Wednesday, January 22, 2014

Warsi: Christian persecution has become "a global crisis"

Minister for Faith and Communities Baroness Warsi has written to the Vatican's newspaper L’Osservatore Romano, expressing her dismay at the global scale of Christian persecution. Throughout the Middle East - and especially in Syria, Egypt and Iraq - Christians are suffering a level and scale of discrimination, abuse, torture and murder not seen since the Roman emperors were burning believers alive to illuminate their garden parties; dressing them in animal skins to be torn apart by dogs; or crucifying them, to die in lingering agony. The lucky ones had a quick death by beheading.

Baroness Warsi is of the view that majority Muslim nations have a duty to defend Christian minorities. Nice words, but how does one inculcate a sense of such duty in those countries and communities where millions are steeped from birth in a virulent ideology which directly opposes it? In the West, many Muslims view Christians as "People of the Book"; fellow worshippers of the One True God, on a journey toward faith illuminated by the Torah and the Gospels. Yet throughout the rest of the world, and certainly in majority Muslim countries, Christians are kuffar or dhimmi - disbelievers in the Prophet Mohammad, socially subordinate to Muslims, from whom compulsory taxation (jizha) is to be extracted for 'protection'. In some of these cultures, Christians are a little lower than pigs. Throughout the Middle East, lambs are slaughtered in a more humane fashion than Christians are beheaded.

The Minister for Faith and Communities says "the government has elevated (religious discrimination against Christians and other minorities) to a key priority in the government’s human rights work".

That's good. At least the systematic slaughter of Christians has hit the FCO's radar. But what are the politicians going to do about it? How does the UK practically intervene to aid the suffering Christians of Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia or Yemen? Seriously, what is Lady Warsi's solution for dealing with radical jihadi Muslims when she denies that these extremists are Muslims at all?

And what about the anguished Christians of Saudi Arabia?

Or do we turn a convenient blind eye to their plight, on account of trade deals and the need to maintain good relations with the ruling House of Saud?

Baroness Warsi's letter is reproduced here in full:
Since taking on my role in 2012 as the first ever UK Minister for faith, I have made the issue of religious freedom a personal priority. The threat to religious freedom, I believe, has become a global crisis. As a result, the UK government has elevated it to a key priority in our human rights work, and, more broadly, we have shown that we understand the huge importance of religion at home and abroad.

An illustration of that approach came when I led the largest ever UK ministerial delegation to the Holy See, nearly two years ago. My speech to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy focused on the need for people to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs - to recognise that accepting and even defending another faith does not diminish your own. Given the continued plight of Christians in the Middle East and beyond, that argument has become more relevant, and the need to heed it more urgent.

The bitterest irony of this persecution - ostracism, discrimination, abuse, forced conversion, torture and even murder - is that it is taking place in a region where Christianity has its roots. Sometimes these cases are examples of collective punishment: people lashing out at Christian minorities in response to events happening many miles away. Other times, a Christian is just a convenient 'other' - a scapegoat.

What is taking place is not acceptable. The UK government is committed to standing up to such persecution, and that requires international political consensus. To that end, last September in New York I convened a second meeting of international leaders to discuss what more politicians can do to promote freedom of religion or belief and fight religious intolerance within our societies. In February I met the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria Theodoros II in Cairo and in October I met with Patriarch Gregorios III to discuss the plight of Christians in Syria and I explained our readiness to speak up on behalf of all who are targeted because of their religion or belief.

In all this I believe we should be making a very powerful argument: that not only is religious freedom is a good thing in itself; it is a good thing for economies and societies to progress and flourish. This formed the basis of my speech at Georgetown University last year, when I argued that we must appeal both to states', groups' and individuals' moral obligations, and to their desire for prosperity.

In doing so, we must make sure our approach is not sectarian in itself. Christians defending Christian, Muslims defending Muslims - that will not put a stop to the rising tide of religious persecution. Instead we need a cross-faith response to the problem. That will be the primary focus of an international conference, the first of its kind, which I will be hosting in 2014. As Pope Francis said in Evangelii Gaudium, "interreligious dialogue is a necessary condition for peace in the world, and so it is a duty for Christians as well as other religious communities". History teaches us that we have only defeated intolerance and hatred when we have all come together, whatever the cause. The majority communities need to defend the minorities.

So that is our approach: non-sectarian; promoting the benefits of religious pluralism; demonstrating the fact that accepting and co-existing with another faith is in no way a diminishment of your own faith, but, in fact, the most powerful demonstration of confidence in your beliefs.
His Grace awaits the results of this approach. "Powerful argument" with the adherents of Wahhabi-Salafist-jihadism (who, remember, aren't actually Muslims) seems somewhat ineffectual when the state has far more effective and immediate means at its disposal.


Blogger whorsburgh said...

Once again our politicians demonstrate they don't have a clue when it comes to the meaning of being a Christian by writing about persecution in the newspaper of those who have also mercilessly persecuted Christians.

We need a revival of true Christianity, not further development of it's political caricature, the antichrist.

While no one would want the present carnage in the Middle East to continue one moment longer, Christians have been and will always be persecuted.

Matthew 5:11–12
11 “Blessed are you when they revile and persecute you, and say all kinds of evil against you falsely for My sake. 12 Rejoice and be exceedingly glad, for great is your reward in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

22 January 2014 at 09:53  
Blogger bluedog said...

The noble Baroness states, 'The majority communities need to defend the minorities'.

Ministerial thought bubble, 'Until we out-breed you and become the majority. Then it's suck it up, dudes'.

O, the joys of dissembling.

22 January 2014 at 09:55  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The persecution of Christians by muslims will not end until all muslims have concerted to Christianity.

22 January 2014 at 10:08  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

r Grace

"In the West, many Muslims view Christians as "People of the Book"; fellow worshippers of the One True God, on a journey toward faith illuminated by the Torah and the Gospels. (Seriously? Are we to believe yet again that only enlightened muslims come to our shores.The old saying still prevails..'when in minority, like a lamb, when equal numbers, like a fox but when in a majority, like a roaring lion to devour!')
Yet throughout the rest of the world, and certainly in majority Muslim countries, Christians are kuffar or dhimmi - disbelievers in the Prophet Mohammad, socially subordinate to Muslims, from whom compulsory taxation (jizha) is to be extracted for 'protection'. In some of these cultures, Christians are a little lower than pigs. Throughout the Middle East, lambs are slaughtered in a more humane fashion than Christians are beheaded. (Time will show that only the modest number is the reason for the {AHEM}) moderation)"


22 January 2014 at 10:22  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Back in the early days of Islam, those conquered were given two choices: conversion or death. The two 'Peoples of the Book', however, had the extra choice of dhimmitude.

Thereafter, I've lost the thread.
Two possibilities, I think.

1. The Jewish/Christian privilege was abrogated, reducing the Peoples of the Book to the same status as everyone else.

2. Dhimmitude proved so profitable it was extended to all conquered people of whatever faith. Indeed, I believe that some who wished to convert were refused permission because of potential loss of revenue.

So where are we now with these possible options? HG's post suggests that the Muslims themselves may be as confused about it as the rest of us.

22 January 2014 at 10:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I know, for instance, that at the Siege of Constantinople the fishermen of the Phenar district surrendered, and their rights were guaranteed by the prevailing rules of Islamic conquest.

A few Sultans later, however, I believe in the reign of Selim the Sot, Phenar lost its privileges.

(Alcohol was another little Islamic detail Selim forgot about: he invaded Cyprus to get access to the wine.)

22 January 2014 at 10:39  
Blogger Len said...

It is really scary to see how little our politicians know about Islam and the Islamic agenda.

Would you really expect the fox to guard the chickens? ....apparently our politicians would.

22 January 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger sheik yer'mami said...

Why we lowly infidels should buy hope from a token Muslima, who's witness in her own community is only worth half of a man's, is beyond me.

Besides, Warsi's loyalties lie with the ummah, not the infidel nation state, which affords her riches and status an infidel will never enjoy in a Muslim state. I also note that she carefully omitted her commitment to the "Istanbul resolution 16/18", signed by Eklemeddin Ihsanoghlu and Hillary Clinton, which would outlaw all criticism of Islam.

Its all happening right under our noses:

February Baroness Warsi told the the Foreign Office:

‘…. the foundation has already been laid. UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 on combating religious intolerance, now under the umbrella of the Istanbul process, provides a strong basis from which to work. UN member states have all jointly signed up to a call to action to implement the resolution.’

While Foreign Office officials talk to our friends in the OIC about supporting ‘freedom of religion’ and combating ‘intolerance’, the OIC clearly see those phrases in a rather different way to us.

Resolution 16/18 would outlaw all opposition to the implementation of sharia, but forgive me: I just remembered that once great Britain already has some 85 sharia courts.

Good night!

22 January 2014 at 11:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Explorer (10:24)—Jews and Christians living in Muslim countries are definitely entitled to protection, on condition that they submit to Muslim rule and pay the appropriate tax:

[9:29] Fight against those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which has been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of truth [Islam], even if they are of the people of the Scripture [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizyah [tax] with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued.

The protection of Jews and Christians ordered by Allah is enshrined in Islamic law, as set out in Reliance of the Traveller:

o11.1 A formal agreement of protection is made with citizens who are: (1) Jews; (2) Christians; (3) Zoroastrians; (4) Samarians and Sabians, if their religions do not respectively contradict the fundamental bases of Judaism and Christianity; (5) and those who adhere to the religion of Abraham or one of the other prophets (upon whom be blessings and peace).

o11.3 Such an agreement is only valid when the subject peoples: (a) follow the rules of Islam; (b) and pay the non-Muslim poll tax (jizyah).

o11.9 If non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic state refuse to conform to the rules of Islam, or to pay the non-Muslim poll tax, then their agreement with the state has been violated.

With such a wide-ranging get out clause as refusing to conform to the rules of Islam at their disposal, Muslims who were set on persecution would have little problem convincing themselves of the legality of their action and that it would find favour with Allah.

22 January 2014 at 12:25  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

History teaches us that these fantasy images from far away will soon be forgotten, and life in Europe will continue as normal - until it doesn't.

22 January 2014 at 12:53  
Blogger Jesuestomihi said...

Christains have only been safe in the past because of our military might. "Mess with us and a gunboat will blast you" sort of helps.
Defence cuts, added to the cowardice of political classes who secretly hope to " stick it to those bloody do- goody- good Christians" are a lethal cocktail.
Hope on the horizon? Not whilst Christians are so disunited (liberals hate fundamentalist more than pagans)... Viz reactions to poor David Silvester.
Answer? Rapprochment with liberals?
Cant see it. We should try a gutsier - lets get down and dirty with secular politics in our own interests by bible believing evangelicals.

22 January 2014 at 12:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Thanks Johnny:

It seems as open to abuse as the MacPherson Report.

1. You have given a racist insult if the victim thinks you have. (Even if you didn't realise it, and in no way intended it.)

2. You have failed to follow the rules of Islam if a Muslim considers you to have failed. Open season, I'd say. (Doesn't one of the hadiths say that on judgement day Allah will pour boiling oil or something into the ears of those who have listened to the flute girls?

Watch out anyone who's been to a pop concert. (Or even an orchestral evening.)

22 January 2014 at 12:57  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Why do we need a 'Minister of Faith' and, in a country that has a Christian heritage of well over a millennia, why do we need a Moslem one? I could go on and ask why we have Sharia Courts in this country but it only upsets me...

22 January 2014 at 13:28  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@ The Explorer

"1. You have given a racist insult if the victim thinks you have. (Even if you didn't realise it, and in no way intended it.)"

For something even more bizarrely Orwellian take a look at this from Jihadwatch:

"Because Tim Burton highlighted Fiyaz Mughal’s bogus claims about nonexistent “Islamophobia” and “hate crimes” (against Muslims), Mughal decided to accuse Tim Burton himself of committing a hate crime for revealing such mendacity. Effectively Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to stop people pointing out his bogus hate-crime claims by saying that such criticisms are also, well, hate crimes.

So firstly, Fiyaz Mughal is attempting to stop all criticism of Muslims (as Muslims) and Islam itself. And now he’s also trying to stop all criticisms of his publicly-known deceit.

As a result of all this, Tim Burton will be standing trial on the 18th February 2014 at Birmingham Magistrates’ Court."

22 January 2014 at 13:37  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace - as Mrs. Proudie says (13.28).

Furthermore, as a physical, cultural, religious alien, that so-called minister is incapable of representing indigenous Britons. So why would we ever listen to, or read anything it says. And why must it have that nasty german-sounding title? Is it supposed impress us creeping, crawling commoners into submission?

22 January 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ The Explorer (12:57)—‘On the Day of Resurrection, Allah will pour molten lead into the ears of whoever sits listening to a songstress.’ Come the Islamic Revolution, best dispose of any Cilla Black lying around the house.

22 January 2014 at 14:08  
Blogger Len said...

I think the humanist rejection of Christianity[indeed any religion] has led to all sorts of problems which are rapidly coming to fruition.
One (only one) of the problems being highlighted is the persecution of Christians in Islamic Countries and the apparent unwillingness of Europe to do anything to help these Christians or to even report these atrocities in the Media.It seems rather ironic that Baroness Warsi has raised this issue?.
This may seem to be a problem which 'doesn`t concern us' to the secularists but the problem is moving ever nearer home.

22 January 2014 at 16:32  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

“Where are the drones
Send in the drones
Ah, here they are now”

22 January 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Nonchalant words from Whorsburgh (09:53) about persecution while he sits on his protestant arse and pretends to give a damn.

One suspects when it comes suffering, his main concern is whether or not his cosseted hide gets the flu this year.

It’s a tough existence in righteous smugland, what !

22 January 2014 at 18:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Instead of her pussyfooting around the subject of religious intolerance, I would love to read or hear her admit that actually it's mainly Muslims that are responsible for creating religious intolerance in the world, because it is, and that the reason we have to have these religious tolerance laws is because of THEIR violent and uncivilised jihadi ways.
Her letter is waffle.
She opens by telling Pope Francis how important she is then goes on to say they should defend and even accept another faith. (She's trying to get the Pope to accept Islam!) She should be telling this to her lot not the Pope & Co. who know all this anyway and are not The PROBLEM. Then in paragraph three she patronises him. Paragraph four sounds like her yearly news letter of where she has been and who she has met but what have they actually done and implemented? She doesn't say, so that will be FA. Para five she's promoting Islam again. Para 6 stating the obvious, Christians do accept and tolerate other religions maybe too much at times and it is to our detriment, but we live and let live unlike her religion who take over everywhere they go. No this drivel is telling the Vatican that they must accept Islam. Whereas what she should be doing is lecturing Muslims day and night on how they must accept and enrich their lives with other religions if they are to live peacefully in a non-Muslim country. That they should not implement sharia law and should adapt to suit the countries laws and customs. But I don't hear her say anything like this.

22 January 2014 at 19:06  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"Nonchalant words from Whorsburgh (09:53) about persecution while he sits on his protestant arse and pretends to give a damn."


Watch it.

There are quite a few of us here sitting on protestant arses!


22 January 2014 at 19:29  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


She has not got a clue how to fix it.

They (the politicians) have no big vision for the future any more.

Their vision of the future is build HS2 and chop 10 min off a trip from London to Birmingham

They have not got a clue what to do about the rise of Islamic violence, the economy, society, ..... anything really.

Have I missed something out that they have got a vision for?


22 January 2014 at 19:34  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil R, Happy Jack says religious 'pluralism' does not mean every religion is of equal value and should be given equal weight.

This is a Christian nation and, setting aside the differences between Christians, we believe the source of man’s unhappiness is separation from God. We also believe it is Jesus Christ alone who can heal this.

This Koran book says that Jesus is a man. To a Christian it is a book of lies and is offensive to God and His truth. Islam will not bring salvation. It a false, man made, faith in the false god. Jesus Christ told His Church to baptise all nations in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and to teach them to follow His commands.

Jack asks if him saying this is ""sectarian" and opposed to "promoting the benefits of religious pluralism"? Jack agrees we should not persecute another person because of their beliefs and is all for "co-existing with another faith" but we should still stand up for Jesus and run our nation on Christian principles.

And Muslims should show this same willingness to co-exist - but it seems they cannot. Fine if they want to follow their 'faith' in their own nations but stop killing and persecuting Christians and Jews and all other religions who live there in their midst.

22 January 2014 at 20:48  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Phil, you’ve taken exception to this man’s wrath towards a post from 9:53, and so you should. Let the Inspector explain. That post on suffering had all the sincerity a portly public schoolboy could must while reading out ‘Christmas day in the workhouse’. And then the blaggard calls the RCC the anti Christ. A fellow is only so much flesh and blood, you know...

22 January 2014 at 20:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 January 2014 at 21:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...


When whorsburgh referred to "political caricature" - and since this article is about a politician - I took him to be talking about the EU, as a sort of prelude to the global political and economic power in 'Revelation'.

I don't know, now. Maybe he'll clarify the point in person.

22 January 2014 at 21:07  
Blogger bluedog said...

Phil @ 19.34 says 'They (the politicians) have no big vision for the future any more.'


Importantly, the political elite have yet to appreciate that our liberal democratic society has just collided with its own contradictions. Freedom of speech and Multi-culti are fine until a significant minority emerges with the intent to dominate and repress rather than to play by the rules. So how does a democratic society survive when a philosophically hostile demographic grows like a cancer from within?

It would seem that a two step process is required. In the first instance the existing political establishment must recognise the problem and openly articulate it to the electorate. Secondly a viable solution must be found and promoted before the hostile demographic becomes the majority and changes the rules having appointed its own ruling elite.

In Britain, the electorate fully understands the problem and awaits the arrival of the political elite at the same level of enlightenment. But already the hostile demographic is seizing key areas of influence. The appointment of a Muslim as head of Religious Affairs at the BBC puts Islam in the same position as Big Gay (delicious irony here) and able to use a tax-payer funded instrument of the state to promote the Islamic agenda, working hand in hand with the Minister of Faith, another Muslim.

Now if the homosexuals at the BBC, and it's their sheltered workshop, were not so secular they would be more alert to the danger of Muslim dominance. In time the penny will drop, and the homosexuals at the BBC will wake up to the risk to their privileges. One can then expect a battle royal within the BBC between the Muslims and the homosexuals as they struggle for dominance. It is part of the anatomy of Britain today that until the homosexuals raise the alarm on Islam the political elite will remain silent and inhibited from doing so.

Once the BBC homosexuals have sprinkled holy water on a moral war against Islam it becomes a possibility. So what are the viable measures available for dealing with the threat from Islam? Expulsion or conversion would appear to be the only possibilities.

Peaceful co-existence is a contradiction in terms where Islam is the other party.

22 January 2014 at 21:11  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Explorer. From 9:53 “by writing about persecution in the newspaper of those who have also mercilessly persecuted Christians.”

Memsahib wrote to a Vatican newspaper...

22 January 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...


They have no big vision that is why they cling to the EU club. We need people with vision, real life experience and that are willing to take one or two risks.

Hear hear Jack well said.

There needs to be more publicity on this and a public outcry against those who are persecuting Christians and non-Muslims in their country.
I read what Archbishop Welby has said I think it was in the Telegraph, can't find it now, but it was good.

22 January 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Congratulations, Your Grace. Welcome to the club of People Protected by Powerful Arguments.

Things will truly change now. There will be committees struck, conventions convened and careful wording hammered out for months, nay years. It's a universal problem, you see, this inter-communal violence. No one is really to blame. This is all about poverty...the rich don't pay enough... and in time it will be shown that it's Israel's fault anyway. And there is a long line of other victims of civil conflict who are accustomed to their pensions and attentions and you can't just drop your international obligations. You cannot accept Christian refugees without equity, you'll have to take in at least a dozen Muslims for every Christian not to be a racist, it's all about proportionality. You will also have to invest in the perpetrators and their innocent, no, don't say "ransom" (uhg!)...what do you think these fine people are, savage Moors, crazed Hashashins or greedy Barbary Coast pirates? Aggression is never the answer; innocent civilians may get hurt. Besides, there's bugger-all else that can be done anyway without HMS Britannia and her city-pulverizing 120 guns, the speedy Yankee navy roaming the seas and with no one with balls bigger than a pair of Spring peas left in the halls of power.

22 January 2014 at 21:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...

bluedog @ 21:11

Very interesting thoughts.

I've been unclear whether Europe's elites (especially Holland's) are aware of what's brewing and are simply too terrified of what they've created to be able to confront it; or whether they are still so blinkered by their utopian presuppositions that they haven't seen it yet.

Your verdict, I think, is that they've seen it, but don't know what to do.

22 January 2014 at 21:30  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 21:18

Yes, I see it now. I just didn't read his opening paragraph carefully enough.

I focused too much on the last part: that persecution in the Middle East should not come as a surprise.

22 January 2014 at 21:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 January 2014 at 22:01  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack fell about laughing when he read this, "That post on suffering had all the sincerity a portly public schoolboy could must while reading out ‘Christmas day in the workhouse’." Jack admires your written style and use of imagery.

Avi, Happy Jack welcomes your return. Have you noticed Jack is kitted out in Hassid-ish-ish hat and coat (in leather)?

22 January 2014 at 22:02  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 January 2014 at 22:19  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 January 2014 at 22:23  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


I am not sure that waking up to the rise of Islam loss of free speech and various other freedoms is actually a vision for the future. It needs to be bigger than that.

Both Labour and Conservatives at least used to have a big vision for the future. Different of course, but at least they had a vision!

Now they have no big ideas about what to do next or even optimism about where we might be in 10 years. None of them.

Make no mistake the homosexuals/liberals and others waiting their turn have a big vision for the future of society and it is radically different from what we have now. So do the Muslims. Both are getting there. I don't see a clash though, I think the Muslims will just set up autonomous areas within the country. The liberals are not stupid so my guess is that they will respect and even promote their establishment.

We will neither like it very much or have any choice in the matter in the UK or indeed most of Europe, unless we start stating an appealing alternative vision now.

We need to think less about what we are not going to allow and or do, but more about what we are going to do. If say we want to give people freedom (e.g. Lower taxes, less laws and/or more local control without big brother/nanny overseeing everything) then how are we going to do it? What is in it for both Benefits Street and Loads of Money Avenue and everyone in between?


22 January 2014 at 22:24  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Indeed Jack. One wonders if the sole purpose of certain protesting types is to hammer nails into the RCC, and nothing else...

Avi old chap. Welcome back. Your take on the situation is most appreciated, as so it should be !

22 January 2014 at 22:29  
Blogger Ivan said...

I'm glad that hardly anyone takes the "Peoples of the Book" schtick seriously anymore. Being protected dhimmis, that apologists for Islam would have us regard as a privilege when in truth, it was a protection racket run by mullah-gangsters. With the invidious status of weakened peoples, protected for a time from the very gangsters themselves. As with all things Muslim, from henna beards to the use of pebbles for ablutions, the recurring pattern is set by the sunnah of the murderer-rapist Mahomet. Specifically that of the fate of the Jewish tribe, the Banu Qurayza who were allowed to linger for a time.

23 January 2014 at 01:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hello Ivan:

The problem isn't with those who know about dhimmi (and what it REALLY means); the problem is all those Westerners who have never heard of it.

Mohammed said love your neighbour as yourself, but a few fanatics have perverted this peaceful message.

That's still the received Western perception. It's changing, but not fast enough.

23 January 2014 at 08:04  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Here in Barchester we have a problem. Our local curry house owner, Mustafa Fatwah, has declared his property an Autonomous Islamic Republic and refuses to serve 'kaffirs'. As he is the only moslem in Barchester he is finding trade a little thin, but has taken to the roof to demand Shariah Courts and the setting up of a madrassah in Hiram's Hospital. The stout yeomen of our historic city, being fair minded, steeped in solid principles of toleration, justice and sympathy for he underdog have taken to pelting the blighter with dog biscuits. Of course this is unacceptable, so I have taken it upon myself to arm the crowd with something more substantial: I wondered when those leather-bound copies of Hymns Ancient and Modern would come in use.

23 January 2014 at 08:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Mrs Proudie:

He's probably thinking ahead to the day of 'Barchester Minarets'.

23 January 2014 at 08:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

You might yet get to see Mr Slope hanging from a crane.

23 January 2014 at 09:00  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Oh indeed Mr. could be right there! Mr Slope has turned very pale...

23 January 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger AndrewWS said...

Where on earth do you get this idea that adherents of Wahhabi-Salafist-jihadism "aren't actually Muslims"? Of course they are; they say they are, and are (unlike the Ahmadis and Ismailis) recognised as such by other Muslims.

23 January 2014 at 11:51  
Blogger Integrity said...

Your Grace,
When a non Christian speaks about Christian persecution there is at least some chance that they may be listened to. Whereas if a Christian speaks out, they are dismissed as fanatics and self obsessed.

23 January 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Ivan said...

Explorer, things are coming to a head. Christians have to preach the Gospels and convert the Muslims. Islam is of course jerry-built to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, but we can change all that if we affirm the absolute superiority of the Christian religion at every turn.

23 January 2014 at 12:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Greetings, Inspector and Happy Jack. Indeed work once again intrudes rudely on one's rights and freedoms to reflect and opine with one's online friends.

Integrity, there is a debate among some Jewish organizations over the question of openly wading-in on the issue of Christian persecution in the Muslim world...not to forget persecution of Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists as well. I'm on the side of the party that believes that assistance should continue as is, namely quietly, with humanitarian work, supply of intelligence and third party tactical assistance. The problem is that the Israeli-Jewish brand is quite toxic in that region and any connection brings out accusation of Zionist collaboration; a guaranteed death sentence. The exposure, by the media, of unofficial refugee camps near the Syrian border, of incognito groups of Israeli humanitarian workers and individual doctors working quietly in Jordan and Syria is a case in point. Politically, though, Jewish organizations can be quite effective in assisting Christian ones with publicity skills and access to political channels as long as they do so discreetly.

One of the main hurdles to overcome is getting agreement to treat Christians as an identifiable, singled out persecuted group, not one to be mixed in with their persecutors as generic victims of yet another senseless conflict. The opposition to this by Muslim states and Palestinians is quite heavy. To do this, Christian organizations must be willing to expose outrages to Christians for being Christians, to name perpetrators and their religion and to direct their sympathies and aid efforts at Christian victims primarily, while pointedly reducing or withdrawing such from Muslims. Politics, fear and Christian theology stand in the way of this, though.

23 January 2014 at 13:11  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Slightly off subject, put in by way of a request to the Archbishop.

I am not sure if Cranmer is going to write something about Nicolas Anelka's quenelle gesture and his support of the French comedian Dieudonné M'bala M'bala. It would be interesting if he turned his pen to this as the mainstream media has, yet again, ignored the elephant in the room, namely Islam.

What is never reported is that Anelka's chosen name is actually Abdul-Salam Bilal, the name he took when he converted to Islam in 2004. Dieudonné M'bala M'bala is a Muslim, as are most of his young supporters. The Nation of Islam in the USA celebrated Dieudonné for his stance against international Jewry, conferring upon him the honorary title the French Farrakhan.

The quenelle is not, as has been reported, an inverted Nazi salute and therefore something to do with the old right, but is used as an anti-Semitic gesture most often deployed by Muslims (and some astonishingly stupid white liberals) who hate Jews. Similarly, to describe the quenelle as an 'anti-establishment' gesture entirely missed the point.

It seems to me that the media near-blackout on slaughtered Christians (killed by Muslims) and an unwillingness to properly attribute the inherent Antisemitism of the quenelle to Muslims are two sides of the same coin.

23 January 2014 at 13:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says hello Ars Hendrik.

When Jack looked at Wiki here's what it said:

"The name quenelle comes from an elongated fish meatballs dish, which is said to look like a suppository. Hence, the phrase "mettre une quenelle" ("to give someone the quenelle "), with a gesture simulating fisting practice, is similar to the English "up yours" .....

However, Jewish leaders, antiracism groups and public officials describe it as an inverted Nazi salute and as an expression of antisemitism".

Jack asks, who get's to decide what it means? The individual or group to whom it is directed? And what if different people use it in different ways and don't mean what the offended group thinks it means? Does the context make a difference?

Jack says this could all get very messy. He notices two different Jewish organisations, the
Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France and the Board of Deputies of British Jews, view this gesture by Analeka differently.

23 January 2014 at 14:17  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

And I imagine that a number of football fans will ape the gesture without thinking, fans who wouldn't know the difference between salaam and shalom.

More than worrying too much about the etymology of the word and gesture I am more concerned with what seems to be a rising tide of Islamic Antisemitism in Europe, often allied to liberal misgivings about the State of Israel.

23 January 2014 at 14:31  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Jack, sure and the giving of "the fig" can be a good luck sign, and the middle finger a show by English longbow archers a display to their enemies of their intact hands for pulling the bow string. The bottom line is that obscene or offensive gestures are commonly understood symbolic acts and in the case of the quenelle, it is clearly an antisemitic gesture. While bans may be ineffective and overboard responses, strong social censure is perfectly acceptable. Symbolic gesture reside in the same area as obscene language in public places; how society views such and what it is willing to tolerate becomes the issue. We run into trouble when common sense and common agreement go over the way-side and everything has to be over-analyzed, legislated against or formally permitted as "right."

23 January 2014 at 14:43  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Avi, Happy Jack just raised the issue so don't go having a go at him!

Mr Cukierman, the President of THE Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France, has said that the 'quenelle' could not be regarded as anti-Semitic. A video clip on the website of French newspaper Le Figaro shows an interview with him saying Anelka's gesture was not anti-Semitic and that he should not be heavily punished.

Cukierman said: "It seems a bit severe to me because it seems to me that this gesture only has an anti-Semitic connotation if the gesture is made in front of a synagogue or a memorial to the Holocaust.

"When it's made in a place which is not specifically Jewish it seems to me that it's a slightly anarchic gesture of revolt against the establishment, which doesn't deserve severe sanctions."

23 January 2014 at 19:23  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Now I hope Avi and Happy Jack are not at loggerheads! Goodness me, we can't have that...I am sending hobnobs to both of you immediately. Mr Slope says he has read this 'Quenelle', a rather saucy novella by Jean Genet, which he thinks is just the job (not quite sure what sort of job he is referring to but it probably frightens the horses). Unfortunately this very evening the cathedral doors burst open and the Thought Police arrested the poor Archdeacon for making a gesture. He tried to explain it was simply the benediction, but to no avail. Somebody was offended they said as they grabbed him by the surplice and bundled him into a Black Maria (not a racist remark by the way). I spotted Mustafa Fatwah sniggering behind a pillar. One's suspicions have been raised.

23 January 2014 at 22:22  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Ah, Black Maria !

That takes a fellow back to his motorcycling days when he was oft followed by a ”Jam Sandwich”.

23 January 2014 at 22:42  
Blogger Ivan said...

The French pastime - meaningless gesture politics intended to provoke controversy over trite matters and get everyone on a rabbit hunt, has found in the 'quenelle' the perfect vehicle for mystification. Its like Derrida analyzing a bad joke by a worse comedian than himself. One ends up dazed and confused, which may be the intended effect. According to the FA the matter is very serious, though no one can explain why a gesture that was unknown until a few weeks ago is tantamount to 'Holocaust denial'. True this is not a triviality such as blaspheming the Holy Trinity, and accordingly requires attention at the highest level. There is no time for levity, I fully expect Scotland Yard to expedite its investigation into any connection with Nick Griffin and David Irving.

24 January 2014 at 05:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good Heavens, Happy Jack, Avi was not "having a go" at you. Merely pointing out that gestures need not be over-analyzed, as they are in the domain of the the fluffy area of social etiquette and while banning those we deem rude may not be appropriate or even possible, criticizing and socially censuring those who (mis)use them is a legitimate response. In this case the quenelle has become associated with antisemitism, regardless of its origins, by virtue of the obnoxious character of those who have been publicly applying it. With all due respect to Mr Cukierman, he knows not what he's talking about. He wastes time on nonsense; he should be working on helping French Jews leave France quicker than they are now and if he has any funds left over, to help Hungarian and Greek Jews in their exit as well.

24 January 2014 at 13:23  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Avi, Happy Jack did not mean to cause any offence and thought he might have done so when you replied so firmly and so sarcastically.

Jack was querying how a gesture that represents 'fisting' (Jack had to look that term up and was shocked) has become an anti-Semitic sign. It indicates, in the English vernacular, "up yours!"

Jack hopes the Inspector does not read this or the innocent Mrs Proudie.

How can we know it was used as an inverted Nazi salute by Anelka after scoring a goal against West Ham? It was very rude and not sportsmanlike - but anti-Semitic? And it has caused such a storm in England with sponsors ending contracts and the like. Jack did not know Anelka had converted to Islam a few years ago and did not know about his comedian friend's views. But whatever you think about Mr Cukierman's views, they do have to be thought about and Analka's behaviour seen in some sort of balanced context.

25 January 2014 at 01:28  
Blogger Manfarang said...

"Islam is of course jerry-built to deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ"
Arianism was not.

25 January 2014 at 13:11  
Blogger Ivan said...

Manfarang, if your point is that Islam is a species of Arianism I do not agree. Arianism (from the little I know) is an expression of bewilderment which is shared by almost everyone, that Jesus could be both truly man and truly God. That for example, at every point in his life, even in his baby hands, he held the fate of the world.

Islam claims to respect Christianity, but undermines its basic tenets at every turn. The Virgin Birth, the Incarnation and the Crucifixion ( apparently Judas was crucified in place of Jesus as befits a traitor. ) By trivializing the dogmas Islam denies them all mythic force; the cumulative effect of which is to deny any mythic sense to nature and history - both personal and social, which are the main vehicles by which most peoples who have not heard of Christ attain a conversion experience. The great crime of Islam is that it destroys all that is transcendent in human history and human experience. This goes a long way to explaining why Christians have little luck in converting Muslims. As St Paul told the Greeks who were on the lookout for the Unknown God, Christ fulfills all the criteria. But if one is unable to looking for Him as a result of aborted senses and vulgar teachings, only God can help. This He does through the narrow gate of the story of Mary in the koran. Numerous stories of Muslim conversion has her in the starring role, seemingly because she is the one of the few links they have to the mythic life.

Sorry to bore you by taking off on a remark.

25 January 2014 at 18:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hasppy Jack, you're belabouring the issue. The quenelle is traced back to the French antisemite Dieudonne. According to your BBC, "“It is the trademark of the hugely controversial French comedian Dieudonne M'Bala M'Bala, who once said he would like to put a quenelle - a rugby-ball-shaped serving of fish or meat paste - up the backside of Zionists.” Dieudonne has taken ownership of the gesture by planning to trademark and quenelle-related products, like t-shirts.

Whether Anelka meant it as an "up-yours" or whatever, becomes irrelevant; he is subject to strictures of the football clubs and associations who could also slam him if it was meant as "up yours." My guess is that he is just another football-head parvenu trash who is too stupid to know what he's mimicking and whose crudeness needs to be smacked-down by his betters. It's too bad that sports no longer serve as models for sportsman-like behavior, but at the very least, you can't have kids watching sports and have these over-paid idiots mainstream rudeness.

But you are missing the point that whatever its origins or alternate explanations, when a symbol becomes strongly associated with a certain statement, reality is "made." It's why many allied nations banned the swastika in its various versions, even though it's a Hindu and Buddhist mystical symbol originally, why the Roman salute is now associated with the Nazi salute and why you will be tossed out of a church or a formal affair if you start throwing the "fig", once a good-luck gesture, now a obscene one.

26 January 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger Manfarang said...

My point is before Islam people were aware of the real truth about Jesus of Nazerth, a man who was born a Jew, lived as a Jew, died a Jew.(the sign King of the Jews was on his cross)
Jesus didn't say he was God.

29 January 2014 at 05:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older