Kilroy calls for 'backward' Islam to open mosques to women

Kilroy is too kind-Islam as seen in today's mosques is more from the Stone Age than from the Middle Ages.

G.K. Chesterton always took exception to the practice of referring to something as Medieval to imply it was backwards.
His friend, Hilaire Belloc, regarded the 13th Century as the flowering of European Civilization
In terms of it’s architecture and theology this may well be true, it’s achievements have never been equalled.
Those of you who have not seen the cathedrals of Chatres, Amiens, Rheims and been to Paris to see Notre Dame and the Sainte Chapelle should make the effort .
Incidentally, Belloc referred to the period from the fall of Rome to the rise of Medieval Civilization as “the siege of Christendom.”
This was when Charles Martel was fighting of the Muslim invasion of France.
Pretty much where Islam belongs – “the Dark Ages.”

Off topic:

Herouxville town council caves

Related

"most of the religious doctrine that is practised in the mosques here is backward, tribal, from a medieval period"
-- from the comments of Robert Kilroy-Silk

One can approve of Kilroy-Silk's (whose very name makes an American feel he is in P. J. Wodehouse land) recognition that there is somehting wrong with the practice of Islam, and at least in the Lands of the Infidels Muslims had better start setting it right.

But the notion that what is wrong can be described as "backward, tribal, medieval" is false and dangerous. The claim echoes those pseudo-reformers who pretend, for example, that the problems with the practice of Muslims has "nothing to do with Islam" (see Shirin Ebadi on the mistreatment of women in Iran) but are "cultural" or "tribal" (as if the most suave of Muslims, raised outside of any tribe or outside of a society suffused with Islam, cannot, merely by dint of being a Muslim, of thinking of himself as a Muslim, embrace totally the teachings of Islam -- see, for example, Tariq Ramadan or a thousand other well-spoken plausbile smiling serpents or servants of Islam hissing all over the Western airwaves).

Nor is the problem with Islam its "medieval" practices. The "practices" enshrined as those of the exemplary figure, the Model of Right Conduct (uswa hasana), Muhammad, the Perfect Man (al-insan al-kamil), are not "medieval" at all, but rather date to the seventh or eighth centuries, and not the "medieval" period in Europe, but rather is identified quite differently in Dar al-Islam. Second, these practices of seventh or eighth century Arabia (as they are believed by Muslims to be -- we of course are free to believe, based on the evidence, that the origins of the Qur'an, and of Islam, cannot be found in Mecca or the Hejaz, but further north and east, possibly in southern Syria, or possibly elsewhere, and at a time later than that ascribed to it in the Official Muslim Narrative)--are taken as worthy of emulation for all time, as out of time, in a sense, just like the Qur'an itself.

Kilroy-Smith, in calling these practices "tribal" and "medieval" lets Islam itself off the hook. But Islam enshrines, for all time, the "tribal" and the "backward" from the seventh or eighth centuries. That is Islam itself, not some strange addition to it, or some strange inability to get beyond what non-Muslims may not fully realize is the essence of Islam. They can't get out of what some might, in exculpatory fashioni, call "tribal" or "backward." All that is part of the uncreated and immutable text of the Qur'an and the unchangeable facts of Muhammad's life, his acts, his words, even his silences.

I'm with Hugh here.

Kilroy-Silk does a diservice to the informed critique of Islam AND suggests that ALL religions should be subject to secular 'human rights' legislation.

And if that were the case then the Anglican & Catholic churches couldn't even debate homosexuality or women bishops - they'd just have to accept it.

He's not a good example of rational Islamic critique (going down the sensationalist tabloid route) and I don't think jihad watch benefits from giving his arguments credibility.

(I heard the interview live - he calls all religions 'fairy tales' and the cause of most evil/wars in the world)

I view Kilroy Silk as a power hungry self publicist with an major ego problem.

I can remember a few interviews with Robert on
television after his "limb choppers" outburst.
He always gives the impression he`s holding back
a vicious tirade over Islam.

"...Robert Kilroy-Silk set himself on a collision course with sections of the Muslim community today when he claimed that most religious doctrine practised in the UK's mosques was "backward, tribal and from a medieval period".

Bacward .....Right
Tribal.......Right again
From a medieval period.....And again.

Assalamau Laikum all,

Hands up those of you who have been in a mosque.

What's that ...no-one...I thought not. I wonder if Mr. Silk has been in one himself...probably not ...but then how would you know what it's like.

Praying to allah is a very special time ...only 5 times a day.

Womens do go to the mosque...perhaps not in the quantity that the men do...but then again someone's got do the cooking and looking after the childrens after all...you cannot leave that to the welfare state ...like so many single mums in the west.

Certainly you cannot compare our values to yours....you are a faithless lot without structure...what can you boast about 5 times a day?

Kilroy certainy needs lesson in etiquitte. Perhaps someone from the muslim community could show him round ...so that he can make an informed opinion.

I agree with Kilroy 100% and I would like to see him be the UK's next Prime Minister.

If more Muslimas went to the mosque and heard how much these guys hate them .. well, it would be interesting.

Naseem .. take a trip down MEMRI lane if you'd like to be privy to what's going on in the mosques. You could even listen while you clean, cook etc (activities many Muslimas manage to do while collecting welfare, btw) http://www.memri.org/ ... although I would NOT advise listening to MEMRI while your husband's home - since that could be life-threatening.

Naseem says..

"Certainly you cannot compare our values to yours....you are a faithless lot without structure...what can you boast about 5 times a day?"

(1) Superior Medical System
(2) Superior Technology
(3) Superior System of Government
(4) Superior System of Economics and Business
(5) Superior Women with Educations
(6) Superior Legal System
(7) Superior Educational System
(8) Superior Weapons
(9) Superior Religions

Thats 9....

What do you have?

Naseem-

Don't make me laugh:

"you cannot leave that to the welfare state ...like so many single mums in the west."

Lets have a look at that shall we:

"The unemployment rate for Muslim women at 18 per cent was about four times the rate for Christian and Jewish women (4 per cent in each case). Unemployment rates for women in the other religious groups were between 6 per cent and 9 per cent."

Care of the National Statistics Office:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=979

Kim Hartveld-

"I agree with Kilroy 100% and I would like to see him be the UK's next Prime Minister."

I'll assume you were joking there.

Naseem asks, "what can you boast about 5 times a day?"

I'm assuming you're referring to prayer. Prayer is, for me, a sacred matter - certainly not something to boast about. In fact, Naseem, boasting is something well brought up Westerners frown upon and try their best to refrain from doing. Grandparents are indulged w/regard to boasting and even expected to boast a bit about their grandchildren (hopefully, this activity will be mainly relegated to familial conversations) otherwise, it's considered socially unbecoming.

Adapting to this standard could be quite useful; in fact, the acceptance of reality will always be helpful as you confront the necessity of assimilation into Western culture. Keep in mind: your welfare payments will not continue indefinitely.

Kilroy-Silk's my man. I agree with him one hundred percent on Islam and on religion in general.

Religion IS evil, and each one was started by a psychopath in my opinion.

I love the fact that he is forcing muslims to accept women into mosques since that will piss muslim men off bigtime.

And by the way, didn't Yvonee Ridley say that Islam was a magna carta for woman's rights? Yeah right. Most of them can't even get into mosques to worship, that's how liberating it is.

I think it is possible to adopt a more inclusive point of view, and maybe we shouldn't totally reject those opposed to Islam just because they may be atheists. (?)

I read Dawkins, and Antony Flew and many other atheists for their conceptions with regard to Islam. I find it enlightening (although I do not agree with all points, and with some points I have absolutely no allegiance with).

Antony Flew (on the Internet), for example, wrote a book review on the text, "The Wrath of Allah" (by Robert E. Burns). I only have available the book review -- libraries here don't have "The Wrath of Allah". (I should request a copy for Freedom to Read week is coming up).

Anyway, the book review is illuminating. Apparently, The Wrath of Allah was written back in 1994, and it really does seem to expose certain features of Islam. Apparently it systematically deconstructs a variety of claims routinely made by the apologists.

The non-Muslim world benefits from these critiques (regardless of what faith, or lack of faith, an author happens to be).

Ah, Naseems...

You want to know what I can boast about 5 times a day? Oh, but you'd be shocked; shocked, I tell you! (So I won't.)

Yes, yes; I hope Kilroy visits a mosque, leaving "Kilroy was here" as a sign.

And what's WITH the exta "s" on everything, even though you've been told about it a hundred times? Think we won't recognize you (or however many there are)?

"And what's WITH the exta "s" on everything...?"

That's Islamic Ebonics.

Here's the book review by Antony Flew...

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/wrath.htm

It seems all of you people have missed this portion from Kilroy-Silk:

He added: "I don't believe in religions. I think all religions are fairy tales, I think they are evil and I don't think Islam is one of the better ones, so I don't want anybody to be forced to go to a mosque.

This guy is a millitant atheist who is only different from his ilk on the left in the fact that he is a consistent militant atheist, i.e. does not give islam prefeential treatment. The bolded part could have easily been said by a bolshevik komissar in the 1920-ties.

Off topic:

Wilders: Muslims Should Tear Up Half The Koran

Related

My apologies for the bogus "Related" link. My mistake while posting.

So has nassem gone to a christian church? has nassem gone to a synagogue?

anyway, what's the use of nassem's sect of the cult- when they're getting the short end of the stick also? they're being marginalized also.

I thank the Great Spirit that I am free and liberated from any religion whatsoever!

"Certainly you cannot compare our values to yours....you are a faithless lot without structure...what can you boast about 5 times a day?"

I can boast the fact that i am not a half brained woman like yourself. Possibly 500 times a day.

http://truthaboutislam.s4.bizhat.com/index.php?mforum=truthaboutislam

come join a new forum

allat,

If naseem dear is in the UK, there's a 60 percent chance she has never been inside a mosque either! Sixty percent of the mosques in the UK don't let women inside. so, guess naseem's outta luck.

muslim women should not be fighting to be allowed to go to the mosques. they should be fighing for their emancipation, their liberty, their dignity, their freedom to be counted as equal to men, their equality in law and custom.

Surely, muslim men are missing a trick here. By allowing muslimas into their mosques will show to their detractors that islam's treatment under quaranic law is just, otherwise why would these seemingly educated women fight to enter the place that its critics have described variously as being terrorist factories, preecing intolerance, hate etc.

The fact that muslim women would like to show their devotion, and fight for it, to a murdering tyrant who is the architect for most of their abject servitude, is worrying.

If I was a muslima, I would actually thank my luck stars that I was not allowed to enter this hideous place.

Naseem,

Since you are a Muslim presumably you believe Jesus was a prophet. Try this quotation from Matthew.

"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites; for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by men. Truly, I say to you they have received their reward. But when you pray, go into your room (or closet.) and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret..." (Matthew 6:5-6 RSV).

By your rules, it would seem that boasting of praying 5 times a day is blaspheming against an Islamic prophet!

REMEMBER........

"August 17, 2006
Fitzgerald: Tips for visiting a mosque
Before visiting a mosque, please google the phrase "taqiyya and tu-quoque" and arm yourself with knowledge. Be prepared to ask -- sweetly, in an Infidel-Wants-to-Know Mode -- about Muhammad's marriage to Aisha when she was nine, about the assassinations of Asma bint Marwan and others, about the massacre of the inoffensive Jewish farmers of the Khaybar oasis, about the decapitation of 600-900 helpless prisoners of the Banu Qurayza, and about so much more. Be sure to mention the Hadith.

Do not let the presentation to those Infidels (hmmm, doesn't that spicy chicken and that pita, and then the honeyed dessert, all waiting for us afterwards, smell good, I can't keep my mind off it, how nice these people are, what good hearts they have to invite us in to share their food and their faith) be allowed to finish without making the most that you possibly can out of that "question time." And bear in mind that you will only be called on once, so you had better have your questions ready -- not really to be answered, but so that they can provoke thought and unease in your fellow Infidels who have come, unlike you, without any mental weapons whatsoever.

Ask about the relevance of what Muhammad did and said for today's Muslims. Ask why he is called in the Qur'an "uswa hasana" and in Islamic tradition "al-insan al-kamil"? If told such things as Muhammad's marriage to Aisha must be "put in the context of their times," don't forget to ask why virtually the first act of Khomeini in Iran was to lower the marriageable age of girls to nine.

Oh, and ask about the concept of the "Dhimmi." Ask what was required of Christians and Jews as non-Muslims under Muslim rule. What did they have to do, in order to remain alive, as "Protected People," rather than dead, as Unprotected People, or to prevent their being forcibly converted -- as opposed to the slow conversion, over time, which was usually the only way open to them to escape the onerous, sometimes unendurable situation of being a dhimmi.

And afterwards, when the talk and question time have come to an end, and when other Infidels come up to you, quietly, to thank you for speaking up and speaking out, and expressing their own inarticulate unease, tell them a few of the books you have read. Tell them about Bat Ye’or, Ibn Warraq, Spencer and Bostom. Tell them of this and other websites (www.faithfreedom.org, www.dhimmitude.org, www.answering-islam.org, for a start). Agree to take their names and phone numbers or emails, and to send them a further list so that they, too, will not merely rely on the nonsense and lies fed to them by the soft-voiced propagandists.

Be sure, that evening, to count how often those propagandists mention something about "the three abrahamic faiths" and the "three monotheisms" that "have so much in common." See how often one of the Muslims present tries to use crocodile-sympathies to deplore the mistreatment of Jews by Christians, as opposed to what he will claim is the "tolerance" of Islam, and do agree with him on one point: that Islam manages to mistreat all non-Muslims.

See if there is any mention of Hindus, or perhaps bring with you to the evening a Hindu colleague of the completely unfoolable kind, so that his mere presence in the audience will unnerve the speaker and others. See if there is mention of the 60-70 million Hindus murdered under Muslim rule, and if not, point out that strange omission sometime during the evening.

Oh, and after that? When you all go to the room with the steaming table of that chicken (or lamb) and pita bread and that delicious baklavish dessert? Go right in, along with the other Infidels, mingling with the handful of Muslims in that mosque who agreed to come out that night and agreed to allow the defilement of their mosque by these Infidels, for it was all in a good cause: defending, shoring up, the Faith, until such time as it becomes strong enough here and in other Infidel lands, so that no more Mosque Outreach, no more phony politeness and sweet reason, will be needed with these Infidels.

Break the silence of the lambs. But not by bleating. By studying in advance just enough about Islam -- enough to make things hot that night in the mosque, and not only for that waiting chicken, that pita, that rice."

Posted by Hugh at August 17, 2006 07:18 AM

The East London Mosque, in Whitechapel Road, admits women: it has a grand entrance leading to an entry hall at the top of a flight of stairs: a few yards further along the pavement, is a small, insignificant looking door with a sign saying 'women' above it.
The unfortunate thing about the series of callisthenics which are involved in the Muslim prayer ritual is that it they require getting into an awfully suggestive posture, when adopted by a lady and seen from behind ( I suppose the same could be said of the men, if the male beholder is that way inclined, but this does not seem to be of significance). Mixed praying would involve inevitable distraction of the males. Presumably the usual excuse would be that it is not always possible to arrange for separate praying areas where the males cannot see the females.

“I think it is possible to adopt a more inclusive point of view, and maybe we shouldn't totally reject those opposed to Islam just because they may be atheists. (?)”

Maybe!

Do you think the British Army is an organisation of God fearing Christians who pray every day for the strength to fight the good fight!

No they are not. Many of the lads in the army only ever get near a church for weddings, funerals and when the CO says they must.

I think Kilroy made a glib remark in the moment, because not everything about religion is evil. Many people take great comfort in times of hardship from their belief and as far as I can see that is a good thing. Do you think that as an atheist I wouldn’t prefer an eternity in paradise compared to the long dark sleep that I think is coming? It’s just that I don’t buy into an unproven idea without any evidence.

But when religion and politics mix as they often do then there is trouble. If somebody wants to be a Muslim then fine, but when they want to enforce it on me that is not fine, in fact it makes me want to fight back. Religion and politics don’t mix.

Kilroy was coming from the right direction he just didn’t word it right. At least the guy isn’t telling us to keep our fingers crossed and hope they go away.

Yeah Wally, it’s strange how a mother can’t prey with the men folk because she is so fraught with danger, but the best way to win your mothers love in parts of دار الإسلام .
Is to blow up a café full of Jews?

Funny old world isn’t it.

just because someone's personal philosophy is atheism, does automatically make that person's a communist, with a capital c. Don't sanction an individual -that's their free choice.

Naseem said

Hands up those of you who have been in a mosque.

My grandfather didn't attend any Nazi rallies, but somehow he and his generation dealt with that situation as well, without it.

If he were so inclined he could have read Mein Kampf to find out their core beliefs; he could watch newsreels of those rallies; he could read biographies of Adolf Hitler as a guide to his values; he could read the newspapers to see what activities the Nazis were up to; he could read editorials on the subject written by truly authoritative pundits.

Same thing applies today.

Halima Hussein of MPAC said

we believe it is their [Muslim women's] right within the religious text and it is their right within Islam to enter mosques.

I don't suppose Ms. Hussein offered any Qur'anic quotes, or any episodes from Muhammad's life, to support her view that "the religious text" allows women to pray in mosques? Or that women can be educated, drive automobiles, go out in public uncovered and without a male escort?

If not, I'll assume this is another case of a "moderate" Muslim making vague unsupported claims of freedom, peace, and tolerance in Islam, while "extremist" Muslims make many specific references to the Qur'an and the ahadith to prove the opposite is true.

Naseem/

For your information my faith - a true faith, the Christian faith - has been observing five prayers in a day from well before before the birth of your satanic cult.

These are:
Morning Prayer, Daytime Prayer, Evening Prayer, Night Prayer (or the Office of Readings) and hearing Mass at least once in the day.

Your ridiculous and satanic cult stole the idea of five prayers per day for the laity from other much older religions amongst them, Christianity.

There are also the Canonical Offices which consist of eight daily prayer times and three, or sometimes four, night prayers which are sometimes called 'nocturns', or 'watches', or 'vigils'. Attendance at these is optional for the laity.

The Canonical Offices (sometimes called 'Hours') are used by all the mainstream Churches, including the Catholic, Orthodox and Anglican Churches.

In my own home my father's Anglican priest celebrates the Hours in our chapel every day of the year and on many occassions I, and my family, have gone through entire weeks attending not just the prayers mandatory for the laity but also all the Hours, including the nocturns, which are in the Breviary. As an High Church Anglican family we follow an Anglican Breviary closely modelled on the Post-Vatican II Roman Catholic Breviary which gives us the following Hours:

Dawn Prayer - relief from night and darkness.
Matins - which is a major Hour.
Morning prayer (Lauds) - also a major Hour
Daytime prayer, which we usually divide into three but say usually consecutively except on Holy days of Obligation when we separate each prayer period; this is usually all of the following - Mid-morning prayer (Terce) and Midday prayer (Sext) and Mid-afternoon prayer (None).
Evening prayer (Vespers) - also major hour
Night Prayer (Compline).
Mass - which we usually hear immediately after Matins.

Over and above the eight Hours and Mass we usually say three or four nocturns when we can.

I know for a fact tht my family is not unusual so please, Naseem, cease and desist from trying to take some spurious moral high ground on the subject of prayer. It just makes you look foolish.

Yes, special_guest: I also have never attended any KKK rallies or meetings or cross-burnings, and yet I know all I need to know to condemn them.

Naseem/

It has just been pointed out to me that I was wrong in assigning the label 'nocturn' to our night-time prayers as, 'nocturn(s)' is a word more properly used to describe certain prayerful facets of the major Canonical Hour of Matins when Matins used to be said much earlier than today. The preferred term today would be either 'vigils' or 'watches' (from which latter term is derived the word 'watches' when used in the English phrase 'the long watches of the night').

Dominic.

"We don't want them to be forced in because of, you know, Western kind of values being imposed on mosques."

Oh? Western values are antithetical to mosques? But I thought islam promoted equality of women, the tolerance of homosexuals and of apostates and religious minorities.

Islam...doesn't want these things?

How odd.

Prophet Geoff

Hands up those of you who have been in a mosque.

* raises hand *

What's that ...no-one...I thought not. I wonder if Mr. Silk has been in one himself...probably not ...but then how would you know what it's like.

Well...yes, I do. Women are excluded. That was pretty central.

Womens do go to the mosque...perhaps not in the quantity that the men do...but then again someone's got do the cooking and looking after the childrens after all...you cannot leave that to the welfare state ...like so many single mums in the west.

And when are they going to find time to catch beatings and get sold to cousins in Pakistan?

Certainly you cannot compare our values to yours....you are a faithless lot without structure...what can you boast about 5 times a day?

...not having worshipped a rock? For starters.

And necessitas is quite right: Christians historically observed prayer, and monastically still do, far more than a mere five times a day. What is islam against that?

Kilroy certainy needs lesson in etiquitte. Perhaps someone from the muslim community could show him round ...so that he can make an informed opinion.

If you were the guide, then such a lesson would fail in all respects.

Sincerely,

Prophet Geoff

I've been in a mosque several times, Naseem. They smell of sweaty socks.

Geoff/

Quite right. Couldn't agree more.

What-is-more, my experience is that at least a third of Christians still observe the five mandatory prayers for the laity(Morning Prayer, Daytime Prayer, Evening Prayer, Night Prayer (or the Office of Readings) and hearing Mass at least once in the day) each day of their lives.

They do this quietly and with no outward show. No special dress or prayer rugs are required. No idiot hollering his head off from the top of a tower is needed. No mosk or church or special building is needed. No special places or special rights are required - although, and because I can never resist even the worst of puns, special rites are silently given thought to. No particular bodily posture need be adopted (though some prefer to kneel, close eyes and clasp each hand together for some moments and others quietly, and with no fuss, cross themselves - but all that's optional).

There is none of the show, the bragadoccio, of moslem prayer. None of the boasting attitudes struck - the 'look-at-me-don't-I-pray-better-than-you' offensiveness of moslem prayer. There is no sticking your bottom in the air and hoping that that will somehow please God.

There is, instead, just a quiet few minutes of communion with the God we Christians believe in, a soto voce recitation of the prayers we feel obliged to say; all done quietly and without fuss and with, I hope, a decent respect for our neighbours at other workstations around us who may not share our beliefs.

Naseem cannot possibly know how many of us do, or do not, observe the four prayers and hear mass (no more do I, it could be many more than a third of us), for we make no parade of our beliefs unless asked about them. Instead, the true Christian lets his or her life speak for itself without the ostentatious and distateful showing-off of moslem so-called prayer, which, to a civilised Western mind is just a barbaric moslem expression of mass hysteria - something they seem particularly prone to.

Dominic.

By-the-way, if anyone reading all these posts wishes to get back into, or join in for the first time with, the mandatory prayers for the laity then they will find an excellent guide, or a starting point - depending on where their own spiritual journey might take them - at:

http://www.ebreviary.com/

Go with God.

Dominic.

Kiyjoy doesnot know what he is talkintg about only afew Muslim Nation ban woman from the mosque. In the other Islamist nation women are welcome to come the mosque it they dress very modest than they pray in the women section reserve for them. In our mosque 3 out of 7 board member must be women so they have than voice in running the mosque. Women member of the mosque have the same voteing right as men member.

DefenderofIslam/

Wrong. And, what is more, you are practising deception against us (as your religion allows, of course). Over half of all mosks in the UK forbid women to enter.

Interstingly, if you are to be believed (which I doubt, for you are a moslem and it is axiomatic that all moslems lie) then your mosk permits three of the seats on its board to be held by women. You are damned from your own mouth. Women can never be in the majority on the board of your mosk therefore they do not enjoy equality.

What is more, if your mosk is in the UK then you are also breaking the law for it is illegal to disriminate against women in this way. Give me the name and location of your mosk so that I may report you to the relevant authorities, please.

Dominic.

defender of islam.. a question..what if the women dont want to dress modestly? will they be allowed to pray to your god, in a mosque? and what is modesty?
sounds all very psuedo-chauvanistic to me. do muslim men ever dress modestly? they certainly dont seem to act modestly whenever they are around "un-modestly" dressed western women.
my university was full of muslim perverts that attacked, molested, harrassed white women students whenever possible. frickin disgusting, our university even launched a police investigation due to your so called modesty behaviour.

dude, ive seen muslim women in miami dressed head to foot in burquas sitting on a beach, it looks frickin stupid and is an afront to women. if your frickin sick mind cannot handle the sight of beautiful women then, dude, you need therapy.

leonthepigfarmer/

They ALL need therapy!

Dominic.

necessitasnonhabetlegem,

"if your mosk is in the UK then you are also breaking the law for it is illegal to disriminate against women in this way"

Luckily it's not, religions can still (just) make their own rules regarding governence.

I have no problem with religious ordained difference in the roles of men and women - the Catholic and Protestant churches don't have sexual 'equality' because the bible has roles for men and women, and God has given men the responsibility of leading the Church.

So, it is difficult to argue against Islam with secular human rights law as we'll ALL end up being battered by it - Atheist, Jew, Christian or whatever.

As a Christian I personally feel that the only solid critique of Islam comes from comapring it to Biblical Christianity, which I believe offers a sure and solid foundation to the 'human condition'. e.g. what's right, what's wrong and what our relationship should be between each other and with God.

Therefore I don't have a particular trust in secular human rights law (although I realise it did come out of the 'wests' Judaeo Christian heritage) and I think most Muslims wont either.

And so I belive the argument with Islam should be comparitive with Judaeo Christian truths, not with human rights legislation.

Which is where Kilroy-Silk and I fall out.

"Kiyjoy doesnot know what he is talkintg about only afew Muslim Nation ban woman from the mosque. In the other Islamist nation women are welcome to come the mosque it they dress very modest than they pray in the women section reserve for them"

......Why are women banned from entering a mosque at all?.....Should they not be allowed to "pray" alongside of their "men"....Why should a "god" even care how you dress....dress codes are strickly a concern for mortal men, not a god....I believe Muslim men pray more for the deaths of the "infidels" more than they pray for "life"....Islam is flawed....

....Ban Muslim immigration, NOW....

First, congatulations to any antidhimmi woman of planet Earth for St. Valentine day.
Second, as a small gift, small joke (as I just have heared):

Muslim came to immigration department in NY. Officer ask:
Q:Your name Sir?
A:Abdul Ahman Al Muhammad bin Yakub.
Q:Sex?
A:Oh yes, 5 times at day.
Q:No,no sir, You didnt understand me. I meant Male or Female?
A:Yes,yes, both, male and female, and sometimes also camels and goats.

He added: "I don't believe in religions. I think all religions are fairy tales, I think they are evil

That is a very compelling argument.... I am sure it will change the minds of muslims living in the U.K... As surely as it will change the minds of millions of "evil" Church goers....

parker,

In Paul's letter to the Galatians, he does speak that there are no differences in the eyes of God.

parker/

I disagree with you but not fundamentally just on your philosophical and theological emphasis of relative man/woman positions. I don't happen to believe that Christianity is static - that revelation has finished and is compleat. But I won't challenge your right to believe that it is, for we are both on the same side here and both of us have the same fundamental beliefs in the Trinity, prayer and worship I would assume.

I also think that one can use secular and relativistic type arguments (and cultural arguments) against islam. Many on this site do so easily and with great and convincing fluency and I am always grateful for such arguments for they provide another string to one's bow in the continuing counter-jihad.

When I wrote that I thought that it would be illegal for an administrative board of a mosk to practice this type of discrimination it was after I had talked to a couple of friends of mine who are junior laywers - they reckon that they could make a good case in front of a tribunal that the administrative board cannot be viewed as religious but as a secular necessity and therefore would fall within the purviews of the relevant anti-discrimination laws. It would be an interesting case if it were ever to be brought forward.

As for the widest possible applications of secular human rights laws - well, I happen to be all in favour of that and if such applications were to catch some dubious practices in religions and ideologies other than islam then I would view that as being a good thing also. But I do understand why your belief position would lead you to be wary of my approach to secular human rights laws and, to a certain extent, I sympathise with you.

Dominic.

bigcatgirl13106 -

absolutely agree - hence my 'equality' in commas. In the eyes of God we are entirely equal, however, we do have specifc roles on earth that to secular people seem 'unequal'.

Dominic -

Thanks for the reply. I think I understand where you personally are coming from with the idea of developing revelation (if you're talking about 'extra biblical revelation' or reinterpritation) - it's not something I agree with, but I realise it is a theme in contemporary christianity (which is another debate!).

Regarding secular and cultural arguments - yes, lets use them, but lets realise the only ones that hold water come from a Judaeo Christian background. I.e. one can not easily gain support for condeming Islam by referencing its rejection of homosexuality as *an awful lot* of people are in agreement with that. However, one could condem Islam for teaching that homosexuals should be killed, as this is clearly against biblical truths.

Regarding the application of secular human rights (SHR) law - our church and many like ours are in a difficult place as the church office (the administrative team) currently have job descriptions that say they must be committed christians - SHR law is trying to make these non leadership positions subject to it, such that a persons religious/sexual beliefs cannot be taken into account when they apply for these positions. E.g. a lesbian druid could cite discrimination when being rejected from a secretary job at a christian church. This is a very dangerous infringement of religious freedom and conincidentally a similar situation to the one you were referencing in the mosque point.

And lets not forget that humans always sink to the lowest common denominator - and SHR law will go there to. Instead of enshrining values it opens them to negotiation and discussion and subsequently denigration. If we remove God from the picture, then we have nothing to stand for - and the Muslims know this.

There have been many debates about how we (Europeans & Americans) are already doomed as we live in a godless society. All Islam is doing is putting us under a bit of pressure and we're just crumbling away - where have our sure and sound foundations gone - given up, rejected and washed away by the tide of SHR law and legislation.

We've exchanged God for a faceless bureaucrat in another country.

This may sound like I'm a europhobic 'right wing' nut job, but I'm not ;) My issue is that only light can shine in the darkness, and only truth can counter lies - we have to know the truth.

parker/

I want shake your hand and give you the kiss of peace. I couldn't agree with you more if I tried.

Your third paragraph is the clincher, for me. I find it highly disturbing that, as you say, "...a lesbian druid could cite discrimination when being rejected from a secretary job at a christian church..." because the only person, in such a situation, who could possibly cite discrimination would be a lesbian Christian, not a Druid or a member of another faith. (Of course, I can imagine that there are people out there of different faiths who would, because they are honourably employed, honourably fulfill a contract of employment even though they might disagree with some of the religious tenets of their employers - they would, in other words, see it as their duty to represent the convictions and beliefs of their employer no matter what their own personal convictions might be. I would certainly not dismiss the possibility that, for example, a Christian congregation might employ a Hindu secretary because such a person may see it as a duty to honour their employer's directions no matter what may transpire. Such people, and such situations, do, indeed, exist.)

The SHR (as you usefully abbreviate it) lobby would wish us to employ, to countenance even, those who do not profess Christianity in any sense and, as I have outlined in the last paragraph, this may be possible if we accept that people can be honourable. But, for me, I would rather argue with an interpretation of Christianity delivered by a gay or lesbian Christian (incidentally, and in case you didn't know, I happen to be a gay Christian - but that is not important in the present context), with a Christian different from me, than with an interpretation of Christianity delivered by a non-Christian. I would rather discuss administration of my congregation with a Christian of any hue than with a non-Christian attempting to be honourable and straight.

Why do I have such a preference? That's easy to answer! Simply because I really don't think that any non-Christian, no matter how honourable his or her intentions may be, can possibly understand the wealth and depth and meaning and spiritual life which lies behind, for example, the words of Ed­mond L. Bu­dry (Thine is the glory, risen, conqu’ring Son;
Endless is the victory, Thou o’er death hast won;
Angels in bright raiment rolled the stone away,
Kept the folded grave clothes where Thy body lay.) Nor can I accept that a non-Christian, be he or her ever so honourable, can know the true spiritual meaning behind the Pater noster ('Our Father, Which art in heaven,
Hallowed be etc....').

However, I disagree with your assertion that "If we remove God from the picture, then we have nothing to stand for...". I can, even as a Christian, remove God from the picture and see that we would still have a great deal to stand for (granted that much of what would be left with after such a removal would still be heavily dependent, historically speaking, upon the evolution of Christianity and Christian theology and thought - philosophy and theosophy - throughout the Western ages). Secularism and SHR are not the enemy of Western Christianity, in my opinion, but, rather, a challenge to all we Christians to explain our position (NOT faith, please note) in the best absolute terms that we can manage.

I firmly believe that we live in the days in which we have to, as Jesus said, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things which are God's" (Mark 12:13-17 (the same passage, incidentally, appears, but slightly modified, in Matthew 22:15-22 and Luke 20:20-26)). I interpret this as meaning that we have to abide by the secular laws as we perceive them and reserve to ourselves, individually, the elements of conscience with which we are endowed.

Granted that it was Christianity that first exulted the nobility and authority of the human conscience, upholding the supreme right of the conscience against the rule and demands of the State, the City, the Church and the tribe which before Christian awareness in human history had been paramount. Our Christian Church has taught us that the conscience is inviolable and must always be obeyed for Christianity affirms the dignity of the individual person and also acknowledges the intransigent claims of the moral law which comes from God, the Divine Lawgiver.

Conscience is not an emotional sensation about a particular ethical situation. Nor is conscience how we subjectively feel about a certain ethical issue. Conscience does not create its values, but rather it apprehends the truth of the moral order and applies these moral norms to concrete situations, argued by Christians in the real world, and giving voice to their concerns.

Conscience is often spoken of as a light, or a voice, that informs a person about what is right and good and morally correct. In the broadest sense of the word, conscience is the mind apprehending the truth of God and goodness, especially in the moral order. But, more specifically, conscience is a judgment of the practical intellect, derived from objective moral principles (and sometimes, despite Holy Mother Church's objections, relativistic moral principles), about the good or evil of a concrete situation.

Conscience is a judgement of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act which he/she is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he/she says and does, (wo)man is obliged to follow faithfully what he/she knows to be just and right. It is by the judgement of his/her conscience that (wo)man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law, or not, and acts so, accordingly.

That, to my mind (but I may be wrong) is Christianity and that, to my mind, is what makes Christianity infinitely superior to the petty concerns of islam - the hair covering concerns, the stupid death cult of jihad concerns, the shaving of one's beard - or not - concerns, the equality - or inequality - of women concerns, the validity of gay lives - or not - concerns. The correct order of prayer concerns. The 'this-land-is-my-land' concerns. The stupid, reductionist concerns of the spiritually small-minded, narrow minded, pharisaic, spiritually impoverished, violent (which goes against everything we know to come from God) world of islam.

Quite frankly, for me Christianity is infinitely superior in its theology to anything which islam has to offer - and, also for me, Western humanistic, sometimes atheistic and/or agnostic thought, is also infinitely superior to the deeply stupid and satanic verses and theosophy, if one can call it that, of islam. islam has nothing to offer except death. Christianity, and all Western Systems, offer life through God or conscience. That is the most profound of differences and that is what makes our counter-jihad of the most supreme importance.

To put it simply: Christianity (and Western agnosticism - and atheism, strangely) celebrates life. islam, and all its offshoots, celebrate death and destruction.

Tell me, my friends, to which faith would you assign the mark of the beast?

Dominic.

parker/

I have in my mind the last of the Hours which I attended (at St. Martin's in the Field, London, UK - some several hours ago - Compline), so, then may I, in all humility, remind you of one of the verses of the Holy prayers of that part of the Office:

"Visit this place, O Lord, we pray,
and drive far from it the snares of the enemy..."

My conscience tells me that the snares of the enemy (islam) must be driven actively from us. I, for one, will stand up and be counted, as Christians throughout the ages have always done.

Dominic.

I live in America and America allow than set number of board post to go to woman automatic. In the past we have 4 or 5 women on the board. The Koran clearly state women are allow to go to the mosque it they arenot haveing they monthly peroid then they are in a state of beintg temp uncleam the same rule apply to jewish woman in they place of workship. We donot chech this at all they are on their honor.

Woman in the mosque have alot of say in the running of the place and wise man listern to them. Plus 1/2 of the mony to built the mosque came from the woman.
Our mosque have than mixed population of muslim from
the many sect and Islamist nation plus america convert and Black Muslim(Than a deal with mainstream muslim the Nation of Islam is than muslim group with many become mainstream muslim). There are afew old man who donot want woman in the mosque but they expect that woman will be in the mosque. Most of the muslim women donot want to be like the western femist pushing they way into being equel to men.
In the Islamic Horizons volune 35 no 6 november/december 2006 there is than aryicle by than moslim womanist(they hate the word feminism) title "The Limits of Western Feminism" By Nazia Kazi. Plus Dr Ingrid Mattson is Elected ISNA President. Our mosque is trying to maintrain than middle ground between two extremes the extreme conservativism of no women in the mosque, and the
extreme liberal of women leading men in prayer and going against traditson which are good and valid.
There is only one valid way than muslim woman can lead in mixed prayer is it I than the only man there who can speack arabic since the prayer in public must be spoken in arabic then the women there will pick one of they own to be the leader in prayer.

Correction above I cannot speak Arabic at all.

The woman are the one who want to pray in seprate area. There are mosque in the country that donot allow woman in then it the member decide that woman can pray at the mosque the state find itself than a very weak postin as in the early day of Islam did pray in the mosque with the man.

The men in our mosque are modest in dress and are very well manner around other people. In fact some other people from other religion group comment on the way we are well behavior around other people and he is than state judge in the coury in our city, Durning our public breaking of the fast he brought with him 30 or 40 other judge from different courts system. I must say you are lying about the way the muslim are behavioring.

Dominic

An insightful and thoughtful piece - thank you.

I broadly agree with your thesis on SHR, that even secularism is better than Islam at the moment - however, I do fear however that it would not take long for it to become as bad as Islam, such a communism et al. But i think we've had that debate!

I think there are areas in the other passages that we could discuss further - but I don't have the time - and probably you don't either!

However, what gives me confidence is that whilst there are different experiences of Christianity (and yours and mine may differ in areas) as long as we put of lives at the foot of the cross, and our trust in Jesus, we have certainty in our eternal future. And there we'll have all our questions answered!

So, I will join you in standing up and being counted, as Christians throughout the ages have always done.

Dominic, if you're so religious, then why do you seem to accept the British class system, since you have referred to yourself in the past, as an aristocrat.

Isn't the inherent inequality of the class system unchristian?

parker,

The passage in question is the one that speaks of "there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free, malel or female" part of Galatians that I was refering to.

Need to correct the misspelled word "male".

DefenderofIslam,

What do you think of Irijiid Majid, the woman who wrote the book "The Problem With Islam" ? She is the reform-minded Muslim woman.

Voltaire,

butting in - im sure Dominic will answer later..>>

If you mean a royal family, then I don't think so. The royal family used to run the country and now are more cultural figure heads. Parliment have the power since the times of Cromwell. There is now no state sanctioned class system. The only thing not open to everyone is being a member of the royal family, but then thats because it's a family.

However, a class 'system' is unchristian if it is a state structure or cultural influence that discriminates by 'class' (whatever that means) such as hindu caste system. In the UK whilst there are the small remains of a cultural 'class structure' it has greatly gone and talk of upper, middle or working class is reather meaningless.

The only thing that people discriminate on are background and ability, just like any country. There are the Ivy League colleges in the USA, the top schools in Europe, India, China etc. And the people that go there are a certain type of person, not a certain type of class. Or they come out a certain type of person. Which ever it is any system nowerdays is based around education and background experience, and there are many people that have come from 'working class' backgrounds that are now leaders in the UK - just loo at Richard Branson or any one of the many music or media artists.

I believe the only thing holding people back is their desire to change.

BigGirl that woman who wrote that book will never reform Islam. Reform cannot be force from the outside. Some Saudic women gain more freedom from the old Saudic King and the new Saudic king by qouteing the Koran and the tradison of the Founder of Islam to say these tradison right they allway have isnot being honor anymore.The King just left than meeting with western man-hateing feminist than he was in a bad mood. He listern to the women patinson and he realize that these saudic women arenot trying to overthrow Islam in the kingdom they
just want they traditson right to be honor so he agree to they request and to meet with then on a regurate basic. The Saudic women are slowly and surely gaining more freedom and right.

DefenderofIslam,

Thank-you for your response. But in truth women like Ms. Majid are a breath of needed fresh air for much needed reform in your religion. If both the Jewish and Christian faiths have gone through their reform movements, and come out even better, then so can Islam which is way over due, otherwise it will go into the trash bin of history.

Voltaire/

Every country in the world has a class system, including the USA. They may be diffuse and loose as systems but they are still there. At some stages in the history of any country such a system is stronger, perhaps because of need, than at other times.

Such systems are, as you suggest, inherently un-Christian but it seems to be that some sort of social class system emerges wherever and whenever we human beings choose to order ourselves into societies.

The British class system is currently weak and diffuse and re-inventing itself away from the old aristocratic norms - good. I also have to say that I have encountered far more class consciousness in other countries than I think anyone would in the UK. In particular, it has been my experience that France and the USA are particularly bad in this respect - both of these countries have, in my opinion and based only upon my experiences of both societies, a very vicious and cruel approach to class. Certainly, both countries are amongst the most snob ridden, classist and divisive societies which I have ever lived in and yet both countries manage to sustain modern economies (in the case of the USA the most important and largest modern economy) and modern methods of democracy and life.

There are many myths about the UK still at large in the world today - it's almost as if people can't quite believe that the UK is a modern 21st. Century country, almost as if somewhere in their souls they really want it to be some romanticised Victorian fairy tale - and the British class system is, by and large, just another one of those myths.

Parker (above) has the right of it, too.

Dominic.