Nazir Ali Trevor Phillips
Immigration

Muslim ghettos and the "muscular" approach to integration

 

When, a decade ago, the Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali was warning of Muslim ‘no-go areas‘, where sharia police stalk the streets and the real police fear to tread (and where Christians were threatened with arrest for handing out gospel tracts), he was vilified by politicians and rebuked by the Church of England. You couldn’t easily hurl ‘Islamophobe’ at him, not least because of his ethnicity and cultural heritage. His learning never seemed to count for much, but brown skin and Muslim forebears qualified him to pitch a tent in the national debate on multiculturalism, which, then, was no kind of debate at all, for its precepts were absolute and its prophets infallible.

Scroll forward a decade, and now no less a personage than Trevor Phillips, former head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, is sounding the very trumpet that Michael Nazir-Ali had been blasting till he was blue in the face. Apparently, many British Muslims are creating a nation within a nation. The solution, he avers, is a “muscular approach to integration“, which will demand, for example, such policies as “schools limiting the presence of any ethnic minority group to no more than 50 per cent.. It will mean strict monitoring of the ethnic composition of housing estates to prevent them becoming ‘ghetto villages’..” And you can’t easily hurl ‘Islamophobe’ at him, either: his ethnicity and EHRC dignity nullify such disgrace.

This is going to be interesting. Are we really to begin withholding housing from families if their religion/ethnicity has already reached the estate threshold? If small gangs of Muslims in Tower Hamlets are sufficient to harass and intimidate, may not 50% be far too high a proportion of the community? Who decides the workable integrative threshold?

And how may one legally restrict state-financed Muslim schools to a 50% intake of Muslims while state-financed Christian and Jewish schools are exempt and are permitted to use faith-based criteria in some circumstances? If oversubscribed Christian and Jewish schools are free in law to give a higher priority in admissions to children who are members of a particular denomination or who practise a particular faith, how will Trevor Phillips’ “muscular” approach to educational integration operate without falling foul of equality legislation? Imagine the new Schools Admissions Code:

2.8 With the exception of designated grammar schools, all maintained schools, including faith schools, that have enough places available must offer a place to every child who has applied for one, without condition or the use of any oversubscription criteria, unless the school already has 50% of its pupils who are Muslim, in which case they may turn Muslim children away.

We have sown the seeds of religious relativism and watered them from the streams of multiculturalism and equality. We reap a crop of intractable torments and indomitable sects. It is heartening when false prophets repent of their faults and failings, but we cannot be “muscular” in our approach to integration while the truth is met with unreasoned insult, or while we’re locked into a contract of social orthodoxy which insists that Christianity is synonymous with state-prescribed ‘British values’. Nor may we be particularly “muscular” when the nation’s keep fit classes may only be led by BME representatives.

  • Albert

    From the Mail article:

    He says schools may have to consider a 50 per cent limit on Muslim or other minority pupils to encourage social integration.

    This is just naive. Even if you could justly achieve that, you would not then achieve integration, you might just end up with ethnically and religiously divided schools. That was evident from my own schooling to some degree – the very fact of people being a minority, especially when forced to be a minority, can make them more insular and defensive. It causes them to stress and defend their identity.

    In order to deal with this problem of integration you need a culture into which communities are expected to integrate. But you cannot have a culture without (in the proper sense of the word) a cult. We had a cult – it was Christianity, Anglican Christianity, if you wish.

    But Christianity has been sidelined for two reasons: (i) Secularism, (ii) Multiculturalism – arguably, secularists have used the latter in a naive attempt to establish the former. Indeed, there is a view that secularism and multiculturalism are really the same thing.

    Thus, to borrow from the Russian theologian Alexis Khomiakov: if we wish to deal with the problem of Islamism in our country, we first have to deal with the problem secularism.

    • Dreadnaught

      Can you offer your understanding of what secularism means to you and then how you would ‘deal’ with it?

      • Albert

        What is secularism? In a sense, that is the problem. Secularism is term which has some meanings and some effects. That’s why it is a problem that needs dealing with.

        If we take secularism to mean the state should not foreclose the public expression and contribution of any religious position (or irreligious or non-religious position) then I would describe myself as a secularist. The problem comes when secularism tends (France is a good example of this because it is more honest about it) to attempt the opposite: to exclude religious positions, in favour of an irreligious or non-religious position.

        The danger is that many secularists describe the former, while really supporting the latter. The trouble is that the irreligious or non-religious position is, in this form, intolerant (it marginalises Christians let alone Muslims) but also vacuous – it lacks the real content which might bring people together.

        To deal with this, I think it needs exposing as a kind of confessionalism as narrow as Islamism. For all its rhetoric, it is the opposite of the kind of secularism I espouse. One needs to point out its failure. There’s no doubt that our country is in cultural trouble and has created its own problem, over the last generation or so. Well whose watch has that happened on? Not ours! In contrast, I can give you an example of where multiculturalism works: in the Catholic Church. You find vast ranges of world cultures and ages, but all fit together because everyone subscribes to a shared wider culture.

        Now that example is not exact – but it shows that you can only maintain lots of cultures in one place, without fragmentation, if everyone subscribes to something wider. I would propose Anglican Christianity as providing the foundations of that wider culture. Obviously, I am not saying that we should all become Anglicans, but we should recognize it as the foundation of the framework in which we interact in the public sphere, a set a values, we can all share, without for a moment signing up to the belief system in toto.

        Thus we can expose confessional secularism on the following grounds:

        1. Intolerance
        2. Vacuity
        3. Failure – both viewed in itself and in contrast to that which has been supplanting.

        • Dreadnaught

          I think I prefer to regard secularism primarily as the separation of Church and State. The marginalisation of one religion over another or others in the public square is another matter. This is the exact opposite of the first of your three examples as secularism in my understanding is not a defined creed but a social construct that places equality at its core as regard to politics or religion vs no religion. Nothing sinister in that, you should be free to adopt whatever theosophical stance you wish provided it is a personal belief and used not a platform for undermining democratic governance.

          • Albert

            Well I think this needs consideration from two angles: 1. is it what has been going on? I think not. 2. this point here: not a defined creed but a social construct that places equality at its core as regard to politics or religion vs no religion. Here is certainly the cultural vacuity that I was warning of, but it also perhaps, depending on your meaning, slips in an inequality between religious and non-religious people. Here, as it stands, it seems you wish to lump all religion together as one equal group to the non-religious. If so, that artificially exaggerates the non-religious. Yours in just one position amongst many: Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, non-religious, Sikhs, Hindus etc. You need to fight your corner like the rest of us, not seek to create a playing field in which the ball only moves in one direction.

            Further I would add this:

            you should be free to adopt whatever theosophical stance

            I suspect your purpose in using the word “theosophical” is to be derogatory. It is a misuse of the word, and if it is a misuse of the word in order to demean, as it appears, then you can understand why you don’t have the overwhelming trust of the religious people you, like the fox in the Ginger-bread man, claim to be seeking to protect.

            provided it is a personal belief and used not a platform for undermining democratic governance.

            A point which needs to be directed also towards secularists (remember: we’re all equal in your world-view), you also need to remember what Mill said about democracy and minorities.

          • Dreadnaught

            ‘Theosophy is considered part of the broader field of esotericism, which posits that hidden knowledge or wisdom may offer a path to enlightenment and salvation. The practitioner of theosophy seeks to understand presumed mysteries of the universe, and its relationship with humanity and the divine’.
            How is this derogatory?

          • Albert

            For a start, I note you haven’t attended to my claim that you are misusing the term. Indeed, you haven’t explained why you use that term rather than the more accurate term “theology”. As to how it is derogatory, theosophy brings with it a whole range of historical, cultural and philosophical baggage. But I expect you know that already, and that’s why you use the term.

          • Dreadnaught

            I used the term in application to all religious claims to be the only truth; which of course is a complete delusion. It was not meant to be derogatory of your particular branch of Christian belief or any other for that matter but in direct reference to religions and the philosophy of life in the hereafter.

          • Albert

            I used the term in application to all religious claims to be the only truth

            I don’t see why theosophy is used then – especially as it normally refers to something so broad.

            which of course is a complete delusion

            A non sequitur.

            It was not meant to be derogatory of your particular branch of Christian belief or any other for that matter but in direct reference to religions and the philosophy of life in the hereafter

            Why use the word “theosophy” rather than “theology” then? Theology is the term we would self-identify with and it is the term which properly describes what we are about.

          • Dreadnaught

            Belief in the supernatural is not exclusive to Christianity – theology is too narrow.

          • Albert

            Theology doesn’t only mean “Christian theology”.

        • carl jacobs

          That was an excellent post, Albert. “Confessional Secularism” is a brilliant description. I shall shamelessly plagiarize it henceforth.

          • Albert

            Thank you Carl. Plagiarize ahead – I always plagiarize your distinction between the secularism of the French Revolution and the secularism of the American Revolution. Had Dreadnaught pressed his point further, I was intending to use it here!

          • Anton

            What is the difference between those secularisms?

            To me there is no difference between the secularisms – both Enlightenment – but plenty of differences between the revolutions. One really was about secularism, the other was principally a secession movement.

          • Albert

            Does it help if I narrow it down to “American constitution” or “American Declaration of Independence”?

          • Anton

            I don’t know. I do know that Jefferson had some neck to write what he did while having children with slaves. I’d simply like to know what distinction Carl drew; please could you briefly summarise, in your own words, what he said?

          • Albert

            I agree about Jefferson. Carl’s distinction was simply to say there is the secularism of the French Revolution and the secularism of the American Revolution. He didn’t say more than that, but I assume he means in one, secularism means getting rid of religion, in the other it means getting rid of restrictions on religion stemming from one religious position being imposed.

          • carl jacobs

            The secularism of the US revolution sought only to remove religion from ex officio participation in Gov’t. It did not seek to remove religion completely to the private sphere. Indeed the Founding Father’s saw religion as essential to the development of moral habits that make limited gov’ts possible.

          • Anton

            I agree; thank you. (And thanks to Albert when he reads this.)

        • cacheton

          ‘to exclude religious positions, in favour of an irreligious or non-religious position.’

          And WHY is this? Because religious positions are founded on things which cannot be shown to exist, in other words, beliefs.

          Why should a belief be put on an equal footing with an observation?

          • Albert

            When we are talking about moral positions, we are always talking about beliefs. Moral positions cannot be observed. The idea that every secular belief is based on something that can be observed is obviously false.

          • cacheton

            The results of putting beliefs into practice can be observed. If the results do not enhance wellbeing, then the beliefs, or moral positions, can be discarded.
            This of course assumes that wellbeing, peace and equality etc are what any position is aiming at. Secularism does, and so does Christianity I thought.

          • Albert

            Christianity certainly thinks that, but I would seriously question whether post-Christian morality is aiming at that. Just ask a bewildered child who doesn’t know who his father is, but knows that he has many men come and go with his mother, who pays them more attention than she does the child. I think you may be confusing “wellbeing” with the selfishness of adults.

          • cacheton

            Well OBVIOUSLY if the wellbeing of the child is compromised by the mother’s attitude then there is a problem in the mother’s attitude somewhere…

          • Albert

            Quite! Now is that attitude a consequence of Christian or secular morality?

          • cacheton

            The problem is not one of morality. The problem is the mother’s attention to all these other men AT THE EXPENSE OF attention to the child, the failure of the father to take responsibility for his child (which may or may not have something to do with the mother aswell), etc. Yes it has to do with the selfishness of adults in this case, but the problem is evidently psychological.

          • Albert

            The problem is the mother’s attention to all these other men AT THE EXPENSE OF attention to the child

            That is a moral problem. But it was only one of the problems – the other problem is that the child does not know who his father is.

            the failure of the father to take responsibility for his child

            That’s also a moral problem, although whose fault is open to question.

            the problem is evidently psychological.

            It’s a problem coming from the fact that sexual morality has broken down.

          • cacheton

            We will have to disagree that it is a moral problem. We know wellbeing is enhanced if children know who their father is, therefore the mother’s wish to hide this, or her indifference to it, is indicative of her non-caring attitude to her child. That is a psychological problem, not a moral one.
            It is theoretically possible for a woman to have several lovers and bring up a child sufficiently well. It is also possible for a heterosexual married couple to be despairingly unhappy and their children to be psychologically damaged as a result. Morality does not come into it.

          • Albert

            We know wellbeing is enhanced if children know who their father is

            That’s why we have marriage and the morality attaching to marriage.

          • cacheton

            As I said in my last post, sticking with a desperately unhappy or abusive marriage because that is the ‘moral’ thing to do, and maybe also because one fears judgement in a supposed afterlife and possibly judgment from other people in one’s religious community, is often detrimental to the wellbeing of the marriage partners and the children.

            I maintain, this is not about morals. Wellbeing is not necessarily served by sticking to what many people see as ‘morals’. But I know Albert, you will ‘maintain’ too!!

          • Albert

            As I said in my last post, sticking with a desperately unhappy or abusive marriage because that is the ‘moral’ thing to do, and maybe also because one fears judgement in a supposed afterlife and possibly judgment from other people in one’s religious community, is often detrimental to the wellbeing of the marriage partners and the children.

            I agree. But it has nothing to do with the case in question.

          • cacheton

            My point, which you seem to be deliberately not understanding, is that the so-called ‘moral’ thing to do regarding sexuality, sexual behaviour and marriage, does not necessarily result in wellbeing. Therefore the problem is not a moral one.

          • Albert

            I am not deliberately not understanding that. What makes the relationship elements and sexual acts of these cases immoral, is precisely the fact that, far from resulting well-being, they actually result in harm.

          • cacheton

            Monogamous marriage also results in harm in many cases.

            The problem is not moral.

          • Albert

            All things can have harmful side-effects. That does not mean nothing is moral.

          • cacheton

            So morality can have detrimental side effects can it? That is not a brilliant argument in favour of morality now is it Albert!

          • Albert

            All things can have a detrimental side, cacheton.

          • cacheton

            Not God. He is only detrimental to the human ego, which doesn’t really count as it is made up of illusions.

          • Albert

            Obviously, if you think God does not exist, then he isn’t really a thing.

          • cacheton

            I don’t think God does not exist. I am not an atheist. I think our definitions and experiences of god are different. I would be interested in what you think god is detrimental to, apart from the human ego.

          • Albert

            God is detrimental to sinners.

          • cacheton

            It seems we might actually be agreeing on something here Albert. Though we are not expressing it quite the same way, nor probably understanding it quite the same way. Sin to me is what makes up the human ego. However a human is not ONLY his/her ego, therefore God is not detrimental to the person who has the ego, just to the ego itself. ‘God is detrimental to sinners’ to me sounds like a condemnation of the whole of the person, not just their ego.

          • Albert

            I’m not sure that people are distinct from the choices they make with their egos, so I don’t quite get the distinction here. However, the basic point I agree with: God only has a “downer” on things that we do that are detrimental to us.

          • cacheton

            ‘I’m not sure that people are distinct from the choices they make with their egos, so I don’t quite get the distinction here.’
            Exactly – people think they are their egos, and cannot distinguish between themself and their ego. This is what physical incarnation does. The challenge is to be able to distinguish between them, and act from yourself rather than your ego. Any spiritually oriented religion/discipline/path will give tools how to do this. Instead much religion, including christianity, keeps people trapped in their egos, using fear as the tool to make believe that something bad will happen to them if they ditch their religion.

            ‘Know thyself.’ If I’m not mistaken, that comes from the bible. I’ve not yet heard a sermon on it though.

          • Albert

            No. What I mean is persons are not distinct from their actions. Therefore, any good or bad consequences of their actions apply to the whole person.

          • cacheton

            And there we have it, the grand illusion that incarnation presents us with, and which we would hope that so-called ‘spiritual’ organisations help us deal with rather than using it to keep us trapped! As this illusion is a basic characteristic of incarnation, it is quite easy for religions to keep people trapped in it, and otherwise highly intelligent and thinking individuals such as yourself fall for it.

            Maybe we should have a campaign to get all preachers to preach a sermon on ‘Know thyself’. I wonder what they would say.

          • Albert

            Firstly “Know thyself” is not in the Bible. Secondly, you keep using this word “incarnation”, but your meaning is unclear.

  • len

    The problem with many in the West is that they approach Islam with a western mindset and expect Muslims to respond and co operate with ‘western ideals’. When the West had a Judeo/ Christian foundation some sort of interchange of ideals might have had a slim chance of working , but not now.

    Western Christians view our basic moral and ethical foundations as ‘broken’ by deliberate actions by successive Governments and radical Islam sees this degeneration as ‘a reason’ to keep themselves apart from western society.
    It is hardly surprising therefore that many Muslims do not want to integrate into a society that they view as prosperous but a corrupting influence on their culture.

    • john in cheshire

      That might be so, but since virtually all muslims have never read the Bible, they have no idea of how corrupt is their own self styled religion. If Christians were not persecuted by the atheists for promoting Christianity, perhaps many muslims would have already seen the light and left islam for the one true faith – that of Jesus Christ. Or at least they might have rejected Jesus from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance and/or islamic indoctrination.

      • len

        I don`t think many Muslims have read the Koran either?.

        Islam is deeply embedded in the culture and is a way of life as much political as well as religious. Muslims are however coming to faith in Jesus Christ by direct revelation visions of Jesus etc.Of course any Muslim becoming a believer in Christ is placed in a very dangerous position and many Arab Christians are forced to remain so in secret and to meet in secret and even owing a bible could be life threatening.

        But the internet can be a useful tool in spreading the Gospel as it can and does go places where Bibles are not available.
        The Word of God cannot be chained and will go wherever it is welcomed..

        • Anton

          Yes, the gospel is penetrating Islam like never before. Islam also faces its own crisis of secularisation in the burgeoning cities of its heartlands – it does better in a rural society. Trouble is, our ridiculous politicians have chosen to import these battles into our land.

    • Albert

      Excellent comment Len, if you’ll take a compliment from a Catholic!

      • len

        Certainly Albert, any compliments gratefully received….

  • Dreadnaught

    BBC Radio 4 is running a series of programmes exploring the various elements of Islam that have taken root in the UK. Only ignorance is allowing this cancer to do as cancer does.
    This is the first from last week. Today was the second . Required listening for anyone concerned for the future of this Country.

    http://whww.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06gqr66

    • IanCad

      Bad link I’m afraid Dreaders.

      In a similar vein is this series presented by Timothy Garton Ash. Started yesterday, ends Friday.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b076bv3b
      Long live the BBC; where else, where else?

      • Dreadnaught

        Ive amended the link.

    • Anton

      Get rid of that rogue ‘h’ in ‘whww’ !

      • Dreadnaught

        Cheers Ant.

    • Mark

      A very simple thing within that program highlighted something. When the imam (or whoever he was), was asked why his website told Muslims not to get involved in Bonfire night (and there might have been something else), he cited “health and safety.” He was lying, pure and simple.

      This year so far, I have seen on a particular imam’s Facebook page, dismissive articles about Valentine’s Day and Mother’s Day. I couldn’t determine if they were against them because of the ancient religious roots, but for both, the point seemed to be about superiority. For instance, “As Muslims we love our partners/Mothers all year round and have no need for a special day.”
      I pointed out “fun”, “humour” etc, etc, and thankfully some posters agreed with me and not with the article. But others went along with it. It was very much an attempt to not get get involved and to spread that thinking around.

      • Dreadnaught

        The Koran encourages lying to protect Islam – Taqqiya (or something like that.

        • Mark

          Yeah Koran or Hadith, It all gets mixed up sometimes.
          With all religions, I think apart from the gnashing loons who do not care what they say, many are embarrassed by what’s in their books.
          Ask the Arch Bish if a non-believer will burn in Hell, and he’ll dance around it. Ask a Rabbi if his refusal to shake hands with a woman has its roots in whether she may be menstruating, and he’ll say no. And so on.
          What it has led to (for me) is starting from absolute scepticism on what anyone says and trying to figure it out, rather than some (in particular radio hosts), who believe what they say from the off.

    • Mark

      This second program is awful in the way of what it highlights, and the fact that nothing has been done about it. Extremists running mosques. Nobody will speak out because they don’t want to be ostracised by “the community”. Probably the same “community” we always hear about who are against extremism.

      I can only think people have known about this and have been hushing it up.
      Why does it always take investigative reporters, while “journalists” hosting radio programs are clueless on the subject at all times?

  • The Explorer

    Remember that issue about non-Sikh kids being sent to a Sikh school because it had places available and the alternatives were full up? It’s going to be fun if non-Muslim kids are sent to a Muslim school because it has 50% Muslims.

    Ray Honeyford’s Drummond School is now the Iqra School and is 100% Muslim. How do you you start unscrambling something like that to reduce it to 50%? It’s in what is now a Muslim area. Busing, as was tried so successfully in America? And how do you reduce the area to 50% Muslim? The totalitarian society, generated in the cause of freedom, beckons. We will decide where you are allowed to live. Hello, apartheid South Africa.

    • john in cheshire

      In my opinion, you don’t try to unravel the ghettos. You start to deport the majority of muslims because like it or not, that will be the only solution for a peaceful and prosperous country. Close all the mosques, ban madrassas, deport all the ayatollahs, imams and mullahs – as a first step that would cut off the snake’s head and calm things down quite a lot.

    • Albert

      Exactly, its bonkers.

  • In 2011, Trevor Phillips, said that Muslims were integrating better than many Christians. The latter ‘believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.’ Muslims, however, ‘are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they’re doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.’

    In reality, it is British forbearance, founded on Christian principles, which enabled Islam to take root and flourish here. As it transpires, we were too tolerant for our own good and our descendants will have cause aplenty to curse our naïvety.

    • Albert

      Now that is a very disturbing comment. Who is deciding what is a modern society. If traditional Christians are included then clearly the statement is false. If traditional Christians are excluded, then it could be true, but only by excluding people. So in order to defend multi-ethnic and multicultural society, he must exclude people. And at that point his suggestion dissolves in its own incoherence.

      • Anton

        Trevor Phillips has made a very good living out of taxpayers who have had to put up with his incoherence.

        • Albert

          It’s a good job our leaders are paying such high taxes then!

      • @ Albert—in order to defend multi-ethnic and multicultural society, he must exclude people

        Phillips effortlessly excludes those who question the wisdom of multi-this and multi-that on the grounds that they are ‘less than human’. Other worthies, in church as well as state, settle for the catchier epithet ‘racist’.

        • Albert

          That’s very unpleasant. But as I was understanding him, he is giving up on the multiculturalist project or am I misreading this?

          • Trevor Phillips is an opportunist, nothing more.

    • Ivan M

      People who lie to keep their jobs, especially when it is not necessary are among the most contemptible of human beings. The Irish Savant was on this guy some time back.
      http://irishsavant.blogspot.sg/2015/03/a-case-of-rats-and-sinking-ships.html

  • Anton

    Islam should be treated, as its own scriptures clearly show, as a political movement. Then there is plenty of precedent for how to deal with it.

    • Albert

      While this view may be attractive, last night I actually looked at the survey. I found that although some figures are disturbing, clearly most Muslims are not politicised. But they would be if we treated them as such. Would that be an improvement on the status quo? What it be just? I don’t think so.

      • Anton

        And your solution is…?

        • Albert

          Actually, I find yours rather attractive, despite my last comment. It prevents people from moving, by means of some idea of equality, that if we have to do something that upset Muslims that therefore we must upset Christians also. It is clearly truthful, in a way that treating Islam as simply a religion is not (the distinction between religion and politics that we have is certainly a Christian idea). The trouble with it is, that at the moment lots of Muslims are not politicised in this way, and this move would politicise them.

          Perhaps the solution would be to say “If you politicise yourselves, then we will treat you politically.” Thus, if for example, a Muslim school simply teaches Islam it should be left alone. But if it seeks to impose Shariah law, then it should be treated now as a political movement. After all, something similar already happens with Christianity – the Christian Party is treated as a political movement, and rightly so.

          • Anton

            But if we take it mosque by mosque then somebody has to record the sermon each week to check it, see if other unadvertised meetings are taking place, etc etc. Difficult.

          • Albert

            I think can be done with schools – it should be being done already! As for Mosques, then I think, in common with good British practice, we wouldn’t regulate it (we can that sort of thing to the EU), we would simply leave things unless we become aware of a problem. If it becomes clear that a Mosque is politicised (and I see no reason why they shouldn’t be, BTW, it’s the kind of politicisation that counts) then they should be treated as political. That way, there is no need to implicate us in their politics.

          • Mark

            As for Mosques, then I think, in common with good British practice, we
            wouldn’t regulate it (we can that sort of thing to the EU), we would
            simply leave things unless we become aware of a problem.

            That idea has sort of been in place for years. The only difference being that when a problem is found, nothing is ever done. So why should we just wait and see if a problem occurs with one (like what?), when the only way to check is to smuggle cameras and microphones in as Channel 4 Dispatches did in around 2007/8.
            Forget “Visit my mosque days” because that is too easy and generally they are effectively closed buildings, and nobody really knows what goes on in them. It’s at this point, that I should say “some” of them.
            Regulation is the answer. In extreme circumstances, extreme measures are required.

            In December, an imam who gets on TV regularly, dressed in a sharp suit, posted a video of his Friday “sermon” at a London mosque. It was a full-on angry political rant about the evils of secularism – you know, the system of society that we have here? In the comments section for the video he told me that secularism and ISIS were two evils that need to be challenged. The media see him as a “moderate”.
            If that sort of thing is being propagated around mosques (and he does travel a lot), then why are we surprised if people turn against our society?

          • Albert

            Why do suicide bombers do it? The Paris attack killed 130 people. That’s dreadful, but that was 130 out of a city of 2,240,621 people, not including visitors (I assume). Suicide bombers simply cannot kill in large enough numbers to make killing us an objective. Killing is a means to a wider end. Part of their purpose is to destabilise our culture, undermine it by making us remove our freedoms and turn on Muslims. What you propose here is the reaction they want – why reward them? Will it help? No, it will make Muslims feel more resentful (and with good reason) and it won’t stop anything, since extremists will just disappear somewhere else.

            It was a full-on angry political rant about the evils of secularism – you know, the system of society that we have here? In the comments section for the video he told me that secularism and ISIS were two evils that need to be challenged.

            Well, as I have argued here already, depending on what he means by “secularism”, I would agree with him.

          • Mark

            I’m not just talking terrorism. Check the Channel 4 Dispatches “Undercover mosque” for all else they found.

            And it seems that secularism is hated by other religions too. It seems us secularists are becoming the most persecuted group. May as well say that, as everyone else does.

            This is purely hypothetical, but what if the religions defeated secularism? How do you then run society? Would it be a friendly inter-faith system? Do you think that the Muslims would quite fancy Sharia uber alles? I doubt anyone else would like that, and you end up with a massive punch up (again). Secularism got rid of that until Islam has reared it’s head, making demands for special treatment.

          • Albert

            As I’ve said, you really need to define your terms. Secularism is much to broad a term to be useful. If it means nothing more than a system which does not foreclose against the public expression of any particular religious or non-religious position, then I am a secularist. Obviously, I do not hate my own position. But if it means a position which seeks to marginalise or shut down or otherwise discriminate against religious people or their beliefs, then clearly I oppose that. And such a secularist cannot complain he is being persecuted – it is his persecution of others that it being opposed.

            Your final point is a bit odd. As I have asked already, whose watch has all this happened on? Not ours! The reality is, had society been more Christian, we wouldn’t be in this position.

          • Dreadnaught

            The reality is, had society been more Christian, we wouldn’t be in this position.
            Wasn’t ‘society’ Christian during the Inquisition, the Blasphemy Laws, or the English Civil Wars or the Witch Trials the, ‘Divine rule of Kings’, the Feudal System the expulsion of the Jews – how Christian were they? Oh I almost forgot the Christian endorsement of the slave system.

          • Anton

            Well said! Committed Christians will always be a minority at every time and place in this present evil age. Today they are a minority in a secular society. Back then they were a minority in a institutionally Christian society in which most people were nominal Christians.

          • Dreadnaught

            Yes but that was on pain of death for blasphemy wasn’t it.

          • Anton

            To what does “that” refer, please? I don’t understand your comment.

          • Dreadnaught

            I was referring to times when it could be rightly asserted that Christianity ruled the nation and dissenters were punished for non-conformity.

          • CliveM

            When were they simply nominal Christians? I think that is simply a mid reading. They were in the main devout and committed believers. A lot of what they believed we may now challenge, but it’s a mistake to suggest it was therefore nominal.

          • Anton

            What was the culture in Britain and Europe in the past? To call it a Christian culture is to sell Christianity short, for Britain and Europe, like all cultures, have historical records of institutionalised injustices and endless futile internal wars. Secular people suppose that our history discredits Christianity. This makes the claim that our lands were Christian a hindrance to evangelisation. The secular view is roughly that the past was Christian, the past was rubbish, so Christianity is rubbish. Actually, that argument is rubbish. Many secular people say they are anti-Christian, but mostly they are anti-church, specifically against politicised churches. So am I !

            Most people back then took the Bible as factually true, but even Satan does that. Only persons committed to Christ get His help to remake them and their lives holy. That is why the ‘Christian’ cultures of history have often misbehaved like pagans; the effects of the Fall on them are scarcely reduced.

            During the Dark Ages the Franks became institutionally Christian after their king Clovis won a battle following a trial prayer to Christ. A century later Bishop Gregory of Tours (d. 594) grumbled in his History of the Franks how hard it was to convince people that being a Christian meant a change of moral lifestyle and an end to pagan custom. In the 8th century Charlemagne conquered the remaining pagan Saxons on the continent and gave them the choice of baptism or death. That is the way of the Quran, not the gospel. It is not based on repentance and it will not produce piety, only conformity. For centuries babies were baptised and then treated as Christians who must pay taxes not only to their rulers but to the church (tithes, made compulsory in Charlemagne’s time and collected by the authorities on behalf of the church). Christianity came to be seen as an opt-out faith, with penalties (like a nation), rather than an opt-in faith by personal conviction.

          • CliveM

            Satan knows he is in opposition to Christ, the majority of people then believed and were taught that they were following a righteous path. Or at least were offered a path that forgave them their sins.

            Rightly we are today uncomfortable and embarrassed by a lot of what Christians or the Church did in Gods name. Protestants blame a lot of this on the perceived errors of the RCC. We try to redefine these people as nominal or not real Christians. What we are saying is, these aren’t Christians because they did bad things. I think that is dishonest. True believers, people with a profound and honest belief in Christ have done unchristian things, but that doesn’t make their Christianity nominal, it means they are in error. Medieval people were profoundly religious, their Christianity for the vast majority was real for them. Error in doctrine doesn’t make you not a Christian.

          • Anton

            “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven” – Matthew 7:21

            “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another” – John 13:34-5

            When secular people look at our so-called Christian past and say that if that’s Christian living then they want nothing of it, I am compelled to agree with them. Saying that that is Christian living is selling Christianity short. The authentic church is a peaceable small minority (Matt 22:14) persecuted by ‘the world,’ meaning the culture they lived in. Sometimes that culture was pagan, sometimes communist, sometimes Catholic, sometimes Anglican; but as soon as you think you have won and set up the kingdom on earth, you have lost.

          • CliveM

            I never said it was Christian living, simply that you can’t simply write these people of as ‘nominal’ or ‘unreal’ Christians. I am prepared to say they were wrong (I have already done so), I’m not prepared to excuse their behaviour by saying they are only nominal.

          • Anton

            Fair enough. I am, in view of Matt 7:21.

          • CliveM

            I’m not saying all who proclaim Christ are Christian, simply that not all who are in error aren’t.

          • Anton

            The church is a set of people called out of every nation, every culture. Authentic Christianity is a counter-culture; it always was, even in so-called Christian Europe/England/America, and it always will be until the end of the age.

          • Albert

            Not very. But the difference is that, whereas we can see these things were unChristian – when measured by the standards of Christianity (i.e. Jesus), the present situation has come about as a result of confessional secularism. When we measure what has happened here, we can see that this is exactly the kind of chaos that a dogmatic yet vacuous political position would result in.

          • CliveM

            That’s an odd mix of examples. I’m not sure what some of them matter or how they support a point.

          • Dreadnaught

            They are examples of circumstances when Christianity was in the ascendency compared to today when that position is taken by secularism albeit that no one is being punished for not subscribing to secularism.

          • CliveM

            During the vast majority of the periods covered by your example secularism wasn’t an issue, because it simply wasn’t a consideration. In feudal society no one was pushing for a secular version, the whole idea would have been meaningless. Christianshave been pretty good at arguing and persecuting each other, but actually secularism has pretty much been ignored.
            Or are you confusing atheism and secular?

          • Dreadnaught

            I am not confusing secularism (as the Venerable Albert said ‘whatever that term means’) with atheism. The point I was making was that things were far from rosy when the ‘Christianity’ and monasteries ruled the roost.

          • Mark

            In terms of our current society, I see no religious persecution, but Muslims do, simply because they can’t have Sharia.

            As for if this society “had been more Christian” (whatever that means), back in the 1990’s, how would such a society have dealt with immigration, and would so-called “multi-culturalism” have been welcomed. And also, simply because the society was more Christian, would anyone have spotted the Wahabbi / Salafi / Deobandi influences going on in Muslim societies, and if so, what would that society have done about it?

          • Albert

            I didn’t say that there was religious persecution – although it is clear that there is a kind of secularism that seeks to marginalise religious people and that religious beliefs have been marginalised.

            As for if this society “had been more Christian” (whatever that means), back in the 1990’s, how would such a society have dealt with immigration, and would so-called “multi-culturalism” have been welcomed. And also, simply because the society was more Christian, would anyone have spotted the Wahabbi / Salafi / Deobandi influences going on in Muslim societies, and if so, what would that society have done about it?

            As I’ve argued elsewhere on this thread, the problem is of the cultural vacuity of a confessionally secular state. This has sought to downplay British culture to make space for other cultures. This policy has been popular with some secularists perhaps because it was a good way of downplaying Christianity in our culture. It was rightly assumed that this would enhance the influence of non-believers. But lacking in adequate religious education or understanding themselves, they didn’t see that Islam would be so robust.

            Your average dim-witted liberal secularist thought all religions are the same and belong in a kind of cosy and eccentric private sphere. Thus they did not see that removing Christianity from the public sphere would actually create a vacuum others might fill.

            Had this country been more self-confidently Christian, we would have been clearer with immigrants about our culture, about Christian values that must be accepted. Far too late in the day secularists have noticed the problem and introduced this rather unclear and unconvincing notion of “British values”. Until recently, British values would have essentially been Christian values viewed through the prism of the CofE. But as secularism has marginalised Christian values, what are British values? No one knows, no one knows the foundation of them, or why anyone should accept them. So there is no reason why Muslims should accept them either, but that leaves them with a range of options, most of which are absolutely fine, but those that aren’t…

          • Mark

            “secularism” isn’t, in my view, a tangible thing that plotted to “remove Christianity from he public sphere.” How did it do that? Who told all of those people to not bother believing?
            I grew up simply deciding there was no god and that was that. Should I have been indoctrinated instead?

            Are you instead saying that an unintended consequence of people making their own choices, has led to Islam filling some sort of gap? Whatever a “confessionally secular state” is have no idea.

            As for those “values”, it’s getting on my nerves that Muslims (or at least the daft reps who get on TV) seem to spit the words as if they are poison. Nobody ever said that “British values” are uniquely British. It is just a set of values that our society runs by, and I’d guess other European societies too.

            To me, it’s a vague way of pointing out some orthodox Muslim values are outside of that.

            You might notice that everything has to be completely analysed now, including freedom of speech, gleefully leapt upon by those daft Muslim reps after 12 people were murdered over some cartoons in France. Democracy has to be analysed when a woman is told she can’t cover her face in court. What is happening is that they are playing freedoms against us. If this society had held onto stronger “Christian roots”, how would that have been dealt with?
            It all would have happened anyway.

          • Albert

            “secularism” isn’t, in my view, a tangible thing that plotted to “remove Christianity from he public sphere.” How did it do that? Who told all of those people to not bother believing?

            The understanding of secularism I am referring to, has nothing to do with people choosing to believe or not believe. It is to do with the degree to which a religious culture is permitted in the public sphere. In education, for example, it has meant that many people no longer have anything like an adequate understanding of religion to make a decision about. This has created a vacuum. British people do not really have a culture any more, because a culture requires (in the original sense of simply being religious) a cult. Therefore, there is now a vacuum.

            Whatever a “confessionally secular state” is have no idea.

            A confessional state is one in which a particular religious hold sway as being the default, sometimes in legal terms, position. We now have a confused kind of non-religion as the default position. It means that everyone has to defend their positions at the bar of the non-religious.

            Nobody ever said that “British values” are uniquely British.

            The problem with “British values” is that no one knows what they are. They look like a load of positions made up by a panicking secular establishment, who have suddenly woken up to the fact that, in asking Muslims to accept our culture, we don’t know what it is they are expected to accept. How can you make a decision on the basis of something when no one knows what it is? Am I, as a Christian, outside of British values? Who knows. Historically, you as a secularist might be described as being outside British values. As such, it is not a terribly useful term. Or rather, it is a very useful term for those who wish to control others, without having to declare the content which entitles them to do so.

            What is happening is that they are playing freedoms against us.

            You’re making my points for me now – this could only happen if our freedoms and the reason for which freedom exists, were vague (your word).

            If this society had held onto stronger “Christian roots”, how would that have been dealt with?

            It’s very straight-forward. When people were coming into the country we would have said “You are welcome here, and welcome to practice your religion. You have your human rights and we will vigorously defend those equally with every other person here. But this is a Christian country, with Christian customs, laws and culture. You will be expected to co-operate in the public sphere with that culture, which you cannot expect to supplant, and if you don’t like it, don’t come. Your children can receive an education of your choosing, but we will expect them to be educated in the Christian culture of this country. If you are doing something which is clearly contrary to our Christian culture, you will be prosecuted.”

            Instead, what we did was say “We don’t really have a culture in this country, so do what you like.”

            Remember: you are complaining about the situation – it happened on your watch. You secularists have screwed it up, but you don’t seem able to take responsibility for it.

          • Mark

            It’s very straight-forward. When people were coming into the country we
            would have said “You are welcome here, and welcome to practice your
            religion. You have your human rights and we will vigorously defend
            those equally with every other person here. But this is a Christian
            country, with Christian customs, laws and culture. You will be expected
            to co-operate in the public sphere with that culture, which you cannot
            expect to supplant, and if you don’t like it, don’t come. Your children
            can receive an education of your choosing, but we will expect them to be
            educated in the Christian culture of this country. If you are doing
            something which is clearly contrary to our Christian culture, you will
            be prosecuted.”

            Do you really think words such as that would have had any effect, given the circumstances? Plus, if this country in your world, had kept any semblance of fairness in law, you’d have a tough time in prosecuting anyone for being contrary to Christian values. Unless of course, you are talking about having a total theocracy uber alles.

            More to a practical point, would that “Christian society” have taken in 20,000 people and put them all in the same place, such as the mistake that was made? Would that society have kept an eye on who was building mosques and with whose cash? Would that society have limited the amount of mosques? etc, etc.
            Pretty much the actions that should have been taken, rather than tough-sounding words that mean little.

            Plus rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin would probably give you an argument, because some months back on the BBC, she was advocating the “Christian stance” of “bring them all in regardless of anything,” and when questioned by Andrew Neil on numbers, she said, “I don’t care about numbers.” He replied, quite gently, “numbers matter,” and she knew she was out of her depth. Her “Christian” thinking on that was obviously naive and seems quite a way from yours.

          • Albert

            Do you really think words such as that would have had any effect, given the circumstances?

            Obviously, they would if we enforced them – a point I indicated in the very paragraph you quoted! you don’t seem to get that the problem currently is that we don’t have the intellectual position to deal with the problem. We believe in equality, tolerance and freedom. So what happens to those who don’t believe in those things? They cause the secular liberal mind to crash.

            Plus, if this country in your world, had kept any semblance of fairness in law, you’d have a tough time in prosecuting anyone for being contrary to Christian values. Unless of course, you are talking about having a total theocracy uber alles.

            I cannot for the life of me see why you think nothing lies between those two possibilities.

            More to a practical point, would that “Christian society” have taken in 20,000 people and put them all in the same place, such as the mistake that was made?

            I don’t get the reference, neither is there any reason why I should agree with anyting Rev Rose Hudson-Wilkin says.

          • Mark

            More to a practical point, would that “Christian society” have
            taken in 20,000 people and put them all in the same place, such as the
            mistake that was made?

            I don’t get the reference,

            To be clearer, what happened was that ghettos were allowed to be formed, and we ended up with eg Dewsbury, Luton, Tower Hamlets, by housing thousands in the same areas.

            What I was asking was that would that Christian society, outside of the tough words, have thought about maybe spreading people around the country, thereby not allowing those ghettos (which are very much part of the problems we have now) to grow?

          • Albert

            What happened was that, because our society does not really believe anything, there was no intellectual basis even to require integration. Christianity would have provided that basis. Asking me to say how policy would have gone after that, is a bit unfair!

          • Mark

            I’m not sure how there would have been a “basis” for integration for those who simply do not want it.
            Do you tempt them with some sort of inter-faith friendship, which we all know is a smokescreen, or force them?
            I’m not convinced how a “Christian society” would have sorted it all out, as you can obviously tell.

          • Albert

            I think I’ve answered all this, already.

          • bluedog

            ‘Part of their purpose is to destabilise our culture, undermine it by making us remove our freedoms and turn on Muslims.’

            No, their objective is to force us to become Muslims. That’s the difference.

          • Albert

            That may be the long term goal of some Islamists. But the means is to create chaos, get us to remove our freedoms and galvanise the Muslim majority, because they are the victims of unjust discrimination arising from our response to Islamism. Why reward them?

            Look at the IRA. They killed about 1800 people in the UK. Now death rates from Islamists in the UK lower than the number of people killed by bee stings. They’re never going to make us all Muslims at that rate!

            Why reward them (the Islamists!) by throwing away our culture to create a bigger problem? It makes no sense. But if you think there’s a problem, follow the first commandment God ever gave man, a little more closely.

          • bluedog

            ‘ because they are the victims of unjust discrimination arising from our response to Islamism.”

            You appear to be completely divorced from popular opinion. You should offer your opinions in the nearest pub and refute the response in your customary manner.

          • CliveM

            Is something right simply because it’s popular?

          • bluedog

            The masses enjoy the nobility of the savage, comrade.

          • Albert

            I don’t think an appeal ad populum gets you to the truth. It certainly doesn’t get you to Christianity. So I don’t feel moved by this argument.

          • bluedog

            Bourgeois elitist, eh?

          • Albert

            Refusing to franchise out my opinions to “the majority” does not make me a bourgeois elitist. On the contrary, by following the majority, I am not likely to end up with bourgeois elitist beliefs.

          • bluedog

            You’ve done it again! Where do I use the word ‘majority’? Hint, I don’t. The preferred term is ‘popular’, which does not necessarily imply majority, although in this case it almost certainly does. The fact is that perceptions of Muslims and Islam are irretrievably negative, and rightly so. Here’s a way of sampling what is unquestionably a majority opinion, recognition of which confers you with unalloyed virtue in all regards. Ask a white British woman what she thinks of Islam.

          • Albert

            Okay, apologies again! 🙂 But does it make any difference? You said “You appear to be completely divorced from popular opinion.” Now if the position you are talking about is not the majority, then it is difficult to see how I am divorced from popular opinion. Anyway, why I should I care about what is popular or unpopular?

          • bluedog

            ‘The preferred term is ‘popular’, which does not necessarily imply majority, although in this case it almost certainly does.’

            Being aware of popular, or popular majority opinion is generally considered important in determining what is politically feasible, as you know. Even if one isn’t a politician, and I’m not, it is always interesting to hear a range of opinions. A visit to a pub therefore provides an instant focus group. If you are a man it always seems important to understand what women think because they tend to have a different set of priorities and understanding the feminine view is important; women are in the majority. Obviously one can survive in blissful ignorance of the popular opinion on topical matters, but it may be a dull old world in that particular ivory tower.

          • Albert

            But the issue here is a bit more abstract I would have thought. What right? I can’t see that that is helped by knowing what’s popular.

          • The strategy that you propose will not work – because Muslims who spread such extremists views tend to work secretively and under cover. They carefully study the weaknesses of the system and work through deception. It will be impossible to detect problems in time.

          • Albert

            A strategy which unfairly targets Muslims will not work either, for the simple fact that it pushes extremism further underground. So it is not better than I suggest, but it has the disadvantages of being wrong in itself, because it is unjust and of pushing more Muslims to the extremes because they are being treated unjustly.

            We need to face the fact that there is no practical solution which entirely deals with this problem. But some solutions would become part of the problem as well as failing to deal with the problem.

          • I am not suggesting that we should target Muslims in any way, only their ideology. There is a difference.

          • Albert

            I agree with that!

          • bluedog

            But what if being ‘just’ to Muslims is in practice being grossly unjust to the non-Muslim British? Why should the British state discriminate against the majority of non-Muslim Britons to their disadvantage? At some point you need to reach the conclusion that Islam and its host population represent an existential threat. Once you successfully make that transition you may be able to accept that the objective of the British state must be to protect the non-Muslim population from the demands of the Muslim minority population.

          • Albert

            But what if being ‘just’ to Muslims is in practice being grossly unjust to the non-Muslim British? Why should the British state discriminate against the majority of non-Muslim Britons to their disadvantage?

            That’s what happens when you have a secular notion of human right not rooted in any wider basis. Human rights simply become a contradictory mess of power bids, in which some rights become more important than others. But real justice cannot be contradictory. Thus, if person X has a right, it cannot be at the expense of person Y. Therefore, your point makes no sense, except perhaps as providing another reason why secular vacuity is the heart of this problem.

          • bluedog

            Perhaps you can assist by defining the difference between justice and real justice. If we are talking about criminal justice rather than social justice there are plenty of ways in which the state can impose punishment on well-defined crimes. But as we saw in the much-reported Rotherham debacle, the state may elect not to impose available sanctions for reasons that discriminate against the white British. In this instance justice was contradictory. In addition, Muslim rape of working-class white girls would appear to fall outside any argument about secularity. Or do you think otherwise?

          • Albert

            Real justice is rooted in natural law. That is to say, it is not simply a power bid by whoever seems to be fashionable amongst secular liberal fundamentalists. It is rooted in some kind of truth – the dignity of the human person in relationship. Real justice, therefore, is justice as it exists in the mind of God, and which we should be seeking to discover.

            In this instance justice was contradictory.

            No. Injustice was perpetrated.

            In addition, Muslim rape of working-class white girls would appear to fall outside any argument about secularity.

            I don’t know what you mean.

          • bluedog

            You say, ‘Real justice is rooted in natural law.’ So, we are leaving Judeo-Christian precepts behind and going Darwinian now?

            Actually justice is imposed in every society by the hegemonial power, where it can be bothered to do so. Application of the state’s definition of justice depends on the state’s coercive powers. The state’s coercive powers are vested in the police, as we know. The British state is extremely careful to reserve to itself the sole means of violence as can be seen by the highly restrictive gun laws, compared to say, the United States.

            ‘Real justice, therefore, is justice as it exists in the mind of God, and which we should be seeking to discover.’ In practice, justice and its application to ‘the dignity of the human person in relationship (to whom?)’ is the preserve of Caesar. Perhaps we can agree that in the British instance justice is tempered by ‘Dieu et mon droit’.

          • Albert

            So, we are leaving Judeo-Christian precepts behind and going Darwinian now?

            I think you don’t know what natural law is. Oddly, thereafter, you seem to be proposing an entirely secular notion of justice.

          • bluedog

            I rarely understand your definitions but am confident that ‘natural law’ is a Roman Catholic term unlikely to be revealed to a non-Catholic. In the British context, I would regard criminal justice as being meted out under the Common Law, as revised, which itself derives principally from Mosaic Law. Is that secular in your definition?

          • Albert

            I rarely understand your definitions but am confident that ‘natural law’ is a Roman Catholic term unlikely to be revealed to a non-Catholic.

            Natural law was grasped prior to Christianity and is commended to us in scripture.

            In the British context, I would regard criminal justice as being meted out under the Common Law, as revised, which itself derives principally from Mosaic Law. Is that secular in your definition?

            No, but then, given what you had said about it, I wouldn’t have imagined that’s what you thought the basis of law. You were talking in terms of coercive power.

          • bluedog

            I’ve been astonished by your assumptions of secularity in my thoughts about criminal justice given my question about departure from Judeo-Christian precepts. Judeo-Christian should be seen as incorporating Mosaic Law. Or is it necessary to spell that out in grinding detail to avoid a vexatious response?

            I do talk in terms of coercive power. So does the state. Judgements, civil or criminal are enforced by threat of a custodial sentence or such other penalty as the state may determine, like a fine. In any event, non-compliance with judgements is seen as contempt of court. Not recommended.

          • Albert

            Sorry if I’ve misunderstood. I tend to regard “the state has coercive power” to mean “the state claims to be able to act arbitrarily.” As that’s not your position, I withdraw my remarks, with apologies.

          • bluedog

            Many thanks, Albert.

          • bluedog

            ‘Thus, if for example, a Muslim school simply teaches Islam it should be left alone.’ But teaching Islam results in a demographic that seeks to impose sharia. There is nowhere to hide and the choices in dealing with the cancer of Islam and the potential local dominance of Islamic populations are all bleak.

            Our own state is dependent on a state monopoly of violence. It seems to this writer that Islam promotes devolved violence in order to obtain submission of the populace to Allah. One can see this in situations such as the murder of the Glasgow newsagent who made pro-Christian tweets over Easter. Of course, the entire terrorist infrastructure in Europe is designed to intimidate the existing polity into submission to Islam and thus impose sharia. A large Muslim host population, ready to answer the call, is an important part of the strategy. Hence too the flood of single males, mostly of military age and many sponsored by Saudi and Qatari financiers, into Germany. Inhibited by the legacy of the Third Reich, the German state is particularly vulnerable to the risks it faces.

            Our principle problem is that our defence apparatus is designed both philosophically and in its physical being to deal with threats from states. The current threat is from non-state actors operating in an uncoordinated way, yet collectively, through the bonds of religion to try and defeat our society and replace it with their vision of all that it is good and just. Because individuals within western society have clearly defined rights, we are conditioned to assign those rights to these infiltrators, a process which blinds us both to their intent and to the need to defeat their objective. If these Islamic infiltrators were recognised as an aggressive state, we would have no trouble in denying that state any rights at all. But the nature of the infiltration cleverly exploits the metaphysics of our society to their advantage, and ensures that our strengths become a fatal weakness.

            A highly educated western liberal such as yourself is going to have trouble in accepting the solution. But ultimately we are going to have to deal with Muslim populations on a collective basis, for the simple reason that they are, collectively, an existential threat. For our society to deal with this threat we need to turn the Muslims into a virtual state, then we know what to do. The alternative is increasing vigilante violence by both sides, and the Lebanese civil war in the 1970’s points the way.

          • Anton

            Wills and Kate are meeting the Indian PM, who might have a few tips.

          • bluedog

            True. Are they visiting Pakistan, where the president would no doubt be impressively plausible with regard to the slaughter of Pakistani Christians at Easter?

          • Albert

            What you say is true only of some Muslims, and that’s the point. The proportion of the UK that is Muslim is about 5%. According to the majority of that 5% is opposed to violence. Now how can there be a demographic problem with a minority of only 5%, of which less than 5% is threatening? There can’t, but if you feel so strongly about it, act on the demographic problem.

            We all know that there is only one Church which opposes artificial contraception (actually to be fair, all Churches did, until 20th Century). If demographics is part of the problem, then modern Protestant unfaithfulness on sexuality is part of the problem. Stop blaming the Muslims for the fact that British people have smaller families.

          • bluedog

            ‘Stop blaming the Muslims for the fact that British people have smaller families.’ I don’t. Not anywhere. It’s a completely separate issue not raised in a single post of mine in this thread. But it’s certainly a valid point and the genocidal combination of the Pill, abortion on demand and a rising cost of living has had a catastrophic effect on family size among the white British. But we are not alone, look at the rest of Europe and the developed nations of Asia, Japan in particular.

            You say that the proportion of The UK that is Muslim is 5%. London is 13% Muslim and 10% of British teenagers are Muslim. In France, 25% of children in the range 1-4 years are Muslim. Do Muslims accurately report their faith in the census, or does taqqiya permit concealment?

            Sometime ago you may recall that His Grace’s communicant Graham Wood provided a link to a US site that discussed in detail the violence within Islam. Needless to say I can’t put my hands on the link. The specific point made was that within Islam there are enforcers, those who will kill where the Prophet provides. We see this in the Pakistani cultural habit of honour killing, where the father or brother feels justified in killing the daughter/sister who may have been defiled by the kuffar. The reverse is not considered a capital offence.

            You say ‘According to the majority of that 5% is opposed to violence. ‘ There seems to be a word or words missing before this sentence makes sense.

            You say, ‘…with a minority of only 5%, of which less than 5% is threatening?’ A ComRes poll published in February 2015 found 45% of Muslims felt their immans were justified in preaching violence, 27% sympathised with the Charlie Hebdo massacre and 24% believed acts of violence in response to cartoon images of the prophet were justified. If the British Muslim population is 3 million on the basis of your figure of 5% of c65 million total, we’re looking at 1.35m, 810,000 and 720,000 respectively. Let’s assume these figures relate to both sexes, although it seems unlikely that this is the case. If the numbers are revised to represent Muslim male opinion only, 45% translates as 90% of British Muslim males, and so on.

            I don’t share your confidence.

          • Albert

            Please don’t misunderstand me. I am not saying there is no problem with Islam. I am not saying that there is no problem with some Muslims. I am saying, we should not treat as a problem, people who are not a problem, and that the data of this document, shows most are not a problem.

            ‘Stop blaming the Muslims for the fact that British people have smaller families.’ I don’t. Not anywhere. It’s a completely separate issue not raised in a single post of mine in this thread.

            It was the word demographic your opening line. I have perhaps misunderstood your point, and if so, apologise.

            But teaching Islam results in a demographic that seeks to impose sharia.

            You say:

            You say that the proportion of The UK that is Muslim is 5%. London is 13% Muslim and 10% of British teenagers are Muslim. In France, 25% of children in the range 1-4 years are Muslim.

            That’s my point really. That cannot happen without mass use of birth control by non-Muslims.

            Do Muslims accurately report their faith in the census, or does taqqiya permit concealment?

            That’s a shia concept – Shias are a minority in the world, and presumably here too.

            ‘According to the majority of that 5% is opposed to violence. ‘

            Sorry, that should read ‘According to the survey, the majority of that 5% is opposed to violence. ‘

          • bluedog

            Making a very general point, it seems to this writer that the West always encounters difficulties with religious and political beliefs that proclaim ‘struggle’. It is generally understood that the Hegelian dialectic was the precursor to the struggle advocated by Marx and also by the writer of Mein Kampf. There is no suggestion that Hegel influenced the prophet Mahommed, but they do seem to have stumbled upon the same method of advancement.

            In the case of Islam, jihad can be interpreted as struggle and the Holy Koran informs where the believer can resort to violence. This is clearly reflected in the beliefs of a significant number of Muslims in Britain and the West. What needs to be clearly understood is that the current numbers of Muslims supporting violence is elastic, upwardly, for two reasons. Firstly only very stupid people disclose their hand where violence is concerned. Secondly, as Muslims are emboldened by an increase in their numbers and influence, the chances of violence being a successful strategy for them increase. This increased chance of success will be reflected in a greater support for violence, against the Kuffar. It’s simple arithmetic.

            Recommended reading: the speech delivered by Archbishop Nona of Mosul after the destruction of his cathedral and the flight of his congregation.

          • Albert

            I don’t have much to disagree with there, except to say that, it does not follow that because someone is a Muslim that therefore they are in favour of violence. Some Muslims are pacifists. The Qur’an is a very difficult and contradictory book – Muslims resolve the contradictions in different ways. We need to acknowledge that, and judge them by their actions, not by what we say they believe.

      • While I agree that most Muslims have no interest in politics, I have yet to meet one who did not feel an intense loyalty to Islam. They will do nothing to tame the extremist elements among their co-religionists – either out of fear or a lack of concern for the consequences for non-Muslims who will suffer (they themselves will receive priority in an Islamised society). Their default response to any act of terrorism is to defend Islam and blame the actual victims or western governments.

        • Albert

          In my comment, I was simply reporting what the report on which all this is based says. Far too many Muslims support violence, but they are a minority . Those who oppose this violence need not to be treated like politicised criminals. They deserve proper respect under natural justice, and we deserve for them to be treated properly because mistreating them will make matters worse.

          I have yet to meet one who did not feel an intense loyalty to Islam.

          I don’t see any reason to object to them feeling that.

          They will do nothing to tame the extremist elements among their co-religionists – either out of fear or a lack of concern for the consequences for non-Muslims who will suffer (they themselves will receive priority in an Islamised society). Their default response to any act of terrorism is to defend Islam and blame the actual victims or western governments.

          That’s not what the report says – I think we should treat each person equally, that they should be equally regarded as innocent until proven guilty, and not rather innocent until proven to be a Muslim.

          • Anton’s point was that we should treat Islam as a political movement rather than a religion. I agree.

            I believe that Islam as an ideology should be widely repudiated – just like any fascist ideology – and public expressions of this religion should be restricted.

            I do not believe we should treat Muslims badly, but I make a distinction between how we treat people and how we treat their beliefs. They should have much the same rights as anyone else – but their religion should not be welcomed the way it is – as if it were just another religion, like Buddhism for example. It is a political ideology which has consequences.

            I also understand that many peaceful Muslims will feel hurt to hear their religion criticised. Equally their sense of loyalty to Islam will always make them take sides with their co-religionists against the infidel.

          • Albert

            I agree with a lot of this as well. However, I think we need to be a bit careful. Clearly there’s a lot in the Qur’an and still more the Hadith that we might take exception to. But the truth is, there are things many people find difficult in the Bible as well. Everything comes down to how an individual understands his religion, and at that point, we are looking at how we treat the person on account of what he believes and does, not the person on account of what (we say) his religion believes and does. We should opt for the former, not the latter.

            I have known many Muslims, and found them all to be good people – I wouldn’t want them to be treated poorly because of the behaviour of others.

          • pobjoy

            But the truth is, there are things many people find difficult in the Bible as well.

            That comment deserves a fifteen year sentence.

          • Albert

            It’s a statement of fact. Do you think people should go to prison for stating facts?

          • pobjoy

            The fact is that you could be arrested for treason, tried and imprisoned for life.

            Wake up.

          • Albert

            I haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about.

          • pobjoy

            I don’t think so.

          • Albert

            How odd. This was my comment:

            But the truth is, there are things many people find difficult in the Bible as well.

            Please tell me by which law I am in danger of being arrested for treason, tried and imprisoned for life (or for 15 years, as you previously said – the law seems strangely changeable).

          • Anton

            “there are things many people find difficult in the Bible as well”

            Perhaps, but gospel Christianity unlike quranic Islam is a free choice, so if you don’t like it then simple – don’t get involved.

          • Albert

            What I had in mind was some of the more surprising laws in Leviticus – the punishments and so forth, use of death penalty etc. Now it would be outrageous to say to Orthodox Jews, even more Christians, “Because of this text, we will regard you as suspect and just waiting for the chance to go to the stoning.” You have to measure people by their behaviour, not by what we say their religion entails.

            Thus, if a Muslim lives according to the laws and customs of this country, we can’t treat him with suspicion just because the Qur’an says things we don’t like. If he doesn’t do those things, we don’t have any more reason to complain than we do to an Orthodox Jew who doesn’t do the things we don’t like from the Torah.

          • Anton

            I don’t agree. You measure religions by their scriptures. Ours say that we Christians are not under the Law of ancient Israel, even if those laws are set out for our reference in the Old Testament to teach us about God. Muslims can read all I have just said in the Bible if they care to, crystal clear. If a Muslim wishes to say we are hypocrites if we demand that converts to Christianity live by Mosaic Law, he would be right. Conversely, we can read the Quran, and it is pretty clear – and reason for concern.

            Would you agree or disagree with the following statement?

            if a self-declared communist lives according to the laws and customs of this country, we can’t treat him with suspicion just because Marx and Lenin say things we don’t like

          • Albert

            You measure religions by their scriptures.

            So your view of Orthodox Jews is what exactly?

          • Anton

            They regard Talmud as equal in authority to the OT. Look in it and decide for yourself, because like all manmade books it is a mix of good and bad.

          • Albert

            Precisely. So you cannot as you said before, measure religions by their scriptures. Now Muslims have their traditional readings too. Some Muslims are actually pacifists. Why treat them as terrorists? We might think a suicide bomber is religiously observant in Islam (I don’t), but why not look and see what he does.

            The truth his your point has been defeated by your own comment, and in any case, unless we want the state to police religious beliefs, the state should stick to judging people by their behaviour, not by what (we say) they believe. If we follow the latter course, we commit injustices and make matters worse.

          • Anton

            What on earth are you on about? I mean that Talmud is included in the scriptures of Orthodox Jews, as it is not for (eg) Karaites.

          • Albert

            I don’t believe that, but I am happy to be corrected. It may be of equal authority with the scriptures, but it is not thereby scripture.

          • Anton

            Definition time, please!

          • Albert

            The claim is your, so why don’t you begin by defining your terms.

          • Anton

            Do philosophers never grow up? What counts is authority, and something that is accorded equal authority with scripture might as well be, whatever you call it.

          • Albert

            Your claim was about scripture. You said we judge religions by their scriptures. Now you seem to be wishing to add to that. But that’s my point. You can’t go from scripture X teaches Y therefore community of scripture X practices Y. It’s more interesting than that.

          • Anton

            What counts is authority, and something that is accorded equal authority with scripture might as well be, whatever you call it.

          • Albert

            If that’s the point you wish to defend, I have nothing to argue with you about. But I was critiquing what you said:

            You measure religions by their scriptures.

            This statement I disagreed with, and it seems you do too. Fine.

          • Anton

            For the sake of all pedants, I alter this to “You measure religions by the writings they take as binding”.

          • Albert

            Now we are closer. I would say “You measure religions by what their followers take as binding”. Why do I make this distinction? Do all Muslims find the same message in those writings. After all, if the Qur’an stipulate violence, it also says there is no compulsion in religion. What’s binding here? Different Muslim traditions take it differently. Therefore, we cannot judge them so simply.

          • Anton

            How to reconcile that verse with Q4:89 calling for death for apostates?

            Non-Muslims take the view that contradictions in the Quran show it is not the word of an omniscient God.

            Muslims go by the principle of naskh, abrogation, co-opting a verse stating that Allah sometimes thinks of something better (Q2:106), so as to assign precedence to the verses that came to Mohammed later, in this case Q4:89.

          • Albert

            How to reconcile that verse with Q4:89 calling for death for apostates?

            Non-Muslims take the view that contradictions in the Quran show it is not the word of an omniscient God.

            That strikes me as obvious! But the issue here is what Muslims make of it.

            Muslims go by the principle of naskh

            No. Some Muslims go by that principle. And that’s my point: some don’t.

          • Anton

            Because the only alternative is denial that the Quran is written by an omniscient deity – which would make someone a non-Muslim – essentially all Muslims go by naskh. Can you name a significant Islamic tradition that doesn’t?

          • Albert

            My apologies. I’ve gone back to the book I read on this, and found that I did misread it (or misremember it). It does seem that all Muslims follow naskh. Where there seems to be a difference is in how texts such as the sword verse are applied.

            But please don’t get me wrong. I think there’s a genuine problem here. I’m not defending Islam. I am defending Muslims, who, rightly or wrongly, hold that Islam prohibits the kind of violence that we want to prohibit. If we say to them “We think observant Islam entails X, therefore, you must believe and practice X, therefore we will do Y to you” then how will that help, if they say “But we don’t think Islam entails X and therefore we don’t believe and practice X.”?

          • Anton

            If I think that Islam involves X it will be on the basis of my reading of the Quran, and I’d therefore ask, “How do you reconcile your position with the fact that X seems to me to be clear in the Quran”? I recognise that I might be educated by the reply – that’s fine.

          • Albert

            It normally comes down to careful reading of context. Does a particular command apply in all situations or only in the specific situation. What weight is to be given to other later passages which would seem to mitigate the violence? That sort of thing. I can probably dig about a bit, but I suspect you get the point: it doesn’t matter what we think, what matters is that some Muslims think differently about the commands of the Qur’an from what you do, and they have Qur’anic and traditional sanction for so doing. Therefore, they should be judged on the basis of what they believe and do, not on the basis of what we think they should believe and do.

          • Anton

            Muhammad spoke of munafiqun (hypocrites) who claimed to follow him but did not do all he said (often, fighting). How can you distinguish between munafiq Muslims and faithful Muslims who take a different view of the Islamic scriptures?

            What all Muslims claim is that the Quran is the exact word of the omnipotent and sole creator god. Differences start after that. So read it to learn about Islam. Stop making things complicated by introducing subsidiary points.

          • Albert

            I am talking about different things said in the Qur’an and how they can be read differently, and how they have been read differently. Saying “the Qur’an is the exact word of god” does not tell us how it is to be interpreted. That’s just obvious, isn’t? If you take violent verses, they are often surrounded by the specific context in which they apply. Do they apply outside of that context or not? It doesn’t say. Perhaps the hypocrites are those who apply his teaching out of context to allow fighting in different contexts. I don’t know. Neither do you. We just know that the Qur’an says a lot of thing, and that Muslims read it differently.

            Why anyone would wish to treat peaceful Muslims as if they are violent is beyond me, but it won’t come from a careful study of the Qur’an.

          • Anton

            My concern is that they reread the Quran and become violent.

            You are inordinately concerned with “interpretation”. When you read the newspapers, do you think, “Now, how do I interpret this?” When you read a novel? An advert? A rail timetable?

          • Albert

            My concern is that they reread the Quran and become violent.

            That risk is raised, if we keep telling them the Qur’an tells them to be violent, and then marginalise them for being violent, even when they aren’t.

            You are inordinately concerned with “interpretation”.

            No I’m not. If you have a book which is contradictory, issues of interpretation come to the fore. Now your examples are interesting, how about if I add poetry, novels, symbolic literature. If you aren’t explicitly asking yourself “Now, how do I interpret this?” in those cases, it is because the question is so obvious as to be tacit.

          • Anton

            Exactly!

            I am glad of those Muslims who prefer to live in peace rather than enact jihad. It is a matter for the Islamic community whether they are munafiqun and merely nominal Muslims. But we should read the Quran and decide our policies about Islam for ourselves.

            Throughout history, revolutions are led by the most extreme, yet who are followed by many who would not rise up themselves but see the chance of booty.

          • Albert

            Yes, to a degree. Obviously, we need to study the Qur’an, but we also need to act in accordance with what individual Muslims actually do.

          • Anton

            But which individual Muslims?

          • Albert

            Why is this so hard? In British law, in natural justice, we assume someone is innocent, until proven guilty. That is the only principle I am defending here.

          • Anton

            Certainly the law must be applied impartially to Muslims and to non-Muslims. (At the moment it is being applied less to Muslims, because of political correctness.) But I have said before that Islam should be treated by the authorities as a political movement.

          • Albert

            I have said that when Muslims behave politically then then they should be.

          • Anton

            It is a matter for the authorities how to treat political organisations that seek to alter the political system by non-consensual means, and whether to subcategorise their members.

          • Albert

            But they are only political if they are political, not because you say, on account for your reading of the Qur’an that they ought to be political.

          • Anton

            There is a continuing likelihood that an apolitical Muslim will reread the Quran and take up the political parts.

          • Albert

            Especially if you push him the way you propose.

          • Anton

            I now ask: “And your alternative is…?” and we go back to another thread.

          • Albert

            I’ve already answered that…on another thread!

          • Anton

            Then we can thankfully agree to refer readers to that other thread.

          • Albert

            We can agree on that!

          • Anton

            Albert, your position is essentially the politically correct one that only Muslims should be allowed to speak to wider society about what the Quran says. That view is why US generals each had their own imam advising them on what to do in Iraq. It worked out so well, too; I think you know what taqiyya means. Communism is also a religion, albeit a nontheistic one, and when the West faced that enemy we weren’t so foolish as to have a communist advisor telling each of our politicians that Marx actually meant peace, were we?

          • Albert

            Albert, your position is essentially the politically correct one that only Muslims should be allowed to speak to wider society about what the Quran says.

            How on earth do you draw these conclusions? I have myself expressed a range of opinions on this matter! I am saying that, to be just a society much judge someone by their actions (and what they say they believe). However odd it may seem to you, there are Muslims out there who aren’t planning on bombing us, or undermining our political situation. Why should they be treated as if they are, when they’re not?

            Your assumption seems to be that a Muslim is guilty, with no chance to prove innocence (because they must be telling lies if they aren’t admitting to being Islamists). But that’s not how we judge people in our culture. You’ve done exactly what the Islamists want us to do.

          • Anton

            Allow me to change one sentence to: “your position is essentially the politically correct one that only Muslims should be listened to wider society about what the Quran says.” Then I stand by my preceding post. Discussing things with you is like discussing them with a computer: get one letter wrong in a 1000-line program and off you go into a diversion rather than the main purpose of the program. Perhaps you think that is a strength of the way you discuss; I don’t.

          • Albert

            No that still isn’t saying what I am saying. Why not just listen to what I am saying? I’ve said it endlessly? I am saying nothing more than that, any particular Muslim or Mosque, should not be judged by standards different from those we expect in justice and for ourselves. That is to say: they should not be assumed to be a problem, until there is evidence that they are a problem.

            That is so far from what you think I am saying, that I think the rest of your post looks pretty foolish. Discussing things with you is like discussing them with a drunken in a pub, who has publicly latched mistakenly onto something which he thinks will win his argument, and is refusing to be corrected for whatever reason. One thing that can be said: you are consistent. As you won’t allow a Muslim to change your view of what he believes, so you won’t allow me to change your view of what I believe.

            Is it any wonder you have problems reading the Bible? You get an idea in your head, and nothing is able to shift it – not even the corrections of the people you are misinterpreting.

          • Anton

            I have no problems reading the Bible, and I think you are not following the logic of your own position. I’m glad whenever somebody of any belief system lives peaceably, but I think that there is merit in examining whether religions now resident here have subversive politics in their scriptures – something we don’t need adherents to do – and responding as we have done before to subversive political movements.

          • Albert

            I think you are not following the logic of your own position

            This is obscure. Otherwise, I don’t find much to disagree with in your post. Of course we should study Islam, and of course I think there are problems with the Qur’an. But that does not mean that my Muslim neighbour is a problem.

          • bluedog

            Albert, it does seem from your posts that having experience of an engaging Muslim acquaintance you are now prepared to give Islam the benefit of the doubt.

            Wider experience suggests that this is a very dangerous path to follow; look at the plight of Christians in the Middle East and anywhere else that Christians or any other non-Muslims rub up against Islam. There is violence and bloodshed. It’s a matter of judgement how things turn out in the UK and other European nations with Muslim minorities, but the prognosis is not good.

            Here’s a question for you. What percentage of the UK population becoming Muslim would make you feel uncomfortable? 51%? At what point do you feel threatened?

          • Albert

            No I’m not saying that. I just think a man is innocent until proven guilty. I think it is clear that some Muslims don’t want to cause trouble. And that if that is the case, we should cause them trouble.

            Why is this so controversial? Upsetting people is the quickest way to radicalise them. That’s the immediate effect that the terrorists want, and most posters down here, seem determined to reward the terrorists.

          • CliveM

            Albert

            I agree with you. When you start going down the the path of group guilt, you are on very shaky ground.

          • Albert

            Thank you Clive. I’ve found it odd that on a thread in which everyone seems to be saying they are defending traditional values, that it is so hard to get people to agree with traditional values.

          • CliveM

            Yes you can’t defend them by abandoning them. People, of all persuasions have to be judged on the merit of their own actions.

          • Honest response. Very heartened by integrity.

          • Let’s change the base a little. Suppose we say, we judge a religion by its founders actions and teaching what does that say about Christianity and Islam? Christ never killed nor advocated killing anybody. In fact he laid down his own life on behalf of others. Mohammed killed and advocated killing others.

          • Albert

            John, if you’re asking me to compare Mohammed and Jesus then I think you’ll know my answer. But I wonder if we can really decide public policy in this way.

          • Mark

            Pretending to be an imam here……..

            “But Mohammed had to because the Muslims were being persecuted and killed, and in fact, he liberated people and didn’t conquer at all. And it’s all lies, lies, lies that he chopped anyone’s heads off or said apostates should be killed. You would be an Islamophobe to even suggest it. Plus, Jesus said “I bring a sword, not peace,” how about that eh? Eh?”

            This is the level of TV debate that goes on from defenders of Mohammed, broadcast into all homes.

          • Maxine Schell

            Not only the infidel, but Christians, Jews, Sieks, Hindus, Budists, Mormans ,atheists, and Muslims of other sects. They tolerate NO belief but their own.

          • Anton

            Please define “tolerate”.

          • Maxine Schell

            Anton, perhaps I posted definition in wrong place.

          • Maxine Schell

            Allow the existence, occurrence or practice of something that one does not like or agree with, without interference or forbearance.

          • That is just not true. Christianity does not approve other beliefs than its own (naturally) but it tolerates them. The problem in the modern world is that secular liberalism insists we not only tolerate its beliefs but celebrate them. And let’s be clear, we ALL have belief systems.

          • I agree. The trouble is while the Christian faith and even secularism are ideologies/belief systems that make room for other ideologies/beliefs such as Islam, Islam does not return the compliment. To make room for other beliefs is against the tenets of Islam. Islam’s method is to be the cuckoo in the nest that eventually kicks the others out.

        • For the reasons I have just articulated above; at heart Islam is a political faith, and a politically repressive one.

      • The problem is that the non-politicised Muslims have no adequate framework of belief to oppose the more militant. Once numbers are in ascendancy the tolerant Muslim will gave way to the more aggressive, partly because of the nature of each beast and partly because the aggressive Muslim more truly expresses the faith; Islam is a political faith and this even the more benign Muslim finds hard to resist or deny.

        • Albert

          This may also be true. But while my Muslim neighbour is peaceful, I want to defend him, and suggest the best way of making him non-peaceful is to treat him as a threat. Even then, I have a high enough regard for my Muslim friends that, most Muslims wouldn’t become violent, but some Muslims might.

          • Mark

            Albert, there are some eye-opening phone-ins on BBC Asian radio at 10am Mon-Fri from time to time. You actually get real views that wouldn’t appear on the mainstream.

            Your comment reminds me of a caller who said, “Of course I would help my Christian neighbours. If they dropped their shopping, I would help, because Islam teaches me this. But it doesn’t mean I have to respect them or their religion at all.” (paraphrased, and it was quite nastier. I remember the presenter being a bit taken aback, but not sure why, because I’d heard similar before). It’s fair to say that other Muslim callers thought he was nuts.

          • Albert

            I have no doubt, Mark. And I do not need the state to protect my religion from the disrespect of Muslims. I do expect the state to protect all people from injustices.

  • bluedog

    The Conservative government’s recent defence review provided for the creation of two new strike brigades of 5000 persons each. Given that Cameron had largely disarmed Britain in 2010, this was a remarkable reversal for a post-modern pacifist such as he. So what was the threat identified and requiring a targeted response? Russia? China? The EU? No, it seems it was Her Majesty’s loyal Muslim subjects, whose enthusiasm for British values may not be as steadfast as first proclaimed by the political elite. In short, the British state is already hedging its bets on the growth of Islam and taking a pessimistic view of likely trends.

    • CliveM

      Created from existing resources, not additional ones.

      • bluedog

        Thanks, CliveM. One shouldn’t forget that Cameron does form over substance and governs by press release. However, the PR does suggest that he sees votes in taking the internal security implications of a large Muslim population vey seriously.

  • CliveM

    In fairness it is always easier to spot the flaws in a proposal, than to come up with a workable proposal oneself. Saying that, whilst I agree with the analysis, the solutions seem so clack handed it’s surprising they are being broadcast. 50% limit in Schools or housing areas? How on earth is that to be applied? Ok with schools there is a reasonably high turnover so in theory it maybe possible (but I bet the courts would have a say) but how on earth do you get it to work in a housing estate? In short you can’t, certainly not for existing ones where the rates are already over 50%.

    The proposals are unworkable, will be counterproductive and exacerbate the problem not address them.

  • carl jacobs

    Possible solutions:

    1. Go back 50 years in time and maintain the fertility rate. OK, so that’s probably not viable. It would involve overturning the sexual revolution.

    2. Suppress all religions in the name of secular non-theism. Soft suppression – let them all atrophy, and maybe encourage it a little – is the preferred solution of the dominant culture. It panders to the progress narrative in Western Secular society, but fails to account for the social pathologies that Secularism has introduced. Like for example the collapsed fertility rate that caused this problem in the first place. It is Western Secularism that is atrophying, and quickly. How does weakness absorb strength?

    So what then about hard suppression? The typical Western Secularist doesn’t have the courage. Islam is what would really need to be suppressed, and Islamists would shoot back. Are they willing to start a racial civil war?

    3. Re-establish the link between Christianity and Western civilization. Yeah, that going to happen. Western intellectuals have been dismantling that link for over 200 years. That ship has sailed. Islam can’t be fought with Christianity. The West faces a vibrant growing Islam with nothing but dead Materialism in its arsenal.

    What is needed is a viable non-lslamic, non Secularist worldview with which to oppose Islam. The West wants its non-Theistic Secularism to fill that role, but non-Theistic Secularism is too weak. It’s too absorbed with Self to fight.

    Don’t fret, though. Something will come along. And people will flock to it.

    • Anton

      Probably National Socialism, in which case count me out.

    • IanCad

      Half the education budget. Scrap student loans. You want college? You work your way through it.
      Young people should be breeding and working. This country is full of young ladies who are missing out on motherhood, perverting the course of nature and assuring themselves that loneliness and regret will be their lot in old age.

    • Mark

      Secularism is the answer. Why? Because Ajmal Masroor hates it passionately. That tells me that it’s the main threat.

      • carl jacobs

        You can’t oppose something with nothing. Non-Theistic Secularism believes nothing, and so relentlessly pushes the individual in on himself. But what does a man find within himself except the desire for happiness and comfort? That is its principle goal and that is its fatal flaw.

        • Mark

          It is also the main champion of freedom, if the loony left will let us.

          • carl jacobs

            Freedom is not the greatest good.

          • Or at least, what is meant by freedom needs to be defined.

          • Albert

            You need to define secularism more closely. Secularism (or the French version of it) in the French Revolution was neither a champion of freedom nor life. Secularists of that time and place made European Islamists look like a bunch of kids with some fire-crackers.

  • Mark

    Can’t Justin Welby do a chummy inter-faith thing with the MCB and sort it all out?
    No, thought not.

  • The Explorer

    A small dog can sometimes see off a large dog, which retreats in confusion. I read an explanation for this. Dogs are programmed to be aggressive towards strange other dogs, and protective towards puppies. The small dog sees another dog. The big dog sees a puppy behaving aggressively, and does not know whether to fight it or protect it.

    It’s a bit like that with the Establishment and Nazir-Ali. If he’d been an imam, it would all have been fine: the sort of dream Muslim the Establishment would be praying for if it prayed. Failing that, If he’d got it wrong, he could have been written off as an aberration. But that he got it right is intolerable.

  • The Explorer

    It’s strange how an original or unwelcome idea can be rejected at the time it is propounded, only to be accepted as orthodoxy a decade later. What is galling is when those who rejected the idea in the first place later claim it as their own.

    • Albert

      It’s not the principle of something being first rejected but then accepted that surprises, but the speed with which it happens. But then again, if you begin with a vacuum, if you have no anchor, then it is not surprising if you get blown about with every last wind of doctrine.

  • len

    Secularism has no answer to Islamic fundamentalists because they will not play by’ the secularist rule book’. A society needs a common purpose and common goals to be cohesive. Our Judeo/Christian culture worked towards ‘the common good’ but there were small groups who wanted to break away from our heritage and started smashing up the foundations and are now standing on the wreckage wondering what to replace it with?.
    ‘Liberty’ has no meaning at all if it conflicts with the common good of all this is the predicament that secularism has led us into….

    • Merchantman

      The Secularists are the West’s version of ISIS no less. Vandals at work with their iconoclastic wrecking ball.

  • Inspector General

    Superb analysis Cranmer!

    In the Inspector’s opinion, the muscular approach so mooted is so thoroughly un British that it could never be implemented. Not in the way it has been presented, at least. But there is something we could do which is all rather too English…

    For the sake of discussion, a much easier and damage limiting muscular way would be to loosen the grip this cruel religion has on its people. That can easily be achieved – close the mosques, take the roofs off them and expel the imams. Put them in detention centres until they can find another country to go to – one that will appreciate them far more than we ever will. Whatever happens, they or any other Islamic holy man cannot be allowed to reside in the UK. Too dangerous, you see. Sure everyone will agree on that! Over time, the adherents to Islam will become less jihad like, those that are, and one is convinced the number of rabid killers within Islam’s ranks in the UK will fall below 1% of them. A significant improvement on what we are told is the current situation, what!

    There is, of course, one problem with corralling muslims in the UK, whatever ‘solution’ is enacted. They will resist, or at least the imams and holy men will call for resistance. To fight back, and they must obey if Allah wills it, and one expects the aforementioned clerics will confirm that he does. There will be terrorist killings and car bombs and worse. All here. They will NOT go quietly into the night. Is that a price worth paying, one wonders. But the price will rise as they increase in numbers, so is it inevitable, their payback? As it is, we are targets today anyway for merely not being muslims ourselves, not for giving the muslims here a hard time.

    We could of course ignore the situation and stamp it ‘No Action Required’. And then we would be back at square one…and no more terrorist killings here. At least not for that issue…

  • David

    What a brilliantly thought through, and excellently expressed article, Archbishop !

    I believe that natural conservatives are often far more prescient than liberals, probably because they understand how society works, and the importance of only changing traditions slowly.

    My – what problems the Left, and their fellow travellers, the contemporary so called “liberals”, have brought down upon us.

    Secularism and relativism cannot defeat these forces. Something far more positive is essential. Spiritual forces are needed. To defend the west, it must reengage with Christianity. Why – was not even Dawkins toying with that idea !

    • cacheton

      ‘Spiritual forces are needed. To defend the west, it must reengage with Christianity.’

      Unfortunately the evidence that Christianity has anything to do with spiritual force is unforthcoming.

  • chiefofsinners

    Would that Clever Trevor ‘s brain was as muscular as his bluster. Alas, it has taken him ten years to comprehend the problem and he remains ten light years away from a workable solution.
    Perhaps in 2026 he will tell us: ‘Mass immigration from the EU was a bad idea. We should have voted leave in 2016’.
    Wanna muscular mind? Keep pumping irony, Trev.

    • Anton

      You know, Chief, anybody would think you had read the last paragraph of this article:

      http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/trevor-phillips-is-finally-discovering-the-pitfalls-of-the-term-islamophobia/

      • chiefofsinners

        I see what you mean.
        Unfortunately my tiny concentration span means that I never read the last paragraph of anything.

        • IanCad

          I find the gist of most articles can be gained by reading the first and last paragraphs.
          Not with our host though. Much treasure is found in his middle ground.

          • chiefofsinners

            Indeed…Cranmer’s middle is full of nourishment. There is many a tasty morsel amongst the belly button fluff.

          • IanCad

            I’m glad I had my supper early.

  • preacher

    There are many factors to consider, it would be nice but naive to believe that all people could live together in harmony – it won’t happen !.
    There are many people & many faiths & all people have a right to believe as they choose.
    Islam is different to many other beliefs in curtailing often by threats & intimidation this right to leave & change to another belief.
    Most certainly there are many good & honest Muslims, who just want to work hard, follow their faith & prosper, but they are afraid of the radical men of violence & let’s be honest, crime.
    We must tackle this problem in stages & the first stage is to regain control of our borders. it is vital, the first thing you do if a pipe bursts in your house is – turn of the water at the mains. Then the problem can be fixed relatively easily, even if it takes time.
    The violent Muslim criminals when caught should be deported to their countries of origin & be dealt with by their own laws. Why should the taxpayers shoulder the burden of their incarceration ?. Those radicals that are already out in Syria with ISIS should be barred from re entry to Britain & lose their British citizenship.
    The laws need tightening when dealing with criminal gangs that are intent on turning certain areas into no go ghettoes.
    The first step is to disassociate ourselves from the collapsing European Union. We have seen the future in Belgium, Paris & Germany, yet our politicians who back staying in will in ten years time be saying ” We should have left “. It’s taken us decades to get the chance to cut the rope that will drag us down, woe betide us if we fail to release ourselves now. We are unique in the fact that we still have the protection of the Channel that separates us from mainland Europe.
    That is the first step my friends – will we be bold enough to take it & leave the E.U on the 23rd of June ? I sincerely hope so. When you’re plane’s crashing in flames & you have a parachute, you don’t stay & wait stoically for the end, you bail, even if it’s night, – better a leap into the dark than certain death in the fireball.

    • cacheton

      I think you will find that we are already (supposedly) in control of our borders. The problem of migrants hiding in containers and lorries, and of people who overstay their visas will not be affected by Brexit. The fact that people who overstay their visas are not be traced and deported is a purely British problem unaffected by the EU. Other countries, both in and not in the EU, generally manage this much better than we do because of stricter employment laws and identity cards.

      Theoretically with Brexit we would not have so many other EU nationals coming to Britain in the future. Theoretically. No guarantees of course. But not many of them are Muslim anyway, very few in fact.

      So basically Brexit will not affect the problem this thread is about at all. Very convenient to blame the EU, but unjustified in this case.

      • bluedog

        The EU plans a refugee policy that overturns its own Dublin protocol on refugees. If ‘refugees’, many of whom are simply economic migrants or potential jihadis, arrive en masse somewhere in Eastern Europe, the UK could be compelled to resettle numbers of them. Brexit would appear to negate this risk. Blaming the EU is therefore entirely justified.

        • cacheton

          If the ‘refugees’ are found to be economic migrants or potential jihadis, they would not be among any groups that any EU country would have to resettle, they would either be left to fend for themselves or deported. Therefore they would not reach the UK.
          Unless of course they managed to get across the channel illegally, but that is a problem which is not affected by Brexit as I said before. It is up to the UK to adopt a more robust way of dealing with illegal migrants. We are much more lenient than most other EU countries. Why?
          The UK is not part of any EU refugee resettlement agreement anyway. It cannot be forced to be in the future either.
          Blaming the EU is not justified. Just convenient.

          • bluedog

            Blaming the EU is entirely valid. From time to time the EU devises policies on a wide range of matters which are accepted by the members, subject to QMV, and then unilaterally ignored by the Germans. Look at Merkel. Single-handedly she tore up the Dublin Agreement and imported 1 million ‘Syrians’ on foot. As a consequence, every EU nation between Germany and Syria has become infested by ‘Syrians’. Idiotic and completely selfish exercise in virtue signalling.

            Quite how any thinking person can support membership of an entity like the EU is impossible to comprehend.

            But do give us your timetable for UK accession to Schengen and the Euro.

  • The Christian way of life and our laws should take precedence over all others otherwise Islam will claim our country.

    CCTVs in all mosques and madrasas live streaming to GCHQ all the goings on can be monitored by trainee spies and concerned loyalist members of the public who wished to work for GCHQ.

    • Mark

      What is the “Cristian way of life”?

      • bluedog

        A derivative of Cristianity?

      • A life without violence,oppression and fear where clean living and honesty are valued and practiced as well as preached. To reasonably tolerate others but not to the degree of detriment to ourselves. A firm but fair approach to alien cultures from the position of Christianity first and all else secondary.

        In the event of any threat to our culture and existence becoming too big, the use of force to counteract, contain and expel it.

        • Mark

          A life without violence,oppression and fear

          Everyone wants to achieve that, but given the history of Christianity in charge, I’d say those things were rife.

          where clean living and honesty are valued and practiced as well as preached.

          What is “clean living”? And do you really think this society promotes dishonesty?

          To reasonably tolerate others but not to the degree of detriment to ourselves.

          Well ok, protect current culture and all that, but “reasonably tolerate” is a little dodgy.

          A firm but fair approach to alien cultures from the position of Christianity first and all else secondary.

          I suppose that’s open to interpretation.

          In the event of any threat to our culture and existence becoming too big, the use of force to counteract, contain and expel it.

          That is leaning towards EDL/Pegida type thinking, but hardly surprising, given what is happening in Europe.

          • Re:clean living, not dissimilar to the Mormons actually, it means valuing monogamy, supporting marriage of one man and one woman and the family, encouraging no sex before marriage. Valuing human life by
            Of course society promotes dishonesty! The pressure of materialism from the profit hungry corporations fuels it. The examples of greed and corruption our leaders whom we follow show us, and the fact that our leaders are in cahoots with big banks and corporate enterprises to invent new and novel ways to take from us anything they can encourages it.

          • Mark

            I can’t remember when this society brought it into law that polygamy was fine.

            Do you remember Justin Welby having a go at Wonga, and quite rightly. Then discovering that the Church of England held shares of some kind that could be linked back to Wonga?
            Shares in arms companies in the past?

            The holier than thou thing is a dodgy area to step.

          • It’s not a holier than thou thing, it’s what we should be aspiring to. It’s the standards society needs to be lead by. And polygamy is not fine neither is putting ones self about.

  • IanCad

    “Ghettos” will be with us for several generations, that is, unless the impatient among us agitate for new laws. Laws that would redefine our country from being one of liberality and muddleness to that of intolerance and rigidity.

    • Ian

      I acknowledge the dangers of new laws, however, I don’t share your implied optimism that ghettos will die out. All the signs are that the opposite is happening. The belief that the attractions of the liberal secular West will be just to great to resist and will overcome all resistance is proving to be completely misguided. The problem is the liberal secular West is so convinced of its self-evident superiority it finds rejection of it impossible to conceive.

      The greater likelihood (given demographic trends) is that the ghettos will grow into cities and in time Britian will be an Islamic State.

      • IanCad

        I certainly don’t think it will be quick John. I also know that public opinion is a fickle thing and can change as needed. It will just take (God Forbid) a few major outrages; the return of proven traitorous subjects, and gradually, it may get better.
        I’m an optimist. Will I never learn?

  • Dreadnaught

    Douglas Murray in the Spectator:

    …So having mapped the fact that Muslims are uniquely unwilling to integrate into Britain, Trevor Phillips writes:

    ‘There are now nearly 3m Muslims living in Britain. Half of them were born abroad, and their numbers are being steadily reinforced by immigration from Africa, the Middle East, eastern Europe and the Far East, as well as the traditional flow from the Indian subcontinent. The best projections suggest that, by the middle of the century, the number of Muslims in Britain and elsewhere in Europe will at least double, given the youthfulness of the communities.’

    Now if you accept the reality that Phillips now does accept – and that mainstream opinion across Europe is coming to accept – would one particular answer not stand out as eminently sensible at this juncture? Such as turning that flow into the merest trickle? If a community is currently causing a lot of challenges and looks like posing them for many generations to come, why on earth would you not slow that ‘steady reinforcement’? Other than out of fear that you might be branded an ‘Islamophobe’?

    http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/trevor-phillips-is-finally-discovering-the-pitfalls-of-the-term-islamophobia/

    • Albert

      So having mapped the fact that Muslims are uniquely unwilling to integrate into Britain

      This statement is true, but it is misleading. For, in each of the categories listed, the majority of Muslims are integrating:

      • 23 percent of British Muslims polled support the idea of there being areas of the UK where sharia law is introduced instead of British law.

      Therefore, 77% believe in the primacy of UK law over all elements of sharia law.

      • 39 percent believe wives should always obey their husbands.

      Therefore, 61% believes wives shouldn’t always obey their husbands.

      • 31 percent believe it is acceptable for British Muslims to keep more than one wife.

      Therefore, 69% of Muslims believe it is unacceptable for British Muslims to keep more than one wife (“keep” – peculiar terminology! Perhaps it means, if they have married them abroad and then come here. I wonder if therefore the 31% were saying “A man should not abandon his wife”).

      • 52 percent think homosexuality should be illegal in the UK.

      This is the only one where the “UK position” is in the minority, but we still see that 48% of Muslims want to keep the law as it is.

      So yes, I guess they are uniquely unwilling to integrate (although, to be fair, there is no comparison), but we need to remember that most want to integrate. If we treat them unjustly or impute views to them that they do not hold, we will prevent them from integrating.

      • Dreadnaught

        Phillips has a programme on this subject on Channel 4 10pm tonight.

        • Albert

          Thank you – I’m looking forward to it!

      • Royinsouthwest

        So, are you saying that everything is OK? Should we continue to allow mass immigration from the Middle East, Pakistan etc. on the grounds that only a minority of the immigrants will refuse to integrate and that only an even smaller minority will support terrorism?

        • Albert

          I’ve seen some logical leaps in my time, but that comment would make Mike Powell proud. I am not saying everything is okay. I am saying we will make it worse if we target people whoa re already integrating. That’s what the Islamists want us to do.

    • IanCad

      Dread,
      I had no idea that so many were foreign born.
      I’m not up on the process of becoming a subject of these gelded isles, but surely some oath of allegiance to, and conformity with, the customs of our country must be part of the transfer of loyalty from one’s native land to their adopted new home.
      If such is case, surely revocation of citizenship and repatriation would be an effective curb on those who seek to undermine our established customs and principles?

      • Dreadnaught

        Can you imagine what would be the outcome if just one 40′ container filled with hand weapons and ammunition and crossing the border of Turkey via Romania to anywhere in the EU and met by 500 Chechen or Bosnian Islamists could do? The would have benefit of white skin and in-depth knowledge of Europe.
        Europe is unprepared, the UK is unprepared but where is our Civil Defence facility that served so well during WW2?
        Would anyone know how to resist or react to such a force in the heart of Europe. Think it would be just one container and 500 foreign Jihadis? I doubt it. It happened in Syria, it happened in Iraq; the concept is real; the home grown Jihadis-in-waiting are already here.

      • Merchantman

        The key to this is understanding that Islam is a Politico- Religious movement whose agenda is the conquest by peaceful or other means of those territories it encroaches upon. It therefore needs to be in a special category; not your ordinary cuddly religion.
        Until people understand this, our PC lineup cannot react as they should.

  • The problem (for Christians) is that Christians grants religious freedom to Muslims in the name of Christ while Muslims deny religious freedom to Christians in the name of Mohammed.