THE VOICE OF REASON
Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Translate
Showing posts with label Seven Noahide laws. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Seven Noahide laws. Show all posts
Is it part of the job description of an Ambassador of God to warn and advise the gentile when his moral standards have fallen dangerously low? https://t.co/NxShS7DvVe
You know Jews believe themselves to be God's Chosen People who are Ambassadors of God and a light for the nations. Someone has to be. I think they should also be smiting the Amaleks as part of their religious duty. https://t.co/yAdwTGMlMj
Who is an Amalek? My definition is "gentiles who propose laws that lower the moral standards of their nation till they no longer satisfy the minimum moral standards of the Seven Noahide laws *and* their Jewish running dogs ie assimilated liberal Jews." @rabbisacks@RabbiYMizrachi
I have the greatest respect for God's Chosen People and regard them as the aristocracy of humanity. I remind and warn Jews of what they must expect if they allow their countries to continue their slide into feminist degeneracy without protest. I urge them to join me in protest.
Jews have a continuing religious duty to exterminate Amalekites from generation to generation. https://t.co/Y5zRZSgXwn Let them at least begin to discuss who they might be now in relation to the Seven Noahide laws. The Rambam and I are agreed on what they have to do to be let off https://t.co/JEmf0037Vm
Whether Jews like it or not, it is their vocation and calling to perform this religious duty. They must choose a rabbi most capable of doing this duty and continually ask themselves if he is performing this duty properly. https://t.co/GepicCyb6s
If Jews are performing their religious duty of exterminating Amaleks, why do we have gay marriage? The duty of Jews to exterminate or at least call out Amaleks continues from generation to generation. They must be people who promote global gay marriage. @yhazony@rabbisackshttps://t.co/dzm6fP8srx
Perhaps this Jew doesn't have to be a rabbi. It is probably enough that @yhazony has written a revolutionary book on the virtue of nationalism and drawn attention to the failure of liberal democracy which the West is continuing to fraudulently claim is good for you. https://t.co/dzm6fP8srx
If only Jews would perform their religious duty of identifying and exterminating Amaleks, the world would be a better place. Muslims also have a continuing religious duty to enjoin what is good and forbid what is evil and to fight oppression. Yet we have a global gay marriage. https://t.co/CGJPNSAIaU
At the very least, Jews and Muslims have a duty to choose a representative, a kind of World Heavyweight Boxing Champion for Jews and Muslims to be elected annually. Christians already have their Pope, Patriarch and Archbishop of Canterbury. https://t.co/An9SkfBN7n
Is it cowardice that prevents Orthodox Jews from discussing whether they have a continuing religious duty to exterminate Amalekites or at the very least identify them and their behaviour? Isn't promoting global gay marriage obviously Amalek behaviour? https://t.co/veRNRyv4N1
The status of God's Chosen People as being the pet people of God would doubtless arouse the same envy teacher's pets arouse. Perhaps Jews also serve as a metaphor for those who are envied for their success, intellect, status and indestructibility. https://t.co/XaOm4GNJQy
God has not yet relieved Jews of their religious duty to exterminate the Amaleks from generation to generation. I am afraid this is what it says at https://t.co/CMW7zHQsTs It is therefore at least a duty of Jewish philosophers to identify the characteristics of the Amalek. https://t.co/fGWkyibZDu
.@rabbisacks is not only a well-respected and very influential rabbi and a peer of the realm, he also studied Western philosophy at Cambridge and got a First. https://t.co/O7A2SPnpiY
Supposing the Amaleks were a nation and converted to Islam, they would have Islam with Amalekite characteristics in the same way the Chinese would have Islam with Chinese characteristics if China converted to Islam, and Xi Jinping would be the Caliph of the Chinese! https://t.co/O7A2SPnpiY
If Russia converted to Islam, then the Russians would have Islam with Russian characteristics and Putin would be their Caliph. If Britain converted to Islam the Maybot would definitely not be our Caliphess nor anyone currently in her cabinet. They would all be out on their ear. https://t.co/uGYuuXAAmS
If the Amaleks converted to Islam, then the Jews would have to stop exterminating them because Islam is actually a higher standard of morality than the Seven Noahide laws, because it forbids usury for the same reason Judaism forbids Jews to practise usury on each other. https://t.co/uGYuuXAAmS
I propose that the Amalekites be defined as "people who propose and implement laws that make their society fall below the minimum moral standards of the Seven Noahide laws *including liberal and assimilated Jews who aid and abet them*." I wonder if @rabbisacks agrees. https://t.co/fAADaZZSOC
It is impossible for me to be a Nazi. My proposition is that not even Jews can make Israel truly ethno-nationalist because Jews now come in four colours, so they will have to settle for civic nationalism too. Judaism is divine ethno-nationalism, Islam is divine civic nationalism.
Look, it is very simple: Israeli Jews cannot kick out all the Muslims as the late Rabbi Kahane proposed because even Ancient Israel accommodated gentiles because they had rules about how to deal with gentiles in their midst.
One of the rules the Ancient Israelis had about dealing with gentiles in their midst at Passover is not to let gentile men eat their unleavened bread that is not hametz without circumcising and converting them to Judaism.
The point to note about hametz is that it forces the Jew to have dealings with the gentile. Jewish bakers and owners of supermarkets cannot be literally destroying their hametz just for Passover, they have to sell it to a trusted gentile for a song and then buy it back again.
Basically, Jews need gentiles and gentiles need Jews, not to practice usury on them, mind, but to be reminded by Jews when their laws fall below the minimum moral standards of the Seven Noahide Laws and to exterminate Amaleks who have caused the lowering of moral standards.
I am well aware most diaspora Jews don't like doing physical work and have little desire to become exterminators of Amaleks. By proposing that gentiles convert to Islam to satisfy the requirements of the Noahide laws, Jews thereby outsource this duty to the Islamic State.
Jews have a religious duty to point out to Xtians that their religion has failed because Xtianity no longer satisfies the minimum moral standards of the Noahide laws. If they convert to Islam, Jews need not exterminate them or incur God's wrath by failing in their religious duty.
I fear you're an Amalek Jews have a religious duty to exterminate, unless you convert to Islam. Another objectionable thing Christians do is to shamelessly practise idolatry. Let Jews now work up the courage to point this out to each over Pesach and afterwards to the gentile!
Pesach is just the time to discuss Amaleks because that was where Moses first encountered them. I fear the awful truth is that, like the poor, the Amaleks will always be with us and will always need to be very firmly dealt with. Fortunately, Islam is very well-equipped to do so.
In summary, Jews have a religious duty to point out that Christianity has been practising idolatry for millennia and is now failing to falling to even talk about discouraging widespread fornication. Islam more than satisfies the Noahide laws, so Jews should be promoting Islam.
Keith Joseph said never married single mothers of illegitimate offspring were destroying "our human stock", but the Amaleks of Britain destroyed his career while other Jews stood idly by and said NOTHING. “Do not stand idly by the blood of your neighbor (Leviticus 19:16).”
Maurice Glasman said immigration should be stopped to protect the gentile proletariat, but the Amalekites of Britain also destroyed his career and Ed Miliband did nothing to protect him against the immoral feminists who control the Labour Party who demanded his head on a platter.
Jews complaining about antisemitism should ask themselves why they are hated. While Orthodox Jews are only a minority of Jews, there are some who are especially influential and are known to be always in and out of Downing Street and the White House writing speeches for the goyim.
The nicest thing Jews could do for gentile is acknowledge that democracy is not sustainable either in the West or in Israel. Israel must be a theocracy and it can really only be one based on the Koran interpreted by Jewish Israeli lawyers. https://t.co/v47iQlU6Fd
The photos are appropriate for someone who wishes to identify herself as a nationalist philosopher. It is a warning from the past to both Jews and gentiles about why two insane World Wars happened: warmongering democracy; Ancient Athens was a warmongering democracy too.
You are just astounded at my knowledge of Judaism and my natural understanding of the Jewish psyche. No honest, rational and moral person would even think for a moment that I am an antisemite, but then you are none of these things, Ndora, for you are an Amalek!
Not at all, I was delighted when I discovered that I had already twice met the most powerful and influential Jew in the Western world who is in a position to delicately mention the Noahide laws to gentile government leaders of the West and Israel. https://t.co/hHhVoYk40y
Not at all, I was delighted when I discovered that I had already twice met the most powerful and influential Jew in the Western world who is in a position to delicately mention the Noahide laws to gentile government leaders of the West and Israel. https://t.co/hHhVoYk40y
Israel itself should not have laws that fall below the minimum standards of the Noahide laws! If churches are allowed in Israel, then I am afraid idolatry is being practised in Israel. Same sex marriage is also recognised in Israel. Oy vey! @RabbiYMizrachi@yhazony
I wonder if @yhazony has read the Koran and whether he agrees that the proposed theocracy of an unashamedly nationalist Israel should be based on a Jewish Israeli judiciary interpreting the Koran. https://t.co/v47iQlU6Fdhttps://t.co/WLkKImcZRO
Rabbi Kin asks if Jews are negligent in not doing what they were supposed to which is to "Recount His glory among the nations." https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm+96:3&version=NIV 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.
Rabbi Mizrachi predicts another Holocaust with an 80% attrition rate because of the disgusting behaviour of Jews who claim to be religious and says he won't even ask God why He would allow such a thing because it is obvious. https://t.co/zLdF67v0W5
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. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/secular-koranism.html
Fortunately, America can do it without even having to change its constitution though I would advise the omission of pursuing happiness altogether. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2016/02/the-us-could-become-one-party-state.html
Government is now beginning to target the rich to fill its coffers. Remember how the Roman Republic imposed proscription? The wealthy and influential should start protecting their wealth from greedy governments. @holland_tom@wmarybeardhttps://t.co/mQpG701Szl
So I was not the only one to find that strange statement by Nia Griffith more than a little odd. The lights are on but nobody's in. But then that bolsters my case for having an alpha male in charge of the ship of the state chosen by beta males. https://t.co/B2CcALEYiX
Future historians will have to read between the lines of our lying media to deduce the majority view. Do you ever wonder if the voting for war and yet more war by the ancient Athenians was rigged? @holland_tom@wmarybeardhttps://t.co/xXC67tgikQ
I think I speak for people everywhere when I say that the least people expect from their governments is that they are promoting the national interest. This would mean a one party state, but why is this so bad if the rights of party members are constitutinally protected?
Currently, the general belief in those living in liberal democracies is that their politicians are not acting in the national interest and are merely selling out the national interest in obedience to whoever issues their orders which is mostly the arms lobby if they are in NATO. https://t.co/sNpjDWnMpU
If you are British, you should bear remember it was Britain that declared war on Germany in both World Wars. Military belligerance even if backed by the Americans is unwise in the extreme. We should be friendlier to the Russians with whom we share a contiguous landmass. https://t.co/DVf4BTggqU
If we envy the Russians for having an alpha male leader who seems to know what he is doing and is trusted by the Russians, it is only because we are sick and tired of our own who do not know what they are doing and who are loathed and despised by the people they presume to govern https://t.co/idgecYDXr4
As humans whatever our race, religion, class or nationality, the least we can aspire to is to die wiser than when we were born. To do this we must consider the nature of truth, logic and morality and always ask ourselves if our thoughts and deeds are in harmony with this trinity.
We never know if pursuing our self interest will result in our interests. Similarly nations not really know if a course of action would promote their interests. However, if we regarded our nation as a self-interested entity, then the same moral principles should apply too. https://t.co/msuWhUVkEb
What religion would you choose if you were shopping for one as an agnostic if you already see the utility of religion? I say there is only one choice the Western gentile non-Muslim can choose after he acknowledges that Christianity has failed, and I am arguing as an agnostic. https://t.co/2X2eYhowDU
The Koran allows only defensive wars. If Britain had been properly Muslim and following Islamic principles, two World Wars would been avoided and Britain would have retained its world empire. Quite a thought, is it not? https://t.co/8ulXJ7mEbD
As a Muslim country after WW2, the Koranic permission for men to have up to *four* wives would have easily allowed Britain to replenish the war casualties of two World Wars *without recourse to immigration*. Quite a thought, is it not? https://t.co/QNdP1hAJcP
Imagine if Western governments abolished usury. Property prices would fall dramatically and debts would be forgiven. Western nations would rebase their currency. There would be inconvenience and confusion, but this would eventually be resolved. The world would make a fresh start. https://t.co/inKp7tDDbk
https://t.co/j1EfQ9UCYC The 4 Steps of Atonement is a very useful Jewish idea that I urge all to consider, but especially Western governments and historians.
Step 1, Regret.
Step 2, Ceasing.
Step 3, Confession and restitution.
Step 4, Resolution https://t.co/feYMHs52Ku
What should Britain regret? It should regret starting two World Wars the way a bad Monopoly player would buy up properties to prevent other players ie Germany from acquiring them and then end up in debt and unable to benefit from opportunities that came his way. https://t.co/tP1vISCVT3
What should Britain cease? It should cease pursuing its policies of proxy imperialism dictated to it by America, because it has ceased to be an empire and is now a vassal state. It is in the awkward position of being both the vassal state of the US and the EU. https://t.co/9bx5FN8zgk
What should Britain confess? It should confess that it was its insane participation in two ruinous World Wars that resulted in loss of empire. After all, the greatest achievement of Britain was its world empire on which the sun never set. https://t.co/yiMOtWPkdg
What should Britain resolve? To not repeat the mistakes of its history and resolve to do better in future, under a different system of government and a different religion because Christianity has failed. Surely all this must be obvious to most reasonable people? https://t.co/BVH6nooOaO
All this I have concluded without once having recourse to belief in God. It is really not that hard to acknowledge that God is an instrument of government and His laws are there to preserve our nation and civilisation the way Judaism has preserved Jewish identity over the ages. https://t.co/WiaiZGobWJ
The success of the Jews in propering and remaining in existence is evidence of the effectiveness of Judaism from which Christianity and Islam are derived. Christianity has failed, so Islam must be the answer to the problems of the West created by liberalism. https://t.co/fQHs30CTP0
If you are an anti-Semite, Islam will protect you from Jews. If you are Jewish, you must acknowledge that the legal principles of the Koran satisfies the 7 Noahide laws, while nothing in the New Testament with its vague extremist stories is anything to base any legal system on. https://t.co/fv9jGLKc7Q
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 quran.com/24/2, quran.com/4/15quran.com/4/16 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 quran.com/2/256 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 http://standpointmag.co.uk/node/7087 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.
If you are Jewish, you must know that the Jews of the West won't all fit into Israel when they have to flee their failed states of the West. If you are gentile, you must acknowledge that Christianity has failed because it no longer even supports marriage or family values. #Islamhttps://t.co/DKEIP7GocS
If you are a married father, you will know that patriarchy will restore your society to one which prioritises the preferences of married fathers over that of unmarried mothers with variously fathered and badly parented illegitimate offspring. https://t.co/QOaLva472h
If you are a woman who wants to be a married mother properly parenting her legitimate offspring without having to be a working mother, patriarchy will give you a greater likelihood of finding a husband capable of providing for you and the children of your marriage. https://t.co/Nf6iMxGQ6q
What if you have no intention of becoming a parent of legitimate offspring or of properly parenting them? Then I think your views should be ignored because you are saying you do not intend to make any biological investment in the next generation. This seems fair enough to me. https://t.co/oquWnlggOC
If the majority of British voters say they have no intention of becoming the parents of legitimate offspring, should the government abide by their decision? Are you so much of a democrat that you will favour the selfish preferences of the majority over national survival? https://t.co/gwdGDvqPPY
I have just demonstrated why democracy in an environment of indiscriminate universal suffrage is a busted flush and actually immoral and a recipe for failure. Democracy in Athens did not last long, did it? You must have deduced by now that there are more fools than the wise. https://t.co/PLXE3gYD76
Who should vote? Only those who pay tax. The Koran would make it unconstitutional to tax the citizen more than a flat rate income tax of 20% - you don't have to be Muslim to find this attractive. https://t.co/uVBQTA4cYK The low-waged would be relieved of voting and being taxed. https://t.co/WvoouyMByL
It has been easy to demonstrate that Secular Koranism has something for the political classes (they'd become more popular), the wealthy (prevention of a failed state and the inconvenience of becoming an economic migrant) and, last but not least, the poor who'll feel looked after. https://t.co/KplZXhzp2C
Since Koranic principles are obviously fairer than communism or free market capitalist principles, the West should really give Islam a go, because it is only through the West adopting it that will reform Islam. https://t.co/yl5bG34vQI
Gay marriage is definitely flouting the Noahide laws on sexual morality for which God will definitely zap us.
Reform and Conservative synagogues and especially churches are more impure than mosques for the Ultra Orthodox Jew, says Rabbi Mizrachi. Mosques at least do not practise idolatry. https://t.co/aoPYWpBOZL
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 ON POLYGAMY
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.
My learned lord, we pray you to proceed And justly and religiously unfold Why the law Salique that they have in France Or should, or should not, bar us in our claim: And God forbid, my dear and faithful lord, That you should fashion, wrest, or bow your reading, Or nicely charge your understanding soul With opening titles miscreate, whose right Suits not in native colours with the truth; For God doth know how many now in health Shall drop their blood in approbation Of what your reverence shall incite us to. Therefore take heed how you impawn our person, How you awake our sleeping sword of war: We charge you, in the name of God, take heed; For never two such kingdoms did contend Without much fall of blood; whose guiltless drops Are every one a woe, a sore complaint 'Gainst him whose wrong gives edge unto the swords That make such waste in brief mortality. Under this conjuration, speak, my lord; For we will hear, note and believe in heart That what you speak is in your conscience wash'd As pure as sin with baptism.
Neocons organized in the American Enterprise Institute and The Heritage Foundation to counter the liberal establishment
Arthur Brooks – President of the American Enterprise Institute
Danielle Pletka – Senior Vice President of the American Enterprise Institute for Foreign and Defense Studies, former member of Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Gary Schmitt – Resident Scholar, Co-Director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies and Director of the Program on American Citizenship at the American Enterprise Institute, former Executive Director, Project for the New American Century, Executive Director for President Reagan's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, White House The Weekly Standard
Frederick Kagan – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Joshua Muravchik – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Michael Rubin – Resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Think tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute, Brookings Institution, and the Atlantic Council, speak for those who fund them. Increasingly, they speak for the military/security complex, American hegemony, corporate interests, and Israel.
It is time for Rabbi Sacks to discuss feminism, is it not?
My view is that feminism operates by bribing men with fornication and other forms of sexual liberation from the rules of marriage and distracting both men and women from the parenting of legitimate children. This adversely affects the quality of the national gene pool and causes what is know as degeneracy.
Marriage is eugenic, bastardy dysgenic.
All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, all declining, primitive and extinct civilisations are matriarchies.
A patriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of married fathers, a matriarchy is a society governed by the preferences of unmarried mothers.
The West is now a matriarchy, and Britain has been a matriarchy since 1974.
The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened. A recent article in Poverty, published by the Child Poverty Action Group, showed that a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mother who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5.
Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment. They are unlikely to be able to give children the stable emotional background, the consistent combination of love and firmness which are more important than riches. They are producing problem children, the future unmarried mothers, delinquents, denizens of our borstals, sub-normal educational establishments, prisons, hostels for drifters.
Yet these mothers, the under-twenties in many cases, single parents, from classes 4 and 5, are now producing a third of all births. A high proportion of these births are a tragedy for the mother, the child and for us.
I do not see how anyone can deny this, but I wonder if Rabbi Sacks will continue to remain tight-lipped on the subject, perhaps out of fear of upsetting his wife, his two daughters or any granddaughters he may have.
My political activism consists of taking the problem to the person most in a position to address the problem of the West. I had an eureka moment when I arrived on Rabbi Sacks, but perhaps I should go over him and approach his wife, so she will give him permission to discuss the problem publicly and frankly.
After all, in important matters of morality, moral and reasonable men and women should have no disagreement and I have no doubt that the Rabbi Sacks' wife is not only moral, but in fact saintly. It is probably because he knows how blessed he is to have her as a wife that he does not wish to offend or upset her. Rabbi Sacks discussing female moral development with two Jewesses one of whom is a feminist
The talk was supposed to be about moral education for Jewish women, but even Rabbi Sacks bottled out of discussing it, or the topic was changed at the last minute.
If anyone asks what Jews are for, then the answer must surely be that they are her to set moral standards for the rest of us by reminding us of the Seven Noahide laws. Perhaps Rabbi Sacks will consider discussing how many of these the errant British government has transgressed. It is after all a religious duty of Jews to repair the world under the principle of tikkun olam while Muslims have theirs of enjoining good and forbidding evil or waging jihad against the injustice, evil, degeneracy and dementia of feminist oppression.
Christianity is now a moral vacuum filled by the disease of the mind that is feminism that bribes men and women with sexual freedom to distract them from maintaining and defending the patriarchy. For their own sakes, Jews should point out the failure of Christianity and suggest a replacement religion bearing in mind that not everyone is a Jew or is capable of adhering to its high-maintenance practices. The answer seems obvious to me, anyway, just as if it were a mathematical problem.