Daily Archives: March 28, 2010

Good Islam


I disbelieve in Islam. Before I hear false allegations of Islamophobia –  I believe that a lot of Islam is good even if false and I disagree with all supersitions and religions. I do not seek to stop others worshipping. I ask that they do not interfere with rationalism and free thinking.

Let’s look at Islam from a positive standpoint. I like to drink but I have seen the harm that excessive alcohol consumption causes. There is something to be said for abstention.

I am not against polygamy per se. It is only supposed to happen where there is a paucity of men.

Islam does care about truth and falsehood and its own code of morality. The same cannot be said for Hinduism for example.

The ban on pork made sense due to the health problems of 7th century Arabia.

The Muslim Council of Britain cannot claim to represent most Mohammedans in the UK. I know a restaurauteur of Bangladeshi origin. He is a Muslim and a very reasonable chap too –  there is no surprise in being both. He serves alcohol in his restaurant. I like that  – but he does not need to serve beer to be a good chap but it shows you how moderate he is. H drinks too. His wife is an indigenous Britisher. She and his daughter dress as is normal in the UK.

I had a Muslim girlfriend of Nigerian origin who dressed like anyone else in the UK. She said she believed in Islam and drank because this has nothing to do with being a good or bad person.

What would the fundies do to these people if they had their way? Lash them for selling booze and fling them in gaol? Stone the girl to death for fornication?

The secular Muslims are the biggest victims of the vicious puritans who are the Islamists.


Michael Foot.


I can’t say that I am sad that Michael Foot is no longer with us. I did not hate him. The policies her pursued were very pernicious.

He adopted a policy of giving the IRA what they wanted in the 1980s despite having been in government in the 70s when the Labour government rightly fought against the IRA and its loyalist equivalents.

Foot was a champagne socialist like the best of them. High living in Hampstead and dining at the Gay Hussar –  why not donate all his worldly bourgeois encumbrances to the wretched of the earth.

I am grateful for his donkey jacket moment-  it helped people of my ilk a great deal. It was decidedly discourteous to the fallen though.

 Foot presided over Labour at its most extreme. Its policies would have been a debacle for this country if even half were implemented.

He was so embarrassing  –  no one wanted him as PM. That is in a  large part why Labour lost so heavily under him.

He wanted the Lords abolished and declined to accept a seat there or any monarchical gong. On this point I praise him for consistency which is lacking in people like Kinnock who have the same views. 

 I read about his views in 1935 – unilateral disarmament and at the same time stand up to the Third Reich. Naive goodwill can only excuse so much.

I have seen the memorial he unveiled in the 80s by the South Bank Centre. It is to those who laid down their lives for democracy in Spain. The ‘demockery’ they had in Spain was punctuated by hundreds of political killings committed by left and right. The left got more votes than the right in 1936 but had only a plurality of the votes –  there was the centre too. How fair this election was is keenly contested.

The leftists were fighting for Stalinism, Trotskyism, Anarchism and the extirpation of personal and religious freedom. This is the antithesis of democracy. There were some decent moderate left wingers fighting in Spain then but that was not most of them.

Franco’s policies were often overly conservative but he was clearly the better option. Further, his attitude towards the Muslims was much more enlightened and tolerant than that of the Communists.

What the right formed in Spain at the time was if you like a popular front against Stalinism. At that time Stalinism was by far the most savagely oppressive and murderous regime ever.