Thirty Questions for Muslims

1.  Doesn't enjoining good and forbidding evil as the Koran requires of Muslims include telling Christians that Christianity is kaput to as many honourable and influential religious and political leaders as possible before America falls into its Thucydides Trap and declares war on China, when Christians start yet another World War?

2.  Was Britain falling into its Thucydides Trap when it declared war on Germany in WW1?

3.  Was Britain falling into its Thucydides Trap again when it declared war on Germany in WW2?

4.  Did Britain hand over its global empire to the Americans on a platter when it lost its empire after "winning" WW2?

5.  Are the Americans grown up enough to run their global empire as effectively as China is currently governing itself?

6.  Are the Americans like a foolish young man who suddenly wins a large fortune and then proceeds to fritter it away on gambling?

7.  Was the real reason for Britain declaring war on Germany in WW1 the building of the Berlin to Baghdad Railway?

8.  Is the Belt and Road Drive causing America and its allies to fear China in the same way that the building of the Berlin and Baghdad Railway caused Britain to fear Germany and eventually declare war?

9.  Is there anything in the Koran to suggest that Britain declared war against Germany in WW1 and WW2 for good Islamic reasons?  

10.  Can any society function without a religion that at least maintains minimum standards of sexual morality ie ensuring that most parents in your society are married parents?

11.  What should Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab do if they live in a country that is marinating in the moral sewage of globohomo? 

12.  If Christianity is kaput, what is the unofficial religion of the West?

13.  If the unofficial religion of the West is liberalism, what are the principles of liberalism?

14.  If liberalism in the early 21st century West is no more than the globohomo, neoconservatism (a euphemism for dysfunctional and incompetent American imperialism) and the open borders of neo-liberalism which cause the hate and fear provoked by uncontrolled immigration, should Muslims join Putin in declaring liberalism "obsolete"? 

13.  Is liberalism the antithesis of Islamic values?

14.  Is masculinity a state of mind prepared to defend patriarchal moral values? 

15.  Do patriarchal moral values at least include treating unmarried parents as sex offenders - as quran.com/24/2 requires - to avoid the degeneracy, chaos and criminality of widespread bastardy that Western governments are now too frightened to address because they don't want to alienate their voters?

16.  The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents. The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents. What is the illegitimacy rate of the UK and how many illegitimate offspring has the current British Prime Minister now sired?

17.  Isn't the quickest and most effective way of dawah telling Westerners they need the rule of law contained in the Koran to protect themselves against their increasingly repressive and irrational government rather than trying to convince them to adopt the religion of the people these Westerners have regard as low status immigrants they have always despised and resented whom they don't think should even be in their country?

18.  Are Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab aware that many Westerners are Islamophobes and antisemites who see large numbers of Muslims dressed as Muslims in their country whom they are no longer allowed to complain about as a humiliation brought on them by Liberal Jews whom they believe deliberately supported uncontrolled immigration to subvert their society and civilisation?

19.  Wouldn't it be easier to tell Post-Christian Western politicians that their rule of law is indeed breaking down instead of talking to Islamophobic peasants who cannot be reasoned with and who would rather die than admit that there is anything wrong with their religion and political system that they themselves already reject?

20.  Is the Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty obviously unIslamic? Instead of being governed by eternal and universal principles of the Abrahamic God, British politicians reserve for themselves the Woman's Prerogative to change her mind about anything for whatever reason and are now behaving like a neurotic and indecisive woman who cannot make up her mind about anything.  

21.  Aren't most Westerners militant atheists who think religion is stupid and evil as well as antisemites and Islamophobes too stubborn and stupid to acknowledge that the Jews and Muslims they hate, fear and envy have what they don't ie the protective wrapper of religion?

22.  Why don't Muslim activists ask Islamophobes if they know of any society that has existed for long without a religion that supports marriage and family values instead of wasting time and energy trying to prove God's existence to low status low education people who already hate them and cannot be reasoned with? 

23.  Islamophobes of the Tommy Robinson variety are mostly low education and low status people who lie to themselves, are obviously neurotic and cannot even define morality. Do Muslim activists like Mohammed Hijab really think these people can be reasoned with?

24.  Are Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab aware that traumatised atheist Islamophobes and antisemites who were mostly deprived of their fathers by their unmarried mother hate themselves because their ancestors  have been tricked or forced into worshipping a Jew on a stick as the co-equal of God? They also hate their ancestors which is why they topple the statues of their own ancestors. These people have nothing other than their hatred of Muslims and Jews as a way of defining themselves and identifying each other as their substitute for religion. 

25.  Do Muslim activists like Hamza Tzortzis and Mohammed Hijab think these Islamophobes will give up their identity and their associates in any significant numbers in their lifetime just to join Muslims in their mosque?

26.  Are you not aware that educated Islamophobes like Charles Moore and Douglas Murray think Islam is low status culture for low status immigrants from places Trump and his supporters would call "shithole countries"? 

27.  Wouldn't dawah be more effective as a political movement offering Islamophobes the bargain of better government under a theocracy in this life rather than making promises to them about their afterlife?

28.  Are Muslim YouTubers afraid of being identified as extremist and having their YouTube channels deactivated if they do what I suggest?

29.  If Muslims activists are afraid of doing what I suggest, wouldn't discussing Secular Koranism amongst themselves on their channels  be a safer way of making dawah to the Western political establishment at one remove? 

30:  If men who call themselves Muslim activists are too afraid to discuss Secular Koranism or challenge me about it, are they in fact wilfully blind cowards who have adopted the tactic of ignoring me? I know I cannot wake men who pretend to be asleep. 

The smugness and dullness of this self-congratulatory stream which was mostly about diet and exercise incensed me.

Is the Abrahamic God a Supreme Singularity or a Trinitarian Bundle of Three?

I offer a solution to Mohammed Hijab's Problems with Liberalism

http://www.salam.org.uk/2018/10/01/the-problems-with-liberalism/

Liberalism, like many other ideologies, has existed in different political contexts. Many of these contexts have had contradictory self-identified starting points. Today, the term ‘liberal democracy’ is used to refer to most (if not all) political systems that claim to be ‘liberal’. However, it is conceivable to envisage illiberal democracies or undemocratic liberal states. One does not have to go too far back in history to identify such examples of this, as liberalism existed with colonialism since the latter’s inception. Even more shockingly, self-identified ‘liberal’ states – such as France and the United States – had institutionalised programs of slavery in place until close to the beginning of the 19th century. To be clear, this is not an argument against liberalism, but instead an informative historical reading on the conduct of liberalism throughout history. A clear distinction needs to be made between what liberalism is and how politicians (who claim to be liberals) may have contradicted its principles. It is important to note that liberalism is being operationalised, in many ways, like religion. People who consider themselves ‘liberal’ usually believe in concepts such as ‘freedom of speech/expression’ in as much the same way as ancient peoples might have believed in Zeus or Athena, or as later people might have believed in Ram or Buddha. Liberalism will be understood best by the initial thinkers and theorists who have propounded its theories through their rationale. Society is also important to consider but only to the extent that it has decided to accept or reject a certain political philosophy. 

The problem with liberalism is that it has no scripture or official handbook. Therefore liberalism will always be whatever the leader of the liberal party says it is.

Has anyone asked why the leader of the Conservative Party was talking about "musculiar liberalism"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscular_liberalism

Is Conservatism really Liberalism too?

It would appear so.

https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2015/12/anne-mcelvoy-on-british-conservatism.html

It would appear that gay marriage is now part of Conservatism too since Cameron legalised it.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-cameron-ignored-tory-mps-and-his-mum-over-legalisation-of-gay-marriage-10516205.html

Liberalism has now "advanced" to such a stage that organisations promoting sodomy - a sexual offence according to quran.com/4/16 - are now in a position to give prizes to British Prime Ministers and a British Prime Minister would think nothing of accepting a prize from them.

But why is liberalism so attractive to contemporary peoples, especially in a postmodern Western context?

Because the only thing liberalism means now in the 21st century is sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and good parenting.

Sexual corruption leads to moral corruption, moral corruption leads to intellectual corruption, and intellectual corruption leads to the loss of ability to use truth, reason and morality to solve and avoid problems.

If you ever wonder why obvious solutions are not being implemented to solve longstanding social problems, this is the reason.

By the way, postmodern means "under feminist hegemony"

But where both men were nonconformists, non-Trinitarian (in the case of Mill), and even non-Christian, religiosity in the Victorian period began to decline.

https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/08/melanie-phillips-psychoanalyses-british.html

Melanie Phillips:

During the past six decades, Britain has been systematically hollowing out its own culture, for two intimately related reasons: a loss of its national identity and purpose, and the crumbling of religious belief that underpinned its moral codes.

On the happiness principle of utlitarianism, we as individuals and nations are never really sure about the wisdom of enjoying our pleasures because present pleasures unwisely such as drugs and spending beyond our means often entail future suffering.

It would appear that history has many lessons to teach us that enjoying the pleasures of drink, lust, gambling and usury and other forbidden pleasures of the Bible and Koran tend to end in the decline and fall of your civilisation.

If the individual is protected from refraining from doing certain things based on his religious principles then it must surely follow that nations - which are after all only lands with individuals - would also benefit from following these religious principles.

Judaism has undeniably helped Jews remain in existence even without a homeland for 2000 years.

Since it cannot be denied that both Christianity and Islam were derived from Judaism, the benefits of obeying the laws of the Abrahamic God are undeniable.

Those of us who live in the West would know that it is no longer Christian. Its unofficial religion is sexual liberation from the rules of marriage which have the effect of undermining the institution of marriage and the family. Western Man who is now so under the thumb of immoral women who will accuse him of a historic sexual offence to silence him when he tries to mobilise against the liberals and feminists that many men are as good as guilty of a historic sexual offence the moment they are accused and subjected to trial by media.

Sadly for Western Man, he is now so forgetful of his Judeo-Christian heritage that it no longer occurs to him to invoke the principle in https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2019%3A15&version=NKJV even when accused of a historic sexual offence.

Egalitarianism is superficially appealing precisely because it is a polite fiction.

It was egalitarianism that let in feminism whose stated purpose is to destroy the patriarchy. It is of course the Abrahamic faiths that promote patriarchal moral values that enable thriving nations to become empires.

The lesson to be learned from the Sex Revolution is actually an old one, if we know what happened to the Israelites when they were seduced by the Moabite women.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers%2025&version=NET

What I mean to say again is that neither Liberalism nor Conservatism has any scripture or official handbook. This explains why men like Nigel Farage and Sargon of Akkad call themselves Classical Liberals when what they mean is that they are Eurosceptic Thatcherites, a term which will become increasingly meaningless as people forget about the late Margaret Thatcher. Because neither Conservatism nor Liberalism have either a scripture or official handbook, these ideologies have neither any stated principles nor any internal consistency. If the Conservative and Labour Party still represent anything, they represent narrow class interests whose leaders are more interested in bribing us with our own money to be voted into office than any concern for the long tern national interest. This is obviously unsustainable.

The principle of parliamentary sovereignty also means that this country has the principle of not having any principles, which surely cannot be a good idea.

It cannot be a good idea to say that all you ever did in your history is your religion and resolve to keep changing it whenever expedient.

A philosophical case can be made for a theocracy without necessarily believing in God if you agree with the following propositions:

1) Because Jews remain in existence as a disinct people despite 2000 years of being without their homeland and managed to get back their homeland, Judaism has served them very well indeed.

2) Because Christianity and Islam were derived from Islam, these religions were an attempt to adapt Judaism for gentiles.

3) Because the West is now promoting gay marriage globally, we know that Christianity has failed.

4) Because Temple Judaism had and Christianity has a corruptible clergy, it was only a matter of time before the corrupt clergy failed to maintain morality and in practice ignored its own stated religious principles.

5) Because the closest thing to a clergy in Islam is the judiciary, legal decisions that are argued over and appealed against would be subjected to greater scrutiny. This means any corruption would be more quickly noticed and dealt with than when corrupt clergy dilute principles and ignore their religious obligations.

6) Because the least any self-respecting religion should be able to do is protect the practice of marriage and family values for the purpose of remaining in existence as a people, it is obvious Christianity has failed in the West and that the West is as Christian as a human skeleton used to be human.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/2285670/Most-children-of-British-mothers-born-out-of-wedlock.html

7) Because the UK has been a matriarchy for nearly 50 years, it is necessary as a matter of urgency to denounce, challenge and defeat it if we wish to reverse the degeneracy it has resulted in.
https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-british-matriarchy-was-established.html

8) Because Christianity is no longer fit for the purpose of maintaining morality, Islam is the obvious choice, though what form it should take would be predictably disputed. Secular Koranism would be my recommendation because it does not require anyone to convert to Islam, only acknowledge the logic of the above propositions and act on it. It is envisaged that belief will come to future generations once all the necessary laws are in place.

How is Islam obviously superior to liberalism? Because even atheists cannot deny that the Abrahamic faiths have been around longer than Communism, Liberalism, Nazism, Fascism, Socialism or Conservatism.

Since the purpose of the Abrahamic faiths is to create strong nations and empires, we really have no choice but to choose a replacement once we have acknowledged that both Christianity and liberal democracy have failed.

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2017/06/god-and-nations.html

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/why-liberalism-means-empire/

https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2018/10/why-christianity-is-kaput.html



From the 27th minute

Dr Wahid: "These people in this society have a problem."

Three men in a booth disagree with the Tommy Robinson imam

I think the one in the middle with the hijab is the prettiest.

A lecture by a Mohammed Hijab to Muslims on Western philosophy

It would be interesting to have a philosophical discussion with Mohammed Hijab on Western moral philosophy with a view to challenging the efficacy of Christianity as a means of maintaining morality compared to Islam.

My view is that Christianity suffers from a corrupt priesthood and has lost its moral authority. The closest thing to a priesthood in Islam would be its judiciary.

Instead of a corrupt priesthood, Islam uses sharia to maintain morality. While it is always possible for a judiciary to be corrupted, legal decisions are subject to argument, public scrutiny and appeal. It was the corruption of the priesthood of Temple Judaism that ended up the Jews being expelled from Israel by the Romans. Jews have done better for themselves under Rabbinical Judaism in the diaspora. While a priesthood is a parasitic class, a judiciary is necessary to apply and interpret the law.

Ontology and epistemology are both important elements of the philosophy of knowledge. If they often overlap, they have clear distinction: epistemology is about the way we know things when ontology is about what things are.

AN ONTOLOGICAL QUESTION
Is the political system we live under corrupt and doomed to failure?

AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL QUESTION
How do we recognise the signs of inevitable failure and corruption?

A MORAL QUESTION
What should we do if we know for a fact that it is corrupt and doomed to failure? (Muslims have a religious obligation to enjoin good and forbid evil.)

A POLITICAL QUESTION
How do we go about replacing a failing religion and political system with one that works when the entire West is a matriarchy and its senior male politicians dare not discuss the causes of Western malaise - feminism - for fear alienating their women whom they fear?