Richard Dawkins, Mehdi Hasan, and The Tale of The Night Journey.

8/12/13
Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.
Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.
Dawkins, Hasan, and the Tale of the Night Journey.

August 10, 2013
i 4 Votes
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/al-buraq-5.jpg) At the end of 2012, Richard Dawkins met with Mehdi Hasan to discuss religion as a force for good or evil, and if religion can coexist with science, at Oxford Union. During the talk, Hasan was asked if he believed that the Prophet Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged horse, in reference to al-Isr wal-Mirj. His answer was yes, and you cannot prove he didnt. I wanted to address this answer, because it seems to be the argument from people from the three major religions, that their miracles are believable, and thus, rational, because Atheists are unable to prove that they didnt happen. Moses parted the sea, we cant prove he didnt. Jesus returned from the dead. We cant prove he didnt. Noah managed to fit millions of species into his boat. We cant prove he didnt. The Prophet flew 700 miles on a winged horse named al-Buraq and up to heaven from Jerusalem, met Jesus, Adam, Abraham, and Moses, all in one night. We cant prove he didnt. And so to believers, this suggests that if we cant definitively prove he didnt, it somehow increases the probability that it happened, to checkmate Atheists!. I find this a uniquely unintelligible position to hold.
futiledemocracy.wordpress.com 1/39
8/12/13
Firstly, I wanted to discuss what I believe to be the motive behind Sura 17 of the Quran that briefly mentions the Night Journey. As noted in my previous article (http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/08/08/the-search-for-muhammad-abd-al-malik-ibnmarwan/), the oldest Quranic text we currently have Sanaa manuscript dates back to the rule of fifth Uyammad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. I have come to the conclusion that Abd alMalik was an exceptionally gifted ruler and political genius. The foundations of the Islam we know in the 21st Century, can be traced back to him. The legends around the Prophet Muhammad, can be dated back to him. The bringing together of tradition, state power, dynasty legacy, and religion, can be dated back to him. He knew how to secure an empire. He was a master of PR. Muhammads name was used to strengthen Abd al-Maliks position as Caliph. One of his most impressive shows of power and wealth, can be seen with the Dome of the Rock and the expansion of Al-Aqsa Mosque. The importance of this project cannot be underestimated. Its placement in the centre of Jewish Jerusalem, and towering above the Church of the Sepulcher was a show of power. In a single architectural blow, al-Malik had overpowered thousands of years of Jewish and Christian history, in their most Holy of places, and designated himself and his dynasty as its successor. To link the Prophet who never stepped foot in Jerusalem to Jerusalem, al-Malik needed to be creative, and to send out a powerful message that this city now belonged to the new empire, and the new dynasty. The first step, was to create the most impressive architectural marvel; the Dome. Now, he needed to link this to the new religion that would be the centrepiece of the new empire (religion and empire were intrinsically linked, this wasnt lost on al-Malik). But there was no obvious link at first. Afterall, the Quran names the spot that the Prophet flew to as the furthest place of worship, not Jerusalem. There is no reason to suspect the Quran meant Jerusalem. Al-Aqsa mosque was not built during Muhammads life time. There was no mosque in Jerusalem at this time. The myth must have developed later (though some Muslim writers have found elaborately creative ways to get around this glaring mistake). And so, It will not come as a surprise to you, that the Mosque in Jerusalem, was built by the Uyammads, just as a narrative was developing. And so we see attempts from that era, to link the Kabah in Mecca, to Jerusalem. To do so, creates a city of Islam out of the city of Jerusalem. There are two possibilities: Firstly, Muhammad flew on a winged animal, to the middle of Jerusalem, and then up to heaven, which he did either by passing through a portal to another dimension, or there is a physical place called Heaven somewhere in the universe. he then met with the obvious characters from the Biblical and Jewish narratives (coincidentally), and then came back (we can discount the spiritual interpretation, because Hasan is quite clear that he believes the Prophet DID fly to Jerusalem and then to heaven). He passed this story on, which continued to be passed on word for word, until the Quran was written down, and further discussed in Hadith. Or secondly, it is all myth. And it started around the time wed expect, given the PR effort the Umayyads were making to secure their dynasty by appealing to the earlier history of the Arab surge out of Mecca, in an attempt to forge an imperial identity. Im inclined to go along with the latter, and I say this because it is the only rational position one could possible adopt, after studying the evidence, and weighing the probability of the two options. To believe the former, you dismiss the latter, and by doing so you must conclude that the laws of physics are in fact, not laws after all. They can be broken. You also have to decide whether heaven is a supernatural realm, in which case al-Buraq managed to pass through a magic portal to get there, or heaven is in the universe somewhere, in which case, where? How fast must the winged
futiledemocracy.wordpress.com
2/39
8/12/13
horse travel to get there? Either way, you see there might be trouble with the finer details of your story. If you chose to believe the story of the night journey, you have a lot of evidence building to do in order to destroy the very foundations of all science. I look forward to your thesis. Indeed, belief in the validity of al-Isr wal-Mirj, means that the work of thousands of wonderful scientists, those who laid the foundations of our understanding of physical universal principles, must be wrong. That their work, built upon by thousands more well established, peer reviewed scientists from across the planet, repeated experiment, with centuries of thorough investigation and intense calculations and evidence building; must be wrong. To suggest that these principles that have been slugged out over centuries to give us a firm understanding of the way the universe works, are all actually wrong, requires more evidence than simply well, you cant say that he didnt . To believe it to be true, means you directly contradict, and in fact, dismiss, all known phsyical properties of the universe. You cannot claim reason, after abandoning reason. The two positions; that of he did fly to heaven, and he didnt fly to heaven, do not have equal weight. The evidence is weighed heavily in favour of science. It is true, I cannot prove beyond any doubt, that the Prophet Muhammad didnt fly on a winged animal, to heaven. I wasnt there. But I can make an educated guess, using what we know of the universe and the laws it operates under, because we have nothing to suggest those laws are untrue in any way. Even if suddenly evidence were provided to suggest that universal principles can be broken, we would then need to provide evidence that they were indeed broken on that particular day. A suggestion, in an 8th Century book is not evidence. It is no more evidence, than if I were to write down that I have an invisible monkey that flies me to the moon every Sunday. And it requires of me than just You cant prove otherwise. If I am to contradict & dismiss absolutely everything we know about the fundamental workings of the universe, then the burden of proof is on me to show that it is at least possible first, and then to show that it did happen as I say it did. As far as I am aware, no religious miracle has so far destroyed the foundations of modern science in that way. This includes the night journey. Hasan asked Dawkins: Do you regard them all [people who believe in God and the supernatural] as intellectually inferior to you? - But I Think Hasan has the question the wrong way round. It seems to me, if youre willing to so flippantly and easily believe a story that contradicts and disregards extensive research, studies, evidence of all those who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of understanding of the laws of the universe, and forcefully squeeze your book of unsubstantiated myths and legends, without any evidence to back up what any of it says; youre the one who believes yourself to be intellectually superior, not just to the person youre talking to, but to the entire scientific community. Hasan says Im willing to say, I cant prove that he did. This is irrelevant. If youre a Muslim, you believe that Muhammad flew to heaven on a winged animal, because the Quran and Hadith say so. You therefore believe it more probable than not, which in turn means you believe all scientists to be mistaken. This is a sense of intellectual superiority on an extreme level. Dawkins is simply reflecting the work of thousands of scientists including many incredible Islamic scientists when he suggests that the Prophet did not fly to heaven on a winged animal. This isnt about what Professor Dawkins believes, its about what science has taught us. Belief of one Professor is irrelevant.
It seems more probable to me that the universal physical laws, which have never been observably
3/39
8/12/13
It seems more probable to me that the universal physical laws, which have never been observably broken, and show no reason to believe they ever will be; were not suspended to allow a man to fly around on winged animal that can either break the speed of light, or can travel between dimensions. It seems far more probable that the story of the night journey was created to provide more strength to a brilliant dynasty that had become obsessed with creating a narrative to justify its power. Coins, huge stunningly crafted buildings of wealth and prestige in politically important places, patronage of great artists and poets, the centralisation of power into a more bureaucratic state, the nationalisation of Arabic as the language of Empire, and a need to link all of this back to the man that was undoubtedly considered the hero of the Arabs in the 7th Century, Muhammad. This all happened at the same time, for the same purpose. This isnt coincidence. This is design. This is Abd al-Maliks, and his sons design. The night journey conforms to that design perfectly. It is therefore more probable that the night journey is a myth, for reasons stated above, than it is probable that the physical order of the universe be broken. The discussion between Dawkins and Hasan at Oxford Union can be seen here (http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2012/12/2012121791038231381.html). 6 Comments | religion, Uncategorized | Tagged: atheism, atheists, christianity, history, islam, jerusalem, prophet muhammad, religion, richard dawkins | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
The Search for Muhammad: Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan

August 8, 2013
i 5 Votes
4/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/domerock9.jpg) In the British Library sits a collection of Syriac New Testament fragments of manuscript throughout history. Of these, lays a version of the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Mark, known as Addition 14,461. Scribbled inside the pages, is a note from what is thought to be around the time just after the battle of Gabitha in 636 CE that reads: and in January, they took the word for their lives did [the sons of] Emesa, and many villages were ruined with killing by [the Arabs of] Mhammad - This is the earliest non-Islamic mention of a man named Muhammad, written just four years after his death. It is without doubt that Islamic literature covering the life, the actions, and words of the Prophet Muhammad, is vast, and along with the Quran, the bedrock of Islam. From biographies, to commentaries, to translations and constant reinvention to suit a more acceptable modern narrative (the age of Aisha, springs to mind); it goes without saying, that the intrusions into every facet of the life of the founder of one of the Worlds largest religions, is central to the Islamic faith. It is truly difficult to know where to start, what we actually know for certain, when trying to figure out just who Muhammad was. Wading through legend, and interpretation rather than fact, is a tiresome venture. But one name crops up as perhaps the most important in the institutionalisation of Islam and the beginnings of forging the legend of the Prophet; Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan. The first thing to note, for the sake of this article, is the importance of religion, in carving a successful empire. Reza Aslan, in No God but God notes: Your religion was your ethnicity, your culture, and your social identity, it defined your politics, your economics, and your ethics. More than anything else, your religion was your citizenship. - The significance of this will be clear by the end of this article. The very first biography of the Prophet was produced by Ibn Ishaq; Srat Rasl Allh. The most notable problems with this, are that Ibn Ishaq was born around 704ad, approximately 70 years after the Prophet had died. He was born two decades after the fifth Umayyad Caliph, Abd al-Malik ibn
8/12/13
Marwan worked to marry together the new Arab Empire, his own legacy and dynasty (the first dynasty of the Arab empire), with a religious identity of its own. Ibn Ishaqs biography a collection of oral traditions was therefore written around 100+ years (traditionally, 120 years) after the Prophet had died, and just after the Caliphate had indulged in a Public Relations effort. Not only that, but Ibn Ishaqs work has since been lost to history. We know that Ishaqs work was edited by al-Bakkai, whose copy has also been lost to history. al-Bakkai edit was then edited by Ibn Hisham, whose work (in copies) are the basis for all inquiries into the life of the Prophet that we have today. Everything else, is pieced together from Hadith, that happened to come about even further removed than Ibn Ishaq. For the basis of the life of the Prophet, Ibn Ishaq is often (though not always) taken at his word that he is trustworthy, which obviously means we must take al-Bakkai's word that he is trustworthy, and we must take Ibn Hishams word that he is trustworthy. And yet, even Islamic scholars throughout history have questioned Ibn Ishaqs reliability: Imam Malik was not the only contemporary of Ibn Ishaqs to have problems with him. Despite writing the earliest biography of Prophet Muhammad, Scholars such as al-NisaI and Yahya b. Kattan did not view Ibn Ishaq as a reliable or authoritative source of Hadith. If we cannot be certain of the legitimacy of all Hadith, and we place the collection of Hadith at a time that follows a systematic effort to institutionalise Islam by marrying its history to that of the Ummayad rulers, then I see no reason why we can be certain of the legitimacy of any Hadith. If we cannot be certain of the legitimacy of the entire biography by Ibn Ishaq, and cannot be certain of the legitimacy of integrity of Ibn Hishams edit, then I see no reason to trust any of it. Both of these contentions have far reaching consequences not just for Muslims, but for those of us who are critical of the Prophet. My criticisms of the Prophet come from the traditions presented of him, through the Quran and Hadith. My judgement that he was misogynistic and violent, are based on interpretations of the Quran and Hadith. If neither can be trusted, than all criticism falls away. I am left with criticism of a legend; but given the structure and practice of belief that legend has inspired and the power it now has over the World, I think it less of a problem to be critical, than it is to believe. So what do we know of the Prophet Muhammad? Well, if we cross reference early Islamic writings of Ibn Ishaq (though again, we rely on Ibn Hisham for this) with the writings of those outside of Islam, we may get a more accurate picture of Muhammad, than relying purely on the biases of either. St John of Damascus, writing before any Hadith were compiled, wrote: There is also the superstition of the Ishmaelites which to this day prevails and keeps people in error, being a forerunner of the Antichrist. They are descended from Ishmael, [who] was born to Abraham of Agar, and for this reason they are called both Agarenes and Ishmaelites. They are also called Saracens, which is derived from Sarras kenoi, or destitute of Sara, because of what Agar said to the angel: Sara hath sent me away destitute. These used to be idolaters and worshiped the morning star and Aphrodite, whom in their own language they called Khabr, which means great. And so down to the time of Heraclius they were very great idolaters. From that time to the present a false prophet named Mohammed has appeared in their midst. This man, after having chanced upon the Old and New Testaments and likewise, it seems, having conversed with an Arian monk, devised his own heresy.
- St Johns birth year is contentious. Some sources insist around 675, others like Daniel J. Sahas
6/39
8/12/13
- St Johns birth year is contentious. Some sources insist around 675, others like Daniel J. Sahas suggest 652. Either way, he lived at a time when the Arab Empire had surged northwards and taken control of his homeland. He would be familiar with stories of Muhammad (Muhammad never stepped foot in Damascus). He lived through the iconoclast controversy, and he was a boyhood friend of the future Caliph Yazid I. He had a keen interest in people of other faiths. Interestingly, in his writings, he never refers to the new occupiers as Muslims. There is no Islam. No system of laws. The heresy wasnt new, Muslims are referred to as Saracens (The Byzantines decreed that because of his supposed heresies, John of Damascus was himself of saracene opinions) and Muhammad was simply a leader of that old tradition. The chapter itself is called Heresy of the Ishmaelities. St John was writing just before the accumulation of Hadith began. Around 100 years after Muhammads death, and well into the centralising of control toward Damascus, by the Ummayad dynasty. His writings suggest that whilst this new band of heretics existed and were linked to a man named Muhammad by the 8th Century, they were not known as Muslims, nor were they considered a brand new religious order, separate from Christianity, with a system of values and laws of their own. However, much of that is St Johns Christian bias. The Arabs did not consider themselves to be a heretical Christian sect. Here we see two coins. The coin on the left, is the coin of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. The coin on the right, is the Umayyad coin, modelled on the earlier Byzantine coin. but with the cross missing:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/coin.jpg) - The Umayyad coin is dated to around 690, during a dispute with the Byzantines. The minting of new coins lead directly to war with the Byzantine Empire. And here we see the beginnings of what would become a very centralised, political Islam, through, in my estimation, the single most important Caliph in the history of the Arab Empire. The Caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan established the entity that would become an Islamic state, rather than simply conquered lands. In short, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, was brilliant. A master of empire building. A political genius. He came to power upon the death of his father, during a civil war that was tearing the fragile Empire apart. He most feared the rise of the alternative Caliph AbdAllah ibn al-Zubayr and his followers. The besieging of Mecca, in 692, with over 10,000 Syrian troops, shows just how serious Abd al-Malik believed the situation had become for the future of his dynasty. Eventually the rebellions, as well as the Byzantines were defeated, and so the next step is to
8/12/13
unify the Empire. To further the plan of unification, he needed to solidify his own claims to the Caliphate. It is around this time, that coins start to be inscribed with the name of Muhammad, linked directly to the Caliph. It is also no surprise that the Sanaa manuscripts (the earliest Quranic manuscripts we have) are calligraphically dated to the era of Abd al-Malik. He had the coin above created to include an image of himself, defiantly holding onto his sword, as a warrior. Poetry of the time calls the Caliph, the deputy of God. They go to great lengths to push this idea, and it is most prominent during the reign of Abd al-Malik. The urgency to ensure the strength and growth of the new Arab Empire an Empire that had already experienced civil war, and was in the midst of new uprisings depended on creating a history of its own, intrinsically tied to the new Caliph (This happens with all dynasties of old who have spurious claims to power. Augustus adopted the title Caesar, King Henry VII of England, named his first son Arthur, linking his dynasty to the reign of the legendary King Arthur). It is the result of the attempts to centralise power more concisely and distinctly than any previous Caliph, and to solidify the new Empire, by Abd al-Malik, at a period in history by which the survival of a new state entwined majestically with the growth of the religion that it was based on. Without a powerful religious context, alongside a manipulated legend-based history, a state struggled to survive. Unsurprisingly, the first mention of the Prophet Muhammad on any coin, was issued a year after the accession to the Caliphate, in 686, and in the midst of rebellion and civil war.. of Abd al-Malik. The coin reads: shahda: bism Allh Muammad rasl Allh (In the name of God, Muammad is the Messenger of God). This again, coincides with the Caliphs attempts to solidify the power of the new Empire, and link his dynasty and his Empire back to the early days, and to Muhammad. Abd al-Malik, is forging a history for his dynasty. The legend of Muhammad was the next stage in the strengthening of the dynasty through forged history. Between 685, and 715, the dynasty that controlled the Caliphate was in the middle of perhaps one of the greatest and most impressive Public Relations ventures the World has ever seen. Earlier Arab coins, during the period between Muhammads death, and the 5th Umayyad Caliph, show no mention of anything that could be linked to the Islam that evolved over the following century. No mention of Islam, or of the Prophet. They include generic phrases like bism Allah rabbi (In the name of God, my Lord). Coins are one way to strengthen an Empire, but by far the most impressive, is through Architecture. Abd al-Malik oversaw the symbolic building of the Dome of the Rock, in centre of Jewish Jerusalem, on the legendary site of Temple Mount. It stands high above Church of the Holy Sepulchre, dwarfing the old Christian Church. A symbol of great power to the new Monotheism in town. Nothing says the coming of a new age, and a new dynasty, quite like crushing the old one. A symbol of authority, and wealth; great architecture is woven into the fabric of the building of Empire. This was used to stunning effect by the great architects of the Abd al-Malik era. His son, al-Walid, upon accession to the Caliphate, continues his fathers legacy, by building the great Umayyad Mosque at Damascus, over the old Christian Basilica of Saint John the Baptist. alWalid also became the Patron of great artists and poets at the time. The Umayyads were creating a brand new culture, that centred around themselves. It is for this reason perhaps that Islam, is an extremely political religion. It was necessary, for the time period.
8/12/13
Coins emphasising the link between Abd al-Maliks dynasty, and Muhammad, forging the legend of Muhammad to add weight to the early days and linking it to the history of his dynasty, huge beautiful buildings on the sight of religions of conquered Empires, codifying laws through the Quran; this all took place to strengthen Abd al-Malik ibn Marwans claim to the Caliphate. He oversaw the centralising of power from reliance on tribal leaders, to a system of bureaucracy (which resulted in the Arabisation of the language of state). He reformed the military, creating official ranks of non-Arab fighters. We can trace the legends of Muhammad to, and directly following his reign. Prior to that time period, all we have are sparse references to a man named Muhammad who was simply a leader of the Arabs. What he said, and what he did, was of little to no significance. Imperial authority, Islamic authority, all resulted from Abd al-Maliks imperial & dynastic goals. Three things are clear. Firstly, the sudden and impressive Arab conquests around the 7th century, included and was most likely lead by a man called Muhammad, though whether his words and deeds were important to this new faith, is unlikely given that it took over a century to decide it might be wise to document his words and deeds, and over 60 years before he even appears on a coin. Secondly, Muhammad preached a Monotheism that differed to that of Christians and Jews, and was considered a heresy by non-Muslims of the period. And Thirdly, by the late 7th Century, Muhammads name was suddenly being used to strengthen a fragmented, and fragile political Umayyad state and to solidify the claims of one particular Caliph; coins appear with Muhammads name on it; Hadith are being collected in order to provide a legal framework for the new empire; Muhammad suddenly becomes a legendary and much needed figurehead for the reign of Abd alMalik, upon his accession to a largely fragmented and warring empire. What we do not know, and what is pure speculation at best, is the Prophets life before his supposed revelations, what actually happened in the cave outside of Mecca (if anything), any aspect of his life, what he ever said, and how he treated others. We simply do not know. It is far more likely that Muhammad, as presented in Islamic literature, was a figure whose legend began to be moulded by the truly brilliant Abd al-Malik, and was further added to in order to suit the goals of later Caliphs. Islam as we know it, was intrinsically linked to the Umayyad dynasty. It was all political, all spin, all PR, and based on the geopolitical climate of the late 7th Century. The Fifth Umayyad Caliph carved a political empire. Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan was the great spark that lit the fire of the legend of the Prophet Muhammad. 13 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: atheism, atheists, christianity, history, islam, jerusalem, judaism, philosophy, syria | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
Capitalism and Language

August 7, 2013
9/39
8/12/13
i Rate This
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/capitalism_1435629c1.jpg) It is impossible to go a day or two without being presented with language that means very little, whilst appearing to mean a lot. It gives the appearance of some sort of professionalism, but that is all it is; appearance. It exists in its own World, somewhat divorced from reality. It perhaps mimics notions of professional dress codes; professional hair cuts; making sure tattoos arent on display; all the signs of modern day lifeless professionalism. It is all appearance, with very little meaning behind it. It is a religion unto itself. Allow me to give you some examples I once noted down having seen on a company mission statement: Our team works to prioritise mission-critical web-readiness, leveraging cross-platform web services. - I have studied this wording for quite some time, and Im still unable to tell you what it means. I think it means; We update our website a lot. Orwell once took this beautiful line from Ecclesiastes: I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. - And transformed it into modern, business-English:
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or 10/39
8/12/13
Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account. If we take a look at language were so used to hearing from the business community, from politicians, and from those who are speaking from a position of considerable privilege, we can easily note that the rhetoric tends to reflect the prevailing social and economic centres of power, used among other things to water down injustices within that particular system. Words and phrases are used to subtly promote the prevailing structure. The Liberal Democrats have taken to using the word fair to describe policies that do not fix inherent problems (like housing shortages) but do such untold damage to those who at the bottom, that repeating the word fair over and over seems like nothing more than an insecure exercise in trying to convince themselves of what theyre saying. Conservatives are wonderful at claiming to be a Party willing to take tough decisions. As if thats an inherently good thing. As if tough translates to right . It ignores ideology, if you claim the decisions were tough. You might envisage the millionaire Chancellor weeping as he signs off on cuts to disability funds for the most vulnerable, as if his anti-social security ideology isnt a factor. Its no different to Republicans in the US claiming it a tough decision to strip women of reproductive rights. Or slave owners in the Antebellum South claiming its a tough decision to whip their slaves. Those with the privilege do not get to claim a decision that perpetuates that pivilege, whilst oppressing those already oppressed, is tough. In the business world, End of play suggests a sort of child-like fun that you must be having. Flexible accumulation used to suggest an inherent and unavoidable part of the system that means of production, of distribution, and so labourforce (people) are in fact all unimportant in themselves secondary to the most important aspect of life; the accumulation of capital (which, oddly, is deemed a natural good). And so as language analysts suggest; if workers are convinced of their own nature as flexible they are more likely to accept that their jobs are part of that flexible cycle, willing to work longer hours for less. If you tell a worker he or she is expendable or worthy, until the boss deems otherwise, youre unlikely to inspire much loyalty (a loyalty, the boss isnt obliged to reciprocate). Flexible accumulation is a very subtle threat, hidden behind more creative language. Just today, we read (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/05/mcdonalds-workers-zerohour-contracts) that the Institute of Directors has responded angrily to suggestions that zero-hour contracts be banned, insisting that it risks the UKs flexible labour market. Another way to describe a flexible labour market, is job insecurity. According to a study published in the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine; anxiety, depression, and poor health increase dramatically in those people who consider their job to be insecure. This, to the Institute of Directors, is an unimportant consequence of a flexible labour market . Burst bubble denotes something out of anyones control, and so those who were at the very centre of the financial crash are exonerated by a linguistic con-trick. Those who suffered the most from the impact of the burst bubble tend to be those with very little political or economic power, and so it is easy to transfer the blame from those at the centre of the bubble, to those who were reliant on the bubble. The rule of divide and conquer. Ensure those on incredibly low wages, with a falling standard of living, and insecure jobs (flexible workforce) believe it is the fault of those who are poorer than they, rather than those with the power and the wealth. The poor must be scroungers or they are leechers or they are Welfare dependent or lazy or immigrants taking our jobs.
We are bombarded with how the markets will react, to any social or economic change. The
11/39
8/12/13
We are bombarded with how the markets will react, to any social or economic change. The markets are treated as a mysterious, God-like entity that must be obeyed. A new Theology. Milton Friedman appears like a Prophet promising freedom but delivering destitution. The Market God is treated as if infallible. As if perfect rather than what they actually are; indifferent, amoral. For example, if I were to drive my car a mile away to the shop, I must buy a car, I must buy insurance, I must pay my road tax, I must buy petrol, I might choose to buy a new CD for the car, or an air freshener. Doubtlessly, driving a mile down the road to the shop contributes to the growth of the markets. Or, I could choose to walk the mile to the shop. I am benefitting the environment this way, it is far more healthy for me to do this, and yet, I contribute nothing to the growth of the markets this way. In this example, my health and the health of the environment are less important, than pollution and laziness. The Institute of Directors, who care little for the health of humanity, would be thoroughly unimpressed if I were to walk to work. But for the thriving of Capitalism, especially after such a risky crises, the language used to portray the markets must be positive and lofty at all times, whilst those that fall victim to the insidious side of market forces, portrayed as weak, lazy, and a burden. By dehumanising the most vulnerable, people are able to turn their heads when harsh economic violence is conducted against them. We are told that policy must be directed to benefit those we now consider job creators. They are our saviours. We are indebited to those people. As if their money is how wealth is created. As if they dont just ride the tide of demand. We have called it supply-side, we have called it trickle-down, now the rhetoric has moved on to labeling anyone with money as a job creator. We are told that if we do not cut taxes for the richest, whilst slashing social programmes that those taxes fund, the job creators will all leave. And so, they must be given the biggest Welfare payment of all; a massive tax cut. This is the real something-for-nothing society, because the obligation for someone who has used a well funded public system and social security safety net and framework in order to gain great wealth, to pay back into that system in order for the next generation to be afforded the same opportunities, is cut the moment a government give into the threat of leaving if taxed. The poorest do not have that option. Interestingly, through all the media hype and demands of catching Welfare cheats, alongside exaggerated shock stories of parents claiming millions in Welfare, for their 40 children, in their 140 bedroom house, and their Spanish beach home, all paid for by your hard work!!!!!. only 1.2bn was lost to Welfare fraud in 2010/11, which is 0.8% of the total benefit expenditure. If the total benefit expenditure was a 1 coin, less than 1p would be lost to fraud. By contrast Vodafone (thats one company, not an entire Nation) was allowed to write off its tax bill of 6bn. Thats six times more than that lost to Welfare fraud across the whole country. Rather coincidentally, the head of tax policy at Vodafone is a man named John Connors. Connors used to work at HMRC and enjoys a close relationship with current head of HMRC, David Hartnett. They go for cosy lunches together, and then they casually wipe 6bn from the Nations second largest company on the Stock markets tax bill. Unsurprisingly, Hartnett is the most wined and dined civil servant in the country, by corporations. Im sure its just because hes such a nice guy. Yes. That must be it. The Conservative Party does not like talking about individual cases of those suffering intensely due to Tory budget cuts. Iain Duncan Smith, when presented with families struggling to live, started his answer with this is typical of the BBC. In March 2012, according to figures by the Department for Communities and Local Government, local authorities registered 48,510 households as homeless, representing a 14% leap. The largest in
12/39
8/12/13
nine years. A report from the same department also showed the number of people sleeping rough had jumped by a fifth, in a year. Leslie Morphy the Chief Exec. of Crises said: Our worst fears are coming to pass. We face a perfect storm of economic downturn, rising joblessness and soaring demand for limited affordable housing combined with government policy to cut housing benefit plus local cuts to homelessness services. Similarly, the Chief Exec. of Shelter, Campbell Rob said: These figures are a shocking reminder of the divide between the housing haves and have nots in this country, Similarly, Matt Harrison, interim chief executive of Homeless Link said: This comes at a time when reduced funding has already hit services and further cuts are expected this year. Our research indicates that there are now fewer projects, fewer beds and more of our members are turning people away because they are full. - With overwhelming evidence, and statements from those whose lives are dedicated to helping the most vulnerable, wishing to highlight the situation, youd think the government might firstly accept their is a problem given that the 7th largest economy in the World has a rising homeless population, and secondly, set out just what the government intends to do about this horrendous situation. Instead, Grant Shapps said: the debt-laden economy we inherited is leaving a legacy of hard-up households across the country. During the Mick Philpott murder case, George Osborne echoed the sentiments of the right winged Tabloid press, when he hinted that the murder of children, could in any way be linked to the concept of Welfare. Social security under attack politically, needed a rhetorical bedfellow, and it was handed it with the Philpott case. Tory Councillor John Bell, ran with this:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/untitled-6.jpg) - The manipulative nature of the rhetoric is evident when we note how the Daily Mail dealt with the case, in its story: Michael Philpott is a perfect parable for our age: His story shows the pervasiveness of evil born of welfare dependency. The trial spoke volumes about the sheer nastiness of the individuals involved. But it also lifted the lid on the bleak and often grotesque world of the welfare benefit scroungers of whom there are not dozens, not hundreds, but tens of thousands in our country. - The suggestion being that there are two groups of people in the UK; those not on any form of Welfare, and those on Welfare who are also potential child killers. The Daily Mail headline that day, above a picture of Mick Philpott was simple:
Vile Product of Welfare UK.
13/39
8/12/13
Vile Product of Welfare UK. - Yet, when Stephen Seddon murdered his parents for his 230,000 inheritance, the Mail did not suggest this was the vile product of the concept of inheritance. When the Mail editors got hold of the Philpott story, their main objective was to further the demonisation of Welfare. Nothing more. Any tenuous link was going to be drawn. Capitalism, that inevitably leads to the necessity of social security is not to blame, for the Daily Mail. That social security itself, is to blame. When the Shropshire millionaire Hugh McFall murdered his wife and daughter, the Mail said: Detectives believe the mild-mannered family man snapped as he struggled to cope with spiralling debts..Last night his sister Claire Rheade said: Its unbelievable he doted on his family, he would never harm them. He was a gentle man who wouldnt hurt a fly. - Note the rhetorical differences. The Philpott case: evil, sheer nastiness, grotesque, scroungers, bleak. The McFall case: mild-mannered, family man, doted on his family, never harm them, gentle man, wouldnt hurt a fly. They mention his personal spiralling debts as a catalyst. Here, they limit responsibility to he alone. They could call the McFall murders a vile product of Capitalism . They dont. To water down injustices within the system, whilst promoting the prevailing order, it is necessary to inflict linguistic damage upon those considered outside of the system. Those who lose out. Those on the receiving end of the injustices, because to face up to the injustices puts those who gain the most, in a threatened situation. Marx was convinced that the injustices would eventually manifest in the collective consciousness of the oppressed, which in turn, would lead to revolution. Marx faltered in his underestimating oppressive discourse and how it becomes so ingrained into the social fabric (especially if it is repeated over generations) so as to threaten opposition by stigmatising it as much as possible. It represents a narrowing of both social, and political discourse. You can usually tell just who benefits the most from the prevailing rhetoric of the day, because theyre the ones with the power. Leave a Comment | Uncategorized | Tagged: capitalism, conservatives, labour, language, left wing, linguistics, market, News, right wing, socialism, tories, union | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
Islam, racism, and answering a critic.

August 1, 2013 It tends to be the case, that those without legitimate argument, or consideration, resort to the most ludicrous and uninspired diatribes, just to be heard. Their thoughtless minds crave recognition beyond what they are actually capable of achieving through serious inquiry and comment. This is true of my newest and Id say, most ridiculous critic. In his article on Western Mans Hatred For Muhammad, Hakeem Muhammad (http://hakeemmuhammad.com/2013/07/31/western-manshatred-for-muhammad/) makes a lot of points. Mainly aimed at me. The theme overall is, if you
8/12/13
criticise the Prophet Muhammad, youre a racist. I will seek to discredit practically everything his ridiculous article had to say, point by point. But first, allow me to demonstrate what kind of person were dealing with. When, on twitter, someone referred to Hakeem as the village idiot, Hakeem replied:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/hakeem.jpg) - So, thats the level of debate were dealing with. To the point where, my white windowsill, in Hakeems mind, can only mean that I dont think black paint worthy enough to circle my window. Whilst analysing the points Hakeem raises in his article, keep close in your mind, the fact that he thinks the phrase village idiot is a racist slur. The fallacies keep on coming. When one tweet from an Atheist read oh god! Hakeem, ingeniously jumped in with:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/god.jpg) - Yes! Exactly! If I say unicorn it invariably means I must believe that unicorns exist. So, onto the points. I have identified six key points, that I wish to address: Point 1: the egotistical belief of Western man that anyone other than a white man could have such power and meaning in the world. - Here Hakeem has completely exhausted the object of Western man. All Western men (not women, but then, as noted previously, Hakeem will defend the power of Patriarchy (http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/07/27/islam-patriarchy/) in the most ludicrous ways) cannot possibly stand anyone but a white man in a position of power. All Western men. All of them. When he notes all, this suggests an in-built trait. Perhaps a subconscious cultural trait, that ALL Western men cannot escape. We filter out any progress, if came from someone with darker skin. This means, ALL Western scholars in any field, naturally do not pay attention to established science, if it has come from someone with darker skin. Thats the suggestion Hakeem is making with his illfutiledemocracy.wordpress.com 15/39
8/12/13
thought out phrasing. The word all is key. So, if someone wants to point out to Hakeem that the President of the USA is not a white man, and that at least one white man, must have voted for the President, thatd be great. On this point alone, Hakeem falls short of logic a five year old could see through. Secondly, because it is aimed at me, I trust Hakeem will do the decent thing, read through my articles on American politics, and note my support for President Obama (I base my support of the President, on his values; race is meaningless to me), and my articles describing the horrendous racism of certain Republicans in the US. Such as, my article on Dan Riehl, for example (http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/the-privilege-of-dan-riehl/). I will not be misrepresented, by someone trying to score cheap points, simply because he has no reasonable contribution to make to this debate. My beliefs are based on concepts; secularism, democracy, social justice, equality, science. Race plays no part. Race is meaningless. By shaping criticism or satire of Islam, as a race issue, Hakeem loses, because he fails to answer the criticisms of the faith itself, choosing instead to reframe our arguments, to suit his nonsense. He also fails to note the horrendous racism pushed by Islamic scholars (including the Prophet) in the past. More on that, in point 4. Faith is colourless. It is simply an idea. A concept. Like Communism, like Capitalism; both colourless. Islam is no different. It is therefore open to all forms of ridicule and critique that every idea is open to. Point 2: futileDemocracy (whose criticisms I will respond to in a later article). My critic states that he became an atheist by discovering that Thomas Paine, Charles Darwin, and John Stuart Mill were greater than every prophet combined. All of his ideological role models are white men. It is only one of many examples that illustrate that Western man only looks to white men as a source of enlightenment in this world; in their minds, only a white man is capable of holding such a position of esteem. - The obvious point to take from this, is that by only mentioning three white men (this was in a tweet, by the way), I am quite obviously an awful racist. I also only mentioned men. So, by this logic, I am an awful, racist, misogynist. I also only mentioned three heterosexual men. So, by this logic, I am an awful, racist, misogynist, homophobe. I also only mentioned three English-born men. So, by this logic, I am an awful, racist, misogynist, homophobe, who hates anyone who isnt English. I also only mentioned three English men, all born below Junction 30 of the M1. So, by this logic, I am an awful, racist, misogynist, homophobe, who hates anyone who isnt born between Chesterfield, and the English Channel. Do you see how intensely irrational this logic is? Even more so, when we point out that Islam, is not a race. Perhaps he is then suggesting, that I have couldnt possibly consider the thoughts of an Arab to be important to my personal values. Not true either. As my article on the great Arab free-thinker, Al-Maarri (http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/05/19/the-great-arab-freethinkers-al-maarri/) suggests. I end this article with: And that is what makes Al-Maarri one of the few I name as personal heroes worthy of greatness. - Predictably, Hakeem ignored the entire post, but circled in on one particular sentence, to prove my awful white supremacy. Here:
As far your admiration of Al-Maarri goes, even your praise of him takes racist overtones:
16/39
8/12/13
As far your admiration of Al-Maarri goes, even your praise of him takes racist overtones: Al-Marri seems to us, to be better suited to walking and talking in the streets of 19th Century Philadelphia with Thomas Paine, or sitting around a fire place, with a whiskey, deep in discussions in the mid-20th Century with Bertrand Russell, or joining Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris on stage for merciless debates with religious apologists in the early 21st Century; than he does to the Middle Ages. Were the people of color that were Al-Marries intellectual contemporaries to unworthy for him? So much so that he needed white philosophers, white scientists, and white neo-atheists to have a dialogue with? Why do you want to take a thinker of color and say he is better suited to be in modern white supremacist society? - Again, I could also point out that the people mentioned are all men, and so it must prove my inherent misogyny. I could also point out that theyre all heterosexual, which must prove my inherent homophobia. To his first point, no. The people of colour were not unworthy of him. That entirely misses the point. Al-Maarri was an Enlightenment thinker, centuries before the Enlightenment. I simply suggest he is better suited to Enlightenment era, than the Theocratic era that he existed within. Race, again, is meaningless. Equally, had a white European, in 8th Century Europe, surrounded by deadly Papal power, produced works that would not be replicated until the Enlightenment, then I would suggest he (or she, gay, or straight, bald, or hairy) would also be better suited to the home of the Enlightenment too. Race, is meaningless. Hakeem reduces human beings down to what colour their skin is. Their achievements, are irrelevant to Hakeem. Hakeem says: Western man only looks to white men as a source of enlightenment. He takes this, from three names I mentioned on twitter, as his source. It is absurd to suggest that Western men seek out white men, to the dismissal of anyone with darker skin, for progression of thought. Absurd, and insulting. We simply dont see race as an issue. We can admire Thomas Paine without seeing his skin colour. Similarly, we can admire Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, or Frederick Douglass, with the same colourless admiration. I am certain those three, would wish us to see them, without race. Hakeems constant attempts to categorise all Western men, is becoming eerily similar to the racism he apparently doesnt like. Hakeems nonsense continues: You are so misguided by white privilege that you cannot even think of such basic racialized barriers to such discussions and want to absorb thinkers of color into your white philosophical traditions. - This is a beautifully crafted line of condescension and idiocy in which Hakeem, again, exhausts the object. I struggle to know where to begin. Firstly, I am almost certain that people who are not white, yet promote secularism, democracy, and the scientific method would be insulted at the suggestion that they are absorbed into white philosophical traditions. Hakeem is obsessed with race. He summarises my positions secularism, democracy, atheism as white traditions. Here, he completely disenfranchises anyone who isnt white, who has made valuable contributions to the progression of Western traditions. Frederick Douglass, dismissed. Democrat and secularist, Martin
8/12/13
Luther King, dismissed. Rosa Parks, breaking down racial barriers, dismissed. Neil deGrasse Tyson, dismissed. Nelson Mandela, dismissed. Recently, Maryam Namazie and her commitment to freedom of expression, and womens rights, dismissed. All of these people democrats, secularists, feminists, humanists are important names in the progress of what Hakeem calls white philosophical traditions. Hakeems refusal to acknowledge such wonderful names in the development of Western thought, goes to prove that his main problem is quite simply; those people arent advocating a Theocratic, Islamic Empire, and therefore, must be racist. Point 3: Hakeem then issues a diatribe of complete irrelevance, at the beliefs of Charles Darwin. Two points need to be made here. Firstly, I couldnt care less what Darwin personally believed, about, well, anything. I dont care what his favourite drink was. I dont care if he slept around. I dont care if he stripped naked in public and scared old ladies. I couldnt care less. My admiration for Charles Darwin is derived from his most wonderful discovery and his method. The very basis of modern biology, zoology, medicine, rests on the discovery Darwin so brilliantly made. Similarly, I enjoy the art of Caravaggio (a white, straight man; Im so racist/sexist/homophobic). My admiration for Caravaggios works, in no way suggests I condone the terrible crimes he committed. Secondly, only a fool/religious fanatic, would choose to place Darwin, the man, in the context of the 21st Century. Hakeem writes his confused mess from a point of privilege that Darwin didnt have the luxury of; because of the wonderful developments in genetics, and biology in the 100+ years since Darwins death, Hakeem has the hindsight to show us where Darwin was mistaken. Darwin did not have 21st century information, in the middle of the 19th Century. Darwin was of course influenced by the prejudices of his era. He also did not have a fully developed evolutionary theory. He was also limited by the prejudicial lexicon of his day, which is why we often see him use the term savages. Evolutionary theory, was in its infancy, and had centuries of religious intolerance, power, and dogma to contend with. Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1858, the same year as the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates. The slavery question had plagued both sides of the Atlantic for centuries, and now, in order to attempt to justify the unjustifiable, pro-slavery advocates were looking for scientific rationale for the institution, given that religious logic wasnt cutting it anymore. Arguments coming out of the pro-slavery camp, from writers like Fitzhugh, and Lewis Henry Morgan, were used to back up the prevalent idea at the time, that the African American race, had fallen away from God, become uncivilised and had no way of improving that condition. It was religious based logic. This wasnt lost on Muslims either. Ibn Khaldun (whose statue stands in Tunisia today) in the 15th Century said: The only people who accept slavery are the Negroes, owing to their low degree of humanity and proximity to the animal stage. - Hakeem of course, in trying to protect the vile structure of religious abuse and dogma, conveniently chooses to absent Islamic racist history, because it doesnt work to strengthen the system of horrendous power he advocates. Of course, Western religious writers were just as racist. John T. Roberts in 1878, wrote the book Adamites and Preadamites in which he suggests that Adam, was the father of the white race, and the black race, came from preadamites, who were to be treated like animals, as God had, by putting them on the ark, equal to animals. This is the level of racial prejudice advanced in Darwins
8/12/13
time. It was largely based on religion, but now demanded scientific rationale to back it up. Darwin did not offer that. If he were truly basing his work, on white supremacy, his findings would have been far different, and far similar to other notable naturalists at the time, whose findings were all made to fit racial prejudice. Darwin however, was neither trying to prove the white race superior, nor disprove it. He was trying to rationalise the very very limited evidence he had gathered. Here, in The Descent of Man from 1871, we see just how groundbreaking his research was, in breaking down the notions of white supremacy that dominated every aspect of life in mid-19th Century: I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a fullblooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate. - He was incessantly struck. Which suggests, the whole idea of such close similarities between races, up until that very moment, for Darwin, was unthinkable. This demonstrates the World he inhabited, the subconscious prejudices he inherited, and the importance of his work on progressing scientific understanding of race. He then completely blows away the argument that the white race and black race are from two separate lines ordained by God as superior and inferior: As it is improbable that the numerous and unimportant points of resemblance between the several races of man in bodily structure and mental faculties (I do not here refer to similar customs) should all have been independently acquired, they must have been inherited from progenitors who had these same characters. - An incredibly revolutionary idea for the time. Hakeem though, sees Darwin as being static. Like Muhammad. Whose thoughts are timeless. He is entirely incapable of understanding the difference between dogma, and method. Enlightenment methods, are what I appreciate. The famous names of the Enlightenment, I do not seek to emulate their personal lives and beliefs. They are not infallible. They were subject to the same cultural prejudices that we all are. Hakeem, cannot understand that concept. Being religious, dogma is all he knows. Darwin, whilst of course still displaying 19th Century prejudice, still managed to advance the argument beyond the understanding of the time. Darwin argued that people are not different species, that all people are descended from savages, that religion plays no part in the advancement of civilisation as suggested by his contemporaries, and that it was culture responsible for progression, not biological traits. He overturned the common ideas on race in the 21st Century, by providing scientific explanations. Of course, science is incomplete, and that was true of Darwins time. Darwin absolutely managed to somewhat break the barriers of the time. He was not a Prophet, he was not in contact with the Divine, and therefore, he cannot transcend the time period. Unfortunately for Hakeem, the same cannot be said for the Prophet Muhammad. The Prophet is in contact with a Being that can absolutely transcend all confines of time, which makes His laws, binding forever. His view is as right in 7th Century Middle East, is it is in 21st Century Britain, according to Muslims. And yet, that Being doesnt see fit to tell the Prophet that it might be unwise to marry a 9 year old girl, that it might lead to problems surrounding child marriage in future Patriarchal Islamic nations, and that, actually, it is just wrong. It just isnt on His list of cares. He intervenes to tell the Prophet to pray facing Mecca, yet doesnt bother to intervene to prevent the Prophet marrying a child. Which suggests that to Allah, child marriage isnt actually wrong in principle.
8/12/13
Darwin didnt have all the answers. His was a search dedicated to progression, over time. He set the tone. The Prophet Muhammad on the otherhand, apparently had all the answers, and they just so happened to be incredibly misogynistic, homophobic, violent answers. If criticism of Islam can be considered a race issue, that surely, Hakeems criticism of Atheism, has racist connotations. Well, yes, it would appear so: Point 4: Hakeems most impressively funny point: Neo-Atheism is the result of Western mans white supremacist ideology. - Bare in mind, no one else, other than Hakeem, has mentioned race at all up until this point, he is the one obsessed with pointing out just how shitty he considers white, Western people to be. (Islamist superiority complex, as I call it). He then goes on to contradict himself, by suggesting that it isnt only new Atheists that are the result of Western mans white supremacist ideology, but also, the free-thinkers of the Enlightenment: The European Age of Reason predictably coincided with pseudo-scientific racism, which classified blacks as being less than human, unworthy scum. - So, Atheism in general, is written off, as white supremacist by its very nature. I cannot even begin to tell you how insulting this is. How, Hakeem thinks Atheists are inherently white supremacists. This is a horrid line of reasoning, for which he offers no evidence. Secularism, and Democracy are not inherently racist ideologies. He is of course, quite right, that the 18th/19th Enlightenment built on already established racist attitudes. But it also eventually began to crush them, as you would expect, from a method based on reason. The Enlightenment is named as it is, because it inspired rational thought based on available evidence, challenging religious dogma. It promoted progress, sometimes it got it wrong it eventually lead to the abolition of slavery (though, the Ottoman Empire continued to use slaves, until around 1890, 25 years after it was abolished in the US). It eventually lead to universal suffrage. It eventually lead to the decriminalisation of Homosexuality. Try being gay in Saudi Arabia. We musnt forget that the Enlightenment inherited racism and prejudice from religious societies of old. Christians had long been insisting that there was a World Wide Jewish conspiracy to kill Christian children (http://futiledemocracy.wordpress.com/2013/06/07/children-of-the-devil/). Religion is divisive by its very nature. Let us also not forget, that racism is most certainly not confined to the West (which Hakeem seems to be suggesting), and certainly not a completely new phenomena, created and perpetuated by the Colonial Western powers. Islam is no better. Al-Tabari, a very important Islamic historian and Quran commentator, writing in the 9th century, said: Arabs are the most noble people in lineage, the most prominent, and the best in deeds. - Itd take a brave Islamist to suggest Al-Tabaris blatant racism and Arab supremacy, is the result of white Western philosophy. It would take just as brave a man to suggest this superiority complex, isnt still prevalent among those wishing for a Pan-Arab Caliphate.
20/39 If we are to claim that philosophical traditions are the result of white supremacy we must also point
8/12/13
If we are to claim that philosophical traditions are the result of white supremacy we must also point out, that Islam, was based on Quraish supremacy, and so will naturally reflect the prejudices of the Quraish. Sahih Bukhari 9:89:329: Narrated Jabir bin Samura: I heard the Prophet saying, There will be twelve Muslim rulers (who will rule all the Islamic world). He then said a sentence which I did not hear. My father said, All of them (those rulers) will be from Quraish. In fact, it appears that the Prophet was hard at work forging racism, long before the Colonial powers took up the mantle. Sahih Bukhari 9:89:256: Narrated Anas bin Malik: Allahs Apostle said, You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian (black) slave whose head looks like a raisin. That racist tradition, was carried on. Renowned Islamic scholar Ibn Qutaybah said that Africans: are ugly and misshapen, because they live in a hot country. The great Islamic scientist, Nasir al-Din al-Tusi (also influenced by the prejudices of his time, much like Darwin) said: Many have seen that the ape is more capable of being trained than the Negro, and more intelligent. - Racism is far more prolific within the writings of certain revered Muslims, than any modern neoAtheist. Hakeems refusal to acknowledge horrendous racism in Arab nations, shows his intent to promote typically Islamist anti-Western hypocritical principles. Egyptian writer and journalist Mona Eltahawy noted that racism was responsible for police brutality in Egypt that led to the crackdown on Sudanese refugees. Eltahawy noted: The racism I saw on the Cairo Metro has an echo in the Arab world at large, where the suffering in Darfur goes ignored because its victims are black and because those who are creating the misery in Darfur are not Americans or Israelis and we only pay attention when America and Israel behave badly. - Lebanese singer Haifa Wehbe, wrote a song in which she refers to Nubian people in Egypt as monkeys. This is the result of pan-Arab nationalism, the notion that Muslim Arabs, are superior. Walid Phares, a Professor of Middle Eastern Affairs, wrote that Arabism and its desire to degrade indigenous non-Arabs, was an exercise in politico-cultural ethnic cleansing. Arabism another word for Islamist imperialism is racism. The Enlightenment promoted the concept of free thought, and social progression through reason, this gives room for prejudices to eventually be overcome, for improvement; a generation builds on the advancement of the previous generation, of course it struggles at times, and of course it doesnt get it right all of the time. But it places its faith in people regardless of skin colour, gender, or sexuality. We are seeing this today, with gay marriage becoming more and more accepted. This is an Enlightenment achievement, whilst the Catholic Church, and Islamists continue to humiliate gay
21/39
8/12/13
people. Islamism, promotes static dogma. It promotes 7th Century values that cannot update, nor progress. That is the difference. Of course, Hakeem will find some ridiculous way to blame the West for this, being the Islamist supremacist that he is. Point 5: Here, Hakeem gives us the true reason, that he dislikes all things that arent Islamic: They also seek domain over God; hence, they have adopted neo-atheism. What better way to rule God than to deny Gods very existence? - To summarise, Atheism threatens the power structures like Patriarchy that Hakeem holds so dear. He wishes to control people, with dogma. With threats of hell. With barbaric punishment that has no rational basis. He wishes people to be slaves to his faith. And so, as pointed out at the top of this article, he is willing to argue in the most ludicrous of terms, just to defend that illegitimate power structure that benefits him so much. He is obsessed with controlling others. He doesnt wish you to think for yourself. His whole miserable article can be summed up with that. And so, it isnt just criticism of the Prophet he now has a problem with, its Atheism itself. He categorises those who simply dismiss the idea of a God based on a lack of evidence, as white supremacists. The desperation of those seeking to uphold archaic power structures, is, Im sure youll agree, hysterical. Point 6: And after slowly losing all mental capacities, Hakeem treats us to the most hypocritical of all of his points: In the next article, I will explain why secular egalitarian ideologies such as socialism, anarchism, and secular humanism lack a moral foundation. - Great! More reasons why anyone who isnt Muslim, is inherently terrible. Philosophies he considers to be white (his words, not mine), are lacking a moral basis? By his own logic, we must conclude that Hakeem believes white people, do not have a moral basis. The idea of religion providing the only source for which morality is anchored, is an old one. It is an argument that was destroyed about 130 years ago by Kropotkin, and has been repeatedly destroyed over and over, yet seems to still be used by (admittedly, only a few now) religious apologists who have seemingly never read anything other than literature that backs up their own point. The suggestion of racism, to describe anyone who has a criticism of Islam, must stop. It is killing important discourse before it is allowed to begin. Islam is an idea, a concept. Nothing more. All ideas and concepts must be open to criticism, satire, and ridicule. This is how humanity progresses. I dislike the Prophet Muhammad. I find him to be a violent, sexual predator. I find him to be dangerous, I find his words and his deeds to be disastrous. I find him to be a fraud and a thug. This would be the case, whether he be white, black, Asian, straight, gay, male, female, tall, short and any other biological trait. If we are to suggest that criticism of Muhammad, is race based, then try to point specifically to the racist remarks of those doing the criticism. By being so broad in your suggestion that criticism of Islam or the Prophet is inherently racist, you simply seem overly defensive of your ideology, that you will play any taboo card, in order to try to discredit the argument in lieu of actually discrediting the argument. If we are to seriously suggest that criticism of the Prophet is inherently racist, then we must suggest that Islam itself has a race element, an ideology based on race (from the words of the Prophet, and famous racist scholars of Islam, this isnt far fetched)? If we note that Islam has no element based on race, then we must
8/12/13
conclude that criticism of Islam and its doctrines, are also not based on race. The Quran calls us unbelievers (whilst threatening us with hell), some Muslims call us Kuffar, Hakeem calls us neoAtheists. Either way, Hakeem, and others like him those without rational arguments are far more guilty of the discrimination that they claim to abhor, than theyd ever care to admit. 9 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: atheism, atheists, darwin, islam, racism, white supremacy | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
The Human Cost of the Bedroom Tax

July 30, 2013
i 3 Votes
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bedroom-tax-protest-008.jpg) In May this year, Liverpools Riverside Housing Association called for the urgent help of the Samaritans, to deal with the rising number of people on the brink of suicide because of the misery inflicted by the Bedroom Tax. The countrys most vulnerable and subsequently, the easiest for a Cabinet of millionaires to belittle, humiliate, and immiserate are having to pay (some, with their lives) for the failure of the Banks, and the offshore donors love affair with the Conservative Party.
23/39 In March this year, grandmother Stephanie Bottrill committed suicide, after telling neighbours that
8/12/13
In March this year, grandmother Stephanie Bottrill committed suicide, after telling neighbours that she couldnt afford to live any more. She could not afford the cost of living in her house, a home she had lived in for 18 years, because a government of millionaires decided she had too many spare bedrooms. Today the High Court ruled that the Bedroom Tax legally discriminates against people with disabilities, and so, could not be overturned by the Judiciary. The case brought by ten families who will suffer from the Bedroom Tax, had asked the court to determine that the rules do not recognise additional needs required by disabled people and families. The ten households that brought the case argued that the Discretionary Housing Payment was woefully inadequate. Shelter agreed. As did other charities in the sector. The wealthy judges, unsurprisingly, didnt. Firstly, it is important to note that the Court did find that the policy was discriminatory toward some disabled people. Try to remember that, when you hear the joyful response from Conservative MPs. They are expressing delight at the fact that they now have a legal right to discriminate against people with disabilities. This is the nature of the Conservative Party in 2013. In the coming days, we are likely to hear analysis on policy, on the Courts role in challenging policy, were likely to hear how the bedroom tax is already helping bring down costs, were likely to hear about logistics, and how unaffordable the housing situation is in the UK, were likely to hear about how the DHP is incredibly well funded and how Iain Duncan Smith finds everyone working at Shelter to be secret Marxists. All faceless, soulless discussion that works only to dehumanise the consequences of the policy. Were likely to hear all of this, from very wealthy individuals, in very large houses, coming from the gleaming faces of Iain Duncan Smith and others like him, who do not have to deal with the horrendous circumstances they choose to inflict upon the most vulnerable. For example, this charming chap:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/screen-shot-2013-07-30-at-11-46-171.jpg) - On a side note, disabled people arent the only people Bob Blackman insists are less than human. He also told BBC News that gay marriage legislation was wrong on principle, insisting it could only work between one man and one woman.. The Mirror (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uknews/bob-blackman-top-tory-mp-1492423) then exposed Blackman as a cheat. So, lets be clear, Bob Blackman and others like him, enjoy inflicting misery on others. He has no principles. He has hobbies. Those hobbies include contempt for anyone who isnt Bob Blackman. What we are unlikely to hear, are the human stories from those who will be most affected by todays decision. Those that are forced to make heartbreaking decisions. FutileDemocracy spoke to two of those people, and so here are their stories, in their own words: Jacqueline Leeson, in Lincolnshire has two children; Ashley and Jake. Jacqueline told me:
One child is suspected autistic spectrum, he has social difficulties, he also suffers from short
24/39
8/12/13
One child is suspected autistic spectrum, he has social difficulties, he also suffers from short term memory, dyspraxia of the mouth and petit mals, he has a life threatening allergy to grass and is asthmatic, my other son has short term memory and also is asthmatic, my son with the social difficulties spends much of his night time talking in his sleep, falling out of bed, crying out and making dashes to safety from his night terrors, hes now 11 and always been this way, I have a three bed house. A short time ago I managed to find an exchange to Cornwall to another three bedroom house. It was the closest I could get back to my family and it took over a year to find this exchange, the school down there had autistic and a short term memory units meaning both of my children would have been supported, where I live now none of this is available at all, in fact hardly any support in these areas are available. Cornwall council deemed I was going to be over housed and removed me the move even though my children had been accepted in the new school and the disability care was already being arranged. The bedroom tax has lost my childrens right to a better education and have their disabilities supported, Ive also lost my partner as hes working in Somerset as there is no work up here for his industry and the distance was too far for him to travel. My family have split up, my children have been left with the bare minimum chance of success and Im still nearly 300 miles away from my disabled Mum who is very poorly, all because of the bedroom tax. Jakes also had his DLA slashed as well by about 75 a week. - The Bedroom Tax especially when taken with other harsh cuts in this situation, not only punishes Jacqueline and her children, who are in a situation not of their own making, for wishing even a slightly better situation for herself and her children after years of difficulty. It is also a notice that the future must be bleak also. That their suffering is necessary. That Conservative policy, does not care much for family. That successive governments failure to deal with a housing crises, whilst Ministers in control of policy like the Bedroom Tax such as the truly insufferable Lord Freud sat back relaxed in the comfort of luxury, knowing they didnt have to act, because it didnt affect them. Lord Freud, incidentally, lives here:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/peopleonlycopyrightunknownlordfreudskentmansion Freud isnt the only one. Liberal Democrat leader and Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg insisted that the Bedroom Tax was necessary to deal with the 2,000,000 people on social housing waiting list, by evicting those in houses
8/12/13
that have one too many bedrooms than necessary. Incidentally, Nick Clegg, upon his appointment as Deputy PM, gets to live here, somewhere among the 3,500-acre, 115 roomed estate at Chevening. and he lives here, free:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/article-2014139-09c3c047000005dc865_468x309.jpg) - Though, he does have to share the 115 room Estate, with Foreign Secretary William Hague. So, he only has 113 spare rooms really. Sue North-Blake and her husband are having to cope with cutting down on the most fundamental necessities, like food, and heating. Their choice is; cut out meals, or leave their home. This is the reality of the choice handed to families that have to deal with the hardship of disabilities, by a government of multi-millionaires who themselves, own multiple mansions. My disabled husband and I live in a two bed bungalow. I am his full time carer. Because of his disabilities I use the second bedroom. It is NOT spare!. We applied for the DHP but were turned down because the council counts DLA as income, and said we should be using that to pay for the room. So we had to cut down on food, and in the winter the heating will just not go on. Yet if we had a night carer come in we would be able to have 2 bedrooms! The government is discriminating against married couples who need two bedrooms for medical reasons. So, the legacy of the Bedroom Tax is one which promotes further hardship for those in the most vulnerable of situations. Conservatives and their voters should of course be ashamed, but it isnt surprising. This is what Conservatives do. They measure the success of a government, by the wealth of its richest, rather than the poverty of its poorest. The real shame, should be reserved for the Liberal Democrats, whose support is necessary to enact such horrendous policy decisions. It is worth noting just who the Minister for Disabled People, Esther McVey, actually is. She spouts the usual Labours legacy defence whenever questioned on the human cost of her soulless policies. Do we really believe that if Labour had left a strong economy, a Tory government wouldnt be doing the exact same as what they are doing now? Do we really believe that this is all due to addressing the deficit, rather than a Conservative ideological dream? Do we really believe that
8/12/13
having spent thirty years extolling the virtues of leaving the most vulnerable to suffer by themselves, this is happening because it is necessary rather than a Conservative ideological dream? Well, one must examine Esther McVeys ideological leanings, for the answer. And it comes all too easily. It is unsurprising that McVey feels it necessary to inflict more misery upon those who need the most support, given that she is a keen supporter of Conservative Way Forward, a group that dedicates itself to the further realisation of Thatcherite principles. Thatcher; ideologically dedicated to removing as much State support for the most vulnerable as possible, promoting the truly monstrous care in the community scheme, alongside horrendously degrading and humiliating procedures in order to receive Disability Living Allowance. McVey is one part of the Thatcherite poison that infects the government and its disabled policy. The new PIP rules set to replace DLA, contain some awful details, when examined,(for example, the truly horrifying new rule that to qualify for Motability support, one must be unable to walk more than 20 metres) but again, when these people control the country, it is of no surprise that disabled people suffer the most. Im sure joyfully slashing support for those already having to cut down on food, and having to deal with unheated homes, and care for disabled family members, pushing more and more to the brink of suicide, comes easy to the heartless Esther McVey, and the 51,737.22 she claimed in expenses alone for 2012/2013. Hitting the Conservatives with real life stories of the misery that they purposely inflict upon the most vulnerable families, highlights just how monstrous their dehumanising policies are in the 21st century. Especially from a Party whose donors cash in so heavily on that misery. 2 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: bedroom tax, conservative party, high court, law, Liberal Democrats, politics, tories, uk | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
Trolling Racist Van.

July 29, 2013
i 45 Votes Stewart Lee once said that if political correctness had achieved one thing, it had forced the Conservative Party to cloak their inherent racism behind more creative language. This July confirmed that Lee may be onto something. The Tories have evolved from this catchy little 1964 Tory campaign leaflet distributed in Birmingham at the time:
27/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/toryrace1964conservativerascismmigrant1.jpg) To their new, far more subtle campaign, featuring more creative, yet similarly dirty language and imagery:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/untitled-12.jpg) The campaign has drawn condemnation from all sections of the political spectrum. From Lib Dem coalition partners like Business Secretary Vince Cable, who called the vans Stupid and offensive, to, amazingly, far right, anti-immigration Nigel Farage who quite rightly noted: The danger is that the kind of message that is being sent from these billboards will be taken not just by illegal immigrants but also by many people of settled ethnic minorities as being some sort of sign of open warfare. Even leader of Redbridge Council, Conservative Keith Prince was unhappy with his horrendous colleagues at the Home Office:
28/39 If we had been consulted, we would have warned strongly that, whatever effect this campaign
8/12/13
If we had been consulted, we would have warned strongly that, whatever effect this campaign might be intended to have on people who are in the country unlawfully, that message is far outweighed by the negative message to the great majority of people, from all backgrounds, who live and work together in Redbridge, peacefully, productively and lawfully. One cannot help but wonder if Lynton Crosby has recently invested in the van industry. It was of course, only a matter of time before this wretched little campaign fell victim to both Photoshop, and prank calls. And rightfully so. So here are a few of my favourite racist van trolls:
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/untitled-22.jpg)
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/ferge.jpg)
29/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bqwls8bciaeczbe.jpg)
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bqvvxmociaicrxo.jpg)
30/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/sketch.jpg)
31/39
8/12/13
32/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/bqlpcxrceaatcb41.jpg)
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/racist-van-81.jpg)
33/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/untitled-71.jpg) As with all failing Tory campaigns, this particular nasty campaign complete with a thinly veiled, menacing threat naturally used to pass through poorer, multi-ethnic areas of London is already being touted as a success by the Home Office, without actually producing evidence to confirm. Child-like, EDL-style fear tactics, with NF procured phrases like go home, designed to spark up community mistrust, suspicion and division, rather than measured and humane approaches, to, well, anything, seems to be the basis by which all Tory policies are formulated. 45 Comments | humor, humour, left wing, liberal | Tagged: conservative party, David Cameron, humour, immigration, labour, liberal democrat, politics, racist van, satire, tory party, uk | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy
Galloway: When you defend Hamas

July 28, 2013
i 7 Votes
34/39
8/12/13
(http://futiledemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/45554623_007000411-2.jpg) It has become a sort of badge-of-honour on the Galloway-left, to insist upon how much one is concerned for human rights, and emancipation, by announcing how much one despises Israel, whilst, weirdly, choosing to ignore the repugnant nature of the religious fanatics that control Palestine. Moreover, some even choose to not only ignore groups like Hamas, but also defend groups like Hamas. Where defending Hamas principles becomes quite obviously impossible, they tend to shift the focus of the argument onto Israel, or the US. It tends to become a the enemy of my enemy, is my friend line of argument. This seems to be a little intellectually bankrupt to me. George Galloway is notably impressive at not simply ignoring his close friends over at Hamas, but joyfully defending his good friends over at Hamas, regardless of their tactics. For Galloway, the ends justify the means. Galloway is also quite remarkable at denying he does such things. In 2009, Galloway delivered an address in Gaza, in which he proudly states that he will be funding Hamas. Here: I, now, here, on behalf of myself, my sister Yvonne Ridley, and the two Respect councillors Muhammad Ishtiaq and Naim Khan are giving three cars and 25,000 pounds in cash to Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. Here is the money. This is not charity. This is politics. Later, Galloway insisted he actually doesnt fund Hamas at all. It was all presumably Western, Zionist, Neo-Con lies: I didnt give any money to Hamas, I gave it to the ministry of health in Gaza to pay for the salaries of the doctors and nurses who hadnt been paid. By the way, were talking about 20 odd thousand pounds, not millions. Its a symbolic donation. I gave it to the ministry of health in Gaza and Im proud to have done so. He goes on: Maybe the Americans, the British, the Israelis dont recognise Ismail Haniyah as the Prime Minister of Palestine, BUT WE recognise Ismail Haniyah as the Prime Minister of Palestine.
35/39 - This horrendous sentiment summarises just why Galloway must be considered of the Islamist far-
8/12/13
- This horrendous sentiment summarises just why Galloway must be considered of the Islamist farright, rather than of anything even slightly left. Ismail Haniyah referred to Osama Bin Laden as a Muslim warrior whose soul rests in peace. Haniyah is also imperialistic, believing the entire region Islamic by divine right. He believes that peace with Israel can only come about, if they agree to give up Jerusalem, for no other reason, than being under the delusion that his particular fairy-sky man divinely ordained it for Muslims. If support for violent Islamist imperialism, based on faith is what passes for left in the 21st Century, keep it.
- So flippant. So ignorant. For all their mistakes. This is a wonderful way to so effortlessly underplay the violent imperialism, so contrary to liberal, left wing ideals that Galloway at other times professes. Incidentally, for all their mistakes is better articulated by Amnesty: The human rights violations perpetrated have included killings of fugitives, prisoners and detainees, injuries caused by severe physical violence, torture and misuse of weapons, the imposition of house arrest, and other restrictions that have been imposed on civil society organisations. - Oh just simple mistakes then. Nothing to stop Galloway funnelling money to the leadership thereby perpetuating the inherently oppressive nature of Hamas. When you defend Hamas by flippantly dismissing their guiding principle of Theocratic imperialism, you defend violence against other religious minorities in the West Bank, simply for being nonIslamic. In 2006, a Christian YMCA was burnt to the ground in Hamas-controlled Qalqiliya, by Hamas members. The Christians crime? Being missionaries. A petition had previously been sent to local authority, by Muslim groups demanding: We the preachers of the mosques and representatives of major families in Qalqiliya ask you to close the offices of the YMCA because the population of Qalqiliya doesnt need such offices, especially since there are not many Christians in our city. The act of these institutions of the YMCA, including attempting to convert Muslims in our city, will bring violence and tension. - It isnt just in the West Bank that Christians must be fearful of how the Galloway-funded imperialists running the show might treat them. Imad Jelda, an Orthodox Christian who runs a Youth Training Centre in Gaza, said: People here do not celebrate Christmas anymore because they are nervous. The youth in particular have a fear inside themselves. - This, after Hamas worked to ensure no Christmas tree would be allowed any more in Gaza City, and Christmas no longer celebrated as a public holiday. Families are split, as Christians travel abroad to enjoy their freedom, leaving older family members in Gaza, unable to celebrate Christmas alone, and unable to celebrate with their dearly missed loved ones. This is the reality of the group Galloway chooses to fund.
8/12/13
But his own logic, appears to contradict his actions. Despite his deep involvement and love affair with the Hamas leadership, when talking to a caller on the subject of underrage marriage in Saudi Arabia, Galloway said: What happens in Saudi Arabia is none of your business. It is your business, what happens in Britain. - Well, George, what happens in Palestine is none of your business, and yet you seem more than happy to be funding a group that willfully attacks and threatens the rights of minorities. Galloway is of course very hypocritical, but a typical Islamist. Anything that gets in the way of Theocratic dominance, is deemed to be imperialism, whilst Islamist imperialism, is defended, and promoted. When you defend Hamas by flippantly ignoring their guiding principle of Theocratic imperialism, you defend their murder sprees. If then, you happen to be George Galloway, your 2005 election victory speech seems to be laden with hypocrisies: Mr Blair, this defeat is for Iraq and the other defeats that New Labour has received this evening are for Iraq. All the people you have killed and all the loss of life have come back to haunt you and the best thing that the Labour Party can do is sack you tomorrow morning. - The key to this, is his focus on innocent lives lost. Well, then we must play by Galloways standard. Lets remember that Galloway not only defends Hamas, he also willfully funds them. This, despite knowing that a year prior to his 2009 funding effort, three Hamas members blew themselves up at Kerem Shalom border crossing, injuring thirteen people. Any attacks, following this, and following his funding effort, Galloway must shoulder some responsibility for, if we are to play by his own logic. For example, a year after Galloway so whimsically and joyfully funded Hamas, the imperialist group attacked an Israeli settlement near Kiryat Arba, in which Tali Ames, a woman nine months pregnant was murdered along with her partner. They had a five year old child. Kochava Even Chaim was also killed. She was a teacher, with an 8 year old child. Hamas hailed the massacre of pregnant women, and a teacher with a young child, as a heroic operation. Galloway then, knew of Hamas violence, and innocent deaths prior to funding them. He then funded them. And more pointless deaths, achieving nothing, occurred. By his own logic, George Galloway a man who funds a group who find the murder of mothers, and pregnant women to be heroic is partly responsible for the deaths of those people. I hope, by his own words, the loss of life, and those killed, haunt him. I doubt they will. When you defend Hamas by flippantly ignoring their guiding principle of Theocratic imperialism, you defend the increasing crackdown on human liberties throughout Hamas-controlled areas. Those of us on the progressive left, support the right for human beings to love whomever they wish. Gender is irrelevant. We must always support gay rights, and oppose those who wish to oppress. Galloway-funded Hamas, incidentally, wish to oppress gay rights in abhorrent ways. For example, Shaul Ganon, of Agudah, a gay rights group in the region, said: I know of two cases in the last three years where people were tried explicitly for being homosexuals,they were both beheaded.
Dr. Mahmoud Zahar (seen stood next to George Galloway in this video
37/39
8/12/13
Dr. Mahmoud Zahar (seen stood next to George Galloway in this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSsxsMg8Db8) a co-founder and senior leader of Hamas, described gay people as being: a minority of perverts and the mentally and morally sick. - Does this fall under the flippant for all their mistakes that George Galloway thinks isnt important enough to warrant his express condemnation, and cessation of funding? Where is Galloways outrage at the imperial, anti-human rights, destruction of all things those of the left should be fighting to protect against? It isnt just gay people that Galloways friends over in Hamas have issues with. Predictably, for Islamic Theocrats, they dont particularly like women either. In 2009 (the year Galloway chose to fund Hamas) the feminist, secularist writer and journalist (those who we on the Left should absolutely be showing solidarity toward) Asma al-Ghul was detained by Hamas, for the terrible crime laughing loudly, around male friends, and not wearing a Hijab. alGhul says: They also wanted to know the identity of the people who were with me at the beach and whether they were relatives of mine. - Subsequently, the men who were with her, were detained, and beaten. This was in July, 2009. Galloway funded Hamas earlier that year. Perhaps his money went to paying the salaries of the Hamas officials who beat men, for hanging around with a woman who dared to laugh. In March this year, the UN cancelled a planned Marathon in Gaza, because Hamas banned women from participating. Hamas Cabinet secretary, Abdul-Salam Siam said: We dont want women and men mixing in the same race. We dont want any woman running uncovered. - George Galloway therefore, funded a group dedicated to Patriarchy and controlling women. A month before George Galloway stood in solidarity with the Hamas leadership, promising them funds, Amnesty reported: Hamas gunmen have shot dead at least two dozen men since the end of December last year. In the same period, scores of others have been shot in the legs, subjected to severe beatings which caused multiple fractures and other injuries, or otherwise tortured or ill-treated, according to evidence given to Amnesty International. Most of the victims were abducted from their homes; they were later dumped dead or injured in isolated areas, or were found dead in the morgue of one of Gazas hospitals. Some were shot dead in the hospitals where they were receiving treatment for injuries they sustained in the Israeli bombardment of Gazas Central Prison. - Presumably George Galloway saw this, and thought. Yes! Abducting people from their homes, shooting them in the legs, dumping their bodies in isolated areas, is the epitome of freedom fighting! Lets fund them! As of April this year, the Education Ministry in Gaza, has decided men are no longer allowed to teach girls in schools, and boys and girls are not allowed to share classrooms, after the age of 9. Why? Because Allah! Thats why! It is of course possible for those of us on the left to oppose restrictions placed on Gaza by Israel, to 38/39
8/12/13
It is of course possible for those of us on the left to oppose restrictions placed on Gaza by Israel, to oppose the similar religious extremism of the far-right in Israel that undoubtedly fuel the fire of Islamic extremism in the region, and help empower Islamist groups like Hamas. We can do this, whilst simultaneously condemning absolutely everything Hamas do, everything they say, and everything they stand for. George Galloway is not of the left. He is not a fan of democracy. He does not support secularism; choosing instead to fund a group dedicated to combining church and State. He funds a group dedicated to eroding civil liberties, and democratic rights. He funds a group dedicated to the imperialistic dream of Islamism; to control land they believe is theirs by nothing more than a childlike my God said its mine! rationale. He funds a group dedicated to achieving that imperialist goal, even if it means massacring pregnant women and innocent mothers. He funds a group willing to behead gay people, and detain feminists. He funds, and supports a group that wishes to impose a violently strict code of barbaric Islamist morality. This is the antithesis of left-wing, liberal principles, and should be resisted at every opportunity. 5 Comments | Uncategorized | Tagged: atheism, atheists, galloway, hamas, islam, israel, left wing, palestine, politics | Permalink Posted by futiledemocracy Futile Democracy
Blog at WordPress.com. The Contempt Theme.
39/39

Richard Dawkins, Mehdi Hasan, and The Tale of The Night Journey.

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Richard Dawkins, Mehdi Hasan, and The Tale of The Night Journey.

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

8/12/13

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Dawkins, Hasan, and the Tale of the Night Journey.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

The Search for Muhammad: Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Capitalism and Language

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Vile Product of Welfare UK.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Islam, racism, and answering a critic.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

The Human Cost of the Bedroom Tax

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Trolling Racist Van.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Galloway: When you defend Hamas

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Futile Democracy | Political and Philosophical ramblings of a 20 something English leftie.

Blog at WordPress.com. The Contempt Theme.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen