The God Protocol: Chapter 1 (part 1)

Here I read the first part of Chapter One of my book The God Protocol.

Here is the playlist which will contain all readings moving forward:

I argue in this chapter in support of my key thesis, namely that warning is the means by which God makes men culpable; that warning was a key duty binding upon a number of men in times past – messengers, prophets, and lay believers; that warning was a central aspect of the remit given to the messenger and prophet called Muhammad; and that we – as followers of the message which Muhammad received – are duty-bound, likewise, to warn.

My presentation is based in the Qur’an’s statements, but it is not my intention to lay before the reader every single verse which supports my argument. There are too many. My aim is to give the reader a sampling in order to assist him in being more attuned in his own reading of the Qur’an to one of its most dominant messages.


But before we look at the Qur’an’s own statements, it is worth noting that man’s societies accept – and have accepted for millennia – the legal force of warning.

Let us take the Miranda warning the opening section of which most of us know from American movies; this reads:

You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to have an attorney. If you cannot afford one, one will be appointed to you by the court. With these rights in mind, are you still willing to talk with me about the charges against you?

While the exact protocol differs from country to country, in comparable circumstances typically there is a warning or caution by an arresting officer that any information offered by the suspect can be used against them in a court of law. What all such protocols have in common is the manufacture of consent combined with a shift in the legal status of everything which happens after the point at which the warning is issued.

But different types of similar protocols also exist. We will take the case of public notices. In the UK, for example, before work requiring planning permission can be undertaken, a notice must be placed in public view near the location where the permission has been applied for. There is typically a notice in the local newspaper also. Some areas require that inhabitants adjacent to the site be informed.

The assumption here under law is that silence means consent. This point is crucial.

Black’s Dictionary of Law defines consent as:

A concurrence of wills. Express consent is that directly given, either lira voce or in writing. Implied consent is that manifested by signs, actions, or facts, or by inaction or silence, which raise a presumption that the consent has been given. [emphasis added]

In order to achieve consent, the relevant agencies simply have to provide the addressee with a reasonable opportunity to become apprised of the facts – an opportunity which he may or may not utilise – after which non-action by the same connotes consent.

We who are ruled do not understand the law. We assume, but we rarely know the meaning of the words which comprise the laws under which we live. The elites know what laws really mean. And within their worldview they practice what Plato called virtue. They do not merely oppress the herd; they manage it. They inform – that is issue legal warnings – to the populous of what they have planned via their organs of power in the form of blockbuster films and the like. The fact that the herd does not understand the language of such warnings is immaterial – or even that certain individuals choose not to attend. Once the masses have been warned, the elite’s hands – as they see it – are clean.

Original video: