UK Imam's daughter gets death threats for apostasy

An imam's daughter who converted to Christianity after fleeing an arranged marriage is under police protection after receiving death threats from her family. Read our exclusive report on this at Times Online. The story of Hannah, aged 32, will be unveiled tomorrow at the launch of a new charity, Lapido Media, in London. The aim of the charity is to promote religious literacy in world affairs. I spoke to Hannah, who uses a pseudonym, earlier today. Her story is chilling, and provides a sobering reflection on what it is to be Muslim, or a Muslim convert to Christianity, in Britain today. Also today, as we report, Saga have released a poll showing how many over-50s are worried about the downgrading of Christianity in society, and MPs at Parliament have debated whether there is Christianophobia in the UK.

Hannah (not her real name), one of seven children of a Lancashire imam, has been in hiding on and off for 13 years, and during that time has received many death threats. She has moved house 45 times to escape detection by her family. Most recently, in June this year, one of her brothers sent her a text warning that he could not be responsible for his actions if she did not return to Islam. There is little chance of that. Hannah has met and fallen in love with another Christian, and hopes to marry him next summer. Then she will be able to change her name, and hopefully be free from persecution for her religious beliefs by her family.

She said: 'To begin with, my community did not think I was serious about my faith. It was only two years after I converted that the problems began. My family had arranged a marriage for me in Pakistan. I was 16 at the time. I did not want to get married. I left home and I had nowhere to go."

At the time she had an RE teacher, who offered her sanctuary in her home. She was a churchgoer, but tried to keep Hannah true to her own religion by not letting her go to church. Hannah, who admits to being rebellious by nature, was curious and insisted on going with her. 'From then on, I kept going to church. It was Christmas Eve 15 years ago that I decided to become a Christian.'

In recent years, the problems seemed to diminish and she began to seek reconciliation with her family. But in the summer things got worse, and she had to go into hiding again. A month ago, she received more death threats. She became quite frightened. She is now under police protection, and feels safer. She has nothing but praise for the British police, who have given her an emergency number to call if anything happens. She is confident of a swift response.

I asked her how representative this was of Islam in Britain. Among the many shocking findings of Denis MacEoin's thorough investigation into Britain's mosques for the Policy Exchange was the propagation of the statement: 'Whoever changes his religion, kill him.' Earlier, a survey by Policy Exchange found that 36 per cent of British Muslims aged 16-24 supported the death sentence for those who changed religion.

Hannah said: 'I think this [view] is representative of some Muslims. I know the Koran says you should kill apostates, anyone who goes away from Islam. So in some ways, my family are following the Koran, following Islam to the word. But I do not think that every Muslim would actually act on that. It is a difficult one for Muslims.'

Hannah is safe for now. She is employed as a multi-faith youth worker, and also trains church leaders on Islam.

Dr Nazir-Ali, who will be interviewed by Dominic Lawson in front of an invitation-only panel of lawyers, journalists, diplomats, church officials and authors, will speak out on behalf of Hannah and others like her at tomorrow's Lapido launch. He is expected to describe how sharia law in many countries, including parts of Britain, punishes apostasy with death and is viewed as treason by theocratic governments. Dr Nazir-Ali will call on society to offer greater protection, by increasing understanding of what makes people vulnerable. Born in Pakistan and with a Christian and Muslim background, Dr Nazir-Ali, who is patron of the new charity, knows of what he will speak. Lapido Media is funded by donations and trusts including the Jerusalem Trust and the Kirby Laing Foundation. The word ‘lapido’ means ‘to speak up for’ in the Acholi language of Northern Uganda. The charity has been named in honour of the courage of Acholi church leaders who campaigned for an end to a little-reported 20-year war there, involving the abduction of 25,000 children.

The picture at the top of the post has been taken from the US Copts website, which has an interesting post about the thousands of fatwas being issued daily, in Cairo and the world over. The 'fatwa chaos', the article suggests, is caused by the lack of a central authority in Islam. It gives the example of how Muslims can turn to television for guidance - unless they follow the fatwa issued in India which states that Muslims shouldn't watch TV. In these circumstances, and given the general uncertainty the world over that is inherent to modern life, the assaults on Islam from so many quarters, the war in Iraq, it is hardly surprising that Muslims turn to the one source of certainty that no fatwa could ever challenge, the Koran.

Rowan Williams will tomorrow, Thursday, be delivering an important speech on Islam and Christianity from the Building Bridges seminar he is attending in Singapore. Let us pray that he can grapple effectively with all of this, and help to point a way forward. Otherwise I fear for the future of Hannah, and indeed of us all.

(ps, in case you're wondering, Othello at the Donmar last night was simply stunning. As my husband predicted he wouldn't, our friend Charlie didn't share our view but clearly he's not a Star Wars fan. Alan had interviewed Ewan McGregor for the mag, hence the second-row seats behind Chris Smith in the stalls. There is a relevance to this post. One of the most powerful moments comes just before Desdemona dies, when she states that she is Christian. She is prepared to sacrifice herself to her heroic Muslim commander for love. As she died, many around us wept.)

Comments

[gabe]

I cannot believe the effrontery of this so called 'minister' who talks about 'shared values' between Christianity and Islam...Can anyone tell me how many cities did Jesus plunder and pillage, how much booty did he and his followers spilt amongst themselves, how many beheadings did he personally carry out, how many wives,concubines and pre-teens did he sexuallly exploit?

If Islam is following the examples of Muhammad, then true believers certainly can be accused of being 'terrorists' as Muhammad was the original terrorist.

Bukhari vol 3,Book46, No. 717

"Narrated Ibn Aun:

Prophet had suddenly attacked Bani Mustaliq without warning while they were heedless and their cattle were being watered at the places of water. Their fighting men were killed and their women and children were taken as captives; the Prophet got Juwairiya on that day.

Bukhari Vol. 5, Bk 59, No. 512

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet offered the Fajr Prayer near Khaibar when it was still dark and then said, "Allahu-Akbar! Khaibar is destroyed, for whenever we approach a (hostile) nation (to fight), then evil will be the morning for those who have been warned." Then the inhabitants of Khaibar came out running on the roads. The Prophet had their warriors killed, their offspring and woman taken as captives. Safiya was amongst the captives, She first came in the share of Dahya Alkali but later on she belonged to the Prophet .

"Sirat e Rasulullah" by Ishaq, pge 464

After 800-900 male adults of Bani Quraiza were beheaded in batches, and thrown in trenches dug in Madina, the apostle divided their property, wives and children as booty. . He took Rayhana d. Amr b. Khunafa for himself.

Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 260:
Narrated Ikrima:
Ali burnt some people alive (former muslims)., Prophet had said, 'If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.' "

[J Pearce]

"Broadbrush condemnation of Islam is as silly...nasty..."

One can criticise Christianity for the actions carried out in its name, but at least it is based on an altogether more idealised foundation. Mohammed is little more than a cartoon version of stereotypical male barbarity, with a few contradictory "wisdoms" thrown in for good measure.

Which rather explains the overall nature of the religious ideology which carries his name.

[Tom Allen]

Could I record my thanks to two people who emailed this link about the Policy Exchange Report and the quality of the research and the question which are now being raised by BBC Newsnight. I understand that the matter might be subject to legal action by the Policy Exchange:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/12/newsnight_response_to_policy_exchange_statement.html

The BBC seem to be raising more fundamental questions about the research than I had previously been aware of - but it is also a matter of intended legal action by the Policy Exchange so individuals should be cautious about making comment upon its accuracy or otherwise.

[Andrew Holden]

My problem with the tenor of many of the anti-Islamic posts is that I don't see how they help. I agree that there is much about Islam as it is practiced in many places that I do not like at all. I agree that, at its worst, it can be a nasty illiberal religion seeking to force its beliefs and its morality on the rest of us. Neverthless I don't see how angry, muslim bashing rants help us out - because all these do is confirm the worst that muslim extremists say about people in the west. So, how do I robustly oppose the worst excesses of Islam, yet at the same time acknowledge that some, indeed many, muslims in the UK, are gentle generous people who want to live quietly in a plural society and offer the privilege of tolerance back to the rest of us?

I am certain that ranting on about the excesses of other religions (quietly ignoring the faults of my own) is not going to encourage the quiet majority. So a question to the Kates of this blog - how do you forsee a positive engagement with Islam that serves to help build the kind of mutually tolerant society that helps us all?

[David Palmer]

I have just spent the past hour or two reading all 66 posts. What a fabulous discussion you got going Ruth!

I award Tom Allen points for persistence and for standing up well under Kate’s ferocious attack. I would have hated being up against her in a debate, but 12,000 miles keeps me safe. Kate you are magnificent! And I liked Babbling Brook’s brief but choice incursions.

I have spent a little time looking at “A Common Word between US and You” which Tom brought into play a while back, being an invitation from 138 Muslim scholars to all Heads of Churches: Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant to dialogue for the sake of world peace on the basis of shared belief, specifically belief in the one God, love of God and love of neighbour. It has been generally well received. I decided to have a look at it asking myself the question “how should we Christians read the document?

I suggest there are at least three ways to read “A Common Word”, and these ways may in part be determined by the intended audience, for not only are Christian leaders are in view but there is a Muslim audience as well, as well as the media and political leaders in the West especially.

The first way to read the document is to accept it at face value as a genuine straightforward call to dialogue for the purposes of easing tension and removing misunderstandings on the basis of shared convictions concerning God, love of God and love of neighbour.

Early Christian responses with the possible exception of the Vatican appear to accept this view of the document, though I haven’t come across any responses from the Orthodox Patriarchs (aren’t they gloriously old fashioned, patriarchy indeed, Biblical one might say – sorry Kate, I’m mostly with you).

The second way to read the “A Common Word” is to see it as a straightforward call to infidels to make submission to God, “He alone” as the letter expresses the matter. This will almost certainly be the way that Muslims will read the letter and the reason that this is so lies mainly in the texts cited from the Koran and the associated comment given in “A Common Word”.

Before explaining this, something else needs to be said. From “A Common Word”, but also Islamic texts in general, we know that the themes of loving God and neighbour are not prominent themes in Islam. There is both the issue of what “love” means in the Muslim texts as well as the issue of “who is my neighbour”. There is simply nothing comparable in the Islamic texts to the parable of the Good Samaritan. Try googling “God is love”, “God loves you” and compare with Allah is love”, “Allah loves you” – one set gives two million references and the other less than five thousand. If God’s love is central to the New Testament, then submission to Allah to central to Islamic texts.

This brings us to a variation of the second way of reading “A Common Word”, a third way suggested in the analysis of “A Common Word” that I’ve seen suggested by Patrick Sookhdeo of the Barnabas Fund. This is that if Christians will accept Islam’s concept of the unity of God (thus denying the basic doctrines of the Trinity and deity of Christ), Muslims will accept the Christian values of love for God and neighbour as central to Islam.

Well what can be said of texts cited in “A Common Word” concerning God?

The first thing that must be said is that the main message of “A Common Word” concerns the unity of God. The first section dealing with the love of God in Islam is dominated by the theme of God’s unity. Not only so, but through the quotation of specific Koranic texts represents a clear rejection of the Christian doctrines of the Trinity and the two fold nature of Christ as the God man.

The texts quoted in “A Common Word” are as follows:

1. ‘Say, He is God the One, God the eternal. He fathered no one nor was He fathered. No one is comparable to Him’ (K112:1-4)

2. Say, ‘People of the Book, let us arrive at a statement that is common to us all: we worship God alone, we ascribe no partner to Him, and none of us takes others besides God as lords.’ If they turn away, say, ‘Witness our devotion to Him.’ (K3:64)

3. Even so, there are some who choose to worship others besides God as rivals to Him, loving them with the love due to God… K2:165

4. Say, my prayers and sacrifice, my life and death are all for God, Lord of all the Worlds; He has no partner. (K6:162, 163)

So, whilst the invitation to “a common word between us and you” is couched in expansive and generous terms, it clearly places the Islamic doctrine of God front and centre as the basis for agreement between Muslims and Christians.

Indeed, in turning to the Bible for Christianity’s doctrine of God, the one and only text that the 138 Muslim scholars repeatedly quote is Jesus repetition of Deuteronomy 6:4,5 found in

“Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One!”. (Mark 12:28f)

No attempt is made to even acknowledge the rich terrain of the Biblical understanding of the one God.

So whilst “A Common Word” is presented as a bold new approach in interfaith dialogue, and that cannot be denied, it is also a classic example of Islamic mission (da’wa) - in this case addressed to the topmost echelons of the world wide Church of Jesus Christ.

I’m not opposed to church leaders entering into dialogue with Muslim leaders on the basis of “A Common Word” (would actually encourage it if limited goals like issues of apostasy and the treatment of minorities in Muslim countries were addressed), but they had better out of loyalty to Christ and His Church for their part place the Christian understanding of God and of the person of Jesus Christ “front and centre”, so that the Muslims know the Church’s leaders are not to fall over. They might even match da’wa with some evangelism! Wouldn’t that be good, and perhaps a novel experience for some of them.

The initial response from 300 Christian leaders sponsored by Yale University whilst it had its good points was pretty sickening with its grovelling apology for the Crusades and Iraq.

If the letter of the Muslim leaders is a genuine straightforward call to dialogue and it certainly carries with it no apologies to Christians, then a responding expression of apology and request for forgiveness by the Christians, whilst it may be “a christian thing” to do, speaks more of a grovelling dhimmi than of an equal conversation partner. Expressions of apology are apposite to historic Christian Muslim relations but should be mutual and follow dialogue rather than preface it by one partner to the other.

What is interesting about the whole thing is the way the secular including the atheists are dealt out of the thing – and quite right too. The future does not belong to them as much as they might wish otherwise.

Anyway go and see for yourselves: http://www.acommonword.com/.

(PS, if I may identify myself, I'm another cleric, but of the Reformed variety (Presbyterian).

[Kate]

Malcolm: Some Muslims are nasty people... Some Christians ... Some.... etc. AND "Broadbrush condemnation of Islam is as silly - and as nasty / bigotted ... "

Conflation is also silly and unintelligent; and in this context, nasty and bigoted. Indeed Malcolm, as you have set out on this thread to prove, liberals DO have their own little personal 'defects of character'; inverted racism being one. Aversion to facts, another.

DO try to make an interesting contribution rather than mind-boggling and smug trolling. DO stop attempts at risible, supercilious pc 'shaming' and try rational discourse.

I OBJECT to the IDEOLOGY of ISLAM because it is a close kin to fascism.

I wish no harm to any individual, of any faith or culture, wishing to make their way in peace.

However, the Islamic ideology of political and religious superiority - not to mention 'rights' of subjugation conferred by Allah via Mohammed - unites disparate ethnicities and cultures against all non-Muslims. That is its strength.

Such 'pie-in-the-sky' dishonesty is repugnant; bolstered as it is, by obscene wealth from feudal ME states content to maintain an ignorant and poverty-stricken populace, and intent on finishing the 'job' begun by Herr Hitler.

[Kate]

"Tabloids"? "Unaware"? See Telegraph interview: 10th Nov 2007 updated 12 Dec 2007.

"The bookshops are independent businesses," he [Bari] says. "We can't just go in and tell them what to sell … I will see ... if they have one book which looks like it is inciting hatred, do they have counter books on the same shelf?"

From the Muslim Education Centre in Totteridge Drive, High Wycombe, (where seven examples of hate literature were found).

"... Today's report lists extracts from a number of books on sale in some Muslim bookshops which they deem to be unacceptable. The plain fact is that if you deliberately go looking for controversial material then you will be guaranteed to find it.... tellingly, it is only Muslim bookshops and institutions that Policy Exchange calls to be regulated. British Muslims will not be intimidated by these futile and irresponsible recommendations.....

"... every statement that has been mentioned about the book has been referred out of context and nothing of any illegal nature is mentioned. It is merely a guide as to how one should live, and then it has been left up to the individual to accept or reject it. A book cannot be judged merely by a few quotes."

Interesting how the plural morphs into the singular as the statement progresses and NO responsibility for the dissemination of hate is accepted - by either Bari or this 'education' centre.

From the Guardian - Comment is Free by Sunny Hundal - a Sikh - a thoughtful piece on the erosion of British civil liberties:

"All the while, British Muslim leadership on these issues is seriously lacking. The MCB's Dr Abdul Bari and Inayat Bunglawala are great at worsening media relations, annoying other religious groups and generally worsening social cohesion. They CARE about the latter when Muslims are being demonised but NOT WHEN THE HATRED IS BEING SPEWED BY MUSLIMS. ...

The MCB can even be relied on to make excuses for the racism of extremist organisations like Hizb ut-Tahrir, thereby alienating the left... Ordinary British Muslims cannot do anything but watch their civil liberties erode further."

Re. Tom Allen's response to the concerns of JPearce and Tom Jackson i.e.:

"Where I live there are Muslims who are engaged in the political process, and the level of Muslim voting .. is higher than in other communities. Others are active in the judiciary including magistrates - it is a normal part of life.

I would quote Jason Burke (Observer journalist) in his preface to Martin Bright's investigative report,
'When Progressives Treat with Reactionaries':

"Can we separate the violent radicals who want to destroy and replace the modern state from
the political Islamists who want to appropriate it?

If so, how do we define those with whom we can work and those with whom any dialogue is not just fruitless but counter-productive, possibly dangerous and, arguably, profoundly immoral?"

The latter 'political Islamists' make no secret of their intent to 'appropriate' the British state. Members and sympathizers of the Muslim Brotherhood have (since 1960s), steadily established a wide and well-organized network of mosques, charities, and Islamic organizations in Britain and Europe.

In 1997, the Muslim Brotherhood founded the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB). Its founder, Kamal Tawfik Helbawy, was at that time the Muslim Brotherhood's European spokesman.

In the same year, Helbawy helped to found the Muslim Council for Britain (MCB), which was officially inaugurated on March 1, 1998.

In June 2005 MCB's then-secretary general Iqbal Sacranie was given a knighthood by Blair, even though he is a documented anti-Semite.

Scaranie had been vocal in supporting the fatwa on Salmon Rushdie (and book burning). Equally so, in his support of Sharia Law as it applies to homosexuals. In 1996, Sacranie supported plans to invite Osama bin Laden to the UK to lecture to Muslims, claiming the terrorist was an "Islamic Scholar". Sacranie also attended a memorial service for Sheikh Yassin, founder of the terror group Hamas. This service was held at London's Central Mosque in 2004.

In 2005, the MCB persuaded Blair to introduce a bill which would have outlawed any criticism of Islam; it was neutered by the Lords.

In June 2006, the unelected MCB persuaded the elected Blair government to abandon its 18-month campaign to outlaw forced marriage.

The government has been so manipulated by the claims of the "moderate" Muslims, that MI6 and the Foreign Office have courted the Muslim Brotherhood. The overtures to the Brotherhood made through a unit called the “Engaging With the Islamic World Group" (EWIG) which was founded in 2003.

EWIG, led by a 27-year old former radical called Mockbul Ali, used British taxpayers' money in 2004 to PAY Yusuf al-Qaradawi, spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, to attend a conference in TURKEY!!.

On July 14, 2005, one week after the London bombings, Mockbul Ali argued that a visa should again be given to Qaradawi - best known, I think from the fervent embrace he received from Ken Livingstone!

After the London suicide bombings of 7/705, the Blair government invited Tariq Ramadan, son of Said Ramadan and grandson of Hassan al-Banna (founder of the Muslim Brotherhood), to sit on a working committee. Ramadan is not a UK citizen, and according to Jean Charles Brissard, he has had meetings with known terrorists in his native Switzerland.

Still ...the UK government sponsors a website promoting "the radical middle way" of Islam, where Ramadan has his own page. Tariq Ramadan is still barred from entering to the US.

The Muslim Brotherhood's ultimate goal is not simply "to help Muslims be the best citizens they can be", but to extend Islamic law throughout Europe and elsewhere. They have a centralized network that spans nearly every European country.

With 'moderate' rhetoric exemplified by Tariq Ramadan, Abdul Bari, the obnoxious Cif 'Bungle' et al they have spear-headed (what they believe to be) a "charm offensive". Politicians across the political spectrum rush to engage.

While MB/MCB representatives speak about interfaith dialogue and integration on television, their mosques preach hate and warn worshippers about the evils of Western society.

One in four mosques or one quarter doesn't sound like a lot. It actually means 400 separate establishments throughout Britain. If the projected East London Mosque initially aimed to accommodate 40,000 worshippers at Friday prayers, it is not alarmist but practical to wonder - how many Muslims are actually resident in England? Fact is: we have NO IDEA.

Perhaps 30+ years of struggle/interaction with another type of political secret society colours my vision. Equally 30 years of an obligation or compulsion to 'inform' students is likely not the best foundation for the quick 'quip' on a blog.
.

[J Pearce]

Tom,

I would venture that you hit the nail on the head when you say "The same was perhaps the experience of Hindus who tend to have a less theocractic approach to political life anyway". Therein lies the essential problem for me - Islam is a spiritual AND political methodology (so is Christianity to some extent, witness the RCC, but the influence of Christian religious institutions on mainstream western political ideology has faded).

But Islam still pertains to overt political control. It is, I think, fundamentally an ideology of conquest, not of co-existence.

The wet liberal in me would like to think we can all get along and play nice. The pragmatic realist in me recognises that, although there are of course "moderate" Muslims who (presumably) share the same goals as most people in Britsh society (i.e to prosper and avoid conflict), it is the fascist bully boys of Islamic extremism who are forcing the agenda.

When there were protests against the Danish cartoons in London, we saw placards being waved that - if they had been waved by members of, say, the Countryside Alliance - would have resulted in immediate arrest and incarceration! Yet the police didn't touch the Muslim protestors. And where were these "moderates" you believe in so strongly? Why are they not making themselves heard in the MSM?

John Sentamu cuts up his collar and offers a high profile protest against Mugabe. Where are the equivalent protests by "moderate" Muslims against extremism? I see none.

And I begin to wonder - do moderate Muslims actually keep quiet, because they have sympathy with the "extremists"? Do they place their real faith in Islam rather than liberal democracy? This is the real problem for me - it appears absolutely obvious that Islam and liberal democracy are not only fundamentally incompatible, but actually opposed.

The example of 30's fascists is enlightening. They were tolerated, right up until the point when fascist Germany launched an attack on the British population. I can see a similar situation arising here - a few more high profile, high body count atrocities on the UK mainland and the Muslim communities are going to have a real problem on their hands. And they will have only their religion to blame.

[Gabe]

Having lived in a country with a sizeable Islamic population for the majority of my life, i can see that the first mistake that many leftist anglicans make is their ignorance that Islam is a religious/political ideology whose claim to power is not in the spiritual realm like Christianity but in the immediate present.Any demonstation of Islam lacking in worldly power is an affront to the core belief of a true 'believer' to be rectified by any means possible.

[Gabe]

Kate, I wonder if the likes of Tom Allen would be prepared to serve up platitudes of 'shared values' if they had grown up in a Islamic majority country like the rev.nazir ali, instead basing his opinions on his engagement with the safe margins of Islam in a third country like the UK...
Gabe,
Dublin

http://www.kidnappedchristiangirls.org/home
http://www.barnabasfund.org/

[Malcolm+]

Some Muslims are nasty people.

Of course, some Christians are nasty people.

And some atheists are nasty people.

Broadbrush condemnation of Islam is as silly - and as nasty / bigotted - as broadbrush condemnation of the adherents of virtually any given religious view.

[Babbling Brook]

"Muslims are here and here to stay."
Mike Homfray 11 Dec 2007

Tours, Lepanto, The Reconquista, Malta, The Gates of Vienna...

Are you a betting man, Mr Homfray?

[Tom Allen]

I have not questioned Dr MacEoin's research or credibility - I simply noted that others have questioned the research methods used (to ackowledge my awareness of it).

I gather that the main point of contention was whether in some instances the leaflets collected were found in/on the premises (which would suggest some failure/collusion on the part of the Mosque authorities) or outside the Mosque say after Friday prayers.

Such distinctions may be important to academic researchers - for me whether inside or outside they are indicative the nature of the real problem.

Dr MacEoin's own research team accepted that in relation to the East London mosque it was one book found in a bookshop of tenant and related to a scriptural (historic) text.

Dr Bari was challenged on a radio programme where he no prior knowledge of the extent or context of the allegation - when it was clear what actually was he said that it was not reasonable for the Mosque authorities to be held responsible for one book on a book shop of thousands. So he did not say that the Mosque authorities could not be held responsible for subversive literature as was reported in the Tabloids of the time - but which was challenged in The Independent, The Telegraph and I think The Times.

Elsewhere there were however unequivocally serious instances of wholly inappropriate contemporary literature (anti-semitic, anti gay anti-kaffhir) as is listed in the report.

It is these which demand the attention of Mosque authorities in the 25% of UK mosques where they were found and people of all faiths with a commitment to a free and democratic society living in the area Where material is illegal the attention of the police is essential.

Such informed distinctions are clearly part of rightful concerns of everyone interested facing the real threat from Islamist groups.

The problem is real and exists, and questions about the research of a particular research project, or the subsequent interpretations of it , should not detract people directly involved from facing up to the issues.

Tom

[Kate]

Mike Homfray: "Seems to me that your answer is to enforce them to give up their religion."

I am beginning to wonder if I should give up 'trying' to communicate in plain English.

You have attributed to me, an opinion I do not hold. I provided freely available information.

You offer no convincing evidence that any of it is ill-founded but, nonetheless, feel free to denounce the contribution as 'diabribe'.

The Latin, of course, is 'diatriba', i.e. learned discourse. I very much doubt that is your intended meaning; rather shades of 'bitter discourse' - from the Greek 'diatrībein'.

Apart from repetitive examples of your dislike of Irene Lancaster, why do you bother? All I have gleaned from your contributions is that you have an aversion to religion per se.

To the best of my understanding, you posed a question; I responded. At no point did I suggest Muslims should be required to give up their religion. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn my dear what they believe!

My 'aversion' to Islam (the religo/politico ideology) is intellectual and political. I have no interest Arabs ascending to Heaven on white chargers.

Indeed I am innocent M'Laud. I do not seek to impose my religious beliefs on the general populace. I do not work to erode the civil rights, or endanger the lives of my fellow citizens.

I DO claim my inalienable RIGHT to freedom of speech, belief and association. I am more than willing that the same rights be extended to others. THEY ALREADY ARE.

[Kate]

Tom Allen, in every instance, is intent on casting aspersions on the veracity of any contributor not conforming to his own partisan viewpoint:

The admonition to Ruth Gledhill: " ..the "Religious" correspondent might have been expected to know better..." is the pc equivalent of 'naming and shaming'. Shocking evidence of an agenda that would limit linguistic freedom. Note: it is not that the term Mohammedan is historically or linguistically incorrect but, that we SHOULD conform to Muslim revisionism.

As Nick Cohen points out: "Cultural relativism explains why a Labour government embraced the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islaami, and why liberal academics refused to confront Islamists on the campuses."

It explains too the "fawning response" (David Palmer) of clerics.

It explains on every level Tom Allen's attempts to convince readers of the 'superiority' of his own perceptions. In response to Tom Jackson, he comments: "The authority within Islam is very localised - to mosque and community level."

If this is so, why does Bari claim immunity in relation to hate-literature being "distributed in the East London mosque"?

Why was the notorious hook-handed Abu Hamza al-Masri, former Imam of Finsbury Park Mosque not removed by 'localised' authority until he came to the attention of the police?

Tom Allen chooses to ignore and/or excuse ALL Muslim behaviours that might cause anxiety in the majority community.

In the context of Dr Denis MacEoin's investigation 'The Hijacking of British Islam', Tom Allen is emphatic: "it was one book"?? Really?

Denis MacEoin: "There is A LOT of anti-Semitic material, some of it from SCHOOL TEXTBOOKS."
[My emphasis]

"The report is the most comprehensive academic survey of its kind ever produced in the UK and is based on a year-long investigation by several teams of specialist researchers into the availability of extremist literature and covers more than a hundred mosques and Islamic centres throughout the UK.

Among the reports findings are:

* Most of the extremist literature is published and distributed by agencies linked to the Saudi Arabian government.

* Some of the most high-profile and prestigious mosques in Britain are among the worst offenders; in many of them, it is openly available.

* Separatist literature is distributed at the East London Mosque - which is closely associated with the Muslim Council of Britain (which purports to be the main body representing British Muslims).

Pamphlets, books and leaflets obtained from mosques and Islamic centres contain an assortment of shocking statements including:

* "Jihad against a tyrant, oppressors, people of bid'ah [Muslim innovators], or wrongdoers. This type of jihad is best done through force if possible."

* "The Jews and the Christians are the enemies of the Muslim."

* "Whoever changes his religion, kill him."

Although some of the hate literature is in English, a proportion is written in Arabic. The translations commissioned by Policy Exchange have been independently verified.

MANY of the publications encourage British Muslims to segregate themselves from non-Muslims. So-called unbelievers are to be treated as second-class and avoided wherever possible.

There are also REPEATED CALLS FOR GAYS TO BE THROWN FROM MOUNTAINS AND TALL BUILDINGS AND FOR WOMEN TO BE SUBJUGATED.

Among the literature available are extracts from the notorious anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (published by the Saudi Ministry of Education), AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS PEDDLING BIZARRE CONSPIRACY THEORIES alleging that birth control is a plot against Muslims and Arabs, and that pornography is spread as part of a Jewish plot to corrupt Muslims.
[All emphasis mine]

From an elevated stance - Interfaith groups - Tom Allen calls into question the academic validity of the author of the report: "Dr Denis MacEoin, the Royal Literary Fund Fellow at Newcastle University who received his doctorate in Persian (Islamic) Studies from Cambridge University and has taught Arabic and Islamic Studies at Durham, Newcastle and Fez universities."

Speaking about the findings of the report, Anthony Browne, Director of Policy Exchange said, "It is clearly intolerable that hate literature is peddled at some British mosques. I am sure the majority of moderate Muslims will be as horrified as everyone else that pamphlets advocating jihad by force, hatred for insufficiently observant Muslims, Christians and Jews, and segregation have found their way into the UK's mosques."

Mr Browne went on to say, "The fact that the Saudi regime is producing extremist propaganda and targeting it at British Muslims must also be challenged by our own government. It is reassuring that the majority of mosques investigated do not propagate hate literature -but much work needs to be done to ensure that a large number of leading Islamic institutions remove this sectarianism from their midst."
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/
Publications.aspx?id=430

I am reminded, on reading Tom Allen's 'pleadings' of Oswald Mosley and the fascist clerics of 1930s Britain.

"As to Fascist Policy, there is nothing whatever inconsistent with Christian teaching; rather between Christianity and Fascism there is a harmony of ideals." (The Reverend E.C. Opie)

See Tom Allen: "Islam is no different from any other faith"!

OR"Along with Jews we are children of Abraham after all."

OR "The gap is therefore not between Muslim and Christian, but between first hand and stereotypes."

OR "I see first hand in real people Islamic values which are formed by the Prophet/Saviour Jesus Christ ..."

A few examples but sufficient proof of a 'tradition' of C of E clergy drawn to 'political religion' - devotional, evangelical, sacrificial and penitential ingredients which shared characteristics with earlier forms of religious belief.

As Mosley himself explained in 1933, 'Fascism comes to politics with the force of a new religion, and draws from its adherents a spirit of sacrifice and self-abnegation in the cause, the force of which triumphs over all material things'.

'The creed we serve', said another British fascist, 'teaches us that struggle is ennobling and that its action on the soul of man imparts a sacramental strength'.

Another likened modern fascism's 'raw and ruthless' urge towards revolution to the then new creed of Islam 'which ran like fire through the heterogeneous communities of the Byzantine world' during the seventh century. According to this spin on history, the new Islamic faith cut decisively through 'the fictions and the fancies of an older world' because it had, like fascism, 'revolutionary economic bases, a physical fire and a spiritual urge towards creative action'.
(Ironically!! W.E.D. Allen, "The Fascist Idea in Britain", The Quarterly Review, 261 (1933), p.224)

See: 'On the Side of Christ': Fascist Clerics in 1930s Britain - Thomas Linehan, Brunel University, Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Volume 8, Issue 2 June 2007 , pages 287 - 301.

[Mike Homfray]

Kate ; try answering the question instead of providing another diatribe. I probably have little more sympathy with Islam than you, but that's not the issue. I feel much the same about Christianity as well these days.

Incidentally, the religious hatred legislation has largely been used against Muslims, so you are certainly wrong there. The rest of your posts are simply rants which do not begin to address what you would actually like to do with the British Muslim Community. Seems to me that your answer is to enforce them to give up their religion.

OK. AS long as you are prepared to do the same. A secular society without religion may well be an improvement. But that includes your religion too.

[Tom Allen]

"At the same time: "Fewer than half of Britain's 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency".
(Telegraph news article 30/9/2007)

How does this translate? Why are these communities so incapable of work? Literacy? Segregation? Who knows. Doubtless Tom Allen will retort by blaming attitudes of British Society. He will also ignore the fact that:

These high levels of unemployment must mean that Muslims depend on state benefits to facilitate a huge birth rate. Who pays for these benefits?"

-----------------------------------

Could I invite readers to have a look at the "facts"

The Telegraph article was published the day before The C4 Dispatches programme which was based upon research done by IPPR which provides some answers to the questions see in the download document here:

http://www.ippr.org/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=563

The research writes:

"It is important to note at the outset what this report does and does not do. The main section of
the report looks solely at immigrants defined as people living in the UK who were born outside
the UK. It is important to note that this analysis therefore only looks at immigrants themselves
(that is people who moved to the UK)."

So it is NOT talking about established Muslim communities.

It points out that the the fact that each of the communities has high levels of "inactivity and identifies the reasons - so the low levels of employment do not mean neccessarly mean dependence on benefit.

The Somali figures are particularly instructive - why are only 19% employed - because 87% of Somali immigrants are refugees or asylum seekers who are not allowed to work (ONS 2006)

Finally in section 6 it sets out to assess the broader communities (ie all people of Pakistani origin etc)

It points out in Table 6.2 P34 that the numbers of immigrants who are unemployed between 95/96 and 06/07 in the 4 groups mentioned drop in every case and the numbers employed increase at a greater rate than all other groups.

In Table 5.3 Turkish 35% and Pakistani 33% immigrants head the table for the percentage of self-employed workers - would not Norman Tebbits Dad would be proud of them.

So where are the high levels of dependency - child benefit which the report explains in terms of the age profile and the historic pattern of immigrants having higher birth rates, and in sickness benefit in the much older Pakistani communities.

There are also explanations of why some communities find it harder to break into the world of work.

I don't see any attempt to blame British society which is welcome.

Perhaps you will read the rest and come to your own conclusions. I found it interesting having watched the programme in November. As the report says:

"Finally, we hope this report will help readers to understand some of the real opportunities and
challenges that immigration presents. It is an attempt to present some of the diversity in
socio-economic outcomes among immigrant communities and help policymakers and others
understand where there is real need for better interventions; it is not an attempt to cast
immigrant communities in a bad or good light."

Tom

[Gabe]

Kate, thanks for your informed commentary which recognizes that there is an supremacist ideology in Britain's midst which will not rest till the religious/political ideology gains supremacy over the infidels that is rightfully theirs by Allah's decree

[Tom Allen]

While noting in passing that the research methods involved have been challenged, readers might be interested in reading The Times account of Dr MacEoin's research:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2767252.ece

which clearly states that such literature was found in 25% of mosques which they found encouraging.

The East London Mosque is a mainstream mosque actively battling with issues of extremism see their website and draw your own conclusions:

http://www.eastlondonmosque.org.uk/

You will see several links refuting Ed Husain's assertions and their response to The Times article. Ed Husain acknowledges that it was the failure of the moderates at the mosque to tackle the extremist sub-groups around the mosque in the mid -90s which led him into extremist groups.

Dr MacEoin's research team gave details of what literature was found at the East London mosque : it was one book containing "holy text" record in the book shop of a tenant - perhaps a Judaeo/Christian equivalent would be to suggest that references such as Numbers 31:1-54 (among many others) to be found in the Bible is indicative of what Jews or Christian believe today?

As for Jamaat-i-Islami (frequently misspelt on right-wing websites which perhaps a bit of give-away) it is a more of political rather than a theological force. In the UK even Andrew Norfolk (not known for his "liberal" views of Islam) noted it as relatively minor element of British Islam religiously in his article for the Times:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2403001.ece

He correctly notes the power of Saudi money which I wholly recognise - there has been debate and contension in local mosques about taking such money (way back into the 1970s)and the religous and political associations have changed over that period. Some mosques now only accept known UK funding as they become more established - but in terms of social and educational grants the big pot of " Lottery Funding" is self-excluding for obvious reasons.

Readers might also wish to read some of the contemporary thought of Jamaat-i-Islami

http://www.jamaat.org/islam/HumanRightsPolitical.html

Tom

[David Palmer]

Ruth,

Any chance of finding a peg to do a piece on the A Common Word between Us and You?

One, might be an interview with Patrick Soohkdeo who last week put out a hard hitting analysis of what the Islamic scholars wrote or ask John Stott why he signed the somewhat fawning response coordinated from Yale (and subsequently signed by an impressive array of liberals and evangelicals alike), which nevertheless wasn't a complete sell out by any means.

(good idea I'll have a look, rg)

[Kate]

Tom Allen writes, from a specifically 'Interfaith' perspective, as though there is MASSIVE change taking place in Muslim communities in the UK.

Not so; to accept this tunnel-vision analysis, we must deny the validity of what we read, hear and see with our own eyes.

"Imams chosen from home communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh were ill-equipped [but]
... now changing with British-born Muslims
being chosen." (Tom Allen)

Indeed. In the same way as "British-born Muslims" were "chosen" (or CHOSE) to blow up their fellow citizens on 7/7; and the plethora of "British-born Muslim" plots subsequently uncovered.

Cf. Dr Denis MacEoin - Policy Exchange report dealing with extremist Muslim literature in mainstream British mosques.

"The material we found is separatist and hate-centred. Jews, Christians, and even lax Muslims are to be treated with contempt, and apostates can, in theory, be put to death. The same applies to homosexuals and adulterers/adulteresses.

Obeying British law can make someone an apostate. Women are to be treated as distinctly inferior to men, should be kept in their homes, and must restrict themselves to activities for which they are considered suited: housekeeping, childbearing and rearing. There is a lot of anti-Semitic material, some of it from school textbooks." Denis MacEoin is, of course, fluent in Arabic!

This literature is freely available in Muslim bookshops all over Britain.

In response, Dr Bari of the Muslim Council of Britain, argued that Muslims cannot control the literature sold in mosques! Extraordinary.

The same Bari in a Telegraph interview: "If demonisation continues, then Britain will have to deal with two million Muslim terrorists — 700,000 of them in London," he said. "If you attack a whole community, it becomes despondent and aggressive."

Perhaps one of the most relevant examples of inverted 'victimisation' (and in line with Tom Allen's thesis) ever published. What evidence exists for the claim that the majority community has ever "attacked" Muslims - even after the horror of 7/7?

In contrast, an 'official' study published by the Office for National Statistics shows the Pakistani rate of 4.7 children per mother is almost THREE TIMES HIGHER than the British rate of 1.7.

These are the people who depend for guidance on Imams "ill-equipped to relate to the issues faced by young people in British society or to respond to the appeal of this arab focused agenda" (Tom Allen).

In the same study: "Fertility rates are at levels not seen for 25 years, with the highest found among Pakistani, Indian or Bangladeshi-born mothers."

At the same time: "Fewer than half of Britain's 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency".
(Telegraph news article 30/9/2007)

How does this translate? Why are these communities so incapable of work? Literacy? Segregation? Who knows. Doubtless Tom Allen will retort by blaming attitudes of British Society. He will also ignore the fact that:

These high levels of unemployment must mean that Muslims depend on state benefits to facilitate a huge birth rate. Who pays for these benefits?

And, the 'one in five babies born to foreign-born mothers' does not include immigrant mothers who were born in Britain. SO, the figures, whilst cause for concern, do not give a clear picture of Muslim demographics.

In response to the practical concerns of JPearce and Tom Jackson, Tom Allen carefully ignores statistics and simultaneously plays down the power of Arab money.

Saudi Whahabbism is a virus; it is funding the enormous East London Mosque. In his book 'The Islamist', Ed Husain describes how government, liberals and leftists have supported and enabled this movement.

He joined a mosque in the East End of London dominated by Jamaat-i-Islaami, the south Asian fellow organization of the Muslim Brotherhood. They immersed him in the totalitarian thought of Jamaat's founder Abul Ala Mawdudi, and of Sayyid Qutb, the Muslim Brotherhood's theorist of total jihad against a world sunk in paganism.

He moved on to the Hizb-ut-Tahrir, which works towards a theocratic empire. He organized students in London colleges and found it easy to intimidate academics. 'Our magnetism and vitality drew people to us,' .... 'A visible Muslim presence everywhere, women veiled, ubiquitous posters of Islam and the student population, almost without exception, under our control.'

Here is Hassan Butt: "how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror ....was Western foreign policy. By blaming the government, [they] did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology...... There is no rendering unto Caesar in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same."

Are the above not better qualified, more experienced, in their analysis of Islam in today's Britain than any outsider, no matter how well-integrated he believes himself?

[Tom Allen]

I never said that people couldn't use the term "Mohammedan" - in a free society we are free to do that as several contributers have proved. - What I wrote in response to a previous post which used the term in the heading and provided a link to a polemical site was specifically addressed to Ruth Gledhill

"Mohammedism is NOT used much these days because it is regarded as an disappointing and inaccurate term by many Muslims implying that they worship Mohammed which clearly they don't - the offence might well be felt by those who have roundly challenged the teddy bear incident, and because they might have reasonable hoped that the "Religious" correspondent might have been expected to know better, particularly with the unfortunate link you have provided with the word in the text paragraph. I would have to say I share their sense of disappointment and the nearest equivalent is to ask whether you would consider it appropriate to call Roman Catholics "Papists"?
(point taken Tom, I'll remove the link and change the title, ruth.)

The more general point is that if we want to write/speak about Muslims in a way that Muslims would understand and respond to (ie not take offence or simply switch off)then the use of the term would be both inaccurate and unhelpful.

If such relationships and dialogue are not important then it doesn't matter and anyone should feel free to continue to use the term - and for Muslims to respond as they wish - both within the law of the land.

Tom

[Tom Jackson]

"There is a clear choice with "British" Islam challenging external forces within the faith".

There is no such thing as "British" Islam. There is a desire amongst many Muslims not to 'rock the boat' in terms of their role in our society, their prosperity and way of life that they have established and this does mean down-playing the more extremist elements of their faith. This could explain why you observe local Imam expelling youngsters who show open support for terrorism.

There is considerable support and finance from the oil-rich Islamic countries throughout the Western world just to ensure that Islamic teaching and beliefs are not watered-down by Muslim communities in countries such as the UK. These communities already maintain a strong identification with the country of their origin, a major part of which involves a reliance and adherence to their faith - something that Christian leaders look on with astonishment and a certain degree of envy.

To suggest that there is an effective and influential degree of local autonomy for mosques and Islamic establishments for teaching is again, I believe, naive. Even a simplistic view of Islam shows a cohesive and binding element to the faith which reaches across communities and national boundaries.

And this bond is strengthened by the belief that we in the West are a threat, by a common objective to remove Israel from the area (an objective supported by even the least aggressive of Muslims) and the underlying belief that the world should become totally Islamic, ruled by Sharia Law and a devotion to The Prophet.

Canadians are today questioning the impact of Islam on their culture as they learn of the tragic death of a teenage Muslim girl in Ontario allegedly at the hands of her traditionally minded father after she attempted to embrace a normal Western life. You can take the man out of an Islamic State but you can't take the Islamic state out of the man.

When people gather together as a community, be it a group of friends sharing a house or a nation such as the UK, if ever it comes to a time when you need to stand shoulder to shoulder to achieve a common objective or meet a common threat (and that threat could be invading armies from across the Channel as in the Second Word War, terrorists preparing attacks in a foreign country or fanatics wanting to murder and maim on our transport system), the community needs to be strong and united.

It has already been demonstrated that in the future, if the threat is from those people who follow The Prophet Muhammad, it is questionable if our so-called 'multicultural' society will have this strength and unity.

[Tom Allen]

Tom
I would share your questions with the exception of:

"If called upon by the fundamentalist majority that administer and control the Islamic faith throughout the world"

I am less certain that there is a fundamentalist majority and certainly question that if there is that they "control" the Islamic faith throughout the world.

The authority within Islam is very localised - to mosque and community level.

So while there may be international theological schools - there only become influential when localised.

So for example the Whahabbi (a strongly Arabic tradition) has been in existence for centuries - it became influential in the UK by funding SOME local mosques, and by local cells focused on young people and students.

The response of local Imams to youngsters interest was often not to challenge them but to expel them - playing into their extremists hands and severing links with mainstream UK Islam.

Imams chosen from home communities in Pakistan and Bangladesh were ill-equipped to relate to the issues faced by young people in British society or to respond to the appeal of this arab focused agenda - some had limited English - few had experience of the English education system. They face two cultural voids. But the choice of Imam is now changing with British-born Muslims
being chosen.

It was interesting today on Radio 4 to hear young British people with Yemeni backgrounds saying how they felt "home" is in the UK (they feel welcomed, educated and supported)- I guess the answer to the question of where young Muslim allegiance lies will be in the presence or absence of similar feelings - but they would not need to dissociate themselves from their "faith" to do that. There is a clear choice with "British" Islam challenging external forces within the faith.

Tom

[Kate]

Mike Homfray: "But what do you want to see? Muslims are here and here to stay."

Perhaps we could start with 'justice being seen to be done' i.e. equality for ALL people under law.

At this point Muslims are not only "here" but expert (with the connivance of establishment) at manipulating the norms of a democratic society to impose specifically Islamic restrictions on the majority.

The right of public protest is enshrined in British law, but Muslims do not adhere to peaceful protest: wild-eyed zealots scream threats, carry placards 'death to all who insult Islam', 'another 7/7 on its way', 'behead the Pope', 'damn your freedom', 'Kill the Queen', and so on and on ..... ad infinitum ... ad nauseam.

Muslims don't get arrested on the spot for public disorder and hate-speech. Why?

Animal rights protesters, BNP members, evangelicals handing out leaflets, young West Indian men, all these and more get arrested: in every instance that is not a Muslim gathering, the police just wade in! WHY are Muslims different?

What is the distinction made between offensive, hate-inducing Muslim behaviour and the behaviour of any other group. Interestingly, the 'other' groups are more likely to be composed of an 'ethnic' and religious and coloured or political mix, none of whom pose any threat to civil liberties.

Why did the WMP ignore subversive, hate-filled Imams in favour of indicting Channel Four?

Why are certain Muslims permitted to preach hatred whilst the majority community is subjected to absurd and insulting censorship? The language of all non-Muslims in these islands is monitored: it is forbidden to joke, draw a picture or criticise Mohammed; worse, we are not permitted to criticise the pernicious ideology which underpins all Muslim offence.

We must not even use the historical term Mohammedan (Tom Allen) in case we 'hurt' or 'insult' Muslims. It is absurd if it were not so reproductive of totalitarianism.

The above is only a fraction, of examples of discrimination practised by government, civil servants and police against the majority of British citizens and in favour of Muslims.

If there is a clear distinction between Church and State, why are hard-pressed nurses in England being instructed to turn Muslim beds towards Mecca five times daily.

Why is there no special exception made for the religious needs of devout Catholics and Anglicans, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists or any other faith practice. Why?

How many workers in British society are permitted take breaks five times a day to indulge their personal habits? In a secular society, no religion should be free to impose the particularity of its rituals on others.

Everything listed above is but the tip of the iceberg. Totalitarianism is cunning, baffling and powerful but the methodology is identical across history and the world.

Brainwashing of the ignorant and uninformed; identification of a scapegoat - Israel and/or British foreign policy; segregation of 'believers' from alternative ways of being; covert and gradual erosion of all freedoms 'offensive' to the diktats of an illiterate Arab. An old and successful pattern.

Why do the dhimmi in Britain today bow their heads in amnesia whilst promoting acceptance of fascism over the freedoms of enlightenment?

[Tom Allen]

J Pearce

Thanks for the source whose actual content is interesting:

it was a survey of 962 people taken during February 2006 which was one of the most tense times in Muslim communities with the Prophet Cartoon stuff raging - and the question referred to Sharia law in " part of the country where there was a Muslim majority" - the reaction of the politicians in the Telegraph article is surely instructive - is it something like " all sides must work hard to break down this divide which is really worrying".

Thinking back to how things were at that time I surprised that the percentage is not higher - generally it is the obvious negative response in an otherwise encouraging reaction.

To the democracy argument I think my two contributions since indicate that it is possible - at a local level, and the Common Good declaration.

There is no historical precedent becuase of democracy's youth.

Neverthelss historically Islam has adapted to the surrounding socio-political context, so there is perhaps some hope that it will continue to do so in democratic countries - though not without building understanding and trust across communities. The Common Good declaration (historic in the scope of the Muslim representation)

Why is it different from Sikh and Hindu communities - I have never lived in an area with a strong Sikh presence so it is hard to comment from experience - but what I have read of "Sikh" experience is that many first generation immigrants came with a much higher education or business experience ( especially from East Africa) than the predominately rural Muslim communities and established themselves quickly.

Todder and Burgess in there seminal work on Ealing and Southall also suggest that Sikhs came from multi-racial societies in the "home" country and were use to integrating - whereas Muslim immigrants tended to come from a mono-cultural "home" background.

The same was perhaps the experience of Hindus who tend to have a less theocractic approach to political life anyway.

There also seems to be a much greater cohesiveness with these respective faith groups, than Muslim groups who are much more diverse - the 7 local months here for example are quite distinctive and until recently I think it is true to say that some only met each other in the multi-faith forum.

Perhaps as a consequence Sikh and Hindu communities do not feel so isolated from the mainstream host communities.

Multi-cultural and multi-religious Birmingham and London East End, feel very different from the mill-town communities of Yorkshire and Lancashire which tend to be made up of quite distinct geographic communities.

Would this suggest that rather than painting a somewhat unfavourable comparision it would indicate that such positive relationships are possible - unless you think that being "Islamic" would intrinsically prevent this which some contributers to this post are suggesting.

How would you respond to such thoughts from your experience?

Tom

[Tom Jackson]

"Some might even argue that Muslims are engaging in the political process as a means to an end ... ".

Full of admiration for this contribution, J Pearce. I don't honestly believe that the average Muslim in the UK goes around with a Machiavellian approach to the way he leads his life but, that is not the point!

If called upon by the fundamentalist majority that administer and control the Islamic faith throughout the world, what will the average UK Muslim do? Will he allow any allegiance to the UK and our way of life to influence his response - and thereby, disassociate himself from his faith - or will he find the pressure to great, his roots in the country of his origin too deep and his belief and upbringing in the teaching of the Koran and associated interpretations too overwhelming?

It is entirely believable that many of the local and national policies of government are disproportionately influenced by those of the Islamic faith because they are represented extensively on local councils and in the general political life of this country. This is particularly evident where a large percentage of a local population is Muslim.

I certainly do not dismiss this view as paranoia and suggest Ken Livingstone as someone who recognises the impact that Muslim voters have, for example, in London and adapts his approach accordingly.

The fiasco where immigration and the provision of jobs for those coming from other countries - 1,100,000 under this Labour government - is concerned, only highlights the potential for people not born in this country to exert a considerable impact on the stability and manner in which we live our lives in this country.

[Kate]

"If you are a Christian and someone thought ...
informed experience of Christianity".

Relevance (?) to the existing debate or 'anything' ... other than Tom Allen's determined and exclusive casuistry?

[Tom Allen]

One of the challenges faced by inter-faith dialogue between The Great Faiths is how Muslims are represented, since their faith is instinctively based upon mosques and the tradition of the scholar or Iman.

"A Common Word" is an internationally historic declaration from a represenatative Muslim grouping addressed to the Christian Churches, details are here:

http://www.acommonword.com/index.php?lang=en&page=option1

and you can see in the right hand tags the responses from Christian leaders, and from Jewish leaders in Israel. There has been a range of responses from Church leaders from Church leaders welcoming this initiative from Muslims.

Locally in Yorkshire the Church leaders have responded as follows:

http://www.bradford.anglican.org/news/story.php?PageID=0712109d5f1

Tom

[J Pearce]

Tom,

Stats for you (ok, it’s the Torygraph 2006, but they are quoting ICM)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/02/19/nsharia19.xml

"Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today. The ICM opinion poll also indicates that a fifth have sympathy with the "feelings and motives" of the suicide bombers who attacked London last July 7, killing 52 people, although 99 per cent thought the bombers were wrong to carry out the atrocity."

I have to put the question, echoing Kates sentiments, why is it that we never hear about alienated Hindu or Sikh youth? Why have they apparently integrated into this country's indigenous culture more harmoniously? Why do they not feel the need to express their feelings and motives by murderous means?

There is a huge gulf between boredom and alienation in the young and the direct confrontation against our society and culture, as voiced by Muslims. For generations, dissafected youth have railed against societal conformity, but none have ever felt the need to commit mass murder to make their point.

And by and large, the disaffected young grow up and integrate into wider society. Can you say the same about Muslims? Are they going to accept subsuming their religious imperatives for greater societal harmony?

I notice you have avoided my question, as to whether Islam and western secular democracy are compatible. Saying that Muslims are engaged in local political processes is NOT the same as dealing with the wider question of whether followers of Islam can peacefully co-exist with secular democratic values.

Some might even argue that Muslims are engaging in the political process as a means to an end - to gain local political control, in order to disseminate Islamic values. Is this not one of the tactics advocted by the Koran, as a means to convert (or rather, subjugate) the world to Islamic values?

You might dismiss this as paranoia, but then, only a few years ago, people would have been dismissed as "paranoid" if they had predicted that Muslims would murder innocent commuters in London and fly planes into New York skyscrapers.

[Mike Homfray]

I'm, still not sure what those here who have a particular dislike for Islam are suggesting. I understand where J Pearce is coming from and have some sympathy, although I think that the situation within the British Muslim community is more one of polarisation than anything else. Some young Muslims have become more Western, others fallen back on fundamentalism - and its often the latter who feel the greatest sense of alienation, hence that choice

But what do you want to see? Muslims are here and here to stay. Hostility to their religion won't change that fact.

[Tom Allen]

If you are a Christian and someone thought they understood the Christian faith from their studies of the Bible and Christian sermon notes predominately written by say a Hindu and with no contact or experience of a local Church or two and not having heard any of the contempoary theological writing, would you accept that they had arrived at an informed experience of Christianity?

Somewhat relieved to know that the real Tom Allen is going to be able to post in future without appearences from Irene Lancaster's fantasy version - I wonder how long this commitment from Irene will last?

[Kate]

Some thoughts:

How to ingratiate oneself with a foreign ideology by simultaneously engaging in casuistry, fallacious argument, dissimulation and duplicity.

Tom Allen's first post here, provoked a sense of 'unease' similar, to his efforts to censor Ruth on another thread re. the epithet Mohammedan.

Subsequent exchange of views has clarified that uneasiness. EXCLUSIVITY! Tom is a casuist, seeking to confound the 'inferior' with a specious morality.

The logical fallacy (false premise) in his argument is disguised by an air (or tone) which implies superior exegesis of Christian theology.

Membership of a select club populated by the 'few' who enjoy intimacy with Muslims and Muslim theology is flaunted. It is a club from which 99.99% of the majority population are excluded - primarily by Muslim self-segregation.

I have spoken above of colonial guilt and inverted racism; Tom's 'club' is in the category of inverted 'colonialism'. It is an 'old boys' combination of new 'colonisers' and an elite few ... natives. It is unlikely that Jews will be admitted of course BUT there may well be 'associate' women members. Shades of the Raj methinks!

For this reason, privileged exclusivity, Tom is dismissive of, and condescending towards, those who have taken time to 'learn'; to examine and intelligently analyse, what is essentially, an alien political/religious ideology.

Such 'dabblers' in learning can be patronised because, only those fluent in Arabic may properly comprehend and "experience Islam as a living faith". Or indeed know and relate intimately to "local Muslim scholars"!

Those privileged to enjoy such exclusivity will never descend to the level of honest dialogue with 'Everyman'. Ergo Tom Allen NEVER answers direct questions but seeks to denigrate the quester by misrepresentation and falsification of the original text. Interestingly, Tom AVOIDS those who patently know a great deal about the Koran in English and Arabic and who would willing engage in exegesis, for example - 'babbling brook'.

Instead, Tom Allen posits a casuistry which applies general Christian ethics to a specific and (from screeds historical/sociological evidence) antithetical ideology.

In his role of 'useful idiot' (apologists for Stalin) or dhimmi, he argues that British society must respect and accommodate Muslim beliefs. He implies, from his 'insider' knowledge, that there will then be no civil unrest, no suicide bombing, no demands for implementation of Sharia Law! Why, one wonders, are western liberals so addicted to the sense of noblesse oblige? It is simply 'Orientalism' (Edward Said) in a different guise.

Further, if we (the great uneducated British public) would just stop the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; resolve the conflicts in Chechnya, Palestine, Kashmir, Nigeria, Southern Thailand, the southern Philippines, East Timor, et al and, find a 'solution' to the 'problem' of Israel, all will be well!

In line with the above, Tom Allen agrees with Muslim radicals who blame British society for the alienation of Muslim youth. In so doing, he absolves the Muslim community of all responsibility.

Hidebound in the minutia of theological research (in Arabic!!), Tom denies that the conflict, between Muslims (world-wide) and western enlightenment thought (modernity), is rooted in Islamic political theology; a 'theology' SO political that it promises Muslims they are destined to rule the world.

From this lofty (if narrow) theological perspective, the work of Existentialist philosophers. "Whoever has learnt to be anxious in the right way has learnt the ultimate”. (Kierkegaard 1844: 155) is not only denied but contradicted.

Anxiety has to be distinguished from fear. The former is a generalized feeling of 'Unheimlichkeit' (Heidegger 1927), of not being at ease in one's world; the latter has a concrete objective source.

Muslim-related events of recent years (world-wide) certainly induced a general sense of 'Unheimlichkeit' in the British public; an unease that has turned to 'fear' as people perceive a 'threat' to their accustomed way of life.

Heidegger (1927) in this context spoke of our 'thrownness'. He said that we are always thrown into a world that is already there to start with and into which we simply get inserted. It is important to recognize the factual situations. We are (thrown into) and become part of a certain culture, a certain environment with a particular climate and history, a certain society and a specific situation.

It is only within the 'givens' of that situation that we can exercise our own choices. Sartre (1943) called this our 'facticity' and recognized that we can never release ourselves from it; even though we can choose our position in relation to it.

This analysis applies to all ethnicities, all human social groupings; to ignore it, is to ignore a consistently proven reality of human existence.

The concept of 'multiculturalism' incorporates a cultural, moral and religious 'relativism'. It ignores the psychological truths implicit in philosophical thought. It insists that ALL cultural mores and values are of equal worth.

Theoretically, 'very nice'; but a lie. When an established democratic society with common values, history, environment, civic duties and legal obligations, perceives itself 'invaded'; when people are intimidated, blown up or even generally discommoded, by a vocally resentful, alienated, highly visible, minority grouping, resentment will be reciprocated.

Tom Allen's exclusive 'club' is intent on theological synthesis which necessarily involves promotion of Muslim values as relative (equal) to those of the majority.

The arrogance of this agenda is equalled only by ignorance of human psychology. The angst/fear of the general populace is heightened by apologist exposition of Muslim victimisation; of transference of responsibility onto an innocent majority.

My initial proposition of a cultural, religious and moral 'void' holds. We will not make any serious progress in opening the culturally autarkic Arab and Islamic worlds or minds to enlightenment thinking, given a history of violent and time-tested defence mechanisms.

Anglicans of this ilk, apologists and appeasers, who argue equivalence between an ideology initiated by a violent and self-obsessed Arab land-grabber and the ideal exemplified by Our Lord Jesus, betray the very foundations of our Faith.

Ruth has a thread on the pain of schism. That pain is a reality for many Irish Anglicans. I am dedicated to my Church with emotional and intellectual intensity. It is my 'dappled beauty'.

The Irish communion, perhaps because of our recent experiences, have not been torn apart by the issue of homosexuality. We pray for unity. We worship, with love and gratitude, our Saviour Lord, Jesus Christ, the Jew.

As immigrants multiply in Ireland, there have been numerous debates on 'How can we avoid the errors of Britain and Europe'. I have never encountered an Irish Anglican who would be in agreement with Tom Allen’s theological pleading for religious relativism.

Hopefully his recommendation of my writing and blog will not deter the open minded of Ruth's readers from looking at Richard Sudworth's blog - a creative example of inter-faith dialogue see:

http://www.distinctlywelcoming.com/

he comes from the same school of inter-faith work namely the ministry of the Church Mission Society which has been in forefront of mission and meeting with Muslim people for many centuries - work that now continues among British Muslims.

More "informed" understanding that comes from contact and conversation with real people who are Muslims, but shares with me a concern not to avoid the real issues about Islam nor to deny the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.

He recommends Ruth's blog as well.

Tom

[Mike Homfray]

The usual nonsense from Irene. Stephen Sizer is absolutely right in his views on Israel if nothing else!

Absolute nonsense to slur Manchester City Council, too - there has never been a ban on mentioning the word 'Israel'. Roll on the day when there is a ban on their illegal settlements, though.

[Irene Lancaster]

Tom seems to be having an awful lot of problems with the women on this blog. I wonder why.

As for what he is citing as fact, I would be very wary of third or fourth-hand info if I were you. Much better to have been present on an occasion than to have heard about it from somewhere else.

In any case, do we really care what Tom Allen thinks? Who is he, for goodness sake.

He's been incredibly rude to both Kate and me in a quite male chauvinist condescending way and I for one don't intend to carry on refuting his misrepresentations any longer.

[Tom Allen]

J Pearce
I would hesitate to speak for "Islam" for it is not a monolith;

With regard to young people where such a gulf exists (whatever the faith or community background) it is everyone's "problem" if it causes us to loose faith in the ability to live together.

Where I live there are Muslims who are engaged in the political process, and the level of Muslim voting in my local constituency is higher than in other communities. Others are active in the judiciary including magistrates - it is a normal part of life.

This would be repeated across Britain at both local and national level and increasingly across Western Europe.

I would be interested to know what sources you used to arrive at:

"I find it an affront that a sizeable minority of Muslims in this country want to see Sharia law implemented."

Tom

[John]

This is part of the issue that makes it impossible to believe in this nonsense. if God/Jehovah/Jaweh/Allah (they are the same person) can't communicate what people are supposed to believe (LDS/Methodist/Catholic/Jewish/Muslim)then it it proves it isn't divinely inspired at all, but instead a man-made collective, developed to control village tribes. Do you honestly think people thought it was ok to murder people before Moses rocked up with a couple of stones? I'd be more worried with God asking moses to perform Genocide, or asking Abraham to kill Isaac on a mouintain or telling Moses which slaves could be kept (female virgins funnily enough) and which ones could be killed (the rest). why is it that in 2007, If I hear voices from God then I'm offered assistance with Mental Health, but if I'd have done that 2000 years ago I'd have my own festival. Happy Days!!

[J Pearce]

I would ask Tom Allen this:

Do you consider Islam compatible with secular liberal democracy?

It appears to me, from the comments that you make, that you find many parallels between Christianity and Islam.

I don't care about that. We don't live in a Christian theocracy, thankfully. I find any number of disturbingly concomitant beliefs within certain Christian factions and Islam.

To wit:

* reduction of womens status within society;
*intolerance and outright persecution of homosexuals;
* rigid adherence to medieval, patriarchal belief systems;
* fear of progress, science, medicine;
* anti-intellectualism;
* narcissitic bigotry based on male egotism;
* continual seeking to define the group identity as "victimised" by western democracy, as a cover to grabbing more political power;

I would ask, when young Muslims complain about "us" wanting to "convert" them, are they actually referring to the onus upon immigrants to adapt to the indigenous culture? It is not "us" who are "forcing" them to abandon their beliefs; rather, they are refusing to adapt their beliefs to our culture.

So does that make "us" the problem, Tom? I do not believe so, but it appears that you do. I find it an affront that a sizeable minority of Muslims in this country want to see Sharia law implemented.

I for one will do whatever would be necessary to fight this barbarism, in much the same way that I would fight against, for example, the imposition of a Roman Catholic theocracy.

To answer my own question, I see absolutely no means by which Islam and liberal democracy can co-exist. I'd be interested to hear how Tom Allen thinks it can.

[Tom Allen]

Babbling Brook.
I was asking Kate for "her sources" in order to understand how she had arrived at the assessment of Islam which she offered in her first post - you will that see she has refused to respond which is her perogative.

Your own suggested sources confirm the views you have expressed and make them understandable which is helpful. Thank you.

Tom

[Kate]

Malcolm: "Why, dear Kate, I read the thread, including your most . . . er . . . emlightening . . . posts."

This thread has been revelatory in exposing an horrific intellectual elitism restricted to practising members of the Anglican clergy. Butters no parsnips around here I'm afraid Malcolm.

Desperately sorry to see it in your case. I have long admired, and been in agreement with, your thoughts on other issues. I had not previously discerned a penchant for discourteous and supercilious put-downs.

Thank you for your ... er ... gracious response.

[Kate]

"Kate's suggestion that the situation in Northern Ireland was somehow purely political among the elite" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a problem with literacy here? This is in direct CONTRADICTION of what I have said AND LIVED. "elite"!!!!!

There were no riots on the Malone Road friend. I said "class" - how literal must one become? Who were the 'elite' - the unionist establishment and the Catholic hierarchy.

" ... and that ordinary people lived harmoniously side by side is a new one for me" ....

More FABRICATION - insertion of the word 'harmoniously'. I said 'lived and worked side by side". FACT. If I could be bothered any further with your mendacity I might produce the evidence but like your professorial demand for references without providing any yourself; I refuse.

"new one on me"! No surprise that. It is clear you know damn all about 'ordinary people' in Northern Ireland or the process of the Troubles. But still, your superior expertise on all things Muslim, is illustrative of your difficulties with the real world.

Casting aspersions appear to be the modus operandi here. Tom Jackson is 'rebuked' as "grim" and lacking Christian charity; you cast aspersions on the veracity of a Jew with vast experience in Interfaith dialogue and now living in Israel; now - from such an elevated 'tolerance' and superior knowledge (about nearly everything) - you presume omnipotence on NI.

"but then I am only the un-informed offspring of a couple of young people who were forced to flee to the UK becuase they wanted to marry across the "non-existent" religious divide!"

Uninformed is surely the correct word. WHEN did this romantic 'fleeing' take place? I suspect at least 50 years ago.

Please stop insinuating and attributing untruths to me. You have proved yourself in this post and elsewhere ... the kindest word is ... disingenuous. May God protect the Anglican Communion.

[Tom Allen]

For flavour of real natural real dialogue see the third paragraph of mte following post:
http://nigelwright.typepad.com/nigel_wright/2007/12/where-paths-cro.html

For a feel for British Muslim women in key roles see:

http://www.salaam.co.uk/themeofthemonth/september03_index.php?l=10

For a feel of where the Christian Church and the Muslim communities are engaged in real dialogue at Blackburn Cathedral see:

http://www.blackburncathedral.com/levels.asp?level_id=46

These women certainly know their place . . .

[Tom Allen]

The gulf is I think Kate that I approach and experience Islam as a living faith not as an idealogy, though given your sons experience your perspective is now understandable.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Allen and his ilk will really be seething now, Kate.

It's just been just announced that Matthias Kuentzel who was banned from Leeds University (near where Allen lives, I believe) because two Muslim students objected to a lecture he was going to give on the links between modern Islam and Hitler, has just won the LONDON BOOK PRIZE.

I was the first to review the book on my blog, having been alerted to Matthias by Ruth's own blog:

http://irenelancaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/matthias-kuentz.html

Matthias' publishers liked my review so much that they've asked me to do a guest blog on contemporary Christian-Jewish relations.

Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to describe the various types of Anglican religion which are around at the moment: yours, Ruth's, Allen's, Sizer's - the list is endless .....

Something for the Christmas hols, I think!

Talk about divine providence!!

[Kate]

Just found: "Since much of what Kate writes about Islam seems based upon her understanding of this minor element of Islamic theology it would be good to know."

Response: Since much of what Tom writes about Islam seems (patently naive) based upon his (personal) understanding of this minor element of British society .... for which he provides only self-referential opinion ... the request is refused.

[Kate]

Whow! 30 years teaching in second and third level institutions has not prepared me for this level of patronage and puffed up ego.

Evidence:

1) "I evidently was wasting my time, Kate - but for the benefit of others I will respond to your response."

How very altruistic Tom! What you 'mean', of course, is: Kate has not immediately succumbed to my self-proclaimed superior knowledge, ergo she is wrong!

2) " My experience ... 30 years of ministry of dealing with real people and real issues - inevitably it comes to different conclusions to someone whose "research" started with 7/7.."

Hurrah for you! What does all THAT mean?
a) 30 years ministering to Muslims?
b) 30 years in C of E?
c) 30 years reading Islamic theology?

What are "real people"? Do I qualify? Are my students 'real people'? Are the hundreds I have worked with professionally and on a voluntary basis, 'real people'? Have I not "dealt with real issues"?

What a load of arrogant presumptions! My research started after 7/7 when my youngest son, against the odds, escaped from Kings Cross with his life. I found after that, I had an 'interest' in the ideology that created the bombers.

3) "relies on "sourced" accounts of how Muslims treat women." Yep! I am talking here about what WOMEN themselves say. NOT what the text of the Koran says. NOT what their husbands, fathers, brothers or Imams say.

You, no doubt, in your privileged 'priestly' role have had access to homes, bedrooms, and the life stories of Muslim women. YOU have spoken to them in privacy and without a male family member present? Yeah. Sorry Tom.

"The gap is therefore not between Muslim and Christian, but between first hand and stereotypes." Profound! What I wonder creates a stereotype? And, see above - private conversations with Muslim women - how many?

4) "The fundamental void only exists from a reading of the Islamic texts which is probably how you read the Christian texts. (Do you assume from reading the OT testament that it is normal to stone adulterers)."

This insinuation is beneath contempt. A very serious question. Do you really talk 'down', in these terms, to your parishioners? Do you now propose I am either ignorant of how to read a text or a fundamentalist? Is that the extent of your esoteric Christian perception?

Poor desperate man! I have a First in English Literature and Philosophy; my Masters thesis was on John Donne: 'A Jesuit milieu'. After that I took a degree in Psychology. Rest assured I am not misled by a literal reading of OT.

5) "Islamic theology has moved on from where you suggest that it is".

I note you do not reference sources. So, in your personal opinion, there is an Islamic Renaissance taking place. Perhaps you are not familiar with Whabbism, the most pernicious form of Islam presently infecting British mosques.

6) (a) " ... by contrast Muslims who actively engage at a local level in inter-faith dialogue, the beginnings of cross community Muslim leadership which wants to be part of our society ..."

(b) "I quoted the professionals simply to challenge the Daily Mail stereotype of taxi drivers and shop-keepers. They would be amused to know that they are "amorphous" - they are real Yorkshire men and women."

Two questions. How many are engaging in inter-faith dialogue? Numbers would be interesting. How many WOMEN are included? And, how MANY of the 'taxi drivers and shop-keepers' do you actually know?

7) "One (or even twenty times twenty) instances does not lead me to conclude that all Muslims are terrorists or that Islam is fundamentally evil."

Why do you make this statement? I have not, at any point referred to ALL Muslims as terrorists.
Islam as "fundamentally evil" is an entirely different matter.

Why is it that relativists ALWAYS invoke the
the 'personal'? Here we have Tom Allen full of Christian Charity and here we have suspicious old Kate! Tom Jackson is correct. You presume too much. I have worked with hundreds of disturbed and/or troubled individuals. I would never presume, as you do, that I can be certain of the inner workings of the their minds.

8) (a) "... your only reference to actual people is the Glasgow Bombers as being typical!"

(b) "It was no surprise to me that Muslim extremists included "doctors" - it was clearly brilliant cover!".

What dishonest self-aggrandising rubbish. I most certainly DID NOT say these people are "typical". I fear (b) sounds like ... admiration - "brilliant".

9) (a) "I have been shocked to meet young Muslims whose view of Christianity and Britain is full of the same kind of invective which you offer.."

(b) "they see us as amoral, committed to their destruction,committed to converting them from the true faith, determined to deny them any place in society simply because they are Muslims ...
the Iraq War as the symbolic heart of this attitude`... Christian history as a continuum of conquest and bloody invasion .... Can you see a mirror"

They must adore you Tom. This is a glorious example of cultural cringe, colonial guilt, inverted racism and betrayal of the Christian faith.

The 'mirror' here is your Alice through the Looking Glass vision of what Islam in Britain means. For what reason is all this effort put into understanding Islam? What about the Hindus (I number several as close friends)? Sikhs (again I am friendly with a few)? Buddhists (more friends)?

Why is it that no other immigrant community so visibly, vocally and violently resents their fellow citizens? Why have none of these religious groups sought 'privilege' under the law. Why have none asserted their right to 'convert' Britain?

I learned my debating skills in the Student Union QUB when bodies were being shovelled into bin bags on the streets of Belfast. There were, at that time, people just like you - blaming the settled integrated members of the community for the actions of criminals and terrorists.

I learned that euphemism was of little value. I was indeed honoured to be approached after one debate to be told "You'll be the first lined up when we win"!

That said, I would be 'hard put' to rival some of the "invective" I've listened to, and read, from your victimised Muslim youth. Then, of course, there is the 'moderate' Dr Bari threatening the citizens of London with violence and later refusing to condemn stoning. Interesting you should accuse me of OT values!

Have you ever thought to suggest during your intimate conversations with Muslims that it might be a good idea to focus less on memorising the Koran and more on giving these young people a good basic education and some 'life skills'? Fluency in the English language perhaps.

10) "Along with Jews we are children of Abraham after all."

Relevance? Mohammad was of the Arab tribes descended from Ishmael who was 'passed over' by Abraham - an Arab of the Hashim clan - now the Hashemite family of Jordan. That relationship is meaningless in the context of shared religious beliefs.

You have at least restrained yourself from the ghastly inaccurate epithet 'People of the Book', utilised by Islam to validate the belief that Mohammed's personal diktats are completion of the Old and New Testaments.

Do you suggest, in the light of Mohammed's life, that this can be given the slightest credence? Cf. the example of Our Lord the Jew. The only people of The Book are Jews and Christians.

11) "There is no relativism in my faith in Jesus as Saviour but the meeting point with Muslims is that they respect him as a prophet - hence the use of the common Prophet/Saviour motif - I am not used to having to explain it anymore."

Dear me! 'Unaccustomed as I am' to having to 'explain' does not bode well for any form of dialogue. Are you intentionally humorous or merely irredeemably pompous.

Acquiescence to this terminology sparks of Peter. Denial of the Son of God. More dhimmitude.

12) "... we share exactly the same basic tenets of faith as you have outlined from your Irish Anglican background - but come to radically different conclusions about how we should relate to people of other faith"

It is quite simple. I relate to people of other faiths in that I absolutely respect their right to hold that faith. I require them, without exception, to abide by the law of the land.

I am not given to pity or 'understanding' of those who intimidate and threaten their fellow citizens. I believe in separation of Church and State in matters of political decision-making as the only civilized way for all the people of the nation to be treated equally. I do not welcome any intrusion into, or erosion of, my civil rights.

I am neither an Orientalist nor an appeaser. I do not believe immigrants have a right to disrupt the lives of the nation from which they seek shelter and benefit.

Finally, I can, from the tone of these posts quite understand your love affair with Islam. Women there know their place! Pity about the enlightenment and the 1948 Education Act.

PS. Thanks Irene - that information is most relevant.

[Malcolm+]

From whence my reference to "spewing distorted invective?"

Why, dear Kate, I read the thread, including your most . . . er . . . emlightening . . . posts.

[Babbling Brook]

To Tom Allen: Though not wishing to usurp Kate's own responses to your requests for information, I thought you might find the following helpful for translations of the Koran and the Hadiths:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

(This will provide you with three main authoritative translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir)and you can also source the hadiths

(Those of Bukhari are regarded as most authoritative)

If you wish access to 11 different translations (including Arabic):

http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/

There is also

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

by Robert Spencer which is a weekly thread since May 2007; he links to all the major translations and presents differing and dissenting interpretations as well as answering questions. The latest one being discussed, Sura 9, is the one dealing specifically with the call to wage war on Jews and Christians.

Al-taqiyyah is covered in several verses in the Koran, one specifically to do with apostasy, 16.106, also in 3.28: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah except by way of precaution that ye may guard yourselves from them, but Allah cautions you to remember Himself, for the final goal is to Allah" and there is Mohammed's teaching that "war is deceit" and that lying was acceptable in: bringing reconciliation between Moslems, for a man to find peace with his wife and in war. There is a long discussion of taqiyyah at http://www.islamundressed.com under Chapter 8: Islamic Honesty and Honor

[Babbling Brook]

To Tom Allen: Though not wishing to usurp Kate's own responses to your requests for information, I thought you might find the following helpful for translations of the Koran and the Hadiths:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchquran.html

(This will provide you with three main authoritative translations: Yusuf Ali, Pickthal and Shakir)

and

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/reference/searchhadith.html

(Those of Bukhari are regarded as most authoritative)

If you wish access to 11 different translations (including Arabic):

http://qb.gomen.org/QuranBrowser/

There is also

http://www.jihadwatch.org/articles/bloggingtheq.php

by Robert Spencer which is a weekly thread since May 2007; he links to all the major translations and presents differing and dissenting interpretations as well as answering questions. The latest one being discussed, Sura 9, is the one dealing specifically with the call to wage war on Jews and Christians.

Al-taqiyyah is covered in several verses in the Koran, one specifically to do with apostasy, 16.106, also in 3.28: "Let not the believers take for friends or helpers unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from Allah except by way of precaution that ye may guard yourselves from them, but Allah cautions you to remember Himself, for the final goal is to Allah" and there is Mohammed's teaching that "war is deceit" and that lying was acceptable in: bringing reconciliation between Moslems, for a man to find peace with his wife and in war. There is a long discussion of taqiyyah at http://www.islamundressed.com under Chapter 8: Islamic Honesty and Honor