We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

Samizdata quote of the day

The suggestion that foreign-born terrorists should, perhaps, be asked to leave and build their murderous theocracy elsewhere would make the people who write and enforce our laws choke on their quinoa salad.

Konstantin Kisin

17 comments to Samizdata quote of the day

  • Stuart Noyes

    An illustration of how far our rulers have wandered from the service of those they are hired to serve. The system is at fault. Those hired have far too much leniency placed upon them and we have almost no power over them.

  • Paul Marks

    I did not use this sort of language (the language the post uses) – but saying that if (if) it was considered a duty to kill people who mocked Muhammed, it would be best if such people did no come to Western lands, got me a year’s suspension.

    In the future, under a “Prime Minister Starmer” it will most likely get someone a prison sentence.

    This is a matter of basic religious law – and we do need guidance on this matter. A straight answer.

    Is it lawful to mock Muhammed or not? Lawful under Islamic Law.

    It is no good chanting “Islamophobe” – and nor is he opposite evasion any good “Islamic Law does not matter here” – of course it matters.

    If someone believes that God (the being that created the universe) has decreed that a certain person (in this case Muhammed) should not be mocked – on pain of death, that is very important. It needs to be established whether or not this is true. It is also important to establish whether or not leaving Islam (apostasy) is a crime or not – whether it is, at least if it is a man who leaves Islam, punishable by death.

    I am reminded of the war in Afghanistan – for more than 20 years we were told that the Taliban were wrong, that they had “misinterpreted” or even “twisted” Islamic Law – yet no Western government produced any real argument. Fancy weapons and so on are not arguments – unless one intends genocide.

    The closet we go to an argument were quotations (normally out of context) from early (Mecca) surahs of the Koran – which even I (who am ignorant of Arabic) know were superseded by the Medina surahs.

    A serious Islamic scholar hearing Western governments (and media) saying that this or that group had “misinterpreted” or “twisted” Islam, must have great difficulty in preventing themselves laughing.

  • Paul Marks

    Jesus Christ never ruled on this Earth – people can talk of “Christ the King”, but Jesus never formed an Earthly government.

    Many people have claimed to be Christian rulers – people with wildly different opinions. Even Mr Joseph Biden, with his abortion on demand and his “Trans Rights” for eight year children, claims to be a Christian.

    Pope Francis warmly greeted both Mr Joseph Biden and Mrs Nancy Pelosi (the fanatical abortion supporter) – even giving Holy Communion to the latter (as a put-down to the Catholic Bishop of San Francisco – who would not do so so). The Muslim world will have watched and seen just how seriously the West takes the basic principles of the faith it claims to profess.

    Personally I am NOT a good man – but then I do NOT claim to be a religious authority. And this is not an anti Catholic point – after all the Church of England and the “mainline” Protestant churches of the world also bend the knee to secular fashion – as long as governments profess to “help the poor” (with ever more government spending and regulations – which makes poverty worse than it otherwise would have been) the “mainline” churches (Catholic or Protestant) will go along with everything else – every secular fad and fashion. No wonder such “mainline” churches are increasingly empty.

    Islam is not like that – not at all. Islam is not a word that anyone (regardless of their opinions) can apply to themselves – nor can any Earthly authority change Islamic Law, there can be no “synod on synodality” to turn basic principles on their head in Islam.

    Muhammed (unlike Jesus) did rule on this Earth – he formed a government, and every legal principle Muhammed explained, he made very clear did NOT come from him – but came from Allah (God).

    Unless this is grasped then all other discussion is pointless.

    Muhammed was astonishingly successful – he took over all of Arabia, and his successors created an Empire that stretched from France to China.

    “But fancy weapons!”

    The Chinese Empire, the most technologically advanced power of the time, had fancy weapons – Islam still defeated the Chinese Empire in Central Asia.

    Muslims are not stupid people – they can learn to use, and to make, “fancy weapons”.

    There were plenty of fancy weapons in Afghanistan – Mr Joseph Biden left behind 80 Billion Dollars worth of fancy weapons.

    The people who trusted the West were left to be slaughtered (including American citizens), or desperately clung to aircraft – till they fell to their deaths.

    And the mainstream media did not care – did not care at all. They continue to support this regime – to this day.

  • Penseivat

    If someone came into your home, uninvited, claiming they want to be part of your family, and then abused your hospitality, you would quickly kick them out, or have them kicked out. My country is my home. The law abiding citizens of my country are my family.You come into my country, uninvited, and abuse the hospitality given, then out you go. No ifs, no buts.

  • Paul Marks

    Perseivat – this rather misses the point.

    Most Muslims were born here – and some are actually converts.

    Muhammed himself was well known to be a pale man – even by the standards of Arabia of the time (remember this is BEFORE the more than a thousand years of the Islamic slave trade from Africa). Indeed that is how he could be picked out in the crowd – he was the pale man.

    In short, to use modern language, he was white.

    This is not a matter of race (“my family”), or even of immigration – I repeat most Muslims here were born here.

    This is a matter of basic principles – ideas.

    But the West REFUSES to engage in ideas – it will not argue in terms of principles.

    Those who will not defend their principles, who will not even explain them, – who refuse to even reason on the basis of “this is correct – and this is wrong” will lose.

    Muslims know what they believe in – it is there in the Koran, the Haiths, and the life of Muhammed.

    What does the West believe in?

    And PLEASE no one come back with pictures of fancy weapons and pornography and sport – I like all that violence-and-sex stuff as much as the next middle aged man, but this is not a set of principles.

    Again – what does the West believe in?

    I know what the West is supposed to believe in – it was summed up in the American Bill of Rights centuries ago (based on principles long understood in Britain and other lands – although it was always a struggle to enforce them).

    But the modern establishment elite (the education system crowd – and the government and Corporate bureaucracy) HATE AND DESPISE the Bill of Rights.

    Freedom of Speech – that is “Hate Speech”.

    Right to keep and bear arms – outrageous, one would be torn to pieces even suggesting that in most Western countries now (and in the “liberal” parts of the United States).

    4th and 5th Amendments? Not compatible with the “War On Drugs” or “War On Organised Crime” or “Subversion” or some such.

    10th Amendment – LIMITED government, sorry not compatible with endless spending and regulations that supposedly “help the poor”.

    Essentially the Bill of Rights is NOT what the West believes in now – indeed the educated classes consider the Bill of Rights to be “Crime Speak”.

  • Paul Marks

    One of the conditions of being in the European Union is outlawing “Hate Speech” – Estonia was the last hold out.

    By most university definitions of “Hate Speech” – the pose is Hate Speech. Certainly the educated classes in Britain and the United States would agree that it was Hate Speech.

    “Hate Speech is not Free Speech” chant the modern law students.

    And establishment “conservatives” agree.

  • Penseivat

    You are correct, it seems that I misread the heading, and took it to mean those who arrive on these shores, whether from Africa, the middle east, or eastern Europe, with the intention of destabilising this society. Sorry about that.
    With regards to Mohammed, I did read, some time ago, that he was described as a pale man.
    I have my own views on religion and, although it wasn’t all that long ago, that Catholics were being killed, or burnt at the stake, by Protestants, or vice versa; women were being burned alive, or drowned, as witches because they may have warts or denounced ad such by people who were indebted to them and who saw this as a means to relieve themselves of that debt. All of this was done in the name of religion, in God’s name. Fortunately, we seem to have moved on slightly, in this country at least, and the hatred and suspicion had turned into social welfare and an element of religious rivalry.
    Islam, howrver, seems not to have changed a jot over the centuries, it being a hate filled (towards those who are not Muslims, or being the ‘wrong sort’ of Muslim) society from the beginning and continuing to this day.
    I understand that the word ‘Islam’ means ‘submit’. To me, this gives the impression that Muslims have no choice but to ‘submit’ to the diktats of their religious leaders even if they wish to do otherwise, and continue living. These diktats are said to be based on the words given by Allah to Mohammed, who wrote them down, despite being described as not being able to read it write.
    There are certain aspects of this which baffles me, and which have never been explained, either by those Muslims I know, either through work, or socially. If Islam is a religion of peace, why did Allah choose a camel stealing, raping, murderer to be the mouth piece for that religion? What religion did Mohammed follow and how and why did he forsake that religion for Islam? Perhaps scholars of Islam could tell me.
    Slightly off topic, I am reminded of the words of a failed science fiction writer, who is reported to have said, “There’s no money in this game. I think I’ll start a religion based on one of my books”. Perhaps Mohammed, in his search for wealth, power, and shed loads of sex, was a precursor of L Ron Hubbard? Just a thought.

  • Paul Marks


    Even though I am ignorant of Arabic (even modern Arabic – let alone Classical Arabic), I can help to some extent.

    “Religion of peace” is a terrible mistranslation – Islam actually means submission to Allah. For people to translate this as “religion of peace” is just wrong.

    You get closer to the truth – but you are still in error (I mean no disrespect by saying that), Muslims do NOT submit to “the diktats of their religious leaders”.

    Muslims would not, for example, have submitted to a Paul VI type figure saying “well we used to hold services in Latin, but now we are going to do it in the local language”, or a Pope Francis “we used to teach X, but if the synod on synodality says something different….”. Again NOT an anti Catholic point – as the “mainline” Protestant churches are just as bad.

    Muslims follow the Koran (which is claimed to be the word of God – transmitted by what Muhammed said), the Hadiths (the sayings of Muhammed – written down by people who heard him giving legal rulings, which are also held to be the will of God NOT just of Muhammed himself) and the life of Muhammed.

    No one (no one at all) can change any of this. One can argue over how reliable a particular Hadith is (there are three gradings of how reliable a Hadith is) and there are (if I remember correctly) four schools of Sunni Jurisprudence as well as the Shia (well Shia 12er – there are other sorts of Shia), but the differences are all within a very narrow range.

    This is because (unlike Christianity) Islamic government existed on the Earth during the life time of the founder of the religion – in the end “what did Muhammed do?” is the last word.

    This is why Westerners (hello my dear friends in “Central Office”) who are waiting for Islam to become as weak and corrupt as we have become in the West, wait in vain – because it can not do this.

    Far from “submitting to their religious leaders” – ordinary Muslims have a legal duty (under Islamic jurisprudence) to kill “religious leaders” who try and corrupt their faith.

    A Muslim version of, say, Archbishop Justin Welby would just not be tolerated – such a person would be killed, not “submitted to”.

    This is the irony – far from showing “disrespect” for Muslims, I respect them far more than the Western establishment does (not difficult – as the Western establishment despises all believers – of any faith).

    The Western establishment assumes that all religions are essentially the same – because it is ignorant of all of them. With religion being seen as a sort of “Opium of the Masses” – and philosophy being seen as the “greatest happiness of the greatest number”.

    To people who follow Western philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham – the idea of people who will risk death for their faith (for God – seen as a real person, not a “metaphor for the people”” as the typical modern Jesuit would view the matter) are just not understood.

    The opponents of such philosophers, such as Ralph Cudworth, Thomas Reid and James McCosh would have understood Muslims (or other believers) – but such philosophers are no longer taught in Western schools and universities.

    The followers of Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham will always seek to “make a deal” in order to get a “quiet life” – if that means throwing other people under the bus, fair enough (“suspend him for a year” or even “well we will turn a blind eye and let you stab this bloke – as he has so upset you”).

    Such Western establishment types can not win wars, not Culture Wars or physical wars, they are LOSERS – no matter how many fancy weapons they have.

    They are losers because they will never risk their own lives – they will throw anyone to the wolves, to save their own skins. Even if it is only saving their own skins for a brief while.

  • Paul Marks

    Leave aside Islam for a minute – think what would have happened if the average Ukrainian fighting man had been a follower of Thomas Hobbes, David Hume and Jeremy Bentham.

    “How do I save my own life?” would have been their concern – the war with Mr Putin would not have lasted long, as they would have surrendered or run away.

    And giving them lots of fancy weapons would have made no difference.

  • Stuart Noyes

    Kisin talks of foreign born.

  • Penseivat

    Thanks for your reply. Being thick as a brick, I regret I have no idea, without looking it up, who Hobbes, Hume, Bentham, Cudworth, Reid, or McCosh are, and what their relevance to my questions are.
    Perhaps I have misunderstood your replies, but my three main questions still apply, pending someone with more than an ‘0’ level in geography being able to clarify:
    Why was a raping, murdering, camel thief chosen to start a new religion?
    What religion did Mohammed follow, and for how long, before he decided to form a religion of Islam?
    What incentive did he have to form that religion (my cynical side keeps going back to the thoughts of L Ron Hubbard)?
    Again, slightly off topic, I judge a society, or religion, by the censoring, or outright bannning, of humour. From what I know, Islam, like despotic societies or religions, such as in China, North Korea, and nearly every country in the middle east are not keen on humour and I doubt if there are many professional comedians still alive. I should imagine, standing in the town square in Kandahar, as an example, and loudly proclaiming, “A funny thing happened on the way to the mosque today.” would likely lead to some bearded blokes with rifles looking at me in a threatening manner, rather than a group of smiling potential fans.
    I’m just a ordinary bloke, not an academic, who sees our society being overrun by those who hates us and our way of life. In trying to understand these people may help us to resolve some of the ever increasing problems. Meanwhile, my views on dealing with those who abuse our hospitality still stands.
    Take care.

  • bobby b

    “From what I know, Islam, like despotic societies or religions, such as in China, North Korea, and nearly every country in the middle east are not keen on humour and I doubt if there are many professional comedians still alive.”

    Not too long ago, I attempted to see comedian Dave Chappelle at a show in Minneapolis. From that experience, I would say that non-woke comedy is in dire straits here, too. Don’t draw Allah, and don’t say men can’t be women.

  • Paul Marks

    Penseivat – there are two possible answers to your question.

    Either Muhammed really was a spokesman for God – saying what the Arch Angel Gabriel had given him to say.

    Or – alternativelly.

    Muhammed was a military and POLITICAL genius – whose natural intelligence overcome his lack of formal education.

    Take the times when Muhammed was told he was misquoting Jewish and Christian scriptures.

    The vast majority of people would say, my memory failed me – or I am sorry, I have a problem with reading difficult texts so I go by what I have heard.

    Only an exceptional person would say – that proves that the Jewish and Christian texts have been corrupted! I am the only person giving you the correct version of the original texts – because I get my information from God, whereas the Jews and Christians get what they say from documents copied out by human beings – texts that have been corrupted over time.

    And he came out with this defence quick-as-flash and with seemingly burning sincerity.

    There is also the quiet argument – follow me and you will get riches (and women) in this world, and eternal paradise when you die. Oppose me – and I will defeat you, because I am a brilliant military commander and you are not. And things do not go well for people who oppose me – ask that man staked out over there.

    Support me and things will go well for you – I am winner (backed by God) and I do NOT keep all the stuff and slaves for myself, I share with my followers. Ask anyone – they will tell you how they have benefited by my leadership.

    Oppose me – and things will go very badly for you, the best option is that you are going to die in battle. But, who knows, you might be very unlucky and get taken alive. And I am told you have a wife and children? I am sure they are fine people and you love them very much. They would really prosper under my leadership – I am making you a fair offer (follow me and things will go well for you and your family), but if you make a CHOICE to throw my offer in-my-face…

    Given the circumstances it was rational, very rational indeed, to support the Gentleman.

    You may not have heard of Hobbes, Hume and Bentham – but I assure you that they all would have accepted the offer. As would their modern followers in the West.

  • Paul Marks

    bobby b – correct.

    The idea that this is just Islam is false – indeed it is a libel against Islam. The Frankfurt School Marxists and Post Modernists were pretending that “speech is violence” long before Islam was important in the United States.

    In truth the modern Western elite submit to all attacks on Freedom of Speech – in your own country the Democrats hate the 1st Amendment even more than they hate the 2nd Amendment, and the RINOs are as useful as a raincoat made of tissue paper.

    Hopefully one particularly vile RINO will lose her Primary tomorrow.

  • Penseivat

    Thanks for this. I must admit I’m still baffled. Perhaps I’m not intelligent enough, so will sit back, drink my way through my gin and tonics, and watch the world go to pot, not fully understanding what the hell is going on.
    Take care

  • Paul Marks

    Penseivat – history baffles us all.

    For example, how did Rome, a town on the Tiber (known for people who were not actually very creative – largely copying more advanced societies), get to dominate a vast part of the world for hundreds of years?

    Lots of books have been written to try and answer this question – but the truth is “well – it did”.

  • how did Rome … get to dominate a vast part of the world for hundreds of years? (Paul Marks, August 16, 2022 at 9:10 am)

    1) When the early Romans made peace with some Italian city state they’d fought, the terms demanded not (just) money but soldiers: by treaty, Rome would in future protect that city state from other enemies and that city state would provide a contingent of troops for Rome’s wars.

    This arrangement also increased the likelihood of such future wars; the Romans were now ‘honour-bound’ to enforce that city-state’s ‘rights’, which doubtless included some disputes with its neighbours – disputes which that city-state might merely have grumbled about but which the Roman defensive and offensive alliance it had been compelled to join might feel strong enough to pursue.

    2) The Romans were extreme in the ancient world in the degree to which their society put youths under the authority of their fathers. The Roman paterfamilias could legally kill a grown-up son who displeased him (or anyone else in his patria potestas – his descendants in the male line). This may have had an effect on Roman behaviour.

    “Almost every year the Romans went out and did extreme violence to someone, and this regularity gives the phenomenon a somewhat pathological character.”

    Lots and lots and lots more could be said – but my take FWIW is the combination of republican forms and the domination of age was what took the early Roman city-state to the Italy-plus-ruling Rome of the late republic.

    3) The strengths and weaknesses of ancient technology arguably made the Mediterranean, its shores dotted with (predominantly Greek) city-states, the natural core of a winner-takes-all empire. The Romans were determined enough (and lucky enough) to survive and then defeat the Carthaginians in the western Mediterranean, and the Seleucids were not united enough to hold the eastern Mediterranean, let alone really challenge Rome, so, once their land strategy had given them Italy, and they decided to learn about sailing and seapower, they were not so unlikely to be the winners.

    As to what any of this has to do with the OP topic, well I guess the message is that a force with many faults can still win if its opponents do not do enough, which is a warning in one way and a hope if we turn it on its head.