I’m nonplussed by the decision of the Scottish; the decision rendered me unsurprisingly so, yet the affair rings of an anti-climax. On some level a yes vote would appease the part of me longing for socialism in this country, even though such a result would bring none of the change forty five percent of Scottish people wanted, as well as that willed by the many socialist no voters. Scotland was imposed with a choice it did not ask for. Scotland cried out for an end to the encroaching privatisation of the NHS – a view expressed to a moderate degree by the SNP. But they also cried out for social reform: for structural changes in society which would prevent wealth from flooding into London and into the bank accounts of individuals, thus hiding that wealth from those who created it – this, the SNP would not reflect. The option people requested was not an alternative any party wished to offer.
Salmond’s post-election speech, like Darling’s, was dry and predictable: an accolade for the democratic process and a demand for Westminster to honour its promise of greater devolution for Scotland. No promise of reform or resistance; just let the status quo take its course. Thus it is that a whole generation of young Scots seeking political change through his empty promises become disillusioned and hopeless; optimism replaced with pessimism, idealism replaced with cynicism; a generation of the Scottish left destroyed by the brash, imbecilic decisions of a quasi-socialist.
But the SNP is not responsible for this enormous waste of left wing activism alone. The finger of blame must also be wagged at the members of the left who ought have known better. There are sections of the left who have spent decades organising and campaigning for socialism who blindly supported the yes vote, who pretended a yes vote would make everything better. They would quickly forgot the ideals of working class solidarity, of destroying artificial borders (this particular border created by the Romans almost two millennia ago). Seemingly they pretended a yes vote would magically eradicate Scotland of the vices of centralization and political authoritarianism. They would like to forget Salmond’s dubious expenses claims, and pretend he is revolutionary politician who would buck the trend of careerist statesmen who serve only to protect the status quo that awarded them their own high position. They ignore the SNP’s basis for an economy, the exportation of oil. Suddenly fossil fuels aren’t a bad thing. The SNP promised nothing that the yes voters asked for, much less what the no voters asked for. The British left as a whole should have been united behind a decision to campaign for socialism, no matter the result of the referendum. In fact, they should have refused to take a side; the question asked in the referendum is a red herring, irrelevant to anyone but the most tribal of nationalists and football hooligans.
Truly, the people of Scotland have spoken. An eighty percent turnout is unheard of in elections, as Salmond quite correctly observed. Never have people been so willing to change the status quo. So let us change it. But not just in Scotland, in the North too, and the South, and a great many in London will join fight as well. Remember, a majority of people did not vote for the Tory party. The Tories have been on their way out since the fall of Thatcher. And let us not fight against each other. The working class have no power individually; we must fight collectively as part of trade unions, and as factions of our political parties. The fight for socialism is not a single vote, and should never be viewed as such: socialism will be a constant struggle, but our NHS, welfare system and education are worth the fight.
The bridge is as sturdy as Roman aqueducts. Perhaps a connection like an isthmus would be mightily more preferable. Nonetheless, Obama is rather dismissive in recognizing the bridge. He makes an effort to dichotomize religion and the pathetic bunch of slubberdegullions. Broadcasting that ‘ISIL speaks for no religion and no faith teaches people to massacre innocents’. It’s an unacceptable statement that intentionally, in cold blood camoflauges the naked truth. And quite frankly, we’re solely held responsible. We’ve carved this cynical reality where we favour our leaders to censor any truth that’ll inflame feelings. And readily replace this intrinsic truth with a twisted, distorted, politically correct adaptation of it.
As testimony to my proposition, i intend to quote scriptures from the Qur’an and align them with a reprehensible act by IS. People will still deny the incontrovertible veracity of what is beneath. They more often than not take the shape of bourgeois bohemians. If so, let me interest you in some Doves Farm Fairtrade Organic Gluten Free Cocoa Crunch Cookies (that’ll surely get rid of them).
The 2014 Al-Anfal campaign (1988, to liquidate the Kurds) for the Yazidis
And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.
The Yazidis are a Kurdish ethno-religious people. An amalgam of Abrahamic gospels (Christianity and Islam) in addition to Zoroastrianism. A genocide is materializing, the 73rd genocide against the Yazidi people in its 6600+ year history. The residents of the village of Kocho (15 km south of the town of Sinjar) were told to become muslims by noon (apostatize) or face extermination on site. All but one refused. 420 men were executed. 1000 women and children were seized. As they will possibly be subjected to slavery. IS classified them as polytheists, whom they furthermore regard as devil worshippers. The Islamists are able to vindicate their barbarism with this verse.
Objectification of Yazidi women and slavery
Also (forbidden are) women already married, except those whom your right hands possess. Thus has Allah ordained for you. All others are lawful, provided you seek them from your property, desiring chastity, not fornication. So with those among them whom you have enjoyed, give them their required due, but if you agree mutually after the requirement (has been determined), there is no sin on you. Surely, Allah is Ever All-Knowing, All-Wise.
This and 33:50 are suggestive that men have a God-given monopoly on women and access to their pudendum. IS apprehend hundreds of Yazidi women from Sinjar where they’re retailed at as inexpensive as $25. Refusal to cooperate will mean they will be repeatedly raped. They’re impenitently given to young jihadists as wives or inserted into the intricate network of brothels. The Ottoman empire had Georgian slaves. As did the Crimean Khanate. Dhimmis can be enslaved and as far as we’re concerned, Yazidis fall into the category of Dhimmis. Muhammad himself, engrossed slaves and marketed them in the 7th century. A Coptic slave, named Mariyah maintained sexual relations with Muhammad.
There’re 164 verses promulgating Jihad in the Qur’an. These verses have been employed nowadays and also historically to justify malevolent behaviour. And the qur’an’s dark side is very much relevant to today’s context. I shall refrain from posting all, but to quote miscellaneous verses from surahs
And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.
Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
We will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve for what they have associated with Allah of which He had not sent down [any] authority. And their refuge will be the Fire, and wretched is the residence of the wrongdoers.
They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah . But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper.
Those who unreluctantly jump onto this silly, specious bandwagon that busts its gut to de-islamify IS are too busy polishing their halo to care. Dyeing the true colours of IS to fight shy of rationalism and refrain from bruising the feelings of people, particularly muslims. Or they feel consternation about being labelled Islamophobic, which the word is as preposterous as it sounds if you pretend this is the first time you’ve stumbled across the sorry excuse of a word (Islamophobia).
On occasion, one must write out of their comfort zone. As demonstrated, IS embodies a plausible interpretation of the Qur’an. To diabolically concretise the hizb ut-tahrir’s principles (al-dawla) and pick the Ottoman dynasty up from its ruins. Its interpretation, if literal, is fraught with danger. Let not the seeds of the sultans metastasize and may they be treated the very same as the Ottomans were at the gates of Vienna.
By Mert Maximilian. Euphratesmert@gmail.com
The imperishable author and raconteur Mark Twain once opined that if you “give a man a reputation of an early riser, he can sleep till noon”.
In a culture which is noted for being meretricious, so called “celebrities” who have the appearance of erudition and speak in grandiloquent soundbites tend to be exulted to a quasi-cultish degree. One notable example of such a trend is Russell Brand.
For one thing, Brand’s characteristically mellifluent rhetoric is underpinned by platitudes; his modus operandi, as stated in an interview with Mehdi Hasan is to instigate a “revolution of consciousness”. What exactly does that mean? It sounds erringly similar to the inchoate ramblings of a LSD induced post-modernist Gallic philosopher.
As a an apparent revolutionary he also to tries to discourage people from voting. Except that by relinquishing your suffrage one is not engaging in a revolutionary act, but is instead engaging in the actions of a reactionary troglodyte; It undermines an essential component of being a democratic citizen and effecting political change.
The most noble and praiseworthy actions of English radicalism was campaigning successfully in compelling Parliament to assign suffrage to all members of society. Arguing against voting constitutes an egregious inversion of such struggles- which made democratic citizenry an inalienable right.
The apotheosis of Brand’s moral retardation however finds form in his contention that David Cameron is a more imminent threat to Britain than the soi-dissant ‘Islamic state’. Not only does this underplay the evident existential threat of IS by framing them as only “abstract” and “conceptual” threats- such a juxtaposition between heinous barbarians and a Tory toff is actually indicative of Brand’s perverse moral calculus.
Mr Cameron, though he has many faults, does not subjugate women to slavery (a significant affront to gender equality), he does not evangelise unrestrained hatred to those who don’t adhere to his religious beliefs ( a significant affront to secularism) and most importantly he does not engage in genocidal practices (which is a significant affront to humanity).
Yet by framing Cameron as more of a threat than IS, Brand is engaging what has characterised the far left since their dalliance with Stalinism: dysphemistic masochism and euphemistic impartiality. “We are responsible for IS and shouldn’t do anything” (paralysing the possibility of any coherent strategy to counter the group and absolving them from any moral responsibility for their abhorrent actions). “The west is a greater threat to the world than IS”, oh really! A coalition of governments which at the very least entertain the realisation of enlightenment values is worse than fascistic, internecine zealots.
My use of collective pronoun above is of course conceptual because Russell Brand is really a narcissist of the worst kind: one who views himself as noble and intelligent and self-effacing. One who is probably all too aware of the sophistry inherent in his polemics but continues to peddle them so as to assuage the spineless status of pretentious, lazy liberals.
One who is devoid of any genuine principle- appearing on Russian state tv propaganda– and one who has the nauseating audacity to inaugurate “the next Orwell” as if he were a notable expert on Orwell- or on anything for that matter.
Oh, and he isn’t fucking funny either.
The Germanic aphorism, ‘Aus einer Mucke einen Elefanten machen’ is very often forgotten. Its translation in english is a derivation of the term, equivalent of ‘To make a mountain out of a molehill’. As nothing more will discharge foam into the mouths of muslims and their apologetics than marginal scrutiny and dissent that’d seem largely frivolous to members of other religions and practises. You don’t believe me? Needn’t take my word for it. No other religion with the exception of Islam has its name prefixed to phobia. And if you’re a proponent of free speech, you’d soon see the vanity of this all.
The prelude to the neolexia of the word will encompass one point. That a phobia is an irrational fear of something. Ideas and prescripts can be affirmatively subjected to dislike without it being branded an act of an irrational fear. The word, Islamophobia predates the September 11 attacks, being formed in the 90’s and coined by a Muslim Brotherhood front in america (Northern Virginia, to be pedantic). The saudi-subsidized organisation formulated the terminology in an endeavour to emulate the success emerged from ‘’homophobia’’. Vestiges of homogeneous interpretations of the word were faintly used before the 90’s. Any suggestion that it stemmed from 9-11 is a fat misconception. Improper to veto, it has unequivocally worked and operates to this day to victimise the culprits. It has morphed into a defense mechanism used by muslims to attack free speech, which is the secular rabbi’s mitzvah .Wishing nothing but to furnish muslims with a force field whereby any comment that is of dissentient nature is ricocheted away towards the critic to belittle them into thinking they’re the vulgar ones. That an act of disapproval is blasphemous. That you could get away with the ghastliest of things to ethics if only you have this stupid word in your arsenal.
The oversensitivity of muslims outcasts itself as plain as a pikestaff. You ought to be exempt from being silenced on the grounds of ‘offending someone’ like it constitutes a rebuttal. Be the statement innocuous or not. Be it scrutiny or profanity. Taking offence is as much of a prerogative as submitting the offence is. Nevertheless, it is contemptible to attest that a reaction to the latter should by any means warrant an uproar of pestilential ignorance. An exemplification is the the row over the Danish cartoons caricaturing the prophet Muhammed in 2005. The depiction of a lit bomb on his head is deplorable, needless to say. There is a tradition prevalent in Denmark of satirizing a taboo subject and Islam indeed wasn’t spared of it. It had ushered a ruckus in the Islamic world leading to the boycott of Danish products and the aflaming of embassies. The fatwã sanctioned to Salman Rushdie by ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini is an analogously loathsome case. The fatwã, sentenced him to death in 1989 for the publication of ‘The Satanic Verses’ on Radio Tehran. Subsequent firebombing of bookstores, execution of translators and the death of rioters were a repercussion of free speech. I’d desire not to derail but most fatwas are de facto, puerile. In 2009, a fatwã was imposed interdicting the use of the polio vaccine to which was increasing in the subcontinent of India, Nigeria and other places. Humans mayn’t be immune to polio, but it is indubitable that islam is immune to appraisal. Even by its own followers. As an act of apostasy is punishable by death under the jurisdiction of Sharia (slowly but facetiously weeps).
It is high time we stop equating scrutiny of Islam or any other precept, religious or political (for that matter) with racism. There’re notable disparities in a plurality of dimensions. It is scarcely a bother, let alone a plight to tackle the umbrella-term effects of Islamophobia. A doodle, if you will. Effortlessly substitute Islamophobia (minus its connotations) with the appellation of ‘anti-muslim bigotry’. A case in point of ‘anti-muslim bigotry’ is the vacuous generalisation that ‘all muslims are terrorists’. On a more sinister note, an instance of non ‘anti-muslim bigotry’ is to denounce the unfair treatment of women under Islam, the barbaric and savage nature of the Sharia, dhimmitude, the dehumanizing promise of virgins to martyrs (reiterated over several surahs), genital mutilation, the implication of a flat world, so on and so forth.
I could get away with perhaps a few scratches, if that for ridiculing Joseph Smith’s reaction when the wife of Martin Harris hid Smith’s manuscripts in the 19th century. Or how his translations of an Egyptian papyrus asserting that it was the Book of Abraham were fabricated. Ultimately, my point is this. The less we fear being labelled Islamophobic, the clearer you’ll see how contaminated some things really are. Ponder it, at your own risk. Bear in mind, this was all written by a jolly apostate of islam.
Free Hema, By Mert Maximilian email@example.com