My Name is Godspower Oboido, and I Am Racist Too!

In my first article for Liberty GB, I wrote that I was racist just like Paul Weston but that I am black. I hate describing people by colour but what choice have I? Society likes placing tags and stereotypes. Paul Weston made it convenient for us all to come out – as racists – if that will make the leftist government, media, public and Islamic community any happier.



I must be a hypocrite through and through if I really am a racist as a black man after all blacks have been through. What makes me a racist, and can a black person actually be racist?

I am racist simply because I am against the forced and violent spread of Islam, against the barbaric doctrines of the political ideology. If you are reading this article, chances are that you are racist too. According to the Left, supporters of Liberty GB are all racists.

Muslims gave us several open invitations to read their Quran and discover the truth for ourselves. That's exactly what I did – I read the Quran. I did not want to condemn the enduring faith of over a billion people with the violent acts of a few misguided Muslims. I wanted to know what was so radical about Islam and I found the answers right there in the Quran. Phrases like 'radical Islam' or 'Islamic extremists' are politically correct terms (which Muslims say are offensive). There is no such thing as radical Islam, Islamic extremists, peace loving Muslims, etc. Islam is Islam – a violent, radical and barbaric political ideology. Speaking the truth makes us racist.

My question for people like David Cameron is that if people like Paul Weston and EDL leader Tommy Robinson are easily called racists and bigots, what will they call a person of colour like me? Black racist or just racist? I certainly don't fit the perfect idea of a racist because I am black. This shows us the one-fixedness of society.

Tommy Robinson, while appearing on the BBC Free Speech programme, was talking about the death threats he had been receiving when Saira Khan screamed the words: "Then stop being a racist and a bigot!". Dear Heavens, I was furious, more so when neither Saira Khan nor any member of the audience in that venue could answer Tommy when he repeatedly asked, "What race is islam?"

Just what race is islam? What races are we against that make us racist? Am I saying that Britain has no race problem at all? Certainly not! Britain does have a huge race problem that is getting out of hand while all David Cameron does is name-calling.

Here is Britain where Lee Rigby, a British serviceman, was murdered by two blacks of Nigerian descent who quoted from the Quran, it doesn't come across as a racially motivated attack and David Cameron tells us it had nothing to do with Islam. We saw videos of how English teenage girls were attacked by Pakistani-born teenagers in Manchester and the police said it wasn't a racially motivated attack. A racially motivated attack is when a white person attacks anyone that isn't white, this is the picture the government and the media is giving us. Calling someone 'Paki' is racist but calling a native Briton 'white trash' or 'ginger head' isn't racist.

We mustn't forget in a hurry how London and parts of England were no different from the riots of Arab countries when a person of colour was shot dead by the police. Thugs took to the streets, hell-bent on burning London down. A white British serviceman is slaughtered in broad daylight by black Britons of Nigerian descent and white peaceful protesters are arrested. These are the real race problems in Britain today. The sooner something is done about it, the better.

If Paul Weston, Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders, Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and all of us who speak the truth about Islam are racists, then Winston Churchill would have been a greater racist (he who wrote that "Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog"), the Crusaders were racists, the Japanese are racists, Vladmir Putin is a racist, Richard Dawkins and all atheists are racists who think that all religions are ultimately evil.

What good would it do to David Cameron if after many years he comes to admit that "there is a problem within islam" like Tony Blair? The time to act is now.

 

There are good and bad Muslims

The best spokespersons for Islam these days have been political leaders like David Cameron and Barack Obama. After the Boston bombing by the two Chechnyan Islamic terrorists, Barack Obama went on air to ask the American public not to make quick judgments on Islam. Both David Cameron and Boris Johnson assured the world that the Woolwich attack had nothing to do with either Islam or Britain's foreign policy. In other words the murderers were two misguided killers who just, you know, happened to be Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace, it's all about respect and care for the elderly and has given so much to Britain.

Muslims admit that there are bad Muslims who are giving their religion a bad image but that an Islamic act of terror does not mean the religion is bad. It's about certain individuals, not the religion itself we've been constantly told. There are some bad Christians, they argue, but that doesn't make Christianity bad. Well true, after all Tommy Robinson also defends the English Defence League, that while there may be some followers of the EDL who are racist, it doesn't mean the EDL is a racist movement. He argues that there are supporters of the EDL who are golfers, but that does not make the EDL a golfers group. So then, can't we say in like manner that there are a small minority of Muslims who are terrorists but that doesn't make Islam a violent religion?

No! It isn't the people who define a group, movement, political party or religion but rather it is what the group, movement, political party or religion stands for that defines it – its creed, purpose and doctrines. There will be members who adhere more strongly to creeds, purpose and doctrines than others. What makes Islam bad isn't the terrorists who rape, bomb and kill infidels, it is the religion itself and what it stands for.

I have experienced Islam in four different countries, and I have interacted and debated with different types of Muslims: from the ones who will shake my hand after debates to the ones who would chop my head off for blasphemy. There are different kinds of Muslims. I count among my friends people from Iraq, Pakistan, Northern Nigeria, Niger, Egypt, Tanzania, Turkey and many other Islamic countries. We share in food, drinks, laughs and debates. They certainly do not all like my views of Islam but since I only quote from the Quran when debating with them they know that I am not wrong. However they always say that I should not generalize Muslims (there are bad and good ones), that it is the problem of individuals and not their beautiful religion. One of them sat me down one day and lovingly warned me of burning in Hell for blaspheming their Prophet (I called him a conman, paedophile and terrorist – citing verses in the Quran). He said he didn't want me to burn in Hell so I should stop insulting the Prophet.

The argument is ever on-going about good and bad Muslims and there are different narratives to back these arguments. Yes there are good and bad Muslims; we must understand this or we really don't know Islam at all. The questions however should be, "What can make a Muslim good or bad?", "Who is a good or bad Muslim?" and "By what standard do we judge them?"

Muslims tell us that Islam is a way of life and to be a good Muslim one must live a complete Islamic life. Muslims in the West tell us that they do not want to live by man-made laws but under Allah's law – sharia law. The document of instruction under sharia law is solely the Quran. According to Anjem Choudary, popularly described as a radical Islamic cleric, jihad is the most talked about issue in the Quran after tawhid (the fundamental concept of the oneness of Allah). Jihad is the Muslim's ultimate goal on earth.

Quran 9:38 "Believers, what is the matter with you, that when you are asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah [i.e., jihad] you cling to the earth? Do you prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? Unless you march, He will afflict and punish you with a painful torture, and put others in your place. But you cannot harm Him in the least."

Muhammad told his followers that "fighting had been prescribed for them". In the following Quranic passage, representing others (Suras 4:74, 9:111; 3:140-143), the Arabic word jihad is the means or currency to trade in this life for the life to come in an economic bargain.

61:10 "You who believe, shall I show you a bargain that will save you from painful punishment? 11 Have faith in God and His Messenger and struggle for His cause with your possessions and your persons – that is better for you, if only you knew 12 and He will forgive your sins, admit you into Gardens graced with flowing streams, into pleasant dwellings in the Gardens of Eternity. That is the supreme triumph [Haleem]".

These verses are found in the historical context of the Battle of Uhud (625), in which Muhammad lost 70 of his fighters. Thus, he must make the loss of life appear worth the sacrifice, so he frames their deaths in an economic bargain. If his jihadists trade in or sell their lives down here, they will be granted Islamic heaven – it is a done deal. It is simply pure lunacy for anyone to say jihad means 'holy war'.

By the standard of the Quran and the ideology of Muhammad, a good Muslim is one who fights in the way of Allah. "So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam." (Quran 8:3, italics mine). According to the Quran, Osama Bin Laden was a good Muslim (that's why most Muslims call him Sheikh); Michael Adebolajo, the Woolwich murderer, is a good Muslim, so also the Boston bombers and every other Islamic terrorist. After slaughtering Drummer Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo quoted from the Quran to justify his act as fully in accordance with Islamic doctrine. He is a good and faithful Muslim, truly Allah's slave.

So here's the picture: the good guys in Islam are the bad guys in our societies, the bad guys who commit all the wrong stuff are the good Muslims. If a Muslim sends cards to Christian friends at Christmas, he is considered a bad Muslim by staunch adherents of Islam. If a Muslim speaks the truth about Islam (maltreating women, for example) that Muslim is considered a sellout. So the Muslims who try to be friends with us infidels are not good Muslims. As a matter of truth, they are not considered Muslims at all because "Muslims, do not make friends with any but your own people." (Quran 5:51)

As I said previously, I have many Muslim friends from different parts of the world, especially from Iraq. I went to study Russian language and literature in Russia for nine months and I was the only Christian and non-Iraqi in my language class. I was also the only one not needing Russian language to progress to a study programme in Russian at the university. Some of these guys would go out of their way to help me any time. I've received several presents from them and eaten traditional meals they prepared. We laugh and chat about everything – football, pretty girls, politics, fashion police in Iran and Saudi Arabia, the beard obsession in Islam (most Iraqis don't keep them), etc. They are all educated but very passionate about their religion.

One of them said to me once, "Godspower, we love Jesus in Islam."

"But I can never understand why you people kill Christians, if you really do love Jesus" – I thought it was a good opportunity to point some things out to him.

The closer I got with them, the more I saw that they were a bunch of really good guys, but bad Muslims. I said it to them. Some people say you can never really trust a Muslim, as long as he is a Muslim. Why? Michael Adebolajo was a man "of impeccable character" (words of Anjem Choudary) until he became a monster when he killed Lee Rigby. He was just like every other 'cool' Muslim guy out there. He wasn't radicalized, and neither were the Boston bombers. There is nothing like Islamic radicalization. What is radical is Islam itself. Islam is one, the Quran is one and the perfect example for Muslims – Muhammad – was one.

Telling me there are peace loving Muslims is like telling me there was the radical prophet and a different peace loving prophet that had the name Muhammad. What's so peace loving about a Muslim who worships in the same mosque with a terrorist? What's so peace loving about a Muslim who listens to a radical cleric? What's so peace loving about a Muslim who wants sharia law for Britain? What's so peace loving about a Muslim who thinks his violent ideology is a religion of peace, who thinks Muhammad was a moral man who lived a perfect life? Maybe David Cameron, Nick Clegg and every treacherous politician of the establishment in bed with the enemy can begin to tell us what's actually so peaceful about Muslims and Islam? Just because a Muslim hasn't slaughtered an infidel does not make him peace loving. Michael Adebolajo was peace loving until he slaughtered Lee Rigby.

Muslims are commanded in Quran 4:101 to remember that "The unbelievers [non-Muslims] are your inveterate foe." We must remember this also. The 'radical' Muslim you know is better than the 'peace loving' Muslim you don't know. Britain can do without either.

 

Trading the green fields of Britain for the deserts of the Middle East

If you have never been to the Middle East, then you are missing out on something truly magnificent. That is exactly how one feels from all the media attention the UAE gets, all the investors and expats rushing there – and from the government too. Even though I only had a five-hour stop over at Abu Dhabi, it was enough for me to make up my mind about the UAE and the betrayal I felt. We flew into Abu Dhabi at night so I saw some beautiful displays of lights from structures. It was nothing really spectacular, not how I feel when I fly into London. I gazed down on the long roads cutting through deserts inside the city. Then I turned to a friend behind me, "A desert is always going to be a desert."

"Exactly", replied he, emphatically. I wasn't expecting it. I thought he was going to argue. It was right there that I thought that the West is a world apart. We landed at Abu Dhabi International Airport and I was looking forward to being thrilled by architectural brilliance but I wasn't. There was nothing thrilling, I thought, nothing thrilling about this place. Why all the noise about the Middle East rising, all the CNN focus on the Middle East as the place where it's all going on? I was gutted! The people of the UAE are Arabs who are just obsessed with money, that's all.

Whatever happens in the Middle East is none of my business and it should end there. They are now buying up football clubs and businesses in the UK. They are sponsoring the propagation of Islam in Great Britain. It's fine, as long as the government gets what it wants from the UAE and the Arab nations. Is there one known Islamic cleric in the UK that has either been arrested or deported in connection to terrorism who hadn't been to Saudi Arabia to study through the country's Islamic scholarship Scheme? Why does the British government act like it doesn't know who sponsors the building of mosques and terrorist attacks in Great Britain and rest of the West?

David Cameron intends to encourage more Arabic spending in London, like Britain needs the oil money to survive. There are Islamic schools, Islamic banks and Islamic banking in British banks in parts of Britain already. It's a taking over by stealth. I cannot understand this obsession of the West with Islam and the Islamic world. Who says Britain needs this to survive? (Indeed, this is why Britain needs Liberty GB).

Where was the Middle East when Britain conquered the world? My record is a bit hazy so maybe someone needs to remind me of how the UAE or any other nation in the world helped Britain become great. David Cameron likes to boast of the "small island with a big footprint" in the world but he is letting the dust from the deserts of the Middle East blow over the footprint of Britain.

It is important to remember Britain's Christian background and foundation. As a matter of fact Church isn't separated from State in Britain. Why haven't Christians demanded Christian banks or Christian banking in the UK? The Bible teaches extensively on finance, lending and borrowing (see Exodus 22:25, Luke 6:34-35, Deuteronomy 23:19-20). In Christian doctrine, a lender should not expect to make profit from a loan. Because the many aspects of the Quran were copied from the Torah and the Gospels, it is easy to assert that even Islamic banking is one of those things copied from the Bible. Having Islamic banking in the UK is bowing to Islam and its demands which are tools for conquest.

More and more churches and pubs (two things that are chiefly British) in the UK are being converted to mosques while the oppression of Christians and other non-Muslims is on the increase in Islamic countries. Why do we allow this? There is no greater sense of conquest for Muslims when they enjoy freedom of religion in the West while Churches can't be built in their countries.

London is the most enchanting place on earth that I have ever been to. It is now time to start clearing away the multicultural trash and Islamic import. Time to make it British again – and only Britons can.

 

Michael Adebolajo – A British problem

For many obvious reasons I cannot stop talking or writing about the terrorist, Michael Adebolajo. First, perhaps because he is of Nigerian descent and I am Nigerian, second because of the manner in which Lee Rigby was killed, third because of David Cameron and Boris Johnson – how angered I still feel. Perhaps because my brother serves in the British Army as a Commonwealth subject, maybe because some of my friends (one of them a best friend to a Muslim and the other a Christian who conducts seminars on Islamic finance) deserted me after I blamed the killing of Lee Rigby on Islam, or maybe because I was dropped from a new work contract at a Christian Centre in Sheffield for condemning Islam on Facebook after the Woolwich attack. The manager sent me an email, clearly stating why I was dropped: "You have strongly held views and are quick to relate them to condemn others. We do not want you to influence younger members of staff who are still forming their own beliefs and views".

To many Muslims Michael Adebolajo isn't an example of a true Muslim (while I think he's the perfect example of a Muslim). They started quoting Quran 5:32, one of the favorite verses taqiyya masters use to deceive the infidels: "If anyone slew a person … it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people."

Even Barack Obama has once quoted this verse in defence of Islam. This is the passage that Muslim apologists revise, or more correctly selectively omit clauses from. As you already know, here's the complete verse (which was copied from a Jewish document):

Sura 5:32 "On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if anyone slew a person unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief [corruption] in the land it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then there came to them our apostles with clear Signs yet even after that many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."

This is a perfect example of taqiyya (deception of infidels) where 'some information is held back'. It's not a lie, it's a misrepresentation that naïve infidels accept and run with and the Muslims don't point out the deceit. This is typical taqiyya and kitman.

In Quran 5:33 which is clearly tied to 5:32 to create a single message, Muhammad makes clear that those 'mischief makers', i.e. the infidels (Jews, Christians, pagans, all non-Muslims) are to be killed.

Sura 5:33 "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Apostle and strive with might and main for mischief [corruption] through the land is: execution or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter."

My intention is not to waste time on that passage but simply to point out how Muslims try to use it to deceive infidels and say, "Look, how can a true Muslim do that? Our Prophet commanded us not to take the life of anyone." When it was reported in the news that Michael Adebolajo carried a Quran and requested to be addressed in court as 'Mujahid', a Nigerian Muslim commented on Facebook, "What? Is he trying to act like a real Muslim? He is not." The hypocrisy and silliness of Muslims never cease to amaze me. The point is that Muslims reject him. As far as they are concerned, it is not a problem of Islam and certainly not one Muslims should be concerned about.

Quite a lot of Nigerians, especially the ones in diaspora, responded to the Woolwich attack. Surprisingly, they had a different agenda. Their concern? That Michael Adebolajo isn't Nigerian, that he was born in England and had never been to Nigeria so how can the British media call him Nigerian? Because he is a terrorist? They went on to present a list of successful British-born Nigerians who are termed 'British' because they are either Olympic medallists or successful footballers plying their trade in the English Premier League. As one who keenly followed details of the Woolwich attack and how it was reported in the news, I noted there was never a time when Michael Adebolajo was referred to as Nigerian. Instead it is said that Michael Adebolajo is a British young man of Nigerian descent. I tried to pass this across, both online and offline, to as many Nigerians as I could.

This nonsense resurrected again when I was on a connecting flight from Abu Dhabi to Lagos. A Nigerian man who works in Kuwait sat next to me and we got talking, mostly about the oppression of Christians in the Middle East and the spread of Islam in the West. When we began talking about the Woolwich attack, I deliberately referred to Michael Adebolajo as a Nigerian terrorist. He quickly cut to correct me, but I knew the game already and did not allow him to go on naming successful Nigerians in the UK who are referred to as 'Britons'.

When I arrived in Lagos, a young woman at the airport asked to look at something from my flight ticket. I asked why that was important. I do not really know what she wanted to verify, all I know is that whatever it was, it was trivial. Then I said to her, "You know sometimes, I wish I wasn't really Nigerian. Maybe I should go and take up Brazilian citizenship."

"Good for you", she said. "We don't want people who commit crimes abroad and claim to be Nigerians. Or haven't you heard about that man in London who killed a British soldier and now they are all saying he is Nigerian?"

I didn't have to exchange words with her. The bottom line here is that Muslims do not claim Michael Adebolajo to be one of theirs, neither do most Nigerians. Whose problem, sadly, is it? Britain's. It is a British problem which the government has not admitted. David Cameron said that nothing in Islam justifies Michael Adebolajo's act. Speaking against this problem makes us racists. Despite the 7/7 bombings, nothing ever prepared Great Britain for the sort of attack it witnessed in Woolwich. I thought that was going to be the single act of terror that would bring the end of Islam in Britain but I was wrong. David Cameron and Boris Johnson assured us that it had nothing to do with either Islam or Britain's foreign policy. What they have indirectly said is, "Go home everyone, we're all gonna be fine. There's no problem. Let's stay united."

Post Woolwich, what have they actually done to avoid such attacks in the future? Nothing, and the problem persists still. Michael Adebolajo told us that this is a war. He was right in certain things he said: for example that David Cameron isn't the one who's going to suffer, but ordinary Britons who walk on their streets. Too true! If it were the other way around I am certain David Cameron would admit that the problem actually is Islam. In times like these, the saying becomes true, "War is young men dying and old men [politicians] talking." It's okay for David Cameron and Boris Johnson to say Islam isn't the problem as long as it isn't them or members of their families dying.

 

The goverment will do nothing

It is clear that the government will do nothing about the problem of Islam in the UK. They will not even admit there is a problem within Islam, not when they are in office. It is sad that British people have to face and live with murderers like Michael Adebolajo – a pathetic situation the government has put them in. But now is the time for power to truly return to the people who have seen the problem. In the end we will not remember the words of our enemies but the silence of our friends. Silence is consent. If you are reading this article and are just as mad as I am but ready to see a change in Britain, to get rid of parasites like Anjem Choudary and the lot, then join a movement – join Liberty GB. This isn't about politics or party allegiance any more; it is about defending the British culture, identity and people. It is about fighting multiculturalism and Islam in the UK. In the end, we can start talking about politics but not now, not now, my friends.

 

Click here to join Liberty GB!

Or subscribe to our mailing list (see box at top-right of page)