In a comment on my last post, Ben links to an X post that compares Islam to Tolkein’s ring of power, arguing that whoever tries to control it will be controlled, and then destroyed, by it.
It is hard to know how much politicians like Keir Starmer are trying to control it, how much they are paranoid about being destroyed by it, or how much they assume, “It’s just a ring – the rest is silly superstition.”
Feigning indignation at Parliamentary Question Time, and simultaneously helping to destroy himself by being so unconvincingly performative, Starmer played the Islamophobia card against an Opposition MP who expressed foreboding about the Islamic mass-prayer meeting in Trafalgar Square last week. By equating the event to religious celebrations by Sikhs, Hindus and Christians he showed a failure to understand the radically different theologies underlying such events.
I suggested in reply to Ben that this is because atheists, especially unread ones like our Prime Minister, are incapable of escaping the Marxist “religion is the opiate of the people” concept, which is false regarding Christianity and Judaism (Marx, of course, being Jewish), but woefully off the mark when it comes to a militant theocratic system like Islam. On reflection, it is exactly the same error that sealed the fate of the Leftists who supported the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979. They simply could not believe that ruthless political tyranny would actually be imposed from fanatical religious motivation.
For Islam means “submission,” and those who will not submit willingly must be conquered, as must their territory. And so to many Muslims, once Trafalgar Square has become an Islamic place of prayer, it has (like Bristol Cathedral in its myopic hosting of Ramadan prayers) become irrevocably part of the Islamic realm. As one commentator explains:
Since its inception in Arabia in the seventh century, Islam has been spread throughout the world by means of the sword. According to the Islamic law, the entire world is divided into the “dar al-Islam” (territory of submission to Allah — the word “Islam” is Arabic for “submission”), which denotes regions where Islam prevails, and the “dar al-harb” (territory of war), which refers to non-Muslim lands, yet to be conquered.
Islamists [for which read “orthodox Muslims” – JCG] believe that once a land has come under Islamic occupation and colonialism, the land conquered is forever Islamic. The Greek city of Thessaloniki, for instance, was once under Ottoman Muslim occupation. According to the official website of the Municipality of Thessaloniki, while it was under Ottoman rule (1430-1912), almost all Christian churches, parishes and monasteries were converted into mosques. Thessaloniki was liberated from the Ottoman Empire in 1912.
Islamic supremacists such as Erdogan believe that because Thessaloniki was once under the occupation of the Islamic Ottoman Empire, it is a Muslim land eternally and must be returned to its rightful owner.
As the writer goes on to say, exactly the same reasoning applies to Jerusalem or Spain or Southern France: regardless of the history or the wishes of the people, “Once Muslim, always Muslim.”
Now, to point out that many Muslims are peace-loving British patriots who are either ignorant of, or reject, territorial Islam is to miss the point. Such easy-going people are unlikely to go out of their way to assemble in Trafalgar Square, and those who did attend are more likely to belong to the 25% of British Muslims who, reportedly, want the implementation of Sharia Law. They will also believe they are the ones to impose it once they are numerous enough, as evidenced by the high turnout of young men.
In the same way, those Christians who say that perhaps being in Bristol Cathedral will lead Muslims to embrace Christianity (and you can bet your life that’s not in the minds of the Cathedral authorities!) need to consider that for every Muslim who converts, a thousand will be thinking how soon the Cathedral will permanently become a mosque, like Hagia Sophia in Constantinople.
It is Sharia Law that, immune to individual interpretation, requires the division of the world into dar al-Islam and dar al-harb, and which also demands jihad as the means of forcing the latter to become the former. Were Sharia to be imposed violently (under the non-negotiable imperative of religious zeal), it is a matter of conjecture whether the 75% of “moderate” Muslims would, in the event, be glad that they have moved one step closer to Allah’s will. In any case, they would have no more choice in the matter than the dhimmis of the Ottoman Empire. So the religion itself demonstrably disincentivises peaceful co-existence.
Other religions have no such ambitions of territorial acquisition tied to their worship. The nearest I can think of are the prayer-walks Charismatics adopted in the 1970s, supposedly to overcome “territorial demons,” a concept not long before introduced by I forget who – maybe it was Derek Prince. An example of this fashion is in Graham Kendrick’s For this purpose:
In the name of Jesus we stand
By the power of his blood we now claim this ground
Satan has no authority here
Powers of darkness must flee
For Christ has the victory!
And though these marches had no discernible effect on the state of the nation (not being taught in God’s word), they were totally free of any expectation that Christians would forcibly occupy strip clubs or abortion clinics, let alone attack them with pickaxe handles stored in the church vestry.
But what if these religious Muslims of good faith (modelled in the liberal mind on Methodists or Buddhists) insist that Islam means “Peace,” not conquest, and that they revere Jesus even more than the Christians do? Our politicians are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, another way in which the authoritarian edifice of Islam (imposed via the Qu’ran as interpreted by Islamic Authority, together with the hadith and Sharia, which are also interpreted by the experts in Saudi Arabia) negates our Christianised concept of “religion.”
The erudite Raymond Ibrahim points out how deception (taqiyya) is integral to Islamic law, and even exemplified in the life of Muhammad. (Incidentally, isn’t it strange how Judaism and Christianity, in Muslim eyes corrupted from the pure ways of Allah held from Adam to Jesus, have as part of their backsliding elevated “truth-telling” to divine status?) Ibrahim writes:
Accordingly, normative Islam teaches that deceit is integral to jihad: Ibn al-Arabi declares that “in the Hadith [sayings and actions of Muhammad], practicing deceit in war is well demonstrated. Indeed, its need is more stressed than the need for courage.” Ibn al-Munir (d. 1333) writes, “War is deceit, i.e., the most complete and perfect war waged by a holy warrior [mujahid] is a war of deception, not confrontation, due to the latter’s inherent danger, and the fact that one can attain victory through treachery without harm [to oneself].” And Ibn Hajar (d. 1448) counsels Muslims “to take great caution in war, while [publicly] lamenting and mourning in order to dupe the infidels.”
…Professor Mukaram states, “Taqiyya was used as a way to fend off danger from the Muslims, especially in critical times and when their borders were exposed to wars with the Byzantines and, afterwards, to the raids of the Franks and others.” The widespread use of taqiyya was one of the main reasons that prompted the Spanish Inquisition: hundreds of thousands of Muslims who had feigned conversion to Christianity secretly remained Muslim, conspiring with North African Muslim tribes to reconquer the Iberian Peninsula.
Ibrahim’s comprehensive article shows how complete porkies may be told to unbelievers, or even other Muslims, with a clear religious conscience, if the correct dissimulation techniques are applied. But apparently its OK to lie to your wife outright, according to the best religious authorities.
Once again, your Muslim neighbour or doctor may be, by nature or enculturation, obsessionally truthful even to an unbeliever like you. But if the religious law teaches lying and dissimulation when it furthers Islam, how are you ever going to know? The religion itself demonstrably disincentivises plain dealing.
I’ve mentioned Keir Starmer a couple of times, in the context of atheist/socialist gullibility, or wilful ignorance, regarding the actual teachings of Islam. But in truth I’m more concerned at the lack of a much better understanding in the churches of Christ, even those not giving over their places of worship to deniers of Christ.
I remember attending a very instructive public meeting on these things over twenty years ago, addressed by Patrick Sookhdeo, the founder of Barnabas Fund. But most Christians still have no idea of how Islam works, or know its true origins and history. Consequently, although Muslims now constitute some 7%+ of the population, we have no strategy either for opposing the Islamisation of our nation, or for evangelising individual Muslims effectively. This is quite possibly less true in churches in Bradford or Tower Hamlets, but out here in the sticks we have our share of Turkish barbers, fugitive wives and, increasingly, illegal immigrant centres. So we ought to be discussing these things candidly in churches, teaching about the actual doctrines rather than buying into Keir Starmer’s aggressive, but ultimately suicidal, Kumbayah mentality.
Remember, Antioch, where Christians were first so named, was one of the five Patriarchates of Christianity, until a succession of Muslim invasions killed or enslaved every Christian there, and eventually led the city itself to die. In 2026 the remaining Christians in Syria are considered by some to be suffering genocide. As for Jews, there are only six left in the entire country. Kumbayah.
