| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"If you disagree, that must be met by counter-arguments, not by trying to silence people." I never have cared for tattoos, but there's a statement that I am tempted to go out and have emblazoned on my forehead.
An update on the UK Bishop who dared to note that some areas of Britain have turned into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims: "Bishop of Rochester reasserts 'no-go' claim," by Jonathan Wynne-Jones for the Telegraph (thanks to the Constantinopolitan Irredentist):
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who received death threats for airing his views on Islamic issues, has vowed that he will continue to speak out.His claim that Islamic extremism has turned some parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims led to fierce rows between political and religious leaders over the impact of multiculturalism on this country. [...]
The bishops' views in The Sunday Telegraph sparked a storm of criticism and raised questions over the role of the Church in society but, most seriously for Dr Nazir-Ali, led to threats that he and his family would be harmed.
Yet, in his first interview since the sinister calls were made to his home, the Bishop of Rochester remains steadfastly defiant. He will not be silenced. "I believe people should not be prevented from speaking out," he says. "The issue had to be raised. There are times when Christian leaders have to speak out."
He arrived in Britain in the 1980s and seems to have taken up the mantle for defending the country's values he fears are being threatened by a loss of its Christian heritage.
Dressed casually in a roll-neck jumper and sports jacket, he seems relaxed now as he walks around his study in Bishopscourt, but it has clearly been a stressful time.
Threats were made warning that he would not "live long" and would be "sorted out" if he continued to criticise Islam.
"If you disagree, that must be met by counter-arguments, not by trying to silence people. It was a threat not just to me, but to my family. I took it seriously, so did the police. It gave me sleepless nights."
However, it's not the first time that his life has been endangered.
Shortly after being made a bishop in Pakistan - at 35 he was the youngest in the Anglican Church - he was forced to flee to Britain to seek refuge from Muslims who wanted to kill him.
He says that he never expected to suffer the same treatment in Britain and expresses concerns over recent social developments.
"The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years. When you have such a vacuum something will fill it.
"If people are not given a fresh way of understanding what it means to be a Christian and what it means to be a Christian-based society then something else may well take the place of all that we're used to and that could be Islam."
Indeed. Read it all.
Posted by Robert at February 24, 2008 7:26 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
We must pray for this man, that he continues his ministry in wisdom, and is kept save from those who would do him harm.
Posted by: Romney![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 24, 2008 8:08 PM
"and is kept save from those who would do him harm."
Posted by: Romney at February 24, 2008
Right. The "religion of peacers," - Mohammedans.
Posted by: darcy at February 24, 2008 8:11 PM
"Religion of Peace" is the biggest misnomer since "Arbeit Mach Frei."
Good God People - WAKE UP!!!
Posted by: darcy at February 24, 2008 8:14 PM
The comments appear to be running about 99% in favor of the Bishop over at the Telgraph. Dhimmitude is mostly institutional, imposed from the top down. Still a disaster in the making however you slice it, but more people are getting sick of the threaten, explode, and whine game.
Posted by: Beagle at February 24, 2008 8:22 PM
I never have cared for tattoos, but there's a statement that I am tempted to go out and have emblazoned on my forehead. - Robert
There's always temporary tattoos. I'll do it if you do it. (You first.)
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 24, 2008 8:24 PM
Silence = Death
Posted by: tanstaafl at February 24, 2008 8:32 PM
How can we speak freely about touchy issues like religion, and be respectful to persons, while at the same time avoiding sectarian proselytism? It seems to me that it is one thing to share religious or other beliefs, for the sake of presenting or clarifying one's opinions; partisan advancement of one's point of view in the form of argument against opposing beliefs is another thing.
Posted by: John C at February 24, 2008 10:04 PM
John C. In the USA speaking freely about touchy things is the essence of the first amendment to the constitution. In fact, speech that offends without threatening is what needs to be protected. For example, many people consider Michael Savage, the talk show host, to be offensive because he prods people to think about unpleasant but necessary subjects. Partisan advancement of one's point of view in the form of argument is necessary to spread the word of God. I don't hide believing in Jesus being my savior. My formula? Jesus= Unconditional love. Nuff said. Now was that so bad that it should be prohibited by law?
Posted by: Americantothecore at February 24, 2008 11:10 PM
John C and Americantothecore--
I think this subject has migrated from a thread on JW ("3 out of 4 mosques")-- if there's something to discuss, it would be better to do so there.
Posted by: MarisolJW at February 24, 2008 11:16 PM
Shortly after being made a bishop in Pakistan ... he was forced to flee to Britain to seek refuge from Muslims who wanted to kill him. He says that he never expected to suffer the same treatment in Britain and expresses concerns over recent social developments.
To state the obvious, the same treatment is being offered in Britain by the same people who offered it in Pakistan. It is not that the UK shares the desire to kill Christians; it is not that native Britains have somehow gained a murderous desire to kill Christians over the past few decades. It is the open-door immigration policy that has allowed the people who want to kill Christians to emigrate to the West. We have allowed them to bring their violence and intolerance into the hearts of our nations.
JW/DW readers may be thinking, "Well, duh!". But this policy continues to this day. After everything that has happened, after all the jihadi attacks, we haven't taken the simple and relatively inexpensive steps to protect ourselves, such as securing our borders and controlling immigration. It's hard to believe. It really is.
at February 25, 2008 1:50 AM
How can we speak freely about touchy issues like religion, and be respectful to persons, while at the same time avoiding sectarian proselytism?
Indeed, ask the Moslems John C
Posted by: ericthekuffar at February 25, 2008 2:38 AM
We need more non-indigenous people in positions of influence - such as Dr Nazir-Ali and Dr John Sentamu (Archbishop of York) - to speak out against Islamification and Sharia Law.
The same message coming from white Britons - particularly the English - would immediately cause them to be castigated as racists, neo-Nazis and fascists by the leftist press, as certain personae non-grata from certain political parties have found out.
It matters who the messenger is.
Indeed, contrast Dr Nazir-Ali's stance with that of the white Archdhimmi of Canterbury.
Yes, we all know that Islam is not a race, but that doesn't matter to journalists at the Guardian, the BBC and the Daily Mirror. They simply have to mention the "R" word and debate must immediately cease.
Although I was encouraged to read in the article that white Irishman - Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor - had said:
I don't believe in multiculturalism. When people come to this country they have to obey the laws of the land.
I wonder what recent Catholic convert and committed multiculturalist, Tony Bliar, would say to that?
Posted by: watling at February 25, 2008 6:10 AM
special_guest:
we haven't taken the simple and relatively inexpensive steps to protect ourselves, such as securing our borders and controlling immigration. It's hard to believe. It really is.
Indeed it is. But New Labour needs to import voters from abroad to ensure that it stays in power, as it can no longer rely on the British. So what if a few terrorists come too? The Government couldn't give two hoots about bombs going off on trains. Votes are more important than lives.
In fact, mass immigration represents a double vote-winner for New Labour: they import voters, and those imported voters take the jobs that the workshy won't do. This keeps the workshy happy too, as they are paid by the rest of us to remain at home getting drunk whilst watching mindless trash on television and holding banal conversations in an unintelligible patois with fellow low-lifes on their state-subsidised mobiles. As long as they are sober enough to vote New Labour once every few years then all is rosy.
The only losers are those of us that don't actually want our country to be turned into a Marxist, Eurabian third world cesspit.
Posted by: watling at February 25, 2008 6:31 AM
We must tolerate disagreement between religions. So must all religions. That is a free society.
There is no point in tolerating enemy combatants in our country or for the British to tolerate this in theirs. Islam is an ideology that threatens the complete overthrow and obliteration of both our governments. They have repeatedly stated this entirely too clearly to ignore.
Rather than tolerating more of it and bending laws to tolerate their unjust and cruel "laws" we should instead ban them from our nations in no uncertain terms. Otherwise we are lost.
Posted by: jdow at February 25, 2008 6:40 AM
Robert,
I have lots of tattoos and my friend is a tattoo artist.
I think I might take your lead and have this done somewhere...right forearm perhaps.
Maybe a pre-raphelite/gothic font...suggestions welcome.
I'll send you a jpg if I get round to it...
so many other tattoos to finish..so little time..
ho hum.
regards
at February 25, 2008 9:14 AM
If only Rt. Rev Michael Nazir-Ali would be the next Atchbishop of Canterbury. I can dream, can't I.
Posted by: johnb at February 25, 2008 10:28 AM
Marisol is correct -- my comment was misplaced on this thread, because I was referring to limits on expression only in the context of these sites (JW/DW) in light of their purpose and objectives; I was not referring to free speech generally. Sorry for the misunderstanding, for which I'm embarrassed
Posted by: John C at February 25, 2008 12:17 PM
watling: "The same message coming from white Britons - particularly the English - would immediately cause them to be castigated as racists, neo-Nazis and fascists by the leftist press"
Really? Just off the top of my head, I can think of the following high-profile individuals, all white Britons, who have in the past year spoken out against aspects of Islamic culture, or Islamist terrorism, or against specific Muslim individuals:
Melanie Phillips; Douglas Murray; Charles Moore; Martin Amis; Jack Straw; Professor Anthony Glees; Martin Bright; David Cameron; Nick Cohen; Paul Goodman; Michael Gove; Michael Burleigh; Ian McEwan; Denis MacShane; Dame Pauline Neville-Jones; Cllr Alan Craig; Con Coughlin; Rod Liddle.
Yet, with the exception of the attack on Martin Amis by the ridiculous Marxist "theorist" Terry Eagleton, I can't remember any of them being "castigated as racists, Neo-Nazis and fascists by the leftist press". Indeed, some of them - Bright, Cohen, Amis, McEwan - are darlings of the leftist press.
Really, Watling, coming on here and attempting to portray the UK as some kind of police state, where criticism of Islam is forbidden, is a ridiculous ploy which can be disproved simply by a quick Google search or a browse through JW archives. Who, exactly, are being castigated as neo-Nazis?
Posted by: Matamoros at February 25, 2008 1:19 PM
If there is a necessity for non - indigenous people to speak against Islam,that is an indication that contemporary West has lost what made it great : Objective and scientific thought.
Something is true or false irrespectively of who supports it.It is irrelevant who says something,the only thing that counts is if what he says is correct.
at February 25, 2008 1:41 PM
Regarding the Matamoros comment on Watling's comment:
It is encouraging that some high-profile individuals are bravely speaking out, but I do think we have a way to go before many people lower down the food-chain will want their views published in the MSM with their names attached.
There is still too much fear of the police and other organs of the state, who remain poised to leap on anyone who they can label "racist", and unwilling to aid anyone who has the nerve to speak "provocatively". The "Undercover Mosque" case was a bit of a slap in the face to that attitude, but the MSM had been roused to an unusual degree of unity in the defence of their own freedom, and expensive lawyers were quivering in anticipation, and so the police backed down.
That was a good result but, being potentially easier victims, the humble poor will prefer to remain anon, and hope that others will speak for them, which Nazir-Ali is well placed to do.
In addition to being higher up the establishment ladder, he has the advantage of not being white, so his views are less easily dismissed, and it is much more socially acceptable to express support for them.
I will be even more encouraged if he replaces the wretched Williams...
at February 25, 2008 4:43 PM
M Al-Content
I agree with everything you say but I have a degree of sympathy for the police who are under the same pressure.
When the last Police Chief spoke out about no-go areas in about 2001 I thought it was a sign that things were changing. Knowing how “sensitive” it was I thought he must have had top-level political clearance. At the time the MSM did not report it but “Asian News” headlined that a cheering meeting at the local Asian centre demanded his dismissal.
A couple of years later I found out that he was not fired – he was “retired”.
Also do not forget the “investigative reporter” who joined the police and spent two years spying on his colleagues.
Posted by: Fred at February 25, 2008 5:57 PM
the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, who received death threats for airing his views on Islamic issues, has vowed that he will continue to speak out.
His claim that Islamic extremism has turned some parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims
....................................
Think for a moment how especially insane threats are in this context. "If you say we are dangerous to you, we will kill you"--this is essentially the message.
If someone were to claim, say, that San Francisco's Chinatown was a no-go area for non-Asians, or that that same city's Castro District was a no-go area for non-gays (nothing, of course, could be further from the truth), it is not likely that death threats would result.
If people started to take these statements seriously, I imagine city politicians and local merchants would invite people down to show how safe and welcoming these neighborhoods are.
Notice, non of the Archbishop's critics have invited non-Muslims to these no-go areas, to patronize the local curry restaurants, halal markets, and tea shops--to prove how friendly these areas really are for non-Muslims.
I wonder why not?
Posted by: gravenimage at February 25, 2008 11:42 PM
Matamoros:
Really? Just off the top of my head, I can think of the following high-profile individuals, all white Britons, who have in the past year spoken out against aspects of Islamic culture, or Islamist terrorism, or against specific Muslim individuals.
None of these "high-profile" individuals was the first to announce the existence of no-go areas for non-Muslims. Some might have agreed afterwards, once Dr Nazir-Ali had already taken the Muslim flak. None would have dared to raise the issue first.
Taking the example of Melanie Phillips (but this could equally apply to all columnists), her Daily Mail column is a reaction to items in the news.
It is not the job of journalists to make the news. They write about what other people have done or said.
I had the misfortune to read one of Nick Cohen's columns in the Evening Standard. Oh dear. Never again. I can see why he's a darling of the left-wing press - he's one of their standard bearers.
Michael Gove wrote a book about the threat of Islamic terrorism called Celsius 7/7. He did not criticise Islam itself.
Jack Straw famously stated that he would ask female Muslim constituents if they would mind removing their veils when they spoke to him in his surgery. This is hardly on a par with talking about no-go areas.
I can't imagine what anti-Islamic rhetoric David "What-ho, chaps! Fancy a midnight feast? Pater's sent me £1000" Cameron could possibly have come out with. Did he by any chance say that Islam was a misogynistic, anti-Semitic cult founded by a warmongering psychopath plagued by voices and apparitions? Now that I'd like to have heard.
Here is the reaction of the extreme leftist press to the Archdhimmi of Canterbury's recent Sharia love-in. It's unambiguously entitled: "Sharia row triggers wider racist backlash"
Posted by: watling at February 26, 2008 10:24 AM
Watling, you presented it as fact that white Britons in the UK are prohibited from speaking out on issues regarding Islam. The examples I gave you shows that they are not.
What a pity that you know all about Nick Cohen from reading one newspaper column. If you'd read a bit more, you'd know that for years he's been a constant critic of Islam, Islamism, and the Left's appeasement of it (just two examples below). His excellent book What's Left savages the modern liberal Left's support for terrorism and total failure to confront Islamic fascism.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/may/14/islam.religion
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2006/jul/09/terrorism.religion
(Or is it his surname that makes an "ethno-nationalist" such as yourself shudder?)
You dismiss David Cameron, but if you think back a couple of weeks, you'll remember that the Govt refused to grant a visa to Yusuf al-Qaradawi after Cameron campaigned against doing so (see JW story below) That's how politics works, Watling - elected politicians get to influence Govt decisions.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/019841.php
As proof of your claim, you provide a link to an obscure far-Left fringe newspaper read by bedsit revolutionaries with Che Guevara fantasies and ignored by the other 99.9% of the populace. Given that the party that publishes the paper is one-half of the RESPECT Leftist / Islamist alliance, is it really a surprise that they make outlandish claims of "racism" and "Islamophobia". I'd be more surprised if they didn't.
You still didn't answer me. Who, exactly, are being called "racists, neo-Nazis and fascists"?
Posted by: Matamoros at February 26, 2008 12:14 PM
"dismiss David Cameron" ?
Yes please, and can he go as soon as possible ?
And someone less well-known being called "racist" could be Ann Cryer, MP:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mystery-of-bradfords-missing-children-were-they-forced-into-marriages-abroad-777684.html
or Father John Hayes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=487598&in_page_id=1770
The point is not that we are "prohibited from speaking out on issues regarding Islam", but that we have good reason to be anxious about doing so. I hope that situation will change, and if the good and brave Bishop is not silenced then maybe it will.
at February 26, 2008 3:48 PM
Matamoros:
(Or is it his surname that makes an "ethno-nationalist" such as yourself shudder?)
I don't know what you mean. If you're accusing me of something please have the guts to phrase the question unambiguously so we can all understand what it is.
Thanks.
Posted by: watling at February 27, 2008 5:34 AM
Watling
Please don't play the outraged innocent. You know perfectly well what I mean. You come on here trying to convince others that Britain is a virtual police state where criticism of Islamic issues is prohibited unless the critic comes from an ethnic minority. This is a complete falsehood, as any quick Internet search will confirm.
Your reason for making this odd claim then becomes clear. You whine that "certain personae non-grata from certain political parties" are described as neo-Nazis. Given that one of these parties - one which you have both declared support for and have repeatedly defended on here - is packed to the rafters with white supremacists, Holocaust deniers and Jew-haters (as demonstrated when one its leading lights was banned from JW recently for a series of particularly nasty anti-Semitic thread posts) then this description is both fair and accurate.
But your party and its members are the only group to which that tag has been assigned. None of the people that I mentioned have been called neo-Nazis, despite their criticism of Islamic practices or opposition to Islamism. And, contrary to your claims, the labelling of your party as neo-Nazis has not prevented white Britons from speaking out - quite the opposite.
The question that I posed should have been quite obvious. Given your support for a group renowned for both Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism, is your distaste for Nick Cohen - a British writer who has consistently spoken out both in print and publicly against Islamism and Islamist terrorism - because you perceive him to be Jewish? (If so, you can breathe easy. He’s not.)
Posted by: Matamoros at February 27, 2008 11:29 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)