Extremism

London mosque attack: to kill a worshipping Muslim is to murder us all

Another night, another horror. It seems this time that a white van man thought a mosque attack would be justifiable satisfaction for the Islamist attacks on Westminster, Manchester and London Bridge. Ploughing into Muslims outside Finsbury Park Mosque as they finished their Tarawih prayers during Ramadan, the terrorist is reported to have screamed, “I want to kill all Muslims.” And he did manage to kill one in the name of unholy vengeance – an eye for an eye; measure for malevolent measure.

There are some who won’t be able to bring themselves to classify an attack on innocent Muslims outside a mosque as quite the same thing as the recent onslaughts against children at a pop concert, tourists on a bridge or lovers in restaurants and bars, but it is the selfsame, and arguably worse. These Muslims were British Londoners going about their daily acts of worship: the dead and injured were not a randomly targeted crowd of unknown faiths and feelings, but a worshipping group expressly selected for their religious beliefs. Some might call it ‘Islamophobia’: it is, in fact, Islamomisia – it is hatred, not fear.

Those Islamists who murder and maim might call themselves and be honoured as martyrs for the cause of Mohammed, and certainly, to blow oneself to Jannah in the hope of eternal carnal pleasure must take great courage. But these are savage agents of a subversive evil: their cause is more political than religious, and no true martyr actively designs and engineers their own death. The victims of the London mosque attack had just been reciting the Qur’an and performing their rakats, and then, out of nowhere, white van man ploughed into them – just because they were Muslims. To be killed for one’s faith is indeed to be martyred: to murder people for their faith is an attack on the fundamental freedom of religion.

Islam is ‘submission’. You may not like what some of them submit to, but in this country they are free to surrender themselves to whatever apprehension of God they choose, provided it accords with the essential precepts of the established social contract. Religion in the sight of Allah is Islam, and Muslims are at liberty to surrender themselves to Allah and proclaim their Five Pillars and the supremacy of their prophet to their devotional heart’s content. They are people of faith, and that faith in its supremest and greatest beauty is an account of love, of prayer, charity, fasting and pilgrimage. But we choose to see only the ugly parts. They don’t all want to raise the flag of Islam over No.10 and Buckingham Palace to establish the eschatological Caliphate: millions of British Muslims are more than content to eat, work, love and pray in their holy places of prostration. Anyone who seeks to malign Muslims because they are Muslims has no grasp of Christ’s exhortation to love our neighbour. And anyone who seeks to kill Muslims because they are Muslims murders us all.

  • andrew

    ‘British londoners’ – er, no. They are an imported non-European people, invited by the traitorous state. Finsbury Park mosque has a history of treason and Islamist activity. Forgive me for refusing to shed a tear.

    • bluedog

      The Government now faces a dilemma. The Muslims are asking for protection, but any politician with one ear to the ground will understand that there are votes to be won be denying the request.

      • andrew

        There is no dilemma because the tories are not the tory Party of old. Fundamentally I agree, but can you honestly see change on the horizon? The tories will do what works best for their image and to salvage what they can. It’s a sad state of affairs, and I lament to admit this; but Britain is finished. We are slowly turning into Lebanon: A once Christian nation, disabled and brought to its knees by hatred from within, as the influence of Islam and associated appeasers grows… And eventually conquers.

        • bluedog

          It all depends on the government’s motives, and whether it invokes the example of the Jews who defend their own synagogues with their own resources. On the other hand, if the government wishes to pressure the Muslims, it should grant their request and announce that a tax, to be known as jizya, shall be levied on the wider population to finance the enhanced security. Is Mrs May sufficiently cynical to do this?

        • David

          You are too pessimistic, which is not exactly British. At worst we are heading towards a high security state, which would be very bad indeed, but scenarios worse than that is most unlikely.

      • betteroffoutofit

        They have a nerve asking! Perhaps this is an opportunity to apprise them of that fact.

        God moves in mysterious ways . . .

        • Step11Recovery

          The first duty of the state is to protect its citizens.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Quite. Unfortunately our ‘representatives’-of-state have failed to do that – they invited inimical aliens in to take over from the indigenous citizens.

          • bluedog

            But the state can’t necessarily protect some of its citizens from the consequences of their own actions.

          • betteroffoutofit

            As I said initially – Yes.
            However, in our case,, the “representatives” of our state have instead invited inimical alens to invade, and to attack the indigenous citizens.

    • Step11Recovery

      What has Finsbury Park Mosque to do with today’s atrocity?

      • andrew

        What has nazi ideology, and any place to gather and propagate anti semtism got to do with killing a nazi?

        • Step11Recovery

          You might like to review the details of the incident. Because you really are very, very confused.

  • Paul Greenwood

    MK Ultra is the name of the project. Since Syrian Intelligence has monitored British accents giving military directions from the SAS/US/Jordanian Centre in Southern Syria to ISIS we can assume it is not just in Syria that directions are given to these clowns.

    Finding some idiots to drive a white van into a crowd and make sure there were 3 of them was probably necessary to keep this pot boiling. I know Saddiq Khan said it was part and parcel of living in a big city but I note the BBC deviation from form to describe the victims as “Muslim” and the perpetrator as “white” which is a refreshing display of openness from this weird organisation.

    It is “terrorism” when someone drives a van into people and jumps around with a knife stabbing people.

    • Dominic Stockford

      No knife. Not this time.

    • Anton

      I think you are confusing MK Ultra, which was a horrendous American program about overt coercive mind control, with ULTRA which was the name for Allied signals intelligence during World War II. That error doesn’t encourage me to believe what you imply in your first paragraph.

      • Paul Greenwood

        I am confusing NOTHING. MK Ultra was a British Program. You are once again off the rails. Perhaps you should look at MK Ultra BEFORE making yourself look stupid.

        • Anton

          Readers should check for themselves. As should you, giving sources this time.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Whilst you are researching the subject you can look up MK Delta and Monarch too. You won’t find a great deal on MK Ultra now the CIA has mislaid most of its files, but you will find Scottish medics involved and McGill University.

          • Anton

            I am well aware of the work at McGill under a Scottish-born psychiatrist, Donald Cameron, and of the obviously deliberate loss of documentation. Your retrospectively inserted reference (above) establishes only that the UK did a few heinous experiments at US request.

            I notice you say that MK Ultra ‘was’ a British/US program. Your past tense is inconsistent with your original claim that MK Ultra *IS* the name of a contemporary project involving covert Western backing for ISIS. Furthermore, MK Ultra was about overt mind control, not covert backing for a terrorist secession movement. Finally, you rely on Syrian intelligence for information about the Syrian government’s enemies. Apart from these minor considerations, your original post was entirely reliable.

          • Paul Greenwood

            I “rely” on noone, but it is well known there is an UK/US/Jordanian operations centre iNSIDE Syria directing ISIS forces being permitted to move from Raqqa and video is available. It is also well-known that UK/US/Turkish/Israeli/Saudi personnel were allowed to board buses in Aleppo and withdraw under a deal with Russia.

    • MoofBongo

      How is David Icke these days?

      • Paul Greenwood

        No idea. Do pop in and see him, I suspect you are neighbours

  • writhledshrimp

    God, I need some hope here….

    • Dominic Stockford

      My hope is found in Christ alone, always was, and always will be (even if I foolishly think something else for a while).

      • writhledshrimp

        I find myself wanting him to come back asap.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Me too. I’ve been that way for a while!!!

        • David

          Agreed !
          Humans are incapable of stable self-government for long.

    • David

      Do all that is practical and within your grasp, but real hope is to be found in Christ alone.

  • betteroffoutofit

    However unsympathetic I am towards the invaders, I think we should remember: Vengeance is God’s job . . . not mankind’s.
    “VENGEANCE** IS MINE; I WILL REPAY, saith the Lord.” (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19).

    That said, they ARE Iinvaders – whom we should treat as such officially: until/unless they assimilate. yhen, if they want to fight, we deal with it officially.
    “Officially” is the problem, though, as Alfred the Great left us a long time ago . . . .

  • bluedog

    ‘They don’t all want to raise the flag of Islam over No.10 and Buckingham Palace to establish the eschatological Caliphate:’

    Cough.

    Thought for the day: As ye sow, shall ye reap.

    • James60498 .

      Agreed the vast majority (if not all) clearly do.

      The fact that almost all of them want to do it without blowing themselves or even blowing anyone else up does not change their ultimate aim.

      If nothing else, the differing birth rates will help them do that.

      • bluedog

        There’s no doubt about their intention to raise an Islamic flag over the Vatican, and convert St Peters into a mosque like the Hagia Sophia.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        In surveys, over 40% of Muslims (who amount to c. 5% of the population) think that all UK law s/b based on sharia.

        That is those who are willing to say this in a semi-public setting.I think that the number thinking it can reasonably be assumed to be higher than this.

        So clearly, as you say, the majority do.

  • David

    I choose to view all those terrible events from a long term perspective. I see cultural Marxism continuing doing its evil work of degrading, dividing and debasing all western societies. The work has been in progress for over a half century. The workers of this project come mainly from the left, although they are assisted by the immoral, godless and profit obsessed sections of the right. The rootless faithless globalists who respect no culture or faith, are of course a major force pushing forward all this discord, chaos and evil.

    The political decisions to import millions of Muslims possessing a faith and culture totally at odds with western, UK culture was a major part of that continuing, most evil drive to destabilise our country. Because of the nature of Islam and its incompatibility with everything that is not Islam, appalling acts of violence were always a strong possibility. Diversity is not a strength, as differences always lead to division and often violent conflict. For as my faith teaches us, our fallen human nature, leads to wrongdoing and even violence. This begets further retaliatory violence, and so the cycle continues, as intended by the cultural Marxists.

    In practical terms, recognising our shared human weaknesses, it is always best for different cultures to live, in respectful separateness. But the politicians, especially of the left, think that they are wiser, and the mass immigrations continue. For the long term the only hope for all of humanity is to turn to the Christ.

    • Royinsouthwest

      In the United States and Canada, at least until recently, different cultures were able to mix and to integrate successfully.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Huh?
        Or maybe they’re just good at making it seem that way. Even there, the cloak of hypocrisy is wearing a bit threadbare, though.

        • bluedog

          Where’s Carl when you need him? One hopes all is okay with him.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Carl is not returning because he does not like how things have transpired on this blog.He was not explicit in giving reasons. He wrote this on Dodo’s blog.
            Like someone else on here who flounces off in a pique and threatens never to return he probably will return at some stage.

      • Dominic Stockford

        In appearance yes. But that is the way such infiltration of other culture has always taken place. Little by little, keeping heads down, until at some point there is enough strength in the incoming group to have confidence that they can unsettle and even overthrow the host community.

        • Royinsouthwest

          The United States has been a “melting pot” throughout its history. Even in the original 13 colonies before the American War of Independence there were significant numbers of people of German and Dutch origin, as well as the Native American peoples (or Indians as people of my generation still sometimes call them).

          • This is a myth. America was dominated by English peoples and ideas. See http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/04/27/book-review-albions-seed/

          • Royinsouthwest

            Obviously as British colonies in a thinly populated continent the vast majority of colonists were of British (and not just English) origin but at the time of independence the numbers from Germany and the Netherlands were not insignificant and during the 19th century the US started to draw in people from many parts of Europe to form a “melting pot.”

          • The melting pot metaphor is not a multicultural one; it is one of assimilation to (and possibly alteration of) an existing dominant culture.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Right — to say nothing of what went on in Louisiana (and down the Mississippi) and with the Hispanics from the South. Then there are the Scandinavians . . . the Greeks … the Russians . . . And as for the Irish . . .
            It’s a very complicated, messy business – and I’d recommend reading some of the literature (e.g. Frederick Douglass – a black slave; Harper Lee – who explains the South; ,Kate Chopin – on the froggie bit; etc. etc. etc. – to get a handle on their ‘diversities’ and how they dealt/deal with them. Oh – and let’s not forget about Mario Puzo.

            On one hand, too, it mightn’t do us any harm to remember that the ‘Brits’ in the US also needed to get along with the other euros rather more immediately than with us . .

            On another hand, we must remember that the US is presently as beset by franco-german marxist filth (Frankfurt-School) in their establishment as we are. In many university departmetns you have to be a marxist to get anywhere in

            Beyond all that though – Britain remains different from the US in one important aspect: WE ARE NOT DERACINATED like them. This is our country, we’ve been here for thousands of years and our ancestor built it. To regain it, we don’t need to waste our time arguing about American history (unless it be to recognise what they did to Native Americans). We need to get our common sense together and deal with our own unique situation . . . here, now.

          • betteroffoutofit

            errr . . . You have noticed the name of the person who wrote that book? “Fischer” ??? Hardly British.
            Also, his narrative seems focussed largely on the East.
            But we really don’t have time to get bogged down in all that. This is Britain. This is here. This is now. And this is URGENT.

          • Dominic Stockford

            Islam is not a race, and behaves differently.

      • David

        Some combinations of cultures are compatible I agree. But bringing two different cultures into close contact is always a risk; bring two radically different cultures into close proximity is a huge risk. Islam is such a deeply intolerant political/religious system conflict is very, very likely, perhaps inevitable.

        • Bernard from Bucks

          Muslims living with Hindus = Problems
          Muslims living with Buddhists = Problems
          Muslims living with Christians = Problems
          Muslims living with Jews = Problems
          Muslims living with Sikhs = Problems
          Muslims living with Baha’is = Problems
          Muslims living with Shintos = Problems
          Muslims living with Atheists = Problems

          MUSLIMS LIVING WITH MUSLIMS = BIG PROBLEMS

      • Anton

        There was a notable absence from the cultures that mingled there.

    • betteroffoutofit

      “. . . and so the cycle continues, as intended by the cultural Marxists” – Yes, David. That’s exactly what’s going on here.
      Now how can we take advantage of the fact that understanding and of this situation . . . ?

      • David

        That’s a big question, but regaining control of our borders and selecting exceedingly carefully who can live here, and return here, seems the first, most obvious step. Preventing the internal radicalisation of the young and naive is a second obvious step. I suspect that all the effective and desirable steps are incompatible with the so called Human Rights legislation much beloved of socialists, the fake liberals and all the useful idiots.

        But all the time the public elect idiot politicians who peddle the nonsense that all faiths and cultures are equal and compatible things will simply worsen. A problem cannot be solved until first, it is recognised and publicly defined and that takes moral courage and realism. We need a 21st century Churchill.

  • This was a disgusting and disgraceful attack upon peaceful worshippers, and entirely self-defeating. Nothing will please Daesh more than a wedge being driven between moderate Moslems and the rest of the community. I very much doubt that the perpetrator is any sort of Christian, and the Christian community needs to be strong in its condemnation of such outrages.
    I am appalled by some of the comments below. Are we not followers of the One who declared,

    “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, that you may be sons of your Father in heaven’
    ?

    • bluedog

      ‘I am appalled by some of the comments below.’

      Name names?

    • James M

      That is what comes of murdering kuffar and honouring as a Prophet a man whose policy towards the Jews matched that of one A. Hitler. Who thought up vehicular jihad, and used it ? The follows of Mo and the devil he worshipped.

      No sympathy should be wasted on these filthy creatures – which is, BTW, what “kuffar” means; a “kaffir” is someone “filthy”. They cannot complain of being justly called what they unjustly call us. What we need is more of those hilarious videos of jihadis blowing themselves to Kingdom Come, by mistake – they set snares for others, so God causes them to fall into them themselves. As the Good Book says, in a speech attributed to Lady Wisdom, “I will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your dread comes” (Prov. 1.26). That is what we should do. Muzz have no right to complain, for they rejoice and make merry and are glad when we are attacked by jihadis.

      Christ was not faced with a horde of lying, raping, murdering barbarians whose purpose was to turn His country into the same sort of degenerate, inbred, Islam-infested Hell-hole as these pseudo-humans and sub-men come from. We, by contrast, are. If these vermin are not obliterated, they will obliterate us. We face a threat to our very existence. If Christianity is too spineless to help, then too bad. A Christ or a Christianity that requires national suicide of us is not worth bothering with.

      • I think it is self-evident that Proverbs 1:26 is not directed towards Moslems since there were none when it was written. Rather it is directed against people like yourself who disregard the command of God that ‘The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself’ (Lev. 19:34).
        It is also self-evident that you have never met an ordinary Moslem and that you are no Christian.

        • James M

          I didn’t say Prov. 1.26 was directed against Muslims. It can be applicable to how one acts toward them even so. There is a difference between the exegetically ascertainable meaning of a passage, and what it can be applied to. St John 10.34 is not, strictly speaking, an exegesis of Psalm 82.6, but a decontextualised application of it to a totally different situation, of no relevance whatever to the setting which the Psalmist had in view. People apply Scripture to exegetically unintended situations all the time.

          There is nothing unChristian in laughing at their calamity – if God can laugh at His enemies, so can we laugh at ours. If Christ can vilify the Pharisees as per St Matthew 23, by what right are we obliged not to be equally ferocious in savaging with words those who seek to destroy us ? Milksoppery is not Christianity, and neither is nerveless self-repression. The Apostles use very harsh language about false teachers – St John, of all people, says they are not to be shown any fellowship – and what was Mohammed, if not a false teacher ? But Islam goes beyond false teaching, to murdering 1000s. Christ was not faced with that – we are. These people have a murderous hatred for us, as they have proved repeatedly. If they have no more than derision and mockery to expect from us, they are being very tenderly treated.

          As for your final comments, you are not qualified to make them. So they deserve no attention.

  • Dominic Stockford

    This attack is cowardly, to be condemned, unchristian, appalling, wrong and evil.

    “”Vengeance is mine” saith the Lord.” Anyone with knowledge of the Bible knows that command to us.

    I am also surprised to hear from London’s Mayor that it is “an attempt to divide the community” – it is more obviously a result of a community already divided.

  • Anton

    I appreciate the correction of Islamophobia to Islamomisia, but it should have been Muslimomisia. Muslims are to be loved as humans in the image of God. Islam… probably this isn’t the morning to analyse its scriptures and tradition in order to decide what response is appropriate. But it’s hardly fair to say that we choose to see only the ugly parts of Islam. Those parts are in our faces today, as the headlines of recent weeks bear distressing witness.

    The Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain has responded: “We expect the authorities to increase security outside mosques as a matter of urgency.” Will the authorities give Islamic places of worship any more protection than they have(n’t) given to Jewish ones since anti-semitism rose again? Will the MCB reflect on why anti-semitism has risen?

    Too many people will be thinking “about time something like that happened”. No it isn’t. We can do without tit for tat on places of worship. (The Ariana Grande concert was a secular place of worship, as are football grounds.) Tit for tat would be less likely if the authorities brought back the death penalty for murder. Last night’s driver appears to have survived. He does not deserve to. Capital punishment for murder is advocated throughout the Bible.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Quite, this should never happen, even as a ‘reaction’.

      Your point on security of places of worship is a valid one. The Met Police have given me a nice piece of paper to put up in our church with ‘run, hide, tell’ printed on it with their logo and a couple of phone numbers. As I pointed out to my congregation most of them can hardly stand, let alone run. What they have offered isn’t even a joke – and as has been seen in France and across the Middle East, churches WILL be attacked in due course. At least the Barnabas Fund have produced their book (Protect and Pray) with some ideas in it.

      The nearest synagogue has its own security with locked gates and guards, occasionally a couple of police in the vicinity.But churches are left to their own devices – and short of choosing to shut ourselves off from the community we seek to reach into with Christ there is nothing much that we can do. So we pray, and persevere, and pray again.

      • bluedog

        Your comments echo those made by Mrs Proudie who clearly anticipates the same risks. Dangerous days.

  • ecclesiaman

    Will the media and commentators carefully examine what the facts turn out to be here? This wicked act was in all likelihood a reaction to our supine and ignorant politicians and sadly too to our religious representatives of the same ilk, who refuse to take appropriate action to deal with the actions of the extreme Moslems.
    Please will those moderate Moslems address the issues at stake here, and not equate this, I repeat, wicked act with martyrdom, Christianity or other religious view. IMO it was a grass roots reaction by somebody who was frustrated with the status quo. Extreme? Yes, and counter-productive but likely to foster the agenda of those who want to destabilise our society further as David comments below.

  • Little Black Censored

    Is it quite accurate to call this person a terrorist? Unless he was acting in conformity to some kind of movement or organization, it seems to me that he is similar to the murderer of Jo Cox – until we know more about him.
    (Whatever else he may have been, “cowardly” is not a very exact word to describe him.”

    • Watchman

      Didn’t you realise the the Police have been granted authority to redefine the English language in order to suit their own purposes?

  • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

    “Assuming the act actualy is one of terror, then using the template that has been deployed after the Westminster Bridge and London Bridge terror atrocities, we must NOT rush to judgement, we must remember that the real victims are non-Muslims, and that above all we must not deflect the vile act of one lone wolf on an entire community.

    As London Mayor Khan put it recently, terrorism is all part of living in a big city”.

    As for the act of killing someone, it is utterly despicable…as John Donne says,

    “Ask not for whom the bell tolls….”

    • bluedog

      Deft, Mrs P, deft.

    • Ivan M

      Don’t look back in anger, ma’am.

    • Anton

      He actually wrote “Send not to know for whom the bell tolls”, Mrs P.

      • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

        Indeed he did…how kind

  • Dreadnaught

    Would this have happened if Muslims had not been plotting to kill us – the infidel,as prescribed for in the koran?
    Lets keep a sense of perspective here. Islam is an ideology that believes in revenge, terror, an eye for an eye etc. What has happened here is criminal act of murder by an individual provoked by a continuous line of atrocities carried out all over the world by the followers of Muhammad, not the beginning of a sanctioned global religious war.

    • bluedog

      On the other hand it may be the beginning of a popular uprising that leads to numerous instances of direct action. Once that process moves beyond the control of the authorities, you have a civil war.

    • Royinsouthwest

      We must not defend such acts just because the attack is meant in retaliation for earlier ones.

      • David

        I don’t believe he is defending such an action – note the use of the word “criminal”. Rather he is identifying the root human cause of the attack, which is revenge.

  • Ivan M

    When inappropriate materials, procedures and protocols were applied in the cladding of Grenfell Tower it led to a situation where the probability of a catastrophic fire increased manifold. This is apparently agreed upon by both Left and Right. By the same reasoning when girls of a certain race are raped in their own towns and cities by people of an alien race and religion, when said aliens march in the streets demanding more than others, when they demand submission to their religious practices, and generally act as if they have successfully invaded your towns, the probability of action from men in white vans increase manifold. It is not an act of God that could not be prevented, but rather the inevitable outcome of stresses and strains imposed by multiculturalists and social engineers. In sum if statistical cause and effect are supposed to work in causing a major conflagration then it should also work in the societal equivalent of combustible materials. Cause and effect does not magically disappear when dealing with society.

    • David

      A useful comparison.

      • Ivan M

        Sir as you know, when it comes to dealing with the Leninist Left and a significant section of the Muslims, there is no point in arguing in terms of common morality and humanity. For the leftists society is a result of class appropriation, for many Muslims it is the arena of battles between Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb, between the House of Submission and the House of War. For both morality has no absolute value since by definition morality is what advances the cause of what they deem right in the circumstances. Therefore I have given up on appeals to shared humanity and instead opted for a dispassionate tone.

    • Plasterer

      I accept this line of reasoning.

      Which is why I also accept that terrorism is (in part) inspired by Western actions in the Middle East.

      There is a whole line of anti-“victim blaming” which denies any kind of rationality or causality. As if explaining the reasons why someone might do something somehow justify their doing it.

      Strangely, people on the left will scream “don’t blame the victim!” if it’s a girl dressed as a tart who gets raped, but can sagely explain how terrorism is all down to Western imperialism. Whereas those on the right will say “don’t go out dressed as a tart if you don’t want trouble”, but have a fit of the faints if you suggest that maybe those crazy jihadists, while being inspired by their religion, might also be motivated by perceived political injustices abroad.

      • Ivan M

        I agree that we can both understand that there is a reason for a criminal’s action and punish that criminal. Otherwise if I were to murder my wife for either a frivolous or serious reason, I should be able to escape justice.

  • Royinsouthwest

    This is a very good and thoughtful post from Cranmer.

    Although this action seems to have been in retaliation for acts of Islamic terrorism that does not excuse it in the slightest way. We are fortunate in that it is about one of the very few significant acts of retaliation so far. A couple of years ago a Neo-Nazi attempted to murder a muslim in North Wales with a knife in what he claimed was a revenge attack for the murder of Lee Rigby. The intended victim was rescued by an ex-soldier and the attacker was sentenced to life imprisonment. Apart from that there have been cases of yobs leaving bacon at the entrance to mosques. Where caught they seem to be given unduly stiff sentences. What would the punishment be for the same offence at a synagogue, I wonder? Perhaps the deterrent effect justifies the sentences.

    In other European countries there seems to have been very little sign of relation against Islamic terrorism. The one surprising exception is Norway where there has been, as far as I remember, no terrorism just more routine problems associated with immigration from certain parts of the world. There Anders Breivik, an extreme right winger, killed 8 people with a bomb placed in a van, and then shot and killed 69 people at a Workers’ Youth League summer camp on an island. Most of the people killed were actually ethnic Norwegians, not that the ethnic background of terrorist victims affects the seriousness of the crime in any way.

    We certainly do not want more retaliation in Britain or in any European country but we do need our governments to crack down hard on the problem of terrorism.

    • Anton

      Breivik was going after the (next generation of) secular leftists who let Islam into Europe.

      • Busy Mum

        I said to my children at the time that it was more alarming that there were so many youngsters at an indoctrination camp than that one man felt angry enough to go on the rampage.

    • David

      Well said. Until government is seen as pursuing, effectively the root causes of terrorism there will be, in effect, an encouragement for more undesirable attacks on Muslims. So far governments have given priority to vague, utterly impractical and morally questionable concepts like “human rights”, and have not addressed the causes of terrorism. But until they grow up, face reality and leave behind them the childish and utterly ridiculous ideas, rooted in socialism and liberalism, that all cultures and faiths are basically the same, they will be unable to confront the problems that they themselves have created.

  • Notforinfants

    AC I take issue with your statement : “Islam is submission….. but in this country they are free…etc.

    First: Of course devotees of Islam have complete personal freedom to exercise their beliefs in their “apprehension of God”, although as we know that belief is false and a delusion. Nevertheless they are free because our generous toleration is based (in theory at least, and increasingly challenged for Christians in the public square) on freedom of religion.

    You speak of “the essential precepts of the established social contracts” whatever that vague phrase may actually mean.

    However the slogan “Islam is submission” as we know all too well, is not merely that of personal submission to their concept of Allah, but infinitely, and dangerously, much more. In Islam, as the excellent comment by Gavin Ashenden recently explained on the blog, the idea of submission is one which is to be imposed, if necessary by force on all others who do not subscribe to Islam. It is an essential element of Islamic teaching and explains the unique existence of ‘Jihad’ (struggle) to compel all others to submit on pain of death.

    Thus GA quoted in reply to the oft reiterated theme that Islamic murders do not represent the true Islam:

    ” If one consults the manuals of a variety of different schools of Islam – the Shafi’i school, the Hanafi school, the Maliki school, the Hanbali school – they all urge violence against non-Muslims.” And there is the Koran itself with over 100 injunctions to resort to violence and killings. That is the Islamic understanding of submission and could not be clearer.i
    Please explain therefore how any of this can possibly be in accord with the “essential precepts” & etc?
    What are these precepts which you have left undefined? I suggest they mean that British religious tolerance draws the line where “submission” is enforced, and at that point must be intolerant.
    This is not an example of the overused myth in the language of “Islamaphobia” but rather traditional regard for self-preservation and the rule of law. I believe you should make the distinction clear.

    • bluedog

      Indeed. The implementation of Islam as we see it in the UK and elsewhere across the West is through the medium of a low-level and spontaneous civil war. Not all citizens are able to understand this, despite being repeatedly threatened by the perpetrators.

      • Ivan M

        Pertaining to the above what Muslims mean by submission is or should be ordinarily interpreted as surrender by non-Muslims.

    • David

      Nicely put.

  • They don’t all want to raise the flag of Islam over No.10 and Buckingham Palace

    The Muslim who does not pray for the victory of Islam has yet to be born:

    Another speaker says Muslims cannot accept the rule of non-Muslims. ‘You cannot accept the rule of the kafir,’ a preacher, Dr Ijaz Mian, tells a meeting held within the mosque. ‘We have to rule ourselves and we have to rule the others.’—The Observer

    anyone who seeks to kill Muslims because they are Muslims murders us all

    In centuries past, kings and their armies saw it as their Christian duty to kill Muslims because they were Muslims, and Europe remained Christian. Today’s effeminate Christianity sees virtue in loving Muslims, and thereby signs its own death warrant.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I don’t know about your knowledge of Islam but you do not appear to understand the essence of Christianity.

      • bluedog

        Did Pope Urban II understand Christianity?

        • Anton

          Unlikely, but he understood politics.

          • bluedog

            But you get my point, don’t you?

          • Anton

            Certainly!

        • andrew

          Yes. Better than your average Anglican

          • bluedog

            Just a minute, I’m an Anglican.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Yes but you are not your average Anglican.

        • Dominic Stockford

          No.

          • bluedog

            Perhaps we need more men like him then. Otherwise the fate of Constantinople looms.

            It is remarkable to consider that the Spaniards may shortly need to implement a second Reconquista.

            Will you oppose our first Reconquista?

        • Yes.

          • bluedog

            At last! Ten out of ten! It took so long to find someone with the courage to endorse the Crusades. Pathetic.

    • Ivan M

      Christians have generally been useless in dealing with this. For very good reasons Jesus said that His Kingdom was not of this world and it would appear was happy to let the muscular Romans run the country.

      • Anton

        He and his father were one, he said, and since the Law of Moses given by his father promised Israel complete protection in return for fidelity, Jesus would have viewed the Romans as his father’s judgement on Israel for systemic violation of the Law of Moses. That is why he took no action against the Romans but preferred to offer his fellow Jews a way to keep the Law better.

        • Ivan M

          That’s one way to look at it.

    • David

      Your “effeminate” Christianity, as you label it, is the version that has allowed itself to be misled by liberal and socialist ideas, and therefore denies the authority of the Bible. Fortunately some of us still uphold it.

      The main objective of the armies of Christendom was to protect their territories and, where necessary, reclaim it. The military actions were to achieve that goal.

      • @ David—By welcoming Islam, the effeminate Christians who run the churches may well have done irreparable harm to Western Christianity. Even if traditional Christians were able to send the effeminates packing, time and demography are not on their side.

  • andrew

    The Muslim council of Britain have taken advantage of this event, (as you’d expect) to request the government prohibit and therefore make illegal any form of criticism that Islam may face from the suspicious indigenous. ‘Islamaphobia’ has been bandied around relentlessly, and calls for greater censorship, because Muslims cannot accept criticism of their fake religion, are now the norm. This begs the question – if the government gives in to Muslim calls to outlaw Islamaphobia, by regarding all version’s of anti Islamic sentiment as islamaphobia, how will they implement the law, and to what extent? I personally regard Islam as demonic, totally evil. And I regard the imported growing islamisation of Europe to be treason of the highest order. I believe Islam to be incompatible with the West, and that a clash of civilization is therefore inevitable. That said, have I now just broken a future law? Do I deserve to be condemned and charged because I personally think Bradford now looks like a Pakistani toilet, and no longer resembles a British city? The thought police are just around the corner.

    • bluedog

      From a practical perspective, the government cannot enact and then enforce the laws demanded by the MCB. The prisons aren’t big enough to house the non-Muslim population.

      • andrew

        But the calls will continue to grow. It will be interesting to see how the government responds to calls for censorship exclusively for the appeasement of Muslim demands, and likewise how the ‘peaceful’ Muslims respond when denied something they feel they automatically deserve. The EU are already setting the stall out to completely out law islamaphobia – which as we are aware is a falsehood intend to shut down criticism and condemnation of both Islam and the augmentation of Muslim communities.

        • betteroffoutofit

          It really is a bit of a devil when ‘fear’ is against the law . . .

        • bluedog

          Some MPs, and Jacob Rees-Mogg springs to mind, would understand the risks of protecting Islam through the imposition of blasphemy laws. Others, like Anna Soubry, easily confused and seemingly a sucker for anything branded ‘progressive’, would fall into the trap. One can envisage the majority of the Lords Spiritual being blissfully unaware of the danger to their own tenure, and following a supportive editorial in the Grauniad, become the first turkeys to vote for Christmas.

      • betteroffoutofit

        “The prisons aren’t big enough to house the non-Muslim population.” — Now that’s scary. I wonder what they might do instead . . .

        • bluedog

          Nothing. Confronted by mass civil disobedience the government would be forced to capitulate and back the majority. If the government foolishly resists, citing ‘principles’, the government falls and is replaced by one which reflects the wishes of the majority.

          The Rhodesian UDI crisis seems relevant in one regard. Then it was quickly decided that dispatching the British Army to put down the colonists’ revolt would not work, as the troops’ sympathies would be with the white Rhodesians, and the army would disobey orders to shoot their ‘kith and kin’. One doubts that today’s politicians would recognise the wisdom of this earlier decision, but it’s not too hard to imagine a situation in which it could apply.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Oh good! So no extermination camps for us; that’s a relief.

          • bluedog

            Yes and no. A severe crack-down on British Muslims of Pakistani descent could lead to an Islamic nuclear jihad. Mere speculation, you understand, but one can’t be too careful. One trusts the Trident subs have their warheads programmed to counter today’s, rather than yesterday’s, threats.

          • Sarky

            Poll tax riots??

          • bluedog

            Not this year, comrade.

      • Busy Mum

        In order to imprison the non-Muslim population, they would need to release the current Muslim prison population. Now that is quite scary.

        • bluedog

          You make a case for an appropriately located and culturally sympathetic correctional facility for Muslim criminals.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      I agree totally with what you say, though the man who carried out this attack was probably showing a gut reaction to the murder by muslims of non-muslims. No law against “Islamophobia” would have stopped him. What we are seeing is terrorism morphing into inter-cultural warfare. I don’t think the law is going to have much effect against that. In fact the more the non-muslim population are gagged the more strife will be seen on our streets

      • Dominic Stockford

        Our ‘open and tolerant’ liberal society which bans discussion about issue after issue, is then surprised when people who are no longer allowed to talk about some things *do* something vile and heinous instead. They and we are appalled by what has been done here, but they are also surprised, which we are very sadly not. We are just saddened and horrified.

      • You’re quite right. If he was willing to murder people by running them over (which I believe is against the law already), passing another law is probably not going to stop him. The last thing the uk needs is more badly-thought-out knee-jerk legislation.

        • bluedog

          But something must be done, irrespective of the utter futility of the act. Different values now apply, and the state acts in compliance with ‘principles’.

          • What would you suggest?

          • bluedog

            Nothing new at all, my comment was ironic. The political elites frequently do things just to appear effective, particularly when the situation is drifting out of control. There’s a mass of statutes and agencies able to control the current situation, given the will. But the will is lacking.

          • Yes, you’re right. Luckily our politicians all have the preprinted scripts about how proud they are of the citizens of [insert city name], how we must all stand together and how it’s business as usual.

    • Dominic Stockford

      Your thoughts about Bradford are a matter for you.

      However, you are right, Biblically so, about the nature of Islam. A true Christian understand that Jesus Christ is the only way, the only life, the only truth, and the only way to the father. Further, we understand that any other religion is a false religion which leads away from god, not towards it. And, simplistically put, anything and anyone that leads people away from God is of the Devil.

      This came up in my sermon on 1 Peter 3:13-the end of the chapter yesterday morning. If I am not allowed to preach this truth, a core element of the Christian faith, as seems to be the threat being levelled our way, then we really will have problems in the truly Christian church in this country. The irony is that I preached about how close this is (Barry Trayhorn, forced out of his job for quoting the Bible in a chapel in a Christian discussion in a prison) – this event is likely to make it even closer.

    • James60498 .

      I wouldn’t normally choose the Independent to spread information but it was the first report that I could find on something that I was already aware.

      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-parliament-anti-islamophobia-motion-pass-muslim-irqa-khalid-david-anderson-racism-faith-a7647851.html%3Famp

      • Dominic Stockford

        Good link. Though Canada is probably geographically large enough to hide away from changes in society that you find unacceptable.

        • Maalaistollo

          But only if, as is the case here, you keep your mouth shut.

  • Busy Mum

    Swathes of the indigenous population have grown up being told by the state that there is no right or wrong, that they must make ‘informed choices’ and that ‘self-expression’ is more important than ‘self-restraint’.

    The state therefore cannot expect ‘white van men’ to behave like civilised – Christianised? – Englishmen after deliberately educating them not to be…..

    • Dominic Stockford

      There are many pigeons coming home to roost in events like this (horrific and wrong as it is). Not that most will see them.

      • Busy Mum

        Our primary school anti-bullying policy exhorts the children to ‘share their feelings’ but on no account must they ‘get angry’ – no wonder the children are so confused! I pointed out this contradiction to the governing body – all well-educated people – and they can’t even seem to see this simple fact.

        • Merchantman

          ‘A double minded man is unstable in all his ways’. Just so a nation.

        • David

          What educated idiots !
          Anger is natural and must be recognised, but Christians know that sin occurs if anger is allowed to lead to wrong actions. To prevent anger leading to wrong actions morals need to be instilled, but the post-Christian UK’s “progressive” education system stopped doing that some decades ago. These educationalists haven’t a clue about human nature and how to channel and control it.

          • Busy Mum

            They all think human’nature is wonderful. That is the problem.

          • Maalaistollo

            Yes. It is interesting how a decent response to some awful event by those affected by it is generally characterised as displaying the ‘triumph of the Human Spirit’ while ignoring the Human Spirit which motivated the perpetrator of the event.

      • Merchantman

        ‘They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind.’

    • andrew

      Note the bbcs ability to make one laugh, even in the face of tragedy.
      By Cherry Wilson, BBC News

      Locals say this is a proudly multicultural area, where the biggest rivalry is whether you support Arsenal or their north London rivals, Tottenham

      • Busy Mum

        I begin to perceive that multicultural actually means monocultural – i.e. what she really means is ‘locals say this is a proudly unBritish area….’

        And if football hadn’t replaced God in the affections of the indigenous, maybe we wouldn’t be having this conversation anyway…

    • David

      Spot on. Because Christian moral values have not been inculcated in schools and higher education for two generations, people will not be restrained by their inner moral values, as they don’t possess them. So the “natural” man emerges, and if fear of the authorities does not enforce compliance the results are ugly. Those atheists and “progressives” who trumpet our animal roots and say proudly, “God id dead”, can hardly be surprised by this. You can only have a free, democratic society if the population has been taught the value of Christian derived virtues. Humanism doesn’t cut it except with the academic section of society.

      • Busy Mum

        Exactly – which is why schools even have to have ‘anti-bullying policies’ in place. We either regulate our own behaviour according to principle, or else have to have our behaviour regulated by policy. The first is the duty of a free man, the second is the fate of the slave.

        • Chefofsinners

          In practice we have always needed both principle and policy.
          “Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions.” Gal 3:19
          Unfortunately it is only the Christian who has God’s law written on his heart.

    • Chefofsinners

      When and how has the state failed to teach that murder is wrong?

      • Busy Mum

        By adopting moral relativism and abandoning capital punishment. By valuing human beings according to their protected characteristics rather than their souls.

        If there is no God, why is murder wrong? The state cannot categorically say that murder is wrong because that would be saying that there is a moral absolute.

        • Merchantman

          Yes, but over cups of instant coffee in some foetid room somewhere in the ministry of justice they busily binning the old absolutes and re-writing fresh ones.

        • Exactly. This line of thinking clearly shows how ridiculous moral relativism is. Removing God and morality from the legal system leaves a list of arbitrary rules that we are free to follow or not depending on whether those rules fit in with our own personal morality. The state cannot push relativism and then be surprised when people ignore the law.

        • MoofBongo

          And yet it does say so. I’m guessing you’re not that busy today.

          • Chefofsinners

            I’m guessing you’re not a mum.

          • MoofBongo

            No. It’s hard to be a Mum when you have a penis.

          • Chefofsinners

            And when you are a penis, I imagine.

          • MoofBongo

            You tell me.

          • Busy Mum

            Do you take your moral code from the government?

          • MoofBongo

            No, I take it from Mrs Jessop next door.

        • Chefofsinners

          The state does categorically say that some murders are wrong, because they are punished by the state.
          Another possible answer could centre around abortion. However, the act committed today would be described as wrong by the state and by moral relativists.

          • Busy Mum

            But I want to live in a country where it is not up to the state to decide whether or not murder – of any sort – is wrong.

          • Chefofsinners

            And one day you shall. But no such state exists in this world.

          • MoofBongo

            Good luck finding one.

        • MoofBongo

          “If there is no God, why is murder wrong? ” If there is a God, why is murder wrong? According to the OT it was one of God and the Israelites favourite pastimes.

          • Busy Mum

            God is the author and giver of life – so He cannot commit murder. He simply takes back the life He gave.

            God used the Israelites to punish the Canaanites just like He is using the Muslims now to punish the British.

          • MoofBongo

            Well, if it’s God’s work, then there’s no use at all in complaining about it, is there?

      • Anton

        It has failed to punish it as God commands.

        • Chefofsinners

          Debatable. But if true, the state still punishes murder and therefore still teaches that it is wrong.

          • Anton

            Even in the womb?

          • Chefofsinners

            No, but in vans and in the street, which is what we are discussing.

    • James M

      A point very similar to that in your last sentence was made by C.S. Lewis in “The Aboliition of Man”, 74 years ago.

  • magnolia

    The understanding of non-revenge, not taking an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is not a “truth universally acknowledged” amongst religions, and, in fact ,unless influenced by Christ, like Ghandi, very little acknowledged, perhaps least of all by Islam. That Jesus’ words are right could hardly be more fully demonstrated by this act of senseless and brutal revenge.

    Let everyone stand back and honour Jesus; this would not be done by throwing garbage at his disciples.

    • Paul Greenwood

      Gandhi was a barrister dealing with the British not the Chinese or Russians or Germans. He was no saint either. Jesus was simply quoting the Torah. “Lex Talionis” is the basis of ALL justice systems, it just happens in The West the State decided it had a monopoly on retribution………and it has failed to uphold its obligations

  • David

    Well the government had better start recruiting and training many thousands more armed police and soldiers, because if this escalates, all places of worship, across the faiths, could be clamouring for armed protection. This division and fragmentation of our formerly tolerably cohesive Christian based society is exactly what those who hate the west hoped for; this is why they worked to spread the rot that has spewed out of cultural Marxism. Within three generations the socialists, liberals and other enemies of both Christianity and Reason have reduced our country to this sorry state. How is the post- Christian project working out for all you fashionable “progressives” ?

    • MoofBongo

      Pretty well, thanks.

      • Merchantman

        Enjoy then.

    • Paul Greenwood

      They can’t recruit “armed police” because that requires proper training and they don’t do that. They boosted numbers with plastic policemen which is why those like Sharon Beshenivsky obstructed the doorway of a travel agency in Bradford as an armed robber sought to escape……..an armed office would never stand so obstructively in line of fire

      • betteroffoutofit

        “Sharon Beshenivsky ” – Oh. Good English name that. Bradford’s SO cosmopolitan about Enforcing Laws!.

        • IrishNeanderthal

          That is a most unpleasant remark concerning a WPC who died in the line of duty.

          • betteroffoutofit

            RIP.

        • Anton

          Do you know her maiden name?

          • betteroffoutofit

            Are you saying someone “normalized” her?
            Ah well …

        • Dreadnaught

          You do know that the Royal Family name isn’t really Windsor.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes. But their roots are genuinely multi-cultural. They go back even beyond Billy Bastard, probably. And they’ve stood at the helm to defend us from our enemies through the various thicks and thins. Even yesterday I had a sense of how the ceremonial serves to remind us of who we really are.

            When I lived in Yorkshire, however, we hadn’t yet imported many new ‘-ivsky’ s and ‘ -insky’ s to “normalise” us. Must admit they were on the way, though, with a bit of help from the likes of Roy Mason. . . and, now, Corbynski.

          • Dreadnaught

            I would prefer an infinite number of Polishskis to any more Mohammads.

          • CliveM

            Well actually it is, it’s just it use to be something else!

          • Dreadnaught

            OK Mr Smartypants.

    • Dreadnaught

      The heavy blanket of imposed ‘multiculturalism’ has suffocated the traditional British ‘slow to evolve’ way of change. We were never consulted on this and successive governments have not managed the natural consequences of its manifestation. This ‘rule’ by remote isolationist Westminster attitude is why our domestic nations have felt the need to resurrect nationalistic sentiments.

  • Dominic Stockford

    On the same day as this appalling act of unjustified revenge, which none of us are praising, I get this interesting article link. The difference between Islam and its adherents, and those who aren’t, is clear to see:

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10545/palestinians-praise-terror-attack

    • David

      Quite !

  • C A Dark

    So the police have very rapidly established this as a “terror” attack….funny how they’ve done it so quickly when a white person is involved. No phrases such as “a man of British origins” and suchlike? Where is the evidence so far that discounts the possibility of a genuine road traffic accident? And what about the likelihood of a pre-planned attack by leftists, to make it look like an attack on Muslims?

    • Plasterer

      Weeell, let me see if I can help.

      The fact that white van man was still alive, rather than blown to smithereens, and (reportedly) shouting “I want to kill all Muslims” probably put the police on the trail of something.

      • C A Dark

        But does it not make you wonder why, in the cases of the London Bridge and Manchester attacks, the police took so long to declare the events as “terrorism” and also refused to use the I and M words? But an attack by a white man is immediately categorised as terrorism in a matter of minutes, or an hour at most? I have a highly suspicious mind on these matters and will continue to do so.

        • David

          The authorities, by “adjusting” the truth or more commonly trying to mask it, have lost much trust. But then truth is the first casualty of any war and this feels, to me, like a slow burring, low level civil war.

        • Anna

          Most accounts mention the ‘white van man’, and I thought the papers were referring to the colour of the van, not the man!

          • Paul Greenwood

            Some people write of “Ramavan”

      • Ian G

        Allegedly.

      • James Bolivar DiGriz

        So that could well be evidence that he is mentally ill, not a terrorist.

        • Anton

          The entire human race is mentally ill (Genesis 3).

  • CliveM

    Corbyn has made a visit. Deeply moved by the tragedy. In tears in fact. A man who clearly cares for the least of us.

    I do wonder however how many tears were shed for the victims of the IRA? The soldiers, the mothers, the children? None I suspect. Maybe I should change my comment.

    A man who cares for some of us, when the cameras are around. Possibly.

    • Did he visit Manchester or London Bridge and cry?

      • CliveM

        They clearly weren’t the right ‘us’.

    • MoofBongo

      Why wouldn’t he? It’s in his constituency.

      • CliveM

        So? When the victims are targeted as an attack on the British state, no tears.

    • betteroffoutofit

      All he needs to do is open his accounts up for scrutiny, and open his houses up for use by ‘those who have nothing.’

      Otherwise, he’s just a hypocritical sissy.

  • The response of the “religion of peace” will be indicative. Whatever it is, it will be done in the name of Allah just as the other murders were. So far as Jack is aware, this white man did not claim to be killing for Jesus, nor did he use His name. Therein lies a significant difference.

    • David

      Very appropriate Jack.

  • Dominic Stockford

    This week another 3,600 defenceless children will be murdered in the womb in England and Wales. Where’s the anger? Where’s the media outcry?

    • Dolphinfish

      The ability to kill a child as required when it gets is the way is a most convenient “right”. Killing Muslims is much more problematic because a) they’ll fight back b) they look like you, so it’s much harder to kid yourself they’re not human and c) unlike those super “compassionate” abortion factories, where they dispose of the mess without you having to look upon it, you actually have to see what you’ve done.

    • David

      You’ve rightly pointed to a symptom of the moral degeneracy of our nation. Let us pray that we regain a sense of morality. The Ten Commandments offer a good place to start.

  • Anton

    The political and the personal responses to this attack – and to ones by Islamic terrorists – must not get confused. Least of all by Christians.

    The inarticulate anger presumably felt by the driver deserves analysis. The difference between recent immigrants and a longstanding population is that generations of ancestors of the latter have taken part in making the country what it is. That ‘capital’, that infrastructure, was sweated into being on the understanding that it would be bequeathed to the descendants of the people who created it. That is why to give it away to others – especially others who hate us – is a terrible betrayal as well as enormous folly.

    • MoofBongo

      “That ‘capital’, that infrastructure, was sweated into being on the understanding that it would be bequeathed to the descendants of the people who created it”

      You mean the Irish?

      • bluedog

        What an idiotic non-sequitur.

        • MoofBongo

          Really? Vast amounts of our infrastructure were built by the Irish, didn’t you know?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Do you think that most British people were sitting on their backsides when the Irish were helping to dig canals? In any case the descendants of those Irish people are now British because they did integrate with the existing population.

          • Paul Greenwood

            Perhaps these Irish labourers should be paid at long last ? The acts of charity they did in digging canals are surely unsurpassed since Israelites offered up their children to meet the brick quota in Egypt

          • Anton

            Yes, including one part of my ancestry (who integrated by marriage). While they were building it in England, they were fed by the produce of English farms produced by English labour, of course.

          • Paul Greenwood

            You mean HSBC ? Or do you mean John Kerry in the US whose wealth is based on the opium trade and latterly the Heinz fortune……Heinz being a cousin of Trump in distant Germany ?

          • bluedog

            Of course I knew. But your comment relates to infrastructure in the form of fixed assets, not the constitutional and intellectual infrastructure that is the subject of Anton’s post.

      • David

        Are you serious ?
        You may not have noticed but the Irish are of a very similar cultural and type to us.

        • Now, maybe. Not so long ago, Irish Catholics were regarded as Papal Fifth Columnists and viewed as culturally inferior too.

    • bluedog

      Well said. But the imperatives of multiculturalism, equality and diversity trump the good sense of which you speak. The ‘capital’ is social cohesion, an agreed and accepted history and consequently a shared national consciousness. It is abundantly clear that the Muslims can never share our history, our foundational values and our sense of nation. Their allegiance is completely different, and what Britain offers them is a convenience and not a conviction. It will not end well and we are starting to see the complete collapse of inter-communal trust. Demographic partition is the next step.

      • David

        Agreed. The politicians empty talk, yak, yak, talk of one community with shared “British values”, whatever they are, is simply not working. By spouting this nonsense the politicos merely increase a public distrust of them. In the northern cities demographic spatial partition has always been a fact. Even when the different cultural groups work in the same office or factory they return to different “quarters” afterwards.
        Our values were roughy modelled around the Christian heritage plus Reason, but all that was attacked by oh so clever “progressives” of all types. In return they have given us this horrible post-modern mess.

      • betteroffoutofit

        Right. From this ‘ummah’ guff it’s transparently clear that THEY are the monoculturalists. I’ve pointed out already – English Christianity is, by nature, multicultural*; and that’s courtesy of Bede (AD673-735), btw. As D.H. Farmer observed, “The main theme of [Bede’s] History was the progression from diversity to unity. This was an idea worked out by Gregory the Great, whom Bede admired so much both as a teacher and as the apostle of the English.” **

        But the franco-german claptrap artists have pirated and mis-represented – indeed completely mis-used the concept in usurping the place of Christianity. So — the Marxists bring in monoculturalist Mozzies as part of the plan to impose euNity on us. And then – as someone so aptly pointed out yesterday – Saddie starts preaching about “for whom the bell tolls” as he proposes that Londonistan should be separated from the UK.

        Talk about Dramatic Irony!

        O Lord – please send us a Leader whose Spirit informs his Faith and connects them both with his brain.
        ___________________________________________
        *Celt-Anglo-Jute-Saxon-Roman-Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic . . . and everything that went into making all of those.
        **Farmer, D. H. “Introduction.” “Ecclesiastical History of the English People, with Bede’s Letter to Egbert, and Cuthbert’s Letter on the Death of Bede.” By the Venerable Bede. Rev. ed. New York: Viking Penguin, 1990; 19-38 (27).

    • Paul Greenwood

      I am not aligning myself with this idiot. Who knows what kind of loon he is ? You do not drive vehicles at pedestrians

      • Anton

        I agree entirely; that was the gist of my earlier long post, by now far below.

        • Paul Greenwood

          Agreed

      • David

        Obviously “you do not drive vehicles at pedestrians”. But please let us not ignore the very valid point made by Anton that the indigenous public has been betrayed by delusional politicians.

        • Dreadnaught

          It suits the agenda to call him a Terrorist – because we know that Muslim lives and religious identity matter more than all the rest of us.

        • Paul Greenwood

          Of course it has. Who expects politicians to do anything but kow-tow to lobbyists ? They see voters once every 5 years and spend lobbyist cash to buy those votes

  • Simon Platt

    Jumping to conclusions, Cranmer?

    • Royinsouthwest

      About what?

      • Simon Platt

        About what? About cause of death, for one thing. About motive, for another.

        Even the BBC has had to row back on its reporting today.

        • Chefofsinners

          “Even”? Nothing could be more predictable.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Interesting to compare Sadiq Khan’s responses to this attack and the one on London Bridge…

    London Bridge attack – perpetrated by British muslims against non-muslims
    7 dead, 48 injured
    Sadiq Khans response: No reason to be alarmed, this is still a safe city

    Finsbury Park attack: perpetrated by non-muslim against muslims
    1 dead, 10 injured
    Sadiq Khans response: This is an horrific terrorist attack
    Is it me or is there a huge discrepancy in the choice of words?

    • Anton

      Would it not be helpful if a reporter put that in his face before the cameras?

    • It was more a “hate crime” and “terrorism” as it was previously understood.

      Prior to the revisions of definitions in recent legislation, terrorism was: ” “acts of terrorism” means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty’s government in the United Kingdom or any other government de jure or de facto.”

      • James M

        Criticising Mohammed is blasphemy these days, after all. So of course his disciples must not be accused of terrorism, even though the Koran and hadiths favour and promote terrorism – quotations here: wikiislam.net/wiki/Qur%27an,_Hadith_and_Scholars:Muhammad_and_Terrorism

    • MoofBongo

      And also a huge discrepancy in context.

    • The 1 dead at Finsbury Park attack would have died anyway as he was an elderly pensioner who had collapsed before the van attack.

    • Anna

      The response of the politicians has been almost comical. The Islamophobic ‘hate crimes’ – like throwing bacon at Muslim cars, tugging at a hijabi’s scarf or graffiti – are undoubtedly law and order offences, but when these are treated by politicians as if they were on par with actual knife attacks or car ramming incidents or suicide bombings, you wonder what their real agenda is?

      Of all the terrorist attacks we have seen over the last few years, this was absolutely the clumsiest. The one person who died as a result of this ‘horrific terrorist attack’ seemed to have been suffering from a massive heart attack when the van struck, and being ‘given first aid’ by fellow worshippers, instead of being taken to a hospital.

      As a consequence, however, freedom of speech will be further curtailed, and ‘Islamophobic speech’, as typified by comments on this blog, will now be made a criminal offence.

    • James M

      It’s not you. Sadie Khan’t is a Muslim, so it should surprise no-one that he thinks like one, and regards kuffar lives as worth less than those of Muslims. See: https://quran.com/2/221

      Our pols ought to be force-fed the Koran. They have no right to praise and defend Islam when they are…pig-ignorant…(as it were) of what the Koran says. And the clergy have if possible even less excuse for prating such nonsense.

  • Anna

    The so-called terrorist, most likely, suffers from mental illness, and seeing how powerless the authorities are to prevent Islamic terrorism, decided to take things into his own hands. Tragic. The imam, at the site, apparently prevented the worshippers, who had overpowered the lone attacker, from killing him, or there might have been 2 deaths, not one.

    No doubt the Muslim Council of Britain will- ignoring how rare such revenge attacks have been In the past – now blame Islamophobia, and demand endless new privileges and protection from the government as well as laws to silence critics of Islam.

    • Dreadnaught

      Nobody knows for sure if the dead man who had collapsed wasn’t already dead when the car actually struck the group. How ever, I cant see that that bloke who killed the people on London Bridge would have needed the intervention of a priest or vicar to save him from being torn apart by an angry mob of Christians.

      • CliveM

        Morally it makes little difference, the intent was there.

        • Dreadnaught

          Of course the intent was there; no doubt about it as he said he wanted to kill all Muslims. The point I am making is the potential for instant retribution by the mob from the Mosque. This is why he has been charged with attempted murder: unless the pm delivers a different result.

          • CliveM

            I’ll be honest and say if someone had attacked someone close to me, in the heat of the moment, I might of attacked them.

          • Dreadnaught

            No – we tend to run away because the Jihadis will go on killing until they are stopped dead.

          • CliveM

            Perhaps, I hope never to find out.

          • MoofBongo

            We should now be allowed to carry some form of weapon for self defence.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yeah that’s right – legalise all muslims to carry a weapon of their choice – that’s what you are calling for. Don’t be daft man!

          • MoofBongo

            I was thinking along the lines of mace, really.

          • Simon Platt

            He’s said to have said that he wanted to kill all Moslems. And perhaps he did say that. But perhaps not.

            He was said also to be armed with a knife, and to have to accomplices. But it seems that neither saying was true.

    • CliveM

      I remember that one of Lee Rigbys killers suffered from mental illness. He was still labelled a terrorist and rightly so.

      We dont yet know the mental state of this man, but even if mentaĺly it does not necessarily mean he was incapable of moral judgement. If he attacked these people simply for being Muslims, he is a terrorist.

      • Dreadnaught

        Did he do it for Jesus?… I don’t think so.

        • CliveM

          Happily not.

          • Dreadnaught

            Unlike you know who…

        • Anna

          He is certainly a descendant of the Crusaders according to ISIS.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes, that will be the word on the street in sunny Lahore. Christians beware [ as if they are not already weary of being wary]

      • Anna

        According to forensic psychiatrists who work with ‘terrorists’, about half of them are mentally unstable and therefore easily manipulated by terrorist networks. The difference is that this man very likely acted alone, and not under the influence or direction from any ‘Islamophobic’ organisation or network, to take revenge on Muslims.

        • CliveM

          We dont know very much about this man. We shouldnt jump to conclusions.

          • Dreadnaught

            Not conclusions – merely speculating.

          • Anna

            My main point though is that the Muslim Council of Britain and similar organisations will now use this lone incident to make the case that Muslims are under attack, and so ‘Islamophobia’, including all criticism of Islam should be banned.

      • “Terrorism” is a politically motivated strategy perpetrated by an organisation. One man acting alone, ill or not, against a religion or race would be categorised as a “hate crime”.

        • Anna

          I agree.

        • CliveM

          I would be generally happier if that was the generally accepted understanding. It doesnt seem to be the official one anymore.

        • Royinsouthwest

          What if the terrorist organisation encourages anyone sympathising with their objectives to carry out their own attacks? Can’t terrorism be “franchised” in that way?

          • Jack would say so, yes. No doubt that’s why the definition changed so that so called lone individuals would be covered. Whatever way you look at it, murder is murder. It’s called “terrorism” so that the security agencies can use sweeping powers of surveillance on all of us.

        • David

          Quite. But you are using common sense and the generally understood and accepted meanings for words. However governments of late seem to be more of the Alice in Wonderland persuasion, where words mean what they say they mean, to fit their purposes.

    • David

      The public will not support further privileges for Islam, that’s for sure. Political parties that speak further vacuous nonsenses about “the religion of peace” will simply lose even more credibility, and therefore electoral support. The public are waiting for a comprehensive strategy to address, effectively, the root causes of terrorism. Unlike with many more opaque matters, where the measurement of success is difficult, it is very easy for the public to judge a government’s effectiveness in tackling terrorism. Moreover for further incidents, which sadly there will be I’m sure, hushing everything up simply will not work.

      • CliveM

        I’m not sure I could make any assumption about what the public will accept, want, endorse etc. Politics no longer makes any sense to me.

        • David

          I agree that the previously generally accepted rules no longer apply, so making conjectures regarding the future is more risky. But human nature doesn’t change and still rolls on, in all its brokenness.

    • bluedog

      See Theresa May’s address this morning, and the new commission whose establishment is to be enacted. Your prediction is entirely accurate.

  • Dominic Stockford

    What some might term ‘normal service’ has meanwhile been resumed in France. Fortunately only the assailant has died, and there are no other injuries.

  • bobo

    It is the doctrine of Kuffarism which makes Islam so uniquely difficult to coexist with. The ramifications are extensive, but it is fair to say that even Muslims who only want ‘to eat, work, love and pray in their holy places of prostration’ regard the children of the Kuffar as spiritually and morally inferior to their own children. Perhaps you could raise this with the Imam the next time he invites you to his mosque to lead the congregation in a rousing chorus of ‘Onward, Christian Soldiers’.

    • MoofBongo

      Don’t Christians regard non Christian children as spiritually​and morally inferior, then?

      • David

        Are you always this ignorant of the basic facts of Christianity, or has the heat exacerbated your condition ?
        No they don’t regard “non Christian children” as inferior. Christians regard all children, indeed all humans, as fallen beings needing God’s grace and mercy. This is available to everyone if they repent and sincerely place their trust in Jesus Christ as their personal Saviour. Being born into a particular ethnic group or culture cuts no ice with God who urges all to turn to Him.

        • MoofBongo

          What about atheists, Dave?

          • David

            All are equally unacceptable to God and all can be redeemed through repentance and trusting in Christ – no exceptions.

          • MoofBongo

            Why did God create us if we’re all unacceptable, Dave? That was a mistake, wasn’t it?

          • Inspector General

            Our creator has us for the amusement we provide. No other reason. We are entertainment for the divine.

          • MoofBongo

            Well he can’t be getting much joy out of me.

          • Inspector General

            It’s not just Him…

          • MoofBongo

            Well it was an open goal.

          • Inspector General

            Couldn’t miss, dear fellow…

          • James M

            Are you asking because you genuinely want to know, or because you just want to get a rise out of jerking around those dead-brain Christians ?

            The answer to the question is:

            1. God makes no mistakes. He is not a man – the creature who continually blunders. All that God does displays the Wisdom by which (or better, by Whom) He has created whatever has being. Our God truly is great.

            2. All things that are or were or shall be, are created by God for God. “All things consist” in Christ, so it can also be rightly said that Christ is the Beginning and End of all creation.

            So all this talk about the vastness of space is rather silly – if the nations are but “dust” in comparison with God, the heavens that “are the work of His hands” are nothing to be cowed by. God is the Creator of all things; the Conqueror of sin, death, and the devil; the Only Redeemer of man; and the Lord and Judge of all things. So we have every reason not to be afraid. We are to fear God alone – nothing else.

          • James M

            See Romans 2. Here it is: http://biblehub.com/nasb/romans/2.htm

        • betteroffoutofit

          Right. So instead of being encouraged to rape our women and children, the invaders should be required to send their children to Sunday School and to study the Bible as a course in day school. After all, quite apart from the Wisdom of the Word — the Bible shows us how to employ the Word. Poetry, interlace, structural analysis . . . and even a bit of historical English to show how beautiful it was before the aliens started mucking it up.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Interesting point.Knowledge of the Bible is essential to understanding classical literature, advanced concepts, history etc.Even Dawkins admitted this.

      • bobo

        Love thy neighbour as thou lovest thyself.

        Unconditionally, no exceptions, no Out Group.

        So I’d have to say ‘No’.

      • Royinsouthwest

        No because we are all sinners and all our righteousness is as filthy rags.

        • Anton

          We (Christians) all sin and are therefore sinners in that sense, but our identity before God (and who else matters?) is Holy One (I’d say ‘saint’ but for once I don’t want to get into the Reformation). We should think of ourselves as such. This is something that Cranmer got wrong in the prayer book. But the Bible outranks even His (Original) Grace.

          • James M

            Can’t agree. God Alone is Holy. Any holiness in creatures comes through the One Mediator, Jesus Christ, as a sheer gift. It is never something they had of themselves, but something additional and undeservable and unearnable. Christ is Our Righteousness, Wisdom, Holiness and Redemption – we can have, and we need, no other.

      • James M

        No. That would be unChristian behaviour. Islam is a supremacist cult that claims in the Koran that its “god” hates the unbelievers. This is the polar opposite of the behaviour of Christ, “Who humbled Himself to death, death on a Cross”.

    • James M

      Spot on. And this too is being industriously ignored by those who govern us. Historians of the future will not be kind to them.

  • Inspector General

    “London mosque attack: to kill a worshipping Muslim is to murder us all” (!)

    Steady on, Cranmer! These people are not the ‘chosen ones’ you know! Not with their ‘good book’ and its {Ahem} ‘guidance’ for them and it’s unfortunate recommended future for us, all courtesy of Mohamed, which they will not give up voluntarily. We’ve seen enough innocents in this country slaughtered resulting. Such hyperbole from you, dear fellow, is quite out of place even on this occasion of sadness for them (for a change)…

    Man in all his savagery then. It’s not just the religion of peace that can wreak death and destruction.

    Well, not quite…

    What we have here is the earliest form of society defence. It was already with us when our ancestors took to two legs. Put simply, it is this:

    ”If your tribe (or troop as it would have been originally) continues to persecute us, then that same persecution will be visited upon you”

    Is it a valid concept, or rather is it still valid today? Yes, but not in every situation. Where can you see it in action? From the boldest of government defence policy. It’s also the basis of effective justice. You can even see it in the street at times. And the ‘active ingredient’ of the concept? Why, that’s easy. You make it so uncomfortable for the other side, that no gain could possibly be had by their continued persecution of you.

    Will it work against Islam? Certainly not! It will be as petrol to the flames…

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Inspector, “London mosque attack: to kill a worshipping Muslim is to murder us al” probably refers to the inevitable reprisals from the Finsbury Mosque alumni.

      • Inspector General

        You are right as usual sir. The phones haven’t stopped ringing at GCHQ one suspects…

  • Inspector General

    Listening today to Islamic types on the radio this morning, they go to pains to remind us that we should be jolly gratefully for the cultural enrichment that multiculturalism brings. Oh yes, diversity and something else, probably.

    Even as the ship slowly goes down, they’re still drumming out that old tune, right to the end.

    There’s a cost. As always. Nothing comes free, that marvellous experiment included. The cost up until lately was indeed mainly cultural. Our superior culture ignored. An increase in criminality and unsuitable ethnic behaviour. The truth of white flight as well. (It seems that this cultural enrichment and diversity is not so attractive at the point of delivery as the only way to keep Johnny Indigenous on board would be to nail his feet to the floor). What else – a life on benefits at our expense. Pandering to and encouraging an astonishing sense of entitlements mentality too – all designed to stop any more riots. Little wonder then that these wallahs sing the damn things praises. Multiculturalism certainly works for them, what!

    But the price is going up. Increasingly measured in human life now. It would be unfair to reason the change for the worse solely as the Koran’s doings. Or for inter-ethnic disputes. For the newcomers now form the majority in their areas. Perhaps it’s rather more obvious. With fewer or no English in the immediate to fit in with, for want of a better phrase, these people are now free to be as they always were – themselves.

    Gentlemen, what we have is what muslim countries have been suffering with since their dictatorships collapsed or were brought down – their own people, unrestrained.

  • David

    It is “reported”, via a U tube, that there has been a “Alluha Akbar” knifing of a police officer near Paddington station. A video clip suggests something has happened, as someone is on the floor with police in attendance. But it doesn’t prove what has happened. This has not been reported on the MS news. The scary thing is that if incidents do occur, we cannot now be sure that it will be covered by the MS media.

  • Inspector General

    One wonders if any ‘good’ will come from this event. Those who see their glass half full are wont to look for the positives from such a murderous action. Poor deluded, yet ever hopeful, bastards…

    In that vein, perhaps we might even get “Muslims make impassioned plea. Please stop persecuting us. Now we know what it’s like to be on the receiving end, we’ll stop persecuting you too.”

  • Politically__Incorrect

    “to murder people for their faith is an attack on the fundamental freedom of religion” – freedoms which are constantly being eroded largely thanks to the “liberal” Left and other allah-apologists

    • MoofBongo

      Not so much politically incorrect, as politically incoherent, then.

    • Dreadnaught

      Which is a common enough practise in countries where Sharia is dominant and its growing. Nothing at all to do with western political mores.
      Call it what it is – Relgio-Fascism, nothing less.

  • dannybhoy

    My concerns regarding Islam are based on its attitudes and treatment of religious and ethnic minorities living in Muslim nations; especially my Christian brothers and sisters.
    How are they treated?
    Do they enjoy equal rights under the law?
    Do they experience persecution because they are Christian or a minority group?
    What about homosexuals and women?
    Are they treated as equal citizens?
    Until that changes I remain very concerned about the impact of Islam on our nation.

    • Inspector General

      Do you know, Danny, you could have asked exactly the same of a NAZI party member years ago.

      • dannybhoy

        Yes but our forefathers didn’t need to ask. They judged those Nazis by their deeds, and so reluctantly, they went to war.
        They went to war because they had international obligations to other nations, and war was the only avenue left for them to try and protect our freedoms and values.

        • I see no benefits from becoming an Islamic state because that’s what we would eventually become if Islamic religion and culture became the dominant force in the UK. No doubt we’d be sunni as there are more of them here already. We’d be taking a huge step backwards to civil wars again and oppression. The whites would have taken flight out of the country and Britain would be no more.

        • Inspector General

          Forgive the Inspector, Danny, for he has not made himself clear. There is no such thing as religions. There is Christ. There is also Judaism from which Christ is of. That’s it. That’s the Christian way. There are no others. For him, there is little between the Koran and Mein Kampf. Either way, someone suffers. For the former, it must be us.

          The Inspector has as much regard for Finsbury Park mosque as a place of worship as he has for a shebeen. Worthy of complete closure. At the point of a 9mm Glock if necessary. There can be no peace while Islam thrives here. If there can, do say. One is open to persuasion…

          • Watchman

            Are we in the same position as Elijah and the prophets of Baal? Is allah really Baal and should the measures we take be a modern day equivalent? (1 Kings 18, just to save looking it up). Or perhaps we think Elijah should have said “Come on chaps, why don’t we form a multi faith committee”

          • Inspector General

            We must continue to dispute the validity of all religion, Watchman. There is Christ. He stands alone. So we cannot entertain anything else that claims religious status.

          • Watchman

            There is Christ, who’s blood was shed for the salvation of mankind. That is not religion it is the reparation of the relationship between our Creator and man. All else is religion, the ritualistic pursuance of mankind after whoever they think will benefit them. Authentic Christianity is not mere religion, it is far, far more than that.

  • Arden Forester

    We’ve heard an awful lot about tolerance, liberal values and “we have more in common than divides us” recently but none of these platitudes assists a Christian very much. We are told in the Gospels we have to love our neighbour as ourselves. Hopefully we are Christ-centred people. Nobody can commit cold-blooded murder and claim to be anywhere near the Gospel. Loving our neighbour is NOT the same as liking them. We are not asked necessarily to like them. We are also told to love one another as Jesus loves us. Tolerance doesn’t come into it. Neither do “liberal values”. Loving people is about honouring their souls when their hearts and minds turn to sin. Something the World finds hard to accept.

    Christians should also not shy away from Jesus being the Way, the Truth and the Life. The only way. Tolerance doesn’t come into it. Neither do “liberal values”. Too many Anglican clergy talk as if Jesus was an optional extra to a spiritual life. “Before Abraham was, I Am”. Too many Christians bother themselves about the ungodly, the lukewarm and those of other clay. Jesus tells us not to. “Let all grow until the Harvest”. All we can do is show love so that people can know us by our fruits.

    • The problem is translating the individual message of the Gospel into state governance. As Christians and as citizens we cannot ignore those “weeds” which threaten the spiritual wellbeing and physical safety of ourselves and future generations. We have to engage with society as it is and this means rooting out dangerous ideas, especially those which spread by violence, intimidation and fear.

      • Arden Forester

        My understanding is that we cannot ignore the “weeds” within civil society. Caesar should have a settled society to govern. However, with regard to an individual soul, that is God’s business. We are told not to judge that. One of the hardest aspects of the Gospel is about forgiveness. Most humans cannot do this and go to their graves with at least one grievance still unresolved.

        • Then we are in full agreement, Arden.

          • Arden Forester

            It’s good to find agreement.

      • James M

        And this means, in practice, that Christians have to make war, execute criminals, imprison criminals, have police and executioners and spies and gaolers, have a weapons industry, concoct deadly weapons, and perhaps engage in torture. Christianity is fine in small groups, but it is useless in everyday society. If Britain had tried being Christian in WW2, we would be speaking German and saluting our glorious Fuehrer. Even Christ did not always live up to His own Teachings, so we can’t be expected to – we do not live in a world in which living like that is possible. Even Saints failed – and they are a tiny fraction of Christendom. Christianity is not remotely practical.

        • Does it? Really? It means in practice Christians should play their part in civil society and do their best to ensure the actions of leaders and the laws by which we are governed comply with Gospel values.

          “Even Christ did not always live up to His own Teachings, so we can’t be expected to – we do not live in a world in which living like that is possible.”
          Evidence of this assertion about Christ is necessary.

    • betteroffoutofit

      There’s also such a thing as “tough love” – which fits with the “love the sinner not the sin” dictum. Indeed, holding to the Gospel involves saying and doing – IN LIGHT OF HIS LAW – what we can see to be best for each other, including the sinners.

      In fact Christ did not grovel about in front of his enemies, weeping and wailing about how much He empathised with them. He didn’t tell those possessed of ‘evil spirits’ to go their way and let that spirit lead them on. No. He CAST OUT the evil. “Begone”‘ “Hie thee hence” – was the main idea. “Father forgive them” was a prayer of understanding – and of love of His enemies. After which, He harrowed Hell; leaving it’s master where it belonged.

      “Render unto Caesar” involved understanding that NOTHING belongs to Caesar – everything is God’s … oh – and an image on a coin is a “graven image” —- it’s not something we’re supposed to worship.

      Same with ‘turning the other cheek” —- it has the effect of making the aggressor defile himself. It doesn’t mean we’re supposed to keep on begging for more abuse.

      It’s time to ask Him to help us CAST OUT the aggressive evil that’s corrupting our national body, that he bring sight to the Inly Blind. But we do have to participate in that.

  • len

    Islam is as much a political system as a religion. This lifts Islam out of being’ just another religion’.
    Jesus said “My kingdom is not of this world” . Islam is very much ‘of this world’ and uses methods of ‘this world’ to accomplish its goals.
    A violent reaction from (one assumes) a far right group towards Muslims is the very result that radical Islam desires and this is to cause division and hatred between the different ethnic groups.

    “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, and in various places there will be famines and earthquakes.”

    Greek term ethnos, “nations”, is used in Matthew 24. Therefore, many conflicts between tribes and ethnic groups world-wide will be experienced during the end times. Such tragedies have recently occurred in Armenia, Rwanda, Zaire, Burundi, Tanzania, Sri Lanka, Georgia, Northern Iran, Mexico, Tibet, Cambodia, and Bosnia.

    (Source http://www.endtimesbroadcast.com/bplastdays.html)

    The disastrous events happening in our world are primarily due to a spiritual battle between the God of the Bible and forces that oppose Him as the apostle Paul revealed;

    ‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.'(Ephesians 6:12)

  • Here are clear statements of the Koran itself :

    “Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them.” Koran 2:191

    “Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood.” Koran 9:123

    “When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them.” Koran 9:5

    “Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable.” Koran 3:85

    “The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them.”… Koran 9:30

    “Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam” Koran 5:33

    “Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies.” Koran 22:19

    “The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them.” Koran 8:65

    “Muslims must not take the infidels as friends.” Koran 3:28

    “Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an.” Koran 8:12

    “Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorize the infidels.” Koran 8:60

    Added to these are a few samples of Muhammad’s teachings and life. Here are some quotations taken from Muslim sources:

    – “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah” – (Muslim 1:33)

    – “Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah.” (Ibn Ishaq 992). Muhammad’s life was a succession of warfare, plundering and killings… and every Muslim is invited to imitate this supreme “model”.

    – Muhammad owned and traded slaves – (Sahih Muslim 3901), and ordered his followers to stone women for adultery. – (Muslim 4206)

    – He himself beheaded 800 Jewish men and boys, (Abu Dawud 4390) ordered the murder of women (Ibn Ishaq 819, 995) and killed those who insulted him. – (Bukhari 56:369, 4:241)

    – According to him, Jihad in the way of Allah elevates one’s position in Paradise by a hundred fold. – (Muslim 4645)

    – In his last ten years, he ordered 65 military campaigns and raids. – (Ibn Ishaq) and killed captives taken in battle. – (Ibn Ishaq 451)

    – He encouraged his men to rape enslaved women, (Abu Dawood 2150, Quran 4:24), he put apostates to death, plundered and lived off the wealth of others, captured and enslaved non-Muslim people.

    – After Mohammed’s death, his followers attacked and conquered the populations of 28 countries and declared holy war on the people of five major world religions.

    Examples from Islamic history:

    – In the first 240 years, 11 of the first 32 caliphs were murdered by fellow Muslims.

    – Muslim clerics have always engaged in or condoned terrorism all along history and up till now.

    – We witness daily religious violence against Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians. The converts to Christianity are beheaded.

    – The victims of slave traffic done by the Arabs during almost ten centuries amount to tens of millions of people.

    – Each year, thousands of Christian homes and churches are torched or bombed by Muslim mobs, and hundreds of Christians, priests, pastors, nuns and other church workers are murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists. The so-called justification varies, from charges of apostasy or evangelism, to purported “blasphemy” or ” insulting” Islam. Innocent people have even been hacked to death by devout Muslims over cartoons. Islam is an open-ended declaration of war against non-Muslims.

    Are the extremists simply being faithful to an authentic Islam in your view?

    Clearly YES. Extremists are just applying what their religion teaches them to do.

    http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/jesuit-scholar-seeking-to-defend-islam-at-all-costs-is-betraying-the-truth

    • Inspector General

      Good show, Jack!

      • Yes … but Jack doesn’t want to feed your desire to use a 9mm Glock on Muslims, Inspector. Speaking the truth about Islam is one thing. Inciting civil war and the use of military suppression, is quite another.

        • Inspector General

          The context was British (armed) law and order, Jack. We both know that suppressing an all-in religio-socio conquering movement alien to these shores is going to need a bit more than a wooden truncheon…

          • Violence doesn’t stop violence, Inspector, it escalates violence. As Christians, we should expose the ugly roots of Islamism; expose the bankrupt ideology of modern intolerant “liberalism” and its cowardice; call out those who want to silence and intimidate us, challenging them to open debate and dialogue. We should not return violence with violence.

          • David

            Quite so.

          • Inspector General

            Good for you, Jack! The Inspector takes off his hat, puts it on the end of his umbrella and waves it in the air. For you, sir. But let’s say you fail and we have ‘the weekly car bomb’ summary on the news. Can you then be grateful that there are fellows such as the Inspector who not only know what needs to be done, but is unafraid to do it…

          • Sarky

            Do what???

            Send them harsh words from behind the safety of a screen??

          • Wot Sarky said – with bells on.

          • Dreadnaught

            Blimey HJ – impressed.

          • *Falls on floor in disbelief*

          • Lucius

            Gentle persuasion did not compel the Moors to depart Spain. Nor did it check the Islamic advance into Christian Gaul. Nor did verbal debate cause the Muslims to abandon their campaign to take Vienna. Roughly 1400 years of history shows that the only way to check Islamic expansion is to meet force-with-force.

          • They weren’t liberal-democratic states with secular, post Christian cultures. The Church was a force in the world wielding political influence and power, as well as preaching the Gospel.

          • James M

            Violence is the only way. Islam needs to be suppressed – it is us, or them. They have shown what spirit they are of, for they make murder a religious duty, rewarded by an eternal orgy in Paradise. Hitler was not got the better of by sweet reasonableness, but by being bombed into the Stone Age. If all Muslims are exterminated, there will be no Muslims to “escalate” anything.

          • You want to “exterminate” all Muslims? That’ll go down well.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Bad idea !

    • David

      Well exposed Jack. Hiding the truth never makes the unacceptable, acceptable.

    • Sarky

      The thing is Jack, i can also quote distasteful bible verses and atrocities carried out in the name of god. Do i judge you by these?

      • IrishNeanderthal

        Dealing with the Tanakh (Old Testament) there is some stuff that is pretty gruesome by our standards, but much of it is set in a context which even at the time of writing was historical.

        Grabbing women after a battle was standard practice for the time, but where else do you find injunctions like “when you capture a woman in battle, give her a month to grieve for those she has lost”.

        Compare that with the seizure of a woman described in the Iliad. And then look at the cruelties boasted of by the Assyrians.

        There were incidents like where the Northern King of Israel, Menachem, ripped open the pregnant women of Gilead, but it is neither commanded nor condoned. (I always think of that when I remember Menachem Begin. What a name!)

        Shortly before Pizarro defeated the Inca Empire, Atahualpa had seized the throne for Huascar, and on seizing the women of the harem, the fruit of their wombs was cut out. I remember, as an undergraduate, mentioning this to a senior academic, who asked what was so wrong about killing embryos.

        • Inspector General

          Middle Eastern culture, what! And their descendants are still around…

        • Sarky

          I’m just trying to point out that just because it’s in there, not everyone adheres to it or finds it acceptable. This is common to all religions.
          There are over 3 million muslims in this country, only a handful have carried out these evil acts.
          Are all white people far right extremists due to the actions of this idiot??? Of course not.

          • Inspector General

            The English spread around the world. Only a small number were involved in the planning. The rest were hirelings. Comprehende?

          • Ivan M

            That is what one hopes is the case. I would like to point out that as Irish Neanderthal wrote, the OT is no more violent being among other things the record of the development of the Israeli nation, than (the record of) other contemporaneous nations. It is moreover a faithful record of the anthropology of the human race as seen by Jewish savants. Therefore few if any Christian or Jew regard the examples of Joshua or David as binding on them.

            The Muslims by contrast are burdened by a book that claims to be authoured by God himself. Moreover it enjoins Muslims to follow in the path of Mohammed the perfect man as the true interpretation of the will of God. Now Mohammed had he existed was a mass murderer, rapist, robber and serial breaker of promises. Is a faithful Muslim to overlook this?

          • James M

            Only a small number of Nazis carried out its crimes. Same applies to Islam. Something tells me that even the multi-cultiest of liberals in London would be appalled by the notion of an Adolf Hitler Day. But why ? It would be further proof of the “diversity” of London.

            It will never happen. And yet, the death cult founded by the Hitler of Arabia is protected. Jews and Christians have to accept insults to what they value most, but Islam is protected by what amounts to a blasphemy law.

          • Manfarang

            In this 500 anniversary year lets not forget ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’ (German: Von den Jüden und iren Lügen; in modern spelling Von den Juden und ihren Lügen) is a 65,000-word anti-Jewish treatise written in 1543 by the German Reformation leader Martin Luther.

        • James M

          Mo, OTOH, married the wives of POWs whom he had just executed. No nonsense about secual restraint for him !

          • Ivan M

            Bloody hell that story always gets to me as something to shove in the face of the bums who see all religions as given to violence. 1700 or so years before Mo, Moses in giving sanction to the Habiru to sack the cities of the plain instructed the fighters that while they are allowed to take comely maidens as booty, they must be allowed to lament their dead, by shaving their heads and go into mourning for a month. Contrast this with the wild rutting boar behavior of the man the Muslims consider to be the pattern of all virtues. The bugger could not even wait for the bodies of the dead to grow cold before indulging himself. How is this animal the Seal of the Prophets ? The last of the line of Elijah and Jeremiah?

          • Anton

            Married or raped?

      • Anton

        We are Christians not Jews, and bound by the New Testament not the Old. We read the Old to learn more of God in the era when he was running a nation not a church. You won’t find anything in either Testament telling Jews or Christians to conquer the whole world by force, and the enforcement of Christianity is actually impossible because it is about how to be changed in a way that one cannot do for oneself. That of necessity is a voluntary process.

        Agree or disagree with me, do you understand the point I am making?

        • Cressida de Nova

          Do you realise you said we are bound by the New Testament not the Old Testament…? Correct…. but you changed your mind a few posts further up!

      • Dreadnaught

        More importantly – do they enact them? NO.

      • Absolutely -if you comprehend them. The difference is that the Bible, being inspired, rather than dictated, is open to rational study concerning context and interpretation. Then there’s the New Testament revealing the new and everlasting Covenant between God and man and showing us the true meaning of the Old Testament. The Koran is a different kettle of fish. This was the nub of Pope Benedict’s critique of Islam.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Our faith is based on the New Testament…the gospels.

      • James M

        There is no comparison. The Islamic commands in the Koran are treated as eternal, and eternally valid. They are not relativised by the Teaching of Christ, as the OT passages. Christians are subject to Christ, not to the defective morality of the Jewish sacred books. Treating the Koranic commands to engage in jihad as no longer applicable was one of the offences for which Mohammed Taha was executed in 1985.

        • Ivan M

          Taha’s fate is what awaits Islamic reformers in countries where the Islamists hold sway.

      • Cressida de Nova

        There is nothing violent or distasteful in the New Testament which is the Holy Writ of Christianity.

        • Sarky

          You’ve not read revelation then?

          • Cressida de Nova

            It was not written by St John

    • Cressida de Nova

      Yet every time they interview a Muslim, they say this has nothing to do with
      real Islam and none of us are violent,in fact it is the opposite, we are devout and peace loving. Every single one of them says this. So…how does one explain this.?

      • Some of them lie, some of them are misinformed and some wish it were not so.

  • “It seems to me that — on the pretext of openness, tolerance and Christian charity — the Catholic Church has fallen into the trap of the liberal left ideology which is destroying the West. Anything that does not espouse this ideology is immediately stigmatized in the name of “political correctness”. Many think that a certain number of your positions are aligned with this ideology and that, from complacency, you go from concessions to concessions and compromises in compromises at the expense of the truth.”

    “The West is in an ethical and moral debacle, both religious and spiritual. And it is not by relativizing the painful reality that these societies will be helped to emerge from their disarray. By defending at all costs Islam and seeking to exonerate it from the horrors committed every day in its name, one ends up betraying the truth.”

    “Jesus said to us, ‘the Truth will set you free.’ It is because he refused any compromise on this point that he knew the fate which was his. Following him, countless Christians preferred martyrdom to compromise, as is the case in Egypt and elsewhere to this day.”

    “In the extreme fragility of Christians — both in the West and in the East — they are expecting something from you other than vague and harmless declarations that may obscure reality. Your predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, had the courage to take a clear and unambiguous position. His attitude has raised a lot of shields and earned him many enemies. But is not a frank confrontation healthier than a dialogue based on compromise? When the Jewish hierarchs asked the apostles to stop announcing the Gospel, they replied: “As for us, we cannot not proclaim what we have seen and heard …” (Acts 4:20).

    “It is high time to emerge from a shameful and embarrassed silence in the face of this Islamism that attacks the West and the rest of the world. A systematically conciliatory attitude is interpreted by the majority of Muslims as a sign of fear and weakness. If Jesus said to us: Blessed are the peacemakers, he did not say to us: Blessed are the pacifists. Peace is peace at any cost, at any price. Such an attitude is a pure and simple betrayal of truth.”

    Extract from letter to Pope Francis by Egyptian Greek Melkite Jesuit Father Henri Boulad.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      From the original Thomas Cranmer’s collects, one for Good Friday, I remember the phrase

      “we pray for all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics . . .”

      The term “infidels” refers to unbelievers within Christendom as then was. I feel that pressure from the more hostile infidels in the West has resulted in the climate in which our own governments pass over attacks on Coptic churches in relative silence.

      • Yeah, how un-PC are the traditional Easter prayers!

    • Ivan M

      When the Church shows meekness this is interpreted by Islamists as weakness. It is high time that the clown we have as a Pope understands this. No one is calling for a Crusade but the cumulative experience of Christians, who live effectively as dhimmis in even tolerant Muslim majority countries such as Indonesia, should weigh heavily on the minds of those who lead the various churches in the West.

      • James M

        That makes one wonder whether perhaps the Teaching of Christ simply does not work when one is faced with a supremacist totalitarian death cult like Islam. The danger is an existential one: if we do not wipe m

        • Ivan M

          The examples of the early martyrs and the Christians in the Middle East seem to bear you out. But I have no doubt that many Muslims will be saved by the selfless acts of Christians in obedience to Jesus Christ. The trouble is not all of us wish or can be martyrs. The NT has no blueprint for self-defence. Hence the need for a strong state which will not be undermined by cowardly Christians pretending to follow Jesus. MK Gandhi when speaking of non-violence advised Hindus who took cover behind ahimsa or soul-force, to hide their essential cowardliness that it would be much more honest for them to take up arms to defend their wives and daughters. True non-violence require a level of courage that hardly anyone possesses without supernatural aid. Who are the true apostles of such an exalted teaching? The monks of Tibherene and the great Christians in the Middle-East would qualify. But as for the rest us it would be better to be realistic about what our Christianity amounts to.

        • Anton

          I urge you to stop thinking that politicised Christianity is the norm and start thinking that the Christianity of the “primitive” church is the norm. It wrote our scriptures, after all. Real Christianity tends to be persecuted Christianity, and vice-versa. Persecuted Christianity has a large throughput of believers to heaven, but numbers grow.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Christianity is not synonymous for masochism. That is perversion not real Chistianity.

          • Anton

            Tell the early church martyrs that they weren’t into real Christianity. Tell the Chinese Christians today. Tell Jesus Christ, whose pattern of dying for God’s cause we are meant to emulate if necessary.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Early Christians were a suppressed minority like the Coptic Christians .They had no means of defending themselves. Of course they were and are martyrs. Quite different from Christians who are not in a suppressed minority and choose not to defend their faith falling back on cowardice . We are bound to defend ourselves and our families against any onslaught threatening us.Christianity does not advocate aggression but it also does not advocate suicide. Jesus did not commit suicide.
            If you wanted to emulate Jesus by deliberately putting yourself in a situation where ISIS caught you and nailed you to a cross because you fancied the idea of being a martyr… apart from being a loony, you would actually be committing a sin. Fight first for the faith, and if it doesn’t work out then die for faith.

          • James M

            I wasn’t thinking that; simply pointing out that Christianity seems woefully impractical in certain connections. Your comment implicitly rejects any attempt at applying Christianity to political life. This means that a Christian should keep Christianity to himself, and, as a politician or other public figure, act like a heathen. That is where rejecting “politicised Christianity” leads. All attempts to make the Christian Faith apply to public questions – abortion, the army, economics, employment – are by definition political. Obeying the Great Commission is political.

    • James M

      And spot on. The Popes since 1964 have all flattered Islam, cravenly, as though they could not wait to enter Dante’s Bolgia of the Flatterers in Eighth Circle of Hell – seven Bolgie above Mohammed. The much-criticised Alexander VI never sank that low. Our Lord did not tell St Peter, “Starve My sheep…weaken thy brethren”. But they have. They have betrayed Catholics by their false characterisation of Islam. They are liars. They have by their actions and words aided this antiChristian and antihuman cult of lust, perversion and death, and they have blood on their hands.

      • Vatican II on religious liberty in democratic states – and all that. Different times.

      • Cressida de Nova

        I can only think that all of this charade of acceptance of Islam and Protestantism was politically motivated which of course does not make it right. It has certainly weakened the Church to a point of damage which wil be difficult to repair without a major overhaul.

  • bluedog

    Here we go. From Theresa May’s address:

    ‘The government will establish a new commission for countering extremism as a statutory body.’

    One can predict the the composition of the commission’s advisory board and the faith of its commissioner. A typical response by the political elite to a problem it refuses to confront, yet needs to be seen to be doing something. Prediction: this commission will emerge as an agency for the oppression of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, while enforcing blasphemy laws that protect a religion that actually preaches violence.

    • betteroffoutofit

      “. . . for countering extremism as a statutory body’ Now there’s a fine example of franco-german, deconstructive, Freedom With Speech!!!

      It May Not be very interesting to see who [wo]man’s the “new commission” against the “statutory body”!

      • bluedog

        We have seen the long march through the existing institutions by the Left. We are now witnessing the creation of new institutions for the benefit and protection of the ummah.

        • betteroffoutofit

          Oh dear; all these new linguistics (even for me, who memorised Fitzgerald’s “The Rubaiyyat” when I was about 12!!!)!

          So – on the ‘ummah’ thing. Wiki’s giving me ” . . . the collective community of Islamic peoples,” while “Chambers” and the OED stick with ‘Muslim’ as in: “The whole community of Muslims bound together by ties of religion” (OED Online).

          The question still lurks, though — how do the euro-Commies and the Mozzies plan to sort themselves out once we Christians are dust? ” . . . Sans wine, sans song, sans singer, and sans end”, even?
          Which one of them’s the Useful Idiot? Does the “Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness” not cry: “Fools, your reward is neither here nor there?”

          • bluedog

            The partnership must dissolve once one party feels that it dominates and can dispense with its alliance with the subordinate party. It only remains to forecast which party will have the numbers to dominate. In their lust to save the planet, the euro-Commies have forgotten to procreate themselves and their fate is thus pre-determined. Their ideological blinkers prevent them from thinking outside their education and social conditioning.

          • Anton

            Omar Khayyam’s rubber yacht?

          • betteroffoutofit

            The very one! Tottering about on a veritable Red Wine Sea, to boot!!!

    • Anton

      If you have a Tory MP (anybody), write to him or her now and say it is time to single out Islam by name before Sunday schools get categorised as cradles of terrorism and closed down.

    • David

      Potentially this may be useful. But it all depends on the intent, and whether that is to just kick the can down the road or really tackle the causes of Muslim violence and radicalisation. To achieve the latter a very radical redirection of government policy is imperative, and are they up for that immense task ? Once the terms of reference and the identities of the members sitting on the commission are known, then both the intent, and therefore the likely usefulness of the final report, can be ascertained.

      • bluedog

        The context in which the new institution was announced – in blind panic at the prospect of inter-communal violence – suggests that this will be an agency that meets the needs of the MCB. But as you suggest, time will tell.

    • James M

      The script is absurdly predictable. I wish the Queen would step in, and save her subjects from these liars, fools, traitors, and ignoramuses.

  • Darter Noster

    “and certainly, to blow oneself to Jannah in the hope of eternal carnal pleasure must take great courage.”

    Courageous people do not slaughter innocents who cannot fight back. The fact that their chosen method of murder results inevitably in their own death is an admission of weakness and stupidity, in that they can think of no better method. If they genuinely believe that a better life awaits them on the other side, that God will pat them on the back for slaughtering innocents, then they are foolish and deluded. Courage plays no part in what they do.

    Suicide is the stupidest method of warfare; warriors like the defenders of the Alamo might take decisions that lead inevitably to their deaths for a military purpose but that is something different from deliberately killing oneself.

    Most suicide bombers are inadequates or easily manipulated fools; if you are more useful to the cause dead, doing the same job as a bag of Semtex, that alone ought to tell you something.

    • Lucius

      “Suicide is the stupidest method of warfare; warriors like the defenders of the Alamo might take decisions that lead inevitably to their deaths for a military purpose but that is something different from deliberately killing oneself.”
      *********************************************************************************************
      Very thin line of demarcation here. I would submit that the suicide attackers, whether Japanese Kamikazes or Islamic terrorists, see a clear purpose in their conduct. For the latter, it may not be purely military, in the sense that you are part of a larger organization with clear military objectives, but that does not mean it is without purpose. For the Muslim, Western conventional military supremacy precludes force-on-force combat. The only method for violently striking the West and attempting to influence policy is through attacks where death is virtually certain.

      And I would not be so quick to call them “manipulated fools.” This is the narrative the liberal left pushes. For the left, the idea that someone may find purpose outside of a good job and access to the latest gadgets is unfathomable, which explains why the left naively believes Islamism could be cured if Muslims were just better educated, had better jobs, and experienced less “racism.” The reality is that for many of these suicide attackers, certain death is a deliberate, thoughtful choice. Indeed, for Islamists born in the West they are giving up a relatively comfortable life in tolerant country to pursue Jihad. Irrational by Western standards, perhaps, but cowardly? Perhaps not. Respect your enemy.

      • Darter Noster

        My enemy here is not the people who kill themselves but the people who send them to do it – to those people, who can plan, organise and exploit these attacks without ever participating in them, I have a very specific respect; I think they are utterly despicable, but as an enemy I “respect” them in as much as I acknowledge their effectiveness.

        To the people they manipulate, I have no such respect. Suicide bombing or attacks are not, however you dress it up, the same as military self-sacrifice. People like the Kamikaze or suicide bombers are either manipulated or believe that paradise awaits them after death; it is not courageous to throw away your life if you attach no value to it, just the product of a desperate death cult.

        • Lucius

          “My enemy here is not the people who kill themselves but the people who send them to do it”

          I would submit that the enemy is both the dedicated “foot soldier” on the front line and the “general” in the rear.

          “Suicide bombing or attacks are not, however you dress it up, the same as military self-sacrifice”

          I agree with you insofar as suicide attacks on “soft” targets. However, I disagree with regard to suicide attacks on military targets. A Jihadi in Syria who plows a vehicle bomb to take out a formidable up-armored T-72 tank is “courageous,” at least as that term is defined, but do not mistake this position for support of the Islamists’ cause.

          “it is not courageous to throw away your life if you attach no value to it”

          Nor do I think the suicide bomber attaches no value to his life. As he sees it, he is doing the greatest good he can with his life — giving himself in “combat” for the glory and advancement of Islam. I am sure there is part of the Islamist who wished for nothing more than a comfortable life with family and friends, but they see advancing the banner of Islam as preeminent to their personal desires.

          • Darter Noster

            Why were the Kamikaze called upon? Because what they were defending had run out of ammunition. They were no better than guided shells, in the service of a doomed cause that was able to manipulate their religious and cultural tendencies into hopeless suicide on its behalf. However individually brave one might think the Kamikaze were, the fact remains that they were deluded – by their commanders, who knew they would achieve nothing, and by their own ideology, which created a culture in which their suicide was seen as glorious and a route to heaven.

            At least, as you point out, the Kamikaze attacked military targets, and that does make a lot of difference, at least compared to some pimply tit who blows himself up in the foyer of a concert surrounded by young children.

            However, and I think what we’re differing over here is a technicality, I would not apply the term ‘courage’ to what the Kamikaze did. They were the tragic products of a fascist system which subordinated them to the utterly selfish and cynical desires of the Japanese government. That does not mean I do not think that many Japanese military personnel were not courageous; I just think that people who commit suicide in systematic, managed and encouraged ideological circumstances are very different from those who freely give their lives, on the battlefield or off it.

            The Kamikaze were not ‘free’, however staggeringly brave they as individuals might have been. I would reserve the term ‘courage’ for those Japanese who opposed their government, opposed what the Kamikaze stood for, and who made a stand for what was right in the face of evil; the Kamikaze went along with an evil that told them Paradise awaited them if they killed themselves. They were manipulated pawns. If your whole culture and system tells you to kill yourself in defence of the Emperor, it takes courage to stand apart from that, not go along with it.

            Blowing yourself up in a crowd of children, however, does not merit the term courage in any circumstance, surely…?

          • Ivan M

            Kamikazes were effective in keeping the US Navy at bay. They were in their own terms idealists prepared to sacrifice themselves for Japan. Named for Khamsin the divine winds that kept Kublai Khan’s fleets twice away from Japan in the 13th century. They clearly saw spiritual significance in their sacrifice.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Not just the US Navy. Towards the end of the war in the Pacific a large fleet from the Royal Navy was involved in the fighting. However, because the British aircraft carriers had steel decks they were less vulnerable to kamikaze attacks than the American carriers were.

          • Anton

            Yes, there’s a great tale of a British carrier sailing with some US ships in the Pacific during the war and taking a kamikaze hit. The Americans thought the carrier was done for, or at least in serious trouble, then a few British sailors came out with brooms, swept the junk overboard, and the ship steamed on.

          • Anton

            The Khamsin is a wind from the desert in North Africa or Arabia. Kamikaze means “divine wind” (or, since wind and spirit are the same word in many languages, “holy spirit”).

          • Ivan M

            Yes. Thanks for the correction.

        • James M

          It’s in the Koran. Which makes it the eternal and absolutely and everywhere and forever valid revelation of the Muslim “god”. Dying as a shahid is, in addition, something that means no prayer need be offered for one.

          That is almost certainly why the shahid who blew up 141 people at the concert in Manchester was not prayed for – the 130 imams who were praised for not praying for him, would have gone against the example of the “perfect man” Mohammed if they had done so. Our rulers and churchmen, who would not know an ayat from istinja if they were gang-raped by them, swallowed this nonsense hook, line and sinker.

          • Royinsouthwest

            I was not aware of that either and assumed that the imams were showing solidarity with us. I hope that was their main motive but it does seem that you are right in saying that prayers for “martyrs” are regarded as unnecessary by muslim scholars.

            Should the funeral prayer be offered for the shaheed when he is killed?
            https://islamqa.info/en/14012

            The shaheed (martyr) is a Muslim who dies fighting the kuffaar and for that reason. See al-Mawsoo’ah al-Fiqhiyyah, Kuwait edition, 26/272

            The majority of scholars said that the funeral prayer should not be offered for him. That is the view of Imam Maalik and al-Shaafa’i, and the more correct of the two views narrated from Imam Ahmad. See al-Mughni, 2/334. That is because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not pray for the martyrs of Uhud (narrated by al-Bukhaari, 1347), and because the purpose behind the funeral prayer is to intercede for the deceased. But the martyr receives expiation for everything (so he has no need of intercession), apart from debt; debt is not waived because of martyrdom, rather it remains owed by the deceased.

            Shaykh ‘Abd al-‘Azeez ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

            It is not prescribed to offer the funeral prayer for the martyrs who die in battle, or to wash them, because the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) did not offer the funeral prayer for the martyrs of Uhud, neither did he wash them. This was narrated by al-Bukhaari in his Saheeh (1347) from Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah (may Allaah be pleased with him).

            Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 13/162

          • Ivan M

            Wow! The things one learns. At best the imans are schizophrenic. It must be really trying to be an iman doing the right thing when there are so many “authoritative” guides they can rely on.

          • James M

            That must be some way politicians can be informed of this. They are grievously ill-informed.

  • Muslim extremism violence is fuelling the far right, positively encouraging them to hit back in retaliation. I don’t see far right in the UK as a threat like that of Islam. Apart from their demonstrations which are likely to turn into a brawl when they clash with their opposition marchers.

    • Dreadnaught

      From little of what I have seen. whenever there is and EDL outing they are far outnumbered by the sociaist worker alliance crowd who are the first to kick off with mob aggression but it is the EDL knuckledraggers that get arrested.

  • Rhoda

    So why were there so many men praying at the mosque but it’s hard to get men to church?

    • Lucius

      Plenty of men in the Orthodox Church. Anecdotal yes, but true in my experience.

    • David

      Yes I’ve found that in liberal churches women predominate. But in churches that preach full-on Biblical Christianity, I find that there are equal numbers of men and women, as you’d expect. My belief is that as Christianity became muted and softened, by liberalism, many men lost interest. Then as father’s dropped out, their sons followed suit. There is research on this.

      • We’re losing the true meaning of “Fatherhood” and therefore the true understanding of God – and maleness.

        • David

          Exactly. It is the Christian doctrine of The Holy Trinity that is essential for understanding as much as we are able, about God as well as ourselves. It is interesting that nowadays, in my experience, there is relatively little interest in the Churches in considering the nature of God, but much attention is in the opposite direction, looking towards humanity.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Care to expand on this a little further.

      • Alison Bailey Castellina

        Women always outnumber men in Christianity – and always have. It is true that churches dominated by (kindly, elderly) ladies can put off small boys seeking assurance that this faith is for men too, since Christian male leadership is not ‘macho’, except in muscular Christianity, e.g. a few evangelical churches. Christianity does not come naturally to the majority of men, since its concept of strength through wisdom + submission to God goes against the grain of the worldly image of powerful, dominant masculinity which has been much warped by advanced technology, ‘money = success’ mentality and the over-prevalent 19th century idea of “Superman” (often actually a kind of immaturity). Statistics show that non-believing men come to faith in Christ through their women (mothers, girlfriends, fianceees, wives) e.g. praying and taking them to church. Think ‘St Augustine’. No one can come to faith in Christ unless they are individually called, so there is not much one can do about it except for men and women to invite more boys and men to church and mature men to preach to them.

        • Ivan M

          In every Christian Church that preaches the Salvation of Jesus Christ as opposed to leftist commentary on the events of the day males are present at about half the numbers. It is moreover the duty of spouses to see to that their partners attend church.

          Husbands and wives are responsible for each others salvation – Pope Benedict.

          • Anton

            The New Testament is explicit that a man who comes to faith is to preach to his wife, and a woman who comes to faith is to win her husband to it by not preaching (ie nagging) but by showing him more love.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Nonsense.

          • Anton

            What do you think St Peter means?

        • Anton

          I can’t agree that women are more holy than men, which is the clear implication of your comment that “Women always outnumber men in Christianity – and always have”. Men and women are equally (un)holy. What you are referring to today is a cultural thing. Jesus performed the archetypal act of male heroism, as seen in many war films: He gave his life for his brothers. He chose the cross himself (John 10:18). The Christian faith offers a noble leader who sacrificed himself for his friends yet defeated even death; a freeman’s choice between good and evil; and a hero’s reward for the steadfast. In the early church many brave men of arms became Christians, and spread the faith around the Roman Empire. (Jesus never told any Roman soldier to become a pacifist; Christians should consider resigning only from an army that is set to engage in an immoral campaign.) Christian life is a battle as much as any in the Norse Sagas, Homer, the Mahabharata or (of course) the Old Testament. It is only a feminised form of Christianity that appeals more to women. We have that today, unfortunately.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Not to all women. Honest.
            I can’t bear all those feminazi churches. I had to leave.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Men and women are equally unholy? Women are the moral compasses who are supposed to keep men on track because the sexual appetites of men are more akin to the beasts of the jungle.

          • Rhoda

            Eve didn’t do too well as a moral compass for Adam, did she?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Fables are a very convenient way of demonising women holding them responsible for the ills of the world.

          • CliveM

            Which when you consider the history of this world is at best ironic.

          • Anton

            It’s a great shame you accept the New Testament as the word of God but not the Old.

            When Eve sinned, why do you think God held Adam responsible for the consequences? It’s not so easy being a man, you know.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Life is a struggle but It is easier being a man than a woman….particularly now ,since women contribute financially to support the family .Men are no longer burdened with being the sole breadwinner and don’t need to work a second job whereas the working mother is overloaded and statistics say she does not get a lot of help in the domestic area from her partner. Most men do not want stay -at -home -wives, particularly if they are capable of generating a healthy second income .
            Maybe you should join the Jews in that prayer they say thanking God that they are not a woman.

          • Anton

            Feminists embrace both the male curse of work and the female curse of childbearing. Isn’t one of God’s curses enough for them?

          • Cressida de Nova

            The lure of the second income and benefits of life style are irresistible to men. I would hope (but I might be wrong on this one) that most women would like to stay at home and care for their own children but they don’t because they are pressured into having and continuing careers. If feminist is a term that means that one supports women in their efforts to be treated fairly, then I am one and you should be one too.
            I’m off now …Enjoy your day !

          • Anton

            When a single woman graduates, she is no more or less pressured into having a career than a man.

            All persons should be treated fairly but not all persons agree what that means!

          • Anton

            There’s more to holiness and unholiness than sexual matters.

      • Jill

        Oft posted by me on various fora:

        http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=16-05-024-v

        You are quite right.

    • James M

      Maybe because Islam has not been undermined by unbelieving vicars, and sodomite ecclesiastics, or their Muslim equivalent. The C of E, OTOH… It probably helps that Islam allows certain immoralities that Christianity does not, even though Christians practice them. Nor are there any lesbian imams.

      • Cressida de Nova

        What immoralities?

    • wiggiatlarge .

      Probably because 50% don’t work and it is as good a way of passing the time as any, to them !

      • Rhoda

        They could always wash the car, mow the lawn or do those things supposedly Christian men do instead of going to church.

  • Armed man trying to attack a police man in Paddington today shouting “AlluAkbar”

    https://www.rt.com/uk/393056-armed-man-arrested-paddington/

    • James M

      The religion of satan strikes again.

  • Chefofsinners

    To preach the gospel is not to preach the errors of Islam and humanism, or the horrors of extremism. Much of the comment here tonight reminds me of one standing on the bank of a river observing a man drowning and explaining to him in great detail how he came to lose his footing, slip down the bank and, due to his own failure to learn to swim, is entirely to blame for his current predicament.
    To preach the gospel is to preach the beauties and saving power of Christ. This is what our nation needs, and if we had done it better in the past then the nation might not be in the state it is.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Indeed. And He used that Saving Power to cast out evil from those had eyes to see it in the midst of themselves. We need to cooperate in helping Him to do that.

    • Linus

      Right … so thank you for your tacit admission that you do not preach the gospel.

      Your humourless missives, heavy as they are with recrimination, finger-pointing and contempt, are exactly calculated to goad unbelievers and drive them away from the faith you claim you want to draw them to.

      It’s like you’re standing on the bank, having just pushed someone into the water. There you are preaching about a Christian’s duty to save him while you stomp on his hands every time he manages to get a grip on the bank.

      That’s the reality of your faith. Christ is for you and exists only to applaud your constant flow of tuppenny, ha’penny wisecracks.

      You want to be seen as a pious evangelist, so you make the right noises when you think god’s looking. But beneath the simulacrum of concern beats a heart so solely focused on itself that everyone else can just go to hell.

      • Anton

        Have you ever considered adapting your comments here into greetings cards?

        • Chefofsinners

          Brilliant.

      • Chefofsinners

        I hadn’t realised you were drowning. Try waving with more than one finger extended.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Smirks….Stevie Smith loves you.

        • Linus

          Nobody’s drowning. Except you. In your own pride and self-adoration.

          • Chefofsinners

            Now try more than two fingers.

          • Linus

            You’re seeing double, which doesn’t surprise me. Cross-eyed religious loons have a habit of seeing things that just aren’t there.

          • Lienus

            Seeing dooble, mon cherie?
            Ooh la-la, ménage a deux!
            ‘ow I lurve your dooble entendres!

    • Anton

      Then again, it might. *Always* preach the gospel, but we are told also in scripture that only a minority will heed it. This is why I do not believe in the “Christian country” mantra about the past (Catholic or protestant). Don’t confuse a churchgoing country for a Christian country.

      • Chefofsinners

        All very true. I just think it is sometimes wise to look to ourselves more than to blame others.

  • James M

    Islam is a terrorist death cult, complete with false Prophet. Just like Nazism. It even has its own Mein Kampf, except that its Hitler is not only the “struggler” in it – for that is what all jihadis are.nTwo evils Hitler did not legitimise, were marriage with children, and polygamy – both of which were practised by Mohammed, and therefore fully worthy of emulation by Muslims, since he is “the perfect man”. His “god” gave him quite a few revelations allowing him whatever sexual indulgence he felt like having. These are contrary to the teaching of Christ, which by itself nails the lie that the “god” of Islam is the God of the NT. Mohammed is far more aptly described as a prophet and foreunner of AntiChrist.

    The Korans contains dozens of commands and encouragements to fight and kill or subjugate unbelievers. They are regarded in the exegetical tradition of Islam as having permanent validity – so they cannot be treated as relevant only to 7th-century Arabia. We cannot co-exist with them, because far too many of them have no intention whatever of co-existing with us. It is useless for us to want to be at peace with them, when they have no such intentions toward us. The Churches and the kuffar politicians need to snap out of their self-willed delusions about thos

    • Manfarang

      Bring back 18B.

      • Anton

        I guessed – but didn’t know – that that meant internment. Does that make me half as clever as you?

        • Manfarang

          Half as old I expect.
          The lessons of history are soon forgotten it seems.

          • Anton

            Congratulations on being a centenarian!

          • Manfarang

            Some years to go yet but time flies. Twenty years since the Hands Up in Hong Kong.

      • James M

        18B ? Sorry, not understood.

    • Royinsouthwest

      You should read the comment by Chefofsinners below.

      • James M

        Done that.

    • Martin

      Islam is as varied in it’s interpretation of the Qur’an as is Christianity, in its widest sense, in its interpretation of the Bible.

      • James M

        Which does not unkill or unrape a single victim of the jihadis, who have ample support in the Muslim sources for their actions. The logic of the objection can be used by jihadis to justify their actions – it is not difficult to conceptualise those who make your argument as apostates, or to contend that jihadism is every bit as justifiable as your argument. Mohammed, after all, is the model for jihadis. And he followed what the Klran s

        • Martin

          So what did you imagine I was saying? I’m saying that the varieties can all claim support from the Qur’an.

  • len

    The more liberal the West becomes the more of a target it appears to be to Muslim extremists. The decadence of the West’ legitimizes’ attacks on the Western culture.
    Muslims will not assimilate into a culture which they perceive as ‘decadent’ and
    political correctness will not make Muslims conform to the rules laid out by secular humanists.
    Radical Islam is fuelling the far right (as someone else remarked) and I am sure this is one of the intentions behind radical Islam.

    Radical Islamists believe they must create the conditions for their 12th Imam the Mahdi to appear .These conditions are worldwide wars and chaos.

    But as’ the chefofsinners ‘ says Christians should preach the solution to all this chaos and disaster which is the rule and reign of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the only solution. All man made solutions have either failed or are failing.

    • bluedog

      How do you explain the subjugation by Islam of Christian societies that were anything but liberal and decadent in the period of late antiquity (632AD) until the fall of Constantinople in 1453?

      • len

        As I said earlier, Islam is as much political as religious.

        • bluedog

          Agreed. So why don’t we declare Islam to be a political movement rather than a religion? Then those easily confused souls who think we need to be nice to the Muslims to protect their religious freedom can instead treat them as political enemies with a clear conscience

          • Anton

            Exactly.

          • len

            Agreed. The aims and objectives of Islam need to be more clearly defined.

          • Anton

            Her heart is in the right place but she speaks a few historical inaccuracies. The Pope called the Crusades in 1095 (not 1090). I could not call the Crusaders’ capture of Jerusalem a ‘liberation’ as they massacred every Jew and Muslim in the place and treated Jews worse than the Muslims had done. The Turks were not stopped at Vienna in the 16th century on 9/11, as the 1529 siege began two weeks after that and was lifted after three weeks. The 1683 battle at Vienna is nearer to (but still not on) 9/11, taking place on September 12th. The Industrial Revolution began in England only in the early 18th century, and spread to the Continent very slowly (to Belgium first).

      • Martin

        The corruption of the Christian churches, sacralism and all it brought with it.

      • Anton

        They weren’t Christian societies. There can be no such thing until Christ returns. They were churchgoing societies, which isn’t the same thing.

        • bluedog

          Too fine a point. Should we extend your definition to individuals? Would you describe yourself as ‘church-going’ rather than Christian?

          • Anton

            I know that I know Jesus.

          • bluedog

            Onward I know Jesus soldiers?

    • Ivan M

      Just as in school the milder boys attract the bullies and drives them sometimes to a frenzy, there is a sado-masochistic element to all this.

    • Anton

      There is absolutely no reason why Muslims *should* integrate into a culture in which promiscuity, single parenthood and divorce are rife. But there is also no good reason why many of them should blow us up.

      Only some Shia Muslims believe the doctrines about the 12th Imam, the Mahdi. Not all Shia, and not the sunnis who comprise the great majority of Muslims in Britain. They have a different eschatology.

      • bluedog

        ‘…a culture in which promiscuity, single parenthood and divorce are rife.’

        Aren’t you transferring your own disapproval of these traits to Muslims and granting them virtue on the assumption they think the same? If a Muslim man can take four wives, adultery is irrelevant and divorce scarcely necessary. If a woman is one of four wives, she is in effect a single parent. It seems to this writer that what Muslim men reject absolutely is the proposition that women are equal to men. Rape jihad and other misogynistic acts are designed to enforce Muslim male dominance on uppity women.

        • Anton

          There might be little love in the Islamic family but it is stable and that is the key point. Society crumbles in a sexual free-for-all.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Oh… are you are implying that the chastity of men is not as significant ?

          • Anton

            Yes, actually. Women are more important to society in this respect.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Careful….your misogyny is showing.

          • Anton

            Are you going to accuse God of the same? An adulterous wife was to be put to death in ancient Israel according to God’s law revealed through Moses in the Pentateuch, but no such penalty accrued to an adulterous husband.

            It’s obvious why: in Genesis 3 God reveals (and curses) the principal roles of men and women, namely provision and childbearing – two different kinds of ‘labour’. A man needs to know that the children he is slogging in the fields for are his.

            The two roles are equally vital. But the male role carries its own penalty when not done properly: hunger. The female one doesn’t, because adultery is clandestine. Notice that God himself will answer whether a wife has committed adultery if consulted, in a public “trial by ordeal” (Numbers 5). It was this horror that Joseph was willing to spare Mary when she became pregnant without his involvement, until an angel told him the truth.

            A very high calling – childbearing – demands a very high penalty if abused. By selectively commanding capital punishment for female adultery, God is showing how highly he values the role of women in the family. Will you accuse God of misogyny?

          • Cressida de Nova

            Don’t be absurd.You are very confused. You should concentrate on the New Testament and the words of Jesus (who is part of the Trinity = God) You cannot be a Jew and a Christian and it seems to me you want to be both at the same time. The New Testament is a rejection of the Old Testament in many areas. That was the point…the reason the Messiah came and changed it all around,
            because it was flawed and a new way of thinking was in order.

            Jesus told Mary Magadalene to go and sin no more. He did not order her execution.
            Both men and women have equal responsibility in being chaste according to Christianity. Men and women are equal in the eyes of the Lord.We are supposed to complement each other in all the aspects of life… There are no special punishments for women.

          • Anton

            Of course we don’t live in ancient Israel any more. But, to be consistent with the views you have expressed, you must believe that God was unjust and misogynist toward women there. To charge God with even a single injustice is a very serious matter indeed. God never changes his character, moreover, so you presumably believe he is still at heart a misogynist today?

            Or do you instead believe that the New Testament is right about what Jesus said and the Old Testament is wrong about what God said, even though Jesus took the Old as historical fact?

          • Cressida de Nova

            God is consistently God = no change

            Jesus is God
            If there is conflicted meaning between the words of Jesus in the NT and the acts of God in the OT
            then
            the OT is wrongly interpreted
            Jesus obviously did not agree with everything in the OT
            Jesus observed the cultural traditions of Judaism because he was a Jew
            God is his Father
            He is God the Son
            The expression of God the Father was not completely satisfactory in the OT
            A lot of it is metaphor allegory and psalms…open to various interpretation.
            He sorted it by clarification and correction in the NT
            NT = Christianity

            Jack could probably explain this better to you than I.

          • Anton

            From what I’ve seen of Jack’s views here I think he’d agree with me about this particular subject. Ask him and if so, take it from him if not me, for anything about the character of God is a vital subject for we who believe.

        • Cressida de Nova

          Not just uppity women bluedog…any women. Incidentally there are certain men (confident and brave) who find uppity women very appealing:)

          • len

            Good job Cressida 😉

  • Gordon Tough

    “Some might call it ‘Islamophobia’: it is, in fact, Islamomisia – it is hatred, not fear.”

    Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

    • James M

      Islamonausea, might be more accurate. They are a pretty vomit-inducing bunch. Positively orc-like – not the bird, the repellent and violent kind. They too “multiply like flies”.

  • Martin

    I’d say that it was anger and the perception that nothing was being done by the authorities. Politicians do not make the situation better by denying that the terrorists follow Islam. It doesn’t help when the Metropolitan Police, under the promoted because she’s a woman Cressida, call him a terrorist as well.

    • Gordon Tough

      They don’t follow Islam, they follow a perversion of Islam. They are as Islamic as the Westboro Baptist Church are Christian.

      If he’s not a terrorist, what is he? A mentally ill lone wolf?

      • Anton

        You are familiar with the Quran and with how Muhammad interpreted jihad in the hadith and Sirat Rasul Allah, and with Islamic history?

      • Martin

        Gordon

        Unlike the Bible the Qur’an is an inconsistent work of Man and capable of a variety of interpretation depending upon which passage you read.

        As for this driver, I suspect he may well have mental issues, but clearly his motive is revenge, not terrorism. Terrorists tend to attack people in general.

      • James M

        He is a jihadi.