Playing the victim

Hat tip to The Spectator for this video clip, "BBC mayoral debate: Sadiq and Zac try to set the record straight over ‘extremism’ allegations".

In the clip a student from Notting Hill complains that her Muslim friends often felt uncomfortable in public when in Islamic dress. She asked the candidates how they could help tackle such prejudice in the city. 

Understandably candidates seeking votes do not want to alienating voters so Muslims in Islamic dress are identified as victims of prejudice without question.

A comparison:

Source: Daily Sabah/AA Photo

Diyanet Center of America, a Turkish-funded complex containing culture centers and one of the largest mosques in the United States, was inaugurated on Saturday by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who defined the site as a place to serve American Muslims and spread Islam’s message of love and compassion - DAILY SABAH

From Gatestone Institute: "Turkey Builds Mega-Mosque in U.S., Blocks Churches in Turkey":

• As yet another enormous mosque has opened in the U.S. (funded by the Turkish government), Christians in Turkey are waiting for the day when Turkish state authorities will allow them freely to build or use their churches and safely pray inside them.

• In Turkey, some churches have been converted to stables or used as storehouses. Others have been completely destroyed. Sales of churches on the internet are a common practice.

• Meanwhile, Turkish President Erdogan said during the opening ceremony of the Maryland mosque that the center was important at a time of an "unfortunate rise in intolerance towards Muslims in the United States and the world."

• How would Muslims feel if mosques in Mecca were put up for sale on the internet, turned into stables, or razed to the ground? How would they feel if a Muslim child were beaten in the classroom by his teacher for not saying "Jesus is my Lord and Savior?" How would they feel if they continually received violent threats or insults for just attempting peacefully to worship in their mosques?

It is too easy to play the victim.

The road to ruin

The Bishop of Willesden, the Rt Rev Peter Broadbent, having a laugh.     Source: The Telegraph

From The Telegraph: Dress-down Sundays: Church considers making clerical dress optional.

"Heavenly hoodies? Church of England takes first step to relaxing clerical dress rules in effort to become more “relevant” to 21st Century". Surely they mean irrelevant.

Also, from The Guardian: Church of England members back same-sex marriage. Poll shows for first time more Anglicans supporting gay couples marrying than opposing it, despite leadership’s opposition. "The lowest levels of support for same-sex marriage – 24% – were found among Anglican men over the age of 55, a group that dominates the church leadership." But for how long?

"Jayne Ozanne, a leading gay activist within the C of E, who commissioned the poll from YouGov, said this finding was “deeply worrying”. “Unfortunately, this is exactly the profile of those in the senior positions of power and influence within the church,” she said.

Meanwhile ready to fill the vacuum UK Mosque Open Day is being promoted on social media and lists of participating places of worship are being posted on Facebook "which organisers hope will bring in more young people, among others".

As the Church destroys herself by becoming "relevant to society" the so called religion of peace is busy spreading its influence. Is it any surprise that "Islam may soon become the most dominant religion in the world, eclipsing Christianity". One thing we can be sure of there will be no mention that Christians will have to convert, pay the tax or die (Qur’an 9:29).

Postscript

Poll spun to apply pressure to Church of England on same-sex 'marriage'.

Clang!

Photo: 'The Bell'

Writing a tribute to the retiring Dean in the July/August 2012 edition of the Llandaff Parish Magazine, The Bell, Archbishop Morgan wrote: 
"The Dean is called to be pastor to the congregation; to be someone who can, through the Cathedral’s worship, showcase best liturgical practice and someone who enables a ministry of welcome to organisations, parishes and institutions, so that through that ministry people feel that they are valued and cherished by God. It is an awesome responsibility." Without a hint of irony the Archbishop continued, "I have therefore appointed myself to be “in charge” of the Cathedral for the next few months".

In the September edition he writes of the Church in Wales Review Recommendation VIII, (The distinctive role of each cathedral as a centre of excellence should be fully integrated into the mission and ministry strategy of its Diocese):

    "It makes clear, what we know already, that any cathedral is central to the life of the diocese in which it is set.  Llandaff Cathedral as well as being a parish church is a place (like any other church, but with a special responsibility for it) of welcome, hospitality and friendship.  The Cathedral extends this to all the parishes of the diocese because it is  the diocesan church par excellence.  That dual role could lead to a conflict between the needs of parish and diocese.  That should never be the case, but rather should be embraced as a glorious opportunity to minister not just to the local community (the parish) but to the wider family of the diocese as well. 
That is why it is the Bishop’s church, the place where he has his chair – the place, in other words, where he has his home but the place from which he exercises oversight over the wider diocesan family.  And, it is in my capacity as Bishop, that I have decided to exercise direct oversight over the Cathedral for the time being."

So there you have it. The Archbishop has taken on the 'awesome responsibility' of making sure people feel that they are valued and cherished by God. Unless his words are intended as a veiled criticism of his former Dean's stewardship, this initiative comes rather late in his ministry. The truth is that people already feel valued and cherished by God but not by the Archbishop who sees ministry only on his terms. Claiming to be "gobsmacked" when he was appointed in 2003, Archbishop Morgan said he was "just an ordinary bloke who's got ordinary interests". Hardly! Just before his enthronement he came out with this observation:
   "Lots of priests who are homosexual by orientation don't practice and lead celibate lives and that is not a problem. "The problem comes if someone is homosexual and is promiscuous - then that is real issue, whether homosexual or heterosexual." He added:
the main challenge for the church concerned making "the connection between faith and life".

In another parish church at the other end of his diocese a packed congregation met on Sunday to celebrate the Feast of the Assumption in the knowledge that a much loved sister church looks set to be sold off to the local Muslim community, adherents of  a religion noted for its harsh treatment of homosexuality often leading to the death sentence but for reasons best known to himself, on good terms with the Archbishop. The question being asked was, "Will Archbishop Barry be prepared publicly to declare his support for female imams and same sex marriages in mosques?"  

For dwindling congregations the reality is that his liberal policy of 'connecting faith with life' has all but killed off the Church in Wales while facilitating illiberal Muslim expansion in his diocese but at least the Archbishop can be satisfied that in mosques, 'people feel that they are valued and cherished by God' - strictly on their terms of course. More here.  

Clang!

Postscript

In the last paragraph, above, I provided two links to reports of the oppression of Christians in Pakistan. Damian Thompson has  since published an article, Radical Islam revives an ancient hatred. It highlights the problems facing Christian minorities throughout the world. Read it here. Compared with issues surrounding homosexuality and the role of women in the church, the fate of Christians abroad receives very little attention. Celebrating diversity in our own country enhances the feel-good factor but this myopia ignores the fact that while good relations may be shared with minority Muslim communities, when Christians are in the minority the picture changes radically. To Muslims, Christians (and Jews) are "the worst of creatures" but this is not made obvious when Muslims are in the minority. In these circumstances deception is employed to hoodwink the gullible, see here (advance to position 18 if short of time and watch the whole later). Afterwards try to find 90 Mins to watch Islam - What The West Needs To Know.

Our 'multi-cultural' society

I missed the Channel 4 programme, Make Bradford British, but since it has been referred to so many times and debated on the BBC's Question Time I caught up with it on 4OD. There is a Telegraph review here. Reading the review, I see I was not alone in thinking that Rashid, a Muslim former Rugby League player made the biggest impact. The reason being that out of eight people from various backgrounds brought together in an integration experiment he was the least co-operative, not out of malice, but because his religion came first which was clearly disappointing for the others in the house. What put a different complexion on the proceedings was not that Rashid insisted on praying five times a day but that he had to go to the mosque to pray, delaying the dinner he had offered to cook (he eventually went to a take-away) and disrupting the experiment in the process. The reason? In his own words because he would get a lot more blessings and rewards, the reward being '27 to 25 times more' if he prayed in a congregation rather than at home.

For most Christians, buying one's way to paradise is an alien concept, a concept explained here in 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques'. This article stresses that 'praying in the mosque and being attached to the mosque is a very pious and rewardable action gathering rewards and good deeds for the hereafter. God loves and rewards those who find repose and comfort in the mosques. Whoever builds a mosque seeking the pleasure of God, God builds a similar one for him in paradise'.The following paragraph helps to explain the thinking of Muslims and to understand the pressure for more mosques to be built: 'There are six places in which a person is guaranteed the safekeeping of God, the Most High, as long as he is in one of them. In a congregational mosque, with a sick person, at a funeral, in his house, with a just ruler whom he supports and treats with respect, or at a place where people are fighting jihad! [my emphasis - Ed]. 


With almost daily stories of Christian churches being burned to the ground in Islamic states and worshippers murdered or driven out of their homeland it is illuminating to read "Britain is among the safest places for people to worship freely and in peace, an Islamic leader has said at the opening of a new £900,000 mosque in Feltham, west London" despite the constant reports of supposed Islamophobia. There is an interesting juxtaposition between the 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques' article referred to above and an article in the Left Foot Forward Blog  under the headline 'Warsi’s call for the dominance of Christianity ignores that it’s Islam under threat'. In defence of mosque building, towards the end of the article there is a complaint about a statement in the Telegraph back in 2006: 
   "the most prominent religious building in the camera shot will not be one of the city’s iconic churches that have shaped the nation’s history, such as St Paul’s Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, but the mega mosque. Its arrival in London will be a significant coup for Islam and a major event for the country as a whole’. However, there was no complaint or even a mention about the introduction to the article where 'Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for "daring" to visit a Muslim area." This a concept that is spreading, a problem which was referred to in the CH4 programme where Bradford City centre was said to be now 95% Asian.


But these double standards are something to which we have become so accustomed that we hardly turn a hair. It was no surprise then that the head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, admitted that 'We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed'. Of course if anyone dared to offend Muslims there would be demonstrations and death threats from those who say they are British but Muslim first. They believe that 'Mosques are special places filled with blessings and rewards, however, God has conferred a special blessing upon the nation of Muslims, the whole earth has been declared a mosque, so when the time for prayer comes and a believer is unable to pray in congregation in a building he may pray wherever he may be.' Hence the use of surrounding streets to justify more and bigger buildings. 


We are surrounded by Islamic symbols be it mosque or Islamic dress and threatened with retribution against perceived threats while Christians are denied the opportunity to express their religion other than in their churches. The authorities pussyfoot around making endless excuses about unrepresentative extremists in apparent ignorance of fundamental Islamic teaching which regards non-Muslims as underdogs in a world that belongs to Allah. In the Question Time programme I referred to above, most speakers uttered the usual bland platitudes about living together apparently unconcerned about David Starkey's complaint that he was the one who would be arrested if he criticised the Quran because it prescribed the death sentence for his homosexuality, one of many Islamic 'sins' attracting the death penalty such as apostasy and blasphemy, often used to oppress Christians, particularly in Pakistan. 


Unusual for the BBC, today's Breakfast News reported on the 'divided loyalties' of one million Pakistanis living in Great Britain out of 3.7 million expatriates who are to be given the vote in Pakistan in recognition that 5% of Pakistan's GDP had been sent back by overseas Pakistanis showing “solidarity and integrity of our motherland” despite their country's failure to protect minorities, something they insist on in Great Britain. On top of this comes the revelation that British war graves on the outskirts of Benghazi have been desecrated by Islamist militants and the symbol of Christ's redeeming love, the Cross, attacked with sledge hammers. This after Libyans had pleaded with the West to assist them in their struggle for freedom and the outrage expressed after burning some copies of the Quran. 


No doubt the CH4 experiment will show that multiculturalism can work in a house of eight people designed for the purpose but in the real world, Christianity is suppressed and only Islam is shown any respect, something that our children now pick up in school adding to the impression that in our multi-cultural society, Islam is holy when all the evidence is to the contrary. Apologists for a political ideology that seeks our demise should get their heads out of the sand, look around them and listen to someone with experience.

The two faces of Islam

 

Spot the difference? 

The picture on the left shows what is left of another burnt-out church, this one in Zanzibar. Just one of many atrocities against Christians carried out in over 50 countries around the world with little or no comment let alone condemnation. 


The second picture is of a Mosque in Woking, Surrey, built in 1889, the first mosque to be built in the UK and Northern Europe. When Conservative Home reported on Saudi Arabia's funding of Islamism in 2006 there were thought to be around 1,600 mosques in Britain. Clicking on 'All towns' in this link now shows 1993 mosques, a 25% increase. Sunderland lists two, Sunderland Masjid and Masjid ibn Taymeeyahwith capacities of 345 and 195 respectively, 'including women' with the note, "The five times daily salaah in congregation in the masjid is enjoined on men, not on women. Women's salaah is expected to be discreet and private and therefore performed at home. About 72% of UK masjids make some provision for women, but many of these do so by allocating space only when specially asked for. Larger purpose-built masjids often have a gallery over the main masjid room, part or all of which is for women's use. (Excerpt from our book, Islam and Muslims in Britain - A Guide.)"


"The former, Millfield Mosque, also know as the Mosque of Sunderland, is illegal. Sunderland City Council has already agreed to sell the disused vehicle depot in St Mark’s Road, Millfield, which is hoped to provide a replacement for the “illegal” mosque operating further up the road. Many residents are furious at the plans, with one claiming Millfield will “end up being Mosquefield” and the council has received 623 letters of objection and a petition bearing 1,462 signatures." All part of the democratic process? Not at all. This is the customary cry of 'Islamophobia!' designed to silence protesters along with critics of the Islamification of Britain and beyond.

Why do we tolerate the Islamification of our country when there are ample reports worldwide which plainly illustrate the Islamic agenda resulting in death and destruction? All mosque building in the UK should be banned at least until there is clear evidence that Muslims accord to Christians and others  the same freedoms they demand for themselves.


Update - Report from Iraq: In a country that used to be home to around five million Christians, only 200,000 remain today. Many have fled north to the relative safety of Kurdistan, while others have left the country altogether. [17/01/12]


Postscript
From today's Guardian [16/01/12], 'Sharia law compatible with human rights, argues leading barrister'. Googling 'sharia law sentences' will find plenty of examples to challenge this; there just two here and here. 


The Guardian article ends with the 'Top five sharia myths', the first about amputation claiming that 'Of the world's 50 or so Muslim-majority states, only about half a dozen allow for amputations'. Oh good show, that's OK then - unless your country is one of the half a dozen. Similarly, 'Stoning is mentioned in the Qur'an' with a nuanced  denial that victims can contemplate while rocks of just the right size are enthusiastically hurled by those without sin. Again, 'Capital punishment for apostasy is mentioned by the Qur'an' - The Qur'an repeatedly warns believers who abandon their faith that they will have to account to God in the afterlife, but it does not provide for their punishment on earth. It was hadiths that later served to justify the death penalty. So that's OK too, death under hadith not the Qur'an.


I shall not comment on each but I can't ignore 'That suicide bombing is permissible under sharia law' with a duplicitous denial . Go to position 29 on this link for a detailed explanation of this deception. It explains that suicide bombers are regarded as martyrs dying for their cause and earning themselves a place in paradise. Better still, if you haven't already done so, watch the whole video. If you would rather take the article on trust, you should at least watch this video to understand the two faces of Islam.

For Christ's sake

Unlike Islam, when Christianity receives a bad press most people shrug their shoulders but the barnabasfund is doing what all Christians should be doing, standing up for Christ. Some pay the ultimate price but for the majority of us it should be sufficient to admit to being Christian and defend the faith.

Operation Nehemiah is at the forefront of barnabasfund operations defending Christians and Christianity with various campaigns. One of these is their petition against the Islamisation of our food. Halal products are now routinely sold without the knowledge of consumers. Supermarkets have become complicit in this outrageous practice. Recently I asked for Welsh lamb in the knowledge that most imported lamb is now halal. The butcher falsely claimed that halal 'only meant a blessing' when what it really means is that the animal is bled to death while conscious listening to a cry that 'Allah is great' because of a belief that the animal was 'unclean'. A second butcher told me that even the Welsh lamb was now halal!


I do not wish to minimise unnecessary suffering caused to animals but for Christians there is also an important religious point. There is only one God, the God of the Bible who tells us that it is not what goes into the body that is unclean but what comes out. The problem for non-Muslims is that halal has to be properly certified for which there is a fee. The cost of this procedure is included in the price and part of what we pay is used for the benefit of Islam to the detriment of Christianity.


More visible than unlabelled food are the increasing numbers of Islamic centres and mosques built bigger and better than other places of worship with calls to prayer that imprint a Muslim identity on neighbourhoods. These often draw in worshippers from afar until Islamification is complete. In church schools facilities are being provided for Muslims to cleanse themselves before prayer at the expense of providing facilities for all with the implicit validation of a culture that believes non-Muslims to be inferior and unclean. There are many other issues such as the rising Muslim population due to immigration and higher birth rates.


If you are one of the Christians who simple shrugs his/her shoulders or yawns having been conned into believing the myth of Islamophobia, then go to the barnabasfund website shop and order Dr Patrick Sookhdeo's "Slippery Slope - The Islamificaion of the UK". It costs only 50p incl p&p. You will be amazed. Better still, order a few for others to read, add a donation and get involved, not just for you own but for Christ's sake.

'Michael Gove's "other reason" for opposing a mosque'

One of yesterday' blog entries on Political Scrapbook posed the question, "What are your other reasons [for opposing a mosque] Mr Gove? In this long running battle over building a mosque in Camberly there have been claims that the mosque would pose a security threat because it overlooks the parade ground used by every new officer in the British Army. Even if that were not the case, the idea is as tactless as the notion of building a Muslim Centre in the shadow of Ground Zero. How could anyone possibly countenance the idea of building a mosque with minarets overlooking the parade ground blasting out "Allahu Akbar!" after Muslim protests against British troops? 


For centuries Christian churches and other sites have been converted by Islamic invaders into mosques. Today there are many stories of churches being destroyed in Muslim countries, often with worshippers still inside them yet the dhimmis in our midst aid cultural jihad by supporting every Muslim request and complaint, endorsing the building of ever more mosques in this country. 


If anyone wants reasons for resisting the Islamisation of Britain look here, here, here, here, here, here and here, read from the front line here or closer to home here. 

Wake up call

This tiny, carefully constructed island which the warbler calls home has been occupied by a fellow creature which she feeds and cares for as her own. Her inbred instincts of kindness and generosity overwhelm her, completely unaware that the cuckoo in her nest has a wholly different agenda.

The Christian faith which shaped much of our heritage is on the wane but unwittingly its principles still motivate the lives of most people in the British Isles; love thy neighbour, do unto others as you wish to be done by, etc. Familiar Christian landmarks like the vast Cathedral churches struggle on aided by tourism. Smaller churches which were built with their Norman towers in sight of others to warn of invasion still dot the landscape while town and city churches and chapels close, many to become Mosques. And why shouldn’t they people ask? Muslims need somewhere to pray! They ask as though the Muslim call to prayer is simply an expression of a faith which many Christians and other religions have now lost, unaware that it is a completely different religious ideology. They hear talk of peace - but at what price?

Islam is alien to our culture. The Koran is not the same as the Bible. When Muslims talk of peace they mean peace under Islam and Sharia law, not as we know it. Biblical-type argument in which one verse is pitched against another does not exist. In the Koran earlier verses are abrogated by later verses permitting dissemblance and are regarded as commandments. To this aim deception (taqiyya) is not only permitted but encouraged. In religious Islam the objective is clear for those who want to see it. Political Islam is less clear. How much is deception?

There have been warnings in the press of political infiltration but much is ignored in the guise of democratic rights and political correctness. That is a huge mistake. The democratic rights they demand under British law would be denied us under Islam. To allow the spread of a system that seeks to suppress all others is political and religious suicide. If it were a virus there would be health warnings. The fact that it is a religion is worse because people are intimidated against questioning it through fear of being accused of racism yet in Muslim countries Christians are persecuted and driven out. Couldn't happen here? Lebanon used to be a Christian country; it is no longer.

We were warned!

Back in 2008, the then Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, created a bit of a stir when he claimed that "Islamic extremists have created "no-go" zones across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter". Some agreed while others differed to the point of rubbishing his remarks, most notably the Muslim Council of Britain. From the evidence presented in a recent French TV broadcast, Bishop Nazir-Ali was correct in his warning.

Although I am not familiar with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets itself, I have no reason to think that the programme was biased. Other media coverage, particularly of the Mayoral election process, highlights worrying influences. More information can easily be found on the internet, including a reference to "the loathsome Andrew Gilligan" indicating the amount of politicking involved there. Manipulation for political advantage aside, the more one reads, the uglier it looks with echoes of the reference to taqiyya in the video highlighted in my previous post.

Bishop Nazir-Ali, the only Asian bishop in the Church of England, warned in The Telegraph "that attempts are being made to give Britain an increasingly Islamic character by introducing the call to prayer and wider use of Sharia law, a legal system based on the Koran." Looking around I see plenty of evidence to support his view from the now familiar Muslim dress and occupation of redundant churches and chapels to the defence of their faith at the cost of others. Is that a sign of our religious tolerance or our complacency?

Link (Note the first comment). Link2 (Blog) Link3 (Video)

Gay “Marriage”

Reports that Gay and Lesbian couples could soon be allowed to “marry” in church strike a wrong note. According to The Times, “senior bishops in the Lords have [said] that they will support an amendment to the Equality Bill next month that will lift the ban on civil partnership ceremonies in religious premises. The amendment would remove the legislative prohibition on blessings of homosexual couples and open the door to the registration of civil partnerships in churches, synagogues, mosques and all other religious premises.”

Advocates of change will be quick to point out that a blessing is not a marriage but that will not stop a blurring of the ceremonies. In June 2008 The Telegraph reported that two male Anglican priests exchanged vows and rings in a ceremony that was conducted using one of the church's most traditional wedding rites. The report continued, “Although some liberal clergy have carried out "blessing ceremonies" for homosexual couples in the past, this is the first time a vicar has performed a "wedding ceremony", using a traditional marriage liturgy, with readings, hymns and a Eucharist.”

The introduction of civil partnerships righted a serious wrong but that is what they are. To blur the distinction between a civil partnership and a religious ceremony in which marriage is proclaimed in the Anglican Marriage Service Preface as “the foundation of family life in which children are born and nurtured” is nonsense. Civil partners “in good times and in bad, may find strength, companionship and comfort, and grow to maturity in love” but they are not “married”.