Extremism

Adrian Elms was a violent Christian before he became Muslim terrorist Khalid Masood

Through the modern geopolitical lens of Western categorical convenience, the world’s countries are invariably ascribed a religion, or at least identified by majority ethnic religious adherence. Hence terms like ‘Muslim world’ or ‘Islamic world’ to describe those lands where the Qur’an is preeminent, Mohammed revered, and Sharia identified as the rule of law. Little consideration is given to the variety that exists within and between those cultures: the diversity of political models, economic systems, social mores, religious differences or Sharia distinctions. A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim, and their countries constitute ‘the Islamic world’ because at various times in history they projected a certain Muslim power, and so today are associated with the mission of Mohammed, which is to establish the Caliphate. It’s all very simple and straightforward, really.

It ought not therefore to surprise ‘the West’ (which is itself a geopolitical construct of a shared history, common values and a dominant or primal religion) that many Muslims in ‘the Islamic world’ do exactly the same to ‘the West’, not least because many in ‘the West’ still cling to notions of Christendom, or at least to the mission of projecting certain Christian values to the world (only certain ones). So those countries whose elected leaders go to church must be populated by Christians, whom they are elected to lead to church, or at least to a land flowing with Christian values (only certain ones).  Those countries where tinsel trees celebrate the birth of Christ, and Easter Eggs commemorate his crucifixion and resurrection, are simply and straightforwardly Christian. Forget repentance and transformation; forget faithfulness or discipleship or being born again: if you were born at first into a ‘Christian country’, you are a Christian. And through the lens of Wahhabi-Saudi-Salafism, that makes you an infidel or kafir. Believing without belonging has become believing without believing: you are the religion of the ground beneath your feet.

There is also, of course, Jewish Israel, Hindu India and the Sikh Punjab, not to mention Taoist China, Buddhist Tibet and Shinto Japan. But these aren’t relevant here.. well, Jewish Israel might be a bit relevant, but only if you replace ‘Jewish’ with ‘Zionist’..

And you can certainly forget the immense diversity in these geo-theological cores: we are dealing here with simplicity.

The perpetrator of the Westminster terror attack was born on Christmas Day in the nice seaside town of Rye in East Sussex, to nice Christian Afro-Caribbean parents. His Christian name was Adrian, and his surname Elms. He grew up and went to school in Kent. All very nice, English and Christian. We don’t know that he was actually christened, but it’s customary in East Sussex even for nominal Christians to be so, so he probably was, especially since his parents were Christian Afro-Caribbeans and he shared a birthday with Jesus. Islamists, incidentally, don’t care much about the tedious arguments over infant and believers’ baptism: if you have a Christian name, you’re a Christian. If you’re born in East Sussex on Christmas Day to Christian parents, you certainly are. It’s the culture, you see.

Adrian Elms had a string of criminal convictions going back to the age of 18: criminal damage, knife possession, assault, grievous bodily harm and other public order offences. No doubt he was a naughty child, as well. It appears that his capacity and propensity for violence predated his conversion to Islam, so Adrian Elms was a violent Christian before he became Muslim terrorist Khalid Masood. His character was impossible; his heart was hard and his soul deeply troubled. Islam didn’t make him an evil bastard; he was already a nasty piece of work.

Now, you may believe and argue that his adherence to Islam radicalised him, and that the example of Mohammed’s moral vision inspired his extremism. But it would be closer to the truth (and so more helpful) to say that his conversion to the Wahhabi-Saudi-Salafist strain of Islam was responsible for inculcating his simplistic “Allahu Akhbar! God curse the infidels” mentality. What is undeniable is that the violence in his struggling heart predated his conversion. Power rampage and political brutality were already his distinctive ethic and part of his identity. The Christian Adrian Elms hated before he discovered a hateful strand of Islam to sanctify the jihadi-hate of Khalid Masood. Now, you may say that wasn’t particularly Christian: millions upon millions of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims will say that Wahhabi-Saudi-Salfism simply isn’t Islam.

  • you may say that wasn’t particularly Christian: millions upon millions of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims will say that Wahhabi-Saudi-Salafism simply isn’t Islam

    Whatever the millions upon millions think, the bottom line is that the Qur’an preaches violence against unbelievers and exalts those who sign up to Allah’s barmy army:

    [4:95] The believers who stay at home—apart from those that suffer from a grave impediment—are not equal to those who fight for the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah has given those that fight with their goods and their persons a higher rank than those who stay at home.

    Violence would have made Adrian Elms a bad Christian but it made Khalid Masood a good Muslim.

    • Watchman

      There are some bad people who are Christians but they are bad Christians and there are some good people who are Muslims but they are bad Muslims. It seems that Mr Elms found his appropriate religion.

      • Little Black Censored

        Well said! (I think.)

    • ChaucerChronicle

      Your last paragraph is correct: his Subjectivity would be at one with his perceived search for the Objectivity. He believed, through that, to resolve the Subjectivity – Objectivity problem.

      • @ ChaucerChronicle—As the perp seems to have had a violent streak, Islam was his natural home. The level of self-control demanded by Christian teachings may have been beyond him.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Mr Rottenborough

          May I remind you that rebellion against the State is part of the Judaeo-Christian world-view?

          1. Magna Carta.
          2. 1642.
          3. 1776.

          Islam is not anyone’s natural home; nor is facsim; nor communism; nor humanism.

    • Arden Forester

      The problem we face today is that the secular world thinks it knows about religion or at least thinks it can comment. A believing Christian should know about Faith, Hope and Charity (Love) and about Sin and Forgiveness. A Christian can fall from grace but can never be a perpetually violent or hateful person and still claim to be a Christian. Jesus Christ was not just of Peace but also an Explainer of God’s Will. Most within Christendom now are either lapsed or unchurched. The New Testament has nothing about hating enemies, killing apostates or anything else. We are called to love our enemies and troubling as that is to many, it includes ISIS and other such. This means not succumbing to hate. It does not mean rolling over and accepting violent unprovoked attacks.

      Mohammed led a peculiar life. He was part contemplative thinker, part warlord and part prophetic leader. The Quran is littered with warlike imagery. History tells us that Mohammed was a fighter. The Battle of Uhud in 625 was one bloody altercation he was involved in. Most modern day Muslims pray peacefully and lead peaceful lives. They seem to have muted in their minds the fighting and the terror of Mohammed’s campaigns and see Jihad as a non-physical matter. In many respects it is like the curate’s egg with only the good parts contemplated.

      It ill behoves modern politicians to say “this has nothing to do with Islam” when it is totally obvious it does. We have now gone beyond the point where euphemisms and weasel words count for anything. So-called moderate Muslims should explain loud and clear the theological differences they have and where the “radicals” have gone wrong in their interpretation.

      • @ Arden Forester—So-called moderate Muslims should explain loud and clear the theological differences

        In a 2015 opinion poll, 49 per cent of British Muslims said that preachers who justified violence against the West were out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion. 45 per cent said the preachers reflected mainstream Muslim opinion. Moderate Muslims will be hoarse by the time they’ve convinced the radicals! If they ever do: the radicals’ only sin is to believe that the Qur’an means what it says.

        • Arden Forester

          I understand the results of opinion polls. Interesting, though, that it is only 49%. My point was really why moderates think the radicals have interpreted the verses incorrectly. Do they think Mohammed’s warfaring wrong, right or are they indifferent to it? It’s not about convincing the radicals but telling us where the radicals have got it wrong.

          • @ Arden Forester—I doubt there is much dispute over interpretation; the radicals have got it right. The dispute is between the hotheads who are fired up by the Qur’an and its promise of heavenly virgins, and the majority who are content to wage jihad by means of the maternity ward, inexorably outbreeding the kuffar.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            NOT ONE war was WAGED on others, they were ONLY defending themselves and people wanted to annihilate them. The Quran FORBIDS aggression. There are rules if you are interested.

          • Arden Forester

            This is all a bit partisan. Muhammed waged war for the last ten years of his life. He subdued all tribes he considered to be pagan. The Meccans may have been his enemy but he decided the way forward was with the sword and the knife. I can’t really see the difference between Muhammed entering a perceived to be hostile town with his entourage and various characters of today doing the same. The Yazidis are counted as pagans of sorts and they have been treated abominably. There is still controversy over the distinction between offensive jihad and defensive jihad. Either way, fighting is involved.

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          51% that is quite scary why would I want to live next door to that?

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          The Quran, like other Scriptures is in Metaphors. Chapter 3:7 says it all. “We have sent this Book with the Truth, part of it are orders and part of it are Metaphors (allegories). Those with sickness in their hearts will take the metaphors and sow discord” THAT is what is happening today. We have forgotten the goodness and taking the metaphors and twisting the meanings and using it for our own violent agendas. THINK people THINK. God does not want this war. We are supposed to live in peace. “O Humankind! I have created you from a single male and female and made you into Nations and Tribes so that you may KNOW each other” if my Senior memory does not fail me, this is Quran 49:13

          • @ Shaheen Ashraf—The following is a reply to your first comment, which Disqus emailed to me but does not now appear to be on the thread.

            Thank you for your exposition. I was struck by the similarity of Deuteronomy 7:16, ‘You shall destroy all the peoples…showing them no pity’, to a passage from Chapter 14 of Solzhenitsyn’s Two Hundred Years Together where he quotes, and comments on, an article written in 1917 by David Aizman, a Jew:

            ‘No one questions what would happen to Jews if the counter-revolution prevails.’ He was absolutely confident that if that happens there would be mass executions of Jews. Therefore, ‘the filthy scum must be crushed even before it had any chance to develop, in embryo. Their very seed must be destroyed…Jews will be able to defend their freedom.’ Crushed in embryo…And even their very seed…It was already pretty much the Bolshevik program, though expressed in the words of Old Testament.

            As history records that the Jews subsequently killed tens of millions of Russian and Ukrainian Christians, I find it difficult to concur with your statement that ‘very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence.’

            From what I remember of Christianity, it takes its cue from the New Testament rather than the Old.

      • Trevor Mobbs

        Moderate Muslims do explain this, over and over again. But non-Muslims, and the media, ignore it. Every time someone says “why aren’t you condemning violence?”, millions of Muslims who have publicly condemned violence wonder why “Westerners” only pay attention to Muslims who are violent and treat the rest as invisible.

        • Arden Forester

          My question is not “why aren’t you condemning violence?”. And I’m not paying attention only to violent people within Islam today. My question is simply based on the fact that Mohammed and his early followers were warlike and were involved in wars, fighting, bloodshed and all manner of physical dispute. Can we discuss The Battle of Uhud in 625 or the Battle of Badr a year earlier? Mohammed ordered executions. Is the beheading of al-Nadir ibn al harith, an oppressor of Muslims, at which Mohammed was apparently present up for discussion? How do modern day Muslims square all this today. It seems those running sharia law in Iran and elsewhere are just keeping to the model set by Mohammed. As a “Westerner” I’m genuinely interested and would like to find answers as to why ISIS interpretation of the Quran is supposedly wrong.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            You really want to go back to a battle in 625? Fine. If we can get Christians to apologise for every battle in the last 1500 years in which the name of God was invoked (quite often by BOTH sides).

            Let’s also set out a list of battles in the Bible. And don’t tell me that they don’t count because they’re in the Old Testament. Jesus came to fulfill the law. And not to bring peace, but a sword. And let’s not forget the Book of Revelation. Those Christians invoking the name of God in battle for all those centuries were well aware of the warlike imagery available for their use if they so chose.

            Next time I’m reading the Bible, I suppose I ought be curious as to why the interpretation by the Ku Klux Klan and the Westboro Baptist Church is supposedly wrong. Except that simply isn’t how interpretation of complex old texts actually works. Interpretations frequently tell you far more about the reader than they do about the book.

          • Royinsouthwest

            You know perfectly well that Jesus did not command his followers to wage war. He said “love your enemies” and not “kill them.” The Old Testament has to be interpreted in the light of the New Testament. The Book of Revelation is about suffering and persevering, even enduring martyrdom, not waging war, in a world falling apart, like parts of the Middle East today.

            Your first paragraph is deliberately devious. You know perfectly well that Arden Foster was commenting on a battle in which Mohammed took part. There are many other battles in which his immediate successors were involved. What battles did the Apostles fight in? England did not even exist until well over 400 years after the birth of Christ, if you count the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms as “England.”

            If you are making comparisons you should compare like with like.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            “You know perfectly well that Jesus did not command his followers to wage war.”

            I also know perfectly well that Jesus’ followers, nevertheless, read the Bible and proceeded to wage war. Which I think is a heck of a lot more relevant, seeing how it’s followers of Mohammed who are committing terrorist acts rather than the man himself.

            And yes, we should compare like with like. That’s precisely my point. What Mohammed did in the 7th century doesn’t reflect appropriate 21st century behaviour because he wasn’t in the 21st century, in exactly the same way that Henry VIII (the head of the English church no less) having his wives executed doesn’t reflect appropriate 21st century behaviour because he wasn’t in the 21st century. Many past Christians owned slaves because by their standards it was acceptable.

            And Jesus WHIPPED people. Are we still okay with whipping? Or have we moved on from that? Why aren’t Christians using Jesus’ example and having more whippings?

            I’m all in favour of interpretation. But here’s the thing: Christians will absolutely fall over themselves to “interpret” anything in the Bible that could be distasteful to modern sensibilities, such as slavery, but will then turn around and baldly cite the text of the Koran as proof positive that Islamic culture is exactly the same now as it was 1500 years ago. People will explain all the historical and cultural context around Paul saying that women should wear hats in church and why that doesn’t apply any more, but will treat the Koran as if it was written this week by someone who saw the modern world.

            By the way, while you’re telling me here that England didn’t even exist yet (I agree), elsewhere I’ve got someone trying to tell me that the UK is a successor state to the Roman Empire.

          • John

            Oh, please. The bottom line is this: violence is consistent with the origins and writings of Islam and therefore violence is often committed or supported by modern Muslims in the name of Allah. You can easily attract thousands of jihadists to a cause like that of ISIS. Whereas violence is inconsistent with the origins and writings of Christianity and is therefore very rarely committed by modern Christians in the name of Christ. You would struggle to round up half a dozen Christians worldwide committed to burn alive, rape, decapitate, crucify and bomb non-Christians for any cause. And don’t mention the crusades. They were politically motivated retaliatory wars that sprung up at a point in history when reading the Bible in native tongue was a capital offense -so Jesus’ message of love for enemies was completely inaccessible to ordinary people.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            The conversation goes something like this:

            CHRISTIAN: The Koran advocates violence. *starts listing verses*

            MUSLIM: Well, that’s not to be taken literally and needs to be understood in context.

            CHRISTIAN: What rubbish, we can all plainly read what it literally says.

            ATHEIST: The Bible advocates violence. *starts listing verses*

            CHRISTIAN: No! That’s inconsistent with Christianity and I can explain the origins and the context and I can explain the times that Christians have been violent and no-one could POSSIBLY take those bits of the Bible literally if they understood them properly and looked at the context.

            I’m a Christian. What I am not, unlike a lot of people, is a raging hypocrite who does unto others and then squeals the minute it is done unto me. If you want to talk about context and interpretation, then have the decency to allow Muslims the same.

          • John

            Then why not hold Grimm’s Fairy Tales responsible for all child neglect? And Agatha Christie’s ‘Ten Little Niggers’ for racism? And Dickens for child labour? The difference between the Bible and the Quran is that the Quran is actually inspiring *thousands* of people to take up violence now. More plots are being hatched as we type. They will shout “Allahu akhbar” as they slaughter people in airports and marketplaces. Bringing the guilt for this carnage down on Christians too only works if large numbers of Christians are setting off suicide vests in crowded places and knifing people to death on camera shouting “Jesus is Lord”. How many are doing that? In fact, Christians are being butchered weekly by Muslim extremists from Nigeria to Indonesia and typically respond with forgiveness.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Believe what you WANT to believe. You are answerable for your own deeds. just like THEY will have their punishment with their Lord. Let God Be the Judge. They are doing wrong so they will suffer. God is NOT unjust. Man is unjust.

          • Watchman

            Trevor, I think you will find it difficult to overcome the fact that Christianity has no political ambitions but Islam has political ambition at the very centre of its tenets. This includes waging war on the infidel until they submit.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            WRONG again. NOT ONE verse says that and I have read the Quran UMPTEEN number of times. “Repel evil with goodness”, “speak with good exhortation and wisdom”, is what I saw among other things. Actually Scriptures REVEAL to your mind set. Open it and see for yourself. If you are a violent person, you see violence, if you are a good person, you see goodness. SADLY eh?

          • DP111

            By their fruits you will know them.

            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Sir you know NOTHING about Islam except the propaganda. Why do you not pick up some good books and KNOW about it before demonizing it. Tch Tch Jesus is not happy with YOU

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            Yup, plotless …

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            The language of ALL Scriptures has some violence in it. What happened that, it was revealed at that time under certain circumstances.
            All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Deuteronomy (Torah), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions.
            “You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity.” (7: 16)
            “… All the people present there shall serve you as forced Labour.” (20:12)
            “… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town — all its spoil — and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.” (20:14-15)
            “… You shall not let a soul remain alive.” (20:17)
            Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: verses 1 – 5 which says:
            “When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and shall clear away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God shall deliver them before you, and you shall defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not inter-marry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them; you shall tear down their alters and smash their sacred pillars and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire”.

            (Do not know the Book or the Chapter numbers of these):
            “O God, break the teeth in their mouths … Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun … The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
            More disturbing still for Christians and Jews, the nearest scriptural justification for suicide bombings I can think of, comes from the book of Judges, where Samson pushes apart the structural supports of a temple packed with people. “Let me die with the Philistines,” he prays, just before the building collapses.
            “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks” (have to check the chapter and the book out as I do not have a Bible here).

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            I think you have lost the plot a little ….

          • vsscoles

            The difference is that Daesh & its fellow travellers ARE still appealing to the events of the seventh century as justification for their actions.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Arden Foster, it was THE TIME. Just like in the time of Moses and other Prophets. How many times do I have to repeat The language of ALL Scriptures has some violence in it. What happened that, it was revealed at that time under certain circumstances.
            All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Deuteronomy (Torah), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions.
            “You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity.” (7: 16)
            “… All the people present there shall serve you as forced Labour.” (20:12)
            “… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town — all its spoil — and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.” (20:14-15)
            “… You shall not let a soul remain alive.” (20:17)
            Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: verses 1 – 5 which says:
            “When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and shall clear away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God shall deliver them before you, and you shall defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not inter-marry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them; you shall tear down their alters and smash their sacred pillars and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire”.

            (Do not know the Book or the Chapter numbers of these):
            “O God, break the teeth in their mouths … Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun … The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
            More disturbing still for Christians and Jews, the nearest scriptural justification for suicide bombings I can think of, comes from the book of Judges, where Samson pushes apart the structural supports of a temple packed with people. “Let me die with the Philistines,” he prays, just before the building collapses.
            “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks” (have to check the chapter and the book out as I do not have a Bible here).

        • vsscoles

          Muslim scholars have been invited to say that followers of Daesh are not actually muslims. But they can’t bring themselves to support such a notion.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            But plenty of Muslims have said exactly that. You do realise that an awful lot of the people fighting against Daesh in Syria and Iraq are themselves Muslims?

          • vsscoles

            And many of those who are fighting Daesh today would under different circumstances be fighting each other as rival sects within their religion. Do you not know that their religious texts forbid – on pain of death – any attempt to modernise their religion in any way?

            http://www.dailywire.com/news/2161/islams-oldest-university-says-isis-are-not-james-barrett

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Your ignorance blows me away. You seem to be an expert on Islam and it’s Book.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            WHAT are you talking about??? HUNDREDS of muslim Scholars have got together and issued a memorandum against Terrorism. YOU CHOOSE not hear and turn your deaf ear towards muslim who condemn those things.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        The language of ALL Scriptures has some violence in it. What happened that, it was revealed at that time and under certain circumstances (just like your quotes about the Quran). All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Deuteronomy (Torah), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions.
        “You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity.” (7: 16)
        “… All the people present there shall serve you as forced Labour.” (20:12)
        “… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town — all its spoil — and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.” (20:14-15)
        “… You shall not let a soul remain alive.” (20:17)
        Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: verses 1 – 5 which says:
        “When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and shall clear away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God shall deliver them before you, and you shall defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not inter-marry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them; you shall tear down their alters and smash their sacred pillars and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire”.

        (Do not know the Book or the Chapter numbers of these):
        “O God, break the teeth in their mouths … Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun … The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
        More disturbing still for Christians and Jews, the nearest scriptural justification for suicide bombings I can think of, comes from the book of Judges, where Samson pushes apart the structural supports of a temple packed with people. “Let me die with the Philistines,” he prays, just before the building collapses.
        “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks” (have to check the chapter and the book out as I do not have a Bible here).

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      Mr. Johnny Rottenborough, and the Bible teaches love eh?
      The language of ALL Scriptures has some violence in it. What happened? it was revealed at that time under certain circumstances.
      All these quotations are from the part of the Old Testament called the Deuteronomy (Torah), a scripture that is holy to both Jews and Christians. But very few people would sanely suggest that the Torah sanctions violence. The reason of course is that these verses and others much like them (like in the Quran too) are subject to various interpretation and contextual assumptions.
      “You shall destroy all the peoples … showing them no pity.” (7: 16)
      “… All the people present there shall serve you as forced Labour.” (20:12)
      “… You shall put all its males to the sword. You may, however, take as your booty the women, the children, the livestock, and everything in the town — all its spoil — and enjoy the use of the spoil of your enemy which the LORD your God gives you.” (20:14-15)
      “… You shall not let a soul remain alive.” (20:17)
      Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: verses 1 – 5 which says:
      “When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land where you are entering to possess it, and shall clear away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God shall deliver them before you, and you shall defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not inter-marry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them; you shall tear down their alters and smash their sacred pillars and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire”.

      (Senior memory fails me as to the Book name of these peaceful verses):
      “O God, break the teeth in their mouths … Let them be like the snail that dissolves into slime; like the untimely birth that never sees the sun … The righteous will bathe their feet in the blood of the wicked.”
      More disturbing still for Christians and Jews, the nearest scriptural justification for suicide bombings I can think of, comes from the book of Judges, where Samson pushes apart the structural supports of a temple packed with people. “Let me die with the Philistines,” he prays, just before the building collapses.
      “Go now and fall upon the Amalekites and destroy them, and put their property under ban. Spare no one; put them all to death, men and women, children and babes in arms, herds and flocks” (have to check the chapter and the book out as I do not have a Bible here).

  • vsscoles

    The point is that this man did not commit his horrendous crime as a bad Christian. His motivation lies elsewhere.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      That is pertinent, I feel.

  • carl jacobs

    Archbishop Cranmer

    This is a good piece of work. Tightly reasoned and well written.

  • carl jacobs

    millions upon millions of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims will say that Wahhabi-Saudi-Salfism simply isn’t Islam

    That’s true. But are any of them truly compatible with Western civilization? Pakistan and Iran and Saudi Arabia may all be different from each other. Would we as westerners notice any significant difference if we lived in any of the three?

    The bitter truth is the 100 men with guns can control a thousand disarmed compatriots. We only ever hear from the thousand after an attack and then only to hear them say “How terrible. Don’t blame me!” The 100 will win if the thousand do nothing but keep their heads down between attacks.Or is ultimately the Islamic world that must stop this – but the Islamic world seems to have very little interest in found so.

    • Little Black Censored

      The fact that they hate one another doesn’t make them any nicer.

    • David

      Yes. Where are the large scale public denunciations of such atrocities from the Muslim
      community ? I would be delighted to be wrong, but I fear we will never see them.

      • saintmark
        • Dominic Stockford

          That’s one. I’ve seen a lot of tweets from European muslims celebrating the attack.

        • David

          Yes but issuing press releases is easy. I will be far more impressed by seeing large scale public marches and demonstrations that are specifically for Muslims, all in their tens of thousands condemning killings of the unbelievers.

      • Susannah Ramsay
      • Susannah Ramsay
        • David

          Don’t be fooled by that ! Be more searching. A lack of discernment and theological understanding is easily exploited. They are small sect.
          Ahmadiyya Muslims (believers in the coming Mahdi) are considered not to be mainline Muslims by the majority. In fact they are considered to be heretics !

          • Manfarang

            The Ahmadiyya movement is the fastest growing sect within Islam as of the early 21st century. About 10-20 million spread in many countries.

          • David

            Noted, but still a very small proportion compared to the mainstream Shias and Sunnis.

  • David

    The article is well argued, and therefore convincing.
    Well almost convincing.
    What does the article say ?
    As a nominal Christian he was “already a nasty piece of work”. I accept that as a fact.
    But it was after he was converted to Islam, that he became “an evil bastard”, and deliberately set out to main and kill. I accept that too, as a fact supplied by the article.
    Nasty pieces of work have always been with us, but it is the presence of Islam in our country that, according to the facts and reasoning supplied by this article, has led to these appalling murders.
    It is obvious to me that if even a tiny percentage of the Muslim population act out the Koranic instructions to attack and kill unbelievers, then our present path is a perilous one.

    • 1649again

      Given that 23% of French Muslims in a recent poll admitted to sympathising with Islamic terrorism, and that’s just those prepared to say that to a stranger, probably not a Muslim either, then that implies there are over 1.5 million jihadi sympathisers in France. I doubt if this country is radically different, so we could be talking about 1 million or so.

      I don’t how many times Muslim leaders have to explain it to us in their own words and yet we refuse to believe them, eg Erdogan saying there’s no such thing as radical Islam, there’s just Islam and it is all radical. Listen to his recent threats.

      • Dominic Stockford

        You’re quite right. But no-one seems to take such comments seriously, even though they are seriously said. Instead they listen to white non-muslims (in the main) busily telling everyone how this sort of chap isn’t representative of Islam in any way at all. Same old, same old. Either creagh-venly physically running away from the reality of what he (as a muslim) was, or simply mentally running away from the challenge of the truth.

      • David

        Exactly. The statistics are very worrying to anyone who uses facts to inform their views.
        Moreover like many, my readings of the Koran, parts of the Sharia, Islamic geopolitical history plus simply observing current affairs, all point towards the same problem.
        The liberal- left political leadership, assisted by their supporters in the media, are simply burying their heads in the sand, and doing hardly anything of any practical use to address the matter longterm.

        • Dominic Stockford

          They do manage to put on very good ‘weep-fests’.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Yes and in some eyes in the region putting British soldiers into Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen is “Imperialism” and “Terrorism” and they see these acts as bringing the message home to the Droners. Just a viewpoint

      • Trevor Mobbs

        Polls can tell you anything. What does “sympathise” with mean? I sympathise with a lot of people who are utterly frustrated by the raw deal that certain parts of the world, which happen to be Muslim, are getting. And I’m not even Muslim.

        It doesn’t follow that I agree that blowing people up or running them down with vehicles is an acceptable way to express those grievances. But if you asked me in a poll whether I accepted there were some genuine grievances there, then I’d say yes.

        We determinedly run a narrative that says it is all about them, and inherent, for the express purpose of avoiding any suggestion that it’s anything about us.

        • bluedog

          ‘We determinedly run a narrative that says it is all about them, and inherent, for the express purpose of avoiding any suggestion that it’s anything about us.’

          The apologist’s creed. We are involved in a war with the Muslims, whose religion is a supremacist ideology that we have foolishly allowed to become established within the West in discrete immigrant populations. While we can segment the various Muslim demographics and play one off against another, in the long term this is essentially a zero-sum game. Whichever Muslim sect which happens to be dominant at the time will take up the running to defeat the kuffar by whatever means possible, for it is written. Misfits like Elms/Masood will always gravitate to a macho religion like Islam which fulfils their yearnings. In Elms/Masood’s case he seems to have been obsessed with killing and Islam legitimised that yearning. Christianity failed him in that regard.

          As is so often the case in the current era, it is the electorate who lead the government. They don’t believe the inevitable calls for unity with those who seek the destruction of their society, they look at the inconsistencies and contradictions in the government message. For example, we are told that de-radicalisation problems will protect us from Islamic terrorists. Fine, but this tells us that the terrorists are Islamic. When the de-radicalisation programme doesn’t work, non-Muslims will die; forget about Muslim deaths in the Middle East, that’s just a distraction. The problem is here and now and Muslim. What to do?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            We are involved in a war with Muslims?

            Then show me the declaration. The “war” on terror is a very loose description indeed. You might have declared war. I have not. I work with Muslims, I shop with Muslims. I am not involved in a war with a billion people, and I don’t support a war with a billion people. If I’m fighting against anything, it’s against the kind of soundbite thinking that turns all the variety and complexity of dozens of different cultures and languages into a single word and declares war on that word.

          • bluedog

            ‘Then show me the declaration.’

            It’s called the Koran.

            ‘Do you really think that the West was some kind of utopia without Muslims in it?’

            No. Of course not. There was every kind of problem that is endemic to the human race. But there was also an innovative culture that enabled resolution of problems and produced far more successful societies, measured by a range of metrics, than those of the rest of the planet. We have now imported a demographic with a set of beliefs that cannot be changed because they are the perfect word of their god. They seek to impose their god-given legal code that is the antithesis of ours and which if implemented will reverse centuries of progress.

            You know all this but your fashionable guilt prevents you from recognising a threat which you perversely see as our fault. Snap out of it.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            The Koran? Your declaration of war consists of a book written before the country you live in existed?

            Did Hitler know? Was he secretly a Muslim perhaps?

            What I “know” is that you have a great grasp of rhetoric, but not a strong grasp of facts about geopolitics. There are plenty of things that can be pointed to in the last 80 to 100 years that have contributed to the situation we find ourselves in today. But you don’t mention that. No, you mention a book that was written before the Battle of Hastings, and describe that as a declaration of war against a way of life that didn’t even exist yet.

            By the way, that innovative culture of yours… it got a heck of a lot
            of ideas from the “enemy”, somewhere in that middle part of over a
            thousand years of history. If you’re going to work on that timeframe, then you should at least show some awareness of the period where Muslims played a large part in creating or preserving the knowledge that pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages. But hey, it was all part of the war plan.

          • bluedog

            ‘The Koran? Your declaration of war consists of a book written before the country you live in existed?’

            A misinterpretation. The United Kingdom is a successor state, very distantly, to the Roman Empire itself a Christian power. The eastern manifestation of the Roman Empire, based in Constantinople, was the first part of Christendom with which Islam collided following the death of Mahommed. It was from Constantinople that most Muslim learning was derived.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            “The United Kingdom is a successor state, very distantly, to the Roman Empire, itself a Christian power.”

            That is one of the most fanciful notions I’ve read in a very long time. It shows not only a broad ignorance of history, but requires a severe warping of both geography and chronology.

            But if you want to believe that the Romano-Britons and the Angles and Saxons and Danish Vikings and Normans and the Scots in 1707 were all just part of one big happy Constantinople-inspired family, who am I to burst your bubble?

          • bluedog

            You’re being silly. The UK is an inheritor of the western Catholic tradition and not the eastern Orthodox tradition. Like the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church is ruled by a Curia.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Like the Roman Empire?? That’s like arguing that anyone living in a federal system is a successor state to the Iroquois Confederacy.

            I’m not being silly. I’m ridiculing your views. You’re declaring some kind of continuous history back to the Roman Empire which, at the very least, completely ignores who the Angles and Saxons were. If you genuinely want to find the successor state to the Roman Empire in Britain, it’s in Brittany.

          • bluedog

            Note that the claim was qualified with the term ‘very distantly’. Distant because the Roman Empire per se was eclipsed in Britain as we know and understand, as a result of invasions by Germanic barbarians who were pagan. However it is likely that in parts of the island of Britain, faint glimmers of Rome contained in Romano-British communities. Was Christianity totally extinguished before the arrival of Augustine? Probably not. But when Christianity did return it spoke Latin, and that lead in due course to the institution of a classical education. Through classical education, Roman ideas, as exemplified for example in Cicero’s De Officis, were instilled in the ruling elites.

            There’s nothing ridiculous about this, it’s a part of British history of which you are clearly ignorant.

        • 1649again

          Sympathise with jihadi terrorism was the question. It was quite explicit in my post. The answer may not suit your world view but it was quite clear.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            I write professionally for a living in ways that tells me that any time a secondary source says something they paraphrased is “quite clear”, alarm bells should go off. Show me the survey. Show me the survey QUESTIONS.

          • 1649again

            Google it yourself then.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Seriously? Your response to “what’s your source” is “I can’t be bothered showing you a source”? How very Trumpian of you.

            Let me guess. You just read a newspaper headline somewhere and that’s all you know. That’s the extent of your authority on the question of what French Muslims believe.

          • 1649again

            Well as you can’t be bothered, here are two sets of citations. The latest 23% figure I’ve lost the link to but these are even more concerning and cover loads of polls: If I find it again I’ll post it up.

            http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/articles/opinion-polls.aspx
            https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/27-of-young-french-muslims-1-62-million-back-the-islamic-state-poll-finds/

          • Trevor Mobbs

            ROFL. Those are truly awful sources. Well, the 2nd one manages to give some proper details, but the commentary in it is just woeful.

            Unfortunately, the link to something that would have been more like a primary/factual source instead of a biased commentary no longer works. But hey, at least you are now trying rather than demanding that your audience find your facts for you.

          • 1649again

            Given that they are citations of reputable pollsters and show consistent patterns you are of course free to follow up the original polls. You may not like the sources but the onus is now on you to demonstrate why they are wrong.

          • Merchantman

            ‘ But hey’. Says it all. and the quite unrealistic demanding of sources and the false premises which you have been lobbing about this blog for the last few hours. You are part of the problem we face.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Someone claims something from a survey, and it’s UNREALISTIC to ask for information about the survey questions?

            Okay then. Oh wait, is that another phrase that “says it all”? I’ve no idea exactly what you think “but hey” says.

          • Merchantman

            ‘How very Trumpian of you’. How idle a comment is that?

    • Trevor Mobbs

      Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      • David

        Please share with us those other factors that influenced him to commit such a violent, prominent attack on innocent people and the symbols of our democracy.

        • Trevor Mobbs

          I don’t know, maybe you should go ask the person he stabbed in the face years ago? You seem to have missed the entire point that he had an extensive criminal history BEFORE he became a Muslim. Which, you know is exactly the point of the article you are commenting on.

          • David

            No one except you is saying that any violence is fine.
            Moreover it is you who are missing the point that the article is making, that radical Islam uses those with a pre-existing tendency to commit violence, to commit even greater violence – to the point of murder – and an attack very obviously and symbolically, directed against the very symbols of a western democracy.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            But people are saying that. Every time that people say that Islam is THE problem, the key factor, they’re saying that all of the non-Islamic violence is just part of the fabric of life. That we only care when Islam brings violence to our TV screens because it is in a public place.

            And what I’m saying is the exact opposite of “violence is fine”. I’m saying that focusing on Islam is going to completely miss whatever factors caused his violence in the first place. I’m saying we should look for the root causes of violence because then, to use your argument, there wouldn’t be anyone for radical Islam to use.

            Adrian Elms was a violent Christian. That’s what the article says. Islam didn’t cause him to be a violent Christian, so how about we stop and ask what did?

          • David

            I totally disagree. You deliberately ignore the elephant in the room. Islam has long since declared war on the west. It uses unstable and violent people to achieve this.
            If this, admittedly hitherto violent, man had not been exposed to Islam and radicalised, this atrocity involving the callous mowing down of innocent people, murdering a policeman and attacking the main symbol of our political system, the Parliament, would not have happened.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            It’s like the Oklahoma bombing never happened.

          • Merchantman

            The Oklahoma bombing is about as bad as it gets. However for some the Twin Towers was a Bush Administration inside job.

          • Merchantman

            ‘But hey’.

    • Merchantman

      He sought Permission and he readily found it in Islam. Permission is what these demented people seek. However Islam goes all the way and gives them Reward. That is what makes it so Toxic.

  • Anton

    millions of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims will say that Wahhabi-Saudi-Salfism simply isn’t Islam

    I think it more likely they’d say that it is not a bad form of Islam – but still a form of Islam, because it too operates in the name of Muhammad and the revelations to him in the quran. It is therefore to that book we must turn to make sense of the situation. What do we find there?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Then we get to the reasons WHY they kill one another. They would kill you and I because we are ‘kaffir’, they would kill wahhabi salafist muslims because they are bad muslims.

      • Anton

        You (and His Grace) forget that there is another category, ahl-al-kitab, people of the book – Jews and Christians, neither kuffar nor Muslim – who are permitted to keep their faith upon payment of a protection racket tax called jizya. But God help you when you run out of money, and in any case Christians are susceptible to the Muslim charge of worshipping the creation and therefore being kuffar, because Muslims disbelieve the divinity of Christ. Islam is once again in two minds, and all depends on the Muslim in charge which side of Islam to show.

        • Dominic Stockford

          I beg your pardon, in my haste to express myself I missed out that group, which you and I could choose to be part of when the country finally goes that way….

          • Manfarang

            Sabians?

      • Paul Greenwood

        Then we get to the reasons WHY they kill one another.

        I like your ability to conclude without analysis. Maybe people in the UK elect governments who overthrow secular governments in Libya, Iraq, and Syria but treat the religious fanatics in Saudi as No1 Arms Customer and fawn over the lovely House of Saud

  • Anton

    Were I to be given one soundbite for Muslims in this country it would be this: Do not judge Christianity by what you see here; what you see here is the result of turning FROM the message of Christ.

  • When you say he was a christian, is this just that he had christian parents, or was he actually someone who read the Bible and/or went to church?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Whilst he was indeed able to be regarded as being Christian, by those who know no better (like the 57 varieties of Islam) it is clear that he was never truly a Christian. Neither was he violent BECAUSE he was notionally Christian, one might as well say he was violent because he was from Kent – which is clearly nonsense. The premise presented above has a hole in it.

      As to your questions there, I would imagine he did none of those things, as had he done so the media would be full of it by now.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I am sure that Cranmer does not regard the terrorist as ever having been a Christian but, because of his background, he could probably be regarded as nominally so before his conversion to Islam, just as people in this country whose parents are from Pakistan and are not followers of some other faith would be described as “Moslems” even if they rarely thought about religion.

    • Anton

      Welcome; I read your blog often and am a research physicist who is sceptical of manmade global warming of dangerous extent.

  • Mark

    Your last sentence almost sums it up, coupled with an earlier one.
    Earlier you say, “we don’t know if he was Christened”. I was (as “tradition” I figure), but when I got to thinking age, I knew I was not a Christian, and my immediate family were not either. So it really is a moot point to say he was or might have been a Christian.
    As for the last sentence, yes, who says he was a Christian, but this Wahabbi thing puzzles me. I first heard it mentioned as a problem about ten years ago in a talk/debate, and then it was mentioned on Channel 4 Dispatches “Undercover Mosque” in 2008. But other mentions were few and far between and I certainly didn’t hear many Muslim organisations denouncing it at all. If anything the only Muslims I have heard talk of it are the ones who tackle extremism (fewer of those orgs than others). Sara Khan wrote a book “The Battle for British Islam” and appeared on the BBC Asian Network to be interviewed by sometimes-Newsnight reporter, Secunder Kermani. Kahn is a supporter of the Prevent strategy. Kermani quite obviously wasn’t and interrogated her, on the BBC with all of the cliched questions that I have only heard come from certain Muslim organisations. The tension was obvious. During all of this she brought up the problem with Wahabbism. Kermani didn’t like that, was resistant to discuss, and shut it down on that subject. Wahabbism / Salafism is not a thing I hear many Muslims rail against. I think that is a problem for sure.
    Also, it should be obvious how religions have worked on certain levels for centuries. The vulnerable are targetted, and these days we know conversion and radicalisation happens in jails. At the moment, we do not know how he went for Islam, whether alone or influenced. But that is what he became and it is hugely likely (I would say), that if he had not, he would not have used the latest method of killing with a vehicle, and attacking Westminster.

    • Dominic Stockford

      It is interesting to see how things go when muslims move into an area. First it is the ‘nice’ muslims, normally the Wahhabis, who go round being (proclaiming) sweetness and light to everyone. After a few years (or sometimes months) the group changes subtly and becomes a little more strict, with much centred on mosqueing. Finally, a bit later, a group moves in that have nothing to do with the local community unless they bow and scrape to them, and the spitting at passing women begins…..

      • Paul Greenwood

        Is that what happened where you live ?

        • Dominic Stockford

          Here we are still at 1a, with street stalls on a regular basis, Wahhabi, telling us how peaceful Islam really is, and how lovely a world would be if we all joined them. They don’t half look miserable for such peace-loving fulfilled people.

          Down the road, where a colleague ministers, they had the street stalls (1a), then the building and invites (1b), then the showy visits by some imam chappy (1c). They are now on 2, with the building in the hands of another group, rather less chummy, and being set up gradually as a full blown mosque.

          Barnabas Trust can give you all the information about the way in which they move in and change, they have far more evidence than I – but it correlates exactly with what I see around me.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Having lived in a UK city 25% Muslim I am fully aware. i know how Saudi funds the mosques. i know why white women should not use taxis. I know about black tabs hanging from axles. I know how drug problems in the Ummah have children sent to Pakistan for “correction” where the stuff is much cheaper. I know about women in chadoor. I have been in a store when a woman slashed her throat in frustration at her Ummah. I am well aware and need no lectures from anyone

          • Dominic Stockford

            Your attitude is extremely puzzling. You asked a question and I answered it. Then you seem to take offence at me answering it.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I don’t

          • David Harkness

            Paul, what do the black tabs hanging from axles signify?

          • Paul Greenwood

            I think you will need to google that so I break no laws and make no errors

  • A Berean

    Your Grace,

    As I’m sure you are well aware we Christians are called to
    be peacemakers and to propagate their faith by proclaiming the Gospel by
    preaching and other similar ways. It is not to be promoted by force whether it
    be by sword or any other method of compulsion. Neither does Christianity express
    intolerance for other religions as Islam most certainly does. Simply put
    Christians are to be non-violent. Not so with Islam! Islam is obligated to
    convert non-Muslims by any means possible and to propagate their faith by the
    sword. It is obligated to institute a world-wide caliphate by whatever means
    necessary. This has been confirmed by present and former Muslims and as being
    part and parcel of what the Koran teaches. With that said one should ask if Khalid Masood, or
    whatever his name is, ever considered himself a Christian before his conversion
    to Islam. Given his past it’s doubtful if he would have done so. It’s rather
    easy for others to consider him as having been one but since this estimation is
    done at a distance we really don’t know. Mr. Masood was just exercising the
    dictates of his chosen religion as given in the Koran and expounded by its
    adherents and its Imams. I hope I have not drifted too far from the article’s
    intent.

    • Dominic Stockford

      And given that Islam teaches that we are ALL born muslims, we can know what he would have said about the first years of his life when he got to the end of his life.

      • Paul Greenwood

        and we ALL die as Mormons according to the Mormon Family History project

  • len

    The evil within this mans heart grew until it became fulfilled in acts of violence.
    Is Islam solely at fault because other religions and secularists have done exactly the same acts?.
    Or is it that violent people find organisations to ‘authenticate’ their violent nature?.
    The capacity for violence is a problem endemic within the nature of fallen man .Jesus Christ offers the only way to redeem this fallen nature through the new birth, and the new nature.
    No truly converted Christian would go on a killing spree such as this man and others have done.

    • Dominic Stockford

      True. The point about Islam is, as others have said here, that it teaches ALL its adherents (in the Koran) that such is the way to act.

      • len

        The Koran can be, and is (to some ) a terrorists manual.

        • Mark

          I find that it is converts who are (generally) very zealous.
          I don’t know what “regular” Christians think of the “Born Again’s” but they can be annoying too can’t they?
          Many times when I hear a Muslim calling into a radio station, as they get more “koranic” or display zealotry, I get a sneaky feeling they are a convert, and many times they turn out to be. They are the ones who seem to know all the “rules and regulations” and keep spouting them as if they are obsessive or something.
          That leads me to think they are ripe for being used for certain activities.

          • Dominic Stockford

            All Christians are born again, or they’re not a Christian.

            That aside, the most zealous Muslims live in countries such as Pakistan, Iran Saudi Arabia and Iraq – thus they were born into it, not converts.

          • Paul Greenwood

            think the most “zealous” Muslims are 2nd and 3rd generation growing up in Secular and Degenerate Western society obsessed with fringe sexuality and debauchery

          • Simon Platt

            Please don’t think (I don’t know whether you meant to imply this) that zealous Moslems from 2nd and 3rd generation immigrant families are not themselves sexually obsessed and debauched.

          • Paul Greenwood

            They are sexually frustrated unless they can prostitute white girls plied with drink and drugs

          • len

            For a Christian being born again is a direct command from Jesus Christ not an option.
            I suppose a Muslim is defined by how he follows Mohammed?.

  • carl jacobs

    The fact that the attacker was killed doesn’t actually redress anything. He intended to die. One does not attack Parliament with two knives and expect to survive. He wanted only to kill as many as possible in a very public place and then die a martyr to Islam. How then is some measure of vindication achieved? As it stands this is a victory for the killer and the cause he served. He got everything he wanted.

    In a temporal sense at least.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Absolutely so. Several politicians have made the same error, claiming that he ‘won nothing’, whereas in his eyes (before he died at least*) won everything.

      *Now he has discovered rather differently.

    • Paul Greenwood

      bit stupid wasn’t he ? He could have filled the car with petrol and ball bearings. He could have wired himself with explosives and filled his pockets with metal scraps and nails

  • Paul Greenwood

    Are you describing an “Ethnic Christian” ? You know a White Person living in an OECD country or are you meaning a practising Christian versed in liturgy and hymns and quoting The Old and New Testament ?

    I am unclear why this man should be considered “Christian” rather than “Syncretic” or even Cult. Then again Islam is a cult but it is easy to join – so easy to chant Shahada and then – “Upon converting to Islam, all of one’s previous sins are forgiven, and one starts a new life of piety and righteousness. And as a Muslim, when one makes a mistake thereafter, he/she can always repent to God who forgives the sins of those who repent to Him sincerely. There are no intermediaries or created beings to make confessions to.”

    So easy and just perfect for the serially criminal mentally unstable with steroid abuse

    • Manfarang

      Maybe he should have become a Rastafarian.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Whatever was on offer. Blair let Imams into prison to proselyte forgetting Imams are not like priests from seminaries. This man was in Saudi and married a woman out there – that means you recite Shahada

  • john in cheshire

    I think it’s true to say that islam legitimises every negative human trait including violence and murder.

  • chefofsinners

    The telling fact is that a man of this character turned his back in Christianity and was drawn to Islamic extremism.

    • Paul Greenwood

      so he was a practising and devout Christian who just happened to stick a knife in a man’s head in 2003 ? Must be in your congregation

      • chefofsinners

        No, of course he was neither a devout or practising Christian, but he became a devout and practising something else.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Why?

          • Sarky

            Because if you’re criminally inclined christianity is seen as weak and fundamentalist islam as strong.
            Islam is a mans religion, christianity in its current form is feminised.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Re: your last para.

            Aye.

        • Paul Greenwood

          Yes because it “cleansed his suns” and validated male supremacy and excused violence

      • Manfarang

        Member of an Eastbourne congregation?

    • ChaucerChronicle

      If he was a Christian; then the critical question is why?

      Why do our teenagers leave the faith?

      Setting aside Francis A. Shaeffer for the moment; why weren’t our fathers able to respond to the questions posed by the student rebels of the 1960s?

      • Paul Greenwood

        They don’t – they are simply never brought up in “the faith”

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Aristotle once said that if you want to know the truth, you must begin by asking the correct questions.

          Forgive me, but I think you are framing the problem incorrectly.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I don’t think people use Church other than as “Hatch, Match, Despatch’ and the priests are basically Guardian sermon enunciators. Children are enticed into a disco church with drums and plastic chairs rather than Scripture – Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide

          • Dominic Stockford

            You need to define ‘church’, as none of the bete noirs mentioned here occur in ours – we stick to the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice, and I loathe drums in church.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Agreed. I keep out of churches for that reason. Even abroad I find churches are “syncopated” with The State re-defining liturgy

          • Paul Greenwood

            I am pleased to hear it. You are fortunate

      • chefofsinners

        Why did Judas betray Jesus?

        • ChaucerChronicle

          What the young ‘Muslamic’ radicals are looking for, is a solution to the problem of Subjectivity-Objectivity (only Judaeo-Christian revelation can provide that).

          This is why PREVENT is useless.

          • Busy Mum

            My white English teenage son was picked up by his school librarian under ‘PREVENT’ – she was concerned about him looking at the news during his lunchbreak. Her view was that he should not be looking at articles that mentioned terrorism!

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Madam

            1. The secular State, because it believes in the Doctrine of Equality, must be seen to be even handed.
            2. As it is secular, it must not discriminate – a sub-doctrine (of Equality).
            3. For it, to do so, would invite accusations of discrimination – undermining its principal doctrine.
            4. It believes that to be seen to discriminate would undermine ‘community cohesion’ – which it believes would lead to intrer-communal conflict (based on race): catastrophic failure.

          • Busy Mum

            Couldn’t agree more – the funny thing is that at my son’s small rural secondary school, there are only about two non-white children and absolutely no Muslims (at the moment, that is). It is therefore a ‘cohesive community’. I think the librarian must have just had her ‘Prevent’ training and was in a heightened mood of vigilance, still recovering from the effects of being told that all children are equally at risk of ‘radicalisation’.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            Correct – on all points.

          • ChaucerChronicle

            There is something horrific in your post (which I have observed in my rural library): ‘the librarian must have just had her ‘Prevent’ training”.

            We are in a Police State (see Funder, Anna; Stasiland).

            ‘They’ve’ won.

            The chief question now is: is there a better way to prevent ‘Muslamic’ radicalisation?

            That’s where the debate has moved onto amongst policy thinkers.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Try C of E Schools in Northern cities now 90% Muslim – then google Gordon Honeyford

          • Anton

            Ray Honeyford.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Correct. A truly sad waste of a man’s life. Look at what his old (now rebuilt) school is now called !

          • Paul Greenwood

            Secular State is finished. watch France and how its 1905 Law has blown up its society or how the Dutch and Danes are heading for implosion

          • Anton

            I am told by a vicar friend, who quit his local multifaith group involving imams and rabbis (and other vicars more liberal), that Muslim organisations which claim to promote moderate Islam and to marginalise radical Islam can be given government money with very little oversight. The result is predictable.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Yes and so is the C of E. Theresa May knows how much the Home Office dishes out in Blair Conscience Money after he did his Iraq Stunt

          • Paul Greenwood

            Did you threaten legal action under ECHR

        • Merchantman

          He was disappointed in Jesus’ non- violent form as Messiah. Or as Islam says (I think) he was an as yet ‘unrevealed’ Muslim.
          And because of that he also may have thought Jesus was a blasphemer as did the Sanhedrin.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          Presumably, for the same reasons we all do: inconvenient.

          • chefofsinners

            Satan entered into him. Money. Power. Pleasure. The God of this world has blinded their eyes.

        • Paul Greenwood

          silver

      • Dominic Stockford

        There is no evidence that he was a Christian.

        1. Having Christian parents doesn’t make you a Christian.
        2. Being born in a nominally Christian country doesn’t make you Christian
        3. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian.
        4. Getting baptised doesn’t make you a Christian.
        5. Doing good deeds and using Jesus’ name to support them doesn’t make you a Christian
        6. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian.
        7. Being told you are a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian.

        As Paul says in Romans, faith in Jesus Christ (which alone makes you a Christian) is a free and undeserved gift from God. As we are told by Jesus in the Gospel (John), he will never let one of his own go.

        There is an interesting conclusion therefore. If he *was* a Christian at the start, then he was *still* a Christian (even if a very, very, very bad one). If he wasn’t a Christian (at the end), then he was *never* a Christian.

        • Anton

          Once saved, always saved? Now there’s a discussion…

          • Depends whether it’s a fixed term ISA or an easy access one.

          • Anton

            I am personally of the view that it is possible for a man to be in a state one day such that if he dies in his sleep he will ultimately wind up in the New Jerusalem, whereas if he dies next night he will not.

          • God decides when a man lives and dies. So, it’s all in His hands.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Not for a Reformed Christian. Just a fact of life.

          • Martin

            Anton

            Not “once saved akways saved” but
            For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Romans 11:29 [ESV])

          • Paul Greenwood

            Calvinists see things differently

        • Trevor Mobbs

          I would dearly love to see you tell someone who said they were a Christian that they weren’t. Maybe you can start with Donald Trump?

          • Dominic Stockford

            I do. As others on this site will confirm, or maybe they won’t, as they’re too cross with me for doing so!

            What is more, my church, like many, uses Christianity Explored, which does exactly what I have done above (the numbered part) so that those present know the truth as they start. Many people do this course. It’s the Bible teaching.

            I’d have to talk with Mr Trump before I could have a clue whether he really has faith or not, however.

    • Merchantman

      Quite. As a nominal Christian he was a round peg in a square hole. As a follower of Muhammad he was a round peg in a round hole.

  • John

    Yeah, but for some reason we’re not hearing about people setting off suicide vests or driving vehicles through crowds shouting “Jesus is Lord!”

    • Dominic Stockford

      Even the so-called ‘Lord’s Army’ that caused such problems in Africa were never outwardly Christian in any way.

      • Paul Greenwood

        LRA was a cult around Joseph Kony as “Spirit Medium”

        • Manfarang

          In May 2014 members of the Church of the Almighty God beat a 37-year-old woman named Wu Shuoyan to death in a McDonalds in Zhaoyuan, China when she refused to give them her phone number.

          • Dominic Stockford

            “The followers believe that the biblical God has returned to earth as a woman named Yang Xiangbin[13] “born to an ordinary family in the northern part of China”[14] in order to guide mankind for the third and final time.”

            Thus, they are not Christians, whatever they might call themselves.

          • Manfarang

            Flew’s, No true Scotsman (Christian) eh?

          • Dominic Stockford

            That is a false argument. Being a Scotsman is simple. You have to ‘do’ something, live there or be born there. Whereas becoming a Christian necessarily involves God doing something to you – a quite different thing.

          • Manfarang

            You remind me of the horrified old lady who heard on the news about the Christians fighting in the Lebanese civil war years ago. She just couldn’t understand it.

          • Dominic Stockford

            In relation to my comment above:
            1. Having Christian parents doesn’t make you a Christian.
            2. Being born in a nominally Christian country doesn’t make you Christian
            3. Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian.
            4. Getting baptised doesn’t make you a Christian.
            5. Doing good deeds and using Jesus’ name to support them doesn’t make you a Christian
            6. Calling yourself a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian.
            7. Being told you are a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian.

            As Paul says in Romans, faith in Jesus Christ (which alone makes you a Christian) is a free and undeserved gift from God. As we are told by Jesus in the Gospel (John), he will never let one of his own go.

            Regarding Lebanon:

            Big difference. I have no problems with Christians defending themselves – many did during both the 1st WW and the 2nd WW for instance. Standing there waiting to be murdered is not a particularly Christian thing to do (see the exact words Jesus used re Peter’s sword). Going out in order to deliberately take life for no reason other than to seek to dominate and humiliate others who do not hold the Christian faith is NOT Christian.

          • Manfarang

            My philosophy teacher, Alex Stern, spoke about this, your views are unfalsifiable, no matter what anyone says you will go on believing them regardless of what anybody says. That doesn’t mean they are valid, meaning you are right and everybody else is wrong.
            Have you sold all of your possessions and given the money to the poor?

          • Dominic Stockford

            I am not the rich young man in the Bible who was told to do that. And what I state above is perfectly normal theology – the Christianity Explored course (written by CofE ministers, including those from All Souls, London, and an exposition of the Bible – Mark’s Gospel) is very clear on what does NOT make you a Christian. I suggest you find one and go on it.

          • Manfarang

            “Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth.”
            How can you be sure you are one of the Elect?

          • Dominic Stockford

            I am quite happy, just as was (for instance) Billy Graham to state that I have assurance of my salvation – based on the Bible and the promises I read there, and my faith in Jesus Christ as having had my sin imputed to him, and his righteousness imputed to me. What would the point be of God giving me a faith in Jesus Christ which does NOT give me assurance?

          • Manfarang

            “For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done. Truly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”

          • Dominic Stockford

            ? I haven’t a clue what that is supposed to mean as a response.

            The Bible is God’s Word, and it promises eternal life to those who are called, and it tells us exactly how we are called an how we are saved. I rest on God’;s Word for assurance – Job 13:15 “Though he slay me, I will hope in him”, and with a “sure and certain hope of the resurrection to eternal life” as the BCP reminds us in the funeral service therein.

          • Manfarang

            The problem of verse 28, is ‘perplexing because it stresses the certainty of this future coming by stating that some of Jesus’s contemporaries will live to see “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom”’.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Calvin explains it simply and clearly thus:

            “To support his disciples in the meantime, our Lord holds out to them, for confirmation, an intermediate period; as much as to say, “If it seem too long to wait for the day of my coming, I will provide against this in good time; for before you come to die, you will see with your eyes that kingdom of God, of which I bid you entertain a confident hope.” This is the natural import of the words; for the notion adopted by some, that they were intended to apply to John, is ridiculous.”

          • Paul Greenwood

            Yes. David Koresh produced mass-suicide as did Jim Jones in Guyana

          • IrishNeanderthal

            This particular subthread came to mind when I read this letter in today’s (Monday 27th) Telegraph:

            The more one reads of the punitive attitude of EU leaders towards Brexit, the more one feels they are displaying the characteristics of a cult, rather than a political organisation.

            The real agenda . . . was hidden . . . However, the reality of membership has now become clear, and we want to leave. The response has been to issue threats to intimidate us and warn other members against leaving.

            Like leaving a real cult, the process will be traumatic but, in the long term, completely liberating.

      • Sarky

        Please apply that same logic to muslims.

        • Anton

          Please compare the quran and the New Testament.

          • … or the Old Testament to the New Testament.

          • Anton

            What has that to do with Christian and Muslim behaviour?

          • Seek and ye shall find ….

            Let’s look at it through the eyes of non-believers or the “uninformed”:

            Islam is a derivative corruption of Judaism and Christianity. Where does the justification of violence come from? As well as containing peaceful doctrines, laws requiring the eradication of evil using violent means exist in Judaism and some claim in Christianity too. Some claim that more than one thousand passages in the Old Testament refer to YHWH as acting violently or supporting the violence of humans and that more than one hundred passages involve divine commands to kill by stoning, decapitation, burning, and strangulation.

            The biblical narrative about the conquest of Canaan are treated as historical and highly conditioned and no longer relevant to contemporary life. However, there are strains of radical Zionism promoting aggressive war and justifying them with biblical texts. There is evidence too of forced conversions during the Hasmonean Empire where the Idumaens were forced to convert either by threats of exile or death.

            It’s controversial, but some historians have documented that the Yemeni Jewish Himyar tribe offered Christian residents in Saudi Arabia the choice between conversion to Judaism or death and that 20,000 Christians were massacred.

            Radical Zionist leaders have relied on religious doctrines for justification for the violent treatment of Arabs in Palestine and pre-state Jewish militia used verses from the Bible to justify their violent acts, which included expulsions and massacres such as the one at Deir Yassin.

            After Baruch Goldstein carried out the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in 1994, his actions were widely interpreted to be based on the radical Zionist ideology of the Kach movement, and was praised by radical Zionists. Dov Lior, Chief Rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat Arba in the southern West Bank and head of the “Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria” has made speeches legitimizing the killing of non-Jews and praising Goldstein as a saint and martyr. Lior also said “a thousand non-Jewish lives are not worth a Jew’s fingernail”. Lior publicly gave permission to spill blood of Arab persons and has publicly supported extreme right-wing Jewish terrorists. In July 2010, Yitzhak Shapira was arrested by Israeli police for writing a book that encourages the killing of non-Jews. In his book “The King’s Torah” he wrote that under Torah and Jewish Law it is legal to kill Gentiles and to kill the babies of enemies. The book was endorsed by radical Zionist leaders Dov Lior and Yaakov Yosef.

            The Jewish Defense League was founded in 1969 by Rabbi Meir Kahane with the declared purpose of protecting Jews from harassment and anti-Semitism. FBI statistics show that from 1980 to 1985 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the U.S. by members of the JDL. The National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states that, during the JDL’s first two decades of activity, it was an “active terrorist organization”.

            Christianity isn’t without its violence either – the Inquisition, Crusades, Wars of Religion, Cromwellian atrocities, anti-Semitism. The history of Christianity contains considerable violence and destruction. Historically, Christianity has been intolerant of other world faiths, doing its best to eliminate all competitors, with Judaism being a qualified exception. Many Christians seem to have an overriding commitment to their respective cultures and ethnic groups, rather than the Gospel.

            One can find peaceful passages in the Koran too.

          • len

            If you ‘submit’ to Islam it is peaceful.

          • A Muslim would say if we submit to God the world will find peace.

          • Anton

            The way the Islamic world has?

          • Anton

            God is not responsible for the abuse of his word – either Testament – by others. But for your own sake you had better not be ashamed of any part of the OT.

          • Terry Mushroom

            “Christianity isn’t without its violence, either.” This, of course, is perfectly true. But what in the New Testament can be argued to justify it?

          • Sarky

            Irrelevant.

          • Anton

            Why?

  • bs

    The article is correct in so far as it goes, but it artfully avoids the questions of more significance to the victims of such people.

  • IanCad

    I hope we professed Christians on this blog aren’t getting a tad self-righteous by assigning to Islam a monopoly on violence.

    It is after all, only a little over seventy years since the Arrow Cross Party of Hungary and the Ustaše
    in the Balkans plied their diabolical crafts. What we have seen recently is small beer in comparison.
    We have two million or so Muslims in this country most of whom contribute and add richness to our society.
    I don’t like where today’s blog is heading. Vent – get things off your chests – but do not ascribe to our Muslim subjects the major ills besetting our land.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      There are a number of problems in the current situation.

      1. The majority of Muslims are moderate.
      2. The majority are undermined by a theological (jurisprudential) card held by the ‘Muslamic’ radical: the Doctrine of Precedent.
      3. Neither the radicals nor the moderates are able to articulate (in detail) the real problem: Subjectivity-Objectivity.
      4. The secular State cannot resolve this by definition.
      5. ‘Paradoxically’ only the Church could have.
      6. The Church now reflects the secular State.

      Result?

      We’re knackered.

      • IanCad

        Cream Crackered for sure, unless we regrow a spine, and that, pronto.
        Many and sufficient are laws in the books. Application is another issue altogether, and until our institutions are peopled by wiser and shrewder administrators than at present we will chug along with no resolution, no security, and little justice.
        Occasionally, and not too often I hope, outrages will erupt. The shouters will become louder, reason will crumble, and our tolerant society will become fierce in a way as only a fearful and emasculated generation can turn into berserkers on the turn of a dime.

        • ChaucerChronicle

          My,

          Ian.

          That’s a ‘merry message’.

          My only hope is that people will listen to you.

        • betteroffoutofit

          “A dime”?
          How fururistic. And here I am still mourning the loss of farthings!!!

    • Sarky

      Nice one. Needed to be said.

    • Anton

      I don’t. But I don’t share your view that diversity is so wonderful either.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Well put.

      • IanCad

        Did I write the word; “Diversity”? Re-read my post twice and didn’t see it.
        Diversity is unrelated to the treating of our fellow subjects with fairness and dignity.

        • Anton

          Is the word “Trinity” in the Bible? I’m sure you can readily infer to which sentence of yours I am referring.

          • IanCad

            I can assure you Anton that I am no fan of “Diversity” as my posts can attest.
            Quite flattered though that my comment is compared to Holy Writ.

  • Manfarang

    University educated who taught English in Saudi Arabia (being aggressive is a useful classroom attribute in that place) No doubt in the days before criminal background checks required.

    • Paul Greenwood

      University educated ?????? He was doing TOEFL

      • Manfarang

        Maybe at a university.

  • stewartgjgreen

    Unless further evidence comes to light, I think its pretty clear he was never a Christian and probably didn’t label himself as such.
    He clearly had a violent and warped mind, presumably just a coincidence he found Islam a ‘safe space’ in which to carry on and extend his violent aims.

    • ChaucerChronicle

      It needs a deeper analysis.

      Imagine yourself as a race anomaly in Rhodesia at its collapse, and then then hanging on to your farm.

    • dannybhoy

      He was the son of a single mother, and his Dad wasn’t around. A dark skinned lad in a predominantly white community.
      Where did he find guidance from without a good Dad’s guidance?
      He was looking for an identity and he finally found it in Islam.
      Not to excuse him, just to say that kids rejected or abandoned by a parent or parents, will always be craving love, acceptance and meaning.
      Islam filled the void.

      • CliveM

        Good post DB.

  • Simon Platt

    So far as I understand it, the killer was not born to Afro-Caribbean parents, Christian or otherwise.

    • Dominic Stockford

      His mother was white, by account. His father may have been Afro-Caribbean.

      • Simon Platt

        Quite.

        • Paul Greenwood

          since he did a runner it might fit

  • ecclesiaman

    There is much more to this than meets the eye. Who is manipulating who here. Who is under the bus? This happened at 3.22 on the 22.3. Skull and bones number 322. Conspiracy theorists are distrusted and need the most exacting scrutiny, but they are on to something. Humanity Vs Insanity episode 86. Check it out. Probably ruined what ever respect I may have had by posting this but at least using what is left of my mental resources. We wrestle not…….
    I thought HG made a good post here and was probing more than conclusive.

    • It’s the Lizards …. again. The day is linked to that well known secret society, the Skull and Bones, which is numerically represented by ‘322’.

      • len

        The lizards are all in the Vatican vaults, along with all the dead men’s bones and buckets of white wash.

        • Not all of them, Len. They’re everywhere. There’s one or two on here. One of Jack’s jobs is to monitor them and report back.

          • len

            OK .Carry on that chap . Good Job…

          • Anton

            I stick my tongue out at you.

          • Ah, it’s forked ….

          • Dominic Stockford

            [In a French accent] “I blow a raspberry at you…”

          • ecclesiaman

            Unfortunately Mr Icke appears to be the focus (not mine!) of conspiracy theories. It looks like you have at least looked into aspects of the supernatural. I am reading Dr Heiser’s, “Unseen Realm” (He of logos bible software, and OT scholar).
            There is no doubt that numbers and patterns have occult references. The video of Ian Crane I referred to is interesting as he observes much, apart from this tragic crime, of our current situation in the UK without any reference to matters of Christian understanding. I think genuine believers are uninformed and unprepared for the future. That is prior to the harpazo.

          • chefofsinners

            Stay on their tails, Jack.

          • “One problem with the focus on speculation is that it tends to promote the growth of the great intellectual cancer of our times: conspiracy theories.”
            (Gary Weiss)
            Guess who starts them?

          • Anton

            I still boggle, years later, at the scene in one of the programmes in Jon Ronson’s paranoid classic TV series Secret Rulers of the Universe in which a host of angry Jews from the B’nai Brith organisation confronted David Icke and said that they knew when he said “shape-shifting lizards” it was really code for Jews, and that he was really an anti-semite using the phrase for plausible deniability; and Icke with equal vehemence insisting that he really did mean shape-shifting lizards. Insofar as I can tell, both sides were sincere, which made it all the more compelling viewing.

          • carl jacobs

            The classic blind. A lizard pretending to watch for lizards. We’re on to you, Jack.

          • Lizards have a Jacobson organ.

          • carl jacobs

            OK. I admit defeat. The inscrutibility of your reply has left me speechless. I have no idea how to respond to that.

          • You haven’t had the specialist training that Jack has, Grasshopper.

            “What is more yielding than water? Yet, back it comes again, wearing down the ridged strength, which cannot stand to its strength. What is more forceful than quite water?”

          • carl jacobs

            And presumably this has something to do with lizards and their biology?

      • ecclesiaman

        Comments anticipated! I don’t follow Mr Icke but if you really believe Ephesians 6 and Dr Heiser on Genesis 6, see his recent books and scholarly work, the end times don’t happen by accident. Strings are being pulled and humans wittingly and unwittingly are the puppets. Look at the quoted video and engage. Lizard comments are lazy and inadequate research. There is a whole dimension of developing interrelated events which comprise the eschatological , and things are coming together. You guys have more intellectual nous than I do but need to apply yourself more earnestly. As it was in the days of Noah….
        I don’t believe in the lizard stuff (as far as I have briefly come across it) either but the supernatural realm requires great discernment and should be approached biblically.

  • Awful lot of Islamic “scholars” on here today who appear to know more about Islam than those raised in the faith. Convenient too that some are capable of discerning just who is a “Christian” and who is not i.e. “believe what I believe and you are Christian”. Jack notices some are the very same people who claim it is Catholics who “pontificate”.

    We’re all capable of violence and we’re all capable of having our minds twisted and perverted. Some of us, whether we be Atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Jew, Communist or Jedi Knight, will fall under Satanic influence. One also notes there’s a tendency too to judge this man’s soul, not just his demented behaviour, despite biblical warnings to the contrary. It may be true that in some religions the portal to evil is wider than others, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that all will succumb to it.

    Let’s cut all the holier than thou claptrap.

    • len

      You start first?.

      • Being polite, Jack will let you go first.

        • len

          Ok thanks Jack.

    • CliveM

      What you say is true. With the exception of myself (ahem), I think most of us have given into the temptation to pontificate confidently about things we know little about.

      What we know about this man is a lot less then what we don’t know and I would bet that a lot of what we currently think we know will be proven wrong in due course.

      However there are certain strains of Islam that seem to have very wide portals to evil.

    • chefofsinners

      Are you really complaining that Catholics get accused of pontificating?
      Don’t even think of accusing me of protesting.

      • One would never accuse you of being a pontificating protester.

        Catholics only ever pontificate on matters known to be correct. Others give opinions as if they’re correct.

        • Peregrinus

          Pontiff means bridge-builder so pontificating, whatever its bad press, must mean building bridges. For Catholics that would be bridges to the Kingdom of God. Problem solved.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Yes but it is a Pagan term from Pontifex Maximus in the Roman Pre-Christian Era

          • So “Easter” …

            The most widely accepted theory of the origin of the term is that it is derived from the name of a goddess mentioned by the 7th to 8th-century English monk Bede, who wrote that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English ‘Month of Ēostre’, translated in Bede’s time as “Paschal month”) was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says “was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month”.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter#Etymology

          • len

            Caesar became’ the Pope’ and the tradition carried on to this day.
            In that respect pagan Rome still lives.

          • Caesar became the Pope? Strange, his name doesn’t appear on the authorised list.

          • len

            It runs throughout the list, Its the title.’ Pontifex Maximus’ passed from the Caesars to the Popes.

          • Nice* comment.

            Where a word originates does not determine its meaning. How the word is actually used determines meaning.

            *The word “nice” comes from the Latin word nescius, meaning “ignorant” or “not knowing”.

          • len

            Your point?.

          • You’ve just proven it ….

          • len

            You are either ignorant of basic facts about your religion or something worse?.

          • *Nice* comment, Len.

          • Paul Greenwood

            EIPS

          • At last, an informed commenter.

          • len

            Mis -informed.

          • len

            The Pope claims to be’ the bridge’ instead of Christ who is the mediator between man and God.

      • Dominic Stockford

        The self-styled Supreme Pontiff pontificating? Surely not!

    • carl jacobs

      The question is not “What are people capable of doing?” The question is “What does the worldview justify?” Is there an Islamic country (conventionally defined) in which you would voluntarily choose to live? When you answer “No” tell me why.

      • Paul Greenwood

        England is not a Christendom nor a Protestant Republic but Islamic Republic of Pakistan suggests it might be restrictive

        • Trevor Mobbs

          You do realise you have a state church with the monarch as head?

          • Paul Greenwood

            Christ is Head of the Church. The Monarch is simply Supreme Governor and Parliament authorises the Prayer Book as Cranmer is happy to confirm. There is however No Minister of Religion as in Turkey or Pakistan or Denmark. The State Church does not control cemeteries as in Denmark. There is no Church Tax or Tithing any longer.

            Germany has a State Church Tax of 5% additional Income Tax passed to Protestant or Catholic or Jewish religions to compensate for expropriation of Church lands under Napoleon. Funnily enough it has no State Religion but the State controls religion (and is trying to control Islam).

            A Jewish couple from France with very high incomes but no religious belief moved to Frankfurt 2002 where the State is demanding €114,000 Church Tax from them for the Orthodox Jewish Community in Frankfurt they have no affiliation with. They seek help from the ECHR against State compulsion to decree their religious affiliation.

            http://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/article/view/id/26581

            So I would argue there is no key test for declaring England a Protestant nation as it was 1649. I do not see a Government position on this. I would be happy to have a Protestant Nation but it is not so.

      • Jack doesn’t disagree that the Koran is fertile material for the demented. However, so is the Old Testament if one is so minded.

        The world is an increasingly dangerous and polarised place. Besides, Jack is too old and settled to move now.

        • carl jacobs

          Evasion. What is it that shapes Islamic culture from Islamabad to Morocco into something so antithetical to the West?

          • Hate of the West.

          • carl jacobs

            No, a culture is not defined by what it opposes. Besides which, the culture of those nations would remain unchanged if the West collapsed tomorrow. Care to try again?

          • Extremist and hate filled world views can certainly be fuelled by what one opposes, especially if one believes one is under attack from an enemy. There was a time when Islam was peaceful and tolerant towards other faith systems. There are extremist Zionist and Christian variants too.

          • Anton

            The more I read the New Testament the more I wish there to be more extremists for it.

          • Gareth Harris

            Repeated attacks and Crusades, brual colonisation and the superiority complex of those colonists perhaps?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            When was the last time Morocco, a country that actively discourages the Wahabi sect, caused you any trouble?

          • carl jacobs

            Iran also actively discourages Wahhabism. What has that to do with anything?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Iran is not a source of Islamist terrorists. That’s what it has to do with anything. Terrorists don’t just come from Muslim countries in general, they come from particular countries. As was pointed out when Trump attempted to ban travel from countries that were NOT the right ones for preventing terrorism.

          • carl jacobs

            I don’t remember claiming that terrorists come from all Islamic countries. I asked what made the culture of Islamic states so antithetical to the West. Because it is. A Europe dominated by Islamic culture would cease to be Western in any recognizable sense.

        • Anton

          The Old Testament is God’s word; are you ashamed of it?

          • Not at all – just that it has to be corrected understood.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Rudolf Hoess went to church on Sundays like a devout Catholic and ran his business at Oswiecim throughout the week dutifully

      • Hess confessed and was repentant before he went to his execution. Four days before he was executed, Hess acknowledged the enormity of his crimes in a message to the state prosecutor:

        “My conscience compels me to make the following declaration. In the solitude of my prison cell, I have come to the bitter recognition that I have sinned gravely against humanity. As Commandant of Auschwitz, I was responsible for carrying out part of the cruel plans of the ‘Third Reich’ for human destruction. In so doing I have inflicted terrible wounds on humanity. I caused unspeakable suffering for the Polish people in particular. I am to pay for this with my life. May the Lord God forgive one day what I have done.”

        https://www13.shu.edu/academics/theology/upload/mass-murderer-repents.pdf

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    I admire you. You’ve got balls writing that article. Looks like the religious, secular, the atheist and the moderate Muslim appreciate.

    I guess it won’t be long before you, Nazir-Ali and Ashenden become England’s: ‘Triumvirate’.

    I wonder, who your ‘Caesar’ will be.

  • Inspector General

    He grew up with the most original of sin inside him. Not the business about fallen man and tempting apples. That’s just an analogy. Though a useful one in as much as it tells us that man was not conceived in perfection, but through the rather darker route of evolution. An evolution where just being from a different ‘herd’ of the same, if you will, could get you killed. It happens today with wild life. Most male animals enter another’s territory at their peril. Nature is raw in tooth and claw, and the colour red is always nearby. The colour of blood spilled during the act of survival.

    Anyway, our Adrian grew in time into what he would be. A low intellect young male negro, with a typical low intellect young male negro’s ‘attitude’ to his fellows and the society he found himself in. (He was a body builder, so low intellect he must be). We can only speculate that his eventual attraction to Islam was due to an understanding, nay, empathy with the violent parts of the Koran. He must have liked what he heard in other words. Perhaps he even sagely nodded his head about the need to wipe the infidel from this earth. Ah, the joy of Islam! There’s not a tremendous lot else which permits killing and lying and anything other it takes to be true to your god.

    Remorseful of his life of previous wrongdoing, he went on pilgrimage as Christians might call it. It was time to secure his passage to heaven, and he knew exactly what was required from him to achieve that…

    Oh course, there are legions of other muslamic Adrians out there. And there are helpful sorts who want to persuade them to go on a pilgrimage of their own…and that’s good enough to get you arrested in the UK, thankfully.

    • dannybhoy
      • Inspector General

        Interesting, Danny. So he wasn’t as thick as a plank, but we should never confuse animal cunning for intelligence. Fred West had the former in spades, which is how he evaded detection for so long, but at the end of the end, he was a mere ignorant building labourer…

    • carl jacobs

      You are so full of sh*t higher understanding.

      • Inspector General

        What was it you were saying the other day about needing to be aware of what we ourselves are not necessarily comfortable with…

        • When a Catholic, a Calvinist and an “independent bible believer” agree, it suggests something.

    • Martin

      IG

      Adam was created perfect, he listened to his wife, ignored God’s command and they fell, bringing down Creation with them. We inherit that fallen nature and the tendency to sin, but not the individual sin. We choose our sin, he chose his sin. By grace God saves some, others He allows to continue in their sin.

      The Qur’an, unlike the Bible, is inconsistent, you can find what you seek in it. If you want to live a peaceful life, it will satisfy your need. If you wish to live the life of a terrorist, you can find that too.

      • tamms001

        You have no idea what you are talking about. It is quite obvious that not only have you never read the Quran cover to cover, you have not read the Bible either. Youre just regurgitating information you heard at the local pub.

        • Anton

          Do you know what NASKH means?

          • Mike Stallard

            Go on – I cannot wait to find out!

          • Anton

            The Arabic word for how Muslims reconcile contradictions in the quran, which they acknowledge are present – assign priority to the one which came to Muhammad later. It is based on a questionable interpretation of a particular verse and it cannot, of course, explain how an omniscient deity can contradict himself.

          • Mike Stallard

            Sort of like the Jesuits?
            The trouble from a Muslim point of view is that the Koran is a dynamic read – the position changes quite a lot. The Gospels (cp Hadiths) present an unchanging Jesus after the Baptism. The Koran develops as circumstances change.
            What is the Koranic position on Jews? Or Christians? Or killing people?

          • No Jesuit argues the end justifies the mean. You probably mean “mental reservation”.

          • Anton
          • A rather simplistic understanding, that Anton. It’s far more complicated.

          • Anton

            Do tell me what is wrong with my summary, which has passed muster by Christian ex-Muslims. Q2:!06 is the verse in question and the English phrase is the Doctrine of Abrogation.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naskh_(tafsir)

          • Given that Islamic scholars hold a wide range of diverse opinions, one doubts your expertise.

            Qur’an 2:106; Qur’an 16:101. and Qur’an 22:52 are all applicable. Another verse Qur’an 13:39, stating “Allah doth blot out or confirm what He pleaseth”, is considered by some scholars as confirming abrogation.

            Apparently, there are between 235 and 550 instances of contradictions and consequent abrogation in the Qur’an and different schools resolve them differently.

            It’s possible, like Judaism/Christianity, that Naskh uses the logic of chronology and progressive revelation. The different situations encountered over the course of Muhammad’s life as prophet, required new rulings to meet the Muslim community’s changing circumstances – God intended them as temporary.
            It’s a huge subject.

          • Anton

            Well wikipedia’d Jack.

            Progressive revelation is one thing, contradictions are another. Muslims acknowledge that contradictions exist in the quran. To you, my question is what principle do they use to reconcile them? To them, my question is how are contradictions consistent with the quran being the word of an omniscient deity?

          • To which some Muslims would no doubt reply: “Allah does as He chooses; who can understand?”

            The Qur’an was put together after Muhammad’s death from scattered notes he wrote at different times, some on scraps of paper, some on stones. His various sayings were also compiled over time from the memories of his associates. As Pope Benedict rightly described, Islam is not a belief system open to rational interpretation, argument or discussion. As a “dictated” text, it cannot be questioned. It describes a Being beyond human comprehension who changes his mind and does as he likes.

          • Anton

            As you are playing the scholar here, the tale of compilation of the quran is far more complex than you assert and it is even disputed whether he was literate. I certainly agree with you that it is not a coherent document (to put it gently), but you next need to ask yourself why Muslims, who assert Allah’s omniscience, felt the need to try to reconcile the inconsistencies.

        • Martin

          Are you suggesting that the Bible is inconsistent or that the Qur’an is not?

      • Gareth Harris

        The Bible has quite a few inconsistancies as well.

        • Anton

          Do get specific.

        • Martin

          Gareth

          It has none at all.

    • Mike Stallard

      “A low intellect young male negro, with a typical low intellect young male negro’s ‘attitude’ to his fellows and the society he found himself in.”
      I have lived and taught in West Africa. Because of the family structure – polygamy – nearly every boy is from what I call a broken home. And I have heard some heart breaking tales too. Actually, Africans can be educated and trained. In the olden days when the British were around and Missionaries flourished with their schools, some seriously nice people were produced. I am reminded of the Archbishop of West Africa to take one example.
      I have just been reading about Olaudah Equiano and the slave trade. For me it is nurture not nature every time. I needed to say that because I abhor putting human sin down simply to race. It is not true.

      • Inspector General

        The Europeans introduced marriage to the sub Saharan African. Before that, the warriors would impregnate the maidens at a time of the tribal chiefs choosing. And ONLY the warriors. The resulting brood to be brought up in a creche…For the individual, the entire tribe was his family. Not an identified mother and father per se.

        • Mike Stallard

          To quote Samah Monde our Head Boy – “U bin Day?” (tr “Were you there?”)
          this is not how it was explained to me. They lived in a sort of compound with a chief and lots of little houses for the women folk. The young men were largely kept away until they were married off – and that cost money. If they were caught climbing into the compound over the fence, then they were beaten.
          Different…

  • Inspector General

    “Islam didn’t make him an evil bastard; he was already a nasty piece of work.”

    There was a time when this Inspector here would use such emotive description. But that was before he was gifted the higher knowledge of what is. When he did so, he would invariably be told by his intellectual betters (at the time) that such talk was ‘unhelpful’.

    A more scientific observation would be that he gave up, apparently willingly, any hold of the influences of the benign white civilisation he was fortunate to be born into and defaulted to his innate factory settings. To wit, as soon as he mounted the pavement on Westminster bridge, he became the African Warrior that was always in him. Just as the two who murdered Fusilier Rigby became, and indeed, the hundreds of thousands of the Rwandan Hutu tribe 23 years ago. Every one who killed or assisted in killing a Tutsi. As one said. That’s hundreds of thousands then.

    Such is the stuff that infects the soul of the beast that is man that Christ came to reform. And foolish are the secularists in the UK who wish to banish our Christ from our society.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Your last two sentences are spot on.

    • Fembota

      Are the factory settings of which you speak the same factory settings which lead to the execution of millions of Jewish citizens of Europe in the 1940’s? The holocaust has always horrified me but I had never made this connection with innate warrior-like behaviours. Can you point me to the scientific papers you speak about? I have read Wilhelm Reich and his paper ‘The Mass Psychology of Fascism’ but that speaks more of sexual repression as being the route cause of political violence.

      • Anton

        Reich, the man who believed that a sexual form of energy called orgone, supposedly blue, pervaded the universe? I’d rather believe in shapeshifting lizards.

        As for me, I’ll take the Bible over both Reich and the Inspector. The factory settings of the entire human race were reset from good to bad a long time ago.

        • Fembota

          Reichs earlier works made no mention of rain-machines, aliens or indeed orgone. He was originally from the Freud school, Oedipus and what-not. The paper I quoted is interesting, and I think relevant to the authoritarian Islamic ideologies we are seeing haplessly and tragically displayed by folk like our Adrian.

        • You don’t believe shape shifting Lizards exist?

          The factory setting of human beings has not been reset – our capacity to act according to it has been corrupted and damaged. There is a good virus protection and removal programme that can fix the problem but regular monitoring and use is required. Rome offers access to this, free of charge.

          • Fembota

            I thought Rome proscribed the most common protection against viruses.

          • Rome teaches against those prophylactics that are intrinsically evil, certainly.

      • Mike Stallard

        Clever.
        But
        University people interview perhaps 200 people with a tick box questionnaire. Then they “write it up” in gibberish. Then they publish. The results are signed off by “peer review” usually unread, often by people who are not trained in the exact discipline they are reviewing. It then becomes Gospel Truth.
        I am sure that the Inspector General has more real life experience than that.

      • Inspector General

        No they are not. As a rule, the Europeans do not go around slaughtering their fellows as this negro did. You see, the European learnt thousands of years ago that cooperating with his neighbour increases both their chances of survival in an inclement climate. The African never needed to consider that. So, the African does not possess the same respect for human life the European has. And, by God, it shows…

        • Hmm …. 1939-45 wasn’t “thousands of years ago”.

          • Inspector General

            You do realise that an extermination camp was run by no more than 15 or so rabid German national socialists. The Slavs made up the rest of the guards…

          • Ah, the Slavs are really Africans. Jack didn’t realise this.

          • Inspector General

            Not a joking matter, Jack.

          • Your comments are fertile ground for humour, Inspector. Many of them are a joke.

          • Inspector General

            You dishonour yourself, Jack.

  • 1649again

    This is quite simple really. He could not find a way in Christianity to indulge or justify whatever pre-existing predisposition to violence and criminality he might have. In Islam he could, plus a promise a express ticket to Paradise if he indulged this predisposition against “enemies of the the faith” as defined in the Koran.

    I really don’t see why people can’t comprehend this difference. Anything else is just twisted attempts to construct false equivalences and avoid arriving at unwelcome conclusions.

    • Inspector General

      You have it, sir!

      Islam is the choosy criminals choice of religion every time. One wonders if HMPs all boast a resident imam….

      • Mike Stallard

        Islam is a religion for warriors. They pray in a regiment and are all brother soldiers in the two jihads – great and small. They are Karim – gallant, generous and manly. They are clean, disciplined and they can control themselves.
        As Nietzsche noted, Christianity is very different indeed. It takes enormous courage and conviction to bend you neck to the sword. It is for everyone, men, women and children. I am sure that Adrian would have loved our Sunday offering. “Mothering Sunday – with Kidz stuff! 10.30 a.m.” Rev Dawn will supervise the fun!

        • Dominic Stockford

          They can control themselves? Sez who?

          • Mike Stallard

            Ever been to Saudi or Abu Dhabi in Ramadan? Up at sunrise to pray?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Ever been to Sweden and watched the rape and pillage taking place there today? Or are you saying that this is fully intentional?

          • Mike Stallard

            What I am trying to say is this. Islam is a religion of law or, if you like, a religion (din) of keeping on the straight and narrow as laid down by the Prophet Mohammed. These laws fit extremely well with a military warrior mentality and they are meant to as well. Islam was a majestic imperial force immediately it was started.
            But, of course, it is a hard way of life, especially when you have to admit that keeping it is really easy and quite possible. So the Saudis (and other people too) go abroad for a bit of “pork holiday”. Also, thanks to a very generous interpretation of the Shari’a law, only alcohol made from grapes is haram…
            etc.

          • Merchantman

            Hell’s horde has control. Tell us more!

        • 1649again

          Himmler praised Islam for those very ‘qualities’ and saw it as superior to Christianity for that reason. You’ll still find some neo-nazis who have the same view.

      • Stig

        Well, I have heard that Islamic gangs now rule most of our prisons and make life hell for anyone who isn’t one of them.

        • Why don’t muslim prisoners get put in a separate prison or in totally separate wings of the prison? There they should have compulsory Bible study and education.

          • Merchantman

            Absolutely the right solution. There have been attempts at deprogramming Islamic extremists and most are doomed to fail for the reason these people are taken over by violent hate.

          • When they first go in they should have to go through a procedure of renunciation and cleansing with exorcism from a Catholic priest if need be to rid them of their demons.

      • Trevor Mobbs

        Except in Northern Ireland or the American South or all the other places where it hasn’t been.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Then again, we have no evidence that he ever looked for anything in or from Christianity, ever, at any point.

      • Jon of GSG

        It’s easy to imagine, though, his parents being very ashamed of him and telling him so from a “common morality” or small-c christian point of view. What better way to salve one’s own conscience than to say “God wants me to act this way”?

        It’s still supposition, but I find it difficult to imagine there not having been an element of that.

        • Dominic Stockford

          You’d be surprised how many people in this country have never even gone into a church, let alone have a clue about the moral teaching of the Bible. And simply because his parents may possibly have had something to do with the church, a church, at some point in their lives, doesn’t mean that they openly expressed Christian teaching as the reason why they expected him to do x or y.

          And as you admit, supposition is not proof.

          • Jon of GSG

            No, indeed, my point is that he need have had no “proper” Christian input for him to have chosen Islam to make himself feel better about his violent proclivities.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I understand. Thank you. Yes. Exactly so.

    • Okamian

      Maybe he figured he’d not fit in in Northern Ireland without an accent so had to bide his time until something else came along?

      Or do those Christians’ actions not fit with your narrative?

      • 1649again

        Given that the IRA were marxist atheists loosely drawn from the republican demographic they can hardly be termed Christians. As no Protestant church did anything other than condemn loyalist terrorism it’s hard to ascribe them to Christianity. It was a battle between two nationalisms with religion used as a crude lazy label.

        I notice that you have not addressed my statement of fact, merely tried to throw mud at Christianity.

        • Okamian

          There was a statement of fact? I see that you have repeated the same falsehood that the author of the piece below which you are commenting has highlighted. You have thrown all Islam together into one basket and declared that it endorses violence towards outsiders. Was that the ‘fact’ you’re making up?

          Now, even if we take your assertion about the IRA’s active membership at face value as true, and absolve its funding members and community supporters of all blame for their actions (and ditto the various loyalist factions) – even though it’s highly unlikely the active members were given the cover and funding they got through donations solely from marxist-atheist supporters – I struggle to see a difference between violent opportunists using the cover of a religion-based conflict to do bad things in Ireland in the twentieth century and violent opportunists seeking the cover of a religion-based conflict to do bad things wherever they feel like doing them in the twenty-first.

          If it had solely a battle between nationalisms, then presumably there would have been protestants active in the IRA, and vice-versa, particularly on the Northern Ireland side.

          If you prefer a more clear-cut example, how about the folks who have bombed abortion clinics and murdered doctors and clinicians who have performed or assisted with abortions? The Army of God was the imaginative name one group ascribed to itself.

          Go on, tell me those folks weren’t Christians. “No true Christian”, right? Except, when you do that, you strengthen the argument made in the original column above.

  • David

    If His Grace may indulge me in a distraction, Aaron Banks, a former Ukip donor has just announced the imminent launch of “The Patriotic Alliance”. I was informed through my membership of the Vote Leave network. Details are few but it will be a cross-party means to attack Westminster corruption and cronyism – a UK version of “draining the swamp”. It will support independent candidates wishing to target the seats of corrupt MPs. It’s twin objectives are to reduce the national debt and oppose social decline. More to be revealed in May we’re told.

    • Dominic Stockford

      I am already trying to get more information from them about their moral position, and whether they will be coming from a Protestant perspective.

      • David

        Good luck. I don’t think Aaron Banks thinks about such matters. Farage did, as you know, acknowledge the Christian roots of our civilisation. Not that I am criticising Banks or promoting Farage, but just stating the facts as I understand them.The country desperately needs an opposition, which we simply don’t have since the collapse of Labour.

        • 1649again

          Banks seems more outspoken about Islam than Farage will ever be.

        • Dominic Stockford

          You may be right, but I thought that getting in right at the beginning might help shift things that way.

          • David

            Timing can be influential I agree, but I suspect Bank’s basic beliefs will be more influential in shaping whatever it is he is trying to create. Other than his undoubted patriotism, which I support, and his business acumen I don’t know anything about his opinions and beliefs.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Politics inevitably involves compromise. Any political party that tries to identify itself too closely with Christianity would probably do more harm to the work of evangelisation than good, at least in the long term.

      • 1649again

        If a critical mass of Christians join at the start they will be in a position to help shape it.

    • Redrose82

      Dress it up as you will, it is nothing more than a split of UKIP.

      • David

        I am not dressing up anything, just stating what I know, which is very little. A split ? Maybe but I doubt that. Banks was never fully part of Ukip, and although he donated generously, he also always maintained his own distance. I am not sure what to make of this yet, as we know so little. You appear keen to attach a label to it, which in the absence of information, suggests conjecture to me.

      • Anton

        UKIP is inevitably going to die, because it was a one-issue party that is suffering the problem of having won. (Nothing to do with personalities.) Let us be glad of that, but let us now channel our energy into the next good political cause.

  • Inspector General

    Ian Paisley arrives in Hell. The Devil greets him and says that as he’s going to be there for eternity, he can have one, and one only, wish. Paisley considers this, and after a few moments says “I want Martin McGuinness living next door”. And the Devil says “It might take a year or so, but I’ll see what I can arrange”

  • Dominic Stockford

    Let’s not forget what we know about how Muslims in this country think about things.

    http://salisburyreview.com/2017/03/british-muslims-really-think/

    “The 615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathise with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved with jihadists.”

  • Mike Stallard

    Islam believes in polygamy: the west believes in polyandry. Divorce and co-habitation are normal now. Dads have disappeared in many families. Jeremy Kyle is normal. At least where I live.
    Fatherless boys brought up without a father figure in schools where there are few (if any) men present do not know how to behave. They have no examples to follow. They do not know how to control their violence. There is either the female “don’t” or much too much. And that goes for sport too.
    Boys without men go to pieces.
    And the Muslim world is packed with guilty men – and women – who cannot process their guilt. They do all the right things, but it still nags.
    In all these senses little Adrian is there to be understood. And actually to be used as a terrible example.
    What worries me is this: how many other little Adrians are out there waiting?

    • betteroffoutofit

      “Islam believes in polygamy: the west believes in polyandry” very well put!

      • Mike Stallard

        Thank you.

    • Jon of GSG

      I have a book somewhere that lists common personality traits of boys growing up without a stable father figure which I, as a youth worker at the time I first read it, found uncannily accurate. It was a long list including things I wouldn’t have guessed, including for example the relative inability to defer gratification, as well as others you might expect, such as difficulty in relating to women properly. It amazed me (still does) quite how many bad effects a broken home and absent father have on a young man.

      It just goes to show, I suppose, that even for a man like this, there are some mitigating factors – the polyandry you so well describe in this case – which I probably share the blame for if I’ve colluded at all in perpetuating them.

  • I have read that his mother was an unmarried mother with the father nowhere to be seen. Maybe if his father was around to tan his hide a few times when he got into big trouble it would have kept the blighter on the straight and narrow.
    If he was a Christian, he couldn’t have taken it seriously.

    • Dominic Stockford

      If he was a Christian the Bible tells us clearly that he still would be.

      • He obviously didn’t practice it.

        • Dominic Stockford

          No, he obviously wasn’t one. Christianity isn’t something you do, it is something God gives you – Ephesians 2:9

    • Mike Stallard

      I could not agree more. I noted this when I read it in the Mail this morning too.

  • Peter Kirk

    Forget repentance and transformation; forget faithfulness or discipleship or being born again: if you were allegedly christened as a baby, you are a Christian, you are the religion of the water that was poured over you. At least that seems to be your basis here for calling Elms a Christian.

    Anyway, don’t assume that Adrian was christened. Many Afro-Caribbean Christians are Pentecostals or Baptists who don’t believe in infant baptism. And the logic of your argument here, your rejection of “Christendom”, should lead you in the same direction.

    • Trevor Mobbs

      Way to miss the point, which is that what’s good for the goose (“he was like this because he was Muslim”) is good for the gander.

  • 1649again

    Ho hum.

    Pope Francis shocked Catholics around the world by holding an Islamic prayer and Quran recital in the Vatican. http://yournewswire.com/pope-trump-christian-islamic/

    • Anton

      Is the Pope a Catholic?

      • 1649again

        From posts from practising Catholics on another site today I think scepticism is raging as to that point, which must be heresy because isn’t his appointment inspired by Our Lord?

        • carl jacobs

          Jack actually denied that a while back. Evidently the selection of an infallible Pope is itself fallible. It’s that whole “How do we explain an heretical Pope?” problem.

          As a general rule, anything falsifiable can’t be infallibly declared.

          • A Pope is not infallible as an individual but only has this charism in very limited situations. There have certainly been heretical Popes and Popes who were serious sinners. Anything that contradicts a previously established doctrine would be a false teaching.

          • carl jacobs

            That’s all beside the point.

          • 1649again

            Is that a fallible or infallible point Carl? One gets so confused.

          • carl jacobs

            Hrmmm. I think it’s technically fallible since as a limited finite creature I cannot produce infallible statements on my own. Fallible but true, perhaps?

          • “All Americans are dimwits” is falsifiable because it only takes the discovery of one intelligent American to disprove it. Until then, it is a working hypothesis.

          • carl jacobs

            You would first have to produce an unbiased definition of “dimwit”.

          • Besides what point, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            That the selection of the Pope must be considered fallible lest the RCC be forced to explain heresy. In general form, the point is that anything falsifiable can’t be infallibly declared.

          • Well anything false, by definition, cannot be infallible. The test is consistency with and non-contradiction of past teachings and doctrines.No Pope that Jack is aware of has ever infallibly declared anything heretical in an official Church document. Pope Francis may prove to be an exception but one chapter in the document in question is so unclear as to be open to a wide range of views – some orthodox and some heretical.

          • carl jacobs

            Not false, Jack. Falsifiable. There is a difference. One is a state. The other is a characteristic.

          • Are you a student of Popper? There’s not much difference between the terms. You could only show the “falsifiability” of a Catholic teaching by demonstrating it to be inconsistent with or contradicting an existing definitively defined doctrine or infallibly pronounced dogma. That’s the test the Magisterium and Catholic theologians apply. Divine revelation isn’t a natural science; nor is theology.

          • carl jacobs

            There is a huge difference. The Resurrection is falsifiable. All you have to do is produce the body. In fact the divine test of a prophet rested upon falsifiability. The RCC has learned not to make infallible proclamations that can be falsified in time and space. That way it won’t end upon with a document like Unam Sanctam where (anymore) parts are considered infallible and other parts aren’t (anymore). And how do we know the difference? Because the Magisterium says so. And how did it parse the difference? [Insert frantic arm-waving here].

            Now, I can falsify the infallible claims of the RCC using Scripture. But Rome has already innoculated itself from that argument by claiming authority over Scripture. Yes, yes, I know you deny this. But like so many of the arguments between us, you are arguing formal concepts whereas I am arguing functional concepts. Rome functionally claims authority over Scripture by claiming to be the sole infallible interpreter. I don’t much care about its formal claims of submission. I care about what Rome actually does.

            I do not use EENS as an example of an infallible dogma turned fallible. I use it as an example of an infallible dogma whose meaning has been stood on its head. I use the Two Swords doctrine as an infallible dogma made fallible due to historical falsification. You say you have refuted these examples just as you claim to have refuted worship of Mary. But your refutations depend upon my acceptance of a modern RC intellectual framework that I simply reject. I know what Rome taught 500 years ago about EENS and so do you. I know what Rome taught 100 years ago. I have RC friends who personally tell me those same things today. They also know what Rome taught and remain faithful to it. In fact they make the same kinds of arguments you make when I needle you about apostate papal teaching and how you will end up making Protestant arguments as a result. You can’t simply redefine that reality out of existence.

            Arguing with a RC about these things can be like arguing with a defense lawyer about a typographical error on a search warrant. It’s all process and formality. “No. ‘Our Lady of Perpetual Help’ isn’t idolatrous if only you consider it in the context of Marian devotion.” I don’t care about the context. I care about what it is in its essence. And that can’t be hidden by convenient definitions. When I see Unam Sanctam I see an integrated whole that was written as an integrated whole. It stands or falls as such and not as cherry-picked pieces the selection of which conveniently protects Rome from accusations of error. When I see EENS I see a coherent teaching that must remain invariant with time. It can’t morph with the spirit of the age. It certainly can’t admit what it formerly denied. Your refutations depend upon me rejecting these very things that I see so clearly. Which is why your arguments make no impression.

            There is a gulf between us that cannot be bridged. That gulf is called “The authority of the RCC.” Every disagreement we have follows the same path through the same circle that ever returneth unto that selfsame spot.

          • Which parts of Unam Sanctam are infallible and which parts are policy

          • Anton

            I’d like to have seen Urban VIII’s response if told that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (the conclusion of his bull Unam Sanctam) might be wrong.

        • Nope … He’s chosen by Cardinals, not the Holy Spirit.
          How are the bishops of your church selected?

          • 1649again

            By all too flawed humans.

          • There you go then ….

          • 1649again

            So fallible humans select a fallible human who can then make infallible rulings?

          • Yep … The Holy Spirit ensures that any doctrine or dogma is infallible, even if the Pope is a sinner.

          • 1649again

            Ah, so burning Protestants was the decision of the Holy Spirit? Get it now. No one’s to blame.

          • Please show where this was a doctrine of the Church and therefore an infallible position.

          • 1649again

            Well given that the church quite happily invested huge energy and moral capital in doing it over centuries one rather assumes they believed it was theologically justified and consistent with the church’s doctrine, and wasn’t just a transient whim.

          • At the time, the practice was as much a political decision as a religious one, more so. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, there is a theological justification. Put simply, he argued that it if is right to execute murderers for taking human life, then what of those who seek to deprive a man of eternal life. Never been a doctrine of the Church.

            What do you think of Cromwell’s actions in Ireland? And then there’s that other famous son of Puritanism, Matthew Hopkins.

          • 1649again

            Don’t agree with Hopkins who was either paranoid or an opportunist, or both.

            Cromwell operated according to the Laws of war at the time (in fact he was generally much more humane than most) and most of the charges laid against him are baseless or extremely exaggerated by later royalist propaganda. Two Catholic historians will set you right – Antonia Fraser and Tom O’Reilly.

          • Both were murdering fanatics. Catholicism has had a share of these types too.

          • 1649again

            Cromwell was anything but.

          • William Lewis

            How does the Holy Spirit inform which bits are infallible and which not?

          • carl jacobs

            A good question since the RCC does not possess an infallible list of infallible teachings – which conveniently allows for teachings to be moved from the infallible list to the fallible list without confronting difficult problems.

          • William Lewis

            I see. So the assertion is that the RCC possesses a set of infallible doctrines but the identification of that set is, itself, fallible and so subject to modification over time. What a muddle.

          • carl jacobs

            It’s sheer genius. Think about it. The laity end up deferring to the Magisterium as if its teachings were all infallible. But the Magisterium can change its teaching at any point without compromising its core claim of indefectibility.

            Anything that is falsified gets put into the “But it was never considered infallible in the first place” bin.

          • Carl, you persist with this nonsense and yet, when asked, you never cite an example except perhaps Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus which Albert and Jack demonstrated some time ago was an erroneous understanding.

          • carl jacobs

            All you have to do, Jack, is produce the infallible list of infallible teachings.

          • Changing the focus. Carl? You made the claim but cannot substantiate it.
            As Jack is in a helpful mood, why not read the Catechism of the Catholic Church and then supplement it with this:

            http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfadtu.htm
            You will note there are three levels of Magisterial teaching.

          • William Lewis

            From your literature it appears that the assertion of infallible dogma is, itself, a fallible doctrine.

            … the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda) …

          • You’ll need to explain that assertion.

            As Cardinal Ratzinger explained:

            This new formula of the Professio fidei restates the Nicene- Constantinopolitan Creed and concludes with the addition of three propositions or paragraphs intended to better distinguish the order of the truths to which the believer adheres. The correct explanation of these paragraphs deserves a clear presentation, so that their authentic meaning, as given by the Church’s Magisterium, will be well understood, received and integrally preserved.

            And these three orders of truth set out by Pope Saint John Paul:

            With firm faith, I also believe everything contained in the Word of God, whether written or handed down in Tradition, which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by the ordinary and universal Magisterium, sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed.

            I also firmly accept and hold each and everything definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals.

            Moreover, I adhere with religious submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.

          • Anton

            The language and tone of this stuff you paste is a million miles from how Christ spoke.

          • William Lewis

            “You’ll need to explain that assertion.”

            You claimed earlier that all RC dogma is infallible but “Doctrine develops over time and its application will change according to particular historical contexts…”

            Your literature states “… the Catholic doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium (doctrines de fide tenenda) …”. Therefore, as the doctrine of the infallibility of the Magisterium is a doctrine and not a dogma, it must be fallible and will/could change according to context.

          • Anton

            That notion of three was not present from the beginning, was it?

          • liberal-That’s debateable. Doctrine develops, building on past teachings. The modernists hate Pope Benedict for clarifying what has always been implicit in Christianity’s growing understanding of its doctrines. The

          • carl jacobs

            No, I was sustaining the focus – which was the identification of infallible teachings.

          • William Lewis

            When one looks at this and, for instance, the practice of selling indulgences for people to get to heaven, it starts to look remarkably like a racket!

          • All the dogma are infallible, having been revealed by Holy Spirit. Doctrine develops over time and its application will change according to particular historical contexts. This is ensured by the indefectibility of the Church. However, the basic principles underlying this do not change.

            Name one dogma or any definitively defined doctrine that has ever been redefined from infallible/indefectible to fallible? But then, you’ve never answered this question before so Jack doesn’t expect answer. He keeps hearing this nonsense from liberal-modernist “Catholics” too. They at least attempt to demonstrate it – always unsuccessfully. Slavery, usury, Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, and freedom of religion, are the most common examples given.

          • William Lewis

            So which are the dogmas and which the doctrines?

          • Dogma and doctrine tend to be used interchangeably. See earlier comment about the three orders of truth. Doctrine and dogma concern the first two levels and “teaching” is probably a better term for the third level. Particular teachings here may well move to level two or level three.

          • William Lewis

            Jack, you’ve gone too far down the rabbit hole:

            “All the dogma are infallible, having been revealed by Holy Spirit. Doctrine develops over time and its application will change according to particular historical contexts.” – Happy Jack

            “Dogma and doctrine tend to be used interchangeably.” – Happy Jack

          • Anton

            Extra ecclesiam nulla salus is a tautology since the church is the community of the saved. It isn’t co-terminous with the Roman Catholic church though.

          • Yes and no. You really should read Catholic teaching on this before pontificating what it is we believe.

          • Anton

            I didn’t. you are making an inference from my second sentence that was’t there; I was emphasising a point.

        • Stig

          This is the problem with having an authoritarian hierarchy in the church. Much better the Reformed tradition of the Priesthood of All Believers and its resulting “bottom up” structure.

          • More a case of going “tits up” what with all the differing “truths” and schisms between the different faith communities.

      • carl jacobs

        Yup.

    • Pubcrawler

      Urban II will be spinning so fast in his grave that they could light up all of Rome!

      • 1649again

        It’s odd that HJ who has been prolixity itself on the rest of this thread seems to be avoiding this bit.

        • Jack answered this nonsense when you first published it a few days ago. This “scandal” took place 3 years ago in the gardens of the Vatican. Big deal. There were also prayers recited by Jews and Orthodox Christians.

          • 1649again

            Big deal, bringing the wolf in to your sanctuary.

          • Who was the “wolf”? The Jew? The Muslim? The Orthodox Christian? Besides, the garden is hardly a sanctuary.

          • 1649again

            Islam, you know – the Satanic construct and tool of AntiChrist?

          • Or, alternatively, a follower of a false faith that causes bloodshed throughout the world who needs to be met with in order to attempt to find some common ground so that peace in the Middle East may be secured.

          • 1649again

            No compromise is possible with Satanic evil.

          • Don’t ever go into politics. Just bomb the bastards and have done with it?

          • 1649again

            Don’t tempt me…

          • Jack is not responsible for the temptations you face.

          • carl jacobs

            “The best diplomat I know is a fully-charged phasor bank”

            Lt Cmdr Scott

          • “In critical moments, men sometimes see exactly what they wish to see.”

            First Officer Spock

        • Pubcrawler

          Baiting Jack is not this man’s sport. I have a pub to go to, you have fun.

          • 1649again

            Good for you. The sort soon palls when the challenge fades. But today he’s come dangerously close to arguing some form of equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

          • That’s bollocks.

  • Brendan McNeill

    “Now, you may say that wasn’t particularly Christian: millions upon millions of Sunni, Shia and Sufi Muslims will say that Wahhabi-Saudi-Salfism simply isn’t Islam.”

    Except that Adrian Elms followed Mohammad’s example of violence, the teaching of the Koran and Hadith, and 1,400 years of Islamic violent conquest.

    None of this is found in the gospels, or in Jesus example.

    So it matters little what Sufi Muslims think, they are not leading direction of modern Islam, the Wahhabi’s and their fellow travellers are. What’s more, they have the example of Mohammad, and their holy texts to support them.

    • Simon E. Nightingale

      The Christian Crusades. – discuss

      • Anton

        Certainly. As an episode in the ebb and flow of empires the Crusades were simply a matching response to several centuries of pro-active Islamic violence against Europe, once that continent’s western portion had regained its cultural coherency. As a Christian I believe it was wrong of the papacy to peddle them as a Christian jihad, because Christ’s kingdom in this era is “not of this world”; but as political action I have no problem with them and neither should you.

        • Who else but a Pope could have roused the individual Christian nations to action?

          • Anton

            It is selling it as a Christian jihad to which I am objecting, and I have explained why using a quote from Jesus’ lips.

          • It was a Holy War in the name of Christ to defend Christians travelling to and those in Jerusalem. It wasn’t an attempt to convert Muslims at the point of a sword.

          • Anton

            The idea was to reclaim the soil where Jesus trod for Christianity.

          • 1649again

            That’s true.

      • Inspector General

        Ah, the Crusades. We can only imagine what tales of horror reached the papacy from those who survived the ‘interest’ of Allah’s finest on their pilgrimage to the Holy Land.

        It must have been shocking…

      • Pubcrawler

        Well, to indulge your rather trite attempt at a tu quoque for an instant, let’s start here.

  • seansaighdeoir

    ‘Adrian Elms was a violent Christian …’ – no he wasn’t. You can’t be a Christian practising Christ’s virtues and be violent as the two are anathema to each other.

    You can if you are a muslim as Mohammed taught that violent jihad was the way to (the caliphate and world wide domination by) Islam.

    • Trevor Mobbs

      And the no true Scotsman line of argument rears its head. When a “Christian” is bad, everyone lines up to say that he’s gone wrong as an individual and isn’t following Christianity. But when a “Muslim” is bad, well that’s a core part of the religion.

      I once encountered someone who linked to a website listing all the supposed nasty, violent verses in the Koran. The only problem was, he hadn’t checked his source. It was an atheist website that also listed all the supposed nasty, violent verses in the Bible. Do not kid yourself that “Christians” cannot twist their interpretation of the Bible to justify violence. They can and do.

      • seansaighdeoir

        The problem with that argument is provides no historical context.

        Any Christian knows that all the of the terrible images of the old testament are superseded by the coming of Christ and the Gospels.

        It is the opposite with the Koran. Prior to his decampment at Messina the verses in the Koran are indeed moderate. After his arrival in Messina and the construction of his power base the verses take on the opposite features to the new testament.

        It is there that the most violent verses are found.

        That isnt’ too say Christians cannot do terrible things. The difference is they are not exhorted to in the holy book and by Jesus Christ.

        • Merchantman

          Correct well said.

  • big bwana

    There are approximately 50 Muslim majority countries in the world; 32 of those 50 feature on Open Doors World Watch List of countries which severely persecute dissent, especially Christian dissent.

    Islam as an ideology is totalitarian by nature, it does not and will not tolerate any form of competition, it is also strongly proselytising and, by it’s own admission bent on world domination(by force if necessary.) Like all authoritarian doctrines it holds that the individual serves the state and not the state the individual.

    No matter how ‘nice’ many Muslims may be, they are tacitly supporting a doctrine which,at root, is anti democratic, regularly subjugates women, and all too often expresses a hatred of Jews.

    How is it possible to reform a Final Revelation given by The Seal of the Prophets when to add anything further is blasphemy?

    I really find it difficult to see any sort of equivalence between the teaching of Mohammed and the teaching of Jesus and can only think that the author of this post was merely trying to provoke.

  • Anna

    So this man was a ‘troubled soul’ from his youth. My sister who is a consultant forensic psychiatrist mentioned that according to her colleagues who work with people who have been ‘radicalised’, about half of them are psychotic, and easily exploited by the radical Islamists for their nefarious purposes. They actually begin to believe that they are under attack by ‘crusaders’ or zionists, and are out to defend themselves. Much of this could have been avoided if Western governments had restricted the setting up of Wahabi mosques and other mega Islamic centres and banned Islamic groups from setting up their headquarters in Western capital cities in the seventies and eighties. Sadly, no lessons have been learnt, and, as I understand Angela Merkel agreed to the Saudi offer to build hundreds of mosques in Germany to serve the new refugees (in place of granting them asylum on Saudi soil).

    • Royinsouthwest

      By playing down the links between Islam and terrorism politicians are unwittingly encouraging people to tar all Muslims with the same brush. Instead the security services should study the links more closely to identify the versions of Islam that encourage violence. I doubt if anyone has suggested that Sufis are a major problem, or Ismailis (followers of the Aga Khan). In contrast what Cranmer called “Wahhabi-Saudi-Salfism” does seem to cause its followers to sympathise with terrorist aims.

      If it turns out that terrorism, at least in Europe, is normally associated with a Saudi financed version of Islam then action should be taken to cut off that source of finance. That may seem to be undemocratic but a ban could be linked with religious freedom in Saudi Arabia, i.e. no Saudi subsidies for British mosques until Christians, Jews etc. are free to practise their religion, and to proselytise, in Saudi Arabia.

      Encouragingly, and perhaps surprisingly, Kim Howells, a former Labour minister has acknowledged the need to talk about the religious roots of the terrorist threat.

      Former foreign minister warns terrorism can’t be stopped if there is a refusal to ‘do God’
      http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/politics/former-foreign-minister-warns-terrorism-12789652

      You can’t defeat religious-inspired terrorism if you refuse to “do God”.
      That’s the warning from the former foreign minister who oversaw the work of MI5 and MI6.

      A former Labour Party foreign minister has implied the government of Tony Blair was wrong to ignore the religious roots of Islamist terror, urging authorities to ‘take on’ the ideology to defeat terror.

      Kim Howells, who oversaw the work of MI5 and MI6 during the Blair and Brown years, said Islamist violence is distinct from other forms of terror and Western values such as democracy must be defended.

      “I was part of a Government that said: ‘Well, we don’t do God.’ But you can’t afford not to do God on this one, I think,” he told Wales Online.

      “These people aren’t motivated – not on the most part, anyway – by money or some kind of nationalism. It’s different from the IRA.

      “These people are prepared to kill themselves and they do it because they think it’s a shortcut to paradise… Unless people have enough courage to take that on and try and convince young people that the Caliphate is not a better way of running society than a democracy they are going to be lured to these organisations.”

      • Trevor Mobbs

        But it’s not the links between “Islam” and terrorism, it’s the links between a very specific brand of theology and terrorism. And the security forces are well aware of this.

        If people wouldn’t use the IRA or the KKK to talk about the links between “Christianity” or “Catholicism” and terrorism, then people shouldn’t use just a broad sweeping term as “Islam” to talk about these terrorists. The main victims are mostly Muslims, other kinds of Muslims whom ISIS detests.

        • Royinsouthwest

          You missed the entire point of my comments. I wrote that by failing to identify the precise links between Islam and terror the politicians were causing all Muslims to be tarred with the same brush. Everyone knows the terrorists have a “religious” motivation. If that motivation comes from Wahhabis then that should be identified by our political leaders. If the inspiration is not Wahhabi but something else then that “something else” should be identified.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            To be honest I didn’t miss the entire point, but I still felt it was worth making the comment that I did. Because the world is awash with people saying “it’s Islam” and leaving it at that.

            And that is what politicians are fighting against when you say they “play down” the links. What they actually say, for the most part, is that there are millions of Muslims who aren’t a problem. Which is exactly what you’ve said.

            It’s no different to pointing out the difference between recognising that rapes and domestic violence are mostly committed by men, and also recognising that an awful lot of men don’t commit rape or domestic violence. I don’t think politicians are “downplaying” the connection when they acknowledge that there are large numbers of men who think that violence against women is wrong.

          • Anna

            While it true that millions of ‘Muslims’ are peaceful – and as horrified as anybody else by the activities of their co-religionists – ‘Islam’ is a problem, for it advocates violent conquest, and promises rewards to martyrs. True followers of Islam have their ‘hand against every man, and every man’s hand against’ them, and therefore it is tragic, but not surprising that the vast majority of the victims of Islam are Muslims.

            In contrast, the KKK and the IRA may choose to call themselves Christians, but you will find no justification for their creed or activities in the NT.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            BUT THEY DID. They DID find justification for their creed or activities. Whether YOU agree with their interpretation or not.

            It boggles my mind that people cannot see the blatant inconsistency in determining that when a person commits crimes in the name of the Christian God it’s automatically the person that’s the problem, but when a person commits crimes in the name of the Muslim God it’s the God that’s the problem.

            No, the problem in BOTH cases is the person who decided to find justification for their criminal actions in their faith. Because in BOTH cases there are millions of other people who worship the same God without committing violence.

            Saying that all the Christians who aren’t in the KKK and the IRA are the true face of Christianity, but the tiny minority of fundamentalists are the true face of Islam is nothing more than an appalling double standard. If you’re going to point to a tiny group of Muslims and say “THAT is what Islam is really like”, then I think it’s only fair to point to a tiny group of Christians and say “THAT is what Christianity is really like”. It’s certainly what Christianity is capable of.

          • Anton

            You are very fond of talking about interpretations of texts but not about those texts themselves.

            I suggest that *you* look for lines advocating violence in the New Testament before accusing Christians of being violent in line with their scriptures. Why should we heed you otherwise?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            The point is not whether lines advocate violence, the point is whether people believe they advocate violence and can use them that way if they so wish. I offer you the following resources without further comment.

            http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

            http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/violence-more-common-in-bible-than-quran-text-analysis-reveals-a6863381.html

          • Anton

            Words are not infinitely flexible and people can misbelieve anything if they want to badly enough. I’m not going to fall for responding to websites that you cite “without further comment”. That way, you spend two minutes finding a website and posting it and I spend five hours refuting it while you sit there laughing. No; you summarise in your own words which verses of the New Testament supposedly advocate violence and why, and I’ll respond in my own words. Citing websites is fine as backup, but not as primary argumentation. Do some work that would command respect.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            But I don’t believe the New Testament advocates violence. Which is one reason (of many) I don’t go around perpetrating acts of violence.

          • Anton

            Good; and what point are you building on that? Not that Islam and Christianity are equivalent, I trust.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Sadly and whether you like or not, whether you believe it or not Judaism, Christianity AND Islam ARE the Progeny of Abraham, hence are same as they are related to each other. Besides The Torah was given to Moses, the Psalms to David, the Bible to Jesus and finally the Quran to Muhammed. If you blame the quran (or any of the Holy Books) it is like you are blaming God. Now if YOU want to take that sin on your head, it is YOUR business not mine.

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            You are truly a loon

          • Trevor Mobbs

            You are truly making invaluable contributions to this discussion.

          • Manfarang

            Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

          • Merchantman

            This is a reference to the sword of the Spirit. Jesus said his kingdom was not of this world. Others will explain this better than myself.

          • Anna

            Christians have always believed this to mean that we should expect to be persecuted for our faith, and the sword will come against us. When Peter attacked the servant of the High Priest, Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back in its place because all who take up a sword will perish by a sword” (Matthew 26:52 HCSB).

          • Trevor Mobbs

            You just used context and interpretation to explain that Jesus didn’t mean a literal sword.

            Which, I emphasise, I agree with. But can you at least understand that someone out there who is looking to excuse their own violence and cherry-picking verses might use that to justify the use of a weapon?

            That’s the issue here, whether the Bible can be misused in that way. I’m not arguing that a violent interpretation of the Bible is a correct one. I’m arguing that it’s capable of interpretation, and misinterpretation, just as the Koran is.

          • Anna

            My point is simply this – neither KKK nor IRA can quote the NT or the example of Jesus and the apostles as the underlying impetus for their actions. On the other hand, the life of Muhammed and the words of the Quran – as traditionally understood, interpreted and practised by Muslims throughout much of history -provide ample justification for the actions of the governments of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and for the Islamic extremist groups. Whether this is a misuse of the Quran is debatable, but misinterpretation, it is not.

            You may shout, “Double standard!”, but this betrays an ignorance of history. All the apostles except John were killed as martyrs; none of them took up arms even in self-defence. In contrast, the successors of Muhammed, were like him, brutal warlords who through violent conquest brought parts of every known continent under Muslim rule within the next few centuries.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            You saying they cannot quote doesn’t prevent them from quoting. They quote out of context, they misconstrue… but they go ahead and do it whether or not they have your permission.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Darling Anna, you have it ALL WRONG. You have been reading garbage. Go grab some GOOD books like Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammed, Prophet for our time” or Tariq Ramadan’s “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” or Prof. Jeffrey Lang’s “Struggling to Surrender” and so on and so forth. Enjoy them

          • Anna

            I grew up in the ME, in a comparatively moderate Muslim nation. My parents were professionals, and we had many good Muslim friends, but the truth is that non-Muslims could never expect fair treatment in these lands. Institutional discrimination against non-Muslims was rife, and none of us were allowed to speak up to defend our faith as you are doing here. I remember a decent Christian family being arrested for holding a quiet prayer meeting in their home because it was offensive to a neighbour. Their 2 small children were left alone at home – crying in fear till a kindly neighbour came to their help. I have been exposed to the teachings of the Quran and Islamic history. I understand how Islam is taught to Arab Muslim children and yes, violent conquest was justified and glorified.

            In contrast, I find far too many Muslims in the West making endless selfish and outrageous demands for more and more rights from their generous hosts – nothing will ever satisfy them. Unlike other minorities who work hard and make the most of the opportunities available here, Muslims shout ‘Islamophobia’ whenever a westerner raises a legitimate concern at the violence perpetrated by Islamist groups.

            More tellingly, none of these numerous public defenders of Islam ever speak up for the rights of the voiceless non-Muslims – Christians and others – who suffer discrimination or persecution in Muslim lands. Interesting double standards! So, dear Shaheen, would you like to be the first to defend the Christian minorities of the ME suffering under the yoke of Islam?

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Thank you for your understanding. However I should tell you that the verses you are referring to, are perhaps 2 in the whole 114 verses in the Quran. So why do people just take those 2 verses and RILE up???

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Ma’am, you will believe what you WANT to believe hence no use trying to tell you that you are absolutely wrong when you say that Islam advocates violent conquest. Look at you defending the KKK and the IRA. You blow me away. Please get your facts right

          • Anna

            I am not defending IRA or KKK, only stating that they have nothing to do with the Christian faith.

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            Read Sarah Champion in the Mirror, social worker found a victim because her abusers were queueing down the street.

        • Merchantman

          ‘The main victims are mostly Muslims, other kinds of Muslims who ISIS detests’.
          To which I would say this statement is untrue as regards killing in Western countries. Apart from isolated cases such as the targeted killing in Glasgow, the vast majority of killings by Muslim terrorists are of innocent ‘passers by’.
          There have been killings and murders long before ISIS; for instance the bus and underground massacres in London.
          No one with a basic understanding of Christianity buys into your trying to link the behaviour of Christians to Muslims, the real test is of comparing Jesus with Muhammad. Please try it.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Why is it only killing in Western countries that matters? Are human beings worth different amounts depending on their geographical location? I certainly don’t think so.

          • Merchantman

            The first thing to say is that St Paul reminded the early Church that there was no difference in Christ between various nationalities and races. So (discriminating between) the multiple deaths of the Christians wherever should concern all Christians. However it also concerns Christians that Muslims and other people are dying in their droves due to the current killings worldwide by the extreme Islamists.
            Compare the internet writings of the Christians and Muslims. I can’t say I can read Arabic but I have a sneaky feeling there are significant differences. Often these Islamic Killing ones are reported in the MSM and BBC.
            Although Mohammad is a dead person and is not currently blogging online, his followers certainly are!
            The sayings, teachings and actions of both are however well reported and a consensus is that Mohammad’s do encourage killing and his followers action his injunctions in his God’s name whereas Jesus doesn’t even suggest killing in His or his Father’s name.
            People are people, so- Surprise not all Christians ( nor Muslims) are alike!

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            *wrings hands looks distressed*

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Jesus and Muhammed were BOTH Prophets sent by God Almighty just like Moses and David and Solomon and Abraham and Jacob and Isaac and Joseph and Ishmail and Aaron and Noah and Hud should I continue or you get the whiff???

          • Anna

            This is not the belief we Christians hold. Christ is the Son of God, the Saviour of the world, the only Way to the Father.

            Muhammed was a great warlord, whose worldly achievements were tremendous.

          • CliveM

            Apolo But Jesus was not a prophet, he was the Messiah, the chosen one and whilst I agree we should demonise and that there is humanity and compassion in all peoples, because Jesus was the Messiah, Mohamed could not be a Prophet. Go in peace.

    • Thomson’s Hankey

      In the U.K. The issue is Deobandi not Wahabists, there is a common root but this is in the mid 18th century

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      wish they would use their wealth for the betterment of this sick and hurting world instead of exporting their wahhabism. Very sad state of affairs

  • ChaucerChronicle

    Your Grace

    The moderates are not in a position to condemn the jurisprudentially consistent nutters.

    The moderates are undermined by the Doctrine of Precedent in Islam.

    This doctrine holds that where verses conflict with each other – verses in the latter half of their book take precedence.

    The earlier half is mild and moderate as Mo faced little political opposition.

    The verses in the latter half were produced in hostile environments.

    The implications are obvious.

    The secular State has no answers except more loss of liberties; more searches; more barriers; more surveillance powers; more fear in the end for all.

    The only institution that could have (and did) was the ‘Church’. When it was strong theologically – it sowed doubts in the nutters’ minds: which system was the One?

    Now that the ‘Church’ is effeminate it is ‘cream crackered, knackered’.

    Best of British luck.

    • David

      Much of the institutional Churches are “cream crackered, knackered”, I agree. But the true
      Church, found across all mainstream denominations is alive and well.

      • Merchantman

        Now properly named the remnant.

        • David

          Yes.

  • Robert R Samuel

    I am curious Your Grace, how do you know that Adrian was brought up as a Christian? Just because the parents are assumed to be Christian, does not mean they even own or ever read a Bible. Nor can it be assumed that the person had a relationship with his Maker?

    • Trevor Mobbs

      You seem to have missed the entire point of the first part of the article.

      Since when did anyone ever inquire into the precise details of different “Muslims”? They all just get lumped together. Why then, should Christians be able to distance themselves from the behaviour of Adrian by inferring that he only qualifies as coming from a Christian background if certain criteria can be proved?

      I don’t have any proof, but let’s spend some time thinking about typical characteristics of Caribbean families.

      • Ian G

        Most I know are devout. They have problems with the younger generation. So do Whites, Asians, Orientals etc. What are you getting at by singling out Caribbeans?

        • Trevor Mobbs

          I suppose we can talk about “Oriental” families if you want, but that’s not exactly relevant to what the childhood of Adrian might have been like. If people want to engage in speculation and challenge the article so that they can assert Adrian wasn’t brought up as a Christian (because hey, the no true Scotsman line of argument is alive and well), I thought it would be nice to get them to at least narrow their speculation.

          • Ian G

            A point of clarification. I meant Christians within those groups.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            I understood that. The response still stands. If someone wants to question whether this man had a Christian upbringing, then let us consider what kind of upbringing he is likely to have had.

      • Anton

        Self-identification is no guide either. You need to look at the quran and the New Testament to begin to work out who is a Muslim and who is a Christian.

        • Trevor Mobbs

          And who gets to interpret those books, then?

          I’m gay. I can find plenty of people who will tell me that therefore I can’t possibly be a Christian because of the way they read the text. I can also find plenty of people who accept that it’s possible to be both gay and Christian. Depending on where I go, I will be welcomed or cast out. They’re all reading the same New Testament.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Why have you brought that into this thread? There are plenty of threads on this blog where you can debate that. Please take this there.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            What is “that”? Homosexuality?

            Because it’s analogous. I’m not seeking to discuss “that”, I’m merely illustrating the point that people interpret things. And maybe that point will get across if people stop and think about something else for 30 seconds before carrying on about Islam.

          • bluedog

            Well, if you think being ‘gay’ is relevant to a discussion on Islam, perhaps you will enlighten us with your views on Islamic attitudes to homosexuality and homosexuals.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Which will show us clearly a significant difference between the actions and teaching of Islam and Christianity. He isn’t likely to get Muslims changing everything just to suit him, like the cowed and cowering Church of England is doing.

          • bluedog

            Indeed. Muslims are not going to adapt the perfect word of their god to accomodate his sensibilities. Do you think he realises that?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            What I actually talked about was how people read the same book and reach different conclusions about what it says. Clearly, I picked an example that was too distracting for people. Maybe I should have talked about women wearing hats in church instead.

          • bluedog

            ‘Clearly, I picked an example that was too distracting for people.’

            No you didn’t. You wanted to tell the world you’re ‘gay’ because it’s an important part of who you think you are. But it was an undisciplined (or incompetent) disclosure because you don’t seem to have thought through the obvious consequences. Given your sympathy for Islam and Islamic positions, it was inevitable that you would be asked for your views on the Islamic attitudes to homosexuality once you had jumped out of the closet.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            “Given your sympathy for Islam and Islamic positions.”

            You just invented this. What I have sympathy for is a billion human beings who are being treated like The Borg, an undifferentiated mass of other.

            I chose to mention homosexuality simply because it’s an area where I’m acutely aware of how different people interpret the Bible differently. It’s the example that leapt to my mind because it’s the example that most frequently affects me.

            The “consequences” are only “obvious” because there is no surprise in the fact that you would much rather find another way to have a go at Islam than to consider anything else. I mention interpretation of the Bible, and your response is nothing but Islam, Islam, Islam.

          • bluedog

            ‘You just invented this. What I have sympathy for is a billion human beings who are being treated like The Borg, an undifferentiated mass of other.’

            But reading through your posts it seems very hard if not impossible to find a favourable or sympathetic reference to Christianity. Yet time and time again you make sympathetic reference to Muslims. See above.

            Anyway, what’s with this Borg business? Are you depending on comic-strips for legitimacy now?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Well, if it were Christians that was being attacked time and again by people, I would be defending them. As I have in other contexts. But Christianity is not being attacked here so I don’t feel the need to defend it.

            More than anything else I am heartily sick of the kind of mindless taking of sides that means that you must being pro- one thing automatically involves being anti- the other, or vice versa. If you want to pro- and anti-, then I am anti-violence and anti-stereotyping and pro-letting everyday people get on with their lives and pro-treating people on their individual merits.

            I’m sorry if a reference to a television show is too low-brow for you, but you could at least recognise it was a television show not a comic strip.

          • HedgehogFive

            Perhaps if their leaders were not so keen on telling us “you will be assimilated, resistance is futile”, people would not be so prone to looking at them as Borg.

          • The Explorer

            As I understand it, Muhammad never specified the death penalty for homosexuality; he recommended flogging and exile.

            Death for homosexuality, I believe, came in with the hadiths, but there’s an awareness of going beyond what Muhammad prescribed, which is why beheading is rare and stoning is preferred. The stones do the killing, rather than the people throwing them.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Exactly so.

          • Dominic Stockford

            It isn’t analogous.

            Unless you think that your sexuality is a matter of choice, which is clearly what you think about someone’s faith position.

            Which is it? Straw man argument, or a matter of choice?

          • Trevor Mobbs

            I wasn’t talking about my sexuality, other than stating it. I was talking about other people’s position. Different Christians, reading the same Bible, come to different conclusions as to the morality of homosexuality.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Yes, you *were* talking about your sexuality, and used that as a comparator. You clearly believe, and said so, that faith is a matter of choice, then compared that with your professed homosexuality. But if you believe faith is a matter of choice you can only use homosexuality as a comparator if you also believe that is a matter of choice. Answer the question, don’t wriggle around claiming you said something else.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Given that the words “matter of choice” appear to be your invention, I am quite comfortable in claiming I didn’t say that.

          • Anton

            I’ll take one side of that debate and reckon I can debate the other side to a standstill. you can listen and make your own decision.

          • Trevor Mobbs

            Your self-confidence in determining the lives of others does you little credit.

          • Anton

            Where did I determine anybody’s life? I am determining meaning. You live your life exactly as you please, friend.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Christians have a god-given responsibility, one of discernment about the reality of the claims people make about themselves – especially regarding their profession of faith. The Church of England, for instance, has utterly failed in this discipline, allowing many who have no faith into positions of spiritual responsibility – but those who do not know Christ cannot share him, and can share nothing but the world’s view that they share with the world.

    • Dominic Stockford

      You are correct Robert. There are implications that ABC writes into this man’s life which lead him to the conclusion that he ‘was’ a Christian. You and I clearly don’t share with him a similar understanding of what makes a Christian. Is it solely the work of God, by grace, by the work of Christ; or is it by the actions of men in baptism, church attendance, or self-declaration. I would hold to the former.

      Trevor is right however, in pointing out that muslims will say ‘he was a christian’ simply because he was born in this country to a white person who wasn’t a muslim. He has missed a point however, which is that the Islamic faith teaches that *everyone* is born a muslim, and then goes astray or not.

      • Jon of GSG

        Yes it’s interesting isn’t it – there is even at least one country (the Maldives) whose constitution says all citizens are Muslims.

        I’ve got a Muslim friend from Syria, now in Turkey, and he occasionally tells me about how irreligious young people are in both countries (mid-40s and younger). He sounds just like people you get here bemoaning the decline of churchgoing. I feel sure somewhere in this discussion the issue of nominal Muslims is relevant, I’m just not sure where!

  • Ian G

    I posted this on my blog in 2013. It’s still relevant – sadly.

    https://thealmondrod.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/do-we-need-islamic-reformation.html

  • Fred Howard Jr.

    I have already put my thoughts in this area on the internet, so I will just leave it at that. It can go on forever.

  • Tariq Rashid

    Please note : Allah u Akbar literally translates as GOD IS GREAT. Please don’t try and spice up your articles for readers.

    • Jon of GSG

      I don’t think he’s saying it means “God curse the infidels”… Just that a terrorist might say the one after the other…

      • Mike Stallard

        “Almighty and everlasting God, who hatest nothing that Thou hast made and dost forgive the sins of those who are penitent…”

    • Royinsouthwest

      If someone shouts it in a street then people will naturally assume that person is a terrorist.

    • Anton

      I’m sure that the sentence in the above article was not suggesting that it translates as “God curse the infidels” but and was adding that to it, not translating it.

      Incidentally, is it ‘great’ or ‘greater’, please? I have been told the latter but I don’t speak Arabic.

      • Jon of GSG

        It is “the greatest” or “greater”, according to this web page:

        http://allthearabicyouneverlearnedthefirsttimearound.com/p2/p2-ch4/the-comparative-and-superlative/

        “God is great” would be “Allahu kabiru”.

        I am learning…

      • Tariq Rashid

        Come on Anton you and I know that is not the case media use this as a way to spice up their articles especially when it’s a so called Muslim but never use the religious background of other terrorists and yet the have committed more attack in Europe than these mindless idiots who call themselves Muslims and think it’s OK to take innocent lives, when a Muslim is told not to even cut down a tree without a
        Reason no where in the religion of Islam can you take the life of innocent individuals.

        • Dominic Stockford

          But those who deny Allah, and say that Mohammed was a misdirected and erroneous man are, according to the Koran, not innocent. So what you have written above is meaningless.

        • Anton

          The man who wrote the article has clarified himself and you should take it up with him henceforth. I’m genuinely interested in whether the correct translation is “great” or “greater”.

    • len

      ‘ allahu akbar ‘ “Allah is Greater”
      Greater than what?. One can only assume greater than the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob..Which leads to the question who is Allah?.

      • Tariq Rashid

        I would imagine one needs to do more research on the 3 main religions to know that the God of Abraham, Isaacs, Jacob, are referring tothe same if you have time then please listen AHMED DEEDAT on comparative religions Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. You will find this very interesting as to how this one man was able compareally this 3 main religions like nobody before him.

        • len

          The God of Abraham , Isaac and Jacob cannot be ‘Allah’.

          Because they are quite plainly opposed to each other.

          • Tariq Rashid

            I’m sorry len but you really need to do more research look up AHMED DEEDAT on YouTube you will be amazed.

          • Tariq Rashid

            GOD Almighty in Islam and the Bible:

            Did you know that Elohim is Allah [1] [2]. The “im” in Hebrew is a majestic plural for GOD Almighty. The root Word is “Eloh”. And the more original Jews such as Yemenites and others say Alohim or Alah-im. And when you yourself pronounce it, you do naturally pronounce it with a double “l”: Allah. Jews do call Him: Allah-im. Aramaic-speaking people also call GOD Almighty Allah. See the following videos for Biblical references and proofs. Also, pre-Islamic Biblical archeological findings have GOD Almighty as “Allah”. So the Original Holy Name for GOD Almighty is not Eloh. It is Allah! Eloh is a Hebrew dialect, which not all Hebrew speakers use anyway. Allah had always been the Original and Universal GOD Almighty even before birth of Judaism, and the existence Hebrew. And Hebrew is a developed language from Phoenician.

          • len

            Sorry but this is quite plainly wrong.
            A God who is divided against himself is quite plainly impossible.

          • Pubcrawler

            Etymological fallacy.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Have ye thought upon Al-Lat and Al-‘Uzzá

            and Manāt, the third, the other?

            These are the exalted gharāniq, whose intercession is hoped for.

          • len

            ‘ The God of the Bible revealed himself to Moses at the burning bush by this name (“God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob “Israel”) and told Moses, “this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations” (Ex 3:1-16). If Allah is the God of the Bible, why is he never called by these names? The God of the Bible tells us again and again that He is the God of the Jews. Many times He is called “the God of Israel.”

            http://www.menorah.org/allahtrc.html

          • Dominic Stockford

            No, they are NOT the same God. The Christian God, who is the God of the Old Testament, is Father, Son and Spirit – that can seen from Genesis onwards. The Islamic ‘god’ teaches that those who say that God has a Son is not merely wrong, but should be dealt with.

          • Tariq Rashid

            You know I haven’t got time for this if you want answers to this I refer you to Ahmed Deedat on you tubever you will find it interesting. I promise. Three in to one or one into three I never could understand. I bid you farewell.

          • len

            I have a body, a soul ,and a spirit. But I am one person.

          • Anton

            Let’s do this properly. There can be only one Creator of the universe. Jews and Christians take his actions and attributes to be as described in the Old Testament, and Muslims take them to be as described in the Quran. Many of these actions and attributes are mutually exclusive between the two texts; you have to choose, and this choice is a matter of faith.

            “Allah” is the Arabic equivalent of the Hebrew “al-Eloah”, and Eloah is the singular of Elohim which is a Hebrew name for the Creator in the Old Testament. (Christians take this plural to be a hint at the Trinity, although Jews disagree.) In literal translation Allah means, then, just “THE god” ie, the supreme god. Fourteen centuries ago “Allah” would have been a decent translation into Arabic of the Hebrew scriptures, but since theat time it has become associated by usage with the quranic view of the Creator. (Certainly I do not believe it has anything to do with the pagan moon god.)

            I think it is not helpful to talk of “Allah” and “Jehovah” as not the same without clarifying that you mean different attributes of one Supreme Being. Otherwise people who are listening start to think that two distinct beings are meant.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Spirit is Ruach Ha Kodesh

          • len

            I’ve done the research.
            Islam takes its authority from the Jewish and the Christian scriptures…but then denies the truth within these very scriptures…

          • Paul Greenwood

            Al_Lah was a polytheistic god for Arab tribes and had 3 daughters

      • Paul Greenwood

        Al-Lah is a Moon god in Mecca with his daughters Manat, Al-Uzzah, Al-Lat

        • Anton

          Careful. Al-Lat is just the feminine of Al-Lah, which means “THE god”.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Yes but “the” is not specific simply “all-embracing diffusion”

        • len

          One out of hundreds apparently?

    • Dreadnaught

      You will find that it traslates to ‘god is greatest’. Domination; by any means is the Koranic message of Islam.

      • Tariq Rashid

        I agree

        • Dominic Stockford

          You agree that “domination; by any means is the Koranic message of Islam”!? Really? I think we need to report you to the Prevent programme, and fast.

    • Dominic Stockford

      ‘God is the greatest’ uttered by someone who is at that moment seeking to demonstrate by the use of violence how he is helping that God to be seen as ‘the greatest’.

      • Tariq Rashid

        How an individual with a twisted mind uses the literal meaning of Islamic words is down to him. It is recited by Muslims and Arabic speaking Orthodox Christians as an expression of their faith. This religious term serves as a reminder to Muslims, that no matter the situation or emotion, God is always greater than any real or imaginary entity.

    • Thomson’s Hankey

      Why did you mistranslate that?

      • 1649again

        Taqyya.

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          I got all excited then that the author had had the cojones to respond…

      • Tariq Rashid

        The article reads “Allahu Akhbar! God curse the infidels” I merely translated to what it should be and that God is Great or Greatest, how do you feel is that mistranslated.

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          Thanks for correcting yourself, in part at least.

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          Greater or greatest would be the two closest translations would they not?

        • Manfarang

          Ēl or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures. The number one God of gods.

        • Are you being gratuitously provocative or just obtuse? In what sense of perception is the phrase which follows “Allahu Akhbar!” a translation? Where is the punctuation which signifies that? Do you not see that the whole phrase is surrounded by quotation marks, therefore “God curse the infidels” is manifestly sequential to “Allahu Akhbar!”, not a translational or transliterative repetition of it? If it be, as you assert, a translation, where is the ‘!’? Where is the parenthetical ‘(tr.)’? Where is the quotation mark after “Akkhbar!” which signifies the end of speech and the beginning of translation? For those who have eyes, it is a clear expression of simplistic Islamist theological ‘reasoning’: the attitude toward the kuffar follows the crass proclamation of “Allahu Akhbar!” after bombing buses and slicing throats. Does that assist?

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          You haven’t answered the question, seemed pretty simple…

        • Thomson’s Hankey

          So again God is greatest or God is greater, not God is great, why did you mis-translate this, simply to mislead?

          • Tariq Rashid

            My apologies I have been a bit busy can you explain when you state I have mis-translated to mislead and how? as you seem to be very knowledgeable about the translation of Arabic it seems. Depending on the context in Arabic translation both Great and Greatest terms are used. I do not need to mislead anyone when it comes to the Quran, quite offended that you felt that I misled you in anyway.

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            Quite simple greatest and greater are relative terms while great is not relative to anything else. You being offended is hardly a surprise. Perhaps you need to be more selective with your references in future.

          • Tariq Rashid

            Its not quite as simple as you think it is when it comes to Quranic Arabic, If you want to say: Allah is the greatest, you need a def­inite article in Arabic, which means it should be: Allāhu al-’Akbar (الله الْأَكْبَر). Notice that the word Allah is definite in Arabic and already means the God.

            Some scholars have written that ’akbar (أَكْبَر) has the meaning of the Arabic word kabīr (كَبِير) which means great. Thus, the sentence Allāhu ’akbar means: Allah is great.

            Regardless their was nothing before him and nothing after him. Normal Arabic is different to Quranic Arabic, you can may be compare it normal English to Shakespearen English. and normal Arabic slightly differs from region to region best and one of the first translation of the Queen was by an English man Marmaduke Pikthall.

            By the I’m only offended because you think I have tried to mislead you which my friend is not the case.

            Have good night.

          • Thomson’s Hankey

            You infer a fluidity of meaning and then declare that the intented meaning is absoloute ‘nothing before, nothing after’, therefore there is an absoloute meaning so the earlier part of you argument is a distraction.

            A good night to you also

  • Justanothergoldbug

    To understand who is really behind terror events, always ask “Cui bono?”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/03/22/london-ff/

    • bluedog

      The Rothschilds again? They’re everywhere these days.

  • Sheena Ahmed

    This is a wonderful article but sorry to see Allahu Akbar mistranslated. Allahu Akbar means “God is Supreme/mighty”

    • Jon of GSG

      May I refer you to the replies to a similar comment just below…

    • Inspector General

      I say, does it really? One had the idea it meant “your time is up”

      • bluedog

        Time, Gentlemen, please?

        • Pubcrawler

          I hate that phrase.

          • 1649again

            Me too.

          • Anton

            How about “Lock-in, gentlemen, please”?

          • Pubcrawler

            They do not need to be announced: those in the know simply know; those not in the know will never know.

          • 1649again

            It can be arranged at certain establishments I know.

          • Pubcrawler

            Arranged?! Heavens no. They are ‘spontaneous’ and purely at the licensee’s discretion for those in the know…

          • 1649again

            You clearly don’t have the right friends.

      • Sheena Ahmed

        Pick up a book please <3

        • Inspector General

          No need. You see, this man now believes that a certain amount of foaming at the mouth Islam is exactly what the UK needs. We were quite obviously degenerating as a people, and to an extent that the homosexuals looked to be taking over. That’s not going to happen now. We need to pull up our socks to fight the evil and that means we dispense with laxity and once again become regimented. We’ll also need to be on top form now we are out of the EU. Another piece of nonsense we can live without.

          • Sheena Ahmed

            I’m not equipped to debate national policy as well as you seem to be. I wish you a safe and happy life. I love travel and have visited many countries and met many wonderful people of all colors and religion. I find xenophobia and intolerance repulsive in any form. Your views seemed immersed in both so I hope I never bump into someone like you. God bless. Or should I say Allah bless <3 oh wait. It's the same word in a different language. Peace.

          • Inspector General

            Well, you toddle off then. And one wishes you a happy arranged marriage, and if your husband treats you as a fellow human being, it won’t get any better than that!

          • Sheena Ahmed

            Your inane generalizations are alarming. I have a bachelor’s in marketing and an MBA in finance and I’m born and bred in Pakistan. For heaven’s sake man turn your TV off. Actually forget it. I’m sorry I’m still typing. It’s like some magnetic force is drawing me into this RUDE, ridiculous, myopic discussion. Toddle off my buttocks. Good day sir!!

          • Inspector General

            Ah, you’re hormonal. Yes, come across that before, you know. It’ll pass though.

          • betteroffoutofit

            If all your “qualifications” are to the same standard as your English . . .

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Now you are setting off one of my phobias. Nothing to do with Islam, but the spelling “color” suggests that you are an American Social Justice Warrior.

            It is a bit much to tell us that we in the West, especially in more vulnerable Europe, should behave like lovey-dovey hippies when many of the people who want to come here are full of xenophobia, “the xenos” being us.

            The chorus of Luxembourg national song, Mir wëlle bleiwe wat mir sinn, translated into English, goes:

            Come here from France, Belgium, Prussia,
            we want to show you our fatherland
            ask in all directions,
            We want to remain what we are.

            Though the Prussians in particular seem to have paid little heed to the last line.

            The Persians are a most civilized, cultural, and sociable people, and one of their ways of greeting guests is to say:

            “Our house is your house.”

            But I think it would be considered very bad form if those guests were to turn round and say:

            “Your house is now our house.”

          • Sheena Ahmed

            Quite honestly I’ve never been spoken to as nastily as I have on this forum. I wanted to show respect to the author and some people took it upon themselves to comment on my religion, my command over English and my world view. How it is possible for us to be so judgmental based on a few sentences someone peacefully utters to a third person is beyond me. I don’t wish to engage in any further debate on who did what. To you your religion to me mine. I have never harmed any living thing, please don’t paint me with the one brush you seem equipped with.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            I hope you are not tarring all of us with the same brush: for starters, I am nothing like the Inspector General.

            I may be wrong in guessing that you are American, but I was certainly not criticizing your command of English. But maybe you have never been exposed to evil. Perhaps this little extract might explain:

            . . . I looked up at [Sir Percivale]: his noble countenance was full of reverence and awe. Incapable of evil in himself, he could scarcely suspect it in another. . .

            (from Phantastes by George MacDonald, Chapter XXIII)

          • Sheena Ahmed

            I wasn’t referring to you about the English thing someone else said if you qualifications are a reflection of your command on English then or something to that effect. I’m from Pakistan, this region was a British colony if anything so our English is actually influenced by the European school. Anyway. I meant no offense. I have friends from all religions and countries I love them they’re amazing. I’ve traveled to both Europe and North America as a child and now as an adult, I know first hand that if someone is an asshole they’d be an asshole regardless of color, religion or Creed. Same applies to nice people. I think we want to put a universal color and label to it cause it helps us think less and talk more.
            Thank you for clarifying your stance and allowing me to clarify mine. Much love.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Why did you delete your first comment?

          • Sheena Ahmed

            I deleted it because alot of people were commenting with their nasty views on stuff they’ve probably never picked up a book about and it was ruining my day. I know it’s not the bravest thing to do but I chose not to expose myself to unnecessary toxicity – the comment was “this is a wonderful article but the meaning of Allahu Akbar is simply God is great/Supreme” Alot of people who aren’t brave enough to share their real names and pictures took it upon themselves to share their views on me as a person, my future husband and the cattle we’ll be owning together. Sad and inane generalizations I could do without after a long day at work.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Only two people replied to THIS COMMENT. Neither were nasty. I know that one of them has certainly got some significant understanding on this matter, even if he was rather flippant with his comment. I believe that the other has some understanding of the matter too. Many of those on this forum have studied this whole issue closely, have read the Koran, and have made proper efforts to grasp the complexities involved with the 57 varieties of Islam and what they all say/do/interpret.

          • Manfarang

            Negotiations to leave the EU will begin in a few days. Pound sterling will slide by 15 %. Top form eh what.

          • Inspector General

            That’s it. Best foot forward !

          • Manfarang

            Like Trump’s Health Reform.

          • 1649again

            Trump achieved exactly what he wanted. He’s running rings round the Democrats and establishment republicans. Ryan’s now broken and the Republicans will have to accept Trump’s terms for repeal of Obamacare or leave it in place and earn the wrath of their supporters.

            I can’t believe people still underestimate him so much.

          • Manfarang

            Do you spend your coffee breaks talking to Americans?

          • 1649again

            Read an analysis of his book “The Art of the Deal”. Even Tim Stanley, no friend of Trump, in today’s Telegraph admits that Trump has come out of this quite well and the Republican establishment are carrying the can, which is what Trump wants. He’ll come back to it later when he can get his way and he’s broken the power of the RINOs.

            Dislike him by all means but don’t fall into the trap of under-estimating him.

          • Manfarang

            That’s not how my American friends see it.

          • 1649again

            Are they the sort of Americans who never believed he could win the Republican nomination or win the Presidency? If they are it would suggest that their views on Trump today aren’t worth a spit.

          • Manfarang

            The sort that know about the Constitution and how the US operates with the rule of law. Also about how impeachment works.

          • 1649again

            Oh. “experts”?

          • Manfarang

            Foreign Service Officers

          • 1649again

            Oh, vested interest experts. Thanks for making it clear.

          • Manfarang

            If the interests of the US are vested.
            Of course I know people who live in the States and talk to them on a regular basis.

          • len

            No gain without some pain.

          • Manfarang

            You can have all the pain. Tax you till you squeak,

          • Paul Greenwood

            That will compensate for ANY tariff anywhere and destroy Spanish agric exports. Time for UK farming to boom

          • Manfarang

            Enjoy your turnips. Britain is no longer agriculturally self sufficient.

          • Paul Greenwood

            No, but as during the Napoleonic Wars, WW1, WW2 it could be much more self-sufficient like Germany for instance with its own orchards, vegetables, and supplies from France – but whether spinach, eggs, apples, legumes, potatoes, Germany grows its own. UK can get the Dutch to set up poly-tunnels on farms they own in UK or grow mushrooms in N Yorkshire rather than Poland. I mean Polish mushrooms ?????? trucked across Europe so probably 50% price is diesel cost

          • Manfarang

            The UK has a larger population than it did in WW2. Free trade has always meant cheaper food. British farmers are in for difficult time.

          • Paul Greenwood

            How can it be cheaper food ? UK food is much dearer than Germany or France.

          • Manfarang

            27% of UK food imports came from Europe. This food may become more expensive in the future. However, the US with its big farms may be able to increase its food exports to the UK at lower production costs and thus make foods costs cheaper with free trade. So get used to hash browns.

          • Paul Greenwood

            US food is priced in US Dollars – check the exchange rate versus 2015

          • Manfarang

            America is looking to opening up the UK market, when Trump says Brexit will be great he means it will be great for American business.

          • Paul Greenwood

            So what !! Look at Cable. Most vegetables and fruit in USA comes from CA which has a water shortage and I really don’t see how you get produce from there to here. Britain imported food after 1846 from an Empire which did not include the USA. The USA supplied oil from Texas which is why merchantmen were torpedoed crossing the Atlantic. You can buy food from Spain or Turkey or Morocco but it is still better to grow your own and have it fresher. Veg markets in Lincolnshire are better than those in Manchester

          • len

            Hate Turnips

          • Manfarang

            Swedes then.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Maybe, maybe not. But I remember the German-born MP Gisela Stuart saying:

            “Schadenfreude is a German word to express a peculiarly British emotion.”

            I hope that does not apply to you.

          • Manfarang

            The English have Roman Holidays.

    • Dreadnaught

      And that ‘god’ commands to kill, enslave, rape and plunder non-muslims whose will not submit to its warped view of humanity.

  • len

    IF only Christians could unite behind the true Head of the ‘Church'[His Church] namely Jesus Christ, Christianity would become a lot more potent force for good in this World.’
    Satan seeks to divide and by so doing weakens his opponents.
    All christian denominations claim to have ‘the truth’ and place themselves above the other Christian denominations.But Jesus Christ IS the Truth so He needs to be the Head of all things including The Church.
    ‘And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy’.(Colossians 1:18)
    There are three enemies Christians face the world, the flesh, and the devil.We see satanic influences working through all of these.

    • 1649again

      Well said.

    • David

      Keep saying that Len.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    As it’s getting close to coffee break time, may I introduce a little levity into the proceedings.

    First, close to the subject matter, a joke I read many years ago, from the time when we were all going over to natural gas. A gas engineer is going round the houses, making the necessary adjustments.

    He knocks at one door, and a Bangladeshi gentleman answers.

    Says the engineer, “I’ve come to convert you.”

    “Infidel! Thou shalt make no conversions in this house!”

    * * * * * * *

    Secondly, the new ban on taking table computers into the cabins of airliners. This might cause some confusion in Italy, since “Tavoletta” means both tablet computer and toilet seat. Of which a local “Del Boy” is trying to take advantage in the following video:

    • Holger

      So you take your own lavatory seat with you when you travel, do you?

      Why am I not surprised?

      I assume you’re scared the plague of secularism may spread by sitting on a contaminated surface, eh? Just like syphilis and HIV.

      Oh no, hold on…

      Ah well, it’s no skin off my nose if you want to travel with a lavatory seat under your arm. If you choose the right model, you could also use it as an additional flotation device in case of a water landing.

      Perhaps the idea will catch on and Christians everywhere will start traveling with lavatory seats. They may become an alternative symbol of faith, in which case we’ll be in a quandary here in France because religious symbols are banned in public spaces, so we’ll have to get rid of all lavatory seats in all planes, trains and buildings.

      And here we go again! Another example of blatant Christian misogyny. Given that civilised (and regular) individuals do that which requires both sexes to sit (rather than that which men can do standing) in the privacy of their own homes where they can display any religious symbol they want to, the absence of lavatory seats in public conveniences will be no hardship for men. No, once again it’s women who will bear the brunt of Christian idiocy.

      What do you people have against vaginas and why do you feel compelled to make the lives of those who possess them so difficult?

      It completely baffles me…

      • Shame on you for showing such blatant transphobia, Linus. Not all women have vaginas and not all men have penises.

        • len

          Its a crazy shook up world we are living in today(Thanks to secularists)

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LemG0cvc4oU

        • Holger

          Fair enough. I can’t deny that my words were full of cisgender assumptions and blatant disregard for transgender experience. So let me rephrase them to make them more inclusive.

          “Given that civilised (and regular) individuals do that which requires all sexes to sit (rather than that which some can do standing) in the privacy of their own homes where they can display any religious symbol they want to, the absence of lavatory seats in public conveniences will be no hardship for those who are capable of urinating in a standing position. No, once again it’s the possessors of a vagina who will bear the brunt of Christian idiocy.”

          Happy now?

          I doubt it somehow.

          • Those without penises are capable of urinating in a standing position – they just need to be accurate when using a toilet.

          • Holger

            “… they just need to be accurate when using a toilet.”

            But not when directing their flow towards another target, eh?

            Who knew you had more than your politics in common with Trump? Well, things he’s been accused of, at least.

            Oh well, whatever puts a spring in your step. One merely hopes that whoever you do this with is a willing participant. I hope she’s well compensated for her trouble, poor woman! (It is a woman, right?)

            I’ve never understood the attraction of such practices myself, but as long as it’s consensual and you don’t frighten the horses, I can’t see any reason to stop you.

            The big yellow face and expression of deep desire assuaged make sense now…

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I once read a science fiction story in which they were bringing back great people from the past to our present time. However, most of them, such as the great Greek thinkers, found our world too alien and incomprehensible, and had to be sent back tout de suite.

        However, one was sufficiently broad minded to cope, and that was Shakespeare. Out of curiosity, they enrolled him in a Shakespeare course at a university. He was most surprised at how much they drew out of his writings.

        “Marry” said he, “they would wring an ocean out of a dish-clout!”

        . . .and it seems that you are trying squeeze enough water to make up an ice giant out of a single dewdrop.

        But back to Shakespeare. At the end of the course he sat the exam. When the result came, he quickly went back to his own time, filled with chagrin.

        The course leader had had no idea who his student was. It was told him, and on asking why Shakespeare had disappeared so suddenly, it was explained:

        “You flunked him!”

        • Holger

          You have no idea how a time-traveling Shakespeare would perform in a modern exam based upon his works. Neither does the author of your science fiction story.

          In order to support an arch-conservative and anti-intellectual position that heaps ridicule upon anyone who claims to draw any kind of conclusion about anything that isn’t based on the tenets of your Stone Age religion, you make up a ludicrous encounter between a 17th century playwright and a modern academic that could never take place, and which can therefore teach us nothing about anything except your own particular brand of prejudice.

          What you really want to say is that all modern academics are stupid and pretentious and should be ignored. To do so, you co-opt one of history’s great intellectuals (but a Bible believin’ one and therefore acceptable in your eyes) and use what you claim would be his reaction as a means of discrediting anyone who doesn’t see the world through your simplistic religious lens.

          Your conclusion? Everything was better in the Christian past, and all modern intellectuals are stupid “libtards” who are wrong, wrong, wrong about everything.

          My conclusion? Undereducated Christians are so narcissistic and full of overweening pride and a sense of their own superiority, they think they have the right to ridicule anyone, any time. They even use historical figures as props in their self-justifying fantasies. “I maybe don’t have much o’ that thar book-larnin’, but I’m sure as hell smarter’n you” is the basic message.

          The dull and the ignorant often suffer from the delusion of being the smartest of all. If it ain’t done your way, it just ain’t right, is it? If only folks would just listen to you…

          Neanderthal indeed. Perhaps you should just go back to your cave and gnaw on a bone or something. Leave the thinking to those who have a pre-frontal cortex that’s up to the job.

      • The Explorer

        Wasn’t there a time when football hooligans travelling abroad would bring back foreign toilet seats?

        I recall the topic coming up on ‘Spitting Image’, and Giles cartoons of hooligans with toilet seats round their necks as trophies.

        Aspects of history, it seems, do repeat themselves; although not necessarily for the same reason.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Apparently a Navy SEAL died in Yemen retrieving laptops and hard drives which revealed hints that the next bombing wave would be using personal computers as bombs or triggers

    • Anton

      Regarding linguistic confusion when travelling in and around Italy, Monaco is the Italian for Munich…

      • Paul Greenwood

        Muenchen is the German – it actually means “zu den Moenchen” “by the Monks”

  • colliemum

    For your elevenses, you might like to read this article:

    http://www.ukipdaily.com/appeasers-and-cowards/

    • David

      Many thanks for the link.

  • Justanothergoldbug
    • Inspector General

      Oh, hello. You must be from the Labour party.

      • carl jacobs

        When you are good, you are very very good.

    • len

      The problem is anti-semitism.The only democracy in the Middle East is being attacked by all and sundry for no apparent reason.

      • Justanothergoldbug

        lol… blind freddy has just arrived…

        • William Lewis

          Having a break between goose steps?

          • Paul Greenwood

            very good for leg muscles and since German troops carried their small packs on their legs very important training

          • carl jacobs

            They were damn fine soldiers. Professional. Exceptionally competent at their craft. Too bad they lost, huh.

          • Paul Greenwood

            But for Japan attacking Pearl Harbour instead of Siberia and allowing Zhukhov to move his forces to Stalingrad they would not have lost

          • carl jacobs

            They were so close! And just think how much better the world would be today if they had won.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Not sure it would. Stalingrad was a major achievement and the Eastern Front bled 80% German casualties without which Normandy would have been Gallipoli II.

          • carl jacobs

            You really aren’t sure about the consequences of Germany winning WWII?

          • Paul Greenwood

            I don’t think Germany had a chance of winning once it attacked USSR. you should listen to Hitler’s conversation with Mannerheim in Finland

          • carl jacobs

            That wasn’t my question.

          • Paul Greenwood

            allowing Zhukhov to move his forces to Stalingrad they would not have lost

            how much better the world would be today if they [Germany] had won.

            So you suggest USSR should have been defeated………..

          • Paul Greenwood

            You suggested the Red Army should have been defeated at Stalingrad as as if you wanted that outcome

          • William Lewis

            Indeed. One cannot simply march around Europe without the proper training.

          • Paul Greenwood

            They did a very good job with very well-trained soldiers and equipment inferior to France and UK in May 1940

      • 1649again

        We’ve had almost a full house of enemies of Christ today – militant atheist homosexuals, neo-nazi anti-Semites and Muslims. Just need a Hindu Christophobe, Maoist and Dawkins type materialist to come on and we can all shout “House!”

        What is it they all despise and fear about the faith of Our Lord one wonders?

        • David

          Make ready to repel further boarders !

          • 1649again

            A suspension of turning the other cheek I think and rather the grasping of the scourge to drive the invaders from the Temple.

          • David

            Yes. Interestingly theologians who reinterpret our earlier understandings, by rooting them in the ME culture of the time, take a different view on that one. A slap across the face was an insult, fairly obviously. By turning the cheek, one is saying I am not frightened, cowed or worried about any insult that you can hurl at me and my faith; so understanding it not as a passive- pacifist reaction at all, but a rather more robust, unshaken stance. No prizes for guessing which interpretation I prefer !

          • 1649again

            Thanks David. Most enlightening and much more plausible than the ‘peace at any price’ interpretation so in vogue today.

          • David

            Thank you. Too many of the western Church’s top leadership now view Christianity through the lens of Marxist thought. Jesus was not the Labour member of parliament for Galilee south, but to listen to most of the leadership, from the Pope down, Christianity is a sort of suicide cult. Fortunately realism still exists at the lower levels, but the media ignores that. Also the eastern Churches, particularly the orthodox ones, have a far more realistic and robust approach to defending our culture against its enemies. We need the tide of opinion to turn as soon as possible.

          • 1649again

            Agreed David. The infiltration of marxist thought into the clerical hierarchy is deeply dangerous. It seems that a proponent of ‘liberation theology’ currently reigns in the Vatican and who knows for what Welby stands?

          • Dominic Stockford

            Wasn’t Welby appointed because he was ‘good at business’?

          • 1649again

            I thought it was because he was another old Etonian who wouldn’t let Dave C down.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I thought it was because he had done a year or two at Durham

          • Paul Greenwood

            Western Christianity is Superficial Socialism

          • Paul Greenwood

            Exactly

          • Paul Greenwood

            turning the other cheek does not mean what you imply…….why is it “Christians” seem to have no depth of understanding ?

        • len

          Biblical Christianity is the only religion that Satan fears because with Christ at its Head it is the only real threat to him.

          • 1649again

            Exactly. So all the others are different divisions in his army.

          • This may be true but it hardly opens up avenues for a rational exchange of ideas.

          • len

            One must start from a true foundation not shifting sand.

        • You should welcome the variety of opinion and engage in discussion.

          • 1649again

            I’m afraid I don’t buy that diversity crap Jack.

          • Listening and endeavouring to understand another person’s point of view is “diversity crap”? How very Cromwellian.

          • 1649again

            Thank you. You say the nicest things sometimes.

            PS Endless exchanges that go nowhere with people who spout malevolent rubbish is not ‘endeavouring to understand’.

          • Jack thinks some of the points being made by the Muslim visitors were worthy of discussion and exploration. How do you get on with staff groups and their trades union representatives given your dismissive attitude.

          • Anton

            Muslims are unlikely to work in a brewery.

          • Dominic Stockford

            ‘Only if I can have nothing to do with alcohol, ‘cos its discrimination innit’

          • Pubcrawler

            Fine. They could clean out the mash tuns and the coppers. That’s all pre-fermentation, no alcohol involved.

            Backbreaking work, though, so they might not be too keen.

          • 1649again

            Always got on very well with all groups, but I always saw who the wasters were very quickly and dealt with them.

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, because Charles V was ever so interested in listening and understanding at the Diet of Worms. We should all follow his example of good disagreement.

          • The Diet of Worms wasn’t a theological conference or an ecumenical council. The Emperor and those present did understand Luther and his manifest heresies. They were made plain in his writings. He was invited to retract. He refused.

          • carl jacobs

            They were made plain in his writing

            Unlike Scripture, I see. How fortunate Luther did not require an infallible interpreter. What an amazing concept is this idea that words have meaning and meanings may be understood.

            But of course my point was that Luther did not understand the Diet of Worms would be conducted in such a manner at all. And one may just as easily say that Cromwell understood RCism without any further need for listening or understanding.

            He was invited to retract. He refused.

            And thus did he shatter the slaver’s chain. We may all be grateful for his resolution at that moment.

          • Well clearly scripture is open to wide and varying understandings … and that’s before one adds words to it to shore up one’s argument or removes certain books which contradict these.

          • He certainly followed his conscience, albeit an erroneous one. Then he skedaddled off into hiding. A few years later, Europe descended into a series of religion wars and political uprisings against established order which lasted 100 years and resulted in a divided Europe with three competing versions of Christianity.

          • carl jacobs

            You have to be an American to use the word “skedaddle”. First of all, you need to know what the Great Skedaddle is without goggling it. But more important. You won’t get the literary context just right. On the bright side, this is yet more evidence of your deep-seating longing to become an American.

            Search your feelings, Jack. You know it to be true.

          • Paul Greenwood

            He was hidden on the Wartburg where he translated the New Testament in 12 weeks. Cranach did a lovely portrait of Juncker Joerg and it is fine to see it in the original. Happy Jack thinks people like Luther should have been murdered like Jan Hus

        • chefofsinners

          It is this: All these belief systems have an extremist form which attracts violent people. Christianity does not. Only the Christian proclaims “God is love.”
          By far the worst is the humanist, promoting the killing of the unborn, the disabled, the sick and the old.

        • Royinsouthwest

          Should all preaching, and evangelisation too, be directed at those who are already Christians?

          • 1649again

            Of course not but they weren’t here to listen or discuss openly, but to attack or mock.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Is any evangelisation taking place ? it could start within the C of E so there is some basic grasp of The Gospels

      • Paul Greenwood

        Anti-Semitism suggests you are against the Palestinians !

        • Pubcrawler

          No, it doesn’t.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Semites are……..

          • Pubcrawler

            ‘Anti-semitism’ means…

          • Paul Greenwood

            Whatever you want it to mean such as not agreeing with a Jewish polemicist or saying something that the listener does not consider suited to his delectation

          • Pubcrawler

            Dissembling. Got a reference to a reputable dictionary to support your interpretation yet? It’s been a week since I last asked, That’s plenty of time..

          • Paul Greenwood

            Why do I need a dictionary you define as “reputable” ?

          • Pubcrawler

            Because reputable dictionaries operate on descriptive principles. If the meaning you wish to attach to the word is a valid and widely used one, it will be listed. If it’s not there, but another meaning is, then the meaning listed is the one that counts.

          • Paul Greenwood

            The Great Soviet Encyclopaedia fulfilled much the purpose you seek to define

          • Pubcrawler

            Now you’re being silly, Humpty-Dumpty.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Not at all. I am simply showing the ultimate example of your Cultural Marxist approach

          • Step11Recovery

            From the OED:

            anti-Semitism, n.

            Hostility and prejudice directed against Jewish people; (also) the theory, action, or practice resulting from this

          • Paul Greenwood

            Antipathy towards Semitic peoples

          • Pubcrawler

            That is not what it was coined to mean, and it is not how it remains widely understood and used, as recorded in reputable dictionaries.

          • Paul Greenwood

            “Gay Olde Englande” does not mean what it used to mean. “liberal” certainly doesn’t mean what J S Mill thought. “Christian” does not seem to mean what Cranmer thought it did

          • Pubcrawler

            Red herring. Such changes are noted in reputable descriptive dictionaries. Antisemitism is a TT with a specific definition.

          • Paul Greenwood

            yes and was directed at Ernest Renand specifically whose theories were bizarre

          • carl jacobs

            This argument is irrelevant. If you ask 10000 people to define “anti-Semitism” 9999 will define it as prejudice again against Jews. One will adopt a broader definition and he will invariably turn out to be a Leftist of the anti-Zionist persuasion. Or perhaps a denizen of the Daily Stormer.

            So define the word how you wish. It doesn’t change len’s point nor does it change the understanding of the 9999.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I don’t wish to assign words of generic meaning to specific groups. Say “Anti-Jewish” or “anti-Jew” if you want. I tire of this – Germans call Jews “Hebrews” because that cannot say “Jude” yet every old town has its “Judengasse” or “Judenviertel”. Why so mealy-mouthed ?

            You can be “Anti-Christian”, “anti-Black”, “anti-White”, “anti-homosexual”, “anti-Arab”, “anti-Chinese”, “anti-American”, “anti Muslim” why do you need to create obscurantist words ?

          • Pubcrawler

            “I don’t wish to assign words of generic meaning to specific groups.”

            Quite right. But the word in question does not have, and has never had, a generic meaning; it is, and has always been, specific.

            “Why so mealy-mouthed ?”

            Ask the man who coined it. As for me, I have no qualms about calling a Jew-hater a Jew-hater.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I really have no interest in questioning 19th Century Frenchmen like Ernest Renand about their doctrinal obsessions about Christ not being a Jew. He was. I really cannot follow his peculiar reasoning nor his peculiar concept of nation or race. I have no wish to exist his his intellectual straitjacket

          • carl jacobs

            It is neither here nor there whether you like the word or not. It is what it is and it means what it means. You aren’t going to change its definition.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I am going to decide what term I use and I find the one you are besotted with to be meaningless

          • carl jacobs

            You are free to use any word you choose. You can assign any definition that you find pleasing. Your attitude won’t necessarily facilitate communication, however.

          • Paul Greenwood

            not a problem. I find precision in language restricts communication with people who have sloppy thinking, fortunately

          • Step11Recovery

            I am going to decide what term I use ….

            You are Humpty Dumpty, and I claim my £5.

          • Paul Greenwood

            You have no identity and are simply one who repeats platitudes

        • len

          Palestinians are Jordanians they already have a homeland.

          http://shoebat.com/2014/03/08/palestinian-myth-exposed/

          • Paul Greenwood

            Trans Jordan ?

        • carl jacobs

          There is an important lesson for the Palestinians in all this.

          One shouldn’t start a war of annihilation and then lose it.

          • Justanothergoldbug

            except they didn’t start it…

          • carl jacobs

            Yes, I clearly remember all those Higgins boats filled with the Jewish First Division landing on the beaches near Tel Aviv. They positively forced the surrounding Arab countries to declare war to defend poor victimized Palestine. And all that stuff about the Arabs at the UN threatening war if a Jewish state was created – pure Jewish propaganda.

            I’m sure if the Arabs had won that war, they would have treated the Jews with all the kindness the Mufti of Jerusalem could offer.

          • Anton

            They said they did. Jamal Husseini, the Palestinian Arab leader, candidly told the UN Security Council during the fighting on 16th April 1948 that: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.” You can verify this for yourself.

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Lol… you will believe what you like but the rest of us are not that stupid. I suggest you research something called the Balfour Declaration and then what the Palestinians call the Nakba. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

          • Inspector General

            Look, old man. At the moment, the Islamists are doing their nut over the very existence of Israel. Don’t you think that if Israel falls and when the millions inside are put to the sword, they’ll turn their attention to us, IN A VERY BIG WAY !

          • Paul Greenwood

            Israel won’t fall – can’t fall – it is the East Coast of the US

          • Anton

            Thank you; I gave a public talk on the Balfour Declaration earlier this year.

            Do you deny that Jamal Husseini said those words to the UN Security Council? Please include a clear Yes or No in any reply. We’d hate people here to think you were equivocating, wouldn’t we?

          • Paul Greenwood

            did you mention ABE process to make acetone at all ?

          • Anton

            Yes I did. Were you there?

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Well if their conclusions were based on anything like the logic you are using today, then they were a waste of time for both you and your audience. No?

          • Anton

            It is your logic that is in question. You said that they [the Palestinians] didn’t start the war that they now call the nakba. I quoted their leader Jamal Hussein saying to the UN Security Council on 16th April 1948, during the fighting, that: “The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight.”

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Even if the statement is true, I do not know in what context it was made or to what specific fighting it was referring. On the contrary, history says that arabs and jews were living peacefully together in the middle east since the dark ages. It was not until, the British zionists decided to colonise Palestine after the first world war that ALL the problems there began. If you really believe that the Palestinians are to blame for their current situation then you have a completely warped sense of justice and if you are teaching people this, you are outright dangerous.

          • Anton

            They are partly to blame but it is a complex situation.

          • Paul Greenwood

            non sequitur

          • carl jacobs

            No. Actually it isn’t.

          • Paul Greenwood

            We disagree as ever

        • Justanothergoldbug

          Right. But also let us not confuse zionism with judaism. There are MANY jews who are against zionism.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I don’t but I also don’t see special terms for special groups based on generics

      • Justanothergoldbug

        You argue like an old savta: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0kWAqZxJVE

    • Anton

      What nonsense.

      How many wars in the Middle East have Muslims – Sunni, Shia and other sects – fought against each other throughout history before the West rose? What did the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s have to do with Israel?

      As for the age at which Muhammad consummated his marriage to Aisha, I suggest that Tamam Khan take up the claim that this happened when Aisha began menstruating at 12-13, rather than under 10 as Bukhari states explicitly in his ancient collection of hadith (Islamic sacred traditions about Muhammad), with Islamic scholars. Bukhari’s collection is rated as Sahih, most reliable. Khan can look at what ancient Islamic traditions say about Muhammad’s wives for as long as she likes, but that is what those traditions explicitly say. If she thinks they are wrong then I look forward to the responses of Islamic scholars.

      • Justanothergoldbug

        I am not sure what pedophilia has to do with all this but seeing as you brought up the subject, this is what the Zionist Talmud has to say >> Baby boys may always be used as subjects for sodomy by grown men, according to the Talmud. (The Pharisaic subterfuge here is that until a child reaches sexual maturity, capable of sexual intercourse, he or she does not rank as a person, hence Biblical laws against sodomy (pederasty) do not apply. Throughout the Talmud “nine years and one day” is the fictitious age of male maturity.. and if you think that is disgusting, it is even worse for girls: https://www.henrymakow.com/2014/03/Does-Talmud-Teach-Bestiality-Pedophilia-Incest.html

        • carl jacobs

          OMG! Did you really just post a link by Henry Makow?

          Jack! He’s a lizard, Jack! You said you were watching for them!

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Don’t go running to mummy when you lose an argument. I am posting a factual account of what is contained in the Talmud. If you object, then do not open this can of pedophile worms in the first place.

          • Jack agrees with you. There is an ancient plot to eradicate Christianity and take over the world. The shape-shifting Lizards initiated this and work through a select cabal of wealthy, well placed Jews, Freemasons, and Jesuits.

            Islam is the answer.

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Thank you Jack. I am not sure what the answer is. This is actually my first time visiting http://archbishopcranmer.com… Always interesting to test a new website. I was drawn to comment in response to what I thought was an obvious divide and conquer technique used to twist the event into a convenient double attack on BOTH Islam & Christianity and decided the discussion needed some original perspective. So are you the host here? (Is Jack a Gillan… or perhaps an Adrian?) If so, then thanks for not removing my posts. That they still remain is testament to the sites impartiality. Carl and Anton have shown where their true loyalties lie for future reference. We will continue to flush them out so we all know exactly where we stand and who stands against us.

          • Anton

            You need not “flush me out” for I am open about what I believe. Jack is a longtime Roman Catholic contributor to this site, and it is warped thinking to suggest that he is involved with site administration.

          • Jack is keeping a close watch on Anton. As for Carl, he’s harmless and could prove useful to the Greys.

          • Anton

            Are you a site administrator in your lizard guise?

          • carl jacobs

            It was a noble effort at subterfuge, Jack. Of course, it’s totally unbelievable. He’d never fall for such an obvious ruse. No one can think of me as harmless

          • He’s not that bright – the foot soldiers never are.

          • Hi Happy Jack,

            I think the greys are hippie leftists or maybe libertarians? For a start, you never see them wearing any clothes….

            But who are the lizards? That’s a more interesting question.

          • You’ve seen the Greys? Then there’s the Whites.

          • Nah, he’s just a nutter who is being used by the Lizards. He’s quoting Elizabeth Dilling, a low ranking, useful Lizard who shape-shifted in 1966.

            As for Henry Makow, well, he is a clever Lizard. He feigns insanity in order to blind people to the real truth.

        • Anton

          My computer informs me that that is not a secure link so please would you provide the exact reference in Talmud?

          • Justanothergoldbug

            Read Kethuboth 11B, Sanhedrin 55B, 69A and Yebamoth 60B.

          • carl jacobs

            It didn’t take too long to find a credible source to explain these accusations – where “credible” means a link that doesn’t have “Daily Stormer” in it. Who are you? Why are you here?

            And do you realize that you just shot to hell what little credibility you had remaining?

    • carl jacobs

      A brief perusal of this article revealed a reference to “the 9/11 false flag attack”. That and its persistent claims about new and improved tinfoil protection schemes made me doubt its reliability.

      • Justanothergoldbug

        lol…another sufferer of acute scotoma.

        • carl jacobs

          Lol … Another 9/11 Truther.

          • Lizards have parietal eyes.

          • Justanothergoldbug

            How any genuine critical thinker can still accept the official 9/11 narrative is truly beyond me… WTC Building 7, the 5 dancing Israelli “art students”, General Wesley Clark’s admission… the list of irregularities goes on and on and on… https://www.corbettreport.com/only-911-truth-can-smash-the-911-lies/

          • CliveM

            “How any genuine critical thinker can still accept the official 9/11 narrative is truly beyond me”

            Simple, we don’t waste our time on conspiracy web sites.

          • Anton

            In the thread beneath the entry of May 11th 2016 on this blog you can find my brief debunking of the 9/11 conspiracy theories including WTC7. You’ll also find the blog owner’s comments, made to the conspiratorialist who raised the subject, that this blog is not the place for the subject.

  • Simon Marshall

    While I take the point that Elms will be automatically ascribed Christianity from birth in the Moslem world, the mere juxtaposition of “violent” and “Christian” in this context is, I suggest, unhelpful, and liable to divide rather than educate in our soundbite world. There is little doubt that he was not reborn of the Spirit, a Christian in the proper sense. When he committed his crimes before conversion to Islam, he did not do them in the name of Christ. But he did do, almost certainly, his final act of terror in the name of Islam, however appropriate that dedication might or might not be.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Well put, Rather what I was trying to say earlier, but with so much theology my point got hidden, I think.

  • DP111

    Its amazing. Muslims are committing mass murder, mass rape, and even crucifixions of Christians, and if anyone points this out, is labelled a racist, Islamophobe, Xenophobe and what not, who is making little Muslim girls lie awake in the night, for fear of lynch mobs.

    No one gives a damn for Christians who are the actual ones who are being murdered. So the more Muslims murder and rape, the more they occupy the moral high ground as the prime victim class.

    Denying the reality that all Jihad comes from the canon of Islam, and the example of Mohammed, and equating Islam with Christianity, is now the order of the day, not just on BBC, but in the rest of the MSM. Wahhabism is not a heresy in Islam. Far from it.

    This is the world some people live in – a topsy turvy world of perverse morality, and denial.

    • Paul Greenwood

      “jihad” means “Crusade” ironically in all its connotations

      • Anton

        It is ambiguous between “holy war” and “spiritual effort” but for its meaning within Islam one should look at what it meant to Muhammad and at its context in the quran. Invariably the former.

    • Paul Greenwood

      and the example of Mohammed, and equating Islam with Christianity, is now the order of the day, not just on BBC,

      The lie is to describe the “Abrahamic religions” ignoring the fact (deliberately) that Christianity was a Jewish Sect and the first leaders of the Christians for 70 years after Christ’s Resurrection were Jews.

      Islam was a Scientology Cult by a 7th Century L Ron Hubbard who wanted a religion so Arab tribes could be brought under unified control so they could copy the Jews. Mo was a trader who picked up smatterings of Judaism from the Jewish traders of the Hejaz and of Zoastrianism from the caravans from Persia and created a Syncretic Religion of his own to justify his cravings and failings. That is why the notorious “Satanic Verses” are such a hot potato for Muslims.

      It basically appropriated Christian and Jewish symbols to usurp them

    • len

      ‘Political Correctness’ is the cloak that allows subversives to flourish unchecked.

  • Navarth

    When Atatürk closed down the Dervish monasteries and banned the Fez, he attacked esoteric Islam which had its intellectual origin in Old Bukhara. This was one of the main factors in the modern supremacy of orthodox political (exoteric) Islam and the persecution of Christians and ethnic minorities in the region. It’s important to bear in mind that these versions of Islam are utterly distinct, the one focusing on individual salvation through withdrawal from the world and the other exclusively on politics.

    • Manfarang

      The current Constitution of 1982 neither recognizes an official religion nor promotes any.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Does Erdogan know that?

        • 1649again

          LOL.

      • Paul Greenwood

        the Presidency of Religious Affairs (Turkish: Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı also Religious Affairs Directorate, and normally referred to simply as the Diyanet) is an official state institution established in 1924 in article 136 of the Constitution of Turkey by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey as a successor to the Sheikh ul-Islam after the abolition of the Ottoman Caliphate.[1]

        As specified by law, the duties of the Diyanet are “to execute the works concerning the beliefs, worship, and ethics of Islam, enlighten the public about their religion, and administer the sacred worshiping places”.[2] The Diyanet drafts a weekly sermon delivered at the nation’s 85,000 mosques and more than 2,000 mosques abroad that function under the directorate. It provides Quranic education for children and trains and employs all of Turkey’s imams, who are technically considered civil servants

        It also funds DITIB which runs Mosques in Germany

    • 1649again

      That Sufi interpretation didn’t save the Armenians, Syriac Christians, Yezidi or Greeks from repeated genocides through the 19th and early 20th century under previous regimes.

    • dannybhoy


      That there are many devout Muslims no one can dispute. That orthodox Islam is opposed to Christianity and Judaism no one can dispute.
      That Islam teaches peace will come when all the world submits to Allah, and those who refuse to bow the knee will suffer the same end as the men in this video…
      CAUTION: IT’S BLOODY, AND ONE DAY IF YOU REFUSE TO BOW THE KNEE IT COULD BE YOU.
      http://shoebat.com/2015/04/19/watch-the-amazing-30-brave-christians-slaughtered-telling-the-muslims-to-go-to-hell-and-refusing-to-bow-to-the-false-god-allah/

  • Dominic Stockford

    Excellent and very helpful article:
    http://salisburyreview.com/2017/03/islam-coming-universal-religion/

    Including (as a taster for you) “Nevertheless, God, it seems, has some very specific things to say about how humans should conduct their lives. These are all listed in the Koran, which is said to be a verbatim account of what he, God, had revealed to Mohammad in a dream through the Angel Gabriel, and – as one is being menacingly told in the very first sentence – is a ‘book not to be doubted’ (2:1). Those who refuse to accept, or deliberately go against, God’s ‘revelations’ as set out in the Koran will be punished most severely, for God is ‘mighty and capable of revenge’ (3:4). Admittedly God is also ‘compassionate and merciful’, but his mercy and compassion, it seems, extends only to those who are prepared to repent and submit to his will. The unbelievers who decline to do so will become ‘the fuel of Hell’. This in particular applies to Jews and Christians, who are the ‘vilest of creatures’ (98:1). They are ‘servants of Satan’ and the duty of all believers is to be ‘ruthless’ to them, while being ‘merciful to one another’ (48:29)”

  • Lucius

    Articles like this serve only to muddy the water. Islam will always have greater violent expansionist tendencies relative to Christianity. Peel the layers of the onion and these religions are a product of their respective founders. Regardless of your opinion on His divinity, Jesus of Nazereth was by all accounts a good and gentle man, more concerned with saving souls then erecting earthly kingdoms. Christians may veer of course from time-to-time, but the example of Jesus Christ (and indeed his immediate successors, the Apostles) will always provide a rally point and a source of moral authority for the better angels of our nature. The same simply cannot be said of Muhammad. Indeed, a fair argument exists that waging earthly war against the infidel in an effort to see Islam reign supreme is, in fact, a “moderate” position in the context of Muhammad’s example and that of his immediate successors, and those Muslims advocating for peaceful co-existence in a secular state are the “extremists.”

    In the last analysis, over a 1000 years of history teaches that when large numbers of Muslims enter the European continent, they tend to displace (rather than assimilate into) Western society until forcibly removed. Perhaps, we are living in a “new age” when such things such as culture and civilization no longer matter and multi-cultural society can be held together over the long run and absent a strongman in a system of mere laws. Maybe. But I would submit that history strongly counsels otherwise. Best of luck to my European brethren. You have a tough and growing problem on your hands.

    • 1649again

      Thanks. We’re going to need more than luck, but God’s blessing and huge moral fortitude and willpower to free Europe once more. We have been grossly betrayed.

  • Sizwe Daba

    Firstly let us be VERY CLEAR. HE WAS NEVER A CHRISTIAN, even as Adrian . Christianity is not hereditary nor is it assumed because one belongs to a Christian denomination and has undergone certain ceremonial rituals, etc. It is Faith in the person of Jesus Christ and following Him by obedience to His Word. Anyone who is criminally violent as a pattern of life and has no desire to follow Jesus as LORD over his life, is not a Christian at all. World please understand that because you go to a church that does not make you Christian. Because you have an English name in Britain rather than an Arabic one, does not make you a Christian. The title and content of this article is grossly misleading and wrong.

    • Are you an American, by any chance?

      If: “A Muslim is a Muslim is a Muslim, and their countries constitute ‘the Islamic world’ because at various times in history they projected a certain Muslim power … “, then surely: a Christian is a Christian is a Christian because their countries constitute the “Christian world”.

      As the article says, ” It’s all very simple and straightforward, really …” as ” … we are dealing here with simplicity.”

      • carl jacobs

        Are you an American, by any chance?

        I understand, Jack. This recurring attitude of superiority you display towards Americans is really just an expression of your deep sadness at not having been born in America. It’s not too late, Jack. You can still emigrate. I can help. ☺

        • Jack actually has distant cousins living in Texas. Once this State is returned to the Crown, he might consider a short stay.

          • Pubcrawler

            It can’t be returned as it never was the Crown’s.

          • We’ll overlook that minor detail.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Texas was never under The Crown – it was Mexican

        • 1649again

          Double sneering for American Protestants. If you add admiration for the Parliamentary cause in the 1640’s and 1650’s to your charge you will receive new levels in sneering Carl.

      • Anton

        Do you still not understand that the church is called out of nations and that there can therefore be no such thing as a Christian country – not Catholic, protestant or Orthodox – until Christ returns? Genuine Christianity is always countercultural for so long as Satan is not bound.

        • Do you understand what the article is saying?

          • Anton

            I am talking to you, not Cranmer.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Child of a Muslim is automatically Muslim. No Baptism

      • Sizwe Daba

        Happy my dear friend I’m not an American but i am a Christian. For the your world to “simply” blanket the west as Christian is really nonsense, especially written by a westerner (who, chances are, will not subscribe to faith in the Biblical Jesus). Not all who live in Islamic countries are Muslim, that goes without say. But we can talk of Muslim/Islamic Countries because that is how they depict themselves. The USA is not Christian by any stretch of the imagination, neither is the UK, and the rest of the EU and they are not depicted as such. The only Theocracies are Islamic, not Christian. Christians are becoming less distinct as a religion in these so-called Christian countries and are treated with ever increasing hostility. So Happy Jack the matter is not simple and cannot and must not be simplified.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Yes. Well said Sizwe.

    • Exactly so. 1 John 2:19 is your text.

  • chefofsinners

    A lot of energy is being expended talking about Islam and violence.
    Pause to remember that when-and-how a person dies matters infinitely less than their spiritual state when they die. All non-Christian belief systems are effectively the same: they condemn their followers to an eternity separated from the goodness of God.

  • Dominic Stockford

    An excellent article here about what muslims think about liberals (by a muslim). They seem to find them more of a problem than us more conservative types!

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10091/muslims-liberals-leftists

    • David

      This is not surprising. If they have a strong faith, then I suspect, they can relate to those with an equally strong faith in Christianity. I’d imagine that it is permissiveness they abhor.

    • Anton

      A word of clarification: you mean liberals in society, not church liberals. And the US meaning of ‘liberal’ which now dominates the UK meaning.

      • Dominic Stockford

        Yes, although in my personal experience they also spend time laughing at church liberals, and worrying about church conservatives.

  • zam abuu

    I think people have missed the real point here

    • chefofsinners

      I think the key point is well made and well understood. A Muslim might interpret this man’s life as a reproach to Christian society every bit as much as a Christian might interpret his actions as a reflection on Islam. We ought therefore to moderate our condemnation, realising how our perspective affects our views.
      People like to move on from the article and enjoy a more general discussion on related issues.

      • Paul Greenwood

        This man was able to shack up with an affluent white woman he met in a pub noted for rough trade. She bore him children and he slashed tyres on cars of people who would not let her play on the netball team. Sounds like a fine example of something

        • chefofsinners

          Rebel looking for a cause.

        • What on earth did she see in him I wonder?

  • Inspector General

    Off topic, but worth a thought…

    The Inspector spent some hours in Cirencester today. Still too excited to sleep resulting. Cirencester, eh? Who’d have thought it…

    Anyway, thinking on the journey back, is it time for the UKIP army to stand down. If so, concerned types may wish to transfer their allegiance to ‘The Freedom Association’. They played no small role in getting us out of the EU and they’ll damn well make sure we’ll stay out. The Inspector is a member, and no less a personage than Cranmer himself is high up in it. Worth considering, chaps.

    As you were…

    • Manfarang

      Not as exciting as Clacton-on-Sea.

    • 1649again

      The future is a Wilders type movement here IG. Whether UKIP has the guts to develop that way is a moot point.

      • James60498 .

        It doesn’t.

  • Why did this man become a Muslim in prison rather than a Christian?
    I suppose one answer is that he was an extremely nasty, violent man and Islam offered more opportunities for him to express himself than Christianity.
    .
    But is it not also possible that he and others have been drawn to Islam because it knows what it believes, while so many ‘professing Christians’ can’t even make their minds whether they believe their own Holy Book? ‘If the trumpet makes an uncertain sound, who will prepare for battle?’

    • Paul Greenwood

      Christianity is sold as soppy and if you are worried about being sodomised in prison, the Western Christian Church is the last place to seek protection

  • Darter Noster

    One cannot help but admire the strategic thinking behind all this.

    Every inadequate rage-filled loner on earth can enact whatever violent fantasies they’ve played out in their bedsits a thousand times before they even thought of Islam, and find that they are part of a band of brothers who will hail them as martyrs.

    There’s no commitment; no training; no religious scrutiny; anyone who can drive a car can murder dozens with the support and approval they’ve always craved. It costs ISIS no money; they just claim the credit. They’ve succeeded in creating a potential volunteer army of the alienated where many other groups have tried and failed. They don’t need many; 5 or 6 per western country will do, an easily achievable target. They don’t necessarily need high profile targets; people can be slaughtered a lot more easily in a quiet village in the Cotswolds than in central London.

    However this bloke started out, however he became radicalised, doesn’t actually matter. All ISIS wants is to prompt potential killers of all nations to nail their flag to it’s mast, and it is doing a reasonable job of it. ISIS has realised that the random lone wolf killer is the hardest to stop and has found a good way to recruit them to kill in their name, rather than someone else’s.

    I don’t know how you deal with that. As terrorism goes, it’s genius.

    • Inspector General

      What we have, DN, is a situation whereby any muslim, cradle or convert, who has lived a dodgy life including spells in prison, can wipe the slate clean with his god by committing an atrocity against the infidel.

      What to do. Well, here’s a start. No more mosques. They’ll just have to make do with what they have.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Gert Wilders will accept your donations

    • William Lewis

      You track Muslims with criminal records who may have been in contact with radicalisation in prisons or who have recently converted. These guys are known by the authorities.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Yes and you track them with local schoolchildren following them each day, or maybe pensioners ? You certainly don’t expect to have 5 or 6 Special Branch Officers on every one do you ?

        • William Lewis

          No, I certainly do not.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Don’t you think MI6 has recruited these people and shipped them to Turkey where the Canadian Attache from Amman slipped them across the border to ISIS ? Oh, did I let that open secret slip out ?

        • William Lewis

          No, I do not think that.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Then you should because they have. MI5 is aware of many persons because they use them to infiltrate communities. When you live in significant Muslim areas you hear ads on local radio with 0800 numbers urging people to report.

      • 1649again

        I don’t think it’s practicable or affordable William. One output from the Westminster tragedy is that the police admitted there are 3000 people on the ‘watch list’ as potentially active jihadis in this country, and that’s just the ones they know about. This man wasn’t on it. If you add all Muslim converts and released criminal you’re talking many tens of thousands. It would require the entire police force of the UK and more to monitor them full time.

        • William Lewis

          Agreed that there are finite resources for this and constant tracking for everyone is not possible. But the patterns are there and this man was known, but considered a low risk. Perhaps lessons need to be learned from his particular profile but we don’t know how many plots have been foiled through preventative measures and we cannot expect that every single outrage will be defeated, however much money we throw at it.

        • Kick them all out and never let them back in. Never mind if they’ve been born in the UK, they are not loyal to the UK.

    • 1649again

      What the Spanish and Portuguese did. They learnt the hard way and we’ve forgotten the lessons.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya, Turkey live daily with acts of random violence and no doubt Iran does too. There is a chaos in Islam based on Suppression and focus on the Outsider. There is no emphasis on rationality – there see what got Pope Benedict into hot water at Regensburg !

      It is random violence which Western minds seek to form into a pattern because they fear random violence especially physical violence by a suicidal killer. It rocks Western society to its foundations – what seems senseless, irrational, rocks the foundations of Western systemised society and that is how it succeeds. It is Nihilistic.

      Nihilism is powered by drug-abuse and pointlessness seeking transcendence in some act of explosive cathartic violence.

      • Lucius

        It seems irrational to Western society because our intelligentsia patronizingly views Islamic terrorism through the lens of a secular-materialistic culture. Why do you think most major media focuses on the lack of economic opportunity and education as the primary forces driving Islamic terrorism in the West? If only these Muslims were well-educated with high-paying jobs the reasoning goes, then this would eliminate Muslim hostility to Western culture. It is inconceivable to the Western intellectual that a person may place greater value in something other than a well-paying job and access to the latest digital media gadgets. Because of this folly, the Western mind sees Islamic terrorism superficially and not for what it is, a true clash of civilizations.

        • Paul Greenwood

          I understand a high proportion of bomb-makers etc are unemployed engineers. Societies training for high status jobs with no open jobs. That in itself is a warning in Western society with mounting student debt for unemployables

    • Paul Greenwood

      You might be on SSRIs and get access to a handgun or a rifle like so many killings in USA. The Media never mentions the SSRIs nor how many school children are mass-medicated in US schools

      http://www.naturalnews.com/025826_Antidepressants_school_shootings.html

      http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/02/25/legal-system-rules-antidepressants-cause-kids-to-kill.aspx

      What they discovered is that many people being treated with antidepressants can’t metabolize them due to common genetic mutations, which can cause severe drug interactions and akathisia (a movement disorder characterized by a feeling of inner restlessness). Some researchers and physicians believe that akathisia is the chief symptom that triggers impulsive violence in certain individuals who take antidepressant drugs. This is thought to be an extreme form of akathisia. Homicidal impulses and murderous behavior due to akathisia is now being called “homicidal akathisia.”

  • Phaedrus

    It appears that neither religion of peace er… Pacified him.

    • Paul Greenwood

      No but a 9mm bullet did. Quite why PC Keith Palmer, former Gunner in RA, was not an armed police officer on patrol is something I find in need of clarification.

      • William Lewis

        British policemen don’t carry arms.

        • Paul Greenwood

          SO1 does. There are more armed officers than you imagine. Stop thinking of Dixon of Dock Green. They use H&K G36 and MP5

          • William Lewis

            How many armed officers do I imagine?

          • Paul Greenwood

            Zero from your comment above

        • They’re ‘armless.

          • William Lewis

            mostly

        • Paul Greenwood

          Lots of AFOs do and ARVs certainly have them and SO1 is fully armed and SCO19 is heavily armed with the following:

          The most common firearms employed by British armed units are the Glock 17 9mm pistol, the Heckler and Koch (H&K) MP5SF 9mm (single fire) carbine and the H&K G36C (single fire) 5.56mm carbine.

          Pistols

          Glock 17 – This 9mm pistol, now also the standard UK military sidearm, is the most commonly-field police handgun

          Sig Sauer P250 – 9mm pistol employed by the Cleveland Police and Essex Police

          Walther P99 – carried by Nottinghamshire Police AFOs.

          Sig Sauer P226 – 9mm used by Northamptonshire Police and Kent Police

          M&P40 – pistol in .40S&W used by Greater Manchester Police Tactical Firearms Unit.

          Sig Pro 250 – 9mm pistol used by Essex Police.

          Carbines

          H&K MP5SF – 9mm carbine, single-fire version.

          H&K G36C – 5.56mm semi-automatic carbine. The G36C-SF and the MP5SF are the most commonly carried armed response unit carbines.

          H&K G36K – big brother of the G36C. Used by North Yorkshire Police Firearms Support Unit (FSU)

          Sig 552 Commando – short-barrelled 5.56mm carbine used by Derbyshire Police

          LMT Defender – AR-15 clone carried by AFOs in the combined Cheshire / North Wales area. The Defender is also carried by British Transport Police (BTP) on patrols of railway stations and by their armed response unit.

          H&K HK53 – 5.56mm semi-auto carbine used by Cumbria Police and Glasgow Police.

          H&K HK416C – Hampshire Constabulary & Thames Valley Police Tactical Firearms Department

          Sig SG516 – 5.56mm carbine used by SCO19 Tactical Support Teams and CTSFOs.

          Sniper / Marksman Rifles

          Tikka T3 Rifle Bolt Action Rifle – Used by Essex Police, Northumbria Police

          H&K 417 – semi-automatic 7.62mm x 51mm rifle – Used by Essex Police

          Blaser 93 – German-made bolt-action rifle used by Avon & Somerset Police.

          Shotguns

          Remington 870 – 12-gauge pump action

          Benelli M1- semi-auto 12-gauge

          Benelli Nova/Super Nova – used by Essex Police

          Less-than-Lethal Weapons

          H&K L104A12 37mm launcher, a ‘riot gun’ that fires an Attenuating Energy Projectile (AEP), otherwise known as a ‘plastic bullet’. Fitted with L18A1/2 sight.

          X25 Taser – fires high voltage wires attached to darts in order to incapacitate the suspect.

      • Phaedrus

        I think it’s long overdue that all police officers are armed.

        • Paul Greenwood

          • Phaedrus

            I used to be a cop… Never armed though.

  • The Explorer

    Peter Hitchens makes the point that many recent committers of atrocities have been seriously into drugs. His argument is that drugs have been a stronger factor than Islam in what ensued; some of the perpetrators have been ‘Muslim’ in an ethnic rather than religious sense, social dropouts acting as lone wolves. ISIS know nothing about them before the event, and simply claim the credit after a successful atrocity.

    There’s probably some truth in it, but there are so many non-Muslim drug abusers, one would have expected a few atrocities from them as well if the drugs-rather-than-Islam theory were correct.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Depends on brain chemistry. Not everyone reacts the same way to drugs, legal or otherwise. It depends how long and at what strength. Cannabis today is far stronger than 30 years ago and more people are using it from a younger age for longer periods.

      He was also using crack cocaine and abusing steroids. Maybe the autopsy should dissect his brain and see what is unusual.

      Ulrike Meinhof of the Bader-Meinhof gang changed personality after an op to remove a tumour in 1962 which was unsuccessful; her father had been a Nazi. What reason would provide the clearest motive for her murder spree ?

    • Dominic Stockford

      You are right, and there have been a few. Mainly in the US, going round schools shooting up the defenceless. But a few in Europe too, chap in Norway, and chap up North in the UK last year. There is a correlation with drug use, and this should be looked into. My personal belief is that the use of the drugs isn’t the direct cause, but does enable the user (By de-sensitisation, or whatever) to commit acts that they would not have done were they not taking drugs. The ultimate cause is the same however, their belief system.

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      I don’t think you can be a muslim in an ethnic sense…a cultural sense yes, but not an ethnic one, surely

      • Dominic Stockford

        Definitely not. ‘Muslim’ is not a race, neither is ‘Islam’. Either that or something odd is going on with the very very white skinned Muslim lady in Tesco in Teddington yesterday.

      • Inspector General

        Mrs Proudie, as you say, but we must all realise that for some ethnics, Islam remains a most attractive of religions for them. It appeals to their tastes, one of which is no particular love for their fellow man, even their own kind.

        If we can’t appreciate that, we might as well forget about any attempts to prevent similar from happening again. If we CAN appreciate the connection than the question must be asked: Why no ban on them coming into our country. Surely indigenous lives are more valued than where these wanderers end up in their search to escape the wretchedness of the place they were born in.

        All pretty simple stuff really. It’s one or the other…

      • The Explorer

        Shorthand. When all the world is in submission to Allah, the ethnicity of believers will be irrelevant. Currently in Britain, some ethnicities are more Islamic than others.

        Actually, since purists say the Quran is valid/perfect/whatever only in Arabic, ethnicity may not be an irrelevance. Even when the whole world is Islamic, there may still be a pecking order.

        • Anton

          In the early Islamic invasions out of Arabia there was tension between the Muslim clerics and generals, because if somebody conquered claimed to convert to Islam then he could not have his property and land stolen… or could he? What soon happened was that he had to swear allegiance not only to Allah but also to an Arab overlord.

  • 1649again

    Some on secular sites get it. Seems quite a few Christians don’t.

    Avatar
    Michael J Arthur Puffin • 18 minutes ago
    They say he was a violent Christian before becoming a violent Muslim. Correct but violent Christians go to hell and jihadi recruiters target then encourage the violent by saying they and their family will go to heaven
    4 • Reply•Share ›

    Avatar
    Gordon Brown, Prime Minister Michael J Arthur Puffin • 14 minutes ago
    Did he murder four people as a violent Christian?
    5 • Reply•Share ›

  • 1649again

    Another citation for yesterday’s visitor who doubted opinion polls that demonstrate that sympathy for jihadist terrorism is widespread among European based Muslims. So much so that the full report has been suppressed until after the French elections.

    http://www.infowars.com/study-one-third-of-young-muslims-in-france-think-terrorism-is-acceptable/

  • 1649again

    Another poll and citation for our visitor. Still think we don’t have an existential problem?

    A survey was conducted by ICM Research for the Channel 4 documentary,
    “What British Muslims Really Think,” which aired on April 13 2016. The
    615-page survey found that more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathise
    with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts.
    Moreover, only one in three British Muslims (34%) would contact the
    police if they believed that somebody close to them had become involved
    with jihadists. In addition, 23% of British Muslims said Islamic Sharia
    law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations.”

    Salisbury Review 23/3/2017

    • Paul Greenwood

      Bet they didn’t interview many Muslim women !

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      Perhaps the next survey should be “What native Britons non-muslim really think”

      • 1649again

        That’s what the elite is terrified to have vocalised.

  • Hail Mohammed

    Afro-Caribbeans are disproportionately violent criminals. They are not British and should not be admitted to Britain.

    Islam simply gave this non-British person a focus for his anger. Rivers of Blood, indeed.

    • Paul Greenwood

      The experience in Brixton and Kingstown bears this out. They only came to the UK in 1950s because the US banned them after experience in NYC

  • 1649again

    They won’t stop pushing. Film of impromptu Muslim prayers in Westminster Abbey grounds, presumably sanctified, thereby taking a muslim claim to one of our most cherished churches. What does His Grace think of this and what do our wet lettuce Bishops have to say?

    https://twitter.com/IanPTrait/status/845947212240752641

    • Paul Greenwood

      Westminster Abbey was Roman Catholic, now C of E (whatever than might nowadays entail) and may one day be the Hagia Sophia of Northern Europe

      • IanCad

        What sort of time frame do you have in mind? I cannot see it happening unless this land of Drake and Hawke and Nelson. Of Cromwell, of Clive. Of Burke, of Pitt. Of Wellington and Livingstone. Of The Inspector General – This land of law and liberty has become so degenerate and emasculated as to be beyond all hope of redemption.

        • Lucius

          Time frame if current demographic trends hold, I would put at or about 2100 when the Muslim population hits critical mass and asserts social and political hegemony in Britain. Not our future, but our grandchildren’s future.

          • IanCad

            Given a current Muslim population of 2 million, it would require an annual increase of about 4% to reach a majority.
            Let’s kick the can down the road – that’s the easy thing to do.

        • bluedog

          The current policy settings ensure the oblivion of the British state in the form we know. At some point there needs to be a change for the state to survive. What then will be the catalyst, and will the political class adapt in order to retain control?

          • Anton

            We have yet to have our 9/11. After that, a lot of freedom will go, but the authorities might begin to open their eyes with enough nudging from the people.

          • bluedog

            Given the efficiency of the security services a 9/11 seems unlikely. But given the porosity of the British coastline it surprises this writer that we haven’t seen a high profile assassination.

          • IanCad

            Darn it bluedog – I’m good at blowing the trumpet but not so great at offering solutions.

          • bluedog

            Yes, Theresa.

        • Paul Greenwood

          You have lost some towns already and parts of some cities. It is the boiling frog

          • IanCad

            Hmmmm—-.

    • Lucius

      This is a troubling video. It is crystal clear that Western notions of tolerance are being exploited to advance a cultural and religious conquest. Tolerance may be a cultural attribute, but extreme tolerance can also be a cultural and civilizational liability. Had Christians engaged in similar behavior at any mosque (much less one of significance) is there any doubt they would have been murdered or prosecuted if in virtually any majority-Muslim country or universally condemned by the intelligentsia (and polite society) if in virtually any Western country?

    • Surely it’s merely a development of the via media?

      • William Lewis

        No, it’s an example of religious syncretism.

    • Anton

      When they tried that trick a few years ago in the former Great Mosque of Cordoba, now a Catholic church, the response was immediate.

  • Paul Greenwood

    The Palace of Westminster Division (SO17) was a branch of the Specialist Operations Directorate within London’s Metropolitan Police Service. SO17 was responsible for security at the Palace of Westminster, where the two houses of the UK Parliament meet, as well as for the rest of the Parliamentary Estate.[1] Officers of SO17 were unarmed, as were the rest of the service, with armed security being provided by the Diplomatic Protection Group (SO6). In April 2015, SO6 and SO17 merged to form the Parliamentary and Diplomatic Protection Command.

    The type of BMW Fallon has with SO1 Protection and officers armed with Glock 17 with 17 rounds.. It is so fortunate that Fallon was getting into his car and his armed bodyguard could take action

    • bluedog

      The refusal to arm the cops is an act of gross irresponsibility and dereliction of duty by the Parliament.

      Of course there is a reason that goes beyond that given. It’s simply that the politicians know multi-culturalism in its Islamic form has destroyed social cohesion and the Queen’s Peace. A very serious internal security threat has now evolved that is coming to dominate every aspect of British life.

      To arm the police is an admission of utter failure, and as such, not an option. Police must die in order to relieve the political class from confronting their stupidity.

      • Paul Greenwood

        I think they have been saving budget costs. Armed police cost more and they use ARVs across London rather than AFOs. You need police for arrest powers but they should bring in N Irish policemen who are weapons trained

        • bluedog

          No idea what an ARV or an AFO is. Don’t see why you can’t carry a firearm in any police vehicle. The reason given for the Parliament’s rejection of arming the police on the gates was that it looked bad. Quite agree. So how did they let things get to this stage and when do they do something effective? Once the Muslims start topping the cops on a random basis, or once a leading politician is assassinated, the message may get through.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Armed Response Vehicle carries more than a handgun and circulates. Do you really think police vehicles are big enough and secure enough to carry an armoury ?

            “ARVs are identifiable in London by a yellow dot sticker, visible from each angle, and an asterisk on the roof to enable helicopters to identify the vehicle as being an ARV.”

            You really want all policemen to be like this ?

          • bluedog

            Of course not, but you are over-dramatising things. Police can easily carry a hand-gun in a holster and travel in a normal patrol car with a hand-gun. There is no need for a mobile armoury, which represents an over-engineered solution to a non-problem. If a situation deteriorates, specialist police with heavier weapons than a Glock can be deployed. It’s surprising to read that different police forces are equipped with a range of very different weapons. You would think the Home Office would prefer standardisation.

          • Paul Greenwood

            There is no standardisation in German police either – some use H&K P9 others have Walther P99

  • Dominic Stockford

    Jesus Christ gave his life in order that others may have life, his followers imitate him – therefore true Christians do not go round killing in the name of Christ or to further the Christian church.

    “Then he called his disciples and the crowds to come over and listen. “If any of you wants to be my follower,” he told them, “you must put aside your selfish ambition, shoulder your cross, and follow me. If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for my sake and for the sake of the Good News, you will find true life.”
    Mark 8:34-35

    • Sarky

      Try telling that to Guy Fawkes (the first christian terrorist)

      • Inspector General

        When it comes to terrorising Christians, he pales into insignificance when compared to Henry VIII

        • bluedog

          Henry VIII remained Catholic in his beliefs until his death.

          • Inspector General

            Think the word you’re looking for Bluedog is ‘unrepentant’. Though it is said he did regret murdering his childhood pal, T More.

          • It’s said he repented on his death bed for his sins.

          • Cressida de Nova

            A lot of things are said….There seem to be a lot of said death bed repentances for Catholics turned bad….must make Stockford a little nervous, don’t you think:)

          • Anton

            Consistency, good lady! To you he is still Father Stockford.

          • It certainly should ….

          • Anton

            In that era, everybody repented on their deathbed for their sins! How specific, and what source?

          • chiaramonti

            I suspect he was particularly exercised by the judicial murder of the monks of the Charterhouse. 18 of them died, either through execution or tied to stakes in prison and left to starve to death.Henry, on one account, was said to have murmured,”Monks, monks, monks” as he lay dying. Perhaps John Houghton and his fellows were standing round his bedside? Ready to lead him to…?

          • Anton

            I can’t shed tears for More. Archbishop Fisher of Rochester was a far more principled Catholic whom Henry put to death.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Henry VIII broke with the faith and was officially excommunicated
            by the Pope. He still retained the title DOF (his own version)by the English Parliament not by the Pope. He created a religious adaptation to suit his own profligate needs. A religion made to suit the carnal appetites of a serial murderer. That is your heritage.

          • bluedog

            ‘A religion made to suit the carnal appetites of a serial murderer. That is your heritage.’ Indeed, and is it not wonderful that so much Christian witness has derived from such sin? The Lord moves in mysterious ways.

          • chiaramonti

            It is conservatively estimated that Henry VIII was responsible for the deaths (outside wars against France and Scotland) of about 150,000 individuals.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            On 30th July 1540, Henry VIII staged a particularly theatrical execution. Six men were tied to three carts, one Protestant and one Catholic on each, to be taken to execution.

            On reaching their final earthly destination, the Protestants were burned, and the Catholics were hanged. What does one make on that?

            See Robert Barnes (martyr) – Wikipedia

          • bluedog

            He had a bad fall jousting and was unconscious for quite some time. His behaviour subsequently seems to have been psychotic.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            What year did that happen? That could be worth following up.

          • bluedog

            The fall was on 24th January 1536. Henry was unconscious for two hours. Boleyn was pregnant at the time and miscarried a son five days later.

      • Freedom fighter determined to bring an end to persecution of Catholics and Protestant hegemony in England. Besides, it was a government-inspired fabrication created by double-agents to use in the propaganda war against Catholics – who were portrayed as an alien force that could rise up at any moment on papal orders, overthrow the Crown and eradicate English Protestantism.

        • Royinsouthwest

          What about Queen “Bloody” Mary? And, during the Second World War, the Ustaša in Croatia, a Roman Catholic fascist movement that supported the Nazis?

          • What about them?

          • Royinsouthwest

            They are examples of perpetrators of Catholic inspired atrocities. (I realise they were only nominally Christian). The example of Bloody Mary shows the English Protestants were right to fear Catholics supported by foreign powers.

          • And the Catholics were right to fear the Protestants.

          • Anton

            I suggest you compare the number of Catholic martyrs under Elizabeth before and after Regnans in Excelsis. By his hubris Pius V wrought a change for the worse on English Catholics by telling them that they could not be good Englishmen. Do you still agree with that principle today?

          • In principle, no. A Monarch crowned and receiving legitimacy from the Church as ruling by the authority of God, can have that legitimacy withdrawn. Whether it’s a wise move will depend on particular circumstances. On this occasion it resulted in the deaths and persecution of many innocent Catholics.

            Popes Pius XI and Pius XII are criticised for not issuing Bulls condemning fascist regimes in Germany and Italy and calling on Catholics to rebel. The Church learned from the Elizabethan precedent.

          • Anton

            Pius XI could hardly issue a bull condemning Mussolini having accepted the man’s money, could he?

          • Yes, he could have once Nazi Germany began slaughtering Jews and other minorities and Italy became an ally. The Lateran Treaty was signed in 1929. Italy’s anti-Jewish laws came into force in 1938. However, to do so would have resulted in persecution of Catholics and the Church.
            Just to remind you, Popes are not infallible in the realm of politics.

          • Anton

            Ah, sorry, I had clean forgotten that.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Magdeburg 1631

          • 1649again

            Weren’t the Ustasa so brutal that they sickened even the SS, and didn’t they work with Muslim militias to exterminate Orthodox Serbs? Perhaps HJ is dreaming of a repeat only this time the victims are Protestant Britons?

          • carl jacobs

            Perhaps HJ is dreaming of a repeat only this time the victims are Protestant Britons?

            So perhaps that is ridiculous.

          • 1649again

            It’s called humour Carl.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Pavelic still got protection from UK and USA though they had let the Communists under Tito do the fighting against Pavelic and the Axis. Let the Communists do the fighting then look after the Fascists post war

          • Anton

            Pavelic lived in Catholic church houses in Rome for nearly three years after the war and moved between buildings with bodyguards in cars with Vatican plates.

          • Paul Greenwood

            The pipeline that ran the rats out to South America was run by Montini who was blackmailed by MI6 over homosexuality to let OSS and MI6 feed their favoured ones into the pipeline

        • Maalaistollo

          Are you saying that the papal bull ‘Regnans in Excelsis’ (1570) was also an [English] government-inspired fabrication, when it declared Elizabeth I, ‘the pretended Queen of England and the servant of crime’, to be a heretic and released all her subjects from any allegiance to her, even when they had sworn oaths of allegiance, and excommunicated any that obeyed her orders? If not, was it not entirely reasonable for the English government to regard this bull as making all Roman Catholics ‘an alien force that could rise up at any moment on papal orders, overthrow the Crown and eradicate English Protestantism?’ I suppose you’ll now tell us that wasn’t the intention of the bull at all, but it should rather be regarded as an early example of ‘good disagreement’ or, at worst, a rather robust piece of ecumenical dialogue.

          • That applied to Elizabeth I, not her successorJames.

          • Maalaistollo

            You are certainly talking bull! Doubt if it looked like that at the time, when James was (a) the lawful successor of Elizabeth I and (b) a Protestant, unless you’re saying that a corrective bull was issued, limiting the application of the first to Elizabeth I.

          • The Bull was specific to Elizabeth I:

            “Elizabeth, the pretended queen of England and the servant of crime, has assisted in this, with whom as in a sanctuary the most pernicious of all have found refuge. This very woman, having seized the crown and monstrously usurped the place of supreme head of the Church in all England to gather with the chief authority and jurisdiction belonging to it, has once again reduced this same kingdom- which had already been restored to the Catholic faith and to good fruits- to a miserable ruin.”

        • Cressida de Nova

          Ignore D Stockford. Imagine walking in his shoes. Shudder !

          • Sarky

            Shoes?? Pretty sure you mean sandles!!

      • IanCad

        Hardly the first; the Babington Plot was twenty years prior.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Guy Fawkes was a potential regicide

    • So what is the Protestant-led Ku Klux Klan? They engaged in arson, beatings, destruction of property, lynching, murder, rape, tar-and-feathering, whipping and intimidation, targeting African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and other social or ethnic minorities.Klan members have an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology. Their goals include an intent to re-establish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible. Klansmen cross-burnings demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the include prayer and hymn singing.

      Then there’s The Army of God, formed in 1982, a Christian terrorist organization that has engaged in the use of anti-abortion violence. In addition to numerous property crimes, the group has committed acts of kidnapping, attempted murder, and murder.

      One mustn’t forget The Covenant, the Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, a far right political organization dedicated to Christian Identity active in the United States during the 1970s and early 1980s. This developed from a Baptist congregation and evolved into an extremist paramilitary organization.

      • Lucius

        Calling the KKK “Protestant-led” is a gross misrepresentation of historical fact. The KKK was a reactionary organization created to combat what it viewed as a hostile occupation by Union forces following the Civil War. In other words, it was in reality a Confederate insurgent movement of sorts following the South’s loss to the North in the Civil War. It’s principal purpose was to overthrow Republican-led Southern state governments and reverse course on laws protecting the newly freed black American population. It’s also worth noting that not a single Protestant denomination in the South endorsed the KKK at any time. It’s links to any particular Church were tenuous at best.

        In any event, your attempts at drawing some type of equivalence of morality and magnitude between the groups you cite and modern Islamic terrorist is pure folly.

        • 1649again

          Welcome to HJ’s habitual use of sophistry, moral equivalence where the Protestants are always guilty, and intellectual dishonesty.

          • David

            It’s all too predictable.

          • Dominic Stockford

            I think he has had some sort of breakdown – after the comments about FGM he came out with it seems the only answer. He is certainly not a happy man at all.

          • David

            This blog attracts Christians with a wide range of theological convictions. Thankfully we are all happy to defend our particular position whilst exhibiting generosity towards those who see the faith differently. So too much of the “I’m right and you’re wrong” approach is undesirable.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The Bible is right. If you disagree with it, you are wrong. So there. I blow raspberries at those who get so indiscriminately ecumenical that they won;t allow others to declare the truth regarding faith can only be one thing. I don;t come here to allow others to remain unknowing of that truth. ‘Nah nah na nah nah’.

          • 1649again

            I agree David, but Jack and his gang increasingly give the impression of not having moved on from the 16th century and to be happier attacking Protestants than speaking out on non-Christian wickedness. I’ve never quite got over his unwillingness to condemn the burning of heretics or his willingness to hand FGM’d girls back to their abusers. I know that he is grossly unrepresentative of 98% of RC’s who are just fellow Christians and fellow sinners like the rest of us.

          • Anton

            Not moved on from the 16th century? He once described the feudal system here as the best known to man.

          • 1649again

            He’s in love with absolutism, clerical, political, social.

            When you encounter RCs like Jack it becomes clear why Nazism and Fascism arose and prospered in RC nations and struggled to make much headway in Protestant ones. Even in Germany it was the RC south like Bavaria that provided a disproprtionate amount of support for Hitler and the Protestant Prussia officer class that was most sceptical and resistant.

          • bluedog

            Of course, the leader of the July Plot against Hitler, von Stauffenberg, was a Catholic aristocrat, as were other plotters. An exception which may prove your rule.

          • bluedog

            Time, increasing cash-flow, Confession and a raft of Hail Marys will solve most problems.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Given that none of those things are Biblical answers to problems, and none of those things are what Jesus tells us will solve anything whatsoever, they won’t.

          • bluedog

            Just winding up Holy Jack.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Ummm…. good…..!

        • Cressida de Nova

          The Protestant Churches may not have officially endorsed the KKK but the Churches the KKK attended on Sunday were Protestant Churches..They are not Catholics Jews or Blacks. They are Protestants.

          • bluedog

            Southern Baptists, Ma’am.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Were they Baptist or Congregationalist or Presbyterian or Anglican or Methodist ?

          • Lucius

            Going from some KKK members attended Protestant Churches to the KKK was “Protestant-led” is a massive leap in logic and one that is unsupported by the historical record. It would be analogous to saying most Nazis attended Lutheran Churches, therefore Nazism was “Lutheran-led.” It’s pure rubbish.

        • Paul Greenwood

          “what it viewed as a hostile occupation by Union forces following the Civil War.”

          I think most objective observers would agree what Carpetbaggers and the Union did to the South was rapacious and created animosity to the present day. What Sherman did in Georgia has its modern parallels.

      • Anton

        Stop being silly Jack, you know perfectly well that self-defined protestants and self-defined Catholics did their utmost to murder each other in Northern Ireland. I don’t believe that a single one of those terrorists was Christian at that time, although some witness that they are now.

        • They may have been nominal Catholics or Protestants, but in Northern Ireland this was more a cultural definition than a religious one. Their aims were political and they never claimed to be acting for Christ. The groups Jack posted, all committed terrorists acts in te name of God.

          • Anton

            Without question the KKK were simple racists who co-opted the name of God (please note: NOT “co-opted God”). I see no essential difference between that and either set of terrorists in Northern Ireland.

          • The IRA were a socialist, nationalist organisation and not a religious group. Unlike the three terrorist identified by Jack, they made no demands of a religious nature and never claimed to be acting in God’s name.

          • Anton

            Klan members have an explicitly Protestant Christian terrorist ideology. Their goals include an intent to re-establish Protestant Christian values in America by any means possible. Klansmen cross-burnings demonstrate their respect and reverence for Jesus Christ, and the include prayer and hymn singing.

            You know, they remind me of the Inquisition.

            I am more than willing to add the men of violence of the KKK and of the Inquisition to the terrorists of the IRA and the UDA as people whom I strongly doubt had personal knowledge of Jesus Christ.

          • 1649again

            Didn’t they more recently set up their own Identity churches which incorporated elements of nazism because they couldn’t get any support from any mainstream churches?

          • Unlike the IRA, the KKK claimed they were acting as agents of God. The movement was started by a Protestant minister. One notices similar attitudes expressed on here towards Muslims as those of the KKK in the 1920’s towards Catholics and in the 1960’s towards Afro-Americans.

          • Lucius

            Your continued insistence that the KKK was somehow “Protestant-led” is both ahistorical and unsubstantiated. Indeed, the Federal Council of Churches (an ecumenical association of Protestant Churches in America) roundly condemned the KKK during the KKK’s brief resurgence in the 1920s. See “Ku Klux Disowned By Churches,” The Savannah Tribune, 37:52 (October 12, 1922).

            Initially formed as a reactionary organization to Union-imposed Republican state governments in the South, the KKK in its second incarnation in the 1920s, was an organization inspired by nothing more than base racism and maintaining a southern status quo that treated black Americans as second-class citizens. However, as the South was dominated by Protestantism, naturally most KKK members would also be Protestant. But to say it was “Protestant-led” or even “Protestant-inspired” is pure nonsense.

            The racist ideology of the KKK was birthed by an institution of slavery (and all its second and third order effects) given to the New World by its British mother. It had no origin in the words or deeds of Jesus of Nazareth and/or the Church He founded.

            See my below comment for further details.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            you are just uttering NONSENSE unfortunately. Neither the quran nor the Prophet are anything like you describe. You can believe what you want because you WANT to remain in that frame of mind which is called IGNORANCE so you cannot be helped…. just read your post and you will see the double standards you apply.

          • Lucius

            I respectfully disagree. Muhammad and his immediate successors were undoubtedly military conquerors. That much is historically undisputable. It is also historically undisputable that Islam expanded rapidly on the back of military conquest following Muhammad’s death. Muhammad’s example is in sharp contrast to that of Jesus of Nazareth, regardless of your opinion of Jesus’ divinity. Further, Christianity during its first 3 centuries expanded exclusively by persuasion within the pagan Roman Empire (where it was subject to sporadic and often violent fits of persecution). Here as well, this is in sharp contrast to the initial expansion of Islam, which was by military conquest. This is undisputable historical fact. You can spin the early Islamic conquests as wars of “defense” or God-inspired conquest, but you cannot escape the historical record.

            If my position is unsupported by the historical record, please explain. I am open to fair arguments, and I mean that with all respect and in all sincerity.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            and they just carried the Cross for fun …no???

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          So it is easy to say that “those terrorists were NOT Christian at that time…” BUT ALL terrorists are automatically “Muslim”????? wow! same double standards still hold eh?

      • len

        Thank God we Catholics are not like those Protestants, we only tortured maimed and killed in the name of our god….But wait a minute isn`t that what IS does?.

        • Christians throughout history, whether Catholic and Protestant, have all killed in the name of God.

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      You are right Sir Dominic Stockford. Christians did ALL their killing put together in the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition and and and (insert anything you want like killing the American Indians in the name of Converting them to Christianity, or creating Famines in Ireland under the guise of trying to control them, or invading Hindustan under the guise of business with the East India Company) Do you want me to continue???;;;;;.. Sir! People have short term memories and they forget what they did.

      • Dominic Stockford

        The Christian Middle East came under terrible attack from mohammed and his mates, seeking to take over by the sword. Christians sought to defend themselves and Jews. Some came from abroad to help them. Some went over the top, but those who did so demonstrated that they did not have either true faith or the self-control that the Bible and Jesus teaches. But when you’re being slaughtered it can be difficult to keep control.

        No-one killed the Native Americans in the guise of converting them – you’ve clearly not heard of David Brainerd, or others like him.

        No-one ‘created’ famines in Ireland to create control, though they may not have managed the situation very well when the weather and potato mites started the problem.

        The East India Company was not a Christian organisation.

        Short term memories? You’ve clearly forgotten the many terrorist attacks by muslims over the last 15 years, across the entire world.

        Much as I may deserve it, I am not a knight of the realm.

  • Lucius

    “[W]e know that democracy — and the values it entails — will always prevail.” – PM May, responding to London attack.
    **********************************************************************************************************
    Herein lies a subtle problem. What “values” does “democracy” actually “entail”? Webster’s defines democracy, in relevant part, as “a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly….” In short, democracy is not a system of “values,” but rather, it is a system of governing. And if democracy were a system of “values,” then it’s god would be the will of a fickle majority or in some cases, a militant minority. As we have seen from the Soviet example, placing morality within a system of government can produce decidedly immoral results. In any event, I suspect that “democracy” as a quasi-value system will collapse for want of foundation. What will fill the vacuum?

    • bluedog

      Tyranny. And then the cycle repeats until the return of the current state of ochlocracy, or universal suffrage as we call it.

  • Inspector General

    Chaps. Ethnics can be hilarious. It takes a lot these days to set an Inspector off laughing uncontrollably, so read this…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-39351167
    “…. Or nine-year-old Komasi, whose name means “kill him”, and his little brother Komaniso, aka “kill him also”.

    • Dreadnaught

      A bit like American indians naming the kids after an event at the time if their birth such a Sitting Bull, Morning Star or Farting Moose and the like.

      • Inspector General

        The real names of Red Indian leaders who were at the Battle of the Little Bighorn…(keeping well away from Dog-with-Horn might be an idea)…

        Hunkpapa: Sitting Bull, Four Horns, Crow King, Chief Gall, Black Moon, Rain-in-the-Face, Moving Robe Women, Spotted Horn Bull, Iron Hawk, One Bull, Bull Head, Chasing Eagle
        Sihasapa: Crawler, Kill Eagle
        Minneconjou: Chief Hump, Black Moon, Red Horse, Makes Room, Looks Up, Lame Deer, Dog-with-Horn, Dog Back Bone, White Bull, Feather Earring, Flying By
        Sans Arc: Spotted Eagle, Red Bear, Long Road, Cloud Man
        Oglala: Crazy Horse, He Dog, Kicking Bear, Flying Hawk, American Horse the Elder, Chief Long Wolf, Black Elk, White Cow Bull, Running Eagle, Black Fox II
        Brule: Two Eagles, Hollow Horn Bear, Brave Bird
        Two Kettles: Runs-the-Enemy
        Dakota Sioux

        Lower Yanktonai: Thunder Bear, Medicine Cloud, Iron Bear, Long Tree
        Wahpekute: Inkpaduta, Sounds-the-Ground-as-He-Walks, White Eagle, White Tracking Earth
        Northern Cheyenne

        Northern Cheyenne: Two Moons, Wooden Leg, Old Bear, Lame White Man†, American Horse, Brave Wolf, Antelope Women, Thunder Bull Big Nose, Yellow Horse, Little Shield, Horse Road, Bob Tail Horse, Yellow Hair, Bear-Walks-on-a-Ridge, Black Hawk, Buffalo Calf Road Woman, Crooked Nose, Noisy Walking†
        Arapaho

        Arapahoes: Waterman, Sage, Left Hand, Yellow Eagle, Little Bird

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          This is what happens, You make FUN of other Cultures, demonize them, degrade them and then it makes it EASY to kill or totally annihilate them eh? They are not humans, they are Two Eagles, or Red Bear or or or??!! Wow! No wonder Humanity did NOT EVOLVE at all. Sorry for this state of affairs dear Lord, we have failed You.

          • Inspector General

            Unfortunately, we behave as our creator intended us to behave. He could have given us all IQs of 120, but didn’t. So there you have it. You do realise we are here to entertain the Almighty, don’t you. Much of humanity gets precious little out of life. Death, War, Famine, Disease mainly. And if that isn’t enough, there is Islam.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            NOPE, do not agree with you Mr. Inspector General. God created us and gave us FREE will. Sent messengers to GUIDE us. From Adam to Noah, to Moses, to Jesus to Muhammed AND a plethora of others in between (like David and Solomon Joseph Abraham and and and and). IF WE, as Humanity did NOT learn, it is OUR fault. No more messengers coming (for muslim, the Quran declared Muhammed as “The Seal of Prophets”) NOW WE are left to defend this Mother Earth and we are TOTALLY destroying it by fighting amongst ourselves. For me? It is VERY difficult to understand the behaviour of my co-religionists (as they call themselves, although I do not agree with them). the Quran is SO CLEAR in the instructions to live a GOOD life and here they go and kill others????? VERY HARD for me to comprehend. Prayers needed. LOL

          • Inspector General

            Ah, glad you mentioned the Koran. We people in the West are, or should that be were, somewhat ignorant of it’s contents. We are not now. Unfortunately, if put into practice in England, it means the end of your Inspector General. You see, he is neither going to bow his knee to your god, or pay that damned tax for the privilege of not being murdered.

            One expects as the carnage grows, you will come to understand what part your co-religionists play in the spread of your Islamic peace.

            Plenty of ex-muslim websites around. Do look.

            Pip! Pip!

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Sir, you can go ahead and denigrate whoever or whatever you want (Quran, Prophet), it will not change their status or anything. And WHY would Inspector General come to an end?? THAT is what I am trying to tell you. Religions (ALL of them) have been MESSED up by people’s greed and political agendas. All 3 of the Abrahamic religions are the SAME. Our Books are the same, our beliefs are the same AND…. IF you are a Refusnik, it is supposed to be YOUR Choice. NO ONE has the authority to either kill you or pay tax (again THAT jizya has been misunderstood – it was a payment for non muslims since Zakaat was collected by the Muslim State and the non muslims did not have to pay that and then in case of War, muslims were obligated to participate BUT non muslims COULD refrain AND THAT was what this Tax was for). The non mulsims MALIGNED it by calling it a PENALTY on them by Muslims. So? it is ALL GREED, POLITICAL and demonizing of the “Other” . This is a Human FLAW. What did Jesus teach us?? The Golden Rule! “Do unto others as you would have them do to you” Prophet Muhammed did the same. Actually ALL Prophets taught us that. But why am I wasting my time?? For someone who already has PRECONCEIVED IDEAS, you will NEVER change your thoughts. I shall conclude with a verse from the Quran, “To you your belief and to me mine” This verse came when the Qureish were offering Muhammed to stop preaching that there is One God to believe in and they would give him all the gold he wanted and share the booties with him but he refused and was tired and upset when God Almighty revealed this verse for him to “Say, O deniers, I do not worship what you worship, nor do you worship what I worship. I will never worship what you worship nor will you ever worship what I worship. You have your way, and I have my way” (chapter 109: verses 1-6) Thank you

          • Inspector General

            No. You are not wasting your time. You have been very informative. Now, you are most likely a kindly thing with the best at heart, but you are a woman. If women were in charge of Islam, then maybe this man could survive. But they are not, and this man before you knows he would have little time left when they came for him in a muslim England. If ever there was to be such a disaster. Such are the ways of the male warrior as he impresses his god.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Sorry Inspector General, I do not understand your comment of “Muslim England”? BUT I am happy that you did not reject my theory. I am not the only one “Kind of heart” Sir, we are ALL supposed to be like that. This War Industry has just become TOO much to bear now. Historically just look how many wars, genocides, holocaust, famines have happened in this world. WHY can humans NOT EVOLVE and put an END to these things AND live in PEACE. I bet if we followed God’s way, we would all be living happily. God’s messages came for ALL of Humanity. They did not come for local communities. Also Inspector General, did you know the real meaning of Islam? It means “Surrender my will to The One Force that surrounds me” When I say that ONLY then am I a true muslim. AND if you observe this phenomena, you will understand that ALL of us humans who believe in God and surrender our wills to The Almighty Force that controls us, we ARE muslims (the verb not the noun). Thank you for listening. AND please understand that WE need to change this world towards PEACE. We Need to Work towards that goal. Lots of good wishes coming your way

          • Inspector General

            Let us say that your warriors have captured the Inspector General. They hold a sword to his throat. Then you arrive and tell them what you have posted tonight. Their leader will say to you “be silent woman, none of this is your concern” and he will tell one of his men to fetch your husband. Your husband arrives and he beats you. Because that is how it must be. That is tradition.

            You are good, in your way, but you are weak. You have the weakness of a compassionate woman. There is no compassion in war.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            LOL LOL LOL you are too funny. “husband beats you because that is how it must be” How DARE he???? I shall beat him first. Where does it say that wives have to be beaten. Inspector, Inspector, Inspector…. you brain has been washed by you know whoooo (the mullas) LOL. No sir. Wives have rights over their husbands even as they (the husbands) have rights over them…. so says the Quran. You know what? if you REALLY want to understand religion, do yourself a favour, now I do not know IF you will be able to find The Message of the Quran by Muhammed Asad at a Library, but you could try. It is a BIG book actually Muhammed Asad was an Austrian Jewish Rabbi’s son who reported for the German Newspaper (forget the name, as my Senior memory fails me), traveled extensively reporting on the 1st world war and later accepted Islam as his belief. Went on to become a great Islamic Scholar and then translated the Quran calling it The Message of the Quran. I just LOVE his translation as he explains things SO well (albeit a few things that I prefer to understand myself through other translations like Leila Bakhtiar’s) He give the History Geography EVERYTHING. I refer to it all the time. I was introduced to his style of writing through his Memoirs in a book called “Road to Makkah” by Muhammed Asad of course. I fell in love with his style of writing and have almost all of his books. Another good read is Karen Armstrong’s “Muhammed, Prophet for our time” Or Lesley Hazelton’s “The First Muslim” OR Prof. Tariq Ramadan’s “In the Footsteps of the Prophet” or Prof. Jeffrey Lang’s “Struggling to Surrender” That is if you like reading. In this Digital age, books have become archaic and no one READS….. UNFORTUNATELY. LOL Okay shall sign off. Ta ta

          • Inspector General

            Ah, women. Do you know, it is said that women spend a great deal of time (and brain) trying to figure out what other women they know are up to and or think. Not so with the male. A male instinctively knows what other males are about, because we are males. We are simple creatures, us males. Thankfully.

            Good night, madam. This concludes our communication on this thread.

      • Inspector General

        Did you know that the famous greeting of a white man by Red Indians, whereby the chief raises his right hand and in a low voice says “How” is thought to come from a couple of centuries ago when these fellows met Englishmen and were asked “How do you do” in formal tone. It appears they took such politeness on board.

        All Americans such as Carl Jacobs could offer afterwards was “you get going, ya damn injun”

        • bluedog

          Out on the wild frontier one suspects the Indian squaws were very welcome. It was only their brothers who were reluctantly dispatched.

        • Anton

          Quite simply, there was an inevitable culture clash between hunter-gatherers and farmers over what it is to occupy land. You can project religious or racial differences onto that clash but this issue was the core of it.

    • Anton

      Reminds me of Hosea’s children.

  • len

    What a sad tragic being man is?

    ‘The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector.’ (Luke 18:11)

    Take out the word ‘Pharisee’ and replace it with’ Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, or ‘Atheist ‘ Muslim’ (whichever fits your personal view best?)

    Have I been guilty of this?.Certainly .Does it achieve anything positive.? Apparently not .

    Christ and Christ alone has the power to redeem and to unite people all else only causes division.I repent of my part in causing division, but not in seeking truth which is only found in Christ.

    • Dominic Stockford

      …through God’s Word, His Revelation of His Truth, His Way to live, and the way to eternal Life with Him.

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      Thank you len. You are right. You are a true Christian, God bless you and keep you happy. I loved the way you put “Take out the word ‘Pharisee’ and replace it with’ Catholic’, ‘Protestant’, or ‘Atheist ‘ Muslim’ (whichever fits your personal view best?)” Absolutely CORRECT.

  • No Fear

    Christians who feel troubled try to atone by behaving more like Jesus. Muslims who feel troubled try to atone by behaving more like Mohammed.

  • DP111

    Moderate Muslim? Radicalised Muslim. That is the debate that has been going on since 9/11. Futile and pointless.

    A Muslim has to support Sharia, and its global enforcement, or he is an apostate. Period. Which makes all Muslims the enemy, even though a majority are quite charming.

    This is our future, and even worse for the next generation, as Muslims will soon outnumber them. It will be for them what it is now for Christians in Islamic countries – to be treated with contempt, hit and kicked and even killed, girls raped and converted to Islam, and our culture treated with disdain, as it has been defeated.

    My contempt for the politicians who have made this, as they sang “Kumbaya, Kumbaya, tolerance, tolerance, Diversity is our strength”, is total.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Drugs….mind-altering drugs……

      • DP111

        Read the Koran and Hadiths, and see its practice, as prescribed. Or look at the history of Islam through the ages. Or for that matter the life of Mohammed. Look at the way Hindus are being systematically driven out of Pakistan. Ditto Sikhs too. Egypt was once a Christian nation, and now Christians are a persecuted minority, and churches burnt. Ditto everywhere else where Islam has gained purchase.

        This sort of ignorance is not good for us, and most importantly, for the persecuted church in the world. Prayer and truth go hand in hand.

        This “idiot” just so happens to be a Jihadi, doing his best for the cause of Islam – drug addled or otherwise.

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          AGAIN, your ignorance mr. hidden face and name, blows me away. HIS-STORY is just THAT history. Who wrote that history??? Do you REALLY know WHAT Muhammed practised? If you knew, you would not write that GARBAGE that you did. Did you know that at the time of the Prophet Muhammed, Christian delegations STAYED at the mosque (since there were no 5 star hotels) and were the Prophet’s guests??? Did you know that they were allowed to do their sermons and their practises within the Prophet’s mosque?? Did you know that when one person urinated IN the mosque and the people around him were getting angry with him, the Prophet STOPPED them and cleaned the urine himself by pouring water over it??? NO, you do NOT otherwise you would not be DEMONIZING him like this. He came (just like Jesus and Moses and Abraham and, and and and) to TEACH us the way to live a good life. NOT the Messengers fault if the people did NOT get their messages and did not follow them????

          • DP111

            Thank you for your reply.

            NOT the Messengers fault if the people did NOT get their messages and did not follow them????

            Indeed. Open Doors website, lists the persecution of Christians going on, mainly in Muslim countries, coming from the government imposed laws, people, or both. It is so harsh, that many of them cannot even show their faces. As for those who leave Islam and become Christians, they fear death. Why is this so?

            So its not just a tiny minority who don’t get the message, but so many Muslim countries, their governments, and the people.

            So we pray for these people, living in fear, unable many a time, not even to flee their persecutors.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Absolutely AGREE with you and the muslims that are perpetrating this atrocity on Christians is HORRIBLE and not the Quran and NOT the Prophet sanctioned it Sir (or Madam). Do not blame the Song, it is the singer that is singing it wrongly. I wish we could sit down and talk face to face and I could explain to you how MANY verses in the Quran teach you love and understanding and teach you HOW to deal with others AND other religions. The whole chapter on Mary, mother of Jesus and Jesus being mentioned 17 + times and Muhammed only a couple of time?? I mean WE are the SAME people if ONLY WE could RECOGNIZE that. Anyway, I DO pray for the Christian being persecuted. May God Almighty guide us all.

          • DP111

            What I find very disturbing is the scale of the of the persecution of Christians in Islamic countries.

            For instance, according to Open Doors, nine of the ten worst offenders of persecution of Christians are Islamic. The one other is North Korea, where the cult of personality is practiced.

            The other nine out of ten, are Islamic countries. Digging a little deeper, the persecution comes from the state, enforcing what it believes is Koranic canon, as well as the people thinking the same. Thus, the misunderstanding is massive in scale. For all practical purposes, unanimous.

            Its a similar situation in almost all Islamic countries, but obviously not to the degree in the top ten. The tragedy is that Muslims in Western countries who come to Christianity, face similar hostility from Muslims in the West, falling foul of an Apostasy law in Islam..

            I do agree with you that we need to work for peace, and I thank you sincerely for praying for the persecuted everywhere in the world. I pray too for all victims of the wars going on in ME countries, waged I believe for geo-political reasons.

            God Bless.

          • Shaheen Ashraf

            Hope and pray to God that all this changes and we STOP hurting each other. Come on! it is 2017, humanity SHOULD have evolved by NOW???? Did you know that I went to see my Imam (2 PhDs in Philosophy and Islamic Philosophy) and he told me “There has NEVER been a killing (historically) of an Apostate. Once there was a miscreant, creating and committing TREASON and THAT was why he was killed. Not that he had left Islam. This is an INVENTION that has been incorporated into the Islamic Laws. The Quran says that there is NO coercion in Islam, the truth shall be distinguished from the false. So how can you kill someone when the Quran says this?” Whenever, my dear DP111, you see these kinds of laws, they are NOT God given, they are human laws. Whichever RELIGION as NO religion teaches bad things and let me share with you what the Quran says about speaking to OTHER religionists. We are supposed to speak with wisdom and justice, kindly and ONLY tell them about our beliefs, it is UP TO THEM to follow or not. Now PLEASE tell me WHICH country, calling themselves Islamic Republics, put that law (Sharia) into motion?????? So you see, WE are subjected to man made laws as God made laws. I wonder WHO had the courage to do this. Certainly our of fear of God’s actions of anger on me, I would NEVER be able to.
            God Bless you too. And as I said earlier, perhaps whenever you have a question about Islam, I would very happily try to answer you. It is people like you and me that have a chance of CREATING understanding and love between our communities. I have STOPPED listening to the media as they only propagate sensationalism. I focus on the muslims forming a ring of security in Pakistan when the Church was attacked by miscreants (and you will have miscreants in ALL religions). I focus on Jews forming a ring outside mosques in Sweden, in France, in USA. THAT is what I like to focus on … HUMANITY. My dad (God bless his soul) used to say HUMAN stands for Helpful, Unassuming, Magnanimus, Amiable, Noble. Now please tell me if we follow that???

    • Michael Black

      Your logic is hopelessly flawed. I fear a conversation upon these subjects may be impossible therefore I will not even make an attempt to do so. Good day.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        thank you and to you too

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      DP111 (nice way to hide behind the veil, hide your real name and not show your face) it is unfortunate that you choose to NOT know what REAL sharia is and fall for the FAKENESS that parades as sharia in this world. REAL sharia is the WAY you rightly conduct yourself in this world with the Golden Rule (I am sure you know what THAT Is?)

  • Malcolm Smith

    This is a familiar story of a bad character who was converted to Islam in prison – with the inevitable result. Thomas Evans was not converted in prison, but when his mother and brother tried to describe his descent into the abyss I noted two things: (a) his problems started when his father deserted him, and (b) his parents gave him no religious instructions. So I shall quote what I wrote at the time, because it is also relevant to this case.

    Apostates such as, for example, the singer, Cat Stevens, who pick up a counterfeit religion while searching for the genuine article, do not normally make fanatics. But a lot of subconscious emotions drive a person’s choice of a belief system. And many people – particularly convicts, but also the dysfunctional – are seriously aggrieved. They carry a chip on their shoulder about the way they think the world has treated them. So, when seeking to fill the God-shaped vacuum, why not choose a religion which rejects the whole of Western civilisation? What better way to cock a snoot at society, authorities, and The System ie your father?

    Now, experience shows that there are plenty of resentful, disaffected young people around ready to sell their souls to whatever ideology will justify the anger and violence in their hearts. In my day, the cause of choice was a violent atheistic religion known as Communism. But now a better one has arrived: one which offers a real god, who will reward with Paradise and 72 super-sexual concubines anyone who kills and dies on his behalf. The Communists could never offer that!

    http://malcolmsmiscellany.blogspot.com.au/2015/11/the-tragedy-of-english-jihadist.html

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      Sir … your ignorance blows me away. You hide it well in your articulation but REALLY SERIOUSLY????? Wow! Apostates such as Cat Stevens??? Judge not, that ye be judged SIR!!!!!
      It is THIS BIGOTRY that is the problem in the world today. EVERY damn person thinks THEIR belief is the BEST and others are apostates (including bloody muslims). IF ONLY they KNEW That God does NOT like boasters and people who are arrogant about their beliefs. The Quran tells you to be humble UNFORTUNATELY people do NOT follow that guidance.

      • Malcolm Smith

        Thank you for your insight, Shaheen. However, I am afraid you miss a bit of the nuances of the English language. An apostate is one who changes his religion (when viewed from the position of the first religion; from the view of the second religion, he is a convert). I don’t call a person an apostate if he was born and grew up as a Muslim and remained a Muslim. However, I give Cat Stevens that label because, whether or not he was ever baptized, he grew up in a Christian society and went over to another religion. He is an apostate from our way of life, at least.
        However, can you fault the logic in the rest of my post ie that many convicts and dysfunctional people ate attracted to Islam because it serves the dual purpose of satisfying their religious instincts, as well as their grievance against society, and the violence in their hearts?

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          of course I will miss the nuance of the English language. You know why? Because it is NOT MY language. It was IMPOSED upon me by the Imperialists. However, we did embrace it But the damage had already been done. Anyway, as you wish to say it. I am NOT going to argue on this thread because I find that the people do NOT have open minds and will ONLY SEE ONE point of view… THEIR view. So thank you.

  • Murti Bing

    When in doubt on any of these matters, it’s always a good idea to go back to original texts and try to lead a life that follows the example set by the one whom we revere.

    A general comparison of the life of one (let’s call him J) with the life of another (let’s call him M) should iron out any doubts and erase the uncertainty regarding the influence behind particular urges.

    • Michael Black

      By a general comparison…Perhaps. Many seem to have come to this conclusion.

      However it is when a more thorough comparison is made that the uncertainty returns and the “wrinkles” of the doubts return, pardon my jest, three-fold.

      This is especially significant in light of the unavoidable fact that Arabic is a highly allegorical language, with degrees of symbolism and nuance that far outpace that of English. It is further complicated by virtue of a certain book, let’s call it Q, having been forbidden to translate outside of Arabic.

      This is precisely why general comparisons, similar to all generalizations, should be avoided at all costs and also why your statement is a tad simplistic at best.

      • Murti Bing

        It would seem there are a great many folk out there who have a lot of trouble with nuance. Shame, really.

      • Anton

        One may understand the quran by learning Arabic and reporting what one finds, may one not? Any non-Muslim scholar may translate it, and likewise any Muslim provided that he does not call the result “the quran” but “a rendering into English of the text of the quran” or some similar phrase. Here are four – and in some places five – English translations of the quran, side by side:

        http://prophetofdoom.net/Qurans.Islam

        Jihad (for instance) is indeed capable of meaning “spiritual effort” rather than “holy war”. We therefore need to see which meaning is meant in context, and also see which meaning Muhammad lived out. Associated with the word in the quran are many verses that call for ‘fighting’ (from qatala, meaning ‘to kill’; e.g. Q8:39, 9:5). And one may read Guillaume’s translation of the Sirat Rasul Allah, the ancient Islamic life of Muhammad which sunni Muslims accept, and learn that he was a man of the sword.

        • Shaheen Ashraf

          Sir or Madam (as the case may be) do I quote to you ALL the VIOLENT verses in the Book of Deutronomy? Go read your bible and you will certainly SEE the violence. And I shall not hold ANYONE accountable for that BECAUSE it was the TIME. The Christian community was a baby and needed to fight hence those verses were revealed. SAME was the case at the time of the revelation of those Quranic verses. I am NOT in the game of nini nana about any kinds of arguments. THINK what you may. The truth shall be visible from the false and that is the Quran verse I follow. Repel evil with goodness, even your enemy shall be your friend, that is the verse I follow. “I have created you from a male and a female and made you into Nations and Tribes so that you KNOW each other” That is the verse I focus on. There are MANY verses in the Quran that one can LEARN to lead a good life from (IF one WANTS to). If not, then YOUR choice. NO RELIGION teaches violence of ANY sort. I believe that from the bottom of my heart. Terrorism has NO religion. IF a terrorist HAD a religion he / she would not kill innocent people. Do NOT forget Governments sometimes CREATE these things to divide and rule. IF we humans fall for it…… God help us. I rest my case.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        I am a pastor and i approve this message https://twitter.com/muslimiq/status/848744792481824770

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      OK Sir, as you say. The J and M are not equal and I am NOT going to argue on this thread anymore because I find that the people do NOT have open minds and will ONLY SEE ONE point of view… THEIR view. So thank you.

  • Frederick Revell

    Other than the probability but not certainty he was baptised there is no record of him being Christian in his adult life but there is evidence of him being a muslim, the police labelled the attack as terrorist and arrested 12 people 2 of which are still in custody one on bail suggests the the influence of Islam is at the centre of his actions.

    However the root of this event and the two religion’s need to be examined. Christ was a man of peace and forgiveness to the point of giving up his own life for everyone. When arrested he scolded his disciple for using his sword and healed the attacked man. He taught his disciples to forgive their enemies.

    Muhammad however was a man of violence. His wars were 624 The Nakhla raid and the beginning of violence in the name of Islam 624 The Battle of Badr: the Muslims overcome great odds to defeat the pagan Meccans 624 Muhammad and the Muslims besiege the Jewish Qaynuqa tribe and exile them from Medina 625 The Battle of Uhud: the pagan Meccans defeat the Muslims 625 Siege and exile from Medina of the Jewish Nadir tribe 627 The Battle of the Trench: the Jewish Qurayzah tribe betrays Muhammad 627 Muhammad beheads the males of the Qurayzah tribe and enslaves the women and children 628 Muhammad concludes the Treaty of Hudaybiyya with the pagan Meccans 628 Muhammad and the Muslims besiege the Khaybar oasis and exile the Jews from it 628 Muhammad is poisoned at Khaybar 630 Muhammad and the Muslims conquer Mecca 630 The Muslims prevail in the Battle of Hunayn and conquer Ta’if; Muhammad becomes the master of Arabia 631 The Arabian tribes remaining outside Islamic rule accept Islam 631 Warfare against the Christians: the expedition to Tabuk 632 Muhammad dies in Medina on June 8

    There is great concern over the Islamic radicalisation of people in prison. There is no suggestion of Christian radicalisation in prisons, my experience of prisoners who become Christians in prison is that most drop it on or soon after release those that remain turn their lives around often working with young people in trouble, helping them to turn their lives around.

    It is offensive to try to make out that Christianity is just as violent as Islam, the is no evidence fir itl

    • Shaheen Ashraf

      Say what you may Sir, we all know what is the Truth and you know what? I am NOT going to argue on this thread because I find that the people do NOT have open minds and will ONLY SEE ONE point of view… THEIR view. So thank you.

  • Shaheen Ashraf

    Thank you Arch Bishop Cranmer for your insight. You cannot fight the demonizing of Muslims but thanks for trying. People will say or believe WHAT they WANT to Believe about Muslims as it SUITS them to demonize someone. Having Patience to BEAR this onslaught on Muslims is TOUGH but God is Great “Allah-o-Akbar” we shall survive this also. I cannot thank you enough for this insightful article God Bless you.

    • And God bless you, too.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        Thank you Sir, It is NOT the musims fault if they are not good singers, it is NOT the fault of the song itself. People need to clarify this point. ALL religions teach us good things if we do not follow it, then it is NOT the religions fault. Thank you for understanding and thank you for your kind blessings. Here in Canada I am invited to speak about different things in Islam and it is my pleasure to go to these Churches and tell them we are NOT different, we only look different but our Source is the Same.

    • len

      Some Muslims kill for their god .Jesus Christ died on the cross(and rose again) for us.
      This is the difference.
      God Bless you.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        OK Sir, if you say so. I agree 100% with you I am NOT going to argue on this thread because I find that the people do NOT have open minds and will ONLY SEE ONE point of view… THEIR view. So thank you.

    • ZX10

      Onslaught ???????? where by who sorry are you talking about justified criticism ? are you talking about calling on you and yours to help stop the horrific death toll taken by those who kill and die with your gods name on their lips ? given the truly disgusting actions metered out on Christians in the middle east every day your bleating about “oh how bad do they treat us ” from total safety and protection is just outstanding

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        Sir! There is oNLY ONE God anyway

    • Lucius

      What “onslaught” on Muslims are you referring too?

    • Arden Forester

      I’ve read a number of your numerous replies on this thread and find them interesting to say the least. Firstly, let me say that conflating the Old Testament with the New as if both are of equal status is wrong. For Christians, Jesus came into the World to redeem it, not to tell us to carry on as before. The Old Testament is prophetical being a historical account of the relationship between God and the Jewish people. The New Testament is about a new relationship with the World and ALL those who believe in Christ.

      There is a whole transformation. So instead of smiting one’s enemies the way now is to turn the other cheek. Forgiveness is paramount. Love is foremost. And as for judgement of souls, that remains to be decided by God.

      The troubling aspect many have about Muhammed is not that he was prophetic. He did indeed see many things as a prophet. But he was also involved personally as a warlord actually fighting in battles and involving himself in the intimate reasoning of war and its consequences. It is this that non-Muslims find troubling. The Battle of Badr, mentioned in the Quran, was particularly bloody and does suggest comparisons with modern day struggles within and without Islam. Are we to say this is of no consequence? “Nothing to do with Islam”?

      Demonising people, any people, is wrong. But questioning motives and outcomes is surely a perfectly reasonable thing.

      • Lucius

        Good post. But I have a couple requests for clarification. As I understand it, Jesus came to fulfill OT law, not abolish it. So while I believe I understand where you are coming from with regard to interplay between the OT and NT, I would submit that the OT still stands, but must be interpreted in harmony with the NT/Gospels. No? Perhaps, I am just discussing nothing more than a semantical difference between our thoughts.

        Also, while our Lord admonished his followers to “turn the other cheek,” I believe this teaching has been taken too far, and has wrongly made our Lord into a “pacifist,” instead of a “peacemaker.” Personally, I believe our Lord was speaking in terms of a personal insult or attack. This is why, I believe, our Lord used a “slap” on the “right” cheek to clarify his position. As most people are right handed, a slap on the right cheek would be a back-handed slap. The ultimate personal insult. But if someone comes at you with a knife or sword or if there is an attack on the Church itself, I cannot believe that Christ would only give us the options of dying, running and hiding, or surrender, or in other words, a pacifistic response that allows evil to conquer on its terms.

        • Arden Forester

          I think we are in agreement. Fulfill is the right word. The OT is part of Christianity but the NT is the “more important” part. And you are right about peace and pacifism. I was trying to concentrate on the point that the OT is quoted by people but they hardly ever quote the NT.

          I’m still finding it hard to get a qualified answer about Muhammed as a warlord and spreading Islam by conquest.

      • Shaheen Ashraf

        OK Sir, as you say. I am NOT going to argue on this thread because I find that the people do NOT have open minds and will ONLY SEE ONE point of view… THEIR view. So thank you.

        • Arden Forester

          This is not about open or closed minds. I wrote a perfectly reasonable piece and asked a perfectly reasonable question. You appear offended and shut the whole thing down. I think that speaks volumes.

    • lili85

      What about the victims of Muslim terrorism? This is what’s wrong with Muslims you want to claim victimhood. Also your prophet is a warlord.

  • ZX10

    OK guys pack it up one man who may or may not have been baptized when 1 year old grew up a violent fool then found another religion who he then committed mass murder in the name of has just absolved Islam and dammed Christianity

  • Joan Simpson

    Where is the evidence Masood was ever a Christian? Living in a garage doesn’t make you a car any more than living in post Christian Britain makes you a Christian.

  • Plasterer

    Congratulations, you got quoted in an article on the Intercept: “https://theintercept.com/2017/03/29/you-shouldnt-blame-islam-for-terrorism-religion-isnt-a-crucial-factor-in-attacks/”