Sadiq Khan 2a
Democracy

Sadiq Khan is Muslim. Get over it!

 

Sadiq Khan has been elected the first Muslim mayor of London. Muslim, Muslim, Muslim. Islam, Islam, Islam. The council-estate sons and daughters of Pakistani bus drivers are taking over and spreading their insidious fundamentalism far and wide. Londonistan looms. It’s a “nail in the coffin” for Britain. Quick, say a prayer beneath the dome of St Paul’s before it gets converted into a mosque and burqa-clad women occupy Pasternoster Square demanding that it be renamed after Mohammed. Prophet Square. It’s coming soon to a public space near you. Allah has decreed it. Mohammed has shown the way. Mayor Khan will implement it after he prevents all women from travelling more than 48 miles on the Underground without a male chaperone.

If you believe the media focus of this mayoral campaign, Sadiq Khan is dangerous not because of his unfunded socialist policies, but because he is a radical Muslim who shares platforms with Islamists and refers to ‘moderate’ Muslims as ‘Uncle Toms’. The aggression against him was poisonous, even deploying images of the 7/7 London bombings to associate him with murder and terrorism. The cultural stereotype became the Conservative dog-whistle strategy. It wasn’t quite racist, but it certainly sought to capitalise on current anti-Muslim sentiment.

You can bash Muslims for being Muslims, or you can sit down and talk to them. You can hurl insults and spread fear, or you can break bread together and commune over shared hopes and common concerns. It’s important to do this because Muslims aren’t going anywhere. Those sons and daughters of Pakistani bus drivers are now sitting in the Cabinet and running whole cities. And they have babies. And those babies will grow up and have more babies. Muslims are politically engaged, standing for public office, and winning. They are people, not pariahs.

Either you respect and support the liberal democracy and egalitarian justice which permits men and women of all religions to stand for public office, or you allow your anti-Muslim prejudice to ripen into an anti-democratic demand for a Muslim-free political space of orthodox secularity. Consider how Roman Catholics and Jews must have felt about the historic inculcation of fears about the dangers of Catholicism and Judaism. Even while the majority promoted civic humanist virtues as part of a conception of the good life, all were suspected of treason, treachery, sedition and subversion. Faith-based prejudice has no place in a truly Christian polity. If we do not love our Muslim neighbours, we are not living the gospel in our pluralist parish. We should not judge them by their religion or beliefs, but by their words and actions.

Sadiq Khan wants to house the homeless, crack down on rickshaws, freeze transport fares and turn Oxford Street into a tree-lined pedestrianised paradise from Tottenham Court Road to Marble Arch. Judge him by his manifesto pledges and his failures to fulfil, not by those with whom he associated as a Human Rights barrister. If you object to him because of his faith, you seek to revive a form of Test Act and thereby evince suspicion upon all who hold conservative religious views. You seek to dissuade immigrant Muslims and their descendants from that very participation in public life by which they may be integrated into the unifying national project for the collective good.

British Muslims are not the enemy, any more than are thousands of British atheists, Hasidic Jews or urban gays. The overwhelming majority want to participate in society and embrace the pervasive culture. All that they ask is the freedom to worship. A few may dispute our liberal principles with their fanatical fatwas of hate, but let us not overstate the rhetoric of objection or exaggerate the adherence. And let us not smear every Muslim with the same brush of national betrayal. Ethnic and religious diversity is intrinsic to and inseparable from liberty and autonomy. We may justifiably constrain it by the imposition of linguistic and institutional cohesion, but not by fomenting the fear that by electing a Muslim Mayor of London our trains are about to be bombed, our cartoonists shot and our daughters raped.

Christians are called to love: we must work diligently for peace and reconciliation. it is our responsibility and a vocation. Sadiq Khan is a Muslim. Lots of people are. Get over it.

  • chiefofsinners

    Do the overwhelming majority of Muslims want to ’embrace the pervasive culture?’
    I don’t. I want to change it.
    I’m a Christian. Get over it.

  • Ian G

    Belief dictates words and actions. Can we live with these beliefs? Therein lies the problem.

  • Anton

    Either you respect and support the liberal democracy and egalitarian justice which permits men and women of all religions to stand for public office, or you allow your anti-Muslim prejudice to ripen into an anti-democratic demand for a Muslim-free political space of orthodox secularity.

    Would Your Grace take the same view if Sadiq Khan had become Prime Minister? In view of the contents of the Quran and Mr Khan’s characterisation of moderate Muslims as “Uncle Toms”,

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/04/labour-plunged-into-fresh-race-row-as-london-mayoral-candidate-s/

    what is the appropriate definition of ‘prejudice’? Democracy has in the past chosen to protect itself against anti-democratic movements that were influential in the political sphere. Why should any playing of the religion card alter that?

    Time alone will tell if this is a case of Elect in haste, Repent at leisure. We may on occasion be glad that our system gives even the highest elected individuals less freedom than they invariably expect before they take up their office. Mr Khan holds a great office and I as a Christian shall gladly pray for him.

    • James Regan

      the contents of the Qu’ran have no bearing on the actions of one man unless he allows them to. They may inform of what sort of views you might expect, but actions such as the support of same sex marriage have already shattered this illusion.

  • Albert

    Well said, Dr C. You can tell a tree by its fruit. We should judge Sadiq Khan by what he does, not by what people say he will do because he is a Muslim.

  • TIME to CTRL ALT & DEL

    Your Grace.. We can only break bread with those who submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

    • Anton

      I too was confused but I am sure His Grace means break bread as in welcome at our dinner table, not share Communion.

  • Uncle Brian

    Apart from anything else, it must mean quite a shake-up in the Labour Party, particularly after the election results in Scotland. No more Gordon Browns in the foreseeable future. If Sadiq Khan makes a good job of governing London, he will presumably become – if he isn’t already – a credible contender for the title of heir apparent to Corbyn’s throne.

  • HedgehogFive

    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.

    http://calvinanddune.tumblr.com/image/56234161686

  • David

    Yes let us judge him by the fruit that he bears. We will soon see whether he brings division and hatred or cooperation and harmony.
    Now he will be required to work in the full glare of the media spotlight. So as long as we have a relatively free conventional media, and a far more free informal media, like this excellent site, any one elected representative’s power will be severely curtailed. Long may such arrangements promoting free speech and public scrutiny exist, for it is that which constitutes the very lifeblood of freedom and human dignity.

    • John Waller

      David, outside of the internet – which cannot yet be policed effectively -there is no genuine freedom of speech in this country & has not been for many years. The free media you extol no longer permits the expression of views that were considered moderate & mainstream even twenty years ago.

      Do not mistake the constant jabbering & squabbling on TV & radio for free & open debate for in truth the range of issues they are permitted to squabble about is severely constrained. If you don’t believe this try speaking outside of the accepted orthodoxy & see how quickly you are stamped upon.

      • David

        I agree that freedom has been under attack for some time now, so in that regard you are preaching to the converted. For I have long since been aware of the constraints that the mainstream media now work within, hence my phrase “relatively free conventional media”, which I contrast with the greater freedom of the internet. My approach to the mainstream media has long been somewhere between strong scepticism to outright derision.
        Because of the UK’s long tradition of broadsheets and free speech, whilst we are not as free as we believe we once were, thankfully the UK mainstream media is still “relatively free” compared to say Germany, for instance.
        Unlimited freedom is an unattainable chimera, and so we are always comparing degrees of freedom I believe. But we must defend what remains, whilst attempting to win back what has been lost.

  • British Muslims are not the enemy
    The exiled Archbishop of Mosul begs to differ: ‘Our sufferings today are the prelude of those you, Europeans and Western Christians, will also suffer in the near future. Your liberal and democratic principles are worth nothing here. You must consider again our reality in the Middle East, because you are welcoming in your countries an ever growing number of Muslims. Also you are in danger. You must take strong and courageous decisions, even at the cost of contradicting your principles. You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal. Your values are not their values. If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the enemy you have welcomed in your home.’

    Ethnic and religious diversity is intrinsic to and inseparable from liberty
    An odd thing to say, given that a diverse society is inherently unstable and can only be held together by restricting liberties.

  • len

    The West has been judged and found wanting…..The West has rejected Christianity and embraced Marxist doctrines.
    Whether Sadiq Khan is going to be good for London or not is to miss the point. Whether Sadiq Khan is Muslim or not is to miss the point.
    To Judge a Nation all God has to do ‘is to give them over’.The most chilling words in scripture are ‘God gave them over’.
    I believe this is where the West is now….

    • TIME to CTRL ALT & DEL

      Nail on head hit.

    • James Regan

      we haven’t embraced Marxist doctrines- just look on the return on investment figures for advertising campaigns nowadays.

  • bluedog

    Wishful thinking, Your Grace. Islam commands dominance and the submission of non-Muslims. Just because Sadiq Khan has been democratically elected, he is not going to stop thinking like a Muslim. The fact that he is son of a Pakistani bus-driver is not in itself relevant, we are not talking about class, but about values and the cultural practices that make up Islam, encapsulated within sharia. What if the Test act of which you speak is now applied to us, the non-Muslims? This is the justified concern of the non-Muslim population. They look at the rest of the countries where Islam dominates and they see nothing but intolerance and persecution of non-Muslims. They wonder when that will come in Britain if Muslims consolidate political power, even if done democratically. This communicant has long joked that the Muslim Brotherhood would be the successor to the Labour Party. Suddenly the joke is very flat, the preconditions are already in place.

    • Albert

      Just because Sadiq Khan has been democratically elected, he is not going to stop thinking like a Muslim.

      This is a man who has always voted for things like same sex marriage. The question is not “Will he stop thinking like a Muslim?”, but “When did he start thinking like a Muslim?”

      • bluedog

        He professes to be a Muslim so presumably he considers himself to be an observant Muslim and thinks like a Muslim. How he reconciles support for measures such as SSM with Islamic belief and practice is for his conscience. But it cannot be denied that his branding is ‘Muslim’ and he claims the franchise of Islam.

        • Albert

          Yes, but what you think being a Muslim entails, and what I think being a Muslim entails is irrelevant. It’s what he thinks that matters. And he obviously thinks it is consistent with voting for SSM.

          That being so, Sadiq Khan is not going to try and bounce us into some kind Caliphate is he?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            Albert,

            Suppose some belief system (religious, political, whatever) contains 100 things are contradictory to traditional British values or, to make it more personal, your beliefs & lifestyle.

            If someone who is, or claims to be, an adherent of that belief system gains power you might be concerned is they adhere to all 100 things. You would be just as concerned if they adhered to only 99 of those things.

            If they say they follow that belief system but have voted against, say, 95 of those things you might be a lot less worried, even unconcerned.

            So Khan having voted on one issue in a way that is contradictory to traditional Islamic teaching in and of itself is not much of a sign that he does not follow Islam in the majority of its teachings.

          • James Regan

            yes, but your assumption is there is more evidence to say that he supports stoning adulterers to death or having multiple wives, or women not being allowed independence, than him simply having been wrong when he said he was Islamic.

            We have evidence of him doing something, over the matters where being Islamic and British conflict, which supports him not actually being very Islamic in his decision making. We do not have evidence to support him being very Islamic in his decision making. Ergo, he is not very Islamic in his decision making, no matter what he says his religion is- most of Englands professed Christian majority are less Christian than Khan is Muslim (Don’t pray or attend church), but we argue that the difference between professing belief and action only matters in his case?

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            No, you are reading in to what I wrote an awful lot that is not there.

            Albert said that because Khan voted for SSM he “is not going to try and bounce us into some kind Caliphate is he?” and I was pointing out that basing the entire assessment on one point is not at all reliable.

            If anyone is making assumptions it is you. You talk about the ‘matters’ (plural) where there is a conflict and you make a broad point about the lack of evidence for him ” being very Islamic in his decision making”. Other than the single matter of the vote on SSM where is the support for this?

          • James Regan

            where is the evidence for it- and because you suggest propose the existence of Islamic decision making you have the burden of proof. The argument of ‘because he said he is Muslim’ would be sound without the same sex marriage thing, as many Muslim’s may believe things that do not agree with British values (possibly on account of the majority of them living in tropical East Asia, not Britain).
            However, we lack evidence of Islamic decision making, and know that he does not always follow the stereotypical views of Muslims, so the debate requires some proof that he does follow some of these views, or you’ve just got ‘guy says he is a Muslim, is probably wrong’ as the logical conclusion (if we are defining Islam by outside characteristics, not self determination, for simplicity’s sake).

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            I’m sorry but the problem here is that you are not reading what I write and taking to mean what it says.

            I am not making (and in this thread have not made) a proposition about how Islamic or otherwise his thinking & decision making is, hence I do not have to supply evidence to support that.

            You have said that there are matters (plural) where he has done something that is British rather than Islamic and you have said that these matters (plural) support “him not actually being very Islamic in his decision making”.

            You are proposing an idea, where is the evidence, other than a single vote on SSM, to support that idea?

          • Albert

            SSM shows that he does not follow Islam when it conflicts with liberal values. This is not something a Muslim can pick and choose on.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            “SSM shows that he does not follow Islam when it conflicts with liberal values”
            Sorry but you are arguing from the particular to the general, which is always unreliable, and is especially so when you only have one data point.

            All this shows is that he voted for SSM for some reason or another.

            What his motivation is we do not know. Maybe he voted that way because he wanted to keep in the Labour party’s good books in order to get the Mayoral nomination.

            “This is not something a Muslim can pick and choose on”
            I’m sorry Albert but that is a very silly thing to say. Loads of people do things that their faith says they should not do.

            And there is plenty of evidence that there are loads of people in Islam who do / say / believe in things that other people in Islam would say makes then not Muslims. See
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Islamic_theology
            for a list of Islamic groupings, and people are killed because of what group they are part of.

          • Albert

            Sorry but you are arguing from the particular to the general, which is always unreliable, and is especially so when you only have one data point.

            Yes, but you have no evidence on the other side, so my position is more reasonable and as you are accusing him of malfeasance, then the burden of proof rests on you. Thus, I have provided evidence in his defence, and you have provided none to attack him, therefore, my position is reasonable. Moreover, this is a case where I think his attitude more or less falsifies the case against him. By comparison: the Qur’an is meant to be the infallible word of God. Therefore, if one mistake is found in it, we know the claim is false.

            I’m sorry Albert but that is a very silly thing to say. Loads of people do things that their faith says they should not do.

            You are missing the point. I am not arguing he isn’t a Muslim. I am arguing that he isn’t an Islamist. And we’re not talking about a fundamentalist giving in to temptation but taking a consistent and public position. I think it’s crazy to be a Muslim and support SSM. But, as with Christians who make the same move, I know that they don’t take their faith seriously.

          • James Bolivar DiGriz

            Albert,

            If you are not willing to read what I wrote and reply to that there is no point in any conversation.

            “you are accusing him of malfeasance”
            Where? Either you have made a mistake or you have made that up out of whole cloth.

          • Albert

            I’msorry if you think I did not read what you wrote. I thought I did, although I will admit that my attempt to defend the principle of innocent until proven guilty has proved surprisingly controversial. Consequently, when I logged on to see your comment, it was one of five or six, and therefore, I may not have read it carefully enough. Please say where you think I have misrepresented you.

            Where? Either you have made a mistake or you have made that up out of whole cloth.

            The issue is that he may have acted dishonestly when he voted for SSM. Is that not your point?

          • James Regan

            Sorry, to the second point he is a member of the labour party, a party run broadly on the principles of democratic socialism- i.e. supporting medium or high taxation in order to fund public investment. The Qur’an dictates that tax levied should be at a maximum of 5%, so there’s the plural here. Should have said that earlier, but I can look up more examples if necessary.

            The reason I was assuming that you were supporting the argument that Khan was Islamic in his decision making was the initial comment I replied to, where you stated that if someone adhered to 99 of a group of 100 things in a belief system that disagreed with British (or our personal) values, we should still be concerned. Therefore I took it that you were concerned that aside from SSM, Sadiq Khan was likely to adhere to other fundamentalist Islamic beliefs, though the exact number of 100 was clearly just an example. The burden of proof refutes this point, assuming we are still talking about Sadiq Khan (which is implied by this being a response to a thread about Sadiq Khan).
            As I said, when there is no evidence of him supporting traditional Islamic political beliefs and evidence against such while he describes himself as being a Muslim, traditional, or stereotypical, if you will, Muslim political beliefs, such of those of Islamic countries, aren’t relevant to the discussion of whether Khan being a Muslim is relevant to him being mayor of London. It’s a tangent on an argument about whether something is a tangent, though one that contributed overall to the discussion in that we can hopefully now rule out the matter of traditional Islamic decision making with relevance to Khan specifically and whether his status a a self described Muslim affects the political & social situation in England (if I’ve explained my self eloquently enough, though that’s a long shot).

          • Albert

            I’m astonished at how controversial the presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been, on this thread.

          • James Regan

            well, there was a fair, if somewhat paranoid, point if he had never voted against traditional Islamic teachings or stood for un-Islamic ideals- we know full well that politicians should be treated as suspicious on the grounds of campaign promises alone as only their actions are worth anything.

          • Albert

            Albert said that because Khan voted for SSM he “is not going to try and bounce us into some kind Caliphate is he?” and I was pointing out that basing the entire assessment on one point is not at all reliable.

            I think it is entirely reliable!

          • Albert

            I can’t really add to James’ point!

          • Anton

            Not so obvious. Some Muslims (among others) believe that things like SSM hasten the decline of our culture and thereby make it easier to take over. And then there’s taqiyya. I have no idea why he voted for SSM. Neither do you.

          • Albert

            If you are going to appeal to taqiyya then you will end up being suspicious of someone who says he is a Christian or an atheist. Perhaps, just perhaps, he’s a Muslim exercising taqiyya!

            Some Muslims (among others) believe that things like SSM hasten the decline of our culture and thereby make it easier to take over.

            Yes, but there is a difference between believing that, and voting for it. You need to assume that he, as a good Muslim voted for it, in defiance of Allah’s will, in order to do Allah’s will.

            I don’t need to know why he voted for it. I just need to know that, if he really followed the kind of Islam everyone here is worried about, he wouldn’t have voted for it. Ergo…

          • Anton

            A Muslim who wanted to soften the West for the greater long-term cause of Islam would be willing to weaken it by all means. I do not know what Khan believes but I think you have no assurance of the last of the things you say you need.

          • bluedog

            Let’s look at two aspects of Khan, firstly he’s a Muslim (he says so) secondly he’s a member of the Labour Party (he says so). To retain the support of the Labour Party’s apparatus for winning power, he has to toe the party line, so he does. But having achieved power, other possibilities emerge for him to exploit. So when you ask, ‘Sadiq Khan is not going to try and bounce us into some kind Caliphate is he?’, his Muslim followers will in many cases reply, ‘Yes, he can’.

          • Albert

            Well, this one is easy. We wait and see. But my guess is that, by the time he leaves office, London won’t be a Caliphate. How much will you bet that I am wrong?

          • bluedog

            Time is an important component of risk and you offer no term in the exposure you demand. It is therefore impossible to calculate the odds implicit in accepting your wager, and accordingly it would be foolish to accept. By way of illustration, the London mayoralty lasts four years and one can say with confidence that there will be no Caliphate (an Emirate is more likely) in the entire London area in the first 100 days. But then? What if some lunatics try it on in Tower Hamlets after 1000 days?

            One can be quite certain that a detailed analysis of exit polls is being undertaken in those wards where there were Labour majorities. Political analysts will be keen to see if Muslim voting patterns mirrored those of African-Americans in 2008 when something like 96% voted for Obama, who identified as black. If it emerges that say, over 75% of Muslims voted for Khan across all districts, there is serious cause for concern. It follows that in London, voting patterns will in future be likely to reflect identity rather than policy.

            A look at Khan’s legal career confirms one’s worst fears about his values. His practice was suing the police on behalf of clients who felt they had experienced racist behaviour. One suspects clients had to be carefully led towards the right degree of outrage. There is nothing the Left likes more than to find instances of ‘institutional racism’. Racism is fascist and moral supremacy is assured in taking an anti-fascist stand at all times. And now Mr Khan is in control of the police force that he milked for every last penny for its politically determined failings.

            Without doubt this risk to the Met must be removed. One would expect the London devolution act to be amended so that the Met is transferred to the Home Office in the interests of protecting the capital during a period of heightened terrorist threat.

          • Albert

            There may be all sorts of reasons to worry about him as a member of the left, but beyond that, I think much of what has been said here is simply hysterical.

          • CliveM

            Yes I agree. A as far as I can see he is a typical representative of the left in the UK. That’s reason enough to distrust him. His faith seems to be incidental and of no great importance to him.

          • Albert

            Precisely.

          • bluedog

            Well at least you are consistent. Having dissed the very reasonable comments and concerns of Anna and Anton earlier in the thread, it was possibly unrealistic to expect anything other than ‘simply hysterical’ from you. It seems Albert has a new role as Islamo-denier in chief. Or should that be Principal Pollyanna?

          • Albert

            As I’ve said. We shall see. We have absolutely no reason to think he is an Islamist, and every reason to think he is not. Therefore, those comments you refer to are not reasonable. They are unreasonable. But we will be able to test the claims in time. My guess is that the worst we will be able to say against him is that he was too left wing.

          • bluedog

            And the unholy alliance between the Left and Islam doesn’t worry you?

          • Albert

            Of course it does. But just as I don’t assume someone is anti-Semitic simply for being on the left, so I don’t assume everyone who is a Muslim is an Islamist. The fact that Khan is on the liberal left, reduces his chances of both.

          • bluedog

            If Khan has secured his position with the support of a Muslim constituency (see my earlier comments about exit polling) he will have to play to the demands of that demographic. As long as he manages to avoid alienating the non-Muslims in that process, he is fine. Aged 45, the London Mayor gig is a useful stepping stone to further ambitions and Khan’s immediate criticism of Corbyn points to that possibility. As London Mayor, Khan is in a position to influence Labour pre-selection policy within the London area and we may see him advance a raft of Muslim candidates in Muslim populated constituencies that have strongly supported his own electoral success.

          • Albert

            So you have two claims here:

            1. If Khan is relying on Muslim support,

            then if,

            2. he unduly advances Muslims and Islam,

            then I will protest as you do. And, as with all politicians (EU excepted of course), I will vote against him.

            That’s how democracy works.

            But I’m not going to assume that is going to happen, because we have no evidence for it, and the evidence is against it.

          • bluedog

            You always have a choice – act pre-emptively or simply react. If you have the discernment that enables you to read the signs of trouble, you act pre-emptively if you can in order to gain and retain the initiative. You may call that jumping to conclusions.

          • Albert

            Yes. I call that jumping to conclusions. It’s what happened with Iraq. How’s that working out. I repeat: all the evidence is that he is no problem and there is literally no evidence that he is a problem. Now of course, you will say, that the fact that he is a Muslim is problem enough. In which case, go right ahead and campaign for Muslims to be made second class citizens.

          • bluedog

            The Muslims do their own campaigning to be treated as second class citizens by maintaining an insistence on the implementation of sharia. For it is written. You can’t expect to settle in another country with different values and then demand to institute the values of your own failed-state with impunity. The Muslims have a choice, accept Britain for what it is or leave. If Khan is an agent for Islam in Britain and seeks to change Britain into an Islamic state as so many of his co-religionist supporters insist, we need to find out and we will. You know this but you are afraid of the consequences.

          • Albert

            The Muslims do their own campaigning to be treated as second class citizens by maintaining an insistence on the implementation of sharia

            Not “The Muslims” but “Those Muslims”. I see no evidence that Khan takes that view.

            If Khan is an agent for Islam in Britain and seeks to change Britain into an Islamic state as so many of his co-religionist supporters insist, we need to find out and we will. You know this but you are afraid of the consequences.

            How do you know what I think about all this? I have made no comments on Islam or Islamism. I am simply defending an individual Muslim, who, as far as I can see, is far more liberal than we are! Show the evidence to the contrary if you take issue with that.

        • James Regan

          so it doesn’t matter what he believes but what other people who call themselves the same thing he calls himself mean? that’s tribalism, and more importantly ignores the fact that actions matter, not words. He might call himself Muslim, but if he does decidedly un-islamic things like vote for same sex marriage, the argument needed to call him out for being Muslim first and British second actually necessitates successfully convincing him to act more like a stereotypical Muslim. At which point, we would be creating the Caliphate loving mayor of London we don’t want, simply so we could act indignant about it.
          TLDR: It’s a good thing Khan isn’t very Muslim, because then these complaints would be about him stoning adulterers to death, rather than having been mistaken about his religion.

      • When a Muslim votes for SSM, what does that prove? Does it prove that he believes SSM is morally right, and would happily promote gay marriage at his mosque? No.

        Now if a Christian believed SSM was morally wrong, he or she would be obliged to take a principled stand against it. He (or she) would be going against his (or her) conscience in voting for it.

        Islam teaches its followers to make tactical compromises keeping long term goals in mind. In furthering the influence of Islam, they would consider it perfectly justifiable to pay lip service to the prevailing societal values, even when such values go against the teachings of Islam, and temporarily take sides with those who have the power today. Tomorrow when power changes hands, then you will find them singing a different tune.

        If Saddiq Khan had opposed SSM, he might never have won this election. So could he have been practising taqqiya?

        • Albert

          Khan is sunni Muslim. For them taqqiya only applies under compulsion. In any case, if we’re going to be so paranoid about taqqyiya why not worry that every politician who says he’s a Christian or an atheist is really just a Muslim trying to take over?

          • Anton

            There is a lot of tosh talked about taqiyya being a Shia doctrine only. Maybe it started there, but it also goes under the name kitman or ketman and was well known to the Ottomans who were always sunni. The Islamic scholar al-Ghazali (who was sunni) wrote in the 12th century, “If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying… When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible, and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory” (from Ihya ulum al-din, chapter titled: The extent to which lying is permissible). Muslims are permitted even to deny Allah under duress (Q16:106).

          • Albert

            In which case, perhaps Justin Welby is a Muslim, and the Pope, and may be even Dr C! Perhaps you are. Perhaps I am. The fact that Khan admits to being a Muslim, at least shows he has some honesty in admitting it, in contrast to the aforementioned people, and so perhaps he was being honest when he voted for same sex marriage.

            So this kind of argument cannot be consistently applied without being reduced to absurdity.

          • “Khan admits to being a Muslim…”

            Would it have been an advantage in London to deny that he is a Muslim? How many Muslims would have voted for him if he had?

          • Albert

            My argument was meant to be ironic!

          • You miss the point. Taqqiya is applied to gain a definite advantage or benefit.

          • Albert

            Yes, and a Muslim being Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope would be quite advantageous. So why not then worry that these reverend gentlemen are in fact Muslims? Do you actually worry about such things? If not, why not?

          • “Yes, and a Muslim being Archbishop of Canterbury or Pope would be quite advantageous.”

            Certainly, but living out your whole life as a Christian bishop in the public eye, while being a closet Muslim, is considerably harder to achieve. Would you be capable of living such a double life? I certainly couldn’t bear the strain, and I don’t think most people could. it calls for a lot more consistency than most people are capable off. Admitting you are a Muslim or voting for SSM as a token gesture are easier to do – and carry no negative consequences in a multicultural secular society.

          • Albert

            I don’t accept that he could so easily do it. He doesn’t just pop into the odd lobby, but otherwise live as a recluse. He has a whole life in the Labour Party – people know him.

          • Anton

            There is, obviously, independent evidence that Welby and the Pope have no Muslim history. My post to which you have responded was specifically to show that taqiyya is common in sunni as well as shia Islam, which you were suggesting is not the case. Have the humility to listen to Anna who has lived in Islamic lands and says from experience what I am saying from written Muslim sources.

          • Albert

            I am quite happy to be corrected on Islam, if I am wrong, and perhaps I am here. But what difference does it make. The argument is unjust, since you will not apply it consistently. This is a case in point:

            There is, obviously, independent evidence that Welby and the Pope have no Muslim history.

            They’re clever chaps these Muslims, when they appeal to taqiyya. The pretend to be Christians, just as they pretend to support SSM.

          • Anton

            Allow me to spell it out: there IS independent evidence that Sadiq Khan has Muslim history.

            Whether he is employing taqiyya I have no idea. Neither, as I said, do you. If you think he isn’t, please prove it.

          • Albert

            The burden of proof rests on those making the accusation. Moreover, most people tell lies at some point or other and some Christians even defend the practice!

          • Anton

            Please stop playing stupid when I know you to be intelligent.

          • Albert

            Where’s the stupidity? You are saying that because he is a Muslim therefore he may be acting dishonestly when he votes for SSM. I say all people will at some point have acted dishonestly at some point in their lives, but that does not give us the right to assume they are acting dishonestly until it is proven that they are acting honestly.

            It seems to me that you have two options:
            1. Show that the burden of proof rests on the person defending his innocence.
            2. Provide the evidence that he is guilty.

            But none of you has done either. Therefore, I think your assumption that he was acting dishonestly when he voted for SSM is irrational and unjust.

          • Anton

            I’ve better things to do with my time than continue this subthread. I wish you well and do crown yourself the victor if you wish.

          • Albert

            Funnily enough, so do I!

          • “For them taqqiya only applies under compulsion.”

            As I understand, taqqiya is used to further the cause of Islam and if you study the history of Sunni nations, you will find that this is how they have always applied it.

            “In any case, if we’re going to be so paranoid about taqqyiya why not worry that every politician who says he’s a Christian or an atheist is really just a Muslim trying to take over?”

            I am so glad that you are not paranoid about taqqiya – I only hope your confidence is based on a careful study of Islamic history and culture, and not on ignorance.

            In any case, I think it is wiser to interpret something like taqqiya through the cultural lens of the Muslims – and I have lived much of my life among them – rather than your own.

          • Albert

            I am so glad that you are not paranoid about taqqiya – I only hope your confidence is based on a careful study of Islamic history and culture, and not on ignorance.

            It’s based on an assumption of human decency, and an unwillingness to apply a principle to some people and not to others. As I have just written somewhere else on this thread:

            perhaps Justin Welby is a Muslim, and the Pope, and may be even Dr C! Perhaps you are. Perhaps I am. The fact that Khan admits to being a Muslim, at least shows he has some honesty in admitting it, in contrast to the aforementioned people, and so perhaps he was being honest when he voted for same sex marriage.

            So this kind of argument cannot be consistently applied without being reduced to absurdity.

            And if it isn’t consistently applied, it is applied unjustly.

          • “It’s based on an assumption of human decency…”

            Even an assumption of human decency should be backed by some knowledge and experience. Ignoring all evidence to uphold some idealistic notions is not always sensible.

          • Albert

            No, it’s the other way around. A man is entitled to my belief that he is a decent chap, until I have evidence to the contrary. What is the evidence to the contrary? He is a Muslim, and therefore must be assumed to be at war with us. No evidence may be produced in his defence, since, he might be lying. But this argument cannot seriously be applied, since it would lead us to mistrust everything, in case they are Muslims.

            Therefore, I have no evidence that he is not a decent chap, and he is entitled to my belief that he is.

          • Anton

            I believe a man who says he is a Muslim is a Muslim, until I have evidence to the contrary. But in view of the doctrine of taqiyya, extra care has to be taken when evaluating the evidence. I am not arguing any conclusion, simply saying that I think you are not taking any extra care.

          • Albert

            I think you are being inconsistent. Let’s be honest: telling lies is not a Muslim preserve.

          • Anton

            But an Islamic doctrine, whereas truth is generally held to be a good thing for its own sake among Christians and secular people.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Have you ever read “Pyramid” by Robert Abernathy? A science fiction story in which humans are imported to fill an ecological niche in another planet, and end up taking over and starting to wreck the place.

            At the end of it, the instigator of the project, Senior Coordinator Zilli, says sadly:

            “It was our mistake to assume that all intelligent life would follow the same pattern.”

            Now we are only dealing with our own human species here, but humans come with cultures and ideologies.

            However, unlike Mr Cameron and his “British values”, I do not assume that our location in the British Isles makes our values thereby intrinsically superior. Note the word “intrinsically” — there is obviously something about this country that makes a lot of people want to come here. But I fear that you are suffering from a form of blindness to which the English especially are prone. Now I certainly do not go for what G.K.Chesterton called “sham science about races”. But here he is again, in Sidelights on New London and Newer York:

            Thus the Irishman would never have minded the English saying he was mad; or even that he was murderous and slanderous and cruel. There was something to be said for the assertion; and Irishmen were often ready, if not to admit it about themselves, at least to admit it about each other. The trouble began when the Englishman advanced the obviously ludicrous proposition that he himself was sane; that he was practical and sensible and well-balanced. No wonder a whole nation went wild at so fantastic a fancy as that.

            I do not flatter myself by assuming that I am a decent chap, and therefore I do not see the necessity of assuming that Mr Khan is one. He may well be, but there are circumstances which can overcome the decency in any man. And perfectly decent men have fought for the most abominable tyrants, simply because it was in their community code to do so.

          • Albert

            All one needs here is the presumption of innocence. That’s not something of English origin, it is of natural law and found in scripture.

          • Anton

            Especially in view of Jeremiah’s comment about the human heart.

          • Exactly.

          • Albert

            I think that Jeremiah’s comment applies to all of us – which is of course, part of the argument I have been making all along.

          • Anton

            You are the one who made an “assumption of human decency”.

          • Albert

            What I mean is that one presume innocence not guilt. How is that wrong? This man however is presumed to be guilty until he is proven innocent – which is impossible, because, as a Muslim he may be a liar. But aren’t all people liars? Isn’t the most likely thing that he voted for SSM because he believed in it? We must at least presume innocence until proven guilty.

          • Anton

            This is not a court. The task is, I presume, to evaluate the information we have and its bearing on why he voted for SSM. All I am saying is that he is a Muslim, Islam has the doctrine of taqiyya unlike other belief systems, and it is to the furtherance of Islam to gain the position he has. I have always said that I don’t know why he voted SSM. If you reckon you do, good for you but you should argue it out with others.

          • Albert

            Burden of proof works just at the level of reason and fairness. In this case, we have no evidence that he is supporting the Islamisation of Britain, and evidence that he is not. It is unreasonable and unfair therefore to presume he is up to anything other than what he is actually doing.

          • Anton

            I am presuming nothing, as I have said several times.

          • Albert

            You should be presuming innocence.

          • Anton

            First, this is not a court. Second, presumption of innocence means in formal logic that no evidence can ever alter that presumption; for if before you take account of the evidence you start off with falsehood of the proposition “he’s guilty” (presumption of innocence), the logical product of that proposition with “the evidence is [as it is]” is also false, so that the proposition “he’s guilty” always remains false, and he’s always innocent – no matter how damning the evidence. To make any headway you have to generalise to inductive logic, of course. The theorem corresponding to the deductive one I have just stated is then that, if you assign probability zero to guilt before examining the evidence, Bayes’ theorem implies it remains zero afterwards. To get anywhere you have to start by assuming a prior probability of guilt of, say, 1/N where N is the population of the town where the murder took place. THEN evidence can shift this prior probability (via Bayes’ theorem). Very few lawyers understand this, which is a pity.

          • Albert

            Well, if I’m ever up in court, I will hire you to defend me.

          • Ivan M

            Back to your usual nonsense again.

          • Anton

            Ivan, this is part of my professional field. Put up or shut up. What’s wrong with that?

          • Ivan M

            You and your professional expertise, mixed up with worshiping Mosaic Law! By the same token I can say that there is a small but finite probability that you wish to harm Muslims, given your postings on this blog. Use some common sense man. By your take on Rev Bayes, everyone, everywhere is possibly guilty of something.

          • Anton

            Changing the subject, are we? What’s wrong with the logic in my post which you called Nonsense?

      • CliveM

        At least one Iman issued a fatwah declaring Khan a non Muslim for his support of SSM.

        From what I’ve seen of the man I dislike a lot (most) of what he says. I would feel that way even if he was a professing Christian.

  • Politically__Incorrect

    While the media may well have distorted the vision of London under Sadiq Khan, having a Muslim mayor does flag up some significant questions about our capital city. My view is that England is losing its capital. It is losing it culturally and economically. The average working person is finding it harder to afford to live there. The population of London is instead a highly fluid melting pot of people of all nationalities and socio-economic status, many of whom do not reside there permanently. Increasingly these people are either rich oligarchs buying up real estate or they are poorer people, probably living of the state. The ghettoisation of the city means that some areas are virtually no-go areas for whites. Is that the kind of place our capital should be?

    One thing that annoys me greatly is the conflation of the knee-jerk negativity shown by some people towards the new mayor with genuine concerns about the Islamisation of this country. It annoys me because that conflation hinders measured debate on the subject. The issue of our cultural identity is not a matter of hate and does not preclude respect for one’s fellow man irrespective of religion. There is a reason why God gave us nations. Just as he gave us marriage and family which should not be corrupted by outside influence for the sake of their stability, so it is with nations. That has nothing to do with Islamophobia. It is a matter of preserving the gift God has given us for the sake of our descendants..

    • IrishNeanderthal

      that conflation hinders measured debate

      Too right! I call it “conflatulation”.

    • James Regan

      But by prioritizing the influence of Islam as being the major threat, it’s glossing over the biggest issue faith has in England, which is that England doesn’t have much faith. You’re preserving the gift God has given you for a bunch of atheists who couldn’t care less, whilst blaming the ‘decline’ on a minority religion and the successful business strategy of multiculturalism. Never mind that they’re blood relatives, Khan has more in common with your belief because at least he acknowledges the possibility of a God.
      It’s better to be on the wrong path in the woods than to be the ones burning the signposts.
      Also, unlike marriage and family, God didn’t give us nations to make us better, but to punish us for our hubris in building a tower to surmount heaven itself. I mean, that was probably a good thing, but it’s not like he divided us up and said we were blessed, he was just like ‘Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech’. [and not build overly massive towers. We’re watching you Dubai].

      • magnolia

        Whilst on some issues Christians have more in common with typical Muslims (family, marriage, abortion and euthanasia come to mind) on others we have more in common with our atheist and agnostic friends (clothing, food, dogs, home layout and hygiene, democracy, and often the undesirability of aggression) so it is a little more complex than you suggest!!

        And even though we both agree there is a God, we disagree quite profoundly on the nature of God, the identity of Jesus, on crucifixion and Resurrection and what they mean, on their prophet, and on suffering, violent warfare, forgiveness and grace. And that’s just a start….

        • James Regan

          depends which atheist’s you’re talking about (Stalin, for example, was definitely an atheist himself, say what you like about whether his followers viewed him as a religious figure or not), but you do raise some fair points on common ground when specifically talking about British atheists, which I probably was.

          Though I think on violent warfare and the desirability of aggression, history has proven that differing theological views haven’t had the slightest impact on what we actually do. Yes, Muslim extremists have committed acts of violence against Christian and atheist people, but when our Christian and secular societies were bombing hospitals in Iraq as part of the ‘shock and awe’ campaign at the start of that war, we weren’t exactly doing it non-aggressively. No matter how hard you try, you can’t have a passive-aggressive bombing campaign. And that’s without noting the troubles between Christian communities in Northern Ireland which led to so much death, the persecution of Buddhists by the Western backed Vietnamese government, the persecution of Christians by Buddhists in Thailand, the persecution of Buddhists by other Buddhists and atheists in Chinese controlled Tibet, the killing of Hindus by Muslims in India, the killing of Muslims by Hindus in India, the killing of people by other people everywhere all of the time.

          We just tend to call it ‘war’ more often and pretend it’s more justified. Atheists and Christians may initially seem to view aggression as undesirable, but when they are dropping bombs on weddings in Afghanistan, or border outposts in Pakistan, or fighting ISIS in Syria, it’s hard to see where there theological stance on aggression has translated into actions. Though, obviously, you may not have personally supported any or all of those things, because every society has principled people in it along with the dross.

          • magnolia

            Yes. I agree with much. Of course 1 million marched on Whitehall protesting against the Iraq War. They represented, according to opinion polls at the time, the majority of the rest of us. The majority of us were right, as history has shown and will show. But it made no difference. However although those in Parliament fooled by the dodgy dossier included some practising Christians, the majority were not, and in the actual churches on the ground there was only a tiny minority in favour. So theology did make some difference.

            And it does make a difference with the Quakers, the Mennonites, the APF, and such groups, on a permanent basis!

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Your Grace,

    I detest the phrase “Get over it”.

    For example, it suggests that Stonewall are a bunch of vulgar bullies.

    • Politically__Incorrect

      Which reminds me; I wonder what Khan is going to do about homophobic attacks carried out by Muslims in London? I’m sure the Labour Party will make sure he sorts that out…

    • Martin

      IN

      They aren’t?

  • Inspector General

    Steady on Cranmer! We all know you are a reasonable fellow, but you don’t have to collapse into an obsequious heap at the man’s feet to prove yourself aloof from us miserable and untrusting common herd…

    The people wanted a muslim mayor. They got a muslim mayor. Whether the darling socialist, ‘no borders’ boys and girls who are non muslims who voted for him regret what they did remains to be seen.

    And what’s all this about extolling us to sit down and break bread with Islam. Don’t you know enough about that insidious religion culture that when you talk to Islam they demand. Introducing state recognised Sharia law, for example. How soon after the initial pleasantries will that subject be brought up?

    Really Sir. One expected better of you today of all days….

    • Merchantman

      Today there should be a silent vigil and a remembrance of what the history of Islam has done to us + and what it teaches us.

  • James Bolivar DiGriz

    “British Muslims are not the enemy, … The overwhelming majority
    want to participate in society and embrace the pervasive culture. ”
    I really don’t think that this can be substantiated. See
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510866/Poll-reveals-40pc-of-Muslims-want-sharia-law-in-UK.html
    “Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today.”

    That may be from 2006 but I don’t think that things have got materially better. A more recent survey (albeit not in Britain)
    http://www.thelocal.dk/20151019/forty-percent-danish-muslims-wants-quran-based-laws
    ” 11.3 percent of Danish Muslims said that the Quran should serve as the sole basis for Denmark’s laws, while an additional 26.5 percent said that the nation’s laws should be built upon a mixture of the Quran’s teachings and the Danish constitution”
    when Muslims make up less than 4% of the Danish population.

    And these figures reflect what people are willing to admit to pollsters. I think that it is reasonable to believe that some people moderated, or even lied about, what the really think.

    Individual Muslims are loved by God so much that he died for them and we should show that love. Islam as an belief system is a totally different matter.

    • sarky

      Totally hypocritical. Don’t you as Christians wish to impose your beliefs?? Would you not, given the chance, ban abortion, reverse gay marriage, impose Christianity in schools??

      • The Explorer

        The point is not about whether or not it’s wrong to impose your beliefs.; the point is about whether or not you WANT to impose your beliefs.
        The contention made was that British Muslims want to embrace the pervasive culture, whereas surveys suggest that a significant proportion wants sharia. Which view is accurate?

        • James Bolivar DiGriz

          Thank you. sarky has (some might say ‘yet again’) got hold of the wrong end of the stick.

      • Inspector General

        You really do struggle here at times, don’t you, you silly old sarky thing…

      • Anton

        As you ask, I’ll answer directly: Yes, Yes and No. Please think about that.

      • Martin

        Sarky

        Your ignorance is showing again. Christians cannot impose their beliefs, they require a drastic change to the person.

        We do support protection for the weak, and the baby in the womb is weak.

        We do point out that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, and we know a ‘gay’ marriage is not a marriage because it cannot be consummated.

        We’d like Christianity and origins to be honestly taught, at the moment they’re not. However that would require a considerable change to the training of teachers.

        • sarky

          Good point. Fairytales are currently only for storytime. It would also take a lot of expense to train teachers to disregard all that free thought and critical thinking.

          • Anton

            Fairytales like the laws of physics created themselves, you mean?

          • sarky

            No. We don’t know how yet… but we will.

          • Anton

            A fine statement of faith!

          • sarky

            No a statement of fact. The ‘evidence’ would suggest that we WILL know.

          • Anton

            It is impossible for the laws of physics to create themselves, and to say otherwise is a category error. It might be that, within a specific CLASS of laws, only one set is self -consistent; but in that case, why that class? You’ve no way out. If you think you have, show me.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            So what do you know about free thought & critical thinking? Do you not believe in the fairy tale of Evolution. You know, the one where you say that all life ‘evolved’ from a last universal common ancestor, but you can’t actually demonstrate it. The one where some process which we can’t observe works, providing it has millions of years to operate in. Methinks you believe in fairy stories.

          • sarky

            No. I believe in evidence and there is plenty for evolution.

          • Martin

            Sarky

            There is no evidence for Evolution.

  • sarky

    Well said!!!!

  • Merchantman

    Silent Prayer Vigil.

  • James Regan

    I think one of the biggest things to consider about this situation and many others is that defining a person by one self described character trait leads to underestimating them. And underestimating people leads to disaster.
    for a totally farcical example:
    A man leaps out of a bush holding an axe, and as he is killing you with the axe, all you are thinking is ‘but you said you were blonde, blonde people don’t murder folks with axes, I’ve seen horror movies’. All this after seeing said mad axe murderer sneaking around in your hedgerow and sharpening his hatchet on his front doorstep.

    Interpreting Khan or anyone else, as a Caliphate loving extremist on the basis of them saying they are Muslim not only rules out your ability to consider him as reasonable, but will lead to surprise when, as a quick, none specific, example, he increases taxes due to socialist views, and uses these funds to nationalise transport and other infrastructure, rather than reducing them to 5% as the Qur’an specifies and funding essential public services through state controlled commodity production, as is common in Islamic countries. (not that I think there’s anything wrong with high taxes funding infrastructure projects, but I’m a dirty communist).

  • “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves.” (Matthew 10:16 NIV)

    We are taught to judge others by their fruit. The fruits of Islam gaining power have been well documented in history. Sadiq Khan may well prove to be an exception, but it seems like a terrible risk. But he has definitely been a plucky fighter, and deserves full credit for his success.

    • bluedog

      Indeed, Anna. It would be a huge mistake to underestimate Khan.

  • Dreadnaught

    People voted for an exLabour politician because London is a predominantly Labour zone

    • CliveM

      ExLabour?

      • Dreadnaught

        Ok ex mp.

  • Mark

    I found the querying of Khan’s previous associations right and proper, but it got blown out of proportion.
    Corbyn and McDonnell were questioned when running for positions, but there was no angle to call it racist etc.
    Livingstone, only last week, was ripped apart by Andrew Neil on his associations (as Mayor) with Yusuf al Qarawadi, someone who the new Mayor has associated with.

    So what exactly is the difference? It’s obvious.

    What now worries me is that all enquiry, questioning or challenge, might easily be batted off with accusations of racism or “Islamophobia”. After all, that was the full intention of that silly word and it appears to have worked.

  • I am personally relieved at the result. I didn’t vote as I don’t believe in mayoral elections but had the “conservative” candidate won I have no doubt he’d have surrounded himself with rich, Zionist cronies and our battle with militant, home-grown Islamists would have been bloodier and more grievous.

    As a polite nod to the Church by Law Established Sadiq Khan held his inauguration in Southwark Cathedral, and I found his speech to be both fair and eloquent. I wish him well.

    • Dreadnaught

      I believe Khan was aiming to show inclusivity by holding his acceptance speech in a cathedral but for many muslim activists it wii be seen as a trimph of Islam over Christianity.

    • The Explorer

      You raise an interesting question. Certainly, rich Zionists would awaken Islamist zeal; but a perceived Muslim (as opposed to Labour) victory might have the same effect. As Dreadnaught says below, activists could see the triumph of Islam over Christianity, and be moved to build on such a promising foundation. The next few years will probably tell us one way or the other.

      • Inspector General

        Agreed Explorer. All we know is that the next act of terrorism won’t involve the offices where Khan will be working…but London is a big place, just like Islamic ambitions…

    • Ivan M

      Zionists of varying convictions end up confusing matters and damaging themselves and others in the process. Khan probably saw the light when he realised that the ISIS wants to rape his daughters.

  • The Explorer

    George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. Zimmerman pleaded self-defence and was acquitted. But the case did not end there. Zimmerman was Hispanic and Martin was black. A black juror said if there had been more blacks on the jury, they could have got a conviction. In that view, the outcome should depend not on facts but on ethnicity. Translate that into elections and you get tribal voting blocks.

    Khan is a Muslim, but is also Labour. At the moment, voters probably were swayed by his politics rather than his religion. In twenty years time, with a different ethnic mix, the motives might be different.

  • len

    British Muslims are not the enemy…excepting those who have been fighting with ISIS and have been fully trained up in terrorist techniques…..and then allowed to return home…..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32026985

  • As long as the Muslim population stays lower than 5%…it won’t and there will be trouble, as has happened EVERYWHERE else. As a Christian you should condemn them all as blasphemers and Mohammed a false prophet.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Will condemning them save them?

      • It may help save them; it may enable them to see the error of their ways and seek redemption.

  • Inspector General

    Archbishop Cranmer [email protected]_Grace

    “Quick, say a prayer beneath the dome of St Paul’s before it gets converted into a mosque..” http://archbishopcranmer.com/sadiq-khan-is-muslim-get-over-it/

    Do you mean like all those churches in Africa, Asia and Spain when the areas they were in ended up with muslims in charge…It’s not a mocking matter, you know.

      • Inspector General

        We must ‘get over it’, it seems….

        • Anton

          And get over the fact that the new Mayor of London wrote a ‘how to’ guide for people wanting to sue the police for damages. This guide advised readers that they could secure payouts of up to £10,000 from forces by alleging racist behaviour or claiming wrongful arrest.

          http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/islam/londonistan-with-khan

          • Inspector General

            Yes, he indulged in the race card. Yet don’t we all, the Inspector especially as he finds it the only way to explain what we call ‘ethnic behaviour’…

      • Why are Christians being persecuted in Mexico and Columbia?

    • The Explorer

      If St Sophia and the Parthenon could become mosques, St Peter’s and St Paul’s could become mosques. That seems unimaginable now, but St Sophia as a mosque seemed unimaginable then.

      True, St Sophia and the Parthenon subsequently became museums, but St Sophia seems on track to be a mosque again quite soon. (Unless I’m out of date, and it’s happened already.)

      • Old Nick

        One cannot help wondering how it long it will be before the secularisation of Sunday will be followed by the sacralisation of Friday – on the grounds of ‘convenience’, like the present Archbishop’s utterly unnecessary proposal to ‘fix’ Easter.

  • I’ve not read through the comments so this point has probably already been made more than once: the problem Christians face is that Christians offer religious freedom to Muslims in the name of Christ while Muslims will refuse Christians the corresponding freedom in the name of Mohammed.

  • Anton

    Regardless of all rights and wrongs, who ever would have believed at the close of World War 2, a time within living memory of many who fought in it, that London would have a Muslim mayor?

    • Albert

      Perhaps some of the 400 000 Muslims who had volunteered to fight for Britain during the Second World War?

      • The Explorer

        “a Jew for PM”. Do you mean race or religion? My understanding is that Disraeli converted to Christianity (even if for pragmatic reasons). Could he have been PM of Victorian Britain as a practising Jew?

        The equivalent would be Khan converting to Christianity. All reservations on this thread have been about his being Muslim. No one has expressed a problem with his being Pakistani.

        • Albert

          I mean his race – there was plenty of racial anti-Semitism at the time.

          As for the final question, I don’t know. But I’m quite sure that it’s ironic for a Westerner complaining about Islam to use Pakistan as the measure.

          • Uncle Brian

            Disraeli’s father converted to the C of E. I think Dizzy was possibly seen by his Victorian contemporaries as a colourful gentleman of exotic foreign extraction, but not as a puppet of the Elders of Zion,

          • Albert

            I’m not making a religious point, but a point about prejudice.

          • Uncle Brian

            Me too!

          • The Explorer

            Not THE measure, but A measure. Since I said reverse the situation, and since Khan is Pakistani in origin, what would be the alternative?

          • Albert

            If we’re bothered by Islam as being barbarous (I assume that’s the concern here), then why use Islamic culture and countries as any kind of measure?

          • The Explorer

            How do we know Islam is barbarous UNLESS we use Islamic culture and countries as a measure?

            Chop Chop Square in Saudi Arabia, female genital mutilation, honour killings, gays thrown off buildings. I confess, these things make me uneasy: even if my fears are erroneous.

          • Albert

            I meant any kind of measure of how we should behave – e.g. what goes on in Pakistan.

        • Uncle Brian

          Could you envisage a European Christian as mayor of Islamabad?
          That’ll be the day.

      • sarky

        I’m pretty sure we had a women as PM as well!! It’s the end of the world!!

        • The Explorer

          A women? Did she have a split personality?

          • Albert

            Yes, she believed in equality for all. Except Muslims.

          • The Explorer

            She believed in equality for miners?

          • Albert

            I wasn’t being serious- I was picking up on the split personality of this thread. Everyone’s in favour of equality for everyone, except for Muslims.

          • Anton

            Were you in favour of equality for communists in the 1950s?

          • Albert

            No – I wasn’t alive then. But I also wasn’t in the business of assuming someone was a communist when they were behaving as a capitalist.

          • Anton

            Plenty of people received clandestine payment from Moscow, we now know.

          • Albert

            Sure. But that didn’t mean you assumed everyone was a communist, and couldn’t prove otherwise.

          • Anton

            Indeed; as I have said, I am not claiming to know Sadiq Khan’s motivations. I am claiming that you can’t know them either.

          • Albert

            And I am saying that, in the absence of evidence for something dodgy, natural justice demands that we assume innocence.

          • Anton

            Taqiyya is pretty dodgy and is part of Islam, and Khan is a Muslim. I have no idea whether he is invoking it or not. I am attempting to proceed without assumptions and I commend that route.

          • Albert

            But there is no evidence that will convince you that he isn’t behaving in an underhand way. That seems unfair to me.

          • bluedog

            There may well be individual Muslims who lead exemplary lives as liberal democrats within Western societies. The problem is that large numbers of Muslims act collectively in ways that are intensely hostile to non-Muslims within Western societies. A change of scale leads to a change of effect. There are now very large numbers of Muslims in Britain and the rest of Europe and the non-Muslim populations are reflecting deep anxiety. You may ignore this development, but ultimately there will be a political expression of that concern which even you may come to notice. Fairness doesn’t come in to it. It’s a simple battle for ideological supremacy.

          • Albert

            Who said I was ignoring it? I just think people should be treated equally.

            But look at how counter-productive your position is. It used to be the case that people felt similarly concerned about Catholics. It mattered little what any Catholic did or said. He was Catholic, and that was enough to mark him out. Now no one worries about Catholics (beyond the lunatic fringe). Why? Because by being welcomed into the establishment, Catholics did not need to be so identity conscious. Consequently, a “Catholic” MP is likely to vote for abortion and same-sex marriage. The Gladstonian fear of a foreign power in Westminster, has been well and truly laid to rest.

            Now, here’s a Muslims who looks like he’s had a similar experience. He’s voted for SSM. And guess what? He voted to keep the abortion limit at 24 weeks. This is a man who has been totally assimilated. He’s not just assimilated, he’s capitulated. And you want to push him away for being an Islamist? If you do that, you play into the hands of those who wish to tell you Muslim men that they are not welcome here and have no prospects.

            So here’s a man who has voted for SSM and abortion. The problem, in my opinion, is not that Khan’s a Muslim, but that Khan’s not Muslim enough. But I think we can safely say, he’s not an Islamist, or a threat to our society, because he’s a Muslim. He’s a threat, if at all, because he’s a liberal.

          • bluedog

            In the view of this communicant it’s a huge mistake to conflate the past treatment of Catholics with suspicions about the motives of Muslims. The two demographics are and were completely different in origin. The Catholics were Britons who found themselves on the wrong side of a shift in the policy of the ruling elite. The Catholics were therefore culturally identically to the non-Catholic British.

            The very great majority of Muslims are migrants from areas in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia which are culturally distinct from the culture of the native British. Indeed there would be many Muslim women who have spent their entire adult lives in Britain scarcely able to speak English. Add to that the persistence of a set of religious beliefs that are antithetical to the Judeo-Christian culture of the native British and the preconditions for conflict are in place. It’s in a separate post, but if Khan is a liberal democrat elected by a Muslim constituency, he will inevitably have to reflect the demands of that constituency. You don’t donate to a political campaign to be ignored.

            Enoch Powell was right, and he was in India at the time of Partition and saw first hand the bloodshed. It clearly had a profound impact on him, and he feared a repeat in Britain.

          • Albert

            All of this is well and good. But what is the evidence that Khan is a problem because he is a Muslim? Even if he has been elected by Muslims, he has much more been elected by non-Muslims.

          • bluedog

            True, Khan has been elected by more non-Muslims than by Muslims. But where did the money for his campaign come from? The non-Muslims? Or was much of it contributed by Muslims and Muslim associations? If it is the latter, they will want and expect a return on their investment. And what are their expectations? Well there are endless opinion polls about Muslim attitudes and none of them make comforting reading for non-Muslims. But if Khan says one thing to his Muslim constituents, and another to his Kuffar constituents (like most politicians do), then there is the potential for trouble. In any event, the big donors will be talking to Sadiq so that he doesn’t forget them.

            You ask, ‘But what is the evidence that Khan is a problem because he is a Muslim?’. Well, the answer is that any Muslim is a problem because they are commanded by their faith to implement sharia which requires the overthrow of the existing societal order in the UK. It’s that simple. But your position is always the passive and reactive, ‘let’s wait and see’. Sadly such a languid approach may condemn Britain to disaster. Languor hardly worked for Zac, did it?

          • Albert

            True, Khan has been elected by more non-Muslims than by Muslims. But where did the money for his campaign come from? The non-Muslims? Or was much of it contributed by Muslims and Muslim associations? If it is the latter, they will want and expect a return on their investment.

            So every time I answer you, you just raise the bar.

            But if Khan says one thing to his Muslim constituents, and another to his Kuffar constituents (like most politicians do), then there is the potential for trouble.

            The key word there is “if”.

            Well, the answer is that any Muslim is a problem because they are commanded by their faith to implement sharia which requires the overthrow of the existing societal order in the UK

            You say that. But does he? What’s your evidence?

          • bluedog

            ‘So every time I answer you, you just raise the bar.’

            Thank you. In fact each answer contains valuable information for you about the grisly realities of constituency politics, about which you are clearly unfamiliar.

            Political parties work on a branch basis, and stacking the branches with compliant members is a key process in building a power base. Trusted members in the branches can become delegates to the broader constituency association. Nothing happens without careful control, all votes are agreed beforehand so that there are no nasty surprises within the party structure. You can be absolutely certain (or you would be if you had seen it done) that Khan has fully mastered this process in Tooting and in the branches that make up the constituency association. He would then use the network of Muslim associations to leverage off his Tooting power base and most likely ensure that Muslim association members double up as Labour party members in other constituencies.

            And so the network grows. Can you guess what the promises are? Come on, its easy. Pretend you are a Muslim standing as a Muslim Labour candidate for Mayor. What are you going to say to the Muslim association/Labour Party members to ensure their continuing loyalty and support, as well as generous donations? Think it through and you may even get to the stage of answering your own questions.

          • Albert

            Or it might just be that he’s about as orthodox as a Muslim as many Anglicans or Catholics. What does the evidence say?

          • bluedog

            The evidence is implied in that Khan has said what needs to be said to convert Muslim associations into branches of the Labour Party. Without knowing exactly what is happening within Labour, there is no proof. But Corbyn’s reaction to Khan’s success is a possible indicator of Khan’s colonisation of London Labour. These little Muslim platoons will be Khan’s power base. Without penetrating the Muslim associations and obtaining a recording of Khan speaking Urdu and telling them what they want to hear, there can be no proof in evidentiary terms. But if you know anything about politics you can read what has gone on, leading to Khan’s success in the non-contest with Goldsmith. In short, Khan’s Islam is flexible and his political tool. On the other hand the Islam of his Muslim supporters may not be flexible at all.

          • Albert

            The evidence is implied in that Khan has said what needs to be said to convert Muslim associations into branches of the Labour Party.

            This is not evidence. It is a suspicion or an accusation. The evidence goes the other way.

          • bluedog

            I did reply to your comment above beforehand but there seems to have an incidence of Divine Intervention and my words have evanesced.

            Thought for the Day: ‘Rome may not yet be in flames, but I think I can smell the smouldering whilst we hum to the music of liberal self-delusion’.

            Trevor Phillips

            Clever man, Trevor.

          • Albert

            I am making no comments on Islam. I am making no comments on British Muslims taken as a whole beyond this: Muslims have different views on thing, and Khan seems not to be a Muslim of the kind that should concern us. If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it.

          • bluedog

            I’ve gone to considerable lengths to explain to you how to run a political insurgency through the branch network of a political party. I’ve also suggested that without insider knowledge of Labour in Tooting and London generally, obtaining evidence to support my case cannot be done. However, if you have understood what I have been saying you will realise that Khan trades on his Islamic credentials. To do this successfully with a Muslim audience requires a degree of authenticity which Khan appears able to provide with the necessary conviction. If Khan was perceived to be an apostate or a heretic within the Ummah he would not have been able to build his network. It follows that Khan can project a Muslim face to Muslims that wins their commitment and loyalty. This demographic is undoubtedly his core support and politicians must reward their supporters with the desired favours.

            The Kuffar are a different matter and the Left and educated youth are prone to guilt trips. Obama brilliantly exploited this white guilt in 2008. Khan does the same by presenting himself as the moderate Muslim that everyone desperately wants to believe exists. What Khan really thinks of moderate Muslims is manifest in his ‘Uncle Tom’ remarks.

            There is your evidence.

          • Albert

            The fact that that is how it happens is not evidence that it is happening.

            As for his Uncle Tom remarks, wasn’t he talking about how others may characterise people? After all, given his votes for SSM and abortion, he’s an Uncle Tom himself?

          • bluedog

            ‘As for his Uncle Tom remarks, wasn’t he talking about how others may characterise people?’

            No, it was Khan who used the term himself in 2009 during an interview with Iranian state TV to describe Muslims who tried to curb extremism. In an interview on LBC before the election, Khan apologised for his remarks.

          • Albert

            No, I know he used the term himself, but I don’t think he was speaking in his won voice, as it were.

          • bluedog

            Well if Khan wasn’t speaking in his own voice (I’ve corrected your typo) why did he feel the need to apologise?

          • Albert

            Because that’s how politics works! If you get misrepresented, you have to apologise.

          • bluedog

            Khan wasn’t misrepresented. He apologised for what he said. In that context he took ownership of his own guilt and also confirmed his earlier statement. That’s what an apology entails.

          • Albert

            I think it’s pretty small beer. As the interview shows, if he was saying it against anyone, he was saying it against people like him. Moreover, what did he understand by the phrase? I had to look it up, did he not realise the nuance? What this amounts to is that you have two complaints against him: 1. he is a Muslim, 2. he has spoken of Muslims like himself as Uncle Toms. I don’t think this amounts to a threat of sharia and caliphate.

          • bluedog

            You may need to do a great deal more research on the background of Khan, the evolution of his political beliefs, his association with Islamists and his own Islamist period, the role played by his former brother in law, his participation in Cage. Not forgetting how he built his network and power base within the south London Muslim communities, as you have been told, this required Muslim authenticity. There’s plenty to for you to get your teeth into. Just keep remembering Khan now runs the Met too. Like His Grace you want to believe Khan is a liberal and moderate Muslim, because the alternative is too awful to contemplate. But transferring your own expectations to someone within a culture opposed to your own is a fundamental error.

          • Albert

            Like His Grace you want to believe Khan is a liberal and moderate Muslim, because the alternative is too awful to contemplate.

            Don’t give us this patronising amateur psychology. I think that Khan is a liberal because all the evidence is that he is a liberal, and the most you have come up with to the contrary is that he is a Muslim and that he has mis-spoken in using the expression “Uncle Toms” against people like himself. That’s not evidence, that’s special pleading.

            I didn’t vote for Khan, but I’m not prepared to hold his Islam against him on what I think are such feeble grounds as you find compelling.

          • bluedog

            Seem to have touched a raw nerve. As they say, you can’t win an argument by losing your temper. Now I’ve posted this before but it was lost in a recurring divine intervention – we’ll have to agree to disagree. You seem to be prepared to ignore hints about Khan’s background. My position is inherently conservative and seeks to mitigate the risk that Khan may not be the liberal he currently presents himself to be. Your position is an acceptance of Khan at face value on the basis of no prior knowledge of the man and seemingly no preparedness to look into his background as an Islamist. In my view, your position is an unacceptable risk. We can agree that time will tell.

          • Albert

            Seem to have touched a raw nerve. As they say, you can’t win an argument by losing your temper.

            I didn’t lose my temper. I merely observe that using amateur (and wrong) psychology is not an argument. If you think it is, do keep going and see how far you get.

            My position is inherently conservative and seeks to mitigate the risk that Khan may not be the liberal he currently presents himself to be. Your position is an acceptance of Khan at face value on the basis of no prior knowledge of the man and seemingly no preparedness to look into his background as an Islamist.

            Again, your argument is based on claims you are making about me for which you have no evidence, and are in fact wrong. You tell me what it is in his background that made him an Islamist.

          • bluedog

            Googling Sadiq Khan the other day produced this article.

            http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/05/08/the-secret-life-of-sadiq-khan-london-s-first-muslim-mayor.html

            Don’t know much about the Daily Beast, it’s some kind of on-line publication. The article is significant because the author, Maajid Nawaz, has known Khan for many years. One understands that Nawaz is also an adviser to David Cameron on matters Islamic. I haven’t quoted the article before because the author asserts your position, despite the evidence, in my view, favouring my position. But interestingly, Nawaz seems to validate my earlier analysis and explanation of the mechanics of Khan’s rise to power and the ideological under-pinnings of his success.

            A lot depends on Nawaz’ loyalty and self-interest. Does he benefit most by continuing as an adviser to Cameron, and the British government post-Cameron? If so he cannot afford to alienate Khan by writing critically of him. Hence an adverse conclusion of Khan is not something that Nawaz would put in print. His advice to Cameron may be different.

          • Albert

            Thank you – I didn’t know all this. It strikes me though, that this article gives abundant reason not to vote for Khan, rather than reason to think he is an extremist. I’ve never said we should vote for Khan, I’ve said the fact that he is a Muslim does not entitle us to think he is an extremist. That seems to be the conclusion of the article – and that’s without hearing a defence.

          • bluedog

            Glad you find the article useful. I completely understand your own position on Khan. My concern has been that very little is really known about him and this piece fill gaps. Khan may not be an extremist himself but it appears that during an early part of his career he was very close indeed to quite a few of them. This seems to have been no disadvantage to him in building his power base within Tooting, and presumably more widely in London Muslim circles.

            The nature of his successor as Labour candidate in the forthcoming by-election (Khan has resigned the seat) will be interesting. My money would be on a highly educated Muslim woman in her thirties, a sort of Muslim Pritti Patel. This choice would satisfy the Muslim vote, impress the Kuffar, and enable Khan to run the constituency by proxy.

          • Anton

            I’m not convinced he is and have never said so!

          • Albert

            Indeed not. But neither is there any evidence that will convince you that he isn’t. And that’s just unjust.

          • Anton

            In the absence of decisive evidence either way, what is it most justified to believe?

            Presumption of innocence is, as I have explained, a logical absurdity. You simply look at the facts and decide. If you are a judge or jury you have to make a decision which impacts on the accused, and it is good for society to err on the side of non-conviction. But if no decision is necessary then you can say “On the one hand this, on the other hand that…”

          • Albert

            You’ve convinced yourself that it’s a logical absurdity. But I didn’t see the point at which it was. Anyway, you undermine a huge amount tradition of justice when you say, including scripture.

            But if no decision is necessary then you can justifiably say “On the one hand this, on the other hand that…” I have been presenting one hand more, you the other, but I’m sure we can both see both hands.

            The trouble is, we have to behave one way or another. And so you cannot hide from justice in this way.

          • Anton

            To say I am hiding is to suggest that I’ve being furtive in some way, which is absurd.

            There is a social difference between a situation in which a decision impinges on the accused, and trying to reach the truth in a pub discussion. Inductive logic is involved. In the former situation you err on the side of nonconviction, and you have to take into account all sorts of rules of evidence; in the latter you can be less constrained. If you think anything is wrong with my position in logic, please attempt to knock over my comment in which I set it out, the one mentioning Bayes’ theorem.

          • Albert

            You have no evidence to think ill of him on account of his Islam. We have reason to think he is not a supporter of anything we would object to from an Islamic point of view (let’s face it, he’s more liberal than most of us!). Therefore, it is unjust to treat him with suspicion.

          • Anton

            While any man of any belief can lie, the word of Muslims should be evaluated in relation to the doctrine of taqiyya, unlike the word of others.

            What do you actually mean by “unjust” in your comment that “it is unjust to treat him with suspicion”? Were I to meet him, I would treat him with courtesy, of course.

          • Albert

            I think to treat him with suspicion when the evidence is that you shouldn’t, is unjust. And this doctrine of taqiyya, what is the evidence that he follows it?

          • Anton

            Is it not reasonable to treat with suspicion anybody in power politics who self-identifies with a religion which has an explicit doctrine of lying to further itself?

          • Albert

            Do all Muslims have this doctrine, and given that Khan plainly identifies in his voting actions more with liberalism than with Islam, is is it reasonable to believe he has this doctrine? Moreover, the idea that you are suspicious of Khan for lying because he is a Muslim is odd. Would it not make more sense to be suspicious of him because he is a politician?

          • Anton

            Let me make it plain that I am discussing principles not Khan, but a politician is under suspicion as you clearly agree and a Muslim ditto because of taqiyya. It is consistent with taqiyya to vote for liberal options in order to win power. Returning to Khan, did you see that he referred to liberal Muslims as “Uncle Toms” before correcting himself the other day?

          • Albert

            Yes, but I don’t think he thinks of them as Uncle Toms – he was talking about how others categorise them. After all, he is an Uncle Tom, if the language is permitted. Now the problem with your position is that nothing he says can convince you that he is nothing more than he comes across. And that seems unfair to me. I cannot see that an Islamist can vote for same-sex marriage and abortion.

          • Anton

            That might alternatively be taqiyya, to win secular votes. I’m far from convinced of it in Khan’s case, but how can you rule it out?

            There are other alternatives, of course. Suppose that a man of Muslim background who is rising in politics in a secular land comes to disbelieve Islam. The smart thing to do is say nothing and continue minimal practice. Again, in Khan’s case I have no idea what he believes and I am not trying to pin any label on him, but I evaluate what he says with reference to Islamic doctrines as well as the usual criteria for scrutinising politicians.

          • Albert

            That might alternatively be taqiyya, to win secular votes. I’m far from convinced of it in Khan’s case, but how can you rule it out?

            True, you cannot prove an absence, especially not in this case. But that means that you effectively exclude a whole community and individuals from fair participation in society, participation which is fair in itself and should make the community more included and less radical. It seems to me however, that the unreasonable judgement is to think he a problem because he is a Muslim, and I think his voting record pushes the doubt beyond what is reasonable.

          • Anton

            I cannot discuss what any individual knows but I do indeed have concerns about a community whose sacred texts demand takeover by force where they are not accepted voluntarily. (If you don’t, you might as well be Ken Livingstone.) That’s political, and should be treated as such regardless of any playing of the religion card. Our civilisation has expertise in how to respond to subversive political movements. I hope it has not been forgotten.

          • Albert

            The thing is, isn’t the most likely thing that Khan shares your concerns? How likely is it, given the evidence that we have, that he does anything else?

          • Anton

            That’s our former discussion. Your position makes sense only if you think you know. But I think you can’t. Certainly I don’t.

          • Albert

            I think it’s about making a reasonable judgement, and I think yours in an unreasonable judgement. We can have doubts about all things, but that does not make doubt about all things unreasonable.

          • Anton

            I could ask why you think mine is an unreasonable judgement, but you’ve already said why and I’ve already stated why I disagree.

          • Albert

            In which case, I suppose we have to agree to disagree.

          • bluedog

            ‘Yes, but I don’t think he thinks of them as Uncle Toms – he was talking about how others categorise them.’

            No, he explicitly described moderate Muslims himself as Uncle Toms in an interview with Iranian state TV in 2009. His recent apology on LBC confirms his 2009 statement.

          • Albert

            I’ve watched this, and isn’t he actually making the opposite point? He’s saying you can’t just speak to people who agree with you.

        • Albert

          Good point. Who’d have expected that in 1945?

          • Anton

            John Knox made complaint about the monstrous regimen[t] of women back in the 16th century, if I recall correctly.

          • Albert

            Quite. And he’d never even seen a gay pride march.

      • Malcolm Smith

        Victorians were able to stomach a Jew for PM.
        A Jew by birth, maybe, but d’Israeli had been baptized a Christian. When asked about his religion, he said: “The religion of all sensible people.” When asked what that was, he replied, “Sensible people never say.”
        Apart from that, it wouldn’t have mattered much if he had been a practising Jew (apart from being unable to attend business on Saturday), because there is no specific Jewish system he could have imposed on the country. However, Islam is the enemy of the British way of life, and seeks to destroy and transform it. Anybody from the Muslim sub-culture who wishes to run for office should, as a matter of course, be asked to repudiate all of aspects of shari’a, and to defend the Church of England as the national religion. If he does not, then all non-Muslims should vote against him for their own protection.

        • Albert

          I was simply talking about the nature of prejudice. Sure I have problems with Islam. But I also notice that many Muslims don’t seem that Muslim to me, or else, their interpretation of Islam does not trouble me. So, in accordance with the principle of innocent until proven guilty, I am prepared to take a Muslim by his actions, not by what we say he must/might be like simply because he is a Muslim. Now in this instance, there is no evidence against him, and there is evidence that his interpretation of Islam (or his commitment to it) is not of the type that should trouble us. If evidence is produced to justify changing that view, then naturally, I will change it.

  • Uncle Brian

    The middle reaches of the results table – fifth to ninth places, out of the total 12 – yield some interesting figures. This is the number of first preference votes, in each case, expressed as a percentage of the total:

    5. Ukip ……………………….. 3.6
    6. Women’s Equality …….. 2.0
    7. Respect ………………….. 1.4
    8. Britain First …………… 1.2
    9. Cannabis ……..…..….. 0.8

    The Respect candidate is named as one Galloway, G. He scored less than half the Ukip vote and was even beaten by the Women’s Equality lady. Does this mean we’ve now heard the last of Galloway, G.? Really? For ever? If so, that prospect alone is worth drinks all round at the Mouse and Wheel, on me. Cheers!

    https://www.londonelects.org.uk/sites/default/files/Part%201%20Election%20of%20the%20London%20Mayor.pdf

    • They don’t need George anymore they’ve got Sadiq!

      • Ivan M

        Yes. The Muzzies have one of their own. It’s all tactical with the Semites. Nothing that they do is based on principles.

  • TrippingDwarves

    Two questions come to mind. Is he at liberty to change or renounce his own faith should he wish to do so? Would he extend that liberty to others of a similar persuasion? If the answer to both these questions is no, then he should not be mayor. If the answer is yes, then he will be rejected by all those Muslims who voted for him, and no doubt by the few who didn’t, should there happen to have been any. I have yet to hear this question put to him. It is an important question, for it touches on the very freedoms we currently take for granted but which, in the near future, could come under severe strain.

  • Your Grace is quite correct.

    It really is no good for your correspondents to fulminate over the election; it has happened and we shall all have to wait and see how well or otherwise Mr Khan gets on.

    If Christians are worried about Moslems then we shall just have to start preaching the Gospel to them. In various parts of the world, thousands of them are becoming Christians, even at the peril of their lives. Why is it not happening here? Because Moslems in the UK see nothing attractive in the milquetoast variety of Christianity that they see around them most of the time.
    Far more worrying than Sadiq Khan is UK Christianity’s massive Fifth Column that purports to be marching alongside, but is in fact busily undermining the very foundations of our faith.

    http://christianconcern.com/our-concerns/same-sex-marriage/steve-chalkes-church-to-offer-same-sex-marriages?
    How well is that going to go down with your average Moslem? How will it impact him in his view of the Christian faith?

    • HedgehogFive

      And Stonewall seem to have got Nicky Morgan by the balls, if you’ll pardon my Hedgehog French: http://www.christianconcern.com/our-concerns/freedom-of-speech/new-ehrc-chief-appointed-despite-criticism-over-vested-interests

      The Hedgehogatollah tells me that the reason Linus and Co get so worked up over Christianity rather than Islam is this. A bunch of people who want to kill one is less offensive to one’s pride than a bunch of people who may be friendly but don’t buy into one’s sexuality of whatever.

      An example: from about the year 1000, the world of Islam was attacked by people such as Turks who went in for large scale slaughter and Mongols who went in for total massacre. However, having conquered, they converted to Islam.

      The Crusaders were admittedly somewhat medieval towards the cities they conquered, but their blood-letting was not nearly so extensive as with the folks from Central Asia. But they didn’t convert to Islam, so they are still hated to this day.

      • Anton

        In fairness, English school textbooks of history until a few decades ago portrayed the Anglo-Saxon invaders as goodies but Danish ones as baddies, the only difference being that the Anglo-Saxons became Christian once here whereas the Danes were pagan at the time they invaded. Yet both were pagan when they invaded, and the island already had a celtic church movement.

        • Old Nick

          As is proved by the continuous use of S. Martin’s Canterbury from Roman times predating S. A of Canterbury by about 200 years), through Big Bertha, wife of Aethelred of Kent to the present day

          • Anton

            I’d known about the pre-Augustinian celtic church in the north, of course, but am less sure about Kent (Cantia). I believe that Augustine didn’t find Christianity there (although I’ve not checked in detail), apart from King Aethelred of Cantia’s Christian wife, and she came over from the continent as a Christian for a dynastic marriage. Bede states (in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, bk I chapter 26) that St Martin’s had to be rebuilt, and the small number of Roman bricks in its walls today suggests that this was pretty much from the ground up, ie it had fallen into disuse after the Romans left. It was Queen Bertha’s private chapel. What is your source for its continuous use prior to her involvement, please? I’m genuinely interested.

          • Old Nick

            I was going by Bede HE I, 26, I am afraid – and trusting that the dedication to S. Martin would have been remembered from the Roman period (like that at Whithorn in Galloway), having been brought over in in the late 4th/ early 5th c. and then not forgotten. Wallace-Hadrill’s commentary ad loc. reports that Charles Thomas thought that the Canterbury church used by Bertha was actually S. Pancras – dedications do have a nasty habit of slipping around. I would not be too worried about the small volume of Roman brick. It is surely more remarkable that there is so much stone, when Bede says that most British churches (Whithorn being an exception) were made of wood. How datable the masonry is I do not know, but suspect the RCHM volume for Canterbury would help if it were handy. More worrying is the presence of ‘dark earth’ in the post-Roman layers. Thank you for pointing out that this is a bit more complex than I was suggesting.
            Other evidence of continuity is of course not lacking. The prize exhibit would be S. Albans, Roman martyr shrine, known to be in use in 429 from the Life of S. Germanus of Auxerre, noted by Bede, mentioned by Gildas and Bede and by the anonymous ‘Epic’ Passion, and with the modern Abbey on the site of a Late Roman extra-mural cemetery. The main problem is that Bede so clearly loathed the British Church (as opposed to the Irish whose holiness he admired even though they were wrong about the Date of Easter, cujus saepe mentionem fecimus). He even castigates them for not setting about converting those who had invaded and stolen their land.

          • Anton

            Yes, Bede’s agenda in endorsement of the decision made at (probably) Whitby is very apparent. Thank you for the obvious-afterwards point (ie, very telling) that the dedication to St Martin would likely have been forgotten but for continuous use; and for the reminder about St Albans.

          • Old Nick

            Actually I think we are in danger of switching sides ! The dedication to S. Martin might after all have been imported by Bertha – the Merovingians were after all keen on him. All Bede says is “ecclesia in honorem sancti Martini antiquitus facta”, and I think I would take ‘antiquitus’ more naturally with facta (=built) than with the phrase about S. Martin. So thank you for pointing out that this is not as straightforward as it might seem.
            One of the remarkable conclusions arising from N. Orme’s book on church dedications in Devon and Cornwall is how little proof of continuity there is in dedications, even in the relatively well-documented centuries between the Reformation and the present. He is particularly interesting on how 19th century High Churchmen assumed that their church had been dedicated to S. Thomas Becket and that the dedication had been suppressed at the Reformation (as politically incorrect) so they ‘reinstated’ it, where it had actually no previous existence. The most entertaining is at Bradninch, where the parish persists in celebrating the non-existent S. Disen, despite Orme’s clear demonstration that this is a spelling mistake for S. Denis.

          • Anton

            Thank you! It is amazing what gets made up and how.

            I’ve visited the church near Lllanbadrig on the north coast of Anglesey founded, it is believed, by St Patrick (hence the name).

          • Old Nick

            I wonder how old that one is. I have not got the Ekwall dictionary of place-names handy…..

      • Albert

        The Crusaders were admittedly somewhat medieval towards the cities they conquered

        !

        • Anton

          • Albert

            🙂 Of course the crusaders had an excuse for being medieval.

          • Old Nick

            Me, I am mediaeval

        • The Explorer

          Everybody in the Middle Ages was somewhat medieval towards the cities they conquered.

          You had a lot of prisoners. You didn’t have the resources to feed them. You couldn’t let them go since they outnumbered you and might attack you. So you killed them. The Geneva Conventions of the day. All sides did it.

          The British had the problem as late as the American War of Independence. They didn’t want to kill British-origin prisoners, and did not have the troops to contain them.

          • Albert

            Everybody in the Middle Ages was somewhat medieval towards the cities they conquered.

            It was difficult not to be medieval when you were…er…medieval.

          • Anton

            I wondered, Albert… you didn’t let me down!

          • Pubcrawler
    • Martin

      Martin

      It would be better if the heretic Steve Chalke were not given the oxygen of publicity, he certainly cannot argue his case from Scripture.

      • magnolia

        Or reason or tradition or simple observation either, I would say!!

        • Martin

          Magnolia

          What matters is Scripture.

          • magnolia

            No problem with that, but it has to be rightly interpreted. After all, Steve Chalke believes he is interpreting it correctly. My best guess is that he misinterprets through lack of reason, contempt for tradition, and being unobservant, e.g. believing everything anyone says about him or herself without taking human capacity for self-delusion into account.

            We both come to the same conclusion on this anyway! He thinks he is showing God’s love. I believe he is endorsing lack of love, gender-rancour, and self-delusion that are not highest goods, and which God in his love does not love.

          • Martin

            Magnolia

            I think Steve Chalke is using his unrenewed human intellect.

          • magnolia

            You are kinder than me there.

            I would question the following words:
            using
            intellect
            or at least put modifying words in!

  • As a gorilla, I approve of men who are clean-shaven rather than affectedly and ostentatiously sprouting a chin-tuft.

  • Martin

    “British Muslims are not the enemy, any more than are thousands of British atheists, Hasidic Jews or urban gays.”

    They are certainly not friends of the gospel. They are enemies of God and need to be evangelised. That is how we show our love, by bringing the gospel to those dead in their sin.

    • If they’re enemies of God, there is no need to worry. God is more than capable of defending himself and giving his enemies a thrashing from which they will never quite recover.

      • Martin

        GB

        Did I say there was a need to worry?

        • Well, you advocate actions based on the premise that they are God’s enemies. Presumably you think these actions will please God, but wouldn’t he be annoyed that: (a) you take it upon yourself to decide who his enemies are, and (b) you unilaterally attempt to rehabilitate these supposed enemies before he can decide what, if anything, needs to be done with them. God may find such behaviour irksome and presumptuous.

          • Martin

            GB

            God has declared who His enemies are and He has required a certain action in relation to them.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Anybody can preach. We show our love by doing what God requires of us; to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with God. (Micah, 6:8).

      • Martin

        Roy

        Actually it takes a great deal of skill to preach, and most preachers haven’t got that skill.

  • len

    Checked the name of the author twice…yes it definitely was’ Cranmer.’..

    We must embrace our multi faith, multi cultural ,future and get on with everyone…OK that’s certainly Christian …But Atheists and Muslims (and every other tom dick and harry )wants want to silence Christians.This is the way ‘the world system’ is going….
    So we either become friends of’ the world system’and conform to it and become enemies of God …or we (in the eyes of this present world system) Christians stay confrontational, divisive, non conformist, fundamentalist.
    These lines are being drawn…….

    • David

      Len, Liberal Christianity is dying on its feet. The aged congregations are not self-replicating. Only the genuine orthodox varieties, within both Protestantism and Catholicism, will survive and hopefully prosper.
      Muslims will only respect Christianity if it is sincere, orthodox and truly believes in the strength, purity and Truth of its own messages, Scriptures and Traditions. Followers of Christ are required to be distinct, holding themselves slightly apart from the world – “In the world but not of it.” – The Great Commission demands nothing less of us.

    • big

      Ien i posted above with a link to a web site which i think sums up perfectly where we’re going, and how it’s being achieved.

      • len

        Thanks….

        • big

          sorry len! i am not sure i gave you the correct link?

  • Inspector General

    My dear sarcastic thing. Believe it or not, but you have earned the Inspector’s respect, of sorts. Not for you do you allow your weak intellect to inhibit your activity on Cranmer’s site. So well done you! One does admire the Victorian attitude of bettering themselves, even if the efforts lead to naught…

  • Inspector General

    Don’t go too overboard crowing about what intellect you have…

  • On the subject of Muslims, it’s a joke that one has to read the Russian news to find out what is going on in one’s own country!
    https://www.rt.com/uk/342116-british-mosques-ban-women-/

    • len

      Agreed the Russian News give news items that never appear on UK news also (surprisingly ) so did ‘Al Jazeera’ until they disappeared off my TV and I can only get them in Arabic now ……….

      • Terry Mushroom

        They have an English language website.

        • len

          I think I might need a new aerial then?… Thanks for the info

      • Dreadnaught

        Al jaz is now on ch 108

      • big

        ..same thing keeps happening to me…..over twelve time I’ve ‘lost’ Russia Today since the start of the conflict in Ukraine

    • Gerry Lynch

      The Russia Today article is based on a piece already published in The Times (and says so). So you have to read the Russian news to find out what’s going on in your country, only if you don’t read its traditional daily newspaper of record. You are a conspiracy theorist.

      • big

        yes but the Times hides behind a pay wall.

        • Gerry Lynch

          Or you can go into a shop and buy a copy. Or, if you’re really lucky, get a paperboy to deliver one. Something openly reported in a UK newspaper that has over half a million readers a day is not being hidden from the public, even by the standards of conspiracy theorists.

          It’s fascinating that people prefer the propaganda arm of the Russian government to their own country’s free press, all the same.

          • big

            …Er actually i cant just walk into a shop and buy one, because i am an expat!

          • CliveM

            But you could sign up on line and pay the fee. Nothing particularly innovative about buying a newspaper.

          • big

            i could, but its crap.

          • Old Nick

            I have found the Russian Press to be quite informative about what is going on in Syria. They reported the kidnapping of the Orthodox bishops a good deal more fully than our own journalists – who seem to be afraid that reporting the sufferings of Christians might arouse a Christian backlash.

          • big

            ….don’t do it!

        • bluedog

          So does the Telegraph but the cost of subscription is a good investment.

          • big

            if you say so…..i notice it got rid of its comments section after its relaunch …..doesn’t seem to have gone down well with those who often left comments, in fact some feel its a form of censorship….so much for our free press! but then the Guardian loves the delete button, i suppose thats what you call balance.

      • Not at all.

  • IanCad

    YG, Allow me to suggest you repost the photo of the delightful Muslim lady featured in your editorial back on June 6th 2012.
    It may help in some way to reassure those who fear Mr. Khan.

  • Findaráto

    Looking at Sadiq Khan’s history should tell anyone who has eyes to see that his religion is a social marker rather than a deeply held philosophical conviction.

    Khan is like Jews who eat bacon and still call themselves Jews. Or Christians who divorce and remarry and still call themselves Christian. His religion marks his identification with a certain tradition, while not limiting his behaviour to only those acts approved by that tradition.

    This is a good sign. It means there’s a type of secular Islam developing in Britain that follows the path laid down by secular Christianity and secular Judaism. In time Islam will come to resemble the other two Abrahamic religions in that 90% of its followers will be secularised and believe in Allah and the Qur’an in a purely symbolic manner, just as most Christians believe in God and the Bible as symbolic expressions of something vaguely spiritual without believing in every (or even many) of their rules and regulations.

    That’s the effect that a secularised society has on faith. Like water dripping on a stone, common sense wears religion down and polishes its raw and fundamental form into something smooth that vaguely resembles the original but without any of the sharp and dangerous edges.

    Sadiq Khan is a Muslim like most Britons are Christians: in name only, out of respect for tradition. He may even be an Atheist who prefers to remain discreet for fear of riling up fundamentalist ire among extremists in his community.

    As such he’ll be a perfectly representative mayor of London.

    • bluedog

      Mr Khan talks about ‘big tents’ rather than ‘broad churches’. A dog-whistle to the ummah? Or did he having something else in mind?

      • CliveM

        Big tent is new labour language, frequently used by Blairites. Much used in the run up to the 1997 election.

        • big

          Personally i prefer a Yurt!

          • bluedog

            A lined marquee smells better.

          • big

            mine doesn’t smell.

    • The Explorer

      This is a very interesting post, because it illustrates the secular dream for Islam with great clarity. Islam will be absorbed and tamed. That was the dream of latter-day Rome for the Germans. The Germanic tribes would be absorbed and Romanised. In reality, Alaric’s Visigoths plundered Rome.

      The other possibility is that Islam will retain its identity and thrive. The future will show which model is correct. Either Western Islam will become secularised; or Western secularism will become Islamicised. Looking at what’s happening in Sweden, I know which model I think the more likely.

      • len

        Beat me to it Explorer!

    • len

      I believe you are quite right here ‘findy'(for once)What you are describing is an apostate form of religion which seems to be the only form of religion acceptable to a secular society…Christians , Jews and Muslims all finding ‘common ground ‘with their religions to form a multi faith conglomeration….
      All outside of this religious melting pot will be termed ‘radicals.’
      This is very similar to the system under Caesar where all faiths were allowed to put their idols in the Pantheon to be worshipped as long as Caesar approved them…..

      • IanCad

        I do believe I told you that he would become one of us. Patience, calmness, kindness, charity – it never fails.

        • len

          Can go off people you know? 😉

    • Inspector General

      When you were posting here as Linus, you were an aggrieved homosexual with a ‘husband’. What is it with you types? So welcoming of a religion culture that is so cruel to you people, and reserving your hatred for Christianity which does not put homosexuals to death. And you are far from alone, you display a general trend that is found in Pink News. One thinks he may have an answer – you perceive muslims as an oppressed minority in the West, just like yourselves. Such is the derangement of your mind that you cosy up to your would be executioners…

      • len

        Watch out for the demise of your laptop if you keep sailing close to the wind Inspector?

      • The Explorer

        Homosexuals will always be a minority. Muslims won’t be. That’s an important difference between the two groups. Gays are mistaking a temporary situation for a permanent one.

        • Martin

          TE

          I wouldn’t bet on homosexuals always being a minority.

          • The Explorer

            They will be as long as there are Muslims in the vicinity Ahmadinejad said in a speech on an American campus that there were no homosexuals in Iran. He did not mean that they did not occur in Nature. He meant that there were cranes waiting to remedy the problem..

          • Martin

            TE

            I wasn’t thinking of Turkey, and my mind was on Romans 1.

    • Uncle Brian

      Giving you an upvote, mon ami, was an unexpected pleasure which has further enhanced this fine, sunny Sunday morning. I only wish I could do it more often.

  • preacher

    Are all we Christians really walking in fear of Islam ? What about Buddhists or even Hindu’s or Sikhs etc ? Perhaps we are allowing our own lack of faith, or fear of man to show.
    Christ came to save ALL who would accept him, the pagans, gentiles & even those who crucified Him.
    We can roll over & play dead or reach out to those around us with the gospel, no matter what, if any faith they have.
    Our faith is mighty, our God is mighty ( He overcame death itself ) we have a Lion of a Lord, the Lion of Judah, but we hold Him on a leash. Let go of the lead. Let God do His work & let us do ours.
    Jesus Christ came & died to save sinners, like Saul & us. He gave us a commission, are we obeying His orders or have we slipped into a lukewarm froth of religious fear of the ‘ Bogeyman ‘ ? – ” Perfect love casts out all fear ! ” preach the gospel to our fellow man in love & power then let the Holy Spirit do the rest. I know we will be liberated & amazed at what our God can do !.
    Blessings. P.

    • The Explorer

      I’m not clear about your opening paragraph. Are you saying that Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs don’t fear Islam, only Christians do; or that Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs also fear Islam; or asking why Christians don’t also fear Buddhists, Hindus and Sikhs?

      • preacher

        Apologies for being somewhat obtuse, The other faiths must speak for themselves, probably a mixture depending on geographical location & local terrorists.
        The main thrust of my post is that often we will be more tolerant of those that we feel don’t pose a threat, although they also need the gospel for their salvation & given the opportunity we should / would, do tell them it.
        Because of the evil of a small fanatical minority of radicals, many of us seem reluctant to communicate the gospel to those Muslims, who would respond positively given the chance.
        We of all people should be loving but immovable in our faith, our God is alive !.
        The gospel is universal & applicable to ALL mankind, we must not be afraid to segregate one group through fear.
        Hope this clarifies my post brother. P.

    • Inspector General

      EVERYBODY walks in fear of Islam, padre. Didn’t you know!

      • preacher

        Good to see you back sir, some of us were worried you’d absconded or been kidnapped.
        Sorry, I must have played truant when the lesson about the fear of Islam was on the curriculum !.

        • Inspector General

          It’s a healthy fear, you know. One was just thinking about those British tourists shot dead in the Tunisian hotel the other year. Were they fearless to visit the country or just plain stupid…

          • preacher

            Well sir, death is with us all from the moment we are born, but fear of it can be overcome, “Death where is thy sting ” etc.
            I mean, they could have died in the plane or crossing a road, so intelligence is no guarantee. Fear can hold us in awful thralldom, hence the old adage ” A coward dies a thousand times, a brave man only once ! “.
            Blessings. P.

      • IanCad

        I don’t get it Inspector.
        Here you are; an intrepid brave soul whose frequent jousts with the Pink SAS leave him injured near to death. His recovery periods so long, that we wonder if he will grace this blog again. And Yet!! He quakes like jelly at the prospect of a Muslim takeover of this land; and indeed. the world.
        When? When? When? Will he realize that the Muslim world is weak, it is not capable of conquering anything and most of those of that persuasion want to live in peace and harmony. What they do within their culture is really out of our hands,

        • Inspector General

          You’ve answered your own question, Ian. Last sentence. It’s when they start calling our land their land the problems start. It’s already happening, you know. And yes, one does agree, what they do in their own wretched countries does not concern us, until they start murdering people. Then we kill them…before they can kill us…

          • IanCad

            “– It’s when they start calling our land their land the problems start.–“
            So true! We have to get tough and make it abundantly clear that UK law rules supreme in this land – any attempt to undermine it should be treated as treason.
            Repatriation PDQ!

          • Terry Mushroom

            So where would you “repatriate” all those born here?

          • IanCad

            Terry,
            I was only referring to those who were not subjects. However now that you’ve made me think about it, only subjects can commit treason. Time for a rethink! The noose and firing squad are out of play. Heavy fines, confiscation? – all after due process of course.

    • Martin

      I saw an interesting tweet :

      "In fact, it appears that more Muslims became Christians over the last 20 years than in the previous 1,500 years… https://t.co/3GirK8FrDJ— Josh Williamson (@AusEvangelist) May 8, 2016

      Perhaps we should bear that in mind, God may be saving Muslims.

      • Ivan M

        This is true. The witness of Christians has converted many.

  • The Explorer

    In focusing on the Muslim issue we seem to be losing sight of the Labour issue: a point that Dreadnaught made below.

    Muslims may have voted for Khan because he’s Muslim, but there are currently only enough Muslims to influence a vote, not decide it. Non-Muslim voters presumably voted for Khan because he’s Labour, or because they didn’t like the Tory candidate. That he happened to be a Muslim would have been incidental.

    However, the outcome of a multicultural society will be tribal/religio/cultural voting. Survival demands it. Thirty years from now there will be enough Muslim voters in certain areas to elect a Muslim candidate because he’s Muslim.

    • cacheton

      ‘However, the outcome of a multicultural society will be tribal/religio/cultural voting.’

      Only if education and critical thinking fail to prevail. I hope they will succeed in transforming tribal/religio/cultural thinking..

      • The Explorer

        Tribal voting seems to be a given in America. Mind you, America is a spectacular example of the failure of education. Try googling Watter’s World Bikinis versus Brains.

        • bluedog

          Sound point, Mr Explorer. Despite a ruthless programme of American induction, they all go off and stick to their own demographics. Presidential politics in particular is an exercise in trading between the warlords controlling the ethnic voting blocs. Trump is current leader of the white Americans, whose power is dwindling as they are increasingly outnumbered by other demographics. The Muslim apologists on this blog can’t see it, but Sadiq Khan didn’t get to be mayor of London without first becoming capo di tutti Muslims, if you’ll forgive my attempt at Italian. Quite simply, Khan is a Muslim warlord.

        • cacheton

          Judging by the times on your posts, you are in America, East Coast… Is that right? Are you American? And yes, judging from the presidential candidates, America is a spectacular example of the failure of education. Here in the UK we are, well different, not sure if we are much better.

          • The Explorer

            No, I’m British. But I’m a partial invalid with a chronic heart condition; so it’s early to bed and early to rise. That may account for my off-kilter posting times.

          • big

            I had a nickname for you once ‘ the spider’ just the slightest tremble on the web and you’re out like a flash! of course now you have explained your condition i understand…… no offence i hope.

          • The Explorer

            None. I’m at my computer a lot because I cant do more energetic stuff any more. I wish I could.

          • big

            Explorer since you’re online can you help me? some one called ‘linus’ ? used to comment i think he changed his name and now all his comments appear to have been deleted, why? thanks in advance.

          • The Explorer

            Linus was on for as long time as linus and gave himself an elaborate identity. Half-French, in his 50’s, attended a private English boarding school, three properties in France inherited from rich grandfather and including a chateau, long engagement to Frenchman followed by gay marriage.
            Then he deleted himself and became In Perfect Ignorance: British, heterosexual, married for four years. Then he deleted himself and became,(I forget the exact order) SpongeBob Squarepants, Tenkai, Tutanekai, Bob, citizen of the World, and Findarato, deleting each in turn.
            Reason? Hard to say exactly, but these seem to fit:
            1. Losing face by losing an argument (Although always a formidable opponent on a good day and very well informed).
            2. So that opponents would be unable to check up on assertions made earlier.
            3. The fun of seeing how long it took Cranmer readers to spot his new identity.
            Hope that helps. Watch out for the new avatar.

          • cacheton

            Don’t destroy your eyesight sitting in front of a small screen all day!

  • big

    its an Hegelian plot to deliberately create conflict in society….Hegelian Dialectics and Conspiracy http://www.biblebelievers.org.

    • Old Nick

      You mean by splitting infinitives ?

      • big

        Look it up…Hegelian Dialects and Conspiracy at Bible Believers.

        • Old Nick

          I think you mean dialectics – there is a difference.

          • big

            is that better?

          • Old Nick

            Thesis – Antithesis – Synthesis

          • big

            i am no expert what do you think?

  • Martin

    Looks like everyone is praising this blog – danger looms.

  • The Explorer

    A Martian trying to decipher democracy and its relation to power would be puzzled.
    London has more billionaires than any other city on Earth. You would expect, so the Martian might reason, for it it to be Tory. But most of the billionaires are not British, so some do not have a vote. The billionaires are serviced by an army of menials; many of whom DO have the vote. So those with the financial power are outvoted by those with the voting power. So which form of power prevails?

    Given a choice of names for a new boat, the public voted by a wide margin for Boaty McBoatface. Despite this majority opinion, the majority were overruled by the Science Minister, and the boat is to be given a name that was not even one of the other voting choices.

    The Martian would probably agree with the Science Minister that the public made a foolish choice of name. So the majority cannot be relied on to make the right decision. So if the majority gets it wrong, the majority can be overruled. So what was the reason for the vote in the first place? And what is the point of this thing democracy, by which Earthlings, or the Western section of them, seem to set so much store?

    • preacher

      Sounds like the E.U plan for us if we vote to leave their club in June Brother ! .

      • The Explorer

        Boaty MyBoatface is probably a parable for the EU.

  • northface

    I have to say I’m not convinced that British Moslems aren’t the enemy. Look anywhere you like in the world, Moslems make bad neighbours.

    • Anton

      The statement which caused controversy in Samuel Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations was that “Islam has bloody borders”.

  • peter the painter

    The thing that sets christianity apart is forgiveness. Without forgiveness, evil is easily justified.

    • cacheton

      I heard an Imam talking on BBC Radio 4’s Beyond Belief programme, must have been about a month ago now. He explained that God likes people to sin, because it gives him (God – oh I suppose that should be Allah shouldn’t it) a chance to show mercy, which I presume meant ‘forgive’.

      With forgiveness, evil is easily justified.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    Did anyone here watch last night’s episode of The Silk Road presented by Sam Willis?

    He was overplaying the achievements of mathematicians and astronomers in the regions ruled by Islam, at the same time “dissing” Europe in a way that reminded me of Terry Jones of Monty Python when he presents history of mathematics. So much so that She Who Rules The Cave was asking “Is he a Muslim”?

    Now I do understand the achievements of Al-Khwarizmi and others like him, probably to much greater depth than he does: and I am most happy to praise them from a mathematical point of view, and they certainly hastened the advancement of the subject by who knows how many centuries.

    But I could almost hear a snake hissing inside him as he spoke about this.

    • Anton

      The main thing the Muslims did was preserve the ancient Greek achievement in mathematics. To say they developed it greatly is not accurate; ‘slightly’ would be better. The Greeks began to be exceeded only in the Renaissance.

      • DP111

        I believe the main preservers were Christians and Jews. Muslims regard anything outside the body of the Koran irrelevant.

    • The thing is that it has NOTHING to do with Islam and Muslims anyway! Does anyone talk of all the great Europeans advancements and inventions as Christian achievements? It really does make my blood boil when idiots spout this Golden age of Islam BS.

    • Dreadnaught

      Deleted

  • DP111

    The first major mistake was to import millions of Muslims. Then to compound it, to give them all citizenship, without first noting that a Muslim’s allegiance is primarily to Islam.

    Now we are stuck with them for good, with Muslim population rising far faster then the rest. So the hope is that once they are a majority, Muslims will give the rest the same freedom as Muslims are given now.

    Some hope. At least the hope should be based on some example. There are none.

    When the penny drops, it may be too late. Spain did not,after hundreds of years of subjugation by Islam, turn over and die. They fought, and now are part of Western civilization, that has now been put at risk by a bunch of politicians unable to think beyond next Tuesday.

  • RonW

    Sadiq Khan is terrorist-sympathising filth.

  • Russell Brown

    Hammond has just done a speech about the “generational battle” between good and evil (i.e radical Islam).

    We can do without this nonsense from politicians. They are evil, we all are. It is about levels of evil not “good verses evil” and if he wants a “generational battle” can we do it with theological debate rather than expensive bombs?

    Anjem Choudury verses Christian theologian