Back in 1948, around the world during the post-war period, there was little perception of Islam as threat to western ideals of democracy, the arts, science etc.
Freedom was enshrined in the United Nation’s “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and nations’ with Buddhist, Islamic, Christian and Hindu history and culture signed up to it.
The British comedy team which set up “Monty Python’s Flying Circus” wrote a sketch for their television show about a British travel show star called Alan Whicker. The basic premise was that the only problem with a tropical paradise was that their were too many Alan Whickers. All the team had dressed like Alan Whicker and it became increasingly amusing as all these Whickers started fighting for the microphone so they could talk to camera in his distinct British Officer’s tone of voice. Since 1977 it has seemed to me as though everybody and anybody has been trying to suppress the view of the world I had come to or steal my ability to communicate or understand, much like in this sketch, by ‘fair’ (in their eyes), means or foul.
In this web-site there are areas where I discuss the way a human body ad mind can experience changes in chemistry which cause discomfort, how the Danes are capable of putting a mind in a quandry as at the Rebecca Fest and how the human mind can be inhibited either by chemistry (what might be called magics), or receiving the book on their back (the Koran), or neural programming through repetition (Christianity). Each of the churches may involve a combination of these too since if the aim is to get people to believe lies probably anything goes.
While it is wrong to identify any religion as being more culpable than another, since many are attended by sincere people and may even be inspired by sincerity in their founders, I will use Islam here to give an example of how the trick is played on humanity.
In simple terms it is about taking a notion from higher states of human consciousness, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, (UDHR) and turning that state to the advantage of the religion.
Taking a shortened version of the UDHR, as Amnesty International published as a poster, and looking at 4 of the rights at random, numbers, 2, 8 16 and 23, it can be shown that these can be uniquely adopted by Islam.
Article 2 changes from:
- Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration without distinction of any kind.
- Everybody Islamic is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this declaration, without distinction of any kind.
In the heart of someone looking for a belief this may be a good reason to convert to Islam, if they are not aware of the UDHR.
The same can be done for all the articles in the declaration and the ones I numbered above are given below in this format:
- Everybody Islamic has the right to an effective legal remedy if their rights are not respected (Article 8)
- Islamic men and women of full age have the right to marry and found a family, with free and full consent and equal rights during or after marriage (Article 16)
- Everybody Muslim has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to fair and equal pay and to form and to join trade unions. (Article 23)
Once these rights, which would no doubt would have sounded good in the 7th century when Islam was founded and also now sound good to anyone who does not know of the UDHR, are established as being for a particular religion they can be used to justify loathing or contempt of others. For instance, slavery of non-Muslims falls easily out of the three above and in fact an Islamic lady recently wrote to my local paper attempting to justify modern slavery as long as the slave is cared for.
Because they would never insult of do or say anything to damage their own religion, Islamic culture could easily abuse Article number 19 which I have picked, out rather than taken at random:
- Everybody Islamic has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
In discussions the adherents of any religion can appear to be offering a safe and ‘good’ future and if they are ever challenged they can say that of course their religion offers exactly the same rights and respect to non-believers, but the question arising from the spate of Islamic, Protestant Hindu and Catholic terrorism is why do they not just look at the UDHR before they commit these atrocities.
Most of the ills of today associated with limited intellect, (including those I suffer from), would appear to be rooted in the dumbing down of the human capacity for thought and compassion in order to convince the foolish that one religion or another is the provider of these compassionate rights.
While I recognise it is as difficult for me to convince others of other dimensions to life than the material world as it was for me to convince myself before the events of 1977 and thereafter chronicles on this web-site, one must also give passing regard to the the potential of bad intent to justify itself in a similar fashion to how I have illustrated a religion with good intent may exclude others. For instance, if their are evil hearted Satanists, (and I am not convinced of that although the woman who impersonates or possess my mother (see the Nightmare page) could probably qualify, then article 19 offers opportunities to possess and nag if the media referred to is that of magic.
- Every witch and wizard has the right to freedom of opinion and expression and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
It is equally of course only when those witches and wizards accepted that they had no right more than the UDHR gave to all, which would mean one could not nag or terrorise others in their dreams, that the rules work for us as a race and may inspire us to offer similar if not equal rights to animals and thus preserve the biodiversity of our lovely planet.
A writer to the The Independent Letters column on 31st October 2009 wrote “You quote Professor Abdel Saleem as saying that the Koran gives "equal standing to women". In fact, it does the exact opposite.
Chapter 2, verse 228 says, "Men have a status above women". Chapter 4, verse 34 says, "Good women are obedient ... as for those from whom you fear disobedience ... beat them". Chapter 2, verse 223 states, "Your women are your fields, so go into them as you please".
Chapter 4, verse 11 says a woman may inherit only half as much as a man. Chapter 2, verse 282 says a woman's witness is worth only half as much as a man's. And so on.
Taking three other translations of probably the most contentious of the above Chapter 2 verse 223:
YUSUFALI: Your wives are as a tilth unto you; so approach your tilth when or how ye will; but do some good act for your souls beforehand; and fear Allah. And know that ye are to meet Him (in the Hereafter), and give (these) good tidings to those who believe.
PICKTHAL: Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before you for your souls, and fear Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet Him. Give glad tidings to believers, (O Muhammad).
SHAKIR: Your wives are a tilth for you, so go into your tilth when you like, and do good beforehand for yourselves, and be careful (of your duty) to Allah, and know that you will meet Him, and give good news to the believers.
Whichever translation one takes it seems somewhat short of egalitarian values. Perhaps Pickthal’s is the best excuse in that it entreats men to cultivate their wives perhaps as in the musical “My Fair Lady”. However, reality is, of course, that it implies that she is less educated in the first place, which only encourages the scum of the Taliban and followers of extreme Saudi Arabian beliefs about women, to not allow women an education in the first place. At worst it implies the male cultivates the female by taking her sexually as he pleases. I have known girls who like being ‘taken’ or a bit of ‘slapping around’ but that is surrender by consent because their imaginations can run wild and the man can let go imagining himself an animal perhaps, like images on Greek pottery. It is nothing to do with non-consensual sex and there is no implication that in work, ethics, morality, social mores and law, egalitarian principles do not apply.