Following similar patterns of abuse in Rochdale, Rotherham and Oxford, the convictions have provoked fresh national debate over whether select minorities should be taking responsibility.
Dipu Ahad, Newcastle councillor, said local Muslims were “absolutely disgusted” by their crimes and feared a possible backlash. [Independent]
Do Muslims Condemn Grooming Gangs? Tommy Robinson Supporters Answered
Video also uploaded here and here
The sexual grooming of children has been condemned by Muslim leaders across the UK in a sermon read to thousands of worshippers.
Organisers Together Against Grooming (TAG) said imams at hundreds of mosques had pledged to read the sermon to congregations during Friday prayers.
The sermon highlighted how the Koran emphasised that Muslims must protect children and the vulnerable.
The policing minister Damian Green said it was a "very important" move.
"It reminds people that the vast majority, the overwhelming majority, of British Muslims, condemn child sexual abuse as strongly as any other group in modern Britain," he said.
Sheikh Ibrahim Mogra, an imam at Abu Bakr Mosque in Leicester, said: "People were troubled by us reading the sermon and one man asked me how he could stop it being read.
"He said 'it was not our fault this had happened, our religion does not teach us to do these things and we are condemning it'.
"But as I said to him our only option is to speak out about it."
Mr Mogra added the sermon's message was very clear "this is an evil against humanity" and he was "absolutely delighted with the response". [BBC News]
Showing posts with label Current Affairs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Current Affairs. Show all posts
Tuesday, 22 May 2018
Wednesday, 16 May 2018
First CofE Church To Allow Polygamous Marriage?
Really quickly (yeah right!), one of Tooting's St Nicholas Church’s members has been talking about polygamy again. Being swamped in Islamophobia, it’s just gushy zeitgeist and dated feminist propaganda for the evangelical wing of the Church of England – basically saying Islam is inferior to Christianity because Islam allows polygamy and Christianity (according to her strained interpretation) does not.
Yeah, like a bunch of Muslims and secularists around the world are going to start worshipping the Middle Eastern man the Church of England worship, Prophet Jesus, because of such shallow propaganda snuff.
Martin Luther never thought the Bible banned polygamy
I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. [Martin Luther]
This will raise a few Protestant Church eyebrows. In the case of the aging CofE, zimmer-frames, painted on eyebrows, Conservative party membership cards and walking sticks.
Martin Luther, as previously mentioned to a "robust" questioner, did not believe anything in the Bible (including the New Testament texts) forbade polygyny.
Who was Martin Luther, only a massive spark for the Protestant movement and the subsequent Protestant Church.
Augustine
We’ve already mentioned Augustine to Islamophobes.
"Saint Augustine believed that the Bible allowed for polygamy, but only for the purpose of procreation and only if the law of the land allowed it" [Source]
Dated feminism of Lizzie Schofield (and St Nicholas Church Tooting)
I highly suspect the lurch to the anti-polygamy pews is actually based on what these people believe to be feminism and the zeitgeist (spirit of the age). In true Church of England fashion, the spirit of the age is highly influential in interpreting the Bible – you don’t end up sitting on billions of quid worth of assets if you’re not mindful of public and governmental opinion. Church of England members increasingly support the ordination female priests simply because of the public opinion in Britain moving in that direction. It’s seen as bigoted and anti-woman to not allow females to have overall leadership in churches, the Church of England folk obligingly alter their hermeneutical approach and abandon previous leanings which do not comply with the spirit of the age. Even those (largely older members like CJ Davis) who offer resistance do it mealy mouthed. If somebody can pull up the archived sermon of CJ Davis’ “hot-potato” discussion on female clergy you’ll see what I mean. That could be put forward as a dictionary example of “mealy-mouthed”. CJ, this is my observation which I feel many others will share around your handling of that discussion. I suspect that uneasiness and lack of confidence was because you were going against the zeitgeist. I wonder what you’d have advised King Henry VIII back in the day...assuming you weren’t knocking about back in those days and actually advising him (just some silly banter!).
A growing number of CofE folks are in favour of gay marriage, in fact, it’s the majority of folks in the CofE [YouGov suggested45% of Church of England followers felt same-sex marriage was right, against 37% who believed it wrong [stats sourced from Huffington Post]. . You know what’s going to happen, they are going to change their approach and interpret the Bible to allow gay marriage. It’s already happened in some "Christian" quarters. Serving the spirit of the age.
The same, if past CofE hypocritical trends are anything to go by, will happen with plural marriage. Polyamory is an idea in the modern feminism. An opportunity for some light-hearted banter with CJ Davis, St Nicholas Church’s chief! Don’t get excited CJ Davis, the Church will probably have a different hermeneutic based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for church leaders. In any case, you’ll be retired by the time they get to thinking about cashing in on plural marriages. They’ve got their hands full with women bishops and gay weddings right now after the Church's drawn-out fight to overcome the biblical opposition to remarriage and divorce.
My theory is that men in the Church of England (the vast majority, 75%, of whom are struggling with porn dependency) have a teenage-boyish wet-dream view when they think of polygamy. As for the church women, being insecure and knowing the perversions their churchmen are afflicted with loudly rail against polygyny simply because they fear their churchmen secretly want it. But in reality, if they had the ability to be more mature, nuanced and fair minded they’d see polygamy as a healthy alternative for a number of women around the world - with special emphasis on those in poorer countries. It basically gives women more choice, in fact, the feminist ideal is built on widening the choice women have. Would there not be an argument to say it’s anti-feminist to deny women the right to share a husband. I’m not arguing from a feminist stand-point and I think the widening of choice narrative ultimately leads to unregulated plural relationships (not even marriages) which both the Christian (well, the dying breed of Christian who is not hypocritically following the zeitgeist and who actually accepts the Bible as an authority wholsesale) and the Muslim would believe to be unacceptable.
Now, we’re seeing a new tangent in feminism, I strongly suspect St Nicholas Church’s resident staunch feminist, Lizzie Schofield, (well, staunch feminist when she’s bashing Islam but not so much a whimpering feminist when it comes to her Trinitarian Church beliefs about Jesus – hypocrisy is rife in the CofE – nothing new to see here) is not aware of this movement against monogamy.
I’ll just dump a couple of quotes from Laurie Penny below and leave it to folks to use their brains. Men at St Nicholas church, please do not go pestering the clergy at your church to allow polyamory. I’m not advocating unfettered polyamory. I’m just saying a regulated form of polygyny does provide women a good alternative and a useful option in real life, especially women outside our cultural and geographical parameters so it just seems really shallow and culturally imperialistic of the CofE to bash Islam and denounce Islamic regulations on polygamy [the man can only marry another woman (maximum 4) if he has the financial means and ability to look after the wives equally [and for the immature churchmen, nope get your minds out of the gutter, they aren’t all allowed to have sex together. In fact, it’s the same churchmen who have an unhealthy fascination with the Muslim belief that there is sex in Paradise, so what if there’s sex in Paradise? If Paradise is going to be better than this life then it will have the best of the physical (food, friendships, companionship, clothing housing etc.) and the best of the spiritual (the relationship to God which is the ultimate experience in Paradise, far superseding the physical). Of course, the promise of better material in an everlasting Paradise helps keep the Muslim away from the ephemeral pursuits in this life which ultimately makes the Muslim less worldly and more charitable].
What was that, CJ Davis or whoever instructs DCCI Ministries to fling low-level polemical mud at Islam in an effort to bring people into the Church and worship a man (Jesus)? You want the crew to ignore that common sense above, find some Muslims who don’t know English or aren’t too knowledgeable to counter the dishonest polemics and just continue reeling off the same sex-obsessed polemics against Islam in a numbers game hoping somebody is stupid/ignorant enough to sign on the Church dotted line...is the CofE trying to rack up the idiot and the part-time feminist count in the Church?
This is the same Church of England which is not meant to allow divorce (unless for adultery) and not allow divorced women to remarry. Just look at how Justin Welby “dealt with” the remarriage of Megan Markle (a divorcee), Was that to get the big wedding of the summer (and presumably big money spinner for the CofE) on? Is that tumbleweed blowing past St Nicholas Church and Lambeth Palace? Yep, in my opinion the CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries and still going strong!
Laurie Penny quotes:
“Paradoxically, as the moral grip of religious patriarchy has loosened its hold in the West, the doctrine of monogamous romance has become ever more entrenched. Marriage was once understood as a practical, domestic arrangement that involved a certain amount of self-denial. Now your life partner is also supposed to answer your every intimate and practical need, from orgasms to organising the school run.
Polyamory is a response to the understanding that, for a great many of us, that ideal is impractical, if not an active source of unhappiness. People have all sorts of needs at different times in their lives – for love, companionship, care and intimacy, sexual adventure and self-expression – and expecting one person to be able to meet them all is not just unrealistic, it’s unreasonable. Women in particular, who often end up doing the bulk of the emotional labour in traditional, monogamous, heterosexual relationships, don’t have the energy to be anyone’s everything.
I don’t expect anyone to be everything to me. I want my freedom, and I want to be ethical, and I also want care and affection and pleasure in my life. I guess I’m greedy. I guess I’m a woman who wants to have it all. It’s just that my version of ‘having it all’ is a little different from the picture of marriage, mortgage and monogamy to which I was raised to aspire.”
“Personally, I started practising non-monogamy in my early 20s as a statement against the tyranny of the heterosexual couple form and the patriarchal nuclear family”
Do St Nicholas Church believe Jesus cares about women in all cultures?
The Trinitarian version of Jesus is very much different to the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is believed to have allowed the torture of wives (and the subsequent forced-abortion of any foetuses they were carrying) via the bitter water test instigated by a husband who suspects his wife of infidelity. Nor is the historical Jesus believed to have allowed the severe beating of female slaves with a rod.
The Church of England is culturally one-dimensional in my view. You’d expect it to be, it’s the Church of ENGLAND. Crikey, I’ve capitalised “England”, looking over my shoulder in case anybody thinks I’m part of the bigoted EDL or the nutty “Christian group” of Britain First.
CJ Davis, I’ve previously highlighted, to at least one of your local church members in Tooting, the damaging consequences around imposing English “Christian” cultural mores onto other cultures with respect to age of consent. Less cultural imperialism and triumphalism for the Church, more careful thought is the order of the day!
When Congolese village women, where swathes of men have been killed in civil war, are struggling to find husbands because of the shortage of men, do you really think polygamy should be banned based on a biblical hermeneutic geared to modern day Britain where we, thankfully (thanking God, not Jesus) have stability and peace in comparison to war-torn lands (war-torn lands largely because of Western, culturally “Christian”, intervention/proxy). What you’re essentially doing here is denying those foreign women the right of protection, financial stability, possibly housing and obviously children by forbidding them to marry a man who is willing to look after her as a second wife. Islam’s teachings offer these practical solutions whilst the Church of England’s teachings (as of today, subject to change tomorrow) offers nothing in practical options.
The Bible and polygamy – unconvincing hermeneutics by the Church of England for the spirit of the age
The Bible is not even clear on prohibiting polygamy, and in parts it permits polygamy by offering regulating teachings for men with wives. But hey, this is the Church of England and the Church of England will mould its texts and change its stance to fit in with what they believe to be the prevailing wind of the zeitgeist and/or self-interest (£££££££££££ and power imo). Is this not the same institution that was essentially started as King Henry VIII wanted another wife because his first wife did not bear a male heir? The irony here is, the Church of England would not have existed if Henry was allowed to marry a second wife via polygyny (or if Rome were as servile as the CofE to the requests of English monarchs) the split from the main Church was due to Henry wanting to annul* his marriage to Catherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Thus, the Church of England was born. What an acrimonious and contentious start to the institution, the Church of England. The CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries...and it’s still going!
*CJ Davis may be the only person reading who will know what I’m talking about here – CJ feel free to correct me on this or add to my knowledge. From my understanding Henry was not after a divorce, he wanted an annulment. Henry VIII actually opposed divorced so it’s a misconception to think the CofE was formed because a king wanted a “divorce”. The ditty Divorced-Beheaded-Died:Divorced-Beheaded-Survived (or whatever it is!) is probably a little inaccurate, an annulment in those times may just have been a way to get a divorce without it being called a divorce although Henry was using Leviticus to argue his first marriage was invalid if I'm nto mistaken. The CofE has traditionally been staunch against divorce as well as remarriage. There were about 300 people who were granted divorce (and allowed to remarry) by the CofE between the 1600s and the 1800ish (?) at the request of the government . Remarriage (if you had a living spouse) was only allowed from 2002 in the CofE. Is that all pretty correct? I’d be interested in knowing how clergy like you feel about this and how you reconcile this in your mind to continue to work for this institute. I’d also be interested in knowing if YOU would conduct the marriage of Megan and Harry, if you were asked to? If so, what would your reasoning be to allow itIf not, are you or your bishop be matched with more traditional (and biblical) members of the CofE for “theological affinity” on divorce and remarriage? I would love to hear your thoughts
Talking about embarrassments, the “I’ll throw the Bible under the bus to bash Islam” attitude in the CofE continues
Elizabeth Schofield’s (representing St Nicholas Church Tooting) premise in arguing against polygyny in the Bible is based on the “one flesh verse” (Genesis 2:24 and Matt 19:4-6).
Surely Elizabeth Schofield knows she and/or her colleagues in anti-Islam polemics have been told that the traditional Church view is that Moses wrote Genesis 2:24, yet he was a polygamist (had more than one wife!) so either you’re saying Moses was a hypocrite (and thus a large portion of your Bible was written by a hypocrite according to you and your Church) or that Moses did not understand the teachings he was passing on to his community. Both beliefs would lead you to question whether Moses was a prophet – talking about Moses and the Bible I would love to hear the Church in Tooting to apologise to a Muslim who brought up a passage in Numbers. Or perhaps you’ve got some complicated hermeneutics like those who try to shoe-horn the 4th century (and obviously false) doctrine of the Trinity into the Bible to avoid this dilemma? I’m all ears. CJ Davis or Robert Schofield, do you lads (adding a more working class vibe as CJ “probably never had a pot-noodle or been to a football match” Davis shudders!) care to butt in as expositors of the Bible? Thought not!
I’m just rehashing an old piece I based on Mark Henkel’s lecture on the Bible and polygamy:
The prohibition on adultery is not given in English, it was given in Hebrew. Mark Henkel teaches the Hebrew word for 'adultery' means WOMAN who breaks wed-lock. Thus through the Hebrew we see that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is not adultery.
And we must also keep in mind Mark Henkel's important reminder of Christian belief, Moses is believed to have written down the Law prohibiting adultery yet he had more than one wife thus showing to Christians and Jews that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is NOT adultery.
As for the two will be one flesh. Mark Henkel states this does not mean you cannot be one flesh with more than one woman as Moses was a polygamist.
Mark Henkel points out that the Bible also teaches one can become 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Mark Henkel contends this means that the person can be 'one flesh' with his wife and 'one flesh' with a prostitute.
16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. [1 Corinthians 6]
Mark Henkel believes the understanding of adultery and the one-flesh passage are not in contradiction with Polygamy
Do they believe Jesus gave wives (notice, plural!) to David?
The fact that the Church of England (essentially) believe Jesus gave David multiple wives and would have given him more wives if David wanted and that they believe Jesus gave orders regulating polygamy (not forbidding it) is kind of overlooked. A hermeneutical approach which panders to the spirit of the age or the spirit of a government, pretty close to the framework Archbishop Cranmer was operating in for Henry, what say you CJ Davis? Time for more Mark Henkel logic...
Mark Henkel says David had numerous wives and according to the Bible, God gave David those wives and if he wanted more God would have given more:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
Matthew 25, as mentioned by Mark Henkel, contains a parable of a polygamous bridegroom.
Under the Old Testament Law Polygamy was never banned. It was simply regulated
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
See Mark Henkel on Polygamy and the Bible
Unintelligible sloganeering from CofE’s Lizzie Schofield
Lizzie: The reason polygamy persists in Islam, apart from the fact that it is sanctioned forever by Allah’s eternal speech, the Qur’an, is because Allah is not a personal, covenantal god. [I guess they believe Martin Luther believed in a God who is not “personal”, whatever that means. I guess they believe the Jews believe in a God who is not personal. Whatever that means. It’s the type of emotion you’ll hear verbalised from an Alpha Course influenced “Christian”, it’s of course rather unintelligible but it seems like a staple slogan for evangelicals nowadays (perhaps the Church's constant bashing of Islam for polygamy is, in part, due to xenophobia in the Church where it pits Arabs and other Eastern foreign men as abusers of women whilst the men of the Church of England are the white - quite literally white in most cases - knights of women? I don't know, are there any fair-minded church leaders to talk about this maturely and honestly rather than leaving it to the more shrill and Islamophobic types amongst CofE members who are just interested in doing low level evangelical propaganda). I wonder what they will change the slogan to *when* gay marriage and plural marriages become more accepted by the Church. I wonder whether their belief that Jesus will return with a sword for Muslim men and women has any bearing on their “personal god” slogan? I wonder if they think Jesus, a Middle Eastern man, is a personal god because they believe he’s going to return in person with a sword for those unwilling to accept Paul of Tarsus as a prophet, the Church and its Trinity doctrine A flurry of questions for CJ Davis, which I’m sure he will not bother trying to answer as he goes through the Anglican motions holding on for retirement. Nominalism is probably more prevalent in the Church of England than xenophobia despite Rev. Root’s belief the CofE is institutionally racist.]
Will St Nicholas Church in Tooting be the first to hold a polygamous wedding?
Unlikely given the current incumbents there, I would not advise anybody to bank on it. Who knows, if public opinion continues to move away from compulsory monogamous relationships then we will see stronger murmurings and even possibly action in an Anglican church within the next decade or two or three. It will start off in more liberal churches and then the more traditional churches will do what they normally do, cave in to public opinion or became really mealy-mouthed and embarrassed by their position they dare not teach it publicly. Ask yourself how many churches actively preach against divorce, sex before marriage and remarriage? They don’t because they suspect their congregations will get upset.
If you’re a church leader in the UK, who is reading this in the future, and are planning to conduct a polygamous marriage will you alert St Nicholas Church Tooting? ?Ofc, if, by then, St Nicholas Church, has not folded and turned into a pub, nightclub, supermarket or whatever else churches are being converted to nowadays – note I’m not going to do the triumphant stuff of saying it will be a mosque because I see a trend where religion in the UK seems to be on the wane and that may also include Islam (which ties in with the Islamic belief that Islam began as something strange and will end up as something strange closer to the end of time) even though pathetically desperate evangelical folks try to scare their cultural Christian comrades into action with the fear that Islam will take over (every church has its bogeyman, the CofE had the pope as its bogeyman for decades; but the bigots nowadays in the Church are increasingly choosing Islam and Muslims to replace the spectre of the “anti-christ” pope) – an appeal to Islamophobia and xenophobia to try and get folks active for the Church of England or whatever evangelical Church they labour for – I told you in my view they continue to embarrass the nation!
British Muslims integration in the UK - St Nicholas Church member
Responses to DCCI Ministries spiel
DCCI Ministries, CJ Davis, Islamophobia, Low Level Evangelical Polemics and the Bible
Dishonest Misisonaries Claiming Prophet Muhammad Allowed Beating Of Slaves
Thoughts on Paul Williams' Debate on Slavery With a Christian Lady
St Nicholas Church Asked To Explain Numbers 31
Christian Uses 1 John 2:22 To Attack Prophet Muhammad (p)
Did Jay Smith Not Teach Hatun Tash About Hell in Christianity?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Yeah, like a bunch of Muslims and secularists around the world are going to start worshipping the Middle Eastern man the Church of England worship, Prophet Jesus, because of such shallow propaganda snuff.
Martin Luther never thought the Bible banned polygamy
I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. [Martin Luther]
This will raise a few Protestant Church eyebrows. In the case of the aging CofE, zimmer-frames, painted on eyebrows, Conservative party membership cards and walking sticks.
Martin Luther, as previously mentioned to a "robust" questioner, did not believe anything in the Bible (including the New Testament texts) forbade polygyny.
Who was Martin Luther, only a massive spark for the Protestant movement and the subsequent Protestant Church.
Augustine
We’ve already mentioned Augustine to Islamophobes.
"Saint Augustine believed that the Bible allowed for polygamy, but only for the purpose of procreation and only if the law of the land allowed it" [Source]
Dated feminism of Lizzie Schofield (and St Nicholas Church Tooting)
I highly suspect the lurch to the anti-polygamy pews is actually based on what these people believe to be feminism and the zeitgeist (spirit of the age). In true Church of England fashion, the spirit of the age is highly influential in interpreting the Bible – you don’t end up sitting on billions of quid worth of assets if you’re not mindful of public and governmental opinion. Church of England members increasingly support the ordination female priests simply because of the public opinion in Britain moving in that direction. It’s seen as bigoted and anti-woman to not allow females to have overall leadership in churches, the Church of England folk obligingly alter their hermeneutical approach and abandon previous leanings which do not comply with the spirit of the age. Even those (largely older members like CJ Davis) who offer resistance do it mealy mouthed. If somebody can pull up the archived sermon of CJ Davis’ “hot-potato” discussion on female clergy you’ll see what I mean. That could be put forward as a dictionary example of “mealy-mouthed”. CJ, this is my observation which I feel many others will share around your handling of that discussion. I suspect that uneasiness and lack of confidence was because you were going against the zeitgeist. I wonder what you’d have advised King Henry VIII back in the day...assuming you weren’t knocking about back in those days and actually advising him (just some silly banter!).
A growing number of CofE folks are in favour of gay marriage, in fact, it’s the majority of folks in the CofE [YouGov suggested45% of Church of England followers felt same-sex marriage was right, against 37% who believed it wrong [stats sourced from Huffington Post]. . You know what’s going to happen, they are going to change their approach and interpret the Bible to allow gay marriage. It’s already happened in some "Christian" quarters. Serving the spirit of the age.
The same, if past CofE hypocritical trends are anything to go by, will happen with plural marriage. Polyamory is an idea in the modern feminism. An opportunity for some light-hearted banter with CJ Davis, St Nicholas Church’s chief! Don’t get excited CJ Davis, the Church will probably have a different hermeneutic based on 1 Timothy 3 and Titus 1 for church leaders. In any case, you’ll be retired by the time they get to thinking about cashing in on plural marriages. They’ve got their hands full with women bishops and gay weddings right now after the Church's drawn-out fight to overcome the biblical opposition to remarriage and divorce.
My theory is that men in the Church of England (the vast majority, 75%, of whom are struggling with porn dependency) have a teenage-boyish wet-dream view when they think of polygamy. As for the church women, being insecure and knowing the perversions their churchmen are afflicted with loudly rail against polygyny simply because they fear their churchmen secretly want it. But in reality, if they had the ability to be more mature, nuanced and fair minded they’d see polygamy as a healthy alternative for a number of women around the world - with special emphasis on those in poorer countries. It basically gives women more choice, in fact, the feminist ideal is built on widening the choice women have. Would there not be an argument to say it’s anti-feminist to deny women the right to share a husband. I’m not arguing from a feminist stand-point and I think the widening of choice narrative ultimately leads to unregulated plural relationships (not even marriages) which both the Christian (well, the dying breed of Christian who is not hypocritically following the zeitgeist and who actually accepts the Bible as an authority wholsesale) and the Muslim would believe to be unacceptable.
Now, we’re seeing a new tangent in feminism, I strongly suspect St Nicholas Church’s resident staunch feminist, Lizzie Schofield, (well, staunch feminist when she’s bashing Islam but not so much a whimpering feminist when it comes to her Trinitarian Church beliefs about Jesus – hypocrisy is rife in the CofE – nothing new to see here) is not aware of this movement against monogamy.
I’ll just dump a couple of quotes from Laurie Penny below and leave it to folks to use their brains. Men at St Nicholas church, please do not go pestering the clergy at your church to allow polyamory. I’m not advocating unfettered polyamory. I’m just saying a regulated form of polygyny does provide women a good alternative and a useful option in real life, especially women outside our cultural and geographical parameters so it just seems really shallow and culturally imperialistic of the CofE to bash Islam and denounce Islamic regulations on polygamy [the man can only marry another woman (maximum 4) if he has the financial means and ability to look after the wives equally [and for the immature churchmen, nope get your minds out of the gutter, they aren’t all allowed to have sex together. In fact, it’s the same churchmen who have an unhealthy fascination with the Muslim belief that there is sex in Paradise, so what if there’s sex in Paradise? If Paradise is going to be better than this life then it will have the best of the physical (food, friendships, companionship, clothing housing etc.) and the best of the spiritual (the relationship to God which is the ultimate experience in Paradise, far superseding the physical). Of course, the promise of better material in an everlasting Paradise helps keep the Muslim away from the ephemeral pursuits in this life which ultimately makes the Muslim less worldly and more charitable].
What was that, CJ Davis or whoever instructs DCCI Ministries to fling low-level polemical mud at Islam in an effort to bring people into the Church and worship a man (Jesus)? You want the crew to ignore that common sense above, find some Muslims who don’t know English or aren’t too knowledgeable to counter the dishonest polemics and just continue reeling off the same sex-obsessed polemics against Islam in a numbers game hoping somebody is stupid/ignorant enough to sign on the Church dotted line...is the CofE trying to rack up the idiot and the part-time feminist count in the Church?
This is the same Church of England which is not meant to allow divorce (unless for adultery) and not allow divorced women to remarry. Just look at how Justin Welby “dealt with” the remarriage of Megan Markle (a divorcee), Was that to get the big wedding of the summer (and presumably big money spinner for the CofE) on? Is that tumbleweed blowing past St Nicholas Church and Lambeth Palace? Yep, in my opinion the CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries and still going strong!
Laurie Penny quotes:
“Paradoxically, as the moral grip of religious patriarchy has loosened its hold in the West, the doctrine of monogamous romance has become ever more entrenched. Marriage was once understood as a practical, domestic arrangement that involved a certain amount of self-denial. Now your life partner is also supposed to answer your every intimate and practical need, from orgasms to organising the school run.
Polyamory is a response to the understanding that, for a great many of us, that ideal is impractical, if not an active source of unhappiness. People have all sorts of needs at different times in their lives – for love, companionship, care and intimacy, sexual adventure and self-expression – and expecting one person to be able to meet them all is not just unrealistic, it’s unreasonable. Women in particular, who often end up doing the bulk of the emotional labour in traditional, monogamous, heterosexual relationships, don’t have the energy to be anyone’s everything.
I don’t expect anyone to be everything to me. I want my freedom, and I want to be ethical, and I also want care and affection and pleasure in my life. I guess I’m greedy. I guess I’m a woman who wants to have it all. It’s just that my version of ‘having it all’ is a little different from the picture of marriage, mortgage and monogamy to which I was raised to aspire.”
“Personally, I started practising non-monogamy in my early 20s as a statement against the tyranny of the heterosexual couple form and the patriarchal nuclear family”
Do St Nicholas Church believe Jesus cares about women in all cultures?
The Trinitarian version of Jesus is very much different to the historical Jesus. The historical Jesus is believed to have allowed the torture of wives (and the subsequent forced-abortion of any foetuses they were carrying) via the bitter water test instigated by a husband who suspects his wife of infidelity. Nor is the historical Jesus believed to have allowed the severe beating of female slaves with a rod.
The Church of England is culturally one-dimensional in my view. You’d expect it to be, it’s the Church of ENGLAND. Crikey, I’ve capitalised “England”, looking over my shoulder in case anybody thinks I’m part of the bigoted EDL or the nutty “Christian group” of Britain First.
CJ Davis, I’ve previously highlighted, to at least one of your local church members in Tooting, the damaging consequences around imposing English “Christian” cultural mores onto other cultures with respect to age of consent. Less cultural imperialism and triumphalism for the Church, more careful thought is the order of the day!
When Congolese village women, where swathes of men have been killed in civil war, are struggling to find husbands because of the shortage of men, do you really think polygamy should be banned based on a biblical hermeneutic geared to modern day Britain where we, thankfully (thanking God, not Jesus) have stability and peace in comparison to war-torn lands (war-torn lands largely because of Western, culturally “Christian”, intervention/proxy). What you’re essentially doing here is denying those foreign women the right of protection, financial stability, possibly housing and obviously children by forbidding them to marry a man who is willing to look after her as a second wife. Islam’s teachings offer these practical solutions whilst the Church of England’s teachings (as of today, subject to change tomorrow) offers nothing in practical options.
The Bible and polygamy – unconvincing hermeneutics by the Church of England for the spirit of the age
The Bible is not even clear on prohibiting polygamy, and in parts it permits polygamy by offering regulating teachings for men with wives. But hey, this is the Church of England and the Church of England will mould its texts and change its stance to fit in with what they believe to be the prevailing wind of the zeitgeist and/or self-interest (£££££££££££ and power imo). Is this not the same institution that was essentially started as King Henry VIII wanted another wife because his first wife did not bear a male heir? The irony here is, the Church of England would not have existed if Henry was allowed to marry a second wife via polygyny (or if Rome were as servile as the CofE to the requests of English monarchs) the split from the main Church was due to Henry wanting to annul* his marriage to Catherine in order to marry Anne Boleyn. Thus, the Church of England was born. What an acrimonious and contentious start to the institution, the Church of England. The CofE has been embarrassing Britain for centuries...and it’s still going!
*CJ Davis may be the only person reading who will know what I’m talking about here – CJ feel free to correct me on this or add to my knowledge. From my understanding Henry was not after a divorce, he wanted an annulment. Henry VIII actually opposed divorced so it’s a misconception to think the CofE was formed because a king wanted a “divorce”. The ditty Divorced-Beheaded-Died:Divorced-Beheaded-Survived (or whatever it is!) is probably a little inaccurate, an annulment in those times may just have been a way to get a divorce without it being called a divorce although Henry was using Leviticus to argue his first marriage was invalid if I'm nto mistaken. The CofE has traditionally been staunch against divorce as well as remarriage. There were about 300 people who were granted divorce (and allowed to remarry) by the CofE between the 1600s and the 1800ish (?) at the request of the government . Remarriage (if you had a living spouse) was only allowed from 2002 in the CofE. Is that all pretty correct? I’d be interested in knowing how clergy like you feel about this and how you reconcile this in your mind to continue to work for this institute. I’d also be interested in knowing if YOU would conduct the marriage of Megan and Harry, if you were asked to? If so, what would your reasoning be to allow itIf not, are you or your bishop be matched with more traditional (and biblical) members of the CofE for “theological affinity” on divorce and remarriage? I would love to hear your thoughts
Talking about embarrassments, the “I’ll throw the Bible under the bus to bash Islam” attitude in the CofE continues
Elizabeth Schofield’s (representing St Nicholas Church Tooting) premise in arguing against polygyny in the Bible is based on the “one flesh verse” (Genesis 2:24 and Matt 19:4-6).
Surely Elizabeth Schofield knows she and/or her colleagues in anti-Islam polemics have been told that the traditional Church view is that Moses wrote Genesis 2:24, yet he was a polygamist (had more than one wife!) so either you’re saying Moses was a hypocrite (and thus a large portion of your Bible was written by a hypocrite according to you and your Church) or that Moses did not understand the teachings he was passing on to his community. Both beliefs would lead you to question whether Moses was a prophet – talking about Moses and the Bible I would love to hear the Church in Tooting to apologise to a Muslim who brought up a passage in Numbers. Or perhaps you’ve got some complicated hermeneutics like those who try to shoe-horn the 4th century (and obviously false) doctrine of the Trinity into the Bible to avoid this dilemma? I’m all ears. CJ Davis or Robert Schofield, do you lads (adding a more working class vibe as CJ “probably never had a pot-noodle or been to a football match” Davis shudders!) care to butt in as expositors of the Bible? Thought not!
I’m just rehashing an old piece I based on Mark Henkel’s lecture on the Bible and polygamy:
The prohibition on adultery is not given in English, it was given in Hebrew. Mark Henkel teaches the Hebrew word for 'adultery' means WOMAN who breaks wed-lock. Thus through the Hebrew we see that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is not adultery.
And we must also keep in mind Mark Henkel's important reminder of Christian belief, Moses is believed to have written down the Law prohibiting adultery yet he had more than one wife thus showing to Christians and Jews that polygamy of a man marrying more than one wife is NOT adultery.
As for the two will be one flesh. Mark Henkel states this does not mean you cannot be one flesh with more than one woman as Moses was a polygamist.
Mark Henkel points out that the Bible also teaches one can become 'one flesh' with a prostitute. Mark Henkel contends this means that the person can be 'one flesh' with his wife and 'one flesh' with a prostitute.
16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”[b] 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. [1 Corinthians 6]
Mark Henkel believes the understanding of adultery and the one-flesh passage are not in contradiction with Polygamy
Do they believe Jesus gave wives (notice, plural!) to David?
The fact that the Church of England (essentially) believe Jesus gave David multiple wives and would have given him more wives if David wanted and that they believe Jesus gave orders regulating polygamy (not forbidding it) is kind of overlooked. A hermeneutical approach which panders to the spirit of the age or the spirit of a government, pretty close to the framework Archbishop Cranmer was operating in for Henry, what say you CJ Davis? Time for more Mark Henkel logic...
Mark Henkel says David had numerous wives and according to the Bible, God gave David those wives and if he wanted more God would have given more:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
Matthew 25, as mentioned by Mark Henkel, contains a parable of a polygamous bridegroom.
Under the Old Testament Law Polygamy was never banned. It was simply regulated
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. [Deuteronomy 21:15-17]
See Mark Henkel on Polygamy and the Bible
Unintelligible sloganeering from CofE’s Lizzie Schofield
Lizzie: The reason polygamy persists in Islam, apart from the fact that it is sanctioned forever by Allah’s eternal speech, the Qur’an, is because Allah is not a personal, covenantal god. [I guess they believe Martin Luther believed in a God who is not “personal”, whatever that means. I guess they believe the Jews believe in a God who is not personal. Whatever that means. It’s the type of emotion you’ll hear verbalised from an Alpha Course influenced “Christian”, it’s of course rather unintelligible but it seems like a staple slogan for evangelicals nowadays (perhaps the Church's constant bashing of Islam for polygamy is, in part, due to xenophobia in the Church where it pits Arabs and other Eastern foreign men as abusers of women whilst the men of the Church of England are the white - quite literally white in most cases - knights of women? I don't know, are there any fair-minded church leaders to talk about this maturely and honestly rather than leaving it to the more shrill and Islamophobic types amongst CofE members who are just interested in doing low level evangelical propaganda). I wonder what they will change the slogan to *when* gay marriage and plural marriages become more accepted by the Church. I wonder whether their belief that Jesus will return with a sword for Muslim men and women has any bearing on their “personal god” slogan? I wonder if they think Jesus, a Middle Eastern man, is a personal god because they believe he’s going to return in person with a sword for those unwilling to accept Paul of Tarsus as a prophet, the Church and its Trinity doctrine A flurry of questions for CJ Davis, which I’m sure he will not bother trying to answer as he goes through the Anglican motions holding on for retirement. Nominalism is probably more prevalent in the Church of England than xenophobia despite Rev. Root’s belief the CofE is institutionally racist.]
Will St Nicholas Church in Tooting be the first to hold a polygamous wedding?
Unlikely given the current incumbents there, I would not advise anybody to bank on it. Who knows, if public opinion continues to move away from compulsory monogamous relationships then we will see stronger murmurings and even possibly action in an Anglican church within the next decade or two or three. It will start off in more liberal churches and then the more traditional churches will do what they normally do, cave in to public opinion or became really mealy-mouthed and embarrassed by their position they dare not teach it publicly. Ask yourself how many churches actively preach against divorce, sex before marriage and remarriage? They don’t because they suspect their congregations will get upset.
If you’re a church leader in the UK, who is reading this in the future, and are planning to conduct a polygamous marriage will you alert St Nicholas Church Tooting? ?Ofc, if, by then, St Nicholas Church, has not folded and turned into a pub, nightclub, supermarket or whatever else churches are being converted to nowadays – note I’m not going to do the triumphant stuff of saying it will be a mosque because I see a trend where religion in the UK seems to be on the wane and that may also include Islam (which ties in with the Islamic belief that Islam began as something strange and will end up as something strange closer to the end of time) even though pathetically desperate evangelical folks try to scare their cultural Christian comrades into action with the fear that Islam will take over (every church has its bogeyman, the CofE had the pope as its bogeyman for decades; but the bigots nowadays in the Church are increasingly choosing Islam and Muslims to replace the spectre of the “anti-christ” pope) – an appeal to Islamophobia and xenophobia to try and get folks active for the Church of England or whatever evangelical Church they labour for – I told you in my view they continue to embarrass the nation!
British Muslims integration in the UK - St Nicholas Church member
Responses to DCCI Ministries spiel
DCCI Ministries, CJ Davis, Islamophobia, Low Level Evangelical Polemics and the Bible
Dishonest Misisonaries Claiming Prophet Muhammad Allowed Beating Of Slaves
Thoughts on Paul Williams' Debate on Slavery With a Christian Lady
St Nicholas Church Asked To Explain Numbers 31
Christian Uses 1 John 2:22 To Attack Prophet Muhammad (p)
Did Jay Smith Not Teach Hatun Tash About Hell in Christianity?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Monday, 14 May 2018
Pakistani Christian Supporter of Tommy Robinson - Do Muslims Condemn Grooming Gangs
Some people may think Muslims have not condemned grooming gangs. Grooming gangs are criminals who break the teachings of Islam.
Do Muslims Condemn Grooming Gangs? Tommy Robinson Bigots Answered
This video can also be found here and here
The Pakistani Christian in this video is either being disingenuous or is not thinking in a reasonable fashion.In order to condemn a group of criminals and/or a criminal action you don’t need to stand outside courts and march around like the xenophobes of the EDL, Britain First, the Football Lads Alliance and the like.You just need to put out a condemnatory statement. That’s all.
This Christian bloke will not accept Muslim condemnations unless he see Muslims outside court cases yelling at groomers going in and out of the court for their trials like Tommy Robinson and Britain First types do.
You don’t see sports club members, employees of TV stations, parliamentarians or church members being asked to protest outside courtrooms in order to condemn groomers caught in their midst?
Why is he asking for this from Muslims? He seems either totally ignorant or just plainly disingenuous.
His attitude is reckless as it can lead to further fan the flames of anti Muslim sentiment and encourage collective blame. This is in fact what the far right are trying to do, they misuse these news stories and the victims of these grooming gangs to push their xenophobia and dg-whistle Islamophobia to the public domain in propaganda campaigns against Muslims – essentially they see the victims of sexual violence at the hands of grooming gangs of an ethnic background for a far right political project. This is quite easily discernible as thy concern themselves exclusively on rapes and sexual assaults which can be pinned on cultural outsiders (Muslims in this case) it has to be opposed intellectually and condemned.
Finally, I want to highlight something you should all be switched on to. The far right are increasingly using people ethnic backgrounds to demonise other minorities (mainly Muslims). This is a tactic used by the far right so as to shield them from accusations of racism. What they are actually doing is tapping into something that has happened historically, as highlighted by MP Dianne Abbot. More established immigrant communities (ethnic minorities) may well criticise the newer and the less established immigrant communities in the West. It’s something to watch out for, it’s still discrimination regardless of the ethnicity of the person who is being used by the far right so don’t feel reluctant to call them out for it by calling a spade a spade .
Do Muslims Condemn Grooming Gangs? Tommy Robinson Bigots Answered
This video can also be found here and here
The Pakistani Christian in this video is either being disingenuous or is not thinking in a reasonable fashion.In order to condemn a group of criminals and/or a criminal action you don’t need to stand outside courts and march around like the xenophobes of the EDL, Britain First, the Football Lads Alliance and the like.You just need to put out a condemnatory statement. That’s all.
This Christian bloke will not accept Muslim condemnations unless he see Muslims outside court cases yelling at groomers going in and out of the court for their trials like Tommy Robinson and Britain First types do.
You don’t see sports club members, employees of TV stations, parliamentarians or church members being asked to protest outside courtrooms in order to condemn groomers caught in their midst?
Why is he asking for this from Muslims? He seems either totally ignorant or just plainly disingenuous.
His attitude is reckless as it can lead to further fan the flames of anti Muslim sentiment and encourage collective blame. This is in fact what the far right are trying to do, they misuse these news stories and the victims of these grooming gangs to push their xenophobia and dg-whistle Islamophobia to the public domain in propaganda campaigns against Muslims – essentially they see the victims of sexual violence at the hands of grooming gangs of an ethnic background for a far right political project. This is quite easily discernible as thy concern themselves exclusively on rapes and sexual assaults which can be pinned on cultural outsiders (Muslims in this case) it has to be opposed intellectually and condemned.
Finally, I want to highlight something you should all be switched on to. The far right are increasingly using people ethnic backgrounds to demonise other minorities (mainly Muslims). This is a tactic used by the far right so as to shield them from accusations of racism. What they are actually doing is tapping into something that has happened historically, as highlighted by MP Dianne Abbot. More established immigrant communities (ethnic minorities) may well criticise the newer and the less established immigrant communities in the West. It’s something to watch out for, it’s still discrimination regardless of the ethnicity of the person who is being used by the far right so don’t feel reluctant to call them out for it by calling a spade a spade .
Wednesday, 3 January 2018
Analysing The Debate: Is Christianity Destroying the World (Between A Young Preacher Bob The Builder and a Young Muslim)
I skimmed through the first part of a video from Speakers Corner featuring a young Christian and a young Muslim entitled IS CHRISTIANITY DESTROYING THE WORLD? BR QASIM & BOB THE BUILDER.
I did not watch the second part, personally I’m not in favour of debate titles and topics like this as all religions have fine teachings, Christianity is very similar to Islam in many aspects thus has much good in it.
What does this debate achieve? Does it advance Muslim-Christian dialogue? Does it achieve more heat rather than light? Does it bring the Christian closer to pure Abrahamic monotheism? These are questions for the debaters to think about.
Having said that, let’s go through some of the debate points
Interest based economics
Qasim claims Christianity encourages the exploiting of the poor through the economic system - interest based economics. He puts forward Deut 23:20 to contend the Bible allows the exploitation of foreigners. I guess, this was a bridge for him to talk about how the colonialists in the West treated the Africans and Asians they conquered.
Qasim also believes all the wars of the last two centuries are all related to the (Christian) West.
I don't think Bob the Builder directly addressed these claims in the part I watched (part 1), Bob spoke about Christian charities and a separation of the West and Christianity.
20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. [Deut 23]
Qasim basically railed against a rampant capitalism which he links to Christianity. This idea of modern capitalism being related to Protestant Christianity goes back to Max Werber's theory around the Reformation. His work is a complicated read, you can find it online. Many people reference to it. I don't really think it has much value in Muslim-Christian apologetics.
Qasim highlighted the weakness in the teaching of separating religion from the state, the idea of give to Caesar what is his. He believes this is part of the reason why an immoral capitalism and consumerism is plaguing the West. Qasim says the same applies to pornography production. I suspect a great number of ills in society could be linked to the teaching of giving to Caesar what is his.
I do believe this is a major problem in Christianity, Paul of Tarsus did not envisage his religion spreading and existing as a global religion which would have influence on various lands and countries hence why he nor other writers of the New Testament taught about Christian governance, There was near-sightedness on the part of Paul and the other NT authors, they could never envisage being the dominant culture and religious movement in the Roman Empire and thus taught a subservience to Roman (non Christian) rule. If you truly believe you have a message from God, then why would you not want the teachings of that message to be foremost in the governing of a country?
Bible and alcohol
For Qasim, alcolol is a legalised Christian drug. He feels Christianity encourages poor people to drink alcohol. He suggests the problems of alcohol dependency in aboriginal Australian communities go back to the Bible.
Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. [Proverbs 31:7]
Bob's response was to talk about how alcohol existed prior to Christianity and that it's permissible to drink alcohol but not abuse alcohol. Drinking in moderation is allowed according to Bob the Builder.
The problem here for Bob is that even in moderation, alcohol has been shown to be a risk factor to certain cancers. And if one knows anything about alcohol, you'll know that it's difficult to moderate one's drinking as alcohol by its very nature makes one lose their inhibitions incrementally.
Surely a better teaching would be to forbid alcohol outright.
Lip service or sincerely held beliefs?
In Qasim's mind, the principle of "love your neighbour" is just rhetoric, political lip-service. I don’t reckon this is the case given that many Christians are charitable and many Christians consider helping poor people a Christian teaching. Muslims and Christians are perhaps the most charitable people in the world. For Muslims, we would say this stems back to the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah, Islam has a big emphasis on charity and looking after the poor. I think, likewise, for Christians who involve themselves in efforts of charity, they will say this originates from their Church traditions. Bob the Builder, iirc, listed some Christian charities in the video.
A racist ideology of white supremacy?
Qasim finds the practice of Christians depicting Jesus as a white man problematic to a healthy society. He believes Christianity is a racist ideology which teaches people to worship a white man.
Bob does not really dispute the claim that many Christians (in the West) have made Jesus into a white man but his argument here is that other Christians of other cultures make Jesus into their images; Christians in Japan and Ethiopia make Jesus into a Japanese or East African respectively.
The problem here, for Bob, is that this does not fully counter the various offshoots of Qasim’s claim. If Christianity allows people to make Jesus into their own racial image does this not leave the door open for the most economically and geo-politically advanced Christian group (at this time, Western European Christians) to promote supremacy of their race subconsciously?
It’s an interesting thought. An interesting discussion could spring from what Qasim said as long as it is done in a mature and thoughtful way.
The other problem here, for Bob, is that he’s openly admitted Christians make Jesus (that’s God for Trinitarians) into their own image. So what are these Japanese, East African and Western European Christians doing here? Could it be argued that they are involved in a form of pride and self-worship in portraying God in their own phenotypes?
This seemed to be a touchy subject and Bob lost his sense of respect, charity and decorum (again). Bob the Builder was wildly out of order in accusing the young Muslim, Qasim, of hating “White European” people. This is a hefty allegation and it’s reckless to make such public assertions based on what is no evidence at all. Qasim should seek a public apology from Bob the Builder for slander (perhaps even seek legal counsel if such a retraction is not made as claims like those can lead to one losing standing in society, be it social or economic). Make no bones about it, this was a serious a case of slander, it should not be taken lightly and brushed off as normal behaviour at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park.
Bob the Builder, if he’s a Bible-believing Trinitarian church traditionalist then he may well believe Jesus is calling him (Bob) a “fool”:
“...and whoever utters slander is a fool” [Proverbs 10:18]
Again, this is a shocking statement, one in which fair-minded Christians and Muslims should rebuke Bob for and politely ask Bob to retract this. It sets a very worrying precedent where young people could feel making false charges of racism (and other things) is an unchallenged norm.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” [Exodus 20:16]
This ties in with a recent discussion featuring a young Christian preacher (Godwin) at Speakers Corner on whether the Holy Spirit sanctifies and guides Christians in holiness. I think this type of behaviour by evangelicals is a practical demonstration they do not have the Holy Spirit regenerating them.
Drug use and a shame culture?
Bob states prohibition of drugs in Islamic countries has not stopped drug use in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. This seems quite a vacuous statement. Prohibition of drink driving, rape, drugs and theft has not prevented such crimes miring societies the world over - there will always be outliers in every society.
He argues that Muslim countries cannot tackle opium abuse problems because Islam creates a shame culture. Every culture has taboo and shame around drugs and other immoral behaviour - including Christian cultures. Bob's polemic is myopic and poorly thought out. It's not Islam that creates shame culture, in fact, if somebody is struggling with an addiction then it would be meritorious for other Muslims to help that person battle his/her addiction. Part of helping people against addictions to alcohol or drugs is to ban alcohol and drugs so it is less widely available.
As Qasim rightly pointed out, Afghanistan’s drug production is linked to the West. I thought the young Muslim did well to outline the politico-historical circumstances around the opium production in Afghanistan (Afghanistan shares borders with Iran and Pakistan so it’s hardly surprising that those neighbouring countries are effected by the lucrative drugs trade leaving many victims of drug abuse and addicts in its wake).
Being superficial on slavery - old polemics
Slavery, Bob’s argument is the usual superficial argument that Christian countries banned slavery before Muslim countries did. When I was researching this subject a while back I noticed the prohibition of slavery coincided with the industrial revolution. It does not take Einstein to figure out that there may well be a correlation here; the Muslim countries were not in a position to dispense with man-power (a large bulk of it was from slaves) whilst Western (Christian) were in that position due to the Industrial Revolution.
We must never downplay, the role the slaves in the Caribbean played in gaining their own freedom, they rebelled. These rebellions were costly, making it less cost-effective to continue slavery. The concern here is to avoid the idea of African slaves being wholly dependent upon the Christian's/West's love for their freedom. Slaves were very much part of helping the push for abolition.
Quite often, Christian apologists/evangelists seemingly make out Christianity was the chief driving force in the abolition movement. This is not true, common sense dictates it is not true as Christianity was around when the slave trade was flourishing (by the efforts of Christians)!
Furthermore, I recall seeing pamphlets from the pro-slavery lobby in the UK which opposed the anti-slavery lobby. Both sides actually used the Bible to support their stances!
Let’s see Christian move beyond simplistic polemics. Smart and informed people can see through them. Christians often complain about an anti-intellectualism amongst their fellow Christians, when you have so many preachers and apologists serving up old, tired and simplistic rhetoric (effectively propaganda harrumphs) which have little academic value, is there any surprise anti-intellectualism is so wide-spread in Christian communities?
“Prophet Muhammad and his followers had slaves"
This was one of Bob’s unfair talking points.
Slavery existed before Islam and it was embedded in the community whilst Islam was being Revealed.
For Bob, the 2nd person of the Trinity idea (later to become Jesus) gave Moses laws on buying and selling slaves in Exodus 21.
Prophet Muhammad promoted the freeing of slaves, so much so that if people, over the years, followed his instructions diligently the slaves of every community would have been freed, thus effectively ending slavery aside from new war captives. In Islam, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade would be considered immoral as going out to kidnap and enslave them is against the ethics Islam. Why not mention that at Speakers Corner, Bob the Builder?
This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.
When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.
Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.
The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).
It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.
There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means. [Source https://islamqa.info/en/94840]
Paul of Tarsus, purported to be inspired by God, encouraged slaves to obey their masters in Ephesians 6, Paul did not have an issue with slavery...
Bob the Builder’s Trinitarian Church Version of Jesus, not only allowed slaves in the Old and New Testament, but TCVO Jesus also allowed the severe beating of slaves in Exodus 21, both females (yes female slaves could be beaten severely too!) and males. The Prophet of Islam forbade beating slaves.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. [Exodus 21 – Bible]
I’ve noticed this mudslinging around slavery seems to be a common practice amongst anti-Islam evangelicals. I would encourage them to start thinking deeper on the topic and read what Muslim scholars are saying about it.
Again, let’s see Christian folks move away from low level polemic be it in parks or online.
Summary
The young Muslim involved in the dialogue is clearly an intelligent person who is learned in history, current affairs and global politics but I can’t help to wonder how much better he’d come off if he planned the topics of the debate a week in advance and consulted under the tutelage of more experienced Muslims on possible topics to discuss as well as talking points.
I do believe debates on such topics can potentially be unhelpfully divisive (especially when done in a confrontational and prideful way) and ultimately end up pitting Muslims and Christians against each other, offline and online, in mudslinging echo chambers. Perhaps this debate served to ratchet up antagonism against Muslims hence Bob’s slander and some of the racist and threatening anti-Muslim comments on the Christian channel which also uploaded the debate. I would encourage serious minded Christians to make a public condemnation of this type of rhetoric as we have seen it before from online folks who were following Jay Smith's videos. Let's see this toxic element marginalised and rebuked publicly by our Christian friends.
Let’s try our utmost to ensure discussion brings about understanding and good fruit.
Analysing Jay Smith's Student's Debate At Speakers Corner On Atonement
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Jay Smith, Did John Write Down What Jesus Said?
Jay Smith Is Confident He's Going to Paradise!
Missionaries Misusing the Hadith: Sins On Jews and Christians
Christian Uses 1 John 2:22 To Attack Prophet Muhammad (p)
Did Jay Smith Not Teach Hatun Tash About Hell in Christianity?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
I did not watch the second part, personally I’m not in favour of debate titles and topics like this as all religions have fine teachings, Christianity is very similar to Islam in many aspects thus has much good in it.
What does this debate achieve? Does it advance Muslim-Christian dialogue? Does it achieve more heat rather than light? Does it bring the Christian closer to pure Abrahamic monotheism? These are questions for the debaters to think about.
Having said that, let’s go through some of the debate points
Interest based economics
Qasim claims Christianity encourages the exploiting of the poor through the economic system - interest based economics. He puts forward Deut 23:20 to contend the Bible allows the exploitation of foreigners. I guess, this was a bridge for him to talk about how the colonialists in the West treated the Africans and Asians they conquered.
Qasim also believes all the wars of the last two centuries are all related to the (Christian) West.
I don't think Bob the Builder directly addressed these claims in the part I watched (part 1), Bob spoke about Christian charities and a separation of the West and Christianity.
20 You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a fellow Israelite, so that the Lord your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess. [Deut 23]
Qasim basically railed against a rampant capitalism which he links to Christianity. This idea of modern capitalism being related to Protestant Christianity goes back to Max Werber's theory around the Reformation. His work is a complicated read, you can find it online. Many people reference to it. I don't really think it has much value in Muslim-Christian apologetics.
Qasim highlighted the weakness in the teaching of separating religion from the state, the idea of give to Caesar what is his. He believes this is part of the reason why an immoral capitalism and consumerism is plaguing the West. Qasim says the same applies to pornography production. I suspect a great number of ills in society could be linked to the teaching of giving to Caesar what is his.
I do believe this is a major problem in Christianity, Paul of Tarsus did not envisage his religion spreading and existing as a global religion which would have influence on various lands and countries hence why he nor other writers of the New Testament taught about Christian governance, There was near-sightedness on the part of Paul and the other NT authors, they could never envisage being the dominant culture and religious movement in the Roman Empire and thus taught a subservience to Roman (non Christian) rule. If you truly believe you have a message from God, then why would you not want the teachings of that message to be foremost in the governing of a country?
Bible and alcohol
For Qasim, alcolol is a legalised Christian drug. He feels Christianity encourages poor people to drink alcohol. He suggests the problems of alcohol dependency in aboriginal Australian communities go back to the Bible.
Let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more. [Proverbs 31:7]
Bob's response was to talk about how alcohol existed prior to Christianity and that it's permissible to drink alcohol but not abuse alcohol. Drinking in moderation is allowed according to Bob the Builder.
The problem here for Bob is that even in moderation, alcohol has been shown to be a risk factor to certain cancers. And if one knows anything about alcohol, you'll know that it's difficult to moderate one's drinking as alcohol by its very nature makes one lose their inhibitions incrementally.
Surely a better teaching would be to forbid alcohol outright.
Lip service or sincerely held beliefs?
In Qasim's mind, the principle of "love your neighbour" is just rhetoric, political lip-service. I don’t reckon this is the case given that many Christians are charitable and many Christians consider helping poor people a Christian teaching. Muslims and Christians are perhaps the most charitable people in the world. For Muslims, we would say this stems back to the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah, Islam has a big emphasis on charity and looking after the poor. I think, likewise, for Christians who involve themselves in efforts of charity, they will say this originates from their Church traditions. Bob the Builder, iirc, listed some Christian charities in the video.
A racist ideology of white supremacy?
Qasim finds the practice of Christians depicting Jesus as a white man problematic to a healthy society. He believes Christianity is a racist ideology which teaches people to worship a white man.
Bob does not really dispute the claim that many Christians (in the West) have made Jesus into a white man but his argument here is that other Christians of other cultures make Jesus into their images; Christians in Japan and Ethiopia make Jesus into a Japanese or East African respectively.
The problem here, for Bob, is that this does not fully counter the various offshoots of Qasim’s claim. If Christianity allows people to make Jesus into their own racial image does this not leave the door open for the most economically and geo-politically advanced Christian group (at this time, Western European Christians) to promote supremacy of their race subconsciously?
It’s an interesting thought. An interesting discussion could spring from what Qasim said as long as it is done in a mature and thoughtful way.
The other problem here, for Bob, is that he’s openly admitted Christians make Jesus (that’s God for Trinitarians) into their own image. So what are these Japanese, East African and Western European Christians doing here? Could it be argued that they are involved in a form of pride and self-worship in portraying God in their own phenotypes?
This seemed to be a touchy subject and Bob lost his sense of respect, charity and decorum (again). Bob the Builder was wildly out of order in accusing the young Muslim, Qasim, of hating “White European” people. This is a hefty allegation and it’s reckless to make such public assertions based on what is no evidence at all. Qasim should seek a public apology from Bob the Builder for slander (perhaps even seek legal counsel if such a retraction is not made as claims like those can lead to one losing standing in society, be it social or economic). Make no bones about it, this was a serious a case of slander, it should not be taken lightly and brushed off as normal behaviour at Speakers Corner, Hyde Park.
Bob the Builder, if he’s a Bible-believing Trinitarian church traditionalist then he may well believe Jesus is calling him (Bob) a “fool”:
“...and whoever utters slander is a fool” [Proverbs 10:18]
Again, this is a shocking statement, one in which fair-minded Christians and Muslims should rebuke Bob for and politely ask Bob to retract this. It sets a very worrying precedent where young people could feel making false charges of racism (and other things) is an unchallenged norm.
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour” [Exodus 20:16]
This ties in with a recent discussion featuring a young Christian preacher (Godwin) at Speakers Corner on whether the Holy Spirit sanctifies and guides Christians in holiness. I think this type of behaviour by evangelicals is a practical demonstration they do not have the Holy Spirit regenerating them.
Drug use and a shame culture?
Bob states prohibition of drugs in Islamic countries has not stopped drug use in Muslim countries such as Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan. This seems quite a vacuous statement. Prohibition of drink driving, rape, drugs and theft has not prevented such crimes miring societies the world over - there will always be outliers in every society.
He argues that Muslim countries cannot tackle opium abuse problems because Islam creates a shame culture. Every culture has taboo and shame around drugs and other immoral behaviour - including Christian cultures. Bob's polemic is myopic and poorly thought out. It's not Islam that creates shame culture, in fact, if somebody is struggling with an addiction then it would be meritorious for other Muslims to help that person battle his/her addiction. Part of helping people against addictions to alcohol or drugs is to ban alcohol and drugs so it is less widely available.
As Qasim rightly pointed out, Afghanistan’s drug production is linked to the West. I thought the young Muslim did well to outline the politico-historical circumstances around the opium production in Afghanistan (Afghanistan shares borders with Iran and Pakistan so it’s hardly surprising that those neighbouring countries are effected by the lucrative drugs trade leaving many victims of drug abuse and addicts in its wake).
Being superficial on slavery - old polemics
Slavery, Bob’s argument is the usual superficial argument that Christian countries banned slavery before Muslim countries did. When I was researching this subject a while back I noticed the prohibition of slavery coincided with the industrial revolution. It does not take Einstein to figure out that there may well be a correlation here; the Muslim countries were not in a position to dispense with man-power (a large bulk of it was from slaves) whilst Western (Christian) were in that position due to the Industrial Revolution.
We must never downplay, the role the slaves in the Caribbean played in gaining their own freedom, they rebelled. These rebellions were costly, making it less cost-effective to continue slavery. The concern here is to avoid the idea of African slaves being wholly dependent upon the Christian's/West's love for their freedom. Slaves were very much part of helping the push for abolition.
Quite often, Christian apologists/evangelists seemingly make out Christianity was the chief driving force in the abolition movement. This is not true, common sense dictates it is not true as Christianity was around when the slave trade was flourishing (by the efforts of Christians)!
Furthermore, I recall seeing pamphlets from the pro-slavery lobby in the UK which opposed the anti-slavery lobby. Both sides actually used the Bible to support their stances!
Let’s see Christian move beyond simplistic polemics. Smart and informed people can see through them. Christians often complain about an anti-intellectualism amongst their fellow Christians, when you have so many preachers and apologists serving up old, tired and simplistic rhetoric (effectively propaganda harrumphs) which have little academic value, is there any surprise anti-intellectualism is so wide-spread in Christian communities?
“Prophet Muhammad and his followers had slaves"
This was one of Bob’s unfair talking points.
Slavery existed before Islam and it was embedded in the community whilst Islam was being Revealed.
For Bob, the 2nd person of the Trinity idea (later to become Jesus) gave Moses laws on buying and selling slaves in Exodus 21.
Prophet Muhammad promoted the freeing of slaves, so much so that if people, over the years, followed his instructions diligently the slaves of every community would have been freed, thus effectively ending slavery aside from new war captives. In Islam, the Trans-Atlantic slave trade would be considered immoral as going out to kidnap and enslave them is against the ethics Islam. Why not mention that at Speakers Corner, Bob the Builder?
This is one of the basic principles of Islam. When the question is asked: why does Islam permit slavery? We reply emphatically and without shame that slavery is permitted in Islam, but we should examine the matter with fairness and with the aim of seeking the truth, and we should examine the details of the rulings on slavery in Islam, with regard to the sources and reasons for it, and how to deal with the slave and how his rights and duties are equal to those of the free man, and the ways in which he may earn his freedom, of which there are many in sharee’ah, whilst also taking into consideration the new types of slavery in this world which is pretending to be civilized, modern and progressive.
When Islam came, there were many causes of slavery, such as warfare, debt (where if the debtor could not pay off his debt, he became a slave), kidnapping and raids, and poverty and need.
Slavery did not spread in this appalling manner throughout all continents except by means of kidnapping; rather the main source of slaves in Europe and America in later centuries was this method.
The texts of Islam took a strong stance against this. It says in a hadeeth qudsi: “Allaah, may He be exalted, said: ‘There are three whose opponent I will be on the Day of Resurrection, and whomever I oppose, I will defeat … A man who sold a free man and consumed his price.’” Narrated by al-Bukhaari (2227).
It is worth pointing out that you do not find any text in the Qur’aan or Sunnah which enjoins taking others as slaves, whereas there are dozens of texts in the Qur’aan and the ahaadeeth of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) which call for manumitting slaves and freeing them.
There were many sources of slaves at the time of the advent of Islam, whereas the means of manumitting them were virtually nil. Islam changed the way in which slavery was dealt with; it created many new ways of liberating slaves, blocked many ways of enslaving people, and established guidelines which blocked these means. [Source https://islamqa.info/en/94840]
Paul of Tarsus, purported to be inspired by God, encouraged slaves to obey their masters in Ephesians 6, Paul did not have an issue with slavery...
Bob the Builder’s Trinitarian Church Version of Jesus, not only allowed slaves in the Old and New Testament, but TCVO Jesus also allowed the severe beating of slaves in Exodus 21, both females (yes female slaves could be beaten severely too!) and males. The Prophet of Islam forbade beating slaves.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. [Exodus 21 – Bible]
I’ve noticed this mudslinging around slavery seems to be a common practice amongst anti-Islam evangelicals. I would encourage them to start thinking deeper on the topic and read what Muslim scholars are saying about it.
Again, let’s see Christian folks move away from low level polemic be it in parks or online.
Summary
The young Muslim involved in the dialogue is clearly an intelligent person who is learned in history, current affairs and global politics but I can’t help to wonder how much better he’d come off if he planned the topics of the debate a week in advance and consulted under the tutelage of more experienced Muslims on possible topics to discuss as well as talking points.
I do believe debates on such topics can potentially be unhelpfully divisive (especially when done in a confrontational and prideful way) and ultimately end up pitting Muslims and Christians against each other, offline and online, in mudslinging echo chambers. Perhaps this debate served to ratchet up antagonism against Muslims hence Bob’s slander and some of the racist and threatening anti-Muslim comments on the Christian channel which also uploaded the debate. I would encourage serious minded Christians to make a public condemnation of this type of rhetoric as we have seen it before from online folks who were following Jay Smith's videos. Let's see this toxic element marginalised and rebuked publicly by our Christian friends.
Let’s try our utmost to ensure discussion brings about understanding and good fruit.
Analysing Jay Smith's Student's Debate At Speakers Corner On Atonement
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Jay Smith, Did John Write Down What Jesus Said?
Jay Smith Is Confident He's Going to Paradise!
Missionaries Misusing the Hadith: Sins On Jews and Christians
Christian Uses 1 John 2:22 To Attack Prophet Muhammad (p)
Did Jay Smith Not Teach Hatun Tash About Hell in Christianity?
Advice For Muslims On Dealing With Christian Anti-Muslim Sentiment...
A Difficulty On the Christian Idea of Salvation and Forgiveness
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existant Jesus?
Thursday, 21 December 2017
Response To A Christian Blog on Muslim Girls School in Stoke
Archbishop Cranmer (blog) got my goat with the following comments in his piece entitled ‘A school for Muslim girls that forbids them the use of toilet paper ‘for cultural reasons’?’:
I understand Stoke-on-Trent is shortlisted to be named a ‘City of Culture’. Ah, but which culture? It is disconcerting to hear of a school for Muslim girls that forbids them the use of toilet paper ‘for cultural reasons’. Soap, too, is off the menu, so the poor dears have to ablute the Karachi way. One wonders if the school provides proper toilets, or simply issues the girls with a trowel and points them towards the shrubbery? So much for all cultures being equal, for indeed some are more equal than others. At least inspectors have deemed the school to be ‘inadequate’, which should send leftists spinning and surely counts as a ‘hate-crime’.
I wonder if Archbishop Cranmer wrote this whilst on the toilet. I understand he’s using a bit of hyperbole, what is it with irate Christians and hyperbole?
Likewise with one of the rabble-rousers in evangelicalism in the West, not many can do ‘hyperbole’ like Jay Smith.
One man’s hyperbole is another man’s bowel movement, right Archbishop Cranmer?
1. The school in question did not “forbid” the girls from using loo roll. Toilet roll was available, but apparently not put out.
I suspect it’s just a massive oversight and/or a bit of a blunder by the school. I mean, so what if your culture is to wash rather than wipe. Folks who wash rather than wipe also use toilet paper in that process too. It’s a bit foolish to leave toilets without toilet paper even if you have washing facilities. I’ve noticed this in some mosques too — I’ve always suspected, here comes the cynic in me, it was an effort to save money or a subtle way of saying do your business at home rather than here.
2. Calm yourself down Archbishop Cranmer, it’s a school of 34 pupils. It’s hardly representing the overall culture of Stoke on Trent never mind supplanting the current culture. Why are traditionalists at the CofE so bitter? Christianity and “Christian culture” (whatever that is, surely not toilet paper only!) is not being ring fenced any longer thus Archbishop Cranmer, Christian Concern, Gavin Ashenden are all in a bit of a tiff.
This seems to be a regular theme amongst this type of CofE-er. Zoning in on some odd story about Muslims or some other minority culture and making a big hoo-ha about it. Why can’t they shake off that chip on their shoulders?
3. Archbishop talks about soap being off the menu. Hmmm, I don’t think the head teacher said that was due to cultural reasons. Again, I’d imagine it’s just a case of lack of thought if the school had no saop dispensers in the toilets — either that or it was a cost-saving tactic.
In fact, Muslims played a vital role in the development of soap and shampoo was introduced to Britain by….a Muslim!
Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today. The ancient Egyptians had soap of a kind, as did the Romans who used it more as a pomade. But it was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil. One of the Crusaders’ most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed’s Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV. [Source]
The absent-mindedness or the scrimping of the school is hardly to be attributed to their culture. That would be like attributing gay marriage, divorce, sex before marriage or Atheism to Church of Englan culture. Archbishop Cranmer, what say ye?
4. On a personal note, Archbishop Cranmer may want to hit up the head teacher and have a look at his notes on toilet etiquette — it could help him to avoid a fissure or two. As a CofE-er, I’m certain he’s an expert on fissures of a different kind given the CofE are in constant disunity (the mind boggles further if they seriously consider themselves to be the “body of Christ”). Get some lessons on cleaning your derriere as your chosen cultural method is a mover but not exactly a shaker:
“Toilet paper moves s***, but it doesn’t remove it.”
“Aggressive wiping can cause painful anal fissures which can take eight to 12 weeks to heal and even haemorrhoids.” [Source]
5. Archbishop Cranmer asks which culture when talking about Stoke on Trent’s now failed bid for City of Culture status. I guess as a CofE-er he’s used to asking such a question given that the Church worships an Asian man (Jesus), believes in a doctrine from Greek philosophy (Trinity) and relies on manuscripts found in rubbish heaps amongst other places in North Africa to help reconstruct its book (the Bible) by the academy which is largely a Western enterprise. Indeed, Archbishop Cranmer, which culture?
Dr Adrian Hilton, do us a favour mate, edit some of this into Mrs Proudie’s article. Consider my thoughts the water to wash away the hyperbole. Don’t forget to wipe!
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much
Queen James Bible and the Islamophobes
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
I understand Stoke-on-Trent is shortlisted to be named a ‘City of Culture’. Ah, but which culture? It is disconcerting to hear of a school for Muslim girls that forbids them the use of toilet paper ‘for cultural reasons’. Soap, too, is off the menu, so the poor dears have to ablute the Karachi way. One wonders if the school provides proper toilets, or simply issues the girls with a trowel and points them towards the shrubbery? So much for all cultures being equal, for indeed some are more equal than others. At least inspectors have deemed the school to be ‘inadequate’, which should send leftists spinning and surely counts as a ‘hate-crime’.
I wonder if Archbishop Cranmer wrote this whilst on the toilet. I understand he’s using a bit of hyperbole, what is it with irate Christians and hyperbole?
Likewise with one of the rabble-rousers in evangelicalism in the West, not many can do ‘hyperbole’ like Jay Smith.
One man’s hyperbole is another man’s bowel movement, right Archbishop Cranmer?
1. The school in question did not “forbid” the girls from using loo roll. Toilet roll was available, but apparently not put out.
I suspect it’s just a massive oversight and/or a bit of a blunder by the school. I mean, so what if your culture is to wash rather than wipe. Folks who wash rather than wipe also use toilet paper in that process too. It’s a bit foolish to leave toilets without toilet paper even if you have washing facilities. I’ve noticed this in some mosques too — I’ve always suspected, here comes the cynic in me, it was an effort to save money or a subtle way of saying do your business at home rather than here.
2. Calm yourself down Archbishop Cranmer, it’s a school of 34 pupils. It’s hardly representing the overall culture of Stoke on Trent never mind supplanting the current culture. Why are traditionalists at the CofE so bitter? Christianity and “Christian culture” (whatever that is, surely not toilet paper only!) is not being ring fenced any longer thus Archbishop Cranmer, Christian Concern, Gavin Ashenden are all in a bit of a tiff.
This seems to be a regular theme amongst this type of CofE-er. Zoning in on some odd story about Muslims or some other minority culture and making a big hoo-ha about it. Why can’t they shake off that chip on their shoulders?
3. Archbishop talks about soap being off the menu. Hmmm, I don’t think the head teacher said that was due to cultural reasons. Again, I’d imagine it’s just a case of lack of thought if the school had no saop dispensers in the toilets — either that or it was a cost-saving tactic.
In fact, Muslims played a vital role in the development of soap and shampoo was introduced to Britain by….a Muslim!
Washing and bathing are religious requirements for Muslims, which is perhaps why they perfected the recipe for soap which we still use today. The ancient Egyptians had soap of a kind, as did the Romans who used it more as a pomade. But it was the Arabs who combined vegetable oils with sodium hydroxide and aromatics such as thyme oil. One of the Crusaders’ most striking characteristics, to Arab nostrils, was that they did not wash. Shampoo was introduced to England by a Muslim who opened Mahomed’s Indian Vapour Baths on Brighton seafront in 1759 and was appointed Shampooing Surgeon to Kings George IV and William IV. [Source]
The absent-mindedness or the scrimping of the school is hardly to be attributed to their culture. That would be like attributing gay marriage, divorce, sex before marriage or Atheism to Church of Englan culture. Archbishop Cranmer, what say ye?
4. On a personal note, Archbishop Cranmer may want to hit up the head teacher and have a look at his notes on toilet etiquette — it could help him to avoid a fissure or two. As a CofE-er, I’m certain he’s an expert on fissures of a different kind given the CofE are in constant disunity (the mind boggles further if they seriously consider themselves to be the “body of Christ”). Get some lessons on cleaning your derriere as your chosen cultural method is a mover but not exactly a shaker:
“Toilet paper moves s***, but it doesn’t remove it.”
“Aggressive wiping can cause painful anal fissures which can take eight to 12 weeks to heal and even haemorrhoids.” [Source]
5. Archbishop Cranmer asks which culture when talking about Stoke on Trent’s now failed bid for City of Culture status. I guess as a CofE-er he’s used to asking such a question given that the Church worships an Asian man (Jesus), believes in a doctrine from Greek philosophy (Trinity) and relies on manuscripts found in rubbish heaps amongst other places in North Africa to help reconstruct its book (the Bible) by the academy which is largely a Western enterprise. Indeed, Archbishop Cranmer, which culture?
Dr Adrian Hilton, do us a favour mate, edit some of this into Mrs Proudie’s article. Consider my thoughts the water to wash away the hyperbole. Don’t forget to wipe!
Christian Polemicists on Love, Quran 3:32, John 3:16 and Romans 5:8
Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much
Queen James Bible and the Islamophobes
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Monday, 27 November 2017
Grooming Crimes Which Tommy Robinson and Britain First Will Not Publicise As Much
Three men from the West Midlands have been convicted after they held a schoolgirl captive and forced her in to prostitution.
Jake Cairns, Brandon Sharples and Jack McInally plied the 14-year-old with drugs and held her at an address for five days.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/sick-trio-kept-schoolgirl-14-13909373
Why Do Britain First Forget About The IRA When Talking To Muslims?
Jake Cairns, Brandon Sharples and Jack McInally plied the 14-year-old with drugs and held her at an address for five days.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/sick-trio-kept-schoolgirl-14-13909373
Why Do Britain First Forget About The IRA When Talking To Muslims?
Sunday, 19 November 2017
Why Do Britain First Forget About The IRA When Talking To Muslims?
Britain First's Christian Jayda Fransen deputy leader seems to forget about British history and the IRA in a conversation with a Muslim as she tries to minimise the number of non-Muslim terror attacks in the UK.
This video is also uploaded here
A timeline of IRA terror attacks on British soil can be found at Reuters. Here are some examples from that timeless:
February 1974 - Coach carrying soldiers and families in northern England is bombed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Twelve people killed, 14 hurt.
October-November 1974 - Wave of IRA bombs in British pubs kills 28 people and wounds more than 200.
July 1982 - Two IRA bomb attacks on soldiers in London’s royal parks kill 11 people and wound 50.
December 1983 - IRA bomb at Harrods department store kills six.
October 1984 - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet narrowly escapes IRA bomb that kills five people at Brighton hotel during Conservative Party’s annual conference.
May 1990 - One soldier is killed and another wounded by car bomb in Wembley.
June 1990 - Soldier is shot dead at train station in Lichfield.
April 1993 - IRA truck bomb devastates Bishopsgate area of London’s financial district, killing one and wounding 44.
This video is also uploaded here
A timeline of IRA terror attacks on British soil can be found at Reuters. Here are some examples from that timeless:
February 1974 - Coach carrying soldiers and families in northern England is bombed by the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Twelve people killed, 14 hurt.
October-November 1974 - Wave of IRA bombs in British pubs kills 28 people and wounds more than 200.
July 1982 - Two IRA bomb attacks on soldiers in London’s royal parks kill 11 people and wound 50.
December 1983 - IRA bomb at Harrods department store kills six.
October 1984 - Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet narrowly escapes IRA bomb that kills five people at Brighton hotel during Conservative Party’s annual conference.
May 1990 - One soldier is killed and another wounded by car bomb in Wembley.
June 1990 - Soldier is shot dead at train station in Lichfield.
April 1993 - IRA truck bomb devastates Bishopsgate area of London’s financial district, killing one and wounding 44.
Tuesday, 31 October 2017
A Review of Sara Khan's The Battle For British Islam
Thoughts on: The Battle for British Islam - Sara Khan - Saqi Books - 2016
I did not really see what this book offered to the public discourse on Muslims, Islam and Britain which has not already been put out there I felt an element of irony as Sara Khan was championing a unity amongst Muslims but at the same time her book only serves to marginalise Muslims whose views on Islam she has an issue with - I don’t see anything problematic with iERA. Their members have condemned terrorism and they seem to be well-grounded members of British society. Why not try to work with these Muslims?
There is a theme in Sara Khan’s writing which highlights a conservatism amongst Muslim advocacy groups and plays a game of personalities by listing various Muslims in the public eye and their views they hold on issues such as LGBT, Islamic governance and women’s rights. What Sara Khan and her co-author fail to do is point out that these beliefs revolving around Islamic governance (how a state run by Sharia would theoretically be run) have no bearing on public life in Britain. None whatsoever! For instance, the belief that apostates should be killed is not applicable to Britain. Likewise for the punishment related to adultery.
For me it seemed all rather picayune, are we really trying to say these beliefs are affecting the way somebody lives and interacts in Britain negatively? I don’t think so. Is this not subtly playing to the notion of a conveyor belt theory where Muslims with certain beliefs which do not fit the Western liberal paradigm are potentially on the road to radicalisation? It should be “further radicalisation” as this theory would dictate anybody on the conveyor belt is already radicalised to a certain degree. Would this theory not pave the way for a more Islamophobic version from the far right (including the evangelical Christian Right) to go all-out and just label the starting point of the conveyor belt as “Islam”? That would leave Sara Khan and all of us Britain in hot water. I’d urge Sara Khan to rethink her lines of argumentation because consistency is important; giving an inch in order to prop one’s own views and oneself at the dinner table may later result in having to give a mile leaving you and your views being looked at askance by those at the same dining table you strove to be at.
What is the barometer for deciding who is radicalised? A departure from mainstream Western views? Does that not leave conservative Christians, orthodox Jews and mainstream Muslims in the firing line? And is this not really a form of mono-culturalism rather than multiculturalism where everybody is expected to follow the social zeitgeist?
Sara Khan does disappoint the rabid Islamophobes, who think Islam is about terrorism, in mentioning her opposition to extremism is inspired by Islam: "My motivation, first and foremost, in writing this book is a sense of obligation and principle as a Muslim." [p22]
She even criticises sections of the media for stoking up Islamophobc attitudes: “Sections of the media have in effect assisted the far-Right’s anti-refugees and anti-Muslim messaging. Media headlines have included references to a ‘Muslim rape crisis’, or ‘Muslim rape epidemic’, one Polish magazine depicted on its cover a Caucasian women [sic] draped in the European Union flag being torn at by brown-skinned hands, with the headline: ‘The Islamic Rape of Europe’. This is the largest-circulation conservative weekly journal in Poland – it claimed that the crisis had been masked because of ‘tolerance and political correctness’.” [p145-146]
She also talks about “Islamism” being divisive within Muslim communities and causing friction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. For her, Islamism and the far-right have a symbiotic relationship and they feed off each other. What about foreign policy and its divisive role and role in radicalisation? Sara Khan has little to say about this.
The biggest problem here is this word, “Islamism”. It’s used in the media a lot but I doubt many people would be able to define it and those who do would probably not be in uniformed agreement on what Islamism entails. It’s a made up word, it’s helpful for those who want to operate in clouds of smoke.
Sara Khan does define it, I think this definition is hugely problematic for it impugns the vast majority of Muslims, in my opinion, past and present: “Islamism is essentially politicised Islam – but it is not synonymous with Islam. It is a relatively modern movement that seeks to revive an Islamic global political order, a caliphate in other words. Islamists see no distinction between religion and politics.” [p52]
Sara Khan may not know, but the Islamic caliphate only broke up, in name at least, about 100 years ago. Islam and the state have always been interwoven since the nascent Islamic community set up in Medina in the 7th century. This notion of separation of church and state only came about through Martin Luther, prior to that the West did not have such a notion as taught by Karen Armstrong. In fact, even then, beyond Luther, Christian puritans still saw the sate and faith to be linked. Professor Shedinger talks about a religion of value should want to influence the state. Everybody wants their faith or views to influence the state – they are lying if they say otherwise. What is wrong with a bunch of Muslims desiring self-autonomy and wanting to run their country the way they want? Would it not be a form of cultural imperialism to dictate to them that they have to follow the zeitgeist and paradigm in the West? Given how the definition of “religion” is notoriously difficult to agree upon in the Religious Studies departments across the West and considering secularism is now being considered a “religion” in some quarters, are we not living in a state governed by a “religion” too? It seems to me, the big hoo-ha here is all about people with views which challenge the “religion” governing the state. The world has to be governed by one “religion”, secularism...or else!
Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent
I did not really see what this book offered to the public discourse on Muslims, Islam and Britain which has not already been put out there I felt an element of irony as Sara Khan was championing a unity amongst Muslims but at the same time her book only serves to marginalise Muslims whose views on Islam she has an issue with - I don’t see anything problematic with iERA. Their members have condemned terrorism and they seem to be well-grounded members of British society. Why not try to work with these Muslims?
There is a theme in Sara Khan’s writing which highlights a conservatism amongst Muslim advocacy groups and plays a game of personalities by listing various Muslims in the public eye and their views they hold on issues such as LGBT, Islamic governance and women’s rights. What Sara Khan and her co-author fail to do is point out that these beliefs revolving around Islamic governance (how a state run by Sharia would theoretically be run) have no bearing on public life in Britain. None whatsoever! For instance, the belief that apostates should be killed is not applicable to Britain. Likewise for the punishment related to adultery.
For me it seemed all rather picayune, are we really trying to say these beliefs are affecting the way somebody lives and interacts in Britain negatively? I don’t think so. Is this not subtly playing to the notion of a conveyor belt theory where Muslims with certain beliefs which do not fit the Western liberal paradigm are potentially on the road to radicalisation? It should be “further radicalisation” as this theory would dictate anybody on the conveyor belt is already radicalised to a certain degree. Would this theory not pave the way for a more Islamophobic version from the far right (including the evangelical Christian Right) to go all-out and just label the starting point of the conveyor belt as “Islam”? That would leave Sara Khan and all of us Britain in hot water. I’d urge Sara Khan to rethink her lines of argumentation because consistency is important; giving an inch in order to prop one’s own views and oneself at the dinner table may later result in having to give a mile leaving you and your views being looked at askance by those at the same dining table you strove to be at.
What is the barometer for deciding who is radicalised? A departure from mainstream Western views? Does that not leave conservative Christians, orthodox Jews and mainstream Muslims in the firing line? And is this not really a form of mono-culturalism rather than multiculturalism where everybody is expected to follow the social zeitgeist?
Sara Khan does disappoint the rabid Islamophobes, who think Islam is about terrorism, in mentioning her opposition to extremism is inspired by Islam: "My motivation, first and foremost, in writing this book is a sense of obligation and principle as a Muslim." [p22]
She even criticises sections of the media for stoking up Islamophobc attitudes: “Sections of the media have in effect assisted the far-Right’s anti-refugees and anti-Muslim messaging. Media headlines have included references to a ‘Muslim rape crisis’, or ‘Muslim rape epidemic’, one Polish magazine depicted on its cover a Caucasian women [sic] draped in the European Union flag being torn at by brown-skinned hands, with the headline: ‘The Islamic Rape of Europe’. This is the largest-circulation conservative weekly journal in Poland – it claimed that the crisis had been masked because of ‘tolerance and political correctness’.” [p145-146]
She also talks about “Islamism” being divisive within Muslim communities and causing friction between Muslims and non-Muslims in Britain. For her, Islamism and the far-right have a symbiotic relationship and they feed off each other. What about foreign policy and its divisive role and role in radicalisation? Sara Khan has little to say about this.
The biggest problem here is this word, “Islamism”. It’s used in the media a lot but I doubt many people would be able to define it and those who do would probably not be in uniformed agreement on what Islamism entails. It’s a made up word, it’s helpful for those who want to operate in clouds of smoke.
Sara Khan does define it, I think this definition is hugely problematic for it impugns the vast majority of Muslims, in my opinion, past and present: “Islamism is essentially politicised Islam – but it is not synonymous with Islam. It is a relatively modern movement that seeks to revive an Islamic global political order, a caliphate in other words. Islamists see no distinction between religion and politics.” [p52]
Sara Khan may not know, but the Islamic caliphate only broke up, in name at least, about 100 years ago. Islam and the state have always been interwoven since the nascent Islamic community set up in Medina in the 7th century. This notion of separation of church and state only came about through Martin Luther, prior to that the West did not have such a notion as taught by Karen Armstrong. In fact, even then, beyond Luther, Christian puritans still saw the sate and faith to be linked. Professor Shedinger talks about a religion of value should want to influence the state. Everybody wants their faith or views to influence the state – they are lying if they say otherwise. What is wrong with a bunch of Muslims desiring self-autonomy and wanting to run their country the way they want? Would it not be a form of cultural imperialism to dictate to them that they have to follow the zeitgeist and paradigm in the West? Given how the definition of “religion” is notoriously difficult to agree upon in the Religious Studies departments across the West and considering secularism is now being considered a “religion” in some quarters, are we not living in a state governed by a “religion” too? It seems to me, the big hoo-ha here is all about people with views which challenge the “religion” governing the state. The world has to be governed by one “religion”, secularism...or else!
Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent
Friday, 20 October 2017
Christian Right Wing Is Angry With Qasim Rashid's Article on Islam in the Independent
Here are my thoughts on what an evangelical Christian lady wrote in response to a click-bait piece on the Independent's website by Qasim Rashid entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” As a Muslim I was surprised to see such a title - something which I will address later on in this piece once we touch on some of the polemics directed at Qasim Rashid's piece from a "Christian"evangelical lady called Lizzie Schofield. Lizzie Schofield writes:
Now theIndie's [sic] really upped its game with its latest piece by Qasim Rachid [Sic] (a regular contributor) entitled “How the teachings of Islam could help us prevent more sex scandals.” Islam will prevent sex scandals? Sex scandals like the systematic rape and grooming of young girls in Rochdale, Rotherham and Newcastle, right?
This is like a Christian saying Christian teachings will prevent murders and genocides and the critic responding flippantly “what like the genocide of the Native Americans”?
There are two problems with this immature approach:
1. It’s childish and it misuses serious crimes and suffering of human beings for one-upmanship.
2. This one-upmanship is a non-sequitar in any case. The perverts in the grooming gangs (which included non Muslims) were in fact going against the teachings of Islam – unless you think alcohol, drugs, deceit and rape are Islamic (see Islam forbids rape). You’ve got to have a low view of your fellow man if you think these things are part of the way of life of a fifth of your cousins on this planet. In fact, Islam teaches men and women against being alone or touching a person of the opposite sex whom you have no relationship with. Lizzie knows this as she has been told about the Jewish teaching of Shomer Negiah and the Muslim equivalent.
She knows how Islam would help against Hollywood director sex scandals. Men have to lower their gaze, so they can’t ogle at the model/actress (in addition Islam’s dress code of modesty would help to lessen the drawing of attention from men of a sensual nature as witnessed in this social experiment). Is that not what led to the Harvey Weinstein’s alleged crimes – the sin of the eyes inciting further lustful thoughts? Secondly, you can’t be alone with the actress as Islam teaches against two unmarried people of the opposite sex being alone with each other (the third is always the devil). Thirdly, sex cannot be carried out outside a relationship. Surely that’s enough to say the precepts of Islam would help prevent such sex scandals and vicitimization of actresses?
She then goes into full tilt polemical mode with mindless and inconsistent polemics:
“Tell me how a religion founded by a man who married a nine-year-old girl, plus another 10 women (some forcibly) in addition to his regular sex slaves, will help here. Seriously. I’m all ears.”
On marrying young
1. The Prophet consummated the marriage with Aisha when she was considered mature and had reached puberty. This is the same marriage custom which the Jews at the time of Jesus observed as highlighted by Geza Vermes. Why is this lady not asking why Jesus did not change this custom if she finds it so reprehensible? Does she think Jesus did not care about women?
2. On that theme, the age of marriage in the Bible is puberty as stated by a Christian apologist who cited Ezekiel 16 as his proof text for this claim. Why is this lady not asking why the Bible contains such a “proof text” for puberty as the age of marriage and why it does not follow pre-modern age of consent laws? Does she think Jesus, the Holy Spirit and the Father did not care about women?
3. We both live in Western Europe, pre-modern Western Europe had similar marriage practices to that of the Arabs a the time of Prophet Muhammad and the Jews at the time of Prophet Jesus. Emma Mason writes, "In the Middle Ages, getting married was easy for Christians living in western Europe...Marriage was the only acceptable place for sex and as a result Christians were allowed to marry from puberty onwards, generally seen at the time as age 12 for women and 14 for men. Parental consent was not required. When this law finally changed in England in the 18th century, the old rules still applied in Scotland."
This lady’s ancestors would have been involved in such marriages. Even beyond the Middle Ages, I bet some of Lizzie’s forefathers were involved in such marriages. Just look at the London marriage licenses between 1500 to the 1800s. We’ve got 4 (four) year old George in there, 9 year old Dorthy Panton and 11 year old Anne in there. This lady may want to check up her family tree for any of those names. In reality, there would have been countless marriages like those of Anne and Dorthy during this period across the whole of Britain. Were they all a bunch of women hating paedophiles back then? No of course not...so why the big deal about Prophet Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha when the Bible, Jesus and the rest of humanity before pre-modern times would have seen no issue with it?
On polygamy
As for polygamy, erm what’s wrong with polygamy? Jesus according to her Trinitarian beliefs allowed polygamy.
If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [Exodus 21:10]
And Jesus, according to her Trinitarian beliefs not only allowed polygamy but also gave wives [plural] to David:
8 I gave your master’s house to you, and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you all Israel and Judah. And if all this had been too little, I would have given you even more. [2 Samuel 12:8]
This is all elementary stuff that anybody who has thought about and looked into the Bible would know of. Why are we seeing a Trinitarian Christian lady talk about polygamy like it’s a bad thing? She’s indirectly insulting her version of Jesus (the Trinitarian Church version). Did Jesus do something wrong in her eyes? Is she more holy than Jesus?
She also talks about forced marriage. Forced marriage is not allowed in Islam Anti-Islam polemicists claim the Prophet’s marriage to Safiya was forced, I’ve covered this here.
On Trinitarian Jesus and Women
In fact it appears, this particular Trinitarian Christian apologist (if consistent), would claim rape/forced marriage took place in Deuteronomy 10 and probably Numbers 31 and this was allowed by Trinitarian Jesus. Does the Christian lady condemn these actions and condemn Trinitarian Jesus?
This lady may want to consider 2 Samuel 12 where according to her Trinitarian understanding, Jesus threatened to give David’s wives to somebody else who would also sleep with them. Now, will this lady call this a threat to have David’s wives raped? A threat given by Trinitarian Jesus according to her understanding!
She also wrote the following to advocate Christianity at the end of her polemical piece:
Jesus never married. Jesus never had sex slaves. He never sexually exploited women. The Cross of Christ is justice for the victims of sexual exploitation and mercy for the perpetrators if they turn to him.
OK, Jesus never married, and is that something that makes him a better person than Moses, Muhammad or Abraham? Nope. Marriage is something necessary for procreation and it’s what societies are founded upon. I believe the lady in question is married herself, let's not go into medieval monk mode where sex is seen as something unholy. Sex is part of life and none of us would be here today if it was not part of life.
She claims Jesus never exploited women but she believes Jesus allowed the severe beating of female slaves as long as they got up after a day or two (Exodus 21:20-21). She believes Jesus ordered the killing of non virgin females in 1 Samuel 15:3.
Is she not aware of any of this or is this in the back of her mind gnawing away at her so she decides to attack Muslims, Islam and the Prophet of Islam to try and make herself feel a bit better? Is this some sort of self-projection akin to where a gay guy is constantly bashing gays but is found out to be involved in a gay lifestyle! behind closed doors.
She also believes Jesus allowed polygamy (Ex 21:10) and she believes Jesus gave wives to David in 2 Samuel 12:8. Clearly Jesus had no issue with polygamy. If she thinks polygamy is exploitation of women then I’m sure she will criticising the Trinitarian church’s view of Jesus - if she's consistent. In addition, she will be attacking the Bible as the spark for her Protestant church movement, Martin Luther, said there’s nothing in the Bible to forbid polygamy.
As for rape, I’d imagine (if consistent as she is constantly looking for the most negative view of Islamic sources she can find) she would exegete 2 Samuel 12 as Jesus threatening to have David’s wives given to somebody else and slept with as exploitation of women:
11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house. And I will take your wives before your eyes and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. 12 For you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel and before the sun.’”
She'd also say the claim Numbers 31 and Deuteronomy 10 (an order from Jesus according to her) involved rape
Aside from this, we already know that she believes Jesus is not a pacifist and that Jesus used much more violence than Prophet Muhammad. I guess in her mind, Muhammad is more peaceful and more kinder to women than Trinitarian Jesus and the Islamic Jesus is more peaceful and more loving to women than the Trinitarian church version of Jesus.
Rape victims and the "cross"
She wrote about the cross being some sort of comfort or justice for victims of rape. She does not believe this at all. In her mind, any non Christians raped and not willing to worship Jesus (a man!) will face the wrath of Jesus who will return with a sword for his enemies. She’s on video saying so about Jesus returning with a sword for his "enemies" which she believes to be Muslims (including Muslim women presumably unless she believes Jesus is anti-men and only dislikes non-Christian men). Quite how the idea of Jesus dying for sins on a cross is justice for rape victims is beyond me. Really, what of all those non Christian women raped (many by Christians, think Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, and African slaves) who did not believe a man (Jesus) was God? How exactly do you think the church idea of the cross helps them?
Furthermore, she believes the rapists will be forgiven due to the beliefs around the cross...but what if the rape victim does not forgive the rapist?
Conclusion
The online platform for major newspapers, given the competition online, is a click based market so content providers are incentivised to be as sensational and, a times, inflammatory as possible - "attention whoring" for views. This, in turn, corresponds to online ad revenue. For the Independent's website, it's not much different. For me, the ads that show up on Qasim Rashid's online piece are for BNP PARIBAS and SQUARE SPACE.
As a reader of the Independent, I am a little disappointed in the editorial decision to run that article as it does not take a great deal of wisdom to expect an online anti-Muslim backlash. It seems like the Independent were trolling the right wing but I think we have to recognise this goes beyond the Far Right despite the Left's willingness to stand up for minorities (as a Muslim, I appreciate much of this sentiment although I have read Nathan Lean's book on Islamophobia and he does mention there is Left-wing Islamophobia too).
Qasim Rashid's article will effectively be used as a recruiting sergeant in pitting the cultural right-wing, anti-Muslim and anti-religion folks against Muslims. It's only going to fuel this narrative of "creeping sharia" and the propaganda of an exaggerated influence of Muslims in the West that Muslims are on the precipice of power in Britain when in actuality Muslims are the , or at least one of the, least influential minority groups in the West: Christians, LGBTQ groups and Jews have way more influence than Muslims.
There would have been less of a firestorm if Qasim Rashid had spoken of the way in which EVERY major world religion would help alleviate sex scandals in Hollywood or wherever. He could have then have thrown in a paragraph or two of his own religious tradition alongside relevant teachings from other faiths. The title could have been "How Religion Can Prevent More Sex Scandals in Hollywood".
I do fear, the Independent have managed to stoke up further anti-Muslim sentiment whilst seeking out internet clicks. Sure, the evangelical lady who riled against Qasim Rashid's article is anti-Islam but we must start asking ourselves why Christians, who are very similar in moral values to Muslims, are taking aim at Muslims, increasingly so. We've got to start dialoguing with their more reasonable types and start working with each other as opposed to butting heads in this anti-religion climate we live in in the West. In Britain, I've always thought on the ground (in real life) serious Muslims and serious Christians get along well - the biggest allies of Muslims in the West are religious Christians in my view (not the liberal left).
This anti-Islam rhetoric which is amplified on the net is not doing serious-minded Christians any favours at all. This lady was using babyish terms like "dawahgandist" and "indimmpendent" - she's an outlier amongst real-on-the-ground Christians in the UK in my view, her behaviour reflects a more American fundamentalist, politically-oriented Christianity.
On top of this, through her polemics, the light is well and truly being shone on the Trinitarian view of Jesus who any critic of Prophet Muhammad would criticise with greater vigour and accuse Trinitarian Jesus of all sorts of crimes against men, women and children - if consistent. I wonder if this Christian lady will be consistent.
I'm facing the very real guilt of being partly responsible for a young Christian lady losing faith in Christianity and apparently having no faith in God any longer. She was allegedly on fire for Christianity and was rubbing shoulders with some big name Christian apologists in North America. She was a rising star in evangelical circles - a bit of a celebrity. She was doing the "Muhammad can't be a true Prophet because of polygamy and wars etc." spiel, basically the talking points many Christian polemicists run through, including the Christian lady we are addressed above. I did the, "hey what about the Bible (it allows polygamy) and what about the Bible on violence" response alongside correcting some of her misapprehensions about Islam. Essentially a watered-down version of what I've wrote above. She did email me to expose one of the "Christian" apologists she was rubbing shoulders with who I happened to be refuting and rebuking at the time. I just thought she had gained in maturity, I had no knowledge she left the faith until I was alerted to a social media status from a Christian apologist who had a bit of a crush on her. My advice to Christians is to think about consistency, don't blame people like me for simply pointing out Prophet Muhammad used less violence than Trinitarian Jesus when you try to dishonestly decontextualize his wars and make out the Prophet of Islam was all about violence and don't blame me when I start pointing out what Trinitarians believe about Jesus concerning the treatment of women when you try to engage in negative propaganda against Prophet Muhammad in trying to make him out to be anti-women. Start teaching Christians to be more honest and consistent when talking about Islam, that way you won't be hating me and looking at me with suspicion as a possible reason for your rising young preachers leaving Christianity.
Is Christian Persecution Complex Harming Muslim-Christian Dialogue?
Do Jay Smith's Pfander Centre for Apologetics Really Preach Trinitarian Views on Jesus?
Does Jesus use Violence and Force According to Trinitarian Christianity?
Synoptic Gospels and the Idea of a Pre-Existent Jesus?
Notes from Sean Finnegan's interview with Patrick Navas: Is the Trinity Biblical
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Tovia Singer: Does the New Testament Teach Jesus is God?
Why Islam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)