Saturday, November 10, 2007

Integration of Muslims ‘must go both ways’

Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, insists in The Daily Telegraph that Britain must adapt to Islam as much as Muslims adapt to British culture. Integration should not only be about immigrants learning English, but the British should learn from Islam on such issues as (he specifies) homosexuality, sex before marriage, adultery, women’s modesty, marriage, child rearing – because ‘everybody can learn from everyone... Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion’.

Indeed, Dr Bari, but so can the Christian ones. The problem for Dr Bari is that the ‘Muslim principles’ for social cohesion also include oppression. While Muslim women purport to view the hijab as liberating, it is alien to the West; while Europe has abandoned capital punishment, Islam views it as an imperative – hanging, beheading, or limb amputation. His response to the question ‘Is stoning ever justified?’ is ‘It depends what sort of stoning and what circumstances.’

Did you read that? It depends ‘what sort of stoning’! What’s that about? The size of the stones? Pebbles only permitted at some stonings? No women allowed? No children? From the leader of an organisation representing 500 other Muslim groups, the response is alarming.

And yet Dr Bari insists that it is the British Government that is ‘stoking the tension’, and demonising Muslims in the same way as Hitler did of the Jews. That is the precise parallel he draws. He ought to visit a few Muslim countries – Iran springs to mind – and he might just gain a better understanding of Nazi parallels. In his view, the suspicion of Islam and Muslims is not justified: “There is a disproportionate amount of discussion surrounding us,” he says. “The air is thick with suspicion and unease. It is not good for the Muslim community, it is not good for society."

So when the head of MI5 claims that there are 2000 people involved in terrorist activity and children as young as 15 were being ‘groomed’ to be suicide bombers, this should not arouse our suspicion. And neither should it be talked about, for it is not good for the Muslim community. And further: “Sir Salman Rushdie should never have been knighted,” he says. “He caused a huge amount of distress and discordance with his book, it should have been pulped." And yet he is of the view that mosques can go on selling extremist literature because they are 'separate businesses' from the mosques themselves. Any potential 'distress' or 'discordance' here is distinctly secondary to the principles of the free market.

In Dr Bari's view, ‘suicide bombers are victims as well as aggressors’. He says: “I deal with emotionally damaged children. Children come to hate when they don't get enough care and love. They are probably bullied, it makes a young person angry and vulnerable. The extreme case could be suicide bombers, it is all they have … The people who become suicide bombers are really vulnerable." His solution is simply to hug a Muslim hoodie.

And the reason they are vulnerable is because ‘British foreign policy has driven Muslims into the arms of the extremists… Iraq has been a disaster, the country has been destroyed for no reason, that had an impact on the Muslim psyche.’

His passion is to integrate Muslim and British cultures, and he insists that the integration ‘must go both ways’. But Cranmer would like to go further, and ask Dr Bari what Islam can learn from Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist cultures. If integration is two-way, please tell us what the Muslim community must learn from these religious communities, for they are all now part of what it is to be British. And while we're at it, perhaps he could expound what he thinks Muslims are learning from Judaism and Christianity, for there is nothing in his view of society that is not already given guidance in the Bible.

Dr Bari is himself an immigrant, and Cranmer is aghast at the arrogance and presumption of the man. The problem is not emotionally damaged children, but politically indoctrinated adults who are brainwashed into believing that their religion is the be all and end all of political objectives. If the UK is to be governed henceforth by the sensitivities of the ‘Muslim psyche’, the last 300 years of the development of democracy and liberty will have been in vain.

Cranmer has no objections whatsoever to Muslims or people of any religion or race coming to the UK, but it is their duty to adapt, syncretise, and integrate. If you do not like the UK, Dr Bari, please return to your rice and jute farm in Bangladesh.

38 Comments:

Anonymous Bert Rustle said...

Cranmer wrote “...Cranmer has no objections whatsoever to Muslims or people of any religion or race coming to the UK, but it is their duty to adapt, syncretise, and integrate. ...”

Your Grace, if they do this, how are they to be distinguished from the host population, in practical terms? If they are not distinguishable, then why are we replacing the host population, like with like? What diversity will there be to celebrate?

10 November 2007 at 12:09  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Rustle,

Adaptation and integration do not demand uniformity. The diversity remains because of man's infinite faculties - '...in form and moving; how express and admirable in action; how like an angel in apprehension; how like a god; the beauty of the world; the paragon of animals...'

As long as there is humanity there will be diversity.

10 November 2007 at 12:21  
Blogger Graeme said...

Hear, hear. Important to deal with these nonsense statements as soon as they are made. A pity that you are not employed by the Today programme, your Grace.

10 November 2007 at 12:24  
Blogger Laban said...

I wrote a long while ago that the left were, almost without realising it, importing large numbers of Theodore Darymples into the UK.

Having won the culture wars (with the results you can see on any Friday-night high street) and destroyed the old native culture where drunkenness and promiscuity (for example) were things to be ashamed of rather than celebrated, they will soon discover that there are millions of people who are MORE culturally conservative than the Mary Whitehouses over whom they triumphed. Ironic really. And because they're brown-skinned, left attacks, constrained by white liberal guilt, will be a lot less fervent than they were on Mrs Whitehouse.

While I haven't a lot of time for Dr Bari, I have less for the idea that Muslims should integrate into today's Brit "culture". There isn't one worthy of the name.

Your Grace should take note of two episodes now seemingly forgotten - the cleansing of prostitutes from the streets in Birmingham and Bradford by "community action". Note the differing reactions of Christan and Muslim clerics.

I doubt we've seen the last of such action.

http://tinyurl.com/2h9kx9

10 November 2007 at 13:03  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Bari GO HOME. You are evidently not at home here.

10 November 2007 at 13:22  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I loved the "it depends on what kind of stoning" remark.

I would demonstrate in favour of demanding that Islamic immigrants be sent home, but of course I would not be allowed to.

How many more dead bodies must there be before the ruling elite see sense? Perhaps we need a high profile death before the BBC and others stop peddling such twaddle about multiculturalism.

If a white, high profile leader had said this about gays, or women or blacks, he would have lost his job and have been arrested.

"It depends on the kind of stoning"

It sounds like a Pythion sketch, and it would be very funny if it was not also so chillingly sinister.

10 November 2007 at 13:32  
Anonymous Alexandrian said...

Laban - thank you for your contribution. Most interesting.

10 November 2007 at 13:39  
Anonymous Sir HM said...

Bari, Bodi, Bunglawala.

The B team.

10 November 2007 at 13:55  
Anonymous Bert Rustle said...

Laban wrote “...Brit "culture". There isn't one worthy of the name. ...” Reportedly X million watch Big Brother and Y thousand drunks fight on the streets weekly. My personal experience is diverse. I encounter some youths with perfect manners and fifty-year-old yobs without consideration for others. In my opinion, “acceptable behaviour” has become increasingly diverse but a good number of the indigenous population and more recent arrivals are as polite, civilised and cultured as one can see in fifties movies. I would hazard a guess that as we now have “anything goes” as “acceptable behaviour”, anything goes. Perhaps if we had the freedom to be In Praise of Prejudice , things might be different.

10 November 2007 at 14:04  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

After reading this, I wonder whether Rod Liddle from your previous post isn't perfectly accurate after all. What is certainly clear is that Dr Bari is simply mad, and rather than return 'home', should be sectioned immediately.

'Hug a Muslim hoodie' ! HA! I love it. Having said that, I think there is truth in what Dr Bari says. It is true that suicide bombers are victims as well as aggressors. But they are not victims of British foreign policy. They are victims of a liberal school system that refuses to keep its standards high and allows all children (whether Muslim or not) to shout about their rights and to refuse to learn some manners. 'Hugging a Muslim hoodie' should mean demanding that they behave in a decent and moral way. That, and only that, is true love.

While Your Grace is right to point out the problem being in part the politically indoctrinated adults, the problem is also the brainwashed Left which refuses to criticize people like Dr Bari who are doing the brainwashing.

Bert Rustle
How often do you encounter youths with perfect manners? Fifty year old yobs? Have you seen a 1950s movie recently? I am right now watching Audrey Hepburn and everyone is saying 'good afternoon'. I can't remember the last time I hear anyone say such a thing!

10 November 2007 at 14:28  
Anonymous poohbear said...

Real old fashioned British culture still exists throughout Great Britain, although increasingly margialized by the leftist/socialist self haters/handwringers/snakes in the bed, ably assisted by the ever insidious 'pop culture'! The cultural rot is extensive BUT not yet terminal!
Our land in many places remains our land still but we as a Nation MUST at some point stop or at least make it difficult for people like BARI to come here and abuse our hospitality and way of life! I see BARI for what he is, a cheap and nasty 'race baiter' and a hustler with a chip! Our Nation deserves better than to be submerged beneath a backward and cruel ideology.

PS Old saying... The more you give a tyrant the more they want! The more we as a Nation give to these people the more they WILL take!

PPS Bishop, you are as ever a beacon of reason and common sense!

10 November 2007 at 14:53  
Anonymous najistani said...

"it depends on what kind of stoning" Yes, it must be multicultural stoning!

The Muslims should invite leaders of other faiths to participate in this celebration of enrichment by casting the first stones. They wouldn't dare refuse for fear of being labelled 'racist'.

10 November 2007 at 15:33  
Anonymous Bert Rustle said...

Snuffleupagus wrote “... youths with perfect manners? Fifty year old yobs? Have you seen a 1950s movie recently? ...” To me, “perfect manners” is showing consideration for the others feelings and desires, to a limited extent. Specifically, I do not necessarily exclude those who wipe their nose with their sleeve and who speak like a Rap-artist or include £100K+ well-spoken professionals. Who? In recent experience – shop assistants, a single local government employee, a builder, and a barely intelligible be-hooded Rap-speaker, who crossed the road to assist me unasked, at night.

On the other side, at a recent wedding the said £100K+ well-spoken professionals were repeatedly inconsiderate and on occasion rude to an extremely polite and considerate American guest. They also did not mingle with the other £15K+ working-class guests, rather remaining in a clique. Being the perfect gentleman, I mingled like a demon and I can say that the latter group was the making of the event.

There are lots of fifties movies on FilmFour during the afternoon, I watch one a week on average.

10 November 2007 at 15:58  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster said...

When Dr. Bari was appointed to office as Head of the Muslim Council of Britain, he was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's 'Sunday Programme' and asked what the Muslim community could contribute to British society.

He said more or less what he's quoted as saying now. That is, he threatened Britain with yet more sharia law etc etc.

Soon after that, the Executive Producer of Sunday, together with a colleague, accepted an invitation to meet a cross-section of the Jewish community in my home in Manchester.

It was about a month before I emigrated to Israel and it was partly by way of saying 'Goodbye', as I myself had contributed to some of their programmes.

I think that they were both stunned that I was emigrating to Israel.

The subject of Dr. Bari and his approach came up in conversation and the consensus of the two producers was basically: 'Bari, nul points'.

As the BBC is generally regarded as one of the main appeasers of Islamism in Britain, I found their reaction interesting, to say the least.

If Dr. Bari and his unreconstructed Islamism is the best that the Muslim community can come up with, then is there really any hope for the future?

10 November 2007 at 16:13  
Anonymous Yorkielass said...

MCB=MAB=Muslim brotherhood=hamas and hezbollah=terrorists.
Banna nazi=The birth of the brotherhood.
Grand mufti of Palestine with his SS muslim division= final solution.
How dare he ignore the muslim past?
The jewish people demanded nothing. they Bari's own people took part in the Holocaust yet he tries to blame this country instead of those that were to blame.
Al-Taqqyi again. MCB WATCH.......

10 November 2007 at 16:18  
Blogger Homophobic said...

To go slightly off topic -

"On the other side, at a recent wedding the said £100K+ well-spoken professionals were repeatedly inconsiderate and on occasion rude to an extremely polite and considerate American guest."

Cranmer, could you please engage in religio-philsophical discourse on the evils of vanity? With lots of Bible quotes? Oh go on sir!

10 November 2007 at 16:27  
Anonymous Mike H said...

"it depends on what kind of stoning"

This illuminates a sepsis that poses a most serious threat to our society, but our political leaders and the PC brigade are either blind to it, or are choosing to ignore it.

It is not the duty of the indigenous population to change its ways in order to accommodate the radical element of a culture that, at least from some perspectives, appears to live by an entirely different set of values to our own.

In choosing to live and remain in this land, there is an obligation on members of any immigrant community or culture to accept the basic values of the indigenous population. If, to borrow the words of Abu Hamza, they think this country is 'a toilet', then they have the option to leave.

I'm not 'anti Muslim', nor am I a racist. I believe that everyone is entitled to follow the faith of their choosing, and should be free to do so in peace. The key words here are "in peace". However, there also has to be an assumption that the teachings of that faith are compatible with our laws and way of life in the UK.

I question if that is the case in respect of the more radical interpretation of Islam that is followed by some Muslims.

It is unacceptable for preachers of any faith to say that it is OK to kill non-believers. It is also unacceptable to imply that adulterers should be murdered.

We are governed here by the laws of Parliament, not by Sharia law. It is The Queen that approves Parliamentary bills in order that they become law, not a radical Muslim cleric in a north London Mosque.

If the moderate majority of the Muslim community feels under siege, perhaps they should do something about the people they allow to represent them. They could perhaps start by replacing Dr Bari.

10 November 2007 at 17:25  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Cranmer has no objections whatsoever to Muslims or people of any religion or race coming to the UK, but it is their duty to adapt, syncretise, and integrate.

As a general principle, not objecting to immigration by "any religion or race" is woefully misguided; when the immigration is into a country gripped by liberalism, it becomes lunatic. Muslims are like Jews: they're intensely selfish and they cause trouble wherever they go. Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is a good example of one, Dr Lancaster of the other, and both are concerned solely with the welfare of their own group. The welfare of the white British majority, who never wanted or asked for Muslim immigration, is of no importance to either.

If you do not like the UK, Dr Bari, please return to your rice and jute farm in Bangladesh.

This reveals why not objecting to immigration is woefully misguided in general. Keeping potential troublemakers out is infinitely better than inviting them to leave once they are established. But the UK exists under particular liberal circumstances. Would His Grace please outline what steps he recommend we take if the invitation is not accepted and the invitee continues to dislike the UK? Merely extending it classifies him as racist and xenophobic and if he goes any further he risks running foul of the race laws, which were quite alien to the white British tradition. When you look at who was behind them, you'll see that that's no coincidence.

Adaptation and integration do not demand uniformity.

But they do demand a willingness to adapt and integrate. Which Muslims will not supply, as anyone familiar with them could have told us before we allowed them to enter the country in such large numbers. The more there are there, the more confident they grow in their demands.

The diversity remains because of man's infinite faculties - '...in form and moving; how express and admirable in action; how like an angel in apprehension; how like a god; the beauty of the world; the paragon of animals...'

As long as there is humanity there will be diversity.


That is no justification for mass immigration. As long as there is diversity there will be conflict, and mass immigration has created the conditions for some extremely vicious conflict in the near future. Race blindness is a lunacy characteristic of whites and white Christians: you will not find aliens like Bari or Lancaster succumbing to it.

10 November 2007 at 17:26  
Anonymous najistani said...

Mike H said...
"In choosing to live and remain in this land, there is an obligation on members of any immigrant community or culture to accept the basic values of the indigenous population."

Oh no there isn't - at any rate not from their point of view (which is just as valid as ours, if not more so). The Muslim has no obligation whatsoever to the accursed kuffar.

Here is an excellent article on the predatory and parasitic Muslim practice of 'Razzia', ie plundering and extorting their unfortunate kuffar hosts: http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Islam-West-Razzia.htm

10 November 2007 at 19:29  
Anonymous convinced Anglican said...

Your Grace

ned sherry said: "Muslims are like Jews: they're intensely selfish and they cause trouble wherever they go."

Might we require from 'ned sherry' precise examples of the 'trouble' Jewish immigrants have EVER caused in the UK (or elsewhere)?

One can only be startled by the historical ignorance manifesting in such comments.

He continues: "Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari is a good example of one, Dr Lancaster of the other, and both are concerned solely with the welfare of their own group."

This is, of course, absurd. We can only compare 'like with like'?

Whilst Dr Lancaster is not personally known to me, I am conversant with the rigour of her academic work; her reputation as a dedicated teacher in Manchester; and the regard in which she is held in Anglican (as well as RC) circles.

Might we know (from nedsherry) the precise contribution Mr Bari has made in any of these or other socially cohesive areas?

Does mr 'ned sherry' perhaps qualify as himself a 'trouble-maker'; one intent on gratuitous and (patently) uninformed offensive comment?

In a recent analysis, André Glucksmann writes: "Modern terrorism seeks to combine the annihilating power of Hiroshima with the nihilistic gospel of Auschwitz."

The latter is the mandate of the Muslim Brotherhood - those who seek the Caliphate through colonisation, conversion, demographics and the gradual erosion of enlightenment values.

Mr Muhammad Abdul Bari - he who blurs categories in support of his prejudices and designates killers of innocents "emotionally damaged children" - is affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood.

I would therefore posit, Jewish community in the UK cannot logically be compared with the 'mass' 'trouble-making' immigration of Muslims as we have experienced it in recent years.

Mr nedsherry's theme of collective Jewish malevolence is a staple of classic anti-Jewish mythology and should be exposed as re-enforcement of Muslim prejudice.

There is no history of the Jews of the diaspora causing 'trouble'. Au contraire. Jews (in direct contrast to Muslims) have quietly integrated and contributed to all the societies in which they have acquired citizenship. That INCLUDES 1930s Germany.

Yet, after 1945 Bevin was committed to repatriating those Jewish refugees who had escaped the Holocaust. Not only was he unwilling to allow them into Palestine, but he also wanted them excluded from Britain; despite the fact that post-war pogroms were taking place in Poland. It would seem the Nazi genocide had made no impact.

I suspect Mr nedsherry is a covert Arabist in his rush to deflect any criticism of Muslim "arrogance and presumption" onto a tiny, peacefully integrated Jewish community.

He will no doubt respond to these comments with reference to the King David Hotel circa 1946 - the last irrational refuge of all Jew-haters but a different debate entirely.

10 November 2007 at 20:33  
Anonymous Mike H said...

Najistani - It was a bad choice of words on my part.

What I was trying to say was that there *should* be an obligation on members of any immigrant community to accept the basic values of the indigenous population.

That is how I would behave if I were to emigrate elsewhere, and I expect it (maybe naively) of anyone who comes to live in the UK.

If sufficient numbers of immigrants fail to act that way, then maybe it's high time the idea was enshrined in law. But of course there's little chance of that happening in the present political climate where it seems we can't risk upsetting minorities, irrespective of the longer-term cost to the country and our culture.

The ease with which some Muslims can apparently be 'offended' or 'insulted' is deeply concerning and is completely at loggerheads with the way most Brits think.

One wonders what would have happened if anyone had dared to make a Muslim equivalent of 'The Life of Brian'.

10 November 2007 at 20:41  
Anonymous Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA said...

I would like to thank Mr. Ned Sherry very much for putting me on a par with the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Whether I can assume this lofty role from the top of Mount Carmel in Haifa, Israel, is a moot point, although more than 20% of Haifa's population is Arab and quite well integrated.

I think they'd be tickled pink, actually!

Best suggestion yet, Ned Sherry.

Meanwhile, this is what I've just posted about a similar subject: the limits of possible dialogue with these types of groups

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/what-is-real-di.html

10 November 2007 at 20:49  
Anonymous Abandon Ship! said...

My concern is that when I have talked of these issues with friends and colleagues who could be described as reasonably intelligent and well informed, they either deny there is a problem, or suggest that the threat from e.g. "Christian fundamentalists" is just as grave. I just don't understand their inability to see what is happening.

10 November 2007 at 21:54  
Anonymous najistani said...

Abandon ship,
There are three truths of Islam which reveal this 'rabies of religions' for the pathological mind-virus that it is.

The gullible and vulnerable such perhaps as your friends, but also especially young captive audiences such as schoolchildren, are increasingly being targeted by Islamic propaganda aiming, if not actually to convert them, then to soften them up for the future Islamic takeover of our country.

Of course it isn't just the innocent and gullible who swallow the 'Religion of Peace' bullshit spread by the Muslims and their PC Marxist allies.. Many ordinary decent people would really like to believe that Islam offers no threat, because to face the truth implies a future just too scary to contemplate. But face the truth we must. For to accept lies are being taught to our children with no attempt at refutation is to allow them to be led into slavery.

The Marxists have drugged western culture with a Mickey Finn cocktail of post-modernism and multiculturalism which has suppressed rational analysis of Islam as being 'racist' and Islamophobic.

Inevitably, as Goya pointed out 'The Sleep of Reason brings forth Monsters' , and the most hideous and vampirish of those monsters is the spread of islam in the West. Islamic propaganda must be attacked with the full unremitting criticism of Judeo-Christian rationalism. "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".



THREE TRUTHS OF ISLAM.

There are three truths of Islam, which correctedly understood by any adult or child, give complete protection from Islamic propaganda. These are:
(1) Islam is a mind-virus or meme.
(2) Islam encourages lying to infidels (taqiyya).
(3) Islam abrogates its own teachings and the teachings of earlier religions.


GOING VIRAL - ISLAM IS A CONTAGIOUS MENTAL ILLNESS
Churchill famously remarked that Islam is as dangerous in a man as rabies (hydrophobia) in a dog . Islam is indeed
'the rabies of religions'
. Like the rabies virus it spreads from one brain to another with no other function than to cause madness, suffering and death.

A meme or Mind Virus such as Islam carries the same fear-driven superstitious motivation as a chain letter - "If you propagate me then something nice will happen, if not then something horrible will happen". In order to justify itself against attack by reason, Islam places absolute reliance on faith, which is seen as being superior to reason. Islam also contains self-referential or circular claims to the truth such as "The Koran says it is the divine truth. Since it is the divine truth whatever its says must be true.

These two types of self-referential statement "propagate me or else!" and "I am the only truth" provide the driving force for Islam to invade the minds of its hosts, programming them with additional instructions such as "Help people who believe in this meme, attack people who do not".


TAQIYYA - MUSLIMS LYING ABOUT ISLAM

A Muslim is a dehumanised robot who is programmed to spread Islam to vulnerable victims, like a rabid dog is programmed to bite and inject virus-infected saliva. However what if the victims are not receptive to this repulsive stone-age death cult? Well the solution is simple - hide the truth and tell whatever lies may be necessary.

It may come as a surprise to those of us raised in Judeo-Christian cultures that anyone would deliberately lie about their own religion - "Tell the truth and shame the devil" is what we were taught in Sunday school. But Muslims believe that spreading Islam is the greatest objective in life, and one which find most favour with Allah, and ANY means which may be necessary are justified, including killing and lying .

The tactic of deceiving the gullible infidel is known a TAQIYYA in Arabic. The truth is unimportant in Islam. NEVER believe anything a Muslim tells you about Islam.


ABROGATION AND CONTRADICTIONS

The Koran is full of inconsistencies with verses contradicting each other. The rule of 'abrogation' says that later verses cancel earlier ones. The early ones are peaceful (Meccan) , but the later verses are violent and murderous (Medinan) and call for the extermination of infidels.

Of course the Muslim propagandists know this and so as part of their taqiyya they quote the cancelled peaceful verses such as ‘If you kill one soul it is as if you have killed all mankind.’ or ' no compulsion in religion' to the infidels, while acknowledging the real meaing of the koran such as 'Kill the infidels wherever you find them' and ' Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into the hearts of the enemies' as they plot attacks with their fellow Muslim terrorists.

To the rational westerner these contradictions are evidence that the Koran was not written by Almighty God, but was made up as he went along by a psychotic paedophile to suit his vile purposes. But the Muslim mind is not rational, and these contradictions are seen as a Allah-given contribution to taqiyya. Allah (or the voice in Mohammed's syphilitic brain) wrote the Koran as a deliberate web of lies to confuse and deceive the gullible kuffar.


ABROGATION MEANS JESUS CHRIST IS INFERIOR TO THE CHILD-RAPIST MOHAMMED
In his later years, when Mohammed was writing the violent verses that abrogated the earlier Christian-derived Meccan teachings, he had begun his decline into depravity starting with his 'thighing' or Mufa Khathat of six year old Aisha, and going on to raping her when she was aged nine.

As Mohammed's lusts became increasingly Satanic , his megalomania grew to the extent that the pervert claimed to be the infalible 'Seal of the Prophets' and abrogated Jesus Christ, reducing Our Lord to the rank of a second-rate error-prone prophet. Henceforth, if any teaching of Jesus was contradicted by the Pedophile's rantings, then the child-molester was right and Jesus was wrong.


So Jesus's advice that “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” was replaced by the mandatory stoning of rape victims , apparently brought about by the now teenaged Aisha looking for affection elsewhere than the predatory dirty old man and finding true love with a young man named Safwan ibn Al-Muattal.

Know the truth, and the truth shall keep you free

10 November 2007 at 22:29  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Bert Rustle
While I truly am thrilled to hear that a hooded child crossed the road to help you, I can assure you that this is most definitely not the norm. But true, I would agree with you about those who would be considered rich. They can be rather rude as well. You must however accept that the young in general are far less well-mannered than the old. And the manners in 1950s films have been forgotten (or never learnt) by 99% of the population.

Showing consideration for others... yes. Indeed, I am not sure all of His Grace's communicants manage to do as much.

11 November 2007 at 11:32  
Anonymous anon said...

Insofar as he has very similair ideas on social conservatism to orthodox (small o) Christianity, it is hard not to sympathise with him. He is a representative of a religion and believes in exporting it and its values, just as we once believed in exporting Christianity.

One of the difficulties for social conservatives in Britain is, do we value the society that Britain has become - or has it become too immoral or amoral, irreligous and selfish for us to wholeheartedly support?

I certainly object to people coming here and lecturing us on the need to pass thought-control legislation, excise every historical relic of the British Empire from this country, enact campaigns of positive discrimination and abandon our own cultural and religous practices to avoid "giving offence". But it does seem to me that a more Christian and moral society would see less difficulties in relations between Muslims and ourselves.

11 November 2007 at 14:42  
Anonymous najistani said...

Anon said

"But it does seem to me that a more Christian and moral society would see less difficulties in relations between Muslims and ourselves."
... in yer dreams!

We need to face reality. The development and deliberate cultivation of hatred of 'The Other' is such a central feature of Islam that there is nothing that we Kuffars can do, or not do, that would make our uninvited guests hate us any less or any more. Rage is so intrinsic to Islam that external conditions and events are irrelevant. See http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2007/10/cultural-jihad-and-humiliation-of.html

11 November 2007 at 15:09  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

convinced anglican writes:

"Muslims are like Jews: they're intensely selfish and they cause trouble wherever they go."

Might we require from 'ned sherry' precise examples of the 'trouble' Jewish immigrants have EVER caused in the UK (or elsewhere)?


Lord Levy, Robert Maxwell, Dame Shirley Porter, the Guinness Four, Lord Kagan, Peter Rachman, Karl Marx, Klaus Fuchs, etc, etc. Ring any bells? Care to estimate the odds against such a tiny minority contributing so heavily to fraud and subversion? Any comments on this anti-Anglicanism by Rabbi Julia Neuberger?

It is a very good thing if a Hindu chaplain opens the senate proceedings with prayer... I cannot comment on church and state divides, but in terms of having prayers at all, it is a huge improvement to have people of all faiths conducting the prayers from time to time, and it works very well in the Scottish parliament.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/julia_neuberger/2007/08/it_is_a_very_good.html

Do you think the rabbi would call for something similar in the Israeli parliament? Any comments on this by Dr Lancaster?

More than this, I think that about 85% of the New Testament is pure Judaism, the other 15% being an attempt by the new religion to divorce itself from its mother religion, the result being 2000 years of attempted extermination of the Jews.

If you really think someone with views like that is a friend to Christianity, you're even more naïve than you already seem.

Whilst Dr Lancaster is not personally known to me, I am conversant with the rigour of her academic work; her reputation as a dedicated teacher in Manchester; and the regard in which she is held in Anglican (as well as RC) circles.

The Anglican and RC circles you refer to are corrupt to the core with liberalism and appeasement, which is why both churches are in a demographic death-spiral. Dr Lancaster is a Jewish bigot whose "academic rigour" can be seen in her comments on Christianity above. As a liberal appeaser yourself, you won't ask her to produce evidence for her thesis, but it would make no difference if you did. You wouldn't see any.

One can only be startled by the historical ignorance manifesting in such comments.

What an odd understanding of history you have. The pagan Romans and Greeks had enormous trouble with Jews and noted the hatred they bore for the rest of humanity. Christian-Jewish relations were hardly trouble-free thereafter -- but don't tell me, as a convinced Anglican you're sure it was entirely Christians' fault.

There is no history of the Jews of the diaspora causing 'trouble'. Au contraire. Jews (in direct contrast to Muslims) have quietly integrated and contributed to all the societies in which they have acquired citizenship. That INCLUDES 1930s Germany.

And 1920s Russia? Nazism was a response to mass-murdering Jewish communism, which many of those oh-so-peaceful and well-integrated German Jews were eager to install in Germany too. And in the rest of the Western world.

Yet, after 1945 Bevin was committed to repatriating those Jewish refugees who had escaped the Holocaust. Not only was he unwilling to allow them into Palestine, but he also wanted them excluded from Britain; despite the fact that post-war pogroms were taking place in Poland. It would seem the Nazi genocide had made no impact.

The Polish pogroms were triggered by the active and eager Jewish contribution to mass-murdering communism. Cf the Ukraine, also heavily anti-semitic as a result of what it suffered at Jewish communists' hands.

I suspect Mr nedsherry is a covert Arabist in his rush to deflect any criticism of Muslim "arrogance and presumption" onto a tiny, peacefully integrated Jewish community.

Mr nedsherry wants all Muslims out of the UK, but does not believe that arrogance and presumption are confined to Muslims.

Dr Lancaster writes:

I would like to thank Mr. Ned Sherry very much for putting me on a par with the leader of the Muslim Council of Britain.

I don't put the two of you on a par, I simply say you have much in common. You're both anti-Christian, for example, and you both belong to groups that are bad for the UK. Even now I doubt you'll admit that mass immigration by Muslims into the UK was a very bad idea, because it did at least harm Christians.

11 November 2007 at 17:36  
Anonymous bert rustle said...

Snuffleupagus wrote “... While I truly am thrilled to hear that a hooded child crossed the road to help you, I can assure you that this is most definitely not the norm. ...” Actually a young man around twenty. The experiences I have recounted regarding youths are as individuals; groups are rather different and I would hazard a guess their behaviour would be closer to the percentage you mention.

11 November 2007 at 19:29  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Bari needs to go back where he came from and take all his friends and relatives with him. There is no need for any muzlims at all in England. They pollute the landscape and add nothing of value. It was a serious mistake to allow the first one into the country.

11 November 2007 at 21:56  
Anonymous convinced Anglican said...

Mr Ned Sherry

I am acquainted with Rabbi Julia Neuberger; your presumptions are based on one comment which you have chosen to take entirely out of context. The context being a response to a decision of the US Senate.

Again, your litany of 'offending' 20th century British Jews serves as a convenient vehicle for personal opinion which, overall, presents as extreme (and essentially uniformed) bigotry; it IS rather 'scraping the barrel' - a bit of 'pick and mix'! You overlook:

The philosophers: Sir Afred Myer, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Richard Wollheim, Ernest Gellner, Isaiah Berlin, Karl Popper .... and more

The medics: Henry Cohen, Jonathan Miller, Julius Dreschfeld, John Henry Marks, Leslie Turnberg) .... and more

The historians: Simon Schama, Bernard Lewis, Lisa Jardine, Sir Martin Gilbert ... and more

The pysicists: Sir Michael Berry, Max Born (Nobel prize for Physics), Dennis Gabor (Nobel prize for Physics), Stanley Mandelstam, Joseph Rotblat (Nobel Peace Prize)... and many more.

The chemists: Rosalind Franklin (Discovered DNA double helix), Aaron Glug (Nobel prize), Harold Kroto (Nobel prize), Max Perutz - biologist (Nobel prize), Michael Neuberger...

The biologists: Sydney Brenner (Nobel prize), Otto Frenkel, Susan Greenfield, Sir Michael Epstein, Miriam Rothschild, Bernard Katz ...

In every category ... more ... I will not seek further evidence of your mendacity by listing Mathematicians, Economists, Social Scientists, Judges et al.

In Arts and literature: Sir Israel Gollancz, the incomparable Sir Ernst Gombrich, Sir Jacob Epstein, Lucian Freud, Sir William Rothenstein,
Anita Brookner, Richard Ellmann, Linda Grant, Howard Jacobson, ... and many, many more.

Hundreds ... and these only 20th century British Jews: "Care to estimate the odds against such a tiny minority [community] contributing so heavily to" ... academe, science and the universal good?

Historically, I am astounded by your skewed reading of texts: of course the Romans had trouble with the Israelites - they [Romans] were invaders, in the kingdom of the Israelites! Throughout history peoples have defended their territory.

Ancient history is perhaps not your forte, but there is no excuse for inversions in the context of "mass murdering communists". Certainly Jews were involved - Marx, Engels, Lenin,Trotsky and others, theorists and intellectuals.

The vast majority of Russian Jews lived in abject poverty and were slaughtered in ritual pogroms. Naturally many of these welcomed an idealistic political movement. For Russian Jews it was a short-lived, soon to dispelled, hope.

Millions of 'good' Orthodox Russian peasants rampaged through Eastern Europe after the war under orders of that failed Orthodox priest - Joe Stalin. There really were not enough Jews left standing to do much damage to the Polish nation.

In summary, given your derision of Anglicans and Catholics, along with Jews and Muslims, you are perhaps averse to religion per se? That is as may be; in the Jewish context, your premises are patently flawed - flawed historically and can be textually proven to be so if space were available.

I am NOT an appeasing Anglican Mr Ned Sherry; I DO believe that British culture is at great risk from Islamic colonisation. There is no distinction in Islam between religion and politics. I believe the MCB and its affiliates the Muslim Brotherhood are as great a threat as was Nazi Germany.

On these matters, I am indebted to His Grace for sound sense and moral guidance and would seek his indulgence on this lengthy refutation.

You do most bitter wrong Mr NedSherry to some who are close to my heart; I object strongly to any conflation of Jews and Muslims. I am an implacable, albeit sometimes politically critical, 'Anglican friend of Israel'.

12 November 2007 at 00:20  
Anonymous najistani said...

Letters to Telegraph


Comparisons to Nazi Germany is inaccurate

Sir - Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari's warning (report, November 10) that Britain could become like Nazi Germany in its treatment of Muslims is hardly an accurate parallel.

The Jewish community in Germany had been established over many centuries and not by mass migration.

No section of the Jewish community attacked their fellow citizens in the name of their religion.

The Jewish community did not try to impose their way of life on their fellow citizens. Hatred of Germany or of non-Jews was never preached in the synagogues. The laws passed by the German government of the day were passed against the Jewish community. The race laws in Britain are framed to protect the Muslim community from discrimination.

If Dr Bari and his fellow Muslims feel so strongly against the way of life in this country, the way is open for them to freely emigrate to a Muslim country. Here again, not as in Nazi Germany where the Jewish community was barred from holding passports and leaving. It is outrageous even to try to draw a comparison.

Geoffrey Robinson, Newport, Gwent.



Sir - If I were a Christian living in a Muslim country, would I be allowed to voice my opinion that the country would be better if more Christian values were adopted? Would my views be given front-page space in the Muslim newspapers? I think not.

I can't help thinking Dr Bari wants the best of both worlds. The freedom to practise his own religion while enjoying the freedom of speech and lack of oppressive regime that he would experience in a Muslim country.

Richard Knisely-Marpole, Buxton Spa, Derbyshire




Sir - Dr Bari claims that because Salman Rushdie caused distress with his book, it should have been pulped. Yet, when asked about extremist Muslim literature in the bookshop in his east London mosque he said it was an independent business and "we can't just go in to tell them what to sell". He also tells us that Britain has a lot to learn from Muslims - presumably this blatant example of double standards is not one of them.

Charles Sebestyen, West Wickham, Kent


From
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=1588&menuItemId=-1&view=DISPLAYCONTENT&grid=A1&targetRule=0

12 November 2007 at 12:08  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

@convinced anglican

I am acquainted with Rabbi Julia Neuberger; your presumptions are based on one comment which you have chosen to take entirely out of context. The context being a response to a decision of the US Senate.

You're strangely unforthcoming about how that exculpates the rabbi. Please expand and explain how she was actually helping Christianity rather than undermining it.

Ancient history is perhaps not your forte,

So you were unaware of the enormous trouble caused by Jews for the pagans, but I'm the ignorant one?

but there is no excuse for inversions in the context of "mass murdering communists". Certainly Jews were involved - Marx, Engels, Lenin,Trotsky and others, theorists and intellectuals.

Oh, they were "involved", were they? You could put it that way; I'd prefer the unevasive truth: that they were sine qua nons of the movement.

The vast majority of Russian Jews lived in abject poverty and were slaughtered in ritual pogroms.

Which they provoked by their own behaviour. Anti-semitism, like "Islamophobia", has causes: it is not a case of one side being entirely guilty and the other entirely innocent.

Naturally many of these welcomed an idealistic political movement.

The ideal of communism was naked power and bloody revenge.

For Russian Jews it was a short-lived, soon to dispelled, hope.

They had plenty of time to take revenge on their Christian enemies, as in the Ukrainian famine.

Millions of 'good' Orthodox Russian peasants rampaged through Eastern Europe after the war under orders of that failed Orthodox priest - Joe Stalin. There really were not enough Jews left standing to do much damage to the Polish nation.

The Poles didn't agree: Polish Jews gleefully collaborated with the communists in 1939. Hence the pogroms after the war.

In summary, given your derision of Anglicans and Catholics,

I'm derisive of liberal appeasers such as yourself.

along with Jews and Muslims, you are perhaps averse to religion per se? That is as may be; in the Jewish context, your premises are patently flawed - flawed historically and can be textually proven to be so if space were available.

My premises are based on fact, yours on fantasy. Jews are not the wholly innocent victims of gentile malevolence and have caused enormous harm to this country, not least by facilitating the Muslim fifth column.

Again, your litany of 'offending' 20th century British Jews serves as a convenient vehicle for personal opinion which, overall, presents as extreme (and essentially uniformed) bigotry;

Is it uninformed to say that Robert Maxwell, ardent Zionist and intimately connected with both Israeli intelligence and communism, was one of the greatest fraudsters of all time?

it IS rather 'scraping the barrel'

How so? Are you saying my list isn't of exceptionally corrupt people from an exceptionally small minority?

- a bit of 'pick and mix'! You overlook:

[cut list of Jewish geniuses -- and btw, Franklin did not discover the structure of DNA, tho she greatly helped those who did]

I don't overlook anyone, but Jewish contributions to the arts and sciences do not outweigh the harm they have do, even when their contributions have actually been positive and not based on raging egomania and self-promotion. See the recently dead Norman Mailer.

I am NOT an appeasing Anglican Mr Ned Sherry;

Then ask Dr Lancaster to justify her allegations against Christianity.

I DO believe that British culture is at great risk from Islamic colonisation.

Which was welcomed by those oh-so-well integrated British Jews: see the role of the Board of Deputies in the race laws, of Lord Lester in "equality" law, etc, etc.

There is no distinction in Islam between religion and politics. I believe the MCB and its affiliates the Muslim Brotherhood are as great a threat as was Nazi Germany.

Then you're an idiot with no grasp of military history.

12 November 2007 at 15:47  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Bert Rusle
True. Good point.

12 November 2007 at 20:45  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Sorry Bert Rustle!

12 November 2007 at 20:45  
Anonymous convinced Anglican said...

Mr Ned Sherry

With respect, it is unnecessary, in civilized debate, to resort to denigration.

Idiot: A person of profound mental retardation.

I do not propose myself as a 'military historian'. There are however, methods of conquest which do not require tanks and soldiers.

Such is the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood. Conquest by colonisation - demographics, cultural relativism and stealth.

I suggest you do a little research. From its foundation in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood has successfully established colonies and centres of political influence in every country in western Europe. Fascism is fascism is fascism, my friend, whatever the nuances around 'idiot'.

13 November 2007 at 00:00  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Convinced anglican:

You're right and I apologize for use of the term "idiot", which was uncouth and inaccurate. However, I think your comparison of the Muslim Brotherhood with the Nazis is unsustainable. There are certainly more ways of conquest than one and the demographic situation in Europe is very worrying, but we could solve our Muslim problem with far less effort than it took to defeat Nazism. A major cause of the problem is, of course, multi-culturalism, our repressive race laws and the decades-long attack on this country's white Christian traditions. Organizations like the Runnymede Trust and the Board of Deputies have been at the forefront of all that.

13 November 2007 at 16:04  
Blogger Falco said...

‘everybody can learn from everyone... Some of the Muslim principles can help social cohesion’

For cohesion read oppression.

It is true however that everyone can learn from everyone. In this case we can learn what not to do.

15 November 2007 at 12:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older