Amid Refugee Crisis, Hungary Prime Minister Says Muslims Not Welcome

AL JAZEERA: Viktor Orban says history of Ottoman rule means Hungarians will not accept large-scale Muslim immigration

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on Thursday that his country did not want to accept Muslim refugees, as he defended his tough approach to border control on the frontline of Europe's migration crisis.

Orban spoke in Brussels at meetings between European Union leaders and Hungary's prime minister after images of a drowned Syrian child on a Turkish beach grabbed world attention this week and said that it was not a moral argument for opening Europe's doors.

"If we would create ... an impression that 'just come because we are ready to accept everybody,' that would be a moral failure. The moral, human thing is to make clear: 'Please don't come,'" Orban told reporters.

In a later news conference, Orban said the history of Ottoman rule meant Hungarians would not accept large-scale Muslim immigration, a point made recently by neighboring Slovakia.

"We don't want to, and I think we have a right to decide that we do not want a large number of Muslim people in our country," Orban said. "We do not like the consequences of having a large number of Muslim communities that we see in other countries, and I do not see any reason for anyone else to force us to create ways of living together in Hungary that we do not want to see. That is a historical experience for us." » | Al Jazeera and wire services | Thursday, September 3, 2015


THE LOCAL (DE): Orban: Muslims threaten European identity: Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban warned Thursday that the wave of mostly Muslim refugees coming to Europe threatens to undermine the continent's Christian roots - an idea rejected by German Chancellor Angela Merkel. » | AFP | Friday, September 4, 2015

THE WASHINGTON POST: Muslims threaten Europe’s Christian identity, Hungary’s leader says: Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, has made nationalistic and controversial statements in the past. But with his country emerging as a main gateway for refugees trying to reach richer European nations, his words suddenly carry much heavier weight. » | Rick Noack | Thursday, September 3, 2015

Ryan Says Obama Compromises Judeo-Christian Values
REUTERS.COM: (Reuters) - In a telephone call with evangelical voters Sunday night, U.S. Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan told potential voters that President Barack Obama's path for the United States compromises Judeo-Christian values.

The comment came during the final sprint for the U.S. election on Tuesday.

Speaking to the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a leading group of Christian conservatives, Ryan attacked Obama's vision in stark terms.

In the campaign's last week, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and Ryan, his running mate, have argued that if elected, they would end partisan divisiveness and work with Democrats to find solutions in Washington.

"It's a dangerous path," Ryan said of Obama's plan for the United States. "It's a path that grows government, restricts freedom and liberty, and compromises those values, those Judeo-Christian, Western civilization values that made us such a great and exceptional nation in the first place." » | Samuel P. Jacobs | CASTLE ROCK, Colorado | Sunday, November 04, 2012

When Political Correctness Trumps Commitment to Judeo-Christian Culture! US Firm to Remove Biblical References on Gunsights
BBC: A US military contractor has said it will stop engraving Biblical references on rifles used by the US army.

The markings, in the form of coded references, have been appearing on products made by the US firm Trijicon, based in Michigan, for decades.

But on Thursday, US military chief Gen David Petraeus, said the practice of scripture references was "disturbing" and "a serious concern".

The firm also sells the gunsights to Australia, New Zealand and the UK.

The inscriptions - which include "2COR4:6" and "JN8:12", relating to verses in the books of II Corinthians and John - appear in raised lettering at the end of the stock number.

The company pledged to remove the inscription reference on all products destined for the US military yet to be shipped and ensure all future procurements from the department of defence are produced without scripture references. Religious sensitivities >>> | Friday, January 22, 2010

We Need a Shared Story to Underpin Our National Life
THE TELEGRAPH: Our future leaders must be taught selflessness in place of greed, and service in place of arrogance

By any reckoning, Britons have had an uncomfortable and anxious year. Even as the implications of the financial crisis sank in and the belt-tightening began, news broke of the ride for which we had been taken by our political masters, via their expenses forms. The war in Afghanistan claimed the lives of more than 100 British soldiers. The Copenhagen summit raised awareness of environmental problems, but left it unclear what would or should be done about them. And attacks on the traditional family continued, with claims by ministers and "experts" that no one form of the family was to be preferred to any other.

It has been tough for everyone, but Christians in particular have found themselves under pressure. Nurses have been told not to pray with their patients; registrars ordered to conduct civil partnership ceremonies in spite of conscientious objections; evangelists forbidden to spread the word in "Muslim" areas; and permission for Good Friday processions refused on the grounds that they are a "minority" interest and do not warrant police time.

Given the sea of troubles with which we are faced – at home and elsewhere – what can we look forward to as we face 2010? First, we need to accept that the financial and political crises are not primarily about the failure of procedures and regulation. The angst about the war in Afghanistan, similarly, is not just about the sad loss of life. The broader problem is that there has been the loss of a common narrative, a story which underpins our national life. In the past, this was provided by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, derived from the Bible. This narrative has been at the root of those values which we regard as particularly British, whether to do with the dignity of the human person, with fundamental freedoms of belief, speech and assembly, or with equality – which is not about "sameness", but a recognition of the image of God in others.

This tradition has also provided us with the virtues for which we have looked in vain in our economic and political leaders. The best of British business and politics has been characterised by a sense – largely derived from the Bible's teachings – of responsibility, of trust, justice, fairness and truth-telling. In recent years, these virtues have been jettisoned, so that we can be more "competitive" in a cut-throat world, or engage in a more adversarial form of politics. We, and the generations to follow, will have to live with the consequences of this dissolution of a moral and spiritual framework for our common life.

But while the task of reconstruction must begin immediately, it cannot be just about tinkering with the expenses system at Westminster, or the regulation of the City. It has to be about moral and spiritual education in our schools and universities. Future leaders must be taught that the public have the right to expect selflessness rather than greed, service rather than arrogance, and even sacrifice for the greater good of the organisation, or the nation. >>> Dr Michael Nazir-Ali | Saturday, December 26, 2009 (Boxing Day)

The Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is president of the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue, and was until this year Bishop of Rochester

Ignore Our Christian Values and the Nation Will Drift Apart
THE TELEGRAPH: Britain is suffering because we have been too willing to forget what made us who we are, writes Michael Nazir-Ali.

I have resigned as Bishop of Rochester after nearly 15 years. During that time, I have watched the nation drift further and further away from its Christian moorings. Instead of the spiritual and moral framework provided by the Judaeo-Christian tradition, we have been led to expect, and even to celebrate, mere diversity. Not surprisingly, this has had the result of loosening the ties of law, customs and values, and led to a gradual loss of identity and of cohesiveness. Every society, for its wellbeing, needs the social capital of common values and the recognition of certain virtues which contribute to personal and social flourishing. Our ideas about the sacredness of the human person at every stage of life, of equality and natural rights and, therefore, of freedom, have demonstrably arisen from the tradition rooted in the Bible.

Different faiths and traditions will not necessarily produce the values and virtues which have been so prominent in the history of this country. It is quite wrong to presume that they will, as Gordon Brown appeared to do last week in his speech calling for "value-based" rules at St Paul's Cathedral. Some faiths may emphasise social solidarity more than personal freedom, others publicly enforce piety over a nurturing of the interior life and yet others stress honour and shame rather than humility, service and sacrifice. It may be, of course, that there is a useful overlap among these traditions in terms of values by which to live. It may also be that people of different faiths can "own" many of the values produced by a Christian framework in this nation, but this cannot take place in a vacuum.

One of the surprising aspects of what you could call our values vacuum is the historical amnesia which is so prevalent today – or, rather, a selective sort of amnesia. The perfectly virtuous pages of history, such as Magna Carta, the campaign to abolish the slave trade and, later, slavery itself, the easing of conditions of labour for men, women and children and the introduction of universal education, which all took place under the inspiration of the Christian faith, are forgotten or ignored. Instead 
of which we get large doses of guilt along with an emphasis on our involvement in the slave trade, religious and ethnic persecution, exploitative colonialism and other wrongs which certainly need repentance. But repentance for past wrongs without the celebration of what has been good has deprived people of a common vision by which to live and a strong basis for the future. >>> By Michael Nazir-Ali | Sunday, April 5, 2009

The Dawning of a New Dark Age (Paperback & Hardback) – Free delivery >>>

Putting Profit above Principle
It has been announced that Tony Blair wants to ’devote his life to faith’. By ‘faith’ I suppose we are to understand ‘interfaith dialogue’, so as to try and ensure that we all live together in harmony.

This is a noble ambition indeed; unfortunately, however, there is one stumbling block: The nature of Islam!

For ‘interfaith dialogue’ to be meaningful, there has to be a readiness by all parties, in this case especially Jews, Christians, and Muslims, to compromise, for without compromise, interfaith dialogue becomes a meaningless exercise.

In Islam we find an implacable faith, an unyielding belief system founded on totally different principles than both Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity is based on love: The love of God, the love for God, the love of humanity. Islam, by contrast, is not a religion based on love; rather, it is based on total submission to Allah, and where there is no total submission to Him, we find the sword used to rein in the people. Indeed, Muhammad himself announced the sword to be an instrument of faith. Who, then, are we to argue with Muhammad’s declaration? How can we put a positive spin on that?

It is interesting to note that there is a maxim used by Muslims which states the following: ‘To convince stubborn unbelievers, there is no argument like the sword.’ [Source: Washington Irving: Mohammed]

For this reason, if for no other, it is difficult to see what Tony Blair hopes to achieve with his devotion to interfaith dialogue. How does he hope to change the nature of the faith of Islam? It is impossible to change nature. Indeed, can we change the nature of anything? And if this is so, then what hope have we of changing the nature of Islam, especially after more than fourteen hundred years?

The only man who could have changed its nature was the Prophet Muhammad himself. But as he is no longer around to make any changes, it is not going to be possible for mere mortals to change anything in that religion. You see, Islam is not a religion like Christianity anyway. Christianity has evolved, and has undergone a reformation. This reformation was made possible partly because Christianity, being based on the Bible, especially the New Testament, is to all but fundamentalist Christians, considered to be a book that is inspired by God. The words contained therein are not generally considered to be God’s actual words.

In this respect, Islam is very different. Islam, as we all know, is based on the Qur’an, and that book is not considered be inspired by Allah; rather, Muslims consider the book to comprise the actual words of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel in the form of a recitation. In fact, the very meaning of ‘Al Qur’an’ is ‘The Recitation’.

The result of this difference between the holy books has led to two quite different civilizations and cultures. Muslims are very defensive of Islamic culture and civilization in a way that Westerners are not defensive of theirs.

Take our leaders. They are reluctant to face up to the fact that we have a huge problem on our hands with Islam in general, and with the rapid growth of Islam in the West in particular. In this reluctance, they are doing us no favours. On the contrary, they are remiss in their duties as guardians of our way of life, as guardians of our Judeo-Christian civilization.

What, for example, are our leaders doing to protect our values and our way of life? Interfaithing will offer no protection; actually, on the contrary, it will probably lead to compromise – the compromise of Westerners. To me it seems like a cop out. It is a smokescreen to enable the top echelons to put profit above principle.

The jihad which is being waged against the West threatens us all. It is not something we can afford to ignore; yet people are ignoring it, largely in the hope that it will go away. It won’t. If anything, it will get worse.

The jihad has many guises. One of the latest is the economic jihad being waged against capitalism. Only this morning, it was reported that there have been calls for >Ireland to introduce Shari’ah-compliant finance as a matter of urgency. As a matter of urgency, no less! Why? So that Muslims living and working in Ireland can live their lives according to their faith, without feeling conflicted by the terms and conditions of living in the ‘evil’ capitalist system.

One can but ask oneself one question here: If living under capitalism is so onerous for these Muslims, then why did they come here to live in the first place?

The leaders of finance houses who are working so hard to introduce Shari’ah-compliant financial services and products seem to be oblivious to the fact that Islamic economics is competing in every respect with capitalism. Isn’t it true to say that the interest rate is the keystone of a capitalist economy? Take that keystone away and the whole system will start to fall apart.

In Islam, riba is frowned upon. But let’s get one thing straight: Riba is generally translated as usury, not as the interest rate per se. There is a world of difference between usury, which is the charging of extortionate rates of interest for loans, and the general interest rate which is not to be equated with such extortion. Yet nobody seems to be making any difference between them. The financiers appear to have been hoodwinked into believing that the interest rate is itself frowned upon in Islamic economics. It must be said that one’s definitions in this matter depend on the Islamic scholars one reads: Some scholars frown upon the interest rate altogether, calling it all usury, whilst others take a more liberal approach and make a distinction between a reasonable rate of interest and an extortionate rate.

Whichever is the case, the fact remains that Islamic economics is not compatible with the long-term interests of a capitalist economy. One can but worry about the tentacles of Islam tightening their grip on Western economies. Lest we forget, the old adage, He who pays the piper calls the tune comes to mind. We need not wait to learn that this is indeed true. We can discern the verity of the adage already when we look around us. Take the power of the petrodollar as a case in point. Its power is profound, and it can be felt around the globe.

It is one reason why our leaders and business people are reluctant to speak out. They are overcome by greed and fear: They are greedy to earn back the petrodollars, and they are fearful that if they speak out they will incur the wrath of the Muslims living in the West, and cut off our oil supplies into the bargain.

You see, they do not have the stomach for any form of confrontation. The sad reality is, however, that the West will not survive this onslaught without a confrontation of some kind or other. It’s just not possible. Muslims are to determined too replace our Judeo-Christian civilization with an Islamic one, too determined to replace capitalism with an Islamic economic system.

But by confrontation, I do not necessarily think that we need to go to war (though that cannot, of course, be ruled out in the long-run). But we do need to protect our own values and our own way of life. Alas, this is not happening. Our leaders are giving in at every turn. Appeasement of Muslims both at home and abroad is the norm of the day. It will do nothing for the West except accelarate the demise of our civilization, and accelerate the demise of capitalism, too.

Can’t the people in power see what they are doing? Are bankers and financiers so greedy that they are willing to bring down the West for their own short-term gain? Do they not realize that they are playing with fire? Do they really believe that capitalism and Islamic economics can co-exist? Can they really be that ignorant?

Personally, I think they are not; rather, I think these people are out to get all they can before the house of cards is brought down. Remember the fall of communism? Capitalism will fall equally easily if we do not pay more attention. It’s hard to believe, I know. But the introduction of Shari’ah-compliant finance and other Shari’ah-compliant products is just the start. It is the introduction of Shari’ah law by the back the door. Today it’s banking; tomorrow it will be Shari’ah enshrined in the laws of the land, enshrined in the constitutions of Western countries. How foolish our leaders, bankers and financiers are!

Before 9/11, it would have been hard to imagine that the West could have been so weak and unwilling to fight for a way of life we have come to expect and love. But it all started going wrong after those attacks, because we were too reluctant to state the case against Islam, clearly and unequivocally. The politicians have busied themselves making excuses for Islam and have deceived the public in so doing; the business people and bankers have busied themselves making money from the countries awash with petrodollars. And in so doing they have chosen to turn a blind eye to the financing, by Saudi Arabia, of the propagation of Wahhabi Islam in the West.

So what exactly is Tony Blair going to achieve with his lifetime spent interfaithing? Is he merely going to sell the West farther down the river? And in any case, what are his qualifications for doing this job? What does he know about Islam? And where has he learnt that which he does know?

One thing is for certain: People like Tony Blair are not going to learn the true nature of Islam by sitting in five star hotels in Bethlehem, talking to fabulously rich Muslims from oil-rich countries. To learn about the true nature of Islam, one has to mix and talk with people at the grassroots level. The rich are generally Western-educated, indulge in alcohol, spend enormous amounts of money in casinos, live in the lap of luxury, and generally do not adhere strictly to their faith. They are also generally well-travelled; so they are not representative of the ordinary man in the Arab street. Ergo, little can be learnt from them when it comes to the faith of Islam.

Isn’t it high time that we all started taking stock? Isn’t it high time that we woke up to the reality which confronts us? Isn’t it high time that we started to put principle before profit?

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved

Putting Profit above Principle
It has been announced that Tony Blair wants to ’devote his life to faith’. By ‘faith’ I suppose we are to understand ‘interfaith dialogue’, so as to try and ensure that we all live together in harmony.

This is a noble ambition indeed; unfortunately, however, there is one stumbling block: The nature of Islam!

For ‘interfaith dialogue’ to be meaningful, there has to be a readiness by all parties, in this case especially Jews, Christians, and Muslims, to compromise, for without compromise, interfaith dialogue becomes a meaningless exercise.

In Islam we find an implacable faith, an unyielding belief system founded on totally different principles than both Judaism and Christianity.

Christianity is based on love: The love of God, the love for God, the love of humanity. Islam, by contrast, is not a religion based on love; rather, it is based on total submission to Allah, and where there is no total submission to Him, we find the sword used to rein in the people. Indeed, Muhammad himself announced the sword to be an instrument of faith. Who, then, are we to argue with Muhammad’s declaration? How can we put a positive spin on that?

It is interesting to note that there is a maxim used by Muslims which states the following: ‘To convince stubborn unbelievers, there is no argument like the sword.’ [Source: Washington Irving: Mohammed]

For this reason, if for no other, it is difficult to see what Tony Blair hopes to achieve with his devotion to interfaith dialogue. How does he hope to change the nature of the faith of Islam? It is impossible to change nature. Indeed, can we change the nature of anything? And if this is so, then what hope have we of changing the nature of Islam, especially after more than fourteen hundred years?

The only man who could have changed its nature was the Prophet Muhammad himself. But as he is no longer around to make any changes, it is not going to be possible for mere mortals to change anything in that religion. You see, Islam is not a religion like Christianity anyway. Christianity has evolved, and has undergone a reformation. This reformation was made possible partly because Christianity, being based on the Bible, especially the New Testament, is to all but fundamentalist Christians considered to be a book that is inspired by God. The words contained therein are not generally considered to be God’s actual words.

In this respect, Islam is very different. Islam, as we all know, is based on the Qur’an, and that book is not considered be inspired by Allah; rather, Muslims consider the book to comprise the actual words of Allah as dictated to Muhammad by the Angel Gabriel in the form of a recitation. In fact, the very meaning of ‘Al Qur’an’ is ‘The Recitation’.

The result of this difference between the holy books has led to two quite different civilizations and cultures. Muslims are very defensive of Islamic culture and civilization in a way that Westerners are not defensive of theirs.

Take our leaders. They are reluctant to face up to the fact that we have a huge problem on our hands with Islam in general, and with the rapid growth of Islam in the West in particular. In this reluctance, they are doing us no favours. On the contrary, they are remiss in their duties as guardians of our way of life, as guardians of our Judeo-Christian civilization.

What, for example, are our leaders doing to protect our values and our way of life? Interfaithing will offer no protection; actually, on the contrary, it will probably lead to compromise – the compromise of Westerners. To me it seems like a cop out. It is a smokescreen to enable the top echelons to put profit above principle.

The jihad which is being waged against the West threatens us all. It is not something we can afford to ignore; yet people are ignoring it, largely in the hope that it will go away. It won’t. If anything, it will get worse.

The jihad has many guises. One of the latest is the economic jihad being waged against capitalism. Only this morning, it was reported that there have been calls for Ireland to introduce Shari’ah-compliant finance as a matter of urgency. As a matter of urgency, no less! Why? So that Muslims living and working in Ireland can live their lives according to their faith, without feeling conflicted by the terms and conditions of living in the ‘evil’ capitalist system.

One can but ask oneself one question here: If living under capitalism is so onerous for these Muslims, then why did they come here to live in the first place?

The leaders of finance houses who are working so hard to introduce Shari’ah-compliant financial services and products seem to be oblivious to the fact that Islamic economics is competing in every respect with capitalism. Isn’t it true to say that the interest rate is the keystone of a capitalist economy? Take that keystone away and the whole system will start to fall apart.

In Islam, riba is frowned upon. But let’s get one thing straight: Riba is generally translated as usury, not as the interest rate per se. There is a world of difference between usury, which is the charging of extortionate rates of interest for loans, and the general interest rate which is not to be equated with such extortion. Yet nobody seems to be making any difference between them. The financiers appear to have been hoodwinked into believing that the interest rate is itself frowned upon in Islamic economics. It must be said that one’s definitions in this matter depend on the Islamic scholars one reads: Some scholars frown upon the interest rate altogether, calling it all usury, whilst others take a more liberal approach and make a distinction between a reasonable rate of interest and an extortionate rate.

Whichever is the case, the fact remains that Islamic economics is not compatible with the long-term interests of a capitalist economy. One can but worry about the tentacles of Islam tightening their grip on Western economies. Lest we forget, the old adage, He who pays the piper calls the tune comes to mind. We need not wait to learn that this is indeed true. We can discern the verity of the adage already when we look around us. Take the power of the petrodollar as a case in point. Its power is profound, and it can be felt around the globe.

It is one reason why our leaders and business people are reluctant to speak out. They are overcome by greed and fear: They are greedy to earn back the petrodollars, and they are fearful that if they speak out they will incur the wrath of the Muslims living in the West, and cut off our oil supplies into the bargain.

You see, they do not have the stomach for any form of confrontation. The sad reality is, however, that the West will not survive this onslaught without a confrontation of some kind or other. It’s just not possible. Muslims are too determined to replace our Judeo-Christian civilization with an Islamic one, too determined to replace capitalism with an Islamic economic system.

But by confrontation, I do not necessarily think that we need to go to war (though that cannot, of course, be ruled out in the long-run). But we do need to protect our own values and our own way of life. Alas, this is not happening. Our leaders are giving in at every turn. Appeasement of Muslims both at home and abroad is the norm of the day. It will do nothing for the West except accelarate the demise of our civilization, and accelerate the demise of capitalism, too.

Can’t the people in power see what they are doing? Are bankers and financiers so greedy that they are willing to bring down the West for their own short-term gain? Do they not realize that they are playing with fire? Do they really believe that capitalism and Islamic economics can co-exist? Can they really be that ignorant?

Personally, I think they are not; rather, I think these people are out to get all they can before the house of cards is brought down. Remember the fall of communism? Capitalism will fall equally easily if we do not pay more attention. It’s hard to believe, I know. But the introduction of Shari’ah-compliant finance and other Shari’ah-compliant products is just the start. It is the introduction of Shari’ah law by the back the door. Today it’s banking; tomorrow it will be Shari’ah enshrined in the laws of the land, enshrined in the constitutions of Western countries. How foolish our leaders, bankers and financiers are!

Before 9/11, it would have been hard to imagine that the West could have been so weak and unwilling to fight for a way of life we have come to expect and love. But it all started going wrong after those attacks, because we were too reluctant to state the case against Islam, clearly and unequivocally. The politicians have busied themselves making excuses for Islam and have deceived the public in so doing; the business people and bankers have busied themselves making money from the countries awash with petrodollars. And in so doing they have chosen to turn a blind eye to the financing, by Saudi Arabia, of the propagation of Wahhabi Islam in the West.

So what exactly is Tony Blair going to achieve with his lifetime spent interfaithing? Is he merely going to sell the West farther down the river? And in any case, what are his qualifications for doing this job? What does he know about Islam? And where has he learnt that which he does know?

One thing is for certain: People like Tony Blair are not going to learn the true nature of Islam by sitting in five star hotels in Bethlehem, talking to fabulously rich Muslims from oil-rich countries. To learn about the true nature of Islam one has to mix and talk with people at the grassroots level. The rich are generally Western-educated, indulge in alcohol, spend enormous amounts of money in casinos, live in the lap of luxury, and generally do not adhere strictly to their faith. They are also generally well-travelled; so they are not representative of the ordinary man in the Arab street. Ergo, little can be learnt from them when it comes to the faith of Islam.

Isn’t it high time that we all started taking stock? Isn’t it high time that we woke up to the reality which confronts us? Isn’t it high time that we started to put principle before profit?

©Mark Alexander

All Rights Reserved