Denounced!

A traditionalist Anglican has said he will continue with a campaign for the Church of England to work explicitly to convert Muslims to Christianity.

Paul Eddy, a lay member of the General Synod, has come under intense pressure from bishops to withdraw his plan.

But he has secured enough support for his motion to be debated at the next meeting of the Church's ruling body.

The motion calls on the Church to proclaim Christianity as the only route to ultimate salvation.

Mr Eddy, who is training to become a priest, has been denounced by some Muslims, but says the Church can no longer avoid hard questions about its beliefs.

He said he had received angry e-mails and telephone calls from senior figures in the Church denouncing his motion.

How depressingly typical of the Anglican leadership. Personally, I'd always assumed that spreading the Gospel was one of the primary purposes for which the Church of England (and, indeed, all mainstream churches) existed. But apparently not. Rather, it seems that the purpose of the CofE, as defined by its leaders, is to grovel like good dhimmis while the Islamification of Britain continues apace, and to denounce anyone who fails to kow-tow with sufficient promptitude. Rather than upset their Islamic friends by asserting their own faith, and seeking to convert Muslims, the likes of Rowan Williams and John Pritchard would prefer to see their congregations continue to dwindle, ultimately into non-existence. Looking at the way they behave, I sometimes wonder whether Williams and his ilk are in fact fanatical atheists, who have infiltrated the Church with the sole aim of destroying it from within. They probably aren't, but it must be said, that they couldn't do more damage if they were.

And, once again, I am struck by the contrast between these snivelling cowards, and Christians in other parts of the world who are putting their lives at risk in order to practise and promulgate their faith. While Christians in countries like Iran are successfully converting millions of Muslims, and risking their lives and freedoms in the process, our own senior clergy, "faring delicately with the bedclothes pulled right up over their heads", are so terrified of upsetting the Muslims and the Guardianista chatterers that they denounce Paul Eddy for simply desiring that the Church stand up for what it is supposed to believe in.

Courage and spinelessness

In its first session since last week's general elections, the new Iranian parliament is expected to discuss a law that will condemn to death anyone who decides to leave the Muslim faith and convert to other religions.

The parliament, also known as the Majlis, will debate the new law which has been presented by the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Under the proposed law, anyone who is born to Muslim parents and decides to convert to another faith, will face the death penalty.

But...I heard Islam was a Religion of Peace. Where is the moderate, tolerant Islam we keep hearing about?

Currently converts, particularly those who have decided to leave the Muslim faith for Evangelical churches, are arrested and then released after some years of detention.

Ah, there it is.

According to unofficial sources, in the past five years, one million Iranians, particularly young people and women, have abandoned Islam and joined Evangelical churches.

This phenomenon has surprised even the missionaries who carry out their activities in secret in Iran.

An Evangelical priest and former Muslim in Iran told Adnkronos International (AKI) that the conversions were "interesting, enthusiastic but very dangerous".

"The high number of conversions is the reason that the government has decided to make the repression of Christians official with this new law," said the priest on condition of anonymity.

"Often we get to know about a new community that has been formed, after a lot of time, given that the people gather in homes to pray and often with rituals that they invent without any real spiritual guide," he told AKI.

"We find ourselves facing what is more than a conversion to the Christian faith," he said. "It's a mass exodus from Islam."

The total population of Iran is roughly 70 million, of whom 98% are Muslims, of one kind or another (at least officially). Clearly, the conversion of one million people, or 1.4% of the total population, is not going to have an immediate Earth-shattering impact upon the religious make-up of Iran. But it is significant, taking place over a period of just five years, and in the face of such severe persecution of those who do convert. Certainly, it must be worrying the Mullahs, if they want to start executing Christian converts!

But what really struck me about this story related not so much to the future religious direction of Iran, as to the contrast between the courage of these Iranian Christians, and the spinelessness displayed by so many of our own "Christian leaders". In Iran, these brave people are putting their freedom, and, potentially, their lives, at risk in order to reject Islam and embrace Christianity. Meanwhile in Britain, the Canon Chancellor of Blackburn Cathedral expresses his gratitude for Ramadan, the Bishop of Oxford describes plans to broadcast the Adhan - the Islamic call to prayer - over the city as "enjoyable community diversity", and congregations dwindle as churches close and reopen as mosques.

Hat-tip: Gates of Vienna

"Christian Ramadan"

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the "Christian Ramadan" in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity.

The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

"The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent," said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

This is what happens when you have an education system which seeks to deprive native children of a knowledge of their own heritage, or to teach them that their own heritage is wholly evil, while at the same time continually promoting all immigrant cultures as wholly good and benign. So successfully have the youth of the Netherlands been deracinated, and, to a large extent, socially Islamified, that in order to understand a major part of their own religious and cultural heritage, they must have it explained to them using the culture and religion of the immigrants as a point of reference, as though Dutch culture were merely a derivation from Islamic culture. And I doubt that the situation is much, if any, better in the UK, or in many other Western European nations. This hardly bodes well for the future: if a people lack even the most basic knowledge of their own heritage and culture, how are they going to protect and preserve it?

"Enjoy community diversity", says Bishop of Oxford

The Bishop of Oxford has supported plans to broadcast the Islamic call to prayer over part of the historic city.

Welcoming proposals from Oxford's Central Mosque to sound the call three times a day over East Oxford, the Rt Rev John Pritchard said those opposed to the plan should "relax" and "enjoy community diversity".

The bishop also rejected claims by the Anglican Church's only Asian bishop that sounding the call in Britain represented an attempt to "impose an Islamic character" on some areas.

Hmm. Whether or not Muslims are attempting to impose an Islamic character on certain areas (and I for one think that they are), it is difficult to see how the sound of the Adhan blaring over an area three times a day, summoning forth multitudes of long-bearded men in Islamic garb, could fail to give such a character to any area unfortunate enough to have to put up with it.

Writing in The Sunday Telegraph the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali of Rochester sparked fierce debate when he criticised the amplified prayer call and suggested that some parts of the country were now too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter. Bishop Pritchard said: "I want to distance myself from what the Bishop of Rochester has said.

"There are no no-go areas in this country that we are aware of and in all parts of the country there are good interfaith relationships developing."

Dozens of East Oxford residents have urged the council to reject the plan by mosque leaders to issue the two-minute call to prayer up to three times a day.

They fear that it will turn the area into a "Muslim ghetto". However, Bishop Pritchard said he was "very happy" with the move.

You do have to wonder about these Christian clergy, such as Pritchard, or the Rev Canon Chris Chivers (who, as some readers may recall, wrote about the gratitude he felt to his "Muslim sisters and brothers for Ramadan"), who seem to regard the growing presence and strength of the Islamic religion as something to be celebrated as an improvement rather than feared and resisted as the greatest threat this country has ever faced. Do they honestly believe that, because once or twice a year they attend an inter-faith meeting, where they smile at an imam and utter platitudes, and he smiles back and utters platitudes, that life in a putative future Islamic Britain would be just fine for Christians (or for any other non-Muslims, for that matter)? Apparently so. And, presumably, they also believe that Christians in existing Islamic states are treated fairly, and that the sound of church bells ringing out over Riyadh or Mecca would be welcomed by delighted Saudi imams as "enjoyable community diversity"?

Arrest this man!

The claim that immigrants are necessary to do the jobs that Britons can't or won't do is a favourite of the liberal-left, and like most of their favoured claims, is untrue. However, there is one job where this particular assertion is indeed accurate: the post of Archbishop of Canterbury. Because while the present incumbent, Rowan Williams, is an indescribable idiot, whose buffooneries are too numerous and too well-known to be worth listing, the Ugandan Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, sometimes talks sense, and Michael Nazir-Ali, the Pakistani Bishop of Rochester and son of an Islamic apostate, has often done so. Today, Mr Nazir-Ali has once again come out and said the (to the likes of Rowan Williams) unsayable:

Islamic extremists have created "no-go" areas across Britain where it is too dangerous for non-Muslims to enter, one of the Church of England's most senior bishops warns today.

The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester and the Church's only Asian bishop, says that people of a different race or faith face physical attack if they live or work in communities dominated by a strict Muslim ideology.

The Muslim Council of Britain today described his comments as "frantic scaremongering", while William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said the bishop had "probably put it too strongly".

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said the idea of no-go areas was "a gross caricature of reality".

Really? We already know that in places like Oldham, Pakistani thugs are creating no-go areas for whites. We know (although Messrs Clegg and Hague may not, since the MSM utterly failed to report the story) that John Payne was almost killed for being white in a Pakistani area. I also recall an incident in which a British home secretary was told that he should not "dare" to set foot in a "Muslim area" - the area in question being Leytonstone, East London. Obviously race was the dominant factor in the first two incidents, but it is quite possible that Kuffarphobia was also a motivation for these attacks, and it is clear that this was the basis for the third incident. Certainly, the existence of cases such as these indicates that Clegg and Hague are utterly wrong to dismiss Michael Nazir-Ali's comments out of hand, without giving even the slightest consideration to what he says. The fact that Clegg, in particular, did so in such strong, almost vituperative, terms, tells you rather a lot about the liberal-left, and their desperation not to face up to any of the negative facts attendant upon the multicultural Eden that they have created in parts of this country.

Mr Nazir-Ali, whose full article may be read here, also makes sensible points about the negative effect that the decline of Christianity has had on Britain, the increasing Islamification of British public life, in at least some areas, and the failings of multiculturalism. But it is his remarks about the creation of no-go areas that have attracted the most attention. As I recall, similar points about the takeover of certain areas by Muslims have been made by Lionheart. I wonder whether Mr Nazir-Ali will soon be getting his dog collar felt by the Kent filth...?

Update: Hazel Blears has also weighed in on the issue, declaring that she "does not recognise" the existence of no-go areas. Which sounds to me rather like the numerous Islamic countries that refuse to recognise Israel, and which certainly invites the same reply: just because you don't recognise them, doesn't mean that they're not there. She also asserted that Islamic extremists were a "tiny minority". Isn't it about time that someone thought up a new cliché?

Meanwhile, two Muslim organisations have demanded that Mr Nazir-Ali resign, on the grounds that he "is promoting hatred towards Muslims". One wonders what their views are on imams, such as those featured in Undercover Mosque, who actually do incite, not only hatred, but murder as well?

Pope Rage

Coming in 5-4-3-2-1...

The Pope has again risked provoking the wrath of the Islamic world, by criticising its treatment of Christians.

Benedict XVI attacked Muslim nations where Christians are either persecuted or given the status of second-class citizens under the Shariah Islamic law.

He also defended the rights of Muslims to convert to Christianity, an act which warrants the death penalty in many Islamic countries.

It's nice to see the Pope addressing these issues - issues which "moderate" Muslim leaders in this country tend to want to sweep under the carpet. The appalling treatment of Christians (and, indeed, all non-Muslims) in the Islamic world emphasises the utter pettiness of those - Muslim or otherwise - who cry "Islamophobia" over such things as village fetes, pet food factories, and of course, cartoons. And more cartoons. And more cartoons. And...well, you get the picture (as it were). Perhaps those who are so quick to complain at the slightest criticism or mockery of Islam should pay heed to the Pope's words, and consider that their religion might not be so reviled by so many if its followers accorded the same rights to Christians that Christian countries accord to them. But, measured reflection has never really been the Mohammedans' strong suit. Screaming, whinging, seething, lynching, burning, threatening, and bombing is more their style, and there's a good chance that we shall see them display their talents in at least some of these areas over the next week or so.

Hat-tip: LGF

The threat faced by apostates of Islam

Once again, the Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, has proved a rare voice of sanity and common sense in a Church of England sliding ever further into the morass of cultural and moral relativism. While the likes of the Revd Canon Chris Chivers go into spasms of delight as they discuss the wonders of Ramadan, Mr Nazir-Ali warned tonight's Dispatches programme on Channel 4 of the dangers faced by people in Britain who have publicly rejected Islam, saying:

It is very common in the world today, including in this country, for people who have changed their faith, particularly from being Muslim to being Christian, to be ostracised, to lose their job, for their marriages to be dissolved, for children to be taken away.

He added that he suspects that it is only going to be so long before a Muslim apostate in Britain is killed.

Certainly, he is right that Muslims who convert are at risk. Consider these cases documented by The Times in February 2005:

THE first brick was thrown through the sitting room window at one in the morning, waking Nissar Hussein, his wife and five children with a terrifying start. The second brick went through his car window.

It was a shock, but hardly a surprise. The week before, another brick had been thrown through the window as the family were preparing for bed in their Bradford home. The victim of a three-year campaign of religious hatred, Mr Hussein’s car has also been rammed and torched, and the steps to his home have been strewn with rubbish.

He and his family have been regularly jostled, abused, attacked, shouted at to move out of the area, and given death threats in the street. His wife has been held hostage inside their home for two hours by a mob. His car, walls and windows have been daubed in graffiti: “Christian bastard”.

The problem isn’t so much what Mr Hussein, whose parents came from Pakistan, believes, but what he doesn’t believe. Born into Islam, he converted eight years ago to Christianity, and his wife, also from Pakistan, followed suit.

[...]

Ruth, also of Pakistani origin, found out recently that she had only just escaped being murdered. When she told her family that she had converted, they kept her locked inside the family home all summer.

“They were afraid I would meet some Christians. My brother was aggressive, and even hit me — I later found out he wanted me dead,” she said. A family friend had suggested taking her to Pakistan to kill her, and her brother put the idea to her mother, who ruled against it.

Cases like this illustrate the fundamental difference between Western civilisation and Islamic barbarism. In Britain, or other Western nations, you can renounce the established religion and join any other religion you please, and the only option open to those who wish to prevent this is to try to convince you by force of argument. Whereas, if you reject Islam, then those who object to this will have swift recourse to the threat of sheer physical force in order to induce you to change your mind. How anyone can argue that there is any form of equality between these two cultures is completely beyond me!

Some Muslims, such as the author of the Islamics blog, have claimed that Mr Nazir-Ali is merely scare-mongering. They say that he is demonstrating his "prejudice and the deep rooted hatred...for Islam". As evidence for this, they say that while Islam does mandate the death penalty for apostasy, it only does so for those who commit apostasy in Islamic countries, and that, since Britain is not an Islamic country, apostates here have nothing to fear. There are two points to consider here. First, even if what they say is exactly true, then it is hardly a ringing endorsement of Islamic civilisation to say that Muslims only violate the right to freedom of thought when they form the majority of a nation's population. If nothing else, this should further demonstrate why it is imperative that we do all we can to resist the Islamification of this country.
However, the second point is that what they say is not true. However the Koran may be interpreted, the fact is that the cases that I have cited from The Times, demonstrate that for a Muslim in Britain to renounce Islam is to put themselves at risk of physical harm from their former coreligionists. This is also the case in other non-Islamic countries. In the Netherlands, for example, Ehsan Jami, the chairman of the Dutch committee of ex-Muslims, has been provided with increased security after he was attacked by three Muslims outside a supermarket. This was the third such attack to which he had been subjected.

The Islamic death penalty for apostates is something of which a great many people are unaware. Indeed, I have found many people who refuse point-blank to accept that it exists, so well indoctrinated have they been into the mantra of "Islam is a wonderful Religion of Peace". Michael Nazir-Ali's willingness to come out and tell the truth about this is once again to be welcomed.

Dhimmi of the day

For this deep sense of what it means to be truly integrated, I am so grateful to my Muslim sisters and brothers for Ramadan. I love its measured rhythms and purifying disciplines. They are truly restorative for my own faith. But more than this, at a personal level they address me directly, as they invite me to redress the imbalance I so often detect in my failure to care properly for my own body while deluding myself that my soul's passage to heaven is assured through the power of my intellect and the spiritual insights which may come through regular theological reflection.

The holy month of Ramadan reminds me that I need both body and soul to be in good shape if I'm to approach the heavenly courts. It also teaches me that the taqwa, which is the divine gift to all people of faith and goodwill, will only come my way when I achieve a more balanced nurturing of both.

So, who wrote this then? Some devout Muslim, no doubt?

Well, no, actually. It was in fact the canon chancellor of Blackburn Cathedral, the Revd Chris Chivers, who has written an article in The Guardian bearing the headline "Thinking about the meaning of Ramadan has made me a better Christian". He adds that "Muslims seem to express a more integrated relationship between body and soul" than Christians.

Looks like we might just have another Ann Holmes Redding on our hands!

And does anyone want to speculate on the chances of a Muslim imam talking of how grateful he was to his Christian brothers and sisters for telling him about Easter, and thereby making him a better Muslim?

Rowan Williams: Morally and Intellectually Retarded

Via Dhimmi Watch, I find the latest display of completely indescribable stupidity from Rowan Williams:

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.

Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

Well, he may interpret it that way, but Yusuf al-Qaradawi does not. He interprets it as meaning that one can wage violent war against those living in Dar al-Harb ("the domain of war", i.e. non-Islamic lands). Al-Qaradawi is seen by Muslims as one of the greatest contemporary Islamic scholars. Rowan Williams, by contrast, is seen by Muslims as a useful idiot, and by everyone else as simply an idiot. Which one do you think knows more about Koranic interpretation?

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

Note the moral equivalency between Christians and Muslims. Williams appears not to regard Christianity as in any way superior to Islam: both offer an equally good vision of peaceful co-existence. Now that's a pretty odd position for an Archbishop of Canterbury to adopt. Not an unexpected one from this particular Archbishop, though.

The Archbishop’s lecture to a Christian Muslim Forum conference in Cambridge follows mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destabilising.

While there are some who attack all religion in this manner, I can think of one religion which has carried out more than its fair share of dangerous and destabilising actions, and which consequently tends to get rather a lot of (richly deserved) criticism. Can you guess which one I mean? Because Rowan Williams can't.

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg.

He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.”

Now, this is the real low point. As Robert Spencer at Dhimmi Watch points out, Williams actually appears to be saying that the 9/11 terrorists had a just cause, but simply went about expressing their justified grievance against violent US "oppression" in the wrong way. To say this at all is indicative of a severely dysfunctional moral compass. To say it on the eve of the anniversary of the attacks themselves is simply reprehensible.

More on the moron

Dhimmi Watch has an update on Ann Holmes Redding, the Episcopalian priest in Seattle who, besides describing Christianity as "the world religion of privilege", and expressing her dislike of white people, is presently attempting to balance being an ordained Christian minister with being a practising Muslim.

Apparently the Bishop of the Diocese of Rhode Island, the Rt Rev. Geralyn Wolf, has suspended Redding's priesthood for a year, in order that she might:

...reflect on the doctrines of the Christian faith, her vocation as a priest, and what I see as the conflicts inherent in professing both Christianity and Islam.

Which is at least a somewhat stronger approach to this bizarre woman than that adopted by the Bishop of the Diocese of Olympia, the Rt Rev. Vincent Warner, whose response to Redding's display of insanity was to say that "the interfaith possibilities [were] exciting".

Meanwhile, Redding, who expressed her disappointment at being suspended, had this to say of her conversion to Islam:

...since entering Islam, I have been, by my own estimation, a better teacher, a better preacher and a better Christian.

Further comment would, as they say, be superfluous.

Idiot of the day, part 2

Via the Telegraph's Holy Smoke blog, and Dhimmi Watch, I come across the simply bizarre story of the Rev Ann Holmes Redding, formerly director of faith formation at St. Mark's Episcopal Cathedral in Seattle, still an ordained minister, and, for the last fifteen months, a practising Muslim.

Yes, you read it correctly: an ordained Christian cleric, and a practising Muslim. Miss Redding justifies her rather unusual theological stance thus:

At the most basic level, I understand the two religions to be compatible. That's all I need.

It wasn't about intellect [that much is obvious - FR]. All I know is the calling of my heart to Islam was very much something about my identity and who I am supposed to be.

I could not not be a Muslim.

Redding also has some pretty anti-Christian views, for a vicar, describing Christianity as the "world religion of privilege". And she's not very keen on white people either, saying that going to a black-dominated Muslim centre reminded her "that there are more people of colour in the world than white people, [which] in itself is a relief".

So, what has the Episcopal Church made of this racist, Christianophobic, Muslim vicar? Oh, they're all for it. The Rt Rev Vincent Warner, Bishop of the Diocese of Olympia, "finds the interfaith possibilities exciting". Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it, although it's not quite the word I'd have used.

Bizarrely enough, there is something of a precedent for this, within the Anglican Communion, of which Miss Redding's Episcopal Church is a part. In September last year, it was revealed that a Church of England vicar, the Rev David Hart, had retained his licence to practise, despite converting to Hinduism. And the Archbishop of Canterbury was famously ordained as a druid, although he has denied that druidism has any pagan connotations.

How this story will progress is unclear. But, from the comments at Dhimmi Watch, I know that I'm far from being the first person to imagine that it might all end in tragedy, as her Muslim half follows time-honoured Islamic tradition, and attempts to behead the wicked infidel with whom it shares a body.

"Institutional Racism" Watch

In its latest bout of self-flagellation, the Church of England has proclaimed itself to be "institutionally racist". In so doing, it joins with, among others, the Metropolitan Police, the NHS, mental health services, universities, schools, the football league, the BBC(!), the Live 8 concert, the armed forces, and British society as a whole, in the proud roll call of institutions which have been accused of institutional racism. I haven't attempted a full list of all those institutions, because to do so would take too long. Indeed, it would probably be quicker to list those institutions which have not been accused of institutional racism, than to list all those that have.

Nonetheless, the CofE's attack on itself has to rank among the most ridiculous of such accusations. The sole evidence that seems to have been adduced to support it is the fact that only 2.2% of CofE clergy are non-white, as against 3.2% of CofE members. That may be a slight under-representation, but it doesn't seem sufficient to indicate institutional racism to me. One might argue that the fact that only 3.2% of CofE members are not white as against 9% of the total population is indicative of racism, but then how many white Muslims, or white members of black evangelical churches, do you see? But, of course, we must remember that only those wicked white people can ever be racist, and, indeed, as any good liberal will tell you, the white race is, like every institution it creates, inherently racist.

Hat-tip: David Vance at ATW

"Don't insult Mohammed", says Jesuit

Christians must distance themselves from anyone or anything that insults Islam's prophet Mohammed and should come to a greater appreciation of his role in bringing millions of people to recognize the one God, said a German Jesuit scholar.

But Christians cannot share Muslims' recognition of Mohammed as the last and greatest prophet, said Father Christian Troll, a professor of Islam and of Muslim-Christian relations at the Sankt Georgen Graduate School of Philosophy and Theology in Frankfurt, Germany.

Islamophobe!

Writing in La Civilta Cattolica (Catholic Civilization), a Jesuit magazine reviewed by the Vatican prior to publication, Father Troll was responding to a question asked by many Muslims: "We Muslims recognize Jesus as a prophet and we venerate him. Why don't you Christians accept Mohammed as a prophet in the same way?"

Or, to rephrase that question, "why don't you Christians convert to Islam?"

While Christians cannot share Muslims' faith in Mohammed as the last and greatest prophet, "Christians must decisively distance themselves from every insult against Mohammed and, in addition, must try to recognize and appreciate his exceptional historic personality, his role as founder of Islam and the extraordinary place he occupies in the faith, piety and religious thought of Muslims," Father Troll said.

True respect for Muslims and for their faith, he said, requires Christians to "investigate that which in the life and teaching of Mohammed is acceptable or even exemplary and admirable for Christians, but also those aspects of his life and teaching that, from the point of view of Christian faith, would seem problematic and unacceptable."

Okay, the second bit is easy. He was a mass-murdering paedophile, after all. Not so sure what in Mohammed's life was "acceptable or even exemplary and admirable", and Fr Troll doesn't appear to make any effort to give any guidance on this point.

Actually, though, I don't feel the need to insult Mohammed. Not in the sense of making offensive things up, anyway, or even merely exaggerating his many known defects. All I need to do is say what is written down for all to see in the Koran and the Hadith. There's enough written about Mohammed in there to earn the author a libel action if he'd written it about anyone else.

Hat-tip: Dhimmi Watch

Another Clerical Apology

Do Church of England bishops do anything other than apologise the whole time?

I ask because, following on from the apology of the entire church for slavery, from the personal apologies of Williams and Sentamu for slavery, from Williams' apology for the work of Christian missionaries in Africa, and from Williams' apology for criticising freemasonry, we are privileged to witness yet another Anglican Bishop coming out and grovelling. This time, it's once again over slavery:

The Rt Rev John Packer, Anglican Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, has made a public apology for the way in which Christians misused their scripture 200 years ago to justify, defend and perpetuate human slavery.

The comments, which also raise questions about the dogmatic use of the Bible in current arguments about issues like sexuality, came in a debate on the legacy of the slave trade in the House of Lords on Thursday 10 May 2007.

Does the House of Lords have nothing better to talk about? Apparently not. I'd also like to hear more about "the dogmatic use of the Bible in current arguments about issues like sexuality". What, precisely, did the Right Reverend gentleman say about this?

Bishop Packer has been active in his support for social justice, fair treatment for migrants and asylum seekers, and the development of a positive vision for Christian mission in a plural society.

"Fair treatment for migrants" (I assume he doesn't mean deporting them, which is what I'd call "fair treatment"), "social justice", a "plural society". Doesn't he sound just dreadful?

The parliamentary session on Britain's role and responsibility in relation to slavery was introduced by Baroness Howells. She expressed her own regret over the slavery, racism and colonial domination, together with and its “modern debris” of inequality.

The examples of human degradation cited included sub-standard housing for black people, their over-representation in the prison population and the mental health service, underachievement in education and disproportionate exclusions from schools.

Okay, let's get one thing straight. Blacks are not disproportionately poor, or disproportionately criminal, because of slavery. White liberals, and whiny players of racial politics, need to learn that not everything bad that happens to a black person is the fault of the wicked white people. Rather, the problems within the black community, and caused by that community (notably the predilection of a disproportionately high number of its members for shooting and stabbing one another, and the culture from which that predilection is derived), are to blame. No amount of apologising is going to change that simple fact.

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds urged people not to consider slavery a "past matter", as something that had been removed and resolved by the abolition of the nineteenth century trade.

He said that an expression of gratitude for the abolitionist measures taken 200 years ago needed to be matched by actions today to reverse consequent cycles of injustice and oppression.

Christians, in particular, had much to repent of, including the use of the Bible to legitimate actions and structures which contradicted the message of the Gospel and of Jesus.

Why are white Christians expected to grovel and apologise for events that happened 200 years ago (and which Christian groups worked the hardest towards ending, although the Bishop doesn't seem to mention this), while Muslims must be shielded from any blame whatsoever for what they are doing today? Double standards, anyone?

Idiotic Clergyman of the Year competition hots up!

As I've said many times before, anyone who attempts to find common ground with Muslims is being idiotic. The common ground is simply not to be found: the Muslims are not here to be friendly, to be good neighbours, or to sit around taking tea with gullible vicars. They are here to conquer, and to dominate. Anyone who seeks to reach an understanding with them will become their dupe.

Not, of course, that this deters Rowan Williams. After the recent displays of idiocy from Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, for the Catholic Church, and Williams' fellow Anglican primate Dr John Sentamu, it appeared that his prospects of winning the coveted Idiotic Clergyman of the Year award for a record sixth time were looking slim. However, his chances have revived after it was revealed that he has been busily grovelling before/extending the hand of friendship to Muslims. Unfortunately, as with the recent attempt of some liberal Norwegian priests to do the same, things didn't go quite according to plan:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has suffered a serious setback in his attempts to foster Muslim-Christian dialogue after the Malaysian Government banned an interfaith conference he was due to be chairing this week.

Christian and Muslim scholars from around the world had bought air tickets, written papers and begun to pack their bags for the Building Bridges conference, the sixth in a series intended to foster dialogue between the two religions. It was cancelled with just two weeks notice.

The three-day conference was set up in the wake of September 11 and meant to be an annual get-together of Christian and Muslim academics in an attempt to find theological understandings that might help prevent future terrorist attacks.

Theological understandings? Well, I suppose that paying the jizya could be considered a form of theological understanding.

At the first conference, at Lambeth Palace in London six years ago, Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, fêted Tony Blair. In return, the Prime Minister invited the Muslim and Christian scholars to a high-profile reception at Downing Street.

Since then the scholars have met in New York, Qatar and Sarajevo. This year’s seminar in Malaysia was to signal a breakthrough in Muslim-Christian relations in a region where they are particularly delicate.

By which is meant, "where Muslims routinely persecute Christians".

However, it is understood that some influential Muslims believe that Christianity is “not a heavenly religion” and therefore they frown on interreligious dialogue.

Well, fancy that. These Muslims don't like Christians. Rowan Williams appears to be quite astonished by this development, commenting that:

We must keep our bridges in good repair, the bridges for listening and sympathy, hearing the truth from one another, learning what the other’s experience is like.

Which is, like most things he says, essentially meaningless.

The point here is that the Muslims who come out openly and say that they do not like Christianity are the honest ones. They are the ones expressing the views of Muslims in Islamic countries, where Christians are generally subjected to regular violence and discrimination. The ones who come in the guise of "moderates" and profess to be keen on inter-faith harmony, etc, are, to be blunt, usually lying, and we should be especially wary of them.

The "Mass for Migrants"

Thousands of people are expected to take part in a church service, march and rally in London to draw attention to the exploitation of migrant workers.

The Archbishop of Westminster Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor will celebrate the special Mass for Migrants at Westminster Cathedral on Monday.

It will be followed by a march to Trafalgar Square for a rally.

There are thought to be 500,000 illegal immigrants in Britain, and organisers say a new underclass is emerging.

Campaigners want the government to introduce policies that would help illegal immigrants gain citizenship.

Notice that word, 'illegal'? It means that these people have no right to be here. They haven't even made an effort to abide by the UK's pretty lax immigration laws. They are no more than criminals. Giving them citizenship would make the British immigration system an even bigger joke than it is at the moment.

Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor told the BBC's Andrew Marr on Sunday that all migrants, illegal or legal, should be welcomed and treated with respect.

Even the ones who come here and try to impose their way of life upon us? Even the ones who would turn Murphy-O'Connor's own flock into second class citizens if they got half a chance? Even the ones that commit rape and murder? The ones who are running criminal gangs? Immigrants have no right to be here, and should be treated as the criminals they are if they come here.

Many of the estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants had been in Britain for years, he said.

"And so I think a way's got to be found whereby they can become citizens and have the advantages of that...

"Many of them are married, settled down and so they live in a kind of shadow land. That's not right and it's not fair."

So, if you keep on committing a crime long enough, eventually you should be rewarded for it. Such, it seems, is the logic of the cardinal.

Man City 0 Man Utd 1, Imams v Priests Called Off

In Norway, some liberal priests attempted to "reach out" to the Muslims, by arranging a Priests v Imams football match. Unfortunately, it didn't all go according to plan:

A friendship-building football match between Muslim and Christian clergy in Norway was called off after a row over the participation of women players.

Muslim Imams had refused to play against women because it went against their beliefs about close physical contact with the opposite sex.

But when the church decided to drop its women players, the priests' team captain walked out in protest.

The game was meant to be an enjoyable end to a day-long conference in Oslo.

Members of the two faiths had been discussing ways of encouraging greater inter-faith dialogue at the "Shoulder to Shoulder" event.

My views on allying with Muslims have been set out before at the New Crusaders. Needless to say, I do not support such alliances. Nonetheless, I fully support priests playing football matches with imams on one condition: Vinnie Jones must be allowed to play as an honorary priest. Let's see how Allah protects the imams from his scything tackle.

Also, I'd like to see Abu Hamza play in goal...

Yet another "Christian Leader" for Islamification

Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York, has been one of the saner voices among the senior Anglican clergy. Using his status as an immigrant to shield himself from accusations of "racism", he has criticised the behaviour of Muslims in the UK, and has attacked multiculturalism, even daring to suggest that there were many positive aspects of the British Empire, not least the work of missionaries in converting African pagans to Christianity. This has been in welcome contrast to the continuing idiocy of Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, who has apologised for - among many other things - the work of Christian missionaries in Africa.

However, of late Dr Sentamu has been reverting to the Rowan Williams mould. In March he ordered the nation to apologise for slavery, and now he has placed an advert in his local paper commanding the British people not to vote for the BNP.

Dr Sentamu follows in the footsteps of the Bishop of Blackburn and the Evangelical Alliance, who have previously told the faithful not to support the BNP. One can only suppose that Dr Sentamu, along with his reverend colleagues, is unconcerned about the prospect of an Islamic Britain. Certainly, it seems that he is deeply opposed to the only party that has raised serious objections to the increasingly likely prospect of such a situation coming to pass. As so often, I am drawn to ask, who would the Archbishop of York, and those who think like him, have us vote for, instead of the BNP? Because none of the main parties are even addressing the problem, while UKIP seem to think that the world will be free of all problems just as long as we're out of the EU.

(Cross-posted at ATW)

Another "Christian Leader" for Islamification

Following on from the news that the Evangelical Alliance has called on voters to "resist the fascist BNP" (TM), etc, comes news that the call has been taken up by the Anglican Bishop of Blackburn, Nicholas Reade:

A senior Church of England bishop who has a number of British National Party (BNP) councillors in his diocese, has written in an anti-fascist magazine, urging Christians to vote against the party in the forthcoming local elections.

The comments from Rt Rev Nicholas Reade, Bishop of Blackburn, who was writing in 'Searchlight' magazine, make him the latest in a long line of church leaders and denominations to publicly urge votes against the BNP in the local elections next week.

In 2003 the BNP briefly became the official opposition in Burnley, which is in the Bishop's diocese. They now have just seven seats on the council. The bishop said that Lancashire voters should now completely reject the “poison of racial and religious hatred”.

“Sadly there are a small minority of candidates seeking election on the basis of politics that seek to divide,” the Bishop said. “They prefer the poison of racial and religious hatred to the challenge of co-operation. Christians and non-Christians, peoples of all faiths and none, should reject them.

"They should reject them by refusing to vote for them, by pointing out to others the true nature of their poisonous policies, and by turning out to vote for candidates who are committed to constructive co-operation.”

Exactly. "Constructive co-operation" is just what we all need. By way of example, here are some links to recent cases of "constructive co-operation" between Christians and Muslims in Egypt, Pakistan, the Philippines, and Iraq. Oh, and while I'm at it, here, from closer to home, is an example of what happens to those Christians who have converted from Islam:

Mr Hussein, a 39-year-old hospital nurse in Bradford, is one of a growing number of former Muslims in Britain who face not just being shunned by family and community, but attacked, kidnapped, and in some cases killed.

But I don't recall hearing Mr Reade speaking out about that.

"Christian leaders" shill for Islamification

Christian leaders are advising people to use their vote to defeat British National Party (BNP) candidates in next week’s elections, the Evangelical Alliance has told Christian Today.

They are encouraging people to use their vote so that other candidates are elected, and the BNP does not get seats through voter apathy.

Actually, the old canard that the BNP wins in areas of low turnout is largely untrue. According to the Sunday Times voter turnout actually increases when the BNP run a candidate. The BNP provide an alternative to people disillusioned with the Godlike (three in one) main parties.

“The BNP is trying to present itself as a respectable and non-racist party,” an Evangelical Alliance statement comments. Party leader Nick Griffin said in a speech last November that he wants this country to be “free, Christian and British.”

But Christian leaders are urging voters not to be fooled by the BNP’s attempts to make itself presentable.

Justin Thacker, Head of Public Theology at the Evangelical Alliance, said: “I don’t see how any Christian could ever support the BNP – its principles are entirely at odds with those of Jesus Christ.

“The BNP is a racist party, which doesn’t seem to realise the contradiction of using St George's day – which celebrates a Christian saint – to peddle its racist propaganda. This demonstrates just what a sham the party’s appeal to Christian values is.

“Other parties are just as concerned about the needs of the nation, and they do not use issues of community cohesion for racist ends.”

Are other parties just as concerned about the needs of the nation? Well, sorry, but I've always voted Tory, and I don't think that they are. Not under Cameron. Labour have had ten years in power, and in all that time have shown no interest in making the country a better place, and I don't really think I need to discuss the Lib Dems.

Incidentally, I take it from the comments of these reverend gentlemen that they are quite happy to see the country turned into an Islamic state. After all, they regard the BNP as "racist", for opposing this possibility, which is an almost inevitable consequence of the present rates of Islamic immigration and childbirth. Presumably they would be happy for Christians (and all infidels) in this country to be treated like Christians in Iraq, Turkey, or Nigeria?