Letter(s) To The Two Prime Ministers - Introduction
DAVID MUSA PIDCOCK
The two documents linked below - in Portable Document Format - were
written by David Musa Pidcock, Leader of the
Islamic Party Of Britain, as open letters to Call Me Dave and his
partner-in-ignorance, Nick Clegg. Although the letters are numbered 2
& 3,
they are in effect complete documents; he informs me that the deficient
first letter is subsumed by the second. It remains to be seen if either
of our
two Prime Ministers actually read much less understood the self-evident
truths they contain.
As pointed out in the second letter under “The Big Lie”, during
the Second World War, the Bank of Canada simply created all the credit
necessary at near zero interest rates.
This is a story that has been repeated throughout history; no
government, no emperor, no ruler, has ever lost a war because he, it or
they ran out of money. If cheap money can be found to fight wars, why
can’t it be found for peace?
David Pidcock’s letters may make heavy reading for the uninitiated (not
just Cameron and Clegg), but that is because he has spent many years
researching the uses and abuses of money and the financial system.
Having said that, the reader will find much material on this site which
will help demystify the dismal science. I would recommend in the first
instance The Money Trick.
April 10, 2011
Letter to Cameron & Clegg, July 8, 2010
Letter to Cameron & Clegg, March 13, 2011
Return To Site Index
AN OPEN LETTER ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF
BURNGREAVE, SHEFFIELD, SOUTH YORKSHIRE
AND THE BRITISH NATION AS A WHOLE
Part 2 - July 8th 2010
SUBJECT: “INEVITABLE AUSTERITY”
Cui Bono - Who Benefits and Why?
Monday 7th June 2010 12.14 BST:
“Unless spending reductions are made, annual interest payments on
UK's debt will rise to £70bn a year, says prime minister.”
2
TO: The Prime Minister & Deputy Prime Minister
10 Downing Street,
London
SW1A 2AA.
A Surfeit of
Blasphemy Including The Rushdie Report
From Edifice Complex
to Occult Theocracy
| © 1992/1412 David Musa Pidcock / MUSTAQIM | ||||||||
| Typeset, published and printed by: | ||||||||
| MUSTAQIM - Islamic Art and Literature | ||||||||
PO Box
844, Oldbrook, Milton Keynes MK6 2YT
|
||||||||
| All rights reserved | ||||||||
|
I AM AGAINST ALL "ISLAMIC" POLITICAL PARTIES, BUT I DO PROMOTE DAVID MUSA PIDCOCK! (BAFS)
Islamic Party Of
Britain
Text-Only
Version
January saw the first demolition of a challenge mounted by a Christian "orientalist" to denounce the Qur'an as faulty and tempered with. Islamic Party leader David Pidcock reflects on the debate held at the University of Teesside Christian Union. A full rebuttal of the arguments against the Qur'an is given in the paper False Accusations by The Hyde Park Christian Fellowship's 99 Truth Papers.
"Is The Qur'an The Word Of
God?"
"The debate that began at Cambridge and is
now on the INTERNET comes to the University of Teesside. Joseph Smith and David Musa Pidcock debate the
issue."
Thus read the poster for
a debate scheduled for the 18th of January 1996, in the main lecture theatre of
the Constantine Building in Middlesbrough, England between myself and Joseph H.
Smith. The original debate was between Smith and Dr. Jamal Badawi in August
1995, and in spite of the fact that Dr. Badawi says that he has dealt with most
of the issues raised in his video
lectures J(a) and J(b)
on the Qur'an, and
available in this country from the Islamic Propagation Centre , in Birmingham,
Joseph Smith still contends that he has failed to meet the challenge. When I
telephoned Dr. Badawi on January the 25th in Canada, he was completely unaware
of the debate on the INTERNET, or the ongoing arguments, on this side of the
Atlantic. He also drew my attention to, and faxed me, the first page of, a
written commentary on the "99 Truth Papers" dated August 9th 1995, by
Yusef? Smith of the Hyde Park Christian Fellowship, entitled
"Commentary On A Challenge To The Authenticity Of The Quran", prepared by
Abdul Rahim Lomax and dated December 19th, 1995. This, whilst in the main
polemical, does however make a valuable contribution to the question of the
prayer direction of early mosques, when quoting King's reprint of "Astronomical
alignments in Medieval Islamic Religious Architecture": "The earliest qibla
determinations were, in fact, associated with the risings and the settings of
the sun and fixed stars, and mosque orientations in the seventh and eighth
centuries, and even thereafter, were made by astronomical
alignments."
As mentioned above, the main thrust
of Smith's argument is based on the fact of his not having received specific
answers in writing from Dr. Badawi to the issues raised during their Cambridge
debate, and as such, that this, in some way, constitutes an admission that what
he and his Orientalist cohorts in Cambridge, The London School of Oriental &
African Studies (S.O.A.S.) and certain American Universities assert, are
irrefutable, verifiable facts.
Whilst we were warned to expect
"explosive and damning revelations" - and Smith's approach to the subject is
indeed fervent - it is, to say the least, more febrile than fissile, bordering
on the disingenuous, as are also his claims that the source material which he
uses is the result of erudite scholarship, painstaking observation, and
impeccable archaeological field work
Smith's questions, as will be seen,
are not honestly designed to address this all-important subject, but a damage
limitation exercise. What he, and his backers are attempting to do, is to spread
alarm and despondency amongst believers and deter those who might be considering
an Islamic alternative from delving further. His "Orientalist" inspired (some
say driven) questions, have been specifically structured to generate heat
without light. But as the American proverb states: "Don't get angry, get
even."
Smith and his coadjutors try to
establish that the conditions prevailing at the time the Prophet Muhammad, peace
be upon him, received his: "comprehensive sophisticated, book of revelations",
should have needed to be more salubrious than those prevailing at the time when
Moses received his Books of Law and sophisticated Statutes, which also took a
relatively short period of time, but in his case his was spent wandering in the
desert of Arabia.
The period of forty years wandering
in the wilderness and those spent in the regions surrounding Mount Sinai, Horeb
and Rephadim, were (and still are)
a lot less civilised than the environs of Mecca and Medina some 2000
years later when the Qur'an was sent down to "The Messenger of the Covenant."
Working on the time-table of events in the Old Testament, Moses began receiving
revelation in the year 1491 B.C. and this continued, we are informed, until the
year 1451 B.C. What is not, however recognised, is the fact that the Torah, like
the Qur'an was first revealed in Arabia to the Semitic "brethren" of Moses. For,
contrary to popular belief, Mount Sinai is not situated on the Sinai peninsula
i.e. between the Gulfs of Suez and Aqaba, but in northern Arabia, formerly known
as Midian, the land of Moses father-in-law - Je'ther or Je'thro, (meaning
pre-eminent or pre-eminence). Who is also referred to as Re-u'-El (i.e. God is
Friend) and Ra-gu'-El (i.e. Jah-is-Friend).
As an inhabitant of the Arabian
Peninsula, Jethro (or Shu'aib) as he is named in the Qur'an) was, after all, a
non-Israelite Arab, a descendant of Abraham's 3rd wife Ketura. Moses wife, Zipporah, and the mother of
his first born - Gershom and Eliezer - was, therefore, not of the line of Sarah,
and yet her sons are classed as full blooded Levites in I. Chronicles 23:14-15:
"Now concerning Moses the man of
God, his sons were named of the tribe of Levi. The sons of Moses were Gershom
and Eliezer."
Which demolishes
the Machiavellian fabrication that the line of inheritance - prophetic or
otherwise - could only come through the female line of Sarah. A lie further
demolished by Deuteronomy 21:15-16-17. Which clearly states:
"If a man have two wives, one
beloved, and one hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and
the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be,
when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may
not make the son of the beloved
first born before the son of the hated, which is indeed the first-born: But he shall acknowledge the son of the
first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the
beginning of his strength; the right of the first-born is
his."
Furthermore, if Genesis was one of
the five books revealed to Moses, and they have all reached us intact, without
alteration, then it would appear that God's commandments and judgement are, to
say the least, contradictory and confusing. We know, however, that He is not the
author of confusion so it must be, that someone, at some time, tampered with the
text. For on the one hand we are told in Deuteronomy 28:22:
"Cursed be he that lieth with his
sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the
people say amen."
Yet, on the other hand, it tells us
that Abraham, was guilty of this very same cursed practice. If, therefore, such
be the case, then under those rules, all Sarah's off-spring are both cursed and
illegitimate. For in chapter 20 of Genesis (the first book of Moses), we read
the following accounts in verses 2
through 13:
" ...And Abraham said of Sarah
his wife, She is my sister: and Abimelech
king of Gerar sent and took Sarah. But God came to Abimelech in a dream
by night, and said to him, Behold, thou art but a dead man, for the woman which
thou hast taken; for she is a man's wife. But Abimelech had not come near her:
and he said, Lord, wilt thou slay also a righteous nation? Said he not unto me,
She is my sister? and she, even she herself said, He is my brother... Then
Abimelech said unto Abraham, What sawest thou, that thou hast done this thing?
And Abraham said, Because I thought, Surely the fear of God is not in this
place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet indeed she is my
sister; she is the daughter of my
father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my
wife..."
In addition to this, in the
preceding chapter, 19, we find Lot being saved from destruction in Sodom and
Gomorra only to be seduced in a cave during his escape from the holocaust, by
two of his daughters. It seems, therefore, rather inconsistent of God on the one
hand to allow Lot to escape the justifiable punishment for incest whilst on the
other, allowing others (including his wife) to be destroyed for sympathising
with those who commit sodomy, and furthermore, to leave a record of this
unpunished act to confound later generations. Here as elsewhere, the Qur'an
re-sets the original high moral standard of the Biblical
records.
We do not know if it was at the
instigation of Emperor Constantine (Constantcrime) that Helena lied about
finding the burning bush on Jebel Musa at the southern tip of the "Wilderness of
the Red Sea" (currently, and wrongly, referred to as the Sinai Peninsula) or
that the lady Etheria decided the issue on her own account. However, who ever
made the decision, made it in the clear knowledge that it was untrue. Modern
Archaeology coupled with an informed approach to both Christian and Jewish
scriptures, has uncovered the deception. Whether it was the heresiarch
Constantine who generically engineered Mount Sinai out of Arabia into the Sinai
Peninsular, it is a point that even
Paul, (that earlier, dissembling, wolf in sheep's clothing), was compelled to
concede in (Gal.4:24-25). "...for these are the two covenants; the one from
mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage which is Agar. For this Agar is mount
Sinai in Arabia..." We will
deal with the significance of this elsewhere, bearing in mind, at every stage of
our investigation, that the compilers and translators of the Bible (both of the
Old and New Testaments) like their latter-day secular, academic counterparts,
have been consistently praetorian i.e., "flexible" in drawing their conclusions,
proving that the author of the Qur'an was fully aware of those `economies of
truth' when He instructed His Messenger to
proclaim:
"Ye People of the Book why do you
clothe truth with falsehood and conceal the truth, even though you have the
knowledge?" (Surah 3, Al-Imran, ayah 71).
This is clear from the major
contradictions which appear in the text of the Bible which can only have
occurred due to a dissembling hand.
According to one of Smith's other
papers, there is some confusion over whether Haman (in the Biblical story
of Esther) was an Amalekite or a Macedonian. The name means Celebrated. It is,
perhaps, like Pharaoh more of a title than a proper name. Haman in the Quranic
account relates to the Chief Minister during the Egyptian captivity of Bani
Israel some 1000 years earlier.
Furthermore, it may also be a name synonymous with the job of
construction he undertook. Somewhat like the Babylonian title of "Sovereign
Pontiff" continues to be used today by the Popes of Rome. Albert Pike, the
erstwhile head of Universal Freemasonry and Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite
Freemasonry also used the title "Sovereign Pontiff" to describe himself. And
today, those suffering from this same "edifice complex" will stop at nothing in
their quest to scrape, scour and penetrate the skies searching for ways to look
God in the eye and face him down.
Surah 28, verse 38: "Pharaoh said: 'O Chiefs! No god do I know for you
but myself: therefore, O Haman! light me a kiln to (bake bricks) - out of clay,
and build me a lofty palace, that I may mount up to the god of Moses: But as far
as I am concerned, I think Moses is a liar!' "
Contrast this with a more recent
variation on the same theme:
"As to paradise in heaven, we heard
it from the priests. But we wanted to see for ourselves what it is like, so we
sent our scout there Yuri Gagarin. He circled the globe and found nothing in
outer space - just complete darkness, he said, and no garden at all, nothing
that looked like paradise. We thought the matter over and decided to send up
another scout. We sent Herman Titov and told him to fly around a bit longer this
time and take a good look - Gagarin was only up there for an hour and a half,
and he might have missed it. He took off, came back and confirmed Gagarin's
conclusion. There is nothing up there he reported."
Nikita Khrushchev, 1961 (p.ix. Death
Ecstasy, and Other Worldly Journeys. J.J.Collins & Michael
Fishbane).
"...Titov, the Russian cosmonaut, is
reported to have proposed that some sort of anti-religious experiment should be
carried out in space by Russian Spacemen. He is reported to have made the
proposal in a speech to a conference on atheism held by the Communist party
several weeks ago. `Studying the cosmos and penetrating further and further into
the depths of the universe leaves no place (left) for God on earth or in
heaven... Titov said the cosmonauts had decided to direct their activities more
against religion. He did not elaborate on his reference to a possible
`anti-religious experiment in the cosmos.'" (Western Mail, Cardiff, Feb. 1st
1964).
Yet, there is man's built-in Faculty
of Discernment: Al-Furqan.
Socrates said: "Unless one knows the
truth about something before hand you would have no way of recognising it when
you found it". And Plato said: "The soul knows the truth in an existence before
the birth of the body, so that all learning in this life is in reality only
remembering". The inane notion reiterated ad nauseam by Joseph Smith that the
Qur'an was the product of apocryphal Jewish sources in all probability arose
from Microsoft Word's UK/English Thesaurus, which, when confronted with the word
QURAN equates it with "Rabbi" synonymous with "Jewish Clergy." Whilst the Arabic/U.S.English Thesaurus
describes the "Koran" as "Kosher".
Mr Smith should realise that, as the Qur'an was memorised it did
not need to be written down to survive intact. Accounts could, did and continue
to survive until today by word of mouth, and there are literally millions of
people from every ethnic group who have committed the entire Arabic text of the
Qur'an to memory. Mr Smith and his cohorts seem to have forgotten the legendary
advice of M.G.M.'s Sam Goldwyn who quickly pointed out that: - "An oral contract
isn't worth the paper it's written on".
| David Musa Pidcock |
|
Islamic Party of Britain =================================================================== |
Further Links
Islamic
Awareness : This site deals with the Christian missionary propaganda, lies
and distortion about the Qur'ân. It aims to provide conclusive evidence that the
Qur'ân is the same as recited by the Prophet Muhammad(P) and that there are no
additional materials added to it nor subtracted after the death of the
Prophet(P).
Notice: We do not necessarily endorse
the information provided by any external site. These links are provided as a
service for the community.
No comments:
Post a Comment