Caption contest

With thanks to Jihad Watch, Reuters and Michelle Malkin.

Is this a joke?

Alas, since the attitude of the BBC towards the Islamic ideology is invariably one of reverential deference, it is probably all too true. The BBC would never try to raise a laugh at Mahometan expense. Political correctness is a dour and irascible creed which knows nothing of humour.

Yes, yes, Melancholicus knows he has promised his readers to leave the saracens alone for a bit, but the attitude behind this story is so breathtakingly arrogant that he feels something ought to be said.

Muslim call to adopt Mecca time

By Magdi Abdelhadi
BBC Arab affairs analyst

Muslim scientists and clerics have called for the adoption of Mecca time to replace GMT, arguing that the Saudi city is the true centre of the Earth.

Mecca is the direction all Muslims face when they perform their daily prayers.

The call was issued at a conference held in the Gulf state of Qatar under the title: Mecca, the Centre of the Earth, Theory and Practice.

One geologist argued that unlike other longitudes, Mecca's was in perfect alignment to magnetic north.

He said the English had imposed GMT on the rest of the world by force when Britain was a big colonial power, and it was about time that changed.

Mecca watch

A prominent cleric, Sheikh Youssef al-Qaradawy, said modern science had at last provided evidence that Mecca was the true centre of the Earth; proof, he said, of the greatness of the Muslim "qibla" - the Arabic word for the direction Muslims turn to when they pray.

The meeting also reviewed what has been described as a Mecca watch, the brainchild of a French Muslim.

The watch is said to rotate anti-clockwise and is supposed to help Muslims determine the direction of Mecca from any point on Earth.

The meeting in Qatar is part of a popular trend in some Muslim societies of seeking to find Koranic precedents for modern science.

It is called "Ijaz al-Koran", which roughly translates as the "miraculous nature of the holy text".

The underlying belief is that scientific truths were also revealed in the Muslim holy book, and it is the work of scholars to unearth and publicise the textual evidence.

But the movement is not without its critics, who say that the notion that modern science was revealed in the Koran confuses spiritual truth, which is constant, and empirical truth, which depends on the state of science at any given point in time.

So what if Mecca happens to be “in perfect alignment” with magnetic north—which claim need not necessarily be true anyway—at this point in time? The magnetic poles wander constantly, which means that sooner or later Mecca will be out of alignment altogether. Moreover, the lines of latitude and longitude are fixed with respect to the geographical north and south poles; they are nothing to do with magnetic north, so the reference to longitude makes absolutely no sense.

However, while we might be inclined to a good hearty laugh at the dotty theories of these fanatics with respect to longitude and the alignment of the poles, one thing at least is certain. Given the relentless extension of their power in Europe generally and in Britain in particular, with the dhimmified natives falling over one another to appease them in the name of multiculturalism and political correctness, there is one aspect of this pseudo-science that might actually become reality.

I refer to the proposed abolition of Greenwich Mean Time and its replacement with some other chronological standard, based on local Saudi time—with the line of zero degrees running precisely through the middle of the Ka’ba in Mecca.

Who will claim that such a thing could never happen?

Schism

This is the title of a film by a Saudi blogger named Raed Al-Saeed made as a riposte to Geert Wilders’ Fitna, and now widely available on the internet.

Schism was removed from YouTube following “complaints”, although it was subsequently restored at Al-Saeed’s request.

It is not unnatural that there should have been complaints. But complaints are a different thing entirely to death threats. LiveLeak removed Fitna from its servers almost straight away owing to threats of death and violence from outraged fanatics directed against its staff (although the film has since been restored). Is Al-Saeed now in fear of his life because certain viewers have complained about Schism? One should think not. Geert Wilders, on the other hand, has every reason to look over his shoulder every day for the rest of his life (which, given what happened to Theo van Gogh, might not be that long).

Mahometan bloggers and commentators are of course delighted with Al-Saeed’s effort, but having watched it himself, Melancholicus is not impressed. One cannot compare Schism with Fitna without doing an injustice to the latter. Al-Saeed does not attempt to engage with the charges against Islam contained in Wilders’ film, probably because Wilders’ case is unanswerable. Instead, he takes the easy way out and resorts to attacking the Bible and Christianity in the same manner in which he perceives his enemy to have attacked Islam, with the result that the controversy has descended to the level of an ad hominem slagging match.

This approach is unfortunate not only because it causes further tempers to flare, but because Al-Saeed effectively treats Christianity and Islam as morally equivalent. Since he is a Saudi, Melancholicus assumes that Al-Saeed must be a believing Muslim (why would he have responded to Geert Wilders if he weren’t?). Why, though, would a believing Muslim regard Islam and Christianity as equivalent in their tone and tenor, and in what they teach? There would be no difference between the two religions otherwise, except that of party political identity. Similarly, it is not legitimate to compare the Qur’an and the Bible in the manner in which Al-Saeed has done; each is intended from the outset to be read in a different way. They are differently structured and contain different kinds of text. Both are held to be the word of God by the adherents of Islam and Christianity respectively, but even here there is a difference as to the precise mode of the revelation regarded as being contained in each. Melancholicus apologizes to the reader if he has by now made himself obscure, but this point (regarding the differences between the Qur’an and the Bible) will be made clearer below.

Schism opens with the following statement:

The following phrases are from the Bible, the Holy Book that teaches the most barbaric war criminals

Here, from the very beginning, Al-Saeed is on shaky ground. Who are these war criminals? Al-Saeed does not say. Whether he has in mind people like George W. Bush and Tony Blair, or those such as the butchers of Bosnia Radovan Karadzic and Ratko Mladic, or even the most extreme examples such as Hitler, Himmler and Heydrich, does he provide his viewers with any evidence that these men have been inspired by the Bible as he claims, or that any of them actually quoted the Bible in justification of his acts?

No, he doesn’t. Because he cannot. The perpetrators of Islamist atrocities, however, invariably cite the Qur’an as justification for their actions. Blot number one against Al-Saeed.

It is true that there are violent passages in the Old Testament, and Al-Saeed quotes some of them in support of his claims. But the violence of the Old Testament is confined to a particular time and place in history. No Jew or Christian today would attempt to use these verses as a justification for mayhem. But as the Qur’an is regarded by Muslims as valid for all times and places, its exhortations to bloodshed stand as strongly today as they did in the seventh century, and will always do so, as long as the Qur’an exists. Blot number two, as Al-Saeed has failed to distinguish between how Christians interpret the Old Testament, and how his own co-religionists interpret the Qur’an.

Furthermore, the violence of the Old Testament is mitigated, at least in Christianity, by the New Testament with its exhortations to love one’s enemies, to bless those who curse one, to pray for one’s persecutors and to do good to those who do one evil. Al-Saeed seems to be ignorant of this, or perhaps he doesn’t mention it because it would rather spoil his case. Blot number three.

The film then moves on to the notorious and highly-publicized 2006 footage of British troops beating up a group of Iraqi adolescents in Basra, filmed by one of the soldiers who is clearly enjoying the unpleasant spectacle and urging his comrades on. Having primed his viewers with quotes from the Old Testament, Al-Saeed clearly wishes us to associate the Biblical verses with the brutality of the troops, but in this instance there is no connection between the Bible and what the soldiers are doing. Nor does the one doing the filming - who speaks throughout the footage - ever mention the Bible, or any religious motivation whatsoever. Blot four.

The film then provides us with an image of a cross made from bullets standing on a table, on which there is also a copy of psalm 75. We then hear the voice of U.S. president George W. Bush describing his forthcoming invasion of Afghanistan by means of the word crusade. Al-Saeed clearly wishes us to take the “war on terror” for a war on Islam. What he fails to mention, however, is that the invasion of Afghanistan (and of Iraq after it) was prompted not by the Christian religion, or by the Bible, much less by psalm 75, but by a brutal and unprovoked terrorist attack on civilians in New York city which claimed almost 3,000 lives. An attack perpetrated by Muslims in the name of Islam.

If in 2001 the U.S. had gratuitously and out of the blue dropped a 150-kiloton bomb on Mecca, and afterwards cited verses from the Bible to justify the bombing, Al-Saeed might have had a just cause to complain. But as it is, the invasion of Afghanistan no more proves that Christianity is a martial religion than it proves the moon is made from green cheese. Blot five.

We then hear some pentecostalist/evangelical lady talking about Christianity, and inspiring the young. The scene then cuts to two children of, perhaps, ten or twelve years of age talking about their faith. This is what they say:

We're being trained to go out and train others to be God's army and to do God's will ... I feel like we're kind of being trained to be warriors, only in a much finer way ... I don't feel the sense of being afraid to die in battle or anything, like you would if you are actually going out to a war in the physical. There's a peace with it all, too. There's an excitement, yet peace at the same time ... you know, a lot of people die for God and they're not afraid.

There is no shortage of militaristic terminology here, and we can imagine the glee wherewith Al-Saeed must have latched on to this piece. Of course he must have thought of the militant youths of his own religion, who boast in front of their teachers and classmates of intending to strap on explosive vests and blow up the sons of pigs and monkeys (i.e. Jews) when they are old enough to do so. Does Al-Saeed really imagine that this is what the two kids he uses in Schism are talking about when they uttered the above quote? Instead, the children are speaking metaphorically, as their very words make clear. The girl talks of being a warrior “in a much finer way” than going to war “in the physical”. Quite obviously, a literal physical war is not at all in question here. While the boy in the video seems to refer to martyrdom at the end of the quote, he is of course referring to the Christian concept of martyrdom, in which one prefers to suffer death than renounce the faith, if such is unavoidable. Only in Islam, however, does martyrdom involve the performance of a deliberately suicidal act which invariably results in the taking of several other lives besides that of the alleged “martyr”. Blot six.

Then we are back to the pentecostal preacher, who says she wants to see young people as committed to the cause of Jesus Christ as young Muslims are to the cause of Islam. What’s wrong with that? Well, actually, here Al-Saeed inflicts damage on his own religion, for his film creates the impression that the preacher wants the youths in her charge to be as fanatical — and hence violent — as he back-handedly acknowledges Muslim youths to be. But however “committed” such Christian young people may be, can he show us any instances in which they have flown planes into buildings, or blown themselves up in crowded malls or restaurants, or bombed subway trains, or beheaded kidnap victims, all in the name of Christ?

Thought not. Blot seven.

We are then shown shots of what can only be a pentecostalist childrens’ service, in which all and sundry are animated by surging emotions. We see the woman preacher again, microphone in hand, animating the children with zeal and declaiming boldly such statements as “This is war! Are you a part of it or not?” As Al-Saeed’s use of this footage lacks a context, we don’t know what the occasion is precisely, but as it is clearly some kind of church service, with no guns or other weapons in sight, the preacher’s language is doubtless metaphorical, the ‘war’ in question being the warfare of the Christian life, namely the constant struggle against sin, against self and against the devil. Al-Saeed surely understands this, since it corresponds exactly to what Muslims describe as the greater jihad. But there is in Islam also a lesser jihad, that form of jihad with which we in the west have become all too familiar in recent years, namely fighting against the unbelievers with the sword and, in our day, the AK-47, the suicide bomb and the hijacked airliner. There is no Christian equivalent of this kind of jihad. Consequently there is no comparison between the metaphorical military language used by this pentecostal lady on the one hand and the literally hate-filled and bloodthirsty discourse of jihadi clerics on the other. The connection exists only in Al-Saeed’s mind. Secondly, even if the exhortation to “make war” were intended to be taken literally, pentecostalism is merely a fringe movement far from representative of Christianity as a whole. Could this guy really not do any better than this? If Melancholicus were a Mahometan (which holy God forfend), he would be profoundly disappointed with Al-Saeed’s lame and toothless effort. Blot eight.

The scene then cuts to Baghdad under attack at the beginning of “Shock and Awe”. Clearly Al-Saeed wishes us to apply the pentecostalist preacher’s cry of “this means war!” to what we see happening in the news footage. But once again, there is no connection between the two. The Bush administration and its allies attacked Iraq not because of any Christian or Biblical injunctions, much less because of the influence of some unidentified pentecostalist, but for reasons stemming from an Islamic attack on New York city that killed nearly 3,000 people. Here we can contrast Al-Saeed’s lame attempts to lay the blame for the war on Christian doctrine rather than on the fanatical Islamists where it belongs. He wastes precious time showing extended footage of warfare and violence that have nothing to do with either the Bible or Christianity when he ought to have been seeking out evidence to make a credible case. Blot nine.

Finally, we reach the ending. Schism closes with this text, against a background soundtrack of gunfire and explosions:

It is easy to take parts of any Holy book that are out of content [sic] and make it sound like the most inhuman book ever written. This is what Geert Wilders did to gather more supporters to his hateful ideology. To create schism.

Melancholicus thinks Al-Saeed misunderstands the meaning of the word schism; it certainly isn’t as appropriate a title as that given to Fitna by his nemesis Geert Wilders.

Then there is an expanded “English version”, which looks like it may have been made by someone else independent of Al-Saeed; this “English version” is somewhat more tendentious, and more obnoxious on that account, but the maker of the English version likewise has little to fear as a result of his actions. Christians are accustomed to such insult and humiliation. We don’t like it, certainly, but at the same time we won’t let it come between us and our rest. But any criticism of the Qur’an, however justified, without even stooping to the level of insult, invariably transforms extraordinary numbers of allegedly “peaceful” Muslims into homicidal maniacs.

The “English version” includes the provocative Biblical verse I came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt. 10:34). Yes, Jesus did say those words. But once again, he is not speaking literally. This speech was not followed in the Bible by any outbreak of violence, nor has it ever been used by Christians as a justification for war.

The “English version” does a far better job than Al-Saeed’s original in ferreting out examples of atrocities committed by Christians against Muslims. There is some footage which recalls the massacre at Srebrenica in 1995 of over 8,000 Muslim men and boys by the Bosnian Serbs. This was a horrifying crime, for which the perpetrators have still not been brought to justice. Nevertheless, it is irrelevant to the Fitna/Schism controversy, since this massacre was motivated by political considerations first of all, neither were the Bible nor any teaching of the Christian religion ever employed to defend it.

The “English version” also shows some World War II footage of Wehrmacht troops taking an oath, which cuts immediately to contemporary footage of American servicemen taking a similar oath. We are supposed to identify the U.S. with Nazi Germany. A bit contrived, to say the very least. A tad unfortunate also, given the Hitlerite sympathies and rabid anti-semitism of so many Muslims past and present. The picture (which is NOT photoshopped) says it all.

Then there several other irrelevancies in the “English version”, including a terrorist attack on a funeral during the troubles in Northern Ireland, and the infamous “Jonestown” in Guyana at which 900 members of a religious cult committed suicide at the behest of their leader. All of these are indiscriminately pressed into service in an attempt to portray Christianity as a violent religion, or else at least as violent as Islam. The reader may make up his own mind whether or not these attempts have been successful.

The ultimate point of separation between these two films is nothing to do with what may or may not be contained in the holy books of either Christianity or Islam. The point is that Raed Al-Saeed can continue to go about his daily business unmolested, basking in the kudos and approbation of the Islamic media for having dealt such a shrewd blow to the kuffar. It took no great courage for Al-Saeed to make and post Schism. He had nothing to lose in so doing, and everything to gain.

For Geert Wilders, however, the situation is very different. He is a marked man, and for daring to speak out in defence of his country and western civilisation, he will live in fear every day of his life, never knowing when some crazed fanatic will seize the opportunity to kill him. Wilders is also under fire from the politically-correct morons who dominate so much of Dutch society, as everywhere else in the west. For his part, Al-Saeed endures no such opposition. Wilders has presented his viewers with a compelling case, amply supported with incontestable evidence. In contrast, Raed Al-Saeed comes across as an unoriginal imitator, a man who cannot answer Wilders or even turn the tables on him since he has no evidence to make a case. Since he cannot make a case, he throws a hissy fit instead.

Because contrary to what critics like Al-Saeed would have us believe, Geert Wilders’ film has nothing to do with Christian misinterpretations of the violent passages in the Qur’an; Fitna is about what Muslims themselves have made of these violent passages. That these passages are found in the Qur’an is certain; but no one in the west would have paid any attention to them at all if Muslims did not continually use them as justification for heinous acts of murder and bloodshed. If Muslims interpreted the Qur’an as Christians interpret the Bible, it is likely that there would have been no film for Geert Wilders to make.

A final word, addressed especially to any Muslims that might be reading this. Geert Wilders has made out a case that Islam is a violent religion and that its violence is a direct consequence of injunctions contained in the Qur’an. Wilders wishes to have the Qur’an banned in the Netherlands in order to protect the Dutch people. If Muslims disagree with Wilders’ conclusions — and they clearly do — it is incumbent upon them to refute the charges that Wilders has made, bringing forth evidence to disprove his claims. However, if Muslims react to Fitna with fury and rage, even going so far as to threaten the life of the man who made it, does not that rather prove Wilders’ point? It is one thing to claim that Islam is a peaceful religion; it is another thing entirely to expect non-Muslims to believe that claim. When we westerners see Muslims reacting with homicidal hysteria to any slur or perceived slur against their religion, we are not inspired with confidence that Islam is a peaceful faith or that Muslims are a mature and mentally sound people. When we see the kind of atrocities carried out by Muslims in the name of Islam, we will be more inclined to believe Geert Wilders than Muslim apologists who insist that Wilders’ claims are all lies. You Muslims, if you want us to regard you as anything more than violent, unstable, fanatical, immature, misogynistic, murderous neanderthals, it is up to you — and you alone! — to suppress the extremism in your midst, and to do something about the way in which the Qur’an and its injunctions to violence are regarded in your communities. Until such time as you do, you cannot fault us for not taking you at your word.

Lastly, before we finish, Melancholicus wishes to provide his readers with the appropriate links so that his readers may view both Fitna and Schism for themselves and, having seen, may make up their own minds on the matter.

Fitna may be viewed on LiveLeak here [CAUTION: this film contains graphic footage which some viewers may find distressing]

Schism is available on YouTube here.

The so-called “English version” is also on YouTube here.

Melancholicus now finds himself wondering why he lavished so much time and effort on this post, since Fitna is so powerful and speaks for itself. In contrast the two Islamist ripostes are so weak and pathetic that there is really no comparison between them. I have no scruple about labelling the Muslim makers of these videos as islamists, and hence bracketing them with the terrorists. They condemn Fitna and they condemn Geert Wilders, but why do they not condemn the horrible things done by Muslims, upon which Wilders has merely shone a spotlight, horrible things done in the name of Islam? Why do they not hang their heads in shame? Why do they feel the need to go after Christianity, which is totally irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Qur’an is a violent book?

Now the inimitable Pat Condell also has a say which, as usual, is well worth hearing:

From "human rights" legislation and all its detestable enormities...

...deliver us, good Lord!

From The Telegraph:

Terror suspect Abu Qatada will not be deported

By Tom Chivers and agencies
Last Updated: 6:59pm BST 09/04/2008

The man described as Osama bin Laden's "right-hand man" will not be deported from Britain.

Abu Qatada, a radical Islamist preacher, has successfully appealed against a decision to send him back to Libya [sic].

The Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) found that Mr Qatada, as well as a second man, faced a threat of torture if they returned to the Middle Eastern country.

The 44-year-old is reported to have had links to the "shoe bomber", Richard Reid, as well as Zacarias Moussaoui, the so-called "twentieth hijacker" in the September 11th plot.

The Master of the Rolls Sir Anthony Clarke, giving the judgment of the court, said there were "grounds for believing that there was a real risk that the respondents would be tortured some time after their return to Libya."

The ruling is the first test for the "memoranda of understanding" (MOU) between the Government and Tripoli, under which Libya undertook not to mistreat deportees.

The MOU was intended to allow the deportation of suspects without breaching human rights rules.

However, the court found that, "notwithstanding the terms of the MOU," the risk of mistreatment was still substantial. Home Office minister Tony McNulty has said that he intends to appeal the decision.

Mr McNulty said: "I am pleased that the courts dismissed all but one of Abu Qatada's reasons for appeal.

"We are seeking to overturn that point, and I believe that we will be able to secure his deportation to Jordan and we will push for it as soon as possible.

"In the meantime, he remains behind bars."

On the judgment in the cases of the two Libyans, the minister said:

"The Government's top objective is to keep the public safe and I am disappointed that the courts have found that deportations to Libya can't go ahead for now.

"We will continue to push for deportations for people who pose a risk to national security. "In the meantime, we will take all necessary steps to protect the public."

Mr Qatada was arrested in 2001 by anti-terrorism officers, seven years after arriving in the country on a false United Arab Emirates passport, but released without charge.

Described by a Spanish judge as "Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe" and by the British authorities as "truly dangerous individual", he was arrested with £170,000 cash in his possession, including £805 in an envelope marked "For the mujahedin in Chechnya".

Mr Qatada, whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman, was finally arrested in an armed raid on a council house in south London in October 2002 and held in Belmarsh prison in south-east London. He was freed on conditional bail in 2005 but given a control order limiting his movements and contacts with other people.

Julia Hall, of international civil rights group Human Rights Watch, said: "These cases show that the British Government should stop trying to deport people to countries whose justice systems are deeply tainted by torture and other abuses.

"In the (Qatada) case, notably, the court was right to ignore the Jordanian government's fair trial promises, and find that a trial would likely be tainted by torture.

"Until (Jordan's security service) the General Intelligence Department stops torturing, promises of humane treatment and fair trial for a national security suspect are not credible.

"Jordanian assurances are a mere legal nicety."

Melancholicus is flabbergasted. He is astounded that this dangerous man — which is putting it rather mildly — may even be freed from custody since, if he cannot be deported and there is insufficient evidence to charge him with an offence, what else can be done with him?

Human Rights organisations have raised their predictable and exasperating hue and cry over the intended deportation of Qatada. They say that to deport him to a country where he may face torture is a violation of his “human rights”. But hold on here. Although there may be insufficient evidence to charge Abu Qatada with an offence, he is not an innocent man. He is an extremist fanatic who poses a grave threat to British society and to the safety of the British people. Where his sympathies lie in the struggle between islamist barbarism and western civilisation are more than abundantly clear. This man foments terror, supports it, encourages it, sympathises with those miscreants who seek to blow themselves — and thousands of ordinary bystanders — to kingdom come, even if he is not actually a terrorist himself. He rubs shoulders with murderous fanatics, men such as Osama bin Laden and the psychopathic simpletons Zacarias Moussaoui and Richard Reid (thanks to whom Melancholicus is invariably compelled to remove his shoes before passing through airport security). Is it not true to say that on account of this set of circumstances, in which the fellow has shown himself clearly sympathetic to the killing and maiming of innocent people, he has forfeited his “human rights”, and that whatever might possibly happen to him in some foreign country after his deportation from Britain is nothing that the British government need ever worry about?

As for Julia Hall and her fellow travellers, Melancholicus can only say this: will these people ever realise, before it is too late, that we are all in the midst of a war, a war upon the outcome of which depends the survival of western civilisation? These agencies, as well as the British judiciary, are carrying on in such a fashion as to be more concerned about the welfare of enemy combatants than about the safety of the British people, never mind actually winning the war. Consider, gentle reader, how absurd would be the picture of the courts during the Second World War being more solicitous for the comfort of top nazis than for the people of Britain, and you will have a clear idea of how preposterous are the arguments of these human rights groups today. Moreover, Qatada is far more dangerous than any German POW in World War II, since he is able to carry on the war from his prison cell and can continue inspiring his bloodthirsty cohorts in their frenzy of hate. For whatever reason, Ms. Hall is worried more about Jordanian “legal niceties” than about the threat posed by the psychopath she is so foolishly defending.

Pat Condell on Rowan Williams

Christopher Johnson on Rowan Williams

Melancholicus has no personal animus against his Lordship’s Grace of Canterbury, but he has a very keen interest in seeing to it that even the remotest possibility of sharia being recognised by British law is ruthlessly and immediately crushed.

Hence he has chosen to dwell on this topic a little longer, and he regrets if the patience of his readers is unduly taxed thereby.

Here is the reaction of the redoubtable Christopher Johnson, of the excellent Midwest Conservative Journal (to which Melancholicus links all too infrequently, alas). Melancholicus could not have said it better than this:

Dr. Williams has no business being shocked by this controversy. Rightly or wrongly, the Archbishop of Canterbury is still one of the most important religious figures in the world so that anything he says is going to paid attention to even by non-Anglicans.

What's tough to understand is Dr. Williams' obtuseness about all this. One reason, I think, has to do with the fact that my gracious lord of Canterbury is a liberal Anglican. Liberal Anglcans believe that all men, regardless of their religion, are reasonable and civilized and that all problems can be solved over a glass of really good Port.

So if the Muslim scholars with whom he regularly confers assure him that sharia is actually gentle and benign, Dr. Williams will be inclined to believe them. He will also be inclined to believe that Great Britain will easily be able to pick and choose which aspects of sharia will apply and which will not.

Confront him with the way that what sharia there is in Britain actually functions and he will profess to be horrified and tell you that "Muslim scholars" view such applications as distortions. Perhaps Dr. Williams and his defenders can explain what comfort the opinions of "Muslim scholars" will be to a Muslim woman dragged into a sharia court and then kicked to the curb by her abusive husband with the approval of such a barbaric "court" for I certainly cannot.

The other reason is much simpler. The idea of calling Muslim savagery what it is, the idea of standing up for the religion he claims to profess and the idea of telling Muslims that they are, well, wrong are ideas too terrifying for men like Rowan Williams to contemplate.

So it is much easier to have "interfaith" meetings than to confront the truth. It is far easier to believe the honeyed words of "Muslim scholars" that sharia doesn't really mean that.

Because if you know what sharia really is and how it is really applied, you have to speak out against such an evil. Unless you value the opinion of the world more than the opinion of your God. Or unless you are a moral coward.

Or both.

Mr. Johnson also links to Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, writing in The Independent, giving a Muslim woman’s perspective on the practice of sharia, and an article which Melancholicus recommends to all his readers.

Pat Condell on the Muslim Council of Britain

That doesn’t sound quite right, does it? No, Melancholicus doesn’t mean to infer that Pat Condell has actually joined the Muslim Council of Britain (that would be one for the books!). Rather, we present here a video of Mr. Condell offering his (rather strong) views on the Muslim Council of Britain.

Melancholicus was prompted to post this video owing to the brouhaha that has erupted over the timely warnings of Dr. Michael Nazir-Ali, bishop of Rochester, in The Sunday Telegraph of 6th January last (see here for more details). In the wake of the bishop’s comments, a variety of Mohammedan organisations complained publicly about Dr. Nazir-Ali’s brazen political incorrectness; the response of the Muslim Council of Britain may be read here.

Melancholicus has observed, however, that the MCB are just as ready to give offence as to take it. Their current leader, one Muhammad Abdul Bari, accused the British Government last November of stoking Muslim tension owing to the concerns expressed by MI5 about the grooming of future suicide bombers from within the Muslim community in Britain. This man seems to be more concerned about “Islamophobia” and about the public perception of his community (article in The Telegraph here) than he is about the horrendous problems within that community — religious extremism, forced marriages, abductions, honour killings, and suchlike outrages. Is this man not aware that the way in which certain Muslims behave has caused far more “suspicion and unease” than anything ever said or done by the Government or MI5? And then there is the bare-faced arrogance; this same man, among numerous others, has had the gall to suggest publicly that Britain should adopt Islamic values. Of course if this madness were actually implemented by the dhimmis currently ensconced in the House of Commons, the number of Islamic “values” adopted by British society would continue to grow and expand until in the end Britain would be a sharia state, hardly distinguishable from Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan under the Taliban. Which of course is precisely what the good old boys of the MCB want.

Melancholicus could go on at length, but he will allow the much more eloquent Pat Condell to speak on his behalf. Some readers might be upset that Melancholicus has invited this gentleman to appear on Infelix Ego. But the prosecution has called this particular witness precisely because Mr. Condell despises all religions indiscriminately, and consequently cannot be accused of criticising Muslims or Islam on foot of any Christian bias. Aside from the off-colour remark about Catholic clergy and a somewhat earthy turn of phrase, Melancholicus considers that his readers will find much wherewith to agree in Mr. Condell’s comments, and will certainly support his robust opposition to the creeping islamicization of the west.

Time now for some Muslim-baiting.

Sshhh! Musn't use the 'C' word!

This post, by His Grace, is both so topical and so excellently written that we just had to reproduce it on Infelix Ego.

Choir excises 'Christmas' from carol

When communicants inform Cranmer of such stories as this, they need to be more mindful of His Grace's blood pressure. Incredible as it may seem, a school choir has replaced the word Christmas in 'Silver Bells' with the more generic 'festive', so that instead of singing the line 'soon it will be Christmas day' they will say 'soon it will be a festive day'. And the reason? Unsurprisingly, in this absurd age in which we live, it is 'so as not to offend any students'; so that 'everybody feels welcome and has a sense of comfort with the celebrations'.

Christians excepted, of course.

On a scale of 1 – 10, this sort of politically-correct revisionist nonsense offends Cranmer 147. It is a Christmas carol, for goodness' sake, and intended for a Christian celebration; not for performance at a meaningless multi-faith mish-mash of politically-correct pointless pap.

Yes, it may be Canada, but the reporting of such an occurrence in the publicly-funded arena in any nation where Her Majesty the Queen plays a constitutional role is concerning indeed. Her Coronation Oath to maintain the Protestant Reformed Religion ought to ensure that Christianity be maintained in the public square; not relegated to the private realm for fear of causing offence. And if that means 'Silver Bells' continue to be rung across the realm and sung about joyously, then those who take offence will just have to lump it.

Just where will all this lead? Festival trees? Merry Winterval? Seasonal diversity parties? One thing is certain: Allah will not be excised from Eid in the spirit of comfort to all, and neither will Mohammed be excised from Ramadan as an expression of goodwill.

But Cranmer is yet to find one personage of minority ethnic persuasion who has actually complained about Christmas. It appears to be a crusade of the post-Christian liberal grinches who are so obsessed with 'human rights' they invoke the spirit of the Inquisition to enforce their godless dogma. And so blinded are they in their quest to eradicate Christianity that they cannot see the uncompromising religio-political force that is moving in to fill the vacuum.

It seems we are moving towards an era when the church's silver bells will no longer be rung under dhimmi laws. And what will that leave us with?

Silver Call to Prayer?

It doesn't quite scan.

With thanks to Cranmer.

O the disgrace: such thundering hypocrites

From Catholic News Service, a wobbly organ slanted almost as far to the left as the so-called National Catholic Reporter. Melancholicus could feel a palpable disgust rising within him as he read this cloying and politically-correct article. He has added his comments below in red.

U.S. women tell Italians about sharing Islam with Christians

By Cindy Wooden
Catholic News Service

ROME (CNS) -- Muslims living in predominantly Christian countries need to reach out to educate their neighbors about their faith and to join others in building more open and just societies, said two young American Muslim women [This is rich. So now we have to learn from the Mohammedan to accept Islam on its own terms so that we won't worry about being blown up as we go about our daily business. It is clearly implied here that it is racist to be concerned about the threat of Islamism and its concomitant violence and terror. Obviously it seems that the onus to be "open" and "just" is on Christians; the Mohammedans, however, are encouraged here to take full advantage of the victim status they have arrogated to themselves with the help of western leftists].

As part of a two-week speaking tour sponsored by the U.S. State Department, Zeenat Rahman and Aalaa Abuzaakouk spoke Dec. 10 to a group in Rome that included young Italian Muslims full of questions about how to promote acceptance in Italian society [This piece is all about the "acceptance" of Muslims by western populations, as though Muslims living in western countries were somehow "in danger" from their neighbours. There is no word at all about the glaring disparity between the treatment of Muslims in western countries, and the treatment of Christians in Muslim countries, an issue Melancholicus has raised time and time again. There is likewise not one word about Muslims integrating into western society. The onus is on the Mohammedan to conform himself to the laws and customs of the nation into which he has immigrated; we in the west have no obligation whatsoever to change our way of life in order to accommodate these aliens who despise us and our culture].

The meeting with Catholic and Muslim students and a separate meeting with the press were coordinated by the U.S. Embassy to the Vatican [The Holy See is still deluded, thinking it can dialogue with Mohammedanism on an equal footing. When will the Holy See ever realise that it shares no common frame of reference with these people, and that constant appeasement makes them only more arrogant and demanding?].

For many Muslims in the United States, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks brought the realization that most of their neighbors had no idea about what Islam taught or how the vast majority of Muslims lived, the young American women said [So here's an ideal opportunity for proselytism then].

After the terrorist attacks, "I felt the importance of engaging with civil society and letting people know that Islam is not a violent religion," [I do wish they wouldn't waste precious time and effort trying to convince the rest of us that Islam "is not a violent religion", when they could more profitably devote their energies to resisting the fanatics and extremists in their midst. If only they would do that, we might actually believe them when they keep insisting that Islam is a "religion of peace"] said Abuzaakouk, who grew up in northern Virginia, attended a Muslim school for 13 years, then graduated from Jesuit-run Georgetown University in Washington [Gah! Fucking Jesuits! I knew they'd raise their ugly heads somewhere in this contemptible freak show].

"Before, we were complacent. We did not engage with others or let them know who we are," she said.

Rahman, who grew up in Chicago and attended public schools, said, "I think we have made some progress in winning hearts and minds" since 2001. "Ours was a very insular community, focused on maintaining our faith and cultures."

The very public questions about Islam and violence "forced us to engage publicly, to let people know who we are," said Rahman, a graduate of the University of Chicago's Center for Middle Eastern Studies [and you think, missy, that "letting people know who you are" will change people’s views about your religion? To me that smacks of arrogance. It's like saying, "We have arrived! Here we are now! What are you going to do for us?" A better response would be to police your schools and your mosques and to co-operate with the law enforcement agencies in western countries trying to root out the extremists instead of covering for them].

While Rahman said she grew up with Christian, Jewish and Hindu friends and Abuzaakouk said her childhood friends were all Muslims, they both described the years of high school and college as key times in forging an individual religious identity and sense of belonging.

Rahman said, "Adolescence is the crossroads of inheritance and discovery; who you meet at the crossroads makes an enormous difference."

Abuzaakouk said, "Identity development is a process. There were times when I emphasized one over another," being Muslim or being an American of Libyan descent.

She said attending Georgetown was an important part of the process because it emphasized "spiritual development, intellectual development and social service." The university's "religious heritage is emphasized, but it does not exclude others," she said [Of course not, since only orthodox Catholicism is excluded at Georgetown. Every other "tradition", including Mohammedanism, is welcomed and encouraged].

She now works for the Muslim Public Service Network in Washington, promoting Muslim involvement in politics, civil service, law, the media and nongovernmental organizations [in other words, the gradual infiltration and occupation of the institutions of state. Melancholicus challenges this woman to deny that such is the ultimate aim].

Rahman is a program coordinator for the Chicago-based Interfaith Youth Core, a program promoting interreligious dialogue and community service for teens and young adults ["interreligious dialogue" from a Mohammedan perspective means accepting Islam on its own terms. This acceptance is not of course reciprocal].

She said her group focuses on helping young people tell their own stories, "speaking from their own experience rather than about dogmatic or theological differences, which makes it easier to identify shared values" and plan shared projects for the good of the whole community.

In addition, she said, "through storytelling you open up space for the voices of women in a way that theological dialogue often does not in many traditions."

While both said the United States' long experience with diversity makes it easier to be a Muslim in America than in Western Europe [O! As if butter wouldn't melt in these women's hypocritical mouths! Apparently it's sooooo hard to be a Muslim in Europe! What about being a Christian in the Middle East, or North Africa, or Pakistan, or any other of these God-forsaken places?? There is really no comparison. These people have some neck to whine about the treatment they receive in the soft, liberal, easy-going west, where the institutions of state are so compromised by the nostrums of political correctness that Mahommedans and other minorities are all too often accorded a privileged position denied to the rest of us! The mind boggles!], they encouraged the Italian Muslim students to tell their peers about their faith and to find ways to work together to share their stories with the wider community.

END

Thanks be to Heaven that it ended there, for Melancholicus is truly puce with indignation.