Where Did You Get That Hijab?

No, everyone does not, Ms Wells.

Pictured swathed in Burberry-patterned headgear a fortnight ago is Annie Wells MSP, Conservative and Unionist member of the Scottish legislature for the Glasgow district.

Ms Wells's choice of garment was not to protect herself against the February chills in her northerly part of the world, but to demonstrate her solidarity with women who wear the hijab.  For this Burberry number is indeed a hijab and she was marking "World Hijab Day" (1 February), now in its fifth year.

See some more Scottish politicians' reactions here; that from John Mason is nauseating.

It goes without saying that nobody should be insulted, much less assaulted, for wearing the hijab, but when western women are actively encouraged to wear it, and by the British Foreign Office too, then a step too far has surely been reached.

A London newspaper, the Evening Standard,  reported:

'The Foreign Office handed out free headscarves to staff and encouraged them to learn why Muslim women wear the garment as part of its World Hijab Day celebrations. The Government department, headed up by Boris Johnson, offered all employees the chance to wear a hijab for part of their day to mark the worldwide event on February 1. In an internal memo, the Foreign Office said that the headscarf is worn by some women who see it as representing “liberation, respect and security”.

According to reports, an email sent to staff said:  

“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day. Muslim women, along with followers of many other religions, choose to wear the hijab. Many find liberation, respect and security through wearing it. #StrongInHijab. Join us for #WorldHijabDay.”

A Foreign Office spokesman confirmed that the event was for staff at its London office who wanted to learn more about other cultures.'  [Emphasis added, here and below]

For the sake of pandering to the Islamic world at home and abroad the Foreign Office believes it appropriate for non-Muslim females to cover their heads in a scarf that many Muslim women themselves regard as a symbol of female subservience and which began as an indication of which women (the covered ones) were not to be considered fair game for sexual violence by Muslim men.

Having the right not to wear the hijab is the real issue.  

Just ask all those Iranian women who recently, in a brave act of defiance, have allowed their locks to blow freely in the wind as nature intended.

Let's look at that Foreign Office memo again:

“Would you like to try on a hijab or learn why Muslim women wear the headscarf? Come along to our walk-in event.

“Free scarves for all those that choose to wear it for the day or part of the day."

Methinks I sense Da'awa at work there.  This photo (above, left) from the Evening Standard would seem to confirm that view.

Reports the Daily Mail:

'The event was ... just days before Britain marked the 100th anniversary of women [aged 30 and above, plus university graduates aged 21-30] being given the vote.

Maajid Nawaz, who heads the counter-extremism think-tank the Quilliam Foundation, criticised the department for ‘supporting World Hijab Day and the institutional oppression of women through modesty culture, while brave Iranian women risk all to remove hijab tyranny’.

Anti-hijab activist Masih Alinejad told Reuters: ‘We are fighting against the most visible symbol of oppression. These women are saying, “It is enough – it is the 21st century and we want to be our true selves.”’ 

Tory MP Andrew Bridgen said: ‘I’d like to know whose bright idea this was. It is ridiculous, a complete waste of taxpayers’ money and not the business of a Government department.‘I can’t see the Foreign Office promoting Christianity or the handing out of crosses.’

No demonstrative Foreign Office stunts on behalf of the Islam-persecuted Christians of the Near and Middle East, then.

And I don't see the Foreign Office holding a demonstration of solidarity with Jews in the "new" Europe, who feel increasingly unsafe when wearing symbols of Judaism in public places.

World Kippa Day, anyone?

Don't They Know It's Da'awa?

The Twelve Days of Yuletide.  And when not posting articles and videos disparaging Israel and (not in the least funny, this) showing how to tease a dozing cat by swaddling it, parcel-like, in Christmas wrapping paper (St Francis of Assisi would not be amused), our old friend the CEO of Peacemaker Mediators is joining in a spot of Chrislam good cheer.

Example below:

The initiative by the notorious East London Mosque smacks of a good old public relations opportunity for converting the infidel, if not to the one true faith then at least to the anti-Israel cause.

Never mind that over the decades Jewish volunteers have quietly joined with Christian volunteers to serve Christmas meals to the lonely and needy on  Christmas Day in many a town and city (yep, I actually saw it reported on the telly once, decades ago), it's this Muslim da'awa thing that counts.

And how the malign and the merely naive have been lapping it up.

Note, for instance, how one of Sizer's clerical faithful retells the story of the Good Samaritan to her flock.  

Note, too, how a self-styled "liberal" church in Greater London recently celebrated the birthdays of some chap it named as Jesus and one whom it resectfully labelled "the Prophet Mohammed".

To quote the influential Anglican blogger Archbishop Cranmer:

'Mawlid (or Milad) is the Islamic festival commemorating the birthday of Mohammed. The only thing it has in common with Christmas is that it isn’t actually the day the celebrated baby was born. Yet All Saints Church in Kingtson upon Thames thinks there’s an interfaith syncretised opportunity to be found in holding a joint birthday celebration for both Mohammed and Jesus – so they put the flags out for both, rejoicing in both, eulogising both, solemnising both, glorifying both, honouring both.

[N]ote how this event is “Marking the birthday of Prophet Mohammed”, but not looking forward to the birthday of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God. Mohammed gets his prophethood, while Jesus gets neither his prophethood nor his priesthood; neither his kingship nor his messiahship. It’s the exalted Prophet Mohammed along with plain old Jesus, because to have added any of his claims to divinity would, of course, have alienated many Muslims (if they hadn’t already been alienated by the haram celebration), which wouldn’t have been very interfaith or sensitively missional, would it?

We have been here before: when Westminster Abbey hosted a service in which Mohammed was named in the succession of prophets, they effectively proclaimed to the world that Mohammed is greater than Jesus:

In Islamic theology, Mohammed was ‘The Prophet’ who came to fulfil and complete the partial revelations of all preceding prophets. Muslims believe that his coming was prophesied by Jesus: ‘But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father..‘ (Jn 15:26). The ‘Comforter’ or ‘Advocate’ (NIV) whom Christians believe to be the Holy Spirit is, for Muslims, Mohammed. So when he is declared in Westminster Abbey to be ‘The Chosen One’, it is not simply a benign multifaith expression of ecumenical respect in a commemorative service of reconciliation: it is a dogmatic affirmation of a perfected prophethood to which Jesus is subordinate, and His divinity thereby denied.

And then, of course, there was the act of divine worship  in St Mary’s Cathedral, Glasgow, in which it was declared publicly from the Qur’an that God can have no sons, and so the Gospel writers were engaged in a blasphemous deceit. Every time a church accords Mohammed the epithet ‘Prophet’, they are rejecting the crucifixion, denying the resurrection of Christ, and refuting that the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us, for Mohammed denied all of these foundational tenets of the Christian faith. The Jesus he espoused is the plain old one – no more than a prophet, and certainly an inferior one to him....'

And as the Gatestone Institute recently reminded us,

'This year's Christmas season has been marked by Islam-related controversies in nearly every European country. Most of the conflicts have been generated by Europe's multicultural political and religious elites, who are bending over backwards to secularize Christmas, ostensibly to ensure that Muslims will not be offended by the Christian festival.

Many traditional Christmas markets have been renamed — Amsterdam Winter Parade, Brussels Winter Pleasures, Kreuzberger Wintermarkt, London Winterville, Munich Winter Festival — to project a multicultural veneer of secular tolerance.

More troubling are the growing efforts to Islamize Christmas. The re-theologizing of Christmas is based on the false premise that the Jesus of the Bible is the Jesus (Isa) of the Koran. This religious fusion, sometimes referred to as "Chrislam," is gaining ground in a West that has become biblically illiterate....'

It is indeed that ignorance of the Bible on the part of European populations that has led to the  diminution in support for Israel.  As I have pointed out many times, the dilution of religious teaching in schools, the wilful ignorance of our shared Judeo-Christian cultural heritage in societies that have become "multicultural" and "secular" means that fewer people identify with the People of Israel against latter day Hamans and Pharoahs than was once thecase.   I have pointed this out to Jewish groups; for the most part I get blank looks, and shrugs.  It is as if Jews expect Christians to be hostile to them.  But as students of philosemitism are aware, this has not not been inevitably so.  

Luckily, however, despite such Christians as these, and Muslims like this one:

 There are Muslims prepared to assert the essential Jewishness of Jerusalem.

People like Professor Khaleel Mohammed, Assistant Professor at the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, who is on record as saying:

'The Qur'an in Chapter 5: 20-21 states quite clearly: Moses said to his people: O my people!  Remember the bounty of  God upon you  when  He bestowed  prophets upon you , and  made  you  kings and gave you that which  had not been given to  anyone before you amongst  the nations. O my people!  Enter the Holy Land which God has written for you, and do not turn tail, otherwise you will be losers."

The  Quran goes on to say why the Israelites were not allowed to enter the land for forty years...but the thrust of my analysis is where Moses says that the Holy Land is that which God has "written" for the Israelites. In both Jewish and Islamic understandings of the term "written", there is the meaning of finality, decisiveness and immutability. And so we have the Written Torah (unchangeable) and the Oral Torah (which represents change to suit times). And in the Qur'an we have "Written upon you is the fast"--to show that this is something that is decreed, and which none can change.  So the simple fact is then, from a faith-based point of view: If God has "written" Israel for the people of Moses, who can change this?

The Qur'an refers to the exiles, but leaves it open for return...saying to the Jews that if they keep their promise to God, then God will keep the divine promise to them. WE may argue that the present state of Israel was not created in the most peaceful means, and that many were displaced--for me, this is not the issue. The issue is that when the Muslims entered that land in the seventh century, they were well aware of its rightful owners, and when they failed to act according to divine mandate (at least as perceived by followers of all Abrahamic faiths), they aided and abetted in a crime. And the present situation shows the fruits of that action--wherein innocent Palestinians and Israelis are being killed on a daily basis.

I also draw your attention to the fact that the medieval exegetes of Qur'an--without any exception known to me--recognized Israel as belonging to the Jews, their birthright given to them. Indeed, two of Islam's most famous exegetes explained "written" from Quran 5:21 thus:

Ibn Kathir (d. 774/1373) said: “That which God has written for you” i.e. That which God has promised to you by the words of your father Israel that it is the inheritance of those among you who believe” . Muhammad al-Shawkani (d. 1250/1834) interprets Kataba to mean “that which God has allotted and predestined for you in His primordial knowledge, deeming it as a place of residence for you” (1992, 2:41).

The idea that Israel does not belong to the Jews is a modern one, probably based on the Mideast rejection of European colonialism etc, but certainly not having anything to do with the Qur'an.  The unfortunate fact is that most Muslims do NOT read the Qur’an and interpret it on the basis of its own words; rather they let imams and preachers do that for them.

How did the Jews lose their right to live in the Holy Land? All reliable reports show that it was by the looting and burning that followed from 70-135 C.E.  When the  Muslims  entered  the  place in  638, liberating it from the Byzantines,  they  knew full  well to whom  it rightfully belonged.  But we find that  Muslim chroniclers state that  the Muslim  caliph  accepting  the  surrender of  the  Byzantine Christian representative, Sophronius, on certain  terms, one of them being that the Jews would not be permitted to enter the city.  I personally have a hard time accepting this story, and  aspects of  its historicity because as  modern scholarship  has shown,  Muslim reports about that time were  recorded long after the fact and  are not  as reliable as once thought.  And we know too that when the first Crusaders took possession of the place in 1096-1099, they slaughtered Jews and Muslims....

When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, it should have been left open for the rightful owners to return. It is possible that Jewish beliefs of the time only allowed such return under a Messiah--but that should not have influenced Muslim action. And in contrast to the report of Sophronius above, there are also reports showing that Umar in fact opened the city to the Jews. If this be the case, then the later Muslim occupation and building a mosque on the site of the Temple was something that was not sanctioned by The Qur’an. How honest is contemporary Islam with this? Given the situation in the Middle East, politicking etc stands in the way of honesty....

I admit that the Qur'an has verses that are polemic, but my view is that the Qur'an in fact respects the Jews (which explains Moses being so often mentioned)...but that it is the oral traditions of Islam (the hadith) that demonizes the Jews. For many Muslims, this is a hard pill to swallow because for almost 12 centuries, they have been taught that acceptance of oral traditions are a creedal element of Islam....

What is the interpretation of the final two verses of the first chapter of the Quran?  "Guide us to the straight path--the path of those upon whom you have bestowed your bounty, not those who have incurred your wrath, nor those who are astray.

This verse has nothing about Jews or Christians...yet, almost every person learns that those who have incurred divine wrath are the Jews, and those who are astray are Christians. What is more problematic is that the average person learns this chapter and its interpretation between the ages of 5-8. And we know that things learned at this stage of life become ingrained, almost to the point of being in one's DNA, if I may put it that way....

The reformation will come from Muslims based in the West, and the voices of women will be loud and pivotal in that reformation. Let us look at some names that are as yet unknown to many, but names that have done so much for changing Islamic thought...names of people who may disagree vehemently with each other, but names of people who, for all their difference have done much to purge Islam of the male chauvinism that has afflicted it for centuries ...: Note that they are, with one exception, all now in the West, and that they have all had a western education.

....The Qur'an states at the very beginning of the second chapter "this is a book wherein there is no doubt, a guide for the God-conscious." Its contents are therefore to be seen by every Muslim as being divinely ordained, and to be followed. The verses on Israel as in 5:20-21 are not there just to be read; they are there to be followed. In Islam also, there is the elemental maxim "Calamity must be removed" (al darar yuzal). Muslms must face up to reality--in the years since Israel has been established, the focus of the region has been to seek to have it removed. And they have been unsuccessful, and there seems to be no hope for success. The pragmatic, proactive thing to do would be to come to grips with reality: Israel is there to stay, and it can exist  in a state of peaceful coexistence, or in a stage of bellicosity. The Qur'an tells Muslims that God will not change their position until they change it themselves--and this is a classic example for putting that edict into effect. Only when MUSLIMS themselves accept Israel will they be following their Qur'an. Israel will negotiate from a position of guaranteed security, and while there may be tension from time to time, at least peace will be the norm.'

See also here and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnZ21Udwv5A

Daffy Down Dhimmi

All heads down. Councillor Javid Iqbal sneaks a peak

An obscure rural locality transformed by the Industrial Revolution, Oldham is a struggling former cotton mill town in Lancashire, now part of Greater Manchester.

Long gone are the days when a Conservative parliamentary candidate (Winston Spencer Churchill, no less, in 1900 during the Boer War) could be returned to Westminster for Oldham.  (For its recent election results see here and here)

It elected council reflects the dominance of Labour and the left too.

At least one in four (and climbing) of Oldham's inhabitants is of south Asian, mainly Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim, background.

Muslims predominate in certain areas of the town, and consequently, as their numbers have risen, so has their voting capacity in those areas and their political clout, with the first Muslim mayor of the town, Mr Ahmad Riaz, holding office from 2002-3.  Since then there have been several other Muslim mayors: Mr Abdul Jabbar (2005), Mr Shoab Akhtar (2008-9), Mr Fid Hussain (2014-15), Mr Ateeque Ur-Rehman (2015-16), and the present incumbent, Mr Shadab Qumer (2017-18).

And a good thing too, some might say, proving that integration is at last proceeding in a polarised town not particularly known for the mixing of its old-stock majority and immigrant-stock minority "communities". (In 2001 there were serious race riots in Oldham.  In 2005 fruitcake Nick Griffin of the BNP contested the Oldham West seat.  In 2012 the town, along with neighbouring Rochdale, was affected by one of the Muslim sex gang scandals that have plagued parts of Britain but about which it has been, and largely is, deemed politically incorrect to speak at length.)

It should go without saying that councils are elected to deal with local issues ("roads, rates and rubbish" in popular parlance), not matters of foreign policy, but from the Oldham council's archived press releases we learn that during Mr Hussain's mayoralty

'A delegation from Oldham has delivered a petition to 10 Downing Street calling for peace in Gaza.

Civic, faith and community leaders presented the 8,303 name petition to a government representative on Wednesday – it calls for an end to all hostilities and the recall of Parliament so the crisis can be discussed and humanitarian aid agreed.

The document, which could be signed via the council website [emphasis added] and at sites across the borough, stated: “We, the people of Oldham, call upon the United Kingdom government and the European Union to act now to protect civilians on all sides and stop the suffering in Gaza.”

National politicians are urged to use their influence to:

 Stop the killing - by achieving an immediate, and sustained, ceasefire

 Save lives - by ensuring access for the humanitarian aid needed by the people of Gaza

 Deliver peace and prosperity for the people of Palestine and Israel – by securing commitment from all parties to a process of dialogue leading to a just, long-term solution

Councillor Arooj Shah, Oldham Council’s Deputy Cabinet Member for Policy and Communications, led the delegation.

Cllr Shah said: “Oldham has a history of supporting innocent civilians who are suffering through war and conflict and I am proud that hundreds of people from across the borough have pledged their support by signing this petition.

“They are telling the government we want an immediate end to the violence in Gaza and that we want our politicians to use their influence to do all that they can to make this happen.

“This is a view shared by communities across Oldham, irrespective of ethnicity or faith.

“Hundreds of men, women and children have already lost their lives and this has to stop immediately.”

An event to discuss the conflict and how local people can make a difference is also planned before the end of September.'

The fact that the Left dominates in Oldham is certainly not irrelevant to the above.

Nor to this:

'Oldham Council has hosted a summit looking at how residents can help those suffering through conflict and prevent war damaging community relations in Britain.

‘Making a difference: A conference to discuss local responses to international conflict’ was held at the Queen Elizabeth Hall on Sunday, October 19 with more than 120 people in attendance.

The need for the conference was identified as a result of concerns from residents about the recent conflict between Israel and Palestine in Gaza. [Emphasis added]

Its aims were to increase the ability of borough residents to respond to international conflict in practical and peaceful ways which aim to stop violence, offer humanitarian assistance and encourage just and lasting peace settlements....'

Nor to the truly jaw-dropping initiative of the council on 27 July this year in the wake of the Manchester terrorist atrocity:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYmoCuUIQ2o

 "At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow" goes a line in a Christian hymn. For Oldham council, it seems, "At the name of Allah, every head shall bow."

"Daffy-down-dilly" begins the line  of a Mother Goose rhyme. Those silly women in particular have made geese of themselves.

They have bowed their blonde heads to a creed that considers persons of their gender inherently inferior. 

I wonder how many of them, and of the other councillors present, scoff at Christianity as patriarchal and superstitious (a not insignificant percentage of agnostics and atheists there, I'd wager), yet have allowed themselves to show obeisance to Islam.

These foolish geese have been the willing victims of da'awa

Why did they not insist on an ecumenical event instead of an Islamic supremacist one?

No doubt they have been hoodwinked by the imam's statement "The Quran says whoever kills a body unlawfully or for creating disorder in the land it is as if he has killed the entire of mankind" into thinking that Islam originated that precept.

It is, of course, a precept of Judaism, made long long before Islam adapted it:

“Whoever destroys a soul, it is considered as if he destroyed an entire world. And whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world.”  (Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:9; Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Sanhedrin 37a)

I seldom look at Pamela Geller's site, much less quote anything by her, but it's worth noting her comments on this extraordinary event in Oldham:

'The imam is parsing the quote taken from verse 5:32 of the “Holy Koran.” But he is ripping it out of context and perverting its meaning. The full passage in the Koran applies to the “Children of Israel,” not to Muslims. And it’s followed in the Koran by 5:33, which calls for “execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land” for those who “wage war against Allah and his messenger, or spread mischief in the land.”

At minute 1:56, the imam cites the daily prayer that curses Jews (those who have angered Allah) and Christians (those who have gone astray).

[Australian scholar of Islam, Anglican cleric] Dr. Mark Durie explains here:

"The Islamic daily prayers include repeated recitations of al-Fatihah, the first chapter of the Qur’an. In these few verses, every Muslim prays that they will be guided on the straight path, not like the Christians (‘those who have gone astray’) or the Jews (‘those who incur Allah’s wrath’). This simple contrast, that whereas Christians have lost their way, Jews have fallen under the anger of Allah, neatly summarizes Islam’s attitude to the Jews. The celebrated commentator Ibn Kathir, whose translated tafsir is popular among English-speaking Muslims, explains the distinction in his discussion of al-Fatihah:

 These two paths are the paths of the Christians and Jews, a fact that the believer should beware of so that he avoids them. … the Jews abandoned practicing the religion, while the Christians lost the true knowledge. This is why ‘anger’ descended upon the Jews, while being described as ‘led astray’ is more appropriate of the Christians. Those who know, but avoid implementing the truth, deserve the anger, unlike those who are ignorant. The Christians want to seek the true knowledge, but are unable to find it because they did not seek it from its proper resources.

This is why they were led astray. We should also mention that both the Christians and the Jews have earned the anger and are led astray, but the anger is one of the attributes more particular of the Jews. Allah said about the Jews, ‘Those (Jews) who incurred the curse of Allah and His wrath’ ([Sura] 5:60). The attribute that the Christians deserve most is that of being led astray, just as Allah said about them, ‘Who went astray before and who misled many, and strayed (themselves) from the right path’ ([Sura] 5:77).

Here Ibn Kathir is explaining that, whereas Christians are merely ignorant, Jews know the truth but deliberately reject it, thus thus making themselves objects of Allah’s wrath."

 Despite the inherent misogyny, homophobia and assorted hateful and repugnant verses within the Koran, our unquestioning and uncritical councillors meekly bow their heads as the imam leads them in prayers.

 Unbelievable.'

 Unbelievable indeed. But not in Cloud Cuckoo Land.