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.
Seeds of Jihad (2)
July 30th, 2004
Some of Muhammads actions and policy show areas that his
later followers misinterpret and misapply, since sometimes his
actions and policiesrooted so deeply in Arab custom but
missing in the Founder of another religionseem excessive
to Western outsiders. These ambiguities are the seeds of future
jihads, which radicals are now waging and which will make reform
of Islam from within difficult for moderate Muslims.
(4) Tension between Muhammad and the Jews simmered until he became
powerful enough to apply various Arab customs to their opposition.
This tension and eventual ruptures went through five stages after
Muhammad emigrated from Mecca to Medina in 622.
First, while Muhammad was settling down in Medina and his position
there was not secure, he tried to convince the Jews that his revelations
were the continuation of Judaism (and Christianity), the religion
of the People of the Book. Before he left Mecca, he faced Jerusalem
in prayer. The early Muslims in Medina seem to have observed the
fast for the Day of Atonement, and their special Friday worship
was a response to the beginning of the Jewish Sabbath from Friday
evening to Saturday evening.
The Jews, however, who were divided into three important clans
(Qaynuqa, an-Nadir, and Qurayzah, also spelled Quraizah),
saw things a little differently. Muhammad was not educated in
the Torah, though he seems to have known some of the stories and
laws. He describes himself as unlettered (Quran
7:158), which probably means that he was not a scholar, not that
he could not read or write. So it was not hard for the educated
Jews to point out some differences or contradictions between his
revelations and their Hebrew Bible.
Second, these disagreements meant that Muhammad would have to
strike out on a new path and reinterpret matters in light of Abrahams
religion. He claimed that Abraham was not a Jew and that the text
of the Hebrew Bible was corrupt (and so was the New Testament);
his religion was therefore the better and purer representation
of Abraham. So if some of the claims of all three religions were
contradictory, then the fault lay in the first two religions,
Third, Muhammad expelled the clan of Qaynuqa in April 624
(or a month or two later) after his victory at the Battle of Badr
in March, a battle which made his position in Medina more secure.
It is unclear what his motives were: a quarrel in the market place?
Or the Jewish refusal to become Muslims? Jewish opposition to
his policies and religion? In any case, he besieged the Jews
strongholds for fifteen days, after which they surrendered. He
gave them three days to collect the debts owed to them and to
get out of Medina.
The fourth stage is much too complicated to be described here,
but Muhammads motives for exiling the Jewish clan of an-Nadir
seem to be founded on blood feuds and the payment of blood-wit,
which compensates for loss of life. In August 625 he went to the
Jewish settlement near Medina to ask for some blood-wit money
that he and they had to pay, but the Jews were reluctant, even
though by apparent agreement with a tribe they were required to
contribute to the payment. They asked him to stay until they prepared
a dinner, but after a short time he left because he got a revelation
that they were going to assassinate him.
Or perhaps the real reason for exiling the clan lay in Muhammads
recent loss in the Battle of Uhud in March (which traditional
Muslims say he did not lose, with some grounds), and in a failed
raiding expedition in June, so his position weakened somewhat
Whatever the motive, Muhammad besieged an-Nadir in their strongholds
for some days until he set about destroying their date palms,
their livelihood, so they capitulated to his first demand for
blood-wit money. However, he upped the penaltythey must
get nothing from their palms. Their livelihood destroyed, they
departed to the city of Kaybar, a hundred or so miles to the north,
where they had estates.
In May-June 628, Muhammad conquered Kaybar because an-Nadir was
inciting Arabs to oppose him. The result: the Jews could cultivate
their lands, but they must hand over half of their produce to
their new Muslims owners, the 1,600 jihadists who participated
in the conquest.
Finally, it was after the Battle of the Trench in March 627,
named after a trench that the Muslims dug north of Medina, that
Muhammad imposed the ultimate penalty on the men in the Jewish
clan, Qurayzah, his third and final Jewish rivals. This clan was
supposed to remain neutral in the Battle, but they seem to have
intrigued with the Meccans and to have been on the verge of attacking
Muhammad from the rear. They were judged guilty by one of their
Medinan Muslim allies, though Muhammad could have shown mercy,
exiled them (as indeed they requested), or executed only a few.
The sentence: Death by decapitation for around 600 men, and enslavement
for the women and children. Muhammad was wise enough to have six
clans execute two Jews each in order to stop any blood-feuds.
The rest of the executions were probably carried out by Muhammads
fellow Emigrants from Mecca.
According to apologist* Maulana Muhammad Alis translation,
the Prophet says in Quran 33:25-26 the following about the
Battle of the Trench and his treatment of Qurayzah:
25 And Allah turned back the disbelievers [Meccans] in their
ragethey gained no advantage. And Allah sufficed the believers
in fighting. And Allah is ever Strong, Mighty. 26 And He drove
down those of the People of the Book [Qurayzah] who backed them
from their fortresses, and He cast awe into their hearts; some
you killed and you took captive some. 25 And He made you heirs
to their land and their dwelling and their properties . . . .
Allah is ever Possessor of power over all things.
These verses show three things: (1) Allah helped the Muslims
in warfare against a much-larger foe; (2) Allah permitted the
enslavement and execution of Jews; (3) Allah permitted Muhammad
to take their property on the basis of conquest and His possession
of all things.
However, in all five of these conflicts, traditional Muslims
believe that Muhammad never attacked first, but when treaties
and agreements were broken or when he or his followers suffered
persecution and betrayal, only then would he retaliate or punish.
Muslims seem to know this almost a priori. The logic:
(1) Muhammad was a Perfect Prophet.(2) No perfect Prophets ever
violate Gods command prohibiting aggression (2:190-193).
(3) Therefore, Muhammad never violated Gods command prohibiting
So the official story goes. Yet, does traditional Muslim belief
and logic follow history? Does the Quran say wherever jihad
is mentioned not to be the aggressor? That is debatable.
In addition, even though for clarity the conflicts between Muhammad
and the Jews have been sketched out in stages, some scholars conclude
that Muhammad never had a systematic master plan to eliminate
the Jews in Medina, one large clan at a time. After all, he let
them live in peace for several years and made agreements with
them. He seems to have reacted to fluid circumstances.
The questions center on the severity of his punishments. But
some Islamologists answer that in this he was simply following
Arab custom, which allowed various means of dealing with enemies,
including enslavement or death. Now, though, the latter two means
have been enshrined in the Quran (33:21-27).
However, even if we concede that Muhammad did not have a master
plan, that he was always non-aggressive, and that his motives
to retaliate were always justified, then this still lands Islam
in countless moral difficulties because the interpretation and
application of his sunna (or path) is far from clear.
Muhammad says in Quran 16:126, according to Haleems
new translation for Oxford University Press, the following:
If you people have to respond to an attack, make your response
proportionate, but it is better to be steadfast.
That is the ideal. What about the real? In that verse Muhammad
is situated in Mecca and undergoing persecution. Maulanas
commentary on the verse says Muhammad is prophesying a time when
he will dominate his persecutors. His comment only
shows the difficulty for later Muslims to interpret the Prophets
words and actions.
It seems Muhammad did not always remain only steadfast, but took
his (just) revenge. How did he gauge a proportionate response?
Is domination equal to persecution? Is inciting or
intriguing with an enemy, as an-Nadir and Qurayzah did, proportionate
to exile, mass execution, or the conquest of a city? What would
the 600 or so male Jews of Qurayzah say? Who decides? The tribal
chief with the most powerful army?
More profoundly, granted that everyone is part and parcel of
his or her own culture, should a Holy Prophet practice the questionable
customs of his culture like execution or enslavement? In the same
context as the Qurayzah passage, Muhammad proclaims that he is
the example to follow:
Certainly you have in the Messenger of Allah [Muhammad] an excellent
exemplar for him who hopes in Allah . . . . (33:21)
Astonishingly, this verse exhorts Muslims to follow Muhammads
excellent example in precisely the most controversial of historical
Arab customs: enslavement and execution. This custom has now risen
to the status of the eternal word of God; ambiguities have been
planted in it. Could his words and sunna be the seeds of future
strife between Muslims and Jews today?
Comparing religions can bring perspective. Muhammads praxis
in regards to the Jews stands in stark contrast with the praxis
of Jesus. He encountered opposition from a few leading Jews, which
finally culminated in his crucifixion, but he never ordered his
disciples, say, to attack his persecutors and eventual executioners.
In fact, he told his disciples to put up their swords in the Garden
of Gethsemane on the night he was betrayed and arrested (Matt
26:51-54). If there ever were justification to defend the Lord
by force, that was it, yet he refused because he had embarked
on a heavenly mission.
If a present-day adherent of Christianity commits an act of violence,
he can be denounced as not truly following Jesus because he never
practiced violence, so the ambiguities or seeds do not exist in
his message, which was spread by peaceful proclamation. And if
the listeners in the First Century were not persuaded, or even
persecuted his disciples, the preachers were not supposed to retaliate
in kind, but shake the dust off their feet and move on to the
In contrast, ambiguities or seeds have been planted in Muhammads
policies and theology, which, for the radicals, have grown up
to be their jihad, as they (mis)interpret and (mis)apply his theology
and policies according to their own perceptions of the world.
Terrorist arithmetic is simple: their perception + their interpretation
= application of violence.
Here are the radicals perceptions of the world: they feel
persecuted. Sacred Saudi Arabia is being defiled by infidels.
Christian troops have invaded Iraq. A dance club in
Bali is too worldly. Jews are occupying the land that
they owned first. The Christian West, not Islam, dominates
a large part of the world. After all, God helped Muhammad against
a much-larger Meccan enemy and eventually against the entire Arabian
Peninsula. If God endorses Islam, it should expand endlessly,
but it is not. These perceptions and their interpretation of Muhammads
policies and his Quran, as discussed in this article and
in Part (1), justify them, in their eyes, to retaliate and to
eliminate the infidels and the opposition to the growth and purity
of the True Religion.
But how do they now apply their perceptions and interpretation,
as they seek to walk in Muhammads path, in the imitatio
To judge from their intercepted messages and their acts of violence,
these questions have crossed their minds:
How best to retaliate and eliminate? How best to measure a proportionate
response to the Great Satan and his global reach? How best to
eliminate oppressive Jews in Israel? How should radicals stop
the growth of the inferior religion, Christianity, as represented
by the West? Fly jets into buildings? Decapitate innocent workers
in Iraq or Saudi Arabia? Blow up a dance club in Bali? Strap a
bomb on a dumped, confused Palestinian teenager to
blow up a pizza parlor in Jerusalem? Detonate a dirty bomb? Deploy
a nuclear weapon against Israel or the US?
Granted, the terrorists take Muhammads theology and policies
to extremes, but his ambiguous theology and policies are seeds
that show how difficult it will be for moderate Muslim reformers
to cut back the overgrowth of violence. But reform is the ultimate
and longest-lasting solution to Islamic terrorism, no matter how
hard it may be to accomplish.
*In theological usage apologist means defender.
**The phrase, literally the imitation of Muhammad,
means to follow the Prophets example in every detail.
See Annemarie Schimmel, Islam: An Introduction, p. 54.
Jim Arlandson (Ph.D.) teaches introductory philosophy and world
religions at a college in southern California. He has published
a book, Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity (Hendrickson,