Memoirs Of Mr. Hempher:confessions of a british spy

[Mansa musa]

Hempher says:
Our Great Britain is very vast. The sun rises over its seas, and sets, again, below its seas. Our State is relatively weak yet in its colonies in India, China and Middle East. These countries are not entirely under our domination. However, we have been carrying on a very active and successful policy in these places. We shall be in full possession of all of them very soon. Two things are of importance:
1- To try to retain the places we have already obtained;
2- To try to take possession of those places we have not obtained yet.
The Ministry of Colonies assigned a commission from each of the colonies for the execution of these two tasks. As soon as I entered the Ministry of Colonies, the Minister put his trust in me and appointed me the administrator of the company of East India. Outwardly it was a company of trade. But its real task was to search for ways of taking control of the very vast lands of India.
Our government was not at all nervous about India. India was a country where people from various nationalities, speaking different languages, and having contrasting interests lived together. Nor were we afraid of China. For the religions dominant in China were Buddhism and Confucianism, neither of which was much of a threat. Both of them were dead religions that instituted no concern for life and which were no more than forms of addresses. For this reason, the people living in these two countries were hardly likely to have any feelings of patriotism. These two countries did not worry us, the British government. Yet the events that might occur later were not out of consideration for us. Therefore, we were designing long term plans to wage discord, ignorance, poverty, and even diseases in these countries. We were imitating the customs and traditions of these two countries, thus easily concealing our intentions.
What frazzled our nerves most was the Islamic countries. We had already made some agreements, all of which were to our advantage, with the Sick Man (the Ottoman Empire). Experienced members of the Ministry of Colonies predicted that this sick man would pass away in less than a century. In addition, we had made some secret agreements with the Iranian government and placed in these two countries statesmen whom we had made masons. Such corruptions as bribery, incompetent administration and inadequate religious education, which in its turn led to busying with pretty women and consequently to neglect of duty, broke the backbones of these two countries. In spite of all these, we were anxious that our activities should not yield the results we expected, for reasons I am going to cite below:
1- Muslims are extremely devoted to Islam. Every individual Muslims is as strongly attached to Islam as a priest or monk to Christianity, if not more. As it is known, priests and monks would rather die than give up Christianity. The most dangerous of such people are the Shiites in Iran. For they put down people who are not Shiites as disbelievers and foul people. Christians are like noxious dirt according to Shiites. Naturally, one would do one's best to get rid of dirt. I once asked a Shiite this: Why do you look on Christians as such? The answer I was given was this: "The Prophet of Islam was a very wise person. He put Christians under a spiritual oppression in order to make them find the right way by joining Allah's religion, Islam. As a matter of fact, it is a State policy to keep a person found dangerous under a spiritual oppression until he pledges obedience. The dirt I am speaking about is not material; it is a spiritual oppression which is not peculiar to Christians alone. It involves Sunnites and all disbelievers. Even our ancient Magian Iranian ancestors are foul according to Shiites."
I said to him: "Well! Sunnites and Christians believe in Allah, in Prophets, and in the Judgment Day, too; why should they be foul, then?" He replied, "They are foul for two reasons: They impute mendacity to our Prophet, Hadrat Muhammad may Allah protect us against such an act! (1)* And we, in response to this atrocious imputation, follow the rule expressed in the saying, If a person torments you, you can torment him in return', and say to them: 'You are foul.' Second; Christians make offensive allegations about the Prophets of Allah. For instance, they say: Isaa (Jesus) 'alaihis-salaam' would take (hard) drinks. Because he was accursed, he was crucified."
In consternation, I said to the man that Christians did not say so. "Yes, they do," was the answer, "and you don't know. It is written so in the Holy Bible." I became quite. For the man was right in the first respect, if not in the second respect. I did not want to continue the dispute any longer. Otherwise they might be suspicious of me in an Islamic attire as I was. I therefore avoided such disputes.
2- Islam was once a religion of administration and authority. And Muslims were respected. It would be difficult to tell these respectable people that they are slaves now. Nor would it be possible to falsify the Islamic history and say to Muslims: The honor and respect you obtained at one time was the result of some (favorable) conditions. Those days are gone now, and they will never come back.
3- We were very anxious that the Ottomans and Iranians might notice our plots and foil them. Despite the fact that these two States had already been debilitated considerably, we still did not feel certain because they had a central government with property, weaponry, and authority.
4- We were extremely uneasy about the Islamic scholars. For the scholars of Istanbul and Al-adh-har, the Iraqi and Damascene scholars were insurmountable obstacles in front of our purposes. For they were the kind of people who would never compromise their principles to the tiniest extent because they had turned against the transient pleasures and adornments of the world and fixed their eyes on the Paradise promised by Qur'aan al-kereem. The people followed them. Even the Sultan was afraid of them. Sunnites were not so strongly adherent to scholars as were Shiites. For Shiites did not read books; they only recognized scholars, and did not show due respect to the Sultan. Sunnites, on the other hand, read books, and respected scholars and the Sultan.....continued here http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/w...s/htm/spy1.htm

a long but interesting read.

[Mansa musa]

here's another important section from the article

1- Induce such chauvinistic devotions as racism and nationalism among Muslims so as to retract their attention towards their pre-Islamic heroisms. Rejuvenate the Pharaoh period in Egypt, the Magi period in Iran, the Babylonian period in Iraq, the Attila and Dzengiz era[tyrannisms] in the Ottomans. [They contained a long list on this subject].

2- The following vices must be done secretly or publicly: Alcoholic spirits, gambling, fornication, pork, [and fights among sports clubs.] In doing this, Christians, Jews, Magians, and other non-Muslims living in Muslim countries should be utilized to a maximum, and those who work for this purpose should be awarded high salaries by the treasury department of the Ministry of the Commonwealth.

3- Sow suspicion among them concerning Jihaad; convince them that Jihaad was a temporary commandment and that it has been outdated.

4- Dispel the notion that "disbelievers are foul" from the hearts of Shiites. Quote the Koranic verse, "As the food of those given a (heavenly) Book is halaal for you, so is your food halaal for them," and tell them that the Prophet had a Jewish wife named Safiyya and a Christian wife named Maariya and that the Prophet's wives were not foul at all. 5- Imbue Muslims with the belief that "what the Prophet meant by Islam' was 'a perfect religion' and therefore this religion could be Judaism or Christianity as well as Islam." Substantiate this with the following reasoning: The Qur'aan gives the name 'Muslim' to members of all religions. For instance, it quotes the Prophet Joseph (Yoosuf 'alaihis-salaam') as having invoked, "Kill me as a Muslim," and the Prophets Ibraaheem and Ismaa'eel as having prayed, "O our Rab (Allah)! Make us Muslims for Yourself and make a Muslim people for Yourself from among our offspring,"and the Prophet Ya'qoob as having said to his sons, "Die only and only as Muslims."

6- Repeat frequently that it is not haraam to build churches, that the Prophet and his Khaleefas did not demolish them, that on the contrary they respected them, that the Qur'aan states, "If Allah had not dispelled some people by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques wherein Allah's name is mentioned very much would have been annihilated (by now)," that Islam respects temples, that it does not demolish them, and that it prevents those who would otherwise demolish them.

7- Confuse Muslims about the hadeeths, "Deport the Jews from the Arabic Peninsula," and, "Two religions cannot coexist on the Arabic peninsula." Say that "If these two hadeeths were true, the Prophet would not have had a Jew wife and a Christian one. Nor would he have made an agreement with the Najran Christians."

8- Try to hamper Muslims in their worships and make them falter about the usefulness of worships by saying that "Allah does not need men's worships." Prevent them from their worship of Hajj as well as from any sort of worship that will bring them together. Likewise, try to obstruct construction of mosques, mausoleums and madrasas and the restoration of Ka'ba.

9- Mystify the Shiites about the rule that one-fifth of the ghaneema property taken from the enemy in combat is to be given to the 'Ulamaa and explain that this one-fifth belongs to the ghaneema property taken from (Daar-ul-harb) and that it has nothing to do with commercial earnings. Then add that "Humus (the one-fifth mentioned above) is to be given to the Prophet or to the Khaleefa, not to the 'Ulamaa. For the 'Ulamaa are given houses, palaces, animals, and orchards. Therefore, it is not permissible to give them the (Humus)." 10- Insert heresies into Muslims' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror. Assert that Muslim countries are retrogressive and that they have undergone shocks, thus impairing their adherence to Islam. [On the other hand, Muslims established the greatest and the most civilized empire of the world. They declined as their adherence to Islam deteriorated].

11- Very important! Alienate children from their fathers, thus depriving them of their elders' education. We shall educate them. Consequently, the moment children have parted from their fathers' education, there will no longer be any possibility for them to maintain contact with their belief, faith, or religious scholars.

12- Provoke the womenfolk to get rid of their traditional covers. Fabricate such falsifications as "Covering is not a genuine Islamic commandment. It is a tradition established in the time of the Abbasids. Formerly, other people would see the Prophet's wives and women would join all sorts of social activities." After stripping the woman of her traditional cover, tempt the youth towards her and cause indecencies between them! This is a very effective method for annihilating Islam. First use non-Muslim women for this purpose. In the course of time the Muslim woman will automatically degenerate and will begin to follow their example.

13- Exploit every opportunity to put an end to performing namaaz in jamaa'at by casting aspersions on the imaams in mosques, by revealing their mistakes, and by sowing discord and adversity between them and the jamaa'ats (groups of Muslims) who perform their daily prayers of namaaz behind them.

14- Say that all mausoleums must be demolished to the ground, that they did not exist in the Prophet's time. In addition, deter Muslims from visiting the graves of Prophets, Khaleefas and pious Muslims by arising doubts about visiting graves. For instance say, "The Prophet was buried by his mother and Aboo Bekr and 'Umar were buried in the cemetery called Baakee'.'Uthmaan's grave is unknown. Huseyn's head was buried at (a place called) Hannana. It is not known where his body was buried. The graves in Kaazimiyya belong to two caliphs. They do not belong to Kaazim and Jawaad, two descendants of the Prophet. As to the one in Tus (city); that grave belongs to Haarun, not to Ridaa, a member of the Ahl-i-Bayt (the Prophet's Family). The graves in Samerra belong to the Abbasids. They do not belong to Haadee, Askeree, and Mahdee, members of the Ahl-i-Bayt. As it is fard to demolish all the mausoleums and domes in Muslim countries, so is it a must to bulldoze the cemetery called Baakee'."

15- Make people feel skeptical about the fact that Sayyeds are the Prophet's descendants. Mix Sayyeds with other people by making non-Sayyeds wear black and green turbans. Thus people will be perplexed in this matter and will consequently begin to distrust Sayyeds. Strip religious authorities and Sayyeds of their turbans so that the Prophetic pedigree will be lost and religious authorities will not be respected any more. 16- Say that it is fard to demolish the places where Shiites mourn, that this practice is a heresy and aberration. People should be prevented from visiting those places, the number of preachers should be decreased and taxes should be levied on preachers and owners of the places for mourning.

17- Under the pretext of love of freedom, convince all Muslims that "Everyone is free to do whatever he likes. It is not fard to perform Amr-i-bi-l-ma'roof and Nahy-i-anil-munkar or to teach the Islamic principles." [On the contrary, it is fard to learn and teach Islam. It is a Muslim's first duty]. In addition, imbue them with this conviction: "Christians are to remain in their own faith (Christianity) and Jews are to abide by theirs (Judaism). No one will enter another person's heart. Amr-i-ma'roof and Nahy-i-anil-munkar are the Khaleefa's duties."

18- In order to impede Muslims from increasing in number, births must be limited and polygamy must be prohibited. Marriage must be subjected to restrictions. For instance, it must be said that an Arab cannot marry an Iranian, an Iranian cannot marry an Arab, a Turk cannot marry an Arab.

19- Make sure to stop Islamic propagations and conversions to Islam. Broadcast the conception that Islam is a religion peculiar to the Arabs only. As an evidence for this, put forward the Qur'aanic verse which reads, "This is a Dhikr for thee and thine people."

20- Pious institutions must be restricted and confined to the State monopoly, to the extent that individuals must be unable to establish madrasas or other similar pious institutions. 21- Arouse doubts as to the authenticity of the Qur'aan in Muslims' minds; publish Koranic translations containing excisions, additions, and interpolations, and then say, "The Qur'aan has been defiled. Its copies are incongruous. A verse one of them contains does not exist in another." Excise the verses insulting Jews, Christians and all other non-Muslims and those commanding Jihaad, Amr-i-bi-l-ma'roof and Nahy-i-anil munkar.Translate the Qur'aan into other languages such as Turkish, Persian, Indian, thus to prevent Arabic from being learned and read outside Arabic countries, and again, prevent the (Ad-haan), (Namaaz), and (Duaa) from being done in Arabic outside Arabic countries.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Hahaha, I was unaware British spies had such poor grammar and thought like muslim propagandists. Take your unsourced crap elsewhere.

HEY GUYS LET US PLAY MY FAVOURITE GAME, "SHAME MANSA WHEN WE SHOW HE IS A PROPAGANDIST SPEAKING BOLLOCKS"

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1648

[Author's note: The following account was written in the context of a book about conspiracy theories; therefore, I did not need to state what needs to be stated here, namely that the Hempher story is utter nonsense. Daniel Pipes]

[removeduser_487563287433]

Because I am in the mood, a corrected version. Hempher is supposedly a British spy of the 18th century.

Hempher says:
Our Great Britain is very vast.Terrible grammar. It is unlikely any natural English speaker would write this, even in the 18th century. It also does not reflect the state of British possessions at that time. The sun rises over its seas, and sets, again, below its seas. Our State is relatively weak yet in its colonies in India, China and Middle East.Terrible grammar again, does not make sense. These countries are not entirely under our domination. However, we have been carrying on a very active and successful policy in these places. We shall be in full possession of all of them very soon. Two things are of importance:
1- To try to retain the places we have already obtained;
2- To try to take possession of those places we have not obtained yet.
The Ministry of Colonies There never was a British Ministry of Colonies. Colonial business in the 18th century was handled by the Southern Department and then later the Home Office. Somebody who was working for the British government as a spy would not make this glaring errorassigned a commissioncommissioner? fromfor? each of the colonies for the execution of these two tasks. As soon as I entered the Ministry of Colonies, the Minister put his trust in me and appointed me the administrator of the company of East India. Impossible. The East India Company of this period was not run by the British government Outwardly it was a company of trade. But its real task was to search for ways of taking control of the very vast lands of India.This shows more than anything how this is a propaganda article by displaying such retrospect. The East India Company, though indisputably influential in developing the British Empire in India was founded with the intention of securing trade in the east indies.
Our government was not at all nervous about India. India was a country where people from various nationalities, speaking different languages, and having contrasting interests lived together. Nor were we afraid of China. For the religions dominant in China were Buddhism and Confucianism, neither of which was much of a threat. Both of them were dead religionsRubbish. The focus on religion here does not reflect English nor specifically 18th century English thinking. It reflects the thinking of a Sunni propagandist. that instituted no concern for life and which were no more than forms of addresses. For this reason, the people living in these two countries were hardly likely to have any feelings of patriotism.Why? These two countries did not worry us, the British government.Again, very unnatural English Yet the events that might occur later were not out of consideration for us. Therefore, we were designing long term plans to wage discord, ignorance, poverty, and even diseases in these countries. We were imitating the customs and traditions of these two countries, thus easily concealing our intentions.
What frazzled our nerves most was the Islamic countries. circlejerk time for the sunni propagandistWe had already made some agreements, all of which were to our advantage, with the Sick Man (the Ottoman Empire). Experienced members of the Ministry of Colonies predicted that this sick man would pass away in less than a century. In addition, we had made some secret agreements with the Iranian governmentModern term, a glaring error by the propagandist and placed in these two countries statesmen whom we had made masons.Wouldn't want a ******** piece of propaganda without conspiracy theories Such corruptions as bribery, incompetent administration and inadequate religious education, which in its turn led to busying with pretty women and consequently to neglect of duty, broke the backbones of these two countries. In spite of all these, we were anxious that our activities should not yield the results we expected, for reasons I am going to cite below:
1- Muslims are extremely devoted to Islam. Every individual Muslims is as strongly attached to Islam as a priest or monk to Christianity, if not more. As it is known, priests and monks would rather die than give up Christianity. The most dangerous of such people are the Shiites in Iran. For they put down people who are not Shiites as disbelievers and foul people.showing sunni inclination again Christians are like noxious dirt according to Shiites. Naturally, one would do one's best to get rid of dirt. I once asked a Shiite this: Why do you look on Christians as such? The answer I was given was this: "The Prophet of Islam was a very wise person. He put Christians under a spiritual oppression in order to make them find the right way by joining Allah's religion, Islam. As a matter of fact, it is a State policy to keep a person found dangerous under a spiritual oppression until he pledges obedience. The dirt I am speaking about is not material; it is a spiritual oppression which is not peculiar to Christians alone. It involves Sunnites and all disbelievers. Even our ancient Magian Iranian ancestors are foul according to Shiites."
I said to him: "Well! Sunnites and Christians believe in Allah, in Prophets, and in the Judgment Day, too; why should they be foul, then?" He replied, "They are foul for two reasons: They impute mendacity to our Prophet, Hadrat Muhammad may Allah protect us against such an act! (1)* And we, in response to this atrocious imputation, follow the rule expressed in the saying, If a person torments you, you can torment him in return', and say to them: 'You are foul.' Second; Christians make offensive allegations about the Prophets of Allah. For instance, they say: Isaa (Jesus) 'alaihis-salaam' would take (hard) drinks. Because he was accursed, he was crucified."
In consternation, I said to the man that Christians did not say so. "Yes, they do," was the answer, "and you don't know. It is written so in the Holy Bible." I became quite.quiet? For the man was right in the first respect, if not in the second respect. I did not want to continue the dispute any longer. Otherwise they might be suspicious of me in an Islamic attire as I was. I therefore avoided such disputes.
2- Islam was once a religion of administration and authority. And Muslims were respected. It would be difficult to tell these respectable people that they are slaves now. Nor would it be possible to falsify the Islamic history and say to Muslims: The honor and respect you obtained at one time was the result of some (favorable) conditions. Those days are gone now, and they will never come back.
3- We were very anxious that the Ottomans and Iranians might notice our plots and foil them. Despite the fact that these two States had already been debilitated considerably, we still did not feel certain because they had a central government with property, weaponry, and authority.
4- We were extremely uneasy about the Islamic scholars. For the scholars of Istanbul and Al-adh-har, the Iraqi and Damascene scholars were insurmountable obstacles in front of our purposes. For they were the kind of people who would never compromise their principles to the tiniest extent because they had turned against the transient pleasures and adornments of the world and fixed their eyes on the Paradise promised by Qur'aan al-kereem. The people followed them. Even the Sultan was afraid of them. Sunnites were not so strongly adherent to scholars as were Shiites. For Shiites did not read books; they only recognized scholars, and did not show due respect to the Sultan.Here more sunni and now Turkish bias Sunnites, on the other hand, read books, and respected scholars and the Sultan.....continued here http://www.sunna.info/antiwahabies/w...s/htm/spy1.htm

[Bokks]

Is it really so glaringly incorrect? I must admit that when he said "frazzled" I was a bit thrown off key--it was term at that time but it wasn't exactly used by a minister of anything--but it would seem like everything else is simply a point lost in "translation". The British government didn't have a Ministry of Colonies, it is true, but in the Kings Cabinet there were two Secretaries of State, one of that a "South Secretary of State", this position commonly held the knowledge that it existed for the colonies. Depending on the audience that this was aimed at, it is possible that an agent from the 18th-19th century would call his ministry this.
Iran is the modern name for the country, but just as Iranians still call themselves Persians I believe the name Iran is much older than when it was formally adopted in the 20th century as the name for that country. And when he said that the Minister put him as the administrator of the East India company he could be refering to a post within the government as a liaison betwixt the British government and the company itself.
When he talked about the Shiite "knowing more of the bible" by pointing out the fact that Jesus drank wine, and he became "quite" (instead of quiet) I too was thrown off by the point he was supposedly making.
The one thing that really hit me was the fact that this was centered around a "Shiite" cleric of some kind. In the 18th and 19th centuries Shi'a was a downright docile sect in comparison to their Sunni cousins. The Ottoman Empire was of course Sunni, and they referred to the Shi'a as heretics, to be destroyed alongside the worst of the non-believers. They actually reffered to Shi'a as the "Persian heresy". There was, however, no such recourse for the Shi'a against the Sunni that I have heard of at this time, in fact when the Mongols sacked Baghdad and killed the last Shi'a caliph by tying him in a burlap sack and riding the whole mounted army over his body the Shi'a sect has never been the same, certainly not by the 18th century. It's doubtful that a British minister would have even understood that the Sunni and Shi'a sects were distinct, let alone consider any religious fundamentalism purveyed by a Shi'a as anything comparable--let alone worse--to a Sunni. He would have definately reffered to that region as Persia at some point in time, which is the source of Irans fundamental extremism today; yes, it is fueled by religious fervor but the greatest part is the fact that they are the heirs to the Persian Empire and cannot understand why they are not the world hegemon today.

Where is this article from, anyway?

[Mansa musa]

Daniel pipes didn't even explain how the document was false and not only that who takes anything he has to say seriously?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Daniel pipes didn't even explain how the document was false and not only that who takes anything he has to say seriously?

Anybody with a child's ability in English can see it is false. It is historically incorrect, poorly written and obviously biased towards a sunni Turkish point of view, since it is a work of fiction in recent years by some Turk.

Nobody with two brain cells to rub together will be taking in by this lie, Mansa.

[Bokks]

Daniel pipes didn't even explain how the document was false and not only that who takes anything he has to say seriously?

Danial Pipes wrote this? Or is somewhere here named Daniel Pipes and I don't know about it?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Ferrets, weren't you trying to be nice?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ferrets, weren't you trying to be nice?

I have been subjected to an unreasonable amount of pressure. So **** it.

lol guess you might be right about the article being a lie. i'll admit when i'm wrong but the fact of the matter was that there were large conspiracies constructed by the west to destroy islam i'll refer to a quote about the destruction and secularizing of turkey

“The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam.”
-British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon

Right well, when you find evidence about those large, western conspiracies be sure to tell the world immediately, Captain Propaganda.

Unsourced quotations? Not good enough.

[Mansa musa]

lol guess you might be right about the article being a lie. i'll admit when i'm wrong but the fact of the matter was that there were large conspiracies constructed by the west to destroy islam i'll refer to a quote about the destruction and secularizing of turkey

“The situation now is that Turkey is dead and will never rise again, because we have destroyed its moral strength, the Caliphate and Islam.”
-British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon

[removeduser_426582376423734]

That quote can be found on two sites. Khalifah.com and Majed's blog. Guess which country they hate.

[Mansa musa]

That quote can be found on two sites. Khalifah.com and Majed's blog. Guess which country they hate.

more than just 2 sites mr.liar

why don't any of you answer this question? if there isn't vast western and israeli conspiracies to destroy liberalize or tone down islam as a whole why is the notion of liberal islam being put up on a pedastal at the highest point of this "war on terror".

[removeduser_487563287433]

more than just 2 sites mr.liar

Don't call him a liar after I have just shown you to be utterly misrepresenting Marquess (not Lord) Curzon. In this thread you have been a peddler of falsehoods.

What, precisely, does Islam say about lying, Mansa?

[removeduser_426582376423734]

why don't any of you answer this question? if there isn't vast western and israeli conspiracies to destroy liberalize or tone down islam as a whole why is the notion of liberal islam being put up on a pedastal at the highest point of this "war on terror".

Because, and try to follow, THE TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.

In the words of Dr Cox, please put on a training bra. You're distracting the other doctors.

Also, Wahhabism is a form of Islam.

[Mansa musa]

Because, and try to follow, THE TERRORISTS ARE MUSLIMS.

In the words of Dr Cox, please put on a training bra. You're distracting the other doctors.

what does that have to do with secularizing muslims and teaching them things such as it's acceptable for a woman not to wear a hijab and even gay marriages not being that bad. the terrorists ARE NOT MUSLIMS. they are Wahhabis

here's churchill on the Wahhabi movement

A large number of [Saudi Arabia’s King] Bin Saud’s followers belong to the Wahabi sect, a form of Mohammedanism which bears, roughly speaking, the same relationship to orthodox Islam as the most militant form of Calvinism would have borne to Rome in the fiercest times of [Europe’s] religious wars.

The Wahabis profess a life of exceeding austerity, and what they practice themselves they rigorously enforce on others. They hold it as an article of duty, as well as of faith, to kill all who do not share their opinions and to make slaves of their wives and children. Women have been put to death in Wahabi villages for simply appearing in the streets.

It is a penal offence to wear a silk garment. Men have been killed for smoking a cigarette and, as for the crime of alcohol, the most energetic supporter of the temperance cause in this country falls far behind them. Austere, intolerant, well-armed, and blood-thirsty, in their own regions the Wahabis are a distinct factor which must be taken into account, and they have been, and still are, very dangerous to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina…

[removeduser_487563287433]

Ah so likely another lie then. Well done Mansa, well done.

Edit: Lookee what I found.

The Conference of Lausanne was Curzon's finest moment as foreign secretary. Through diplomatic skill and force of personality, he dominated the eleven weeks of the proceedings, dealing with his allies, France and Italy, as shrewdly as he managed the Turks. His achievements were embodied in the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923 which secured the freedom of the straits, achieved a relatively high level of regional stability, and, by restoring Turkish sovereignty to the Turkish heartland, enabled the new country to make the transition from enfeebled empire to nation state. It was the most successful and the most lasting of the post-war treaties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_....E2.80.9324.29


Mansa... whoever had the responsibility of educating you has clearly been lacking in ability. Would you like me to do it?

[Mansa musa]

edit

why was the saudi Wahhabi movement so funded and supported by the british? if there isn't a conspiracy to destroy islam

Here's some hate spewed out by winston churchill on islam

How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.

[Farnan]

I googled "Confessions of a British Spy" and all that comes up are Islamic Websites... Furthermore the book is published in Istanbul...

Coincidences?

[removeduser_487563287433]

I googled "Confessions of a British Spy" and all that comes up are Islamic Websites... Furthermore the book is published in Istanbul...

Coincidences?

Too late Farnan, I have already taken a thorough shite on this entire pissy thread.

edit

why was the saudi Wahhabi movement so funded and supported by the british? if there isn't a conspiracy to destroy islam

Here's some hate spewed out by winston churchill on islam

There is no British conspiracy to destroy Islam and all your examples have been lies to invent such a conspiracy. If it existed people would have no need to invent these elaborate, if obvious, lies.

That Winston Churchill quote comes from a book exceedingly early in his career. But even as early as 1902 he had removed the passage from the book.