You are here . on the pale blue dot

Blog notes

Anonymous comments for publication must include a pseudonym.

They should be 'on topic' and not involve third parties.
If pseudonyms are linked to commercial sites comments will be removed as spam.
The blog owner is unable to ‘unfollow’ Followers.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

What [M'lud and] the West needs to know

Sentencing the two terrorists who murdered British soldier Lee Rigby on a south London street, the judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, branded them traitors to their religion. He said their actions were "a betrayal of Islam and of the peaceful Muslim communities who give so much to our country" (story here). Not surprisingly Adebowale shouted at the judge "that is a lie", and later "you know nothing about Islam".

I winced when I heard the judge's comments. They reminded me of an interview with Tony Blair in the above video when he was asked what he knew about Islam. Advance to position 39 mins to hear Mr Blair's blustered defence although I recommend watching the whole video if your perception matches that of Mr Justice Sweeney. Mr Blair said that he had "learnt things about the Quran that he never knew before and that a lot of Christians would be interested". Had he been more interested in the facts he may not have made the false statement at the beginning of the video that "Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion", making the same mistake as other Western leaders in the video.

Alexander Boot sums up the position admirably in his Blog (here):
 "There are 107 verses in the Koran unequivocally calling for the murder of infidels and apostates, plus another 41 preaching holy war and world conquest. True enough, there are also some other verses preaching peace.
But almost all those came early in the book, before Mohammed moved to Medina and hardened his position. According to Islamic law the later sanguinary verses ‘abrogate’ the earlier ones, invalidating them in case of a conflict.
Thus scriptural support for the judge’s assertion of the peaceful nature of Islam looks rather shaky, not to say nonexistent. Moreover, the blood-soaked history of the last 1,400 years shows that Muslims practise what Mohammed preached – you don’t need me to give you a list of clashes between Christendom and the Islamic world.
Why, 90 percent of armed conflicts currently under way anywhere in the world, from Indonesia and India to Africa and the Middle East, involve Islam. A betrayal of Islam, Your Honour? More likely faithfulness to it."

Last week I blogged on the Prince of Wales dancing to the Saudi tune. He, the judiciary, politicians and religious leaders need to educate themselves, not delude themselves into thinking that appeasement is the solution to Islamic extremism. 


  1. I have never understood why politicians ,and also judges ,intimate that Islam is a peaceful religion. We should not apologetically subscribe to this view and in doing so we are merely applying gesture politics which feeds the sense of righteousness that the Muslim extremists hold and use to gain ground.
    Archbishop Rowan said it is time for Christians and Muslims to develop strong and committed relationships.
    There seems to be two faces to Islam : those who welcomed the Christian- Muslim forum set up by Archbishop Carey's initiative ,and the followers of Sharia law which is supposed to govern every aspect of the life of a Muslim.
    Sharia law is grossly discriminatory . We shall rue the day in this country, and especially Christians in this country , if any leeway ,tolerance ,encouragement or any incorporation of any of the aspects of sharia law is given to its proponents .
    Sorry Archbishop Rowan!

  2. I fully understand that this last blog entry you have made,Ancient Briton, is a sensitive subject. However, the lack of response from the many who will surely have read this,gives a hint as to why the Church in Wales is in such a muddle now over women in Holy Orders. There has been a parallel disinterested apathy over that issue : for years so many have merely shrugged their shoulders and hoped that in their particular church "it would not happen". I still hear such a comment coming from a traditional 'high church': " we won't have women in THIS church" .
    It is an ' I'm alright Jack' attitude or is it just the British 'stiff upper lip'?
    So many declined to recognise what was happening in the Anglican Church in the name of equality , and so many are similarly failing to recognise the signs in the liberal - turn a blind eye -tolerance to what will become the demands of Islam,I regret to say.