Violent Religions

Violent Religions

A Pakistani mob howling for Bibi's neck.

If you want evidence that Britain has gone down the Yellow Brick Road to Islam in a state of advanced dhimmitude – there is this tidbit to support your suspicion. It refuses to grant asylum to an Iranian who converted to Christianity and left Islam. The reason he was rejected for asylum was because, the government said, Christianity was a violent religion.

And then there is the plight of Asia Bibi, a Christian Pakistani woman with a Muslim mob howling for her head. She, too, has been refused asylum, not because the government thinks Christianity is “violent,” but because granting her asylum would cause trouble in Britain.

Theresa May, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, stated that "the news would be welcomed around the world, and the UK was committed to the global abolition of the death penalty." According to the British Pakistani Christian Association, Bibi appealed to Britain [after her acquittal of the charge of blasphemy] for asylum but was denied because her presence in the country might stir unrest among "certain sections of the population."

Those “certain sections” being Muslim, of course. Perhaps she meant the Pakistani rapists of Rotherham. They might become “violent” and "groom" even more girls just to show May who's boss.

Neon Nettle reported on March 22^nd:

Immigration officials in the UK responded to the man's application and 'explained' why they were discriminating against him. Biblical passages from the books of Leviticus and Revelation were cited by immigration officials to back up their rejection for asylum.

According to The Times report: Immigration officials wrote to the man citing violent passages from the Bible to prove their point. They said that the Book of Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death, and violence.”

Godfather Politics also reported on the 22^nd:

In yet another example that Britain is a lost and fetid nation, a Christian from Syria, who left Islam and converted to Christianity, was denied asylum because British officials claim that Christianity is not a peaceful religion.

During an asylum hearing for an Iranian convert from Islam, the UK’s immigration agency claimed that Christianity isn’t a peaceful religion, and quoted Bible passages to prove their claim, the Independent reported.

The asylum seeker said that he left Islam for Christianity because Christianity was a peaceful religion and that by leaving Islam his life was put in danger. But the British court said it was clear that Christians are not peaceful people.

The implication is that Islam is a “peaceful religion” and that Christians were not “peaceful.”

The immigration officials obviously cherry-picked violent sections from the Bible – Leviticus and Revelation – to prove their point. They could have also cited the Middle Ages, the Inquisition, and the wars raged by the Vatican, and the beginnings of Christianity in the immediate post- Roman Empire era (such as the brutal murder of Hypatia circa 415 in Alexandria by fanatical Christians).  Not to mention the violent persecution of the French Huguenots.  But today, Christians are “peaceful” and the Church – Anglican or otherwise – does not preach violence.

However, if they were looking for a religion that is consistently, and almost daily, violent, they need not look further than the Koran. But to cite the Koran as a sanctified prescription for killing and carnage, would upset Muslims. And, besides, to admit an apostate – a man who has left Islam for  Christianity, would probably precipitate demonstrations and, well, more Muslim violence.

They wouldn’t have needed to cherry-pick the Koran or the Hadith to find violence or urgings to follow violence; these works are celebrations of violence.

The Times reported that,

Immigration officials wrote to the man, who had converted to Christianity on the ground that it was a peaceful religion, citing violent passages from the Bible to support their claim. They said that the Book of Revelation was “filled with imagery of revenge, destruction, death and violence”.

The Church of England condemned the “lack of religious literacy” after the man said that he now faced persecution in Iran for his faith. Church officials called for a “serious overhaul” of Home Office policies.

Neon Nettle, from its July 2018, report, “UK Government Caught Rejecting Christian Refugees, Accepting Muslims Only”:

The UK has accepted over 1,100 Muslim Syrian refugees but refused Christians according to reports. Even despite the suffering of Christians during seven years of civil war, including the persecution by Islamic State, the UK government still refused to accept Christian refugees. In official figures, 4,832 Syrians were invited to settle in the UK last year, only 11 were Christian.

As an atheist, God means as little to me as does Allah. It has been that way for me since the age of 15, when I concluded, without having ever heard the arguments of the most notable atheists, that God was a metaphysical impossibility and a moral abomination. Allah was a mystical concept I had yet to hear of at that age. Both concepts are connected to the notion of a “first cause.” God is alleged to have conceived of and created the universe, while Islam claims that it was Allah who worked the cosmological magic, or just snapped his fingers.It's a coin toss.

As for a “first cause,” which rejects the idea that existence exists and has always existed, Wikipedia narrates that

Since Georges Lemaître first noted in 1927 that an expanding universe could be traced back in time to an originating single point, scientists have built on his idea of cosmic expansion. The scientific community was once divided between supporters of two different theories, the Big Bang and the Steady State theory, but a wide range of empirical evidence has strongly favored the Big Bang which is now universally accepted.

Groucho Marx as Mohammad

But a “first cause” is not the chief subject of this column, but rather the discrimination the British government practices against Christians. Neon Nettle continues:

Islamic State fanatics have attacked Christians and churches, as well as carrying out the genocide of Yazidis and other religious minorities. Last week its forces set off bombs in the Syrian city of Sweida, which killed 215 people in an area that blends elements of Christianity, Judaism and Hinduism. Lately, jihadists vandalized several French cathedrals.

This ends the latest instance of my committing “cyber terrorism,” leaving readers,  Muslims and government speech censors quaking at their knees, salving their hurt feelings with Ben Gay, while calling for the banishment of “Islamophobia” and ill-feeling for Islam and Muslims. Robert Spencer reported on March 16^th in Jihad Watch.

The International Union for Muslim Scholars (IUMS) has called on non-Muslim countries to ban Islamophobia, following the killing of dozens of people on a deadly attack on two mosques in New Zealand.

“IUMS calls on non-Muslim countries to ban the spread of hatred against Islam and Muslims,” IUMS President Ahmed al-Raisouni said in a statement at the conclusion of a 2-day session held in Istanbul on Friday….

Islamic censorship is a form of violent jihad, but most Western governments purchase it under the guise of “freedom of speech” and being opposed to “hatred.” It relies on the initiation of government force, with the help of the big information tech companies, to zip mouths, break pens in half, and crush keyboards. There is little difference between censorship and gunning down an editorial staff to silence it, with or without the help of Google, Facebook, or Twitter.

Posted by Edward Cline at 2:57 PM