Brunei bans Christmas and Muslims love it

[Barney2.0]

The Mohammedans are at it again as Brunei decides to ban Christmas:

Twitter

The more I see stuff like this the more I think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to publically practice their religion in the West.

 

[Aussie Pete]

The Mohammedans are at it again as Brunei decides to ban Christmas:

Twitter

The more I see stuff like this the more I think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to publically practice their religion in the West.

Muslims take advantage of Western ignorance and tolerance. Very few people in Australia know the difference between Sunni, Shia and Ahmadiyya Islam. The Ahmadi are non-violent. They also claim to represent true Islam. Few Australians know that the Ahmadi are not considered true Muslims by other Muslims. Trying to get the message through to those who matter (policy makers, law enforcement, educational institutions etc) is virtually impossible. This is in spite of the increasingly hard line that Muslims are adopting in most Muslim nations now, including Indonesia. The West will pay a huge price for accommodating a religion that will only be satisfied when it is the sole religion. It's happening now, of course. The West just won't admit it.

 

[Andrewn]

The West will pay a huge price for accommodating a religion that will only be satisfied when it is the sole religion. It's happening now, of course. The West just won't admit it.

2The 2:1-4 Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and concerning our gathering together unto Him, . . . that Day will not come unless a falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction.

The falling away is taking place. Majority of people in the West don't identify themselves as Christians. I don't know what the ratio of churchgoers is in Australia. Christian prayer is not allowed in schools. When this spiritual vacuum is filled with Islam, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

The funny thing is that oil-rich Arabic countries do not allow refugees to settle there. I wonder how the world and the Church will look like in 20 years.

 

[Aussie Pete]

2The 2:1-4 Now, brothers, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and concerning our gathering together unto Him, . . . that Day will not come unless a falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of destruction.

The falling away is taking place. Majority of people in the West don't identify themselves as Christians. I don't know what the ratio of churchgoers is in Australia. Christian prayer is not allowed in schools. When this spiritual vacuum is filled with Islam, we'll have only ourselves to blame.

The funny thing is that oil-rich Arabic countries do not allow refugees to settle there. I wonder how the world and the Church will look like in 20 years.

Australia still has a good proportion of churchgoers. The problem with that is mostly it's an outward formality with little reality. Around 5% of churchgoers are born again. There is nothing new about that. But the influence of Christianity is waning. Christians have only themselves to blame. Spiritual pride is rampant, division is rife and churches are more and more pandering to the world. I'm 68 so In 20 years, I'll nearing my "best before" date - if I'm still around. I'd hate to be growing up in the current era.

 

[Andrewn]

Australia still has a good proportion of churchgoers. The problem with that is mostly it's an outward formality with little reality. Around 5% of churchgoers are born again. There is nothing new about that. But the influence of Christianity is waning. Christians have only themselves to blame.

I found the following statistics:

Church attendance - Wikipedia

According to the Handbook of the Sociology of Religion, 50% of Americans replied that God is very important in their lives, comparing with 40% of Irish, 28% of Canadians, 26% of Spaniards, 21% of Australians, and 10% of the French.

Based on self-reporting surveys, weekly attendance at religious services among Christians in 2013 was 37% in USA, 29% in Canada, 25% in Australia, and 11% in the UK (2019).

Methods of measurement that don't rely on self-reporting estimate even lower rates; for instance, a 2005 study published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion found that just 22% of Americans attend services weekly. This compares to other countries claims such as 15% of French citizens, 10% of UK citizens, 8.8% of Australian citizens and 5.6% of Dutch citizens.

The last study is probably inaccurate and attendance weekly is a high bar to set for definition. Still we're definitely talking about Christians being a minority. Our mission fields are now in our backyards.

Spiritual pride is rampant, division is rife and churches are more and more pandering to the world.

I haven't noticed spiritual pride or division among churches here in Canada. It looks to me like churches do understand the dilemma and the urgency to cooperate. There are certainly churches that are pondering to the world but they're losing membership quickly and I doubt they will exist in 20 years.

I'm 68 so In 20 years, I'll nearing my "best before" date - if I'm still around. I'd hate to be growing up in the current era.

I hear you. I completely agree.

 

[JosephZ]

This story is several years old (The law went into affect in 2014) and the title is misleading. Brunei hasn't banned Christmas. It's still a public holiday and Christians can still celebrate. If anything it appears to have allowed Christians in that country to have a greater appreciation of the true meaning of Christmas.

Christians reflect on true spirit of Christmas, harking back to simpler times
More than 5,000 attend church services in the capital

Churches in the capital filled with thousands of worshippers on Tuesday, with more than 5,000 people attending prayer services in Bandar Seri Begawan to mark the Christmas holiday.

In the days leading to Christmas, the Anglican and Catholic churches were buzzing with activity as celebrants gathered together to prepare for Christmas, which is observed as a public holiday in Brunei.

Despite the restrictions on public displays of Christmas decorations introduced in 2014, church leaders said Christians continue to celebrate Christmas in places of worship and private premises.

Reverend Johnny Chin of St Andrew’s Anglican Church said international media reports of a “Christmas ban” in Brunei have been exaggerated, failing to mention that celebrations continue within churches and among the different Christian communities.

“It was never a big issue,” he said. “Even though in the beginning we [church leaders] were not informed of the new regulations [back in 2014], but I guess it was because it was never meant to affect us specifically.”

Chin added that St Andrew’s Church has continued its Christmas Eve and Christmas Day services without any problems.

According to Brunei laws, the right of non-Muslims to practice their faith is guaranteed by the 1959 Constitution, but celebrations and prayers must be confined to places of worship and private residences.

Bishop Cornelius Sim, head of the Catholic church in Brunei, said the subdued celebrations help Christians understand the “true meaning of Christmas”.

“What is important is for the Christian community to ask ourselves what we have lost? We have lost nothing…[We have] gained more time to find the deeper purpose of the celebration,” he told The Scoop in an interview.

Another church-goer, Charles Nick, echoed these sentiments, saying there hasn’t been noticeable differences to the way he celebrates the occasion at church and at home.

“I honestly think that some of the articles about the “ban” [have been taken out of context]. We are not being stopped from celebrating.”

Nick said the only changes have been the absence of decorations and music in shopping centres since 2014, which he says “diminishes” the festive atmosphere.

Despite ban, Christmas in Brunei goes on... with a silver lining

This year, the Chang family in the Brunei capital of Bandar Seri Begawan will carry on their usual Christmas routine: Opening up presents at midnight, going to church, and then a big family lunch which includes a roasted turkey — halal, of course — pumpkin soup and their grandmother’s apple pie.

Although Christmas has been publicly banned in the sultanate, the kids in the household will still sing Christmas carols with their cousins, open even more presents from their visiting relatives and friends, before passing out after watching a Christmas-themed movie, while the adults enjoy some wine or coffee.223ss

“We are still going to church, still putting a Christmas tree at home.

“If anything, the ban puts into perspective what Christmas should be about—family, and the birth of Jesus — and not some over-commercialised holiday which glorifies snowflakes and Santa Claus,” said the matriach, who only wanted to be called Nicky.

 

[Andrewn]

Brunei hasn't banned Christmas. It's still a public holiday and Christians can still celebrate.

According to the article, the umber of Christians in the country is 37,00 and there are 6 registered churches. This is a ratio of 6200 Christians per church. Is this reasonable?

 

[ArmenianJohn]

The Mohammedans are at it again as Brunei decides to ban Christmas:

Twitter

The more I see stuff like this the more I think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to publically practice their religion in the West.

You act as if America and Americans would not be OK with this. Wrong. America loves this kind of behavior by radical muslim regimes. For example, one of America's bestest friends in the whole wide world is Saudi Arabia, a nation where Christianity itself is illegal, much less Christmas. Yes, Americans support Saudi 100% in exchange for oil (our national drug addiction). Americans and America are happy to support a government that will kill someone for practicing Christianity as long as we get our yummy oil.

And of course, while doing that America tries to paint other Muslims as "extremists" who really are not, like Syrians.

Muslims were great neighbors who took care of Armenians and other Christians and they still do in Syria and Lebanon. After the Armenian Genocide, Armenians showed up in Syria and then Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Iran with nothing, as refugees, and all these nations took them in. Lebanon was majority Christian, Syria was about half maybe, but the others were all majority Muslim and they treated us, Christian Armenians, with respect and helped us to get on our feet and thrive.

In Lebanon, any of my relatives will tell you that even though it was majority Christians, the Christians there did not like the Armenians because they wanted the Armenians to support them in all things politically but we didn't. The muslims appreciated the openness of the Armenians and were great friends to us in day-to-day life and in society there. Any Armenian from Beirut from that generation can tell you this. Same in Syria, Iraq, Jordan.

So you might want to think twice about demonizing all muslims based on a story from Brunei which is really basically China and not even Arabic. There's radical extremist Christian-hating muslims which America supports 100% (Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, etc.) and there are nations that are muslim which have helped and protected Christians, so don't paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

 

[JosephZ]

According to the article, the umber of Christians in the country is 37,00 and there are 6 registered churches. This is a ratio of 6200 Christians per church. Is this reasonable?

It's the believers in Brunei that make up the Church, does it really matter how many "church" buildings there are?

 

[Andrewn]

It's the believers in Brunei that make up the Church, does it really matter how many "church" buildings there are?

I completely disagree.

 

[dzheremi]

Brunei officially adopted Shari'a recently. They seem to be sliding towards theocracy with abandon. It's quite sad, but not really surprising. If Muslims were not interested in politics and the public manifestation of their religion, they wouldn't really be following the example of Muhammad. Remember, he wrote a constitution for Medina (after conquering it, of course).

That said, we should pray for the believers in Brunei, and for the Muslims there that God may soften their hearts. I personally don't care about the banning of western Christmas in a nation I don't live in (I think it's heavy-handed, of course), as there is nothing religious left in it that I can see (horrid church attendance/affiliation stats already shared), though it is alarming from a human rights perspective. That's the reality of Shari'a, though, as I'm sure you know from your life in KSA. Lord have mercy.

The question of the practice of Islam in the west is...well, not a question. We do not ban religions, at least not in the USA where I am. That said, I do think that to the extent that Muslims may wish to publicly and politically manifest their religion, it should be treated exactly the same as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism or any other religion is treated in a pluralistic, secular republic. It should not enjoy the special treatment it often currently gets, with things like "Muslim patrols" being allowed to imitate police and harass people, causing confusion and anger among the public while claiming to be dedicated to the opposite:

^ This sort of thing needs to end, as it never should have been allowed in the first place. It's clearly dangerous, as the story recounted in the video shows. There should not be religiously-based quasi-police forces anywhere, obviously. (This is a purposely extreme example of what I mean by Islam's 'special treatment': if there were 'patrols' led by people in cars that purposely looked like police cars and were emblazoned with "Christian Community Patrol" and "Peace of Christ Be With You" on them, or something equivalent for Jewish people, you better believe there'd by complaints and the patrols would be shut down immediately. In the same country in which this is allowed to go on, there is ongoing debate about things like putting Bible verses or allusions to them on police officers' jackets.)

But the practice of Islam in the sense of going to the mosque, praying, etc. is constitutionally protected, just as is everyone's right to criticize Islam should they so choose to do so.

Islam is not allowed and should never be allowed to encroach upon the secular foundations of western societies. We only enter into such problems by allowing gross abuses of our tolerance in the name of not seeming 'racist' or whatever stupid nonsense, but I have long had a feeling that this arrangement can only hold for so long, and we may be seeing serious cracks in it (e.g., certain political developments in the west which are distinctly anti-Islamic in a way that ought to worry everyone who cares about the first amendment of the United States -- and that should be at least all people of the USA).

 

[JosephZ]

This sort of thing needs to end, as it never should have been allowed in the first place. It's clearly dangerous, as the story recounted in the video shows.

It appears the incident mentioned in that video is a work of fiction. I searched high and low for a legitimate source or a local news outlet reporting the same story on or around the date it was alleged to have taken place and couldn't find one. The only places that are reporting that there was a clash between the Muslim Patrol and gang members are far right sources and anti-Islamic propaganda sites. All of the sites reporting the story quote the Clarion Project which cites the Christian Action Network as the origin of the story. The Christian Action Network has a history of passing on fake stories to push its agenda.

Christian Action Network - Media Bias/Fact Check

There should not be religiously-based quasi-police forces anywhere, obviously. (This is a purposely extreme example of what I mean by Islam's 'special treatment': if there were 'patrols' led by people in cars that purposely looked like police cars and were emblazoned with "Christian Community Patrol" and "Peace of Christ Be With You" on them, or something equivalent for Jewish people, you better believe there'd by complaints and the patrols would be shut down immediately.

There has been a Jewish patrol group/auxiliary police force in New York City since the 1970's called the Shomrim who serve the ultra-Orthodox Jews who live in several different Brooklyn neighborhoods. They got their first "police look alike" patrol car way back in 2006 (Photo on the left below).

While not religious based, there's even an Asian Patrol which use patrol vehicle that look like police cars.

Once again it seems that only far right sources and anti-Islamic propaganda sites are making a big deal about the Muslim patrols in New York City.

Meet the Community Patrols Keeping NYC Safe

The Brooklyn Borough President and the District Attorney brought several community patrols and groups together recently to thank them for helping the police department to protect residents. Although they are not officers, they are often the eyes and ears of their communities.

One of those patrols is the Muslim Community Patrol, which began just two months ago in the Sunset Park Neighborhood, and it’s been integral to keeping the community safe.

"It is extremely important for every community to have their own community patrol because the community has its own culture, its own language, it has its own lingo, its own vibes," said Noor Rabah of the Muslim Community Patrol. “So something that [the community] would feel really uncomfortable speaking to a cop about, they know we are not cops. They know we are approachable. We can speak, mingle, talk."

 

[dzheremi]

Okay. Thank you for that information, JosephZ. I was not aware of the "Christian Action Network" or its leanings. I too looked up the organization (not the specific story), because I honestly had no idea that there was a "Muslim Community Patrol" and assumed it to be fake/sensationalist, only to find articles like this that are not sensationalist, which seem to confirm that there is a lot of confusion and unease around the existence of this patrol even in the community they claim to represent and protect, which is the point I was trying to make regarding why it shouldn't exist in the first place (that religiously-based quasi-police forces that blur the line between community activists and law enforcement are not a good idea).

So as to that wider point, I stand by my contention that religiously-based quasi-police forces should not be allowed to exist. That means Christian, Muslim, Jewish, whatever. We will have one police force that enforces one (secular) law upon all people equally, or we will have a society in which some people get more or less rights than others.

Things like an "Asian Police Force" (2nd row) are not quite the same thing, as that is not a religion and hence there is no conflict between the secular law that police officers are to uphold and any religious law that may be binding upon the community in its religious context (whatever that may be, since Asians can be of any religion, same as anybody; that's precisely why it isn't a problem).

For us as Christians, we have our canons and the wisdom of our fathers and mothers in the faith and so on to guide us. We don't then put on the airs of police (which is what things like these religious patrols invoke, quite purposely, so I'll have to disagree with Noor Rabah above, as the article I linked to earlier in this reply shows that it's not true that all the community knows that they aren't cops and feels comfortable talking to them) and then go out into the community to tackle "nuisance crimes" as an arm of either the Church or some wider Christian community. A police officer may be Christian, or may be Muslim, or may be Jewish, or may be whatever, but it is crucial that in the performance of their duties they first and foremost be a police officer -- an enforcer of secular, impartial law.

We recognize this tension in discussions over whether or not it is appropriate that police in some part of Texas designed a new badge to include a reference to the Sermon on the Mount. That is if nothing else a little bit too close to mixing your religion with your job in a context in which people might have valid reason to want you to keep them separate. The same should be true of every religion, and to the extent that Muslims and apparently Jews get to flaunt the secular standard as they are 'volunteers' or 'community liaison members' or whatever else with a murky relationship to the actual police, they are receiving special treatment that they ought not receive. Whatever can be said of Christians in this context can definitely be said of Muslims, if not even more so since the Muslim patrol actually exists. (The badge with the Bible verse was just something a guy in the department came up with, and wasn't even in use yet because they first had to run it by their lawyers; I think that says something in itself with regard to the public manifestation of different religions in this context.)

I understand that Muslims in NYC may feel betrayed following the revelation of NYPD spying on their communities, but that is no reason to set up an explicitly Muslim, religion-bearing quasi-police force and hand over some unaccounted-for right to handle "nuisance crimes" (a disturbingly vague idea, in this context...might it be related to 'making mischief in the land', cf. Qur'an 2:11?) to this team that does not even have a clear mandate or boundary by which it identifies itself (beyond the name "Muslim Community Patrol", I guess) or derives its powers to do anything at all. If, as the article I've linked states, the NYPD denies any connection to this community patrol organization (while the organization itself claims to be the eyes and ears of the NYPD in the community; strange), then how does this not amount to impersonating police officers, which is an actual crime in NY state law?

Again, none of this should be happening in the first place.

 

[Yarddog]

The Mohammedans are at it again as Brunei decides to ban Christmas:

Twitter

The more I see stuff like this the more I think Muslims shouldn’t be allowed to publically practice their religion in the West.

For the US, that would be unconstitutional. Brunei is an Islamic Monarchy and founding fathers wanted to guard against these things in America. Freedom of religion protects all.

 

[IceJad]

I find it funny that the muslims celebrate him like a pious hero but in reality his house is a house of sin...

How Sultan of Brunei’s notorious playboy brother threw sex parties, gave boob jobs to 40-strong harem he kept in palace and called his yacht '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]'

Rules for thee not for me I guess

 

[Barney2.0]

You act as if America and Americans would not be OK with this. Wrong. America loves this kind of behavior by radical muslim regimes. For example, one of America's bestest friends in the whole wide world is Saudi Arabia, a nation where Christianity itself is illegal, much less Christmas. Yes, Americans support Saudi 100% in exchange for oil (our national drug addiction). Americans and America are happy to support a government that will kill someone for practicing Christianity as long as we get our yummy oil.

And of course, while doing that America tries to paint other Muslims as "extremists" who really are not, like Syrians.

Muslims were great neighbors who took care of Armenians and other Christians and they still do in Syria and Lebanon. After the Armenian Genocide, Armenians showed up in Syria and then Lebanon, Iraq, Jordan, Egypt, Iran with nothing, as refugees, and all these nations took them in. Lebanon was majority Christian, Syria was about half maybe, but the others were all majority Muslim and they treated us, Christian Armenians, with respect and helped us to get on our feet and thrive.

In Lebanon, any of my relatives will tell you that even though it was majority Christians, the Christians there did not like the Armenians because they wanted the Armenians to support them in all things politically but we didn't. The muslims appreciated the openness of the Armenians and were great friends to us in day-to-day life and in society there. Any Armenian from Beirut from that generation can tell you this. Same in Syria, Iraq, Jordan.

So you might want to think twice about demonizing all muslims based on a story from Brunei which is really basically China and not even Arabic. There's radical extremist Christian-hating muslims which America supports 100% (Saudi, Kuwait, UAE, etc.) and there are nations that are muslim which have helped and protected Christians, so don't paint them all with one broad brush stroke.

Perhaps after the Gulf nations themselves America is a nation that I have felt the most un-love (trying to use a weaker word then hate) towards. I simply have no love for the US government or its actions, any other Copt or Assyrian would probably feel the same way. I gave up on the idea of the West helping us a long time ago, the US doesn’t care who dies or how many people suffer so long as it’s taking good care of itself at the expense of others.

It’s worth noting as someone ethnically from the area of Syria and Lebanon, that comfortable environment lived in between Christians and Muslims was because of the secular environment created by the Christians themselves in Syria and Lebanon, not as a result of the goodness of Muslims at treating minorities. I’m not here to demonize Muslims, or say they’re all bad, but I sincerely don’t like their religion and think that it shouldn’t exist in the government or even public life.

 

[Barney2.0]

I find it funny that the muslims celebrate him like a pious hero but in reality his house is a house of sin...

How Sultan of Brunei’s notorious playboy brother threw sex parties, gave boob jobs to 40-strong harem he kept in palace and called his yacht '[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]'

Rules for thee not for me I guess

He’s widely known for being extremely decadent in nature, just like most Muslim monarchs.

 

[IceJad]

He’s widely known for being extremely decadent in nature, just like most Muslim monarchs.

Most monarchies throughout history are decadent and if not for being legitimized by religion the people would have revolted long ago. From Henry VIII, Rama X to King Solomon. A good monarch is the exception not the rule. The sad part is all monarchs are head of the religion in their respective lands.