On Israel and Gaza...

[July 2014]
An article by moralistic left wing figurehead, media darling and increasingly suspect Owen Jones, uses news of recent events in Israel to convince his readers of the idea: rather than Israel's current ground invasion being a reaction to perpetual provocations and antagonism from Hamas militants in the Gaza strip; that Israeli "colonialism" and the "occupation of Gaza", has "corrupted the occupier", leading Israel to in his words: "dehumanize" the Palestinians, "because otherwise subjugation becomes impossible".

Whether Israel actually does "occupy" this land, formerly belonging to Egypt and annexed following the 1967 war, is a point of debate he seems to have completely overlooked in his portrayal of "the rationale" behind Israel's "occupation".

In 2005 Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli military bases and dismantled Israeli settlements, uprooting around 10,000 settlers amongst widespread domestic opposition, the moderate government of Fatah took over administration of Gaza, but within 2 years militant Muslim Brotherhood offshoot: Hamas -an Islamist organization which teaches holocaust denial in schools; has vowed to destroy Israel & kill all Jews; trained & glorified suicide bombers; encouraged Jihad against the west; praised Adolf Hitler and likewise Osama Bin Laden- had come to power after a period of bloody conflict with rival Palestinian faction, their own government Fatah.

Hamas is no democratic political party self righteous, paternalistic middle class liberals like Owen, who march on the streets of London with their face-paint and placards would recognize, it is a militant political organization set up with one aim in mind, the destruction of the entirety of the State of Israel.

"...the Jewish faith does not wish for peace nor stability, since it is a faith that is based on murder: 'I kill, therefore I am'... Israel is based only on blood and murder in order to exist, and it will disappear, with Allah's will, through blood and Shahids [martyrs]."
 Dr. Yussuf Al-Sharafi, Hamas representative, April 12, 2007; as reported by Palestinian Media Watch, April 23, 2007

"The Jews are the most despicable and contemptible nation to crawl upon the face of the Earth, because they have displayed hostility to Allah"
'Atallah Abu Al-Subh, former Hamas minister of culture, aired on Al-Aqsa TV, April 8, 2011, translation by MEMRI

By launching unguided rocket attacks it has hit schools, hospitals, people's houses and civilians in attempts to achieve this ridiculous aim, but even the most religiously deluded of Hamas supporters must be aware that they are not going to win a military battle against Israel, no matter how many rockets the Al Qassam Martyr's brigade fire over the border.

So the question must be asked why do they do it?

Well in my view it's part of an exercise in propaganda targeting the world at large, and psychological warfare against their own population, cultivating a deep and resounding hatred of Israel making recruitment of angry young Palestinian men alot easier than it might be if they didn't have a list of retaliatory Israeli attacks to mention.

You'll never hear the likes of Owen Jones or any members of the various 'Plebs for Palestine' protest groups that exist in the West ask why Palestinians use schools for storing missiles and weaponry, or hospitals and women and children as shields to launch rocket attacks on Israel, infact you'll never hear them mention a bad word against Hamas' tactics in general, they quite often suggest that under the 'illegal, apartheid occupation of Israel' any actions are justified, though they stop short of openly advocating terrorism they do not denounce it.

And this is where the propaganda takes effect, when Israel inevitably takes action bombing weapon cache's or the places where missiles are being launched from, Western observers immediately take to the media, to the internet and to the streets to condemn the 'heavy-handed response' of the Nation under attack, when hospitals, schools and civilians inevitably suffer from the actions of Hamas, pictures of the civilians caught in the crossfire, of the after effects of Hamas' policy of using human shields and storing weapons in schools are almost immediately dispatched and widely shared, and the idea of arbitrary Israeli destruction, lies and cries of 'genocide' propagated along with them.

It is by these methods that Hamas uses the deaths of it's population to gain credibility and sympathy in the International community, that Israel becomes a pariah state facing condemnation from all corners of the world, and that peace is further precluded, the ease with which people fall into dichotomies of who's right and who's wrong, good verses evil causing irreconcilable divisions.

"As the vilest Writer has his Readers, so the greatest Liar has his Believers; and it often happens, that if a Lie be believ’d only for an Hour, it has done its Work, and there is no farther occasion for it. Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it; so that when Men come to be undeceiv’d, it is too late; the Jest is over, and the Tale has had its Effect"
Johnathan Swift, The Examiner 1710

On Syrian Refugees... [and the fruits of anti-interventionist idealism]

The War in Syria ongoing since Spring 2011, and consequent suffering of the Syrian people, has at last gripped the public consciousness, but it took dead babies washing up on the shores of Turkey, -as their desperate families try to flee the region- before well meaning middle class Western liberals decided 'something must be done'.

Now we see a myriad of digital petitions aswell as articles in the Independent and Guardian, demanding in their traditional, self-righteous way, that Britain must do more to ease the plight of those fleeing the region, by opening the door to the most desperate and destitute refugees among them, and more importantly writing a message on a piece of plain a4 or preferably a3 paper.

Needless to say a number of Politicians and public personalities have heeded this righteous call. Never wanting to miss a chance to improve their public image they now suggest the moral thing to do is to act! That we can't just sit idly by enjoying our privilege and freedoms while the long suffering people of the Middle East flee in droves. Which is exactly what they've been doing for years, but now they've decided it's the wrong course of action, they're gracious enough to tell everybody else what to do.

Why has it taken so long for the moral outrage and self righteous voice of the liberal middle classes to be heard on this issue, where have they been for the past four years?

Well, perhaps a little paradoxically they have actually been very vocal on the issue of Syria, particularly by opposing and attempting to block any attempts by Western Government's to intervene and assist the Syrian people while their homes were being shelled, chemical and biological bombs being dropped on them and military helicopters were strafing them through the streets of Damascus.

Why were the Syrian people subject to these attempts of annihilation at the hands of the Syrian State?

For merely daring to attempt the overthrow of the nepotist dictatorship of hereditary ruler Bashar Al-Assad's Ba'ath party, for attempting to assert their right to a say in how their country was governed.

Traditional anti-Western, middle class rabble rousers such as Robert Fisk and John Pilger, supporters of anyone who claims to oppose 'American Imperialism'; George Galloway and The SWP and new recruits like Owen Jones and the 'Stop the War' coalition were among the foremost critics of attempts by various Western Governments to help the Syrian people, while they were being shelled, shot, imprisoned and tortured. They were leant credibility (or not depending on your perspective) by the likes of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Russia State Sponsored media outlet Russia Today, whoever the Chinese bureaucrat responsible for Foreign Affairs is, and obviously the autocratic regime of Iran and their State ran Press TV, all interests with a very strong motive for discrediting and destabilizing the West while portraying it as interfering in their own sphere's of influence.

This liberal mediocracy formerly opposed to doing anything for the Syrian people because of their isolationist and idealistic 'anti-war' views, are now the same people saying something must be done, that we must act humanely, that 'we must open our arms and welcome these poor, suffering, fearful and dispossessed people', in all likelihood they'd have never been in this position if Western Governments had ignored the sentimental moralizing of their populace and acted in 2013 or sooner.

Perhaps the greatest argument against democracy in the last 10 years is being provided everyday by the populations of democratic societies, particularly those who dance to the media tune, are they still so proud of their pacifism now it's effects have come to fruition?

I think that's unlikely, they will probably just do what they always do and blame 'the West' for the plight of the refugees from Syria and other assorted war torn countries.

I wonder if this huge clamour to "help" them now that they are dispossessed, robbed of all dignity, security, independence, homeland and heritage, will go some way to assuage the guilty conscience these moralo-idealists should, but likely don't feel, over their insistence that 'the West' leave Al-Assad unhindered in his quest to entirely destroy the Syrian people?

 

Archaic Ritual of Royal Ascension

Despite humanity now having apparently entered the 21^st century, within the next few years what we’re told is a civilized country, namely the United Kingdom is likely to be confronted by, the extremely rare spectacle of archaic ritual, traditionally accompanying the accession and anointing of a Nations new divinely ordained Ruler.

Prince Charles is currently preparing to replace Queen Elizabeth II, and assume his hereditary privilege as the United Kingdom’s Head of State, “Defender of Faith” & “King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and other commonwealth realms”, a mouthful I know, but the British people have been taught to swallow it from a very early age.

Surely this has no significance to our lives today?

We’ve all heard the news: “Britain has progressed from the good old days, now our monarchy is merely symbolic!”.

In fact, far from politicians holding exclusive authority over the state, beyond even the hereditary peers; our lords temporal and spiritual, the British monarch represents the “Alpha and Omega” of the British Parliamentary process.

Without the “State Opening of Parliament” conducted by the monarch, (or agents empowered by her acting in her absence) and without her personal approval closing each individual bill from Parliament, no legislation can be passed. This means the “useless monarch” is actually a political bottleneck through which political decisions are achieved.

If the people were to petition for the dissolution of the monarchy, and it went through the two houses of Parliament, the monarch themselves would have to approve it: figuratively chopping off their own head. Thus it appears we are lumbered with this institutionalized relic for the foreseeable future.
On top of this, the British monarch theoretically has the power to:

-Select the Prime Minister.
-Dismiss ministers and governments.
-Dissolve Parliament.
-Refuse to agree to legislation passed by Parliament.
-Pardon convicted criminals.
-Issue “Royal Proclamations”, ie declaration of war, or state of emergency.
-Command the army, raise a personal militia and even avoid criminal prosecution in English Courts.

Considering the institution of monarchy in the UK retains these abilities (far in excess of any politician or President of the USA), to fundamentally rearrange the legal, economic or political landscape and could, through basic coordination of their resources, “re-balance the pendulum” in favour of their own personal aristocratic dictatorship, why are the public, activists, politicians and writers so quiet about the prospects for their new King’s rule, where is the scrutiny regarding the process of his ascension?
 
What do we actually know about our Royal overlords?

Some examples of the kind of causes Prince Charles is passionate about, betray the sort of primitive outlook one might expect to find in somebody whose position in life, is determined by virtue of their genetic link to various self-proclaimed “noble” German bloodlines.

Unsurprisingly, he is a vocal critic of the materialist, scientific worldview, publicly condemning industrialization and the material development of civilisation on numerous occasions in many countries. He advocates departing from technological progress and returning to a more fearful religious servility, to neutralize the potentially destructive nature of “the herd”. This is an attitude the West gladly relinquished in large part centuries ago, but which is still firmly enforced in the Islamic traditions this future King speaks a little too admiringly of.

In a speech at Wilton Park forum for global change on December 13th, 1996, Prince Charles laid out his objections towards the materialist world view, presenting a mischaracterized approximation of it in contrast to a positively enhanced and glowing appraisal of traditional Islamic customs and culture:

"I feel that we in the West could be helped to rediscover the roots of our own understanding by an appreciation of the Islamic tradition’s deep respect for the timeless traditions of the natural order…. Modern materialism is unbalanced and increasingly damaging in its long-term consequences. Yet nearly all the great religions of the world have held an integral view of the sanctity of the world. … I have always felt that tradition is not a man-made element in our lives, but a God-given intuition of natural rhythms."

When not recuperating the proceeds derived from his immense 208.9 square miles of landholdings in the “duchy of Cornwall”, which in it’s 2012 financial statements stated that it is; “not subject to corporation tax as it is not a separate legal entity for tax purposes”¹, the heir apparent enjoys a jet-set lifestyle visiting some of the most brutal dictatorships in the world. During his recent visit to Saudi Arabia he even managed to contribute towards BAE System’s latest multi billion weapons deal, so clearly his opposition of technology is highly selective.

These contacts have given him a great insight to the standards of living enjoyed by his counterparts in the Middle East, showing him through direct experience, the quality of life and superiority they derive from the state imposition of religious dogma, and how the laws of an outdated medieval society, in which its forced practice creates the atrophied and superstitious environment imperative for the flourishing of a hereditary monarch.

The patriarchal “holy” doctrines of all mystified religious systems are the refuge centuries of repressive hierarchies thrive upon. It is these doctrines themselves which have taught man violence, persecution, cruelty and murder while claiming to cure him of his original sin.

In 1993, well before the US embassy bombings in Nairobi, for which Islamist militants under Osama Bin Laden claimed direct responsibility, and prior to the devastating attacks launched by Islamist militants against the United States of America in 2001, Prince Charles gave a speech to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, in which he stated amongst many other outdated, doctrinaire opinions:

"many people in the Islamic world genuinely fear our own Western materialism and mass culture as a deadly challenge to their Islamic culture and way of life. Some of us may think the material trappings of Western society which we have exported to the Islamic world – television, fast-food, and the electronic gadgets of our everyday lifes – are a modernising, self-evidently good, influence. But we fall into the trap of dreadful arrogance if we confuse ‘modernity’ in other countries with their becoming more like us…..Among the many religious, social and political causes of what we might more accurately call the Islamic revival is a powerful feeling of disenchantment, of the realisation that Western technology and material things are insufficient, and that a deeper meaning to life lies elsewhere in the essence of Islamic belief."

Is this healthy?

Aside from his interest in religious ideology, Prince Charles retains an enthusiastic interest in “homeopathy”, the unproven pseudo-science he described to the World Health Assembly in Geneva in 2006 as being, “rooted in ancient traditions that intuitively understood the need to maintain balance and harmony with our minds, bodies and the natural world”.

Never being one to keep his opinions to himself, in 1993 the heir apparent set up a think tank and lobby group called, “the Foundation for Integrated Health” (FIH), the aims of this institution included creating awareness of complimentary therapies within medical schools, and promoting the availability of alternatives to the treatments used within the NHS.

Throughout the 00’s there were countless examples of HRH “meddling in parliament”, he met with then Health Secretary Andy Burnham to secure funding for the drive to standardize alternative therapies, also writing frequently to the MHRA prior to their adoption of a regulatory standard for “Traditional Herbal Medicine”, the result of the lobbying by the Prince’s various institutions has been a divergence from scientific reasoning in medical regulation, therefore greater freedom for snake oil salesmen to profit from people’s naivety. This includes the Prince’s own “Duchy of Cornwall,” which despite being free from corporation tax also mass produces “homeopathic remedies”.

This greater liberalization of standards in healthcare will inevitably lead to an increase in private practitioners, and new and exciting methods of extracting money from the NHS and sick people.

When the FIH closed amidst allegations of fraud in 2010, The College of Medicine emerged from the ashes, immediately attracting scrutiny from medical experts Edzard Ernst, and David Colquhoun over their promotion of potentially unsafe treatments.

In the last few years, despite his increasing responsibilities, the Prince has continued to exercise his unique influence on policy decision in Health, holding secret meetings in July 2013 with the Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, after judges ruled the public has no right to know the contents of 27 letters he had written to ministers over several years. As the “ascension” gathers pace it is likely we will see the popularity of these pseudo-treatments, and pseudo-mystical religious ideologies grow, in unison with the influence and credence granted to Prince Charles.

“O gentlemen, the time of life is short!
An if we live, we live to tread on kings”
Shakespeare, Henry IV






 

 

On Islam pt IV....

Plato and Muhammad Walked into a Cave...

“any human being who has lived a moral and god-fearing life shall on his death depart for the Isles of the Blessed and shall dwell there, and live a trouble-free life of perfect happiness; however, anyone who has lived an immoral and godless life shall be imprisoned in the place of retribution and justice, which is called Tartarus.” Plato, Gorgias 523b

Socrates' allegory of The Cave recounted by Plato in 'The Republic', represents the importance of education and the benighted state of those deprived of the experience of 'true reality'.

We are asked to imagine men confined within the depths of a long cave, their heads fixed directly towards the wall in front of them: “There's firelight burning a long way further up the cave behind them”, also a road between this source of light and the prisoners with a small wall running alongside it, behind this wall people are carrying various statuettes of animal and human form which protrude above said wall, the fire light casting shadows of these forms against the wall of the cave the prisoners are forced to look at.

Socrates then asks us of the Prisoners: “do you think they'd see anything of themselves and one another except the shadows cast by the fire on to the cave wall directly opposite them....And what about the objects which were being carried along? Won't they see only their shadows as well?...Now suppose they were able to talk to one another: don't you think they'd assume that their words applied to what they saw passing in front of them?...When any of the passers by spoke, don't you think they'd be bound to assume that the sound came from a passing shadow?”

The answer to these questions (though outlandish in the extreme) is given repeatedly in the affirmative, we can hardly disagree, so at this point Socrates begins to explain what would happen: “if they were set free from their bonds and cured of their inanity”; if “someone tells him that what he's been seeing all this time has no substance”. He describes the severe discomfort as the prisoner's eyes encounter the firelight directly for the first time, the confusion as the objects and people passing on the road were shown to him and explained.

This sight he suggests would make the prisoner “turn away and run back to the things he could make out, taking the truth of the matter to be that these things are clearer than what he was being shown”, denying the reality in front of him in favour of the shadow world he had become accustomed to. Socrates continues: “Imagine him being dragged forcibly into the sunlight, wouldn't this cause him pain and distress? And once he's reached the sunlight, he wouldn't be able to see a single one of the things which are currently taken to be real, would he, because his eyes would be overwhelmed by the sun's beams?”[1]

With all forms of religious belief, is it not thus? We must drag ourselves from the comfort and security of an illusory world to which we are chained by circumstances, into the full light of day, into the reality of direct, lived experience that we may feel the sun upon our faces and the wind in our hair, casting aside the factitious representations we may have become accustomed to in our slavery, to truly know this world as it is, the only world in all it's breathtaking luminosity.

Even if it pains us to see it, even if this awareness is marred by similar feelings of discomfort as our infant selves endured upon leaving our Mother's womb, do we not owe it to ourselves in the short time we have here to struggle to see it, to embrace it fully, to explore this world by expressing our inherent curiosity in an unrestrained manner?

Needless to say the author of the Quran doesn't think so...

Chapter 17 (Bani Isra'il)

“Whoso desires the present life, We hasten for him therein what We will- for such of them as we please; then have We appointed Hell for him; he shall burn therein, condemned and rejected.

And whoso desires the Hereafter and strives for it as it should be striven for, and he is a believer-these are the ones whose striving shall find favour with God.”   v.19 & 20

“And surely We have set forth for mankind in various ways all kinds of similitudes in this Quran, but most men would reject everything but disbelief.” v.90

“And nothing has prevented men from believing when the guidance came to them save that they said, 'Has Allah sent a man as a Messenger?'

Say 'Had there been in the earth angels walking about in peace and quiet, We should have certainly sent down to them from heaven an angel as a Messenger.'” v.95 & 96

Chapter 18, Al-Kahf (The Cave) signals a slight departure from previous Chapters, assuming a more poetic style it's author makes use of allegories and parables to answer a direct challenge from the Quraysh, during the period when Islam was beginning to win converts in Mecca.

Ibn Ishaq's history conveys the displeasure experienced by the tribal elders upon witnessing Muhammad's unusual religious practices and public profession of his new mono-theistic faith,  various plans were hatched that they might put an end to his proselytizing, when diplomacy and more nefarious means were employed with no success, the elders of the tribe sent Al Nadr and Uqba to the Jewish Priests of Medina, “for they said, 'the Jews are the possessors of the first book and have knowledge about the prophets which we have not'.”

The Jews of Medina kindly obliged, giving them three questions with which to test the knowledge and authenticity of the self appointed 'Apostle of Allah': “...'if he answers them obey him, for he is a prophet; but if not, then he is a pretender, and you may deal with him as you think proper'.

Al Nadr and Uqba returned to Mecca and told the people what the priests had said, and they said to the apostle: (1)'inform us about the young men who passed away in ancient times, because their case is wonderful; (2)tell us also about the traveller who went from the east to the west of the earth; (3) and tell us about the soul and what it is!' The apostle of Allah replied: 'I shall tell you tomorrow.'”[2]

This was a pretty serious miscalculation by Muhammad, whether he brashly believed he would be able to dream up the answers overnight; ask whoever was instructing him and receive an immediate response; hurriedly extract the answers from some fragments of scripture he may have held; or fabricate an accurate, poetic sounding response which would retain his air of authority on such short notice, remains inconclusive.

What is known however is that it took two weeks for an answer to be forthcoming, in which time the Quraysh had already decided 'the apostle of Allah' was an imposter.[3]

This series of events gave us chapter 18 of the Quran: 'Sura Al Kahf', wherein the author sets about providing the answers to these questions while attempting to justify his vagueness, as well as alleviate any doubt likely to spring from those answers, by recourse to the trusty threats of 'divine' punishment for the unconvinced, and rewards for the faithful that anyone reading this far will be familiar with, yet more evidence of the manipulative methodology of the author.

The customary prefatory warnings are here of some subtle interest however, v2 states: “All praise belongs to Allah who has sent down the Book to His servant and has not put therein any crookedness”, the translator's notes state the Arabic term here rendered as “therein”, more accurately translates as “In It”, but as he says himself this would imply one or the other has “no crookedness”, how unsurprising that the translator is unwilling to entertain the idea this may be so?

Whether or not Muhammad was the actual author, following his prior miscalculation and the two week delay we should expect this transference of his self assumed authority to the book, in a sense saying “ok I may have been wrong but the book's what matters”, attempting to save face by affirming the accuracy, therefore importance of 'the Book' above that of himself, this suggests that even to the author, being a mere man; Muhammad may not be entirely, infallibly straight, at least not all the time,[4] which should come as no surprise to the objective reader of our relatively enlightened epoch, who studies these instructions on how to form a totalitarian, religious state.

Following the customary warnings, the 'apostle of Allah' begins by addressing the story of those 'young men who passed away in ancient times who's case is wonderful', which he takes as referring to the story of the 7 Sleepers of Ephesus, a story remembered in the Christian liturgy with a feast day towards the end of June, when soldiers taking shelter from the persecution of Christians under the Roman Emperor “Trajan Decius” (circa 250ce), were found and excavated after about 230 years during the reign of Theodosius (circa 480ce).

Though this obscure version recounted by the author of the Quran lacks direct reference to the pre-existing, Assyrian and Christian myth, nor either of the Roman Emperors fundamental to accurately identifying the story, it does contain enough similarities to suggest this was what the author was describing, v.10,11,12: “Dost thou think that the People of the Cave and the Inscription were a wonder among Our Signs?

When the young men betook themselves for refuge to the Cave and said, 'Our Lord, bestow on us mercy from Thyself, and provide for us right guidance in our affair.'

So We prevented them from hearing the news of the outside world for a few years”

It would seem the author at the time of writing had not heard of one of Socrates' and Plato's most famous analogies, if 'They' had, perhaps they wouldn't have taken the diametrically opposed course for bestowing correct education and right guidance to that outlined by Socrates in “The Cave”, or perhaps 'They' had, and actually intended to accustom the “young men” to a mystical world of shadowy reflections?

v.13: “Then We raised them up that We might know which of the two parties would better reckon the time that they had tarried.”

This is one of the first confused points in the story, (ignoring the use of “We” by this professed Monoto-theist) where has the 2^nd party alluded to come from; formerly we had one party of young men who “betook themselves for refuge to the Cave”, now apparently there are “two parties”, we could assume here the verse refers to those who found the young men, but surely the whole point of a divinely ordained and directed holy scripture is to alleviate the need for human assumption, after all isn't Allah apparently “The all-seeing, all-knowing”?

If 'He' is, why does he frequently come across as monotonously repetitive, not to mention ignorant and often incoherent?

v.14,15,16,17: “We will relate to thee their story with truth: They were young men who believed in their Lord and We increased them in guidance.

And We strengthened their hearts, when they stood up and said, 'Our Lord is the Lord of the heavens and the earth. Never shall we call upon any God beside Him; if we did, we should indeed have uttered an enormity.

'These our people have taken for worship other gods beside Him. Wherefore do they not bring a clear authority for them? And who is more unjust than he who invents a lie concerning Allah?'

'And now when you have withdrawn from them and from that which they worship beside Allah, then seek refuge in the Cave; your Lord will unfold for you His mercy and will provide for you comfort in this affair of yours.'”

This strikes me as the 2^nd obscure point, the wording seems to suggest that actually this refers to the people composing the book, those adherents of Allah hunting the answers to these three questions, the vagueness of the narrative seeming to refer to the contemporary situation in Mecca not events of the past, perhaps owing to the authors' reluctance to mention the Roman Empire directly, or perhaps their inability to actually give a definitive answer or accurate historical account?

Again it is difficult to be convinced either way, it may well just refer to the story of the young men in a cave, while trying as much as possible to parallel the situation new Muslim converts were experiencing in Mecca, thus helping them relate more easily to the affirmation of mono-theism and alleged primacy of Allah, using the opportunity to accentuate certain aspects of the story such as the 'Lord' sending them to live in a cave as Muhammad had done, while portraying the practice of idolatry the Meccan establishment were engaged in, as being on the 'wrong' side at all points in history.

After v.18 tells how the sun was seen to rise and set from the cave and v.19 introduces a dog peculiar to the story in the Islamic tradition, verse 20,21 and 22 seem to continue in this convoluted fashion: “And so We raised them up that they might question one another. One of them said, 'How long have you tarried?' They said, 'We have tarried a day or part of a day.' Others said, 'Your Lord knows best the time you have tarried. Now send one of you with these silver coins of yours to the city; and let him see which of it's inhabitants has the purest food, and let him bring you provisions thereof. And let him be courteous and let him not inform anyone about you.'

'For, if they should come to know of you, they would stone you or make you return to their religion and then will you never prosper.'

And thus did We disclose them to the people that they might know that the promise of Allah was true, and that, as to the Hour, there was no doubt about it. And remember the time when people disputed among themselves concerning them, and said, 'Build over them a building.' Their Lord knew them best. Those who won their point said, 'We will surely build a place of worship over them.'”

The Lord knows best who these townsfolk were who had power superior to that of Allah, able to turn 'His' faithful away from 'His' religion towards their own.

“The Lord knows best” is an evasive tactic employed frequently in this chapter, it wouldn't wash in any academic setting, imagine answering any question: “your Lord knows best”, it's merely a device allowing the answerer to avoid making an incorrect guess, because as the next verse (23) shows Muhammad was only guessing, he had no definitive answer, no proof, he couldn't go to the Library as I have and look in a Catholic encyclopaedia of saints to find “The Seven Sleepers of Ephesus”, which his story very loosely alludes to: “Some say, 'They were three, the fourth was their dog,' and others say 'They were five, the sixth was their do,' guessing at random. And yet others say, 'They were seven, the eighth was their dog.' Say, 'My Lord knows best their number. None knows them except a few.' So argue not concerning them except for a casual discussion, nor seek information about them from any one of them.”

v.24,25: “And say not of anything, 'I am going to do it tomorrow,'

Unless Allah should will. And remember thy Lord when thou forgettest and say, 'I hope my Lord will guide me to what is even nearer than this to the right path.'”

We can see Muhammad has at least learned from his earlier error, however that doesn't stop him from immediately proceeding to make another mistake, perhaps even more destructive to the image of 'divine messenger' he is attempting to convey, v.26: “And they stayed in their Cave three hundred years, and added nine more.”

The addition of 9 years relates to the Lunar Calendar, though why the author thought fit to provide the solar and lunar calculation remains unclear, perhaps to create the illusion of specificity, perhaps to add an interesting fact that might distract from the wrong answer he gives.

This man is supposedly the 'Messenger of Allah', the emissary of the 'Lord of Creation', one of 'His' prophets on Earth, but he couldn't even accurately portray what was relatively recent History to him at the time of writing?

The story of Snow White, the 5 Dwarves and their Dog would never be treated so haphazardly, and it doesn't even claim to contain a miracle, do Muslims honestly believe this story about people sleeping in a Cave for 300 years, before being “raised up” by God and going to Town to buy some food with one of their, -I assume- extremely valuable antique “Silver Coins”?

If so do they also believe the story of Snow White is an accurate account of real historical events?

v.27: “Say, 'Allah knows best how long they tarried.' To Him belong the secrets of the heavens and the earth. How Seeing is He! And how Hearing” They have no helper beside Him, and He does not let anyone share in His government.”

At this point the incorrect retelling of the story of the Seven Sleepers ceases, Muhammad knowing he's made a grotesque error begins to recount the most disgusting threats for those who disbelieve his version of events, all the while attempting to assert the power of this half blind, deaf and forgetful monotheistic totalitarian deity he claims to represent, conveying the rewards this disabled demiurge has laid on for the credulous believers, namely gold bracelets; reclining sofas and fine green dresses of silk[5].

v.30: “And say, 'It is the truth from your Lord; wherefore let him who will, believe, and let him who will, disbelieve.' -(how uncharacteristically liberal)- Verily, We have prepared for the wrong doers a fire whose flaming canopy shall enclose them. And if they cry for help, they will be helped with water like molten lead -(oh, ok maybe not that liberal)- which will burn the faces. How dreadful the drink, and how evil is the Fire as a resting place!”

Having failed in his attempt to answer question one, 'the messenger of Allah' sets forth a simple parable of a man rich in worldly possessions and another who coveted his neighbours wealth, Muhammad telling his faithful preachers, or being told himself by the actual source of the Quran to: “...set forth to them the parable of two men: one of them We provided with two gardens of grapes, and surrounded them with date-palms, and between the two We placed corn-fields.

Each of the gardens yielded its fruit in abundance, and failed not the least therein. An in between the two We caused a stream to flow.

And he had fruit in abundance. And he said to his companion, arguing boastfully with him, 'I am richer than thou in wealth and stronger in respect of men.'” v.33,34,35

v.38,39,40,41,42: “His companion said to him, while he was arguing with him, “Dost thou disbelieve in Him Who created thee from dust, then from a sperm-drop, then fashioned thee into a perfect man?

But as for me, I believe that Allah alone is my Lord, and I will not associate anyone with my Lord.

And why didst thou not say when thou didst enter thy garden: 'Only that which Allah wills comes to pass. There is no power save in Allah?' if thou seest me as less than thee in riches and offspring.

Perhaps my Lord will give me something better than thy garden, and will send on thy garden a thunderbolt from heaven so that it will become a bare slippery ground.

Or it's water will become sunk in the earth so that thou wilt not be able to find it.””

And what reward proceedeth from Allah regarding this resentful and jealous believer, how did his Lord redress the balance between this faithful servant and his wealthy, boastful neighbour?

v.43: “And his fruit was actually destroyed...”

So it seems Allah is 'the great leveller', for whosoever covets his neighbours goods and worships Allah; his Lord will wreak disaster and catastrophe on those His servant resents.

v.44,45: “And he had no party to help him against Allah, nor was he able to defend himself.

In such a case protection comes only from Allah, the True. He is the Best in respect of reward, and the Best in respect of consequence.”

As if any clarification were needed as to the nature of this demiurge, spawned of the mind of a megalomaniacal merchant afforded the luxury through marriage, of sitting around watching the business practices of the inhabitants of Mecca he came to resent, seeking to separate himself from them by dwelling in a cave while formulating a totalitarian system which he believed would destroy them and their idols.

Having thus bestowed upon the faithful a far from complex parable, in the following verses Muhammad is instructed -or instructs his followers- to: “...set forth to them the similitude of the life of this world: it is like the water which We send down from the sky, and the vegetation of the earth is mingled with it, and then it becomes dry grass broken into pieces which the winds scatter. And Allah has power over everything.” v.46

Perhaps it shouldn't surprise us that Muhammad, the inhabitant of a drought stricken, arid, infertile region of the world, not to mention an ignorant age, would fail to adequately describe the hydrologic cycle of the earth, for there would be no water to 'precipitate' from the sky were it not for the evaporation of surface water.

Besides this understandable oversight by the author, the allegory is extremely bad and subsequently discarded forthwith.

It seems to suggest life is sent down from the sky to nourish the vegetation of the earth, rather than making this vegetation healthy and vibrant however, the author suggests it makes it become dry, brittle, breaking into pieces to be scattered by the wind, rather than decomposing and fertilizing the soil.

But is it actually a “similutude” at all, a likeness or allegory of “the life of this world” because it appears to be merely an inaccurate description of it?

“Wealth and children are an ornament of the life of this world. But enduring good works are better in the sight of thy Lord in respect of immediate reward, and better in respect of future hope.” v.47

We know from Ibn Ishaq's history of the Prophet, that these events were prior to the various battles which would come to define the shape and ensure the prosperity of Islam, at that later stage it could be fairly said that war and especially looting were the “good works” required of the faithful; but what could be more enduring than the legacy secured by having children who will be well fed and supported, then as now wealth offers far more “immediate rewards” than religion, also can it be denied that child rearing (so i've heard) offers far more by way of satisfaction than wealth, let alone religion and certainly more in terms of (realistic at least) “future hope”?

The point he makes more strenuously than needs be is this, “the life of this world” is transient “which the winds scatter”; “wealth and children are an ornament of the life of this world”, so also must be considered transient, when in actuality these are two of only few things which will leave a lasting legacy in the world.

One can only conclude this is a not so subtle imperative to focus on the afterlife, but also to dedicate oneself entirely, as slavishly as a drone in a bee colony to the manufacture of the emerging religion.

“And bethink of the day when We shall remove the mountains, and thou wilt see the nations of the earth march forth against one another and We shall gather them together and shall not leave any one of them behind.

And they will be presented to thy Lord, standing in rows: 'Now have you come to Us as We created you at first. But you thought that We would fix no time for the fulfilment of Our promise to you.'” v.48,49

This may refer to a grandiose delusion on the part of the author, or, and perhaps this is a little generous, a specific example of mountain dwelling tribes whom it was believed would be 'brought round' to belief in Islam, if so it would have symbolic relevance to the intellectuals of the day, who would have perhaps known of the failure of numerous large empires, to subdue the unruly, diverse tribes north of Mt. Ararat around the Black Sea towards the Caucasian Mountains, and unify them with those empires East of the Zagros Mountains.

What better way to seduce the power crazed into adopting this new imperialist ideology than suggesting the ways it may improve on the ancient Persian, Macedonian and Roman attempts at Empire building in the region?

And the book will be placed before them, and thou wilt see the guilty fearful of that which is therein; and they will say, 'O woe to us! What kind of book is this! It leaves out nothing small or great but has recorded it.' And they will find all that they did confronting them, and thy Lord does not wrong anyone.” v.50

Unfortunately we can't be sure, as indeed a centuries long tradition of Islamic theological disagreement demonstrates, to 'put forth a similitude'; we are here dealing with shadows upon the wall of a cave, the reality behind these shadowy images, which is to say the veiled, perhaps even unconscious intentions of their creator or creators, are barely perceptible, can only be vaguely discerned, being as they are indirectly alluded to in the manipulative, coercive methodology, the means the founders of Islam employed to obtain an end which with hindsight we can at least be slightly more certain about.

__________

[1] abridged excerpts from Plato's 'The Republic', 514-516b. Circa 400bce

[2] Ibn Ishaq's 'The Life of Muhammad', 44-45

[3] This precipitated the persecution of his Muslim converts in Mecca by the Quraysh, leading to them being sent away to live under the protection of the Negus of Abyssinia (Modern Ethiopia), which had been cultivated by Christian scholars from Egypt since around 300ce. Muhammad remained in Mecca in relative security, being beyond reproach -besides the occasional 'mocking'- owing to the protection granted him through his filial bonds with the Quraysh elder Abu-Talib.

[4]If the botched and bungled band of followers Muhammad had amassed by the time of his death, accepted this primacy of the book, it's object of idolization: Allah's importance above that of Muhammad whom they idolized instead, then maybe they wouldn't have descended into almost immediate conflict regarding who would fill the latter's boots, becoming numerous antagonistic sects at war from then till now?

But then perhaps if it hadn't divided into two predominant sects vying to out do the other, the movement would have simply attained a stultifying 'peace of mind', withered and atrophied in the deserts of Arabia, and would never have dispersed upon the known Earth and beyond, spreading their religion by the sword, and seeking out knowledge which might grant them supremacy over the  other along with all those they encountered.

[5] Verse 32

On Islam pt III...

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." -Sura 2, The Cow, verse 78.

"Search not the book called the Scripture, which any human hand might make, but the Scripture called the Creation." -Thomas Payne, The Age of Reason

My enquiries into the Quran though undoubtedly amateurish have thus far yielded a number of questions, the answers to these will perhaps shed some light on the book's origin, aswell as explain it's efficacy as founding document of what would go on to become a globalized, Imperialist ideological system.

1/ Was Muhammad really it's creator, if so how and when did he become so well acquainted with the Hebrew and Christian canons?

2/ If so, was the book merely Muhammad's means of satisfying a very terrestrial desire, namely: founding a State, in the manner of renowned figures such as Cyrus the Great; Moses; Jesus; St Paul or even Romulus, which would in his reckoning rival that of the Sassanid Empire; Byzantine Christians; Jewish culture; the merchant Quraysh tribe; or “extravagant”, financially powerful elements who had turned the practice of religion around Mecca into a business?

3/ If as is asserted in Ibn Ishaq's “The Life of Muhammad”[1], the prophet was merely the intercessor of 'God's word'; it having been revealed to him over a period of 20 years in Mecca and Medina, after being 'contacted' in the caves of Hira at the age of forty and on various following occasions by the arch-angel Djibril (Gabriel), then who (assuming he was not actually a supernatural being) was this 'shining' emissary of the heavens; what were his intentions; and from where did he derive the authority for the bestowal of such comprehensive and absolutist demands???

4/ Was this 'angelic' interlocutor' merely a plot device employed by the originator of the Quranic mythology, in order to impart it with greater significance and eminence than it may have had, perhaps being conceived after Muhammad's unsuccessful attempts at preaching a reproduced, monotheistic doctrine to the polytheistic Quraysh.

5/ If we consider Gabriel to have been the source of the Quran, himself neither an entirely fictitious, or supernatural being, then might he have been the emissary of: {a}a besieged or formerly defeated; assimilated; or disbanded Imperial power, 'seeming to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound being healed', seeking to re-consolidate and re-establish itself; {b} an established and declining power or faction seeking to conserve it's vulnerable body in a new shell; or {c}an established Imperial power making long term political calculations?

6/ If {a},{b} or {c} then what are the potential candidates for such a force, in close proximity to the Persian, Byzantine, Egyptian Empires or other established cultures and tribes in and around the Black Sea region at the time?

I believe the pursuit of these questions aside from being an intriguing and fulfilling study on their own, will yield new insights as to the roots and origins of not only Islam, but the other Abrahamic religious systems and their mythological underpinnings.

This pursuit, whether completely fruitful or not may also demonstrate a common thread inherent to the imposition of all Totalitarian and hierarchical systems known to us throughout History, from Babylon and it's ancient dynasties to modern manifestations of hierarchical rule by force, subjugation and mystification.

However let us leave these fascinating distractions for now, and proceed with the less enjoyable task of reading and critically analysing the religion of Islam's foundational document: the 'Holy' Quran and it’s contents.

Being more or less utterly faithless and certainly more than less suspicious, as I read I am allowing an impression of each chapter to develop in my mind in regards to it's application for the education of impressionable, or otherwise ignorant minds, I am considering how the poorly educated, illiterate and ill-informed would be susceptible to seduction by it's promises of rewards and punishments.

My interest is not in judging it's often alleged 'wisdom', though I will note the appearance of such if and when I find it, -if only because of the novelty such content would provide-, nor will I seek to judge the veracity or continuity of the narrative as an accurate historical account, being as the book is not organized in chronological order and rearranging it thus would be a longer and more arduous task than I feel is necessary or worth my time, though I will be taking the Historical period into account along with various events and material situations as they relate to the subject matter. I will draw from Ibn Ishaq's “Life of Muhammad” to offer a greater insight where I feel necessary, as well as various other books on ancient civilizations of the East and Mythology.

I will merely be reading the work and recording my thoughts on each small segment if and when they appear, as I would any work of fiction or collection of essays, this will mean that what is included in my analysis is confined to what I find: illogical; surprising; familiar; subtly -or less so- manipulative; misinformed; mystificatory; which might incite abandonment of thought, logic or some other action distasteful to me as a citizen of secular society in the 21^st century.

This is not to say my intention is to deride the Holy book of Islam, though fearing neither the supernatural being to whom it is supposedly dedicated, nor worldly powers which derive all authority they profess from it, I am certainly willing to do so when It seems warranted, I am not ISIL or Boko Haram, there will be no kidnapping or forcible conversion to enlightenment philosophy or atheism, there will be no threat of crucifixion if the reader refuses to cease being psychologically oppressed by phantoms.

I am genuinely interested in learning more about this ideological system, the manifestations of which confront us on a daily basis more often than not in less than admirable forms, and have been since September 11th 2001.

In working directly from the book I am attempting to satisfy my curiosity as to whether the work in question is conducive to producing such expressions of 'faith'; whether it actually conveys an ambiguous message that may often be misrepresented or misunderstood; or even whether the content -as is often alleged by Western liberals, religionists, and 'moderate' Muslims- encourages people toward kindness, charity, humility and moral rectitude, for the good individual Muslims as well as the wider community of which they are parts.

I have noticed much of it is written so as to inform a clerical class, with a small percentage of each chapter containing direct instruction or orders regarding what to say, one imagines when publically addressing the masses whom it was intended to proselytise.

I have mentioned in an earlier segment the fact that at the period of 'revelation', the overwhelming majority of people were neither Muslim -they were disposed to the “worship of idols”-, nor were they what one might recognize as intellectual types, those who could read well enough to discern their interest in adopting the 'new' message either did so or did not, one assumes in relation to their fear of punishments frequently reiterated, or their perceived rewards for self interested conformity.

The book is filled with advice on what to do to those who wouldn't and what they would receive, this in itself accentuates an inherent contradiction within any religion between the zealous and believing lay people who generally exhibit far more faith than knowledge, and a refined, well educated clerical caste who exhibit more knowledge of the faith they profess, this is a fact which anyone with 'eyes to see' may observe in any society where the practice of religion is prevalent or encouraged, one may even suggest the clerical classes in any religion believe the messages they preach, less than they believe the masses beneath them need it to regiment and regulate their behaviour.

Far from attempting to institute a reflection of this 'master/bondsman' relationship, my endeavour is intended to attract criticism, contradiction and correction which I will always encourage and attempt to accept graciously, I also hope that knowledge may be gained from this undertaking, even if that is only of another perspective on the Quran and the religion of which it forms the basis.

In part II, I noticed how numerous parts of the Hebrew canon had been appropriated by the author, in particular the story of Joseph reproduced in Chapter 12 titled Yusuf, which is the diluted portrayal of the story found in the book of Genesis, though here greatly reduced in content to merely that required to affirm the power of a divine, supernatural being by whom the ancient Israelites are alleged to have been held in thrall and directed.

I actually went back to the original story as well as the books of Jeremiah, Ezekial and Daniel which are based in the same region and bare more than a slight correlation to many of the theological and methodological aspects of this narrative.

If indeed this concept of “The Lord” common to both books does refer to a worldly power rather than supernatural being, as surely all but the most zealous adherents would agree,  it is in all likelihood the very same force, or at least similarly intentioned, and may well have manifestations in the modern world, which trace their lineage all the way to the “God” of Abraham from which they derive their authority, there are certainly some, if certain authors on the Royal families of Europe are to be believed, which claim that to be so, treating the world as their personal dominion and it's people as their servants in a manner reminiscent of the “God” of Eden.

A hierarchical power which many Jews at the time of Muhammad had come to view with a substantial degree of suspicion, and who even at the time of Moses, Jeremiah or Ezekial were very far from being in conformity with 'His' 'divine' will, as the frequent pejorative description of them as rebellious or consistent rebukes for setting up equals to 'Him' in the old Testament show, 'For the Lord their God was a jealous God', perhaps the various Archons, Satraps, Lords and Vassals in the administrative regions of various Empires grew in wealth and influence to the degree that they may have challenged certain 'seats' of power? Indeed “The Discourses of Macchiaveli” are filled with such cases, though many are more recent may we not still surmise it was ever thus?

Chapter 14 'Ibrahim' continues in much the same vein as many of the foregoing and following chapters, “revealing” stories already recounted nearly a millenium prior to the Quran, although unlike 'Yusuf', this is not a reproduction of the story of Abraham as it's known, it makes use of not only him but also Moses and similar stories from Arabic mythology, in order once again to impress upon the audience a great deal of respect for the 'emissary of Allah' charged with conveying “God's word”.

Apparently this is a book 'revealed' so as to “bring mankind out of every kind of darkness into light, by the command of their Lord, to the path of the Mighty the Praiseworthy”[2], I am willing to accept that the Arabic here may not refer to 'Mankind' in the way we would recognize it today, perhaps the connotations in Arabic are closer to 'the people' or 'the populace', but let us stick with “Mankind” as alluding to the species in general, as it's how my translation renders the term at various points.

What does Allah, the “Creator of the Heavens and the Earth” have against the American Continent, the inhabitants of the South Pacific, East Asia, most of the African continent or the Australian Aboriginals, that his divine majesty would see fit to exclude them from the general “Mankind”?

I mean they would have had no means whatsoever of being “brought out of the darkness” by this book, indeed they would have absolutely no way of knowing about it until numerous centuries after it's 'revelation', even then they would only have learnt about it as the subjects of invasion by Moorish or Christian explorers and obviously not in their own language, no similar mythology having yet been found in the Native American, ancient Chinese, African or Aboriginal tongues, I think we can be fairly certain that the “mankind” here referred to, are only those able to understand spoken Arabic, at that period not a great number and if we're talking about the written word far fewer, even in Asia Minor.

What are we to surmise from this, that Allah is an ignoramus, a cultural chauvinist who considers only Arabic speakers to be part of Mankind?

Or (my personal opinion) 'He' is merely a human construct, therefore subject to the inadequacies of 'His', perhaps justifiably at the period of the 7^th Century; short-sighted, fallible Human creators?

The next verse [3] goes on to state that actually, “Allah [is he] to Whom belongs whatsoever is in the heavens and whatsoever is in the Earth”, thereby showing that maybe the entire Human race does belong to him, but only those fluent in Arabic are considered part of “mankind” and will be removed from darkness.

I admire this tactic, if 'He' has no idea how big the Earth actually is, how many regions of it are populated by non-Semitic language speakers, human cultures and societies that 'He' had never heard of[4], then laying claim to the entirety of the Earth at the time largely veiled to this 'great revealer', at least means he wouldn't eventually be disappointed.

I'd rather believe Allah was being purposely vague knowing the Earth is expanding a certain amount every year, rather than being a chauvinistic Eurasian-centrist who viewed the majesty of the Grand Canyon, mysteries of the Amazon rainforest, diversity of the great plains of Africa, snow covered continents of the Polar regions and unique, isolated beauty of Australia as utterly worthless compared to the earthquake, drought, famine and war ravaged sands of Muhammad's back yard.

[5]

But here a serious question arises for me, if all belongs to 'Him', if 'He' is genuinely “All Seeing, All Knowing”, the purveyor of instruction to benefit the Muslim people through Muhammad, then why oh why didn't 'He' mention anything about the black gold under their very feet, or instruct Muhammad on how to extract and utilize oil at any point in the Quran?

Surely asserting Allah's ownership of the entirety of creation would have been easier, had it  contained instruction on building ships capable of crossing the Atlantic?[6]

All progress in this direction came centuries later for Islamic civilization, all within the World already owned by private industrialists, Empires and Nation States, but previously claimed by Allah.

Once the Ideological heartland and totalitarian State had been constructed in Mecca, the core doctrine elaborated and fetishized, it was no problem to become a syncretic, somewhat outward looking expansionist system.[7] Islamic empires assimilating not only elements of Greek mathematics and philosophy, but translating a large amount of ancient literature which may have been lost, and even reaching as far afield as China a long established civilization to whom Allah had suspiciously never seen fit to bestow the original 'revelation'.

Verse 6 repeats verse 2 from the perspective of Moses, the semi-mythological Moses being used as an example of 'The Lord's' power to stand against Pharoah, thus 'remove from darkness' those who vowed servilit,y and by pain of eternal punishment pledged unremitting fealty.

It seems clear that there is a recurring them at work here, verse 10 has other examples of a people warned by this archetype of the divine messenger; the cases of Noah, Ad and Thamud, "The Prophets", a frequently deployed tactic by the author to substantiate his part in a lineage of 'divinely inspired' fear mongers: “Their messengers came with clear signs, but they [the people being warned] turned their hands to their mouths saying 'we disbelieve in that which you have been sent.'”.

The message here is simple: disbelieve in me and my message then the fate of the people of Noah, Ad, Thamud, earlier we had Lot aswell; as it is reiterated ad-nauseum throughout the book, will surely befall you

Verse 12: “it is not for us to bring proof except by the command of Allah”.

When asked to provide proof or when they're asked 'why?' Messengers bringing threats in order to coerce and subjugate a people to follow their 'religious' rules, offer no explanation and instead go off on a rant about hellfire and damnation.
This appears to me as an effective means of testing the submissiveness, ignorance and credulity of a population; upon those with some small measure of pride who resist; "The Unbelievers", are heaped egregious punishments.

The chapter goes on to tell us, in verse 13: “...In Allah let those who trust put their trust”, and 14: “Those who disbelieved said to their messengers: 'We will expel you from the land unless you return to our religion.' Then the Lord sent unto them [their messengers] the revelation: 'We will, surely, destroy the wrongdoers'”; 15: “'And We will, surely, make you dwell in the land after them. This is for him who fears to stand before My Tribunal and fears My warning'”; 16: “And they prayed for victory, and as a result thereof every haughty enemy of truth came to naught.”; 17: “Before him is Hell; and he shall be made to drink boiling water.”; 18: “He shall sip it and shall not be able to swallow it easily. And death shall come to him from every quarter, yet he shall not die. And besides that there shall be for him a severe chastisement.”

This is clearly the application of primitive statecraft to people's very souls; envoys or messengers sent to obtain territory by words, then if they are denied that territory, to take it by force, the people attacked and ruined become easy prey to the threats and seductions of Religion.

Bear in mind this is the supreme 'God' of the Islamic religion as described in their own 'Holy' book, these punishments, though undoubtedly grotesque imply by their crude simplicity a very unimaginative human origin, far more distressing and vomit inducing sadism has been produced in Cinema during the last decade, whoever wrote the ancient tome really wasn't trying all that hard.

When there is talk of the 'creation' of the Earth or 'Heavens' we are merely hearing of the formulation and establishment of Empires, cities, principalities and primitive economic systems, as verse 21 states: “that is not at all hard for Allah”, the story is merely primitive diplomacy, statecraft by barbarism dressed in pseudo mystical garb.

As with the Vedic texts, Christian Bible or Hebrew Torah of which I am likewise merely an interested student, I do not believe the production of the Quran to have been dependent in any way upon the existence of a supernatural power, to which human beings are encouraged to prostrate themselves before, in unthinking submission.

In all the frequently deployed imperatives within these works to do just that , one can easily discern the grasping hands of irredeemably flawed and imperfect human beings, seeking to exploit the credulity, ignorance and superstition common to man in a bygone age, thus establishing a dominion and legacy that may outlast the personal finitude before which we are all powerless.
To paraphrase Laplace's retort to the Emperor Napolean when he asked where was god in the former's model of the Solar System; these constructs “work perfectly well without that assumption”.

______

[1] To my knowledge the only reliable and near contemporaneous attempt at a history of his life

[2] 14.2

[3] 14.3

[4] Neglecting as 'He' had to contact them in a similar manner to how, 'He' contacted successive Desert and Cave dwelling tribes on the periphery of the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian Empires, a region ravaged by perpetual tectonic shifts and volcanic eruptions.

[5] As we can see from this map derived from the scholarship of Ptolemaic Egypt and dated around the 12^th century ad, which was produced in Europe by the Arab 'al Idrisi' who was working for the Norman Monarchy, even more than four centuries since the arrival of “God's Messenger”, Islamic civilization had failed to accurately define the “entirety of the Earth”, to which whatsoever was contained therein apparently belonged to Allah.

[6] Even instructions on the domestication of Horses or some maps would have helped achieve this aim but do we find any such thing contained within the Prophet's revelation, absolutely not, merely grandiose repeated claims that Allah has created 'everything', that all within it belongs to 'Him', recurring threats of eternal damnation, promises of water featured gardens with no instruction as to their maintenance or construction and repeated commandments to be honest, upright in one's dealings; because “Allah sees all, knows all”, it's almost as though this book was spawned from the mind of a merchant without any understanding of these things, though a rudimentary understanding of persuasion and seduction, or even more likely a useless cleric, with knowledge only pertaining to dusty fragments of parchment upon which were written bits and pieces of the Judeo-Christian canon, and the ability to make them appear relevant to people's harsh lives in a barren land.






[7] The History and development of Islam as a World Power, it's various factions, attempts at unification, schisms and Empires it has spawned, are huge subjects in themselves which I can only briefly allude to in a generalized form here. Some were more outward looking than others, depending on the culture upon which the Islamic hierarchy was established to govern.

On Islam pt II...If they pay and pray they're ok

Having left the story at Chapter 5, wherein various forms of torture, violence, anti-semitism and absolutist dictums were espoused, -in order to better regulate the shape and form of not only this emerging  totalitarian system, but the behaviour of the band of impressionable thugs 'He' is assembling to populate it- we return to find much more of the same in Chapters 6 through 11, which is to say plagiarism from the Judeo-Christian tradition & contemporary Arab myths, rhetorical tricks, bribery with promises of water featured gardens in the hereafter, coercion through fear & less obviously through repeated appeals to the self interest, and self opinion of the potential converts for whom this 'Perfect', “unchangeable”[1] book is being 'revealed'.

The bold, oft-repeated threats of an afterlife filled with fire, punishments and pain for those unwilling to “submit to Allah”, must surely strike all but the most hopeless of adherents, as the desperate attempts of a power hungry seducer using the only means at 'His' disposal: fear, threats of violence, and eternal damnation to get what he wants.

Do they not appear as repugnant to the reader of this relatively enlightened epoch, as the threats of an eternity of Hellfire propagated by the early Christian Church?

Again and again we are told in no uncertain terms about the expected behaviour of the believers, and the fate (not pleasant) awaiting the disbelievers, or even those considered hypocritical or “timorous”[2] about joining the battle to take over Mecca, constant reminders to be thorough in our dispensing with logic, critical thought, familial bonds[3] and any plans we may have had for this world littering the text, alongside instructions for those charged with dispensing these distasteful demands from the pulpit: “Say 'I have been commanded to be the first of those who submit'; Say 'Of a truth, I fear, If I disobey my Lord the punishment of an awful day'”[4]

Well, thankfully this petty tyrant, spawned of the brain of the military General Muhammed, is no lord of mine, nor do those intercessors claiming to bestow from on high, a message on behalf of him and his “all knowing” 'God' have any purchase upon my soul, it is not fitting for a proud Scotsman to prostrate himself before such obviously vexatious hobgoblins.

But what of those who are indoctrinated from a young age, coerced into submission for being unfortunate enough to live under a brutal regime such as the practice of this regressive ideology makes manifest?

As I undertake this task to express my uncensored thoughts on the Quran in writing, as a citizen of a (relatively) free country, my heart is bleeding for those born less fortunate who's stories I am confronted with via my DAB Radio:

Raif Badani, a citizen of the brutal autocracy of Saudi Arabia sentenced to endure 1000 lashes with the whip in batches of 50 every Friday after prayers, a man who's only crime was to dare to think, to define himself as a liberal in an ultra-conservative Islamic regime, who did little more than I am now: publishing his opinions, thoughts and hopes on the internet, but whom, more than I casting these words from a safe distance[5], had the courage to contravene the barbaric regime of the Saudi Arabian Monarchy, and their religion where it counts, by merely expressing criticisms no thinking person, being acquainted with love or liberty could possibly find objectionable.

Nigeria, hundreds of miles away from Raif's place of torture and imprisonment, only a few months after the horrific kidnapping of hundreds of Schoolgirls who's only 'transgression' was to aspire to become educated, empowered citizens with equal rights to boys and independence of mind, we learn of Boko Haram's latest religiously motivated action, the appalling torture and murder of as many as 2000 men, women and children in the north-east town of Baga .

Further exasperating my depression is news provided in our print media of figures released by British Police this week, highlighting at least 2800 cases of 'honour' violence committed against Muslim women and children living in the United Kingdom, including the utterly abhorrent murder of Rania Alayed after prolonged abuse, rape and violence at the hands of her husband.

A charity called Karma Nirvana set up to help the victims of 'honour' violence, report this problem is far more widespread than currently acknowledged, being largely hidden from Police by religious  communities in the hopes of retaining tradition and custom intact, the organizations leader Jasminder Sanghera has stated that around 800 cases are reported to their offices each week, she has received death threats via Twitter for her troubles, and their offices have been the target of bomb threats which are being investigated, forcing them to move premises.

These are just three examples of the most extreme barbarity spanning the globe in the name of Islam, but let us not forget the brutal attacks planned by Al Qaeda in Yemen, against satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo in France and freedom of speech in general, foiled terror plots in Belgium, the ongoing bloodletting and crucifixion of Christian minorities, abduction and enslavement of young women and children in Syria and Iraq by ISIL, what is the objective observer to think of all these fruits of Islam?

Yet still we are subjected to the self congratulatory platitudes spewed by religious apologists of all hues, who tie themselves in knots trying to separate the actions of Muslims from their religion denying the fact this is religiosity in action, specifically the enactment of Islamic principles as defined in the Quran, for which one only has to read a hundred pages of the book to find numerous congratulations and justifications.

Even the UK Prime Minister David Cameron, has suggested these are merely “exceptions” trying to “pervert the mainstream Islamic religion” and “not representative of one of the largest religions in the world”, we should perhaps question why this particularly reactionary and self congratulatory conservative, favours large numbers of people dwelling submissively in the mist enveloped regions of the religious world, likewise his eternal superior HRH Prince Charles who has yet to 'bless us' with his frequently espoused, tragicomic Islamic apologia regarding any of these events.

What do those who would seek to set themselves ahead of all as an alienated hierarchy, stand to gain from the benighted submissiveness of a populace they feel entitled to govern, surely something, otherwise why encourage it?

Although it cannot be confirmed as I write this short essay, it is likely that not a year has passed since Muhammad took off towards Medina, around 622ad[6], in which actions similar to those described above have not been conducted in the name of Allah and spreading 'His' “Religion of Peace”, granted there was a truce called around 630ad, between the rulers of Mecca and the band of Muslims roving about the periphery of the great and ancient city, allowing them passage within to conduct Taqiyah, establish the new and subvert established forms of worship, but this merely enabled the Apostle of Allah to concentrate his attentions towards the tribes of Jews and “desert Arabs” elsewhere in the Arabian peninsula, as the Quran says in 9.97: “Arabs of the desert are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy, and most apt not to know the the ordinances of the Revelation which Allah has sent down” and 9.101: “...We will punish them twice; then shall they be given over to a great punishment”.

Yes it is clear the book so far takes place within a very specific historical context, during the founding of this imperialist, totalitarian system, but it doesn't take much to make relevant the messages utilized to enthuse a people to murder, in order to establish this religion in Muhammad’s time to a similarly stupefied people today.

I also accept there are some good innovations on the pre-existant culture he opposed, for instance 6.152 instructs us that it is wrong to kill children, though whoever needed to be told that so explicitly is unlikely to be the kind of material one would choose to build a state out of; 9.60 informs us that alms are only for the poor and needy, for the freeing of slaves and those in debt, alms being a pillar of the Totalitarian system he sought to fashion “from the offspring of other people”[7], but these improvements, these logical imperatives are few and far between in the first 10 Chapters, drowned out by the calls to War, instructions to murder, the distribution of the “spoils of war” for those who do, and expounding of punishments for those who refuse to, or merely show unsatisfactory zeal while going about it.

Moderate or “timorous” Muslims today want the best of both worlds, they want respect and admiration for their blind faith amongst the worldly and unencumbered by religion, as well as the rewards of a pleasure filled afterlife with Allah, rewards for their adherence to 'bit's and pieces' of the religion they espouse and make such a show of believing, which were they not educated in liberalism, democracy and enlightenment values they would no doubt adhere to absolutely and uncritically.

They want to live in societies more or less free from the arbitrary dictums of divine authorities,  benefiting greatly from that absence developing themselves in ways inconceivable to the authors of the Quran, while retaining the sense of superiority they must derive from a 'Holy' book that seeks to impart that very thing upon the 'true believers', the chosen of Allah, like the modern Christian, Hindu or Buddhist, the world we all inhabit can be a part time pursuit or 'sport', a mere passing the time before the main event, problems encountered there, ignored or attributed to a supernatural power, the solutions left up to a divine commander in chief, facilitating their non-participation as an addiction to strong pain-killers or narcotics may do.

They may say “we wish to retain our culture”, but there is nothing in the message of the Prophet, no order from Allah to allow his victims in Medina, Mecca and surrounding area to do the same, there is no imperative stating: “Allow the Meccan's to retain the worship of Al-Lat or Al-Uzza, for verily it be their cultural heritage”, quite the contrary infact, the reader is encouraged to put them to the sword, to punish them twice before sending them to a fiery afterlife of torment and pain, and for this they will be rewarded.

There must be a very clear explanation -hopefully one may be forthcoming in response to this preliminary investigation into the basis of Islamic religion-, as to what exactly is retained 1400 or so years later by the faithful, particularly mentioning, if anything is, why.

The absence of literature from an Islamic perspective, which is critical of the stories in the first 10 Chapters strikes me as suspicious, perhaps many Muslims feel the Apostle of Allah was right to use any means at his disposal to found this totalitarian political and ideological system, perhaps they feel by doing so Muhammad helped deliver them from ignorance as to God's word?

If that is so there is little they wouldn't have got by reading the Old Testament story in the Bible, being as the Quran is clearly based on and borrowed from it, this couldn't be any clearer than in Chapter 7, which throughout is merely reproductions of parts of the Judeo Christian tradition wherein terrible punishments are illustrated in story form, such as to Pharoah and his people; drowned “for they were all wrongdoers”, the story of Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah, the story of Noah, of Adam and Eve and similarly so -in line with the principles of conditioning through repetition- in Chapter 10 “Yunus”.

In all examples there are interesting differences, whereas Jesus states it is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to attain the heavenly realms, Islam being firmly rooted in a mercantile culture and tradition[8] put's it in chapter 7.41:“Those who reject Our Signs and turn away from the with disdain, the gates of the spiritual firmament will not be opened for them, nor will they enter Heaven until a camel goes through the eye of a needle.”; whereas the story of creation in Genesis closes with Yahweh taking a rest, having worked for six days creating the heavens, earth and all within them, Chapter 10.4 has Allah assuming a more 'active' role, having “Settled Himself on the Throne; He governs everything. There is no intercessor with Him save after His permission.”, perhaps highlighting a divergence between the culture of the Hebrew Israelite scribes and that which the 'new' Prophet of Allah sought to inspire.

While the Hebrew has a long tradition of debating the Laws handed down by Moses in the Talmud, no such tradition has been forthcoming from the Islamic religious culture, infact the idea that there could be is refuted numerous times within the Quran, with sayings such as: “this is a book whose verses have been made unchangeable”[10], compliance with this idea being evident in many modern countries, by their adherence to 5.38's imperative to chop off the hand of the thief, this being in Islamic thought “an exemplary punishment from Allah”, whereas the Hebrew scriptures state: “Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy his hunger when he is starving. Yet if he is caught, he must pay sevenfold”[11], the former of course may as well be a death sentence, removing the man's ability to work, steal or even, perchance receiving charity; literally feed himself in the future.

Also pre-existing the religion of Muhammad in the Judeo-Christian traditions we have various warnings against revenge, specifically against the concept of “an Eye for and Eye”[12], it seems God had not mellowed in the 600 or so years since he gave 'His Son' as blood sacrifice for the world's sins, indeed if the Quran is truly 'His' word revealed, 'He' had infact regressed somewhat from the time of the book of Matthew,  one imagines turning inwards in bitterness over the death of “his only begotten son”, drinking heavily and growing vengeful.

As though to illustrate the mode in which the author of the Quran has plagiarized these earlier literary contributions, Chapter 12 is simply a less detailed account of the story of Joseph as found in the book of Genesis, after recounting the story in greatly diminished form; excluding the names of the brothers with any overt description of the establishment of Israel in the lands of Egypt, depriving the story of it's actual point, it is merely used as yet another parable affirming the power of Muhammad's god, yet more threats and orders against 'idolatry' or making equals with Allah.

The author leaves a subtle and very poetic clue as to this methodology in the next chapter Al-Ra'd 13.18: “He sends down water from the sky, so that valleys flow according to their measure, and the flood bears on it's surface swelling foam. And from that which they heat in the fire, seeking to make ornaments or utensils, comes out a foam similar to it. Thus does Allah illustrate truth and falsehood. Now, as to the foam, it goes away as rubbish, but as to that which benefits men, it stays on the earth. Thus does Allah set forth parables.”

______

[1] In order to take Mecca from his Wife and Uncle's tribe the Quraysh

[2] 9.56
[3] 9.23
[4] 6.15-16 redacted
[5] Maybe it is, or maybe the recent events throughout Western Europe show nowhere is safe any longer from the ideological delusions of religious zealots.
[6] The Hijra after having been ostracised by the established Meccan aristocracy, his tribe the Quraysh for rejecting their traditional, Pagan cultural values.
[7] 6.134
[8] Muhammad's first wife was a wealthy Merchant, and this was the primary means of making a living for Muhammad until “the spoils of war” began to flow into the coffers of Allah's apostle, as 8.2 makes clear, infact it was during a 'business trip' around age 25 that Muhammad and the slave travelling with him, were convinced by a Monk of the Christian religion that indeed he was a Prophet long foretold in the ancient tomes, that the Christian hermits learned in Aramaic and Syriac scripture had been hoarding and studying for centuries.
[9] An ironic term to use as the chapter it appears (11) is a complete reproduction of the Old Testament, and various pre-existant Arabian myths with minor alterations, those with eyes can't help but see the hypocrisy.
[10] 11.2
[11]  Proverbs 6 verse 30-31
[12] Matthew 5 verse 38-48, it's quite apparent that the following Chapter is practically taken verbatim by the author of the Quran, covering subjects such as Alms giving, Prayer, Fasting and the proper ways of conducting oneself in these matters.