Sunday, March 06, 2011

For which beliefs is Baroness Warsi prepared to die?

There was a curious article in yesterday’s Telegraph, in which Baroness Warsi disclosed that she is ‘prepared to die for her beliefs’. It is reported that she has received death threats from people who apparently do not like what she stands for.

Presumably, these threats have not come from the Real IRA, ETA, the PKK or Fatah. And neither have they been made by Hamas, Hezbollah, or the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, though with these last three we may be getting nearer to the ideological root of her would-be assassins: The Telegraph simply states: ‘It is believed that the peer has faced serious threats from Muslim extremists’.

This is, of course, disturbing, if unsurprising, and one hopes that the police and anti-terrorist forces have been mobilised to intercept and neuter this murderous Islamist cell. With Cabinet ministers now in their sights, it appears that Islamist extremists are the new IRA and Islamism has replaced Irish Nationalism as Britain’s major terrorist threat.

Perhaps, in 20 years or so, the Prime Minister will be welcoming Abdullah al-Sharia into Downing Street and offering his reformed-but-unrepentant associate terrorists a couple of seats in Parliament.

The Telegraph’s use of ‘Muslim extremists’ is unfortunate, for it is a vile phrase to which the Baroness referred in her ‘Islamophobia has now passed the dinner-table-test’ speech of January. We were told that to talk of ‘Muslim extremists’ is not conducive to a proper view of either Islam or Muslims. She said: “And when it comes to extremism, we should be absolutely clear: these people are extremists, plain and simple.” That is to say, they are not Muslim extremists, for that is to tarnish all Muslims and encourage Islamophobia across ‘the threshold of middle class respectability’.

His Grace is immensely fond of the Baroness (see here, here, here, here and here). But she can be astonishingly naive, insensitive, hypocritical, and is sometimes very poorly advised.

Since the Baroness has made it clear that one ought not to use the term ‘Muslim extremists’, His Grace is content to simply call them Muslims, or terrorists, or Islamists (though it is not clear if the latter term is acceptable to her).

In the face of these terrorist threats, the Baroness has responded: “If that means you have a short but productive life, that is worth doing, than having a long but play-it-safe life. I believe that there are things that are far more important. If people when they were fighting against apartheid or fighting for the black civil rights movement … thought I could be dead tonight if I do this – I don’t think people think like that when people feel passionately enough about something and feel this is an issue of huge principle.”

She said: “Why go into politics if you are not going to be brave? If you want to stand on the sidelines and not stand up for what you believe in, politics is the wrong game to be in.”

Coming just days after the assassination of the Christian Shahbaz Bhatti in Pakistan, and a few months after the assassination of the atheist Salman Taseer, Baroness Warsi’s comments might be considered a little insensitive, as though there were some parallel between what Christians and atheists face in Pakistan when they dare to oppose the country’s medieval blasphemy laws, and what a British Muslim like Baroness Warsi faces every day at CCHQ. Being a martyr for religious liberty is not quite the same as being prepared to die for the Big Society.

But it is not clear what her martyr-inspiring beliefs are: is it her political conviction for which she is prepared to the make the ultimate sacrifice, or as a witness to her religion? Or is it a religio-political conglomeration of both? If so, what is this doctrine of Islamic-conservatism or Conservative-Islam which may propel Baroness Warsi to meet Allah?

Yesterday, she made it known that opposing AV is now the highest calling of all Conservatives. So, presumably, it is hers. Is she prepared to die for that?

As loathsome as His Grace finds the prospect of perpetual coalition governments forged at the behest of whomever happens to be the leader of the Liberal Democrats, he certainly wouldn’t die for it.

And neither would he die to defend the ‘Big Society’, fiscal rectitude, welfare reform or the nationwide expansion of the academies programme. And, in another era, he wouldn’t have died to defend monetarism, free-market economics or a brutal programme of pit closures.

In fact, His Grace isn’t at all sure that he would die for any temporal political objective.

His faith, however, and the concept of religious liberty, are quite a different matter. And one wonders if it is the Baroness’s own religious beliefs to which she refers when she says she is prepared to die a martyr.

For sure, this ‘muscular liberal’ has bravely spoken out against Muslims who subjugate women; she has confronted ‘honour’ killings and forced marriage, and exposed widespread voter fraud within the Asian community which undermines our democracy and values.

If Baroness Warsi’s co-religionist extremists have issued a fatwa against her because of these beliefs, then they threaten us all. If they assassinate her, they murder us all. If they oppose her speaking out against these practices, they stand against our culture, traditions and the very foundations of our liberal democracy. Baroness Warsi is like a canary down the pit: if she is snuffed out, the spread of the lethal poison will be beyond any toxicologist, and its effects will far exceed those emitted by mild irritants like vaporised polonium.

May God protect her.


Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

... that to talk of ‘Muslim extremists’ is not conducive to a proper view of either Islam or Muslims

I have to agree with you there. It's about time people realized that to a Muslim, the Holy Qur'an is the uncreated, eternal, literal Word of God which can not be re-interpreted or re-evaluated. It has to be accepted "as is" in its totality. "Reformed Islam" will not happen.

The difference between the "extremists" and the rest is not what they believe, but what they are prepared to do about it.

6 March 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Your Grace

Ernst has really enjoyed your comment this morning and understands fully your assertations regarding the statements of Baroness Warsi and finds himself in agreement with your good self.

However, you throw those little nuggets of insight such as today;

'Being a martyr for religious liberty is not quite the same as being prepared to die for the Big Society.' with such an obvious wry smile and a twinkle in the eye, that Ernst is positively jealous that he had not said this himself.

Ernst is still chuckling whilst trying to indulge in his cup of morning tea with toasted muffins.

You have set up my Sunday nicely. Bless You.


E S Blofeld

6 March 2011 at 11:53  
Blogger Caratacus said...

Your Grace,

One may be sure that anyone who says, "I would be prepared to die for ('fill in choice of subject')" has never had to comfort a dying soldier who is cradling his guts in his hands, or seen the immense gravitas of another who is looking pensive as his life ebbs away in the desert heat and grot.

It is attention seeking, theatrical, it is at best misguided and at worst squalid.

Indeed, a period of silence from Bs Warsi would be most welcome.

6 March 2011 at 12:08  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"It's about time people realized that to a Muslim, the Holy Qur'an is the uncreated, eternal, literal Word of God which can not be re-interpreted or re-evaluated."

The Qur'an is not the only basis on which Muslims decide what to do, there's also the Sunnah, isn't there? Arguably, there's Hadith too.

6 March 2011 at 12:35  
Anonymous len said...

The Christian God took on human flesh and took on Himself the punishment for humanities sin and transgressions.He took total responsibility for His creation and opened the way for redemption of Man.

The Islamic God sends out others to die for him, and to punish those who 'transgress his laws'.There is no redemption in Islam only conflict, intimidation, and control, and those bound within Islam are as much victims as those outside.

6 March 2011 at 13:22  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Baroness Warsi is a self-publicist. Let's look at someone a bit more substantial.....Seyran Ates in Germany.

These are the Emails she gets for standing up for women's rights as a Turk against its prevailing ethos....

Betreff: "Du bist eine richtige Deutsche geworden, wer assimiliert ist, muss vorher eine Nutte gewesen sein."

Text: "Ihr seid nicht von uns und wir sind nicht von euch, das sollt Ihr wissen. Aber, passen Sie auf Ihre Zunge auf, machen Sie keine Beleidigungen und Respektlosigkeiten, sonst können Sie Ihre Zunge verlieren."

In English: "Reference: You have become a real German, who assimilates must have been a hooker before"

"You are not one of us and we aren't one of you. But watch your tongue, don't insult or diss. us, or you could lose your tongue !"#


6 March 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just skimmed through the post and noticed a couple of oxymorons – ‘Baroness Warsi’ repeated several times and ‘British Moslem’. There may have been more...

6 March 2011 at 14:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Windsor Tripehound (11:24)—The Muslim belief that the Qur’an is the uncreated word of Allah can look a little flakey at times. After several men who had memorized the Qur’an were killed at the Battle of Yamama, the first Caliph realized the importance of assembling Mohammed’s revelations in book form and gave the task to Zaid bin Thabit al-Ansari.

Zaid is recorded as saying, ‘So I started compiling the Qur’an by collecting it from the leafless stalks of the date-palm tree and from the pieces of leather and hides and from the stones, and from the chests of men [who had memorized the Qur’an]’ but then admits, ‘When we collected the fragmentary manuscripts of the Qur’an into copies, I missed one of the Verses of Surat al-Ahzab which I used to hear Allah’s Apostle reading. Finally I did not find it with anybody except Khuzaima Al-Ansari…’

Quite separately to Zaid, two close companions of Mohammed assembled their own versions of the Qur’an. One had three fewer chapters than today’s Qur’an, and the other had two more.

6 March 2011 at 15:32  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

@Johnny Rottenborough

You're right of course.

Trouble is, Christians - and I'm unashamedly one - follow the Jewish tradition that Holy Scripture has been written by men (and arguably women) albeit inspired by God, and has to be studied, discussed, argued about, interpreted and re-interpreted for the current age.

Muslims don't view their sacred texts in the same way.

6 March 2011 at 16:14  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Partially related story in the Guardian:

Includes the great phrase "hotbed of modernist extremism".

6 March 2011 at 18:39  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Us and them, we can no longer coexist, full-stop.

6 March 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

@DanJ0 ...

Charles Martel defended Christianity at Tours, John of Austria defended Christianity at Lepanto; now we're giving up and allowing Muslims to take us over.

6 March 2011 at 19:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

I have to say I don't really buy into the Clash of Civilisations thing, especially knowing plenty of normal UK-friendly Muslims, but there are some seriously screwed up people attached to some of the mosques here that need sorting out somehow. I read the MPACUK forum quite regularly. Some quite, erm, interesting views on there are times.

6 March 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Begging Your Grace’s pardon but Andrew Gilligan recently blogged on the verbal abuse directed at homosexual councillors in Tower Hamlets.

6 March 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Kilsally said...

"Windsor Tripehound said...
Trouble is, Christians - and I'm unashamedly one - follow the Jewish tradition that Holy Scripture has been written by men (and arguably women) albeit inspired by God, and has to be studied, discussed, argued about, interpreted and re-interpreted for the current age."

Trouble is liberal Christians, humanists, secularists and atheists do as you say. Evangelicals believe the Bible to be God`s Word - the Bible tells us to study and learn.

6 March 2011 at 21:25  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

The Voice of the Copts blog recently gave a link to this interesting video, 'Muslim Encounter with Jesus'
It is well worth the 8 min viewing time.

6 March 2011 at 23:59  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The thought of Barroness Warsi , being under threat , for being Barroness Warsi is news to me , as far as I know she is no threat to moslem women in this country , I can only think she is reffering to how some moslem countries see her.

Fits of maytrdom useually denote a bad week , we all have them, when its conference season and an ugly crowd has questions.

7 March 2011 at 01:36  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...


All Christians would say that the Bible is God's Word, but only a very small minority of them would say that It is literal truth. I've been attending churches of various denominations for 60+ years and am yet to meet such a person.

I understand that the idea of the Bible being literal truth is a comparatively recent one (nineteenth century?)

7 March 2011 at 08:09  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

May God protect her.

Like he did the innocent people of Christchurch, Tripoli, Sri Lanka, Haiti or those that die every day of disease and hunger.

You are still able to utter such a ridiculous statement “may God protect her”. Of course he won’t, he lives only in your imagination.

Warsi’s fate is in the hands of those who believe (like you) that they are doing their God’s bidding.

7 March 2011 at 09:09  
Anonymous Voyager said...

being literal truth is a comparatively recent one

It is an imported notion, usually Jehovah's Witnesses who have written their own Cultish Version

7 March 2011 at 12:16  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Davis,
God works through people.He could easily do this directly ,but chooses to work through people.
Atheists want to silence the people God works through,and prevent their having any influence in Society......................are you beginning to get it yet? evil has unrestricted access,................yet..........................?then Atheists blame God for not doing anything..................yet? evil who is to blame?

8 March 2011 at 08:01  
Anonymous len said...

Until man(atheists in particular) gain some sort of understanding of(|Spiritual )matters we will continue on the path to our destruction. There is a spiritual war going on ( to which they are oblivious)imagine a World of total Darkness.,
Thieves and those who cause disorder and chaos everywhere, able to do their work unperceived.
This is a self imposed darkness which resists any who try to bring any light into the situation.
And modern man calls himself 'enlightened 'which would be laughable if it were not so tragic!

8 March 2011 at 08:14  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People like Warsi and Manji in Canada, know the evil of Islam but continue to be Muslims. They do not leave Islam, thus the only conclusion is that they are practising Taqqiya, while the deadly demographic Jihad continues till it means the end of the UK, and the West as a whole. In effect, they are enablers of our destruction, for they forestall any meaningful action to save the West.

8 March 2011 at 12:37  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, he himself was a Hafiz, a person that has the entire koran in his heart and mind,

"Despite being a strong “hafidh” himself and having his own writings of the Quran in his possession, Zaid wanted to ensure his writings correlated with those of others. So he announced among the community that whomsoever had any written record of the Quran should bring it to Zaid. He enforced 4 rules and steps that had to be followed before anyone’s written collection of the Quran would be accepted.

These were:

1. First, that written portion was compared against Zaid’s own “hifdh” (recall from memory) of that portion.

2. If this correlated, then Zaid would call Umar ibn al-Khattab so they could,together, collect the written portion from the person submitting it. In this way, Zaid always had Umar (also a Hafiz, my emphasis) as a witness to him collecting every piece of writing he received.

3. Any written piece was only accepted by Zaid if the person bringing it was able to bring two trustworthy, reputable and reliable witnesses who had either seen the person write the portion directly from the Prophet (peace be upon him) or had seen him write it from someone who had directly taken it from the Prophet.

4. Finally, this written portion was put along with all other written portions of that particular part of the Quran. All written portions of the entire Quran were thus collected and compiled."

All were counter checked by other Hafiz that lived and bleed side by side with the prophet. Abu Bakar r.a. was the prophet's closest companion and then we have Aisyah r.a. and other prophet's wives. Who could corrupt the Koran while they were all very much alive, in control, not being harassed by powerful pagan legions or being afraid of any Roman pagan kings? And Muslims never fell under the swords of the two world super powers at that time.

How about the bible? Any similarities? Saint Paul was not even a friend of Jesus and we are not sure who the four writers of the gospels anyway, get my point?

Some interesting point you can ponder for your next question about Islam, Johnny. Thanks for bringing it up.

8 March 2011 at 12:48  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, there is only one religion that has specific tools for torturing humans for not complying to them.

The scavenger's daughter, the rack, breast reaper to rip breast of women, Judas chair for the rectum, come on Len, don't try and fool yourself.

Yes, I know. You don't do that no more. You just blow people to bits. Not you Len, you know what I mean.

8 March 2011 at 12:57  
Blogger srizals said...

And still on the preservation of the Koran,

4. At least two written witnesses were required. Commenting on narration from Ibn Abi Dawud Hafiz Ibn Hajr says,

“The intention was to accept only what had been written in the Prophet’s presence, not relying on one’s memory alone.” (Fath al-Bari 14/193)

8 March 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ srizals (12:48)—The odd thing is that the companion who produced a Qur’an of 111 chapters, Abdullah bin Masud, had been praised by Mohammed as one of the four Muslims exceptionally skilled in reciting the Qur’an; another who had been so praised was Ubayy bin Ka’b, who produced a Qur’an with 116 chapters. Zaid bin Thabit, whose Qur’an was accepted as the definitive version, had never been praised.

8 March 2011 at 14:45  
Blogger srizals said...


"The Mushaf of Ibn Mas'ud (d. 33/653)

He wrote a mushaf, in which sudras 1, 113 and 114 were not
included. Ibn al-Nadim [38] however said he had seen a copy of
the Qur'an from Ibn Mas'ud which did not contain al-fatiha
(Sura 1). The arrangement of the suras differed from the
'Uthmanic text. The following is the order attributed to Ibn
Mas'ud's copy: [39]

111, 112.

This list is obviously incomplete. It contains only 106 suras
and not 110, as Ibn Nadim wrote.

In Sura al-baqara, which I take as an example, there are a
total of 101 variants. Most of them concern spelling, some also
choice of words (synonyms), use of particles, etc.



2:70 Ibn Mas'ud reads al-baqira
in place of al-baqara


2:19 He reads kulla ma
in place of kullama
2:68 He reads sal (seek, beseech)
in place of ud'u (beseech)

Assuming that all these are reliable reports, the copy of Ibn
Mas'ud would then have been prepared for his personal use
and written before all 114 suras were revealed."

The Mushaf of Ubay bin Ka'b (d. 29 H/649)

He wrote a mushaf, in which two 'additional suras and
another 'additional aya' were reportedly found. [41]

The order of the suras is again different from 'Uthman as
well as Ibn Masud.

The following is the order of suras in the copy attributed to
Ubay b. Ka'b: [42]


Again, as in the case of Ibn Mas'ud above this list is incom-
plete and does not contain all 114 suras of the Qur'an.

'Ubay has a total of 93 variants in Sura al-baqara. [43] Very
often, his readings are similar to those of Ibn Mas'ud. For
example, he reads al-baqara in 2:70 as al-baqira. So does Ibn

That is why Muslims had taken such intense precautions to avoid the Koran ended up like today's Bible. No bad intention was ever meant by them.

"As long as the sahaba (companion) wrote their own copies for personal
use only, there was nothing wrong, if they did not strictly
adhere to the order of suras which was the order of the
Qur'an. Later on, when 'Uthman's copy became the standard
version, the Companions adopted the order of this copy
including Ibn Mas'ud who perhaps differed most. [55]"

8 March 2011 at 15:43  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, I want to share a story with you,

"Twenty people or so of Abyssinian Christians came to meet the Prophet
(Peace be upon him) when he was still in Makkah. They found him in the Mosque and they talked to him and asked him questions. Several groups of people from the Quraysh were sitting in their usual places around the Ka`bah. When the Abyssinians had put all their questions to the Prophet, he called on them to believe in his message. He recited to them passages of the Qur’ān. When they listened to them, their eyes were tearful. They responded positively and declared that they believed in him as God’s Messenger. They recognized him as the Prophet described in their Scriptures. When they left the Prophet, Abū Jahl, [the most hostile opponent of Islam in Makkah], and a number of Quraysh men stopped them and said, ‘What a gullible group of people you are! Your people back home have sent you to gather information about this man. But you have not been long with him when you disowned your own faith and declared your belief in what he said to you. We have never seen a more feeble-minded group than you.’ They replied, ‘We leave you in peace, as we do not wish to have a slang match with you. We are responsible for our deeds and you are responsible for yours. We will let no chance to do ourselves good slip away without making use of it.’ It is also said that this group of Christians came from Najrān in Southern Arabia. It is reported that verses of the Qur’ān commending their attitude were also revealed including the following verses: “Those to whom We have vouchsafed revelations in the past believe in it [i.e. the Qur’ān]; and when it is read out to them, they say, ‘We believe in it, for it is the truth from our Lord. Indeed even before this have we surrendered ourselves to Him. These shall receive a twofold reward for having been patient in adversity, and having repelled evil with good, and having spent in charity out of what We provided for them, and whenever they heard frivolous talk, having turned away from it and said: We are responsible for our deeds and you for yours. Peace be to you. We do not seek out ignorant people.’’’ [Quran 28: 52-5]"

Do you know about this too, Johnny?

8 March 2011 at 15:53  
Blogger srizals said...

Johnny, I found this info that I want to share with you,

"In a bookseller's list cited in "J. Q. R." xv. 77 is mentioned a volume containing the Torah, the Targum, and the Koran bound together (). A translation into Hebrew from the Latin was made in the seventeenth century by Jacob b. Israel ha-Levi, rabbi of Zante (d. 1634; see Neubauer, "Cat. Bodl. Hebr. MSS." No. 2207); and, in modern times, by Herrman Reckendorf (, Leipsic, 1857)."

Do you have any source mentioning about the Jews translating the New Testament into Hebrew?

8 March 2011 at 16:02  
Anonymous len said...

Your prophet was not averse to torturing people..........personally!

During the year 628 A.D., eight men from the clan of Uraynah, came to Medina. They became Muslims. While they were there they got sick. Muhammad prescribed a medicine for them: he told them to drink camel milk and camel urine. After the men got better, they brutally murdered the shepherd of the camels, stole the camels, and tried to escape. Muhammad sent an armed party of 20 men after them. They were caught and brought back to Medina. There, Muhammad pronounced their judgment: their eyes were branded with hot irons, then plucked out, their hands and feet were cut off, and then, while still alive, they were thrown out on the hot desert to die.

8 March 2011 at 20:20  
Anonymous len said...

Contrast the actions of Mohammed and Jesus Christ(if you haven`t already done so.
These two are the founders of their religions and are examples for their followers.
Need I say more?

8 March 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, that is what justice is known as Len. It is harsh on deserving sick killers, as the innocents do not deserve their sick brutalities.

Genesis 9:5-6 (New International Version, ©2011)

"5 And for your lifeblood I will surely demand an accounting. I will demand an accounting from every animal. And from each human being, too, I will demand an accounting for the life of another human being.

6 “Whoever sheds human blood, by humans shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind."

Thank you for demonstrating how kind the Muslims were on treating their known enemies by giving them the benefit of the doubt. They were just pretending Len, they just want to infiltrate and destroy. They had done exactly the same to the shepard of the camels. It was poetic justice. You don't torture people, kill them slowly and expect mercy for yourself. Not unless you can show mercy to those who have helped you and cured you in the first place.

Something that you have forgotten to insert regarding the incidents,

"They remained there till they recuperated and became fat. One morning they made a raid on the milch camels and drove them away. Yasar the mawla of the Apostle of Allah, with a party confronted them. He fought with them. They cut his hands and feet and pricked thorns in his tongue and eyes. Consequently he died."

Only these eight men were ever treated with such harshness after they had been treated with love and care. They were sadistic ungrateful killers, Len. That is what we do to sadistic killers as a reminder to other would be sadistic killers if they are ever tempted to prey on the good and the innocents. Nowadays, most were granted "life" in fancy prisons while their victims were granted unimaginable pain, agony and death. Is that justice?

As for the Uraynah,

"…The town of Uraynah conspired with each other, saying: “Pretend to join the religion of Muhammad at the beginning of the day and declare your disbelief in it at the end of the day. Say: ‘We have looked in our Scriptures and consulted our scholars and found that Muhammad is not genuine; it is clear to us now that he is lying and that his religion is false.’ If you do this, his Companions will doubt their religion. They will say: ‘these are people of the Book and they are more knowledgeable than us. They will then abandon their religion and embrace yours.’”

"When the criminals of ‘Urainah betrayed the community of Madinah which had met them with all love and respect—by torturing and killing the herder of their camels and escaping with the Muslim’s camels as their booty—the Prophet quickly marshalled all his powers, arrested and dealt with them in the severest manner as the law allowed him. (Al-Sid, Islamic Criminal Law: The Hudud; Malaysia, Eagle Trading Sdn. Bhd., 1995, p. 132)"

Len, how do Christians suppose to deal with sadistic killers that love to maim and torture their victim? Please be sincere. Thanks.

9 March 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger srizals said...

Len, we know why the 8 men were quickly dealt with to their death. (The desert made sure of it.)

Now, what about the people that died because of Christianity? What crime did they commit?

Why did they had to suffer on the rack, limbs being torn to pieces, limb by limb, slowly dying in agony? Why were they being sawn slowly with ropes and saw into halves, when they were very much alive and kept alive and conscious as long as possible?

Why did they suffer all the hideous inhumane medieval torture machines exclusively made in the West?

Why Len?

Did they brutally kill anyone in particular? How many were there? Were their numbers as equal as the 8 men that you have mentioned?

9 March 2011 at 13:01  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Srizals, you are using the Tu Quoque argument here, and it just doesn't cut the mustard. Throughout all of recorded history; mankind, whether from East West, North or South, has committed the vilest of atrocities - but very rarely are they committed by men claiming to be God's messenger and the model for all mankind. Why would God send a man as perverted as Mohammed to guide mankind? Amongst his many misdeeds, this man killed unarmed men and then took their wives as slaves and raped them. Why would a wise and loving God send such a criminal as a messenger?

9 March 2011 at 22:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Kiwi (22:14)—The questions you pose to srizals reveal the unbridgeable gulf between Islam and, as far as I know, every other religion. Islam lives by a different morality whereby any word or deed that benefits Islam and Muslims is good, and any word or deed that harms them is evil. As Sayyid Qutb, of Muslim Brotherhood fame, said, ‘Islam is a practical and realistic way of life which is not based on rigid idealistic dogma.’

In Islam’s eyes, the crimes that Mohammed committed were not crimes at all because they were carried out with the purpose of spreading Allah’s kingdom on Earth, and the precedent set by Islam’s perfect man is followed to this day. For example, Islamic law requires Muslims to lie if it is advantageous: ‘If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible … and obligatory to lie if the goal is obligatory.’ (Reliance of the Traveller, section r8.2)

9 March 2011 at 23:56  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thanks for that Mr. Rottenborough. In contrast, St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430 AD) taught Christians:
"To use speech for the purpose of deception and not for its appointed end is a sin," even "to do service to another."**

Where weaker men have ignored the dictum, other Christian writers have worked to expose and mitigate their error. Chaucer was one such.

**St. Augustine. The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope, and Love. Trans. J. B. Shaw. Washington D.C: Regnery Gateway, 1961. 29.

10 March 2011 at 01:08  
Anonymous srizals said...

Nope, Kiwi, no similarities at all, Muslims at that time kill (sadistic) killers in the way they had killed their innocent victims, limited to the time frame and to the exact confined location and event. They didn't further their vengeance to the Uraynah heartland. Present day war, which is based on unresolved “terrorist” attack on 9/11, (which were all killed with their victims, supposedly), inflicted more terror on millions of Iraqis, Afghanis and Pakistanis that had to die and suffer for the crime they did not commit. Is this justice?

Some Christians in the name of Christianity knew no limits. During the dark ages, some Christians in power killed the innocents because they do not obey the Church or were suspected to be witches, protestants and heretics. Where is Bluedog when we need him.

Come on, answer my question and stop playing childish Tu Qouque game, we know why the 8 men were killed, now what about the "heretics" of the medieval time trapped in Narni and who knows where else? Would you care to sit on a heretic's chair?
You can't dodge this one with Tu Qouque, Kiwi. (Len, I'm still waiting for you.)

Exodus 21:23-24
New Living Translation (©2007)
“But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life,”

“an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot,”

The Muslims still follow this God's law in qisas, some of course, sadly, and brutal crimes sky-rocketed with disfigured and maimed victims suffered for life, and foremost their beloved ones. An equal retribution would make any sadistic criminals think thrice before even thinking of mutilating and torturing his victims. Without this law, well, our crime rates and the extent of suffering we witnessed by victims will not decrease, for examples, acid attacks as a minimal sample, on a larger scale, ruining countries using lies, killing tens of thousands civilians that had lost their precious peace and livelihood. (Lakester91 still tries to justify these death tolls with suicide bombing death tolls which is of course absurd, since the tens of thousands, close to millions are incomparable to the suicide death tolls, which was of course triggered by Western aggressions in the first place.) No criminal minds would be discouraged with fake 'merciful' law.

10 March 2011 at 10:48  
Anonymous srizals said...

Deuteronomy 19:20-21
New Living Translation (©2007)

“Then the rest of the people will hear about it and be afraid to do such an evil thing.”

“You must show no pity for the guilty! Your rule should be life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.”

But nowadays, most get a "life" for 10 lives they destroyed mercilessly, 10 others maimed for life, and 10 more get their livelihood destroyed. It doesn't make any sense.

If you keep on insisting about this, then there is no justice in today's Christianity. Tell me, Kiwi, what is your solution to sadistic killers? What should we do to them? How do we make sure no one else would be tempted to follow their footsteps when we have them lock up behind bars? Please don't go into your silent mode after this. Please be considerate of me. I don’t like unfinished business.

A paedophile gets a 10 year jail time; he got 5k pictures of children being abused sadistically, no one really knows how many exactly. Poetic western justice.

A man that kicked a toddler to death repeatedly gets a 17 years of life in prison. He lost it when the child wet himself. A child always tends to wet himself because of immaturity of his body functions. Please take note for future parents. And you can easily and cheaply cleanse it, so no harms done.

"Pedro Alonzo Lopez, whereabouts - unknown, was responsible for the murders of over 350 children, yet in 1998 he was set free despite his vows to kill again."

And you would love this one,

"One Child's Life Equals One Month In Prison: No one was concerned that Lopez would have the opportunity to kill again. If he was paroled from the prison in Ecuador he would still have to stand trial for his murders in Colombia and Peru. But after 20 years of solitary confinement, in the summer of 1998, Lopez was taken in the middle of the night to the Colombia border and released. Neither Colombia or Peru had the money to bring the madman to justice."

There's no justice anymore in this Western dominated world. That is why you are having a hard time to see justice being served. That is why you can support killers and looters and demonising the home owners that merely defending his life, the life and the livelihood of his loved ones and also his rightful property. You have no sense of justice at all, Kiwi. Hope you're not that busy to have a friendly chat with me. Glad non mouse is still with us.

10 March 2011 at 10:48  
Anonymous srizals said...

Kiwi, your allegations, the so-called "perverted" that killed unarmed helpless men himself, took their wives as slaves and raped them, on whose account? Please share some of the quotations, not just the web addresses which I'm sure aplenty. If I can understand the sources, maybe then I can apologies for them. =)

10 March 2011 at 11:52  
Anonymous srizals said...

"apologise", sorry, got distracted, my son needs help with his homework, thousand apologies.


10 March 2011 at 11:58  
Anonymous srizals said...

"Jesus and the law of equivalency. The intent of the law of retribution was to ensure that the punishment corresponded to the crime in order to control the punishment inflicted on the guilty one. In Matthew 5:38-42 Jesus was not abrogating this important legal principle, but was rather inviting Christians in their daily lives to go beyond the letter of the law."

Len, did Jesus abrogate the law of Moses and the ancient prophets before him or Saint Paul did it in his name? Or was it someone else? Thanks.

10 March 2011 at 14:13  
Anonymous len said...

Romans 3:31 .....'Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.'

Now does that sound like Jesus abolished the law? Of course not. Christ Jesus, in no way, came to abolish the law. He came to give His life for us as a ransom, because as Paul confirmed in Romans 6:23 .....'For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.' ..... But Jesus also came to show us the true meaning of the law, the ten commandments. He came to help us understand the spirit of the law, as the Jews only really understood the law in a physical way. Now many Christians will say that they keep the "spirit" of the law, not the "letter" of the law. Well, what law are we keeping in spirit? The Bible Ten Commandments!

10 March 2011 at 18:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older