https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/12/depression-dementia-atheism-and-new.html was the first time I posted about Secular Koranism.
Who are the principals, the registered directors and public contact details of such an important legal/moral system?
Secular Koranism is not a going concern or a registered company with registered directors existing behind a veil of incorporation, but a moral and legal political system proposed by Claire Khaw intended to unite social conservatives of all races and religions to restore the patriarchy in the West.
Patriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of married parents who want to properly parent their legitimate offspring.
Matriarchy is a society prioritising the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring.
All advanced and healthy societies are patriarchies.
All primitive, declining, extinct or soon to be extinct societies are matriarchies.
The perfect patriarchy - 100% married parents
The perfect matriarchy - 100% unmarried parents
The West is a degenerate matriarchy collapsing into chaos and criminality. Secular Koranism is intended to reverse this.
Why is it named Secular Koranism when it is nothing other than selected Secular Islam? Is this your fear of fatwah?
Koranism holds that traditional religious clergy has corrupted religion and divine law should be derived solely from the Koran. I am a Koranist who believes that the Koran is fair enough and it is the Hadith that gives Islam a bad name.
Fatwah is actually legal opinion, not a death sentence as Islamophobes incorrectly suppose.
There is a scholarly opinion of sorts on Secular Koranism which can be found at https://seekersguidance.org/answers/islamic-belief/is-claire-khaws-secular-quranism-a-legitimate-school-of-sharia/
Secular Islam is a misnomer. You either call yourself a Muslim, or you don't. If you call yourself Muslim, you are supposed to subscribe to Islam ie believe what a Muslim is supposed to believe and do what a Muslim is supposed to do. In other words, Islam is a belief system.
Secular Koranism on the other hand is a legal system guaranteeing freedom of belief with quran.com/2/256 being the basis of the First Amendment. As a legal system, it cannot and is not intended to command belief and is therefore not totalitarian, It could perhaps be considered mildly authoritarian if you define authoritarianism as laws you disagree with which you find bossy and unnecessary, which I imagine many Islamophobes would.
As a claimed legal system, can we see your officially registered constitution and claims and constitution as required for the basis of accrediting your initiative? Where and when did this occur?
I had no idea that there is a Registry of Legal Systems at which I should register Secular Koranism, though I am aware there exists a Registry of Births, Marriages and Deaths.
You claim you have no website where you run this Secular Koranism on a shoestring. Surely for something you claim is so vitally important that it must be enshrined in the US constitution, you could afford the £20 or less annually to reserve a URL, the first action anyone takes in this internet age?
Since my aim is to have Secular Koranism considered by a Conservative public intellectual who has read the Koran, I do not see why I need a website for this. The idea is very simple if you are a lawyer who has read the Koran and understand that the purpose of Secular Koranism is to make into legislation all the Commandments of Allah capable of being made into legislation.
If the the American Republic were minded to adopt my proposal, its Supreme Court Judges would have to read the Koran, identify the Commandments of Allah, list and number them and then narrow these down to those capable of being made into US legislation after which existing US legislation in conflict with these principles would have to be repealed.
I have been hoping Ann Coulter and Dan Abrahams, both legally trained Republicans, would be prepared to discuss this with me, but have been unable to get anyone legally trained who has read the Koran prepared to have an honest and rational discussion about adopting Secular Koranism. This is presumably because Westerners are unable to come to terms with the fact that Christo-Liberalism is kaput and must be replaced by something better capable of maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality ensuring that most parents are married parents.
Since Western nations are matriarchies ie societies prioritising the preferences of unmarried parents who casually conceived and parented their illegitimate offspring, I imagine Secular Koranism to be considered heretical to feminists who control the Western matriarchy. It seems it is too much of a sacred cow for even the Dissident Right YouTubers to consider properly or at all since they are Islamophobes to a man and quite unable to discuss it or be seen to be discussing it calmly or rationally. Millennial Woes AKA Colin Robertson did consider it at https://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2019/03/will-millennial-woes-have-deleted-my.html and also at a talk he was giving at the Traditional Britain Group, but this was so badly received and he never mentioned it again.
I tried last year to demand that Secular Koranism be given a hearing at the Traditional Britain Group Conference of October 2022, but they declined to give me a hearing after pretending to consider it.
I am however reasonably sure most of the Dissident Right YouTubers in the Anglosphere are aware of Secular Koranism either through me directly or through others I have already addressed.
It is bemusing that no one is able to give me a fair hearing. I even tried Jonathan Sumption the retired Supreme Court Judge, but he clearly did not want to be seen to be discussing this at all even though he was safely retired and should have been safe from controversy.
I have also tried Jon Holbrook, the public law barrister.
After over a decade, I still cannot find anyone in the West who is both legally trained and has read the Koran to discuss the subject in an honest and rational way. The Islamophobia is too wide and deep, it seems.
Can you prefer the official prospectus of your initiative, preferably in pdf format?
Secular Koranism does not have an official prospectus as such, but the idea should be readily accessible to anyone who is legally trained and has read the Koran. I have actually tried approaching Muslim lawyers, but it seems they are unable to discuss Secular Koranism honestly and rationally either, presumably because they are too intimidated by Islamophobes to be seen to be discussing the idea with me in public.
Please send proof for your published claim that the world's media is run by the CIA.
I never claimed I had documentary evidence such as signed confessions by CIA officials to the effect that they control global media.
If America runs a global empire, then it would be using its control of global media to control global opinion.
I can imagine that those who wish to deny this would deny that America is a global empire, and therefore would not be using its control of global media - which it would deny having - to control global opinion.
Please provide proof of your published claim that the Koran is Zionist.
Please provide proof of your published claim that Hindutva is "totally owned and is an arm of Zionism".
I have never made such a claim. You must be confusing me with Vincent Bruno whom I know has made such a claim and occasionally tags me on Facebook with his posts.
Why, for a secular initiative, do almost 60% of your posts and reposts contain Jewish references and images, many of them inherently antisemitic in what others and I perceive as purposeful sublimity?
It have been asking Orthodox rabbis to rank the four gentile religions according to their conformity with the Noahide laws since 2020.
They have refused to do so for fear of offending their Christian overlords since to correctly rank the four gentile religions, Islam - being Judaism Lite - would be top of the tree and Christianity bottom of the heap because of its idolatry and blasphemy. As you know, the Christian narrative is that Jesus was convicted of blasphemy by the Sanhedrin. He was crucified and then worshiped as the co-equal of the God of Israel who is also Allah. In short, Christians worship an executed blasphemer who blasphemed against the Abrahamic God making Christianity idolatry and blasphemy.
You may know that Jews are allowed to pray with Muslims in mosques but forbidden to enter churches which are places of abomination where idolatry is practised.
You may also know that the well-established prohibition against idolatry originated from Judaism so there is not a lot I can do about the prohibition against idolatry in Judaism which Islam affirms.
If idolaters do not like being told they are idolaters and hate Jews and Muslims because the prohibition comes from Judaism and Islam, there is really nothing I can do about it since I am indeed condemning idolatry of Christianity and relying on the authority of the Abrahamic God to do so.
In 2012 you were helping Nazi David Jones and his election bid to Calderdale Borough Council and Todmorden Council for the now defunct Nazi orientated British People's Party. David Jones was subsequently expelled for the Nazi photos you know about. Your comment?
David Jones told me he had renounced ethno-nationalism and had been persuaded of the benefits of civic nationalism in making him more electorally acceptable as councillor to Calderdale and Todmorden Borough Council. As a Secular Koranist civic nationalist, this was an offer I could not refuse. He clearly thought his association with Secular Koranism would make the local Muslims less hostile towards him. It seems that the established parties were so concerned about him splitting the vote that one of them did not run in order to prevent his election.
Why do you publicise yourself as Radicalised Rabbi (which gives full credence to any previous observance of subliminal antisemitism)? Secular Koranism should logically have Radicalised Imam with nil reference to Jews.
I call my blog Radicalised Rabbi because it is a blog about Judaism.
I deny that I am an antisemite even if Edward Martin, a secular liberal and assimilated Jew who is my Facebook friend is constantly and hysterically accusing me of antisemitism.
He seems to think that anything he dislikes because he is a Jew is antisemitism. This is obviously too wide a definition of antisemitism.
It is in fact my view that Jews are part of the solution if only they would do what they were made God's Chosen People to do: inform gentiles that their religion must conform to the Noahide laws and do this by ranking the four gentile religions according to their conformity with the Noahide laws.
Once that is done correctly in the order I have prescribed, the penny will drop with Christians that they have been guilty of idolatry for 1700 years. It is hoped they will repent by adopting Secular Koranism.
Your continual references for something that is meant to be Islamic related and secular is extremely disturbing and dangerous. Why do you do this?
Jews are supposed to be light unto nations according to their own scripture, lighting the way of gentiles away from idolatry towards the correct worship of the Abrahamic God as Muslims.
While I understand these ideas to be disturbing to atheists, Christians, feminists and liberal democrats who will perceive a sharia theocracy as threatening to the status quo, I believe it is even more dangerous to continue with failed Christo-Liberalism, particularly when our incompetent and corrupt ruling classes are showing signs of collective insanity in provoking Russia that could lead to the outbreak of WW3 in Europe.
You claimed on your Facebook timeline that "David Irving is entitled to his opinion" (he was jailed for three years as his opinion was found to be racist, derogatory, antisemitic and pure unsubstantiated lies) and "Hitler may have made some mistakes." (Hitler was a megalomaniac who murdered 6 million Jewish, men, women and children solely for their religion; he also murdered 5 million others such as gay people, the disabled, his political opponents, Communists, Trade Unionists, gypsies, Romas, Jehovah's Witnesses.) Hitler and you are adept at blame culture, which is extremely disturbing. How can you justify your vile comments in support for these two heinous individuals?
I am not a Holocaust historian but find it extremely disturbing that British historians can be jailed in the so-called free West for saying the wrong number or having the wrong view of WW2 when so much of it is still in dispute. Did the parents of David Irving have to endure two World Wars in Europe so that he would be prosecuted, persecuted and jailed for saying the wrong number and having the "wrong" narrative of WW2?
It has been said that history is written by the victor and Britain was the pyrrhic victor of two World Wars which has also been called the Second Thirty Years War.
As you know, the Thirty Years War was one of the longest and most destructive conflicts of European history. It has been said that those who refuse to learn the lessons of history are condemned to repeat them.
When historians are being punished just for doing their job, we must assume that the lessons of history are not being learned, ignored and denied.
As I see it as an amateur historian, WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and both World Wars would have remained only European wars if Britain had not joined in with its world empire.
Britain's declaration of war on Germany in both World Wars represented it falling twice into its Thucydides Trap.
If the greatest achievement of Britain was its global empire, then its two declarations of war against Germany in two World Wars represented two desperate gambles which it lost in its doubles or quits strategy.
The Post War narrative is that Britain sacrificed its global empire to save the Jews when really both World Wars were wars of imperial rivalry whose cause - never stated in history textbooks in British schools - was the Berlin to Baghdad Railway that would have bypassed Britain's control of the sea lanes. The 21st century equivalent of that is the Belt and Road Initiative of China.
Shakespeare's Merchant of Venice is evidence that antisemitism is endemic in Christian Europe because of the New Testament - an undeniably antisemitic document blaming Jews for the execution of Jesus.
David Irving should have been entitled to his opinion in the so-called free West, supposedly protected by the European Convention of Human Rights.
Obviously, not everything the Nazis did was wrong. It is just silly to still be so hysterical about the Nazis. Even more disturbingly, the hysteria over Nazis seems to be getting worse the further we are away from WW2 suggesting some kind collective neurosis.
I suspect that it is probably something to do with the ever lowering status of Britain with America making it increasingly obvious that it is the global hegemon with Britain and other European countries being mere US vassal states.
The hysteria by Britain about Nazis can be attributed to its attitude of blaming Germany and saying "Look what you made me do" when Britain should just have acknowledged the failure of its foreign policy that resulted in two ruinous World Wars that ended its global empire.
If Britain really had won WW2, the British government would not be treating David Irving as a social and political pariah just for saying Hitler was not completely evil and inhuman even if he led his people to defeat and disaster.
To what precisely to attribute Secular Koranism to be acknowledged in any way as a legal and moral system? [sic]
Secular Koranism is basically sharia for non-Muslims.
How do you anticipate this would be included in the American Constitution given:
the American Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed by either Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the Houses of Representatives and Senate or by a constitutional convention calling for two-thirds (ie 34 of 50 states) of the State legislatures.
They in turn then can only become valid when ratified by the legislatures of or conventions in three-fourths of the states (ie 38 out of 50 states)?
If Americans get over their Islamophobia, they would recognise that the First Amendment was based on quran.com/2/256
There is a White House Koran which belonged to Thomas Jefferson, the Founding Father who drafted the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom which subsequently became the First Amendment.
America has no official religion.
If the problem with America is that it does not have an official religion, it can be easily be remedied by the America getting an official religion which cannot be Christianity because the Founding Fathers were so very clear about separating the church from their state and indeed quarantining it.
Judaism is for Jews only, and the overwhelming majority of Americans are not Jewish. The Eastern religions of Hinduism and Buddhism are not high status religions that would bring about the rule of law with them, necessary for the administration of a global empire.
One of the features of the best religion in the world must be its deity which must be the most powerful conceivable.
The other feature of being the best religion would be the Word of God contained in scripture. There are only two divine revelations from the Abrahamic God: the Torah and the Koran.
If the Western ruling classes are going to choose a religion for their countries, they would presumably choose the one most suitable for them ie the Koran for gentiles without the 36 capital offences of the Torah applicable to Jews only.
It is anticipated that if a Trump and Tucker ticket secured the Republican presidency while running a presidential campaign promoting Secular Koranism with American Characteristics, a landslide victory would be possible whereupon the Americans would be relieved and grateful to be saved from another Biden Administration which would sterilise even more American children persuaded by their elementary schools that changing one's sex or being gaily married is an acceptable lifestyle choice because it is supported by their government. In their relief and gratitude, Americans would repent like Ninevites and thus be saved and redeemed, along with the rest of the West from further matriarchal degeneracy.
It would be enormously helpful if Americans regarded me as their Jonah giving me the status and authority necessary to influence events and persuade people of the righteousness of Secular Koranism with American Characteristics as a moral and legal political system that the Founding Fathers would have approved of.
Further to the last question, which senators/representatives have you approached in both houses of the USA and who of them have agreed to support this?
Only Senator Lankford of Oklahoma. He has not as yet agreed to support my proposal.
Why as a secularist do you have a total lack of tolerance only for Christians, yet you praise, as an alleged secularist, only Islam and peoples' conversion to it; yet you have never condemned jihadist terrorism which is based on terrorists' ignorant interpretation of the Koran?
My view is that Christo-Liberalism has failed and must be replaced as soon as possible by a moral system at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality ensuring that most parents are married parents.
My concern is primarily with the British people in Britain - regarded as the birthplace of Anglicanism - who still regard themselves as Christian even though they don't really believe in the absurdity of the Trinity.
I feel deep concern and increasing alarm at people whom I regard to be consuming food that I believe to be unfit for human consumption and even toxic to their immortal souls if it is true that idolatry is a mortal sin.
Living in Britain as I do, my primary concern is the idolaters of Britain, rather than with Hindus, Buddhists and other polytheists in other parts of the world.
I have never encouraged anyone to convert to Islam since I am myself agnostic.
I was unaware that it was necessary for me to condemn terrorism just as I was unaware that it was necessary for me to condemn murder and theft, under the impression that people should not be presumed to be terrorists, murderers and thieves unless they have shown a propensity for terrorism, murder and thieving.
It seems you are assuming my promotion of Secular Koranism is ipso facto evidence that I have a propensity for terrorism, which is insulting and Islamophobic. It is an Islamophobic trope to assume that Muslims are by definition terrorists. In any case, I am not even Muslim.
Secular Koranism seems to be nothing more than cherry picking liberalism because you refuse to call for a ban on pork, alcohol or interfaith marriage. Discuss.
Secular Koranism incorporates the First Amendment based on quran.com/2/56 This means that while Muslims are free to practise Islam by refraining from eating pork, drinking alcohol and marrying non-Muslims, non-Muslims are not similarly under these restrictions. Since Western nations are not majority-Muslim countries, the preferences of non-Muslims who are the majority in the West should be respected if they do not come into conflict with the Noahide laws.
My conclusion is that Secular Koranism is nothing other than unnecessary, otiose, fake, divisive, wholly unsubstantiated cult supported by an assortment of lunatics, antisemites and antisocial deviants.
I do not see Secular Koranism as unnecessary since I do not see how else patriarchy can be restored in the West without a moral system at least effective at maintaining minimum standards of sexual morality ensuring most parents are married parents properly parenting their legitimate offspring so that they inherit the eugenic trait of marriageability from their married parents.
If you are happy with the status quo, you would see change as unnecessary, but I am well aware that non-Guardian readers do not quite perceive things in the way Guardian readers do.
Secular Koranism is not a cult because it not a belief system but a legal system, like EU or sharia law.
As you know, a cult just means a fringe religion, but Secular Koranism is not a belief system since it does not require anyone to believe in anything as long as they obey the law.
As for antisemitism, it is just a fact that white people have always been a bit funny about Jews because it is just a feature of Christian Europe. It is just possible that God, being responsible for creating good and evil, also created antisemitism to punish Jews for not fulfilling the purpose for which He made them His Chosen People ie be light unto the nations by teaching and propagating the Noahide laws.
You will remember Edward Martin's hysterical comments on my Facebook timeline demanding that I remove a post denouncing the idolatry of Christianity because it made him nervous of Christian reaction and Christian antisemitism.
While I acknowledge that antisemitic Christians would not appreciate being told that Christianity is idolatry, the fact is that God made Jews His Chosen People to challenge the idolatry of Christianity. If it is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't, it is up to Jews to decide whether to offend God by disobeying Him or offend Christians by pointing out their idolatry. It seems most Jews opt to offend God and, if He exists, cause Him to create more antisemitism to punish them for their disobedience.
I do not consider either myself or the honest, rational and principled people who support Secular Koranism to be antisocial deviants.
************************
20 Jun 2023, 21:02
Has the Guardian not received CIA clearance to publish a story about me?
21 Jun 2023, 10:33
That is one of the very aspects that bothered my friend dear Claire - that you think a major UK newspaper and one she has worked for over quarter of a century has anything to do with anything governmental! No, her sub-editor though that to give you the oxygen of publicity for something she though was a 100% unsubstantiated, barnpot cult (she picked up on the oxymoron that is "secular koranism" when it should be called "secular Islam" and that you don't admit to constantly proselyting for Islam when you are meant to be secular. Also, I gave her access to my Facebook timeline and when she saw the complete idiot Abass Rasool making his 100% unsubstantiated and 100% incorrect comments, she is frightened more fools like him would have afield day. She is all for 100% freedom of speech, but feels your speech does not require freedom. Also, the constant images of headbagged women worried her when you say your "legal and moral system" (something she found totally hilarious as a description) is scaular by nature. So apologies. I did you the courtesy of keeping out of in any way influencing her until we went through your timeline and it shocked her. As I mentioned, she really wanted to do an investigation into it, but the decision was made that to offer you the publicity would bring too many weirdos and no-gooders out from under their rocks.
One thing she never has done is legitimised dangerous nonsense. She learned that from interviewing the lunatic David Icke some 15 years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment