So they'll incorporate sharia law, piecemeal by piecemeal.

What the hell are we going to do?

Posted by: Voltaire at December 26, 2004 9:02 AM

By rights, this ought to bring British feminists out into the streets. I'd love to know who thought it was a good idea to allow government policy to oppress women like this. It's also going to be fun watching ratepayers' reactions to this. Un-flipping-believable.

Posted by: libbysmom at December 26, 2004 10:09 AM

I saw an opinion once about this that kind of went like this:

The practice of polygamy is going on anyway without legal status-- and many if not all such and such women w/children are collecting welfare benefits-- in other words the taxpayers are SUBSIDIZING the husbands indulgence in this practice.
If they are allowed to marry then the husband could be held accountable, and the woman could achieve an equal legal standing instead of just being a nobody who the guy can just discard arbitrarily.
As far as I'm concerned the original intention and function of welfare programs has been destroyed and in its place are programs that encourage irresponsible behavior and removes the natural unpleasant consequences that inhibit such behavior, and forces the rest of society who act more responsibly to be slaves to those who won't.

Of course this also benefits government workers and politicians because of job security for unproductive,unneccesary,overpaid, parasitic,and unaccoutable job decriptions and ever-expanding government power, including creating a population dependant on said power as a means holding on to that privilege and power.

Posted by: kentim at December 26, 2004 10:10 AM

Polygamy was legalized when??? This doesn't just effect inheritance taxes . . .say, bigomy on welfare. . .and what about that little gem . . .temporary wives? . . . utter meshuga!

Posted by: justamomof4 at December 26, 2004 10:30 AM

So this only applies to muslims? What if one of my native British (non-muslim) friends had more than one wife - would he get a tax break as well? What about the criminal law? Is bigamy no longer an offence then? Or do we have a penal code for muslims and one for non muslims? Isn't that discriminatory?

This takes the biscuit (again)... been saying that too often recently. I wonder what's next.

Quote from the Times article:

...He (Sadiq Khan, a leading Muslim politician) insisted there was no question of pressing for the introduction of sharia’s criminal code "where people are flogged or have their hands chopped off". He said: "This is not the thin edge of the wedge." ...

Why not? Why not take it a step further???

Posted by: disillusionised_german at December 26, 2004 11:06 AM

OT

I just want to make a point. Lately several readers have objected to being referred to as "infidels". This is my take on it, anyhow.

Being an "infidel" does NOT mean that you do not believe in the One True God (who is NOT "allah"). It means that you are an "unbeliever" in the demonic moon-"god" "allah" of the satanic blood cult of islam. Therefore, you can wear your "Infidel" label with pride.

I do!

CGW

Posted by: CGW at December 26, 2004 11:34 AM

I can't see how this is feasible at all, given polygamy is not legal. If polygamous 'marriages' are given tax breaks, then what about gay 'marriages', 'living in sin' couples and other unions that are not recognised in law. Additionally, won't this fall foul of sex discrimination legislation, since women are not allowed polyandrous marriages?

Quite apart from its legal inconsistencies, this is a disgusting idea. Why should tax payers subsidise a primitive, backward custom? It isn't like subsidising something productive like an enterprise zone. Polygamous Muslims are likely to be the most useless, unproductive members of society, and even of the Muslim community itself. We'll be paying them to breed like rabbits and oppress women.

Stupid. But I don't think it will happen because there are too many contradictions.

Posted by: Interestd at December 26, 2004 11:36 AM

How about respecting the laws of the country you live in, and not practicing polygamy. I guess that never occured to the Muslim lawyers shrieking "discrimination."

The cheek of these people, the unmitaged, disgusting gall.

Posted by: Suzan at December 26, 2004 11:40 AM

By lowering the taxes on Muslims (and inheritance taxes in England are very high), this will only raise the taxes -- assuming the total tax burden is kept at the same level --on non-Muslim taxpayers. Perhaps that can be kept in mind even by those who are indifferent to the transformation of their own society, for taxes and unfair burdens have a way of getting attention when nothing else works.

Posted by: Hugh at December 26, 2004 11:40 AM

This is **##&& unbelievable!!!! Obviously the Inland Review Tax Office has knuckled under to Islam. The British public should be out in the streets protesting this one. The slide in going rapidly downhill.

In an age when American judges are considering the rulings of International law and other countries are precedents, the institution of polygamy in the U.K., of all places, will be used by activist judges and American Muslims alike as a model for how Sharia can be implemented in the U.S.

Of course, as in Canada, they will use the word "voluntary" to be enforced by the government. At what point does "voluntary" become mandatory? Bit-by-bit, Sharia will be imposed upon us unless we make our wishes known to our government.

Posted by: epg at December 26, 2004 12:28 PM

The British government is dedicated to undermining the status of marriage, well proper decent monogamous marriage anyway, abolishing our tax concessions and bringing in legislation favouring casual arrangements and same sex partnerships. This is just part and parcel of the same process.
Except why can they not see that the liberal lifestyle they love will be the first thing to go under Islamic conditions?
And the feminists will not be out on the streets in protest because many modern feminists (I was a feminist as a student, many years ago, and my views did not change, but the feminists did) seem to care little for other women. She appears a selfish creature, interested only in her own path up the career ladder and her own sexual encounters. That female writers for The Guardian were among the earliest supporters of the hijab being introduced as part of school uniform and campaigned for my pension rights to be snatched away from me so that I was equal to men shows how little concern for real issues they retain.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at December 26, 2004 2:11 PM

Does this also include the "temporary" wives that Muslim men may impregnate?

Let's see, up to four wives, throw in a 'temporary wife' or two and 8, 10, 12 unassimilated kids per wife who are "entitled" to the benefits of citizenship ... Yep, the transformation of the United Kingdom to the "Islamic Kingdom" will happen sooner than they first estimated. G-d help them ...

Posted by: Kemaste at December 26, 2004 2:25 PM

This is SO awful can scarely believe it ! Where is the DIGNITY AND EQUAL RIGHTS OF WOMEN?? Recognizing POLGAMY must be a retrogade step by anyone's Book. You can see that in a short time the Muslims will have reduced the status and economic wealth of their Host countries to those Third World Lands they came from. THERE SHOULD BE AN ORGANIZED PROGRAMME TO STOP MUSLIMS BREEDING LIKE RABBITS - all social welfare payments ought to be cut off after man's first two children by whatever wives and concubines.WHAT IS WRONG WITH EUROPE THAT THEY ARE ACTING SO STUPIDLY?? Yes, the time draws nearer to fighting in the streets which will make Bosnia look like a Teaparty...
In fact when Eurabia is a population of Dhimmis, in the legends of the Opressed MILOSOVEICH WILL BE
A HERO...

Posted by: Morgane at December 26, 2004 3:33 PM

To be honest - the more I read about muslims the less I consider Slobodan Milosevic as the devil he is being portrayed as in the PC media. He, as the elected President of Yugoslavia, tried to safeguard his country and his people. Admittedly they went over the top time and again but we now know how many atrocities were committed by muslims against Christians in former Yugoslavia. Maybe we will consider him a "freedom fighter" at some stage in the future???

Posted by: disillusionised_german at December 26, 2004 3:38 PM

If this manages to pass I dont think it will be long before muslims are demanding that it be legal for them to physically "discipline" their wives and children as prescribed for them in the koran, anything less would be "religious discrimination"....in short they can beat their wives and children "if they are in need of it" and it will be perfectly legal. I hope that Canada is taking note of this...this will be their future as well.

Posted by: USAgirl at December 26, 2004 4:31 PM

I don't know what to make of it. I don't see what the fuss is about really, if someone wants to have more than 1 wife and he can find a stupid women to go along with it, fair enough. But to have government subsidise it, erm, no.

Posted by: ReligionOfPeaceMyArse at December 26, 2004 4:44 PM

Well, maybe because it is immoral and a crime in most Western countries??? I'm not sure the ladies on this forum will like you for that comment - even if it was meant ironic.

Posted by: disillusionised_german at December 26, 2004 5:12 PM

Demographic trends in Britain were already looking bleak, as muslim women have 5 times as many children as any other woman. With muslim men able to have 4 wives, divorce and re-marry, while all the while bringing these "wives" from pakistan and other muslim countries, the end of the UK is now inevitable.

The Labour party is selling the heritage of Britain just for a few votes. It could not care less if the UK survived or not as a recognisable Western nation.

Posted by: DP111 at December 26, 2004 5:17 PM

Just wait until Ahmed or Muhammed shows up as a refugee and has 4 wives,when each wife has 5 children that will be 24 people on welfare and it won't be long until the system is so burdened that it colapses under its own weight and bankrupts the British. In Canada a pro-refugee group was outraged at the Government for introducing a DNA testing plan for the Family-re-unification program to help prove a sponsored person was a relative,it would have sped things up but I guess it upset the scammers making money
from the human-traffic Industry.
During the Somolian civil war one of the Warlords
sent his wife to Canada and she had about 4 children,she was living a good life and even had access to the media to hold a press conference with her lawyer that used the Charter of Rights to show Canadians it was her Right to get all the Social benefits,even though Canadian soldiers were fighting against her husband in Somolia.

The U.N. definition of Refugee and the Geneva Convention rules of War need to be updated to reflect the new reality when dealing with the Militant wing of Islam and the bogus refugees
that aren't fleeing a true fear of personal harm.

Just picture how it would look if Eva Braun
came to American as a refugee while her husband Adolf Hitler was slaughtering millions in his death camps.

Posted by: ala-sux at December 26, 2004 6:41 PM

Fellow "Infidels".....I hate to say it, but I get the feeling that our governments are in the process of selling all of us out. Something I've been hearing alot about lately are the terms "New World Order" and "One World Government", where all borders are eliminated....(Mexico) for instance.

Like I asked in the last column I put together for the site, please start contacting our elected officials and make them aware of your concerns. I'm beginning to think that the rug's being pulled out from under all of us.

It's great that we talk about this on here, and we should continue to, but we should also let our "leaders" know that this has gone on long enough. Send them links to these stories, make them listen.

Please feel free to view the following link and decide what you decide. I'm beginning to get more concerned:

http://threeworldwars.com/intro.htm

Posted by: DCWatson at December 26, 2004 10:53 PM

This is a very smart move from the part of muslims...a lot smarter than demanding the implementation of the sharia law,in Canada.
To ask for sharia law in a western ,civilized country is a scarry thing ,at least for the few people that know what sharia law is.
But to try to bring about the sharia law through the back door,little by little,it just shows that the muslims are not as stupid as we thought they were.
The next thing they will ask for ,will be the right for muslims to legally marry 9 year old girls,just as their prophet did...and not to allow them such right,would mean blasphemy against the prophet and religious discrimination,ofcourse.
I just hope this will not create a dangerous precedent that muslims will use in other civilized countries.

Posted by: adela at December 26, 2004 11:42 PM

And don`t expect the brits to raise hell about this either...as long as it is not about fox hunting or soccer,everything goes.

Posted by: adela at December 27, 2004 12:32 AM

Why anyone should be shocked is beyond me. For almost forty years now, the trend in Western law has been to affirm things previously considered as deviant behavior. If Homosexuals may adopt and marry, there should be nothing to prevent polygamy or bestiality.

Unless, of course, we want to say that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament are indeed legally relevant.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 27, 2004 2:47 AM

DC:

I discount the link on the conspiratorial theory of history, and certainly deny emphatically that it is biblical. Indeed, Pslam 2, to which the writer appeals, shows how the conspiracies of even kings come to naught if they seek to overthrow the Lord's Anointed (Jesus Christ). One major point of prophecy, in texts like Isaiah 10:5ff., is that history is determined by the will of God, not by Freemasons,illuminati, Bilderbergers, the Republican Party, the king of Assyria, or even by the Devil--who may do no more than God allows (see Job 1).

It may be that the LORD of Hosts has a controversy with the Western world, and we are now subjected to a wave of Islamicist terror. I don't see the Bible anywhere promising that we will be kept from tirbulation in this world, or that people are basically good unless acted on by some sinister force (at least since the day Adam fell).

Conspiracy theories are popular among Christians today because they forget that the Lord Jesus came to make atonement for and to save sinners--not simply tidy up some basically decent folks and give them a nice little example of martyrdom to be commemorated in bits of gold and gemstone.

Note as well how Islam's denial of original sin and the depth to which it infects us makes Islam especially prone to conspiracy theories--as if their own history didn't have enough examples of its own of the fundamental depravity of man.

Also, ever since the Reagan years, liberals have been seeing a moderately rightward shift in America, and echo rightwing fears of Bilderbergers and Illuminati by screaming about international corporate giants.

The whole conspiratorial theory of history is enough to make grown-up men cry.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 27, 2004 3:00 AM

DC: I went to the link on the conspiratorial theory of history and am unimpressed.

First of all, Psalm 2 says that much as men might like to pursue power for themselves, God gets the last say. It doesn't teach the power of conspiracies (even of kings), but their weakness. Also, by opposing the conspiratorial view of history to an "accidental" view of history, it neglects a third, and most plausible, view: the providential view.

Prophecy shows as well that history is guided by the hand of God, not of Freemasons, Bilderbergers, Illuminati, or even the king of Assyria or even the devil himself (he can go nor further than God allows him). That's the point of passages like Job 1 or Isaiah 10.

Conspiracies are there, but they're just part of sinful man's rebellion, and as such they fail. Yes, the king of Assyria wanted power and glory for himself, but God's eternal Word says he was only a rod of God's chastisement against a rebellious people (Israel and Judah). Yes, the Islamofascists want to either kill, convert, or dhimmfy the rest of us. But, could it not also be that God has a controversy with a Western civilization that has a fuller revelation of God than Hesekiah's Judah ever did?

Christians today are susceptible to conspiracy theorizing because they're weak on the doctrines of sin and grace. Jesus Christ came to give atonement for the souls of desperately wicked sinners (you and me, folks, not just that guy on the other cross in Luke 23); not to give an example of martyrdom to basically decent folks who needed no more than a little tidying up and another moral code.

Leave conspiracy theorizing to Islam. The Bible says that the heart of man is desperately wicked in Jeremiah, that the wickesd (again, all of us) go astray from birth, speaking lies (Ps. 59), and that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. It is Islam that denies all this, and thinks we're basically good--if not for our parents who mislead us, the JOOOOZ, etc. (haven't we heard all these before we started studying up on the darker side of Islam, folks?).

I know the evil in my heart, fight it by God's grace, and something of the evil in human hearts in general. It doesn't take a conspiracy for bad things to happen.

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 27, 2004 3:23 AM

Posted by: Kepha1 at December 27, 2004 03:23 AM

I did like the drawings with no [dots] points??

Some of the madness is true but the Real enemy is the Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them!!

DCWatson Yes we are in WW3 this war is on all fronts including our own shores!!

But to blame this one on the Jews is a big mistake it is the mulsums and you know this and this is part of what the mulsums do is blame the Jews to try to divide then conquer This is a fight just like has been fought before and this time if we do not finish this fight your Grandchildren will have to fight it again because we will have failed them??

We do not have to agree with all our alies 100% but we have to fight with then the world is to small not to fight this fight??

There is no 1 world order!! The UN is proved to be run by the Arabs and looks like that is who we fight??

Because they have declared WAR ON US YES THE REST OF THE WORLD JUST AS THEY HAVE BEFORE!!!

REMEMBER THEY HAVE ALSO DECLARED WAR ON THE JEWS TOO!!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15201
John Quincy Adams Knew Jihad
By Andrew G. Bostom
FrontPageMagazine.com | September 29, 2004

John Quincy Adams possessed a remarkably clear, uncompromised understanding of the permanent Islamic institutions of jihad war and dhimmitude. Regarding jihad, Adams states in his essay series,

“…he [Muhammad] declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind…The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God.”

Confirming Adams’ assessment, the late Muslim scholar, Professor Majid Khadduri, wrote the following in his authoritative 1955 treatise on jihad, War and Peace in the Law of Islam :

“Thus the jihad may be regarded as Islam’s instrument for carrying out its ultimate objective by turning all people into believers, if not in the prophethood of Muhammad (as in the case of the dhimmis), at least in the belief of God. The Prophet Muhammad is reported to have declared ‘some of my people will continue to fight victoriously for the sake of the truth until the last one of them will combat the anti-Christ’. Until that moment is reached the jihad, in one form or another will remain as a permanent obligation upon the entire Muslim community. It follows that the existence of a dar al-harb is ultimately outlawed under the Islamic jural order; that the dar al-Islam permanently under jihad obligation until the dar al-harb is reduced to non-existence; and that any community accepting certain disabilities- must submit to Islamic rule and reside in the dar al-Islam or be bound as clients to the Muslim community. The universality of Islam, in its all embracing creed, is imposed on the believers as a continuous process of warfare, psychological and political if not strictly military.”3

And Adams captured the essential condition imposed upon the non-Muslim dhimmi “tributaries” subjugated by jihad, with this laconic statement,

“The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute.”

Indeed, the famous Shafi’i jurist of Baghdad, al-Mawardi (d. 1058), highlights the most salient aspect of the consensus view of classical Islamic jurisprudence regarding the vanquished non-Muslims “tribute”, i.e., the jizya: the critical connection between jihad and payment of the jizya. He notes that “The enemy makes a payment in return for peace and reconciliation.” Al-Mawardi then distinguishes two cases: (I) Payment is made immediately and is treated like booty, however “it does, however, not prevent a jihad being carried out against them in the future.”. (II). Payment is made yearly and will “constitute an ongoing tribute by which their security is established.” Reconciliation and security last as long as the payment is made. If the payment ceases, then the jihad resumes. A treaty of reconciliation may be renewable, but must not exceed 10 years.4 The nature of such “protection”, i.e., a blood ransom, is reinforced in this definition of jizya written by E.W. Lane, based on a careful analysis of the etymology of the term:

“The tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of a Muslim government whereby they ratify the compact that assures them protection, as though it were compensation for not being slain” 5

Adams’ staunch anti-imperialism, one of the “fourteen fundamentals” of U.S. foreign policy which Samuel Flagg Bemis states, “…we may connect with the name of John Quincy Adams more than with that of any other man” 6, is consistent with Old Man Eloquent’s support for the struggle of the Greeks 7 to liberate themselves from the yoke of centuries of dhimmitude, imposed by the imperialism of Ottoman jihad 8. At minimum, in light of the global war on jihad terrorism, John Quincy Adams’ candid, timeless ruminations should be required reading for all contemporary U.S. diplomats and politicians.

Key annotated excerpts from John Quincy Adams’ remarkable series of essays, are provided below.

Adams on Jesus Christ and Christianity, Relative to Muhammad and Islam

"And he [Jesus] declared, that the enjoyment of felicity in the world hereafter, would be reward of the practice of benevolence here. His whole law was resolvable into the precept of love; peace on earth – good will toward man, was the early object of his mission; and the authoritative demonstration of the immortality of man, was that, which constituted the more than earthly tribute of glory to God in the highest… The first conquest of the religion of Jesus, was over the unsocial passions of his disciples. It elevated the standard of the human character in the scale of existence…On the Christian system of morals, man is an immortal spirit, confined for a short space of time, in an earthly tabernacle. Kindness to his fellow mortals embraces the whole compass of his duties upon earth, and the whole promise of happiness to his spirit hereafter. THE ESSENCE OF THIS DOCTRINE IS, TO EXALT THE SPIRITUAL OVER THE BRUTAL PART OF HIS NATURE." (Adam's capital letters)….[pp. 267-268]

“In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar [i.e., Muhammad], the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE (Adam's capital letters)….Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. The war is yet flagrant…While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men.” [p. 269]

Adams on Jihad War, Dhimmitude, and the Muslim View of Non-Muslims; Examples of the Perfidy of Muslim States, Including the Ottoman Turkish State

“As the essential principle of his faith is the subjugation of others by the sword; it is only by force, that his false doctrines can be dispelled, and his power annihilated.

They [The Russians] have been from time immemorial, in a state of almost perpetual war with the Tatars, and with their successors, the Ottoman conquerors of Constantinople. It were an idle waste of time to trace the causes of each renewal of hostilities, during a succession of several centuries. The precept of the Koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always obligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force. Of Mahometan good faith, we have had memorable examples ourselves. When our gallant [Stephen] Decatur ref had chastised the pirate of Algiers, till he was ready to renounce his claim of tribute from the United States, he signed a treaty to that effect: but the treaty was drawn up in the Arabic language, as well as in our own; and our negotiators, unacquainted with the language of the Koran, signed the copies of the treaty, in both languages, not imagining that there was any difference between them. Within a year the Dey demands, under penalty of the renewal of the war, an indemnity in money for the frigate taken by Decatur; our Consul demands the foundation of this pretension; and the Arabic copy of the treaty, signed by himself is produced, with an article stipulating the indemnity, foisted into it, in direct opposition to the treaty as it had been concluded. The arrival of Chauncey, with a squadron before Algiers, silenced the fraudulent claim of the Dey, and he signed a new treaty in which it was abandoned; but he disdained to conceal his intentions; my power, said he, has been wrested from my hands; draw ye the treaty at your pleasure, and I will sign it; but beware of the moment, when I shall recover my power, for with that moment, your treaty shall be waste paper. He avowed what they always practised, and would without scruple have practised himself. Such is the spirit, which governs the hearts of men, to whom treachery and violence are taught as principles of religion.” [p. 274-275]

“Had it been possible for a sincere and honest peace to be maintained between the Osmanli and his christian neighbors, then would have been the time to establish it in good faith. But the treaty was no sooner made than broken. It never was carried into effect by the Turkish government.” [p. 276]

“From the time when the disaster of Navarino ref had been made known to him, the Reis Effendi [Ottoman diplomat assigned to Russia] had assumed the tone of the aggrieved party, and made formal demands of indemnity, and the punishment of the offending admirals. He still manifested however, a solicitude to prevent the rupture of the negotiations by the departure of the ambassadors…” [p. 298]

“Upon the departure of the ambassadors, the Sultan, who must have been, however, unwillingly preparing his mind for that event, immediately determined upon two things; a war with Russia alone – and a dallying attempt to protract the negotiation, and gain time of preparation for the conflict.” [p. 298]

[From the Ottoman Reis Effendi, to his Russian counterparts] ‘The present friendly letter has been composed and sent, to acquaint your excellency. with the circumstance; when you shall learn, on receipt of it, that the Sublime Porte has at all times; no other desire or wish than to preserve peace, and good understanding ; and that the event in question has been brought about, entirely by the act of the said minister, we hope that you will endeavor, do every occasion, to fulfil the duties of friendship.’ But precisely at the time when this mild, and candid, and gently expostulary epistle was despatched for St. Petersburg, another state paper was issued, addressed by the Sultan to his own subjects-this was the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, sent to the Pashas of all the provinces, calling on all the faithful Mussulmen of the empire to come forth and 'fight for their religion, and their country, against the infidel despisers of the Prophet. The comparison of these two documents with each other, will afford the most perfect illustration of the Ottoman faith, as well as of their temper towards Russia.

The Hatti Sheriff commenced with the following admirable commentary upon the friendly profession, which introduced the letter to count Nesselrode. ‘It is well known (said the Sultan) to almost every person, that if the Mussulmen naturally hate the infidels, the infidels, on then part, are the enemies of the Mussulmen : that Russia, more especially, bears a particular hatred to Islamism, and that she is the principal enemy of the Sublime Porte.’

This appeal to the natural hatred of the Mussulmen towards the infidels, is in just accordance with the precepts of the Koran. The document does not attempt to disguise it, nor even pretend that the enmity of those whom it styles the infidels, is any other than the necessary consequence of the hatred borne by the Mussulmen to them—the paragraph itself, is a forcible example of the contrasted character of the two religions. The fundamental doctrine of the christian religion, is the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. It forbids the exercise of it, even towards enemies. There is no denomination of christians, which denies or misunderstands this doctrine. All understand it alike—all acknowledge its obligations ; and however imperfectly, in the purposes of Divine Providence, its efficacy has been shown in the practice of christians, it has not been wholly inoperative upon them. Its effect has been upon the manners of nations. It has mitigated the horrors of war – it has softened the features of slavery – it has humanized the intercourse of social life. The unqualified acknowledgement of a duty does not, indeed, suffice to insure its performance. Hatred is yet a passion, but too powerful upon the hearts of christians. Yet they cannot indulge it, except by the sacrifice of their principles, and the conscious violation of their duties. No state paper from a Christian hand, could, without trampling the precepts of its Lord and Master, have commenced by an open proclamation of hatred to any portion of the human race. The Ottoman lays it down as the foundation of his discourse. [p. 299-300]

“The last appeal of the Sultan to the fanaticism of his people, and to the protection of his prophet, has been vain. He told them, that since the happy time of their great prophet, the faithful Mussulmen had never taken into consideration the numbers of the infidels. He reminded them, too truly reminded them, how often they had put millions of Christians to the sword; how many states and provinces they had thus conquered, sword in hand.” 9 [p. 302]

“[More from the Ottoman Sultan’s pronouncement to his subjects]...‘all infidels are but one nation…This war must be considered purely a religious and national war. Let all the faithful, rich or poor, great or little, know, that to fight is a duty with us; let them then refrain from thinking of arrears, or of pay of any kind; far from such considerations, let us sacrifice our property and our persons; let us execute zealously the duties which the honor of Islamism imposes on us – let us unite our efforts, and labor, body and soul, for the support of religion, until the day of judgement. Mussulmen have no other means of working out salvation in this world and the next.’”

Those provinces are the abode of ten millions of human beings, two thirds of whom are Christians, groaning under the intolerable oppression of less than three millions of Turks. Those provinces are in some of the fairest regions of the earth. They were Christian countries, subdued during the conquering period of the Mahometan imposture, by the ruthless scymetar of the Ottoman race; and under their iron yoke, have been gradually dwindling in population, and sinking into barbarism. The time of their redemption is at hand.” [p. 303]

“With regard to the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th of December, summoning the whole Ottoman nation to arms against Russia, the sultan now thinks proper to say, that it was only a proclamation which the Sublime Porte, for certain reasons, circulated in its states; an internal transaction, of which the Sublime Porte alone knows the motives, and that the language held by a government to its own subjects cannot b a ground for another government to pick a quarrel with it – especially, as the Grand Vizier had, immediately after the departure of the Russian envoy, written a letter to the prime minister of Russia, declaring the desire of the Sublime Porte till to maintain peace. That if Russia had conceived suspicions, from the Sultan’s address to his subjects, she might have applied amicably to the Porte to ascertain the truth and clear up her doubts.” [p. 311]

Remonstrating Against the Moral Equivalence of Britain and the European Powers

“In the kings [British King, George IV] speech, at the opening of the session of Parliament, on the 29th of January, he said that, ‘for several years a contest had been carried on between the Ottoman Porte, and the inhabitants of the Greek provinces and islands, which had been marked on each side, by excesses revolting to humanity’.” [p. 304]

“Still more extraordinary was it to the ears of Christendom to hear a British king, in a speech to his parliament, style the execrable and sanguinary head of the Ottoman race, his ancient ally; and denominate a splendid victory, achieved under the command of a British admiral, in the strict and faithful execution of his instructions, and untoward event. But the last member of the paragraph from his majesty’s speech, which we have quoted, to those accustomed to the mystifications of royal speeches and diplomatic defiances, explained these apparent disparates. He declares the great objects to which all his efforts have been directed, and of which, while adhering to his arrangements, he will never lose sight, are the termination of the contest between the hostile parties; the permanent settlement of their future relations to each other, and maintenance of the repose of Europe, upon the basis on which it has rested since the last general peace.” [p. 305]

“And where is the protection to the commerce of his majesty’s subjects! And where is the determination to launch all the thunders of Britain at half a dozen skulking piratical cockboats, driven by the desperation of famine to seek the subsistence of plunder, assigned in the protocols, the treaty and the communications to the Ottoman Porte, as the great objects of his majesty’s interference between a legitimate sovereign and his revolted rayahs?...In all these documents, issuing from the profound and magnanimous policy of the British warrior statesman, nothing is more remarkable, than the more than stoical apathy with which they regard the cause, for which the Greeks are contending; the more than epicurean indifference with which they witness the martyrdom of a whole people, perishing in the recovery of their religion and liberty…The royal speech of January, 1828 indicates that in the protocol and in the treaty, the government of George IV, had outwitted themselves, and were the dupes of their own policy. It presents the singular spectacle of a sovereign, wincing at the success of his own measures, and repining at the triumph of his own arms. From that time the partialities of England in favor of he ancient ally, have been little disguised; and the disposition to take side with the Porte has only been controlled, by the unwelcome necessity of adhering to the faith of treaties.” [pp. 306-307]

“Far from being like the Hatti Sheriff of the 20th December, an appeal to the Ottoman people, a bold and candid avowal of the precepts of the Koran; it is an utter departure from them, and an assumption, equally shameless and hypocritical, of argument on Christian grounds.” [pp. 308-309]

Justice of the Greek Revolution

“If ever insurrection was holy in the eyes of God, such was that of the Greeks against their Mahometan oppressors. Yet for six long years, they were suffered to be overwhelmed by the whole mass of the Ottoman power; cheered only by the sympathies of all the civilized world, but without a finger raised to sustain or relieve them by the Christian governments of Europe; while the sword of extermination, instinct with the spirit of the Koran, was passing in merciless horror over the classical regions of Greece, the birth-place of philosophy, of poetry, of eloquence, of all the arts that embellish, and all the sciences that dignify the human character. The monarchs of Austria, of France, and England, inflexibly persisted in seeing in the Greeks, only revolted subjects against a lawful sovereign. The ferocious Turk eagerly seized upon this absurd concession, and while sweeping with his besom of destruction over the Grecian provinces, answered every insinuation of interest in behalf of that suffering people, by assertions of the unqualified rights of sovereignty, and by triumphantly retorting upon the legitimates of Europe, the consequences naturally flowing from their own perverted maxims.” [p. 278]

“This pretended discovery of a plot between Russia and the Greeks, is introduced, to preface an exulting reference to the unhallowed butchery of the Greek Patriarch and Priests, on Easter day of 1822, at Constantinople, and to the merciless desolation of Greece, which it calls ‘doing justice by the sword’ to a great number of rebels of the Morea, of Negropont, of Acarnania, Missolonghi, Athens, and other parts 10 of the continent.The document acknowledges, that although during several years, considerable forces, both naval and military, had been sent against the Greeks, they had not succeeded in suppressing the insurrection.” [p. 301]

6. Bemis, S. F. John Quincy Adams and the Foundations of American Foreign Policy, p. 570.

7. Ackowledging his earlier position of strict neutrality, while Secretary of State, Pappas makes clear how as President (perhaps under the influence of Lafayette), Adams came to support the Greek cause (Pappas, Paul C. The United States and the Greek War for Independence, 1821-1828, New York, 1985, pp. 125-126.):

“The case of the Greek frigates demonstrated once again America’s benevolent neutrality toward Greece. Motivated no doubt by philhellenic zeal, the United States government came to the Greek’s rescue in violation of the nation’s law and the international laws of neutrality. President Adams and members of the cabinet and of Congress enthusiastically helped Contostavlos [the Greek national seeking warships for his country] and cooperated in passing swiftly and discreetly a bill authorizing the government to purchase one of the Greek frigates. The American government also cooperated in postponing the purchase of the frigate so that Contostavlos could deal with the houses, which refused to compromise on their high demands. And finally, when Contostavlos was ready to sail with the frigate Hope to Greece, President Adams temporarily put aside neutrality to allow an armed ship to sail out of New York with American officers and sailors…”

8. Vacalopoulos describes how jihad imposed dhimmitude under Ottoman rule provided critical motivation for the Greek Revolution (Vacalopoulos, A.E. Background and Causes of the Greek Revolution, Neo-Hellenika, Vol. 2, 1975, pp.54-55):

“The Revolution of 1821 is no more than the last great phase of the resistance of the Greeks to Ottoman domination; it was a relentless, undeclared war, which had begun already in the first years of servitude. The brutality of an autocratic regime, which was characterized by economic spoliation, intellectual decay and cultural retrogression, was sure to provoke opposition. Restrictions of all kinds, unlawful taxation, forced labor, persecutions, violence, imprisonment, death, abductions of girls and boys and their confinement to Turkish harems, and various deeds of wantonness and lust, along with numerous less offensive excesses – all these were a constant challenge to the instinct of survival and they defied every sense of human decency. The Greeks bitterly resented all insults and humiliations, and their anguish and frustration pushed them into the arms of rebellion. There was no exaggeration in the statement made by one of the beys if Arta, when he sought to explain the ferocity of the struggle. He said: ‘We have wronged the rayas [dhimmis] (i.e. our Christian subjects) and destroyed both their wealth and honor; they became desperate and took up arms. This is just the beginning and will finally lead to the destruction of our empire.’ The sufferings of the Greeks under Ottoman rule were therefore the basic cause of the insurrection; a psychological incentive was provided by the very nature of the circumstances.”

9. Bat Ye'or summarized the impact of the first two centuries of Arab Muslim conquests on indigenous Jews and Christians of the Middle East, as follows (The Jerusalem Quarterly 1987; Vol. 42, Pp. 84-85):

“Muslim chroniclers described the ongoing jihad (holy war), involving the destruction of whole towns, the massacre of large numbers of their populations, the enslavement of women and children, and the confiscation of vast regions. This picture of catastrophe and destruction corresponds to the period of gradual erosion of Palestinian Jewry. According to [the Muslim chronicler] Baladhuri (d. 892 C.E.), 40,000 Jews lived in Caesarea alone at the Arab conquest, after which all trace of them is lost…".

The six centuries between 640 and 1240 C.E., she further observes:

“. witnessed the total and definitive destruction of Judaism and Christianity in the Hijaz (modern Saudi Arabia), and the decline of once flourishing Christian and Jewish communities in Palestine (particularly in Galilee for the Jews), Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, and Persia. In North Africa, the Christians had been virtually eliminated by 1240 C.E., and the Jews decimated by Almohad persecutions… notwithstanding some brighter intervals, these six centuries witnessed a dramatic demographic reversal whereby the Arab-Muslim minority developed into a dominant majority, resorting to oppression in order to reduce the indigenous populations to tolerated religious minorities…”

Professor H.Z. Hirschberg includes this summary of a contemporary Judeo-Arabic account by Solomon Cohen (which comports with Arab historian Ibn Baydhaq’s sequence of events), from January 1148 C.E, describing the Muslim Almohad conquests in North Africa, and Spain (Hirschberg, H.Z., The Jews of North Africa, Leiden, Vol. 1, 1974, pp. 127-128):

“Abd al-Mumin…the leader of the Almohads after the death of Muhammad Ibn Tumart the Mahdi [note: Ibn Tumart was a cleric whose writings bear a striking resemblance to Khomeini’s rhetoric eight centuries later] …captured Tlemcen [in the Maghreb] and killed all those who were in it, including the Jews, except those who embraced Islam…All the cities in the Almoravid [dynastic rulers of North Africa and Spain prior to the Almohads] state were conquered by the Almohads. One hundred thousand persons were killed in Fez on that occasion, and 120,000 in Marrakesh….Large areas between Seville and Tortosa [in Spain] had likewise [emphasis added] fallen into Almohad hands.”

Speros Vryonis provides a contemporary Georgian chroniclers account of the Seljuk jihad in Asia Minor and Georgia during the late 11th and early 12th centuries (Vryonis, Speros Jr. “Nomadization and Islamization in Asia Minor”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 29, 1975, pp. 50-51):

“The process itself is described in its essential details by the Georgian chronicle for northeast Asia Minor and the adjoining Georgian regions. The process which it describes was not unique to the northeast, for we see it in the west and the south of Asia Minor as well..

‘The emirs spread out, like locusts, over the face of the land…The countries of Asis-Phorni, Clardjeth, up to the shores of the sea, Chawcheth, Adchara, Samtzkhe, Karthli, Argoueth, Samokalako, and Dchqondid were filled with Turks who pillaged and enslaved all the inhabitants. In a single day they burned Kouthathis, Artanoudj, and hermitages of Clardjeth, and they remained in these lands until the first snows, devouring the land, massacring all those who had fled to the forests to the rocks, to the caves…The calamities of Christianity did not come to an end soon thereafter, for at the approach of spring, the Turks returned to carry out the same ravages and left [again] in the winter. The [inhabitants] however were unable to plant or to harvest. The land, [thus] delivered to slavery, had only animals of the forests and wild beasts for inhabitants. Karthli was in the grip of intolerable calamities such as one cannot compare to a single devastation or combination of evils of past times. The holy churches served as stables for their horses, the sanctuaries of the Lord served as repairs for the abominations [Islam]. Some of the priests were immolated during the Holy communion itself, and others were carried off into harsh slavery without regard to their old age. The virgins were defiled, the youths circumcised, and the infants taken away. The conflagration, extending its ravages, consumed all the inhabited sites, the rivers, instead of water, flowed blood. I shall apply the sad words of Jeremiah, which he applied so well to such situations: “the honorable children of Zion, never put to the rest by misfortunes, now voyaged as slaves on foreign roads. The streets of Zion now wept because there was no one [left] to celebrate the feasts. The tender mothers, in place of preparing with their hands the nourishment of the sons, were themselves nourished from the corpses of these dearly loved. Such and worse was the situation at the time.’…

By the time [of the late 11th and early 12th centuries, i.e. (1083-1125)]…the nomads had effected permanent settlement in these regions, moving into the abandoned and devastated areas with their tents, families, and flocks of livestock.”

A. E. Vacalopoulos summarized the devastating impact of five centuries of Seljuk and Ottoman jihad campaigns in Asian Minor and the Balkans (Vacalopoulos, A.E. Origins of the Greek Nation-The Byzantine Period, 1204-1461, New Brunswick, N.J., 1970, pp. 61, 68; 72-73):

“At the beginning of the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks forced their way into Armenia and there crushed the armies of several petty Armenian states. No fewer than forty thousand souls fled before the organized pillage of the Seljuk host to the western part of Asia Minor. From the middle of the eleventh century, and especially after the battle of Malazgirt [Manzikurt] (1071), the Seljuks spread throughout the whole Asia Minor peninsula, leaving error, panic and destruction in their wake. Byzantine, Turkish and other contemporary sources are unanimous in their agreement on the extent of havoc wrought an the protracted anguish of the local population…[The Greek chronicler] Kydones described the fate of the Christian peoples of Asia Minor thus:

‘The entire region which sustained us, from the Hellespont eastwards to the mountains of Armenia, has been snatched away. They [the Turks] have razed cities, pillaged churches, opened graves, and filled everything with blood and corpses…Alas, too, they have even abused Christian bodies. And having taken away their entire wealth they have now taken away their freedom, reducing them to the merest shadows of slaves. And with such dregs of energy as remain in these unfortunate people, they are forced to be the servitors of the Turk’s personal comforts.’

“From the time the Ottoman Turks first set foot in Thrace under Suleiman, son of Orchan, the Empire rapidly disintegrated….From the very beginning of the Turkish onslaught under Suleiman, the Turks tried to consolidate their position by the forcible imposition of Islam. [The Ottoman historian] Sukrullah [maintained] those who refused to accept the Moslem faith were slaughtered and their families enslaved. ‘Where there were bells’, writes the same author, ‘Suleiman broke them up and cast them onto fires. Where there are churches he destroyed them or converted them into mosques. Thus, in place of bells there were now muezzins. Wherever Christian infidels were still found, vassalage was imposed upon their rulers. At least in public they could no longer say ‘kyrie eleison’ but rather “There is no God but Allah; and where once their prayers had been addressed to Christ, they were now to ‘Mohammed, the prophet of Allah.’ ”

E.G. Browne (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, 1928, p. 196) describes the jihad depredations of Timur [Tamerlane] against the Christian populations of Georgia and Asia Minor, at the outset of the 15th century (A Literary History of Persia, Vol. III, Cambridge, 1928, p. 196):

“The winter of A.D. 1399-1400 was spent by Timur in Qarabagh near the Araxes, and ere spring had melted the snows he once more invaded [Christian] Georgia, devastated the country, destroyed the churches and monasteries, and slew great numbers of the inhabitants. In August, 1400, he began his march into Asia Minor by way of Avnik, Erzeroum, Erzinjan, and Sivas. The latter place offered stubborn resistance, and when it finally capitulated Timur caused all the Armenian and Christian soldiers to the number of four thousand to be buried alive; but the Muhammadans he spared.”

10. John Cartwright, British Consul-General in Constantinople, filed the following report from Constantinople May 25, 1822 (in, Argenti, Philip. The Massacres of Chios, Described in Contemporary Diplomatic Reports, London, 1932, pp. 39-40.)
“Scio [Chios], with the exception of twenty five of the Mastic Villages, was a complete scene of desolation – the air corrupted by the stench of dead bodies had produced an infectious disorder on board the Turkish Fleet which was daily carrying off its’ victims. The fate of the unhappy survivors in the Sciote tragedy is miserable indeed – the females and children doomed to slavery from which there will be but little chance of redemption, as all possible means are taken to prevent the sale of them to Christians. The hostages who were confined in the Castle of Scio as well as those who were here have been put to death

YES DC WE ARE IN A WW3 AGAIN AND WE WILL PREVAIL!!!

Will things get ugly you bet do we need strong leaders yea you bet!! And strong men and women as we have always needed in time of WAR!!

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer
God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength,Wisdom,Sight and Courage to CRUSH ALL Islamic Terrorist and ALL who Support them give the World the Courage to Stand and Fight them Amen

Posted by: Catherine at December 27, 2004 8:20 PM

Good post. Was referred here by the Malkin post. I blog about implications of this here.

Posted by: dfriedman at December 27, 2004 10:13 PM

Gosh Catherine! We'll have to start calling you Catherine the Great.

Talking about the Turks, if you want a laugh, check out the MAD MONARCHS site...

http://www.xs4all.nl/~kvenjb/madmon.htm

Plenty to chew over there.

The British messed up many parts of the world by importing Muslims, it is only in the last 50 years that they have got around to screwing up their own country.

Take for example northeast India. The tribes there held back the Muslims for centuries, until the British dragged them kicking and screaming into India. Despite overwhelming and clear arguments that the tribes of the northeast were never part of ancient India, and that in all respects the hill tribes are dissimilar to all that is commonly regarded as Indian, successive independent governments have turned a blind eye to the need for greater autonomy and exclusion.

Nevertheless, instead of open debate and democratic resolution, Indian governments have employed a ‘Chinese Tibetan’ strategy for much of the Northeast, pumping in hundreds of thousands of soldiers and millions of non-indigenous immigrants to swamp any tribal insubordination. Christian states like Meghalaya and Mizoram have largely escaped such an inundation, but only as a result of strict rules and local intractability. In 1950 the northeast state of Tripura was 80% non-Muslim tribal, now it is 80% Bangladeshi/Bengali.

In 2001, Kynpham Singh Nongkynrih, a Shillong lecturer was quoted as saying: "The fear we have of outsiders coming in cannot be labelled as xenophobia. Infiltrators from Bangladesh and Nepal are coming in daily. Contractors bring in Biharis and Bangladeshis [Muslims]as they work for low wages. Then, they stay on. Politicians encourage this for their vote banks."

It has been estimated that since 1971, ten million illegal immigrants have been quietly allowed to enter India from Bangladesh. Millions of these foreigners, by sinister design or incompetence, were allowed to settle in the midst of northeastern tribal communities - all of whom are unique peoples who are rightly sensitive about land rights, cultural and ethnic issues. The result has been anarchy, terrorism and discord. The Bangladeshis tend to vote for mainstream Indian political parties as opposed to independent pro-tribal candidates that advocate greater autonomy, thus making it politically expedient for the central government to allow wholesale immigration into the Northeast.
This quick-fix has backfired badly as a sizeable minority of extremists slipped in with ordinary Muslim immigrants. This thoughtless and crass policy of uncontrolled immigration changed the demographic pattern of much of the Northeast and threw a spanner in the works of social cohesion. As a result, numerous fundamentalist Muslim or Bangladeshi militant organisations have arisen in Northeast India, namely:

1. Bengali Tiger Force - BTF
2. Muslim United Liberation Tigers of Assam - MULTA (formed in 1993)
3. Muslim United Liberation Front of Assam - MULFA
4. Muslim Security Council of Assam - MSCA
5. Islamic Liberation Army of Assam - ILAA
6. Islamic Liberation Movement of Assam - ILMA
7. Islamic Revolutionary Army - IRA
8. Muslim Volunteer Force - MVF (Barpeta area)
9. Muslim Liberation Army - MLA
10. Muslim Security Force - MSF
11. Islamic Sevak Sangh - ISS
12. Islamic United Reformation Protest of India - IURPI
13. Islamic Sevak Sangh (formed in 1991 - Kamrup district)
14. Peoples' United Liberation Front - PULF
15. United Muslim Liberation Front of Assam - UMLFA
16. Revolutionary Muslim Commandos - RMC
17. Muslim Tiger Force - MTF
18. Harkat-ul-Mujahideen
19. Tripura Bengali Regiment - ATBR
20. Tiger Liberation Front of Assam (formed in 1992 - Hajoi area)
21. Bangla Mukti Sena - BMS
22. United Bengali Liberation Front - UBLF
23. Saddam Vahini (formed in 1991)
24. Student Islamic Movement of India - SIMI (formed in 1993 - operating both
in Assam and Manipur)

According to the Hindustan Times (New Delhi; August 17, 2000) The Indian Unified Command believes that there are at least 26 Pakistani/ISI-backed militant outfits active in this region who want to carry out a Jihad against India. According to a senior Special Branch officer, N Ramachandran, 'Many of these boys were lured into Pakistan via Bangladesh and given training in guerrilla warfare by the Pakistan army' adding that half a dozen of them fought in the Kargil war on behalf of Pakistan. It is worth mentioning that in the chaotic annals of British rule in this area, there is no mention of any Muslim insurrection, the Muslims entered quietly with the British, and as their numbers grew within the Republic of India, they unleashed their jihad.
It is now difficult for the central authorities to infiltrate track and eradicate so many autonomous organisations, and thus the region suffers the 'death of a thousand cuts'. Some of these groups are fronts for extortionists; others are fanatical Taliban inspired revolutionaries. A certain number are vengeful organisations bent upon vigilante style self-defence and blind retaliation against the indigenous inhabitants. This onslaught on the tribal population by the state and other parties has been fully recognised by the U.S. Department of State. A 1998 report released by its Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor records:

"Despite constitutional safeguards, the rights of indigenous groups in eastern India often are ignored. Indigenous people suffer discrimination and harassment, have been deprived wrongly of their land, and have been subject to torture and to arbitrary arrest. There has been encroachment on tribal land in almost all the states of eastern India, including by illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, and by businesses that have removed forest and mineral products without authorisation. Moreover, persons from other backgrounds often usurp places reserved for members of tribes and lower castes in national education institutions."

So, the British Empire simply handed over this chunk of India to Muslim infiltration, a policy continued by the Republic of India, who should have never held on to the tribal areas anyway. It is sad that before British conquest Muslim armies had feared to tread in the northeast, and were always swiftly dealt with when they did...

See - Early History of Kamarupa By Rai K. L. Barua Bahadur B.L., (Shillong 1933) Chapter IX - "The Muhammadan Invasions".

Also...

From 1682, W. Glanius: "A Relation of an Unfortunate Voyage to the Kingdome of Bengala: describing the deplorable condition and dismal accidents attending those therein concerned, how that after the loss of their ship they were forced to abide in a desart and barren island, to eat leaves, toads and serpants, &c. and reduced to that extremity as to digg open graves and to feed on human bodies: as also, the manner of deliverance out of that place, and what befel them afterwards in the service of the great mogol: together with choice observations touching that monarch’s government, laws, customs, and armies, and especially his late war against the kings of Azo and Assam, with several other remarkable particulars." (University Microfilms International 1986 - 'Early English Books, 1641-1700'. Printed for Henry Bonwick at the Red Lyon in St Paul’s Churchyard London).

Posted by: Timbo at December 28, 2004 2:04 AM