We are growing used to the BBC giving us fake news on Syria and promoting transgenderism to children.
But now they are putting our physical safety at risk by giving a platform to a supporter of Islamic State.
Muslims Like Us
“Muslims Like Us”, to be broadcast on Monday 12th and Tuesday 13th December at 9.00pm on BBC, is modeled on Channel 4 and 5’s ‘Big Brother’ format. But don’t expect any drunken on-screen shenanigans or tearful farewells. According to a BBC Press Release:
‘Put ten British Muslims with contrasting world views in a house together and press ‘record.’ What emerges is a passionate debate, honest disagreements, humour and moments of insight that reveal what is like to be a Muslim in Britain today.’
The Press Release goes on: ‘… the real British Muslim … is faced with competing and contradictory voices. Some suggest an orthodox version of the faith is entirely at home in Britain. Others demand compromises to be made by Muslims in order to integrate’.
Er, is that it? What about those who say it is British society, not Muslims, who should be doing the compromising? Halal food must be served to everyone in a school or prison. Peppa Pig? No thanks. That is a valid and widespread Muslim view. It could be argued it is the only legitimate Muslim view.
Disciple of Anjem Choudhary
What the BBC don’t admit in the PR is that one of the ‘housemates’ is someone exactly like that, a disciple indeed of jailed radical cleric Anjem Choudary.
Convicted fraudster and retired professional boxer Anthony Small – now known as Abdul Haqq – is a supporter of banned terror group Al-Muhajiroun and a defender of Islamic State.
The Breitbart website says: ‘Other housemates include “liberal” Muslims, a part-time model, a comedian, and gay Muslim man.’ The BBC really want us to believe Muslims are just ‘Like Us’.
In a discussion with this author last night on RT (Russia Today), ultra-moderate Lib-Dem Muslim Mohammed Shafiq who heads up the Rochdale-based Ramadan Foundation defended the BBC. He said the discussions in the house and subsequent exchanges of views on social media would expose the views of Mr Small to ridicule.
Logical version of Islam
Such a position cannot stand. Firstly, Mohammed Saddiq has himself defended Muslim anti-Semites and hate preachers. He has, or has had, two radical Islaimist hate preachers on the Ramadan Foundation’s Advisory Board, as ‘Harry’s Place’ points out.
But secondly, no matter who slags him off on Twitter, Anthony Small’s presence on Muslims Like Us will provide a focus for young Muslims sympathetic to his views. The problem is compounded because his version of Islam is more logical, more soundly based on the Islamic Scriptures, more coherent and more true to the example of the ‘prophet’ Mohammed than the liberal version clung to by a model or a gay or any number of liberal ‘housemates’.
Danger of conversions
Nor is it just young Muslims we should be concerned about. The killers of Lee Rigby, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, were born to African-origin Christian parents. Anthony Small himself is of Caribbean extraction. He converted to Islam at the age of 24. It is beyond doubt his parents too were Christian.
Indigenous white young men and women are also steadily converting to Islam, attracted to its certainties, its rigour, its structore of rules and its demands on the whole of life.
Need for a balanced Gospel
Such a challenge can only be countered by a coherent and balanced Christian worldview. Yes, God is love, but Jesus Christ is King of kings and Messiah, ‘faithful and true’, demanding obedience of men and nations.
Christian pastors and parents will leave our young people at the mercy of forthright, charismatic Islamists like Anthony Small without such a Gospel. But it is not just eternal security which is at stake.
BBC is putting our security at risk
The BBC is putting our physical security at risk by Muslims Like Us. Its executives exist in a world in which no other point of view than their own could possibly make any sense. In the real world are disaffectioned young men looking for meaning to life. They could quite easily find it in the position taken by Mr Small. The programme will be videoed and will end up all over social media giving a platform to jihadist views The BBC will have encouraged a new generation of terrorists. MI5 will really need our prayers after this one.
1John 4:16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
1John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
The whole western world spear headed by BBC is about social control. Now we have Muslims reading news in headscarfs, Muslims leading our communities supported and promoted by Governments and BBC. This is the about creating the death of Christianity by modern society who rejects ALL CHRISTENDOM. I is shocking that the BBC uses tax payers money to manipulate society and create offensive programs such as this
Western Society has propagated fake media about Syria and blamed RUssia for deaths in Syria when it is infact UK and USA spear heading the support of rebels against a legitimate leader. Thank goodness Russia see sense.and supports legitimate leaders unlike the west. Even Russia wants to be friends with The west but the west allies are disgusting in their attitude toward Russia. Russian people are some of the most clever in the world and leave Western Societies behind for intellectual behaviour. All we in the wets do is promote deviancy and intentionally mind control our children at school by teaching them Homosexuality, LGBT and other deviant life styles are OK and normal while degrading Christian society. How the western world has changed in 30 years is alarming.
Britmanuk seems to assume that the UK is or should be “led” by Christianity. I don’t think a majority of British citizens (OK, even a majority of white British citizens) agrees with this view, although the opinion might be boosted if you allow immigrant Poles and Nigerians to vote. This is basically a secular democracy. Unlike in America, the religious beliefs of political candidates don’t usually come up at all.
Has Stephen had an advance viewing of the programme ? What immediately interested me when I saw it advertised was the ambiguity of the title, Muslims like us.
Which is that ?
MUSLIMS like US
or
Muslims LIKE us.
(In other words, is “like” a preposition or a verb ? ).
Is this ambiguity deliberate ? If not, it is careless.
It’s a preposition for sure. it’s a play between ‘Us, in this house, we are Muslims just as we are’ and ‘These people may be Muslims but they are very much the same as the rest of you’.
In the second slant, it’s a new take on the first rule of archeology, the evolution-denying maxim: ‘Always remember, these were people like us.’
That rule, funnily enough, is being relentlessly drummed into poor little Prof Alice Roberts in BBC4’s compelling ‘Digging for Britain’ series. (Which itself is another pun. They love them on the BBC, don’t they?)
Shouldn’t we just demand that the BBC now puts on a similar series, called Christians Like Us? (Oh what a give-away, if the BBC makes excuses for not treating us equally!) I’d like to nominate myself to be on the show, if Steven doesn’t want to take my place.
The press release for Moslems Like Us can easily be edited, to provide the press release for Christians Like Us. Here’s my attempt at this task:
Christians like us
Put ten British Christians with contrasting world views in a house together and press ‘record.’ What emerges is a passionate debate, honest disagreements, humour and moments of insight that reveal what is like to be a Christian in Britain today.
On the surface, Britain’s Christians are united in faith. But behind closed doors, in Christian homes across the country, there is ongoing discussion about what and who best represents Christianity.
Labels like ‘Orthodox’, ‘Roman Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, ‘Evangelical’ and ‘liberal’ do not do it justice. Will the real British Christian please stand up?
She or he is faced with competing and contradictory voices. Some suggest an orthodox version of the faith is entirely at home in Britain. Others demand compromises to be made by Christians in order to integrate. In this unique and bold social experiment, a two-part BBC Two series, Christians Like Us, witnesses these dilemmas played out for real.
In episode one, the ten British Christians who represent the diversity of their faith move into their new home. As each meets and settles in, they begin to explore how their faith impacts their lives, from sleeping arrangements, cooking, and prayer, to dress and culture. Topical, important and, at times, charged exchanges shine a light on what it means to be a Christian in modern Britain.
“Make the most of every opportunity in these evil days.” [Eph 5:15]
“Make the most of every opportunity.” [Col 4:5]
I like the idea very much, Jon. It would be interesting to hear Stefan’s views.
Rocks.
If it could be done without schism!
Come on, how could Christianity be represented without schism ? But Islam is the same, something which Westerners in general never used to appreciate. Shiites are rather like Roman Catholics, the Sunnis like Protestants. Wahhabis are like Puritans. Islamic State are Puritans so extreme that they will smash up works of art, and we have had those even in England in the past. That is why most of our very old churches are relatively bare, and tombs have damaged faces.
Rox: ” This is basically a secular democracy.”
Not really, not according to our constitution anyway. The UK is a “constitutional monarchy” with the Head of State, the Monarch, being crowned at an overtly Christian ceremony at the “HQ” of the state religion, the Church of England. Granted, I doubt this will be allowed to happen again, there will doubtless be a “multi-faith” ceremony, cheered on by Prince Charles and other useful idiots.
And granted, the BBC and other agencies are doing their best to expunge Christianity (apart from an officially approved PC kind: Bible-believing Christians are knowingly portrayed as dangerous “fundamentalists” (and we know what “fundamentalists do, don’t we? they bomb people etc!)) from the public sphere. This includes the promotion of Islam, as above, and other faiths as part of their utopian “multicultural” fantasy. Not that I think they really believe in it, but it sounds good enough to fool people, the real goal imo is the destruction of Western society (in fact, the real goal is the destruction of Christianity (on which, of course, Western society is founded), it is mainly a SPIRITUAL battle) and this is one way to achieve it. The good old C of E has also largely been taken over by the cultural marxists, assorted leftists and their fellow travellers, and, having lost its saltiness, is only really, imo, in the words of our Lord, “fit only to be thrown out and trampled underfoot”. Desperately PC, and desperately sucking up to Islam, it is completely silent about the fate of our brothers and sisters in Christ who face daily terrible persecution and martyrdom, far and away the most persecuted group in the world, mainly at the hands of muslims, in muslim countries and elsewhere. Perhaps they would choke on their tea and cake if they knew the truth.
So whilst I agree, Rox, that we are living in a decidedly post-Christian society here in the UK, I wonder if you and your fellow “secularists” will really like what will replace it. We are already seeing what happens to dissidents who dissent from the official leftist ideology (plus ca change). And the rise of Islam continues. If you want to know what living in an islamic society is really like, look at Saudi Arabia or any other islamic country for that matter. The leftists take common cause with islam, not seeming to realise that they will get round to atheists, homosexuals (poor old deluded Peter Tatchell will realise, too late, what “oppression” really is, probably just before he is thrown off a roof), in fact pretty much all kuffar, once they have dealt with the “Saturday and the Sunday people”.
Some readers who want to be informed might like this, about the Frankfurt School, the first and very influential of the cultural Marxists, back in the 1930s, but seeing popular acceptance of their ideology from the cultural revolutions of the 1960s: ALL their stated goals (the destruction of the family, etc etc etc), have largely been achieved. http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=13588
The Head of State in this country may be a Christian, but many of them in the past were not very obviously devout, much as they liked the ceremonies (for example, George IV). As it happens, the Head of State has to claim to be protestant by law. I’m not certain if this has been changed yet, but I for one would be against it being changed, for the same reason it was introduced — I wouldn’t want the head of state to be Roman Catholic when the country isn’t.
But this is not an absolute monarchy. It is a long time since peers, MPs, ministers, or the prime minister, had to be protestants, or christians at all. So we have a secular parliament and government. Some traditional christian practices persist in the process of government (just as most people are prepared to go to christian weddings or funerals). A secular society does not forbid this.
Didn’t modern civilisation evolve as much from the Renaissance as from the Christian Middle Ages ? And that was a renaissance of pre-Christian Greek and Roman ideas (much of the Greek writings passed on via Muslims, as it happened). No matter. Some peculiarly Anglo-Saxon democratic ideas were in place before conversion to Christianity, just as the parliament of Iceland was set up before it was christian. Apart from that, the idea of democracy is usually attributed to ancient Greece. also pagan, and Rome had the first republic long before Constantine. No matter.
You are wrong to think that a secular society is necessarily post-Christian, but it doesn’t try to enforce Christianity on everybody. The 18th century was to a large extent secularist in practice, and the Victorians recovered from that, while also making some liberal reforms. Church institutions and christians had survived the 18th century without difficulty. Queen Victoria was free to be a devout Christian .
If you watch a DVD of the 1953 coronation, you will find that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland was allowed to take part, so it wasn’t an Anglican monopoly, and I agree that the next coronation will no doubt extend this. The same has been done with some Remembrance Day ceremonies (a lot of Muslims were fighting on our side and died, so fair enough). It seems to be forgotten that the Queen promised at the coronation to protect the various faiths of all her peoples throughout the Commonwealth, not just of christians, so Prince Charles’ idea of Fidei Defensor. isn’t actually as novel as it sounds/
I don’t know of any left-wing person who approves of Saudi Arabia.
Why would the BBC want to destroy Western society ?
Rox/Rocks: https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/07/the-myth-of-islamic-science
If you don’t like this article, google “the myth of islamic civilisation”: several articles will appear, perhaps a different one may be more to your liking.
http://www.libertygb.org.uk/news/did-muslims-fight-britain-both-world-wars
Many muslims also fought for the Nazis, they had their own Waffen SS division, noted for its ruthlessness, cruelty and barbarity, and corresponding cowardice when not up against women, children or otherwise defenceless civilians. Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood had close ties, not least a shared hatred of the Jews (yes, thats the same Muslim Brotherhood with which Obama has been wont to pack his cabinet).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Nazi_Germany_and_the_Arab_world
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Waffen_Mountain_Division_of_the_SS_Handschar_(1st_Croatian)
Or is this a reliable article? http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/second-world-war-record-of-muslims-is-worth-marking
Regarding the rest of your post, you seem to have a propensity, which I have noticed before, to spray out, to my mind, pretty random and pretty useless bits of information in an attempt, I suspect, to appear intelligent and well-informed. Your post consists mainly of “rebuttals” to assertions I never actually made, and since your post was a reply to mine, I think I can legitimately ask you to remain on-topic and not put words in my mouth.
Regarding “why would the BBC want to destroy Western civilisation?”, I said radical leftists/Marxists wanted to, (in common cause with the islamists) and the BBC is full of leftists (I doubt your figures on the “diversity” of the BBC are correct, but you may be correct that the BBC employs a single “Jain”). Whatever, you clearly have not bothered to read the article in the link I posted, which would largely answer your question.
Not all leftists know what is at the root of leftism/socialism etc, many are well meaning people, albeit, imo, duped/fond of virtue signalling by privileged middle-class people, who feel good about themselves by appearing to be on the side of the poor/disadvantaged/etc. Of course, this costs them nothing personally: its always someone else who has to pay. If you look at the pronouncements of Labour politicians, they are motivated at least as much by hatred of the rich (“THE TORIES”!!!!) as they are by love of the poor (indeed, in Peter Hitchens’ view, they are like 2 corpses that prop each other up by their mutual hatred). There are a few with integrity, Tony Benn and Dennis Skinner spring to mind, but once most of the rest of them get a little money, which this they try desperately to conceal, and the other tricks they pull, they become the new ruling class, as in the USSR’s nomenclatura. Did you know that Dianne Abbott, that doyen of leftism, sent her own kids to a private school? Even she had to admit it was indefensible, but she had no reason to worry: she was duly voted in again as an MP in her constituency with barely a murmur (honestly, if we insist on voting for these people, have we any right to complain?).
I reserve the right to express my own views in any way I wish, and not merely to rebutt you sentence by sentence.
I could say it’s completely irrelevant that some Muslims fought for the Nazis. Many Christians fought for the Nazis. The point was that Muslims are already being admitted into what is already something of an official multi-faith ceremony in this country, because it concerns them as much as Christians or indeed atheists whose relatives died. Some Remembrance Day services have a Humanist representative too.
Do you know if similar ceremonies in Germany have Muslims and Humanists taking part, or are they (for some unfathomable reason) reserved for remembering the Christian dead in Germany ? Let us know, if you think it is relevant.
Yours is the only mention of Jains on this page, but it certainly is true that there is at least one Jain at the BBC . (I don’t know if it is only a single Jain). It’s Ritula Shah, prominent on Radio 4.
“Hell is a place where there is no reason”.
Looking now at the links you have provided.
Nobody would dispute that the learning in the mediaeval Islamic world (including Spain) developed from a fusion of what had gone before in various cultures. The same is, of course, true of the Renaissance in Europe. Your link makes special reference to India. It is true that Moghul civilisation was mainly Persian, but Jahanagir did his best to incorporate elements of Hinduism, and was even on good terms with Jesuits. All this is wildly off-topic, however.
To quote your third link :
” Hitler made warm statements about Islam as a religion and political ideology. However, official Nazi ideology also considered Arabs to be racially inferior to Germans.”
Considering now your fourth link, insisting that Croatians and Bosnians were and always will be Nazis makes no more sense than insisting that Germans were and always will be Nazis. The only person I know who looks on Angela Merkel as a new Führer is harmless, but close to insanity. This kind of logic led to dreadful misery after the death of Tito.
Even less can you insist that Muslims are closely allied to Nazism. A few were, more than 70 years ago. Most authorities imply that there were far more on the Allied side, but it’s difficult to find figures specifying the religion of individual Indian soldiers, admittedly. The Algerian soldiers were overwhelmingly Muslim, however (and you can see from the names on monuments in Italy that they died for the union of Italy in 1860, too).
You fifth link seems to back up a lot of what I have written. It is particularly helpful here :
“At least one-third, if not more, of the British “Indian Army” that fought during the war on many fronts were Indian Muslims – a disproportionately high percentage. ”
It’s not my business to pretend that Muslims did not participate in rape, collaboration, and atrocities generally, just like Christians did. War is a nasty business. But any implication that quasi-Muslim Nazis were nastier Nazis than quasi-Christian Nazis is a bit ludicrous.
I gather that you would not vote Labour if there was a general election this month. Neither would I .
Googling the Myth of Islamic Civilisation.
I know there are intriguing theories that Mohammed did not really exist, or had very little importance. The idea is that, finding themselves quite unexpectedly with a growing empire, the Arabs picked up bits and pieces of Judaism and Christianity, ESPECIALLY HERETICAL CHRISTIANITY WHICH HAD BEEN EXILED TO THE FRINGES OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, mostly rejecting the Trinity, which of course Islam emphatically does. Cobbled together with bits of Arab tradition mainly based in Mecca, this formed a new religion which would separate them clearly from Jews and Christians. and give them an ideology and identity. Of course they took on the trappings of the civilisations they took over, not least in Constantinople. I have no argument with this. It is much more likely than believing that God actually revealed the Koran to Mohammed.
“I could say it’s completely irrelevant that some Muslims fought for the Nazis”: well, yes, you COULD say it, its certainly physically possible to do so.
“Many Christians fought for the Nazis”: doubtful if many born-again Christians fought for anybody. You are here, as elsewhere, confusing the individuals that make up a nation, saying that citizens of a nation that has a Christian foundation, etc, even Christianity as the state religion as here in the UK, are therefore practising Christians. Btw, I dare say you believe that Hitler was a Christian(?).
“The point was that Muslims are already being admitted into what is already something of an official multi-faith ceremony in this country, because it concerns them as much as Christians or indeed atheists whose relatives died. Some Remembrance Day services have a Humanist representative too.
Do you know if similar ceremonies in Germany have Muslims and Humanists taking part, or are they (for some unfathomable reason) reserved for remembering the Christian dead in Germany ? Let us know, if you think it is relevant.”: you have now, for some reason, moved on from my original assertion that the Coronation in the UK was an overtly Christian ceremony, and my assertion that the C of E (more Christian, at least more Bible-believing, then than now, I would say) was, and still is, the official state religion, therefore we are technically a Christian country (though, as I say, less “practising”) to inventing some kind of opposition on my part to having members of other faiths or none participating in Remembrance Day ceremonies.
On the subject of “diversity” at the BBC, I will revise my original comment. Having, as I say, worked in the charity sector myself (yes, I know, the BBC is not technically a charity), I know how keen they are to fill their quotas for ethnic, BME employees and clients etc. What I noticed at my charity was that they were desperate to encourage BME employees and “clients” etc (indeed, it was a condition of our funding), but nothing at all was said if “white, British” were under-represented.
Quite the opposite, mate. I never assume that all the citizens of the UK are Christians. That sounds more like you, insisting that this shouldn’t be and even that it isn’t a secular democracy !
From these new revelations, it seems that you would want the UK, as a “Christian country”, to be run purely by born-again Christians ! A bit impractical.
You wrote elsewhere :
” I suspect the feminists etc will turn pretty quickly to the traditional males when they need to be defended against physical attack” .
Yet now you are suggesting that your born-again Christians are necessarily conscientious objectors. Will they hire non-Christian mercenaries when necessary? It’s been done before.
You speculated on what might happen at the next coronation, and referred to multi-faith ceremonies. As there has been no coronation since 1953, it seemed reasonable to look at what has been happening at other semi-official multi-faith ceremonies, and why, Many Muslims have an interest in a future coronation because they are British citizens too. In fact, it was already taken into consideration in 1953 that the Queen was queen of non-Christians in her various realms. All this is relevant to what you were saying, although not enormously relevant to the television programme.
I never commented on what might be your own personal attitude to Remembrance Day ceremonies.
You say that you doubt my ” figures on the ‘diversity’ of the BBC ”
What are these figures, just so I can try and check them for you ?
It’s news to me that I gave any figures !
You seem to be referring to my comment on 5th December, made on Stephen’s 1st Dec article “Irresponsible BBC promoting transgenderism”. Please let us know if otherwise. What I said was :
” My impression is that the BBC employs a very large number of people whose families originated in the Indian sub-continent, not all of them Muslims (one is even a Jain). Also, although being white (but that is not entirely what concerns you), there are a lot of Jews, and Increasingly Slavs. Altogether a lot of diversity. ”
Technically, there is no way of denying what I say is my impression ! I didn’t say it was a statistic. What I feel is the truth of it is what I feel is the truth of it.
However, ignoring that nicety, I did not give any figures, and it’s not easy to “doubt” or disprove “a very large number” or “a lot”. I suggest you count up every Indian sounding name you see or hear on the BBC in the rest of this year . What shall we count as “a lot ” ? 30 would seem a lot by the time you had counted them and written them all down.
Simultaneously Slavs. and what appear to be Jews (more difficult unless they mention it), and please come back to us with your figures.
OK, that’s enough. Please find something else to talk about now, boys. Aleppo? White Helmets? Gender Neutral Pronouns?
Gender neutral pronouns ? What more can I say.
But a lot of my hard-written and perfectly innocuous comments have never appeared, so I am giving it a rest now. I don’t write them to order.
Maybe other people find the same, so nothing on Aleppo or White Helmets. It’s difficult to know what you moderate.
Sometimes you post stuff twice; everyone does, so one gets ditched. And just occasionally, you or Mark are boring. But most of what you post gets through! I cannot remember comments posted on Aleppo or White Helmets. It was the Muslims which got you guys going. But there comes a point …
I agree, your moderation is often quite generous, as this time, with what was more a personal message than a comment I expected to see in print.
Usually, when a comment is posted. it appears on the screen immediately (without its words) as “awaiting moderation”. But sometimes this doesn’t happen. Then I assume it has not got through for technical reasons, and submit it again. Then I sometimes get the duplicate comment message. Perhaps this happens to other people too.
But recently, I think on Aleppo, “duplicate comment” appeared repeatedly, as though you had just rejected it immediately, and it never did seem to get through, so perhaps you have never seen it. If this was happening generally, it would explain why nobody has been tempted by it (apparently). It does involve Muslims. Almost everything involves Muslims nowadays.
I can remember when you could go for months without hearing of them, and when they did turn up, they were more often (if applicable) referred to as “Arabs”, as they still often are in France (although North Africans are not really Arabs, except in Egypt).
I never tried to comment on White Helmets.
Coming back to “gives Islamic State a platform”, now we have seen it, I don’t think it does provide Islamic State with much of a platform. It’s difficult to imagine anybody watching it who thought that by following Abdul Haq’s example he would win friends and influence people among the Muslim community. Anybody who was impressed would need to be leaning a long way in that direction already.
I am reminded of the American missionaries who have been to my town twice (in different years) and literally tell everybody that they are going to hell because they are sinners, through loudspeakers so that nobody can discuss it with them. A key argument, when audience participation is allowed, is “Did you ever tell a lie ? Then you are a SINNER. You are going to hell”, and of course they fall back on “Everybody is a sinner anyway because of Eve”.
I have not seen them with any trace of winning converts. I don’t know why they bother .
The head of BBC religious programmes is a Muslim.Why would they not give a platform to someone who adheres to Islamic teachings……………..wake up