Translate

Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muhammad. Show all posts

Friday, 31 July 2020

Why Muhammad is God's last prophet

Since both Jews and gentiles have been given a revelation each (the Torah for Jews and the Koran for gentiles), the revelation from the Abrahamic God - who divided humanity into Jews and gentiles -  is now complete.  
at No comments:
Labels:

Friday, 17 January 2020

The fall of Rome and the fall of the West

"If we could survive without a wife, citizens of Rome, all of us would do without that nuisance.” So proclaimed the Roman general, statesman, and censor Quintus Caecilius Metellus Macedonicus, in 131 B.C. Still, he went on to plead, falling birthrates required that Roman men fulfill their duty to reproduce, no matter how irritating Roman women might have become. "Since nature has so decreed that we cannot manage comfortably with them, nor live in any way without them, we must plan for our lasting preservation rather than for our temporary pleasure."

The Romans had no fault divorce. In fact, one spouse could divorce the other without even having to inform the other of it.

Obviously, the solution was to abolish no fault divorce, but they were probably too hooked on being able to enjoy extramarital sex to bother with reforming the law as regards marriage.

It had to be left to Islam to make marriage a contract and divorce a breach of that marriage contract.

The fall of Rome has many reasons attributed to it. Constantine thought he could save Rome by converting to Christianity. I like to think he would have converted to Islam if he had had that option, but when Rome fell, Muhammad was not yet born.

We do not have the same excuse.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Saturday, 5 March 2016

Tom Holland hates Islam so much he again denies the prophet of Islam existed


http://www.lse.ac.uk/publicEvents/events/2016/02/LitFest20160227t1700vSZT.aspx


Tom Holland
There are other utopias fashioned by ancient empires or at least ideals of ancient utopias that continue to exert a profound influence to this day, and the most obvious one would be the state established by Muhammad supposedly in Medina which continues to inspire billions of people across the globe and to act as a geopolitical motor to this day. The question of whether Muhammad established a state in Medina is massively open to question, but what we can see when we trace the evolution, the process by which this state came to be enshrined, what we see is that there was an enormous amount of ideological programming going on by the empire of the Arabs that had been raised in the aftermath of Muhammad's career and which justified its imperial sway and justified its moral mission in terms of what the Caliphs and the lawyers and the scholars who lived in the Caliphate for two centuries after Muhammad existed looked back to this period and constructed a model of how Islam had come into being and how Muhammad had lived and functioned and the character of his prophetic inspiration that gave to the foundation of the Caliphate a literally God-given sense of identity. And Islam I think now that Marxism has essentially imploded as an ideology, Islam exists as the most potent illustration of how utopia can legitimise empires in the past but can continue to exert an influence to this day, so utopias, I think, and the re-writing of history, to illustrate that utopias actually did exist - it's an incredibly significant aspect of history.

This is rather a confusing use of words. Utopias by definition do not exist, so I interpret what Holland the raging seething Islamophobe to be saying is this: that the propaganda value of Islamic myths is powerful and. crucially, more powerful than everything else that has ever existed before, and is much much bigger than Judaism and Christianity, now that Marxism has imploded.

Liberal-Feminism has no comparable mythologies that engage our emotions, moral convictions or romantic destiny.

Holland has seen the writing on the wall, and is obviously very very afraid: the Whig Interpretation of History is not a patch on Islamic eschatology promising divine purpose and human destiny.

It is interesting that Holland's verbiage consists mostly of abstractions that only the educated few who take the trouble can understand, and will mean nothing at all to the man in the street.


If Britain had not declared war on Germany in 1914, WW1 would have just stayed a European war.


Tom Holland:
ISIS are clearly the most utopianist organisation operating in geopolitics at the moment. I think we should take what they say about wanting to usher in the end of days literally. I think lots of them do want to do that and I think they are not talking in a Marxist sense about material culture  or what would be the material basis for utopia. The are talking about utopia in a divine sense. They are attempting to usher in heaven on earth and to cast themselves as people who will inherit heaven when they die. Their vision of the future is absolutely grounded in a particular understanding of a particular moment in the past because for Islam probably more than any other religious or cultural ideology that existed, what Islam has succeeded in doing is kind of dropping a sheet anchor to a particular moment to a particular time and establishing that as a mirror into which humanity has to look to understand what the will of God is, what the nature of a utopia should be. So in essence the desire to recreate that moment is hardwired into Islamic Utopianism even more than it is in any analogous tradition within Christianity. 

Under this verbiage we may deduce that Holland is saying that the story of Jesus as an executed revolutionary can in no way compare to the power and glory of Muhammad winning wars and establishing the world's first Islamic State.

The Council of Nicea tried to jazz up Christ's sacrifice by saying he was simultaneously God Himself and His son, but people in the 21st century tend not to be taken in by such absurdities. If most are already atheists, then all the more would they be in difficulty believing that a mere man is also God Himself and His son.

But what if Christians dumped the Trinity?

Then they would be no different to Jews and Muslims. It is the Trinity that makes Christians feel special and better than Jews and Muslims.

What would a rational Christian - if such a person exists - believe in if he could no longer even bring himself to pay lip service to the absurdity of the Trinity?  He could be a Jew, but the Old Testament is so harsh with stoning for every little infraction and doesn't even allow divorce. The Koran on the other hand has a whole chapter on divorce and even its harshest punishment - crucifixion - gives the state the option of clemency. http://quran.com/5/33

Judaism is an exclusive golf club, Islam is an inclusive political party in a single party theocracy, like Iran, which seems to be doing OK these days, all things considering.

Margaret MacMillan:

I think there are two kinds of utopias: ones that exist in the imagination or exist out of time or in another alternative reality, but those who talk about utopias often talk about a Golden Age in the past and also something that will come again so they are locating them in human history. We may see their reasoning as absolutely wrong and the utopias they project into the past or claim to know from the past are not real at all, but they are nevertheless arguing that they are there in the past and saying we have proof. They were there. We know that there was that world that existed in time and we are going to have another such world that will exist in a future time. So I think they are very much woven into history. 

Instead of utopia, why don't the panel talk about propaganda?

A superior man, in regard to what he does not know, shows a cautious reserve. If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success. When affairs cannot be carried on to success, proprieties and music do not flourish. When proprieties and music do not flourish, punishments will not be properly awarded. When punishments are not properly awarded, the people do not know how to move hand or foot. Therefore a superior man considers it necessary that the names he uses may be spoken appropriately, and also that what he speaks may be carried out appropriately. What the superior man requires is just that in his words there may be nothing incorrect.

— Confucius, Analects, Book XIII, Chapter 3, verses 4-7

Tom Holland:


The prime difference of Islam and Christianity is that Christianity is apolitical. Jesus dies a political failure. He does not draw his sword, he does not establish a state. His kingdom is in heaven and that means there has always been this suspicion of political orders within Christianity that you do not have within Islam, that Muhammad supposedly establishes a state that serves as a model for how God wants humans to live.  The fact that it is almost certainly a fiction doesn't alter the fact that  lots and lots of Muslims throughout history and certainly in the current time believe in that and believe that what God wants is for the state that existed in early 7th century Medina to be established [contemptuous laughter] in whatever way it can be in the present. 

Because Holland hates and fears Islam, his stratagem is to pretend that not only does God not exist, neither did His prophet Muhammad. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/tom-hollands-untold-history-of-islam.html
What would be even more insulting to Muslims even more than bad scatological drawings of Muhammad than pretending that not only does their God not exist, neither did Muhammad?

Then Muslims would feel so stupid for believing in lies whose liar didn't even exist.

That would soon put those pesky Muslims in their place.

Or would it?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, 11 January 2011

Was the Lateran Treaty religious or political?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateran_Treaty

The difference between politics and religion is a distinction without a difference. 

Anyone who tells you different is a fool or a knave. 

Jesus said "I render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

Muhammad, not being a someone trying to get out of trouble with the authorities, treated religion as politics and politics as religion.  Islam is but an ideological weapon and it is surely about time the frightened and shell-shocked West pick it up to have a good look at this religion of peace and war. 

As one very clever Muslim told me once, you can only fight Muslims with the Koran ...
at No comments:
Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, 24 May 2009

Would Jesus have voted BNP? Would the Prophet Muhammad?



I rather thank that in Jesus’ time, people would have been allowed to complain about foreigners and talk of sending them home, as they do in South Africa, without being persecuted and villified.

Would Jesus have voted BNP?

Bishop John Goddard’s comment on Sunday, Radio 4 - http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00khhp0 - that the BNP sow division was countered by Roger Bolton pointing out that the Church’s policy of allowing homosexual priests is in itself divisive.

In other words, politics and religion are divisive. Man is so divided and contentious that quite often, he would disagree with the opinions that he himself has held at another time.

Knowing what we do about Jesus, it is quite likely that he would have remained enigmatic and not voted.

Would Muhammad have said:

"Let us Muslims vote BNP because they have so many policies we agree on? At least, the BNP would not have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Muslims, like the BNP, did not support 42 day detention, and we appear to have similar views about the Holocaust, Zionism and Israel. Let us make a friend of an enemy, as the Koran advises us to do, and concentrate on things we are agreed on, rather than their Islamophobia, which may be more to do with ignorance and fear, which we may in time correct."?


EX-BNP MUSLIMS:
BNP-SYMPATHETIC MUSLIMS
Some BNP voters have 'legitimate views' on immigration, says Baroness Warsi
Ali Miraj: It's perfectly rational for the ignored white working class to vote BNP
Muslims would doubtless approve of the BNP’s stance on

1) withdrawing British troops from Muslim lands
2) the return of capital punishment
3) the return of corporal punishment

Indeed, Muslims may be concerned about immigration and see the connection between the EU and uncontrolled immigration, and wish to withdraw from it, as the BNP do.

Islam does not endorse PC-liberalism of tolerance (of promiscuity, single mothers, widespread illegitimacy leading to the lowering of standards of education and behaviour, the drug and pub culture of this country etc).

Their religion tells them to forbid what is evil and enjoin what is good.

What we must now decide is whether it would be a good thing to tell the Lib-Lab-Con how much they are hated, by voting BNP.

Perhaps it is time to show the Church too, that it is so out of touch with the British people that its condemnation of the BNP will result, perversely, in more votes for them. The Anglican Church has embraced the values of our unofficial religion of "tolerance", Moral Relativism and homosexual priests, while refusing to defend the interests of the white working classes, who never go to church anyway, not even to get their children into a decent church school. These days, the white urban proletariat are more likely to find themselves going to mosque than church.

The Anglican Church, being complicit in the political establishment's determination not to discuss immigration or address any of its problems honestly, except to condemn anyone who questions it as "racist", no longer holds any moral authority.

The incompetence with which they have made their views known is laughable.

If I were Archbishop of Canterbury (and what an Archbishop I would be!) I would have questioned the ridiculous BNP assumption that Jesus would have voted for them.

If I were Mufti of Britain (and what a Great Mufti I would be!) I would point out how much common ground there is between the BNP and Muslims, and hint that most Muslims would be happy voting for them because they like their policies, as most non-Muslims do, if only they were not so Islamophobic and obsessed with race.
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...