Islamist extremism in Birmingham and Mosul

Today, the government defines extremism as "vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs." - Source here.

From the Government Report "Tackling extremism in the UK": 

"There is a range of extremist individuals and organisations, including Islamists, the far right and others. As the greatest risk to our security comes from Al Qa’ida and like-minded groups, and terrorist ideologies draw on and make use of extremist ideas, we believe it is also necessary to define the ideology of Islamist extremism. [1.4] This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb."

Either with an eye on voting intentions or with its head buried deep in the oil bearing sand Her Majesty's Government continues to perpetuate the myth that Islam is a religion of peace. But that is not peace as we understand the word. In Islamic terms there will be peace when all have been converted to Islam. Before Cameron, Blair, Bush and Clinton all had the same message of 'peace' in the video "Islam - What The West Needs To Know":

Clinton says in the introduction, "No religion condones the murder of innocent men, women and children". Try telling that now to Mosul's last Christians as they flee Iraq after a weekend ultimatum left Mosul residents with three choices: convert to Islam, pay jizya (a poll tax levied on non-Muslims), or die at the hands of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), see here. 

As Serge Trifkovic says in response [move forward to position 3.30], "The tendency of Western political leaders to deny the connection between orthodox Islamic mainstream and terrorist violence is replicated in the Universities and the media, wherever you look both in Western Europe and  in North America. The members of the elite class have this tendency to proclaim Islam, some mysterious authentic Islam, to be peaceful and to be tolerant and those Muslims prone to violence are proclaimed to be non-representative. Well I would really appreciate if people who make such claims could then explain the continuity of violence from the earliest day of Islam, from the earliest days of the prophet and his immediate successors throughout the thirteen centuries of recorded history".

As if to prove the point, the above mentioned Government Report from the Prime Minister’s Task Force on Tackling Radicalisation and Extremism refers to "a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles". So when will there be a peaceful end to the Islamic persecution of Christian minorities around the world? When they are dead or fled?

Less extreme but with the same motives Islamist activists have been at work in Birmingham schools (here). In his investigations, Peter Clarke the former head of counter-terrorism found evidence of a "sustained" attempt to impose hard line Muslim views (interview here). He found an "intolerant and aggressive" Islamist ethos in some Birmingham schools brought about by governors intent on promoting an ultra-conservative version of their faith. That ethos included homophobia, sexism, antipathy to other forms of Islam and in one case denial that Private Lee Rigby had been killed by Islamic extremists (here).

"Islam is on track to become the dominant religion in Britain within the next generation, according to new census data published by the British government" (here). Unless members of the "elite class" take the trouble to understand the true nature of the religious ideology which results in submission wherever Islam dominates it will not be long before we in Britain will be invited to "convert to Islam, pay jizya (a poll tax levied on non-Muslims), or die".

The Rorate Caeli blog is carrying the story from Le Figaro, "Why the Global Conspiracy of Silence on Persecution of Christians in Iraq?" Why indeed? Who next?

Jesus was a Muslim!

Much has been written recently about the cross and whether it is appropriate for Christians to wear it as an expression of their faith. At the same time in Afghanistan the cross has been publicly burned by Muslims who complain bitterly about any form of disrespect shown to their own faith.

It seems ironic then that Muslims claim Jesus as one of their own, a prophet referred to in the Quran as well as in the Bible. But that is only part of the story, a story which some years ago was the subject of an ITV programme, The Muslim Jesus. To the casual viewer I imagine the story would have been quite compelling without further evidence of the truth. Muslims deny that Christ died on the cross (some say another took His place) so they would have no objection to burning the cross as a Christian symbol. There is no dispute that Jesus is referred to in the Quran but the claim that Muhammad is mentioned in the Bible is readily disputed even by many Muslims.


Visitors to Birmingham will be familiar with Islam being freely promoted on the streets as illustrated in this video. Last year I heard complaints that similar operations had been extended. A stall had been set up opposite a well-known Anglo Catholic church in a Cardiff suburb where, in common with many other areas, Christians are becoming marginalised as parishes become dominated by Islamic influences and appearance. When a dispute arose over the claim that 'Jesus was a Muslim' the police intervened. On being told that exception was taken to people shouting outside the Church that Jesus was a Muslim, the police response was that the pamphlets were not offensive and that we live in a free country.  One wonders what would have been the reaction if Christians stood opposite one of the City's 32 mosques and made counter claims. The group still engages with passers by claiming: "Let us show you what the Bible really says about Islam - and how Jesus really was a Muslim"!


When Channel 4 broadcast a programme, 'UnderCover Mosques', to highlight what was being said inside rather than outside mosques, in this case the Green Lane Mosque in Birmingham, the West Midlands police and the Crown Prosecution Service ignored the hate allegations uncovered and investigated the programme makers instead. They were later forced to apologise after the programme makers were vindicated. The National Secular Society (no friend of Christianity) recently quoted this example in their evidence to the United Nations. Illustrating the extent to which Islamic influence is spreading around the world the NSS included this astonishing testimony:


 "I am deeply saddened that in this Council of all places in the whole world, Sharia law has been ruled to be beyond discussion by distinguished delegates, unless they are "experts" and therefore presumably Muslim. If I have got that wrong and non-Muslim experts are acceptable, I will be quick to apologise.


For those of you who like solving simultaneous equations, or are logicians, I have a little exercise. If criticising Islam = Islamophobia, and Islamophobia = racism (as we are told), and racism = unacceptable (as we agree), does this therefore mean that criticising Islam is unacceptable? That is the very questionable algebra or dubious logic that is being increasingly employed to silence critics in the UK by guilt-tripping them. We must not allow criticism to be stifled in this manipulative way. I'm very much struck by Indian born UK writer Kenan Malik's opinion that: "The trouble with Islamophobia is that it is an irrational concept. It confuses hatred of, and discrimination against, Muslims, on the one hand, with criticism of Islam on the other. The charge of 'Islamophobia' is all too often used not to highlight racism but to stifle criticism. And, in reality, discrimination against Muslims is not as great as is often perceived - but criticism of Islam should be greater. All too often Islamophobia is used as an excuse in a way to kind of blackmail society."



I am not suggesting that restrictions to freedom of expression are the monopoly of any one religion. I therefore oppose all blasphemy laws, and helped in the abolition of the UK's remaining (Christian) blasphemy laws. We also know of censorship by Sikhs and Hindus. The worst example of countries operating a blasphemy law, however, is Pakistan where accusing a rival of blasphemy is a convenient way of removing them. Not only does this result in their removal to jail, but the survival prospects of those accused of blasphemy, far less convicted of it, is very poor. And the judiciary are wary of even trying such cases.


Looking at the categories of Muslim influence in What Islam Isn't, it is clear what is now happening in the UK and elsewhere around the world. Islamic street propaganda must be seen for what it is. 


Jesus was NOT a Muslim. He died on the Cross and is the fulfilment of the prophecies.