Insulting a British charity



9 August 2006

Attempts by Western charitable organisations to donate aid to help needy people in the Maldives have, time and again, been met with obstacles, mistrust and insults.

Earlier this year, the Maldives Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, the local equivalent of the Iranian Guardian Council of mullahs, decreed that a building to house a produce market donated by British fundraisers to the people of Kuludufurhi Island was a Christian plot to evangelise the islands. The mullahs promptly ordered the Maldives fisheries minister Abdullah Kamaluddine to threaten to demolish the building. The project was facilitated by the Salisbury-based British charity Maldives Aid.

The head of Maldives Aid, David Hardingham remains banned from entering the Maldives, after being accused of being a Christian. For those in the Maldives Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, being a Christian is the ultimate crime, or so it would seem. It was amusing that at one stage, he was also accused of being an Islamic terrorist.

Last week, Maldives Aid handed over a desalination plant to the people of the island of Filladu. Well-meaning, ordinary people in Great Britain, especially within the Salisbury community, had spent months fundraising for this project. They had dug deep into their pockets to make fresh, drinking water available to islanders who would otherwise be drinking germ-infested brackish water.

Given this, it does seem somewhat ungrateful to find that the commemorative plaque outside the desalination plant says that the plant was donated by Maldives Aid in the name of Allah, the Islamic god, rather than in the name of the donors. It is possible that Maldives Aid felt harassed enough to determine that unless credit was given to Allah rather than the infidels of the United Kingdom, the Maldives Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs will again require one of its ministers to order the demolition of the plant.

From the semantics of the Divehi language text on the plaque, one could deduce that it was not written or commissioned by Maldives Aid itself. In that case someone else has clearly forfeited credit from the donors and attributed it to Allah.
The following ten things are considered to be najis (unclean):
  • Urine
  • Faeces
  • Semen
  • Dead body
  • Blood
  • Dog
  • Pig
  • Infidel
  • Alcoholic liquors
  • The sweat of an animal that persistently consumes any of the above

There is no precedent in the Maldives for British aid to be accepted in the name of Allah. In 1967 the United Kingdom government donated a hospital which was located in Malé. Over the years several thousands of books were donated by the British Council to Maldive schools. Neither the plaque at the British-built hospital nor the stickers placed in the school texts say that they were donated in the name of Allah. Many Maldive students regularly receive generous scholarships to study in British universities. They are never told that their scholarships are offered in the name of Allah.

The invocation on the plaque in Filladu has no historical precedent. Maldive custom does not require it. The only conclusion is that it was required to be inserted as a calculated insult to the British people.

Absolutely no consideration is given to the feelings of the donors. It is possible that there are some amongst the fundraisers and donors who would be offended by the invocation on the plaque on religious grounds. This, however, is not an issue. Infidels are najis or ritually unclean and classed in the same category as faeces. Their religion is unacceptable to Allah and so their feelings do not count. The moment the religious sentiments of the mullahs and their followers are offended, be it in the Maldives or in Great Britain, all hell would break loose and offenders are sometimes made to pay with their lives.

It is interesting that the local atoll chief declared in his speech that Maldives Aid “should be considered as close friends who are eager to help people in need. And we all should maintain the close friendship with them". It is clear that this atoll chief is ignorant of the Koranic prohibition on maintaining friendship with Jews or Christians. On the other hand, the invocation of the name of Allah in the plaque was sufficient for him to determine that the members of the British charity were Muslims.

The Koran 5:51 states as follows:

އޭ އީމާންވެއްޖެ މީސްތަކުންނޭވެ. ޔަހޫދީންނާއި ނަސޯރާއިން އެއީ ތިޔަބައިމީހުންގެ އެކުވެރީންކަމުގައި ނުބަލާށެވެ. އެއުރެންގެ ތެރެއިން އެއްބަޔަކީ އަނެއް ބަޔަކުގެ އެކުވެރީންނެވެ. ފަހެ ތިޔަބައިމީހުންގެ ތެރެއިން އެއުރެންނީ އެކުވެރީންކަމުގައި ބަލައިގެންފި މީހާއީ، ހަމަކަށަވަރުުން އެއުރެންގެ ތެރެއިން ވާހުށި މީހެކެވެ. ހަމަކަށަވަރުުން އަނިޔާވެރި ވަންހައެއްގެ ބަޔަކަށް އައްލޯހު ތެދުމަގު ނުދައްކަވާހުއްޓެވެ.

“O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”

Unless the hapless atoll chief was sure that his British benefactors were not Jewish or Christian, by declaring them to be his friends, according to the Koranic passage quoted here, he is now deemed to be a Jew or a Christian himself.

Such Koranic commandments are routinely violated when it comes to receiving benefits from the infidels. The generosity of Western taxpayers is regularly exploited without giving it a second thought. There are many infidel-taxpayer-funded Maldive students at universities here in the West, who harbour grudges against the locals for the outcomes of the Crusades, the Spanish Reconquista, the loss of the Ottoman possessions in Europe and the re-establishment of the State of Israel. Why then did they accept their scholarships? Why did they transgress the Koran by befriending the infidels? Who are they cheating- the infidels, Allah or themselves?

To add insult to injury the line of calligraphy on the plaque giving credit to Allah is engraved in Arabic, rather than the indigenous Divehi language or the English language of the infidels who craftily donated the plant, no doubt, in order to convert the islanders to Christianity. The mullahs are unpatriotic proxies for a foreign, colonialist ideology. They have no respect for indigenous cultures; let alone for those that they would regard as despicable, unwashed, Western infidels.

This is yet another example of the double standards of the mullahs and a breach of the Golden Rule- “Do to others as you would have them do to you".

These people regard it their Allah-given right to build mosques in the British heartland and demand that the British observe Islamic holidays. They would complain if they see public displays of nativity scenes at Christmas time or hear Christmas carols. They would insult the people of the United Kingdom by arrogantly staging an IslamExpo in London to coincide with the first anniversary of the Islamic bombings of the London commuter network. They would wilfully deface the Union Flag, cutting through the crosses of the patron saints and claim that it is a work of art resembling Islamic calligraphy. A closer look at this work of art shows a jackboot stomping on St. George's cross. Woe be unto any Briton who dares to cut through a flag depicting Islamic calligraphy, let alone stomp on it.

And yet, the slightest generosity by well-meaning, ordinary, hardworking Britons is condemned as an attempt to “defile” what the mullahs regard as inviolable Islamic territory with Christianity and churches.

In the video clip below, Islamic demonstrators in London openly call for murder. Many of them are refugees who have been granted asylum by the British people and are on welfare benefits funded by the British taxpayer. They are threatening to kill their male hosts and take their wives as war booty. They are also referring to an early Islamic war that Mohamed fought against the Jews of Arabia amongst whom he had earlier taken refuge. In that and other wars the Jewish men were beheaded and their women taken as war booty.


New Zealand refuses entry to
many people from a list of
21 "high-risk" countries

Visas to enter New Zealand granted to some applicants from "high risk" countries have been withdrawn after they were identified through a new screening process, Immigration Minister David Cunliffe said on August 3. It was revealed that the screening group was rejecting 24 per cent of current applications from "high risk" countries, compared with a rejection rate of 9 per cent before the new process was introduced. The list of "high risk" countries is not published. Green Party MP Keith Locke said people having the hardest time getting a visa were from the Middle East, South Asia and Africa.