Friday, September 22, 2006

Ann Widdecombe Conservative MP champions free speech

During BBC Question Time (21st September 2006):

Ann Widdecombe said:
"But let me say this: I also believe very strongly that in this country [Britain], if we are to have good relations, [with Muslims] we must have one law for all.

Now there were people [Muslims] standing outside Westminster cathedral bearing enormous plackards saying:
'Jesus is the slave of Allah'
'Islam will conquer Rome'
and nothing happened.

Can you imagine what would happen if I stood outside a Mosque, with a big plackard saying 'Rome will conquer Islam'?

I would actually be in front of the courts.

Now weve got to have a situation where there is mutual respect, but where the same law is applied to all of us."

[considerable applause from the audience]



... later in the programme ...


Regarding the lecture by the Pope:

Sir Christopher Meyer, former British Ambassador to the U.S. said:

"I have no idea whether the Pope did this deliberately, or whether he made a mistake, and frankly I don't care.

I think he has a perfect right to say what he says, and he has said it.

It has been taken out of context, and people have got unrteasonably steamed up about an obscure late 14th century Byzantine emperor.

But I think there is something even more important than this:
And that is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

[applause]

I want to make one final point: The freedom of speech comes with the freedom to be offensive. It comes, from time to time, with the freedom to upset people.

The important thing is: When it happens, be it said by a Catholic Pope, or by a Muslim, the reaction of the authorities and the law should be an absolutely level playing field for everyone, and we don't have that.

[applause]

The Pope does not have to be a diplomat, he does have to be true to his faith. I am not a Catholic."

[applause]


Regarding the address by Home Secretary John Reid to Muslim parents:

Ann Widdecombe said:
"We have to ask this question:
Are we concerned that Muslim young men have been and are being indoctrinated by those who wish to destroy rather than to build up our society?

If the answer to that is 'yes', then where would we expect the first vigilance to start? It would be in families.

I don't think that John Reid said anything that was contrary to common sense, or contrary to the concerned spirit that people now have about what is going on."



The full "Question Time" programme can be viewed on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/question_time/

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

QC recognises the irony of Islamic violence

Here is a letter to The Times (of London), by QC Robert Rhodes.

Robert Rhodes was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1989, and has been a Crown Court Recorder since 1987.

It is high time that the legal system woke up to the very real threat of Islam.

Is it not also ironic that two senior members of the British National Party are facing a trial for speaking out about the dangers of Islam, whilst we see Muslims waving placards calling for the slaughter of innocent civilians, seemingly without any interference by the Police?


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,59-2362591_1,00.html


Sir, It might strike some of your readers as ironic that complaints about the Pope’s recent speech allegedly linking Islam with violence were associated with the burning of his effigy.

ROBERT RHODES, QC
Outer Temple Chambers, London WC2

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Rowan Williams on Prince Charles Defender of the Faith

Charles Moore talks to Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, at Lambeth Palace (extract)


Q: What do you think of the Prince of Wales's proposal to be titled Defender of Faith rather than Defender of the Faith?

A: I'm glad that the Prince of Wales takes faith communities as seriously as he does but the actual title, there is an historical, constitutional framework for it which you don't just change by fiat. Unless something really radical happens with the constitution he is, like it or not, Defender of the Faith and he has a relationship with the Christian Church of a kind which he does not have with other faith communities. But three cheers that he has the seriousness he has about this.


Q: Do you think he accepts that, in fact?

A: I think he does.


Q: But you think he has a particular relationship with the Christian faith, and a change of title might suggest that that wasn't there any more, so you have that concern, do you?

A: Well, it would be a large issue, wouldn't it. It wouldn't just be a matter of words. The fact is that that the monarch is the supreme governor and is such in virtue of being the prime lay person of a Christian Church.


Q: And that situation would carry on as well?

A: As long as that constitutional situation prevails. It's rather difficult to be the leading lay person of a Christian Church if you are not a lay person of a Christian Church.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Carey speech on Islam 2004

Address given by Lord Carey of Clifton (former Archbishop of Canterbury) at the Gregorian University, Rome, on Thursday, March 25 2004 in which he criticised Islamic culture and regimes

Christianity and Islam: Collison or convergence?

I would like to begin this lecture by thanking Dr Eugene McCarthy for the privilege of being a McCarthy Visiting Professor this year at the Gregorian University. I have enjoyed the experience immensely and am grateful to the Dean, Dr. Franco Imoda, for his kindness and Fr.Bill Henn for his considerable helpfulness in so many ways.

We have been housed in a delightful cottage at the Irish College and I do want to express our gratitude also to the Dean, the staff and students of the College for way they have welcomed us so warmly. It is a great example of Irish/English relationships at their best!

The theme of my course at the Gregorian has been 'Unity and Mission'. My desire to offer a lecture on Christian-Muslim relations tonight has not only been fired by the course I have given, but also because for the last ten years or so it has been an important strand in my ministry as a Christian leader.

I need to make it plain, however, that I am not, in a technical sense, an expert on Islam or someone who is a
specialist in one of its disciplines. What I can claim is that for many years I have spent a great deal of time with some of the most important names in Islam – Dr Tantawi, Hassan al-Turabi, King Hussein, Prince Hassan, King Abdullah, Professor Akbar Ahmed and many other Muslim leaders and scholars – seeking to build bridges of understanding between two great faiths.

In retirement I continue to engage in dialogue through the Alexander Declaration Process which attempts to bring Muslim, Jewish and Christian leaders together in Israel and Palestine.

A second project I am involved in is a business driven initiative founded by the World Economic Forum. Together with Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia, I co-Chair the Council of 100 leaders from different professions and disciplines which has, as its aim, to strengthen links between the West and Islam.

My wife and I have also been to many Muslim countries and appreciate the strength and depth of Islam. I think I can say with some confidence that I have a reasonable idea of the challenges that Islam presents to Christianity and the West and the challenges that Islam faces today. Whether colliding faiths and cultures can find ways of living together in harmony and peace is one of the most urgent questions of our time.

To say we live in dangerous and unstable times is perhaps the understatement of the year. '911', the emergency telephone number in the United States similar to '999' in the United Kingdom or 113 here in Italy, has become the shorthand for the terror unleashed on America in 2001.

Since 911 terrorist violence has shown no sign of abating. The attempt to dismantle the al-Qaeda network and hunt down its leader, Osama bin Laden; the Iraq war and the ongoing conflict in the country; the tragedy of the bitter conflict in a land called 'holy' by three world faiths; the oft-repeated statements by leaders of many countries that violence on the scale of the Madrid atrocity must be expected by all western nations – all this and more make the subject of the lecture deeply relevant.

And at the heart of our concern is Islam; a faith, a civilisation and a culture. A faith, that is growing fast in
every part of the world; a civilisation, that has contributed greatly the human family and still has much to offer; a culture, with a unique texture that appeals to millions.

However, wherever we look, Islam seems to be embroiled in conflict with other faiths and other cultures. It is in opposition to practically every other world religion- to Judaism in the Middle East; to Christianity in the West, in Nigeria, and in the Middle East; to Hinduism in India; to Buddhism, especially since the destruction of the Temples in Afghanistan.

We are presented therefore with a huge puzzle concerning Islam. Why is it associated with violence throughout the world? Is extremism so ineluctably bound up with its faith that we are at last seeing its true character? Or could it be that a fight for the soul of Islam is going on that requires another great faith, Christianity, to support and encourage the vast majority of Muslims who resist this identification of
their faith with terrorism?

Undoubtedly, Islam's association with terrorism presents an enormous challenge for all seeking a peaceful, prosperous world. Listen to Samuel Huntington, one of the most important voices in these matters in recent days. In 1993 he published a controversial essay entitled The Clash of Civilisations. His thesis was that the collapse of communism signalled the end of ideological battles of the political kind. Western capitalism was now dominant. The next battle he claimed will be the clash of cultures, with Islamic and Christian
civilisations separating the world.

Scholars, writers, religious thinkers and politicians rejected this idea as flawed for historical, theological and
intellectual reasons. But Huntington was unrepentant. In 1997 he published a book of the same name, modifying the thesis but retaining the underlying argument that a clash between two great cultures was inevitable. In an extraordinary claim he insisted: "Islam's borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their
power".

Penetrating and disturbing - even shocking- words. Are they true to the facts? Certainly September 11 seemed to confirm his thesis that in our own day we are witnessing a clash of cultures and are dealing with two quite different world-views.

In order to go deeper into the issue allow me to ask four questions:

What are the reasons for Islam's association with terrorism and death?

What challenges does Islam itself face?

What is Islam's challenge to the West in general and Christianity in particular?

How may we move from collision to convergence in mutual understanding and respect?

ISLAM AND TERROR

To begin with, it is crucial to stress the positive before we get to the negative. Islam is the second largest religion in the world and the name means 'submission to God'.

There are over one billion Muslims in the world and the vast majority are peaceful and good people just as anxious as we are to bring up their children to live in harmony with others.

And, like Christianity, Islam is far from monochrome in its make-up. It too is composed of many groups and sects and its people include secular as well as religious Muslims. Yes, they too have people who are Muslim in name only.

As J.A. Williams points out in his book The World of Islam there has always been a secular side to Islam even though the resurgence of the faith since 1970 has tended to mask this aspect.

Whether religious or nominal, it is important to recognise that the vast majority of Muslims, like Christians, are honourable and good people who hate violence and are distressed to note that they are lumped together with evil and misguided people. We should never seek to demonise them or their faith. But a fight for the soul of Islam is going on.

Why is it now associated with violence and terrorism?

Let me, for the sake of brevity, approach this from a historical perspective. Although Christians and Muslims have got on very well in countries where both have settled, along with their Jewish neighbours, there have periods when both faiths have sought to expand territorially and have clashed in bloody and bitter conflict.

The Crusades are a clear example of this where attempts were made to regain former Christian lands with unfortunate consequences for both faiths.

In the 16th and 17th centuries militant Islam invaded Hungary, Poland, Ukraine and even reached the gates of Vienna.

Such facts contradict the assertion by Mohammed Madhi Shams Ed-Din in an International Conference hosted by the Gregorian University in May 2000 that: 'Aggression has been Christian in all (most) great encounters and Islam's stance has always been defensive in all (most) cases' (p.45) No.

That both Christianity as well as Islam have had such episodes of militarism should not surprise us. The facts insist that neither faith can take the high moral ground and accuse the other of using weapons of destruction.

Apart from such well-known clashes, adherents of all three world religions were able to live in peace, even though the cost of it for many Christians and Jews in some lands was to accept the position as 'protected' (Dhimmi) citizens and pay a corresponding tax.

From the 18th through to the 20th centuries the fortunes of Muslim countries took a dip for the worst. Whilst Christian countries benefited from the fruits of the Industrial Revolution much of the Middle East has lagged behind ever since.

As a young man doing my National Service in Iraq in the 50's it was understandable why so many people of my generation, looking at such societies superficially, considered Islam to be a backward looking faith, associated with backward societies, with massive problems of illiteracy and corruption.

1967, however, is viewed by many as a turning point in the minds of many Muslims. In that year the Arab nations- Syria, Egypt and Jordan – mounted a surprise attack against Israel and were humiliated in battle.
Great swathes of Arab land were taken, Sinai, Gaza and the Golan Heights in particular. From 1967 onwards Muslims began to analyse the reasons for their defeat at the hands of the Israelis.

That event, scorched in their memories proved to be a turning point. Many concluded that a return to the simplicity of Islamic faith and wholehearted adherence to the Koran was necessary. To follow the West and to emulate its ways seemed to be the road to decadence and moral decline.

From this period on reform and renewal movements begin to appear in Islam which in spite of different emphases have one common aim, that is, to restore greatness to Islam.

Despising the political passivity of conservative Islam on the one hand, and the eagerness of modernist Muslims to embrace aspects of secularism on the other, radical movements are one in their desire to re-Islamise Muslim societies and fight the encroaching secularism and materialism that they see coming
from the West.

Although it is understandable to call such groups 'fundamentalist', the term, borrowed from the Christian world where it means a literal interpretation of the Bible, is inappropriate when applied to radical groups in Islam.

J.A.Williams makes a distinction between 'revivalists' whose aim is to help Muslims return to the fundamentals of Islamic faith and 'radical activists', who encourage a fight against infidels. It is more accurate to call radical activists, whose creed calls them to bring about revolution through violence, what they are – terrorists. But that is to anticipate; and we must continue to explore the reasons why such groups came into
being.

If 1967 represents a real politicising of Islam in the hearts and minds of many Muslims we have to look to Saudi Arabia, the heartland of Islam, to trace one of the major sources of radical Islamic thought.

Two hundred years ago a Reform movement had swept through Saudi Arabia through the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab. Uniting with Muhammad Ibn Saud, a powerful chief, Mohammed ibn Abd al-Wahhab subdued other tribes and imposed what Prof. John Esposito has described ' a puritanical form of Islam' on the people. We should note that Wahhabi puritanism deemed it belonged to the purity of faith to destroy the sacred tombs of Mohammed and his companions in Mecca and Medina. Today, it is the Wahhabi form of Islam that is being exported to other countries and communities in Muslim lands.

Its intolerant and tyrannical beliefs lend themselves to young impressionable minds searching for certainties. The politicisation of young Saudi Muslims was completed in our own day when the impotence of Muslim countries was compared with what they regard the decadence of the West with its materialistic power. As Saudis became rich with oil, they had, to hand, financial resources to beat the West at its own game.

It wasn't to be long before some of them tried.

If 1967 represented humiliation for many Muslims, 1979 is of major significance for Islam as militant forms appeared, giving some dubious credibility to the thought that violence is a tool to be used. The first provocation was the invasion of Afghanistan by Russia. Muslims world-wide were outraged.

As one Muslim friend put it to me 'Russians were not merely infidels, they were worse- they were unbelieving infidels!' Atheists and a 'house of war' was now a reality. A jihad was called and mujahidin – warriors- were called to fight a war to the death. It was, as we know, a turning point in the life of a rich, very tall young Saudi, Osama bin Laden, who used his wealth to set up camps in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets.

The invasion of Afghanistan represents the radicalisation of the elite of Saudi youth. The irony was that the Americans saw leadership qualities in Osama bin Laden to undermine the Russian invasion and the United States supplied him and his comrades, now in the Al Qaeda network, with training, money, ammunition and supplies.

1979 was also of importance for the Muslim world as Shiites in Iran overturned the secular regime in a spectacular coup and formed the Iranian Islamic Republic. In 1989 another coup took place in Sudan when Col Omar al-Bashir took over control of that impoverished country and enlisted the aid of a formidable
intellectual Hassan al-Turabi.

Dr Turabi, a Sorbonne-educated lawyer, a polite and polished intellectual, has a clear and unambiguous vision to impose Islam on the whole world and make Sharia law mandatory- an imposition achieved, more or less, in Sudan.

In 1994, seemingly from nowhere, a group of students living on the borders of Pakistan called the Taleban took control of Afghanistan claiming moral leadership and imposing an ultra-conservative form of Wahhabism on an impoverished country that needed an open, enlightened vision not the myopic, self-contained world of the Taliban.

In the year 2000, Osama bin Laden, now fully alienated from America and the west, announced the formation of a World Islamic Front for a Jihad against Americans and Crusaders (a euphemism for Christians).

This action may have been taken in part because of a strong sense of betrayal, as it seemed to the Afghans that the Americans had abandoned them after their sacrifices fighting the Soviets. However, the world-wide implications were very serious.

For the minority of Muslims in such movements as the World Islamic Front and the Muslim Brotherhood, the world was now divided into a veritable 'house of Islam' and 'house of war'.

For bin Laden and militants 'Jihad' now had only one meaning- a struggle to death for the soul of Islam. The alternative and basic sense of 'jihad' as a word denoting a struggle to be good and peaceful Muslims through moral and religious ways was now in danger of being lost.

On September 11 2001 the World Islamic Front struck through dedicated young men who were prepared to die with the Koran at their side shouting 'Allah is great!' guiding huge planes to destroy the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. With them died many hundreds of others who were going about their lawful and good business. Further atrocities were to follow. A few days after Sept 11, in Indonesia, 120 Muslim troops struck at a village of Chinese and Christian people at dawn shouting 'Allah is great!' killing the men and raping any women they could find.

A year after September 11 2001 came the murder of many hundreds of innocent, fun loving people in Bali, Indonesia.

Madrid is but another awful episode in the unfolding drama of Islamic terrorism. The question comes with greater insistence:

Is not Islam being manipulated by evil and misguided men, not only destabilising our world, but also discrediting Islam itself? Therefore, to my second question.

What are the Challenges facing Islam?

Last January I was at the World Economic Forum and appeared on the same platform as the former Prime Minister of Malaysia, Dr. Mohamed Mahathir who on the brink of retirement gave his sober estimate of Islam, saying that unless Islam was prepared to change it would degenerate still further.

'I find it very hard to be optimistic about Muslims in the 21st century' he said, 'Very few Muslims understand reality and they do not understand that coming to terms with globalisation is one of the greatest challenges facing them'….

'They cannot run away' he said.

Former President Wahid of Indonesia who chaired a conference in Amman when I was speaker at the Conference on Religion and Peace expressed similar worries: 'The Muslim world is at a cross-roads. It may pursue a traditional static Islam or refashion it into a more dynamic and pluralistic world-view'.

The challenges in the opinion of such Muslim thinkers are many and varied but perhaps we might pick out four specific challenges.

The first in my opinion is for Muslim societies to integrate their faith and practice in democratic institutions. Indeed, democracy will be increasingly a major challenge as more Muslim youth are educated and demand a say in the running of their countries.

Why the glaring absence of democratic governments in Muslim lands, particularly in the Middle East, we might wonder? It is said that modern Muslim experience suggests that Islam and democracy are incompatible. I see no fundamental reason why this should be so. Indeed, Turkey is an example that confirms
that there is no contradiction in the idea.

However, it is uncommon. Throughout the Middle East and North Africa we find authoritarian regimes with deeply entrenched leadership, some of whom rose to power at the point of a gun and are retained in power by massive investment in security forces. Whether they are military dictatorships or traditional
sovereignties each ruler seems committed to retaining power and privilege. When forms of democracy are introduced, as in Qatar and Bahrain, they are modest in the extreme and power remains in the hands of the Emirs.

A second challenge lies in the disturbing social conditions that militate against stable civil society and undermine the values and ethics of a great faith. Demographic factors indicate that Muslim countries will be increasingly under question as time goes on unless actions are taken to deal with chronic illiteracy, spiralling population figures leading to dire unemployment and social unrest.

Giving power to the people in democratic governance is not sufficient if economic stability, universal education and human rights are not available and accessible. The absence of such conditions are factors that may precipitate revolution or fan greater resentment at Western resources and excesses.

My third observation is that theological Islam is being challenged too, to become more open to examination and criticism. Christianity and Judaism have had a long history of critical scholarship which, we must admit and acknowledge, has not been without its pain, but there have been great gains also.

In the case of Islam, Mohammed, acknowledged by all in spite of his religious greatness, to be illiterate man, is said to have received God's word direct, word by word, from angels and scribes who recorded them later.

Thus, believers are told, because they have come direct from Allah they are not to be questioned or revised. As it happens, in the first few centuries of the Islamic era, Islamic theologians sought to meet the challenge this implied, but during the past five hundred years critical scholarship has declined leading to strong resistance to modernity.

Christian theologians and teachers, I suggest, have two important roles to play with respect to Islamic thought.

First, we should encourage theological dialogue between Christianity and Islam. In this respect may I salute the great contribution that the Inter-religious Council of the Vatican makes and in particular the work of Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald.

Second, without interfering in the workings of another faith to encourage the development of rigorous scholarship in the formation of the education of Imams. A greater openness will benefit us all.

A fourth challenge facing moderate Muslims is to resist strongly the taking over of Islam by radical activists and to express strongly, on behalf of the many millions of their co-religionists, their abhorrence of violence done in the name of Allah.

We look to them to condemn suicide bombers and terrorists who use Islam as a weapon to destabilise and destroy innocent lives. Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn, clearly and unconditionally, the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people.

We need to hear outright condemnation of theologies that state that suicide bombers are 'martyrs' and enter a martyrs reward.

We need to hear Muslims expressing their outrage and condemning such evil.

To be sure, the stand-off between Israel and Palestine continues to be the political arena where so many of our current unrests are focussed.

Having just returned a few days ago from Jerusalem I can sympathise with those who, at best, are pessimistic of any improvement in the situation and, at worst, conclude that the polarisation is so deep that ongoing violence and many lost lives will be the bleak future of the region for many years to come.

Yet, we are talking of two great peoples who have lived together in the past; we are talking of a situation where it seems possible to arrive at a political solution if we could find a way to end the violence; we are talking about a situation where both Jew and Arab deserve justice and peace.

If Palestinians should refrain from suicide tactics, as I believe they must as a moral duty; then Jews must refrain from using their power in unjustified ways, for the same reason.

It is impossible to go through the road blocks and security checks as we did this past week-end, and on so many other previous occasions, without such experiences making outsiders realise what this does to further resentment among Palestinians who consider themselves prisoners in their own land.

The tactics that the IDF are using in state killings of suspected terrorists and Palestinian leaders like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin are unworthy of a civilised society and shames Israel.

The enormous wall, now being built, may give some temporary relief to Israelis but only alienates decent Palestinians still further. I saw graffiti on part of the wall separating Jerusalem from the West Bank which read; 'This is our Warsaw ghetto'. Wherever power lies – whether it is state power or the power that comes from an individual targeting another with a rifle or a bomb – is, to quote Reinhold Niebuhr, 'a poison which blinds the eye of moral insight and lames the will of moral purpose'.

My third question is: What then is the challenge to the West and to Christians in particular?

There is surely a glimmer of truth in the telling remark of President Khatami of Iran who remarked that 'today's world democracies are suffering from a major vacuum which is the vacuum of spirituality'. It is difficult to point an accusing finger at what we regard as the weaknesses of Muslim governments when spectacular economic abuse such as Enron, Worldcom and Paamalat reveal that greed, exploitation and corruption lurk in our advanced societies and shame our claim to conduct our communities in moral and wise ways.

The degree of crime and delinquency, going hand in hand with a decline in moral standards and the collapse of such institutions as marriage and the family, are reasons why the West must be reticent in claiming the high moral ground. Yes, we must own up to our shortcomings and failings and from the riches of our faith and traditions reinforce what we most value. A second obligation is for us to strengthen western values, founded as undoubtedly they are on the Christian moral tradition and culture.

In spite of our shortcomings at least European and American civilisations are repositories of fairness and liberal values. Democracy, as an element of these, is a beautiful and fragile flower and we should support it, value it and protect it. It allows for dissent, for freedom of expression and for rights for all. We should not give in to claims that Islamic countries are morally, spiritually and culturally superior to other civilisations and great cultures.

To give credit where credit is due, although we owe much to Islam handing on to the West many of the treasures of Greek thought, the beginnings of calculus, Aristotelian thought during the period known in the West as 'the dark ages', it is sad to relate that no great invention has come for many hundreds of years from Muslim countries.

This is a puzzle, because Muslim peoples are not bereft of brilliant minds. They have much to contribute to the human family and we look forward to the close co-operation that might make this possible.

Yes, the West has still much to be proud of and we should say so strongly. We should also encourage Muslims living in the West to be proud of it to and to say so to their brothers and sisters living elsewhere.

We should also point to the enormous contribution the West continues to make to poor Muslim countries and we should endeavour to make this better known. Recently a survey in Egypt revealed that only 6% of Egyptians viewed American favourably despite being the second largest recipient of US aid after Israel.

Most of them are unaware that American and British aid built Cairo's sewers, water supply and electrical system.

Nevertheless, we should also acknowledge that the West has much to learn from Islam and value in that great tradition of faith.

But What of the relationship between church and mosque?

It is important to know what Islam stands for – its strengths and weakness. But it far more important to know some Muslims and befriend them. We shall find them that they have the same fears about us as we have of them. Most of them are good people who simply wish to be good citizens.

There is much we can admire in Islam- the simplicity of faith and devotion of worship. Islam is not a complicated faith and perhaps we have made Christianity too complicated. We can admire the devotion of the people and their desire to promote their faith. We can admire their commitment to traditional values, the family, children and peace.

But Islam is not to be feared. Muslims respect integrity and devotion too. They have no respect for Christians who take the view that all religions are the same. They know they are not. They will always respect people who stand up for their faith and are prepared to talk about it naturally.

Christians need to be more confident and argue their corner for reciprocity throughout the world. During my time as Archbishop this was my constant refrain- that the welcome we have given to Muslims in the West with the accompanying freedom to worship freely and build their mosques should be reciprocated in Muslim lands. However, that freedom is uneven.

In some Muslim lands there are strong and cordial relationships but in some others Christians have little
freedom, are sometimes persecuted, are not able build their churches, or only do so after much difficulty.

Saudi Arabia will not allow Christian worship and Christian priests and ministers are not allowed to function as such in that land. Muslim leaders often tell Christians and Jews that 'there is no compulsion in religion'. This sadly is only half true. If non-Muslims are not compelled to become Muslim, Muslims are not free to choose another faith. There is, we find, some compulsion, after all. This, then, prompts my final question: 'How may we move from collision to convergence on things we most value and share?

Professor Akbar Ahmed, one of Islam's leading scholars and Professor of Anthropology at the American University, Washington, in his most recent book: Islam Under Siege: Living dangerously in a Post-Honor World concludes by saying: 'The events of September 11 appeared to push the world toward the idea of a clash of civilisations, but they also conveyed the urgency of the call for dialogue.

The creative participation in the dialogue of civilisations, to find an internal balance between the needs and traditions of local communities and a world increasingly dominated by international corporations and political concerns, the committed search for global solutions confronting human society and the quest for a just, compassionate, and peaceful order will be the challenge human civilisation faces in the 21st century.

To meet the challenge is to fulfil God's vision; to embrace all humanity in doing so is to know God's compassion'.

Heartening words indeed.

I for one do not accept that the future is one of escalating violence, deepening bitterness and a grudging dialogue between 'incompatible faiths' and cultures.

Let me proffer some pointers for discussion and reflection:

1. We must deepen inter-faith co-operation and understanding. Religion is not going to go away. We may talk of a post-modern world but certainly not post-religious. But religion may be used for bad as well as good purposes. In the hands of evil people religion is sometimes used as a weapon to kill and to suppress as it has been, from time to time, in the long history of Christianity. But religious leaders have an important role to play alongside political leaders. There is still too little comprehension in political circle of the power of authentic faith and the possibilities of harnessing the religious imagination and energy for peace. We must focus on root causes of unrest where religions clash and seek to heal the wounds of the past. We must confront the deep sense of injustice felt by ordinary Muslims in much of the developing world where people see the tyranny of their own leaders, the growing gap between rich and poor and what they see as the massive support of the West to regimes inimical to Islam.

Israel, as I have already said, is a serious flashpoint of unrest and America has a key role to play in healing the wounds of a land beloved to adherents of three world religions. However, Muslims do not perceive even-handedness in America's treatment of Palestinians and the Palestinian cause.

Of course, Israel has a right to a homeland and above all to peace. There can be no serious argument about that. Christians, of all people, should honour the special religious ties they have with Jewish people. That should not restrain us from recognising that Palestine, no less, demands and deserves a viable State with secure borders and an independent Government. Resolve this urgent issue and a great deal of Muslim bitterness and antagonism towards the West will in time be replaced by understanding. This longest-running conflict in modern times deserves the West's urgent attention.

2. Compassion and understanding are the only tools to handle hatred and violence. It will do us little good if the West simply believes the answer is to put an end to Osama bin Laden. Rather we must put an end to conditions, distortions and misinformation that create Osama bin Laden and his many emulators.

It is the battle of ideas we must win, not to show the many bruised and aggrieved Muslims that we are stronger and more powerful than they are. In this task Christian theologians, teachers, priests, pastors and people have a significant role to play.

Christianity has much in common with Islam and working from common moral demands, our joint commitment to family life and religious values, our agreement concerning the importance of worshipping God and teaching all people to build their lives on eternal and abiding values should give us confidence to
create relationships between us that endure.
If we do not, the future will remain hazardous and threatening. As Christopher Coker says in 'Twilight of the West' as he contemplates the threat of terrorism in the modern world: 'What makes Islamic fundamentalism so dangerous ..is the appeal of science and technology in the modern Islamic imagination…there has been no smashing of machines, no repudiation of the Western sciences'. Indeed, 911 has taught us as much.

Yes, we live in dangerous times. But we live, no less, in times where good will, understanding, frankness based on respect and tolerance may yield offer an exciting future. Let us look forward to the day when we shall not talk about faiths colliding, but Islam and Christianity converging in a common desire to create a world of tolerance and peace and building communities on those shared values that make us human and capable of giving and receiving God's gift of love.

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

The Pope calls for an end to Islamic violence, and churches burn




In the previous posting to this blog, I explored the Pope's speech, and the immediate response by Muslims around the world.

I would like to broaden the subject, to attempt to find some understanding of "the war on terror", the Palestine / Israel question, and violence involving Muslims generally. I should say that I am no expert on these matters, but here are my current thoughts. Such thoughts may continue to evolve.

Firstly, let us consider one or two fundamental differences between Muslims, and people of other faiths.
The most fundamental difference, is that only Islam obliges the believer to kill the non-believer, simply because of that difference in faith. You simply do not have this problem with other religions. For instance, you do not see Hindus killing Christians, or Sikhs killing Buddhists, or vice-versa, simply due to a difference of religious principles.

It is often the case that conflict exists between different communities, who happen to have different religions. However, such conflicts are often rooted in scarcity of resources (water, land, oil etc), and an increasing population, together with depletion of resources can only worsen this in the future. However, such conflicts are generally outside the scope of this discussion.

The second major difference between Islam and in particular Christianity and Judaism is the nature of the revealed word of Allah to Mohammed.

Within Judaism, there have been a sucession of prophets. Each in turn bringing a deeper and expanded understanding of the nature of God. Christianity continues that tradition. Jesus was very familiar with the earlier prophets, particularly Isaiah. For Jesus, there was no contradiction between his own mission, and the truths revealed by the earlier prophets:

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:17-18

Whilst it is true that there are certain contradictions within the New Testament, these have no significant effect on the central doctrines. They can be explained by simple differences between observations by witnesses. In a way, it could be considered that such differences add to the impression of genuineness. In other words, if every witness statement was precisely the same, there would be a suspicion that the statements had been compiled in collusion, rather than given independantly.

Contrast this now with the case of Islam.

It would appear that Mohammed's career can be basically divided into three main phases:

1. Gaining an understanding of monotheism from Jews and Christians, and combining some subset of distorted Christian and Jewish doctrines with his own.
2. Attempting to spread his doctrines by passive, relatively peaceful means.
3. Adding a large number of new verses, calling for the use of violence to spread Islam.

Up to phase 2, Islam was relatively peaceful. Indeed, it could have been considered to be a wayward Christian sect at that time. If Islam had remained at that phase, we would almost certainly not see the intolerance and bloodshed in the world today.

However, it may be that Mohammed was disappointed with the slow progress that his new religion was making. Allah appears to change to being very bloodthirsty and jealous.

Not surprisingly, many of the new verses added at phase 3 contradict verses from phase 2. This was seen as something of a problem, which was "resolved" by the concept of abrogation:

"Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" Quran 2.106

So, for Allah, no more Mr nice guy!

Due to the new policy of spreading Islam by terror, killing men, and capturing women to be unwilling "wives", Islam spread rapidly. Soon, the Islamic empire over-ran many countries that had been predominantly Christian, which included Palestine and Egypt. It was not just Cristianity that suffers under Islamic rule: Persia had been a tolerant, generally Zoroastrian country. Today, fewer than 10,000 remain in what is now Iran.

In earlier times, the Zoroastrian ruler of Persia, Cyrus the Great, had freed the Israelites who were living in bondage in Babylon. His generosity extended to helping to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem.

So, we can see that at the core of Islam, there is an in-built violence towards unbelievers. Many predominantly Christian lands, including Palestine were then over-run, and converted to Islam by the sword:

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Quran 8.65

The reaction of Christendom, in the form of the crusades, was an attempt to regain these lost lands, including, most importantly, Jerusalem with its temple.

In hindsight, it may be considered that the crusades were a mistake. Certainly violence forms no part of true Christianity:

"And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloke forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil." Luke 6:29-35

Of course, living up to this command is not at all easy. But consider, if those Christians who Mohammed came across had lived according to this command: Would Islam have taken a different course, and abhorred bloodshed? Almost, can we consider that Islam has been sent to test the mettle of the true Christian? An interesting thought perhaps.

Another interesting thought is that if these commands had been properly followed, there would have been no room for anti-semetism amongst "Christian" nations.

Today we see violence between Muslims and Jews in Israel / Palestine. But consider this: If the Muslims had not attacked Palestine all those centuries ago, we would probably see peace there today. The Palestinian population was predominantly Christian. Christians and Jews should have no difficulty living in harmony with each other, which was recognised by Mohammed:

"O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people." Quran 5.51

The current Pope is very clearly a great, wise, and humble man. He has outreached his hands to Islam, appealing to reason, and to faith combined. He states that God abhors bloodshed. The response has been violence, and an ignoring of reason. It is clearly most unfortunate that such is the nature of the response, and probably it was predictable that such would be the response. However, without truth and reason, there can be no justice. It is inconceivable that the Christian Church will give up.

One final thought: It is through love that these problems can have any possibility of being resolved. Within just the four Gospels, the word "love" is present 42 times. The concept of love for our fellow humans appears to be somewhat lacking in the Quran.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Saturday, September 16, 2006

The Pope is a genius!

Glory be! The Pope is a true genius.

Although I am not a Catholic, I could kiss his hand.

Having re-read his lecture, some of the implications are starting to sink in.

Firstly, why has the reaction amongst the Islamic world been so extreme? Was it, for example, that the Pope is suggesting that we should gain a better understanding of God through the use of reason? No. Was it, for example, for suggesting that God abhors bloodshed, and we can understand that to be so through, amongst other things, the use of reason? No.

On the contrary, neither of those important messages would have made any impression on the Islamified mind.

The real reason for the violent reaction was that the Pope had the temerity to quote the following, written by the Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, written probably during the siege of Constantinople (1394-1402):
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".

A few lines earlier, the Pope had quoted from the Quran "There shall be no compulsion in religion". This verse, by the way, is often quoted today to "prove" that Islam is tolerant. However, let me deal with that matter presently.

We now have the spectacle throughout the Islamic world, of effigies of the Pope being burned, and heated protesters shouting and waving banners. Also churches have been attacked.

Why? We are told emphatically by prominent Muslim leaders that Islam is not spread by the sword. That is what has upset them. What appers to have not upset them is the call to use our reason, and the abhorrence of bloodshed.

It is very easy to demonstrate, by quoting from the Quran itself, that the Islamic faith was, and presumably continues to be spread by violence. For example:

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Quran 2.191

Why did the Pope not quote from the Quran, as I have done? It is inconceivable that he would not be aware of this verse, and indeed he alludes to such verses. I suspect that there are more subtle aspects to this whole lecture than I am currently aware of.

By mentioning the siege of Constantinople, is the Pope perhaps extending a hand of friendship towards the Orthodox Church? Perhaps he is looking ahead to the future, and considering the siege of Rome? Due to demographic changes, I have seen figures that the Islamic population will be a majority in Holland in around 20 years time, and in Italy in around 40 years time. (I have not found confirmation of these figures, so please treat them as approximate figures). However, in France, approximately one third of the under 30-year-olds are Muslims, so these figures are credible.

History has a habit of repeating itself, but with increasingly devastating results. It is easy to consider the scenario whereby missiles, equipped with nuclear warheads, would be used against the Vatican.

Returning to the Pope's message. The two aspects that have been ignored by the Islamic world, are: Firstly we must use our reason, and secondly, bloodshed is abhorrent to God. It would seem to me that Islam has studiously avoided these issues. It cannot use reason, because that would be like a tool against the revealed word of Allah. The tool of reason would be like a tin-opener, opening a can of worms.

Secondly, the Pope has pointed out that God abhors bloodshed. I could have pointed that out to Muslims, simply by quoting from Genesis, regarding the murder of Abel by his brother Cain:

"And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground. And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother’s blood from thy hand;" Genesis 4:10-11

Why should a Muslim care what is written in the Old Testament of the Bible? Well, there is the concept that of the holy Book, a portion was given to the Jews, that is, the Old Testament.

So, Muslims would rather conveniently ignore the two key points in the Pope's message, namely to use reason, and to abhor bloodshed. Instead, they choose to divert attention away from those matters, in order to deny that Islam is spread by the sword.

As I see it, the Pope's true genius lies in forcing Islam to choose: Will they admit that it is spread by the sword, but from now on they will use reason when reading the Quran? Or, will they deny reason, thereby denying that Islam is spread by the sword? They appear to have chosen the latter option.

By denying reason, however, they have to also deny that Islam is spread by the sword. This has clearly been demonstrated by my quote from the Quran above. Here is another quote, just to reinforce the message:

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." Quran 4.89

I mentioned earlier that the verse in the Quran which states "There shall be no compulsion in religion" is often used to "demonstrate" that Islam is peaceful and tolerant. This, however, is just a half-truth. Any Muslim who quotes this verse alone (or similar verses alone) is being dishonest if he fails to mention the concept of abrogation:

"Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things?" Quran 2.106

In practice, abrogation means that many of the earlier, mild-mannered and tolerant verses are superceded by some seriously hard line verses, such as:

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran 8.12

And

"And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" Quran 9.30

Compare that with the tolerant type of verse that it supercedes:

"Surely those who believe, and those who are Jews, and the Christians, and the Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord, and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve." Quran 2.62

Is a Muslim obliged to tell the truth? The shocking answer, is no, they are not. Islam itself absolves them from the responsibility to be honest. This is a far cry from all other religions (as far as I know), including most emphatically Christianity. The Pope states: "The scientific ethos, moreover, is .. the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit."

The British legal system is grounded firmly in Christian principles. A witness is obliged to "Tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

Here is a quote from the Hadiths, clearly stating that a Muslim is not bound by such principles:

"Whenever I tell you a narration from Allah's Apostle, by Allah, I would rather fall down from the sky than ascribe a false statement to him, but if I tell you something between me and you (not a Hadith) then it was indeed a trick (i.e., I may say things just to cheat my enemy). " Hadith Volume 9, Book 84, Number 64

Finally, it would seem that the Muslim world has scored an own goal. By criticising the Pope so violently, they have ensured that perhaps many millions of people have downloaded and read the Pope's lecture. Any person with a logical mind can see for themselves how reasonable are the Pope's statements.

"Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God", said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian [Muslim] interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures.

It would appear that an appeal to Islam to use reason is no nearer to being achieved, after at least 600 years.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Friday, September 15, 2006

Cartoons 05









Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Cartoons 04















Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Cartoons 03












Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Cartoons 02












Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Cartoons 01








Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Anger at Pope's speech

Just a quick thought: Why has nobody thought to quote directly
from the Quran?

For example:

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you,
therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into
the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their
heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran 8.12

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Does the Quran glorify terrorism?

We now have a law in Britain which makes it illegal to glorify terrorism. What this law means is that acts of terrorism are not to be supported by words.

We now see political "leaders" trying to make distinctions between "moderate" and "radicalised" Muslims. However, what do they actually mean? Do they understand what they are talking about?

From a non-Muslim perspective, it is not easy to understand what it all means. However, let us take a working definition of a Muslim as someone who believes that the Quran is the revealed word of Allah. In order not to be considered a heretic, such a Muslim must beleive that every verse in the Quran is the word of Allah.
Such a working definition would cover the "radicalised" Muslims, if, that is they carry out terrorist acts, or provide physical or moral support for their brothers to carry out such acts. Moral support would include praising or encouraging such acts, in other words, glorifying terrorism.

Here are some quotes from the Quran, which could be easily seen to glorify terrorism. This is not at all a complete list, but merely a few examples amongst many similar verses.

____________________________________

"And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers." Quran 2.191

"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming." Quran 3.28

"Abasement is made to cleave to them wherever they are found, except under a covenant with Allah and a covenant with men, and they have become deserving of wrath from Allah, and humiliation is made to cleave to them; this is because they disbelieved in the communications of Allah and slew the prophets unjustly; this is because they disobeyed and exceeded the limits." Quran 3.112

"O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have, before We alter faces then turn them on their backs, or curse them as We cursed the violaters of the Sabbath, and the command of Allah shall be executed." Quran 4.47

"They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper." Quran 4.89

"You will find others who desire that they should be safe from you and secure from their own people; as often as they are sent back to the mischief they get thrown into it headlong; therefore if they do not withdraw from you, and (do not) offer you peace and restrain their hands, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and against these We have given you a clear authority." Quran 4.91

"And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain, and you hope from Allah what they do not hope; and Allah is Knowing, Wise." Quran 4.104

"Wherefore for the iniquity of those who are Jews did We disallow to them the good things which had been made lawful for them and for their hindering many (people) from Allah's way. And their taking usury though indeed they were forbidden it and their devouring the property of people falsely, and We have prepared for the unbelievers from among them a painful chastisement." Quran 4.160-161

"And how many a town that We destroyed, so Our punishment came to it by night or while they slept at midday." Quran 7.4

"When your Lord revealed to the angels: I am with you, therefore make firm those who believe. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them." Quran 8.12

"And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah; but if they desist, then surely Allah sees what they do." Quran 8.39

"O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand." Quran 8.65

"So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful." Quran 9.5

"Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection." Quran 9.29

"O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil)." Quran 9.123

"And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Quran 17.16

"On the day when the trumpet shall be blown, and We will gather the guilty, blue-eyed, on that day" Quran 20.102

"Said he: You believe in him before I give you permission; most surely he is the chief of you who taught you the magic, so you shall know: certainly I will cut off your hands and your feet on opposite sides, and certainly I will crucify you all." Quran 26.49

"Cursed: wherever they are found they shall be seized and murdered, a (horrible) murdering." Quran 33.61

____________________________________


In my own opinion, it is very clear that the Quran does indeed glorify terrorism. Should the British legal system therefore ban the Quran? The legislation is relatively recent, and was enacted in response to 9/11. It is not some archaic law (such as the obligation to do weekly archery practice) which has simply not been repealed. It is very much a law of our time.

I would suggest that given that we have this law now which makes illegal the glorification of terrorism, and also to anyone of sound mind, it would appear that the Quran does in fact glorify terrorism, then surely we should as a minimum have a legal enquiry into the status of the Quran in this respect. The legal process must take its course.

Doing only half a job, i.e. producing this legislation, and then failing to follow it through to its logical conclusion indicates that the present government is incompetent at the least. Perhaps they understood what they were doing, but now are too afraid to carry it through. In either case, whether they are stupid, or whether they are cowards, they are not fit to govern.

It does seem now that the people of Britain are starting to wake up to the very real threat that Islam represents. We must realise that we really are at war. It is a war unlike, say the war against the Nazis. It is an ideological war, which probably will never end.

When my eyes first opened to the reality of the threat, I was at first very depressed. Feelings of terrible foreboding and powerlessness. However, if each of us can do something about it, however small, it will all be a step in the right direction. In my case, I have produced some cartoons, even though my artistic skills are not very advanced. The cartoons should help to open the eyes of my fellow countrymen and women. The point is, that I have done something. Personally I feel much happier for having done this, and hope that it will make some small difference.

If you are currently feeling as despairing as I was, then it will help you to feel some sense of achievement to do something positive. Why not write to or email your Member of Parliament? In a recent opinion poll, 53 percent of the respondents believe that Islam is a serious threat to democracy in Britain. We must pressurise our government to take this problem seriously, and actually to do something about it.

It is clear that the current Labour government of Britain must bear a large responsibility for allowing so many terrorist sympathisers to take up residence in Britain. It is generally quoted that there are 2 million Muslims in Britain. It is also generally quoted that a quarter of these sympathise with the suicide bombers of 7/7 who murdered 53 people and seriously injured many more in London. Whilst the precise numbers of terrorist sympathisers may not easily be determined, a guesstimate of half a million probably is about right. Whether the true figure is 300,000 or 700,000 is of academic interest. However, what we need to fully understand is that it is a very large number indeed.

We should praise the work of the security services and the police. They are doing a tremendously important job of tracking down the Islamic terrorists in our midst, and have foiled a number of very serious plots. So far, around 1000 Islamic terrorists have been arrested. However, this must surely be the tip of the iceberg, and I would suggest that it represents much less than one percent of the total number of terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.

Of course, our security services and police must foil every single plot. The terrorists will be happy if only a single plot is successful. It would seem highly likely therefore that sooner or later there will be many more innocent civilians murdered in Britain, in the name of Allah.

Given the current turmoil in the Labour party, and their ineffectual response to the threat of Islamic terrorism, it would seem that the other significant political party in Britain, the Conservatives (also known as Tories) will be elected next time. It is to be hoped that they will have more guts than Labour. However, the next general election is some way off. Traditionally, Labour have been socialists, and the Conservatives have been slightly right-wing, although they both appear to be sitting on the fence together at the moment. There is a third party in British politics, the Liberal-Democrats. However, they always finish in a poor third position, and so are very unlikely to form a government in the forseeable future.

An interesting development recently has been the very significant surge in popularity of the British National Party (BNP). It is still a small party. However, wherever it put up candidates in the local elections earlier ths year (2006), it has done very well, on average taking around 25 percent of the vote. In previous elections they have attracted only typically 3 percent of the votes.

The BNP has for a long time been highlighting the numerous problems resulting from uncontrolled immigration into Britain, and in particular the very serious threat from Islam. The British people are starting to become impatient with the two main parties (Labour and Conservatives), and are sending a very clear message to them by voting for the BNP.

It would seem unlikely that the BNP will form a majority government any time soon. However, it is increasingly likely that some of their policies will be adopted by the main parties.

Personally I do not really mind too much which party is in power, provided that they are:
1. Honest about the disadvantages of uncontrolled immigration.
2. Honest about the threat of Islam in Britain.
3. Have the courage to do something about these problems.

It is the current Labour government that has created the law banning the glorification of terrorism. However, it is patently clear that they are completely lacking in courage to follow through with the task. They must realise that the Quran is the single most significant document that glorifies terrorism.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Introduction to the threat of Islam in Britain

This blog has been set up in order to further a true understanding of Islam and the Quran, from a non-Islamic perspective.

Whilst there are many verses in the Quran that are very praiseworthy, and mild-mannered, there are also numerous verses that do not fit well with a democratic, tolerant western culture, such as that prevalent in Britain.

It is necessary for the mainstream British subjects to fully understand that whilst it is possible for there to exist moderate Muslims, the Quran and Islam are very far from being moderate. In order to be moderate, such Muslims are obliged to ignore large numbers of verses in the Quran. Hence, the traditional, or "radicalised" Muslims will view the moderates as apostates or heretics, which, strictly, they are.

A number of cartoons have been produced, and are freely available for you to use, or to email them or put them on your own website or blog. I would also appreciate it if you would create a link from your website to this blog.

The cartoons quote from the Quran itself. The intolerant, homophobic, sexist and racist attitudes that they show are very far from my own views. I quote directly from the Quran in order to demonstrate how it is completely incompatible with modern western values.

In Britain we have a very long history of democratic priciples, and freedom of speech. These stretch back from their earliest beginnings at Runnymead, with the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215.

"Magna Carta is the greatest constitutional document of all times - the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot." Lord Denning, Master of the Rolls 1965.

Unfortunately, we see in Britain today that our ancient freedoms and liberties have been seriously eroded. Freedom of expression has been significantly compromised, which very greatly affects our ability to tackle the dangerous and very evident threat that traditional Islam represents. We see that the freedom of the individual has been compromised.

If any moderate Muslim is reading this message, I would urge you to examine the difficult verses of the Quran. Would Allah really wish you to slaughter everyone who does not believe? There must surely have been some terrible mistake.

If you find these cartoons offensive, then so be it. They are not gratuitously so, as other cartoons may be. However, nobody was ever killed by a cartoon. Many innocent civilians have been killed and seriously injured by Islamic bombs, and by passenger planes used as weapons. The whole of humanity is offended by such acts committed in the name of Islam.

Prince Charles has made no secret of his support for Islam. Whilst I am a loyal subject, and support very much the Royal Family, and the values and traditions that it upholds, I feel that he is badly misguided in this respect. Does he not realise, that under Sharia law, as an adulterer he would have been stoned to death by now?

These are sufficient words for now. Please enjoy the cartoons, and feel free to use them in your own publication, website, or blog. There is no copyright on the truth.

Humanity needs peace not Islam.

Web Pages referring to this page
Link to this page and get a link back!