Mosques: Learning Curve Needed

by Michael Copeland

The leader of Worcester City Council, Marc Bayliss, happened to be passing when Britain First, a young political party, held a day of campaigning in Worcester city centre against the planned large new mosque there. When he confronted Britain First’s leader, Bayliss revealed quite how much of a learning curve yet awaits him and is needed. Importantly, his outlook is almost certainly shared by millions, in what can be called the Normal Assumed View. This is the British goodwill/fair play view which, not being very interested in religion, relies heavily on assumptions, and is not strong on facts. Bayliss’s arguments make a useful and telling exposure of an urgent need nationwide. The exchange was recorded and can be seen on Britain First’s Facebook page.

Bayliss said there were churches in Saudi Arabia. Not so. No church is permitted. No Bible may be brought into the country, and no cross may be displayed. When a former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, was on a flight that was diverted to Saudi Arabia he was instructed to remove the pectoral cross he was wearing. Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam, is strongly anti-Christian. This is because Islam itself is strongly anti-Christian, and, for that matter, strongly opposed to all other religions and to atheism. No temples are permitted, and no synagogues. No Jew may even enter the State. No non-muslim may set foot in Mecca. Saudi Arabia is a hard-line observer of Islam’s restrictions.

Bayliss was critical of Britain First’s campaign. Evidently he regarded it as a needless provocation:

“I am very proud of a mosque in Worcester, which is a peaceful, loving community where people get on.”

“Tell me why you are opposing a mosque,” said Bayliss. This question was not answered, but some observations may be made here.

In the Normal Assumed View, like Bayliss’s, a mosque is on a par with a church, or a synagogue. Not so. A mosque, as former professor of Islamic law, Sam Solomon, explains, is NOTHING LIKE A CHURCH. Every mosque is modelled on Mohammed’s first mosque in Medina. It is where military training takes place, where punishments are decided, where jihad plans are made and expeditions launched; it is a court, a school, a forum where news of sex-slaves can be exchanged, and where a market can be set up for forged passports and the like. It is an assembly space where tabs can be kept on others: members can observe who is failing to attend; pressure can be put on any brother whose daughter is not wearing Islamic attire, or being too Western. It is a place for reinforcing Islamic apartheid. Non-muslims are NOT PERMITTED in the worship, where the fiery sermons instructing hatred are given. “Between us and you enmity and hatred forever…” says Koran 60:4, part of Islamic law. The mosque is the place for furthering Islam’s commanded mission — to make all people everywhere Islamic, by force if needed, in the commanded Global Caliphate.

“Does Islam or does it not force people by the power of the sword to submit? Yes,” explained Osama bin Laden. The commanded imperative is that Islam Must Dominate. Muslims should not accept rule by non-muslims. Islam has to prevail over all, and Islam is in “a permanent state of war” with all non-muslims, who have to be hated. Muslims inhabit Dar al-Islam, the realm of Islam: non-muslims, “filth” in Islam’s teachings, inhabit Dar al-Harb, the Realm of War. It is very political. Well over half the Koran concerns non-muslims, and how they must be hated and overpowered.

“‘In the Muslim community, the holy war is a religious duty’ because Islam is ‘under obligation to gain power over other nations’.” —Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406) “There can be no peace … The Islamic movement can and must take power as soon as it is morally strong enough … to destroy the non Islamic power …” —Alija Izetbegovic of Bosnia (backed by NATO and the EU).

In mosque sermons men are urged to kill Jews by hand (Channel Four “Dispatches”). They are urged to “take” non-muslim girls as their right. This is part of the war:

“Their women are yours to take, legitimately. Allah made them yours. Why don’t you enslave them?” —Sheikh Saad al Beraik

“The mosques are our barracks, …the faithful our soldiers”, said a Turkish politician some years ago, quoting an old Islamic poem. He was judged seditious, and imprisoned for it. Today he is President of Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. The military metaphor runs all throughout Islam’s history. Mohammed was a warlord, his followers armed and ready to take part in raids. Muslims are “soldiers of Allah”, in “battalions” of fighting men. A mosque is a bridgehead, a rabat, where quasi-military political Islam marks its territory and plans its expansion. Mohammed’s mosque in Medina acted as a storage place for arms. Several mosques in Europe and the UK, like the Finsbury Park mosque, have been found by police to be storing firearms.

“The mosque is vital for establishing Muslims as sovereign over non-Muslims in a non-Islamic society or country. Building a mosque in a non-Islamic society or country symbolizes Islam’s claim over that society or country, even with a non-Muslim majority”, writes Dr. Daniel Shayesteh, formerly a muslim, now a Christian, in his book Islam the House I Left Behind, p.99.

“We do not need people who are stirring xenophobia”, says Bayliss. This is an example of conflating two different matters. Criticism of an ideology is not a mental condition. Further, the word xenophobia, an irrational fear of foreigners, does not mean deliberate hatred of foreigners, which is how the word is all too often misused. Britain First’s campaign against mosques is founded on legitimate concerns about Islam’s teachings. It is not an example of “hate”.

“Why are you opposing Islam?” asked Bayliss. His question was not answered, but Pat Condell’s answer would suffice:

“Because Islam is opposed to me.”

For instructions given in mosques see “Instructing “Radicalisation”.

For previous essays by Michael Copeland, see the Michael Copeland Archives.