Is The Bible More Violent Than The Koran?

As a result of textual analysis it has been asserted that the Old and New Testaments are both more violent than the Koran. The latest video looks at this assertion. Can it really be true that Islam actually is the religion of peace?

Whenever there is a Muslim atrocity committed the automatic first response from Western politicians and media is to assure us that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’. No matter how horrendous, no matter how vehemently the perpetrators proclaim that they are doing this in the name of Islam, no matter how often we hear the cries of ‘Allah Akhbar’ as AK 47s rattle and bombs explode, we are sure to hear proclaimed the same message ‘This has nothing to do with Islam, Islam is a religion of peace’. To which most of us respond with our own version of the Scots ‘Aye – right’ one of the few instance in any language where two positives actually do make a negative. Continue reading “Is The Bible More Violent Than The Koran?”



Why do our leaders treat us as though we were children, unable to face the truth? Because we let them.

There is almost a ritualistic quality to it. There is an Islamic atrocity committed in some Western city, followed immediately by a sense of shock. Next there is an outpouring of sympathy manifesting itself in the laying of flowers, ‘Je suis Charlie…’ etc. Then we have the political and religious leaders assuring us that ‘Islam is a religion of peace, this has nothing to do with Islam’. Finally some civic leader, politician, police chief, or the like will tell us that their greatest fear is a rise in Islamaphobia.

And so it continues until the next atrocity, and the ritual is undergone again.

Even well respected people like Justin Welby, archbishop of Canterbury, are drawn into the dance. Welby is not just a thoroughly decent man, he is to be admired for his ability and commitment, if anyone is capable of holding the Anglican communion together it is Welby. And yet he too joins the dance of denial.

Social cohesion is a laudable goal, but wilful blindness can lead to exacerbating social divisions. When the genuine concerns of ordinary people are dismissed by those in positions of leadership we will find a growing disillusionment with the political process and a rise of populist solutions to complex problems.

By denying there is a problem in the name of social cohesion our elites are furthering the conditions for social disruption.


It passed almost unnoticed but a few days ago we saw the anniversary of the execution by beheading of some of the greatest heroes of WWII.

In 1942 Hans Scholl (24), a medical student at the University of Munich, his sister Sophie (21), Christoph Probst (22), Willi Graf (25), and Alexander Schmorell (25), founded the ‘White Rose’ movement, one of the few German groups that spoke out against Nazi genocidal policies.

Hans and Sophie Scholl with Christophe Probst, March 1942
Hans and Sophie Scholl with Christophe Probst, March 1942

As children Hans and Sophie had, like most German youngsters, been members of the Nazi youth organisations. Their father Robert, who was later imprisoned for anti-Nazi remarks, tried to teach them that Hitler was leading Germany to destruction. Gradually Hans and Sophie came to understand that their father was right.

With the outbreak of war the great majority of Germans rallied around their country believing that in time of war it is the duty of citizens to support their country. Hans and Sophie thought otherwise. They believed that it was the duty of the citizen to stand against evil.

At great risk, ‘White Rose’ members transported and mailed mimeographed leaflets denouncing the regime. These were distributed to wherever they thought they might be effective, especially the universities. ‘We will not be silent’, they wrote to their fellow students. ‘We are your bad conscience. The White Rose will not leave you in peace!’

After the German army’s defeat at Stalingrad in late January 1943, the Scholls distributed pamphlets urging students in Munich to rebel. But in the next month, a university janitor who saw them with the pamphlets betrayed them to the Gestapo.

After a show trial, headed by the notorious Roland Friesler, Hitler’s favourite judge, the regime executed Hans and Sophie Scholl and Christoph Probst on February 22, 1943. Before walking to the guillotine, Sophie observed: ‘How can we expect righteousness to prevail when there is hardly anyone willing to give himself up individually to a righteous cause?’ She went on: ‘Such a fine, sunny day, and I have to go, but what does my death matter, if through us, thousands of people are awakened and stirred to action?’

Others members were also executed. Amongst them philosophy professor Kurt Huber, who had guided the movement. Huber’s widow was later sent a bill for 600 marks, twice his monthly salary, for ‘wear of the guillotine’. Alexander Schmorell was executed on the same day as Kurt Huber.

These young people saw evil, saw that the great majority of their fellow citizens either supported or acquiesced in it, or were cowed by it. They could not be silent. They would not excuse themselves by saying it was the fault of society, which was true; or that any action they took would have little effect, which was true; or that to stand against Hitler was a path to death, which was true. They accepted personal responsibility for their own actions despite the cost.

Momentous events or movements, actions beyond our control, shape the actions of individuals. What the members of the White Rose, practically all committed Christians, realised was that ultimately it is down to the character and choice of the individual as to how they react to those forces and what they personally choose to do.

The repellent Roland Freisler, rabid Nazi judge, would find few supporters today, few who would argue that he was a product of his upbringing or that he had been radicalised a Nazi by his experiences as a prisoner of the Russians after the Russian Revolution. Freisler was responsible for the man he became and the actions he committed, including the beheading of members of the White Rose.

And yet we find people attempting to ‘contextualise’ the murders committed by the serial killer Mohhammed Emwazi,otherwise known as Jihadi John. Spokesmen for CAGE, a Muslim human rights organisation in the same way that Vladimir Putin is a human rights activist, claimed that the blame for the radicalisation of Emwazi lay solely with the British security services. Seemingly they had the temerity to question this ‘kind’, ‘gentle’, and ‘beautiful young man’, concerning his intent to go to Africa and fight jihad.

This is in part because to claim otherwise would be to admit that he was taught by other Muslims to hate any non-Sunnis, that it was legitimate to enslave Yazidi women, and that beheading aid-workers was an act of piety.

Perhaps it is the doleful legacy of Marxist analysis which see the individual as a grain of sand washed about by the tides of history. Perhaps it is our culture of victimhood which ever seeks to absolve the individual of personal responsibility. Perhaps it is our therapeutic progressive culture which refuses to judge even the judgemental who behead people.

More likely it is the demise of Christianity in the West with the idea that eventually we all have to stand before God as individuals responsible for our own actions. Societal sin exists as does collective responsibility, but ultimately we are responsible as individual for the actions we commit, or allow to pass unopposed.

The White Rose shows us that it evil has to be confronted, named for what it is, and unrelentingly opposed.


Moral equivalence is a fancy name for ‘Whatabouterry’, the playground debating tactic of countering any argument with ‘What about …?’ with the automatic assumption of an equivalence between the two propositions. Silly enough in primary school children, not so amusing in a supposedly educated person like Barack Obama.

Speaking of IS atrocities at a National Prayer Breakfast President Obama said:

Unless we get on our high horse and think this is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ. In our home country, slavery and Jim Crow all too often was justified in the name of Christ.

Obama makes the fatal errors of all addicted to Whatabouterry, the omission of historical context, the passage of time, and the comparison of the everyday with the rare.

Terrible deeds were committed by Christians during the Crusades, deeds roundly condemned by every Christian. But consider the context. The Crusades were not imperialistic wars launched by vicious Christians against pastoral Muslims interested only in leading peaceful lives cultivating their crops and living in harmony with the environment.

The Muslim history of religious war begins during Muhammed’s life time. Within 60 years of his death Islam had swept through the Christian lands of North Africa and had taken Jerusalem. In another twenty years they had conquered Spain. Was this the result of a particularly effective campaign of tract distribution, or a violent military campaign? The ‘religion of peace’ spread by the sword. Subjugated peoples were given three choices: convert, live and pay ‘jizya’ a tax for the privilege of living under Muslim domination, or die.

The Muslim invaders of Europe were finally stopped by the Franks under Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in 732. Finding their northward drive halted imperialistic Islam consolidated its grip on Spain and then turned eastwards, as well as focussing turning the Mediterranean into a Muslim lake.

It was only in 1095, after nearly 400 years of violent Muslim imperialism that Pope Urban II preached the first Crusade and the religious war appears in Christianity.

The Crusades began almost a millenium ago, when Obama says ‘people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ’. He ignores that in the succeeding millennium some religions grew, others remained mired in the past.

If the detestable crime of slavery was defeated in the West it is largely due to the activities of one group, evangelical Christians. In Britain and the UK the driving force behind the movement to outlaw slavery was evangelical Christianity, embodied by the Clapham Sect in the UK and the abolitionists of the USA. Last century the Civil Rights movement amongst blacks in the USA was largely led by the evangelical black churches and their ministers.

In the meantime slavery remains an integral part of the social programme of IS, Boko Haram and their affiliates. It is moral cretinism to excuse or downgrade the crimes of today because of the crimes of 200 years ago.

It is not only in the USA that such self-loathing inanity is current. In the Guardian, where else, there appeared a column saying we shouldn’t consider the West superior to IS because of the Chad Evans case.

Evans is a footballer given a two year prison sentence for rape. Following his release and a Twitter storm denouncing his attempts to return to football some argued that having served his time Evans should be given a second chance and be allowed to play football. According to Guardian columnist Deborah Orr, Evans and his supporters ‘each and every one of them’ have a ‘good deal of common cause with the ideas of… the Islamic State’.

According to this argument those who believe that having served his time a man should be allowed a second chance in life are the equivalent of a vile pseudo state who have thrown out due process in favour of killing and maiming any it considers criminals. Only in the Guardian.

Such is the terror of making a moral judgement that some progressives claim that we in the West today are no different from IS who burned to death Jordanian pilot Moaz al-Kasasbeh because Thomas Moore had Protestants burned at the stake more than 450 years ago and Servetus was executed in Calvin’s Geneva.

Perhaps Obama and other progressives should ask: Why does barbaric violence persist amongst Islamic extremists today to an extent unknown in other religions? Why search the distant past for instances of moral equivalence, unless the present doesn’t offer suitable instances?

Parts of Central America are as poor as the Middle East, yet with the exception, nearly 50 years ago, of the Marxist-Christian priest Camillo Torres we do not find liberation theologians taking up the gun in the cause of redistribution. The Dalai Lama is not sending suicide bombers into China to avenge the takeover of Tibet. Jews are not machine gunning cartoonists in Paris. Hindus are not flying airliners into high rises in Britain as revenge for the exploitation of India by the Raj. Prussian Lutherans are not beheading Russians because of the mass rapes by the Red Army in 1945.

Our progressives should be asking why radical Islam is spreading terror all over the globe rather by denying it, employing euphemisms to cover it, or attempting to excuse it by citing supposedly morally equivalent examples from the distant past.

This is more than a trendy posturing by progressives congratulating themselves on their ‘sensitivity’ and ‘understanding’. It is destructive of the hard won advances toward freedom made in Western society over the centuries. If all is equivalence why should we urge Islam to reform? If all is equivalence why should we, how could we, defend Western freedoms?


For those furth of the UK Eric Pickles is Communities Minister in the present government. A rather rotund Yorkshireman he plays the part of common sense man of the people rather well, but behind the bluff exterior there lies a very canny political operator. But even the canniest, most Machiavellian of operators can come a cropper.

Eric Pickles MP
Eric Pickles MP

Following the Charlie Hebdo attack Mr Pickles sent a rather benign, supportive letter to 1,000 Muslim leaders in the UK asking them to help with their co-religionists who are on their way to embracing jihad. Clearly the great majority of Muslims want nothing to do with the violence, unfortunately there also exists a small minority planning or enacting violence. However, and almost as worrying, there are large numbers in the middle who will not condemn any other Muslim over any act, or who actively sympathise with the violent.

In the face of this Mr Pickles in his letter made the valid assessment that Muslim radicalism ‘cannot be solved from Whitehall alone’ and stressed the need for all to fight extremism. He stressed that he was ‘proud’ of the way Muslims in Britain had reacted to the Paris atrocity but added that there was ‘more work to do’. He asked the immams to explain how Islam ‘can be part of the British identity’ explicitly making the somewhat strange assertion that British values are Muslim values. Pickles even repeated that well worn cliche that Islam is ‘a religion of peace’.

He wrote: ‘We believe together we have an opportunity to demonstrate the true nature of British Islam today. There is a need to lay out more clearly than ever before what being a British Muslim means today: proud of your faith and proud of your country. We know that acts of extremism are not representative of Islam, but we need to show what is.’

‘We must show our young people, who may be targeted, that extremists have nothing to offer them. We must show them that there are other ways to express disagreement, that their right to do so is dependent on the very freedoms that extremists seek to destroy.

‘We must show them the multitude of statements of condemnation from British Muslims, show them these men of hate have no place in our mosques or any place of worship, and that they do not speak for Muslims in Britain or anywhere in the world.

‘Let us assure you that the government will do all we can to defeat the voices of division, but ultimately the challenges of integration and radicalisation cannot be solved from Whitehall alone. Strong community-based leadership at a local level is needed.’

One would assume that such an emollient letter would be received in the spirit in which it was written, however, this ‘Islamophobic’ missive was not well received by all.

Harun Khan, Deputy Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain said: ‘We will be writing to Mr Eric Pickles to ask that he clarifies his request to Muslims to ‘explain and demonstrate how faith in Islam can be part of British identity’. Khan continued, ‘Is Mr Pickles seriously suggesting, as do members of the far right, that Muslims and Islam are inherently apart from British society? He asked, as though it was not apparent, ‘Why is the Muslim community being singled out in such an approach?’

Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, said he was ‘dismayed’ by the letter, which was ‘typical of the government only looking at Muslims through the prism of terrorism and security’.

Pride of place in reaction to the letter goes, of course, to the Guardian. In today’s Comment is Free section there is an article by Areeb Ullah. In a classical example of ‘Whatabouterry’ he asks of Mr Pickles: ‘Serious question. Will you be sending a letter any time soon to members of the Roman Catholic church following the child-abuse scandals in Catholic institutions?’

There are some basic differences between the scandals which have hit the Roman Catholic church and the somewhat over enthusiastic interpretations of jihad amongst too many Muslims. Chief amongst them is that, depraved though many of them are, it is doubtful that those priests who raped children claimed they did so because Jesus told them to do it. The Muslims murdering those whom they think have slighted Muhammad do so because they have been taught, and sincerely believe, that Muhammad sanctions such action.

When it comes to child abuse no-one is asking Muslims to show their Britishness because of the horrendous grooming gangs who committed horrific widespread acts of child abuse in England. Everyone reckons that this was committed by Muslims who were bad people, not just because they were Muslims. These men were under no illusion that what they were doing was what Islam commanded.

I’m not sure if such creatures exist but I think I would feel more comfortable being around an extreme Methodist than I would being around an extreme Muslim.

Jesus is insulted constantly. If the Methodist Mujahadin take action the most they are likely to do is purse their lips, shake their heads and get on with organising the jumble sale. Offend the Church of England and the Anglican Al-Qaida may just have the Vicar invite you round for a sherry and a quiet chat after Evensong. As for the Baptist branch of Boko Haram they are the worst, offend them and they will pray for you.

There is a world of difference between a faith which teaches its followers that when attacked they should turn the other cheek and one which sanctions violent reprisal.





Muslim  terrorists have yet again demonstrated their barbaric cruelty to any who may be critical of Islam and Muhammad. In broad daylight yesterday, Wednesday January7, 2015, three Kalashnikov armed, masked and hooded gunmen murdered 12 people, 10 journalists and two police officers. Their target and the scene of the atrocity, the Paris headquarters of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo.

The world has been shocked by the atrocity. In February 2006, then French President Jacques Chirac described Charlie Hebdo’s publication of the Danish Muhammad cartoons as a ‘provocation’. Two years ago Laurent Fabius, French Foreign Minister, had criticised Charlie Hebdo for its attacks on Islam saying ‘Is it really sensible or intelligent to pour oil on the fire?’

More realistically, yesterday President Hollande unequivocally called the Charlie Hebdo attack a terrorist action, an act against liberty of expression. He declared that France should not give in to fear of subversion or submission.

Meanwhile ‘Je Suis Charlie’ has become the hashtag of the moment. But is this just an understandable immediate reaction to a bloodthirsty act, or will it mark a sea change in the establishment view of the danger of militant Islam, not just to France but to the very concept of enlightened Western civilisation?

Witnesses heard the gunmen shout, ‘We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad’, and ‘Allahu Akbar’ (God is Great) as they gunned down their victims. Today we have seen British newspapers telling us that this monstrous act was actually anti-Islamic and to be expected.

The Spectator thinks this is ‘also an attack on Islam’, whilst in the Guardian Ed Husain wrote ‘The killing of journalists in Paris on Wednesday was not only an attack on France but also an assault on Islam.’ The Guardian published examples of the cartoons to be found in Charlie Hebdo giving as an example cartoons attacking the Pope. Curiously our free press loving journalists at the Guardian failed to publish any of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons attacking Islam, the very reason for the attack.

Also in London the Financial Times comes as close as they could without actually saying so that the journalists at Charlie Hebdo got what they were asking for: ‘[Charlie Hebdo] has a long record of mocking, baiting and needling French Muslims . . . [This] is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdoo . . . which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.’

Tony Barber, the editor of the FT, can write such a crass, insensitive and downright disgusting piece because he knows that those offended by it will not rush the offices of the FT and gun him down. He is safe to denigrate Western journalists who mock the inherent violence in Islam. Perhaps it is time for some of our journalists actually put the reality behind ‘Je Suis Charlie’?

The Telegraph was not slow to pinpoint the dangers facing France, this morning it ran a report headlinedFrance faces rising tide of Islamophobia” The Telegraph’s response to this latest incident of Islamic violence was to list the terrible rise of right-wing and other forces — as though the attack were the response to radical Islam, rather than even suggest that it might be radical Islam itself that was at fault. Once again, the ‘backlash’ against Muslims took precedence over the actual murder of non-Muslims at the hands of Muslim fanatics.

What our press is actually saying is, ‘Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie’.


Why are liberals so opposed to biblical Christianity whilst so accommodating towards Islam? After all Christianity is foundational for many traditional liberal beliefs whilst Islam is utterly opposed to them. The real difference is that Islam is useful to the modern liberal agenda whilst biblical Christianity is an obstacle to its implementation.

freedom go to hell

For today’s liberal the great problem with biblical Christianity is that it is traditionally liberal. In the doctrine of the Image of God Christianity espouses the equal value in the eyes of God of every human being regardless of origin or background. Likewise in arguing for a Day of Judgement before God Christianity argues that there are absolute moral values and that we are all personally responsible agents. Equality and individual responsibility were once guiding lights to be followed by liberals, for today’s liberals in a world of quotas and corporate sin they have long disappeared.

Words change their meanings, sometimes to such an extent that they mean the opposite of what they originally meant. The original fundamentalists, the writers of ‘The Fundamentals’ were men such as BB Warfield and James Orr, theologians of stature who were amongst the intellectual leaders of the Protestantism of their day. Today a fundamentalist is either a snake handler from Tennessee or a bloke with a beard and a suicide vest, basically someone who picks up their Bible, whatever that may be, and puts down his brain.

So it is with the word ‘Liberal’. Once a proponent of the maximum individual and social freedom possible it now denotes someone who is intolerant of other’s views, who demands conformity, who restricts free speech, who desires ever more state control and who seeks to outlaw anything with which he disagrees.

One of the commonplace progressive or liberal memes is that ISIS is un-Islamic. It would be much more accurate to say that today’s liberals are ill-liberal. Traditional liberalism amongst today’s liberals is as dead as Lenin, a mummified corpse preserved in a mausoleum and viewed as a relic of a distant past.

Probably the majority of those posing as liberals today would unite in declaring that criticism of Islam is racist or Islamophobic. Any criticism of the behaviour or beliefs of those perceived as a minority must, according to our liberal elites and their followers, have its roots in the psychology of the critic. Basically the liberal responds to concerns about Islam with the attitude, ‘The problem isn’t with them it’s with you’.


In this way liberals tend to favour denunciation over argument. At one time liberals thought about issues and argued cogently, today liberals respond to ideological clues with Pavlovian eagerness.

The assertion, no matter how illogical, that the USA is irredeemably racist is impossible to argue against because it is not concerned with verifiable fact. For today’s liberals this not an argument to be debated, it is a denunciation which rejects discussion and casts any opposing it as part of the problem; it is an ideological assertion demanding that all fall into line in agreement or fall outside the boundaries of acceptable belief.

Today’s Liberals are ever ready to forgive ill-liberalism whenever it emerges from a favoured grouping. Thus female genital mutilation, which if practised by in the Western Isles or suburban Surrey would arouse roof lifting howls of protest, is forgiven as a ‘cultural practice’ and opposition to it falls under suspicion of Western cultural imperialism.


Where Islam forms the majority liberals are silent as to their behaviour. Liberals campaign incessantly for homosexual rights and feminism, except when it concerns Islamic countries where homosexuals are not fêted on the media and given knighthoods but are considered perverted criminals who can be jailed or sentenced to death, and where women are covered from head to toe and have to walk behind men. Homosexuals, feminists and Muslims are not actual concerns of today’s liberals, they are a means to an end, tools to be exploited.

Muslims are of no real concern to liberals, what they are concerned with is Islam. Muslims are merely the latest ‘victims’ liberals choose to manipulate for their own purposes.

The only thing that concerns liberals about Islam is that, in the West at least, Muslims are a minority group. As such they can be used to sow mistrust in ‘the system’. Muslims can quickly cow the supposedly powerful, consider how Western leaders grovelled over the Danish cartoons and whenever there is a Muslim atrocity are quick to assert Islam is a religion of peace. It is not the vulnerability of Muslims which attracts liberals, it is the power of Islam to challenge the system.

Islam may be sexist, intolerant and bigoted, but liberals who demand resignations at the hint of a sexist joke are silent. The importance to liberals is not the act, it is the ideology. Islam and liberals share a totalitarian mindset. The ultimate aim of both is to replace the existing Western Christian and Enlightenment cultural consensus; liberals with their own liberal progressive utopia, Islam with their own Muslim, sharia based, society. For today’s liberals the operating maxim is ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Islam will dominate world

Biblical Christianity, which is truly liberal in according to every individual maximum value and personal responsibility, and in proclaiming unvarying moral standards, stands in the way of modern totalitarian liberalism and in its view has to be either crushed or co-opted.

Today’s liberal cannot be expected to be distressed or do anything concerning Islamic ill-liberalism. What we confront today is not liberalism as we knew it, it is a progressive jihad which has stolen the terminology whilst rejecting the content of liberalism.