What shall we make of the latest statement by the Most Reverend Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury? Here is a report in The Independent, on remarks which the good Archbishop delivered himself of on the latest Muslim atrocity on the London Bridge and at the Borough Market:
He [Welby] said throughout history religious scriptures have “been twisted and misused” by people to justify hates [spates?] of violence and “We have got to say that if something happens within our own faith tradition we need to take responsibility for countering that”.
He said politicians should not just say “this is [has?] nothing to do with Islam” and focus on the security of[or] political aspects of it as it is also an ideological problem.
I suppose, in the world we live in, when the Archbishop of Canterbury states what should long have been obvious to anyone of sense, this should be taken as a sign of progress. What did he state? That politicians should stop saying “this is nothing to do with Islam.” But it’s not just politicians, of course, but many “experts” on Islam, and the many in the Muslim population of the United Kingdom, including the smarmy and self-righteous Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who have been saying that very thing — “this is nothing to do with Islam” — after every terror attack by Muslims. It’s both indecent and comical. How great must an atrocity be for politicians and others to change their tune? Welby might better have widened his criticism to include others aside from politicians, and said that “no one — not politicians nor pundits, neither non-Muslims nor Muslims themselves — can continue to claim that these attacks have ‘nothing to do with Islam.’” That would have infuriated Sadiq Khan and his ilk. That’s too bad.
However, having just said something both true and necessary about Islamic terrorism, the Archbishop immediately engaged in tu-quoque on behalf of Muslims, that is, offered a mea-culpa, “we [Christians] too are guilty of the same thing.”
His evidence for this is the same that has been trotted out over and over again, and not just by Archbishop Welby, of the single recent example in Europe of Christians killing Muslims (in the middle of a civil war), at Srebrenica:
“I don’t think it is getting us anywhere [to say that these attacks have ‘nothing to do with Islam’], just like saying Srebrenica had nothing to do with Christianity.”
But we do say that. The massacre by Serbians of Bosniak Muslims in July, 1995 did indeed have “nothing to do with Christianity.” There were no Christian texts that the Serbs invoked to justify their murders, because no such texts exist. The Serbians committing those massacres were violating, not following, the teachings of Christ. Surely the Archbishop of Canterbury is sufficiently steeped in the Christian texts to know that. Or does he have some reason to think the Serbians at Srebrenica quoted in justification of mass-murder some Christian texts that none of us knew about? We all know that there have always been people calling themselves Christians who have engaged in massacres, sometimes of non-Christians, sometimes of fellow Christians of other denominations. But that was done without the textual support of Christianity. Nowhere in the Bible are Christians instructed to slay non-Christians. It’s a very different situation from that of Muslim terrorists, who can and do invoke one or more of the 109 “Jihad verses” in the Qur’an to justify their actions, including Qur’anic verses specifically calling for “striking terror” in the hearts of the Infidels. Srebrenica is repeatedly mentioned by Welby (and others) because it is the only case in recent history where Muslims were the victims of Christians, whereas there have been, since 9/11/2001, more than 30,000 attacks by Muslim terrorists on non-Muslims — a grim embarras de richesses.
Why did the Archbishop feel he had to add that historically false remark seeming to blame Christianity for Srebrenica? The insensate urge always to offer some kind of false equivalence between Islam and Christianity, or Muslims and Christians, to always hasten to add, whenever daring to suggest that Islam does indeed have something to do with Muslim terrorism, that we must remember that “we are guilty too,” and to mention some atrocity committed against Muslims by Christians, and finally, the unwillingness to make a distinction between what Islamic texts inculcate and what Christian texts teach, needs to be abandoned. It’s doing none of us any good.
The Most Reverend Welby might have simply said this: “We cannot continue to pretend that these attacks ‘have nothing to do with Islam.’ So let’s find out exactly what is contained in the texts — the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira — that might have led some Muslims to engage in terror. And then we must discuss calmly, rationally, what, if anything, can be done to modify those texts, or to re-interpret them, where needed.” Such a statement would cause quite a stir among Muslims outraged by the suggestion that there might just be something in Islamic texts that contributes to Muslim aggression and violence against non-Muslims (examples of which can be seen, every day, all over the world), but the Archbishop should just keep on, undeterred. How long can he keep from looking at, studying intently, grasping the meaning of, quoting appositely from, the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira? He must know that his own willful ignorance has to end; he has a duty to his imperiled flock; continuing to ignore Islamic texts that justify violence and terrorism constitutes dereliction of that duty.
Rev Welby told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “From an outside perspective, one of the issues about dealing with Islam is that there is not much of a structure. There isn’t a pope or a bishop that you can go to and say these are the leaders.”
What does this mean? That the main problem is that there is no single Muslim authority to complain to? There are Muslim authorities who, while not equivalent to a Pope, do carry great weight in Islam, such as Ahmed Al-Tayeb, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, the leading Sunni school of theology. What has Ahmed Al-Tayeb said about Muslim terrorism? Has he denounced the Islamic State? Why yes, he has, so shouldn’t we all be satisfied? Well, not when we realize that Ahmed Al-Tayeb did indeed denounce the Islamic State, back in 2014, along with other other terrorist groups that, he claimed, are all “products of colonialism serving Zionism.” That’s not a problem resulting from Islam not having “much of a structure.” That’s a problem with minds on Islam, that refuse to accept any blaming of Islam for Islamic terrorism, and that point the blame instead at the hated Christians (the “colonialists”) and the even more hated Jews (the “Zionists”).
So with Al-Tayeb, Islam is still off the hook for Islamic terrorism. What has the leading popular Sunni writer, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, said about the same terrorism? Does the Archbishop know that Al-Qaradawi has endorsed suicide bombings as “martyrdom operations,” and has said that “it is allowed to jeopardise your soul and cross the path of the enemy and be killed, if this act of jeopardy affects the enemy, even if it only generates fear in their hearts, shaking their morale, making them fear Muslims.” However, while he has no moral objections to suicide bombing, especially against the hated Israelis, it is justified only if it works: “If it does not affect the enemy then it is not allowed.”
Of course, many Muslims, especially in the U.K., have expressed their shock, outrage, horror, as they do after every terror attack by Muslims. A group of Muslims even had their pictures taken laying flowers (with CNN carefully setting the stage, pushing non-Muslims back and the Muslims forward, so that they could be front and center for the video cameras) in honor of the dead. Meanwhile, in the real world, Saudi soccer players in Australia refused to observe a moment of silence for the murdered Infidels. Imam Mohammed Tawhidi, who is that bizarre thing, an imam who tells the truth about Islam to Infidels, told Daily Mail Australia that “They [the players] did not stop for a moment of silence because according to Wahhabi Islam – which governs Saudi Arabia – it is not wrong or a sin for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim.” Tawhidi added that “it is a ‘lie’ to say the Muslim culture does not remember the dead with a moment of silence [which is what some Muslims were claiming in defense of the Saudi players], and instead argued that the football team did not partake in the mourning because they stand with the jihadist men.”
What does Archbishop Welby think of Imam Tawhidi’s no-nonsense observation that in Wahhabi Islam, the version of Islam that Saudi money has for the last four decades been spreading, by building mosques and madrasas, all over the world, “it is not wrong or or a sin for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim”? And why was he so impressed with the “extraordinary level of condemnation” by Muslims, that is, the usual phrases (shock, outrage, horror — repeat the dose as needed) offered after every attack to assuage the gullible Infidels? How gullible can the Archbishop allow himself to be continue to be? “War is deceit,” said Muhammad, and “Allah is the best of deceivers,” but there’s no need, Archbishop Welby, to make it so easy for Muslims to deceive.
Archbishop Welby asks for little here below. He ought to be a bit more demanding. In short, he ought to publicly ask Muslims not for these formulaic condemnations, but instead to examine their own texts, to be prepared to discuss publicly those many Qur’anic verses that preach hostility and hatred for Unbelievers, and stories in the Hadith that do the same — if they want their condemnations of terrorism to be taken seriously.
At least seven people were killed and nearly 50 people were injured when a van carrying three terrorists rammed into pedestrians on London Bridge before they jumped out and began stabbing people at random on the street.
He said there was a type of theology behind the attacks, which can been seen in attacks by different faith groups all over the world, and “we need to counter that within our own tradition and teach people why that is unacceptable”.
Welby is here attempting to suggest that this “type of theology” is found in attacks by “different faith groups all over the world.” What “type of theology” is that, exactly? We are left in the dark. And where are all these attacks by non-Muslims to rival the 30,000 attacks by Muslims since 9/11/2001? He offers exactly one — Srebrenica. So let’s repeat ad nauseam: Srebrenica had nothing to do with, was not inspired by, not justified by, Christian doctrine. If the Archbishop knows of a single unprovoked attack by Christians on Muslims supported by textual authority, he should tell us.
One of the big problems for the secular authorities trying to combat this is that they do not seem to understand “the basic tenets of the faith they are dealing with”, he said.
Note that Welby is willing to attack “secular authorities” for not understanding “the basic tenets of the faith they are dealing with,” but still can’t bring himself to name that faith. Is it Islam? Is it both Islam and Christianity, equally opaque to those “secular authorities’”? If there is a word that means the opposite of “pellucid,” that’s what describes Archbishop Welby.
He explained: “They are often people who are unable to put themselves in the shoes of religious believers and understand a way of looking at the world that says that this defines your whole life, every single aspect of who you are and what you are.” Surely he must mean Islam, which does purport to regulate and define “every single aspect” of who and what you are. Why this inability to name it?
Rev Welby said Christianity had a similar “dark side” which it is also important to face up to.
That some Christians have a “dark side” no one can deny. But what “dark side” does Christianity have, what texts and teachings equivalent to what there is in Islam? If he thinks Christianity, as opposed to some who call themselves Christians, has a “dark side,” he should give us details. He does not. The Archbishop simply throws this in, continually aware, as he is, for the need to present a “balanced” view, where every charge made against Islam is promptly followed by his suggestion that similar charges can be levelled at Christianity.
This echoes comments he made last year during a lecture at the Catholic Institute of Paris while accepting an honourary doctorate.
He called on Europe to look to the “Judeo-Christian roots” of their culture to find solutions to the mass disenchantment which he says has led to the rise of extremism and hate groups.
This is a curious statement. I’m still not absolutely certain what he means. Welby appears to be appealing not to Muslims, but to the non-Muslims in Europe to “look to the Judeo-Christian roots” of their culture, to find solutions to the “mass disenchantment” which “has led to the rise of extremism and hate groups.” Is the “extremism” that of non-Muslims, as he seems to mean, reacting to Muslim terrorism? By “hate groups,” does the Most Reverend Welby mean “hate groups” composed of non-Muslims? We can supply Welby with tens of thousands of examples of Muslim terrorism against non-Muslims since 9/11/2001. Could he give us examples of a single attack by non-Muslim “extremists” and “hate groups” on Muslims in Europe during all that time? And what is the cause of the “mass disenchantment” of many among the indigenous non-Muslims, if not the failure of their governments to adequately deal with Muslim terrorism, which is only getting worse, their failure to put a halt to the steady onslaught of Muslim “refugees,” and the further failure to respond to the Stealth Jihad, that is, the steady encroachments that are made by Muslims on the laws and customs of Europe, and the constant efforts to make those justifiably anxious about Islamic terrorism and Islamic texts wary of expressing their perfectly understandable views, lest they be accused of “islamophobia”?
How can one “find solutions” to that supposed “mass disenchantment” if European governments remain unwilling to discuss truthfully the texts (Qur’an, Hadith, Sira) and teachings of Islam? It is this that leaves so many frustrated and anxious, and some of them, in Archbishop Welby’s understanding, open to “extremism and hate groups” — which means, in his alternative universe, the views of those, such as Tommy Robinson, Geert Wilders, and Marine Le Pen, who in speaking truthfully about Islam, are repeatedly calumniated as “far-right,” “extremists,” leaders of “hate groups,” and cast into the outer darkness. But where is the evidence that those who focus attention on what Islam teaches ought be considered members of “hate groups”? The solution to the “mass disenchantment” of young non-Muslims is for political and media elites to stop pretending that Islamic teachings do not justify Islamic terrorism; to stop demonizing those who, having studied Islam, want to forthrightly discuss its teachings; and to show more concern for their anxious citizens, who deserve far better from the political and media elites who presume to protect and instruct them.
Or is it just possible that by “extremism and hate groups,” the Most Reverend Justin Welby means “Islamic” extremism and “Islamic” hate groups? If he does, he’s wrong about one thing: Muslim terrorists are not suffering from “mass disenchantment” at all, but are only carrying out the Qur’anic commands to engage in Jihad, by whatever means, including terrorism, that prove effective, and eventually to subjugate all non-Muslims, so that Islam everywhere dominates, and Muslims rule, everywhere. I don’t think Welby did mean “Islamic” extremists, but in case he did, it must be pointed out further that instead of “mass disenchantment” among Muslims, they are doing quite well in the generous welfare states of Europe, all expenses paid (housing, education, medical care, family allowances, unemployment compensation), are able to conduct their Stealth Jihad without much opposition, while the most determined among them fulfill the duty of Jihad as shahids, or martyrs, sowing terror just as the Qur’an commands.
Back in March 2015, the Archbishop spoke to faith leaders and deplored the fact that some [Muslims] were being labelled “extremists,” when in fact, he said, they were merely young people who were turning to jihad because mainstream religion is not “‘exciting’ enough.” The Qur’an was not mentioned. He told his fellow clergy that Britain’s religious communities must do more to provide an alternative to extremism, something that gives young people a different “purpose in life.” To which one would like to respond: why is murderous “jihad” the only way for young Muslims to fight boredom? Apparently non-Muslim young people have managed to find ways to fight boredom without engaging in murder and mayhem. What could be their secret? Is it something that young Muslims can’t copy? Is the only way for Muslims to make life more exciting for themselves by inflicting death on Infidels, or by supporting other Muslims who do so? Is that really so much more interesting than playing or watching sports, binge-viewing on Netflix, or competing at cricket on a playing-field? And the Most Reverend Justin Welby said that Britain’s religious communities must do more to provide an alternative to that extremism which gives young people a “purpose in life.” But it’s precisely that “purpose in life” that Jihad so readily provides its adherents. In Islam, killing Infidels is the highest and best purpose. By doing so, the young Muslims fulfill the duty, incumbent on all Muslims, to engage in Jihad to subjugate Infidels, and work toward making Islam everywhere dominant, and Muslims rule, everywhere. And there are so many different ways to conduct Jihad; why, even the receipt of welfare benefits can be seen as the “Jizya-seekers’ allowance”; having lots of children — supported by generous family allowances from the Infidel state — contributes to the demographic Jihad.
Six months later, in October 2015, the Archbishop was urging that there be still more interfaith dialogue, in order to “ease the fears of the Muslim community.” Many must surely have thought that the people who most needed to have their fears eased would be the intended victims, that is, Infidels, rather than those who shared the faith of the murderous perpetrators. But not Archbishop Welby.
A month later, after the attacks in Paris, he had a different take: “Archbishop Welby also said the manner in which IS militants had distorted their faith, so that they believe their acts are glorifying their God, is ‘one of the most desperate aspects of our world today.’” At least he wasn’t still calling for interfaith dialogue, nor babbling on about the desperate need of “young people” (meaning young Muslims) to find something “exciting” other than Jihad, but he was still insisting that those IS militants “had distorted their faith” because…well, because if they weren’t distorting their faith, then what would that mean for Europeans who now had tens of millions of Muslims in their midst? And how would we know if they “had distorted their faith” unless we looked at the Islamic texts? Should we continue rely on assurances from Muslims — see Sadiq Khan, and a few million others — or take a look ourselves?
Archbishop Welby makes his next appearance in the annals of interfaith moral idiocy on July 18, 2016, when he greeted two Islamic preachers from Pakistan, Muhammad Naqib ur Rehman and Hassan Haseeb ur Rehman, “who have led a high-profile campaign in Pakistan in praise of assassin Mumtaz Qadri, who was executed in January after murdering liberal Pakistani politician Salmaan Taseer in 2011. The Punjab governor had criticised Pakistan’s strict anti-blasphemy laws, and Qadri claimed it was his religious duty to kill him.” In fact, Salman Taseer had been the leading Muslim defender of the persecuted Christians of Pakistan. He called for freeing Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who had been sentenced to be hanged for blasphemy (some Muslim women with whom she had been quarreling claimed she had criticized the Prophet Muhammad). And here, invited by Archbishop Welby, were two of the most fanatical of Muslim preachers, who for years had been trying to get Taseer’s murderer not just freed, but hailed as a hero of Islam.
What do you think Archbishop Welby was thinking as he greeted his guests? There are only two possibilities. One is that he simply didn’t know, because he hadn’t bothered to ask, or others hadn’t bothered to tell him, who these preachers were, what they had done, what they stood for: the judicial murder of a Christian woman, and the non-judicial murder (by his bodyguard) of the leading Muslim defender of Christians. If he hadn’t bothered to find out, that would constitute an unacceptable dereliction of duty. The other possibility is that he did know who these Pakistani fanatics were, and didn’t think their campaign to free the murderer of Salman Taseer, who had been killed because he dared to defend a Christian woman sentenced to death on trumped-up blasphemy charges, was reason enough not to welcome them. And if that were the case, it would not just be a dereliction of duty but, rather, an example, by the Archbishop of Canterbury, of beyond-the-pale moral indecency.
So here we are, in June 2017, and the Archbishop of Canterbury, as of now, no longer talks about the need for more interfaith dialogue “in order to ease the fears of the Muslim community.” Even he appears to know whose fears need to be eased, and it’s not those of the Muslims. Nor has he repeated his former theme that “young people” — that is, Muslim young people — needed something “exciting” in their lives, which explained, Welby formerly insisted, their embrace of Jihad.
It would be good if Archbishop Welby were now to clear a few things up. First, he might make a public apology for ever having met with those two Pakistani preachers, and to do in a public call for sparing the life of Asia Bibi. He has, after all, apologized for working at a holiday camp where sexual abuse of children was going on, so why not do it again, a mea culpa for the fanatical company he’s kept? Then he might admit that he was wrong to suggest that the attacks by Serbian Christians on Muslims at Srebrenica were like the attacks of Muslim terrorists, for the former were not supported by Christian doctrine, while the latter find their justification, and motivation, in the texts and teachings of Islam.
And finally he might read aloud a dozen or so verses — perhaps on the BBC itself, which could stand a little lesson in Islam, and is unlikely to refuse a request from the Archbishop of Canterbury — from the Qur’an, including the verses describing the Infidels as “the vilest of creatures” (98:6), and those that command Believers not to take Christians and Jews as their friends (for they are friends only with each other) and others still that describe the duty of Jihad, about when and how and why to kill the Kuffar. And then a chastened Archbishop Welby should then issue his very own mea culpa, as he asks aloud: “Should we continue to ignore these verses, as I confess I have done, and for far too long? Or should we have a long and serious discussion together, as to what is to be done?” Howls of protest from “wounded” Muslims will simply have to be ignored.
That’s fiction, of course, a hopeful fantasy, nothing more. Archbishop Welby will never refer to, much less quote, any of those Qur’anic verses, will never ask Muslims to discuss these passages. Nor will the Most Reverend Justin Welby ever admit to having been colossally wrong about the reasons for Islamic terrorism. Just the other day, on LBC Radio, Archbishop Welby showed me the folly of my fiction. For it turns out that I was dead wrong about him. He hasn’t learned a thing. For this is what he had to say in an interview after the third attack in recent weeks by Muslims in the U.K., in Manchester and in London.
“The terrorists want to divide us, they want to make us hate one another. They want to change our way of life.”
He added that the UK should concentrate in tackling the causes of extremism.
Justin Welby went on: “We must go on being profoundly and deeply hospitable…we mustn’t turn against people because of their faith or their category, but we must turn against people who seek to divide and destroy us.”
Andrew [the interviewer] asked the Archbishop whether he fears there may be a backlash against the Muslim community.
He replied: “I am anxious about that, yes, that there would be a backlash against the Islamic community.
“Anyone who thinks of that, saying anything insulting on the tube or on the bus, or in the street, let alone attacking a mosque, or something like that, or anyone, they need to remember that if they do that, the terrorists give them a triple cheer.
“Because they’re doing exactly what the terrorists want them to do.”
The breathtaking banality of this, and its fundamental untruth, and even its cruel indifference to non-Muslims, set one’s teeth on edge.
This absurd insistence that the terrorists want us to hate them, and so we must foil their plans by making sure we don’t hate them, don’t hate Muslims, don’t even display the slightest hostility to Muslims. Because to do so would be to “do exactly what the terrorists want them to do.”
There is no evidence that the terrorists “want us to hate them.” Muslim terrorists don’t care if the Kuffar “hate them” or not; what matters is that the Kuffar fear them. That’s all they want: fear. It says in the Qur’an, repeatedly, to “strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah” (Qur’an 8:60). As for “dividing us,” it is Islam itself that permanently divides us. And we deserve and reserve the right to hate those Muslims who hate, and try to, and do, murder us.
Perhaps a group of well-prepared and undeterred Infidels can go up to Lambeth Palace, where Archbishop Welby resides, and post on his door — let the television cameras roll — not 95 theses, but rather, a few well-chosen verses from the Qur’an (with copies of same to be distributed to the newsmen present).
Here is one such florilegium of Islamic ferocity:
(1) “Fight against those who do not obey Allah and do not believe in Allah or the Last Day and do not forbid what has been forbidden by Allah and His messenger even if they are of the People of the Book until they pay the Jizya with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.” 9:29
(2) “When the sacred months have passed, then kill the Mushrikin wherever you find them. Capture them. Besiege them. Lie in wait for them in each and every ambush but if they repent, and perform the prayers, and give zacat then leave their way free.” 9:5
(3) “Kill them wherever you find them and drive them out from where they drove you out. Persecution is worse than slaughter.” 2:191
(4) “When you meet the unbelievers, smite their necks.” 47:4
(5) “O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.” 5:51
(6) “You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.” Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell. 5:80
(7) “Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them…” This last means that the Muslim is allowed to feign friendship if it is of benefit. The Qur’an commentator Ibn Kathir glosses this passage thus: “believers are allowed to show friendship outwardly, but never inwardly.”3:28
Address it politely to The Most Reverend and Right Honourable the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. But say you’ll be back, again and again, until the Most Reverend Justin Welby agrees to discuss these passages.
It’s a way to both publicize those passages — they need to be constantly quoted, forced into the public consciousness — and to shame the Archbishop into acknowledging them, and discussing them. And what can he say? Can he deny their clear meaning? Or claim that Muslims pay no attention to what’s in their Qur’an? Or that even to discuss those passages would only be playing into the terrorists’ hands by raising disturbing matters that could “divide us,” even though it’s those very passages that permanently “divide us”? The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop of Canterbury is eventually going to have to come to grips with Islam’s texts, the ones he has been avoiding now for years, the ones that explain Islamic terrorism. Shame him into doing so. He may still be educable. He may still be able, if forced, to begin to think straight about Islam. So far, the signs are not good. But let’s hope.
jewdog says
The Judeo-Christian tradition preaches universal brotherhood, unlike Islam. There are many biblical recommendations in detail on how to be a good sibling to humanity. Thus, Welby, like the Pope and many Rabbis, is trying to be as nice as he can, instead of laying it on the line and really telling it like it is. Islam has no such qualms, and one can see in its adherents statements after terrorist attacks an effort to exculpate Islam rather than, as a Westerner would do, engage in self-criticism or show genuine empathy towards the victims. For example, after every terrorist attack in Israel, editorials across the board in the Muslim countries basically say that the Israelis had it coming. We in the West better wise up before we find ourselves outfoxed by a cunning and ruthless force that is poorly understood and often poorly defended against.
Manuel 2 Paleologus says
The Christianity has no dark side as this Anglican Archbishop proclaimed. All the wars within Christianity were driven by a desire of domination and there is no text in the Bible supporting any violence.
The Quran has it! Many of our Anglican prelates are deceiving the British population who still call themselves Christians in considering Islam equal to Christianity and condone all the extremism Islam has. England is almost Islamized. And many other countries in the Western Europe. The people have to realize that and change the fabric of their corrupted government. They have to change their immigration policy.
But getting back to this Archbishop, I have to say that in some of their churches their priests had allowed the reading of the Quran. We have to return to our basic and fundamental Christian Faith of the 3 centuries.
Nunya Beezwax says
Well, that change in immigration policy won’t happen any time soon. Jeremy Corbyn is literally deranged, and Mrs. May is delusional. There’s a leadership crisis in the UK as Archbishop Welby just demonstrated.
Flavius Claudius Iulianus says
I’m just hoping, praying for just one country to fall to the hijrah. And I want it to go down in a big, loud THUMP so that everyone in the world will sit up and take notice.
I’ve already posted on this site about how the terror after the French Revolution woke Europe from its reverie over the high ideals of “liberté, égalité, fraternité.”
If one country topples over with a great, big, loud crunch then maybe a lot of people will wake from their virtue posturing, kumbaya, politically correct dream, and the rest of Europe and the world can be spared. (But then we would have to prepare to deal with any Napoleons that would come out of this mess, wouldn’t we?)
Donald R Laster Jr says
It has already occurred and is occurring in Eastern Europe. They are fighting the Islamic invasion again.
AnneM says
Islam is from the DEVIL!
DFD says
“….How great must an atrocity be for politicians and others to change their tune? …”
A: A lot more! Look at the WTC and what happened. Got to the http://thereligionofpeace.com/ and find out the number of deaths per annum. It will take a lot more, sadly so. Our response? Nation building and bringing democracy; and of course, the wonderful Arab springs – followed by arctic summers. No? Libya is now a haven of stability, peace, democracy, liberty and prosperity, Just like Iraq. Syria isn’t there yet, still in the grip of the evil tyrant Assad. Where he rules you even can drink beer, cafe or tea and eat ice-cream in street café’s; during Ramadan. The evil Christians, Yazidis and Secularists are trying to escape to him first, before heading towards Europe. Once he has been removed, it will be even more beautiful, peaceful and democratic in Syria. He slaughtered many, unlike his oppositions who are desperate to save people from him… Wott? Nonsense?
“…Srebrenica ?….”
A: The first massacres and atrocities, including rape camps were Bosnian, that is Muslim. The Serbs did something that is incomprehensible to us westerners, they took revenge. Instead of upholding our values – how upsetting for the MSM. Of course, they got ‘carried away’ and committed other atrocities too, Croatians etc., and for that they, the Serbs, can and have been rightly blamed.
“….He must know that his own willful ignorance has to end; he has a duty to his imperiled flock; continuing to ignore Islamic texts that justify violence and terrorism constitutes dereliction of that duty….”
A: “He has a duty!” — Harhar harrr! He isn’t ignorant. Be sure he knows the koran as well as the hadith – he is an archbishop (of Canterbury!!) in Europe’s most islamized country.
“….The Most Reverend and Right Honourable Archbishop of Canterbury is eventually going to have to come to grips with Islam’s texts, the ones he has been avoiding now for years….”
A: No, he hasn’t, see above.
“….He may still be educable…”
A: No, he isn’t.
Nunya Beezwax says
Is there something in the water over there that’s causing this mass psychosis? Welby may well be among the most educated in the UK, but he seems incapable of understanding one simple fact underlying the terror incidents: Islam is synonymous with terrorism. There is NO radical Islam because ALL Islam is radical. Islam is radical by its nature. Those who commit acts of terror against non-Muslims are engaged in the purest and trust form of Islam. Those Muslims who don’t commit acts of terror aren’t practicing Islam.
Nunya Beezwax says
*truest
Michael Copeland says
“The Koran directly commands us to commit terrorism…..”
Ragab Hilal Hamida, MP
in the Egyptian Parliament
Donald R Laster Jr says
People better wake up to the fact that the violence engaged in by Islamics is sanctioned, supported, and promoted by Islam and its teaching. Islam has been waging a non-stop war for 1400 plus years. It started after Jews, Christians, and even those who worshiped Mohammad’s god, rejected Mohammad’s lies and actions. The London Bridge and every attack Islamics do in the name of Islam is taught, sanctioned, promoted, and reward, in and by Islam.
Michael Copeland says
“…a state of permanent hostility between the Mussulman and the unbeliever.”
Karl Marx
Cretius says
It seems western politicians have no other response to Islam but continuing to turn the other cheek while all the while kowtowing to that supremacist believe system that makes NO accommodation for non-believers!
Lydia says
There are those who are aware that Islam incites violence and is bloodthirsty (realists and truthers), there are those who are ignorant of it (naive), those who are willfully ignorant of it (ostriches), and those who know it well and try to hide it and cover it up for a number of reasons (jihadists, evil plotters and colluders).
A European says
As an educated man the Archbishop of Canterbury certainly knows one or two things about the crusades. He cannot be ignorant of the fact that the crusades were simply a response to almost 400 years of islamic warfare, carnage, conquest and oppression. What prompted the first crusade? It was the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos who cried out for help, because the Seljuk Turks who had already overrun many regions of Asia Minor ( now Turkey) after the defeat of the Byzantine armies at the battle of Manzikert in 1071 headed for Constantinople, menacing the capital of eastern Christianity. Complying with the request from Alexios I, Pope Urban II finally launched the first crusade in 1095, in order to check further islamic conquest of Christian territories – Spain, North Africa, Palestine and Syria already being lost to Christianity. The crusades were a defensive venture and they were consistent with church teachings which allow for defensive wars to be waged ( saint Augustin, an important church father even today, said that wars can be morally justified, if they meet at least four criteria: there must be a just authority, that is,a legitimate political authority to declare a war, there has to be a just cause, the right Intention, meaning war is an appropriate means of righting wrongs and war is to be always the last resort; this is his idea of a just war and a Christian may consent to war, if these criteria are met)Sure, Christianity is a peaceful religion, the religion of love, forgiveness and peace, but “turning the other cheek” doesn’t mean to stay put when- each year- about 150 000 Christians in islamic countries are being slaughtered at the hands of Muslims or getting killed without trying to disarm the killer.
Pope Urban II was a courageous man and he was right about Islam and the necessity of launching a crusade, and we do not need apologise for the crusades, because these wars were just and justified, a late response to islamic invasions which otherwise might have annihilated all of Europe.
The time for pretence is over, and if church leaders like the Archbishop of Canterbury truly believe all this bullshit about Islam and the crusades, they must be replaced by leaders who are more like Urban II.
Wellington says
Have longed admired Pope Urban II’s toughness and shrewdness, so thanks for mentioning him in the deserving light you did. What a damn shame the current occupant of the papal throne represents the antithesis of Urban II in sundry ways. Talk about bad timing for Western Civilization.
Wellington says
Bottom line whatever the Archbishop may say or think: The Jewish and Christian theological blueprints are not inimical to liberty in today’s world. By contrast, the Islamic theological blueprint surely is a mortal threat to liberty in today’s world. The distinction could not be greater and by now one knows this or should know it.
No more excuses for Islam. It’s rotten to the core and its reputed founder was a damn psychopath, enthralled with death and devoted to lust. Enough already. Islam stinks and no other major religion does. Time most everyone realize this. To invoke an old line here, can’t put lipstick on a pig and call her something beautiful.
Kepha says
I’d say that the Old and New Testaments nurtured liberty in the Western world ; while the Qur’an and Hadith, another case of Luther’s dictum that the devil is God’s ape, are about as inimical to all kinds of human well-being as possible.
An Anglican friend of mine once said he took an outsider to the ordination of a CoE bishop. The candidate was in the midst of a group of prelates looking something like a robed scrum or huddle. The outsider asked my Anglican friend what was going on, and the Anglican layman couldn’t resist the temptation to replly, “The man in the midst of that huddle is undergoing an operation to remove his backbone.” Welby was probably the guy in the middle of the episcopal scrum.
Abp. Welby is another typical theological liberal who will obligingly roll over and play dead whenever his Christianity’s cultured despisers tell him to do so.
And, yes, Welby’s one more denatured Western leader who’s trying to put lipstick on a pig when it comes to Islam.
Michael Poulin says
Hey archbishop – so when is the Church of England going to give back to Catholics all the churches they stole and monastaries they looted and destroyed, and pay reparations to the thousands of Catholics they murdered?
Wellington says
I understand your overall point, Michael Poulin, and it has merit, but, long before Henry VIII was King and destroyed the Catholic Church in England and confiscated Church lands galore, anti-clericalism was quite ripe and rampant in said country going the whole way back to the “dust-up” between Henry II and Becket.
Much resentment existed towards the regular clergy, i.e., monks, and to some extent towards the secular clergy as well, from the High Middle Ages onwards. For example, Edward III’s statute, Praemunire, enacted during his reign (1327-1377), per Paul Johnson’s assessment of it on page 149 of his magnificent “A History of the English People,” essentially made is a capital offense to side with the Pope over the English monarch, this being going on some two centuries before Henry VIII became King.
In short, Henry VIII was just the end product of a centuries-long animosity towards Rome, an animosity which, in many ways, was fully justified, not completely but mostly so, because the papacy by the late Middle Ages had become something of a transnational institution (while paradoxically wrapped up way too much with Italian politics) bent on negating national sovereignty at the very time the nation state was emerging as an answer, an in-between solution, to the amorphousness of empire and the fragility of the city-state.
Once again, the Roman Church in the Late Middle Ages and the early sixteenth century was behind the eight-ball, so to speak, as it was in the nineteenth century regarding the entire concept of democratic principles. To the credit of the Church, it adapted well, post facto on sundry occasions, for instance what Pope Paul III did during his reign (1534-1549) by, among other things, calling for an ecumenical council that was long overdue, i.e., the Council of Trent, which cleaned up the corrupt Catholic Church significantly so, and by what Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) achieved after the essentially disastrous reign of Pope Pius IX (1846-1878).
Ah yes, never count out the Catholic Church but neither expect it to lead in many areas as well. Sometimes it does lead, but often it doesn’t, though it tends to make up for its mistakes in the long run, as exampled by what I have mentioned. Sorry for the long discourse but I was presently inclined to engage in such. Mea culpa.
Donald R Laster Jr says
And much of the deviance from Christian teachings that Martin Luther protested against is still part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Wellington says
Theological deviancy or secular deviancy? Huge difference. If the latter, Luther had cause. If the former, Luther was no more correct than the magisterium of the Catholic tradition. Both Catholic and Lutheran (Protestant in general) could argue the worthiness of their cause equally where theology is the sole matter. Still can.
mortimer says
Archbishop Welby is aware of jihad and Islam. He is painfully aware that in the history of recent genocides, the national church leaders have sometimes stood with the genocidal military leaders. In Bosnia, Greek troops blessed by the Greek Orthodox Church and Serbian troops blessed by the Serbian Orthodox Church participated in genocide and no national church leader denounced it. Rather, they praised the war against Islam. This is definitely a perversion of Christian military theology to allow the mass murder of unarmed civilians.
Robert Spencer’s point is well taken that no Christian theology permits genocide or advocates, but rather condemns the targeting of civilians and demands that soldiers minimalize the effects of warfare to non-combatants.
Justin Welby should be more precise in his language by condemning ERRANT CLERGY WHO HAVE SUPPORTED IMMORAL MILITARY ACTIONS, rather than suggest there is a Christian teaching that allows it. Such errant clerics are IGNORING established Christian military theology. Such Christian leaders have led their churches astray and their names have gone down in history as villains.
Donald R Laster Jr says
When you understand what was going on in Bosnia you will understand why people supported it. Remember, Islam is a government not a religion and all Islamics are invaders. This invasion has been going on for 1400 years. And Albania is apparently suffering from similar Islamic behaviors and attacks on the non-Islamic from some things I have read, which the “Progressive” media won’t report on.
Wellington says
I almost agree with you, Donald R Laster. Here’s where I differ with you: Islam is both a government AND a religion but it is a malevolent religion and where is it written that a religion cannot also have a political, i.e., governmental component, just as where is it written that a religion cannot be malevolent? Invariably, all those who maintain Islam is not a religion do so for one of two invalid reasons or both: 1) a religion must be good; and 2) a religion cannot also be a political ideology. The word I would stress here is “invalid.”
I write this to you because ALL efforts to deny Islam religious status are impotent and wrong-headed from the get-go. Writing as the American lawyer that I am, anyone trying to argue that Islam is not a religion for First Amendment purposes here in America is on a fool’s errand. Completely. 100% so. Not 99% so. Nope, 100% so.
All who know what Islam intends for us all, as you do, should focus on its iniquity, and related elements like its stupidity and totalitarian nature, rather than wasting time on arguing it is not a religion. Oh yes it is. One very wicked and very political religion but a religion nonetheless. Proceed from here. Best way to go. Proceeding on the assumption that Islam is not a religion is a route to legal Nowheresville. It will marginalize a person and not contribute at all to dealing most effectively with the worst religion of all time.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Islam is a theocracy – a government with its civil laws (Shar’iah) given by its god, in this case Hubal the Arab moon god, chief god of the Arab pantheon of gods. It is not a religion but it does have a religious component. It is because people fail to understand the difference between government and religion that Islamics have been able to use religion as a cover for their actions and invasion.
I understand where you are coming from but Islam is not a religion and even Islamics point that out in their teachings and the use of their civil law – Shar’iah. You have it backwards – the religious portion is used to enforce the civil law portion. Islam is deviant and abnormal in all aspects of its teachings – both the government, civil law and religious components. I have often thought of Mohammad as having been a successful Charles Manson based upon some of the things I have read about Charles Manson.
Wellington says
I can assure you that Islam, for First Amendment purposes, is as fully a religion as is Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism—–or Satanism for that matter.
And I have nothing backwards. Just because Islam has a totalitarian political element, which it surely does, does not lessen it as a religion. Also, don’t forget that completely secular totalitarian ideologies, Nazism and Marxism as examples, are also fully protected by the First Amendment where BELIEF is concerned so that, in American constitutional law, and even assuming Islam is more political than religious, it amounts to no difference where American legal matters are the issue. What does matter is that Islam is finally identified as an evil belief system, regardless of how much political content it has. Herein lies the key and not the complete waste of time, which so many here at JW engage in, of asserting that Islam is not a religion (btw, Robert Spencer himself has fully acknowledged that Islam is indeed a religion). As I already wrote, doing so is a road to legal Nowheresville.
In short, focus on the malevolence of Islam and not its status as a religion—–or not.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Islam is not protected by Amendment 1. It is not a religion. It is a governmental system. Shar’iah law is civil law not religious law or rules. The worship of Hubal while a part of Islam is not the primary part of Islam. Islam is an foreign State organized to invade other States. Islam is just like National Socialism and International Socialism in some aspects. But the big difference is those two ideologies operate WITHIN the existing structures to accomplish their goals. Islam operates outside of the existing structures as an external invader.
And while Socialist can be a loyal citizen of a country that is not controlled by socialist and Islamic can never be a loyal citizen of non-Shar’iah ruled country. All have to be treated as invaders. The Islamic are very good at using the guise of religion to advance their invasion of countries – so much that the National Socialist of Germany tried to adopted the technique. But we have 1400 years of clear examples showing that Islam is not a religion as well as the actual teachings themselves. Mosques are indoctrination and invasion support facilities.
We we will have to agree to disagree.
James says
It’s a religion of an unfamiliar kind, one that would have been immediately recognisable in the world of the OT. The Assyrians did not distinguiish religion and politics either. Like Islam, they had no conceptual equipment for doing so. The religious was the political was the religious.
Wellington says
Donald R Laster: It’s not just me you’ll have to disagree with on this matter. I don’t believe you could find a single federal judge who would maintain that for First Amendment purposes Islam is not a religion. You are functioning in a make-believe legal world. Don’t mean to be harsh here but this is the case.
Donald R Laster Jr says
If you took the time to look at what Islam actually is you would know I am correct. And a judge who takes the time to learn the facts about Islam would recognize what it is – a theocracy, a foreign government with its civil law supplied by Islam’s god. In this case Hubal the Arab moon god. Article 6 of the US Constitution prohibits the use of ALL foreign law in the US and its territories. And that included the Leviticus law. No one is preventing people from worshiping Hubal, Thor, Zeus, Athena, Apollo, or any other god or goddess. Islam is a government who citizens are charged with taking over every country and society they can by any means possible.
And like you I used to think Islam was a religion until I went back and re-learned the history, read the Qur’an, and started looking at the facts after 9/11 since one group was Islam was peaceful and another was saying it was not peaceful. You may chose to continue to deceive yourself but if you open your eyes and look at where Islamics have full control it is obvious what Islam is – a GOVERNMENT with a religious component, which is called a theocracy.
Wellington says
I have studied Islam for decades now and I do know what it is—–an evil religion with a totalitarian political element. But even assuming it is not a religion, it would still be a protected belief system just as Nazism and Marxism are, constitutionally speaking, so it becomes completely irrelevant for First Amendment purposes to argue it is not a religion. Total waste of time EVEN if you are correct that Islam doesn’t count as a religion (but it does). In short, focus on its iniquity and not its status.
Donald R Laster Jr says
Obviously you have bought into the lie that Islam is a religion. Islam is a theocracy – a political system with a religious component. That is obvious from the Qur’an and it use of Shar’iah law. Article 6 of the US Constitution prohibits Shar’iah law, which is Islam’s civil law, which prohibits Islam – a foreign government – in the US. A person can still worship the god Hubal. As for National Socialism, Marxism, and International Socialism, they are ideologies not governments or religions.
As I said we will have to agree to disagree.
Wellington says
Article VI of the Constitution also prohibits much that Marxism and Nazism assert, but what you don’t get at all is the difference between belief and action. And if you really think that Nazism and Marxism don’t provide in their theory as much government directive as does Islam then you simply don’t see things clearly enough.
But let’s see here. I maintain as a lawyer that Islam is a religion (though evil). Robert Spencer has asserted many times that Islam is a religion. You could not name a single federal judge who would aver that Islam is not a religion under First Amendment guidelines or per Article VI, and yet you know above us all that Islam is not a religion per the Constitution. Must be wonderful to know so much compared to us rubes.
Donald R Laster Jr says
You just can not stand to have someone disagree with you. Remove Hubal, the god (allah) of Islam and you still have a government with a set of laws (Shar’iah). Islam’s history shows it a government. Islamics themselves say Islam is a government. That is what Shar’iah law is about. Article 6 of the US Constitution prohibits the use of all foreign law. Shar’iah law is foreign law. Amendment 1’s references to religion do not apply to Islam. Amendment applies to the Federal Government, Congress, by the way.
Do you realize that in Germany today the laws the National Socialist had passed in the 1930s are still part of the law of Germany – especially the laws that prohibit home schooling. Islam presents itself as religion as part of its practice of deception. You don’t like the facts I have presented since it challenges your perception. Islam is a theocracy – a government with its law from its god. And you have not produced any logical argument showing Islam is a religion. Look at the teachings and history of Islam.
And as I said we will have to agree to disagree. Islam is rooted in depravity and has been since Mohammad’s lies were rejected by Jews, Christians, and others of the time. And that included those that worshiped his god Hubal the moon god.
rara says
Mortimer, either prove this with some verifiable proofs (I guess you won’t be able):
> In Bosnia, Greek troops blessed by the Greek Orthodox Church and Serbian troops blessed by the Serbian Orthodox Church participated in genocide
or take it back.
Northern Virginiastan says
It seems that the only C of E clergy who had any nerve were Lord Carey, past Archbishop of Canterbury, and Gavin Ashenden.
dumbledoresarmy says
Yes, Gavin Ashenden is much, much clearer-sighted than his foolish – and dangerous – Archbishop.
And then there is Australia’s Rev Dr Mark Durie.
Whose books on Islam – Which God? (which explodes the whole nonsensical and dangerous “Ibrahimic religions’ meme) and The Third Choice, ought perhaps to be sent by devout Anglicans, to their Archbishop, marked PLEASE READ.
If he is unundated with several thousand copies mailed in from all over the Communion, perhaps he might pick up the phone and *talk* to Dr Durie, who could teach him a thing or two about Islam and its doctrines of Jihad.
Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY) says
It should be noted that this year, 2017, is the 500th anniversary of Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, which he tacked up on the cathedral door on October 31, 5017. This will be celebrated this Halloween by hordes of candy-covetous little Lutheran trick-or-treaters. But 2107 can also be celebrated in its own right in recognition of the Seven Theses of the Quran, to be tacked up on the door of the Archbishop of Canterbury daily until they are properly discussed and proclaimed to the world. The whole Quran is too big to be comprehended by the public, but a florilegium (= anthology) of these seven key teachings is small enough to be comprehended by the modern mind. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven%2C_Plus_or_Minus_Two
Steven Dawson says
This is the THEOLOGICIAL TRECHORY bringing CHRISTIANITY”S numbers down daily in the Anglican & Episcopal Church..
Smart guy says
That Islam is a religion and therefore deserves the protection of the 1st Amendment is complete nonsense.
Should the Aztec religion which included human sacrifice be protected by the 1st Amendment. The religion of Baal included burning babies in the arms of Molech. They have erected an arch to the religion of Baal in New York. Islam is just a bad as the Aztec religion calling for the human sacrifice of all unbelievers.
A religion that does not practice freedom cannot be given freedom. The old Testament calls for its followers to practice the Vendetta. Eye shall be for eye, tooth for tooth, and life for life. Turning the other cheek is a guilt trip, but in order for a guilt trip to work, the other party has to feel guilty. The Samoans cooked and ate the Christian missionaries that were sent to them, However, they felt guilty and have since become Christians. Moslems on the other hand do not feel guilty.
Jayell says
I’ve actually met this character. He seems very bright and on-the-ball, but people have to remember that (if I recall correctly) he began his career as an executive in the oil industry and is now first and foremost the CEO of Her Majesty’s Department of God. That seems to call for a strong talent in political expediency. I suppose Jesus Christ comes into it somewhere.
Baucent says
I think it’s fair to say he is not a Biblical Scholar, or a theologian he is an administrative cleric who has difficulty drawing out the critical points of difference between Christianity and Islam. It’s simplistic to make any correlation between war crimes inspired by political ends in Bosnia and the suicide bomber in Manchester or the three Jihadists in London. The Jihadists are motivated and instructed to attack non believers in their Holy books and by their religious leaders. A Christian would find nothing of the sort in the New Testament.
dumbledoresarmy says
Jayell – you’ve *met* him?
Then I’d suggest writing him a letter and posting him a parcel, for his attention.
In the parcel? – ex-Muslim Canon Dr Patrick Sookhdeo’s useful booklet “Is the Muslim Isa the Biblical Jesus?” [this can be got for a trifling sum from the Barnabas Fund website; now, I know Dr Sookhdeo is currently under a cloud, BUT I have read the pamphlet in question and every word of it is painfully, soberly true, and fully referenced from the relevant texts);and Rev Dr Mark Durie’s “The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom” and “Which God?” (which is a beautifully-lucid and scholarly study of the radical difference between the Biblical God – whether in OT or NT – on the one hand, and the ‘allah’ of Islam, on the other). You could throw in a printout of Jacques Ellul’s foreword on Jihad, that he wrote for Bat Yeor’s book “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam”. In that foreword, Jacques Ellul – whose name I *think* the Archbishop surely ought to know, if only because of Ellul’s fame as a sociologist and critic of the modern age – states plainly that Islam is “fundamentally warlike” and he refers to the division of the world, by orthodox Islam, into dar al harb and dar al Islam. Ellul’s mini-essay on Jihad is a beautiful read and covers all the necessary bases; indeed, it can be placed over against the Archbishop’s incoherences (as skewered by Mr Fitzgerald, above) as a sustained corrective.
You could urge Archbishop Welby to confer with his own in-house expert – Rev Dr Durie and Dr Gavin Ashenden – and take them *seriously* – and to also consult the writings of the late Dutch theologian and scholar, the formidably erudite Hans Jansen. Jansen has written very incisively on the differences between Islam and Christianity.
actually, perhaps all British jihadwatchers should forward copies of Mr Fitzgerald’s cri de coeur to the Archbishop, with suitable covering letters inquiring politely but pointedly whether the Archbishop is even capable of seeing the global Jihad when it is coming straight at him… and his flock. His fellow Anglicans – as well as Christians of all other stripes – in Africa and in Pakistan are being butchered *wholesale* by Muslims, just about every second day. Perhaps he should be asked sardonically whether he intends to publicly instruct his flock worldwide to Submit and accept Dhimmi status and prepare to attempt to buy their lives – temporarily – by beggaring themseles, paying vast sums of jizya money to their new Muslim overlords.
dumbledoresarmy says
The same could be done by anyone here who is a Christian of *any* tradition; but most particularly, by anyone here who worships and practices within the Anglican tradition.
If our ‘shepherd’ is going astray and marching straight toward a precipice, or, to vary the metaphor, a mass of underbrush full of hyenas, then maybe it’s up to those of the flock who can *see* the precipice, or who can see the hyenas lying in wait, to start butting and baa-ing, digging in our hooves, and trying our best to push him, and our fellow sheep, away from danger.
dumbledoresarmy says
A poster above mentioned Rev Dr Gavin Ashenden, who was – until recently – one of the Queen’s Chaplains (an honorary post, held by a number of people at any one time).
Here is what *he* has written, at the ‘ArchbishopCranmer’ blog, in the wake of the Manchester Muslim mass-murder.
http://archbishopcranmer.com/need-talk-jesus-mohammed-christianity-islam/
We need to talk more about Jesus and Mohammed and less about Christianity and Islam
JUNE 5 2017
One hopes, and one prays, that Gavin Ashenden has had at least *some* chance to bend the ear of the Archbishop of Canterbury… or put a flea in it, indeed, several fleas.
James says
Look what him for having the impertinence to protest in writing against blasphemy in an Episcopalian Church !
Are the Anglican & Episcopalian clergy so benighted that they cannot see that shitting on Christ is wrong ?
James says
…what happened to him…
Graham says
Justin Welby should be X-rayed to see if he has a back bone. Archbishops of the past would weep to see his political correctness. He needs to read ‘Foxe’s book of Martyrs’ again! Where are all the Apostle Pauls? They are making videos on youtube (thanks be to God), revealing the true nature of islam. They cannot be found in positions of power in the churches though.
Donald R Laster Jr says
And that is one of the inconvenient facts that was ignored and continues to be ignored about the Islam Theocracy. This has been going on for 1400 years.
martin says
Most leadership of the church of england, merely have an intellectual belief they are christian, they are not born again, they dont know what it even means and I suspect even if they were educated about it, would reject it.
Those who seek, find..
Valkyrie Ziege says
; Monks in Burma are murdering Muhammadans on sight, and you can’t blame any scripture on those actions, you have to blame the actions of Muhammadans which bring it on themselves. Any-one that has stretched the patience of a Burmese monk, to the point that they’re being murdered on-sight, need to re-evaluate their religion!
Donald R Laster Jr says
It is called self-defense. These people are acting in classic self-defense against those who are dedicated to killing them.
James says
Jesus Christ told His folllwers to love their enemies – not to lick their arses. This is not love – this is a betrayal of the Abp’s Anglican flock, and of Britain as a whole. It is deplorable from the Popes, and deplorable from other Christian clergy. Clergy need to stop being so damned gutless and afraid of what Islam actually teaches.
SAM says
Why beat around the bush anymore guys? Say it loud.
ISLAM IS THE PROBLEM. MUSLIMS ARE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR JIHAD ALSO.
DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
Steven Dawson says
Christians are walking willing into the outstretched arms of Islam today just as the Crusaders willingly marched between the Horns of Hattin a thousand years ago & to the same end.
Steven Dawson says
Christians of today are willingly flocking to the arms of Islam just as the Crusaders willingly marched between the Horns of Hattin & with the same results.
David Hayden says
Thanks, Hugh Fitzgerald. You are fighting the good fight.