Muslim leaders in Britain are accusing groups like the British National Party (BNP) and the English Defence League (EDL) for fueling racial hatred towards Islam, in an attempt to capitalize on the recent brutal killing of British soldier Lee Rigby.

What must be the Christian response to these attacks?

How can we continue to oppose false religion and Christless philosophy gripping both Britain and the European Continent?
We must be radical. But we must begin by re-defining what it means to be a ?radical Christian?. We cannot allow this phrase to be hijacked by journalists so that it becomes synonymous with hate and killing. This would be a media coup for the powerful anti-Christian lobby. The Media have already made the word ?fundamentalist? synonymous with hate, intolerance and violence. Every person who takes the Bible seriously is branded ?fundamentalist? and therefore a potential threat to society.
The pure meaning of ?radical? is ?that which goes back to the roots of something?. Our faith is rooted in the person of Christ ? his teaching, his example and his work of redemption. Jesus came to save a lost humanity. This is our only hope and we must proclaim his message of salvation clearer and more boldly that ever. Only the transforming power of the Holy Spirit can save a person, a nation or a society.
But preaching alone is not enough. We must?show?them the doctrine of Christ and live as true, radical disciples of Christ. At root, Jesus? message was about love ? love to God and our neighbour. The truly radical Christian takes the words of Jesus and lives them out uncompromisingly. This is the ?extremism? we should be known for.
But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you (Matthew 5:44)
If everyone who named the name of Christ showed more of this form of radicalism, the world would be a much better place.

The post Hate crimes against Muslims surge in UK following Woolwich incident appeared first on Colin Dye.

Elections in Egypt, what would be the future of this country?

As Egyptians go to the polls to vote for a new president, the BBC News website asked Egyptians of contrasting political persuasions to write about their hopes and fears for the country’s future. Ibrahim Hassan is a member of the political bureau of the Salafi Front.

The presidential elections represent a vital development in the post-revolutionary period. In the near future, we aspire to have a full democracy and stable political situation with an elected president and a new constitution.
However, there are some real threats to our progress.
Our main concerns now are for the new constitution. This must meet the aspirations of the revolution and address the shortcomings in the current constitutional document.
The constitution should ensure the president does not have absolute powers to guarantee that we do not have another dictator.
The articles related to public freedoms should stress political rights for all and the right to freedom of expression and faith.

‘Islamic majority’

"We in the Salafi Front believe it is best for Egypt to have an Islamist president" Ibrahim Hussein, Member of Salafi Front

However, these freedoms should not clash with the divine Islamic sharia and its constants, which define society’s values and morals.

We do not see any reason for disagreement with non-Islamic political forces in this regard except those who are antagonistic to religious values.
Most Egyptians showed their confidence in the Islamic project in the parliamentary elections. Over 70% of parliamentary seats went to Islamists.
We, as Salafis, share one vision with all Islamists: to maintain Egypt’s Islamic and national identity by putting into force the second article of the constitution which states that, “Islam is the religion of the state? and the principal source of legislation is Islamic jurisprudence [sharia]”.
We want to add the necessary wording to make it more than just theoretical, so that it has more enforcement and influence in law.
We believe that the phrasing should be changed to show that rulings are determined by Sharia. This will achieve the demands of the Islamic majority.
We also agree with other political forces that the rights of citizenship and prevention of discrimination should be stipulated in the new constitution.
This means minorities should have the right to put their own religious laws in place, but not in a way that undermines the majority’s rights.
source

In contrast to the true kingdom of God, the Islamic khilafa is identified as a visible, political and geographical state.

Radical Muslims have an agenda to introduce the khilafa in Egypt. Any territory that has once belonged to Islam must be regained and returned to Islam and, as parts of Europe have in the past come under the influence and rulership of Islam, this determines the Islamist agenda for Europe as well. In fact, the ultimate goal is for world domination for the sake of Islam.
But the kingdom of Christ is not identified as a visible kingdom. It is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It extends through the preaching of the gospel, not through bombs and bullets. It has everything to do with life in the Spirit and nothing with following earthly kings or rulers, though the Bible teaches that earthly rulers are to be respected. We need to receive the kingdom afresh and to surrender our life daily to the Spirit of God. That is the nature of the kingdom of God that we have.
In contrast, the Islamic khilafa merges the sacred with the secular ? there is no distinction. ?Our religion is for all of life?, Muslims proudly assert. The Christian faith is also for all of life, but our faith cannot be propagated through force, coercion or political might. We call people to repent and to surrender to Christ, whereas Islamists wish to impose and establish by political power and force it upon the willing and unwilling alike.

The post As Egyptians vote in historic presidential election, what is the Islamic project? appeared first on Colin Dye.

Ken Livingstone-I will make London a beacon of Islam

The post Letter to Ken Livingstone- and his answer appeared first on Colin Dye.

Shariah for the UK? This is the agenda of some muslims groups in our nation

Christianity is not a way out; it is a way through.

The post Facing the Storms of Life appeared first on Colin Dye.

What is fundamentalism?

In this series I tackle the sensitive issue of Islamist influences within Britain and their goal to see an Islamic state, or Khalifa. I contrast this with the Christian concept of the kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom or the reign of God in our hearts through faith in Christ.In this third and final part I answer those who would reject both the Christian kingdom of God and the Islamist Khalifa as merely rival dogmas coming from two extremist or fundamentalist positions within these respective religions.

In today’s “secular society’ anyone who takes the Bible seriously is usually dismissed as a “religious fundamentalist’ and often grouped with other so-called fundamentalists, especially those who hold to radical Islam. In this way Bible believing Christians are said to be no different from the kind of Muslims who were responsible for the 7/7 bombings in London and those suspected to be behind the recent car bombs in London and Glasgow.

There have, at times, been Christian fundamentalists who resorted to violence in the pursuit of their cause. For example, some calling themselves Christians committed murder in their battle against abortion in the USA. The Oklahoma bombers of 1995 were said to have been influenced by extremist “Christian’ militia groups. Both Protestant and Catholic paramilitary organisations were involved in terrorism during the “troubles’ in Northern Ireland.

But those who do such things deny the clear and unambiguous teaching of Jesus who said, “My kingdom is not of this world, otherwise my children would fight”, and who also said, “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you.” But the issue is not so clear when it comes to Islam whose founder declared in what is claimed to be a direct word from Allah in Surah 47:4, “So, when you meet those who disbelieve, smite (their) necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them).”

If fundamentalism means taking a religious text seriously, then we need more Christian fundamentalism, not less, and the term should be used as a complement reserved for those Christians who are truly following Christ in today’s world. But the term is not used in this way at all.

Fundamentalism refers to a tendency said to be found in all major religions today which, not only interprets religious texts literally, but also seeks to implement religious teaching through aggressive political means – the very opposite to the teaching of Jesus who repudiated such politicising of the gospel.

The gospel is about proclamation and persuasion, not coercion or control. In Luke 20:22-25, Jesus separated the claims of church and state showing that state or government had no right to determine the religious views of its citizens.Whenever the church lost sight of this, disaster was not far behind – whether we speak of the efforts of Constantine, the first Christian Roman Emperor, or John Calvin and his attempts to introduce a form of theocracy in Geneva during the Reformation, or the botched attempts of more recent times, such as the efforts of the Right wing Moral Majority to “make society Christian’ through aggressive Christian political campaigning in the USA. Such an approach denies to people created with free will their God-given right to choose their religious beliefs according to their own conscience.

This is why the term “fundamentalist’ does not apply to us, or indeed, most evangelicals in Britain today. While we uphold the “fundamentals’ of the Christian faith, we are not fundamentalist in the modern meaning of the word.

The term “fundamentalist’ was first used of Christians at the beginning of the 20th Century when a group of evangelicals wrote a series of tracts opposing liberal theology and upholding fundamental doctrines of the New Testament. It was a valid defence of the gospel against the onslaught of the liberal school of theology.

Liberals were the product of the Enlightenment of the 18th Century in which rationalism (or reason) was asserted as the prime means of determining truth. In its extreme forms rationalism meant that there could be no God and no revelation from him and faith was re-defined or limited to belief in that which could be demonstrated rationally.

By the 19th Century this approach had influenced Christian theology to the point that the Bible was stripped of its supernatural content and treated as nothing more than literature or the construction of human beings who were seriously and negatively affected by an outmoded and erroneous, not to say, superstitious, world view.

The Bible had to be re-interpreted in the light of recent theories of science, geology, biology and philosophy, particularly rationalistic philosophy. The Bible was subjected to a ruthless and philosophically-driven critique through the process of “higher criticism’.

Liberal theology (also called modernism) denies:

• Creation in favour of Darwinian evolution
• Inspiration, authority and, especially, infallibility of Scripture
• The Virgin birth
• The Deity of Christ
• The Trinity
• The Miracles of Jesus
• The bodily Resurrection of Jesus
• Original sin
• The substitutionary Atonement
• The wrath and Judgement of God
• The re-birth
• The reality of Hell
• The literal Second Coming of Christ
• That some will be eternally lost and that not everyone will be saved.

In the beginning, Christian fundamentalism might have been seen as a positive and welcome movement – although it was treated with derision by liberal academics especially with respect to Creationism and belief in miracles.

Over time, Christian fundamentalism became associated with a negative, over-literal interpretation of Scripture and this, in turn, led to Christian fundamentalism becoming essentially a negative and reactionary movement.

Features of Modern Christian Fundamentalism

• Anti-intellectualism and a reluctance to examine the

Christian faith and its sources in an historical-critical context.

• Isolationism based on a wrong view of separation from the world
• Reluctance to engage with society culturally
• A strong, rigid and simplistic approach to moral issues
• A confusion in the matter of church and state seeking to enforce Bible standards on society as a whole
• Strong, vocal and sometimes violent protests
• Opposition to liberal values

The press, media and politicians began to use the term “fundamentalist’ as a derogatory term of all evangelical Christians assuming that anyone who believed the Bible was literally true or who believed the Bible version of the origins of the universe was a fundamentalist and “guilty’ of all the above. They failed to distinguish between those who where sincerely and responsibly seeking to follow the teachings of Christ and those who abused or distorted these teachings in the name of “fundamental Christianity’.

Fundamentalism is now associated with those from all religions who hold to a literal or dogmatic interpretation of their beliefs and who are aggressively political, highly vocal, or violent in the cause of spreading and upholding their beliefs.

Interestingly, the word is also now being used of those who do not hold to religious belief at all and are fundamentally opposed to all religion. It is admitted that there are now fundamentalist atheists, such as Richard Dawkins the evolutionary biologist and author of the infamous The God Delusion, and fundamentalist secularists like the journalist and columnist Polly Toynbee, who are aggressive in their bid to rid society of all expressions of religion in public life.

The tell-tale feature and the common factor in all forms of religious fundamentalism is said to be the literal interpretation of their respective religious texts.

Two points are worth making here. First, this simplistic approach is still hide-bound by rationalistic presuppositions. Therefore, if a text contains elements that do not fit into the framework of a rationalistic worldview, then those who believe these texts must be ridiculed and exposed as irrational and unreasonable, if somewhat harmless. But if these religious believers step out into the public arena and try to influence society according to their views whether in terms of law, politics, art or education, then they are automatically termed “fundamentalists’ or “religious bigots’.

The intellectual dishonesty here is staggering. To insist and ensure that only religious people should keep their ideas, beliefs and values to themselves is nothing short of bully tactics on behalf of those who themselves very often rigidly hold to fundamental belief systems which influence how they act in the world, respond to it and shape it, and whose own beliefs are often based on unproved philosophical theories (such as rationalism).

Furthermore, there is a world of difference between those who seek to influence society according to their beliefs, which is reasonable and to be expected in a democratic society, and those who would enforce their dogma on others whether directly in terms of political control or indirectly through manipulating the political process which frequently happens even in democratic societies. Such people, perhaps, deserve the appellation, “fundamentalist’.

A second objection to the simplistic labelling of anyone taking their religious texts literally, or any way seriously at all, as a “fundamentalist’ is that this approach does not take the time to examine the religious texts themselves.

If a Christian is to be called “fundamentalist’ with all the intended negative and derogatory overtones of the word, simply because he or she takes the words of Christ in the Gospels literally, is it right to place that person in the same category as a Muslim “fundamentalist’ who takes the teaching of Muhammad and that of the Qur’an equally seriously?

The issue here is not merely that of sincerity.We ought to give the benefit of the doubt to all so-called fundamentalists and be ready to believe that they may be sincere, at least, even if they are wrong or misguided. But the issue is concerning the truth or viability of their views when tested and subjected to close scrutiny. I would suggest that, without hesitation, any rightminded person would respect the “fundamentalist’ Christian who seeks to take literally the words of Christ where he says,

“…love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you…” (Matthew 5:44).

Or, for that matter the words of St Paul who in Romans 11:14 & 17-19, echoes Christ’s teaching,

“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse….Repay no one evil for evil… do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to God’s wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord. “

Surely, the same amount of respect should not be shown to those who seek to live their lives by the literal, and natural, understanding of such texts of the Qur’an as, “Those who reject Islam must be killed. If they turn back (from Islam), take (hold of) them and kill them wherever you find them…” Surah 4:89.

This shows that the indiscriminate use of the term “fundamentalist’ to apply to all people of faith who take their religious texts seriously is so superficial as to be intellectually lazy, if not downright dishonest.

These issues are being hotly debated today.With the rise of modern Muslim fundamentalism and its connection to global terror, many both from within Islam and external commentators on these events are at pains to disassociate Islamic extremism from the “true nature of Islam’. But, as we saw in last month’s article, moderate Islam has yet to rise up and prove itself to be the “true Islam’ of the Qur’an and of Islamic history.

This leaves us with the stark differences between Khalifa of Islamist ideology or the kingdom of God as taught by the Christ of the gospels. The choice is simple – you can accept or reject either one or both of these alternatives, but one thing is sure, you cannot with integrity dismiss them both as the empty claims of fanatical or fundamentalist religion.

For my views on the Norway killer Anders Breivik read my article here called “Radical Christians”

The post Muslim fundamentalism and Christian fundamentalism, what's the difference? appeared first on Colin Dye.

What is the future for Islam?

Moderate Islam?

Where is moderate Islam? Does it exist? If so, then where? Is it rooted in true Islam or just wishful thinking?

“Islam is a Religion of Peace”

“Muhammad is a man of Peace”

“The Qur’an is a book of Peace”

How can we know if these statements are true?

We frequently hear from politicians in the public sphere and individual Muslims and Islamic organisations, that Islam is “a religion of peace”, that it is “tolerant of other faiths and beliefs” and that it is “in favour of democracy, equal rights and freedom of speech.”
The media reports the connection between certain Islamic groups and violence, terrorism, and inequality for women. But it also claims that the vast majority of Muslims are peace-loving, lawabiding and that there is nothing in Islam that is against the values of British society.
In public debate and media language, the distinction has emerged between “radical’ and “moderate’ Islam. Adherents of the former are called “fundamentalist’ and “Islamist’, while the latter, the moderates, are said to represent mainstream, true Islam. How can we begin to understand these distinctions and how do we know how many British Muslims are represented in each of them?

A 2001 survey revealed how Muslims in Britain viewed themselves:

15% said they were radical in that they followed a literal understanding of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad. 70% described themselves as nominal – that is, they followed Islamic traditions and their cultural adaptations. 15% saw themselves as liberal – they were happy to follow the West and assimilate fully into British culture.

What is the situation today?

The Sunday Telegraph on 19 February 2006 carried a YouGov survey report that revealed:

40% of British Muslims identified with Islamic radicalism.

This was post 7/7, and, for whatever reason, shows that radicalism is on the increase in Britain. It may be that new immigrants are swelling the numbers of radical Islam, but it is certainly true that many British Muslims are being won over to a more Islamist position. It is reasonable to conclude that between 2001 and 2006 converts to the “radical cause’ came from the group previously identified as nominal. Liberal Muslims are perhaps less inclined towards radicalism, as they have, for all intents and purposes, broken with all traditional forms of Islam. If this is the case, then it shows that today, as in the past, moderate Muslims find it hard to withstand pressure from those who are intent on a more literal approach to Islam.
To grapple with these issues it is necessary to understand the Qur’an’s teaching and the practice of Muhammad in relation to a number of issues of concern to those who wish to uphold Western British society: jihad, democracy, freedom of religion and speech, the equality of women, and sharia.
The assertion that Islam is a “religion of peace’ draws us, in particular, to the teaching of Islam on violent jihad. It is said by many Muslim apologists that the word “Islam’ itself means “peace’. However, it is widely accepted that this is misreading of the Arabic word, and that “Islam’ means “surrender’. If there is any connection with “peace’ here, it is that “peace’ which comes from total surrender and slave-like servitude to an absolute deity as expressed in the Qur’an and Islamic traditions. The peace of Islam, therefore, is the peace and protection afforded to those who convert to Islam or in the case of Jews and Christians, those who accept a humiliating, second-class status in an Islamic society known as Dhimmitude.

The Qur’an

According to former professor of Islamic History at Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Mark Gabriel, “There are at least 114 verses in the Qur’an that speak of love, peace and forgiveness, especially in the Surah titled “The Heifer'”(Surah 2:62, 109).’ But Gabriel goes on to explain that in the light of the later verse found in Surah 9:5 (the “sword verse’), these former “tolerant’ verses have been abrogated or annulled. This is according to the Islamic teaching of naskh in which the later revelations of the Qur’an cancelled out the former verses wherever there is a contradiction. (Islam and Terrorism by Mark Gabriel)
It is commonly understood that the earlier Meccan Surahs are more tolerant, corresponding to the earlier phase of Muhammad’s life when his teaching focussed mainly on purely religious issues such as belief in one God and the rejection of pagan idolatry. He hoped to persuade Jews to accept him as the prophet of monotheism in line with the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament, and for the Christians to accept him as the apostle of God, somewhat analogous to the apostles of the New Testament.
However, there was resistance from both groups who clearly saw that Muhammad’s teaching was at odds in major respects with the Scriptures as they knew and understood them – not least, the final and absolute authority Muhammad claimed for himself. The Medinan Surahs become more and more strident, imposing social, political and military imperatives on the Muslim community, until finally, the Qur’an became replete with teaching of hate, destruction, death and servitude to all who resisted Islam, either on the battlefield or in their personal faith. A well-respected authority on Islam, himself a radical, Sheikh Muhammad Ezzat Darwazei, counts between 500 and 700 jihad verses in the Qur’an. It is important to remember that these “sword verses’ abrogate earlier verses apparently advocating peace and tolerance. The nature of this violent teaching can be seen by the following sample:

The Medinan sword verse:

Surah 9:5 ” But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay those who join other gods with Allah wherever you find them; besiege them, seize them, lay in wait for them with every kind of ambush…”

Sword verse against Christians and Jews:

Surah 9:29 “…Make war upon such of those to whom the scriptures have been given as believe not in Allah, or in the last day, and who forbid not what Allah and his apostle have forbidden … until they pay tribute…”

Methodology of sword verses:

Surah 47:4 ” When you encounter the unbelievers, strike off their heads, until ye have made a great slaughter among them…” Surah 8:38-39 ” Unbelievers … And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail Justice and faith in Allah.”

Recompense for those who die in Jihad:

Surah 4:74 “Let those who fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the hereafter To him who fighteth in the cause of Allah, whether he is slain or gets victory, Soon shall we give him a reward of great value.”
Surah 47:4-6 “…But those who are killed in the way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost… and admit them to Paradise.”

Muhammad’s example

The life of Muhammad is sacred to Muslims who are expected to follow his example in all things. An examination of Muhammad himself shows that not only did he believe in violence but personally practiced it. During his life Muhammad sanctioned 29 actual battles and planned 39 others. He also sanctioned deaths of Jews, Christians and those who criticised or opposed him.
When one reads such Quranic advocacy of violence and death to pagans, Christians and Jews, and the offer of spiritual reward to those who carry such things out, one understands the strength of the radicals who only need to appeal to such texts, as well as the example of Muhammad himself, to pursue and impose “true Islam’.

No compulsion in religion?

What are we to make of the violent teaching found in the Qur’an in the light of the oft-quoted Surah 2:256, “There is no compulsion in religion’?
As has been mentioned, we must ask whether this verse is considered mansukh (abrogated). But, even if that is denied by some Muslim apologists, the context of the verse shows that it does not promise freedom to non-Muslims, but only a measure of tolerance for a time. The following verse reads, “Allah is the Protector of those who have faith” and begs the question concerning how to treat those who reject Allah. Since they don’t have Allah’s protection, it is argued that these unbelievers do not deserve protection from Islam.

Does moderate Islam exist?

This question does not address the individual Muslim, as it is patently clear that many Muslims do not wish to acknowledge openly or to follow these “sword texts’ and that many Muslims in Britain, and across the world, are peaceful and law-abiding. But the issue is: does a correct understanding of the Qur’an and the example of Muhammad as we know it ultimately require that all Muslims believe and support such teaching?

Responses to “sword’ passages

When individual Muslims are questioned about the “violence’ in the teaching of the Qur’an and in the example of Muhammad himself they usually respond in one of the following ways: Affirmation: As we have seen, we could expect 40% of British Muslims to affirm all or some Quranic teaching on violence. Denial: Some out of ignorance, wishful thinking, or deceit, deny that these verses are actually in the Qur’an.
Interpretation: Some teach that these verses were historical, situational and geographical, only applying to 7th century Arabia and proximate nations.
The key question is: What is the basis for a moderate interpretation of these verses advocating and commanding violence against non-Muslims?

Islamic tradition

Some deny that the “sword verses’ ever had any place in historic, mainstream Islam, and that centuries of Islamic tradition and authoritative teaching proves that this is the case. They claim that Western ignorance and prejudice perpetuates misinterpretation of these texts. But, these same people do not seem to be able to provide any convincing evidence of this “vast body of Muslim opinion’ within mainstream and historic Islamic tradition.

Islamic reformation

Some seek to reform Islam from within, trying to find a more acceptable and modern approach to it in keeping with Western ideals of freedom and tolerance. But the difficulty here is one of authority. Who has the authority to reject Quranic texts or reinterpret them? Surely to do so would be to deny the very basis of Islam and thus be a denial of Islam itself.

Moderate Islam and Sufism

Sufism is often cited as an example of moderate Islam. Sufism is characterised by “inner piety’ and, as “a religion of the heart’, is said not to advocate violence or political extremism. However, while it is true that Sufis draw their beliefs and inspiration from Mohammad himself, Sufi mysticism, with its quest for union with the divine, is regarded by its critics either as fundamentally un-Islamic or a sectarian departure from the purity of Islam. This is borne out by the fact that Sufis only officially comprise 3-4% of modern day Islam, although it is claimed that their influence is considerable both among Sunnis and Shi’ites.
Ruth Kelly recently gave support to the moderation of Sufism when she rejected the hitherto welcome role of the Muslim Council of Britain as the official voice of Islam in Britain. She was the main speaker at the launch of the Sufi Muslim Council in the House of Commons on 19th July 2006. But the problem is that Sufis do not and cannot speak for Islam in general. It is more influential as a religious tendency within Islam than it is as an official representative of Islam itself.
The Sufi Muslim Council claims that 80% of British Muslims are from a Sufi tradition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1824131,00.html ). That claim is hard to reconcile with the YouGov findings that 40% of British Muslims are sympathetic to Islamist ideals. The contradiction can be resolved in one of two ways. First, Sufism is not, in the final analysis, capable of asserting its “moderation’ on the rest of Islam. Or, second, Sufism is not essentially moderate after all. The history of Sufi groups, such as of Naqshbandi, Qadiri and Sanusyia, reveals clear signs of a lack of moderation.

The future of “moderate Islam’

The problem with finding and promoting moderation within Islam is that the most “natural’ reading of Islamic texts, as well as much influential historical interpretation of these, provides fuel for the radicals. Considerable fear is generated by the radicals who threaten many would-be moderates with the charge of apostasy and its harsh consequences which, very often, means death. Muslim solidarity, a strong force in its own right, is exploited by radicals who point to social injustice, the plight of the Palestinians, racism and the cultural estrangement of Muslims, in a bid to radicalise their fellow Muslims. This is how British Muslim youth are being successfully recruited to Islamism in colleges and universities, as a former radical, Ed Husain shows in his autobiography The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left.
Perhaps the real issue in all this is not discussion about “moderate’ or “radical’ Muslims, but the nature of Islam itself. Until this is explored and addressed, it seems the situation is not set to improve. That there are many moderate Muslims, there can be no doubt, but as to the existence of historical, mainstream moderate Islam – where’s the evidence?

The post Is there a moderate Islam? appeared first on Colin Dye.

Above, the cross symbolizes the Kingdom of God, below, the flag of the Khilafah, or Islamic state. One is a kingdom of Light, the other, a kingdom of darkness.

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

The battle is clearly spiritual because the kingdom we belong to is also spiritual. Jesus made the nature of his kingdom absolutely clear when he said to Pilate while under arrest to the Romans:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36

Jesus began his ministry with the bold statement:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15

He announced that fact after hundreds of years of preparation by the prophets. God had finally come to fulfil the promise of the kingdom. But it was some time before his disciples began to understand the true nature of the kingdom Jesus came to bring. They were expecting an earthly, geographical kingdom centred on the nation of Israel. They were anxious to throw off the yoke of Rome and to go back to the days of King David and enjoy the theocratic rule of God in which the laws of Moses were the laws of the land. But Jesus did not set about establishing that sort of kingdom. And his disciples were confused.
Jesus revealed the true rule of God, and never sought to establish an earthly political kingdom.
Even John the Baptist became troubled when he was imprisoned, thinking to himself, “What has happened? The Messiah has come, but why am I in prison?” Jesus was doing some preaching, but where was the political power that Israel expected? Where was the military action required to throw off the yoke of Rome? So John began to have doubts along those lines, and sent a message to Jesus asking, “Are you really the Messiah, or do we have to wait for someone else?” It appears that John the Baptist had a wrong understanding of the kingdom of God.
But in Britain today, the greatest example of this wrong idea of the kingdom of God does not come from false Jewish Messianic ideals. It comes from the Islamic misunderstanding of the kingdom, the khilafa. We need to see the difference between the genuine kingdom of God and its counterfeit. How can Islam claim to represent the kingdom of God, when it rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God, Saviour and only true God and King? How can they claim to represent God when the Bible makes it clear that God has set his Son on the throne of the kingdom?
We totally reject the charge of Islamophobia – which is often just a word used to put off people from being critical of Islam while Muslims remain free to criticise anyone they choose.
I believe we in Britain are being faced with a prophetic choice – either we submit to the kingdom of God, or we will have to surrender to the rules of Sharia, which ultimately means the Islamic khilafa. We need to be aware that Britain is heading towards becoming a full-blown Muslim nation. When you take into account immigration, birth rates and conversions to Islam it is only a matter of time, if the current trends continue, before Britain will be ug nder the dominant influence of Islam. It is already taking place – some say it is already too late.

Ken Livingstone:"I will make London a beacon of Islam"

If the Bible is true, then Islam is a false religion.

The Qur’an denies every cardinal and distinctive Christian truth from the Trinity to the divinity of Christ, from the rule of God to the atonement. By any account, the Islam of the Qur’an is an oppressive religion. Moderate Muslims, and there are many of them, simply cannot withstand the strength and vocal force of the radicals who insist on every verse in the Qura’n being applied today, including the teaching on violent jihad, the sword and bloodshed. But greater blood has been shed for us – the blood of Jesus shed for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. Truth is more powerful than error: there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his Son. That is the truth which we must stand up and proclaim and which will ultimately prevail.

The post Khilafa or Kingdom? appeared first on Colin Dye.

Deux poids, deux mesures

The post Two weights, two measures …(double standards) appeared first on Colin Dye.

What will be the fruit of the Egyptian revolution of 2011?

Coptic Christians are anxiously watching a theological and political battle between Muslim parties expected to win 60% of parliament seats. The struggle will define an emerging political Islam.

Fears and worries murmur like prayers beneath the hammered crosses of the Church of the Virgin Mary.
“The whole country will collapse,” says Shenouda Nasri.
“I’m trying to get my family out,” says Samir Ramsis.
“This is the Islamists’ time,” says George Saied.
A caretaker sweeps the stones, a woman slips into a pew. But these days Egypt’s minority Coptic Christians are finding little serenity. Islamist political candidates, including puritanical Salafis, are dominating parliamentary elections. Sectarianism is intensifying and the patriotic veneer that unified Egyptians in overthrowing longtime ruler Hosni Mubarak is threatened by ultraconservative Muslim clerics whose divisive voices had been suppressed by the state for decades.
“Our goal is to achieve an Islamic caliphate with Islamic sharia rules,” Mohamed Zoghbi, a hard-line Salafi preacher, said this year on TV. “If Egypt becomes a caliphate, then the Middle East and Arab countries will follow our path. All Muslim youth should strive and die to build this caliphate even over their own bodies.”
Copts are now anxiously watching a theological and political battle sharpen between Muslim parties that are expected to win at least 60% of parliamentary seats after the final round of elections in January. The struggle between the Salafis and the more moderate and popular Muslim Brotherhood will define an emerging political Islam and how deeply religion will be ingrained in public life.
That unresolved question is one of the most contentious in Islam. It has been energized as uprisings across the region have upended despots, leaving fertile ground for untested political voices that would have been unimaginable just months ago. It is a seminal moment for an Arab world that appears, at least for now, determined to reinvent failed secular governments through what clerics regard as the purifying prism of Islam.
“The Islamists have been unleashed,” says Nasri, a pharmacist hoping to follow the lead of tens of thousands of Copts who have left Egypt this year. “You’re talking about no rights for women. No rights for Coptic Christians. They’ll make us more of a minority. It’ll be like living centuries ago.”
Read more…
Below, and article I have written for you to understand the difference between the Kingdom of Allah, the Caliphate, or Khilafa , and the Kingdom of God.

Khilafa or Kingdom?

Islam presents one of the greatest challenges to the Christian church in Britain today. Not only that, but the rising tide of Muslim influence in social, economic and demographic terms, threatens soon to engulf British society itself.
The government is morally, politically and spiritually powerless to stop the Islamisation of Britain. Publicly, politicians seem intent on appeasing Islam. Privately, they are wringing their hands in despair. The failed policies of immigration, multiculturalism and political correctness, together with an apparent abhorrence of the traditional Christian values our nation was built on, have opened the door to an invasion of a radical ideology intent on turning Britain into a fully-blown Islamic state, a khilafa. Just as the last century saw the death of the British Empire, some senior politicians believe we are witnessing the death of the British nation in this one.

Only the church, the Bible-believing community, can turn back the tide. But for this to happen Christians must stand up, speak out and become the bold disciples of Christ we have been called to be. Kensington Temple is taking this challenge seriously, and the cell vision is at the heart of our strategy.

Without such a purpose-driven approach, of active Christians propagating their Christian faith, there will be nothing to stop the Islamic take-over. Make no mistake about it – that is their agenda. It may already be too late. Now is not the time to play around with spiritual things – we are at war.

But what kind of war? Is it the war of the jihadists who resort to violence and bloodshed in the name of their religion? Or is it the spiritual warfare that the Apostle Paul refers to in Ephesians 6:12?

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Ephesians 6:12

 
The battle is clearly spiritual because the kingdom we belong to is also spiritual. Jesus made the nature of his kingdom absolutely clear when he said to Pilate while under arrest to the Romans:

“My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.” John 18:36

 
Jesus began his ministry with the bold statement:

“The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.” Mark 1:15

He announced that fact after hundreds of years of preparation by the prophets. God had finally come to fulfil the promise of the kingdom. But it was some time before his disciples began to understand the true nature of the kingdom Jesus came to bring. They were expecting an earthly, geographical kingdom centred on the nation of Israel. They were anxious to throw off the yoke of Rome and to go back to the days of King David and enjoy the theocratic rule of God in which the laws of Moses were the laws of the land. But Jesus did not set about establishing that sort of kingdom. And his disciples were confused.

Jesus revealed the true rule of God, and never sought to establish an earthly political kingdom.

Even John the Baptist became troubled when he was imprisoned, thinking to himself, “What has happened? The Messiah has come, but why am I in prison?” Jesus was doing some preaching, but where was the political power that Israel expected? Where was the military action required to throw off the yoke of Rome? So John began to have doubts along those lines, and sent a message to Jesus asking, “Are you really the Messiah, or do we have to wait for someone else?” It appears that John the Baptist had a wrong understanding of the kingdom of God.

But in Britain today, the greatest example of this wrong idea of the kingdom of God does not come from false Jewish Messianic ideals. It comes from the Islamic misunderstanding of the kingdom, the khilafa. We need to see the difference between the genuine kingdom of God and its counterfeit. How can Islam claim to represent the kingdom of God, when it rejects Jesus Christ as the son of God, Saviour and only true God and King? How can they claim to represent God when the Bible makes it clear that God has set his Son on the throne of the kingdom?

We totally reject the charge of Islamophobia – which is often just a word used to put off people from being critical of Islam while Muslims remain free to criticise anyone they choose.

I believe we in Britain are being faced with a prophetic choice – either we submit to the kingdom of God, or we will have to surrender to the rules of Sharia, which ultimately means the Islamic khilafa. We need to be aware that Britain is heading towards becoming a full-blown Muslim nation. When you take into account immigration, birth rates and conversions to Islam it is only a matter of time, if the current trends continue, before Britain will be ug nder the dominant influence of Islam. It is already taking place – some say it is already too late.

Recent press reports bear this out. The Daily Mail on 5th May asked the question, will one day Britain be Muslim? The articles referred to disproportionate birth rates, welfarism, political correctness and the lack of will to fight Islamic extremism to show that this question about Britain’s future is a real one. Senior political figures are privately saying that Islam has so infiltrated our nation that, within a few decades, we will be an Islamic nation, and that they are powerless to stop it. They are turning to the church and asking what can we do. The answer is that we can do something. We can pray and we can act. But we must do it now.

The kingdom of God will prevail, thank God! And that kingdom is infinitely preferable to any human, man made substitute – whether political or religious. These statements are not aimed against any individual, people or race. The issue is not about any particular race or individuals who may be caught up in false religion. We love Muslims and, as can be seen by our multiracial congregation, we are not racists. We simply reserve the right to preach the gospel and to witness to Christ without fear or favour. We totally reject the charge of Islamophobia – which is often just a word used to put off people from being critical of Islam while Muslims remain free to criticise anyone they choose.

In contrast to the true kingdom of God, the Isalmic khilafa is identified as a visible, political and geographical state.

Radical Muslims have an agenda to introduce the khilafa in Britain. And this agenda is Europe-wide. Any territory that has once belonged to Islam must be regained and returned to Islam and, as parts of Europe have in the past come under the influence and rulership of Islam, this determines the Islamist agenda for Europe as well. In fact, the ultimate goal is for world domination for the sake of Islam.

But the kingdom of Christ is not identified as a visible kingdom. It is a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. It extends through the preaching of the gospel, not through bombs and bullets. It has everything to do with life in the Spirit and nothing with following earthly kings or rulers, though the Bible teaches that earthly rulers are to be respected. We need to receive the kingdom afresh and to surrender our life daily to the Spirit of God. That is the nature of the kingdom of God that we have.

In contrast, the Islamic khilafa merges the sacred with the secular – there is no distinction. “Our religion is for all of life”, Muslims proudly assert. The Christian faith is also for all of life, but our faith cannot be propagated through force, coercion or political might. We call people to repent and to surrender to Christ, whereas Islamists wish to impose and establish by political power and force it upon the willing and unwilling alike.

Jesus taught us to function as salt and light in society, which means that our faith affects everything that we do, but not by way of mandatory rules and regulations.

We want to be led by Jesus everyday of our lives but we cannot impose this upon the unwilling. Each person must surrender their heart to Jesus of their own free choice.

Acting as salt and light is about influencing our society by positively engaging with it. We are not of the world, but we are in the world. We must be active and influence such vital areas such as politics and the media. We must speak prophetically to the State. We must call our political leaders to account and press them to uphold righteous laws and to take moral responsibility. But there is no way that we can establish the rule of God over Britain, or to compel people to surrender to the kingdom of God. Our job, above all, is to preach and to prophesy, to witness and influence others in order to bring them to Christ.

But, this cuts both ways – and Christian teaching is very clear on this point. We cannot dictate to the State, but neither can the State dictate to us. Our present Government, for ten years, has increasingly been doing that. We have had to fight them outside the Houses of Parliament; we have had to lobby; we have had to do everything we can to stop the Government from breaking into territory that belongs to the church of Jesus Christ. We succeeded in the incitement to religious hatred matter which would have meant an end to freedom of speech in Britain. We seem to have failed in other matters, but we must continue to stand against any influence upon the church that tells us what we must believe and how we may practice our faith – even if this puts us at odds with political correctness!

If the Bible is true, then Islam is a false religion.

The Qur’an denies every cardinal and distinctive Christian truth from the Trinity to the divinity of Christ, from the rule of God to the atonement. By any account, the Islam of the Qur’an is an oppressive religion. Moderate Muslims, and there are many of them, simply cannot withstand the strength and vocal force of the radicals who insist on every verse in the Qura’n being applied today, including the teaching on violent jihad, the sword and bloodshed. But greater blood has been shed for us – the blood of Jesus shed for our sins and for the sins of the whole world. Truth is more powerful than error: there is only one God and Jesus Christ is his Son. That is the truth which we must stand up and proclaim and which will ultimately prevail.
 

The post Coptic Christians brace for Islamist Takeover in Egypt- an Islamic caliphate with Islamic sharia rules appeared first on Colin Dye.

The Norway Killer, Anders Behring Breivik, calls himself a christian

The post Radical Christians appeared first on Colin Dye.