Three Faces of Eid (videos)

Arrogant British prime minister Theresa May lavishly praises the "compassion" evinced  by Muslims at Eid al-Adha ("Feast of the Sacrifice"), and shows that she could do with a lesson or three from Anglican theologian and scholar of Islam Dr Mark Durie regarding what he has described as "The Abrahamic Fallacy ... the belief that Abraham is a figure of unity for Islam, Christianity and Judaism".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQslqJZ4qQ

Durie has warned, inter alia:

'The phrase “Abrahamic Religions” has become very popular as a cover-term for these three faiths. It is particularly popular among Jewish and Christian progressives on the one hand, and Muslim apologists on the other. The term implies a kind of unity or brotherhood across the three faiths.

More broadly, the term “Abrahamic religions” has become the standard term, both in comparative religions and popular parlance, to refer to the three monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in contrast, for example, to Indian religions and East Asian religions. 

In essence the claim embodied by the expression is that Abraham is “shared” as a point of common origin by all three monotheistic religions, and naming him as their shared identity is meant to signal that these three faiths are linked together in some kind of theological continuity.... To be sure, Christianity and Judaism do have the Abraham of Genesis in common. This is the Abraham of covenant and promise, the “father of many,” and specifically “father” or “patriarch” of Israel. The Abraham of the Bible is a symbol of God’s benevolence to the nations....

 From the Quran’s perspective, Abraham was the prototypical Muslim. He is used by Muhammad in the Quran as a stick to beat over the heads of Christians and Jews. This arises for example in the context of Muhammad’s disputes with the Jews of Medina (specifically in this Sura: 4:44-57, 156-162). Muhammad is in effect saying, “You quote the name Abraham to me, but Abraham was a Muslim, one of a long line of prophets. If you accept Abraham, you must accept me.”....

Not only Abraham, but Moses and Jesus were Muslim prophets according to the Quran. So Islam is the true heritage of Jews and Christians. Jews and Christians who convert to Islam are actually reverting to the faith of the patriarchs, returning to the one true religion.

 Now the Muslims want to remind their Jews and Christian brothers and sisters of their original sin....

Today the phrase “Abrahamic religion” has become a touchstone of interfaith dialogue and unity between Islam, Christianity and Judaism. But ironically this phrase is another rendering of the “religion of Abraham” of the Quran: the phrase refers to Abraham as a Muslim. In reality Abraham is an intensely divisive figure between Jews, Christians and Muslims. For many Christians he is the apostle of salvation by faith alone, in opposition to Torah-observance. For Jews he is the Torah-observant father of the Jewish nation, and a reminder of God’s irrevocable covenant with the Jews. For Muslims he is the prototypical Muslim prophet, a prominent forerunner and validator of Muhammad’s claim and the ground of Muslim claims that Islam both predates and supersedes the Biblical faiths....'

In another nauseating example of "brown-nosing" for the sake of votes, Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable also delivers an Eid al-Adha message, in which he asserts (pass the sick bucket, please!) that the values of Islam have much in common with Liberal Democrat values and denounces "Islamophobia".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZN304Dvn5A

Meanwhile, this Eid al-Adha, the openly gay British Muslim "drag queen" Asifa Lahore, appalled at the wholesale slaughter of animals that marks the festival, makes the case for a vegan Eid:

All Theresa May's dhimmi-like gushes cannot obscure the fact that for animals Eid is anything but compassionate.

If anyone wishes to have proof of this, and their stomachs are strong enough, they have only to look at the several videos of "qurbani"( including in Canada) on Vlad Tepes's blog on this thread to see sadism and barbarity in action.

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.

Not Fit To Lick Melanie's Boots: The British Board of Deputies Carries On Regardless

O, what a b[r]ummer!

British economics writer Alex Brummer, who is currently City Editor of the Daily Mail, also has a regular column in the Jewish Chronicle.  Mr Brummer, whose columns usually exude good sense, has erred badly in his latest contribution to the latter newspaper, with a most unworthy, myopic attack on one of the few public intellectuals in Britain, Jewish or non-Jewish, possessing the perspicacity and courage to say what needs to be said regarding the threat to the West and to Israel posed by militant Islam and indeed by the creeping islamicisation of non-Islamic societies.

Namely, that truly wonderful woman, Melanie Phillips.

Regular readers of my blog will recall that Ms Phillips recently made a well-justified condemnation of the Board of Deputies' ill-conceived release of a joint statement with the Muslim Council of Britain (see the latter's stance on Gaza here).

My blog quoted the comment on Facebook that Ms Phillips made about the statement.

She subsequently wrote:

'The Board of Deputies last week crossed a line. It stopped being a community embarrassment and became instead a positive menace.

It proudly announced an "unprecedented" joint statement with the Muslim Council of Britain. This said the Middle East conflict should not poison community relations. But it also condemned the "targeting of civilians". The omission of who had supposedly done this targeting implied the Board blamed Israel along with Hamas.

No, protested the Board, this obviously could only relate to Hamas since Israel never targeted civilians. The crucial point, it said, was that the MCB had condemned Hamas.

Oh dear; where to start? The MCB, closely associated with Jamaat-e-Islami extremists and whose affiliated groups often support the Muslim Brotherhood, would never single out Hamas for blame.

UK's Jewish leadership has strengthened its enemies

The Board had enabled it to crow – falsely but plausibly – that the Jews had condemned Israel for war crimes. And the MCB could tell its own people it had not blamed Hamas, since the Palestinians were only civilians while all Israelis were military targets.

Worse still, the Board was boasting of its deal with a body which is a front for Islamic extremism and hatred of Israel and the Jews. Its past leaders have described Israel as "the Zionist terrorist state" and claimed that Hamas "stands for freedom".

It reveres Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who has supported suicide bombings outside Britain and claimed the Torah permits Jews to spill others' blood and seize their money and land.

In 2009, its then deputy secretary general, Daud Abdullah, signed the Istanbul Declaration, which threatened violence against Israel supporters and British troops.

Because the government views it with suspicion, the MCB is now careful to sanitise its language. Even so, its current secretary-general, Shuja Shafi, found it impossible to say on the Today programme that scrawling "Free Gaza" on a synagogue was antisemitic.

Notwithstanding, the Board claims "it gets you nowhere if you only make peace with your friends". Really? Can we expect a historic Board rapprochement with Hamas? Or al Qaeda? Or Iran?

A clue to the Board's idiocy lies elsewhere in the joint statement, which condemns both antisemitism and "Islamophobia" as if these were equal forms of bigotry.

This is a terrible error. While antisemitism is a true prejudice for which there can never be a shred of rational justification, "Islamophobia" is a catch-all phrase used to demonise anyone who makes a legitimate criticism of Islam or Muslims.

So while there may be some who unreasonably hate all Muslims, those who warn about the Islamic jihad or condemn Muslim attacks on women and girls or freedom of speech are condemned as "Islamophobic" to silence such criticism.

Those who point out the virulent antisemitism in Muslim societies are similarly branded. And because the Jewish leadership is desperate to appease Muslims, it is - astoundingly - silent about Muslim antisemitism. Instead, it, too, demonises those who warn against Islamic extremism as "right-wingers" or "Islamophobes".

The Board's spokesman has ludicrously insisted it is right to oppose "Islamophobia" because "racism is racism". It would appear that the Board doesn't even understand that Islam is not a race but a religion.

The Jewish leadership has now invested legitimate criticism of Islam with a status equivalent to the most hateful prejudice in the world. It has thus helped silence criticism of threatening Islamic behaviour and made all in Britain more vulnerable to attack.

Similarly, by awarding a kitemark of respectability to the MCB, it has undermined all who struggle to defend Britain against Islamic extremism. A Muslim academic, Mohammed al Husseini, has expressed his sense of betrayal at the Board's "collaboration" with the MCB.

All decent people, Jews and non-Jews - including truly anti-jihadi Muslims - need to stand shoulder to shoulder against Islamic extremism. Instead, the UK's Jewish leadership has breached the defences and strengthened the foe.'  [Emphasis added]

Particularly odious is Brummer's contention that

 "We are all capable of scouring the worldwide web in search of adverse material that supports our case. Phillips is expert at this and her fondness for conspiracy theories on a range of issues including events in the Middle East are legion"

As one very prominent Anglo-Jewish Zionist who is also a member (yes, there are still members who have not caught the dhimmitude bug) of the Board of Deputies remarks on Facebook:

"Alex Brummer – In defending the indefensible you have resorted to a baseless ad hominem attack on Melanie Phillips...

Resorting to playing the [wo]man rather than the ball simply reveals to all how impossible you find it to defend your case. I really thought you were above such libellous smear tactics. Shame.

 Melanie Phillips is a thorough and principled journalist and possibly the best asset we have in advocating for Israel and fighting antisemitism...

MCB supports BDS but no boycott of the goods of any other country. So how can its condemnation of antisemitism carry any credibility??"

That admirable Deputy also writes:

'Next Sunday there is a motion at Bd Deps: "That the Board supports the Executive in its approval of a joint statement by the Board and the Muslim Council of Britain condemning anti-Semitism"

There are several reasons to oppose the motion.

1. MCB still has as members groups aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and sympathetic to Hamas. The Board should be allying with moderates like Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini who has roundly criticised the joint statement.

2. The MCB supports a boycott of Israeli goods. How can a condemnation of antisemitism by an organisation that has an antisemitic policy in place have any credibility whatsoever? And why did the President not see that?

3. The Board should not be giving the MCB credibility – it undermines the government’s strategy of bypassing the MCB as far as tackling extremism is concerned.

4. The MCB’s condemnation of antisemitism is meaningless without its confirmation that it accepts the same definition of antisemitism as the Board’s – namely, the EUMC Definition. I have asked it to confirm – no response.

5. Dr [Shuja] Shafi heads MCB. On the [BBC] “Today” programme he refused three times to accept that daubing “Gaza” on a synagogue wall is antisemitic. [Dr Shafi evidently thought better of this image-breaker when he left the studio; see tweet. Did a panicky Board of Deputies contact him, perchance? If so, he still fell short.  D.A.]

6. One part of the statement was very badly written. It said "The targeting of civilians is completely unacceptable and against our religious traditions". The phrase "against our religious traditions" is in the plural. It therefore includes both Judaism and Islam. It therefore conveys the impression that the Board believes that the IDF targeted civilians, otherwise why the reference to Judaism? (To argue that Hamas' targeting of civilians is against Jewish religious traditions is nonsensical). Of course the Board does not think that the IDF targeted civilians …. but when writing about such a sensitive subject, perception is all important.

7. I am a member of the Board’s Defence Division and one of our responsibilities is interfaith work. Such a potentially controversial statement should have been shown to me and the other members of the Division for comment before it was released. It wasn’t. Yet another example – like the infamous Oxfam project – of the members of a supposedly democratic body being presented with a fait accompli.

If you too oppose the motion please lobby your Deputy to speak and vote against it.' [Emphasis added.]

"If Sharia Law Ever Were To Formally Become Part of Our Legal System It Would Not Exit That Legal System Quietly": A British lawyer's chilling warning

http://www.onelawforall.org.uk/letter-to-the-justice-ministry-on-sharia-law-from-anne-marie-waters/

Rejoice, rejoice!  (And if you're female, dance a jig.)  A fightback has begun in Britain against the creeping inroads of the Islamic injustice system.  Britain's bulldog spirit is not yet dead! At least not on the part of some of the country's best and brightest, a number of whom (and this comes as no surprise, given the inferior status of women in Islamic law and practice) are female.

Yesterday, on the premises of the British House of Lords, a crucial new initiative called "Sharia Watch UK" was launched, and not before time.

As reported here (where several useful relevant links such as this are posted):

'The new organisation will campaign for recognition of the dangers posed by sharia law in the UK, particularly in relation to women’s rights.... The event was hosted by Baroness Caroline Cox who has campaigned against the use of sharia law in tribunals and councils across the UK.  Lady Cox has argued that sharia law “undermines the most fundamental principles of equality enshrined in British law” in respect of its treatment of women.

The new Sharia Watch UK web resource aims to highlight the impact of Islamism in Britain, and the often hidden face of is proponents.  Sharia tribunals and councils currently operate a system of family law in the UK which denies women unilateral divorce rights – even in cases of domestic violence.  Sharia family law also denies child custody to women and treats their testimony as worth less than that of their husbands....

Sharia Watch UK will show the public, and our political leaders, the extent of the threat that sharia and Islamic extremism pose to the rights and freedoms of women, freedom of speech, and democratic principles....'

 Concurrent with the launch, a report entitled "Sharia Law – Britain’s Blind Spot", has appeared:

 'It]analyses the beliefs of apparently “mainstream” Muslim organisations and argues that such beliefs represent an extremist view and should be regarded as such.  Some of the senior figures involved in these groups advocate not only sharia law, but “jihad” against non-Muslims.  Furthermore, they express a desire for a full Islamic state – including barbaric punishments – in Britain.  Such groups have been represented as “moderate” and endorsed by the legacy media and mainstream public figures.'

At the launch of the new initiative, Charlie Klendjian, Secretary of the Lawyers' Secular Society (LSS)  made an impressive must-read speech, in which he noted inter alia:

".... Political Islam, a crucial plank of which is sharia law, presents what we can calmly describe as “a unique set of challenges” for the 21st century.

Sharia law is perhaps the most serious political, legal, moral and social issue we face – and when I say “we” I do not mean lawyers, or secularists, but sadly humanity itself.

I am very pleased that this group has been set up, and with the participation of parliamentarians, because a political response is sorely needed to what is essentially a political threat, and a very grave one, to our way of life.

To the extent there’s any consensus on sharia law amongst our politicians at the present time it’s a consensus, at best, of collective head‐burying in sand and at worst, a consensus of positively encouraging and facilitating sharia law; of giving it the oxygen it craves.

This worrying trend must be reversed, and at some tempo, and I hope today might be the beginning of that process ....

Through the work of Baroness Cox and Anne Marie Waters, and many other fine individuals, we have seen the mayhem that sharia law is already creating in our jurisdiction – and remember, this is when it has the status of theology.

We know that women and children routinely have their fundamental legal rights violated in sharia councils, be it because of duress, because of an inequality of bargaining power, or because of a simple ignorance of their rights under English law. And so we can ask another question: “If this is the mayhem created when sharia law has the status of theology, dare we imagine what kind of mayhem it might create as law?"....

Make no mistake, if sharia law ever were to formally become part of our legal system it would not exit that legal system quietly. Indeed, this country might even require some form of civil disorder or something akin to a violent revolution to remove sharia law from our legal system.

Once sharia law is formally within our legal system there will follow a process of contagion to other areas of our legal system.

This is as inevitable as day following night.

It will spread to the criminal law.

And to those who dismiss these fears as pie‐in‐the‐sky, tabloid scare‐mongering, or “illinformed”, and who say, “Charlie, this could never happen, you’re just being silly now”, I say this: I didn’t think the Law Society would issue Sharia guidance on how to discriminate against women and non‐Muslims. Did you?”....'  [Emphasis added]

 Read all of Charlie Klendjian's important, admirable, courageous speech here