Why the “Scaremongering” Bishop Is Right

A quote from Manzoor Moghal in the Daily Mail, 7 January 2008

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's warning that Islamic extremism is creating 'no-go' areas in parts of Britain has provoked a predictable barrage of outrage. He has been condemned for making 'inflammatory' remarks, distorting the truth about our inner cities and 'scaremongering' against the Muslim population. But, paradoxically, this reaction from the politically-correct establishment is an indicator of the weight of his case. If our ruling elite were not so worried that his views would strike a chord with the public, it would not have been so anxious to condemn him. […]

However much his critics may sneer at his accusations, […] [t]he heavy Islamic influence in parts of Britain amounts to a severe indictment of the dogma of multi-culturalism, which held sway in our public institutions since the early eighties. Instead of promoting a sense of mutual belonging and shared understanding, this doctrine has sown the seeds of division and suspicion by discouraging allegiance to a unified British identity. […] Multi-culturalism was meant to build a unified society. "Together in diversity" was one its slogans. But instead it has achieved the opposite-promoting division and distrust-which has been exacerbated by Islamic extremism.

Europe... do not forget...

From The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton:

"...And Mahomet shall answer out of the whirlwind, the red whirlwind of the desert, 'Who ever served the jealousy of God as I did or left him more lonely in the sky? Who ever paid more honor to Moses and Abraham or won more victories over idols and the images of paganism? And what was this thing that thrust me back with the energy of a thing alive; whose fanaticism could drive me from Sicily and tear up my deep roots out of the rock of Spain? What faith was theirs who thronged in thousands of every class and country crying out that my ruin was the will Of God; and what hurled great Godfrey as from a catapult over the wall of Jerusalem; and what brought great Sobieski like a thunderbolt to the gates of Vienna? I think there was more than you fancy in the religion that has so matched itself with mine!'

Those who would suggest that the faith was a fanaticism are doomed to an eternal perplexity. In their account it is bound to appear as fanatical for nothing, and fanatical against everything. It is ascetic and at war with ascetics, Roman and in revolt against Rome, monotheistic and fighting furiously against monotheism; harsh in its condemnation of harshness; a riddle not to be explained even as unreason. And what sort of unreason is it that seems reasonable to millions of educated Europeans through all the revolutions of some sixteen hundred years? People are not amused with a puzzle or a paradox or a mere muddle in the mind for all that time. I know of no explanation except that such a thing is not unreason but reason; that if it is fanatical it is fanatical for reason and fanatical against all the unreasonable things. That is the only explanation I can find of a thing from the first so detached and so confident; condemning things that looked so like itself, refusing help from powers that seemed so essential to its existence, sharing on its human side all the passions of the age, yet always at the supreme moment suddenly rising superior to them, never saying exactly what it was expected to say and never needing to unsay what it had said. I can find no explanation except that, like Pallas from the brain of Jove, it had indeed come forth out of the mind of God, mature and mighty and armed for judgment and for war."

re: dogma of multi-culturalism #2

@ kappert re: your book recommendation.



Despite their "apparent differences",what is the "common underlying structure" linking the "scaremongering" Bishop Michael Nazir Ali with that of the alleged "Islamic extremists" seeking to establish 'no go' areas in parts of Britain?

Love thy neighbor.

Thou canst not love thy neighbor when thy neighbor loveth Thee not. When thy neighbor seeketh to slay thee, thou must smite him first.

For everything there is a time. Now the time hath come to rise up and smite our enemy and driveth him back from whence he came while there are still enough of us left to pulleth it off. For it is written " Doeth unto others before they doeth unto you."
Our enemies have pretty much invalidated the Christian philosophy of praying for our enemies and forgiving them for they know not what they do. These people know very well what they are doing.
Jesus could turn the other cheek because he knew that he was coming back in three days. We don't have that luxury.




Explaining my response


My response was an attempt at defining the problem that we face.

The last two paragraphs are a reflection on muslims that wish to have no  go areas and western atheistic thought, respectively.

To the muslim I address the claim of loving God and not loving your neighbor.

To the utopian atheist I pursue a discourse on what is love. A short one, but something worth reflecting on.

According to Jesus one cannot love God if in fact they want to have nothing to do with their neighbor. So whatever is being practiced is a shallow form of ritualism, not the essence of religion.

And according to Jesus one cannot love their neighbor if they claim to wish to do it without reflecting on the essence of their Creator.

Marcfrans has an excellent and detailed response as to what our duty is as Christians and nonChristians. Please also read it.

To add just a thought: love and education are so interwound that they cannot be separated. We educate those that we love; otherwise it is very likely that we do not love them. 

Education is not about accepting every idea under the sun as equal to the next. It is about discriminating between ideas; keeping the good and avoiding the bad.

The equality of man and freedom of expression are values that must be taught in our western societies. We have a right as human beings to question ideas, to question religions,and their founders without having to fear for our very lives.

It is the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mohammed, and many of the Popes that have wished to silence us, that do not care about these rights, and as a society and as Christians we have a duty to challenge them, and their ideas.



Your grouping "many Popes" with Hitler, Mao, and other murderous tyrants is insulting, and merely proves your own moral equivalency.

Sorry, but that last part completely undermined your "authority" in this matter.


Atheling I am sincerely saddened that you feel insulted. I wish not to insult you or anyone person. Yet, since you have mentioned the Apostle Paul, let me remind you of what he said to the Corinthians. 1 Cor.3.4: - For when one says, - I am of Paul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not carnal?

It seems to me that you feel bound to protect the many Popes that have done wrong simply because they called themselves Christian, without underpinning your views with what Christ did and said.

Perhaps we can all fall into that category sometimes, but it is our duty to question our motives, as we reflect on history as well.

Ultimately, this is the problem that many muslims also have with Mohammed. They put him before Christ, hence they underpin their reality with Mohammeds rather than Christs(my apostrophe key is not working)... although they claim to know Christ as well...


Save your sadness for the whales.

First off, how "many" Popes are you talking about? Be specific. Then, please list all the grievances and crimes you accuse them of.

I will await your clarifications.


Your response is typical of most muslims who pathetically defend mohammed as a man of peace.

There is plenty out there for you to read up and reflect on.

@Steiner ... AGAIN

I repeat, Steiner, please list the names of those "many Popes" and their crimes which are in the same league as Hitler, Mao, etc...

Can't you answer my question? You made a statement and I'm asking for clarification.

Now, how about that information?

re: dogma of multi-culturalism

Oh,kappert,why am I NOT surprised?


Trust you to avoid commentiing upon the central theme of the article in question.The article's central theme is,of course,Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's claim that "Islamic extremism is creating 'no go' areas in parts of Britain".So,assuming that claim is true (i.e. not false),you need to focus on whether you believe this is a positive or a negative development in contemporary British society.And if you decide it is a "positive" development, you need to explain why.Alternatively,if you decide it is a "negative" development you need to explain what needs to be done,and by whom,to resolve the problem.(An Islamic fundamentalist would probably conclude that this is a "positive" development,because it keeps the 'infidel' separate from the 'true believer'.The 'infidel' would disagree.However,as sure as eggs is eggs,neither the 'true believer' or the 'infidel' would be so brain-addled as to believe that the problem can be resolved by consulting the I-Ching,Tao Te Ching or their modern day counterpart).


So,kappert,how about it? Go on,give a try,but this time try it without any Um's,Ah's or OM's


marcfrans,  The wonders of technology , the adverts must be tailored to the country the viewer is in , ie your USA and my UK .

I'll bet they even know where I live !! 


LOL, the only advert above the comments here that I can see are for "bonsai slippers"...!


Loving one's neighbor does not mean one tolerates their wrongdoing.

Please re-read the Pauline letters.

No-Go Zones Are Theft

Is it not clear that No-Go Zones are theft? Before the muzlims came, was there any part of England where white Christians were not permitted to go? By what right does anyone take away a part of your country? Did you give it to them? No, they claim it is theirs simply because they live there, but never in the past would that have meant that you could not walk the streets, go to those businesses, enjoy everything on offer in that town, even though you were not a resident of the town. They are on a mission of conquest. Do you simply acquiesce to their demand? This is theft, pure and simple, and Christ does not require that you give in to the thief. See St. Luke 11:21 in this regard.

christian response ??

So if someone holds a gun to my head, your answer is "watch out: be a good christian, love your neighbour!" Ofcourse your preach is not for the criminal with the gun but for me.

This is insane & pseudo-ethical, and it has nothing to do with christ(ianity).


@ The Doctor

No, the ad says the "USA's leading.....service", not the UK's....


@ Brenik

No, there is no need to descend into 'conspiracy theories' about alterations or additions to the original of the bible.  Also, the concept of 'original' in this context is a problematic one.   It suffices to think in terms of re-interpretation, mis-interpretation, or even of conscious misrepresentation of the contents of the bible. 

The word "love" can mean (almost) anything.  In its deepest religious sense it means "concern or care for your neighbor's soul".  Therefore, the admonition to "love thy neighbor certainly can NOT mean that you should "tolerate", support, or strengthen your neighbor when he/she is behaving badly.  From a christian perspective, and from a secular 'western' perspective as well, to love thy neighbor can NOT mean to tolerate 'bad' behavior.  And "no-go areas" certainly are indicative of bad behavior.  Just like a parent's love would resist - rather than 'confirm' or support - bad behavior by his/her child, so one should not tolerate bad behavior of one's neighbor. Love means genuine concern or care for the neighbor's 'welfare', of which the moral component is ultimately the most important one.

So, a proper interpretation of the bibilical admonition to "love thy neighbor" comes down to a proper interpretation of the moral concepts of 'good' and 'bad', which requires prior interpretation of the meaning of life or of human nature. A good start would be to insist that your neighbor respect the moral equality of ALL human beings and respect the individual freedom of all other individuals. The 'golden rule' of "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" provides more specific guidance. But it still leaves much room for honest differences of interpretation, and is ultimately defenseless in the face of dishonesty.

In agreement with Marcfrans on "love thy neighbours"

The question can also be raised as how to define the concept of "enemies" in the current domain of moral relativism, where the solid principles of honesty and morality are abolished and where we are all defined as enemies (competitors)? Enemies how? As individuals, races, religions and/or countries? So who is going to tell me, who my enemy is at a certain point in time and in what specific regard?

In the realm of „enemies in religion”, which is a contradiction in terms in case of truly religious people, a Christian may pray for the enemies of Christianity as well, yet a Christian may still protect with all his might Christianity as such and the other Christians. Since the very values of Christianity include the law of honesty so profoundly that it is actually the law of truth and honesty that extends into "love thy enemies" if that is what truth itself requires, the mission to protect Christianity, especially for its unique moral value for upholding such an incredible law of honesty, would entail multiple reasons for the mission to protect Christianity as such.

Adverts .

I cannot believe it ,  just above the comments section here there is an advertisement for " singlemuslim .com " the U.K.'s leading muslim marriage service . Is this intentional ?

To neutralize the Christians' self-defense

Steiner: "Jesus commands me to love my neighbor, and to pray for my enemies."

Some parts of the Bible, such as the above, are so so frequently and consistently used in a context to neutralize the Christians' self-defense that I am starting to believe that this part of the Bible has been altered or added to the original. (nb. I noted this without the willingness to enter any religious debates. Thank you)

Another way...

Another way to interpret this is: Love my neighbour, the person living next to me and sharing my culture. And pray for my enemies, as once I encounter them, they'll be with their God soon.

@Hucul, yes, this is EU's "another way"

Probably this is the "other way" how the "conservative" S[h]arkozy seems to read the Bible.
The same EU leaders who mix different cultures in Europe are at the same time fueling ethnic and religious conflicts among them, so that the EU could justify its dictatorial lead.
This is why the cultural "melting pot" in Europe will not melt, especially not under this EU leadership: exactly because the EU leadership does not want them to melt! The entire "grand" idea is just the EU's manipulation to divide and conquer!

Cultural and religious tolerance could only naturally develop among nations, not by the command of the EU, especially not by those who themselves are openly racists, like Sharkozy. This is why even the minimum moral basis is not given to actually realize the idea.

I just don't see how the EU leaders can get beyond this contradiction: on one hand they come up with the "grand" idea of a mixed culture within the integrated EU-playground, on the other hand the first EU leader, Sharkozy is implementing a strictly racist-based immigration policy on the French playground.

Just how can, for example, the restless non-French European youth, with one passport and one currency, settle, for example, on the French part of the EU playground, without facing the danger of becoming the easiest target of Sharkozy's xenophobic and ethnic conflict-fueling policy?

dogma of multi-culturalism

"Multi-culturalism was meant to build a unified society."
Wrong idea, there is no dogma.
Book recommendation:
Scott E Page: Complex Adaptive Systems. U Michigan, Ann Arbor.

A Christian response

Jesus commands me to love my neighbor, and to pray for my enemies.

Jesus does not give me a choice; although at times it seems fit to do otherwise, it is against His commandment. Love God and love your neighbor is the commandment of Jesus. The - and - is a conjunction that helps us understand a very basic concept.

To claim that we love God is utterly false, if we cannot love our neighbor, and to claim that we can love our neighbor without loving God is also utterly false.

We must not hate people, for hate of people makes us malicious, which in turn keeps us doing evil.

Neither should we pretend that our outward display of goodness is better than a sincere attitude...This outward display can take many forms and fulfill many rituals, but it will do extremely little if anything in relating ourselves to the reality of humanity.

& Love, as so many of us claim to know; without God, is at best a corruption brought on by our selfish desires. This is lust, and its infinite varieties.