Friday, September 04, 2015

Migration complexity

Cross-border migration and the refugee crisis are dominating the news after a number of high-profile and totally avoidable tragedies, the latest that of a father losing his wife and children after being abandoned on a boat by people smugglers when the half-hour journey from Turkey to Greece became too perilous. He commented that his family's death should be a wake-up call to the world, and everybody is lining up to cash in with their political agendas on this highly visible emotional image of suffering. Political correctness reigning supreme, nobody blames the father for having put his family in harm's way. I do. But first a number of qualifiers.

Refugees across the world are the outcome of the ruling elite of the current leading Western nations running the world as if it was their exclusive birth-right. Exploiting other people's resources in order to fund an unsustainable consumer culture aimed to buy the acquiescence of their own population in return for ever more games and gadgets, and using military power to force this one-directional flow of wealth, they have wrought havoc all over the globe, generating poverty, fear and despair and thereby displacing people. America and her allied cronies in Europe have shook up the Middle East, toppled governments and financed and trained militias for their own economic and Israel's political ends, and the increase in refugees is a direct result. Britain, as did others, has funded ISIS and other rebel groups in Iraq and Syria as part of their proxy war against Russia and China in the hope that they would topple the Syrian government, just as they erstwhile funded Iraq to fight Iran, funded the Mujahidin and al-Qaida to fight Russia in Afghanistan, then topple Libya, and so on. In this context, David Cameron and the rest of the British government are directly to blame for the death of this Syrian and many other families.

The United Nations with its non-representative Security Council and the International Monetary Fund with its majority Western shareholders are relics of the past when European colonial powers divided the world among themselves without any consideration for indigenous populations, drew artificial borders to suit them and, in most cases, subsequently installed minority puppet governments heavily dependent on their economic and military support against their own subjugated populations in the fiefdoms they had carved out in this manner after the First World War. America continued the tradition having become the dominant power after the Second World War, but wherever possible replaced direct rule and military occupation with indirect rule and economic manipulation, propagandistically termed Free Trade, and intervening militarily only when deemed necessary. After too many people believed the propaganda lies and took the idea of freedom at face value, and with their imperial reach weakened, the USA are now reverting back to direct rule and military occupation.

Today, Americans and Europeans often talk as if there is something morally wrong with people from Africa or Asia wanting to share the spoils of their alleged hard labour, forgetting that American and European affluence represents in most cases the pay-off of colonialism and slavery and that therefore the colonised and enslaved of the world actually have a greater right to those riches than the colonisers and slave masters. British slave owners were compensated for the losses when slavery was finally abolished, slaves were not.

From a true global perspective - not the one world propaganda of the global village which merely means that no corner of the world should remain out of reach of Western domination - fortress Europe is unsustainable as is the exploitative modern lifestyle fuelled by compound interest being the foundation of our economic system, where there is always more to pay back than there was in the first place, requiring the disappropriation of others. So when it comes to the problem of global migration, I can only blame the West for its own conjured demons.

Yet, none of this absolves the father of the family currently making the headlines or numerous others like him. Sure, there are people smugglers unscrupulous enough to abandon a sinking boat with the passengers on board or to park up a lorry full of migrants, leaving them to suffocate. They cash in on a dream for which there is ample demand. The problem, when it comes to the migrants themselves, many of whom are from Muslim countries, is that they were malcontents to start with. The youth in many of these countries does not want to work for a better future, they simply want to take what others have already worked for. They don't want to build their country, they want to abandon it. In many cases, they are not running away from poverty or war but are running to an imaginary destination of full and plenty sold to them on Western television screens.

In what happened off the coast of Turkey is indeed a wake-up call, not just for Europe, but most of all for the migrants themselves: the risks are not worth it. A father lost the family he wanted to give a better life to. His parents still live in a part of Syria not ravaged by war. If he feared for his family's safety, then they had already managed to cross over to Turkey, a country having taken in a huge number of refugees and treating them as brothers rather than outcasts. Instead, he chose to leave the safety of Muslim Turkey to cross the sea in an unsuitable dinghy to Greece, an orthodox Christian and much poorer country. No doubt, Greece was thus never the intended final destination, it was meant to be a stepping stone into the European Union for moving on to Austria, Germany, the UK or Scandinavia. Thus, even if this family originally fled war-torn Syria, once they left Turkey, they were no longer refugees but economic migrants who had fallen for the myth that happiness can be bought at a department store. This father miscalculated and destroyed what he had in the vain hope of obtaining what he was never going to get anyway.

None of this absolves the British government, but future would-be Muslim migrants would do well to ponder on the advice of our prophet, peace be with him: "Richness is not having many possessions. Rather, true richness is the richness of the soul." (Abu Hurairah, al-Bukhari 6081). Or: "Whoever makes the world his more important matter, Allah will confound his affairs and make poverty appear before his eyes and he will not get anything from the world except what has been decreed for him. Whoever makes the Hereafter his most important matter, Allah will settle his affairs and make him content in his heart and the world will come to him although he does not want it." (Zaid ibn Thabit, Ibn Majah 4105).

Wednesday, July 08, 2015

"Islamic State" and the state of Islam

For a long time Islam's adversaries have been salivating at the opportunity to manipulate Islam from within. As early as 1981, A.J. Quinnell made this the subject of his novel "The Mahdi" in which Western security services try to groom a Mahdi whom they control in order to direct Muslim behaviour. The plot is not as far-fetched as was suggested by critics back then. Having created a modern-day version of the assassins of old and calling them Islamic State has been a master stroke and done more to discredit Muslims and Islam than any other covert mission since Lawrence of Arabia helped incite the Arabs against the Turks to pave the way for the Zionist state whilst the Arabs mistook him to be their advocate. Likewise, with IS, you would think that only the blind can fail to see who is behind fanatics with strong self-righteous "Islamic" rhetoric, armed to the teeth with American hardware, but persistently abstaining from ever criticising, never mind harming, Israeli interests, whilst happily burning a Palestinian flag as a sign of misguided nationalism. But alas, there are many Muslims who seem to prefer walking around with their eyes closed.

Whereas IS was purposefully created not just to discredit Islam but to provide the pretext for Western engagement in a proxy war with Russia over Syria in violation of international law, it would be rash for Muslims to dismiss them as if their effects did not reach well beyond the region in which they operate. Hate preachers with views close to those of IS abound throughout the Muslim world, financed by the petrol dollars of Saudi Arabia, the beneficiary of Lawrence's British sponsors and key ally of the United States and, by implication, Israel. During the first decade of the 19th century their Wahhabi forebears ransacked Mecca, Medinah and Ta'if under the leadership of Saud ibn Abdul Aziz with a violence against Muslim men, women and children everything as brutal as their IS successors today, destroying tombs and burial grounds, mosques and madrasahs. Whilst the Ottoman caliphate eventually regained control, the rebel group managed to hold out in the Najd and eventually, with the help of British cunning that hailed the end of the caliphate, installed themselves back in the holy land where they have styled themselves the custodians of the holy places whilst continuing to dismantle and destroy Muslim heritage ever since, turning cherished relics of Muslim history into hotels and parking lots and exporting a version of Islam which aims to throw away fourteen centuries of its rich history under the pretext of referring back directly to the source.

In today's world where Muslims put money before God, mosques and scholars can readily be bought, and petty-minded sectarian preachers are commonplace. They replace Islam as a means of mundane and spiritual guidance to further the personal growth of its adherents with a pharisaic set of obsessive rules relating to dress code and appearances; they replace the richness of the Qur'anic message with a narrow literal and anthropomorphic interpretation; they dismiss centuries of diligent effort by Muslim scholars in trying to extract meaning from divine revelation with an arrogant claim to be sufficiently qualified to go back directly to the prophet, yet in their attempt to destroy the complex edifice of Islamic learning with jabs at Muslims' alleged blind following of their scholars and Madhhabs they reach no further than blindly following the neo-Madhhab of their very own saint, Ibn Taymiyyah. As for him, their prime targets for persecution are other Muslims who differ in their understanding of what Islam stands for, whereas they happily appease those of other faiths. The aggressiveness and self-righteous confidence with which they impose their message on fellow Muslims makes especially young people, who are still unsure about their faith and their place in the world, fall prey to the imagined certainty and security only dogma can provide.

That Muslims globally have been so easily duped or, where they were aware of the facts, have generally failed to respond meaningfully to the challenge, shows that the wounds of colonialism and the scars from having lost the caliphate run a lot deeper than is apparent at first glance. By having been robbed of their own administrative, judicious and educational structures, Muslims have been reduced to an array of individuals without a cohesive community structure. Fragmentation has deprived them of a political voice. In Christendom the separation of church and state was accomplished by "reform" from within. The secular establishment which became the heir of a disempowered church then proceeded to force the same banishment upon Islam by removing the state, the public space of Islamic expression, from them. Regaining that state remained an delusional vision of Muslims for almost a century, obscuring the fact that once Islam had been relegated to the personal space alone, the ensuing multitude of opinions of what constituted Islam would ensure that concerted action and agreement remained well out of reach. Now, as a last blow, we've been handed the physical reality of an "Islamic State" which is as unislamic as could possibly be.

A structure, once knocked down, is hard to rebuild from its ruins, but if we were to endeavour just that, we would first need to remove the rubble. Next, we would need to have a clear design of what we are going to put in its place. In line with this analogy, Muslims today require a frank discussion about what kind of future they want to build for themselves. As was the case when Islam was first introduced over fourteen centuries ago, thorough education about its values and principles is required prior to trying to rebuild its administrative and judicial system. Thus, what we need most, is a return to an Islamic identity shaped by values rather than by mere rules and regulations. A "halal" mortgage, for example, which costs more than a mortgage from a non-Islamic finance provider may be cleverly construed to be technically in accordance with Islamic rulings, but since it is even more exploitative than the mortgage condemned by virtue of the Islamic prohibition on interest, it cannot be justified morally. The prophet of Islam, peace be with him, introduced social justice and cohesion, and the God who sent him must not be reduced to a mere accountant preoccupied with the length of an individual's beard, how high he raises his hands during prayer or the technicalities of financial instruments. His divine attributes represent values to aspire to. Islam, therefore, is characterised by both the submission to the divine and commitment to fellow human beings. The first relationship defines personal spirituality, whereas the latter governs each and every individual's actions. Men and women are judged by how beneficial they are to their fellow men and women, not by how devout they portray themselves.

For any building to last it has to be erected on strong foundations. The Muslim ummah needs to take stock. It is in urgent need of a thorough survey of its foundations to ascertain which parts have remained intact and which need strengthening. This task will require the dedication of the most talented of its experts and scholars. It will also take time, and with constantly being put under pressure from outside and within, it is questionable whether there remains sufficient opportunity for such an essential self-inspection. Nonetheless, a people divorced from its history becomes a people without identity and without a joint future. To prevent this, Muslims need to re-engage with their history, not gloss over it, and learn lessons from the discussions and disputes of old instead of pretending they never happened. The idea that we could just reach back to a golden time preceding that history, that we could reconnect with the prophet's generation, whilst ignoring all that came in between, might sound tempting to the simple mind, but in reality it means that we deprive ourselves from the lessons learned through all the mistakes which were made since then and thus end up condemned to repeating them all over again. We would be well advised to instead avail ourselves of the wealth of solutions which were also developed in those intervening years. It is the height of folly for a generation to think that they are so unique that they can learn nothing from their predecessors.

Barring the actual appearance of the Mahdi, we will not be able to recreate the conditions of the time of the prophet, peace be upon him, because no prophet will henceforth be present in our midst. We will thus try to emulate his example without the direct input of prophetic guidance, just as the generations of Muslims did after his death who were arguably more knowledgeable about, and more devout in, their observance of his example. To suggest otherwise is pure arrogance. To insinuate that we are better placed to resolve the resulting challenges than they were is buying into the Darwinian myth of modernity that mankind is continually progressing to a higher state, whereas the prophet, peace be with him, quite clearly warned that the best community was that of his own time, then that which followed them, and so on through the ages. If we think ourselves better than them by pretending that we are better placed to interpret a source from which we are so infinitely more distant, then we most clearly suffer from a serious bout of superiority complex. And this is exactly what describes the attitude of IS and other fanatics desperate to compel everybody else to accept their understanding of Islam as the only permissible option.

Thankfully it is said that the body of Muslims will never be able to unite on error, which is why Muslim leaders and scholars must make it a priority to come together to reject bigotry and affirm inclusiveness and mutual tolerance. The threat to what remains of the fabric of Islam is real but for the protection promised by the Almighty himself, Who also warns us: If you turn away, He will replace you with a different people who will not be like you (Qur'an 47:38).

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

A very British pursuit

Two MPs from opposite parties, Jack Straw (Labour) and Malcolm Rifkind (Conservative), have been found to be more interested in advancing their own good fortune than that of the British public who elected them. This in itself raises questions of whether the British parliamentary system is fit for purpose. Being an MP is not a voluntary position. Elected members of parliament are paid a handsome salary plus expenses to free up their time for representing their constituents. They should not be busying themselves with seeking earning opportunities elsewhere whilst preaching austerity to the masses. In other countries we call cash for access corruption, in Britain it is business as usual.

Yet the double standards do not end here. Had those two MPs been Muslim, there would have been a massive media outcry about them undermining British values and possibly renewed claims of Trojan horses and disloyalty. As it happens, these two MPs do not share the same political persuasion, but they are both Jewish. In today's Britain religion is brought into focus when you are Muslim. When you are Jewish, it is not good taste to mention religion in connection with wrongdoing.

This one rule for one and one rule for another approach goes across the board. Over the past few days there has been hysteria about three Muslim school girls leaving the UK allegedly to join the pretended Islamic fighters of ISIS in Syria. In total it is estimated that some five hundred Brits have gone to Syria to join the fighting originally started by Western security agencies in order to topple president Assad's regime. Note cause and effect coming into play here. Nobody even reports, however, that hundreds of British Jews join the Israeli Defence Force every year, a racist army defending its exclusive claim to stolen land through state terror. Muslims returning from Syria are intercepted and held as terrorists. Jews returning from an illegal war in Gaza settle back into life as if they had merely been on holiday.

Children in school are taught that the Nazis spied on their own people to seek out potential collaborators with the Jews and that they ridiculed the Jews through caricatures in publications like "Der Stürmer" in order to dehumanise them. Under the latest round of anti-terror laws, the same school children are told to report anything suspicious they might notice about Muslims, and all public agencies, schools, hospitals, GP surgeries etc. have a duty to report perceived radicalisation, in other words to spy on their fellow citizens. Caricatures intended to dehumanise Muslims are hailed as examples of freedom of speech.

Then there is this ongoing prodding in the media and by various campaign groups against circumcision and halal slaughter as elements of the Muslim faith as well as the head scarf. Some European countries have already passed laws against those practices, then granted their Jewish citizens an exemption so as not to be guilty of anti-semitism. For the record, Arabs, the cousins of the Jews, are Semites, and Moses was married to an Arab lady from Midian. Also for the record, the Nazis were the first in Europe to outlaw kosher slaughter, undoubtedly guided by animal welfare concerns alone.

And just for the record: this article isn't about Jews. Or Muslims. It's about double standards, a quintessentially British trait it seems. As Churchill put it: A nation has no permanent enemies and no permanent friends, only permanent interests. And it seems that whilst remaining on the sidelines of Europe, Britain is leading the continent in this hedonistic and utilitarian approach to politics. So why blame MPs for living up to such engrained British values? Let those who keep lecturing Muslims on adopting British values hold them up high as examples of true integrity!

Monday, January 19, 2015

Why Muhammad Matters

Seeing prophet Muhammad, peace be with him, is making the headlines for all the wrong reasons again, I am reproducing here in full a chapter I wrote for the book Mystics, Scholars and Holy Men (Edited by Troy Southgate), first published in 2014 by Black Front Press, London.

Reforms to the UK school curriculum since the 1970s changed the teaching of history from a focus on facts about people and events to one of concepts relating to socio-economic processes and societal conflicts. This deconstruction of history has sometimes been taken to an extreme where it is claimed that historic developments could be simulated and predicted provided all the right input variables were known or available. Reality, however, does not match those expectations. In fact, in spite of the curriculum shift, history itself tends to cling very closely to the inherent meaning of “his story”, in other words, events are shaped by people, and individuals matter well beyond the circumstances in which they were found. Looking at history through the people who shaped it therefore remains a valid approach.
An individual’s reach or realm of influence differs both in geographic extension and in time. Some have made more of an impact on the wider world than others. I would argue that as religion is a key ingredient of human identity and frequently overrides other aspects of an individual’s personality, leaders of religion, in particular their founders, have had more of an impact on the lives of people than their secular political leaders, although the roles do frequently overlap. The influence of the founders of major world religions extends over centuries and even millennia, whereas that of secular political leaders, even the greatest military conquerors or strategists, often struggles to leave a mark for more than a few centuries beyond their own lifetimes.
Some religions have tribal, some have regional and a few have global appeal. A universal claim is more often found amongst monotheistic traditions which, due to their common unification of the godhead share a principal understanding as well as many derived features. Their leaders are often seen as having come in succession of each other at different stages during human historical development.  Of those traditions, prophet Muhammad is the last chronologically, but his influence exceeds that of his predecessors. For those who follow his teachings, his relevance needs no further elaboration, but why should followers of other religious paths, or those who claim to be able to do without religion, be interested in his words and actions?
The religion he brought, Islam, literally translates as finding peace through submission, and does not claim to be a new religion as such but a continuation of the call for exclusive devotion to the one god. What is unique in its call is that from the outset it has been addressed to mankind at large rather than a tribe, nation or region. This universal call meant that the spread of Islam was not limited by any boundaries of race or territory. Of the monotheistic traditions only Christianity has a similar universal claim, but it was the result of political events after the lifetime of its founder, Jesus Christ, who himself only claimed to have been sent to the Israelites. The claim of Islam to universality was pronounced by Muhammad himself and within the scripture he brought, and the rapid spread of the Muslim empire during and after his life bears witness to this understanding by him and his followers alike.
A world religion which is two billion strong and gaining even after one and a half millennia since the death of its founder deserves serious investigation by any historian or person wanting to have a deeper understanding of human development. Its two key ingredients are the Qur’an and the life example of the prophet Muhammad; thus it cannot be understood without a study of his life. Irrespective of the religion itself, however, if the case  made above holds true that people shape history, then this individual has shaped the history of mankind for longer and more deeply than any other to this date. In any comparison between influential historic personalities, he will come out on top on more than one count. Thus in Michael Hart’s 100 ranking of the most influential persons of history he tops the list.
Hence, a study of his life is not only of benefit to religious followers, but ought to be instrumental to anybody who wishes to understand the ingredients and dynamics of lasting success with relevance for both the understanding of human society and psyche as much as for, let’s say, leadership training. After all, we study the methods of successful scientists even if we want to apply them to a different scientific discipline than their own, or the war strategy of successful campaign leaders even if we profoundly disagree with their objectives or politics. There are, of course, numerous aspects to the prophet’s success, and thus his life can usefully be studied from several angles, be it religious devotion, temporal leadership, oratory and power of persuasion, military strategy and so on. Hence it should not come as a surprise that amongst the disciples of Muhammad are some of the greatest minds of our time who confessed to having learnt from his teachings without having followed him religiously, such as Goethe, Kant or Napoleon, to name only a few.
This short contribution is no place for an extensive analysis of a complex biography. Nor is it intended as an exemplary list of achievements of my chosen hero. Rather, I would like to pick specific traits of his personality and events in his life from which I believe important lessons or even universal truths can be derived.
Let me start with his birth. Although of good lineage, Muhammad was born an orphan – proof that “misfortune” of birth or even the lack of a standard stable family setup is no impediment to subsequent success and greatness. Out of the window goes the lament of those who wish to continually put their lack of achievement down to the social conditions of their birth.
Good upbringing, on the other hand, matters. To protect him against disease and in order to learn a good standard of Arabic, Muhammad was sent out of town as a baby to be nursed by a desert tribe famed for their skills of teaching eloquent speech and good manners. And good character as well as polite speech is what the prophet was known for throughout his life. Before opposing him for his message calling to good morals, justice and a rejection of all kinds of idols and corrupt practices, the inhabitants of Mecca valued his honesty and nicknamed him the Trustworthy (al-Amin). Even when they had declared war against him and his followers, some still entrusted their property to him for safekeeping.
Let me list some of the character traits which made this man a great example for humanity of all times:
First and foremost, modesty and humility. Even as the leader of the largest army hitherto known in Arabia he did not live in pomp, did not put any distance between himself and his people and continued to do his own domestic chores. A stranger once came to the mosque of the prophet where he was sitting amongst his companions and had to be directed to who he was as he could not distinguish him from the rest by his clothing or by virtue of any special position within the mosque.
He taught by example. Never did he issue an instruction which he did not also comply with himself. As a result, his followers loved him dearly and were prepared to sacrifice everything for him. He was known to spend long periods in prayer and reflection, often praying all night, yet another important aspect of good leadership was that he never asked of anyone more than they could reasonably do. When he led prayer in public he often kept it short if women or children were among the congregation. He also taught that the sermon during congregational prayers on a Friday should be kept short and to the point, a lesson sadly not adhered to by many preachers of our time.
Nor was he a leader who would simply give orders. When the Muslims were digging a trench around Medina to fortify the town against attack, he was digging with them. When decisions were to be made, he consulted them. In battle, he was within their midst, not ordering them from behind.
Rarely did he get angry, and never without cause, nor did he indulge in frivolous pastime and excessive laughter. He was serious at most times, but always welcoming and offering a smile. He had a listening ear and time for people in spite of huge responsibilities. Naturally, he did not drink, gamble or waste time with other trivial pursuits. Most people with great potential today are prevented from developing it because of “killing time” with useless entertainment.
Muhammad was not interested in power or wealth. He did not seek to advance his own family at the expense of others. He did not use the office of state to enrich himself personally. His key concern was to build a just society and leave a legacy of having taught his followers thoroughly in the knowledge of the Divine and the practice of good conduct.
Justice and fair treatment were important to him. When it came to judging disputes, he did not automatically give preference to the adherents of his own religion over those who rejected his message. He decided cases on merit, irrespective of whether the antagonists were Muslims, Jews, Christians or polytheists, and with no regard to their social standing or possessions. The bias of many a judge or jury today was alien to him.
The city state of Medina was the first in history which gave legally protected status to minority communities through a contract between the dominant Muslim and the remaining other belongings. Long before Magna Charta, which was issued by a ruler under duress, Muhammad gave his new state a written constitution voluntarily. The rights of citizens of all types were subsequently further detailed in the ninth chapter of the Qur’an.
Islam also, for the first time in history, insisted that all business dealings ought to be recorded in writing rather than be trusted to the reliability of a handshake alone. And, of course, the revelations of the Qur’an and the teachings of the prophet were also written down, leaving no room for dispute of their authenticity, and they have since formed the basis of a complex legal system governing all aspects of life, known as the Sharia, a term sadly misunderstood due to the ignorance of anti-Muslim polemics.
The prophet was an exemplary family man. All his family members were full of adoration for him, both during his life and after his death. It is those we live with, who know us best, and their testimony speaks of a kind and caring husband and father. Domestic violence had no place in the prophet’s household.
He taught to respect the elders and be merciful to children. Yet even here, he put right before status. In today’s Muslim societies, leadership is held by people due to their age, excluding the youth. Contrary to that, in the second battle against the Romans dispatched to Syria the prophet put a young man, the twenty-year old Usama bin Zayd, in charge of a large army which included some of his long-standing companions more than twice his age, purely on account of his excellent leadership qualities. On another occasion, whilst he was having a meal with some people, there was an elderly man sitting to his left and a young boy to his right, and as it was customary to pass food to the right and not wanting to offend the person senior in age, he asked the young boy’s permission to pass the food to the older person first, and when the boy declined the request, he observed the correct custom and passed the food to the youth.
A lot has been said about Muhammad’s polygamous marriages. Leaving aside that multiple marriages were nothing unusual at the time – and nobody seems to want to chastise the old testament prophets for the same practice –, the fact is that he was married to a single woman, senior in age to him, for most of his life, and for the most part his marriages after her death were for strategic reasons to make peace between certain tribes or to take care of widows without support. His youngest wife, Aisha, was chosen to be a teacher of the nation through her attentive observations on their domestic life, since the teachings of Islam were not only to govern the public domain but also the private conduct of Muslims within their homes. Notwithstanding all the outrage uttered by orientalists and other polemicists against Islam, she was happy in her marriage according to her own testament, something that cannot always be said for many emancipated women of the modern age.  And, of course, he gave all his women the security of marriage, none of them being short- or medium-term or even casual relationships as is the order today.
Much can be learned from Muhammad’s skills in nation building, the way he formed alliances, the way he fostered unity of the state, the way he provided his people with aspirations to do their utmost for the common good and to focus on the future, indeed the life hereafter, rather than on the status quo or temporary affluence and success. He did not create a personality cult around himself, he was first amongst equals. Nor was he vindictive. When his army conquered Mecca, from which the Muslims had been exiled for many years and by whose inhabitants they had been fought viciously, he forgave them wholesale once they had offered peace and support.
Another outstanding quality of the prophet’s character was his generosity. Whatever he had, he shared. When anybody asked from him, he gave without fear of poverty. He taught his followers that the upper hand is better than the lower and encouraged them to give openly in charity even if they were often needy themselves. He also taught only to give what is good, as simply discarding unwanted goods does not count as charity.
Muhammad’s prophethood commenced when he was forty years old. He died at the age of sixty-three, so in the short span of twenty-three years he so completely transformed a whole nation that within another two decades they became a dominant global force on the planet, supplanting the long-established and mighty Persian and Byzantine empires and spreading rapidly into the Far East, Africa and Europe. This amazing achievement was founded on revelation and exemplary character. About the prophet, the Qur’an testifies that “you are of an amazing character”, and he himself stated that he was sent to perfect good conduct as well as that his mission was that of a teacher. For anybody wanting to succeed, in this life or the next, there are valuable lessons to be learned from him during all the varied situations life confronts us with. There are brilliant teachers and role models in all walks of life, but as a perfect all-rounded role model for how to become a good, successful, beneficial and content human being with the correct balance of the mundane and the spiritual, Muhammad, God’s final prophet stands apart like a lighthouse in a dark, stormy sea. To see its light, which has remained undiminished through the ages,  and to follow it implies salvation, and in that Muhammad matters not only to me, or fellow Muslims, but to mankind at large.

Thursday, December 11, 2014

UK weather warning: thought crimes and imminent immigrant terror on the rise

I've almost grown tired of writing about it, but when and where will it all stop? Can't we have an early election to save ourselves from more aerial bombardment (via the airwaves) with rhetoric intended to frighten the British public into supporting an incompetent and untenable government? Of course, it's not the unnecessary and excessive national debt or the bail-out to the banks on which tax payers' hard-earned money was spent which resulted in spending cuts elsewhere, it's immigrants who come here for the sole purpose of cashing in on those generous benefits that have already been taken away from us all! Of course, it's not the spy cameras expensively installed every hundred metres of road network with a view to trying to make motorists pay more than their fair share into local and national government coffers that we should be afraid of, it's terrorists endlessly scheming to take away the freedoms our government has already curtailed! The coming election is fought by a bankrupt Tory party on UKIP territory, and since both Labour and Liberals have been completely discredited by their contribution to the previous and this government respectively, a Tory-UKIP coalition may well be the likely outcome, so Cameron, that patronising public schoolboy face reading his worn-out script might be able to cling to a slice of power after all.

Whilst he might be able to salvage some of his personal fortunes, the damage to British society will be irreversible. The Department of Education, following on from its Trojan Horse fiasco, issued new guidelines that schools must actively promote British values, and names these as "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty, and mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs". Democracy - it would be nice if we could have some please! A simple right of veto of the most unpopular government policies would even do. Rule of law - the court system is in shambles and most people can no longer afford justice whilst increasingly laws are being replaced by administrative orders and cases are being decided in camera. Individual liberty - not even at home with "my home is my castle" being replaced with encouragement to "spy on your neighbour", after all, they might be illegal immigrants, benefit frauds or potential terrorists. Finally, mutual respect and tolerance for those of different faiths and beliefs - who writes this stuff? The whole country is on a witch hunt demonising Muslims. The entire security industry is built on suspicion and fear of the other. So if these are core British values, then the British Isles are adrift in the ocean and about to sink for good.

Today, a 35-year-old woman in Luton has been jailed in excess of 5 years for posting opinions and pictures on facebook. She was charged with "terrorism" offences after an undercover police officer encouraged her to boast a little more about what she might want to do as part of her jihad fantasies. The judge decided that she was guilty of radicalising others, more so given that she had pictures with her children posing with toy guns and swords. Meanwhile mothers up and down the country are busy buying guns and war games for their children as Christmas presents. Better not take pictures with them holding those! You never know who gets hold of them and how they might be used against you.
The hypocrisy of it all - was the undercover police officer charged for radicalising this woman? Will the British government face charges for having covertly and openly intervened in Syria as a sovereign nation state and having encouraged people to get involved until the tide turned against them? Are the media going to be charged for the gruesome pictures of weapons in action they show us daily in order to keep us on our toes? But justice has been done, and the tax payer can foot a bill in excess of £200k to keep a woman locked up who did not pose any real threat to anyone, whilst burglars, sex offenders and pedophiles (including within the echelons of power), murderers and other criminals go unpunished due to a lack of police resources which have all been allocated into criminalising motorists, because that's where the revenue is, and Muslims, because it pays political dividends.

Don't get me wrong. Extremism and radicalisation exist in every community. As Muslims we have our sad share of hotheads and narrow-minded fanatics, many of whom make life unbearable for ordinary worshippers at the mosque by appointing themselves as a kind of religious thought police instructing women on their dress code and men on the length of their beards. We have learnt to ignore them, but the media love to put them back on a pedestal and give them publicity. And the police and their failed Prevent strategy thrive on them as it allows them to justify their own existence: look, see, there are people with terrorist minds and inclinations in our midst, so when you pay our salaries to keep you safe it's money well spent.

In fact, this kind of extremism is state-sponsored. It is sponsored by the Saudi-financed Salafi movement working for dominance in Saudi-financed mosques. It is sponsored by the CIA (don't mention torture, it's an anti-terrorism device and hence cannot be a crime) who created the movement in first place as a useful tool to create strive in countries in whose politics they want to interfere. And it is sponsored by the British government with many of them on the MI5 and MI6 payroll in order to keep the terror threat alive by means of entrapment. Once you remove the terror convictions which were due to either thought crimes or incitement by undercover agents or the guilty pleas achieved by the threat of extradition to the United States the actual threat diminishes into insignificance. Hang on, they will say, people have lost their lives or been injured in attacks inspired by Islamic extremist views. Leaving aside whether 7/7 was an inside job or not, we're talking a handful of casualties. IRA attacks caused slightly more casualties than that, but dear not call it Catholic or Christian terror. Our armed forces are responsible for an even larger number of casualties in wars in places most people can't even pronounce as well as the deaths of uncountable foreign civilians - state terror comes to mind. Following that, ordinary muggings resulting in death are much higher up the list as are death due to alcohol-related crimes. If we look at road accidents, the numbers go through the roof, but are in themselves dwarfed by diabetes and cancer. I'm not trying to trivialise ideologically motivated crimes, but for anybody looking at the real world it should be shamefully apparent that the excessive focus of politicians and media on so-called Islamic terror threat is highly imbalanced and disproportionate. So not only has our government lost British values, it has also lost touch with reality.

But there is, of course, system to their madness. This focus channels the frustration of British citizens against an perceived external threat, the immigrant, and an enemy within, the Muslim, rather than the government or its employers, the banks. And amidst repeated calls for making cuts and the reality of unemployment and eviction from their own homes, Brits will turn to the demagogues with the strong words to protect them against those aliens at the gates and in their midst. This is election campaigning on a grand scale, which brings me back to the beginning: if we can't democracy anyway, can we possibly bring the elections forward and save ourselves all that drama?

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Gassing in Israeli perpetrated holocaust

Victim turned perpetrator:

BBC caption:
"Israel has used gas to clear tunnels it says were dug by Hamas in order to infiltrate Israel"

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Evicting the bailiffs

There is a quiet revolution brewing in England. For years, banks, having defrauded the public through bailouts, also have defrauded ordinary people of their lives' savings by repossessing their homes under various pretences. But now, people are fighting back.

Tom Crawford's case in Nottingham is one which has brought a lot of this to the fore. In a desperate YouTube message he asked for help when he discovered that after having paid off his mortgage for a quarter of a century he did not own a penny in his home because the building society had, without his knowledge, converted the mortgage from an endowment mortgage to an interest only product. And now they wanted him out of the home where he brought up his children and at a time when he was looking forward to retirement after having just recovered from cancer. To his shock he also discovered that there almost 250 such repossession actions a week going through the court in his medium-sized home town of Nottingham alone.

Nottingham, of course, is known to most people for the story of Robin Hood who with his "merry men" fought the injustice of an oppressive tax collecting regime. Today it is not royalty who extract the last pound of flesh from hard-working citizens, but the banking system, with courts and governments at their knees to assist them. And a new band of merry men and women has emerged who travel the country to stop bailiffs from taking possession of homes and also assist those threatened with eviction in fighting the banks in court, using every legal loophole available and, increasingly, challenging the courts themselves under common law.

Although the bailiffs were due to arrive early in the morning, people travelled from all over the country, as far as Scotland hundreds of miles away even to send a clear message to the banks and building societies, courts and local governments, and their bailiff stooges that enough is enough. The usually quiet cul-de-sac in which Tom lives was filled with about 250 people united by having made the journey purely to support Tom in his plight and prevent the bailiff from getting anywhere near his property.

The police are usually on the side of the oppressor, but faced with large crowds they only drove past a number of times in a riot van to assess the situation, and the bailiff never turned up, scared of a public show-down. Some of the supporters left after mid-day, but many stayed on until the evening, just in case the bailiff would still try to force entry.

A lot has been written about the victims of the banking crisis, but here people had begun to fight back, using alternative media as the means to communicate and spread the message, and succeeded in preventing an eviction.