I explain to Kashif Shahzada why Secular Koranism is called Secular Koranism

47:00  Why Secular Koranism is called Secular Koranism

When Muhammad imposed Sharia on Mecca I bet not everyone was Muslim because it was a pagan city. He must have said "Look at these rules, Meccans: you could work within them. Chapter 2 verse 256 says you don't actually have to be Muslim to submit to sharia. Mecca will accommodate non-Muslims. Islam accommodates the People of the book: Jews and Christians. And also pagans. You just have to obey these laws but we won't force you to believe. 

We know that most people in the West are atheists and that is the problem. They no longer believe in Christianity which is why they don't follow it. They hate themselves and they hate their history. They're very confused about their place in the world and they have a problem with their sense of identity which is why the topple the statues of their ancestors. But if you say "I'm going to convert you to Islam and make you follow Sharia" they'll get even more angry and frightened and confused so I have to guarantee that their freedom of belief will be respected guaranteed otherwise they'll say "You're going to force us to believe in Islam and if we don't you're going to cut our heads off!" You know how they get hysterical so if you say: "You have to convert to Islam to get Sharia", it'll never happen and we'll be dead long before anything like that would happen.

The message of Secular Koranism:

Enjoy the benefits of Secular Koranism first, because you are going to like it so much when you get good results that you will be happy to become Muslim and bring up your children Muslim.

1:04:00  My position on idolatry is in harmony with Islam.

"There is something called hidden idolatry. The Prophet Muhammad himself acknowledged that even Jews and Muslims praying correctly could be guilty of it when they're praying if they just wanted to display their piety. They are not actually worshipping God in their mind and that was called hidden idolatry. So that would be my argument for Muslims allowing pagan temples in their country as a guarantee of religious freedom [prescribed by quran.com/2/256].

If Jews and Muslims praying correctly could be guilty of hidden idolatry, they have no business closing down the temples of other people.  The Koran does not express great hatred for idolatry and idolaters. It just asks people why they would worship idols that can neither help nor harm them. It asks a rhetorical question. doesn't it? "Why would you worship idols that can neither help nor harm you? The penalty for idolatry is not death as it would be for Jews. The penalty for idolatry for Jews is is death."

http://corpus.quran.com/translation.jsp?chapter=5&verse=76

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirk_(Islam)#Lesser_shirk

The people asked, "O messenger of Allah, what is secret Shirk?"

He replied, "When a man gets up to pray and strives to beautify his prayer because people are looking at him; that is secret Shirk."

Umar Ibn Al-Khattab narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: "Whoever swears by other than Allah has committed an act of kufr or shirk." (graded hasan by Al-Tirmidhi and saheeh by Al-Hakim)

According to Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, Ibn Mas’ood, one of Muhammad's companions, said:

"That I should swear by Allah upon a lie is more preferable to me than that I should swear by another upon the truth.

An enduring American achievement that has its origins in Islam

The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom is a statement about both freedom of conscience and the principle of separation of church and state. Written by Thomas Jefferson and passed by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786, it is the forerunner of the first amendment protections for religious freedom.

We must thank the Americans for showing us the way when they quarantined the church from their state. The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom was of course based on quran.com/2/256

The First Amendment was derived from the Koran

The BNP do not believe in free speech or freedom of belief or in telling the truth as ordinary people see it

In totalitarian Britain, no opinion honestly held may be expressed if it offends any of the groups of people privileged by PC legislation, eg women, the disabled, the single mother, etc.

That a party supposedly dedicated to challenging PC is now kowtowing to the forces of PC liberalism is indeed an interesting development.  This is what the drive for "respectability" in British politics does to you, into a cowering and craven position of self-abnegation before unwed single mothers with disabled offspring, who are the most voracious consumers of welfare.

(In case you do not know what it was that I said to trigger the events that ended in my expulsion, I expressed the view that I would rather not have to bring up a severely disabled baby and that I would regrettably have to resort to infanticide if the midwife did not "take care of it" for me, which she would have in the time when home births were the rule rather than the exception.)

This is because I do not think it right to pass on the burden of its upkeep to the taxpayer just because I could..  

I am very touched by the messages of support I have received and the people who admitted in private to me that they would have said the same thing if they had dared.

In a rational and honest society I would be praised.  In totalitarian Britain I am universally reviled for saying what everyone really thinks.

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/07/bnp-not-prepared-to-promote-family.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/07/nationalism-should-promote-family.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/07/hand-that-rocks-cradle-belongs-to-slut.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/07/i-cannot-attend-meeting-of-prospective.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/06/two-schools-of-thought-in-bnp.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/06/official-britain-now-inferior-nation.html

http://thebattlefieldoflove.blogspot.com/2011/06/more-ostentatious-displays-of.html

"Racism", "bullying", "harassment" and our liberties valued at zero

These are such subjective words, are they not?

Being a racist means you may have expressed dislike of someone on grounds of race, or said something that could be considered offensive by a hypothetical person of another race.

The same principles now appear to apply on bullying and harassment.

If we think we are being bullied and harassed then we are being bullied and harassed.

If we are offended, then the person who offended us must have been offensive.

If the other person was offensive, then they will have to pay!

This means there is no free speech, no freedom of association and no freedom of contract.

Soon there will be no right to property either and we will have become a communist country without even realising it! Financial socialism in the form of Quantitative Easing even now proceeds apace.

How to get a legal definition of "racism"

Racism is now a term of abuse used against anyone who gives offence, whether intentionally or unintentionally, about other races or when someone treats different races differently and misjudges the situation. The "institutional racism" of the police, a phrase coined by Lord McPherson, is the grandiloquent and politically explosive term used to describe mere police incompetence and lazy thinking.

Traditionally, racism only meant the actual belief that some races are superior or inferior to others.

It is quite clear that nobody, not even members of the government or its opposite, knows what it really means.

Even the BNP does not know its own mind about whether it is a racist political party or not. Quite a few of their supporters are confused about whether they are or not (for some deny that they are racist and have friends who are non-white) and do not know whether to deny their racism or embrace it. Are they merely xenophobic (ie fearful of foreigners of any hue and nation, which is still allowed) or actually racist, whatever that means?

Does excluding someone from your party on grounds of race mean that you think they are inferior and that you are superior? Or is that just invoking the principle of free association?

Does disliking the physical and cultural characteristics of another race (who is perceived to be doing better or worse than you because of their alleged racial or cultural characteristics) mean you are racist? Or does racism actually require you to believe in your/their superiority/inferiority?

Does believing that another race is superior to yours (and praising that race) racism?

The law is undecided. On the one hand it criminalises discrimination on grounds of race, on the other it allows the BNP and NF (who wish to repatriate non-whites) to exist.

Much could be accomplished by the BNP if they started an action in defamation the next time a national publication that is worth suing describes a member of the BNP as racist. A case for libel is made out when a litigant proves to the satisfaction of a jury that, as a result of words published or broadcast, he has been brought into hatred, ridicule and contempt in the minds of right-thinking members of society.

This could run and run, folks!

Will the BNP do us all a public service and get us a legal definition of racism? Will they, hell!

Obviously, they would be helping themselves if they lifted their colour bar and removed any mention of their intention to repatriate non-whites from their constitution.

No doubt they will be saying they want to repatriate white Eastern Europeans too and will claim they are merely xenophobic - a state of mind that has yet to be labelled "thoughtcrime" in 21st century Britain.

(In case anybody has not yet noticed, it is of course already "thoughtcrime" to discriminate on grounds of sex, age, disability and sexual orientation.)


What are they for, I keep asking, if they will not even fund the litigation of members of their own party (and race) who are oppressed by Political Correctness - the ones who get unfairly or constructively dismissed from their jobs or expelled from their unions after going public about their BNP membership, the most recent of which is Mark Walker, a teacher?

Answers on a postcard, please.