The Danger of MAINSTREAM
Islamic Takeover in Britain
Mainstream Islamic Threat to Christianity
The presence of well-organised Mohammedans among us is a grave threat, though not often recognised, to our Christian faith. The Mohammedans, following their prophet Mohammed or Mahomet (570-632AD), believe that God is simply one and not the Trinity-in-Unity, the Three-in-One. They deny that Jesus is the Son of God and also that He died for our sins being crucified upon the cross. But the Bible says that the one undivided God is Father, Son and Holy Ghost; that the Son is equal in honour to the Father (Jn 5: 22-23); that we must believe in the Son (Jn 8: 24) - and what He did for us men and our salvation - if we are to be saved (1 Cor 15: 3, 4). Mohammed did not like any of this and forbad his followers from believing this, charging them to stop others proclaiming it. In faithfulness to Mohammed, not Christ, his followers now oppose and persecute, sometimes to death, any who bring these glad tidings of great joy which should be to all people. We see increasing Muslim violence against Christians almost everywhere; and it will, sooner or later, come to Britain if it is not here already. There is an issue here of freedom of religious expression and propagation; indeed a question of the freedom to publish and proclaim this good news to all, including to the followers of Mohammed. Wherever Mohammedanism is in power it stops the freedom which is needed to proclaim the gospel. But the gospel of Christ, and the Christian values that flow from it, are something that we all benefit from, even when considering only the good things that it brings in this life. This is because Christianity is the root of a very fruitful tree; and the fruits of Christianity will not long survive where the freedom-constricting and belief-restraining laws of the Mosque prevail. God is indeed great as the Muslims often affirm, and gracious which they tend to ignore; but the Son of God is equally as great and gracious (Jn 17:5; 1 Jn 5: 11, 12). And if we do not have the Son then we do not have the Father either (1 Jn 2: 23).
Mainstream Islamic Threat to the Jews
The Jews also tend to suffer a great deal where large numbers of Mohammedans are able to influence law-making, policy-making and the general social, political, media and educational culture. Islam not only has a problem with the existence of the State of Israel, and the consequent loss of most of Muslim Palestine (which Islam sees as a major affront to its claim to supremacy everywhere), and the treatment that is meted out to the enemies of the State of Israel in the Middle East; Islam also has a problem with the Jewish nation itself whether in the land of Israel or in the Diaspora. Mohammed and his followers conceived a kind of eternal hatred against the Jews because the Jews, and not the Islamic ummah, according to the Old Testament or Talmud, which Mohammed revered, are the chosen nation (Gen 12: 3). Mohammed wanted his own followers to feel that they were the ones who were specially chosen by Allah. Mohammed sought the approval of both the Jews and the Christians, the peoples of the Book, and when this was not given he turned in great bitterness against both. As a result his followers have a great hatred not only for Christianity but also for the nationality of the Jews; the Muslims have a kind of eternal enmity against the Jews for this reason, known as Al-Yahud. It is in the Arab and the Mohammedan world, especially, that copies of Hitler’s Mein Kamph are circulated and propagated with approval and where the fact of the Nazi race-genocide against the Jews, between 1941-1945, is most vehemently denied. The Mufti of Jerusalem visited Hitler during World War II because of the common racial hatred of the Jews which they both shared; and, in Europe, Bosnian Mohammedans joined Hitler’s SS Hansa division as a means of carrying on their eternal war against the people God really did choose. In the New Testament Jesus said that salvation was of the Jews (Jn 4: 22) and the apostle Paul laid down in Romans chapters 9-11 the awful story of the partial rejection of the Jews in God’s plan in order to bring the Gentiles into the true Church - those who have faith in the true God.
The New Testament and the Christian View of the Jews
The special status and love of the Israelite is a little known part, but an important part, of the New Testament Christian faith; and it is a part of the Christian faith, along with the Trinity and the Godhood of Christ (and the death of Christ to atone for our sins) that the followers of Mohammed have an especial dislike for. The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has threatened to wipe the State of Israel off of the map, such is the racial (and religious) hatred of the Muslim for the Jew; and yet we are allowing increasing numbers of these adherents into the whole of the West: something which ought to betoken an increasing level of fear to the Jew and instability to ourselves. Yet our foolish governments continue to allow it to happen.
It is important to be clear what the New Testament, which is part of our Christian faith, says of the Jew. I have already said a lot, elsewhere, about what the whole of the Bible says about nations, nationhood and national homelands. You must not be surprised, therefore, that the New Testament, the especially Christian part of the Bible, has something to say about the chosen nation even though they are, now, very largely in unbelief; a state of affairs that is indeed alluded to in the New Testament. The apostle Paul says that ‘if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world,” which it was, ‘what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead” (Roms 11: 15). He goes on to say ‘that blindness is in part happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles come in.” (Roms 11: 25.) We are living in that time-frame where blindness in part is come to the Jew; but note well they are still the chosen race, collectively, for the sake of the fathers. In Roms 11: 21 Paul refers to them as the ‘natural branches” and, in Roms 9: 3 he refers to them as his ‘kinsmen by race” (Revised Standard Version) ‘kinsman according to the flesh’ in the Authorised Version, and how, though he was the apostle to the Gentiles (Roms 11: 13; Gals 2: 7-9), he could wish himself accursed and cut off from Christ for their sakes. All the blessings of the covenant belong to them pre-eminently - the sonship, the glory, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. Islam - at its inception, being a kind of religious form of extreme Arab nationalism - resented all of this because the Arabs descended from Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, not Isaac and Jacob in whom Abraham’s privileges shall belong and be transmitted (Gals 4:22-3; Roms 9: 7-13). It is a question of sour grapes, as with so much related to the attitude and outlook of Mohammed.
So we have seen that Mohammedanism dislikes both Christianity and the nation of the Jews intensely for reasons which are deeply religious and historical, and for reasons which to the secular mind may seem almost incomprehensible and unbelievable; but our Christian faith upholds all these points and, as Christians, we must be faithful to them, acknowledging, at the same time, that it is only by individual faith and repentance that anyone can come to Jesus, be they Jew or Gentile: for we are all to seek, by faith only, that righteousness which comes to us by what Christ has done for us, and not by our own efforts and works of the law (Roms 10: 3, 6, 10, 17).
Mainstream Islamic Threat to our Parliamentary Democracy
But why is the presence of large numbers of the followers of Mohammed among us so great a threat to our liberal and national democracy? It is due to the nature of Islam itself and not to the alleged extremism of some radicals within it. By our standards all of Islam is extreme. The roots of Islamic terror indeed go back to Mohammed and only too faithfully repeat what he commanded, practised and enjoined. When the so-called radicals emulate him, they are only being faithful to what he taught and practised; and yet when the so-called moderates try to play this down, they too are, also, only being faithful to doctrines and practices - of patience, stealth and dissimulation - which he also practised and avowed in tandem, depending on the situation which he found himself in: but always with an eye as to which of the conflicting approaches would best achieve the most suitable outcome for the furtherance of his own religion and its ultimate goal of dominating, bit by bit, the whole world.
The object of Islam is extreme: to dominate all. There will be no freedom of religion, no freedom to leave Islam, and no freedom to critique it: the leaving of Islam is seen as apostasy and under the Islamic sharia (or pathway) it carries the death penalty; the criticising of Islam is deemed blasphemy and likewise, under the sharia, carries severe penalties. Islam means submission or surrender and has no concept of individual freedom of choice or lack of compulsion in religion once you are within the faith yourself or if you dwell in the Abode of Islam, the Dar al Islam, where the Mohammedans are in the majority and the laws of the state back-up and support the rule of the Imam and the Mosque.
But in the Abode of War, the Dar al Harb, where Mohammedans are not in the majority, or where Islam has not yet established near total ascendancy, more subtlety or trickery is required to fool the ‘infidels’ into believing that they are safe, until… … the moment comes when they can either be subdued or ‘persuaded’ to submit ‘voluntarily.’ If the latter, all well and good; but if the former then Allah has at least been merciful in giving them time and opportunity to surrender and convert. You may not regard that as very fair or tolerant but you are not coming to it from the perspective of Allah’s apostle; and in any case in the things of Allah their prophet was clear that there could not be, nor would it in principle be right for there to be, any leeway or toleration for what they see as rebellion and apostasy against the one true God. The idea of belief being from the heart and freely given is a Judeao-Christian one, found in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, not in the Koran, which sees outward conformity or submission as being of the essence of the faith of the whole community.
Jihad not simply confined to Violence
The means used to secure the domination of the whole world, country by country, are often overlooked; but they have become more and more exposed by Islam-scholars and by individuals who have been converted to Christ out of the pit of Mohammedanism. The Rev Dr Patrick Sookhdeo has written a number of books on Islam and is an expert on its terrorist networks and their methods. But works on Muslim terror only deal with the radicals and overlook the greater danger of an Islamic takeover by stealth, as promoted by the comparatively more moderate, but really more slippery and cunning mainstream. We must not be fooled. In particular Dr Sam Solomon and others have written on this. It is mainstream Mohammedanism, not the radicals, which drives the war, or struggle (known in Arabic as jihad), against the non-Islamic world, the unbeliever, the infidel or kaffir - kufr meaning unbelief; and it does so by these other means which often fall short of violence but which may threaten violence against the kaffir, and will certainly use all kinds of pressure - legal, propaganda, cultural, and financial - to bring about either the kaffir’s total submission by conversion to Islam, or his reduction to the status of dhimmitude. This is what Christians and Jews in particular are to be reduced to: it involves establishing an Islamic protectorate over them by which they are made wards of Islam and have to pay a jizya, a humiliating tax for their ‘protection,’ and where they lose equal rights in a Muslim-dominated state and society. This jihad, or struggle, is an ongoing and systematic programme to take over the non-Islamic states in terms of Islam’s own ideology as founded upon the Koran, the Sunnah (trodden path), the hadiths (the written traditions); and the sharia (the Islamic religious laws), as propounded by their scholars (the ulema) from time to time; especially in the early days of the religion but also in current fatwas to meet situations which have not arisen before for which there is no guiding precedent. Jihad can also include terrorism, assassinations, kidnaps, beatings-up, holy war - all in the name of Allah and His apostle - but it is by no means confined to such actual or threatened violence. The whole of the West, as part of the Abode of War, the Dar Al Harb, is currently being subjected to an organised and well-directed institutional, legal, educational and cultural jihad, from Mohammedan pressure to have school girls wear the hijab and “dress modestly”, to pressure on Tescos to sell halal meat, and on the banks to deal in sharia-compliant financial services.
Immigration and Swamping is another means of Jihad
One main way of promoting this kind of jihad is by hirja: migration or swamping. Following the precedent of Mohammed’s flight or migration to Medina from Mecca, his followers have historically been bidden, likewise, to migrate to further the struggle and spread the faith. It can be within one country, such as from Leicester to Peterborough, or Peterborough to Boston, or it can be between countries, from Morocco to England or Libya to Scotland; but though it may be presented as all kinds of things, its object and its effect is to keep the migrating community of Mohammed’s followers together so that they can then dominate a locality and spread the Middle East. Fleeing from it? They are bringing it with them; that is the whole point! Hirja or migration is one of the main ways now being pursued to subject the West to Islam and to turn Europe, especially, into Eurabia.
“Islam Means Peace” is another means of Jihad by Takiyya or Deception.
Another way of ensuring that this kind of jihad-promotion is protected is by means of takiyya (deception) - Koranic injunctions for a “viable survival through deception” where the Muslims are still in the minority and may yet be vulnerable. Takiyya, which means deception, is the most irreligious of doctrines for it countenances and enjoins lying for the cause - in other words doing evil that ‘good’ may come (Roms 3: 8). That is what they think of you as an ‘infidel’, a non-Muslim. It is practised at the personal level and at the community level through its leaders and institutions and it is used by arrogant and evil Muslims even under oath, backed up often by their Mosques, to falsely accuse Christians, and Jews, either for personal gain or to wage jihad against their communities. In the media these Mohammedans constantly trot out the lie that Islam is a peaceful religion. No it is not: it is one of the most vile, violent and depraved religions that have cursed the Earth and which has held back large areas of mankind in servitude, sexual debasement and depravity, and intellectual backwardness for centuries.
Thus Islamic jihad, both the violent and the non-violent varieties, are all of a piece in the struggle of Mohammed, and his followers, against all who have not yet submitted to the crescent god. Mohammedanism, in all its forms and in all the ways it is being promoted, is thus one of several great threats that the West, broadly defined, is now facing, and which it must defeat if its way of life is to be preserved and prosper. As we fought Hitler and the followers of Lenin and Marx so we must take on the false prophet of Allah who even now, from the grave, seeks to destroy us. And of one thing we can be certain: Christ, the Lord God and the Son of God shall prevail.
All scripture quotations are from the King James Authorised Version (1611) unless otherwise stated. The Revised Standard Version has been quoted in one place where it is helpful (Roms 9:3) though it is generally unreliable, especially on Christology and on its underlying text of the New Testament.
© The Revd RMB West Dip. Th.
