BBC’s sharia promo
To: BBC, Ajmal Masroor (via form)
Dear BBC,
It was like seeing a TV programme showing what possible good fascism might have given Britain. BBC One entertained us with ‘Celebrity Lives — Sharia Style’ on Monday evening March 9th. It showed what possible good Sharia Law might bring Britain. It was nauseating.
Ajmal Masroor, a London imam and often described as a moderate Muslim, presented the programme. He (inadvertently) showed near the end why the introduction of Sharia Law in Britain was a bad idea. ‘Was’, as some Sharia courts are already active. One (Muslim) woman argued that there are several versions of Sharia Law with various levels of strictness and therefore cause for dispute among Muslims themselves. Which version should be introduced?
Actually, I think ‘dispute’ puts it rather mildly. As so much in the programme was. Favourable examples of positive influence by Sharia Law had been carefully put together. A few women of fame and infamy passed by. Selective examples from selected parts of selected Sharia Law made things look good. Or not too bad.
What the natives thought about the idea was rather absent. A few ignorant natives in the street were asked if they knew what Sharia meant and all but one had no clue. Those who did probably got lost on the floor of the editing room. Most of the ‘British’ you saw in the programme looked as if they were living in a faithful part of Pakistan or similar devout place. Most women that passed by in the background during the programme wore the freedom bringing head-to-toe full black with small ‘don’t walk into the wall’ top-slit. Most were black zombies, enslaved by Islamic madness. And they were supposed to show Britain?
Well, dear BBC, dear Mr Ajmal Masroor, I’m no British native but a native from Holland. The way I see it is this: take it or leave it. Literally. You come to settle over here, settle in Britain or Holland forever, you want to become British, or Dutch? Fine, although the numbers are a problem. However, if you come, you adapt to the ways and laws of the land. Perhaps you bring your spices but that is about it.
- - - - - - - - -
You do not fanatically continue being a Pakistani, a Moroccan or Nigerian. You do not enforce your culture, your religious idiosyncrasies, your way of life on the natives. We did so during our colonial past and it wasn’t well appreciated. It isn’t well appreciated by the natives here either. Then the natives eventually asked us to leave or kicked us out. I hope it doesn’t come to that up here.
Laws should be based on a collective common sense and sense of justice. The introduction of laws should be voted on by elected people. In any case, laws should not be based on the presumed uttering of some guy who heard voices fourteen hundred years ago. That is lunacy.
I see Islam as evil. There is no God, any god. There is no evidence for a higher being. Islam is a horrible manmade doctrine enslaving a billion people. Its Sharia Law — any version — is a perversion, a travesty. It is very personally intrusive and unpleasant at best, sadistic and brutal at worst. If necessary, this native will fight to prevent a single letter of Sharia Law ever to worm its way into our Dutch Law. No matter how flawed our laws may be.
If you don’t like the British or Dutch way, if it doesn’t go well with your beliefs, fine. Pack your bags and move to Pakistan, Morocco or wherever you think people are more friendly towards your beliefs. Please stop the enforcing of Islamic crap, stop the Sharia sweet-talking and propaganda. That goes for the BBC as well.
Kindest regards,
Michiel Mans
19 comments:
I thought his point about the double standard on colonization was excellent. Third world countries eventually kicked out their colonizers who wanted to change the ways of the natives. Now those third world citizens invade the West and set about changing customs, laws etc. to their liking. The result should be the same. Tell them to knock it off, "When in Rome and all that" and if they won't, kick them out.
Of course, there's a major difference. Although both scenarios had natives who promoted the new ways, they had different motivations. In India, for example, locals adopted much of the British system because they honestly thought it was a better way of doing things and would lead to progress for their countries. In the West right now, leftists push the ways of the invaders on us under the guise of PC not because they believe in them (they believe the opposite on everything except love of totalitarian methods) but because they are using them to break down institutions to make way for their communist utopia. They are ferrying the scorpion across, thinking to direct his sting, stupidly not realizing that they will be among the first bitten when the scorpion comes into its own.
Michiel Mans "... There is no God, any god. ..."
And therein lies the tale -- this is why "Europe" is dying.
lainewrote Third world countries eventually kicked out their colonizers who wanted to change the ways of the natives. Now those third world citizens invade the West and set about changing customs, laws etc. to their liking. The result should be the same. Tell them to knock it off, "When in Rome and all that" and if they won't, kick them out.
"kicking out" was not done by the authority but by the "natives" themselves. People power has to come first, then leaders will naturally spring up to ride the new wave.
llion
Indeed. If one gets rid of anything higher them MAN, then all morality except the individual's own, vanishes. Traditional marriage, which was the bond that held the family together, and hence the community and the nation, becomes just another secular rite to which all can partake, regardless of any criteria.
Here is an interesting story highlighted at VFR
No, not horribly incompetent writing, but normalized perversion
DP111, thanks. I read VfR (though I no longer try to correspond with Mr Auster ... and I presume that even if I did he has any note I might send him auto-routed to the "trash" bin), and I'd seen that one.
"At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war."
Christian Europe? No longer. Now it's Enlightened Europe... so enightened that it has betrayed every single one of its principles.
With mixed success we've been coasting on our religious heritage all these years... a tough glue, but the Enlightenment solvent has pretty much cleared it away. Now we're free - where perhaps a decent society shouldn't ought to be: family, life, morals, notions of sacred... and powerless on all the most important issues.
Against an incredìbly crafty and powerful force that has weathered 1400 of history (most of it fighting Christianity) we place our trust in an Islamic version of an "Enlightenment" which has reduced us to the state of our present Universities, birth crises, vulgarity, broken homes, wishy-washy convictions.
They're dumb but they're not stupid, we're brilliant but we're not smart.
The real and only enlightenment began with the separation of the sacred from the secular. The famous separation of church and state. The French Enlightenment took this unique and amazing gift of our religious heritage and got rid of the sacred, replacing it with unguided reason. Since then, by degrees, we've been freeing ourselves from just about everything that smacks of unreasonability: responsability, family, morals, patriotism, conviction, courage, beauty, love of place.
"Enlightened" Europe
I wrote about that here
For those curious, this seems to be the program (found on Youtube). Good luck, I could feel the nausea starting before I even got through the first ten minutes: Celebrity Lives - Sharia Style: part 1 of 4
Generally speaking this is an excellent letter and a fair rebuttal of the BBC's biased nonsense and double standards.
However, like previous posters I must take issue with this casual dismissal of god and all religion.
I'm not religious myself, but I recognise that nominally, this (in my case the UK) is a Christian country. Its laws and institutions derive from this inescapable fact.
If we are to have any success in turning the tide of cultural relativism and leftism, traditional Judeo-Christian values must have a place. As far as I can see, the former have partly sprung up to fill the void left by the latter.
Without a higher order, there can be an internalised, fairly uniform moral code only with great difficulty.
As far as I can tell, most of our current problems in the West stem from individuals not recognising right from wrong, and behaving accordingly.
Religion, practised in a civilised manner compatible with some of our current freedoms, seems a large part of the solution to that.
As much as I hate oppression and stifling uniformity, this 'you can't tell me what to do' attitude seems to be slowly strangling us.
Ciao Homophobic Horse,
The analysis you linked to is plainly absurd. As you don't like "Logicalness being the first test of truth" I won't bother to tell you why... but I'll give you a hint... Concentrate on who took Christ down from the cross and just left the wood, the intellectualized "symbol"... who did away with the magisterium and orthodoxy and replaced it with Sola Scriptura (the Wikipedia of morals). Who broke the unity of Christendom... Think about who never succumbed to the rather strong and logical and tantalizing reasons for contraception, divorce and homosexuality and instead who did. Who stuck up for transubstantiation and who didn't. Who came out with the fantastically absurd and risible concept of papal infallibility in a snickering world already enamored of Nietzsche. Who had a paragon of scholastic logic the likes of St. Francis?
My friend, it's not logic versus transcendance... It's both. That's what originally made us, the West.
I've spent so much time trying to defend my church from accusations of being irrational that it's a pleasure considering the converse... that we caused the supremecy of reason (in the so-called Dark Ages no less!).
What "lapsed" Catholics believe in doesn't interest me much. I don't blame the Beatles for the Monkeys. That the faults of plenty of Catholics are those in vogue makes plenty of sense. The prime targetof the Enlightenment was the Church... and so it is to this day. That will explain many things. Broken families, (false) multi-culturalism, Marxism, sexual license and a certain perverse proclivity for favoring the Muslims. The prime enemy of Zapatero is the church.
Your analysis is entirely based on a damned if you do, damned if you don't prejudice.
Who venerates and continues to venerate the Blessed Virgin? How can God have a mother and a virgin no less? Who took the man down from the cross and God out of our hearts. Who preached predestination instead of free will? Who put down good works and insisted on sola fide? Who insists on fallen man and sin? Who stretched Galileo and the Inquisition completely out of shape as to be synonymous with irrationality. Idem for the Crusades.
Who the hell wants a religion afraid of logic? In due time it will become apparent that they are the same ones who want a society without religion.
Still crazy after all these years.
"The Catholic church, being a Western church, has always contained that special feature of the Western mind: reliance on the logical syllogism. "
The logical syllogism and dialectics predate the Catholic church. My comment suggests that the decline begins in earnest after the renaissance and reformation, so it isn't an attack on the core of the Catholic church at all. If anything you could say that west was saved from itself by the Catholic church, something you would perhaps agree with.
llion
VFR has some nobel and interesting take on things, but quite understand your position.
The article that I linked to is interesting in the way that the MSM will go to obfuscate the issue at hand, not realising that thereby they shed more light on themselves then on the subject they wish to illuminate.
Belief in God or an afterlife seems to me to be a very human thing to do; it denotes awe and humility at the mystery of existence. I have noticed a tendency towards arrogance and intellectual superiority amongst some who state that they know that God/afterlife does not exist. For starters, just how do they come by this knowledge? Pass it on pl.
Perhaps humanity ought to be enlightened enough not to need fear of retribution from on high for misdeeds; but for many people, myself included, it can be helpful to believe or even to imagine that some 'other' is taking notes. I’d rather have the God of my choice taking notes than the Stasi or KGB. It was remarkable how following the declaration that God was dead several decades ago, Western morality and culture nose-dived. Into this vacuum has poured the Religion of Peace and its practitioners are ensuring their particular version of 'God' will be taking plenty of notes.
Laine I’m in 95% agreement with you, the only point I would question is: “...they honestly thought it was a better way...lead to progress”. I would say that it was a better way and it has led to progress, medical, educational, scientific and social. There may well have been some cultural losses or changes, but every former colony is free to restore their old ways if they so wish. What is happening in Britain and Europe, I’m sure you’ll agree, is that the indigenes are pre-empting dissolution of their civilization in order to appease and avoid conflict. Our leaders are adapting our laws, customs and way of life to accommodate a hostile and alien belief system; A belief system that obligates its practitioners to annihilate by stealth or by force the civilization of the West.
Decatur wrote,
-"I have noticed a tendency towards arrogance and intellectual superiority amongst some who state that they know that God/afterlife does not exist. For starters, just how do they come by this knowledge? Pass it on pl."-
I’m probably one of these arrogant heathens. However, it is not the non-believers who have to come up with proof of non-existence. It is the believers who have to come up with proof of existence of a deity, a higher being. This because they claim, demand and enforce al kinds of stuff based on what their god (gods) or some vague intermediate has 'told' them. Often rather a long time ago. As yet, there is not a shred of evidence for the existence of any god. Therefore I wonder. Who are the real arrogant people?
Michiel, Thank you for your response.
I don't see why anyone really has to come up with any proof of a deity one way or t'other. Surely it’s up to the individual, a matter of faith or choice? In my case it’s the awareness of existence that leads me to consider some other form of life is quite possible, so naturally I’m perplexed when similarly existing people say they know that what I believe is wrong. (Perhaps no-one else exists and I’m really all alone here? Oh dear!). But why should anyone have to prove God exists? It’s all about freedom of choice isn’t it? If the folks find it helps them keeps society running in an orderly fashion that seems to be to the good.
All belief systems are liable to excesses; it’s up to the folks to be vigilant. I’ve found that many people who choose not to believe in supernatural beings, particularly those of the Judeo Christian variety, generally don’t like being judged, and quite often they will turn to a less restrictive religion such as Wicca, Gaia, astrology or another pagan system. Some choose the belief system that eliminates deities altogether, e.g. Marxism, Atheism etc. and leave it up to the state to control people’s actions and beliefs. As I pointed out in my post it is those societies that remove or lose belief in a judgmental god that tend to fall into excess and eventually into totalitarian control.
In the end it’s surely about what you feel comfortable with and as I stated before, I’m mystified by what I detect as an arrogant tone with some atheists, - their absolute certainty in the face of existence. You seem to think you might be one such person, as I don’t know you I would not attempt to make that judgment. I do think that today, belief in another higher form of life, hopefully it’s benevolent & kindly, helps to keep civilization intact and Totalitarianism (which includes The 'Religion of Peace' ) at bay.
I should point out that apart from our differences over the existence of a deity, I applaud your letter and agree wholeheartedly.
Thanks again.
Michiel: "I’m probably one of these arrogant heathens."
Well, let's examine the question.
Michiel: "However, it is not the non-believers who have to come up with proof of non-existence. It is the believers who have to come up with proof of existence of a deity, a higher being."
Yeppers! You are an "arrogant heathen" ... or at least an ignorant one. You see, what you are asserting is that the Christian must get *your* approval before he has the right to believe in God.
The simple truth of the matter is that *you* have every bit as much an intellectual duty to rationally support your 'atheism' as the believer does to support his "theism." Unfortunately for you, atheism is rationally and logically untenable. Why do you think most so-called atheists seek always to evade their duty on the matter?
But, let's give you the benefit of the doubt and go with "ignorant." Now, the next question is, Is this 'ignorance' willfull? That is, are you open to having it corrected?
Here's the short of it: *YOU* are the proof that God exists. Here is an explanation of what I just said. (see post #177) (I'm sorry about the misformatting of that post, I hope that isn't too off-putting) If you want to discuss this, it would probably be better to do so here, as I don't think I'd get an email notification if you posted something on that blog.
IoshkaFutz: "... but I'll give you a hint... Concentrate on who took Christ down from the cross and just left the wood, the intellectualized "symbol"... "
Uh, Joseph of Aramathea?
You know, the whole point of the Incarnation was Easter, not Good Friday.
IoshkaFutz: "Who the hell wants a religion afraid of logic? In due time it will become apparent that they are the same ones who want a society without religion."
No sane man, certainly. I started to say "No rational man," but as your second sentence indirectly points out, the enemies of Christ *can* be narrowly rational.
Decatur wrote,
-“I don't see why anyone really has to come up with any proof of a deity one way or t'other. Surely it’s up to the individual, a matter of faith or choice?”-
If only it was. Try to get into politics in the USA as an atheist. In many parts of the world you have no ‘choice’. Religious beliefs are fed into to you from childhood. Or as James Randi said: ‘there is freedom of religion but no freedom from religion.’
... because, after all, it is far more important to oppose Christianity (and so what if one needs to be disingenuous in that worthy effort?) than to work to save one's life and the life of one's civilization.
Post a Comment