Sharia in the UK: Church banned from using public market stall after distributing leaflet criticizing Islam

Well it's normal that the hate to us "non believers can be preached in the moskee, and that there can be told that they may do with the unbelievers and chrsitians what ever they want to do.But a warning in our OWN country for what the Islam is bringing us on hate and sharia: that's called hate. Oh well, this all is just a beginning.
When there SHOULD be an duty in equality, we should see that.From the start on there wasn't any equality.Reality is that moslims can complain about everything and mostly get what they want and more and that's not for us "unbelievers"
Well my warning is too: Islam brings hate, not love at all.

What did the leaflet actually say?

I don't see how we can discuss this sensibly unless we know which words were deemed "hateful".

The article later repeats that "A police spokesman confirmed a complaint had been received from a member of the public regarding leaflets that were distributed but, following discussions with the council, the force’s diversity team and CPS it was “deemed that no offences were carried out”.

It cannot have been so very bad. Still, the City Council seems eagerly to have adapted to the creed that diversity and criticism is hate ....that is, if it speaks against Islam which - as we all know - never speaks against Christianity.

I would like to have seen the leaflet though.

Anders Behring Breivik, the man accused of last year’s terror attack in Norway, has made a far-right salute at the start of his trial in Oslo and said he does not recognise the court.

Breivik has admitted killing 77 people by detonating a bomb in the centre of Oslo and opening fire on young people attending a summer camp on Utoya island nearly nine months ago.

Read more: http://www.maghrebchristians.com/2012/04/16/breivik-i-dont-recognise-norway-court/#ixzz1sBtltOZ3

Youssef

The pastor of Norwich Reformed Church (Alan Clifford) has been mentioned on this blog previously for his anti-dhimmi stance.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2004/09/uk-pastor-renews-attack-on-islam.html
Alan Clifford wrote the leaflet that sparked this current incident. If interested, email me at philzinc(at)hotmail.com for a copy of the leaflet and a copy of the letter from the local council.

The rules are simple.

1. Kaffirs (non-Muslims) are haters and guilty of bigotry everytime they speak-up on a Muslims issue. Even if it is true.

2. Muslims on the other hand are the "religion of peace", so they are never guilty on any issue or charge. Keep in mind that Muslims are always innocent victims.

How hard is it to remember that? Non-Muslims are always guilty haters of Islam. Muslims are always innocent victims whom are only trying to show their love to the non_Muslims. End of story.

The Equality Act? What the hell is this? Sounds super PC/MC.

So when did telling the truth about Islam become hate? How does the Norwich city council deal with Islamic hate literature against the native Britons (the koran and hadiths of Mohammed)?

I wonder if they have banned the Koran? If hate speech is illegal, I know of nothing else that speaks hatred against anyone and anything that isn't Muslim. It commands hatred against Jews, Christians, atheists, homosexuals, cartoons, reruns on TV, music and musicians and... Islam is the great suppressor. In its own way they are not particularly too fond of woman either. It must have been one heck of an interesting pamphlet!

I'm fed up with this "hate" business. Since when was it a crime to hate?
I hate cruelty to animals.
I also happen to hate cruelty to women and non-Muslims.
Therefore I am a "hater".
I hate this garbage!!!

I agree with previous comments about actually seeing the pamphlet before making a judgement. But, it also seems to me that here is a stupid case of PC/MC going beserk...

Norwich City Council
Address
City Hall
Norwich
NR2 1NH
Phone number
0344 980 3333
Text phone
Minicom
01603 212 587
Email address
info@norwich.gov.uk
Website (opens new window)
http://www.norwich.gov.uk
Opening Hours
Monday to Friday 8.00 am to 6.00 pm (phone enquiries)

I suggest people contact the Norwich City Council and demand that they give reasons for their actions based on a single complaint.

Just the tip of the iceberg in the UK

how can one concerned citizen move an entire council? threats? payolla?

Christians have nothing on muslims when it comes to hate speech. Muslims are the masters at it. But of course they don't get punished for it.

Rev Clifford is actually peacefully disseminating his “inviolable right to state what his beliefs are “under the Geneva convention on human rights, a right guaranteed by our Christian heritage.

As a Christian he should espouse that there is No comparison to Jesus, with Muhammad, this is not my recommendation it is mandated in the Bible when Christ speaks of the grandeur of John the Baptist, “of all those born of woman there has never arisen a greater than John the Baptist”, and Mohammed cannot compare with St John.

Christians are unwisely advised to be “Christ like” (which seems to mean do nothing) when in reality we should be raging at the injustice we see around us, just as John the Baptist demonstrated.

Rev Clifford speaks about Judgement, and a day of Judgement where we shall all see the results of our own Judgements, that means that there are people even on this board who are liable to condemnation because judgement must not transgress the commandments, and the instructions of the Sermon on the Mount, but judgement must not be cowardly, be forthright just as Rev Clifford is forthright, if you do this you will establish what Jesus desired in saying:

33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

This verse of the bible quoting The Sword is very misunderstood, the sword is The Spirit of Truth, penetrating all believers in Christ.

MV

One can make a strong case that the Koran is hate-motivated literature; i.e., hate of the non-Muslim polytheist, infidel, animist, Christian, Jew, etc...

Why not apply the same standard? Or, is the Koran too thick to read and convoluted to understand?

Unless the British wake up real soon, the UK will become the Islamic Republic of Great Britain before 2050. The royal family will be exiled to one of the old colonies such as Canada. The state religion will be Islam and the legal system will be replaced by the Shariah. The cathedral of Canterbury will be transformed in a mosque, or better, it will be demolished and a mosque built over it.

Yet Britain is chock-full of genuinely hate-spewing izlumic clerics free to spread their murderous filth on the streets and in their moskkks, and cannot be stripped of their citizenship and be deported because it would infringe on their "rights". Something is seriously wrong with British society and government.

"“Although the police advised that no criminal offence had been committed, we have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to foster good relations between people of all backgrounds and religions."

Muslims, of course, don't abide by the Infidel's stinking Equality Act 2010...

Actually ... no, there won't always be an England.

Think this is the leaflet here:

http://eastangliandivision.wordpress.com/2012/04/15/why-not-islam-dr-alan-c-clifford/

"A church has been banned from using a market stall to hold its weekly outreach service following a complaint about “hate-motivated” leaflets published by the group"

It seems to me that those Islamic posters advising you are now entering a Shar'ia law enforced area are hate-motivated..especially if you are non-Muslim...

There's a whole lot of dhimmi going on at Norwich City Council... Islam plays the tune and the council does the dance steps...

Article:

"The Equality Act of 2010".

_________________________

George Orwell, call your office, because it appears that some animals are more equal than others...again.

Pathetic! Typical dhimmi marxist/liberal reaction. Muslims continue, however, to say and print whatever they like - without challenge. We have such a weak, cowardly, dhimmi,pc., apologist, capitulating so-called, un-elected 'government' For God's sake, Camoron - show some backbone - stand up for us while we still have some of our country left

The biggest mistake everyone’s been making to fight against Islam is to treat it like a religion. Its not .

What is needed is to take a public hearing/investigation
into “Radicalisation of Islam in America” to its logical
end by exposing the fact that the koran , hadiths , sunna
preach hatred against all non-muslims, call for overthrow
of societies by replacing it with sharia and subjugation
of rights of non-muslims.

Based on these facts and given the real and historical
evidences , Islam should be declared a fasicts Idealogy
and banned from USA like naZism….just like in saudi other
religions are banned.

Deny citizenship , voting and social benefits to all
muslims as long as they remain so. Those who want these
rights must reject , denounce & leave islam in writing
permanently.

Or they can leave USA.

Every musllm found indulging in violence should be
deported along with their supporters including their
lawyers. If no lawyer is found they can get one from
overseas for the trial and the lawyer leaves after the
trial.

When you make the cost of following Islam high enough then
you’ll begin to see a reduction in this menace & better
future for the society and country.

No other way to treat this social cancer that has been
destroying all civilised societies it has managed to
infest.

Norwich City Council
The political make up of the council, following the local election held on 5 May 2011, is as follows: Labour hold of 18 seats, the Green Party 15, the Liberal Democrats four and Conservatives two.
i.e. A council dominated by socialists and climate change swallowers

Norwich City Council definition of "hate"
Hate incidents or crimes can take many forms including:
•physical attacks - such as physical assault, damage to property, offensive graffiti, neighbour disputes and arson
•threat of attack - including offensive letters, abusive or obscene telephone calls, groups hanging around to intimidate and unfounded, malicious complaints
•verbal abuse or insults - offensive leaflets and posters, abusive gestures, dumping of rubbish outside homes or through letterboxes, and bullying at school or in the workplace.
... and of course "offensive" is not defined, so would be deemed to include anything contrary to the adoration of Islam true or not.

It was nothing to do with 'hate' likely!!

That's the sad reality.

Did it call for violence - probably not?

Did it disparage Muslims as a group - probably not?

Then what's the problem - under Islamic law it would not have been permitted!!

It's the new law - you know!!
From the Middle East - where criticizing Islam could get you the death penalty!!
Head by your feet!!

::

Islam, force, heads under feet:

Muhammad sent Khalid Ibn al-Walid to the tribe of the children of Haritha and told him: "Call them to accept Islam before you fight with them. If they respond, accept that from them, but if they refuse, fight them." Khalid told them: "Accept Islam and spare your life." They entered Islam by force. He brought them to Muhammad. Muhammad said to them: "Had you not accepted Islam I would have cast your heads under your feet"

If only decent people would make such a fuss about Islamic hate literature and actions.

The Norwich City Council is HATEFUL towards Dr. Alan Clifford and his opinion about Islam.

Is it HATEFUL to HATE hatred?

This is getting ridiculous...

Because muslims around the World , and in canada , know that terrorism works , just as Hiller's SA ( Brown Shirts) found out to use the Psy-OP threats and then the SS ( Black Shirts) followed.

There would be more Hate-Crimes filed against muslims if non-muslims knew they wouldn't be hounded and tracked down for the risks of being killed or having their home fire-bombed, so when CAIR plays the "Victim" and whines about hate-crimes at msulims....they fail to tell the whole story that any Complaint against Muslims is Hijacked by CAIR for their Lawfare or revenge to get people fired or live in fear for their lives.

Shame on the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Barbara Hall's crusade to spread Shariah into the Schools and Workplaces because she's the perfect useful-idiot for the islamic Supreamcy thugs and Brown-Shirts .
I only hope I live long enough to see B.Hall in a Al-Qaeda video having her head sawed off with a dull knife as she tell us the islam=peace and poverty causes terrorism.

Liberalism must be a borderline Mental Illness or brain defect to have no connection from the Conscience to the evil and harm done to humans and children by their own kind and yet only see the USA and Israel as evil doers.

They would probably have prosecuted Dr Alan Clifford even if all that he had on his stall to give to interested members of the public were baskets full of the four grimly accurate, meticulously-researched and referenced information pamphlets put out by The Barnabas Fund - to wit, 'What is Islam?, Islam and Truth (includes discussion of what Taqiyya is), Islam and Slavery, and What is Sharia? (contains point by point exposition of the " five main areas in which sharia is incompatible with human rights").

These booklets - the one on sharia comprises just ten easy-to-read information-packed pages - do not proselytize for Christianity; they merely tell the unpleasant truth about Islam, in clear dispassionate language, and leave the reader to come to his or her own conclusions.

They cost about a dollar (Australian) a pop and can be bought online from the Barnabas Fund website.

Buy them by the sackful and keep them handy, ready to share with other folks as opportunity presents.

If any of my fellow jihadwatchers here happens to run a business or practise a profession that means you have a 'waiting room' provided with magazines and leaflets, you could do worse than get yourself some copies of Barnabas Fund's 'What is Islam?' and 'What is Sharia?' pamphlets and leave them where your customers or your patients can pick them up and read them while waiting, if so inclined.

OT:

The rape jihad continues in Sweden:
http://www.thelocal.se/40208/20120411/
"Seven convicted in brutal gang rape case"

Hi DS. I checked over the responses and it looks like nobody has provided what was said yet so I will. If I missed out someone else's post providing the link sorry, mea culpa.

See: http://weareangry.co.uk/Discussion/tabid/822/aft/509/language/en-GB/Default.aspx

Just in case the above link disappears, I have pasted the text below. Sorry to everyone if doing so makes this post excessively long.

WHY NOT ISLAM

Too many churchmen as well as politicians are gripped by cowardice in the face the Muslim menace. One fears that the oft-stated ‘clash of civilisations’ will inevitably erupt with violence on British streets when expected demographic predictions reach a critical point. Irrespective of the naive incompetence of ‘PC’ government policies, it is the amazing and long-suffering tolerance of British people that keeps a lid on such terrible possibilities. But for how much longer?

As a Christian pastor, I pursue a mission which seeks the conversion of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. Religiously and politically, I desire compassion for all and malice towards none. Whether people follow the dictates of a false religion like Islam or they prefer the decadent life-style of much modern British secularism, all need the life-transforming message of our Lord Jesus Christ. That said, our long-overdue recovery of authentic Christianity must be matched by an informed rejection of Islam. My case is as follows:

1. WHY ISLAM IS NOT PEACEFUL

It is undeniable that Islam’s global jihadists - some quietly, others violently - are plotting the overthrow of all we have known for centuries. They are preparing for ‘USAistan’, ‘EUropeistan’ and ‘UKistan’ in no uncertain terms! Tragically, our secularist Governments - which Islam aims to subjugate and replace in any case - are playing dangerous games by ignorantly distinguishing between militant and moderate Islam. The only difference between moderates and militants is between those who keep their mouths shut and those who don’t! Western Governments and other secularists are deluded by the deceptive mantra ‘Islam mean peace’ (reinforced by the early, pre-abbrogated Sura 2: 256 and the frequently misquoted Sura 5: 32). But it means nothing of the kind! The Arabic word for ‘peace’ is ‘salaam’, the Hebrew equivalent being ‘shalom’. No, ‘Islam’ means ‘submission’, submission to Allah. The only sense in which the Pax Islama could mean ‘peace’ is when tribute-paying non- Muslims are silenced by conquest and reduced to a state of dhimminitude or ‘second class’ citizenship. To properly use Sir Iqbal Sacranie’s deceptive expression (used to shield Islam from its critics after 7/7) ‘the Qur’an is perfectly clear’, it states: ‘Make war on them: ... Fight those who believe not in Allah ... Nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are of the People of the Book, i.e. Jews and Christians), until they pay the jizyah with submission, and are utterly subdued’ (Sura 9: 14, 29).

2. WHY MUSLIMS ARE NOT ISLAMIC

Yes, you have read it correctly. Muslims are not really Muslims. They are properly called ‘Muhammadans’ - followers of their prophet Muhammad. The god they claim to submit to (the true meaning of ‘Islam&rsquo is in reality the ancient pagan moon god of Arabia. For all their protestations against ‘idolatry’, their crescent moon symbol of Allah may be seen on every mosque. This imagined god is not to be confused with the living God who has uniquely revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Since Muslims reject the true God, only acknowledged by true Christians, Christians alone are truly ‘islamic’ since they alone submit to God! Invoking an absurd piece of Islamic rhetoric, the Lord Jesus Christ was only a ‘muslim’ in the sense that He, as the Son of God, submitted Himself to the will of His heavenly Father. While Jesus may be regarded as a ‘muslim’ in this sense, Muslims are arguably not Muslims because they fail to submit to the living God! Their hostility to God in Christ makes them strictly ‘anti-muslim’!

3. WHY THE WEST MUST SHUN ISLAM

So, Muslims need rescuing from Islam! At the same time, the West needs rescuing from Islam! To implement this twin rescue mission, two directives must be pursued:

1. Reliable information must be made available to community, educational, church and political leaders about authentic Islam. The loveless concept of Allah; the incoherence of the Qur’an; Islam’s appeal to the baser instincts of human nature; the degradation of women involving female circumcision and forced marriages; honour killings; the killing of apostates, its bloody jihadism and a fallaciously-promised erotic paradise for suicide bombers (murderers not martyrs); all these features must not be hidden. In responding to the growing threat, Western Governments are failing to face reality. The distinction between moderate and militant Islam misses the point that the religion itself is the source of the problem. Indeed, no other religion on earth can claim to match the violence of the Islamic agenda. Seemingly-benign Muslim communities will always be breeding grounds from which their more militant members can recruit jihadists.

2. With sensitive yet courageous compassion, Christians must use all proper means to evangelise Muslims. In the process, there must be no concessions to liberal as well as Muslim denials of the deity and grace of Jesus Christ, the Son of God and only Saviour of the world. In short, the case for the pure, life-transforming faith of biblical Christianity must be courageously made. On the religious education level, the RE component of National Curricula must ‘put the record straight’. Teachers must stop pretending that Jesus and Muhammad are on a par and that the Holy Bible and the Holy Qur’an teach similarly-positive values. Without denying that too often Christians have failed to demonstrate the compassionate virtues of its Founder, the true character of Muhammad’s programme and its devastating dictates must not be hidden from our children. Yes, the Christian Gospel forbids and condemns hatred and violence. The same cannot be said of the message of Muhammad. The children of Western schools must learn the difference between the mercy of the Sermon on the Mount and the hatred of the Hadith. The children of Muslim citizens must also be exposed to the purity of Christ and not the poison of Muhammad.

4. WHY JESUS CHRIST

With a continuing and growing assault on our Christian heritage, never was there a greater need to get to grips with the truth of the Bible text: “No man ever spoke like this man” (John 7: 46). This was the response of amazed men who heard Christ. What truths explain their astonishment?

1. NO MAN EVER SPOKE LIKE JESUS CHRIST And why? He was no ordinary man. He was perfect and sinless. He is the ‘God-man’

(Matthew 1: 23)

; ‘God manifest in the flesh’ (1 Timothy 3: 16); the Eternal ‘Word made flesh’

(John 1: 14).

Thus, He spoke words of truth, purity, love, kindness and compassion. He spoke with divine unction, grace and authority. No one else, before or since, ever spoke like Him.

He is Creator, King, and Lord of the Universe.

On the other hand, Muhammad was an ordinary man. He was imperfect and sinful.

He spoke words of error, impurity, hate and cruelty.

2. NO MAN EVER LIVED

LIKE JESUS CHRIST

His life backed up His words. In lip and life, He was perfectly consistent. He brought

blessing, healing, comfort and joy to people. His many miracles confirmed His deity.

His tender touch declared the compassion of God. He liberated women from the

abusive treatment of selfish men. He rejected violence as a method of spreading His

message. No life has ever been lived to match the life of Jesus Christ.

On the other hand, Muhammad's life contradicted many of his more noble sayings.

His life is not a good example for ‘private character’. His claims cannot compare

with Christ’s. Spreading his message by the sword, he brought violence and

bloodshed to those who refused to submit to his ‘Allah’. He humiliated women. His

tenderness was reserved chiefly for his own sexual indulgence and his stomach

(according to wife - one of fourteen - A’isha).

3. NO MAN EVER DIED

LIKE JESUS CHRIST

While His life and preaching angered the religious establishment of His day, nothing

could justify the hatred directed at Him. He was guilty of no sin. Expressing God’s

mercy to us hell-deserving sinners, Jesus, Saviour of the world, died for our sins.

He died, ‘the just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God’

(1 Peter 3: 18). In His

agonizing crucifixion, He breathed nothing but love and kindness to His enemies.

Such dying! Such love!

On the other hand, Muhammad died, burdened by his own guilt. Sadly and tragically,

his death did not terminate his cruel conquests. Others perpetuated his vicious legacy.

4. NO MAN EVER BLESSED

THE HUMAN RACE

LIKE JESUS CHRIST

His impact on history is not just the effect of a perpetuation of His memory. Jesus

rose from the dead! He lives! The Gospel is the greatest blessing the world has ever

known! It has brought forgiveness, love, joy and peace. Christ has mended broken

hearts and lives. He has given hope to those in despair. Through Him, the light of

heaven has dispelled the darkness of death.

He has liberated individuals and nations. The Gospel has delivered people from

ignorance, slavery, poverty and degradation. All that is truly good, noble, pure and

beautiful comes from Him (even if apostate believers - crusading Roman Catholics

and deity-denying Protestant Liberals - have corrupted His truth). Christ’s

resurrection influence continues still where He is accepted, trusted and served.

On the other hand, Muhammad died, to rise no more, except to be judged by Christ

when He returns. His tomb is not empty. His legacy is ignorance, cruelty, fear and

oppression. The continued influence of his teachings is a threat to all that Christ

represents.

In conclusion, the case for Christ and against Muhammad is compelling in every

respect. Assessed by every test that may be devised, there is simply no competition.

So let us all respond as did the men in our text! May we all acknowledge, believe,

trust, love and surrender to the incomparable Christ. May we all rejoice in Him, and

seek to make Him known throughout the world.

I am well aware that many in the secular West desire Christ no more than they desire

Muhammad. Therefore, I must warn them. Even if they never suffer from some

jihadic atrocity, they will stand before the judgement seat of Christ, when He returns

to judge the world in righteousness (see

2 Corinthians 5: 10).

While opportunity remains, come to Christ! If you are a Muslim, renounce

Muhammad, and come to Christ! Then, everything I have tried to express will become

wonderfully and experientially true. I invite you all to trust and serve Him with me.

Amen!

Dr Alan C. Clifford

Norwich Reformed Church

www.nrchurch.co.nr

THe United Kingdom Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 clearly states that it is permissible to 'express criticism, antipathy, insult, dislike or abuse of a religion and the beliefs or practices of its adherents'. Nevertheless I am currently being investgated by the police and Crown Prosection Service because I have anti-Islam signs on my car.

"leaflet criticizing Islam" ...

In other words, someone dared to tell the TRUTH about islam. Gosh, can't have that, right? ...since lies are foundational in keeping a dead religion like islam alive.

Individuals should be able to publish anything they want, so long as it's not libellous, slanderous, or treasonous. The principle here is freedom; not content or style.

I appreciate Alan Clifford's posting the controversial tract. Speaking as a Reformed Christian myself, I will make a few observations:

1. I can't find anything that would urge anyone to physically attack Muslims, firebomb a mosque, or anything like it.

2. I would've liked a stronger emphasis on Jesus' resurrection and the atoning character of his death, as opposed to Islam's putting us in a "business deal" with God, in which we hope our good deeds outweigh the bad. Christian ethics (good works) are not a matter of being "good enough" for heaven, but an expression of gratitude to Almighty God for his saving work in Jesus Christ.

3. I don't think calling 'Allah an "Arabian Moon God" is really all that constructive. I understand that the crescent moon logo was taken over from Byzantium only after 1453 A.D.; and the Byzantine logo commemorates how a new moon once revealed an attacking army to the defenders of ancient Byzantium (I read something like that somewhere) long before Islam arose.

4. It would be more appropriate to note how the Islamic "God" is in fact a prisoner of the Arabic language. Biblical tradition has been in the translation business ever since Ezra read the Torah to the returned exiles and someone "gave the sense"--by putting it into Aramaic. This goes on through the production of the Septuagint, the Greek Old Testament, and the various translations of the Old and New Testaments which went on in the first several Christian centuries, and was then renewed after the Protestant Reformation.

5. Further, the Islamic denial of the Incarnation of God the Word in Jesus Christ leaves Islam with no better mediators between God and man than the dead men Ali, Hassan, and Hussein, or some overweight Pakistani and Afghan pirs, or some Sufi mystics. Yet it has been abundantly clear to outsiders who have travelled in Islamic lands that Islam truly hungers for a mediator that its theology cannot provide.

6. Further, Islam's claim to carry on biblical tradition is utterly groundless. For example, in speaking of Jesus, there's more in the Qur'an that comes from the later, apocryphal Protevanglium of James and Gospel of the Infancy than from the canonical Gospels. In many points, the Muslim claim that the Qur'an echoes earlier Scripture is testable by comparing Qur'anic accounts of Moses, the prophets, and Jesus with the Bible (this being done, the QUr'an comes up wanting).

7. Islam's contention that the Jews and Christians perverted the Scriptures is a dodge. No Da'wa man has EVER explained how the Jews and Christians wrangle over the same Old Testament (albeit with the books in a slightly different order), having the same group of books while non-cooperating for centuries, while the various sects of Christians wrangle over the same New Testament.

8. Islam is not really monotheistic. At points, Muhammad swears by the "stars and whirling planets", when the Bible clearly teaches that we may swear only by the living and true God.

9. The Din Muhammad shows someone trying to escape from the last remnants of pre-Abrahamic Semitic paganism, but failing. It is a reminder that the God0-given foundation is the prophets and apostles, with the Messiah being the hief cornerstone.

Still, I think the Norwich town council went overboard; and given the kinds of things routinely said by imams and other Muslim spokesmen about Kufr, it's utterly ridiculous that Mr Clifford's forum has been taken away.

I agree with many of the points made by those who have offered critiques of specific content of the "Why Not Islam" pamphlet. I've worked as an editor rewriting text—and as I noted, I have a few quibbles with it myself.

If you want to contact Dr. Clifford and the Norwich Reformed Church, you can do so here, under services/contact:

http://www.nrchurch.co.nr/

But—with respect—while these proposed changes might have made the pamphlet's message a bit stronger and clearer, I doubt it would have made one whit of difference to what happened in Norwich.

The factual content of the pamphlet re Islam is still—as is—accurate. The piece does not promote "hate".

It merely criticizes Islam, and that is—increasingly—verboten these days. "Sharia in UK" indeed.

I'm going to write the church, as well, just to let them know that others support them.

If the leaflet is cause for prohibition, I see little reason why the Quran should not be also, considering its language towards other religions.

>>>You've asked the wrong man, for I am not a Muslim, and everything I know about the religion is from the standpoint of an outsider looking in. As far as the growth of sects goes, in Christianity we have Paul saying, "For there must be also heresies among you that they which are approved are made manifest among you." (I Cor. 11:19), Jesus warned against false Christ’s and false prophets (cf. Mt. 24:5) and too many other warnings for me to recount here. If this can happen in a religion which saw its founder rise from the dead within living memory of such an event, how much more would a man-made religion like Islam be subject to schism (as you all know, I am a Christian)

Your point is accepted, but mine has been confirmed.
My point is that man has his centre in Christ, when I stated his words:

33 But whoever disowns me before others, I will disown before my Father in heaven. 34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—

The Sword Jesus speaks of is TRUTH and is a living concept which cannot be denied, that’s why he cannot be compared to psychopathic earthly rulers and despots.

I deny the term Jihad (but I accept what has come to mean) as it has no spiritual value, I compare what is happening in the eastern world as the existence of IPARU which has been a factor that was active in the Babylonian Kingdom these peoples were quoted in the Amarna Letters (fourteenth century BCE)

They were also known as Habiru, not to be confused with the Hebrews or the Israelites, these people lived on the fringes of their own societies, and would hire themselves out as mercenaries or even domestics, their class status was very low, because they needed the protection , and sustenance of the dominant culture.
There are many reasons why these people became habiru / iparu but the most impressive reason seems to be that with large families (a must for agricultural peoples) there would have been no room for them to cultivate, and also the laws of inheritance (which gave a double share to the eldest sons) would have left nothing for the women, and precious little to the many sons, that were essential to the security of the family /tribe, and the ability to hunt and gather.

1000 years BCE it was not considered shameful to be a slave, there is even historical evidence that a slave became a Pharaoh, neither was it shameful to become habiru/Apiru even in the Israelite world, but there is a distinction between Hebrew and Israelite, a perfect illustration is given in 1Samuel 14 21-23

[21] Moreover the Hebrews that had been with the Philistines yesterday and the day before, and went up with them into the camp, returned to be with the Israelites, who were with Saul and Jonathan. [22] And all the Israelites that had hid themselves in mount Ephraim, hearing that the Philistines fled, joined themselves with their countrymen in the fight. And there were with Saul about ten thousand men. [23] And the Lord saved Israel that day. And the fight went on as far as Bethaven.

Hebrew denoting a common heritage, but Israelite, denoting Royal approval?
This needs to be examined by any interested person.

This is very relevant as well

Dr John Kitto in his Illustrated Family Bible circa 1860 says of Jepthah (who lost his inheritance)
Consider Judges 11. Verse 3 “There were gathered together vain men to Jepthah, and went out with him.”

The meaning of this is obviously that Jepthah, being without inheritance or family connections to afford him a subsistence, and being expelled from his native place became an adventurer; and his character having brought around him a number of brave but idle men, perhaps similarly circumstanced, he, for his own and their support as well as to establish the reputation he had previously acquired, made predatory incursions into the neighbouring countries. This is meant by “going out with him”. Probably they went out particularly to the land of the Ammonites, to retaliate the incursions which the latter had made into Israel; and this would naturally lead the people to look to Jepthah when they wanted a military leader. The mode of life here indicated is precisely that followed by David, when his reputation brought around him men of similar character as those followers of Jepthah. This kind of military robbery is very far indeed from being considered dishonourable in the East. On the contrary, the fame thus acquired is thought as fair as any that can be obtained through any class of military operations. An Arab or a tartar desires no higher or brighter fame than that of a successful military robber; and to make that fame unsullied, it is only necessary that his expedition should not be against his own nation or his tribe. The associations formed by Arabs or Tartars for such purposes are seldom of longer duration than that necessary for that particular expedition: and we therefore think it a most striking illustration of the state of things here indicated may be derived from the account which Tacitus gives of the manners of the ancient Germans. When a warrior had acquired reputation for courage and conduct, young men became emulous for placing themselves under so distinguished a leader, and resorted to him, forming a retinue of bold volunteers who felt bound to do their chief honour by their exploits, to defend him with their lives, and not to survive him if slain. This ban gave the chief distinction and power in itself; and often rendered him so formidable that neighbouring tribes and nations cultivated his favour by embassies and presents, and obstinate and cruel wars were often terminated by his interposition. All the retinue lived at the expense of the leader, who provided a plain but plentiful table for them: and also from time to time made them valuable presents. This involved great expense; to support which he kept his troop almost continually engaged in invasions and plundering expeditions among the neighbouring nations – or in short, in the same kind of military robbery which Jepthah and David practiced - and through which alone they could keep up the state of a general, and maintain a character for liberality to their band. They like the Orientals, did not account the act of pillaging base, they considered it laudable and glorious employment for their youth, which procured them a reputation, and preserved them from indolence and inaction. Some similar feelings may be discovered in the border “forays” which were carried out on the frontiers of England and Scotland, even when the two nations were at peace. Another source which contributed to these old German captains to support their retinue was found in voluntary contributions of the people who were protected by their valour. These contributions consisted chiefly of corn and cattle; and were of the greatest service in assisting him to furnish provisions for his troop. The Hebrew leaders of the same class expected the same assistance; as we see by the instance of David who sent some of his men to Carmel to the rich Nabal to send him provisions, grounding the demand on the safety and protection the shepherds had enjoyed while his troop had been in the neighbourhood.

These details may assist us in understanding the position Jepthah occupied before he was called to lead the army against the Ammonites, and which David filled while the persecutions of Saul made him a wanderer

Obviously everything here is describing tribal communities having their own private armies, in England the right to have private armies was given up at the Magna Charta, and the nation became one nation.

We have to expect other communities to come into line or leave and we should not be subjected to the hate speech of any literature even if it is considered Holy, the above texts applied to people living 1000 years before Christ and even earlier, Islam to me seems to have gone right into a dark age, and some people will try to defend the indefensible

MV