Now ‘Mufti’ Blair is trying to dictate what Islam is supposed to be, and I suppose he is being ‘truthful’ about the issue, as he was over Iraq’s WMDs! Perhaps he will produce a dossier on the correct interpretation of Islam, and this time plagiarised from one of the infamous moderates or the fame-seeking apostates with Muslim ancestry, that has emerged in recent times. Blair is a proven liar, a mass murderer and an oil-pirate; he is not in a position to lecture about any religion. He stated that those who draw inspiration from Islam, to resist colonial aggression, are the product of a: “perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of the religion of Islam.” No doubt, this ‘fatwa’ was stamped by the mini-me ‘Muftis’, from within the likes of the MCB (‘Muslim’ Council of Britain).
Blair’s criteria for claiming “misinterpretation of Islam”, rests on the killing of 55 or more innocent civilians. Therefore, are the deaths of 128,000 innocent civilians in Iraq and 25,000 in Afghanistan, the result of the “perverted and poisonous” misinterpretation of Christianity or democracy or what? Either way, Blair’s admonishments are like the devil reprimanding others for committing sins! Nobody knows for sure who did the London bombings – it is irrelevant – since the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” has been suspended in this country. It is literally ‘suspended’ from the ceiling, rotting away, with the stench of the blood and torn flesh of innocence, caged in Belmarsh, Bagram, Guantanamo Bay and other dungeons run by the CIA-Gestapo!
That begs the question, what is the correct interpretation of Islam? The answer is obvious, one that does not involve resisting invading forces that are occupying our lands, submitting to their colonial designs for control of our resources and our minds. Also, giving Israel a free hand to eradicate the Muslims and build greater Israel for God’s chosen people. Then, the Christian fundamentalist can wave the Bible proclaiming another prophecy fulfilled, as they have done throughout history after every atrocity. Such types of religious fundamentalism go unnoticed amongst the Western intelligentsia, but yet unashamedly they continue to lecture the Muslims to keep religion out of politics.
Blair stated: “all civilised people, Muslim or other, feel revulsion at it (London Bombings)” and what if this had been in Iraq or Afghanistan? The US and its allies, are casually killing civilians at wedding parties or check points, I guess in those circumstances its not “revulsion” but just ‘regrettable,’ after all the dead were Muslims. As many of the GI Joes openly confess they have gotten their revenge for 9/11. It may be true, some people feel revulsion at the London bombings, but far greater numbers of people, feel much more revulsion towards the indiscriminate carnage in Iraq, an unprovoked war waged on the basis of a proven lie. This revulsion is not just because of the magnitude of the killings, but the Iraqis were genuinely innocent and they never did any harm to the people of United Kingdom. The US and its Allies have unfortunately set a precedent, if the Iraqis can be punished for the actions of their dictator, then the obvious parallel is that any population, including in democracies, can be punished for the crimes of their leaders. These are the dangerous and idiotic paths that fool like Bush and Blair have taken the world.
A reminder is needed of those who are lecturing the Muslims about indiscriminate targeting of civilians. This ugly thing was invented by the Western powers, with their invention of Air raids in the 1930s and not with 9/11. As an example, when the Luftwaffe bombed the cities of London, there was an equal response by bombing cities like Dresden, Cologne, Hamburg etc. The British did not go out looking for the culprits within the Luftwaffe or even the entire Luftwaffe itself. So, when Iraqi cities are bombed indiscriminately why can’t they, or their allies, retaliate in a like manner? This is not a radical statement, but one of commonsense, that complies with human nature of self-preservation and justice.
Indeed, human nature dictates that a belligerent action will always provoke a reaction. So who attacked whom? There is great desperation in the British establishment, to de-couple the London bombings from the Iraq war. Denial of this link shows the hidden fascist nature of the British government, as it is an attempt, to claim that Muslims are committing the initial aggression, whilst the poor innocent west, in ‘self-defence’, must go into another distant land slaughtering hundreds of thousands of human beings. In denial, they cite 9/11 taking place before the war, but that event was not an attack on Britain; it was an attack on America. For some strange reason some even cite Madrid, but they conveniently forget that the Spanish government was one of the main protagonists for waging the war on Iraq, no doubt Aznar must have felt some nostalgia in remembering the Spanish inquisition, and its treatment of the Muslims, Jews and others.
Let us go back a bit. Was there any communiquÃ© issued against UK and Spain by Al-Qaeda and their associates prior to 9/11? Clearly not, but it was Blair who drew first-blood after 9/11. Then, like the weak but sly school kid, who would stir a fight by whispering to the bully in return hoping to get some recognition, Blair did just that, constantly jumping up and down, beating his chest, while hiding behind US firepower. His influence over Bush was to fuel and reinforce him for a war.
Surprisingly Blair then said we need to find the root causes for the recent bombings in London, I wonder if he was looking into the mirror when he said that? Remember Tony, if you don’t like what you see in the mirror, do not break the mirror; change your behaviour. Do you now realise that the real ‘terrorists’ are those with tanks, napalm and planes that are terrorising millions. Do you Blair see the blatant double standards in the way that the British Jews serving in the Israeli army are treated, in comparison to the British Muslims going to defend their brothers in Palestine? Perhaps you ought look into the mirror again and see how the foul mouthed and racist ‘journalists’ and Newspaper columnists are abusing Islam in the name of ‘free’ speech, but any retaliation in the written word will now be a crime; such blatant hypocrisy is the cause of anger and not Islamic ideology. So Blair, ask the mirror, ‘mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the un-fairest of them all’.
Anyone knows that Britain and the US are in Iraq, Afghanistan and else where in the Islamic world, killing our brothers and sisters with tank shells, machine guns, laser guided bombs, napalm, depleted uranium, attack helicopters, F18’s and every other weapon, and that is real root cause of the problem. Like any conflict the ultimate choice for arriving at peace, rests mainly with the more powerful party, as the weaker one can only capitulate or face annihilation. In fact the cause of the problem was clearly spelt out by one of Tony Blair’s own, Ken Livingston, the London Mayor and a member of the Labour party, who said:
"If at the end of the First World War we had done what we promised the Arabs, which was to let them be free and have their own governments, and kept out of Arab affairs, and just bought their oil, rather than feeling we had to control the flow of oil, I suspect this wouldn’t have arisen."
Blair then had the chutzpah to state the following: “Those who kill in its name believe genuinely that in doing it, they do God’s work; they go to paradise.” If I remember correctly, Blair and Bush prayed together, on their knees, prior to the war. Blair also talked about his deep conviction in Catholicism, even after he failed to get the blessings of the Pope for the war. It was Bush who said that Jesus wants America to rule the world, and he claims to talk to God Almighty. Both protagonists referred to their religious conviction prior to launching the war. After the slaughtering of thousands he said he would justify to his creator, admitting that he killed in its (religion) name doing God’s work! So, Blair should not throw stones as he is clearly living in a glass house. Bush is the neo-Hitler while Blair is the neo-Mussolini.
Despite so many communiquÃ©s from Al-Qaeda, Blair and Bush are finally beginning to acknowledge some of those demands and/or aspirations. Blair said:
"They demand the elimination of Israel; the withdrawal of all Westerners from Muslim countries, irrespective of the wishes of people and governments; the establishment of effectively Taleban states and Sharia law in the Arab world en route to one caliphate of all Muslim nations."
Let us take one at a time.
Israel (Occupied Palestine)
There is a clear distinction between elimination of Israel and the elimination of the Jews, I suspect Mr Blair has knowledge of the latter, since it was for centuries a European tradition. What is wrong with demanding the removal of Israel, since it was based on usurping the lands from another nation, the Arabs? They were betrayed after giving support to Britain and France against the Ottomans. The colonial powers formed a secret treaty (Sykes-Picot) to carve up the lands, and part of that plan also facilitated giving Palestine to the Jews. I hope the neo-con sympathisers are listening, as they are brainwashed to think that Arab-Muslims lost Palestine for ‘supporting’ Hitler during the Second World War.
Moreover, why the Arabs should be made to pay for the European atrocities, committed against the Jews for centuries, which eventually culminated in the mass executions in the gas chambers, under the Nazis. Rationality dictates that the Jews should have been given some land in Germany or elsewhere within Europe, as it is only fair for the criminals to compensate the victims. But more than likely, such an idea would have committed some offence to the identity of a Christian Europe. This is something that the Turkish leadership also do not seem to understand, despite being repeatedly kicked in the groin and their faces being spat at by Christian Europe.
Surely, if the Jews can go back to 1945 and demand justice, what is wrong with the Muslim demands of going back to the borders of 1947? I am sure few would dispute that is the ultimate recipe for peace, and the Jews would continue to live side by side amongst the Muslims as they have done for centuries. Despite all the vicious Zionists propaganda that emanates particularly from the US, the history of the Jews flourishing under Islamic rule cannot be disputed as a historical fact.
Westerners or Western Troops
It is not the removal of westerners, but the removal of Western military bases. Of course it is embarrassing for Blair to state the truth, as we are supposed to be living in the American age of a decolonised world. Westerners would be more than welcome as visitors, or as in medieval Europe many fled European oppression and sought refuge in the Islamic world. Take Spain as an example, after their withdrawal from Iraq, they would be welcomed in the Arab-Muslims world, with open arms. You can be dignified like Spain, and receive the future oil contracts from a legitimate Iraqi government or hope to take the leftovers like a vulture, from the US multinationals, the oil-thieves. How kind will history be to a leader that participated in unprovoked aggression under the skirts of a superpower, looking for scraps from the stripped carcass of a nation like Iraq?
It is even more hilarious when Blair refers to the wishes of the people, is he contending to be the spokesman for the Arabs/Muslims on the street? Who next, Arial Sharon? Of course I forgot, now that he is ‘Mufti’ Blair, he can speak for the Muslim masses! Likewise, the despotic governments are not exactly elected by the masses in the Islamic world, are they Tony?
Capitalism or the Islamic Caliphate (Khilafah)
What is wrong with the Muslims demanding the unification of their lands under the Khilafah system and the removal of the despots and criminals that are committing so much oppression? In line with democracy, should Blair not respect the wishes of the people, if they want to move towards the Khilafah? Like a hypocrite, it is ok to bomb people into democracy or some kind of ‘elected’ dictatorship, but it is wrong for the Muslims to do the same with respect to establishing the Khilafah.
If Europe can constantly converge towards greater unification, why is it a crime for the Muslims to do the same? Do you Blair, fear that for once you will have to buy your oil at a genuine market price? For sure, Capitalist nations have acquired a lot of wealth, and it flows from the south to the north, east to the west, but is such inequitable distribution of wealth desirable? Even within Capitalist societies, the poor grow poorer and the rich grow richer. I know, the trickle down theory, but I would rather the wealth flows smoothly rather than trickling down for the peasants.
Certainly, the Islamic nations are now divided, not as prosperous but do we judge a society purely on materialistic criteria. What good is it when you advance in science and use that to annihilate people indiscriminately? Wonderful inventions like Nuclear, Chemical and Biological weapons used against weaker nations and then lecture others about the how immoral it is to possess such weapons.
If ‘Mufti’ Blair had any knowledge of the track record of the Caliphate in comparison to the Capitalist nations he would stay silent in shame! The Islamic world has never committed genocide on a population that it took control of. We do not have that track record of eliminating races. The closest you will get is the oppression committed by secular Muslim rulers; they are driven not by Islam but the same fundamentalist secular philosophy that produced centuries of war, oppression and annihilation. Again, I hope those brainwashed neo-con sympathisers are taking note, as many of them think that Saddam Hussein is some kind of cleric.
Even in warfare, the objective of the Islamic State is not imperial conquest, but the spreading of the message of Islam, with no forced conversions (clearly prohibited in the Koran). The Muslims did not mine the wealth of Africa, Europe, and Asia, and then send it back to Mecca or Medina. The local population either embraced Islam or lived peacefully for centuries under Islamic rule; the wealth was circulated within the nations, not spirited away and hoarded for some kind of motherland.
If you, Tony Blair really think that you can pose a challenge to Islam then allow the genuine Islamic movements to speak in your media, in line with your principle of ‘free’ speech, which we hear so much about. Give them an equal voice and show the world how intellectually bankrupt they are. What are you afraid of? Are you not the one who is intellectually enlightened and progressive, like some kind of modern Pharaoh, while we are backward from the period of the 7th century Arabia? This is the challenge debate, Capitalism with the Khilafah, openly and for all to see and make up their own minds.
Remember, I said the genuine Islamic movements not the coolies that you control with a leash, through them you speak to us. Those coolies will only tell you what you want to hear because they think they are being wise, prudent and they are influencing you. But, we all know about little lap dogs jumping into the laps of their masters, don’t we Tony (how is George by the way?)