Couple's week-long sailing trip turns into 16-year round-the-world voyage

Clive and Jane Green returned to the UK last week, 16 years after they left for a week-long sailing trip to Spain

Clive and Jane had intended to travel to Spain, via Ireland, to see how they coped together before tackling an ocean crossing Photo: Wales News

By Claire Duffin in The Telegraph

 13 Aug 2014

When Clive and Jane Green set sail from Wales, their intended destination was Spain, a relatively short hop over the Atlantic.

Sixteen years later however, and they have only just returned home, having turned their experimental seven-day getaway into a 58,000-mile round-the-world voyage.

Their journey has seen them visit 56 countries, swim with sting rays in Tahiti, navigate through pirate-infested waters off the East African coast and survive 23 days at sea without fresh water, desalinating seawater to stay alive.

“We have been very lucky so see our planet in such an amazing way - we didn't ever plan to sail around the world it just happened," said Mrs Green, 60.

"We would sail to a place and then through word-of-mouth from other sailors hear about somewhere else to go on to.

Related Articles

• Learning the ropes on the Turquoise Coast 
  21 Jun 2014
• Cowes Week: 2014 travel guide 
  06 May 2014
• Sailing holidays: Ten of the best 
  24 Jul 2009

"That has been our life for the last 16 years - it's been an amazing experience."

^{Clive and Jane Green during a trip to a glacier in New Zealand (Wales News)}

The couple, keen sailors all their lives, bought their 1981 Trident Challenger yacht in 1997 for £16,500. They then spent several months,and £20,000, doing it up.

On July 11, 1998, having taking early retirement, they set sail from Pembrokeshire destined for Spain, via Ireland.

They had rented out their home in Wales but wanted to see how they coped together before tackling an ocean crossing. They were also unsure if they had enough money, and wanted to see how much they would need to live on the yacht.

But their maiden voyage was a success and the couple decided to carry on.

From Spain they sailed to the Cape Verde islands and across the Atlantic to Barbados before island-hopping through the Caribbean.

They then sailed up the east coast of America, stopping in New York for a three-day shopping and sight-seeing trip.

After four years at sea, they sold their home meaning there was no turning back. They invested the money into two smaller properties, and used the rental income to help fund the trip.

But it meant Mr Green, 60, who worked for a utility company, and Mrs Green, a hospital microbiology technician, had to survive on £130 a week, bartering their few belongings for supplies, even swapping one of Mrs Green’s Marks and Spencer bras for a sack of fresh fruit and vegetables on a small island off Fiji.

"The tribe didn't speak any English so it was difficult to find out what we could trade,” Mrs Green said.

"But one of the women suddenly lifted up her jumper to expose her bare breasts and I realised she needed a bra.

"I gave her a spare one of mine and we left with enough fruit and veg to last us a month."

From America, they headed north to Canada before journeying down to the Panama Canal, crossing the Pacific to Australasia, then up through Indonesia to South East Asia, over to India and through the Suez Canal to the Mediterranean where they have spent the last couple of years.

During their trip, they saw orangutans swinging from the trees in Borneo, swam with seals off the Galapagos Islands and watched sparks shooting into the night sky from an active volcano in Fiji.

They also encountered turtles and even a giant Sei whale - bigger than their 35ft yacht called Jane G.

But they said meeting different people was the highlight of their journey and that they had been helped along the way by members of the sailing community.

When they left the Galapagos Islands they were given a bunch of 79 bananas which they hung from the stern of the boat to ripen, taking one each a day during the next leg of their journey.

“We have seen some wonderful sights but it is the people that we remember,” Mrs Green said.

They even called in to Florida and moored up there to have a couple of days at Disney World but Mr Green, 62, said it was not a typical holiday.

“We were on a strict budget so that took some getting used to,” he said.

"If we had a problem with the boat we had to fix it ourselves - Jane is just as capable as me, there's nothing on this boat she can't do.

"And she's a lot better at sewing sails than I am."

During the trip, the couple, who do not have children, spent two years in two years in Australia and another 18 months in New Zealand where they bought a van for £180 to tour both islands for six weeks.

^{Jane during a camel ride in Egypt (Wales News)}

While at sea, Mr Green suffered from a tooth abscess and also sliced off the tip of his finger on the galley table but otherwise they survived without a scrape.

Their biggest scare, they said, was when they discovered they were being followed by a boat in waters inhabited by Somali pirates.

But it turned out to be an Eritrean fishing boat with crewman on board who had a severe gash to his leg.

Mr Green said: "It wasn't very brave of me but I watched as Jane hopped onto their boat to clean and dress the wound before we waved them on their way."

Mrs Green said: “We didn’t come across anything that we could not cope with. We are both very resourceful.

“We had such a fabulous time. People say to us ‘you should write a book’ but the thing is, disasters sell books and we haven’t had any disasters – we have had good weather, we have met wonderful people everywhere we have been – we can’t fault it.”

The couple arrived back in Neyland Marina, near Milford Haven last week to be greeted by friends Wendy Abbs and Ian Bevan who had cast them off 16 years, one month and two days earlier.

Mr Green said: "We really had gone full circle - all the way around the world at an average speed of 4.5mph.

"It is good to be home to see all our family and friends and we have promised ourselves to spend a few months getting to know them all again."

They plan to spend the winter on their boat in Wales with the view to beginning their next adventure next year, this time on a wide beamed boat through the canals of Europe.

“But if it does get too cold, we might set off again somewhere sunny before then,” said Mrs Green.

Good friends are hard to find – and even harder to keep

If millions of us have no mates it could be because enduring friendships require care and humility

• 
• • Tim Lott
  • The Guardian, Wednesday 13 August 2014

‘A significant number of ordinary people just don’t know how to maintain good friendships.’ Photograph: Pierre Desrosiers/Getty Images

A survey by Relate rather shockingly suggests that as many as 10% of people in the UK don’t have a single friend to turn to. That translates into nearly 5 million adults who are, in effect, friendless.

Even factoring in that many of these unfortunates may be elderly people whose friends have died, or inadequates who lack functional social skills, that is still a significant number of ordinary people who just don’t know how to maintain good friendships.
--- 
Also read:

One in 10 do not have a close friend and even more feel unloved 

---

I am fortunate to be able to claim at least four friends, of both genders, who stretch back nearly 40 years, and a number of other more recent ones that are close and durable. But I have also lost enough to understand that friendships are difficult, and the closer they are the more difficult they become. This is also true of family relationships, but it’s very hard to escape your family. With friends, if you annoy them too much, they can just drop you. Within this simple fact lies one of the first principles of friendship – tread carefully. Friends are precious, even irreplaceable, but they are also fragile.

Treading carefully is easier said than done. Part of a good friendship is honesty, and sooner or later one is forced to choose between being amenable and giving a friend the honesty you think the relationship merits. But honesty is always a risky strategy, whether it’s asking “Do you like my new dress/suit?” or “Do you like my new girlfriend/boyfriend?” Sometimes you are forced to find out what your friendship rests on, and sometimes the foundations prove insubstantial.

Friendships can be rooted in a number of different impulses. Unhealthy elements like need, the desire for borrowed status, and the wish for flattery are as common as the more healthy ones like mutual interests, sense of humour and natural compatibility. The healthy and unhealthy are often mixed together, the latter concealed under the myth of “friendship”, which suggests, more than marriage, a certain (unrealistic) perfection of sensibility.

The thing with friends is that because they tend to be bit-players in one’s life – “let’s meet for drinks/a meal/a game/a movie” – it’s easy to build up a false idea about someone with whom you share a friendly relationship.

Generalisations along gender lines are always tricky, but – and this is a purely personal observation – I think women sometimes struggle with friendship in the long run as they seem to have an unspoken pact that a friend should always be supportive. They just invest so much in each other. Men often accept a little grit in the ointment – one can tell a male friend to fuck off without losing his friendship. Female friendships can struggle when the faults in either party begin to surface. Friends, like marriage partners, love each other, but they must also be allowed to hate each other sometimes.

I do not know what I am doing right to have kept such good friends for so long, but it is certainly worth pointing out that none of them have got to the present point without negotiating moments of crisis. In each of my closest friends there have been moments when the friendship has nearly foundered – but we somehow came through them to a relationship that was stronger than it was before the crisis.

The nature of friendship changes, and you have to change with it. Once, hopefully, I fascinated my friends and charmed them. After 40 years, I am sure I often bore them – and that is inevitable. A good friendship, like a good marriage, ceases after a while to be a mutual entertainment society and becomes instead a sorority or fraternity of battle-scarred veterans. We are still here, we still enjoy being around each other, and we treasure our shared histories. This is something precious, even if it isn’t always a laugh riot.

Is there a secret to long friendships? Simply this – an absence of pride. Too many falter on stubbornness or the determination to hold on to offence. Successful ones rely on humility and the recognition of human fallibility. These are not merely useful attributes. They are the heart and soul of friendship.

Mark Simmonds’ story is not about him, but a broken housing market

We need to find a radical solution to this inflated market, in which even the top 1% can’t afford to house their children in the capital

• 
• • Zoe Williams
  • The Guardian, Wednesday 13 August 2014

'In central London, the only viable markets are the ones that are subsidised by the government – either by housing benefit or MPs’ expenses – or the ones for the super-rich.' Illustration: Belle Mellor

All in it together? Mark Simmonds, conservative MP for Boston and Skegness, has resigned, citing the intolerable pressure of trying to live in London on an MP’s expenses. He wants his family to live in London, which is understandable. For this, a rental allowance of £20,600 plus £2,425 for each child (he has three) is insufficient. “Of course if MPs want to get into the business of travelling extensively from Westminster to the outer reaches of London to rent a flat then that’s up to them,” he told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme on Monday. “But that’s not the lifestyle I want and it’s not the lifestyle I have chosen for myself or I want for my family.”

Here, he starts to become less sympathetic as a character. He earns almost £90,000, and pays his wife up to £25,000 from his parliamentary office. He is on record as the most expensive MP in Lincolnshire, having claimed £173,000 in expenses in 2013.

He is also a vocal proponent of the benefit cap, finding it disgusting that some families can claim more in benefits than the average person earns, even while he finds it intolerable that he can only claim in accommodation expenses £2,000 more than the cap. Every time some new detail emerges, his obnoxiousness swells like a mudbath, ready to break its banks. To wallow in it would be fun but sullying, and also obscures the fact that Simmonds has done us a favour.

To qualify to be a member of the top 1% in the UK, you need a total household income before tax of £160,000 a year. Simmonds, let’s not forget, fell foul of the transparency rules in 2012 when he failed to declare his £50,000 salary from Circle Healthcare before he weighed into health debates in favour of privatisation.

So without even venturing into the territory of whether or not he’s a disgrace to public life, we can assume that by a combination of “freelance” work and the benefits in kind that must surely accrue from his expenses, his household income probably puts him in the top 1%.

There is broad agreement now, whether you love equality or hate it, that the top 1% isn’t really the story; the story is the top 0.1%. Nevertheless, when a man in the top 1% who has his rent paid still can’t afford to house his children in the capital, it is no longer a story about what kind of a person he is: this is a story about a broken system.

In central London, the only viable markets are the ones that are subsidised by the government – either by housing benefit or MPs’ expenses – or the ones for the super-rich. In Westminster, where Simmonds wants to live, the average house price was £1.3m in June last year (prices have gone up by 6% since then). Two things are striking when you look for rental properties for a family with three children at Simmonds’ cap of around £2,300 per month – as newspapers everywhere will spend this week doing.

What hits you first is how few properties are available, only a handful on any website, even if two of his children would be prepared to share a room (as children are required to do, incidentally, by the government’s bedroom tax, which Simmonds voted for). This is commensurate with the fact that central London has been largely bought up by investors who, at the higher price points, are just looking for a currency haven and leave their properties empty, having little interest in rental income (75% of new developments in central London are not open to the UK market).

The second striking thing is the outlandishness of central London prices: penthouses available for £50,000 a week. Poor Simmonds doesn’t have a hope.

Two main trends dominate the housing debate (though not noticeably in the Conservative party – they still think the answer to this madly inflated market is to keep it buoyed up with government money, via the Help to Buy scheme). There is broad agreement that this is a London problem and only bleating metropolitan elites are troubled by it. In fact, the disparity between earnings and property prices spreads from Bristol in the west to Cambridge in the east; ultimately, the only places immune from a property boom will be those with no jobs, and that doesn’t help anybody.

There is also the sudden unison that all we need to do is build more houses. If this just means throwing more money at private developers, for private buyers, with the proviso of a few social units that can be accessed through a pauper’s entrance, that’s not going to help.

The country needs houses that are owned by the government, not just so that it can stop the frivolity of housing benefit, but because a contractor isn’t going to build the houses we need.

We have the technology to do something radical with housing. We could build flats that are not just carbon-neutral, but energy-neutral through solar power, and with their own food growing up the walls that everybody would bite your hand off to live in. The ghettoisation of social housing would be a thing of the past. These places may embody so much ambition and possibility that we could get over our obsession with whether or not we owned or part-owned or rented them (look at the vision of the Green Cities Foundation or the Future Cities Catapult).

We don’t have to be stuck in this broken system, battling a faceless and impossible market with pleas for one that is fractionally better and marginally more accessible. We could be on the brink of building something together and, ironically, it could be Simmonds, featherer of no nests but his own, who drove us to it.

Iraq exposes the west’s hypocrisy in the Middle East

It’s right to take military action to protect Yazidi people. But the west’s record on who gets saved and who doesn’t is shameful

• 
• • Carne Ross
  • The Guardian, Monday 11 August 2014 20.30 BST

Kurdish soldiers keep guard on the outskirts of Kirkuk. Photograph: Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A friend from Pristina once told me that the happiest day of his life was when he heard Nato cruise missiles over his home town. This was in 1999 when Nato intervened from the air to stop the Serb campaign to drive Albanians from Kosovo. Often military intervention is wrong, but sometimes it is right. It was right in Kosovo, and Libya in 2011, and it is right today in northern Iraq.

----

Also read 

Muslim double standards abound

----

I resigned from the British foreign office because my government lied about the reasons for the invasion of Iraq in 2003. My scepticism about western motives runs deep. But the evident suffering of the Yazidis and others, and the imminent threat to the hitherto stable region of Kurdistan, overcomes these doubts. The views of the Yazidis and the Kurdistan regional government are clear. Their views matter most.

But the intervention in northern Iraq highlights the hypocrisy that characterises western policies in the Middle East. Who gets saved and who doesn’t? In Egypt, the west supports an authoritarian dictatorship where thousands, from Muslim Brothers to secular democrats like Alaa Abd El Fattah, are incarcerated in appalling, torturous jails. In Palestine, the US resupplied bombs to Israel during its callous bombardment of Gaza. And in Iraq itself, the US chose currently embattledNouri al-Maliki as prime minister, and continued to support him even after his militias had scythed down Sunnis and imprisoned thousands for their ethnicity. The UK government gives its tacit support to all of this, with a calculated display of rhetorical hand-wringing.

The west has worked itself into a grotesque muddle in the Middle East, supporting dictatorships in some places, calling for others to end; condemning the killings of civilians in one place, in another condoning them. These are the double standards that will be exploited by extremists across the world; a fount of terrorism that will continue to haunt us.

For too long, western policy has been guided by abstract and invented notions of “interests” and “security”, arbitrary guidelines that long ago degraded into “our friends” and “their enemies”. A new doctrine is needed, based on clear principles: protection of civilians, promoting local solutions, consistent rewards and punishments, all included in a comprehensive approach.

As everywhere, the welfare of civilians should come first and guide all policy. This offers a clear signpost in Kurdistan but also Palestine, Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. In cases of violent repression, this means giving populations the means for self-defence. In extremis, it might mean military intervention.

Since Sykes and Picot carved up the Middle East a century ago, the west has imposed its own simplistic designs on the complexities of the region. Instead, it must always facilitate local discussion, without assumptions such as that Iraq should remain as one state. If the Kurds want their own state, we should not be the ones to stop them. Our role should be to aim for a negotiated solution, with clear protections for minorities.

When John Kerry visits Cairo bringing attack helicopters for President Sisi, it cannot be a surprise that the regime pays no attention when he calls for the release of political prisoners. Rhetoric counts for very little. Criticism over the shelling of UN schools in Gaza doesn’t matter when in private officials reassure Israel that support continues. If a government abuses its population or fails to engage in inclusive political dialogue, it should be criticised, then condemned, then shunned and, if it continues, sanctioned. This applies in Saudi Arabia; it should apply in Iraq, but also in Israel.

Western policy does not connect the dots between the interconnected crises of the Middle East. Protecting civilians in Syria means giving the means of self-defence, such as anti-aircraft missiles, to the moderate opposition (which my organisation advises). This would have limited the rise of Isis in Syria, preventing the threat in Iraq and thus the necessity of military intervention. Pounding Isis in Iraq won’t stop the danger re-emerging from Syria. Condoning repression in Egypt will sustain the terrorist threat worldwide.

These principles highlight the mess of western policy. Following them would, in the longer term, help put it right.

One in 10 do not have a close friend and even more feel unloved, survey finds

Study by relationship counsellor Relate finds a divided nation with many left without vital support of friends and family

• Alexandra Topping
• The Guardian, Tuesday 12 August 2014

Millions of people in the UK do not have a single friend and fewer still feel loved. Photograph: keith morris / Alamy/Alamy

Millions of people in the UK do not have a single friend and one in five feel unloved, according to a survey published on Tuesday by the relationship charity Relate.

One in 10 people questioned said they did not have a close friend, amounting to an estimated 4.7 million people in the UK may be leading a very lonely existence.

Ruth Sutherland, the chief executive of Relate, said the survey revealed a divided nation with many people left without the vital support of friends or partners.

While the survey found 85% of individuals questioned felt they had a good relationship with their partners, 19% had never or rarely felt loved in the two weeks before the survey.

"Whilst there is much to celebrate, the results around how close we feel to others are very concerning. There is a significant minority of people who claim to have no close friends, or who never or rarely feel loved – something which is unimaginable to many of us," said Sutherland.

"Relationships are the asset which can get us through good times and bad, and it is worrying to think that there are people who feel they have no one they can turn to during life's challenges. We know that strong relationships are vital for both individuals and society as a whole, so investing in them is crucial."

The study looked at 5,778 people aged 16 and over across England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland and asked about people's contentment with all aspects of their relationships, including their partners, friends, workmates and bosses. It found that people who said that they had good relationships had higher levels of wellbeing, while poor relationships were detrimental to health, wellbeing and self-confidence.

The study found that 81% of people who were married or cohabiting felt good about themselves, compared with 69% who were single.

The quality of relationship counts for a lot, according to the survey: 83% of those who described their relationship as good or very good reported feeling good about themselves while only 62% of those who described their relationship as average, bad or very bad reported the same level of personal wellbeing.

The survey, The Way We Are Now 2014, showed that while four out of five people said they had a good relationship with their partner, far fewer were happy with their sex lives. One in four people admitted to being dissatisfied with their sex life, and one in four also admitted to having an affair.

There was also evidence of the changing nature of family life – and increasing divorce rates – in the survey, which found that almost one in four of the people questioned had experienced the breakdown of their parents' relationship.

When it comes to the biggest strains put on relationships, a significant majority (62%) cited money troubles as the most stressful factor.

The survey also found that older people are more worried about money, with 69% of those aged 65 and over saying money worries were a major strain, compared with only 37% of 16 to 24-year-olds.

When it comes to employment, many of those questioned had a positive relationship with their bosses, but felt putting work before family was highly valued in the workplace.

Just under 60% of people said they had a good relationship with their boss, but more than one in three thought their bosses believed the most productive employees put work before family. It also appears that work can be quite a lonely place too: 42% of people said they had no friends at work.

Nine out of 10 people, however, said they had a least one close friend, with 81% of women describing their friendships as good or very good compared with 73% of men.

Crony capitalism a big threat to countries like India, RBI chief Raghuram Rajan says

MUMBAI: Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan has warned against crony capitalism which he said creates oligarchies and slows down growth. 

"One of the greatest dangers to the growth of developing countries is the middle income trap, where crony capitalism creates oligarchies that slow down growth. If the debate during the elections is any pointer, this is a very real concern of the public in India today," said Rajan while delivering the Lalit Doshi memorial lecture in Mumbai on Monday. 

The last general election was fraught with allegations of the nexus between politicians and business groups.

RBI governor Raghuram Rajan (left) with finance minister Arun Jaitley. 

Rajan extolled the virtues of India's democracy before turning to its darker aspects. "An important issue in the recent election was whether we had substituted the crony socialism of the past with crony capitalism, where the rich and the influential are alleged to have received land, natural resources and spectrum in return for payoffs to venal politicians. By killing transparency and competition, crony capitalism is harmful to free enterprise, opportunity, and economic growth. And by substituting special interests for the public interest, it is harmful to democratic expression. If there is some truth to these perceptions of crony capitalism, a natural question is why people tolerate it. Why do they vote for the venal politician who perpetuates it?" 

Rajan continued by saying, "One widely held hypothesis is that our country suffers from want of a 'few good men' in politics. This view is unfair to the many upstanding people in politics. But even assuming it is true, every so often we see the emergence of a group, usually upper middle class professionals, who want to clean up politics. But when these 'good' people stand for election, they tend to lose their deposits. Does the electorate really not want squeaky clean government?


Finance minister Arun Jaitley (left), with RBI governor (second from left in front) during a meeting. 

"Apart from the conceit that high morals lie only with the upper middle class, the error in this hypothesis may be in believing that problems stem from individual ethics rather than the system we have. In a speech I made before the Bombay Chamber of Commerce in 2008, I argued that the tolerance for the venal politician is because he is the crutch that helps the poor and underprivileged navigate a system that gives them so little access. This may be why he survives." 

The governor's warning against crony capitalism and oligarchies is a reiteration of his statements four days before the Lehman Brothers collapse in 2008. In a speech at the Bombay Chamber, Rajan had highlighted that India had the highest number of billionaires per trillion dollars of GDP after Russia. While excluding NR Narayana Murthy, Azim Premji, and Ratan Tata as 'deservedly respected', Rajan had said "three factors — land, natural resources, and government contracts or licenses — are the predominant sources of the wealth of our billionaires. And all of these factors come from the government."

Muslim double standards abound

Tarek Fatah in The Toronto Sun

If there is a God, he has some explaining to do.

On the one hand he tells us Muslims in the Qur’an that we are “the best of peoples, evolved for mankind”, but then showers us with leaders who bring out the worst in the human soul.

If the murderous spree some of my fellow Muslims have embraced is not enough, their hypocrisy of playing the victim card makes the rest of the world cringe in anger, if not outrage.

As I write, Muslims around the world have taken to the streets and social media to protest Israel’s Operation Protective Edge, that has resulted in the deaths of nearly 200 Palestinians.

Undoubtedly the death of 200 Arabs, many of them civilian women and children, is tragic and worthy of condemnation.

However, just next door to Israel almost 200,000 Arabs have been killed by fellow Arabs in Syria, but that tragedy has triggered no public demonstrations of anger in Islamic capitals, let alone in Toronto.

Let us examine two military operations by two countries against what they describe as Islamic terrorists belonging to radical jihadi movements.

While Israel’s Operation Protective Edge is making the lead story around the world, few are aware of Pakistan’s Operation Zarb-e-Azb (Strike of Prophet Muhammad’s Sword) underway against the Taliban inside Pakistan.

Israel’s military operations have killed about 200 and displaced about 17,000 Palestinians from their homes in Gaza.

Pakistan’s military operations, on the other hand, have killed over 400 and made over 900,000 Pashtun Pakistanis homeless and destitute in their own country.

While the 17,000 Palestinians are finding shelter in United Nations Relief and Works Agency structures, nearly one million Pakistanis are facing a catastrophe that has triggered neither media coverage, nor international aid or protest.

On Monday, a day after an Israeli missile killed 18 family members of the Hamas police chief in Gaza, Iraqi men in Baghdad slaughtered 28 Iraqi women.

There was plenty of fury over the dead family, almost none for the women, for they were alleged to be residents of a brothel, as if that mattered.

Allah’s “best of peoples, evolved for mankind”, clearly live by a double standard, the one that triggers mammoth support for Palestinians but absolutely none for Pashtuns.

Here’s why. It is not the race or religion of the victim that counts, but the identity of their tormentor.

As long as it’s an Arab army annihilating fellow Arabs or a Muslim military murdering fellow Muslims, too many Muslims simply shrug away our responsibility and say, “leave it to Allah” as the Qur’an supposedly commands.

However, if the Muslim falls victim to the “kuffar” — meaning the Jew, Christian or Hindu — then many of our clerics take to the pulpit and deliver fiery, end-of-times lectures, using the tragedy as a reason to ignite hatred against the other, in most cases “The Jew”.

I wonder if God has heard this mosque sermon by a prominent Pakistani cleric.

“And a time is about to come when Allah would bestow such a success on Islam that there would not be a single Jew left on the face of the earth. … And when the last Jew will be killed from this world, then peace would be established in the world …”

It would appear the depth of hatred many of God’s “best of people” disseminate, needs his attention.

That is, if he is listening at all.​