PIG of the week
Bakri dons another impenetrable disguise.
We haven't heard much from this ugly mother
fucker for a while, maybe he has slipped back into the UK to pick
up his Ford Galaxy, that was so kindly supplied by disability
mobility. One thing these scumy fundamentalist
are very good at, is milking the UK state benefit system, siigh!.
One of Omar Bakris long term friends, creepy Ken
Livingstone caught on Camera.
A furtive, dirty Mac Iguana
Ken Livingstone, hungrily clutching the latest video release,
"caught" as he leaves the Blue Lizard Video Shop in
We have viewed several of these vile videos in
the name of research - We are shocked at the depths these little
green bastards will sink - The people who make this filth, and
the perverts who watch it should face the full force of the law.
Unfortunately, due to a legal loophole, the law is powerless to
act. email your protest to:- firstname.lastname@example.org
We confronted creepy
Ken Livingstone on his sick behavior. He smugly droned,
" I need the videos to improve my skills as a vivi.. err!
I mean animal technician" He added, that when he leaves Politics
and returns to the real world. He intends to build on his past
experience as an animal technician. Ken aims to specialize in
the Sexual dysfunctionality of the post porn gay Iguana.
(Ed. A generous Lottery good causes grant has already
been allocated to fund this project)
Animal technician = Vivisectionist Ken worked for
8 years at the Chester Beatty Cancer Research, Institute, London
- Monkeys, dogs, rabbit's, rats and mice. (What no kittens .Ed)
To be honest, I was taken aback when I discovered this, while
reading Kens Bio. I took Animal technician to mean Vets assistant,
or maybe something to do with Pet shops. How naïve of me.
Ken was the man that put the catheters into the monkeys eyes.
Forced the cigarettes into the Beagles mouth. Exposed the live
monkeys brain. Maybe doing this for a few months could be justified,
especially if you are thick Trotskyite - but 8 years No! No! something
is not right here.. The Iguana thing, was supposed to be a joke
relating to Kens fascination with newts. Now we feel a chill running
down our spines. The whimpering of those pups, the poor little
chimps, crying in the night for their mums, and all the while
Ken worked happily away for 8 years. Kens callous wholesale slaughter
of the little pigeons now falls into perspective.. He f**ing well
enjoys it - We are now scared..
.(Ed. Calm down, Trafalgar square is a much nicer place without
the pigeons. That is apart from the traffic lights that are on
green, for only seven seconds)
Bus R US
& transport for London
contrevention codes Record
About this Website
This website came into existence on 05 February 2004 - 5pm GMT
Your editor spent most of this night, venting his spleen, in a
spontaneous, and manic outpouring, that went on till the early
This websites purpose
To fight back against extortion.
To keep the car driver informed about the law, and latest legal
To publish your grievance and experiences.
To unmask the faceless beurocrats, behind this out of control
To start a campaign of civil disobedience. To publish every trick
obstructing the tow truck,
Deactivation of meters &
Destruction of speed cameras
Lastly, to try & restore a balance of sanity and fairness
in the way the motorists is treated by the state, the police,
and local authorities.
A conduit for all the anger that has been rising up in me of late.
For what I see as the betrayal of the great silent majority in
this country & great city of ours, dare I say it in the political
correct mad house that "England" has become.
Letter to exfl.com
I recently got a bus lane fine which I wanted to appeal until
I was informed by London Borough of Brent that the fine would
go up from £50 to £100 if I lost my case. This I feel
needs reviewing as lower income families and pensioners should
be given the chance to appeal without the threat of added fines.
W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman.
Oxford University Press, 1961. from pg. 229.
ASSESSMENT, APPEARANCE AND MANNER
Muhammad, according to some apparently authentic accounts, was
of average height or a little above the average. His chest and
shoulders were broad, and altogether he was of sturdy build. His
arms were long, and his hands and feet rough. His forehead was
large and prominent, and he had a hooked nose and large black
eyes with a touch of brown. The hair of his head was long and
thick, straight or slightly curled. His beard also was thick,
and he had a thin line of fine hair on his neck and chest. His
cheeks were spare, his mouth large, and he had a pleasant smile.
In complexion he was fair. He always walked as if he was rushing
downhill, and others had difficulty in keeping up with him. When
he turned in any direction, he did so with his whole body. He
was given to sadness, and there were long periods of silence when
he was deep in thought; yet he never rested but was always busy
with something. He never spoke unnecessarily. What he said was
always to the point and sufficient to make his meaning clear,
but there was no padding. From the first to last he spoke rapidly.
Over his feelings he had a firm control. When he was annoyed he
would turn aside; when he was pleased, he lowered his eyes. His
time was carefully apportioned according to the various demands
on him. In his dealings with people he was above all tactful.
He could be severe at times, though in the main he was not rough
but gentle. His laugh was mostly a smile.
Of the many stories illustrating his gentleness and tenderness
of feeling, some at least are worthy of credence. The widow of
his cousin Ja'far ibn-Abi-Talib herself told her grand-daughter
how he broke the news of Ja'far's death. She had been busy one
morning with her household duties, which had included tanning
forty hides and kneading dough, when Muhammad called. She collected
her children --she had three sons by Ja'far -- washed their faces
and anointed them. When Muhammad entered, he asked for the sons
of Ja'far. She brought them, and Muhammad put his arms round them
and smelt them, as a mother would a baby. Then his eyes filled
with tears and he burst out weeping. ' Have you heard something
about Ja'far ? ' she asked, and he told her he had been killed.
Later he instructed some of his people to prepare food for Ja'far's
household, ' for they are too busy today to think about themselves
He seems to have been specially fond of children and to have
got on well with them. Perhaps it was the yearning of a man who
saw all his sons die as infants. Much of his paternal affection
went to his adopted son Zayd. He was also attached to his younger
cousin 'Ali ibn-Abi-Talib, who had been a member of his household
for a time; but he doubtless realized that 'Ah had not the makings
of a successful statesman. For a time a grand-daughter called
Umamah was a favourite. He would carry her on his shoulder during
the public prayers, setting her down when he bowed or prostrated,
then picking her up again. On one occasion he teased his wives
by showing them a necklace and saying he would give it to the
one who was dearest to him; when he thought their feelings were
sufficiently agitated, he presented it not to any of them, but
He was able to enter into the spirit of childish games and had
many friends among children. He had fun with the children who
came back from Abyssinia and spoke Abyssinian. In one house in
Medina there was a small boy with whom he was accustomed to have
jokes. One day he found the small boy looking very sad, and asked
what was the matter. When he was told that his pet nightingale
had died, he did what he could to comfort him. His kindness extended
even to animals, which is remarkable for Muhammad's century and
part of the world. As his men marched towards Mecca just before
the conquest they passed a bitch with puppies; and Muhammad not
merely gave orders that they were not to be disturbed, but posted
a man to see that the orders were carried out.
These are interesting sidelights on the personality of Muhammad,
and fill out the picture formed of him from his conduct of public
affairs. He gained men's respect and confidence by the religious
basis of his activity and by qualities such as courage, resoluteness,
impartiality and firmness inclining to severity but tempered by
generosity. In addition to these he had a charm of manner which
won their affection and secured their devotion.
THE ALLEGED MORAL FAILURES
Of all the world's great men none has been so much maligned as
Muhammad. We saw above how this has come about. For centuries
Islam was the great enemy of Christendom, since Christendom was
in direct contact with no other organized states comparable in
power to the Muslims. The Byzantine empire, after losing some
of its best provinces to the Arabs, was being attacked in Asia
Minor, while Western Europe was threatened through Spain and Sicily.
Even before the Crusades focused attention on the expulsion of
the Saracens from the Holy Land, medieval Europe was building
up a conception of ' the great enemy '. At one point Muhammad
was transformed into Mahound, the prince of darkness. By the twelfth
century the ideas about Islam and Muslims current in the crusading
armies were such travesties that they had a bad effect on morale.
Practical considerations thus combined with scholarly zeal to
foster the study and dissemination of more accurate information
abo Muhammad and his religion.
Since that time much has been achieved, especially durin the last
two centuries, but many of the old prejudices linge on. Yet in
the modern world, where contacts between Christians and Muslims
are closer than ever before, it is urgent that both should strive
to reach an objective view of Muhammad's character. The denigration
of him by European writers has too often been followed by a romantic
idealization of his figure by other Europeans and by Muslim. Neither
denigration nor idealization is an adequate basis for the mutual
relations of nearly half the human race. We are now back at the
questions with which we began. We have an outline of the facts
on which ultimate judgements mus be based. What are our ultimate
judgements to be ?
One of the common allegations against Muhammad is tha he was
an impostor, who to satisfy his ambition and his lust propagated
religious teachings which he himself knew to be false. Such insincerity
makes the development of the Islamic religion incomprehensible.
This point was first vigorously made over a hundred years ago
by Thomas Carlyle in his lectures On Heroes, and it has since
been increasingly accepted by scholars. Only a profound belief
in himself and his mission explains Muhammad's readiness to endure
hardship and persecution during the Meccan period when from a
secular point of view there was no prospect of success. Without
sincerity how could he have won the allegiance and even devotion
of men of strong and upright character like Abu-Bakr and 'Umar
? For the theist there is the further question how God could have
allowed a great religion like Islam to develop on a basis of lies
and deceit. There is thus a strong case for holding that Muhammad
was sincere. If in some respects he was mistaken, his mistakes
were not due to deliberate Iying or imposture.
The other main allegations of moral defect in Muhammad are that
he was treacherous and lustful. These are supported be reference
to events like the violation of the sacred month on the expedition
of Nakhlah (624) and his marriage to Zaynab bint-Jahsh, the divorced
wife of his adopted son. About the bare facts there is no dispute,
but it is not so clear that the facts justify the allegations.
Was the violation of the sacred month an act of treachery or a
justified breach with a piece of pagan religion ? Was the marriage
with Zaynab a yielding to sexual desire or a mainly political
act in which an undesirable practice of ' adoption ' belonging
to a lower moral level was ended ? Sufficient has been said above
about the interpretation of these events to show that the case
against Muhammad is much weaker than is sometimes thought.
The discussions of these allegations, however, raises a fundamental
question. How are we to judge Muhammad ? By the standards of his
own time and country ? Or by those of the most enlightened opinion
in the West today ? When the sources are closely scrutinized,
it is clear that those of Muhammad's actions which are disapproved
by the modern West were not the object of the moral criticism
of his contemporaries. They criticized some of his acts, but their
motives were superstitious prejudice or fear of the consequences.
If they criticized the events at Nakhlah, it was because they
feared some punishment from the offended pagan gods or the worldly
vengeance of the Meccans. If they were amazed at the mass execution
of the Jews of the clan of Qurayzah, it was at the number and
danger of the blood-feuds incurred. The marriage with Zaynab seemed
incestuous, but this conception of incest was bound up with old
practices belonging to a lower, communalistic level of familial
institutions where a child's paternity was not definitely known;
and this lower level was in process being eliminated by Islam.
From the standpoint of Muhammad's time, then, the allegations
of treachery and sensuality cannot be maintained. His contemporaries
did not find him morally defective in any way. On the contrary,
some of the acts criticized by the modern Westerner show that
Muhammad's standards werehigher than those of his time. In his
day and generation he was a social reformer, even a reformer in
the sphere of morals. He created a new system of social security
and a new family structure, both of which were a vast improvement
on what went before. By taking what was best in the morality of
the nomad and adapting it for settled communities, he established
a religious and social framework for the life of many races of
men. That is not the work of a traitor or ' an old lecher'.
It is sometimes asserted that Muhammad's character ( declined
after he went to Medina, but there are no solid grounds for this
view. It is based on too facile a use of the principal that all
power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The allegations
of moral defects are attached to incidents belonging to the Medinan
and not the Meccan period, but according to the interpretation
of these incidentsgiven in this book they marked no failure in
Muhammad to live to his ideals and no lapse from his moral principles.
The persecuted preacher of Mecca was no less a man of his time
than the ruler of Medina. If nothing is recorded of the preacher
to show us how different his attitude was from that of nineteenth-century
Europe, it does not follow that his ideals were any loftier (by
our standards) than those of the reforming ruler. The opposite
is more likely to be the case since the preacher was nearer to
the pagan background. In both Meccan and Medinan periods Muhammad's
contemporaries looked on him as a good and upright man, and in
the eyes of history he is a moral and social reformer.
So much must be said in fairness to Muhammad when he is measured
against the Arabs of his time. Muslims, however, claim that he
is a model of conduct and character for all mankind. In so doing
they present him for judgement according to the standards of enlightened
world opinion. Though the world is increasingly becoming one world,
it has so far paid scant attention to Muhammad as a moral exemplar.
Yet because Muslims are numerous, it will sooner or later have
to consider seriously whether from the life and teaching of Muhammad
any principles are to be learnt which will contribute to the moral
development of mankind.
To this question no final answer has yet been given. What has
been said so far by Muslims in support of their claims for Muhammad
is but a preliminary statement and has convinced few non-Muslims.
It is still open to the Muslims of today, however, to give the
rest of the world a fuller and better presentation of their case.
Will they be able to sift the universal from the particular in
the life of Muhammad and so discover moral principles which make
a creative contribution to the present world situation ? Or, if
this is too much to expect, will they at least be able to show
that Muhammad's life is one possible exemplification of the ideal
for all humanity ? If they make a good case, some Christians will
be ready to listen to them and to learn whatever is to be learned.
In this enterprise the difficulties confronting Muslims are immense.
A combination of sound scholarship and deep moral insight is needed,
and this combination is rare. My personal view is that Muslims
are unlikely to be successful in their attempt to influence world
opinion, at least in the sphere of morals. In the wider sphere
of religion they have probably something to contribute to the
world, for they have retained emphases -- on the reality of God,
for example -- which have been neglected or forgotten in important
sections of the other monotheistic religions; and I for one gladly
acknowledge my indebtedness to the writings of men like al-Ghazali.
But towards convincing Christian Europe that Muhammad is the ideal
man little, indeed nothing, has so far been accomplished.
THE FOUNDATIONS OF GREATNESS
Circumstances of time and place favoured Muhammad. Various forces
combined to set the stage for his life-work and for the subsequent
expansion of Islam. There was the social unrest in Mecca and Medina,
the movement towards monotheism, the reaction against Hellenism
in Syria and Egypt, the decline of the Persian and Byzantine empires,
and a growing realization by the nomadic Arabs of the opportunities
for plunder in the settled lands round them. Yet these forces,
and others like them which might be added, would not in themselves
account for the rise of the empire known as the Umayyad caliphate
nor for the development of Islam into a world religion. There
was nothing inevitable or automatic about the spread of the Arabs
and the growth of the Islamic community. Without a remarkable
combination of qualities in Muhammad it is improbable that the
expansion would have taken place, and the military potential of
the Arabs might easily have spent itself in raids on Syria and
'Iraq with no lasting consequences. These qualities fall into
First there is Muhammad's gift as a seer. Through him -- or, on
the orthodox Muslim view, through the revelations made to him
-- the Arab world was given a framework of ideas within which
the resolution of its social tensions became possible. The provision
of such a framework involved both insight into the fundamental
causes of the social malaise of the time, and the genius to express
this insight in a form which would stir the hearer to the depths
of his being. The European reader may be ' put off ' by the Qur'an,
but it was admirably suited to the needs and conditions of the
Secondly, there is Muhammad's wisdom as a statesman. The conceptual
structure found in the Qur'an was merely a framework. The framework
had to support a building of concrete policies and concrete institutions.
In the course of this book much has been said about Muhammad's
far-sighted political strategy and his social reforms. His wisdom
in these matters is shown by the rapid expansion of his small
state to a world-empire after his death, and by the adaptation
of his social institutions to many different environments and
their continuance for thirteen centuries.
Thirdly, there is his skill and tact as an administrator and
his wisdom in the choice of men to whom to delegate administrative
details. Sound institutions and a sound policy will not go far
if the execution of affairs is faulty and fumbling. When Muhammad
died, the state he had founded was a ' going concern ', able to
withstand the shock of his removal and, once it had recovered
from this shock, to expand at prodigious speed.
The more one reflects on the history of Muhammad and of early
Islam, the more one is amazed at the vastness of his achievement.
Circumstances presented him with an opportunity such as few men
have had, but the man was fully matched with the hour. Had it
not been for his gifts as seer, statesman, and administrator and,
behind these, his trust in God and firm belief that God had sent
him, a notable chapter in the history of mankind would have remained
WAS MUHAMMAD A PROPHET ?
So far Muhammad has been described from the point of view of the
historian. Yet as the founder of a world-religion he also demands
a theological judgement. Emil Brunner, for example, considers
his claim to be a prophet, holds that it ' does not seem to be
in any way justified by the actual content of the revelations
', but admits that, ' had Mohammed been a pre-Christian prophet
of Arabia, it would not be easy to exclude him from the ranks
of the messengers who` prepared the way for the revelation '.
Without presuming to enter into the theological complexities behind
Brunner's view, I shall try, at the level of the educated man
who has no special knowledge of either Christian or Islamic theology,
to put forward some general considerations relevant to the question.
I would begin by asserting that there is found, at least in some
men, what may be called ' creative imagination '. Notable instances
are artists, poets and imaginative writers. All these put into
sensuous form (pictures, poems, dramas, novels) what many are
feeling but are unable to express fully. Great works of the creative
imagination have thus a certain universality, in that they give
expression to the feelings and attitudes of a whole generation.
They are, of course, not imaginary, for they deal with real things;
but they employ images, visual or conjured up by words, to express
what is beyond the range of man's intellectual conceptions.
Prophets and prophetic religious leaders, I should maintain,
share in this creative imagination. They proclaim ideas connected
with what is deepest and most central in human experience, with
special reference to the particular needs of their day and generation.
The mark of the great prophet is the profound attraction of his
ideas for those to whom they are addressed.
Where do such ideas come from ? Some would say ' from the unconscious
'. Religious people say ' from God ', at least with regard to
the prophets of their own tradition, though a few would go so
far as to claim with Baron Friedrich von Hugel, ' that everywhere
there is some truth; that this truth comes originally from God
.' Perhaps it could be maintained that these ideas of the creative
imagination come from that life in a man which is greater than
himself and is largely below the threshold of consciousness. For
the Christian this still implies some connexion with God, for,
according to Saint John, in the Word was life, and Jesus said
' I am the Life '.
The adoption of one of these views does not settle all the questions
at issue. What about those ideas of the creative imagination which
are false or unsound ? Baron von Hugel is careful to say only
that truth comes from God. Religious tradition has also held that
ideas might come from the devil. Even if the creative imagination
is an instrument which may be used by God or Life, that does not
necessarily imply that all its ideas are true or sound. In Adolf
Hitler the creative imagination was well developed, and his ideas
had a wide appeal, but it is usually held that he was neurotic
and that those Germans who followed him most devotedly became
infected by his neurosis.
In Muhammad, I should hold, there was a welling up of the creative
imagination, and the ideas thus produced are to a great extent
true and sound. It does not follow, however, that all the Qur'anic
ideas are true and sound. In particular there is at least one
point at which they seem to be unsoundthe idea that ' revelation
' or the product of the creative imagination is superior to normal
human traditions as a source of bare historical fact. There are
several verses in the Qur'an (II. 5I; 3. 39; I2. I03) to the effect
that ' this is one of the reports of the unseen which We reveal
to thee; thou didst not know it, thou nor thy people, before this
'. One could admit a claim that the creative imagination was able
to give a new and truer interpretation of a historical event,
but to make it a source of bare fact is an exaggeration and false.
This point is of special concern to Christians, since the Qur'an
denies the bare fact of the death of Jesus on the cross, and Muslims
still consider that this denial outweighs the contrary testimony
of historical tradition. The primary intention of the Qur'an was
to deny the Jews' interpretation of the crucifixion as a victory
for themselves, but as normally explained it goes much farther.
The same exaggeration of the role of ' revelation ' has also had
other consequences. The Arab contribution to Islamic culture has
been unduly magnified, and that of the civilized peoples of Egypt,
Syria, 'Iraq and Persia, later converted to Islam, has been sadly
Too much must not be made of this slight flaw. Which of us, conscious
of being called by God to perform a special task, would not have
been more than a little proud ? On the whole Muhammad was remarkably
free from pride. Yet this slight exaggeration of his own function
has had grave consequences and cannot be ignored.
Finally, what of our question ? Was Muhammad a prophet ? He was
a man in whom creative imagination worked at deep levels and produced
ideas relevant to the central questions of human existence, so
that his religion has had a widespread appeal, not only in his
own age but in succeeding centuries. Not all the ideas he proclaimed
are true and sound, but by God's grace he has been enabled to
provide millions of men with a better religion than they had before
they testified that there is no god but God and that Muhammad
is the messenger of God.