and free society

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9780000/9780825.stm

0810
More than 300 hunts are expected to hold their traditional Boxing Day meets today. It is the biggest day in the hunting calendar and comes after the RSPCA brought its first ever prosecution of a traditional hunt when the Heythrop Hunt pleaded guilty to charges of illegal hunting. Sir Barney White-Spunner, executive chairman of the Countryside Alliance, explains how he viewed the prosecution brought by the RSPCA.

http://www.countryside-alliance.org/ca/article/about-the-countryside-alliance

Sir Barney - an Englishman with a distinguished military career and a suitably red-blooded attitude towards Reds, subversives and sentimental townspeople who think huntsmen are evil nasty people who want to kill Basil Brush

Whenever sentimental townies think of the fox, this is what appears in their infantilised mind's eye.  Conservative MPs are too afraid to disabuse them of this image, because to do so would be a bit like telling a large but dim teenager with violent tendencies who still believes that Santa exists, that he does not in fact exist,  on Xmas Eve.  As we all already know, Conservative MPs are not known for their moral courage.

I have put it to the Countryside Alliance that they might like to fight Animal Sentimentalists under a libertarian umbrella.

To put the anti-hunting lobby on the defensive it could be pointed out that

1. they are mostly sentimental, infantilised, class-hating townspeople who think all foxes are Basil Brush;
2. these sentimental, infantilised, class-hating townspeople tend not to be in jobs that produce anything useful;
3. these sentimental, infantilised, class-hating townspeople constitute the mob and should not be indulged;
4. MPs indulge the sentimental, infantilised, class-hating townspeople only because they are in the majority and constitute a significant proportion of their voters who basically have no business voting because they are state-dependent scroungers who pay no taxes, are mostly uneducated and work in a service industry that produces nothing useful, if they work at all; 
5. country folk constitute the minority but they are a very important minority in the nation since they are the very few people who actually produce what is essential for human and national survival - food for sentimental and infantilised and usually obese townies who should show them a bit of respect and allow them to hunt, if that is what they want to do;
6. it is time to tell sentimental, infantilised townies who think foxes are Basil Brush where to go and where to stick their infantilised totalitarian ideas.

HELP ME ANNOY THE FEMALE-DOMINATED PC BBC

Would you like to nominate Claire Khaw for the iPM New Year Honour for being the most entertainingly philosophical, political and theological Woman of the Year?  Go on, go on, go on!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0089nbb/features/new-year-honour

British so stupid they want to breed more prisoners in the name of human rights

Convicted murderer to have baby with released prisoner

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23425623-killer-in-prison-wins-right-to-father-a-child-by-artificial-insemination.do

What the fuck is the matter with them?

I think they like being stupid.  (The stupider you are the more benefits you get, you see.)

For the stupid British, being stupid is part of the British identity, and you know what?  They are proud of being stupid.

They don't mind, or they don't care, or they just don't know what to do about it.  

Look, it is really really easy: withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights.

Oh, but the liberals won't have that because Britain is governed by a Moronocracy.

It may be time to sort the liberals out good and proper, very very soon.    

Imagine a European Court of LIBERAL MORALITY ...

If it weren't called the European Court of Human Rights would we be even be thinking twice about telling where it can stick its rulings?


http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/afua-hirsch-law-blog/2011/feb/09/uk-civil-liberties-constitution

But our politicians are stupid and the people who elected them stupider.

Is it moral to have human rights?

What is a human right?

What is it for?

Does it do what it says on the tin?

What does it say on the tin?

Who wrote what it says on the tin?

Was it a bunch of liberals whose ideology is rapidly becoming discredited, demented, incoherent and illiberal?

Law is based on morality and conventional morality changes from age to age.  We move from family values supported by marriage to our age of free love, cheap women and easy sex.  

Remember: the European Court of Human Rights is only the Liberal Court of Liberal Morality, and Liberal Morality is all about

1.  tolerating the intolerable
2.  compassion for the undeserving
3.  the systematic cultivation of civilisational failure
4.  rewarding the Unproductive at the Expense of the Productive, to the Detriment of All. 

You have been warned!  

China has a benevolent dictatorship, we have a malign oligarchy.

“A benevolent dictatorship has one advantage; it can get things done. When China decided to build monopoly in rare earths, it goes about it without opposition or debate. In the US democracy, it's almost impossible to choose a course for the nation. Every idea, every strategy is debated and opposed by one or both political parties. As a result, in national emergencies the US responds only slowly. China has the advantage of being able to hire the best minds in the West and then apply their experience and know-how to China's growing store of knowledge. The Chinese population has a fierce work ethic. The people of the West (particularly in Europe) have a ‘vacation ethic’ and a ‘government will take care of me’ psychology that is rendering them less competitive. China is patient, and thinks in terms of the future. As a result, China is running around the world buying up reserves in raw materials and staking out claims for agricultural land and mining sites where ever they can find them. In contrast, the US is building up ’impossible’ debts and in doing so mortgaging its future.” - Richard Russell, Dow Theory Letters, 11-22-10

Human Rights Big Fat Con when politicians incapable of moral reasoning

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/02/prisoners-vote-european-court-human-rights
 
Liberals want taxpayers to pay for prisoners to vote.

Non-liberals think it is a stupid idea to let prisoners vote because they are officially bad people and should be punished.

Liberals pretend not to get it because they are evil.

Or, liberals cannot get it because they are stupid. Take your pick. 


The concept of human rights is also a big fat con.

We really must understand that genuine human rights are never conferred but *asserted*.

The pigs contented wait for rights to be conferred upon them, just like cattle might go through a broken fence that fails to hold them in.

The philosophers discontented will assert their rights even if doing so means death or at any rate some form of sacrifice which they will willingly make in service of a point of *principle* because, you see, only humans are capable of the kind moral reasoning required to act on a principle. 

Liberal politicians would not be able to speak intelligently and intelligibly about what a principle is and would not pass this test at:

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/10/how-i-would-sort-out-politicians-and.html