Muslims demand resignation of Church of England bishop

[Ambiorix]

January 7, 2008

Muslims demand resignation of Church of England bishop who spoke of "no-go" areas for non-Muslims
"John Reid should not come to a Muslim area, we do not want to see him." -- UK jihadist Abu Izzadeen, September 2006. The "Muslim area" in question, in which Britain's Home Secretary was not welcome, was East London.

But now, 15 months later, we learn that to suggest that some Muslims hold such attitudes, and that unbelievers may be unwelcome and unsafe in some Muslim areas, is a demonstration of "hatred." None of these Muslim leaders, continuing their consistent pattern of total evasion of responsibility, say anything like, "The bishop has a point. We need to integrate more," or "We need to be careful not to make non-Muslims feel unwelcome in predominantly Muslim areas," or anything similar. It's all his fault.

"Muslims call for 'no-go' CoE bishop to resign," by Caroline Gammell in the Telegraph (thanks to Larwyn):
http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/
Religious groups have demanded the resignation of the Bishop of Rochester after he claimed that Islamic radicals had turned parts of Britain into "no-go" areas for non-Muslims.
The Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali wrote in The Sunday Telegraph that fundamentalism had made some communities hostile to Christians and those from other faiths.

But Mohammed Shafiq, from the Ramadhan Foundation, said: "Mr Nazir-Ali is promoting hatred towards Muslims and should resign."

Ajmal Masroor, of the Islamic Society of Great Britain, said: "It's a distortion of reality. Our communities are far more integrated than they were 10 years ago.

"If the Church of England had an iota of fairness they would take serious action."

[Ambiorix]

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2835

Why the “Scaremongering” Bishop Is Right
From the desk of The Brussels Journal on Mon, 2008-01-07 12:31
A quote from Manzoor Moghal in the Daily Mail, 7 January 2007

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.