Islam

The plot to terrorise the mushrikin of Manchester – where’s the analysis of this prophetology?

“‘Mecca is BELIEVED TO BE the birthplace of the Prophet Muhammad.’ Good to see the doubts over that breaking through!” tweeted historian Tom Holland, who knows a thing or two about the origins of Islam (which may no longer be uttered for fear of summary decapitation). But note the BBC’s use of the phrase ‘believed to be’, which is applied to Mohammed’s birthplace, not to his definite-article, upper-case prophethood, which is accepted and absolute. They affirm this on their Islam page: it appears to be BBC policy:

BBC Mohammed 2

Note the title “Prophet” is unquestioned: the use of ‘believe’ here is applied only to the Islamic understanding of revelation (ie the Qur’an). Contrast this with the BBC’s Christianity page:

BBC Jesus

See what they did there? The title is not ‘The Lord Jesus’, and ‘believe’ is applied to his messiahship, not to what Christians believe about the revelation of the Bible.

If “Jesus is believed by Christians to be the Christ – the Son of God”, why does the BBC not state: ‘Mohammed is believed by Muslims to be the Prophet – the seal or last of the prophets’? Why does their journalistic objectivity not stretch to casting a modicum of doubt on Mohammed’s prophethood, as it evidently does to Jesus’s messiahship? If Mohammed is ‘The Prophet’, why is Jesus not ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God‘ (Mt 16:16)? Is it that the BBC’s mind is already made up, and they can’t be bothered with the fallout of conflicting beliefs? And by ‘fallout’ here, we might again refer to the threats received by Tom Holland and Channel 4.

The problem with the BBC’s approach to Christianity is that it affirms the quranic (and so Mohammed’s) view of Jesus’s messiahship. Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but Mohammed says not: ‘God’s curse be on them..!’ (Surah 9:30); ‘How can He have a son when he hath no consort?’ (Surah 6:101). For Mohammed, the Incarnation was idolatry, as it remains for Muslims today. If Mohammed was a prophet inspired by Allah with this revelation, then the God of the Qur’an is not the same as the God of the Bible:

And they say, “The Most Merciful has begotten a son.”
You have come up with something monstrous (Surah 19:88f).

That is Jesus son of Mary — the Word of truth about which they doubt.
It is not for God to have a child—glory be to Him. To have anything done, He says to it, “Be,” and it becomes (Surah 19:35).

Say, “He is God, the One.
God, the Absolute.
He begets not, nor was He begotten.
And there is nothing comparable to Him” (Surah 112).

The Divine Sonship of Jesus is repudiated over and over again in the Qur’an: placing Jesus in the Godhead is shirk (repentable in life but unforgivable in death); those who believe it are mushrikin (polytheists; enemies of Islam). That word appears in the Statement issued by ISIS following the Manchester bombing:

Manchester mushrikin

Trinitarian Christians are mushrikin polytheists: the Islamist objective is to terrorise the mushrikin “in revenge for Allah’s religion”, for we are the Crusaders. And the theological justification for slaughtering the mushrikin children of Manchester is found in the Qur’an:

The Jews said, “Ezra is the son of God,” and the Christians said, “The Messiah is the son of God.” These are their statements, out of their mouths. They emulate the statements of those who blasphemed before. May God assail them! How deceived they are!
They have taken their rabbis and their priests as lords instead of God, as well as the Messiah son of Mary. Although they were commanded to worship none but The One God. There is no god except He. Glory be to Him; High above what they associate with Him.
They want to extinguish God’s light with their mouths, but God refuses except to complete His light, even though the disbelievers dislike it.
It is He who sent His Messenger with the guidance and the religion of truth, in order to make it prevail over all religions, even though the idolaters dislike it (Surah 9:30-33).

Amazing, isn’t it, that the BBC hasn’t expounded the prophetology behind this ISIS statement to bring a little light, a little understanding in the darkness and mourning. Who bothers to expound shirk and understand mushrikin? Far easier to leave the Prophet Mohammed inviolable. And so we sleepwalk on to the next atrocity, which will surely come, all because Christians call Jesus the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and so Allah’s curse is upon us.

  • Dominic Stockford

    Islam is monstrous. The BBC is monstrous. Jesus is Christ, and has already won the victory.

    • Arden Forester

      I just wonder whether all this helps. Jesus never condemned anyone but told us that there would be false prophets. He was critical of error and self-righteousness. The Pharisees were especially noted for their ways. Some Pharisees changed their ways, Nicodemus being one. Jesus desired all his sheep to be in the Fold. That includes those who have strayed, Muslims as well. We are to preach and teach but if they don’t want to listen then we are able to shake the dust from our shoes and depart. All judgement is God’s.

      All the carnage of today, the slights, the pains and the hurt, all these are wrapped up in the Crucifixion.

      • ecclesiaman

        Does all this help? Yes and no. It should enlighten the ignorant providing they are prepared to be open minded. Also it should instruct our politicians and social leaders providing they too are open minded.
        Prejudice and hearts that are blinded are the problem.
        Simply to let off frustration (and I am likely to be as guilty as the next) may make me feel better but will not accomplish much more.

  • David

    Oh how language often betrays our inner assumptions ! This close textual analysis, of what must have been a careful selection of words and language, reveals much regarding the BBC’s operating assumptions. But what else would you expect from the BBC ? Thank you and well done Cranmer.
    There is an ever increasing mountain of evidence that this taxpayer funded organisation has long since lost any journalistic integrity or objectivity. The BBC supports every faith, culture, political arrangement and attitude against western, British and especially Christian derived ideas, values and practices.
    As a body, I believe that it has done more than any other single organisation to confuse and undermine our nation. Even the politically naive – the laggards in opinion forming, are now, eventually becoming aware of just how distorted and destructive its programs are.
    As in so many areas of national life we see how the people, at least a majority of those people outside the M25, that is the ones with their feet on the ground, are way ahead of the craven MPs of the establishment parties in identifying what is wrong and what needs to be done. The BBC, like the NHS, represents the last of the socialist dinosaurs – all of which need a total rethink. Remove their near monopoly position !

  • Inspector General

    Rather obvious the BBC has deferred to its head of religious whatever, some muslim one understands, and he hath writ unchallenged.

  • Tom Paine

    The practical answer is surely that no Christian is going to attempt to kill anyone at the BBC for being neutral about Jesus’s believed status as Son of God. Isn’t it more a case of the better part of valour being discretion at the BBC than any theological axe being ground?

    • Merchantman

      This fact alone shows that Islam is unfit to have any place in a civilised society. No society can tolerate an existential threat which has parts thereof which cannot be freely and safely discussed.

  • Dreadnaught

    The Western world and the majority of one billion plus Muslims are in denial of the black heart at the core of Islam. The message is there for all to read, just a pity that the majority of followers are illiterate and don’t understand Arabic.
    Douglas Murray (pity he has to plug his new book) gets to the nub of the issue with Andrew Neil.

    • David

      Spot on ! Fact – countries without Muslims do not suffer terrorist attacks. But the politicos and their fellow travellers will not admit that their “no-borders, all faith are equal relativism” philosophy has always been bankrupt and lacks any attachment to reality.
      Either tough policies are introduced now or else the future will be grim.

      • bluedog

        The future is grim either way.

        • David

          One future I can think of is far more grim than the other scenario. But as it is a rare politician who speaks the straight truth and has the courage to accompany that trait, my money is on the worst of the two options. The politicos are all from the “talk much and do little school of politics”. The main aim of the establishment, across all the established parties, is to protect their privileges.

  • The book of Islamic law Reliance of the Traveller has this to say about shirk, the greatest sin in Islam:

    p1.1 Ascribing associates to Allah Most High means to hold that Allah has an equal, whereas He has created you, and to worship another with Him, whether it be a stone, human, sun, moon, prophet, sheikh, jinn, star, angel, or other.

    p1.3 The Koranic verses concerning this are very numerous, it being absolutely certain that whoever ascribes associates to Allah and dies in such a state is one of hell’s inhabitants, just as whoever believes in Allah and dies as a believer is one of the inhabitants of paradise, even if he should be punished first.

    Qur’anic verses such as 5:73, ‘Unbelievers are those that say: “Allah is one of three.” There is but one God. If they do not desist from so saying, those of them that disbelieve shall be sternly punished’ and 8:39, ‘Make war on them [the unbelievers] until idolatry is no more and Allah’s religion reigns supreme’, provide Muslims who are of a violent turn of mind with divine authority for slaughter.

    It’s hardly surprising that the pro-immigration, pro-multikulti BBC prefers not to dwell on the more unsavoury aspects of Islamization.

    • Merchantman

      My reading of what this means is that Islam is itself guilty of the one unpardonable sin- By denial of the Holy Spirit.

      • @ Merchantman—Islam certainly denies the Holy Spirit, teaching that, with the revelation of the Qur’an, Christianity became one of the ‘remnant cults now bearing the names of formerly valid religions’, in the words of section w4 of Reliance of the Traveller. In the eyes of Islam, Christianity is worthless.

        • Mike Stallard

          This is new. In the Turkish Empire, for example, Christians often were left completely alone and allowed to do business peacefully. Some of the great Muslim Moghuls did exactly the same. In the British Empire people like Muhammad Ali Jinnah attended our Christian Schools. We got on very well with Muslims on the whole.

          • Lucius

            Mike, as is often the case, the Turkish/Ottoman Empire is held up as some type of paragon of religious tolerance (usually while juxtaposed with the intolerance of Christendom). However, the Ottomans were anything but tolerant. What they understood (better than most) is that the slow grind of socio-economic pressure is far more effective at choking off Christianity relative to blood martyrdom (a mistake made by pagan Rome). Hence, the Ottoman enacted polices restricting Christians from participating in certain (lucrative) professions, prohibited spreading the Faith, prohibited the construction of new Churches or rehabilitation of old Churches, prohibited conversions of Muslims to Christianity, etc., etc. In other words, rather than face a martyrs death in the arena (which served only to galvanize the faithful), Christians were instead given every economic and social incentive to convert to Islam, or otherwise face a long-life of social and economic isolation, albeit in relative physical peace. Hardly tolerance in my opinion. And incredibly effective. The results speak for themselves, as Christianity is virtually extinguished in the Middle East.

          • Mike Stallard

            Allow me to wander a bit.
            Christians are being murdered in the Middle East as we speak. And these are some of the very first Christians too. That stinks. I also realise that the Turks are not very keen to have other religions in their territory too. Never have been. I agree. But tolerance was done – until the Empire began to break up (Greek War of Independence/ Bulgarian atrocities / Armenian massacres).
            I often wonder – and this is highly unpopular to say – if God Himself is using the Muslims to show the decadent and godless West that they are chucking away when they (we?) abandon our historic faith. Cyrus, after all, was hailed as the Messiah.
            I am not at all sure I would want to argue this however. Just a thought.

          • Lucius

            “But tolerance was done – until the Empire began to break up”

            Not to belabor the point, but again, I would challenge this assertion of tolerance. Christians in the Ottoman Empire were effectively second-class citizens. They may have not faced the lions in the arena, but they did endure weighty social and economic burdens (with only infrequent and limited violent purges), which would be lifted only if they converted to Islam. I would submit that this form of oppression (i.e., the slow, inglorious grind of social and economic pressure) was vastly more effective at choking off Christianity then the occasional dramatic Christian bloodletting by angry pagan Roman Emperors.

          • @ Mike Stallard—Not really new. St Augustine’s home, Hippo, fell to Islam in 698. Ernest Renan wrote in 1883 that ‘Islam has been liberal when weak, and violent when strong’ and, for a good part of its history, Islam was indeed a weak faith held in check by a powerful Christian West—the period when we got on well with Muslims. These days, the West is so weak that it allows its territory and its way of life to be overrun by Islam.

          • Anna

            In Christian nations occupied by the Ottoman empire, there was a steady decline in the proportion of Christians with respect to Muslims. The Mughals are a good ‘example’ of Islamic tolerance – Akbar the Great, the contemporary of Elizabeth I, who ruled Mughal India at its zenith, was barely Muslim himself; he displayed tolerance to people of all religions, and even designed a new syncretic faith. The pendulum swung the other way under his great-grandson, Aurangazeb – a Mughal version of Ayatullah Khomeni, whose efforts to Islamise India contributed to the eventual break-up of his empire.

            So there is always this unpredictability with Muslim rule- a benevolent ruler is followed sooner or later by an Islamic fundamentalist tyrant. Despite the freedom enjoyed under Ataturk in Turkey, the Turks now prefer an Islamist tyrant like Erdogan. The Sultan of Brunei is in favour of Sharia law. Today, Dubai has a very tolerant Emir, but who knows whether his successors will follow his example.

            “We got on very well with Muslims on the whole.”
            The Muslim nations were always very good at manipulating the West when the latter are in the ascendant, and biding their time. Watch the youtube interview of Pakistan’s General Durrani by Mahdi Hasan, where he actually boasts of having ‘fooled’ the Americans – after taking billions of dollars from them – in the war on terror.

          • Mike Stallard

            Thank you for a very instructive post.

  • bluedog

    One admires your courage, Your Grace, for blaspheming the prophet. One trusts that you have taken cyber precautions, sufficient thereof to deflect the sword of a warrior of Islam seeking to leave this blog awash in the crimson of your cyber blood. Your communicant proposes to build a cyber-chantry where a conclave, host or bevy of monks (collective noun?) may pray for your immortal soul. Of course, it is this fear which reduces every politician to something approaching silence in the face of Islamic atrocity.

    • Richard Hill

      To Bluedog: you mention cyber precautions. One defence strategy used in cyber war is to have a “honeypot” to attract attackers and make them more visible. Can you suggest a “honeypot” that might bring real brainwashed future attackers out into the light?

      • bluedog

        You may be looking at it.

  • Inspector General

    Does the BBC have armed guards? They damn well should have!

    If these devils can imagine dead schoolgirls and their parents as Crusaders, then they’ll have no problem viewing the BBC as the premier site of Christian propaganda in the UK. That it hasn’t been that for 50 years and today is anything but will not deter them.

    • David

      Do you underestimate the sophistication of these people ? Are the Muslim terrorists so naive as to be unable to distinguish between their “useful idiots”, like the BBC, and the genuine supporters of western thought, culture, nations and the Christian faith.

      • Inspector General

        If there was more of a command structure between ISIS HQ and muslim terrorists in the UK, we might catch a few more before an atrocity instead of rounding them up after. So, we can assume they’re pretty much free to decide at ground level who to go for.

        Remember the humorous cartoon depiction of anarchist terrorists from a few decades back. Dressed in raincoat, floppy hat and holding a round bomb with a lit fuse. And laughing. One believes that that is the extent of their sophistication. Bomb and shoot and run down what you can, when you can. And try if possible to avoid injuring Allah’s bearded or burka clad followers.

        • Manfarang

          I can remember the less than humorous car bomb.

  • Martin

    The BBC hate real Christianity, it’s a PC liberal stronghold. Simples

    As for Islam, it confuses three persons with three gods, not a mistake that God would make.

    • Coniston

      I can understand why some people (including Muslims) can be confused when Christians speak of the Trinity. As you say, three persons, not three gods. The deepest Christian understanding of God is that He is personal. Therefore it is both natural and necessary that, using human language as we have to, we should use family words. After all, Jesus called God Father, and Himself the Son. So we also use these family words – Father, Son (and Holy Spirit). I understand (I am not a theologian) that the term for this mutual indwelling of the Three Persons is Perichoresis. But it is obviously difficult for many (including many Christians!) to grasp.

  • Arden Forester

    I would dearly love the discussion to rise above what the BBC thinks. Currently politicians speak in glib soundbites and “celebrities” take to the airwaves with sentimental talk. All well meant but does not get to the heart of the problem.

    ISIS, Al-Queda and other like minded outfits all claim to be Islamic. Andy Burnham, Theresa May, Tim Farron and others tell us “this has nothing to do with Islam”. In the meantime not much is done to fill the gaps of ignorance and little knowledge.

    I am trying to find out about Islam. Why did Muhammad wage war with the Meccans and others? Was he brutal, did he have child brides? It seems early apostates came to a sticky end. What is the difference now between Saudis flogging and beheading people and Muhammad and his followers doing the same thing? I read that the “religion of peace” is only such for those who stick to the rules within Islam. They get a relatively peaceful life. But kafirs are not so lucky.

    Over the years I have met some very nice, decent Muslims but every single one appeared to me to be having an inner struggle with being a Muslim in the West. Some drank alcohol, some found it hard to check if food was halal. Some find questions about Islam difficult to answer. “Why is the crescent moon so important?” I once asked. Embarrassed response. Some find fasting hard and the “community” pressure that comes with it. Quite a few try to escape the community and this causes heartfelt dilemmas quite often.

    I have been called a cross-worshipper and had harsh words said. Some very curious situations too. Once sitting in a pub having a drink with a Muslim friend and another man he knew. Somehow being in the pub was OK with this acquaintance, having a drink was OK but when I ate a pork pie (only thing on offer apart from crisps!), the roof nearly fell in. I got rebuked severely and somehow it all ended with him telling me “You f…ked our country, we’re here to f..k yours!”

    My only occasion with the Muslim “community” in Manchester was visiting a terraced house of a respected elder. I’d already had a brief lesson in understanding roughly how terms like “brother” and “uncle” were bandied about from a chap who thought I needed my English reserve remedying. He’d say things like “you really need to know, you do”. So, with another Muslim friend who knew this elder (friend was after “block votes”!), we entered this house. The front room was stuffed with men in traditional dress. I was sort of alarmed but not too much so. A few men came towards the door. Quite tall they were. Looked me over with a slightly menacing look. As if by telepathy my friend blurts out “Oh, he’s OK. He’s same as us down below”. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. And trusted to luck that no checks would be made.

    I have no idea if those who I have met are typical. Somehow today I feel opinions have hardened. On both sides. But without understanding the cultural and religious background of Islam and Muslims we are not going to get to a really peaceful conclusion.

    • Dreadnaught

      With internet access there is no excuse apart from laziness or a closed mind, to learn what Islam is about. Tom Holland was under threat of death for making an objective investigation TV programme that was pulled by C4 when the threats came in.
      It will assist you if you inspect these links, just two of many available.
      http://historyofjihad.org/
      http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

      • Arden Forester

        Oh, I use the internet alright. I suppose I’ve been learning about Islam for about 40 years. Trouble is it’s politicians and others who keep muddying the waters. Finding answers is not always easy. For example, the Didsbury mosque people going on TV and saying they know nothing about “modesty” leaflets and bad preachers and then the Sun newspaper reveals a number of “hate preachers” have been in the very building.

        Makes one wonder whether Andy Burnham and his Chief Constable Hawkins are wise men or foolish.

        • Dreadnaught

          Make your mind up. You said I am trying to find out about Islam. I responded to that with no intention of ‘muddying the waters’ Then you come along making excuses that in 40 years you have not yet come to a conclusion about the history and nature of Islam which I doubt you ever will. Just ask yourself, did Jesus preach love and forgiveness? (even atheists attest to this as the core of Christian belief); did Mohammad preached unmitigated submission backed by violence? In any event, Muslims worship the cult of Muhammad not Allah.

          • Arden Forester

            My goodness you’re a fiery one. Get any more heated and you could be seen as being in the same camp as those you are denouncing. I wasn’t thinking of you when I said politicians were muddying the waters. If you wish to attack in such a vituperative way you won’t get me on side. I suggest a little more temperance.

          • Dreadnaught

            You said politicians and others. I dont give a FF if you are too dumb to come to a conclusion after 40 years trying to understand Islam. I tried to be helpful. If I sound angry, your damned right. Last week 22 people are dead and 50 in hospital with life changing injuries. I have a right to be angry. The Meek won’t influence Islam.

          • Lucius

            There’s a saying American, “sh* t or get off the pot.”

          • David

            Correct !

          • David

            Dreadnaught’s point is valid. You state that you have been examining Islam for 40 years, understand much about its dark side; additionally you have clearly had a number of close up unpleasant experiences of it.
            But then paradoxically you claim to be confused by the actions, or rather inactions, of politicians, saying “Finding answers is not always easy”. My “punt” is that you are probably a liberal fence sitter who refuses to follow through to the logical conclusion that the facts clearly support ?

          • Dreadnaught

            Precisely.

          • Mike Stallard

            Well actually the love of God does break through from time to time. It really does. Ramadan is Karim – generous, for example. Then there is the chivalry of Saladin. I was congratulated by an old man in a cafe because my wife and were still in love – that took courage from a stranger. I have just come back from Abu Dhabi which is Muslim all through. It compares very favourably with UK. And yes, I did notice the poor too.

          • Dreadnaught

            I’m sure the vast majority are decent human beings but there is something fundamentally wrong and incompatible with Islam within Western culture.

          • Mike Stallard

            Indeed, but remember it works the other way round too. They still see us as unwashed, uncivilized people who actually eat pork and get drunk and who do not know how to behave in a civilized way.

          • Anton

            Some of us are. Just like some of them have 4 wives, divorce at the drop of a hat, groom young white girls… need I go on? We should all be careful of generalisations.

          • Mike Stallard

            Without generalisations, where would we be? Life depends on judgement – good judgement. Of individuals. Are you married? Do you go to work?
            I am thinking of making a list of all the things which I find offensive in Islam. Then I shall try to make a list of all the things Muslims find offensive in us. After that, it will be time to work on the list!

    • Damaris Tighe

      I think you should have been worried the moment the muslim guy hit the roof because you ate a pork pie in the pub. It’s outrageous on so many accounts – your country, your dietary customs, an English pub. Who does he think he is? A coloniser?

      • Arden Forester

        I think I remember being flabbergasted. I have come to the conclusion some brains are wired more or less 100% differently from mine. Try as I may, short circuits and blown fuses seem to aid the confusion and misunderstanding.

        • Merchantman

          Islam undoubtedly induces and promotes a highly Verkrampt state of mind. This makes it hard for some Muslims to live in a Western country. The Koran then comes to the rescue of those fully afflicted by forbidding friendship with Kuffars and goes all the way through to licensing striking off of heads etc.
          In psychological terms this looks as if it engenders a kind of deep paranoid schizophrenia in susceptible adherents. Which if this ain’t satanic nothing is.

          • Mike Stallard

            “2084” delves very deeply into this. It is a very thinly disguised book by a Muslim about the Verkrampt state of mind of the Ummah. Starting with the fact that all words in the language have to have only three letters…

        • Mike Stallard

          Mine was unthinkingly eating a huge pork knuckle opposite my son’s father-in-law in Ikea. Muslims have a sticking place on pork. They can deal with alcohol.
          He was afraid, I was told afterwards, that he might get splashed.
          I am disgusted by the parade of virtue that is Islam – just as Jesus seems to have been by the scribes and Pharisees. It works both ways. Public Prayer – YUCK!

        • Cressida de Nova

          You have had a valuable experience and one that can only be attained by in depth, first hand contact with another culture.The differences between culturally and ideologically opposed people are innate and can never be reconciled…a sensible idea for not placing them in a situation where they are expected to live harmoniously together, particularly when violence and paedophila is part of the creed. It is doomed to failure. Multiculturalism works and is enriching providing diversity to the host culture, e.g.in terms of art, food and music, if the cultures share a common belief system such as Christianity and pose no threat to the host inhabitants.

      • Dreadnaught

        That’s it in a pie crust.

      • Coniston

        ‘Who does he think he is? A coloniser?’ Yes.

      • Anton

        He showed himself.

    • john in cheshire

      There isn’t going to be a peaceful conclusion and muslims know that. Unfortunately, on our side, too many think that if we’re nice to muslims, muslims will be nice to us. That is never going to happen. Never.
      The end times are going to be violent and bloody beyond anything that has gone before and Jesus will be leading our armies. The truth is that in the end, our Lord Jesus and we, His followers will win. But, as might be expected from the followers of satan, their book tells them that they will win. So until the end times arrive, muslims will continue satan’s plan to rule everyone on the earth.

  • IanCad

    There are things that I am but knew not what they were. This blog helps me understand such mysteries.
    That I am perceived as an “Infidel” by the Muslim commissariat, I have always known. Nor does the label “Kuffaar” come as a surprise. Now I am the proud bearer of two other appellations; “Shirk” – my wife calls me one but I paid no attention; and “Mushrik” which assigns me to the ranks of the “Mushrikeen.” Heady stuff to learn in just one day.
    This whole Islam thing is just too complicated. I’ll take the simplicity of the Gospel, the sacrifice of Christ, and rest on His Mercy. Amen.

  • Merchantman

    I was interested to see Prince of Wales is chief supporter of the new Islamic centre at Oxford university. It would be interesting to see if this is to be a place where Islam types and others can examine, or even dare one say, Challenge Islam Objectively or if it is going to be another of those undemocratic safe places where Un-British ideas and useful idiots can be allowed space to flourish.

    • David

      Good question. The distinction is a vital one.

      • Merchantman

        If a place for discussion it will need to be safe-eh?

    • Royinsouthwest

      The same question should be asked of all British universities, and possibly all universities in the West, that have departments of Islamic studies.

      • Coniston

        For the last 50 years or so the Saudis, and the Gulf States, have spent tens of billions in funding Islamic Centres in our universities (here and abroad) and building mosques throughout the Western world. At the same time, of course, the Saudis will not permit a single Christian church to be built there. We must be – we are – quite mad.

        • Mike Stallard

          And the bell in the Catholic Church in Dubai was presented by the Emir. And in Abu Dhabi there are two Catholic Churches.

          • Coniston

            I said the Saudis did not permit churches.

          • Mike Stallard

            Totally right! They do not. And any form of Christianity is also forbidden in Abu Dhabi Schools and Saudi ones as well. All I was trying to do was to soften your remark.

    • bluedog

      ‘However, Abdel Sabur Shahin, another university director, said the prince had adopted “positions close to Islam and Muslims, something no one else of his importance has done”.

      The honorary doctorate was supposed to “encourage him to befriend Muslims in Great Britain and to support Islam against the obstacles it faces in Europe”, he added.’

      Comment about HRH Prince of Wales in 2008 after he was awarded an honorary Islamic doctorate by an Egyptian university.

  • magnolia

    Still striking me how very very odd, inaccurate, and deeply dim and super-unobservant it is to describe those going to this concert as “crusaders” as though it was some gathering of deeply committed Christians.

    Which also makes clear that they are not the more intelligent Muslims nor gifted nor inspired people making these silly statements, as they have not understood:

    a) Crusaders is not really a term modern Christians use
    b) Keen Christians are not sold on “empowered” sexual performances usually.
    c) There was probably close to zero Christian content. At most there would have been a several generation watered-down spasmodic vaguely Christian vocabulary inadvertently breaking through at odd times.
    d) There would have been little overlap between dress codes as advised in the NT and those observable there. Nevertheless Christians are expected to show inner purity rather than outer, regardless of how people are dressed… through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which empowers us. Severe outward impositions we consider as desperate measures from the unself-controlled and unself-controllable. Hence we tolerate different dress codes and do not threaten violence. We do not advocate them.

    We should, certainly, by the Holy Spirit , be able to sort the problem.

    • David

      Use of that most inappropriate term “crusaders” is a linguistic device to demonise and dehumanise their victims – it reinforces their sense of us being “the other”, which we are of course but for far more complicated reasons than being in any meaningful sense Christian “crusaders”.

      Having read the lyrics used by the performer, and grasped its deep depravity, I very much doubt whether any cultural Christian, let alone a committed believer, would have been present or allowed their child to attend.

      Basically they hate us because we are not Muslims and because the Koran instructs them most clearly, repeatedly and emphatically to harry us, hurt us, and even kill us. That is the simple bottom line that the media, the security services and especially the politicians are still trying to deny. But fewer and fewer believe that falsehood any more, because they say to themselves, sorry I believe my eyes which don’t lie !

  • Lucius

    The reaction by the Western media/academic elite to unrelenting Islamic aggression within the belly of Europe shows a civilization in a complete state paralysis. We are caught between the hammer of Islam and the anvil of our own values of tolerance and diversity that have become distorted (and now, even harmful) under liberal thought. The “but not all” argument advanced by the left is a formula for inaction and cultural death. Certainly, not all Muslims are terrorists or seek or support Western subjugation to Islam, but that fact is inconsequential. There is a cultural component at play, a collective psychology, if you will, that does not lend itself neatly to an “individual-by-individual” analysis.

    The Texas War for Independence from Mexico is a good example. There, the Mexican government initially invited Anglos to settle and develop the sparsely populated province of Tejas (modern State of Texas). But the number of Anglos soon exceeded the Spanish. They had a different language (English), a different religion (Protestantism) and a different sense of cultural identity (i.e., many saw themselves as American-Anglos first, not Mexicans). Once the number of Anglo-Americans hit critical mass, and the culture shifted, it mattered not that “but not all” Anglo settlers were hostile to the Mexican government. The die had been cast. In short, culture matters, and cultures of countries and places can and do shift, sometimes dramatically, and over a short period of time, as the Texas case shows.

    What does it mean for us today? We need to dispense with the “but not all” paralysis, recognize the vast Islamic-east and secular/Christian-west cultural differences, and make an informed decision about whether or not Islamizing or adding an “Islamic flavor” to Western countries is in our best long-term interests. If we decided that Islamization (whether complete or to some certain extent) is a good thing, then so be it. But the idea that there is no cultural component at play or that Muslim immigrants will magically assimilate and become “Western” (there is not a single historical example of this that I can find) I believe is pure folly.

    • Chefofsinners

      Exactly right. The great folly of modern Europe has been multi-culturalism. An arrogant optimism that we can in our day achieve something which has been impossible throughout history, namely for competing cultures to peacefully coexist within one society. Different shades of the same culture can and do rub along reasonably well most of the time, but not fundamentally opposed values and religions. Multiculturalism has been a secularist project, implicitly assuming that religious belief was irrelevant and would soon die out, leaving a utopia of uniform hedonism, with culture reduced to different costumes and the odd carnival. How wrong they have been, and what a disaster they now have on their hands.

      • bluedog

        No surprise that those who fervently opposed Brexit are the die-hard multiculturalists. They’ll go down fighting of course, unable to accept that the beliefs formed in their youth were false.

    • IanCad

      A superb post Lucius. I only just now read it. Some comfort though, in the fact that the Alamo – or its modern day equivalent is still a long way off.

      • Lucius

        Thanks for sharing. Yes, the United States has a serious problem on its hands with its southern border. History teaches that blurred borders often result in changed borders. Mexico itself was on the receiving end of this history lesson from its northern neighbor not too long ago. Now it appears the pendulum is swinging back the other way with greater Hispanization of the southwestern United States. American liberals, like European liberals, cling to the idea that culture, in effect, does not matter, which is to say, you can insert, without limit, social divisions through language, habits, customs, historical experience, religious habits, etc. (i.e., multiculturalism) and it will have no lasting impact on the host society. There is absolutely no historical example in support of this idea (that I am aware of), but it is nevertheless, an idea which liberals (worldwide) cling to fervently and curse as bigots anyone who would dare to disagree. In the end, this very idea that they champion may be the undoing of liberalism, whether by the importation of an illiberal culture that overtakes the host culture or by a host country population that dramatically turns against liberalism in response to an existential threat to the host country culture.

  • Chefofsinners

    This is dealt with in 1 John 4. 600 years before Satan invented Islam, this was written:

    Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
    1 John 4 verses 1-4.

  • Linus

    Waah! The BBC takes their sky fairy more seriously than mine! Waah! Nobody listens to me any more! Waah! I knew it was a bad idea to stop burning people alive – they used to have to listen when we could kill them. Now they listen to that other bunch of thugs who use violence to get what they want. And it’s just not fair!

    Waaaah!

    • Lucius

      Careful in your celebratory ridicule. Replace a Christian-centric culture with an Islamic-centric culture and you might not like the results, regardless of whatever your opinion may be on religion.

      • Mike Stallard

        And take a look at “Submission” by that Frenchman with a silly name too.

        • Dreadnaught

          Why not google it first before you make an even bigger gaff.

          • Mike Stallard

            Gaff? i was making a point! Having read the book and thoroughly enjoyed it before passing it on, I wouldn’t hesitate to look it up – again.
            Houllebecq

          • Dreadnaught

            Theo van Gogh/Ayaan Hirsi Ali: “Submission” pt 1 – YouTube
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGtQvGGY4S4
            Short film by Dutch movie maker Theo van Gogh in association with Ayaan Hirsi Ali. The film deals with the opression of women in many Muslim countries.

          • Anton

            What gaffe? Submission is by Michel Houellebecq.

      • Linus

        Careful of what? There’s no prospect of an Islamic state in Europe. You can’t scare us into obedience by threatening us with imaginary bogeymen, you know. We don’t believe in your make-believe monsters, or hadn’t you realised?

        • Maalaistollo

          Tell that to the people in the Balkans.

        • Lucius

          I can imagine a Byzantine Emperor making the same remarks. Constantinople with its formidable walls, and its nearly 2000 year old Roman heritage could never fall to the hordes of Islam. But Byzantium did fall. And the entire Middle East and North Africa, the birth place of Christianity, was vanquished in a little more than a few centuries.

          You, like many others, have a certain hubris about Westernism. You see the incredible progress of the West as the natural order of things. You think it invincible. You think Western society indestructible. You’re a fool. Take a longer view of history, and not so long ago the Muslims were at the Gates of Vienna (1529). If you think you can invite vast numbers of Muslims into the European continent and there will not be some measure of Islamization, if not total, then again, you’re a fool with virtually no appreciation of history.

          The irony is that of all people Linus, folks like you, arguably have the most to lose from greater Islamization. Think it will never happen? I wish you could speak to Emperor Constantine XI Palaliologos, maybe he would throw a bucket of cold water on your hubris.

          • Anna

            While I agree with much of what you write, your post misses the point that Constantinople fell because the Christians had departed from the truth of the gospel to embrace pagan ways, as evidenced by the spread of icon veneration (a practice opposed by some Byzantine emperors, notably Leo III). This is a much debated topic to this day and, I remember watching an interview on youtube of some Greek Orthodox Christians justifying iconolatry against the old charge that this was the reason for God’s judgment. There is an interesting book on the topic – “She smiled on Constantinople” by Reynold Spector. We see something similar happening in the West today with the legalisation of abortion and gay marriage.

          • Lucius

            The Byzantine Empire fell for a variety of reasons. In general, a combination of internal weaknesses combined with an external threat (Islam), although some opine that the sack and rape of Constantinople by western Christian crusaders, invited to help with Islamic aggression, was, in effect, the death blow to Byzantium.

            Aside from that, as an Orthodox Christian (and former Anglican/Episcopalian), I can affirm that icon veneration is not icon worship. When we kiss the icon of Christ, we are not worshiping the wood and paint of the icon. The icon is a mere symbol of Christ, not the object of worship. No different than if you look at a picture of a family member and feel a sense of love and adoration and keep the picture close. Certainly, you don’t love the ink and film upon which the picture is printed; instead, you love what the picture represents, the actual person of your loved one. The same is true with icons.

          • Anna

            “In general, a combination of internal weaknesses…”
            I agree, but my point is the main internal weakness was spiritual in nature.

            “The icon is a mere symbol of Christ, not the object of worship…”
            The apostles did not use icons, and neither should we. It is a bit of dangerous paganism that entered the church. A photo is an actual representation- and there is no reason to venerate it as part of worship- but none of us has seen Christ or the Virgin during their earthly lives.

          • Lucius

            Respectfully, I disagree. Even the earliest “underground” Churches, i.e., those in the Roman catacombs, had paintings of our Lord and Savior. Pictures were used both as worship aids (i.e. icons) and for instructive reasons (most folks were illiterate, so pictures explained Christ’s life). And the mere fact none of us has seen Christ misses the mark, because all of us believe and know that Christ actually existed in the flesh and in physical form. People actually saw and touched God in the flesh. Thus, the physical body of Christ is itself in a way an icon or physical representation of the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) on Earth.

          • Martin

            Lucius

            And there were serious errors and heresies in the Apostolic Church. The presence of those pictures merely tells us that idolatry had infected the Christians.

          • Lucius

            Again, I think this a bit silly. Parts of Christianity were influenced, however, by Islam, which strictly prohibits any physical representation of God whatsoever as a grievous offense. But that was never Christianity. After all, God Himself came in physical form to this Earth. God was part of the physical world. As such, I see no folly in making physical representations, i.e., Churches, Icons, Crosses, etc., reminding us of or celebrating His Glory.

          • Martin

            Lucius

            You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
            (Exodus 20:4-5 [ESV])

            Seems pretty clear to me.

          • Lucius

            Your interpretation is inapposite to the actual practice of ancient Christianity and indeed, even the law-minded ancient Jews. For example, two gilded cherubim (figure of an angel) adorned the innermost room of Solomon’s Temple. (1 Kings 6:27). A pre-Christ ancient synagogue recently unearthed is also adorned with mosaic renderings of OT stories (see link below). Respectfully, you are following a later interpretation that is not reflected in actual ancient practice.

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/mosaic-synagogue-huqoq-israel-magness-archaeology/

          • Martin

            Lucius

            That a synagogue has been unearthed with pictures proves nothing. The passage I quoted is perfectly clear. And, for example, the bronze serpent later became an object of worship and was destroyed.

          • Lucius

            I think we will have to agree to disagree about this one friend. Good discussion nonetheless.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes.
            Also, at some heights of iconoclasm, the cross was substituted as a symbol or sign of Christianity and His suffering – in place of the figural ‘image’. Thus, In the AD720s the iconoclast party erected a tablet above the great gate of the imperial palace in Constantinople – in place of the figure.

            Perhaps that is why, in England, e.g., the Church at that time erected stone crosses and used the motif of crossed threads (interlace) – only later adopting representations of His earthly form.

          • Martin

            Lucius

            Look at the origin of ‘veneration and you’ll see it means worship:

            Middle English veneracioun, borrowed from Anglo-French & Latin; Anglo-French veneratiun, borrowed from Latin venerātiōn-, venerātiō “act of soliciting the good will (of a deity), demonstration of respect or awe,” from venerārī “to solicit the good will of (a deity), hold in awe, venerate” + -tiōn-, -tiō, suffix of action nouns
            [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/veneration]

            I have no doubt that you’d have been stoned in ancient Israel for venerating something or someone.

          • Lucius

            I think you are engaging in a useless exercise in semantics while ignoring the substance of the matter. The substance is that any Orthodox Christian will tell you they are not worshipping wood and paint or the created icon itself. The icon is a mere physical representation of Christ, as Christ Himself was a physical representation of God. To use a wordly example, I do not love the film and ink of the picture of my wife sitting on my office desk, but I love my wife who is pictured therein. I keep my wife’s picture close to me when I travel, as a reminder of her, not out of some affection for the physical picture itself. Moreover, Protestant Churches, like all Churches, are filled with the sign of the Cross. Certainly, Christians do not worship the object of the Cross. Instead, they worship what the Cross represents, which is, Christ Jesus and His passion. Hopefully, this makes sense.

          • Martin

            Lucius

            Words have meanings, and what I see them doing is worshipping. They may try to put up a semantic smokescreen but veneration is clearly the same as worship. Remember, we are commanded not to make an image of God, it is very different from having an image of your wife. The church I attend, as with all churches I have been a member of since I was saved, does not have any crosses. That would be idolatry.

          • Lucius

            I think you are following the later schools of thought prohibiting any physical representation of God that were influenced by Muhammad and the rapid rise of Islam. Regardless, I do not have any issue with Christians choosing to abstain from the use of idols or crosses if they genuinely feel it distracts from their worship or makes them feel more distant from God and our Lord and Savior. However, I simply disagree that Christ or the early Church prohibited the use of any physical representation of God as a worship aid. Taking this position to its logical extreme, a fair argument can be made that the Bible, as a physical representation of the Word, is itself idolatrous.

          • Martin

            As in:

            You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me,
            (Exodus 20:4-5 [ESV])

          • Lucius

            Your interpretation is inapposite to the actual practice of ancient Christianity and indeed, even the law-minded ancient Jews. For example, two gilded cherubim (figure of an angel) adorned the innermost room of Solomon’s Temple. (1 Kings 6:27). A pre-Christ ancient synagogue recently unearthed is also adorned with mosaic renderings of OT stories (see link below). Respectfully, you are following a later interpretation that is not reflected in actual ancient practice of either Judaism or Christianity.

            I think the ancient Jews, like the ancient Christians, could clearly distinguish between worshipping a created “god” (e.g., the golden calf) and worshipping God by bowing to the Cross (or in the case of the Jews toward the Holy of Holies) as an act of worshipping the uncreated God and not the created object of the cross itself (i.e., the wood, nails, paint, etc.). This also gets at God knowing where your heart is, does it not? Psalm 44:21 (“Would not God find this out? For He knows the secrets of the heart”).

            http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/07/mosaic-synagogue-huqoq-israel-magness-archaeology/

            *I made the same comment to you below.

          • David Harkness

            They were at the gates of Vienna again in 1683, persistent lot arn’t they.

    • Mike Stallard

      Much better to be an atheist like Pol Pot, Mao, or Josef Stalin.
      These were all men of peace and love and they most certainly had not got any imaginary friends.

      • Dreadnaught

        No – they give all atheist a bad name if their atheism is what they are being measured by.

        • Mike Stallard

          I think he’s got it…

      • Linus

        Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao all believed in religions of their own making, in which they exercised ultimate power. 20th century communism bears many of the hallmarks of a religion. Unsurprising when you consider that men schooled in religion were its first adepts.

        In any case, had the Crusaders, or any of the Christian tsars, or men like Torquemada, had access to 20th century technology, the body count would have been just as high.

        • Mike Stallard

          I am not convinced by either point, I am afraid.

          • Linus

            Then you’re not much of a Christian, are you?

            “Be not afraid…”

        • Anton

          Actually I agree. If you want to see what Christianity really is, though, read the New Testament – and remember that a peaceable minority of dissenters got persecuted by insitutional “Christians”.

        • Martin

          Linus

          Just like you.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Grow up.

    • Inspector General

      Why do you come here and belittle a rather sensible belief in a creator when the alternative is that we somehow are what we are starting with the interactions of dry rock dust. You yourself believe in the homosexual fraternity, which is somewhat respected here. That is your god. It doesn’t really make sense that you be this way. What lies behind your rage. If it’s HIV, then look, we are compassionate towards those who suffer…

    • Martin

      Linus

      Remember, your god is Linus and we know how weak he is.

  • Mike Stallard

    At the beginning of the film, “Slumdog Millionaire”, which is set in India, Muslims (presumably) break into his slum, kill his Mum and leave him an orphan. When I saw the film, I was very grateful that it could never happen here.
    How very wrong I was. Ibn Khaldun tells how barbarians always break in when a society gets decadent and unable to fight for itself. Our society is at that stage now. The future is destruction and then, after a couple of centuries, rebirth.

    • David Harkness

      Bless you Mike in your innocence. You should know that no lefty director would ever portray Muslims as aggressors. No it is the Muslims who are the victims of a vicious Hindu gang. Clues are:

      1. The gorgeous actress playing the boy’s mother, Muslims are attractive people and must be shown as such in the media.

      2. The boys surname is Malik, and their Christian names are Salim and Jamal. These are Muslim names.

      There are probably other clues too, but I do believe that in he scene you refer to, a member of the hindu gang shouts the word ‘Muslims’.

      • Mike Stallard

        Oh dear and Ouch!
        Wrong again!

  • Susan Longley

    Alasdair MacIntyre wrote many years ago that “… the barbarians are not waiting beyond the frontiers” (see After Virtue) and that begs the question… Who allowed this to happen? Some possible answers:

    http://claytestament.blogspot.ca/2017/04/rod-drehers-wake-up-call.html

  • Could it have anything to do with the fact that the BBC having in 2009 until last year 2016 a Muslim Mr Aaquil Ahmed as head of religion and ethics across all of its output? He was replaced after accusing the C of E of living in the past and broadcasting Songs of Praise frm the Calais jungle migrant camp by another Muslim Mrs Fatima Salaria who has already caused controversy by promoting terrorist sympathisers in BBC content. She argues that “it’s important we hear authentic voices from a number of backgrounds so that we do not get our prejudices confirmed”.

    We should all write letters of complaint to the biased BBC. Thanks to HG for pointing this out.

    • betteroffoutofit

      Yes, Marie, I agree we should complain. But to the Beeb itself?
      That’s a waste of time, I’ve found – whether by mail, or phone, or ‘other.’
      All you’ll get is some ‘form letter’ response, or frutstrating chat from a patronising idiot who’s been trained to prevaricate.
      These are they who have ears, but who will not hear: even though they expect everyone to hear (and see) them.

      • I was reading that apparently there were about 100 complaints including one from MP Bill Cash about Aaquil Ahmed’s comment on the C of E and that episode of SOP. He was replaced, BUT reading about Mrs Fatima Salaria, it seems she is ten times worse!

        She says “The BBC needs to give more of a voice to muslims”, and that it needs more people like her to stand up and say “This is our community and this is how we want these programs to be made”. But, she did say that she wants more religion and Christianity to be at the heart of their coverage. Looks like we are going to be getting a diet of more programs on radicalisation along the lines of “British Jihadi Brides”, “Muslims like Us” and “Mixed Britain”.
        I get the feeling the idea is to portray Christianity as fading out and Islam flowing in.

        • magnolia

          I have to confess that I thought FATima SALARIa was someone’s witticism. I repent, sort of…

          • Well, she is a fat bird on a fat salary that’s for sure. Apparently the BBC – James Purnell & Co. think she’s an extremely talented commissioner! But she got the job to fulfil the ethnic quota.

    • David

      It is pointless complaining to the BBC about the BBC. You merely receive a meaningless, jargon rich statement that always, always, vindicates their position entirely – they are immune from that sort of consumer pressure because they see the public a captive market. Moreover complaining to ones MP is of very limited value because most of them are leftists, in spirit if not in name, and they find the BBC useful.
      The best approach is to decline to pay their tax. Information on how that is done, legally, should be propagated.

      • Martin

        Likewise the BBC’s Feedback programme. They always justify whatever they’ve done.

  • Anton

    Decent of Tom Holland to tell us what Patricia Crone, a serious scholar, was saying several decades ago about Mecca not being the right place. But best of all is Dan Gibson’s film The Scared City that identifies which city actually was involved. You can get it online for a small sum (none of which goes to me; disclaimer).

  • Anton

    O, he’s a prophet alright. Scripture speaks of false prophets.

  • Mark

    I await all BBC presenters being told to latch on “peace be upon him” after uttering “The Prophet Mohammed”. It will come.

  • Chefofsinners

    Tonight the BBC is reporting that a woman has been killed by a tiger.
    Tigers, we are told, are almost always friendly creatures who follow the religion of puss. All fences around the zoo are now being taken down in order to encourage multicaturalism.
    Mr Cat Stevens, aldo known as Yusuf Islam, was quoted as saying “It’s a Wild World”.

    • Ray Spring

      Brilliant.

  • len

    The very fact that radical Islamists call Westerners ‘Crusaders’ betrays the fact that Islam is locked in time.
    Islam is locked in the time of Mohammed. Indeed it is the same spirit that invaded Mohammed that fills his followers.

    Islam grew and spread through the sword and death follows Islam wherever it travels.
    So, anticipating the remarks that Judaism and a form of christianity used violence, I would say that Jesus Christ never advocated violence(quite the reverse in fact)

    So Christianity changes , pre -Christ to post -Christ.

    Islam cannot change, it remains locked in the seventh century but armed with modern technology which is a toxic mix.

  • michaelkx

    From a historians point of view. The Crusades were started because of the invasion and killing of Christians in the holy land, and the Islamic aggression in to Europe, i.e. Spain, and the Islamic proclamation that it intended to rule the world. But when they, the Muslims, only believe the version of history that they wrote, and ignore all other evidence, what do you expect.

    • David

      Yes, it was as you say merely a belated and militarily inadequate response to the Muslim invasion of areas, where previously, the inhabitants and visitors were free to choose their own faith and practice it unhindered. Another important motivation was to offer protection to western pilgrims journeying to the holy sites, who were either being slaughtered or forced to pay extortionate “fees”. This could only be achieved by controlling the corridor routes.

  • Anton

    This reminds me of a short TV series by that noted expert on the history of religion Boris Johnson. I recall scenes in which he wandered round Jerusalem and other parts of the Middle East saying that Jesus “was said to” have done this or that there, yet without similar caveat for Muhammad.

    The same Boris Johnson who wrote after the 2005 bombings in London that “Islam is the problem”

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2005/07/just-dont-call-it-war/

    yet when he sought to become Mayor of London started going on about how he was proud to have Islamic ancestors in one branch of his family.

    At least he will be gone shortly after the election.

  • Dodgy Geezer

    …But note the BBC’s use of the phrase ‘believed to be’, which is applied to Mohammed’s birthplace, not to his definite-article, upper-case prophethood, which is accepted and absolute……Note the title “Prophet” is unquestioned: the use of ‘believe’ here is applied only to the Islamic understanding of revelation (ie the Qur’an). Contrast this with the BBC’s Christianity page……

    See what they did there? The title is not ‘The Lord Jesus’, and ‘believe’ is applied to his messiahship, not to what Christians believe about the revelation of the Bible…

    Er…. perhaps the reason could be that if some Muslim notices that the BBC could be interpreted as questioning whether Mohammed was a prophet or not they are likely to kill someone,

    Whereas if a Christian takes issue with the portrayal of Christ the worst they can expect is a letter of complaint which will be passed around as a joke and then ignored…

  • Martin

    It was, of course, Islam that invaded the lands, and the Crusaders who tried to repel those invaders, at least initially.

    • IrishNeanderthal

      “Will you boys stop those fisticuffs!
        Who started all this, Jack?”
       
      “The truth is, Sir, it all began
        When Henry hit me back!”

      from Who’s Been Sleeping in my Porridge : “A Book Of Daft Poems And Pictures”, by Colin McNaughton.

  • Arden Forester

    Shirker used to be an army expression. Maybe still is. But I doubt they ever meant this type of shirker. Somehow it seems very peculiar Islam being described as the “Religion of Peace” when so much violence occurs around it. Not only that but when Islamic writers set to to defend it they appear to make matters worse from a western, Christian perspective. Sometimes the logic is hard to follow.

    This Islam Helpline conveniently has “What does mushrik mean exactly?” as a question. Then sort of answers it by suggesting Muslims avoid mushrik people and denounces them quite severely. None of this sounds charitable or neighbourly. In fact it’s all about how terrible we mushriks are.

    I think it is summed up quite well by this – “a slave woman who believes is better than a free woman who does not believe.” Ouch!

    http://www.islamhelpline.net/node/534

  • The BBC’s bias has been obvious for ages. I ditched my TV license a couple of years ago; I don’t know why people are still funding the BBC to create content they then complain about.

    • Cullerchris

      Because the Boss can’t do without her antiques and opportunity knocks type of rubbish. I’d be in deep trouble if I dumped the telly.

  • Anna

    An honest assessment of Islam by an Australian imam:


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRPzkB5mr1U&feature=share

  • D Cripps

    By examining, in a humorous 2½ minutes, the sahih hadith that says Satan stays in ones nose at night and can be flushed out with water, David Wood logically reasons that Muhammad and traditional Sunni Muslims are also mushrikin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyypEhQTAfo