I've never been one for bandying about management newspeak, especially the political newspeak of the doubleplus ungood variety mouthed by Tony B-Liar and his acolyte Gordy the Headless (courtesy of Sky TV) so when I heard this phrase being thrown around the 'net I felt a little research was called for. And Odin Bless You, Auntie Beeb; and the knowledge of Loki light up your days, Tom Cruise, for together you have provided me with just the ammunition I need.
There's a video going round U-Tube at the moment. A journalist (who clearly isn't proud of what he did) lost his rag while challenged by followers of the Church of Scientology. It seems that he was goaded by one of their followers and as soon as he lost his cool, his outburst was filmed (by cameraphone, I guess), shoved on U-Tube, and hawked round or handed on to anyone who could be persuaded to watch it.
In his own words he was "redder than an exploding tomato and screaming louder than a jet engine" and For anyone thinking of a cereer in objective journalism this is a case study in how NOT to go about it. The link to his page is
here. I won't bother putting in a link to the U-Tube video. I have not watched it and I will not bother doing so; I have had quite enough run-ins with folowers of REAL religions (The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints, The Jehovah's Witnesses, a group of Methodists who have clearly strayed from the path, and the Evangelical Christian faith to name but four) to waste my time researching the hurt feelings of the followers of dodgy beliefs put forth by dead science fiction writers. But I know EXACTLY how the BBC's John Sweeney felt after he was manipulated into losing his cool, I've been there myself thanks to followers of real religions, and I can well picture in my mind how those fool followers of the Cult of the Dead Science Fiction Writer cackled and howled with laughter as they danced back to their nest to uploaded this man's moment of madness.
Well John Sweeney has proved he feels human emotions and has human failings, and is not some brainwashed automaton. Mr Sweeney took the opportunity to lay down in public the full story behind his moment of madness, and for that I say 'thank you' for a refreshingly honest and very public statement of the moment you broke under duress. And let us not forget that unlike the "moments of madness" of several politicians, everyone kept their trousers on, no money changed hands, no armed men in uniform, be that black riot jacket, or battle fatigues had to die, neither did any plain clothes gun totin' ones, (and neither did any brazilians). No one had to make an appointment at an STD clinic and no-one felt the need to put a plastic bag over their head to experiment with eroticism in an oxygen-deprived environment.
But I have a special reason to thank Mr Sweeney.
This link listed amongst the background articles on his explanation page yielded a priceless gem, a nugget of information that should be cherished and kept for use.
In 1999 Mr Ian Howarth, spokesman for the
Cult Information Centre handed the BBC a definition of what constitues a 'cult'. It's still there on the Cult Information Centre Website. Here it is:-
"Every cult can be defined as a group having all of the following five characteristics:
1. It uses psychological coercion to recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members
2. It forms an elitist totalitarian society.
3. Its founder leader is self-appointed, dogmatic, messianic, not accountable and has charisma.
4. It believes 'the end justifies the means' in order to solicit funds, recruit people.
5. Its wealth does not benefit its members or society."
So I felt the need to ask the question "Is 'The Cult of The Dead Paedophile" a realistic description of the Moslem Faith?
Let us examine that in detail, starting with the question "Are they a cult ?" A chap interviewed on the BBC PM programme a few days ago certainly thinks he was subjected to psycological coercion. He was drawn to the cause of radical islam after Tony Blair took us to Kosovo and had our boys stand round doing nothing while Kosovan Muslims were butchered in the name of ethnic cleansing. He bravely spoke out in an interview with Eddie Mayer, in the face of theats of violence, saying how radical islamists initially got his interest by "pointing out that in Kosovo Blair was letting white, blond, blue eyed followers of islam be butchered, so what hope did HE, a brown skinned follower of the same faith have here." And he believed it. And come on, be honest, if Sky TV showed pictures of lions east of italy being used to put down christians and someone found out Eurotunnel were shipping a consignment here next week, you'd give me a hand to blow up the channel tunnel entrance and don't even try to deny it. But the best bit in the interview for me was the way the radical islamists tried to turn this man away from his family. He says he found his father praying to Allah in their home, praying that his son might have his eyes opened and turn his back on the radical islamist mosque he was now attending and return to the one he had attended with his father. The radical islamists heard about this and told him this was a test of his faith, sent by Allah. Allah wantes to let you see for yourself that your parents were not true followers of Allah, he said.
Well, I've heard THOSE words before - because followers of the Evangelical Christian movement used the same words to ME in 1976. OK OK they said "God" not "Allah" but hand on it's the same deity isn't it ? So they score a pass on point 1.
Let's move on. Do they want to form an elistist, totalitarian society, in which they, the true believers, are the elite, and we, the infidel nonbelievers, are to be slain using the same methods they use to butcher the meat they eat. Er... I think that's a big fat YES to point 2.
Now was The Prophet Mohammed (piss be upon him) self-appointed, dogmatic, not accountable and charismatic ? I am led to believe by those who consider there is only one god and mohammed is is prophet that once again we have scored a bullseye. OK then, that leaves the question of whether he was messianic. Well I believe the followers of Islam relish their day of armageddon just as the Evangelical Christians do theirs, and just as I look forward to the day of Ragnarok. Three out of three.
And so moving on, do they believe the end justifies the means in recruitment and fundraising. Well, Gordon The Headless One certainly believes so as far as the fundraising goes. Have you TRIED opening a bank account lately ? Better still, try buying a holiday villa in the Republic of Northern Cyprus or anywhere else that gives the bird to anti-terrorist-money-laundering demands. And as for the ends justifying the means when it comes to new recruits, it seems there is no shortage of young men willing to lay down their lives for the cause, once the brainwashers have finished with them. So that's four out of four.
So, onto the last question. Funding and who benefits from it. The question becomes "Are the funds the radical islamists are amassing benefitting the average 'Follower of Allah and His Prophet on the Clapham Omnibus?'"
Well, it didn't benefit the ones on
THIS omnibus did it.
So that'll be a big fat YES to 'Are They a Cult'. Now let's move on: Is he DEAD ? Well, according to
THIS page on Wikipedia he's got a tomb. Which puts him in my eyes on the same footing as Saint Peter and does rather set him apart from Jesus Christ (except perhaps in the eyes of non-christians and the followers of Jesus Christ and his Very Latter Day Saint Dan Brown, who believe he HAS a tomb, but we're not allowed to know where, and so does his wife, under a pyramid in France).
Now mind you, if you make google your friend, you can find some pretty outlandish links suggesting Mohammed's remains are in orbit between the earth and the moon (Here Comes That L Ron Hubbard Moment Again).
But OK I'm willing to go with the mainstream on this one. Unlike Odin, who first sacrificed his eye, and then hung on the tree Yggdrasil for seven days until he was dead, in order to gain the knowledge of runes, and who then used that knowledge to come back from the dead after three days (yup, thought I'd heard that story about that jesus bloke somewhere before) I'm going to declare the Prophet Mohammed is very dead, and buried in a tomb in Medina. On the grounds that if enough people felt it important enough to remember that a bloke who died centuries ago was buried at point 'X' on the map, it's a fair bet they WERE, and what remains of them is still there. Oh hang on, I need to make a small exception to that concept. For some chap named Tut-Ankh-Amun.
And finally then, was he a paedophile ?I can almost hear the chants of "Well before we get into that, one has to bear in mind that things were diffent in those days ....". Bollox to that. Google is your friend on this one. I am indebted to the author of
THIS website, which popped out top of a google search for "prophet mohammed's wives" and led me straight to what I wanted to find, without all that tedious mucking about in the Internet Sacred Texts Archive that I usually need to do. I quote verbatim.
‘Aisha was 6 (or 7) years old when she was married, and the marriage was consummated when she was nine years old. al-Tabari vol.9 p.130,131
He beat her too. According to the same website "Mohammed himself once deliberately struck ‘Aisha "on the chest which caused me pain", according to Sahih Muslim vol.2 book 4 ch.352 no.2127 p.462."
So, in summary, I feel 'The Cult Of The Dead Paedophile' is a fully justified description.