Home > Tag Archives: Islam

Tag Archives: Islam

March 16th. 2017

We’re in Deadly Peril from Islam

Fight and slay the pagans [i.e. infidels] wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem of war.The Koran, Sura 9:5

What was the meaning of all that whisper of fear that ran round the west under the shadow of Islam, and fills every old romance with incongruous images of Saracen knights swaggering in Norway or the Hebrides?G.K. Chesterton, The Everlasting Man.

Continuing our series of old articles from the Brandsma Review (we haven’t had any for  around six months) here’s one I wrote  around the turn of the millennium. I wouldn’t change a line of it, but I think  the threat from Islam is now far  greater than it was then.

In the mid 1960s I worked on a London newspaper with a Moslem from the Indian sub-continent called Khalim Siddiqui. He was intelligent and courteous, totally convinced of the truth of Islam, and impressively eloquent on the benefits of regular prayer. But his mind was entirely closed to other philosophies: they weren’t even worth investigating. He knew all he needed to know about Jews and Christians: God had rejected each in turn and raised up ‘the prophet’ Mohammed. Moslems were the final, complete heirs of the Abrahamic faith.

Twenty-five years later, Khalim could be heard ranting on the radio, calling for the implementation of the fatwa on Salman Rushdie, and for an Islamic parliament which would claim the allegiance of British Moslems and subject them to its own laws. By then, he was clearly not only a bigot, but a dangerous fanatic.

The question is, had he been one all along?

Francis Martel, writing in the magazine Culture Wars (July-August 1999) can help supply part of the answer: ‘There is not one Islam that is reasonable and approachable, and another that is the demented distortion of that…There is no non-fundamentalist version of Islam.’ (Martel is the pseudonym of an American who teaches in an Islamic country.)

There is much to admire about individual Moslems. One can be grateful for their stalwart opposition to abortion and euthanasia; their alliance with the Vatican and other Christians at the Cairo population conference was crucial in defeating the machinations of Planned Parenthood. We have even carried a fine pro-life article by a Moslem doctor, Majid Katme, in this Review.

And yet…I have come to believe that now Communism has been defeated the next big challenge facing Europe is coming from Islam—as so often in the past. But this time, it will be mainly internal rather than external And because of the woeful spiritual state of the West, we are as yet quite incapable of defending ourselves against it.

More than 60 years ago, when the West was not yet as degenerate and ‘post-Christian’ as it is today, the southern shores of the Mediterranean and the Near and Middle East were controlled or dominated by France, Britain and Italy. At that time, Hilaire Belloc issued a warning that must have seemed absurdly alarmist. It’s worth quoting at length:

‘Islam survives. Its religion is intact; therefore its material strength may return. Our religion is in peril of dissolution, and who can be confident in the continued skill, let alone the continued obedience, of those who make and work our machines?…There is with us a complete chaos in religious doctrine where religious doctrine is still held, and even in that part of the European population where the united doctrine and definition of Catholicism survives, it survives as something to which the individual is attached rather than the community. As nations we worship ourselves, we worship the nation; or we worship (some few of us) a particular economic arrangement believed to be the satisfaction of social justice. Those who direct us, and from whom the tone of our policy is taken, have no major spiritual interest. Their major personal interest is private gain, and this mood is reflected in the outer forms of government by the establishment of plutocracy.

‘Islam has not suffered this spiritual decline; and in the contrast between the religious certitudes still strong throughout the Mohammedan world, as lively in India as in Morocco, active throughout North Africa and Egypt…lies our peril.’

Speculating on the probability of some notable change in the Middle East, he added: ‘Perhaps that change will be deferred, but change there will be, continuous and great. Nor does it seem probable that at the end of such a change, particularly if it be prolonged, Islam will be the loser.’ (The Crusade, 1937)

When our ancestors attempted to wrest the Holy Places from the Moslems they were aware that Islam intended to conquer the whole world,and could well do so if it were not vigorously opposed. It is little over 300 years since the last serious Moslem attempt to take over Europe was launched. It was defeated under the walls of Vienna by King John Sobieski of Poland. Islam is still just as determined to achieve world domination: that is regarded as a religious duty.

The Moslems had a respect for Richard Coeur de Lion and Don Juan of Austria, even though they regarded them as infidels. They must find us modern Catholics, with our ‘apologies’ for Lepanto and the Crusades, utterly pathetic—a pushover! That is not to suggest we should now seek to overthrow Islam by force of arms—that would be anachronistic, absurd and unjust. But we should, by now, be aware of Moslem intentions, and resisting them by political, economic and above all by spiritual means. For we are confronted by an aggressive Islamic revival, stretching all the way from the Philippines to Nigeria.

In his Culture Wars article, Martel points out that from its beginnings in sixth-century Arabia, Islam has divided the world into the Dar Es Orb and the Dar Es Islam, (the world at war and the world of peace, or the world that has ‘submitted’, which is what Islam means, and the world still to be conquered. Once a territory becomes part of the Dar Es Islam, it must remain so.

In this connection, the Evangelical Christian apologist for Israel, Lance Lambert points that one reason why Moslems wish to destroy the Jewish State is that Palestine is part of the Dar Es Islam, having once been under Moslem control. Its very existence is an affront to Islamic theology. (So, presumably—although I have never seen this argued—must be the existence of non-Moslem Spain and Portugal.)

Although the peril to the West is clearer now than it was in Belloc’s day, few seem to be concerned. This is probably because the astonishing successes of tiny Israel in the wars of 1948 and 1967, and then the crushing Desert Storm victory over Iraq, have led us to despise the military capabilities of modern Islam.

We are missing the point: the danger is not so much external (though it could well become so) as internal and spiritual. The United States (the only remaining superpower) has been particularly naive in its dealings with Islam—failing to realise that Moslems simply have no concept of the individual having the right to choose his own path. Islam is of its very nature aggressive and totalitarian. It has is no separation of ‘church’ and ‘state’.

Public relations consultants to major Moslem organisations in the US use the liberal media to assuage the public while they pursue radical agendas inimical to the American system. ‘Now, in addition to homophobia, we have Islamophobia, a dread disease no contemporary journalist wishes to catch,’ says Martel. The American Islamic Council and the Council of American-Islamic Relations have managed to condition the media not to criticise the activities of Moslems for fear of a libel suit. Forthright coverage of militant Islamic terrorist groups operating in America resulted in journalist Steven Emerson being placed on a blacklist. Martel continues:

‘It is not possible to publish a critical essay about the Koran, as the Atlantic Monthly did in January 1999, without screams that the West has begun a new Crusade. Arab and Islamic studies are now popular in universities happy to receive petro-dollars to build special libraries and programmes and to endow professorships. The Moslems who support or teach in these programmes would be the first to riot in the streets should universities in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Bahrain or Oman accept a chair in Christian Theology or Jewish studies…In America, several generations of Christians and clergy—including Bishops and Cardinals—who have been nourished on share-and-care theology easily buy the view that the Moslems are being bashed by wicked people.

As I study what Moslems are about in the United States, I am struck by the ‘virus’ theory , that given enough local nutrition and space, Islamic society will attempt to reduplicate itself and emphasise its power and exclusivity. In short, in England and America, where there are some 1200 mosques each, and in other countries of the West, most Moslems prefer to create islands of Islam or ‘beachheads’ as Khomeini called them when he condemned Salman Rushdie. When these grow large enough to exert political power, they begin to demand that the large society change to fit Islam, as in England, where Moslems demanded their own separate parliament. Other Moslems in England argued against this, but mostly because they felt it was ‘too soon’.

Western foreign policy towards Islamic countries is as supine as its treatment of Moslems at home. Martel points out that when Desert Storm entered Saudi Arabia, the Americans permitted the Saudis to tell them that chaplains could not wear crosses, and worship services had to be disguised as counselling sessions. ‘When such behaviour is acceptable to the West, Islam knows that it is winning the worldwide culture war.’

The Balkan situation is muddled, as it has been throughout modern history—but now very much to Islam’s advantage. Islamic nations have armed, trained and financed the Bosnian army and the KLA in Kosovo. Their aim is an Islamic state comprising Bosnia-Herzegovina, Macedonia, Albania and Kosovo—the largest chunk of Europe under Moslem control since the days of the old Turkish empire. President Alia Izetbegovic of Bosnia is known to be a fanatical proponent of the formation of Islamic states, and has purged his army of non-Moslems. Under the Dayton accords, his country is supposed to be a multi-ethnic society with liberty and justice for all. Yet in 1997, Izetbegovic addressed the Eighth Session of the Islamic Summit Conference in Teheran. It is worth recalling that Izetbegovic was imprisoned by the Yugoslav Communists for his pan-Islamic agitation which shows—as Martel drily comments—that the Marxist governments of Eastern Europe knew exactly what they had to suppress.

If all the above strikes you as over-alarmist, listen to Archbishop Giuseppe Germano Bernardini, O.F.M., Cap., of Izmir (formerly Smyrna) in Turkey, where he has lived for 42 years. In an intervention to the Post-Synodal Council in Rome, Archbishop Bernardini gave examples of the futility of ‘dialogue’ with Moslems: During an official meeting on Islamic-Christian dialogue, an authoritative Moslem person, speaking  to Christians participating, at one point said very calmly and assuredly: ‘Thanks to your democratic laws we will invade you; thanks to our religious laws we will dominate you.’ The Archbishop said the ‘domination’ has already begun , with petro-dollars used not to create work in poor North African or Middle Eastern countries, but to build mosques and cultural centres in Christian countries with Islamic immigrants—including Rome, the centre of Christendom. ‘How can we fail to see in all this a clear programme of expansion and conquest?’

He added: ‘During another Islamic-Christian meeting, always organised by Christians, a Christian participant asked the Moslems present why they did not organise at least one meeting of this kind. The Moslem authority present answered in the following words: ‘Why should we? You have nothing to teach us and we have nothing to learn.’

Archbishop Bernardini said of course we must distinguish the fanatic and violent minority from the tranquil and honest majority; ‘but the latter, at an order given in the name of Allah or the Koran, will always march in unity and without hesitation.’

He appealed to Rome to begin to face up to the threat from Islam: ‘And now I would like to make a serious proposal to the Holy Father: to organise as soon as possible, if not a Synod, at least a symposium of Bishops and those engaged in the pastoral care of immigrants, particularly Islamic immigrants, and open to the Reformed and Orthodox Churches. The symposium could be useful to study in a collegial way the problem of the Islamic individuals in Christian countries, and thus find a common strategy to face it and resolve it in a Christian and objective way. I end this exhortation suggested to me by experience: do not allow Moslems ever to use a Catholic church for their worship, because in their eyes this would be the surest proof of our apostasy.’

Early this century [that’s the 20th, of course]  G.K. Chesterton wrote a fantasy called The Flying Inn about an England turned Moslem in which all the pubs were closed by law. (It was rescued, if I remember rightly, by an Irish sea captain who travelled around the country with a large cheese, a barrel of rum, and an inn-sign.) I used to think the whole idea was just too absurd: now I’m not so sure.

When Father Richard John Neuhaus reviewed a book called The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam and pointed out some of the things referred to above, he was savaged by the Council of American-Islamic Relations, which demanded that the Catholic Church should ‘investigate’ him for daring to suggest that Islam is a permanent threat to Western Society and that Christian-Moslem dialogue might be a delusion.

Of course, it is. As Martel says: ‘Remember the past. Know Islam, love the Moslems, but accept no follies that would lie about a global threat that will surely be permanent until the heathen are converted.’

* * * * *

I have hardly touched the surface of the vast subject: in particular, the ongoing persecutions of Christians in many Moslem states should have an article to itself. The atrocities committed in Sudan, above all, are almost unbelievable: and it is astonishing that they get so little mention in the Western media. The persecution of the Christian Copts—the original inhabitants of Egypt—has lasted off and on for 1400 years. I should also have liked to have dealt in depth with the role of Israel in relation to Islam, and to have discussed the history of Mohammed and the Moslem attitude to women.

For further reading I would recommend, in addition to the July-August 1999 issue of the Catholic magazine Culture Wars (206 Marquette Avenue, South Bend IN 46617) the following Protestant publications: Robert Morey, The Islamic Invasion: Confronting the World’s Fastest-Growing Religion, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon 1992 (187pp.), and The History of Islam: Its Self-Understanding, its Claim to Jerusalem. The latter is a pamphlet published by Christian Friends of Israel, 15 Teddington Business Park, Station Road, Teddington, Middlesex TW11 9BQ, England. Some very informative tapes can be obtained from ‘Prayer for Israel’, 199 Widmore Road, Bromley, Kent, England.

Re-reading what I wrote then I realise that perhaps I may have been a little over-gloomy. We should at least be grateful to President Trump for taking the first tentative steps to neutralise the Moslem threat, in addition to his apparently genuine conversion to the pro-life cause.

June 14, 2015

An End to Medjheadery?

I don’t know if Pope Francis had Medjugorje and its “seers” in mind last week when he criticised those “who always  need novelty in their Christian identity”, adding  “but where are the visionaries who tell us today about ‘the letter that the Madonna will send tomorrow at 4 p.m.?’”  I certainly hope so. The Pope told reporters earlier this week that a decision on Medjugorje  is due soon.

There is overwhelming evidence that Medjugorje  is a fake, and it is high time for a definitive decision to that effect.  Thousands of  people have been deceived, and if the Holy Father is about to grasp this nettle he will deserve the undying gratitude of all Catholics—although there are many who won’t see it that way.

Yes, I know there have been some good fruits, such as people returning to the sacraments—particularly to confession. But it’s the roots that are rotten.

Who could possibly find fault with Pope Francis’ assertion that “God’s last word is called Jesus and nothing more.”  Fr Hunwicke  thinks it is a wonderful and beautifully terse expression  of Christian Orthodoxy.

It puts down the errors of Islam; it is a rebuff to the neo-Gnostic convolutions of the Kaspers and Marxes. It is a superb expression of the function of the Roman Pontiff to act as a barrier, what Blessed John Henry Newman called a remora, against innovation, whether dogmatic or moral; and it could serve as a summary of the the decree Pastor aeternus of Vatican I. Four cheers for our beloved Holy Father!







May 6th, 2015

Cynical Promise to Moslems

As Allison Pearson noted in a recent issue of the British Daily Telegraph:

’Tis the election season, so promises fall from the lips of our leaders like blossom from an apple tree.   Some promises are more cynical and stinky than others.

One of the most cynical was from the Labour Party leader Ed Miliband, who  promised Moslems that a future Labour government would outlaw “Islamaphobia” , making it an “aggravated crime”.  As Allison Pearson notes,  Miliband told Muslim News  that he would make sure “Islamophobia”  was marked on offenders’ records,  to enable  the police to root out this “hate crime”.

The reason, of course, is that Moslems tend overwhelmingly to vote Labour, and Miliband wants to keep it that way. Never mind that gangs of Moslem men in Rotherham and other places have been corrupting, trafficking in,  and raping thousands of vulnerable white schoolgirls in Rotherham and other places.  Local authorities, police and social services—shame on them—have done nothing to protect these children for fear of being considered   “racist”, and alienating “the community”.  Allison Pearson comments:

Far from focusing on Islamophobia, Mr Miliband should be directing Labour apparatchiks, brainwashed about the joys of multiculturalism, to root out the hate crime of misogyny, still considered acceptable by so many in ‘the community’.

She concludes that a new aggravated crime of “Islamaphobia” makes it even less likely that  monsters such as those in Rotherham will be “outed”.

I’m not suggesting that all Moslems approve of  rape, but  “the Prophet Mohammed” (as we now have to call this rebarbative and bloodthirsty paedophile)  would certainly not have objected to such conduct. Indeed, it appears to have the sanction of the Koran, in these two  convoluted verses:

Sura 23:1-6—The Believers must (eventually) win through—those who humble themselves in their prayers; who avoid vain talk; who are active in deeds of charity; who abstain from sex, except with those joined to them in the marriage bond, or the captives whom their right hand possess—for in their case they are free from blame. 

Sura 70:22-30—Not so those devoted to Prayer—those who remain steadfast to their prayer; and those in whose wealth is a recognized right for the (needy) who asks and him who is prevented (for some reason from asking); and those who hold to the truth of the Day Of Judgement; and those who fear the displeasure of their Lord—for their Lord’s displeasure is the opposite of Peace and Tranquility—and those who guard their chastity, except with their wives and the (captives) whom their right hands possess—for then they are not to be blamed. 

Can  there be any doubt that in the eyes of some  Moslems,  the unfortunate schoolgirls of Rotherham amount  to “captives whom their right hands possess”, and are therefore fair game?

In passing, I note that the Church of England, in what amounted to an act of apostasy, effectively denied the divinity of Our Lord,  subordinating Him to  Mohammed  in a Turkish prayer recited during a service in Westminster Abbey to commemorate the Gallipoli campaign. I’m glad to record that the erastian Anglican blog archbishopcranmer  was  appalled:

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.

It may not be very PC or neighbourly or conducive to interfaith relations to say it, but Mohammed was a false prophet (Jer 14:14-16; 1Jn 4:1; Acts 4:12; 2Cor 11:3f). By rejecting the crucifixion and denying the resurrection of Christ (who is not the ‘Chosen One’), Islam espouses ‘another Jesus’, ‘another spirit’ and ‘another gospel’. They are and ought to remain free to proclaim their religiosity, however false and erroneous it may be. But not, please God, in the Collegiate Church of St Peter (aka Westminster Abbey), which is a Royal Peculiar of the Supreme Governor.

Finally, don’t you just love the placard below. It just about encapsulates everything you need to know about Islam and its “prophet”. Brutal, humourless and  devoid of any sense of irony.

February 19, 2015

Ave Flores Martyrum!

Here is another picture of some of the Coptic martyrs murdered by Moslem fanatics in Libya.  As Antonio Socci of  Rorate Caeli says, we need to look these young heroes in the face. 

How can the Church waste time with pseudo-questions, such as “communion for ‘remarried’ divorced”, when scores of Christians are being slaughtered every single day?
By Antonio Socci

We need to look at those 21 young Christians in the face. Rather than deny Christ they underwent martyrdom in Libya and before having their throat cut by ISIS… they were continuously pronouncing the name of Jesus. Like the martyrs of old.

Their Bishop says: ‘That name whispered at the last instant was akin to the sealing of their martyrdom.’ Coptic Christians are strong people, tempered by 1400 centuries of Islamic persecutions. They are heirs to that St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who saved the true Catholic Faith from the Arian heresy, held by most of the bishops at that time. They are tough Christians, not like the spineless, tepid Catholics we are here in the West.
Here’s what real strength is: it’s not what hates and kills the defenceless (even children) and crucifies those who have a different faith, rapes the women—waving a black flag, faces hidden.
The real strength is the one of the defenceless who accept even martyrdom rather than deny their own dignity—that is to say, their faith—giving witness to the wonders of
‘the Beautiful Love’ as an ancient definition of the Son of God names Him.
A wonderful testimony. These are the true martyrs: the Christians. Not those who go around slaughtering defenceless innocents.
This is the glory of Christians: to follow a God who saved the world by having Himself killed, not by killing others, like all the leaders, ringleaders and ideologues (or revolutionaries) of this world have done, and who are so exalted in history books.

January 10, 2015

Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie

In the wake of the slaughter of the 12  Secularist journalists in Paris, there has been a plethora of rather nauseous humbug about “freedom of expression”, and how it must be defended at all costs. No: this appalling atrocity  is not about freedom of expression; it’s about the right of everyone, even the most  hate-filled and bigoted,  not to be murdered by  Moslem fanatics or anyone else.

Charlie Hebdo is a contemptible  and disgusting publication. One of its front covers  showed an explicitly sodomistic cartoon ridiculing  the Holy and Undivided Trinity. There is also a cartoon of Pope Benedict holding a mole inside his cassock and saying “This makes a change from choirboys”. Imagine what would happen if, for instance,  the Brandsma Review  or the Catholic Voice published a cartoon obscenely libelling,  say, Senator David Norris. Do you think they would get away with it? Why, in some countries now it’s not even permissible to show pictures of aborted babies. Do our liberal journos protest about that? Freedom of expression how are ye?

Nevertheless, the murdered French journalists possessed one virtue:  courage. They died because they were extremely brave men, prepared to put their own lives on  the line for their perceived right to indulge in hate-filled defamation.  One can at least admire them for that, in a strange way. May God be merciful to them.

In Ireland, there are plenty of communicators only too willing to blaspheme the Christian religion.  They are fortunate that Christians don’t believe  murder, or violence of any kind, is an appropriate response to blasphemy.  Quite a few years ago Fintan O’Toole of the Irish Times wrote a piece  mocking  Catholic belief in the Real Presence. As I pointed out at the time, he wouldn’t have dreamed of taking on Islam.  Bullies are always careful to choose soft targets and not to tangle with people they have reason to fear might hit back.

I see that Google is carrying a black ribbon on its site, with the slogan: “Remembering the victims of the attack on Charlie Hebdo.” Why have they chosen to mark this particular atrocity in such a way?  Fr John Hunwicke, as you might expect, has some pertinent questions:

Has Google been waggling black ribbons around while thousands of Christians have been murdered in the Middle East and in Africa?

Why not?

What is the going ‘Google tariff’, I wonder? Is one Secularist life equivalent, perhaps, to 10,000 Christian lives? Would that be near the mark? It would be nice to know. Just how cheap do they hold Christian blood (or, for that matter, Islamic blood) to be in relation to good, pure, Secularist blood?















December 4, 2014

Morality and the Demon ‘Allah’

I’ve long been an admirer of Hilary White’s blog Orwell’s Picnic. In this entry—which I am quoting at length here—she shows that, contrary  to what you might expect, Islam has a lot in common with moral relativism. (I think Pope Benedict was making much the same point in his mild and courteous speech at Regensburg which made the Moslems so angry.)

For a long time, the Fashionably Stupid People, frequently younger people, have liked to say, ‘Well, there’s more than one kind of morality,’ and ‘You can’t impose your moral values on me,’ and ‘Morality is a malleable concept,’ and other related irrational and self-refuting rubbish. And we know this was, let’s face it, mostly puerile attempts to justify having (their preferred variety of) sex outside of natural marriage, or approving of abortion or divorce as a ‘right’ or whatnot.

Well, we are seeing now, aren’t we, all over the place, but especially in Middle Eastern countries that there really is such a thing as a ‘different morality’ from the one we have all taken for granted all our lives. For various reasons, Islamic ‘morality’ doesn’t include a concept of a universal moral law. They don’t believe that all persons, by virtue of being human, have the same rights. And they don’t believe that it is always, inherently, wrong to steal from or attack or lie or kill or rape or enslave other people. There is no such thing in Islamic ‘morality’ as ‘inherent’ right or wrong. This has to do with the monster they worship being above its own laws. The demon ‘Allah’ can change its mind about right and wrong, (thus giving the lie to the insane notion that it is the same as the God of Abraham) therefore there is no universal objective moral law in Islam. In Islam, we have finally seen what moral relativism really turns into: the triumph of the will over all. Might makes right.

We’ve had a pretty hard time accepting that this is really what we’re seeing, because the Judeo-Christian ethic has been so ubiquitous that we have simply assumed that this is how all humans work. The notion that other people, large groups of people, really could have radically different ideas about right and wrong from those we have based our culture on seemed so outlandish that we have wasted precious years, more than a decade now, arguing about how it’s not really Islam that says these things, even though the people doing the acts tell us every day, all day that it does.

But I’ve realised where this denial has come from. If the perpetual adolescents were to admit that it is Islam itself that sanctions and even mandates these acts, they would have to admit that there is such a thing as an immutable, universal moral law from which these acts are a systematic deviation, and that is behind our judgement that the acts in question are wrong, are evil and must be stopped. It would, in short, yank the entire argument out from under their precious Sexual Revolution, and force them to admit its close relationship with the same moral relativism—the same triumph of will—that is currently murdering, raping and enslaving its way across the Islamic world, right now.

They would no longer be the good guys struggling for ‘rights’. They would just be a bunch of kids addicted to a pornographic anti-culture and trying to use the force of law to make everyone else addicted to it too.


Happy Breed of Moslems

New  research shows that “Mohammed” has become the top boys’ name chosen by parents in Britain after a huge surge in popularity for Arabic names generally.

Mohammed has risen 27 places from last year to claim the number one spot for the boys, according to data carried out by the website BabyCentre.

The next thing we need to know is: how long will it take the Moslems  to outbreed the indigenous population?  It looks as if David Abbott’s book Dark Albion: A Requiem for the English (see earlier posts) was not far off the mark.

November 20, 2014

The Preferential Option for Protestantism

On November 10  I mentioned  Hilaire Belloc’s prophecy in 1937 that Islam would eventually recover its power, and that the former Christian nations of Europe lacked  the spiritual strength to defeat it. He was dead right.

But another prediction  of Belloc’s, that  Catholicism would grow while Protestantism would decline, has proved to be quite mistaken. (I mean real Catholicism and real Protestantism.)

In  this present  post  we  see  just how serious the falling away has been, using the extreme example of what’s been happening in Latin America. (With acknowledgments to the Rorate Caeli blog, from whom I quote extensively)  In the next post,  I hope to suggest  how this disastrous trend could  be reversed.

So first, have a careful look at this table. It’s really scarifying.

Historical data suggest that for most of the 20th century, from 1900 through the 1960s, at least 90% of Latin America’s population was Catholic.

What happened exactly in the 1960s?…It is always affirmed by those who say that the collapse in almost all Catholic indicators that followed the Second Vatican Council was a coincidence;  that the 1960s and 1970s were an era of strong secularisation and that the collapse would have happened anyway.
Well, that might conceivably help to explain the collapse in Western Europe, North America, and Australia. But in Latin America (where the current pope studied to be a priest during the 1960s, being ordained in December 1969), what happened instead during the same period was an intense religious revival. But instead of it being channeled through the traditional structures of Catholic life, these same traditional structures were being dismantled by the Latin American hierarchy inebriated with the spirit of aggiornamento, and Latin Americans, who just wanted pure religious life, converted in droves to Protestantism, the only ‘space’ in which they could find signs of the Christian message. In Honduras, the country of the most powerful man in the Roman Curia today after the Pope, Cardinal Rodríguez Maradiaga (who has been a bishop in the capital since 1978, first as auxiliary then as Archbishop), the hierarchy led by him managed the amazing feat of transforming that country in the first Catholic-minority nation in Central America, a vertiginous fall from 94% to 46% in the same period–and the same happened in Uruguay, across the Rio de la Plata from Buenos Aires:

In the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council, whose influence in Latin America was widely and deeply felt by all the faithful in the region since the beginning, in particular by way of radical and immediate liturgical upheaval and of the various ‘Latin American conference documents’ (Medellín, Puebla, Santo Domingo, Aparecida), it can only be said that, as the Latin American Church insisted on a poorly-understood and anti-traditional version of Christian poverty, making what the hierarchy thought would be a ‘preferential option for the poor’, the poor made a preferential option for Protestantism. As the Church abandoned traditional spirituality and worship for mundane politicised concerns and liturgy, many faithful looked for authentic spirituality wherever they could find it. They found it elsewhere.

The Maradiaga principle has been tried and tested; its effect is abysmal, as proved by the clear numbers. The liberal-and-liberation-theology experiment in Latin America did not work. It will not work when applied to the world stage, either, and may even hinder the growth of Catholicism in those few strongly conservative nations, such as those in Africa, where a muscular, morally strong, and orthodox Catholic faith is still spreading out confidently.

I think that comment from Rorate Caeli  is absolutely right.  Surely two  of the positive things about evangelical Protestantism  are a) its emphasis on the Bible as the inspired word of God, and b) its emphasis on salvation. People need both these things, and the Catholic Church, sorry to say, frequently fails to provide them.  Liberation theology, and the kind of secularised religion served up by progressive  Catholic prelates, just don’t provide the kind of spiritual sustenance we fallen humans require as a bare minimum.

November 10, 2014

Belloc’s Prophecy Fulfilled

In January 1937, the month I was born, Hilaire Belloc wrote the following prophetic passage at the end of his book The Crusade:

The comparatively recent domination of Western Europeans, English and French, over Mohammedan lands, is due to causes mainly material and therefore ephemeral. One must always look to moral (or, more accurately, to spiritual) causes for the understanding of human movements and political change. Of these, by  far the most important is the philosophy adopted by the community, whether that philosophy can be fully expressed as a religion, or taken for granted without overt definition.

Now it is true that on the spiritual side Islam had declined in one factor wherein we of the West had not declined, and that was the factor of energy allied to, and productive of, tenacity and   continuity of conduct. But on the other hand, in the major thing of all, Religion, we have fallen back and Islam has in the main preserved its soul. Modern Europe and particularly Western Europe has progressively lost its religion, and especially that united religious doctrine permeating the whole community, which unity gives spiritual strength to that community.

There is with us a complete chaos in religious doctrine, where religious doctrine is still held, and even in that part of the European population where the united doctrine and definition of Catholicism survives, it survives as something to which the individual is attached rather than the community. As nations we worship ourselves, we worship the nation; or we worship (some few of us) a particular economic arrangement believed to be the satisfaction of social justice. Those who direct us, and from whom the tone of our policy is taken, have no major spiritual interest. Their major personal interest is private gain, and this mood is reflected in the outer forms of government by the establishment of plutocracy.

Islam has not suffered this spiritual decline; and in the certitudes still strong throughout the Mohammedan world, as lively in India as in Morocco, active throughout North Africa, even inflamed through contrast and the feeling of repression in Syria–more particularly in Palestine–lies our peril.

We have returned to the Levant, we have returned apparently more as masters than ever we were during the struggle of the Crusades, but we have returned bankrupt in that spiritual wealth which was the glory of the Crusades…These lines were written in the month of January, 1937; perhaps before they appear in print the rapidly developing situation in the Middle East will have marked some notable change. Perhaps that change will be deferred, but change there will be, continuous and great. Nor does it seem probable that at the end of such a change, especially if the process be prolonged, Islam will be the loser.

I believe Belloc would have quite surprised at how accurate his prediction has proved to be, even though that change was in fact deferred by the Second World War.  But he would have been astonished, and indeed appalled, by how much the change has been in Islam’s favour. The tables have been turned: France is menaced by hundreds of thousands of Algerian settlers who have no intention of being assimilated, and Britain has been quietly swamped by  equally intransigent Moslem immigrants from Pakistan, Bangla Desh, Somalia and elsewhere. Neither country has the spiritual strength to withstand the peril it is now facing.

One man who does understand the situation  very well, even though he is totally anti-religious, is David Abbott, who sums up  the situation very well in his book Dark Albion:  A Requiem for the English:

[P]arts of our towns now resemble Islamabad, complete with sharia law, political corruption, paedophile grooming gangs, burkas, oppression of women and female genital mutilation. Twenty-five thousand immigrant girls suffer this abuse every year in Britain, with not a single arrest for this criminal offence…

Britain is now a society loosened to its very foundations by a copious admixture of foreigners, an imperfect fusion of races, its people disunited by successive immigrations and threatened by a totalitarian religious ideology. The contemporary sound of our island is the noise of the Tower of Babel.

And all this was deliberate policy, epic treachery on a scale with that of classic traitors such as Coriolanus, who waged war on his native Rome, and Judas, the greatest sinner in Dante’s Divine Comedy, in which traitors suffer the worst torments in the deepest part of hell.

He is referring of course to politicians of all three of the main political parties–particularly the Labour Party. The middle-class socialists and liberals who decide what is politically and socially acceptable don’t live anywhere near the working-class in whose interests they purpose to act but whom, in reality, they  despise. No, they dwell in nice leafy suburbs far from the Islamified neighbourhoods so graphically described in Mr Abbott’s furious diatribe.  (His chapters “Hideously Moslem” and  “What a Load of Ol’ Shiite” are particularly vituperative.)

Abbott quotes a vicar’s wife who wrote that Inner-city Birmingham has been a police no-go area for 20 years. Whenever she went out of doors after dark, locals assumed that as a white woman she must be a prostitute. Most of the run-down Irish pubs had been turned into mosques. An increasing number of Moslems had been arriving in the area with EU passports. She asked one of them, newly arrived from Antwerp, why he had come. He was surprised she should ask such a question, and replied: “Everybody know. Birmingham best place in Europe to be pure Moslem.”

Abbott finishes his book with a scary but quite believable chapter entitled “William the Conquered 2066”, in which he imagines what Britain might be like in just over 50 years’ time. Moslems are in control of government.  Churches are being turned into mosques or madrassas.  Sharia law is rapidly being  introduced. Ambitious men are converting to Islam in the same spirit as many people in the Soviet Union  joined the Communist Party, as a career move.  Virtuous Moslems are campaigning to change the names of streets, replacing the names of  monarchs and ministers, soldiers and sailors with heroes of Islam . Society is ruled and policed by swarthy sanctimonious men who consult nothing but their old books.  Ham and bacon are outlawed. During Ramadan, restaurants are  open for only two hours,  at dusk.  Doddery old King William (the present Queen’s grandson) receives a delegation of a dozen Moslem politicians, with bushy beards and shaven upper lips. They have a series of  non-negotiable demands, one of which is that his  granddaughter be made to marry a Moslem.

I had intended to mention Abbott’s attitude to religion in general, which is somewhat inconsistent. But I think I’ll leave that for the present.







October 29, 2014

Peace Be Upon the Irish Catholic…

A few days ago, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said that dialogue with other religions is no substitute for spreading the Gospel to non-Christian cultures, and warned against relativistic ideas of religious truth as “lethal to faith.”

A friend of mine was so incensed by a silly article in the Irish Catholic on  dialogue with Islam, written  by a Columban missionary nun, that he wrote a letter to the editor and was given to understand that the paper was going to carry it the following week.   (This nun must be a brave woman; she has spent a long time in Pakistan, presumably at considerable risk to herself. But she really should have known better.)

Here’s the letter:

Dear Editor,

Sr Rebecca Conlon is naive in the extreme when she writes about dialogue with Islam in Pakistan (Notebook, 16/10/14).

She talks about “reaching out to marginalised women”. Has she not read Sura 4:34 in the Islamic holy book, the Koran? My copy translates the Arabic as saying that, if a man fears “disloyalty or ill conduct” from women, he should admonish them, refuse to share their beds and beat them”. Not much room for “reaching out” there, I should have thought.

The man whom Sr Rebecca describes as a prophet, Mohammed, even took a six year old girl (Aisha) as one of his wives. Oh, but he didn’t  consummate the relationship with her until she was 10 (and he was 53). Sr Rebecca even ventures to dignify him with the Moslem phrase “Peace Be Upon Him”!

And, as Sr Rebecca knows full well, Islam teaches that the penalty for a Moslem becoming a Christian is death. The Catholic she cites, Shahbaz Bhatti, paid the ultimate  price, with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan claiming responsibility for his killing as “a blasphemer of Mohammed”. Others, particularly in areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by Islamic State, have suffered a more gruesome fate.

Islam is now the greatest danger faced by Catholics, both outside and in Europe. The sooner people like Sr Rebecca realise that, the better.

Please don’t print my full address; I don’t want to get my head sawn off.

Yours etc.

In the end the Irish Catholic decided not to print the letter after all. Presumably a case of discretion being the better part of valour?


Alive Sees No Evil

Ì picked up  the Catholic freesheet Alive this morning with considerable anticipation, hoping to find something helpful on that Synod on the Family.  But the only relevant item came on page 5.  It was a quotation from the American theologian Fr Robert Barron, taking the line: “Nothing to see here, people, move along now.”

Fr Barron told worried Catholics not to be upset about the “hysteria and distorted media reports”, insisting that that–as in general councils of the Church–consensus would evolve after lengthy and often acrimonious debate.

It’s not good enough. You can’t just brush under the carpet a determined and almost successful attempt to subvert the constant teaching of the Church on marriage and  the Eucharist–an attempt, moreover, which is certain to be renewed before long.

Sometimes I think the problem with “conservative” Catholics is that they are just too nice. Unlike us curmudgeonly trads, they  can’t accept  that there is a rottenness in the Church reaching  to the very highest levels. The fact that they can’t see it does them credit, in a way…





October 9, 21014

The Beheading of British Culture
A few days ago I said that the Salisbury Review, one of my favourite magazines, had asked me to circulate some of  their articles in the hope of  getting  them more subscribers.  I am happy to oblige. This one, by Jane Kelly, gave me yet another reason to be glad I live in Ireland rather than in Britain.  We don’t  have  an ungovernable  Frankenstein monster in our midst–yet. 
It was a short, blunt knife; that was a bit of a surprise in itself. I think I expected a longish butcher’s blade if not a Saudi-style scimitar or long sword of the type a compassionate mediaeval king might have used to kill his wife. But this killing was about stabbing, cutting, tearing and hacking off sinew, in the way a poacher might kill game. This was the killing of Lee Rigby again, transferred to a desert scene rather than the streets of London, and again an execution made as savage as possible. Even more horrible, the execution may have been stage managed. Forensic analysis suggests the actual beheading might have taken place off camera, with Foley forced to repeat lines of his plea to stop the American bombing, then beheaded off stage like a discarded extra in a grotesque commercial.
But the main shock about the mindless depravity of the killing of US journalist James Foley was that the alleged executioner, like the killers of Rigby, was apparently British. A young man whose parents chose to live in the West, who no doubt with them lived off the fat of the welfare state all his life, decided to have himself filmed sawing of the head of another young man.
There are no words to really get to grips with this; the PM rushed home from his holiday and began chairing meetings. Philip Hammond, the Foreign Secretary said Isis was not just a threat to Syria but to our own national security. He said he would fight the perpetrators to his last breath, but managed to sound rather like a headmaster, as they used to be known, fuming over some bad boys who had smashed a window in a greenhouse.
Not only do we lack words but also any ideas on how to cope with the situation of Islamic savagery abroad or in our midst, although that hasn’t stopped many people in public life including Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, calling in  2009 for an acceptance of some Sharia Law. He surpassed himself last Friday, 15th August 2014, in a speech at the apparently annual “Living Islam Festival” in Lincolnshire, discussing what British values were and how Moslems could affect them, naturally for the better. He said one of their greatest gifts to Britain had been bringing back,”open, honest and difficult public discussion”.
Asked if he thought Islam was restoring British values, he said: “Yes. I’m thinking of the way in which, for example, in Birmingham we have seen a local parish and a mosque combining together to provide family services and youth activities, both acting out of a very strong sense that this is what communities ought to do.” He also emphasised that there are no such things as British values anyway.
Comes the hour, comes the PR man. The Prime Minister is even more hazy about what to make of this colossal foreign and domestic mess. On Wednesday, a day after the video showing the execution of Foley was released, he insisted the government’s position on Iraq is “clear” and said the UK would not deploy “boots on the ground”. Well, that avoids any chance of him ending up like Tony Blair. But then he promised: “Britain would use all the assets that we have,” including our famous, “military prowess” to aid the defeat of the “monstrous” Islamic State militant group (IS).
No one can possibly follow his thinking. Despite 9/11 and 7/7 he has continued to allow London to be turned into what Melanie Phillips irately termed “Londonistan”. In October 2012 Scotland yard closed off roads around the Finsbury Park mosque so that Abu Hamza could preach his message in safety. Preachers of hate have continued to visit universities. At UCL in March when it was revealed that the Islamic society there were conducting lectures segregated by sex, the government said this would not be allowed, but they knew that it was really a side issue, no right minded person could disagree; but the radical imams still kept coming.
The UK is perhaps the cosiest place in Europe for radical Moslems to reside. They must know that the English and in particular this government wallow in equivocation. David Cameron is a former PR man after all, and happy to say two opposing things at the same time.
Of course it would be very nice for him to fight a war with boots on the ground and win, just like Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands, but that takes huge guts and a certain amount of reckless courage, not qualities found in many PR men sadly, especially not this one.
Parliament did not need to be recalled to discuss Iraq, he added, before returning to his family holiday, and Labour observed, with some justice, that Britain’s role in the crisis was “pretty unclear”.
Holy fools and parliamentary buffoons apart, it is obvious from this recent attack that British people do have to look at themselves anew, and urgently require the “difficult public discussion”, which Rowan Williams fantastically imagines we are having. In fact we have never had so much as a useful chat, and never will have that conversation because people like him and the Prime Minister have never had the courage to acknowledge that there is a terrible enemy now living within our own society.
Since the Salmon Rushdie affair and despite 9/11 we have wilfully allowed radical Islam, with its long history of warfare and conquest, to thrive among us. Obama now calls it a cancer, but it’s too late for regrets, no one had the courage to stop the cancer in its early stages and now it’s too late. Our culture has allowed this Islamic cult of death, this psychosis to grow and thrive. Beheading and displaying the decapitated heads of the enemy has been part of the gruesome Islamic tradition of conquest for millennia, but the use and display of British Jihadists is new. This is our baby.
If by some miracle we did have that public discussion, what could we say about Britain today? One BBC voice described the recorded voice of James Foley’s killers as, “well educated”. Perhaps that accords with the relativist fantasy in the mind of a white middle class intellectual who rarely meets members of the under-class, but to my ears it was the voice of a semi-educated feral youth, the type who is educated in our schools from five to eighteen, and comes out with low level of literacy and no knowledge of British culture.
The middle class élite who send their children to private schools don’t really care to know what the real level of education in this country is like. They enjoy access to foreign nannies, plumbers and foreign food, but avoid seeing how our cities and towns are now incised by clear boundaries marking class and ethnicity. Foley’s murderer very likely grew up in one of the many Islamic ghettos which now stretch from east London to Glasgow. We have allowed our country to be Balkanised. It’s hard to find people who speak with the same voice. That young fanatic with the short fat knife has thrived in this multi-culti haven of “‘tolerance” evidenced in the unlimited sale of halal meat, early marriage, forced marriage, FGM, [female genital mutilation]  and above all extreme patriarchy and sexual apartheid, which puts boys and men way above girls and women.
The murders of Rigby and Foley were not about religion, they were about power. The youths who committed them see themselves as divinely chosen and approved by their religion because they are male. They grow up in the UK, look about and see a society where they are given no particular power, the opposite in fact as people find it hard to escape ghettos even if they want to , especially if they have  a poor education. This matter will not be settled by theologians because young Moslem men require special power and status for themselves but in British society they won’t get it. Their  resulting anger, fuelled by sexual frustration, makes them the most volatile and ungovernable group in society.
Our nation has created those young men, allowed them to be formed in that way, we have not intervened to change them or instructed them to go in a different way, heaven preserve us from any form of instruction or proscription, even in schools. They are our creation and like Dr Frankenstein we have now to deal with the monster.