http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/13/nallen113.xml

From The Everlasting Man by GK Chesterton:

"...And Mahomet shall answer out of the whirlwind, the red whirlwind of the desert, 'Who ever served the jealousy of God as I did or left him more lonely in the sky? Who ever paid more honor to Moses and Abraham or won more victories over idols and the images of paganism? And what was this thing that thrust me back with the energy of a thing alive; whose fanaticism could drive me from Sicily and tear up my deep roots out of the rock of Spain? What faith was theirs who thronged in thousands of every class and country crying out that my ruin was the will Of God; and what hurled great Godfrey as from a catapult over the wall of Jerusalem; and what brought great Sobieski like a thunderbolt to the gates of Vienna? I think there was more than you fancy in the religion that has so matched itself with mine!'

Those who would suggest that the faith was a fanaticism are doomed to an eternal perplexity. In their account it is bound to appear as fanatical for nothing, and fanatical against everything. It is ascetic and at war with ascetics, Roman and in revolt against Rome, monotheistic and fighting furiously against monotheism; harsh in its condemnation of harshness; a riddle not to be explained even as unreason. And what sort of unreason is it that seems reasonable to millions of educated Europeans through all the revolutions of some sixteen hundred years? People are not amused with a puzzle or a paradox or a mere muddle in the mind for all that time. I know of no explanation except that such a thing is not unreason but reason; that if it is fanatical it is fanatical for reason and fanatical against all the unreasonable things. That is the only explanation I can find of a thing from the first so detached and so confident; condemning things that looked so like itself, refusing help from powers that seemed so essential to its existence, sharing on its human side all the passions of the age, yet always at the supreme moment suddenly rising superior to them, never saying exactly what it was expected to say and never needing to unsay what it had said. I can find no explanation except that, like Pallas from the brain of Jove, it had indeed come forth out of the mind of God, mature and mighty and armed for judgment and for war."

@ kappert re: your book recommendation.

Despite their "apparent differences",what is the "common underlying structure" linking the "scaremongering" Bishop Michael Nazir Ali with that of the alleged "Islamic extremists" seeking to establish 'no go' areas in parts of Britain?

Thou canst not love thy neighbor when thy neighbor loveth Thee not. When thy neighbor seeketh to slay thee, thou must smite him first.

For everything there is a time. Now the time hath come to rise up and smite our enemy and driveth him back from whence he came while there are still enough of us left to pulleth it off. For it is written " Doeth unto others before they doeth unto you."
Our enemies have pretty much invalidated the Christian philosophy of praying for our enemies and forgiving them for they know not what they do. These people know very well what they are doing.
Jesus could turn the other cheek because he knew that he was coming back in three days. We don't have that luxury.

My response was an attempt at defining the problem that we face.

The last two paragraphs are a reflection on muslims that wish to have no  go areas and western atheistic thought, respectively.

To the muslim I address the claim of loving God and not loving your neighbor.

To the utopian atheist I pursue a discourse on what is love. A short one, but something worth reflecting on.

According to Jesus one cannot love God if in fact they want to have nothing to do with their neighbor. So whatever is being practiced is a shallow form of ritualism, not the essence of religion.

And according to Jesus one cannot love their neighbor if they claim to wish to do it without reflecting on the essence of their Creator.

Marcfrans has an excellent and detailed response as to what our duty is as Christians and nonChristians. Please also read it.

To add just a thought: love and education are so interwound that they cannot be separated. We educate those that we love; otherwise it is very likely that we do not love them. 

Education is not about accepting every idea under the sun as equal to the next. It is about discriminating between ideas; keeping the good and avoiding the bad.

The equality of man and freedom of expression are values that must be taught in our western societies. We have a right as human beings to question ideas, to question religions,and their founders without having to fear for our very lives.

It is the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mohammed, and many of the Popes that have wished to silence us, that do not care about these rights, and as a society and as Christians we have a duty to challenge them, and their ideas.

Oh,kappert,why am I NOT surprised?

Trust you to avoid commentiing upon the central theme of the article in question.The article's central theme is,of course,Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali's claim that "Islamic extremism is creating 'no go' areas in parts of Britain".So,assuming that claim is true (i.e. not false),you need to focus on whether you believe this is a positive or a negative development in contemporary British society.And if you decide it is a "positive" development, you need to explain why.Alternatively,if you decide it is a "negative" development you need to explain what needs to be done,and by whom,to resolve the problem.(An Islamic fundamentalist would probably conclude that this is a "positive" development,because it keeps the 'infidel' separate from the 'true believer'.The 'infidel' would disagree.However,as sure as eggs is eggs,neither the 'true believer' or the 'infidel' would be so brain-addled as to believe that the problem can be resolved by consulting the I-Ching,Tao Te Ching or their modern day counterpart).

So,kappert,how about it? Go on,give a try,but this time try it without any Um's,Ah's or OM's

marcfrans,  The wonders of technology , the adverts must be tailored to the country the viewer is in , ie your USA and my UK .

I'll bet they even know where I live !! 

Loving one's neighbor does not mean one tolerates their wrongdoing.

Please re-read the Pauline letters.

Is it not clear that No-Go Zones are theft? Before the muzlims came, was there any part of England where white Christians were not permitted to go? By what right does anyone take away a part of your country? Did you give it to them? No, they claim it is theirs simply because they live there, but never in the past would that have meant that you could not walk the streets, go to those businesses, enjoy everything on offer in that town, even though you were not a resident of the town. They are on a mission of conquest. Do you simply acquiesce to their demand? This is theft, pure and simple, and Christ does not require that you give in to the thief. See St. Luke 11:21 in this regard.

So if someone holds a gun to my head, your answer is "watch out: be a good christian, love your neighbour!" Ofcourse your preach is not for the criminal with the gun but for me.

This is insane & pseudo-ethical, and it has nothing to do with christ(ianity).

@ The Doctor

No, the ad says the "USA's leading.....service", not the UK's....

@ Brenik

No, there is no need to descend into 'conspiracy theories' about alterations or additions to the original of the bible.  Also, the concept of 'original' in this context is a problematic one.   It suffices to think in terms of re-interpretation, mis-interpretation, or even of conscious misrepresentation of the contents of the bible. 

The word "love" can mean (almost) anything.  In its deepest religious sense it means "concern or care for your neighbor's soul".  Therefore, the admonition to "love thy neighbor certainly can NOT mean that you should "tolerate", support, or strengthen your neighbor when he/she is behaving badly.  From a christian perspective, and from a secular 'western' perspective as well, to love thy neighbor can NOT mean to tolerate 'bad' behavior.  And "no-go areas" certainly are indicative of bad behavior.  Just like a parent's love would resist - rather than 'confirm' or support - bad behavior by his/her child, so one should not tolerate bad behavior of one's neighbor. Love means genuine concern or care for the neighbor's 'welfare', of which the moral component is ultimately the most important one.

So, a proper interpretation of the bibilical admonition to "love thy neighbor" comes down to a proper interpretation of the moral concepts of 'good' and 'bad', which requires prior interpretation of the meaning of life or of human nature. A good start would be to insist that your neighbor respect the moral equality of ALL human beings and respect the individual freedom of all other individuals. The 'golden rule' of "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you" provides more specific guidance. But it still leaves much room for honest differences of interpretation, and is ultimately defenseless in the face of dishonesty.

I cannot believe it ,  just above the comments section here there is an advertisement for " singlemuslim .com " the U.K.'s leading muslim marriage service . Is this intentional ?

Steiner: "Jesus commands me to love my neighbor, and to pray for my enemies."

Some parts of the Bible, such as the above, are so so frequently and consistently used in a context to neutralize the Christians' self-defense that I am starting to believe that this part of the Bible has been altered or added to the original. (nb. I noted this without the willingness to enter any religious debates. Thank you)

"Multi-culturalism was meant to build a unified society."
Wrong idea, there is no dogma.
Book recommendation:
Scott E Page: Complex Adaptive Systems. U Michigan, Ann Arbor.

Jesus commands me to love my neighbor, and to pray for my enemies.

Jesus does not give me a choice; although at times it seems fit to do otherwise, it is against His commandment. Love God and love your neighbor is the commandment of Jesus. The - and - is a conjunction that helps us understand a very basic concept.

To claim that we love God is utterly false, if we cannot love our neighbor, and to claim that we can love our neighbor without loving God is also utterly false.

We must not hate people, for hate of people makes us malicious, which in turn keeps us doing evil.

Neither should we pretend that our outward display of goodness is better than a sincere attitude...This outward display can take many forms and fulfill many rituals, but it will do extremely little if anything in relating ourselves to the reality of humanity.

& Love, as so many of us claim to know; without God, is at best a corruption brought on by our selfish desires. This is lust, and its infinite varieties.