Former Chaplain to HM the Queen. Forced to step down for producing this article.

[Phil Perry]

Article by the Rev. Dr. Gavin Ashenden, former Chaplain to HM The Queen, forced to step down for not keeping his thoughts about Islam to himself..

 

We need to talk more about Jesus and Mohammed and less about Christianity and Islam

 

June 5, 2017

 

Rev’d Dr Gavin Ashenden.

 

_____

 

The Mayor of Greater Manchester Andy Burnham claimed in public that Salman Abedi, the man who slaughtered children in the Manchester bombing, was not a real Muslim:

 

“The message that I would want to get over – and this is how the vast majority of people feel – this man was a terrorist, not a Muslim.”

 

But how does Mr Burnham know that? It appeared that it simply was not true. Salman Abedi’s friends, who obviously knew him well, say that the truth was different. They describe him as a devout Muslim who had even memorised the Koran.

 

At the memorial service held after Khalid Masood had killed bystanders on Westminster Bridge, the Dean of Westminster Abbey Dr John Hall offered this reflection in his sermon:

 

“What happened a fortnight ago leaves us bewildered. What could possibly motivate a man to hire a car and take it from Birmingham to Brighton to London, and then drive it fast at people he had never met, couldn’t possibly know, against whom he had no personal grudge, no reason to hate them and then run at the gates of the Palace of Westminster to cause another death? It seems likely that we shall never know.”

 

But that wasn’t true. We did come to know – only days later. In fact, in his last WhatsApp message, sent just before he died, he had declared that he was waging jihad:

 

“..in revenge against Western military action in Muslim countries in the Middle East.”

 

Dr Hall never put the record straight.

 

The Prime Minister Theresa May spoke outside No.10 the day following the slaughter of bystanders on London Bridge on 4th June. She talked about the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism “that preaches hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism”.

 

“It is an ideology that claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are incompatible with the religion of Islam… It is an ideology that is a perversion of Islam and a perversion of the truth.”

 

What is Mrs May’s authority for making this far-reaching theological statement?

 

If one consults the manuals of a variety of different schools of Islam – the Shafi’i school, the Hanafi school, the Maliki school, the Hanbali school – they all urge violence against non-Muslims. There is the Koran, too, of course:

 

“And kill them wherever you come upon them, and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is worse than slaughter. But fight them not by the Holy Mosque until they should fight you there; then, if they fight you, kill them — such is the recompense of unbelievers, but if they give over, surely Allah is All-forgiving, All-compassionate. Fight them, till there is no persecution and the religion is Allah’s; then if they give over, there shall be no enmity save for evildoers” (2:191-193).

 

Perhaps Mr Burnham, Dr Hall and Mrs May claim to know more than the infamous Ayatollah Khomeini, who insisted:

 

“Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of (other) countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world… But those who study Islamic Holy War will understand why Islam wants to conquer the whole world.

 

“..Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those (who say this) are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by (the unbelievers)? Islam says: Kill them (the non-Muslims), put them to the sword and scatter (their armies).

 

“Does this mean sitting back until (non-Muslims) overcome us? Islam says: Kill in the service of Allah those who may want to kill you! Does this mean that we should surrender (to the enemy)? Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword!

 

“The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other (Qur’anic) psalms and Hadiths (sayings of the Prophet) urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war?

 

“I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.”

 

How is it possible that we can continue to keep up this pretence of patronising, intolerant duplicity where we pretend we know Islam better than those who live and practise it?

 

Why won’t Andy Burnham, the Dean of Westminster and the Prime Minster tell us the truth?

 

The answer is probably that if they did, they would be required to face a problem to which there is either no solution, or one that tests what is politically possible to the utmost limits.

 

The question they should really ask is the more interesting one which relates to those Muslims in Western society who have not turned to violence.

 

Why have so many Muslims who live amongst us not turned to violent Jihad? The answer may be that they simply don’t want to, or are not very observant Muslims, or at least not as observant and pious as those who do turn to violence.

 

Or it may be that they are kind and generous people who see much good in the first half of the Koran where Mohammed says generous things about Jews, Muslims and Christians being cousinly ‘People of the Book’.

 

Perhaps they prefer to commit a lesser sin against the principle of abrogation, which requires them to preference the violent and inhospitable passages mainly near the end of the Koran over the benign ones near the front.

 

It may also have something to do with expediency. When Muslims are a small minority of a population they accommodate themselves quietly and pragmatically to their host environment. To do anything else would be to risk their expulsion. But when their numbers reach a kind of critical mass, expulsion becomes unfeasible. The pragmatic accommodationism begins to give way to the ambitions that the Koran dictates all good Muslims should have, to pursue the conversion of their host society, by persuasion or by terror:

 

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (8:12).

 

If our politicians and religious leaders were to find the courage and integrity to do their primary duty by us and tell the truth about Islam, Islamists, Muslims, Jihad and accommodation, what would follow?

 

That is the very debate we have to have now in public.

 

It might involve a variety of draconian measures, proportionate to the public slaughtering of citizens that Islam has perpetrated across Europe.

 

The political authoritarians might incline toward internment, expulsion, the public monitoring or closing down of mosques, the abolition of Islamic faith schools and other measures the outcome of which would be the restoration of the rule of law and the control of our public spaces.

 

The drastic measures might be considered proportionate to the civil disaster Islam is wreaking upon us. The pragmatic measures will be for experienced politicians to wrestle with. But before the pragmatism comes the demands of theory and the integrity of ideas.

 

First of all, we have to be able to tell the truth in public.

 

The new Government must abolish the notorious and noxious crime of ‘hate speech’. It must break any link between the sane and sensible reaction of Islamophobia and the criminal law. Islamophobia is a sane and justified fear of those people and ideas that threaten murderous violence on our citizens.

 

We must be free to tell and test the truth by speaking it in the public space, and our politicians must commit themselves to becoming theologically and philosophically literate so they can tell the truth in public.

 

What might the Church contribute to this sudden need for theological literacy and courage?

 

It might find the intellectual muscle and integrity wholly to repudiate the heresy of relativism, and help the faithful and atheist public learn to make comparisons between the good, the anodyne and the evil.

 

Without imposing absolutes upon people reluctant to adopt them, it might nonetheless, within the broader context of universally-recognised absolute categories of good and evil, make comparisons.

 

Let there be comparisons be between Jesus and Mohammed rather than between Christianity and Islam. Let the facts and values that separate these two representatives of worldviews, whose legacies and followers define the struggle for sanity and sanctity in society, be compared contrasted and chosen between.

 

We might begin with Mohammed’s doctrine of Taqiyya, (un)holy deception. The Qur’an in a variety of verses (eg 2:225, 3:28, 3:54, 9:3, 16:106, 40:28, 66:2) establishes the religious legitimacy of breaking oaths, lying, unilaterally violating treaties, and generally scheming against non-Muslims. Set this against Jesus claiming that he was the Truth, and the Truth will set us free (Jn 8.32). It might begin there, but it can’t end there.

 

Only misery, murder and mayhem will wake us out of our numb and illusory escapism. How much more of this escapism are we going to hide in? How many more lives are we going to sacrifice to our sedated, over-comfortable secularism, before we decide we can and we must start dignifying our democracy with telling the truth?

 

And after we have re-learnt to tell the truth, we must face the challenging consequences which the truth confronts us with, and upon which both our integrity and, for some of us, our lives depend.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I can see why he was asked to leave. What a crock of sh*t.

 

It's bloody easy to pick up on bloodthirsty texts in any "holy" book. Leviticus, anyone? Kill witches, gays, adulterers. Then christians say "ah, but that's the OLD testament. It's all sweetness and light after Jesus appears." Er... what, was there a different god before him? The petulant, jealous homocidal maniac that slaughters every firstborn child in Egypt all of a sudden becomes a loving figure after the Romans execute his son? Give me a break.

 

I'd suggest the good reverend, instead of cherry-picking the worst verses in the koran, has a talk to normal everyday muslims and see what they think. Is it their intention to slaughter unbelievers? About as likely, in my opinion, as sweet old Mrs Jones who changes the flowers in the anglican church, planning jihad on witches and homosexuals.

 

Anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time should be able to realise the difference between islamist terrorists, with their heads full of sh*t, and normal muslims, who want a peaceful life for themselves and their families, and who just like catholics or anglicans or seventh day adventists, happen to believe some silly sh*t.

 

It's not an inevitable war between islam and the west, as much as some people (including the reverend) seem to want it to be.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...I'd suggest the good reverend, instead of cherry-picking the worst verses in the koran, has a talk to normal everyday muslims and see what they think. Is it their intention to slaughter unbelievers?...normal muslims, who want a peaceful life for themselves and their families, and who just like catholics or anglicans or seventh day adventists, happen to believe some silly sh*t...

Marty I believe you are totally right that the vast majority of Moslems want a peaceful life, just like most normal people. Trouble is their book tells them to kill the infidel, to lie and cheat to advance Islam and to kill anyone who tries to leave the faith. Surveys show a disturbing number of Moslems in western democracies support such acts of savagery.

 

It's not an inevitable war between islam and the west, as much as some people (including the reverend) seem to want it to be.

I have met many admirable moslems and was, until fairly recently, a passionate supporter of allowing all refugees into our country. Eventually even I could see that Islam seeks to colonise and subjugate not just us, but the entire world.

 

Plenty of moslems have made it clear that we in free, tolerant countries are considered godless infidels.

 

How far would you let them go?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Trouble is their book tells them to kill the infidel, to lie and cheat to advance Islam and to kill anyone who tries to leave the faith. Surveys show a disturbing number of Moslems in western democracies support such acts of savagery.

The trouble is with surveys is that they can be misleading. I heard recently about a survey that asked muslim respondents if they supported jihad. The number was surprisingly high. However the followup question, about the respondent's idea of what "jihad" actually meant, showed that the vast majority thought of it as some completely benign part of their faith (can't remember exactly what it was, but it certainly didn't match your average Western interpretation of the word). Strangely enough, the followup question wasn't reported on - just the "shock value" high initial question.

 

My challenge to anyone who believes that any more than an absolute minority lunatic fringe believe that murder is justified, is to commission a widespread poll with unambiguous questions, designed by a panel of experts in anthropology, sociology, Middle Eastern history etc. Then publish no matter what the results.

 

Plenty of moslems have made it clear that we in free, tolerant countries are considered godless infidels.

 

How far would you let them go?

Don't know about you, but I'm quite proud of my "godless infidel" status. But seriously how many Australian muslims make that statement?

 

As to how far I would let them go, I've made it quite clear that I think anyone inciting or encouraging attacks on civilians or law enforcement members should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and if they're not Australian citizens, deported as they obviously fail the good character test. If they commit a terrorist act then they should be killed as quickly as possible to save lives, or if they live, never see the outside of a jail cell again. I've also made it clear that the support of the muslim communities (they're apparently quite different from each other) is the best resource that we have in identifying, de-radicalising or monitoring those at risk of becoming the next brainwashed lone wolf.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

My challenge to anyone who believes that any more than an absolute minority lunatic fringe believe that murder is justified, is to commission a widespread poll with unambiguous questions, designed by a panel of experts in anthropology, sociology, Middle Eastern history etc. Then publish no matter what the results...

I agree, and this is close to the position Pauline Hansen has taken ...and that takes me out of my comfort zone!

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you have something politicised it's then completely stuffed up. No sense will be made of it. Pauline uses many contentious issues for her own personal political survival , at the time.. It was the Chinese last time wasn't it? The clowns she gets around her bring her down, eventually.. Magnet for nutters..Nev

 

 

[Marty_d]

I agree, and this is close to the position Pauline Hansen has taken ...and that takes me out of my comfort zone!

Pauline would never want an unbiased poll run by experts. She's called for a royal commission into whether islam is a religion. No one with half a brain thinks it's not. The point I keep making (and feeling like I'm hitting my head against a brick wall)... is YES islam is silly. So is christianity. So is buddhism. But 99.9999% of people know that you can't take a text written 2000 to 1500 years ago, and expect it to be followed to the letter in modern times. So the koran says kill the unbeliever... so what? The bible tells you to kill witches, gays and adulterers. The torah probably has a few categories of people who deserve the chop. It's all bullsh*t but there will always be a few nutters around that take it seriously.

 

Look, to bring the analogy to something we can all relate to. Rape is a crime. Most rapes are perpetrated by heterosexual males against women. Saying islam is the cause of terrorism is like saying that being a heterosexual male is the cause of rape. In order to drastically reduce all sexual assaults we should hold a royal commission into heterosexual males, and not let any into our country.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty, the thing is, these jihadists have been brainwashed not to think. They may be otherwise intelligent, but when it comes to the Qu'ran, they have been brainwashed to follow it literally, lest they also die as unbelievers. To die committing atrocities as directed by the Qu'ran is to be honoured.

I wasn't talking about them - there will always be a minute minority that take that rubbish literally. What worries me is the large number of supposedly intelligent Westerners who can't tell the difference between that minority, and the huge majority that follow their faith peacefully and disregard the murderous passages that all religious texts include.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Majorities? Sounds Democratic.

 

Sorry, but the nutters are most certainly not interested in democracy. You are trying to use Democratic logic to counteract hysterical religiosity.

 

Not going to work.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...you can't take a text written 2000 to 1500 years ago, and expect it to be followed to the letter in modern times. So the koran says kill the unbeliever... so what? The bible tells you to kill witches, gays and adulterers. The torah probably has a few categories of people who deserve the chop. It's all bullsh*t but there will always be a few nutters around that take it seriously...

All true Marty, but we don't see many nutters from other religions setting out to kill and maim innocent people.

 

I agree that Moslems can be as decent human beings as any other group and that the vast majority want a peacefull life. I understand that many Moslems assist our security forces in preventing radicalisation.

 

But...How can we be safe when a disturbing number of people born and raised in our country set out to do despicable things to their fellow citizens in the name of Islam? Profiling potential terrorists is almost impossible.

 

Not all of them have been unemployed, disaffected youths. Girls, mothers and successful doctors have all suddenly turned into killers.

 

 

[Marty_d]

All true Marty, but we don't see many nutters from other religions setting out to kill and maim innocent people.

Just off the top of my head... Anders Brevik, the Ku Klux Klan, the Unabomber, that bloke that stabbed a couple of people recently who were standing up for the moslem woman, and any nutter that's ever killed a doctor or nurse from an abortion clinic...

 

But...How can we be safe when a disturbing number of people born and raised in our country set out to do despicable things to their fellow citizens in the name of Islam?

You've got far more chance of dying from a one-punch attack in Kings Cross or Surfer's Paradise at 3am. Is that any better because the killer is just your average true-blue bogan?

 

I was in Melbourne last week and apparently a "terrorist attack" happened there. In a city of almost 5 million people, one man was killed and then his killer was shot by police. I'm sorry, but just because he was doing it in the name of islam (his twisted version of it, anyway) is that any different from bikie gangs shooting up houses, service station burglaries where the shop assistant ends up dead, or even your non-religious nutter like Martin Bryant carrying out a terror attack?

 

Just a bit of perspective is needed. I didn't feel unsafe in Melbourne last Wednesday because I knew I was more likely to be run over by a tram, drop dead of a heart attack, or have the taxi crash on the way to the airport than being killed by a terrorist. Hell, the best thing I could do to save my life is to eat more vegetables and get more exercise. (I'll start tomorrow...) If I'm not too concerned about that, how much less concerned am I about terrorists?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Just off the top of my head... Anders Brevik, the Ku Klux Klan, the Unabomber, that bloke that stabbed a couple of people recently who were standing up for the moslem woman, and any nutter that's ever killed a doctor or nurse from an abortion clinic...

Good points Marty, but those isolated nutters were not part of an international movement intent on overthrowing our way of life.

 

...just because he was doing it in the name of islam (his twisted version of it, anyway) is that any different from bikie gangs shooting up houses, service station burglaries where the shop assistant ends up dead, or even your non-religious nutter like Martin Bryant carrying out a terror attack?...

The difference is that our authorities reacted by clearly identifying dangers like bikie gangs and self-loading rifles and did something about them. The source of Islamic extremism is obvious, but political correctness hampers the response. Will Australia prevent the return of the hundreds of IS fighters who apparently hold our citizenship, or will they be allowed to bring their war to our soil? (These low-lifes must be laughing about the enormous surveillance cost they are causing; we might need thousands of security people to keep a close watch on them.)

 

 

[Marty_d]

The difference is that our authorities reacted by clearly identifying dangers like bikie gangs and self-loading rifles and did something about them. The source of Islamic extremism is obvious, but political correctness hampers the response. Will Australia prevent the return of the hundreds of IS fighters who apparently hold our citizenship, or will they be allowed to bring their war to our soil? (These low-lifes must be laughing about the enormous surveillance cost they are causing; we might need thousands of security people to keep a close watch on them.)

Exactly. Targeted response required. Not a scattergun approach of the Tony Abbots, Pauline Hansons and Donald Trumps of this world. You don't cure cancer by killing all the cells that aren't cancerous, and you don't cure islamist terrorism by stopping islamic immigration.

 

In terms of surveillance cost, we already have electronic tracking bracelet technology. How hard is it to add tamper-proof audio to it? Then you've got constant tracking and geo-location history along with it picking up every word spoken and being run through software to identify abnormal patterns etc. Hey, why not add an electromagnet to each ankle bracelet? Suspect looks like they're doing something dodgy, the controller hits the switch remotely and their legs are stuck together until police response arrives.

 

But I think the biggest difference could be made on the internet. How are these people being radicalised? It's not by dodgy imams in the mosques any more. It's by mentally disturbed people seeking out islamist propaganda then being targetted and groomed by the group. There needs to be international efforts made to disrupt their messaging and some way to shut down their sites quickly and automatically, without putting an onerous workload or limitation on normal web activity.

 

 

[Yenn]

What is the difference between Islamic Jihadists and the bikie gangs. Laws were brought in to get at the bikies, so why not laws to get at the Jihadists.

 

 

[Marty_d]

This may be part of the answer....

 

Imprisoned by technology

 

Seriously, I hadn't heard this before I posted at 1:14pm. Long story short - prisons are failing, they don't work, we should be looking at home detention with smart ankle bracelets with similar technology to self-driving cars to monitor "prisoners". If they make threatening moves towards other people, an inbuilt taser zaps them.

 

Slap one of these on every "fighter" returning from the middle east.

 

Well worth a listen if you have the time.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Marty, the nutter who shot the apartment receptionist in Melbourne the other day had been fitted with an ankle bracelet. Somehow, he cut it off.

They're supposed to send an alarm if they're tampered with.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

They're supposed to send an alarm if they're tampered with.

True, but these despicable individuals could do an awful lot damage before the wallopers arrive.

 

Why are we still importing potential killers?

 

 

[Marty_d]

True, but these despicable individuals could do an awful lot damage before the wallopers arrive.Why are we still importing potential killers?

Hence the idea about attaching a taser to them. Alarm + taser is a lot more security than existing bail conditions.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

One of those electric dog collars, turned up full, would be more effective.

 

 

[Bruce]

The moslems we have here are generally refugees from the very culture they are bringing with them.

 

At the least, we should make it a condition that they leave their terrible culture and religion behind in the country they are fleeing from.

 

Of course, the great majority do not do violence once they are here, but if their sons are given an islamic education, one in a thousand will take it seriously.

 

How stupid we are to import their culture and then pay for schools which indoctrinate their sons.