With more and more people crossing the Mediterranean Sea and Turkey into the southern and eastern borders of Europe, what would be a Christian response from the United Kingdom to what can be described as an exodus of Biblical proportions, as one might say, from the Middle East?
Much depends on whether such people are viewed as refugees, as economic migrants, as Muslim activists or – heaven forbid – as terrorists.
The Holy Family famously went down to Egypt to escape Herod’s persecution. They were refugees. They sought refuge. Almost two thousand years earlier, Jacob and his family were welcomed into Egypt at a time of famine. They were refugees from hardship and also economic migrants who actually improved Egypt with their animal husbandry skills. A ‘mixed multitude’ came out of Egypt with Israel under Moses. They were migrants. They sought a better economic life.
The Israelites, of course, were fleeing Egyptian persecution, but they would go on to conquer Canaan within fifty years by force of arms, which is perhaps a less comforting precedent.
Even then, we struggle to find in the Bible those who appear to seek refuge or trading positions only to work to destabilise the host nation from within.
That may be because, from ancient Egypt, through Israel to Rome, those who tried to introduce foreign belief systems, let alone those who mounted uprisings against established governments, were not made welcome, to put it mildly.
SYRIAN REFUGEES
So we should support the Prime Minister’s decision to take genuine refugees from the camps on the Syrian border. That must mean he should extend the hand of welcome to Syrian and Iraqi Christian families, who, incidentally, most accurately fit his own description of those who are most vulnerable.
We also recognise that having encouraged the uprising in Syria which has to date led to loss of life for 200,000 and the destruction of the homes and livelihoods of millions, the United Kingdom bears a great deal of responsibility for the current crisis. So we have a moral duty to help those forced from their homes.
Only Russia, China and Iran, by supporting the Syrian government, flawed as it undoubtedly is, have prevented even worse bloodshed and displacement and we thank God for their stand in the United Nations and in the region.
As our government is now finding out, there is such as thing as ‘unintended consequences’.
ECONOMIC MIGRANTS
The language used to described the travellers is important and our media are well aware of this. Call them Refugees and there will be sympathy. Call them migrants and there is suspicion. Call them activists – or even ‘Muslims’ – and the hostility starts.
Many of us in Christian circles will be sympathetic to the plight of refugees on the grounds of hospitality. Those who are pointing to the benefits of migrants are having a struggle in a nation like Britain which is seemingly already swamped by mainly Muslim immigrants, many entering illegally, over the last twenty years. Floods of economic migrants from the EU’s newer members has not helped that perception.
Nevertheless, it has been pointed out that ancient Rome encouraged economic migrants to settle there precisely because their economic activity and imported innovation skills increased the general prosperity of the empire.
Germany has announced a welcome to migrants for a similar reason. Their population is ageing because Germans have in recent years had one of the lowest indigenous birth rates in the world, well below replacement level. The question of who will fund the pensions of those about to retire now and for the next twenty years appears to have been answered.
But across the eastern and northern fringes of the European Union area, and without even mentioning possible Islamic State sleeper terrorists, long-established Christian nations are voicing concerns.
MUSLIM INFLUX
The Hungarians are just finishing a fence topped with razor wire on their southern border with Serbia to keep out the flow of migrants.
Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned in September that the growing Muslim influx is threatening Europe’s “Christian roots”. Defending Hungary’s response to the migrant crisis, Mr Orban said his country did not want to admit large numbers of Muslims.
Slovakia will accept 200 asylum seekers under EU resettlement plans but insists all of them should be are Christians who have been persecuted in Syria.
Slovakia’s interior ministry said it will turn away Muslims because they will struggle to fit in if they have nowhere to worship.
Spokesman Ivan Metik said: “We could take 800 Muslims but we don’t have any mosques in Slovakia so how can Muslims be integrated if they are not going to like it here?”
That is not an argument the United Kingdom could make.
WHOSE RULES?
In Finland, Prime Minister Juha Sipila said he was willing to give up one of his houses to migrants, but his coalition partners are the anti-immigration Finns Party, who came second in April’s election.
Mr Sipila wrote on Twitter that he wanted “to develop Finland as an open, linguistically and culturally international country”.
Finns Party chief Timo Soini, who is Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, wrote on his blog last week that Christian and Yazidi minorities could be given priority as refugees. But he came under heavy criticism from the media and changed course in an interview on Monday.
But Some of his party colleagues are made of sterner stuff. Jussi Halla-aho, a Finns Party MEP, said some members of society were not integrating well enough, adding there was a risk “the society begins to play by the rules of the Muslim minority rather than expecting the minority to play by the rules of the society”.
In July, Olli Immonen, one of the party’s MPs, wrote of what he called “this nightmare called multiculturalism” on his Facebook page, adding: “We will fight until the end for our homeland and one true Finnish nation.”
Finance Minister Alexander Stubb responded in a tweet: “Multiculturalism is an asset. That’s all I have to say.”
But is it an asset? In a survey in August, before the new talks on migrant quotas, most Finns, of whom 78% belong to the Lutheran Church, said in a survey they would rather live next to an alcohol rehabilitation centre than a mosque.
MUSLIM ACTIVISTS
Many of our leaders make the mistake of seeing Islam as a religion. It is, in fact, a political system.
In July 2015, the Daily Mirror commissioned a survey from pollsters ICM to find out how much support Islamic State actually enjoyed among British Muslims. The results shocked even the Mirror.
Three percent of respondents in Britain were very favourable towards the Muslim terrorist group (which ICM called ISIS) and 6% were somewhat favourable. Female and male respondents had similar attitudes.
The pollsters did not ask people their religious affiliations, but when you consider that around 5% of the population is actually Muslim, rising to 10% of the under-25’s, and assuming that non-Muslims will not be at all supportive of Islamic State, the Mirror’s claim that ‘around half of Britain’s three million Muslims could be ISIS sympathisers’ may be an understatement.
Logically, the more Muslims come here, the more of our population will be Muslim activists, sympathetic to Islamic State or whichever hard-line aggressive Muslim terrorist group takes its place. The same will be true in Germany, France, Italy or wherever Muslims end up.
TERRORISTS
Which leads to the last and least welcome category of those travelling across the Med and the Turkish peninsular, Muslim sleeper terrorists.
Islamic State militants are claiming to have smuggled ‘thousands’ of activists into Europe disguised as refugees from the Syrian conflict. It is certain that many will already have crossed illegally into the United Kingdom. A country like Germany, announcing a welcome to hundreds of thousands, will end up harbouring thousands of sleeping terrorists.
They will do nothing to frighten the horses and inadvertently stem the flow of migrants in the immediate future. But there will come a day when the people of Hungary and Slovakia may be grateful for the stand their leaders took. Even in those places, acts of terrorism could take place, but it is easier for domestic security forces to keep an eye on thousands of Muslims than millions.
Even without actual IS terrorists, ordinary rank-and-file Muslims are inspired and emboldened by the idea of an Islamic caliphate and supportive of attempts to establish one. It makes them feel good about being Muslim and bolsters ambitions that one day, maybe one day soon, their host country could embrace Islam.
JUST TAKE THE CHRISTIANS
Britain has done right to go to the refugee camps rather than encourage the people smugglers.
But our conclusion must be that Britain should take only Syrian and Iraqi Christian refugee families.
In such an event, we can have no doubt that British churches and individual Christians will go out of our way to house them and help them become established and prosperous in our land.
Find out how to join Christian Voice and stand up for the King of kings (clicking on the link below does not commit you to join)
Please note that persons wishing to comment on this story must enter a valid email address. Comments from persons leaving fictitious email addresses will be trashed.
A very good article, imo, Stephen, thank you.
I agree, Christians yes, Muslims no. Muslims cause trouble wherever they go, sooner or later. If you don’t agree, you simply don’t know enough about Islam I’m afraid.
However, thanks to PC, anyone openly saying this will come under a lot of pressure for being “ray-sist” (even though Islam is not a race, its a religion/political ideology). Will Cameron stand up to this pressure? Personally, I doubt it, very few do.
I find myself agreeing with most of this analysis. It is an extremely good article. The examination of the status of various types of Biblical movements is especially intriguing, and illuminating.
One wonders how many of the arriving people are actively Muslims, and how many are moderate Muslims in either of two senses. There is the Lapsed moderate, someone who is simply “not religious”, a familiar enough figure as a not religious Christian in this country in the last fifty years or so. In the case of the economic migrants, with their mobile phones and hopes of being dentists, a large proportion of these must be at least partly in that category, and it might be useful to have some policy which somehow tries to keep them happily Lapsed. As in Britain, their children are likely to find Allah and become Active but moderate Muslims. There will of course be some Active but moderates coming in now too, many of whom simply follow the age-old customs of their people without a lot of thought or theory behind it. And yes, there will be some extremists sneaking in as well.
One would like to be tolerant enough to cater for the Active but moderate Muslims who are here already, and for those new ones who get into Europe but can hardly be sent back (because it’s too late to wring our hands; very many have made it already). I am an admirer of Plantagenet Richardson’s book “West Meets Islam” (available from amazon.co.uk), which is a dialogue between a westerner and such a Muslim, really getting down to the nitty-gritty of what he actually believes on controversial matters. and why he is instinctively against ISIS and instinctively (in fact) in favour of the modern western society in which he lives in London. He reckons that no modern state actually follows the Islamic dream properly, certainly not “Islamic State”, and he is not going there, nor is he going to upset the applecart in London. This is what, armed with knowledge of Islam, we need to foster. We do need both kinds of moderate Muslims on our side. Of course, if eventually some of the Muslim countries do improve, and some of our Muslims do return there with their western ideas (not unlike east Europeans returning from the USA), some of us might not complain. But, while remembering that Europe is certainly our continent and that many European countries have a long history and tradition of keeping out the “Turks”, let’s not antagonise them while they are here.
A typically confused analysis from our good friend Rox. It is difficult to know where to start.
I will limit myself to one question to you, Rox: the selling of little children as sex slaves, war booty, fully condoned in the Qu’ran, Haddith, Sunnah, etc: is this an example of “moderate” or “extremist” Islam?
Can someone please give us references to relevant passages in the Koran and a respected collection of hadith, such as al-Bukhari ? What exactly does he mean by “fully condoned in …..the Sunnah etc”, apart from this ?
I think as you are already up-to-speed with names of hadith collectors, you are the man to do this research, Rox.
No, I don’t know at all where in al-Bukhari this thing about child sex slaves is condoned, as Mark Jones claims. After all, I know that there is a book in the Bible called Deuteronomy, probably about 20% of the population knows that, but you can’t expect us all to know exactly what is in it and what verse it all is ! We rely on experts like yourself for such information whenever it’s relevant. You wouldn’t quote it vaguely without chapter and verse like Mark Jones has.
And “the Sunnah”. I don’t know what he means by that. There is no written Sunnah you can refer to except the hadith and Koran he has already mentioned, unless he is thinking of an early biography of Mohammed (probably ibn Ishaq’s), but according to “West Meets Islam” actual Muslims dont’ consider that “reliable” (or “canonical”, as Christians would say).
Golly gosh, I think we’ll have to say that selling little children as sex slaves is extremist. But I don’t know any Muslims round here who do that. How any Muslims does our good friend Mark know who actually do that ?
If he would like to tell me what he finds confusing, I will try to explain it to him. But basically, I think he has the simplistic approach “What it says in the Koran is what Muslims do”. That is like sitting in Mecca saying wisely : “Westerners burn witches, but one of their favourite tricks is handling poisonous snakes without coming to any harm”. It gives a curious impression of what actually goes on.
As for my brief summary of West Meets Islam, if out good friend Mark doesn’t find that to his liking, I suggest he read the book carefully and produce his own summary of it.
Altogether, I don’t quite see his objection to my last comment ,because it was never about selling anybody as a sex slave in the first place. If he is concerned about the arrival of Active but Moderate Muslims amongst the recent migrants, because of his belief that they sell little children as sex slaves (this is reminiscent of anti-Semitic propaganda, isn’t it ?) , how exactly is he going to sort them out, and how is he going to send them back and to where ? They walked into Europe illegally but willingly. What authority will transport them back unwillingly ? And to Serbia, Turkey, where ?
1) Correction. Should be “How many Muslims ” (not how any).
2) “Anti-semitic” may seem harsh, and I’m quite surprised Stephen allowed it to appear. However, Arabic is a semitic language, and Arabs are Semites. The word has been incorrectly hijacked in its common usage. It is applied just as correctly to anti-Muslim as to anti-Jewish feeling. The suggestion that Muslims commonly ill treat children is decidedly on a par with the rather familiar suggestion that Jews commonly ill treat children, anyway, all the way from Fagin to the blood libel. In my experience, Muslims are more likely to do all they can to get their children (including girls) qualified as opticians and pharmacists, Things really aren’t as bad as you can make them seem.
” …’I [Allah] shall … cast terror into the hearts of the infidels.
Strike off their heads, smite the ends of their fingers.’
This is because they defied Allah and His Apostle [Muhammad]. He that defies Allah and His Apostle shall be sternly punished. (We said to them): ‘Feel our scourge.’ …
Allah plotted also. Allah is most profound in His machinations.
… Make war on them until persecution is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme.
… Let believers [Muslims] not make friends with infidels [non-Muslims] in preference to the faithful [Muslims] — he that does this [makes friends] has no connection with Allah unless you guard yourselves against them [don’t tell the truth to non-Muslims] …. Allah schemed.
Allah is the supreme schemer. …
But in the end I [Allah] smote the unbelievers: and how terrible was My rejection [some translations say abhorrence] of them. ”
(Quran [Surahs] 8:10, 12 -15, 30, 39, 46; 3:28, 54 – 55; 35:25 – 26).
Just a few verses from the koran, Rox, check them out for yourself, there are many more. No, not taken out of context, misquoted or anything. (the “peaceful” verses you will no doubt quote are ALL abrogated by the later, violent verses according to EVERY school of Islamic interpretation: there is no dispute about this amongst islamic “scholars”.)
I would say that any follower of a religion who doesn’t do what their holy books say is not a true follower of that religion, thus “peaceful” muslims are not true muslims. ISIS etc are doing what the koran prescribes. Yes, there are many “muslims” who are not violent (yet). Many are illiterate, and do not know what the koran says, as are many who are “cultural” “muslims” who were born into their “religion”, and again do not do what the koran says. When they DO find out what the koran tells them to do, they can:
1. leave islam (dodgy, as islam prescribes the death penalty for apostasy)
2. try and forget about it
3. become radicalised (this would presumably be “active” in your idiotic phrase) and a terrorist.
As for the solution, I would suggest that the only solution is to deport them all (please don’t lazily label me as Hitler, I don’t want to kill them). Ascension Island? Saudi Arabia? (who have taken NONE of the recent “migrants”?). Wherever, a LONG way away. Islam, and by extension, its followers, cannot co-exist with Western democratic values, I’m afraid, imo, and the same koran, haddith, sunnah commands them to turn any society in which they live into an islamic one. Now, of course, we will not deport them all, the lefties will prevent that, so we might as well enjoy what’s left of Western society cos the writings on the wall, it is only a matter of time. The indigenous Westerners are not having enough babies to reproduce their society, and the muslims are having large families (again, a deliberate strategy), so we will be a muslim majority society within a couple of generations, certainly by 2050 (thats without further waves of “migrants”). Expect more muslim MPs, councillors (who will, of course, be “moderates”, who SAY they condemn terrorist attacks (well, actually, even THEY don’t, they mostly complain about “islamophobia”, the muslim “community” being “demonised”, how islam is a religion of peace, etc etc blah blah blah in the wake of such attacks)), more terrorism and general left-wing hand-wringing. Oh, and “islamophobia”, and opinions such as this, will be made illegal, to combat “hate” and “racism”.
Sorry, this is my third reply (pity one can’t edit one’s posts once posted, like on facebook), but I thought I’d just give you some more verses, Rox:
Sura 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
Sura 3:28 “Muslims must not take the unbelievers as friends”
Sura 3:85 “Any religion other than islam is not acceptable”
Sura 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise islam”
Sura 8:12 “Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the koran”
Sura 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels”
Sura 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid: urge the muslims to fight them”
Sura 9:5 “when opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you catch them”
Sura 9:30 “the Jews and the Christians are perverts: fight them”
Sura 9:123 “make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood”
Sura 22:19 “punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water: melt their skin and bellies”
and the beheaders’ favourite:
Sura 47:4 “do not hanker for peace with the infidels: behead them when you catch them”
Check them out for yourself: perhaps your friend al-Bakhari can help. These commands are for ALL muslims at ALL times, unlike the Bible verses you will no doubt point to, which was for one specific occasion at one particular time, and is NOT a general command for Christians to follow.
Well Mark, in fact, surprisingly, we do seem to be mainly in agreement except for terminology, predictions, and solutions.
Obviously, the very large numbers of Muslims in this country already, many of whom have been here for a very long time or were born here, are not in fact striking off the heads of the population in general, and all the rest of it. Like most Christians and Jews, they do not follow every word of their holy books. You say this means that they are not true followers of their religion: most people would say it means they are not “fundamentalists” (Jews often say “orthodox” with a similar meaning).
Some do go to the mosque and perform some of the rituals, just as some people are actively Christians while not being well up in theology or fanatical. You tell me that to call them “active” is “idiotic” — thanks for that ! How about “mosque-going”, on the analogy of “church-going” ?
So you think that “active” is the same thing as “terrorist” ? Do you believe that all active Catholics in Ireland are IRA terrorists ? This is absurd, and very inflammatory. Yes, it’s possibly illegal even now to promulgate such views, and certainly irresponsible.
Sharia Law prescribes the death penalty for apostasy, but we don’t have Sharia Law in this country, nor do they in most countries, so it doesn’t really matter. Anybody killing an apostate would be guilty of murder, and consequently this very seldom happens in Europe. Therefore the mosque-going Muslim you describe, who had somehow managed to stay so ignorant, would be able to leave if he thought it made all the difference, yet more probably he would go for :
4. Carry on as usual (which is what most Christians do when they come across unpleasant texts or historical facts — you can say it is all long ago in the past, out of date, and no longer applies).
I had absolutely no intention of labelling you Hitler. It was with the best will in the world that Joseph Chamberlain had the idea of setting up a new Jewish homeland in Uganda, not Hitler. Madagascar was also suggested. I think Ascension is a bit small to take even all the British Muslims, actually. Hitler had better advisers than you ! However, for recently arrived migrants who don’t get asylum status, their own country seems a much more sensible destination, and this looks as though it is going to be European policy in a big way (as leaked to the Times, front page, 7th October). So asylum application is the solution for sorting out the sheep from the goats (I never know which were supposed to be the good ones, do you ?) , but in my opinion transport, enforcement, and the agreement of the home countries (who apparently are to be blackmailed in some cases, poor countries in Africa) remain enormous problems.
Thinking of our own “indigenous” Muslims, I have the impression that Mark Jones lives quite some way from London or any other city where they are already a familiar sight. Most of them are quite friendly, you know. That is fortunate, because it is difficult to justify deporting a British citizen who was born here on the grounds of his religion. If that had been done with non-conformists in the years following 1689 (when in fact the Act of Toleration was passed), many readers of Christian Voice would not be here — their ancestors (including my own) would have been forced to leave, and probably been killed by lions and natives (which is what did not appeal to the Jews about Uganda). Worse still, they might have fought off Red Indians and become American fundamentalists of the worst hell-condemning type !
Now, to get back at last to your point, your wrote that the selling of little children as sex slaves is fully condoned in the Qu’ran, Haddith, Sunnah, etc .
I thought it only normal practice to ask you for references to the relevant passages in the Koran, Hadith, and “Sunnah”. You have failed lamentably to do that. Nothing about sex slaves from the Koran, nothing at all from the Hadith, and the “Sunnah” as a definite book which can condone something doesn’t even exist ! Your original comment appears to be inflammatory nonsense which you cannot support in the way you claimed. Unless you can come up with the goods.
Hello Rox
Well, what would be the point of me proving to you about child sex slaves, etc when you don’t believe that true (or is it “active”?) muslims do it anyway? Why don’t you look into it yourself, as you seem, as Stephen has said, to be the expert on the haddith, with your access to al-Bakhari etc? Its certainly in the sunnah (the life of mo), but I don’t have chapter and verse. And it was certainly the justification behind the Rotherham etc child abuse scandals, these men believed their religion prescribed it (the media described the perpetrators as “Asian”, but they were in fact, ALL muslim men). ISIS are certainly doing it, they have markets where these girls and women are sold (many are committing suicide rather than continue with the abuse: their bodies are then thrown into the garbage). But I suppose you think that ISIS is not really true islam (or is it “active”? Well, yes, I suppose ISIS is certainly “active”), as we’re constantly told in the media? Further, I suppose you think that the islam we have in the West is different from the islam that we see around the world, that the Western form is “true” islam (again as we’re told by taquiyyah muslim “leaders”?). Well, look at the 56 islamic countries in the world, with the human rights abuses, etc etc: have they ALL got it wrong? Then again, you will no doubt say that not all muslims want to behead us etc? Possibly, but only 7% or so of Germans were Nazis, that didn’t turn out so well, did it? The “peaceful” ones are the ones who go along with it, who keep their heads down out of fear, much as the majority of Germans did. They’re the ones you see standing around watching in the beheading videos. Perhaps you will say that it won’t happen here? Possibly God (that’s Jahweh, not “allah” btw) will be merciful, but they thought that in Lebanon and other countries when they let these people in: they turned it into a war zone, it was previously known as “the Paris of the East”.
ps I apologise for my previous use of the word “idiotic”: it was a little “strong”, I suppose.
Never mind what is worthwhile in convincing ME, there are other readers as well as me, Stephen at least !
Again, please give us the actual numbered references which back up your statement that the Koran and the Hadith (it doesn’t have to be al-Bukhari ) fully condone the selling of little children as sex slaves. It is up to YOU to do this, not me ! And telling us what it is rumoured that criminals in Rotherham believed to be part of their nominal religion is certainly far from being good enough. If you want to make this point. give us the facts so that we can check on them. Thank you.
You are confused about the Sunnah. You are presumably thinking of the Sira or Sirat, which is the life of Mohammed. If you were to take the trouble to read Richardson’s “West Meets Islam” (and I certainly think you should), your would for a time be even more confused about it, even when you have got the name right.
In that book, the fictitious Westerner in the dialogue (Occidentalis) at first firmly believes that a book called “Sirat Rasul Allah” (“The Life of Muhammad”) by Ibn Ishaq, as translated into English by Alfred Guillaume (Oxford University Press, £14.99 from Amazon) is part of a Muslim “trilogy” which they all have to follow. He seems to have got this idea from Christian sources based in America and Australia. The quite devout young Muslim Londoner (Orientalis) is at first totally puzzled, because he has never heard of it. Searching house to house in Muslim districts in any country, it would be years before you found a copy ! The truth appears to be that (rightly or wrongly) this book has been considered inauthentic since the Middle Ages (you might say “apocryphal” or “non-canonical” — such writings do exist). It was the best, and is the only surviving, early biography of Mohammed, dating from little more than 100 years after his death.
Muslims are supposed to imitate the life of Mohammed, but only as described in the Hadith, which “scholars” have gone to great lengths to authenticate (mostly by only including stories told by more than one person, whereas Ibn Ishaq seems to have had access to some unique contemporary sources, which seems good to me, but then I’m not a Muslim).
I am certainly not convinced by this rejection of the earliest source myself. In my view, Ibn Ishaq seems to be as authentic and historical as you could reasonably expect. Moreover, the exploits related in it bear an uncanny resemblance to the exploits of ISIS, and in my opinion some of the leaders of ISIS have most certainly read it and are modelling their campaigns on it. But the Muslim in the street in London, Paris, or Berlin; or Brussels or Rome; is not doing this, has never heard of Ibn Ishaq, and has no intention of offending against the laws of the secular society where he is glad to be living.
The Sunnah, by the way, presented by certain Christians as the name of this “trilogy” of Koran, Hadith, and Sirat which they have invented, is no such thing, nor is it a separate book. It is in fact an abstract term not unlike “The Will of God” or “The Good Life”. The word itself means something like “path”, the desirable path through life as determined by what is known about what is known about Mohammed and what he knew about Allah (so you do learn about it from scholars who understand the Koran and the Hadith). In West Meets Islam, Occidentalis suggests that it would be a good idea to have one volume in which a modern Reformed Islam was clearly defined with no argument, but this seems a long way off.
Marks Jones does himself no favours with his play on the word “active”. It’s very simple. People who are active mosque-goers, whether in England or France, or even in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or Indonesia or Iran, are by an enormous majority not terrorists, and not extremists, and have in very large numbers never heard of Ibn Isaq. People who are active terrorists are not the same as people who are active mosque-goers. It’s not too difficult to make that distinction, really it isn’t. Of course, the active terrorists also go to mosques when they can, usually follow all the other rituals, and may well have read Ibn Ishaq, or been told about it.
As for what is “true” Islam. well, what is “true” Christianity ? Roman Catholism ? I believe they are in the majority and have an unbroken history. They don’t do all that much harm these days. But there are many other contenders.
In West Meets Islam, the character Orientalis insists that no existing country is truly Islamic, but (unlike some of his less intelligent contemporaries) he is far from convinced that Islamic State is truly Islamic, and abhors it as much as anyone else. This character appears to be the result of much research by the author, who lives in south London and (if he himself is Occidentalis, as seems likely ) asks some very cheeky and difficult questions with no holds barred. When you ask about the “Western form” of Islam, I think a “modern form” would be more appropriate, as more and more places like (as ever) Cairo and Istanbul lean more and more into originally “western” modernity. This is essentially what the former Dutch MP Ayaan Hirsi Ali says in her recent book “Heretic”, subtitled “Why Islam needs a Reformation now”.
When the Lebanon was a French League of Nations Trust Territory, it was already part Christian, part Muslim. (only 53% Christian in 1932)
.
Mark Jones, Stephen, and everybody else with a computer has exactly the same access to al-Bukhari as I have. Just Google it, and download it free from a suitable source. Then see what you can make of it ! Finding your way round is not easy. Mark was confidently pretending to quote this or some other collection of hadith, not me. Al-Bukhari seems to be the most popular and “reliable” one.
It would be very interesting for Mr Jones to look into some crime statistics to see how well they back up his suspicions. In most civilised countries, except the USA, the murder rate is very low. What proportion of these murders involve a Muslim murdering a non-Muslim ? Considering the millions of Muslims established in Britain, France, and Germany, the “infidel beheading” effect should be showing up clearly by now. What about the USA, where murder is more common ? Are the Muslims participating out of all proportion to the Christian majority ?
Rox, I have shown you at least a dozen verses from the koran that prescribe violence against unbelievers. There are many more (no, I’m not going to provide you with a complete list). You have not mentioned these at all. Let me ask you a question: do you agree that the koran mandates violence against unbelievers or not?
Mark, you did not start off by mentioning verses which prescribed violence against unbelievers, and I did not ask you for them. I do not want any more, I do not want a complete list. This is a red herring which you have introduced .
What you mentioned was :
” the selling of little children as sex slaves, war booty, fully condoned in the Qu’ran, Haddith, Sunnah, etc:”
All I have been asking you for is the reference number of these verses, in the Koran, in the Hadith, and (presumably) the Sirat and elsewhere, or at least in one of them but preferably two to back up your rash statement, so that we can all read the evidence which you are keeping to yourself.
That is a very normal request if anybody is going to take what you are saying seriously. Why won’t you do it ?
“FULY condoned” ! But where is this ?
Surely you must realise that selling children as sex slaves is not the same thing as cutting off the heads and fingertips of unbelievers. You just aren’t playing the game. Are you (to use your own word) “idiotic”, or what ? I don’t think you are, but nor are your readers.
I haven’t bothered before with your red herring quotations, which are very incomplete and for that reason alone out of context. For example, 8:15. Translations vary, but in Marmaduke Pickthall’s (as revised by Bleher) it says
“Oh you who believe! When you meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs on them” [and that is the complete verse].
I can’t find anything like that in what you have quoted. All this is about Muslims in battle.
Even Christians and Jews have been exalted to fight their enemies and told that the Lord supports them in battle. For example, Psalm 83 .
“Do unto them as to the Midianites ….they became as dung for the earth. …..persecute them with thy tempest…. that they may seek thy name, O Lord. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever.”
” Make war on them until persecution is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme “.
It’s not really all that different. Stand firm. Fight the good fight with all thy might ! Don’t run off. If you look up to the top of this page, you will actually find a tab “Soldiers of Christ”.
Another translator (N.J. Dawood, in Penguin Books) has for 8.15 :
“Believers, when you encounter the armies of the infidel, do not turn your backs to them in flight”.
It’s strange indeed that in your quotation of 8 12-15 there is nothing whatsoever like that. I know you have your dots for bits omitted (the same as I have ) but you can’t claim to quote verse 15 and then omit the entire verse. That isn’t cricket.
http://www.wnd.com/2014/12/isis-cites-quran-to-justify-child-rape/
Finally (probably), here’s a verse from the BIBLE for you, Rox: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (Isiah 5:20)
Ok, Rox, you seem to be saying that my translations of the verses I have quoted are inaccurate. I’m certainly not going to argue the toss about the correct translation of the Arabic, I don’t speak Arabic, and I suspect neither do you. However, the leaders of these terrorist organisations agree with ME, they cite verses such as these, and others, as justification for their crimes: the leaders of ISIS and others certainly DO know Arabic, and have been studying islam all their lives, and have many doctorates and post-grad, etc qualifications in islamic studies. But, according to you, they’ve got it all wrong, have they? I suspect there’s a job waiting for you on the BBC or Channel 4 News!!
No Mark, you’ve got it wrong again, I’m afraid. Why don’t you read, and reply to, what I actually write ?
Nowhere did I say anything about your chosen translation of the Arabic being wrong. I simply stated (as is normal) what translation I was using myself (but you, of course, didn’t).
Translations do vary, and people have preferences, but it’s almost as if you are setting much higher standards for people reading the Koran than for anyone else (while flouting them all the time yourself !). There must be millions of people who prefer one translation of the Old Testament to another, while having no knowledge of Hebrew . It’s perfectly true that I don’t know any Arabic or Hebrew, nor indeed Greek.
Let me explain to you the problem by quoting to you Isaiah 18-21 .
“Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope: that say, Let him make speed, and hasten his work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!”
Well, it’s a different translation from the one you have used (it’s the Authorised Version), and you may have difficulty finding anything corresponding to your “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” . That is simply because I have left it out ! This is what YOU have done in quoting verses 8: 12-15 from the Koran. You have left out verse 15. Now do you understand ?
Actually, what you call Isaiah 5.20, “a verse from the Bible”, is NOT the whole of verse 5.20. In the Revised Standard Version (which you have used, or a similar translation) this is :
“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
[ AV “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” ]
You really shouldn’t keep leaving chunks out like this.
It is interesting indeed that you have finally given us a link to
World Net Daily which does offer a reference to the Koran,
to 23: 5-6 . Thanks for that. It would have been nice if you had done so before !
Pickthall (revised by Bleher) has (and this is 23:5-6 in total) :
” And who guard their modesty. Except from their wives or the slaves whom their right hand possess, for then they are not blameworthy.”
And it goes on 7: “But whoever craves beyond that, such are transgressors”.
I wouldn’t say that this “fully condones the selling of little children as sex slaves”, and neither you nor World Net Daily gives any reference to the Hadith or the Sirat.
Fully condoned in the Qu’ran, Haddith, Sunnah, etc: ?
Dawood has for 23: 5-6 (again all of it, of course)
“Who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)”
And it goes on 7: “and do not transgress through lusting after other women.”
It’s easy to throw up our hands in horror at the mention of slavery, but :
1) Abraham had sex with his slave-girl, as did others at the time.
2) Christianity was popular amongst slaves in the Roman Empire, but I don’t believe it campaigned against slavery. (The compensation for the problems of life on earth was to be in Heaven, which is very similar to the Muslim view).
3) Very many Christian Americans, not least George Washington, had slaves, and many of them had sex with their slaves, even if he didn’t.
As for having a wife AND also a recognised allowable concubine or mistress, well, Charles II did that, following the well-established pattern of the Most Christian kings of France, where “Maitresse-en-titre” was an official position alongside that of Queen (from 1554 until 1789).
Of course, I am not myself in favour of slavery, nor of the horrific practices of Islamic State. Nor, of course, are the vast majority of Muslims.
Your choice of World Net Daily is an interesting one, They have run vigorous campaigns insisting that Obama was not born in the USA and is not fit to be president. It is a curious source to choose for reliable information on Islam, when the Koran and the Hadith are readily available. I do share their basic horror at what is going on, believe me, but let’s be fair to Muslims as a whole.
Mark complained (8 Oct 22.26) that I had not mentioned his duly numbered verses from the Koran, which he had invited me to check for myself (5 Oct 13.00). I have now had time to do that properly. “P/B” means the Marmaduke Pickthall translation as revised by Dr Bleher .We don’t, of course, know what Mark was using, but it becomes increasingly obvious that it wasn’t a translation of the Koran ! It must have been a summary by person or persons unknown, made for reasons which can only be guessed at.
Sura 2:191 “Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them”
P/B “And slay them [aggressors] wherever you find them”. continuing,
“and drive them out of the places from where they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter”. (+ more).
[ “them” clearly refers to “aggressors” , the last word of 2.190 , so I have inserted it to make this clear ].
Sura 3:28 “Muslims must not take the unbelievers as friends”
P/B “Let not the believers take disbelievers for their friends”, continuing
“in preference to believers” (+ more in the verse).
Sura 3:85 “Any religion other than islam is not acceptable”
P/B “And whoever seeks religion other than the Surrender [ Al-Islam] to God, it will not be accepted from him,” continuing
“and he will be a loser in the Hereafter”. (End of verse).
[ As it’s clear from verse 9.30 below and many others that the Koran does not look on Allah, Jehovah, and the Christian God as being different, this seems to imply that any Christian or Jew who surrendered to God’s will would be OK in Heaven, but not an idolater, polytheist, or totally irreligious person. Nor, it’s clear elsewhere, a wrongdoer. Some Christians might agree ! ].
Sura 5:33 “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticise Islam”
P/B “The only reward of those who make war on Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land is that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off” continuing
“or will be expelled from the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom”. (End of verse).
[ In “West Meets Islam, Occidentalis comments on what a preferable option being expelled from the land is ! But note that, like 2.191, this is intended to be retaliation on those who started a conflict. ]
Sura 8:12 “Terrorise and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Koran”
This verse starts :
P/B “When your Lord inspired the angels, saying: I am with you. So make those who believe stand firm. I will throw fear into the hearts of those who disbelieve.” Then comes what you quote (except it was the Lord who terrorises the heathen, not the reader !).
“Then strike the necks”, continuing “and strike of them each finger”. (End of verse).
[ If this means beheading, I don’t quite see the point of “striking” each finger as well, and it seems to me* that it may only apply at this point to those who believed but did not stand firm, i.e. apostates. It says nothing whatsoever about scriptures other than the Koran. However, by 8.15 we have “Oh you who believe ! When you meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them”. That may be intended to be a different group of people in a different situation , however ]. * Apparently not so when you look at a different translation.
Sura 8:60 “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels”
P/B “Make ready for them all you can of armed force and of horses tethered” (+ more)
[ This is no more than instructions on how to conduct a war in the 7th century, and as such it seems very reasonable ]
Sura 8:65 “The unbelievers are stupid: urge the muslims to fight them”
P/B “O Prophet ! Exhort the believers to fight”. continuing
“If there are of you twenty steadfast they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are of you a hundred, they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve”, and then continuing “because they are a people without intelligence”.
[This seems to be fairly standard morale-boosing rhetoric for wartime. Gott mit uns. ]
[ The next verse, 66, says that a thousand will overcome two thousand, so it seems to me they would do much better to split into ten hundreds ! ]
Sura 9:5 “when opportunity arises kill the infidels wherever you catch them”
P/B is fairly equivalent but continues “and take them captive (etc). But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free.”
[BUT 9.5 is preceded with exceptions relevant to the events in the 7th century that this referred to:
9. 4 “Excepting those of the idolaters with whom you have a treaty, and who have since withdrawn nothing of your rights nor have supported anyone against you”. So 9.5 is not an instruction to kill all non-Muslims whenever possible (as is obvious from the behaviour of Muslims for centuries, for example in the Ottoman Empire). ]
Sura 9:30 “the Jews and the Christians are perverts: fight them”
P/B “And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah. That is their saying with their mouths, They imitate the sayings of those who disbelieved of old. Allah’s curse be on them: how they are deluded from the truth”.
[ Nothing about fighting them in this verse, and the modern use of “perverts” at least doesn’t really seem to fit].
Sura 9:123 “make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood”
P/B “Oh you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let then find harshness in you”, continuing “and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty to him”.
[ I don’t know that “fighting” (as in fight the good fight ?) amounts to making war in this case. “Harshness” suggests to me a treatment in everyday life far short of warfare ].
Sura 22:19 “punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water: melt their skin and bellies”
P/B starts “These two (the believers and the unbelievers) are two opponents who argue concerning their Lord. ” continuing
“But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads”
And in fact, part of what you quote is in verse 20:
” By which that which is in their bellies, and their skin too, will be melted”. (End of verse)
And verse 21: “And for them are hooked rods of iron”. (End of verse)
[ BUT BUT BUT, this is NOT in the imperative, telling Muslims to do all this ! It is what WILL be done by Allah. Verse 19 includes the words “there are many to whom the doom is justly due”. Verse 23 goes in the other direction:
” Allah will cause those who believe and do good works [ so BOTH, no argument !] to enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow, in which they will be allowed armlets of gold, and pearls, and their garments in it will be silk”.
[So, in summary, non-believers are not being instructed to give believers silk clothes and gold in gardens, and neither are believers being instructed to melt the skin of non-believers or use hooked iron rods on them. This sounds like the Holy Inquisition. That isn’t what it says].
And what Mark calls “the beheaders’ favourite ” :
Sura 47:4 “do not hanker for peace with the infidels: behead them when you catch them”
This is a poor summary of a long verse, which starts :
P/B ” Now when you meet in battle” and continues ” until, when you have routed them, then making fast of bonds; and afterwards either grace or ransom until the war lay down its burdens. That is the ordinance. And if Allah willed, he could have punished them” (+ more).
I can’t see anything in this verse which might correspond to “do not hanker for peace”. It seems to mean really “When the war is all over, if you can’t get any ransom for them, just let them go”.
If you don’t like that, I suggest you consult the translation (actual translation) of your choice.
Marmaduke Pickthall was an Englishman who was converted to Islam in 1917 and published his translation in 1930. He was inclined to write in “biblical” English, which was carefully modernised and revised by Dr Bleher in 2004 .
We can now briefly run our eye over the beheaders’ favourite in another translation, this one as recent as 2009 and from India, by Wahihuddin Khan.
Kh 47:4 “When you meet those who deny the truth in battle”, and continues “once they are defeated, make them prisoners, and afterwards either set them free as an act of grace, or let them ransom themselves when the war is finally over ……”. [That seems to make Pickthall crystal clear, and I still can’t identify “no hankering after peace”. Some infidel are indeed killed in the battle, like in any other battle, but not the prisoners.]
Kh 22:19 Again, “will be cut out for them” etc. 22:22 makes the context very clear indeed :
Kh 22:22 “whenever in their anguish they attempt to escape from Hell, they will be driven back into it, and they will be told ‘Taste the punishment of Hell’ ” (end of verse).
Going backwards now, dealing with differences quite briefly :
Kh 9:123 “Believers! Fight against those deniers of the truth who are near you, Deal firmly with them. Know that God is with those who fear him “. [So not a war, nor even literally a war in the neighbourhood, I don’t think. This is only to be expected . There were plenty of Christians in Constantinople, without little local civil wars breaking out all the time. ]
Kh 9:30 “These are but their baseless utterances …. May God destroy them…”
[ Baseless utterances are not the same thing as perversions. The punishment is left to God, not to Muslim people (as also in 22:21-23 above). ]
Kh 9:5 Here Khan reminds us that it all refers to a wartime situation with treaties as previously referred to, by inserting the words “[who are at war with you]”. Thus “…kill the polytheists [who are at war with you] wherever you find them. Take them captive …. But if they repent, and take to prayer regularly and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is forgiving and merciful”. (End of verse). [Notice the use of “polytheists”, which is not unusual in such translations, and must exclude Christians and Jews, as well as the other exceptions made in verse 9:4 , of whom Khan says “Fulfil your agreement with them”. Neither 9:123 nor 9:5 were taken as reasons to kill (for example) the Patriarch of Constantinople and his followers, established there only one year after the fall of the city to the Turks in 1453, more or less as they had been before. So the patriarch of the Orthodox Church was in the same city as the Caliph (at that time the Sultan) in seven centuries, and although the Caliphate was abolished in the 1920s, the patriarch is still there, not killed. ]
Kh 8:65 Little to add here, except that for “without intelligence” Khan has “devoid of understanding”, exactly the same choice of words as Dawood in 1956 (Penguin Books) . Not really “stupid”. Mark is somewhat devoid of understanding of Islam, which is what it means.
Kh 8:60 “…any cavalry with which you can overawe God’s enemy, and your own enemy as well …” It could almost be an American general !
Kh 8:12 He also has “strike” their necks and finger joints. Dawood has for 8.12
Da 8:12 “Allah revealed his will to the angels, saying: ‘I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, maim them in every limb.” (end of verse). It continues 13 “Thus We punished them because they defied Allah and his apostle.”
[In fact if you look further back, all this is explaining to Mohammed how divine aid won him an unlikely victory at the Battle of Badr , AD 624. Dawood makes this clearer than the other translations, but Pickthall does start 8:12 “When your Lord inspired the angels”. Two things are very clear:
There is NO MENTION WHATSOEVER of scriptures other than the Koran.
Whatever you may find elsewhere, 8:12 is NOT an instruction to go out and behead people (no more than a history of Henry VIII’s reign is ). ]
Kh 5:33 Very similar to P/B, with the option “or be banished from the country” (and severely punished after death).
Kh 3.85 Very similar to P/B, but Khan adds a long note: ” …. The Muslim does not claim to have a religion peculiar to himself. Islam is not a sect or an ethnic religion. In its view, all religion is one, for the Truth is one….” [ I’m not entirely convinced by that, but that’s what it says So presumably if a Christian or Jew behaves well, he too will be alright in Khan’s view at least, as I suggested. ]
Kh 3.28 “…in preference to the believers”. [ So as P/B. You can have Christian friends as well as Muslim friends, but not exclusively. Most churches would take a dim view of a Christian who only had Muslim friends]
Kh 2.191 Khan has added words in square brackets, the same as I have, to remind the reader that this refers to the previous verse, “Slay them wherever you find them [those who fight against you], drive them out of the places from which they drove you, for religious persecution is worse than killing” . (+ more, about when you can fight in a mosque, etc).
Moral of all this: Do be careful where you get your “quotations”, and pass them on accurately.
Rox, you might pontificate that such and such a verse is NOT an instruction to kill unbelievers, but the Muslims of Al Qaeda and Islamic State, and their supporters, of whom not a few are resident here, take a different view. Perhaps you should be spending you time on their discussion websites. After all, you are a reasonable man. They are sure to take notice of you. Aren’t they?
I’m surprised that Stephen should accuse me of pontificating. I am no more a Pontiff than he is.
It’s in the Roman Catholic tradition that one accepts dogma from the Pope (the Pontiff), and very much part of the Protestant or Evangelical tradition that one examines what it actually says in the texts (including the “Evangel” or Gospels). Very much like Muslims, most Protestants are keen to follow what they believe to be the word of God, although latterly study of the texts has thrown some passages into doubt (but that was also true in the first centuries of Christianity). In all kinds of fields, mediæval academics were inclined to follow what had (almost accidentally) become the pontification of surviving Greek and Roman authors, but later academics have carefully studied the actual natural facts of phenomena, and the actual texts available (depending on the subject).
Surely Mark (or an ISIS supporter, perhaps) pontificates when he “quotes” as Muslim teaching : “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water: melt their skin and bellies” as if that was an instruction to believers. I am merely examining the text and explaining that, with no doubt whatsoever, this is a description of what Allah will supposedly do to people who go to Hell. The two things are very different, and that is the fact. That is not pontificating, it is the truth, or education if you like. If you go into an Italian church with lurid frescoes of Hell (always the most popular postcards), these are not instructing the congregation to torment their neighbours or even their enemies in the same way.
The tragedy is that Christians like Mark (and I could name several more prominent, such as Bill Warner and Harry Richardson, who is probably no relation to Plantagenet Richardson) are actually following the example of Muslim extremists, including ISIS, by interpreting the Koran and Ibn Ishaq in exactly the same way that they do, and giving credence to it.
They have their agenda for their own reasons. Unfortunately, I am not capable of swaying them or of restoring peace in Syria and Iraq. But what I can do is point moderate Muslims, especially in this country, and reasonable Christians in this country and perhaps America, to look at the actual text of the Koran and see what it says, without any pontificating slant from a self-proclaimed Caliph, dangerous Imam, or Bill Warner and his followers. Fortunately for us, most Muslims either don’t care very much, or look at it this way anyway.
Really I am not pontificating. I have simply laid out the true text of the Koran side by side with what Mark claims it says. This is rather complicated by most of his “verses” not in fact being full verses. In case there might be any doubt about one translation, I have always quoted two and sometimes three. Actually, the best seems to be Wahihuddin Khan, which is readily available to anybody free of charge, but the two older translations familiar in England serve to demonstrate that Khan has clarified rather than distorted.
It’s true I have made comments on this too, but were you to take simply Mark’s text and the other two (or three) side by side, they speak for themselves.
Stephen, of course Muslim terrorists are not reasonable men and would pay very little attention to me. But there is no need for large numbers of westerners and moderate Muslims to go the same way. I fear Mark Jones is beyond redemption, though.
From their ICM poll, the Daily Mirror concluded that around half of Britain’s Muslims support Islamic State. Given that these will be the more bellicose of Britain’s Muslims, your ‘moderate Muslims’, if they do indeed exist, will have a hard time arguing, let alone imposing, their ‘moderate’ point of view.
And what is the example of the so-called ‘prophet’ of Islam? Did he go about peacefully converting people? Or was he the prototype Middle-Eastern war-lord? I think you’ll find the records of his life in the various Hadith (Arabic for ‘story’) incline strongly to the latter.
I agree with Stephen. I think “prototype Middle-Eastern war-lord” describes Mohammed very well, as far as we can tell. In my opinion, Ibn Ishaq probably DOES describe what actually happened ! (When it comes to dubious early stories, he has a way of saying in effect “only Allah knows if this one is true or not”). His accounts are probably as accurate as the accounts we have of the battle of Agincourt, or Joan of Arc, and probably much better than the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles.
But the fact remains that, since the later Middle Ages, Muslims have not been supposed to take any notice of what he says (except where similar stories have been incorporated into hadith). There are supposed to be technical reasons for this, but in my personal opinion it was done by wise men to make Muslim teaching more suitable for more peaceful times. Muslim civilisations had to be kept civilised, and the fact is, they were arguably as good at this as anybody else, for centuries, often showing remarkable tolerance for people of other religions.
For centuries the Koran could easily be used in such a way that civilisation continued to function. It does NOT contain the verses that Mark Jones ascribes to it, as I have shown. If he maintains that it has similar ones and worse, let him produce some, correctly this time, and we will consider them.
Of course moderate Muslims exist. Who do you think drives the buses, tests your eyes, hands out your medicine, and looks after London children in nursery schools ? Opinion polls don’t always get things right. It depends very much on what question you ask, and what the respondent understands by it (if they do understand it, which they might not in this case — one poll found that vast numbers of Muslims did not know what “ISIS” in English was supposed to mean, and/or simply did not follow current events) . Again, in a vague way, if you asked a Muslim if the re-establishment of a caliphate in Iraq sounded like a good idea, he might romantically say yes. I would take this Daily Mirror poll with a pinch of salt. Ask Jews all over the world if they think the temple should be rebuilt in Jerusalem. Ask Roman Catholics if they think their pope and cardinals should rule over all Christians and have precedence over civil authorities too, for example in banning abortions and homosexuality.
I’m not going to look through the voluminous hadith searching for particularly unpleasant stories about Mohammed, but I suggest you do so, and report them to us accurately with the correct verse number so that we can check. You can download Al-Bukhari free, and you will find that to be quite enough hadith to be getting on with .
Rox, you, and most people I speak to about these things, seem to have to be dragged kicking and screaming to the truth: that islam is our enemy . Even when you have shown them the truth, they seem to resent it, they hate having their comfortable lies shattered. Our battle as Christians is not against flesh and blood: our battle as “Soldiers of Christ” has ALWAYS been, “Just War” theory notwithstanding, primarily a spiritual one (another of your objections answered) but what do we do? just let them take over? watch as they behead us and our families? We have all this PC cr*p, that every human being is lovely and loving, that we are all “global citizens”, we will all join hands, sway back and forth and sing “We are the World”. Or have a Coke and teach the world to sing. We in the West have not had a serious threat to our freedoms and way of life since WW2, well we’ve got one now imo. Palestinian mothers GLADLY give their children to be suicide bombers, to blow up Jews and any kuffar, they consider it an honour for allah. Many are waking up, but many refuse to see the truth, desperate as they are to feel good about themselves as good human beings, so compassionate, loving and “tolerant”.
If you have any further questions, red herrings or obfuscations, I suppose I will have to try to answer them (sigh).
You haven’t really tried very hard to answer anything. Your alleged verses from the Koran are virtually fakes, only very loosely based by some clumsy hand on what is actually there. You have never justified your propaganda from 30th September
” the selling of little children as sex slaves, war booty, fully condoned in the Qu’ran, Haddith, Sunnah, etc ”
You forget the Crusades, I think. Didn’t they involve real bloody battles against Muslim flesh and blood ? Call it spiritual if you will .You seem to have forgotten the Cold War and Cuban missiles and things like that, too, often considered a threat to the West at the time. You forget spirited evangelical Christians like Gordon of Khartoum crossing swords (and machine guns) most enthusiastically with Muslims, and countless European armies clashing with “the Turks”, which really meant Muslims at the time, and is still celebrated in the Vatican.
Frankly, if I was a Palestinian I would be very fed up with the arrogant Jewish settlers in my country, wouldn’t you ?
You still don’t understand the importance of quoting correctly, do you ? I have added a new little piece above, dealing with your so-called verses from the Koran which you complained I had not mentioned. Well, now I have, but I don’t really expect you to get it even now. What do you propose to do about all the Muslims who already live amongst us, if you assume that they are all as you say ? You must be terrified.
Tolerance and understanding are much better than — well, what do you propose ? Jaw-jaw is better than war-war, as Churchill said, and this would be civil war-war. But moderate Muslims don’t want that any more than most of us do, thank you very much. Come on, Mark, they aren’t beheading your family !
The sad thing is that in sensible ways I agree with you. What is being done by Islamic State is, as I have already stated, horrific. I don’t want vast quantities more of Muslim migrants in Britain, or anywhere else in Europe. I have hinted at this in comments elsewhere on this website. But we must try to stick to facts, and give moderate Muslims a fair crack of the whip (yet not the hundreds of lashes imposed in Saudi Arabia for minor crimes). You probably don’t like Roman Catholics or Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses either, and approximately half the population has very little time for any of your faiths. We must all try to be as rational and humane as possible, and live tolerantly together in a civilised way. Don’t you agree ? Probably not.
Most of the C of E bishops want to let more Syrian refugees into our country. Most of theses invaders are young muslim men. I did not hear that the bishops only want Christians admitted and housed and fed.
I’m reluctant to go to church today and hear another appeal for blankets for the invaders who want to destroy us.
Do you have a list of churches which want to keep our country Christian, and oppose the ongoing invasion.
Dove World Outreach Centre; Westboro Baptist Church; they could probably tell you of others.
I am wondering if the comments on this are of record length now, going by the actual length of it, not just that there are 27 comments.
So many Anglican bishops have spoken out that Dave might do best to avoid the Church of England completely, but then if he shops around in his area and speaks to those in charge of smaller more privately run churches, he shouldn’t have too much difficulty in finding one to his taste.
Blankets reminds us that winter is closing in, and few of us would be keen to trek through the Balkans and Austria now even with proper equipment and experience of northern Europe. The temperature tonight even at Ljubljana airport is 3 . It will interesting to see if this news gets through to people in Turkey and they stop coming in such numbers.