Why Ramadan is bad and Lent is good

Mmm.....good soul food!





How does the Christian Lent compare with the Muslim fast of Ramadan? Is one really good and one really bad?

I believe so and will explain my reasons why.

Let me begin by quoting my own programme for today.

 Determined to make a good start in Lent and somewhat overwhelmed by the flood of good posts on fasting and by one Stanislaus Baboolovski's comments on Facebook, I began Lent in suitable style.

One Ryvita avec Marmite accompanied by a green tea was my first meal of the day - about 15 calories methinks.

Now, this is not in any way intended to be a brag, in fact, my normal breakfast is not much more than that.

But I did want to draw attention to what my good friends emphasized in their posts, namely, that giving up a bar of chocolate is pretty naff really and that our forbears did much, much more.

I recall my own parents' account of their Lenten fasts in Canning Town; one main meal a day which was always, salt cod - for the whole of Lent.

No milk or butter and the two remaining meals measured out so that they weighed only a couple of ounces.

Compare this with the Muslim regime during Ramadan.

No food or drink from before dawn until 9pm each night.

And the Ramadan diet!

Surely, that must be a better and more penitential course?

Well, if one was to ask a nutritionist to compare the two fasts, the Christian one would win hands down.

It is positively unhealthy to ask the body to go without food and liquids for anything up to 18 or 19 hours a day over a lengthy period.
It is also bad for the body (and the soul) to gorge on food as many Muslims do before sunup and after sundown.

It does not just make it penitential, it makes it life threatening. Why?

Think of a Brain Surgeon on a Ramadan fast, or for that matter, a bus driver or tool cutter or a nuclear physicist. Without sufficient liquid intake (especially), the body and subsequently, the brain, begins to malfunction; it begins to commit one's actions to errors of judgement.

In short, the chances that you are going to kill or maim yourself or someone else increase greatly.

It was customary in every College that I worked in, to bar Muslim students from working with any form of potentially dangerous technology during Ramadan. They were a danger to themselves and to others around them.

Furthermore, College staff would be reminded that severe fasting is liable to bring on what can only be described as temper attacks, when a student would snap at another and then a row or even a fight would break out.

Imagine now that you are a visitor to a Muslim country during Ramadan.What you do not do is walk through the streets eating an ice cream or quaffing a coke. You would come under verbal and physical attack and, in some countries, you would actually be in breach of the law.

Neither do you walk near a mosque or any place where folk gather in groups, tensions are heightened and the atmosphere is volatile.

Even Turkey, which might be described as a moderate country in Muslim terms, is far from safe for the unwary traveller.

Yet many Muslims regard our Lent as nothing more than an effeminate joke.

Whereas, we believe, as always, that so much of Catholic teaching and practice comes down to sound common sense and that our duty is to fast and abstain responsibly and safely.

Fast hard, but not so hard that you place your life and the lives of
         others in danger.

Pray, the one thing that we can be liberal about in Lent

Alms, the third requirement of this period, give and give until it hurts

O Lord and Master of my life, take from me the spirit of sloth, despondency, lust of power, and idle talk;

But grant rather the spirit of chastity, humility, patience, and love to thy servant.

Yea, O Lord and King, grant me to see my own transgressions, and not to judge my brother; for blessed art Thou unto the ages of ages.



50 countries you might not wish to live in

H/T to Being is Good for highlighting the following video clip showing the 50 worst countries for the persecution of Christians.
48 of the 50 are Muslim countries with Iran being the most extreme case as far as converts to Christianity are concerned. Conversion carries the death penalty, automatically.
Top of the list is totalitarian North Korea; it must be a challenge enough just to live under that hideous regime but, for Christians it is much, much worse.

Somalia bans the niqab....why can't the UK?

It may seem a strange that a country such as Somalia should ban the niqab, the face veil worn by some Muslim women, but, on January 3rd this year, forces of the Somali Transitional Federal Government took such a step.
Why? According to the PEW Forum Research Centre 98.5% of Somalis are Muslim so why on earth should the veil be banned? The answer is, of course, because of security. Apparently in and around Mogadishu there have been a spate of attempts by Al Shaabab terrorists to penetrate the area and wreak havoc. So, in a sensible, calm and pragmatic fashion, the niqab is out.

Male or female? Friend or foe? Shopper or suicide bomber?

And why not? There is no religious requirement for it; it is worn by those who wish to 'extend' their religious teachings regarding modesty but, it is an extreme measure. Conventional Muslim female attire, that is, being clothed from head to foot with just a face showing is perfectly, if a little extremely by today's western standards, modest and acceptable to all.  Nuns dress in this fashion (or, at least, the real ones do) and no person, other than Richard Dawkins, would take issue with that.
Last year, France banned the niqab in public and whilst there were a few squawks I cannot find any instance of grave civil unrest as a result. Turkey (another Muslim country) currently does not allow the niqab in any public sector building or grounds.
But, in Britain and in the USA, we shrink away from making such a politically incorrect move.
In the current climate, Islam is seen as untouchable. Chritian evangelists will be arrested for preaching peace but Islamic fundamentalists go free for preaching jihad. You can see this in many parts of London and I for one, object to crimes of religious hatred being committed freely and without police interference in my own country.
You see, there is one law for the Muslim and one law for the poor Christian.
And there are two dress codes for men and for women.
If I donned a face mask and walked into Tescos or, heaven forbid, my local branch of Nat West bank, there would be panic and uproar and it would not be too many minutes before I would feel a knee in the small of my back and an eighteen stone policeman behind it, reading me my rights.
If I was a male teacher and appeared in front of my class fully masked up, my feet would not touch the ground en route for the fire exit. I would be branded a pervert and a paedophile. But Great Britain and the USA are strongholds of equal opportunity and parity of esteem (yuk) aren't they?

But to return to the niqab for women debate. I don't like it for the following reasons:-

1. It is unnecessary in Islamic religious law
2. It is separatist and divisive
3. It is un-British
4. It does not allow for clear communication
5. It has the potential to become a potent symbol of Islamic fundamentalism
6. It presents a grave security risk
7. It is a barrier for race and religious integration
8. It promotes gender inequality

Now there will be howls from some sources complaining about freedom of rights. Not so. I believe totally in adopting the "when in Rome" approach. When I travel to Saudi Arabia I do not walk around the hotel or in public in shorts and a short sleeved shirt, I do not carry a rosary on my person, I leave my missal at home, I keep my Catholic identity (such as it is) discreet and out of sight.
To do otherwise is to show disrespect for my host and also break the law of the country!
If you believe that such a move would be provocative and unnecessary let me tell you (without being hysterically xenophobic) that the world Muslim population is set to rise by 35% over the next 20 years, that Muslims will soon outpace weekly British churchgoers and that Mahommed, in all its varied spellings, has already become the most popular boys name in Britain.
None of these things present a problem as such but we must put into place a structure of nurture and education that ensures that all ethnic groups are fully behind their adopted country. No more ghettos, no more 'no go' areas, no more radicalising in the mosques. If we are to assume rights and controls, as is the duty of any government, then we must not hold back from being inclusive. We do need to create strategies that will enhance the religious experience of all groups but that does mean that some controls will have to be implemented. Immigrants must learn the "when in Rome" ethos and a British government must have the spine to implement it.

Is Baroness Warsi right? Are Muslims subject to bigotry in Great Britain?

I am sure that they are. The BNP is not slow in pushing rather nasty strategies that are racist and bigoted in nature. Once they focused on the black population, now it seems as if they only have Muslims in their sights.

But such bigotry is not institutionalised in the same way that colour prejudice or, even, prejudice against Catholics is. It tends to be less structured, more in the way of snide comments issued when passing Muslims in the street or, worse, spitting at them; at least that is according to the newspaper reports today. Of course, that is still unacceptable but the point I am coming to is that Catholics in Great Britain have been subjected to bigotry and discrimination for hundreds of years. Emancipation may have made some public differences such as our right to build churches on main roads rather than several hundred yards down side streets. We are now taxed at the same levels as the rest of society and no longer can anyone confiscate our horse at will which used to be the case in the nineteenth century.
But we do suffer in the workplace from time to time, being passed over for promotion (especially if there is a Freemason or Orangeman at the helm). We suffer (if suffer is the right word) at dinner parties when we announce our faith when the occasion demands. I remember being invited to a party of local greats and goods upon moving to our current house and the hostess inviting us to join the local Anglican parish. When we politely demurred and gently announced the fact that we were Papists she made a grimace with her mouth as if she had just trodden in something Fido had left behind. Hardly a case of persecution but a shade uncomfortable nonetheless.
But we do not get a Catholic Peer to shout "Stop!" from the rooftops; we get on with our lives and let it run off our backs like water off a duck.

And, I am not so sure that Muslims have too much to suffer in the UK. Ever since 9/11 employers and organisations have fallen over themselves in displays of gross sycophancy to provide for their every need. Colleges and Universities now have 'prayer rooms', just for Muslim students. Try asking for a Catholic chapel and see what sort of response you get.
The BBC is obsessed with political correctness in this respect and yet, anyone from a Catholic background will get the sharp end of John Humphrey's tongue or even worse from Ed Stourton.



Muslims seem immune to charges of breaching  the law

 Walk down Wood Green High Street in North London on a Saturday and you will see stalls set up by what appear to be fundamentalist Muslims encouraging would-be followers to join Jihad against the West. A real case of incitement to violence.
What, I wonder, would be the reaction if some brave soul from the CTS was to set up stall with a banner advocating conversion to the Catholic faith. Arrest? Acts of violence against them? Imprisonment? I would not be surprised. And the media would have a field day.
So my view is that Baroness Warsi should save her bigotry comments and concentrate on initiatives that will help young Muslims break out of the radicalisation mode that is almost certain to be their lot.